HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 3 of 3 - General Plan Amendment No 94-2 - Environmental (2) iF f'
;,ITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC. .s
MEETING DATE: May 13, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-26
Council/Agency Meeting Held:
XApproved
Deferred/Con to:
❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Sign re Council Meeting Date: May 13, 1996 Department ID Number: CD 96-26
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIONS —
pP,
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
7—d
SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administr
PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALCON Community Development Directo
SUBJECT: FINAL PUBLIC HEARING (NO. 3) - GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 94-2/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO.
94-1 - Comprehensive Update of the Huntington Beach General Plan
(Continued from the April 22, 1996 City Council meeting)
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
G�� ate m nt of Iss e:
General Plan Amendment No. 94-2/Environmental Impact Report No. 94-1 is the
comprehensive update of the city's General Plan that includes the review and certification of
an Environmental Impact Report. The City Council to date, has conducted four study
sessions and two public hearings on the update of the draft General Plan. At the City
Council public hearing on April 22, 1996, the Council continued the public hearing on the
draft General Plan to the final scheduled public hearing of May 13, 1996.
Funding Source: There is no funding required by the recommended action.
Recommended Action:
Motion to:
A. "Take straw votes on the seven remaining land use recommendations (Nos.
2, 34, 35, 36, 37, 72 & 74); and
B. Take straw votes on the Outstanding Issues Matrix; and
CD96-26.DOC -2- 05/08/96 11:36 AM`
i
^UEST FOR COUNCIL ACTA
MEETING DATE: May 13, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-26
Plan. CEQA requires the decision-makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project.
If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered `bcceptable" Where the
decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects that are identified
in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing
the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in
the record. This statement should be included in the record of the project approval and
should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination.
Prior to any action on General Plan Amendment No. 94-2, Final EIR No. 94-1 must be
adopted and certified by the City Council based on the findings outlined.
Attachment(s):
NumberCity Clerk's
Page
1. Legislative Draft dated 12/12/95, HB General Plan (not attached)
2. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 94-1 (not attached)
3. Matrix of Outstanding Land Use Map changes dated 5/6/96
4. Outstanding Issues Matrix
5. Proposed Language (Text) Modifications
6. New Ordinances, Programs, or Revisions of the New General Plan
7. Public Comments (letters)
8. Resolution No. 176-3-rr EIR No. 94-1
9. Resolution No. 9 6 -3bGPA No. 94-2/General Plan
MTU:MSF:HZ:hf
CD96-26.DOC -11- 05/08/96 2:40 PM
ATTACHMENT 1
GENERAL PLAN
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT U bj \
DATED 12/12�p�� C Gt
( NOT ATTACHED)
COPIES AVAILABLE IN THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THE OFFICE
OF THE CITY CLERK
ATTACHMENT 2
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT,
EIR NO. 94-1
DATED 7/5/95
( NOT ATTACHE0
D)
COPIES AVAILABLE IN THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THE OFFICE
OF THE CITY CLERK
(g:\genpin\gpatch2)
ATTACHMENT 3
Circulation Element
♦ Level of Service (Congestion)
♦ Master Plan of Arterial Highways and Santa Ana River �
Bridge Crossings
♦ Proposed Language Changes (John Ely's proposal)
♦ Straw Votes
•
5
•
Land Use Element
---------------
♦ Proposed Language Changes; LU 2. 1 .7, and minor
corrections
♦ Development Threshold, Policy LU 2. 1 .4
♦ Concept of Mixed Use on the five remaining land use
areas North of Warner Avenue
♦ Straw Votes
•
6
. :.r!
Remainin Land Use Changes
.... ..........
................
g
♦ RemainingLand Use Changes
g
. Density Changes: Areas 2, 72, 74
. Mixed Use Areas North of Warner: Areas 34, 35, 36, 37
♦ . Straw Votes
•
_ y
. . . .. ea, KIM
z a
�i*;X:s
Final Action on the General Plan
/ 4Z�
• Approval of Certification of the Final Environmental .
. �
Impact Report .
• Adoption of the General P l an and Land U R e Map with
the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Facts
and Findings.
�
x
Huntington Beach Housing Element Update
Housing Element Background
• Relation of Housing Element to General Plan Update
One of Seven Mandatory Elements
Consistency with other Elements of the Plan
• Role of State Department of Housing and Community
Development
Evolution of Role
HCD Review of Draft and Final Housing Element
HCD Finding of Substantial Compliance Highly Desirable
• Approach and Process for Housing Element Update
Housing Needs Analysis/Programs/Contact with HCD
Workshops with Ad Hoc Committee, Planning Commission and
City Council
HCD Review of Draft
Adoption of Final Element and HCD Review
Huntington Beach Housing Element Update
Summary of Housing Need
• Assuring Availability of Adequate Housing
• Groups in Need of Housing Assistance
Overcrowded Households
Households Overpaying for Housing
Special Needs Households (Elderly, Disabled, Large Families,
Female-Headed, Farmworkers)
Homeless
• Other Components of Housing Need
Age and Condition of Housing Stock
Housing Sales Prices and Rents
Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
Huntington Beach Housing Element Update
Potential Housing Programs
• Conservation and Improvement of Existing
Affordable Housing
Low Interest Rehabilitation Loans for Multi-Family Housing
Assist Non-Profits in Aquisition and Rehabilitation of Multi-Family
Housing
• Provision of Adequate Housing Sites
Maintaining Inventory of Vacant Residential Land
• Assist in Development of Affordable Housing
Provide Incentives for Development of Senior Citizen and
Low/Moderate Income Housing
Tax Exempt Mortgage Financing
• Removal of Governmental Constraints
Handicapped Accessible Housing
• Equal Housing Opportunity
Orange County Fair Housing Council Services
• Energy Conservation
Energy Conservation Programs Offered by Utilities
11TY
B OF HUNTINGTONVACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
j
HUNTINGTON BEACH
REVISED
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Melanie S. Fallon, Community Development Director
VIA: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
DATE: May 10, 1996
SUBJECT: Issues of concern raised by the City Council at the May 6, 1996 Study Session
on the General Plan
Staff is proposing modifications to the Circulation Element wording regarding Level of Service
Standards and the Santa Ana River Bridge Crossings to address the Council's concerns.
In order to provide direction in the Circulation Element that requires a balance to be achieved
between economic development and the preservation of residential neighborhoods the following
language is proposed to be added to the first Goal in the Circulation Element as noted below:
CIRCULATION ELFmENT
General
Goal
CE I
Provide a balanced transportation system that supports the policies of the General Plan and facilitates the safe and
efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City while providing a balance between economic
development and the preservation of residential neighborhoods,and minimizing environmental impacts.
In order to provide direction in the Circulation Element that requires the active participation by
the City in the cooperative study being discussed by Orange County and surrounding cities
regarding the Santa Ana Bridge Crossings, and direction that the City has made a previous
decision not to support the bridges over the Santa Ana river, the following language is proposed
to be added to the Technical Synopsis, the Policies and Implementation Programs in the
Circulation Element as noted below:
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
I-CE 1
Monitoring
Continue to implement, review, monitor and update,as necessary, the following:
• existing and proposed roadway systems on an annual basis. Use the information to identify and prioritize
capital improvements including road widening,paving and intersection improvements;
g:\niles\gp\altgplan.doc/ //
i
• the City's CirculationVan and actively participate in the cooperatiOudy regarding the Santa Ana
Bridge Crossings,and make recommendations for needed revisions to the County of Orange, Master
Plan of Arterial Highways(OCMPAH)as it relates to the needs of the City;
I-CE 2
Compliance with Regional Plans, Policies,and Programs
Continue to actively participate in, and make strong recommendations in support of the needs of the City in
the County, regional,and State transportation planning efforts such as:
• the County's Congestion Management Program;
• the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways(OCMPAH)
• the County's Growth Management Area No. 6 Traffic Signal Management Program;
• Regional Mobility Plan; and
• Air Quality Management Plan.
The following is the current language in the Technical Synopsis of the Circulation Element with proposed
modifications in bold (General Plan, Circulation Element,page III-71:
In order to remain eligible to receive Measure M funds and Congestion Management Plan funds (Prop.
111), the City of Huntington Beach has kept certain elements of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways
(MPAH) on the 2010 Circulation Plan of Arterial Highways. These items include the proposed Santa Ana
River Bridge Crossings and the Bolsa Chica Cross Gap Connector. These elements are required to remain
on the City's Circulation Plan of Arterial Highways to maintain consistency with the Orange County
Master Plan of Arterial Highways (OCMPAH). As of 1995, Measure M and Congestion Management
Plan funds exceeded of$3,000,000.00 per year.
In addition, the Orange County Transportation Authority and surrounding cities are currently participating
in a cooperative study to discuss diseessing the appropriateness of certain elements of the OCMPAH.
The elements include but are not limited to such roadway segments as the Santa Ana River Bridge
Crossings. The current OCMPAH was adopted assuming a mix of land uses based upon the adopted
Land Use Elements that were in place for the County and each surrounding city. Since that time, the
county and the surrounding cities have adopted amendments to the land use designations or made
commitments to their citizens regarding certain roadway segments of the OCMPAH. For example,
the Huntington Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 6544 on November 1, 1993, which
recommended the County initiate the process to remove the 19th Street/Banning Ave. and the Gisler
Ave./Garfield Ave. bridges from the OCMPAH. The County has undertaken this issue by the
formulation of the Santa Ana River Crossings Cooperative Study. These actions along with the
Cooperative Study will necessitate additional review, traffic studies and environmental review that
possibly will require modifications to the OCMPAH. OCTA has indicated that upon completion of
the update to the Huntington Beach General Plan and the review of the General Plans of the
surrounding cities, the OCMPAH is scheduled to be updated. At that time, some of the current
roadway segments are likely to be modified or deleted. Due to these uncertainties, future land use and
transportation planning is will be based upon the changes that surrounding jurisdictions have made to
their respective Land Use and Circulation Elements. The potential changes will be based on the
information gathered from and the recommendations made by the cooperative study on the Santa
Ana River Bridge Crossings. Therefore, there is the possibility that the current OCMPAH road
segments may never be constructed.
g:\niles\gp\aItgplan.doc
4
P ^` • CITY OF HUNTINGTON �ACH �b f
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Melaniea S. Fallon, Community Development Director �1
DATE: May 10, 1996
SUBJECT: Issues of concern raised by the City Council at the May 6, 1996 Study Session
on the General Plan
Staff is proposing modifications to the Circulation Elemerl wording regarding Level of Service
Standards and the Santa Ana River Bridge Crossings to a /dress the Council's concerns.
In order to provide direction in the Circulation Element that requires a balance to be achieved
between economic development and the preservatpn of residential neighborhoods the following
language is proposed to be added to the first Goal/in the Circulation Element as noted below:
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
General
Goal
CE 1
Provide a balanced transportation syste, that supports the policies of the General Plan and facilitates the safe and
efficient movement of people and oods throughout the City while providing a balance between economic
development and the preservatio of residential neighborhoods,and minimizing environmental impacts.
In order to provide dire tion in the Circulation Element that requires the active participation by
the City in the coop prative study being discussed by Orange County and surrounding cities
regarding the Santa/Ana Bridge Crossings, and direction that the City has made a previous
decision not to support the bridges over the Santa Ana river, the following language is proposed
to be added to/the Technical Synopsis, the Policies and Implementation Programs in the
Circulation Element as noted below:
IMPLEMENTA%ITON PROGRAM
I-CE 1
Monniit ring
Continue to implement, review, monitor and update,as necessary,the following:
• existing and proposed roadway systems on an annual basis. Use the information to identify and prioritize
capital improvements including road widening,paving and intersection improvements;
• the City's Circulation Plan and actively participate in the cooperative study regarding the Santa Ana
Bridge Crossings,and make recommendations for needed revisions to the County of Orange, Master
Plan of Arterial Highways(OCMPAH)as it relates to the needs of the City;
g:\niles\gp\altgplan.doc I
e
s-Y f j
I-CE 2
Compliance with Regional Plans,Policies,and Programs
Continue to actively participate in, and make strong recommendations in support of the needs of the City in
the County, regional,and State transportation planning efforts such as:
• the County's Congestion Management Program;
• the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways(OCMPAH)
• the County's Growth Management Area No. 6 Traffic Signal Management Program;
• Regional Mobility Plan; and
• Air Quality Management Plan.
The following is the current language in the Technical Synopsis of the Circulation Element with
proposed modifications in bold (General Plan, Circulation Element, pa e�Ig ,II_7)-.
In order to remain eligible to receive Measure M funds and Congestion Management Plan funds
(Prop. 111), the City of Huntington Beach has kept certain elements of the Master Plan of
Arterial Highways (MPAH) on the 2010 Circulation Plan of Arterial Highways.. These items
include the proposed Santa Ana River Bridge Crossings and the'Bolsa Chica Cross Gap
Connector. These elements are required to remain on the City's Circulation Plan of Arterial
Highways to maintain consistency with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways
(OCMPAH). As of 1995, Measure M and Congestion Management Plan funds exceeded of
$3,000,000.00 per year.
In addition, the Orange County Transportation Authority and surrounding cities are currently
participating in a cooperative study to discuss the appropriateness of certain
elements of the OCMPAH, such as the Santa Ana River Bridge Crossings and other roadway
connections. The current OCMPAH was adopted assuming a mix of land use decisions
that were in place at the time for the County and surrounding cities. Some of the cities
have adopted General Plan amendments/to the land use designations in their jurisdictions
or made commitments to their citizens since the OCMPAH was adopted regarding some of
the currently shown roadway segments For example, the Huntington Beach City Council
has made a commitment not to support construction of the bridges. These actions will
necessitate additional review and possible modifications to the OCMPAH. OCTA has
indicated that upon completion of the City of Huntington Beach and other surrounding
city General Plans, the OCMPAH is scheduled to be updated, and some of the current
roadway segments are likely to/change or be removed. Due to these uncertainties, future land
use planning and transportation planning i-s will be based upon the changes that surrounding
jurisdictions have made and will include the information gathered from, and the
recommendations made due to the cooperative study on the Santa Ana River Bridge
Crossings. Therefore, there is the possibility that the current OCMPAH road segments may
never be constructed.
g:\niles\gp\altgplan.doc
M
QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTS
MEETING DATE: May 13, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-26
IC. Take straw votes on each element of the Draft General Plan in consent calendar
fashion; and
D. Certify as adequate and complete Final Environmental Impact Report No. 94-1
by adopting Resolution No. 26- 3.5 ; and
E. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 94-2 as amended by the City Council by
adopting Resolution No. with a Statement of Overriding
Considerations."
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may take one of the following alternative actions:
1. Continue GPA No. 94-1/EIR No. 94-2 to a date certain; or
2. Certify as adequate and complete Final Environmental Impact Report No. 94-
2 by adopting Resolution No. q6-3 1 ; and
3. Deny General Plan Amendment No. 94-1.
Analysis:
Although the General Plan has been periodically amended, the current General Plan last
underwent a comprehensive update in 1976. Since that time, many of the policies and
baseline information in the existing General Plan have become outdated and no longer
reflect existing conditions. In addition, many of the legal requirements for General Plans
have changed since 1976. In order to accurately reflect the desires and needs of today's
residents and to plan for the next 20 years, the city's General Plan must be updated. The
draft General Plan will be as comprehensive as possible and will incorporate new laws and
requirements. The General Plan is thus an effective and complete guiding document for
decision makers.
Tonight, the City Council will take final action on the elements of the Draft General Plan and
Draft Environmental Impact Report. The review of the General Plan will include seven land
use map recommendations and a series of outstanding issues. The seven land use map
sites are identified in the attached Table (see Attachment No. 3). In addition, the City
Council through out this process has set aside some outstanding issues for review and
consideration. Staff has attached a matrix for the Council's final review that includes
revisions and staff's recommendations (see Attachment No. 4). It is recommended that the
Council finalize their straw votes on the outstanding issues identified in the matrix.
CD96-26.DOC -3- 05/08/96 11:36 AM
#QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTINI
MEETING DATE: May 13, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-26
The Draft Environmental Impact Report that analyzed the environmental impacts associated
with the buildout of the Draft General Plan is presented for final City Council action. An
analysis of the Environmental Impact Report is included in the staff report with
recommendations.
Elements of the General Plan
The City Council is scheduled to finalize the review of the draft General Plan. The Council
has finished the review of the Goals, Objectives, Policies and Programs of all the Elements
except for a few set aside items. The set aside items will be incorporated into the final
version upon final action by the City Council.
Land Use Recommendations
At the April 22, 1996 public hearing, the City Council set aside seven land use map
recommendations for further consideration. Five of the seven sites are proposed for Mixed
Use. Staff continues it's recommendation for Mixed Use at these locations. The
recommendation is based on their location, proximity for regional access and the optional
use of residential as a component of the mixed use designation. If the City Council decides
to change the recommendation for Mixed Use, staff would recommend a Commercial
Regional designation for the areas north of Warner Ave with the permissive allowance for
mixed use at the proposed density/intensity. The two remaining sites were pulled to discuss
the reasons for the Planning Commission's recommendation to decrease the current
density.
The following is an overview of the outstanding Land Use Map recommendations of the draft
Land Use Element. Please note, the specific land use map recommendation identified
below will include a corresponding reference number that will identify the land use
recommendation in the attached matrix. The following subareas are identified in the draft
General Plan (refer to Figure LU-6, Pg. II-64).
