HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Plan Amendment GPA1990005 - Staff Report/Executive Summaryhuntington beach department of community development
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Community Development
DATE:October 7, 1990
SUBJECT:GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5/ZONE CHANGE NO.
90-6/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.90-24
APPLICANTS:City of Huntington Beach/
Ursino Development DATE ACCEPTED:
5362 Oceanus Drive June 27, 3.990
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
MANDATORY PROCESSIN DATE:
PROPERTY John F. March Not Applicable
OWNERS:6541 Crista Palma Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ZONE : C2 (Community
Business ) and R3 (Medium-
Carl Spano High Density Residential)
16911 Bolsa Chica Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 GENERAL PLAN: General
Commercial
Howard M. Hiroshima
16851 Bolsa Chica Street EXISTING USE: 7,100 square
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 foot restaurant and 2
single family homers
REQUEST:To redesignate a 2.04 acre
area from General Commercial
to Medium-High Density Resi-
dential and rezone from C2
(Community Business) to R3
(Medium-High Density Resi-
dential). And to
amend the General
Plan land u--h;.„=designation
on approximately 0.81 acres
from General Commercial to
Medium-High Density
Residential to bring the
property into conformance
with the existing R3
(Medium-High Density
Residential) zoning.
1.0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
LOCATION: 16851, IL6871 and
16.911 Bolsa Chica Street
(west . side of Bolsa Chica
Street, approximately 270
feet north of Warner
Atrenue).
ACREAGE: 2.85 total
net acres
A. Approve Negative Declaration No. 90 -24 with mitigation measures
and forward to the City Council for adoption;
A-FM-23C
I
B.Deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 by adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1438 and forward to the City Council
for denial; and
C.Deny Zone Change No .
Council for denial.
90-6 with findings and forward to the City
2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 is a request to redesignate a 2.85 net
acre area , located on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street
approximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue, from a General Plan
land use designation of General Commercial to a Medium-High Density
Residential land use. General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 is the third
amendment request to the Land Use Element in 1990.
Zone Change No. 90-6 is a request to rezone 2.04 acres of the area
from C2 (Community Business) zoning to R3 (Medium-High Density
Residential) zoning. The remaining 0.81 acres (APN 3.78-233-04)
located at the northernmost portion of the area is currently zoned
R3. The General Plan Amendment will not alter the land uses that can
currently be built on this portion of the site. It is only necessary
to achieve consistency with the zcning on the property.
The rtruests are being submitted for review and recommendation by the
Plant -Commission and then will be forwarded to the City Council for
final __cision. Although the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
do not constitute any new development, it will allow for residential
development of a maximum density of 25 units per acre on the site. If
approved, the amendment request will allow for development of a
maximum 50 condominium units or 62 apartment units on the 2.04 acre
site. The balance of the area (.81 acre) will allow for development
of maximum 21 condominium or 24 apartment units. No development plans
have been. submitted at this time.
This report is designed to investigate the concerns associated with
the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and
to identify whether such an action is compatible with surrounding land
uses and in conformance with the goals and policies of the General
Plan. As such, the report has been structured in the following
manner. Section 4.0 details the environmental processing conducted
for the project. Section 8.0 consists of a description of the project
and the project site. Section 9.0 discusses the project issues.
Section 10.0 discusses the project's conformity with the goals and
policies of the General Plan, followed by Section 11.0 which consists
of a brief summary of the Fiscal Impact Analysis conducted for the
site. Sections 12.0 and 13.0 summarize staff's recommendation and
Section 14.0 presents alternative actions.
Staff Report - 10/2/90 -2-
i
J
n
I
Subject Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONE:
LAND USE:
North of_Sub' ct Pr ert :
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONE:
LAND USE:
General Commercial
C2 (Community Business)
7,100 square foot vacant restaurant
building and two single family
residences.
Medium Density, Residential
R3 (Medium-High Density Residential)
98 unit condominium complex
East of Subject Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial
ZONE: C2 (Community Business)
LAND USE: 44,000 square foot of Professional
Office Space
South of Sub'ect Pro ert
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial
ZONE: C2 (Community Business)
LAND USE: 3,000 square foot Professional Office
Space and Auto Repair Complex
West of Sub' c Pro ert
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Residential
ZONE: R3 (Medium-Nigh Density Residential)
LAND USE: 52 Apartment and Condominium Units
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
On July 11, 1990, thetEnvironmental Review Committee determined that
a Mitigated Negati,ve.Declaration Would adequately!` address all of the
environmental concerns regarding this proj,ect..
Pursuant to environmental regulations in effect a-t this. time, the
Department of Community Development advertised Draft Negative
Declaration No. 90-24 for twenty-one (21) days. Staff did not
receive any comments during the 'review+ period.
On August 22, 1990 aftE:r'amending the project description to
include the 0.81 acre portion of the site, thie.Env.ironmental.Review
Committee reviewed the revised checklist for t-he.project and once
again determined that Mitigated Negative Declaration would
adequately address all of'-the'environmental concerns associated with
the project.
Pursuant to environmental regulations in effect at this time, the
Department-of Cowrnunity Development advertised the revised draft
Negative Declaration No. 90-24 for twenty-one (21) days. Staff did
not receive any comments during the review period.
Prior to any action on. General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 and Zone
Change No. 90-6, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to
review and act on Negative Declaration No. 90-24.
5.0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable.
6.0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS:Not applicable.
7.0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable.
8.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 and Zone Change No. 90-6 is a
request to redesignate 2.85 net acres from a General commercial land
use designation to a Medium-High Density Residential land use
designation and rezone a 2.04 acre portion of the site from C2
(Community Business) to R3 (Medium-High Density Residential). Since
a portion of the area entails a zone change request as well, the
area has been separated into two sites for analysis purposes. A
brief analysis and history of each area has been presented below.
Site A:
Site A consists of approximately 2.04 net acres located on the west
side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 270 feet north of warner
Avenue and includes a zone change as well as the general plan
amendment request. Site A is currently occupied by a 7,100 square
foot vacant restaurant building and a single family residence.
Site A has been designated as General Commercial since 1964 when it
was redesignated from Low Density Residential. In 1987, the
property owner of a portion of Site A (16871 Bo1s4 chica, the parcel
containing the restaurant) requested that the restaurant site be
redesignated from a General Commercial land up e and a C2 (Community
Business) zoning to a Medium-High Density Residential land use
designation and an R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning to
allow for development of a maximum 40 apartment units on the 1.62
net acre site (General Plan Amendment No. 87-1).
At that time, staff found the Medium-High Density Residential land
use to be compatible with surrounding land uses, but recommended
that the General Commercial land use designation be retained based
upon the following concerns.
A market study prepared'in'1984 (Attachment No. 8) for the general
vicinity indicated that there would be a long-term demand for retail
commercial uses in the area. Staff was concerned that the
applicant's request, at that time, for residential use would erode
the commercial land inventory in the area, and thus limit the area's
ability to meet future commercial demand. Staff further felt that
Staff Report - 10/2/90 -4- (7146d)
fK
rk
ri
8
I-
due to the marginal nature of adjacent commercial uses south of Site
A, future land consolidation may be encouraged which would result in
a larger high quality shopping center on the site.
The applicant is requesting that Site A be redesignated from a
General Commercial land use designation to a Medium-High Density
Residential land use designation and rezoned from C2 (Community
Business) to R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning to allow
for residential development. The General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change will allow for future development of a maximi:;n of 25 units
per acre or a total of 50 condominium units or 62 apartment units
within the 2.04 acre site.
Site B:
Site B consists of approximately 0.81 net acres, located on the west
side of Bolsa Chica Street, approximately 600 feet north of Warner
Avenue immediately to the north of Site A. Site B is currently
occupied by a single family residence. Site A has been zoned R3
(Medium-High Density Residential) since 1965 when it was rezoned
from R1 (Low Density Residential).
The City has initiated this portion of the general plan amendment to
amend the General Plan land use designation on Site B from General
Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential to bring it into
consistency with the existing R3 (Medium-High Density Residential)
zoning. This action will not alter the land uses which are
currently permitted under the 'xisting R3 zoning on this portion of
the site. A total of 21 confiminiums or 24 apartments may be
developed on the site.
9 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
The following analysis examines five land use alternatives for Site
A as follows:
(1) Medium-High Density Residential (maximum 62 apartment
units/50 condominium units -applicant 's proposal).
(2) General Commercial (Existing 7,100 foot restaurant and
non-conforming single family residence).
(3) General Commercial (Projected development of the site, if
recycled; approximately 17,890 square feet).*
(4) Medium Density Residential (maximum 36 apartment units).
(5) High Density Residential (maximum 86 apartment units).
* Estimate-based upon factors provided in the City :
Huntington Beach Fiscal Impact Model prepared by
Ultrasystems, Inc. (1980).
Staff Report - 10/2/90 -5-(7146d)
.1
Amending the General Plan to Medium-High Density Residential for
Site "B", the .81 acre portion of the project area, will bring it in
consistency with the R3 zoning designation and is not anticipated to
result in any significant impacts. Therefore, the analysis
primarily focuses upon Site "A".
A. Land Use
As shown in Attachment 2, the City's General Plan designates most of
the property north of the study area as Medium Density Residential.
The property to the west of the study area is designated as High
Density Residential, south of the subject area is General Commercial
and directly east of the area, across Bolsa Chica Street, is General
Commercial. Northeast of the subject area, is Low Density
Residential.
As indicated in Attachment 3, the area of concern is currently zoned
C2 (Community Business). Property to the north and west is zoned i.3
(Medium-High Density Residential), and R2 (Medium Density
Residential. The vacant meadowlark Airport property is located
further to the east and is zoned Meadowlark Specific Plan.
Existing adjacent land uses consist of a mixture of conforming and
non-conforming uses. A group of 98 condominium units developed at
14.92 units per acre exists directly to the north of the subject
area. The condominium complex has access off of both Bolsa Chica
and Pearce Street. West of the subject property, on Charlene
Circle, is a cluster of 52 residential units developed at 20.8 units
per acre which includes both apartments and condominiums.
To the south of the project area there is a small insurance office
which_is-cur-rer may- aee t with a single family detached house behind
it (to the west of the office building). Further south, on the
northwest corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, a small
complex of auto oriented businesses exists including a repair shop
and two tire centers. T.t should be noted that the existing single
family residence mentioned above is on commercially designated
property and is, therefore, a non-conforming use.
The land uses across Bolsa Chica Street is the east include the
Bolsa Chica and Warner commercial center, 44,000 square feet of
professional office space and a 26 unit residential development.
Eastward of there properties is the vacant meadowlark Airport site,
which is proposed for development of 15 acres of commercial along
Warner Avenue and a total o 600 residential units.
There is currently approximately 25 acres of commercial property
(including the project site) within a half mile of the project
area. This plus the proposed 15 acre commercial development of the
former Meadowlark Airport site provides a total of 40 acres of
commercial property within the project vicinity.
i
I
i
(7146d)Staff Report - 10/2/90 -6-
B
If the existing General Commercial designation were retained, it is
possible tr the existing restaurant and non-conforming single
family res e could be recycled and a new retail center
constructs, the site. In this scenario, the development of
approximate.Ly- 17,890 square feet of retail space may be possible.
Such development would be compatible with the commercial uses south
of the property and could eventually be tied into new developments
on those properties to form a cohesive and complimentary commercial
node. This type of development is what was envisioned when the
property was initially designated for General Commercial. A
properly designed retail center could also be found to be compatible
with the Medium and Medium High Density Residential uses to the west
and north.
As tha previous description indicates, the project area is located
within an area characterized b} mediur« to high density residential
uses with a significant amount of commercial uses nearby. The study
area is presently developed with a 7,100 square foot vacant
restaurant building and two single family residences which are
ncn-conforming uses. The restaurant has been vacant for over a
year. The applicant indicates that the commercial land use and
existing restaurant business has not been and will not be a viable
iise with the proposed 15 acre commercial project proposed for the
Meadowlark site. Due to the small size of the subject property and
the nature of surrounding property uses, the Medium and Medium-high
Density Residential alternatives under consideration in this
analysis could be deemed compatible with surrounding uses.
The applicant's request for Medium-High Density Residential with an
R3 zone designation could result in a maximum 62 apartment units on
Site A. However, the applicant has expressed an intent to develop
50 condomini.lm units; under the PD (Planned Development) standards,
the project will be required to comply with more stringent
development r-,,quirements for open space, setbacks and building bulk
ant_ would res,:lt in a lower density project. Medium-High. Density
Residential development would generally be compatible with the
Commercial, an!1 Medium and High Density land uses to the north,
south, east and west of the property. The General Plan Land Use
Element states that Medium-High Density Residential land uses shall
be located in areas between Medium and High Density (or more
intense) 1?iid uses, near major transportation routes and highways
and in proximity to commercial areas and activity areas. The
location of the subject area appears to meet the three criteria.
Redesignating the site to Medium or High Density Residential would
allow foi approximately 36 or 86 apartment unitsdSite A,
respectively. As with the Medium-High Density Residential
alternative, a Medium Density and High Density use would also be
compatible with surrounding land uses. The designations of the
Medium Density allows for a maximum of 15 units per gross acre, the
Medium-High Density designation allows for a maximum of 25 units per
gross acre, and the High Density designation allows for maximum 35
units per gross acre. The High Density alternative would allow for
24 more units than the Medium-High Density alternative and would
result in greater impacts to the area; it, therefore, is not
considered
Staff Report - 10/2/90 -7-(7146d)
superior to the proposed project. The Medium Density alternative
would feature 26 fewer units that Medium-High an would therefore,
generate fewer traffic and infrastructure impacts . These issues are
addressed in the following sections of this report.
B. Housing
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in
coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG ) has created an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) directed
t.)ward reducing pollutant emissions in the region . A primary goal
cf the plan is to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality
by reducing vehicle miles traveled through achievement of a
jobs /housing balance.
