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 78-1 (8)
ENT or r United States Department of the Interior 'Vaal" _ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 y a August 20, 1979 HUNTINGTON BEACH Department of Development Services PLANNING i)EPARTMENT Planning Division P.O. Box. 190 17 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Louisa Finn P. 0, Box 190 Hu-,tin(.ton Bcach, C01if- 921648 Re: General Plan Amendment 78-1 and Wetlands within Federal Permit Authority Dear Planner: This constitutes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) comments upon the FEIR 77-9, General Plan Amendment 78-1. This also replies to Nis. Finn's letter of 1 August 1979 which asked specific questions about the wetland area northeast of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. You will find attached a copy .of our previous letter of comment on -the draft EIR, dated 18 May 1978. That letter is still applicable. The final EIR fails to incorporate any mention of the requisite Federal j permit process. It is worth reiterating that much of the area within the bounds of the proposed General Plan Amendment (see attached map) is an "adjacent wetland of Waters of the United States" and is, therefore, subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit authority under the auspices of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977. Salt marsh Wetland vegetation found at the site includes Salicornia virginica, Suaeda californica, Frankenia grandiflora, Jaumea carnosa, Distichlis spicata, and Glaux maritima, with marginal beach strand including Atriplex spp. ,Gasoul nodiflorum, and Cakile maritima. Surface water salinities are usually high and were observed to be between 44 and 78 parts per thousand on 17 August 1979. Birds observed on this date included such water associated species as willets, dowitcher.s, sandpipers, avocets, gulls, black necked stilts, and the state listed endangered species, Belding's savannah sparrow. This wetland area is a remnant of a once extensive salt marsh and estuary complex. CONSERVE AMERICA'S ENERGY Save Energy and You Serve America! As stated in the previous letter, the FWS reviews the Federal permit application and makes recommendations to preclude losses to public fish and wildlife resources. The FWS will oppose the issuance of pp any Federal permit which would allow the filling of the subject wetlands. We would recommend that the subject wetlands be filled onl)A if it were demonstrated that each of the following criteria are applicable and/or met: a) the project must_ be water dependent; b) all other feasible alternatives must be exhausted; c) all unavoidable biological losses must be compensated. Mitigation. of adverse impacts is not acceptable. Since each of the proposals before us now include some destruction of wetland, either by flood channel relocation or building construction, the FWS would likely oppose issuance of a Federal permit for any one of them. The city should develop a habitat preservation and enhancement plan to include adequate buffers around the designated wetland. Buffers around the wetland can include distance and such measures as earthen berms, walls, fences, ditches, or vegetative screens. More stringent measures to prevent illegal dumping and motorcycle use would be particularly beneficial to much of this wetland area. Access by utility vehicles and the use of herbicides and/or dust controlling oil should be curtailed. If we can be of further assistance, contact Jack Fancher or myself at (714) 831-4270. Sincerely yours, Wt . Ralph C. Pisapia Field Supervisor :.. JMF:rm Enclosures cc: South Coast Regional Coastal Comm. , Long Beach, CA CE, Navigation Branch, Los Angeles, CA CDFG, Region 5, Long Beach, CA ,'..ccl c-ica 1 . i cF q 21,'007 Avi12 load La•.una Niguel , C1. 92677 1;2} 18 , 197E; James R. Farnes, Assistant Flannery"'� Dept. of Planning & ,Environmental Resources P. 0. Fox 190 ►--- Huntin^ton Peach, CA Lear tir. Parnes: The Fish and t-'ildlife Service ("r'l':S) has ey.amined the draft EIF 77-9 , ` General Plan Amend—Iment 78-1 , T:hich ccnsiders cnanres to 100 plus: acres northeast of the intersection of Peach I31vd. and Pacific Coast HJ.chway, The Service wishes to take. this opportunity to advise the City that the. included salt marsh areaa is under Federal permit. jurisdiction with rel-pect to any filli.na activity. Under the ac -is of Section. 40� of the FE'�cral Pollution Control Act, the Armv Corps of En7.ineer. �idministers the permit prowrcm which, in part , rcaulates discha.r�-e cf fill materials into "waters of the United States". Clearly, the salt warsh area within the General Flan Pnendment area is an adjacent' coastal wetland , i.e. part of the waters of the United I'tates, as defined in the Federal Register Vol . 42 , Nc. 13e- , July 19 , 1977 : "Section 2�2 .2 (c) The t.ers, liwetlands" mEans those r.rcas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ;,round water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and th2t. under r.•crsal circu^stanccs do s.uroort , , rrevc- lencf- of for Life _.. r��.tu: ,Aed • cil include :gym carers:, b:o7 and ;imilzr zrF_:. (c) The tern "adircent" mearis borderinr^, contiguous, ' or nci;r.hborin.;. h'etlandr separated fro:;, other waters ' . of tlhe United States by :nan—mane diYer or b;'rrierf-�, natural river hcr77f , Deno riUr, cS and the lit'e are r `:ad Jacent Any application for a Federal permit will be reviewed by the Fish and Wildlife Service at that time. Our review and recommendations will be performed in compliance with Service policy and guidelines promulgated for such activities. In general, these policies require that encroachment into public waters be permitted only for water-dependent works (not 'merely water-oriented) , that no feasible upland alternative exist, and that the extent of the encroachment be minimized. All unavoidable impacts to fish and wildlife must be compensated. Even with these strict policies, it must be realized that there could be certain projects with loses to fish and wildlife resources that the Service will consider unacceptable. These will warrant uncompromising opposition. while they must be determined on a case by case basis, an example of such unacceptable loss right be losses to endangered species or significant incompensable losses to ir,portant wetlands resources. If we can be of further assistance or can answer- questions regarding'. possible Serviee, posture towards specific proposals, please contact us at (714) 831-4270. Sincerely, James J. McKevitt Field Supervisor JMF:gr j i cc: CE, Navigation Branch, Los Angeles, CA Bruce Eliason, CDFG, Reg. 5, Long beach, CA bcc: AM, Sacramento, CA . I I 1 4 i1 I� r�71n?1� - -- 1/ I T;1 K co � f .,� 6v f cu �`D�wc 'Alk c Ll � l/ HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT lg79 P. 0. Box 190 3 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT i August 10, 1979 ". June W. Catalano Senior Planner Department of Development Services ;.,1�Ii ,<<; ;i', CA 926'1,1' City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Final EIR 77-9-General Plan Amendment 78-1 ! i Dear Ms. Catalano: The Orange County Transit District staff has reviewed your revised EIR 77-9, and wishes to submit the following comments. i The District supports the comment submitted by Mr. Ralph Le.yva, the City's Traffic Engineer, that bus stops on all four arterials be integrated into the design of the project. Along Pacific Coast Highway, it would be advisable if a turn-out, or bay was provided so that buses could stop out of the flow of traffic. However, the comment by the Traffic Department that the area northeast of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway may be considered for a transportation center is no longer applicable, since this site has been eliminated from consideration by the i District. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Mr. Glen Campbell at 971-6409. Very truly yours, i Robert C. Hartwig Environmental Coordinator cc. Glen Campbell RCH:E 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY* P.O.BOX 3005- GARDEN GROVE,CALIFORNIA 92642- PHONE (714)971-6200 GENERAL PLAN A/MENDMENT 78= 1 June 1978 ca � V huntington beach planning department 3% TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 78-1 • SECTION PAGE 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1 . 1 Methodology 1 2 . 0 AREAS OF CONCERN 3 • 2 . 1 North of Pacific Coast Highway and east of Beach 3 Boulevard 2 . 2 East of Beach Boulevard and south of Atlanta Avenue 31 2 . 3 East of Beach Boulevard and north of .Atlanta Avenue 41 • 2 . 4 North of Talbert Avenue and east of Gothard .Street 47 2 . 5 West of Brookhurst Street and north of Orange County Flood Control District Channel D2-2 49 2. 6 Administrative Item 53 3 . 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 55 3. 1 Area by area summary 55 3. 2 Sunmary of proposed General Plan Anendnent 79-1 57 • • • • • • • • 1. 0 INTRODUCTION This report represents an amendment to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element. All previous amendments are reflected in the December 1976 General Plan Land Use Diagram and the General • Plan Amendment Maps 77-1, 77-2 , and 77-3. 1. 1 Methodology This amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is designed to investigate several areas where changing conditions require reconsid- eration of past decisions. The proposed changes analyzed in this amendment derive from requests from property owners , the Planning Commission, and the City Council. Also included is an administrative item, intended to reinstate an item inadvertantly ommitted from the General Plan. In Section 2. 0 , Planning Issues, each area of concern and the administrative change is discussed and analyzed in terms of the • existing conditions and impacts on surrounding areas, as well as for consistency with City goals and policies. Section 3 . 0 summarizes the recommendations contained in Section 2. 0 in the form of a comprehensive text and plan to be adopted. Appendix A details the environmental re- view processes utilized for each area of concern as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Additional appendices are also • included to provide supportive information where necessary. 1 • • Land Use Categories RESIDENTIAL 0 Estate <_2 un/gac ® Estate <_4 un/gac EE Low Density <_7 un/gac dam' w,Y _ �� ® <_Medium Density 15 un/gac High Density >15 un/gac • ® COMMERCIAL / / ®General ,✓ \ /' 1, w�;..��! Office Professional a �:, ♦? � ®� \ ®Mixed Development ,r 1 INDUSTRIAL \ ©General i. ..::....:::...:::....::....::....:::...: .:::..::. bh asi p bliInstitutional PUBLIC USE ® �Public,61u -public, �v OP ,u n ce e Space a ... ..::::. - .......... .. PLANNIN G UNITS Planning....................::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: €::::::::::. P . � 1 • ,:. :• .............................. Reserve Planned Community ................. ,,� .. OTHER USES F Resource Production : r� \ �l // r �r.........:::: r 4'T ✓ a" ............. t�ds I ,ice • (, ,.,;, ft, FIWAY 11 5 F �xc PACIFIC IF IC 1"' x "fC. 'N'4- a�•. v 1 L i n y. /ll c/ J G S if• /•l>S G Y z p3'.1'• it r - r r,k i >�'. F^ max,� r. 9 r``s Fir '' ''"`'s L�`,.�•`` 4`t %+' i r'i �"rp,+;s' ��eC .:•.:::•::::.. , OCEAK PAOX PACIRC OCEAN ® HUNf INGTON Bfi4CH, �LIFORNIA Figure 1 - 1 GENERAL PLAN 1 � P64NNINIG DEPARTMENT LANDDece ber 1976GRAM 'N-tN�lll r e fly opS? ~`'♦( to 'O�q. g90j' COf ,♦ i yq ,1 ♦i♦ � I■ fi `SP 40 ♦ � �♦ ♦` ♦ o-o- • cif `I,1♦,♦/ ♦, `♦,♦ � q�i 1`♦ ` A,Eb � � ,�` S 9� ,1 '♦ db`sq�y _% 0`�o-1 eo,� ,1�♦`I �, �S ♦,♦ ` -♦- `l,o ♦- ,vjj" o ' ■ S C> PALM ' S V + N ■ ORANGE PACIFIC COAST HWY Figure 1 -2 m LEGEND HUNTINGTON BrACH, QLIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT Low Density 0-7 un/gac GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77 1 Medium Density 8-15 un/gac ® High Density above 15 un/gac 1 i, S •i • •i •- log � MlM A E ►ACIFIC COAST MWY m � HUNTINGTON BEACH, 01l.IFORNiA LEGEND ADOPTED ; PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESIDENTIAL Low Density 0-7 un/gac GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77 — 2 Medium Density 8-15 un/gac PLANNING UNITS ® Planning Reserve 1 � e 4O,r �1. CO ♦��� k ry ♦1 �i ♦ Ion a �lotq♦1 i��. ♦.♦ i�� spa ♦.`♦O 9y9 ♦�♦♦ 6 ♦.♦ ♦ O �:'.♦.♦� 4♦P`�P pry ♦.♦� �l 0011, ♦� '� ■ ♦ ♦5 9C,~O ♦ P ♦� ♦� r, �vv (�9 ♦� �♦4 HIGH DENSITY °`�ti '♦ RESIDENTIAL ♦'♦, , ♦?" i ♦ i S _ S PALM / ORANGE PACIFIC COAST HWY • m HUNTINGTON B69CH, 01LIFORNIA ADOPTED (12/77) lop PLANNING DEPARTMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 77-3 PART 2 = MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS • 2. 0 AREAS OF CONCERN Five areas of concern are addressed by General Plan Amendment 78-1. Three of these areas (Areas of Concern 2 . 1, 2 .2, and 2. 3) are located on the easterly side of Beach Boulevard and extend in an almost con- tinuous strip from just north of Atlanta Avenue to Pacific Coast • Highway. Generally, the property owner/developer-initiated requests, if approved, constitute a changeover from commercial and planning reserve land use designations to residential development. Additional residential development (517 condominiums) has been approved and proposed for the west side of Beach Boulevard adjacent to Atlanta Avenue. The net impact of these projects (Coral Bay and Tentative Tract 10248) plus the amendment requests is to solidly establish this area as primarily a multiple family residential district. The development requests pending for this area could potentially generate 2, 377 new residential units and a population of 5,570. As a result, there could be cumulative impacts, both beneficial and adverse, on the street system, infrastructure, and surrounding land uses. These three areas of concern are, therefore, interrelated and should be carefully evaluated as such. The remaining two areas of concern have been initiated by the City and are reflective of recent actions. • 3 i The five areas of concern addressed in General Plan Amendment 78-1 are identified in Figure 2-1. 2. 1 North of Pacific Coast Highway and East of Beach Boulevard 2. 1. 1 Background The area of concern is located north of Pacific Coast High- way and east of Beach Boulevard (Figure 2-2) . In late September, the City received a request from the Daon Corpor- ation to redesignate the area of concern to low, medium, and high density residential as well as to provide additiona commercial (Figure 2-3) . A minimal portion would be redes- ignated from planning reserve to industrial to allow the area separated from the remainder of the project by a • relocated flood control channel to be incorporated into the Gulf Oil tank farm. However, the tank farm was only recently redesignated from industrial to planning reserve by General Plan Amendment 77-2 , Part 3. (NOTE: On June 22 , i978 , the applicant changed its amendment request to Planned Community. A discussion of this request is included on page 28 . ) The area of concern was included in General Plan Amendment 77-3, but was recommended for continuance to allow prepara- tion of an environmental impact report. Environmental Impact Report 77-9 has been prepared and is used as a basis for the analysis that follows. The 106. 9 gross acre site currently supports a small boat sales yard and a substantial mobile home park (416 spaces) . A portion of the area of concern includes the westernmost section of the previously mentioned Gulf Oil tank farm. The reminder of the property is vacant and has- been identified-as a wetlanc area. The southern boundary is the Pacific Coast Highway, and to the west is an existing mobile home park designated mixed development (commercial) . To the north are vacant and developed commercial properties, developed low and medium density residential, and an oil tank farm. To the east is the Edison Company generating plant. (See Figure 2-4 . ) The area of concern is currently zoned RA-0 , MH, and M1-A-0. The area of concern is a key location in the City. The property is located at the intersection of two of the most signifi- cant arterials in the Citv and is located at the terminus of the arterial which currently provides the only entrance to Huntington State Beach and a major entrance to the City beach. The property is important in its potential complementary relationship with any redevelopment plan for the downtown area and with remaining development along the- coast. Hamilton Avenue is proposed to extend through the property and, while th re many additional considerations 4 e a gpOs yyf�, �Iygf 1�♦�♦'♦'♦i♦� lot as _■1 * Sip c4ry ,1�1 •, . ■ `♦� ♦'� 10,`4�y � `0�a� BGfy `I ♦'♦ paS .f. � tp q4p , ,♦ p0 2.4 Y ■ ' � 'flq ` ♦� S J 4 ♦, pt�p Y f r ♦i qr 2.3 •�♦ S 2.2 2.1 2.5 '♦ S PALM A ■ r.�.A`• S .................... ORANGE PACIFIC coast Nwr HUIIINGTON BE CH, 01LIFORNIA AREAS OF CONCERN PLANNING DEPARTMEW GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 78 -1 Luj U C) Z LLJ Z LU LOW < cn :E MEDIUM . ..... ....... ............. DENSITY LU C) acr DENSITY ................ ....... ........... ................ ........... 9,ORA" .......... PLANNING ............. .............. .......... 0 RESERVE .. .. ........... ...... ......................... NK ................................................... ................................ PLANNING' RESERVE INDUSTRIAL ..................... O ........... ........... .............. ...................... MEDIUM DENSITY N ......... 0,0 sAo r%j I A sl -PUBLIC QQC�Q Oo� Cho" C��QG�J �o� ��� ``. t`.'.... 0 monum OF Pl/_%cPDc c(ovUU mommv (OF mz�(cm moomwAno 0 Figure 2-2 • Gulf Oil Storage Facility • ... .. . O O :.: ;L......Y INDUSTRIAL 13 6 AC ::. 0 0.7AC • O t 0 h Floo d Control nr 0 0l Channel e. r► W V A • : q A .. ..: aq N c ................ , d i »:: ........................... �o ... ............. AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 DAON CORP. PROPOSAL p Figure 2-3 O O 6 huntington beach planning department JUI , RI I _L I R 1� KWGF Ja ro PIC R R MH I MAAY C. °A RI • I I RI RI RI �` RI� 1 p -ao I I 6EAdnD a ALVANADO 0n 1 ��M1CRR1 D 1 RI RI RI C4 � EV[lYM LR� CA,;..IiN D^ R2-PD AREA ` RI R I RI Z a Q� I` w % I n-(x1 F u NOWBIRD �n �' 3 • f v o RI RI RI �q Z i _$2.3 i R3 i R3 y -Rv �R3- RI R3 R3 :nn c rn R3 1 ....�4.J R3 R3 J 1 :'![l7Rl¢N.,qe. Rf1Y1TAF� nn• -C. q iaa a.._. .... Y C4 1 R3 5":—°A g ,o Rz i �;; R3 R2 --- - Ew Y r� p � R2 nz Y� R2-ro R3 i23 R3 ; .,w-a.ai- - I R) RI RI wE.00. R2 0 rc;I R3 R2 5% --: -------"Ia RI s = RE R3 ^R3 RI _,R2_•i F - sAs� :::vn'. RI • :o - I .2 - R3 RI aa.wm.a n b R3 C r RI II"4 RI R3 � a-R3 � RI oo,.c.aaE. R5 R3 :eaW�� RI ::. R3 -=::[F. >; RI RI f A .---'� cr�i�Anilm.o a RA - RI RI C3 RI e $ d RA-0 M 1 A-0 [:R 1- O m RI •a 30 O - sso: ca W ,� MI-A-O • 4=^i /� m REA OF CONCERN 2.1 0 C. F. C. D. ♦A RA-0 '15111\ .•36E R Y.i366 IL- 136' ; C, Z ---------------------- q ••�/ 6•_•D•'D3'E •n 60 /� N{.f •moo z•• M2-0 ••'Caj C 9• I .07 i2 EXISTING ZONING • O Figure 2-4 O O 0 huntington beach planning department 7 to be taken into account in determining the ultimate alignment and status of Hamilton Avenue, a plan for the area of concern will influence greatly the decision on the arterial. The determination of the actual alignment of Hamilton Avenue will require the preparation of a precise plan of street alignment and will more properly be completed as specific development proposals are submitted. The area of concern is located within the coastal zone boundary of the City of Huntington Beach. This boundary defines the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Act of 1976 and reflects the planning area of the City' s Local Coastal Program, which it mandates. Land use in the coastal zone is therefore subject to the City' s plans, policies, and ordinances and to the policies of the Coastal Act. Upon certification of the City' s Local Coastal Program, the permit authority now exercised by the South Coast Regional and State Coastal Commissions will be delegated to the City of Huntington Beach. (However, Section 305. 9 (b) of the Coastal Act does retain development review authority for the Coastal Commission for projects on "tidelands, sub- merged lands, or public trust lands whether filled or un- filled, lying within the coastal zone. ") The Local Coastal Program land use plan for Huntington Beach is being prepared and is scheduled to be submitted for certification in May, 1979. Area of Concern 2. 1 is also a portion of a study area for which appropriate land use designations are required to be determined in the land use phase of the Local Coastal Program. A full discussion of the analysis to be undertaken is contained in Section 3. 2. 9 of the "Major Tasks' portion of the Local Coastal Program - Work Program. Approximately 33 acres of the area of concern are not pre- sently under the applicant' s ownership or control. The area involved is owned by the California Department of Trans- portation (CalTrans) . The property has recently been declared surplus and CalTrans is now in the environmental review phase of its property disposition process. CalTrans has been informed of the General Plan Amendment analysis affecting its property and to date has not expressed any opposition to its inclusion in Area of Concern 2. 1. 2. 1. 2 Analysis The analysis affecting Area of Concern _2. 1 involves several major areas of discussion. These are as follows: 8 (1) Land Use Factors • As previously indicated, Area of Concern 2. 1 is situ- ated at a key location in the City of Huntington Beach. Its proximity to the ocean and beach gives it an amenity level that is desirable for a number of land uses, including the residential and commercial that is being proposed. In fact, this amenity level • and the desirability of locating residential uses on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway was identified as being desirable as far back as 1965. In, a report to the City, a panel commissioned by the Urban Land Institute pointed out, among other recommendations, that "In general, Properties opposite the stretches of • beach (with the exception of the Main Street area) should be reserved for desirable, well planned, attrac- tive residential development - apartments, motels, hotels, and restaurants. "1 Although the existing mobil home parks located on the eastern portion of the site may not be optimum developments , residential use of at • least portions of the area of concern have been estab- lished for quite some time. The General Plan anticipates and encourages additional residential development in Huntington Beach. At ultim- ate development, it is estimated that Huntington Beach • will have a population of 223, 000, occupying 85, 000 residential units. Based upon current population and residential unit estimates (161 , 300 and 59 ,890 respec- tively for January 1, 1978) , the residential developmen and subsequent population proposed for Area of Concern 2 . 1 is well within the City' s . anticipated maximums. It • should, however, be noted that the ultimate population included in the General Plan did not incorporate residential use on the planning reserve portion of Area of Concern 2. 1. • The General Plan also contains policies that encourage and promote residential and commercial development 1. Huntington Beach, California: A Report by an Urban Land Institute Panel, Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C. , 1965, page 31. • • 9 such as that proposed for Area of Concern 2. 1. These include (as quoted from Section 3. 4 , Land Use Element, PP• 76-77) : (1) To provide and maintain a quality living environ- ment so that members of all economic, social, and ethnic groups may reside in Huntington Beach by providing a variety of housing types in all areas of the City (Section 3. 4 . 2. 5 [l) ) . (2) To encourage and maintain a well balanced variety of residential densities and uncrowded living environments by 1) encouraging rational use of land and other natural resources and 2) encourag- ing development of neighborhoods that are avail- able and attractive to diverse economic groups (Section 3. 4. 2 . 7) . (3) To insure commercial development that is econom- ically viable, attractive, and well related to • other land uses and satisfies the needs of the City' s residents by 1) encouraging planned commer- cial development that will coincide with resi- dential growth and 2) promoting hotel and tourist oriented retail development in appropriate locations. • Additionally, the arrangement of the various residen- tial densities and commercial uses being proposed is also consistent with the functional and locational criteria contained in the General Plan. Specifically, the low density residential use is centrally located • within an area bounded by arterial streets and in proximity to neighborhood facilities such as schools, parks, and commercial uses. The medium density areas ringing the low density development act as a buffer between the more intense land uses to the north and east and heavily traveled Pacific Coast Highway. The • high density areas are also situated to be adjacent to the most intensive land uses surrounding the area of concern and are located at the intersection of major arterials and proximic to commercial areas both on the site and adjacent to it. Finally, the location of the proposed commercial at the intersection of • Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway is consis- tent with General Plan criteria that call for community oriented commercial uses to be at the intersections of major and primary arterial streets. • 10 • 1 i2vv qie- -- - Jbut demand for residential development— adjacent to _- beach areas is already tremendous and will continue • to increase as the supply of available land in the coastal areas of Huntington Beach and Orange County decreases. The extent and intensity of this demand vary with the regional and local population growth rates, the economy, and household characteristics, it should continue to increase at a significant rate. Regarding more localized demand for residential uses at this site, the location of the Southern California Edison generating station and the Gulf Oil tank farm adjacent to the area of concern may have a . negative impact. However, the beach location and proper site design should mitigate this effect to keep the market- ability of the resulting residential area high. Desir- able beach locations often demonstrate the ability to override neighboring industrial influences. Even though demand for and the feasibility of resi- dential use at this location is high, the California • Coastal Act of 1976 does not encourage residential uses where the demand for visitor serving commercial or commercial recreational uses has not been satisfied. Section 30222 of the Coastal Act actually requires "the use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to en- hance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general indus- trial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal dependent industry." This requirement would not necessarily preclude residential use on Area of Concern 2. 1 but would necessitate that • any demand for these types of facilities be satisfied elsewhere in the coastal zone. The City' s Local Coast Program effort is currently analyzing potential locations for visitor serving facilities. (2) Economic Considerations * ti • The following economic analysis is based on a special study conducted by the Huntington Beach Planning Department entitled the 1976 Revenue/Expenditure Anal - sis of Land Uses, August, 1976. This analysis, however, deals only with short range costs and revenues, -and • does not consider the long range implications of differ ent development types. Additionally, the significant appreciation in land and assessed values, as well as cost increases, have made the revenue/expenditure data used out of date. The Planning Department is currently investigating methods of updating this analysis. • *This analysis does not consider the impact of the Jarvis- Gann Initiative and will require modification as informa- tion becomes available. • 11 Figure 2-5 PROPOSED LAND USES FOR AREA OF CONCERN 2 .1 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES AS THEY APPLY TO THE CITY OF • HUNTINGTON BEACH - Surplus Land Use Acreage Revenue Expenditure Deficit Residential Low Density (0-7 un/gr.ac.) 21.3 $ 64,087 $ 88,548 ($24,461) Medium Density (Condo @ 7.1 - 15 un/gr.ac.) 47.4 121,344 132,388 ( 11,044) High Density (Apt. @ 15.1 - 35 un/gr.ac.) 13.6 66,708 58,643 8,065 Ocnuercial General (Cmuiunity) 13.4 72,092 54,431 17,661 • Industrial (Light) 1.1 1,440 1,715 ( 275) 106.9 $325,671 $335,725 Net Deficit ($10,054) • SUMMARY OF ANNUAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE --- ESTIMATES AS THEY APPLY TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS Surplus • Land Use Acreage Revenue Expenditure Deficit Residential Low Density (0-7 un/gr.ac.) 31.4 $107,106 $155,085 ($47,979) Medium Density (Condo @ • 7.1 - 15 un/gr.ac.) 47.4 193,724 217,803 ( 24,079) High Density (Apt. @ 15.1 - 35 un/gr.ac.) 13.6 64,654 44,200 20,454 Ccmnercial • General (Cam unity) 13.4 65,821 0 65,821 Industrial 1.1 3,155 0 3(155 NOTE: The above calculations 106.9 $434,458 $417,088Net Surplus $17,372 • are based on 1975 dollars. 12 • Figure 2-6 EXISTING LAND USES SUMMARY OF ANNUAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES AS THEY APPLY TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Surplus • Land Use Acreage Revenue Expenditure Deficit Vacant Land (Caltrans-RA) 33.0 0 12,870 ($12,870) Vacant Land (RA) 24.6 4,157 9,594 ( $5,437) • Mobile Homes (0-9 du/gr.ac. ) 34.8 46,632 55,645 ( $9,013) $50,789 $78,109 Net Deficit $27,320) • SUMMARY OF ANNUAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES AS THEY APPLY TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS • Surplus Land Use Acreage Revenue Expenditure Deficit Vacant Land (Caltrans-RA) 33.0 0 0 0 Vacant Land (RA) 24.6 6,937 0 6,937 • Mobile Homes (0-9 du/gr.ac. ) 34.8 33,269 28,536 4,733 $40,206 $28,536 Net Surplus $11,670 • • NOTE: The above calculations are based on 1975 dollars . 13 • • The cost analysis of the request for Area of Concern 2 . 1 assesses the fiscal costs and benefits as they re- ' late to the City in terms of services provided and property tax and other revenues received. The analysis also examines the fiscal costs of educating the popu- lation and financing the local school system through district taxes. Total revenues and expenditure for development as specified by existing uses and the request for Area of Concern 2. 1 are detailed in Figures 2-5 and 2-6. The land uses proposed in the amendment request will result in an annual net deficit to the City of $10, 054. The school district, however, would receive an annual net benefit of $17, 532. Although there will still be a net deficit to the City, this represents a reduction in the deficit caused by the existing land uses of $17 ,266 annually. Addi- tionally, the school district would enjoy an increase • in its revenue of $5, 862. (3) Commercial Demand Approximately 13 . 4 acres of Area of Concern 2. 1 has been requested for redesignation to general commercial use. As indicated in figure 2-3, this commercial use would be located adjacent to Beach Boulevard and extend between Hamilton Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. The applicant has indicated the desire to develop a specialty commercial center at this location. While approval of Daon Corporation' s request for Area • of Concern 2. 1 would add 13. 4 acres, the City's supply of commercially designated land, the remaining requests addressed in General Plan Amendment 78-1 include the redesignation of about 20 acres of vacant commercial property to allow residential development. The re- , quested redesignations have resulted from an apparent lack of demand for additional commercial uses in the vicinity of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue. Appendix B includes a staff generated assessment of the demand for neighborhood/convenience commercial uses and specialty commercial uses at this location. Based on estimated population levels within a 25 mile radius of Area of Concern 2. 1, there will be a sup- portable demand for approximately 70, 400 square feet of specialty commercial development by 1985. Approxi- mately 22 , 500 square feet of this demand will be for restaurants, while the remaining 47 , 900 square feet of demand will be for specialty retail. By 1995, the 14 increased demand should support a total of 88 ,700 • square feet of specialty commercial uses. These estimates indicate that potential does exist for the development of a specialty shopping center of reasonable size in the vicinity of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. However, this estimated demand • could be at least partially satisfied by existing specialty centers in the area. However , the portion of this demand already satisfied is difficult to determine since the degree of competition between specialty centers is dependent upon the various themes that are used as well as the types of uses that locate in the centers. For instance, a portion of the estimated demand for specialty uses could be satisfied by Peters Landing, a 60, 000 square foot development featuring three restaurants and several specialty shops now under construction in Huntington Harbour. Similarly, development of a specialty center in the • Beach Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway will probably impact the City' s effort to establish a specialty center in the downtown area. Given the status of the City' s downtown redevelopment effort, the specialty center that is desired for Area of Concern 2 . 