Matrix No. 2, District Map No. 20 (Subarea 86) - The area on the south side of Hamilton
Ave., 300' west of Brookhurst St. (Church site). - Recommend the addition of the Public (P)
designation to identify a public use (church), and no change to the existing zoning and
general plan designations which are Residential High Density (max. 30 un/ac). This site
was set aside for further review by the Council to investigate the reason the Planning
Commission reduced the density from 30 un/ac to 7 un/ac. To help the City Council in their
review of the site, staff has attached an area map depicting the surrounding density. Staff's
recommendation is to add the Public designation and retain the existing general plan
designation of Residential High Density.
Matrix No. 34, District Map No. 15 (Subarea 5A) - The area northwest of Edinger Ave. and
Beach Blvd. (Huntington Center). - Recommend a change from Commercial General to
Mixed Use (MV-F9-SP) to expand and revitalize the land use opportunities for the Center.
CD96-26.DOC -4- 05/08/96 11:36 AM
N
ANI
QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACT
MEETING DATE: May 13, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-26
The Mixed Use designation continues to promote the regional importance of the Center but
may (not require) allow residential development in the area under a specific plan. Staff's
recommendation is to change the designation to Mixed Use. This site was set aside to allow
the Council further discussion on the issue of mixed use. However, if the City Council does
not concur with the recommendation, staff suggests the designation of Commercial Regional
with the option for mixed use (residential) at the proposed densitylintensity. The mixed use
would fall under the category of Commercial Regional (Table LU-6) as a "permitted use"with
the associated densitylintensity and development and design standards. The policies to
address compatibility, architectural design and access all remain intact.
Matrix Nos. 35, 36 & 37, District Map Nos. 26, 27 & 30 (Subarea 66) - The area generally
from Beach Blvd. at Warner Ave. north to just south of Edinger Ave. (both sides of Beach
Blvd.) - Recommend a change from Commercial General and Residential Medium Density to
Mixed Use. These sites were set aside to allow the Council further discussion on the issue
of mixed use. The Planning Commission supports this recommended change. Again, if the
City Council does not concur with the recommendation, staff suggests the designation of
Commercial Regional with the option for mixed use (residential) at the proposed
densitylintensity. The mixed use would fall under the category of Commercial Regional
(Table LU-6) as a "permitted use" with the associated densitylintensity and development and
design standards. The policies to address compatibility, architectural design and access all
remain intact.
Matrix No. 72, District Map No. 39 (Subarea 6C) - The area at the southeast corner of
Main St. and Florida Ave. - Recommend change from Mixed Development to Mixed Use
Horizontal but decrease the density from 25 du/ac to 15 du/ac. This site was set aside for
further review because of the proposed mixed use designation. The existing designation of
"Mixed Development" is what the current General Plan uses as a classification to allow
mixed use development. Staff's recommendation is to modify the designation to Mixed Use
Horizontal and not reduce the proposed density from 25 du/ac to 15 du/ac. The
recommendation reflects existing conditions and is compatible with the mixed development
of the Pacifica Community Plan (senior residential/commercial/office).
Matrix No. 74, District Map No. 40 - The area northwest of the terminus of Chapel Lane at
Modale Drive - Recommend retain existing Residential Medium Density designation. The
proposed recommendation would be inconsistent with the zoning. This item was set aside
for further review to investigate the surrounding land uses and land use designations. To
help the City Council in their review of the site, staff has attached an area map depicting the
surrounding density. Staffs recommendation is to change the designation from Residential
Medium to Residential Medium High to be consistent with the zoning and the surrounding
land use designations.
CD96-26.DOC -5- 05/08/96 11:36 AM
#QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIRI
MEETING DATE: May 13, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-26
Outstanding Issues
Staff has attached an Outstanding Issues Matrix for final review and action (see Attachment
No.4). The Council has set aside a number of items and sections of the General Plan for
further staff review and discussion by the Council. These items have been reviewed by staff
and a recommendation is provided. The attached matrix includes staff's recommendations
and is ready for final action by the City Council.
Levels of Service (LOS)
This term is the tool used to describe the operating characteristics of the street system in
terms of the level of congestion or delay experienced by drivers. Service levels range from
A through F with each level defined by a range of volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. Levels of
Service A, B, and C are considered good operating conditions with only minor delays being
experienced by motorists. Level of Service D represents below average or fair operating
conditions where drivers occasionally have to wait through more than one signal cycle to
proceed through the intersection. Level of Service E is considered "at capacity" conditions
and level of service F represents jammed conditions.
The 1992 adopted Growth Management Element established the city's current policy for
acceptable level of service. The service levels are D at traffic signal controlled intersections
and level of service C for roadway segment links. The city's level of service policy is a
necessary standard to maintain and obtain future funding from the County and State for
future street improvements within the city. The City Council questioned whether the city
could modify the level of service to a higher or lower level to best suit the future needs of the
city. The answer is yes it is possible; however it is problematic. Because the city is a
participant (with other Orange County cities) in the Congestion Management Plan and
receives funds through the plan, the city cannot change its levels of service without the
approval of the other participants (cities). The issue will be addressed at the time the
Growth Management Element is updated. The update of the Growth Management Element
is anticipated to begin in the next six months to one year.
Due to concerns raised by the City Council at the May 6 meeting, staff is working on draft
language for the Circulation Element that clearly indicates that the City's adopted level of
service standards are D at intersections and C at links. In addition, a policy statement will
be proposed that states the City's objective is to provide a balance between economic
development and the preservation of residential neighborhoods. Staff will make this
language available for review by the City Council prior to the meeting of May 13, 1996.
Master Plan of Arterial Highways
The Planning Commission recommended that the 2010 Circulation Plan of Arterial Highways
for the City of Huntington Beach include certain aspects of the Orange County Master Plan
of Arterial Highways. The aspects are the proposed Santa Ana Bridge crossings and the
CD96-26.DOC -6- 05/08/96 2:36 PM
#QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACT&
MEETING DATE: May 13, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-26
Cross Gap Connector. This recommendation was proposed only after lengthy discussions
and a presentation from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The Planning
Commission did not want to jeopardize the city's eligibility for Measure M funds and
Congestion Management Plan (Proposition 111) funds. The recommendation is to show the
roadway improvements only on the circulation plan for compliance, without the intent to
construct them. Staff and the Planning Commission worked very closely with a
representative of OCTA to ensure that the language and the maps in the General Plan
Circulation Element would not preclude the City from receiving Measure M funds, but would
indicate that the City was not proposing to construct the bridges. The wording has been
included in the General Plan Circulation Element to accomplish those two goals. The
wording is found in the Technical Synopsis (Future Conditions, Page III-7, and Figure CE-3,
the 2010 Circulation Plan of Arterial Highways). The wording is as follows:
In order to remain eligible to receive Measure M funds and Congestion Management Plan
funds (Prop. 111), the City of Huntington Beach has kept certain elements of the Master
Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) on the 2010 Circulation Plan of Arterial Highways. These
items include the proposed Santa Ana River Bridge Crossings and the Bolsa Chica Cross
Gap Connector. These elements are required to remain on the City's Circulation Plan of
Arterial Highways to maintain consistency with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial
Highways (OCMPAH). As of 1995, Measure M and Congestion Management Plan funds
exceeded $3,000,000.00 per year.
In addition, the Orange County Transportation Authority and surrounding cities are currently
discussing the appropriateness of certain elements of the OCMPAH. Due to these
uncertainties, future land use planning and transportation planning is based upon the
possibility that the OCMPAH road segments may never be constructed.
Text Modifications
At the April 8, 1996 City Council meeting, a number of issues were pulled for further
consideration. Staff has analyzed the areas of discussion and has proposed new or
modified language (see Attachment No. 5). The modifications are based upon the
comments and discussion presented at the public hearing and study sessions. Please
review the modified language changes.
Public Comments
At the study session on May 6, a letter from John Ely dated April 19, 1996, was presented to
the City Council that requested additional language be included in the Circulation Element
regarding the proposed bridges over the Santa Ana River (see Attachment No. 7). The City
Council questioned the effect the proposed policy language would have on the city's
standing with the OCTA. Staff and the City Attorney are concerned that the language as
proposed in that letter is inconsistent with CEQA requirements. However, modifications to
the language recommended by the Planning Commission and staff (see above) may be
CD96-26.DOC -7- 05/08/96 5:05 PM
#QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIR
MEETING DATE: May 13, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-26
modified to clearly state that the City does not intend to build the bridges over the Santa Ana
River. At this time, staff has not been able to compose such language for inclusion in the
RCA. Staff will provide language for review by the City Council as quickly as possible prior
to the public hearing on May 13, 1996. Staff will invite a representative from OCTA to attend
the meeting of May 13 to respond to the Council's questions. Also, staff will continue to
participate and monitor the cooperative study (being under taken by the County of Orange
and the neighboring cities) regarding the bridges. The City Council will be asked during this
cooperative study review and EIR process to relay their comments on the bridges to the
County and neighboring cities.
In addition, a supplemental letter from John Ely dated May 6, 1996, was submitted regarding
the inclusion of policy wording regarding the bridge issue, CMP compliance and any future
review of projects for mitigation of impacts. As noted above, staff and the City Attorney have
reviewed the language proposed in the letters (proposed to be added to Implementation
Program I-CE 4) and have the following concerns: 1) The language precludes the City from
analyzing all elements of findings for any future projects in the city or surrounding
jurisdictions, as required by Section 15091 of CEQA; 2) It inhibits the City's discretionary
power to mitigate project impacts, as referenced in Section 15040 of CEQA; 3) The City can
comment on but has no authority to impose non lead agency conditions or mitigation
measures on projects in other jurisdictions, as per Section 15051 of CEQA; and 4) The
wording precludes adequate consideration of feasible alternatives and may impact proper
environmental approvals, as per Section 15092 of CEQA. The proposed language,
therefore, could position the city in such a way that any CEQA document may be challenged
legally because it did not include all reasonable alternatives to a project. The CEQA
process is structured to provide all possible environmental impact information on project
proposals to the decision makers. A legally defensible CEQA document provides all
reasonable alternatives to a project along with findings and mitigation measures. The final
outcome on the issue to include mitigation measures or choose a project alternative rests
with the decision makers.
As discussed above, modifications to the language recommended by the Planning
Commission and staff will be proposed to clearly indicate the city's intent not to build bridges
over the Santa Ana River. Staff will provide the revised language for review by the City
Council as quickly as possible prior to the public hearing of May 13, 1996.
Environmental Status:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Environmental Impact Report
No. 94-1 (EIR No. 94-1) was prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the Draft General
Plan (GPA No. 94-2) update. The requisite procedure that was followed is outlined below:
CD96-26.DOC -8- 05/08/96 2:40 PM
R
QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTH
MEETING DATE: May 13, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-26
September 12, 1994 Staff conducted an initial study and
determined that an EIR would be
necessary for the project.
September 14, 1994 A Notice of Preparation was filed with the
State Clearinghouse to notify the public of
the intent to prepare an EIR
July 23, 1995 Notice of Completion filed with the State
Clearinghouse. The Draft EIR was
available for public review and comment for
forty-five days (Comment Period: July 23,
1995 to September 5, 1995).
Staff has responded to all comments received, and this attachment will be included as an
appendix in the Final EIR.
Environmental Impact Report No 94-1 was prepared by Envicom Corporation. The
document must be approved and certified by the City Council prior to any action on GPA
No. 94-2, the update of the city's General Plan. The City Council needs to determine
whether the EIR considers all environmental effects of the proposed Update of the General
Plan, is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council public
hearing to receive comments on Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 94-1 was
held on March 25, 1996.
The EIR addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of
the City of Huntington Beach Draft General Plan. This EIR is an informational document
prepared to inform decision makers and the general public about the potential
environmental impacts of the Draft General Plan, and to aid in the decision-making
process.
The EIR responds to issues raised during the Notice of Preparation period and has been
prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
The Executive summary of the EIR summarizes the project description, areas of
controversy, issues to be resolved, the need for a statement of overriding considerations
and alternatives to the Draft General Plan. Table EX-1 beginning on page EX-4 provides a
summary of the environmental impacts, Draft General Plan policies, proposed mitigation
measures, and residual impacts in matrix form. If certified, the mitigation measures set
forth in the EIR will be incorporated into the Final General Plan document to ensure that all
recommended mitigation measures have been incorporated.
CD96-26.DOC -9- 05/08/96 2:40 PM
N
QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIS
MEETING DATE: May 13, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 96-26
Summary
The Draft General Plan is a comprehensive, long-term planning document which serves as
the official statement of the City of Huntington Beach regarding the policies, standards, and
actions needed to achieve the short and long-term physical, economic, social, and
environmental goals of the City. The City of Huntington Beach's intent in initiating the
General Plan update was to undertake and successfully carry out an inclusive planning
process that will: 1) define and analyze the conditions and issues currently facing the City;
2) integrate these issues with goals, objectives, and concerns expressed by local citizens,
business people, and public administrators; and 3) generate a comprehensive new
General Plan that will guide local development, policy, and resource management into the
twenty-first century.
The Draft General Plan contains the statutory requirements of the state-mandated elements
being Land Use, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. In addition
optional elements are included; Urban Design, Economic Development, Utilities, and Air
Quality. The Housing, Growth Management, and Coastal Elements are not part of the Draft
General Plan since they were more recently updated than the other elements, and will be
updated in compliance with State Law.
