Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Element Amendment 85-2 - EIR 85-1 - Negative Declar
�4S�x k� � '8-•j,�� r x C a•A3 RESOLUTION NO. 5532 A RESOLUTION. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON' BEACH ADOPTLNG LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-2 TO THE GENERAL PLAN Whereas ,. the City Council of the City of Huntington ';each desires to update and refine the General Plan in '<eeping' with changing community needs and objectives and . A public hearing on adoption. o.f' Land. Use Element. Amendment. .,.,To . 85-2, to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on June 4 , 1985 , and approved for recommendation . to the City Council ; and Thereafter , the City Council , after giving notice as pre- scribed by Government Code sections 65355 and 65090 , held at least one public hearing to consider Land Use Element No . 95-2; I and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by t'ie City Council oil the City of' Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of Title 7 , Chapter 3 ,.. Article' 6 of California Government Code, commencing wi.th section 65350 , that Land. Use. Element Amendment 'No . 85-2 is hereby amended as follows: Areas 3 . 3, 3 . 4, 3 .6 , _3 .8 , 3 . 15 , 3 . 16 , 3 . 1B , 3 . 19 an(; 3 . 21 , I as shown an Exhibit 1 attached' hereto, shall be amended to achieve consistency with the. General Plan , and existing zeninc. 2. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the- City of Huntington Beach at a- regular meeting thereof held on the 17tth day of June 1985 . i ATTEST 0 ���Clerk - I _ 1 . I t vx _ REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:zdn ity is ratororney U INITIATED AND APPROVED: rector of Deve opment Services 059bL/6/ 7/ 85; 6/ 18/ 85 ahb. 2. ri, ri n r1 ri tl ti r1 r1 i (Q to (D IU (D to (D to to W CJ WCO 4- W W W W W W 1• U] O) ul - W •. I f 1 1 I � • i Cl ': w :U () a ;u Cl Y su ;u = Y ;Q () O C-1 it N (.) :3 (U O •S '1 (D (D 'S, (D (D (,) C (D O C:' '] (U U 'S :.S (D (D a: :S C N 0 ;4 13 (D , El O ti ci. (D IL CL E3 (D $ CL :] (D (D (1 U) (L N CL O t1. p (D CL (1 :] I-- (D to (1. p H- (1 E (D N (y N (1. N ut (1':J'(D l•. ;] ,] to, E (D 11 N W tQ (1. :7 (D E3 u) (D N 1 (U w (D +• k u) to (D (n H. I-•-f: W CL (D C' (n (D 1 2. (A (D r.. (D U) f.. :1' )-•• G W (D :Y ;c •U) j ry C1 fr r- tl (' (D r• ri C: W I--- rr 4; (D r-•• (D ri (D 1,- rt IL (D r.. r1 (: w ),.. it I G (D r•• r1 1 (D ,..' n N �1 n (n n 0 Ut i(1 .ti ij to 0 w (11 (� (U (� �� n W W t 4` CL W n (L Ur LQI r• 0 a :] r- I fr a I- I ] It 1-- w p r, :3 fr :] r• I fr (U .I w :3 r + (D ft ;J w CL a w ►L a .N CL :3 a r'' '0 a w Ut N w (1 a (7 ;] (1 :3 a a s w h� t-. !L (r I-- to O it I.-- N 0 f r (D (D CL f r- W n CL rr I-- r•• 0 rr t (D U rr (U U) N CL c r 1- in 0 f r • it (D ] r(. to 0 ri, t0 (it 7 ,(u I-- 0 IU fr rn (D :] fti to (n r• .3 N r•- rt, N C7 . : N (n (n I... N (D d 2: _�;, : W ,... 1:r N (U (r (i I W I' r• W W ,. (f) i-- (lt t-• N J ; ID t • () 1-- t... U, t • (r .r; ,.... a t-1 :O to • rr (D • fr N (D, fr W (D Ui 0 fr IU , (D rr N ul O W (D fr (1) 'C W t--• r:; C 0-10 1-4 rr 0 )1 fr 01 (D t- �) t` 1-1 Co. :J (1- ;U r J t- H Ut N n N (D W (r W U I in (L W N r ' fT (U W (D w iD t j r 0 • ;� � .0 r•• , 0 1- C) t.. N: ,, r.. u) N 0 CO w a ►- CL N w (D ft W W (D rn a L :] W (D 4 a W , N rt, r • a I (D n (n W n (n (D O I--• N n t' n to x n u1 CL n 1 ' CL U) a . CL 9 n - p (SS ly ,... 0 11 ,.. (D ti . I... 13J (i. U.) 11 :J to 11 1- 0 ti t A t.. W n (D .11 fr G to CL G to ' (L :] to (.1. r', IU (D to. IT Ul (D. SL t-'•(U : 0 (i. O t i D r• tD h-• (1) th (D 1-• uW to ft to (D U (A fr {D (n i-+ (I" 'ui N (D u1 rr iG r iU (t n ut a :y 0 ID ;] :S' :] ri O Cl {1 7 1-.. q (it Ut r W I W a fr < u) rr :J Ur t_,_-:] :]' u) t- U) Ul fr U) a W fr w W . . of ti 0 t-•• W 0 1-•• U) O 1-•• (74 0 0 = n 0 t-•• rr O t-• r (n t U) 0 CL ri W t1 G w it r1 a Pt ri W f t1 G W ri r1 --w ( C) : (r. C: rr rr. t., C), ,1, 1-- ti rr 1 ' (r (D 0 rr (r to Ir I.- (D 1r. 1.1 t: 11 it O (n �' :) : to :J' = Ul ;T ("ii 1✓' :) U (D :J. (D fr r••'i t fr (D :) rr rit (D (r . L.. )+ ,-r fr O O :)' O to I - ti 0 fr 11 O it IT O fr ri O t: to 0. 0 rr O w W rt'O G) (D rp U U tit O tit O (D ri. C rt, (,) rn tit 0 rn r1t N (D E1 rfi ID (V it r 1 s: C1 U) rn G7 rti :] rr W: Y : 11 O z it G) 11. 11 rj :] O C4' : O (D f( N. t1 2; N ri C,-) (1. G) () rl :.< a (D tL W (D E (D (:1 13 a A. r-1 ,y 0 U w i. rt. O N. W (1) F3 w (Dt it I i :I I:. I i ,... , (D ti t... ill w (D 0 1 t w I 0 :] E3 :3 a CL 11 rrt u) 1-1. 0, w I-- P] :3 t: to ri ri 0 I- 0 A• (D W to .fj r • 0 r• r.. t1 (D i.. N N 11 U w (D t1 (D C: d (D rr O 11 Y 11 ti 1 iD I- I G w Y w 1.. ti d rr w a it, t� ri r• C 1-1 ;N 1 0. to 1-• y fr to I 17 N to (U = �s, No. 553.2 ST.VrE OF CALIF.ORNIa ) COUNTY OF OF-114GH )' ' C i i C OF HUNT ING':ON. BEACH ) I , r1I.ICIa M. '�'F: NOE ':3, the duly e'r,ected, qualifted City Clerk of: the Cite of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Cierk. of the. CLt,� Council, of Said City, 'do hereby certify t:za: the ;hole number' of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was. passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the mercers of said City Council at a regular- meeting thereof he?d' on the 17t`: day`: of. pure ig. 85 by the follow-ng vote: Y?S : Counc,ilten: {eII aC.NiilS`ax, Y1 " T �T1, Ttcrr s NOES:, Councilmen: Y,cne AB SZ;l':': CouP.C4!Men: acne Ci-,j Cleric and. ex-orficio Clark of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California LAND USE ELEMENT . , A-MENDMENT 85 . 2 Adopted June . 1985 Environmental Impact Report 85 . 1 Aztx huntington beach planning division RESOLUTION NO: ` 5532 "A RESOLUTION OF THE' ,CITY COUNCIL OF. THE .:CITY OF HUNTINGTON,BEACH,'ADOPTING, LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT .NO: 8.5-2 TO ,.THE GENERAL' PLAN. , `. Whereas, the City Council 'of the .City of Huntington leach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and .object.ives. and, A ublic hear in on' :ado tion o p g p f' Land Use.: Element Amendmen 85-2 .to the General :Plan was °held by the Planning' Commiss;ion, on June 4 , 1985 , and approved for recommendation to '.the` City. Council; and Ther ea'fter , the City Council ,, after giving: notice as' pre scribed_ by Government Code sections .65355 • and 6 50 90 w,held at 1easTt o'ne. public hearing consider Land Use Element No . '35-2; an . ;'.At : said ;hear ing.,be for e the, City Council all per'sons desiring '. to be heard- on said: amendment were 'heard NOW; THEREFORE, ;:,BE IT .RESOLVED' by: the City Counci Z o f: the C 1•t y of. Huntington. Beach pursuant to provisions of. •Title 7 , zChagter .3 , .Article' 6`: of California Government Code. commencing `with section 65350 , ..that Land Use' Element Amendment,,,No; S'S -2 is, hereby' amended as follows: :Area°s 3..3, _.3 :4 . 3 .1 15 , . 3'. 16 ,` 3 . 18 , 3 `!'9 an(; 3.., 21 ,: as n show on ;Exhibit "'1 attached hereto, ., sha'll be amended to achieve consistency with. the: Gen eral°_Plait and existing :zoning. , 2 PASSED AND . ADOPTED by .the .City Council of. the City of Huntington Beach.' at-•`a regulai, meeting t�iereof.'zeld on . th.e :'17� a y June 19.85 H .. d o f ATTEST : • C'i t ,' y l'er-k � � 1 t A• t r K .. • 'y� i u. Y' t REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ity istrator it t orney. INITIATED AND APPROVED: / i rector o Deve opment Services 0596L/6/ 7/85; 6/ 18/ 85 ahb 2. EXHIBIT 1 Area 3 . 3 - Redesignate 1 . 19 acres south of Warner Avenue and west of Bolsa Chica Street from "High-density Residential" to "General Commercial . "' Area 3 .4 - Redesignate 15 -38 acres. south of Warner Avenue and east of. Bolsa Chica Street from "Medium-density Residential" and "High-density Residential" to "Tedium-high Density Residential. " Area 3 . 6 - Redesignate 1 .81 acres north of Warner Avenue and east of Springdale Street from "Medium-density Residential" to "General Commercial . " area 3 .8 - Redesignate 1. 78 acres south of. Heil Avenue and west of Goldenwest Street from "Low-density Residential to "General Commercial . Area 3 .15 - Redesignate 1.65 acres south of Tal�ert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard from "General Commercial."' to "Medium-density Residential. " Area 3 .16 - Redesignate 7 .03' acres north of Garfield Avenue and east of Florida Street from "Medium-density Residential" to ":`Medium-high Density Residential. " Area 3 . 18 - Redesignate 1. 63 acres north of Orange avenue and east of Seventeenth Street from "Medi.um-density Residential" to "General Commercial . " Area 3 . 19 - Redesignate 3 . 12 acres south of Adams Avenue and west of. Beach Boulevard from "Medium-density Residential" to "General Commercial .. Area 3 . 21 - Redesignate 1. 82 acres north of Brookhurst Street and east of Bushard Street from "Low-density Residential" to "General Commercial . " '" Res. No. 5532 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY. OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk. of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing .resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17ti day of June 19 85 by the following vote: AYES : Councilmen: Kelly, MacAllister, Ma d_r:c, Bailey, Finley, GrE-en, The mas NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Ncne City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California TABLE OF. CONTENTS ' :. SECTION . PAGE. 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . : 1 1 , 1 Methodology. . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . • 1 2 . 0, AREA OF CONCERN.. . . . : . . . . 5 2 . 1 Northwes,t Corn-er of Golden west Street Ellis Avenue. . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . . . 5 3. 0 GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCIES. . . . . . .': 1%7 4..`0. ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES. . . . 51' . ' 4 .1 Short-Term and Long Term Productivity. . 51 4 ..2 Ir,reversible Environmental Changes : .- 52., 4..3. Growth .Inducing, Impacts , . . . . . . 52 APPENDICES . APPENDIX :A. Fiscal Impact Land Use ..Assumptions . APPENDIX B Initial Study AP,P'ENDIX..C . Letters of Comment • i I ' I Land Use Categories AMENDMENTS PLANNING COMM. CITY COUNCIL DATE RESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION RESIDENTIAL 6 1187 166 4US p`• 9ry 2O A y7j9 I i Estate <ZUn/g aC 67-7 1196 8--7 4484 9-29-77 1D2 II-1-77 ass• Estate <3un/gac - 7 2 2-19-77 5 8-1-78 1232 8.21-TS 4660 Estate <_4 un/gac 10-17-78 12M 11.6-78 4696 II-21-78 1239 12-18-78 4708 / Low Density 3-6-79 1242 3-19 79 4728 3-18-80 1261 4-7-80 4865 ! °::':;,. / ^'\ �PC�' C =Medium Density 15-19-8o I273 6-15-80 4936 5005 d st'x';''Medium High Density 5-19-81 1273 6-15-81 5005 .