The City's Housing element has determined that Huntington Beach has
a housing need of 6,228 units over the next five (5) years. The
proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would create new
residential property not anticipated in the City's General Plan and
may be seen as beneficial in light of the need for housing units in
the City to meet the City's identified housing need.
be recommending a provision for affordable housing units which will
further the City's housing goals. Furthermore, with the Medium-High
Density Residential land use designation , the applicant will be able
to provide affordable housing units which may not be feasible under
a Medium Density designation . Staff will be recommending that the
applicant provide 20 percent of the residential units as affordable
units, which complies with the City's policies to encourage the
provision of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the
community.
The applicant has expressed an intent to develop 50 condominium
units on Site A under the requested Mee -High Density
designation. However, the request doe it include a PD (Planned
Development ) suffix and could allow for development of a maximum 62
apartment units . The Medium and High Density Residential
designations would allow for development of a maximum 36 apartment
units and 86 apartment units respectively . The other two
alternatives, retaining the existing restaurant use (and
non-conforming residences) and developing a retail canter, do not
include additional residential development.
Should the Medium-High Density Residential land use designation be
approved , at the entitlement stage of the review process , staff will
C. Public Services
1. Sewer:
The project is served by both City and County sewer facilities. The
City's sewer system in the project vicinity currently has adequate
capacity to serve any of the residential or commercial alternatives
presented above.
Staff ReY.;3x#. - 10/2/90 -8- (7146d)
r.
The project area is also served by Orange County Sanitation District
Number 11. OSCD No. 11 is currently deficient in meeting long-term
sewage needs. The Orange County Sanitation District has indicatied
that it will not approve any project with sewage generation levels
which will exceed existing capacity until improvements are made to
bring the Slater Pump Station system up to meet long-term needs.
Therefore, residential development of the site will be required to
be phased so as not to exceed existing sewage volumes until the
Slater Pump Station has been upgraded.
To determine the number of units allowed for the first phase of
development, the OCSD has provided the City with the following
sewage generation rates to estimate the amount of sewage generated
by each land use designation:
Land Use Sewa Generation Ra e
Low Density Residential 1,500 gallons /acre/day
Medium Density Residential 2,000 gallons/acre/day
Medium-High Density Residential 5,880 gallons/acre/day
High Density Residential "?195 gallons/acre/day
General Commercial '3,,:30 gallons /acre/day
Based upon these rates, Site A has a current sewage capacity of
6,569 gallons per day (2.04 acres at 3,230 gallons per acre per
day). The proposed medium -high density residential land use (25
units per acre ) is estimated to generate approximately 5,880 gallons
per acre per day or 235 gallons per unit per day. Based upon these
calculations, the existing capacity of the sewer system will allow
for a development of an estimated 28 Medium -High Density units at
this time. The balance of the units allowed based upon density is
34 apartment (or 22 condominium) units which could be developed upon
completion of improvements to the Slater Pump Station.
A Medium Densi ty Residential land, use (15 unit per acre) is
estimated to generate 2,000 gallons of sewage per acre per day or
approximately 133 gallons per unit per day. A High Density
Residential land use (35 units per acre ) is to generate 7,495
gallons of sewage per acre per day or approximately 214 gallons per
unit per day.
Based upon these calculations , the existing capacity of the sewer
system will allow for development of the entire 35'Medium Density
project or 30 High Density units at this time. The remaining 56
High Density units could not be constructed until improvements to
the Slater Pump Station have been completed.
Staff Report - 10/2/90 -9- (7146d)
0
2. Water:
The subject property is currently served by double eight inch water
line in Bolsa Chica Street. After reviewing the development
alternatives contained in this analysis,.the City's Public Works
Department concluded that the existing water distribution system is
capable of supporting any of the proposed land uses.
3. Storm Drains:
The existing drainage system, which allows the storm water runoff
from the property to flow into Bolsa Chica Street then into a catch
basin, can accommodate runoff from any of the proposed land uses.
Runoff from the existing commercial use is adequately accommodated.
4. Poli Pro ec ion:
Police service for the area of concern is provided by the City of
Huntington Beach which operates from a central facility located at
Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. Based upon City Police Department
planning standards whereby an extra 535 calls per year constitutes
the need for an additional officer; the alternatives will generate.
the following police manpower increases.
Police Calls/
Alternatives ni or s f,Projected Calls
Medium-High Density
Residential (Proposal).70/unit 43
Commercial (Existing).0006/sq.ft.4
Commercial (Projected ).0006 /sq.ft.10
Medium Density Residential .70/unit 25
High Density Residential .70/unit 47
As shown above, the High Density Residential alternative will
generate the greatest need for police manpower. Any alternative can
be adequately serviced -by existing police service capabilities and
will not require any significant increase of police manpower or
facilities.
5. Fire Protection:
Fire protection for the area of concern can be provided by the City
of Huntington Beach from either the Heii. Fire Station at Heil and
S0ringdale or the Warner Station at Warnar and Pacific Coast
Highway. The area of concern lies within the five minute response
area of the stations and can be adequately serviced regardless of
the selected alternative.
Staff Report - 10/2/90 -10-(7146'd)
6. Parks:
The area of concern is located within the service area of Wieder
Park, a 5,0 acre facility at the intersection of Lynn and Pearce
Streets. Weider Park will adequately serve any of the residential
alternatives. The commercial/retail alternative and the existing
restaurant use create no demand for park facilities.
7. Schools:
The area of concern is located within the Oceanview School District
and is served by haven View Elemen ':ary School (grades K-6),, Harbour
View Junior High (grades 7-8) and Marina High School (grades 9-12).
The number of students generated from a Medium , Medium -High or High
Density alternative would be minimal and could be accommodated by
the school district. A commercial use would have no impact on the
area s schools.
8. Gas and Electrical Utili i s:
There is a three inch gas main under Bolsa Chica Street. Natural
gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. No
problems have been indicated with serving the existing land use on
the property, and the gas company has, indicated that any of the
proposed projects could be adequately served by the existing gas
lines. It should be noted that since the gas company is a public
utility and is under the jurisdiction of public regulatory agencies,
gas supply may be affected by the overall availability of natural
gas and by state and federal regulatory policies.
Electrical service is provided by the Edison Company. Adequate
electrical power supply can be provided from 12 KV distribution
lines in the vicinity of the area of concern. Edison notes that the
total electrical system demand is expected to continue to increase
annually; however, excluding any unforeseen problems, their plans
for new generation resources indicate that their ability to serve
all customer loads during peak demand periods will be adequate for
for the site.
9. Solid Waste Dis osal:
The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the
City of Huntington Beach. No local service constraints are expected
under any of the land use designations. Internal street circulation
within any project would have to be designed to accommodate the
company's refuse trucks so as not to require any backing up of the
trucks within the development. If necessary, this concern will be
addressed during the entitlement process.
D. Traffic Circulation
The area of concern has approximately 350 lineal feet of frontage
along Bolsa Chica Street , a major arterial with an average daily
traffic volume of 21 ,600 vehicles near the site location . The study
area lies approximately 270 feet north of the intersection of Bolsa
Chica Street and Warner Avenue. Warner Avenue, also a major
arterial , carries an average daily traffic volume of approximately
35,300 vehicles per day near the site location . The maximum design
capacities for both Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue is 45,000.
Existing access to Site "A" is taken from Bolsa Chica Street via
three driveways , two located at the north and south ends of the
restaurant property and one for the single family residence to the
south.
Should the property be redesignated to a residential land use and
zoning, staff would recommend all access be from Charlene Circle, no
access from Bolsa Chica. Access to the site off Bolsa Chica may be
undesirable during summer 'months due to the vehicle stacking
potential on the south bound right hand turn lane on to Warner
Avenue . In order to mitigate this all access to the site, if
designated residential , should be from Charlene Circle.
Daily traffic volumes .projected to be generated by the alternative
land use designation are based upon trip generation rates
established by the County of Orange. They are as follows:
Land Use Alterna ive Dail Traffi Generation
Medium -High Density Residential 434 Average daily trips/
(62 apartment units /50 condominium units 350 Average daily trips
-Proposed)
General Commercial (Existing)
(7,100 sq. ft . restaurant & single
family residence)
General Commercial (Projected)
Medium Density Residential
(36 units)
782 Average daily trips
801 Average daily trips
252 Average daily trips
t
High Density Residential 662 Average daily trips
(86 units,
(7146d)Staff Report - 10/2/90 -12-
I
A
As indicated in the preceding table, i;:e existing General Commercial
designation in conjunction with retail development would generate
the greatest number of trips, approximately 782 to 801 average daily
trips. The commercial designation would retain access from Bolsa
Chica Street and provide three (3) curb cuts on Bolsa Chica Street.
There is currently no left turn access from Bolsa Chica Street
(northbound). There is also no left turn access out of the site.
Traffic desiring to head northbound on Bolsa Chica Street are
required to make a U-turn at Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue.
Although Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue are major arterials
which are designed to accommodate large volumes of traffic from the
land uses which have been planned in the area, maintaining the
existing commercial land use designation on the project area may
have a negative impact on traffic flows in the long term and is
anticipated to generate the greatest traffic impacts of any of the
alternatives.
Redesignation to Medium, Medium-High, or High Density Residential
would reduce future traffic generation by 530, 343, or 180 trips per
day, respectively. Residential development of the site, if required
to take access from Charlene Circle, would eliminate curb cuts along
Bolsa Chica Street. Traffic circulation impacts in the project
vicinity would be reduced by preventing U-turn movements at Bolsa
Chica Street and Warner Avenue and by eliminating circulation
hazards caused by ingress and egress on to Bolsa Chica Street. The
Public Works Department has indicated that residential streets in
the project vicinity have adequate capacity to accomodate any
additional trips generated and that access from Charlene Circle is
preferred for the site.
With regard to public transportation, the Orange County Transit
District (OCTD) offers bus service near the study area on Warner
Avenue at both Algonquin and Goldenwest. The OCTD does not foresee
any significant impact from the alternatives on the existing or any
future transit services in the study area.
The Orange County Transit District does request, however, that
adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be
provided. The development project should include paved, lighted and
handicapped accessible pedestrian accessways between project
buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials.
E. Environmental Issues:
1. Noise:
The major source of noise among the proposed project is vehicle
traffic along Bolsa Chica Street. The existing noise levels on the
property fall within the normally acceptable range for all of the
alternatives discussed.
Staff Report - 10/2/90 -13-(7146d)
Noise levels on the front portion of the property along Bolsa Chica
Street exceed the acceptable range of 60 Ldn for residential uses.
However, the use of setbacks, berming, and landscaping along Bolsa
Chica Street will be addressed through the entitlement process at
the time of residential development. No significant noise impacts
are anticipated from any of the proposed land uses.
2. Air Quality:
Development of the proposed project may indirectly generate
automotive and off-site energy generation emissions in the
Huntington Beach region by attracting users, establishing a use on a
vacated. site, etc. These emissions may incrementally contribute to
the degradation of local air quality. However, the project's
contribution is not anticipated to be significant.
3. S ismi ils an G 1
In compliance with Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of
1972, a Special Studies Zone has been established in Huntington
Beach that includes the most hazardous earthquake faults. The
project area does not fall into this special studies zone.
Development in the study area is not subject to the zone's
requirements.
The study area is not located in an area having peat and organic
soil deposits and, therefore, has a low risk potential for
liquefaction of subsoil during an earthquake. (Liquefaction is a
phenomenon where the soil structure collapses and subsidence of the
ground occurs.) However, a low to moderate expansive clay hazard
potential does exist in the study area. Expansive clays can shrink
and swell depending on the soil's water content. Shrink swell
hazards include sliding and slippage of foundations and the cracking
of foundations. Any development that occurs on the subject property
should include proper mitigation measures to avoid shrink/swell
hazards.
4. Li ht and Glare:
Development on the subject property may result in new light sources
on the site. In effect, increased general nighttime illumination
may be generated in the area. The initial study conducted by staff
identified this as a potentially significant adverse impact.
However, mitigation measures included in Negative Declaration No.
90-24 would reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance.
10.0 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY:
A. Existin General Plan Land Use Desi nation General Commercial
Retaining the existing General Commercial land use designation
conforms to the following land use goals and policies of the General
Plan.
Staff Report - 10/2/90 -14-(7146d)
1. Land Use Element
3.4.2.8 ommercial Develo m n an T urism . To insure
commercial development that is economically viable, attractive,
well related to other land uses, and satisfies the needs of the
City's residents.
(1) Encouraging planned commercial development that will
coincide with residential growth.
(2) Continuing to diversify the economic base of the City and
increasing the tax base.
(6) Continuing to promote development of commercial centers.
(7) Distributing commercial centers and relating them to
service areas.
The 1984 market analysis of the area indicates that the commercial
land use will be a viable use in the future and will be required to
satisfy the commercial needs of residents in the area, especially
once Bolsa Chica is developed. As displayed by the fiscal impact
analysis, a recycled commercial use provides the greatest economic
benefit to the City. Furthermore, due to the marginal nature of
adjacent commercial uses pouth of the site , future land
consolidation may be encouraged which would result in a larger high
quality shopping center on the site.
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would conform to
the land use and housing goals and policies established by the
General Plan. The General Plan goals and policies which are
pertinent to the proposed project are discussed.
B. Pro osed General Plan Land Use Desi nation medium-Hi h Densit
Residential):
1. Land Use Element:
The project and subsequent development , with recommended mitigation
measures contained in Negative Declaration No. 90 -24, will be
consistent with many goals and policies of the City 's Land Use
Element including:
3.4.2.5 Housing. To provide and maintain a quality living
environment so that members of all economic, social and ethnic
groups may reside in Huntington Beach by:
(1) Providing a variety of housing types in all areas of the
City.
3.4.2.7 Residential Dev lo ment. The project also complies
with the following General Plan locational criteria for
Medium-High Density Residential land uses:
(1) In transitional areas between medium and high density (and
more intense) land uses.
Staff Report - 10/2/90 -15-(7146d)
i. k
0
II
(2) Near major transportation routes and highways.
(3) In proximity to commercial and activity areas.