Project Alternatives
In addition to the Draft General Plan as proposed, three other alternatives were reviewed in
the EIR:
Alternative 1 - No project alternative (buildout under the existing General Plan - which
currently allows for considerably more growth than the Draft General Plan)
Alternative 2 - No growth alternative (which calculated no further growth over what existed
in 1990 that was the baseline year of information for the Draft General Plan)
Alternative 3 - Reduced buildout alternative (which would reduce the Draft General Plan
allowable buildout by 25%)
Table ALT-1 on pages' 9-2 through 9-6 of the Final EIR compares the Draft General Plan
with the three alternatives in regard to impacts.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
This EIR has identified that the Draft General Plan would result in significant unavoidable
adverse impacts for three environmental issue areas, regardless of implementation of the
proposed policies and/or mitigation measures. These environmental issue areas are:
Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, and Noise. Therefore, the City of Huntington Beach
must make a Statement of Overriding Considerations in order to adopt the Draft General
CD96-26.DOC -10- 05/08/96 2:40 PM
Outstanding Land Use Recommendations - City Council Review
Planning Commission approved December 12, 1995
Staff Analysis & Recommendations - 516196
EXISTING CFNERAL PLAN
GENERAL ADVISORY. EXISTING PLANNING COMMISSION
NO. LOCATION PLAN COMMITTEE ZONING DISCUSSION STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
2. South side of RH P RH -30 RH Add Public P Disagree with PC, do not Disagree with Staff&
( ) ( ) g g
Hamilton Ave. (Residential Public - (Residential designation to decrease density from 30 to GPAC: recommend
300' west of High underlying High Density) identify 7 du/ac, agree with GPAC: change from Residential
Brookhurst St. Density) Residential church/school no change to existing High to Residential Low
High Density Residential High Density with Public (P)
(DM 20) 30 un/ac (RH) designation, only add designation; decrease in
Public (P) designation. density from 30 to 7
du/ac, P (RL-7) NOTE:
inconsistent with zoning
(Straw Vote 5-0)
34. Huntington CG MV- F9-SP CG Modifies Disagree with PC, agree Disagree with Staff&
Center (Commercial (Mixed Use (Commercial Commercial with GPAC: recommend GPAC: eliminate mixed
General) Vertical, General) designation by mixed use to expand and use, recommend change
(DM 15) Density 1.5 adding Mixed Use revitalize opportunities for from Commercial General
FAR ]MU], 0.5 (Commercial/Resid the Mall, promote the to Commercial Regional-
FAR ]C], 25 ential); Continues regional importance of the FAR.5 - Specific Plan
un/ac) Regional site but may (not required) (CR- F2 - SP))
Commercial uses, allow residential designation (Straw Vote
may permit development in the area 5-1)
residential
development
CC Review 5/6/96 (g\cc1ndus3)
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
GENERAL ADVISORY EXISTING PLANNING COMMISSION
NO. LOCATION ' PLAN COMMITTEE ZONING DISCUSSION STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
I
35. Aldrich Ave. CG MV- F10- D CG - RMH- Modifies existing Disagree with PC Disagree with Staff&
south to Heil (Commercial -A (Mixed ' RM Commercial reduction of residential GPAC: recommend change
Ave.west side of General) Use Vertical, (Commercial designation by density from 25 to 15 from Commercial General
Beach Blvd. RMH Density 1.5 General; adding Mixed Use du/ac, agree with GPAC: to Mixed Use Vertical,
(Residential FAR [MU], Residential (Commercial/Resid allows continued decrease density from 25 to
(DM 26) Medium 1.5 FAR [C], Medium High ential); continues Commercial uses and 15 du/ac (Straw Vote 6-0)
High 25 du/ac, Density; commercial uses, development, permits NOTE: inconsistent with
Density) RM Design Residential may permit. (not required) residential zoning
(Residential Overlay, Medium residential uses and provides
Medium Auto Density) development, does possible relocation of
Density) Overlay) increase some Auto Dealers to form
density from 15 to future Auto Mall
25 du/ac, Auto
Overlay allows
possible location of
Auto Dealers
36. Heil Ave. south CG MV- F10- D CG - RM Modifies existing Disagree with PC Disagree with Staff&
to Warner Ave. (Commercial -A (Mixed (Commercial Commercial reduction of residential GPAC: recommend change
east& west sides General) Use Vertical, General; designation by density from 25 to 15 from Commercial General
of Beach Blvd. RM Density 1.5 Residential adding Mixed Use du/ac, agree with GPAC: to Mixed Use Vertical,
(Residential FAR [MU], Medium (Commercial/Resid allows continued decrease density from 25 t
(DM 26&27) Medium 1.5 FAR [C], Density) ential); continues Commercial uses and 15 du/ac (Straw Vote 5-1)
Density) 25 du/ac, commercial uses, development,permits NOTE: inconsistent with
Design may permit (not required) residential zoning
Overlay, residential uses and provides
Auto development, does possible relocation of
Overlay) increase some Auto Dealers to form
density from 15 to future Auto Mall
25 du/ac, auto
Overlay allows
possible location of
Auto Dealers
CC Review 5/6/96 2 (g\cc1ndus3)
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
GENERAL ADVISORY EXISTING PLANNING COMMISSION
NO. LOCATION PLAN COMMITTEE ZONING DISCUSSION STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION '
37. Southeast of CG MV- F10- D RM Modifies existing Disagree with PC Disagree with Staff&
Beach Blvd. & (Commercial (Mixed Use (Residential Commercial reduction of residential GPAC: recommend change
Warner Ave. General) Vertical, Medium designation by density from 25 to 15 from Commercial General
RM Density 1.5 Density) adding.Mixed Use du/ac, agree with to Mixed Use Vertical,
(DM 30) (Residential FAR [MU], (Commercial/Reside GPAC: allows continued decrease density from 25 to
Medium 1.5 FAR [C], ntial); continues Commercial uses and 15 du/ac(Straw Vote 5-1)
Density) 25 du/ac, commercial uses, development, permits NOTE: inconsistent with
Design may permit (not required) zoning
Overlay) residential residential uses and
development, does provides possible
increase some relocation of Auto
density,from 15 to Dealers to form future
25 du/ac, Auto Auto Mall
Overlay allows
possible location of
Auto Dealers
72. Southeast corner Mixed CG- F2- D CO Change from Mixed Disagree with PC & Disagree with Staff and
of Main St. & Development (Commercial (Commercial Development to GPAC: maintain density GPAC: recommend change
Florida Ave. General, Office) Commercial General at 25 du/ac and change to Mixed Use Horizontal,
Density 0.5 to Mixed Use decrease density from 25 to
(DM 39) FAR, Design Horizontal, F2 [FAR 15 du/ac (Straw Vote 6-0-1
Overlay) 0.51, 25 un/ac, Design abstain) NOTE: inconsiste
Overlay with zoning
CC Review 5/6/96 3 (g\cc1ndus3)
EXISTING 11 GENERAL PLAN
GENERAL ADVISORY EXISTING PLANNING COMMISSION
NO. LOCATION PLAN COMMITTEE ZONING DISCUSSION STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
74. Northwest RM P(RMH - 25) RMH Add Public (P) Disagree with PC Disagree with Staff&
corner of (Residential Public - (Residential designation to; reduction in density GPAC: recommend retain
Modale Dr. & Medium underlying Medium High Residential Medium from 25 to 15 du/ac, existing Residential
Chapel Lane Density) Residential Density) High Density to agree with GPAC: Medium Density 15 du/ac
Medium High identify church/school, provides consistency and add Public (P)
(DM 40) Density 25 increase in density between Zoning and designation NOTE:
du/ac from 15 to 25 du/ac General Plan, correct inconsistent with Zoning
location on ma Straw Vote 7-0
•
CC Review 5/6/96 4 (g\cc1ndus3)
0
DM 20
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION
NO. GENERAL ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS
PLAN COMMITTEE (Designation to be considered by City
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION Council
2. RH(Residential P(RH-30)Public- RH (Residential High Residential Low with Public(P)
High Density) underlying Residential Density) designation; decrease in density from
High Density 30 un/ac 30 to 7 du/ac,P(RLr7
50. RM(Residential CN-F1 (Commercial RM-FP2 (Residential Residential Medium Density (RIM-15)
Medium Density) Neighborhood,Density Medium Density, and Commercial Neighborhood (CN-
0.35 FAR) Flood lain Fl
ATLANTA AVCNUE /
L I I I iL
f
• I • I /
s "
.i.
-
Tx
a. I w••a.D. � I :Y.[•l�VC•
N .�..�..�. =•�•_I._I_[ i.1 Y
Y •o.•a•
ig I
LILL
E I W-i- -
CF R [�•I.,
O f.�r.S.^.•( D• I C.E- C..,C '�I-�y IY-�' :�'.• _.� ......�f[L:.[ _._.'.
I I �;.�•r_.... � ._, . .� . ._. .
•� _ ' �SI �.r•." i s c. � y•���•'i~•���iii■F•i•.•.i•.•.ivy
fy: ♦{�ter• r.Dl•�..••�•�A :'I
1 �••i•• �.• • • • • •.i �•..•• • •'.•.•••
• • rt •_{.• i, •.... x
Ma41 T N
w a
ffl11G4T'A O4i N O,ANI R - -_LC G
ORRQJEL
Ll
aDEt,1. CR A Ma aNIN R tl iCR •.�..I.•
8 I
l u l l I I I - % ill � I•. :.i•.I: •:i'.I.:I:.:{.}:• =%•- I
Q fR • DR —050N DR C t
I ,
p CF
Z
■aN� CR - a I ..f �
CF-E
� I I i i i le:c;a__-__t.l R.4 eR - r ~�'•
...ALO 1 4
j 1I
[A.a• q � I � • " Q 1
7
C
-'---� I �a.roN• a s 1 � � Y B � ,,.$rF� i
III I I
i l S I
BANNING AVE-
-t• s- �.to
DM 26
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING PLANNING COMMISSION
NO. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS
DESIGNATION COMMITTEE (Designation to be considered by City
DESIGNATION Council)
36. CG(Commercial MV-F10-D-A CG-RM Mixed Use Vertical,decrease density
General)RM (Mixed Use Vertical, (Commercial from 25 to 15 du/ac
(Residential Density 1.5 FAR[MU], General;
Medium Density) 1.5 FAR[C],25 du/ac, Residential
Design Overlay,Auto Medium Density)
Overlay
EDINGER
AVE /T
I 1
F I
� I
j
I 1 Al7R'Cn Av
II '
LOAG[ C.
B._VE S AILS
a z VOLGA OR II III HTF1
AU r � � � I I sT•RR Av
�I
'Al 1111 If OR
OITTUI
�IL w�I�I
•'z I o+ OR
I CF-1-R
CALG. CR �a
ot;•
aA !
NONE LN
;;. % CF—E
I 17 'AN ITA• LN
4 J f waC00 AY
a I I
_ a-'N• r
OR I
�..L[N'I♦E OR � I � ' � I � � I
ANCY
f
SONLIGN D• I �_.. `J11S.1r,
NEIL - f.': '''hiC;:a;::i:;:i :::'>•
III I i'. •:::. :�.•c.
DANUSE •"�
�ADWX OR
M.
DON Imo••
= . . . . 36
CF—E _
• • • • • t
z A.
RNINC C • • • •:• •L.
C. 4 ::::• • • • •::•i
• • • • • • • • • • • .oc�a....%.
CF—R I ::::::::::.�. . . . . .
1 Q • 00
:::::
•_•:::::::: • • •
f _ • • • •_• • • • • • • :::::
W 0 C.F C D O C F C- -0- •C _
3 I • • • •A.• • . • . . f, a
Z •• re. • • • -
„wGTow • •• • ■ • .RMg. • � ro.... CO
[Lxl a II I [� • • • • • ::• • :• a
as :a + .;I ._. ._ I I_ I j'• :::•1••. ::::• � c�t,,l,.-.,�^�� I _u,..a.
t
WARNER AVE
i
EXISTING 1 ZONING COMMISSION
1GENERAILPLAN ADVISORY1 1 1
DESIGNATION 1MMITTEE (Designation to be con
DESIGNATIONCity Council)
(CommercialCG 1 1 -A (Mixed CG-RM (Commercial � •
General) DensityUse Vertical, Residentiali
Density)(Residential FAR [MU], 1.5 FAR [C], Medium
Medium1 Design
Overlay, Overlay)
� el�s�-.mar• �saa �elaas'.�ae�ae' ear �s�ll -, /■■■O � �\■■
ew re88�Bc s8811�1 �� - �■■ � ,
. =am
aa�arele. a seesame �s� =s.. w
awa aces : V■■■■ i /■■ i- ■l�►�
■ ■ ■u■n ►/n :�
■ ■� ■ ■ �� Inns � ►/i■ ..
DM 30
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION
NO. GENERAL ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS
PLAN COMMITTEE (Designation to be considered by
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION City Council)
37. CG(Commercial MV-F10-D (Mixed Use RM (Residential Medium Mixed Use Vertical,decrease
General) RM Vertical,Density 1.5 FAR Density) density from 25 to 15 du/ac
(Residential [MU], 1.5 FAR[C],25
Medium Density du/ac,Design Overlay
WARNER AVE
��� ••• •,i \ C,TY __ O� _ _— �EOUNTAiY VALLEY
IT
01 •,�i • MSTERD— I OR I H
,,. o _
_ _ u • REMBRaNDT OR a DRn •IY ����
3 e o :. RaLOER cR I
'''FRIESL D" --.- ..-. OR ,'ea.a art
•_ 11 ill I =, -
G /)I— �.uit —
D DE RS DR
!� I Z
CF
—\i R
WE
eL.'ee_a-.[
I , LLL \
SLArER AVE
I al z
uVDRI � •JSu.Ya Y Q I I--I
oSL— W
CL.AOJ
•.I - a
.vEli
I '
t CR
r
Z
II J
;..... a
H `•. .. u--- Z
Z ¢. G
TALBERT AVE
0 0
DM 39
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY EXISTING ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION
NO. GENERAL COMMITTEE DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATIONS
PLAN (Designation to be considered by
DESIGNATION City Council)
72. Mixed CG-F2-D (Commercial CO (Commercial Mixed Use Horizontal,decrease
Development General,Density 0.5 FAR,Design Office) density from 25 to 15 du/ac
Overlay)
>•a l � `
T/1LBERT � AVE
1
u � -
[+ OD
� I tip•
.L
CF-R
CF-R �Tf1<.
ar�Da On
311111 N N
ONTAnp DR
CF—R WCB
CF-C - EBEC I
��I� EC OR
CF-C 6 aeuTA ono s
<=�E
R.M.cLIN Oa
•I
■ w wC
ELL.S
............... CG
I _
1 sr • .v 00.
i
�I 72
::::ice-!.+!�. 3.'
;?^ a
w
w ----------T=1 ai G+ _
..........
0
_ F
c�
u _
g
� r+q
z
GARFIELD
a. a
a e
DM 40
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY EXISTING PLANNING COMMISSION
NO. GENERAL COMMITTEE DESIGNATION ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS
PLAN (Designation to be considered by
DESIGNATION Cit Council)
74. RM (Residential P (R1VIH -25)Public-underlying RMH Residential Medium Density 15
Medium Density) Residential Medium High Density 25 (Residential du/ac and add Public(P)
du/ac Medium High
Density)
TALBERT AVENUE
�i I 11L
i
; !
O C F-E G•15 aE
u 1 n.L.W N
1rI�`
i1 j^ L...•���`.
1 1,
to Z
Uj
..•
74 Kg
H�T d ..."""
IH:`•
X.
o coan,r+e• o+
m i u
=
O
1
- �I
GARFIELD AVENUE
m �,
eVAA 'f2
ViA6ti 5D
BOLSA AVE
/711
N
I 'z a Cm
nrr[p H i i �
�/ aauat
4QT�M H NAi:<
-
'
cau<r
WEST—ST
- Iwu NT!.GTOq I BE!C-! I ;
n,TNEY 10A- H
-- /• NCO C' /�� .ry � � :<?w
III a
F ; .K ..
'cTY Fl OE STf STE
.K r
C,Tr EHZ NSTEA
33 W 1
4 1
fib
a I ey
t
i
a
CF-E
z
C F—E CENTER --
I <
co
I m
L L
N U. - -211
I
1
_
W -
........... - .. .. mow-
O �� I =
O
DM 15
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING PLANNING COMMISSION
NO. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS
DESIGNATION COMMITTEE (Designation to be considered by City
DESIGNATION Council
29. P,Q-P,I(Public, P(CG-Fl)Public- PS (Public Semi Commercial General(CG-Fl)and add
Quasi-Public, underlying Commercial Public) Public(P)designation
Institutional) General,Density 0.35
FAR
32. CG(Commercial CR-F2-D CG(Commercial Commercial Regional(CR-F2-D)
General) (Commercial Regional, General)
Density 0.5 FAR,Design
Overlay
33. P,Q-P,P(Public, MV-F8-D(Mixed Use RL(Residential Mixed Use Vertical(MV-F8-D)
Quasi-Public, Vertical,Density 1.5 Low Density),IG
Institutional)MD FAR[MU],0.35 FAR (General
(Mixed [C],25 un/ac) Industrial),CG-H
Development) (Commercial
General-High Rise
Overlay)
34. CG(Commercial MV- F9-SP(Mixed CG(Commercial Commercial Regional-FAR.5-Specific
General) Use Vertical,Density 1.5 General) Plan(CR-F2-SP))
FAR[MU],0.5 FAR
C ,25 un/ac
84. Mixed Use I-F2-D (Industrial, 1L(Industrial Industrial(142-13)
Density 0.5 FAR,Design Limited)
Overlay)
85. Mixed Use CO-F4 (Commercial North Huntington Mixed Use and add Specific Plan (SP)
Office,Density 1.25 Center Specific designation
FAR) Plan area
91. Mixed Development RMH-30 (Residential North Huntington Mixed Use and add Specific Plan (SP)
Medium High Density Center Specific designation
30 du/ac) Plan
0 TM ZG
EDINGER AVE
Jul T L »
30 3 l i
, I
J
I m
I � OR
CAcl CA I I I , I _
&_uE5AiL 5 Ov
d � Y VaGs JR
STARK lY
STO EW000 N I I CF-Y
M R 1 R
A4azo.+ cR CF-R
cANOL..uc»f CA
ONE LN
�`
N I
STAR!.� - Cr. F_E I1
i
I
4-O�l'vNT Cq I T-+ AV
1 CI T OW OR n
I 3 - —.
EE-LEN-1%E OR
I s� t CLENCOC Av
NANCY oft
S I:NIIUM O _ � � ti'-t_.__.__ 1 Ml4 ♦ '0. W ♦L NA4B0.• R
4TFFFFM
P.Nt
' lii ! iII C.
f O•NUBE oR =
I ! ! ! I
s = III 'I oP
OR ...•1
4A000X OR z
t i I sY
�� o-P•s-_EP v.
- I � ooN
09 •_
CF-E a t -
BALER
R,nME �
�w (I CA I I I o [..
I� Li_I Oil
CF-Ram.
r 1�1 I_.JI
m a c►ao o c r c o co,
3 v.
z s A• E'? 1
+a aa\
WARNER AVE
DM 26
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING PLANNING COMMISSION
NO. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS
DESIGNATION COMMITTEE (Designation to be considered by City
11 DESIGNATION Council
30. CG(Commercial CR-F2-D CG(Commercial Commercial Regional(CR-F2-D)
General) (Commercial Regional, General)
Density 0.5 FAR,Design
Overlay)
31. CG(Commercial CR-F2-D CG(Commercial Commercial Regional(CR-F2-D)
General) (Commercial Regional, General)
Density 0.5 FAR,Design
Overlay
35. CG(Commercial MV-F10-D-A CG-RMH-RM Mixed Use Vertical,decrease density
General) RMH (Mixed Use Vertical, (Commercial from 25 to 15 du/ac
(Residential Density 1.5 FAR[MU], General;
Medium High 1.5 FAR[C],25 du/ac, Residential
Density)RM Design Overlay,Auto Medium High
(Residential Overlay) Density;
Medium Density) Residential
Medium Density)
36. CG(Commercial MV-F10-D-A CG-RM Mixed Use Vertical,decrease density
General) RM (Mixed Use Vertical, (Commercial from 25 to 15 du/ac
(Residential Density 1.5 FAR[MU], General;
Medium Density) 1.5 FAR[C],25 du/ac, Residential
Design Overlay,Auto Medium Density)
Overlay)
38. RH (Residential P(RMH-25)Public- RMH (Residential Residential Medium High Density and
High Density) underlying Residential Medium High add Public(P)designation,does decrease
Medium High Density, Density) density from 35 to 25 du/ac
25 un/ac)
83. IG(Industrial CR-F2-D 1G(Industrial Commercial Regional (CR-F2-D)
General) (Commercial Regional, General)
Density 0.5 FAR,Design
Overlay)
ATTACHMENT 4
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ITEMS SET ASIDE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
Date Set Issue Draft General Plan Policy Staff Recommendation Other Recommendations or
Aside I I Comments
Historic and Cultural Resources Element
4-22-96 Create a Citywide Historic HCR 1.1.3 Adopt revised HCR 1.1.3 (See
Overlay staff report)
Utilities Element
4-22-96 Minor clarification to policy I-U I.a. last bullet Adopt revised I-U I.a. last bullet
regarding the review of structures (See staff report)
located within a flood plain.
Circulation Element
4-22-96 The appropriateness of the Level CE 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 Include the adopted Level of Service The existing Level of Service
of Service Standards in the Standards(C for links and D for standards may not be appropriate
General Plan intersections)from the existing on all intersections and links.