{� SAN DIEOO FREEWAY , / High Density 11-3-81 1278 12-7-81 5053 II-17-81 1279 12-21-81 5060 n 8-2-82 5147 '7F 12-20-82 5206 12-7-82 1299 2-7-83 5223 /_: ;. _ \ / 41983 1303 5-16-83 5265 � i'.:; ... ':p- - :;:' COMMERCIAL 14 3-84 1317 5-7-84 5378 ...:.:., .._ .. 10, 10.4-83 1314 11-28-83 5327 }'9-`q,:,. ®General I .. :....: ...:...::':::- ............ . e2 Visitor-Serving . Office Professional ................... .. ................... : MIXED USE S Mixed , I......:.:.:.:.:.:............ .................:....:..:..:..:_.:::::..•..................:..:..:.::.:.:.::.::.::.:.:.::.::.�:.:.::.::.::..:.:....... '- ::�. - _.. ... is .• .iii::. �' .e. �`\ /:%.. M Office/Residential ME Commercial /SupportRecreation ;:::::::::::......: ........................ ............................................ ........ /.: :. .. . ........................... .........•:::::::::::. INDUSTRIAL \ ,+''� ���:�. General M Resource Produ ction :::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::�:::•:.;:�,::;:;;�,;;:, s-,-=,<,:.. .::::.:::• •:�:::::::::�:::�:::�::::::. / M Industrial Energy Production •.::::::�� •::::::::::::::::::::�:::::� _;- �;>..: .... .........................: � / ', OPEN SPACE Hill-iiiiiicii ...................... .. ....•✓.cJ;��. FM Water .. .. a„ ............... P •:::r.:::::::::: .. rs p. ::u:::::�• .:: a .. .. •::�:::::::- : ,N .r. , : ..... ::�:::�:::::• ion p p Recreation e OTHER USES 9, is � P ;�' Public Qu asi-Public In ' 04 Planned Community Planning Reserve ;, .,, ;. •Coastal Zone Boundary Y • „„ II 6 I - : °r /...... 4 •S fig r .n c �{� PACIFIC COAST i --- MIN _.. ACIFIC OCEAN P PACIFIC OCEAN s�•►�'<: �'�l `:����"®,1 _ T GENERAL PLAN HUNTINGTON BE4CH CALIFORNIA LAND USE .DIAGRAM PLANNING DIVISION Adopted December1976 Revised MAY 1984 i i { I I 1. ..[ .. .. _ 1 .0 INTRODUCTION This report concerns Amendment 85-2 to the Land 'Use Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan . The Land bse Element was adopted as a mandated element of the General Plan in December , 1973 ; this is the twenty-seventh amendment to the element . Planned land uses throughout the City are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagram. 1 . 1 METHODOLOGY This amendment considers changes in General Plan designations .on 22 si•tes, . Twenty- one of the changes are Administrative Items which are intended to establish consistency between the General' .Plah and ' existing zoning'. These areas , covered in Section . 3 . 0 , are not covered by the Environmental Impact Report contained .in this document . Area. 2 . 1 is the only amendment item. in ' this document which is covered by the FIR. The area is a 10 . 1 . acre site located, at the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street . The amendment request on this site will be analyzed in terms of the existing conditions on the site, anticipated impact on surrounding areas, major land uses and environmental issues , and consistency with adopted City goals and policies . Section 15148 of the State EIR. Guidelines states that "The requirements for an EIR on a local general plan element or amendment thereof will be satisfied by the general plan or element document . and no separate EIR will be required if: 1 ) the general plan addresses all the points required to be in an EIR by Article 9 of the State EIR Guidelines , and 2 ) the document contains a special section or a cover sheet identifying where the general plan document addresses each "of the points requirred: " " In conformance with 'State . . GPA 85=2 guidelines, this document will constitute the E,'1R for Lana Use , __Element Amendment 85=3 . the environmental setting ana signi,ticant impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial study are addressed under area of concern (Section 2 .1 ) . Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures to minimize significant effects are also discussed in this section . Section 4 .0 addresses overall environmental changes related to the following , consiaerations : 1 ) the relationship between local short- term productivity ; 21 irreversible or unavoidable environmental changes; and 3 ) growth inducing impacts . ,cPA- 85-2 -2- ( 21b5a ) 2.1 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIN AREA OF CONCERN PLANNING DIVISION Figure 2-1 2. 0 AREAS ,OF CONCERN . This section addresses the request area designated in Figure 2-1 . 2. 1 ' NORTHWEST CORDER OF GOLDENWEST STREFT 'AND ELLIS AVENUE 2 . 1 . 1 Background The area of concern addressed by Land Use Element Amendmenti No : 85-2 _is a 10. 1 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street . The property is currently designated for General Commercial (Figure 2-2 ) in the City ' s Land Use Element, The zoning on - the property is C2-0-(Q) , Qualified Commun-ity .Business Dzstrict , .combined with an oil suffix (Figure 2-3) . The "Q indicates that special conditions were placed on the C2 zoning on , the property to ensure .that development of the-site be compatible with Central Park . The area of concern was at one time designated for open space use in the - Land Use Element and was one of several areas under. consideration for inclusion into Huntington Cen"tral Park . At i.ts August 17 , 1981 , meeting, the City Council voted not. to include the urea of concern within the park boundaries at that time. Staff "was directed to consider a commercial use of the property that would be consistent with the park. Subsequent to that Council decision , the property owner requested a change in general plan designation from Open Space , to General 'Commercial . That request , in conjunction with ' a zone change to ' C2-0-(Q) was approved by the City Council on December 21 , 1981 . GPA 85-2 -5- ( 2185d ) - TALBERT ' ;'T-'� 7. -rr LOW 15 Is s DENS I TYll j RESIDENTIAL` CF-R } C F-R OPEN SPACE CF-C CEN. — Comk. ESTATE RESID. ESTATE RESID. 3 UNITS/ACRE --- — 2 UNITS/ACRE _T7 GENERAL ESTATE RESID 4 UNITS/ACRE INDUSTRIAL ' F F V AVE, GARFIELD HUNTINGTON BEACH ,C41_IFORNIA EXISTING GENERAL PLAN P"NNING- DIVISION Figure 2-2 ., TALBER7:- - - M I-C D E S e RI i RI RI RI Rl CF—R CF—R -- - MI—CD �. .f.CF. PP9pA�LQP._ { RA-0—CD M I MI� RA-0-CD «o RA-0—CD, CF-C ► —-----.___ MI •o-CD -B0CCDD -0-CD Ds-o-C -0-CD BCD -0-C MM I-C� D -0—(Q) M 1 - cz C euis MI U-O-CD ' D RA-0-CD Ai-O=CD -Rl-oyo-w-sAo M0-1 -°RA—CD LU-0-CD to o cDRA-O—CD U-0-c I- ' . RA-0 R RA-Cl-CD RA-0-CD s5o E I � RA S $ e 0 �B4O00 -CD qQ-Ri-(2,7) RA-• � J J J RAlo- k RA-0 E ANE$T g AVE MII RA-0 LU-O-CD RA-0-CD -�. L • N hRA-01 MI CDMi-01 Aa Co M I-oRA-01 RA-0-CD M1-01 7 L rc Rs o M-A-CD MI o E aoo s RA-0-CD oo_ 3 R F. ;. . 71 MI-A-OFCO Mfg a RQ-Qm � AYE. GARFIELD HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EXISTING ZON I NG PLANNING DIVISION e Figure 2-3 Since that time , the property owner , A. C. Marion , has- been unsuccessful in attempts to market the property for retail commercial purposes . He has now requested that the designation be changed from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential . The applicant has further requested that 'the zoning be. concurrently changed from C2-O--(Q) to R2-PD, Medium Density Residential District , Planned Development. The following analysis covers six alternative land use designations : ( 1 ) General Commercial t ( 2 ) Medium Density ( 3 ) Low Density ( 4 ) Estate Residential 3 Units/Acre (5 ) Open Space ( 6.) Open Space/Commercial The area of concern currently contains - horse stables and an exercise area for approximately 50 horses . Property to the north of study area is part of Huntington Central Park 'and is developea with a ',commercial horse stable and riding facility . Property to the west of the study area is primarily vacant and is undergoing-- acquisition by the City for Central Park . Property to the east of' the study area, across Goldenwest Street , is designated as open Space. The 2 . 7 acres -at the northeast corner of ,Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street is zoned M1-CD and contains a truck repair business. The area north and east of this MI 'CD property contains the Mushroom Farm and Sully-Miller Lake, both of which will ultimately be incorporated into. Huntington Central Park . -. . A portion of the Mushroom Farm property is under study for interim use as a mobilehome relocation park . The property directly south of the area of concern contains a horse stable. It is part of a larger area that is designated Estate Residential 3 Units Per Acre. The draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific' Plan for the area is currently undergoing revision by staff for resubmittal to the City Council . A five acre 15-lot subdivision was . approved in the area to the southwest of' the study area in 1984 , with another adjacent five acre subdivision pending. Planning. issues related to development of the + Ellis-Goldenwest area include preserving the topography of . the area and accommodating equestrian uses , 2. 1 . 2 Analysis 1 . Land Use The study area lies within a unique part of the City. It is surrounded by existing or proposed Huntington Central Park on three sides and Estate Residential on the fourth (south ) side . 