Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CUP 89-36/CE 89-53/CDP 89-20 EIR 82-3 COULTRUP DEV-Appeal to
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Mr. Jim Hibbard June 21, 1990 Public Works Department City of Huntington Beach S86012 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Tract 11881, City of Huntington Beach Dear Jim,: As a follow-up to our letter dated June 13, 1990, we have received and reviewed the two documents requested for clarification of the Woodward Clyde Consultants (WCC) projected fault trace location across Tract 11981. Based on the measured Easting ordinate intersection at the centerline of Warner Avenue on both the WCC geologic map and the Tract 11881 site plan, combined with the same fault trace strike orientation on both plans, we believe that the required 25 foot wide setback zone is accurately depicted on The Keith Companies Tract 11881 Fault Exhibit, dated June 21, 1990 - 10:30 a.m.. For clarification, the 25 foot wide setback zone as described in our letter dated April 29, 1989 is intended to be a restricted building area upon which. building foundations should not encroach. With respect to the fault issue and setback zone on Tract 11881 as it relates to the issuance of building permits, no portion of any building foundation should encroach upon the setback zone. Since a corner of the easterly building is shown on The Keith Companies Fault Exhibit to extend over the setback zone, this portion of the building must be cantilevered, i.e. not in contact with the ground surface. If this is the case, then the provisions of the setback zone have been compiled with. Please call me if you have any further questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Charles C. Kendall Engineering Geologist No. 1024 CCK/lmc 1533 East 4th Street Santa Ana CA 92701 • Phone (714) $47.5413 TOTAL F'.01 �G CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION /J HUNTINGTON BEACH To Mike Uberuaga From Mike Adams, Director City Administrator Community Development Subject STATUS REPORT FOR BAY CLUB Date June 22, 1990 PROJECT As requested by the City Council on June 4, 1990, the following is a status report for the Bay Club condominium project seismic setback area. A private surveyor was hired by a homeowner ' s group in Huntington Harbour to check the accuracy of the location of a seismic setback area for the 36 unit Bay Club condominium project. The surveyor found an error in the plotting of the seismic setback area and the consequence of the error has resulted in the shift of the seismic setback area approximately 5 feet into one corner of the building located closest to Edgewater Street . The geotechnical consultant to the City has agreed that cantilevering floor area into the seismic setback area is acceptable if no portion of the building foundation encroaches into the seismic setback area. The geotechnical consultant for the City and the City Engineer both agree with the results of a structural analysis which has determined that construction of the Bay Club condominium project may proceed if the approximately 5 foot foundation encroachment is deleted from the project. MA:RLF:kjl Attachment: 1. Memo from City Engineer dated June 21, 1990. 2 . Letter from Geotechnical Consultant dated June 21, 1990 . (6201d) lSJ I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH V" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Mike Adams, Director From Robert E. Eichblatt Community Development City Engineer Subject Status - Coultrup Development/Fault Date June 21, 1990 Line Controversy Please refer to the attached letters. A surveyor, hired by the Huntington Harbour Homeowners Association, found an error in the plotting of the fault line trace identified in a Woodward/Clyde Study for Signal Landmark. The Keith Companies, engineer for Coultrup Development, has studied the situation and agreed that the fault line trace was misplotted. Action Geotechnical and Strata - Tech, Coultrup's two geologists, have stated that, because the Woodward/Clyde line now shifts northerly approximately 43.5 feet and is now north of the Action Geotechnical identified line, the free zone that follows the Alquist-Priolo regulations now also shifts northerly. This zone now intrudes into the building foot-print of the northerly condo complex by approximately 5 feet, on one corner. Coultrup's geologists contend that no foundations may exist within that zone and that cantilevering the building over that zone is acceptable. City staff sent all of these findings to Charles C. Kendall, our geotechnical consultant that originally ruled on the Coultrup project. He agrees with Action Geotechnical and Strata - Tech's findings. I would, therefore, submit that there is no reason for us to prevent construction from proceeding as long as any foundation within that 5'. foot ±area is deleted from the project. REE:dw cc: Bob Franklin 2472g Publish Date : 12/28/89 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO THE ,PLANNING COMMISSION ' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO . 89-36/ CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO . 89-53 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO . 89-20 AND THE ADEQUACY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO . 82-3 (36 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT) NOTICE IF 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, January 8 , 1990 , 7 : 00 PM SUBJECT_ Appeal to the Planning Commission ' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 89-36/Conditonal Exception (Variance) No . 89-53/Coastal Development Permit No . 89-20 and the adequacy of Environmental Impact Report No . 82-3 due to the amount of time and potential cumulative impacts which have occurred within the City since the original Environmental Impact Report circulated in 1982 . APPLICANT : Coultrup Development Co . APPELLANTS : Councilmen Jim Silva and Wes Bannister LOCATION : 4123 Warner Avenue (Huntington Harbor Bay Club located north of Warner Avenue approximately 100 feet west of Edgewater Lane) . ZONE : Huntington Harbor Bay Club Specific Plan REOUEST: Conditional Use Permit No . 89-36/Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 89-53/Coastal Development Permit No . 89-20 is a request to construct a 36 unit residential condominium project in lieu of an approved 42 unit residential condominium project with a variance to exceed the maximum three stories and build four stories . The appeal is based on the adequacy of Environmental Impact Report No . 82-3 . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Covered by .Environmental Impact Report No . 82-3 which was certified by the City Council on February 7 , 1983 . COASTAL STATUS : This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone . Authoracd to Publ*hi Advo11M.rtK'I8 Of 0 kwtdt MCW'rtg GubhC nofrtoli by Clxloo of the SUP61 for Court of 014ngo County. Cottforme, Number A-6214. 401111017 29 soplombot, test, and. _61- -4931.-0olod 11 June. 1963 STATE OF CALIFORNIA . ' - County of Orange P„o «y .Alloww .p te..w tiW" Oak" • eww.a rt t �y we+ 10 fca to%~mom pp /CIO nited States and r i 1 am a C1ltzen of the U a resident of the County aforesaid- Cam 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 I. Coast DAILY PILOT, with which -is Combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published to the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange._ State of California, and that a Notice of Public Hearing of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete 'PUBLIC NOTICE ,pU6 `O,TICE`"` '"" �Aa appea opC C as NOTIGfE 'OFT a + r Commission within ten 1,0) COQy, was printed and published to the Costa Mesa, PUBLIC ARING rm�a_tely 100 'feet west,l,of K��*�g y pursuant '£o Edgewater�Lne) workin da s �APP.EAL T� HE PL-gN , e ° F Section 30803 of the Public Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, NING; COMMION=S.ArP ZONE,Huntington Harbors f3esources Code in writin PR OVAL OF CON1 TITj ON AL Bay Clu?b>tSpecifrc Plan( f California Coasta 1 Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna USE' PERMITT NO 3 REQUESTe Contltio,nal •mission, 245 W Broadwa g lJse,Permt=Q189�36/Con°'kSuite 380 PQB 1450 L y' CONDITIONAL;EXCEPTIo- :� +on 1 time VARIANCE` drhonalExce'p�tlon (Vart fg e a c h C a l i fao r n i Beach issues of said newspaper for ( )� No as�.53 ancejfN89 53/CoastallDe � %_ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT !3 0;8 0 1 1-4 5 0 (�2 1 3) + velopment+PermttN0�89,20 PERMIT•NO `89 20 AND +E.i ent 590-5071 # Consecutive weeks to wit.the issue(s) of THE 'gDEQUACY OF EN {rsarequwvd6nstruct�a The Coastal Commisison unit, rresidential'Kc'on VIRONMENTAL IMPACT : review period will rsom- #t dominium pr,o)ectatin Ireu of " REPORT N0 82 3(36 UNIT +Y4.�s� , mencetafter th=e Ctyappeal R E Sr D E!N T I�A L °C'O N an apprboved 42,unitrresrden penod¢has ended and no p tial >c"ondomiriium'I(�'proiect�l� • .� DOMINIUM,PROJECT�) E 7ed peals have been famed gppli= wth=avanance to exceed * ^� December 28 NOTICE alS�t HEREBY themaximum4�three stores° ca�ntswill be¢nottied by the 19g g BbgdW-ty�Gounc I will hbid and.build four stone ,he I4the�date of h cionlclus on off appeal rsabasedWn,the;atle a public hearing in the Co'ifi quacy of.EnvironmentatYlm rheCoastal Commission re- cil Chamber at the Hunt + wiew.Applicants,are advised lington Beach Civic Center apactiReport No�M82213i not _to 4begi construction 198 E1N V I R b M EN T�:A Iff ,pno�to that'tlate> 2000 Main Street Hunt >� STrA�TUS Covered by En ++' ington;Beach-Caltorniakon ;(,ON FILE. A copy of the 7 # vironmental Impact Report r the date and at the time{� No23 whichtwas cerUfled proposed developm�ernt plan+ dicated below to recewe aiidi yy sgoile'm the Community 198 by th`e°sCity Council on Feb consider,the statements:of ruar 7 1983_ + Development Bep^ar1m-enrt� all pe sons who wish to be y , 200Q Maln,�Stre`et -writ heariiyrel,tive to the,apple COAST✓AL�STATUS This ingion Beach `California project isxrn the appealable 926g8 10°fins cation described below. portion of`theTcoastaNionefj �•+� pecUonby the' 198 DATE/TIME: Monday w P,u�c. A copy°I the;staff Under the.prodisions,of January 8 1990,7 00 PM + report will be available'to- �SUBBECT Appeal to the the Huntington BeachiOrtlr interested parities+at`City Planning Commission s'1ap nancef Code; the�rg�actlon iHall. + 19g pro I of ContliUonal Use taken by the City Council Is i -s. final unless an appeal is filed ALL INTERESTED Permit NO. "89 36/C.o`n SONS=are invted to attends to the Coastal,Commission +"- # ••M»" dit,onal Exception (Van said,-hearing andx expAess anceT,.No 89-53/Coastal qe b theme a hcant or an a opinions or subr vidence k, grieved partjSaidtLapp ail _ 4� 4 l velopment Permit No 89 20 a fo�roryagams pthe application and the ade uac ofEh must%be mwrltviggan+dmust atlined above If'there decladeclare under penalty of perjury, that the = ' 1 4 y setiforth rnrdetail9the actions' ^* R- q re,'under ! P •!r vironmental�Impact Report a �- , aeta ny questions or fu'riher 1 an ?grounds by}andjupon, - -�e �- foregoingNO 82 3xdue to the amount ,tea, .n details necessary r please is true and correct. • p which, the�applicarnt ors of time and otential v " . contact , j&.1 R,,Franklin= cumulative impacts which mteresjed party;pdeems Associate 'Py�lanner at_ have-occurred within tFe himself,aggnevedSe(d ap- 536 5271 peal musttbe submi ed�to s City -since the pngmal En ° Connie Brockwa Hunt- the Coastal Gommissionir • --+-y Executed on December 28 198 9_ vironmental Impact Report wthin4en,(Q10)workmgpd'ays ington Beach 61ty Clerk • circulated in 1982 ! Pubiished Orange Coast APPLICANT:Coultrup De ofthedate�ofjt�e Clty Coun Daily Pilof December 28, at Costa Mesa California. w<., s cil sxaction There is no fee °19t39.velopment Co., t for thealoPfahcoasal ,iAPPELL-AN TS Coun PP R ths66 t dev_eolopmentpermit- .cg e_n Jim,Silva and Wes Bannister Y v LOCA.TION: 4123 Warner Signature Avenue;(Hunpngton Harbor Bay.-Cluq,.located netH-51f: N/arner, Avenue- approx=- PROOF OF PUBLICATION T �F J J HCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Connie Brockway, Mayor Bannister/ To City Clerk From Councilman Silva Subject APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE Date November 17, 1989 o z PERMIT NO. 89-36 & ENVIRONMENTAL Q, IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3MUNTINGTON HARBOUR BAYCLUB -c. cli r7rn rn With this memo we request that the decision of the Planning Commission at their : November 7, 1989 meeting concerning Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 and �- Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 be appealed due to the amount of time and potential cumulative impacts which have occurred within the City since the original EIR circulated in 1982. WB:ss (4140d) LAOCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Le" CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Connie Brockway, Mayor Bannister/ To City Clerk From Councilman Silva � r Subject APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE Date November 17, 1989 PERMIT NO. 89-36 & ENVIRONMENTAL m i IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3/HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BAYCLUB �. �pAn w tiQr-<` -n�o x With this memo we request that the decision of the Planning Commission at their November 7, 1989 meeting concerning Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 and Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 be appealed due to the amount of time and potential cumulative impacts which have occurred within the City since the original EIR circulated in 1982. ' WB:ss (4140d) Bardam 'Dev(in ' 17156 Do mvater Lane eS� + ?(untirgtmi Brark ( q 92649 �"v��l My name is Barbara Devlin and I'm appearing before you in regard to the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Condominium Development. Let me state at the outset that I have the very highest regards for a Councilman Jack Kelley, However Mr. Kelley you were on the City Council and were Mayor in 198A at the time that this development was originally approved and in 1991 your wife,CT Kelley, perso nally informed me that she was the Real Estate Agent for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club and sold this million dollar property twice to Coultrup Development, and, of course, she received a commission for so doing,so w.eknow that Mr. Kelley has an obvious Conflict of Interest in this or voting matter and obviously he will not be discussing it,� so I will understand, and I am ° sure that the other members of the City Council and the citizens of Huntington Beach will too, if he wants to leave the hearing room right now and not even bother listening to anything that I have to say. I am here today in regard to the Attorney General's allegation that he believes "that the Destiny II developer and its predecessors in interest, including Coultrup and Ahadpour were aware of the State Land Trust Easement claims. " The facts show that the predecessors of the development were given information that the property was on State Tidelands way back in 1980 and that way back in 1985 i. . Mr. Ahadpour knew or should have known that the new 1985 letter from the State Tidelands Commission was not complete or definitive. The 1985 letter from the State Lands Commission was NOT complete, because it did NOT deal with tidelands. It only dealt with the fact that the land was not state owned land. The State Lands Commission was not stating that it was not tidelands. . . they were only stating that it was not owned by the State and therefore the State could not and did not lease it to anyone. According to Deputy Attorney General Collins QUOTE"The term "State land", however, refers to State fee-owned . 2 land without reference to the public trust easement It has not been the practice of the State Lands Commission to issue leases or permits over private fee lands which are subject to the public trust easement. " Furthermore this same letter stated that "It was not intended to be a waiver of the State's rights, title or interest in any lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the State. " The State did not lease the land. It was owned by Mr. Ahadpour. So the owner, Mr. Ahadpour knew that the 1985 letter was not complete and both Mr. Ahadpour and hi's predecessc)rs already knew the State Lands Commission claimed that the property was Stt.te Tidelands to the extent that there was a land trust easement over the property. • a At the present time, .Mr. Coultrup's attorneys are trying to"buy out this land trust easement from the State. " So when Leslie Grimes of the State Lands Commission notified Art Folger, Deputy City Attorney on May 31, 1990 before Mr. Coultrup had started building on the site that the "development is within validly patented Tide Land Location 221 and a.s such is subject to the public trust easement in favor of commerce, navigation and fishing" he was telling the city the truth and we were telling the truth all along when we told the City that there was a State Tidelands Easement across this property. Mr. Coultrup's attorney was also notified by the same letter that went to Mr. Folger so why didn't Mr. Coultrup immediately contact the State Lands Commission for a letter of determination. Mr. Coultrup was probably afraid he might get the clear. and unambigous' 1980 letter"again if he applied for another letter of determination, so if he could sneak by with the vague and incomplete 1985 letter, why would he ever think of asking for a clear, unambigous and definitive letter like the 1980 letter to the Law Firm of Virtue and Scheck and co-counsel Tim Paone, one that would obviously have stopped him cold? ! Mr, Curtis Fossum of the State Lands Commission informed us that if the Coultrup Development had tried to "buy out this land trust easement" before anything was constructed on the property it would have been refused! 3 It is interesting to us that we Huntington Harbour homeowners have received thank yous from the State Lands Commission and the Attorney General's office thanking us for all our work in this matter but not a word of thanks from our own City for our vigilance in protecting the rights of all of the citizens of California. I'm going to tell you about a conversation that I had with Mr. Ahadpour approximately two years ago. At first I felt he was only bragging and trying to intimidate me but I now realize that I was naive and that he was actually telling me the truth. I have mentioned this conversation to several people over the past two years and their reply has always been the same. . . "it sounds just like him. " And by golly he's convinced me thitt he was telling me the truth all along. Mrs, Yonnie Hartge came to my home one day and asked me for my unlisted phone number telling me that Mr. Ahadpour wanted to talk to me. I gave it to her but Mr. Ahadpour never called me and one day Mr. Ahadpour, his son Ben and two workmen were installing the gate on Edgewater Lane and I walked across the street and introduced myself and told Mr. Ahadpour that Yonnie Hartg e said he wanted to talk to me. He answered "Yes" and then said "Bill Hartge is my very best friend in the Harbour. " He then started talking in a foreign •language and his son, Ben, did the interpreting for him. He said he wanted to tell me that Bob Franklin had no right to tell him anything about his property. It was his property and neither the City of Huntington Beach, the County of Orange or the State of California was going to tell him what to do with his property. I then spoke up and told him that he was still under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission and his answer was "The Coastal Commission is a joke. I have never asked them for permission to do anything to my property. I always do what I want and when I have to go to them they always just okay what I have done. " He then went on to say "I have lots of friends down at City Hall and you are a nobody in this City. My best friends are Harriet Wieder, Roger Slates, Gale Hutton and Jack Kelley. I have had parties at my Club for all of them. I have also had parties for Mays, 4 Erskine, Silva, McAllister. They are all my friends. You are not friends with any of them. You are nobody in Huntington Beach. " The next day I went to Yonnie Hartge and said to her "Thanks a lot, you really set me up and I told her what Mr. Ahadpour said to me. Yonnie apologized and said she had no idea that was what he wanted to say to me. She said she thought he was trying to make some accomodations with the neighbors. Was .I angry? You bet I was. This rich immigrant was telling me that he had more rights in our country than a native-born American and I was always under the impression that recent immigrants rights were only the same as mine--no more and no less. My ancestors fought in the French and Indian Wars, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, my great-grandfather was wounded in the Civil War and my grandfather wounded inthe Spanish-American War. I resented greatly being told that I am nobody in my own country that my ancestors contributed to by putting their lives on the line for this country since the 1600's. I supposed Mr. Ahad pour feels that most of the citizens of Huntington Beach are nobodies too because they have never had parties for our elected officials and formed a personal relationship with city officials. The blame for the problem we have today rests squarely upon the developer. If you have some doubts that because the owner in Janfuary 1980 isn't the owner now and that Attorney. Tim Paone might not have passed the Tidelands Easement knowledge caitained in the 1980 letter to him and the Law Firm of Virtue and Scheck on to Mr. Ahadpour when Mr. Ahadpour became his client (as indeed one newspaper reporter questioned me about. . . the laws of Agency conclusively presume that if the attorney knew it then the client knew it. You really don't think Virtue and Sch ech law firm wrote the 1980 letter without having a client. That is more than a coincidence! Mr. Tim Paone, of Virtue and Scheck, resigned from the Huntington Beach Planning Commission in approxifnately October 1979 because he had a conflict of interest in-that he represented the Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina, the developer. 5 On November 4, 1991 I read the letter to you from the Deputy Attorney General of the State of California in which he accused Coultrup, Ahadpour and Chicago Title of Fraud , in that they had known since 1980 that the land in question had a Land Trust Easement on it. I gave you a letter, dated January 28, 1980, written to Virtue and Scheck stating "This is to advise that the area of concern shown on your map is within tide land location 221 patented by the State on January 6, 1903. " The City promised to get back to me on this matter. Well it's three months later now and .I have not heard a word from the City of Huntington Beach. So I decided to do your work for you. In spent several days at the Orange County Law Library and $90. 00 in photocopy costs and have prepared a legal style brief for you which backs up all our contentions with cases from law books on the subject of Agency. I am not a lawyer so it is not in "legalese. " I have prepared a very complete brief for you but I will only mention my main points in it now. 1 .) The Attorney-Client Relationship is one of Principal and Agency. . . in this case Mr. Ahadpour was the Principal and Mr. Tim Panne of the law firm of Virtue and Scheck was the Agent. 2. ) Knowledge to an Attorney in a laws firm is also imputed to Co-Counsel in the firm. They .are Co-Agents and c0 -Principals. ,Attorney Tim Paone was co-counsel in the law firm of Virtue and Scheck and handling a court case involving the Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina and therefore a letter to Virtue and Scheck and knowledge of it re the State Tidelands Easement on the Beach Club and Marina was imputed to Mr. Paone as co-counsel. 3. ) The knowledge of the Attorney is imputed to his client. This is a Conclusive Rule of Law. It is not a Rebuttable Presumption. Mr. Ahadpour's Attorney and Agent, Tim Paone, knew that the Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina had a State Tidelands Easement on it. Therefore Mr. Ahadpour knew that the property had a State Tidelands Easement on it. 4. ) The knowledge of the attorney is imputed to the Client even if he didn't actually give it to the client. . . therefore Mr. Ahadpour had knowledge from his attorney, Tim Paoine, that the 6 Beach Club's proposed development had a State Tidelands Easement. . . even if Mr. Paone did not actually inform Mr. Ahadpour of this . (And to my knowledge, Mr. Ahadpour, is not even claiming that his attorney, Mr. Tim Paone, did not actually so inform him. ) 5. ) Knowledge of the attorney is imputable to the client even if the attorney obtained that knowledge before he even started working for the client. . . if he had it in his mind, and if the knowledge was important to the client (Do you think that this knowledge was important to Mr. Ahadpour who wanted to build a multimillion dollar condominium on tjis land? ). . . therefore Mr. Ahadpour had knowledge of the State Tidelands Easement on the Beach Club proposed development even if Mr. Paone obtained the information sometime before he officially became Mr. Ahadpour's attorney (he was working for Huntington Harbour Beach and Marina at all times) and 6.) Mr. Ahadpour was legally involved in the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club Condominium Development as late as April 5, 1990 as the City of Huntington Beach's Foundation Permit No. 004674 was issued to Owner: Ferrydoun Ahadpour. Both Mr. Ahadpour and his previous attorney, Mr. Tim Paone had knowledge of the State Tidelands Easement at that date. . . therefore Mr. Ahadpour can neither disclaim knowledge or involvement in the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club Condominiums Development or the State Tidelands Easement even as late as April 5, 1990 . I also feel very very stronglythat there is an obvious lack..' of impartiality and professional responsibility of Staff in this matter. Mr. Adams on various occasions in my very presence has .'made the following statements. . . "It's not my job to address fairness. " "I make every individual citizen obey the rules and regulations of the City to the letter of the law but I make exceptions for large developers. " On June 7, 1990 at a meeting with Mr. Uberuaga, Mr. Eichblatt and Mr. Adams and several homeowners, Mr. Uberuaga you asked Mr. Adams, "Is a letter . 7a required from the State Lands Commission for a new Conditional Use Permit? " Mr. Adams answered "Yes. " Mr. Uberuaga then asked Mr. Adams, "Do you have a letter from the State Lands for this new CUP? " And Mr.Adams answer was "No, we do not. It was not my job to get that letter. It was Mr'. Coultrup's job a applicant to get that letter which was required by the new CUP. It w, as not my job to let the Coastal Commission know that. there was a land trust easement on the property. A member of the State Lands Commission sits on the Coastal Commission. It was his j ob to see that -the letter was there. " Mr. Uberuaga have you found out yet that Mr. Adams misled you and us on June 7, 1990 when he told you it was not his job to see that Mr. Conitrup got a new letter of determination from the State Lands Commission? We have the record of the Coastal Commission Hearing way back in April 12, 1984 when the City of Huntington Beach had their Land Use Plan accepted by the Coastal Commission and Mr. McAllister and Mr. . Kelley were there. From that date on "the City was reassuming responsibility for issuing Coastal Permits" and it wasthe responsibility of the City Staff from April 12, 1984 to see thht the developer-applicant got the letter from the State Lands Commission. (We have a partial transcript of that meeting for you tonight to prove this to you. ) Of course, Mr. Adams has already said "that he makes exceptions to the rules and regulations of the City for large developers" and probably this was one of his exceptions. I guess it was also one of his exceptions that the Staff "acciden+.ly" forgot to include the 1985 letter to Mr. Harlow from the State Lands Commission in the Council packed to January 1990 so that the citizens of Huntington Beach would never know about this and never even be able to inquire as to whether or not there was a Land Trust Easement (verified by Connie Brockway in our lawsuit against Coultrup)_ That letter was never presented to the City Council ao that neither the citizens nor the City Council were aware of any Land Trust Easement problem on this property. Do you really think that these were all just "accidental mistakes or oversights" on the part of Mr. Adams and/or others? Coincidences do happen. of course. 7b I am sure that you all realize there are levels of culpability--one may be negligent and make an error. There is a higher level of culpability when one goes a out of his way to cover up a negligent mistake. There is even/greater level of culpability when an employee subverts his job by committing an intentional and deliberate act to act against his position and responsibility. Mr. Adams made a mistake in not checking to see that Mr. Coultrup obeyed the Specific Plan to the letter of the law. It is one thing to make a mistake but it's another thing to mislead a new City Manager like Mr. Uberuaga and to all of us as citizens and say it was not his,job. He has abused the trust placed in him by the City Council and the City Manager and the citizens of Huntington Beach. You were egregiously misled by the Planning Department and you need to correct this wrong by asking the District Attorney to investigate the whole process and the repeated Lies and misrepresentations by Coultrup to this City Council, the Coastal Commission and the Department of Real Estate, Aiid also likewise as to the misrepresentations by Mr. Adams and possibly even by Attorney Art Folger who made it less than clear to the Court that the 1985 letter had not been presented to the City Council. 8 Actually i do not feel that the City Attorney's office in this City and possibly even be fair and impartial in judging these allegations by the Attorney General. In the Huntington Harbour Residents case of 1980 (Orange County Superifor Court # 32 62 76)one of the Plaintiffs contentions was that this property was tidelands. The case was filed on December 29, 1979 with the allegation of tidelands. Within a month, the law firm of Virtue and Scheck who -were representing Huntington Harbour Beach.Club and Marina wrote to the State Lands Commission in my opinion to check out this allegation. You received a copy of that letter and the answer last November._ Gale Hutton was the City's attorney in this 1980 lawsuit. In my opinion Gale Hutton already knew or should have know that this project was on State Tidelands. On January 6, 1992 I read a letter to you from our attorney in which he informed you that in his opinion Gale Hutton is not representing the best interest of the City and we concur. Nothing justifies the City giving up its rights to be the body that ultimately determines the development in order to see that the geological report complies with the Alquist-Priolo Act. The City Attorney has abdicated that City right by not stating to the Court of Appeals that the Court should have remanded the case back to the City due to the new evidence. The City can still assert these rights in their answer to our Petition for li,�view. The can and should rectify tins matter. They can tell the Court that it has to remand for the City's reconsideration of compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Act based on the new evidence of the presence of the earthquake fault that we obtained. Attorney Hutton did not propertly represent to the Court as to whether the City's Coastal Zone ordinance takes precedence over the Specific Plan and the Court ignored that fact also. The City of Huntington Beach is a Charter City and in a Charter City the zoning does not have to be consistent with the Specific Plan and the Coastal zoning ordinance has to take precedence over all other ordinances and this is valid under State Law and should be respected by the courts. The Court of Appeal refused to do this. The City Attorney should give validity to the 10 her actions. You asked her for an explanation on Jan. 6, 1992. You will note that the State of California did not give up its Legal Rights. . . it notified the Appellate Court that it made an error in law and guess what? The Appellate Court modified it's opinion to agree with the laws of the State of California. If you have her evaluation, we and the public request to see it. Let us tell you ladies and gentlemen, this problem is not going to go away until we, the citizens, get answers to our questions from the City. On three. separate occasions I have appeared before you and posed questions to the City and have always been promised .that the City would get back to me and answer my questions. Mayor Tom Mays and Mr. Uberuaga have both told me that Mike Adams would answer all my questions. I have not gotten anyquestions answered by Mr. Adams despite all the promises of the City and obvious the reason is thtit he could not answer them.then the still cannot answer them now. I am tired of the matter being pushed under the rug and being ignored by you in the hope that It andv*--will just go away. I can assure you we will not go away! !_ We are never going to quit until'we get our questions answered satisfactorily and honestly and you're going to find out that determinded citizens can make a difference. One thing that has been proved to me and to the citizens of Huntington Beach and to the whole world is that there's unfair and improper interlocking relationships between the City of Huntington Beach and developers that has been going on that should.not go any further and there's no way in fairness that most of you here today can sit in impartial judgement on what the City has done or failed to do. Councilman Robitaille, recently there wa s a story in 'trie paper about a shooting by the Westminster Police Dept. and the paper stated "as is routine in virtually all officer-involved shootings, the incident will be investigated by an outside law enforcement agency, in this case the Orange County Sheriff's office. " Therefore we are here tonight asking for an outside investigation of the 11 charges of fraud by the Attorney General's office as to the knowledge of the Land Trust Easement by Mr. Ahadpour and we want the Huntington Beach City Council to send this investigation outside the City to the Office of the District Attorney of Orange County for investigation. If "outside evaluation" is fair for the police department, it's fair for the City Attorney's office. Whatever fraud there was or was not, the City neglected its .responsibility in not requiring a letter of determination for the new Conditional Use Permit given to the Coultrup Development. This was a whole new process that requred it. . . it was not merely an amendment. I recently read a statement while I was at Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson but maybe some of you won't agree with it. "Voting is a process in which we, as citizens, temporarily, give away our agency to those whom we judge will best represent us. Our roles include continuing pressure for accountability from whomever we elect. . . the work of citizenship means ongoing public action in every area. " And that is why we are here tonight. We are here tonight to demand accountabilit r�from our elected representativesand we submit that it whould obviously require an impartial agency outside of Huttington Beach City Hall to do it. Thank you. Respectfully submitt d Barbara Devlin February 3, 1992 • y. . i "(4) The general rule of agency is that notice to or knowledge possessed by an agent is imputable to the principal. (Civ. Code, @2332; see Freeman v. Superior Court, 44 Cal 2d 533, 537-538 (282 p. 2d 8 7); Rest. , Agency @ 8 9, 272-282.) "Chapman College v. Wagener (1955) 45 C. 2d. 796, 802; 291 P. 2d 445. "(5) This. rule ordinarily applies in the relation of an attorney and client. " (Lazzarevich v. Lazzarevich, 39 Cal. 2d 48, 50 (244 P. 2d 1); see Freeman v. Superior Court. 44 Cal. 2d 533-538 (282 P. 2d 857); 4 A. L. R. 59Chapman o ege v. Wagener(1955)45 C. 2d. 796, 802; 291 P. 2d 445. CONCLUSIONS: THE PRINCIPAL IN THIS CASE IS FERYDOUN AHADPOUR AND THE AGENT WAS HIS ATTORNEY, TIM PRONE, CO-COUNSEL WITH THE LAW FIRM OF VIRTUE AND SCHECK THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT (PRINCIPAL-AGENT) RELATIONSHIP WAS INITIATED AT LEAST ON AUGUST S PROVEN ABOVE AND LASTED AT LEAST UNTIL JUNE 1qX1 G. II LEGAL KNOWLEDGE TO AN ATTORNEY IN A LAW FIRM IS ALSO IMPUTED PROPOSITION: TO CO-COUNSEL IN THE FIRM. THEY ARE CO-AGENTS AND CO- PRINCIPALS. FACTS: Attorney Tim Paone was representing Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina (See Exhibit A, Attached Hereto) and on January 18, 1980 Attorney Scott McConnell of the firm of Virtue and Scheck wrote a letter to the State Lands Commission (See Exhibit C, Attached-Hereto) asking if the land was "subject to the state tidelands trust. " On January 28, 1980 the State Lands Commission wrote to Attorney McConnell of Virtue and Scheck "This is to advise the area of concern shown on your map is within tide land location 221 patented by the State on January 6, 1903. " (See Exhibit D, Attached Hereto. ) "A junior attorney member of the firm of Virtue and Scheck wrote the letter to the State and they are considered and conclusively presumed under the law to be co-counsel and co-agents in this matter. (Cf. Infra on "Legal Citations.".� (The Plaintiffs in the case have been making the allegation all along that the land in question was tidelands. See Page of the Original Complaint Attached Hereto as Exhibit E. ) -2- LEGAL "Notice to one of two or more joint agents is notice to all. CITATIONS: (Wade on Law of Notice, sec, 681; Fulton Bank v. New York etc. Canal Co. , 4 Paige, 127; North River Bank v. Aymar, 3 Hill, 2 2; Bank of United States v. Davis, 2 Hill ; National Security Bank V. Cushman, 121 Mass. 470.TLike other copartners, each is at the same same time a principal and an agent for all the others." Wittenbrock v. Parker (1894) 102 Cal 93, 100. "An attorney is an agent for his client within the scope of his employment, and two or more attorneys practicing together as copartners are joint agents as to the business transacted for their clients as such copartners. " Wittenbrock v. Parker (1894) 102 Cal 93, 99, 100. CONCLUSION: ATTORNEY TIM PAONE WAS CO-COUNSEL IN THE LAW FIRM OF VIRTUE AND S.CHECK AND HANDLING A COURT CASE.INVOLVING THE HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB AND MARINA AND THEREFORE A LETTER TO VIRTUE AND SCHECK AND KNOWLEDGE TO IT RE THE STATE TIDELANDS EASEMENT ON THE HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB AND MARINA WAS IMPUTED TO MR. PAONE AS CO-COUNSEL. III LEGAL THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTORNEY IS IMPUTED TO HIS CLIENT. PROPOSTION: THIS IS A CONCLUSIVE RULE OF LAW, IT IS NOT A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION. FACTS: Attorney Tim Paone, who was representing Mr. Ahadpour, had in his possession a letter from the State Lands Commission stating "This is to advise the area of concern shown on your map is within tide land location 221 patented by the State of January 6, 1903. " (See Exhibit D Attached Hereto. ) LEGAL "6 101. Imputation to client of attorney's knowledge CITATIONS: The general rule that notice to an agent is imputed to the agent's principal applies to attorneys at law acting as their clients' agents. The basis for this rule is the presumption , which is conclusive when it arises, that the agent has fulfilled his or her dutyto communicate to his or her principal all knowledge which he or she has with respect to the subject matter of the agency. The fact that the knowledge or notice of the agent was not communicated to the principal does not affect the operation of the general rule, since all that is necessary to charge the principal with constructive notice is that the agent obtain the knowledge while acting in the scope of his or her employment. Thus, ordinarily a person is held to know what his or her attorney knows and should communicate to him or her. " 7_Cal Jur 3d (Rev) Attorneys at Law Sec 101, -3- LEGAL "(6) An agent's knowledge . , . is imputed to his principal. CITATIONS: (Blair v. Wessinger, 39 Cal. App. 269, 273 (178 P. 545); Pre es i v. Farganiasz, 97 Conn. 345 (116 A. 593, 595); Baruch v. Bucklet, 167 App. Div. 113 (151 N. Y. S. 853, 855); Shrader v. Porter, 210 Ky. 429(276 S. W. 115); Harding v. Home Inv. & Say. Co. , 49 Idaho 64 (286 P. 920, 922, 297 7. 1 01); K un t v. San s, 54 S. D. 421 (223 N. W. 338. )" Columbia Pictures Corp. v. DeToth, (1948) 87 C. A. 2d 620, 630, 631. "(7) This rule of law is not a rebuttable presumption. It is not a presumption at all. It is a rule which charges the principal with the knowledge possessed by his agent. (2 Ain, J.ur. 9 369, P. 289; anno. 4. A. L. R. 1 92, 38 A. L. R. 821. )" Columbia Pictures Corp. v. DeToth, (1948) 87 C. A. 2d 620, 31; 197 P. Zd 580. "(11) The rule rests on the premise that the agent has acquired knowledge which it.was his duty to communicate to his principal, and the presumption is that he has performed that duty. (Ibid. Lazzarevich v. Lazzarevich, 39 Cal. 2d 48, 50 (244 P. 2d 1). ) While under our law the presumption is deemed conclusive for the purposes of civil actions (Wittenbrock v. Parker , 102 Cal. 93, 104 (36P. 374, 41 Am. -St. Rep. 172, Z4 L. R.A. 197)" Freeman v. Superior Court (1955)44 C. 2d 539, 538; 282 P. 2d 872). "As stated above, notice to an agent in course of a transaction is constructive notice to the principal, and it will not avail the latter to show that the agent failed to communicate to him what he was told. �Willaimson v. Brown, 15 N. Y. 359) This Constructive notice, when it exists, is irrebutable. It is not merely prima facie evidence, for then it could be rebutted. It is conclusive against the truth of the fact, as said by Gibson, J. in Neidler v. Farmers'Bank, 11 Serg. & R. 134: "Constructive notice is not primafacie evidence of actual knowledge of the fact; the presumption of notice, if it arises at all, being conclusive even against the truth of the fact. " Watson v. Sutro. (1890) 86 C 500, 523. CONCLUSION: MR AHADPOUR'S ATTORNEY AND AGENT, .TIM PAONE KNEW THAT THE HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB AND MARINA HAD A STATE TIDELANDS EASEMENT ON IT, THEREFORE MR. AHADPOUR KNEW THAT THE HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB AND MARINA HAD A STATE TIDELANDS EASEMENT ON IT. -4- , IV. LEGAL PROPOSITION: THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTORNEY IS IMPUTED TO THE CLIENT EVEN IF HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY GIVE IT TO THE CLIENT. FACTS: Attorney Tim Paone of the law firm of Virtue and Scheck had been representing Mr. Ahadpour in Case No. 32 62 76 Orange County Superior Court Huntington Harbour Residents, et al. , v City of Huntington Beach, et al. as Attorney for Real Party in Interest, Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina since Mr. Ahadpour purchased the property on August 23, 1980. (See Exhibits A and B Attached Hereto). LEGAL 101. Imputation to client of attorney's knowledge CITATIONS: The general rule that notice to an agent is imputed to the agent's principal applies to attorneys at law acting as their client's agents. (28. Hunter v. Watson(1859)12 C 363; Bierce v Red Bluff Hotel Co. (186 ) 31 C 1 Ob ; Donald v Beals (1881) 57 C 399; Watson v Sutro (1890) 86 C 500, 25 P ; Wittenbrock v Parker 189 102 C 93, 36 P 374; Otis v Zeiss (1917) 175 C 192, 165 P 524; Rauer v Hertweck (1917) 175 C 278; 165 P 946; Bogart v George K. Porter Co. (1924) 193 C 197, 223 P 959, 3 1 ALR 1045; Estate of Rule(1944) 25 C2d 1, 152 P2d 1003, 155 ALR 1319 (disapproved on other grounds by Parsons v Bristol Development Co. , 62 C2d 861, 44 Cal Rptr7 7, 402 P 2d 839) (applying rule to attorney for executors); Lazzarevich v Lazzarevich (1952) 39 C2d 48, 244 P2d 1; Freeman v Superior Court of San Diego County (1955) 44 C2d 533, 282 P 2d 857; Chapman College v Wagener (1955) 45 C 2d 796, 291 P 2d 445. ) The basis for this rule is the presumption, which is conclusive when it arises, that the agent has fulfilled his or her duty to communicate to his or her principal all knowledge which he or she has with respect to . the subject matterof the agency. The fact that the knowledge or notice of the agent was not communicated to the principal does not affect the operationof the general rule, since all that is necessary to charge the principalwith constructive notice is that the agent obtain the knowledge while acting in the scope of his or her employment. Thus, ordinarily a person is held to know what his or her attorney knows and should communicate to him or her. " 7 Cal Jur 3d (Rev) Attorneys At Law Section 101, " 4. Imputed Notice 8:56. Notice to an Agent--General Rule The knowledge of an agent generally is imputed to the principal, and the principal is deemed to know all facts known by the agent. Since the agent has a duty to communicate to his principal all information received during the course and scope of his agency, it is presumed that the agent performed this duty even though the information was not actually transmitted to the princippal. (McKenney v Ellsworth .(1913) 165 C 326, 329-331 P 75; Christie v Sherwood (1896) 113 C 526, 530-532, 45 P 820; Wittenbrock v -5 _ LEGAL Parker (1894) 102 C 93., 99- 100, 36 P 374; Powell v'Goldsmith CITATIONS (1984) 152 CA 3d 746, 750-751, 199 CR 554; Northern Natural Gas Co, v Superior Court (1976) 64 CA3d 983, 992, 134 CR 850; Columbia Pictures Corp, v DeToth (1948) 87 CA2d 620, 6309 197 P d 580; Kelley v British Commercial Ins. Co. (1963) 221 CA2d 554, 557-5 0, 34 CR 5 4; Hanlon v Western Loan & Bldg Co. (1941) 46 CA2d 580, 595-597, 11 6 P 2d 5; Atkinson v Foote (1919) 44 CA 149, 165-167, 186 P 831. In civil cases the presumption that the agent communicated his knowledge to his principal is conclusive. Freeman v Superior Court of San Diego Count (1955) 44 C2 533, 537, 282 P2d 857. ' Real Estate Law Zd @ 8:56 "(4) It is also well-settled law in this state that notice given to or possessed by an agent within the scope of his employment and in connectinn with and during his agency, is notice to the principal. (Sec. 2332, Civ. Code; Bogart v. George K. Porter Co. , 193 Cal. 197 ( 1 A. L. R. 1045, 223Pac. 959); Waldeck v Hedderl, 89 Cal.App. 485 (265 Pac. 340). ) In the case of Shamlian v. Wells, 197 Cal. 716 (265 Pac. 340), it was held as follows: "The general rule is well settled that the knowledge of the agent in the course of his agency is the knowledge of the principal. (1 Cal. Jur. 846, and cases cited. ) It rests on the assumption tlAt the agent will communicate to his principal all information acquired in the course of his agency; and when the knowledge of the agent is ascertained the cnnstructive notice to the principal is conclusive. (1 Cal. Jur. 853, and cases cited. ) In the case of Watson v. Sutro,. 86 Cal. 500 (24 Pac. 176, 25 Pac. ), it was held as follows: "Knowledge by notice to attorney or counsel or agent acquired during the negotiations for a purchase is constructive notice to their principal. . If it were otherwise, it would cause great inconvenience and notice would be avoided in every case by employing agents. (See cases cited in 2 Lead. Cas. Eq. , pt. 1, pp. 133, 134. ) That notice to the principal has been held in this state ever since Connelly v. Peck, decided in 1856, and reported in 6 Cal. 348; followed in May v. Morell, 12 Cal. 91; Stanely v. Green, 12 Cal. 148; Hunter v. Watson, 12 Cal. 363 (73 Am. Dec. See other cases referred to in Gear's California Index-Digest, 97. ) Notice to counsel or attorney is constructive notice to client. (Bierce v. Red Bluff Co. , 31 Cal. 161, decided in 1866 and Donald v. Beals, 57 Cal. 399. ) All these cases in regard to an agent apply to an attorney or counsel; for they are a species of agent. Justice Bradley, in The Dis- tilled Spirits Case, 11 Wall. 7_(20 L. Ed. 167), states the principle on which the rule rests: 'The general rule, ' says the learned judge, 'that a principal is bound by the knowledge of his agent is based upon the principle of law that it is the agent's duty to communicate to his principal the knowledge which he has respecting the subject matter of the negotiations, and the pre- sumption will be that he will perform that duty. It will be of no avail to the purchaser that the agent omitted to communicate what e ascertained to his principal. Wi iamson v. Brown, N. Y. 359- In of eFier worils, one wrio acts through another will be pre- sumed to know all that the agent learns during the transaction, whether it is actually communicated to him or not. There .is no difference in ;this respect between actual and constructive notice; _ 6 - LEGAL for if there were,an agent would be employed whenever it was CITATIONS• convenient to remain in ignorance. (Bank of United States v. Davis, 2 flit]. N. Y. . - . Early v. Owens, 109 Cal. App. 490, 494, 495. "Notice to Either Principal or Agent Imputed to Both. As a.gainst a principal, both principal and agent are deemed to have notice of whatever either has notice of, and ought in good faith and the exercise of ordinary care and diligence to communicate to the other"(CC § 2332). " Principal Chargeable with and Bound by Knowledge of or Notice to Agent. A principal is chargeable with, and is bound by the knowledge of, or notice to, his or her agent received while the agent is acting within the scope of his or her authority and in reference to a matter over which the authority extends.(Trane Co. v Gilbert (1968) 267 Cal App2d 720, 727, 73 Cal Rptr 277, Columbia Pictures Corp. v DeToth (1948) 87 Cal App2d 620, 630, P " Knowledge or Notice Imputed Although No Actual Communication. The fact that an agent may or may not have reported information to the principal is immaterial when the agent was acting in the course of his or her employment and the information was acquired by the agent in the transaction of the principal's business. " (Trane Co. v Gilbert (1968) 267 Cal App2d 720, 727, 73 Cal Rptr 279). "The facts constituting knowledge, or want of it, on the part of the agent are proper subjects of proof, and are to be ascertained by testimony as in other cases, but, when ascertained, the constructive notice thereof to the principal is conclusive, and cannot be rebutted by showing that the agent did not in fact impart the information so required. (Watson v. Sutro, 86 Cal. 500. ) " Wittenbrock v Parker (1894) 102 C 93, 36 P 374, 101, 102 "§ 8:56. Notice to an Agent--General Rule Page 378, footnote 19. In an action against the principal, both principal and agent are deemed to have notice of whatever either has notice of and ought in good faith and in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence to communicate to the other. CC § 2332 GHK Associates v Mayer Group, Inc. (1990) 224 CA3d 856, 881 fn 3, 274 CR 168. ' California Real Estate 2d § 8:56, 46. CONCLUSION MR. AHADPOUR HAD KNOWLEDGE FROM HIS ATTORNEY, 14R. PAONE, THAT THE HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB AND MARINA PR POSED DEVELOPMENT HAD A STATE -TTD-rLA_NDS EASEMENT_--_ EVEN IF MR. PAONE DID NOT WC IIALLY INFORM MR. AHADPOUR OF THIS (AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE MR. AHADPOUR IS NOT EVEN CLAIMING THAT HIS ATTORNEY, MR. PRONE, DID NOT ACTUALLY SO INFURM -7- V LEGAL THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTORNEY IS IMPUTABLE TO THE PROPOSITION: CLIENT EVEN IF THE ATTORNEY OBTAINED THE KNOWLEDGE BEFORE HE STARTED WORKING FOR THE CLIENT. . . IF HE HAD IT IN HIS MIND AND IF THE KNOWLEDGE WAS IMPORTANT TO THE CLIENT. FACTS: Attorney Tim Paone obtained the knowledge that there was a land Trust Easement on this property on January 28, 1980 while he was working on the case of Huntington Harbour Residents, et al vs. City of Huntington Beach, et al and Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 32 62 76 and he was representing the. Real Party in Interest, Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina. (See Exhibit A, attached Hereto). Mr. Ahadpour bought the club on August 23, 1980 , seven months after Mr. Paone received the information from the State Lands Commission and while he was still working on the above named case and Mr. Ahadpour continued using Mr. Paone as his attorney of record in this case. Mr. Ahadpour probably hired Mr. Paone when he kept him on as Attorney of Record after buying the Club. Obviously the knowledge of a Land Trust Easement limiting development to marina, commerce and navigation (and not allowing residential development) was important to Mr. Paone's client, Mr. Ahadpour. (It -was obviously Vital Information for Mr. Ahadpour to have before Mr. Ahadpour would want to begin a Multimillion Dollar construction project! ) LEGAL "4. 103) Knowledge of Agent Priot to Employment. CITATIONS: To be imputable, the knowledge or notice must ordinarily.be acquired by the agent after the creation of the agency, for until he becomes an agent he is under no obligation to communicate any information to the principal, and the presumption that he will do so fails. . . knowledge acquired prior to the employment or in prior transactions may be imputed, it it is shown that, because of the close connection of the transactions, suchf knowledge was present in the mind of the agent at the time he acted for the principal. (Cook v. Mesmer (1912) 164 C. 332, 338, 128 P. 917; Wittenbrock v. Parker (1894f02 C. 93, 102, 36 P. 374; Columbia Pictures Corp. v. DeToth 1948) 87 C. A. 2d 620, 631, 197 P. 9d 580; Eagle In em. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1949) 92 C. A. 2d 222, 225, 206, P. 2d 877; see 3 Am. Jur. Zd, Agency § 287. ) The Restatement broadly declares that it is or inari y immaterial when the agent obtained theknowledge, the realissue being whether a as t eknowledge in min w en it becomes relevant in his work for the principal. (Rest. 2d, Agency .§ ® 276, 269; see also Rest. 2d, Agency ® 281. )" Agency and Employment , 4 § 103, 100. . . . the principal's liability is based on the fact that his agent had relevant knowledge. Since the mind of the agent cannot be divided into compartments, the principal should be bound by whatever knowledge the agent has, irrespective of its source or time of acquisition, unless it is the kind of knowledge which the agent can proper y 1sregard in the specific case because of having acquired it confidentially. " -8- y c, .11-1,huns• and 'rc1:I•hnnt Nit mht•r III .IftIIrnrt'Iv) fI of I.N1 1.1 / ours (Atrk (fill)) 1 TIM PRONE VIRTUE & SCIIECK, INCORPORATED ' r+ 17 Corporate Plaza Drive P.O. Box 2950 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ,JAN221981 (714) 644-9030 LEE A. BRM,1111, frxiii Clerk ATTORNEv BAp • 69253 I• � ATTOMEV Fort: Real-Party-in-Interest By ----Deputy GIII'FIII(11>i (,(Illlt'I' (11-, 'rlip S`f'1'hF or (:m'll,ow-4m FOR TIM COUNTY (IF (11tAN(;f; r HUNTINGTON HARBOUR RESIDENT'S (.Asti NO. 326276 et al. , NATURE OF CASE (state lolly): — — -- trt.ACrrlrr(s► DeclarItory -tad In j1111cti.ve Relief and Writ of Mandate CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACII, et al. , COUNTER AT ISSUE �tEM(11t:1iVt1UM ; * UErFNI)ANI(S) (Rule 20G, Calif. 1111les of Corm) Specify one or more of the following: t . LXJ Trinl Setting Conference Rryoirrd Mule 220(.0 �_t 1'retriol Cwifetenre ilrrluested (',cc Hole 2141 before Requesting) Exempt Short Cause (Rule 207.1) — Set for trial only- Time estimated for trinl: J.X� (11 more thnn 1 clay, number of days) 5 dnys NOTE: 5 A". = I trial d„v. L j (If 5 hours or less, number of hours) hoots Do.you demnnd a Jury trial? no _ Ivtf O•NOI NOTE: No case will be set for trial as a short cause mallrr unless AU. r.1n17E5 ioir► in cstimale of trial tirne of S hours or I less. Rule 207.1 authorizes judge to derlarc rnis trial it case is ncf rornp/clely tried uri/bin 5 hours. , Us this case entitled to legs) preference in setting? Yes Code Section CCP 1062; Publ.i.e Resource To`di I-1-67 T and 21168. 3 ! ALL ATTORNEYS OV RECORD OR PARTIES a PPEARING IN PEIISON ARE 1_IS1VED 1)EI.OW: r (Indicnte whether attorney for Plaintiff or Defendant) p NAME ADDRESS T'F1.1:VI10NF. Attorney (nr Jeffrey M. Oderman 401 Civic Ctr. Ur. West (714) rinintitfs RUTAN & TUCKER Santa Ana, CA 92702 835-22.00 Gail Hutton P.O. Box 190 (714) Attorney for Verendents City Attorney Huntington Beach, CA 92.648 536-5555— Anoto rr ^' Tim Paone P.O. Box 2950 (714) tte >S a� arty Lte"st VIRTUE & SCIIECK _Newport Beach, CA 92660 644-9030 Attorney for I Attorney for —. — -- -- I Attorney for -- — — Attorney tot ------ — -- --- ----------- i EXHIBIT' "A" � t DECLARATION OE' E'ERYDOUI4 A1IADFOUR 2 I , FERYDOUN AIIADFOUR, hereby state - 3 1 . I am and at all times relevant hereto have been the 1 majority stockholder in Ilurltingtorl harbour Reach Club and Nirina 5 doing business as Huntington harbour Bay & Racquet Club (hereafter 6 "Club" ) , a defendant in this case . Each fact set forth herein is 7 personally known to me and I have first-hand knowledge of each 8 such fact. If called a9'. a witness, f could and would testify to 9 each such fact under oath. 10 2 . On August 23 , 1980, I purchased the Club from Byron 11 Tarnutzer and Dennis French, who between them owned 100 of the 32 stock in Huntington harbour Beach Club and Marina . Before the 13 purchase I was shown the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions 14 ( "CC&Rs) recorded in connection with the Club . Of particular 1 1.5 interest to me was a provision in the CC&Rs which indicated that 16 use of the Club as an athletic, social or recreational facility 17 was mandated only until June 30, 1983 . I also saw Tract Map 4880 18 before I purchased the Club. In particular, the language aFpear- 19 Ing on the first page of the Map showed me that the Club property 29 could be used for both commercial slid non-commercial uses . (A 2J. true and correct copy of Tract Map 4880 is attached hereto and 22 irlr_erporated herein by reference as Exhibit "3" ) . 