Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Code Amendment 77-2 - Negative Declaration 77-11 - Ordinance
r Affidavit 1®c State of California « County of Orange ss City of Huntington Beach 111 George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a oe ili� citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide FF g subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been established, printed and published in the State of California, and County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication Published Huntington Beach News, Mar. of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not !24 1977. devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any NOTICE of PUBLIC, HEARING. particular class, profession, 'trade, calling, race or denomination, or Multi-Story Policy. Plan and. 1, Code`Amendment No 77-2 any number thereof. 1 NOTICE IS,HEREBY GIVEN that a'pub The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper ilic hearing, will be held .'by, the. City l of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court ICouncil'of'the City of,Huntinoton Beach,I ;in the Council Chamber of, the, Civic of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931• +Center,' 14unti6gton Beach, at the,hour j'of 7:30 P:M., or as soon thereafter as �, (possible, on Monday' the' 4th day of MULTI—STORY POLICY PLAN AND That the iAoril; 1977, for•the'"purpose of consid-I Bering a_ proposed Multi-Story Policy Plan and proposed Code Amendment No. 77- ' CODE AMENDMENT NO, 77-2 12' referred td as the "Multi-s'ory ws)'i of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- Suffix" Ordinance. The Multi-Story Poti= + cy Plan 'proposes: to establish a policy �framework that will. serve as a guide in (111f? issue 8 ue evdluating future Multi-Story develop-. paper at least meet_ within the community. Code Am- endment No. 77-2 proposes to repeat the existing. Multi,StoryZoning Ordin- commencing from the 2'4'th day of March lance• Article 934 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and. create ;a. new .Multi-Story Atcle 934 by adding 1 1972— and ending on the 24th day of MarchvisresidenYal i Multi=Story development pro- ons and s'andards; and by changing the existing.'standards that .apply' to 'ccmmercial, office, .and Industrial Mul- i 197Z--. both days inclusive, and as often during said period and j ti-Story. developments. Coples;,of',said times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the Mufti-ltory Policy-Plan and Code Amend- ment No. 77-2.•are on file in the Plann- regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a ne IJeoartmenf offic®. supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following n,n interesked persons are invited to dates, to-wit' �'ittend said hearing' and express. their +opinions for or.against ,said Multi-Story Mar_ 24 1�77 II772cy, Plan, and Code' Amendment No. Further' information may he obtain9d from.the; Office of the City Cleric j OATEI3: 3-22-77' CITY, OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By Alicia M `Wentworth,. ► r? G {� City;Clerk °Publisher -_-__ L: Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25 t h day of March g 19_= �f24i d�, 2z:L _ Notary Public f/ Orange County, California --r r___THOMAS D. WYLLIE a r I p- Notary Public-California t ' ` v h« Orange County Qly Commission expires r /� i I / r '`<<+-- -----bee 12, 1978 t �,JGG� 4. Insure that multi-story developments incorporate design criteria that considers the functional relationships between structures, open space, traffic, parking, pedestrian paths, and other site development factors. 5. Insure that multi-story developments incorporate design stand- ards that protect spatial and visual relationship with adjacent buildings and land uses. 6. Insure multi-story development that incorporates the highest quality architectural and design treatment to produce aesthet- ically pleasing and attractive multi-story structures. 7. . Allow development of multi-story structures in activity nodes and special centers such as governmental industrial and business centers, hospital, medical and university centers, and recrea- tion and resort areas within- the community. 8. Emphasize appropriately zoned development of multi-story struc- tures in the general areas indicated in Figure 1.1 and listed as follows: Primary Area Predominant Use A. HUNTINGTON CENTER AREA Commercial/office Secondary Areas: B. FIVE POINTS/PACIFICA AREA Comme-rcial/office/residential C. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS AREA Industrial/office 9. Further study the suitability of allowing muiti-story develop- ment within. the following areas and as indicated in Figure 1. 1. D. DOWNTOWN E. SEACLIFF BLUFF AREA ,F ................. ..... ' DOLSA • •a�`► a• • • _72, ssw eiso[[[♦ �j�,f`r[�i ...��.a:.rxvx.roWatzxa.exweem`�ae.Mewp*.•v�' ...+w..'.1.ww^s"'.... ..v+..n ••�•• Y.•%tM.xiZ pg t V ... .... AMR ail VAMry m \ I ..3°,°•° "` .,....�ra...:>s•. .•s[ssw'eA.�e^9 •• OARNEID i 3 .............. .............. vmToww \ ��! AMMS L ......i...... ..... ...._(j -..- - ...._ MANA MIS b............=.. - ATLAMA ExisTi NG PRIMARY AREA SECONDARY AREA FURTHER STUDY 11ULT1 STORY LOCATION MAP huntington beach planningdepartment F.I GURE .1.1 . RESOLUTION NO. 1189 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE MULTI-STORY POLICY PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California has held one public hearing in compliance with the State Government Code in order to consider and review said Policy .P.lan and WHEREAS, the. Planning Commission desires to establish multi-story development policies consistent with the City' s General Plan to promote the orderly development of multi-story structures within the City of Huntington 'Beach, and WHEREAS said Policy ',Plan will serve to protect the com- munity interest and general well being by assuring that the environ- mental, social and economical ;characteristic.s and condition of the community are considered; , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach hereby approves said Multi-Story Policy Plan. REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by thre Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 15th day of February, 1977 , ' by the following roll call vote: AYES: Finley, Gibson, Shea, Newman, Boyle NOES : None ABSENT Parkinson, Slates ABSTAIN: Shea ATTEST /0001 and D. Se1ic arles T. Gibson Secretary Vice-Chairman �d Huntington Beach Nanning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Planning Commission DATE: April 4 , 1977 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 77-2 "MULTI-STORY (-MS) SUFFIX" PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ON MOTION BY NEWMAN AND SECOND BY SHEA NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 77-11 WAS APPROVED ON MARCH 1, 1977 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Gibson, Slates, Newman, Shea, Boyle NOES: Parkinson, Finley ABSENT: None ON MOTION BY NEWMAN AND SECOND BY SHEA CODE AMENDMENT NO. 77-2 WAS APPROVED ON MARCH 1, 1977 BY RESOLUTION NO. 1190 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: � d AYES: Gibson, Slates, Newman, Shea, Boyle NOES: Parkinson, Finley Q ABSENT: None f PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No. 77-11 and Code Amendment No. 77-2 "Multi-Story (-MS) -Suffix. " COMMISSIONER FINLEY 'S MINORITY REPORT: The Multi-Story Suffix does not provide adequate guidelines and procedures for multi-story uses in Huntington Beach, It does not adequately respond to the intensities of demand represented by multi-story uses . It does not recognize that the density or square footage advantage of height represents a bonus to the developer which can be used as an incentive to encourage better multi-story development. Under this ordinance, high rise development becomes a matter of accommodation or reaction to individual projects rather than an orderly determination of where high rise uses can properly be located and what standards of design and open space can be required. Both the Planning Department and developer could be saved a lot of headaches if the problems of an area deemed developable with multi-store uses could be anticipated and solved prior to develop- ment. f Page Two • How much intensity can the area take? . Will the public services (sewers, water, power, and streets) serve the concentrated demand of high rise development? • What design standards will best serve the concentrations of people? • Will the adjacent areas be protected from negative visual impact? • Can utilities be planned to accommodate rather than be impacted by high rise. development.) Each of the areas considered suitable for high rise use and those awaiting further study has unique assets and problems . The ordinance, as it exists , would not address those unique problems and assets but merely provide a standard for individual projects to come in through the Conditional Use Permit process . This does not give assurance that we will be getting a high quality of development well integrated with the total area nor does it satisfy the public concern as to the impact of multi-story uses. The Multi-Story Policy - if it becomes part of the General Plan - and the Conditional Use. Permit process could be used as a force to enhance a development by increasing requirements, but such require- ments could be subject to attack by the developer as arbitrary. In addition, the general statements of the policy and the general statements in the Conditional Use Permit process allowing denial could leave each project open to citizen attack, paving the way for a constant confrontation on the issue of multi-story uses ., SUMMARY: Proposed Code Amendment No. 77-2 would modify the existing multi-story suffix (Article 934) by amending- existing development provisions and adding new standards. The major proposals include the following: 1. The designation of base zoning districts where the (-MS) suffix can be applied. 2. Setback revisions to the office/professional, commercial and industrial multi-story developments. 3. The inclusion of residential development standards. Under the proposed ordinance, the multi-story (-MS) .suffix can be com- bined with the following base zoning districts: R4 High Density Residential District R5 Office Professional District C2 Community Business. District C3 General Commercial District C4 Highway Commercial District Ml-A Restricted Manufacturing t 4 City ®f Huntington Beach County of Orange_ " State ®f California I Wfidavitof Publication of GEORGE FARQUHAR Publisher Huntington Beach News Filed Clerk By Deputy Clerk .. /�fIN�P.J 'fl►�as►.�vc� Publish 3/24/77 Postcards .:i — NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARI Multi-Story Policy Plan Code Amendment No. 77-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the . City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in .the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 730 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on Monday the 4th . day of April , 19?7 , for the purpose of considering a proposed Multi-Story Policy Plan and proposed Code Amendment No. 77-2 referred to as the "Multi-Story (-MS) Suffix" Ordinance. The Multi-Story Policy Plan proposes to establish a policy framework that will serve as .a guide in evaluating future Multi-Story development within the community. Code -Amendment No. 77-2 proposes to repeal the existing Multi-Story Zoning Ordinance, Article 934 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and create a new Multi-Story Article 934 by adding residential Multi=Story development provisions and standards; and by changing the existing standards that apply to .comme,rcial,. office, and Industrial Multi-Story developments. Copies of said Multi--Story Policy Plan and Code Amendment No. 77-2 are on .file in the Planning Department office., All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Multi-Story. Policy,Plari and Code Amendment No. 77-2 Further inforo►ation maybe obtained from the Office of the City Clerk . r DATED: /f,? � CITY OF- MWINGTON BEACH BY: Alicia BSI. Wentworth City Clerk b .