Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Plan Amendement 76-1 - Parts A & B - Resolution 4193 I I 1` I Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator FROM: Planning Commission DATE: March 16 , 1976 SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 76-1 (Parts A and B) As you requested, the Planning Commission reconsidered General Plan Amendment 76-1 (Parts A and B) at its March 2 meeting. Specifically, the Commission restudied the land use designations on eight areas in the Downtown Area illustrated in 76-1A. It is the conclusion of the Commission that: 4a. , The -old civic center site be designated Planning Reserve. 4b. , The area bound by Fifth Street, Walnut Avenue, Sixth Street and Orange Avenue be designated General Commercial. 4c. , The area of the apartments adjacent to the beach between Seventh and Sixth Streets be designated Open Space. 4d. , The pier be designated as Specialty Commercial on the west side and around the pier itself in addition to existing commercial on the east side. 4e. , The triangle created by the proposed realignment of Atlanta Avenue be designated General Commercial. 4f. , The park site designated in the vicinity of Delaware and Chicago Streets be retained. 4g. , The two Medium Density areas at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue be retained as Medium Density . 4h. , The High Density Residential designation on the City-owned property bound by Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway be redesignated Tourist Commercial. The Commission also considered alternative land use designations on 8. 66 acres of land located 620 feet south of Ellis Avenue on the east side of Beach Boulevard as portrayed in 76-1B (Section 2 . 2 . 1) . In light of new information presented, the Commission recommends that the front 3. 66 acres along Beach Boulevard remain General Commercial and the rear 5. 0 acres be designated Medium Density Residential. y Page Two General Plan Amendment 76-1 (Parts A and B) Revised versions of 76-1A and addendum to 76-1B as recommended by the Commission are transmitted for review. The Commission recommends that General Plan Amendment 76-1 (Parts A and B) be adopted as modified (Resolution 4211) . Respectfully submitted, a � ' chard A. Harlow Secretary RAH:MF:gc To: Planning Dept/Commiolon, City Council 3—ft—OOLeonard Wright 2-23-76 City of Huntington Beach 606 - 14th St, H.B. Subject: Low density zoning In the high density strip along PCH, Downtown Redevelopment preliminary General Plan. Definition of area (see Figs, 1 and 2) 1. West side of 100 block of 7th Street above the alley 2 . 100 block of 8th Street above the alley, WhLNQ-r Its (4 55 Z cr VA c^**r ra 4) so Fig. 1. Cluster that desires low-density protection. Pol—nts In opposition to low-density zoning 1. This creates a jog In the low-density boundary, 2. Developers would not be able to consolidate the whole block to create a single development. 3. Two multiple units are In this area. Points In favor of low-density zonjnj 1. Low-densitj zoning Is largely consistent with exist.UZ dovelgMnt. Exceptions: . older 10 units , now 14 units that replaced the old library a couple of years ago. 2. It's contiguous to the low-density, area above Walnut (see Fig, 2) 3. Long-time residents prefer it. • Five signed a request for low-density zoning (as* Fig. 3) . Gordon Lewis will be in Europe another month. He and others asked me to speak for them, • Mr. Bloodworth and Mr. Lewis have spoken at hearings to request low-density zoning. 4. It will afford a measure of protection. Residents expressed concerns: • about what's going up around them. • that taxes resulting from high-density zoning will force them out. 5. Plenty of -room would still exist for consolidation in theomblooka. 1?.t' to Pia, PC. Cr, -3- 2-25-76 6. Not all blocks will necessarily be consolidated. On Feb, 25 Planners discussed Townlot Area 4 with developers. � Some comments included.: a. Although the Coastal Commission doesn't like current 4-plex developments, new recommendations can make the 4-plexas more palatable: . open space of 10 r 10 minimum dimensions dedicated to each unit. . tandem parking to facilitate this open space. b. Courtyards often have worked out badly. People mess them up, but It's difficult to get people to clean them up. c. Developers are finding that a large number of units in one building give them the most problems --- selling, rental Income etc. Nq mQ ell 1 2 s -7 h 7 t A - 17,(. Yt Fig. 3. Signatures in support of law-density. • w I mom Y MOM � NNII �llIINI •' ;�:�d ININIIIirI� NNNtN�� � N��N � NNlNn� + NN{I�Illp NN�NNN NNNII NMANNNN NMNNN ""»N _ � �lNANNN NNNNNNN NNNNNNN NNNINNIN ANIINAN�s � ,� ifIINNNNNN JOIN NN NNNNp NIA NNMMIN � NNHIAINN NNAANNn N��INf:� BAN �IIINN{N�` �r MAIME IN INNOW Ulm `�NNIiN� ANH��� N NNNi°� CNN NNIINAN ;A�II . �A NNNNNNN NIII{�lili'N NANNIIIIN iNNNN Hlt�tllAiNH N� �iINANN 111N11 IIIIMp NIIHNNdII ��ill CNN N�{ �I �ilN llll/N' aNrbNlllN�1itA�IHII� A1N ANI }�Ni� 1111111 llgiiti ;NN�IlIIIIN t1N11�Nllll; CNN! �ANIINrN MINI; Il/;Nil AUDIAIf I HINNA N*NIA NAi �NNNANN NIIiINIIIIN �I11111�AIli �lA. I!N HllH�ggH l �ANNNAN NtU11.11,11 11I1gNAfig ANlII�IIN AN 1 NAN Al HBO NIIIIIIINII, ON HNI�N� NiIN 1li�ANiill HNNN"HH' UHNNIIAH Hili�;�:aii ItiAH;N1�! AH 10110111101" NAA N A_ffar+NN tlt(1NNIND,NH_. 1glAlfiNI MOM* WIN IIII—MA. N� SIN!{NIIHH H1111HHHH HNHIIN NAN Hip DNN�AA AID • '+4i;�i+,+:�ti!4' ii i;ki�k!+►!i;y'!i� lNANN NAIL81 101101 11 OWNk �i�►i!+►!�`'i�+ihi+i�F�+� 11� w� l A ..NAM Allll�_ �;�ha,A,. ���,+►.�,� N ,jr;AN Nl�N !a�►'N;�:N�+1�n"���t�A. 4A ; REVISED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1 PART A : DOWNTOWN PLANNING AREA march , 1976 hunfingfon beach planning department i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 . 0 Introduction 1 1. 1 Intent and Purpose 1 1. 2 Authority and Scope 3 1. 3 Background 5 2. 0 Summary of Planning Issues* 2.1 General Issues 2. 2 Specific Issues 3. 0 Market Forecast Summary* 3. 1 Population 3. 2 Market Analysis of Land Use Potential 4. 0 Alternative Development Concepts * 4. 1 The Destination Resort Concept 4. 2 The Regional Point of Interest Concept 4. 3 The Seasonal Beach Community Concept 4. 4 The Modified Destination Resort Concept 5. 0 Analysis of Alternative Concepts * 5. 1 City Goals and Policies 5. 2 Market Potential 5. 3 Economic Commitments 5. 4 Significant Environmental Impacts 5. 5 Traffic Impacts 5. 6 Cost-Revenue Impacts 5. 7 Coastal Plan 5. 8 Park Needs 6. 0 Amendment Summary j 6.1 Goals and Policies 7; 6. 2 The Plan 10 6. 3 Summary of Land Use and Population 14 7. 0 Environmental Assessment Amendment 17 -7.3 _____._Eau-ronmental_Impacts and Mitigating Measures_ 17 * See corresponding section of Downtown Planning Study: Draft Report. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Intent and Purpose As the fourth document in the transition from the Master Plan of Land Use to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, General Plan Amendment 76-1A is a significant step toward the new direction for Huntington Beach established in the Phase I Land Use Element and subsequent amendments. General Plan Amendment 76-1A was revised by the Planning Commission on March 2, 1976 . The revised amendment incorporates Project Area Committee recommendations dated February 27 , 1976 and subsequent changes by the Planning Commission. The amendment presented in this document is a "transitional step which is intended to provide a land use policy guide for Down- town Huntington Beach. It is intended that this amendment replace the planning unit designation presently in effect in the majority of this area. While the Destination Resort designation attempts to affect development similar to that proposed in Amendment 76-1A, the amendment more closely defines appropriate land uses. This amendment addresses the location, relationships and extent of the residential, hotel and motel, retail and specialty commercial, office, and public uses allowed under the Destination Resort category. Amendment 76-1A also addresses the changes to the Master Plan of Streets and Arterial lip me Highways that are necessary to support the proposed land uses. This amendment, in addition to a proposal continued in General Plan Amendment 76-1B,will allow the deletion of Destination Resort from the Phase I Land Use Element. It is anticipated that one more document will be necessary to complete the transition of the Land Use Element to the "new direction" . A draft of the Phase II Land Use Element has been presented to the Planning Commission but is currently being revised. The timeliness of the Downtown Planning effort plus requests from property owners for additional amendments necessitated the development of General Plan Amendment 76-1A and General Plan Amendment 76-1B. It should be noted, however, that even with the adoption of the Phase II Land Use Element, the Land Use Element will still be subject to continuous scrutiny and where justified, amended. 1. 2 Authority and Scope 1.2 . 1 Authority per C. I.R. Guidelines Although the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive policy document, it must be periodically updated to meet new conditions and from time to time revised or ampli- fied to respond to unforeseen changes or needs. The plan is, therefore, subject to amendment to reflect changes in goals, policies and physical, social or economic conditions. Some changes may be minor and not require changes in other parts of the plan. All proposed changes, however, should be evaluated in regard to environmental impact and consistency with the balance of the document. An environmental impact analysis has been prepared and is contained in a separate document entitled General Plan Amendment 76-1A: Environmental Assessment. It is amended in Section 7.0 of this document. Section 65361 restricts the number of times per year that the mandatory elements of the General Plan can be amended. "No mandatory element of a General Plan shall be amended more frequently than three times during any calendar year. . . " This provision does not apply to adding new elements to the General Plan. Local agencies can amend the General Plan by adding new plan elements as often as desired. For example, noise, seismic safety and safety elements may be adopted during the calendar year and this will not constitute an action under Section 65361. Plan elements which are not required in the planning law (e.g. , urban design, specific area plans, public buildings, etc. ) but may be of community interest can be amended to the General Plan as often as desired. This procedure only affects proposals to change existing mandatory General Plan Elements. This requirement became effective on January 1, 1974. 2 AtWk Section 65862 requires that a two-week period of time be provided between the adoption or amendment of the General - Plan and proposal for a rezoning. for the purpose of bringing zoning into consist- ency with the General Plan. This prohibits concurrent action to amend the General Plan and the zoning ordinance at the same meeting. The two processes have been sepa- rated in order to strengthen the General Plan as a _ policy document and the zoning ordinance as an imple- menting device. This requirement also became effective on January 1, 1974 . 1. 2. 2 Scope of Amendment The Amendment presented in this document consists of the following major points: Identification of planning issues. B. A summary of market forecasts for the various land uses proposed. C. A description of .four alternative land use concepts proposed for Downtown Huntington Beach. D. An analysis of the alternative concepts including their impacts on City goals and policies, market potentials, economic commitments, significant environmental features, circulation, City costs and revenues, the Coastal Plan, and park facilities. E. A description of the land use pattern, including text and a diagram or other graphic representation such as a map. In order to avoid repitition of analysis that has been presented in the Downtown Planning Study: Draft Report, several sections of the Amendment document are merely referenced. Specifically. these sections as noted in the Table of Contents are: 2 . 0 Summary of Planning Issues, 3 . 0 Market Forecast Summary, 4. 0 Alternative Development Concepts and 5. 0 Analysis of Alternative Developments. It is, therefore, necessary to consult the Downtown Planning Study: Draft Report for the background information leading up to the recommen- dations contained in the remainder of this report. 3 �....... ....... . ......... .................. _.... ..................i �w i .. Saw ........ f d•, No AMUM .• 1. 4 f' NAWLMM OAMPOW r H1. F 1-1 PLAWNG AREA LOCATION huntington beach planning department 4 1. 2. 3 Planning Area Boundaries The area under consideration in Amendment 76-1A contains approximately 443 acres and includes the business district in the vicinity of the municipal pier, the surrounding residential area, the portion of the Town- lot fronting on Pacific Coast Highway and the largely undeveloped area east of Lake Street and west of Beach Boulevard. The precise boundaries of the Planning Area are: The Pacific Ocean, Goldenwest Street, Walnut Avenue, Alley between Seventh and Eighth Streets, Palm Avenue, Alabama Street, Chicago Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Figure 1-1 delineates the Planning Area. 1. 3 Background Over the past several years a variety of development plans and proposals have been prepared for Downtown' Huntington Beach. The first significant effort to upgrade the Downtown began in 1965 when the City called in a task force from the Urban Land Institute to assess the City and make recommendations on the future direction to be followed. The ULI study concluded that the City's economic future lay in developing the ocean front and revitalizing Downtown. Soon after completion of the ULI study, the City began developing plans and making improvements in the beach front area. The result was the adoption of the Top-of-Pier plan in late 1969. One of the top priority projects in this plan was to add 32 acres of existing parking facilities. As detailed plans were formulated, support for the parking expansion died and so did the Top-of-Pier plan. The next proposal for the Downtown was prepared by VTN Consolidated. The result of VTN' s study efforts were incorporated in a draft repoit that was informally submitted in April, 1975. The following month, the City and VTN agreed that the City Planning Department would prepare a General Plan for a modified Top-of-Pier plan . area, and VTN would prepare a development plan for specific portions of the planning area. In July, 1975 the Planning Depart- ment with consultant assistance embarked on this latest effort. The Planning Department' s Downtown Planning Study Draft Report was completed in November, 1975 and included four alternative land .use proposals: (1) The Destination Resort concept, (2) The Modified Destination Resort concept, (3) The Regional Point of Interest concept and (4) the Seasonal Beach Community concept. The City Council at its meeting of November 24 , 1975 directed the Planning Department to prepare a General Plan Amendment that reflected the Modified Destination Resort concept. 5 6. 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY As explained in Section 1. 0, the purpose of General Plan Amendment 76-1A is to provide a land use policy guide for Downtown Huntington Beach. It is also the purpose of this amendment to address changes in the circulation system that are required to support the land uses proposed. This section of the document compiles the recommendations developed in earlier sections into a concise form for adoption. Adoption of General Plan Amendment 76-1A constitutes approval of the land uses presented in the modified Destination Resort Concept, the Creation of -two additional General Plan land use designations (Specialty Commercial and Tourist Commercial) , modifications to residential standards, modifications to the Master Plan of Streets and Arterial Highways, and deletion of the Ocean Front 'Commercial/ Residential planning unit. 6. 1 Goals and Policies The development concepts proposed by General Plan Amendment 76-1A represent the land use alternative that is most compatible with existing City goals and policies. The major feature of this amend- ment is that it balances City goals and desires for improvement of the municipal economic base with other community goals.. Specifically, General Plan Amendment 76-1A proposes the adoption of the following development goals and policies. - 7 6 .1.1 Main Street To revitalize the commercial area along Main . Street. 6.1.2 Pier To preserve the pier and capitalize on its existence. 6.1. 3 High Rise Development To permit high rise development in the Downtown area . 6.1.4 Park Needs To satisfy the demand for park facilities generated by the development of the Planning Area. This may occur within or outside the Planning Area. 6.1.5 Development of Small Lots To encourage the consolidation of lots within the Planning Area. 6.1. 6 City-Owned Property To utilize City-owned property in the area for revitaliza- tion of the Planning Area. 6 .1.7 Development of Major Parcels To promote the development of major parcels of land in order to accrue potential tax increment benefits and stimulate further improvement. 6.1.8 Mass Rapid Transit To continue to support the Orange County Transit District mass rapid transit line into Huntington Beach by request- ing the Orange County Transit District to financially assist in the preservation of the corridor by either acquiring the railroad right-of-way and sufficient adjacent land for an MRT line, or by combining the rail- road right-of-way and sufficient adjacent land for an MRT line or by combining the railroad right-of-way with Lake Street to form a multi-purpose arterial highway/ transit corridor. 6.1.9 Low and Moderate Cost Housing To .provide housing for all economic segments bf Huntington Beach. 8 RESIDENTIAL Low Density 0-7 D.U./Gross Acre Medium Density 7-15 D.U./Gross Acre •'•' High Density Over 15 D.U./Gross Acre COMMERCIAL. in General Specialty ® `4 • Tourist,Commercial 4q •I:i;?::;, ® planning Reserve ��y •!� �• . ;;;P P ',• OPEN SPACE I / ;� :Pyp�c ,•�%c4c Parks & Recreational Facilities qY' •�' �•; PUBLIC FACILITIES •'• • ••• Park `; ry;:y> �'. .. . . . . Proposed Neighborhood ' ::<: tiG•• • • • .'i i i . . . . . . : c Beach �'�:Y Transportation � x<< �' ••• � Center � . ' ' a�,♦ . o .< �.dolor r s 0 Z im&0111, m • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ pAGIFIG GnAS7 NIGHw4y Fpur•♦1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-IA R N IGTC�I F"TM CAA PL4NN1NCi pER41tTMPNT 6 .1.10 Convention Center To promote the development of convention facilities and encourage hotels to locate within the Planning Area. 6 .1.11 Parking To provide adequate parking facilities in the Planning Area. 6 .1.12 Relocation of Downtown Post Office To encourage the Post Office to provide postal service in the Planning Area. 6 .1.13 Mixed Use Development Mixed use development is encouraged throughout the Planning Area and should be provided for in implementing ordinances where appropriate. 6. 2 The Plan \ The land uses proposed in General Plan Amendment 76-1A range in intensity from Low Density Residential to the very intensive use, Tourist_ Commercial. As previously mentioned, the majority of the Planning Area is currently designated Destination Resort. The re- mainder was recently designated Ocean Front Commercial/Residential and Low Density Residential. The uses proposed in the Amendment do not constitute a ma.or change-_in City land use policy except for residential highrise. They do constitute a more precise but stillfi general denition of City policy in Downtown Huntington Beach. The location and designation of the land uses proposed in General Plan Amendment 76-1A are depicted in Figure 6-1. 6. 2. 1 Residential Standards The residential density standards utilized in this Amend- ment are those incorporated in the March, 1975 amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. These standards, which generally reduce residential densities, are outlined in the previously mentioned report. Because they were adopted in that document, they need not be readopted at 10 this time. However, with adoption of General Plan Amend- ment 76-1A, the new density ranges will be applied to the areas identified. Thus , the new standards will apply in the areas amended in General Plan Amendment 76-1A and 76-1B, the July, 1975, Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element, and the March, 1975, Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. 6.2. 2 Additional Land Use Categories Adoption of this Amendment includes adoption of two addi- tional land use categories: Specialty Commercial and Tourist Commercial. These new classifications are dis- cussed in Sections 3.2. 2 and 3. 2. 3 and will permit the following types of development: (1) Specialty Commercial: This category will permit the development of shopping facilities that appeal to shoppers seeking a novel, leisure-oriented shopping experience. Typically, these facilities would be located in centers and have a unifying theme or architecture. Acceptable uses under this category would be . restaurants . small retail shops . other related uses. (2) Tourist Commercial: This category will permit those uses that will appeal to the Orange County Tourist market. Acceptable uses under this category would be • hotel and motel facilities . convention facilities • theme park/tourist attraction . other related uses. 6. 2. 3 Circulation Adoption of this Amendment will require the following changes in the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and High- ways. These changes constitute modifications within the _ Planning Area and modifications that are outside the Planning Area but which are necessary to provide the access needed for successful revitalization of Downtown. (A) Internal Circulation Svstem (1) Huntington Street should be realigned to Atlanta Avenue at a point opposite Delaware Street. 11 M - G ' LEGEND: FREEWAY 4 MAJOR. ..120'R/W PRIMARY .._I00'R/W SECONDARY.____SO'R/W NOTE: �•+�• SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY CASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS s SYMBOL DENOTES PRIMARY COUPLET n > Tj �� b ' cp 1.0 r ' - ' ---- M R MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND NGNMIAYS y� Agwe 6.2 I , is— G vl Play A�esn h t 716-iA huntington beach planning department 12 Delaware would continue northward as a second- ary arterial. (2) The Orange Avenue-Atlanta Avenue corridor should be revised to eliminate the offset configuration at Lake Street. Orange Avenue should be re- designated a secondary. (3) Indianapolis Avenue should maintain -its existing alignment at the intersection of Lake Street. (4) Pacific Coast Highway and Fifth Street, while maintaining their current right-of-way width and designations, should be expanded in capacity by removing parking lanes or by other techniques. (5) Palm Avenue between Seventeenth Street and Main Street will be redesignated a local street. (B External Circulation System (1) Lake Street should be extended to and terminated at Garfield Avenue and Main Street. (2) Main Street should be deemphasized as a major carrier in the Downtown by realigning Main Street northerly of Mansion Avenue to intersect the north-south alignment of Gothard Street. (3) Traffic now using Main Street for Downtown access should be rerouted via Seventeenth Street by designating Seventeenth Street as a primary and redesignating Main Street south of Seventeenth Street a local street. (4) Seventeenth Street between Main Street and Lake Street will be redesignated a local street. (5) Fourteenth Street will be deleted from the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. (6) The multi-legged intersection of Main Street, Garfield Avenue, and Gothard Street will be eliminated in favor of a four-legged intersec- tion. (7) Since the State of California has deleted the Route 1 and Route 39 Freeways from its State Highway Master Plan, they will not be constructed in Huntington Beach. Therefore, these Freeways are being deleted from our Master Plan Streets 13- and Arterial Highways and existing alignments are reinstated for Beach Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway and Hamilton Avenue. The designated freeway frontage road between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway is no longer necessary without the freeway and is also deleted. 6. 2 . 4 Deleted Land Use Categories Ocean Front Commercial/Residential : Adoption of General Plan Amendment 76-1A will redesignate the area fronting on Pacific Coast Highway between Goldenwest Street and Seventeenth Street from Ocean Front Commercial/Residen.tial to High Density Residential. This will eliminate all land with an Ocean Front Commercial/Residential designa- tion from the Phase I Land Use Element; therefore, this planning unit should be eliminated. 6. 3 Summary of Land Use and Population The following tables present a statistical summary of the land use proposals set forth in this Amendment: Proposed Land Use Acreage Category Gross Acres Residential Low Density 0-7 un/gac 20 .1 Medium Density 7-15 un/gac 98 .9 High Density over 15 un/gac 75 .2 1�4.2 Commercial General Specialty Commercial 23 .9 Tourist Commercial 90 .4 i5l.5 :Planning Reserve 5.4 Open Space Parks and Recreational Facilities 86.3 Total: 443 .4 14 Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units per Unit Population Low Density 20.1 x 9 181 x 3 . 09 = 559 Medium Density 98 .9 x 15 1484 x 2. 64 = 3918 High Density 75.2 x 35 2632 x 1.89 = 4974 194 .E 4297 9451 AfWX15 7. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT This section amends the environmental assessment for General Plan Amendment 76-1A. The assessment generally analyzes the impacts associated with the revised GPA 76-1A which incorporates Project Area Committee and Planning Commission recommended changes. Environmental impacts are analyzed from the perspective of compar- ing the original GPA 76-1A and the revised plan. Where appropriate, the two plans are further measured against development under exist- ing zoning. 7. 1 Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures 7.1. 1 Topography Neither the original or revised General Plan Amendment 76-1A will result in any significant landform alterations within the Planning Area. Along the natural bluff area north of Atlanta Avenue adverse topographic effects can be avoided by clustering of structures. 7.1. 2 Soils In the tidal sediments of the flood plain liquefaction hazard is considered high. This is true whether develop- ment conforms to the original GPA 76-1A (medium- .and high-density residential and tourist commercial) or re- 17 vised GPA 76-1A (medium- and high-density residential and tourist commercial) . Land use changes proposed by the revised GPA 76-1A would subject about 1310 fewer persons to liquefaction hazard in the residential areas. However, the revised GPA 76-1A recommended tourist commercial area near Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard would in- crease the number of tourists exposed to liquefaction. As a result, given the substantial variation in tourist popu- lation throughout the year, the net population effect should be considered neutral. 7.1. 3 Oil Resources No differential effect is expected between the original and revised GPA 76-1A. 7. 1. 4 Geologic Considerations Two active branches of the Newport-Inglewood Fault are contained within the Planning Area. Loss of life and structural damage will be distinct possibilities if development occurs within the general Newport-Inglewood Zone. This is true whether development conforms to the original GPA or revised 76-1A. When comparing the two plans, the differential effect will be more adverse under the original GPA 76-1A (based on population subject to seismic activity) . The original GPA 76-1A generates a total residential population of 12, 406 while the revised plan generates 9451. Specialty and Tourist Commercial land will also increase 29. 6 acres under the revised plan increasing accomodation of a larger tourist and rec- reational population. Imposition of City seismic standard for construction should reduce loss of life and structural damage potentials. . 7. 1. 5 Flood Hazard Most of the Planning Area, located on the Huntington Beach Mesa, is free from flooding. The remainder, which lies below the bluff, is subject to flooding in 100 and 200 year storms. Considering land use changes within the floodplain, the revised plan will decrease residential population by 1310 persons below the original GPA 76-1A. The possible adverse effect on population can be negated if high rise structures are built so that most of the population and their residences are located above the flood hazard. A second mitigation measure is to implement the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Santa Ana River Plan which would make the City flood safe from a 200-year storm 18 7. 1. 6 Cultural Resources No differential effect is expected between the original and revised GPA 76-1A. 7. 1. 7 Water Resources Percolation maintains the groundwater level, a major source of domestic water. The amount of percolation will be reduced by development under the revised GPA 76-1A (with 86. 3 gross acres of open space) as opposed to the original GPA 76-1A which provides 96.4 gross acres of space or 10. 1 additional acres. Runoff under the revised GPA 76-1A will be about the same as that generated by existing zoning and considerably more than that generated by the original GPA 76-1A. The revised plan increases commercial use by approximately 23 percent from the original GPA 76-1A. Business areas produce about 20 percent more runoff than residential areas. Increased runoff will mean poorer water quality. 7. 1.8 Biological Resources No differential effect is expected between the original and revised GPA 76-1A. 7. 1. 9 Air Quality Development under the original GPA 76-1A increases popu- lation by 5, 096 for the Planning Area over the population at ultimate development under existing zoning. The revised plan increases the Planning Area population by 2141 over that generated by existing zoning. As a result, air emissions in Orange County due to vehicle use will increase by 15. 1 tons per day or . 30 percent (original GPA 76-1A) , and 10. 1 tons per day or . 20 percent (revised GPA 76-1A) above that generated by existing zoning. On a seasonal basis, tourist attendance and traffic will b highest during the summer. Based on estimates of tourist attendance and recreational use above present, daily air emissions during summer peak can be expected to increase by 22 tons (original GPA 76-1A) or 27 tons (revised GPA 76-1A) based upon a 15 year average. 7.1.10 Noise The revised plan decreases daily traffic within the Planning Area by approximately 6 percent below that 19 generated by the original GPA 76-1A. When broken down by land use, the revised plan decreases residential generated traffic by 24 percent and increases tourist commercial generated traffic by 28 percent. As a result, noise levels along most arterials can be expected to de- crease by about 6 percent below those of the original GPA 76-1A. The proposed 19. 8 acre tourist commercial area near PCH and Beach Boulevard will account for most of the - commercial traffic increase. Traffic will increase along Beach Boulevard and PCH and noise levels will rise by about 7 percent above levels generated by the original plan. 7. 1. 11 Public Services (1) Fire Protection: No differential effect is expected between the original and revised GPA 76-1A. (2) Police Protection: Based on manning ratios for the various general land use types, the Police Department estimates that 21 additional police officers would be necessary under the original GPA 76-1A to serve the Planning Area. Under the revised plan, an additional 19 officers would be required above existing zoning. (3) Flood Control: The revised plan land uses will generate more runoff than those of the original GPA 76-1A. However, the proposed storm drains will adequately service the Planning Area under either plan and no differential effect is expected. (4) Recreation and Parks: The revised plan changes one park site (Old Civic Center Site) to Planning Reserve. As a result, the environmental effect is indeterminate until a decision is made to develop the site or maintain it as a park site. (5) Schools: Based on ultimate residential development according to the original GPA 76-1A, elementary school generation will be approximately 1,203, high school - 439, and junior college - 948. The following number of students will be generated at ultimate development under the revised plan: 860 elementary, 321 high school, and 730 junior college. The Huntington Beach Elementary School District and the Coast Community College District indicated that their facilities can adequately accommodate the expected student increases generated by both plans. 20 The Huntington Beach High School District is cur- rently overloaded. However, this effect will be partially mitigated by construction of the proposed Ocean View High School at Gothard and Warner. (6) Medical Services: Development under the original GPA 76-1A will require local hospitals to accommodate 5, 096 more persons than at ultimate development under existing zoning. The revised plan will require local hospitals to accommodate an additional 2141 persons. 7. 1. 12 Utilities (1) Water: Development as proposed by the revised plan will create an additional demand for water of approximately 315, 000 gallons per day over the demand predicted for ultimate development under existing zoning. The original GPA 76-1A increases water demand by 750, 000 gallons per day. Planned expansion of existing facilities will only accommodate water demand generated by existing zoning. (2) Sanitary Sewer: The revised plan increases sewage flow by 257 , 000 gallons per day over the flow pre- dicted for ultimate development under existing zoning. The original GPA 76-1A increases sewage flow by 602, 000 gallons per day. The planned sewage system will only accommodate demand generated by existing zoning. (3) Oil Lines; No differential effect is expected be- tween the original and revised GPA 76-1A. (4) Solid Waste Disposal: The revised plan will generate an additional 2,150 tons of solid waste per year over the amount predicted for ultimate development under existing zoning. The original GPA 76-1A will generate an additional 5,100 tons per year. The Rainbow Disposal Company foresees no local service constraints under either plan. (5) Energy Utilities: The revised plan will create an additional natural gas demand of 57 million cubic feet per year and an additional electrical demand of 3 million kilowatt hours per year above the respect- ive demands predicted for existing zoning. The original GPA 76-1A will increase gas demand by 183 million cubic feet per year and electrical demand by 6 million kilowatt hours per year. The power 21 companies have indicated that short-term demand can be met. However, regulatory policies and delayed construction of new power facilities could hamper long-term supply capabilities. 7. 1. 13 Human Habitat (1) Aesthetics: No differential effect is expected between the original and revised GPA 76-1A. (2) Population: Development of the Planning Area accord- ing to the original GPA 76-1A. will generate approxi- mately 5, 096 persons more than ultimate development under existing zoning (Population at ultimate develop- ment under existing zoning will be about 7,310 versus a population increase to 12, 406) . The revised plan generates 9, 451 persons or an increase of 2, 141 persons -over existing zoning. Population density will increase from 37. 84 persons per gross residential acre under existing zoning to 47. 22 persons per acre under the original GPA 76-lA and 48 . 67 persons per acre under the revised plan. (3) Traffic Circulation: As indicated in the Noise section, the revised plan decreases residential generated traffic by about 24 percent below that generated by the original GPA 76-1A. Conclusions reached .in the JHK Traffic Study will remain valid. The revised GPA 76-1A proposed 19. 8 acre tourist commercial area near PCH and Beach Boulevard will account for most of the 28 percent commercial traffic increase. As a result, congestion will probably increase at Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast High- way during tourist visitation peaks. 7. 1. 14 Cost/Revenue Development according to the revised plan, original GPA 76-1A, and existing zoning yield net revenue surpluses to the City and local school districts. As indicated in the following table, the revised GPA 76-1A yields the highest net revenue benefit. 22 Annual Net Surplus to City of Huntington Beach Revised GPA 76-1A $ 803, 777 Original GPA 76-1A $ 708, 032 Existing Zoning $ 229, 061 Annual Net Surplus to School Districts Revised GPA 76-1A $1, 527, 728 Original GPA 76-1A $1, 218 , 150 Existing Zoning $ 765, 507 Aft 23 i GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76=1A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT december, 1975 m huntington beach planning department GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1A ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM 3. 9 Cost Revenue Analysis Page 34 The dollar estimates provided in Figures 3-2 through 3-5 reflect estimated revenues and expenditures (as they apply to the City of Huntington Beach and the local school districts) for a one year period assuming full development under General Plan Amendment 76-1A (Figures 3-2 and 3-3) and existing zoning (Figures 3-4 and 3-5) . NOTE THAT IT IS NOT A CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS FROM 1976 TO ULTIMATE, THAT IT DOES NOT ADDRESS REDEVELOPMENT AND FINANCING COSTS TO THE CITY, NOR IS IT A STATEMENT OF ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT COSTS. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 761A . . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT december, 1975 AMI, • S � � huntington beach planning department TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1. 1 Planning Area 1 1. 2 Project Description 3 1. 3 Project Objectives 3 1. 4 Methodology 3 2. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 5 2. 1 Natural Setting 5 • 2. 2 Urban Setting 11 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES 17 3. 1 Land Resources 17 3. 2 Water Resources 20 3. 3 Biological Resources 21 • 3. 4 Air Quality 21 3. 5 Noise 22 3. 6 Public Services 25 3. 7 Utilities 27 3. 8 Human Habitat 31 3. 9 Cost-Revenue Analysis 34 P 4 . 0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 39 4 . 1 No Project 39 4. 2 Destination Resort 39 4. 3 Regional Point of Interest 40 • 4 . 4 Seasonal Beach Community 40 5. 0 SHORT TERM USES VS. LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY 41 6. 0 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 43 • 7. 0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT 45 0 lip • • • • 1. 0 INTRODUCTION The Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendment 76-1A has been prepared by the Advance Planning Section of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. The Environmental Impact Report is in accordance with the "Revised Guidelines for Imple- mentation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" and the California Council on Intergovernmental Relations ' (CIR) "General Plan Guidelines" of September, 1973. 1. 1 Planning Area The section of Huntington Beach commonly referred to as "Downtown" comprises the planning area (Figure 1-1) . Covering 487 acres , the Study Area includes the business district in the vicinity of the municipal pier, the surrounding residential areas , the portion of the Townlot fronting on Pacific Coast Highway, and the largely undeveloped area east of Lake Street and west of Beach Boulevard. The precise boundaries of the Study Area are : the Pacific Ocean , Goldenwest Street, Walnut Avenue, Fourteenth Street, Orange Avenue, Eight Street, Palm Avenue, Alabama Street, Chicago Avenue and Beach Boulevard. 1 • �µ M a ,,M WXSA . ._ . ....... ...........................:.....__..__. ......._.........:' . , �MdALOB� f ' i 'S ......._.. .... ' .... ..... ......_......... .......................... t VWJNM SLATER / 4 c,. wear r RUS .. • t i 3 ........ .............. .... .... ... .. YOLK IOMN ADAMS Y I $ I o v:• F �.. .. . ATLANU . •., ` t BANNDIO r s ............ .. ' � I Figure I A i STUDY AREA LOCATION 1 huntington beach planning department 2 I 1. 2 Project Description The proposed project is the third amendment to the General Plan prepared by the Advance Planning Sec-:ion of the Planning Depart- ment. - This amendment establishes ne�v land use designations for the Study Area and modifies the existing circulation system it an effort to create a new role for Down-:own as a beach and tourist- oriented environment. 1. 3 Project Objectives The objective of the project is to establish general land use policy for the Study Area that: (a) provides for economic revitalization to strengthen the City' s economic base; and (b) is compatible with the overall City coals and objectives and the Coastal Plan. 1. 4 Methodology The following methodology was developed to assess the impacts of the proposed changes to the Phase I I and Use Element in a reason- able and consistent manner: A. Because the subject of this EIR is an adopted Land Use Element, the EIR will be confined to a discussion of the anticipated environmental impacts of General Plan Amendment 76-1A. B. To determine changes generated, the potential development possible under the amended plan tiill be compared to the potential development permitted under existing zoning. At first glance the most logical approach might seem to be a comparison of the amended plan with the existing, adopted Land Use Plan. However, many of the land use designations set forth in the Phase I Land Use Element (e.g. , destination resort, old town, townlot) do not lend themselves to quantitative analysis because of the variety of uses they permit. Therefore, it was determined that the existing zoning constituted the most consistent and useful measurement tool for t1is impact analysis. • AM& 3 • I I • • • lie 2 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2 . 1 Natural Setting The environment of the Downtown Study. Area is predominantly an urban one. However, some natural resources still remain. The following sections reference the land, water, air, biological and cultural resources in the Study Area and in the City as a whole where applicable. (Additional detail for all resource categories can be found in the Inventory of Existing Conditions , Downtown Planning Area, Huntington Be;ich Planning Department, December, 1975. ) 2 . 1. 1 . Land Resources 2 . 1. 1. 1 Topography Part of the Study Area lies on the Huntington Beach Mesa. Elevations here vary from 25 to 50 feet above sea level. The remainder of the property, separated from the mesa by a blufflinE!, is somewhat lower with • elevations of 0 to 10 feet EI.bove sea level. Except XWk 5 • • where the bluffline occurs, the Study Area is relatively flat. Refer to the Inventory of Existing Conditions, Downtown Planning Area, Section 4 . 1. 1 for more detail. • 2 . 1. 1. 2 Geology Huntington Beach lies at the southerly onshore end of the' Newport Inglewood Fault Zone. This zone is associated with both active faulting and historical • earthquakes of moderate magnitude. l The buried trace of the Walnut Street Fault parallels Pacific Coast Highway through a portion of the Study Area. In addition, the South Branch Fault underlies the northeast corner. Refer to the Inventory of Existing Conditions, Section 4 . 1. 2 for more discussion. Land subsidence has occurred within the Study Area in the past, but has not posed any serious economic or safety problems. The chances of future problems arising from land subsidence due to oil field operations are con- sidered negligible with the current level of water injection. (See Section 4 . 1. 2 , Inventory of Existing Conditions, for additional information. ) 2 . 1. 1. 3 Soils Soils existing within the Study Area are predominantly sandy with some clay soils of an expansive nature. 3 The property lying below the bluff at Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway is plotted by the U. S. Department of Agriculture as being part of the tidal marsh which 4 • extends northwest from the mouth of the Santa Ana River . No peat or muck exist in the Study Area. Refer to the Inventory Existing Conditions, Section 4 . 1 . 3 for more detail. Certain soils are subject to liquefaction (.the process • of becoming liquid) during an earthquake due to earth- shaking. Water flow to the surface, which may turn the 1 Geotechnical Inputs, Huntington Beach Planning Department February, 1974 . 2 Geotechnical Inputs , p. 39 . 3 Soil Survey of the Anaheim Area, U.S. Department of Agriculture in c000peration with the University of California, 1919 . 4 Soil Survey of the Anaheim Area, 1919 . 6 AM%� soil into "quicksand" during an earthquake due to loss of shear strength, may be manifested by ground cracking • and lurching. (Lurching is inelastic deformation of the ground surface due to a loss of strength in underlying strata. 5) Qualitative ratings of the liquefaction , ground lurching, and differential compaction hazard were assigned to the various areas of the City by Leighton-Yen and Associates during a geotechnical investigation. The rating system assigned a "low" hazard value to the property on the Huntington Beach Mesa, and a "high" hazard value to the property lying below the bluff at Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. 6 • 2 . 1. 1. 4 Geotechnical Land Use Capability In 1973 , risk from possible geotechnical problems was evaluated for all locations throughout the City by Leighton-Yen and Associates. The evaluation was based on the following: 1. Fault rupture potential 2. Peat deposits 3 . Liquefaction potential 4 . Beach erosion 5. Tsunami hazards On a relative scale , the Downtown property overlying the South Branch Fault poses "high risk" with extensive problems which are difficult or impractical to overcome . The property overlying the Walnut Street Fault was also assigned a "high risk" value with major problems but controllable through design and/or setbacks. The re- mainder of the Study Area poses "nominal risk" , having only minor problems. Refer to Inventory of Existing Conditions, Downtown Planning Area, Section 4 . 