23 3 . Based on my review of these two documents, I pur- 24 -:hase_d the Club. My review of the Club financial records before 25 I purchased the Club indicated that the 0lub had been unprofitable 26 while operated as an athletic, social and recreational Club. Ill I 27 fact, the financial records of the Club revealed a loss of hull- e 2Q dteds of thousands of dollars annually. I understood that the -EXHIBIT "B" I CC&Rs allowed different uses of Club property after .June 1983 , 2 and I felt that the development of the property for other uses 3 would produce. revenue while at the same time allow continued 4 operation of the Club. I purchased the property relying on the `i CC&Rs and would not have purchased the property if I were not 6 confident it could be developed . The Club was losing substantial 7 sums of money and I was not about to throw my money away by in- 8 vesting in a losing venture . (A true and correct copy of the 9 CC&Rs is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as 1.0 Exhibit "2" ) . 11 4 . After purchasing the Club I began to develop plans 12 for developing portions of Club property. After years of going 13 through the approval process before both city and state govern- 14 meats, we obtained approval from the 11iintington Beach City Council 15 and the California Coastal Commission. . Our plans contemplate 16 constructing 42 condominium units on portions of the parking lot pkP .17 of the Club and on which commercial buildings ( a marina office 18 and shower facility) presently exist and have existed. for over a 19 decade . (True and correct copies. of photographs of the Club 20 property as it currently exists and the proposed development plan 2.1 are attached hereto as Exhibit "1" ) . "2 5 . Ever since I purchased the Club I have been respon- sive to the residents' concerns . For example, when I took over 2:1 the Club, the previous owner had a. plan to expand the boat slips 25 in the marina . Residents who lived in L1ie homes directly across 26 from the marina opposed this plan and filed a lawsuit, Case No . .:7 32.-62-76 in Orange Country Superivi. Court . I decided not to pursue ;'ES this expansion in order to accommodate these residents ' concerns . -2- EXHIBIT "B" 1 I Also worked with the members of the Huntington H,1thOut- rtcperty 2 Owners Association, Inc . ( "EIHPOA" ) , an organization of residents 3 in Huntingtot Harbour to accommodate their concerns . "That 4 organization supports my proposed development on Club property 5 and also supported my previous plan for 54 guest cottages . ( A 6 true and correct copy of a letter from the 1111POA to the mayor and 7 City Council of Huntington Beach is attached as Exhibit "4" ) . t, 8 6 . Ever since I purchased the Club property in 1980, I 9 have been unable to accomplish what I intended with respect to 10 development of the property. I have attempted to build condomin- 11 iums on the property and improve the Club facilities in order to 12 operate the Club at a profit and maintain an asset for the entire 13 Iuntington Parbour community. The plaintiffs, none of whom own 14 homes that are adjacent to the Club, have attempted to stop me 3.5 every step of the way and have demonstrated a personal interest 16 in preventing me from doing what I want with my own property. 111 17 This lawsuit- prevents-me from obtaining a construction loan to (001( 18 begin the developmett. 19 7 . I am losing money daily on the .Club in rote-rest 20 payments alon _ . Interest payments for the loan on the Club total F:�- 3 e =oso --- �'�5 21 approximately $-Z*�IIDO a month. 22. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is \V 23 true And correct. 0 )24 Executed this l2 day of April , 1985 , at Newport \Q * \, 25 Beach, California. b/ ' L 1I� l26 2 28 EEFtYUUU�J AE1/1D[OUR --- -3- EXHIBIT "B" 0325L;116932 "VIRTUE C& SCHECK LAWYERS INCORPORATED ---- —'---- -- --- D BAKER SCOTT E VCCC»t4ELL 'GH J BnEwEn nGGEA L NEU h�dERT E.CALLAHAN JCSEP14 C OBEGI CALDWELL n.CAMPSELL TlA,t PRONE ROBERT O.FEIGHNECI EDGAP E SCttECK MICHAEL J.GENOvESE SEnNARO E.SCHNEIDEn PAUL B GEORGE GERALD M SHAW " ►AICHAELC GEnING PAUL J.SHE"LER THOMAS M GIESER SUE J STOrT VIRGINIA GUTE BRUCE C STUAnT - SUSAN W t4ALCEI!AN JOHN VIRTUE JOHN J KENCRICK PAUL F WALDAU January 18, 1980 I 1 California State Lands Commission Attn: Betty Louie 1807 13th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Ms. Louie: i Pursuant to our telephone conversation of January 17, 1980, enclosed you will find a coley of the map of Tract No. 4880, a portion of Huntington Harbour. As I mentioned to you on the phone, we are interested in ascertaining whether or not the area shaded in red on page 2 of this map is subject to the state tidelands trust. It is my understanding drat you will be able to determine this for us. Please note that the pierhead line which forms one boundary of the shaded area and the boat slips contained in the shaded area have been sketched onto the map by me . Of course, the sketch is not completely accurate with respect to the number or size of the boat slips in the subject area or the exact. location of the current plerhead line. Rather, the sketch is merely an attempt to show the orientation which the existing slips have to the shoreline and the approximhte location of the pierhead line. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you very much for your help and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, VIRTUE & SCHECK, INCORPORATED By: Scott McConne 0 SM/vi Enclosure x 0 EXHIBIT "C" - - - P O. BOX 2950/ 17 CORPORATE PLAZA DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNtA 92660 TELEPHONE (714) 644-9030 . � I I Party In Interest applied for or the City of Huntington Beach I 2 purported to approve a variance from the City' s parking require- 3 ments to permit such deficient parking, nor was any substantial 4 evidence submitted to Defendant City Council which would have 5 justified its approval of CUP 79-20 in the face of the deficient 6 parking situation. 7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pra y y for judgment as hereinafter 8 set forth. 9 10 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 (Violation of State Tidelands 12 Trust, Navigational Servitude) 13 32 . Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate herein by this 14 reference the allegations set forth in. Paragraphs 1-14 of this 15 pleading. 18 33. Real Party In Interest owns and operates a private 17 club. The boat slips presently on the subject property and the 18 additional 26 slips authorized to be constructed under CUP 79-20 19 are to be reserved for the private use of Real Party In Interest' s 20 members and guests. The general public has no right to use such 21 boat slips. 22 34 . Huntington Harbour, including the portion of the 23 subject property where the existing boat slips and those authorized 24 to be constructed under CUP 79-20 are located, is State tidelands , . 25 subject to the provisions of Article X, Section 4 of the California , 26 Constitution, which provides, in pertinent part, that "No individual , 27 partnership, or. corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage 28 or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable -17- EXHIBIT "E" dITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH N° 013467r*- 2000 MAIN ST. DEPARTMENT OF 1 1 IUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 COMMUIIITY DEVELortAnIT ,. P.O.DOX 190•CALtrOR111A 026.10 1714)536.5241 1t II I I, 11 1 `i !; I' 1: it !•I 1 T llvl-t:ltL 11Limber : ! 01 (r4_i7 PC i7 �I74 It r.) 1117r 111.dg . Addrt';-: ! 'IIZ' .1 1-)ARNE1 A Tract : 14A Lot : NA 131ock: PIA NEU 13UIL1)1.14(; 131131dinp Use : CtAI'Ui'S (Mnc`r : Contractor : ( f! :r..f'-' Iit1)V1.11k c t)Ut.'rr'tip 1; (iwsTRI)c,r l ou '!i 1 ' ) 1•`-' ?',': : I JO L SEAL L;E/1C t! 13 LV .300 .:t,It1:1 ISL•'AL 3EAC11 CA ()0740 li fl 1. Architr.ct or Engineer )AL';'I A1) IS VG I.NFEP ING I '1 < <'::: (; ULUEMWI;Sr �� tI. ►', . isA f.)26h7 It U :i L: . ,:r:+ . 1.: 21143 (,it 111 1)N IT t'tl !11 J.L. 11it-1. 10 i I,:,, 11 q . rL . I. i v i r.;.: i•in. cl : i _.. VnLuntlon : si! .11 72 t: 11':fl'f 110 r lilt] I I I!:) Bldg . Cod '! : \�11 r ' Occ . Gro:111 : Gnn_: Lr. Typt! : tier_ . LoadZ vs if v (:ctiNfl!; ,rile : 1 1; tIt '.; U!ic : 1: ',:;1)!)S 1':3rl:. SpaCeV, I' Inul: int', it .LII". Consta.1 -Permit? YES A.r1)1. . 1_'nL �. . ":, 1'I , .'':11 L,:iridtar:t ::I' 1ri /lip /')t,l Au Itorized : Rl)!: 114 /l)5 /4U I' 1 ?1nt: lli•c1: . . .. .. _.. _ .....:-.__...___-.l''� NL_.', ._... _._ ... _.. _ ..._._.,.._---•----.__._._.___._..__._._.-•---__.__.__ i. tl E`r( . :r.a'. �I l+lit• , / !I I Ile ( III:L L/it r`C(! a li r 16 ) / i: ii ,.,i r l:l;:; 1)17.S it:i, I 1 1. I (!: h't ! 1;: l rt:, , tiU. 1: 1)lir;(I l P7 1 ON AN 01iTr AC(: VIIi.T i'1'.! 1 I . ' I . .ri) t(i1,'il: I).� fl :r!1'! t (>. (.., t:: > 1.t) . tU . Uu It 1 . '3 0h ) !:.. .� .. . .. i.1. '.► i:r'',:it:t.l:. 'r't7'.%.i; it i'ii.FlnLrY t). UU 'r:;1AC1),,"s1, 1Q0(1 �I . ')t! ...:'(; !1:'. :i'1r I �.' ?KRY... ,; PF.(: . U Lt; YC1)21/13550LI •j (11 it 1. F li I; 1 :1 ri 7 . U te:f:itI:•r! t ,;.`Ir ir! !'f^ rlai1./!7. 1•cv11)t 0 ii- 1) IL011 _i7 �-. _ / G4' 0 nTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION mclrnn nerd not be completed If ilia permit Is for one hundred dollars(f100)or lose.) I hereby alllrm that 1 am exempt from the Conlinclor'e License Law for the following reason. that in The performanco of cite work for which this permit Is Issued,I shall nor employ any person In ((Set. 7031.51 Business and Professions Code: Any city or county which requires a permit nner so as to become subject to Worker's Compensation Laws. to construct, after, improve, demolish, or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also ear Applicant requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed E C ArrUCANt:p,finer making this Certificate of Exemption,you should become subject to the pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (Chapter 9) (commencing with s C.ornprnsailon provisions of the Labor Code.you must forthwith comply with Such provisions or Section 7000) of Division 3 0l the Business and Professions Code. or that he is exempt and shell bo deemed revoked. LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION therefrom and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any f affirm Thal 1 nm licensed under provisions of Chapter 9(commencing with Section 7000)of Division applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a Civil penalty of not more than five i Business and Professiops Code,and pry license Is In lull force and eaed. hundred dollars 0500).J: Number .t r.r•r) Lie.Class i ❑ 1, as owner of the properly, or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, .lot ' Date will do the work, and The structure Is not Intended of offered lot sale. (Sec. 70441 m evt7.r�6I.liohI lino,rcensmg requiiemenls as I am a licensed architect or a registered professional Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner 7mre(jeling in my professional capacity ISeclion 7051.flusinass and Professions Code). of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through Ilr•g No Date his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. It. however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the THIS BOX FOR REGISTER VALIDATION ONLY ownerbuilder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale. ❑ 1, as owner of the property, am exclusively conirncling with licensed contraclo's-,to construct Ilia project. (Sec. 7044) Business and Professions Code: The Contractors License_ o Law does nor apply to an- wner--ol properly who builds or improves thereon, and who contracts for such projects with a confractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law. ❑ 1 am exempt under See. B. d P.C. for this fee Son Dale Owner CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY 1 hereby allitm that there Is a construction lending agency lot the performance of the work for which this permit Is.Issued jSec. 3097. Clv. C.►. Lender's Name \ Lender's Address WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECLARATION i I certify that I have read this application and slate that the above information is correct. ]rum lh.11na—.1"nificale of consent to sea msute.or a certificate of Workers Compensation Insurance. I agree to comply with all city ordinances and Stale laws relating to building consirucl•0n. feed copy thereof ISoc.3000.iao.-;i. _ and hereby authorize rep, son lives of this city to enter upon the above-mentioned properly Company for Inspection purposes!r 1 I c{ ih,.d eopy,s hereby lurmshed_ ��t/ C•;- �`/ U rfird copy is filed w,lh Ilia cdy bu,rdmg msp,,ctron depa,hnem r;.Slpnaluil! of Applicant or Agent Dale Applicant ^---� EXHIBIST 'IF" 06 6'1' )1 __ Publish Date: 12/28/89 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-36/ CONDITIONAL. EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-53 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-20 AND THE ADEQUACY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3 (36 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT) NOTICE IF 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, January 8, 1990, 7 : 00 PM SUBJECT:_ Appeal to the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 89-36/Conditonal Exception (Variance) No . 89-53/Coastal Development Permit No . 89-20 and the adequacy of Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 due to the amount of time and potential cumulative impacts which have occurred within the City since the original Environmental Impact Report circulated in 1982 . APPLICANT: Coultrup Development Co . APPELLANTS: Councilmen Jim Silva and Wes Bannister LOCATION: 4123 Warner Avenue (Huntington Harbor Bay Club located north of Warner 'Avenue approximately 100 feet west of Edgewater Lane) . ZONE : Huntington Harbor Bay Club Specific Plan REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36/Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 89-53/Coastal Development Permit No . 89-20 is a request to construct a 36 unit residential condominium project in lieu of an approved 42 unit residential condominium project with a variance to exceed the maximum three stories and build four stories . The appeal is based on the adequacy of Environmental Impact Report No . 82-3 . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Environmental Impact Report No . 82-3 which was certified by the City Council on February 7, 1983 . COASTAL STATUS: This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone. 1 ` NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an aggrieved party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggroved. Said appeal must be submitted to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days of the date of the City Council ' s action. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit . An aggrieved person may file an appeal to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days, pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to: California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of .the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date . ON FILE: A copy of the proposed development plan is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall . 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 questions or further details necessary please contact Robert R. Franklin, Associate Planner at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk (4388d) I CHICAGO TITLE 825 NORTH BROADWAY, SANTA ANA CA 92701 (714) 547-7251 December 4, 1989 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. , Civic Center Huntington Beach, CA 92647 RE: Variance Report Enclsoed is a compiled index list of record owners within a 100 foot radius of A.P. No. 's 178-291-27 thru 30, together and the required assessor's Parcel Maps delineating said 100 foot radius. Said list was prepared from the data quick infomation systems which have an effective date of November 15, 1989. If you have any questions, please feel free tos-contact the undersigned. Sinc Stephen L. Nickey Engineering Department SLN:gaj Enclos. r a Office of the City Cierk a Cry of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 17828415 Allen J Shaf r•an 17214 Courtney Ln Huntingtn Bcti,Ca 92649 17829209 Joseph L Schwartz 17188 Edgewater, Ln Huntingtn Bch,Ca 92649 17828414 Anita Scr•ofani 17206 Courtney Ln Huntington Beach,Ca 92649 17829123 Huntington Harbour- Cor••p 4241 Warner Ave Huntingtn Bch,Ca 92649 - i 17828418 John W Cronn 172::2 Courtney Ln I Huntington Beact,,Ca 92649 j Office of the City Clerk :.ity of Huntington Beach ' P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Ilk-3c•I-c.S - 17829126 2/-3a-33_31 35- 3(;p Fer•ydoun ° Doris Ahadpour 4121 Warner Ave Huntington Beach,Ca 92649 17829122 William M Lansdale 17141 Edgewater Ln - Huntingtri bch,Ca 92649 17828416 Joseph C Sck,eitzach 17220 Cour•t•neY Ln Huntingtn Bch,-C- 92649 17828417 William R it Caro Wood 17226 Courtney Ln Huntington Beach,Ca 92647 1 1 0 O )S 11001521 Signal Ilolsa Corp 17890 Sky Park. Blvd Ir•vine,Ca 92714 1 . Don Watson 17091 Edgewater Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Sheldon Grossman Michael Cavallo 17131 Edgewater Lane 17220 Courtney Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 i Bill Sharp Mrs . Gladys Schwartz 16477 Tropez Lane 17188 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Joe Schwartz Ralph H . Bauer 17188 Edgewater Lane 16511 Cotuit Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Anne C. Woorard Marte Rlarin 1.7124 Edgewater Lane 17164 Edgewater Lane ::uritington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 i Barbara Devlin 17156 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Donna K. G. Klein • 17186 Courtney Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 • (714) 840-1092 July 15, 1991 City of Huntington Beach G 2000 Main Street Y r Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Mayor Peter Green Dear Mayor Green: -n Thank you for your quick response to the State Lands issue on the Bay Club/Commission hearing this morning, and for supplying us with a copy of that letter. I did want to remark on a couple of items on this subject: 1. The letter the city holds on file claiming compliance with the State Land's issue for the Bay Club Project is actually dated January 31, 1985. Although that seems an innocuous fact to remark on,the interesting fact is that the letter is date-stamped in to the City in February. 1984. 2. However,the city also holds letters dated May 31, 1990 and July 17, 1990, (CC to Mike Adams) addressed To Whom it May Concern from the State Lands Commission,disclaiming the above referenced authorization. 3. Additionally it should be remembered that the new Conditional Use Permit(89-36), which changed the original development from 42 to 36 Units in January, 1990, required a new letter of authorization. 4. Also of note, if the letter you were told of this morning truly complies with the requirements,why did Chicago Title offer the clients $150,000 to drop this one issue from the lawsuit, and now$60,000 to the State Lands to clear title? I am pleased to let you know that after hearing the request and our attorney's remarks, the Commission did delay any approvals by postponement for a month. Thank you again for your sincere efforts. (111kcerely, Donna K. G. Klein CC: City Council Members Michael T.Uberuaga, City Administrator Mike Adams,Director of Community Development ;�.IL STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor STATE LANDS COMMISSION 1807 13TH STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 July 17, 1990 File Ref. : SD 90-05-08 SD 85-01-16 To whom it may concern: Huntington Bay Club - SD 90-05-08 Huntington Bay and Racquet Club - SD 85-01-16 SD 80-1-22 The attached letter dated May 31, 1990 supercedes other correspondence from this office regarding the site at Lot 174 of tract 4880 and a portion of Lot 3, tract 5775, City of Huntington Beach. ORIGINAL SIGNED;BY LESLIE H. GRIMES Deputy Chief, Land Management and Conservation `STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN Governor STATE ,LANDS COMMISSION 1807 13TH STREET { SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 May 31, 1990 File Ref. : SD 90-05-08 Mr. Mike Cavallo. Cavallo, Cambridge & Landon 18350 Mt. Langley, Suite 202 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the materials you furnished regarding Huntington Harbor Bay Club, along with material in our files and our title plant. Based on this review, we feel the development is within validly patented Tide Land Location 221 and as such, is subject to the public trust easement in favor of commerce, navigation and fishing. Previously, there has been two major transactions in the Huntington Harbor area. These being: 1. Boundary Line Agreement 18 - An agreement as to the low water lines of the tidal streams within the Tide Land Location. 2 . Sovereign Land Location 34 - An agreement by which the State relinquished title to the low water streams and gained title to the significant waterways in the present development. Neither of these transactions released the Huntington Harbor Bay Club property from tideland status and therefore did not extinguish the tideland easement. If you have questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, X�_ LESLIE H. GRIMES, Deputy Chief Division Of Land Management and Conservation cc: J. F. Trout L SD 90-05-08 SD 85-01-16 July 16, 1990 Page 2 cc/with attachment: Virtue and Scheck Inc. P.O. Box 2950 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Scott McConnell Mr. Richard A. Harlow 333 West Yorktown Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mike Adams, Director Community Development City of Huntington Beach 7000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mr. F. Ahadpour Huntington Harbour Bay Club 4121 Warner Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Mr. Mike Cavallo Courtney Lane and Edgewater Lane Homeowner's Association 18350 Mt. Langley, Suite 202 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 from the desk of: CONNIE BROCKWAY, CMC CITY CLERK (714) 536-5404 1/23/90_ I i I Scott -, T, need an answex to „ht I away. the letter i sent out (SPe I yellow highlight) that the ' appeal periocl begins when Cami,ssion receives notice. l Our code says it begins 10 days from Council Action. Will you.see if the answer is in PRC 5.30603. This is very important. Connie 6 `� P.O. BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA '926..48. Si - _ - � _�r=� .t- � ..--� -TJ"S�Y Z fit•-iS�.i�� L�u S _SrZ P X' Yy+Y CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH N 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK NOTICE OF ACTION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 89-.20 APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT Applicant: _ Coul truce Deve 1 o_pment Qp panY;______ Request: Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36/Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53/Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 is a request to i construct a 36 unit residential condominium project in lieu of a previously approved 42 unit residential condominium project: with a variance to exceed the maximum three stories and build four stories. The appeal is based on the adequacy of Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3. Location : 4123 Warner Avenue (Huntington Harbour Bay Club located north of Warner Avenue approximately 100 feet west of Edgewater Lane) . Date of Approval : January 8, 1990 Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach City Council on r�� Ja11tLr $,_193Q ___ and your request was : X Approved Appeal by Councilmen Silva and Bannister DENIED, Plannin Commission de ision UPHELD. Conditionally approved see attache) Denied Withdrawn . Under the provisions of the Huntington- . Beach Ordinance Code , the action taken by the City Council is final . Approval of this development is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to PRC S . 30603 . A denial may be appealed ( S . 13319 , Title 14 , California Administrative Code ) only if the City has approved a development on the basis of local land use regulations but has denied the issuance of a coastal development permit because it cannot make the findings required by Section 13311 , Title 14 of the California Administrative Code . (Telephone: 774-536.6227) Notice of Action Coastal Development . Permit No - £39-20 Page Two Pursuant to PRC 5 . 30603 ,. an. appeal by an aggrieved person must be filed.:. i.n writing , and addressed to: California Coastal Commission 245 W . Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach , California 90801-1450 ( 213 ) 590-5071 The appeal period begins where the Commission receives this ►1otice of action and continues for -ten ( 10 ) working days . Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission ' s review period , and as to whether or not an appeal has been filed . Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date . Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that an application becomes null and void one ( 1 ) year after the final approval , unless actual construction leas begun . City C.1erk s 989 . 5 . 5 989.5.5 - Appeals. Development pursuant to an approved CDP shall hot commence until all applicable appeal periods expire or, if appealed, until all appeals, including the Coastal Commission, have been exhausted. The action regarding any CDP application may be appealed in compliance with the provisions of . the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and with the following additional provisions: (A) Actions Appealable birgctly to the Coastal Commission. An action regarding a CDP application for any appealable development may be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission without exhausting the appeal procedures specified by this section provided such appeal is filed in accordance with. the adopted regulations of the Coastal Commission. (B) Actions Appealable in .Accordance. with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ( 1) Filing Procedure. An appeal shall be filed within ten (.10) working days of the approving . authority' s action ` by any aggrieved person with the Department of Development Services on a form provided by the H. B. Director, and shall be accompanied by' a fee set by resolution of the City Council and a statement of the grounds. for appeal . Said appeal fee shall be waived in lieu of the reimbursement of that fee through the- instrument of Section 2231 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (SB 90) _claim or similar reimbursement .process established by the Coastal Commission. (2) Notice of Public Hearing . (a) Contents of Notice. Notice shall 'contain the. same information as the original notice: except that it shall also give the appellant' s name and state that the hearing is an appeal . (b) Provision of Notice. Notice shall be mailed, by first class mail, at least ten •(10) calendar days before the public hearing on an appealed CDP application to the following: (i) the appellant; ( ii) the applicant (if different from the appellant) ; 11/87 ,.y 989 . 5 . 5--989 . 5 , 7 (iii) the owner of the subject property or duly authorized agent (if different from the appellant and/or applicant) ; (iv) the Coastal Commission; (v) any commission or board as provided in the C-LCP; (vi) all persons who have submitted a written request for notification of action on this specific CDP application and who have submitted self-addressed, stamped envelopes or paid a reasonable fee to receive such notice. (3) Notice of City Appeal Action. On or before the seventh (7th) calendar day following the date of action on an appeal, , the H. B. Director,' or the' Clerk of the City Council (as appropriate) shall forward, by first class mail, a copy of the written decision to the persons who were notified of the appeal. (See subsection (B) (2) above. ) (C) Actions Appealable to the Coastal Commission After Exhaustion of City Appeals. An action by the City Council regarding a CDP application for any. appealable development may be appealed to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of the Council ' s action by the applicant, an aggrieved person, or any two (2) members of the Coastal Commission, provided such appeal is filed in accordance with the adopted regulations .of _the Coastal* . Commission. 989 .5.6 Application .After Denial. Whenever a, CDP request under the provisions of this section has been denied and such denial has become final, no new CDP application for the same or similar request may be accepted within one (1) year of the denial date, unless the H. B. Director finds that a sufficient change in circumstances has occurred to warrant a new CDP application. 989 ..5. 7._ .Expir.pt_ion__gf._ CDP. A CDP shall expire on the latest expiration date applicable to any other permit or approval required for the project, including any extension granted for other permits or approvals . Should the project require no city .permits or approvals other than a CDP, the CDP shall expire one (1) year from its date of approval if substantial work on the 11/87 FO. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK January 12, 1990 California Coastal Commission 245 West Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 Dear Sir: Pursuant to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code I am transmitting the Notice of Action relative to the Appeal to the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36/Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53/Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 and the adequacy of Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 due .to the amount of time and potential cumulative impacts which have occurred within the City since the original Environmental Impact Report circulated in 1982. Also attached is the legal public hearing notice for the hearing. The Coastal Commission was inadvertently omitted from the mailing list which was provided to this office. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway City Clerk CB/cs cc: Mike Adams, Community Development Director Gail Hutton, City Attorney Coultrup Development Company✓ Councilmen Silva and Bannister City Council members (Telephone:714-536-5227) �, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ` ' 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK NOTICE OF ACTION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 89-20 APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT Applicant: _ Coultrup Development Companv�_____ Request:- Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36/Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53/Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 is a request to i construct a 36 unit residential condominium project in lieu of a previously approved 42 unit residential condominium project with a variance• to exceed the maximum three stories and build four i stories. The appeal is based on the adequacy of Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3. Location: 4123 Warner Avenue (Huntington Harbour Bay Club located north of _ Warner Avenue approximately 100 feet west of Edgewater Lane) . Date of Approval : January 8, 1990 A_ Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach City Council on Monte January 8, 1990 — and your request was: X Approved Appeal by Councilmen Silva and Bannister DENIED, Plannin Commission de ision UPHELD. Conditionally approved see attache) Denied Withdrawn Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code , the action taken by the City Council is final . Approval of this development is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to PRC S.30603 . A denial may be appealed (S . 13319; Title 14 , California Administrative Code ) only if the City has approved a development on the basis of local land use regulations but has denied the issuance of a coastal development permit because it cannot make the findings required by Section 13311, Title 14 of the California Administrative Code . (Telephone:714-536-5227) Notice of Action Coastal Development Permit No . g9-20 Page Two Pursuant to PRC 5 . 30603 , an appeal by an aggrieved person must be filed in writing, and addressed to: California Coastal Commission 245 W'. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach , California 90801-1450 ( 213) 590-5071 The appeal period beq_ ins when the Commission receives this notice of action and continues for ten ( 10) working days . Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission ' s review period, and as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that an appli.catiori becomes null and void one ( 1 ) year after the final approval , unless actual construction has begun . City Clerk y Publish Date : 12/28/89 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-36/ CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-53 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO . 89-20 AND THE ADEQUACY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3 (36 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT) NOTICE IF 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, January 8 , 1990 , 7 : 00 PM SUBJECT_ Appeal to the Planning Commission ' s approval of Conditional Use Permit .No . 89-36/Conditonal Exception (Variance) No . 89-53/Coastal Development Permit No . 89-20 and the adequacy of Environmental Impact Report No . 82-3 due to the amount of time and potential cumulative impacts which have occurred within the City since the original Environmental Impact Report circulated in 1982 . APPLICANT: Coultrup Development Co . APPELLANTS : Councilmen Jim Silva and Wes Bannister LOCATION: 4123 Warner Avenue (Huntington Harbor Bay Club located north of Warner Avenue approximately 100 feet west of Edgewater Lane) . ZONE: Huntington Harbor Bay Club Specific Plan REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit No . 89-36/Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 89-53/Coastal Development Permit No . 89-20 is a request to construct a 36 unit residential condominium project in lieu of an approved 42 unit residential condominium project with a variance to exceed the maximum three stories and build four stories . The appeal is based on the adequacy of Environmental Impact Report No . 82-3 . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by -Environmental Impact Report No . 82-3 which was certified by the City Council on February 7, 1983 . COASTAL STATUS: This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an aggrieved party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggroved . Said appeal must be submitted to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days of the date of the City Council ' s action. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit . An aggrieved person may file an appeal to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days , pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to : California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed . Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date . ON FILE : A copy of the proposed development plan is on file in the Community Development Department , 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California 92648 , for inspection by the public . A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall . 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 questions or further details necessary please contact Robert R. Franklin, Associate Planner at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk (4388d) Ott'MHN_,6: OLHIVI-MI-IrLU I GL INU :LIJyp]1y1-y' r c u 1 14 1 11 •44.AIIU .UUY. f U1 982(j)(M (1 of 2) _ A%M w""WT ARTOr1M1y ftMW&M A.WOM t MAMIGIN1111 ,reels MW a=tu=;* JONATHAN LERRER—GRAINER ( 213 ) 936-•8111 F D v 4727 Wilshire Blvd. , Ste.: .500 /y�JyD T Ci f llOnk 71, Los ' Angeles, CA 90010 -1� h ji ase Mend 04 \6 o,p,o,n Petitioners MAWOFWiff RANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Cev�c ��N�f.e�+ ON orw Aoomms, 700 Civic Center Dr. Ifelst a yA/ MALo*AOws&. P.O. Box 92701 3 arvAma.eoer Santa Ana, CA 92701 MANGM NAMI; , KAINTIFRPIrTITIONER: BARBARA DEVLIN, JOSEPII SCHEITZAC)I y �`�Y nae�S icQ and JOHN KERKES, 08FINDANTIRI(SPON0e141! CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, j Real Party in Interests COULTRUP DEV' t CO. CAN Nlre�elrh CIVIL SUBPENA Ducss Teoum 621485 THE PEOPLE OF THE 6TATE OF ItAUMANIA.-IMARmte): CONNIE BROCKWAY► CITY CLERK OF TIIE- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' k"1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AS A WTTNL+SS in this action as follows unless you melee a special agreement with the I V person named to kern 9: ! A. Date: Fe b ru a t y 19 , 1991 Tlnw 8: 30 A.M. DeptAlw 10 Aoom; b Address: 700 Civic Center :.Dri.ve Kest, Santa ' Ana , Calif . 92701 !v 1. AND YOU AAR i� e. JE ordered to appearIn person.b not required to sppsar In person if you produce a true, legible. and durable e m of the records described in the ace:om- 0anyirtp affidavit as fbllowe:Ili place the oefpy of the records in an envelope(or other wrapper)and seat It (2)attach a copy of this auboane to Me anvelope or write on the envelope me dose name end number,name of the witness and data and time from Item 1 above: (S)place this first envelope in an outer envelope or wrapper.seal it and mail it to the clerk of%So court et the address in Rem 1. c (qV1 ordered to appear in person and to produce the records described in the sccompanvirq affidavit. The personal attendance of the custodian of rsooros at other 4uallflod witness and the production of the orig"rreords it required bV this subpona. The proosduro autfwAnd pursuant to subdivision(6)of secil6n 1680,and sections 1681 and 1662. of the Evidence Cade will not be deemed sUffWient dofnpilshoe with this subpena. 3. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AQOt1T WITNESS FEES OR THE TIME ON DATE FOR YOU TO APPEAR. OR IF YOU WANT TO SE CERTAIN THAT YOUR PRESENCE 19 fiEQUIREA CONTACT'THE ATTORNEY REQUESTING THIS SUBPENA,NAMED ABOVE; OR THE FOLLOMNG PERSO(4:BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH YOU ARE TO APPEAR: 41 e. Name: Jonathan Lehrerdraiwer Ix Taflaphonenurrtba"• (213) 936-8111 4. Witness Pass:lbu are entitled to witness fees and rnilape smelly traveled both ways.as provided by low if you request then+at the time of service Ybu may fbquest them before voui scheduled smearento from the person named in hem 3. S. lbu err ordered to appear in this civil matter In your capacity ae a peace officer or other person described in Goverrtrnent Code section lj8097.1. Date: Deputy... }� DISOB801ENCE OR THIS SUBPENA MAY 6E PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT.YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILUAE TO OBEY. W . Date kaMod: February 14 r 1991 . . . .Jonathan. >,ebraxTGraiw,e>=. . . . . . . . . . . tr#M OR•here NAMII Iel01WN111 o1 MltlON 1111440" 1 1 (See reverse for df aervicel A w�A w of ccameeme CIVIL SUBPENA cO"of C '"^O0"'"` t e +ese +ass ,see . I t GU' I 4'1- qAw flu-6vv v•_ 1 JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER State Bar #047922 4727 Wilshire Blvd. , Ste. 500 2 Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: (213) 936-6111 3 Attorney for Petitioners 4 B SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 6 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 7 8 BARBARA DEVLIN, JOSEPH ) CASE NO. 621485 9 SCHEITZACH AND JOHN KERKES, ) 10 ) DECLARATION OF JONATHAN Petitioners, ) LEHRER-GRAIWER IN SUPPORT 11 ) OF ISSUANCE OF SUBPENA vs. ) DUCES TECUM 12 ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a ) 13 municipal corporation, and ) DOES 1-100 inclusive, ) 14 ) Respondent, ) 16 and j DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1991 18 ) TIME: 8:30 A.M. COULTRUP' DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ) DEPT: 10 17 a California corporation, ) DOES 11-20, inclusive, ) 18 ) Real .Party in interest. ) 19 _... . ._..__ ) 20 21 I, JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER, declare as follows: 22 1 . 1 am the attorney for petitioners in this action and an 23 attorney duly admitted to practice law in California. 24 2; This cause was duly set for .trial on February 11, 1991 25 in Department 10 and continued to February 19, 1991 at 830 A.M. 26 in Department 10 of the above-entitled court. 27 3: The Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach has in his/her 28 possession or under his/her control the following documents and writings: titKl`IHIV"�S bLHNLHHKU ' '" : ---ILL NO'..L1;Jyt] 1y:1J " F e 0 14 ,y1 'I_i41=NO :VW r U4 1 a. The complete staff report and other writings 2 presented to the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington 3 Beach in connection with the Planning Commission's consideration 4 on November 7, 1989 of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36, 6 Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53, and Coastal Development 6 Permit No. 89-20. 7 b. The complete staff report and other writings 8 presented to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach in 9 connection with the City Council 'a consideration on January 8, 1990 10 of the appeal to the Planning Commission's approval of the adequacy 11 of the Environmental Impact Report No. 89-36, Conditional Use 12 Permit No. 89-36, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53, and 13 Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20. 14 4. The described writings and documents are material to the 18 issues and good cause exists for their production in that the 16 accuracy of the Administrative Record is an issue in this case. 17 These writings concern a material issue in this matter and are 18 relevant and necessary to determine an accurate Administrative 19 Record. Good cause also exists for their production in that they 20 are unavailable elsewhere. 21 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true 22 and correct and that if called as a witness I could testify 23 competently to the truth of the matters set forth above. 24 Executed on February 14, 1991 at Los Angeles, California. 25 28 27 Jonathan Lehre.r-GrV46r 28 2 - REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION July 16, 1990 Date GIL Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted to: Gail Hutton, City AttorneyPdie1ni(strator*'qz # 1G 19Y-0Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City �C�_ Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of �17munity Development ° Y cLYxx _ Subject: RESOLUTION NO. 6 1 9 J , GENERAL PLAN (HOUSING ELEMENT) CONFORMANCE OF THE BAY CLUB 36 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-36/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 89-53/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-20 Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception w ; 1-1 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachme B: m r r C1 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: o Transmitted for your consideration is a Resolution certifying that the 36-unit residential project by Coultrup Development is in compliance with the City' s recently Adopted Housing Element (1989) of the General Plan. " RECOMMENDATION• Motion to "Approve Resolution No. stating compliance of the Bay Club 36 unit residential project (Conditional Use Permit No . 89-36, Conditional Exception No. 89-53 , Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20) with the General Plan. ANALYSIS• The City of Huntington Beach is currently. being sued by the homeowners adjacent to the Bay Club project (Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36, Conditional Exception No. 89-53, Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20) stating that the City approved the amended 36-unit project without a current Housing Element of the General plan. This lawsuit is based upon the technicality that although the City had followed the proper review process with the State Office of Housing and Community Development, which required submittal of the document by July 1, 1989 , the City did not formally adopt the document until July, 1990 . The time differential is due to the State review process and ultimately the City approval process . The Bay Club residential project, as originally proposed and ultimately amended, was found consistent with the former and current Housing Element of the General Plan. i r-10 7//0/9D - -- � SUP F t-TK U P -- J P10 5/85 _ -- I JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER, State Bar #047922 4727 Wilshire Blvd. , Ste. 500 2 Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: (213 ) 936-8111 3 Attorney for Petitioners 4 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 6 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 7 8 BARBARA DEVLIN, JOSEPH CASE NO. 9 SCHEITZACH AND JOHN KERKES, ) s ) 10 ) AMENDED REQUEST FOR Petitioners, ) PREPARATION OF 11 ) ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD VS. ) 12 ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a ) 13 municipal corporation, and ) DOES 1-10, inclusive, ) 14 ) Respondent, ) 15 ) and ) 16 ) COULTRUP DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ) 17 a California corporation, ) DOES 11-20, inclusive, ) 18 Real Party in Interest. ) 19 ) 20 TO: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, RESPONDENT: 21 You are hereby requested by Petitioner to prepare and deliver 22 to the Court the record of the proceedings in this action 23 pertaining to and including the following approvals of the City: 24 1, Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36, approved by the City 25 Council of the City of Huntington Beach on or about January 8, 26 1990. 27 28 - 1 - 1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL 2 3 I, Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, declare: 4 I am a resident of the County of Los Angeles and am over the 5 age of eighteen and not a party to the within entitled action; my 6 -business address is 4727 Wilshire Blvd. , Suite 500, Los Angeles, 7 California 90010. 8 On May 15, 1990 I served the attached Amended Request for 9 Preparation of Administrative Record on Respondent and on Real 10 Party in Interest in said action, by placing a true copy thereof 11 enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, 12 in the United States mail, addressed as follows: 13 14 Art Folger, Esq. Deputy City Attorney 15 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 16 David L. Colgan 17 McKittrick, Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh P.O.Box 2710 18 Newport Beach, CA 92660 19 Arthur R. Knowlson, Jr. Schroeder, Knowlson, Mobley & Burnett 20 5 Park Plaza, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92714-8500 21 22 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true 23 and correct. 24 ` Executed this 15th day of May, 1990 at Los Angeles, 25 California. 26 27 JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIW !Y 28 tj a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Lo" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH CONNIE BROCKWAY ARTHUR J. FOLGER To CITY CLERK From DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY Subject PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Date JULY 2, 1990 CASE NO. 62 14 85 The petitioner in the above referenced case has requested that the record be prepared on Conditional Use Permit 89-36, Coastal Development Permit 89-20, and Conditional Exception 89-53. They are requesting both the City Council and the Planning Commission records. Can you please estimate the cost of their preparation before actually preparing the record so that I my give them the estimated costs and they can send us the cost prior to your preparing the record. ARTHUR J. FOLGER Deputy City Attorney AJF:ksa cc: Mike Adams, Director of Community Development GG� � ga, 0� �� — ��� o� /� ��� �� ��- 1 ��, �� i i i i r V REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date July 2, 1990 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Developm Subject: SEISMIC ISSUES RELATING TO THE BAY CLUB 36 UNIT . . RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Consistent with Council Policy? [v'J Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception �' '•�� Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments:'— = STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is a report regarding seismic issues relating to the Bay Club 36 unit residential condominium project located at 4123 Warner Avenue. The project is located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Area which requires a comprehensive site analysis to determine the existence of any recent faulting (within past 10, 000 years) and then to suggest potential mitigation measures . This report will discuss the recent error found in the original plotting of a seismic setback area and discuss Council alternatives . RECOMMENDATION' S f reco ends that a plans a ro ed by the C' ouncil be revi that al tural eme the roject a located outsid the re otted se c setback Upon comp tion of plan evisio rther bui ing p ' ts e i -sued and co truction t proj t may prose ANALYSIS: On January 8, 1990 the City Council denied an appeal and sustained the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 a request by the Coultrup Development Co. to construct a 36 unit residential condominium project located at 4123 Warner Avenue, a revision to a previously approved 42 unit project . The City Council action was appealed to the California Coastal Commission and on March 15, 1990, the Coastal Commission determined that there was no basis for an appeal in relation to the provisions and policies contained in the Coastal Act. With this action the the Coultrup Development Company prepared and submitted foundation and grading plans to the City. Plo 5/85 On April 5, 1990, the Department of Community Development in conjunction with the Department of Public Works issued a foundation only permit which permitted the placement of foundation pilings in accord with the approved entitlements. On May 10, 1990, the Department of Public Works in conjunction with the Department of Community Development issued a grading permit. As of this date, the foundation and grading permits are the only approved and issued permits for the 36 unit residential project project. On May 15, 1990, the City Attorney' s office received a letter from the law firm of Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, dated May 11, 1990, on behalf of homeowners living in the vicinity of the project site claiming that the 36-unit Condominium Bay Club project is being constructed in violation of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Act. Planning staff met with the City Attorney and the Public Works staff in order to ascertain the validity of the claim. On May 17, 1990, the engineering firm which determined the coordinates and the seismic setback area for the Bay Club project was informed of the situation. Their further review concluded that the seismic setback area established between the two proposed condominium buildings was plotted incorrectly. The correct plotting is indicated in the attached memo from the Keith Companies dated June 21, 1990, stating that the setback area shifts towards the building closest to Edgewater Avenue. The result of the shift is that the building closest to Edgewater Avenue, encroaches approximately 5 feet into the new setback area . This new information has been reviewed by staff and the City' s Geological Consultant. The City Engineer and the City' s Geological Consultant have determined that even though the building closest to Edgewater Avenue encroaches into the seismic setback area, structural modifications and the deletion of any foundation within the encroachment area would permit construction to continue. Staff has recognized that the seismic setback area was plotted in error and has concluded that a design solution can be proposed. Once the developer has complied with the City' s requirements for redesign building permits may be issued and construction may proceed. Alternative Action; The following is a list of options which the City Council may consider. However, any alternative action by Council will force a "stop work" order on the project and may expose the City to litigation by the developer. The project is considered vested due to issuance of building permits and completion of work in compliance with entitlements approved by the City Planning Commission, the City Council and the Coastal Commission. Options A. The City Council may direct staff to have the entire Alquist-Priolo Special Studies report with the additional plotting and structural modifications reviewed by another geologic consultant for a third opinion, prior to issuance of any further permits . RCA - 7/2/90 -2- (6238d) B. The Council may direct staff to obtain a new, comprehensive geologic study which addresses all associated concerns, prior to issuance of any further permits. C. The Council may direct staff to forward all documentation to the State Office of Mines and Geology for review and recommendation, prior to issuance of any further permits. FUNDING SOURCE: Not Applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1. New Plotting by Keith Companies (6/21/90) 2 . Area Map 3 . Memo to Mike Uberuaga dated June 22, 1990, w/attachments 4 . Letter from Courtney and Edgewater Lanes Homeowners Association, dated June 18, 1990 5 . Letter from The Keith Companies, dated June 14, 1990 6 . Letter from Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. , dated June 13, 1990 7. Letter from Strata-Tech Geotechnical Consultants, dated June 6, 1990 8 . Letter from Action Geotechnical Consultants, dated June 4, 1990 9 . Letter from The Keith Companies, dated June 1, 1990 10. Letter from Williamson and Schmid, dated May 24, 1990 11. Letter from The Keith Companies, dated May 22, 1990 12 . Letter from The Keith Companies, dated May 18, 1990 13 . Letter from Courtney and Edgewater Lanes Homeowners Association, dated May 25, 1990 14 . Letter from Courtney and Edgewater Lanes Homeowners Association, dated May 15, 1990 MTU:MA:RLF:kjl (6238d) RCA - 7/2/90 -3- (6238d) I D:TKC COSTA MESA_i B TEL N0:714-668-7188 ki075,P03 - RMG ' ,. JOB NO THE DATE BY OALCUTATII COMPANIES rq ' „y t? / M / 17961 a wn,Inobw.CJ(/urmta 99714 SHEET ( OF i t ( i ;&L'l1+ i. ; D G ; 1 I I 1 _........_.i. �. - .. .. ._ .. _ . - 1 - r.........�............ _....._...__ __. ;.._..._. _._.. ... _.._ • i I I i I ! � I .. .. t I I 1 _....t.. __....._.................... J. ...........,......._...-_-......t. 1 M1 .1 ..._.__.l_..._...... .......................... .i`. _. .. ..... L....• , j i rrlt `•'a:r•1`-�.r__'"-..+... _':._ _ _.:-__ _ _ __ _ _ ._.. _ _.._. ! .......... _...-. .._ Ism ` ® 1.7i"'I 1 '> ^lYlrri ❑.�v rs ti• - 4 t � K , - -" - 1 , .. f -j -y: �!..:-� - _ ;��,� 7t1� drl, �._.� , 'Dr..•� �..-s.:f%:� -. .r -! _rf.-:.•-H- � i I.• -�..3.^'�.1 t ..:fir ,`_`.-� _...,c..�• - 1 r WARNER R.-CZ ;f _cz Ipm AN -CZ -C RI Rl � R �R3 R3 Rl cz A -CZ R3 RI cr R 2i R3-19 --- A2 x WR-CZ-FP2 RF A R2;I-cz -CZ-FP2 I-CZ RI-CZ5 WR RI 101 ALADDIN HAgBOR ; RI-CZ JRI-CZ lz :MtC -CZ .1 BAYCLU SPECIMPLA R cl R'-CZ RI-CZ WARNER AVE K C, r) aK- 0 1. ICE, le CUP89-3 CIO P89 Z5ICEU9 531 HUNTINCTCK'FEACII HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION 1 too CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION H UNTINGTON BEACH Mike Uberuaga From Mike Adams, Director To City Administrator Community Development Subject STATUS REPORT FOR BAY CLUB Date June 22, 1990 PROJECT As requested by the City Council on June 4 , 1990, the following is a status report for the Bay Club condominium project seismic setback area . A private surveyor was hired by a homeowner ' s group in Huntington Harbour to check the accuracy of the location of a seismic setback area for the 36 unit Bay Club condominium project . The surveyor found an error in the plotting of the seismic setback area and the consequence of the error has resulted in the shift of the seismic setback area approximately 5 feet into one corner of the building located closest to Edgewater Street. The geotechnical consultant to the City has agreed that cantilevering floor area into the seismic setback area is acceptable if no portion of the building foundation encroaches into the seismic setback area . The geotechnical consultant for the City and the City Engineer both agree with the results of a structural analysis which has determined that construction of the Bay Club condominium project may proceed if the approximately 5 foot foundation encroachment is deleted from the project . MA:RLF:kjl Attachment : 1. Memo from City Engineer dated June 21, 1990 . 