2. Housing Element.
If the requested General Plan Amendment and rezone are approved, the
applicant intends to proceed with an application for phased
development of approximately 50 condominium units of which 20
percent will be affordable housing units. Thus, approval of this
application will be consistent with the following housing policies
pertaining to meeting the housing needs of all social and economic
segments of the community.
a. Encourage the provision and continued availability of a
range of housing types throughout the community, with
variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities.
b. Encourage both the private and public sectors to produce or
assist in the production of housing with particular emphasis
on housing affordable to lower income households, as well as
the needs of the handicapped, the elderly, large families
and female-headed households.
c. Promote rezoning.of vacant or recyclable parcels of land to
higher densities where compatible with surrounding land uses
and available services in order to lower the cost of housing.
11.0 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology
in analyzing various land use alternatives for the project site.
The analysis consisted of an assessment of the major revenue and
cost impacts, in current year dollars, for the first full year after
development. The results_ are summarized in the table below.
Attachment 8 contains a summary of the fiscal impact assumptions:
Alt. 1 Alt. 2.Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6
Med-Hgh Med-Hgh
PD (pro) (Apts)
50 ants 62 unts
Existing
Comm.
Projected Medium
Comm. Density
High
Density
Revenue 37,031 45,891 11,691 25,72 30,286 55,079
Cost 12,016 14,366 4,216 4,743 7,161 19,115
Revenue-Cost 25,015 31,525 7,475 20,989 23,125 35,964
Revenue/Cost 3.10 3.19 2.77 5.43 4.23 2.88 I
Staff Report - 10/2/90 -16-(7146d)
I
As shown above, Alternative 6 (General Commercial-Retail) generates
the most net revenue and the highest revenue to cost ratio. The
primary factor contributing to the significant difference between.
Alternative 6 and the remaining alternatives were the sales tax
revenue assumptions used in the analysis . The sales tax factors
were derived from the Urban Land Institute, D 11 r n n f
Sho in Cen rs and based on regional data. In reviewing the above
results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms
only, and to realize that this is only an estimation of the square
footage of retail that may be developed should the site recycle,
rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs.
12 RY:
Although a Medium-High Density Residential land use designation on
the subject property could be deemed compatible with surrounding
uses and goals/policies of the General Plan, staff is recommending
that the existing designation of General Commercial be retained
based upon the following issues.
The 1984 market study prepared for the vicinity indicates that
although there may currently be a surplus of commercial property,
there will be additional demand for commercial land once the Bolsa
Chica area is developed. The study made this determination based
upon earlier projections of 35 acres of commercial development in
the Bolsa Chica and a maximum ten (10) acres of commercial at
Meadowlark. Although the proposed commercial development at
Meadowlark is 15 acres, the commercial development in the Bolsa
Chica area is anticipated to be up to ten (10) acres/below the 35
acres projected in the study. Staff is concerned that the
applicant 's request for a residential land use designation on the
property will erode the commercial land inventory in the area and
thus limit the area's ability to meet future commercial demand.
it should also be noted that the project area is located along one
of the major arterials into the proposed Bolsa Chica development.
This should improve the area's chances for successful recycling.
Furthermore, the retaining of the commercial land use will also have
reduced impacts to water and sewer systems.
With respect to traffic impacts, although the residential land use
designation may generate fewer trips, the commercial land use
designation is likely to generate a majority of its trips during
off-peak hours, unlike the residential use.
In addition, it should be noted that based upon the letter dated
July 15, 1990 (see Attachment No. 13) from Charlie Cruzat, owner of
property adjacent to the west of the project site, it is anticipated
that the residential development will not be able to access off of
Charlene Circle. Therefore, the complete elimination of curb cuts
on Bolsa Chica is unlikely.
Staff Report - 10/2/90 -17-(7146d)
i
A
13.0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following
actions:
A. Approve Negative Declaration No. 90-24 with mitigation measures
and forward to the City Council for adoption; and
B. ,JeY_v General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 by adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1438 and forward to the City Council
for denial; and
C. Deny Zone Change No. 90-6 with findings and forward to the City
Council for denial.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONE CHANGE' NO. 90-3:
1. The Planning Commission finds that Zone Change No. 90-3 for R3
(Medium-High Density Residential) will reduce the commercial
land use inventory in the area, and thus limit the area's
ability to meet future commercial demand. This is based upon
the future residential buildout of the Bolsa Chica area and
Meadowlark area.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the site is wide and deep
enough to accomodate a viable commercial use and also is
adjacent to commercial uses to the south which adjoin a major
intersection.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation of
Medium-High Density Residential is too intense for the project
site.
4. The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation of
Medium-High Density Residential will increase traffic during
peak traffic hours in the project vicinity which would be
undesirable.
5. The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation of
Medium-High Density Residential will negatively impact sewer
capacities in the project vicinity.
14.0 ALTERNATIVE ACTI N:
A. Recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment
No. 90-5 for Medium-High Density Residential (25 units per gross
acre) by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. and
approval of Zone Change No. 90 -6 for R3 zoning with findings.
Staff Report - 10/2/90 -18- (7146d)
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
.2. Existing General Plan Designation Map
3. Proposed General Plan Designation Map
4. Existing Zoning Map
5. Proposed Zoning Map
6. Existing Land Use Map
7. Negative Declaration No. 90-24 (with mitigation measures)
8. 1984 Pearce --Bolsa Chica Market Analysis
9. Fiscal Impact Analysis
10. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1438 to recommend to the City
Council denial of General Plan Amendment No. 90-5
11. Draft Ordinance (Zone Change No. 90-6)
12. Planning Commission R esolution to recommend to the City Council
approval ofGeneral Plan Amendment No. 90-5
13. Letter from Charlie Cruzat dated July 15, 1990
14. Letter from Claudia Boyd dated September 20, 1990
15. Memorandum Report prepared by Ursino Development (September,
1990)
HS:,Y:kj1
Staff Report - 10/2/90 -19-(7146d)
0_ l_JN0Ia f"'In-1JSCALEM.zzJC1000IN rCCTNzY Iz'A0WIr_ l7ENE CR. Site AWARNER,',`.u:5 CR ICIf,p CflVicinity MapSite .6ST.I I IIi!_zJIHUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
z0I-zmILO_- LO============SMEDIUM DENSITYRESIDENTIALhMOOSCALE IN FEETN.(ICHARLENE OICWARNERINMEDIUM DENSITYRESIDENTIALJ=u=S CA. Y.I?G CR.1-GELoNG c...LOW DENSITYRESIDENTIALUST.va IIN yGENERALCOMMERCIAL_JI IitPF.:........ Ls..,,, r)OTHERUSESPLANNEDCOMMUNITYiMEDIUM HIGH DENSITYRESIDENTIALmweae-MEDIUM DENSITY 8RESIDENTIAL ca.n(Existing)General Plan Land Use DesignationutzzHIGH DENSITYRESIDENTIALAEU.40 rHUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
0zIDFMIMEDIUMHIGH DENSITYRESIDENTIAL-.- --1 --I CHARL ENE CR,5CALCLJINZIN ,HIGH DENSRESIDENTIAL1Nm.DTMEDIUM DENSITYST.CELCNG CR-Low DENSITYENTIAL '0oRESIrctT -.ITYRESIDENTIALzWUiWARNEGENERALCOMMERCIALOTHER USESPLANNEDCOMMUNITYMEDIUM HIGH DENSITYRESIDENTIALMEDIUM DENSITYRESIDENTIALJ UET CR RN,G CR.DUNBARMEDIUM DENSITYRESIDENTIAL(Proposed)General Plan Land Use DesignationWazw0HUNTINGTON BEACHHUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISIONI-
R2R2NLCLI l.n.CF-R R2° 334 !V /,22?l _JIzrss 4727/ Jl.L.3LJmLjt- R2 R2h 'hN4i1R2 IR? 32- R2R3i M -r11000R3ZZJ193L_330.13[3R2 nR,- IJAMES CRR (EIUG CR:RRARLEWE CR33.3.03 r,(Existing)Zoning MapIsR3C2IUURICD;7a.(Q)R2R2396, 05.hh2• o Ni` J_ O Nx;mNro01267.66d.0aC4°hL°OF,F _ _oI'NfI`C4Nn0 £' N1 409=FILA 81e.f130570P6R2MEADOWLSPECIFIC F995,13$HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
R2R2R2IL3flVJI!!U ;zf II JzR 233!JL .uR2 R2;JILO ST.I- .0SCALEv>INIi25E 'j1R 3 W.R311JpR2tlLCl.l Ln.IlRLR% 21 R2R3R2MILO ST.Oro I.zCWARNERf,ru 1m13, ro330.114,Ill If-ETR3R-.I _/JAMBS CR Y,INGCR.133RIR3R3HARLEIE CR.333,03 fR3020I' RI ICI RIa Jvu_I(al R2I .39 . )0 ' ". -OC2om1-101267.68u d1'C40P101 1'.09-, E12 .61R3c4{RZa6'(Proposed)Zoning Map2R3R3270DUNBARn.1C RIC21M6 N333.5;OP0MEi.DO}'YLSPECIFIC F9?5:65HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
. ENSCALEz0I-zUsc =UII-NMILOk1000IN rcCrMULTI-FAMILYRESIDENTIAL (Apts.)J l_L_JIMULTI-FAMILYRESIDENTIAL (Condos)RESIDENTIAL (Condos) m- sQ(((r a I'-IMULTI-FAMILY o9F.SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENTIALCHARLENE CR.z wwtCI IFFyy, •qGp_rSINGLE FAMILYRESIDENTIALCOMMERCIALCENTERWARNERLWES I.H(Existing)Land Use MapHUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION00VACANT0T91c2•SMULTI-FAMILYwwzJIRESIDENTIAL (Condos)rn.`zlwwI--41NEL:.ND r
i
CITY OF HUN T ING T ON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To
Subject
File
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FORM NO. 90-24 (Revised)
From
Date
Applicant: Southridge Homes/Ursino Development
Julid'bsugi
Planning Aide
August 22, 1990
Request: To redesignate and rezone a 2.85 acre area from a
General Commercial land use designation and C2
(Community Business) zone to a Medium High Density
Residential land use and an R3 (Medium High Density
Residential) zone.
Location: Westside of Bolsa Chica, approximately 270 feet north
of Warner Avenue.
Background
Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment form noted above and
has determined that a negative declaration may be filed for the
project. In view of this, a draft negative declaration was prepared
and was published in the Daily Pilot for a twenty-one (21) day
public review period commencing August 24, 1990 and ending September
14, 1990. If any comments regarding the draft negative declaration
are received, you will be notified immediately.
Recommendation
The Environmental Resources Section reconugends that the Planning
Commission approve Negative Declaration No. 90-24 finding that the
proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment.
Miti ation Measur
X _ The attached mitigating measures will reduce potential
environmental effects resulting from the project and are recommended
as conditions of approval.
JO: lp
(6410d
LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Notice is hereby given by the Department of Community Development, Planning Division
of the City of Huntington Beach that the following Draft Negative Declaration request
has been prepared and will be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Planning
Commission for their consideration in October 1990. The Draft Negative Declarations
will be available for public review and comment for twenty-one (21) days commencing
August 24, 1990.
(Revised) Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-24 in conjunction with General Plan
Amendment No. 90-5 and Zone Change No. 90-6 is a request to amend the land use
designation and zoning on a 2.04 acre area, located on the west side of Bolsa Chica,
approximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue, from a General Commercial land use
designation and C2 (Community Bcfsihess)-zone to a Me.diuiii High Density Residential
land use and an R3 (Medium High Density Residential) zone and a request to amend the
General Plan Land Use designation on approximately 0.82 acres located on the west side
of Bolsa Street immediately adjacent to the north of the above site, from General
Commercial to Medium High Density Residential to bring the Land Use into conformance
with the existing R3 (Medium High Density Resid ntial) zone for the site.
A copy of the request. is on file with the Department of Community Development, ')f
Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. Any person wit .iilg
to comment on the request may do so in writing within twenty-one (21) days of this
notice by providing written comments to the Department of Community Development,
Environmental Resources Section, P.O. BF)x 190, Huntington Beach, CA 92648.
i
I
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
PLANNING DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 90-24 (Revised)
1. Name of Proponent Southrid e Homes/Ursino Develo ment
Address 5362 0 e nu' Drive
Huntin t n Beach CA 92649
Phone Number 714 8. -7111
2. Date Checklist Submitted for Review ul 1 19 0
3. Concurrent Entitlement (s) General Plan Amendment No. 90-5/
Zone Chan e No. 90-6
4. Project Location 16911 16871 Bolsa Chica and 16851 Bolsa Chica
a roximatel 270 feet north of Warner Avenue.
5. Project Description A reouest to amend the General Plan Land Use ___
desi nation and zonin on 2.04 acres at 16 11 and 16871 Bolsa Chica
from General Commercial and C2 (Communit Business res ectivel to a
Medium Hi h Densit Residential desi nation and an R3 Medium Hi h
Densit Residential zonin to allow for develo ment of 50
condominium units and to amend the General Plan Land Use desi nation
o a oroximat 1 .82 acr lo ated imm di t 1 to th n rth of the
above referenced lo ati nat i Bol a hic from neral Commercial
to Medium Hi h Densit Residential to brin the eneral Plan in4a
conformance with the existin R z nin on the ro ert .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of answers are included after each subsection.)
Yes h be No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures?x
Discussion:
The project is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone or in the vicinity of any known
unstable earth conditions; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.
b. Disruptions, displacements, impaction or oveicovering of the soil?
Discussion:
Upon development of the site compaction and over covering of the soil may occur. However, the site has
been previously graded and presently is occupied by a restaurant and single family home. ') adverse
imnarf,c_arn,antirina±cl r..
f!
i
YPS Mavbe No
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?- - X
Discussion:
The general plan amendment and zone change request in itself does not constitute development and will
not impact the topography around surface relief features on the site. However, subsequent development
d.
may have impacts which will be addressed through the entitlement process.
The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features?X
e.Any increase in wind or water ero'sion of soils, either on or off the site?- -X
f.
g.
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?- -
X
X
Discussion:
See la.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
Discussion:
Subsequent development of the proposed project area may indirectly generate automotive and off-site
energy generation emissions by (attracting users, establishing a use on a vacant site , etc). These
emissions may incrementally contribute to the degrada°:ion of local' air quality. However, the project's
contribution is not anticipated to be significant.
b.The creation of objectionable odors?X
c.Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?X
3. Water. Will the proposal result in.
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements,in either marine or
fresh waters?
