Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
General Plan Amendment 76-1 A & B - Resolution 4193 - Resolu
76 • CITY OF HunTinGTon BEACH P.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92648 �-- PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-5271 2, ._� 4 I V\16 TO: Hono able Mayor and City Council FROM: Plann1 g Department DATE: March 2' , 197 6 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Adminis-rator RE: Extraction of Circulation Concerns from General Plan Amendment 76-1 (Parts A and B) The Public Works Department has brought to our attention the immediate need for having enter Drive placed on the City' s Master Plan of Arterial Streets and'Highways. The City is in a position of being eligible\-to receive from the County $200, 000 under the .Arterial Hi.,ghway Funding Program for engineering and construction cost for Center Drive. In order to receive this amount, official city action must be transmitted to the County no later than March 25 , 1976. Such an addition to the Master Plan necessitates extracting Center Drive from the General Aan Amendment 76-1 (Part B) . In light of this request, we are recommending extracting the remainder of the circulation concerns fvm General Plan Amend- ment 76-1 (Parts A and B) . Both parts of this General Plan Amendment have been reviewed/by the Planning Commission and City Council at previous meetings with no apparent disagreement over the proposed circulation changes . All of the circulation con- cerns in the General Plan .Amendment are being,recommended for extraction and adoption because of the limiteddnumber of General Plan Amendments permitted,/per year (3 per Element) under State Law. We believe the adoption of all the circulaiton concerns within this General Plan;Amendment, at one time, will provide the City with the greatest flexibility for the remainder of the year. r' Resp tf lly subm'tted,, R' hard A. Harlow, ,Director Planning and Environmental . Resources RAH:RB: ja 4 �1 �I 1 THE CIRCULATION PORTIONS OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 76-1A & 76-1B March 16, 1976 .4 , 1. 0 INTRODUCTION The circulation concerns addressed in General Plan Amendments 76-1 A and 76-1 B have been extracted from those documents and are present in the following sections of this report. Adoption of the recommend- ations outlined in this report will (1) facilitate the requests re- ceived by property owners wishing to develop property within the City, but are awaiting a decision on the City' s circulation patterns, and (2) establish the arterial circulation pattern for the downtown planning area and those arterial streets providing access into the planning area. 2. 0 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1 B - CIRCULATION 2.1 Center Drive 2. 1. 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 Frescher 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 because of the modification of the interchange.l 1Modification Study of the Beach Boulevard Interchange, Don Frischer & Associates, August 15, 1975. p. 1 Agftk ' ,3lip ,r,17 LEGEND FREEWAY ��. MAJOR 120'R/W PRIMARY 100'R/W �`` — -- - --- — SECONDARY 80'R/W i I � NOTE SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY 5 - NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO I RKHT OF WAY EXISTS • \ �. ___ I �SYMBOL DENOTES PRIMARY COUPLET it l � a ,..d �% r rr _-, . \ ; i 4-1 � I I a 1 / ,� �•42 i o MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS Proposed ropo General Plan Amendment 76 AA & 76-1B huntington beach planning department Yf.. 00 NANO iTREET aE :::`N W S. P. ITV A r>> %n -r C Z S r� Ri CITY O m I` I � 1 I � c, i /t �� r BE 9LV0 ® AREA OF CONCERN 2.6 CENTER DRIVE Aft KI Figure 2-8 _ M� XX Cledden AvMx+e ; a NOT TO SCALE : I GOLOEN Z ; NElT oo COLLEGE Center Drive a a q HUNTINGTON CENTER Edinger Avenue e DUMB ICI ER 9 RssoclMs mmtc Amm mmsvatrerrow • EUWMEEMS AND KAMMEMS PROPOSED HIGHWAY MODIFICATIONS Figure 2-9 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 im- portance 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 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 be- lieves it would be in the best interest of the City to pur- sue at this time an Amendment to the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways instead of waiting for the completion of the Circulation Element. 2. 1. 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 Boule- vard. Center Drive is proposed to have two traffic lanes in each direction and a median with left turn lanes. The modification 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. 1. 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. 2 Slater Avenue 2. 2. 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 alignment 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 applicatic•n proces--. 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 extract 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 development to begin. Therefore, the analysis of Slater Avenue is being carried out at this time. 2. 2. 3 Analysis The Slater Avenue extension west of Graham Street is pro- posed to extend to the Bolsa Chica extension. The ex- tension 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, pri- marily due to the difference in grade between Bolsa Chica KENILWOR'.'H OR v� MI I 11-1111 ED F� R1 , � � J G� H i J y ~ CTER SERENE ♦ TT"30 RIOOESURY s� . 2 J � 2 J r luo � r 'o AREA Of CONCERN 2.7 SLATER AVENUE 2s Figure 2-10 1 Street extension and the Slater Avenue extension and the creation of an angled intersection instead of the cus- tomary 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 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 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 be 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. 2. 2. 4 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. 3 Talbert Avenue-Edwards Street to Bolsa Chica Street Extension 2. 3. 1 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 76-1 B- so that they can proceed 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. 2. 3.2 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 �i I��u11 Itf1f1��► �� 11i11f11rri.k, ■rliffitrr ■tii � i f = � llitlttlftlltff/I� : tt ■ ��111� , /' /III! „s - ■111 • if ��■ milli /11111111111112 �/1! � lt��ifflliftfl- � i�� , �- ,r --•11 •� i �! CF-R �- f11f1t11in- : i i •: ��►�I��i�C _ ♦; ♦♦I .. fMENf11if1frl�•:. ! f �■- /1111 11f111t1ti1■1/. . II♦��►�� �� M NEW. Illr�i� �C /=r=I11If11r1i1f1i� air �i ifIIIIIIINfffi` : i �/_ _� ■ 1 f11 i1IiIi1�/ IIII ♦ ♦��� ♦i11t1tfft11ff1ftffl ii �� ����•�I.l1ri i i11Iif111 �I r %,II,I ♦�♦a♦ It ',♦ ♦ ♦♦ ���.7• i11�111 • II�� `/� �/11 �iI1IIir/��I�r i11tf1r11 i1!■ mm IN �,,;�.,� r�I���i/tt� �ta►� a� �i ;�-` ,ter • ��' .' �� � •t � *,�Bi11111i �1itI1If � . 11 mill11 �i - PiM3 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. 2. 3. 4 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. 3. 0 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1 A - CIRCULATION Adoption of this Amendment will require the following changes in the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. These changes constitute modifications within the Amendment Area and modifications that are outside the Amendment Area but which are necessary to pro- vide the access needed for successful revitalization of Downtown. 3. 1 (A) Internal Circulation System (1) Huntington Street should be realigned to Atlanta Avenue at a point opposite Delaware Street. Delaware would continue northward as a secondary 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) 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 and Arterial Highways and existing alignments are reinstated for Beach Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway and Hamilton Avenue. The desig- nated freeway frontage road between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway is no longer necessary without the freeway and is also deleted. 3:3 Recommendation The Planning Department recommends the adoption of the above mention- ed changes to the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. e . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS TO INCLUDE THE CIRCULATION PORTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMEND- MENT 76-1 (PARTS A AND B) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on April 21, 1958, duly adopted an official Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways , pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law of the State of California; and Pursuant to said Planning and Zoning Law, the Planning Commission on February 3, 1976, after notice duly given, held public hearing relative to General Plan Amendment 76-1 (Parts A and B) to, in part , revise the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways ; and After notice duly given pursuant to law, hearing was held before this Council on the proposed General Plan Amendment 76-1 (Parts A and B) , and the matter having been considered, the Council finds that the following changes to the Master Plan of Arterial Streets -and Highways are reasonably necessary to the orderly and efficient flow of traffic , for the preservation of the health and safety of the inhabitants of the city, and for the orderly development of the community, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows : 1. Add Center Drive as a secondary arterial between Gothard Street and Beach Boulevard. 2 . Delete Slater Avenue between Graham Street and the proposed Bolsa Chica Street extension. 3. Change Talbert Avenue to a secondary arterial between 1 . JOC : ahb Edwards Street and the Bolsa Chica Street extension. 4 . Change Orange Avenue to a secondary arterial street between Goldenwest Street and Lake Street . 5 . Realign the Orange Avenue-Atlanta Avenue corridor to eliminate the offset configuration at Lake Street . 6 . Realign Indianapolis Avenue to intersect with Lake Street at its present alignment . 7 . Delete Palm Avenue as a secondary arterial street between 17th Street and Lake Street . 8. Delete Main Street as a primary arterial street south of 17th Street . 9 . Delete 17th Street as a secondary arterial between Main Street and Lake Street . 10 . Delete 14th Street as a secondary arterial between Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street . 11. Realign Gothard Street south of Ellis Avenue to inter- sect with Garfield Avenue at Crystal Street . 12 . Realign Main Street approximately 570 feet north of Mansion Avenue to intersect with Garfield Avenue at Crystal Street . 13 . Realign Huntington Street from Pacific Coast Highway to Atlanta Avenue at a point opposite Delaware Street . 14. Delete the Route 1 and Route 39 Freeway and reinstate existing alignments for Beach Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway and Hamilton Avenue, as shown on Exhibit "A. " 15 . Delete designated freeway frontage road between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway . That the map attached hereto, designated as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof, is hereby adopted as part of the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways of the City of Huntington Beach. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an adjourned meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of March, 1976 . Mayor 2 . ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk IL Ci Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED, INITIATI DEPARTMENT: City Administrator NO FISCAL IMPACT FISCAL iMPACT -- BUDGETED FISCAL IMPACT -- NOT BUDGETED..�...,,_d:;..: .. . REQUIRES FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT..._.. 3 . No. STNI'l" OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) es C1TY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City. Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: NOES: Councilmen: ABSENT: Councilmen: City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California WHITE-CITY ATTORNEY i, Id CITY OF HUNTIN 'ON BEACH No. GLUE-CITY CLERK GREEN-CITY ADMINI S CANARY -DEPARTMENTAL , ,o„,n TRATOR REQUEST for l7KTJIQC, or RESOLUTION .c+ Date Request made by Department • 3/15/76 Ed Selich Planning INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City, Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby requested: Please prepare a City Council Resolution revising the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways to reflect those changes outlined on the attached sheet. An Exhibit "A" will accompany the Resolution graphically depicting Ch.e revised Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. This Council.•Resolution is needed for the March 22, 1976 meeting. Thank you. Ed • c i • Desired effective date Sind: Approved as to availability of funds Wk Director of Finance City Attorney—Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by: 0 City Administrator Affidavit of Public tion -a Published Huntington Beach News, Feb. State of California s, 1976._ NOTICE Of .PUBLIC HEARING County of Orange ss AMENDMENT TO THE City of Huntington Beach GENERALaPLAN 76-1 E1 and B George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a NOTICI IS - ..-Y..Gl.V That a pub- citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. Cc. ncilhea ofg will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach in the Council Chamber 6f the Civic News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said of 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as Count of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination February, o9 Tuesday, the,17th 'day of y g February, 1976, for the purpose of con: of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide sidering amendment to those portions subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been of the Genera! plan known as the Phase established, printed and published in the State of California, and I Land Use Elembnt and the Master Plan County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication of streets and. Arterial Highways: This amendment concerns .thirteen.specific of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not areas of the City:. devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any 1. Downtown - generally tiotindsd by the particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or Pacific Oceari, G611d8Jnwe9t'Sheet,"walnut any number thereof. Ave-rue, Fourteenth Street, Orange Ave- The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper Ave- nue, Eighth Street,. Palm Avenue,Beach , gt f'a oarria Street, Chicago Avenue and Beaeach of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court Boulevard; of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. 2. North of Main-Street, east of Unt- ington Street, west of Delaware Street; 3. North of Main Street, west of Hunt- That the AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN ington Street; ; ( 4. Approximately-.620 feet south of the southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and 76 -1A and B Beach Boulevard; 15. Northeast carrier of Garfield Avenue of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- 1 and Beacti Boulevard; j 6. Northeast corner of Clay Avenue and I Florida Street; paper at least One Issue 7. East of Bolsa Chica Street, -north of j Pearce Drive, and west of Roosevelt. Street; commencing from the 5th day of February s. Maguire Property in the Huntington- Harbour area generally located northeast of Pacific Coast Highway between An- 1926 and ending on the 5th day of February ty-Drive; !o9r East eson Sof the Ireet aSan nd AD ego(Freeway, south .of McFadden Avenue west of the City limits; 19Z!k-_, both days inclusive, and as often during said period and 10. South of Edinger Avenuewest of New- times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the land Street, east of the San Diego Free- regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a way; published therein On the following 11. Center Drive, approximately 1275 feet supplement, and said notice was P wing !north of Edinger Avenue between Gothard dates, t)-wit: iStreet and Beach Boulevard;: 12. Slater Avenue between Graharn Street Feb 5 1976 I and the proposed Bolsa Chica Street ex- tension; 13. Talbert Avenue between Edwards Street and the proposed Bolsa Chica Street extension. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said proposed Publisher amendment to the General Plan. Further information may be obtained Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of from the Office of thb City Clerk. DATED: February 2, 1976 19�. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH February6 By:.Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk , Notary Public Orange County, California ------------------------- THOMAS D. WYLLIE r Notary Public-California i r •fi Orange County i i - My Commission Expires -i September 12 1978 f ---------------A---------------1 • tityof Huntington Beach County of Orange State of California Affidavitof Publication of GEORGE FARQUHAR Publisher 'Huntington Beach News Filed Clerk By Deputy Clerk / 6 I. Ja %� °" i- �z���iQ ✓oh n sa�� � � , • �� Publish 2/5/76 Postcards -o- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN 76-1 A and B NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the . City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. , or As soon thereafter as possible, on . Tuesday, the 17th day of February, 19 76 , for the purpose of considering amendment to those portions of the General Plan known as the Phase, I Land use Element and the Master Plan. of Streets and Arterial Highways. This amendment concerns thirteen specific areas of the City: 1.. Downtown - generally bounded by the Pacific Ocean, Goldenwest Street, Walnut Avenue, Fourteenth Street, Orange Avenue, Eighth Street, Palm Avenue, Alabama Street, Chicago Avenue and Beach Boulevard; 2. North of Main Street, east of Huntington Street, west of Delaware Street; 3. North of Main Street, west of Huntington Street; 4. Approximately 620 feet south of the southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Beach Boule- vard; 5. Northeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Beach Boulevard; 6. Northeast corner of Clay Avenue and Florida Street; 7. East of Bolsa Chica Street, north of Pearce Drive and-west of Roosevelt Street; 8. Maguire Property in the Huntington Harbour area generally located northeast of Pacific Coast Highway between Anderson Street and Admiralty .Drive; 9. East of the San Diego Freeway, south of McFadden Avenue west of .the City limits; All interested persons are invite�to Attend said .) hearing and express their opinions for or against snide" e�dment Further information may be obtained from the Office of the. City Clerk. DATED: .February 2. 1976 CITY OF- HUNt'INGTON BEACH BY: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk el 10. South of Edinger Avenue, west of Newland Street, east of the San Diego Freeway; 11. Center Drive, approximately 1275 feet north of Edinger Avenue between Gothard Street and Beach Boulevard; 12. Slater Avenue between Graham Street and the proposed Bolsa Chica Street extension; 13. Talbert Avenue between Edwards Street and the proposed Bolsa Chica Street extension. • r published Hu1Kin Basch News, Jan. ' LEGAL CB NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAA , • ;Y6-1'A and$Y":i, '•_ ":• % NOTICE IS•HEREBYAWOEN1�tMth P*- lic hearing Will be held by the City planning Commission of the City, of Huntington Beach,, California. for the • Purpose of considering am;dment to those •Portions. of the+ General , Plan known as the Phase,I Land Use Ele- Pubiiahad Huntin ment and the Msster Plan of Streets S 14 s Yfofl 9aach News. h,. ' and Arterial H+Qhways• This amendmentMa LLOAL tit conceres thirt°i^ e0e°iiia.. NOTICE OF OUBLIC NEARING Cityyr �MENOMENT TO THE y. 1. Downtown-B � �EiVERAL PLAN Pacific Oeein, Galt Mt^ _ Ml'Ar Epet Awrtelw.. frF;pFi .:I1va NOTICE IS HE4EMy:tjjW tW a OW- VWStradlp�lmaAveln.. ANbMta Ile hearing pill be held by the city , Streak,',C/i1c D 1►v�nM'�^i� '��lyydd Of the city Of �M h G 1l 2. North Of Main .Wsat-'ised Hunt, Hunose, fialchI Cat;fbrnia, for the Street,,west o1.DelAware WOOL- Pl+rPos° of Considering Offiendment to .-ingtoni' west'of.4tunt- those 'Portions of th*T General Plan 3. North Of Main Street,,. known at the Phase'IStreet- Land I App►oxm�titely`b20 feetiSotltMi': " t nterN and the Mastei PI Hof Use southeast bo.and; of.VMI3 .Avarwa and 1 and and Highways, This amendment Beach Soulsyard; Conclave of G Avenue f city, thMteen stUesiRe u Of M d.Seach Bou rdi I. Downtown- g.Nmttieaat`co er 0(.C1aY AvaMre and Pacific 0c,"n, Gel by the F,Iorid1b W-9.Rti tiortlt � �aw�aa1a11►.-N;,°a�, drra� Ave► ,7.eso,.q Eo1;D 'C cu,-, �.: t s ^Y°a� C�Ej*! SMaet Palm rlvMua Alabama Of Peerca orwi s �wvfl k6 4hd fta�ch �hrd.; .. i,s ,n ,3.1"�..:. Z North of Mafi gtraa Straat;' t, east of Hunt- '- e. Maguire, Prpperh':,in ha.hW1U..6.5 lf*ton,Street, west of Dalewa O Street; Harbour aie'j.6n.ersltY. .,tort r- 3. North of Main Bluest, west of Hunt- '` of Pacific Coadt-Nighvr�j b I n Street; Son Strad and M++ > y,south southxl�tMY 6Pp feet South of the 9. East.ot the City i oMnir of EJiis Avenue and zMcFadttM1 t Beach Boulevard; mits; ° west of 6 Wortfiaest.fomar of GarfMdfd Avenue O,..South.of IW'east of the SanDiego . and Beach � land 6treet,4 6• NortheastW Of CARY Averw FbrWe S r a and L .Y ►' a a! Y r 6 �7r Ellt. 4[.r�lia Chica SbaeR north f L s ?> 4 w Sy n"•4ills and wW.of Ra*Wes 12..Water Avenue' betvvesn Graham i t' 'StreAf and the PrOposai}•'Bbiso Chica Harlow-`,fin �In he F4yynntington : 4 I a1 PaGflC northeast Sheet,eztena7cAl dam► Edwards son Ceast-i"411"y between Ander- 13.7Mbert 'Av°nuP•;I?S Boi a arilshica Street and �klalfar•CW Street► and the Prop !. East aNay,south Street'Oxfen.Won," j McF Sai iwIII he 1retd'at- 0�n mltsi "k the Gty of. TA0 '_I on FeWirarY• 3r the Gouneil •Ch0Mb6r BiuMdirla of the 6tro a t a f Civic n, 2000..Mali Street, Hunting- ton BeaclSr. r ere -invited to I All h bd'persons attend add hearing.and �cpfess their. , dptnrone tin against tlr'poPos� i JNfer Arwttra between Graham i sA10 It V o :May �Furtlle4 in= m �M ' peblq CfHCa� ' 1/ fiipm. t .Cffar"' i8Q1 ?E.�BP> m Avall111! 1 Edwrds Lt. 7 Te1aP�° No.-(71t) 6-�c Sti�ao and th% DATED this 22nd day'�t J-OM.MI, SIGN at Ot 7 ;01 Pd Bolan Chita 1 . - Pt.AANNING t:0ry1MISSIONps By Richard A. Harlow °t the the Ooirriell" 110—cm e i .-. k f1r o/ the ``��j, lG1,H!!•_E.0y�00�MaiA p,.I.I;ehe� u:rnfinamn RAai:h NAWC .Ian. I 61iaclf, NrilVrril►. Ginr�t, NIIrItaAE- atta�daftad Pardons err Invited to 0 � q�Mnsetftr 1br or exprass theirAnlandment b r[ m Said hearing and i"�'r�ltatieh` rWe bbbirAn rk DATED thisCITY 1,1 d D� ' CiTy fIMIMIg1� y 1 147Y �I Ot !IF ft IM1♦1 R `,�n Al ;cic, w 10 C C, • �� GI�.rItM e wQr,� � +`I WHITE-CITY ATTORNEY BLUE CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH No. - GREEN-CITY ADMINISTRATOR CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL xo.wc�oxu.cx REQUEST RESOLUTION • Date Request made by Department 1/26/76 Emilie Johnson Planning INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby requested: Please prepare a Resolution per the attached sample. • Desired effective date Signed: Approved as to availability of funds Director of Finance City Attorney—Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by: City Administrator RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF LAND USE BY ADOPTING AMENDMENT 76-1 TO THE PHASE I LAND USE ELEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on the 19th day of December, 1973 adopted the Land Use Element for the City of Huntington Beach for long-term, physical de- velopment of said city; and The City Council desires to update and refine the Land Use Element in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and The amendment to the Land Use Element serves as a transi- tional step in developing a comprehensive plan by establishing a revised. land use policy guide for certain segments of the Huntington Beach planning area, and copy of such Amendment 76-1 to the Land Use Element is on file in the office of the City Clerk; and Public hearing on the adoption of such Amendment 76-1 was duly conducted before the Planning Commission and approved by a majority of the voting members of such Commission, and transmitted to the City Council. Thereafter, the City Council, after giving notice. as prescribed by Government Code Section 65355 , held at least one public hearing, and said Amendment 76-1 to the Land Use Element was duly considered; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desir- ing to be heard on the Amendment 76-1 to the Phase I Land Use Element were heard, i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City g of Huntington Beach, pursuant to the provision of Title 7 , Chapter 3, Article 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 65350, that the Amendment 76-1 to the Land Use Element of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby approved and adopted and made a part of said Land Use Element. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of February, 1976. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: DON P. BONFA, City Attorney City Clerk By APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: City Attorney City Administrator Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92646 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator FROM: Planning Commission DATE: February 10, 1976 RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1 A (DOWNTOWN PLANNING AREA) 1. 0 . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ON MOTION BY KERINS AND SECOND BY BOYLE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 76-1 A WAS APPROVED AS PRESENTED IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOCUMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1 A DECEMBER 1975 WITH THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES OF THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE EXCEPT NO. 4 , a. THROUGH h. AYES: Parkinson, Bazil, Finley, Slates, Boyle, Kerins NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shea 2. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Since the Planning Commission further considered theP.r_o!_e .. Area Committee' s recommendation at the February 10, 1976 adjourned meeting, it is recommended that the City Council hold the public hearing on the General Plan Amendment, consider all public B testimony and refer the item back to the Planning Commission for a report. It is the Commission' s intent to hold another public hearing on the Amendment prior to reporting back to the City Council. 3. 0 SUMMARY OF STAFF REPORT: General Plan Amendment 76-1 A is based upon the modified Destination Resort alternative conceptually approved at the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission November 24 , 1975. The Planning Commission discussed the Amendment at a Study Session on January 13, 1976. Also the Project Area Committee discussed the General Plan Amend- ment during the month of January and forwarded their recommendations to the Planning Commission at the February 3 , 1976 public hearing. The Planning Commission had considered a portion of the Project Area Committee' s recommendations on January 13, but due to attempting to meet the optimum time schedule presented at the November 24, 19751, meeting there was not time to schedule an additional Study -76 ,a� 3 Page Two Session to consider all the Project Area Committee recommendations. Thus, some were presented to the Planning Commission for the first time at the February 3 , 1976 public hearing. The Planning Commission wanted to reconsider recommendation 4 a. through h. later in the evening but refrained from doing so upon advice from the City Attorney' s representative that it would be an improper move. Thus the Planning Commission scheduled a Study Session with the Project Area Committee to discuss recommendations 4. a. through h. on February 10, 1976. 4. 0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The following recommendations are No. 4 a. through h. as presented to the Planning Commission with Commission reaction on the February 3 , 1976, public hearing and February 10, 1976 Study Session and Planning Department comments and recommendations. PAC RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 The Project Area Committee recommends that the land use plan be modified in accordance with the attached diagram. Specifically, the PAC recommends the following changes: 4. a. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the Old Civic Center Site be designated High Density Residential (mixed use development would allow commercial on lower levels) and the proposed park designation be removed for the following reasons : 1. Sufficient parks can be provided elsewhere, if needed. 2. Development of the site would act as an anchor and a catalyst to downtown revitalization. 3. This is a parcel suitable for low and moderate income housing. 4. The present public uses may not be economically viable in the long term. 5. The proposed mall will provide a park-like setting in the Downtown Area with landscape features, benches, fountains, etc. 6. A reassessment of Citywide park needs must be undertaken. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3: Cost analysis is being prepared and not enough information for what type of use this property should be. February 10: The Planning Commission feels the site should be designated for public use. Page Three PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION Staff does not agree with the PAC recommendation on the Civic Center Site and stands behind the original recommendation for public use. Since further information on cost benefit alternatives is still being prepared, staff feels that planning reserve could be an intermediate designation to allow this issue to be resolved in the final Redevelopment Plan. 4 . b. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the medium density area bound by Fifth Street Walnut Avenue, Sixth Street and Orange Avenue (Area No. 5 ) be modified to reflect commercial along Fifth Street for the following reasons: 1. The majority of the frontage along Fifth Street is presently used and zoned for commercial. 2. Abutting commercial and residential at an alley provides a better transition of land uses than residential frontage on an arterial street with commercial on the other side. 3. Since Fifth Street is a proposed arterial, commercial development on both sides would be more appropriate. 4. The commercial designation would be a logical extension of the commercial area (No. 3) adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3 : The recommendation is too specific. February 10: The Commission concurred with the Project Area Committee. PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Staff concurs with this recommendation even though it provides for an excess of commercial land than is warranted. The staff feels that if the specialty area east of 5th Street is successful, economic pressures will be generated on the west side of fifth for commercial development. Page Four 4 . c. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the area of the apartments adjacent to the beach between Seventh and Sixth Streets (Area No. 20) be designated high density residential to reflect the existing use for the following reasons: 1. It would be a logical reflection of a present use that will exist in the long term. 2. The conversion to condominiums may be jeopardized by an inappropriate land use designation. 3. The City has found that development consistent with the General Plan in a letter to the property owner. 4. No public agency is presently considering acquisition of the property for open space. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3: The zoning is immaterial. The use will stay. February 10: The Commission felt it should remain designated as open space. PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION The staff feels this could go either way. The original staff recommendation is a graphic presentation of City Policy regarding the beach whereas the Project Area Committee' s recommendations reflect a condition that will exist throughout the planning period. 4. d. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the Specialty Commercial Designation be expanded to include the west side of the pier and around the pier itself for the following reasons: 1. The majority of the Committee feels that a higher density of commercial development than proposed may be desirable as it leaves the option open. 2. The Coastal Commission may desire a higher use than proposed. Page Five PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3: The recommendation is too specific . February 10: The Commission concurred with the Project Area Committee' s recommendation. PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION The staff does not agree with this recommendation as it conflicts with the original staff recommendation that the pier not be expanded until Main Street is firmly established as a viable commercial area. The Committee' s point that their recommendation leaves the option open for future expansion is outweighed, we feel, by a need to indicate on the diagram that the pier should remain at its present intensity of commercial use. The option that the Committee is concerned about is always there as the General Plan can be amended 3 times per year. 4. e. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the triangle created by the proposed realign- ment of Atlanta Avenue be designated general commercial since the realignment creates a small section of medium density property and isolates it from a contiguous similar use. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3: The Commission agrees with this but it should be done by zoning as it is the only practical situation for this property. February 10: The Commission concurred with the Project Area Committee for the area south of Atlanta Avenue. PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION Although the triangle is relatively small and it will again increase commercial acreage beyond the warranted projections, the staff feels that general commercial would be more compatible south of the Atlanta realignment. Page Six 4. f. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the proposed park site designated in the vicinity of Delaware and Chicago Streets be removed from the plan for the following reasons : 1. The Committee feels that enough parks exist to service the area and that the Planning Commission should proceed with caution in designating additional sites. 