1 . 4 for more detail. 2 . 1. 1. 5 Mineral Resources Considerable property within the Study Area is contained within the Huntington Beach oil field , which encompasses most of the southern part of the City and extends into the ocean. This field is one of California ' s largest in terms of cumulative production, yielding about 5 Geotechnical Inputs, p. 31. 6 Geotechnical Inputs, p. 31. AdWk 7 • 45 , 000 barrels a day. 7 (See Section 4. 1. 5 , Inventory of Existing Conditions for more detail . ) • 2 . 1. 2 Water Resources 2 . 1. 2 . 1 Surface Water The Study Area contains 2 . 2 miles of shoreline. The • ocean front acts as a "Front. Window" for Huntington Beach, serving important aesthetic, recreational , and economic functions. It also dominates the area' s climate by mitigating temperature extremes and pro- vides an important wildlife habitat. 2 . 1. 2 . 2 Groundwater Conditions • In November, 1973 , the groundwater level was approxi- mately 5 feet beneath the surface in the Study Area. This represents a change of five feet over November, 1972 , when the groundwater level in the same location was recorded at approximately 10 feet beneath the surface. 2 . 1. 2 . 3 Santa Ana River Flood Plain The southeast section of the study area (0 to 10 feet above sea level) is subject to flooding from the 100- and 200-year storms. Depth of flood water in the 100- and 200-year storms is approximated at 1. 2 and 3 feet, respectively. The remainder of the site on the Huntington Beach Mesa is free from flooding. • The United States Army Corps of Engineers has proposed a plan which would make the City (and all of Orange County) flood safe from the 200-year storm. It will be several years before the Corps project can mitigate flood potential, however. (See Section 4 . 2 . 3 of the Inventory of Existing Conditions for further detail . ) Surface drainage in the Study lea is covered in Section 2. 2 . 7. 3 of this report. 7 City' s Department of Building and Community Development, Oil Division, . December, 1975. 8 Orange County Water District, 1974 Engineers Report on Ground Water Conditions, Water Supply, and Basin Utilization in the Orange County Water District, pp. 13 , 14 . 8 Aft i 2 . 1. 3 Air Resources 2. 1. 3 . 1 Climate The Southern California coastal area is classed as a maritime climate, which consists of mild sunny winters with occasional rain and warm dry summers. Refer to the Inventory of Existing Conditions, Downtown Planning Area Section 4 . 3. 1, for a full discussion of climate in Orange County. 2 . 1. 3. 2 Air Quality The South Coast Air Basin, which includes Huntington Beach, is a critical air area. Huntington Beach is fortunate, however, in that it does not suffer the effects of air pollution to the degree experienced by most other southland communities - daily sea breezes clear the coastal skies by sweeping pollutants inland; . the City' s relatively flat topography offers little resistance to the cleansing action. Though the City is not free of aerial contamination, the problem is not severe. (Refer to Section 4 . 3 . 2 , Inventory of Existing Conditions for more detail . ) . 2 . 1. 3. 3 Noise The two most obvious and generalized sources of noise pollution within the City are surface transportation and residential areas. The most serious problems emenate along the major highways bordering the City: San Diego . Freeway and Pacific Coast Highway. Many of the com- munity' s major arterials also cause localized problems. In late 1974 and early 1975 , Wyle Laboratories compiled a research report entitled Noise Element Background Report. The report focuses on noise sources in Hunting- ton Beach and ways to reduce noise exposure to accept- able levels. As part of their study, Wyle calculated noise contours for ground transportation noise sources. Areas of potentially noise-sensitive land regarding ground transportation noise sources were also identified. No areas of potentially noise-sensitive land exist in the Study Area at present. Refer to Section 4 . 3 . 3 , Inventory of Existing Conditions, for additional detail. 2 . 1. 4 Biological Resources Major vegetation in the Study Area consists of various kinds of trees along Main Street south of Palm Avenue. Aft 9 A stand of Dracaena is located in the City right-of-way at the intersection of Main and Palm. Few faunal species occur on the vacant land within the Study Area due to limited cover, food, and nesting sites. An important wildlife habitat is provided by the City' s sandy beaches, 2 . 2 miles of which are contained within the Study Area. Refer to the Inventory of Existing Conditions, Section 4 . 4 for a discussion of species commonly found in similar marine environments and believed to exist in Huntington Beach. 2 . 1. 5 Cultural Resoures This section is concerned with the City' s cultural • resources which affect aesthetic values, provide recreation and entertainment, and link man with his near and distant past. 2 . 1. 5. 1 Recreation Areas • Recreation areas are vital as both natural and recre- ational assets. The City' s public beaches, 2 . 2 miles of which are contained within the Study Area, are used by thousands of people each month. The City' s Depart- ment of Harbors and Beaches estimates that in 1974 , 3. 9 million people visited the City beach, the pier, • the County beach, and Huntington Harbour. Only 17% of the visitors in 1974 were from Huntington Beach. Visitors from outside Huntington Beach are broken down as follows: 32% from other Orange County cities, 440 from Los Angeles County, and the remainder from other California counties, out-of-state and foreign countries. • No City parks exist within the Study Area at present. Within close proximity and accessible to study area residents are Farquhar and Lake Parks, totaling 8 . 8 gross acres. (See Section 4 . 5 . 1 , Inventory of Existing Conditions, for further discussion. ) • 2 . 1. 5. 2 Archeological Resources A scientific resources survey of Huntington Beach conduc_te_d_ by_ Archeological Research, Incorporated found one archeological site within the Study Area. • Refer to Section 4 . 5 . 2 in the Inventory of Existing Conditions for a discussion of the site. 2. 1. 5. 3 Historical and Cultural Sites Four historic/landmark sites are contained within the • Study Area: 10 Aft • 1.: Huntington Beach Pier 2 . Golden Bear 3 . Old Memorial Hall 4. Old Fire House Refer to the Inventory of Existing Conditions, Section 4. 5. 3 for a discussion of these four sites. 2. 2 Urban Setting This section addresses the urban or man-made environmental setting. ' Seven major topics are covered : (1) land use, (2) age and con- dition of structures, (3) zoning, (4) Land Use Element of the General Plan, (5) circulation, (6) community facilities, and (7) public utilities. 2 . 2 . 1 Land Use At present, approximately 76 percent of the Downtown Study Area is employed for some kind of land use. (Refer to Section 2 . 1 of the Inventory of Conditions, Downtown Planning Area for a detailed discussion of existing land use. ) Residential land use dominates the locality, accounting for 26 percent of the total land area and consisting of single-family, duplex, tri-plex, four- plex, apartment, and mobile home developments . Resi- dential development has been scattered and sporadic with most development occuring on 25 or 50 foot by 117 . 5 foot lots. Commercial land use consumes about 6 percent of the Study Area and consists of retail, office/profes- sional , motel and hotel developments. Over 305 , 000 square feet of floor space is provided in these develop- ments. Industrial land use accounts for one percent of the Study Area and provides over 56 , 000 square feet of floor space. The primary industrial use is oil ex- traction and storage which is scattered on small parcels throughout the Planning Area. Institutional land use also covers one percent of the Study Area. The majority • of such uses is taken up by the Old Civic Center site and the U. S. Post Office •Recreational open space and streets occupy 43 percent of the Study Area. The recreational open space is provided by the City and State beaches and the Driftwood Golf Course. The re- maining 24 percent of the Downtown Study Area is vacant. • 2 .2 . 2 Age and Condition of Structures The Planning Area includes a number of different architecturally - designed structures that vary in age and condition. A survey of the condition of structures • within the Study Area was conducted by the Planning 11 • Department in December, 1975 . An additional effort was made to record the age of structures. For a discussion of the methodology involved, refer to Section 2 . 2 of the Inventory of Existing Conditions, Downtown Planning Area. The results of the survey revealed that of the total 733 parcels surveyed, 110 or 15 percent contain sub- standard structures (i.e. , beyond reasonable repair) , 41 and 243 or 33 percent contain structures requiring major repair. 2 . 2 . 3 Zoning There are three major zoning categories in the Downtown • Study Area: Residential , Commercial, and Community Facilities. Based on existing zoning, 28 percent of the Study Area is zoned for residential use, 51 percent for commercial use and 21 percent for Community Facilities. For a detailed discussion of development intensity standards for the various Downtown zoning categories, refer to Section 2 . 3 of the Inventory of Existing Con- ditions, Downtown Planning Area. 2 . 2 . 4 Existing Land Use Element Designated land uses for the Study Area are set forth in the adopted Phase I Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan. For a complete discussion, refer to Section 2 . 4 in the Inventory of Existing Conditions, Downtown Planning Area. 2. 2 . 5 Circulation • 2 . 2. 5. 1 Arterial Streets North-south arterials identified by the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways include Goldenwest Street, Seventeenth Street, Fifth Street, Lake Street, Beach • Boulevard, and Fourteenth Street. East-west arterials include Pacific Coast Highway, Orange Avenue, Atlanta Avenue, and Palm Avenue. For a discussion of present traffic volumes and carrying capacity of these streets, refer to Section 2 . 6. 2 of the Inventory of Existing Conditions, Downtown Planning Area. • 2 . 2 . 5. 2 Local Streets Street design in the Downtown Study Area conforms , for the most part,to the traditional grid street pattern. North-south streets intersect east-west streets every 350 feet while east-west streets intersect north-south 12 Atak • streets every 250 feet. The southeast portion of the Study Area is an exception to the grid design primarily due to the occurence of limited development. See Section 2 . 6 . 1 in the Inventory of Existing Conditions for a complete listing of local streets in the Study Area. 2 . 2 . 5 . 3 Public Transportation 1 The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) provides inter- community fixed bus route service throughout the County. Eleven OCTD bus routes penetrate the City. Four of these routes pass through the Study Area, providing convenient transportation service for local residents as well as for residents of other communities wishing to visit the City and State beaches. (Refer to Section 2 . 6 . 4 of the Inventory of Existing Conditions Downtown Planning Area for more discussion. ) 2 . 2 . 6 Community Facilities • 2 . 2 . 6 .1 Police and Fire Protection One main police complex, located at the new Civic Center site at 2000 Main Street, provides all police service and response needs for the entire City. • The closest fire station to the Study Area is located at 708 'Lake Street. The Lake Street Fire Station is presently maintained by five fire fighting personnel . The station is equipped with two fire engines, one of which is owned by the State, a ladder truck and a mobile • light generating plant. Future expansion plans include the acquisition of a paramedic unit. 2 . 2 . 6. 2 Community Services Center The Community Services Center is a non-profit facility • that consists of a number of organizations providing a wide range of area-wide social services and functions. The organizations are presently operating on City-owned property and occupying buildings previously used for municipal purposes. The center is available to all • residents within the Study Area. 2. 2 . 6. 3 Senior Citizens Center A Senior Citizens Center is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of 17th and Orange Streets. • Previously used as the City' s Recreations and Parks Afwx 13 • Department' s main office, the facility is now primarily used for Senior Citizen programs and functions. The center caters to all elderly residents within the • community and its location is especially convenient to the high concentration of senior citizens who reside within or close proximity to the Study Area. 2. 2 . 6. 4 Educational Facilities • Serving the Study Area' s school aged children are Smith Elementary School, Dwyer Intermediate School, and Huntington Beach High School. All three facilities are located outside the Study Area. Both Smith Ele- mentary and Dwyer Intermediate are located north of Palm Avenue between 17th and 14th Streets. Huntington • Beach High School is located just north of the inter- section of 17th and Main Streets. 2. 2. 6. 5 Parks Excluding the beach as a recreational resource, there are • no City parks presently located within the Study Area. Just outside the Study Area are two connecting neighbor- hood parks that are accessible to residents within the Study Area. Farquhar and Lake Parks are located on Main Street between Eleventh and Twelfth Streets, encompassing 8. 8 gross acres. 2 . 2 . 6. 6 Library Service The 5th Street library, located on Main Street between 5th and 6th Streets, is conveniently situated to service residents within the Study Area. Previously • designated as the City' s Main Library, the 5th Street Library has since been classified as a branch library because of the new main library/cultural resource facility at Goldenwest and Talbert Avenue. 2. 2 . 7 Public Utilities 2. 2 . 7 . 1 Water The City of Huntington Beach relies on two sources for domestic water: (1) the Metropolitan Water District . (MWD) of Southern California and (2) local ground water pumped from wells located outside the Downtown Study Area. Both water sources combined service all land uses within the City. The existing system consists of a network of various size water lines that are generally located in the alleys within the boundaries of the Study Area. Other mains located around the periphery of the Study Area that connect to water lines 14 Aft located within the Study Area run along the center lines of streets. Refer to Section 2 . 7 . 1 of the • Inventory of Existing Conditions, Downtown Planning Area for the exact location of these water lines. The original water supply system was designed in line with the zoning of the general area. During the last few years, the City' s Water Department has been in- volved in upgrading the system. Primarily, demands for larger water mains are due to new residential development and stringent fire protection requirements. 2 . 2. 7 . 2 Sanitary Sewer The Study Area is within Orange County Sanitation District No. 11. The existing sewer system consists of a series of local collector lines that empty into the County' s larger trunk lines. These larger capacity lines convey the waste water to a pump station located at the northeast corner of Newland and Hamilton Streets. The sewage is then pumped to a Sanitation District Treatment Plant located on Brookhurst Street north of Pacific Coast Highway. All the City' s treated waste water is then piped into the ocean. Refer to Section 2 . 7 . 2 of the Inventory of Existing Conditions , Downtown Planning Area for the exact location of sewer lines within the Study Area. Through an agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Orange County Sanitation District Number 11 , a sewer system Master Plan for District Number 11 is now being prepared. . 2. 2 . 7. 3 Storm Drains The Study Area is divided into five separate drainage districts, each with an existing storm drain outflow. The existing and proposed drainage facilities are shown in Section 2. 7 . 3 of the Inventory of Existing Conditions , . Downtown Planning Area. New storm drains are proposed for two of the districts which now experience surface drainage problems during heavy rains. 2 . 2. 7 . 4 Oil Lines . Most of the Study Area is criss-crossed with oil , gas and miscellaneous oil-related interconnecting lines. A number of these lines are abandoned and no longer in operation but remain below parcels, alleys, and streets . Because many of these lines were installed several years ago when the City experienced its earlier oil booms,no accurate record of the location of the lines is avail- able. According to the City' s Oil Field Inspector , the 15 • abandoned-oil related lines can be found in concentration or singly in any particular location within the Study Area. The majority of these lines are generally located_ • in the alleys. Historically, through the process of de- velopment, these lines have been discovered at depths of 5 to 10 feet, where as many as 21 individual pipes have been found. The remaining portions of the Study Area do contain a • number of abandoned oil-related lines that have been cut or capped as oil operations have ceased and/or as new development has occurred. 2. 2 . 7 . 5 Solid Waste Disposal • The Rainbow Disposal Company collects refuse within the City of Huntington Beach. Residents and businesses may subscribe to weekly pick-up, which is contracted for by the City, or make arrangements with the Disposal Company for individual refuse collection. Generally, most apartment owners and businesses make individual contract • arrangements with the disposal company. 2 . 2 . 7 . 6 Other Utilities Gas, electricity and telephone service is provided to the Study Area by the Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, and General Telephone Company, respectively. Major gas lines are located in Lake Street, Alabama Street, Olive Avenue, Sixteenth Street, and Pecan Avenue. Electricity is supplied from a main generating plant located on Pacific Coast Highway and Newland Street. Electrical hookup is installed as • new development occurs. Telephone service is extended to all land uses upon request. All existing telephone transmission lines are overhead, connecting to typical telephone posts that feed into individual units. • • 16 • 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES 3 . 1 Land Resources 3 . 1. 1 Topography Approximately 70 percent of the Downtown Planning Area is already developed. Therefore, development as outlined by General Plan Amendment 76-1A will not result in any significant landform alterations within this developed area. The vacant land is relatively flat except where the natural blufflihe occurs, north of Atlanta Avenue. This property is proposed for medium density residential use , a desig- nation which can be effectuated with minimal grading (and therefore limited landform alteration) provided specific development plans give careful consideration to the bluff. A change from the existing zoning of medium-high density residential and office profes- sional to the recommended medium-density residential use will decrease development intensity and help to promote preservation of the bluff. 17 3. 1. 2 Soils Soil types existing in. the Study Area are predominantly sandy with some clay soils of an expansive nature and some tidal sediments. Sandv soils are highly suitable for development. Expansive soils require special treatment because thev can cause extensive damage to lightly loaded structures , pavements. driveways, sidewalks, etc. , due to volumetric changes associated with increases or decreases in moisture content. The tidal sediments vary in clay content (and therefore expansive dualities) . Liquefaction is considered high in this location, however, as is the property im- mediately north of the tidal .marsh area. Hazard from expansive soils can be reduced through the following mitigating measures : (a) Remove clay soils and relocate to areas used for • recreation or landscape purposes. (b) Mix the clay soils with a less expansive soil , replace, and recompact. Damage from liquefaction can only be minimized through • changes in land use. The hazard posed by liquefaction will be the same , for all intents and purposes, whether development of this location conforms to existing zoning or the proposed plan. The existing zoning specifies medium-high density residential and commercial while General Plan Amendment 76-1A proposes • medium - and high - density residential and tourist commercial. 3 . 1. 3 Oil Resources Considerable property within the Study Area is contained • within the Huntington Beach oil field. The land use designations recommended by the General Plan Amend- ment may stimulate development of oil production land by making conversion to other uses more profitable. However, this effect is also created by existing zoning; therefore, no change in impact will be ex- • perienced. 3. 1. 4 Geologic Considerations Two active branches of the Newport-Inglewood Fault are contained within the Study Area - the Walnut Street • Fault and the South Branch Fault. Development over Aft 18 • and close to active faults in the Downtown Area w:i..11 probably not be subject to the restrictions of the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act, because all earthquake faults in the Study Area are buried. Since the Alquist-Priolo Act only governs surface hazards , the California Division of Mines and Geology has indicated that the special hazard zones and accompanying regula- tions will probably not be imposed for buried traces . The City' s Department of Building and Community Develop- ment requires either an engineering geologist ' s analysis of construction sites or the design of buildings for human occupancy to resist a seismic force equal to 0. 20 gravity. These requirements are imposed for all • discretionary acts. Loss of life and structural damage is thereby reduced. 3 .1 .5 Flood Hazard Most of the Study Area, located on the Huntington Beach Mesa, is free from flooding. The remainder, which lies below the bluff, is subject to flooding in 100- and 200-year storms. A program to minimize danger from flooding has been adopted by the City Council as part of the Seismic-Safety Element. (Refer to Section 5 . 2 , p. 92 , in the Seismic Safety Element , Huntington Beach Planning Department. ) Further, as a participant i the Federal Insurance Program, Huntington Beach flood hazard areas are governed by the regulations imposed by the Federal Insurance Administration. Certain steps are also being taken to eliminate the flood hazard posed by the Santa Ana River. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has proposed a plan that would make the City (and all of Orange County) flood safe from the 200-year storm. It will be several years before the Corps project can mitigate flood potential , however. In the meantime , development of flood hazard areas will be regulated by the programs mentioned previously. 3 . 1 . 6 Cultural Resources Both the existing zoning and the General Plan Amend- ment designate the Downtown property containing an archaeological site for development. (Existing zoning specifies residential and commercial development; the General Plan Amendment specifies commercial . ) Artifacts can be recovered from archeological sites prior to grading provided experts in the field of archeology are notified in advance, however. In the past, the City has notified Archeological Research, Incorporated Atak 19 • (who performed a City-wide investigation) to analyze sites proposed to be developed. If preservation of the site is not considered vital , the artifacts are • salvaged and then turned over to the City for display and permanent custody. Any detrimental impacts on this important cultural resource are thereby minimized. Four historical/cultural landmarks are contained within the Study Area. These landmarks have been identified • in the City' s Open Space and Conservation Element Back- ground Report as links to the past to be given careful consideration by specific development plans. Develop- ment as proposed by the General Plan Amendment will maintain the pier as a vital feature of the Downtown beach and tourist oriented environment. The Golden • Bear, typical of the "Old Town" Downtown area, could be restored as part of the Specialty Commercial develop- ment. The Old Fire House and Old Memorial Hall, also typical of "Old Town" , could be preserved within the institutional development proposed. The preservation of these historic resources must be handled through • specific development plans, however. 3 . 2 Water Resources 3. 2 . 1 Surface Water • The ocean front serves important aesthetic, recreational , and economic functions. The General Plan Amendment proposes to increase the importance of the ocean front by establishing a beach and tourist-orientation for the Downtown environment. • 3. 2. 2 Drainage and Groundwater Groundwater level is very important in a coastal city like Huntington Beach (subject to salt water intrustion) which relies on groundwater as a major source of domestic water. Percolation maintains the groundwater level and is therefore a very important natural process. The amount of percolation will be slightly reduced by development under the General Plan Amendment (with 96. 4 gross acres of open space) as opposed to existing zoning which provides 105. 8 gross acres of open space or 9 . 4 additional acres. Runoff under the General Plan Amendment proposals will be less than that generated by existing zoning: 20 • (1) The General Plan Amendment decreases commercial and industrial use by approximately 18 percent • from existing zoning and devotes this portion to residential use. (2) Business areas produce approximately 20 percent more runoff than residential areas. M Reduced runoff is a beneficial impact because runoff is characteristically of poor quality and can contaminate surface water. Runoff also requires drainage systems for disposal and the greater the quantity, the greater the municipal expense for design and construction of the systems. 3. 3 Biological Resources Important tree stands exist at the intersection of Main and Palm and south along Main Street. These trees will most likely be protected from future development by specific mitigating measures imposed by the City' s development review process. The numerous wildlife species which inhabit the shoreline and coastal waters will be unaffected by develop- ment under the General Plan Amendment since this plan, as well as existing zoning► preserves the beach as permanent open space . • 3. 4 Air Quality Development under the General Plan Amendment will increase population by 5, 697 for the Downtown Area over the population at ultimate development under existing zoning. The person - • per - vehicle ratio in Orange County is currently 1. 6 , 10 which means that an additional 3 , 560 motor vehicles will result from development under the proposed plan. This will result in the following increase in contaminants for the Study Area at full development: s • 9. Principles and Practices of Urban Planning, William I. Goodman, Washington, D.C. , 1968 , p. 237 . 10. Derived by dividing the number of trucks and cars in Orange County by population. • Aft 21 • lip • PROJECTED DAILY EMISSIONS INCREASE Hydrocarbons . 00044 tons/car/day x 3, 560 vehicles = 1. 5664 tons/day Particulate Matter . 000008 tons/car/day x 3 , 560 vehicles = . 02848 tons/day NOx . 000252 tons/car/day x 3, 560 vehicles = . 89712 tons/day Sox . 000007 tons/car/day x 3, 560 vehicles = . 02492 tons/day CO . 004035 tons/car/day x 3 , 560 vehicles =14 . 3646Ttons/day Total: +16 . 88152 tony, day (or . 34% of total daily emissions in Orange County) 11 i Development of the Study Area as a tourist-oriented environment will increase air pollution from motor vehicles. Urban Projects, Inc. , the City' s economic consultant, has projected potential attendance by tourists and residents for the proposed Specialty Center, Theme Park, and Convention Center. The estimates are as follows: 1980 1985 1990 Theme Center (includes Specialty Center and 1,916,000 2,303,000 2,723,000 Thee Park) Convention Center 420,720 478,275 536,410 The additional vehicle traffic generated by Downtown residents and tourists visiting the Downtown commercial development will contribute to the deterioration of air quality in the South Coast Regional Air Basin. Air pollution will also be generated on a short term basis from grad- i ing of individual project sites. This effect is, however, common to both existing zoning and the proposed plan. Although development under the General Plan Amendment will not by itself have a substantial effect on air quality within the South Coast Regional Air Basin, its effect must be considered as an increment in the cumulative degradation of air quality in the basin. 3. 5 Noise This section contains a comparison of vehicle trips generated by General Plan Amendment 76-1A (at ultimate development) and existing traffic flow, representing the worst case situation (Figure 3-1) . S This approach has been taken because accurate figures for vehicle trips generated by existing zoning at ultimate development are not available. Traffic flow at ultimate development under the General -Plan Amendment represents a considerable increase over existing flow. As traffic • volumes increase and further development occurs, some locations within the Study Area may experience negative impacts from traffic noise. Keep in mind that some increase in traffic flow would also accompany development of the remaining vacant land under existing zoning and that negative impacts from traffic noise would also result. 11. Environmental Impact Report 73-23 on "Old Town" Drainage Assess- ment District No. 73-02 , Huntington Beach Environmental Resource Department, September, 1975 , p. 96 . 22 Atak i Figure 3-1 COMPARISON OF VEHICLE TRIPS STREET LIMITS 24 HOUR ADT General Plan Existing • Amendment Traffic 76-1A Flaw Pacific Coast Hwy. West of Goldenwest St. 36800 24000 (PCH) Golden West St. to 46850 23000 17th St. • 17th St. to 5th St. 42200 23000 5th St. to Lake St. 34850 . 22000 Lake St. to Huntington 36600 22000 Ave. • Huntington Ave. to 37500 22000 Beach Blvd. Beach Blvd. Easterly 48350 20000 Goldenwest Street PCH to Palm Ave. 13300 3100/3900* • Palm Ave. Northerly 13600 11900 Seventeenth Street PCH to Orange Ave. 6350 2800 Orange Ave. to Palm Ave. 6600 2800 Palm Ave. Northerly 7000 3600 Fifth Street PCH to Orange Ave. 28150 Not Avail. Orange AVe. to Lake St. 7150 Not Avail . Huntington-Delaware PCH to Atlanta Ave. 10500 Not Avail. • Delaware Ave. Atlanta Ave. Northerly 4250 Not Avail. Lake Street PCH to Atlanta Ave. 9500 2900 Atlanta Ave. to 5th St. 13700 3900 « 5th St. to Indianapolis 22700 3900 Ave. _ Indianapolis Northerly 23100 3300 *NOTE: £xisting traffic flow on Goldenwest Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Orange Avenue is 3100 ADT, and 3900 ADT between Orange and Palm Avenues. 23 • an • Figure 3-1, Cont. STREET LIMITS 24 HOUR ADT • General Plan Existing Amenctrent Traffic 76-1A Flaw Beach Boulevard PCH to Atlanta Ave. 21100 19800 • Atlanta Ave. Northerly 45850 19800 Orange Avenue Goldenwest St. to 17th St. 2700 1200 17th St. to 5th St. 7151) 2500 • 5th St. to Lake St. 6600 Not Avail. Atlanta Avenue Lake St. to Delaware Ave. 16250 Delaware Ave. to Beach 5400* • Blvd. 22200 Beach Blvd. Easterly 14900 8000 Palm Avenue Goldenwest St. to 17th St. 1550 1100 • Indianapolis Avenue Fast of Lake St. 7400 3600 • • • *NOTE : Existing traffic flow along Atlanta Avenue between Lake Street and Beach Boulevard is 5400 ADT. Delaware and Atlanta do not • intersect at present. 24 • Certain methods can be employed to keep traffic noise in the Downtown at an acceptable level. These methods, as detailed in the Noise • Element Background Report (Huntington Beach Planning Department, June, 1975) include: Local reduction of traffic noise through operational modifications (e.g. , revise flow control methods; reroute traffic) - Outside to inside noise reduction for dwellings through modifica- tions to improve sound insulation (e.g. , minimize "sound leaks" around doors, windows, and vents; replace "acoustically weak" com- ponents; structurally improve weak walls and roofs. ) 3 . 6 Public Services • 3. 6. 1 Fire Protection Of prime importance to the adequacy of fire protection coverage is response time, which is basically a function of the distance from the fire station to the incident location and the average speed of travel by fire apparatus. Fire stations should be located to provide an average response time of five minutes or less in 90 percent of the incidents. The Lake Street Station' s present response district encom- passes a total of four square miles. The Study Area is lo- cated entirely within this response district and can be adequately serviced. When comparing development under existing zoning with General Plan Amendment 76-1A, no dif- ference in response time is anticipated. Manpower is a secondary factor in fire protection coverage because manning practices are normally based on the City' s financial capability rather than the fire hazard potential. As the Downtown develops and high rise structures are built , higher levels of manning will be necessary if the Fire De- partment is to maintain the same level of service that now exists. 3. 6. 2 Police Protection The Special Operations Section of the Huntington Beach Po- lice Department calculated the impact on manning capabili- ties in the Study Area of development as outlined in General Plan Amendment 76-1A. Based on manning ratios for the various general land use types and population occupancies per land use unit (dwelling unit or square footage) , the Police Department estimates that 21 additional police • officers would be necessary to serve the Study Area. At ultimate development under existing zoning, an estimated 12 additional police officers would be required for the Study Area, nine less than required for development under the proposed General Plan Amendment. • 25 • • 3. 6. 3 Flood Control • The entire Study Area iL: subjected to local surface drainage problems during heavy rains . This situation will worsen as vacant areas are developed due to decreased ground percolation and increased surface runoff. As indicated in Section 2. 7 . 3 of the Inventory of Existing Conditions , Downtown Planning Area, however, new storm drains are proposed for two drainage districts within the Study Area which will adequately service the property at ultimate development and mitigate the local surface drainage problems. There will be no differen- tial effect between development under the General Plan • Amendment and existing zoning 3. 6. 4 Recreation and Parks The Planning Staff analyzed development under the pro- posed General Plan Amendment for supply and demand of • park lands. Calculating in the additional park acreage proposed by the amendment, a multi-neighborhood analysis for the Downtown and Townlot areas was performed focus- ing on neighborhood parks while considering community parks and the beach. The analysis concluded that the Downtown and Townlot areas could not be analyzed using • current Citywide park standards because of the sub- stantial difference in population characteristics and proximity to the beach. Thus, a modified set of park standards was developed. The analysis concluded that the proposed neighborhood park acreage within the Downtown and Townlot areas would generally meet the • neighborhood park demand but that community park needs would be short about 9 acres. If the excess neighbor- hood park lands were converted to community park types of facilities, the shortage of community park land could be reduced to 6 acres. This does not include assigning a demand fulfillment factor for community • park needs to the beach. (Refer to Section 5. 8 in General Plan Amendment 76-1A for additional detail. ) Existing zoning does not specify any new parks for the Study Area. Thus, the General Plan Amendment which provides at least 5. 4 additional acres of park land will have a more beneficial effect on local recreation than existing zoning. 3. 6. 5 Schools Based on ultimate residential development according to the General Plan Amendment proposals, elementary school student generation will be approximately 1, 203 , high 26 Aft • school - 439, and junior college - 948. The following number of students will be generated at ultimate de- velopment under existing zoning : 550 elementary, 247 high school , and 577 junior college. The Huntington Beach Elementary School District has • indicated that it can accommodate additional students generated by new housing developments within district boundaries. The Huntington Beach Union High School District has five schools which are already overloaded with a total capacity of 14, 798 and a current enroll- ment of 18 , 661. This student overload is being • accommodated by temporary structures and extended-day schedules. Continued enrollment growth will intensify the need for extended school day schedules and force the continued implementation of other classroom alter- natives. These effects will be partially mitigated by construction of the proposed Ocean View High School at Gothard Street and Warner Avenue, within the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The Coast Community College District indicates that their facilities can adequately accommodate the expected student increase from the Study Area. 3 . 6. 6 Medical Services There are two hospitals in the City of Huntington Beach which serve the total population of approximately 146, 000. An estimated 2, 500 people are served by Huntington Intercommunity Hospital in some capacity every month. Pacifica Hospital serves an estimated 350 people every month. Both hospitals are within five minutes travel time from the Study Area. Given the wide range of services offered at the two hospitals , there should be no problem providing health care to . residents and visitors of the Study Area. Development under the General Plan Amendment will re- quire local hospitals to accommodate about 5, 700 more persons than at ultimate development under existing zoning. 3 . 7 Utilities 3. 7 . 1 Water Development as proposed by General Plan Amendment 76-1A . will create an additional demand for water of approxi- mately 838, 000 gallons per day over the demand pre- dicted for ultimate development under existing zoning. 27 • The City of Huntington Beach plans future water main installations within the Study Area. (Refer to Section 2. 7 . 1 of the Inventory of Existing Conditions, Downtown Planning Area for exact locations. ) Planned expansion of existing facilities will accommodate water demand generated by ultimate development under existing zoning. Further expansion would be necessary to accommodate the additional water demand generated by development under the General Plan Amendment. 3. 7. 2 Sanitary Sewer An initial study prepared in July, 1975 by Keith and Associates, a Civil Engineers Consulting Firm located in Santa Ana, California, identified areas of potential deficiencies within County Sanitation District No. 11. Relative to .the Study Area, two existing sewer trunk lines may ultimately become deficient if City growth continues to occur as projected under existing zoning. Specifically, the existing 16 inch County trunk line located in the alley between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway and the existing 18 inch line along Atlanta Avenue east of Huntington Avenue were described as potentially undersized to meet future demand. Further analysis of the above mentioned study is pending to investigate the necessary changes that would alleviate the identified deficiencies. In regard to the City' s local sewer system that services the Study Area, no immediate problems or projected deficiencies were identified. This has been confirmed with the City' s Public Works Staff. The General Plan Amendment will increase sewage flow by 684, 000 gallons per day over the flow predicted for ultimate development under existing zoning. If the presently planned system is inadequate to handle the • extra flow, the only effective mitigation measure would be to expand sewage facilities above that proposed for existing zoning. 3. 7 . 3 Oil Lines • Section 2 . 7. 4 of the Inventory of Existing Conditions, Downtown Planning Area indicates that active and/or abandoned oil related lines can be found singly or in concentration at any particular location within the Study Area . The majority of the lines are located in alleys. Two critical areas where a high concentration of oil-related lines exist are: 28 f1 (1) the first east-west alley above Pacific Coast Highway extending from Fourteenth Street to Goldenwest Street. These lines are active. (2) Olive Avenue between Fourteenth and Lake Streets. These lines are abandoned. The abandoned oil lines usually range in depth from several inches to 3 feet below the surface. The Huntington Beach Oil Field Inspector has indicated that virtually all active lines range in depth from 30 to 36 inches below the surface. Any street repavement or grade modification in the streets and alleys would not disturb the soil to a depth of 30 inches. Thus, any pipelines encountered would probably be abandoned lines and could be removed in the construction process. How- ever, high rise development as proposed for the area along Pacific Coast Highway containing active oil lines could generate an adverse impact. Unless proper miti- gation and planning measures are taken, an adverse impact could result in the form of costly rerouting of oil pipelines and greater potential for oil spillage. As a mitigation measure, a detailed review of all locational records for subsurface oil lines could be made. Where such information is incomplete, a metal detector could be employed to locate subsurface facilities. Where oil lines conflict with proposed high-rise development, structures could be arranged in order to avoid the lines. Careful pipeline rerouting could be performed if unavoidable . w 3. 7. 4 Solid Waste Disposal The General Plan Amendment will generate an additional 5 , 500 tons of solid waste per year over the amount predicted for ultimate development under existing • zoning. The Rainbow Disposal Company foresees no local service constraints in either case. Orange Count Refuse Disposal indicates that the refuse transfer station in Huntington Beach will operate indefinitely. The Coyote Canyon landfill site is projected to reach capacity during 1981, but several replacement sites • will begin operation at that time in accordance with the Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan. 3. 7. 5 Energy Utilities The General Plan Amendment will create an additional natural gas demand of 210 million cubic feet per year 29 and an additional electrical demand of 7 million kilowatt hours per year above the respective demands predicted at ultimate development according to existing zoning. Gas service is generally provided as a normal extension of existing facilities. However, the availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Federal regulatory agencies can also affect gas supply. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be pro- vided according to the revised conditions. The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that electrical load requirements can be met for 1975 through 1977 provided that electrical demand does not exceed estimates and there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply. The total demand is expected to continue to increase annually. If Edison' s plans to proceed with future construction of new generating facilities continue to be delayed, the ability to serve customer loads could become marginal by 1978. The following energy conservation measures are recommended for new and renovated structures : 1. Open gas lighting should not be used in public or private buildings. 2 . Electric lights should be strategically placed to maximize their efficiency. Their size and power consumption should be minimized as much as possible. 3 . Electrical heating in public and private structures should be discouraged. Solar assisted heating systems should be encouraged. • 4. Reflecting and/or insulating glass should be used in structures where windows are not shaded by exterior architectural projections or mature plants. • 30 3. 8 Human Habitat 3. 8. 1 Aesthetics Four historic landmarks exist within the Study Area which have aesthetic value: Huntington Beach Pier, the Golden Bear, Old Memorial Hall, and the Old Fire- house. The latter three landmarks can be preserved through specific development plans; therefore, no ad- verse impact is anticipated. As for the pier, it will definitely be preserved as a vital feature of the Downtown area. The only physical feature of aesthetic significance within the Study Area is the east bluff of the Huntington Beach Mesa north of Atlanta Avenue. Efforts will be made to preserve the bluff by integrating this natural resource into future development plans for this location. The architectural character of the existing Downtown area is felt by some to have aesthetic appeal. This character could be maintained, particularly in the proposed specialty commercial area, by incorporating some of the older structures (e.g. , the Golden Bear) into future development plans. Thus, the effect on architectural character of the area would be minimal. 3. 8 . 2 Population Development of the Study Area according to General Plan Amendment 76-1A will generate approximately 5,700 persons more than ultimate development under existing zoning. (Population at ultimate development under ex- isting zoning will be approximately 7 , 310 versus a population increase to approximately 13 , 007 . ) Population density will increase from 37 . 84 persons per gross resi- dential acre under existing zoning to 49. 51 persons per acre under the amendment. This change in population density reflects an expansion of residential acreage in the proposed plan particularly in the medium- and high-density residential categories. The im- pacts associated with the increased population are detailed in this report in Sections 3. 4 , 3. 5, 3. 6, 3 . 7 , and the remainder of 3 . 8. 31 3. 8 . 