Changes in adsorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
Discussion:
Grading associated with development of the project site may result in alteration of currents, flow patterns
as well as changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and amount of-surface runoff. However, with
implementation of Mitigation Measures No. 7, requiring submittal of a grading plan prior to issuance of a
grading permit, no significant impacts are anticipated.
Environmental Checklist -2-
Yes Maybe No
Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?- -X
Discussion:
The proposed project site is not located within the 100 year flood plain.
d.Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?-x
Discussion:
The site does not drain directly into any natural body of water.
e.Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality , including
but not limited to temperature , dissolved oxygen or turbidity?- -X
f.Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?X
g.Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?x
h.Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water
supplies?x
i.Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?- -X
Discussion:
See 3c.
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in,
a. Change in the diversity of species , or number of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass , crops, and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any mature , unique, rare or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the not-Mal
replenishment of existing species?
A -
- x
d. Reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop? - X
(a-d) Discussion:
The site has previously been cleared of natural vegetation and developed; No unique species of plants
will be affected.
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles , fish and shellfish , benthic organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? - x
Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
Environmental Checklist -3-
Yes Maybe No
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a, Increases in existing noise levels?
Discussion:
Development of the site will increase existing noise levels in the project vicinity, but increases are
not anticipated to be significant,
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?X
Discussion:
The project site is adjacent to Balsa Chica Street and is, therefore, within a 65 CNEL contour; however
with implementation of mitigation measure no. 15, requiring submittal of an acoustical analysis report
to verify compliance with State standards for interior noise levels. No significant impacts are
anticipated.
Noise levels may increase during site preparation and construction phases, however, with implementation
of mitigation measure 10, limiting hours of construction, no significant impacts are anticipated.
7. Light and Glare . Will the proposal produce new light or glare?X _
Discussion:
The project may result in new light sources on the site. However, with Mitigation Measure No. 5,
requiring directed lighting, no adverse impacts are anticipated.'
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result,in a substantial alteration of the'present or planned
land use of an area?
Discussion:
The proposed project consists of an amendment to the Land Use plan ofthe City 's General Plan and a
compatible rezone and therefore varies from the present or planned land'use of the area. The proposal is a
logical continuation of, Medium High. Density residential uses already existing on adjacent properties. If
the project is approved, subsequent . development will require Use Permit (for apartment units ) or Conditional
Use Permit (for condominium units ) approval. All land 4se related impacts can be addressed through the
entitlement process; therefore' no mitigati'Gn measures are recommended.and no significant impacts are
anticipated. For further discussion see the attached narrative.
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in,.
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:-
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?X
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? _ X
Environmental Checklist -4-
X
(6286d)
Yes Maybe No
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of
the human population of an area?
Discussion:
Approval of the project will allow for development of approximately 74 condominium units not originally
anticipated by the General Plan; however, due to the small scale of the project, no significant impacts
are anticipated.
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ _ X
Discussion:
Implementation of the proposed project will allow for development additional housing units but is not
anticipated to impact existing units.
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
Discussion:
Subsequent development of the project area under the proposed land use designation will result in
generation of an estimated 602 average daily trips (ADT) calculated based upon the County of Orange
trip generation rate of 7 trips/unit/day for Fiedium-High Density Residential units. The existing land
uses generate an estimated 799 ADT based upon O .C. trip generation rates of 110 trips/thousand square
feet/day for restaurants and 12 trips/unit/day for single family residences. The proposed project,
therefore, represents a potential reduction in trip generations. Arterials in the project vicinity are
operating well within acceptable levels of service. No significant impacts are anticipated.
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new off-site parking?
Discussion:
The proposed project in itself does not constitute any development; parking facilities provided by
subsequent development will be addressed through the entitlement process.
c. . Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems?
Discussion:
See 13a.
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? - -X
Discussion:
Upon development of the site, construction of the project may temporarily alter traffic circulation
and may create a minor hazard to anyone using the subject roads. The applicant will be required to
provide adequate warning regarding the construction area with flagging, fences, cones and other
appropriate measures, if necessary.
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists ur pedestrians?
Environmental Checklist -5-(6286d)
m
Yes Maybe No
Discussion:
Upon development of the site , pedestrian and bicycle flow may be impeded from time to time; however,
with implementation of Mitigation Measure No.16, requiring adequate warning signs for pedestrian,
bicycle and motor vehicle traffic, no significant impacts are anticipated.
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
Discussion:
Upon development of the site, construction activities may alter traffic circulation and, thus,
temporarily effect Police and Fire service to the area. However, with Mitigation Measure No. 11,
requiring notification to the Fire and Police Departments thirty (30) days prior to the initiation of
construction, no significant impacts are anticipated.
b. Police protection?
Discussion:
See 14a.
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
Discussion:
Development of the proposed project will not require construction of public improvements.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing source of energy, or require the
development of sources of energy?
X
Discussion:
Anticipated energy demands created by the proposed project are within parameters of the overall
projected demand which is planning to be met in the area.
16. Utilities. Wiil the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations
to the followinc, utilities:
a. Power or n<<tural gas?
Discussion:
All utilities and services are available to the site to serve the proposed land use.
Environmental Checklist -6-
I
Yes Mavbe No
b. Communication systems?
Discussion:
See 16a.
c. Water?
Discussion:
The Huntington Beach Water Department has indicated that adequate water facilities and service are
available to the site to serve the proposed land use.
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
X
Discussion:
Sewer systems in the project vicinity are at or near capacity for existing land uses. The proposed
Medium High Density Residential land use will exceed existing capacity; however, with implementation of
mitigation Measure No. 13, requiring phasing of development based upon sewer capacity, no significant
impacts are anticipated.
e. Storm water drainage?
Discussion:
See 16a.
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Discussion:
See 16a.
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result, in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _-X
b. Exposure of people to r Itial health hazards?
Discussion: The propose oject site is located within a methane zone; however,
with implementation of n, gation measure no. 14 requiring submittal of a methane
plan; no significant impacts are anticipated.
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
Environmental Checklist
i
4
YYy§ Maybe No
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric
or historic building , structure, or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to causa a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacrea uses within the potential
impact area?
Discussion:
No known archaeological sites are in the project vicinity.
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance,
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, sub-
stantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levees , threat,3n to eliminate a plant or sriimal
community , reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term , to the disadvantage of
long -term, environmental 'goals ? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief , definitive period of time while long -term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are inr;ividually limited , but cumulatively consid-
erable ? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts
on the environment is significant:)'
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings , either directly or indirectly?
DETERMINATION.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
x
-.K
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment , there X
will no'c be a significant effect in this case because the miti'gati`on' ml?asures described on an i ttached
sheet have been added to the project . A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL
BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment , and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date Signature
Revised: March, 1990 For: it of Huntin ton Beach
Communit Develo ment De artment
Environmental Checklist -8-7,
ATTACHMENT 1
NARRATIVE
The proposed project will alter existing development possibilities for the site and render the existing
restuarant and residential buildings as a non -conforming use. The single family home is currently a
non-conforming use. However , the applicant has indicated an intent to submit plans for development shortly after
approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change request ; therefore , if the request is approved, it is
anticipated that the non -conforming structures will be replaced by residential uses within two years.
In regard to land use compatabflity , the Medium -High Density Residential land use would be a continuation of the
Medium-High Density Residential land use designation existing to the north and west of the project area.
Although property immediately adjacent to the north boundary of the project site are designated for medium-high
density residential units , it is currently occupied by two single family homes . However , properties located
further north and to the west of the project site are currently occupied by medium -high density condominium units
and Medium-High Density apartment units. The site is in convenient proximity to commercial , recreational, and
professional facilities and has easy access to the public transportation system . The location of Medium-High
Density Residential land uses near major transportation routes and highways complies with the General Plan
location criteria for Medium -High Density land uses. Further compatability will be determined based upon
potential environmental impacts identified here.
Environmental Checklist -11-(6286d)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
STANDARD MITIGATING MEASURES
1. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers.
2. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central
heating units.
3. Low volume heads shall be used on all showers.
4. All building spoils, such at unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material,
shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them.
5. If lighting is included in the parking lot and/or recreation area energy efficient lamps shall be
used (e.g., high pressure sodium vapor, metal halide). All outside lighting shall be directed to
prevent "spillage"onto adjacent properties.
6. if foil-type ins,.lation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed „s approved by the
Building Department.
7. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a grading plan shall be submitted to the City's Department
of Public Works. A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction
and during initial operation of the project may be required by the Director of Public Works if deemed
necessary.
8. During cleaning, grading, earth moving or excavation, the applicant shall:
a. Control fugitive dust by regular tratering , paving construction roads, or other dust preventive
measures.
b. Maintain equipment engines in proper tune.
9. During construction, the applicant shall:
a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to
prevent dust raised when leaving the site,
b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day,
c. Use low sulfur fuel (.05% by weight) for construction equipment,
d. Phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts),
e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts.
10. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be
prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays.
Environmental Checklist -9-(6286d)
fi
11. Prior to initiation of construction , police and fire departments shall be notified and the
departments shall be kept informed about duration and extent of construction throughout the process.
12. Public Works Department shall provide alternate routes for traffic during the construction phase, if
necessary . Adequate signage shall be provided to warn motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians of
construction.
13. Development of the site shall be phased based upon the sewage volur_s which can be accomodated by
existing sewer capacity , as determined by the Orange County Sanitation Department. Any additional
development which would generate sewage volumes above capacity levels shall not be permitted unitl
the Slater Pump Station has been upgraded to meet the additional volumes generated.
14, Prior to issuance of building permits, a plan for methane overlay compliance shall be submitted, for
review and approval , to the Huntington Beach Fire Department.
15. The structures on the subject property , whether attached or detached , shall be constructed in
compliance with the state acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL
contours of the property . The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the
California insulation standards of 45 dba CNEL. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of
an acoustical analysis report , prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of
acoustical engineering , with the application for building permit(s). All measures recommended to
mitigate noise to acceptable levels shal 'i be incorporated into the design of the project.
16. Prior to occupancy a water plan shall be submitted to the Water Department for review ]5u approval.
The plan shall detail measures which the project shall implement to reduce peak hour water usage.
17. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils engineer . This analysis shall
include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations
regarding grading , chemical and fill properties, foundations , retaining walls, streets, and
utilities . In addition , the soils analysis shall address shrink swell hazards on expansive clays.
18. Development of the site shall eliminate existing curb cuts on Bolsa Chica Street and take access from
Charlene Circle.
Environmental Checklist -10-
A hmen No 8
PEARCE-BLOSA CHICA MARKET ANALYSIS
FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-2
Prepared, by
Cit,r of Huntington Beach
Community Development Department
A. A
PEARCE-BOLSA CHICA MARKET ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION:
Land Use Element Amendment 04-2 addresses a request by a private property owner to
redesignate approximately 3.0 acres of lend south of Pearce Street and east of Boise
Chica Street from medium density residential to general r.ommercial. The intent of the
amendment is to incorporate the subject property into a larger shopping area that would
include 2.34 acres of commercially designated parcels to the south. Such a development
would extend commercial uses 1300 feet along Boise Chica Street between Werner Avenue
and Pearce Street Due to landownership patterns, m ich of the commercial property at
the intersection of Warner Avenue and Boise Chica Street have developed in a fragmented
and piecemeal manner. As a result, the development of a neighborhood shopping center
with major food and drug anchors has been precluded in much of the area. The only
remaining opportunity for such a development, should demand support it, would be a
portion of the Meadowlark Airport site along Warner Avenue east of Boise Chica Street.
This area was the subject of a General Plan amendment request in 1981 which was
eventually withdrawn. The options to develop neighborhood convenience uses on the
Meadowlark site e.nd/or at the Pearce-Balsa Chi,--a site warrants a re-evaluation of the
present and future demand for commercial property and land uses in this area of the City.
Commercial uses c..i be generally classified into five categories based on the size and
location of the facility, the kinds of goods and services offered, and the size of the
market area and population served. These categories are:
Convenience: - 1/2 to 1 1/2 acres in size
located at intersection of secondary or local arterial streets
- 1/2 mile radius market area
- 3000 people served
Neighborhood: - 1 1/2 to 10 a^res in size
located at major or primary arterial intersections
- supermarket and/or drug store plus 10-15 smaller retailers, services,
or offices
I mile radius market area
10,000 people served
Community: - 10 to 35 acres in size
- located at major or primary arterial intersections
- mini-department store or supermarket anchors plus a variety of
other stores
- 10 to 15 minute drive market area
- 15,000 or more people served
Regional: - 35 or more acres in size
- located at major arterial and freeway
I to 5 department stores plus other retailers
up to 30 minute drive market area
500,000 people served
Specialty: - size varies
- located on major arterials or in tourist areas
(014.1D)
P,
uses vary, usually center around a theme
market area varies
population served varies
13ecnuse of its locution, the intersection of ilnlsii Chicii Strout mil Warner Avomin would
nut ho no optimum lou:utiun fur hoLh rugionul nod community commercial coolers. It is
three miles from the nearest freeway, and due to its proximity to the coast draws
essentially on a 180 degree market area. Regional centers cater to a market of
approximately 500,000 persons; in a suburban area like Orange County this translates
roughly to a five to ten mile radius market area. Presently, there are two regional
centers located'in or adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach (Huntington Center and
Westminster Mall) as well as two additional regional centers within a twenty minute drive
(South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa and Newport Center in Newport Beach). The existence
of these competing centers nearby and the poor locational qualities of the site make
development of a regional commercial facility unfeasible at Balsa Chica Street and
Warner Avenue.
Community commercial centers operate on roughly a two to three mile radius service
area. At the present time, a number of community shopping centers exist within Three
miles of Balsa Chico and Warner. These facilities are located at the intersections of
Algonquin Street and Boardwalk Drive (87,200 square feet); Edinger Avenue and
Springdale Street (southwest carrier - 132,280 square feet); Goldenwest Street and Edinger
Avenue (southwest corner - 169,850 square feet, southeast corner - 197,887 square feet);
and Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue (northwest corner - 173,157 square feet,
northeast corner - 130,000 square feet). Using the formula of ape community center per
15,000 persons, the area west of Beach Boulevard and north of Talbert Avenue, which
houses approximately 75,000 persons, could be expected to support five such community
centers. The six centers listed above appear to provide the quantity and variety of
community stores and services needed for the northwest portion of Huntington Beach.