2 . Letter from Geotechnical Consultant dated June 21, 1990 . (6201d) s, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINLTON BEACH To Mike Adams, Director From Robert E. Eichblatt Community Development City Engineer Subject Status — Coultrup Development/Fault Date June 21, 1990 Line Controversy Please refer to the attached letters. A surveyor, hired by the Huntington Harbour Homeowners Association, found an error in the plotting of the fault line trace identified in a Woodward/Clyde Study for Signal Landmark. The Keith Companies, engineer for Coultrup Development, has studied the situation and agreed that the fault line trace was misplotted. Action Geotechnical and Strata — Tech, Coultrup's two geologists, have stated that, because the Woodward/Clyde line now shifts northerly approximately 43.5 feet and is now north of the Action Geotechnical identified line, the free zone that follows the Alquist—Priolo regulations now also shifts northerly. This zone now intrudes into the building foot—print of the northerly condo complex by approximately 5 feet, on one corner. Coultrup's geologists contend that no foundations may exist within that zone and that cantilevering the building over that zone is acceptable. City staff sent all of these findings to Charles C. Kendall, our geotechnical consultant that originally ruled on the Coultrup project. He agrees with Action Geotechnical and Strata — Tech's findings. I would, therefore, submit that there is no reason for us to prevent construction from proceeding as long as any foundation within that 5' foot ± area is deleted from the project. REE:dw cc: Bob Franklin 2472g r s GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Mr. Jim Hibbard June 21, 1990 Public Works Department City of Huntinb on Beach S86012 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach., CA 92648 Subject: Tract 11881.. City of Huntington Beach Dear Jim: As a follow-up to our letter dated June 13, 1990, µ!e have received and reviewed the two documents requested for clarification of the Woodward Clyde Consultants (WCC) projected fault trace location across Tract 11881. Based on the measured Ea_cting ordinate intersectiori. at the centerline of Warner Avenue on both the WCC geologic map and the Tract 11881 site plan, combined with the same fault trace strike orientation on both plans, we. believe that the. required 25 foot wide setback zone is accurately depicted on The Keith Companies 'Tract 11881 Fault Exhibit, dated June 21, 1990 - 1.0:30 a.m.. For clarification, the 25 foot wide setback zone as described in our letter dated April 29, 1989 is intended to be a restricted building area upon which. building foundations should not encroach. With respect to the fault issue and setback zone on Tract 11881 as it relates to the issuance of building permilts, no portion of any building foundation should encroach upon the setback zone. Since a corner of the easterly building is shown on The Keith Companies Fault Exhibit to extend over the setback zone, this portion of the building must be cantilevered, i.e. not in contact with the ground surface. If this is the case, then the provisions of the setback zone have been compiled with. Please call me if you have any further questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Charles C. Kendall Engineering Geologist No. 1024 CCK/kmc 1533 East 4th Street Santa Ana . CA 92701 Phone (714) 547.5413 TOTHL P.01 COURTNEY AND EDGEWATER LANES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 17220 Courtney Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 (714) 840-3802 (714) 840-1092 FAX 13 MAW M Mr. Michael T. Uberuaga 1 1990 City Administrator City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street CITY CF HUN T UNIGTON REACH Huntington Beach, CA 92648 AM 1INSTRATIVE;FFICE Dear Michael: On behalf of our group, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your time and courtesy during our meeting Thursday, June 7th. We also appreciated that you made Mike Adams and Robert Eichblatt available. The consensus of the the group after our meeting, was that you were the first person in City administration, who genuinely seemed interested in our viewpoints and comments. Your attention, questions and input is very important to us. (Also, very refreshing, I might add. ) We thought it might be helpful to summarize our understandings of our meeting: 1. Mr. Eichblatt will review survey data from the Keith Company and from our surveyor Mr. Simons. After reviewing all relevant factors he will submit a report to you with his findings and recommendations. You agreed to send me a copy of that report so that we may review it also. 2. This will also be reviewed by your geological consultant Mr. Kendall who will act as referee. 3. No building permits will be issued until the earthquake fault location is resolved. 4. Since we brought to your attention, the conditions of the Specific Plan amendment to the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club resolution No. 5389 (copy attached) ; specifically the requirement of the applicant to submit to the Director of Development Services certain determinations from the State Lands Commission - and since we presented to you a copy of a letter from Les Grimes (copy attached) which indicates that "the development is within validly patented Tide Land Location 221 and as such is subject to the public trust easement in _favor or commerce, navigation and fishing." We ask that this issue be researched by you since staff does not seem to feel it is significant. Mr. Michael T. Uberuaga Page 2 We hopefully made it clear to you, that we are very concerned these issues are seriously considered by the City before the project goes forward. If this summary varies from your understanding of our meeting, please feel free to call me and we can discuss these items in more detail. I thought that you would also like to be appraised that the Board of Directors of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association voted to oppose the Coultrup Development based upon the height of the condos which exceeds the Harbour 35 feet height limit and the fact that the EIR was obsolete and a new EIR should have been ordered. This would have addressed the issues of height, compatible housing, seismic, traffic and congestion, parking, density, harbor pollution, and Patented tide lines. They have made a contribution to assist us in our legal efforts and plan to send a letter to all Harbour homeowners asking for their support in whatever ways are necessary. Again, our thanks for your support and we are confident that you will take the proper steps to ensure that this project adheres to all necessary and required City and State requirements. Sincerely, Pat' Michael�Cavallo Spokesman Enclosures cc: Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer Devlin, Scheitzach, Kerkes, Klein, Willsies ly Y) z BE-101JITI-014 140. 5389 A RESOLUTI'014 01' TH1-: -COMR-11, 011, THE CIT), OF HUNTINGTON PEACH !`.!Y'PT1 "(, AM1-1'H1',1r1E1,",1' NO. TO THE HUNTINGTON 1!f0)11'01M 113AY C1JH3 S)PT_.:C1F1'C PL AN WHEREAS) the California Coastal Commission hits suggested modifications to the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan to conform the zoning of the Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to the Califol-nia Coastal Act ; and After notice duly given pursuant to Government Code sec- tion 65500 , the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held a public hearing on June 6, 19814 'to consider pro-' posed Amendment No. 2 to the Huntington liarbour Bay Club Specific Plan , and such nm(�ndment was recommended to the City Council ; and The City Council, after giving notice as prese'r-11bed by law, held at least one public hearing on proposed Amendment No . 1 to the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan , and tl!c. Council finds the proposed modifications to such specific necessary in order to conform zoning iii the Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to the requirements of the California Coast;il Act , NOW, THEREYORE' ) BE' IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that. Huntington Harbour bay (;1111) Specific Plan , attached hereto as E_xhjwtt A , and Amen !rant N,o 1. conta:1111lig the modl Attachment. 1 hereof, Incorpni-ated a 3 1 0 hereby adopted . PASSEID AND ADOPT!`,[) by the City Co ni(.,A ) of the C11,Y of Ifuni.,ijigLon Beach at o!- day of July ATTEST: APPROVE ) A;, TO FORM: Ci y C erk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: 1011, City Administratoi7 irector o Development Services i ems 4'�' 3yy Amendment ]. The HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BAY CLUB SPECIf:IC PLAN shall be modified as follows: A . Section XI1 Access (p. 13) shall be modified to require lateral access dedications as follows: As a condition of. new development , the applicant shall cause Lo be executed and recorded a document , in a form and content approved by the Director. of Development Services, irrevocably offering to dedicate an easement for public access and passive recreation along the shoreline and the beach. The easement shall be for the length of the property. Along the bulkhead it shall be measured from the inland edge of the bulkhead a distance of 10 feet and the applicant shall provide a walkway within the easement area . On the beach the easement shall include the entire sandy beach area between the existing development and mean high tide line. The easement shall not be located closer than 5 feet to an existing structure. The easement shall be recorded free of prior liens except for tax liens and free of prior encumbrances which the Director determines may affect the interest being conveyed. The offer shall run with the land, binding successors and assigns of the applicant or landowner. The offer of dedication shall be irrevocable for a period of. 21. years, such period to run from the date of recording . Prior to issuance of any permit for development, the appli.-ant shall record a document such as a covenant running with the l land agreeing for himself and all successors in interest to I maintain and otherwise keel) open and f ree from impediments to pedestrian use the accessway along the boardwalk , beach area , and parking . The document shall. be recorded free of all prior liens or encumbrances except tax liens and shall bind the applicant, his heirs and successors in interest. i B. The Specific Plan Section XTI Access shall be modified to I require that no facilities or activities shall be permitted I within the easement area which could obstruct public access. C . Section X11 Access shall reduir. e that as a condition of development the applicant shall provide signing of all public accessways , recreation facilities and parking . D. Section XII Access shall be ►nodified to require that as a condition of development the applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction allowing public use of all recreation facilities onsite (excluding private open space area of the residential units) and rests icting and signing a minimum of: 10 parking spaces for public beach use. Amencimrwnt 1 Page 2 E . Section X1I Access shall require that access dedications , deed restrictions, and signinq are assured prior to issuance of certificates of u!-,(' and/or. Occupancy of the residential structures. F . Section XIV Development Standards shall be modified as follows : In Area A (p. 14 ) beaches shall be a permitted use. Standards shall prohibit development of structures within easements over the sandy beach. G. As a condition of a Coastal permit on this site , the applicant shall be required to opert and maintair, accessways and facilities for public use concurrent or prior to issuance of certificates of use and/or occupancy permits of any residential structure . H . Add to page 8 under A , Conditional Use Permit . Prior to the transmittal of a permit , the applicant shall submit to the Director of. Development Services a determination from the State Lands Commission that : a) No state lands and/or lands subject: to the public trust f are involved in the development and all necessary authorizations required by the State Lands Commission have • been obtained ; or b) State lands and/or lands subject to the public trust are involved in the development and all necessary authorizations required by the State Lands Commission have been obtained; or c) State lands or lands subject to the public trust may be involved in the •'development, but pending a final determination agreement has been made with the State Lands Commission for the project to proceed without prejudice to that determination. 0748d . . I STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor � , STATE LANDS COMMISSION 1807 13TH STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 May 31, 1990 File Ref. : SD 90-05-08 Mr. Mike Cavallo Cavallo, Cambridge & Landon 18350 Mt. Langley, Suite 202 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the materials you furnished regarding Huntington Harbor Bay Club, along with material in our files and our title plant. Based on this review, we feel the development is within validly patented Tide Land Location 221 and as such, is subject to the public trust easement in favor of commerce, navigation and fishing. Previously, there has been two major transactions in the Huntington Harbor area. These being: 1. Boundary Line Agreement 18 - An agreement as to the low water lines of the tidal streams within the Tide Land Location. 2 . Sovereign Land Location 34 - An agreement by which the State relinquished title to the low water streams and gained title to the significant waterways in the present development. .I Neither of these transactions released the Huntington Harbor Bay Club property from tideland status and therefore did not extinguish the tideland easement. If you have questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, , '.%'C LESLIE H. GRIMES, Deputy Chief Division of Land Management and Conservation cc: J. F. Trout T H E K E I T H C O M P A N I E S !Tanning C:i%itF;,.gmeering ta:vinmmcrnal.'enices Luldsralu•An:hacciurc Line' PuhliC\;arks June 14 , 1990 Mr. Robert Eichblatt, City Engineer City of, Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject : Site Plan for Tract 11881 , showing fault locations. .v Dear Bob, In regard to the site plan for the Huntington Harbor Bay Club - Phase I by RMG Engineering, Inc. , that shows the location of two fault lines running through Tract 11881: The fault line on the site plan that is labeled Action Eng'r (Geo. ) Fault Line, was located on the site plan using the dimensions given in the geotechnical report completed by Action Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. Per this report dated April 29 , 1987, Action Geotechnical located the fault line relative to physical points on the site. The plotting of this fault, the fault that was discovered and located during the geotechnical investigations, is wholly unrelated to the easting shown on the site plan or the Woodward-Clyde projection. If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, The Keith Companies 6�6� Lee M. Mann Project Manager lao cc: Bill Hartge 9967•LAO-11017-L Mr. Bill Patapoff June 13, 1990 City of Huntington Beach S86012 Tract 11881, City of Huntington Beach Page 2 northward through Tract 11881 and measure both the coordinate intersection with the centerline of Warner Avenue and the strike of the fault trace. 2) Prepare a site plan for Tract 11881 including Warner Avenue and specifically the centerline of Warner Avenue, with an accurate coordinate base. Plot the WCC fault intersection with the centerline of Warner Avenue and project the fault through Tract 11881 using the strike orientation defined on the WCC geologic map. Finally, re-plot the Action Geotechnical fault trace through Tract 11881 and redraw the 25 foot wide setback zone as it relates to the building foundations. In our opinion, these submittals are necessary to determine if modifications in the building foundation plans are required for compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, and,to restore the City's confidence in the accuracy of geologic data presented in support of the Tract 11881 development. Very truly yours, GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Charles C. Kendall Engineering Geologist No. 1024 CCK/kmc G E O T F V ►a N I L A L C. 0 N S 7372 WaInvt Avenue, Unit h DL,vo Fork,California 90620 - 714.521.581 t 2i 3•a2f•BG89 June 6, 1900 Mr, Jon Coultrup W.U. 24790 Coultrupp Development Company 15001 fial Beach Blvd, Suits 300 Seal Beach, CA 90740 . Re: Tract•11861, Huntington Harbor Dear Jon, Iti aaaordmice with your instructions, wo have,reviewed a letter of allegadons by Jonathan Lehrer. Orainer, attorney for tht'potitiormvs, thr Action 4cote.0niviiI reports for the above tract,met with your Ovil Engineer and staff'onet»tsers of the;City of tiundngton Deach, We are pleased to have had the oppo tonity to review the geologic-data contained its the Action 0eoteohnivxl reports for Tract 11881, With regard to rile location of the Action GooteChnieal f wlt trace, it is bused on physical points Imated within the tract boundaries, not on off-site survey points, The eastward=vemnt of the WWC fault prq�ection results to the Action Geotechnical and WWC fault traces being closer to each other than previously thought, and thereby makin the prescribed set back narrower by the City Consultant's criteria. 71c portion of the east building (approximately 5 fot)at'footcd by tho Civil Fnginoor's relocation of the setback may bt candlevered off a fowtdation butslde the setback zone. The findings of the Action Oeotechnical report arc that the identified fault hits not offset Holocene deposits and as such is not classified as active at'p of 11891, We Appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you, �e>:pec�tfully, STRATA-TECH GEOT'ECHNICAL CONSULTANTS GLAND AVCUNA JOHN A. MERRILL STAPP GEOLOGIST ENUII*IMINO C EOL.OGIST 83 JUM/RA/aa - I WI WILLIAMSON & SCHMID. SCONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS May 24, 1990 . D Mr. Lee M. Mann 30WO The Keith Compariies 200 Baker Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Lee: SUBJECT: COORDINATE SYSTEM, BOLSA CHICA PROJECT; OUR JOB NO. 86169 In response to your letter dated May 22, 1990, I feel it is important to provide you with some history of our involvement with this project as it pertains to your concerns. Williamson & Schmid became involved with the Bolsa Chica Project in April, 1986. At that time, Williamson & Schmid obtained 1" = 100' scale topographic mapping over most of the project area. This mapping was prepared in 1980 for Genge Engineering and was compiled by San-Lo Aerial Mapping out of San Diego. The horizontal control used for this mapping was the Zone VI Lambert Grid State Plane Coordinates (1927 datum) as published by the Orange County Surveyor's Office. In July, 1986, it was necessary to expand the 1" = 100' scale .topo to be able to provide the support needed for various planning studies. Williamson & Schmid set the control for this expansion utilizing the same grid control that ii was initially used by Genge in 1980. We contracted with San-Lo to. provide the compilation of the new topo. This system worked fine for study purposes; however, as the need for locations of physical features such as oil wells, test borings, etc., began to increase, we decided that it was necessary to convert from the "grid" system to a "ground" system,.}hereby eliminating the need for the time-consuming and impractical conversion of ground distances to our grid system. We accomplished this conversion to "ground" by using a mean _combination factor of 0.9999700. This direct translation of our entire file enabled us to have a "ground" system and also be able to maintain a direct relationship to the initial control used for the topo mapping. -Corporate Office 17782 Sky Park Blvd. • Irvine, California 92714 • 714/261-2222 • FAX 474-9120 inland Empire Office 1101 S. Milliken Ave., Ste. G • Ontario, California 91761 • 714/988-7880 • FAX 988-5299 San Diego County Office .• Carlsbad, California 92008 • 619/438-4332 Coachella Valley Office • 77-622 Country Club Dr., Ste. P • Palm Desert, California 92260 • 619/360-3744 0 FAX 619/360-3745 W WILLIAMSON & SCHMID , r i S CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS Mr. Lee M. Mann Our Job No. 86169 May 24, 1990 Page 2 Since this conversion was made, we have done some design scale topo (1" = 40' scale) as well as prepare a record of survey over the entire Bolsa Chica project area. (The record of survey is currently being reviewed by the Orange County Surveyor's Office). All of the work we have done since we made the conversion has been based on the "ground" system. With this bit of history in mind, I will proceed to address the concerns outlined in your letter. .I Joe Suess of our office recalls a conversation with Mr. Bill Hartge in which he provided Mr. Hartge with coordinate values for the centerline intersection of Warner Avenue and Edgewater Lane. Joe confirmed that the coordinates he provided to Mr. Hartge are those coordinates referenced in your letter, those coordinates being North 566880.4740, East 1452021.0282. This intersection was the only coordinate asked for by Mr. Hartge. Mr. Suess had no idea what Mr. Hartge was intending to use it for except that he was doing a project nearby and wanted to have a common coordinate. Mr. Hartge did not ask what the system was based on, nor did he mention that he had in his possession any material that was generated by any of Signal Landmark's consultants. The coordinate that was provided was based on our ground system which we were dong all of our work on at the time. As you well know, one set of coordinates does not give you a relationship to a system without some sort of basis of bearings. This coordinate, provided in a phone call, was simply a professional courtesy, a specific response to a specific request. Based on the information we have been able to gather, the chain of events appear to be relatively clear. It seems as though there may have been an assumption made by someone that the coordinate value provided to Mr. Hartge by Mr. Suess matched the coordinate system reflected on the topo in an exhibit prepared by Woodward-Clyde depicting the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. In fact, Woodward-Clyde's study exhibit was based on t_he .1" = 100' scale topo based on the grid system referenced at the outset of this letter. W WILLIAMSON & SCHMID. '• S CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS Mr. Lee M. Mann Our Job No. 86169 May 24, 1990 Page 3 We have another concern which demands clarification. Mr. Larry Brose with Signal Landmark provided us with a Xerox of a portion of your site plan. On' this Xerox, there are two references to Williamson & Schmid. One states "321' scaled from W/S Plan," and the other states "1,452,021.0082 State Coordinate per Williamson/Schmid 4/1/87 plan." The "plan" referred to is not a Williamson & Schmid product. It is the exhibit referenced above'; prepared by Woodward-Clyde, and to the best of everyones' knowledge was considered to be privileged information. The reference to "State Coordinate" again appears to be based on an assumption on someones part. I hope this letter answers your questions. I also hope that it expresses our deep concerns for some of the methods used to conclude some very important issues. If you desire any additional information, please contact either Larry Brose at Signal Landmark or call me directly and together we will connect with Larry. Sincerely, Jim Gillen Corporate Office zkLET cc: Larry Brose, Signal Landmark Bob Williamson, W&S Dick Schmidl",W&S Art Rico, W&S Jim Dunlap, W&S Joe Suess, W&S I i E K E I .I_ i I C O 1 1' A 1 1 E S Planning • CiviI Engineering • Environmental Services landscape Architecture Lind Surveying • Public Works May 22 , 1990 11017 . 04 Mr. Jim Gillen Williamson and Schmid 17782 Skypark Boulevard Irvine, CA 92714 , RE: Coordinate for the centerline intersection of Edgewater Lane and Warner Avenue. Dear Jim, On May 21, I spoke with Larry Brose of Signal Landmark regarding the above referenced coordinate. At that time he stated that he ha"d had conversations with your firm regarding this coordinate. He said that a member of your firm had spoken with Bill Hartge and had in fact given Bill the coordinate that we reference on the site plan that shows the fault lines for Tract 11881. I then questioned Larry about the basis for this coordinate. He stated that the coordinate was a "grid" coordinate and that the topography map that Woodward and Clyde used for the plan showing the fault lines in the Bolsa Chica south of Warner Avenue is also based on this "grid" coordinate system. I would greatly appreciate it if you would verify the following items for me: 1) That Bill Hartge spoke with Joe Cess from your firm, and in that conversation he received the coordinate N566880 . 4740 , E1452021 . 0282 for the centerline intersection of Edgewater Lane and Warner Avenue and 2) , The basis for this coordinate in relationship to the topography map used by Woodward and Clyde that shows the fault line locations south of Warner Avenue. This information is of the utmost importance and I appreciate your anticipated speedy reply. Sincerely, The Keith Companies zx_ Lee M. Mann Project Manager cc: Bill Hartge, The Keith Companies 9997-LMM-11017 . 04-L .:"1 .� May 18 , 1990 11017 . 04 mr. Jon T. Coultrup Coultrup Devel-opment 13001 seal Beach Boulovard Suite 300 Seal Beach, CA 90740 RE: Traot 11881, site plan showing fault line locations# Dear Jon, In regard to the site plan for the Huntington Harbor Bay club - Phase I by RMG Engineering, Inc, that shows the location of two fault lines running through Tract 11881: The Easting shown for. Edgewater Lane does not coincide with the coordinate of record at the Orange County 'surveyors office for the centerline intersection of Warner Avenue and Edgewater Lane. The Easting shown was obtained from an employee from the firm of Williamson and Schmid. This Easting was used to plot a =Jection of a fault line located by the firm Woodward and Clyde in the Holsa Chica south of Warner Avenue. If the Woodward-Clyde fault line is plotted incorrectly per the allegations made by the homeowners in Huntington Harbor, the line would move 43 . 5 feet to the east. In this case the line would just touch the southwesterly corner of the East, building. Applying the 5 foot setback used on the site plan may require a minor modification to cantilever a 5 foot portion of the East building. Therefore, the possible relocation of the Woodward-Clyde fault line prole tion does not affect this project. The fault .line on the site plan. that is labled &=n .Ea2Lc rr .We . ) Fault Line, was located on the site plan using the dimensions given in the geotechnical report completed by Action Geotechnical consultants, Inc. Per this report dated April 29, 1987, Action Geotechnical located the fault line relative to physical points on the site. The plotting of this fault, the fault that was discovered and located during the geotechnicril investigations, is wholly unrelated to the casting shown on the site plan or the Woodward-Clyde projection. 9999- LMM-11017. 04-L ME May 18 , 1990 11017 . 04 Page 2 If I can be of any further assistance, please contact m• at your convenience. Sincerely, The Keith Companies �e�k 7�7 ?11�- Las M. Mann Project Manager cot Bill xartgo f. 9999-LI++M-11017 . 04-L TO : RESIDENTS OF HUNTINGTON HARBOUR WHO MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE NEW CONDO PROJECT ADJACENT TO EDGEWATER AND, COURTNEY . 25 May , 1990 Since 1981 there has been much controversy in the newspapers and on TV concerning proposed -development of the Recreational Open Space on the property known as the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club . The question has been , " What or what not to build - if anything ? " since this land was created by filled in dredged land on top of an estuary over a known earthquake fault . Somehow in June of 1989 without complying with all of the requirements of a prior approved Specific Plan a building permit was issued for two 45 ' high three story condos with underground garages . Then the owner stated that he sold the- land to a developer . This developer immediately requested a variance . He did not want to build underground garages . He had to comply with the requirements of` the Specific Plan and he had to create a larger space between the two bldgs . to comply with the State law concerning set back requirements from the earthquake fault line running under the property . On Jan . 8th , 1990 he obtained the variance approval for the 36 unit condos . Even though he could not , he said he would build the 42 unit condos if they did not approve the 36 unit condo . This variance required approval for a fourth floor . - At this time Calif . State officials and certain H . B . city employees , council members and local citizens requested that the 8 year old Environmental Impact Report be updated . -- This action was denied . As a result of the above .-- -Recreational Open Space has been rezoned . - City code limits for bldg . heights and number of floors have been exceeded . ( existing code - three stories /35 ft . height ) . -Article 985 Design Review Board . ( Has not been carried out properly ) . 9851 a . Duties - Encourage , control and maintain harmonious , compatible , attractive , and aesthtic development within special and unique areas of the city . 9854 . 1 Criteria for Approval a .- The architectural and landscape design of a project must integrate harmoniously with the existing or planned character of the immediate neighborhood . b .- The design must stabilize and protect civic facilities or civic district areas and be compatible in scale and aesthetic treatment . c . - The design must enhance the desirability and / or enjoyment of the immediate neighborhood . d . The design must improve community appearances by plWeventing extremes of dissimilarity or monotony in new construction or alterations of facilities . -The new condos will gain the views of the ocean and Catalina that will be lost by many pre-sent harbour residences . -Added density , noise , pollution and traffic _ congestion -for the community . Many residents in the immediate vicinity decided not to take these decisions without protest . . When their pleas to city officials failed they shared the expense and hired legal talent to determine the legality of the current bldg . permit . This permit was issued when the city did not have a Calif . State required Housing Element Plan in effect . A current law. suit in this regard is pending . At this time the developer has a foundation ( only) permit for the 36 unit condos . The old permit for 42 unit condos is now no longer valid . New plans have to be drawn . The city however -is allowing the developer to proceed without abiding by the normal procedures . An example of this • is that the develop-er was issued a foundation only permit prior to receiving any othe-r plans for ttlre newly approved bldgs . As of this date no other plans for the newly approved 36 unit development have been made available to the public . Thi- s includes the Site Plan which is required before bldg . ¢ermits can be issued . ( by the way the foundation permit issued in Apr . 1990 lists Mr . Ahadpour as the property owner ? ) . Currently the condo development will not l)e issued any further b1dg , permits that will allow construction further than the foundation . The project is under investigation as it is believed to be in violation of the Alquist—Priolo Special Studies Act , a state law as stated below. ----No structure for human occupancy , identified as a project under section 2621 . 6 of the act , shall be permitted to be placed across the trace of an active fault . Furthermore , as the area within 50 ft . of such active faults shall be presumed to be underlain by active branches of that fault unless proven otherwise by an appropriate geological investigation . and report prepared as specified in section 3603 ( d ) of this subchapter , no such structures shall be permitted in this area . Recently it was discovered that by error or otherwise an incorrect coordinate was used on a map to designate the fault line which runs diagonaly under the property . A survey conducted by a licensed surveyor determined that by correcting the coordinate one of the bldgs . is being built over the trace of the Newport—Inglewood active fault . This project is also in violation of the State of Calif , trust easement over patented tidelands . Believing that the actions of Huntington Beach officials have been inconsistent with state law , the concerned citizens on Edgewater and Courtney are -continuing the legal challenge . We feel that many other residents of the Harbour area have an equal interest and stake in what is being built on the Bay Club site . Adding these high--density _units will.: —Increase existing traffic congestion and air polution . —Add traffic noise that ' s already greater than county standards . —Block ocean views from many Harbour area houses . —Destroy precious recreation and open space . (The never restored public beach and never built marina pump out stations are examples of unfulfilled requirements . —Probably decrease horWe values .— See Design Review Board comments above . —Set a precedent for large four story condos to be built on the Bolsa Chica These are some o-f the many reasons why our Edgewater—Courtney group has opposed construction of the 45 foot high condos . We' ve paid the bills thus far , but there's. much more to be done . We feel there are many- others who will benefit if these plans. . are changed to something more compatible with the area . We' re asking those of you .who look over the area and who will be affected to join us . See attached letter on how you can help . . COURTNEY LANE AND EDGEWATER LANE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 17220 Courtney Lan Huntington Beach, Ca 9264 May 15, 1990 (714) 940-3802 Distribution: Supervisor Harriett Weider; Orange County Michael T. Uberuaga,Huntington Beach City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney Tom Mays, Mayor, Council Member John Erskine, Council Member Jim Silva, Council Member Wes Bannister, Council Member Grace Winchell, Council Member Peter Green, Council Member Don McAllister, Council Member Geri Ortega, Planning Commission, Chairman Vic Lepzig, Commissioner Jan Shomaker, Commissioner Ken Bourguignon, Commissioner Ed Mountford, Commissioner Barry Williams, Commissioner Kirk Kirkland, Commissioner Ref: Huntington Harbour Bay and- Racquet Club Property CUP no. 89-36, CE No. 89-53-and CDP No. 89-20, on 36 unit condominium development at 4123 Warner Avenue,Huntington Beach. (Couitrup Development) Attached i)lease find letter dated 5/11/90 directed to Art Folger; Deputy City Attorney, Huntington Beach, and Peter Douglas, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission, from Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney for the Courtney Lane/Edgewater Lane Homeowners. We respectfully request that your utmost attention be given to the matters discussed therein, and in accordance with Publ Res. C Sec. 2621.5, this situation be deemed an emergency, and construction be discontinued, immediately. icerely, \ l c e. Donna K. G. Klein for the Courtney Lane and Edgewater Lane Homeowners CC: Courtney Lane and Edgewater Lane Homeowners BEPhiA ' 'BLA1,1CNFlRli TEL 10 . 2139651919 I1 1 11 , 90 17 : 2 i hlo . 005 P .01 JONATHAN LEHRER-GRAIWER ATTORNEY AT LAW 4727 Mi-SW d OOXgWAo.Qu+r[SW LOS ANO.FLCS, CALIFORNIA 90010 May 11, 1990 Art Folger Deputy City Atto:_-jiey 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Peter Douglas, Executive Director California Coastal Commission 631. Howard St. , 4th Flr. San Francisco, CA 94 05-3973 Re: CUP No. 89-36, CE No. 89-53 .and CDp No. 89-20 on 36 unit condominium development at 4123 Warner Ave, Huntington Beach (Coultrup Development) . Dear Mr. Folger: I am writing this letter on behalf of my clients who are residents of the Huntington Harbour Bay Club area and who opposed the issuance of the above cited permits .by your agencies. This letter is to inform the City of Huntington B-oacsh and the Coastal Commission that the above referenced development is being constructed in violation of the Alqulst-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and in violation of the State's trust easement over patented tidelands. The City of Huntington Beach approved the above cited development permits on January 8, 1990 and the Coastal Commission. approved the coastal dovelopment permit n 89-20 and the conditional exception no. 89-53 in March 1990. 1. Violation of Alauist-Priolo Special Studies Act: The development approved by the City and the Coastal Commission consists of two 18-unit buildings fronting on Warner Ave. , west of Edgewater Lane. As a result of plans being used by the developer which incorrectly locate the center line of Edgewaltor -Lane, the building closest to Rdgewater Lane is being constructed directly across the trace of an active active earthquake .fault contrary to the prohibition in Public Resources Code Section 2621. 5. The incorrect planar include the Williamson and Schmid plan of 4/l/87, with the Woodward-Clyde Consultants ' overlay of the geological exploration locating the Inglewood-Newport Fault (Ex. 1) , the site plan prepared by RMG LIngineering, Inc. , which specifically used the Williamson and Schmid incorrect coordinate for the center line Of Edgewater Lane (Ex. 2) and the Keith Gordan White conceptual site plan approved by the City on 11/7/89 for the 36-unit approved BE h1Al�H ?: BLfIIdCHHF:D TEL Fda . 213�+F5�919 flail 1-1 =�i? 17 '7 No . 005 P . O,) I I Art Folger Peter Douglas May 11, 1990 Page 2 development (EX. 3 ) . It is my understanding that all of these inaccurate plans were presented to the City of Huntington Beach and to the Coastal Commission as part of the applications by Coultrup Development for the permits cited above. The location of the two structures being constructed under the above cited permit$, in relation to the location of the earthquake I fault, has been based upon the location of the center line of ! Edgewater Lane being at the Easterly coordinate of 1,452,021.0282, apparently first used in the Wililiamson and Schmid plan. That is ; the location used dr% the RMG Engineering site plan for the project approved by the City on June 2, 1989, which referenced- the ! Williamson and Schmid 4/l/89 plan. . However, that location is in error by approximately 43.5 feet and the correct Easterly ' coordinate of the Edgewater Lane center line is 1,451,977.50, as verified by the survey conducted by Donald F. Simons. Exhibit 4. . As a result of this' error; both buildings are further west by about 43.5 feet and the building closest to Edgewater Lane is being built across the active fault line as determined by Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.1 As you know, the City accepted the first recommendation of ' Geotechnical Consultants, Inc: , that a 25 foot wide zone across the property is assumed to be "underlain by an active fault trace and as such, should not be encroached upon by proposed structures. " Exhibit 5. This fault zone has been incorrectly located on the RMG Engineering Site Plan and on the Keith Gordon White plan at a point . approximately 43.5 feet farther west than it should be, as a result of the error in the easterly coordinate of the center lane of Edgewater Lane. Based on the mapping 000rdinate, E1,452,000, on the Williamson and Schmid plan, and the Easting coordinate of the center Line of Edgewater Lane as determined by Donald F. Simons, the Woodward-Clyde fault line crosses the Coultrup property line along Warner Ave. at a point approximately 246.5 feet to the west of that center line. However, the RMG Engineering and the Keith Gordon White plans locate that crossing point at approximately 290 feet west of the center line. A• correct positioning of the 25 foot wide fault zone adopted by the City places that fault zone up to about 15` feet under the southwest corner of the easterly bulding. , Since the City and the Coastal Commission, among other public agencies, have the mandated responsibility of prohibiting the 1 At this time my clients do not know whether the error on the Williamson and Schmid Plan was inadvertent or intentional . While the determination of that issue is something your agencies may wish -to pursue, it appears irrelevant to the duties of the City and the Commission under Publ Res. C. Sec. 2621. 5 to prohibit the development of the easterly structure across the active fault line. c �E i iAf'1 ' BLA11CHARD TEL No . 2139651919 f i i.�-; 1 1 , 90 1 97 No . JCJS P ! Art Folger Peter Douglas I May 11, 1990 Page 3 I construction of any structures for human occupancy across the trace of the identified act:tve fault, you are requested to take immediate action to. enforce that responsibility. I - 2. Violation of Trust Easement: i I spoke yesterday to Les Grimes. at - the. State Land Commission regarding the subject property. Mr. Grimes informed me that the subject property is patented tidelands property subject to a trust easement. Mr. Grimes told me that the trust easement was generally for water related compercial and recreational purposes and that the development Of residences was inconsistent with the easement. His . position is in fact consistent .with Marks v. Why. ey, 5 Cal.3d 251, j 259 (1971 ) which established the principle in California that the sale of tidelands property by the state is generally gold subject to a public right to use the property for recreational purposes. Mr. Grimes told me that the State Lands Commission should have been notified of the development application so that he could have informed the Coastal Commission and the City of the exi$tanoe of the trust easement. I would appreciate your prompt attention to the two mattere raised In 4his- letter. I request a determination of whether- either or both of your agencies will take action to enforce your obligations under Public Resources Code . Sea. 2621. 5 and under the tidelands public trust easement. $ Cerely, nathan Lehrer-Graiwer ca: David L. Colgan, Atty. for Coultrup Development Arthur R. Knowlson, Jr. , Atty. for Coultrup Development James F. Davis, State Geologist Earl Hart Les Grimes e•. 4 SIMONS SURVEYING COMPANY LICENSED LAND SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 2183 WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 92683 (714) 894-2124 Col . Richard E. Willsie May 11 , 1990 17187 Roundhill _Huntington Beach , CA. 92649 DearSir , Based upon Orange County control points , "Chica 1933" and the spike and washer on Warner Ave . 360 feet plua or minus north of Pacific Coast Hwy . , We have determined the concrete nail found at the centerline intersection of Warner Avenue and Edgewater Lane to have California coordinates , NAD27 Zone 6 , of . NORTHING : 566863 . 02 Easting : 1451977 . 50 Donald F. Simons , LS 3999 pj _ Z0. o REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date January 8, 1990 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrators Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Development \� APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE ADEQUACY Subject: OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-36, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-53, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-20 Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] 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 Councilmembers Jim Silva and Wes Bannister to the Planning Commission' s approval of the adequacy of Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3, Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53, and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 which is a request to construct a 36 unit residential condominium project in lieu of an approved 42 unit residential condominium project at the Huntington Harbor Bay Club. RECOMMENDATION. The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council uphold the action taken by the Planning Commission on November 7, 1989, by certifying as adequate Environmental Impact Report No . 82-3 with additional geologic analysis approving Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 with findings and conditions of approval (see Planning Commission Minutes, Attachment No. 3) . Planning Commission Action on November 7, 1989 : A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE AS ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3 WITH ADDITIONAL GEOLOGIC ANALYSIS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-36, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-53, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-20, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, William, Bourguignon, Mountford NOES: Ortega ABSENT: Leipzig, Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PIO 5/85 4 ANALYSIS• Appellants : Councilmen Jim Silva and Wes Bannister Applicant/Property Owner: Coultrup Development Co. 13001 Seal Beach Blvd. Suite 300 Seal Beach, CA 92648 Location: 4123 Warner Avenue (Huntington Harbour Bay Club located on north side of Warner Avenue approximately 100 feet west of Edgewater Lane) Request: To construct a 36 unit residential condominium project on a 3 .26 ± acre site in lieu of an approved 42 unit residential condominium project with a variance to exceed the maximum three stories and build four stories . Zone: Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan General Plan: Mixed Development Existing Use: Vacant Acreage: 3 .26 acres Project Description: The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan (HHBCSP) . The HHBCSP identifies as a permitted use a maximum of 42 residential condominiums at the proposed location. The residential portion is one of three types of uses permitted within the HHBCSP; the other permitted uses being a commercial marina and the banquet facilities . The applicant is proposing to reduce the permitted project density from 42 units down to 36 units and elevate the subterranean parking structure to grade parking garages which requires a variance for 4 stories in lieu of 3 stories . 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Project Description: Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 is a request to construct a 36-unit residential condominium project in lieu of an approved 42-unit residential condominium project within the designated residential area contained in the HHBCSP. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 is a request to exceed the maximum three-story limitation by one story (four stories) . RCA 1/8/89 -2- (4391d) The project consists of two 18-unit buildings, three stories of habitable floor area, over a semi-subterranean parking garage. Each building has 18 two-bedroom, two bath condominiums with floor areas ranging from 1,460 to 2, 100 square feet . Two elevators per building provide access to the units . A common recreation area includes a recreation building and a lap pool with a jacuzzi . A total of 105 parking spaces (72 covered parking spaces) are provided where only 90 spaces are required, which results in 15 excess spaces provided on-site. Since the semi-subterranean parking garage is considered a story by the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the applicant has submitted a variance to exceed the maximum three-story limitation contained in the HHBCSP. Although the project requires a variance to exceed the maximum 3 stories, the project complies with the maximum 45 foot height requirement also contained in the HHBCSP. The applicant ' s civil engineer has indicated that a semi-subterranean parking garage at this location will eliminate long range problems associated with a subterranean, which may include sea-water intrusion, flooding, and drainage problems while providing improved access to the covered parking spaces . Basis of Appeal • The appeal letter dated November 17, 1989 by Councilmembers Jim Silva and Wes Bannister cites the amount of time (six years) and potential cumulative impacts which have occurred within the City since the Environmental .Impact Report No. 82-3 (EIR 89-3) was circulated -as the basis for the appeal . As indicated in the Planning Commission staff report dated November 7, 1989, EIR No. 82-3 did not identify any significant impacts which could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with conditions on proposed development . The major issues addressed in EIR No . 82-3 include. 1. Land Use 2 . Economic Considerations 3 . Housing 4 . Public Services and Utilities 5 . Traffic and Circulation 6 . Environmental Issues Hydrology Seismic Safety The proposed project meets the requirements in Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which states : "Exemption. Where a public agency had prepared in environmental impact report on a specific plan after January 1, 1980, no environmental impact report or negative declaration need be prepared for a residential project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to that specific plan if the project meets the requirements of this section. " RCA 1/8/89 -3- (4391d) 4 Although not required by State law to recirculate EIR No. 82-3 , due to the length of time from certification in 1982 and the present, staff recirculated EIR No. 82-3 for comments from government agencies and interested parties. The results of the recirculation are contained in the Planning Commission staff report dated November 7, 1989 . All concerns regarding EIR No. 82-3 were addressed and again no significant impacts were identified with respect to the reduction of the number of units from 42 to 36 . The proposed project represents a reduction in permitted density, provides excess on-site parking spaces, conforms to the maximum height limitation; will generate less noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood; and provides a wider separation of the proposed buildings which provide: 1) wider view corridors and 2) greater distance from the structural setback seismic zone. The proposed project complies with CEQA with regard to specific plans and the use of an environmental impact report previously certified. Staff recommends that the City Council accept EIR No . 82-3 as complete and adequate with additional geologic analysis with findings . Associated Issues : At the public hearing before the Planning Commission on November 7, 1989, a number of residents who reside in the vicinity of the project voiced a concern over a number of issues which pertain to the commercial marina, general concerns of increased traffic in the City, on-site parking and the possibility of an active fault crossing the subject site. The following is a response to those comments : 1. The commercial marina located at the Bay Club is not owned by the Coultrup Development Co. and has no control over possible live-aboards . The Land Use Section of the Planning Division is investigating the complaints and will attempt to correct any problems . 2 . According to the City Traffic Engineer, the level of service along Warner Avenue adjacent to the Bay Club site is predominantly at "C" level or better which means that traffic flows are at an acceptable number of vehicles for the design of Warner Avenue. EIR No. 82-3 did not identify a significant impact for a maximum development of 48 residential units . A decrease in the number of units from 48 to 36 represents a 25 percent reduction in traffic impacts which does not create a significant impact. Other projects in the surrounding area may generate additional traffic and future environmental impact reports will analyze and provide mitigation to appropriate projects . RCA 1/8/89 -4- (4391d) 3 . The following is a matrix which analyzes on-site parking: LAND USE REQUIRED PROVIDED TOTAL ON-SITE PARKING SPACES 281 327 Condominiums Tenant 72 36 Units @ 2 . 5/unit Guest 18 90 90 Marina Parking 164 Slips 128 Public skips @ . 75/slip 96 96 Private slips 0 0 (assigned to each unit) Banquet Facility (8, 500 sq. ft . ) 85 85 Coastal Access Parking 10 10 281 281 Excess Parking 46 (14%) As the matrix illustrates, there will be 14 percent excess parking spaces on-site when all of the site improvements are completed. The .two vacant buildings have been demolished and grading has commenced to construct the permitted 42 unit residential condominium project. Additional parking will be provided adjacent to the banquet facility and the Harbor Master Office. 4 . The issue of the seismic/fault concern and compliance with the Alquist-Priola Special Studies Area requirements has been addressed by State and City Engineers . As stated by the City Principal Development Engineer at the November 7, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, the State Geologist and City Engineer have accepted a determination which permits the construction of the 42 unit and 36 unit residential condominium. In order to proceed with construction, the structures must be separated a minimum 25 feet as required by State Geologist . Both the 42 unit and 36 unit project comply with the 25 foot setback area. Recently, the applicant has decided to inaugurate his building permit by commencing grading operations for the condominium project. This strategy is designed to vest the project (42 units) before the City Council takes action on the current proposal . If the City Council upholds the Planning Commission' s approval, the applicant will then proceed with the more recent version of the project and construct 36 condominium units . RCA 1/8/89 -5- (4391d) Summary• Staff has analyzed the proposed 36 unit residential condominium project and feels that there will not be any significant adverse impacts resulting from the approval and construction of the 36-unit residential condominium development in lieu of an approved 42-unit project. Further, the reduction of density from the permitted 42 units down to 36 units, the provision of excess parking on-site and raising the subterranean parking garages to semi-subterranean will provide a better project and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. Environmental Status: This project is covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 (EIR 82-3) . Prior to any action on Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20, Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 or Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-20, the Planning Commission must accept EIR No. 82-3 as complete and adequate. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, EIR No. 82-3 was prepared to analyze the potential impacts of a more intense project and certified by the City Council in February 1983 . The City has recirculated EIR No. 82-3 for public and responsible agencies comments . The requisite procedure for recirculating EIR No. 82-3 that was followed is outlined below: August 24, 1989 Staff conducted an initial study and determined that recirculation of EIR No . 82-3 would be necessary for the project. September 1, 1989 A Notice of Preparation was advertised and filed with the State Clearinghouse to solicit comments . September 6, 1989 Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse. EIR No. 82-3 was available for public review and comment for 45 days (Comment period: September 6, 1989, to October 20, 1989) . November 7, 1989 Public hearing before Planning Commission for the project. The Planning Commission approved as adequate EIR No. 82-3 . FUNDING SOURCE• Not Applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may deem Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 as inadequate and deny Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20, Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 and Conditional Exception (Variance ) No. 89-53 based in findings . RCA 1/8/89 -6- (4391d) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area Map 2 . Appeal letter dated November 17, 1989 3 . Planning Commission Minutes dated November 7, 1989 4 . Planning Commissions Staff Report dated November 7, 1989 5 . Letters dated received November 7, 1989 6 . Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 MA:HS:RLF: lab RCA 1/8/89 -7- (4391d) M/�/ WARNERRI=CZ aF32� RI-cZ ,ESTPCRTRI-CZ -1 c> �% "` R I CZ a RI-C o N <a 3 "Ri` R3 e p .cZ a, N u �R RI-CZ R I-CZ R3 Rs -- R3 C EW 'A ER ✓ ,p `: •_:`�• ,<` ��-`� R-c1 � � � � R2 �R 2 ° a2� F�i3-19 WR-CZ-FP2 2FP RI-CZ /� R2'CZ %rnrNErty Rav N RI \• SC/ t Ner er VEms. U RI A I-CZ R I Cz� WR-CZ FP2 _� I R A noow nLnoolR -CZ rc BAY GLOB GSPECIf C PLCA Y� \ V � cw y RI-CZRI CZ Cr cP-c-czS 5 cou"r"E P,.-C7_ — AVE 'WAR ER SAVE. RI-CZ - - - ;! RI- yJ l\ l , C�)c \ o alo SCALE Ie F- 4s CUP89---36 CpF 53 Jj E I R a Z--w-3 HUNTINGTON PEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING (DIVISION Y• 4 & CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Connie Brockway, Mayor Bannister/ To City Clerk From Councilman Silva � z APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE November 17, 1989 Subject PERT NO. 89-36 & ENVIRONMENTAL Date MI o� IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3/14UNTINGTON HARBOUR BAYCLUB =, rn c c�rn Co .,. �o With this memo we request that the decision of the Planning Commission at their November 7, 1989 meeting concerning Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 and Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 be appealed due to the amount of time and 14'' potential cumulative impacts which have occurred within the City since the original EIR circulated in 1982. WB:ss (4140d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY WILLIAMS _ IC HEARING AFTER 11:30 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING - AYES: Shomaker, Willi on, Ortega, Mount ford NOES: None ABSENT: L ' and ABST e TION PASSED C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-36/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-53/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 89-20 APPLICANT: COULTRUP DEVELOPMENT CO. LOCATION: 4123 Warner Avenue (Huntington Harbour Bay Club located on north side of Warner Avenue approximately 100 feet west of Edgewater Lane Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 is a request to construct a 36-unit residential condominium project . Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 is a request to exceed the maximum three-story requirement and construct a four-story stucture. The proposed project is located at 4123 Warner Avenue, north side of Warner Avenue approximately 100 feet west of Edgewater Lane. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 (EIR No. 82-3) was prepared to analyze the potential impacts of a more intense project and certified by the City Council in February 1983 . The City has recirculated EIR No. 82-3 for public and responsible agencies comments . COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is within an appealable portion of the Coastal Zone. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 or Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 89-53, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 . SPECIFIC PLAN: The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan (HHBCSP) . PC Minutes - 11/7/89 -24- (4097d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: A. Accept Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 82-3 as complete and adequate with additional geologic analysis with findings; B. Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 with findings; C. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 with findings and conditions of approval . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED John Coultrup, applicant, spoke in support of the request . He said he feels his new proposal will enhance the area with the reduction in the number of units, reduced building envelope and footprint, larger floorplans, reduced rooflines, and improved site plan. He said a recent noise study and seismic study have been completed and all earthquake lines and projected fault lines have been identified and approved for safety by the consultants . He said his permit to build 42 units will expire in December and he would like to get started on the new proposed 36-unit project . Marte Klarin, 17164 Edgewater Lane, expressed concern regarding the EIR being outdated since approved in 1982. It is felt that with over 1, 000 units being added since 1982 that sewage capacity and traffic problems need new mitigation measures . Barbara Devlin, 17156 Edgewater Lane, spoke in opposition to the project. She does not want a four story development next door to her. She feels a new EIR should be completed for the area and a seismic study as suggested by the Environmental Board. She feels with the project ' s added density the added traffic will be impossible. She would be in favor of a two story development. Michael Cavallo, 17220 Courtney Lane, representing 30 homeowners, gave his major concerns with the project which included traffic, noise and infrastructure problems . He said the area is already experiencing problems with infrastructure; water comes up through the manholes during high tides. He also said parking in the Marina is already a big problem because there are -not enough spaces and if the project is built out it will result in a loss of more parking spaces . He requested a new EIR and seismic study. Mrs . Gladys Schwartz, 17188 Edgewater Lane, requested a new EIR be completed since so many new developments have been added on Warner. She feels there are potentially dangerous seismic conditions that have been discovered that need to be studied. She said the bay is already polluted and all of the fish are gone because of the many live-aboards in the harbor and that the Warner and Edgewater area has become polluted. PC Minutes - 11/7/89 -25- (4097d) i . Joe Schwartz, 17188 Edgewater Lane, said he has been a harbor resident for 26 years . He is concerned with the beach. He said when the specific plan was done there was supposed to be a beach and to date there is not one. He said boat slips are where the beach is suppose to be. He does not think any development should be allowed until a beach is provided. Bill Sharp, 16477 Tropez Lane, spoke in support of the project . He feels if the developer is willing to reduce the number of units from 42 to 36 that his motives should not be questioned. Ralph Bauer, 16511 Cotuit Circle, representing 25 residents in the harbor, said the project is in the worst zone for potential loss of life because of the Newport-Inglewood fault. He feels the number of units should be reduced more than 6 units . He would like to see a new seismic study completed. Anne Woodard, 17124 Edgewater Lane, representing Huntington Harbor property owners, said this issue was like "beating a dead horse" ` since the developer already has permits to build. his project . She would like to see a new EIR completed. Sheldon Grossman, 17131 Edgewater Lane, said people cannot stop living because of the San Francisco earthquake. He said waterside residents are in favor of this project because it will be an improvement over what they look at now. He feels the reduction in number of units will be an improvement to the area and that the project will help screen noise from Warner Avenue. He also feels the design of the project is very attractive. Don Watson, 17091 Edgewater, spoke in opposition to the project. He lives on the water and objects to the live-aboards and says there is no enforcement. He does not feel there is enough parking in the area and cannot understand where the residents of the proposed project will park. He does not feel the development is being reduced from 42 to 36 . Instead he feels it is being increased from 0 to 36 . There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE AS ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3 WITH ADDITIONAL GEOLOGIC ANALYSIS, WITH FINDINGS; APPROVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-20 WITH FINDINGS; AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-53 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Williams, Bourguignon, Mountford NOES: Ortega ABSENT: Leipzig, Kirkland ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 11/7/89 -26- (4097d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - EIR NO, 82-3 : 1. No subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions in EIR No. 82-3 . 2 . No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstance under which the project is undertaken which would have required important revisions in EIR No. 82-3 . 3 . No new information of substantial importance to the project has become available. 4 . The approved geologic analysis addresses specific seismic .concerns . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 89-36 : 1. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 for the construction of 36 residential condominiums in lieu of 42 residential condominiums will implement the 'General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan. 2 . The location, site layout, and design of the structures on the 36 unit residential condominium project will properly adapt them to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner, because final design of each rennovated or reconstructed building will be subject to Design Review Board approval . 3 . The access to and parking for the proposed 36 unit residential condominium project does not create an undue parking problem because all required parking spaces will be provided on-site with 15 excess on-site parking spaces . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 89-20 : 1. The proposed 36 unit residential condominium project conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2 . Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 is consistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix, the Downtown Specific Plan, and provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3 . At the time of occupancy, the proposed 36 unit residential condominium project will be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan. PC Minutes - 11/7/89 -27- (4097d) • tii 4 . The proposed 36 unit residential condominium project conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-53 : 1. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 for four stories in lieu of one story will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the conforming (land, property, or improvements) in the neighborhood because views will not be blocked. 2 . The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 of the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to restrict the maximum height to 45 feet . 3 . The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed 36 unit residential condominium project will not be detrimental to property values of surrounding structures or the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building . 4 . The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 for four stories in lieu of 3 stories will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach because the structures will still conform to the overall maximum height of 45 feet. 5 . The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for which Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 is sought and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans dated received October 29, 1989 , shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. The elevations dated received October 29, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved elevations with the following modifications : a . The Design Review Board shall review and approve the following: (1) Architectural treatment on all building walls . (2) Material for exposed railings within the project . (3) Perimeter fencing plans . PC Minutes - 11/7/89 -28- (4097d) 3 . Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a . Submit three copies of the site plan to the Planning Division for addressing purposes . If street names are necessary, submit proposal to Fire Department for review and approval . b. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to backflow devices and Edison transformers, on the site plan. They shall be prohibited in' the front and exterior yard setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method as approved by the Community Development Director. c. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units; and low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets . d. If foil-type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department and indicated on the floor plans . e. The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s) . f . Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. g. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from any view. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors . If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan must be submitted showing screening and must be approved. h. If outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations . PC Minutes - 11/7/89 -29- (4097d) i . A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities . j . The site plan shall include (or reference page) all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. 4 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Submit copy of the revised elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file. b. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape .Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity) , an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval . (1) The landscape plan depicts installation and maintenance of the area at the terminus of Edgewater Lane and the parkway area along Edgewater Lane adjacent to the Bay Club site. (2) The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Section 9608 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits . Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with minimum 36-inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project' s landscape plan. c. A grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and it must be approved (by issuance of a grading permit) . A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works . d. Hydrology and hydraulic studies shall be submitted for Public Works approval. PC Minutes - 11/7/89 -30- (4097d) e. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. f . An Affordable Housing Agreement Plan to provide affordable housing within the Coastal Zone shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department . The plan shall provide for minimum 20 percent of the housing units (7 units) either. on-site, or the equivalent number off-site within three miles of the coastal zone, for persons or low or moderate income households as per the provisions of Government Code Section 65590(d) . g. An interim parking and/or building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community . Development to assure adequate parking is available for employees, customers, contractors, etc. , during the project ' s construction phase. h. Submit copy of completed FEMA Elevation Certificate. 5 . Fire Department Requirements are as follows : a . Provide automatic fire sprinkler system throughout all buildings . b. All levels shall have combination standpipe connections . c. All roadways shall be designated fire lanes with no parking . d. Provide fire hydrants on-site and on Warner pursuant to Fire Department requirements . e. Provide emergency access gates along Warner and at Edgewater. f. Marina standpipe systems shall be upgraded to comply with current fire code requirements . g. Every floor shall be accessed by an elevator with the minimum interior dimensions : 6 ' 8" wide - 4 ' 3" deep with a 42" door. h. Each building shall have separate fire protection and life safety systems with separate addresses . 6 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department . 7. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. PC Minutes - 11/7/89 -31- (4097d) v�l 8 . During construction, the applicant shall : a . Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Use low sulfur fuel ( . 05% by weight) for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts) ; e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts . 9 . Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8 : 00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays . 10 . Prior to final building permit approval or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed: a . Relocation of banquet parking area to west side of site adjacent to Sceptre Lane. b. The applicant shall restripe the parking lot so that it conforms to provisions of Article 960 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. c. All improvements (including landscaping) to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein. d. Dedicate public access along 10-foot bulkhead walkway adjacent to marina. e. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. 11. All diking, dredging and filling shall be performed in conformance with the Coastal Act (Section 30233) . 12 . A copy of the CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and -reviewed by the City Attorney' s office as to form and content. It shall include a clause prohibiting persons from living aboard any boat docket or moored at the facility. It shall also include a provision which prohibits vehicular access to Edgewater Lane to all but emergency vehicles. PC Minutes - 11/7/89 -32- (4097d) 13 . Parking lot shall remain open during daytime hours so that the public may have access to the walkway/beach. 14 . The applicant shall• be responsible for all striping, signing, decking and red curb on Warner Avenue. 15 . Warner Avenue shall be improved to Public Works Standards . 16 . No parking shall be allowed on private 24-foot wide roadway. 17 . The applicant shall construct all required storm drain facilities within his project limits and dedicate easements for the master-planned facility. 18 . The project shall be phased so that the club facilities shall have sufficient parking during the construction of the residential portion. As an alternative, the club portion may _ be closed during the construction of the residential units, in order to assure that sufficient parking is made available during the construction of the project. 19 . Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36, Coastal Development Permit No . 89-20 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 shall become null and void unless exercised within two (2) years of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 20 . Should a Traffic Impact Fee be adopted by the City Council, the applicant/property owner shall be responsible for- paying such fee prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or final building permit approval. 21. _ The applicant/property owner shall be responsible for paying the Park and Recreation Fees in effect at the time the final map is accepted by City Council or issuance by building permits, whichever occurs first. E AMENDMENT NO 8 -1 CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 7 198 i 9 OMMI ION MEETINGAPPL qqq LOCATION: City-w Code Amendment No. 89-10 is a requu Development Department to amend, update, and renumbe nvironmental Regulations . PC Minutes - 11/7/89 -33- (4097d) t November 6, 1989 RECEIVED NOV 0 719-89 To: Planning Commission Members DEPARTMENT of Huntington Beach, CA C®MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION CC: City Council Members City Attorney REF: Conditional Use Permit #89-36, Coastal Development Permit #89-28, Conditional Exception (Variance)#89-53, and EIR#82-3. . Please accept this correspondence as our support of the city's appointed Environmental Board's report in regard to the above referenced project. The EIR that Huntington Beach deems appropriate for this development is seven (7) years old. In referencing the attached drawing of the community directly surrounding this proposed project, you can visibly see that the area has changed drastically since 1982. The over development of this area, when considering both proposed and constructed, is overwhelming. The type of "Spot Planning" approved by the Commission, Council and City is in complete disregard of our General Plan. To date the Commission, Council and City have far surpassed the General Plan in infastructure, traffic and noise abatement. The complete disregard for these as well as current seismic information has put this city's residents in jeopardy of life, health and well being. In lieu of the recent disaster in the San Francisco area, we find it abominable that you would even consider accepting the 1982 EIR, based upon the most current fault information alone. Politically,you may wish to protect the investment of one developer. But considering the circumstances, we encourage you to take the time required to generate a current Environmental Impact Report, protecting yourself and our city, legally, and ultimately the potential residents of this project. Sincerely, 0 Donna Klein ontem 17186 Courtney Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 (714)840-1092 bV TrrS ( un r y. 2z•70,lr�74 M C D.�I ile9��- 9uni 1S Q I �•/) Y I 28vr,ITS I / . 6L C,d �ogo < Orrl an�-c/ IL 000 0, Gi3 a��� 7�t im/3G2 �Kt-Cc� r p r CLIA! u (�. RECEIVED r X Nov 0 7 1989 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION November 6 , 1989 City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Attn: Mr. Bob Franklin 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Conditional Use Permit #89-36 and Coastal Dev. Permit #89-20. Dear Mr. . Franklin, We have reviewed the above referenced documents and have several concerns about the recommendations. First, there have been many changes in the area since the 1982 EIR report was compiled which we feel makes it obsolete. Between 1982 and present there have been over one thousand condos and apartments constructed within a quarter square mile area (between Pierce and Warner and Bolsa Chica and Algonquin) and this does not include any commercial building or the airport construction area. This has all added to the noise level, traffic and general congestion in the area. Second, Coultrup .Dev. Co. promised us convenient, close parking for the boaters. This has not been done and the plan- ning commission report does not provide for it. Third, it is hard to comprehend how ground level park- ing, which will change the project to four stories, will not increase the height of the building, even with the roof redesign. Finally, considering all of the above, we feel a new Environmental Impact Report is definitely necessary for a realistic outlook on the project. Y u s tru O. John and Pamela Cronn 17232 Courtney Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 cc Mike Cavallo Huntington Harbour Property . Owners Assn 2 . development being done in this area. There are too many changes in growth and knowledge that have taken place in the last nine years to NOT warrant new studies before we sacrafice our quality of life for commercial gains . Sincerely, T �ry aride nette Stelzer DECEIVED NOV o 71989 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION EIV TERRY AND JEANETTE STELZER NOV Q lga� 17148 Edgewater Lane Huntington Harbour, California 92649 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT NOV. 7 , 1989 PLANNING DIVISION Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 711 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: 4123 Warner Ave. Huntinton Harbor Bay Club Dear Members of the Planning Commission: 'Pertaining to the above development, we agree with the H. B. Envirionmental Board ' s suggestion that a new EIR should be required before a final approval is made for this project (or any other on this site ) since many developments have taken place in the area as well as Orange County in general. Traffic, noise, parking, and infrastructure are problems that need to be currently addressed completely before approval. The city is: obviously aware of traffic increases along Warner Ave. as evidenced by recent signal changes and excessive noise levels recorded, etc. and the development of Meadowlark and Bolsa Chica has not yet even started. The studies done in 1982 are clearly outdated. New evidence of earthquake faults (Alquist-Priolo Hazard Zone and Newport-Inglewood Faults ) have been identified and should be scrutinized in light of our new knowledge of liquefaction and the damage it causes , especially to multi-story buildings . -In regards to sewer system adequacy, while this particular project ' s response is that it will not im- pact the system, many other developments have taken place in the last nine years . New studies should be demanded and updated. As a resident of Edgewater Lane, I feel that the parking situation must be addressed based on current boat population (both legal and illegal ) and number of people already living aboard vessels . If dock parking is to be alloted only to the lot along Edgewater Lane we feel it inadequate as even now with the parking lot that extends from Edgewater to the Bay Club on Warner it is moderately full on weekends . That is quadruple of what the proposed allotment would be. Their option would then become parking is the neighborhoods . In closing, we strongly urge you to demand a new EIR study be done and examined prior to any further 1 . huntington beach department of community development • STAff -REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: November 7, 1989 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-36/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-53/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-20 APPLICANT/ Coultrup Development Co. DATE ACCEPTED: PROPERTY 13001 Seal Beach Blvd. September 8, 1989 OWNER: Suite 300 Seal Beach, CA 92648 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: November 8, 1989 REQUEST: To construct a 36 unit residential condominium ZONE: Huntington Harbour project in lieu of an Bay C1ub 'Specific Plan approved 42 unit resi- dential condominium GENERAL PLAN: Mixed project with a variance Development to exceed the maximum three stories and build EXISTING USE: Vacant four stories . realty office LOCATION: 4123 Warner Avenue ACREAGE: 3 .26 acres (Huntington Harbour Bay Club located on north side of Warner Avenue approximately 100 feet west of Edgewater Lane 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: A. Accept Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 82-3 as complete and adequate with additional geologic analysis with findings; B. Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 with findings; C. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89=36 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 with findings and conditions of approval . 2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 is a request to construct -a 36-unit residential condominium project . Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 is a request to exceed the maximum three-story requirement and construct a C "Q t I A-F M-23C _ ow four-story stucture. The proposed project is located at 4123 Warner • Avenue, north side of Warner Avenue approximately 100 feet west of Edgewater Lane. 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: North of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space-Recreation ZONE: WR-CZ-FP2 (Water Recreation-Coastal Zone-Floodplain District 2) LAND USE: Weatherly Bay East and West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: R1-CZ (Low Density Residential-Coastal Zone) LAND USE: Condominiums/single family .dwellings South of Subject Property: (Unincorporated Orange County Bolsa Chica Planning Area) 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: I.n accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 (EIR No. 82-3) was prepared to analyze the potential impacts of a more intense project and certified by the City Council in February 1983 . The City has recirculated EIR No. 82-3 for public and responsible agencies comments . The requisite procedure for recirculating EIR" No. 82-3 that was followed is outlined below: August 24 , 1989 Staff conducted an initial study and determined that recirculation of EIR No. 82-3 would be necessary for the project.. September 1, 1989 A Notice of Preparation was advertised and filed with the State Clearinghouse to solicit comments . September 6, 1989 Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse. EIR No. 82-3 was available for public review and comment for 45 days (Comment period: September 6, 1989, to October 20, 1989) . November 7, 1989 Public hearing before Planning Commission for the project . Staff has responded to all comments received (included as Attachment No . 4 in this report) . • Staff Report. - 11/7/89 -2- (3977d) . It should be noted that the proposed project meets the requirements in Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which states "Exemption. Where a public agency has prepared an EIR on a specific plan after January 1, 1980, no EIR or negative declaration need be prepared for a residential project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to that specific plan if the project meets the requirements of this section. " Also, pursuant to Section 15162 of CEQA where an EIR has been prepared, no additional EIR need be prepared unless "subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR on the project. " After a lengthy evaluation by State Registered Geologists, it was determined that a 25 foot wide seismic zone be established between the proposed location of both .the 42 unit and the revised 36 unit condominium projects. Final determination has been made by the . Department of Public Works that all mandatory Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone requirements have been complied with. The proposed project represents a reduction in permitted density, provides excess on-site parking spaces, conforms to the maximum height limitation; will generate less noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood; and provides a wider separation of the proposed buildings which provide: 1) wider view corridors; 2) greater distance from the structural- setback seismic zone; . The proposed project complies with both pertinent sections of CEQA with regard to specific plans and the use of an EIR previously certified. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept EIR No. 82-3 as complete and adequate with additional geologic analysis with findings outlined in Section 10. 0 in this report. Prior to any action on Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20, Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 or Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-20, the Planning Commission must accept or reject EIR No. 82-3 as complete and adequate. 5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is within an appealable portion of the Coastal Zone. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 or Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 . The proposed project will implement the following policies of the Coastal Element of the General Plan: Protect-, encourage and, where feasible, provide residential opportunities in the Coastal Zone that are varied in type and price (see Condition No. 4 . f) . Staff Report - 11/7/89 -3- (3977d) Provide lateral public access to coastal resources (see • Condition No. 10 .d) . Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 may be approved or conditionally approved only after it has been found to be in conformance with the Coastal Element by making the following findings: (a) Land Use Plan. That the development project proposed by the coastal development permit application conforms with the plans, .policies, requirements and standards of the Coastal Element . (b) Zoning Regulations . That the coastal development permit application is consistent with .the CZ suffix, the base zoning district or specific plan as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; (c) Adequate Services . That at the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with C-LUP; (d) California Coastal Act. That the development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. • 7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan (HHBCSP).. The Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan identifies a.s a permitted use a maximum of 42 residential condominiums at the proposed location. The residential portion is one of three types of uses permitted within the HHBCSP; the other permitted uses being a commercial marina and the banquet facilities . The applicant is proposing to reduce the permitted project density from 42 units down to 36 units and elevate the subterranean parking structure to grade parking garages which requires a variance for 4 stories in lieu of 3 stories . 8 .0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Project Description: Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 is a request to construct a 36-unit residential condominium project in lieu of an approved 42-unit residential condominium project within the designated residential area contained in the • Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan (HHBCSP) . Conditional Staff Report - 11/7/89 -4- (3977d) Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 is a request to exceed the maximum three-story limitation by one story (four stories) . The project consists of two 18-unit buildings, three stories of habitable floor area, over a semi-subterranean parking garage. Each building has 18 two-bedroom, two bath condominiums with floor areas ranging from 1,460 to 2, 100 square feet. Two elevators per building provide access to the units . A common recreation area includes a recreation building and a lap pool with a jacuzzi . A total of 105 parking spaces (72 covered parking spaces) are provided where only 90 spaces are required, which results in 15 excess spaces provided on-site. Since the semi-subterranean parking garage is considered a story by the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the applicant has submitted a variance to exceed the maximum three-story limitation contained in the HHBCSP. Although the project requires a variance. to exceed the maximum 3 stories, the project complies with the maximum 45 foot height requirement also contained in the HHBCSP. The applicant ' s civil engineer has indicated that a semi-subterranean parking garage at this location will eliminate long range problems associated with a subterranean, which may include sea-water intrusion, flooding, and drainage problems while providing improved access to the covered parking spaces (see Attachment No. 3) . Issues: Site and History: The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the HHBCSP which was approved by the City Council February 1983 and revised by the Coastal Commission in July 1984 . The Huntington Harbour Bay Club site is a mixed use project area which includes a commercial marina, banquet facilities and medium density residential (maximum 42 units) . The master plan was approved by the Planning Commission on June 4 , 1985, as Conditional Use Permit No. 85-15, Tentative Tract 11881 and Coastal Development Permit No. 85-2. On November 23, 1987, the former property owner submitted construction drawings for the permitted 42 unit residential condominium portion of the mixed use site. On June 91 1989, a building permit was issued to Coultrup Development Co. for the construction of the approved 42 condominiums. The building permit for the 42 units is still active and construction may commence if the builder decides to begin construction before December 9, 1989 . in August of 1989, the Coultrup Development Co. acquired the 42-unit condominium project . The 42-unit project contains a subterranean parking garage for each building and three stories of habitable floor area with lofts which comply with the maximum 45 feet height limitation. The revised 36-unit project contains a semi- subterranean parking garage and three stories of habitable floor area which also complies with the maximum 45 feet height limitation. Staff Report - 11/7/89 -5- (3977d) The revised project raises the parking garage to two feet below grade, allows better access to the parking garage, creates better view opportunities from each unit, lowers the density by six units and provides 15 excess parking spaces on-site. Further, the separation between the two buildings has been increased by approximately 15 feet, which provides additional public view opportunities and greater buffer from the seismic zone. Design• The proposed project exhibits a contemporary Mediterranean design theme which includes stuccoed walls, tile roofs, and extensive windows to take advantage of th views of the channels and the Bolsa Chica. On October 12, 1989, the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed 36 unit project . The Design Review Board recommended revising the lower level balconies to create a wide base. Also, recommended revisions to roof line treatment and upper story corners were suggested to the architects. After a lengthy discussion regarding circulation, setbacks, site layout, building bulk, landscaping and building materials, the motion to recommend approval passed by a vote of 4 to 0 (see Attachment No. 5) . In addition, final approval of the colors, landscaping and fencing for the project shall be subject to Design Review Board approval prior to submitting for building permits. Parking and Access: The proposed 36 unit condominium project provides the required 72 covered assigned parking spaces and the required 18 guest parking spaces which are conveniently located in proximity of each building. The HHBCSP requires two parking spaces per two bedroom unit with a . 5 parking space for guest parking. In addition, by reducing the density from 42 to 36 units, 15 excess. parking spaces are provided on-site which will be available for residents and guests of the project. Access to the parking garage and to the guest parking spaces is from a driveway along Warner Avenue. The driveway will provide access to both the condominium project as well as the commercial marina parking lot located adjacent to Edgewater Lane located to the north of the proposed project . The 36 unit condominium project does not encroach into required marina parking nor does it encroach into the rquired banquet facility parking areas . Although the proposed location for the residential project is presently being used for banquet facility parking, replacement parking for the banquet facility will be provided elsewhere on-site. The dilapidated tennis court area located at the eastern side of the banquet facility was approved for a parking lot in the 1985 master plan approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-15 . Staff Report - 11/7/89 -6- (3977d) Staff has analyzed the proposed project and feels that there will not be any significant adverse impacts resulting from the approval and construction of the 36-unit residential condominium development in lieu of an approved 42-unit project. Further, the reduction of density from the permitted 42 units down to 36 units, provision of excess parking on-site, and raising the subterranean parking garages to semi-subterranean will provide a better project and will be more compatible with surrounding land uses . 10. 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: A. Accept Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 82-3 as complete and adequate with additional geologic analysis with findings;. B. Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 with findings; C. Approve Conditional ..Use Permit No. 89-36 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 with findings and conditions of approval. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - EIR NO. 82-3 : • 1 . No subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions in EIR No. 82-3 . 2 . No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstance under which the project is undertaken which would have required important revisions in EIR No. 82-3 . 3 . No new information of substantial importance to the project has become available. 4 . The approved geologic analysis addresses specific seismic concerns . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 89-36: 1. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 for the construction of 36 residential condominiums in lieu of 42 residential condominiums will implement the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan. 2 . The location, site layout, and design of the structures on the 36 unit residential condominium project will properly adapt them to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner, because final design of each rennovated or reconstructed building will be subject to Design Review Board approval . Staff Report - 11/7/89 -7- (3977d) 3 . The access to and parking for the proposed 36 unit residential condominium project does not create an undue parking problem because all required parking spaces will be provided on-site with 15 excess on-site parking spaces. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 89-20: 1. The proposed 36 unit residential condominium project conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2 . Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 is consistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix, the Downtown Specific Plan, and provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3 . At the time of occupancy, the proposed 36 unit residential condominium project will be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan. 4 . The proposed 36 unit residential condominium project conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-53: 1. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 for i four stories in lieu of one story will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the conforming (land, property, or improvements) in the neighborhood because views will not be blocked. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 of the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to restrict the maximum height to 45 feet. 3 . The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed 36 unit residential condominium project will not be detrimental to property values of surrounding structures or the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 4 . The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 for four stories in lieu of 3 stories will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach because the structures will still conform to the overall maximum height of 45 feet . Staff Report - 11/7/89 -8- (3977d) � . 5. The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for which Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 is sought and will proceed to do so without unnecessary- delay. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans dated received October 29, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. The elevations dated received October 29, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved elevations with the following modifications : a . The Design Review Board shall review and approve the following: (1) Architectural treatment on all building walls . (2) Material for exposed railings within the project. (3) Perimeter fencing plans . 3 . Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Submit three copies of the site plan to the Planning . Division for addressing purposes. If street names are necessary, submit proposal to Fire Department for review and approval . b. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to backflow devices and Edison transformers, on the site plan. They shall be prohibited in the front and exterior yard setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method as approved by the Community Development Director. C. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, ,and central heating units; and low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets . d. If foil-type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building 'Department . and indicated on the floor plans . e. . The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie • within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s) . Staff Report - 11/7/89 -9- (3977d.) f. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. g. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from any view. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan must be submitted showing screening and must be approved. h. If outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations. i . A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities . j . The site plan shall include (or reference page) all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. 4 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Submit copy of the revised elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file. b. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity) , an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval . (1) The landscape plan depicts installation and maintenance of the area at the terminus of Edgewater Lane and the parkway area along Edgewater Lane adjacent to the Bay Club site. Staff Report - 11/7/89 -10- (3977d) (2) The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Section 9608 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with minimum 36-inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project 's landscape plan. C. A grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and it must be approved (by issuance of a grading permit) . A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial. operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. d. Hydrology and hydraulic studies shall be submitted for Public Works approval. e. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. f . An Affordable Housing Agreement Plan to provide affordable housing within the Coas7tal Zone shall be submitted for review and approval .by tte. Community Development Department. The plan shall\provide for minimum 20 percent of the housing units, (7 units.) either on-site, or the equivalent number off--site within three miles of the coastal zone,. for persons or low or moderate income households as per the provisions of Government Code Section 65590(d) . g. An interim parking and/or building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development to assure adequate parking is available for employees, customers, contractors, etc. , during the project ' s construction phase. h. Submit copy of completed FEMA Elevation Certificate. 5 . Fire Department Requirements are as follows: a. Provide automatic fire sprinkler system throughout all buildings . i b. All levels shall have combination standpipe connections. C. All roadways shall be designated fire lanes with no parking. . d. Provide fire hydrants on-site and on Warner pursuant to Fire Department requirements. i Staff Report - 11/7/89 -11- (3977d) e. Provide emergency access gates along Warner and at • Edgewater. f . Marina standpipe systems shall be upgraded to comply with current fire code requirements. g. Every floor shall be accessed by an elevator with the minimum interior dimensions : 6 ' 8" wide - 4 '3" deep with a 42" door. h. Each building shall have separate fire protection and life safety systems with separate addresses . 6 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department .. 7 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 8 . During construction, the applicant shall: a . Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is • completed for the day; C. Use low sulfur fuel ( .05% by weight) for construction equipment, d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts) ; e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts . 9 . Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays . 10. Prior to final building permit approval or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed: a. Relocation of banquet parking area to west side of site adjacent to Sceptre Lane. b. The applicant shall restripe the parking lot so that it conforms to provisions of Article 960 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. C. All improvements (including landscaping) to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans .and conditions of approval specified herein. Staff Report --- 11/7/89 -12- (3977d) d. Dedicate public access along 10-foot bulkhead walkway adjacent to marina. e. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. 11 . All diking, dredging and filling shall be performed in conformance with the Coastal Act (Section 30233) . 12, A copy of the CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and reviewed by .the City Attorney's office as to form and content . It shall include a clause prohibiting persons from living aboard any boat docket or moored at the facility. It shall also include a provision which prohibits vehicular access to Edgewater Lane to all but emergency vehicles. 13 . Parking lot shall remain open during daytime hours so that the public may have access to the walkway/beach. 14 . The applicant shall be responsible for all striping, signing, decking and red curb on Warner Avenue. 15. Warner Avenue shall be improved to Public Works Standards. 16 . No parking shall be allowed on private 24-foot wide roadway. 17. The applicant shall construct all required storm drain facilities within his project limits and dedicate easements for the master-planned facility. 18 . The project shall be phased so that the club facilities shall have sufficient parking during the construction of the residential portion. As an alternative, the club portion may be closed during the construction of the residential units, in order to assure that sufficient parking is made available during the construction of the project. 19 . Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36, Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 shall become null and void unless exercised within two (2) years of the date of -final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 11. 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may deny Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53 and Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 with findings. Staff Report - 11/7/89 -13- (3977d) e ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area map 2. Narratives for project dated August 25, 1989, and variance . request dated September 25, 1989 3 . Letter from Civil Engineer in support of variance dated October 20, 1989 4 . Site plans, elevations and floor plans dated October 27, 1989 5. Design Review Board minutes dated October 12, 1989 6. Response to comments for EIR No. 82-3 7 . Acceptance of geologic analysis dated May 12, 1989 8 . Geologic Analysis Determination dated April 29, 1989 9 . Geologic Analysis dated March 13, 1989 10. EIR No. - 82-3 HS:RLF:kla Staff Report - 11/7/89 -14- (3977d) WARNER s ,(� R2-CZ R�-CZ s _ i�t-CZ Rr fll-CZ i R I cz RI-c R3 3 a fl �R 3 ^41( I t'5' RI-CZ RI-CZ R3 RS^ ( R3 ��, C�. dT Z R2 R2 R2� R3-19 { ui WR-CZ-FP2 F Rh pN 3 Nl �/ A R� R2-CZ ,�,�ZFr� �ATKRLY DA. U R�I� W5f 11•E MA / i-cz R I-Cz, WR-CZ FP2 — .RI R \ , N YADDIi HUNTINGTON HARBOR / C 4LADaN DR. L1' •RI-CZ RI-CZ yC9 n -CZ B AY CLUB SPECIFIC PLA CF C CZ 1 `�' I 9 C, S. caa R:-cz _ CZ ,. •4 RI-CZ - ;; RI C w R R AVE WaR FR AVE o c � X.IE I. FEE• 4s • CUP89----36 COP89--,-Z5 CE89 531 E I R SZ--%-,A HUNTINGTON ff,401 HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION COULITRUP Development Company August 25, 1989 RECEIVED AIJG 2 81989 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEV'ZL.OPM!:NT Planning Commission PLANNING DIVISION City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 711 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Blue Diamond Bay - Project Description for site Plan Amendment - our Project Consists of 1.844 Acres Dear Sir: Our building consists of two 18 unit buildings, three stories over a semi-subterranean garage, each with 37 covered parking spaces. Total parking 109 spaces, total required is 90. Each building has 18 two-bedroom, two bath condominiums with square footage ranging from 1,462 to 2, 122 square feet. There are two elevators per building, one recreation building with pool and juccuzzi. An attractive sound wall with lush landscaping is proposed for the Warner property line. Sincerely, f� - - Jon T. CoultrCip JTC/rmo 13001 Seal Beach Boulevard, Suite 300 • Seal Beach, CA 90740 • (213) 430-8118 COULTRUP Development Company RE. CEI ED August 25, 1989 �► �cz 2 81989 Ov CO%IMU'NITY rDEV:-ItOPMENI uLANNil G DIVISION Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 711 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPOSED 36 UNITS AND ITS IMPROVEMENTS OVER THE 42 UNIT PLAN WHICH HAS BUILDING PERMITS Dear Commission: Enclosed please find general information on the subject property. I have attempted to enhance the .project as follows: 1. Reduce density to 36 units. (Two 18 unit buildings) . 2 . Increase distance between buildings from 94 ' to 1401 . (This greatly improves view corridors and openness of project) . 3 . Raise garage up to four feet below grade level and berm with landscaping. This actually lowers the building height. (See #5) 4 . Remove lofts and decrease size of massive roof. 5. Enlarge all floor plans primarily by widening units. This is possible by removing two units per floor and replacing with one unit. (New D Plan) 6. Modify all floor plans. Ocean and bay views are improved, as well as function, ambience and design. 7. Plans range in size from 1, 62 and 2, 122 and plan D was added to enhance the project. 8 . Greatly enhance project entry with brick pavers, stone waterfall, and lush landscaping. 9. Improved recreation building. 10. Change pool to lap pool and jacuzzi. I ;t001 Seal Beacll BOUlevard, Suite 300 0 Seal Beach, CA 90740 • (213) 430-81 18 RECEIV Eu Planning Commission 1989 August 25, 1989 AUG 2 a Page Two DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 11. Provide first-class street wall at Warner property line enhanced with lush landscaping. This feature also reduces noise levels. 12. Redesign of exterior of building to provide a more appealing and richer look. 13 . Added one more elevator to each building for a total of two elevators per building. 14 Overall enhancement of site through better planning and increased landscaping. Sincerely, Jon T. Cpultrup ,` President �' COULTRL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY JTC/rmo (. c®uLTwP Development Company RE VE September 25, 1989 n 198g ,T Mr. Bob Franklin CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Re: variance Request for Four Story Building for the . Planned 36 Condominiums, Tract #11881 Dear Bob: Please have this letter serve as my formal request for the subject variance. In our efforts to further improve the project, we wish to improve the roof line and the building overall by removing the fourth story lofts and the massive roofs, and designing the garage at grade level with landscape berming and lush .landscaping. This design does not increase the height of the building but actually decreases the mass and size of the overall structure. In doing so, I understand that on a technicality, this designates the building as a four-story structure. In that the project is clearly improved and the height has not changed, we feel the variance is warranted. Further, it is our concern that the water table issue is best addressed by building the garage on grade. For the piece of mind and safety of everyone involved, particularly those individuals who will purchase and live at the development, I request this variance. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. SZee Jt -PC ELOPMEN COMPANY JTC/py 13001 Seal Beach Boulevard, Suite 300 • Seal Beach, CA 90740 • (213) 430-81 18 RMG/THE KEITH COMPANIES 11961 Cowan 92 Irvine, CA 92714. October 20, 1989. Mr. Bob Franklin City of Huntington Beach R E s C f1 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ,) ;T 3 i989 RE.: Variance request for four story b c ,-- fpr the 36 condominiums, Tract 11881 �o, ,,.... :.. r;•;I- Dear Bob: As you are aware, RMG/THE KEITH COMPANIES is the civil engineer for the subject project. We believe the proposed change to raise the garage to grade level is proper. It is our opinion that the proposal to revise the design to .construct the garage floors to grade is a desirable design • change. Grading difficulties are expected to be significantly reduced; waterproofing of garage walls will be significantly reduced or eliminated; drainage of the garage floor will be significantly simplified; and improved access to the structure, are but a few of the benefits anticipated from an engineering viewpoint. Very truly yours, CLJohn erK. Mandrell Vice President RMG/THE KEITH COMPANIES JKM/dm i •• •e• • 4 •• .• .<ruse...-+.......,. , r�'m+uo.» .r. a.•ur. ` .. ... .. ... .. 520.00' 92.Q •- '17DDI C, _ I — 10 30'-0" SQ,-0. o• A6•,o' 30•.0• So'-0' 30'-O" 30'.0• f. _ / k 30'- So'-o" f42'-o" 1 4 0 30 0 9D c —SCALE: f•YO'-O' -f-WARNCR, ._.._—_.. 0 W. & w® MWM M TiW, I —ACLU B K_&6 Vh teArd bed ' sCW � � � FOR COULTR P DEVELOPIU s ON Tabert Avexe 27 227 n �---� • f• •• ---HUM INaTpN HAR80UR t J EXWM _ 1� a•a r ! a s t o e s � •� • .SUPS ! 61 CA Fr, IL- •�' � i 1 J i �t • ;1 . . _ , 1 - i c.-C `-s•t � ) I IS4RPf,O1Mt IB twm •� - � ` GATE i —__WARIJ£li INENUE Kath Gi0f>bn White Amhrtect MUNlTONGTOM HARBOUR MY CLUB W& TabertAexue&Ae227 FOR COULTHM ReVoBT '" CA 92708 ate'4 sdbl _ b� ff•°1 • a ' 1 a - MASTffi SUITE MFSNA SUITE �.� 8,, LIYNCz ....a lryNKz DINING O - - _: LJ. ASTER SUITE BEDROOM I BEDROOM ci �j Wit,GordonMte Ardywa '�l�Lu14099 t70M H/A Afg DUR INAA V CA,M D 61�Taabeert�Acrue&"227 FOR 000d8WUP DEMOP9 Eff Fa w W .CA 92708 ��I�J704 t154 3 DCKk . UVIIG MRSTER SUITE BEDROOM - I DINING ) QBRT 8 01 BATH - -- -� + : 1 H HEN' DEN NOoF IN Keith Gadon White Architect OW Tabert Amnue Suite 227 MI�11t�M(�'SP�M Haf�I�cHun-aA c to �;CA 927D8 RM CW®EVEL ��964 aL r NltaF iR a � •�rw. I -limill low It\■1/. get 1., ,iii�r i'•■Tiu i iiC� G �r i s� i ina�.. }i ii%i`�i��i: ill u��1�: I i !;�R Ili. ► ,��� I .�s �� � I � � - ' �c a at mill III■ III '�' I I Sl��ay, �;' I i. .I saaycail ���.. i iaia!■ Drops assaeal I I i 21, 4A,rga . g ill�t� UI 11 IIIgoal .■., il �+� ftatl �.s;l SMo iBeC.. - irwl�ln "n ~p �I®w� I II,.®1 I■ I;I W. - i ` � �laa 1 C �I®#I III C III I,i 1\aa lil�! I II• u,..[��41'i I��� Ih.., qi 'y1�3 � .ii llls l�,lalll��1, I'I�` �I al IIL l 0%,ii 7: a■_f_A S1yyr oe`*'!i1ounni 04 Ilas IIIl�I',;Q ..a, I II I 1 as IIIi� zzg# raw. -31 Mai ,lI awl ii 1 �aa■l �ia,e nw ;�, ■ I � irk,, i 1 •1' a1aE � 1�tr iP'!•U !` • .a■». I �i: it i r aalll tar(agot.Ito • •�d,� 1 i IIIII II I � w II IM, a a f r ! Q, . -- .r—�i1 t l ��� �1 i� i I ��11I i I�'! ..R ��"—f-'—�''•n°%l" � o,,,�',�L _ Keith Gordon White Architect — _--- — — -- - -----"��-- ID061 Tabert Avenue Suite 227 _ �14 964 4354964 4354 0 Y —(4#—z if r\ MUNYONGTCH rA&MOUR scar' cLU,U3 FOR COELTRUP Df VELOPMERT r i I I � I Iw! i - , 721a o JQ I I t gg ¢ i I I ,. I l I Architect 10081 Talbert Av Suite 227 Fountain Valley CA 92708 714-964-4354 Keith Gordon White j aa�wrv�xaau�� ra�wmr�aiia�i�:�fT..o.aa, tt Y_"°''o - rt��PN—a--i- --- ----- .._ � . ,-aw�a4.� 207 K eith 1 Ute A d tltect ti;. awn, Mnrwnn r rx,e&Ae 227 IL9H BbL 'I-.CAL UBA 927C)8 FGA Coug.T p MVELO�4 � s 6^ v 4L • �t'i)� •I I I I i I I j I i � I � � i i _I _� --I �-. ! + - ' j �i -'Q .— 0 Ir �Et' 30 , Keith Gordon White Architect FOR CotLTWJP DEVEAPO 4 0u 1 S CCA 927 8 227 (7 435 10 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES October 12 , 1989 3 :40 p.m. Members Present : Frank Higgins , Kirk Kirkland, Mike Adams , Daryl Smith, Mike Adams Absent : Mark Porter Staff Present : Sergio Martinez A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-36 : Applicant : Coultrup Development Request : 36 Unit Residential Condominiums Location: 4212 Warner Avenue Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Robert "Franklin; Staff .Planner, introduced the applicant and displayed the site plan, colored elevations and material-color • pallette. The proposed project is .composed of two four-story huil.dings . Each building has a semi-subterranean garage and three stories of residential units. John Coultrup, applicant , described the project in detail . A lengthy exchange of information took_ place between the applicant and members. of the Board. Circulation, setbacks, site layout, building bulk, landscaping and buildings materials were discussed. MIKE ADAMS MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE LAYOUT, BUILDING FORMS AND MATERIALS, SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF COLORS, FENCING AND LANDSCAPING, AFTER_ THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES THE PROJECT. FRANK HIGGINS SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT PASSED 4-0 . TOWN REDEVELOPMENT Ap nt . R e ient ques n et d Fi t o A e n) on: 0 ck Ma Stree i A ' on: ina Ke ' h Bo dev pmen lann i la d a o re si plan d de ai dr ngs . a pr co s . o t 0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS . FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3 EIR 82-3 was made available for review and comment to various public agencies, responsible agencies, citizen groups .and interested individuals for a period of 45 days . Copies of all comments received as of October 20, 1989, follow this cover page. Comments have been numbered and responses have been correspondingly numbered. Responses are presented for each comment which raised an issue. A substantive response to comments which do not address the completeness or adequacy of the EIR are not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act. Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged" reference. This indicates that each comment will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmaker for their review and consideration. . Qommentors Comment/Response Series Letter - October 12, 1989 DOC 1-10 Dennis J. O'Bryant • Department of Conservation Letter - October 12,. 1989 ERB 1-6 Huntington Beach Environmental Board Letter - October 13, 1989 VCD 1-2 Orange County Vector Control District I State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIPUR Vta Memorandum Date Dr. Gordon F. Snow Da October 12 ,, 1989 Assistant Secretary for Resources svbiect: Draft Environmental Kelly Main Impact Report (EIR) City of Huntington Beach for the Huntington 2000 Main Street Harbour Bay Club Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Condominiums, From Department of Conservation--Office of the Director BCH# 89090626 The Department of Conservation has reviewed the Draft EIR•. f.or--- the proposed project and submits the following comments!;Cor consideration. OIL FIELD - The proposed project is located within -. administrative boundaries of the Huntington Beach oilkaals*o*�i' � � .. presently, there are eleven abandoned, one idle, and e e producing wells within the project boundaries. There several production and injection wells in close proxim cl� subject project. ` If any structure is to be located over or in the proximity of a D previously-abandoned well, there is the possibility-- that the well . may need to be plugged and abandoned to .current Division of Oil and Gas specifications. Section 3208 . 