Growth Management Element in the Possible modifications should be
updated General Plan(See pages CE analyzed thoroughly.
2.1.1 and 2.1.2 on page 111-8&17 of
the Draft General Plan). Staff will
explore modifications during the
update of the Growth Management
Element.
4-22-96 Master Plan of Arterial Highways Figure CE-3 and the last page of Adopt the language as proposed on The City should clearly state that
and the Santa Ana River Bridge the Technical Synopsis Figure CE-3 and in the last page of additional Santa Ana River Bridge
Crossings the Technical Synopsis. This will Crossings are not desired(See John
clarify the City's intent and maintain Ely's letter in the Staff Report)
the ability to receive Proposition 111
funds (See pages I1I-7 and Figure
CE-3 of the Draft General Plan)
g:niles;matrix5.doc 1 5/8/96
Date Pulled Issue Draft General Plan Staff Recommendations tither Recommendations or
Folic mrn nts
Land Use Element
4-22-96 The policy regarding school district LU 2.1.7 and proposed Adopt revised LU 2.1.7 and
review of project impacts is too Implementation Measure I-LU proposed Implementation Measure I-
detailed for the General Plan 27 LU 27 (See staff report)
4-22-96 Is a threshold on development LU 2.1.4 Adopt LU 2.1.4 as submitted(See
appropriate in the General Plan and page II-22,24 of the Draft General
will it artificially constraingrowth? Plan)
Mate Issue ,Land Use Area staff Recommendation Other Recommendations or
Pulled I I I I Comments
Land Use Ma
4-22-96 Decrease in Density Areas 2, 72, and 74 Adopt Land Use areas 2,72,and 74 The Planning Commission agreed
as proposed by staff(See matrix and with the various land use
maps in staff report). A reduction designations,but recommended a
in density would be a change form reduction in density on each area.
the density currently permitted on The Planning Commission felt that
the site. additional units would not be
appropriate on these sites.
4-22-96 The appropriateness of the Mixed Areas 34, 35,36,and 37 Adopt the Mixed Use designation as Mixed use is not an appropriate
Use designation along Beach proposed to allow flexibility for designation in a suburban areas
Boulevard,North of Warner future developments,allow the such as Huntington Beach and
Avenue opportunity to improve air quality, would not allow for viable
reduce congestion, and create commercial products.
unique development. The design
and functionality of each
development will then be reviewed
when the project is submitted. If
not,adopt the staff recommended
fall back position of Commercial
Regional with the ability to submit
a mixed use project in the future.
g:niles;matrix5.doc 2 5/8/96
ATTACHMENT 5
I
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
PROPOSED LANGUAGE
CHANGES
UTILITIES ELEMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES CHAPTER
UTILITIES ELEMENT
implement the pollutant runoff
Policies control program;
U 5.1.1 "maintenance" program for necessary
Continue to work with service providers to maintain reservoir repairs. The
current levels of service and facilitate improved maintenance program shall
levels of service. (I-U S) discuss prioritization, funding,
responsible departments, and
U 5.1.2 scheduling;
Continue to underground above ground electrical
transmission lines. (I-U 6 a program for water, wastewater and
storm drain and pipeline
U 5.1.3 repairs, upsizing and
Review requests for new utility replacements;
facilities, relocations, or expansions
to existing facilities. (I-U 2) plumbing;
• explore the feasibility of
U 5.1.4 developing an
Require the review of new and or incentive program
expansions of existing industrial and for property owners
utility facilities to ensure that such who upgrade
facilities will not visually impair the
City's coastal corridors and entry defective plumbing;
nodes. (I-U 2) a fee review program to tfi-annually
review and amend, as needed,
IWLEMENTATION PROGRAMS rate payer fees and charges;
and
I-U 1
Special Infrastructure Programs During development
review, a stmetuFal Fe
a. Develop and implement the following as pregmm exafninin Feytqe,"`
funding permits: examine structures
intended for human habitation
• pollutant runoff control program which and constructed within the 100
includes structural controls, year flood plain for
non-structural controls, and conformance with all
best management policies. jurisdictional requirements.
Require all residential, Code enforcement measures
commercial, and industrial shall be applied to remedy any
sites and construction sites to deficiencies.
AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING CONMSSION DECEMBER 12, 1995
III- a I
INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES CHAPTER
UTILITIES ELEMENT
I-U 6 a water pollution control ordinance
Infrastructure Improvements protecting City's surface waters and
groundwater resources; and
a. Solicit funds for an improvement study, and the Efficient Water Use Ordinance in
the resulting design, construction, accordance with AB325. The Efficient
maintenance of the City's public Water Use Ordinance shall require the
infrastructure system. following to use reclaimed water in
b. Construct the Reservoir Hill Booster Pump landscape areas:
Station and Sunset Heights Reservoir - homeowner associations;
Facilities prior to the development of - public buildings; and
the Holly Seacliff project to ensure - ' non-residential buildings with
adequate water supply to Holly Seacliff landscaped areas greater than
and to existing users which would be 5,000 square feet.
impacted by the new development's
demand. I-U 10
c. Develop the Southeast Reservoir Complex Benefit Districts
to ensure proper water storage, and
distribution balance'and capacity in the Allow for the formation of benefit assessment
City's southeast quadrant. districts and/or undertake municipal bonding
d. Continue and expand the electrical programs for the maintenance and construction of
transmission line undergrounding Water supply and distribution, sewage collection and
program. treatment, street and storm drain systems and
facilities.
I-U 7
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Revision I-U 11
Source Reduction and Rec cy ling Element
Revise the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
to require that new uses which consume very high a. Implement the Source Reduction and
Recycling Element.
levels of water and/or energy be evaluated t0
b. Solicit federal funds to offset the City's
determine aeeeFding to the means by which fiscal impacts for implementing and
these levels can be reduced. enforcing the State mandated SRRE
and HHWME.
I-U 8
Growth Management I-U 12
Household Hazardous Waste Management Element
Implement the Growth Management Element.
Implement the state mandated Household Hazardous
I-U 9 Waste Management Elements.
Ordinances
Adopt and enforce the following:
AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1995
III- 85
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
PROPOSED LANGUAGE
CHANGES
LAND USE ELEMENT
• C�IMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER
LAND USE ELEMENT
in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Land Use Plan and prescribed by Policy 7.1.1, when
Elements of the General Plan). (I-LU 9 and 1-LU it can be demonstrated that additional transportation
14) improvements have been implemented or are funded,
or demands have been reduced (based on highway
LU 2.1.2 level of service and vehicle trips). (I-LU 8 and I-LU
Require that the type, amount, and location of 9)
development be correlated with the provision of
adequate supporting infrastructure and services (as LU 2.1.6
defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Monitor the capacities of other infrastructure (water,
Service Elements. (I-LU 8, 1-LU 9 , I-LU 11, and sewer, and other) and services and establish
1-LU 12) appropriate limits on development should their
utilization and demands for service exceed
LU 2.1.3 acceptable levels of service. (I-LU 9)
Regulate Limit the type, location, and/or timing of
development where there is inadequate publicC:t
infrastructure and/or services to support land useat development shall no
development. (I-LU8) ithout providing for
LU 2.1.4 school facilities. (I-LU 14,
Limit the total additional new development citywide -L U 26, and I-L U 27)
(above that existing in 1990) that can be
accommodated in the City to the following, or an
equivalent number of trips that can be generated Annexation
("trip budget's provided that the highway Goal
improvements stipulated by the Circulation Element LU 3
Achieve the logical, orderly, and beneficial
are implemented3:
expansion of the City's services and jurisdictional
limits.
Residential Units 18,500
(single,multi-family,and Objective
mixed use) LU 3.1
Commercial Retail Square Feet 3,165,000 Ensure that any proposed annexation is consistent
Commercial Office Square Feet 1,570,000 with the overall objectives and does not adversely
Industrial Square Feet 2,505,000 impact fiscal, er environmental resources, public
Overnight Accommodations Rooms ;2,500
services, and infrastructure of the City
The permitted development, or `trip budget," shall of Huntington Beach.
be allocated to specific`sub-areas of the City as
determined by the City's traffic model used in the Policies
preparation of the General Plan. The mix of uses LU 3.1.1
that are permitted may be varied provided that the Require that any lands proposed for annexation are
total"trip budget"is not exceeded. (1-L U 8) contiguous with the City. (I-LU 23)
LU 2.1.5 LU 3.1.2
Permit increases in development capacity consistent Require that the existing and future land uses located
with the types and densities of uses depicted on the within the proposed annexation area are compatible
with the adjacent City land uses. (I-L U 23)
3 The trip budget incorporates development projects approved previous to the adoption of the General Plan.
AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1995
II- ZL,L64
• QMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER
LAND USE ELEMENT
non-public purpose, defining
the economic value of the
property equivalent to the
value the District could obtain
through private land use and
development of the property;
•Compile and review
demographic information
showing the lack of need for
the surplus school site.
I-L U 27
Develop a review process that would
require that development impacts be
reviewed by the City with the
developer and with the School
Districts prior to project review for
determination of necessary
mitigations to school impacts.
Require developers to meet with the.
appropriate school district with he
intent m Inittgate the impact Off
khoW Aciillies,prior to project
approval by the permitfr`ng City
authority:
AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING CONIIvIISSION DECEMBER 12, 1995
II- 70
TABLE LU-1 (cont.)
Huntington Beach
Existing Land Use Survey
1991-1992
Public/Quasi-Public Total Acres % Total AC % of Category
Public School 855.2 4.8 `Yo 43.7 `Ya
Fire Service Related 14.6 less than 1 % less than 1 %
Police Service Related 133.2 less than 1 % 6.8 `Yo
Utilities 234.8 1.3 % 12.0 %
Parks&Rec/Comm. Rec. 665.1 3.8 % 34.0 %
Government Office 38.9 less than 1 `Yo 2.0 `Yo
Library 11.4 less than 1 % less than 1 %
Municipal Parking 5.7 less tbiari L.2L less than 1 %
Total 1,958.80 C% )
100.0 %
Other Total Acres % Total AC % of Category
Easements 638.5 3.6 % 57.6 %
Habitat Preservation 24.7 less than 1 % 1.8 `Yo
Open Space/Cemetery 70.9 less than 1 % 6.4 %
Agricultural/Livestock 69.1 less than 1 % 6.2 %
City Beach 2.0 less than 1 % less than 1 %
State Beach 308.0 1.7 % 27.8 %
Total 1,109.0 6.3 % 100.0 `Yo
Roadways
Streets/Alleys/Roadways 3,866.80 21.8 % 100.0 %
Vacant Total Acres % Total AC
Vacant 472.5 2.7 `Yo 100.0 %
Total Acres Total Units
CITY TOTAL 17,728.0 68,272.4
Sphere of Influence(Bolsa Chica) % Total AC
Residential,Recreation,Public
Facilities, 490 30.9 %
and Roads Conservation 1098 69.1 %
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
TOTAL 1588 100.0 %
* Reflects the Orange County approved Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan,Option B with Tidal Inlet.
Source: Envicom Corporation,1992
11 � �
• CoWiTY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER
LAND USE ELEMENT
Residential development comprises 41%of the land area of the City. Single family units are characterized
by densities up to 7.9 dwelling units per acre'. Multi-family housing units, at medium density (8.0-19.9
units per acre) and high density (20.0 units per acre and above), are generally concentrated leeated in four
areas: Huntington Harbour, Downtown, Warner Avenue between Golden West Street and Springdale
Street, and along Beach Boulevard. There arc also 21 mobile home parks scattered throughout the City.
Concentrations of vacant or underutilized lands zoned for residential use and their potential development
capacities are listed in Table LU-2.
Commercial development occupies approximately eight percent of the City's land use, and can be generally
characterized into four general types:
• neighborhood serving;
• highway serving;
• visitor serving; and
• regional serving.
The City's neighborhood serving commercial uses are"free standing,"clustered at mini-malls, or at centers
typically located at the intersections of major arterial roads, such as the Yorktown Plaza and Albertson
Center. Beach Boulevard, Warner Avenue, Edinger Avenue, and Golden West Street are developed with
highway-ori a number of
ng these corridors in which common uses are clustered, such as the automobile deDnoSlater and medical uses adjacent to thew—Columbia Huntington Beach MediHespital. Loehmann's Five Point Plaza and the Guardian Center are developed as larger hiisitor-serving commercial rist oriented"areas
Pacific Coast Highway, er s Landing, Old World Village, an
58-acre Huntington Center located adjacent to the San Diego Freeway between Beach Boulevard and
Gothard Street serves as Huntington Beach's regional center. The City's downtown area contains a mix of
visitor and community serving uses, as well as multi-family housing units.
Industrial uses comprise approximately eight percent of the City's land area. These generally encompass
oil production, light industrial, heavy manufacturing, warehousing, and business park uses. Areas in the
northwest are largely developed for aerospace, research and development, and light manufacturing uses,
with McDonnell Douglas being the single largest user of land. The Gothard Street corridor contains
smaller manufacturing and incubator industries, as well as small commercial enterprises. Areas along the
coastal frontage arc developed with oil production and related uses. Concentrations of vacant or
underutilized lands zoned for industrial uses and their potential development capacities are listed in Table
LU-3.
Slightly in excess of one percent of the total land in the City is occupied by institutional uses. The Golden
West Community College and the tea- Columbia Huntington Beach Medical Center
' The density range was established on the residential unit type found within the City at the time of the land
use survey, Fall, 1992. The density categories do not reflect City density categories as stated in the existing
General Plan and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1995
11- 6
NEW Now
� LLI co
� g
H o
i f.�... N—' Z
Uj
SEAL
WESTMINSTER
BEACH BOLSA --
Y
z 8� � mMc c
FADDEN
EDINGER
HE IL
4 ---► WARNER FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
�i
-I aos
SLATER
E
d4x
/COUNTY OF TALBERT CIF
/ORANGE��i 9
(BOLSA CHICA ' 5 Cr
cc
j� jelll$ 5 TO
8 i o c
/ GARFIELD
SEP s _
/rA
RKTOWN
ANT
S
POLIS
ATLANTA
Legend A
0 d PIER ��'�+ S f/HAMILTON
ea ark // BANNING
2 Elfis-Golden West
3 Downtown J COSTA
4 Huntington Harbour Bay Club MESA
5 Hotly-SeacliB
6 Magnolia illFA&,F c-
7 North Huntington Center
B Padica Community Plan
9 Seadiff
10 Seabridge
Specific Plan Preparation In Progress
11 Bolsa Chica(County of Orange)
SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS LU-2
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
II-10
COICCIGfIJNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER
LAND USE ELEMENT
• Garfield Avenue, Beach Boulevard, Ellis Avenue, Gothard Street - This area is a mix of single
family residential units, multiple family residential units, light industrial, and institutional uses.
This land use mix presents pedestrian - vehicular conflicts in addition to the health and
environmental hazards presented by the industrial and non-industrial land use conflict.
• Warner Avenue, Gothard Street, Slater Avenue, and Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way--
The single family residential units, institutional, light industrial, and retail mix creates traffic
conflicts and the potential for environmental and health hazards.
"Community character" is defined as the qualitative characteristics of existing land use that define the
identity of the City (i.e., the height, scale, design and distribution of land uses). Huntington Beach's
community character can be characterized by a pattern of"superblocks"bounded by primary arterials on a
one mile square grid developed with commercial and/or higher density residential uses in which single
family housing is centered around a school and/or park. Although the single family residential blocks of
the City are fairly cohesive and stable in their character, the character of the primary arterials lacks
continuity and consistency. Specifically, Beach Boulevard contains sporadic development sizes and is
cluttered with chaotic signage and design patterns. In addition, historical and cultural landmarks are not
well integrated into the urban fabric, and oil production facilities and other utilities constitute another
source of"urban clutter."