Although the question of central location and convenient freeway access are not as
crucial a consideration in siting community centers -as with regional centers, the 180
degree market areas offered by Balsa Chica and Warner site is e deterrent to developing a
community center considering the competition from existing facilities in the area.
The potential may exist for a specialty shopping center in vicinity of the area of concern.
However, some of the dollars used in calculating supportable space may he drawn to
existing facilities or future sites in close proximity with greater drawing potential. Any
new speciality shopping facility would have to compete with nearby Peter's Landing, a
60,0n0 square foot development in Huntington Harbour featuring a variety of restaurants
and specialty shops. Within one mile south of the Bolse Chica Street and Warner Avenue
site, speciality commercial/ visitor serving uses are being planned as a part of the Orange
County Local Coastal Plan and State Coastal Conservancy Habitat Plan for the
unincorporated Balsa Chico. Both agencies, have been coordinating their planning efforts
for the Balsa Chica, and will submit the approved Coastal Conservancy plan to the State
Coastal Commission in November, 198A. The existing plan would designate approximately
35 acres of land in the Balsa Chica for visitor serving uses, which would feature a hotel,
and a variety of restaurants and marina-related speciality shops. As with any specialty
commercial or visitor serving uses developed along the coast, the City's efforts to
revitalize th-_ downtown area could also be impacted. Given these considerations, the
development of a specialty commercial center at Balsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue
is not visualized as feasible or desirable.
While the problems of location, access, and competition make the .intersection of Balsa
Chica Street and Werner /venue an undesirable location for regional, community, and
(0141D)
M
i
HUNTINGTON BMCH C4LIFORNINPLANNING DIVISION Pearce-Bo/sa Chis
Market Study,
A rea
specialty shopping centers, there may be potential for the development of a convenience
and/or neighborhood facility in the area. The following analysis addresses the feasibility
of developing these kinds of facilities in the Bolse Chica/Warner area.
NEIGHBORHOOD/CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL USES
METHODOLOGY:
For the purpose of this report, convenience and neighborhood uses are addressed
simultaneously in this section. This analysis attempts to determine the market support
for neighborhood convenience retail facilities in a given trade area. Market support is
primarily a function of the buying power of the trade area residents and an assessment of
existing commercial facilities. Buying power is based on the area's population size and
median family income. This buying power can be translated into supportable square
footage of retail facilities. A comparison of supportable'square footage to existing and
ultimate General Planned facilities indicate whether there is unused potential support for
additional commercial uses in the trade area.
A combination of housing, population, income and retail sales data was utilized to
determine the total amount of supportable square footage for various types of
neighborhood uses for the market area. The primary market area is defined by taking half
the distance between the nearest surrounding neighborhood and community centers, and
the intersection in question. For statistical purposes, the primary market area in this
_the north, Springdale Street on theanalysis is defined as being bounded by Heil Avenue on
east, the southern limits of proposed development in the BoiseChica on the south, and
Algonquin Street/Warner Avenue on the west (see attached figure).
Three alternative population figures are used to produce a range of demand figures based
on (A) existing housing units, (B) ultimate housing units under expected land use
designations excluding the Bolse Chica, and (C) ultimate housing units under expected land
use designations including the Boise Chica. These alternative population figures are
multiplied by adjusted 1984 City-wide per capita taxable sales figures in order to estimate
the anticipated sales potential for the market area.
Data regarding the typical types, sizes and sales per square foot of uses found in
neighborhood centers are taken from the Urban Land Institute's 1981 Dollars and Cents of
Shopping Centers and adjusted to 1984 terms. This data makes it possible to translate
the sales potential of the area into supportable square footage for the various categories
of neighborhood uses to see how much of the current.and future demand is being motet by
existing and projected uses in the area . Current and future demand are also measured
against the addition of proposed commercial uses at Bolsa Chica and Pearce Streets and a
hypothetical commercial development on the Meadowlark Airport property along Werner
Avenue. The difference between demand .and supply can be used to determine if there is a
need for additional neighborhood commercial uses and If so, what types of uses would be
most viable for the market area . Tables I and 2 summarize the data.
C0141D)
TABLE 1
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER POTENTIAL
B C
Ultimate Units Ultimate Units
Under General Plan Under General Plan
Minus Balsa Chica Plus Balsa Chica
Population a 10,992
1984 Total b 6,496.25
Taxable Sales
Per Capita
Total Taxable $71,406,780
Sales Potential
CATEGORY
Food $12,281,966
Drug 2,499,237
Apparel 1,927,983
Liquor 1,071,102
Eating/Drinking 6,855,051
Gen. Merchandise 8,711,627
Home Improvement 2,449,253
Services/Office 3,570.339
15,013 24,710
$6496.25 $6496.25
$97,52B,201 $160,522,330
SALES POTENTIAL BY CATEGORY°
$16,-,4,850 $27,609,840
3,413,487 5,618,282
2,6331261 4,334,103
1,462,923 2,407,835
9,362,707 15,410,143
11,898,440 19,583,724
3,345,217 5,505,916
4,876,410 8,026,117
SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY CATEGORYd
CATEGORY
Food 34,024 sq.ft.46,470 sq.ft.76,486 sq.ft.
Drug 13,546 18,501 30,452
Apparel 12,067 16, 481 27,125
Liquor 4,635 6,331 10,420
Eating/Drinking p2,329 71,471 117,635
Gen. Merchandise 92,167 125,883 207,191
Home Improvement 33,699 46,027 75,756
Services/Office 104,518 14:2,752 234,957
Total 346,985 473,916 .780,022
0141D
AEXISTING AND PROJECTED RETAIL AND OFFICE SPACE-IN MARKET AREACATEGORYFoodDrugApparelLiquorEating/DrinkingGeneral MerchandiseHome ImprovementServices/OfficeTOTAL(0141D)1984TABLE 2BCEXISTING SPACE - EXISTING SPACEEXISTING SPACE PEARCE-BOLSA CHICA PEARL -rOLSA CHICAEXISTING SPACEPEARCE-BOLSA CHICAMEADOWLARK= MEADOWLARK36,04643,546 '73,54673,546+2, 022-2,924+27,076-2,94023,58934,38949,38949,389+10,043+15,888+30,888+18,9373,1868,68611,68611,686-8,881-7,795-4,795-15,43937,20537,20537,20537,205+32,570+30,874+30,874+26,78556,57265,69277,69277,692+4,243-5,779+6,221-39,94330,85846,53858,53858,538-61,309-79,345-67,345-148,65320,48333,68341,68341,683-13,216-12,344-4,344-34,073148,237148,237168,237168,237+43,719+5,485+25,485-66,720356,176417,976517,976517,976+9,191-55,940+44,060-262,046
NOTES TO TABLE 1:
a. Household and Population figures based on Department of Development Services
estimates.
Data extrapolated from "Trndc Outlets and Taxable Retail Sales, "State Board of
Equalization, per capita sales figure adjusted according to median family income
data taken from the United States Census for the City of Huntington Beach, 1980.
c. Sales of retail goods in the categories listed account for approximately 43 percent
of total retail sales in Huntington Beach (Source: "Trade Outlets and Taxable
Retail Sales", State Board of Equalization):
Food 8.6%
Drug 2.0%
Apparel 2.7%
Liquor 1.5%
Eating/Drinking 9.6%
General Merchandise 12.2%
Home Improvement 3.4%
Services/Office 3.0%
Other 57.0%
Apparel and General Merchandise categories are normally not associated with
convenience neighborhood centers. However, the applicant is proposing these uses
at the Pearce-Boise Chica site in lieu of development, of some typical neighborhood
uses and in combination with some convenience center uses. Consequently, an
analysis of the demand for these uses within the market area is included in the
study. In addition, much of the developed commercial property within the market
area consists of, Professional Office and Service complexes. The figures thus
reflect full demand of such uses whether as part of a neighborhood center or
existing as separate developments.
Dollar figures for the Food and Drug categories are adjusted by factors of 2.0 a A
1.75 respectively to account for additional sales of non-taxable items based on
total estimated California food and drug sales from various services.
d. Median sales per square foot values for typical commercial categories are as
follows:
Food
Drug
Apparel
Liquor
Eating/Drinking
General Merchandise
Home Improvement
Services/Office
$360.98 per square foot
$184.50 per square foot
$159.78 per square foot
$231.09 per square foot
$131.00 per square foot
$94.52 per square foot
$72.68 per square foot
$34.16 per square foot
(Source: The Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of She in Centers 1981,
adjusted to 1984).
CONCLUSIONS:
On the basis of total square footage, the existing supply of commercial uses in the market
area is sufficient to meet the current demand (Scenario A). This oversupply can be
attributed in pert to overlapping demand from surrounding market areas, as more than
half of the commercial uses listed in Table 2 under the existing scenario were located
near the periphery of the defined market area. These uses are supported to some extent
by consumers located outside the market area , increasing the actual demand and sales
potential date. This increase is probably balanced by consumers living in the specified
market area who visit other commercial centers outside the area. As a result, some
oversupply still exists in square footage.
Scenario B compares the demand for commercial space with supply over the short-term,
and assumes that the remaining areas designated for resi,d,ential use develop according to
the General Plan with the exception of the unincorporated, Boise Chica which remains
vacant. Scenario C represents the long-term, and assumes development in the Boise
Chica. With the exception of the visitor-serving commercial use currently under
consideration in the Boise. Chica,
'the' only remaining areas for potential commercial
development within the market area include the applicant's proposal at Pearce and, Balsa
Chica Streets, and a portion of 'the Meadowlark' Airport site along Warner Avenue.
Consequently, the applicant's proposed commercial deVel.opment is assumed to develop
under the short-term scenario with the Meadowlark site being analyzed under both the
short-term and long-term. In Sceherio
,
B, the data' 'generally show that the demand
generated by future residential development within the market area will be sufficient to
support additional commercial square footage. However, until residential development
occurs in the Boise Chica portion of the market area, demand will. only support one
additional commercial center at either' the Pearce-Balsa Chice site or at the Meedowi rk
Airport site. Once the Boise Chica develops according to the long-term scenario, demand
will be more than adequate to support both commercial sites.
The overall square footage figures show that future demand will. accommodate ultimate
potential commercial supply; however, when this supply is, broken down into specific
categories some imbalances are revealed . Compared to the estimated supportable square
footage over the short-term, the addition of the commercial uses proposed by the
applicant translates into a surplus of" space in the drug, liquor, and service/office
categories, and a deficiency of space inthe food, apparel, eating/drinking, general
merchandise and home improvement categories .' This takes into account that the
applicant is proposing a commercial 'development with the following mix of tenants:
convenience market/bakery (7,500 square feet), drugstore (10,800 square feet), apparel
stores (5,500 square feet), restaurant (9,120 square feet), mini-department store (13,200
square feet), hardware store/nursery (13,200 square feet), and other general merchandise
shops (2,480 square feet).
The data suggests that the market area can accommodate all proposed commercial uses at
Pearce-Boise Chica with the possible exception of the drug categr the proposed
development will add square footage to the already existing surplus of,drug establishments
within the defined market area . The same conclusion would. hold true. in the long-term.
The addition of a typical neighborhood center at Meadowlark anchored by a supermarket
and drugstore in the short-term would create an oversupply in the food,t drug, liquor, and,
service/office categories. Without the needed food anti drug anchors, a shopping center at
the 100,000 square foot magnitude would be infeasible . However, 'at ultimate
development in the long-term, surpluses would exist in only the drug and liquor
categories . This indicates that the market area could support the proposed convenience
market at the Pearce-Boise Chica site as well as a supermarket at the Meadowlark site.
Rather than a drugstore anchor at the Meadowlark site , the data suggests that it would be
feasible to provide an additional anchor in the form ofa home improvement store or a
general merchandise facility. The figures indicate that substantial demand will exist in
the general merchandise category with both locations probably being able to support such
(014.1D)
uses as major anchors. This would further be substantiated in the fact that only two of
the six• community shopping centers located within the general area contain such anchors.
The two shopping centers that accommodate such uses are located at Edinger and
Goldenwest, close to the Huntington Regional Shopping Center but outside of the defined
market area of this study.
Most of the existing eating and drinking establishments within the market area consist of
small sandwich shops, bars, and fast food operations. The addition of major restaurants at
the Pearce-Bolsa Chica site and Meadowlark site will still leave considerable demand for
such uses at ultimate development. Since specialty and restaurant uses in the Balsa Chice
visitor-serving area were not included in the analysis, it is assumed that restaurant
development in the Bolsa Chica will bring supply in line with demand for such uses in the
study area. The supply of liquor establishments will likely remain relatively constant over
the long-term, regardless of whether commercial uses are developed at either of the two
sites or both. This is the result of one large liquor establishment recently taking over the
total square footage of a former supermarket on the periphery of the market area. The
supply of service and professional office uses will show a considerable surplus during the
short-term as the result of the high concentration of office complexes at the intersection
of Warner Avenue and Balsa Chica Street and within existing neighborhood centers.
However. demand will exceed supply as the Balsa Chioa develops. The development of
expect,.J ,rvice uses at the two sites under consideration will not significantly affect
this bar. -,,:e.
In summary, there appears to be sufficient demand to support additional commercial
square footage in specified categories. While the Pearce-Boise Chica site and
Meadowlark Airport site can support commercial uses in most categoriep at ultimate
development, the overall surplus of square footage in the drug category v,ould appear to
preclude that use as a major anchor at either site. Perhaps more appropriate at the
Pearce-Balsa Chica site would be a combination of additional retail shops,
services/offices, and/or eating/drinking establishments. To complement a supermarket on
the Meadowlark site, perhaps a home improvement store or general merchandise use as a
major anchor would be more appropriate based on the demand figures for the area.
At- hmn N , 9
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N 0-
August ., 1990
Prepared by
City of Huntington Beach
Community Development Department
_+.
i
9
FISCAL IMPACT MODEL
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
GPA # 90-5
INTR ODUCTION
The purpose of the fiscal impact model is to evaluate the public
revenues and costs associated with each land use alternative. It
examines current revenues and costs generated by each land use
alternative if developed and operating in one year.