'The Holly Property ( itself- the subject of GPA 85-l') is located diagonally across Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue. The existing General Commercial designation was originally intended to provide equestrian oriented commercial , services which would be utilized in conjunction with the equestrian center to the north . GPA 85-2 8- ( 2185d ) Potential uses included feed and grain stores, saddle and tack shops , western clothing stores and specialty shops offering miscellaneous riding accessories . Staff 's analysis indicated that the equestrian facility, in combination with the Estate Residential area to the south , would create demand for a commercial center on the property. The applicant , however , • has indicated that° the. demand has not materialized . This may be partly due to the. fact that, the Estate area has not yet developed. The applicant 's request for Medium Density Residential on the site would result in approximately 140 dwelling units . Because of the relationship of the site to Central Park , the design of a residential project will be very important . The project should feature clustering of units in order to .preserve open space and maintain view corridors into Central Park . It is important to note that staff 's recommendation for the Holly Property (Figure 2-4 ) across 'Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street to -the .southeast is for a • ..10 acre Medium Density Residential node at the intersecticr -{ these streets . This may set a precedent for the corner of Ellis, ti lue and Goldenwest Street and may indicate that Medium Density on the subject property may be a compatible use . The mushroom farm property across Goldenwest Street to the east may be developed with a mobilehome,.relocation park at approximately 9 • units ,per , acre . This would further increase the density of the• Ellis-Goldenwest intersection and land credence to the idea. of a Medium Density node in the vicinity. The alternative for Low Density Residential would result in approximately 70 dwelling units . Similar to the Medium Density alternative, low density units should be clustered to preserve open space and view corridors , Low Density on the site would not be consistent with the concept of a Medium Density node at - the -, Eli-is-Goldenwest intersection , but may be more compatible with Central Park . The Estate Residential alternative would result .in approximately 30 ranch style homes . This would constitute an extension-- of .the large lot subdivision concept which is occurring across Ellis 'Avenue. to the south . . Horse trails to and from the equestrian center ,to the north could be more easily incorporated into an Estate type development than into the other alternatives . A redesignation of the site to Open Space would permit the development of a commercial recreation use such as a tennis and racquetball club, swimming pool , par-three .golf course, country club or similar use.. The type of facilities and amount of building square footage would vary according to the proposed use : Appropriate implementing zoning would be ROS (Recreation Open- Space ) . . A recreational use on the site could either be ,developed by the applicant , or by the -city, if the City were to acquire,. the property for inclusion in Central Park . Since the site is surrounded by existing or proposed Central Park on three sides , Recreation Open Space could be considered a compatible. use . GPA 85-2 -9- ( 2185d ) 6J ka- l t.L1J-1 1 1 1 1 i 1-L' TALSEA CF-R - IMYT1!IBNR .CM1UL•:4lK) C F R . lH:NTn/UT014 AM AL PARK) :OUNT! -RARffiiER 7— POSSIBLE MUSHROO MEDIUM FARM dc L DENSITYI r LODEJ MOBILE [y�CF—C s-a B-N.i4 A ■�" rsas HOME PARK rrir ` MEDIUM ` DENSITY / HOrT LLY PROPERTY I • i INDUSTRIAL IE im ............ 1,-, STAFF RECOMMENDATION„ FOR HUNTINGTON BE4CH CALIFORNIA' HOLLY PROPERTY (SPA 85-1)' KIF PLANNING olvlsloN AND MUSHROOM FARM Figure 2-4 The last alternative would retain General Commercial on the southern fi-ve acres and redesignate the northern five acres for Open Space . . This could allow a reduced mix of tennis and racquet club uses, -on the Open Space portion and a small neighborhood shopping center on the commercial portion . 2 . .Economic Considerations The Planning staff developed a revised fiscal impact methodology for analyzing the Holly Property ( LUE 85--1/ETR 84--1 ) land use Alternatives . The same methodology was utilized to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . Appendix A provides the assumptions which were made for each alternative. The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one year for comparison purposes . The results are summarized in the table below . Alt. 1 Alt . 2 Alt .. 3 General Medium Density Low Density Commercial Residential Resiat ' ' al Revenue* 108 . 7 57 . 4 30 . 5' Cost* 41 . 6 63 . 2 35 . 6" Revenue Minus Cast* 67 . 1 - 5. 8 5 . 1 Revenue/Cost 2 . 61 . 91 . 85 Alt . • 4 Alt . 5 . Alt . 6 Estate Open Open Space/ Residential Space - Commercial. Revenue* 25. 8 18 . 7 27 . 5 Cost* 23 .9 15 .'4 19. 3 . .. Revenue Minus Cost* 1 . 9 3 . 3 8. 2 Revenue/Cost 1 . 08 1 . 22 1 . 43 * in thousands As shown above, the total fiscal impact of the amendment is optimized if the General Commercial alternative is selected. This scenario may generate a maximum surplus of' $67, 100 in the year analyzed . Of the three residential alternatives only the Estate Residential alternative would generate 'surplus revenue. Medium Density and Low Density residential can be expected to generate small" deficits for ,the City. The Commercial alternatives generate a surplus due to sales tax revenues generated. . The Open Space Alternative generates less surplus revenue because there are fewer. • -11- . retaii sales. In reviewing the above, results , it , is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact costs and revenues . ' 3 . Housing The applicant has proposed development of approximately 140 housing . units on the subject property under the requested Medium Density designation . Low Density would allow 70 units . The Estate Residential 3 Units Per Acre alternative would result in 30 ,single family detached housing units . The other alternatives do not include residential use . The ,Housing Element of the City's General Plan contains policies aimed . at increasing housing opportunities for households with low ' and moderate incomes . The applicant 's proposal would provide the most housing of any of the alternatives ,and, therefore, the lowest cpst- per unit . 4 . Public Services and Utilities a . Sewers An eight inch sewer currently exists in Goldenwest Street north of Ellis Avenue . Another eight inch sewer is planned for Ellis Avenue west of Goldenwest Street , Sewage from the study area is intended to flow north to a pump station at Slater Avenue . The Orange County Sanitation District , however , has indicated that the Slater Avenue pump station is presently operating very close to capacity and adequate modifications 'to the stations serving the study area and other adjacent areas may not be possible. Completion of the Coast Trunk Sewer , which now terminates at Goldenwest Street and Orange Avenue is necessary for long-term service to the ;. , property, The Sanitation District has further indicated that the project proponent should meet with the district' staff to resolve the sewage 'service problems associated with the project . b . Water Water mains in the vicinity of the study area include a 12-inch main in Ellis Avenue and a 14-inch main in Goldenwest Street . These ex'is-ting mains can •provide adequate water service to the- site under any of the land use alternatives . c . . Storm ,Dra i.ns Surface runoff from the site to Goldenwest Street will provide - adequate drainage under any of the land use alternatives . -12 i d. Police and Fire Protection Fire protection for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach from the Gothard Station located ' north of Ellis Avenue on the west side of Gothard Street . The area of concern lies within the five minute response area of the station and can be adequately serviced regardless of the selected alternative. Police service for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach which operates from a central " facility located at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue . One additional officer may be. required if the Medium Density alternative is selected. e. Parks The area of concern is bordered' on three sides by land either existing or proposed for inclusion as a part " Huntington -Central Park . As such, any residential alternative will be more than adequately provided for in ' terms of park demand. € . Schools The area ofconcern is located within the Oceanview School District and is served by Mesa View and Crestview K-8 schools .and Ocean View Nigh School . Due to a downward trend in student enrollment , the schools could ' easily-accommodate the increase in students generated by either the applicant ' s requested Medium Density designation or the alternative Low Density a'r Estate Residential . The non-residential alternatives would have no impact on the areas schools . g. Gas and Electrical Utilities ' Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Extension of existing lines in the vicinity of the study area will provide adequate gas service under any of the proposed land use alternatives . The Gas Company notes , however, that gas supply may be affected by the overall availability of natural gas and by State and Federal regulatory policies . Electrical service is provided by -the' Edison Company. Adequate electric power supply can be provided from 12 KV distribution lines in the vicinity of the area of concern . Edison notes that the total electrical system, demand is expected to continue to increase annually ; however , excluding any unforeseen problems , their plans for . new generation resources indicate that their ability to serve all customer -loads during peak demand periods will be adequate for the remainder of - the decade . -13- h. Solid waste Disposal ' The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City of Huntington Beach.. No local" service constraints are expected. under any of the Tand use designations.. 5. Traffic Circulation Access to the area of. concern is taken via Ellis Avenue. which is designated as a primary arterial . The property also fronts on Goldenwest Street , a designated major arterial . Present traffic volumes for these arterials in the vicinity of the study area are �600 daily trips on Ellis Avenue and 25, 000 daily .trips on Goldenwest Street . The maximum design capacities for these arterials are 30, 000 and 45 , 000 vehicle trips per day respectively. Public Works has estimated that the applicant ' s request foi 'ilium Density will produce approximately 1 , 400 vehicle .trips per dal . Loy Density would result in 875 .trips while Estate Residential would generate 450 daily trips . The existing General Commercial . designation would generate 6 , 960 trips per day . Recreational Open Space, on the entire property would produce 1 , 875 trips per day with the one-half recreation, one-half commercial alternative producing 6., 100 trips per day. As. indicated in Land Use Element Amendment 85-1/•EIR -84-1 for the Holly Property, 'any development in the general . vicinity of the study area will ' result ' in traffic volumes that will exceed the existing .