ISSUES
1. Much of the City of Huntington Beach has been developed and many of the remaining undeveloped
parcels have been committed to development by specific plans and development agreements or
preserved for open space. Consequently, the fundamental patterns, distribution, and form of
develisnim
stinct commercial and mixed use centers, will necessitate the recycling and rc-use of the7areas)patterns. Inherently, this is much more difficult to achieve than the development of vacant
due to costs and possible opposition to change. (LU 8.1.1)
2. As much of the City's growth and development will necessitate infill and recycling of existing uses, it
must be accommodated in a manner that does not adversely disrupt existing neighborhoods and the
distinct qualities that distinguish Huntington Beach. (LU 8.1.1,LU 9.2.1)
3. The City contains a few well-defined places that are characterized by community activity and a high
level of identity. eepfiens These include the Pier-Mainexample of a
distinct pedestrian-orie cntra Park, which functions as a primary r tion
and ost other areas of the City, however, have developed as automobile-orien
environments that pose a challenge for neighborhood interactions inhibit eenim
(LU8.1.1)
4. As the City's housing stock ages, efforts will be required to ensure that it is maintained and does not
physically or economically deteriorate. Some residential areas have been characterized by a
significant deterioration in their quality, resulting in declining property values and increased social
problems and crime. (LU 4.3.2, LU 4.3.1, and LU 4.3.3)
AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1995
II- 13
• CO UNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER
LAND USE ELEMENT
5. Continued increases in land values and construction costs inhibit the ability to provide a range of
housing types and prices to meet the needs of existing and future residents, particularly young family
households and lower wage earners (e.g., ..,.heel teaeliers, nurses, and etheF` (LU 9.1.1)
6. Unless designed and sited properly, multi-family residential development
could negatively impact the aesthetic quality of the surrounding
neighborhood.
the City. Many early multi family develepments in the Cib, were ehar-aeter-ized as "stueee bexes"
with little epen spaee or r-eer-eatienal amenities. Often, these WeFe unaffFaefive and ineempeAible with
the-el eta. a neighberkeed. H ,
development that have been designed te be visually attraetive and maintain the qualities of the City's-
(LU 9.1.3 and LU 9.3.2)
7. In some areas of the City, residential units are incompatibly located in commercial and industrial
districts and create conflicts with adjoining uses. (LU 10.1.6)
8. Currently, the City contains a mix of commercial uses serving residents, regional populations, and
recreational visitors. As the City grows, it is important to maintain a balance of uses that does not
adversely impact the quality of life of the City's residents. (LU 10.L 11)
9. In general, existing local-serving uses (grocery stores, clothing, services, etc.) are sufficient to meet
the needs of the City's residents. In some areas,there is an over concentration of commercial centers,
particularly where there arc three or more at an intersection, resulting in vacancies. (LU 8.1.1)
10. The City's regional retail uses are not competitive inefieetively eempete with centers in other
cities (.,P g., Westminster- Nkll) and, to be effective, will require significant improvements. (LU
10.1.16)
11. Currently, the City contains a high concentration of automobile dealers that arc located along Beach
Boulevard in a relatively fragmented manner. These dealers could compete more effectively with
other cities if they were located in a highly visible, consolidated automobile area. (LU 8.1.1)
12. Development in many commercial corridors is fragmented with few concentrations of uses. This
results in the absence of identifiable and unified districts. Viable commercial districts necessitate the
clustering of compatible uses in limited areas, rather than dispersion along corridors. (LU 8.1.1)
13. Traffic from many commercial areas is intruding onto adjacent residential streets. (LU 10.1.6)
14. As retail and office commercial growth continues and intensifies, it is essential that new buildings be
desi le and character with existiniz develonment. Higher
do—it-
structures could adversely impact the character of the City, unless they are scaled, setback, and
designed to create visually distinctive architecture and places. (LU
10.1.13, L U 10.1.16,LU 10.1.20,and LU 11.1.5)
15. The Huntington Beach Pier, coastline, and open space resources arc significant recreational assets that
can be utilized as an attraction for the development of visitor-serving uses. (LU 10.1.18)
AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1995
• CQUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER
LAND USE ELEMENT
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES while maintaining and improving
The following section presents the goals, objectives, the quality of life for the current
policies, and programs for Land Use in the City of and future residents of Huntington
Huntington Beach. At the end of each policy is a Beach.
reference to the appropriate implementing program.
Each implementing program's schedule and possible Objective
funding sources are indicated in the Land Use LU 1.1
Implementation Matrix. Provide for the timing of residential, commercial,
The goals, objectives, and policies are divided into and industrial development coincident with the
two sections: availability of adequate market demand to ensure the
uses'vitality.
1. Policies regarding the manner in which
lands are to be maintained and Policies
developed Citywide. LU 1.1.1
Establish incentives for the development of uses to
2. Policies that reflect intentions uniquely support the needs and reflect the economic demands
applicable to specific subdivisions and of City residents and visitors. (I-LU 16 and 1-LU 17)
land use categories of the City.
LU 1.1.2
Users of the General Plan should note that both the Promote development in accordance with the
Land Use Plan (Figure LU-5, located in a pocket at Economic Development Element. (I-LU 17)
the rear of this document)9 and Community District Correlation Of Land Use Development with
Subarea maps (Figure LU-6), and Table Supporting Public Infrastructure and Services
LU-6 maps should be reviewed in determining the Goal
appropriate land use and standards for development LU 2
for parcels within the City. The first is integrated Ensure that development is adequately served by
with policies and standards that arc applicable to any transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure,
like category of use or "overlay" regardless of and public services.
location. The second references the applicable
citywide policies and pertinent additional policies Objective
and standards to achieve development objectives for LU 2.1
a specific subarea or district.
Eeerdinaie Review development with the ability
CITYWIDE LAND USE POLICY of the City and other service providers to provide
adequate public infrastructure (transportation
The following prescribes goals, objectives, and facilities, wastewater collection and treatment, water
policies applicable to development in general, supply, electrical, natural gas, telecommunications,
regardless of type, density, or location. Pertinent solid waste disposal, storm drainage) and quality
policies must be considered for any land use or public rp ire
development activity.
(::ucational
ational, cultura=andethe
school
Correlation of Land Use Development with Market syst
Demands
Goal Policies
LU 1 LU 2.1.1
Achieve development that maintains or improves the Plan and construct public infrastructure and service
City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands improvements as demand necessitates to support the
land uses specified in the Land Use Plan (as defined
AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1995
II-t3
• CWNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER
LAND USE ELEMENT
in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Land Use Plan and prescribed by Policy 7.1.1, when
Elements of the General Plan). (I-LU 9 and I-LU it can be demonstrated that additional transportation
14) improvements have been implemented or are funded,
or demands have been reduced (based on highway
LU 2.1.2 level of service and vehicle trips). (I-LU 8 and I-LU
Require that the type, amount, and location of 9)
development be correlated with the provision of
adequate supporting infrastructure and services (as LU 2.1.6
defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Monitor the capacities of other infrastructure (water,
Service Elements. (I-LU 8, I-LU 9 , 1-LU 11, and sewer, and other) and services and establish
1-LU 12) appropriate limits on development should their
utilization and demands for service exceed
LU 2.1.3 acceptable levels of service. (I-LU 9)
Regulate Limit the type, location,and/or timing of
development where there is inadequate public LU 2.1.7
infrastructure and/or services to support land use Ensure that development shall not
development. (I-LU8) occur without providing for
LU 2.1.4 adequate school facilities. (I-LU 14,
Limit the total additional new development citywide I-LU 25, I-LU 26, and I-LU 27)
(above that existing in 1990) that can be
accommodated in the City to the following, or an Annexation
equivalent number of trips that can be generated
(grip budget'), provided that the highway Goal
improvements stipulated by the Circulation Element LU 3
are implemented3: Achieve the logical, orderly, and beneficial
expansion of the City's services and jurisdictional
limits.
Residential Units 18,500
(single,multi-family,and b.ective
mixed use) LU 3.1
Commercial Retail Square Feet 3,165,000 Ensure that any proposed annexation is consistent
Commercial Office Square Feet 1,570,000 with the overall objectives and does not adversely
Industrial Square Feet 2,505,000 impact fiscal or environmental resources, and
Overnight Accommodations Rooms 2,500
public services and infrastructure of
The permitted development, or `trip budget," shall the City of Huntington Beach.
be allocated to specific sub-areas of the City as
determined by the City's traffic model used in the Policies
preparation of the General Plan. The mix of uses LU 3.1.1
that are permitted may be varied provided that the Require that any lands proposed for annexation are
total'trip budget"is not exceeded. (1-L U 8) contiguous with the City. (1-L U 23)
LU 2.1.5 LU 3.1.2
Permit increases in development capacity consistent Require that the existing and future land uses located
with the types and densities of uses depicted on the within the proposed annexation area are compatible
with the adjacent City land uses. (1-L U 23)
3 The trip budget incorporates development projects approved previous to the adoption of the General Plan.
AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1995
i
• CCITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER
LAND USE ELEMENT
efleetive guide for development and resource of the City and surrounding subregion, (c) captures
conservation. visitor and tourist activity, and (d) provides open
space and aesthetic`felief'from urban development.
Objective
LU 6.1 Policies
Review the General Plan on an annual basis to retain LU 7.1.1
internal consistency and consistency with other Accommodate existing uses and new development in
Federal, State and local regulations and policies. accordance with the Land Use and Density
icies
Schedules (Table LU-4). (1-LU 1, I-LU 2, I-LU 4,
LU 6.1.1
and I-L U 7)
Prepare an annual report apprising the Planning LU 7.1.2
Commission and City Council of the status and Require that development be designed to account for
effectiveness of the General Plan. The the unique characteristics of project sites and
report should detail how the goals, objectives for community character in accordance
with the Development `Overlay" Schedule (Table
objectives, policies, and LU-5), as appropriate. (I-LU 1, I-LU2, 1-LU 4, I-LU
implementation programs have been 7, 1-LU 10,and 1-LU 13)
achieved. (I-LU 18) LU 7.1.3
LU 6.1.2 Allow for the continued occupancy, operation, and
maintenance of legal uses and structures that exist at
Ensure that a method is available for the time of the adoption of the General Plan and
the General Plan to be amended become non-conforming due to use, density, and/or
within State Guidelines. (I-LU 18) development requirements. Establish guidelines fe
. the event f cataSIF,...i.e (I-LU 1)
impact fee 'nev., d-evelopment to fund the
4nienanee of the General Plan. (I L&I 1 LU 7.1.4
1 I -8) Establish guidelines to determine if
CITYWIDE LAND USE POLICY: BY LAND USE and how conforming uses or
CATEGORY structures may be expanded and/or
IWcs and Densities of Land Use to be Permitted replaced in the event of catastrophe.
Goal (I-LU 1)
LU 7
Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the
City's economic viability, while maintaining the LU 7.1.4 5
City's environmental resources and scale and Accommodate the development of a balance of land
character. uses that maintain the City's fiscal viability and
integrity of environmental resources to the maxim
Objective extent (I-L U I and 1-LU 17)
LU 7.1
Accommodate the development of a balance of land LU 7.1.-5 6
uses that (a) provides for the housing, commercial, Accommodate the development of additional
employment, educational, cultural, entertainment, jobs-generating land uses that improve the 1992 jobs
and recreation needs of existing and future residents, to housing ratio of 0.82 to 1.0 or greater; to meet
(b) provides employment opportunities for residents objectives of the Regional Comprehensive Plan
AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1995
II- _`�
• CO IC�IUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER
LAND USE ELEMENT
(Southern California Association of Governments) of manufacturing and other industrial
and Air Quality Management Plan. These should sectors.
capitalize upon existing industrial strengths and f. Intermix uses and densities in large-scale
emphasizing the clustering of similar or development projects.
complementary industries. (I-LU I and 1-LU 17)
g. Site development to capitalize upon
Distribution and Pattern of Development potential long-term transit
improvements.
Goal
LU 8 h. Establish linkages among community areas,
Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, which may include pedestrian and
enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for the vehicular paths, landscape, signage,
City's neighborhoods,corridors, and centers. other streetscape elements,open space,
transitions in form,scale,and density
Objective of development,and other elements.
LU 8.1 (I-LU I, and I-LU 4)
Maintain the pattern of existing land uses while RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
providing opportunities for the evolution, including
intensification and re-use, of selected subareas in Goal
order to improve their character and identity. LU 9
Achieve the development of a range of housing units
Policies that provides for the diverse economic,physical, and
LU 8.1.1 social needs of existing and future residents of
Accommodate land use development in accordance Huntington Beach.
with the patterns and distribution of use and density
depicted on the Land Use Plan Map (Figure LIT-5), Objective
and in accordance with the principles discussed LU 9.1
below. Provide for the development of single- and
multi-family residential neighborhoods.
a. E*hanee Create a network of interrela
activity centers and corridors that Policies
di€ferentiated from the me Development Types and Densities
patteffl of residential and open spaee b) LU 9.1.1
th&through the use Of distinct Accommodate the development of single- and
functional roles, activities, and/or multi-family residential units in areas designated by
through the form and scale o the Land Use Plan Map, as stipulated by the Land
nt. Use and Density Schedules (Policy 7.1.1). (I-W I,
I-L U 2, I-L U 4 and I-L U 7)
b. Vary uses-.and densities along- the City's '
extended commercial corridors, such as Design and Development
Beach Boulevard.
LU 9.1.2
c. Increase diversification of community and Require that single-family residential units be
local commercial nodes to serve designed to convey a high level of quality and
character considering the following
guidelines: as dice•sled hel.••.
a. Modulate and articulate building elevation,
facades, and masses(avoiding undifferentiated
e. Improve industn is nunWate `box-like"structures).
the changing characteristics and needs
AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1995
II-
3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER
LAND USE ELEMENT
TABLE LU33
Development"Overlay" Schedule
Land Use"Overlay" Characteristics/Requirements
Category
Specific Plan Permits underlying land uses and requires that a Specific or Development Plan be
-sp formulated for large scale, mixed-use multi-phased development projects which
provides greater specificity for land use and infrastructure plans,design and
development standards, and phasing/implementation.
Pedestrian District Permits underlying land uses and requires conformance to land use(restrictions
-pd on non-pedestrian active uses)and design standards(e.g., siting of building
frontages)to ensure high levels of pedestrian activity along the street frontage.
Historic District Permits re-use of existing historic structures for the underlying land uses.
-h
Residential Mobile This designation is intended to allow the density of a
Home Park mobile home park, located within a residential low
-rmp density designation, to exceed the underlying density of
seven (7) units per acre by the existing density of the
mobile home park.
Automobile District Permits the development of an automobile district in addition to the underlying
-a land uses.
Special Design Standards Permits underlying land uses in accordance with special design standards.
-d
AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1995
II-
ATTACHMENT 6
NEW ORDINANCES PLANS, PROGRAMS, OR
REVISIONS TO EXISTING ORDINANCES PROPOSED IN
THE NEW GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE ELEMENT
I-LU 1
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
The principal method for the implementation of a General Plan Land Use Element is the
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Upon the adoption of the updated General
Plan, it will be necessary to revise the City's zoning mechanisms, "City of Huntington Beach
District Maps,"Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to be consistent with the
land use, density/intensity, design and development standards,and other pertinent policies
contained in this Element.
I-LU 2
Local Coastal Program
On adoption of the updated General Plan, it will be necessary to amend the City's Local Coastal
Element, LCP (as required by the California Coastal Act)to ensure its consistency.
I-LU 8
Growth Management Ordinance
The amount of development that would result if each parcel in the City was to be developed to the
maximum density permitted by the Land Use Plan (or"theoretical buildout")would considerably
exceed the capacity limits of transportation and utility infrastructure and public services (refer to
Draft City of Huntington Beach General Plan Environmental Impact Report). Consequently it will
be necessary to adopt and implement an ordinance that restricts the amount of development to a
specified limit, determined by the capacity of these resources, below the"theoretical buildout.".
The most critical limitation has been determined to be transportation. Policies have been defined
by this Plan that would limit the increment of growth to the level imposed by the Circulation
Element's specified Levels of Service standards and associated traffic capacity.
Structurally, the ordinance should incorporate these four methods and mechanisms.
a. A development limit determined by the capacity of infrastructure and services (note: while
traffic represents the most critical limit, it may be appropriate to define capacity limits
related to other infrastructure and services,which in the opinion of the City, bear an
important relationship to development).
b. A method to allocate new development within the stipulated limit(e.g., "first-come,
first-served"or priority for"desired"economic uses, affordable housing, or extraordinary
architectural design).
5/2/96 1
C. A mechanism to modify the prescribed development limit based on actual levels of demand
and service, based on data provided by a development growth monitoring system (1-4-9 I-
LU 9, below).
d. A mechanism to increase the development limit by providing additional infrastructure,
facilities, or service capacity or mitigation(e.g., new roadway or sewer). This should
incorporate a"triggering"mechanism that would initiate the planning and funding for the
provision of additional resource capacity or other mitigation when the existing capacity is
exhausted (practically, this should occur at some level below the existing capacity, for
example, 80 percent).
Procedurally, such a growth management system should be updated on an annual or biannual basis
and should be reviewed with other public agencies that provide infrastructure, facilities,
and/or services to the community.
URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT
I-UD 1
Streetscape Improvement Plan
Prepare a comprehensive Streetscape improvement plan specifying all potential improvements
projects within the public rights-of-way, including design concepts and design criteria for median
and parkway landscape, sidewalk elements including street furniture, and public signage, including
gateway entry identification signage.
I-UD 2
Coordinated Public Policv
Coordinate all guidelines and standards within the City of Huntington Beach to conform to the objectives
and criteria outlined in the policies of this element. Update and/or amend the following policies,
guidelines, standards and specifications:
• Public Works Standard Plans/Specifications(for landscape and tree planting);
• Master Plan for Landscaping of Arterial Street Medians;
• Arboricultural and Landscape Standards/Specifications;
• Downtown Design Guidelines;and
• Downtown Specific Plan.
I-UD 4
Comprehensive Signage and Graphics Program
Prepare a comprehensive Citywide program for the design and installation of signage and graphics
that identifies standards for a high quality and character for all public graphics (including
identification and directional signage)and that integrates standards for private commercial signs.
5/2/96 2
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
I-HCR 3
Preservation Ordinance
Consider the creation of a Preservation Ordinance.
The Preservation Ordinance shall:
• enable the City to designate any site deemed historically, archaeological, or cultural
significant as a Historic Point, Site, or District;
• establish design guidelines and standards for preservations, adaptive re-use, etc.;
• establish criteria and procedures for creating new historic overlay areas; and
• conform to State and Federal criteria for establishing a preservation ordinance.
I-HCR4-5 14
Public Art Ordinance
Consider the Femme creation of the existing as hee publie artrt p • a public art
ordinance that encourages public and private sector involvement. The ordinance shall:
• identify funding sources for a formal public arts program; and
• utilize the existing ad hoc art program as a model.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
I-CE 5
Scenic Highways
Create a Scenic Highway Plan that includes:
• newly designed highways and corridors;
• design standards and concepts for each of the scenic highway designations; and
• retro-fitting major and primary arterials with landscape medians.