♦ � �A Publish. Postcards a ,� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HE IVG NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public hearing will be held by the . City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center Huntington Beach at the hour of or as soon thereafter as possible, on the day of ' ` , 19 �I r, for the purpose of considering �i CY1ol��i e �-�YNs so ',� 1$ , Y UL�ii�S ar �l` 1 ",;n LAJ Ar a\ t,))P) c jfqlye r4z e- 1��, � 1A t )A «�! ' V( i. - 1 All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and empress their opinions for or against said Further information .may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. DA CITY OF INGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk 1H ITE-CITY ATTORNEY LGE-CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGION BEACH No._ _ � - - a GREEN-CITY ADMINISTRATOR CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION Date Request made by Department ;AGrCh '{;, 197 :�'lQz 'e-es lanninq INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must be cleared arid approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an Ordinance or kesolution is hereby requested: PIe.,asc prepare an Grd:1tnance of the f,,;it,.y of hb1i3e»:^n ton De-a.ch Huntiii('7tan Beach Ordinance Ct2R:1vL_- by ropz:ialing Article 9.314: theroof ari c e w�3Z��g � 3 P+ ��vw�iO�g ��� l �,Q, J �� l p: 1 per ,tt a hed This Code Amendment was approved as revised _(see. italicized. statements) by the Planning Commission on March ..1, 1977: Desired effective date Signed: r jn' Approved as to availability of funds _+G&", -°• ! Director of Finance City Attorney—Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by: City Administrator O H unfington Beach Harming Commission I iP.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92646 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator DATE: April 4, 1977 .SUBJECT: Multi-Story Policy Plan PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY SHEA THE MULTI-STORY POLICY PLAN WAS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1189 ON FEBRUARY 15, 1977 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Finley, Gibson, Shea, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Parkinson, Slates ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY SHEA ON MARCH 1, 1977, . THE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO INCLUDE THE MULTI-STORY POLICY PLAN IN AN AMENDMENT . ', . _ TO THE GENERAL PLAN BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : j� AYES : Parkinson, Finley, Slates, Shea, Newman, Boyle ��11 NOES: None ABSENT: Gibson PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the Multi-Story Policy Plan. 2. Direct staff to include the Multi-Story Policies in an Amendment to the General Plan. SUMMARY: In the process of preparing the proposed Multi-Story Code Amendment No. 77-2 , the Planning Commission sought to investigate previous City efforts to establish Multi-Story development policies. Consisting of written statements and a location map, the proposed Multi- Story Policy Plan is reflective of the Planning Commission' s assessment of the City' s current position regarding Multi-Story development. Page Two It is intended that the Policy Plan would be incorporated into the Policy section of the City' s General Plan. The staff recommends approval of the Multi-Story Policy Plan. If approved by the City Council, the Plan will be included in an amendment to the General Plan. Respectfully submitted, Edward D. Selich Secretary EDS:DE:gc Attachments: Multi-Story Policy Plan Resolution No. 1189 1 i i I PROPOSED MULTI - STORY POLICY PLAN The primary purpose of the multi-:story Policy Plan is to establish the principles that will guide the preparation of a city-wide multi- story ordinance, any specific plans containing multi-story struc- tures, and individual multi-story developments. In doing so, the goals and development policies contained in this planpgovide the basic premise that all multi-story development in �the City of Huntington Beach must integrate with and be a complementary com- ponent of the character and context to the City. it is essential that multi-story development be functionally workable,' visually pieasing,' and consistent with the policies of the City' s General Plan. Goals The primary goals of the multi-story Policy Plan are to implement the following General. Plan policies: 1. The provision of a variety o€. housing types in all areas of the City in order to provide and maintain a quality living environ- ment for all economic, social and ethnic groups wishing to reside in Huntington Beach. 2. The encouragement and maintenance of a well balanced variety of residential densities and uncrowded living environments that are attractive to diverse economic groups. 3. The development of the shoreline as a unique, irreplaceable regional recreational asset be designating areasand standards for the location of high rise and commercial complexes. 4. The promotion of commercial development that' is economically viable, attractive, well related to other land uses and sat- isfies the needs of the City. residents. Development Policies The following policies are intended to be more specific guidelines .and criteria for the character, location, and composition of multi- story development in the City. These policies are general in nature, however, they are intended to serve as the specific guides for preparing legislation, further plans, and specific multi-story developments. 1. Develop legislation that recognizes that types of multi-story uses and locations are different. 2. Allow multi-story development only where proposed structures do not harm the natural shape and form of land resources. 3. Accommodate multi-story development that will enhance the physical, social, and environmental characteristics and condi- tions within the City. Page Three It is intended that the designation of these zoning districts as the appropriate zones for the -MS suffix will clarify where multi-story suffixes can be applied. The multi-story policy plan also addresses the locational aspects (see Planning Commission Communication regarding the policy plan) . The proposed ordinance will establish a new minimum site area of 17 ,000 square feet for residential multi-story. All other non-residential multi-story structures must conform with the existing minimum site area requirement of 20 ,000 square feet. The minimum residential site area of 17, 000 square feet was derived from previous multi-story concepts applicable to the Townlot area. While not intended to be applied to the Townlot, the 17, 000 sq. ft. is considered by Staff as an appropriate minimum site area for mid-rise development of 4 to 6 stores. In the future event that the City would again consider multi-story development within the Townlot, the minimum site area require- ment could easily be applied. In terms of setback provisions, the proposed ordinance establishes a sliding scale setback requirement that applies to both residential and non-residential multi-story structures. The setback requirements are based on the building heights plus the amount of building width of any particular multi-story structure. The proposed height and width of the structure will dictate how far back from the street the structure must be located. Under the existing ordinance, setbacks are based solely on the proposed height of the structure. All other development standards including parking, landscaping, open space, and in the case of residential multi-story, recreation and minimum floor areas, etc. , are either referred to within the Article or applied through the base district provisions of which the multi-story structure is located. This approach of eliminating redundancy or unnecessary duplication of provisions and standards that apply to more than one type of develop- ment is reflective of the City' s present effort to better organize its city codes and municipal operations. Regarding processing requirements, the proposed ordinance does not change the requirements of zone change proceedings to establish the -MS suffix to base zones nor does it change the application requirements of a conditional use permit for multi-story developments for development proposals thereunder. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Staff reports offering a historical perspective of the multi-story issue and other pertinent information is attached for consideration. Page Four ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 77-11 was reviewed by the Department of Environ- mental Resources and approved by the Planning Commission on March 1, 1977. FISCAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION: No significant negative fiscal impact is anticipated as a result of proposed Code Amendment No. 77-2 . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of Negative Declaration No. 77-11 and Code Amendment No. 77-2. Respectfully submitted, Edward D. Selich Director EDS:DE:gc Attachments: Code Amendment No. 77-2 Resolution No. 1190 Negative Declaration No. 77-11 To : City Council From: Leonard Wright 3-24-77 city of HUntingto� tiach 606 ` `h St, HB Subject: Hi-rise material I 've previously not had time to delve into the hi-rise material --- so this is the first time I 've expressed some of these comments. Anytime we 're doing something for the first time, we'll have lots of questions, items that need clarifying and possibly some changes. My comments are attached: Appendix A. Multi-Story. Policy Plan. " B. Multi-Story Ordinance. " C. Negative Declaration Nos . 77-11 and 77-10. . " D. Pacifica Community Plan. My 5-14-76 paper on hi-rise is also included. a Leonara wrignt Do uQ . ril--rise macez`la.L. x-1 Appendix A. Multi-Sto,� Policy Plan. Excellent approach. ` This represents somewhat the fine approach Steve Kellogg came up with when he was with the PD. Basically the approach for determining possible hi-rise sites was: 1. Use objective criteria (such as activity nodes, topographical and surrounding features etc. ) to determine possible hi-rise sites . 2. On each of these possible sites do a further study: . 'to determine the suitability for hi-rise. to further define the boundaries of an acceptable area and the loca tions within that area. This policy plan has accomplished step 1. Next steps. 1. Further study to determine the suitability for hi-rise. If so, to define the acceptable area and locations within that area. For example, consider area B: Five Points/Pacifica Area. The results of the overall study should indicate if the ordinance for the "Pacifica Community Plan" should be allowed. If a senior citizens ' tower is built in this area, I 've no doubt that this is the best place for it. But we still need mechanisms to assure before the fact that.