The fiscal impact revenue items listed in Table 1 represent
immediate revenues that will be generated . Direct or primary
revenues include property tax, tax increment , sales tax,
utility/franchise tax, fines , cigarette tax, motor vehicle in-lieu
tax and gas tax fund. The fiscal impact cost items listed in the
same table . a,,.•e broken down by City Department to show the primary
costs that w:ll be incurred by each land use alternative.
The net rev%nues or costs are presented at the bottom of the table
as well as the revenue/cost ratio. A higher revenue to cost: ratio
represents greater fiscal benefits to the City. However, land use
decisions should not be based upon a fiscal impact model alone. It
serves as a planning tool to aid in evaluating each land use
alternative. Other factors such as land use compatibility,
consistency with other general plan elements, and potential
environmental. impacts are equally important considerations.
Major revenue and cost impacts are assessed in current year dollars
in this analysis for the first full year after development of the
proposed project and alternatives. Assumptions and planning factors
have been derived from staff research, other agency data and private
sector sources. Implementation of the model has been aided by the
use of a Burroughs B-25 micro-computer using Enhanced Multi.-plan
software.
Attachment - 10/2/90 -2- (7146d)
El
FISCAL IMPACT MODEL
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
GPA # 90-5
There are six alternatives analyzed for General Plan Amendment
90-5. The following list identifies the alternative scenarios
including estimated market valuations for each alternative and the
estimated population generated by residential scenarios.
ALTERNATIVE 1 - MEDI DENS RE IDENTIAL
- 36 apartment units
- $275,000 per unit market value
- 97 residents based on 2.7 people/unit
- Total market value = $9,900,000
ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDI DEN ITY HI H RESIDENTIAL - PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT - APPLICANTS P OP SAL
- 50 condominium units
- $225,000 per ur.-t market value
- 135 residents based on 2.7 people/unit
- Total market value = $11,250,000
ALTERNATIVE - MEDIUM l'tT641 DEN `ITY 12ESIDENTIP,L
- 62 apartment units
- $225,00.6 per unit market value
- 167 residents based on.2.7 people/unit.
- Total market value = $13,950.00
ALTERNATIVE 4 - HIGH DENSITY RE IDENTIAL
- 86 Apartment units
- $175,000 per unit market value
- 232 residents based on 2.7 people/unit
- Total market value = $x.•5,050,000
ALTERNATIVE 5 - EXISTING LAND E
7,000 square feet of commercial restaurant space-
- $647,934 market value based upon adjusted asse ssed valuation
of the propety
- 1 single family unit
- $177,227 market value based upon adjusted assessed valuation
of the property
- Total market value = $825,161
ALTERNATIVE 6 - COMMERCIAL GENERAL - RECYCLING OF••ITE
17,890 square feet of retail market value (projected based on
square footage factors identified in fiscal'impact model)
- Total market value = 1.08 million
t
TABLE 1
FI L IMPACT ANALYSIS
Alt. 1
Med Den
36 Units
Alt. 2.
Med Hi Den PD
50 Units
Alt . 3 Alt. 4
Med Hi Den High Den
62 Unit s Unit s
Revenue Item
Property Tax 19 ,008
Sales Tax 1,548
Util /Fran . Tax 4,016
Business License 0
FFP 1,205
Cigarette Tax 189
Motor Vehicle 3,486
Gas Tax Fund 834
21,600
1,900
5,577
0
1,677
263
4,852
1.161
26,784
2,356
6,916
0
2,071
326
6,002
1.436
28,896
2,924
9,593
0
2,881
452
8,338
1.995
Total 30,286 37,030 45,891 55,079
Cost Item
Gen. Admin 2,002 2,002 2,002 2,002
Police 2 ,420 3,388 4,114 5,687
Fire 3,395 4,725 5,845 8,120
Comm. Services 1019 1,418 1,754 2,436
Public Works 327 455 7,2
Total 7,073 11,928 14,278 19,0$7
Revenue Minus Cost 23,213 23,213 250123 36,052
Revenue/Cost Ratio 4 .28 3.10 3 .21 2.89
Attachment 10/2/90 -4-
Alt. 5 Alt. 6
Existing Restaurant Projected Commercial
7.000 sa.ft. 17.890 soft.
1,584 2,074
9,170 23,338
704 1,629
99 765
0
0 0
108
11,691 25,732
0
2,002
605
1,339
32
150
4,128
7,563 21,025
A
Revenue and cost categories used in this analysis are detailed in
summary tables following the conclusion of this text.
h
1.0 REVENUES
1.1 Property Tax
Property tax revenue is derived from County property tax placed on
new development , which is one percent of the market valise of the
land and (or) improvements . Of that one percent,, the city of
Huntington Beach collects (through the General Fund) a specific
percent of the revenue , determined by the tax rate area (TRA) in
which the proposed project is located. The p roposed project is
located in TRA 04-007. The City collects 19.2 percent of the one
percent County tax.
Market value assumptions were based on:
1.Residential 'unit value derived from buxreiit residential
sales in the City.
2.Commercial square footage derived from current market rates
in the City.
3.Commercial land - Orange County tax assessor tax rolls,
assessed market valuation of land or land mho's improvements.
Because o f limitations placed on the County Tax As sessbr by
Proposition 13, the assessed valuation of a prope rty can only
increase by a maximum of two percent per, year. The land value of
the proposed project site has been adjusted to reflect allowable
increases per year.
1.2 Sales Tax
The State of California places a six percent sales tax on retail
sales. Of that six percent the City receives 16.6 percent or one
cent for every six cents collected.
Sales tax for residential projects is based on an e'stinated family
income determined by the unit or house value. Ia this analysis it
was assumed that thirty percent of the cost of the unit would be
required as a minimum annual family income. The annual r etail sales
tax collected is then derived from the Internal Revenue 'Service
"Optional State Sales Tax Tables."
It is assumed that a laege.peicent of Huntington Beach r esidents
spend retail dollars outside of the City. Therefore , 'it is esti-
mated that for every new resident the City captures only 40 percent
of the annual retail sales tax revenue gener •ated'by that resident.
Attachment - 10/2/90 -5 -( q to )(7146d)
Commercial retail sales tax revenue is based on an estimated sales
per gross leasable square feet, (80 percent of t:'Ae total building
square footage) derived from the D liar n Shopping
Centers, compiled and published by the Urban Land nstitute.
1.3 Utilit User and Franchi Tax
Huntington Beach collects a five percent utility user tax on the
annual sales of electricity, natural gas, water, telephone and cable
television services in the City.
A franchise tax of one percent of the annual electricity sales and
four percent of the annual natural gas sales is collected from the
respective .itility providers in the City.
Factors used for this section of the analysis are as follows.
Electricity
According to tLe California Energy Commission, average electricity
charges based on the total bills collected for 1989, are:
Residential = $51.13 per unit, per month
Commercial = .0894 cents per kilowatt hour, using 12.2
KWH.per square foot per year applied to commercial and
recreation developments.
Natural Gas
According to the California Energy Commission , average statewide
natural gas charges are:
Residential = $29.58 per unit, per month
Commercial = $.669 per million BTU's, using an annual
rate of .42 million BTU's per square foot applied to
commercial and recreational developments.
Water
Based on City Water Department analyses:
Average residential water billing is $18.69 for a two month
period, per unit.
Data on commercial billing can not be identified per unit or store
because one water meter may service many units or stores. Commer-
cial water customers include all customers except residential and
comprise approximately 27 percent of the water billings in the City.
Attachment - 10/2/90
i
S
Telephone
For comparison purposes, an average estimated residential telephone
bill is forty dollars ($40.00) per month.
General Telephone is unable to provide the City with any data on
average phone billings for residential or coaupercial customers.
They do not compile the type of information that would be appro-
priate for a fiscal analysis.
Cable Television
For cable T.V. service in the City, the basic rate paid by residents
is $21.95 per month. It is assumed that all new residents in the
City will subscribe to the cable service.
1.4 Bu ine s License Fe
The City requires all businesses, commercial and industrial, in the
City to have a license. Business license fees are based on the
number of employees per business and also a fee per number of
trucks. It is not feasible to estimate. the number of trucks per
business, but employees have been estimated based on the following
assumptions.
Alt 3 ive 5 (Existin Commer ial : Alternative 5 consists of
approximately 7,000 square'feet of restaurant space.. As. mentioned
above, Business Licensing fees are determined by the, number of
employees per business. The City's Business License pepartment
estimates that quality restaurant businesses empi,oy approximately 3
employees per 1,000 sq. ft. t.ased upon this average, if
re-established, business license fees generated by the restaurant
would be approximately $99.00 annually.
Alternative 6 Commer ial eneral% Alternative. 6 consists of
approximetely 17,890 sq.`ft. of space. As mentioned above,
business licensing fees are deterP.a:9.ed by. the number of employees
per business. The City's Busines s Licensing department estimates
that retail businesses are an average. of 1,000 sq. feet and employ
approximataely 3 employees per business. Based upon this average,
business license fees generated by the retail commercial businesses
would be approximately $765 annually.
1.5 Additional Revenue
Additional revenue is generated by new residential development on a
per capita basis. This revenue is derived from funds* collected by
the State of California that'are distributed back to local
* State subventions.
Attachment - 10/2/90 -7-(7146d)
4
1
municipalities using a formula that is primarily based on that
municipality's 'population. In the Preliminary City Budget, Fiscal
Year 1990-1991, four major revenue items are applicable to this
analysis. Based on the April 1988, Orange County Forecast Analysis
Center population estimates for 1990 for Huntington Beach of
194,755, the revenues are calculated as follows:
Essentially, each department has been treated on a case by case
basis rather than applying a standard methodology to all of the
categories considered
Fines F rfeitures and P nalti is $2,419,000 divided by
194,755 equals $12.42 per capita.
Ci ar e Tax is $380 ,000 divided by 194,755 equals $1.95 per
capita.
Mo or V hi,l In- i u T x is $7,000,000 divided by 194,755 and
equals $35.94 per capita.
Gas Tax Funds (2107 and 2107.5) are $1,674,000 divided by
194,755 equaling $8.60 per capita.
2.0 COSTS
Research and discussions with each department have resulted in the
application of different methods to assess relative costs. These
results depended on the amount of data available and the level of
automation in each department. For example, the police department
has the most sophisticated data analysis related to activity by type
of land use. Working with police department computerized archival
data it was possible to assess the number of calls for a particular
type of land use. The number of calls has a direct relationship to
the number of officers needed, and, ultimately, a recommendation for
the hiring of additional officers based on the impacts from
development.
2.1 Co t A sum tion
The City of Huntington Beach Preliminary Budget, Fiscal Year
1990-1991, was used as the primary source for this section of the
analysis. Capital expenditures were excluded from the budget as
they are not applicable to future or proposed development. The
applicable programs under each budget item can generally be assigned
to privately developed acreage in the City on the following basis:
Residential land uses comprise approximately 78 percent of privately
developed acres,•commercial land uses comprise 10 percent and
industrial land uses comprise 12 percent. Where appropriate, this
land use distribution will be used to assess cost impacts.
Attachment - 10/2/90 -8-(7146d)
i
11
2.2 General and Administration Ex enditures
While this fund includes numerous programs (a total of 20), new
development would measurably impact only the non-departmental
(budget program 101) category. Non-departmental activities range
from City utility expenditures to liability program expenditures and
comprise, of the 1990/1991 budget, $9,835,100.
The most equitable method of distributing ,his expenditure is on a
cost per acre, regardless of the type of land use. There are
approximately 12,230 privately developed acres in the City and
divided into the above budget figure results in a cost per acre of
$804. The proposed project site is approximately 2.49 gross acres
yielding a cost of $2002.
2.3 Police De artment
From surveys of major land uses in the City, police calls per type
of development were derived. The police calls by type of land use
are detailed below.
LAND USE
4
POLICE CALLS/UNIT
OR S DARE FEET
Residential
-Single family .58/unit
-Multi-family
low density .70/unit
-Multi-family
Multi-story and high density .55/unit
Commercial 1/1693 square feet
Office and retail or .0006 calls per
square foot
These calls relate to the number of additional officers per year
that would be needed to service new development. A patrol officer's'
average annual salary, including benefits, is $65,000. Five or more
officers would result in capital expenditures, such as a vehicle.
When calls per year reach 535, the Police Department would recommend
hiring an officer. Consequently, the cost per call is approximately
$121. For the purpose of this analysis, it will be assumed that the
Department will incur a cost whether the calls for a particular
project reach 535 or a portion of that total. Calls b' type of land
use and estimated annual costs for alternatives are shown on the
summary table titled Police Services Costs.
2.4 Fire De ar ment
It is the the assessment of Fire Department Staff, primarily Tom
Poe (Deputy Fire Marshall, Fire Prevention Division), that new
residential development will impact two programs: Public Safety
Administration, Program No. 300 and Public Safety, Fire Control
Program 302. The total 1990/1991 budget for these: programs, minus
Attachment - 10/2/90 -9-(71464)
capital expenditures, is $9,018,686. The majority of public safety
activity, approximately 75 percent, is provided to residential land
uses in the City. Assuming costs for public safety on a per capita
basis the result would be as follows:
($9,018,686)(.75) = $6,764,.i5 divided by the 1990 City population
estimates of 194,755 = $35 pir capita.
Commercial land uses, however, have a relatively small impact on the
Fire Department. Six percent of Fire Safety service (programs 300
and 302) can be attributed to commercial uses, or (.06) ($9,018,686)
= $541,121. In addition to Fire Safety, Commercial uses also impact
program 308, Hazmat Response Unit. It is estimated that 25 percent
of the 1990/1991 program budget or (.25) ($794,152) _ $198,538 can
be attributed to commercial uses. Of the three programs the total
cost is $739,659. Applied on a per acre basis the cost dis-
tribution is $739,659 divided by 1223 commercial acres = $605 per
acre.
2.5 Community Services
According to Jim Engle, Acting Director, Community Services
Department, none of the development scenarios analyzed in General
Plan Amendment 89-3 would require and/or generate an increase in
park acreage in the City. Nor would those scenarios require an
increase in community services staff or existing programs that are
not self supporting.