Periodically review and revise the Plan as new designation opportunities arise. Candidacy for
designation includes streets proposed by new development, change in access to major destinations,
etc.
5/2/96 3
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT
I-PF 9
Code Enforcement
a. Update City Fire Codes to ensure the most recent State and National Fire Codes (UFC, NFC, and
NFPA standards)are being implemented.
b. Provide Uniform Fire Code and California Code of Regulations training to Fire Protection
Specialists and Engine Companies so they can better enforce the code by risk analysis and
interpretation.
RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ELEMENT
I-RCS 9
Design Guidelines
a. Develop a set of guidelines to evaluate the potential parkland acquisitions; establish an
inter-agency City staff review team to implement these guidelines and conduct future
parkland acquisition evaluations.
b. Develop park and recreation facility development guidelines for each discernibly different
area of the City. Provide the guidelines to developers. Guidelines should include:
• park or recreation facility character and size;
• amenities or facilities to be provided at each site;
• onsite circulation requirements; and
• required pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular access.
C. Prepare landscape and design guidelines and standards emphasizing methods for
maintenance, energy and water costs reduction for existing and future sites.
UTILITIES ELEMENT
I-U 9
Ordinances
Adopt and enforce the following:
• a water pollution control ordinance protecting City's surface waters and groundwater
resources; and
• the Efficient Water Use Ordinance in accordance with AB325. The Efficient Water Use
Ordinance shall require the following to use reclaimed water in landscape areas:
homeowner associations;
public buildings; and
non-residential buildings with landscaped areas greater than 5,000 square feet.
5/2/96 4
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
ELEMENT
I-ERC 5
Ordinances
a. Adopt and enforce:
• a water pollution ordinance to protect the City's surface waters including guidelines for the
use of anti-fouling treatments by boat repair services operating in the City of Huntington
Beach and the use of such treatments by boat owners that use Huntington Harbour as their
home port;
• an ordinance to define, identify, and protect significant(See ERC 2.1.22)trees and groves.
Alse;In addition,the City Council should adopt an ordinance establishing tree
maintenance procedures/practices as recognized by the International Society of
Arboriculture. The ordinance shall be developed through input from Arborists, City
Officials, and concerned residents which may occur through deliberation of a City Council
appointed Board, Committee, or Task Force. The definition and identification of
significant trees and grooves shall be determined through this process; and
• an oil extraction overlay which maps oil fields and delineates access areas and encourages oil
unification and consolidation projects.
b. Revise:
• the landscape and irrigation design standards to comply with State mandated requirements;
and
• the municipal code and/or establish pertinent design guidelines to implement aesthetic
resource standards and policies.
AIR QUALITY ELEMENT
I-AQ 3
Ordinances/Resolutions
The City shall:
• consider adopting a resolution that lends the City's support for regional and state air quality
improvement measures;
• implement solid waste management and recycling measures through the Source Reduction
Recycling Element's programs;
• conduct a study to determine the appropriateness of adopting a truck travel ordinance. If
determined appropriate, adopt such ordinance; and
• consider adopting incentive programs for private employers to utilize appropriate trip
reduction strategies such as telecommuting and teleconferencing.
5/2/96 5
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT
I-EH 5
Ordinances
b. Prepare ordinances prohibiting the location of critical or sensitive facilities or high
occupancy facilities within a predetermined distance of an active or potentially active fault.
NOISE ELEMENT
I-N 3
Noise Ordinance Revisions
Include provisions within the City of Huntington Beach local Noise Ordinance that:
• establish acceptable operating standards such as permitted decibel levels, operating hours,
etc. for mobile noise sources, if determined by the City Council to be necessary;
• require that noise sensitive uses proposed to be located in areas with noise levels of 60 dB(A)
Ldn or greater include the recommended mitigation measures or demonstrate the interior
noise levels will not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB(A), prior to the issuance of certificates of
occupancies and/or certification of completion;
• specifically address and sufficiently regulate or limit the hours of truck deliveries to
commercial or industrial land uses abutting residential/noise sensitive uses; and
• specifically addressing construction operational techniques and practices.
I-N 5
Development Standards Revisions
Modify the City's industrial and commercial zoning development standards to require that the
developments be designed in a sensitive manner to minimize potential noise impacts on abutting
residential and noise sensitive uses, including:
• locating vehicle access points away from residential and/or noise sensitive parcels;
• locating loading and shipping facilities away from adjacent noise sensitive uses;
• incorporating fences, walls, landscaping and other noise buffers and barriers between
incompatible uses;
• incorporating structural building materials which mitigate sound transmission; and
• configuring interior spaces to minimize sound amplification and transmission.
5/2/96 6
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ELEMENT
I-HM 3
Ordinances
a. Develop and adopt an ordinance provision that establishes local land use policies, siting
criteria, and permit processes for the siting of off-site hazardous waste management
facilities.
b. Revise the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, specifically the land use regulations, to
protect sensitive facilities such as hospitals, schools and residences from risks associated
with hazardous materials using facilities.
C. Adopt ordinances which restrict hazardous material transport activities through urban areas
and limit truck travel to non-peak hour traffic times.
d. Adopt an ordinance which establishes standards for the containment and remediation of
hazardous waste sites.
g:bj:ccgenp1an:stfver:ordin2
5/2/96 7
ATTACHMENT 7
May 6, 1996
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: HB General Plan - Circulation Element
Dear Council Members:
We submitted a letter dated April 19, 1996 to Council for its review. That letter
recommended several changes/additions to the General Plan's wording. As you can see in
today's Staff Report, staff does not support these changes.
We believe that Staff is either misguided or does not understand the implications of our
recommendations. We are not asking for "a unilateral decision by the City to delete the
bridges" in the General Plan. The Regional Funding Program Consistency and Eligibility
Criteria of Measure M clearly does not penalize a City for Policy Statements, only when
action is taken by a City with respect to taking out lanes or segments of the MPAH. We are
not proposing removal of lanes or segments here, only providing policy direction to City
Planning and Public Works staff with respect to project mitigation.
Our wording does not (1) preclude implementation of MPAH (2) is still consistent with MPAH
(3) does not reduce lanes. Like Costa Mesa's, it would therefore conform with Measure M
local agency responsibility guidelines.
Once again, our wording only gives future direction to Staff that development requests in HB
or neighboring jurisdictions, shall be reviewed in such a way that crossings over the SA River
will not be included as an acceptable mitigation measure. Such a review may be as simple as
recommending a no-bridge alternative of an EIR. The important thing here is that Staff will
have a General Plan directive to respond, unlike in the past.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jon Ely John Scott Roy McCord
22051 Hula Circle 22032 Capistrano 22122 Wood Island
Enclosure: 1) April 19, 1996 Letter
2► Copy of Policy #195 on Page 433 of Costa Mesa's General Plan.
3) Regional Funding Program Consistency and Eligibility Criteria of Measure M
April 19, 1996
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: HB General Plan -Circulation Element
Dear Council Members:
In reviewing the latest version of the City's new Draft General Plan, it has come to our
attention that it lacks a vision with respect to the Santa Ana River crossings.
While we recognize the City's concerns with respect to Measure M funds, we are troubled
that there are not clear goals, policies, or implementation programs that would provide
direction to planning and public works staff.
The City of Costa Mesa, for example, specifically stated in its 1990 General Plan that it
would pursue an effort to delete the bridges from the MPAH. To a large extent, that
contributed to the successful deletion of the Wilson/Atlanta bridge and downgrading-East
19th Street in 1993. More importantly, it has led to Costa Mesa having the only proacSve
City staff involved in this deletion process.
City Councils change and City Staff may or may not take your 1993 resolution seriously.
What remains, however, is that thousands of residents and voters want that bridge off the
MPAH and are not going anywhere. We want and expect the City to work to that goal
and the General Plan should contain reasonable language for this effort.
We therefore, recommend you consider the following changes:
Recommended Additions/Changes to General Plan's Circulation Element
1. Change CE 1.1.1 to say: "Encourage critical intersection improvements as
shown in Figures CE-3, CE-4, CE-5 and as described in Tables CE-1 and CE-
2 of this Element."
City Council Members
City of Huntington Beach
Page 2
This wording is better. The General Plan already recognizes the MPAH
unfortunately due to Measure M constraints, but should not "encourage the
completion of missing roadway links" (the bridges) that the City Council
unanimously opposed with its October 1993 Resolution.
2. Insert two new bullet points under I-CE4 Development Review:
• "All future development applications submitted to the City shall be reviewed
in such a way that crossings over the Santa Ana River will not be included
as a mitigation measure."
"All future requests to the City for input/response for environmental studies
(EIRs, etc.) regarding impacts of development plans in neighboring
jurisdictions shall be reviewed in such a way that crossings over the Santa
Ana River will not be included as an acceptable part of or mitigation
measure."
The above wording is similar to that of Costa Mesa's General Plan. It Is
important because it gives future direction to staff regarding response to future
developments in neighboring jurisdictions that may desire or require a crossing
(i.e. Newport Beach's suggestion that West Newport Oil Company can build
2,500 homes with a Banning bridge or only 500 homes without a bridge). In the
past, City staff has responded to these plans without concern or no response at
all.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jon Ely John Scott Roy McCord
22051 Hula Circle 2 032 , apistran 2212 W Island
Enclosure: Copy of Policy#195 on Page 433 of Costa Mesa' neral Plan.
�'3
i
Ask
190 . Prioritize intersection improvements which improve through
traffic flow on major, primary, and secondary arterials, and
reduce impacts on. local neighborhood streets with due
consideration to pedestrian safety .
191 . Adopt by City .Council resolution, a list of comprehensive trip
generation rates to be used in traffic analyses of specific
project proposals .
192 . maintain balance between land use and circulation systems by
phasing new development to levels which can be accorrLmodated by
roadways existing or planned to exist at the time of
completion of each phase of the project .
193 . Continually upgrade traffic controller equipment to optimize
signal efficiency.
194 . Work closely with the State of California and other government
agencies to control traffic-related impacts of uses on State-
or other agency-owned land (i.e. , Fairgrounds, Swap Meet,
Amphitheater, Orange Coast College, etc. ) .
195 . Council shall review the cooperative study to delete the
Gisler Avenue and 19th Street bridges, and downgrading East
19th Street every 60 days or more often if needed. Upon
completion of the cooperative study, the City shall process a
General Plan Amendment to delete the bridges and the widening
of East 19th Street from the City` s Master Plan of Highways.
All future development applications submitted to the City
shall be reviewed in such a way that the 19th Street and
Gisler Avenue bridges, and the widening of East 19th Street,
will not be included as mitigation measures.
196. Initiate studies to determine any necessary land use
amendments which would occur upon bridge deletion.
197 . Initiate studies to consider downgrading Baker Street between
Fairview Road and Harbor Boulevard, Del Mar Avenue, 22nd
Street and Santa Isabel Avenue.
198 . Minimize circulation improvements that will necessitate the
taking of private property on existing developed properties.
199 . Encourage Orange County to downgrade Mesa Verde Drive, Baker
west of Harbor, and Gisler to a designation less than a
commuter highway in the Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
200. To help buffer residential neighborhoods, provide drought-
resistant landscaped medians and green belts along major
roadways, arterials, highways and freeways adjacent to
residential uses in the City.
201 . Pursue with the County of Orange and all other affected
_ agencies an east-west crossing of the Santa Ana River north of
f the i-405 .
` 1 433
REGIONAL FUNDING PRAM CONSISTENCY AND EL tLITY CRITERIA
CONSISTENCY DEFINITION
Consistency with the Master Plant of Arterial Highways (MPAH) is the primary
criterion for determining city and county commitment to maintaining the integrity
of the regional transportation system. For a city circulation element to be
consistent with the MPAH, for purposes of regional funding program eligibility,
it shall have an equivalent planned traffic-carrying capacity for all MPAH links
within the city's jurisdiction.
"Planned capacity" shall be measured by the number of through lanes on each
arterial highway as shown on the local circulation element. Cities shall not
be inconsistent as a result of existing capacity limitations on arterials which
are not yet constructed to the circulation element .designation. However, any
city which unilaterally reduces the number of through lanes of an MPAH arterial
highway on its circulation element to less than shown on th,1 MPAH without County
approval shall be inconsistent with the HPAX on the date city council action is
taken and is ineligible for regional funding until consistency is re-established.
PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY
Local Agency Responsibility
Eligibility requirements shall be verified annually as follows:
1. For Measure M "Streets and Roads Maintenance and Road Improvements` ($450
million "turnback") funds, cities shall adopt a General Plan Circulation
Element which does not preclude implementation of the MPAH and shall take no
action to preclude implementation of the MPAH.
2. For all competitive regional funding programs such as the Arterial Highway
Financing Program (AHFP) . Orange County Unified Transportation Trust Fund
(OCUTT) , Combined Road fund (CRP) . and Measure M "Regional Street and Road
Projects" , "MPAH Improvements' and "Growth Management Area Improvements" ,
cities shall adopt:
a. a General Plan Circulation Element which is consistent with the MPAH. and
b, a City Council resolution attesting that no unilateral reduction in lanes
has been made on any MPAH arterials.
Annual Review Process
Each year . County shall determine if city circulation elements provide equal
numbers of through lanes for each highway, shown on the MPAH. County shall also
ensure that local agencies have not unilaterally reduced the number of lanes on
any existing arterial highway (effactive April 1, 1991) .
Approval Process • •
1
Upon completion of the review, a joint committee of city and county
representatives will make recommendations for eligibility to the Orange County
Transportation Authority for Measure H, CRP, and OCVff programs and to the County
Board of Supervisors for the Arterial Highway Financing Program. These
recommendations shall be reviewed and formally approved by OCTA and the Board.
RE-ESTABLISHING PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY
once a city has been determined to be ineligible for regional funds, it may seek
to re-establish eligibility by requesting a cooperative study be undertaken with
the County. The study will be designed to 1) ascertain the regional
transportation system need, 2) make provisions to most those needs in the city
General Plan and 3)re-establish consistency with the MPAH. Any changes to the
city General Plan or the HFAH shall be mutually acceptable to the city and the
county. Until such a study has been completed, the City shall be ineligible to
receive applicable funds.
MUTUAL CHANGES TO CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND MPAH.
A city and the County may mutually revise their respective circulation elements
through the cooperative process outlined above. Cities shall continue to be
eligible to receive funds while the cooperative study process is underway.
-- , :_ -...- __ ,6512 Silverspur Drive
ntington Beach, California 92648
April 27, 1996
Linda Niles
Senior Planner
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington beach, California 92648
Dear Ms. Niles:
I am writing to you to go on record as opposing any change in the City's General
Plan regarding land use recommendations in the Edwards Hill area. Specifically, the EUis
Goldenwest Specific Plan and the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan should NOT be changed
from the existing residential estate 3 or 4 du/ac and open space-recreation designation.
After living in Huntington Beach for over 22 years, I have witnessed the demise of
open space in this city as the strawberry fields have relentlessly been built over. The
Edwards Hill area is the last area in the city with a unique openness due to its density and
uncluttered spaciousness. DON'T allow the unique character of this area to be lost to
higher density. Try to preserve something of the old Huntington Beach before all the
bulldozers destroyed our fields.
I urge you to NOT change the existing General Plan Land Use Designation.
Sincerely,
Michael F. Knapp
April 3, 1996
Ppr
4
Linda Niles
Senior Planner
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Ms. Niles:
We are in receipt of your notice about proposed changes in the General Plan. We wish
to inform you that we are in opposition to the General Plan Advisory Committee
Designation to increase the density of the Ellis Goldenwest and Holly Seacliff Specific
Plan. We support the Planning Commission's recommendation to maintain the density
per the original plan.
Specifi ally submitted,
r
Homeowner
lla Y4 Fi
>
6 r—)—! C t2YLG �
Y�VV ) o"\ Z to,,� CA 9.26 LIP
� ` vv,,4)A i-W �i, wPs O� c--) dkd ��CAYZs
wQ t-k4�c� PLC,h,VN;V\S < ;,Cj �,
L!�IVIIJ �V-�V% CAVY-4 Vv .�-
�dr�vv
I
ATTACHMENT 8
RESOLUTION NO. 96-35
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 94-1
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-2
WHEREAS, in January 1992, an application was submitted, requesting a General Plan
Amendment for the comprehensive update of the General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach;
and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 94-2 has been prepared to address the
environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project alternatives associated with the proposed
Update of the General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach; and
The Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines (hereafter Guidelines), and City environmental procedures;
and
Written and oral comments on the EIR were received from the public and responsible
public agencies during and after the review period being July 23, 1995 through September 5,
1995; and
The City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
August 22, 1995 to receive public testimony with respect to the Draft EIR; and
Such comments and testimony were responded to through a Response to Comments
document and said document was made available in a manner prescribed by CEQA and the
Guidelines; and
Public Resources Code 21092.5(a) requires that the City of Huntington Beach provide a
written proposed response to any public agency that commented on the EIR, and the Response to
Comments included in the Final EIR satisfies this requirement; and
On December 12, 1995, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
certify Final EIR No. 94-1; and
The City Council has reviewed all environmental documentation comprising the EIR,
including all elements of the Final EIR, and has found that the EIR considers all environmental
effects of the proposed Update of the General Plan, is complete and adequate, and fully complies
with all requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines; and
1
4:G:4-96 Rcsol-G PA94-2\516%96
RLS 96-218
• •
Section 15092 of CEQA Guidelines provides that the City shall not decide to approve or
carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless it has:
(A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment
where feasible as shown in the findings under Section 15091 of the CEQA
guidelines; and
(B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be
unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as
described in Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and as set forth in the
attached Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A); and
Section 15093(a) of the Guidelines to the California Environmental Qualtity Act requires
the City to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks
in determining whether to approve the project, and the City Council has carefully said benefits and
risks,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
resolve as follows:
1. That the City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as complete and adequate in
that it addresses all environmental effects of General Plan Amendment No. 94-2, the
comprehensive update of the General Plan, and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA
and the Guidelines. The Final EIR is composed of the following elements:
a. Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, and
b. Planning Commission and City Council staff reports; and
C. Planning Commission and City Council Minutes; and
d. Comments received on Draft EIR and responses to those comments.