-capacity of the .surrouriding arterials . Existing traffic 'volumes are well below capacity, but will exceed capacity when the surrounding 300+ acres are deve,loped . - LUE 8571/EIR 84-1 identified arterial improvements that will be necessary when the larger area develops . These improvements include the widening of both, Goldenwest Street north of Garfield Avenue and Ellis Avenue 'east of Gothard Street , Such improvements will allow the arterials to function at Level of Service C with only peak periods exceeding that capacity. The subject property constitutes such a small percentage of the overall vacant property in the area that it will have very little noticeable impact on circulation, regardless .of alternative selected. If the subject property develops in the near future before any of the other property is- developed and before the arterials are upgraded , it will still have no impact on circulation because the existing arterials are presently.. operating well below capacity. , 6 . Environmental Issues a. Noise Noise levels of Ldn 65 and Ldn 60 extend into the southern portion of the site from Ellis Avenue and levels of Ldn 70 , Ldn 65 and Ldn 60 extend into the eastern portion of the -14- site from Goldenwest Street . These levels fall within the normally acceptable range for both commercial recreation and general commercial uses, but slightly exceed the range for residential uses . Setbacks, berming, landscaping and soundwalls should be utilized along Goldenwest Street if a residential use is selected for the site. No significant noise impacts are anticipated to occur from any of the proposed land uses. The study area is bordered by. Central Park on two sides , however , and care should be taken at the project level to protect potential passive recreation use of the park from excess noise on the study . site . • b . Air Quality Any of the land use alternatives will adversely affect air quality within the South Coast region ; however , the ` m-act is not expected to be significant. Projected daily emissions from the six alternatives are as follows: Emission' Tans "of Source Emissions/Day GENERAL COMMERCIAL Mobile . 45 Stationary Negligible Total . 45 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ' Mobile : 13 Stationary Negligible Total . 13 LOW DENSITY -RESIDENTIAL Mobile 08 Stationary Negligible Total . 08 ESTATE RESIDENTIAL Mobile . 04 Stationary Negligible Total . 04 OPEN SPACE Mobile . 17 Stationary Negligible Total . 17 OPEN• SPACE/COMMERCIAL Mobile . 40 Stationary Negligible Total . 40 -15- c: Seismic The area of concern lies within the -Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and is -traversed by the Bolsa-Fairview Fault. . This -fault , is a potential cause of serious structural damage due primarily to ground shaking. Actual displacement and surface rupture - has not historically occurred along this fault system in Huntington Beach and the probability is relatively low that it will within the next 100 years, even though one or more moderate-sized earthquakes may occur . In compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972 , a Special Studies zone has been established in Huntington Beach that includes the most hazardous earthquake faults . This special studies zone does not. extend into the study area . Development in the study area , therefore, need not be. subject. to the zone 's requirements . It will be appropriate to address the mitigation of potential seismic hazards in the study area when a specific project i proposed .for development ., 2 . 1 . 3 Staff Recommendation In view of the fact that staff has- recommended medium density on 10 acres on the southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and' Goldenwest Street (Holly Property - LUE 85-1 ) staff is also recommending approval of Medium Density (Alternative 2 ) for this study area . Approval of the two General Plan Amendments with the staff recommendations will create a medium density . node at the intersection of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street . Development of a portion of the Mushroom Farm as an in`te.rim mobilehome relocation park on the northeast corner will further enhance the concept of a medium density node. With proper site planning and clustering of units , such development can be made harmonious with Central Park.. Medium density in this location may also enhance use of the park by walk-in users- rather than ' driver,s and further increase the utility of the park . Along with the General Plan Amendment to Medium Density, the applicant has requested a concurrent zone change ( ZC 85-2 ) to R2-PD (Medium Density Planned' Development ) . If the City approves the General Plan Amendment request for Medium Density, staff would recommend a modification of the requested R2-PD zoning. In order to ensure compatibility with Central Park , staff would recommend that a density limit of 10 units per acre be added to the zoning and that the CD (Civic District ) suffix also be added to require special. design review. Staff is therefore recommending R2-.( 10 )-PD-CD zoning in 'the accompanying zone change staff report . GPA 85-2 -16- ( 2185d ) 3.0 GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCIES The following 21 requests Figure 3-1 ) have been initiated by the Department of Development Services as part- of a program to achieve consistency between the ,General Plan Land Use Element' and the Zoning ordinance. 1 . South of Edinger, Avenue/West of Bolsa Chica Street A.. Background The area of concern contains 6 . 91 gross acres of -land located south of Edinger Avenue and west of Bolsa Chica Street (Figure 3-2 ) . Property within the area of ` concern is zoned R3 and R5; supporting 90 apartments (at 16 .4 units per acre ) on the R3 lots and small office professional buildings on 'the R5 parcels . The L-shaped area is surrounded by low density single family homes to. the west -and south , high density and commercial to the east , and the U. S. Naval Weapons Depct •to the north . The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density -residential to medium high density residential .' , ' GPA 85-2 -17- . ( 2185d ) r \� 5 HP 17 r�,rox 21 t huntington beach planning division Figure 3-1 ow UIN(;E P COMMERCIAL. w I AUDRE Y DR C F- E MEDIUM` LOW c, ... •• � � i ,• ; :;DE=NSITY `} ' DENSITY J� CHE RYL HILO CR. o KAUI DR. SISSON to z X. J J MAUI CR'. R• C JPOIE LOW c DENSITY _ c.3 R z J OAHU DR. .a MEDIUM- x N DENSITY cr Ul 3 Y o`. z 3 . m - I AREA OF CONCERN I 'huntington beach planning division Figure 3-2 B. Analysis The area of concern supports ,existing development that exceeds the `maximum density. allowed under the General Plan designation of medium density. The R5 • office-professional uses are considered consist"ent with either the medium or. medium high density residential designation by virtue of heir small size and would not : be affected by the proposed amendment . In December , 1977,the City Council adopted General .Plan Amendment ' 77-3, which redesigned 1 . 78 acres located immediately adjacent to the area of concern high density . residential. Given the redesignation of the adjacent land area , and the existence of medium high density apartments within the area of concern, it seems logical -.to redesignate the area .medium high density residential . The proposed amendment will better reflect the character of the area and increase accuracy of the General Plan in its role as a us_.�ul planning tool . -- C. Recommendation Staff recommends "that the area o'f. concern be redesignated -from medium density residential" to medium high density residential . 2 . ..North of Warner Avenue/East of Algonquin Street A. Background The area of concern contains 8 . 31 gross acres of land located north .of Warner - Avenue and east of Algonquin Street ( Figure 3-3 ) . The property is zoned R3 and supports a variety of uses , including medium high density fourplexes and condominiums (developed at 18 . 1 units per acre ) , older single family homes. on large R3 lots, and vacant land . The area of concern is surrounded by high density uses on three sides as well as medium density condominiums to the north , and low density single family homes to the west . The planning staff recommends that the area be redesignated from medium density .residential to medium high density residential . B. Analysis As with the previous area, existing development within the area of concern exceeds the density allowed under the General Plan designation of medium density. Rezoning to implement the General Plan would render existing. uses non- conforming and possibly limit property values . Redesig- nation to medium high density would more accurately reflect existing uses both within and on three sides of the area of concern . GPA 85--2 -20- ( 2185d ) PE ARCS -- ----- -- . HIGH -- DENSITY","k - k - MEDIUM DENSITY COMMERCIAL HIGH ::•:.:.:::;:: : DENSITY z m " m - . _..- : M :•:;::= :; : ` HIGH F D U DENSIT Y - --- WARNER•NST .:•. : :......y Val J � - :. :..::• .:::•: _ Li LJ i 1 Lj Ir _ ' - _ I LOW Y __ ~'DENSITY -- MEDIUM "AME5 R -, DENSITY H E M N AREA OF CONCERN 2 lap . huntington beach planning division Figure - 3-3 C. Recommendation Staf£ recommends ' that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . 3 . South of Warner Avenue/West of Bolsa Chica Street A. Background The area of concern .covers 1 . 19 gross acres located south of Warner Avenue and west of Bolsa Chica Street (Figure ' 3-4 ) . The property is zoned C2 and is . occupied by the offices �of General Telephone. The 'subject area is surrounded by� high density residential developments to the south and west , medium density residential to the east , and a commercial. development of mixed office and retail uses to the north . The planning stpff recommends that the area be redesignated from hi density residential to general commercial . B. Analysis The, area of concern contains office uses which are likely to remain in operation during the time frame set in the General Plan. It is contiguous to`-the ..commercial development to the north and should ,be regarded as an extension of that use. Redesignation of the site ' to general commercial is most appropriate to accurately reflect the use of the site and `resolve the existing inconsistency. C. Recommendation ' Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from high density residential to general commercial . 