2. The Committee feels that adequate information demonstrating park demand has not been submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3: A park site is needed in the area. February 10: The Commission felt the proposed park site designation should remain. PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION The staff does not agree with the Project Area Committee recommendation. An analysis has been per- formed on park needs for the area with a resultant reduction from citywide standards. Staff feels that both sites should remain as proposed. 4. g. PAC RECOMMENDATIONS That the two medium density areas at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue (west of Beach, north and south of Atlanta) be redesignated for high density residential for the following reasons: 1. It provides more flexibility than the medium density designation. 2. Flood problems may make low rise medium density development more difficult to design than multi- story high density use. 3 . This is an excellent alternate location for high rise particularly if` high rise cannot be developed in Townlot Area No. 5. 4. These are two large and vacant parcels available for innovative design. 1 ' Page Seven PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3 : This recommendation is too specific and needs further study. February 10: The Commission felt that the properties should be medium density. PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION The staff feels high density is acceptable since the developer would still be able to develop it to a lower, intensity. Staff disagrees with the Project Area Committee that these -areas would be a good alternative location for residential high rise. The sites are too far removed from the ocean for economically sound residential high rise. Although the concept of stepping heights, away from the ocean sounds nice, it is economically impractical. 4.h. PAC RECOMMENDATIONS That the high density residential designation on the city-owned property bound by Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway be changed to tourist commercial for the following reasons : 1. The property is city-owned and the tourist commercial would allow for greater flexibility. 2. It balances the increased population density resulting from other Project Area Committee recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3 : This recommendation is too specific. February 10: The Commission concurred with the Project Area Committee. PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION Staff accepts the Project Area Committee' s recommendation even though it increases the amount of tourist commercial land beyond our warranted acreage for the number of tourist commercial facilities set forth in the modified destination resort alternatives. Page Eight 5. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS The Environmental Review Board at its meeting of January 29 , 1976, approved Environmental Impact Report 76-1. Respe fully submit d, �G R and A. Harlow Secretary RAH:EDS: ja r op VA. r: `f City of Huntington Beach ` P.O. BOX 160 CALIFORNIA 62668 TO: Planning Commission, City of Huntington Beach. ATTN: Roger D. Slates, Chairman FROM: Project Area Committee DATE: January 29, 1976 RE : GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO 76-1 A and PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Transmitted herein are the following "draft" documents which are the majority recommendations of the Project Area Committee: 1. Recommended changes to General Plan. Amendment 76-1 Part A 2. Preliminary Plan for the City of Huntington Beach - Redevelopment Project Area We have authorized individual committee members to submit any minority • reports they wish directly to the Planning Commission and City Council with copies to the Project Area Committee. It is our desire that the greatest citizen input be generated at the earliest point in time in the review of the Planning Area and Redevelop- ment Project Area. And therefore , it is for this reason that we encourage citizens to present their documented observations and critiques of the Planning Departments "draft" General Plan Amendment 76-1 A. We also ask for input on the Project Area Committee' s recommended changes to the General Plan Amendment 76-1 A and "draft" Preliminary Plan. We are fully cognizant that, if we are to meet the "Optimum Downtown Planning Study Schedule, " a great amount of analysis must be generated in a very short span of time. But we feel that all committees, commissions, and council should attempt to work within this time frame. Since the Coastal Commission will play a vital role in the implementation of Downtown development, we recommend that upon adoption by City Council , General Plan Amendment 76-1 A and Preliminary Redevelopment Plan be formally submitted to the Regional and State Commission for approval. We have encouraged public and members to be in attendance at the Planning Commission Public Hearing of February 3, 1976 and the proposed City Council Public Hearing of February 17 , 1976. r^- Page 2 We thank the City Staff who provided us with the tools. In addition, we thank the public who have shown up both at our meetings and the staff presentation meetings; for their inputs were also considered in these drafts. R s ect ully Wbmitted, Tom Whaling, Chairman Project Area Committee William Chisholm Robert Terry Richard Coplin John A. Schroeder Gary Mulligan John Henricksen Bob Jarrard Jerome Shea Richard J. Pasqualino Sylvia Shandrick Joan Bennett TW: ja Enclosures: Recommended changes to General Plan Amendment 76-1 A Preliminary Plan for the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1 A ADOPTED BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE JANUARY 22 AND 29, 1976 The Huntington Beach Project Area Committee at its meeting of January 22 and 29 , 1976 recommended the following changes to General Plan Amendment 76-1 A 1. General Recommendation: That the term "Planning Area" be used consistently throughout the document in place of Amendment Area" and "Downtown Area" . 2. Section 6.1 Goals and Policies: The Committee felt that the proposed goals and policies were too specific and should be generalized. The Committee felt that the specificity level of the statements is more appropriate in the final redevelopment plan. The following are the recommended changes : a. To revitalize the, commercial area along Main Street. b. Pier - to preserve the pier and capitalize on its existence. c. High Rise Development - to permit high rise development in • the Planning Area. d. 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. e. Development of Small Lots - to encourage consolidation of lots within the Planning Area. f. City-Owned Property - to utilize city-owned property in the area for revitalization of the Planning Area. g. 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 h. Mass Rapid Transit - to continue to support the Orange County District mass rapid transit line into Huntington Beach by 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 combining the railroad 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. i. Low and Moderate Cost Housing - to provide housing for all economic segments of Huntington Beach. Page 2 j . Convention Center - to promote the development of convention , facilities and encourage hotels to locate within the Planning Area. k. Parking - to provide adequate parking facilities in the Planning Area. 1. Townlot Area No. 5 - deleted as a general policy statement. M. Relocation of Downtown Post Office - to encourage the Post Office to provide postal service in the Planning Area. n. Mixed Use Development - mixed use development is encouraged throughout the Planning Area and should be provided for in implementing ordinances where appropriate. 3. Section 6. 2 The Plan : Modify the fourth sentence to read as follows: "The uses proposed in the amendment do not constitute a major change in city land use policy except for residential high rise. " 4. Figure 6. 1 Land Use Diagram : The Project Area Committee recommends that the land use plan be modified in accordance with the attached diagram. Specifically, the PAC recommends the following changes: a. The Old Civic Center Site be designated high density residential and the proposed park site designation be removed. b. That the medium density residential area bound by Fifth Street, Walnut Avenue, Sixth Street, and Orange Avenue be modified to reflect commercial along Fifth Street. C. That the area of the apartments adjacent,to the beach between Seventh Street and Ninth Street be designated high density residential to reflect the existing use. d. That the specialty commercial designation be expanded to include the west side of the pier and around the pier itself. e. That the triangle created by the realignment of Atlanta Avenue be designated general commercial. f. That the proposed park site designated in the vicinity of Delaware and Chicago Streets be removed from the plan. g. That the two medium density areas at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue (west of Beach, north and south of Atlanta) be redesignated for high density residential. Page 3 h. That the high density residential designation on the city-owned property bound by Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway be changed to townlot commercial. 5. Planning Area Boundary: The Committee recommends that the planning area boundary be congruent to the redevelopment project area boundary and that the boundary be closed between Beach and Goldenwest Street as indicated on the Land Use Diagram. t� • RESIDENT!Al, LOW OENSITY O-7 0.U./CvR0% ACRE Q MEnIUM aENSITY 7- I,j PLL CaRASS ACRE KIGM DENSITY O'.T:R IS t7•U.!GRo" ACRE COMMERCIAL GENERAL y 'SPECIALTY pia ® TOURIST COMMERCIAL ' NSTITI:T10NAL M SCWMLS 4 COMMUNITY FACILITIES OPEN SPACE PARKS 4 KECREATIONAL FACILITIMs �• .! �' �• • • • �, , . . '. . jam.:.:•� ��(.,..••• • • ;i� ••••••• � PROPOSED NEI&HPAIRM000 PARK Y ::� �.:. . '••���` • • • • • � ?AAGN •• ��.•.•.•.•:•:•.•.•.• • • • • • • • • • , TRANSP_W.&TION ••• :•�•••• • • • • • • • �� CENTEK • . • • . • • • • • • • • • • to; r' • • • • RECOMMENDED LAND USE PLAN FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-IA & PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE CITY OF HUNT94GTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ADOPTED JAN. 29,1M B*ROJECT AREA COMMITTEE t PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ADOPTED BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE JANUARY 29, 1976 ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1976 PREPARED BY HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE AND HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 0 Introduction 1. 1 Background 1. 2 Purpose of the Preliminary Development Plan 2. 0 The Preliminary Redevelopment Plan 2. 1 Boundary 2. 2 General Statement 2. 2. 1 Land Uses 2. 2. 2 Principal Street 2. 2. 3 Population Densities 2. 2. 4 Building Intensities 2. 2. 5 Standards 2. 2. 6 Development Policies 2. 3 Attainment of Purposes of the Act 2. 4 Conformance with the General Plan 2. 5 Impact of Project upon the Residents and Surrounding Area 3. 0 Appendix 3.1 Legal Description of Project Area 1. 0 _ INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background In August, 1975, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach adopted the boundary for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area. In October, 1975, the City Council created the Project Area Committee and appointed the members in December, 1975. The Project Area Committee held four public meetings during the month of January, 1976, and adopted this document on January 29, 1976. 1. 2 Purpose of the Preliminary Redevelopment Plan The purpose of the Preliminary Redevelopment Plan is as follows: a. Describe the boundaries of the project area. b. Contain a general statement of the land uses, layout of principal streets, population densities and building intensities and standards proposed as the basis for the redevelopment of the project area. C. Show how the purposes of this part would be attained by such d. Show that the proposed redevelopment conforms to the master or general community plan. e. Describe, generally, the impact of the project upon residents thereof and upon the surrounding neighborhood. 2. 0 THE PRELIMINARY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 2.1 Boundary The boundary of the Project Area shall be as shown on Figure 2. 1 and described in the Appendix. 2. 2 General Statement The land uses, layout of principal streets, population densities , and building intensities and standards which are proposed as the basis for the redevelopment of the project area are as follows: 2. 2. 1 Land Uses The proposed land uses depicted on Figure 2. 2 are as follows: Residential - Including single family, limited multiple family, medium density multiple family, high density multiple family and multi story and high rise. Commercial - Including general retail service commercial, office professional commercial, tourist commercial, and specialty commercial. Mixed Use Development - Mixed use development which provides for multiple purpose development is encouraged throughout the project area. r i ' •♦•`- AVE. i PNCM COOT H16MIIIAY •`• FIGURE 2.1 PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY Institutional - Including schools and community facilities. Open Space - Including parks and recreation facilities. Public Facilities - Including parks, beaches, and transit facilities. 2. 2. 2 Principal Streets The layout of principal streets is indicated on Figure 2. 3. All street rights of way within the project area are subject to change; however, the adopted General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach Plan Street Align- ments indicate that the following streets within the area are of major concern: a. Arterial Streets 1. Beach Boulevard 2. Pacific Coast Highway 3. Atlanta Avenue 4. Huntington Street 5. Delaware Street 6. Lake Street 7. Orange Avenue 8. Fifth Street 9. Seventeenth Street 10. Goldenwest Street b. Local Streets 1. Third Street 2. Main Street 3. Olive Avenue 4. Walnut Avenue 2. 2. 3 Population Densities The population densities proposed are as follows: a. Low Density Residential - 7 dwelling units per gross acre maximum. b. Medium Density Residential - 8 to 15 dwelling units per gross acre. C. High Density Residential - over 15 dwelling units per gross acre. RESIDENTIAL LOW OENSITY 0-7 O.U./ORCAS ACRE MEmum namsTY 7-IS RU.IGROSS ACRE Q HIGH DENSITY a.%R 16 D.U.,/6004S Acla COMMERCIAL GENERAL y ® SPECIALTY Sao TOURIST COMMERCIAL I NSTITUT10NAL SC140OLS 4 C•OMMUNtTY FACT LITI ES �� 4♦• OPEN SPACE �� • , PARK-7 4 IZECKE&TtONAL FACILIT19%, sr �•'•'•'•'•k PU5LIC FACILITIES 9*.�•:•:�� Q� PRO"912 NEtGHPAORMOpD PARK " .•♦ I,� ;•;•;•,'•'teP`� •'•'•'•'• , TRAN<,"TATION ` •�• '. CENTER % ':'•.< o • • • • • • • • a ww ic•'•'•'•'•'•' • • • PMCiiC COAST elm, Y , • 't FIGURE 2.2 RECOMMENDED LAND USE .PLAN FOR: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1A & PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ADOPTED JAN. 29,1976 BY PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE LEGEND �— ARTERIAL PROPOSED ARTERIAL REALIGNMENT LOCAL _ o i \•\ •"� ,ram �• �' \\• %♦• pit •\ \• •♦•♦ ,\` pip �\• j � \ z I 1 COAST HIG1iMEAy M •\• FIGURE 2.3 PRINCIPAL STREETS. 2. 2.4 Building Intensities It is proposed that all residential, office-professional, civic development and commercial and other permitted uses throughout the Project Area shall meet the minimum standards as required by the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance and subsequent final redevelopment plans approved and adopted by Ordinance of the City Council. Site development requirements are proposed to be in- corporated into the_ plan to insure high standards of urban development. Open space provisions will also be part of the plan. 2. 2. 5 Standards Minimum standards for the Project Area include adopted city standards for street layout and design, land sub- division, and the construction of buildings meeting the requirements of local codes and regulations and the purposes of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California. 2. 2. 6 Development Policies The following are recommended development policies to be considered in preparation of the Redevelopment Plan to be adopted by Ordinance of the City Council: 1. To revitalize the commercial area along Main Street. 2. Pier - to preserve the pier and capitalize on its existence. 3. High Rise Development - to permit high rise develop- ment in the Planning Area. 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. 5. Development of Small Lots - to encourage consoli- dation of lots within the Planning Area. 6. City-Owned Property - to utilize city-owned property in the area for revitalization of the Planning Area. 7. Development of Major Parcels - to promote the develop- ment of major parcels of land in order to accrue potential tax increment benefits and stimulate further improvement. 8. Mass Rapid Transit - to continue to support the Orange County District mass rapid transit line into Huntington Beach by 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 combining the railroad 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. 