- hi-rise development in the area will be reasonable. the area is not built solid with hi-rises with minimal spacing between them --- thus forming a wall as wide as the area (I see no mechanism that guarantees against this) . Clustering hi-rises and limiting their numbers are good concepts, Whatever method is used should be clear and obvious, and notA open to varying interpretations. the sites selected within the area meet the criteria --- not that the criteria are adjusted to fit where someone wants to put a hi-rise. We should assess the surrounding area. 2 . Include the policy plan in the General Plan. The benefits include : People will be able to know in advance where hi-rises might be allowed. This : reassures them that they don't have to worry about it. gives foreknowledge so that those moving into the area can know the situation This makes the Policy Plan meaningful. . It may provide assurance that hi-rises will be limited in locations. i i Leonard Wright to CC . ui-rise material. B-1. 3-24-77 i Appendix B. Multi-Stoky Ordinance. Experience shows that we must tie down what we expect to get. 1. Example of houses on 25-foot lots with 0-side yard. A developer told me that if builders were allowed toi>build homes on 25-foot lots with 0-side yards : he 'd build homes to sell for 050,000 - affordable for a lot of people, he'd combine the 2 narrow side-yards into one side yard wide enough to use for a patio etc. Staff felt that the common-wall on common-wall homes would be of masonry since it's that way elsewhere. What resulted was contrary to these expectations: The homes initially sold for about $69,000. The price increased by about $10, 000 in 1 to 3 months time as a result of strong demand (we expect the law of supply-and-demand to set prices) . Now homes on 25-foot lots are going for up to twice or more than the originally estimated $50,000 figure. The resulting homes have narrow side-yards, even when the 0-side- yard is used on one side. . The common-walls are of wood-frame construction. Masonry walls would give better sound-proofing and fire-proofing. Staff tells me that masonry walls .are a state function and that we can't do anything about it at the city level. 2. Observations. Building homes on 2, -foot lots is a reasonable practice. You can never foretell exactly what will happen with a new concept. Under any set of rules (no matter how good) , you can get both good and not-so-good development. Don't rem on good intentions . Altho someone may have good intentions of doing something, it's difficult to forsee events that will cause things to be done other- wise . Therefore, it you feel that certain features are desireable, don't depend on someone's good intentions.. Tie these features down. Each one of us wants as little control over our activities as possible. As a result, people will usually criticize anything over minimal controls --- that they're not allowed enough flexibility etc. We should avoid rules that are so restrictive that they stifle develop- ment. At the same time, we should require the amenities we . desire. It seems that the developer will get a sufficient benefit in building the hi-rise. It's a privilege to build the hi-rise and get the extra density --- the extra units or floor space. Our attitude r should be one of allowing, not of giving even further encouragement I for hi-rise. Thus, we should spell out the amenities we expect in exchansaa for the benefits given. ` We should decide what amenities and protections we want and spell j out how these are assured. After approving the ordinances etc. , we don't want to discover s too late that the rules allowed to .happen what we don't want. L. Wright to CC. Hi-rise material. B-2 Multi-Story Ordinance. 3*-24-77. General comments and &_6Eestions. 1. Bonuses for height.' I believe that the Costa Mesa gives bonus points towards height for special amenities etc. Staff feels that this system does .not get the desired results or is too difficult to set-up for what .we want. 2. Requiring open space. One of the promoted benefits ofc hi-rises is that they provide more open space. We should have some way to assure that we get this open space. The only ways I see under the proposals are: Apartment standards are used. This is open to interpretation as to what the standards are used for. Also this doesn't assure me that . any specific amount of open space will result. The conditional use permit is used. This seems not to be a permanent safeguard. Changes in the CC and/or Staff can happen. Thus this approach could be vulnerable to the politicgl process. Setbacks are used. Again, this doesn't give an explicit assurance. It seems that we could somehow spell out the minimum percent of ' open space required --- or, as in the "Pacifica Community Plan" (see 9645.3 'Maximum Site Coverage') --- set guidelines for maximum site coverage for: total site coverage site coverage of buildingsover 45 ' 3. We need ways to protect a hi-rise area from going solidly hi-risew'' There seems to' be no mechanism for definitely preventing a wall of hi-rises within a hi-rise area. Therefore you may somehow need to ' come up with a way to limit hi-rise sub-boundaries within a hi-rise area. 4. The ordinance should indicate that a height limit be attached at the time a specific plan ordinance is written. The "Pacifica Community Plan" does this. . 5. A residential hi rise should be set-back from the nearest5' height limit residential area - - as far as a commercial hi-rise is (see 9346. (b) (3) sdrow, a rec;3en4faj area. 6. Hi-rises within 2500 feet of PCH should not obstruct over 50% of the view toward the ocean. These hi-rises should be narrow when viewed from inland. E i ..L. Wright to CC. Hi-r e material. C-1 3-2�-77 4 Appendix C. Negative Declaration Nos. 77-11 and 77-10. Scope The Negative Declaration covers a general prediction for each of the 5 potential. hi-rise areas. It (including the Five Points/Pacifica Area) does not reflect existing proposals . Two dander areas? Areas B "Five Points/Pacifica Area" and E "Seacliff Bluff Area" seem to be potential . danger areas as seen on: Fig. 8.0. Fault map. . Fig. 8.1. Geotechnical Land Use Capability map Pacifica - Risk 4 (highest) Seacliff Bluffs -, Risk 3 (next to highest) Fig. 8.2. Fault and Geologic conditions Are earthquake faults a significant hazard for hi-rise? It could be that they Ire highly significant or that they're meaningless.. I don't know of information that tells us one way or another. We should get it from those who know. We need to know whether or not faults are a significant/ overriding factor. We shouldn't base our decisions on any factor on speculative guesses if we can avoid it. Other factors When specific areas or plans are considered, we need to know the signifi- canoe of factors such as in the Negative Declaration, such as: . soil . traffic circulation and congestion - - drainage . sewage water main . impact on surrounding area I don't consider. other utilities (gas and electricity) to be significant. How will the above factors be impacted? What needs to be done to accommodate this? How much will it cost? Who pays? How? . .:. When will it be done? Also, we 'll need to know existing uses in surrounding areas and how these are impacted. Fire protection I believe that the Fire Dept code is supposed to handle this thru such as automatic sprinkler systems. Pacifica. Communi tly:-Plan The environmental info on Pacifica will be done by the developer after the Pacifica ordinance is approved? If done after approval of the Pacifica ordinance : ° the developer pays for the EIR work instead of the city. . the Pacifica ordinance may require modifying or could still be lost (according to Staff) . L. Wright to CC . Hi-rise material. D-1 3-24-77 Appendix D. Pacifica GoMunity Plan. The following are suggestions and comments . Some of the questions include answers received. But they may be useful in that others may have Iisome of the same questions . ;extend the notification area. I do not believe that Ihave the right to tell other people that a hi-rise 'development would be good for their area. The most I can do is to indicate some points in favor of a given proposal. The .uiews of those in and near the affected area should .be considered. 1300 feet is an adequate notification range when a 2-story building is to be ibuilt. But a hi-rise structure has .a much greater impact area. Thus some means (including notification and posting) should be used to inform those within the impact area. Besides being the correct thing . to do, this should also lessen the extent of criticism that "people were purposefully not !informed. " You may get some of this in any event, but it's best to try to minimize it. A PD Staff. member concurs on a wider notification range. One possibility its to draw a line at a_ certain angle from the top of the proposed structure, ;The notification area might be within the circle formed by where this line intersects the ground. It's best to consider as wide a range or volume of input as early as Ipossible in the process . It may be more efficient to avoid receiving a . significant number of new considerations later in the process. 'Points in favor It's a good location for senior citizens ' housing since : it's near shopping, medical and other facilities . . it affords the convenience of a complete complex. a public transportation stop can readily be added. . it's near the intersectinn of 2 main streets in that Main Street has the qualities of an arterial between Pacifica and Beach Blvd. INo special allowances for type of structure The housing should not be such that it wouldn't be allowed if it weren' t Ifor a worthy cause because : an adverse impact is the same no matter what its origin. . we could then conceivably have pressures for special consideration for any number of worthy causes . . if you do it for one, then others can argue that their case is not significantly different. Two reasonable exceptions for senior citizen housing are: . reduced;. parking requirements . reduced unit size A question arise about enclosed parking. Should we allow vacant lot i. !parking? Bethel Towers has it. Pacific Terrace has that and some carports. t 1These projects are both subsidized fully. But with a significant number at Pacifica paying full rent, should. they ,expect standard apartment parking facilities? Is there a good reason why ,this tower should not meet standard apartment parking requirements? Are 'salt air deterioration and vandalism significant issues? Would enclosed (parking for this many units seriously hamper the vision of open space? a f. L. Wright to CC. Hi-ri material. D-2 Pacifica community Plan. 3-24-77 Observations about se citizens 1. The overwhelming number of senior citizens I've talked with have paid their dues to society. They've made major efforts to be independent and self-reliant. Such people merit consideration when the follies of society and other factors create hardships. Causal factors include rising taxes and inflation. 2 . A sampling of senior citizens shows that: they ask nothing for themselves but do speak of help for other senior citizens they feel may eventually need ito a high number are not in favor of a special subsidy. . most would prefer to live in their homes if they own them. These attitudes and actions indicate merit for aid when it's needed. Because of their attitudes of self-reliance, very few will come to you to participate , in planning programs . Nevertheless, deserving people can be found to fill housing when built. 