4 . South of Warner Avenue/East of Bolsa Chica Street A. Background The area of concern contains 15 . 38 gross acres , of land located south of Warner Avenue and east of. Bolsa Chica Street ( Figure 3--4 ) . The property is zoned R3 and R3-23 , and supports medium high density condominiums and apartments ( 23 units per acre ) . The area of concern is surrounding by medium density uses to 'the ' north , medium density and single-family subdivisions to the east , recreation open space to the south , and high density apartments to the west . The planning staff recommends that the area be redesignated from medium and high density residential to medium high density residential . GPA -85--2 -22:- ( 2185d ) • - AVE _ WARNER 10 �� HIGH COMMERCIAL I . - DENSITY � I � 6 � I � JAMES CR. LNGC — ZTfl MEDIUM DENSITYTFF -- ;+.................. LOW 1 . DENSITY SEAPiNE CR- ":+::;c ::; ::.>.-:::; <:_::•:.:` . a ► s ;:r. AVE '� HIGH � y:,-:� ,•2� RECREATION i AREAS of CONCERN 3 & 4 Aft- huntington beach planning -division Figure 3-4 B. Analysis The existing developments within the area of concern reflect residential. densities allowed under the General Plan designation of medium high density residential . The development on the north half of the site exceeds the density allowed under the medium density' designation as the result of density averaging. Redesignation of the entire property to medium high ' density residential would more accurately reflect existing uses over the planning time frame set by the General Plan, while at the same time maintaining compatibility with adjacent uses . . C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential a, ' 'ligh density residential to medium high den'sity , resiu ,tial 5 . South of Heil. Avenue/East • of -Graham Street A. Background The area of concern covers 2 . 98 acres of land located south of Heil Avenue and east of Graham, Street ( Figure 3-5 ) . The property is zoned R3, and supports an apartment development at 18. 1 units per acre. The area of concern is ' surrounded by single--family homes to the west across Graham Street , medium density apartments to the north, and Meadowlark Golf Course to the east and south . The planning staff recommends that the area be. redesignated from medium density residential to -medium high density residential . B . Analysis The area of concern supports existing development that exceeds the maximum density allowed under the General Plan designation of medium density. This development was constructed in the 1960 ' s , and has not presented . any compatibility problems with the golf course . Given the existence of medium high density apartments within the area of concern, it seems logical to -redesignate the area medium high density residential . C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . GPA 85-2 -24- ( 2185d ) ... .1�_. ... .. DRLi - - - -- - _ -- -pow -T- - - '-�--[ _ DENSITY - - VENTURI - oL J o wE o 0_ JMARSHALL r O X1 a m — _DRF .' MEDIUM � ! xr ry DENSITY CR �. }, .i ll JJPf:• l::S:::• far{r':. :: :? LOW DENSITY 4 RECREATION ?,N , CF - R a_ �'s ' AREA OF CONCERN 5 i . huntington beach planning division Figure 3-5 1 6 . North of Warner Avenue/East of Springdale Street A. Background The area of concern consists of a 1 . 81 gross acre site located at the northeast corner of the - intersection of Warner Avenue and Springdale Street (Figure 3-6 ) . The site was rezoned 'C4 in 1978 , and now supports a , commercial shopping center. The area of concern is surrounded by a mobile home park to the north and east , and by commercial uses to the south and west. The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residenti6_ 1'. to commercial . B. Analysis The size criteria for determining land use des -nations indicate that commercial areas over one and one-. if acres in size should be shown on the Land Use Diagram. Both the size and the zoning designation of the a,rea of concern suggest that the commercial land use designation is appropriate. The intersection at which the area of concern is located currently supports nearly 26 acres of commercial uses on three corners . Redesignation of the , area of concern to commercial would "comply with the General Plan size criteria and further reflect the commercial character of the intersection. C. Recommendation Staff recommends ' that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density ' resident'ial to general commercial . 7 . South of Warner Avenue/East. .of Springdale Street A. Background t The area of concern contains 10 .40 gross acres of land located south of Warner Avenue and east of Springdale Street (Figure 3-6 ) . The property is zoned R3 and supports 164 apartments at a density of 15. 8 units per acre. Surrounding uses include high density apartments to the east , low density single family homes and an elementary school to the south , a neighborhood commercial center to the west , and a mobile home park to the north across Warner Avenue . The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium_ high density residential . GPA 85-2 .-26-- ( 2185d ) viw.w. _•- - fi 4} LOW ' J, E - DENSITYQ`. r O. C, F'. C. G MEDIUM - ram;.:•.• . , '1:.. DENSITY;-- ' WARNER •r•,.,;•�:{{{v..4, ::�;:r•r;: +.,..4{:}{{iv:•:yi:•:f:::%;:.$;nrv: HIGH COMMERCIAL DENSIT UARH r}f5.• av� r.r MEDIUM DENSITY SUMMERDALE = - LOW DENSITY- , oR. Z CF-R a Z w V r JUNE OR. �'+ U) V z LIEF: RR. F- 3 2L ROSE~ DR. � . .FREEBQRN ..�.:^ (L GHENT DR. .J �� JL:O A DR ATHEN AREAS - OF CONCERN 6 & 7 At!WX huntington beach' planning division Figure 3-6 B. Analysis Existing R3 development within the area of- concern exceeds the maximum density allowed under the General Plan designation of medium density. If the present zoning is changed to R2 to be brought into conformance with the General Plan,- the 164 existing apartments will become nonconforming uses . The area of concern is related more in character to the medium high density area immediately to the east than to -the medium density mobile home park to the north across Warner Avenue . Redesignation ' to medium high density residential will Amore accurately reflect the ,existing development and the surrounding area. C. Recommendation Staff° recommends that the area of concern to redesignated from medium density 're.sidenti'al to :dium high density residential . . 8 . South of Heil Avenue/West of Goldenwest Street ' A. Background The area of concern contains 1 . 78 gross acies `of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Heil Avenue and °Goldenwest Street ( Figure 3-7 )-. The property is ' zoned C4 and supports a gas station as well s an 18, 000-square foot office--professional.'building. The area of concern is surrounded by low density residential uses on three sides, and by medium density fourplexes to the east across Goldenwest Street . The planning staff recommends that the area be. redesignated from low density residential to general commercial . B. Analysis As with a previous area of concern, the General Plan size criteria requires that commercial areas in excess of one and one-half acres ' be designated on the Land 'Use Diagram. The area of concern ' s size, location, zoning, and existing uses warrant the proposed redesignation to general commercial , as rezoning to RI to implement the General Plan designation of low density residential is not desirable for this location . C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from low density residential to. general commercial . GPA 85-2 -28- ( 2185d ) milli MIN 01111MI M1111111 III IN yNSM101111111111 ► Aminoil -tr rrt MIN MEDIUMDENSITY r, ® WIN ®® M® ' kin 9 . South- of Heil Avenue/East of Goldenwest Street A. Background The area of concern encompasses 40. 00 acres .of land located 'south of Heil Avenue and .east of Goldenwest Street ( Figure 3-8 ) . The area is zoned R3 and CF-E supporting 444 apartments at a density of 1.6 . 0 units per acre as well ,as an elementary school . Surrounding land uses include low density residential homes to the west and north , an industrial park t'o the east , and Murdy Community Park to the south . The planning staff.. recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density presidential B. Analysis The area of concern supports R3 fourplexes deve� ed a+- a -density that exceeds the maximum allowable density under the General Plan designation of medium density residential . Rezoning to implement the General Plan is not desirablei as such action would render the existing uses nonconforming. The General Plan should be amended to reflect the existing -uses within the area of concern and be consistent with the R3 zoning. The elementary' school should carry the same designation as the surrounding properties as a matter of area character . C . Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be' redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . 10 . • North of Warner .Avenue/West of Gothard Street A. Background The area of concern encompasses 8 . 66 gross acres of land located north of Warner Avenue and west of Gothard Street ( Figure 3-6 ) . . The property is zoned R3 and supports 136 apartments at a density of 15. 7 units per acre. Surrounding land uses include an in park to the north and east across Gothard Street , high density apartments to the south, and Murdy" Community. bark to the west ,. The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . B. Analysis The area of concern is developed at a density that exceeds the maximum allowable density allowed under the GPA 85-2 -30- ( 2185d ) s. �,r�J it '..i��� .FFF • � �. E k �n nn _ sew m s � � • i +w �� .M1,�. a VIM,A E SRI IM a �i.••1.'l•f�N; L� lim WIN 0 Mill IIIIII#1 Ift•1.7 L1, J� . • .. =11114u111i ill IIINIIIIII� I Il � , � � `: �IHIIII ���II�I IH��I�III �Il�IIIIII �' 1•��r ' ■■® � w AL . , r • 4 �. present medium density designation. An identical development directly south of the area of concern is designated high density residential on the Land Use Diagram . Redesignation of the area of concern to medium high density residential will more accurately reflect the existing development and the surrounding neighborhood . C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . 11 . North of McFadden Avenue/West. of Goldenwest Street A. - , Background The area of concern consists of 2 . 