Warner/Nichols Property

This is the letter HB Tomorrow sent to the Planning and Building Department concerning the Warner/Nichols property in 2012 [PDF]:


 

November 13, 2012

Ricky Ramos, Senior Planner
City of Huntington Beach, Planning and Building Department
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648

RE:      Warner Nichols Property

Dear Mr. Ramos,

HBT supports compatible use with the existing adjoining neighborhoods and more information on how the impacts will be mitigated with the school, residential and church uses adjacent and nearby; if industrial zoning and commercial zoning are approved for the multiple parcels. The mitigation measures should be part of the EIR with a plan for the entire site and specifics on the applicant’s responsibility for relocation of the historical structures and archeological issues related to this site.

HBT seeks additional requirements from the developer to preserve these historical buildings with an adequate demolition allowance to apply to the cost to relocate them to another site in this city. Their $10,000 demolition cost allowance is less than it would cost to actually demolish them on site. Demolition cost estimates should be provided to create a higher allowance toward moving the buildings as providing the allowance is less cost for developer than an actual demolition. Since the developer is also the contracted disposal contractor for this city, estimates of the demolition should be as if it were done by competitive bid. The developer should provide several bids on which to base allowance and the structures should be preserved.

Attached are some specific items in the EIR of concern.

Sincerely,

Karen Jackle
President
Huntington Beach Tomorrow

 

ES.5.2: A change in general plan amendment is requested, a significant change now. If no new development or active use is proposed for the subject site, although the owner may apply for change, how is the impact of the rezoning  assessed without a plan identifying what will be built?

ES.5.1: A preliminary un-segmented development plan should be provided as zone changes are requested and the public is unable to assess the impacts without more information on the total picture of what is proposed in compliance with CEQA intent.

ES.4: The existing buildings are of historical significance built 1905-1934 and important to the Japanese community of Orange County and history of our city. The property owner is responsible per City code to maintain secure site conditions for these buildings of historical significance to prevent demolition by deterioration until the buildings can be removed.  Are there penalties for failure to keep the site secure to offset increased costs to preserve and restore these buildings?

ES.6: What buffer will be provided to put industrial zoning adjacent to elementary school and residential and church uses nearby? This is a significant impact on this community.

ES.9: What is the Statement of Overriding Considerations that will be created pursuant to CEQUA 15093 to offset significant and unavoidable impacts? More than photography of existing structures is needed. There should be archeological study done as part of mitigation and outside documentation of the significance of the four buildings should be required individually and as a whole. What preservation steps should be done onsite prior to relocating the buildings?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s