3. Suggestion. Since senior citizens won' t come to you. for planning programs, go to them. Go to places where they congregate as a group. You may want to determine areas of special interest or. concern and design a questionnaire that: for each question gives choices for answers plus a space for comments . . Questions and responses 1. One parkinE space per).5 units isn' t enough. Bethel Towers has one space per 2 units. You'll force senior citizens to give up their cars. Zingrabbe - The 2 high-rise towers (each 14 stories and each having 210 unites will cover less than one acre of ground. Over 3 acres remain. If more parking is needed, we can use some of that. Our total complex has lots of parking. Our analysis shows that one parking space per 5 units is sufficient. Selich - We plan to go with one parking space per 3.5 units. But we 'll . have a condition that more will be added if it proves necessary. It's hard to tell exactly how many are necessary until we get some experience, Further comments Garden Grove Community Church has l space per 3 units . This is what the Pacifica Community Plan now specifies. District Two should stand alone on parking or there should be a restriction that parking spaces from District One will always be available for the hi-rises, even if District One facilities are sold to someone else. The second option seems incorrect since : - District One spaces may be filled-up when District Two people want to park their cars. This may be even more likely if Pacifica Hospital is expanded. People should not have to park a significant distance from their a residence , . You need a restriction (and possibly a bond) to assure: additional parking if experience shows it's needed. - additional parking should the tower later have to be converted to house other than senior citizens . A- HIGH RISES ''.eonard Wright. 5-14-76, , References : 1. Report of. the Orange County High-Rise Task Force, Environmental Management Agency, County of Orange, Feb. 10, 1976. 2 , Multi-story/High-rise Study, Huntington Beach Planning Dept, May, 1973 - October, 1974. 1. Definitions High-rise building: over 75 feet Low-rise building: up to 35 feet Mid-rise building: 35 to 75 feet Special center: a concentration of special uses as in a medical center, government center, resort area, . university center etc. Urban center: a concentration of urban facilities including, but not limited to, residential, commercial, office recreation and. institutional Juses. 2 . =es of high-rises commercial such as offioes, hotels . residential, such as apartments and condominiums. special purpose such as buildings on college and university campuseso. hospitals, government centers, industrial and medical facilities, recreation and resort 3. Points in favor of high-rises a. Higher assessed valuation High-rise structures must- be of sturdier, more durable construction, This, along with a view, increases their value. This creates higher rents and higher taxes. b. Commercial high-rises : . may attract more commercial enterprises. . this would increase our tax base. c. Residential high-rises Concentrating people in one area makes it easier to service this amount of people (such as trash collection) d. Properly planned high-rises are surrounded by lots of open space. j 4. Points in opposition to high-rises We must consider how people are affected in the area the high-rise. ' impacts. Citizens are nearly unanimous against having high-rises near their residences : (1) You have an overpowering structure nearby that may: block views and breezes . cast a shadow on your residence. y e (2) It causes pressures toward developing at increased densities . (3) Therets a concern that this is a forerunner to other activities that may make it difficult for resident-owners to remain. ti (4) It puts additional pressure on property-taxes (One goal is to allow those on low and moderate incomes to live near the ocean. Nearby high-rises put pressures in apposition to this goal) . High rises. L. ';righ'- 5-14-76 (5)' There is additi7nal crowding, traffic congestion, loss of privacy. (6) Fire prevention' and control is a concern. 5. How will citizens react to high-rises? I feel that acceptance is very difficult if. people feel that their area isn' t adequately safeguarded. Safeguards include : (1) Located sufficiently distant so as not to impact other residences. ' I believe that a standard in part of Holland (or somewhere around_ there) is that the shadow of a high rise not fall on a residence. . (2) Substantial spacinp, between high-rises (and what ensures this) . (3) A limited number (and how this is ensured) (4) Restricted to widely separated areas (5) Narrow when viewed from inland. This : . maximizes the number in the high-rise who have an ocean view. provides less visual and breeze obstruction to those inland. (6) Don't standardize that high-rises can automatically be -allowed in a certain zoning area. Rather, require a study like a specific plan to determine in which areas (and parts of that area) high-rise zoning should be allowed to overlay base zoning. Objective criteria are needed to determine acceptable sites. Adverse reaction is likely to be stronger if people feel that high-rises are allowed. wherever someone wants to build. them. Make the site match the criteria, not the criteria match where someone wants to put a high-rise. (7) Put high-rises where there are large land areas. The objective is to avoid being near residences . Potential sites should be made known_ as soon as possible so that those who later develop or buy nearby know what the situation is. 6. Specific recommendations by the O.C. Hieh-rise. Task Force (see Ref. 1) . Location to . should be limited to designated urban and special centers. Z C . best located within intensely developed areas. t Development standards _ a setbacks and maximum heights % CV1, `� r �^t T. " (A0 0' ,z zo' ao' z o' Ld E Nei ht may Sr►creases agave '75 3 wr` 4;A 50, of: «3S� max, rncrea5ee to' for h A5,gnaf;eJ b4►1c�►'�+ height zone') ever4 xo' extra ur:b,,r, or spea�al i Max, he;ght 35" ' d�stanc2 cen+err, based on bonuses, L. Wright to CC. Hi-rise material. D-3 Pacific%- 'Community Plan. '3-24-77 -Will District 1rw9 be prohibited in the future from adding structures (such as a bank) •that will require additional parking and detract from hi-rise parking potential? If the majority of the people will be paying the full cost of $325 to 4360 a month rent, are they likely to be affluent enough to . retain more than 1 car per 3 units? This project already allows 3 times the number of units (110/ac) : of high density (35/acre?) . With this bonus (and that of uncovered parking) , do we also need to add this much of a reduced parking bonus --- especially since a substantial number of the units may be unsubsidized? What are the market surveys on parking based on? We should know what, where and under what circumstances. We should have as much back-up information as possible on this and other items . 2, .The rental price of $325 to $359 a month is too high to provide a ready market if the units are unsubsidized. Urban Projects says that an unsubsidized residential 'hi-rise is marketable only within a block of the beach. Why then would senior citizens be willing to pay these high rents for sub-sized units with limited parking? This situation does not appear to me to be low and moderate income housing for senior citizens . Selich - This is not proposed as low and moderate income housing for senior citizens. The reason that senior citizens would rent here is that it's in a total complex that provides the services senior citizens need --- shopping, transportation stop, hospital, medical building, convalescent home Zingrabbe - Our market research shows that there 's a demand for such housing. Sestion - Make available such as market research, financial feasibility report and financial comparison report. . 3. Other developers say that they can build units to rent for about half the price if they could have the same reduced unit sizes and parking requirements . Staff - They've said that for years . But Zingrabbe is the first to come up with a proposal. Selich - On most individual units we wouldn' t have adequate control. A developer would build 8 units with reduced requirements for unit size and parking. He 'd rent them to senior citizens . Because these units would lack the facilities found Ina general complex, the senior citizens would become dissatisfied and move out. Then the units would be rented to non-senior citizens . And weld have created an 8-plex instead of a 4-plex, and it would have substandard unit size and substandard parking. ' SugEestion - We should outline guidelines about what constitutes acceptable special-purpose senior-citizens ' housing. '. Maybe check with the Orange County Housing Authority. 4. "The Great Giveaway at HUD" in the Dec . , 19762 Header's Digest told of many disasters to hit the taxpayer on projects where HUD guarantees the loan. Is this a situation where HUD guarantees the construction loan? Kohler - No. The builder is responsible for financing the construction. So we won't have that kind of problem here. The only financial Involvement by government will be rent subsidy. 1 °• L. Wright to CC . Hi-rise material. D-4 Pacific- .Community Plan. 3-24-77 Selich - There never has been a failure of any project involving rent subsidy. 5. Garden Grove Community Church is planning a modularized senior citizens' hi-rise. Is the hi-rise in the Zingrabbe proposal the same? Zingrabbe - It's the same type of structure. Each unit is about 548 square feet to the centerline of the wall. A unit may net about 528 sq ft. All are one-bedroom units with 110 sq ft balconies, Garden Grove Community Church , phone 750-8036 - One 14-story tower of 210 units will be built. All -anits will be subsidized. These are all one-bedroom units. Floor area per unit is estimated at 600 sq ft (I don't believe that the person who supplied the information was completely sure of the sq ft) . There will be 1 parking space per 3 units . An option at extra cost is available for one meal a day (5 days a week) in the dining room. The church is planning a second tower later on for senior citizens. It will be unsubsidized and will have one- and two bedroom units . Rent will vary from $300 to 0600 a month. Selich - The Zingrabbe tower may not have the optional one meal a day. It's a different' situation than the GG Community Church. 