9. Low and Moderate Cost Housing - to provide housing for all economic segments of Huntington Beach. 10. Convention Center - to promote the development of convention facilities and encourage hotels to locate within the Planning Area. 11. Parking - to provide adequate parking facilities in the Planning Area. 12. Townlot Area No. 5 - deleted as a general policy statement. 13. Relocation of Downtown Post Office - to encourage the Post Office to provide postal service in the Planning 'Area. . 14. Mixed Use Development - mixed use .development is encouraged throughout the Planning Area and should be provided for in implementing ordinances where appropriate. 2. 3 Attainment of the Purposes of the Act The objectives of the Act, among others, are the remedying of conditions of blights, deterioration and obsolescence. These objectives will be attained by: 2. 3. 1 The improvement of obsolete and deteriorating non- residential buildings. 2. 3. 2 Rehabilitation of certain buildings, upgrading them to modern standards of safety and design. 2.3. 3 Providing land suitable for reuse for new buildings, parking and other necessary facilities in accordance with modern standards, thereby reversing the decline in physical and economic conditions in the Project Area. 2. 3. 4 Creating a concept of urban development which will benefit the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed development should go far in stimulating additional private development in the Downtown area, thus establishing Downtown Huntington Beach as a focal point of Orange County coast- line. 2.4 Conformance with the General Plan The proposed redevelopment of the project area conforms in principle to the General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach, California, as adopted by the Planning Commission by Resolution No. on February . 1976, and the City Council by Resolution No. on February 1976 in that: The General Plan of .the City designates the area within the project boundary as urban land use composed of residential, commercial and related public and quasi-public facilities. The General Plan establishes a range of housing densities and de- velopment standards. The Preliminary Plan reflects the physical form of the area, and the social and economic forces which affect the pattern of residential development. The purpose of the Preliminary Plan is to provide sufficient land area within the project area of appropriate types of commercial development property located and served by good access to meet the shopping, commercial and professional needs of the area. The plan provides for a tourist-commercial orientation to assist in improving the City' s economic base as stated in the City' s Policy Plan and General Plan. The General Plan proposes an adequate traffic circulation system in and around the project area to provide for the efficient and safe movement of people and goods. The General Plan establishes width and improvement standards to be followed in the development of arterial circulation facilities. 2. 5 Impact of the Project upon Residents and upon the Surrounding Area The City' s primary effort is one to improve, renew and return to prominence the Downtown commercial core area of the City to the stature it once held. The need for the City to make a substantial investment through re- development efforts cannot be overemphasized, as this could very well be the catalyst which would precipitate private investment in the project area. Proposed project site improvements of this nature include street and utility improvements, installation of new utility facilities, implementation of a vehicular and pedestrian' circulation plan, and development of parking facilities. • 0 Displacement of residents as well as businesses may be necessary. However, maximum opportunity to return to the same neighborhoods will be provided. Relocation assistance, particularly for resi- dential displacement, will result in their acquiring new homes or rental units. High rise development is intended to be permitted in the project area. It will, however, be subject to specific regulations that take into consideration aesthetic factors, height and bulk of structures, casting of shadows, impact upon street and utility systems and other relevant factors. However, it should be noted that all potential adverse effects of high rise development may not be able to be mitigated. The impact of developing a strong commercial core area adjacent to the pier (the project area) is directly related to not only the social but the economic well being of each of its citizens. Direct impacts arising from a strong Downtown area can be considered on a tangible and intangible basis. Relevant tangible factors include: a. Real Estate Tax Revenue from Increased Assessed Valuation A prime contribution to a community' s real property tax base is derived from the increased economic value of the redeveloped business district' s physical improvements. b. Retail Sales Tax Revenue The tax return on retail sales can represent a major benefit to the City. •A strong and active commercial area will sub- stantially enhance the City' s income. C. City Service Expenditures The stronger the Downtown area, the less demand the area places on the community for a disproportionate share of City services. Among the intangible factors which are difficult to measure in terms of "actual dollar value" are the benefits received by the community exemplified by: a. Increased employment generated by commercial developments in the project. b. The creation of an area of which the community can be proud. C. A general upgrading of the aesthetic attributes of the area. d. The preservation and enhancement of a positive environment for the area which will enhance community identity for prospective commercial uses, business visitors, tourists and residents. e. The satisfactory culmination of years of study, the hopeful end of moratoriums, and the undertaking of positive action by the City of Huntington Beach. i • 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. 1 huntington beadh planning department • staff eo TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Environmental Review Board DATE: January 30, 1976 RE: General Plan Amendment 76-1A APPLICANT: Advanced Planning City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: City of Huntington Beach The Environmental Impact Report and attendant plan for General Plan Amendment 76-1A is transmitted so that the Planning Commission may consider approval of said amendment. Background This general plan amendment is part of a series of documents to • be -processed as the Master Plan of Land Use in Huntington Beach is carefully changed in accordance with direction from City Council and Planning Commission. This Plan represents a significant step toward the new direction for Huntington Beach. The EIR was prepared by the Planning Department and filed with the Department of Environ- mental Resources and posted for public and private input on December 16, 1975 . The public hearing was held on January 27, 1976. The final EIR was caused to be prepared. The final EIR is comprised of the draft and addenda and this transmittal. Adoption The Environmental Review Board adopted EIR 76-1 on January 29, 1976. Discussion It is realized by the Environmental Review Board that all environ- mental affects caused by modifications of the General Plan of Huntington Beach is a difficult parameter to assess. Seeing that further environmental documents must be processed when specific projects are put forth in accordance with the General Plan, those environmental constraints. are indeed dealt within the planning process at the earliest possible time. Recommendation • The Environmental Review Board recommends that the Planning Commission adopt EIR 76-1. MAT/s AM& Tot Environmentall1eview .Board Froms EIR Review Committe* of the Environmental Council Dates January 239 1976 lepics Comments on EIR for General Plan Amendment 76-1A The EIR is well organized so that information is relatively easy to retrieve, but because of the number of accompanying documents, and the number of other documents that are not available to the reader, it was somewhat awkward to integrate and interpret all the information. Ma for Concerns Qrowth Of the four alternatives proposed in this amendment, the population anticipated from the Modified Destination Resort is the lowest, but still much too high. With the existing Land Use Element, population projections and zonings included were even in excess of the "population limit" of 175,000 recommended byy- the Citizen Goals and Objectives Committee, or even above the 225t000 recommended by Planning Commission. Increasing .the population by 5700 over existing zoning is not consistent with Environmental Council recommendations on Growth. The accompanying increase in anticipated revenues to the city and the schools should not be the only impact to consider. The social and psychological impact of 49.51 persons per gross residential acre (encompasing over 25% of the total 487 acres) must certainly be considered. That kind of intensity of living, vehicle storage and movement, etc, adjacent to our city's greaest asset, the oceanfront, would be a serious adverse impact on the rest of the community and the region. The discussion of numbers of people, density, psychological impact, etc. should be expanded in Section 3.8.2. Parks and Reprea_ tion_ What were the criteria for the modified standards established for Park Needs in the Study Area? In an area of dense residential population, where there is an insignificant amount of useable open space on the properties themselves (as compared to R-1) , the reasonable modification would be to zone MORE neighborhood and community parks acreage, not less. Many of the most critical human and environmental problems of large cities in the United States are primarily caused from hing population density and lack of ample open space. For several people, the only open space they can see is the distance between themselves and their neighbors. . .the width of a hallway, the thickness of a wall, or a few feet of side. yard. There is certain psychic relief in open space that cannot be underestimated. In addition to mental and physical well -being, open space amenities generally increase the value of surrounding lands , Produrina . P�IR 76�1A pa 2 additional revenue to the city,, Also, it has been established by several studies that a city is far better off financially by purchasing outright tracts of land for parks and open space, rather then allowing them to develop into residential ;:j:. .. areas for which the city must supply extensive sewer, police, fire and other services Article 974 of the City Code says that developers shall dedi- cate land or fees to the city for park purposes based on (outdated) 4 acres®1000 population (to meet the city°s share of the l0aicres/ 1000 for local—regional—state—federal parks, reccmmended by the National Recreation Association, and approved as a minimum goal by the city prior to 1970, With the projected permanent population of 13,007, at least 52 acres of city park and recreo_ atiofa land is essential WITHIN THIS STUDY AREA, To SERVE THE NEEDS of its residents,, The State and City beaches adjacent meet other needs , and part of the remaining 78 acreB (beaches immediategy adjacent total 38 acres) ,, Age distribution peaks at present in the Study Area 'arre 20-250 and over 606 There is presently a large proportion of young families, and more will come in as olden -families leave the area. The beach alone cannot meet the park and recreation noeds .of any age group, especially the young family, with children needing a place close to home to play with others. The acreage for parks proposed in tha amendment is not very clear. Page 26 of the Inventory says there are 0 acres designatod. Lake and Pasrquashasr (8.8 acres) must not be "counted' , as they serge their own medium-dense neighborhoods, and can tako few more people than are using there now. The old Civic. Center site, with its established trees, MUST remain as a public park, and the other site designated in Section 5,,8 of the Downtown Planning Study--but these apparently occupy just 19 acres of land. Additional park land must be dedicated adjacent to the dense residental populations,, So Rs and G—o - 0�,�t The impact in terms of potential damage and loss of life for liquifaction in the study area should be more detailed While the existing zoning and the proposed plan both involve large amounts of residential, in medium and high density ranges , it would seem reasonable to consider other alternatives for these unstable soil areas,, The Seismic Safety Element indicates potential subsidence in as portion of the Study Areal, and there are sections designated pProvisional risk' , and same as OHigh risk-major problems, but controllable through design and/or setback,, * Regardless of whether the city will have to meet the Alqui.st- Priolo Acty, the impact of construction on or near the faults (sec,, 3,,1,,4) must be dealt with,, What is the basis for selec- ting as 0.20 g seismic force potential? This information should .be included,, The section should also discuss reduction of loss of life in terns of numbers, dollars of damage, etc,, p,, 3 Tha impact rind mitigation of the flood hazard tho Army Corps of Enginoore lobos action (10-20 yearn honCG) hmvo not boon diecueeod. Th© otatemcant of projected roliof dooenot eGc-m to meet tho rsGquixG ment for a statGmont of impact (Sec. 3 .1.5) it iio catod (p0 33) that traffic volumes would exceed misting design on most aroa streets. Improvc-ments as deecribod, acme- what briofly, could have ecme beneficial impact, but oxmctly what is not clear. It is impossible to imagine morro than doubling the Sludy Aroas population (and that adjacent to it) with only minor changes in str®et patterns and widths. There is incognsist©ncy in discussions on p. 32 (lowor-mid-2) and p,, 33 (4) o 'External circulation eystan analysis con- cluded 11th St. should beceme a primary arterial to PCH" (which we agree with-) ,, and 'Improvement with this amendment would oliminate 17th St. , or leave it in part, solely for local accoes o' Uhich is contact? a Qx tA) sit aid C�n11_ u l Roe®ures Whom arse the impact and mitigation measures on the nvmberr of tourists anticipated in this area. Where are statemonts about No air basin alroady being overloaded, and that this plan with intense use adjacent to the ocean, mould further overload fit? Section 3o2ol dealing with surface tutor says nothing that to really rolovant. What does the reduction on 90 4 acres of open space moan in terms of lane of percolation, and furthor intrusion? Mist mitigation is possible, and contmplatad? Runoff amount may be lads, but ghat about quality (insocticidos, fortilizors) , and its impact from increased residential dovolop went? What mitigation is them? In order to fully consider impacts, there mast be scme dofinitivo statement of ghat WILL be done with the single archaeological site (3.1.6)a=not ghat has been done in the papt, or what could be done. Mitigating measure should be clearly spelled out, and established as a condition of development in than areas. (10 the site location where the park is proposed?) The treatment of the biology of the area is very monger compared to other profossional consultants. "Most likely'* the treos will be protected--is insufficient. There are a number of other mastum tmos in tho study area that need consideration for pmearvation, . for rotaaining the character of the area, and habitat for birds and other.wildlife. Stringent reccrmendations should be made for mitigating measures -a-R•76-lA • p 4 • Ener.BY The EIR should spell - out MUCH MORE regarding design for energy conservation in structures, especially the commercial and larger residential units. The recommendations in 3.7.5 are very minor considering changes in design that could be effective. (Consider Autonetics who reduced their energy consumption to 25% of last years' , by redesign of facilities and better utilization of natural air and light. ) Services and Utilities It is recommended that this - EIR NUT BE APPROVED until the analysis is completed for sewer line capacity, treatment plant capacity, etc. Mitigating. measure should be to restrict growth, not to expand the facility at the expense of taxpayers out of the study area. Water availability is even more restrictive, with lines needing construction even to meet the demands of present zoning, much less the amendment. (Present city residents should not have to pay higher taxes for providing the extensive new facilities , and then suffer even more later by .the overcrowded conditions as well. This is one aspect of the economic picture that needs to be considered.). As development occurs , the appearance of the densely populated area would greatly increase with the undergrounding of utilities in the area. Conclusion While there are a number of inadequacies in the EIR (as identified above) , in Section 3 it is pointed out that there are a number of adverse environmental impacts associated with the development of this land area .as proposed. Consequently, it is the recom- mendation of the EIR Review Committee that this Land Use Amendment 76-1A not be approved, because of the increase in the adverse environmental impacts .of the proposed development, and the reduction in quality o` living for those in the area and outside that would occur if development occurred according to the Amendment instead of according to the existing zoning, • ADDENDUM The addendum which follows has been prepared to answer comments on the proposed General. Plan Amendment 76-1A, Environmental Assessment. Responses refer to comments provided by the EIR Review Committee of the Environmental Council dated January 23, 1976. A copy of these comments are also included in the addendum for easy reference. • • • RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL COMMENTS 1. Growth Of the four alternatives proposed in Amendment 76-1A, the population anticipated from the Modified Destination Resort is the lowest. The Study Area population is expected to increase by about 5700 over existing zoning. Population density will increase by approximately 11. 