It is assumed, however, that new residents in the City will have
some impact on the cost of park maintenance. Although park mainte-
nance is a budgeted program within the Public Works department, it
will be shown under Community Services in order to identify the cost
impacts separate from other Public Works programs.
According to Daryl Smith, Superintendent of Park Maintenance, it
costs the City $3,700 per year, per acre, to maintain the parks.
order to determine a cost per capita the following formula was
developed:
There are currently 555 acres of park land that are included in the
$3,700 per acre, per year cost. The City population estimates for
1990 are 194,755. Park acreage divided by population results in
.003 acres of park per person that are maintained by the City. Park
acreage per person multiplied by cost per acre results in an annual
park maintenance cost per capita of $10.50.
Acreage Maintenance Annual
Maintained Population Cost Cost/Capita
(555) / (194,755) = .003 ($3,700) = ($10.50)
Attachment - 10/2/90 -10 - ('Mj ) (7146d)
2.6 Public Works
In a discussion with Robert Eichblatt, City Engineer, it ,ias
determined that the scope of development assessed in this analysis
would only have a measurable impact on Public Works Programs 530 and
531, sewer maintenance. Mr. Eichblatt also stated that residential
development generates the greatest impact on sewer maintenance in
the City. For budget year'1990-1991 the total cost for sewer
maintenance is $842,380. Since residential generates the largest
impact it is realistic to measure that impact on a per capita
basis. For commercial land uses the cost will be measured on a per
acre basis. Residential costs are as follows:
Seventy eight percent of $842,380 = $657,056 divided by the 1990
population estimates of 194,755 = $3.37 per capita.
Commercial and industrial costs are as follows : The per acre cost
is derived from the balance of the programs which equals $185,324
divided by 2,691 acres (commercial and industrial ) and results in
$68.87 per acre.
Summary tables of revenues and costs follow this text.
Attachment - 10/2/90 -11-(7146d)
TABLE 2
4
PROPERTY TAX
(City tax collected is 19.2% of one percent)
Alt. 1
Med Den
36 Uni ts
Alt . 2.
Med Hi Den PD
Uni ts
Alt. 3
Med Hi Den
62 Uni ts
Alt. 4
High Den
Uni ts
Alt . 5
Existing Rest .
7.000 sa.ft.
Alt. 6
Projected Commercial
17.890 sg.ft.
Number of Units 36 50 62 86 7,000/sq .ft.17,890 square feet
Market Value 275,000 225 ,000 225,000 175,000 92.56/sq.ft.60.39 /sq.ft.
per unit
Total Market 9,900,000 11,250 ,000 13,950,000 15,050,000 825,161 1,080,000
Value
Total Property 19,008 21,600 26 ,784 28,896 1,584 2,074
Tax
Attachment - 10/2/90 -12-
I
D
SALES TAX REVENUE
TABLE I
Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6
Med Den Med Hi Den PD Med Hi Den High Den Existing Rest . Projectel Commercial
36 Units 50 Units 02 Uni t s 86 Units 7,000 sg.ft. 37.890 sa.ft.
Residgn ial
Market Value
(per snit)275,000 225,000 225,000 175,000
Estimated Household
Income (per unit)82,500 67,500 67,500 52,500
Estimated Annual
Retail Sales Tax 647 578 578 509
per household
(from Tax Tables)
City's Tax portion 107 96 96 84
(16.6% of Sales Tax)
£40% Capture Rate 43 38 38 34
Number of Units 36 50 86
City Tax Revenue 1,548 ,900 2,356 2,924
Commercial
Gross Sq. Ft.7,000 17,890
Gross Lease Sq. Ft.- 14,312
(80% of gross sq. ft.)
Sales per year per sq. ft.
Annual Sales
ity Tax Revenue
(Annual Sales)
Attachment - 10/2/90 -13-
131.00 163.07
917,000 2,33?,789
9,170 23,338
I
TABLE 4
UTILITY USER AND FRANCHISE TAX
Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6
Med Den Med Hi Den PD Med Hi Den High Den Existing Rest . Projected o..i.ercial
36 Units 50 Units 62 Units 86 Units 7.000 soft. 17,890 sa.ft.
Electricity 1104.48 1534.00 1902.16 2638.48 412.42
Gas 639 .00 887 .50 1100.50 1526.50 116.09
Telephone 864.00 1200.00 1488.00 2064.00
Cable TV 474.12 658.50 816.54 1132.62
Water 201.96 280.50 347.82 482.46
Franchise Tax
Elt__.icity 220.90 306.78 380.41 527.66
(1% of annual sales)
Gas 511.20 710.00 880.40 1221.20
(4Y of annual sales)
4,015.66 5,577.28 6,915.83 9,592.92
Attachment - 10/2/90 -14-
980.52
251.34
-
82 .48 196.10
92.87 201.07
703.86 1,629.03
TABLE 5
ADDITIONAL REVENUE
Estimated
Popul,: ion
Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6
Med Den Med Hi Den PD Med Hi Den High Den Existing Rest . Projected Commercial
36 Units 50 Units 62 Unit s 86 Units 7.000 sq.ft. 17,890 sa.ft.
97 135 167 232
Fine Forfeitures and Penalties,
Revenue per capita 14t.42 12.42 12.42 12.42 12.42
Total 1204.74 1676.70 2070.80 2881.44 32.26
Cigarette Tax
Revenue per capita 1.95 1-95 1.95 i-94 ,15,,
Total 189.00 263.25 325.65 452.40 5.85.
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax
Revenue per capita 35.94 Y4.24 35.94,35.94 35.94
Total 3486.18 4851,90 6001.98 8330.08 107.82,
Gas Tax Funds
Revenue per capita 8 .60 8.60 8.60 L. 64 8.60
Total 834.20 1161.00 1436.20 1995.20 25.80
0
0
0
0
0
I
i
TABLE 6
POLICE SERVICE COSTS
Alt.
Med Den
36 Uni ts
Alt. 2.
Med Hi Den PD
Uni ts
Alt. 3
Med Hi Den
62 Uni ts
Alt. 4
High Den
86 Units
Alt. 5
Existing Rest.
7 fWO sa.ft.
Alt. 6
Projected Commercial
17.89D soft.
Number of Units 36 50 62 86 7,000 sq. ft.17,890 sq. ft.
or square feet
Calls/Unit .55 .55 .55 .55 1/1693 sq. ft 1/1693 sq. ft.
or square feet
Calls/Year 20 28 34 47 5 11
Cost per call $121 $121 $121 $121 $121 $121
Total Cost $2,420.00 $3,388.00 $4,114.00 $5,687.00 $605.00 $1,331.00
Attachment - 10/2/90 -16-
TABLE 7
ADDITIONAL COSTS
Alt. 1
Med Den
36 Uni ts
Alt. Z.
Med Hi Den PD
50 U1, U.
Alt. 3
Mad Hi Den
62 Units
Alt . 4
High Den
86 Units
Residential
Estimated Population 97 135 167 232
Fire Service Costs
Costs per capita 35 35 35 35
Total 3395 472,5 5845 414 ,
Communit Service Co is
Costs per capita 11E 1050 10.50 10.50,
Total 1018.50 1418.00 1754.pO 2434,60
Public Works Costs
Costs per capita :37 2.17 3.37 3,37
Total 326.89 4F'.00 563 .00 782 .00
Costs per Acre
* Commercial cost per acre
-17-Attachment - 10/2/90
Alt. 5
Existing Rest .
7.000 sp .ft.
Alt.6
Projected Commercial
17.890 sa.ft.
0
605+605'
1234 1234
10.50 0
32.00 0
3.37
10'. DO 0
87*68.87*
140.00 140.00
i
RESOLUTION NO. 1438
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington
Beach reviewed a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan; and
The amendment to the Ladd Use Element is to redesignate 2.85
acres of land located on the west side of Lolsa Chica Street,
approximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue as depicted in
Exhibit A (attached ) from General Commercial to Medium -High Density
Residential; and
A public hearing on adoption of General Plan Amendment 90-5
was held by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on
October 2, 1990 in accordance with provisions of the State
Government Code.
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Planning Commission
of the City of Huntington Beach as follows:
,?ECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds that the land use
designation of M edium -High Den sity Residential will reduce the
commercial land use inventory in the area, and thus limit the area's
ability to meet future commercial demand.
SECTION 2 : The Planning Commission finds that the land use
designation of Medium -High Density Residential is too intense for
the project site.
SECTION 3: The Planning Commission finds that the land use
designation of Medium-High Density Residential will increase traffic
in the project vicinity which would be undesirable,
SECTION 4: The Planning Commission finds that the land use
designation of Medium-High Density Residential will negatively
impact sewer capacities in the project vicinity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED', that said. amendment to the General
Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for denial by
the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach on.the 2nd. day of October, 1990, by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mike ,Adams, Secretary Planning.Commi•4sion Chairwoman
Staff Report - 10/2/90 -2-
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH OR:, .:NANCE CODE
BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE
FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "COMMUNITY BUSINESS"
TO "MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL", ON REAL
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 2.04 ACRES ON
THE WEST SIDE OF BOLSA CHICA STREET,
APPROXIMATELY 270 FEET NORTH OF WARNER AVENUE.
(ZONE CHANGE NO 90-6).
WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the
Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City
Council have held separate public hearings relative to Zone Change
No. 90-6 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all
information presented at said hearings; and
After due consideration of the findings and recommendations
of the Planning Commission an4 all apnea presented to the City
Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and
consistent with the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The following described real property, generally
located on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 270
feet north of Warner Avenue, is hereby changed from C2 (Community
Business) to R3 (Medium-High Density Residential).
Parcel I: That portior, of Lot 4, Block 16 of Tract No. 86 as
per map recorded in BQok 10 , Pages 35 and 36 of Miscellaneous
Maps, on file in the office of the County Recorder of said
county, described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot. 4: thence
southerly along the easterly line of said dot 4, 204.67 feet,
more or less, to a point that is 125.33 feet northerly of the
southerly line of the northerly 330 feet of said Lot 4,
thence westerly parallel with the northerly line of said Lot
4, 275.03 feet, more or less, to a point that iS 25.00 feet,
measured at right angles to the westerly line of said Lot 4:
thence southerly parallel with the westerly line of said Lot
4, thence southerly parallel with the westerly line of said
Lot 4, 125.33 feet, more or less, to the'sbutherly line of
the northerly 330.00 feet of said Lot 4: thence westerly
parallel with the northerly line of said Lot 4, 25 feet, more
or less, to the westerly line of said Lot"4; thence northerly
along said westerly line, 330.00 feet to the northwest corner
of said Lot 4; thence easterly along the northerly line of
said Lot 4, 300.03 a feet, more or less, to the point of
beginning. ;
TOGETHER with an easement for road and public utility
purposes over the east 25 feet of Lot 3 and the West 25 feet
of Lot 4, in Block 16 or Tract No. 86, as per map recorded in
Boots 10, pages 35 and 36 of miscellaneous Maps, in the office
of the County Recorder of said county.
EXCEPTING therefrom the north 330 feet.
Parcel II: what part 4on L.o:4 6 9,g ° ct No. 86as per map recorded ' in Book 10 , pages 35 and 36 of
Miscellaneous Maps, on file in •the'office of the County
Recorded of said county , described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 4; thence
northerly along the easterly line , of said tot 4, 125.33 feet,
more or less , to a point that is 204.67 feet southerly of the
northerly line of the southerly •3,30 feet of said Lot 4:
thence westerly parallel with the southerly line of said Lot
4, 245.03 feet , more or less ,,to a point that is 25 .00 feet,
n,easured at right angles to the westerly line of said Lot 4;
thence southerly parallel with the westerly line of said Lot
4, 125.33 feet , more or less. to the ,squtherly line of the
northerly 330.00 feet of :said L 'ot: 4: thence easterly along
the southerly line of said Lot 4, 245.03 feet, more .or less
to the point of beginnpg. (E•x bit A .at;tached hereto.)
SECTION 2: The Dir:ec.tor of Community Devglopment is hereby
directed to amend Section 9061, District Map2$,,(Sectional District
Map 20-5-11) to reflect,Zgpe Change No. 90-6, described in Section
1 hereof (Exhibit A). Cppi,es.,of,said district maps, as amended
hereby, are available for inspection.•in the office of the City Clerk.
I
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days
r
after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on
the day of. , 1989.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIZTED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Director of Community
Development
R2R2ni gyn.F- RTR2R2Iz Iz R2z 3) /lOIrl1IJmLJzR2 P.2r-R2oposed)Zoning MapmiVIVuRIRIPiULL VRIST.QNJO NQI Q'3oCV0 crRI`R2330.5MEADOWLSPECIFIC 1`99585"GPal409-F 12\- 480= zzz_R2R..0,1ZHUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 has been prepared
and analyzed in the Planning Commission Staff Report datb.I October
2, 1990; and
General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 proposes to amend the Land
Use Element of the General Plan by redesignating a 2.85 net acre
area of land from General Commercial to Medium -.High Density
Residential; and
Such 2.8.5 acre area is generally located on the west side of
Bolsa Chica Street , north of Warner Avenue, as depicted in Exhibit A
attached hereto; and
The Planning Commission held a public hearing pursuant to
Government Code Section 65353 on October 16, 1990, to consider said
General Plan Amendment; and
The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation
to the City Council on the amendment to the General Plan pursuant to
Government Code Section 65354.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Huntington Beach as follows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission desires to update and
refine the General Plan'in keeping with changing community needs and
objectives.
SECTION 2 : General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 is necessary to
accomplish refinement of the General Plan.
SECTION 3 : General Plan A mendment No. 90-5 is consistent
with other Elements of the General Plan.
SECTION 4: General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 implements the
goals and policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan by
providing additional housing opportunities within the community.
d
SECTION 5 : The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington
Beach hereby adopts said amendment to the General Plan of the City
of Huntington Beach with the mitigation measures as stated pursuant
to Negative Declaration No. 90-24.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that said amendment to the General
Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by
the City Council of the City, of Huntington Beach.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular , n1eting thereof held on the second day
of October, 1990.