6. Pacific. Terrace consists of 3-story structures for senior citizens. It's located on Pacific one block west of Beach Blvd and just south of Bolsa. Wouldn't this be better than a high rise for senior citizens? Manager of Pacific Terrance (a senior citizen) - I don't answer any questions today. It's my day off. Come back during my working hours. Or better yet, go see the Orange County Housing Authority in Santa Ana. No one would want to live in a hi-rise . A resident of Pacific Terrace. - I like it here and wouldn't want to live in a hi-rise. Senior citizens I talked to about 2 years ago - This was about 6 senior citizens . All said they preferred not more than 2-stories, 3 stories at the maximum. Zingrabbe - If we went 3 stores here, we wouldn 't be able to provide all the amenities that we 'll ,provide. We 'll be able to acommodate more people. Selich - Pacific Terrace has a different situation because of the value { of the land. My observations,Everything else being equal, senior citizens would prefer a maximum of 3 stories. There 's a waiting list for subsi- dized senior citizens 's hi-rises because that's where the rent sub- sidy is. People line-up for what's available. SuEEestion - Regardless of .what happens with the. Pacifica Community Plan, investigate the practicality of nonprofit 2- or 3- story senior citizens '. housing on part of the Old Civic Cdnter. Site (over 3 stories is too high for the area) 1 This might include the city donating the property. A small community park along with the p existing library would fit in well with. this. i i L. Wright. to. CC. H1-r"se material. D-5 Pacifica community Plan, 3-24-77 7 . 'How'many units will ;be subsidized? Would this 'dry up all of the housing subsidy funds? Zingrabbe - We 'll be able to apply for Section 8 rental subsidy for the units. Initially a low percent will be subsidized. As time goes on, more and more units will be subsidized. These units will rent even if none are subsidized. In subsidized units the- renter pays not more than 20% of his income. The maximum subsidy is $300 a month. Comment - Since housing subsidy funds are limited, from the requests made: we want to select the requests that give the most for the money. When units are subsidized, you don't have true .free-enterprise since the profit on the subsidized units comes from the taxpayer subsidy . Thus "profit" subsidized housing funds should be awarded only if it gives good value for the money compared to other requests made. For the unsubsidized units, where do the renters come from? HB or elsewhere? 8. Traffic light needed to afford convenient cross-walk from the tower to the shoppina center. Otherwise some senior citizens may be hit. i i I 1 f i high-rises. L. Wright; ., 5-14-76 -3- Yiigh-capacity insportation corridors nea,, and accessible. . use high-rises to enhance the conservation of land resources. a open-space is required as a relief to crowding and lessened personal privacy. requires concentrated availabilities of services such as roads, sewers, water and power. . building not excessively bulky. parking required. Positive design factors . shadows not block sunlight from surrounding buildings. ® maximize views from adjacent sites, Prevailing winds free to move thru the site. . mitigate exterior noise. i 1 i I RESOLUTION NO. . 1190 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 77-2 , "MULTI-STORY SUFFIX (MS) . " WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California has held a : public hearing in compliance with the State Government Code in order to consider and review said ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach has determined that certain areas within the City of Huntington Beach are suitable for Multi-Story developments; and WHEREAS, said ordinance contains development provisions and standards for development of Residential, Commercial, and Office/ Professional Multi-Story structures consistent with the City' s General Plan and Multi-Story Policies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach hereby approves said Code Amendment No. 77-2 . REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California on the 1st day of March, 1977 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibson, Slates, Newman, Shea, Boyle NOES: Parkinson, Finley ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST zi and D. '8blicly Roger Slates Secretary Chairman y. q MULTI-STORY CODE A14ENDMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO,. 77-11 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION PWXf4JNQ DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY FEB 1 1977 Fee - $75.00 P. 0. BW 190 City of Huntington Beach HuMnOw 8"ch. Ceiif- "264, Applicant/Authorized Agent FOR CITY USE ONLY 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach 92648 Mailing Address Project Number, ? -� 536-5271 Dept, of Origin: . Telephone N/A Other Application Property. Owner /o�' � r}Permiitj /N�uumbers City Planning Department - 536-5,279 Mailing Address/Telephone NOTE: Not all projects require the preparation of an environ- mental impact report (EIR) . To .assist the. Department of Environmental Resources in making this determination, the following information must be supplied: Add addi- . tional information if pertinent: } 1.0 Project information: (Please attach Plot Plan and "submi.t"photographs of subject property) 1.1 Nature of Project: Give a. complete description of ,,the proposed project. The project consists of amending the existing multi-story zoning ordinance by adding new residential m0ti-story development provisions and standards; and by amending the existing standards and provisions that apply to commercial office., and industrial multi-story developments. To supplement the., proposed multi-story ordi- nance and for the purposes .of this environment study, the attached ►nulti-story policy plan designates those. areas where multi-story development may .be viewed favorably. It is. intended that the environmental assessment contained in this study iS in consideration of hnt,h ;thP nroo'sed ipulti-story policy pl.dn and ordinance.' a. it the project is .conuuerclal"or inuu, icrlal, give a compl:eDe' ue6uripzibn of activities. The ordinance provides development standards for commercial , industrial and office professional multi=story structures in areas zoned C4, C3, Mi-A and R5. However, these types of non-residential iiiulti-story would only be permitted in Areas 1 , 3, and 4 as delineated on the multi-story location map. (See Policy Plan) b. If the project is residential, indicate number, types; and size of units ! and associated facilities. The. ordinance also includes development j provisions for residential multi-story of which the amount of units is unlimited as is the height of any. proposed structure. However, the types and size of residential uni"ts sha'll conform with the apartment standards. C. List all types. bf building materials to be used for all structures in the project. Probably building materials would .include but not be limited to structural steel , concrete, and prefabriacted structural units and standard finish materials. 1. 2 what are the objectives of the project? To provide an ordinance consisting of development provisions and standards that shall apply to any. structure proposed to exceed the maximum building height of its base district zoning. It is also intended that the multi-story ordinance shall. apply to .the general areas recognized as possible inulti-.stony location which are designated for such use on the proposed multi-story Policy Plan. 1.3 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) Refer to multi-story location map (Figure 1 .1 of attached multi-story Policy Plan) and multi-story area maps Figure 2.1 , 2.2, 2.3, 2.4. , and 2.5. 1.4 Legal Description: N/A Lot: Block: Tract: Section: Township: Range: Assessor's Parcel No. l:5 Project land area (acres) approximately 172 .acres or .99% of City's 1.7,372 acres. 1.6 General relationships of the project to surrounding properties: (Information available in Planning Department on District Maps) N/A LAND USE ELEMENT See USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN Area Maps Figure 2.1 See Figure 3.0 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 Present Proposed Surrounding north Surrounding south Surrounding east Surrounding west *NOTE: If property is vacant at this time, has said property been used for. agriculture in the past five years? Areas 1,45 and 5 of the multi-Story location map have pockets of vacant land that are used for temporary, agricultural purposes. • - �.a ARwSN �AVE - 4 LT. OF WE STMINSTE 4' CITY 00 a North _- ,p � 3 Hunt ingt n Cent a — Specific Plan f a (under c nstructio ) Ci-F y.: C F_E9KA; CENTER e� d u W m C4 C2 0 Q LFMI.Q W MONY•GOMERY W: C HUNT:NGTON- CENTER P.'=,Vt Y' Z - 2 Y - i C4 - TOH�,A + AYE C4 MI C4 Shopping Center' C ' r Complex ALDRICH AVE. vacant it LL17-7 iH UESAiLS woo3 TAax aStUNl.K000 �+ r R r °a CANUIELIGHTT CH . __ _,f h- T. -.-:..] AF71 *-n rrrr EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE POTENTIAL MULTI -STORK LOCATIONS*AREA ONE' huntin ton beach planning .department Figure 2.1 �3L -_JLLJ "� Ati.Lit; J 1 - tj ELMIRA tU al Rczi ` vacant flFR5 q �' W vacant Mob�1e R2=PD Homes vacant C 3 <\ Restaul akiNotel Comple Existing Zoning and Land Uses \ R5 Mobile Ho s i $ S f$< POTENTIAL MULTI -STORY L TI NS:AREA TWO Y huntin ton beach planningdepartment Figure 2.2 i� •Y.O�^ e.c cot .. r i OR CY CA FO l:E AVE. l_ i Y^: C4 0 VAP SRrk FA:;:=C.v 0001lFJfTFBK-'iC OP ' FEA 61'N - F . ——--- (_"_ 0 _�_1 GARFIELD AVE. Existing Zoning and Land Uses POTENTIAL MULTI STORY L C TI .4�4 � E untie t ry beach planning department Figure 2`.'3 a W DS SANDS DR � SANSAN SWC HLAR 9 � gi�eq CF—E FRONTIER CR, G Ne�gO . auLE IN FEET Oq a p _ >CROUPIER DR. a 2 O TO a PP - DR. M-CI 4 - 1 / / U-$. NAVY R.R. 4 -� - n.. - IMi10'-�'�E...C:: SP:.i,E'iY'il'EM9:.L^1TERI t U Ml-A M1-A a 2 w J Z I m K a ; 1 BOLSA AVE.' - N M1-A C4 MI-A Ml-A ARGOSY Ml-A MI-A j T "N OR GALWAY CR. z m ! - CASPIAN CR 4 - �_ �t � V 1nm Mc FADDEN AVE { h, POTENTAL i`� LTI STORY LOCAsTIO S•AREA FOUR I - -- - huntington beach planning department Figure 2.4 z1P ` vacant B E ACM SCAL[ R3 s R3 -O s� C1 -0 R240..Q AQ M2-02. R4-0 { vacant i 0 i Oc y POTENTIAL MULTI -STORY L CATIONS:AREA FIVE huntin t®n beach planning department Figure 2.5 Land Use Categories RESDEMIAt M Estate 5 2 un/goc - -. - - - - Estate .54'un/goc cr /®►, '> I tow Density- <7un/gac Medurn Density 515 un/gac. ►o Density>15 in/goc CO MMERCIAL SM Office Professional ®Whxed Development WDUSr k c rwa ' PUBLIC E' public Institutional r R--•': ,yxMi Open' - i 2'z �\ PLAMVING UMTS ......R?:::::::?:r ii:c..... S• ............_. r....,�:: _..r 1 `� [�Planning Reserve ,? • `� ' _:;???[s=s:v: �� � Planned Community. OTHER USES z [ Resource Production g 2-t* fy 4 4 3 " v r � Z 1 ® HUMGTON MACK GILIEORNIA GENERAL"PLAN . PWNNINf DEPARTMEW LAND USE DIAGRAM December 1976 Figure 3.0 1.7 List other public agencies having jurisdiction by law in approval, authoriza- tion, certification or issuance. of a permit for this project: p O.C. Sanitation District p Calif. Regional Water (M City Council p O.C. Flood Control Dist. Quality Control Bd. (X Planning Commission p O.C. Air Pollution Control p Local Agency Formation 0 Board of Zoning Adjustments. District . Commission [3 Design Review Board QU Calif. Coastal Zone Con- p State Division of servation Commission highways O Other: [3 Corps of Engineers a 1.8 What will be. the maximum occupancy of all structures proposed within this project? Refer to appendix item A Pnnulatinn from residential MS - 243A rp���ents Employees generated from Commercial and office/prof: MS _ 476-1 Total 11,93 (If commercial or industrial usage, indicate occupancy in terms of employees and customers.) 1.9 Traffic: a. Indicate the present. traffic volume on arterials and added trips per day from the project. See Figure 4.0 and 4.1 ; 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 b. Indicate points. of egress and ingress to the project. See Figures 4.1 . 