1 would probably occur before major redevelopment of the • downtown and probably draw potential specialty com- mercial uses away from the downtown. Although a Beach Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway specialty center would draw more potential customers into the general area, it is not anticipated that there would be a significant benefit to the existing down- town commercial uses since they currently cater to a different population group. Because of the limited demand for specialty commercial uses in Huntington Beach, great care should be exer- cised in determining the most desirable location. Further, care should be taken to prevent any possible weakening of such a specialty center by allowing an oversupply of specialty center in coastal Huntington Beach. • Based on the demographic characteristics and spending habits of the residential areas that constitute the market area for neighborhood and convenience commercial develpment, * there is currently an oversupply *The primary market area in this analysis was defined as being Indian- apolis Avenue, Magnolia Street, Pacific Coast Highway and Lake Street 15 • • neighborhood/convenience commercial uses. The demand generated by the existing population and that antici- pated for already approved residential units will • result in the need for 149, 050 square feet of neigh- borhood commercial uses. The existing supply within the market area is 221, 090 square feet. There appears to be sufficient demand to support additional commercial square footage in speci- • fied categories, the overall surplus of commercialspace, and especially in the food and drug categories, pre- cludes the development of an additional neighborhood center in the Beach/Atlanta trade area. Expansion of the existing neighborhood centers or the development of a small convenience center with a liquor store and per- • haps a number of offices and/or small retail shops would be more appropriate based on the demand figures for this area. (4) Wetlands Status • As has been indicated earlier, a significant portion of Area of Concern 2 . 1 has been identified as a wet- lands area. In response to Draft EIR 77-9 prepared for Area of Concern 2. 1, the 4 . 5 Army Corps of Engi- neers, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game all identified the vacant portions of the site as a wetland. The wetlands area includes approximately 47 acres of the site and is depicted in Figure 2-7. The Cal Trans properties con- stitute the majority of the wetlands area. The Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the Corps of Engineers, pointed out that the vacant portions of Area of Concern 2 . 1 meet the wetlands definitions and come under the auspices of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972, Public Law 92-500. As Section 232. 2 (c) of this act states, "The term "wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps marshes, bog and similar areas. " Additionally, the California Department of Fish and Game indicated that the site has many characteristics of a salt marsh and pointed out that development of the area may be in conflict with the State Resources Agency Wetlands Preservation Policy. As a salt marsh 16 T dt" .... ........ ARE . ioF C, 111 ............... ............I ............. ..... .. . ............................... ..... ............................ ................. q 11 .......... .......... ... ........... . ........... .. ............ ............ Ej . . ... ........ ... ...................................... .............. .... . ........................ IEEE 09 .................... ............................................................ ....... :_ ....................................... ................................. -----......... ............... 0 z....................... .............. ................................/xI ........................ ....... ................ AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 ......... .............. N7 DSON f-0 4*Or WRATM A, EAN C, • AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 . ......................... . WETLAND AREA ......... ............. • Figure 2-7 O • huntington beach planning department 17 LQCVV 0 in the Coastal Zone, the vacant portion of Area of Concern 2. 1 also meets the definities of a wetland contained in Section 30121 of the California Coastal • Act of 1976. Historically, the site was not identified as a wetland and would have been the location of the Route 1/Route 39 freeway interchange. Caltrans officials indicated that the site was annually disced to control weed growth until about five years ago. In the intervening period, a significant growth of salicornia, a plant specie characteristic of salt marshes, has established itself. The salicornia found on the site supports a significant wildlife community that includes the Belding' s Savannah Sparrow and other species character- istic. of salt marshes. The Belding' s Savannah Sparrow is listed by the California Department of Fish and Game as endangered. This status results from their diminishing numbers due to the statewide destruction of their salt marsh habitat. Sixteen breeding pairs of Belding' s Savannah Sparrow have been observed in Area of Concern 2. 1 and have called attention to the significance of the site as a wetland resource. However, neither the City' s Open Space Plan or the Coastal Commission' s wetlands acquisition list include the area of concern. Additionally, the Coastal Commission has not yet designated this site or any other in California as a sensitive coastal resource. (The Coastal Commission was required by Section 30502 of the Coastal Act to identify such areas by September 1, 1977 but has so far declined to .respond to this mandate. ) • Although the wetland portion of Area of Concern 2 . 1 is not specifically identified for preservation in the City ' s Open Space and Conservation Plan, several General Plan policies do address such areas. Specific- ally, the Open Space and Conservation Element portion of the General Plan includes policies that seek: • "To achieve wise management and well-planned utilization of the area' s water resources by. . . promoting the preservation of the area' s marshes and lakes; " (Section 2. 1. 2. 2 Water Resources, page 11. ) and To insure the continued existence of distinctive biological resources contained within the boundaries of the Huntington Beach Sphere of • Influence by preserving significant vegetation 18 • VV and wildlife habitats now existing in the Planning Area. " (Section 2. 1. 3. 4 Biological Resources, page 12. ) Additionally, the Land .Use Element of the City' s General Plan includes policies that seek: "To provide for the . proper development, mainten- ance, improvement preservation and use of the City' s natural resources by (1) developing green- belts and preserving natural areas of vegetation where possible; . . .and (6) establishing sanctu- aries and preserves for the protection of wild- life in its natural habitat. " (Section 3. 4. 2 . 3 Natural Resources, page 75) While these policies do not mandate that all wetlands in Huntington Beach be preserved, the significance of this particular area as a wildlife habitat and open space area should be considered in relation to the other similar areas that are now part of the City's Open Space and Conservation Plan. Practically speaking, preservation of this area would require acquisition by the City or some other govern- mental agency. Even though most of the wetlands area is currently owned by Cal Trans, the cost of acquiring it could be significant. Cal Trans is currently con- ducting an appraisal in prepation for the disposition of the property that will reflect property' s fair market value. Although Cal Trans is required to first offer its surplus property to other government agencies for public purposes (at fair market value) , Assembly Bill No. 2816 and currently pending litigation may prevent any public agency acquisition efforts . To date, no public agency has formally indicated an interest in acquiring the wetlands portion of Area of Concern 2. 1 even though several agencies have indi- cated the need for its preservation. Assembly Con- stitutional Amendment No. 71, if approved, could be a significant vehicle to allow the preservation of the properties now owned by Cal Trans. This amendment would authorize the legislature, by statute, to allow Cal Trans to grant surplus State property under its jurisdiction which is located in the Coastal Zone, to the California Department of Parks and Recreation for State parks purposes. It would then be feasible to incorporate the wetlands portion of Area of Concern 2 .1 into Huntington State Beach. • 19 • As Sections 2. 1. 3 and 2. 3 . 2. 1 of Draft EIR 77-9 in- dicate, a considerable amount of fill would be re- quired to mitigate the soil conditions and flood hazard that impact Area of Concern 2. 1. Both the California Coastal Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 regulate these necessary filling operations. Under the auspices of the Federal Act, any filling operation on the wetlands portion of the area of concern will require a permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Federal regulations do not allow the filling in of wetlands unless the use requiring the fill is dependent upon access or prox- imity to the wetland or that alternative sites are not practicable. Additionally, the proposed fill and activity must not cause permanent unacceptable dis- ruption to the wetland resource. Unofficially, .the Corps officials have indicated that before a permit for the filling in of the site could be issued, an alternate wetland must be created from dry land else- where on an acre for acre basis. While the City does not have any responsibility for implementing these Federal provisions, any development that the City allows , may not be constructable unless the provisions of the Federal Act can be satisfied. Although the City does not have responsibility for implementing the Federal Laws, the City does have responsibility of implementing the policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976 through its Local Coastal Program. Section 30233 limits the diking, dredging or filling of all coastal waters and wetlands areas to uses where there is no feasible less environ- mentally damaging alternative and where mitigation measures are employed to minimize adverse environ- mental effects. These activities are also limited to new or expanded port, energy, and coastal dependent industrial facilities , entrance channels for expanded boating facilities, incidental public services, mineral extraction, restoration activities, nature study, aquaculture, and similar activities. Additionally, diking, dredging or filling operations in existing wetlandsmust maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland. A final related Coastal Act concern is that Section 30240 (a) states that "Environ- mentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent upon such resources shall be allowed within such areas. " The City currently does not have ordinance provisions that implement these Coastal Act policies but will be developing the ap- • propriate regulations as part of its Local Coastal Program effort. 20 . • 1 ■ � (5) Low Cost Housing As previously indicated, the easterly portion of Area of Concern 2. 1 is presently the location of three mobilehome parks. Two of the parks include spaces for 308 permanent units and the remaining park contains 108 daily spaces. The daily spaces are generally occu- pied for a period of one month or more as travel ac- commodations for retired couples. The Cabrillo Mobile- home park is situated on Cal Trans property. According to the limited demographic information gathered for draft EIR 77-9, a number of the permanent units serve as second homes. The remainder of the permanent units are occupied by retired couples and families with some children. The condition of the parks, density and age account for rents that are significant- ly below mobilehome parks in surrounding areas. This factor qualifies these mobile parks as part of the City 's lower cost housing supply. There is currently a zero (0) percent vacancy rate. Although retention of the mobilehome parks would be compatible with General Plan Amendment request, the applicant has indicated intent to remove the mobile- homes and construct conventional housing. Unless an • alternate site within the City were provided for the relocation of these homes, the supply of existing low cost housing will be reduced. This could place an additional burden on the City' s low income housing programs. The actual impact depends on how many mobilehome residents qualify as low income and wish to stay in Huntington Beach. This would also not further the City' s policies of "conserving and expand- ing the housing stock, especially for persons of low and moderate income" and insuring a wide distribution of low and moderate income housing throughout the City" (City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Section 3. 3 . 2. 1, page 70) . Removal of the mobile homes to allow construction of higher cost new housing could also be contrary to the policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Section 30213 of the Coastal Act requires that low and moderate income housing in the Coastal Zone be protected, encouraged, and where feasible, provided.. The provision of replacement low cost housing on the site as part of the overall development or elsewhere in the vicinity, could how- ever, mitigate this impact. It should also be noted that at least some of the existing residents who own their mobile homes would not elect to move to replace- ment rental housing and there are not currently any housing assistance programs that would aid in their relocation or assist with the space rental- fees. .00) 21 • (6) Public Services and Facilities , (a) Sewers The existing sewer lines located adjacent to or near the area of concern are operating at or near capacity and the increased demand resulting from any intensification of land use could not be met. Development on the site will ultimately sewer to the proposed coast trunk sewer. This line will be constructed by the County Sanitation District and will be capable of serving two-thirds of Huntington Beach. The coast trunk sewer will be constructed in Pacific Coast Highway. Construct- ion of the sewer will, however, be dependent upon approval from the Coastal Commission. The date and outcome of that decision may serve to limit development or at least alter development scheduling. If the coast trunk sewer is not con- structed, parallel lines will be required to de- velop sewer capacity adequate to serve the project. (b) Water Service Water will be available to the area of concern in an eight inch line in Beach Boulevard and a ten inch line in Pacific Coast Highway. Public Works, however, indicates that a 12" main will also be required in Hamilton Avenue. This line will be constructed over the channel and extend from Newland Street to Beach Boulevard. (c) Storm Drains and Flood Control Facilities As indicated in Draft EIR 77-9 , all portions of Area of Concern 2. 1 would be subject to flooding during a standard project flood, as would much of Huntington Beach. The U.S. Army Corps of Engin- eers ' records indicate that the site would have standing water 6 to 9 feet deep during such a flood. The major source of the flooding would be the Santa Ana River. Area of Concern 2. 1 is traversed by an existing flood control channel that is not, however, designed to handle the flow of a 100 year storm and would not be adequate to handle such waters. The channel is subject to tidal flux and, due to partially opened valves in the channel allowing saline water to flow onto the site, a significant contributor to the wet- lands habitat. The Orange County Flood Control 22 • District does not plan to provide anything other than minor improvements to the channel at this time. The applicant, however, has indicated a desire to relocate this channel to the northern portion of the site to provide a more contiguous area for development and to provide additional buffering between the tank farm and the proposed residential uses. Flood Control District offi- cials indicate that such a realignment is feasible and the costs would be born by the developer. The exact location of the realigned channel should also be determined in response to a specific devel- opment proposal at a later date. In order to handle the more localized flooding due to storm runoff, construction of a pump station in the northwest corner of the site would be re- quired, because the design level of the flood control channel is higher than the surrounding topography. A storm drain would also be required in the vicinity of Pacific Coast Highway and New- land Street, as well as in Newland Street north from Pacific Coast Highway to the flood control channel. Additionally, a bridge or box culvert will be required over the flood control channel at Newland Street if a new channel alignment or widening occurs. (d) Parks • The area of concern is located directly across Pacific Coast Highway from Huntington State Beach approximately one mile from Edison Community Park. These two facilities constitute the recreation and park facilities that are presently available to serve development generated by Area of Concern 2. 1. No neighborhood parks are currently master- planned for the immediate area. The draft Park Analysis prepared in 1977, however, concluded that at ultimate development the general area will be adequately supplied with park facilities. This • estimate is based on crediting the beach and Edison Community Park as serving neighborhood park needs, a policy which to date has not been offi- cially adopted. Development of the area of concern at the intensity being requested would result in a park dedication or fee liability of • approximately 14 acres. To achieve consistency with Coastal Act policies regarding new develop- • 23 ment. On-site recreation' facilities should be provided that minimize the demand on coastal recreation facilities such as the beaches. (e) Schools The area of concern is served by Kettler Elementary,_ Gisler Intermediate, and Edison High School. Kettler Elementary and Gisler Intermediate have remaining capacities of 249 and 151 students re- spectively. If Area of Concern 2. 