Michael C. Adams, Secretary- Planning, Commission Chairwoman
l'
mwU)w5CALCST.NJZzJI0m.IMEDIUM HIGHDENSITY RESIDENTIALEMILOL I JST.1000CHARLENE CT.WARNER-5KING CR.GPA90-05HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISIONiGUN OAR3wzD ZwwI--- VIN ELAND rHUNTINGTON BEACHr
i
MITIGATION MEA RE
1. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the
location of clothes dryers.
2. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking
facilities, water heaters, and central heating units,
3. Low volume heads shall be used on all showers.
4. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and
other surplus or unusable materidl, shall be disposed of at an
ofsite facility equipped to handle them.
5. The structures on the subject, property, whether attached or
detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the state
acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60
CNEL contours of the property. The interior noise levels of all
dwelling units shall not exceed the California insulation
standards of 45 dba CNEL. Evidence of compliance shall consist
of submittal of an acoustical analp8is report, prepared under
the supervision of a person experienced in the field of
acoustical engineering, with the application for building
permit(s). All measur"es.recommended tb mitigate noise to
acceptable levels shall be iricorporated into the. design of the
project.
6. If lighting is included in the parking lot and/or recreation
area energy efficient lamps shall be used (e.g., high pressure
sodium vapor, metal halide). All outside lighting shall be
directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. All
outside lighting shall be noted on the site plan and elevations.
7. If foil-type insulation is to be,.used, a file retardant type
shall be installed as approved by the Building Department.
8. A grading plan shall be submitted to the City's Department of
Public Works. A plan for silt control for all water runoff from
the property during construction and during initial operation of
the project may be required by the Director of Public Works if
deemed necessary.
9. During cleaning, grading, earth moving or excavation, the
applicant shall:
a. Control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving
construction roads; or other dust preventive measures.
b. Maintain equipment engines in proper tune.
rl
10. During construction , the applicant shall:
a. Use water trucks or, sprinkler systems to keep all areas
where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised
when leaving the ite,
b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is
completed for the day,
c. Use low sulfur fuel (.05% by weight ) for construction
equipment,
d. Phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high
ozone days (first stage smog alerts),
e. Discontinue construction during second , stage smog alerts.
11. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to
8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal
holidays.
12. Police and fire departments shall be notified prior to
initiation of construction and the departments shall be kept
informed about duration and extent of construction throughout
the process.
13. Public Works Department shall provide alternate routes for
traffic during the construction phase, if necessary . Adequate
signage shall be provided to warn motor vehicles, bicyclists and
pedestrians of construction.
14. Prior to issuance of building permits, a plan for methane
overlay compliance shall be submitted, for review and approved
to the Huntington Beach Fire Department.
15. A water plan shall be submitted to the water department for
review and approval . The plan shall detail measures which the
project shall implement to reduce peak hour water usage.
16. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered
Soils Engineer . This analysis shall include on-site soil
sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed
recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties,
foundations, retaining walls, streets , and utilities. In
addition , the soils analysis shall address shrink swell hazards
on expansive clays.
17. Development of the site shall eliminate existing curb cuts on
Bolsa Chica Street and.take access from Charlene Circle.
18. Development of the site shall be phased based upon the sewage
volumes which can be accomodated by existing sewer capacity, as
determined by the Orange County Sanitation Department . A:,-
additional development which would generate sewage volumes above
capacity levels shall not be permitted until the Slater Pump
Station has been upgraded to meet the additional volumes
generated.
r
July 15, 1990
Southridge Homes DEPR':'''-
5362 Oceanus Drive COMMUNr•
Huntington Beach, California 92649PLANNitv.
Dear Duf:
Thank you for your letter outlining the use of Charlene Circle
as access to your project.
I am not in favor of using Charlene Circle as an access to
your property. Dumping traffic onto Charlene would further
congest that street. The street needs the existing parking
on both sides of the street and finding parking in that area
is difficult. Charlene is a short street and traffic would
back up from Green Street thereby blocking driveways.
Should you want to discuss this matter or need me to discuss
it with the City, please contact me.
13502 E. Virginia Avenue
Galdwin Park, California 91706-5885
(1110)3311-5 587
September 20, 1990
it 1 i iri01)
Mr.,Duf Sfreddo
5362 '"Qceanus Drive
Huntington Beach, California 92649 Corsr:
PU'.,
Re: 16911 Bolsa Chica
Huntington Beach, California
Dear Duf:
The Best Enterprise
Is A Free Enterprise
"God Bless America"
The purpose of this letter is to confirm our earlier discussions
regarding the above-referenced property.
As you know, In-N-Out purger wus pleased to have an opportunity
to consider this as a location for one of our new restaurants
because we are indeed eager to acquire a site in Huntington Beach.
This particular property is somewhat removed from the more dynamic
commercial corridors where we hope to locate, so we will have to
decline the site at this time.
Thanks for thinking of In-N-Out; talk to yon soon.
Sincerely,
/1 4• v
Claudia Boyd
Director of Real Estate
CB/ck
Enclosure
9
-- I
rsino
D leveopment
MEMORANDUM REPORT
Rezoning a Commercial Site
Located at 16871 and 16911
C1E " • -7 .e
`•2 - 11990
COMMUNITY GE':_LOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
Balsa C)i,ca, Huntington : Eeach
to. Medium., High Density
Residenti :al (R-3:j'.
Prepared 4y
URSINO.DEVELOPMENT
September 1990
18652 Florida St. #245 e Huntington Beach, California 92648.(714) 842-1401
E
I
I
INTRODUCTION:
Specifically , Ursino Development is requesting that the subject site
be rezoned from commercial to medium /high density residential (R-3).
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit findings in our study of
the market as it relates to our request for a zone change.
In the course of our study , we performed the following tasks:
Reviewed and analyzed existing market research performed by
Economics- Research Associates , May 3, 1990 and Pearce-Bolsa
Chica . Market Study.
. Physically surveyed all areas in both studies.
Analyzed , published and unpublished reports prepared by other
government agencies and private firms regarding retail sales
and other factors relating to the site's potential as a commercial
site.
Interviewed officials of public and private sector agencies or
firms regarding various aspects of the site and the factors that
influence residential development on this site.
Reviewed documents and reports prepared by or for the City of
Huntington Beach that relate to commercial development in and
around the Bolsa Chica /Warner area of the City.
Prepared this memorandum report and the tables and exhibits that
are included.
Page 1
f
r
BACKGROUND:
The 2 acre property was utilized as a restaurant site. Several names
and types of restaurants have been tried, however none have had any
suc-ess and the premises has been closed for three years. The property
was placed on the market for sale and no suitable offers were received.
The familiar statement - "It's not a-good place for a restaurant" -
had meaning at this location. Less than one half mile away, the Golden
Bear Restaurant has had four different names in the past 3-1/2 years.
Consideration was given to ether retail uses. There were no offers from
buyers to convert the restaurant property into a strip center. There
are other strip centers along Bolsa Chica and the mid-block location is
not as desirable a location for a strip center.
Additonally several fast food chains were contacted. Specifically In-
and-Out Burger and MacDonald's. They conducted their own studies and
both declined the site as a fast food use Claudia Boyd of In-and-Out
said they would prefer B496% Bbi le4ard atsd stud ii working on a location
there.
An abundance of related stores and centers exist in the immediate area.
The success rate of the individual units appears to, be m inimal at best.
Vacancies at 25%, per center is' common.
The largest center nearby is the Huntington. Harbour Mall. It has mixed
use of retail and office. The retail activity in the center is less
than desired. Most recently, larger si:gnage.on Warner was approved by
the City to assist in drawing shoppers to this location. This center
has 80,000 square feet of retail.
Forthcoming to the area is an additional 123,,000 square feet of Retail
in the Meadowlark Airport site on! 15 acres of land.
Most recently the city Councilapproved a zone change from commercial to
residential for two properties nearby the Meatowlark site. The impact of
this new center certainly had a bearing on their decision to approve the
change.
Other commercial centers in the area are not'so-called' bonanzas:
Peter's Landing and the Sunset Beach area have numerous restaurants
and retail space. Per capita wise, the sales in these areas are less
than the orange County average according to Sales and Marketing Management
Magazine Survey of Buying Power.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis that follows and our observations during the
course of preparing this memorandum, we conclude that the best and
highest use for the benefit of the City at large would be to rezone this
property to R-3.
Through the efforts of the City a private developer is processing
through the City Planning Department, a 123,00 square foot
commercial site at the northeast corner of Bolsa Chica and Warner
(within 500 feet of this property). Many of the existing
commercial sites within a 2 mile radius have been notably
unsuccessful and this tendency may only be accelerated in the
future.
Existing commercial retail establishments in Huntington Beach
perform at levels below average for Orange County, indicating that
existing commercial sites are more than adequate to serve the
area's present and at least near-term future needs. Businesses in
the immediate Huntington Harbour Mall on Algonquin, close and/or
change ownership with surprising frequency.
The existing restaurant on the site has not been successful for
several years. In fact, three different types of restaurants have
failed. The site has been completely closed for the last 3 years
not producing any revenue for the City of Huntington Beach.
The property is bounded on all four sides by R-3 residential
apartments and condominium developments. The development of this
site as residential will only help the existing commercial sites,
therefore contributing to the revenue of the City.
The following three locations were researched and all three show
notable commercial vacancies:
Peter's Larding
Located on Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Harbour, this
uniquely -designed center (reportedly modeled after Port Grimaud on
the Gulf of Saint Tropet in France ) contains a total of 65,000
square feet of retail shops, 28,000 square feet of office space,
four restaurants and two banks.
At present , two of the restaurant locations (totalling 14,000
square feet ) and ohe 500 square foot shop, as well as a total of
about 7,:00 square feet `second floor office space are vacant.
Asking rents are $1 .75 (full service ) for offices and $2.00
(NNN) for retail . The restaurant spaces have been vacant for
about four to five months , and the site is considered "difficult"
for restaurants , according to leasing agents. Turnover in the
retail shops, although nbt quantifiable , appears to be fairly high.
Most of the center 's customers come from the immediate local area,
including Huntington Harbour and Sunset Beach . It is anticipated
by Peter's Landing agents that the center under construction at
Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street will provide significant
competition to Peter 's Landing.
Huntington Harbour Mall
This neighborhood center is located on Algonquin Street between
Boardwalk and Davenport, about one half mile northeast of the
subject site : The center was built about 20 years ago by Signal,
and was acquired by its current owners (who refurbished it and
recently built a 10 ,0'00 square foot addition ) about 3 years ago.
There are approximately 100,00 square feet in the center , including
80,000 square feet of retail and 20,000 square feet of office
space. At present, vacancies include one retail space (1,188
squi,?.e feet at $1.94 per square foot per month NNN) and three
sing.. o "fices ($1.35 to $1.55 per square foot per month full
serviced.
The center, which is anchored by„_a supermarket and drug store
and has primarily independent local-serving businesses as tenants,
has a trading area that generally includes Huntington Harbour as
well as the area west of Bolsa Chica and south of Heil. Only
minimal business comes from visitors ,,primarily in the summer.
Page 4
ISe
Sunset Beach
Sunset Beach is an unincorporated area located along the Pacific
Coast Highway generally between Anderson Street on the north and
2nd Avenue (the western extension of Warner Avenue) on the south.
Along Pacific Coast Highway, the area is characterized by a large
concentration of generally older visitor-oriented businesses,
including approximately 15 restaurants or bars and about 10
motels, many of which have been constructed in the years since
certification of the Huntington Beach LCP. Rack rates at the
newer accomodation facilities are in the $80 to $100 range, and
motels reportedly fill during the summer months (staring in June)
but appear to have significant vacancies the balance of the year.
Much of the area's retail stock has turned over in recent years
and/or is in need of refurbishing, and there are numerous signs
offering facilities for lease and/or sale.
A retail center at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway
and Warner (about one mile west of the subject site) offers a mix
of local resident-serving and visitor-oriented shops, including
restaurants and food stores of various types, a bar, a beachwear
store, a surf shop, a laundry and dry cleaners, a travel agency, a
liquor store and a large convenience store/market. One storefront
housing an auto parts outlet, apparently has been closed for over
a year. The gas station at the corner of the site at Pacific Coast
Highway and Warner has recently been remodeled and expanded to
include a car wash.
As estimated by Sales and Marketing Management Magazine's Survey
of Buying Power in 1988, the only expenditure catagories in which
per capita sales in the City exceeded County averages were general
merchandise and furniture, both of which this site would not
suprDrt.
In the catagories of food, eating and drinking places and drug
stores, Huntington Beach consumers were generally outspent on a
per capita basis by their orange County neighbors (see Table II).
In conclusion, it is generally understood at all levels within the City
and Public that more residential development is needed to support the
current commercial sites.
IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE WE ARE SOLICITING YOUR CONCURRANCE IN APPROVING A
ZONE CHANGE TO R-3.
Page
I
1
RETAIL SALES BY CATEGORY
rRetail Sales byCategoryHuntington Beach vs. Orange CountyThousands10..........................................•............................. .................................... ..:.......0 n.=--Total Retail Salesaa, yhsf,3 we3wantiEat/Drink Genl Merch Furn f Appl Auto DrugCounty Per Capita'.; :,City Per Capita
{Table 11Per Capita Sales by CategoryHuntington Beach vs. Orange County - 19884Total PopulationOrange County (000) Huntington Beach (000) Sales/CapitaTotal SlsICap Total SIs/Cap Index2273.7 191.2Total Retail Sales ($) 17,860,987.0 7,855.5 1,340,777.0 7,012.4 0.89Food 3,467,139.0 1,524.9 270,887.0 1,416.8• 0.93Eating & Drinking Places 2,397.,016.0 1,054.2 149,481.0 781.8 0.74General Merchandise 1,904,945.0 837.8 176,621.0 923.8 1.10Fumiture/Fumishings/Appliances 758,020.0 333.4 76,777.0 401.6 1.20Automotive 4,152,216.0 1,826.2 296,523.0 1,550.9 0.85Drug 588;609.0 258.9 48,023.0 251.2 0.97SOURCES: Sales and Marketing Management MagazineEconomics Research Associates