67 persons per gross residential acre. Population projections for the entire City are re-evaluated periodically by the Planning Department. Recent examination indicates that ultimate City population will be about 205 , 000, which falls roughly half way between the population limits recommended by the Citizen Goals and Objectives Committee (175, 000) and the Planning Commission (225 , 000) . This figure takes into account that the population of the Downtown Study Area will exceed that generated under existing zoning. The higher expected population level and density will adversely affect air quality, acoustical quality, traffic demand and congestion on downtown streets, and demand for public utilities and community services. Moreover, higher population densities may mean an incremental increase in downtown crime rates and added psychological stress among individual residents. However, little is known at present as to what density level and development • configuration these effects become significant. Other factors such as income, social and employment status, and psychological make-up would certainly play as important a role as physical factors. The social and psychological effects are partially mitigated by the .following: 1) close proximity to the ocean- front and recreational and cultural activities; 2) increased diversity and opportunity for positive social contact; and 3) residential construction that takes into account aesthetics and degree of individual privacy, and social contact. 2 . Parks and Recreation A modified set of park standards was developed for the Study Area primarily because of the substantial difference in character- istics of the city-wide and Study Area populations. Although the stated emphasis of the neighborhood parks facilities is the five to fourteen year old child, the neighborhood park standards do not recognize the variation in the number of children in this age group that occur throughout portions of the City. On a city-wide basis, the five to fourteen age group constitutes approximately 21 percent of the total population. In the Study Area only 6. 6 percent of the population is in this age category. In the expanded parks analysis area, the percentage is 7 . 6 percent. By making adjustments in the neighborhood parks standards to re- fleet the presence of fewer children in the target age group, the neighborhood park demand is significantly different. As a result, Page Two • the proposed neighborhood park acreage within the Downtown and Townlot areas generally meet the neighborhood park demand but community park needs are short by 9 acres. If the excess neighbor- hood park lands were converted to community park facilities, the shortage of community park land co.ild be reduced to 6 acres. 3. Traffic The proposed traffic improvements would improve demand/capacity relationships, relieve congestion, improve traffic control efficiency, reduce the number of circuitous routes to important external destinations (such as the Central Library) , and improve traffic safety within and around the Downtown Study Area. it should also be pointed out in this context that such "minor" changes as street patterns and widths can have significant effects in providing the above benefits. There is no conflict regarding the statements about 17th Street. Seventeenth Street will become a primary arterial from Main Street to Pacific Coast Highway, and will be .eliminated or left in part for local access northeast of Main Street. 4 . Energy The report adequately addresses energy conservation measures and no further dispostion is necessary at this time. Solar assisted • heating systems were recommended in the report. 5. Services and Utilities An analysis of water line capacity, sewer line capacity, and treatment plant capacity will not be undertaken until a more specific indication of actual .zone changes and development plans occurs. The present environmental assessment should be modified to show that potential adverse effects on such facilities can be mitigated by expanding capacities or by restricting population growth to that generated by existing zoning or less. 6. Soils, Geology, and Flood Hazard Approximately 25 percent of the Study Area is subject to high liquefaction potential as is the case with much of the lower Talbert Gap where development is extensive. The hazard posed by liquefaction will be the same whether development of this . location conforms to existing zoning or the proposed plan. The existing zoning specifies medium-high density residential and commercial while Amendment 76-1A proposes medium and high density residential and tourist commercial. Property damage and loss of life are certainly risks associated with development in a high potential liquefaction area. Any such estimates now would be unreliable at best because value of future development Page Three is unknown and area population will be highly variable in number • from season to season. Liquefaction risk can be reduced by soil engineering and foundation studies prior to development. Change of land use to lower intensity development or non-develop- ment would also mitigate the adverse effects of liquefaction. Land subsidence represents a potential hazard in the north portion of the Study Area. It is due partly to the removal of oil resources. Values of up to 5. 1 feet of subsidence between 1928 and 1965 have been reported in the general area. However, future problems arising from land subsidence due to oil field operations will be minimized if the current level of water injection into the oil wells of 300, 000 to 400, 000 barrels per day is maintained. The last paragraph of Section 3. 1. 4 (Geological Considerations) should be amended to include the following information: Presently available empirical relationships from the Geotechnical Inputs Study of Huntington Beach indicate that maximum base rock accelerations could range from about . 10g to . 65g; the maximum ground accelerations could range from about . 18g to 1. 0g. An earthquake equal in magnitude to the 1933 earthquake (6. 3) could be expected to produce a peak ground acceleration on the Huntington Beach Mesa within the range of . 15g to . 35g, and from . 27g to . 70g for the adjacent floodplain. Potential seismic activity will represent an adverse impact on proposed develop- ment and a hazard to persons using the area. The value of damage and persons effected cannot adequately be estimated at this time due to the general nature of this early stage in the planning and development process. To mitigate seismic problems, appropriate foundation engineering and structural design features should be included in preliminary design work based on ground and base rock motion factors previously estimated. It is recommended that the final design of structures consider specific ground motion characteristics, and that a structural engineer approve final project plans. In Section 3 . 1. 5, flood hazard in the Talbert Gap will be an unavoidable adverse impact until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Santa Ana River Plan is implemented. In the meantime, development in flood hazard areas will be regulated by the programs of the Federal Insurance Administration. 7. Air, Water, Biological and Cultural Resources On a seasonal basis, tourist attendance and traffic will be highest during the summer. Based on estimates of tourist attendance and recreational use above present air emissions can be expected to increase by 18 to 27 tons per day during summer peak, 1980-1990 in addition to the 16. 88 tons per day generated by the permanent population increase of 5700) . Decreased percolation will mean decreased fresh groundwater storage and possible increased salt -water intrusion. This would be an unavoidable adverse effect. :. Page Four Runoff discussed in Section 3. 2 . 2 will be less than that generated • by existing zoning due to increased residential development and decreased industrial/commercial development. The quality of storm runoff will be generally poor under existing zoning and the proposed plan. However, contaminant composition will be slightly different. Residential uses generate more fertilizers and insecticides while industrial/commercial uses generate more automobile-related and production-related pollutants. The control of urban runoff and its impact on regional water quality is so poorly developed that at present, the only effective mitigation measure is to process such runoff in a sewage treatment facility. A qualified paleontologist and/or archaeologist should be required to be present on a periodical basis where such sites are known or suspected. Excavation plans should include a statement permitting such personnel to remove such resource finds. Tree stands existing along all streets and arterials should be preserved and integrated into new development and redevelopment. As a measure to reduce any potential adverse effect on wildlife within the Study Area, trees and shrubs should be selected that are beneficial to wildlife, encouraging some of those displaced. by construction to return as well as permitting others to find a place to live. This is especially applicable to new proposed developments on currently open space. • • 606 - 15th Street Huntington Beach, Cal. 92648 February 5, 1976 Ed Selich, Assistant Planning Director City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, Calif. Dear Ed, Please put my Jan. 26 letter into the CC packets for the Feb. 17 hearing. I feel that the plan forwarded by the PC is a very good one . I liked their decisions. Although I have no strong feelings on these, perhaps 2 more of the Project Area Committee's recommendations could be accepted: 4.b. That the medium density residential area bounded by 5th, Walnut, 6th and Orange be modified to reflect commercial along 5th Street. 4.e. That the triangle created by the realignment of Atlanta Ave. be designated general commercial. Cordially, l�t� r To,: Huntington Beach Planning Dept From: Leonard Wright 2-8-76 ATTN: Ed Selieh • . 606 - 150 St. , H.B. 92648 Subject: Additional comments on Downtown Redevelopment Please give: the PAC (Project Area Committee --- downtown redevelopment) and the PC the enclosed additions to my Jan. 26 letter for their joint meeting on Feb. 10. . the CC my Jan. 26 letter along with the enclosed additions for their Feb. 17 hearing. Haste makes waste. The PAC submitted their "recommended changes to General Plan Amendment 76-1A" to the PD following PAC's Jan. 29 meeting. This didn't give the PD sufficient time to evaluate the PAC's recommendations before the Feb. 3 PC hearing. These recommendations included significant Land Use changes to PD's plan. Under the circumstances, the PC 'made very Rood decisions. Also, the PAC attempted to meet tight time constraints. I believe that a more practical approach is to.: have PAC set a target date when they'll have their recommendations ready. Without a specific target date, there's a tendency to procrastinate or drag your feet. the PD determine how much time they need to evaluate PAC reeommenda- tions. have a joint study session with PAC, PC and PD (the Feb. 10 meeting will now accomplish this) open to the public. then have the public hearing. Without some such procedure, people must act with insufficient informa- tion. This creates misunderstandings, may yield different decisions and can waste time and delay completing the plan. Iron out some specific details before finalizing the General Plan. After the General Plan is approved , some detailed planning items may make it desireable to again amend the General Plan. One objective is to avoid the delay, inconvenience and possibly extra hearings required by again changing the General Plan. Assuming that (during the Feb. 17 . hearing) the CC will refer 76-1A back to the PC, one possible approaoh is: • the CC agree on a preliminary General Plan (GP) • the PD and PAC work out some specifics that may affect the GP, then recommend changes to the GP, • study session with PAC, PC and PD and open to the public. • back to the CC for General Plan approval. • then on to complete the detailed planning, Comments on PAC recommendations. My comments are on PAC recommendation #4 (the PC approved recommenda- tions 1, 2, 3 and 5) and are in Appendix B. (4j/(.�. LLW o Domtown Rodovogo ant o d a B. Comuoutss © AC (Pro soot Ar©a C@Matttof rocomondod chaq .©o App � � a g to Gonora�l Plan Aoondnent 96-IA o adopSod at tholr Jan. 22� and .fan o 29 Wootingo 0 Since the PC approved r000moondsatiomss 1, 2,) 3 and o s eonnontto t3ill cover .only Poeoumonda{tim Coy Reeopmondation ko PIRO 601 Land UQ'U_Wagrmg Madif' t taocarrdi to F1Rur G B-1 a aSpocif ical y s as NaTzo thca old Civic Condor hS1gh donpIttW and romovo ttho jK0Voc ° T!, Cotes Keep the library. Townlot residents generally favor economy In go vormontt and a sound fiscal cal @yvtGQo And oinee parkas are an added coot, m 0v© loon hesitant to roquoat adding parkas to the' areso But, I undorottmnd that a park hero doessn°$ oven moot reduced city park ota ndordsa o We also have ttho boach nearby, But pmrka fill dif'f eroatt noedss than besachess o Parkas have plornio tablo@ and playground oquflVaentto MothGrss tend to tyke their children to neighborhood parska ahi to forgoing the boadh for these ueeeo At the old civic center site, I don 9 t know what the tradeoffs are on cossjto dosiyGmbililty and rolsative need cenpered to others' parts of the ci sty o I aouldn 9 t want to dispose of this land, only tt© f good with the a zponase and posso lb7ly Impossssible took of 000emblIng pmr lz or open-sspao© land nGer hflre lsater. oh o It BGG%a 3 Practical to currently retain this site for public uoo 0 bo Oodify the land ease to reflect commercial In the area bounded b th Walnut-the alleX between 5tth an 6thand mramge o C®�s Seomss reasonable. Samewhet reflects oils$lrtng uoo o Night check for resident home-ameroo e, Zane the HuntinKtom Pacific sapartmento an the boach as high-dgna itts7 residential. Comments If this is done, we should have an agreoiaon t that this arom never bo built to a higher altitude thrum at prs'000nt o do Include the west aside of the pl@r and around- the imlors' saws 9 C®fl®.erc'C��l o Coxa�o This conflicts with UP19a analysis that this c7ould help prevent Hain Street from fulfilling its role, e o De@140ato as general coomarcial the triangle �o,�sy res�lfl��4� Atlanta, Cotes Seems reasonable o fo Romove the proposod park site Dolamaro end Chicago, Co®�s Koup this park. This park is specified in the land use elamont for tho Old Town Area. Also, it helps to preserve the steppes* (haw Izaporttant thi@ Slia, I don't know) o So Chamg:e the 2 parcels at Bench Blvd mbove and below' Atlanta frog medium dons to high dons.{'. Como Part of the reasoning Is to havo cooplofito f'lonlbUity for high-rise plocemento especially if Townlot is ruled out. Planning Department shows that high density wauldn 9 t significantly I norosaoG the density over PD reconmepndsationss o r � RESIDENTIAL O� LOW. DENSITY 0-7 17.tL/CsR0% ACRE ct• O Q . mtmw DENSITY 7-IS Pa/oROSS ACRE © HIGN DENSITY Obiit l5 0-u-16POrks ACft COMMERCIAL a GENERAL � � y ®. SPECI4LTY qr`o p ® TOURIST COMMIR•CI4L I NS71%?10NAL `�, ct ® SCNOl1LS 4 cOMMut4r" MAC11.lTI K ' OPEN SPACE � �� 0 ;'♦, PARKS 4 IRECREMONAL PACHAT1E% �'• �' ��' ' ' • PU6LIC FACILITIES `'+� ::::IL, • • .. . . PROPOSLn. NZI&WFAMROW PORK •.'