3 Traffic Circulation A traffic analysis of the recommended land use plan was done by JHK and Associates. The following con- clusions were reached: 1. Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard will continue to handle heavy traffic volumes. 2. Huntington Avenue should be realigned to intersect Atlanta Avenue at a point opposite Delaware Avenue. A jog in Huntington Avenue would be made about 300 feet north of Pacific Coast Highway to align with Delaware. Delaware Avenue would continue northward as a secondary arterial on an 80 foot right-of-way. 3. The Orange-Atlanta Avenue corridor should be revised to reflect a major connecting arterial without an offset intersection configuration at Lake Street. 4. Lake Street should be a major north-south arterial to relieve some of the traffic that would normally travel on Beach Boulevard. Main Street should be de-emphasized and limited to pedestrians between Pacific Coast Highway and Orange Avenue. • Analysis of the external circulation system affecting the Study Area led to the following conclusions: 1. Greater emphasis should be placed on the Lake Street corridor and Lake Street should be extended and • terminated at Garfield Avenue-Main Street. 2. Main Street should be de-emphasized as a major carrier in the Downtown. Outside of the Study Area, 17th Street intersects Main Street and would become a primary arterial to Pacific Coast Highway. • Northerly of Mansion Avenue, Main Street should be realigned to intersect the north-south alignment of Gothard Street. The effect of these improvements are as follows: • 1. An additional north-south corridor to the beach area via Main Street-Lake Street would be created. This should relieve Beach Boulevard. In addition, additional traffic relief on Beach Boulevard could be obtained if the State beaches allowed access to parking at Newland Street, Magnolia Avenue, and • Brookhurst Street. San Diego Freeway interchanges 32 SM at the latter two arterials could channel traffic directly to parking areas at the beach that now are forced to use Beach Boulevard. 2 . The multi-legged, wide intersection of Main, Gothard, and Garfield would be eliminated in favor of a four-legged intersection. Traffic control would be much more efficient. 3. The Civic Center and nearby shopping center complex at Mansion Avenue and Main Street would have better circulation and access by eliminating unnecessary through trips on the adjacent streets. 4 . The diagonal configuration of 17th Street would be eliminated or left in part solely for local access. 5. More direct access to Central Park and the new City Library would be provided for Downtown residents via North Main Street to Gothard Street, then • northerly. All other routes from Downtown are circuitous. Projected daily and peak hour traffic volumes for the General Plan Amendment indicate that existing design capacities will be exceeded on Beach Boulevard north of Atlanta, Orange-Atlanta Avenue, Lake Street, Delaware-Huntington Street, Fifth Street, and Pacific Coast Highway. However, Lake Street will soon be modi- fied to carry 30, 000 vehicles per day; Delaware- Huntington Street will become an 80 foot secondary arterial; and Orange-Atlanta Avenue will become a four • lane street upon parking abandonment (Orange) and dedi- cation and widening after development (Atlanta) . Fifth Street and Pacific Coast Highway will accommodate traffic by narrowing lanes and/or prohibiting parking. To further relieve the traffic burden on the City' s arterial system, public bus transportation and mass rapid transit (Southern Pacific Railroad/Lake Street corridor) could be encouraged to the greatest extent possible. The City Planning Staff recommends that sufficient parking be insured by forming a parking district, providing on-site parking in consolidated areas or • requiring a development fee earmarked for parking. • AtWk 33 0 3. 9 Cost-Revenue Analysis This section of the Environmental Impact Report details the fiscal costs and benefits of General Plan Amendment 76-1A. The costs and benefits are presented in 1975 dollars as they apply to the City of Huntington Beach and the local school districts - . Huntington Beach Elementary and High School Districts and the Coast Community College District. The analysis assesses the fiscal costs and benefits of the proposed project as they relate to the City in terms of services provided and property tax and other revenues received. The analysis also examines the fiscal costs of educating the population and financing the local school system through district taxes. (Refer to General Plan Amendment 76-1A, Section 5. 6 for a discussion of methodology. ) Total revenues and expenditures for development as specified by General Plan Amendment 76-1A are detailed in Figures 3-2 and 3-3. Land use, as proposed by this plan, will result in an annual net surplus to the City of $708 , 032 and an annual net surplus to the school districts of $1, 218, 150. . A similar analysis was performed for development of the Study Area under existing zoning (Figures3-4 and 3-5) . Development as presently planned will generate an annual net surplus for the City and the involved school districts of $229, 061 and $765 , 507 , respectively. This means that the City and the local school districts will net an additional $478 , 971 and $452, 643, respect= ively, on an annual basis from development according to General Plan Amendment 76-1A. Revitalization of Downtown Huntington Beach resulting from the General Plan Amendment and subsequent Redevelopment Plan will then serve to broaden and balance the City' s economic base. 34 1 Figure 3-2 General Plan Amendment 76-1A Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure Estimates as They Apply to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Category Revenues Expenditures Residential Low 397 d.u./44 . 1 gr. acs. $ 135, 758 $ 170, 672 Medium 1855 d.u./123. 6 gr. acs. 419, 736 377 ,046 High 3325 d.u./95. 0 gr. acs. 688, 498 437 , 251 Commercial General Convenience 88, 000 sq. ft./20. 3 gr. acs. $ 79, 439 $ 62 ,024 Office 115, 600 sq. ft./17 . 8 gr. acs. 37, 596 54 , 386 Specialty 113, 000 sq. ft./19. 2 gr. acs. 139 , 204 58 , 663 Tourist Hotel 520-670 Rooms/24. 2 gr. acs. $ 333 , 891 $ 73, 940 Tourist Attraction 31. 8 gr. acs. 269 , 391 117 ,481 Public Amenity 14. 6 gr. acs. 2 , 657 22,740 Institutional Community Facilities 5.4 gr. acs. $ 7, 160 Open Space Park & Recreation Facilities • 91. 0 gr. acs. of beach apportioned on an acreage basis $ 18 , 965 $ 35,740 Total: $2,125,135 $ 1 ,417 ,103 Net Surplus : $ 708, 032 35 • Figure 3-3 • General Plan Amendment 76-1A Annual School District Revenue - Expenditure Estimates General Plan Land Use Category Revenues Expenditures Residential Low 397 d.u./44 . 1 gr. acs. $ 211, 173 $ 215, 262 Medium 1855 d. u. /123. 6 gr. acs. 468 ,808 614, 937 High 3325 d.u./95. 0 gr. acs. 899, 809 634, 886 (450 High Rise) Commercial • General Convenience 88 , 000 sq. ft./20. 3 crr. acs. $ 62 , 918 Office 115, 600 sa. ft./17 .8 ar. acs. 95, 326 Specialty 113 , 000 sq. ft. /19. 2 gr. acs. $ 67,327 Tourist Hotel 520-670 Rooms/24. 2 gr. acs. $ 200, 590 Tourist Attraction 31. 8 qr. acs. 735 ,138 Public Amenity • 14. 6 gr. acs. 2,146 Total : $2, 743 , 235 $ 1, 525 ,085 Net Surplus: $1 , 218 ,150 Adft IFIF • 36 • Figure 3-4 Existing Zoning Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure Estimates as They Apply to the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Category Revenues Expenditures Residential Low 277 d.u./47 . 0 gr. acs. $ 126 , 031 $ 123,845 Medium 262 d.u. /20. 6 gr. acs . 64 , 019 54 ,186 � High 2032 d.u. /67 . 9 gr. acs . 387 , 843 272, 404 Mobile Home 561 d.u./71. 2 gr. acs . 89 , 389 110 , 248 Commercial Retail 416 ,686 sq. ft ./67 . 0 gr. acs . $ 361 ,486 $ 191 ,511 Office-Professional 471 , 506 sq. ft./74. 1 gr. acs . 151,015 212 ,227 Motels and Hotels 200 Rooms/ 15. 8 gr. acs. 98, 633 44 , 914 Industrial Light 44 , 820 sq. ft. / 3. 8 gr. acs. $ 6, 696 $ 5, 315 Oil 4 . 6 gr. acs 7 , 854 2 , 308 Public Utility 1. 0 gr. acs . 2 . 750 Institutional 7 . 6 gr. acs. $ 9 , 415 Open Space Golf Course 14 . 6 gr. acs. $ 2 , 530 $ 21, 649 Beach 91. 0 gr. acs. apportioned on an acreage basis 17 ,708 33 , 371 1 Total: $1, 313, 204 $1, 084, 143 Net Surplus : $ 229 ,061 37 • Figure 3-5 • Existing Zoning Annu4l School District Revenue- Expenditure Estimates • Zoning Category Revenues Expenditures Residential Low 277 d.u./ 47. 0 gr. acs. $ 210 , 120 $ 192 , 059 Medium 266 d.u. /20. 6 gr. acs . 73 , 052 86 , 854 High 2032 d.u./ 67 . 9 gr. acs . 416 , 612 387 ,997 Mobile Home 561 d.u./'71. 2 gr . acs. 68 , 239 85 ,416 Commercial • Retail 416 , 686 sq. ft./ 67. 0 gr. acs. $ 297 ,919 Office-Professional 471 , 506 sq. ft./74 . 1 gr. acs. 388 , 814 ' Motel-Hotel 200 Rooms/15. 8 gr . acs . 42 , 141 Industrial Light 44 , 820 sq. ft./3. 8 gr. acs . $ 18 , 088 Oil 4 . 6 gr. acs . 805 Open Space Golf Course 14 . 8 gr. acs . $ 2 , 043 • Total: $1 , 517 ,833 $ 752 , 326 Net Surplus : $ 765, 507 • 38 w} • • 4. 0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 4. 1 No Project In respect to this amendment, no project would result in a con- tinuation of the policies and land use designations set forth for the Downtown Study Area by the Phase I Land Use Element and subsequent amendments. The Downtown area would probably continue to deteriorate. Development pressures would continue to increase with the remaining vacant land being developed primarily for residential purposes, triplex and fourplex structures. The City's economic base would not be broadened by improved and additional commercial uses which are generally the high revenue generators. Circulation problems would continue to worsen as more and more people come to the beach. Interest in improving mass transit in the Downtown might be reduced as no mass transit terminal will necessarily be provided under the existing Land Use Element. Thusly, having no project could be detrimental to the City and the economic health of the community. 4. 2 Destination Resort The Destination Resort concept has the highest development intensity of the alternatives considered. It is based upon the maximum mar- ket potentials projected by the City' s economic consultant. A full 39 • discussion of this alternative concept is contained in Section 4. 1 • of General Plan Amendment 76-1A. 4. 3 Regional Point of Interest The Regional Point of Interest concept is based on the philosophy that the Planning Area will not attain the role of a destination • resort for tourists but rather will attract tourists from other destination resorts in Orange County and penetrate the tourist market as a side trip for visitors in the region. The plan is fully detailed in Section 4. 2 of General Plan Amendment 76-1A. 4. 4 Seasonal Beach Community • Proposing the least development intensity level of all the alternatives, the Seasonal Beach Community concept is predicated upon the philosophy of accommodating the tourist draw generated by the beach and not creating equal or greater attractions to increase this draw. It generates a permanent rather than transient population base for the area. Refer to Section 4. 3 in General Plan Amendment 76-1A for a complete discussion. • • • • • 40 Aft .F • • • 5. 0 SHORT-TERM USES VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY General Plan Amendment 76-1A provides policy direction for com- bining the general land use categories in the Downtown - resi- dential, commercial , industrial, institutional and open space. The amendment also delineates location and gives development criteria for each category. The plan is designed to provide direc- tion for the transition from present short-term policies to the_ long-range goals and objectives of Huntington Beach. Concerning underdeveloped, vacant, and oil resource lands, the long-term effects will be a loss of open space and some resources. Some areas will be subject to redevelopment over the planning period, with a long-term effect of recycling the land in con- formance with the proposed plan. One of the steps required to implement the proposed plan is an analysis of the zone changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. The zoning changes 41 • that would result would have significant short-term effects , such as creating non-conforming uses, reducing or increasing intensity • of development permitted, and providing stimulus for development or redevelopment. The long-term effects would be land uses that are reflective of the plan' s proposals. overall , the General Plan Amendment will create a role for the Downtown as a beach- and tourist-oriented environment and will • thereby broaden and balance the City' s economic base. • • • • • 1 42 XWL 6. 0 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Irreversible environmental changes resulting from the General Plan Amendment will be of a secondary nature and will occur primarily in the undeveloped portions of the Study Area. Loss of open space as vacant land is converted to other uses will be a significant change. Although the option to recycle the land to open space after development is available, it is probably not economically feasible. Alteration of topography will be an irreversible change. Although mitigating measures can be imposed as part of the development process , the natural topography will experience some degree of change. During the planning period, most of the oil-producing areas will be phased out. Unless significant technological changes are developed, this non-renewable resource will no longer exist in recoverable quantities within the Study Area. 43 • Construction materials of mineral origin will be needed for develop- ment to occur, and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods • to satisfy local energy demand. Other environmental changes may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed land uses. At each step in the development and redevelopment process, the significance of the action should be evaluated. • • • • 44 . 7 . 0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT To measure the growth inducing impact, growth stimulated by the General Plan Amendment was compared with that of existing zoning. The ultimate population generated by the recommended land uses will exceed ultimate population generated by existing zoning by . an estimated 5, 700 persons. Approximately 30 percent of the Study Area is undeveloped. The General Plan Amendment will probably provide the stimulus to encourage development in these areas. However, because of existing market pressures, development of the remaining vacant land would eventually occur under existing zoning, as well. The recommended land use plan will merely help to insure that future growth is well-planned and serves to broaden the City' s economic base. 1 Aft 45 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1 PART B : MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS december ,, 1975 huntington beach planning department ADDENDUM GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1B (Addendum to Section 2) 2. 13 Talbert Avenue-Edwards Street to Bolsa Chica Street Extension Background This portion of Talbert Avenue (Figure 2-13) is shown on the City' s Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways . as a primary arterial. The preliminary classification'. provides for a 100 foot right-of-way width. Talbert Avenue is presently built between Edwards Street and the City limits with a width of approximately 50 feet (half the dedication for a primary arterial) . Signal Landmark Inc. has requested that the City evaluate the road classifi- cation of this portion of Talbert Avenue in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 76-1B so that they can proceea with the engineering of phase II and the model site for Tentative Tract 8995. Talbert Avenue was first conceived as extending through the City' s Central Park and connecting with the Bolsa Chica Street extension. In January, 1974 , the City Council took the position of deleting that portion of Talbert Avenue that would extend through the park. The break in the Talbert Avenue alignment has raised the question of the need to continue Talbert Avenue west of Edwards Street as a primary arterial. Analysis The deletion of Talbert Avenue through Central Park has caused traffic that would normally use Talbert Avenue as an east-west travel corridor, to shift to other east- west arterials such as Slater Avenue, Warner Avenue or Ellis Avenue. The Transportation Study that Herman Kimmel prepared for the City analyzed the effect that the Talbert Avenue deletion through the park would have on the portion of Talbert Avenue west of Edwards Street. The Kimmel Study projected low average daily travel volumes along that portion of Talbert Avenue. Projections indicate an average daily traffic volume of 6 ,000 vehicles along Talbert Avenue between Bolsa Chica Street extension and Springdale Street and an average daily traffic volume of 7,000 vehicles between Springdale Street and Edwards Street. These projected traffic volumes are well below the 45,000 average daily traffic volume design standards for a primary arterial. A secondary arterial road classification has an average daily traffic volume design standard of 20, 000 vehicles and a right-of-way width of 80 feet. Such classification would be more than adequate to meet present and future traffic projections. It would also provide this section of Talbert Avenue with a cushion in the event land uses change. Recommendation The Planning Department recommends that Talbert Avenue between Edwards Street and the Bolsa Chica Extension be downgraded from a primary to a secondary arterial street. 4 . 0 Environmental Assessment 4. 1. 9 Talbert Avenue between Edwards Street and Bolsa Chica Street Extension The amendment proposes the downgrading of this portion of Talbert Avenue from a primary arterial to a secondary arterial. 4. 2. 9 The proposed project has been granted a categorical exemption in accordance with Section 15060 of the California Environmental Quality Act. -�- -- - �t YT - CF-E � - F PTtT 4 { r '` CF-E I I II ,nw._ �r 6 4 _ _ �r.o_•�x.o � ■ yi „lye � , CF-R t J.I Ts _ f•Mtt• On � fµIONM+II 011 e r s l a f rr N _ W Ili � an s tl AREA OF CONCERN 2.9 DOWN GRADING OF TALBERT AVENUE amm Figure 2-13 LEGEND: \� FRFEWAY w MAJOR 120'R/W CENTER PRIMARY 100'R/W DRIVE --- SECONDARY 80'R/W NOTE: _ SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT or WAY W � ���`f• NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY GASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO •,� RIGHT Of WAY EXISTS =m SYMBOL DENOTES PRIMARY COUPLET �`- SLATERLL - AVENUE �-� DELETION MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-113 Alft 41 Figure 3-2 ADDENDUM GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1B (Addition to Section 2.2.2 , page 12) Add to Section 2.2.2 (1) At its study session of January 13, 1976, the Planning Commission requested that the area of concern be ex- panded to include the parcel immediately north of the request area adjacent to Beach Boulevard and Constantine -Drive. This .revision will add 5.4 .gross acres to the amendment area. The additional parcel is currently designated for general commercial use, is zoned C4 and is vacant except for an oil well. Adjacent land uses are a church and oil wells to the east, multiple family and commercial to the north, and an automobile dealership across Beach Boulevard to the west. Add to Section 2.2.2 (2) The primary issues regarding the expanded area of concern involve the city' s desire to reduce the amount of strip commercial zoning where appropriate and the suitability of the expanded area for optimum residential development. As previously cited, property currently zoned for commercial use is in excess of estimates for future demand. Huntington Beach presently has an ex- cess of approximately 500 acres. When this over abun- dance of commercial land is tied to a pattern of strip commercial development, the roadside becomes cluttered with marginal businesses which upon failing leave the area appearing even more chaotic than successful strip commercial. The existence of more than 20 acres of shopping center at Five Points and Town and Country in the immediate vicinity of the subject area would indicate probable difficulties in marketing additional commercial development. Although the parcel added to the issue area is currently under different ownership than the other two parcels, the potential for consolidated development does exist. Current market pressures indicate a desire for multiple family residential development. If the entire expanded area of concern were developed as medium density resi- dential., a better, integrated project could occur. The large site would allow sufficient site plan flexibility to allow the provision of open space areas. This would a ni i him, �� /ii■Itt, . �, r partially mitigate an open space deficiency that present- ly exists in the quarter section. Even if the added parcel were developed by itself, it is of sufficient size for good residential development. If the expanded area of concern were developed as medium density residential as has been requested for the re- mainder of the issue area, an additional 81 dwelling units and an additional 193 persons can be anticipated. Add to Section 2 .2.2 (3) This amendment also recommends that the 5 .4 gross acres adjAcent .to Beach Boulevard and Constantine Drive be designated medium density residential. Add to Section 3 . 3 (3) The 5. 4 acre subject property should be designated medium density residential (8-15 units per gross acre) in keeping with the surrounding land uses and the marginal utility of commercial at this location. PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY Category Gross Acres Residential Medium Density 8-15 un/gac 5.4 PROJECTED POPULATION Residential Gross Maxima Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units ac Units Per Unit Population Medium Density 5.4 x 15 = 81 x 2.39 = 193 Add to Section 3. 4 PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY Category Gross Acres Residential Medium Density 8-15 un/gac 5.4 PROJECTED POPULATION Residential Gross Maximm Total Population Estimated Type Acres U nits ac Units Per Unit Population Medium Density 5.4 x 15 = 81 x 2.39 = 193 Add to Section 4.1.2 (2) The subject property encompasses 5.4 acres and is bounded by Beach Boulevard on the west, Constantine Drive on the north, a church on the east and the original area of concern to the south. The amendment proposes to change the commercial designation to medium density residential. Add to Section 4.2.2 1. Land Use/Demography The addendum will introduce an additional 81 dwelling units and 193 persons to the original area of concern. Because property designated commercial in the City is excessive, no signifi- cant affect is expected on the availability of potential commercial property. 2. Topography and Geology The addendum does not change conditions described in the original area of concern. 3. Water Resources The addendum does not change conditions described in the original area of concern. 4. Air Resources The addendum would reduce future vehicle miles traveled in the City by 4 ,900 miles and thereby decrease emmissions by an additional .34 tons a day. 5. Biological Resources The addendum does not change conditions described in the original area of concern. 6. Human Interest Resources The addendum .does not change conditions described in the original area of concern. "Salo' i i R k 7. Municipal Services and Utilities The addendum will reduce future electrical usage for the area by 364,030 kwh/yr. Natural gas usage will be 7,695,000 cubic feet per year or an increase over commercial use of 7,502 ,760 cubic feet per year. This constitutes less than .01 percent of the Gas Company' s capability. Water service for the addendum area will require 28,371 gallons per day or about . 12 percent of present usage in the City. The addendum area will contribute an additional 22,774 gallons of sewage per day. Solid waste for the addendum area will be 1062 pounds per day or an increase over commercial uses of 656 pounds per day. Police protection may need to be increased by .2 policemen. to serve the addition of 193 persons. The development of medium density residential in the addendum area will result in an additional 24 elementary school and 9 high school students. 8. Economics The addendum does not change conditions described in the original area of concern. 9. Traffic Circulation Medium density residential would add 405 vehicle trips per day in contrast to an additional 1,296 vehicle trips per day if commercially developed. 10. Acoustical Quality Noise levels on Beach Boulevard would be increased by about .2 db(A) . 41( Errata • General Plan Amendment 76-1 Part B December, 1975 Page 1 - Section 1. 0, line 4: May July Page 7 - Section 2 . 1. 2 . .2. , line 5: 27266 2288 Page 8 - Section 2 . 2, line 7 : dealth dealt Page 18 - Section 2. 4. 1 Paragraph 2 , line 11 : 25 23 Page 20 - Section 2. 4 . 2 Paragraph 2 , line 6: Bneetiragement-ef-high density-de*ae�egment-threngh-amending-the-hand-Ease-Element "i` area�d-be-eentrarp-te-the-a�gatien-needs-ef-the-eenntp-and SeAG-Regien. While no formal City policy exists regarding the future of Meadowlark Airport, the City' s actions have been to allow the airport to continue as a nonconforming use until other development becomes feasible. The location of high density residential adjacent to the airport would increase the injury potential in the . event of an accident Page 51 7 . , line 4 : of or -• NOTE: Net acreage figures were used throughout the text to indicate areas and as a basis for analysis. However, the factors used for density calculations and population estimates require gross acreage figures. Section 3 . 0 has been corrected but the remaining portions do not include the corrected data. Although the data presented is slightly less than the worst case situation that is indicated by using gross acreage figures, the analysis presented is not affected. Refined information is avail- able from the Planning Department. i t. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 . 1 Intent and Purpose 1 � 1. 2 Methodology 2 2 . 0 AREAS OF CONCERN 2 . 1 Main Street and Huntington Street 3 .2. 1. 1 East of Huntington Street 3 2. 1. 2 West of Huntington Street 6 2. 2 Quarter Section South of Ellis Avenue 8 and East of Beach Boulevard 8 2. 2. 1 Southeast Corner of Ellis Avenue and Beach Boulevard 2. 2. 2 Northeast Corner of Garfield Avenue and 12 � Beach Boulevard 2 . 3 Northeast Corner of Florida Street and 16 Clay Avenue 2. 4 Northeast Corner of Pearce Street and Bolsa 18 f Chica Avenue 2. 5 Maguire Property/Huntington Harbour 21 2. 6 Center Drive 24 2 . 7 Slater Avenue 27 2 . 8 Administrative Items 30 3. 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 3. 1 Scope of Amendment 35 3. 2 Residential Standards 35 3. 3 Proposed Amendment, Phase I Land Use 36 Element MM is c' • 3. 4 Summary of Land Use and Population 39 3. 5 Proposed Amendment, Master Plan of Arterial 40 Streets and Highways 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4. 1 Project Description and Location 42 4. 2 Environmental Setting and Impact 44 4. 3 Summary and Mitigation Measures 58 i i i i y 1. 0 INTRODUCTION This document constitutes Part B of the third amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. The Element was adopted in December, 1973 , and amended for the first time in March, 1975 and a second time in May, 1975. It also addresses changes to the Master Plan of Streets and Arterial Highways. 1. 1 Intent and Purpose In the past, the Planning Department has approached the General Plan on an element by element basis. Preliminary documents have been presented to the Planning Commission and are presently ` under revision. Currently, however, several specific planning decisions must be made. Therefore, this General Plan Amendment is designed to investigate some areas where changing conditions require reconsideration of past decisions. At the same time, this amendment is meant to accomplish several minor administrative adjustments. AfWk 1 1. 2 Methodology The changes considered in this part of the Amendment derive from two sources: requests from property owners and "housekeeping" chores generated by the Planning Department. In Section 2. 0, Planning Issues, each case is discussed and analyzed in terms of existing con- ditions and impact on surrounding areas as well as consistency with the goals and policies of the City. Section 3. 0 summarizes the recommendations contained in Section 2. 0 into a comprehensive text and plan to be adopted. Section 4. 0 presents an Environmental Assess- ment for the Amendment as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. • • i r 2 Adak 1 M 2 . 0 AREAS OF CONCERN While the primary emphasis of General Plan Amendment 76-1B is changes to the Phase I Land Use Element, two amendments to the Master Plan of Streets and Arterial Highways have also been requested. The following sections discuss the requested changes. (See Figure 2-1) 2. 1 Huntington Street and Main Street The Huntington Beach Company has requested a change in land use designation for several closely located properties north of Main Street. However, the issues differ significantly for property on either side of Huntington Street. Therefore, for analytical purposes the property east of Huntington Street will be discussed in Section 2. 1. 1 and the property west of Huntington Street will be addressed in Section 2. 1. 2. 2. 1. 1 Northeast Corner of Main Street and Huntington Street. 3 2. 1. 1. 1 Background • The site is located on the northeast corner of Main Street = and Huntington Street (see Figure 2-2 ) . A request was received to amend the present Phase I Land Use Element designations of medium density residential and office- professional to medium density residential. The vacant 7. 69 acre site is presently zoned R3 (2. 06 acres) and R5 (5. 63 acres) . To the west is vacant R5, a few older single family homes, vacant industrial land, M2-0, and the Ferro Corporation. The northern boundary fronts apartments, R3. The Five Points Shopping Center is to the east of the sub- ject property and across Main Street, to the south, is vacant R5, a service station, C2, and office-professional, R5. 2. 1. 1. 2 Analysis Based on the surrounding land uses, either medium density residential or office-professional would be reasonable A uses for the subject property. Determination of the best use for the property involves considering problems of open space availability and the need for office- professional at this location. Citywide potential demand for office-professional uses at ultimate development (based on historic average dwelling units per acre) is approximately 155 acres (based on Urban Projects, Inc. projections to 1990 and revised to ultimate) . Presently only 102 acres are designated for this use. However, an actual deficit does not exist be- cause office-professional uses are allowed under general commercial designations. As Section 2. 2 illustrates, the City of Huntington Beach has an over abundance of as much as 500 acres of commercial property. With commercial property in such abundance there is actually an over abundance of office-professional areas. Even if there is potential excess office-professional property, perhaps the subject property is still needed for such a use. Considering the existing R5 development in the immediate vicinity (medical) , if the subject property were to be developed R5 the most likely use would be medical. This especially seems probable because the Phase I Land Use Element, as amended, designates office- professional uses in the vicinity of the Civic Center. Most non-medical office-professional uses would tend to locate near the Civic Center in contrast to future medical uses which would tend to locate in the immediate vicinity • of existing medical facilities. 4 • a r :\ - /� \..... ... t v (>� .. \. '\`' C \ \•\ -...... , Pat' osa xx F 2.4 , 'a � � ', ..t � 1.,,;/•f `'�� / \ �', ,. /l' -n , � ., ;, .,� /. ✓.� .,,. ,+ •' \C..,��:���'at.�+`:" ..".taw '��:.�: :.: ::�,.•/ i -;.._ , a . >,�............� .'\` .4t. t�, M!. :�at� HUNTIN PL ANNING BEACH cALIFORNIA PLANNINGG DEPARTMENT Areas Of Concern GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1B • o : ice' �� •� 1i `� 11� u iAy s•1 Whether there is any compelling need for office- professional on the subject property depends on whether the acreage is needed for future medical services. Based on Urban Project, Inc. projections, approximately 32 acres of medical uses will be needed in Huntington Beach at ultimate development. Presently the City of Huntington Beach has over 25 acres of existing medical uses. Since there are over 8 acres of vacant R5 property south of Main Street in the immediate vicinity of existing medical facilities, the need for office-professional north of Main Street is marginal at best. The subject property is approximately 1/2 mile from a pro- posed 5 acre park on Taylor Drive. The park will serve a population of less than 2, 000 persons even if the south- ern boundary of its service area is considered to be Main Street. The subject property, if designated medium density, would introduce a maximum of 276 inhabitants to the area, well below the capacity of the proposed park to serve the a area. The only questionable aspect concerning the pro- posed park' s ability to serve the subject property is the eventuality that Ellis Avenue will become a major arterial as it was intended. If and when Ellis Avenue is completed it may not be reasonable to assume the park site on Taylor Drive can service the area south of Ellis Avenue (i.e. , the • subject property) . In anticipation of this occurrence a residential development on the subject property should be a planned development with appropriate open spaces to mitigate what may be an open space deficiency. Since the subject property only has 2. 06 acres of residentially zoned land, a planned residential development would be • unfeasible and the resulting residential development would worsen the open space deficiency. By designating the entire subject property (7. 69 acres) medium density resi- dential, a planned development would be feasible. 2. 1. 1. 3 Recommendation 1 This Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element proposes that the subject property remain Medium Density Resi- dential where it is so designated and be redesignated from Office Professional to Medium Density Residential on the remainder of the site. 2. 1. 2 Northwest corner of Main Street and Huntington Street 2. 1. 2. 1 Background The subject property involves two sites about 400 feet north of Main Street and Huntington Street (see Figure 2-2 • The larger two acre site is vacant as is the' smaller 1/4 6 r. • acre site. The larger site is zoned M2-0 and designated light industrial in the Phase I Land Use Element. The smaller site is zoned R5 and designated office- professional. Directly to the west is the Ferro Corp- oration, M2-0. The northern boundary of the larger site is vacant M2-0 and to the south of the smaller site is vacant R5. Between the two sites are older single family homes. To the east are apartments, R5, vacant R3 and vacant R5. On December 8, 1975 the Huntington Beach Company requested that both sites be redesignated medium density residential. • 2. 1. 2. 2 Analysis The telling issue here is whether or not light industry is needed and whether it should be located in the area of concern. Based on percentages of land use stipulated by the Urban Land Institute, an "ideal community" of �- Huntington Beach' s size should have 2. 288 acres of industrial land. In contrast, a study of ten urban cities done by Harvard University discovered an average per- centage industrial usage such that if applied to Huntington Beach would indicate a need for 1,113 acres of industrial land. Presently, 1, 454 acres are designated for industrial use. In view of competition from the large Irvine Industrial Complex, perhaps Huntington Beach has too much industrial land. If that is the case, then other uses should be determined for replacement of an appropriate amount of industrial acreage. However, industrial land should not be given up haphazardly but rather should be • done within the bounds of a well considered plan. Since this plan has not been completed and because the subject property has been found to be potentially good industrial_ property in a preliminary survey, redesignation from in- dustrial to residential is premature. In the analysis of the subject property east of Huntington Street, office-professional was determined to be un- necessary north of Main Street. Perhaps the office- professional west of Huntington Street should be redesig- nated light industrial. In any case, the property should not be redesignated medium density residential unless and until a plan for the City' s industrial land indicates the validity of such a redesignation. In keeping with City development requirements, the light industrial use on the subject property would be buffered from residential development east of Huntington Street. • 2 . 1. 2 . 3 Recommendation This Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element proposes Afak 7 • r that the subject property not be redesignated Medium Density Residential. 2. 2 East of Beach Boulevard, south of Ellis Avenue Quarter Section The quarter section bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north, Newland Street on the east, Garfield Avenue on the south, and Beach Boule- vard on the west was addressed in the March, 1975, Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. This quarter section contains two acres • of concern addressed in General Plan Amendment 76-1B. The March, 1975, Amendment will be referred to frequently since two areas of concern in this Section have been dealth with in the first amend- ment. For purposes of clarity each of the two areas of concern will be analyzed separately although the analysis of each involves similar and related concerns. • 2. 2. 1 Southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Beach Boulevard (1) Background Information - The property is located approximately 620 feet south of the southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Beach Boulevard (See Figure • A request to amend the present general plan desig- nation to medium density residential was received December 5, 1975. Of the 8 . 66 acre site, only 5 acres is requested to be amended. The site is vacant except for an older single family home. Presnt zoning is C4, Highway Commercial. The Phase I Land Use Element, as amended, designates the site general commercial. Land uses to the west include the remaining 3. 66 acres of C4 and across Beach Boulevard are automobile dealerships and a car wash. The Town and Country Shopping Center is directly to the north of the sub- ject area. The eastern boundary of the site abuts • apartments (R3) . Directly south is another strip of apartments (R3 and C4) buffering the site from com- mercial (C4) and more apartments (R3) . As previously mentioned, this area was addressed in the first Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. The issue to be resolved concerned whether the site should be designated medium density residential or general commercial. Among the many problems con- sidered, the foremost was the designation of general commercial for the entire 8. 66 acres. Since it ap- peared very probable that only the frontage would be developed as commercial, the remaining land would be useful for only multiple family residential develop- ment. 8 lipffin AVE.ELLIS ELLI � I Z TI C4 CHUDCH • c=,:: :�,�::� ? am* AL COrT'ER IAL 1... .... FURIPE PARK • — z VACANT CHIF F LY KS I � COMMERCI o AM ��� ; ILY o V Qa T ; W VACANT s - • APART. °r' ` Z r I "'E"" . RCI NODA CAL '� r�icwCR - ,�. ------ CONSTANTINE DR T1t�000 - kL H.B. ..:,NV U1 CHff H APAR S •,1 KSS Z VACANT OIL R3 -- J oil to A PA z Up C4 AP 0 - TE o AL uK•TMERINE O iY EC J �Q W `` SERIICE F N ST I �' -' r AYENI I Q > I �',N I LH VA:ANTJ C2 PRESTWICK CR. AAANMMLLE NANCE AREA OF CONCERN .2.2.1 ELLIS AVENUE AND BEACH BOULEVARD A!*, .9 Figure 2-3 • The Planning Staff concluded that the strip com- mercial designation should be removed to allow for thoughtful planning of a well designed residential development. The following reasons were cited as the basis for this recommendation: (1) Planning Com- mission and City Council policy (Policy Plan) indi- cating a desire to reduce strip commercial zoning where appropriate, and (2) sufficient acreage should be made available for a well-designed planned resi- dential development which would include open space to mitigate the study area' s open space deficiency. However, a land use designation of general commercial was adopted.- -- - .. _ (2) Analysis - The problem cited above has emerged. The property owner requested a General Plan amendment to redesignate the 5 acre rear section of the 8 . 66 acre site medium density residential (see Figure 2-3) and to leave the 3. 66 acre section fronting on Beach Boulevard as general commercial. Both commercial and medium density residential (or a combination thereof) are compatible with the surround- ing land uses. Therefore, in order to determine the • best use for the site, open space needs and com- mercial space demands must be considered In the March, 1975, Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element, open space needs for the quarter section bounded by Ellis Avenue, Newland Street, Garfield • Avenue, and Beach Boulevard were estimated to be 3. 87 acres at ultimate development. Since a park of two acres is proposed, the net ultimate open space de- ficiency will be 1. 87 acres. The proposed Yorktown Community Park would have mitigated to some extent this deficiency, however it has since been reduced in • size and scope by the Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. More residential development will create an even greater open space deficiency. Under such circumstances further residential development should be planned developments and include open space to mitigate the increased open space deficiency. Since planned developments of 5 acres or less have been constructed in the general area, such a development can be considered feasible on the site in question. However, the availability of the whole site of 8 . 66 acres would be a greater inducement to construct a planned residential development as well as making the necessary space available for a better project. 10 • In the March, 1975 , Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element reference was made to the large amount of land within the quarter section designated for commercial use. Approximately 25. 7 percent of the area of the quarter section was designated for commercial use and appeared to be excessive. Also noted was that the basic planning concepts do not favor this type of development due to resultant impacts such as traffic problems, lack of visual harmony, and general in- efficiency of land use. Not available at the time the March, 1975, Amendment was prepared but subsequently developed by Urban Projects, Inc. was data on commercial demand for the City of Huntington Beach. By 1990 a demand for 542 acres of general commercial will exist in Huntington Beach. At an ultimate population of 205 , 000 (based o average historic units per acre development, existing zoning, and 2 . 73 persons per household) demand for general commercial will be 584 acres. Huntington Beach presently has 1, 101 acres designated as general commercial, or an over abundance of approximately 500 acres. Based on figures quoted by the Urban Land Institute an "ideal community" should have 5 percent of its area in commercial uses (including hotels, motels, office-professional, etc. ) . This amounts to 953 acres, still less than the amount of general com- mercial land existing in Huntington Beach. Based on a Harvard University study of nine urban cities, 2. 9 percent of city area is normal for commercial use. This would amount to 553 acres in Huntington Beach, well below our present supply. When the over abun- dance of commercial land is tied to a pattern of strip commercial development the roadside becomes cluttered with marginal businesses which upon failing leave the area appearing even more chaotic than normal strip commercial. However, an over abundance of commercial zoning has a positive effect in that it -acts as a transitional zone delaying the development of various parcels until such time as the appropriate issues have been considered and resolved. With limited commercial acreage demand, decisions must be made as to exactly how important strip commercial is to Huntington Beach. As has been cited, a multitude of problems exist with strip commercial development. Planning Commission and City Council policy favors limiting strip commercial. The need for commercial prop- erty within the area of concern appears to be sat- urated due to the existence of more than 20 acres of shopping center at Five Points and Town and Country. Therefore, commercial use on this property AM�i 11 i can only be justified if a larger market area is being served. However, the over abundance of com- mercially designated land and the existence of key commercial areas drawing people away from this_lo- cation such as: The Huntington Center, the new Seacliff Shopping Center, the hoped for re- development of the Downtown and a large area zoned C2 south of Yorktown Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard. (3) Recommendation - This amendment proposes that the Phase I Land Use Element designate the site Medium Density Residential. It further recommends that the 3. 66 acres fronting Beach Boulevard also be desig- • nated Medium Density Residential 2. 2. 2 Northeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Beach Boulevard (1) Background - The site is located on the northeast cor- ner of Garfield Avenue and Beach Boulevard and in- cludes the entire corner except the property on which a service station is located (see Figure 2-4) . A re- quest to amend the present General Plan designation was received December 8 , 1975. The request includes redesignation of the northerly most 4.74 acres to • medium density residential and redesignation of the southeastern 1. 88 acres to high density residential . No change was requested for the southwestern 1. 