1 is developed at the maximum residential intensity being requested for the area, an increase of 219 ele- mentary and 70 middle school students would result While there is capacity to handle these students, the additional students generated by other devel- opments already approved or pending (Coral Bay, 149 condominiums across Beach north of Atlanta and Area of Concern 2. 2) will overburden these schools. Expansion of these facilities or redis- tricting may be necessary. In general, Huntington Beach Elementary School District is experiencing declining enrollment and does have excess capacity in many of its schools. It should therefore be . able to handle the additional students generated by this and the other projects in the area. The additional high school students generated, a maximum of 170, will further burden the already overcrowded situation at Edison High School. How- ever, the declining enrollment in the elementary and middle schools should result in a long-term drop in high school facility requirements. (7) Traffic and Circulation Access to the area of concern is presently possible via Beach Boulevard on the west, Pacific Coast Highway on the south, and Newland Street on the east. Additional access to the northern edge of the site will be pro- vided in the future with the extension of Hamilton Avenue. It is estimated that the traffic generated by the land uses proposed for Area of Concern 2. 1 will range between 19, 507 and 22,121 vehicle trips per day. When the projected traffic volumes are compared with street capacities, all of the streets will have volumes less than their design capacity, with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway. Approximately twenty (20) per- 24 1 � � cent of the projected traffic will utilize PaciI Coast Highway, adding to the traffic on an alre problem arterial. (The City is currently in thtial stages of a preliminary engineering and fe study intended to identify the improvements nec to solve the traffic problems on Pacific Coast Similarly, Beach Boulevard already experiences congestion on peak summer days, and the additional traffic generated will add to this problem but it will not create undesirable traffic conditions on non- peak days. As was indicated earlier, a key access point to the area of concern will be the extension of Hamilton Ave- nue between Newland Street and Beach Boulevard. The City.' s Circulation Element depicts such an extension and designates the street as a primary arterial. As • such, it will require 100 feet of right-of-way and will be constructed with an optimum design capacity of 30, 000 vehicles per day. The circulation plan currentl indicates that Hamilton Avenue will extend straight through to Beach Boulevard. However, the proximity of the resulting intersection with Pacific Coast High- way is considered too close to allow the construction of a safe, efficient intersection. Instead, the Hamilton Avenue extension should curve northward to approximately 1, 000 feet north of Pacific Coast High- way. This will place the intersection approximately equidistant between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway at an existing median break in order to reduce intersection congestion. The land use pattern re- quested by the applicant reflects this realignment. The exact alignment should be determined through the precise plan of street alignment process and timed to coincide with the submittal of any specific development proposals. Although the extension of Hamilton Avenue is an adopted City policy, Federal regulations and Coastal Act policies governing fill operations in wetlands would also apply to the construction of Hamilton Avenue if fill were necessary to stabilize the road bed. To gain the necessary approvals, mitigation measures identified earlier would also be a- required part of this project. (8) Scenic Highway and Landscape Corridor Status The Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan identi- fied Pacific Coast Highway as a scenic highway and 25 • • Beach Boulevard from Adams Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway as a landscape corridor. The scenic highway designation for Pacific Coast Highway recognizes its importance to the accessibility of the visual resources along the City' s coastline. The scenic highway desig- nation established the City' s policy of preserving and enhancing these resources and established the framework to pursue an official State scenic highway designation. A number of regulatory programs need to be established before this official State designation can occur. The City is presently pursuing this through its local coastal program effort. The frontage of Area of Con- cern 2. 1 along Pacific Coast Highway should be developed in conformance with the measures that will ultimately be established. The landscape corridor designation for Beach Boulevard • recognizes the view potential of beach access routes , but also recognizes that these roads do not possess the unique scenic characteristics that would truly qualify them as "scenic routes. " The landscape corridor, therefore, requires special treatment for developments fronting on them. The regulatory program established for landscape corri- dors includes: (1) landscaping treatment in accord with the City' s Standard Plans, (2) landscaped medians, (3) regulating the landscaping and arboricultural and landscape standards and specifications, treatments on private developments fronting on Beach Boulevard, (4) regulating signs, (5) imposing building height and setback regulations, and (6) undergrounding of all utilities. Development proposed for the portions of the site adjacent to Beach Boulevard should reflect these policies. (9) Environmental Issues The environmental impacts of the land use designations being proposed for Area of Concern 2. 1, as well as several alternatives, are fully discussed in EIR 77-9. The most significant of the identified impacts that have not been previously discussed can be summarized as follows: (a) Geotechnical - The entire area of concern is con- sidered to be highly sensitive in a geologic 26 perspective because of the presence of the Inglewood-Newport fault and the resulting lique- faction potential. Additionally, the_p9p_q bility of liquefaction is very real on the site. The clay content of the soil and the high groundwater level will require fill to mitigate these condi- tions and render the site suitable for development. (b) Noise - Residential development adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway and a small portion of Beach Boule- vard will be subjected to noise levels in excess of the normally acceptable levels for residential areas. Since the typical exterior treatments such as walls and berms may not be feasible, special mitigation measures would be required to reduce the Ldn 70 level to City standard of Ldn 60 for exterior and Ldn 45 for interior noise levels. Areas adjacent to Beach Boulevard, Newland Street, and the proposed Hamilton Avenue extension would also be subject to noise levels that are in excess of City standards. However, it is feasible to mitigate the noise to reach an acceptable level through unit modifications and building placement, and barrier construction. (c) Air Quality - Any uses that locate adjacent to the Edison generating plant may be subjected to acid mist fallout. The Air Quality Management District has received ten complaints regarding acid mist fallout from the Edison plant in the last two years. All but one came from the mobile home park across Newland Street. Although the complaints were investigated, none could be confirmed. • (10) Local Coastal Program The relationship of the General Plan amendment request to specific Coastal Act policies has been discussed in previous sections. However, it should also be • noted that Section 30604 (a) of the Coastal Act states "Prior to certification of the Local Coastal Program, a Coastal Development Permit shall be issued if the issuing agency, or the commission on appeal, finds that the proposed development is in conformity with the pro- visions of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) • of this division and the permitted development will not prejudice the ability of the local government to 27 1 prepare a Local Coastal Program that is in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) . " Approval of literally any project, even at the General Plan level, could limit planning options now open for the preparation of the Local Coastal Program. This is especially true since the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan will become an M element of the City' s General Plan. Even though it may not be possible for every individual site within the coastal zone to implement each of the Coastal Act policies, it is clearly necessary that land use decisions made prior to certification of the Local Coastal Program not be in conflict with those policies. While the Coastal Act does allow some degree of flexibility for individual sites within the coastal zone, specific Coastal Act policies such as those pertaining to filling operations in wetland areas the preservation of significant wildlife habitat areas, the preservation of existing low-cost housing oppor- tunities, and controlling risks to life and property in hazard areas could limit the options available for this specific site. A commitment to the land use designations requested a for Area of Concern 2. 1 could require other areas of the coastal zone to be preserved for 'the implementa- tion of Coastal Act policies. (11) Applicant' s Amended Request - Planned Community • In a letter to the Planning Department dated June 22 , 1978 , Daon Corporation proposed that its original General Plan Amendment request be changed to "Planned Community" (see Appendix F) . They cite that this approach confronts the broad issues of commitment to development while providing the flexibility that is necessary to solve the land use organizational prob- lems that have been identified in the analysis process. By definition the Planned Community designation "is intended to provide for the comprehensive, • coordinated planning and development of an identifiable area of land so as to take advantage of the benefits of large scale community planning. The planned community designation allows for the creation of a quality living environment through imple- • mentation of a development plan on a minimum Alai 28 • I fifty (50) acre increment of a designated area. Processing the development plan will follow existing City zoning and subdivision codes. Specifically, through the process of subdivision, site plan and circulation plan reviews, integrated developments will be established which are in • conformance with the policies of the General Plan. " (Huntington Beach General Plan, pp 92-93. ) . The planned community designation will not in itself establish the relationship between land uses and does not establish a maximum on the intensity of develop- ment. These concerns are regulated by the zoning on the property. Since the existing zoning for the area of concern is RA-0 , MH and M1-A-0 , no residential development intensities exist for much of the site. In order to determine the organization of the land uses as well as acceptable development intensities, • either changes in zoning or preferably, the develop- ment of a specific plan for the Area of Concern would be required once the Planned Community designation was adopted. Designation of Area of Concern 2. 1 to Planned Com- munity would at this time be only a statement of the City' s commitment to the development of the area. This would, however, allow the applicant and City to proceed with the preparation of a more specific development proposal. • Currently, only the Seacliff area of Huntington Beach is designated as Planned Community. 2.1. 3 Recommendation There are six alternative actions that can be taken on • Area of Concern 2. 1. These are as follows: 1. Approve a "planned community" general plan designation and direct staff to prepare a specific plan establishing the necessary development regulations as requested by the applicant. (see Appendix D-1) • 2 . Approve the applicant' s original request as depicted in Figure 2-3. 3. Approve an alternative land use plan for the area of concern as illustrated in Appendix D-2 thru D-4 . • 4. Approve the applicant' s request on the portion of the site that has not been identified as being a wetland (see Appendix D-5) . • 29 • 1 • I 5. With the concurrance of the applicant, continue the • request to allow consideration of Area of Concern 2. 1 within the context of the Local Coastal Program. 6. Deny the applicant' s request and consider the Area of Concern as part of the Local Coastal Program. • As indicated in the above analysis, there are several significant issues that impact Area of Concern 2 . 1 that seem to be unsolvable within the context of General Plan Amendment 78-1. Specifically, development of the area as proposed createsconditions that conflict with Coastal Act policies. However, within the context of a comprehensive • plan for Coastal Huntington Beach, it may be possible to satisfactorily comply with Coastal Act policies and still allow the development requested by the applicant. Until the plan- is completed and certified, this determination, however, would be difficult to make. Additionally, the key location and size of this parcel make its land use designation an important part of the Local Coastal Program land use plan. Redesignation as requested at this time will limit the options available to the City regarding this property. The applicant' s request and the information that has been generated can be considered in • the formulation of the Local Coastal Program. Also since the Local Coastal Program land use plan will become an element of the General Plan, the applicant will not be required to go through another general plan amendment process, and upon City adoption of the Local Coastal Program will be able to start processing the necessary zone changes • and development applications leading up to construction of the development permitted. Staff, therefore, recommends Alternative #5 , which is that Area of Concern 2 .1 be continued until the Local Coastal . Program is completed and that the land use designations requested for the area be considered in the preparation of the Local Coastal Program land use plan. • • 30 • 2 . 2 East of Beach Boulevard and South of Atlanta Avenue 2. 2 . 1 Background The area of concern emcompasses 14. 47 acres located east of Beach Boulevard approximately 1025 feet south of Atlanta • Avenue. The applicant, the Sassoon-Mayer Development Company, has requested that the southern 8 . 32 acres of the site be redesignated from planning reserve and commercial to high density residential, with the northern portion of the site to be retained for commercial use. (See Figure 2-9) • The area of concern is presently vacant, although the terminus of a frontage road parallel to Beach Boulevard bisects the northern half of the site. The area of concern is surrounded by a commercial center to the north, medium density condominiums across the flood control channel to the east, and vacant planning reserve property to the • south. A portion of the area to the west across Beach Boulevard is designated mixed development (commercial) and supports a mobile home park at this time. The remainde is designated medium density residential and is the site of a recently approved condominium project of 368 units. This area of concern was continued from General Plan Amendment 77-3 to allow the applicant time to finalize negotiations with the State Department of Transportation. 2 . 2 . 2 Analysis • The area of concern is located adjacent to planned or existing intensive land uses , near major transportation routes, and in proximity to commercial and other activity areas. It is also approximately 1/4 mile from the beach. These characteristics reflect the desirability of this property for intensive uses such as commercial or multiple residential. These types of uses would also be compatible with the locational criteria found in the Land Use Element of the City ' s General Plan. These factors plus the greater desirability of a commercial site on the northeast corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard as well as the apparent limited demand for com- mercial development in the area as discussed in Appeiidix B minimize the need for commercial development at this location. Multiple family residential development in this area would help support existing and proposed commercial uses in the ..............00/ 31 • ........................_........ - - FHIGHDENSITYMEDIUMDENSITY W MEDIUM --=-r- DENSITY o . i :1k [ ; W, € ; i S(g ._....... LULI W .-.. i f , x LOW .DENSITY ......:... Z Bb : ..: : .. , fix., .. ::. i � {7 . :: t < r MIXED �x�?n:� ......r............ ..._ _.....x................. DEVELOPMENT ........ • I � 3 3 �£ �.�• f ' PLANNING % £ IIRESERVE ... . ..........._ T # :. TANS <` { RM ( ............ ............ ...............<, AREA OF CONCERN 2.2 EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD & SOUTH OF ATLANTA AVENUE � @[P[ To = FigJ2-8 '. O huntington beach planning department 32 ... ........ . ..................... . ........... ..... ................. ....................... ........... ............... . ...........................I............. ..... ............................ .............. ....... ........................... -.7...................... ........... ............ 2.67 ACRES GENERAL COMME RCIAL Ile .............. .... .................. ...... ..... ... 81.32 ACRES .......... ... HIGH i . DENSITY . ......... ............ RESIDENTIAL::*., • ............. ............. ............ .�r.................. ................ .... ...... ............. ........... ....... ... ............. ..................... .. ............. .................................................................................. ................................ ............. ................. ................ ............. .......... ................................ ........... ....... TANK FARM Tj • AREA OF CONCERN 2.2 AMENDMENT REQUEST 1:3 FIGURE 2-9 O O huntington beach planning department 33 • area. This would be especially important to surrounding commercial uses in the off season when beach usage diminishes sharply. The area of concern is closely related to the property to the south addressed in Area of Concern 2 .1. The applicant • has indicated that negotiations are in process to obtain the remaining property between this proposal and Hamilton Avenue. The intent is to expand and integrate the resi- dential areas under consideration. Under the high density residential land use designation • it would be possible to construct a maximum of 250 dwelling units on this site. However, under current zoning provisions an average of 22 dwelling units per acre are typically constructed resulting in 183 units on this site. The applicant has informally indicated a desire to construct '180 residential units and will possibly seek conversion to condominiums at some time in the future. The remaining analysis discusses the various issues that affect the area of concern. (1) Land Ownership The area of concern is composed of parcels under ownership of the applicant, City of Huntington Beach, and State Department of Transportation. The appli- cant is in the process of negotiating the acquisition of Cal Trans property which has been declared surplus and unless consolidated with the adjacent properties is not readily developable. The applicant also is proposing that the frontage road be vacated by the City for inclusion in the project. The is of the area of concern is held by the applicant. The proposal represents a major effort at consolidation and will help alleviate access problems for the existing shopping center and eliminate not easily developed land. The negotiations with Cal Trans have not yet been completed due to the CEQA requirements that environ- mental analysis occur on State owned properties prior to their sale. As indicated in Section 2 .1 .2 , because of the Belding 's Savannah Sparrow Habitat, marsh restoration possibilities and relationship to the coastal zone, Cal Trans Division 7 is preparing 34 its first Environmental Impact Report for the sale of surplus right-of-way for these areas of concern. Dependent upon the comments received in the review process, the final disposition of the properties will be determined. The draft EIR is now being finalized. (2) Traffic and Circulation i Access to the project site is presently possible via Beach Boulevard and via a frontage road constructed parallel to Beach Boulevard. However, the applicant intends to request abandonment of the frontage road to consolidate it with the existing shopping center thereby limiting access to the site to Beach Boulevard. Ingress and egress to the site is limited by the existing median breaks on Beach • Boulevard. Access therefore would be limited to a single entrance, opposite Sunrise Court, the Beach Boulevard access to the W & B Builders ' project across Beach Boulevard. . A signalized intersection would probably be required. The traffic analysis conducted for the W & B Builders (Coral Bay) project • indicated that by itself it would not warrant the signalization of that access point and therefore only a left turn pocket on Beach Boulevard was required as a condition of development. The City' s Traffic Engineering Department, however, is concerned that additional access to Beach Boulevard from the shopping center, additional commercial development in the center, and the traffic generated by the pro- posed residential uses will result in .a volume that is sufficient to warrant signalization. As part of the project approval process a very detailed engineering analysis on the need for a signal will be • necessary. The current traffic volume on this portion of Beach Boulevard is 19 , 800 vehicles per day on a typical week day. The peak summer daily volume on Beach Boulevard at Atlanta Avenue has been estimated to be • approximately 31, 000 vehicles per day . The proposed project will generate approximately 1235 to 1569 vehicle trips depending upon the ultimate number of residential units developed (assumes a trip generation rate of 6.3 trips/unit) . These vehicles • � - 35 LULTVV will share ingress and egress with the shopping center immediately north of the area of concern. The f applicant is also proposing to expand the shopping center by adding approximately 50,000 square feet of shops, offices, and restaurants . This could add as many as 4000 vehicle trips per day over the exist- ing conditions and make that single access congested. Beach Boulevard has an optimum design capacity of 45, 000 vehicles per day. On all but peak summer days it should be quite adequate to handle the additional traffic that will be generated. On those peak summer days where congestion already occurs the additional traffic will add to an already undesirable • situation. As previously mentioned, the applicant is proposing the abandonment of the frontage road now paralleling Beach Boulevard and in front of the shopping center. The frontage road was originally required because of the Route 1 freeway and interchange construction 0 once proposed. Since that project has been dropped by the State of California the remainder of the frontage road has not been constructed. The right-of-way acquired for this and freeway purposes has been declared surplus and Cal Trans is attempting to dispose of it. Since the freeway no longer affects the properties involved, the need for a frontage road does not seem to exist. Although access to Beach Boulevard would be limited, the shopping center would have improved access if the frontage road were vacated and all properties between Beach Boulevard • and the existing parking lot were integrated into the development. Traffic Engineering indicates that elimination of the frontage road would also significantly improve the Atlanta Avenue/Beach Boulevard intersection by eliminating a "confusion" source. They also have indicated that it would be • necessary to upgrade the Atlanta Avenue entrance to the shopping center in conjunction with the frontage road abandonment. Cal Trans relinquished ownership of the frontage road to the City in 1968 . Therefore, City procedures for vacation would apply. (3) Noise • The location of the area of concern adjacent to Beach Boulevard results in the entire site being subjected to traffic generated noise. The Noise Element • 36 indicates that at the present time the entire project • area is within the Ldn 60 noise contour. The westerly 170 feet of the site are located with the Ldn 65 noise contour. Noise levels between Ldn 60 and Ldn 65 are considered normally acceptable while those above Ldn 65 are considered normally unacceptable for residential use. The noise contours projected in the Noise Element for 1990 do however indicate a reduction in the noise impacts on the area of concern. Only those areas immediately adjacent to Beach Boulevard would be subject to noise levels in excess of the normally acceptable range. The Noise Element also sets forth Ldn 45 as the optimum indoor noise level . The State of California has also issued interior noise standards for all multi-family dwellings in the State. This law, called the California Noise Insulation Standards (California Administrative Code, Title 25 , Chapter 1, Subchapter 1; adopted February 22, 1974) requires that all new multi-family dwelling structures in CNEL noise zones above 60 dB (approximately equivalent to Ldn 60) be required to submit an acoustical analysis with the building permit application, proving that the proposed construction is sufficient to reduce interior noise levels to below 45 CNEL (approximately Ldn 45) in any habitable room. The Noise Element Background Report suggests methods accomplishing the necessary re- ductions (pp 105-106) . If residential units are proposed within the Ldn 65 contour, a noise barrier wall may be necessary to mitigate the noise level to an acceptable range as is also recommended in the Noise Element Background Report. Additionally the Noise Element Background Report indicates that residential usage of noise sensitive areas (buffer zones) be restricted and that they be rezoned to "light industrial or commercial usage or require sound insulated design multi-family units in this buffer zone" (page 105) . (4) Landscape Corridor The Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan identified Beach Boulevard from Adams Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway as a landscape corridor. The landscape corridor is an element of the City 's scenic 37 EQLT,, highways program that recognizes the view potential of beach access routes, but also recognizes that these roads do not possess the unique scenic characteristics that would truly qualify them as "scenic routes" . The landscape corridor therefore requires special treatment for developments fronting on them. The regulatory program established for landscape corridors includes : (1) landscaping treatments in accord with the City's Standard Plans , (2) landscaped medians, (3) regulating the landscaping and arbori- cultural and landscape standards and specifications, treatments on private developments fronting on Beach Boulevard, (4) regulating signs, (5) imposing building height and setback regulations, and (6) undergrounding of all utilities . Any development proposed for the area of concern (5) Public Services and Facilities (a) Sewers - The area of concern is not presently served by sewer lines. A single 8" line presently serves the adjacent shopping center. This line connects with the Atlanta Avenue Interceptor which is currently operating at or near capacity. Additional sewer lines appear to be required to serve this area of concern . as well as Area of Concern 2. 1. The Orange County Sanitation District has proposed a new main trunk line along Pacific Coast Highway. This line will be capable of serving two-thirds of Huntington Beach and will provide the nec- essary capacity in the vicinity of the area of , concern. However, this project is contingent upon approval from the California Coastal Com- mission and is currently undergoing review. (b) Storm Drains - Pumping facilities are needed for the general area (Drainage District 7J) because the design water surface in the adjacent flood control channel is higher than the surrounding topography. The first property owner to develop will be required to construct the required pump station, designing it for the ultimate system needed for the entire drainage district. 38 • (c) Parks - The area of concern is located approxi- mately 1/4 mile from the beach and one mile from Edison Community Park. These two facilities constitute the recreation and park facilities that will serve the project. No neighborhood parks are currently master planned for the im- mediate area. However, the draft Parks Analysis • indicates that at ultimate development the general area will be adequately served. Devel- opment of the area of concern at high density ' residential would result in a park demand rang- ing from 2 to 2. 8 acres depending upon ultimate density. • (d) Schools - The Huntington Beach City Elementary School District is responsible for providing elementary education for the area of concern. The District is experiencing declining enrollment and should be able to serve the 26 elementary and 5 middle school students generated by the project The area of concern is served by Kettler Elemen- tary and Gisler Middle School which have remain- ing capacities of 249 and 151 respectively. If Area of Concern 2 . 1 is developed at the maximum intensity that has been considered, these school facilities would be at or near capacity. Addi- tionally these schools will be further impacted by the recent approval of 368 condominium units (Coral Bay) and a proposed 149 condominium dev- elopment west of Beach Boulevard at Atlanta. The 2 high school students that would be generated will attend Edison High School which is currently overcrowded. However, due to declining elemen- tary school enrollments, capacity will be available. • (6) Environmental Issues The environmental issues that impact this area of concern are similar to those indicated for Area of Concern 2. 1. Specifically the portion of the area of concern at the end of the frontage road, primarily the Cal Trans owned property (Assessor' s Parcel 148-021-05) is also subject to tidal flushing and is a continuation of the salt marsh habitat existing on Area of Concern 2. 1. Due to the presence of "Salicornia, " the California Department of Fish and Game and Cal Trans environmental planners have also identified this area as a breeding habitat for the Belding' s Savannah Sparrow. As has been previously indicated, Belding' s Savannah Sparrow is listed by .000) 3 9-- the Department of Fish and Game as endangered. The Department of Fish and Game has also indicated its interest in preserving the habitat areas as part of the EIR review process. The very southwest corner of the area of concern also contains a small fresh water marsh area that is surrounded with cattails and other fresh water marsh vegetation. Development of the southwesterly portion of the area of concern would require a substantial amount of fill, in order to stabilize soil conditions and raise building levels above flood hazard and high ground- water levels. Any fill operations on this property would not require a coastal permit but may require a permit from the Corps of Engineers because the area was at one time part of the Santa Ana River mouth. Under the auspices of Section 404 of the National Water Quality Act of 1899 the Corps can regulate the . filling in of natural waterways, wetlands, and bays such as this. Staff has requested that the Corps of Engineers determine the status of this property, but no response has been received to date. 2. 2 . 3 Recommendation: . As indicated in the above analysis, a portion of the Area of Concern is part of the wetland area identified in the dis- cussion of Area of Concern 2 . 1. An exact determination of the extent of this wetland area has been requested from the U.S . Army Corps of Engineers but to date they have not yet . responded. Dependent upon the outcome of the required analysis , and the extent to which filling will be permitted, this wetland area may be utilized as the common open space that will be required as part of the ultimate development. This condition cannot be imposed as part of the General Plan Amendment decision, but may be indicated as a Planning . Commission policy for consideration in subsequent develop- ment application and project review processes. Staff recommends that the northerly 2 . 67 acres of Area of Concern 2 .2 should be redesignated as General Commercial and the southerly 8 . 32 acres should be redesignated as High Density Residential. 40 2. 3 East of Beach Boulevard and North of Atlanta Avenue 2. 3. 1 Background The area of concern encompasses 17. 22 acres of land at the • northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue (see Figure 2-10) . The applicant has requested that 7 . 08 acres be redesignated from general commercial to medium density residential (see Figure 2-11) . The planning staff has expanded the area of concern to include an existing office building and vacant land to the north as well as the flood control channel to the east. The site is zoned C4 and R2, and is vacant except for the existing office building and a flood control pump station adjacent to the channel at Atlanta Avenue. The area of concern is surrounded by low density single • family homes to the north and east, and there is a community shopping center to the south across Atlanta Avenue. A 368-unit planned unit development has been approved for the 40-acre site at the southwest corner of Atlanta Avenue and Beach Boulevard. A 149-unit condominium project has also been proposed for the northwest corner (TT 10248) . A mobile • home park also exists to the west across Beach Boulevard. This area of concern was addressed in a previous amendment to the Land Use Element, General Plan Amendment 76-3B, which was adopted in December 1976. At this time, the northeast 3. 