1 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) authorizes the State Oil and Gas Supervisor .to order the reabandonment of any previously-abandoned well, when construction 'of any structure over or in the proximity of the well could result in a hazard. The cost of reabandonment operations is the responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the structure will be located. Under Section 3208 . 1 of the PRC, the reabandonment responsi- bilities of the owner/developer of a property upon which a structure will be located need extend no further than the DQ� 2 property boundaries. However, if .a well requiring reabandonment is on- an adjacent property and near the common property line, the Division recommends that the structure be set back. sufficiently to allow future access to the well. Furthermore, if any abandoned or unrecorded. wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading, remedial plugging cperations may be required. If such damage occurs, the Division ' s district office must be contacted to obtain i.rlformation on the requirements for and approval to perform .remedial operations. Although the possibility= for future problems occurring from oil 4 and *gas wells- that -have been plugged and abandoned or reabandoned to the Division 's current specifications are remote, we. ' nevertheless, suggest that a diligent effort be made to avoid Dr. Snow/Kelly Main October 12 , 1989 Page Two building over any abandoned well. If construction over an abandoned well is unavoidable, we suggest that an adequate gas venting system be placed over the well . DOC 4 The idle well within the project area should be abandoned, unless adequate provisions are taken to ensure that operators have access to this well . Because the proposed development is located in an oil field, development of this area will remove available surface land needed to recover oil resources. Therefore, provisions should be made to designate and set aside an adequate amount of land for DOC 5 future drilling sites so that both shallow and deep oil resources can be recovered. Please refer to Division publication TR31, "Land Use Planning in Urban Oil Producing Areas,." before making land-use planning decisions. No building intended. for human occupancy should be located near any active well, unless suitable safety and fire protection measures and setback .are approved by the local fire department. The developer must provide adequate clearance. and access to the wells for well workover equipment. The wells may require safety shutdown devices. Also, we recommend that all wells and associated equipment within the project site be enclosed by an eight-foot, block wall, with barbed wire on the inside at the DOC 6 seven-foot level. Suitable gates should be provided which are capable of allowing large workover equipment access into the well sites. The grade within the enclosed areas should be constructed so that potential spillage will be confined to the enclosure. To restrict access, the placement of climbable landscaping around the perimeter of .the oil field facility. should be avoided. The area of concern, 2.4 , is located in a high potential risk zone for gas seepage, as defined in the City of Los Angeles Task Force Report, "Methane Gas Explosion and Fire, Fairfax Area, 1985. " Also,, please consult the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas report, "A Study of Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells and Other Hazardous Gas Accumulations, 1986. " Methane gas can accumulate beneath developed areas where concrete and asphalt surfaces prevent the natural migration of the methane gas to the atmosphere: If this occurs and a crack develops in the concrete or asphalt at some later time, the gas could migrate into the interior of the overlying structure and create the potential for an explosion. or. fire. Therefore, it may be necessary to include a study of the area to determine the likelihood of this type of occurrence. If the study indicates that gas accumulation is a possibility, it may be necessary to Dr. Snow/Kelly Main October 12, 1989 Page Three [drill some shallow, pressure-relief wells within or adjacent to DDC7he site. Also, gas detectors, gas migration barriers, or enting systems should be considered. The Division is mandated by Section 3106 of the PRC to supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of wells for the purpose of preventing: 1) damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; 2) damage to underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic use; 3) loss of oil , gas, or reservoir energy; and, 4) damage to oil and gas deposits by infiltrating water and other causes. Furthermore, the PRC vests in the State Oil and Gas Supervisor the authority Dd� g to regulate the manner of drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil and gas wells so as to conserve, protect, and prevent waste of these resources, while at the same time encouraging operators to apply viable programs for the purpose of increasing the ultimate recovery of oil and gas. The scope and content of information that is germane to the _ Division' s responsibility is contained in Section 3000 et seq. of the PRC, and administrative regulations under Title 14 , • Chapter 4 , of the California Code of Regulations. GEOLOGIC - The geologic hazards affecting the project, and mitigations for the potential impacts from the hazards, have not ' been completely addressed in the Draft EIR. Two of the subject parcels (2. 1 and 2.4) lie within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (A-P Zone) along the Newport-Inglewood fault. There is a potential for ground rupture from faulting in these parcels. There is also a potential for severe ground shaking at the project site from an earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood or other active fault in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area, and for liquefaction of the soils underlying the site. Significant impacts to the proposed project could be associated with any of these hazards. A detailed, site-specific geologic investigation should be Doc 9 conducted to identify potential impacts and to develop appropriate mitigations. In particular, fault investigations should he conducted within the A-P Zone on site, in accordance with procedures described in Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) Special Publication 42 (see References below) . In order to comply with the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to provide for public review of potential project impacts at the earliest possible time, the geologic investiga- tions should be done prior to preparation of the Final EIR. The results of the investigations should be summarized in the text of the EIR, and the geologic report should be included in total as an Appendix. Dr. Snow/Kelly Main October 12 , 1989 Page Four Several references are included at the end of bur comments, which describe the potential geologic hazards at the site in more. detail . The references may be useful to you in preparation . of the Final EIR. Because of the seriousness of the potential DOC 10 impacts on this small site, please consider this letter as a .formal request for a copy of the Final EIR. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (916) 322-5873 . Dennis. J. O'Bryant Environmental Program. Coordinator DJO:efh cc: Mike Stettner, Division of oil and Gas Zoe McCrea, Division of Mines and Geology References: • California Division of Mines and Geology, 1976, Environmental. Geology of Orange County; CDMG Open File Report 79-8. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982, Earthquake Planning Scenario for. a Magnitude 8. 3 Earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in Southern California; CDMG Special Publication 60. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1988, Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone; CDMG Special Publication 99. California Division of Mines. and Geology, 1988, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California; CDMG Special Publication 42. • i, Environmental Board CI1-Y OF HUNTING-1-ON BEACH H1'%1jN(.ulV It[A(it POST Off(-.(: Bn>, 1c,O October 12 . 1989 Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Attn : Mr . Robert Franklin Ref : EIR No. 82-3 Coultrup Development Co . The Environmental Board has completed its review of the reference EIR prepared in 1982 in order to recommend if it would be acceptable as the draft EIR for a proposed residential development within the Huntington Harbour Bay Club. FR 3. Almost nine (9) years have elapsed since the EIR 82-3 was prepared. It is the Environmental Board's recommendation that more current data be obtained for the potential environmental impacts and that the original 1982 EIR be revised prior to its acceptance as the new Draft EIR (See attached listing) . We further recommend that Planning consider the original version of the 1982 EIR 82-3 as obsolete . R H. Richardson Environmental Board cc : Councilman Peter Green Councilman Don MacAllister Councilman Tom Mays Planning Commissioner Vic Leipzig � T r Environmental Board CITY OF HUNTINGTON hE!>,CH rn .ii� .ic �ntnrn f�r);i _'ff.iCc' 1-,ox 190 4 . Noise Abatement : The original EIR's responded NO to question 6(a) and 6(b) regarding the Noise level . The report indicated that there would be no increase in existing noise level and that there would be no exposure of people to severe noise levels. 'The response should now be YES. According to City Code , section 8. 40 050 " Exterior Noise Standards" , the most recent measurement ( 1987) of the exiting level of mobile noise along Warner Avenue between Algonquin and Westport has exceeded the maximum allowed for Noise Zone I by more than 23% effecting the existing off site residents and those planned for the on site residents ER 5 (Ord. 2379, 18 Jul 7"9) Consequently , constructing additional units in the project area would subject the on site occupants to severe noise levels , and increase the noise level further beyond the acceptable levels for off site residents. We recommend that correction measures be implemented by the city for the affected off site area and that the developer indicate the on site actions. to be taken before project approval is granted. In accordance with the Coastal Commission's response dated - November 24, 1982 - This Land Use Change requires an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Plan and that such an amendment must be consistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act , reference Section 30222 of the Act policies - 4g, page 139; 6a, page 140 ; 15f page 151 . The City's response to FB 6 the Coastal Commissions' concern should be included in the Draft EIR We recommend that these corrections be taken into consideration in the Draft EIR and any actions required be completed before construction is approved. Orange County vector Control District DISTRICT OFFICE • 13001 GARDEN GROVE BLVD.,GARDEN GROVE,CA 92643 MAILING ADDRESS • P.O. BOX 87,SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92702 PHONE(714)971-2421 -FAX(714)971-3940 BOARD OF TRUSTEES-1989 PRESIDENT-Paul Bernal October 13, 1989 VICE-PRESIDENT-Ursula E.Kennedy SECRETARY-John V.anel ANAHEIM -- JUDIE DE PERRY BREA DEAN F.MILLEN Kelly Main, Assistant Planner _BUENA PARK Department of Community Development KENNETH B.JONES - - COSTA MESA City of Huntington Beach WILLIAM BANDARUK P. 0. Box 190 CYPRESS JOHN KANEI Huntington Beach, California 92648 FOUNTAIN VALLEY BARBARAA BROWN Re : Vector Control Evaluation for FULLERTON Huntington Harbour Bay Club FRANCES R.WOOD 9 .y GARDEN GROVE Condominiums-4se of EIR No. 82-3. J.TILMAN WILLIAMS HUNTINGTON BEACH Dear Ms. Main: PETER GREEN - IRVINE MARYANNGAIDO Although condominiums already exist adjacent to the proposed LAGUNA BEACH GRANTMcCOMBS condo site, the developer should be aware that .mosquitoes are LAHABRA produced seasonally from the marsh area (Bolsa Chica) immediately BETH GRAHAM LAPALMA south of the proposed site. Mosquitoes produced from the marsh LARRY A.HERMAN �CV 1 area. are primarily. pestiferous in nature but other less numerous LOS ALAMITOS PAULBERNAL species can pose a potential disease risk. The rational for MISSION VIEJO exposing additional residents to nuisance or disease vectors 071f,Ra C.LINCOLNi 0 NEWPORT BEACH. should be evaluated and proposed residents should be aware of RUTHELYNPLUMMER the problem. ORANGE FRED L.BARRERA - PLACENTIA During the landscape phase of the project, plants that are attractive THEOOOREC.RUSSELL SANCLEMENTE to rodents, such as Algerian ivy, bougainvillea, oleander, palm KENNETHE.CARR trees , etc. should be avoided. A list of alternate types of SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO JAIR)i I-r if (:r)L I: ground cover is enclosed. - SANTA ANA WILLIAML BEAC fUYNI.ONOCV 2 In addition, after the landscape phase is completed, an effort SEAL BEACH p p p JOYCE A.RISNER should be made to eradicate any ground squirrels that may attempt STANTON EDWARD L.ALLEN to reestablish themselves in berms or slopes. These animals TUSTIN can cause erosion, damage ground cover, and carry disease. URSULA E.KENNEDY VILLA PARK WILLIAMOLIVA Thank you for allowing our comments on this project. If you WESTMINSTER FRANK FRY,JR. have any questions regarding these comments , please feel free YORBALINDA to contact me. DAVID W.CROMWELL COUNTY OF ORANGE LEO F.KOHL Sincerely, DISTRICT MANAGER G1LBERT L.CHALLET Gary Reynolds 080110, Y Biologist Gil/vl, I:nc. 0 A vector is any insect or other arthropod, rodent or other animal of public health significance capable of causing human discomfort. injury,or capable of harboring or transmuting the causative agents of human disease. • ALTERNATIVE GROUND COVER TO ALGERIAN IVY Algerian Ivy, a popular ground cover in Orange County, is known to harbor roof rats. For this reason the Orange County Vector Control District in cooperation with the California Department of Health, has developed a. list of substitute ground covers not attractive to rats. The list is accompanied by a brief description of each species named. When purchasing=, these plants check with your nurseryman for more specific information regarding your location. 1. Ajuga, Bronze (Ajuga reptans atropurpurea) This plant has bronze colored leaves with blue flowers, grows from 2 to 4 inches and is considered to be a hardy species. Good in .sun or shade, planted 6 to 12 inches apart. 2. Giant Ajuga (Ajuga crispa) A large ajuga plant, this species is very hardy, has metallic colored leaves with blue flowers and will grow to 9 inches in height. May be planted in sun or shade, space 12 to 18 inches apart. 3. - Camomile (Anthemis nobi_lis) A deep turf is produced by this plant and it can be mowed. Grows to a 6 inch height if not cut. Good around stepping stones and walkways. Produces a pleasant fragrance when leaves are crushed. Plant in sun, 6 to 12 inches apart. 4. Creeping Speedwell (Veronica repens) Dense green leaves with blue spring flowers. This hardy plant grows to a height of 6 inches. Prefers sun or light shade, plant 12 to 18 inches apart. 5. Creeping Thyme (ThyTmis serphyllum) Gmall,. l:i.ght, green leaves with lavender, white or pink flowers. Reaches )I :i.nebes in height, prefers sunny areas and .should be planted at 10 inch intervals. 6. Dichondra (Dichondra repens_) Familiar lawn plant can also be used as ground cover. Grows to 3 inches in height and withstands moderate traffic. ;. Germander (Teucrium chamaedrys) Bright green foliage, resembling mint. Spreads well. Lavender flowers appear in spring. Prefers sun and warm climate, spreads rapidly. Reaches 10 inches in height and should be planted at 10 to 12 inch intervals. • DOC 3 Response See condition of approval no. of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36 for implementations of reqirements . DOC 4 Comment Although the possibility for future problems occurring from oil and gas wells that have been plugged and abandoned or reabandoned to the Division' s current specifications are remote, we, nevertheless, suggest that a diligent effort be made to avoid building over any abandoned well . If construction over an abandoned well is unavoidable, we suggest that an adequate gas venting system be placed over the well . The idle well within the project area should be abandoned, unless adequate provisions are taken to ensure that operators have access to this well . DOC 4 Response All wells have been abandoned in compliance with current Division of Oil and Gas specifications . DOC 5 Comment Because the proposed development is located in an oil field, development of this area will remove available surface land needed to recover oil resources . Therefore, provisions should be made .to designate and set aside an adequate amount of land for future drilling sites so that both shallow and deep oil resources can be recovered. Please refer to Division publication TR31, "Land Use Planning in Urban Oil Producing Areas" , before making land-use planning decisions . DOC 5 Response Comment acknowledged. DOC 6 Comment No building intended for human occupancy should be located near any active well, unless suitable safety and fire protection measures and setbacks are approved by the local fire department . The developer must provide adequate clearance and access to the wells for well workover equipment . The wells may require safety shutdown devices . Also, we recommend that all wells and associated equipment within the project site be enclosed by an eight-foot, block wall , with barbed wire on the inside at the seven-foot level . Suitable gates should be provided which are capable of allowing large workover equipment access into the well sites. The grade within the enclosed areas should be constructed so that potential • spillage will be confined to the enclosure. To restrict access, the placement of climbable landscaping around the perimeter of the oil field facility should be avoided. Response to Comments -3- (3982d) DOC 6 Response All wells have been abandoned in compliance with .current Division of Oil and Gas specifications . DOC 7 Comment The area of' concern, 2 .4, is located in a high potential risk zone for gas ' seepage, as defined in the City of Los Angeles Trask Force Report, "Methane Gas Explosion and Fire, Fairfax Area, 1985 . " Also, please consult the Department of Conversation, Division of Oil and Gas report, "A Study of Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells and Other Hazardous Gas Accumulations, 1986. " Methane gas can accumulate beneath developed areas where concrete and asphalt surfaces prevent the natural migration of the methane gas to the atmosphere. If this occurs and a crack develops in the concrete or asphalt at some later time, the gas could migrate into the interior of the overlying structure and create the potential for an explosion or fire. Therefore, it may be necessary to include a study of the 'area to determine the likelihood .of this type of occurrence. If the study -indicates that gas accumulation is . a possibility, it may be necessary to drill some shallow, pressure-relief wells within or adjacent to the site. Also, gas detectors, gas migration barriers, or venting systems should be considered. DOC 7 Response The"Meth"ane Gas Ordinance will mitigate any future impacts; see condition of approval no. 6 for- implementation of requirements. DOC 8 Comment The Division is mandated by Section 3106 of the PRC to supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of wells for the purpose of preventing: 1) damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; 2) damage to underground and. surface.waters suitable for irrigation or domestic use; 3) loss of oil, gas, or reservoir energy; and, 4) damage to oil and gas deposits by infiltrating water and other causes. Furthermore, the PRC vests in the State Oil and Gas Supervisor the authority to regulate the manner of drilling,- operation, maintenance, and .abandonment of oil . and gas wells so as- to conserve, protect, and prevent waste of these resources , while at the same time encouraging operators to apply viabl.e programs for the purposed of increasing the ultimate recovery of ' of 1 and gas . The scope and content of information that is germane to the Division's responsibility is contained in Section 3000 et seq.. of the PRC, and administrative regulations under Title 14, Chapter 4, of the California Code of Regulations. Response to Comments -4- (3982d) J DOC 8 Response All wells have been abandoned in compliance with current Division of Oil and Gas specifications . DOC 9 Comment Geologic - The geologic hazards affecting the project, - and mitigations for the potential impacts from the hazards, have not been completely addressed in the Draft EIR. Two of the subject parcels (2. 1 and 2 .4) lie within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (A-P Zone) along the Newport-Inglewood fault. These is a potential for ground rupture from faulting in these parcels : There is also a potential for severe ground shaking at the project site from an earthquake in the Newport-Inglewood or other active fault in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area, and for liquefaction of the soils underlying the site. Significant impacts to the proposed project could be associated with. any of these hazards . A detailed, site-specific geologic investigation should be conducted to identify potential impacts and to develop appropriate mitigations . In particular, fault investigations should be conducted within the A-P Zone on site, in accordance with procedures described in Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) Special Publication 42 (see Referenced below) . In order to comply with the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to provide for public review of potential project impacts at the earliest possible time, the geologic investigations should be done prior to preparation of the Final EIR. The results of the investigations should be summarized in the text of the EIR, and the geologic report should be included in total as an Appendix. DOC 9 Response The site specific geologic study has been conducted and resulted in the delineation of a structure set-back zone of 25 feet between the two proposed buildings . The project site plan complies with the set-back requirement and all .structures are .located outside the set-back area. The geologic report will be included in the Appendix. DOC 10 Comment Several references are included at the end of our comments, which describe the potential geologic hazards at the site in more detail . The references may be useful to you in preparation of the Final EIR. Because of the seriousness of the potential impacts on this small site, please consider this letter as a formal request for a copy of the Final EIR. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (916) 322-5873 . DOC 10 Response Cornment acknowledged . Response to Comments -5- (3982d) • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BOARD (ERB) ERB 1 Comment The Environmental Board has completed its review of the reference EIR prepared in 1982 in order to recommend if it would be acceptable as the draft EIR for a proposed residential development within the Huntington Harbour Bay Club. Almost nine (9) .years have elapsed since the EIR 82-3 was prepared. It is the Environmental Board's recommendation that more current data be obtained for the potential environmental impacts and that the original 1982 EIR be revised prior to its acceptance as the new Draft EIR (see attached listing) . We further recommend that Planning consider the original version of the 1982 EIR 82-3 as obsolete. ERB 1 Response Supplemental information is available to supplement EIR 89-3 which will. update the original version and mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed 36 unit residential condominium project. ERB 2 Comment 1 . Public Service Utilities : A 15" sewer was located in Edgewater and a 15" sewer was located in Warner. The 1982 report indicated - that the service was near its maximum capacity. Because of .the low elevation, the area always had problems . In the 1982 EIR, the City Council was notified that the improvements would be made to the out fall line prior to .the planned development. These costs of these improvements were to be shared by the city and the developer. Since there has been additional residential developments within Huntington Harbor within the .last nine years, the improvements to the out fall line should be completed and included in the Draft EIR. ERB 2 Response The Department of Public Works has reviewed the language in EIR 82-3 and has determined that the project will not significantly .impact the existing sewer system. ERB 3 Comment 2 . Seismic Stud v: The original EIR' s response to question 1 (g) on . the environmental check list did not take into consideration the existence of the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard zone. The State Law would require that a seismic study be conducted since the site is with this zone. The results of the .study should be inr_l.tided in the Draft EIR. Response to Comments -6- (3982d) ERB 3 Response • Although the initial study indicates no unstable earth conditions, in the discussion under environmental issues in EIR 82-3, the site is identified as being located in the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zone. A site specific geologic study has been completed and the proposed project complies with the recommendations in the geologic study. ERB 4 Comment 3 . Parking : The initial report indicates that -there is no effect on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking. Since the proposed structure is to be built on an existing parking lot, the response should be YES. Mitigation measures should be specified such that the required public parking spaces be retained in accordance with existing ordinances .for recreational areas remains .. ERB 4 Response The proposed project will require the relocation of existing parking spaces to the westside of the site adjacent to Sceptre Lane. ERB 5 Comment 4 . Noise Abatement : The original EIR' s responded NO to question 6(a) and 6(b) regarding the Noise level . The report indicated that there would be no increase in existing noise level and that there would be no exposure of people to severe noise levels. The response should now be YES. According to City Code, Section 8 .40 050 "Exterior Noise Standards" , the most recent measurement (1987) of the existing level of mobile noise along Warner Avenue between Algonquin and Westport has exceeded the maximum allowed for Noise Zone 1 by more than 23% . effecting the existing off site . residents and those planned for the on-site residents (Ordinance 2379, 18 July 79) Consequently, constructing additional units in the project area would subject the on site occupants to severe noise levels, and increase the noise level further beyond the acceptable levels for off site residents . We recommend that correction measures be implemented by the city for the affected off site area and that the developer indicate the on site actions to. be taken before project approval is granted. ERB 5 Response A registered sound engineer has informed staff that standard mitigation measures for on-site structures will be adequate. Off-site noise generation will not be significant and the reduction • of .trip ends, from the 42 unit to the 36 unit project will decrease impacts . Also, any increase in noise impacts will not be significant . Response to Comments --7- (3982d) City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALI FORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Division 536-5241 Planning Division 536-5271 May 12, 1989 Mr. F. Ahadpour Huntington Harbor Bay Club 4121 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92649 SUBJECT: SUBSEQUENT REVIEW OF THE GEOLOGY REPORT FOR 42-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Dear Mr. Ahadpour: As discussed at the May 10, 1989 meeting with City staff, implementation of Geotechnical Consultants recommendation to prohibit the placement of proposed structures within a 25 foot wide zone across Tract 11881 as depicted in Exhibit A will be acceptable. incorporating Geotechnical Consultants recommendation into the building permit drawings will satisfy the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone provisions and condition No. 27 of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-15. . Upon the review of revised drawings to assure compliance and after the Department of Community Development has signed the working drawings, the building permit for the 42-unit residential project may be issued. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, contact Robert Franklin, Planning Division, at 536-5271. Sincerely, �� 1 U � � Mike Adam ,' Dir ctor Louis Sando al Community Development Director of ublic Works T'ncl: Exhibit A I-ef tear from (;votechllic al Consultants MA:kib • (2694d) HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BAY CLUB - PHASE 1 HUNTINGTON'BEACH. CALIFORNIA m.............r ......... _.. .. .... .......... .. . ... .... ...... -_ — - Si.- :NFORMATION SITE COVERAGE PARKING » "• •• »• ~- »,...I»I 11 .r................d»...,,.,...... ' �,........ ..,n a. wl.rt.. �..p..w,c. .a ... a.n Ka..cv,a maa •: ; ..,.».....I.....v.....i I.:.u...l».1.,.,i. .». �. ,,. ......L.,..n..n».................. .»...,.... - »..In rr..w...».rl...»,......,.�...,•,.. — _ .,..n.... ...........»»«.., ... .. .... ,. .a »I, .)t. ,n a,.,D.•c mR.Yl. i)� •.A f .a,RD. W .. el.r.»,I� LL»... .....,.•..,....v..l�...,.,.-...,. ..I . : . .aD rs»v. plv Inn ,. rv..m..Du. .. .�r••:. ,..»......,I......, .... .... ..... .......I,...,• ....�.....-.•......_-.,._, ... .......LEGEND LI............... '.. «L....,.. "I. . .. vc.wc .. .....r.,.n..I.»...,I.LIaL...,........... ......... ....I..... .,,...... _.,.r...L....I -.� r IF Lu IF gii I I ` r L�. IL1 �.:• 7 Ll o I� o r v. IF p...,..... .,......,. �._ —� ,y-•�'�_ —�— � .,.--fit � � rw.a...,....«.-.... w....n. � ~' E44INT A \. -_ WARNER AVENUE aer,)u.c.,ry..mn.D.mua_or.-„nn.,...... ..... ... PLANCHECK LOT' S^ 2.n..• ,rp Or TEMT.,T.vE r:T MCF.MIN N0.16122...... RMG ENG I NEER l Nh 1 NL'. HuNTINGTON HARSM GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Mr. Bill Patapofi April 29, 195Ci Public Works Department City of Huntington Beach S86012 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Tract 11881 , City of Huntington Beach Dear Bill : We are in receipt of Action Geotechnical Consultant ' s (AGC) memorandum dated April 20, 1989 concerning the fault . issue across Tract 11881 . In summary, this memorandum indicates that Woodward. Clyde Consultants (WCC) has been contacted for the purpose oA conducting a joint review of fault data that could resolve WCC' findings south of Warner Avenue with AGC' s findings directly north of Warner Avenue. Unfortunately, WCC feels constrained from proceeding with this course of action. Secondly, AGC .indicates that they are unable to gain access from the property owner south of Warner Avenue in order to. conduct additional exploration within the area separating the two studies. At present, there appears to be a general consensus between WCC' s work and AGC' s investigation as to the location of the main fault trace projected through Tract 11881 . The map appended to AGC' s memorandum shows the AGC and WCC fault projections to be within 15 feet horizontally of each other. What remains unresolved is a definite explanation for the offset of Holocene sediments. south of Warner Avenue and the lack of same along Tract 1.1881 to the north. Under the present circumstances, we recommend that the City require one of the following alternate conditions be met in order to proceed with development of Tract 11881 : 1 1 1"rom the m i-rl- .l .hie be::tti`cen the Action Geotechnical and t4l`,1cit.,11 c1 t' t yllr` f-ault pro. -jeot:, across Tract 11881 establish that-, is assumed to IW 1111i'101 1 l i li 11y i111 c1C.t_J.V0 l atil.t t:1:ace and as such, should 11(A to l+rl; ru ►c:h; l tll)lM by f)1:0 .)Osed structures. 1533 East 4th Street Santa Ana CA 92701 Phone 171A1 RA7_,[w41 Mr. Bill Patapoff May 1, 1989 City of Huntington Beach S86012 Tract 11881, City of Huntington Beach Page 2 2 ) If the above restriction cannot feasibly be accommodated by proposed development of Tract 11881 , additional field exploration remains requisite to resolving the two aforementioned study findings. Should this become necessary, we believe that assistance can be made available at either the County or State level to permit necessary property access. However, the time required to accomplish this may be lengthy. If you have any questions concerning these recommendations, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Charles C. Kendall Engineering Geologist No. 1024 CCK/kmc RECEIVED MAR 2 81989 DEPARTMENT. OF CO11MUNiTY DE`!'ZLOPS'._-.;iT GEOTWHNICAL MEMORANDA TRACT 11881 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA CONDUCTED FOR: HUNTINGTON HFfRBOUR BAY AND RACQUET CLUB 4121 WARNER AVENUE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 W.O. 3771 March 13, 1989 ACTION GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. ALMON • GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS in+c. March 13, 1989 W.O. 3771 Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club 4121 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Subject: Geotechnical Memoranda Tract 11881 Huntington Beach, CA RE: Evaluation of Hazards due to Fault Surface Rupture at Bolsa Chica Mesa and in the Bolsa Chica Lowland, Orange County, California, dated October 5, 1987, Project No. 42000G; by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Santa Ana, California. Gentlemen: As you requested, we have reviewed the above referenced Woodward-Clyde Consultants report: with respect to the findings in our report. dated March 29, 1987 and its' addenda. In addition, a letter dated November 10, 1987 by Moore and Taber addressed to the City of Huntington Beach, together with a response letter to the City of Huntington Beach from Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. , dated December 1, 1987 have been made available. Based upon our review of the above materials it is our opinion that the Woodward-Clyde Consultants report represents a thorough and detailed study. Our work is correlative with that of Woodward-Clyde Consultants and to some extent with Moore and Taber. It_ is therefore our opinion that the conclusions and recommendations set- forth, in our Preliminary Foundation and Fault Line Investigation for Pro- posod Multi-Story Residential Development at 4121 Warner Avenue in the City of llunt-..i.ngton 11.---"Ir..h, and its' addenda are germane to the development of T1 ,1 a. 1 188 1 . i 1421-North Hundley St.,Anaheim,CA 92806 (714)630-9334 HUNTINGTON RARBOUR --2- W.0.3771 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. Respectfully Submitted: ACTION GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. GLENN S. FRASER RCE 39132 ROLAND ACUNA PROJECT ENGINEER STAFF GEOLOGIST t �pff_SS1 N � ' 4�P•-lS.FF'? ��` JOIN D. MERRILL ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST 83 !i a� MU. 39132 -o GSF/RA/JDM/ms 3o • A('TlON c;I ()1-[CHNICAL CONSULTANTS. INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS `. SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Methodology 1 2.0 AREAS OF CONCERN AND ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 5 2.1. Yorktown-Main Area 5 2.2 Mushroom Farm Area 13 2.3 Cambro Manufacturing Plant Area 25 2.4 Huntington Harbour Beach Club Area 33 2.5 Beachview Mobile Home Area 41 2.6 Magnolia-Banning Area 51 2.7 Density Bonus Provisions for Affordable Housing 59 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 61 3.1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 61 3.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes 62 3.3 Growth Inducing Impacts 62 APPENDICES Appendix A Fiscal Impact Land Use Assumptions Appendix B Initial Study Appendix C "Air Quality Calculations Appendix D Letters of Comment Appendix E Letter from State Department of Health Services I c 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report analyzes Amendment 82-1 to the Land Use Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element was adopted as a mandated element of the General Plan in December, 1973; this is the eighteenth amendment to the element. Existing general plan. land uses throughout the City are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagrams. 1.1 Methodology This amendment to the Land Use Element considers requests to change the land use designations in six areas of the City .(Figure 1-1). Three of the requests were from private property owners and three were initiated by the City. The first site is located northeast of the Seacliff Office Park near Yorktown Avenue and Main Street; the second site is the Mushroom Farm area north of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street; the third site is the Cambro Manufacturing Plant area north of Clay Avenue and west of Huntington Street; the fourth site is the Huntington Harbour Beach Club off of Warner Avenue; the fifth site is the Beachview Mobile Home Park located immediately north of the City Maintenance Yard on Gothard Street; the sixth site is a City-owned property near the intersection of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street. The amendment request on the six sites are analyzed in terms of the existing conditions on the site, anticipated impact on surrounding areas, major land uses and environmental issues, and consistency with adopted City goals and policies. 1 r.. 2A ALI +2.! ,2 2L3: 1 a Areas of Concern o � O huntingtonbeach planning division 2 Figure 1-1 Environmental.Assessment Section 15148 of the State EIR Guidelines states that "The requirements for an EIR on a local general plan element or amendment thereof will be satisfied by the general plan or element document and no separate EIR will be required if: 1) the general plan addresses all the points required to be in an EIR by Article 9 . of the State EIR Guidelines, and 2) the document contains a special section or a cover sheet identifying where the general plan document addresses each of the points required." In conformance with State guidelines, this document will constitute the EIR for Land Use Element Amendment 82-1. An initial study addressing all six areas of concern was prepared pursuant to Section 15080 of the State Government Code to identify potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed land use designations. The E.I.R. focuses on those impacts that were determined to be significant. The environmental setting and significant impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial study are addressed under each area of concern (Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6). Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures to minimize significant effects are also discussed in these sections.' Section _3.0 addresses overall environmental changes related to the following considerations: 1) the relationship between local short-term productivity; 2) irreversible or unavoidable environmental changes; and 3) growth inducing impacts. 3 i 2.0 AREAS OF CONCERN 2.1 YORKTOWN/MAIN STREET AREA The first area-of concern addressed by Land Use Element Amendment .82-1 is a 1.52 acre parcel owned by The Huntington Beach Company, located approximately 500 feet east .of 'Main Street and 600 -feet north of Yorktown Avenue behind the.existing Seacliff Office Park. (See Figure'1-1.) 2.1.1 Background The applicant, The Huntington Beach Company, has requested redesi.gnation of the subject property from medium density residential to office:professional (see Figure ,2-1). This amendment analyzes both :the existing and the :requested designation. The area of concern is presently an "oil island' containing five oil pumping units .and is zoned R2-01-PD (medium density residential with an oil suffix and a planned development suffix) (see Figure 2-2). The -01 suffix allows drilling of new wells to occur on this.parcel. Surrounding parcels have an -0 suffix which allows continued operation :and the redrilling of existing wells -but no new drilling.- The expected life of the wells on the property in question is estimated by the property owner to .be. ten years. Due to the size of the subject site and the number of oil wells located on it, the site will, in all likelihood, continue to exist as an oil island until such time as the oil operations cease. The City recently approved a conditional use permit submitted'by the Huntington Beach Company for construction of .a parking lot to'feerve Seacliff Office Park. This parking lot includes a small portion of the southwest corner of the subject site. 5 i - J VJCLAY > _ i _ _ 1 MEDIUM DENSITY. -- - R.ESIDENTIAL,... -- -- GAL\,EL AAO AVE: GENERA --Ip COMMERCIAL OFFICE' PROFESSI.ONAL• Z G� G O �- YORKTOWN IZ a j PUBLIC USE AF. F- CLL "4 F H f WICHITA AVE. N • Existing General Plan Area of Concern 2.1 I' I .. o o . - 0 0 Figure-2-1` 6 Property to the southwest of the subject site is designated general commercial,. zoned R5-0-CD and is part of the Seacliff Office Park development. The remaining surrounding parcels are designated medium density residential and zoned R2-0-PD. These residential parcels are undeveloped except for a house owned by the Huntington Beach Company. A medium density condominium project referred to as "The Ranch" is proposed for 48 acres of this residentially zoned area. 2.1.2 Analysis 1. Land Use Under the existing general plan designation of medium density residential, a maximum of 22 units could be developed on the subject site. This would result in an estimated population of 62 persons. The requested redesignation to office professional could result in the development of approximately 17,793 square feet of office space which would generate about 29 employees. The existing medium density residential designation is compatible with the surrounding parcels similarly designated to the north, east, and southeast. If this designation is retained on the subject site, development could possibly be integrated into the proposed "Ranch" residential project. Again, however, development on the subject site will probably not occur for approximately ten years until the oil uses are phased out. By that time, the adjacent residential project will probably be completed, making integration of the subject site more difficult. Residential development on the area of concern, however, would pose no significant compatibility problem -with the office development to the southwest. Development on the area of concern would be buffered by the existing parking lot that serves the office park. A redesignation of the site to office professional would be compatible with the existing Seacliff Office Park development to the southwest.. Office development on the subject site could probably be easily integrated into the existing office park. Any potential impacts to surrounding residential uses from office development on the subject site could likely be mitigated by.design and/or buffering (Le., screening, setbacks, etc.). 2. Economic Considerations Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the two land use alternatives using the computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a ten year period, 19J32-1992. The :land use assumptions are detailed in Appendix A. The results are summarized in the table below: Alternative.1 Alternative 2 Cash Flow Basis Medium Density Residential Office Professional Reven a (1) 177.23 37.36 Cost (1� 136.33 104.08 Revenue minus cost (1) 40.90 -66.72 Revenue/cost . 1.30 .36 �1) in .$1,000 7 J LGARFIELD I I I I i _.. - 'AVE, ' RA-0 72 - PLA f nni R5 1 C2MI B R2 �I o o RA-0 - R2 —� M wE.•.aDD..]DO•RA-oa�� �.. R2cr cr R2C41 R2 R2 R2 R2 I M IQ __— Nfpl.RIOT LI Cl AV C2-0 CO R3 e• R2 R3 R 2 9; R4 R2-0-PD R20 PD o 0 0 �_ R2 . DE.q «EI—— AVE. Rl RI C2-0j .,; C2_0 R 2 00 1 y Raw RI i RI �14crac�%-r - I I o• c !`E R2 R2 R 2 3 s.•s:iu. I � C2-0-CD R5-0-CD R2-0-liVCD 4 � R 2 1!! `Q �V 3 AllC4•° ' -;--- r c jpy Ma•CD �_\\ I I I r:>ditiss<" R2-0 j� ? 0 ca CF-C CF-E-CD ::M1'"", y` R2-0-cD ,D IRA R2 21 -I CF-E-CD ' `o U o co-o R2-0 R2 R2 M' n . CF-E �; o- 4 _ cD o vEq A. I -CD10 o Ll Vrlc• \ -CD-0 O R2 0 R2-0 vE. M-a Tim f:CD-O I1 • CF-R RI RI RI RI RI 2 -CD-0 1 •0 c I %F N. N o 0 t .0 .0 .0 .0 ac ¢ N N I 4 -CD-0 a R40 .; • .wr ,. R2 4 qIR IIMA �••r C • O Ir-0 --. l0t.Ya�1 D O z RI RI RI RI RI R -0 -ROCHE$? M.o o 1I I g a I ,:;'•.. -- elf l �1 R 1-0 HP -0 -no r— RW ADAMS AVE Rl Existing Zoning Area of I Concern 2 . 1 IL o . o � Figure 2-2. 8 As the table shows, over a ten year period the residential alternative would generate a surplus to the City of approximately $40,900 and the office professional would generate a deficit of approximately $66,720. 3. Housing A designation of office professional on the area of concern would remove 1.52 acres from the City's stock of potential areas for residential development. This would not have a significant impact on the City's capability to provide medium density housing. Retaining the existing medium density residential designation would retain 1.52 acres of the City's stock of potential areas for. residential development. This may enhance the City's potential to provide for affordable housing units. However, because of the small number of units involved, the impact on affordable housing would not be significant. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. An eight inch City sewer line exists south of the area of concern. This line presently serves the Seacliff Office Park. The City's Public Works Department has indicated that .adequate capacity in this line exists to accommodate development on the subject site under either alternative analyzed. In addition, an eight inch sewer line extends north of Yorktown Avenue east of .Main Street. Again, adequate capacity exists to serve development on the subject site if it ties into this line. b. Storm Drains A drainage retention basin exists west of the area of concern. Currently, this is used to accommodate drainage from Seacliff Office Park. The drainage basin empties into a storm drain in Yorktown Avenue. According to the City's Public Works Department, adequate capacity exists in both facilities to serve development on the subject site under either alternative. C. Water Existing water mains in the vicinity of the subject site include 12 inch lines along Yorktown and Main Streets, as well as 12, 159 and 42 inch lines north of the subject site along Clay Avenue. The City's Water Division has indicated that existing water mains are expected to be adequate for either of the two alternatives analyzed. d. Parks The Community Services Department has indicated that the area of concern will be adequately served by existing or planned community parks. There are currently no neighborhood parks in the immediate vicinity. However, if the site remains medium density residential it will likely be served by the open space provided in the "Ranch" project. In addition, community parks will be developed in the near 9 future at the intersection of Main Street and Utica Avenue and between Huntington and Delaware Streets just north of Yorktown Avenue. These parks will serve the subject area also. e. Police and Fire Protection The City's Police and Fire Departments have indicated that the alternatives analyzed for the area of concern will not create any problems with police or fire protection, or require a significant change in personnel. f. Schools The Huntington Beach City School District has indicated that the residential .alternative analyzed -for the subject site would not generate a significant number of students. The Huntington Beach High School District has adequate capacity to accommodate students generated by the residential alternative. g. Gas and Electrical Utilities, Phone Service The Southern California Gas Company, the Edison Company, and General Telephone have responded that provision of services to the area of concern poses no problem under either land use alternative. h. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City. No local service constraints are expected under either of the alternative uses analyzed. i 5. Traffic and Circulation The area of concern is located near the northeast corner of Yorktown Avenue and Main Street. Present traffic count on Yorktown Avenue is 5,000 vehicles per day. The current traffic load on Main Street is 13,300 vehicles per day. Maximum capacity of both Main Street and Yorktown Avenue is 40,000 vehicles per day. Projected future traffic volumes from the area of concern are as follows: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation medium density residential 147 trips/day office professional 438 trips/day Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982. Traffic generated by the area of concern under either development alternative would not significantly affect Main Street or Yorktown Avenue or the Main/Yorktown intersection presently or in the forseeable future. 10 The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) has indicated that existing bus routes can adequately serve the area of concern under either land use alternative. 6. Environmental Issues a. Noise The area of concern is exposed to an exterior noise level of 60, which is within the normally acceptable range for residential uses. This should pose no constraint to either residential or office professional development. Noise generated from the site is not . expected to be significant. 2.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the site be redesignated office professional as the applicant has requested. The subject site can Iikely be more easily integrated into the existing office park development than into a . residential area. Redesignation to office. professional will create no significant compatibility problems with surrounding uses, nor will it adversely impact existing streets or community facilities. 2.1.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the site be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to Office Professional. 11 2.2 MUSHROOM FARM AREA The second area .of concern addressed by Land Use Amendment 82-1 is a 26.6 acre property owned primarily by Ocean View Mushroom Growers, located north of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street (Figure 1-1). 2.2.1 Background The applicant, The Janes Company, has requested a redesignation of approximately 20.1 acres of land from open space to medium density residential. This acreage is currently owned by the Ocean View. Mushroom Growers and occupied by a mushroom farm. The owner has authorized the Janes Company to seek a redesignation of the property to medium density residential. The City has expanded the applicant's request to include all property south of the mushroom farm to`Ellis Avenue (see Figure 2-3). This coincides with the area proposed for inclusion Into Huntington Central Park and the subject of the recently completed "Plannlnt Mode Study".1 The expanded study area including the mushroom farm is approximately 26.6 gross acres. The land uses considered in this amendment ate: 1) open space; 2) medium density residential;. 3) low density residential; 4) estate residential and 5) office professional. The area of concern is currently divided into 76 lots. The majority of the property (approximately 20 acres) is owned by Ocean View Mushroom Growers Inc. The remaining acreage is divided among twelve property owners, the largest of which include: Mabel Bradley (1.89 acres), James Hudson (1.03 acres), and Richard Pariseau (.16 acres). The majority of the subject property is zoned Residential Agriculture with oil and civic district suffixes (RA-0-CD), with a small area in the southwest corner currently zoned Light Industrial with .a Civic District suffix (Ml-CD), see figure 2-5. The RA-O-CD zoning is consistent with the open space designation, however, the MI-CD is not. 1 City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Special Report: Planning Mode Study, September 1982. 13. y CF - R 77 . ........... ............ ........... ............ ........... ............ . ........................ ........................ . ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ . ........................ .rm ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ """""" --- ORIGINAL AMENDMENT 3• REQUEST PROPOSED STAFF Z INCLUSION w 0 E Area of Concern Two 14 Figure 2-3 TALBERT ' LOW -DENSITY lts)'L._YO-14( ) ! RESIDENTIAL CF-R ""TNWOM CENTRAL PARK) C F—R IH:rNTin::�:%4 ::�Vl�e,:.::�:1.:1 CVHTY OPEN P C W CF-C �Tk l T KA-M 4 i:.0 PROPOSED' HELIPORT g GENERA FACILITY nmmi ESTAT IDENTIAL 2U GAC FFM INDUSTRI 77 ESTATE RESIDENTIAL 4UN GAC OFFICE anF . e—L —1-L z IT, ft- VT RESOURCE PRODUCTION AVE. GARFIELD MED. DE.N. RESIDENTIAL . Existing GeneralPlan Area of Concern 2 .2 L"v 1� •o 0 O O . 15 , Figure 2-4 Property to the north and east of the study area is designated as open space and is occupied by Huntington Central Park. Sully Miller Lake is located in the park immediately adjacent to the site. Property to the west on the opposite side of Goldenwest includes additional Central Park property, and a 10.1 acre parcel recently redesignated to allow for park-oriented commercial use. The property south of the study area across Ellis Avenue is vacant and is part of a larger area designated for estate residential development at 0-2 and 0-4 dwelling units per acre. Planning staff is currently in the process of preparing a specific plan to implement this designation. Planning Mode Study The project area was recently the subject of a special "Planning Mode Study". This report, prepared at the direction of the City. Council, addressed four possible land uses for the site: 1) garden offices with an adjoining restaurant; 2) residential; 3) recreational vehicle camp and 4) commercial nursery/tree farm. The report recommended that the property be acquired by the City as part of Huntington Central Park and that a recreational vehicle (RV).facility be located on the site using a phased development approach. Staff proposed that '200-230 spaces be developed initially, using only a portion of the site. In this way the City can monitor the project's revenue generating potential and assess whether an expanded RV facility would be cost effective in the long term. If the project does not generate revenue over a period of time, an alternative land use can be recommended for the site. At the time of the writing of this report, the City Council had not taken any formal action on this recommendation. 2.2.2 Analysis 1. Land Use The current land use designation on the site is open space, which allows community recreational facilities, agricultural or other general open space uses on the site (Figure 2-4). Under this designation, the site could be developed privately for commercial recreation or other open space uses. If the property is acquired by the City, the open space designation would accommodate the proposal to include the acreage into Huntington Central Park. A redesignation of the site to medium density residential (Alternative Two) would result in a maximum of 399 units and an accompanying population of 1,121 persons. In comparison, Alternative Three, low density residential would allow a maximum of 186 units with a resulting population of approximately 522 persons. Alternative Four, estate residential, would permit no more than 106 units with an. estimated population of 297 persons. A redesignation to office professional (Alternative Five) could result in approximately 324,174 square feet of office space. This would generate approximately 507 employees. For comparative purposes, this _ is approximately equivalent to the square footage in "One Pacific Plaza" which proposes 396,000 square feet of development. It should be noted, however, that One Pacific Plaza is being developed on a smaller site and has a multi-story suffix. 