4.2, '4.3, 4.49 and 4.5 ' . c. What is existing speed limit at the project location? See Figure 5.:0 d. What is the estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the project? Area One 59,400 Area Three 22,275 Area Five 30,800 Area Two 112,750 Area Four 559000 e. If there is a source of. data used to answer traffic questions above, please dd indicate. ooff Putlic.Works, trip end geneepration factors from 1.10 WhatCisT.Respercenta. V coverdgebads Dept.',iyH he p�ojeetDlbrt. the ratio between bulk and open space is on a sliding scaled based on the a. Building proposed height of the structure. b. Paving Refer to appendix item B c. Existing landscaping d. New landscaping 1.11 Describe the offstreet parkin g. (location,. .type, and number of spaces) �to be provided for the project. Off street parking requirements are in conformance With the parking requirements of the City's apartment standards. *Area l 5.5 x 10`,800 = 59,400 Area 3: 5.5 x 49050 = 22,215 Area 2: 5.5 x 20,500 = 112,750 Area 4: 5.5 x 10,000 = 551000 Source: Dept of Public Works Area 5: 5.5 x 59600 = 30,800 -3- w 3 Q u SOL SA�VE. Q 2 1 .law 8700- 8900 \•�!_ .__._MCFADt FN AVE. a a \� 24110 ) 9100 .10600 a 12800 17F00 21800 28W 7328 I EDINGER AVE. . - 1. 5300 4900 3800 8800 ..7500. -MIX TWO 1 . -- HEfL AVE. rood 16400 ,16400.. I@T00 22300 22100 .24200 g100 1198pp 21 WARNLR AtF. �+ �\ 4600 szoo . 9200.. T900 7Eoo 9100 9300 G Q$ IF` RAVE 35W 4000. .4100 a TAL BERT AVE. t}PA' I vt - - 400 1100 IOOD p000 El 9c4�EAL•i'•50' - "' —ELL IS-AVE. 4 2 of k.. AVERAGE TR4FfiC VOILME _ O PER 24 SOUS PE.R*D J a .riOUJ / � 19DO 2900 4000 8300 .8300 T90D. BGOD' S400 190D GARFIELD AVE. 20o0C' a 30000 3600 4200 4300-ti 4300 4300 3600 ' - YORXTOWN AVE. _ .6400. 13.�00.. FI100 22200 `ZZ000. GVo(q --:P _ ADAMS AVE. 14 ro 360G 4700 4T00, 4200. 3400 W&ANAPOLIS AVE 2 1975 g 54M � 8000 :%w 6600 51WN ATLANTA AVE. • �'a y1 'b 33W &oo 9400 1r HAMILTON AVE. CITY OF 2300 1 2500 BANNING AVE. HUNTINGTON BEACH TRAFFIC FLOW MAP O 39W 3Z?0 FEET < AN 1 figure 4.0 I I � GO - _ 2,p700000 Irr.tr \ --` yf b>•tdr Iff1 8 _ approxi ateiy a +r N 160 acr s CE_E O O O O C F-E CENTERS ^ O Co �' r•�•r•fl tt-iti . n N �N cDa Ci O 0 ` (D w CV - - z I a o 'N.:w) 1 i'lG:::"1 f N,...� ":'W;Y '� F w 30,700 0 30,000 21,600 28,100 2,700 1 $ 2,700 f r 111 000 I I � 10a11. AVE 1 1 ' i '_l I LLB_. L---- �, _.__ =L11r - _ O CD O O f ( u. H' F`.ART r Da IOMGE ` E CD _ �,Q AVE C�C M'"g O Lr N sr u:ky�o - Dq - a... - J-I 1 { { - - --- tY7 h.N hN !l f -� � . uVRr j { 1 ) iL jar Un CF C _ C �:LI��_I�L1 1I V.'' ) - a rr, ", _ 160 acres x 10% = 16 acres of multi-stony development 8 acres commercial @ 1050 TF/Ac = . 8 400 8 acres office/professional @ 300 TE/Ac = 2,400 10,800 trip ends Key capacities existing traffic added trips from multi-story PLANNED CAPACITIES, EXISTING TRAFFIC AND ADDED TRIPS (Assuming 10% of area devoted to multi-story). POTENTIAL MULTI -STORY LOCAtIONS.AREA ON huntin ton beach planning department Figure -4. 1 L] LLJ IL J L_'' ' W W "":,LJL_I'C I JLJ L EM hid ��� U�_�.�.�___�./ ` L L BOHM a a .ate _ - / o_o vF' ; C cl l as a Ln M ft R. :1d JT 14] 41' -- r_1IaaU C1 GHICAGO O AVC Q 45 000 E1 = -- 5,400 4,100 Li '/'�'�'� NT4 O to CQ pY , / o. K�1 --- - - c.:.. . " r matelY 00 acres o C) 200 acres x 20% = 40 acres 10 acres commercial @ 1050 TE/ac 10,000 E 10 acres office/professional @. 300.7E/ac = 000 20 acres residential @ 50 un/ac - 1000 un >' 1000 un @ 7 TE/un = 7;000 20,500 \ _ total trip ends , j PLANNED CAPACITIES, EXISTING TRAFFIC AND ADDED, TRIPS (Assuming 20% of area devoted to Mal ti=story) POTENTIAL MULTI -STORY LOCATIONS AREA TWt hUntington beach 01dinning department Figure 4.2 , t DR Fig - k,-, L111 I J jCF-li QUEOIC CIA r &`AIJIVII. _ _ems _ Ci YRUYLIN OR !R'- AVE -- 4 3 0 -- 1r 350 - _ ; ro -- - --- _ ---- - -f 1 _J I. -------1 f- �1.�-1 C-`il '� RFIELD 80 acres x 10% = 8 acres of multi—story development 2 acres commercial @ 1050 TE/ac .2,100 3 acres office/professional @ 300 TE/ac 900 3 acres residential @ 50 un/ac = 150 un @ 7 TE/un 1,050 4,050 PLANNED CAPACITIES, EXISTING .TRAFFIC AND ADDED TRIPS ' (Assuming 10% of area devoted to multi-.story) POTENTIAL PAULTI -STORY LOC Art IONSYAREA THREE hu`ntington beach planning department. Figure 4.3 , ��:� -'•� ;�.�,�� ffIFFI 1"'` f f -i��l.I �p:I_: -:1 1_l l i � l_4.1,-Cv 5>N11$ Z- 11 > T JAB I'-, /' V 5 NAY• p q (Vi')'i': i. (:._i.:'::.^.'i .'iVf,:=.!:Y::tc4•i'::t 4!,1:1 O O O O O O Le 400 acres x 25% _ 100 acres o01 O o o 0 0 CD 100: acres industrial/office/professional multi-story Lno" @ 100 TE/acre = 10,000 Ct N •t u i 45,000 45,000 4,500 6,600 T 2,500 2,500 ... 80LSA -- .:�-- AVE. I r• tlf rn F o0o N OOO O'-1 LLY w w' w O N N N O 0 0 0 CD It;N N - d"N rASM•IN. _� �- L 1 .-p`q i - L�.J�—_L.-1�� � ) O D O QLin per_ V cnz ar, p : i ... �.... _ M Z , "11 __- AVE 'd PLANNED CAPACITIES, EXISTING TRAFFIC AND ADDED TRIPS (Assuming 25% .of area devoted to ►nulti-story). POTENTIAL MULTI -STORY LOCATIONS:AR`EA FOUR huntington beach planning department Figure 4.4 I AMENI!Mf;N IS - - CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS _ -- \ ADOPTED 8Y CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO 4368-DEC.12,1976 50 \ LEGEND: _ FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY Ln o MAJOR _._45;000 40 \ PRIMARY.-_. -,_.3Q000 � ` "-- - SECONDARY. _20000 Lr) ---� J NOTE 40 \ "• SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF MY \\. NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY Lc) DASH OFIWAY IENDIIS TE AREAS WHERE NO GHTj 35 Ss. In 40 I !,- O ul 4 CITY OF �9ti HUNTINGTON BEACH - ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA r i d.0l.C11..bwYi,p(A.ty(M� MAXIMUM SPEEDS IN MILES .PER HOUR Figure 5.0 . 2.0 Existing Environmental Setting of Proposed Project: Describe the following existipg environmental conditions: 2.1 Land form (topography and soils) : a. soil type (See Figure 6.0) b. Topography (See Figure 7.0) 2.2 Relative location matrix: CHARACTERISTIC DISTANCE Nearest fault line See Figures 8.0, 8.1 , 8.2 Nearest bluff See Figure 14.0 Natural flood plain See Figure 9.0 Flood Channel See. Figure 10.0 . Shore line See figure 14.0 2. 3 Objects of historic, aesthetic., or archaeological significance on subject property: See Figure, 11 .0 and 12.0 2.4 if the project is commercial, industrial, or residential, what is the roadway distance in miles from project to the nearest: a. Shopping center b. Freeway exit See Figure 13.0 C. Elementary school d. Public library 3.0 Environmental Impact of the Proposed Project: 3.1 Natural resources: a. Does any wildlife use the project area for a place to feed, nest, or rest during a given season? yes See Figures 15.1 to 15.5 If so, please list: -4- MOVER 100 FEET M 75-100 FT. �50-75 fL T o. 0 25-50 FT i a M 15-'25 FT.' 20 10-15 FT. 0 5-)OFT. •�� O-S FT. a CJ BELOW O FT. y ` x. 9 y� 1 { 4 — f 1:�:V'::1 w• h 1•' I t .l .Y's rya I 1 Y I - I I- i I I .I 4• I' III 4 •K u` I I I I i Y I r, \ •I � I 4 l I I I I I I it'1 \\. IIII i ^1�t h A by '''�`'\+• J11 .b tit I I I• I. \ , >;}� II� I �I;�: IIIi�I I �'a�?`.- ^w,.a .ws :+.,�.-',��,' "ri;,...: .•{,,V Y',I �'�'' ..,.,�. + I :III i I 3..,.. >,. .cet �f•:( 't�:i\g;: `i\\};,+'} � J,kyi'h.,{:�.•�>: III f I I. fll.^.. 1t�,' .;� ^. �`� `�?4�v22<:,:•>.;r;�... ti• \v; s�I,I: I ,III III I i. �I I I pry, �'�'r;�., .:�.•�:t. I I :I I t 15..�,:. :,`�,:'•.v\�:.; :� ^4•.. �i� I�'�'li���l��l � 1',, �II k�.x -z,-�+� 'yam}�` ,r�,� P. I I�I I 11`�{ x v,..,,•y?•..•, >:11 ��`"'� ''�v;; i I,�1�lili,lien ;I ��lil �,�`,^ �'� '•3'- •eta;�i5:` "1� 1 �I I� I ! � I j�; 't`:`tk,:a,�.>:a-:I'�ili {�+ �`t`?:< s. _�p,�_ _-ter_•.-�� �u'I' �IIiI� '!:.. _ fa'I In{il�j'�I j III I�I {I II�'��'�'•' ��� . � .:Atea r�V•::j;:: 1� �I I III I ��f ,I�, I:I I..I� ( LI ,{ I , .III I 'I "`�,�; �:� �.�c���;y� III III I I; •I'll, .� �1:z� � =� `Illi�"11:1:' III":I � .III Iti�h r �: �II fl'f . I IIII �`.-II ;^�.A"•: 3f�a.Y-r,,. '11�. I� .:i, � .+.,. _ 'vd°,';,: - Jan I., i I III i �� �I'��- �l I I I,III �'> I I I::iII I II III\ . �.��\+;:••• \'•."�^ ..I:,'III' �I,1 III. li ~- ��. - ' �3) �.,I I1' I,II ( �I �I I I I� IIII' I .,f�V11II 1' �t.II4I 1v.'"+',IIR I,1•I tI I I:lIl II II�I;'kII,II�I.I,III���IIiI � �S - �I�I y�I�I LIir lII lIlIjIIli,Iitll�IiIIIiIl II il III+I;Ii�lIIIIl I ,.ItI, .h� �i I,I-,q II 1. :I�.!3',,� 'r•ttic». J�f �-:,'�'„,5S'd.'.',,.a'y.;��. tiI.�I•;• h1�I 1 I I�I.......... i11 I F I, I l!!lili I.j{IL1IIIIlII III I'IiIIl,�IiI IlI I I�f I I l�III IIIlI�lI,;l:I.I Il II LII III 111I1 IIIIIII'• ,III "Il;lill� �Ii'I�IjIIII1�; I it I IIIL:II- - �� ,y�:�;;:,.I I�I 1'.. •• -- S09gU:NR Ks.I1fH169-1-TJ HUNTW6TON.srACH CALIFORNIA TOPOGRAPHY RELIEF BY ELEVATION PLANNING .DEPARTMENT Figure 7.0 HIGHEST SEISMIC RISK (GREATEST SURFACE RUPTURE ° POTENTIAL WITHIN CITY ON AREA OF INTENSIVE•SHEAR BURIED TRACE OF FAULT (WITHIN'400'ZONE) l UNCERTAINTY AS TO EXISTENCE I OR EXTENSION OF FAULT �► i � ---" p�IFj1�..e"..- r FPl1�.-:ate. - .• s t _ _SOUTH-LL ANCH FA_UU. '-. - - - ? r >+asc cons OLIVE L F/aUL ? .)• �ST ULT- .. -_ sOVGF:l116M�ON•1EM•�SMC.o•�•�l - Adlh HUNTING BEACH O 1LIFORNIA. FAULT MAP ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT Figure 8.0 ♦4 Gt RISK IV Hiph6t Lam. RISK Ill b. O RISK 11 0 RISK 1 Lowest TNF G[OlE01C[Al LPOJIBA J0" JCALE IS JJiAt14E'ON1Y fIR wv n aataom ro m.f�PF'JA{GwJ roJ 0.ANnNG- - 9 - r� 11IDYfYi E10.MA/[5 MJW OH R1J WUONTb:CG6RJA-- $ u � TpMJ fMq B WtIJT 1G9.Efo 0&[�II$.tN¢gkIC1KN . VO Ioam WSAJQ P(GHC-' - -y'. ALLY HCtA1.WEAOEWSIOM IJNtYOtOtlO � 's WAY.ad.lXAYIJM 509E.AtlAE tAI10 JtdS6Hl4... *\r aJourvaxux woeexs nbao rwums. ....`itEf fie' � �,S� "f'� _ ♦1 4 j' . Revised 1I/9/76 - _ 40WCJ:t610MOT�;YfN.ASJ()G"9-E•)J - - - HUNTINGTON BVCH cauFORNIA CEOTECHMCAL:LAND USE CAPABWY MAP PLANNING DEPARTMENT' Figure 8.1 RECENT ALLUVIAL & TIDAL MARSH SEDIMENTS OLDER ALLUVIUM OLDER MARNE �• / �o dp SEDIMENTS M BEACH'& DUNE SAND ACTIVE FAULT LOCATION 1-1 ye Zz C�'CI „jam .F`' } . I♦ � F - �' "' t wI.✓♦t �'"�" +a.~is u Y f±'��"F .�, F ���s.!v x � s� T rKtr ?'rk- X,, �� .,./t/i �Ya/��y�,,.. �•�t/ � 1 - k e _. � � :�'a i � � wry � ..• .. '�uiz d,: .' T t trr t"�; �S•. • k a , ?� t a 4 a ,rS�x3�Y� ,�Sou .� saNrA ANA GgP . sum"GAP (a BOLM "" ( BOLSA-GAP - HUNTINGTON BFACH MESA- _ sdsa:i[r*wu-rararszoc.ra-n HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA FAULT &' GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS PLANNING,.DEPARTMENT Figure 8.2 A(v 3 O01sA DDEN 4. y � 44 y ............ 0. }:: ?{ Y �''!,'v.Y.�:.�•,kty:`,,�•,.'•h•`.;L.,•' '�3 vyS�JC' 't•�.}�:}!''`,• :'•:;{{}K9}?,r'.•k'•{;ti:• S •. h {r,• +.y},' ti f;•: .J: Sr.•'''''y}$:' '•{$'{{'}:Y'..$y �''{r�. .• - .. ...v$:'.•'}•t•}}, r. 'yy-j<y}��;,.}`{4 L 'lt7rrtJ y}}}{{•:•:>..t}:?;}$:S_ $ it} Ow'Q'��R?,.; r�vPi'•.• •r 4'�O' •.'y hyOYyPTi WSYHtA • v.{ }}'i'^{{r.;C;}},'','t Y.^t{.:r•.:.�•'yL•h{{;}rr'.{} r '''' �;.r;}:..}frt\ 4} rr } }y,•.}{{}ti}, ! }r-ytv.:;f SIAf91 ••{{. t..•}.'x,'4o:•hw:�.4.•i,'•4S1??;;.¢:;:ttltiy�,,. r. ;�. . ,.fir'}t;}, GARFIRD ............ :w:::........:. .............. ...........r...t ::.> .... L : r r 4 Y J :4}}: }:•. ,h ;•Lh{:} •"'tiA,•y',:r TOFY TOWN A {xr y•}M1 ft orocaYw�v'?aooio�mo.infix+C•y3raawtYap.•I��`:}}.vy'h;}gL ADAMS " }$:::{•}: '5:�;:;}::•'.:::{}ir{•:i•:titi{{try.: }., •}:v is v.::;::;•.•`t ;i: $}.{.;}. ' ••$ti:+': {i<C:•t.r!} �' r:n•:4•?}kn.{{7v:C'r..tTr$::r:'ra}'}:$:C:•:}:::hn}�.•;:: FJOiANAFWIS sm :•iy !