09 acres. Present zoning is C4 and the Phase I Land Use Element, as amended, designates the site general commercial. Land uses to the west and across Beach • Boulevard include an automobile dealership, equip- ment rentals and a service station. To the north is a vacant field supporting some oil uses and buffer- ing the site from a restaurant and apartments (R3) . To the south and across Garfield Avenue is the Edison Maintenance Yard and a fast food establish- ment. As was mentioned in the previous Section (2 .2. 1 .1) , this area was considered in the March, 1975, Amend- ment to the Phase I Land Use Element. The issues were exactly the same for this site as in the site i considered in Section 2. 2. 1. In this case as in the former the area was designated general_ commercial rather than medium residential. • 12 i - _P j OF _j T W -1. w P2 ---------- --- R3 �,'ELMWOC VACANT Pik- MOD DR. TUUPW R5 T CV API%:T z _j 114 WDI CAL • Ik- q5 F6 CONSTANTINE- OR RNAl C4 RTWNT CHURCH WAR APA 2 R3 -----VACANT OIL Ir 'Z' APAnT' Up z C4 < 0 Nl[ C 8kC AL APASUl"" 11 KATHERINE a:-- o S' NG J. w 6ory SER ICE C4 Fj MI 2' _j ION (;4 AVENUE Cm [NILV; VACANT (2 se MANDEVILLE OR YARD DEAUVILLE OR z J CFR (PARK) BRIDGE R W CF- E (PERRY TMOOR OR • FAILJMAO DRAVE. ,7E AREA OF CONCERN. 2.2.2 • GARFIELD AVENUE AND REACH BOULEVARD Af Wk 13 Figure 2-4 (2) Analysis - Once again problems of compatibility with surrounding land uses take a back seat to the issues of open space needs and demand for commercial uses since medium and high density residential and com- mercial uses are all reasonable or possible based on present surrounding land uses. Open space needs are similar to those for the previously analyzed request. A deficiency of open space exists and if residential development takes place it should be a planned development with appropriate open spaces as a mitigating measure for the overall deficiency in open space. In this case 4. 74 acres are requested to be redesignated medium density residential and 1.88 acres to high density residential. However, with the existing open space deficiency high density development would be un- acceptable except to the extent open space can be made available in the project itself. Once again the more substantial the site is , the greater the in- ducement for developing a planned residential develop- ment. A better project is likely if the 1. 88 acre and 4. 74 acre sites are combined as one project. Due to the open space deficiency, medium density rather than high density development would be most reasonable. Commercial use is also an issue on this site since 7 1. 09 acres are requested to remain general commercial. Unlike the previous area of concern, strip commercial is not an issue. The site is only large enough for a convenience center and is situated in a manner that would allow it to serve such a function. The issue is whether a commercial center is needed at the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Beach Boulevard and if so, is this the optimum site for such a development.. Presently no convenience center exists at the inter- section of Garfield Avenue and Beach Boulevard in spite of the fact that residential development is occurring west of the intersection of Beach Boule- vard and Garfield Avenue. A 7 acre vacant C2 site is located on the southwest corner of Beach Boule- vard and Garfield Avenue and could afford space for a convenience center (see Figure 2-4 ) . Other than this site, however, only the subject property on the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Garfield Ave- nue is available for a convenience commercial center. The nearest existing convenience center is on the northeast corner of Yorktown Avenue and Beach Boule- vard, 1 mile from the Five Points and Town and Country Shopping Centers. Ideally a convenience 14 Afak center on the northwest corner of Yorktown Avenue and Beach Boulevard would suffice as a complement to both the new Seacliff Shopping Center and Five Points Shopping Center. This site would serve the needs of the quarter section bounded by Garfield Avenue, Beach Boulevard, Yorktown Avenue and the railroad • tracks. A convenience center located here would negate the need for a commercial site at the south- western corner of Garfield Avenue and Beach Boule- vard. However, sufficient vacant land does not exist for a convenience center on the northwest corner of Yorktown Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Although the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Beach Boulevard is not the optimum location for a convenience center, because of its close proximity to relatively large commercial centers, it is the only viable location available at a major intersection. • The two sites available for commercial use at Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue have differing qualities which should be considered before suggest- ing a commercial use on either The subject property, which is at the northeastern corner of the inter- section, has an existing_ service station located ' there. It would appear reasonable that a convenience center could be developed around the station. How- ever, if the 1. 09 acre site were designated the same density residential as the surrounding 6. 62 acres , then 7. 71 acres would be available as an inducement for the development of a planned residential develop- ment. Obviously this does not rule out a commercial use on the site, rather the possible benefits of a residential designation are highlighted. When con- sideration is given to the fact that commercial development is already excessive in the quarter section, residential development appears even more favorable. The site southwest of the intersection on the other hand seems to be well suited for commercial develop- ment. The site is closer to the population most in need of service, access to the site is extremely good, and enough acreage is available that should there fail to be any shopping centers developed be- tween Atlanta Avenue and Ellis Avenue on Beach Boule- vard the site could be developed fully to relieve what would become a shortage of commercial centers in this section of Huntington Beach. • 15 • (3) Recommendation - This amendment proposes that the Phase ' I Land Use Element designate the 4 . 7'4 acre and 1. 88 acre site Medium Density Residential. It further recommends that the 1. 09 acre site also be designated Medium Density Residential. 2. 3 Northeast corner of Clay Avenue and Florida Street This section deals with two amendment requests on sites with contig- uous boundaries. Both are requests for designations of medium density residential and are considered simultaneously. 2. 3. 1 Background Two sites are being considered in this section. On the northeast corner of Clay Avenue and Florida Street is the larger 3. 35 acre site (see Figure 2 . 5) . An older single family house is located on the site as well as various plants stored from a nursery establishment. The vacant smaller . 94 acre site forms the northern boundary of the larger site. Both sites are designated as general commercial in the Phase I Land Use Element. However the smaller site is zoned C2 and the larger site is zoned R5. Requests were received December 5 and 8, 1975 to amend the Phase I Land Use Element such that both sites would be designated medium density residential. . The area directly west of the area of concern includes a Church (R2) and apartments (R2) . To the north is vacant C2 which was discussed in Section 2. 2 as being the best location in the vicinity for the development of a com- mercial center. The eastern boundary is formed by a • nursery (C4) and vacant C4 on which will be built a Church (Conditional Use Permit No. 75-15) . South, across Clay Street, are apartments (R3) . 2. 3. 2 Analysis The over abundance of commercial zoning in Huntington Beach was dealt with in great detail- in Section 2. 2. Based on the data presented, no compelling need exists for keeping the present general commercial designation for the subject properties. The vacant land north of the subject properties has sufficient acreage and the configuration is excellent for. the development of a commercial center. The orientation of the subject properties to the surrounding land uses, especially because of the developments fronting Beach Boulevard, is such that commercial uses would be in- appropriate. Access to the subject properties is not adequate. This is easily seen when compared with access to the site north of the subject properties. 16 Adft • ,� Illss► WVA jm� silo, VA WA i The surrounding residential areas are designated medium density in the Phase I Land Use Element and a majority of • the area is developed with medium to high density resi- dential. If the subject properties are designated resi- dential , the density should be medium. A medium density development on the 4. 29 acres of property would, at a maximum, increase the population by 154 persons. • Open space will not be strained by an added population of approximately 154 people. In the first Amendment to the Land Use Element land uses were recommended and adopted for the area titled Government Center/Old Town. This area included the subject properties. Only 4 acres of park were recommended and adopted for the study area. However, • according to Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report, 8 acres of park will be built on the Yorktown/ Delaware site above. With this additional park acreage available, 153 additional people pose no problem for open space availability in the area. • 2. 3. 3 Recommendation This Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element proposes that the subject properties be designated Medium Density Residential. • 2. 4 Bolsa Chica and Pearce Streets 2. 4. 1 Background Information The subject property is located at the northeast corner • of Bolsa Chica and Pearce Streets (Figure 2 . 6) . In December, 1975, the property owners of Parcels 1 and 2 requested the Planning Department to consider redesig- nating the subject property from low density residential to medium density residential. Parcel 1 is a 4. 34 acre site that is presently vacant. Parcel 2 is a 5. 03 acre site that is vacant except for an older single family home and greenhouse. Both parcels are zoned R1, low density residential. The property directly to the north of parcels 1 and 2 is zoned C2, community business district, and R2, medium density residential. The C2 property is developed with a service station and retail commercial. The R2 property consists of 18 fourplex units. The property directly to the east is zoned R1, low density residential, and is developed with 25 single family units. The land bounding the sub- ject property on the south is zoned R2 and presently con- tains a retail nursery and a few single fami_y units. The 18 AWL • I . - MIMIC AVE HEIL 4 DAIRY R ..a SHOPPING CENTER STALUM a nil Hill 1. 1 VACANTPd V�I�ANT parce 1 I parce 1 2 SINGLE ST. IF ILY APARTAENTS N RY I NG� I I R3 VACANT z cn I ST. x ENE CR. r' N N O �/Q7 c , -I- I�T'^ AREA OF CONCERN 2.4 BOLSA CHICA PEARCE STREETS 19 aw Figure 2-6 property to the west, across Bolsa Chica Street, is zoned R2 and has on it three duplex buildings facing the study area. 2. 4 . 2 Analysis The issue that is involved in amending the Land Use Element for the subject property concerns the desirability of increasing density around an existing airport. The subject property contains approximately 9. 5 acres of low density residential which at its highest density would accommodate 7 units per acre or approximately 45 dwelling units. Medium density residential land use provides a maximum density of 15 units per acre or 142 dwelling units. Projected population figures for existing low density residential on the subject property is 152 persons, while medium density residential would provide 339 persons. The low density residential land use creates the fewest number of dwelling units and persons and would be compatible with existing single family dwelling units to the east and 41 south of the subject property. The future existence of Meadowlark Airport is unknown at this time. It is generally felt by the County of Orange and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) that Meadowlark Airport is an important general aviation facility and should remain open until alternative facilities are provided. Encouragement of high density development through amending the Land Use Element would be contrary to the aviation needs of the County and the SCAG Region. Also, the subject property lies in close approximation to Sunset Heights. This area has heavy concentration of medium and high density residential. This heavy concen- tration raises the question of the present need for additional medium density residential land use desig- nation within and around the subject property. The property lying immediately south of the planning area is presently designated for medium density residential and is zoned R2. However, a field survey shows present land use on this property to be single family dwelling units. Also, single family dwelling units presently exist to the east of the subject property. These dwelling units are only 2 . 5years old. The existence of Meadowlark Airport, the high concen- tration of already existing medium and high density residential dwelling units and and around Sunset Heights 20 and the existing low density residential land uses to the • east and south of the subject property provides support for the contention that it is premature at this time to re- designate the Land Use Element for the subject property to medium density residential. 2. 4. 3 Recommendation • Designation of the subject property to a land use other than low density residential should be part of a comprehensive study of future land uses within the Meadowlark quarter section. The study should include the area bounded by Warner Avenue on the south, Graham Street on the east, Heil • Avenue on the north and Bolsa Chica Street on the west. 2. 5 Maguire' s Property/Huntington Harbour 2. 5. 1 Background Information • The Maguire property is located on the northeast side of Pacific Coast Highway between Anderson Street and Admiralty Drive (Figure 2-7) . It encompasses approximately 35 acres and consists of one parcel of undeveloped land. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates this property as destination resort. • The northerly 19 acres of the subject property, including a 150 foot by 1500 foot stretch of land extending the length of the property and immediately adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway is zoned C4 (highway commercial district) . The remaining 16 acres lies within the southern portion of the • subject property and is zoned R1, low density residential. The subject property is bounded on the northeast by Harbor Channel and on the southeast by Queen Elizabeth Passage. Directly across Queen Elizabeth Passage are low density residential dwelling units. A proposed 58 unit townhouse • development (Tentative Tract 5813) borders the subject property to the north. ;The property directly to the south, across Admiralty Drive, is the location of a Bank of America Branch and behind it are single family dwelling units. The property to the west, across Pacific Coast Highway, consist of various residential and strip commercial land uses. The property owner of the subject parcel has requested that the General Plan of land use be amended from its present destination resort designation to low density residential, medium density residential and commercial. Such an amendment would be reflective of a preliminary • conceptual plan that has been developed for the subject '21 an • 5P • TT 8718 J� o0 TT 58B TT 8a • ERVICE VACANT 'koq ATION C4 e019 A p� qc A �1 tib qc c' VACANT c�qy ti� �c � � • � � o S � -o S RI titi G c0 o �. i0 4 �� �� • O l ti° K ^ ^ � ys AREA Of CONCERN 2.5 MAGUIRE S PROPERTY 22 Figure 2-7 property (Tentative Tract 6675) . The purpose of this section is to investigate this request, to determine the compatibility of the proposed changes with sur- rounding land uses and to re,7ommend a course of action based on this investigation. 2. 5. 2 Analysis The Destination Resort General Plan designation provides the focal point for the analysis of the subject property. The destination resort designation was conceived as pro- viding beach oriented tourist related land uses. Such land uses included residential (including multi-story) , hotels and motels, retail and specialty commercial, office- professional and public uses and facilities . The broad nature of the destination resort designation provides on the one hand the advantage of flexibility and creativity on the part of the developer, while on the other hand ignores the issue of compatibility with adjacent properties until development pressures build, thus having a built-in potential for conflict. In redesignating the subject property from destination resort to more specific land uses care has been taken to assure that the intent of destination resort is maintained. The issue is not to change the desired use of the property, but rather to provide more specific land use designations which will provide generalized guidelines in the develop- ment of the property and assure compatibility with surround- ing land uses. An important consideration when evaluating the land uses on the subject property is the single family dwelling units that lie immediately across the Queen Elizabeth Passage. There is a need to assure that the development that occurs on the southeast portion of the subject property is com- patible with these units. A buffer zone of low density residential would be compatible and would offer a smooth transition from higher density residential that would occur on the subject property. In addition to low density residential, the con- ceptual plan for development of the subject property calls for development of approximately 21. 33 acres of medium density residential and 10. 93 acres of commercial. The medium density residential would act as a transitional zone separating the low density residential on the south- east portion of the subject property from proposed com- mercial development. The commercial land use will be situated on the north 10. 93 acres of the subject property. 23 The Planning Staff believes that the commercial development would be compatible with existing land use designation ad- jacent to the subject property on the north. These ad- jacent land uses consist of commercial and high density residential. Recommendation Redesignate the Land Use Element for the subject property from destination resort to 3. 59 acres of low density resi- dential on the southeast portion of the subject property, 21. 33 acres of medium density residential as a transitional zone, and 10. 93 acres of commercial development on the northerly portion of the subject property. 2. 6 Center Drive 2. 6. 1 Background Center Drive is located approximately 1250 feet north of the intersection of Gothard Street and Edinger Avenue. The street presently extends east of Gothard Street for approximately 1275 feet and serves the Huntington Shopping Center. It is designated as a local street although con- structed to secondary arterial street standards. On May 20, 1975, the City retained the services of Donald Frischer and Associates to perform an independent study for the purpose of determining the feasibility of modifying the San Diego Freeway Interchange at Beach Boule- vard and evaluating the impact on traffic conditions on the Freeway and streets, particularly at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue, that would result be- cause of the modification of the interchange. l In August, 1975, the consulting firm released its study. In it modification to the existing freeway interchange was proposed. (Figure 2-9). . As can be seen from the proposed modification, Center Drive takes on an increasing importance by receiving and distributing traffic coming off and entering the southbound lanes of the San Diego Freeway. Analysis of the reclassification and extension of Center Drive was to be made part of the Circulation Element. How- ever, the City has an opportunity to receive funds from the 1Modification Study of the Beach Boulevard Interchange, Don Frischer Associates, August 15 , 1975. p. 1 24 N - - - - - - - .._ �- � -TNARD STREET n♦i JED!!S-.)N W • S. P. R. R. HOOVER I~ i A %L; O a: `^ _40w • ���{{�.. v 7 G S V VI -i '7 a Rl CITY O .a: f 4 FT I s • � i A � I BEACH � ei.vo AREA OF CONCERN 2.6 CENTER DRIVE Aft 25 mm fly Figure 2-8 McFadden Avenue N � p u O NOT TO SCALE Q Q� o A,� h GOLDEN "lip o WEST o' 9 Co o r :OLLEGE ��eo m Center Drive b I I Y H € HUNTINGTON CENTER r y Edinger Avenue DODflIO ��ISC�I�� C flSSOCiflTCS rRAFPIC AND TRANSPORTATION • ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS ' PROPOSED HIGHWAY MODIFICATIONSlip, Figure 2-9 KEN I L*OR'.'H DR F� R1 1 VACANT 9t 1 J H • J O 5 DR. 1 r a 2 W U. H. B. SL TER MO SVALE • T T 8630 SERENE • RIDGEBURY 2 J � 2 J • 101, =tuDt o AREA OF CONCERN 2.7 • SLATER AVENUE 2s Aft mm IR SM • Figure 2-10 Arterial Highway Funding Program (AHFA) for the engineering and construction of the Center Drive extension if the street is included on the City' s Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. Therefore, the Staff believes it would be in the best interest of the City to pursue at this time _an Amendment to the- Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways instead of waitinq for the completion of the Circulation Ele- ment. 2. 6. 2 Analysis The modification of the freeway interchange as proposed in the Frischer Report will require the extension of Center , Drive to intersect with Beach Boulevard. The on and off ramps of the Route 405 southbound traffic will intersect Center Drive approximately 500 feet west of Beach Boulevard. Center Drive is proposed to have two traffic lanes in each direction and a median with left turn lanes. The modifi- cation to the existing interchange is primarily designed to . relieve traffic congestion at the Edinger Avenue and Beach Boulevard intersection. When fully improved, Center Drive would be able to accomo- date an average daily traffic volume (ADT) of 20, 000 vehicles. The Frischer Report indicated that Center Drive . as a secondary arterial street would be adequate to meet projected traffic volume. 2. 6. 3 Recommendation Place Center Drive on the City' s Master Plan of Arterial . Streets and Highways with a secondary arterial street road classification and show it intersecting Beach Boulevard. 2 . 7 Slater Avenue 2. 7 . 1 Background • Slater .Avenue between Graham Street and the Bolsa Chica Street extension is shown on the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways as a proposed secondary arterial street. The Kendall Development Company filed an appli- cation for Tentative Tract 8630 that proposed an R1 Sub- • division of 166, 6000 square foot lots. The proposed align- ment of Slater Avenue lies along the north 80 feet of the Kendall property. The question of the extension of Slater Avenue west of Graham Street was raised during the appli- cation process. • AtIft 27 The Tentative Tract came before the Planning Commission in June, 1975, Two Tentative Tract Maps were presented to the Planning Commission. One map showed Slater Avenue extending west of Graham Street to intersect with the Bolsa Chica Street extension. The second map shows the proposed Tract with this section of Slater Avenue deleted. The Planning Commission conditionally . approved both Tentative Tract Maps with the stipulation that a final decision for the north portion of the development would have to be made prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map. The evaluation and recommendation of this section of Slater Avenue was to be part of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. As a result of the shift in priorities and the delay of the Circulation Element, it has become necessary to ex- tract the Slater Avenue extension from the Circulation Element and pursue the issue as a revision to the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. Development pressures have developed that make a decision on the future of Slater Avenue extension necessary. The developer has waited for a decision since June, 1975 , but is nearing the time when he has scheduled develop- ment to begin. Therefore, the analysis of Slater Avenue is being carried out at this time. 2 . 7 . 2 The Slater Avenue extension west of Graham Street is proposed to extend to the Bolsa Chica extension. The extension as shown on the adopted Tentative Tract Map 8630 would intersect the Bolsa Chica Street extension immediately south of the proposed Wintersberg bridge crossing. Such an alignment of Slater Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street would create a hazardous intersection, primarily due to the difference in grade between Bolsa Chica Street extension and the Slater Avenue extension and the creation of an angled intersection instead of the customary right angle intersection. • Other issues that the Slater Avenue extension raises are (1) the need for having two arterial streets intersect Bolsa Chica Street within a distance of about a quarter mile, and (2) the effect deleting Slater Avenue would have on other arterial streets which would have to absorb the • traffic which would normally move along this section of Slater Avenue . Signal Properties, Incorporated Traffic Study (June, 1972) and the Herman Kimmel Traffic Study (September, 1974) shows Slater Avenue extension as having average daily traffic volumes of 6, 200 and 5, 000 vehicles respectively. Graham Street is shown in the Signal • Properties Traffic Study as having an ADT of 14, 500 vehicles. The Herman Kimmel Traffic Study shows an ADT of 12, 000 vehicles along Graham Street. If the Slater Aft 29 • Avenue extension is deleted from the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways between Graham Street and Bolsa Chica Street extension, the traffic that would move along this segment of Slater Avenue would ba redirected to Graham Street and Bolsa Chica Street. Under the Signal Properties Incorporated Traffic Study, the 6, 200 ADT vehicle trips ; would be redirected to Graham Street and Bolsa Chica Street. Though no analysis was made by Signal of the effect this deletion would have on these adjacent arterials, it is apparent from reviewing the study that it would have only minimal effect. The Herman Kimmel Traffic Study concluded that the 5, 000 ADT vehicle trips along Slater Avenue could be redirected to Graham Street and Bolsa Chica Street without great effect on the capacities along these arterials . Both the Signal Properties Incorporated Traffic Study and the Herman Kimmel Traffic Study were reviewed by the Plan- ning Department Staff in determining a recommended course of action. Also, the effect of deleting Slater Avenue was studied as it would relate to the Preliminary Circulation Plan to be made part of the Circulation Element. All in- dications point to deleting Slater Avenue west of Graham Street to Bolsa Chica Street as a secondary arterial. The traffic that has been projected along this section of Slater Avenue will be able to be dispersed along Bolsa Chica Street and Graham Street with only minimal effect. i 2. 7 . 3 Recommendation • The Planning Staff recommends deletion of Slater Avenue west of Graham Street and east of Bolsa Chica Street from the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways as a secondary arterial. 2. 8 Administrative Items • The two sites considered in this section have no designated land uses in the Phase I Land Use Element. 2. 8. 1 Northeast corner of McFadden Avenue and the San Diego Freeway • 30Ate, i 2. 8 . 1. 1 Background - - -The site is located at the eastern corner of the San Diego Freeway and the McFadden Avenue overpass (see Figure 2-11) . The site is 1/4 acre and is part of a mobile home park. . Present zoning is Rl. No Phase I Land Use Element desig- nation has been determined. To the west is the San Diego Freeway and McFadden Avenue. The northern boundary is formed by McFadden Avenue which buffers the site from single family homes (R1) . To the west is the City of Westminster and the majority of the mobile home parks. South of the subject property is the San Diego Freeway. 2. 8. 1 . 2 Analysis The site is presently part of an existing mobile home park. The mobile home park is developed at about 8 . 5 units U per acre. In keeping with the existing land use and the residential density designations of the Land Use Element, the subject property should be designated medium density residential . 2. 8. 1. 3 Recommendation This Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element proposes that the subject property be redesignated Medium Density Residential. 2. 8. 2 Southwest corner of Edinger Avenue and Newland Street 2 . 8 . 2. 1 Background The issue area encompasses approximately fifteen (15) acres of vacant land bounded by the San Diego Freeway and the City of Westminster (see Figure 2-12) . A large portion, approximately twelve (12) acres is presently desiqnated as part of the San Diego Freeway alignment. The remaining portion is designated for medium density residential uses. The allowable density range is 8-15 dwelling units per gross acre. The portion of the issue area designated as freeway right-of-way was previously intended to be the location of an interchange between the San Diego Freeway and the pro- posed Route 39 Freeway. Since the State of California has deleted the Route 39 Freeway from its plans, efforts have been made in previous Land Use Element Amendments to delete all established Route 39 Freeway rights-of-way. Alternative land use designations were assigned in other areas and the process should be continued in this issue area. Aft 31 i IWHITNEY DR. Q HARHAY AVE a I I i 4 t' 'S EVEREST CR. LED ON WAY NA W <�' co ROCKWELL i J Z —_ AVE O O J. Q c9 O i -r'-T--T-t- Z r- - O i H f _ DARWIN AVE LL O Q I V N , N cr, mc N AVE 5-11-Ml NSTEMO Kl �FFk MOBILE HONE -- cr I r L.. VACANT C4 '� - V DR. a I , AREA OF CONCERN 2.8.1 N. E. CORNER OF MC FADDEN AVENUE AND SAN DIEGO FREEWAY 32 Af am am Figure 2-11 ' 2. 8. 2 . 2 Analysis The issue area is currently zoned R3 which corresponds to high density residential development and has been recognized as a potential high density residential node. In fact, a 276 unit apartment complex has received r approval and has already been issued building permits. The project density is within the R3 range at 22 units per acre. Fourteen (14) acres of the site is being developed. One acre of the site at the southwest corner of Newland and Edinger is zoned for commercial use. The issue area is also located adjacent to the freeway and does have relatively good access to the freeway and major streets. Additionally, commercial and business centers are within several minutes drive. Finally, the location of other high density residential in the area make this area attractive for high density residential use. Since the area is no longer required for the Route 39 Freeway interchange and the City has permitted the development of the area with high density residential use, a change in land use designation is necessary. In addition, the smaller portion of the issue area that is presently designated medium density residential should also be changed. The General Plan land use category that appears 'to be the most logical is high density residential . This would allow development at densities above 15 .1 units per gross acre, accommodate the approved development and not create con= flicts with existing zoning. 2 . 8. 2. 3 Recommendation This Amendment proposes that the Phase I Land Use Element designate the subject property High Density Residential. 0 33 40 EDINGER AVE. (CITY OF WESTMINSTER) C= i R 3 s4 2 R3 N\�`O OR co Z J STARK AVE R 3 c� C2 FAZ oR. 77 °n a a z* 0 CITY OF WESTMINSTER G O HEIL AREA OF CONCERN 2.8.2 EDINGER AVENUE AND NEWLAND STREET 34 Aft IR P Figure 2-12 r • 3. 0 AIIENDMENT SUI-IMARY As explained in Section 1. 0 , the purpose of this part of the third amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element is to investigate areas of the City where changing conditions require reconsideration of past • decisions and to initiate several minor administrative adjustments. This section of the report compiles the recommendations developed in Section 2. 0 into a combined form for adoption. 3. 1 Scope of Amendment Adoption of this amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element consti- tutes approval of the Land Use Plans and added residential standards in the identified areas only. Adoption of the amendment will not affect any other area of the City. 3. 2 Residential Standards • Residential standards utilized in this amendment are those incorpor- ated in the first amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. These standards , which generally reduce residential densities , are out- lined in the first amendment report. Because they were adopted in that document, they need not be re-adopted at this time . With adoption of this amendment, however, the new densities will be applied Aft 35 IBM to the identified areas thus adding to the five planning units in which they are already used. 3. 3 Proposed Amendment 76-1B, Phase I Land Use Element 1. Northeast corner of Main Street and Huntington Street The 5 . 63 acre subject property should be designated Medium Density Residential (8-15 units per gross acre) in view of the marginal need . for office professional uses on the property. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Residential Medium Density 8-15 un/gac 7.57 Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Z Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Medium Density 7.57 x 15 = 114 x 2.39 = 272 i 2. Southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Beach Boulevard This 8. 66 acre site should be designated Medium Density Resi- dential (8-15 units per gross acre) in keeping with the surround- ing land uses , Planning Commission and City Council policy to reduce strip commercial and the marginal utility of commercial at this location. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Residential Medium Density 8-15 un/gac 10.04 . Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum 'Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population nS dium Density 10.04 x 15 = 151 x 2.39 = 361 36 • 3. Northeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Beach Boulevard The 7. 71 acre subject property should be designated Medium Density Residential (8-15 units per gross acre) in keeping with the sur- rounding land uses and the marginal utility of commercial at this location. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Residential Medium Density 8-15 un/gac 8.69 Projected Population residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Medium Density 8.69 x 15 = 130 x 2.39 = 311 4. Northeast corner of Clay Avenue and Florida Street r The 4 . 29 acre subject property should be designated Medium Density Residential (8-15 units per gross acre) in keeping with the sur- rounding land uses and the marginal utility of commercial/office uses at this location. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Residential Medium Density 8-15 un/gac 4.99 Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated ' Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Medium Density 4.99 x 15 = 75 x 2.39 = 179 37 5. Maguire Property/Huntington Harbor The 35. 85 acre subject property should be designated General Coriunercial (10. 93 acres) , Medium Density Residential (21. 33 acres) and Low Density Residential (3. 59 acres) in keeping with surrounding land uses. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Residential Low Density 0-7 un/gac 3.88 Medium Density 8-15 23.1 Commercial Retail 11.77 Total 38.75 Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated i Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Low Density 3.88 x 7 = 27 x 3.39 = 92 Medium Density 23.1 x 15 = 347 x 2.39 = 829 Total 921 6. Administrative changes a . McFadden Avenue and San Diego Freeway - This . 25 acre subject property has no land use designation and should indicate the present use of Medium Density Residential . Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Residential Medium Density 8-15 un/gac .61 38 r Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Medium Density .61 x 15 = 9 x 1.87 = 17 b. Edinger Avenue. and Newland Street - This 15 acre subject property has no land use designation due to the deletion of the Route 39 Freeway and should indicate the present and/or anticipated use of High Density Residential. • Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Residential High Density 16-35 un/gac 18.17 Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated `ripe Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population i Hick Density 18.17 x 35 = 636 x 1.87 = 1189 3. 4 Summary of Land Use and Population The following tables present a statistical summary of the proposals set forth in this amendment: Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres • Residential Low Density 0-7 un/gac 3.88 Medium Density 8-15 un/gac S5. High Density 16-35 un/gac 18.17 Commercial Retail 11.77 Total 88.82 39 • • • Projected Population Residential Gross Maximm Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Low Density 3.88 x 7 = 27 x 3.39 = 92_ Medium Density 55. x 15 = 825 x 2.39 = 1,972 High Density 18.17 x 35 = 636 x 1.87 = 1,189 Total 3,253 3. 5 Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways 1. Center Drive Center Drive east of Gothard Street should be ex- tended west to intersect with Beach Boulevard. Center Drive should also be upgraded from a local street to a secondary arterial classification and placed on. the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. 2 . Slater Avenue Extension s Slater Avenue west of Graham Street and east of the proposed Bolsa Chica Street extension should be deleted from the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways as a secondary arterial. The 4000 to 6000 ADT that has been projected along this • section of Slater Avenue will be redirected to Graham Street and the Bolsa Chica Street extension. • 4() Pan o;• � a /OEti poi qP O q�4; �O� yff, Sys 0& di��3 Z 9 .............. ... .... .. ........... ..... r... .. r,,,,...,..... -<... O 4 ♦ •.o VP ♦ ; cp 1101 .......,.. 'r0 g t ... .. ...� :.... .,�', �♦ ; /:.' e�,,,� ♦ PAP / \ -Iv r ryy� � �0 :./`y �... •fe. t` ;. !;:.J:�.3r�!." / . ♦` .av t �.�/%, +\ 0P N. : : a. �..:.........:�...,, -.. ...� ... i :tom r♦ ..,..:a:�:,a..:.a,;<::.::...c.;�a.::m....a�.::::..d;:�:::e,�;::.,.a::.x.,,,..:..::..... .,....:ea.�.•z... � ,�,�.t:::a;a;a,�.u:, '•W?;!A]in: �wx�n:::mva^:'�:::::'.vm`-• ••aw::.:::v,..:.::::.vwv.maa:n. LEGEND v�.' RESIDENTIAL HUNTINGTON BEACH 04LIFORNIA M Low Density 0-7 un/gac PROPOSED GENERAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT Medium Density 8-15 un/gac . . High Density above 15 un/gac PLAN AMENDMENT 76-IB COMMERCIAL Retail Secondary Arterial Street t f i l LEGEND FREE:WAY MAJOR 120' R/W I- I CENTER PRIMARY I00'R/W - DRIVE SECONDARY 80'R/W I NOTE SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING Riots' Of WAY !: NOT NECESSARLY ULTIMATE RIGHT Of WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO ' I f 1 RIONT OF WAY EXISTS ,- -�• .m. _.. i- ___.- .. 'I' =V11 SYMBOL DENOTES PHIMARv COUPLET H SLATER % j AVENUE ` - ��'�, DELETION 77, •� I 1 Jm • r` � i r- ' I MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1B 41 Figure 3-2 r 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4 . 1 Project Description The. proposed project is part B of the third amendment to .the Phase I Land Use Element of the General Plan prepared by the Advanced Planning Section of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Depart- ment. This amendment is designed to investigate specific areas where changing conditions require reconsideration of past decisions, and to establish land use policy accordingly. Another objective is to accomplish some minor administrative ad3ustments. The study areas, which in total cover 102 acres, are scattered throughout the City of Huntington Beach. All areas are shown in Figure 2-1. 46 4 . 1 . 1 . Main Street and Huntington Street 1. East of Huntington Street The subject property encompasses 7 . 69 acres and is bounded by Huntington Street on the west, apartments on the north, Delaware Street on the east and Main 42 Street on the south. The amendment proposes to change the office designation to medium density residential. 2 . West of Huntington Street The subject property encompasses 2 . 25 acres and is bounded by the Ferro Corporation on the west, vacant M2-0 on the north, Huntington Street on the east and Main Street on the south. The amendment proposes no change to the existing land use designations. 4 . 1. 2 East of Beach/South of Ellis Quarter Section �. 1. Southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Beach Boulevard The subject property encompasses 8 . 66 acres and is bounded by Beach Boulevard on the west, Town and Country Shopping Center on the north, apartments on the east, and apartments on the south. The amendment proposes to change the commercial designation to medium density residential. 2 . Northeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Beach Boulevard The subject property encompasses 7 . 71 acres and is bounded by Beach Boulevard on the west, vacant C4 on the north, apartments on the east and Garfield Avenue on the south. This amendment proposes to change the commercial designation to medium density residential. 4 . 1. 3 Northeast corner of Clay Avenue and Florida Street The subject property encompasses 4 .29 acres and is bounded by Florida Street on the west, vacant C2 on the north, a nursery and vacant C4 on the east and Clay Avenue on the south. The amendment proposes to change the commercial designation to medium density residential. 4 . 1 . 4 Northeast corner of Bolsa Chica Avenue and Pearce Street The subject property encompasses 9. 37 acres and is bounded by Bolsa Chica on the west, commercial and r apartments on the north, single family homes on the east and Pearce Street on the south. The amendment proposes no change to the existing land use designations. 4 . 1. 5 Maguire Property/Huntington Harbour • The subject property encompasses 35 acres and is bounded by Tentative Tract 5813 on the north, Harbor Afak 43 an Channel and Queen Elizabeth Passage on the east, Admiralty Drive on the south and the Pacific Coast Highway- on the west. The amendment proposes to change the- destination resort designation to commercial, medium and high, density residential. 4 . 1. 6 Center Drive The subject property is located north of Huntington Center between Gothard Avenue and Beach Boulevard. The amend- ment proposes extending Center Drive to Beach Boulevard and constructing a related off-ramp from the San Diego Freeway. 4 . 1. 7 Slater Avenue The subject property is located between Graham Street and the Bolsa Chica extension. The amendment proposes the deletion of this section of Slater Avenue. 4 . 1. 8 Administrative Items • 1 . Northeast corner of McFadden Avenue and San Diego Freeway. The subject property encompasses .25 acres and is bounded by McFadden Avenue and the San Diego Free- way on the north, south and west and by the City of Westminster on the east. The amendment proposes . designating the subject property medium density residential. 2 . The subject property encompasses 15 acres and is • bounded by the San Diego Freeway, Edinger Avenue and Newland Street. The amendment proposes designating the subject property high density residential. 4 . 2 . Environmental Setting and Impact • The proposed project is located in the City of Huntington Beach, which is a metropolitan area in a metropolitan county. As a re- sult the local and regional environments are primarily urban in character. 4 . 2 . 1 Main Street and Huntington Street ` This area of concern has been analyzed in the Planning Issues Section as two sites, East of Huntington Street and West of Huntington Street. The environmental assess- ment will be done in a similar manner. r 44 • 4. 2. 1. 1 Main Street and East of Huntington Street 1. Land Use/Demography The subject property is currently vacant and is zoned R3 and R5. The property to the west includes vacant M2-0 , vacant R5 , three older single family homes zoned R5 and the Ferro Corporation zoned M2-0. The • Land Use Element shows office professional and light industrial designations. - North of the subject property are apartments zoned R3 and designated medium density residential in the Land Use Element. Five Points Shopping Center is to the east and is zoned and designated C2 and • commercial retail. To the south is vacant R5, office professional zoned R5 and a service station zoned C2 . The Land Use Element designates the area office professional. The subject property is presently designated on the • Land Use Element as medium density residential and office professional. The medium density residential, which is zoned R3 , will remain medium density resi- dential. Consequently environmental setting and impacts will deal only with the property proposed to be redesignated from office professional to • medium density residential. The effect of the amendment will be to change . land use from office professional to medium density residential at 8-15 units per gross acre. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses and no signifi- cant effect is expected. A maximum of 84 dwelling units with an estimated population of 202 persons will be accommodated on the 5. 63 acres of residential land. Because of an over abundance of property designated commercial throughout the City, no significant affect is expected on the availability • of potential office professional property. 2 . Topography and Geology The subject property is on the Huntington Beach Mesa. The site topography is relatively level at an eleva- tion of about 50 feet above sea level. Ramona Fire Sandy-Loam and Ramona Sandy Loam dominate the surface with older alluvium constituting the sub-surface geology. The site is located within the Newport- Inglewood fault zone. The subject property is located south of the Bolsa-Fairview Fault and is subject only to nominal risk in an earthquake (the lowest problem level from a geotechnical point of view. Peak ground acceleration ranges between . 15 g and . 