� �I,•;•; ' • • • • • • ' i S CMTWTION r:s:<:::: :�•� • • • • • • • • • CENTER • • • • • • • • • • �' • z • • • , +j ♦ �� � �� ••sue►'��•� • • • • • '. OD x r • 1 • y • AA • V' r• t Q 1 FIGURE RECOMMENDED LAND USE PLAN FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1A & PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ADOPTED JAN. 29,1976 BY PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE LLW. Downtown Redevelo*nt B-3 0-8-76 (1-26-76) Also, developers plan to build condominiums here. Possibly a medium-to-high density (maximum of 25 units/acre) would be praotioal here, because: (1) to avoid too abrupt a transition with the Old Town band Use element. (2) to encourage condominium development as the best option to allow the average person to live here. With high land values, condomin- iums offer one of the best options for those of average means to live in this area. Rents rise faster than individual owner costs. Eventually, the only ones who can rent here will be affluent. A 25 unit/acre maximum encourages condominiums more than a 35 unit/acre maximum. (3) These may be Door sites for residential high rises because: . they're too close to other residences. . according to UPI, residential high rises require: * an unimpaired view of the ocean. * being within one block of the beach. If you disagree with UPI 's analysis, possibly you may want to check with another consultant. h. Change city property from high density to tourist commercial. Comment. Does market demand analysis justify/reject this? Or is tourist commercial such that market demand analysis is difficult or doesn't apply? State Coastal Commission on Residential High Rise Residential high rise is a possible future issue. The PAC's recommen- dation to delete residential high rises in the Townlot along PCH as a policy statement is helpful. One big reason for initially considering high rises in this area is that the State Coastal Commission likes the idea. Part of their reasoning Is that they want to have substantial open space in the Bolas Chios marshlands. Then compensate for this by packing people into the existing residential areas. I have several general reactions to this: (1) An area should have enough independence of planning that it isn't completely dominated as a result of what someone thinks might be good for another widely separated area. H.B. should be able to do its own planning. (2 ) Many times people removed from an area may have an idea that they think would be good for that area. But they don't yet 'have the benefit of the local situation, citizen reactions and preferences, and the total plan for the immediate area. When these are known, and all the pro's and eon's considered, ideas can change. (3) There often is more than one way to reach a certain .goal. A major goal of the State Coastal Commission is to let more people live near the ocean. The Coastal Commission is likely to go along with a good plan that meets the same goals. Especially when they know the support a plan has. Consider the high density that's added. LLW. Downtown Redevelopment B-4 8-76 (1-26-76) ' Zoning for res dents Ch rise This is not a reoommendatign in favor of residential high rises . The high density areas proposed by the PD may help to meet the same goals without high rises, But if provisions for the possibility of residential high rise are desired: 1. Assume that considerations previously stated rule out high rises along PCH from 6th to Goldenwest. 2 . Consider some areas along PCH between Lake and Beach for high density zoning. If residential high rises (also applies to commercial) are proposed anywhere: 1. Notify the nearest homeowners to a depth of at least 3 blocks (starting with the nearest home) of the hearing. 2. Present a well-developed plan that includes adequate safeguards and limitations with sites located so as not to adversely impact resident owners.. 3. Seriously .consider abandonment of the high rise if item 2 is not successfully accomplished. Mobile Homes Whatever development occurs, the mobile home parks may eventually be forced out. And this is a concern. Comments received on this include: . Trailer parks are rentals and generally constitute a temporary land use. , A redevelopment agency has the responsibility of relocating displaced people.. This is a better deal than the property owner just displacing the people when he wants to build something. Low to moderate cost housing. Economics prevent this without subsidizing. The only people who should be .subsidszed here are those who've earned it, such as senior citizens who've paid their dues to society. Some favor senior' eitizens housing at the old civic center site, Others recommend near Garfield and Main. Generally, we should avoid subsidized housing. Some have told Me, "We sacrificed in order to buy here, Why should someone else have it handed to them?" Also, it would be contradictory to: promote redeveloping this area as an aid to the city's tax base, then ask for federal funds to subsidize those who live here (i.e. cause an increased use of tax dollars) . Efforts also should be. toward approaches that lower the cost of housing and keep rising taxes from forcing people out. To : Citizens Downtown Redevelopment Committee, From: Leonard Wright 1-26-76 Planning Dept, Planning Commission 606 - 15th St, H.B. ATTN: Ed Seplich Sub eet:Preliminary Comments on Downtown Redevelopment .1. Objectives . strongly support downtown redevelopment. . desire that owners of downtown business property be satisfied with the proposed developments and procedures . . prefer to emphasize private enterprise when practical. • provide an increased tax base. • do what's necessary to minimize opposition and to keep the plan moving along. what's done in the Town Lot area should fit in well with the downtown redevelopment. We also want to avoid anything detrimental to Town Lot residents. 2. Keep the plan generally compatible with the desires of established downtown property owners. The apparent cooperation between the property-owners and interfac- ing bodies is encouraging. It's hard for me to visualize what is both economically feasible and will result in good.-,,total development. And how this can be brought about. Many of my comments are as an interested outside observer. By accepting proposed ideas. I 'm saying, "That's ok with me if the property owners agree to it. They're the ones most directly affected and who have to live with it and make it work." From talking with downtown property owners, I feel that they have a similar attitude towards proposals or the Townlot area. We've been hopeful se venal times over the years with various development proposals. 'Ze'd like to see this one fly. 3. Realignthe boundaries to exclude areas not-required and areas where opposition to some concept such as residential high rise mafy stall moving the Plan along. (see Fig. 3-1) . (1) Townlot areas that have been rezoned. At the 1-22-76 meeting of the Citizens Downtown Redevelop- Committee and the Planning Dept seemed to be: exclude Townlot areas that have been replanned from the Redevelopment Area. This was a good decision because: : . Residents get edgy when they know that they're in a redevel- opment area-and that the eminent domain power exists there to take their property. Some have commented to me on this. Development standards are established for these Townlot areas, thus requires no redevelopment planning. (2) Townlot Area 5: the one-block strip fronting PCH from 6th to Goldenwest. . You might expect substantial opposition in this area from citizens who don't want high rises going up near their residences. Appendix. A explains this and suggests alternatives. 5. r r RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY O-7 tn./GRO55 ACRE MEDIUM r)ENSITY 7-15 pU./GROSS ACRE p MODIFIED DESTINATION RESORT0 .••• HiGN DENSITY O.'ER 1-5 I'7•u.,'6R0,S5 ACRE ALTERNATIVE 4-5 COMMERCIAL ® GENERAL SPECIALrf ti ® J-OuRtST COMMSgCIAL I NSMTU?10NAL p`�a SCHG�nLs COMMUNITY FACILITt ES OPEN SPACE i' ........ ::�,♦, ... P � ♦.♦ 0 PARKS IZECIZEA?IC�NAL �AGILI7IE�, I. / : :�, : gyp? ♦'gF Pll?�LlC FACILlTtES �'♦ P ♦,9 PROPC�SEt7 NEIGHtiiORN00D PaC1K `:r. •e::::: .. `. ..: ♦� or\ 3>rAca tiG. .. . . . `... . . . OrzANGE AVE ti • • • • • • C�i• • • • • • • • , TRANsrrmmON c CENTER ; 4 9 . . . . . .ye • • • • • ' .....7 _ q . • . . ���, .� r m......... / •e i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • s • • • • • • • • • • • • • • �• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••�PACiFIG COAST HIGHWAY • • I ( N Figure 4.4 PLAN NG DEPAR BEACH CALIFORNIA F 1 Ca. 3-�- DOWNTOWN PLANNING STUDY AREA Sou✓'ces ' P. stt, Do-unto•.u>n Plan-n:n stm4y2, Jea.:R reports Dec"I?-f5 . P. 12, General Pi-,h-% me^A-�'+'�eot 7G--1? Part-A s Dow•�t-a�,,.. A'rea., Deg•, /q�s o° LLW. Downtown redevelopment -3- 1-26-76 Developers with property in this area are concerned because they feel that the planning for the Redevelopment Area will take some time. Meanwhile no building; will be alloyed in rownlot Area 5. Also, I believe that Area 5: • is somewhat peripheral to the Lowntown Redevelopment Area. • will be adequately planned keeping downtown redevelopment factors in mind. • by being removed will help to simplify the Downtown Redevelop- ment planning process. 4. Urban Projects Inc. (UPI) . I like UPI's efforts to dig out and project market information on such things as summariylzed in Table 4-1, Such estimates are essential for planning. I can't judge UPI's competence or the validity of their estimates, But I assume that their estimates are within the ballpark. 5. Downtown Planning Study, draft report, Dec. , 1975, by H.B. Planning This report seems to be an exhaustive effort to: • outline several redevelopment alternative approaches. • define and discuss factors pertinent to planning the redevelopment area. This includes good summaries of many of the UPI comments. • generally describe the Redevelopment Agency approach. I'm pleased that the attitude is that the report is for discussion and modification . . . that nothing's in concrete. 6. Redevelopment Agency approach: see Table 6-1. 7. Modified Destination Resort: Plan recommended by the Planning Dept. See Table 7-1. 8. Point for possible consideration: rebuild parts of lower Main Street in much the same image. Some structures appear deteriorated, especially when viewed from the alley. A revitalized downtown has less potential if deterioration goes unchecked. Refurbishing might be useful in some instances, rebuilding in others. A year or so ago I asked one commercial tenant if rebuilding was agreeable in that this would cause rents to go up. The response was that, "if the rents go up and the area becomes higher quality, Itll sell more and make more money.1f If rebuilding is done, owners and established, quality tenants should be protected against the concern that they'll lose what they've got. 9. Parking Besides adequate and properly located parking, we must have some way to prevent beach-goers from absorbing all or most of .it. LLW. Downtown Hedeve! went 1-26-76 Table 4-1. Potential Markets for the Redevelopment Area Source : UPI Memorandum Reports 1 thru 5 ; July 17, 1975, etc . Specialty retailpotential: 50, 000 sq. ft. initially unique & tourist oriented) (p.2.6) 113,000 sq. ft. by 1990. Motel Hotel market su ort: 190 units by 1980 tourists & siness p.2.9) 420 units by 1990 If convention facilities available (p.5.4): 570 units maximum Residential Land Usepotential: about 260 units per year p.2.10) Office Space: reserve 1000000 sq. ft. Convenience retailpotentials : 45,000 sq, ft. in 1975 drug stores, groceries, liquor stores, 66,000 sq. ft. in 1985 home improvement stores, laundries, 88,000 sq. ft. maximum dry cleaners, barber shops, beauty shops) (p. 3.1) High rise residential long-term potential: 460 units Condominiums: -12 stories, 5-8 units/floor Apartments: 10-26 stories, 5-16 units/fl. (pp. 4.2-3) Restaurantpotential 40,000 sq. ft. No more than 25,% on pier side of PCH (5 to 7 restaurants) (p. 5.1) Convention seats in motor hotels (p. 5.4) : Seats in a single facility: 600 Total seats: 1000 Mini-theme- park (p. 5.4) : 10 to 20 acres Notes ; 1. Because of the inherent ocean/beach visual advantages, restaurants and retail developments should be limited on the pier side. This lets the restaurants on the land side function as anchor tenants. Then the land side developments are more likely to fulfill their functions. (p. 5.1) 2. Residential high rises are marketable only if they: have an unimpaired vista of the ocean. are convenient (within one block) to the beach LLW. Downtown Redevelopment -5- 1-26-76 Table 6-1. Redevelopment Agency Approach Source: pp 63-70, Downtown Planning Ctudy, Dec. , 1975, Planning Dept. 1, Purpose It's a way to make deteriorating land use patterns economically productive. Land can be assembled and public improvements financed without putting an extra burden on the taxpayer. 2. The community must decide to create a Redevelopment Agency. It then directs the Planning Commission to survey sections of the community to determine the feasibility of redevelopment projects. Redevelopment must be needed to correct blight (deteriorated areas, neglected by absentee landlords ; underdeveloped, inadequate lot sizes, mixed uses that are obsolete or disfunctional and lack of public Improvements) . 3. Citizen participation is required in planning and implementing protects. 4. Local control. Project planning and negotiations are simplified because only City Council and City Staff are involved. J. Hedevelopment tools. a. Eminent domain. Pay fair market value ror acquired properties, then resell them to those who agree to develop according to the redevelopment Plan. b. Helocation payments to those who are forced to move. c. Tax increment financing The assessed valuation is determinea tor all properties in the Project Area. This is the "base roll." when the assessed valuations rise, the corresponding "extra taxes" (tax increment revenues) go to the Agency to finance redevelopment. when it's shown that sufficient tax increment revenues will come, the Agency may seek long-term financing by selling tax allocation bonds (municipal bonds) . Federal rinaneing sources include dousing and Community Development (11CD) Block Grants (H.B. is scheduled for *6 million citywide thru 198U) . LLW. iowntown hedevelopment -6- fable '�-1. Modified Destination ,resort: Plan_ heecomme_n_dec. by Pinnni_n� .�e t Sources : General clan Amendment '/6-1, Part i- : Downtown :area, uec. , H.B. Planning Dept; pp jb-41, downtown Planning ituay, H.b. FD Significant proposals include (see the rig. )-1 map) : 1. Mall on Main Street from PCH to Orange Ave. 2. S ep clalty retail in the 6 blocks bordering the mall. y. 5 blocks on PCH between 6th and Lake: Promote commercial development with the emphasis on the Z blocks bordering Main Street. 4. Pier: Limit commercial development so as not to detract from main St. .5. Theme Park: up to 25 acres next to the specialty retail section. 6. High rise . Allow high rise residential development in all high density areas. Highest priority is along PCH between 6th and Goldenwest Revise the commercial high rise ordinance to allow commercial nigh rise in all tourist commercial and general commercial areas. 7. Old Civic Center site: Have a library (existing) , community service center (existing) and neighborhood parx. 8. Neighborhood parks: Provide 2. 9. Insure consolidation of small lots: in downtown commercial areas and in blocks fronting PCH from 6th to Goldenwest. 10. City owned property 45 acres between Huntington St. and Beach Blvd available to private enterprise to develop as tourist commercial. 11. Promote development of major land parcels. This would provide tax increment benefits and stimulate further Improvement, 12. Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) : continue to work for it. 13, Low and moderate cost housing: Use techniques to provide it. 14. Convention Center facility Have facilities for 1000 people, with 600 seats in one facility. 15. Provide adequate parking. 16. Revise the traffic circulation plan. 17. Relocate the Post Office: to the heart of the downtown commercial area. LL`r1. Downtown Redevelopment -7- 1-1116-76 10. Malls A mall can be abeliefit or a disaster. It depends largely on: • how well you know of all the factors that affect having a successful mall. We should determine these factors. I believe that U.S. News and World Report once had an article on this. • how many of these factors are possible in our situation. • providing for these factors in the detailed planning process. 11. Old Civic Center site UPI feels (p. 2, Memorandum Report 5) : • a conventional residential high rise would have poor marketability here (requires unimpaired vista of the ocean and being within one block of the beach) . • a subsidized senior-citizens high-rise doesn't have the same market constraints as a private development high rise. • residential development would have a minimum positive impact. Other ideas that have been expressed include: (1) Senior citizens low-rise. If a senior citizens development were planned here: it's height should be limited (possibly a 4-story maximum) since this would adversely impact nearby residences. the 6th street setback should be substantial to keep away from residential areas. Although I strongly support housing aid to senior citizens, other citizens impacted should be heard and given strong consideration before a go-ahead (or cancellation) on the structure. Also consider and account for development pressures tv)n.t: consequently might be exerted on neighboring residential areas. (2) Keep the library. This is essential. Citizens citywide definitely want to retain their branch libraries. Itts a waste to tear down a good structure, only to go to the expense of relocating/rebuilding;. (3) Community services (4) Neighborhood park (5) Retain the site for public use: including open space. As things develop elsewhere over time. determine uses for the site. 12. Parks: may comment later. 13, Lots and moderate income housin ,: will comment later. 