58 acres of the area of concern were redesig- nated from commercial to medium density residential. 2. 3. 2 Analysis The major issue to be addressed in analyzing the requested land use change involves the supply of commercial land and • the demand for commercial uses , both present and future, in the general vicinity of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Ave- nue. Based on the demographic characteristics and spending habits of the residential areas that constitute the market area for neighborhood and convenience commercial development there is currently an oversupply of neighborhood/convenience • commercial uses in this area. The demand generated by the existing population and that anticipated for already approved residential units will result in the need for 149, 050 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses. The existing supply within the market area is 221,090 square feet. • 41 / i MEDIUM DENSITY . � N oz w w LOW o / DENSITY IC 0 M M E R C I A L / MEDIUM Q HIGH DENSITY z UJ .> DENSI TUM Y DENSITY zccLU w Q Cn a- CC AREA OF CONCERN 2.3 EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD & NORTH OF ATLANTA AVENUE O 0 Figure 2-10 O E 0 huntington beach planning department 42 4 r ` ... .... .....i ... .....o........ .,i i r Z i .... ..... .... : ........... .............. . ........... a a ..... ; `g.. y.... i • Y. a 3.58 ACRES REDESIGNATED s • RESIDENTIAL ;... x MEDIUM DENSITY L s M ,_ ....... DECEMBER 1976 . ............ . . ........: ,....,t ............ - . ............ A ........... ,....... ........ 3. h. f 4"" yam.. . .............. r� ,. 13.64 ACRES:::::::: MEDIUM ; DENSITY f RESIDENTIAL'' w „x n.• : . ......... ...... ':.'.•.•.•.•.•. ' "h., �p v ..................:...:.................................... , >> ' - -- ._ ..__ - .- i t . Y • AREA OF CONCERN 2.3 • AMENDMENT REQUEST o 0 p Figure 2-11 O • huntington beach planning department 43 � o a C There does, however, appear to be sufficient demand to C. support additional square footage in specified categories. The overall surplus of commercial space, especially in the food and drug categories, precludes the development of an additional neighborhood center in the Beach/Atlanta trade area. Expansion of the existing neighborhood centers or the development of a small convenience center with a liquor C store and perhaps a number of offices and/or small retail shops would be more appropriate based on the demand figures for this area. This demand could, however, be satisfied by the expansion of the Von° s Shopping Center south of Atlanta Avenue as is being proposed by the Sasson-Meyer Development Corporation for a portion of Area of Concern 2. 2. C Development of the site for a specialty commercial use is also subject to limited demand. As indicated in Appendix B there will be a supportable demand for approximately 70, 400 square feet of specialty commercial development by 1985. By 1995 demand should increase to support a total of 88, 700 C square feet of specialty commercial uses. While there is potential, specialty commercial development in the Downtown, at Peter' s Landing in Huntington Harbour, and the commercial development proposed for Area of Concern 2 . 1 all detract from the feasibility of specialty commercial at this loca- tion. @' This oversupply condition is evidenced by the applicant' s difficulty in attracting commercial users for a 40,000 square foot shopping center proposed for the area of con- cern in Use Permit 77-44 in April, 1977. The apparent disinterest in this site for a commercial center led to the C applicant' s request to redesignate the entire area of concern for residential use. More detailed information re- garding commercial demand for the Beach Boulevard/Atlanta Avenue area is contained in Appendix B. Redesignation of the area of concern to medium density residential would allow a maximum of 210 units to be con- structed on the site, which would yield an estimated popu- lation increase of 475 persons. Approximately 67 elementary and 33 high school students would be produced by a typical medium density development of this size. Because of the project° s location and probable design of units, consider- C ably fewer students should actually be generated. Enroll- ment at Peterson Elementary School (520) is currently under capacity (750) ; however, the cumulative impact of this project as well as new development in the Oldtown area and at the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta C O O N 44 � Q P • • Avenue should be considered. At the present time, Edison High School is over capacity and any additional high school students generated by redesignation of the area of concern to allow residential development will add to the crowding situation. Declining elementary school enrollments should • ease that situation within the next several terms , however. Traffic generated by residential use of the area of concern would be significantly less than that associated with com- mercial use (1325 vs. 11250 daily trip ends) , although development under either designation would produce an in- crease over existing conditions. In light of the pending development at each of the corners of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue, the residential desig- nation is clearly preferable in reducing congestion. Access to the site is presently taken at the existing office • building at the north end of the property. Additional access from Atlanta Avenue -may be limited by the existence of the flood control pump station adjacent to the channel. If access is taken off Atlanta Avenue, it should be con- sistent with access to the shopping center to the south. • Development of the area of concern, whether residential or commercial, will create additional demand for parks and open space in a quarter section that has been identified as deficient in these amenities. Proximity to the beach may alleviate some of the need for recreational open space, but some form of open space on site may be desirable, possibly through a planned development. Residential devel- opment directly adjacent to Beach Boulevard will subject residents to traffic noise along the arterial; noise- attenuation design features such as building orientation, tree placement, and/or setbacks should be pursued at the time of development. Development of the site, as well as the two sites west of Beach Boulevard on either side of Atlanta Avenue, will necessitate expansion of the existing City sewer and water facilities. Given the number of development proposals now pending for this area of the City, a comprehensive drainage, water, and sewer plan for the vicinity should be prepared to allow orderly development and avoid future supplementary installations. All other utilities have indicated that development of the site could be handled without signifi- cantly affecting present service levels; residential devel- opment will also place less of a demand on these services than commercial development. The area of concern is located just north of the South Branch Fault of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, and may • contain significant amounts of peat and organic soils under the surface. The site is also located within a special flood hazard area. These environmental constraints will necessitate proper grading and compacting procedures to minimize drainage from possible future earthquake and flood activity. • 2. 3. 3 Recommendation That portion of Area of Concern 2 . 3 now designated General Commercial should be redesignated to Medium Density Residential. • • 46 2 . 4 North of Talbert Avenue and East of Gothard Street 2 . 4 . 1 Background The area of concern encompasses 38. 85 acres located north of Talbert Avenue immediately east of the Pacific Electric Railroad Right-of-way- (See Figure 2-12) . The site is requested for change from the existing medium density residential designation to general industrial. M1 zoning exists on the entire site, which presently supports a 5-acre recreational vehicle storage area and a 131-acre camper manufacturing facility. The remainder of the site is vacant. The area of concern is surrounded by industrial and resi- dential uses and vacant industrial land. Medium density single family homes and apartments abut the area of concern to the north and east. To the south across Talbert Avenue lies a 10-acre industrial park, a proposed auto wrecking yard, and a vacant low density small lot area. A ready-mix concrete business and an auto wrecking yard exist to the west across the railroad right-of-way, while vacant industrial land and a small industrial park exist immediately north of the area of concern. This area has been the subject of continuing controversy over the past five years , having been considered in five previous general plan amendments. The applicant has in the past requested an alternative residential designation for all or a part of the site, which has been difficult to develop industrially because of the fragmented ownership pattern of the small 25 ' x 50 ' lots which comprise the area of concern. In 1976-77, the Planning Department conducted an Industrial Land Use Study for all industrial property in Huntington Beach. This study examined the current conditions of and the potential for future industrial uses in the City. Among the conclusions of the study was the finding that there was a surplus of industrially zoned land in Huntington Beach, a large percentage of which was vacant or supported marginal industrial activity. Also included in the study was a proposed program of land reduction that recommended feasible alternative uses for a number of industrially- designated parcels in the Gothard Corridor. Several factors led to the area of concern receiving a low suitability rating for industrial use. Among the factors mentioned were the existence of unconsolidated small lots, proximity to Central Park and the Library, lack of dedica- 47 --T T INDUSTRIAL . ...... .... .. .. ....... .......... MEDIUM 01 DENSITY RONALD 40 MEDIUM DENSITY `. ...... .............. . ......... .............. ............. ............ 3 L AVE ilil `�.� � I � �Y � �d- LOW ............ i DENSITY INDUSTRIAL -.L. AREA OF CONCERN 2.4 NORTH OF TALBE RT AVENUE & EAST OF GOTHARD STREET (P Q No Im . Figure 2-12 O huntington beach planning department 48 tion and road and drainage improvements along Talbert AveJue and only fair freeway access. Many of the surrounding industrial parcels were also recommended for deletion fro the Gothard Corridor. On the basis of this analysis, andproposal for an area-wide reduction of industrial acreage the area of concern was redesignated medium density resi- dential in General Plan Amendment 77-1 in August 1977. Following the general plan amendment, the applicant pursued a zone change to allow medium density development on the site. After considerable public testimony and Council discussion ` the City Council denied the zone change and directed staff to include the area of concern in a general plan amendment to be redesignated industrial. The Council also indicated its desire to retain the industrial character of the Gothard Corridor in its rejection of citywide industrial land reductions as proposed by General Plan Amendment 77-2 in the fall of 1977. A subsequent request to rezone the east half of the area of concern R2-PD to allow medium density residential development was also denied by the City Council in February 1978. 2 . 4 . 3 Recommendation Area of Concern 2 . 4 should be redesignated from Medium Den- sity Residential to General Industrial. 2 . 5 West of Brookhurst Street and North of Orange County Flood Control District Channel D2-2. 2 . 5. 1 Background The area of concern encompasses 15. 82 acres at the inter- section of Bushard and Brookhurst Streets, north of the Orange County Flood Control Channel D2-2 (ref. Figure 2-8) . This area is being requested for redesignation from medium density residential to low density residential to reflect the development of 63 single-family houses as proposed by approved Tentative Tract 5664 . The area of concern is zoned R1 and is surrounded to the north and northwest by low density single-family homes. A small commercial center and the Orange County Sanitation Treatment Plant #2 exist east of the area of concern. Vacant R5 property lies to the south and southwest across the flood control channel. 49 .....'.. ......:::::..:::.. , l �......:..............:.....4 r .,. ::.. .. A .. ,E S ei LOW I >..._ Al DENSITY • y IANAI CR .. t• : r� i .. `. MEDIUM 1 DENSITY 51£f " PLANNING �` :D /*� BED_ .......... RESERVE _....... .__...:.........._ >.. : QUASI-PUBLIC ORANGE �.. SANITATION OPEN SPACE \ PL AREA OF CONCERN 2.5 WEST OF BROOKHURST STREET NORTH OF ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT CHANNEL D2-2 0 O Figure 2-13 O O huntington beach planning department 50 In February, 1973, the Planning Department received an application for construction of a 163-unit condominium pro- ject on the subject property. However, the. South Coast Regional Coastal Commission denied the applicant permission to develop at the proposed density; subsequently, the application was withdrawn. In May, 1977, the Warmington Company submitted plans for a low density development con- sisting of 63 single-family units. This tract has been approved and the General Plan is now being amended to reflect the lower density. 2. 5. 2 Analysis This analysis of the proposed redeisgnation of the area of concern to low density residential will address two major areas. First, it will discuss a number of area-specific issues which will affect residential use of the site regard- less of the proposed density. Second, it will compare the anticipated impacts of development under the low and medium density residential designations. Because of the location of the area of concern, there are several issues that will affect residential development on the site. The project area has an average elevation of 3-1/2 feet above mean high tide and is located in the lower Santa Ana River Flood Plain. Because of its low elevation and proximity to the Santa Ana River, the area of concern would be subject to inundation of up to six feet of water in the event of a 100-year flood. To alleviate the danger of severe flooding on the site, the developer has agreed to conduct substantial grading, compacting, and fill operations, raising the average elevation of the site three feet. A detailed, comprehensive drainage plan has also been submitted to handle runoff produced by the development. Residents in the area of concern may be subjected to occasional odors emanating from the Orange County Sanitation District Treatment Plant #2 located to the east across Brookhurst Street. The Sanitation District has suggested a number of measures to mitigate the nuisance these odors may create - special greenbelting, landscaping, and building orientation. Incorporating these design features into the proposed development in addition to the District' s own on-site odor abatement program should help alleviate the odor problem in the area of concern. 51 1 Both the low and medium density designations allow for development that is compatible with existing uses that sur- round the area of concern, although low density is more consistent with the character of the general area. Redesignating the area of concern to low density will gen- erally lessen the impacts associated with residential uses. The proposed development of 63 single-family units will generate an estimated increase in population of 215 persons, compared to approximately 340 persons generated by a medium density development of 150 multiple family units. Both alternative densities would generate roughly the same number of elementary, junior high, and high school students. Eader School (grades K-5) is presently below capacity enrollment; but Gisler (6-8) and Edison High School are above capacity, and the additional students generated by the project will adversely affect conditions at these two schools. Significantly lower traffic volumes will be generated by the low density project, with an estimated 650 trip ends per day compared to between 950-1300 trip ends associated with multiple family development. The reduced traffic volume will have less of an impact on the occasionally crowded conditions that occur at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Pacific Coast Highway during peak periods in summer months. Access to the proposed develop- ment will be taken from Bushard Street to discourage the use of residential streets for beach parking. All local utilities have indicated that additional demands for services to be created by the project could be handled with- out expanding existing facilities and/or service levels. Tentative .Tract 5664 has received the approval of both the City of Huntington Beach and the South Coast Regional Coastal Commission, and is currently in the first stages of construction. Redesignation of the area of concern to low density residential will make the General Plan more reflective of existing development in the City. 2. 