35g.' 45 • Medium density residential will have minimal affect on the nature landform. • 3. Water Resources The planning area is located within the Santa Ana River watershed. However, since it is located on the Huntington Beach Mesa, the planning area will not be subject to a regional flood hazard as desig: nated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The subject property is situated within a local flood hazard area as outlined by the City of Hunting- ton Beach Public Works Department. The site is not subject to ponding during heavy rains, but storm . water is conducted by sheet flow to nearby properties where topographic depressions exist and water col- lects. Drainage systems are currently inadequate to accommodate runoff. This situation will worsen in the future as the properties develop, decreasing ground percolation and increasing runoff potential. • However, the proposed change to a multiple-family residential designation will mean a fourfold decrease in potential runoff in comparison with storm runoff generated by office uses. Although relatively lessened by proposed land use changes, this does not forego the fact that runoff will increase after . development of the subject properties. The only adequate mitigation measure to the flood hazard is to implement the proposed Drainage Assessment District No. 73-02. 4 . Air Resources The City of Huntington Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin. Like other coastal cities, Huntington Beach experiences considerably less air pollution than inland cities. The daily sea breezes along the coast clear the skies by sweeping pollutants inland. The City' s relatively flat topography offers little resistance to this cleansing action. As a result of medium density residential development at the subject property, vehicle traffic would be the primary source of air emissions. The major emissions will include carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons , nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulates. The propsed medium density residential use will reduce daily vehicle miles on City streets by about 16, 000 miles compared to office professional uses. Vehicular emissions will be reduced 1. 11 tons a day as compared to office professional uses. Traffic emissions from the site would only increase + 46 total contaminant levels in the South Coast Air Basin by .004 percent as compared to . 031 percent • with office professional uses. 5 . Biological Resources Development of the project site in conformance with the proposed Medium Density Residential designation may result in the removal of all existing natural vegetation including some eucalyptus trees and the displacement or elimination of wildlife species. The low growth vegetation is typical of that in a Mediterranean climate. These species and associated wildlife species are presented in Section 2.4 of the Conservation Potentials Report. • 6. Human Interest Resources No known archaeological sites, paleontological sites, or historic landmarks exist at the site. No effect on these resources is expected. 7. Municipal Services and Utilities The Southern California Edison Company provides electricity to the area of the site. A medium density residential use on the site will consume approximately 480, 520 KWH per year or 391,003 KWH • per year less than an office professional use. The Southern California Gas Company provides gas service to the area of the project site. A medium density residential development would use 8 , 022 ,750 cubic feet of gas per year, or about . 01 percent • of the Gas Company' s capability. An office profes- sional use would need only 200, 428 cubic feet of gas per year. Water service to the area of the project site is provided by the Huntington Beach Water Department. • Using a rate of 147 gallons of water demand per person per day, the site' s future population will require a total of 29 , 694 gallons per day from the water source, or about . 13 percent of present usage in the City. The site will be served by an existing 10 inch water line along Ellis Avenue • and 'a 21 inch water line along Gothard Street. The Orange County Sanitation District, in cooperation with the City of Huntington Beach, provides sewer service to the area of the proposed site. The site will be served by a 21 inch sewer line along • Delaware Street. A medium density residential use Aft 47 • on the site will contribute about 23 ,836 gallons per day. • Solid waste pickup service for the project area is provided by Rainbow Disposal. Medium density resi- dential use of the site will produce 1, 111 pounds of waste or an increase of 689 pounds over an office- professional use. Police and fire protection are provided to the area of the project by the City of Huntington Beach. Based on the present manpower requirements of approximately one officer per 1,000 residents, the addition of 202 persons to the City may require . 2 additional police officers. The project site is within the standard two-mile or five-minute radius of fire service, and adverse effects are expected. The project site lies within the Huntington Beach Elementary School District for grades K-8 and the Huntington Beach Union High School District for grades 9-12 . The development of medium density residential will result in an additional 25 elementary school students and 8 high school students to these districts. The high schoolsin the local area are presently overcrowded, however, these conditions will be relieved with the development of a new high school at Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street. 8 . Economics Medium density residential development has a slightly positive impact on City revenues/expenditures and • a slightly negative impact on the school district. Both the City' s and the school district' s revenues/ expenditures are highly positively impacted by office professional uses. Therefore, this amendment negatively impacts potential City and school district revenues/expenditures. • 9. ' Traffic Circulation The project site is accessible from Main Street. The present traffic volume is 11,900 vehicles per day. Medium density residences will. add about 422 trips per day to Main Street. By contrast, office-professional uses would add 3 ,378 trips per day to Main Street. Therefore, medium density residential on the subject property will be a benefit to the City. 10. Acoustical Quality Traffic on Main Street will be the major source of noise in the project area. The medium sound level 48 lip 100 feet from Main Street is approximately 57 db(A) . Added vehicle traffic from the proposed residential use would increase noise levels to 57 . 5 db (A) , but below a potential office professional use figure of 58 . 5 db (A) . 4 . 2. 1. 2 Main Street and West of Huntington Street Since the proposed amendment recommends no change in the existing land use designations, no disposition is needed. Reasons for retaining the existing land use designations are presented in Section 2. 1. 2 . • 4 . 2 . 2 Quarter Section South of Ellis Avenue and East of Beach Boulevard This area of concern includes two properties under one major section heading because of the similarity of issues. However, they were analyzed separately in • separate subsections for purposes of clarity. In order to avoid a piecemeal assessment of the environmental affects of the proposed amendment, the properties will be considered together as one area of concern. 1. Land Use/Demography • The subject properties are currently vacant (except for an older single family home) and are zoned C4 . To the west, across Beach Boulevard, are automobile dealerships and other miscellaneous commercial establishments zoned C4 . The Land Use Element designates the area general commercial. To the north • is the Town and Country Shopping Center which is zoned C4 and designated general commercial. To the east are apartments zoned R3 and designated medium density residential. To the south is the Edison Maintenance Yard across Garfield Avenue along with some com- mercial use. Zoning is C4 and Ml, and the land use • designations are general commercial and public utility. Between the two properties are some apartments and commercial zoned R3 and C4 and designated medium density residential and general commercial. There is also some vacant land with oil uses zoned C4 and designated general commercial. • The effect of the amendment will be to change land use designations from general commercial to medium density residential at 8-15 units per gross acre. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses and no significant effect is expected. A • maximum of 246 dwelling units with an estimated population of 586 persons will be accommodated on the 16. 37 acres of residential land. Because of an Aft 49 an • over abundance of property designated commercial throughout the City, no significant affect is expected on the availability of potential commercial property. 2 . Topography and Geology The subject properties are on the Huntington Beach Mesa. The site topography is relatively level at an elevation of about 55 feet above sea level. Ramona Fire Sandy Loam and Ramona Sandy Loam dominate the surface, with older alluvium constituting the sub- surface geology. The site is located within the • Newport-Inglewood fault zone. The most northerly of these properties are crossed by the Bolsa-Fairview earthquake fault posing high seismic risk. The remaining property is subject only to normal seismic risk. Development in the high risk areas will be subject to stringent regulations under the Seismic- • Safety Element of the General Plan. Peak ground acceleration ranges between . 15g and . 35g. Medium density residential will have minimal affect on the natural landform. 3. Water Resources • The planning area is located within the Santa Ana River watershed. However, since it is located on the Huntington Beach Mesa, the planning area will not be subject a regional flood hazard as designated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The subject properties are situated within a local flood hazard area as outlined by the City of Hunting- ton Beach Public Works Department. The site is not subject to ponding during heavy rains, but storm water is conducted by sheet flow to nearby properties where topographic depressions exist and water collects. Drainage systems are currently inadequate to accom- modate runoff. This situation will worsen in the future as the properties develop, decreasing ground percolation and increasing runoff potential. However. , the proposed change to a multiple-family residential • designation will mean a fourfold decrease in potential runoff in comparison with storm runoff generated by commercial uses. • 50 • 4 . Air Resources • As a result of medium density residential development on the subject properties, vehicle traffic would be thel primary source of air emissions. The major emissions will include carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulates. The proposed medium density residential use will reduce daily • vehicle miles on City streets by about 14 , 800 miles compared to commercial uses. Vehicular emissions will be reduced 1. 01 tons a day as compared to commercial uses. Traffic emissions from the site would only increase total contaminant levels in the South Coast Air Basin by . 011 percent as compared to . 036 percent with commercial uses. 5. Biological Resources Development of the subject properties in conformance with the proposed medium density residential desig- nation may result in the removal of all existing natural vegetation including some eucalyptus trees and the displacement or elimination of wildlife species. The low growth vegetation is typical of that in a Mediterranean climate. These species and associated wildlife species are presented in Section • 2 . 4 of the Conservation Potentials Report. 6. Human Interest Resources No known archaeological sites, paleontological sites, or historic landmarks exist at the site. No effect on these resources is expected. 7. Municipal Services and Utilities The Southern California Edison Company provides • electricity to the area of the subject properties. A medium density residential use will consume ap- proximately 1,397 ,180 KWH per year of 1, 136,897 KWH per year less than a commercial use. The Southern California Gas Company provides gas • service to the area of the subject properties. A medium density residential development would use 23 , 328 , 150 cubic feet of gas per year, or about . 03 percent of the Gas Company' s capability. An office professional use would need only. 582 ,772 cubic feet of gas per year. Water service to the area of the subject properties is provided by the Huntington Beach Water Department. Aeak 51 • IFIP Using a rate of 147 gallons of water demand per person per day, the subject properties' future population will require a total of 86 ,142 gallons per day from the water source, or about . 38 percent of present usage in the City. The site will be served by an existing 10 inch water line along Ellis Avenue and a 12 inch water line along Garfield Avenue. The Orange County Sanitation District, in cooperation with the City of Huntington Beach, provides sewer service to the area of the subject properties. The subject properties will be served by a sewer line along Garfield which is 21 inches west of Beach Boulevard and 8 inches east of Beach Boulevard. A medium density residential use will contribute about 69, 148 gallons per day. Solid waste pickup service for the project area is provided by Rainbow Disposal. Medium density resi- dential use of the site will produce 3 ,223 pounds of waste or an increase of 1995 pounds over an office professional use. Police and fire protection are provided to the area of the project by the City of Huntington Beach. Based on the present manpower requirements of approximately one officer per 1, 000 residents, the addition of 586 persons to the City may require . 6 additional police officers. The project site is within the standard two-mile or five-minute radius of fire service, and adverse effects are expected. The project site lies within the Huntington Beach Elementary School District for grades K-8 and the Huntington Beach Union High School District for grades 9-12. The development of medium density residential will result in an additional 74 elementary school students and 25 high school students to these districts. The high schools in the local area are presently overcrowded, however, these conditions will be relieved with the development of a new high school at Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street. 8. Economics Medium density residential development has a slightly positive impact on City revenues/expenditures and a slightly negative impact on the school district. Both the City' s and the school district' s revenues/ex- penditures are highly positively impacted by com- mercial uses. Therefore, this amendment negatively • impacts potential City and school district revenues/ expenditures. 52 AeftL 9. Traffic Circulation The subject properties are accessible from Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue. The present traffic volumes are; Beach Boulevard - 27,600 vehicles per day, and Garfield Avenue - 8 ,300 vehicles per day. Medium density residences would add 650 vehicles per day to Beach Boulevard and 578 vehicles per day to Garfield Avenue. By contrast, commercial uses would add 2 , 078 vehicles per day to Beach Boulevard and 1,850 vehicles per day to Garfield Avenue. Therefore, medium density residential on the subject property will be a benefit to the City. 10. Acoustical Quality Traffic on Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue will be the major source of noise in the project area. The medium sound level 100 feet from Beach Boulevard is approximately 66 db (A) , and for Garfield Avenue 37db (A) . Added vehicle traffic from the proposed residential use would increase noise levels to 66. 5db (A) for Beach Boulevard and 37. 5db(A) for Garfield Avenue, but below potential commercial use figures of 67db (A) for Beach Boulevard and 38 . 5db(A) for Garfield Avenue. 4 . 2 . 3 Northeast Corner of Clay Avenue and Florida Street 1. Land Use/Demography The subject property is currently vacant and is zoned C2 and R5. The property to the west includes a church and apartments. They are zoned R2 and designated on the Land Use Element as medium density residential. The northern boundary is formed by vacant land zoned C2 and designated general commercial. To the east is a nursery and a proposed church. They are zoned C4 and designated general commercial. To the south are apartments zoned R3 and designated medium density commercial. The effect of the amendment will be to change Land Use Element designation from general commercial to medium density residential at 8-15 units per gross acre. The proposed use is compatible with sur- rounding land uses and no significant effect is expected. A maximum of 84 dwelling units with an estimated population of 154 persons will be accommodated on the 4. 29 acres of residential land. Because of an over abundance of property designated commercial throughout the City, no significant affect is expected on the availability of commercial property. 53 • 2 . Topography and Geology The subject property is on the Huntington Beach Mesa. The site topography is relatively level at an elevation of about 50 feet above sea level. Ramona Fine Sandy Loam and Ramona Sandy Loam dominate the surface, with • older alluvium constituting the sub-surface geology. The site is located within the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. The subject property is located on the Yorktown Avenue fault and is subject to high risk in an earthquake. Development in the high risk areas will be subject to stringent regulations under the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan. Peak ground acceleration ranges between . 15g and . 35g. Medium density residential will have minimal effect on the natural landform. 3. Water Resources The planning area is located within the Santa Ana River watershed. However, since it is located on the Huntington Beach Mesa, the planning area will not be subject to a regional flood hazard as designated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. • The subject property is situated within a local flood hazard area as outlined by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. The site is not subject to ponding during heavy rains but storm water is conducted by sheet flow to nearby properties . where topographic depressions exist and water col- lects. Drainage systems are currently inadequate to accommodate runoff. This situation will worsen in the future as the properties develop, decreasing ground percolation and invreasing runoff potential. However , the proposed change to a multiple-family • residential designation will mean a fourfold decrease in potential runoff in comparison with storm runoff generated by commercial and office uses. Although relatively lessened by proposed land use changes, this does not forego the fact that runoff will in- crease after development of the subject properties. The only adequate mitigation measure to the flood hazard is to implement the proposed Drainage Assess- _ ment District No. 73-02 . • 54 • 4. Air Resources As a result of medium density_ residential_ development at the subject .property, vehicle traff- would__be the primary source of air emissions. The major emissions will include carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulates. The proposal • medium density residential use will reduce daily vehicle miles on City streets by about 14 , 500 miles compared to commercial and office professional uses. Vehicular emissions will be reduced . 99 tons a day as compared to commercial and office professional uses. Traffice emissions from the site would only increase • total contaminant levels in the South Coast Air Basin by . 003 percent as compared to . 027 percent with commercial and office professional uses. 5. Biological Resources • Evelopment of the project site in conformance with the proposed Medium Density Residential designation may result in the removal of all existing natural vege- tation including some eucalyptus trees and the dis- placement or elimination of wildlife species. The low growth vegetation is typical of that in a Mediterranean climate. These species and associated wildlife species are presented in Section 2 . 4 of the Conservation Potentials Report. 6. Human Interest Resources • No' known archaeological sites, paleontological sites, or historic landmarks exist at the site. No effect on these resources is expected. 7 . Municipal Services and Utilities The Southern California Edison Company provides • electricity to the area of the site. A medium density residential use on the site will consume approximately 366, 151 KWH per year or 297 , 941 KWH per year less than an office professional and commercial use. ' The Southern California Gas Company provides gas service to the area of the project site. A medium density residential development would use 6,113 ,250 cubic feet of gas per year, or about . 008 percent of the Gas Company' s capability. An office profes- sional and commercial use would need only 152 ,724 cubic feet of gas per year. • Aft - 55 • • Water service to the area of the project site is provided by the Huntington Beach Water Department. • Using a rate of 147 gallons of water demand per person per day, the site' s future population will require a total of 22 , 638 gallons per day from the water source, or about . 1 percent of present usage in the City. The site will be served by an existing 14 inch water line along Clay Avenue. The Orange County Sanitation District, in cooperation with the City of Huntington Beach, provides sewer service to the area of the proposed site. The site will be served by a 21 inch sewer line along Garfield Avenue. A medium density residential use on the site will contribute about 18, 172 gallons per day. Solid waste pickup service for the project area is provided by Rainbow Disposal. Medium density resi- dential use of the site will produce 847 pounds of waste or an increase of 525 pounds over office professional and commercial uses. Police and fire protection are provided to the area of the project by the City of Huntington Beach. Based on the present manpower requirements of ap- proximately one officer per 1, 000 residents, the • addition of 154 persons to the City may require . 2 additional police officers. The project site is within the standard two-mile or five-minute radius of fire service, and adverse effects are expected. The project site lies within the Huntington Beach • Elementary School District for grades K-8 and the Huntington Beach Union High School District for grades 9-12 . The development of medium density residential will result in an additional 19 elementary school students and 6 high school students to these districts. The high schools in the local area are presently over- • crowded, however, these conditions will be relieved with the development of a new high school at Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street. 8. Economics Medium density residential development has a slightly • positive impact on City revenue/expenditures and a slightly negative impact on the school district. Both the City' s and the school district' s revenue/ expenditure are highly positively impacted by com- mercial and office professional uses. Therefore , this amendment negatively impacts potential City and school • district revenues/expenditures. 56 Aft • • 9. Traffic Circulation The subject properties are accessible from Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue. The present traffic volumes are: Beach Boulevard - 24, 000 vehicles per day, and Garfield Avenue - 4000 vehicles per day. Medium density residences would add 172 vehicles per day to Beach Boulevard and 150 vehicles per day to Garfield Avenue. By contrast, commercial and office professional uses would add 1650 vehicles per day to Beach Boulevard and 1400 vehicles per day to Garfield Avenue. Therefore, medium density residential on the subject property will be a benefit to the City. 10. Acoustical Quality Traffic on Beach Boulevard will be the major 'source of noise in the project area. The median sound level 100 feet from Beach Boulevard is approximately 63dB (A) . Added vehicle traffic from the proposed residential use would increase noise levels to 63. 01 dB(A) on Beach Boulevard, but below the potential commercial and office professional use figure of 63. 1 dB (A) . • 4. 2. 4 Pearce & Bolsa Chica Area Since the proposed amendment recommends no change in the existing land use designations, no disposition is needed. Reasons for retaining the existing land use designations are presented in Section 2 . 4. • 4. 2. 5 Maguire Property/Huntington Harbour An environmental assessment of the subject property is contained in Environmental Impact Report 75-1. The Environmental Impact Report was adopted by the Environ- mental Review Board on December 9, 1975. There are no substantial changes proposed in the amendment to involve new environmental impacts not considered in the original Environmental Impact Report. 4. 2. 6 Center Drive • An environmental assessment of the subject property is contained in Negative Declaration 75-76. There are no substantial changes proposed in the amendment to involve new environmental impacts not considered in the original Environmental Impact Report. 57 • lip 4. 2. 7 Slater Avenue An environmental assessment of the subject property is contained in Environmental Impact Report 73-26. The Environmental Impact Report was approved July 2, 1974. There are no substantial changes proposed in the amend- ment to involve new environmental impacts not considered in the original Environmental Impact Report 4 . 2 . 8 Administrative Changes 1. West corner of McFadden Avenue and the San Diego Freeway. • This action involves determining a land use desig- nation for an area which has been overlooked in the Phase I Land Use Element. Since the existing or anticipated use will not be affected no significant environmental impacts are expected and no disposition • is needed. 2. South of Edinger Avenue, West of Newland Street This action involves determining a land use desig- nation for an area which has been overlooked in the • Phase I Land Use Element. Sincelthe existing or anticipated use will not be affected no significant environmental impacts are expected and no disposition is needed. 4 . 3 Summary and Mitigation Measures • 4. 3. 1 Land Use/Demography The total effect of the Land Use Amendment will be to reduce potential intensity of commercial and office activities and increase residential densities in the • areas of concern. Since the commercial and office uses potentially increase congestion problems more than medium density residential uses and an existing over abundance of commercial property attracts marginal businesses, the redesignation to medium density residential uses is in effect a mitigating measure. 4 . 3. 2 Topography and Geology Grading associated with development in conformance with the proposed changes of the Land Use Amendment will not significantly alter landforms in the City. In all 58 Aft • 1 1 • grading, water should be us'ed '�to ensure required compac- tion, and surfaces should be s1,oped slightly to direct storm runoff toward planned dri;tnage systems. Most of the study area3 lie wit-,in the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. Implement,��tion of ,pplicable building stand- ards and appropriate st'�cuctural ;lesign which considers area seismicity shoulc rnihimize t>otential hazards associated with seisrr:ic activit} . 4 . 3 . 3 Water Resources The planning areas Wiest iZ)f Beach'�Boulevard are located • within a local floci3 hazard area.+ . The proposed land use change from commer- ial/office to multiple-family resi- dential use mitiga 'es tl'is problem somewhat by reducing the relative stormi runoff potential. .. Regardless of land use designation, however, the properties will generate in- creased runoff or;ce developed. The only effective miti- gation measure will be to implement the Drainage Assess- ment District No. 73-02. 4. 3. 4 Air Resources • The short-term effects on air quality due to construction activity in the study areas should be diminished by compliance with ordinances requiring watering for dust control and proper emission control devices on machinery. The long-term effect on air quality due to increased traffic, generation will be mitigated by the proposed land use changes . Fewer trips will be generated by the multiple-family residential uses, and air emissions will consequently be less. 4. 3 .5 Biological Resources • The development of all study areas will adversely affect natural vegetation and wildlife . These effects can be mitigated by requiring landscaping that is conducive to encouraging the return of some displaced wildlife species to the original site as well as encouraging the entrance of new species to the area. 4. 3. 6 Human Interest Resources Development at all study sites will not affect archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources. • Afftl 59 • • 4 . 3. 7 Municipal Services and Utilities Development of all properties will have an unavoidable • adverse effect on the demand for energy resources, public utilities, and community services. The quality of developments and the maximum conservation of energy will be insured by the use of building • materials and techniques for this purpose. Energy con- servation techniques normally utilized in building design include: double wall insulation, ceiling insulation, large roof overhangs, and use of fluorescent lighting rather than incandescent where practical. In addition, consideration should be given to the following energy conservation measures: elimination of natural gas fire- places, elimination of air conditioning, installation of solar panels or skylights where practical, orientation of buildings on north-south axis when practical in order to maximize east-west exposure to solar heat, and planting of deciduous trees to provide summer shade and permit maximum winter exposure to sun. The adverse effect resulting from the need of more law enforcement officers and the generation of additional students is unavoidable but minor. • 4. 3 . 8 Economics Fiscal costs and benefits for development as proposed by General Plan Amendment 76-1B and development according to existing land use designations are summarized in Figure 4-1. The costs and revenues are presented in • 1973 dollars as they apply to the City of Huntington Beach and the local school districts. The cost revenue analysis is based on the findings of a Planning Department Special Study entitled Revenue/Expenditures Analysis of Land Uses, October, 1973. Although the 1973 figures do not reflect the inflation that has occurred between • 1973 and the present, the figures do provide a basis for comparison by .which the fiscal impacts of General Plan Amendment 76-1B can be evaluated. Development according to the existing land use designa- tions will generate a net surplus on an annual basis for • the City and the local school districts of $102 ,996 and $84, 385 , respectively. Development as proposed by General Plan Amendment 76-1B will generate an annual net surplus for the City of $67 ,280 and an annual net deficit of $49, 559 for the local school districts. • 60 • in thousands of dollars • 120 100 • 80 60 40 20 0 20 • 40 Existing General Plan 60 Land Use Designations Amendment 76-1B City ® School District • 61 Figure 4-1 COMPARISON OF NET GAIN OR LOSS PER YEAR huntington beach planning department • • Consequently, General Plan Amendment 76-1B will reduce the annual revenue received by the City and the • local school districts. This decrease in revenue is due to an increase in acreage devoted to residential uses and a decrease in acreage devoted to commercial uses which are generally the high revenue generators. 4. 3. 9 Traffic Circulation The proposed changes in land uses will reduce the amount of trip ends generated and will result in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled as opposed to the existing desig- nated land uses. However, the extension of Center Drive east to intersect with Beach Boulevard, and the con- struction of the proposed on/off ramp from the San Diego Freeway will cause an increase of Vehicles Miles Traveled in the immediate area of Center Drive between Gothard Street and Beach Boulevard. The following is a comparison between existing land uses and the proposed land uses as outlined in this Amendment as they relate to trip ends and Vehicle Miles Traveled. _Ixisting Land Uses " Residential Gross Acres Ttip Ends Vehicle Miles Traveled Low @ 7 units 3.84 155 1550 • Medium .@ 15 units 23.39 1754 17540 High @ 25 units 14.0 2520 25200 Commercial General 29.25 11700 93600 Office Professional 6.91 2769 22152 • Sub Total 18898 160042 Arterial Streets Center Drive 5.5 6500 78000 Total 25398 238042 VMT • Proposed Land Uses Residential Low @ 7 units 3.59 143 1430 Medium @ 15 units 47.87 3590 35900 • High @ 35 units 15.0 2700 27000 Commercial General 10.93 4372 34976 Sub Total 10805 99306 Arterial Streets • Center Drive 5.5 12100 145200 Total 22905 244506 VMI' 62 A!Wk • 4. 3. 10 Acoustical Quality In most of the study areas, normal construction practices and the inclusion of wall insulation per City standards will reduce noise levels to less than the required minimum. The subject properties in the quarter section south of Ellis Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard, and the • subject property in Huntington Harbour will be adjacent to high noise levels from large traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard and the Pacific Coast Highway, respectively. As a result, a block wall may be necessary to reduce noise to acceptable levels. In addition, it is recommended that no two story units be allowed along either arterial. 4 . 3 . 11 Population The proposed amendment will increase ultimate population in the areas of concern by 868 persons. Population den- sity will increase but will be partially mitigated by • development of a park site at Delaware Street and York- town Avenue. A further possible mitigating measure would be the construction of planned unit developments with appropriate open space. PROJECTED POPULATION Increase at Ultimate Development Area of Concern Existing Proposed 1. Northeast corner of 74 201 Main Street and Huntington Street 2 . Southeast corner of Ellis 0 311 Avenue and Beach Boulevard 3 . Northeast corner of Garfield 0 277 Avenue and Beach Boulevard 4 . Northeast corner of Clay 0 153 Avenue and Florida Street 5 . Maguire property/Huntington 850 850 Harbour 6 . Administrative changes 989 989 TOTAL 1, 913 2 ,781 IMF 63 F) ADDENDUM GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1B (Addendum to Sections 2. 2. 1, 3. 3. (2) , 3. 4, 4. 2. 2, 4. 3. 9, and 4. 3. 11) . . . .Delete Section 2 .2.1 , replace with: 2.2.1 Southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Beach Boulevard (1) Background Information - At the Planning Commission meeting of March 2, 1976 this area was reviewed a second time in response to City Council direction. This addendum is a result of the Planning Commission action taken at said meeting. The property is located approximately 620 feet south of the southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Beach Boulevard (See Figure 2-3) . A request to amend the present general plan designation to medium density residential was received December 5 , 1975. Of the 10. 04 acre site, only 5 acres is requested to be amended. The site is vacant except for an older single family home. Present zoning is C4 , Highway Commercial. The Phase I Land Use Element, as amended, designates the site general commercial. Land uses to the west include the remaining 5 . 04 acres of C4 and across Beach Boulevard are automobile dealerships and a car wash. The Town and Country Shopping Center is directly to the north of the subject area. The eastern boundary of the site abuts apartments (R3) . Directly south is another strip of apartments (R3 and C4) buffering the site from commercial (C4) and more apartments (R3) . This area was addressed in the first Amendment to the Phase_ I Land Use Element. The issue to be resolved concerned whether the site would be desig- nated medium density residential or general commer- cial. Among the many problems considered, the foremost was the designation of general commercial for the entire 10. 04 acres. Since it appeared very probable that only the frontage would be developed as commercial, the remaining land would be useful for only mutiple family residential development. However, a land use designation of general commercial was adopted. 1 , r e f •r ' •• • • �� �Neiy (2) Analysis - The problem cited above has emerged. The property owner requested a General Plan amendment to redesignate the 5 acre rear section of the 10. 04 acre site medium density residential (See Figure 2-3) and to leave the 5. 04 acre section fronting on Beach Boulevard as general commercial. Both commercial and medium density residential (or a combination thereof) are compatible with the surrounding land uses. Therefore, in order to determine the best use for the site, open space needs should be considered. In the March, 1975, Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element, open space needs for the quarter section bounded by Ellis Avenue, Newland Street, Garfield Avenue, and Beach Boulevard were estimated to be 3. 87 acres at ultimate development. Since a park of two acres is proposed, the net ultimate open space deficiency will be 1. 87 acres. The proposed Yorktown Community Park would have mitigated to some extent this deficiency, however, it has since been reduced in size and scope by an amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. More residential development will create an even greater open space deficiency. Under such circumstances further residential development should be planned develop- ments and include open space to mitigate the increased open space deficiency. Since planned developments of 5 acres or less have been constructed in the general area, such a development can be considered feasible on the site in question. (3) Recommendation - This amendment proposes that the 5 acres requested to be amended to medium density residential be designated Medium Density Residential. . . . .Delete Section 3. 3. (2) , replace with: 3. 3. (2) Southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Beach Boulevard This 5 acre site should be designated Medium Density Resi- dential (8-15 units per gross acre) in keeping with the surrounding land uses. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Residential Medium Density 8-15 un/gac 5 Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Medium Density 5 x 15 = 75 x 2.39 = 179 . . . .Delete Section 3. 4, replace with: 3. 4 Summary of Land Use and Population The following tables present a statistical summary of the proposals set forth in this amendment: Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Residential Low Density 0-7 un/gac 3. 88 Medium Density 8-15 un/gac 49. 96 High Density 16-35 un/gac 18. 17 Commercial Retail 11. 77 Total 83. 78 Projected Population Residential Goss Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Low Density 3.88 x 7 = 27 x 3.39 = 92 Medium Density 49.96 x 15 = 749 x 2.39 = 1,790 High Density 18.17 x 35 = 636 x 1.87 - 11189 Total 3,071 . . . .Delete Section 4. 2. 2, replace with: 4. 2. 2 Quarter Section South of Ellis Avenue and East of Beach Boulevard This area of concern includes two properties under one major section heading because of the similarity of issues. However, they were analyzed separately in separate subsections for purposes of clarity. In order to avoid a piecemeal assessment of the environmental affects of the proposed amendment, the properties will - be considered together as one area of concern. 1. Land Use/Demography The subject properties are currently vacant (except for an older single family home) and are zoned C4. To the west, across Beach Boulevard, are automobile dealerships and other miscellaneous commercial establishments zoned C4. The Land Use Element designates the area general commercial. To the north is the Town and Country Shopping Center which is zoned C4 and designated general commercial. To the east are apartments zoned R3 and designated medium density residential. To the south is the Edison Maintenance Yard across Garfield Avenue along with some commercial use. Zoning is C4 and Ml, and the designations are general commercial and public utility. Between the two properties are some apart- ments and commercial zoned R3 and C4 and designated medium density residential and general commercial. There is also some vacant land with oil uses zoned C4 and designated general commercial. The effect of the amendment will be to change land use designations from general commercial to medium density residential at 8-15 units per gross acre. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses and no significant effect is expected. A maximum of 205 dwelling units with an estimated population of 490 persons will be accommodated on the 13. 69 acres of residential land. Because of excess property designated commercial throughout the City, no significant affect is expected on the availability of potential commercial property. 2. Topography and Geology The subject properties are on the Huntington Beach Mesa. The site topography is relatively level at an elevation of about 55 feet above sea level. Ramona Fine Sandy Loam and Ramona Sandy Loam dominate the surface, with older alluvium constituting the sub- surface geology. The site is located within the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. The most northerly of these properties are crossed by the Bolsa-Fairview earthquake fault posing high seismic risk. The remaining property is subject only to normal seismic risk. Development in the high risk areas will be subject to stringent regulations under the Seismic- Safety Element of the General Plan. Peak ground acceleration ranges between . 15g and . 35g. Medium density residential will have minimal affect on the natural landform. 3. Water Resources The planning area is located within the Santa Ana River watershed. However, since it is located on the Huntington Beach Mesa, the planning area will not be subject a regional flood hazard as designates by the U.S . Army Corps of Engineers. The subject properties are situated within a local flood hazard area as outlined by the City of Hunting- ton Beach Public Works Department. The site is not subject to ponding during heavy rains, but storm water is conducted by sheet flow to nearby properties where topographic depressions exist and water collects. Drainage systems are currently inadequate to accom- modate runoff. This situation will worsen in the future as the properties develop, decreasing ground percolation and increasing runoff potential. However, the proposed change to a multiple-family residential designation will mean a fourfold decrease in potential runoff in comparison with storm runoff generated by commercial uses. 4. Air Resources As a result of medium.density residential development on the subject properties, vehicle traffic would be the primary source of air emissions. - The major emissions will include carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulates. The proposed medium density residential use will reduce daily vehicle miles on City streets by about 12, 373 miles compared to commercial uses. Vehicular emission will be reduced . 84 tons a day as compared to commercial uses. Traffic emissions from the site would only increase total contaminant levels in the South Coast Air Basin by . 009 percent as compared to . 030 percent with commercial uses. 5. Biological Resources Development of the subject properties in conformance with the proposed medium density residential designa- tion may result in the removal of all existing natural vegetation including some eucalyptus trees and the displacement or elimination of wildlife species. The low growth vegetation is typical of that in a Mediterranean climate. These species and associated wildlife species are presented in Section 2.4 of the Conservation Potentials Report. 6. Human Interes.t_ Resources. No known archaeological sites, paleontological sites or historic landmarks exist at the site. No effect on these resources is expected. 7. Municipal Services and Utilities The Southern California Edison Company provides electricity to the area of the subject properties. A medium density residential use will consume ap- proximately 1,168, 042 KWH per year of 950, 466 KWH per year less than a commercial use. The Southern California Gas Company provides gas service to the area of the subject properties. A medium density residential development would use 19, 502, 333 cubic feet of gas per year, or about . 025 percent of the Gas Company' s capability. An office professional use would need only 487, 197 cubic feet of gas per year. Water service to the area of the subject properties is provided by the Huntington Beach Water Department. Using a rate of 147 gallons of water demand per person per day, the subject properties' future population will require a total of 72, 015 gallons : per day from the water source, or about . 32 percent of present usage in the City. The site will be served by an existing 10 inch water line along Ellis Avenue and a 12 inch water line along Garfield Avenue. The Orange County Sanitation District, in cooperation with the City of Huntington Beach, provides sewer service to the area of the subject properties. The subject properties will be served by a sewer line along Garfield which is 21 inches west of Beach Boulevard and 8 inches east of Beach Boulevard. A medium density residential use will contribute about 57 , 808 gallons per day. Police and fire protection are provided to the area of the project by the City of Huntington Beach. Based on the present manpower requirements of approxi- mately one officer per 1, 000 residents, the addition of 490 persons to the City may require . 5 additional police officers. The project site is within the standard two-mile or five-minute radius of fire service, and adverse effects are expected. The project site lies within the Huntington Beach Elementary School District for grades K-8 and the Huntington Beach Union High School District for grades 9-12. The development of medium density residential will result in an additional 62 elementary school students and 21 high school students to these districts. The high schools in the local area are presently overcrowded, however, 'these conditions will be relieved with the development of_ -_ ew high school at Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street. 