17 A garden office complex could also be developed under the office professional designation. This would result in a lower intensity use that would be more compatible with surrounding areas. The Planning Mode Study analyzed a garden office development on this site and concluded that there would be very little demand for any offices on this site. At the present time thirteen office developments are under construction in the City with four more major developments in the planning stages. The latter will more than double the City's current supply of office space. In addition,the City is encouraging new office development to locate in the old downtown core as part of an overall revitalization'effort. Promoting new office development on the amendment site may deter prospective tenants from locating in the .downtown area. The significant amount of new construction mentioned above has contributed to a high vacancy rate in the City. This rate combined with the fact that the site is not easily accessible from the freeway indicates that an office use designation would not be a viable use on this site. Land Use Compatibility Retaining the existing open space designation would assure that future development of the site- would be compatible with the surrounding recreational areas. As previously mentioned, this designation would also accommodate the ,acquisition of the site by the City for inclusion into Central Park for an RV- use 'or -other park' uses. Adding the area to Central Park would create a more uniform boundary for the park and would allow increased access and development possibilities for the adjacent Sully Miller Lake. The area of ''concern is generally surrounded by existing or proposed recreational areas with the exception of the area to the south which is anticipated to be designated at estate residential. A low density or estate residential designation on the area of concern would be compatible with the existing and proposed recreational areas adjacent to the site and would provide a logical extension of the equestrian estate development proposed to the south. A medium density residential would be less compatible with the area to-the south-tharta lower density use because of the greater concentration of units and population. Such development would require adequate buffering and screening to protect the area's open space atmosphere. Residential development on site would largely isolate Sully Miller Lake from the rest of Central Park and may preclude renovation of the lake into a useable recreation area. In analyzing any residential use it_should_be,.noted,that the police heliport facility may be relocated immediately southeast of Central Park in the near future. The project proposes to move the police 18 hangar and all maintenance activities from their current location at the John Wayne Airport to this site. There is also some interest in someday expanding this operation to include commercial shuttle service from Huntington Beach to Orange County Airport. Future homes on the amendment site would be located immediately under the proposed flight path which could create severe noise conflicts for future residents. In addition, the Policeman's Association Firing Range is located northeast of the project site and new homes might also be In conflict with this facility. An office professional designation on the site could allow a very large office development to be located In an area. that generally has an open and rural atmosphere. This would not be compatible with the surrounding recreational uses in light of the potential traffic and intensity of development. The Planning Mode Study analyzed locating a garden office complex on this site. Such development would result in a lower intensity development and would probably be more aesthetically compatible with the surrounding area. However, in light of the surrounding Central Park property, even garden offices would require significant buffering and would not be the most appropriate use of the site, as they could potentially isolate portions of Central Park. Also as previously mentioned, there is very little demand for additional office space in this area. 2. Economic Considerations The Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Incorporated, conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the five land use alternatives using the computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected .over a ten year period, 1982-1992. The land use assumptions used in the model for each alternative are outlined In Appendix A. The results of the analysis are outlined in the following table. Alt. 2 Medium Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 1 Density Low Density. Office Estate : Cash Flow Basis Open Space(2) Residential Residential Professional Residential Reve 17,898.51 39276.11 1,657.68 653.71 1,608.51 Cost (� 4,103.50 2,464.70 19263.13 1,873.18 873.05 Revenue minus cost (1) 139795.01 811.41 388.55 -10219.47 735.46 Revenue/cost 4.36 1.33 1.31 .35 1.84 (1) in $1,000 Assumes a City-owned and operated Recreational Vehicle Park. Does not include cost of land acquisition. As the above table shows over a ten year period all of the alternatives, except office professional, generate a surplus to the City ranging from $13,795,010 for Open Space (recreational vehicle park) to $388,550 for low density residential. The Office Professional alternative would produce approximately a $1,219,470 deficit to the City over ten years. 19 3. Housing Retaining the open space designation or redesignating .the site for office professional use would have little impact on the City's housing stock since it would not remove any acreage currently designated for residential in the City's General Plan. The current RA zoning on the majority of the site only allows one dwelling unit on a one-acre building site and no further subdivision of existing parcels. A redesignation to any residential use (medium, low or estate) could result in an expansion of the City's housing stock. As mentioned in Section . 2.2.2.1, a maximum of 106 dwelling units could be developed under an estate residential designation, 186 under a low density designation, and 399 under a medium density designation. Residential units developed at an estate or low density would most likely not be affordable to families of low or moderate income. A medium density designation would provide the most opportunity for a. development containing affordable units. The City has no policy for requiring affordable housing in new developments, except in the coastal zone, so the type and selling price of dwelling units on the subject site would depend upon the specific project proposal. 4. Public Services and.Utilities a. Sewers The site is presently served by an existing 8" sewer line in Goldenwest. Street. The City's Public Works Department has indicated that some of the proposed alternatives resulting in higher intensity use on the site may require the construction of additional sewer line. The need for additional sewers is predicated on the capacity of the existing sewer at the time of development. If necessary, a new line would be constructed parallel to the existing one in Goldenwest. b. Water The site is served by 14" and 12" water mains in Goldenwest Street and a 12" water main in Talbert. The existing water main along Goldenwest Street is one of the oldest in the City and is in need of upgrading as it has serious pressure problems. Extension of a 12" water main along Ellis Avenue from Gothard Street would be required prior to the development of this property. The cost for extending this water main would be the responsibility of the project's developer. 20 C. Drainage There are no storm drains located on the project site.' The existing storm drain in the area is a 36 inch reinforced concrete pipe which runs south from Huntington Central Park, draining into Sully Miller Lake to the east of the project site. Depending on the final development and grading plans, the northern section of the property could tie into the existing 36" storm drain serving Huntington Central Park. 'The southern portion of the property could tie into the existing library storm drain or could be piped through a desiltation basin adjacent to Sully Miller Lake. The City's Public Works Department has requested that any future development on site be designed to carefully control drainage to help clean up Sully Miller Lake. d. Park As previously mentioned, the project area is surrounded by Central Park on three sides. Community Services Department has analyzed purchasing the property for an addition to Central Park. It is estimated that the acquisition cost would be approximately five to six million dollars. This cost would require a major financial committment for the City and may cause a reprioritization of park development. Again, it is important to stress that whether the City purchases the property or it remains in private ownership, future development should be carefully monitored to minimize potential incompatibilities with Central Park. e. Police and Fire Protection The City's Fire Department ' has indicated that adequate: service could be provided to the area under any of the five alternatives. The Police Department has indicated that .Alternatives Two and Five (Medium Density Residential and Office Professional) would require two additional officers and Alternatives Three and Four (Low Density Residential and Estate Residential) would require one additional officer. f. Schools The Ocean View Elementary School and Huntington Beach Union High School Districts have indicated that their existing schools could accommodate the students generated by any of the three residential land use alternatives. 5. Gas and Electrical Utilities and Telephone Service The Southern California Gas Company, the Edison Company and the General Telephone Company have indicated that adequate service could be provided for the area of concern under any of the five land use alternatives. 21 6. Solid Waste Disposal Service to the project area is provided by Rainbow Disposal Company; they do not anticipate any difficulties in serving the project area. 7. Traffic and Circulation Access to the area of concern would be from Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue. Goldenwest has an estimated future capacity of 25,000 - 30,000 trips per day, and Ellis has an estimated capacity of 25,000 trips per day. Current traffic on Goldenwest is approximately 23,000 trips. There are no current counts available on Ellis at this time. Projected future traffic volumes from the study area are estimated as follows: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation Alternative 1 218-440 trip ends* Open Space Alternative 2 2,673 trip ends Medium Density Alternative 3 2,585 trip ends Low Density Residential Alternative 4 1,473 trip ends Estate Residential Alternative 5 7,981 trip ends Office Professional *Traffic volumes will depend on type of use. SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982. Public Works Department has recommended that when significant development occurs, full improvements will need to be made to all arterial streets and that the intersections of Ellis and Goldenwest and Talbert and Goldenwest will need to be increased to provide a greater turning radius. Public Works has also recommended when development occurs access be limited to one opening on Goldenwest and one opening compatible with proposed street openings on the south side of Ellis. Goldenwest in the area close to the freeway currently experiences severe traffic during the commuter rush hours. While this project will result in additional traffic on Goldenwest, Public Works anticipates improving other freeway access streets such as Bolsa Chica to prevent this situation from worsening. The County's 1995 projections do not show significant problems on Goldenwest due to these other access improvements. 22 The Orange County Transit District has indicated that development under alternatives one, two, three or four could result in the need for a bus turnout and shelter on Goldenwest Street. B. Environmental Issues a. Human Health During March of 1982, the State Health Department conducted a statewide survey to locate inactive or abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites that were used between 1945 and 1972. A potential site was identified in the area between Goldenwest and Gothard Streets on Talbert Avenue, which would be adjacent to the General Plan Amendment study area. - However, after completing further inspections and soil samples, the State determined the site to be nonhazardous. A letter from the State Department of Health Services documenting this has been included as Appendix E. b. Plant Life The project area is currently being used by the Ocean View Mushroom Growers as a productive mushroom farm. The open space designation (existing land use designation) would be the only one of the five alternatives being considered that would permit continued agricultural uses. Any other development on this site would preclude the continued use of this site for agricultural purposes. 2.2.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the existing open space designation be retained on the project site. Because of the site's unique location adjacent to Huntington Central Park and Sully Miller Lake, future development of th.e site as an additional recreational facility would seem to be the most compatible land use. This designation would also be consistent with future expansion plans for Central Park. While low density or estate residential would be compatible with surrounding uses, there could be potential conflicts with the heliport and firing range. In addition, residential development would isolate the two sections of Huntington Central Park. An office development on this site would be a high intensity use adjacent to open space and would therefore be incompatible. Additionally, the Planning Mode Study showed that currently there is no demand for offices on this site. 2.2.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the existing open space designation be retained on the subject site with the same findings as discussed in the staff recommendation above. 23 i 2.3 CAMBRO MANUFACTURING PLANT AREA The third area of concern addressed by Land Use Amendment 82-1 is a .19.4 acre site located north of Clay Avenue between the Pacific Electric right-of-way and Huntington Street south of Garfield Avenue (see Figure 1-1). 2.3.1 Background The applicant, Cambro Manufacturing Company, requested a redesignation of their property .from medium density residential to general industrial. City staff expanded the amendment area to include all property north of the Cambro plant to Garfield Avenue. The expanded site includes vacant property owned by the Huntington Beach Company and the City's water facility, bringing the total site to approximately 19.4 gross acres. (See figure 2-6.) The existing (residential) and requested (industrial) land use designations are both being considered in this analysis. At the present time, Cambro Manufacturing Company occupies the southern portion of the property area. North of Cambro Is a vacant parcel of land with some oil production owned by the Huntington Beach. Company. The remaining property north to Garfield is occupied by the City's water facility and includes a reservoir, office building .and equipment yard. The entire project area is currently designated medium density residential in the City's General Plan (Figure 2-7). . Zoning on the site is Light Industrial (M-1) on the Cambro property with the remainder of the amendment area zoned Medium Density Residential (R-2) (Figure 2-8). If an industrial general plan designation is selected, it should be accompanied by a zone change to industrial for that portion of the site currently zoned R-2. The area north of the study site is designated office professional. Properties to the east, west and south of the amendment area are designated medium density residential. A planned residential development ("The Ranch") has been proposed by the Huntington Beach Company for the property south of Clay Avenue between Main and Huntington Streets. This project has not yet been approved but proposes development of residential units at a medium density with private recreation centers and common open space. The property east of the project includes a mobile home park (Huntington Mobile Estates), some apartment buildings and single family residential units. Immediately west of the project area is the Pacific Electric right-of-way, and adjacent to that is the Pier Pointe condominium development which includes 159 units. 25 .I.n+v LVIVIIYU tm IL ' ' SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 2-6- II �,rfK[ ■K[T• AOOPTEO MARCH 7,1960 NOTE: CITY �F IS IMM[«r4�, .�M •[[T CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 754 ANY ZONE MWORIPUA wY 10ON1 s wT q RIT[«D[D 70 {■TEND TO TM, C[FT[+ MENDED ORD,NO. AMENDED ORD_NO or SUCH+K+T OF Wn 6-20-40 773 7.-21-66 1166 LEGEND: 7-1 e-eo I 10-].64 1256 [wLr FAMILY a[IO[NC[OWINCT TBEACH 11-7•eD T96 '-,7-69 1470 ® TWO FAMILr Iq[q[«Ce DISTMCT HUNTINGTON B�;ACH 2-2°-el 617 2 17-69 M74 opnz-p w smft MPWTAT,oNulopT+CT 6-S-6N e44 W-G-69 I527 ®DRIC[•ffV6flollAl ORITINC'T 6.19-61 647 .0.19.COUNTY, dbeL-�7-76G 0o�a 70 *06 RIVM.TM LM ADqN[np;TDOIW.TW IDDIST INCT9- ]-13.71 1 a-661 $76 12-20 1091 rVj LAT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ORANGE CALIFORNIA 61.76 o71 5-7.42 900 12-16- 87 I.MTMAL DISTRICT 1 7-19.76 0 772 :6.BASIS IIOT 6-4-62 007 7.17-Tz IT62 wO«WIn CpW[ROIAL AN[NO[D BY ZONE CASE: Iio°n t1b. 9.2,76 "IS :0.15.62 9]x 9-S-T2 1776 LIMITED MIATML[FAMILY H6.04 o1sTAICr be.Ix3.IJe,147.176,177,178, Yc-AI i171 ]-77 2155 Ix-a-69 9a8 12-17-7] 16e9 © NC.G RIORIg0D fgW[RCUI T.{M iM. 1217% 2135 1?9,100.143.200,106.212,237. I-7-62 947 I0.15-73 1e76. MLAYIKC FAMILY R[p0[IITIAL 244.149,269,l61,l68,]02,>]I, •A--q-/T 217, 2-4-e3 950 6•{•75 1999 CDYCA,IlK11C.1 DISTRICT A-T1 r1A0 -•-- Sit,,., LFA 673,379.477,605.546.66.40, A-[o-77 p 8.24-8] 9766979 a-4-75 2000 66-1e,M-52.Go.23, 0.10,70-20. -� it71 1COMMN= WITH 01L PRODUCTION 7 u .FAA 1-6-94 102e 6.4.75 2002 ll-19.TI-]2.71-I8171.72.IS JU.72.2575.22.73-20,75-3A.75.56.75-30,75-BE,FDA 75-2,T6.4.76-07.76-4,TA-M^-to,�'IAiTT OR 10-7-64 1090 6-4-15 200] ® 1�c1RIm PLAN CPSw m. 76-N6,16-9.7FA 7S-8.78.22. -21,PPb 76-1,711,71.6.PRA-76-6.IPA-7660,77.5'X,76-2�7- 4-ro68 1�4 94]-75 2004 Q CIVIC DISTRICT � 0.olOIM[KCDIC PLAN IN 6. $'$:Si $!1 g- J IGARFIELD I t I I [ s-7-ts 2os5- _ - N 22ppe2IS Isis I I AVE, L » s1 a RA-0 82 CIHipt \� Cl TY ► ► r— -- ..,, R2 ago WATER MI �FAutITY R5 -- nni R2'! `R 2 C2 o O RA-0 _ R2 ; :,;,:: �� o.1er ! i «wq[A v[oOs Dwo• 2 RAO '`£... VACA T STAFF I CWSIO R2 C4� s R2 CA BRO R 2 R2 a'_ �� R2 -; .. M�• ORIGI AL CAf o- 2 PLAN m16TRICT I.1 R2 ronl , CLAY fr.•,i - AM. rC2-O-�D } R3 NR R2 R3 C2! 7R2-0-PD j R20 PD o 0 0 ::o R2 L T Ri .- AV . 1 RI I- 1 1 RI fo C2-F� N N a[.UAL^- R2 J ofRl IO ", w RIUj P] r •1 LIAV 1 p IS 4 z I". . .D..f. T. {Arh- c2 v cpi ��+ I 1 R2kR2 R2 I C2-0-CD R 5-O-CD R2-0-Ffj CD � 0t7 R2 $ C4.o .f. s a... M 01 CST a C - R2-0 p, 0 C . CF—C CF—E—CD R2-0-CD 1F1;1•:!ING iiN :: . .•9N!ON a'1G';.I:li{L I I«I TAB-- R A R 2 C 2 in CF-E-CD < `o ~ o o " - R2-0 R2 R2 AT [R. -CD0 YN E _J� zst[At �t_ .,o-lrAVL -CD-0 1 fyRuQ➢l.�-L.._ a'a' E 7cA I I UTIC4 i V[. Io a1.IPpP:1_.: -CD-01 O R2-0 R2-0 E D-O-po T -CD-O , a66D�96if---- .- L • CF—R RI RI RI RI RI 2 -CD-0 I •J"UATO .N i. 0 0 0 0 w E O l H -0 -0 0 -0 A.0 CD-O_.J - A„11N1911I RG 4 �YI r SPRI D (1 - I.O ALuw+eR 1 O 1 -S I N N O O f �:'ea J j4r 4PN z RI RI RI RI RI R2 -o RoealeTER ba RI.O V W 4' i $ , $ RI-0 4_ a J . 0 3jj�-0 0`-0 -0 R3-0 R3-0 y �~� Y aF �=LJ�� III No RO -r RI AVE 26 Area of Concern Three Figure 2-6 1 _ OFFICE PROFES IONA �. INDUSTRIAL W n r GARFIELD 5� MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 12 _ p ' in RCLO.ELAINDVE. �- 7-4 Existing General Plan Area of ' Concern 2 . 0 o o � Figure 2-7 27 MI V 1 R3 CD .. __ M2'0 V R3 R': :•::lid /MI-0 MIS 1 RA'0 ,R3 R2„� 1 .. is RAC MI•D 1015TRIC1 ONE) NEI AVE rl . Rs C4I M I-O-CD- y CIfICA NITY PLAN ..et.. •ar MI ICT ONE) R3 MI-0 M2-01. 'MI-A-CD MI-0 gI g Qa _ R5 s Rs R5 j R2 i-A•c°° r R2 R2 4 R3 I IIp w F u RA'0_ G/1RFICLD R R5RSA R2 = R2 �- R2 $ .� RA 0 Clyq r.• 8---, R2 5 N; r- Mi o� R5 a �»�E MI 31 %R2� R 2 � C2 RA-0 R2 O •:• R2 '�.._ M LM K.=00=.f00• I i a a RA-off R2 R2 C4! R2 g • 2 PLANIp9TRxT I.) R2 CLAY AV C2-0- R3 !• R4 R2 R23 cz: 1!Ii:51:RMi9) -� R2 r� �+ .>;.• R2-0-PD :R20 PD o o .=o . to .—.- AVE. C2-0-CD 1 1 N RI RI I- C C2-0 K C ¢ c=.u•w c• i R2 G2I re b 00 e RI RI ct top 1.N10) MIL(TAMS (n _ a _L O W Q �' ? � 3 c fi R2 R2 R 5-0-CD R2-0-lFV CD q L R 2 C2-0-CD R 2 i 3 7 vmmrom AVE. R2-O Ca 1 >000: C F-C CF'-E-CD 7J^9) r.,, R2-0-CD b INTINI� ..t 01:1:>I�!i"i`:.,f,N:!:i.) , I ICNITA—=-- ., RA $ R2 C 21 x CF-E CF-E-CD = Existing ZoningR2 R2 �1 °• Area of Concern 2.3 •o 0 o 28 Figure 2-8 Analysis 1. Land Use Under the existing medium density residential designation, 291 units could be developed on the site if it were totally vacant. Such a development could add 517 people and .would be compatible with the surrounding land uses as they are predominately medium to high density residential. However, as previously mentioned, Cambro Manufacturing Company and the City's water yard currently occupy portions of this site. These uses have effectively committed the majority of the site to light industrial uses for the foreseeable future. Additionally, the project applicant, Cambro Manufacturing Company, would like to expand its existing operation and is negotiating with the Huntington Beach Company for the purchase of the property adjacent to the existing plant for this expansion. Since it is unlikely that either of these uses will recycle, the only area remaining for residential development is that portion of the site between Cambro and the City water yard. This vacant site could accommodate approximately 97 units if developed at medium density. However, this particular site would not be an optimal location for residential use as there could be compatibility problems from noise and odor. The second alternative is to designate the entire site industrial. Approximately 125,000 square feet of building space could be constructed in the area that is now vacant. From a land use perspective, an industrial designation would not be the most compatible use adjacent to residential. However, in this case because industrial facilities already exist, a redesignation to Industrial would make the existing uses consistent with the General Plan. Historically, neither the City's water facility nor the Cambro operation have presented severe compatibility problems in terms of traffic, noise or odor, and to date the City has received no complaints from neighboring residents. The site is buffered on three sides by streets and on the fourth by the Pacific Electric right-of-way. Should an expansion of existing facilities or development of new industrial occur, maximum screening and noise attenuation measures should be incorporated into the design to Insure compatibility. This is especially critical on the west side where only the Pacific Electric easement separates Cambro's operation from the Pier Ponte condominiums. 2. Economic Considerations The Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the two land use alternatives using the computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a ten year period, 1982-1992. The land use assumptions are detailed in Appendix A. The results are summarized in the table below: 29 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Cash Flow Basis Medium Density Residential General Industrial Revenue (1) 1,292.25 656.94 Cost (1) 1p073.25 585.47 Revenue minus cost (1) 219,00 714.7 Revenue/cost 1.20 1.12 (1) in $1,000 As the above table shows over a ten year period the residential alternative would generate a surplus to the City of approximately $219,000 and the general industrial would generate a surplus of approximately $714,700. 3. Housing A designation of medium density residential could provide an additional 291 housing units to the City's housing stock if the site totally recycled, or 97 units if only the vacant portion of the site developed. The City's Housing Element of the General Plan includes policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes. A medium density designation could expand the City's potential to provide affordable housing. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The study area is served by a 24 inch sewer located in Garfield Avenue as well as 8 inch sewers in Clay and Huntington Streets. The Public Works Department does not anticipate any difficulty in serving the project area. b. Water The area is served by a 21 inch water main in Huntington Street and a 6 inch water main in Garfield Avenue. In addition, there are two 12 inch water mains and one 42 inch water main in Clay Avenue that also provide service to the site. The Public Works Department does not anticipate any difficulty in serving the project area. C. Drainage The project site is served by a 24 inch storm drain in Garfield Avenue. The City's Department of Public Works does not anticipate that any improvements will be needed to this system. d. Parks The area of concern is served by Perry Park which is a two acre neighborhood park located approximately one mile east of the project site. A 1977 parks analysis study shows that there is a shortage of park facilities in this area. Should residential development occur, additional demand would be placed on the existing park system, however, the Community Services Department has indicated that this would not result in any serious impacts under either of the land use alternatives. 30 • e. Police and Fire Protection The Huntington Beach Police Department. has indicated that full development of the site under either an industrial or residential alternative would require the addition of two police. officers to the existing staff. The City's Fire Department has indicated that they would not have any problem serving the project area. f. Schools The Huntington Beach City School District has indicated that the number of students generated from this site would be insignificant in terms of the District's future planning. The site would also be served by the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The High School District has experienced a decrease in students in recent years and will have no problem accommodating additional students. g. Gas and Electrical Utilities and Telephone Service The subject site is currently served by Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company and General Telephone. These companies have indicated that there will be no difficulty serving future development under any of the three alternatives. h. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company has indicated that it can provide adequate service to the property under any of the . land use alternatives. 5. Traffic and Circulation The area of concern is bounded by Garfield Avenue, Huntington Street and Clay Avenue. Access to the project site can be taken from any of these streets. Garfield Avenue is presently a four lane undivided road with an estimated future capacity of 30,000 daily trips. Currently, traffic on Garfield is 4,800 trips per day. Clay Avenue and Huntington Streets.have an estimated capacity of 5,000 daily trips when fully improved. No existing traffic counts were available for either of these streets. Estimated future traffic volumes from the study area are as follows:. Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation Medium Density Residential 1,920 Trips Per Day (291 dwelling units) General Industrial 3,116 Trips Per Day (588 employees) Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division,_1982 31 2.4 HUNTINGTON.HARBOUR BEACH.CLUB The fourth area of concern addressed by Land Use Element 82-1 is a 5.7 acre site located on Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes (see Figure 1-1). The amendment request was filed by the property owner, the Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina, in conjunction with Landal Development Incorporated and Pacific Development Incorporated. 2.4.1 Background The applicant's request is to redesignate 5.7 gross acres from open space to mixed development (Figure 2-9). The three land use alternatives considered in this amendment are open space, mixed development and low density residential. The area of concern is currently zoned Recreation Open Space(ROS) (Figure 2-10) and is developed as the Huntington Harbour Beach Club which includes a clubhouse, private beach, tennis courts and other recreational amenities. The subject property is generally bounded by Wetherly Bay Marina to the north, medium'.density residential to the west, low density residential to the east and Warner Avenue to the south. The existing residential development to the east of the site and across Wetherly Bay is part of the Huntington Harbour development and consists of single family water oriented homes. The property on the opposite side of Warner Avenue is within Orange County's Coastal Zone and is included in the County's Boise Chica Land Use Plan area. While specific development plans have not yet been adopted by the State Coastal Commission, the County has proposed that medium to high density residential uses will be located along this section of Warner. 2.4.2 Analysis 1. Land Use Under the existing open space general plan designation and ROS zoning, recreational uses such as those currently occupying the site are appropriate. A redesignation to mixed development could allow a variety of uses including: retail and specialty commercial, office professional, hotels and motels, residential, public facilities, light industrial uses, open space and recreational facilities. The applicant has requested a redesignation . to mixed development in order to accommodate a development plan for commercial recreation combined with residential. Specifically, the proposal includes upgrading the existing beach club and recreational facilities and constructing 48 residential condominiums along Warner Avenue. 33 9 v. o ° z WESTPOR J L - � I LOW DENSITY 7UN/ C EDGEWATER C F o R ORION ' WEATHERLY SAY OPEN SPACE WATER ALAoaN oK. CF- R a M E ITl M T1 T y W DENSITY `l > RESIDENTIAL,. a -WARNER) Existing General Plan . Area of Concern 2A \$4 Figure 2-9 Cr•rtRl RI ... 1PEARM RI RI y CF R RI Ra R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 RI 1 CFR I RI RI RI RI RI 1 C4 T R3 I U F•R I� T RI R3 R3 R3 =.R3 R3 J l b � � RI C2 I m CF-R�RI).RI RI u RI RI 5 RI ' RI ..._ —J IL W A Rl f Q` RI 3 RI RI r R3 R3 a`. RI R3 C4: RI R R2 R3-19 •� RI RI C2 .CF—RRI a .. .�,. RI . RI RI R3 `pCON R I CF—R s R I R I RI RI RO5 RI RI' RI WARNER AVE. '*: R2-PD-14 RI � RI �I G � o ez• /. .o 90." �• O °�9y Existing Zoning I r Area of . Concern 2 .4 o o 35 Figure 2-10 The compatibility of a mixed use designation with the surrounding areas will ultimately depend on the type of land uses developed. As previously mentioned, the mixed use designation allows a wide variety of land uses in addition to recreation and residential. Some of these uses, particularly industrial and commercial could have significant adverse impacts on the surrounding developments and would be Inappropriate on this site. Should the site be redesignated to mixed use It is important that only those land uses compatible with adjacent properties be allowed. One way to do this would be to condition the General Plan Amendment to allow only recreational and residential uses on this property. The applicant has also agreed to rezone the site through a specific plan process. This plan will indicate the size and location of all facilities, parking and landscaping to be permitted on the site. It should be noted that a mixed use designation could result in the existing recreational facilities recycling to a new use. These facilities were originally designed to serve the Huntington Harbour residents. Should the City wish to retain some recreational amenities on this site, they may want to condition the General Plan Amendment to require that a certain portion of the site remain in recreational uses. Another approach would be to require that a Specific Plan process be used to implement the mixed -use designation. The Specific Plan can then set a maximum residential density and require that a certain percentage of the site remain in commercial recreation. The third land use considered for the subject area is low density residential. Should the existing facilities recycle, this designation could result in 39 units at full development. A low density use would be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, however, access and parking for the existing public marina would need to be preserved in the new development. This designation could also result in a loss of recreational facilities currently enjoyed by Huntington Harbour residents. Coastal Considerations The project site is located within the City's Coastal Zone boundary. At this time, because the City's local coastal program has not been certified, all projects within this zone must be reviewed and approved by the California Coastal Commission. The City's Land Use Plan designates this site as open space recreation. Should this designation be changed, the City would be required to amend the Coastal Land Use Plan, and such amendment would need to be consistent with the policies contained in Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. When reviewing the City's coastal plan, the Coastal Commission has been concerned with preserving access to Weatherly Bay and preserving existing views from. Warner Avenue to the bay. Any future development on the area of concern should be sensitive to these issues. 36 Three policies in the City's adopted Coastal LUP relate to Area of Concern 2.4. Policy 4g states "Preserve and where possible provide additional access to Huntington Harbour waterways." Public access to Huntington Harbour waterways can be provided under an open space, a mixed use, and a residential land use designation. None of the alternatives analyzed for the subject site would preclude the provision of such access. The exact location of such access should be determined at the project level. Policy 6a states among other things that new development should preserve public views to the shoreline and ocean. Views to and from Huntington Harbour waterways on the subject site are currently limited by the existing real estate office and tennis courts. Depending on the specific project design, development on the site under any of the land use alternatives analyzed could preserve and enhance much of the view currently available from the site. Policy 15f requires, with some exceptions, that 20 percent of new residential projects be affordable. As discussed in Section 2.4.2.3 of this report, this policy would apply to residential development on the area of concern. 2. Economic Considerations The planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc. conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the three land use alternatives using the computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a ten year period, 1982-1992. The land use assumptions. used In the model for each alternative are outlined in Appendix A. The results of the analysis are summarized In the following tables: Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 Mixed Low Density Cash Flow Basis Open Space Development Residential Revenue (1) 76.15 607.62 591.81 Cost (1 138.54 358.89 265.34 Reven minus cost e1) -62.39 248.73 325.97 Revenue/cost .55 1.69 2.23 (1) in $1,000 As shown in the above table, the mixed development and low density residential alternatives would generate a surplus to the City over a ten year period of approximately $248,730 and $325,970 respectively. The Open Space alternative would generate a deficit to the City of approximately$62,390. 37 3. Housing ' A designation of low density residential or mixed development with residential included, could result in approximately 39-48 additional housing units being added to the City's existing housing stock. The City's Housing Element of the General Plan includes policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes. Considering the location of this particular site, it is improbable that any affordable units would be constructed In this area. "However, pursuant to the housing policy contained in the City's Coastal Element, all new residential projects of 20 or more for-sale units in the coastal zone must provide for 20 percent of the project as affordable units either on-site or elsewhere within the City. A 48-unit condominium project on this site could result in the addition of ten affordable units to the City's housing stock either on-site or elsewhere within the City. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The study area is served by a 15" sewer located in Edgewater Lane and a 15" sewer located in Warner Avenue. The City's Public Works Department indicates that due to its low elevation, the area has traditionally experienced severe sewage problems. All sewage from Huntington Harbour is pumped uphill by Pump Station "D" before it can connect Into a gravity flow system. This pump station is currently nearing capacity. Should significant development occur in the Huntington Harbour area, improvements to the station may be needed. Costs for improvements will be shared proportionately by developers. b. Water The area is served by a 14" water main located in Warner Avenue along with a six inch water main in Sceptre Lane and an eight inch water main in Edgewater Lane. At this time the Public Works Department does not anticipate any difficulty in servicing the project area under any of the three land use designations. C. Drainage The project site is served by a 24" storm drain in Warner Avenue and a 15" storm drain originating in the center of the project site. The storm water from these pipes drains into the Bolsa Chica immediately across Warner from the subject site. The City's Public Works Department does not anticipate any modifications will be required to serve the site under any of the three land use designations. 38 d. Parks New residential construction developed in conjunction with the existing recreational facilities . would be adequately served by recreational amenities on the project site. These include: tennis courts, a swimming pool and a private beach. Should the existing recreational amenities recycle to allow for residential development there would be a reduction of facilities in this neighborhood. However, the project site could still be served by a number of mini parks located throughout the Huntington Harbour area as well as by Bolsa Chica State Beach located less than a quarter of a mile away. e. Police and Fire Protection The City's Police and Fire Departments have indicated that adequate service could be provided to the area of concern under any of the three land use alternatives. f. Schools The project site is located within the Ocean View Elementary School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The Districts do not anticipate that there will be any problem accommodating the students generated by either a residential or mixed use land use. g. Gas and Electrical Utilities and Telephone Service The subject site is currently served by Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company and General Telephone. These companies have indicated that there will be no difficulty serving future development under any of the three alternatives. h. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company has indicated that it can provide adequate service to the property under any of the land use alternatives. 5. Traffic and Circulation Primary access to the project will be from Warner Avenue. Warner currently has a capacity of 25,000 - 30,000 trips per day. Ultimate capacity of Warner Avenue is projected to be 40,000 trips per day. Existing traffic volume is approximately 20,000 trips per day. The Public Works Department does not anticipate any problem in accommodating future traffic from the three alternatives as the actual counts are considered to be insignificant. The following table provides projected future traffic volumes: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation Open Space Recreation 64 Trip ends Mixed Development 385 Trip ends* Low Density Residential 542 Trip ends * This number is based on the conceptual plan submitted by the applicant. 39 It should be noted that the County's plan for future development of the Bolsa Chica could generate significant traffic along Warner Avenue. The County proposes to mitigate this problem by re-aligning Warner and re-designing it to accommodate any additional traffic. It is anticipated that by 1995 Warner will be carrying between 35,000 and 39,000 trips per day. The Orange County Transit District has indicated that a bus turnout and shelter may be required on Warner Avenue depending on future levels of development on the subject site or in the Bolsa Chica. 6. Environmental Issues a. Hydrology The Huntington Harbour area has traditionally experienced water quality problems due to lack of proper tidal flushing. Because of the site's location adjacent to the Bay, any grading to accommodate future development must be carefully monitored for alterations in runoff patterns or potential impacts to water quality. b. Seismic Safety The proposed site, along with a major portion of Huntington Harbour is located in the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zone. This zone identifies areas of seismic risk. Geologic studies are required by State law prior to building this area and will be required as conditions for approval. 2.4.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the applicant's request for a mixed development designation be granted with the conditions that only residential and recreational uses are to be permitted, that a maximum of 48 units be permitted on the site, and that the designation be implemented by specific plan. Of the land uses allowed under mixed development, staff feels that a residential use combined with the existing commercial recreational facilities would be the most appropriate. This allows the existing recreational facilities to be preserved and allows additional residential development which would be compatible with the surrounding homes. The applicant proposes using a specific plan process to provide zoning for the site. At the time the specific plan is filed careful consideration should be given to see that adequate buffering is provided between new residential units and the existing homes. Additionally, future development should not prohibit access to the public marina. 2.4.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the existing open space designation on the subject property be retained. In making this recommendation, the Planning Commission finds that (1) the proposed mixed development designation is inconsistent with the certified Coastal Land Use Plan for Huntington Beach, . (2) a mixed development is not compatible with the existing surrounding development, and (3) the existing open space designation is compatible with the existing development and allows all uses proposed in the mixed use designation other than residential. 40 2.5 BEACHVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK The fifth area of concern addressed by Land Use Element 82-1 is a 5.6 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Gothard Street just north of the City Yard (see Figure 1-1). 2.5.1 Background The area of concern is a privately owned site that is occupied by the Beachview Mobile Home Park, an 81 unit mobile home park which has been in existence since 1961. The mobile home park has a density of 14.4 dwelling units per acre. The present use is inconsistent with both the existing general plan designation of general industrial and the M1 (light manufacturing) zoning on the site (see Figure 2-11 and 2-12). At its April 19, 1982 meeting, the City Council directed staff to initiate a rezoning of seven mobile home parks in the City to MH, Mobile Home zoning. The area of concern, Beachviaw Mobile Home Park, requires a redesignation in the General Plan for consistency before MH 'zoning can be applied. A medium density residential designation would be consistent with an MH zoning and with the existing density of Beachview Mobile Home Park. A low density residential designation would not accurately reflect the existing density of the park, but it would be consistent with an MH zoning district. (It should be noted that the existing Beachview Mobile Home Park would not conform to the City's MH zoning district with respect to density since this district allows a maximum of nine units per acre.) This analysis considers three land use designations: general industrial, medium density residential, and low density residential. Ocean View High School is located immediately north of the area of concern.' It is designated for public, quasi-public, or institutional uses, and is zoned CF-E, (Community Facilities - Educational). Property to the south of the area of concern is designated general industrial, zoned CF-C (Community Facilities - Civic), and occupied by the City Maintenance Yard. The area east of the subject site across Gothard Street is designated general industrial, zoned M1, and developed with a mixture of uses including older single family homes, light industrial and a private horse corral. Al a� PUBLIC USE INDUSTRIAL a LOW DENSITY MOORE 14� Comm ENERAL i M -- �III(1111�11�111111! .■_ �- ME a!i�J • Property west of the area of concern is designated low density residential and developed with single family homes. A cul-de-sac within this residential development abuts the west end of the subject site. 2.5.2 Analysis 1. Land Use Beachview Mobile Home Park can continue to operate on the area of concern as a legal, non-conforming use under any of the three land use alternatives. The park contains 81 coaches and has a current population of 117 persons with one vacant coach. Should the mobile home park recycle to a new use, the existing general industrial designation could result in approximately 92,411 square feet of light manufacturing uses. Given the size and configuration of the subject site, it is likely that the development would consist of small-scale tenants (i.e., 8,000 square feet per tenant or less) such as light manufacturing, wholesale, machine and auto repair shops. These types of uses would generate approximately 100 employees. A change of use under a low density residential designation on the site could result in a maximum development of 39 residential units. This would generate an estimated population of . 110. A medium density residential designation would allow a maximum of 84 units and an estimated population of 236. Land Use Compatibility The existing mobile home park on the subject site is compatible with the low density residential development to the west. To the north, the Ocean View High School parking lot abuts a portion of the area of concern, and playing fields are adjacent to the rest of it. Some problems due to the close proximity of the school baseball diamond have been experienced by mobile home park residents. A greater potential for incompatibility exists with the City Maintenance Yard south of the subject site. Complaints from mobile home park residents have been received by the City about. noise from the activities of an industrial nature that occur in the City Yard. The mobile home park could also be adversely impacted when the existing older homes and mixed uses east of the subject site across Gothard Street recycle to industrial. Given the age of existing development in this area, it is likely that recycling could begin to occur in the forseeable future. The existing general industrial designation on the subject site could allow recycling to light industrial development. This would be consistent with the City's stated goals of retaining industrial zoning on properties so classified and developing Gothard Street as an industrial corridor. Industrial use on the subject site would be compatible with the City Yard to the north and with-the area east. of Gothard Street when it recycles to industrial uses. 43 R3 R3 R3 R3 CF-E MI%� �■ (PARK VIEW SCNOC 1 M I ✓! ` rl J�M OgR3 uDpOMppr mI PCF-R is. 1� R3 ¢ R2 I MVR:T COMM*SCTY PA") R3 C4„, r ._.. � o•,MAK oAnE M O. C. ► C. D. O. C F. C. O CS-1 w — AV sw C2 R3 Z R2 I V o 40 tLSnRR3 c U $ r p�] I w o c2 R = M I a .,.r•.a ch R 3 11GW4dC2 4 - 4 R2 _ ! WARNER R2 R5 � 'lf rlR CR. =c C4-MS IN1 LAIN 4VE Ao 1 R2-- cm CF-E N CM " rdhf/l 5CHJOU Mt W MI f W. R2--- R2 1 R2 m CF-R f -- - -" -- I —.-p r_ C[OAR AVE. I _ R2 M MI — R2"' R 2 R2 i r[TIRR R I (.,AK VI LW Mo-OOLI f R3 RI HI1 i M 1 R3 R3 4RI Rl RI RI RI CF-C 3 (!.'ITY YANp I - R3 r ±i I1 aRo cit to RI mo�o t CF I 1, 11) M M K RI CO Ri-CO � w a cr ¢RI-C RI-CORI-to RI-CD R3 R R3 3 I Cie .bl a MI-CD � MH no A RA-M SPEER •� — J r C Q R2 •�NI , USE PIT V CF_R = f M I R3 ,» I ii:N'I.NRT�:'N `:l:N'i RA!.i'�liiK) ✓ R3 a R2 C4 1 W Ah AY Existing Zoning ; Area of Concern 2 . 5 o o . o 44 Figure 2-12 Special buffering, however, would be necessary to protect the residential development to the west. Few, if any, impacts to Ocean View High School would be created by light industrial uses on the subject site because it is adjacent to school playing fields rather than classrooms. It should be noted that the subject site is adjacent to parts of Gothard corridor which is included in a redevelopment survey area. A low or medium density residential designation on the subject site would be compatible with the existing low density residential development to the west and could be compatible with Ocean View High School to the north. Special buffering, however, would be needed to mitigate adverse impacts to residential development on the subject site from the activities carried on in the City Yard. Residential development on the area of concern could also be adversely impacted. when the existing older homes and mixed uses on the east side of Gothard Street recycle to industrial uses. As previously mentioned, given the nature of the existing development in this area, it is likely that recycling could begin to occur In the foreseeable future. MH Zoning and the Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance The City's MH zoning district requires .a minimum park size of ten acres and allows a maximum density of nine units per acre. Since Beachview Mobile Home Park is a 5.6 acre park and is developed at a density of 14.5 dwelling units per acre, it does not conform to the MH zoning district. Thus, the park will continue to exist as a legal, non-conforming use regardless of what land use designation or zoning is placed on the site. It is important to note that the mobile home park can continue to operate as a legal non-conforming use under either an industrial or a residential land use designation. As a non-conforming use, however, the magnitude of new improvements or additions that can be performed !on existing facilities (excluding coaches) is limited. Also, In the event it is destroyed by fire or natural disaster It would have to be replaced by a use that conforms to the current zoning. The City Is considering a mobile home conversion ordinance that would require notification and relocation of mobile home park tenants prior to closing or recycling a park to a new use. A redesignation of the Beachview Mobile Home Park to low or medium density residential would enable the City.to put an MH zoning on the site. The park owner would then have to apply for a zone change should he decide to recycle the park to a new use. Before granting such a zone change, the City could require., the park owner to meet the provisions of any adopted mobile home park conversion ordinance. If the area of concern is retained under the general industrial designation, an MH zoning cannot be applied to the site. However, the City could place an MH overlay on top of the existing M1 zoning on the park site. An overlay would leave the underlying M1 zoning intact but.: would entirely supercede that zoning. The park owner would have to request that the overlay be removed should he or she decide to recycle the park to a new use which would otherwise be allowable under the MI or other zoning. Before removing the overlay, the City could require the park owner to meet the provisions of any adopted mobile home park conversion ordinance. 45 2. Economic Considerations The planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the three land use alternatives using the computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a ten year period, 1982-1992. The land use assumptions are detailed In Appendix A; the results are summarized in the table below: Existing Medium Mobile Home Low Density Density General Cash Flow Basis Park Residential Residential Industrial Reve 260.48 331.58 663.67 313.98 . Cost 272.68 265.03 518.88 223.14 Revenue minus cost (1) -12.20 66.55 144.79 90.84 Revenue/Cost .96 1.25 1.28 1.41 (1) In $1,000 As the table shows, over a ten-year period all of the alternatives generate a surplus to the City ranging from $66,550 for the low density residential alternative to $144,790 for the medium density residential alternative. The existing mobile home park would create a deficit of approximately $12,200. 3. Housing The existing mobile home park on the subject site provides affordable housing. A recent survey of mobile home parks in the City conducted by the Department of Development Services indicated that the average monthly rent of a space in the Beachview Mobile Home Park is $150. Regardless of the land use designation placed on the subject site, the existing mobile home park can continue to exist as a legal, non-conforming use, thereby preserving this source of affordable housng at least until recycling occurs. A low or medium density residential designation will provide for continued use of the subject site for housing after recycling occurs: Even if it were not implemented with MH zoning, designating the subject site low or medium density residential would retain 5.6 acres of the City's stock of potential areas for residential development. A maximum of 39 low density units or 84 medium density units could be developed on the subject site. The existing general industrial designation on the subject site will not affect the life of the mobile home park presently located there: Under this designation, however, when recycling does occur it will not preserve the potential for housing development on the subject site. 46 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The area of concern is serviced by an eight inch City sewer through Betty Drive that feeds into a 15 inch City sewer line on Goldenwest Street. The Goldenwest line feeds into the Slater Avenue trunk line. According to information provided by both the City Public Works Department and the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC), discharges from the area of concern under any of the three land use alternatives can be safely accommodated by existing sewer lines. b. Water Existing water mains in the vicinity of the subject site include a six inch line through Betty Drive and along the southern boundary of the area of concern, as well as 12 inch mains along both Gothard and Goldenwest Streets. The City's Public Works Department has indicated that existing water mains are expected to be adequate for any of the three alternative uses on the subject site. C. Storm Drains and Drainage The area of concern is served by a 36 inch storm drain along its northern boundary. This drain feeds into a 54 inch drain_pipe that extends south : to the Slater Avenue flood control channel. No capacity problems are anticipated from development of the subject site under any of the alternatives analyzed. The area of concern is, however, prone to flooding. In the past, problems have been encountered due to sheet flow off the adjacent high school parking lot. Thus, particular attention should be given to drainage design for any new development that is constructed on the site. d. Parks The Community Services Department has indicated that the area of concern is adequately served by existing parks. Murdy Park to the north is less than one mile away from the subject site, as is Central Park to the south. e. Police and Fire Protection The Police and Fire Departments have indicated that the alternatives analyzed for the area of concern will not create any immediate problems with Police or Fire protection or require any significant change in personnel. f. Schools The Ocean View School District indicates that it would have no trouble accommodating the students generated under the residential land use alternatives. The Huntington Beach Union High School District has adequate capacity to accommodate students generated by the residential alternatives analyzed. 47 g. Gas and Electrical Utilities, Telephone Service Provision of service to the subject site by the Southern California Gas Company, the Edison Company and General.Telephone poses no problem under any of the land use alternatives. h. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City. No local service constraints are expected under any of the alternative land use designations. 5. Traffic and Circulation The area of concern fronts on Gothard Street, an arterial with an average daily traffic volume of 6,200. The present capacity of Gothard Street south of Warner Avenue is 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day. Gothard Street has been improved to a capacity of 20,000 to 25,000 vehicles per day north of Warner Avenue. The Public Works Department anticipates similar improvements to Gothard Street south of Warner Avenue. After improvement, the ultimate capacity of Gothard Street is estimated to be 33,000 to 36,000 vehicles per day. 1995 traffic volumes on Gothard Street are estimated at 30,000 vehicles per day. Projected traffic volumes from the area of concern are as follows: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation General Industrial 553 Trips/Day Low Density Residential 542 Trips/Day Medium Density Residential 563 Trips/Day Mobile Home Park 510 Trips/Day Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982. These projected traffic volumes will have no significant impact on Gothard Street or on the Warner/Gothard and Slater/Gothard intersections. The projected amount of traffic contributed to Gothard by the subject site will not be significant in terms of overall traffic volumes. Access to the subject site from Gothard Street is of concern, particularly if industrial development eventually occurs on the subject site and generates traffic by trucks and heavy vehicles. No left turn pocket to the site exists from the northbound lane of Gothard Street and truck traffic generated by industrial development may increase the problem of traffic backing up behind vehicles waiting to make left turns into the subject site. Potential access problems could be partially alleviated by the creation of a left turn pocket on Gothard Street, although the Public Works Department presently has no plans for one at this location. The Public Works Department recommends that there be no access from Betty Drive (the residential cul-de-sac west of the subject site) to Gothard Street under any of the alternatives. 48 • The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) has indicated that higher density alternatives will tend to have a positive effect on transit ridership. The City should consider on-street bus facilities and amenities to improve transit accessibility when reviewing development proposals for the area of concern. 6. Environmental I ssues a. Noise The area of concern is exposed to an exterior noise level of Ldn 60, which is within the normally acceptable range for residential uses. However, in the past, complaints have been received from mobile home park residents when temporarily noisy operations have occurred in the City Yard. If the subject site recycles to low or. medium density residential development, mitigation measures could be incorporated into the project to minimize noise impacts. Special mitigation measures may be required to protect the residential area to the west if the subject site is developed with industrial uses. These measures could include greater setbacks, higher fences or walls, or limitations on the types of industrial activities that could occur in the west end of the subject site. Traffic generated by new development on the site is not expected to signifcantly add to the noise level of surrounding areas. b. Soils Although there have been no reported problems with the existing mobile home park, the area of concern does contain peat and subsidence-prone soils. This problem can be mitigated if careful consideration to foundation design is given in any new development proposed for the site. C. Archeological Resources In 1973, the City hired a consultant to inventory archeological sites within the City. Two archeological sites are in the vicinity of. the area of concern. However, it is uncertain whether the subject site actually overlies any part of these two sites. Site No. 185 is identified as being on the northwest corner of Gothard and Slater, south of the area of concern. -The bulk of this site was evidently destroyed during construction of the City Yard. Site No. 367 mainly underlies Ocean View High School, and is therefore north of.the area of concern. Further investigation may be warranted to determine if archeological artifacts do exist under the subject site. However, present information suggests that, in all liklihood, development on the site will not affect archeological resources. 