5. 3 Recommendation Area of Concern 2 . 5 should be redesignated fron Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential. 52 2. 6 Administrative Items 2. 6 . 1 Rancho View Neighborhood Park Site 2. 6. 1. 1 Background This site is located on the north side of Warner Avenue approximately 550 feet east of Beach Boulevard (Figure2-14) . The Ocean View Elementary School District is currently con- verting a portion of the former elementary school facility to house its administrative headquarters. The remainder of the site is now being used as an athletic area and Little League field. The Rancho View site was identified as a neighborhood park site in each of the alternative open space plans presented in the Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report (August, 1976) . However, the site was inadvertantly omitted from the adopted Open Space and Con- nervation Plan that was incorporated into the City' s General Plan, adopted in December, 1976. The Parks and Recreation Commission has expressed its desire to maintain the neighborhood park designation on the Rancho View site. This administrative item will correct this oversight by reinstating the neighborhood park designation on this site. 2. 6. 1. 2 Staff recommends that the neighborhood park designation be placed on the Rancho View site in the Open Space and Conservation Plan. 53 � 11■�11� 111111111111 1�1�1111� Gb lot at RANC ♦ VIEW NEIGHBO PARK "bb 4, z -)4IR J, ............................... 1�1 M.M•: 01 GRAN k ... .......... ....... ....................................... Figure 2-15 A3M LEGEND Na HUNINGTON BFACH, (ALIFORNIA M PLANNING DEPARTMENT Resource Preserve Resource Production OPEN SPACE AND Scenic Corridor Open Space Development CONSERVATION PLAN Recreation Area Open Space Plan Area Neighborhood Park (No. Indicates Priority) Water Area Sphere of Influence 3 . 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY 3. 1 Proposed Amendment 78-1., Area of Concern Summaries The following sections summarize the requested changes in General Plan land use designations for the affected areas . All changes are shown in Figure 3-1 . 3. 1 . 1 North of Pacific Coast Highway and East of Beach Boulevard PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY Category Gross Acres Low Density Residential 31. 8 Medium Density Residential 47 .4 High Density Residential 13.6 General Commercial 13.4 General Industrial 0 .7 106 .9 55 PROJECTED POPULATION • Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Low Density 31.8 x 7 = 222 x 3.41 = 757 Medium Density 47.4 x 15 = 711 x 2.27 = 1614 High Density 13.6 x 35 = 476 x 2.13 = 1014 1409 3385 3.1.2 East of Beach Boulevard and South of Atlanta Avenue PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY Category Gross Acres High Density Residential 7 .77 General Commercial 5. 60 OCFCD Channel (not developable) 1. 10 14 . 47 PROJECTED POPULATION Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units ac Units Per Unit Population High Density 7.77 x 35 = 272 x 2.13 579 3. 1. 3 East of Beach Boulevard and North of Atlanta Avenue . PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY Category Gross Acres Medium Density Residential 14 .06 . OCFCD Channel & Pump Station (Not Developable) 3.16 17 .22 PROJECTED POPULATION Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Medium Density 14.06 x 15 = 211 x 2.27 = 479 56 • • 3. 1. 4 North of Talbert Avenue and East of Gothard Street PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY Category Gross Acres • General Industrial 38 .85 3. 1. 5 West of Brookhurst Street and North of Orange County Flood Control District Channel D2-2 • PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY Category Gross Acres Low Density Residential 15. 82 • PROJECTED POPULATION Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population low Density 15.82 x 7 = 63 actual x 3.41 = 215 • 3. 2 Summary of Proposed General Plan Amendment 78-1 PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY Land Use Category Existing Proposed Net • Gross Acres Gross Acres Gross Acres Residential Law Density 0 47.62 +47.62 Medium Density 100.21 64.62 -35.59 High Density 0 21.92 +21.92 Cannercial General 11.59 19. 55 + 7. 96 Industrial General 0 39.55 +39.55 Other Planning Reserve 81. 46 0 -81. 4.6 • Total land involved in the Amendment: 19 3. 2 6 gross acres 57 LQLTVV CITYWIDE NET PROJECTED POPULATION CHANGE Residential Net Gross Maximum Total Population Estimated Type Acres Units/gac Units Per Unit Population Low Density 47.62 x 7 = 333 x 3.41 = 1135 Medium Density -35.59 x 15 = -534 x 2.27 = -1212 . High Density 21.92 x 35 = 767 x 2.13 = 1634 566 1557 Adft 58 LEGEND Low Density 4�s �� �' ♦•' ♦\♦ I�� Medium Density •�•� �' ♦\ \ • to lot •, • ,♦` ,E High Density qti ♦•♦' ♦� •'• RanchoView Park Site q"', i •::•: Industrial q,� `♦, % ♦ • ♦�♦ P��a O+ `O\ ADO ♦ Commercial GStq �11�qpG ♦\♦`♦ ''''' POPS •'�, 2.4 a`P� OY ' 0+ OG F �i l (' �q 2.3 G 2.2 2.5 PALM 2.1 �I�1�1♦L+ r4 s m ■ ORANGE ' i PACIFIC COAST NWY ® Figure 3-1 HUNTINGTON BrACH, 04LIFORNIA PLANNING DEPARTMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 78-1 I � i APPENDIX A • ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR GPA 78-1 Area of Concern 2 . 1 Draft EIR 77-9 by Westec Services, North of Pacific Coast Highway, Inc. posted March 30, 1978 for • East of Beach Boulevard 30-day period ending May 1, 1978. Area of Concern 2. 2 EIR 77-13 by City of Huntington East of Beach Boulevard, Beach adopted by City Council South of Atlanta Avenue December 19, 1977 . • Area of Concern 2. 3 EIR 74-1 by Westec Services, Inc. East of Beach Boulevard, adopted by Environmental Review North of Atlanta Avenue Board June 25, 1974. Negative Declaration 78-20 posted Febru- ary 23 , 1978 for a 10-day period ending March 6 , 1978. • Area of Concern 2.4 EIR 77-13 by City of Huntington North of Talbert Avenue, Beach adopted by City Council East of Gothard Street December 19, 1977. Negative Declaration 78-21 posted • February 23 , 1978 for a 10-day period ending March 6, 1978. Area of Concern 2 .5 EIR 74-3 by Ultrasystems, Inc. West of Brookhurst Street, adopted by Environmental Review North of Orange County Board September 24, 1974. Flood Control District Channel D2-2 • • • A-1 APPENDIX B BEACH BOULEVARD - ATLANTA AVENUE MARKET ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION General Plan Amendment 78-1 addresses property owners' and developers' requests to redesignate land uses on approximately 130 acres of land located near the intersection of Beach Boule- vard and Atlanta Avenue. Included in these requests is the redesignation of about 20 acres of vacant commercial property to allow residential development. The scope of these amendment requests warrants a reanalysis of the present and future demand for commercial property and land uses in this area of the city. Commercial uses can be generally classified into five categories based on the size and location of the facility, the kinds of goods and services offered, and the size of the market area and population served. These categories are: Convenience: 1/2 to 1 1/2 acres in size located at intersection of secondary or local arterial streets small food store or. liquor store 1/2 mile radius market area 3, 000 people served B-1 Neighborhood: 1 1/2 to 10 acres in size located at major or primary arterial intersections supermarket or drug store plus 10-15 smaller retailers, services, or offices 1 mile radius market area 10, 000 people served Community: 10 to 35 acres in size . Located at major or primary arterial intersections department store or supermarket anchors plus a variety of other stores 10 to 15 minute drive market area 15, 000 or more people served Regional: 35 or more acres in size located at major arterial and freeway 1 to 5 department stores plus other retailers up to 30 minute drive market area 5*00, 000 people served Specialty: size varies located on major arterials or in tourist areas uses vary, usually center around a theme market area varies population served varies Because of its location, the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue would be a poor location for both regional and com- munity commercial centers . It is five miles from the nearest freeway and due to its proximity to the coast, draws only on a 180 degree market area. Regional centers cater to a market of approximately one-half million persons; in a suburban area like Orange County this translates roughly to a five to ten mile radius market area. Presently there are two regional centers located in or adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach (Huntington Center and Westminster Mall) as well as two additional regional centers within a twenty minute drive (South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa and Newport Center in Newport Beach) . The existence of these competing centers nearby and the poor locational qualities of the site make development of a regional commercial facility unfeasible at Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue. Community commercial centers operate on roughly a two to three mile radius service area. At the present time a number of community facilities exist within three miles of Beach and Atlanta. Among these are the Town and Country Center (64 ,000 sq. ft. ) at Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue, K-Mart Center (156, 000 sq. ft. ) and the proposed Garfield Plaza Center (78 , 000 sq. ft. ) at Garfield Avenue and Magnolia Street, the Village Shopping Center (89 , 000 sq. ft. ) and McDonald 's , Plaza (85, 000 sq. ft. ) at Garfield Avenue and Brookhurst Street, B-2 • Mervyn' s Center (130, 000 sq. ft . ) and Two Guys Center (152,000 sq. ft. ) at Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street, and Pat 's Ski Shop Center (106, 000 sq. ft. ) at Adams Avenue and Magnolia Street. Using the formula of one community center per 15,000 persons, the area south of Ellis Avenue, which houses approximately 75 ,000 persons, could be expected to support five such community centers. The eight centers • listed above appear to provide the quantity and variety of community services needed for the southeast portion of Huntington Beach. Although the question of central location and convenient freeway access is not as crucial a consideration in siting community centers as with regional centers, the 180 degree market area offered by this site is a definite deterrent to developing a community center con- sidering the competition from existing facilities in the area. While the problems of location, access, and competition make the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue an undesirable location for regional and community uses, there may be potential for the development of a convenience, neighborhood, or specialty commercial • facility in the area. The following analysis will address the feasibility of developing these kinds of facilities in the Beach/Atlanta area . NEIGHBORHOOD/CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL USES • METHODOLOGY For the purpose of this report, convenience and neighborhood uses will he addressed simultaneously in this section. This analysis will attempt to determine the market support for neigh- borhood convenience retail facilities in a given trade area. • Market support is primarily a function of the buying power of the trade area residents and an assessment of existing commercial facilities. Buying power is based on the area' s population size and median family income. This buying power can be translated into supportable square footage of retail facilities. A com- parison of supportable square footage to existing facilities • will indicate whether there is unused potential support for addi- tional commercial uses in the trade area. A combination of housing, population, income, and retail sales data was utilized to determine the total amount of supportable square footage for various types of neighborhood uses for the market area. The primary market area is defined by taking half the distance between the nearest surrounding neighborhood centers and the intersection in question. For statistical purposes, the primary market area in this analysis was defined as being bounded by Indianapolis Avenue on the north, Magnolia Street on the east, Pacific Coast Highway on the south, and Lake Street on • the west. • B-3 i • Four alternative population figures were used to produce a range of demand figures based on (A) existing housing units, (B) exist- int and approved housing units, (C) ultimate housing units under existing land use designations , and (D) ultimate housing units if all GPA 78-1 requests are approved. • These alternative population figures were multiplied by 1977 city-wide per capita taxable sales figures in order to estimate the anticipated sales potential for the market area. The per capita sales figure was adjusted to reflect the fact that the median family income for the market area is nearly ten percent lower than the city-wide median, as reported in the 1973 special • census. Data regarding the typical types, sizes, and sales per square foot of uses found in neighborhood centers was taken from ULI 's 1978 Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. This data made it possible to translate the sales potential of the area into • supportable square footage for the various categories of neighbor- hood uses to see how much of the current and future demand is being met by existing uses in the area. The difference between demand and supply can be used to determine if there is a need for additional neighborhood commercial uses and if so, what types of uses would be most viable for the market area. The following • table summarizes the data: AtMt& • • • B-4 • 1 ■ i TABLE I NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER POTENTIAL A B C D ULTDVM UNITS ULTIMATE UNITS EXISTING+ UNDER EXISTING IF ALL:GPA 78-1 EXISTING APPROVED GENERAL RD2UESTS ARE • HOUSING UNITS HOUSING UNITS PLAN APPROVED Households a 4,506 5,216 5,430 6,619 Population a 11,251 13,327 13,725 16,620 1977 Total Taxable b • Sales Per Capita $2,840.74 $2,840.74 $2,840.74 $2,840.74 Total Taxable Sales Potential $31,961,200 $37,858,500 $38,989,200 $47,213,100 SALES POTENTIAL BY CATEGORY c • CATEGORY Food $8,695,000 $10,300,500 $10,608,200 $12,845,700 Drug 1,155,100 1,368,200 1,409,100 1,706,300 Liquor 735,100 870,700 896,800 1,085,900 Eating/Drinking 2,972,400 3,520,800 3,626,000 4,390,800 • Hcm MTprovement 479,400 567,900 584,800 708,200 Services 479,400 567,900 584,800 708,200 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY CATEGORY d • Fo%TDGORY 33,600 sq.ft. 39,800 sq.ft. 41,000 sq.ft. 49,650 sq.ft Drug 8,150 9,650 9,900 12,000 Liquor 5,650 6,650 6,850 8,300 Eating/Drinking 30,750 36,400 37,500 45,400 Hone Improvement 9,750 11,500 11,850 14,350 Services 6,550 7,800 8,000 9,700 • TOTAL 94,450 sq.ft. 111,800 sq.ft. 115,100 sq.ft. 139,400 sq.ft Typical Neighbor- hood Center Size a 125,950 sq.ft. 149,050 sq.ft. 153,450 sq.ft. 185,850 sq.ft • • • B-5 • NOTES TO TABLE I : • a Household and Population figures based on Planning Department estimates. b Data extrapolated from "Trade Outlets and Taxable Retail Sales, " • State Board of Equalization, per capita sales figure adjusted according to median family income data taken from State Department of Finance, Special Census for the City of Huntington Beach, November, 1973 . c Sales of convenience goods in the categories listed account for • approximately 1/4 of total retail sales in Huntington Beach as shown in the following diagram (source: "Trade Outlets and Taxable Retail Sales" State Board of Equalization) . • -- Food 7 . 6% Other Drug 2. 6% 75. 2% --. Liquor 2. 3$ Eating/Drinking 9.3% Home Improvement 1. 5% Services 1. 5% • Dollar figures for the Food and Drug categories were adjusted by factors of 3 . 58 and 1. 39 respectively to account for additional sales of non taxable items based on total estimated California food and drug sales from various services. d Median sales per square foot values for typical neighborhood centers are as follows: Food: $258. 69 per square foot Drug: $142. 14 per square foot Liquor : $130. 64 per square foot Eating/Drinking: $ 96. 67 per square foot Home Improvement: $ 49. 28 per square foot Services : $ 73 . 