•Y•irr':;''SN:•}ti';:;Q':•'''•�'ti% :�'1}''v J'k��•iY,. ATLANTA `?';: •'i'�:$:�J:o;v::{:j{:p�,:,F,:vwhn;7fvseCw •}>t NAA,tioa y:•.':$: ;$:�: •>:•:.• .$:•::}:}••:ryam• ;:.;••,�•'•> .:-:... .,::•}}:::::::fi::v::: .,:�}:} .. :}•.}�:: .ti.{..vv,. t ... BANNING Source:Federal Insurance.Administration Aug. 27,1976 SPECIAL 'FLOOD HAZARD AREAS huntington beach planning department Figure 9.0 Q. 3 ®COUNTY PERMANENT . CHANNELS COUNTY PERMANENT UNDERGROUND - -- CHANNEL CITY CHANNEL c, aVAWR . - - SOMA:Ml fWiMMG�.M1] Afftk OPEN SPACE ELEMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH CAUFORNIA FLOOD CONTROL CHANNELS PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC SAFETY Figure 16.0 14 •� ••\ �., 13 Q ; . *: '\ 19 16 1w• 3 - - � WYK[:K�1MtYm10 V•ITJ EACH.CALIFORNIA / OPEN SPACE EIRJIEn1T HUNMWON B .PL4NNNG 'DEPARTMENT FPS(MC/LANDMARK SITES.. NATURAL RESOURCES Figure 11.0 4 t� 'N M ARCHAEOLOGIC.Al SITES e' ^ ° /_\ SITE AREA REAAAINIJG t♦ SITE AREA DESTROYED us ORA SITE NUMBERS AS INVESTIGATED BY A.RA t, 346 - m 142 l ua S, ®21 i 293 . - 40UK2:♦M AW Ifq Ash .HUNTINGTON BEACH 'CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES" PLANNING DEPARTMENT 'Figure.12.0 - F - bILI 4 + Lam Lk! b�l I L�■�p' vl � � 1.� /r' IJ BL EMEN IARY SCKIOL 1 FK')r,P1TAL. 1 is • 1 L:J FINF_ - GOLF COURSE AIRPORT 2 _ ' PLCREAI K>rl CENTER �l�J l%IT'/YARD CITY BEACH ACA TAT IC[BARK _�c. 1{I I t'li.R �': STAIE REACH t.NK:Gf NIER LJ WKIMUNiIY SVC CTR, �"`-' ••�� �� 'A'' LIIINARY TNEATMENI PLANT. 1.1 EUiSON STEAM PLANT il1Z1 �� GENERAL LOCATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES t w ti kw<r - Figure13- 0 b. Will any of this wildlife be displaced or' affected by the proposed project? yes If so, how? New construction and development will .cause existing wildlife to be displaced. C. Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches, estuaries, bays, tidelands, or inland water areas? If so, describe: See Figure 14.4 Describe how the project will affect any body of water. d. Indicate the location and. area: (in acres or square feet) and type of plant life to be removed as a result of the project. Include number, type, and size of trees to be removed. e. Biota matrix: See Figures .15.1 , 15.2; 15.31 1.5.4, 15.5 TYPE EXTENT, Flora Fauna 3.2 Land form: (Refer to Appendix Item B) a. Is the property presently graded? b. What is the range and direction. of slope -of subject property as it now exists? c. How much grading is proposed? (Gross cubic yards). d. How much land is to be graded? (Acres). e. What will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? . f. Is the surrounding area graded? If so, how will it affect subject property? _5� Ell.MARSH AREA - IM WATER AREA NOT SUBJECT 0 T@�4 ACTION CM WATER AREA SUBJECT TO G TWL ACTION ROOD CONTROL DUCE TIDE GATE FRESH WATER • o- 1da7 J 9k TREE STAND O , F , a , f ' J - - SOIiQ:K6IM1AMNNO HUNTINGTON BEACH C4CIF©RMA WATER RESOURCES/VEGETATION ® PLANNING DEPARTMENT Figure 14.0 i 1I�11II�. f 00 Christmas tree lot Ci_E -- C F E . ^ CENTER Q 0 WNTGM4,,q!W.:Rn AV%Ti1M7ilH !.'Foil"A PwM1wAI i W ...:`.MF4 � — n a ~ ZAvt 2 . _ - _ AI ORIIN- Alt I i j j ! i! 11_f 1.LL' - " TARK lTilh - C:LZT I.1-i 1-Tl f U OR 5�f_I I 1 f 1 I ,�I 1. M R Y CF R 7,1NJLII , IR - .. TIC=TTTTiI 1 ,I $ . I11-Lu - -- Flora Fauna 'K Tree stand Great Basin Fence Lizard Wild oats Common Croy Bermuda grass Mourning Dove Crab grass White Crowned Sparrow Spangle top Pocket Gophers Wild barley Lizards . FLORA AND FAUNA POTENTIAL MULTI -STORY LOCATIONS:AREA ONE 'huntington beach planning department Figure 15. 1 LIT L ru- 4PCF-C O . _.. AVEMN -- -�� COM � � I _ _ x __— ..aee. o. -------------- 1 (�-1.r—� _1 f �' GARFIELD AVE. Flora * Tree stand Fauna Miscellaneous avian and ground fauna POTENTIAL PJIULTI -STORY LOCATIONS AREA THREE huntington beach planning department Figure 15.2 r 1 Ll,1 1 I LLt-- �A"�T�,Jh \i•)M1 G tR�' fl1Ni EA CA j�-I 1 CF l Y r�n.t ---,.•.0 ��+�.(� !',/. /'}'./_� �_ �.na�t - L C'l�ViE AI 1 A; ' p� �rlG��r f I J I I I Lid_I_l_I1I_��_ 11IL ?' � �t�r;•o•rri-�.:. 1...: .,,e,'; �,E•er-:sr�a=.v;�:e•nEr:r �+ ,t 1� s. w a ,n eoLsa -- AVE. 1 — W N N �k existing tree stands 1 Fauna Smmayllll mammals and rodents; — --- -fl -- -- pigeons TA5M4N T OR- 1 1 - - i )I - 1 a ,A 51 AN C Mc GAD(II 4 AVE _.___J' I • (- POTENTIAL )MULTI —STORY LOCATIONS:AREA FOUR huntington beach planning department, 1From Huntington Beach Industrial Park EIR No. 7316 Figure 15.4 lr t ti; F .Flora Cry * Tree stand ,� I Miscellaneous plants and species �c including pampas grass, myoporum, mesembryanthimum, wild radis, wood sorrel., tumbleweed, lupin, and species+ �(c of mustard Faunal y Mourning doves En lish s "arrows mallards e'^ blacktail .jack rabbit, cottontail and gophers: Proximity to Bolsa Chica Marsh also results in + frequent visits of other wildlife.' etc, 0 1Derived from Seacliff Planned Development Project EIR POTENTIAL MULTI -STORY LOCATIONS:AREA FIVE f huntington beach planning e art ent Figure 15.5 3.2 Land Form (cont.) g. During construction of the project, what efforts are being taken to min- imize erosion or siltation of the property? 3.3 Drainage and flood. control: a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how it will be accommodated: Unknown at this time. b. To what extent will the project be located within a flond. hazard area? Please describe• (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Standard Project Flood.) See Figure 9.0 3.4 Air Quality: (Refer to Appendix Item C) a. if project is industrial, describe and list air pollution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. b. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. C. if project is highway improvements, list existing and estimated traffic projection for 10 years in future. 3.5 Noise. A. Describe any adjacent offsite noise sources (i.e. , airports, industry, freeways) . . (See figure 16.0) b. What noise will be .produced by the project? If available, please give noise levels in decibel measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be produced. Ambient levels will increase as a result of traffic generated from multi-story .developments. , However, noise decibles at total saturation should be within decibel levels projected for the areas. as indicated on General C. How will noise produced by project compare with existing noise levels? plan Noise Elemen A significant decibel increase can be expected if traffic counts are an Y indication of the intensity of traffic volumes. ---ey,eau Moha Cyr � .d!j� :;a \ ��, �h sj � C +:� � � � \•.,�� yr �i� y� 4+To moroeCanta�r OwEl �a rPJNrMTON BWR 09LlfOI NIA G MND TRAMSPORTATION PiANNlNG DEFAR Noise rune CONTOURS 19 7 4 �.n. Figure 16:0 3.6 Water: Refer to Appendix item D. a. If project will not require installation or replacement of new water mains, check here . .and omit sections b .through f. b.. Attach a map showing the project, size and location of lines. c. If new water mains are to be, constructed, indicate length and size (diameter) of new mains: Length Size d. What is the area in acres and the population to be served by- the new mains? Indicate the approximate service area on a map. e. If new mains are replacing existing mains, give' length and size of ex- isting mains: Length size f. Please estimate the daily volume .in gallons required to serve the project. 3.7 Sewer: (Refer to. Appen'dix Item 0-1 a. If project will not require installation or replacement of new sewer mains', check here and omit sections b and c. b. Attach a map showing the project, size and location of lines. c. Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent volumes within the system. 3.8 Utility Lines: (Refer to Appendix Item.,:0-2 . • a. Indicate length and type of new offsite transmission and distribution facilities required to serve project. b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? If so, please describe facilities. C. Do existing lines have to be increased in number or size for project?- If so, please describe how. -7- 3.9 Education: (See Figure 13.0) For residential projects, note primary and secondary school districts: Primary: Secondary 3.10 Population Displacement: (Refer to Appendix Item a. Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? If not, do not answer question -(b) . b. What is the total number of residents to be displaced? 3.11 Demolition: Unknown .at this time. a. Will any improvements be demolished or removed by the project? If so, answer questions, b through d. b. Describe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. c. List approximate volume of exported material. ' d. Indicate the location and the distance to the site where exported material will be dumped: 4.0 Mitigating, Measures: (Refer to Appendix Item F) 4.1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve resources (Electricity, gas, water or wildlife)? Please describe. 4.2 Describe facilities designed into the project that are proposed to minimize erosion or siltation control on subject property. 4. 3 Describe types of building materials and/or construction methods for the project that are designed to minimize the effects caused by flooding, if pro- ject is located within flood hazard area. 4.4 Briefly describe what efforts are being proposed to minimize the short-term impacts caused by construction. -8- 4.5 Describe measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons occupying project. i 4.6 Describe measures proposed in the design of the project to ,reduce. noise . pollution to persons outside of the project which is caused by noise gener- ated by the project. .4.7 Describe how the design of the ,project (architectural treatinent and land- scaping) has been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect. 4.8 Describe measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate rem- source recovery. 