All of the above information has been and will be on file with the City of Huntington
Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648 and with the
City Clerk.
2. That the City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant
environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts
not addressed in the Final EIR.
3. That the City Council finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable
alternatives to the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project (including
the "no-project" alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of project
objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was
2
4:G:4-96Reso1:GPA94-2\5/6/96
RLS 96-218
made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and all reasonable alternatives
were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project.
4. That the City Council further finds that the benefits gained by the City and its
current and future residents by virtue of implementing the goals and policies of the proposed
General Plan, override the unmitigable effects detailed in Environmental Impact Report 94-1, and
the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and incorporated by
this reference as though fully set forth herein.
5. That the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby Certify
Environmental Impact Report No. 94-1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an adjourned
regular meeting thereof held on the 13thday of May , 1996.
GLrC�
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
eoo��
City Clerk .-grne S/b/fb
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
ity Administrator Director of Community Development
Attachment: Exhibit "A" Statement of Overriding Considerations
3
4:G.4-96Rcso1:GPA94-2\5/6/96
RLS 96-218
Res. No. 96-35
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
1, CONNIE BROCKWAY,the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the
City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular
a d.i o u rn ed meeting thereof held on the 13 t h day of May 3119 96 ,
by the following vote:
AYES: 'Councilmembers:
Harman, Leipzig, Bauer, S34livan, Dettloff, Green, Garofalo
NOES: Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
EXHIBIT "A"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 94-1
SUMMARY OF/AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
In order to make a decision whether to approve a project that will have an adverse environmental
impact, the benefits of the proposed project must be balanced against its unavoidable, significant
adverse impacts. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered acceptable (State CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15093 (a)). Benefits from a project are defined as those improvements or gains to the
community that would not occur without the proposed project. The benefits from adopting the
General Plan are preliminary based on the higher quality community environment that will exist as
the City develops under the new Plan.
This EIR has identified that the General Plan would result in significant unavoidable adverse
impacts for three environmental issue areas, regardless of implementation of the proposed policies
and/or mitigation measures. These environmental issue areas are: Transportation/Circulation, Air
Quality, and Noise' Therefore, the City of HB must make a Statement of Overriding
Considerations in order to adopt the General Plan.
Transportation/Circulation
Policy LU 2.1.2 requires that the type, amount, and location of development be correlated with
the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and public services. This policy should ensure
that implementation of the Circulation Plan, the TDM/TSM strategies and the proposed
mitigation measures described in the EIR would occur and thus the potential impacts of the
General Plan buildout can be avoided in most cases. However, there are no feasible roadway
improvements that can reduce significant impacts along Pacific Coast Highway from north of
Beach Boulevard to south of Brookhurst Street. Furthermore, because Pacific Coast Highway is
a regional transportation route as well as attractive to tourist travel, the proposed TDM/TSM
strategies and transit policies may not be effective enough in this location so as to completely
mitigate the significant impact along the identified roadway segment. Furthermore, the indirect
land use impacts associated with re-classification of certain roadway segments would be
unavoidable. Therefore, the traffic impacts of the General Plan are considered to be significant
and unavoidable (Class 1), requiring a Statement of Overriding Considerations to adopt the
General Plan.
1
4j\s\G:4-96Reso1-EIR94-1\5/6/96
RLS 96-218
Air Quality
The level of development permitted under the General Plan would inevitably result in an increase
in emissions concentrations which already exceed State and Federal standards. Although
implementation of the General Plan's air quality element would serve to minimize this increase,
the presence of CO (carbon monoxide) hotspots at busy traffic intersections may never be fully
mitigated. Consequently, air quality impacts are considered to be significant and unavoidable
(Class I), requiring a Statement of Overriding Considerations to adopt the General Plan.
Noise
With implementation of the General Plan, an inevitable increase in ambient noise levels would
occur. The General Plan includes policies and programs which, if implemented, would minimize
the increase to the greatest extent possible. However, the effectiveness of certain policies may be
limited, particularly those relating to retrofitting of existing uses to protect against future noise
increases. Because existing uses may not be fully protected from future ambient noise levels, the
noise impacts of the General Plan are considered to be potentially significant and unavoidable
(Class I), requiring a Statement of Overriding Considerations to adopt the General Plan.
As previously noted, in order to make a decision whether to approve a project that will have an
adverse environmental impact, the benefits of the proposed project must be balanced against its
unavoidable, significant adverse impacts. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered acceptable
(State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 (a)).
The sections below briefly describe the most important benefits identified as a result of adopting
the General Plan as proposed.
1. The proposed project will benefit the City and its residents and will outweigh the
significant adverse environmental effects which remain after the project's mitigation
measures are implemented.
2. The General Plan requires the preparation of a comprehensive historic resources survey
and a preservation ordinance that will help to preserve historic and archaeological
resources. Retention and protection of the City's early built environment will create a
recognizable identity and a source of community pride.
3. The General Plan requires the preparation of a public art ordinance and a cultural master
plan that will encourage public and private sector involvement and promote cultural
projects and activities throughout the city.
2
4j\s\G:4-96Resol:ElR94-I\5i6 96
RLS 96-218
4. The General Plan provides for the development of a variety of housing types to meet the
needs of all segments of society by establishing programs for the provision of affordable
housing, the preservation and improvement of existing housing, and a provision for the
development of housing for people with special needs.
5. The General Plan provides for the linkage of new development with available and
expanded infrastructure and services including streets, transit, sewers, water, storm
drainage, energy, and communication. The timing of development will be phased with the
provision of necessary infrastructure/service improvements.
6. The Circulation Element of the General Plan provides policies and programs designed to
provide a transportation network with adequate capacity to accommodate proposed
buildout, including mechanisms to monitor and maintain acceptable traffic conditions.
7. The General Plan will ease the potential effects of traffic, equipment, construction and
other noise sources through policies that require the installation of mitigation measures of
many different means to ensure that noise levels are maintained within City noise
standards.
8. The General Plan requires the preparation of a Geological Hazards Ordinance which will
ensure that critical or sensitive facilities or high occupancy facilities will not be allowed to
locate within a certain predetermined distance from an active or potentially active fault.
9. The General Plan contributes to the health and safety of the residents of the City by
providing city-wide programs for disaster preparedness and recovery planning in the event
of a major earthquake, fire, flood or other disaster.
10. The General Plan provides for the completion of surveys that will identify and map the
existing environmental resources within the city which will aide in the review and approval
of future development projects and the preservation of significant resources pursuant to
the standards set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
11. The General Plan provides programs emphasizing proper management of hazardous
materials, siting of facilities, and effectiveness of emergency response in order to protect
the residents of Huntington Beach and the environment from damages resulting from
improper handling or storage of hazardous materials.
12. The General Plan will improve the quality of life for the residents of Huntington Beach
through implementation of the policies pertaining to upgrading police and fire services,
civic institutions and cultural facilities, library services, education and their
interrelationship with the other elements of the Plan. This City will become a safer and
more desirable place for families and individuals to reside and will provide families and
individuals increased opportunities to further their participation in civic, cultural and
educational events.
3
4j\s\G:4-96ResoI-EIR94-1\5/6/96
RL.S 96-218
13. The General Plan requires the implementation of comprehensive streetscape improvement
plans that will specify all potential improvements for projects within the public rights-of-
way, including design concepts and design criteria for median and parkway landscape,
sidewalk elements including street furniture, and public signage, including gateway entry
identification signage which will help to establish and strengthen community identity.
14. The General Plan requires the approval of an Economic Development Strategy, Edinger
Corridor Study and an Economic Opportunities and Constraints Study to set forth goals
and policies for improving the fiscal stability of the City and to provide for economic
opportunities for the City's residents, business retention and expansion, and marketing of
the positive aspects of Huntington Beach.
The City of Huntington Beach finds that the unavoidable risks of this project are acceptable when
balanced against the benefits of this project for the reasons set forth above.
4
4 j\s\G:4-96 Resol:E I R94-1\5/6/96
RLS 96-218
Exhibit A `�
Environmental Impact Report No. 94-1
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
EIR NO. 94-1
DATED 5/13/95
( NOT ATTACHED
COPIES AVAILABLE IN THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THE OFFICE
OF THE CITY CLERK
(gAgenp1n\gpatch2)
ATTACHMENT 9
I
I �
RESOLUTION NO. 96-36
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-2,
THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 94-2 is a request to provide a
comprehensive, citywide update of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and to
revise pertinent maps in regard to General Plan Land Use designations in the City; and
The City Council desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with
changing community needs and objectives; and
General Plan Amendment No. 94-2 is necessary to accomplish a comprehensive
update of the General Plan that will incorporate new laws and requirements set forth by
the State and to provide consistency between all elements of the General Plan; and
The City Council finds that the update of the General Plan will eliminate or
substantially lessen all significant effects on the environment, where feasible, as shown in
the findings under Section 15091 of the CEQA guidelines, and the City Council has
determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be
unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described
in Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
The City Council further finds that the benefits gained by the City and its current
and future residents by virtue of implementing the goals and policies of the proposed
General Plan override the unmitigable effects detailed in Environmental Impact Report 94-
1, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by
this incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, and
The City Council finds that the 96 changes to land use designations as described in
General Plan Amendment No. 94-2 will be compatible with surrounding land uses; and
General Plan Amendment No. 94-2 includes revisions to the land use designation
map in the City which reflect amendments to the current land use designations; and
Public hearings regarding the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 94-2 were
held by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission on July 18 and 25, August 8 and 22,
I
4\s-G-4-96Resol-94-213\5/6/96
RLS 96-218
September 12 and 26, October 10 and 24, November 14 and 28, and December 12, 1995,
and the Planning Commission recommended its adoption to the City Council; and
Thereafter the City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code
Sections 65355 and 65090, held public hearings on March 25, April 22, and May 13, 1996
to consider the adoption of General Plan Amendment 94-2; and
At said Planning Commission and the City Council hearings, all persons desiring to
be heard on said Amendment were heard,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does
hereby resolve as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of the
California Government Code, commencing with Section 65350, General Plan Amendment
94-2, the comprehensive update of the Huntington Beach General Plan, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth
herein, is hereby approved and adopted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
ad 'o rned 1996.
at a re u)uar meeting held on the 13tgay of May ,
�y
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM.-
City Clerk wil
orney16
REV AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
I
City Administrator Director of C munity Development
Attachments: Exhibit A: Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit B: General Plan Amendment No. 94-2
2
4\s:G:4-96Resol:94-2A\5/6/96
RLS 96-218
Res. No. 96-36
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I. CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the
City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular
ad.iournedmeeting thereof held on the 13th day of flay , 19 U2 ,
by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
Harman, Leipzig, Bauer—S344ivan, Dettloff, Green, Garnfaln
NOES: Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
EXHIBIT "A"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 94-1
SUMMARY OF/AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
In order to make a decision whether to approve a project that will have an adverse environmental
impact, the benefits of the proposed project must be balanced against its unavoidable, significant
adverse impacts. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered acceptable (State CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15093 (a)). Benefits from a project are defined as those improvements or gains to the
community that would not occur without the proposed project. The benefits from adopting the
General Plan are preliminary based on the higher quality community environment that will exist as
the City develops under the new Plan.
This EIR has identified that the General Plan would result in significant unavoidable adverse
impacts for three environmental issue areas, regardless of implementation of the proposed policies
and/or mitigation measures. These environmental issue areas are: Transportation/Circulation, Air
Quality, and Noise. Therefore, the City of HB must make a Statement of Overriding
Considerations in order to adopt the General Plan.
Transportation/Circulation
Policy LU 2.1.2 requires that the type, amount, and location of development be correlated with
the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and public services. This policy should ensure
that implementation of the Circulation Plan, the TDM/TSM strategies and the proposed
mitigation measures described in the EIR would occur and thus the potential impacts of the
General Plan buildout can be avoided in most cases. However, there are no feasible roadway
improvements that can reduce significant impacts along Pacific Coast Highway from north of
Beach Boulevard to south of Brookhurst Street. Furthermore, because Pacific Coast Highway is
a regional transportation route as well as attractive to tourist travel, the proposed TDM/TSM
strategies and transit policies may not be effective enough in this location so as to completely
mitigate the significant impact along the identified roadway segment. Furthermore, the indirect
land use impacts associated with re-classification of certain roadway segments would be
unavoidable. Therefore, the traffic impacts of the General Plan are considered to be significant
and unavoidable (Class I), requiring a Statement of Overriding Considerations to adopt the
General Plan.
1
4j\s\G:4-96 Reso1:EIR94-1\5/6/96
RIS 96-218
Air Quality
The level of development permitted under the General Plan would inevitably result in an increase
in emissions concentrations which already exceed State and Federal standards. Although
implementation of the General Plan's air quality element would serve to minimize this increase,
the presence of CO (carbon monoxide) hotspots at busy traffic intersections may never be fully
mitigated. Consequently, air quality impacts are considered to be significant and unavoidable
(Class I), requiring a Statement of Overriding Considerations to adopt the General Plan.
Noise
With implementation of the General Plan, an inevitable increase in ambient noise levels would
occur. The General Plan includes policies and programs which, if implemented, would minimize
the increase to the greatest extent possible. However, the effectiveness of certain policies may be
limited, particularly those relating to retrofitting of existing uses to protect against future noise
increases. Because existing uses may not be fully protected from future ambient noise levels, the
noise impacts of the General Plan are considered to be potentially significant and unavoidable
(Class I), requiring a Statement of Overriding Considerations to adopt the General Plan.
As previously noted, in order to make a decision whether to approve a project that will have an
adverse environmental impact, the benefits of the proposed project must be balanced against its
unavoidable, significant adverse impacts. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered acceptable
(State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 (a)).
The sections below briefly describe the most important benefits identified as a result of adopting
the General Plan as proposed.
1. The proposed project will benefit the City and its residents and will outweigh the
significant adverse environmental effects which remain after the project's mitigation
measures are implemented.
2. The General Plan requires the preparation of a comprehensive historic resources survey
and a preservation ordinance that will help to preserve historic and archaeological
resources. Retention and protection of the City's early built environment will create a
recognizable identity and a source of community pride.
3. The General Plan requires the preparation of a public art ordinance and a cultural master
plan that will encourage public and private sector involvement and promote cultural
projects and activities throughout the city.
2
4j',s\G'4-96Reso1'El R94-1\5/6/96
RLS 96-218
4. The General Plan provides for the development of a variety of housing types to meet the
needs of all segments of society by establishing programs for the provision of affordable
housing, the preservation and improvement of existing housing, and a provision for the
development of housing for people with special needs.
5. The General Plan provides for the linkage of new development with available and
expanded infrastructure and services including streets, transit, sewers, water, storm
drainage, energy, and communication. The timing of development will be phased with the
provision of necessary infrastructure/service improvements.
6. The Circulation Element of the General Plan provides policies and programs designed to
provide a transportation network with adequate capacity to accommodate proposed
buildout, including mechanisms to monitor and maintain acceptable traffic conditions.
7. The General Plan will ease the potential effects of traffic, equipment, construction and
other noise sources through policies that require the installation of mitigation measures of
many different means to ensure that noise levels are maintained within City noise
standards.
8. The General Plan requires the preparation of a Geological Hazards Ordinance which will
ensure that critical or sensitive facilities or high occupancy facilities will not be allowed to
locate within a certain predetermined distance from an active or potentially active fault.
9. The General Plan contributes to the health and safety of the residents of the City by
providing city-wide programs for disaster preparedness and recovery planning in the event
of a major earthquake, fire, flood or other disaster.
10. The General Plan provides for the completion of surveys that will identify and map the
existing environmental resources within the city which will aide in the review and approval
of future development projects and the preservation of significant resources pursuant to
the standards set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
11. The General Plan provides programs emphasizing proper management of hazardous
materials, siting of facilities, and effectiveness of emergency response in order to protect
the residents of Huntington Beach and the environment from damages resulting from
improper handling or storage of hazardous materials.
12. The General Plan will improve the quality of life for the residents of Huntington Beach
through implementation of the policies pertaining to upgrading police and fire services,
civic institutions and cultural facilities, library services, education and their
interrelationship with the other elements of the Plan. This City will become a safer and
more desirable place for families and individuals to reside and will provide families and
individuals increased opportunities to further their participation in civic, cultural and
educational events.
4j\s\G:4-96Reso1:EIR94-1\5/6/96
RLS 96-218
13. The General Plan requires the implementation of comprehensive streetscape improvement
plans that will specify all potential improvements for projects within the public rights-of-
way, including design concepts and design criteria for median and parkway landscape,
sidewalk elements including street furniture, and public signage, including gateway entry
identification signage which will help to establish and strengthen community identity.