8. Economics Medium density residential development has a slightly positive impact on City revenues/expenditures and a slightly negative impact on the school district. Both the City' s and the school district's revenues/ex- penditures are highly positively impacted by commercial uses. Therefore, this amendment negatively impacts potential City and school district revenues/expendi- tures.. 9. Traffic Circulation The subject properties are accessible from Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue. The present traffic volumes are; Beach Boulevard - 27, 600 vehicles per day, and Garfield Avenue - 8, 300 vehicles per day. Medium density ,residences would add 543 vehicles per day to Beach Boulevard and 483 vehicles per day to Garfield Avenue. By contrast, commercial uses would add 1, 737 vehicles per day to Beach Boulevard and 1, 547 vehicles per day to Garfield Avenue. Therefore, medium density residential on the subject property will be a benefit to the City. 10. Acoustical Quality Traffic on Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue will be the major source of noise in the project area. The medium sound level 100 feet from Beach Boulevard is approximately 66 db (A) , and for Garfield Avenue 37 db(A) . Added vehicle traffic from the proposed residential use would increase noise levels to 66. 3 db (A) for Beach Boulevard and 37. 3 db (A) for Garfield Avenue, but below potential commercial use figures of 66. 8 db (A) for Beach Boulevard and 38. 2 db (A) for Garfield Avenue. . . . .Delete Section 4. 3. 9, replace with: 4. 3. 9 Traffic Circulation The proposed changes in land uses will reduce the amount of trip ends generated and will result in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled as opposed to the existing desig- nated land uses. However, the extension of Center Drive east to intersect with Beach Boulevard, and the construc- tion of the proposed on/off ramp from the San Diego Freeway will cause an increase of Vehicles Miles Traveled in the immediate area of Center Drive between Gothard Street and Beach Boulevard. The following is a compari- son between existing land uses and the proposed land uses as outlined in this Amendment as they relate to trip ends and Vehicle Miles Traveled. Existing Land Uses Residential Gross Acres Trip Ends Vehicle Miles Traveled Law @ 7 units 3.84 155 1550 Medium @ 15 units 23.39 1754 17540 High @ 25 units 14.0 2520 25200 Commercial General 25.59 10236 81891 Office Professional 6.91 2769 22152 Sub Zbtal 17434 148333 Arterial Streets Center Drive 5.5 6500 78000 Zbtal 23934 226333 WIT Proposed Land Uses Residential Low @ 7 units 3.59 143 1430 Medium @ 15 units 44.21 3315 33150 High @ 35 units 15.0 2700 27000 1 Commercial General 10.93 4372 34976 Sub Total 10530 96556 Arterial Streets Center Drive 5.5 12100 145200 Total 22630 241756 VMT . . . .Delete Section 4.3.11, replace with: 11 Population The proposed amendment will increase ultimate population in the areas of concern by 736 persons . Population density will increase but will be partially mitigated by develop- ment of a park site at Delaware Street and Yorktown Avenue. A further possible mitigating measure would be the construction of planned unit developments with appropriate open space. PROJECTED POPULATION Increase at Ultimate Development Area of Concern Existing Proposed 1. Northeast corner of 74 201 Main Street and Huntington Street 2. Southeast corner of Ellis 0 179 Avenue and Beach Boulevard 3. Northeast corner of Garfield 0 277 Avenue and Beach Boulevard 4. Northeast corner of Clay 0 153 Avenue and Florida Street 5. Maguire property/Huntington 850 850 Harbour 6 . Administrative changes 989 989 TOTAL 1, 913 2 , 649 fr� 1[CVISED " GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76A PORT A: DOWNTOWN PLANNING AREA mcrch , 1976 huntingTon beach planning department �. i �t TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Ti.itle Page 1. 0 Introduction 1 1. 1 Intent and Purpose 1 1. 2 Authority and Scope 3 _ 1. 3 Background 5 2. 0 Summary of Planning Issues* 2.1 General Issues 2. 2 Specific Issues 3. 0 Market Forecast Summary* 3. 1 Population 3. 2 Market Analysis of Land Use Potential 4. 0 Alternative Development Concepts * 4. 1 The Destination Resort Concept 4. 2 The Regional Point of Interest Concept 4. 3 The Seasonal Beach Community Concept 4. 4 The Modified Destination Resort Concept 5. 0 Analysis of Alternative Concepts * 5. 1 City Goals and Policies 5. 2 Market Potential 5. 3 Economic Commitments 5. 4 Significant Environmental Impacts 5. 5 Traffic Impacts 5. 6 Cost-Revenue Impacts 5. 7 Coastal Plan 5. 8 Park Needs 6. 0 Amendment Summary _3 6.1 Goals and Policies 7 . 6. 2 The Plan 10 6. 3 Summary of Land Use and Population 14 7. 0 Environmental Assessment Amendment 17 7 1 ______Envy -onmerLtal—I pacts and Mitigating Measures_. 17 * See corresponding section of Downtown Planning Study: Draft Report. +1.0 INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Intent and Purpose As the fourth document in the transition from the Master Plan of Land Use to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, General Plan Amendment 76-1A is a significant step toward the new direction for Huntington Beach established in the Phase I Land Use Element and subsequent amendments. General Plan Amendment 76-1A was revised by the Planning Commission on March 2, 1976. The revised amendment incorporates Project Area Committee recommendations dated February 27 , 1976 and subsequent changes by the Planning Commission. The amendment presented in this document is a transitional step which is intended to provide a land use policy guide for Down- town Huntington Beach. It is intended that this amendment replace the planning unit designation presently in effect in the majority of this area. While the Destination Resort designation attempts to affect development similar to that proposed in Amendment 76-1A, the amendment more closely defines appropriate land uses. This amendment addresses the location, relationships and extent of the residential, hotel and motel, retail and specialty commercial, office, and public uses allowed under the Destination Resort category. Amendment 76-1A also addresses the changes to the Master Plan of Streets and Arterial 1 Highways that are necessary to support the proposed land uses. This amendment, in addition to a proposal continued in General Plan Amendment 76-lB,will allow the deletion of Destination Resort from the Phase I Land Use Element. It is anticipated that one more document will be necessary to complete the transition of the Land Use Element to the "new direction" . A draft of the Phase II Land Use Element has been presented to the Planning Commission but is currently being revised. The timeliness of the Downtown Planning effort plus requests from property owners for additional amendments necessitated the development of General Plan Amendment 76-1A and General Plan Amendment 76-1B. It should be noted, however, that even with the adoption of the Phase II Land Use Element, the Land Use Element will still be subject to continuous scrutiny and where justified, amended. 1. 2 Authority and Scope 1.2. 1 Authority per C. I.R. Guidelines Although the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive policy document, it must be periodically updated to meet new conditions and from time to time revised or ampli- fied to respond to unforeseen changes or needs. The plan is, therefore, subject to amendment to reflect changes in goals, policies and physical, social or economic conditions. Some changes may be minor and not require changes in other parts of the plan. All proposed changes, however, should be evaluated in regard to environmental impact and consistency with the balance of the document. An environmental impact analysis has been prepared and is contained in a separate document entitled General Plan Amendment 76-1A: Environmental Assessment. It is amended in Section 7.0 of.this document. Section 65361 restricts the number of times per year that the mandatory elements of the General Plan can be amended. "No mandatory element of a General Plan shall be amended more frequently than three times during any calendar year. . . " This provision does not apply to adding new elements to the General Plan. Local agencies can amend the General Plan by adding new plan elements as often as desired. For example, noise, seismic safety and safety elements may be adopted during the calendar year and this will not constitute an action under Section 65361. Plan elements which are not required in the planning law (e.g. , urban design, specific area plans, public buildings, etc. ) but may be of community interest can be amended to the General Plan as often as desired. This procedure only affects proposals to change existing mandatory General Plan Elements. This requirement became effective on January 1, 1974. 2 Section 65862 requires that a two-week period of time be provided between the adoption or amendment of the General - Plan and proposal for a rezoning. for the purpose of bringing zoning into consist- ency with the General Plan. This prohibits concurrent action to amend the General Plan and the zoning ordinance at the same meeting. The two processes have been sepa- rated in order to strengthen the General Plan as a policy document and the zoning ordinance as an imple- menting device. This requirement also became effective on January 1, 1974 . 1. 2. 2 Scope of Amendment The Amendment presented in this document consists of the -following major points: :N. Identification of planning issues. B. A summary of market forecasts for the various land uses proposed. C. A description of four alternative land use concepts proposed for Downtown Huntington Beach. D. An analysis of the alternative concepts including their impacts on City goals and policies, market potentials, economic commitments, significant environmental features, circulation, City costs and revenues, the Coastal Plan, and park facilities. E. A description of the land use pattern, including text and a diagram or other graphic representation such as a map. In order to avoid repitition of analysis that has been presented in the Downtown Planning Study: Draft Report, several sections of the Amendment document are merely referenced. Specifically. these sections as noted in the Table of Contents are: 2 . 0 Summary of Planning Issues, 3. 0 Market Forecast Summary, 4. 0 Alternative Development Concepts and 5. 0 Analysis of Alternative Developments. It is, therefore, necessary to consult the Downtown Planning Study: Draft Report for the background information leading up to the recommen- dations contained in the remainder of this report. 3 �....... ...... �,a 91► .........;...................... _.. .................................................................:........ ._..._. ................i}#jf SLAM O �' WAM �. :......�. ............_...........". ...... ... , , to SWAFfte \ ,Y........' ............... IOYIf01M1 Assm �. . wuMras HAASTON .AN..b - 0 •I . t•t 7 Fib 1-1 PLANNING AREA LOCATION huntirQton beach plonnlrQ department 4 1.2. 3 Planning Area Boundaries The area under consideration in Amendment 76-1A contains approximately 443 acres and includes the business district in the vicinity of the municipal pier, the surrounding residential area, the portion of the Town- lot fronting on Pacific Coast Highway and the largely undeveloped area east of Lake Street and west of Beach Boulevard. The precise boundaries of the Planning Area are: The Pacific Ocean, Goldenwest Street, Walnut Avenue, Alley between Seventh and Eighth Streets, Palm Avenue, Alabama Street, Chicago Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Figure 1-1 delineates the Planning Area. 1. 3 Background Over the past several years a variety of development plans and proposals have been prepared for Downtown Huntington Beach. The first significant effort to upgrade the Downtown began in 1965 when the City called in a task force from the Urban Land Institute to assess the City and make recommendations on the future direction to be followed. The ULI study concluded that the City's economic future lay in developing the ocean front and revitalizing Downtown. Soon after completion of the ULI study, the City began developing plans and making improvements in the beach front area. The result was the adoption of the Top-of-Pier plan in late 1969. One of the top priority projects in this plan was to add 32 acres of existing parking facilities. As detailed plans were formulated, support for the parking expansion died and so did the Top-of-Pier plan. The next proposal for the Downtown was prepared by VTN Consolidated. The result of. VTN' s study efforts were incorporated in a draft report that was informally submitted in April, 1975. The following month, the City and VTN agreed that the City Planning Department would prepare a General Plan for a modified Top-of-Pier plan area, and VTN would prepare a development plan for specific portions of the planning area. In July, 1975 the Planning Depart- ment with consultant assistance embarked on this latest effort. The Planning Department' s Downtown Planning Study Draft Report. was completed in November, 1975 and included four alternative land' use proposals: (1) The Destination Resort concept, (2) The Modified Destination Resort concept, (3) The Regional Point of Interest- concept and (4) the Seasonal Beach Community concept. The City Council at its meeting of November 24 , 1975 directed the Planning Department to prepare a General Plan Amendment that reflected the Modified Destination Resort concept. 5 6. 0 AMENDMENT SUKMARY As explained in Section 1. 0, the purpose of General Plan Amendment 76-1A is to provide a land use policy guide for Downtown Huntington Beach. It is also the purpose of this amendment to address changes in the circulation system that are required to support the land uses proposed. This section of the document compiles the recommendations developed in earlier sections into a concise form for adoption. Adoption of General Plan Amendment 76-1A constitutes approval of the land uses presented in the modified Destination Resort Concept, the creation of -two additional General Plan land use designations (Specialty Commercial and Tourist Commercial) , modifications to _ residential standards, modifications to the Master Plan of Streets and Arterial Highways, and deletion of the Ocean Front 'Commercial/ Residential planning unit. 6. 1 Goals and Policies The development concepts proposed by General Plan Amendment 76-1A represent the land use alternative that is most compatible with existing City goals and policies. The major feature of this amend- ment is that it balances City goals and desires for improvement of the municipal economic base with other community goals. Specifically, General Plan Amendment 76-1A proposes the adoption of the following development goals and policies. 7 6 .1.1 Main Street To revitalize the commercial area along Main Street. 6 .1.2 Pier To preserve the pier and capitalize on its existence. 6.1.3 High Rise Development To permit high rise development in the Downtown area. 6.1.4 Park Needs To satisfy the demand for park facilities generated by the development of the Planning Area. This may occur within or outside the Planning Area. 6.1.5 Development of Small Lots To encourage the consolidation of lots within the Planning Area. 6.1.6 City-Owned Property To utilize City-owned property in the area for revitaliza- tion of the Planning Area. 6.1.7 Development of Major Parcels To promote the development of major parcels of land in order to accrue potential tax increment benefits and stimulate further improvement. 6.1.8 Mass Rapid Transit To continue to support the Orange County Transit District mass rapid transit line into Huntington Beach by request- ing the Orange County Transit District to financially assist in the preservation of the corridor by either acquiring the railroad right-of-way and sufficient adjacent land for an MRT line, or by combining the rail- road right-of-way and sufficient adjacent land for an MRT line or by combining the railroad right-of-way with Lake Street to form a multi-purpose arterial highway/ transit corridor. 6.1.9 Low and Moderate Cost Housing To provide housing for all economic segments of Huntington Beach. 8 Adft RESIDENTIAL Low Density 0-7 D.U./Gross Acre 0 Medium Density 7-15 D.U./Gross Acre 1 •••• High Density Over 15 D.U./Gross Acre 1 COMMERCIAL.. General Specialty o� Tourist.Commercial 4y �.. Planning Reserve e i ' OPEN SPACE 'Fe/ . i'�P�� ..... Parks & Recreational Facilities PUBLIC FACILITIES !> '' '':::::::��:::::::::::::::: . .. . . • �e <`=< Proposed Neighborhood ParkBeach _ :,.,; y�° • • ° •;� , e C�,o • • eo •'• •♦ Transportation "`%> / `l� q•• • ♦, C% Center „ ®env®�e�e�i�oe®�s�e•s:�e® ®e� • a - m°o°oo••••••••oo••••••o•••o•o•s••••• ••�?AGI�IG••GOA57e•NIGHWA"( o••• 0 0 ° • e • o • • o e K Q FigureAfflh MT HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMIEW CAffORNIA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6.1.10 Convention Center To promote the development of convention facilities and encourage hotels to locate within the Planning Area. 6 .1.11 Parking To provide adequate parking facilities in the Planning Area. 6 .1.12 Relocation of Downtown Post Office To encourage the Post Office to provide postal service in the Planning Area. 6.1.13 Mixed Use Development Mixed use development is encouraged throughout the Planning Area and should be provided for in implementing ordinances where appropriate. 6. 2 The Plan The land uses proposed in General Plan Amendment 76-1A range in intensity from Low Density Residential to the very intensive use, Tourist Commercial. As previously mentioned, the majority of the Planning Area is currently designated Destination Resort. The re- mainder was recently designated Ocean Front Commercial/Residential and Low Density Residential. The uses proposed in the Amendment do not _constitute a major change in City land use policy except for residential_ high rise. They do constitute a more precise but still . general definition of City policy in Downtown Huntington Beach. The location and designation of the land uses proposed in General Plan Amendment 76-1A are depicted in Figure 6-1. 6. 2. 1 Residential Standards The residential density standards utilized in this Amend- ment are those incorporated in the March, 1975 amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. These standards , which generally reduce residential densities, are outlined in the previously mentioned report. Because they were _adopted in that document, they need not be readopted at 10 this time. However, with adoption of General Plan Amend ment 76-1A, the new density ranges will be applied to the areas identified. Thus , the new standards will apply in the areas amended in General Plan Amendment 76-1A and 76-1B, the July, 1975, Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element, and the March, 1975, Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. 6. 2. 2 Additional Land Use Categories Adoption of this Amendment includes adoption of two addi- tional land use categories: Specialty Commercial and Tourist Commercial. These new classifications are dis- cussed in Sections 3. 2.2 and 3 . 2. 3 and will permit the following types of development: (1) Specialty Commercial: This category will permit the development of shopping facilities that appeal to shoppers seeking a novel, leisure-oriented shopping experience. Typically, these facilities would be located in centers and have a unifying theme or architecture. Acceptable uses under this category would be . restaurants . small retail shops . other related uses. (2) Tourist Commercial: This category will permit those uses that will appeal to the Orange County Tourist market. Acceptable uses under this category would be . hotel and motel facilities . convention facilities . theme park/tourist attraction . other related uses. 6. 2. 3 Circulation Adoption of this Amendment will require the following changes in the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and High- ways. These changes constitute modifications within the nnirig _Area and modifications that are outside the Planning Area but which are necessary to provide the access needed for successful revitalization of Downtown. (A) Internal Circulation System (1) Huntington Street should be realigned to Atlanta Avenue at a point opposite Delaware Street. 11 M ivi51E- M - ' k - LEGEND: FREEWAY MAJOR _120'R/W PRIMARY _I00'R/W " SECONDARY..._._80'R/W NOTE: — E°ai4E" SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS Ems►SYMBOL DENOTES PRIMARY COUPLET 9 M l0 evE � F AvE WE E 0- MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL �;!F t , STREETS AND MGHWAYS Figtue 6-2 Ak !od Gril1Wrof P6n AmwWlmmt 76-)A huntington beach planning department 12 Delaware would continue northward as a second- ary arterial. (2) The Orange Avenue-Atlanta Avenue corridor should be revised to eliminate the offset configuration at Lake Street. Orange Avenue should be re- designated a secondary. (3) Indianapolis Avenue should maintain its existing alignment at the intersection of Lake Street. (4) Pacific Coast Highway and Fifth Street, while maintaining their current right-of-way width and designations, should be expanded in capacity by removing parking lanes or by other techniques. (5) Palm Avenue between Seventeenth Street and Main Street will be redesignated a local street. (B) External Circulation System (1) Lake Street should be extended to and terminated at Garfield Avenue and Main Street. (2) Main Street should be deemphasized as a major carrier in the Downtown by realigning Main Street northerly of Mansion Avenue to intersect the north-south alignment of Gothard Street. (3) Traffic now using Main Street for Downtown access should be rerouted via Seventeenth Street by designating Seventeenth Street as a primary and redesignating Main Street south of Seventeenth Street a local street. (4) Seventeenth Street between Main Street and Lake Street will be redesignated a local street. (5) Fourteenth Street will be deleted from the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. (6) The multi-legged intersection of Main Street, Garfield Avenue, and Gothard Street will be eliminated in favor of a four-legged intersec- tion. (7) Since the State of California has deleted the Route 1 and Route 39 Freeways from its State Highway Master Plan, they will not be constructed in Huntington Beach. Therefore, these Freeways are being deleted from our Master Plan Streets Afak 13- and Arterial Highways and existing alignments are reinstated for Beach Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway and Hamilton Avenue. The designated freeway frontage road between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway is no longer necessary without the freeway and is also deleted. 6. 2 . 4 Deleted Land Use Categories Ocean Front Commercial/Residential : Adoption of General Plan Amendment 76-1A will redesignate the area fronting on Pacific Coast Highway between Goldenwest Street and Seventeenth Street from Ocean Front Commercial/Residential to High Density Residential. This will eliminate all land with an Ocean Front Commercial/Residential designa- tion from the Phase I Land Use Element; therefore, this planning unit should be eliminated. 6. 3 Summary of Land Use and Population The following tables present a statistical summary of the land use proposals set forth in this Amendment: Proposed Land Use Acreage Category Gross Acres Residential Low Density 0-7 un/gac 20 .1 Medium Density 7-15 un/gac 98 . 9 High Density over 15 un/gac 75 .2 194 .2 Commercial General 43 .2 Specialty Commercial 23 .9 Tourist Commercial 90 .4 157 .5 Planning Reserve 5 .4 Open Space Parks and Recreational Facilities 86 .3 Total: 443 .4 14 Aft Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Tie Acres Units/gac Units per Unit Population Low Density 20 .1 x 9 181 x 3. 09 = 559 Medium Density 98 .9 x 15 1484 x 2. 64 = 3918 High Density 75.2 x 35 2632 x 1.89 = 4974 -194 .2 4297 9451 15 7. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT This section amends the environmental assessment for General Plan Amendment 76-1A. The assessment generally analyzes the impacts associated with the revised GPA 76-1A which incorporates Project Area Committee and Planning Commission recommended changes. Environmental impacts are analyzed from the perspective of compar- ing the original GPA 76-1A and the revised plan. Where appropriate, the two plans are further measured against development under exist- ing zoning. 7. 1 Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures 7.1. 1 Topography Neither the original or revised General Plan Amendment 76-1A will result in any significant landform alterations within the Planning Area. Along the natural bluff area north of Atlanta Avenue adverse topographic effects can be avoided by clustering of structures. 7.1. 2 Soils In the tidal sediments of the flood plain liquefaction hazard is considered high. This is true whether develop- ment conforms to the original GPA 76-1A (medium- .and high-density residential and tourist commercial) or re- 17 vised GPA 76-1A (medium- and high-density residential and tourist commercial) . Land use changes proposed by the revised GPA 76-1A would subject about 1310 fewer persons to liquefaction hazard in the residential areas. However, the revised GPA 76-1A recommended tourist commercial area near Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard would in- crease the number of tourists exposed to liquefaction. As a result, given the substantial variation in tourist popu- lation throughout the year, the net population effect should be considered neutral. 7. 1. 3 Oil Resources No differential effect is expected between the original and revised GPA 76-1A. 7. 1. 4 Geologic Considerations Two active branches of the Newport-Inglewood Fault are contained within the Planning Area. Loss of life and structural damage will be distinct possibilities if development occurs within the general Newport-Inglewood Zone. This is true whether development conforms to the original GPA or revised 76-1A. When comparing the two plans, the differential effect will be more adverse under the original GPA 76-1A (based on population subject to seismic activity) . The original GPA 76-1A generates a total residential population of 12, 406 while the revised plan generates 9451. Specialty and Tourist Commercial land will also increase 29. 6 acres under the revised plan increasing accomodation of a larger tourist and rec- reational population. Imposition of City seismic standard for construction should reduce loss of life and structural damage potentials. 7. 1. 5 Flood Hazard Most of the Planning Area, located on the Huntington Beach Mesa, is free from flooding. The remainder, which lies below the bluff, is subject to flooding in 100 and 200 year storms. Considering land use changes within the floodplain, the revised plan will decrease residential population by 1310 persons below the original GPA 76-1A. The possible adverse effect on population can be negated if high rise structures are built so that most of the population and their residences are located above the flood hazard. A second mitigation measure is to implement the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Santa Ana River Plan . which would make the City flood safe from a 200-year storm 18 7 . 1. 6 Cultural Resources No differential effect is expected between the original and revised GPA 76-1A. 7. 1. 7 Water Resources Percolation maintains the groundwater level, a major source of domestic water. The amount of percolation will be reduced by development under the revised GPA 76-1A (with 86. 3 gross acres of open space) as opposed to the original GPA 76-1A which provides 96.4 gross acres of space or 10. 1 additional acres. Runoff under the revised GPA 76-1A will be about the same as that generated by existing zoning and considerably more than that generated by the original GPA 76-1A. The revised plan increases commercial use by approximately 23 percent from the original GPA 76-1A. Business areas produce about 20 percent more runoff than residential areas. Increased runoff will mean poorer water quality. 7. 1. 8 Biological Resources No differential effect is expected between the original and revised GPA 76-1A. 7. 1. 9 Air Quality Development under the original GPA 76-1A increases popu- lation by 5, 096 for the Planning Area over the population at ultimate development under existing zoning. The revised plan increases the Planning Area population by 2141 over that generated by existing zoning. As a result, air emissions in Orange County due to vehicle use will increase by 15.1 tons per day or . 30 percent (original GPA 76-1A) , and 10. 1 tons per day or . 20 percent (revised GPA 76-1A) above that generated by existing zoning. On a seasonal basis, tourist attendance and traffic will b highest during the summer. Based on estimates of tourist attendance and recreational use above present, daily air emissions during summer peak can be expected to increase by 22 tons (original GPA 76-1A) or 27 tons (revised GPA 76-1A) based upon a 15 year average. 7. 1.10 Noise The revised plan decreases daily traffic within the Planning Area by approximately 6 percent below that 19 generated by the original GPA 76-1A. When broken down by land use, the revised plan decreases residential generated traffic by 24 percent and increases tourist commercial generated traffic by 28 percent. As a result, noise levels along most arterials can be expected to de- crease by about 6 percent below those of the original GPA 76-1A. The proposed 19. 8 acre tourist commercial area near PCH and Beach Boulevard will account for most of the commercial traffic increase. Traffic will increase along Beach Boulevard and PCH and noise levels will rise by about 7 percent above levels generated by the original plan. 7.1. 11 Public Services (1) Fire Protection: No differential effect is expected between the original and revised-GPA 76-1A. (2) Police Protection: Based on manning ratios for the various general land use types, the Police Department estimates that 21 additional police officers would be necessary under the original GPA 76-1A to serve the Planning Area. Under the revised plan, an additional 19 officers would be required above existing zoning. (3) Flood Control: The revised plan land uses will generate more runoff than those of the original GPA 76-1A. However, the proposed storm drains will adequately service the Planning Area under either plan and no differential effect is expected. (4) Recreation and Parks: The revised plan changes one park site (Old Civic Center Site) to Planning Reserve. As a result, the environmental effect is indeterminate until a decision is made to develop the site or maintain it as a park site. (5) Schools: Based on ultimate residential development according to the original GPA 76-1A, elementary school generation will be approximately 1,203, high school - 439, and junior college - 948 . The following number of students will be generated at ultimate development under the revised plan: 860 elementary, 321 high school, and 730 junior college. The Huntington Beach Elementary School District and the Coast Community College District indicated that their facilities can adequately accommodate the expected student increases generated by both plans. 20 Aft The Huntington Beach High School District is cur- rently overloaded. However, this effect will be partially mitigated by construction of the proposed Ocean View High School at Gothard and Warner. (6) Medical Services : Development under the original GPA 76-1A will require local hospitals to accommodate 5, 096 more persons than at ultimate development under existing zoning. The revised plan will require local hospitals to accommodate an additional 2141 persons. 7.1. 12 Utilities (1) Water: Development as proposed by the revised plan will create an additional demand for water of approximately 315, 000 gallons per day over the demand predicted for ultimate development under existing zoning. The original GPA 76-1A increases water demand by 750, 000 gallons per day. Planned expansion of existing facilities will only accommodate water demand generated by existing zoning. (2) Sanitary Sewer: The revised plan increases sewage flow by 257,000 gallons per day over the flow pre- dicted for ultimate development under existing zoning. The original GPA 76-1A increases sewage flow by 602, 000 gallons per day. The planned sewage system will only accommodate demand generated by existing zoning. (3) Oil Lines; No differential effect is expected be- tween the original and revised GPA 76-1A. (4) Solid Waste Disposal: The revised plan will generate an additional 2,150 tons of solid waste per year over the amount predicted for ultimate development under existing zoning. The original GPA 76-1A will generate an additional 5,100 tons per year. The Rainbow Disposal Company foresees no local service constraints under either plan. (5) Energy Utilities: The revised plan will create an additional natural gas demand of 57 million cubic feet per year and an additional electrical demand of 3 million kilowatt hours per year above the respect- ive demands predicted for existing zoning. The original GPA 76-1A will increase gas demand by 183 million cubic feet per year and electrical demand by 6 million kilowatt hours per year. The power 21 companies have indicated that short-term demand can be met. However, regulatory policies and delayed construction of new power facilities could hamper long-term supply capabilities. 7. 1. 13 Human Habitat (1) Aesthetics: No differential effect is expected between the original and revised GPA 76-1A. (2) Population: Development of the Planning Area accord- ing to the original GPA 76-1A will generate approxi- mately 5, 096 persons more than ultimate development under existing zoning (Population at ultimate develop- ment under existing zoning will be about 7,310 versus a population increase to 12, 406) . The revised plan generates 9, 451 persons or an increase of 2, 141 persons over existing zoning. Population density will increase from 37. 84 persons per gross residential acre under existing zoning to 47. 22 persons per acre under the original GPA 76-1A and 48 . 67 persons per acre under the revised plan. (3) Traffic Circulation: As indicated in the Noise section, the revised plan decreases residential generated traffic by about 24 percent below that generated by the original GPA 76-1A. Conclusions reached .in the JHK Traffic Study will remain valid. The revised GPA 76-1A proposed 19. 8 acre tourist commercial area near PCH and Beach Boulevard will account for most of the 28 percent commercial traffic increase. As a result, congestion will probably increase at Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast High- way during tourist visitation peaks. 7. 1. 14 Cost/Revenue Development according to the revised plan, original GPA 76-1A, and existing zoning yield net revenue surpluses to the City and local school districts. As indicated in the following table, the revised GPA 76-1A yields the highest net revenue benefit. 22 ACE& Annual Net Surplus to City of Huntington Beach Revised GPA 76-1A $ 803, 777 Original GPA 76-1A $ 708, 032 Existing Zoning $ 229, 061 Annual _Net Surplus to School Districts Revised GPA 76-1A $1, 527 ,728 _ Original GPA 76-1A $1, 218, 150 Existing Zoning $ 765, 507 23 (v*:Ai' ENER"'A L PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1 PART Am DOWNTOWN AREA � december ,, 1975 424 i I � r hun#ington beach planning department n • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76 1 PART A : DOWNTOWN AREA december , 1975 VIN huntington beach planning department s • TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 . 0 Introduction 1 1. 1 Intent and Purpose 1 1. 2 Authority and .Scope 3 1. 3 Background 5 2. 0 Summary of Planning Issues* 2. 1 General Issues 2. 2 Specific Issues • 3. 0 Market Forecast Summary* 3. 1 Population 3. 2 Market Analysis of Land Use Potential 4. 0 Alternative Development Concepts * 1 4 . 1 The Destination Resort Concept 4 . 2 The Regional Point of Interest Concept 4. 3 The Seasonal Beach Community Concept 4. 4 The Modified Destination Resort Concept 5. 0 Analysis of Alternative Concepts * • 5. 1 City Goals and Policies , 5. 2 Market Potential 5. 3- Economic Commitments 5. 4 Significant Environmental Impacts 5. 5 Traffic Impacts 5. 6 Cost-Revenue Impacts 5. 7 Coastal Plan 5. 8 Park Needs 6. 0 Amendment Summary 7 6. 1 Goals and Policies 7 6. 2 The Plan 11 6. 3 Summary of Land Use and Population 16 * See corresponding section of Downtown Planning Study: Draft Report. AdftI lip a • • 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Intent and Purpose As the fourth document in the transition from the Master Plan of Land Use to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, General Plan Amendment 76-1A is a significant step toward the new direction for Huntington Beach established in the Phase I Land • Use Element and subsequent amendments. The amendment presented in this document is a transitional step which is intended to provide a land use policy guide for Down- town Huntington Beach. It is intended that this amendment replace the planning unit designation presently in effect in r the majority of this area. While the Destination Resort designation attempts to affect development similar to that proposed in Amendment 76-1A, the amendment more closely defines appropriate land uses. This amendment addresses the location, relationships and extent of the residential, hotel and motel, retail and specialty commercial, office, and public uses allowed • under the Destination Resort category. Amendment 76-1A also addresses the changes to the Master Plan of Streets and Arterial lip Aft • Highways that are necessary to support the proposed land uses. This amendment, in addition to a proposal continued in General � Plan Amendment 76-1B,will allow the deletion of Destination Resort from the Phase I Land Use Element. It is anticipated that one more document will be necessary to complete the transition of the Land Use Element to the "new direction" . A draft of the Phase II Land Use Element has been presented to the Planning Commission but is currently being revised. The timeliness of i the Downtown Planning effort plus requests from property owners for additional amendments necessitated the development of General Plan Amendment 76-1A and General Plan Amendment 76-1B. It should be noted, however, that even with the adoption of the Phase II Land Use Element, the Land Use Element will still be subject_ to continuous scrutiny and where justified, amended. 1. 2 Authority and Scope 1. 2 . 1 Authority per C. I .R. Guidelines Although the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive policy document, it must be periodically updated to meet new conditions and from time to time revised or ampli- fied to respond to unforeseen changes or needs. The plan is, therefore , subject to amendment to reflect changes in goals, policies and physical, social or economic conditions. Some changes may be minor and not require changes in other parts of the plan. All proposed changes, however, should be evaluated in regard to environmental impact and consistency with the balance of the document. An environmental impact analysis has been prepared and is contained in a separate document entitled General Plan Amendment 76-1A: Environmental Assessment. Section 65361 restricts the number of times per year that the mandatory elements of the General Plan can be amended. "No mandatory element of a General Plan shall be amended more frequently than three times during any calendar year. . . " This provision does not apply to adding new elements to the General Plan. Local agencies can amend the General Plan by adding new plan elements as often as desired. For example, noise, seismic safety and safety elements may be adopted during the calendar year and this will not constitute an action under Section 65361. Plan elements which are not required in the planning law (e.g. , urban design, specific area plans, public buildings, etc. ) but may be of community interest can be amended to the General Plan as often as desired. This procedure only. affects proposals to change existing mandatory General Plan Elements. This requirement became effective on January 1, 1974 . 2 AtWk i Section 65862 requires that a two-week period of time be provided between the adoption or amendment of the General Plan and proposal for a rezoning for the purpose of bringing zoning into consist- ency with the General Plan. This prohibits concurrent action to amend the General Plan and the zoning ordinance at the same meeting. The two processes have been sepa- rated in order to strengthen the General Plan as a policy document and the zoning ordinance as an imple- menting device. This requirement also became effective on January 1, 1974 . 1. 2 . 2 Scope of Amendment • The Amendment presented in this document consists of the following major points: A. Identification of planning issues. • B. A summary of market forecasts for the various land uses proposed. C. A description of four alternative land use concepts proposed for Downtown Huntington Beach. • D. An analysis of the alternative concepts including their impacts on City goals and policies, market potentials, economic commitments, significant environmental features, circulation, City costs and revenues, the Coastal Plan, and park facilities. E. A description of the land use pattern, including text and a diagram or other graphic representation such as a map. In order to avoid repitition of analysis that has been presented in the Downtown Planning Study: Draft Report, • several sections of the Amendment document are merely referenced. Specifically these sections as noted in the Table of Contents are: 2 . 0 Summary of Planning Issues, 3 . 0 Market Forecast Summary, 4 . 0 Alternative Development Concepts and 5. 0 Analysis of Alternative Developments. It is, therefore, necessary to consult the Downtown Planning Study: Draft Report for the background information leading up to the recommen- dations contained in the remainder of this report. • Aft 3 lip b \ .. .......�........ i .........t ...... ............... V.....7 IR 4 � 1 , f J d 1 t \ /. ..\ ,�.,, ` ..................... .. .. ... . ._................ ........... .... .. blltl _.W ......... .u.. j ... •• AnAN% .. . .. .....:. MAMMM "- tAMIM6 Figure 1-1 STUDY AREA LOCATION huntington beach .planning department 4 r 1. 2 . 3 Amendment Area Boundaries The area under consideration in Amendment 76-1A contains approximately 487 acres and includes the business district in the vicinity of the municipal pier, the surrounding residential area, the portion of the Town- lot fronting on Pacific Coast Highway and the largely undeveloped area east of Lake Street and west of Beach Boulevard. The precise boundaries of the amendment area are: The Pacific Ocean, Goldenwest Street, Walnut Avenue, Fourteenth Street, Orange Avenue, Eight Street, Palm Avenue , Alabama Street, Chicago Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Figure 1-1 delineates the amendment area. 1. 3 Background Over the past several years a variety of development plans and proposals have been prepared for Downtown Huntington Beach. The first significant effort to upgrade the Downtown began in 1965 when the City called in a task force from the Urban Land Institute to assess the City and make recommendations on the future direction to be followed. The ULI study concluded that the City' s economic future lay in developing the ocean front and revitalizing Downtown. Soon after completion of the ULI study, the City began developing plans and making improvements in the beach front area. The result was the adoption of the Top-of-Pier plan in late 1969. One of the top priority projects in this plan was to add 32 acres of existing parking facilities. As detailed plans were formulated, support for the parking expansion died and so did the Top-of-Pier plan. The next proposal for the Downtown was prepared by VTN Consolidated. The result of VTN' s study efforts were incorporated in a draft report that was informally submitted in April, 1975. The following month, the City and VTN agreed that the City Planning Department would prepare a General Plan for a modified Top-of-Pier plan area, and VTN would prepare a development plan for specific portions of the planning area. In July, 1975 the Planning Depart- ment with consultant assistance embarked on this latest effort. The Planning Department' s Downtown Planning Study Draft Report was completed in November, 1975 and included four alternative land use proposals: (1) The Destination Resort concept, (2) The Modified Destination Resort concept, (3) The Regional Point of Interest concept and (4) the Seasonal Beach Community concept. The City Council at its meeting of November 24 , 1975 directed the Planning Department to prepare a General Plan Amendment that reflected the Modified Destination Resort concept. • Aft 5 • • i • • • 6 . 0 AMENDNIFNT SUMMARY • As explained in Section 1. 0, the purpose of General Plan Amendment 76-1A is to provide a land use policy guide for Downtown Huntington Beach. It is also the purpose of this amendment to address changes in the circulation system that are required to support the land uses proposed. This section of the document compiles the recommendations developed in earlier sections into a concise form for adoption. Adoption of General Plan Amendment 76-1A constitutes approval of the land uses presented in the modified Destination Resort Concept, the creation of two additional General Plan land use designations (Specialty Commercial and Tourist Commercial) , modifications to residential standards , modifications to the Master Plan of Streets and Arterial Highways , and deletion of the Ocean Front Commercial/ Residential planning unit. 6 . 1 Goals and Policies The development concepts proposed by General Plan Amendment 76-1A represent the land use alternative that is most compatible with existing City goals and policies. The major feature of this amend- ment is that it balances City goals and desires for improvement of the municipal economic base with other community goals. Specifically, General Plan Amendment 76-1A p y, proposes the adoption .of the following development goals and policies. 