49 2.5.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the existing general industrial designation on the area of concern be retained. Not only is the subject site located in the Gothard industrial corridor, but light industrial uses on the site will be compatible with existing land uses to the north and south and with uses to the east when that area recycles to industrial use. Should the City Council adopt a mobile home park conversion ordinance, a mobile home overlay could be placed on the site to indicate that the Beachview Mobile Home Park has to comply with the provisions of any such ordinance before closing or recycling to a new use. Staff further recommends that adequate mitigation measures be taken to buffer the residential area to the west if the subject site recycles to industrial use .and that drainage and access problems be carefully analyzed before new development occurs. 2.5.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the existing general industrial designation on the area of concern be retained. In making this recommendation, the Planning Commission finds that: 1. A change of zoning and land use designation on the subject site would not be in conformance with the City's stated goal of maintaining the integrity of the Gothard Industrial Corridor. 2. The existing mobile home park can continue to operate in its present zone as a legal nonconforming use under a mobile home park overlay; additionally, even with a residential designation and zoning, the park would also operate as a nonconforming use. 3. The MH zoning requires that park size be 10 acres with a maximum density of 9 units per acre. The subject mobile home park is 5.6 acres in size and is developed at a density of 14.5 spaces at present. Thus, it is not in conformance with the MH requirements. 4. The existing incompatibility between the City's maintenance yard and the mobile home park would not be alleviated by the proposed residential zoning and, in fact, that incompatibility could be exacerbated by any future residential development. 5. Under the existing industrial zoning, the mobile home park overlay would require the property owner to present-any proposal for change to the City for approval. Likewise, any future development of industrial uses on the property will be brought before the City for consideration of special buffering and analysis of drainage and access problems. I 50 i 2.6 MAGNOLIA-BANNING AREA The sixth area of concern addressed by Land Use Element Amendment 82-1 is a 1.6 acre (1.2 net acres) vacant property owned by the City of Huntington Beach located at the southeast corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street (see figure 1-1). 2.6.1 Background The area of concern was originally part of a four acre City-owned property zoned for industrial use. When Magnolia Street was extended to intersect with Pacific Coast Highway, the alignment split the four acre site leaving two vacant remnant pieces of property on the east and west side of the arterial. The area of concern in this analysis is the remnant piece on the east side of Magnolia Street. In August, 1982, City staff initiated a change of zoning on the area of concern from M1-A (Restricted Manufacturing District) to R1 (Low Density Residential). At its August 3, 1982 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the zone change request and directed staff to initiate a land use amendment on the property from industrial energy production to low density residential. This amendment analyzes four possible land use designations for the site: 1) Industrial Resource Production, 2) Low Density Residential, 3) Open Space, and 4) General Commercial. Area of Concern 2.6 is located within the City's coastal zone and is designated for industrial energy production in the Coastal Element Land Use Plan (see Figure 2-13). This designation was developed for use on areas identified as potential wetland areas by the California Department of Fish and Game and is intended to protect a unique environmentally sensitive area without precluding expansion options for energy production. Area of Concern 2.6, however, is not a wetland area and was not identified in the survey of potential wetland areas by the Department of Fish and Game. Property to the north and east of the subject area is general planned, zoned and developed as low density residential. The eastern boundary of the site backs directly onto the backyards of existing single family homes (see Figure 2-14). The subject area is bounded to the south by an Orange County flood control channel. The property south of the channel is designated industrial energy production and zoned LU, Limited Use. 51 J VUbL1 , QUA51-PUBL1 ,i INSTITUTIONAL ! 9rr E. _ ' ft OR. � till p KAHUWI DR. o \ MA A 0 ps :: � L W D,ENSITYI 0 jINDUSTRIAL i RESIDENTIAL : ENERGY Q KAPAA PRODUCTION o HA 8 O 7� j i C' PLAYA DR. - o = z Q � I Off`, cy,�, tiJ j sr P: Q h O, Ci�� 9TjoN yw Existing General Plan Area ' of Concern 2 .6 o . o � 52 Figure 2-13 ' The property to the west of the subject property is general planned Industrial, zoned M1-A (Restricted Manufacturing) and developed with fuel storage facilities related to the Southern California Edison generating plant. 2.6.2 Analysis 1. Land Use The existing general plan designation and zoning on the site could result in . the development of approximately 27,000 square feet of industrial and light manufacturing uses which would generate approximately 22 employees. The likelihood of such industrial development occurring on the site, however, is small due to the isolated location of the site in relation to other industrial and commercial uses, the small size of the site, and its irregular shape. A general commercial designation on the site could result in the development of approximately 11,000 square feet of convenience commercial use such as a quick food pickup store and several small shops. A redesignation of the site to low density residential could result in a division of the site into four or five single family lots or the development of approximately eight homes within a planned residential development. These developments would result In a population of approximately 13-17 persons. A redesignation of the site to open space would accommodate development of a small park or other recreation facility. The site* however, is not particularly appropriate for a neighborhood park use. It is approximately one-third the size of a typical neighborhood park and is located outside of the developed residential tracts, adjacent to an arterial. The site is not included in the City's master plan of parks and funds have not been earmarked for landscaping and maintenance. Land Use Impacts An industrial use on the subject property could adversely impact the adjacent single family homes particularly those immediately to the east. Manufacturing machine shops and other similar uses permitted under .the MI-A zoning typically generate noise from daily operations and truck traffic in excess of what.is characteristic for a residential neighborhood. There is also the potential for outside storage of materials, glare from parking lot lighting, dust ,and odors, that could adversely impact neighboring homes if an industrial use is permitted on the property. A commercial use of the site, like an industrial use, could have adverse impacts on the adjacent single family homes. Truck deliveries and customer traffic could create noise in excess of what is characteristic for a residential neighborhood. Evening noise levels from potential uses such as a restaurant or bar could be particularly disruptive. I 53 C F-_R RI RI RI L c"lRI . J Rl R I RI _j RI-----:.--:1. 1 RI RA.,.", RA-0 —RI 1 1 HA MIL TON RI RI RI IA CkAN it RI RI CR HAITI OR CR M FA-0 RI 0 RI RI Rl RI R R A lk T.OR 0 1• . R Ll CR F 4 NI L RI RI RI z 2 I ................. ....... ....... R I R I P, A MALAHIN A IA It.Z, 42 1 ICR RI RI RI HMO(INANA OR. MC R I R I pZR!WQA DR HU ON DR. D, M2-0RI RI cr KAHULUI n. CF-E RI (CA-DER�Cmllci.l RAMBLER oA. M2-0 MAN162 CR to RI 0 Cl •\ KAPAA GUL11TRAND CR R, m R, RI RI CA'7O.A OR OHA R I RI OR CF- RI MI-A R BANNING M2-0 C4- RI RI RI RI RI RI RIP m RI RI RI RI (LUD)LIMITED USE CO. DISTRICT R( co r RI RI C". CR. LUD)LRATED USE RI R I 3 RI DISTRICT Q C I DR RI QAi AD CPI - wY RI (LUD)LIMITED USE DISTRICT 0 CF RI '14, Existing Zoning-. Area of Concern 2 .6 o C3 54 Figure 2-14 A low density residential development on the subject property would be compatible with the residential development to the north and east of the site. Such development on the area of concern would be adequately buffered from existing and potential industrial uses to the west and south by Magnolia Street and the Orange County flood control channel, respectively. An open space or park use on the site would have no significant impacts and would be compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Economic Considerations The Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the three land use alternatives using the computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a ten year period, 1982-1992. The land use assumptions used in the model for each alternative are outlined in Appendix A. The results of the analysis are outlined In the following table: Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 General Low-Density Alt. 4 Cash Flow Basis Industrial Commercial Residential Open Space Reven a (1) 89.71 175.82 71.04 N/A Cost (1I 63.75 86.16 57.99 Revenue minus cost (1) 25.96 89.66 13.05 Revenue/Cost 1.41 2.04 1.23 �1) In $1,000 (2) Neighborhood Park As shown in the above table, all the alternatives except Open Space would be expected to generate a surplus to the City over a ten year period. A neighborhood park developed under the Open Space designation would not be expected to generate any revenue and would require a maintenance expenditure of approximately $3,360 per year. 3. Housing Retaining the industrial designation or redesignating the site to open space or general commercial would. have no significant impact on the City's housing stock. A redesignation to low density residential could result in an expansion of the City's housing stock, however, the addition would not be significant because of the small size of the area. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers Sewage generated from the area of concern will have to be conveyed to the 78-inch County sewer trunk line in Banning Street at the northernmost corner of the subject property. The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County have indicated that this facility would be able to accommodate the sewage generated under any of the land use alternatives. 55 b. Water The area of concern is served by 12-Inch water mains in Magnolia Street and Banning Avenue. The City's Department of Public Works has indicated that these facilities would be adequate to serve development on the site under any of the four land use alternatives. c. Drainage The subject area is located immediately north of a County flood control channel. However, runoff from the site could not be drained into the channel unless pumping facilities are utilized because of the elevation of the site relative to the water level in the channel during a storm. Drainage under any of the four alternatives would most likely be accomplished by grading the site so that runoff ultimately flows_onto Magnolia Avenue or Banning Street. d. Parks The area of concern is adequately served by nearby park facilities. Eader School neighborhood park is located approximately one quarter mile east of the subject area on Banning Street. Edison Community Park is located approximately one-half mile north of the site. Huntington State Beach is also within one quarter mile of the area of concern. The Community Services Department has indicated that there would be no adverse Impacts on the City's park facilities under any of the land use alternatives. e. Police and Fire Protection The City's police and fire departments have indicated that adequate service could be provided to the area of concern under any of the four land use alternatives. f. Schools The Huntington Beach Elementary School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District have indicated that existing schools could adequately accommodate the students generated by the residential land use.alternative. g. Gas, Electric and Telephone Utilities The Southern California Gas Company, the Edison Company, and General Telephone have indicated that adequate service could be provided for the area of concern under any of the four land use alternatives. h. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company has indicated that it can provide adequate service to the property under any of the land use alternatives. 56 .5. Traffic and Circulation Access to the area of concern would be off of Magnolia Street. Magnolia Street is a primary arterial with a capacity of 30,000 trips per day. Existing traffic volumes are approximately 6,300 daily trips south of Banning Avenue and 8,200 daily trips north of Banning Avenue. Magnolia Street is expected to carry roughly 12,000 daily trips at ultimate development in the year 1995. Projected future traffic volumes from the study area are estimated as follows: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation Industrial Energy Production 116 trips/day General Commercial 660 trips/day Low Density Residential 111 trips/day Open Space 7 trips/day Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982 The City's Public Works Department has indicated that Magnolia Street is adequate to accommodate traffic volumes from any of the four alternatives. The Public Works Department has also Indicated that access from the site shoud be limited to one point on Magnolia Street. Access out of the site should be restricted to right turns only because of the proximity of the site to the intersection of Magnolia Street and Banning Avenue and because of the poor visibility caused by the bridge structure on Magnolia Street south of the area. Left turns off of Magnolia Street Into the area of concern may also pose safety problems and may require modification of the Magnolia/Banning Intersection to create a left turn pocket. The limited access out of the site might pose problems for a commercial or Industrial use on -the site because of the relatively large number of daily trips generated by these uses and the possibility of truck traffic. 6: Environmental Issues An initial study was prepared for the area of concern pursuant to Article 7, Section 15080 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. This initial study is included In Appendix B. No significant environmental Impacts were identified for any of the three land use alternatives other than those already discussed In this analysis. 2.6.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the site be redesignated from industrial energy production to low density residential. A low density residential designation reflects the highest and best use of the site that Is compatible with surrounding properties. 57 Industrial or commercial uses on the site could result in significant adverse noise Impacts particularly to the single family homes that back directly onto the eastern boundary of the site. The large number of daily trips generated by a commercial use and potential truck traffic from an industrial use could create safety and traffic flow impacts on Magnolia Street. The site is not suitable for a park use because of its location and size. Development and maintenance of a park would use up funds already earmarked for other park facilities proposed in the City's Master Plan of Parks. 2.6.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the existing industrial energy production designation on the subject site be retained. In making this recommendation; the Planning Commission finds that there would be no safe access to any type of development that might be constructed on the site. 58 2.7 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM - DENSITY BONUS PROVISIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING A "Density Bonus" is an increase in the total number of units that a developer is allowed to build on a project site over the otherwise allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance. Local governments can use their authority to grant density bonuses as a way to promote construction of housing units for low and moderate income families. For example, Section 65915 of the California Government Code requires that when a developer agrees to build 25 percent of a residential project as units for low and moderate income households the City must grant either a density bonus or two other bonus incentives to that developer. The City of Huntington Beach may in the near future want to grant density bonuses to promote affordable housing in this community. Once a density bonus is granted, however, the proposed project will in many instances exceed the density allowed under the General Plan land use designation on the project site. In order to maintain "consistency" or conformance between the proposed project and the General Plan, the City would have to initiate a General Plan Amendment on the project site. In order to eliminate the potential need for the City to process general plan amendments every time it wants to grant a density bonus, staff is recommending that the City add language to the General Plan enabling it to exceed the applicable land use designation for projects providing affordable housing. 2.7.1 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that in Section 3.4.3.1, Standards and Criteria on Page 82 of the Land Use Element, the following.wording be added: (6) Density Bonus: Where a developer has agreed to construct a percentage of the total units of a housing development for persons and families of low and moderate income, the City may grant a density bonus of that same percentage over the otherwise allowable density under the applicable zoning ordinance and General Plan land use designation subject to a development agreement and as long as the following findings are made by the Planning Commission: 1. The capacities of the City and County water, sewer, and storm drain systems are adequate or are made adequate to accommodate the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned land uses in the area. 59 2. The proposed increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school enrollments, and recreational resources. 3. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted nor the overall intent of the General Plan sacrificed 2.7.2 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that Section 3.4.3.1, Standards and Criteria of the Land Use Element be amended as recommended by staff. 60 R 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, an environmental assessment is required to address short-term and long-term effects, irreversible environmental changes, and growth inducing impacts of the total project or plan. This section analyzes these concerns in context of the recommended land use changes in Section 2.0. 3.1 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Amendment 82-1 does not In and of itself create long term impacts. Rather, it makes changes in the general types of land uses that may be allowed on a particular area at the time of development. Amendment 82-1 seeks to Identify short-range issues within a context of long-range goals, policies, and environmental planning programs. The amendment itself acts as a mitigation measure designed to minimize any adverse effects on long-term productivity resulting from short-term uses. One of the steps required to Implement the amendment is an analysis of the zone changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance with the General ,Plan. The zoning changes that would result would have significant short-term effects, such as creating non-conforming uses, reducing or Increasing intensity of development permitted, and providing stimulus for development. 61 S.1 1RREVER51BLE ENVIRONMLNTAL CHANGES The Amendment will mitigate most adverse effects. However, irreversible . environmental change of a secondary nature can be expected from development under the proposed amendment. Loss of open space will occur as vacant land Is converted to other uses. Although the option to recycle the land to open space after development is available, It Is probably not economically feasible. Alteration of topography will be an irreversible change. Although mitigating measures can be imposed as part of the development process, the natural topography will experience a negligible degree of modification. Construction materials of mineral origin will also be needed for development to occur, and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods to satisfy local energy demand. 3.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The proposed amendment may have growth inducing effects within the areas of concern. An estimated population of 1208 persons could be generated in the areas of concern under the existing General Plan land use designations. If the higher density alternatives are chosen in each of the areas of concern, an estimated population of 2,394 persons could be generated. This would be an increase of 1,186 persons over the City's existing General Plan. Any increase In population would increase demand on public services and utilities and incrementally affecting air quality, water quality, traffic, and noise levels. However, the proposed uses in accord with General Plan policies and programs should mitigate many of the adverse effects generated by the expected growth. An Air Quality Management Plan for the south coast area has been developed based on population projections which reflect the existing general plans of this City and other jurisdictions. If the alternatives chosen in this General Plan Amendment result in a net gain in population. over and above that predicted by the existing General Plan, then the amendment may be inconsistent with the region's Air Quality Management Plan. Mitigation measures would include any actions at the project level or Citywide to reduce increases In automobile traffic and Increase the use of mass transit facilities. The demand for water and energy will likely increase as a result of the proposed land uses In this amendment. Conservation measures can be•implemented City- and County-wide to reduce these Impacts such as: 1. Reduce evaporation from reservoirs by encouraging underground storage or coating water surfaces with evaporation hindering films or substances. 2. Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow of public water supplies wherever such use is acceptable and safe. 3. Waterspread where appropriate to recharge the underground water supply. 4. Meter water and encourage repair of leaky connections to stimulate more economical use. 62 5. Reduce consumption of toilets and showers by requiring appropriate modifications to these appliances. 6. Prohibit the use of open gas lighting in public or private buildings. 7. Strategically place electric lights to maximize their efficiency. Their size and power consumption should be minimized as much as possible. 8. Discourage electrical heating in public and private structures. Encourage solar-assisted heating systems. 4. Encourage the use of reflecting and/or insulating glass In structures where windows are not shaded by exterior architectural projections or natural plants. 63 APPENDIX A LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS FOR FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS • In cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., the computerized fiscal impact methodology was used to analyze the proposed land uses presented in Land Use Element Amendment 02-1. The fiscal impact evaluation encompassed the land use alternatives considered for areas of.concern 2.1 through 2.6. Area 2.1 - YORKTOWN/MAIN Two land use alternatives were evaluated for the 1.52 acre area located approximately 500 feet north of Yorktown Avenue and 600 feet east of Main Street: 1. Office/Professional - 17,793 square feet of office space with an estimated value of $900,000 per acre. 2. Medium Density Residential - 22 medium density units with an average sale price of $125,000 per unit. Area 2.2 - MUSHROOM FARM Five land use alternatives were evaluated for the 26.6 acre area located east of Goldenwest Street and north of Ellis Avenue: 1. Recreational Vehicle Park - 580 R.V. spaces with 69444 square feet of accessory building space, all on City-owned property. 2. Medium Density Residential - 399 medium density condominium units with an average selling price of-$130,000. 3. Low Density Residential a. Low Density Residential - 186 low density condominium units with an average selling price of $150,000. I b. Estate Residential - 106 low density detached single family homes with an average selling price of $350,000. 4. Office/Professional - , 324,174 square feet of office space with an estimated value of $900,000 per acre. Area 2.3 - CAMBRO MANUFACTURING PLANT AREA Two land use alternatives were evaluated for the 19.4 acre site located north of Clay Avenue between the Pacific Electric right-of-way and Huntington Street south of Garfield Avenue. It should be pointed out that 4.9 acres of the subject site presently occupied by the City's water facility were excluded from the fiscal impact analysis. 1. Industrial/Medium Density Residential - 132 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $120,000; and the existing 21,228 square feet of industrial. 2. Industrial - 14,204 square feet of light manufacturing with an estimated value of $800,000 per acre; and the existing 21,228 square feet of industrial. I Area 2.4 - HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB Three land.use alternatives were evaluated for the 5.7 acre site located on Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes: 1. Open Space - 5.7 acres of recreational open space with 4,607 square feet of accessory building (existing) valued at $351,071. 2. Open Space/Medium Density Residential - 2.6 acres of recreational open space with 4,607 square feet of accessory buildings (existing) valued at $351,071; and 48 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $250,000. 3. Medium Density Residential - 39 medium density condominiums with an average'selling price of $350,000. Area 2.5 - BEACHVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK Four land use alternatives for the 5.6 acre area located on Gothard Street between Ocean View High School and the City Yard: 1. Mobile Home Park - The existing 81 unit mobile home park with a full assessed value of T289,771. 2. Low Density Residential - 39 low density condominium units with an average selling price of $139,000. 3. Medium Density Residential - 84 medium density condominium units with an average selling price of $120,000. 4. Light Manufacturing - 92,411 square feet of office space with an estimated value of $800,000 per acre. Area 2.6 - MAGNOLIA/BANNING Five land use alternatives were evaluated for the 1.6 acre site located at the southeast corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street: 1. Industrial Resource Production - 26,400 square feet of industrial space with an estimated value of $800,000 per acre. 2. Low Density Residential - 8 low density units with an estimated selling price of $150,000. 3. Open Space -�a 1.6 acrew City-owned neighborhood park. 4. General Commercial 11,360 square feet of light manufacturing space with an estimated value of $800,000 per acre. APPENDIX B INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Background 1. Norne of Proponent City of Huntington Beach 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach,CA. (714) 536-5251 92648 3. Date of Checklist Submitted September 2 ,1982 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach 5. Nome of Proposal, if applicable rsenoral Plan Amendment 82-1 II. Environmental Inrpocts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: o. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displ.ocements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change jin topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification X of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or. any bay, inlet or lake? X area of concern 4 115 Yes M�a be 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)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural AREA crop? 2 S. 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 insectsr Y _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? AREA _ 3ARE 6 b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned AREA land use of an area? 1-6 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate.of use of any natural resources? X 117 ' I As Ma No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable notural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Well the proposal involves a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X b. Possible interference with on emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X II. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the AREA human population of an area? 1&6 AREA 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 1&6 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional X vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail.or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: X a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X c. Schools? X 118 Yes h10 AREA AREA d. Parks or other recreational facilities? 2 4 V. Maintenance of public facilities, includinq X rands? f. Other governmental services? _ X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in, demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 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? X C. Water? _ { d. Sewer or septic tanks? AREA 2&4 AREA e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? _ X 17. Human Flealth. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential X health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health AREA hazards? 2 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of on aesthetically offensive site open AREA to public view? 6&4 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing KREA recreational opportunities? 2&4 20. Cultural Resources, a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or AR9A historic archaeological site? _5_.__ 119 Yes Maybe No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or abject? X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential irrpact area? R 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 endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? _ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental.goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X 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.) _x d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause .substantial adverse.effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? R 111. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 120 On the hosis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect II on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on on 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. ��� FOCUSED EIR* (Sate Signature For (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) * The EIR is focused on various issues for different project areas. The EIR will be prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment analysis. 121 Res. No. 5206 r STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) as: CITY OF HuRriNGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. -WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Cldrk 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 meeting thereof held on the 20th day of December 19JIZ by the following vote: f AYES: Councilmen: P_attinson. MlcAllister. Mandic. Finley. Bailey, Kelly NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None NOT, VOTING:Thomas City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of.8untington Beach, California RESOLUTION NO. 5206 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING IN .PART LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hunting- ton Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in . keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on November 16, 1982 and continued to and closed on December 7, 1982, and approved for recommendation to the City Council; and Thereafter, the City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code Section 65355, held at least one public hearing to consider Items 2.1, 2. 3 , and 2.7 of said Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to provisions of , Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of the California Government Code, commencing with Section 65350, .that Items 2.1, 2.3, and 2. 7 of Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 to the General Plan, consist- ing of the following changes, is hereby adopted: 1 . That 1.52 acres located approximately 600 feet north of Yorktown Avenue and 500 feet east of Main Street be redesignated from medium density residential to office professional. 2. That 19.4 acres located on the west side of Hunting- ton Street between Clay Avenue and Garfield Avenue be redesignated from medium density residential to general industrial. 3 . That under Section 3.4. 3 .1, Standards and Criteria, on Page 82 of the Land Use Element, the following wording be added: Res. No. 5223 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE I CITY OF HUNTINCTON BEACH ) r I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 meeting thereof held on the 7th day of February , 19 83 by the following vote: f AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, MacAllister, Mandic, Finley, Bailey. Kelly NOES: Councilmen: Thomas ABSENT: Councilmen: None .City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Runtington Beachl, California ,e N �--- �ZcFe- �- NO ryP .O.41 /9qc. .-,��,i���.///_' Ft/�Sri.�,;�.,r ��.�r �.•�-•r v!_mac.si�?G SFTR.4�'.� !'F 1 N `h\ /o'ovBl�c' svvGt' / , O / OP-1 t i(rU1��• �E..t�E-!/S�O.!/.S /OAP dl.�GLsi-c'�G' E,�/I2'Q'GtE�'`S �.�/� , i RESOLUTION NO. '5223 A -RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING IN PART LAND USE ELE- MENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN . WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine' the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives ; and A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amend- ment No. 82-1 to. the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on November 16, 1982, and continued to and closed on December 7, 1982, and approved for recommendation to the City Council; and Thereafter, the City Council after giving notice as pre j^ scribed .by Government Code section 65355, held at least one pub- lic hearing to consider areas 2. 2, 2.49 2.5, and 2.6 of said Land Use Element Amendment No. .82-1; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of California Government Code, commencing with section 65350, that Area 2. 4 of .Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 to the General Plan, consisting of the following change, is hereby adopted: That 5. 7 acres, located north of Warner Avenue between Sceptre and Edgewater Lanes, be redesignated from open space to mixed development subject to the following conditions: 1. Only residential and recreational uses are to be permitted. 2. The mixed use designation is to be implemented by _a specific plan. ahb 1/25/83 2/15/83 1. • ... ..wu.v• ••.—••aw►m wnv wcaMR[ AIi�NGT - tu....a�0'G. BROWN JR.. Go," DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES io1 SouTH BROAOWAV•ROOM ww 7128 LOS ANGELES•CA 90012 (213) 620-2380 June a, 1982 JU;i b Ic,� Mr.. James R. Barnes Associate Planner Department of Development Services A City of Huntington Beach P.: O.. Box 190 Huntington Beachp CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: This letter is in response :to your Mr. Charles -W. Thompson's April 15, 1982 letter to :We John Hinton of this office, regarding the Bruce Bros. Pit being considered a "potential hazardous waste .disposal site." Our abandoned site people 'did not have .enough information to consider the Bruce Bros. .Pit a potential hazardous waste site. This of•fice's regular staff on .March 10, '198.0 inspected and sampled the soil in an area in _vhich drilling .muds were disposed.of. The investigation was at- the request of the City O HuntiaSton Be-ach after the area had been cleaned-up. All samples upon analysis were determined to be non-hazardous. i Additionally we have reviewed the .Aboadoned Site Groups file and found nothing. in :tt to :indicate -that the Bruce :Bros. Pit is a "potential hazardous waste disposal �sfite." Therefore, based upon the information available to this office, we do not . consider the Bruce 'Bros. pit a llpotential hazardous e- posal site." . y Jon A.. H , P.E. Emits, Surveillance and Enforcement Section Hazardous haste Management Branch JAH:mw -119- i APPENDIX E LETTER FROM. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH SERVICES LUE 82-1 Dec. 1, 1982 Page 2 removed (hopefully inadvertently) the old Pacific Electric right-of- way. These planning maps have been distributed at recent Planning Commission meetings. We object to this misinformation, as the right- of-way remains in existence and as you well know, represents a po- tential transportation corridor for .future mass transit from Hunting- ton Beach. The Environmental Board urgently requests that the planning maps be corrected to reflect existence of the right-of-way. Area of Concern 2.4 - Huntington Harbor Beach Club The Land Use Amendment proposes to redesignate 5.7 gross acres from open space to mixed development. The Land Use Amendment goes on to state that it is the intent of the applicant to construct residential condominiums on this property after its redesignation. The Environ- mental Board opposes the mixed development zoning, even in conjunc- tion with the proposed specific plan, as not providing sufficient control as to the type of development which would eventually be im- plemented. If residential is the intent of the applicant, then the zoning change should be to residential, rather than mixed development which allows a variety of uses from retail shops to recreational facilities. In addition, the applicant has indicated that the proposed residential condominiums would be five stories in height. This exceeds the three- story height restriction for areas outside of high rise nodes, and is completely incompatible with the existing developments around the Huntington Harbor Beach Club. The Environmental Board is opposed to any zone redesignation which would result in such high-rise construc- tion, and which would severely impact the visual and aesthetic values of the site. Area of Concern 2.5 - Beach View Mobile Home Park The Land Use Element proposed to redesignate a 5. 6 acre parcel lo- cated west of Gothard Street just north of the City Yard. The area is presently zoned as general industrial, which is inconsistent with the current mobile home use. However,' if rezoned as a mobile home district, this park would not conform to the City's mobile home zoning requirements due to the fact that existing density is 14 .4 dwelling units per acre, versus a maximum mobile home zoning density of 9 units per acre. Further, as this park is less than the minimum 10 acres specified in the mobile home zoning requirements, it would not be in conformance with this requirement. Nevertheless, low cost housing is needed in Huntington Beach, and since this park was built in 1961, the zoning should be changed to reflect its current land use as a mobile home park. The Environmental Board recommends .that this area be rezoned for mobile homes, but continue to be allowed to be in non-conformance with the structural requirements of the mobile home designation. Area of Concern 2.6 - Magnolia/Banning Area The Land Use Amendment proposes to redesignate the 1.6 acre site LUE 82--1 • Dec. 1, 1982 Page 3 located at the southeast corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street from industrial resource production to low density residential. The Environmental Board concurs with the staff recommendation that the most appropriate land use designation is low density residential: . Access appears to be the only area of significant questions.. Access out of site should be by right turn onto Magnolia only. Access into site should require modification of the Magnolia/ Banning intersection. The residential development should attempt to incorporate conser- vation measures listed on Pages 60 and 61 of the EIR. To the extent possible, areas should be preserved within the residential structures for containers to be used in the separation of recyclable materials - approximately 2 ft. by 2 ft. of floor space in a closet or pantry is suggested. A central area within the project should be preserved for a small recycle center - approximately 8 ft. by 8 ft. Consideration should also be given to leaving provisions available for installation of solar water heating units - i.e. , plumbing and structural amendments that might be necessary. Water conserving measures should be required. The Environmental Board urges the Planning Commission to implement the Land Use Amendment changes in conformance with the recommenda- tions listed above. HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Irwin Hay dock Chairman IH:MFK:ic: jlm RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-3 A. Letter from Orange County .Transit District RESPONSE: -Comments from O.CTD regarding potential improvements to the existing bus system will .be incorporated into the appropriate sections of the Land Use Amendment 82-1. B. Letter from California Coastal Commission RESPONSE: Area of Concern 2.4 -Regarding the comment that the E.I.R. should indicate that any land use designation change would require an amendment to the City' s Local Coastal Plan and should be consistent with the California Coastal Act. - This comment will be added to page 36, Section 2.4.2. 1 of the� LUE •Amendment document. -Regarding the comment about consistency with Section 30222 of the California Coastal Act. - The mixed-use designation would allow both . recreation and residential uses on the subject site. It does not preclude recreational .uses. The Specific Plan being processed concurrently with LUE 82-1 proposed to improve and expand existing recreation 'facilities on the site. -Regarding the comment about Sections 30210 - 30212 of the Coastal Act. - Neither. a mixed use or residential land use designation on this site in the General 'Plan will preclude public access_ to the Huntington Harbour .Waterways. The provision of such access will have to be ensured :at the project level. The Specific Plan being processed concurrently with LUE. 82-1 proposes a ten- foot wide public walking along the entire bulkhead which would provide public access to the waterway. -Regarding the comment on the sewage pump station - Pump Station "D" has the capacity to accommodate future developments, how- ever, improvements to the outfall lines will be required prior to significant development. In terms of pump station capacity, the additional residential units would not preclude future development of this area for "high priority uses" as defined by the Coastal Act. Area of Concern 2. 6 Regarding the comment that the EIR should evaluate the potential of the site to accommodate coastal dependent energy or industrial facilities - The LUE Amendment document states on page 53 Section 2. 6. 2. 1 that due to the small size and irregular shape of the site it is unlikely that any significant industrial development would occur under the existing land use designation. Page 2 C. Letter from Alexander Googooian RESPONSE: -Regarding the comment that the Recreation Open Space de- signation is superficially discussed - The E.I .R. on page 33 through 39 discusses the most likely impacts of such a design- ation on land use compatibility, housing opportunities, traffic, schools, parks, utilities, public works facilities, and City services. The exisiting recreational development was used in the analysis since this is a typical use likely to occur under the open space designation. -Regarding the traffic comment - the trip generation rates used to calculate traffic for the mixed use development represent average daily trips. This average takes into account both peak periods and low use periods. The generation rates used are based on rates developed by the Institute of Transporation Engineers. . -Regarding consistency with Policy 4g of the City' s Coastal Element - Public access to the Huntington Harbour waterways can be provided under an open space,. a mixed used, and a residential land use designation .in the General Plan. None of the alternatives analyzed for the site in LUE 82-1 would preclude such .access. How such access will be provided is more appropriate at the project review level. The Specific Plan being processed concernently with LUE, 82-1 proposes a ten-foot wide public walkway along the entire length of the bulkhead. -Regarding consistency with Policy 6a of the City's Coastal Element - Views .to and from the Huntington Harbour waterways are currently limited on this site by the existing real estate office and tennis courts. Development of the site under an open space, mixed use or residential designation will not necessarily have a significant environment impact on views to and from the site. The project proposed in the Specific Plan being processed concurrently with LUE 82-1 would preserve views through the existing club facilities and provide a view corridor between this club and the new development. -Regarding discussion of cumulative impacts resulting from de- velopment south of Warner (i.e. Bolsa Chica) . Since the writing of the General Plan Amendment, the County' s plan for development of the Bolsa Chica has been withdrawn.. Therefore, at this time, there are no "active" plans for development or circulation in this area. The reallignment of Warner Avenue was included in the County' s development plan, however, specific discussion such as phasing of the Warner allignment would have been addressed at a later time in the County's Specific Plan. -Regarding discussion of the Housing Element - the Housing Element is addressed under "Housing" on Page 37 of the- Land Use Amendment. -Regarding consistency with Policy 15f of the City's Coastal Page 3 Element - Any residential development on the subject site will have to cc ugly with this policy. . -Regarding comments on the seismic safety element - the following discussion will be added to the Land Use Amendment.- "The pro- ject site along with a major portion of Huntington Harbour is located in the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zone. This zone identifies areas of high seismic risk. Geologic studies are required by State law prior to building in this area and will be required as conditions for approval. ,-Regarding the comment about the Errata sheet distributed to the Planning Commission - The Errata sheet clarified (1) that access to and from the subject property would be taken from Warner Avenue only and (2) that any residential development on the site would have to comply with the City's. affordable housing policy in the coastal zone. These issues arose during the public testimony. r .. Hlaxander Googooian Attorney at yUHns . � . Noverber � 4�2ALtf, Hop 1 17 py Dal City of Huntington Beach �.uw N 1982 Department of Development Services P.O. Box 190 Developr.:ent Services Huntington Beach, CA 92646 i . Attn: Claudette Dupuy, City Planner Subject : Environmental Impact Report 82-3 f j Land Use Amendment 82-1�, Area 2 . 4 Gentlemen: Upon review of the EIR for the above-referenced project , there are several inadequacies that .I feel need to be discussed in greater detail before the EIR is certified. The first comment I would have is that the discussion of the environmental impacts of retaining the existing Recreation Open Space designation on the site is superficially discussed. There is no indication of additional types of recreation uses that could be developed on the site and what the environmental impacts of those other uses might be. Also, the anticipated traffic generation for Open Space Recreation (64 end trips) seems to be substantially understated. By actual count on Saturday, November 13, 1982 , there were 61 vehicles observed on the subject property at 11 :00 a.m. That day was a cloudy, overcast day. On the following day at noon, there were 139 vehicles on the lot . During the peak sailing and cruising times of the year, many more vehicles would be utilizing the property, particularly if the restaurant and meeting rooms provide the type of quality dining and recreation. environment that the residents .of this area can support . . I would suggest that approximately 200 to 250 f vehicle end trips per day could be generated just by the i recreation uses . There is no specific discussion in the EIR regarding the consistency of this proposed Land Use Amendment with the Coastal Element , Seismic Safety Element , or Housing Element of the City ' s General Plan. A brief review of the Coastal Element finds that the proposal under consideration may be inconsistent with the following policies of the Coastal Element : 15933 South Clark Avenue-Suite B•Bellflower, California 90706.(213) 925-5563 City of Huntington Beach November 23 , 1982 Page Two -Policy 4g , Page 139 -Policy 6a, Page 140 -Policy 15f, Page 151 There is no specific discussion regarding the cumulative impacts of this project with anticipated future developments that could occur on the south side of Warner Avenue. More attention should be given to the discussion of the coordinated phasing of the realignment of Warner Avenue with future residential construction in the Bolsa Chica Bluff area. Finally, it would seep► that the only reason for recommending approval of this Land Use Amendment is that it is what the applicant is requesting and that it is profitable to the City. If future revenue to the City is the major basis for approving Land Use Amendments , then Open Space and Recreation areas will soon disappear. Hopefully, the City can balance its goals for new housing with other goals such as preservation of Open Space, accessibility to shoreline areas , and view retention of shorelines and harbor areas . The City has previously reviewed this site for the construction of 42 guest cottages , and the request was. denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The two most pertinent Findings of Fact adopted by both the Commission and Council were : "1. The intent of the ROS Zone as established. did not include uses of this type; i.e. , residential development , whether temporary or not. 2 . 'Zoning prior to ROS was R1. If the zoning was as it had been, the use would not be* permitted. The proposed use does not conform to the use of surrounding properties . " Finally, there was an amendment made to the EIR by an Errata Sheet which was inserted to the report at the hearing on November 16 , 1982 , and which had to do with access . Since we are not privy to this change, we can only speculate as to what it purports to provide . I would seriously urge that more detailed analysis be included in the EIR in those areas which has been discussed above. City of Huntington Beach i November 23 , 1982 Page Three In conclusion may I point out that three items were considered simultaneously at the hearing of November 16 , 1082 . They were E 1) the EIR 82-3; 2) Land Use Amendment 82-1 ; and 3) Huntington Harbor Bay Specific Plan. To limit interested property owners , as I was and am, to three minutes as to all these items , . and to prohibit us from accumulating time (3 .minutes) amongst each other, which had been promised prior to the hearing, effectively F denied me and others to our right to a fair hearing. The conduct just referred to denied me of my constitutionally protected right to due process and a fair and impartial. hearing. Ver truly your f AL DER GO AN 26 75 Edgewate ane Huntington Beach, 92649 i I i f f A D D E N D U M The following persons join in and concur with the comments made by Alexander Googooian. /� 9�� •mot, 1,40 , !6 9 6 7 (�AIC7 CITY OF HtMTIIVGTON BEACH <( a INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ►WNIINGTON lfAC11 - Yw.a to Claudette Dupuy From Les Evans r� 1 Assistant planner. City Engineer Subject General Plan Amndin--nt No. 82-1 Date Sept. 9, 1982 Attached are maps showing location and size of storm drain and sewer systems in uz each area of concern. The existinq water system :in each area has been plotted on the exhibit maps which are also attached. The problems associated with the land uses proposed for each area of concern have boon reviewed briefly by this department due to the short response period. Com- ments are- as follows: Area of Concern No. 1 No parti.cular'concerns were noted for either proposed use. "Ie. access and circu- lation plan should be reviewed carefully to insure convatibility with the proposed transit corridor along railroad right-of-way and with the existing office uses at the northeast corner of. Main and Yorktown. Area of. Concern No. 2 1. Estate residential or open space would be most compatible with the park, Fllis- Goldenwest Specific Plan and the proposed nearby recreational uses from a traffic standpoint. 2. Access onto Goldenwest should be limited to one opening.; and access onto Ellis should also be limited to one opening compatible with proposed street openings on the south side of Ellis. 3. Arterial streets need full improvements. 4. The Goldenwest sewer will need to be paralleled. 5. Drainage to Sully-Miller Lake must be carefully controlled and cleaned up. Area of Concern No. 3 320,.139 square feet of industrial use may create access problems. Most desirable access points are from Clay (one opening) and Gothard (one opening) . Lack of good adequate access may make the site unsuitable for industrial use. Area of. Concern No. 4 `Phis area has had severe sewage problems due to its low elevation. Backflow safe- guards will have to be considered along with the upgrading to Purrp Station "D" to handle additional .flow. Area of Concern No. 5 1. Access problems again. There should be no access from Betty Drive to Gothard. 92,411 square feet of industrial on a cul-de-sac street with only one opening onto Gothard may be undesirable. D-.l LETTERS OF COMMENT: D--1) Huntington Beach Department of Public Works D-2) Huntington Beach Police Department D-3) Huntington Beach Communtiy Services Department D-4) Southern California Gas Company D-5) Southern California Edison Company D-6) General Telephone Company D-7) County Sanitiation Districts, Orange County D-8) Huntington Beach City School District D-9) Ocean View School District D-10) Ocean View School District D-11) Huntington Beach Union High School District D-12) Orange County Transit District D-13) California Coastal Ctnrdssion D-14) Alexander Googooian D-15) Huntington Beach Environmental Board Memo to Claudette Dupuy General Plan Amendment No. 82-1 September 9, 1982 Page 2 2. This area is also.prone to flooding* and has poor soils. Careful consideration must be given to. drainage and foundation design. Area of Concern No. 6 1. Access will be limited to one opening on Magnolia (right turn in and out only) . 2. The site drains to the northeast and will have to be redesigned for drainage. IE:jy Attach. D"l CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH a�C E 1 V F p INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION MUNTtNGTON dFACIt S EP 9 108z To CI.AU E.7FE DUPUY From CARL KARN.C•�' Assistant Planner Administrative Aide Subject GEMiRAL PLAN *a-.NDMEN`r NO. 82-1 Date SEPTEMBER 7, 1982 I was assigned by Chief Robitaille to compile the necessary data in regard to your memo (General Plan Amendment No. 82-1) . The estimated additional police officers needed to effectively enforce the proposed developments ' are provided in the following information. These figures were obtained on the basis of one call for service per 1000 sq. feet for commercial structures and one. call for service per 1..26 dwellings for residential structures. Recreational facilities were based on an estimated .0075 officers per acre. The average response time for priority calls are as follows: Priority 1 4.46 minutes Priority 2 11. 75 minutes Priority 3 24.62 minutes The proposed developmental areas do not impose any immediate problems with law enforcement nor does it require a significant change in personnel. Additional Officers Needed Area of Concern #1 - Alternative 1 - no significant impact Alternative 2 - no significant impact Area of Concern #2 - Alternative 1 - no significant impact Alternative 2 - 2 additional officers Alternative 3 - 1 additional officer Alternative 4 - 2 additional officers Alternative 5 - 1 additional officer Area of Concern #3 - Alternative 1 - 2 additional officers Alternative 2 - 2 additional officers Area of Concern #4 - Alternative 1. - no significant impact Alternative 2 - no significant impact Alternative 3 - no significant impact Area of- Concern #S - Alternative 1 - 1 additional officer Alternative 2 - 1 additional officer Alternative 3 - no significant impact Area of Concern #6 - Alternative 1 - no significant impact Alternative 2 - no significant impact Alternative 3 - no significant impact CK/se D_2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gas COMPANY ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION P. O. BOX M, ANAHEIM, CALIF. 