00 per square foot (Source: The Urban Land Institute Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 1978) . e Adjustments to include additional square footage of uses typically • found in convenience centers not listed in above categories. C B-6 • • I ■ � TABLE II • EXISTING RETAIL SPACE IN MARKET AREA BEACH/ ATLANTA/ • CATEGORY ATLANTA MAGNOLIA OTHER TOTAL Food 27,000 41,450 5,750 74,200 Drug 19,960 4,500 ---- 24,460 • Liquor ---- ---- 2,100 2,100 Eating/Drinking 7,520 8,950 52,350 68,820 Hane Improvement 1,500 --- --- 1,500 • Apparel 1,750 4,200 ---- •5,950 General Merchandise --- ---- ---- 0 Other/Specialty 8,955 6,000 --- 14,955 • Personal/Professional Services 19,855 8,300 950 29,105 • T0TAL 86,540 73,400 61,150 221,090 • • • B-7 • RESULTS • On the basis of total square footage, the supply of commercial uses in the market area .is more than adequate to meet the demand presented in each of the four alternative development scenarios. This apparent oversupply can be attributed in part to overlapping demand from surrounding market areas, as about half of the com- • mercial uses mentioned in Table II were located near the periphery of the defined market area. These uses are supported partially by consumers located outside the defined market area, increasing the actual demand and sales potential figures. This increase is probably balanced, however, by consumers living in the specified market area who visit other neighborhood centers • outside the area, so in effect some oversupply still exists in total square footage. Whereas the overall square footage figures show an adequate supply of neighborhood commercial space, when this supply is broken down into specific categories some imbalances surface. • Compared to the estimated supportable square footage there is presently a surplus of space in the food, drug, eating and drinking, and personal and professional services categories, while a deficiency exists in the liquor, home improvement, and general merchandise categories. • Along with the overall surplus, the excess of existing space in the food and drug categories is a significant deterrent to the development of an additional neighborhood center, as supermarkets and drug stores usually act as anchors to attract business and smaller retail uses to these centers . Although the incidence of convenience commercial developments without major anchors has • increased locally in recent years, the typical neighborhood center design favors supermarket and drug store anchors comple- mented by a variety of 1000 - 2000 square foot retail shops and offices. The market area presently contains two large super- markets and two small neighborhood markets. Any addition in this category would most likely be another small corner market. • Given the existing large drug store and a pharmacy, no additional space in' the drug category is warranted. The existing space in the eating and drinking category is com- prised of two types of uses - small sandwich shops, take out • and fast food operations found in the neighborhood centers, and three restaurants located along Pacific 'Coast Highway between Lake Street and Beach Boulevard. Although these restaurants are somewhat specialized by location and association with hotel/motel operations, they may still satisfy a part of .the area 's demand for eating and drinking places in addition to B-8 • O po a O the smaller outlets . The surplus in personal and professional services is due primarily to the localized phenomenon of an abundance of neighborhood real estate offices locating in con- venience centers. The data indicates a deficiency in the liquor and general merchandise categories in the market area. The deficiency in the liquor category is substantial, indicating there is suf- ficient demand to warrant the development of one or two additional outlets in the market area. Table II also indicates a lack of general merchandise outlets in the trade area; how- ever this type of use is more commonly found in community O centers . A number of general merchandise stores are located in the community centers mentioned in the introductory section of this analysis; further development of these types of uses in the Beach/Atlanta market area is probably not justified. In summary, although there appears to be sufficient demand to O support additional commercial square footage in specified categories, the overall surplus of commercial space, and especially in the food and drug categories, precludes the development of an additional neighborhood center in the Beach/Atlanta trade area. Expansion of the existing neighborhood centers or the development of a small convenience center with a O liquor store and perhaps a number of offices and/or small retail shops would be more appropriate based on the demand figures for this area. SPECIALTY COMMERCIAL USES 0 METHODOLOGY This analysis of demand for specialty commercial uses in the Beach/Atlanta trade area involves an update of the analysis prepared by Urban Projects Incorporated for the Downtown Redev- elopment Plan proposed in 1976 , which itself follows the method- 0 ology employed by Economic Research Associates in an earlier study of specialty shopping center potentials for Huntington Beach (1971) . The analysis looks at a 25-mile radius primary market area in which the majority of potential visitors . to the center are assumed to reside. Current and future population levels for the market area are taken from Orange__Cou_nty Planning O Department and SCAG projections. These numbers are adjusted (arid are shown in Table III) by a penetration factor, or the percentage of residents of the primary market area likely to visit such a center. This is a crucial factor in the anlaysis and depends a great deal on existing site amenities, project design, and the developer' s merchandising skill. Since these parameters are O not known at this time, a comparison with similar facilities in Southern California has been employed. Visitation by residents living outside the primary market area is estimated to be 20% O O O O B-9 1 of the primary market area. Visitation by tourists has also been included in the analysis . • Once the projected attendance has been estimated, the amount of supportable space for specialty uses depends on typical spending patterns of visitors. These patterns depend on several factors: length of visitor stay, inflationary trends, and competing specialty attractions in the primary market area. The following • table presents data regarding specialty center potential: TABLE III SPECIALTY CENTER POTENTIAL • 1975 1985 1990 1995 Primary Market Area Populaticn 2,588,000 2,876,000 3,058,000 3,240,000 Estimated Penetration 45% 50% 55% Primary Market Area Attendance 1;294,000 1,529,000 1,782,000 • Secondary Market Area Attend- ance (20%) 259,000 306,000 356,000 Total Resident Market Attend- ance 1,553,000 1,835,000 2,138,000 • Available Tourist Market 14,500,000 15,600,000 16,700,000 Estimated Tourist Penetration 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% Tourist Attendance 363,000 468,000 585,000 Total Attendance 1,916,000 2,303,000 2,723,000 • Per Capita Expenditures (1977$) Restaurants and Food $2.35 $2.50 $2.50 Specialty Retail 2.50 2.60 2.60 Total: $4.85 $5.10 $5.10 • Theme Center Revenues (000's) Restaurants and Food $4,503 $5,757 $5,757 Specialty Retail 4,790 5,988 5,988 Total: $9,293 $11,745 $11,745 • Supportable Area Restaurants and Food ($200/sq. ft.) 22,500 ft.2 28,800 ft.2 28,800 ft.2 Specialty Retail ($100/sq. ft.) 47,900 ft.2 59,900 ft.2 59,900 ft.2 Total: 70,400 ft.2 88,700 ft.2 88,700 ft.2 • B-10 • RESULTS • The data indicate that potential exists for a specialty shoJNone- theless, center of reasonable size in south central Huntington Beach However, no comparison was made with existing specialty cen in the immediate area, as specialty centers are usually notsidered to be in direct competition for a certain market.some of the dollars used in calculating supportable space may be drawn to other centers in close proximity. A specialty center at Beach and Atlanta may compete to some degree with Peter' s Landing, a new 60, 000 square foot development in Huntington Harbour featuring three restaurants and several spec- ialty shops. Although the degree of competition between two • specialty centers is unknown (in some cases, restaurants located together prove to be mutually beneficial) , care should be taken to prevent possible loss of business due to competition. The development of a specialty center in the Beach/Atlanta area will impact the City' s effort to revitalize the downtown area. • Approximately 150 acres of the downtown area have been designated for mixed commercial development, which includes specialty cen- ters. If a specialty center is developed at Beach and Atlanta first, the possibility of similar development downtown is greatly reduced. Since new development is more likely to occur before major redevelopment of the downtown, the new development • will probably draw business away from the downtown area. Although a new specialty center will atract tourists and out-of-town customers to the general area, the existing downtown uses typically do not cater to this population and will not benefit greatly from this influx. • Based on this analysis, although a viable specialty commercial development could be supported in the Beach/Atlanta area, this location would deter improvement of the downtown area and/or compete with new specialty uses that develop downtown. Competi- tion from other specialty developments will depend a great deal on the various themes that are used and the types of shops that • locate in the centers. The coastal/waterfront theme is prevalent in Huntington Beach and surrounding coastal communities; repetition of this theme may result in competition. Alternative themes may fare better as long as they are not out of character with the area. Still, the proximity to the downtown area and • the probable effects on redevelopment efforts should be consid- ered before approving development of a specialty commercial center in the Beach/Atlanta area. • • B-11 APPENDIX C • 1 KINGFISHERF1 _ Y rDDr CNAVE flftffll CD i • ■Oro c. {r .[. a l.__ I F�l a ~ fv"I CD _ _ fJ$TIl1.N Y. t, - ta- _ i SNOWBIRD DN aR J • i 1 W 2 • ATLANTA AVE LAN ENNv I V 'rtnuno � ..r FL S r■vox yID�.. �`. 1 i D {ia� IIYY A!� '•I �-�3 O � .. _-.�- rrrs _ TANK O r FARM � o.w ■■ s \ J r • \� �'c _ . \ DI-2 • �.VVu u'•� I ,Ttr ��/ • ��^�rEE■rE a '.r�� FLAW �,... .�.� AREAS OF CONCERN 40* ® STATE-OWNED PROPERTY CALTRANS -OWNED PROPERTY @[PC TO 0 0 • huntington beach planning department -1 APPENDIX D-1 • Gulf Oil HIGH DENSITY S Storage Facility 00 2.0 AC • O O O0 0 Ca ANf+tix0 .4 • m : >'CD�itM _ i +� N r • Z Y <> «Q :..LAhINE loa:: :::::>:_>_ I 0 • C 0 � ` ti y, 1► • Ate rnat e A l Land Use Category Acres Units Pop. • Residential Low Density 43.1 Medium Density 43.1 1400 4207 High Density 2.0 • Commercial General 4.7 Public Use 14.0 TOTALS 106.9 1400 4207 • p O O huntington beach planning department D-1 APPENDIX D-2 • Gulf Oil High Densit•, Industrial Storage Facility 2.OAC 4.5AC • O 01 0 0 0 ':•:: <> > ::.;:: ::::::.::... Hamilton Ave. :.:. CIO C/ Cho ... ........... . ..... co •................... R Z • a f • • Alternate Land Use Category Acres Units Pam. Residential • Low Density 30.1 166 566 Medium Density 29.8 373 847 High Density 16.2 356 758 Commercial General 10.1 • Industrial 4.5 Open Space 16.2 TOTALS 106.9 895 2171 O M O O huntington beach planning department D-2 APPENDIX D-3 1 Gulf Oil HIGH DENSITY INDUSTRIAL Storage Facility 4.7 AC 4.5 AC 0 o 00 .......:... ...... .. Hamilton Ave. ..:....::..:........ Co d h i r C ha hey •'•?�::4:•:�:ti6:::�.�:.......:......... .........yY4'w::::::. :.:....::::•:•:: •i:•i:•i:•i:•}i:•i:•i}•i:•i}:•i:•i:vi?i}?iii?% '<::ii:[:�:i}}}}`:`vii:•iiii:{{fi:{iti4:h}i M ::::: ':'::':::::::::::�::•i::•:;i:i:•ii. i:.X. �;;;:•:iY,.:C+:i;;?.}:::::•iii:4ii:•}:.}w:: v:: :::::::::w:.S•il::�:•i:•ii:4:•}..}:4i:iv:4:•?}:i:7:':}:'::'}:•}:�{i:':�:<4... ......... . :4:•:•}i ::•}}:•}}}}}:::;:::::'� •:::iii:•i}:•:?`vi•:.:.:::::.:....:iv:•:}: :::}}iiii:{.i:i:::{:::::::::?ti•:.:i•iii:4:.:......... ':}}}:}:•:4:•:•i:•:v:•i:•i:•:tiJ:•:i?•i::•:•i:•11.v}:•Y:•:•}:':•}:v:•:•}::•}:•}:•:4:.. .,:•::•:4:J:v::•}}:.y:•i>. ...... ::..::::.::: •::.�:::::::::is is'.::::::::.�:::::: ii:•::ti:•} :4:4i:•:}:•}:•::•}:•i:•i:•:sy� � :': '::.:::i;:;{::}:4i:•i}}i:•ii::i•i:ti•::.i:•i}:•} C. CO .:•:vi:•'r:•��:[�•:•A. .i': ::::�;:;. ::?::::::is �����:i�i:i:4:•: 4}:•:is4}�::•iii}:J:;{::$:•ii::{v:•Y}:4:4:•}i}i}i}:•i: Z '•r:::::::.:........:....:.::.:::::v: :i:O:j;�:•::{:;:;;i::•::•:iSS•i:;i:{:{?S.S•:S{4:<S4:i?4:•ii�i::'ii:�:v':X<:::i:i•i:i{4i' :::•• :, CW �'.;}:.i` � �:}:•i:4'r' •ti•:•i::•i:•:•i:•::•i:•i::•:•i:•::•i:•i::•:i::•i:•::v:•ii::•ii:•::•}:':::i:: :::�:::::: ::::•::•:::•::::'�:i::�:::�ii:•::•:ii:v rf. .;:.:::<;•::.:;:.::<.::.;>:.> .... ..... • Alternate D Land Use Category Acres Units Pop. Residential Low Density 29.3 161 549 • Medium Density 26.2 218 495 High Density 16.1 354 754 Commercial General 8.6 Recreational 12.0 Industrial 4.5 Public Use 10.2 TOTALS 106.9 843 1798 O O huntington beach planning department D-3 APPENDIX D-4 • Gulf Oil High Density Storage Facility 20AC < A00 O 0 < :.::.::•:::.>::.:. Hamilton Ave. • t u ::: �o :z> m """"` O.C. Flood Control Channel ::::.:Ube .. m :. � illy : m • z > '> � . o �• :::::: >::;::<::<::::::::: <:: <:>::>::::: ::::::::>:::> >::>:: : >:::<:> : ::... 0 s 1� Alternate E Land Use • Category Acres Units POP. Residential Medium Density 41.5 519 1178 High Density 6.2 136 290 • Open Space 41.3 Public Use 17.9 TOTALS 106.9 655 1468 • OO C3 O huntington beach planning department D-4 J� lfteehNuix D-5 • e. 1 . J .....:...: ................. a '. ................ ......... ....................... _........ ......: : ................. ' t .......� ) .; ...................... ....-...................... ..................., .-. ....... ................ . ..................:....... _. ...............+.......... J .............. ............ .. _.. .....r......A:........... : 1: .. :::......... — .... .............. ..........gt. 1�f l ... ...........,k........:5 :/ .. Arc• aa. - .............................. .. i.4.•r..0•u.ru. ......_._...._.....c.................... ............. +e\ C J7t ............. ::::.. {71tfl.. e .. ................. ... . .......................................:: ............................................................... .............::a!t7E .................. .............. ................. ................................................^............ .................�r:.........,.......r...... ........,............................................ is j :t•'sii:E •isiiai: t iia ..... •... •...........................................•,........... A h. • \ •.............• •...................................................................u....................... �..........-.• tt .\ S \_ n. ....... .................................................................................... ....... : ......... ...................................................................................... ......... : ....... ...................................................................................... ........ ....\ ......................................................................... .................. ......... ...........................................................................7.................. ......... : ................................ \ \ i t tt :I: J J .'f ` 4 : • 3 s \ 1 \. 3 \ \. .................. :i 1 ;e \ W i �. . ......................................................................... \ / • - . 1 AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 NON-WETLAND AREA SUITABLE FOR • PLANNED COMMUNITY DESIGNATION @CPO VT 0 0 huntington beach planning department D-5 • I • , • APPENDIX E TRAFFIC GENERATION BY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION • ESTIMATED TRIP ENDS PER ACRE LAND USE CATEGORY PER DAY RESIDENTIAL • Estate 25-50 Low Density 50-75 Medium Density 75-130 High Density 100-250 • COMMERCIAL General 300-800 Office Professional 200-600 Mixed Development 200-800 • INDUSTRIAL General 50-100 PUBLIC USE • Public, Quasi Public, Institutional 50-450 Open Space 0-20 PLANNING UNITS Planning Reserve depends on zoning Planned Community 100-350 OTHER USES Resource Production 0-10 • • • E-1 • - APPENDIX F CAM 1400 Ouail Street,Suite 255, Newport Beach,California 92660 Telephone (714) 752-7855 • June 22, 1978 • Mr. Edward D. Selich Director City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street • Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: General Plan Amendment 78-1 Dear Ed: • Today I have received the draft of General Plan Amendment 78-1. As a result of my preliminary review I believe it may be wise to modify Daon' s current proposal during the General Plan review and approval process. As you know, several previously unknown issues have sur- faced during the past few months. Notable among these is the determination that Daon's site is considered a "Wetlands" under several jurisdict ion.:definitions. Because our original proposal was made before the wetlands issue surfaced, the plan does -not respond to impacts on the "Wetlands. " Further, eventhough we believe that the "Wetlands" • is the most significant new issue, there are several other items in the EIR which our plan does not respond to. Consequently, the original Daon proposal is seemingly obsolete and should be revised. Daon proposes that the City adopt the Planned Community • designation for the site. This approach confronts the broad issues of commitment to development and land use intensity while providing the flexibility that is necessary to solve the land use organizational problems which are now apparent . Daon can then prepare specific proposals with the assurance that the City is commited to the ultimate development of the site. • • 0" CORPORARON F-1 Mr. Edward D. Selich June 22, 1978 • Page Two Please feel free to call and discuss these matters at your earliest convenience. Sinc4rely, DAONW. AI KI General Manager • WAC:cb • • • • F-2