14. The General Plan requires the approval of an Economic Development Strategy, Edinger
Corridor Study and an Economic Opportunities and Constraints Study to set forth goals
and policies for improving the fiscal stability of the City and to provide for economic
opportunities for the City's residents, business retention and expansion, and marketing of
the positive aspects of Huntington Beach.
The City of Huntington Beach finds that the unavoidable risks of this project are acceptable when
balanced against the benefits of this project for the reasons set forth above.
4
4jWG-4-96RcsoI:EIR94-1\5/6/96
RLS 96-218
y,
.,..,= 1►.., L '/ �--[x��uP tom•
LAW OFFICES
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
2603 MAIN STREET
p /B0
ANGELO J. PALMIERIk CVNTHIA M. WOLCOTT EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300 ( P. O.. BOX 1971
ROBERT F. WALDRON' JOEL P. KEW IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714-6228 IRVINE, CA 92713-9712
ALAN H. WIENER* MICHELLE M. FUJIMOTO
ROBERT C. IHRKE` GARY C. WEIS BERG (714) 8S1-9400
JAMES E. WILHELM" MICHAEL H. LEIFER WRITERS DIRECT
DENNIS G. TYLER* ELINOR J. VOTAW - DIAL NUMBER
MICHAEL J. GREENE* NORMAN J. RODICH
FRANK C. ROTHROCK• MICHELE D. MURPHY (714) 85].-7328
DENNIS W. GHAN* SCOTT R. CARPENTER
DAVID D. PARR" RICHARD A. SALUS
CHARLES H. KANTER* DOUGLAS M. STEVENS TELECOPIER((714))851-1554
GEORGE J. WALL D. SUSAN WIENS May 13 , 1996
L. RICHARD RAWLS RONALD M. COLE (714) 757-122S
PATRICK A. HENNESSEY CVNTHIA B. PAULSEN (714) 851-2351
DON FISHER SEAN P. O'CONNOR
GREGORY N.WEILER SUSAN T. SAKURA
WARREN A.WILLIAMS TIMOTHY S. GALUSHA
JOHN R. LISTER ROBYN DIMINO
BRUCE W. DANNEMEYER RE 072dF _E o0o
`A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION RECEIVED FROM
AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD��HE
COUNCIL MEETING OF -
VIA HAND DELIVERY OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK-
pub"
CITY COUNCIL
AND PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Re: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
BRINDLE THOMAS PROPERTY
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This law firm represents the Brindle Thomas partnership
(hereinafter referred to as "Thomas") , owners of real property
located within the City of Huntington Beach near the intersection
of Golden West and Garfield. More specifically, the subject
property is described as No. 82 on DM 38 of the City' s proposed
General Plan Amendment map (hereinafter referred tows "Subject
Property") .
The City of Huntington Beach, through its Planning
Commission and City Council (hereinafter collectively referred to
as "City") , intends on altering the land uses within the City
through general plan designation changes. Such changes will be
an adverse and significant impact upon the Subject Property in
that it severely hinders Thomas' ability to develop its real
property to its highest and best use, and freely own real
property without harsh governmental intervention. While unclear
on the proposed maps, Thomas is concerned that the City will
implement a change to parkland designation which will limit
Thomas ' use of the Subject Property.
Exhibit B:
General Plan Amendment No. 94-2
GENERAL P'LAN
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
(As Amended by the City Council)
DATED 5/13/96
lit ( NOT ATTACHED
COPIES AVAILABLE IN THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THE OFFICE
OF THE CITY CLERK
4d
•4 ^PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON
Planning Commission
May 13 , 1996
Page 2
As an additional basis for Thomas' objection to the General
Plan Amendment, a careful review of the Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR") , which was prepared to support the approval of the
General Plan Amendment, is inadequate. The EIR is insufficient
for the following reasons: the project description is inadequate;
technical studies relied upon by the City are faulty; the City
and its Staff fail to evaluate the cumulative impact of the
General Plan Amendment; the EIR improperly defers the evaluation
of traffic studies for a later time; and restricting land uses
violates both the spirit and dictates of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA, " Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et
seq. ) and CEQA Guidelines.
Thomas also incorporates the specific comments provided by
Mr. Tom Ryan, Chairperson of the City of Huntington Beach
Environmental Board, to Ms. Linda Niles, Senior Planner, in his
correspondence dated January 14 , 1996. Thomas submits this
challenge without waiving its right to provide further comments
on the EIR. Thomas thereby objects to the insufficient EIR
prepared to support an overbroad and improper General Plan
Amendment, and requests that the City re-evaluate both the EIR
and the draft General Plan Amendment.
Based on the foregoing opposition, Thomas respectfully
requests that the City resubmit the EIR and the draft General
Plan Amendment to City Staff, and instruct Staff not to implement
a change to parkland designation for the Subject Property.
Very truly yours,
�I
1
Susan T. Sakura
STS:pb
cc: John A. Thomas
LAW OFFICES
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS I
2603 MAIN STREET lam' '^ A®J����'I-
ANGELO J. PALM IERI' CYNTHIA M. WOLCOTT EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300 P. O. BOX 197112
ROBERT F. WALDRON' JOEL P. KEW IRVINE, CA 9 2 713-9 712
ALAN H. WIENER* MICHELLE M. FUJIMOTO IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714-6228
ROBERT C. IHRKE* GARY C. WEISBERG (714) BSI-9400
JAMES E. WILHELM* MICHAEL H. LEIFER WRITERS DIRECT
DENNIS G. TYLER* ELINOR J. VOTAW
DIAL NUMBER
MICHAEL J. GREENE* NORMAN J. RODICH
.,FRANK C. ROTHROCK* MICHELE D. MURPHY (714) 851-7328
DENNIS W. GHAN* SCOTT R. CARPENTER
DAVID D. PARR* RICHARD A. SALUS
CHARLES H. KANTER* DOUGLAS M. STEVENS May 13 , 1996 TELECOPIER (714) 851-1554
GEORGE J. WALL D. SUSAN WIENS
(714) 851-3844
L. RICHARD RAWLS RONALD M. COLE
(714) 757-1225
PATRICK A. HENNESS EV CYNTHIA B. PAULSEN
DON FISHER SEAN P. O'CONNOR (714) 851-2351
Y N. WEILER SUSAN T. SAKURA WARREN
WARREN A. WILLIAMS TIMOTHY S. GALUSHA �
JOHN R. LISTER ROBYN DIMINO RECEIVED FROM _ A
BRUCE W. DANNEMEYER AND MADE A PART OF THE RECppRD T THE REF017214Fx�E 0100
COUNCIL MEETING OFS_13- °1
•A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK -
�V�a�K, �2wr�v�- Cam•
VIA HAND DELIVERY 0
CITY COUNCIL
AND PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Re: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Freeway Industrial Park
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This law firm represents Freeway Industrial Park
(hereinafter referred to as "Freeway") , owners of real property
located within the City of Huntington Beach at the intersection
of Gothard and Edinger. More specifically, the subject property
is described, as follows: Assessor' s Map, Book 142 , Page 51,
Parcel 511, Lots 3 and 4 ; Book 142 , Page 07, Parcel 072 , Lots 8,
9 and 6; Book 142 , Page 07, Parcel No. 071, Lots 65 and 66; and
Book 142 , Page 32, Parcel 321, Lots 5, 6, 8, 15 and 17
(hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property") .
1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The City of Huntington Beach, through its Planning
Commission and City Council (hereinafter collectively referred to
as "City") , intends on changing the general plan designation for
certain parcels of the Subject Property from "Commercial General"
to "Commercial Regional" . The Commercial Regional designation
will be an adverse and significant impact upon the Subject
Property in that it severely hinders Freeway's ability to attract
and obtain valuable tenants, develop its real property to its
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM &WALDRON
Planning Commission
May 13 , 1996
Page 2
highest and best use, and freely own real property without harsh
governmental intervention.
2. LONG-STANDING COMMITMENT TO ECONOMIC GROWTH
Freeway Industrial Park has been dedicated and continues to
be dedicated to positive development and growth in the City of
Huntington Beach. Indeed, in the last four years, Freeway has
invested $3 . 3 million in the redevelopment and renovation of its
properties in Huntington Beach. Attached as Exhibit "A" hereto
and incorporated as though fully set forth herein is a copy of
the letter dated November 3 , 1995 from Janette T. Ditkowsky,
Chief Operating Officer of Freeway to the City Council describing
further Freeway's dedication to the community.
To the extent that the General Plan Amendment is utilized to
encourage economic growth, Freeway is not opposed to the City's
overall goals. However, in the context of this deep and
historical commitment to the City of Huntington Beach and to
economic growth for local citizens and the City as a whole,
Freeway provides the following challenges to the proposed General
Plan Amendment.
3. THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ADVERSELY AND UNFAIRLY IMPACTS
FREEWAY'S REAL PROPERTY.
Without any just compensation or consideration, the City
seeks to take an interest in real property from Freeway by
significantly limiting the land uses available to Freeway.
Having suffered through the decline in the real estate market,
Freeway has experienced difficulty in maintaining a high
occupancy rate on the Subject Property. City's proposal will
hamper Freeway's ability to maintain a high occupancy rate and
will heighten the chances of economic decline for one of the
City' s major commercial retailers.
Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that
withdrawing the Commercial General designation over the Subject
Property will result in economic decline. Freeway has
historically been a successful land developer, which of course
benefits the City as a whole. Placing such a difficult hurdle on
the managers of the Subject Property can result in no good for
either Freeway or the City.
Such likely economic decline should the General Plan
Amendment be approved as drafted is anathema to the goals of the
General Plan Amendment and of the City. Freeway therefore
respectfully requests that the City maintain the Commercial
PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM &WALDRON
Planning Commission
May 13 , 1996
Page 3
General designation for the Subject Property and withdraw the
proposal for a Commercial Regional designation.
4. MOREOVER, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS INADEQUATE TO
SUPPORT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN.
As an additional basis for Freeway's objection to the
General Plan Amendment, a careful review of the Environmental
Impact Report ("EIR") , which was prepared to support the approval
of the General Plan Amendment, is inadequate. The EIR is
insufficient for the following reasons: the project description
is inadequate; technical studies relied upon by the City are
faulty; the City and its Staff fail to evaluate the cumulative
impact of the General Plan Amendment; the EIR improperly defers
the evaluation of traffic studies for a later time; and
restricting land uses violates both the spirit and dictates of
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA, " Pub. Res. Code,
§ 21000 et seq. ) and CEQA Guidelines.
Freeway also incorporates the specific comments provided by
Mr. Tom Ryan, Chairperson of the City of Huntington Beach
Environmental Board, to Ms. Linda Niles, Senior Planner, in his
correspondence dated January 14, 1996. Freeway submits this
challenge without waiving its right to provide further comments
on the EIR.
Freeway thereby objects to the insufficient EIR prepared to
support an overbroad and improper General Plan Amendment, and
requests that the City re-evaluate both the EIR and the draft
General Plan Amendment, which are both rife with ambiguities and
inconsistencies.
S. CONCLUSION
I
Based on the foregoing opposition, Freeway respectfully
requests that the City resubmit the EIR and the draft General
Plan Amendment to City Staff, and, at the very least, instruct
Staff to maintain the Commercial General designation with regard
to the Subject Property.
Ve truly s,
Susan T. Sakura
STS:pb
cc: Ms. Janette Ditkowsky
Exhibit A
Freeway Industrial Park
2032 La Colina Drive
Santa Ana, California 92705
November 3, 1995
City of Huntington Beach
City Council Members
2000 Main Strut
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear City Council Members,
As a result of applying for the approval of EZ Lube's
conditional use permit for the northeast corner of Gothard and
Edinger, it is evident that Freeway Industrial Park needs to
introduce itself and let you know what Freeway Industrial Park's
interest is in this part of Huntington Beach.
The founders of Freeway Industrial Park, John A. and Norma
Lorbeer Murdy, were both alumni of Huntington Beach High School.
They began farmin7 in Huntington Beach in 1922. John Murdy was
active in professional groups and was the president of the
Smeltzer Lima Bean Growers Association, whose bean warehouse was
located at Edinger and the train tracks, and the California Lima
Bean Growers Association. He served as the first president of
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian for seventeen years. In
1952, he was elected to the California State Senate by winning
both the Republican and the Democratic nominations in the
primary. He represented Orange County in the Senate until 1964.
The site of the family homestead on Heil Avenue was donated to
the Wintersburg Community Methodist Church. The Murdy family
also donated to the City of Huntington Beach the land at
Goldenwest between Heil and Warner for Murdy Community Park.
Freeway Industrial Park ("'Freeway") was incorporated in 1960
with the purpose of developing some of the land which John Murdy
farmed. The twelve properties that Freeway now owns in
Huntington Beach are shown on the attached map and complete
listing of the properties. After John A. Murdy, Jr. 's
retirement, the company was run by his son, Jack Murdy, until
his death in 1991.
Maxine Murdy Trotter, daughter of the company's founders, is
currently president. I serve as Chief Operating Officer and am
the third generation of the family to run the corporation.
Maxine Trotter has many years of involvement with the
Corporation, and became President in January 1991. I have an MBA
in finance from Northwestern University's Kellogg Graduate
School of Management, and joined the company in September 1991.
City Council Menbers
November 3, 1995
Page 2 of 3
Freeway Industrial Park is committed to Huntington Beach and has
demonstrated this commitment for over thirty-rive years by
investing in the redevelopment and upgrade of the properties it
owns. For example, during the past four years, Freeway
Industrial Park has:
purchased the leasehold interest in Huntington Furnishings
Mart at 7225-7227 Edinger Avenue from the RTC and
undertook a major remodel after signing the lease with the
anchor tenant. This shoQpingcenter was at less than 304
i
occupancy when FIP acquired t and is now at almost 100%
occupancy;
completely overhauled two industrial properties on Murdy
Circle, re-leasing them to six industrial tenants;
- participated financially in the remodeling of two
restaurants:
CoCo's, on the northwest corner of Edinger and Gothard
Rosalynn's Restaurant at 7402 Edinger Avenue)
The investment in the above activities, along with the routine
repairs and maintenance, has totaled $3.3 million over the last
four years.
Now Freeway Industrial Park is attempting to redevelop a former
gas station parcel at the northeast corner of Edinger and
Gothard, with EZ Lube as the new tenant. Freeway is committed to
spend $300,000 on EZ Lube's building, with EZ Lube investing
another $200, 000 of its money.
In agreeing to this lease with EZ Lube, Freeway looked at the
lone-term potential for this corner and for the Levitz property
behind it. Levitz holds a ground lease which has twenty-six
years remaining. Only when that lease expires will Freeway have
the opportunity to redevelop that parcel. In the meantime, EZ
Lube is an attractive use which will enhance the aesthetics of
the corner, will generate sales and property tax revenues for
the city and rental income for Freeway, and may encourage other
tenants to consider the Edinger Corridor.
City Council Members
November 3, 1995
Page 3 of 3
As an aside, the recently issued Edinger Corridor Economic
Market Study talks about the importance of the Edinger Corridor
to the city's financial viability, and discusses ways that the
city can help to revitalize this area. The report also includes
the following statement:
"Of equal or greater importance to maintaining the financial
viability of the Pro ect Area, however, is the need to
' nerate private real estate investment. This will result in
he expansion of the property tax base, and hence,
incremental revenues accruing to the Agency which can be
used for redevelopment purposes. " (page 14 - italics mine)
Freeway Industrial Park has been working and investing in this
part of Huntington Beach for over thirty-five years, with no
help or incentives from the city. At this point, we ask your
approval of the EZ Lube conditional use permit so that we can
continue to invest in a way that will benefit all of the parties
involved: Freeway Industrial Park, EZ Lube, the surrounding
businesses, and the City of Huntington Beach.
Yours truly, k `
<:73anette Trotter Ditkowsky
Chief Operating Officer
w
I
, Z
r 1�■■■ ■� s f fl t1 RM �;
Parcel Nos,
■■■. �w -Ir i ��� i Iriiilii 11i
1 1� +t■ ■Ni■ = CC C
•1■ 11 � _� C
Tome SEMI
Mill
■■ ■■■1■ �w� ui ` �■ 1■rlj� asu■■■■■a■�■uris IIIIIIIU
■.■■■■m" 11211 •�
C � E ��.�" ► ;�
a FIN
■��Mf■fUY�ll� Igloos
�"L°1�Il;u� ui uIIIHIIIIII�„�� ����■ C�� ;��;
Draft General Plan
Final Public Hearing �
May 13 , 1996
............. ".I...................
................... ..............
. ................
0 0
..........
. . ................
Presentation Outline
♦ Recognition of General Plan Advisory Committee and 0
Planning Commission for their work on the General
Plan
♦ Introduction
♦ Public Hearing Procedure
♦ Proposed Language Changes to Previous Elements
♦ Circulation Element
•
♦ Land Use Element
♦ RemainingLand Use Changes
g
♦ Final Action on the General Plan
2
Public Hearing Procedure
♦ Straw Votes
. Proposed Language Changes �
. Level of Service
. Master Plan of Arterial Highways and Bridges
. Development Threshold, Policy LU 2. 1 .4
. Mixed Use concept in the five set aside Land Use areas
. Land Use Changes
♦ Final Votes �
. Final Environmental Impact Report
. All Elements of the General Plan and Land Use Map
o Statement of Overriding Considerations
o Facts and Findings
3
Proposed Language Changes to Previous
Elements
♦ Historic and Cultural Resources Element, HCR 1 . 1 .3
♦ Utilities Element, I-U l .a., last bullet �
♦ Straw Votes
•
4