14. Environmental assessment See Table 14-1. LL-4. Downtown Redevel �ment -8- 1-26-76 Table 14-1. ;:rvi ronmental ',ssessment Source: General Plan Amendment 76-1A , lnvironmenta1 Assessment, Oec. , 1975. 11B Planning Dept. Significant environmental features include: 1. Help to preserve the bluff north of Atlanta: change the zoning from medium high density & office professional to medium density (p. 17) 2 . Flooding (p. 19) : The U.S. Army hnrsineers have prepared a plan to make all of Orange County safe from the 200-year flood. 3. Density increase over current zoning (pp 21, 31, 45) Proposed zoning: 13,007 people Present zoning: 7,310 people Density increase: 5,700 people The density increase is largely caused by replacing some commercial with medium and high density. 4. Air qualM (p. 21) 3,560 more motor vehicles because of residential development more tourist cars 5. Traffic noise increase because of considerable increase in traffic flow p. 22) . 6. Police protection: need 12 more officers (p. 25) . 7. Possibly more ,parks 8. Schools (p. 26) Current Redevelopment zoning zoning Comments Elementary 550 1,203 Schooling is available. High achool 247 439 Already overcrowded. Jr College 577 948 Sohooling is available. 9. Traffic circulation (p. 32) • Rearrangements planned . Parking considerations 10. Cost-Revenue analysis (p. 34) Existing Redevelopment zoning Plan Annual net surplus to City $229,061 0708,032 Annual net surplus to school districts 765,507 1,218,150 LV4. Downtown Redevelopment A-1 1-25-75 Appendix A. Planning ,r Townlot Frea 5 (blocks i_inting YCh from. 6th to Goldenwest) 1. Citizens don't want high rises near their residences. Some reasons are: (1) You have an overpowering structure nearby that may: • block views and breezes, • cast a shadow on your residence. (2) It causes pressures toward developing at increased densities. (3) There's a concern that this is a forerunner to other planning activities that may make it difficult for resident owners to remain, (4) It puts additional pressure on property taxes (one goal is to allow those on lox and moderate incomes to live near the ocean. .. Nearby high rises puts pressures in opposition to this goal) . 2. The maximum number of residential high rises projected According to UPI 's data in Table 4-1: • Residential high-rise long-term potential = 460 units. • Condominium's: 8-12 stories, 5-8 units/floor • Apartments: 10-26 stories, 5-16 units/floor Consider 2 "average" apartments. (18 stories, 10 units/floor) : 18 x 10 = 180 units per high rise = 360 units for 2 apartments But let's say that 2 apartments have 230 units (half the 460 unit projection) . Now consider an "average" condominium (10 stories, 6 units/floor) : 10 x 6 = 60 units per high rise. 4 condominiums - 240 units. Thus one maximum estimated number of residential high rises is 6 (the Planning Dept estimates a lower number) : 2 apartments 4 condominiums 3. Put, residential high rises where there are large land areas. The objective is to avoid being near residences. Potential sites should be made known as soon as possible so that those who later develop or buy nearby know what the situation is. Wherever high rises are planned, those impacted should be heard and considered,. The two closest land areas fronting PCH are: (1) the property on the Long Beach side of Goldenwest Street This may be a suitable location. But development here would be far into the future. (2) between 2nd Street and Beach Blvd. This is: . within the main redevelopment area, near the theme park and specialty commercial. probably near potential commercial high rise sites. High rises (if any) should not adversely impact nearest residences. LLW. Downtown Redevel vent A-2 1-26-76 4. How will citizens react to residential high rises? I feel that acceptance is difficult if people feel that their area isn't adequately safeguarded. .safeguards include: (1) Located sufficiently distant so as not to impact other residences. I believe that a standard in part of Holland (or somewhere around there) is that the shadow of a high rise not fall on a residence. (2) Substantial spacing between high rises (and what ensures this) . No wall of high rises. (3) A limited number (and how this is ensured) . (4) Restricted to widely separated areas. (5) Narrow when viewed from inland. This: . maximizes the number in the high rise who have an ocean view. . provides less obstruction to those inland. (6) Don't standardize that high rises can automatically be allowed in certain zoning area. Rather, require a study like a specific plan to determine in which areas (and parts of that area) high rise zoning should be allowed to overlay base zoning. Objective criteria are needed to determine acceptable sites. Adverse reaction is likely to be stronger if people feel that high rises are allowed wherever someone want to build them. 5. Alternatives for Townlot Area_5 Possibilities include: (1) Allow a relatively low density for developing a 50-foot lot. (2) When developing a wider area (say 125 or more foot frontage: . allow a higher density . allow a third story (third story has a substantial set-back from streets perpendicular to the ocean) . Allowing 4 or more stories creates a wall effect. . possibly allow 2 more units for special amenities such as green belts. . possibly allow a reduction of the number of required enclosed parking spaces (say to 1* or 1 3/4 per unit) . I'm a little leery of doing this since parking is a major problem. To do this, analysis must verify that the planned units average less than the new parking requirements. 4-plexes and below would require 2 enclosed parking spaces per unit. (3) If a Redevelopment Agency and eminent domain are used, keep it flexible: . Let acceptable existing developments (if any) remain. . Consider the reasonableness of proposed smaller developments before accepting or rejecting them. (4) Possibly provide for neighborhood commercial around 17th and PCH (and a traffic light) . Perhaps the derived approach will provide ehough density that residential high rises aren't needed anywhere. Just as the most impacted Townlot residents don't want high rises near their residences, neither are they likely to want to inflict them an others. LLW. Downtown Redevelopment. A-3 1-26-76 6. Low density zoning for some long-established residents Wetve consistently emphasized the desires of certain long;-time residents in Area 5 to be protected with low density zoning. This cluster borders the low-density area (see Fig. A .6-1) . WhLNU-r 53-ilizArij 140 (t4eIts w} s 31 y ® 55 IOU cr vA c^*,r V h o r a So so J Q+S Fig. A.6-1. Cluster that desires low-density protection. This cluster can be divided into 2 sub-areas: (11) 100 block of 8th Street above the alley. 3 resident owners 2 have spoken at public hearings . Concerns were expressed: * about what's going up around them. * that high density zoning will force them out because of ,taxes. (2) West side of 100-block of 7th Street above the alley. Nome-owner intends to move into it. . During Sept, 1973 survey, the daughter of the owner wanted protection for homes. The occupants presently are on vacation. CITY CW HUNTING 5 BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To Mr. Richard A. Harlow, Director From Recreation $ Parks Commission Planning Department Subject Downtown Planning Study - Date December 16, 1975 Neighborhood Parks At a recent .meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission, they reviewed the Downtown Planning Study concept recently adopted by the City Council as it related to the Master Plan of Parks, Open Space, Schools and Recreation. Following dis- cussion, the following recommendation was made : MOTION: Mrs .. Betty Kennedy moved the Recreation and Parks Commission endorse the park concept as depicted by the Planning 'Department staff in "Modified Destination Re- sort" of the Downtown Planning Study draft report . Mrs . Janey Koch seconded the motion. Motion . carried. Respectfully submitted, io4rm06r/t y,0ecary Recreation & Commission NW:ac cc: Recreation & Parks Commission David D. Rowlands, City Administrator • i I� Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: February 17, 1976 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator RE: Amendment to the General Plan 76-1 B, Miscellaneous Items Transmitted for your review and adoption at a public hearing scheduled for February 17 , 1976, is General Plan Amendment 76-1 B, an amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. Also transmitted for your review are the following: 1. An addendum for the southeast corner of Constantine Drive and Beach Boulevard, prepared at the request of the Planning Commission. 2. An addendum for Talbert Avenue from Edwards Street to the Bolsa Chica Street extension. 3. A resolution of the Planning Commission adopting Amendment to the General Plan 76-1 A and B. 4. A transmittal from the Environmental Review Board to the Planning Commission on Negative Declaration No. 76-1, filed for General Plan Amendment No. 76-1 B on January 13 , 1976, and granted on January 27, 1976. 5. A request submitted by the Buccola Company concerning the northeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Beach Boulevard. The purpose of General Plan Amendment 76-1 B is to provide a revised land use policy guide for certain segments of the Huntington Beach planning area. The changes considered derive from two sources: requests from property owners, .and "housekeeping" chores generated by the Planning Department. The document contains an analysis of each area under study, a summary of recommended changes to the Phase I Element and the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways for adoption (Section 3. 0 in the report) , and an environmental assessment. �,q --7 6 - l Page Two Amendment to the General Plan 76-1B and accompanying addenda were adopted by the Planning Commission on February 3 , 1976. It is the Planning Commission' s recommendation that Amendment 76-1 B be adopted as amended. Res fully submi ted, R and A. Harlow Secretary RAH:EJ:ja Enclosures 0 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 0,; 0 W ;' H Z a Wig !:J -------- 0 = d � / Z K:::�. .... VACANT R3 .-ELMWOO WOOD—ai. MODA DR. COMM, AP MT -T TNOR z JAND MEDICAL ��'IN - K5 CONSTANTINE DR OMMERr C4 PARN CHURCH ARNT RYIEZ OIL R3 J SH FFER CR Q UP 753 ....._ .... 1 Z a P N C IBC AL C4 AP T Ox o ; � Q jw UKATMEQME 0 lYi Ix U_ S NG UP 60 SER ICE C4 F J ION ::.•r ;. AVENUE R N1 VACANT C2 C 17i:i i:'•: MANDEVILLE DR YARrl DEAUVILLE DR J CF-R (PARK) WAD BRIDGE CR CF- E ERRY DR Al FAi-MOUTH DR t� AVE. N J W AREA OF CONCERN ..2.2.2 GARFIELD AVENUE AND BEACH BOULEVARD Afftk 13 Figure 2-4 rr .r • a • PROJECTED POPULATION Residential Gross Maximn Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac 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. 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 Maximun Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac 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 or 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) . 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 proceed 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 IIerman 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. V�. u`w L11L1L1 �j +��7 �'1�j J} r L 4� pl — �MT�F YM , /-\ IY•� 4aK«Po BAY IN '- -� - CF-E cF 55 TERRIER ' �.�J ' 1e I � r o• i-'�— .. � �—T-, � 1l I• ICI I r 1 a1��" 1 M..O. �_' �„ � I� � t �� r • _ _ _ 1_ OP .•nWrr. Dn � - r LM fl I : I + 0 / 1 I ! / / AREA OF CONCERN 2.9 DOWN GRADING OF TALBERT AVENUE POP Figure 2-13 �\ I 1 LEGEND: FREEWAY �o MAJOR_. 120'R/W MYW A ••� i CANTER PRIMARY-_ .100'R/W MVE SECONDARY 80'R/W NOTE: SOLID LINES 410CATE EXISTING pKrwi OF WE11 NOT MECESSWY ULTIMATE A,GHT OF WAY DAD"LOU WINE AREAS WHERE MD • RKifl OF Wes' EXISTS .�._— �SYfIOL DEMOTES PPMK40Y COUPLET . � 1 SLATERTALBER j \ DREWN T -- - -- - - AVENUE GRADE . ................. 1 \ i 2 T MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-16 i 91 Figure 3-2 i RESOLUTION NO. 1162 a:• A RESOLTUION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING AMEND14ENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN 76-1 A and B WHEREAS, ..the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives, and WHEREAS, amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element .and the Master Plan of Streets and Arterial Highways is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of said amendment was held by the City Planning Commission on February 3, 1976, in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission ` of the City 'of Huntington Beach hereby adopts said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by .the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California on the 3rd day of February, i976, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Parkinson, Bazil, Finley, Slates, Boyle, Kerins NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shea ATTEST: /last� '--6Richard A. Harlow Roger k Slat � Secretary Chairman • Ef 1VIROnMEf 1TAL REVIEW BOARD CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH•CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 190 92648 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Environmental Review Board DATE: January 27 , 1976 SUBJECT: Negative Declaration No. 76-1 (General Plan Amend- ment No. 76-1B) APPLICANT: Planning Department PROJECT: Miscellaneous Revisions to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach The Environmental Review Board, at its meeting of January 27 , 1976, granted the above negative declaration, having found that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the physical environment. No environmental impact report has been prepared for' this project. Findings are based upon the information contained in the negative declaration request form, the public input process, and discussion by this Board. awn Melt' A. Tooker, Acting etary Environmental Review Board MAT:df The Buccola Company 4501 Birch Street, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 540-8833 GEORGE D.BUCCOLA President January 26, 1976 Mr. Richard Harlow Director, Planning and Environmental Resources City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Dear Mr. Harlow: Reference is made to our letters addressed to you on December 8, 1975, which were our requests for amend- ments to the General Plan for 2.96 acres at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue, and for - 4. 74 acres 250 feet north of the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue, Huntington Beach. Copies of the letters and the attachments sent to you at that time are attached herewith. We have subsequently received your staff booklet entitled "General Plan Amendment 76-1, Part B, Miscellaneous Items, " dated December, 1975, from your office. We have studied this booklet and note that, although we have reques.ted an amendment for C-4 , R-3, and medium density on the various parcels as shown on the attached, your staff recommendation was that the property be changed in designation to medium density for the entire parcels. We feel that this would be an injustice in that it would inflict a loss in value which makes it economically infeasible and, therefore, respectfully recommend that the medium density designation for the entire parcels not be adopted. Mr. Richard Harlow Director, Planning and Environmental Resources City of Huntington Beach January 26, 1976 Page 2 We hereby change our request of December 8, 1975, for amendment to the General Plan as shown on the attached site plan, which would designate the continuation of commercial zoning for a depth of 250 feet on Beach Boulevard, primarily for use as commercial, recreational and professional use. The eastern portion of the two parcels would be changed to a designation permitting a subdivision of fourplex lots. We feel that this is an excellent use and can assure you that we will develop the property to the highest standards. Your approval of the attached site plan shall be greatly appreciated. Res�tfully submitted, _ r •-. tom..--� =�...._ _.__..,E.___--�• George D. Buccola GDB:plh Enc. ! ( f cn-1,S iZ Y_!_F-K L O T fr! -� 7Y P r ( imTEOccr CoRiicQ _. J' f Sa�O Zor O t ►-1o.c�r . l S�► M i? Y PCB T TN c O M p,G 1.3� 4 Sa i T3 (Tz I�T t-eS Y NEtop0r r r��='�� (�14� Soo -�� 3� RK C 4, A. C. MARION pf� v I a INVESTMENTS P.O.BOX 108 18892 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH (714)847-1246 CALIFORNIA 92648 February II,I976 Planning Department and City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Post Office Box I90 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention : Mr. John Cope , Planner Subject : Area of concern 2.2.I of General Plan Amendment 76-I , Part B. Dear Mr. Cope, This will confirm my oral request made to you on February 11 ,1976 , that the Huntington Beach City Council ' s consideration of the matter of the area of concern 2.2.1 of the General Plan Amendment 76-1 Part B, ;be continued from the Council ' s meeting on February 17,1976 to the next regular meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council to be held on March 1 ,1976. This request for such continuance is made so that we, as owners of the subject real property of concern, may have additional and sufficient time in which to prepare a presentation to the Council at the time the Council takes this particular matter 4undersiderate n. rs , ion • • �"-. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR " � ) CONSIDERATION OF GP 76-1 A & B A. General Plan Amendment 76-1 A Downtown 1. Staff comments .re amendment —Selich 2. Council questions of staff 3. Open.public hearing .on 76-1 A : 4. General public testimony. 5. Close public hearing 6. Council comments on Amendment 7. Refer GP 76-1 A to Planning Commission .for Report B. General Plan Amendment 76-l' B. Miscellaneous 1. Staff report re amendment 2. Council questions 3. Open public hearing (by areas) (Don' t vote until all areas are heard) r 2. 1.1 NEC ,Main' and Huntington existing: medium residential/office' . requested: medium recommended: medium 2. 1.2 NWC. Main and Huntington existing: light industrial/office requested: . medium recommended: Maintain existing light industrial . and office 2. 2.1 SEC Ellis and Beach (Area of communication from A.C. Marion) existing: general commercial requested: medium/general commercial recommended.:. medium � Page 2 • 2. 2.2 NEC Garfield and Beach existing: general commercial revised request: general commercial/medium & high recommendation: medium 2. 3 NEC Clay and Florida existing: general commercial/office request: medium ' recommendation: medium 2.4 Bolsa Chica and Pearce existing:. low request: medium recommendation: remain low 2.5 Maguire Property/Huntington Harbour existing: destination. .resort request: low, medium, general commercial . recommendation: low, medium, general commercial 2. 6 Center Drive existing: local street request: extension & reclassification to secondary arterial recommendation: extension & reclassification to secondary arterial 2. 7 Slater Avenue existing: proposed. as secondary arterial request: delete from Master Plan of Arterials recommendation.: delete from Master Plan' of Arterials Page 3 2. 13 Talbert Avenue existing: primary arterial request: reclassification to secondary arterial recommendation: reclassification to secondary arterial Administrative Items 2.8. 1 NEC McFadden at Sari Diego Freeway existing: none recommendation: medium 2. 8. 2 SWC Edinger and Newland existing: freeway/medium recommendation: high 4. Close public hearing J. 5. Adopt Negative Declaration 7.6-1 6. Vote by above areas 7. Approve 76-1 B in total C. Withhold Resolution 1162, approving GP 76-1 A & B until report on GPA 76-1 A is returned from Planning Commission. f� r `M Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayer and City Council ATTN : David D. Rowlands, City Administrator FROM: Planning Commission DATE: February 10, 1976 RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-1 A (DOWNTOWN PLANNING AREA) 1 . 0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ON MOTION BY KERINS AND SECOND BY BOYLE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 76-1 A WAS APPROVED AS PRESENTED IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOCUMENT GENERAL PLAN :AMENDMENT 76-1 A DECEMBER 1975 WITH THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES OF THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE EXCEPT NO. 4 , a . THROUGH h. AYES: Parkinson, Bazil, Finley, Slates, Boyle , Kerins NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shea 2 . 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RE::OMMENDATION: Since the Planning Commission further considered the Project. Area Committee' s recommendation at the February 10, 1976 adjourned meeting, it is recommended that the City Council hold the public hearing on the General Plan Amendment, consider all public testimony and refer the item back to the Planning Commission for a report. It is the Commission' s intent to hold another public hearing on the amendment prior to reporting back to the City Council. 3 . 0 SUMMARY OF STAFF REPORT: General Plan Amendment 76-1 A is based upon the modified Destination Resort alternative_ con--eptually approved at the joint meeting of the City Council and P'_anning Commission November 24 , 1975. The Planning Commission discussed the Amendment at a Study Session on January 13 , 1976. Also the Project Area -'ommittee discussT!d the General Plan Amend- ment during the month cif January and forwarded their recommendations to the Planning Commis-lion at the February 3 , 1976 public hearing. The Planning Commissiol had considered z?ortion of the .Proj(-�ct Area Committee' s .recom;.tendations on Jan;.ia ry 13 , but due to a ctempting to meet the optimum ti-ie schedule presented at the November 1975, meeting there was not time to sch,�!dl.le an additional Study 1 `. G � i Page Two Session to consider all the Project Area Committee recommendations. Thus , some were presented to the Planning Commission for the first time at the February 3 , 1976 public hearing. The Planning Commission wanted to reconsider recommendation 4 a . through h. later in the evening but refrained from doing so upon advice from the City Attorney' s representative that it would be an improper move. Thus the Planning Commission scheduled a Study Session .with the Project Area Committee to discuss recommendation:- 4 . a. through h. on February 10, 1976 . ' ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The following recommendations are No. 4 a . through h. as presented to the Planning Commission with Commission reaction on the February 3 , 1976 , public hearing and February 10, 1.976 Study Session and Planning Department comments and recommendations. PAC RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 The Project Area Committee recommends that the land use plan be modified in accordance with the attached diagram. Specifically, the C recommends the following changes : 4 a . PAC RECOMMENDATION That the Old Civic Center Site be designated High Density 9 g Y Residential (mixed use development would allow commercial on lower levels) and the proposed park designation be 40, removed for the following reasons : I . Sufficient: parks can be provided elsewhere, if needed. 1 2. Development of the site would act as an anchor and a catalyst to downtown revitalization. 3 . This is a parcel suitable for Low and moderate income housing . GLr�w^► 4 . The present public uses may not be economically viable .in the long term. 5. The proposed mall will provide a park-like setting in the Downtown Area with landscape features, benches, fountains, e.tc. 6. A reassessment: of Citywide perk needs must be undertaken. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3: Cost analysis if; being prepared and not enough information for what type of use this property should be. February 10 : "he Planning Conan .scion feels . the site shou. be desi.gna,�c 3 for public use. J� ,�V j Page Three PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION Staff does not agree with the PAC recommendation on the Civic- Center Site and stands behind the original recommendation for public use. Since further information on cost benefit alternatives is still being_ prepared, staff feels that planning reserve could be an intermediate designation to allow this issue to be resolved in the final Redevelopment Plan. C. b- PAC RECOMMENDATION That the medium density area bound by Fifth .street v Walnut Avenue, Sixth Street and Orange Avenue �— (Area No. 5 ) be modified to reflect commercial along Fifth Street for the following reasons : 1. The majority of the frontage along Fifth Street is presently used and zoned for commercial. 2 . Abutting commercial and residential at an alley provides a better transition of land uses than residential frontage on an arterial street with commercial on the other side. \ 3 . Since Fifth Street is a proposed arterial , commercial development on both sides would be more appropriate. 4. The commercial designation would be a logical extension of the commercial area (No. 3) adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway . PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3 : The recommendation is toe specific. February 10: The Commission concurred with the. project Area Committee . PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION The Planring Staff concurs with this recommendation even though it provides for an excess of commercial land than is warranted . The staff feels that if the specialty area east of 5th Street is successful , economic pressures will be generated on the west side of fifth for commercial development . 3 G � Page Four 4. c. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the area of the apartments adjacent to the beach between Seventh and Sixth Streets (Area No. 20) be designated high density residential to reflect the existing use for the following reasons: 1. It would be a logical reflection of a present use that will exist in the long term. 2. The conversion to condominiums may be jeopardized by an inappropriate land use designation. 3. The City has found that development consistent with the General Plan in a letter to the property owner . 4. No public agency is presently considering acquisition of the property for open space. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3: The zoning is immaterial. The use will sta February 0: The Commission felt it should remain desig - ed as open space. PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION The staff feels this could go either way. The original staff recommendation is a graphic presentation of City Policy regarding the beach whereas the. Project Area Committee' s recommendations reflect a condition that will exist throughout the planning period. 4 . PAC RECOMMENDATION That the Specialty Commercial Designation be expanded to include the west side of the pier and around the c-) pier itself for the following reasons: 1 . The majority of the Committee feels that a higher density of commercial development than proposed may . te desirable as it leaves the option open. 2 . The Coastal Commission may desire a higher use than proposed . j. • i 11 age Five PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3: The recommendation is too specific . February 10: The Commission concurred with the Project Area Committee' s recommendation . PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION The staff does not agree with this recommendation as it conflicts with the original staff recommendation that the pier not be expanded until Main Street is firmly established as a viable commercial area. The Committee' s point that their recommendation leaves the opt;.on open for future expansion is outweighed , we feel , by a need to indicate on the diagram that the pier should remain at its present intensity of commercial use. The option that the Committee is concerned about is always there as the General Plan can be amended 3 times per year. 4. 'e PAC RECOMMENDATION That the triangle created by the proposed rea.lign- m.ent of Atlanta Avenue be designated general commercial since the realignment creates a small section of medium density property and isolates it from a contiguous similar use. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3 : The Commission agrees with this but it should be done by zoning as it is the only practical situation for this property. February 10 : The Commission concurred with the Project Area Committee for the area south of Atlanta Avenue . PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION Although the triangle is relatively small and it will again increase commercial acreage beyond the warrant<�d projecti:)ns , the staff feels that general commerci_-31 -400 would be more compatible south of the Atlanta realignment. 1 YJ Paye Six L'44. f1. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the proposed park site designated in the vicinity of Delaware and Chicago Streets be removed from . the plan for the following reasons : 1 . The Committee feels that enough parks exist to service the area and that the Planning Commission should proceed with caution in designating additional sites. 2 . The Committee feels that adequate information demonstrating park demand has not been submitted. . PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3 : A park site is needed in the area . February 10 : The Commission felt the proposed park site designation should remain. PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION The staff does not agree with the Project Area Committee recommendation. An analysis has been per- formed on park needs for the area with a resultant reduction from citywide standards . Staff feels that both sites should remain as proposed. PAC RECOMMENDATIONS That the two medium density areas at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue (west of Beach , north and south of Atlanta) be redesignated for high density residential for the following reasons : 1 . It provides more flexibility than the medium density designation. 2. Flood. problems may make low rise medium density development more difficult to design than multi- story high density use. 3 . This is an excellent alternate location for high rise particularly if high rise cannot be developed . in Townlot Area No. 5. 4 . These are two large and vacant parcels available for innovative design . Page Eight 5. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS The Environmental Review Board at its meeting of January 29 , 1976, approved Environmental Impact Report 76-1 . Respe fully submit d, �G R ' and A. Harlow Secretary RAH:EDS: ja i � V, Page Seven , PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3 :. This recommendation is too specific and needs further study. February 10: The Commission felt that the properties should be medium density . PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION The staff feels high density is acceptable since the developer would still be able to develop it to a lower intensity. Staff disagrees with the Project Area Committee that these areas would be a good alternative location for residential high rise. The sites are too far removed from the ocean for economically sound residential high rise. Although the concept of stepping heights away from the ocean sounds nice, it is economically impractical . .•4 PAC RECOMMENDATIONS ` That the high density residential designation on the city-owned property bound by Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway be changed to tourist commercial for the following reasons : 1. The property is city-owned and the tourist commercial would allow for greater flexibility. 2 . It balances the increased population density resulting from other. Project Area Committee recommendations . PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION February 3 : This recommendation is too specific . February aG: The Commission concurred with the Project Area Committee. PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION Staff accepts the Project Area Committee' s recommendation even though it increases the amount of tourist commercial land beyond our warranted acreage for the number of tourist commercial facilities set forth in the modified destination resort alternatives. 'i RESOLUTION NO.' A SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF H TINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF LANDNUSE BY ADOPTING AMENDMENT 76-1 TO THE PHASE I LA°ND USE ELEMENT WHEREAS, the City iouncil of the City of Hun ington Beach on the 19th day of De e ber 1'9:73 adopted the L d Use Element for the City of Huntington Beach for- long-term physical de- . velopment of said c ' y; and The City Counc 1 desires to update an ref ne�_,he Land e Element in keeping with changing com nity needs and objec- tiv and e amendment to the Land Use E1 ent serves as a transi- tional s in developing a compreh sive plan by establishing a revised 1 d use policy guide fo certain segments of the Huntington Bea planning area, nd .a copy of Amendment 76-1 to the ,Land Use E ment is on ile in the office of the City Clerk; and Public hearing on t adoption of Amendment 76-1 was duly conducted before the Pl ni Commission and approved by a ma- jority of the voting mbers o he commission. Thereafter, the City Council, on Fe uary 17 , 1976 , fter giving notice as pre- scribed by Govern nt Code Section 653 held at least one public hearing consider Amendment 76-1 t the Land Use Element; and At sai hearing before the City Council all per is desir- ing to be eard on Amendment 76-1 to the Phase I Land Use Element were hea d, N , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to the provisions of Title 7 , 1. JOC : ahb Chapter 3, Article 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 65360, that Amendment 76-1 to the Land Use Element of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby approved and adopted and made a part of said Land Use Element . PASSED AND PPROVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach t a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1 76 . Mayor ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM: 007 City Clerk City AtTorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED BY INITIATING EPARTMENT: xl�', ILI &-e— City Administrator Res. No. S'I'A'I'E OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) as: CITY OF HUNT INGl'ON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City. Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: NOES: Councilmen: ABSENT: Councilmen: City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California