10 gross acres .of land located north of McFadden Avenue and west of Goldenwest Street (Figure 3-9 ) . The area is zoned R3 supporting an apartment development at 16 -units per acre. Surrounding land uses include single-family homes to the north , commercial uses to the east and south, and . Greer Park to the west . The planning staff recommends that the area be redesignated from -medium density residential to medium high density residential . B. Analysis The area of concern supports R3 apartments at a density that exceeds the maximum allowable density under the r General Plan designation of medium density residentia-1 . Rezoning to implement the General Plan would render the existing uses nonconforming. ' The General Plan should be' amended to reflect the existing uses within the area of concern and be consistent with the R3 zoning. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . 12 . South of Edinger Avenue/West to Sher Lane A. Background The area of concern encompasses 15. 01 gross acres of land located south of Edinger Avenue on the west side of Sher Lane ( Figure 3-10 ) . The property is zoned R3 and supports 249 apartments at a density 'of 16 . 5 units per acre. Surrounding uses include a commercial center GPA- 85-2 -32- ( 2185d ) (Gill-L SCHOOL) ss}•,;:k1• i rRACY AT OR •sib'"iii5"r':� j �� b L ` EA1ERSaN } `O Z z C F—R :E m Q 5 Q (GREER PAR ' Q; � t R+OCx�rou� 0_ 4 LLa] rl LOWE DENSITY FTTIT DR - CF-R (GREER PARK � ANNEX) GAS LIGHT OR N c ES DR 3 PUBLIC, QUASI-. I PUBLIC, INSTITUTIONAL aLumc t o� p sARWOW DR W m y 7 Eny n DR. 2 MOONBEAM DR. AREA of CONCERN 11 huntington beach planning division Figure 3-9 ~ EDINGER p COMMERCIALLORGE i {.;:'.:•Gr..� yr: ,;ti• ;r., '? ' MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY... DENSITY yk: #::: C F_R HC INDUSTRIAL CF_ E ANITA LN. i � � s _ I -T oW DR. a LOW — r a DENSITY cLENcoE NANCY DR. zMEDIUM o I I DENSITY �c _ _ ALHAMBRA AL HAMBRA i HEIL AREA OF CONCERN 12 • M huntington beach planning division Figure 3-10 to the north , high density apartments and a neighborhood park to the east , low density single family homes to the south, and industrial uses ' to' the - west . The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be - redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . B. Analysis The existing apartment development within the area of concern exceeds the maximum density allowed under the General Plan designation of medium density. The area is similar in character' to the high density area to the east ; redesignation of the area of concern to medium high density would provide a natural transition of the area as a buffer between commercial and low density residential uses . As with the other areas of concern , the medium high density designation would more accurately reflect the existing patterns of der, pment throughout the City, and redesignation of these- areas constitutes a necessary refinement of the General Plan . C. Recommendation Staff recommends that ,the area of concern' be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . 13. South of Heil Avenue/West of Viewpoint Drive A. Background The area of concern contains- 9 . 64 gross acres of land located south of Heil Avenue on the west side of Viewpoint Drive ( Figure 3-11 ) . The property is zoned R3 and supports 14.8 apartments at a density of 15 . 4 units per acre. The area of concern is surrounded by commercial uses to the east , high density apartments to the south, and low density single family homes to the west and north across the Orange County Flood Control District Channel C5-4. The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium . density residential to medium high density residential . . B . Analysis This area of concern also supports development that exceeds the maximum density allowed under the -medium density designation . Although the maximum density of 15 units per acre under medium density is exceeded only slightly -in this and a couple of .areas previously addressed, the cumulative effect of all of these inconsistencies is significant when using the General Plan to project requirements for transportation, GPA 85-2 -35- ( 2185d ) rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt ;�7r' S �'"'"" r ■s I. r ■rrr . �► . r ■r r oil HIGH Vy rri fir ♦ ♦ .. -=- DENSITY • ■ � 11l11lllillllilllllillllllililll� ■ 1.11l11l1111111llllillll111■�■''.1 Illll ■ 11li!:s■■'Ms�� 1 11!! 111►/►.•11111i1111i 11111 1i1"1111111111lilll 1l111 "i'Itllielilf111111 • ` .11lllllilllleil:�r■"""'/Iiiiiillliln �� lilllleiilllH`1 till fill 11111lI1fi111111 111111111111 gigolo educational , and recreational facilities in addition , to public services and utilities . By redesignating these areas so that they are consistent with existing ' development patterns , the General Plan becomes a more accurate ,and useful planning tool for the implementation of City policies. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential, to medium high density residential ., 14 . South of Edinger Avenue/East of Beach Boulevard A. Background The area of concern encompasses 19 . 72 gross acres of land located south of Edinger Avenue and east c. each Boulevard (Figure 3-12 ) . The area is zoned R3 ai.d supports a total of 383 apartments at a density of 19 . 4 units per acre and is located between a high density • apartment complex and the Huntington Beach Executive Park ,. directly south of the San Diego Fdr.eeway. The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential.. B. Analysis The' area of concern is , due to its location and density of development, clearly a medium high density area.. The medium density designation is not appropriate for the character of the area , and redesignation is necessary to correct the General Plan so that it may be used effectively in future planning efforts . C. Recommendations Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . 15. South of Talbert Avenue/West of Beach Boulevard . A. Background The area of concern consists of 3 . 51 gross acres of land located south of Talbert Avenue and -west of Beach Boulevard ( Figure 3-13 ) . The area is zoned (4) R2-PD . and is currently vacant . The surrounding uses consist ' of medium density uses to the north and west , and commercial uses to the east and south . The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be . redesignated from general commercial to medium density residential . GPA 85--2 -37- ( 2185d ) ERI- a� HIGH -- 11 4 DENSITY I � 3 Q �U4�Y Ito F120 ,�=r <, E 3 COMMERCIAL A A'` MEDIUM r ' DENSITY STARK AVf:;f, � �f - '• •h yV4'' tin}�• i v� 4%� .—_.... �... "; 4 t ," .. .: . .'{ �• HIGH E N S I T Y aim AREA of CONCERN 14 huntington beach planning division Figure 3-12 • �{���G7 iK i ����r�.ill t5`:4C n�s"yYC:.h4.6.��■ r r rraffrr rlfr >r aerle��i 1'. 1 a s.wa+pesr4 �A1 10=Nam= :Y�Ill "Mmo-II MO�41l q1 i1 i�AY���l1 II I 55Xr Jb"k 5Ca ��A cwwlltra�wr� a>.�srwof�w I �o- z�=a ucrs,5ti11����■ wrr==cc=.s1 Ycwmc.o`f G. w+vk.r•rmxn 2S�rlllr■ fs.Ial�m.wflw �Iarsrr rlafr 1' -.k,nw.Hr.c,e.e+. � Yl lilt llw C..wM l .oG_ZNice.:0.'S.;Y� i • wi �f�a�f�•.1 t u.v.=;�v;; \rwm,��,lam■ 1 t Ji7�4v;- Y WOO 1 !F we I .1+#+''Jpa4o a�■ R 1 �%tiCV'§4 al rrlr■���a��itlws*.w ! i tl^2ao ca wrrllflll#rrr�wlwwll�� 1.....�1 � rYaq*� I • w l l ■■Edell ' ■ B. Analysis Although vacant , the site is located within a redevelopment project area which is intended to be used for a conventional medium density planned development in conjunction with the senior citizen housing project to the west . The property offers limited potential for commercial development since it is isolated from Beacb Boulevard by an existing shopping center to the east . The site should therefore be redesignated to establish consistency with current planning policy in the general area. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from general commercial to medium .density residential . 16 . North �of Garfield Avenue/East of Florida Street A. Background The area of concern consists of 7 .03 gross acres of . land located north of Garfield Avenue and east of Florida Street ( Figure 3-14 ) . The area is zoned R3 and supports--several apartment complexes at a, density of 25 units per acre. The surrounding uses include medium density uses to the west, commercial developments to . the east and south, and the Pacific Community Specific Plan Area to the north and west . The .planning staff -recommends that the area be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . B:` Analysis The existing apartment developments within the area of concern exceeds the maximum density allowed under the t General Plan designation of medium density. The designation of the site as medium density residential would render the area nonconforming. As with other similar areas of concern, the medium. hi.gh density designation would more accurately reflect the existing uses on site and be compatible with surrounding uses over the planning time frame set by the General Plan. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . GPA 85-2 -40- ( 2185d ) F Lw_-oecr+�wT=/uoo 6A MIXED DEVELOPMENT V SL MDWC*. CONSTANTINE MEDIUM -� 3f _ DENSITY z sr� ��� cam. � . , :. t•�?:=.... � � _ � �� cc - :"r•'{i' •b'b —__.'yW—. - - UKAT Hf R'. LL - _ µ. GARFIELD MEDIUM DENSITY I� PRESTWICK CR. COMMERCIAL ' 4. 4 CF-F WAOEBRIOGE LOW DENSITY TMOOR OR z� 1 AREA of CONCERN 16 Ad=X huntington beach planning division Figure 3-14 i 17. . North of Yorktown Avenue/West of Brooknurst Street ,. A. Background ' The 'area of concern consists of 38. 48 gross acres of 1`and located north of Yorktown Avenue and west of Brookhurst , Stree,t. ( Figure 3-15 ) . The area is zoned MH and supports a mobile home park at 10 units per 'acre. - The surrounding uses include medium density mobile # homes to the north , single-family subdivisions to the -east , south and west , and commercial uses to the south. The planning staff recommends that the area be redesignated from low density residential to medium density residential. B. -Analysis i• The existing mobile home use within the area of ncern exceeds the maximum density allowed under the Get,eral Plan. d,esignation of low density residential .