5.0 Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? Yes Please explain all project alternatives. Not to allow multi-story. development may be considered as. an. alternative to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect. . Also, the establishment of height limits or maximum densities (Residential MS) may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect. I .hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my kno edge. 61ignMture Date Filed .REV: 6/74 -9- APPENDIX What will be the maximum occupancy of all structures proposed within this project? In recognition- of the generality of the proposed project, occupancy shall be defined as the amount of population generated from residential multi-story and/or the amount of employees generated from office/professional or industrial multi-story. Thus, the following breakdown is provided. Area One 8 acres commercial MS @ 55 employees/acrel 2 440 8 acres office/professional MS @ 93.employees/acre = 744 1184 Area Two 10 acres commercial MS @' 55 employees/acre _ 550 l0 acres office/professional MS @ 93 employees/acre 930 20 acres residential MS @ 50 units/acre = 1000 un @ 1.8 persons/unit = 1800 3280 Area Three 2 acres commercial MS @ 55 employees/acre = 120 3 acres office/professional MS @ 93 employees/acre 279 3 acres residential MS @ 50 units/acre = 150 un@ 1.8 persons/unit 270 659 Area Four 100 acres industrial/office/professional multi-story @ 14.9 employees/acre = 1490 employees Area Five 4 acres residential MS @ 50 units/acre" 200 units x 1.8 persons/un = 360 4 acres commercial MS ,@ 55 emp' loyees/acre = 220 580 1Derived from total number of commercial 'trade employees divided `by number of developed commercial acreage within.City of, Huntington `.Beach in 1974 (7739 employees = 700 acres 11.05 employees/acre x 5 (assumed,bUmber, of stories) = 55 employees 2Derived from total number of office/professional employees (services) divided by number of developed office/professional acreage within city of Huntington Beach in 19.740 (1860 employees = 100 acres ,= 18.6 employees/acre x 5 (assumed number of stories) = 93 employees 3Standard is deried from: INDUSTRIAL LAND USE STUDY, June 19769 Huntington Beach Planning Department. APPENDIX ITEM A 3.2 Land Form As illustrated in. Figure 2.1 through 2.5 the five potential multi-story locations are intermixed with existing land uses and pockets of vacant land. The existing land uses within each area constitute good land forms consisting of existing improvements and structures. With the exception of Area Five, the pockets of vacant land located within each of the five areas are presently used for agricultural purposes or are filled for weed abatement. In case of Area Five of the multi-story locations, the .site is presently in its natural form. Quantifying the amount and extent of grading necessary for future multi-story cannot be accurately estimated at this time due to the nature of the project and the lack of civil engineering data. Appendix Item B r 3.4 Air Quality The person-per-vehilce ratio in Orange County is currently 1'.6 given an, approximate occupancy (population +employees) of 7200 people, on approximately total 11,520 vehicles will be located within the five multi-story locations. The total amount of 11 ,520 motor vehicles will produce the following approximate amounts of contaminants: Hydrocarbons .0004.4 tons/car/day x 11 ,520 vehicles = 5.0688 tans/day Particulate Materials .000008 tons/car/day x 11 ,520 vehicles = .09216 tons/day NOx . 000252 tons/car/day x 11 ,520 vehicles = 2.90304 tons/day sox .000007 tons/car/day x 11 ,520 vehicles - .08064 tons/day CO . 004035 tons/ear/day x 11 ,838 vehicles = 47.76 tons/day 55.91 tons/day Appendix Item C 3.6 Water The five areas combined will generate an additional demand for water of .approximately 33,763,800 gallons per day. The following breakdown is provided: Area One 8 acres commercial MS @ 150,0001 gals/day x 52 = 6,000,000 8 acres office/professional MS @ 75,000 dals/day x 5 = 3,000,000 9,0001000 gals/day Area Two 10 acres commercial MS @ 150,000 gals/day x 5 - 7,500,000 10 acres office/professional MS @ 75,000 gals/day x. 5 . = 3,7.50,000 20 acres residential MS (1800 pop) @ 160 gals/person/day3= 288,000. 1,1 ,538,000 Area Three 2 acres commercial MS @ 150,000 gals/day x 5 = 19500,000 3 acres office/professional. MS @ 75,000 .gals/day x 5 1 ,125,000 3 acres residential MS (270 pop) @ 160 gals/person/day _ 43,200 2,668,200 Area Four 100 acres industrial/office/professional MS.@ 75,000 gals/day = 79500,000 Area Five 4 acres residential MS (360 pop) , @ 160 gals/day/person = 57,600 4 acres commercial MS `@ 150,000 gals/day x 5 3,000,000 3,057,600 1Huntington Beach Planning Department Standards . 2A five story structure is assumed for estimating purposes. 3Standard from Department of Public Works Appendix Item D 3.7 Sewer An approximate sewage flow of 11 ,169,5,00 gallons, per day will be generated from the mutli-story locations combined. The following breakdown is provided; Area One 8 acres commercial MS @ 13,600 = 10,8001x 52= 544 000 8 acres office/professional MS @ 13,600 = 100,800 x 5 = 544,000 1 ,088,000 gals per day. Area Two .10 acres commercial MS @ 13,6001 = 13'6,00 x 52 = 680,000 10 acres office/professional MS,@ 13,600 = 136,000 x 5 = 680,000 20 acres residential MS @ 9,700 1949000 x. 5 = = 970,000 2,330,000 gals per day. Area Three 2 acres commercial MS,@ 13,600 = 272,000 x .5 = 136,000 .3 acres office/professional MS @ 13,600 = 40,800 x 5 = 204,000 3 acres residential MS @ 9,700 = 29,100 x 5. = 145,500 485,500-gal s per day Area Four 100 acres industrial/office MS @ 13,600 1 ,360,000 x 5 = 6,8003000 gals per day. Area Five 4 acres commercial MS @ 13,600 = 84,400 x 5 = 27.2,000. 4 acres residential MS @ 9,700 = 38,800 x 5 = 194,000 466,000 gals per day lAverage sewage flow land use %tandard in gallons/day/acre . Source: Huntington Beach Planning Department 2A quantitative factor of the assumed number of stories. Appendix Item D-1 3. 7 Utility An approximate demand of 119,079,000 KWH per year will be generated from the combined five multi-story locations. The following breakdown is provided. Area One 8 acres commercial MS @ 154,8,001 KWH/acre - 1 ,238,400 x 52 6,192,000 8 acres office MS @ 154,800 KWH/acre 1 ,238,400 x 5 = 6,1.92,000 12,384,000 KWH/yeas Area Two 10 acres commercial MS @ 154,800 KWH/acre = 1 ,540,800 x 5 = 7,704,000 10 acres office MS @ 154,800 .KWH/acre = 1 ,540,800 x 5 = 7,704,000 20 acres residential MS (1000 units) @ 5,700 KWH/unit = 5,700,0100 21 ,108,000 KWH/year Area Three 2 acres commercial MS @ 154,800 KWH/acre = 309,600 x 5 1 ,548,000 2 acres office MS .@ .154,800 KWH/acre = 309,600 x 5 = 1 ,548,000 3 acres residential MS (150 units) @ 5,700 KWH/unit = 855,000 3,951 ,000 KWH/year Area Four 100 acres industrial/office MS '@ 1543800 KWH/acre = 1 ,548,000 x 5 = 77,400,000 KWH/year Area Five 4 acres commercial MS @ 154,800 = 61.9,200 x 5 = 3,.096,000 4 acres residential MS (200 units) @ 5,700 KWH/units = 19140,060 4,236,00o KWH/year lAverage amount of electrical power per year consumed by type of land use. Source: Huntington Beach Planning 'Department. 2Assumed number of stories. Appendix Item D-2 3.10 Population Displacement With the exception of Area :Two, displacement of existing residenti.al units is not anticipated in any of the multi-story locations. Regarding Area Two, it may be assumed that any development within the core of the area southwest of Atlanta and Beach will necessitate displacement of existing residenti,a units. Most affected would be. existing mobile home parks encompassing approximately 50 acres and containing slightly over 560 units. It .can be assumed'that multi-story development within this area may partially or wholly affect these existing mobile home units that may necessitate population displacement. Appendix Item E 4. 0 Mitigating Measures It is intended that the Goals and Development Policies contained within the proposed multi-story Policy Plan will serve to. mitigate the negative effects normally associated with multi-story developments. The developed policies as outlined within the Policy Plan specifically addressed. the environmental ; physical , social concerns and conditions that must be satisfied by all multi-story proposals. It is generally , acknowledged that these"total environmental" concerns many times are lost in the formation of ordinances. Therefore, it is understood that the Goals and Development Policies of the multi-story Policy Plan shall be 'used for the purposes Iof assuring the City that multi.-story developments are not a liability but an asset to the community. It is further intended that the multi-story ,ordinance will also serve as a mitigating measure that will guide the proper development of multi-story structures. As stated in the Development Policies of the multi-story Policy Plan, it is recognized that types of multi-story uses and locations differ and may necessitate special planning. Therefore; it 'is understood that the specific plan process will` also offer the city yet another planning tool in- assuring the city that multi-story is .planned in the best interest of the community. Appendix Item F CITY OF, HunTmGTon BEAU DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P- t:t BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 014) 5365271 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Environmental Resources DATE: February 10, 1977 SUBJECT: Negative Declaration No. 77-11 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach REQUEST: Code Amendment No. 77-2 which would amend the City's .existing multi-zoning ordinance by adding new resi- dential multi-story development provisions and standards'. LOCATION: The location of. the properties affected by this proposed amendment are indicated on Figures 2 . 1, 2. 2 , 2. 3, 2. 4, 2. 5 of the initial study document. Negative Declaration .No. 77-11 was posted in -the office of the City Clerk on February 3, 1977 and as of February . 10, 1977 no comments have been re- ceived as a result of this public posting. i Recommendations The Department,,of, Environmental Resources recommends that the Planning Commission grant Negative Declaration No. 77-11 having found that the proposed project will .not have a significant adverse effect upon the physical environment. No environmental impact report has 'been prepared for this proposed ordinance. Findings are based upon the information contained in the negative declaration request, the public posting, and subsequent review and staff discussion between the Planning. Department, . Public Works Department, and, Department of Building and Community Development. It should be noted that this finding is made on the proposed ordinance only and does not reflect an environmental assessment of any specific development plan. J)6hn M. ope t. of Environmental Resources JMC:gc r r,. NEGATIVE DECLARATION Q NOTICE OF DETERMINATION T 1. Planning Department REF: Negative Declaration No. 77-11 Applicant Date Posted February 3, 1977 2. Clerk of the Board EIR No. None P.O. Box 687 i Public Hearing Date: Feb. 15, 1977 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Application/Permit No. CA 77-2 Notice is hereby given that the City of Huntington Beach on [] approved the pro- (Discretionary Body) Date [] disapproved ject as herein described and located: Project Description: . Proposal to amend existing multi-story zoning ordinance by adding. new residential multi-story development provisions and standards and to amend. the existing standards and provisions that apply to commer- cial, office , and industrial multi-story developments within the affected areas, Project Location/Address: Amendments will affect 172 acres of land in various locations within the City (approximately l percent of the al City acrea.ge) . and that .the City, as the Lead Agency, finds that the project 'C] will not [`] will have a significant (substantial adverse) effect on the environment. (� An initial study was, c,onducted by the, City . of Huntington Beach. The study consisted of a review o the application submitted "by the project . sponsor and is supported by adequate scientific and factual data to _support the finding. The application was posted in the Office of the City Clerk for public and private review and , comment. An Environmental Impact Report has not been prepared for this project. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and adopted for this project.. The form and content of that environmental docu- . ment was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (et seq) . NOTE: A copy of all information in support of the .application .and of all subsequent discretionary proceedings may be reviewed in the Department of Environmental Resources , City of Huntington Beach, P.O. Box 190 , Huntington Beach, California, 92648 . Department of the City filing notice: Department of Environmental Resources Secretary of the Decision-Making Body Date CC: Environmental Council