7 • 6. 1. 1 To revitalize the commercial area along Main Street by: (1) Giving first priority in revitalizing the Downtown to the development of an integrated specialty shopping area in the six blocks adjacent to Main Street in the vicinity of the municipal pier; (2) Pursuing the concept of converting Main Street and the alleys within the specialty shopping area to pedestrian ways through a development plan; (3) Working out the details of financing responsibilities for the necessary private and public improvements through a development plan. 6. 1. 2 Five Block Area (Fronting on Pacific Coast Highway between Lake Street and Sixth Street) To promote commercial development of this area by: • (1) Giving first priority to development of the two blocks within the specialty shopping area; (2) Including the remaining three blocks in the Main Street development if feasible. • 6 . 1. 3 Pier To preserve the traditional role of the pier by: (1) Not adding any commercial structures on the pier; (2) Limiting specialty commercial development on and ad- jacent to the pier to existing square footage in order not to detract from Main Street; (3) Upgrading the quality of existing structures and uses; (4) Considering expansion of specialty uses adjacent to the pier after the Main Street project is established. 6 . 1. 4 High Rise Development To permit high rise development in the Downtown area by: (1) Allowing high rise residential development in all high density residential areas with highest priority given to the ocean front area between Sixth Street • and Goldenwest Street; 8 Aft • • (2) Developing a residential high rise ordinance to insure + integration in the Downtown development and to minimize adverse environmental impacts; (3) Revising the existing high rise commercial ordinance (MS Suffix) and allowing high rise structures in all tourist commercial and general commercial areas. 6 . 1. 5 Old Civic Center Site To retain the Old Civic Center Site for public use by developing a combination library, community service center, and park complex. 6. 1. 6 Park Needs To satisfy the demand for park facilities generated by the development of the Downtown by: (1) Providing a minimum of two neighborhood parks in the amendment area; (2) Increasing the community park facilities provided by developing neighborhood parks with community park facilities. 6. 1. 7 Development of Small Lots To insure the consolidation of lots within the Downtown commercial areas and the proposed high density residential area along the ocean front. 6 . 1. 8 City-Owned Property To utilize City-owned property to assist in the revitaliza- tion of the Amendment area by: • (1) Utilizing City-owned parcels west of Lake Street to assist in lot consolidation; (2) Utilizing the 45 acres between Huntington Street and Beach Boulevard to provide the entrepreneurial option of tourist commercial development. • 6 . 1.9 Development of Major Parcels To promote the development of major parcels of land in order to accrue potential tax increment benefits and stimu- late further improvement by: • 9 • (1) Designating the parcels at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue for residential use; . (2) Designating the property between Huntington Street and Lake Street for tourist commercial use with re- evaluation after five years. 6 . 1. 10 Mass Rapid Transit To continue to support the Orange County Transit District mass rapid transit line into Huntington Beach by: (1) Requesting the Orange County Transit District to financially assist in the preservation of the corridor by either acquiring the railroad right-of-way and sufficient adjacent land for an .MRT line, or by com- bining the railroad right-of-way with Lake Street to form a multi-purpose arterial highway/transit corridor; (2) Pursuing, through the Orange County Transit District and the Urban Mass Transit Administration, the development of a phased mass transit terminal in the Amendment Area. 6. 1. 11 Low and Moderate Cost Housing To provide housing opportunities for all economic segments of Huntington Beach by: (1) Providing up to 20 percent of all new residential units in the Amendment Area for low and moderate income families; (2) Utilizing all available techniques for the provision of low and moderate cost housing. 6. 1. 12 Convention Center To promote the development of convention facilities by encouraging hotels located within the Amendment Area to provide convention facilities for at least 1,000 persons with one facility for at least 600 persons. 6. 1. 13 Parking To provide adequate parking facilities in the Downtown commercial. facilities by: (1) Providing parking facilities as an integral part of development; 10 l (2) Insuring the provision of parking facilities through the formation of a parking district, on-site park- ing facilities in consolidated areas, or development fees earmarked for parking. 6. 1. 14 Townlot Area No. 5 • To maximize the development potential of this area by: (1) Developing a residential standard that would require larger minimum lot sizes than presently required for low and multi-story structures (up to four or five stories) and a sliding scale of minimum lot sizes for • structures over five stories; (2) Providing economic incentives for lot consolidation; (3) City or Redevelopment Agency acquisition where lot size minimums cannot be met. 6. 1. 15 Relocation of Downtown Post Office To utilize the proposed Post Office reconstruction to assist in the revitalization of Downtown by requesting the Postal Service to relocate the Main Street branch from the Main Street and Hartford Avenue site to the heart of the Downtown commercial area. 6. 2 The Plan The land uses proposed in General Plan Amendment 76-1A range in ' intensity from Low Density Residential to the very intensive use, Tourist Commercial. As previously mentioned, the majority of the Amendment Area is currently designated Destination Resort. The re- mainder was recently designated Ocean Front Commercial/Residential and Low Density Residential . The uses proposed in the Amendment do not constitute a major change in City land use policy. The do constitute a more precise but still general definition of City policy in Downtown Huntington Beach. The location and designation of the land uses proposed in General Plan Amendment 76-1A are depicted in Figure 6-1. 6 . 2. 1 Residential Standards The residential density standards utilized in this Amend- ment are those incorporated in the March, 1975 amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. These standards, which generally reduce residential densities, are outlined in • the previously mentioned report. Because they were adopted in that document, they need not be readopted at Adft 11 • N RESIDENTIAL Low Density 0-7 D.U./Gross Acre Medium Density 7.1.5 U.U./Gross Acre •'•' High Density Over 15 D.U./Gross Acre COMMERCIAL 30 General Specialty o , ® Tourist Commercial INSTITUTIONAL ,♦ ?� j ��.� 77771 u Schools & Community Facilities OPEN SPACE ��� •! ' .. ........... P?�P �♦,e a♦•� Facilities Parks & Recreational F �y ? ♦`,ti f :... F PUBLIC FACILITIES �•.. o Proposed Neighborhood Park 1 yG• • • • • .: • , • . . . Beach rtGE Avg y. r ORA _ Transportation o::::: o Center p:: z ��F• • • • ♦• _ rn.... m • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PAGIFIG GnAS7 HIGHWAY r • Figure 6-1 AW• HUNTINGTON L1FACH C4LIfORN1A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1A 1 n? PLANNING DEPARTMENT this time. However, with adoption of General Plan Amend- ment 76-1A, the new density ranges will be applied to the areas identified. Thus , the new standards will apply in the areas amended in General Plan Amendment 76-1A and 76-1B, the July, 1975 , Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element, and the March, 1975, Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. 6 . 2 . 2 Additional Land Use Categories Adoption of this Amendment includes adoption of two addi- tional land use categories: Specialty Commercial and Tourist Commercial. These new classifications are dis- cussed in Sections 3. 2 . 2 and 3 . 2 . 3 and will permit the following types of development: (1) Specialty Commercial: This category will permit the development of shopping facilities that appeal to shoppers seeking a novel, leisure-oriented shopping experience. Typically, these facilities would be located in centers and have a unifying theme or architecture. Acceptable uses under this category would be . restaurants small retail shops . other related uses. (2) Tourist Commercial : This category will permit those uses that will appeal to the Orange County Tourist • market. Acceptable uses under this category would be . hotel and motel facilities . convention facilities . theme park/tourist attraction • other related uses. 6 . 2 . 3 Circulation Adoption of this Amendment will require the following changes in the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and High- ways. These changes constitute modifications within the Amendment Area and modifications that are outside the Amendment Area but which are necessary to provide the access needed for successful revitalization of Downtown. (A) Internal Circulation Svstem (1) Huntington Street should be realigned to Atlanta Avenue at a point opposite Delaware Street. 13 • • FREEWAY • MAJOR 1201R/W PRIMARY. IOO'R/W SECONDARY__80'R/W NOTE: •SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS SYMBCL DENOTES PRIMARY COUPLET 0 _7_11 �b >%, ILI. V ---Li o "o MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS Figure 6-2 Proposed 4 General Plan Amendment 76-IA huntington beach planning department 14 Delaware would continue northward as a second- ary arterial. • (2) The Orange Avenue-Atlanta Avenue corridor should be revised to eliminate the offset configuration at Lake Street. Orange Avenue should be re- designated a secondary. ` (3) Indianapolis Avenue should maintain its existing alignment at the intersection of Lake Street. (4) Pacific Coast Highway and Fifth Street, while maintaining their current right-of-way width and designations , should be expanded in capacity • by removing parking lanes or by other techniques. (5) Palm Avenue between Seventeenth Street and Main Street will be redesignated a local street. (B) External Circulation System (1) Lake Street should be extended to and terminated at Garfield Avenue and Main Street. (2) Main Street should be deemphasized as a major 7 carrier in the Downtown by realigning Main Street northerly of Mansion Avenue to intersect the north-south alignment of Gothard Street. (3) Traffic now using Main Street for Downtown access should be rerouted via Seventeenth Street by • designating Seventeenth Street as a primary and redesignating Main Street south of Seventeenth Street a local street. (4) Seventeenth Street between Main Street and Lake Street will be redesignated a local street. • (5) Fourteenth Street will be deleted from the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. (6) The multi-legged intersection of Main Street, Garfield Avenue, and Gothard Street will be eliminated in favor of a four-legged intersec- tion. (7) Since the State of California has deleted the . Route 1 and Route 39 Freeways from its State Highway Master Plan, they will not be constructed in Huntington Beach. Therefore, these Freeways are being deleted from our Master Plan Streets Aft 15 • • and Arterial Highways and existing alignments are reinstated for Beach Boulevard, Pacific • Coast Highway and Hamilton Avenue. The designated freeway frontage road between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway is no longer necessary without the freeway and is also deleted. 6. 2 . 4 Deleted Land Use Categories i Ocean Front Commercial/Residential : Adoption of General Plan Amendment 76-1A will redesignate the area fronting on Pacific Coast Highway between Goldenwest Street and Seventeenth Street from Ocean Front Commercial/Residential • to High Density Residential. This will eliminate all land with an Ocean Front Commercial/Residential designa- tion from the Phase I Land Use Element; therefore , this planning unit should be eliminated. 6. 3 Summary of Land Use and Population • The following tables present a statistical summary of the land use proposals set forth in this Amendment: Proposed Land Use Acreage • Category Gross Acres Residential Low Density 0-7 un/gac 44 . 1 Medium Density 7-15 un/gac 123. 6 • High Density over 15 un/gac 95. 0 262. 7 Commercial General 38..1 • Specialty Commercial 19. 2 Tourist Commercial 70. 6 127. 9 Institutional Schools and Community Facilities 5. 4 Open Space Parks and Recreational Facilities 91. 0 Total: 487. 0 16 Aft Projected Population • Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Ty.pe Acres Units/gac Units per Unit Population Low Density 44 . 1 x 9 397 x 3 . 09 = 1227 • Medium Density 123. 6 x 15 1855 x 2. 64 = 4897 High Density 95 . 0 x 35 3325 x . 189 = 6883 262. 7 5577 13007 • Aft 7 • • • ] 7 • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76m3 PART B : MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS cZcember, 1976 huntington beach planning department TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-3B Section Page 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1. 1 Methodology 1 2. 0 AREAS OF CONCERN 3 2. 1 South of Ellis Avenue and West of Huntington Street 3 2. 2 North of Atlanta Avenue and East of Beach Boulevard 6 2. 3 North of Talbert Avenue and West of Beach Boulevard 9 2. 4 The Vicinity of Gothard Street and Heil Avenue 11 2. 5 South of Warner Avenue and East of Beach Boulevard 14 2. 6 South of the San Diego Freeway and East of San Angelo 17 Drive 2. 7 Bolsa Chica Street, South of Warner Avenue 19 3. 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 25 3. 1 Scope of Amendment 25 3. 2 Residential Standards 25 3. 3 Area by Area Summary 25 3. 4 Summary of Proposed General Plan Amendment 76-3B 27 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 29 4. 1 Project Description 29 4. 2 Environmental Setting 31 4. 3 Environmental Impact 38 4. 4 Alternatives 51 1. 0 INTRODUCTION This document constitutes the fifth amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. The Element was adopted in December, 1973 and amended in March, 1975, July, 1975, March, 1976, and October, 1976. 1. 1 Methodology This amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element is designed to in- vestigate some areas where changing conditions require reconsider- ation of past decisions. The changes considered in this amendment derive from two sources: requests from property owners and "house- keeping" chores generated by the Planning Department. In Sec- tion 2. 0, Planning Issues, each case is discussed and analyzed in terms of existing conditions and impact on surrounding areas as well as consistency with City goals and policies. Section 3. 0 sum- marizes the recommendations contained in Section 2. 0 in the form of a comprehensive text and plan to be adopted. Section 4. 0 presents an Environmental Assessment for the amendment as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. 1 LEGEND: RESIDENTIAL: PUBLIC USES a FACILITIES (CONIT) LOW DENSITY EXISTING PROPOSED MEDIUM DENSITY SCHOOL MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY ELEMENTARY K `' HIGH DENSITY JUNIOR HIGH LJ;. O MOBILE HOME HIGH ( H n OH COLLEGE C� 0 COMMERCIAL PARKS NEIGHBORHOOD 0 ® COMMERCIAL RETAIL COMMUNITY �CrP� Q OFFICE HUNTINGTON CENTRAL CP ' HOTELS-MOTELS REGIONAL ® SPECIALTIES RECREATIONAL FACILITIES O RECREATION CENTER I J 0 INDUSTRIAL NEIGHBORHOOD BEACH LIGHT BEACH O PUBLIC UTILITY, MARINA © A GOLF COURSE <� EDISON R/W LEASED AGRICULTURE EDISON R/W UNLEASED SPECIAL USE 0 PUBLIC USES & FACILITIES INSTITUTIONAL TRANSPORTATION ECOLOGICAL RESERVE 0 CHURCH F=j RAILROAD 0 HOSPITAL ��� CORRIDOR C,tc CITY YARD F:i� LODGE, MEETING HALL PS PRIVATE SCHOOL STREETS LIBRARY C� CEMETERY _ _ _ _ FREEWAY QUASI-PUBLIC(INCLUDING: CENTRAL LIBRARY CHURCHES,CLUSS a LODGES) (`; INTERCHANGE EW . SCHOOL WAREHOUSE O �� MAJOR SCHOQL ADMIN. OFFICE OTHERS PRIMARY Q� POST OFFICE PRIMARY �..� FIRE TRAINING CENTER 8 STATION WATER RESERVOIR COUPLETy FIRE STATION PLANNING RESERVE ........... SECONDARY 0 BUFFER NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS SIB_ HARBORS a BEACHES.FACILITY DRAINAGE CHANNEL a WATER WAYS DESTINATION RESORT ® PLANNED COMMUNITY Rev 11-le-73 I I.18-72 12-II-73 OLD TOWN TOWN LOT GOVERNMENT CENTER LAND USE ELEMENT PHASE 1 I O ° FREEWAY SAN DIEGO ................... . a e ty >„ CC / / t o CCQr.ell C•n �.�, •' (��, ty ............ a� J .' 9 n D CERTIFICATIONS: E c� c ryC .G .c V o c C? ti 5-01, ... PLANNING COMMISSION - �. afi'• �. ��`""�� � �" I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS LAND USE ELEMENT ••• (:Q;- ,;;' ��� � ,+ ' T N0.1129 OF THE 4��+ �' .. .�. ^!:1 •'lit:t �� �' PHASE 1 WAS GCOMMISSION ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION \ y. CITY PLANNING COMMISSgN ON THIS IITH,MY OF DECEMSER,1973. ""•"' t E• �.Lrz4F.l�!{'rn^""- '`fi '.•' ..a:•. .... :: , a : EDWARD H.KERINS,CHAIRMAN \ J P + 4TTE RKAYRD A. RLOW,SECRETARY n r,^n. ��•�o �'., Ccr,(;"'M C CC tti 7x �>;.�', �' CITY COUNCIL 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS OLU USE ELEMENT `t,. G`r, 1��� '¢F�'�i'.:^iiE:.'';iii;iriiiii:...::. a• C WAS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION N0.3814 OF THE PHASE 1 D V e R(r r • C F DECE MBE R 1973. DAY C�I TN OA 2 HIS 9 I T 3 NC L CITY COUNCIL ON, a n ................... RR 4,MATNEY MAYORt/ i(s:• ......... ....... . ' , I .......................... ATTEST: .......... .......... :.... .......... K AULIA Y WENTWORTN CITY CLER y .......... ......... ............. '4 � D •,I i ��i i 1 � ...•.•••••............... (^.,f. j I n T .rr i; .......................... .... .:: .. a''. �::::................. : '9ii P ...... ............. •.•i:v• ''_'iiit ' f q� :CD C r"C , r c ..................... ►/ .........� .. . .. .... ..,:... ,-,..._...... , .. .tl . ��.` .....r, ti ` , ter ................ :::::........ ........... .......... if 4 .. ... 1 , ,. to ,� ..:••i,: :� ,' ',il ".t:lit7.u,::4,jrn,,'• :i-:•" <,., ° Q d+• i •.li..Y ht. t ,4 t •`tip iii'iii°::. - w..i...tiyn ... REV.3-22A9 Ash HUNI-INGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA LAND USE ELEMENT 1 , PLANNING DEPARTMENT PHASE 1 C-m-TIC RESIDENTIAL Low Density 0-7 D.U./Gross Acre- 0 Medium Density 7-15 D.U./Gross Acre-High Density Over 15 D.U./Gross Acre COMMERCIAL ® General Specialty \ F ' Tourist Commercial `� � �::::::::::�:::' P •• Planning Reserve • • • P , OPEN SPACE -:< •::::::...P . ••♦•e Parks & Recreational Facilities- - PUBLIC FACILITIES . S �. .. .....:::::: . ............:r ♦e Proposed Neighborhood Park.. y Beach >!;<`>; i> •1,. . . . . :': . o.0 Transportation ::: • • . '♦ o Center s `�• /_/�,.♦� m 0 Z m••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••PACIFIC••COAST •• NIGHWAY •••• / • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • _ m N 6� (AL*ORNIA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1A PLANNING 1 G PLANNING DEpgRliillfNi ........ — ---- --- --. - -- ---- - _. _.. — ---. tQ .................. `............... .,....... ....;.. i...;;.... ..., t ' L4 ................ '•.. ' '', l h. , , .• has s : l \ / ;ram•\`. \.:: l :Y i ti ., x. wnNR�"'w t .w..K .v.: ....-..W.:-:.: W LEGEND x >� RESIDENTIAL HUNTINGTPLANNINGODE DEPARTMENT Low Density 0-7 un/gac ADOPTED GENERAL lop, Medium Density 8-15 un/gac• • PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1B High Density above 15 un/gay COMMERCIAL LAND USE Retail 2. 0 AREAS OF CONCERN This section deals with each issue area designated in Figure 2-1. 2 . 1 South of Ellis Avenue and West of Huntington. Street 2. 1. 1 Background The area of concern is located south of Ellis Avenue and east of the Pacific Electric Railroad (Figure 2-2) . In June, 1976, Classic Development Corporation requested that the Planning Department consider redesignating the property from industrial to high density residential. The 7. 14 gross acre site is presently vacant and desig- nated light industrial. The partially developed property to the south and the vacant property to the west are designated industrial. The developed property ' to the east is designated medium density residential. The developed property to the north is designated low density residential. 3 UZ- F_ DV4T0 l CR GUEBEC OR LIGH INDUSTRIAL - a $ _ ALBERTA - o Ei S I ly z YUKON DRf 7T NKLII ACEFTTTT ELLIS AVE. , a 'HT IND STRIAE - � J i i H (A COMMODORE CR. OFFICE LIGHT I iVDUSTR L PR' Ir'ir �P O z r-ll AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 SOUTH OF ELLIS AVENUE & WEST OF HUNTINGTON STREET 4 FIGURE 2-2 � a Aa v BEY ,,. ....., J ?o-o- �.. ............. : w.,.... ........... Pa � �Y9 I . \ ....r' - ................ /� ,�p�p \. ��,` O•l� Do- 0011, �Jr :... i Z 4. �`\ \S r \ 40 NO , •a \ \ Y \t�\.. �l¢...I ,off r/^ \ \ \\ , - le, En a �,e r S \:... :r f ' ]a : .. / f .,e.,...,. ..: ...�%:a............. .. ... :.w,,,.v.::...........:..:::... .... .......,. h. jr 4' ... .....:... 7 FIGURE 2-1 lopHUNTINGTON BEACH- C'ALIFORNIA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Areas Of Concern GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76- 3B PLANNING 2.1. 2 Analysis Residential uses border the subject property on the north and east, while the southern boundary abuts industrial uses. These two uses create a question as to what is the best use for the property. Industrial use of the property would continue the industrial character to the south and west and be con- sistent with the Central Industrial Corridor. However, access would have to be provided through the existing residential section of Ellis Avenue until such time as Ellis Avenue is extended under the existing railroad tracks to Gothard Street. Residential use of the property is possible as it would provide for the transition of industrial uses on the south to the residential neighborhood on the north. An issue arises as to which would be a more appropriate density. A high density development would result in the addition of 259 dwelling units with a population of 552 people. Whereas a low density designation, 0-7 units per acre, would establish 52 units with a population of 261 people. The low density residential would create the fewest dwelling units and would be compatible with the single family houses to the north. However, it would not be compatible with industrial uses to the south. The medium density residential use would be compatible with all the surrounding uses. The high density residential uses would be in conflict with the single family residential neighborhood on the north. Therefore, the property should be designated medium density residential. It is apparent from this discussion that residential use would be practical in this area even though industrial uses would also be feasible. One problem in this situation arises because of a steady erosion of industrial designations along the corridor. Because residential uses have been permitted on adjacent parcels, the validity of industrial use on the subject parcel is questionable. To allow residential use on this parcel , however, will further erode the industrial corridor. Therefore, though residential use could be supported, it would be wise to defer decision here until a compre- hensive policy is established by the City Council on the future of the industrial corridor. 5 .d 2. 1. 3 Recommendation This amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element recommends that the area of concern be reviewed again in the first amendment of 1977 to the General Plan. 2. 2 North of Atlanta Avenue and East of Beach Boulevard 2. 2. 1 Background The area of concern encompasses 13. 85 acres located at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue (Figure 2-3) . The property is presently zoned C4 and designated for general commercial under the Phase I Land Use Element. The subject property is surrounded to the north by single family homes, to the east by a flood control channel abutting single family homes, to the south across Atlanta Avenue by a commercial center, and to the west across Beach Boulevard by vacant medium density designated land and a mobile home park. The majority of the area of concern is vacant, with a reading clinic located on the north end of the parcel, and a pump station adjacent to the flood control channel at Atlanta Avenue. The property owner has requested that the area be redesignated to allow a mixture of commercial, office professional and multiple family residential uses. 2. 2. 2 Analysis An analysis of the feasibility of the requested change must consider two questions. The first is whether supply of commercial land in the general area is sufficient to allow reduction of commercial acreage within the area of concern. Neighborhood commercial centers tend to draw business from a service area of roughly one square mile or 10, 000 people. The area which the proposed shopping center will service presently contains an estimated 18, 300 persons. Additionally, there are 218 acres of vacant residential land in the service area which, at ultimate development, would raise the total population to 25, 400. This area is now served by a seven acre shopping center at the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue along with scattered commercial uses downtown along Main Street. Excluding the area of concern, there are fifteen acres of undeveloped neighborhood commercial land within the square mile region, one parcel at the northwest corner of Atlanta Avenue and Magnolia Street, and the other directly south of the existing center at 6 ACWX ` SAIL CR. i�lEi,I Uhl I(T MERMAID Y DENS I TY O SUNSET c O f .. KINGFISHER z i J y V MARY CR #i GEi f :X._ Y — MIN SEABIRD CR �y� HEDIUNl - € - - iJEiVS I TY � -- EVELTN CR _ CA Y Q .— a Q J U LL U SNOWBIRD a W U Yf A T L A N TA AVE. i I. TOURIST COMMERCIAL toC01 oRf I, ' IUIl__ pr�r�► toci.o et�"ric'i J Iy AJE!rON AREA OF CONCERN 2.2 NORTH OF ATLANTA AVENUE & EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue. If developed, these two sites would be sufficient to accommodate any new growth in the area. Furthermore, the City' s Downtown Redevelopment Plan has as one . of its major goals the revitalization of the downtown area' s economic function; hence 157. 5 acres have. been designated for various types of commercial uses. Given the intensity of the anticipated commercial activity in this area and the desire to maximize this activity, a reduction of commercial acreage within the area of concern might actually be beneficial to the interests of the City as well as the property owner. If a reduction in commercial acreage is allowed, the second question that arises concerns the feasibility and compatibility of the requested land uses, in this case, office professional and medium density residential . Since office professional uses are allowed under the commercial land use designation, we need only analyze the possibility of allowing medium density. Issues that arise in allowing increased residential use involve compati- bility with surrounding uses, availability of schools, and open space to serve residents . The property owner has requested that the northeast 3. 4 acres of the area of concern be set aside for residential use. With this configuration, medium density develop- ment would be buffered from the existing low density uses to the east by a flood control channel, and would act as transition between the proposed commercial on the south and the single family homes to the north. A maximum of 52 units could be developed on the parcel under medium density standards, resulting in an estimated increase of 134 persons. Although no park space presentlyoexists within the quarter section in which the area of concern is located, and residential development will increase demand for such space, the City has expressed interest in acquiring a three-acre site which, when developed, will satisfy the area' s ultimate park demand. Current enrollment at Peterson Elementary School is below capacity, and the small number of high school students will have a minimum impact on local high school enroll- ment. 2. 2 . 3 Recommendation The Amendment to the Phase I Lard Use Element recommends that the northeast 3. 4 acres of the area of concern be redesignated medium density. 8 Aft 2. 3 North of Talbert Avenue and West of Beach Boulevard 2. 3. 1 Background The property is located approximately 1320 feet west of Beach Boulevard along the north side of Talbert Avenue (see Figure 2-4) . The entire 19. 81 acre site is re- quested for change from light industrial to medium density residential. Present zoning is Ml (light industrial) . Land uses to the north include manu- facturing and storage buildings, apartments, and vacant medium density residential property. To the west are vacant industrial lands and open storage facilities. Across Talbert Avenue to the south is vacant industrial property. The site adjoins medium density residential along the eastern boundary. This area was first addressed in a previous Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element (July, 1975) . The analysis at that time focused on whether the site should be designated industrial or residential. The analysis con- sidered the subject property and about 20 acres directly to the west. The Planning Staff concluded that the entire area should retain the light industrial desig- nation. Among the reasons cited was that residential development would not be incompatible with industrial uses on three sides, subjecting the residents to in- creased arterial traffic, noise, and aesthetic problems. The property owner resubmitted the request for resi- dential use in time to be considered in the General Plan Amendment 76-2 (October 1976) . At that time the Planning Staff was in the process of preparing an Industrial Land Use Study to analyze present and future demands for industrial land within the City. The Planning Commission wished to postpone their decision concerning this area until the recommendations of the Industrial Land Use Study had been finalized, and continued the request to this amendment. 2. 3. 2 Analysis The area of concern is bordered by residential uses on the east and north. Industrial uses also border on the north. Additionally, the Land Use Element designates the vacant property on the west and south for industrial uses These factors indicate the area of concern should be re- tained for industrial development. AM& 9 � I 5LA1 { i. L MO I L E HOME _ SPEER c J I i I i y I I I I AVE - 1,`�- ---�- - 'cti vr.•.::} � I � ► I � � � ► � ; J -" "'-'— - Tr 'T-;--r •�• NEWMAN AvE t f , uISiiTiY - --- rtTr 111 t'ril `. r 7 i �T1 t RONALD DH ti l ; ' F ...... a: I I t t i! oT Ti T.TiTi Ti i r, III' TALBERT � 1 l -YAM w iA�li I�i1I 1 � II HT I1�1 1 CL AVE T DUS Ir R I A L COMMERG --- RETAIL TATLDA pp - - flil 4 . .-- -- , t ll I • AREA OF CONCERN 2.3 NORTH OF TALBERT AVENUE & WEST OF BEACH BOULEVARD 10 Aft Figure 2-4 In retaining the property for industrial use, the homogeneity of the area is preserved. Whereas, if the subject property is designated for medium density resi- dential development, it would be virtually surrounded on three sides by industrial properties. Such a situation would subject the residents to increased arterial traffic as well as noise and aesthetic problems. More importantly, the Industrial Land Use Study desig- nates this area as the fourth most important location of available industrial land in the Gothard Corridor. Although there appears to be an excess of industrial land in the City, decreasing industrial acreage should begin in less desirable industrial locations. Until the Industrial Land Use Study is reviewed by the City Council and policies set forth, regarding redesignation of existing industrial land, no change of the existing designation should occur. 2. 3. 3 Recommendation This Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element recommends that the area of concern not be redesignated to medium density residential, but that area of concern 2. 3 be reviewed again in General Plan Amendment 77-1. 2. 4 The vicinity of Gothard Street and Heil Avenue 2. 4 . 1 Gothard Street, South of Heil Avenue 2. 4. 1.1 Background The property consists of 47. 76 acres south of Heil Avenue and extending along Gothard Street to the Orange County Flood Control District Channel (see Figure 2-5) . The site is currently zoned M1 and designated light industrial by the Phase I Land Use Element. Across Heil Avenue to the north lie a small industrial park and storage facility, and vacant M1 property. To the west are apartments (R3) and the Park View Elementary School. The southern boundary consists of apartment (R3) and a drive-in theater. Single family subdivisions abut the area of concern on the east. The property owner has requested that the property be redesignated low density residential. Aft 11 MURDY CR. aC I C� AMAZON OR C F_ LEMHr CR BOVQVET DR. I I 7 — J I-- -EI - - � � II,�HT_ CR J - L t ANITA LN. ]LIr,+IT CR -- --- --- -- -- T_II� r _ ;' i— •`" `I T LOW DR. L I G H T INDUSTRIAL - r— NF. DR z— - - -�- - - •} NANCY DR. 7 JJ W SUNLIGHT DR 2 r -� - -— C, - -— ALHAMBRA 11_... _� �DNC�1 Mll HEIL LI 11J DANUBE DR __ J 1- - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL - SEINE OR J t- T DON I CF-E := N __- • J W - ' L l — RHINE E CR l+ rn t I.lu CF— R - o CCR^,KAN m Dmn i O C F c �f T�USE DR D E N S I T Y C3 4 il� 11.11I I I { d —S"INGTON AVE J 1L I ELK CR. — ~O ._. RETAIL — --- M. WARNER AREA OF CONCERN 2.4 VICINITY OF GOTHARD STREET & HEIL AVENUE 12 Ad ft FIGURE 2-5 2. 4. 1. 2 Analysis There is little question that the area of concern would make a good low density residential area. The surround- ing land uses are compatible and even the industrial uses to the north across Heil Avenue are of low intensity. However, the property is also excellent for industrial use. The Industrial Land Use Survey determined that all industrial properties to the north of Warner Avenue represent the best industrial land in Huntington Beach. These areas should be the very last to be redesignated to other uses. 2. 4. 1. 3 Recommendation This Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element recommends that the area of concern retain its present industrial designation, and that it be reviewed again in General. Plan Amendment 77-1. 2. 4. 2 North of Heil Avenue and West of Gothard Street 2. 4. 2 . 1 Background The area of concern consists of 18. 83 acres of vacant land at the northwest corner of Heil Avenue and Gothard Street (figure 2-5) . The property is presently zoned M1 and designated for industrial use by the Phase I Land Use Element. The parcel is surrounded to the north and east across Gothard Street by existing industrial uses and a fire station. The industrially designated land to the south across Heil Avenue is presently used for agriculture, and single family homes abut the subject property to the west. The property owner has requested that the land use designation be changed from industrial to medium density residential to accommodate a mobile home park. 2. 4 . 2. 2 Analysis Since the area of concern is surrounded on three sides by existing industrial uses and industrially desig- nated land, retention of the present industrial land use designation would provide for the most compatible development and maintain the homogeneity of the Gothard Street Corridor. The intensity of industrial uses in the immediate area and the arterial traffic these uses generate could create noise problems for residents if the area of concern is developed medium density. Aft 13 This area was previously addressed in General Plan Amend- ment 76-2, at which time the Planning Commission chose to continue it in anticipation that the City Council would adopt a formal policy regarding the Industrial Land Use Study. Although the Industrial Land Use Study indicates there is a surplus of industrial land within the City and recommends reduction of some of this acreage, the sites north of Warner Avenue (Areas of Concern 2. 4. 1 and 2. 4. 2) have been identified as the most attractive locations in the Gothard Corridor for future industrial development. Elimination of surplus acreage should occur in less desirable locations. However, the area of concern if well suited for resi- dential development, and the vacant industrial land directly to the south has also been requested for a change in land use designation to allow development of residential uses. If both areas were to go residential, the potential adverse effects of industrial noise and traffic would be greatly diminished. The final decision hinges on the City Council' s policy regarding the recommendations of the Industrial Land Use Study, and until such a time, no change should take place. 2. 4 . 2 . 3 Recommendation This Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element recommends that the area of concern not be redesignated medium density residential, but that Area of Concern 2. 4 .1 be reviewed again in General Plan Amendment 77-1 . 2. 5 South of Warner Avenue and East of Beach Boulevard 2 . 5. 1 Background The area of concern is located on the southeast corner of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard (Figure 2-6) . A request was received in August 1976 to consider re- designating several lots within the area of concern commercial to high density residential. The area of concern was expanded to include the related properties. 14 Aft o a CL `'' LANCASTER DR W J 1 DAMASK DR -17T D C6 -I O. C F C C F- E KAL Lull IIH f WARNER AVE COMME C I. - PEED UM -- I TY ,SYCAMORE AvEDR —._ _ �n � .sue. • I FTFI J YPRE55 AvF Ie - -_—_ . _ --- - MERSEI ILIL E I DR Z cr FcRP L + 0 I VALENCIA J ANDRELL T f I FRIESLANO DR ; I i . i I — - J --- _ GUILDERS DR - BARTON . DR. Q - —i i ui r7T1 AREA OF CONCERN 2.'5 SOUTH OF WARNER AVENUE & EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD Adft _ 15 tIG RE 2 b e The 8. 61 gross acre area of concern is developed with commercial fronting Beach Boulebard and further east older low density residential development which is inter- spersed with vacant properties. The property to the north is designated commercial retail, public utility and school facility. The property to the east is desig- nated medium and low density residential. The property to the south is designated low density residential and commercial retail. To the west, across Beach Boulevard, the property is designated commercial retail. 2. 5. 2 Analysis The area of concern as shown in Figure 2-6 is potentially a very valuable commercial property since it is located at the intersection of two highly travelled arterials - Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard. However, most of the property is developed with older single family homes. Effective commercial development of this property would necessitate demolition of existing structures and lot consolidation. By maintaining a commercial designation on the area of concern, property owners have little incentive to maintain their homes in a safe and attract- ive manner. Consequently, the existing commercial designation may be viewed as a contributing factor in the decline of the area. The properties on the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue have greater viability for commercial use because of existing uses and ownership patterns . Although the northwest corner is a small lot location, the Redevelop- ment Agency has identified this area in the Preliminary Plan for Small Lot Redevelopment Project Area. Upon adoption of the plan the Agency could bring its authority to bear on the area. The logical alternative to commercial use of the area of concern is residential. Unlike a commercial desig- nation, a residential designation would not act as a disincentive to the maintenance of the existing housing stock. A medium density residential designation may induce an incremental turnover of substandard units to newer units. However, that portion of the area of con- cern which fronts Beach Boulevard is extremely poor for residential use. This is due to the proximity of noise sources and the configuration of the properties. Con- sequently, a commercial designation should remain on the property fronting Beach Boulevard. Further, at least that property located west of "A" Street should remain 16 commercial in order to provide enough property for a viable commercial development. 2. 5. 3 Recommendation This amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element recom- mends that the portion of the area of concern located between "A" and "B" Streets be redesignated medium density residential. 2. 6 South of the San Diego Freeway and East of San Angelo Drive 2. 6. 1 Background The subject property consists of, approximately 7. 77 acres of land and is located on the south side of the San Diego Freeway at the east end of San Angelo Drive (Figure 2-7) . The subject property is presently designated planning reserve under the Phase I Land Use Element. The Planning Department is requesting that the study area be re- designated high density residential. This area was previously addressed in General Plan Amendment 76-2 to the Phase I Land Use Element (October, 1976) . Because the property was under litigation at the time, the Planning Commission chose to continue the proposed redesignation to the next amendment. 2. 6. 2 Analysis The planning reserve land use designation allows the City to hold off on areas that need further analysis and study prior to identification of specific land use designations. The subject property is presently desig- nated planning reserve. In February, 1976, the current property owner filed Use Permit 76-12 for the develop- ment of 193 apartment units. The Use Permit was initially denied by the Board of Zoning Adjustments and the Planning Commission. An appeal was initiated by the property owner to the City Council for consideration. The Use Permit was conditionally approved by the City Council on July 7, 1976. In light of the approved development plans, there is no longer any reason to maintain this property under the planning reserve designation. In order to bring the property into conformance with present density levels, it is necessary to change the planning reserve desig- nation to high density. M17 + IEDINGER—AV E ._ sq� HIGH 0 `i11ERC I A ENS I TY to iFCO R E I A I L CANNING �•`_;:} STARK AVE D]A N I T Y RESERVE `' Paz DR. __ ZL i • Gy.5 0 C, F c, 0 o - J m I U Q W m HE16 AREA OF CONCERN 2.6 SOUTH OF THE SAN DIEGO FREEWAY & EAST OF SAN ANGELO DRIVE 18 Alft _ 2. 6. 3 Recommendation This Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element recommends that because of ongoing litigation, the area of concern be continued to General Plan Amendment No. 77-1. 2. 7 Bolsa Chica Street, South of Warner Avenue 2. 7. 1 South of Warner Avenue and East of Bolsa Chica Street 2. 7. 1. 1 Background The area of concern encompasses 16. 49 acres, located between Warner and Los Patos Avenues, and extending from Bolsa Chica Street to Greentree Street (figure 2-8) . Requests were received from various property owners within the area asking for a change in the general plan land use designation to allow an increase in density. This area was previously addressed in General Plan Amend- ment 76-2 (October, 1976) at which time the Planning Commission continued the matter to this amendment. requesting that a detailed study of residential uses in the area be undertaken before amending the land. use designation. 2. 7.. 1. 2 Analysis The study area is currently designated for low density residential. The property includes a few older single- family homes and vacant land. Existing land uses to the north consist of retail commercial and office pro fessional. Also, to the north across Warner Avenue is Meadowlark Airport. Land use to the east is medium density residential which currently has an approved tentative tract (9235) . The property to the south is currently designated high density (R3) and is partially developed with apartments. Use Permit 75-65 has been approved for development of the remainder of the vacant R3 property. To the west immediately across Bolsa Chica Street are high density residential apartments (R3) and retail commercial uses. Requests have been received from some of the property owners within the study area asking that the land use designation be changed from low density to medium density residential. The issues that need to be analyzed are compatibility with surrounding land uses and the availability of facilities that would support an increase in density such as open space and school facilities. A medium density residential designation on the subject property would be compatible with the immediate surrounding land uses. Adft19 } ii I li L 0 W CHARLEI CR. ( D E N S I T Y i � Z CO"I ERCIA r - �. VACANT Y r WARNER 1 j -- -- C• Mlmk Ila, FF I R FESS N L EL Irr ¢• r r r :� R E T A I L _ _ EDIUM Z :♦: J r ---.._ .- -- - ---- ENSITY Lam _ r VINELAND DR. HIGH--- �• • - -•• a DENSITY w - .r : DENSITY '' Z LO�� i:: r 2. / .1 GLENROY DENS I TA....Ll ::...f .. r.: _r••::{•Yrrf:::f. . .. ...Yr.5.1 . 4 N _I T -" }� of H I G H �4^ KEN ILWOR'. H - 2 3.2 DENS I T Y ♦ -Single Family Residence Developed Property AREA OF CONCERN 2.7 BOLSA CHICA STREET SOUTH OF WARNER AVENUE 20 Aft Figure 2-8 The commercial and office professional designations provide a logical separation of the study area and Warner Avenue on the north. The medium density resi- dential to the east and the high density to the south will be compatible with a medium density designation on the subject property. A question is raised with regard to the compatibility of medium density residential with the operation of Meadow- lark Airport. Concern has been voiced by the Airport Land Use Commission concerning probable sight and sound disturbances to future inhabitants of the subject property. Aircraft presently avoid flying directly over the study area. However, medium density residential development on the property would still be affected by aircraft noise from planes taking off and would be exposed to the hazard of planes failing while attempting a take-off. Plans are presently under way to form a water and sewer assessment district for those properties that front on Dunbar Street which extends through the study area. The projected sizes for the water and sewer lines will be able to accommodate medium density residential develop- ment. The two lots that front on Bolsa Chica Street will take water and sewer access directly off existing lines extending down Bolsa Chica Street. Another important consideration when analyzing this property for medium density residential development is the availability of supporting facilities (open space and schools) . If the entire 16. 