- The _. designation of the site, as medium density would reflect ' the existing use as well as the . density of the mobile home park to the north . The area would remain compatible with the surrounding single--family .bomes . By. redesignating the area to establish consistency, the General. Plan also becomes a more accurate -an'd useful "- planning tool for the implementation of City policies . C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from" low density residential to medium • density residential . 18:•. North of orange- Avenue/Fast of Seventeenth Street A:. Background The ' area of concern contains 1 .63 gross acres .of land located north of orange Avenue and east of Seventeenth Street (Figure 3-16 ) . The area is zoned C2 and supports a convenience shopping center. The site is . .surrounded by medium density uses to the north , east , and south, and the Senior Recreation Center -to the west . The planning staff recommends that the area be redesignated from medium density residential to general commercial B. Analysis The area of ,concern is -covered by a convenience shopping center which meet the locational and size criteria established .for such uses in the General Plan: The proposed amendment will preserve the local . convenience commercial aspect of -the area. GPA 85-2 -42- ( 2185d ) DR.� �r MEDIUM s X ;DENSITYKUK U1 ..}v r:;r:: ::�:':•:itiC?:•r:•:•?:•:;::�?L•}i:titi{?titi�ti:;{:i':}�::::v p t+tiv .VCR:• :SC' l tip? R D M KA UEL A •> s i_J Z. {:jai��•:•:•':t� J �F .K :•:ti'J r}C:ter:. {, ' ++ +{+...•:� i�:: •}i A AWA D r R, cars: •:'f':. H 1. r W �L..O ,r:f D 3:r;f f -_ ENS I T Y f. fft: kti%t r R 'tf . f DR. f a ri% Y } a f - O aa A: FAIR TIDE::. CR .•''., a { DE a �, z COMMERCIAL ,m. Q . tits AVE YORKTOWN —LOW 52- 77 DENSITY TT, AFIELD CR " m - FREDERICK FORRESTAL D DR. MOOREI CR .777 VALLEY FORGE 11� I 1 14 - r V:F E J AREA OF ICONCERN 17. huntington beach planning division `� Figure 3-15 Co • «i \,� y , • . , . \ , , LOW DENSITY. '. >.y y MEDIU DENSITY C F-R 4L \ ` . ,� `���V ` \�� ` fish• � HIGH DENSITY ` AREA o•F CONCERN 18 huntingto'n beach planning division Figure 3-16 C. Recommendation Staff .recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to -general commercial . 19 : South of Adams 'Avenue/Wet of 'Beach Boulevard v A. Background The area of concern encompasses 3 .,12 gross acres of land located south of Adams Avenue and we'st, of Beach Boulevard (Figure 3-17 ) . The site is zoned C2 and supports retail and .-office uses. Surrounding land uses include medium density residential developments to the west and south, and commercial uses to the north and east . The planning staff recommends that the.- area of concern be redesignated from medium density rez� -a-ntial to general commercial . B., Analysis The site ' is occupied by commercial uses which represents a logical extension of such uses along Beach Boulevard to establish a commercial' character for this intersection. The area meets the size and locational -criteria specified for commercial designations in the General' Plan. X. Recommendation' Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density r.esidential�"to general commercial : 20. South of Atlanta Avenue/West of Newland Street A. Background The area of concern contains 10. 46 gross acres of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Atlanta .Avenue and Newland Street (-Figure 3-18 ).. The property is zoned R2, R3, and R3-0 and supports 208 apartments at a density of 19 . 9 units per .acre. Surrounding land uses include low density residential uses .to the north and east , medium density 'condominiums to the south, and high density apartments to the west. The planning staff recommends that the area,. of concern - -be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . B. Analysis Apartment development within the area of concern exceeds the maximum -allowable density under the medium GPA 85-2 -45- ( 2185d ) ti w I i v OPEN SPACE a ,w MISA#i4E.•pR• � � � K�1yG ALTAMM DR COMMERCIAL F AR MEDIUM c DENSITY v MADAMS -- - ---- - IA Abiwil I DR. Amm � ...____P LAN N,E,D^- COMMUNITY tn- Uj / I dt : AREA, OFCONCERN 19 huntington beach planning division Figure 3-17 ,A9mR CR. ALVARADO , n � ; Y1 N'- "Cfi GASTILIAM _ 071 LOW `T DENSITYDR s TT T ITILLLL� s ATLANTa: - � k t HIGH DENSITY TIN E oa r � $ dii .MEDIUM - f I DENSITY I e� LOW' - DENSITY.��G, sr� any , .. ✓_.._.. � Q Z LJ r- 6LOW DENSITY �� ? SABLE 1 J r a� t i d1 w y C7 1"��"n�. AREA OF CONCERN 20 Atgbk huntington beach planning division Figure 3-18 density land use , designation . The character of the area of concern is similar to the high density area to the west and the medium density condominiums to the south . Redesignation of the area to medium high density residential will more accurately reflect the -existing development and refine the General Plan for this part of -the , City. C . Recommendation Staff recommends that the -area of concern, be - redesignated from medium density residential . to medium high density ,residential . 21 ._ North of Brookhurst Street/East of Bushard Street A. Background The area of concern contains 1 . 82 gross acres of .ind located at the intersection of Brookhurst and Bushard Streets (Figure 3-19 ) . The property is zoned C4 and supports a small commercial and office-professional building. The area of concern is surrounded by low 'density residential uses to the west and north, and by -the Orange County Sanitation Districts Treatment Plant to the east and south across Brookhurst Street . The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from low density residential 'to general commercial . B. Analysis The area of concern meets both the size and locational criteria for designation on the Land .Use- Diagram of' the General Plan Land Use Element . The property is not suitable for RI zoning that would implement the ' low density land use designation. Rather , redesignation to general commercial is more appropriate to 'accurately reflect the use of the site and resolve the existing inconsistency. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern, be redesignated from low density residential to general commercial . GPA 85-2 --48- ( 2185d ) 1- :;, :pR �`' - - y`oaf' - o. -- ALLISON Jt G� a Y eTiiU. CR Cj mF „ x.. .� x.x uiYa' V s Y x i �• '� -_ w Gad 00, 777, 777 �1 z LOW s =" ���i, LANAI R tv�w� u DENSITY ' µit �_E.. r �`ct� lL.4fillx� xa,:. WhTCM HA`d l p : 'KSk :CAST fir. gt LU vw L� r•. r Yt 9 ��� ,n� -rJ Z} i$ 0' P 7 r O �. . N. �,�a�`; � �� a � - DIP •/N �BE �S _` , ill.-.' � PUBLIC, QUASI P f 3, 4, � BL1C INSTITUTIONAL U INDUSTRIALi¢g: ` I �� ENERGY ° ,fig` � - • RAc/o PRODUCT 10 rRANS Pok ORANGE COUNTY ----- SANITATION TREATMENT-i VISITOR SERVING AREA OF CONCERN 21 huntington beach planning division Figure 3-19 4A ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines , an environmental assessment is required to address. short-term- and long-term effects; irreversible environmental_ changes , and growth inducing impacts of the total project or plan . This section analyzes, these concerns in context of the recommended land use change in Section 2 .0 . 4 . 1 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Amendment 85-2 does not in and of itself create long term impacts . Rather , it makes changes in the general types of land. uses that may ' be allowed on a particular area at the time of development . Amendment 85-2 seeks to identify short-range issues within a context , of long-range goals , policies , and envir.onmental 'planning programs . The amendment itself acts as a mitigation measure designed to minimize any adverse effects on long-term productivity. resulting from short-term uses . One of the steps required to implement the amendment is an. analysis of the zone changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan'. The zoning changes that would result would have significant short-term effects , such as creating non-conforming uses , reducing or increasing intensity of development permitted, and providing stimulus for development. GPA 85-2 -51- ( 2185d ) 4 .2. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The Amendment will mitigate most adverse effects . However , ' irreversible environmental change of a secondary nature can be expected from development under the proposed amendment . Loss of open space will occur as vacant land is converted to other uses . ., Although .'the option to recycle the land to open space after development is available, it is probably not economically feasible . Alteration of topography will be an irreversible change. Although mitigating measures can be imposed as part of the development process , the natural topography will experience a negligible degree of modification. Construction materials of mineral origin will also be needed for development to occur , and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods to satisfy local energy demand. However , such development would be consistent with existing land use designations . 4 . 3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The proposed- amendment will also have growth inducing effects within the areas of concern . . An additional population of 300 persons could be generated by uses under Land Use Element Amendment 85-1 , thereby creating an increased demand on public services and utilities and incrementally affecting air quality, water quality, traffic, and noise levels . However , the proposed uses in accord with General . Plan .policies and programs should mitigate many of the adverse .effects generated by the expected growth The demand for water and • energy will likely increase- as a : result 'of the .proposed .land uses in this amendment . . Conservation measures can be implemented City- and County-wide to reduce these impacts such as : ( 1 ) Reduce . evaporation from reservoirs by encouraging underground storage or coating water surfaces with evaporation hindering films or substances. ( 2 ) Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow , of public- water supplies wherever such use is_acceptable and safe. ( 3 ) Waterspread where appropriate to recharge the, underground water supply. ( 4 ) Meter water and encourage repair of leaky connections to stimulate more economical use'.. (5) Reduce consumption of toilets and showers. by requiring appropriate modifications to these appliances . ( 6) Prohibit the use of open gas-. lighting in public or private buildings . GPA 85--2 -52- ( 2185d ) ( 7 ) 'Str�ategically place electric lights to maximize their efficiency. 