92803 September 1, 1982 RECEIVED City of l-iuntington Beach P.O. Box 190 SEP 2 1982 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Development Services Attn: Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 82-1 This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Residential (System Area Average) Yearly Single Family 1095 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 4 or less units 640 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or more units -580 Therms/year/dwelling unit These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's new insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial-Industrial Market Services Staff by calling 213-689-2041 or 213-689-2062. D-4 i Southern California Edison Company r.+ P.O. BOX 2069 7333 BOLSA AVE. - - WESTMINSTER• CALIFORNIA 92663-1269 September 23, 1982 TELEPHONE • - - . v r, j� (714(973-5491 SEP 2 719$2 City of Huntington .Beach Development Services P . O. Box 190 Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Attention : Claudette Dupuy Planning Dept. Subject : E . I . R. General Plan Amendment No. 82-1 Gentlemen : This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company and that the electric loads of the project are within parameters of projected load growth which. Edison is planning to meet in this area. Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds our estimates , and provided that there are no unexpected out- _ ages to major sources of electrical supply , we expect' to meet our electrical requirements for the next several years . Our total system demand is expected to continue to increase annually ; however , excluding any unforeseen problems , our plans for new generation resources indicate that our ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods will be adequate during the decade of the ' 80s . Current conservation efforts on the part of Edison 's customers have resulted in energy savings . Optimization of conservation measures in this project will contribute to the overall energy savings goal . Very truly yours , R. L. Coolidge Service PlanneA RLC : da D-5 DISTRICT OFFICE SERVING: CORONA DEL MAR •COSTA MESA•FOUNTAIN VALLEY •HUNTINGTON BEACH - MIDWAY CITY •NEWPORT BEACH•ROSSMOOR -SEAL BEACH•SUNSET BEACH •WESTMINSTER We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, D.M. Glover Technical Supervisor ES/pjg Enclosure ( Cl t3 RECEIVED SEP 13 1982 General Telephone Company of California Development Services 6774 Westminster Blvd. . Westminster. California 92683-3788 213 594-4526 714 891-5321 In Reply Refer To September 10, -1982 3774 A13.10 City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services Planning Division Attention Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Dupuy In response to your letter of August 31, 1982 regarding the proposed amendent (82-1) to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, General Telephone will not have any problems serving the project sites regardless of the land use selected. The location and size of all existing facilities and all improvements needed to serve the project sites have not been shown as the telephone conversation with your office on September 9, determined this informa- tion was not required. However, when additional telephone facilities are required they will be provided by General Telephone Company in a timely manner to serve the development of any and all of these project sites. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at (714) 891-5321. Very truly yours GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA W. R. DUVALL Resident Engineer D-6 A part of Goneral Telephone & Electronics TELEPHONES: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS AREA CODE 714 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 962-89,62-Z411 P. ❑. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) September 9, 1982 SEP 2 01982 City of Huntington Beach 0"elopme"t Sewkes P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Claudette Dupuy Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 82-1 This is in response to your August 25, 1982 letter requesting a review of General Plan Amendment No. 82-1. Your exhibits have been marked to show Districts' existing trunk sewers in the vicinity of the proposed land use changes. Generally the alternatives suggest higher land uses than anticipated on the Districts' 1975 Ultimate Land Use Plan. However , this office believes that the existing trunk sewer and treatment facilities will be able to accommodate the .higher flows. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the undersigned. y1 ahomas M. Dawes Deputy Chief Engineer TMD: he Enclosure D-7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Crairner Lane a P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beech,California 92648 (714)964 MB NOW RUAFID OF: TRUSTEES ^� September 20, 1982 ;wv Nclwtt. 0 U.S. 1•tas•lettt - c � 1 11�,, •rL: r� W�z. Stian Garland - - - Clerk "T•'qr�_ Ms. Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner Sherry Barlow - City of Huntington Beach Member Dept. of Development Svs. , Bldg. Div. Vat Cohen Post Office Box 190 Meniter Huntington Beach, California 92648 . Norma Vander Molen Mummer Dear Ms. Dupuy: Per our conversation several days ago, I have reviewed the General Plan Amendment No. 82-1 and. wish to report the following: ADMINISTRATION Area of Concern #1 - Insignificant, no concern. L mv,unce Kemper. Ed.O. Area of Concern #2 - This is not in our district. Dmrlct:uuetintendant. Run.rldUrown Area of Concern #3 - This is in our district and it effects the Perry Assistant School. Assuming that a "medium density" repre- Superintendent Personnel sented here would primarily consist of condomin- iums, current statistics would indicate that they Robert Hawthorne would yield only 21 pupils which.would be insig- Assistant _ nificant in our educational planning. Superintendent Business Services Area of Concern #4 - This is not in our district. James M'. Macon Director of - Educational Services Area of Concern #5 - This is not in our district. Duane Dishno Area of Concern #6 - Is in our district but is insignificant. Director of Special Services I hope that this information is helpful to you. Sincerely yours, R. WTiiORNE Assistant Superintendent Business Services RMH/mat D-8 i September 17, 1982 "IN QUEST OF EXCELLENCE" Ms Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services SEP 2 0 IW2 P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Development Services Dear Claudette: Following are the potential numbers of K-8 students that could be generated by the alternatives in the areas of concern in the Ocean View School District: Area of Concern #2 Alternative #2 . . . . . . . . . . 80 students Alternative #3 . . . . . . . . . . . 40 students Area of Concern #4 Alternative #2 . . . . . . . . . . . 10 students Alternative #3 . . . . . . . . . . . 8 students Area of Concern #5 Alternative #2 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 students Alternative #3 . . . . . . . . . . . 8 students The District anticipates no problem in accommodating the above number of students. Sincerely, Milton R. Berg Director of Business Support Services MRB:am D-9 OCFANVIILW- SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES SC HOOL DISTRICT Ot/e Coogan MaxwofiSudakow,Mar us,Clerk Shells Marcus,Clerk ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS Marianne Blank Monte McMurray Charles Osterlund James Jones Janet Garrick 16940 8 STREET Joseph Condon HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 82647 we a,.An equal Oppoft ft Lrn p r„ 7141847•2551 The p/Itrlel doss 001 d/Se►Im(nah on tin Awls of aps,gender.or handbag. RECEIVED SEP 7 1982 pevelopment September 2,- 1982 "IN QUEST OF EXCELLENCE- Ms Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Claudette: Either alternative being analyzed for the .5.6 acres mentioned in your recent letter would not create a problem for Ocean View School Di.stri.ct. We estimate the number of children generated would not exceed fifteen K-8 students and the District would have no problem accommodating that number. Yours truly, Milton R. BeZness Director of Support Services MRB:am D-10 OCIMVIEW SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES Dale Coogan Maxwell Sudekow,President a Marcus, S C HOD L D I�ICT ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS shy Marianne 8 aenk Monte McMurray Charles Osterlund James Jones Janet Garrick Joseph Condon 1BW0 B STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA$MT rho aar.�c�an.i eW*An An Equ O r�i a p� of/wne�eap. T t UA47.2551 * Huntington Beach Union High School District V o 10251 Yorktown Avenue.Huntington Beach,California 92646 (714)964-3339 y N av 0� Frank J.Abbott,Ed. D. Board of Trustees SC140�` Supenntenaent of Schools Orion W.Lake Resident Stephen H.Smith t i a vice Resident Ron E.Marcus �C 1982 Cleric Development Services Sherry L.Doum Ms. Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner Helen E.Ditte City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: General Plan Amendment 82-1 Dear Ms. Dupuy: Per your request of September 14, our staff has reviewed the potential student generation of the alternatives outlined in your six areas of concern. Find enclosed your summary sheet annotated with the numbers of potential students (at our current yield ratio) that would enter our schools should this development occur. The particular high school impacted by that development has also been noted on the page. As you may be well. aware, our district has been in a three-year steady decline ranging from 3% to 6% of our student population. Our high schools, therefore, are no longer overcrowded as in previous years. Thus, the modest student yields, even in the highest instance (area of concern #2), would not prove to be a burden for that particular school in our district. If you need any further information in this area, please feel free to contact Glen Dysinger here in our office. Sincerely, Fr J. b Superinte nt FJA/mnp Enclosure D-11 'tunhnglt n Brach Westminster Marina rountaln Volley Edison Oceon View Evening High Scholl Adult School Guiom a Cerder Winter burg Educatlon Center M SEP 2 2 Development Services ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT CIISTRICT i September 20, 1982 Ms. Claudette Dupuy Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 I Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i Dear Ms. Dupuy: ' i SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-1 I We have reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment, and have several comments on potential impacts on transit services. We have indicated the existing transit routes at these sites on the j enclosed maps. In general, we recommend that transit facilities, j such as bus stops, turnouts, and shelters, be accommodated at all i developments likely to generate moderate-to-high transit ridership. iSpecific comments by area of concern are: Area of Concern 1: This site has transit access nearby on three routes. It is unlikely that the proposed amendment would result j in any significant transit impacts due to the size of the site, the location, and potential land uses. j I Area of Concern 2: This site is currently served by Route 25 (Golden West) . Alternative land uses 1-4 could result in need for a bus turnout and shelter on Golden West. I Area of Concern 3: This site has transit access nearby on two routes, and may have direct service on Garfield in the future. Both alternatives could result in the need for a bus stop and ! shelter at this location. ! Area of Concern 4: This site is currently served by two routes. i Depending on future levels of development here and in Bolsa Chica, traffic volumes on Warner may warrant a bus turnout and shelter. Area of Concern 5: This site is currently served by one route and may warrant a bus stop depending on the land use and trip demand. i 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY• P.O. BOX 3005 • GARDEN GROVE.CALIFORNIA 92642 • PHONE(714)971-6200 D-12 Ms. Dupuy September 20, 1982 Page Two Area of Concern 6: This site is currently served by two routes. There are not likely to be any impacts on transit service as a result of any of the proposed land uses. While it appears that the proposed GPA will not generate significant impacts that require modifications to existing bus service, we would appreciate your consideration of transit facility needs in future planning and design of the development areas 2 through 5. We will be glad to provide you further assistance, as the ,EIR's on or specific plans for these sites are being prepared. If you need any further information, please call me or Christine. Huard-Spencer at (714) 971-6412. Sincerely, Dick Hsu Environmental Coordinator Enclosure DH:B State o1 California, Edmund G. Brown Jr., 6ovrrw:,r Califorrir;a Coastal CoMMISSiOn 631 Howard Street, 4th floor S.-in Francisco, California 94105 (415) 543-8555 November 24,1982 Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1982 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Devela Sacramento, CA 95814 Pment Services ATTM:Terry - RE: Sc;10 82091702 Draft EIR for GP Amendment 82-1(EIR 82-3)City of Huntington Beach. Gentlemen: The staff of the Coastal Commission has reviewed the referenced EIR and ofters the following comments for consideration. Iwo areas being considered for land use designation changes are in the coastal zone(areas 2.4 and 2.6) . Regarding the Huntington Harbour Beach Club Area, Area 2.4,the City`s Local Coastal Plan designates this site as Open Space Recreation. As certified in part by the Commission on November 17,1982 this land use designation does not allow residential uses.Therefore the EIR should indi- cate that any land use designation change would require an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Plan,and- such amendment must be consistent with the poli- cies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Section 30222 of the Act provides that the use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving facilities designed to enhance- public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential , general industrial or general commercial but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry. The L-IR fails to evaluate how the proposed amendment to establish residential uses with recreation uses would address these priorities. Further, Sections 30210-30212 of the Act ensure the provision of public access in new development. The EIR (p.36) notes that concern should be given to pre- serving access and views to the area.Yet, the EIR notes on page 38(d) that the existing recreational amenities including a private beach would serve the development.The maintenance of a private recreational facility may not be consistent with the provisions of the Act.The EIR tails to discuss how public access would be assured consistent with the public access policies of the Coastal Act. The EIR also notes on page 37(4a) that the sewage pump station facilities are nearing capacity.Section 30254 provides in part that ". . .Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development services to coastal dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries—public recreation, commercial recreation and visitor serving land uses shall not be ;precluded by other development."The EIR fails to evaluate whether commitment to mixed residential use would preclude higher priority rakes under the Coastal Act. Regarding the Magnolia-Banning Area (Area 2.6) the EIR fails to evaluate the project in light of the provisions of the energy policies of the Coastal Act. The EIl? should evaluate the potential of the site to acconmiodate energy oxpansion or., coastal dependent energy or industrial facilities in conformance with Sections 30760-30264 of the Art. Ihank you i`or the opportunity to comment on this CIR Sincerely, Eli Meth A. Fuchs Coastal Analyst cc:David Loomis , South Coast. Claudette Dupuy, City of Huntington Beach APPENDIX D LETTERS OF COMMENT Area 3 - CAMBRO MANUFACTURING COMPANY Medium Density Residential Mobile Emissions .37 tons/day Stationary Emissions .03 tons/day TOTAL .4 tons/day General Industrial Mobile Emissions .4 tons/day Stationary Emissions .005 tons/day TOTAL .405 tons/day Area 4 - HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB Open Space Mobile Emissions .12 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00007 tons/day TOTAL .1207 tons/day Mixed Development Mobile Emissions .05 tons/day Stationary Emissions .005 tons/day TOTAL .055 tons/day Low Density Mobile Emissions .W7 tons/day Stationary Emissions .W58 tons/ day TOTAL .0128 tons/day Area 5 - BEACHVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK General Industrial Mobile Emissions .079 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0002 tons/day TOTAL .0792 tons/day Medium Density Residential Mobile Emissions .1130 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00_ 123 tons/day .11423 tons/day PROJECTED DAILY EMISSIONS Area 1 - HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY Medium Density Residential Mobile Emissions .0013 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0003 tons/day TOTAL .0016 tons/day Office Professional Mobile Emissions . .062 tons/day Stationary Emissions negligible TOTAL .062 tons/day Area 2 - M.D. JANES COMPANY Open Space Mobile Emissions .0199 tons/day Stationary Emissions negligible TOTAL .0199 tons/day Medium'Denisty Mobile Emissions .0195 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0058 tons/day TOTAL .0253 tons/day Low Density Mobile Emissions .0358 tons/day Stationary Emissions .028 tons/day TOTAL .063 tons/day Estate Residential Mobile Emissions .02 tons/day Stationary Emissions .015 tons/day TOTAL .035 tons/day Office Professional Mobile Emissions 1.08 tons/day Stationary Emissions 1.94 tons/day TOTAL 3.02 tons/day Area 3 - CAMBRO MANUFACTURING COMPANY Medium Density Residential Mobile Emissions .37 tons/day Stationary Emissions .03 tone/day TOTAL .4 tons/day General Industrial Mobile Emissions .4 tons/day Stationary Emissions .005 tons/day TOTAL .405 tons/day Area 4 - HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB Open Space Mobile Emissions .12 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00007 tons/day TOTAL .1207 tons/day Mixed Development Mobile Emissions .05 tons/day Stationary Emissions .005 tons/day TOTAL .055 tons/day Low Density Mobile Emissions .007 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0058 tons/ day TOTAL .0128 tons/day Area 5 - BEACHVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK General Industrial Mobile Emissions .079 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0002 tons/day TOTAL .0792 tons/day Medium Density Residential Mobile Emissions .1130 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00123 tons/day .11423 tons/day APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS The General Plan Amendments will not have any immediate impact on existing air quality; however future development as a result of the amendments, may create an increase in mobile and stationary source emissions. The following table illustrates a "worst case" or complete builtout scenario of each amendment area. The figures used represent 1982 emissions for average vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin as developed by the South Coast Air Quality Managment District. These emissions are not considered to be significant to the regional air basin. Additionally, it should be noted that when development occurs, the actual amount of pollutants may be less due to advanced exhaust control technology and more stringent air pollution legislation. Y II. Explanations of "yes and maybe" answers. lf. Area of Concern 4 is located immediately adjacent to Weatherly Bay. In light of this, grading to accommodate new developments may alter drainage patterns resulting in potential impacts to the Bay. 2a. In all study areas increased traffic as a result of new develop- ment would increase they amount of emissions. At this time, it . is not known if these will be significant or will affect exist- ing ambient air quality levels. 3e. See explanation lf. for Area of Concern 4. Additionally, Area of Concern 2 is located approximately 100 feet from Sully-Miller Lake. This lake was created as the result of former use of the site as a gravel quarry. Grading for new projects could affect run-off and siltation into the lake. 3i. Area of Concern 5 is currently being used as a mobile home park. Due to its location at the base of a swale, the site is subject to flooding during the rainy season. 4d. The majority of Area of Concern 2 is presently. used for a mush- room farm. New development would preclude continued use of this land for agricultural purposes. 6a. Areas 3, 5 and 6 could develop as industrial uses which may re- sult in increased noise levels. At the General Plan Amendment level it is difficult to assess the impact as no specific pro- ject has been proposed. 8. The proposed projects are a General Plan Amendment thereby con- stituting changes in land use. 11. Residential alternatives could result in an increase in popula- tion. 12. _ Additional housing opportunities would be provided by new resi- dential developments. 13a. All proposed projects could result in increased traffic, how- ever, at this time it is not known if this increase will be significant. 14d. Area of Concern 2 is being considered for inclusion into Huntington Central Park. If included this would increase the amount of public recreational opportunities in the City. Area of Concern 4 is presently occupied by the Huntington Harbour Beach Club. Part of the requested General Plan Amendment is to upgrade the existing facilities which would have a benefi- cial impact on recreational opportunities. 16d. Area of Concern 2 is undeveloped at this time and may not be sewered. ' rd 17b. An abandoned dump site is located within 1, 000 feet of this project area. The dump was used primarily for oil related wastes. 18. An energy producing facility could be developed in Area of Concern 6 that may not be aesthetically pleasing. Development in Area of Concern 4 may block some existing views of Weatherly Bay. 1.9. See 14d. 20. An archaeological site has been recorded in the vicinity of Project Area 5. 21. Because the General Plan Amendment encompasses six areas, the cummulative impacts will need to be considered. 9 precedence clause which the City Council adopted and this City in answer to our Petition for Review must object to that holding by the Court of Appeals. In your zeal to defeat us on the Coultrup Development you,just cant throw away those vital legal rights of the City of Huntington Beach, rights given to all cities in California by the Laws of the State of California and by the very Constitution of the State of California! The City must f-econsider that this project is not in compliance with the Huntington Harbour Specific Land & Coastal Element that requires the developer obtain a letter of determination from the State Lands Commission. The City did receive a copy of a letter dated May 31, 1990 from the State Lands Commission telling lthem that "the development is within patented Tide Lands Location 221 and as such is subject to the public trust easement in favor of commerce, navigation and fishing. " WHY did the City Staff ignore that letter thbt told them the project was in violation of their own Specific Plan and Coastal Element? Nothing had been built on the property at that time. Even if you do not agree with us at all, Still, the Court should remand the matter to the City for the City to make the final decision. Further the City abdicated its responsibility and did fnot even raise a voice objecting when the Appellate Court erroneously and contrary to law treated this City as a'General Law City and not as the Charter Law City that it is. All of the papers clearly showing this egrigious loss for the citizens of Huntington Beach were presented to you in black and white by us on January 6, 1992 but again you negligently chose to ignore this. In my opinion the City Attorney is doing a terrible job for the citizens of Huntington Beach--a dismal job realVbut it is one thl.t you are concurring in and even abetting. It is truly horrible but the interests of all our citizens have been held hostage to the interests of a few well-heeled builders and developers. By the way, Mrs. Winchell, has Gale Hutton prepared a brief for you explaining all these principles of law and explaining her actio ° 0 • ,�. Itar(nrn 4trr(in 171 SF T*4�e+rrttcr frtnc J(untiry]tnn Beak (.f7 92649 a A LEGAL STYLE BRIEF REGARDING THr-- LEGAL o RELATIONSHIP B`ETWEEN FERYDOUN AHADPO.UR, ATTORNEY TIM PAONE,. AND THE LAW FIRM OF o VIRTUE AND SCHECK AND THE KNOWLEDGE IMPUTED TO EACH THEREBY IN REGARD TO o THE STATE TIDELANDS EASEMENT ON THE a HUNTINGTON .HARBOUR BEACH AND*RACQUET CLUB AND ITS CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT. O o , LEGAL THE ATTORNEY - CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS ONE OF PROPOSITION: PRINCIPAL AND AGENCY. o i FACTS: Tim Paone of the firm-Of Virtue and 'Scheck was representinp)the > Real Party in Interest, Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marius in the case of Huntingtori'Harbou'r Residents, et al vs. City-of ° �"'� ° Huntington Beach, et al and Huntington Harbour -Beach Club and Marina, Real Party in Interest, Case No 32 62 76 Orange County Superior Court :See Filing dated Jan. 22, 1981 (Exhibit A, Attached Hereto. ) While the case was in the courts Mr. Ahadpour purchased the property on August 23, 198-0 and continued to be represented by Tim Paone of Virtue and Scheck as his attorney at l&. (See Filing dated Jan. 22, 1981 Exhibit A Attached Hereto). The date of purchase of the Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina by Ferydoun Ahadpour was August 23, 1980. ( See the Declarar�ipn of Ferydoun Ahadpour dated 12 April 1985 Attached Hereto as Exhibit B) LEGAL California Civil Code Section 2332: CIT TIONS- "§ Notice to agent, when notice to principal. As against a principal, both principal and agent are deemed to have notice of whatever either has notice of, and ought, in good faith and . the exercise of or incfi ary care and diligence, to _communicate to the other. " "The gene,,ral rule that notice to an agent is imputed,to the agent's principal applies to attorneys at law acting as their client's agents. The basis for this rule is .the presumption which is conclusive when it arises; thaCthe agent has fulfilled his or her duty to communicate ' to .his or her principal all knowledge which he or she has with respect to the subject matter of the agency. ... Thus ordinarily,•a person is held to to know- what his or her attorney knows and should communicate to him or her. . . Letters sent- to the 'attorney must be regarded as 'sent to.j- ° the client Similarly,':knowledge of defects of titled- acquired by -an` `attorney during negotiations.for the purchase of land for his or her.:"! client.is Constructive notice to the client. " (7 Cal. Jur. 3rd, Attorneys -'at Law;.. Section;.101) LEGAL "§ 269. Time When Notification Must be given. CITATIONS: To be effective as notice, a notification must Jje given to or by an agent during the time when the agent �Tas power to affect his principal by giving or receiving such notification. Comment: a. The principal may be affected by the knowledge which the agent acquired before the beginning of the agency relation (see § 276), and to the extent that a notification results in the agent's having knowledge, the principal is affected by it to the same extent as if the agent had obtained the information from other sources. " Agency "Notice to an agent, notice to his principal. The principle is elementary, that notice to an agent of facts arising from or connected with the subject matter of the agency, is constructive notice to the principal, where the notice comes to the agent while he is concerned for the principal and in the courseof the very transaction; and many authorities hold that the rule extends to cases where the notice was imparted to the agent so near before the transaction that he must be presumed to recollect it. (See Le Neve v. Le Neve, 1 Ves. Sr. 64; 2 Lead. Gas. in Eq. Pt. 1, p. 106, Story on Agency, Sec. 140; Astor v. Wells, 4 Wheat. 466, Fuller v. Bennett, 2 hare, 40�IcTon v. Cox, 2 Eden, 224; Jackson v. S arp, 9 Johns. 162; Regis . p� peal, 34 Penn. 207; Bracken v. Mi er, 4 Watt & Sere; Jackson V. Winslow, 9 Cow. 13; Jackson v. Leek, 19 Wend. 339; Willard Eq. 2 9; Bank U. S. v. Davis, , 461; Mech. Bank v. Seton, 1 Pet. 309. Bierce v. R1—e_TBTuff Hotel Co.TTg6bT-3TC` TbU_,_7l 6 5. ""Knowledge possessed by an agent while he occupies that relation and is executing the authority conferred upon him as to matters within the scope of his authority, is notice to his principal, although such knowledge may have been acquired hefOre the agency was created, if it appears that such knowledge was present in his mind at the time he acted for the principal. " (Cooke v. Mesmer, 164 Cal. 332, 228 (128 Pac. 917); Christie v. Sherwood, 113 Cal. 52..6 530 (45 Pac. 820). ) " Bogart v. George K. Porter Co. (1924) 193 C 197, 210 "(8) While it is generally stated that before knowledge will be imputed, the agent must gain the. knowledge in a transaction within the scope of his authority, that is neither a complete nor a correct statement of the rule. It is well-settled that the rule that -notice to the agent is notice to the principal, extends to cases where the notice was imparted to the agent so near before the transaction in question that he must be presumed to recollect it. (Wittenbrook v. Parker, 102 Cal 93 136 Pac. 374, 24 L. R. A. 97 , Bierce v. Red Bluff Hotel Co. , 31 Cal. 160; Cooke v. Mesmer, 164 Cal. 332 8 Pac. 7 " Hanlon v. Western Loan & Bldg Co. (1941) 46 C. A. 2d 580, 596—, --597 -9- LEGAL "Principal Charged with Agent's Knowledge Acquired Before CITATIONS : Agency The facts .and procedural background of Columbia Pictures Corp. v DeToth (1949) 87 Cal App 2d 620, 97 P Zd 580, are discussed under Knowledge or Notice of Agent Imputed to Principal, supra. In Be Toth, the court held that the fact that the agent not acquire his knowledge of the standard contract used by plaintiff during the course of the agency, but before the agency existed, did not affect the application of the rule (p 631). The court held that the principal is charged with knowledge that the agent acquires efore the commencement of the relationship when that knowledge can reasonably be said to be present in the mind of the agent while acting for the pr principal (p 631). CONCLUSIONS: MR. AHADPOUR HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE STATE TIDELANDS EASEMENT ON THE HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB AND MARINAS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT EVEN IF MR. PAONE OBTAINED THE INFORMATION SOMETIME BEFORE HE OFFICIALLY BECAME MR. H DPOUR ATTORNEY AND AGENT. VI LEGAL MR. AHADPOUR WAS LEGALLY INVOLVED IN THE HUNTINGTON PROPOSITION : HARBOUR BAY AND RACQUET CLUB CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT AS LATE AS 4; 5 90 AS THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE CH' FOUNDATION PERMIT No. 004674 WAS ISSUED TO OWNER: FERYDOUN AHADPOUR See Exhibit -' , Attache Hereto AND BOTH. MR. AHADPOUR AND HIS PREVIOUS ATTORNEY, MR. TIM PAONE , HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THIS STATE TIDELANDS EASEMENT AT THAT DATE. FACTS: Previous knowledge of the State Tidelands Easement on the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club Condominiuum Development was known to both Mr. A .hadapour and his previous Attorney and Agent, Tim Paone for sometime. (See previous Legal Propositions, Citations and Conclusions. ) Mr. Ahadpour was actively involved in ;the construction of the Condominium Development Project in spite of his knowledge of the State Tidelands Easement as late as April 4, 1990 because the Foundation Permit No. 004674 shows Owner as Ferydoun Ahadpour and it is signed on 4-5-90 by initials which I assume are the initials of Mr. Ahadpour. (Photocopy attached hereto as Exhibit F ). CONCLUSION: �kZR AHADPOUR CAN NEITHER DISCLAIM KNOWLEDGE OR OR INVOLVEMENT IN THE HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BAY AND RACQUET CLUB .CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT OR THE STATE TIDELANDS EASEMENT EVEN AS LATE AS 4/5/90. -10- January 23, 1980 File Ref. t SD 80 1 22 Virtue and 3check, Inc. —P. 0. Box 2950 Newport Beach, CA 9266o Attn: Mr. Scott McConnell Dear Mr. McConnell s In response to your letter of January 18, 1980, thf- State Lands Commission 's start has reviewed the area shaded In red on the map of Tract No. 4880. This is to advise that the area of concern shown on r your rasp is within tide land location 221 patented by the State on Je nua ry 5, 1903. I trust this inrormation answers your questions . Sincerely, wn-TY K.' LOUIE Land Agent (916) 322-7823 Enclosure bcc: D. Badly HKL fnyo EXHIBIT "D" CHICAGO TITLE 825 NORTH BROADWAY, SANTA ANA, CA 92701 (714) 547-7251 December 4, 1989 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. , Civic Center Huntington Beach, CA 92647 RE: Variance Report Enclosed is a compiled index list of record owners within a 300 foot radius of A.P. No..'s 178-291-27 thru 30, together and the required assessor's Parcel Maps delineating said 300 foot radius. Said list was prepared from--.the Data Quick Information Systems .which have an effective date of November 15, 1989. If you have any questions, please 'feel free to contact the undersigned. Sin Stephen L. Nickey Engineering Department gaj :SLN Enclos. I r; CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK January 12, 1990 California Coastal Commission 245 West Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 Dear Sir: Attached is the Notice of Action relative to the Appeal to the Planning' Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-36/Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53/Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20 and the adequacy of Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 due to the amount of time and potential cumulative impacts which have occurred within the City since the original Environmental- Impact Report circulated in 1982. Also attached is the legal public hearing notice for the hearing. The Coastal Commission was inadvertently omitted from the mailing list which was provided to this office. Sincerely yours,, . VJ Connie Brockway City Clerk CB/cs cc: Mike Adams, Community Development Director Gail Hutton, City Attorney i (Telephone:714-536-5227) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed 36 unit residential project is consistent with the following policies and programs of the 1989 Housing Element : a. Policy 2 . a. encourages the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the Community. b. Program 2 .p. recommends the use of specific plans to promote a balance of housing and .open space, and to reduce the per unit cost of housing. The project is within the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan. c. Policy 3 .b. recommends planning for residential land uses which accommodate anticipated growth from new employment opportunities . d. Policy 3 .c. encourages locating residential uses in proximity to commercial and industrial areas and transportation routes to provide convenient access to employment centers . 2 . The proposed residential project implements the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan and Policies (Section 9 .2 . 1) by providing opportunities for people to live near the coast . In addition, this project implements the City' s goal to provide a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and cost for households of all sizes throughout the City. 3 . The proposed residential project implements the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan as discussed in Section 9 .4 . 1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan and Policies . FUNDING SOURCE: Not Applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not adopt Resolution No. 9 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 9 RCA -2- (6418d) .L, 1 2. - Coastal Development Permit No. 89-20, approved by the 21 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on or about January 3 8, 1990. 4 3. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-53, approved by 5 the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on or about 6 January 8, 1990. 7 As part of the record of the proceedings pertaining to the 8 above cited approvals, you are requested to include transcripts of 9 the public hearings held by the Planning Commission on November 7, 10 1989 and by the City Council on January 8, 1990 on the permit 11 applications leading to those approvals. 12 You are also requested to include in the administrative record 13 copies of the following ordinances or resolutions, but not copies 14 of the proceedings leading to their adoption: 15 4. The Housing Element of the City of Huntington Beach in 16 effect on January 8, 1990. 17 Please deliver to the undersigned a duplicate copy of all of 18 the documents included in the administrative record submitted to 19 the court in this action. 20 21 DATED: May 15, 1990 22 lJONATHAN LEHRER-GRA ttorney for 23 A Petiti6 ers 24 25 26 27 28 2 - GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. RECEIVED ` KEPT. C?= HUH!r` WORttS Mr. Bill Patapoff June 13, 1990 Public Works Department CITY :"- P HUNTINGTON E3�gCH. CgLIF• City of Huntington Beach S86012 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Tract 11881,-city of Huntington Beach Dear Bill: As requested, we have reviewed the following documents concerning the fault issue across Tract 11881: U Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer letter to Art Folger et al. dated May 11, 1990. U Action Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. letter to Coultrup Development Company dated June 4, 1990. STRATA-TECH Geotechnical Consultants letter to Coultrup Development Company dated June 6, 1990. U RMG Engineering, Inc. Site Plan dated March 3, 1989. The Keith Companies Tract 11881 Fault Exhibit dated June 5, 1990. Upon review of these documents, it is our understanding that the principal point of contention is the location of the Woodward Clyde Consultants (WCC) projected fault trace across Tract 11881, On the RMG Site Plan it is shown on the southwest side of the Action Geotechnical fault trace, while on the Keith Companies plan it is shown northeast of the Action Geotechnical fault trace. This discrepancy is apparently due to an incorrect coordinate assigned to the centerline of Edgewater Lane which somehow resulted in an inaccurate projection of the WCC fault trace. Since a problernrhas been disclosed with respect to the accurate transfer of WCC fault data to the Tract 11881 development plans, we recommend that the following information be prepared by the owner's consultants and submitted to the City for review: 1) Provide a copy of the Woodward Clyde geologic map which exhibits their fault investigation data south of Warner Avenue. On this map, project the WCC fault trace 1533 East 4th Street Santa Ana CA 92701 • Phone (714) 547-5413 - - GRO'T'RCHh11CAL.CONSULTAN" INCH June 4, 1990 W.O. 3771 Coultrup Deveiopment ompany 13001 Seal Beach Boulevard Suite 300 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Attention: Jon Subjectr Huntington Harbor Tract 11881 Dear Jan-. This letter has baen prepared in accordance with your request and re- sponds to concerns rm& by an attorney on behalf of several. Huntington Harbor residents. our reepon6e is as follows, 1. ) ACTION GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT$, INC, . investigation of Tract 118B1 indicated the fault trace identified to be potentially active, not active as stated by the attorney. 2. ) The fault trace identified by ACTION GEOTECMICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. was plotted based on physical points located within the tract boundries, not on off-sits survey pointer. 3. ) The eastward movement of the WWC fault projection would not hinder the project from a gootechnical viewpoint. The portion of the structure affected by the setback oould be cantilevered off a foundation outside the setback zone. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. Respectfully Submitted; ACTION GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC, GLENN $. F'RASER RCE 39132 "'�.' "sot :+14gy��w� ` � TUDD D. HOUSEAL PRb.7ECT ENGINEER STAFF GEOLOGIST Cf3F/TLI't/ms '!1'S>� l 7' 1421 North Hundley St.,Anaheim,CA 928W (714)630-9334 4= .. T H E K E I T H C O M P A N I E S Planning • CivilEngineerinu En innunen,altier. .es I_indscapeArihiteiiurc L:ndSurveying • Publik-VaOrks June 1, 1990 11017 . 04 Mr. Robert Eichblatt, City Engineer City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA, 92648 .RE: Site Plan for Tract 11881, showing fault locations. Dear Bob, The result of the investigation to determine whether the easting shown for Edgewater Lane on the above referenced site plan is correct" is as follows: The easting shown on the site plan is not the easting that corresponds to the state coordinate for Edgewater Lane. The easting corresponds to a ground coordinate created .by the firm Williamson and Schmid for their own purposes. This is explained in the accompanying letter from Mr. Jim Gillen of Williamson and Schmid. Mr. Bill Hartge of RMG Engineering had telephoned Williamson and Schmid and requested the coordinate for Edgewater Lane and Mr. Joe Suess provided him with this coordinate for Edgewater Lane. The actual state coordinate of Edgewater Lane has been verified by The Keith Companies to be the state coordinate on record in the Orange County Surveyors office. The topo map by Woodward- Clyde that was used to relate the projection of the fault south of Warner Avenue to Tract 11881 has also been verified to be correct. This information would place the projection of the Woodward-Clyde fault 43 . 5 feet (plus or minus) to east of the Woodward-Clyde fault line shown on the above referenced site plan. If I may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-540-0800. Sincerely, The Keith Companies Lee M. Mann Project Manager cc: Jon T. Coultrup, Coultrup Development Company Bill Hartge, The Keith Companies 9996-LMM-11017 . 04-L Environmental Board vZ CI"I Y Cif= !-Illf`�-f ING"1 ON BF-ACH POI _) �" IiICi� [ ( li f�llll'.illi iCii-I ��(:�li;ll, �, 1!liilffii i.�fili �n•a.nl�'rl.un Pc=) c--- r-1 eLl Env i r- onr7nc-- mtza1 Impact 1 . Public Service Utilities: A 15" sewer was located in Edgewater and a 15" sewer was located in Warner . The 1982 report indicated that the service was near its maximum capacity . Because of the low elevation , the area always had problems. In the 1982 EIR , the City Council was notified that the Improvements would be made to the out fall line prior to the planned development . These cost of these FP, 2 improvements were to be shared by the city and the developer . Since there has been additional residential developments within Huntington Harbour within the last nine years, the Improvements to the out fall line should be completed and included in the Draft EIR. 2. Seismic Study : The original EIR's response to question 1 (g) on the environmental check list did not take into consideration the existence of the Alquist-Priolo Geographic FP) 3 Hazard Zone . The State Law would require that a seismic study . be conducted since the site Is with this zone . The results of the study should be included In the Draft EIR. 3. Parking: The Initi.al report Indicates that there is no effect on existing parking facil.itles, or demand for new parking. Since the proposed structure Is to be built on an existing parking lot , the response should be YES. FB 4 Mitigation measures should be specified such that the required public parking spaces be retained in accordance with existing ordinances for recreational areas remains . 1 i 8. Goldmoss Stonecrop • This ground cover is a hardy, succulent evergreen which will do well in sun or shade. They will grow to 3 inches in height and should be planted 6 to 12 inches apart. 9. Hahns Ivy (Hedera helix) Good ground cover for erosion control. Grows well in stuff or shade to a height of 12 inches. Should be spaced 12 to 18 inches apart. 10. Needle Point Icy This subspecies of Hahn Ivy has the same characteristics, except the leaves are pointed. Plant the same as Hahns Ivy. al.. Mondo Grass (Ophi.opogon japonicum) Evergreen and grass-like, this plant will reach 10 inches in height. Plant'sappeara.nce improves with age, and is very hardy. Space 6 to 8 inches apart. 12. Sand Strawberry (Fragaria chiloensis) Popular ornamental plant in Orange County. Very hardy and rapid spreading. Reaches a height of 8 inches. Plant 12 to 14 inches apart. 1.3. Snow-in-Summer (Cerastium tomentosum) A low spreading perennial with greyish foliage.- Does well in hot, dry areas. Grows to 6 inches in height and should be spaced 18 to 24 inches apart., 1.4. Spring Cinquefoil .(Potentilla verna) Has attractive palmate, strawberry-like foliage, dark green in color. Spreads rapidly and produces a bright ,yellow flower. Grows to 6 inches in height and should be spaced a foot apart. Very hardy, 1.5. Trailing African Daisy (Osteospermum fruticosus) A anon-erne;on cont.rnl 000rpii"ri r_nirwr t.bi g rortllar rl-ant blonmc tilroi,vh spring and summer. It will. reach a height of 18 inches and is very hardy. Plant 12 to 18 inches apart. 16. Wooly ''arrow (Achillea tomentosa) Olive green foliage, spreads rapidly and is good for erosion control. Produces yellow flowers in the spring and is hardy. Grows to 9 inches high and should be planted 6 to 12 inches apart. Orange County Vector Control District. ,;:1rd: II ;rrwQ )IJVd. . c11-irden Grove. Ca. c),2643 Ann. (7,1. (11'_77 0 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION (DOC) DOC 1 Comment The Department of Conservation has reviewed the EIR 82-3 for the proposed project and submits the following comments fox consideration. Oil Field - The proposed project is located within the administrative boundaries of the Huntington Beach oil field. Presently, there are eleven abandoned, one- idle, and eight producing . wells within the project boundaries. There are also . several - production and injection wells in close proximity to the subject property. If any structure is to be located over or in the proximity of a previously-abandoned well, there is the possibility that the well may need to be plugged and abandoned to current Division - of Oil and Gas specifications . Section 3208. 1 of the Public Resources Code (PRC)authorized the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to order the reabandonment of any previously-abandoned well, when construction of any structure over or in the proximity of the well could result in a hazard. The cost of reabandonment operations is the responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the structure will be located. DOC 1 Response All wells have been abandoned in compliance with current Division of oil and Gas specifications . DOC 2 Comment Under Section 3208. 1 of the PRC, the reabandonment responsibilities of the owner/developer of a property upon which a structure will be located need extend no further than the property boundaries . However, if a well requiring reabandonment is on_ an adjacent property and near the common property line, the Division recommends that the structure be set back sufficiently to allow .future access to the well . DOC 2 Response Comment acknowledged. DOC 3 Comment j F'urt.hermorv, if: any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damacled during excavation or grading, remedial plugging operations may be required . If such damage occurs, . the Division' s district . office must be contacted to obtain in'formation ,on the. requirements for and approval to perform remedial operations-,. . Response to Comments -2- (3982d) • ERB 6 Comment In accordance with the Coastal Commission' s response dated November 24 , 1982 - This Land Use Change requires an amendment to the City' s Local Coastal Plan and that such an amendment must be consistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, reference Section 30222 of the Act policies - 4g, page 139; 6a, page 140; 15f page 151 . The City' s response to the Coastal Commissions ' concern should be included in the Draft EIR. We recommend that these corrections be taken into consideration in the Draft EIR and any actions required be completed before construction is approved. ERB 6 Response In February of 1983, the Huntington Harbor Bay Club Specific Plan was amended and certified by the California Coastal Commission. ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT (VCD) VCD 1 Comment • Although condominiums already exist adjacent to the proposed condominium site, the developer should be aware that mosquitoes are produced seasonally from the marsh area (Bolsa Chica) immediately south of the proposed site. Mosquitoes produced from the marsh area are primarily pestiferous in nature but other less numerous species can pose a potential disease risk. The rational for exposing additional residents to nuisance or disease vectors should be evaluated and proposed residents should be aware of the problem. VCD 1 Response Comment acknowledged. VCD 2 Comment During the landscape phase of the project, plants that are .attractive to rodents, such as Algerian ivy, bougainvillea, oleander, palm trees, 'etc. should be avoided. A list of alternate types of ground cover is enclosed. In addition, after the landscape phase is completed, an effort should be made to eradicate any ground squirrels that may attempt to reestablish themselves in berms or slopes. These animals can cause erosion, damage ground cover, and carry disease. Thank you for allowing your comments on this project . If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me. . VCD 2 Response Comment acknowledged. Response to Comments -8- (3982d): � LAND USE . ELEMENT AMEN,.DMEN. T . 82mol ADOPTED, DECEMBER 1984 AND LAID USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT - .83m-:i .ADOPTED, . FEBRUARY 1983 Environmental Impact Report 82-3 SEE .PAGE 33 FOR BAY CLUB INFORMATION � huntington beach department of R � development services TALBERT . ~a Wes_ o� --- --- --- p t� MI-co e e RI s RI RI RI s CF-R :.... . . ......n-. ._ . CF-R MI-CD P. C[ MI-CD Pr RA-0-CD R' RA-O-CD � . Mt MI,W RI 0-CD CF-C R MI °' I LU O CD LU-O-CD U-0-CD LU-O-CO W s LU-O-CD •0-CD LU-O-C LU-O-CD Z MI—CD RI RI G MI O LU-O-CD LU-O-CD LU-O-CD LU-O-CD -CD tea. RI u-O-CD MI-0-CD M nnl�ol R2 RA-CD L`0`0 RA-0-CD M' -CD LU D cD RA-0-CD �'+; aE ivo RA-o CD RA OI C6I s .of 1 M2 RA-CD a¢ MI-0 RA-0 3 J -J A"� [RA-0- MI-0 W RA-0 LU-O-co RA-0-CD - .. 1— MI-0-CD t------ L—T MI-CDMI-A-CD MI-0 MI-0 Af2"01" RA-01 O1 I -„s RA-0-CD R5 A t— ' J Rs. 1_ RA-0-CD Aso R5 RA-0 R sj, AV E. GA RFIELD Existing Zoning . Area of Concern 2 .2 o 0 o 1.6 Figure 2-5 The Public Works Department reviewed both the residential and the- industrial alternatives and have indicated that neither would generate significant amounts of traffic. They did recommend however, that, if possible, access be taken from Clay Avenue and Garfield Street, and in addition at the time full development occurs, Clay and Huntington Streets be widened to their full capacity with curbs and gutters installed. The need to widen these streets will ultimately be predicated on the development of "The Ranch" south of the amendment site. When the Ranch develops, the intersection of Clay Avenue and Main Street may also have to be improved. The Orange County Transit District has indicated that development under either land use alternative could result in the need for a bus stop and shelter on Garfield Avenue. 6. Environmental Issues An initial study was prepared for the area of concern pursuant to Article 7, Section 15080 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. This initial study is included as Appendix B. No significant environmental impacts were identified for either of the two land use alternatives other than those already discussed in this analysis. 2.3.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the site be redesignated to industrial use. With Cambro Manufacturing and the City water yard already present on site, the land has realistically been committed to industrial uses for the foreseeable future. Additionally, should residential development occur on the vacant property located between the two industrial uses, potential conflicts. could arise from noise or odor. An industrial designation would make the land use and General Plan consistent, and would assure compatible development on the remaining vacant property. 2.3.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the subject site be redesignated from medium density residential to general industrial. 32 t Yes _Me No ' g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, X mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: n. Substantial air emissions or deterioration AREASk of ambient air quality? 1..( See Appen m dix b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or terni,eroture, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 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? X b. Changes in absorption rotes, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood X waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, AREAS dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Z=A f. Alteration of the direction or rote of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water re- AREA lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 5 116 (6) Density Bonus r^ Where a developer has agreed to construct a per- centage of the total units of a housing develop- ment for persons and families of low .and moderate income, the City may grant a density bonus of that same percentage over the otherwise allowable den- sity under the applicable zoning ordinance and General Plan land use designation subject to a dev- elopment agreement and as long as the following findings are made by the Planning Commission: 1. The capacities of the City and county water, sewer, and storm drain systems are adequate or are made adequate to accommodate the proposed in- crease in density as well as all other planned uses in the area. 2 . The proposed increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school enrollments, and recrea- tional resources. 3. The character of the surrounding area is not ad- versely impacted nor the overall intent of the General Plan sacrificed. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of 14 Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of December, 1982. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Al City -Clerk C ty tftrney •� b_�'3- REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administra irector of Development Services -2- •— 3. The maximum number of units permitted is forty-two (42) . 4. The building and open space area must conform to the precise locations specified in attached Exhibits A and B. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of February, 1963. I Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Crt re ler City At orney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: 4 City dm n str or 09Drr*ectdr of Development Services I � 2. �� to Environmental Board Dec a 4!a CI FY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IIUNIINCTONBFAC.M Post Office .Box 190 • -Huntington Beach, California 92648 - TO: Planning Commission DATE: December 1, 1982 FROM: Environmental Board SUBJECT: DRAFT 'LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 The Huntington Beach Environmental Board has reviewed Draft Land Use Element Amendment 82-1, and submits the following comments re- garding the six areas covered in this land use amendment. Area .of Concern 2.1 - Yorktown/Main Street Area The Land Use Amendment indicates that a 1.52 acre parcel located approximately 500 feet east of Main Street and 600 feet north of Yorktown Avenue would be redesignated from medium density residential to office professional. The Environmental Board feels that this zone change is .premature at this point in time in that such piece- meal changes without overall recognition of the cumulative impact . have a tendency to destroy the overall. intent of. the . Huntington Beach Land Use Plan. Further, it is pointed out that this change would likely. result in an additional 438 vehicle trips per day originating from any development on this parcel. Although this number of trips is minimal, no attempt has been made to address the cumulative effect of additional traffic on surrounding streets. Area of Concern 2.2 - Mushroom Farm Area The Land Use Amendment proposes to ,redesignate 20..1 acres of land from open space to medium, density. residential. The staff recommen- dation is to keep the zoning as open space, and the Environmental Board wishes to add their support to the staff recommendation. Any residential development in this area would . have significant problems with storm drainage, water supply, .and 'sewage.. . Another major objection by the staff and again supported by the En- vironmental Board, 'is that this area .is currently surrounded by Huntington Central Park, and is proposed for eventual inclusion in Central Park. A zone change to medium density residential is incom- patible with the proposed incorporation into the park. The Environ- mental Board concurs with the staff recommendation, and opposes this zone redesignation. Area of Concern 2. 3 - Cambro Manufacturing P1ant. Area The Land Use Amendment proposes to redesignate a 19.4 acre site from medium density residential to general industrial. Although not op- posed to this redesignation, the Environmental Board notes with great alarm that city planning maps showing the subject area have CITY OF 1- UNTINGTON BEACH i INTER-DEPARTMENT COMM UNICATIO HUNTINGTON BEACH - - . To Claiariette Dupu,y From V nt J. Moorhouse Development Services Director, Community Services Subject General Plan Amendment 82-1 Date August 31 , 1982 Tn response to your merne of August 25 , 1982 , please be advised . that the proposed amendments will .have little or no impact on the ability of Cornmunit•y Services to provide library or recre- ational services to those sites . VGM: cs RECEIVEr, SEP a 19 D--3