49 acres are designated medium density, a maximum population of 600 persons could be generated. The Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report identifies the area bounded by Slater Avenue, Graham Street, Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street as being deficient in neighborhood park land by 1. 6 acres. The requested change from low density to medium density residential will intensify this park deficiency. If the land use is changed to medium density residential, effort should be directed toward securing a neighborhood park site through dedication as the land to the south is developed and annexed to the City. The Ocean View School District has indicated that as the area south of Warner Avenue develops and the school age population in the area expands, the school district would construct an elementary school on an existing school site located within the area owned by Signal Landmark Properties, Inc. Aelft 21 The Planning Staff is currently preparing a study of Meadowlark Airport, which includes short and long-term impact of the airport operations on the surrounding area. The issue of expanding residential development around the airport will be addressed specifically in this study. Until the completion of the Meadowlark Study, no change in land use designation is recommended in the area of concern. 2. 7. 1. 3 Recommendation This Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element recommends that the area of concern retain its low density desig- nation and that it be reviewed again in General Plan Amendment 77-1. 2. 7. 2 West of Bolsa Chica Street and North of Los Patos Avenue 2. 7. 2. 1 Background The area of concern consists of a 4 . 86 acre triangular- shaped parcel of land at the northeast corner of Los Patos Avenue and Green street (figure 2-8) . The property is now used for Little League baseball games. The property to the north and east is designated by the General Plan as high density residential. The property to the south is designated as medium density with a zoning of R2-PD-14. To the west across Green Street are vacant parcels of land with a land use designation of low density residential. The property owners have re- quested that the land use designation can be changed from low density to high density residential. This area was first addressed in General Plan Amendment 76-2 to the Phase I Land Use Element (October 1976) . The City Council continued this area because of its proximity to Meadowlark Airport and the issue of resi- dential expansion as indicated in the discussion of the previous area of concern. 2. 7. 2. 2 Analysis The issues concerning the subject property are similar to those for Area of Concern 2. 7. 1. The compatibility with surrounding land uses must be analyzed as well as the availability of open space and school facilities. While the land use designations to the north and east are high density residential, the property immediately to the west is low density residential. The study area, 22 Ad ft, then, is an ideal location to provide a transitional zone between these high and low density classifications. A medium density residential land use on the property would permit a maximum of 15 units per acre of 72 units. Maximum development would generate a population of 169 persons. Compatibility of land uses with Meadowlark Airport is the same as indicated under Area of Concern 2. 7. 1, with the exception that the take-off pattern is directly over the property in question. Because of this direct fly over, the problems of sight and sound disturbances are intensi- fied. The Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report identified a deficiency of 4 . 4 acres of neighbor- hood park land within the Slater Avenue, Algonquin Street, Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street quarter section. Once again, efforts should be directed toward obtaining adequate park land within the immediate area. The increase from low density to medium density residential will intensify the need for park land. School facilities will be provided to the property and surrounding area in the same manner as discussed under Area of Concern 2. 7. 1. 2 . 7. 2 . 3 Recommendation This Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element recommends that the area of concern not be redesignated high density, but that it be reviewed again in General Plan Amendment 77-1, at which time the recommendations of the Meadowlark Study should be available for input into the discussion of appropriate land use designation. Aft 23 3. 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 3. 1 Scope of Amendment Adoption of this amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element constitutes approval of the General Plan land use designations and added resi- dential standards in the identified areas only. Adoption of the amendment will not affect any other location in the City. 3 . 2 Residential Standards Residential standards utilized in this amendment are those used in the first amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element (March 1975) . These standards, which generally reduce residential densities, are outlined in the first amendment. Because they were adopted in that document, they need not be readopted at this time. With adoption of this amendment, however, the new densities will be applied to the identi- fied area. 3. 3 Proposed Amendment 76-3B , Area of Concern Summaries The following sections summarize the recommended changes in General Plan land use designations for the affected areas. If no change is recommended, the area is not discussed. Adak 25 3. 3. 1 North of Atlanta Avenue and East of Beach Boulevard Of the 13 . 85 acre area of concern, the northeast 3. 4 acres should be redesignated medium density residential in place of the existing commercial designation. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Medium Density Residential 3. 4 Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Medium Density 3 . 4 x 15 = 51 x 2. 35 = 120 3. 3. 2 South of Warner Avenue and East of Beach Boulevard Of the 8161 acre area of concern, the 4. 55 acre portion located between "A" Streets and "B" Streets should be redesignated from commercial to medium density residen- tial. Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Category Gross Acres Medium Density Residential 4. 55 Projected Population Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Medium Density 4 . 55 x 15 = 68 x 2. 35 = 160 26 Aft 3. 4 Proposed Summary of General Plan Amendment76-3B Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Existing Proposed Net Land Use Category Gross Acres Gross Acres Gross Acres Residential Medium Density 0 7. 95 7 . 95 Commercial Retail 7. 95 0 - 7. 95 Total Land Involved in the Amendment: 7. 95 Gr/Ac Projected Population Residential Net Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Gr/Ac. Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Medium Density 7. 95 x 15 = 119 x 2. 35 = 280 27 �.. @@, .10 oa , ,• . .., any j ., w r iF � T r l �'1 r �j �/ �w �at i0 ae' ,� `�"'! t \. :is+=Cc:;'.,._. ',// .�� / •� !� \ L .r r 9• ,r+ , 40 iNK .. " : ... \. . �. .............._...<.._. �y ................:. ^.:?,fie , ,. :.....................,...\............ 1 ..+.. \ 7 , , a r a ,ks roa:'w:v. Y �n J LEGEND Figure 3- 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED GENERAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT Medium Density 8-15 un/gac 7 . PLAN AMENDMENT6-3 B LAND USE 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section of the report focuses on the potential environmental effects of the proposed amendment. The areas of concern are evaluated in total and then specifically where an impact exists. Where there is no impact, the specific area of concern will not be discussed. Mitigating measures are considered in a similar manner. 4 . 1 Project Description The proposed project is the fifth amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element of the General Plan, prepared by the Plan Development Section of the Huntington Beach Planning Department. This amendment studies areas throughout the City where changing conditions require reconsideration of past decisions, establishing land use policy accordingly. The various study areas encompass a total of 140. 26 acres and are shown in Fiqure 2-1 . 4. 1. 1 South of Ellis Avenue and West of Huntington Street The area of concern contains 10. 03 acres, and is bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north, medium density planned development on the east, vacant and developed industrial on the south, and vacant industrial on the west. This amendment proposes continuance to General Plan Amendment 77-1. /' 2 9 4. 1. 2 North of Atlanta Avenue and East of Beach Boulevard The area of concern contains 13. 85 acres, and is bounded by low den- sity residential on the north, a flood control channel on the east, Atlanta Avenue on the south and Beach Boulevard on the west. This amendment proposes redesignating the northeast 3. 4 acres to medium density residential. 4. 1. 3 North of Talbert Avenue and West of Beach Boulevard The area of concern contains 19. 81 acres and is bounded by indus- trial and residential uses on the north, residential on the east, Talbert Avenue on the south and vacant industrial on the west. This amendment proposes continuance to General Plan Amendment 77-1. 4. 1. 4 Gothard Street, South of Heil Avenue The area of concern contains 47. 76 acres and is bounded on the north by Heil Avenue, low density residential on the east, medium density and a flood control channel on the south, and a school and medium density residential on the west. This amendment proposes continuance to General Plan Amendment 77-1. 4. 1. 5 North of Heil Avenue and West of Gothard Street The area of concern contains 18. 83 acres and is bounded on the south by Heil Avenue, low density residential on the west, industrial on the north and Gothard Street on the east. This amendment proposes continuance to General Plan Amendment 77-1. 4. 1. 6 South of Warner Avenue and East of Beach Boulevard This area of concern contains 8. 61 acres and is bounded on the west by Beach Boulevard, on the north by Warner Avenue, on the east by B Street and on the south by Blaylock Drive. This amendment pro- poses that the portion of the area of concern located between A Street and B Street be redesignated medium density residential. 4. 1. 7 South of the San Diego Freeway and East of San Angelo Drive This area of concern contains 7. 77 acres and is bounded on the north and east by the San Diego Freeway, medium density residential on the west and the City boundary on the south. This amendment proposes continuance to General Plan Amendment 77-1. 4. 1. 8 South of Warner Avenue and East of Bolsa Chica Street This area of concern contains 16. 49 acres and is bounded on the north by commercial and office professional uses, on the east by 30 medium density residential under construction, high density on the south and Bolsa Chica Street on the west. This amendment proposes continuance to General Plan Amendment 77-1. 4. 1. 9 West of Bolsa Chica Street and North of Los Patos Avenue This area of concern contains 4. 86 acres and is bounded on the north and east by high density residential, on the south by Los Patos Avenue and on the west by Green Street. This amendment proposes con- tinuance to General Plan Amendment 77-1. 4. 2 Environmental Setting 4 . 2.1 Natural Environmental Setting Huntington Beach is a metropolitan city in a metro- politan county and, as such, its environment - both local and regional - is primarily an urban one. Even in this urban area, however, natural resources remain. The following sections reference the land, water, air biological, and cultural resources in the City. 4 . 2. 1. 1 Land Resources A general description of the land resources in the City is presented in Section 6 . 4 . 1 of the Land Use Element: Phase I and updated in Section 6 . 3. 2 . 1 of the Seismic Safety Element 2 of the General Plan. Additional fni or- mation is contained in the Conservation Potentials Report,3 Sections 2. 1 and 3 . 0; Open Space Potentials Report, Sections 2 . 0 , 3 . 0, and 4 . 0; Geotechnical Inputs, and Flood Hazard Study. 6 4. 2. 1. 2 Water Resources A general description of the water resources in the City is presented in Section 6 . 4 . 2 of the Land Use Element : Phase I7 (as modified by EIR addendum #10, December 7 , 1973) and updated in Section 6. 3. 2 . 2 of the Seismic- Safety Element8 of the General Plan. Additionalinfor- mation is cited in the Conservation Potentials Report,9 Sections 2 . 2 and 3 . 0; Open Space Potentials lu Sections 2. 1. 1, 2 . 4 . 2 , and 4 . 0; Plood Hazard Study; -Li and Fire Hazard/Fire Protection Study, 12 Section 3. 3 . 31 4 . 2. 1. 3 Air Resources A general description of the air resources in the City is presented in Section 6 . 4 . 3 of the Land Use Element: Phase I13 and updated in Section 6 . 3 . 2 . 3 of the Seismic- Safety Element. 14 Additional discussion of air resources is presented in the Conservation Potentials Report, Section 2. 3 . 15 4 . 2 . 1. 4 Biological Resources A general description of the biological resources in the City is presente�lin Section 6 . 4 . 4 of the Land Use 6 Element: Phase Ill and updated in Section 6 . 3 . 2 . 4 of the Seismic Safety Element.17 Additional discussion and species listings are available in the Conservation Potentials Report, Section 2. 4 . 18 4. 2. 1. 5 'Cultural Resources A description of the cultural resources in the City is presented in Section 6 . 3 . 2 . 5 of the Seismic-Safety Element19 of the General Plan. Additional information is cited n Conservation Potentials Report, 20 Section 2 . 5 , Open Space Potentials , 21 Section 2. 1 . 5 , 2. 1 . 6 , 2nd 2 . 3; and Scientific Resources Survey and Inventory. 2 4 . 2 . 2 Urban Environmental Setting This portion of Section 4 . 0 addresses the urban or man- made environmental setting. The major topics covered are: (1) land use, (2) circulation, (3) public services, (4) utilities, (5) population, (6) noise, and (7 ) socio- economics. 4. 2. 2.1 Land Use A description of the existing land uses in the individual study areas is presented in Section 2 . 0 of the proposed General Plan Amendment 76-2, July, 1976 . 23 4 . 2. 2. 2 Circulation A general description of existing circulation in the City is presented in Section 2 . 3 of the Land Use Element: Phase 124 and u dated in the Circulation Element Back- ground Report, 2 and The General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach. 32 4. 2 . 2. 3 Public Services A. Police Service Police protection for the City is provided from one station. This station is located in the south central section of the City at Main Street and Mansion Avenue. The present level of police manning is about 1.14 officers per 1, 000 persons (June, 1976) . B. Fire Protection Huntington Beach maintains seven fire stations to provide fire protection to the City. The manning rate is approximately one fireman. per 1, 120 persons. C. Schools The following school districts provide educational services for the City of Huntington Beach. Elementary Huntington Beach City Ocean View Fountain Valley Westminster Seal Beach High School Huntington Beach Union College Coast Community The public school system is supplemented by several private schools, most of which are parochial. At present, the Huntington Beach school system could withstand an increase in school children population of 3 , 385. The increase in total City population relating to this increase in school population would be 13 , 586. 27 Aft 33 D. Library Service The Huntington Beach Central Library is located on Talbert Avenue east of Goldenwest Street. Three supporting library annexes are located at 9281 Banning Street, the corner of Edinger Avenue and Graham Street, and at 525 Main Street. An annex has a service area of 1-1/2 to 2 miles. E. Hospital Service There are two hospitals located within the City. Both Pacifica Hospital (located on Delaware Street north of Garfield Avenue) and Huntington Intercommunity Hospital (located at Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue) provide 24-hour emergency service. F. Parks and Beaches The City of Huntington Beach contains 350 acres of parks . Acres Neighborhood 123 Community 56 Regional 171 TOTAL 350 acs . Huntington Beach also contains 315 acres of beach, with an additional 36 acres abutting the City' s northwest corner, Sunset Beach, under county jurisdiction. For further information on all City parks and beaches , refer to the Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report, 28 Section 5. 0, the Conservation Potentials Report, 29 Section 2 . 5, and the Open Space Potentials Report, 30 Section 2 . 0. 4 . 2. 2 . 4 Utilities A. Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company supplies natural gas to the City of Huntington Beach. Yearly consump- tion rates are as follows: 31 34 Residential Single-family 122, 000 cu. ft./d.u. Multiple-family 95,000 cu. ft ./d .u. Commercial 136, 900 cu. ft./gr.ac . Industrial 35, 600 cu. ft./gr.ac. Current natural gas usage in the City is estimated at 6 billion cu. ft. per year. B. Electricity The Southern California Edison Company provides electricity to the City of Huntington Beach. The following annual consumption rates are assumed:32 Residential Single-family 5700 kwh/d.u. Multiple-family 5700 kwh/d .u. Commercial 223 ,700 kwh/gr.ac. Industrial 154 , 800 kwh/gr.ac. Current usage of electricity in the City is estimated at 612 million kwh per year. C. Sewer Sewer service is contracted for through the City as a member of the Orange County Sanitation District. Assuming an overall generation rate of 150 gal/person/ day, 33 current sewage production in the City is estimated at 22.7 million gallons per day or 8. 3 billion gallons per year. D. Solid Waste Solid waste pick-up in Huntington Beach is provided by the Rainbow Disposal Company. After collection, the trash is delivered to the Orange County Transfer Station on Gothard Street near Huntington Central Park. The trash is then transferred to larger trucks and hauled to the Coyote Canyon landfill site. The following generation rates are assumed :34 Adft 35 Residential 5. 5 lbs/person/day Commercial 75 lbs/ac/day Industrial 100 lbs/ac/day Current solid waste generation in the City is estimated at 488 tons per day or 178 , 000 tons per year. E. Water The City of. Huntington Beach provides water to its residents . A consumption rate of 150 gallons/person/ day is assumed. 35 Current usage in the City is esti- mated at 22 .7 million gal/day or 8/3 billion gallons per year. 4 . 2. 2.5 Population The population of Huntington Beach is 151 , 500 (January, 1976) . The current growth rate is less than 3 percent and is likely to be less than 2 percent in the future. This represents a decrease over previous years , down from 22 percent in the 1960 ' s when growth in Huntington Beach was explosive. The City' s median age is 26 years . Recent data indicates the median age is increasing, however, because senior citizens are making up an increasingly larger share of the population. 4§ee the Population Growth Element Background Report for further information. ) 4 . 2 . 2. 6 Noise Noise sources in Huntington Beach are : highways and free- ways, railroads, airport and helicopter operations, residential/institutional sources, and oil pumping oper- ations . Noise contours showing existing noise levels for major transportation elements are presented in the Noise Element Background Report. 37 Major transportation elements in Huntington Beach are as follows: (1) freeways and highways (2) railroad operations (3) airport operations Using the noise contours together with the maximum noise levels presented in the Noise Element, potentially noise- sensitive areas in Huntington Beach can be determined. 36 Adft Random noise sources are tested separately from constant noise sources like vehicle traffic and railroad and air- craft operations. A field measurement survey conducted by Wyle Laboratories found that trucks on arterial high- ways are responsible for the highest noise exposures in Huntington Beach. Sources producing the lowest noise levels were typically found in residential areas away from arterials, residential areas near arterials but with barrier walls, and in school areas. Generally, the single event noise intrusions observed in Huntington Beach fell within the "acceptable" noise criteria levels.38 4 . 2. 2. 7 Socio-Economic Characteristics Because Huntington Beach is one of the newer residential communities in Orange County, it has attracted a mobile, affluent, and relatively young population. According to estimates for January, 1976, the median family income for Huntington Beach residents is $16, 276 . 39 For those households reporting. incomes in the 1973 Special Census, the median incomes by family size are as follows : One member $ 8 , 517 Two members 12 , 945 Three members 14 ,399 Four members 14 , 941 Five members 16.,658 Six or more 15, 614 The .United States Department of Housing and Urban Development uses the following criteria for classifying low and very low income households : (1) A family is low income if its annual income is less than 80 percent of the median income for that area as adjusted for family size. (2) A family is very low income if its annual income is less than 50 percent of the median income of that area as adjusted for family size. From estimates of 1976 houshold incomes based on 1975 SCAG estimates, 13 , 303 households or twenty-five (25) percent of all households in Huntington Beach are classified as low income. Of these households, 6, 283 families or 12 percent can be classified as very low income. 37 Ninety-five (95) percent of the population in Huntington Beach is Caucasian. The 1973 Special Census reported minority concentrations of 325 black; 4, 034 spanish sur- name; 1, 877 oriental; and 287 people of other racial or cultural backgrounds. 4. 3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures 4. 3. 1 Land Use/Demography The total effeet .of this amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element will be to reduce potential intensity of commercial activities, and increase residential densities in the areas of concern. The following table summarizes the acreage change in land use designations: Existing Proposed General Commercial 7. 95 0 Medium Density Residential 0 7. 95 TOTAL 7. 95 7. 95 A land use analysis is presented in Section 2. 0 of this report for each of the areas of concern. The proposed uses generally improve the compatibility of the areas with surrounding land uses. In some areas where compatibility is questionable due to the transitional nature of uses, the amendment provides greater flexibility in dealing with problems peculiar to the area of concern. The pro- posed uses also balance the need for housing in the City with the apparent over-supply of commercial space. These considerations are in effect mitigation measures. From the standpoint of housing, development according to the proposed designations will increase the number of potential residential units by 119 and the potential population by 280 above development under the existing Land Use Plan. The following table summarizes the changes by residential category: Existing Proposed D.U. Population D.U. Populatio Medium Density Residential 0 0 119 280 38 Afftk 4 . 3. 2 Land Resources 4 . 3. 2 . 1 Topography Topography within the study areas is relatively flat. Elevations range from 15 feet to 100 feet above sea level. 4 . 3. 2 . 2 Soils The study areas contain a number of various types of sandy and clay soils. Expansive clay soils have the potential to cause serious damage to lightly loaded structures, pavements, driveways, sidewalks, etc. due to changes in moisture content. Study areas which are inland north of Talbert Avenue have major deposits of clay having moderate to high expansion potential. The study areas located on the Huntington Beach Mesa contain loamy soils of the Ramona series. The upper one to two feet may be considered as having low expansion potential, while the underlying soils have a moderate expansion potential. The study areas having low expansion potential are for the most part located southeasterly of the Huntington Beach Mesa. The soils in this area are predominantly silty fine sands and sandy silts with about 6 to 7 per- cent clay size particles. To mitigate the potential hazard associated with expansive soils, soil engineers can be employed by the developer to evaluate the problems and make proper design recommend- ations for individual structures. 4 . 3. 2. 3 Oil No oil uses exist in the study areas. 4 . 3 . 2 . 4 Geologic Considerations Active faults within the City of Huntington Beach, known specifically as the North Branch, Bolsa-Fairview and South Branch Faults, are all contained within the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone. This fault zone enters the City in the Huntington Harbour area and extends in a south- westerly direction. 39 Under the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act, Special Study Zones have been established within Huntington Beach. The General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach, August 1976 , details these Special Study Zones on page 30 and sets forth guiding criteria. None of the amended areas of concern are affected by the Special Study Zones. 4. 3. 3 Water Resources The areas of concern located in the Talbert Gap are sub- ject to flooding in the 100- and 200-year storms. This amendment would increase residential development in the flood plain by 119 dwelling units with a population of 280 persons over the potential development to be generated by existing land use designations. Commercial acreage exposed to the regional flood hazard would be reduced by 7. 95 acres. A program to minimize danger from flooding was adopted by the City Council in October, 1974 as part of the Seismic-Safety Element (refer to Section 5. 2 in the Seismic-Safety Element, Huntington Beach Planning Department) . Further, as a participant in the Federal Insuance Program Huntington Beach flood hazards are governed by the regulations imposed by the Federal Insurance Administration. Certain steps are also being taken to eliminate the flood hazard posed by the Santa Ana River. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has proposed a plan that would make the City (and all of Orange County) flood safe from the 200-year storm. It will be several years before the project can mitigate flood potential , however. In the meantime, development of flood hazard areas will be regu- lated by the programs for flood hazard abatement in the adopted Seismic-Safety Element. In terms of the flooding potential from local channels, all areas of concern would be subject to local surface drainage problems during heavy rains or storms in excess of the 25-year. Development of vacant areas will result in decreased ground percolation and increased surface runoff. 40 Aft Under 25-year storm conditions, full development according to this Land Use Amendment would reduce storm runoff by approximately 42 cubic feet per second below that gener- ated by development under the existing plan. Under these conditions, the City's Public Works Department indicates that local surface drainage can be accommodated by existing and proposed drainage facilities. Groundwater level is very important in a coastal city like Huntington Beach (subject to salt water intrusion) which relies on groundwater as a major source of domestic water. The amount of percolation will be reduced by development under the Land Use Amendment. Less percolation will mean decreased fresh groundwater storage and possible increased salt water intrusion. Runoff is characteristically of poor quality and can adversely affect surface water. It is probable that runoff from development will flow into the Bolsa Chica wildlife preserve, the ocean, and fresh water bodies in the City. Primary pollutants would include vehicle. hydrocarbons, greases, oil, rubber, plastics, asbestos, paint, industrial metal fragments from paved surfaces, and fertilizers and pesticides from landscaped areas. Control of urban runoff and its impact on regional water quality is still in the elementary stages. At present, the only effective mitigation measure is to process such runoff in a sewage treatment facility. 4. 3.4 Biological Resources One of the two study areas recommended for change is largely developed, thus the proposed land use designation changes will have minimal impact upon vegetation and wild- life in this area unless existing structures and trees are removed prior to new development. The remaining vacant site is characterized by low growing weeds. Development of this site will have minimal adverse effect on the biological environment, including the displacement or elimination of wildlife species. These effects can be mitigated by requiring landscaping to encourage the return of displaced species as well as attracting new species . 4. 3. 5 Cultural Resources None of the amended sites have been identified as archaeologically significant. 41 4. 3. 6 Circulation and Traffic The properties that are being considered in this Land Use Amendment for changes in land use designation are located adjacent to existing arterial streets or to local streets that are directly connected to the arterial street system. Sections of some arterial and local streets adjacent to the properties covered by this Land Use Amendment will need improvement. These improvements will occur as vehicle traffic indicates a need for additional improved public right-of-way or as the properties are developed. Under existing land uses for the subject properties, vehicular traffic along the City' s Arterial Street System is projected to increase by 6, 360 trip ends per day. The recommended land use changes presented in this amendment would have a net effect of reducing this number of vehicular trips per day be approximately 5, 610. Such a reduction will result in less congestion, air pollutants, and noise along our arterial street system. Figure 4-1 presents a comparison of. existing and proposed land uses by type in terms of acreage and trips per day. Figure 4-1 Existing and Proposed Land Use Acreage and Vehicle Trips per Day. Proposed Existing Existing Proposed Generated Acreage Trips Acreage Trips Medium Density 0 0 7. 95 750 General Commercial 7. 95 6, 360 0 0 TOTAL 7. 95 6, 360 7. 95 750 4. 3. 7 Air Resources Air quality within the City and the South Coast region will experience less degradation under the proposed Land Use Amendment than under the existing land use desig- nations. The Land Use Amendment will generate approxi- mately 3. 84 tons per day less than the existing Land Use Plan by generating less vehicular traffic movement and thus fewer vehicle miles travelled (Figure 4-2) . 42 XMI r Figure 4-2 GENERATION OF AIR POLLUTANTS Existing Land Uses Proposed Land Uses Pollutant Tons Per Day Tons Per Day Carbon Monoxide 3. 55 0. 42 Hydrocarbons 0. 38 0_ 04 Nitrogen Oxides 0. 38 0. 04 Particulates 0. 03 0. 004 Oxides of Sulfur 0. 01 0. 001 TOTAL 4. 35 0. 51 The estimated tonnage of pollutants may be further reduced as newer model automobiles generating fewer pollutants travel the City streets.. Also new advances in engine design and availability of cleaner fuels may contribute to reduced air pollution. 4 . 3. 8 Noise The noise impacts to be experienced in the various areas of concern are typical of the sound disturbances ex- perienced in an urban environment. Generally the sounds from automobiles, trucks and motorcycles cause the greatest disturbances to residential land uses (Noise Element Background Report, p. 98) . Land uses adjacent to the heavier travelled arterial streets will experience a greater amount of noise intrusion: The Noise Element Background Report presents noise contours for use on City' s arterial street system and indicates specific areas of noise impact. (Noise Element Background Report, pages 64 , 65) . Figure 4-3 identifies those areas of concern that are recommended for change in land use designation and indicates the impacted areas and contour range for each. Also presented is the acceptability rating based on standards established in the Noise Element (The General Plan, p. 41) . The Noise Element provides suggested methods for minimizing the noise impacts upon city land uses Arak 43 caused by vehicular traffic along the arterial streets and . highways. Included in these suggestions are Local reduction of traffic noise through operational modifications . (e.g. revise flow control methods, re- routing of traffic) Outside to inside noise reduction for dwellings through modifications to improve sound insulation (e.g. minimize "sound leaks" around doors, windows and vents; replace "acoustically weak" components; structually improve weak walls and roots) . Figure 4-3 NOISE EXPOSURE ASSOCIATED WITH RECOMMENDED LAND USE CHANGES Area of Recommended Land Ldn. ". Concern Use Changes Contour Interpretation 2. 2 Medium Density Residential less than 60 Acceptable 2. 5 Medium Density Residential 60-65 Unacceptable The maximum noise level for all residential uses is Ldn 60 for outdoors and Ldn 45 for Indoors. Utilizing a maximum noise level of Ldn 60 does not mean that further resi- dential development in all areas exceeding the level of Ldn 60 should be prohibited. It simply means that acoustical analyses should be required in areas where the maximum standard is exceeded and that structural modifi- cations for new development (more insulation, no windows facing street, etc. ) would be necessary. Residential development in areas exceeding the level of Ldn 70 should be prohibited. The criteria level of Ldn 60 for resi- dential uses is compatible with the California Noise Insulation Standards. 4. 3. 9 Public Services Development under General Plan Amendment 76-3B will create the following additional demand on public services above that generated by development according to the Existing Land Use Element. 44 A. Fire Protection: 0. 32 firemen B. Police Protection: 0. 28 policemen C. Recreation and Parks: 1. 4 acres of park space D. Schools: 64 students Elementary: 38 students High School : 14 students Junior College: 12 students E. Hospitals: 280 persons Of prime importance to the adequacy of fire protection coverage is response time, which is basically a function of the distance from the fire station to the incident location and the average speed of travel by fire apparatus. Fire stations should be located to provide an average response time of five minutes or less in 90 percent of the incidents. All study areas are located entirely within this response limit and can be adequately serviced. When comparing development under the existing Land Use Element with General Plan Amendment 76-3B, no difference in response time is expected. Manpower is a secondary factor in fire protection coverage because manning practices are normally based on the City' s financial capability rather than the fire hazard potential. As the areas of concern develop, higher levels of manning will be necessary if the Fire Department is to maintain the level of service required. On-site security protection could minimize the increased demand on the Police Department. Future developments should conform to the California Attorney General' s security provisions. The Planning Staff has analyzed development under the proposed amendment for supply and demand of park lands, and found a need for 1. 4 additional acres of park space. This need could be mitigated by planned unit development or acquisition of additional public open space. Aft 45 The elementary school districts have indicated that they can accommodate additioivil students generated by new housing developments within district boundaries . The Huntington Beach Union High School. District has five schools which are already overloaded with a total capacity of 14 , 798 and a current enrollment of 18 , 661 . This student overload is being accommodated by temporary structures and extended-day schedules. Continued enroll- ment growth will intensify the need for extended school day schedules and force the continued implementation of other classroom alternatives. These effects will be partially mitigated by the new Ocean View High School at Gothard Street and Warner Avenue , within the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The Coast Community College District indicates that their facilities can adequately accommodate the anticipated student increase from expected City growth. There are two hospitals in the City of Huntington Beach which serve the City' s population. An estimated 2 , 500 people are served by Huntington Intercommunity Hospital in some capacity every month. Pacifica hospital serves an estimated 350 people every month. Both hospitals are centrally located . Given the wide range of services offered at the two hospitals , there should be no problem providing health care to residents of Huntington Beach. In addition, the Amendment maintains ample land area for office professional uses to permit future medical development to accommodate the City' s ultimate population. 4 . 3. 10 Utilities A. Natural Gas: The proposed amendment will increase the consumption of natural gas in the study areas by 10, 216, 645 cubic feet per year. This can be at- tributed to an increase in land designated for medium density residential uses. B. Electricity: The proposed amendment will reduce the annual consumption of electricity by 1, 100, 115 kilowatt-hours, due to a decrease in commercially designated land that supports uses associated with high electricity consumption. C. Sewer: The proposed amendment will increase total sewage production by 42, 000 gallons per day, at- tributed to the increased population in medium density areas. 46 D. Solid Waste: The proposed amendment will increase solid waste generation by 944 pounds per day, due to the increase in medium density residential. E. Water: The proposed amendment will increase water consumption by 42, 000 gallons per day, again due to an increase in population in the study areas. Gas service is generally provided as a normal extension of existing facilities. However, the availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Federal regulatory agencies can also affect gas supply. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided according to the revised con- ditions. The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that electrical load requirements can be met for 1976 through 1977 provided that electrical demand does not exceed estimates and there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply. The total demand is ex- pected to continue to increase annually. If Edison ' s plans to proceed with future construction of new .gener- ating facilities continue to be delayed, the ability to serve customer loads could become marginal by 1978 . The following energy conservation measures are recom- mended .for new and renovated structures : 1. Open gas lighting should not be used in public or private buildings. 2. Electric lights should be strategically placed to maximize their efficiency. Their sire and power consumption should be minimized as much as possible . 3. Electrical heating in public and private structures should be discouraged. Solar-assisted heating systems should be encouraged. 4 . Reflecting and/or insulating glass should be used in structures where windows are not shaded by exterior architectural projections or mature plants. Aft 47 The Rainbow Disposal Company, who provides trash collec- tion to the City of Huntington Beach, foresees no local service constraints. Orange County Refuse Disposal in- dicates that the refuse transfer station in Huntington Beach will operate indefinitely. The Coyote Canyon land- fill site is projected to reach capacity during 1981, but several replacement sites will begin operation at that time in accordance with the Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan. Sewer and water service are generally provided as a normal extension of existing facilities. The Orange County Sanitation District' s .master plan outlining ultimate land uses and flow coefficients for Huntington Beach approximates the proposed intensity of land uses under the Land Use Element and proposed amendment. The City' s Public Works Department foresees no problems with City water production capabilities in providing local sewer and water service. Minor enlargements and extensions of existing lines would be required in new developments at the time of actual development. 4. 3. 11 Cost-Revenue Analysis This section of the Environmental Assessment details the fiscal costs and benefits of General Plan Amendment 76- 3B. The economic analysis is based on a special study by Planning Department Staff entitled the 1976 Revenue/ Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses, August, 1976 . The report deals only with short-range costs and revenues, and does not consider the long-range implications of the different development types. The cost analysis of the amendment assesses fiscal costs and benefits as they relate to the City in terms of services provided and property tax and other revenues received. The analysis also examines the fiscal costs of educating the population and financing the local school system through district taxes. Total revenues and expenditures for development as specified by General Plan Amendment 76- 3B are detailed in Figures 4-4 and 4-5. Land use, as proposed by the amendment, will result in an annual net deficit to the City of $1,129 and an annual net deficit to the school districts of $12, 259. 48 FIGURE 4-4 General Plan Amendment 76-3B Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure Estimates as They Apply to the City of Huntington Beach Land Use Category Revenue Expenditures Residential Medium $20, 336 $21, 465 Commercial General 0 0 Total $20, 336 $21, 465 Net Deficit $ 1, 129 AfWk 49 FIGURE 4-5 General Plan Amendment 76- 3B Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenditure Estimates as They Apply to the School Districts Land Use Category Revenue Expenditures Residential Medium $24, 271 $36, 530 Commercial General 0 0 Total $24 ,271 $36, 530 Net Deficit $12, 259* * School Districts do not actually receive a deficit, rather the state share of the cost of educating students is increased. 50 A similar analysis was performed for development of the study areas under the existing Land Use Element. Develop- ment as presently planned. will generate an annual net surplus for the City and the involved school district of $10,478 and $39,050 respectively. Although the net dollar effect is lower under the proposed amendment, the redesignated uses are generally more compatible with surrounding land uses. Improved com- patibility will mean a long-term increase in the rate at which assessed values rise, thereby reducing the net surplus difference in future years. The amendment also balances the need for housing with the apparent over- supply of commercial space in the City. 4. 4 Alternatives Individual project alternatives for each of the study areas are discussed and analyzed in Section 2 . 0 of this report. The alterna- tives considered are generally not entirely consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Huntington Beach as stated in the General Plan. The amendment as prepared is in conformance with these goals and policies and will result in a balance of the important environmental values and an optimum environment in terms of the physical, economic, social, and psychological factors. ACWk 51 FOOTNOTES 1 . Land Use Element: Phase I, Huntington Beach Planning Department, December, 1973, pp 6. 8 , 6. 9. 2. Seismic-Safety Element, Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1974 , pp 103-105. 3 . Conservation Potentials Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, March, 1974 , pp 19-47 ; 133-141. 4 . Open Space Potentials, Huntington Beach Planning Department, February, 1974 , pp 17-21; 77-91; 93-110. 5. Geotechnical Inputs, Huntington Beach Planning Department, February, 1974 . 6 . Flood Hazard Study, Huntington Beach Planning Department, April , 1974. 7 . Land Use Element: Phase I, p 6 . 9 . 8 . Seismic-Safety Element, pp 105-106 . 9 . Conservation Potentials Report, pp 47-92 ; 133-141 . 10. Open Space Potentials, pp 17-25; 68-71; 93-110 . 11 . Flood Hazard Study. 12. Fire Hazard/Fire Protection Study, Huntington Beach Fire and Planning Departments, July, 1974 , pp 21-24 . 13 . Land Use Element : Phase I, pp 6 . 9 , 6 . 10 . 14 . Seismic-Safety Element, pp 106-107 . 15. Conservation Potentials Report, pp 92-104 . 16. Land Use Element: Phase I, p. 6 .10. 17 . Seismic-Safety Element, p. 107 . 18 . Conservation Potentials, pp 104-124 . 19 . Seismic-Safety Element, pp. 108 , 109 . 20. Conservation Potentials Report, pp. 124-133 . 21. Open Space Potentials , pp. 39-45. 52 22 . Scientific Resources Survey and Inventory, Archaeological Research, Incorporated, January, 1973 . 23 . General Plan Amendment 76-2B (proposed) , Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1976 . 24 . Land Use Element: Phase I , pp. 2 .12 - 2 . 13, 2 . 15 - 2. 16. 25. Circulation Element Background Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1976, pp 10-15, 42-46 , 51-57 , and 65-67 . 26 . The General Plan, Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1976 , Section 3 .1. 27 . Population Growth Element Background Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1976 . 28 . Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report, pp. 35-68 . 29 . Conservation Potentials, pp. 125-128 . 30. Open Space Potentials, pp. 50-58 . 31. Southern California Gas Company, 1974 . 32 . Southern California Edison Company, 1974 . 33. Department of Public Works, City of Huntington Beach, July, 1976 . 34. Rainbow Disposal Company, July, 1976 . 35. Department of Public Works, City of Huntington Beach, July, 1976 . 36. Population Growth Element Background Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1976. 37 . Noise Element Background Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1976. 38. Noise Element Background Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1976, pp. iv. 39. Housing Element Background Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, August, 1976, Section 3 . 2 . 3 .