'heir size and power consumption should be minimized as much as possible. (8 ) Discourage electrical heating in public and private structures . Encourage solar-assisted heating systems. (9 ) Encourage the use of reflecting and/or insulating glass in structures where windows are not shaded by exterior architectural projections or natural plants . GPA 85-2. -53- ( 2185d ) APPENDIX A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND REVENUE AND COST BREAKDOWN AREA 2 .-1 —NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDENWEST STREET AND ELLIS AVENUE Six land -use alternatives were analyzed for the 10 . 1 acre site . The following is . a listing of the basic assumptions for each alternative: . 1. General Commercial - 130,680 square feet of specialty commercial uses with an estim.ated .total value of $1$ , 141 ,'700 . 2 . Medium Density Residential - 140. condominiums with an -estimated value of $140,000 per unit . 3 . Low De.nsity Residential - 70 condominiums with - an estimated value of $150, 000 per unit. 4 ...' Estate Residential - 30 single family detached estate t _ I?e omen with an estimated value of $350 , 000 per unit . 5 . Open S ace -- a .combination of tennis club, racquetball club and go all driving range with combined building area of 35,160 square feet and an estimated total value of $6 , 857 , 700. 6. General ,Commercial/Open Space - 44 , 250 square feet of specialty commercial uses .and 17, 000 square feet of tennis and racquet club . building area with an estimated total value of $9 , 461 ,600 . AREA 2 .1 REVENUE AND COST BREAKDOWN t Alt . Alt . 2 Alt . 3 Alt . 4 Alt. 5 Alt . 6 Gener: _ Medium Density. Low Density Estate Open Open Space Comme_cial Residential Residential Residential Space Commercial REVENUES Property . Tax $ 30 ,025 $38 ,945 $20 ,864 $20 ,864 $13 , 62.6 $18 ,800 Sales Tax 70, 567 946 , 489 364 .1 , 899 3, 308 q Utility Use Tax 5 ,094 8 / 90 4 ,495 1 ,927 2 ,014 3 ,508 Franchise Tax 2, 640 3,337 1 , 668 715 967 1 , 686 Business License 398 --- --- --- 167 233 Fines , Forfeitures, and Penalties --- 2 ,831 1 ,596 1 ,071 --- --- Cigarette Tax --- 761 429 288 --- --- Motor Vehicle In-Lieu. Tax --- 567 320 215 --- ---. Park and Recreation User Fees --- 1 ,046 590 396 --- --- Total $108, 724 $57, 423 $30, 451 $25, 840 $18, 673 $27 , 535 COSTS General and Administrative $ 7 ,770 $10, 575 $ 5, 961 $ 4 ,001 $ 2 ,865 $ 3 ,612 Fire 7, 571 10, 290 5, 801 3,894 2, 788 3,515 Police 14, 385 19, 555 11, 023 7, 399 5 , 298 6 ,680 Community Services --- 6,677 3, 764 2, 526 --- --- Public Works 11, 861 16, 125 9,090 6, 101 4, 369 5,508 Total. 44,596 $63,222 $35, 639 $23,921 $15, 350 $19, 315 Revenue - Cost = $67,128 ( $5,799 ) ($5,188 ) $ 1 ,919 $ 3 , 323 $ 8, 220 Revenue/Cost 2. 61 . 91 . 85 1.08 1 . 22 1 . 43 (2493d ) APPENDIX' B INITIAL STUDY . APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To Be,Completed By Lead Agency) 1. Name of. Proponent City of Huntington Beach 2: Address and Phone Number. of Proponent 2000 Ma 1 n Street. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 (714) 53675271 3. Date of Checklist Submitted March 6, 1985 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach S. Name of Proposal, ,if applicable 'Genera I P Ian Amendment No. 85-2 _If. Envlrann antal InVwts (Explanations, of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes 1Nc . No 1." Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X ty. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X ' . c. • Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The deitruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes, in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or ' erosion which may modify the channel of a river or .stream, or the bed of the ocean or X any-boy,. inlet or lake? Yes No g. . Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in a. . Substantial air-emissions or deterioration - of ambient air quality? X -b, the creation of objectionable- odors?. X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or_ temperature, or any change in climate,. either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a, Changes in currents, or the course of di= rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh .waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the .rate..and amount of surface runoff?' _X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or 'in-any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f: Alteration of- the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? , X -g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X IN. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public" water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water re- X Iated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 116 Yes Mgte Pb 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, gross, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? - X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in o 'barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any, agricultural . Crop? X 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X . 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7'. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural X resources? 117 Yes No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X t0. Risk of Upset. Will the prgxwol involver a.' A risk of on explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset cond i t ions?, X b. Possible interference with,an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create. a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or. ' demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing tronspor- tation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne,: rail or air X traff ic? f, increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services. Will the.proposa l have on- -effect upon, or result in a need for new or . altered governmental services in any of the , following areas: X a. ' Fire protection?. X b. Police protection? X . c. Schools? X 118 Yea d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e�. Maintenance of public facilities, including rands? X f. Other governmental services?" X I'S. ErwwW. Will the proposal result in: a. Lhe of substantial amounts of fuel or- energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing,sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Fknym F-kalth. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetim Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view. open to the public, or-will the proposal result in.the creation of on aesthetically offensive site'open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an = impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - X. 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or. the destruction of a prehistoric or • historic arctumlogical site? X 119 Yes M robe No b. Will the proposal 'result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or . historic building, structure, or abject? X c. Does the proposal have the potential .to = cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the proposal,restrict existing retigloua _ - or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. Mandatory Findings of,Significance. a. Does the project, have the potential to degrade the quality_of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- twining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the - number or restrict the rouge of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?" X b. Does the project have the potential to' achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-terra, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X C: Does .the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con siderobte? (A project' may impact on two or_ more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant,) X _d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly•or indirectly? h 111. Discussion of Environrnentall Evaluation iV. Determination ' (To be completed by the read Agency) 120 EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWI-PS lb. Construction on the site may require compaction or displacement of soil . c. Construction on the site may result in reduction, of some swale areas. g. The. Bolsa-Fairview Earthquake Fault passes through the vicinity of the ' project area. 3b. ' Construction will alter the flow of run-off into the Swale areas. 6a. Development of the site. will generate human and vehicle noise. 7. Development of the site will result in additional street lights. 8. The site is presently used as horse stables, and the existing planned use is General Commercial . The proposal is for residenti'a.l . 11 . The proposal will result in approximately 250 additional people ret . ,• .ig in the area. ` 12. The proposal will create additional housing. 13a. The .proposal will generate vehicular traffic which may be substantial,. c. The proposal will generate increased demand on existing public .and private transportation systems. f. Increased vehicular traffic may pose a hazard to pedestrians and bicyclists in the area. 14a-f. The proposed project may require additional governmental services. 16a-e. The proposed project may require alterations in some utility systems. ` 18. The proposed project may impact views into the Huntington Beach Central Park area. 19. The proposed project is surrounded on three sides by existing .or proposed Huntington Central Park lands. 21c. The cumulative effect of relatively small impacts on various resources will be examined. !. S i On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect rr on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. � I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect —II on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case 1 because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have — been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE. PREPARED. I find the proposed-project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- —= *Focused meet, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. XXX EIR March 6 1985 to 1gnatur For (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their format for initial studies.) The EIR is focused on .various issues for the project area.. The EIR wil'i be prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment Analysis. 121 APPENDIX C ' LETTERS OF COMMENT Stato of�.affcirnia THE RESOURCES AGENCY. OF CAUFORNIA Memorandum To Dr Gordon F, Sri ow Date t�F;Y 1 3 1.�C a5 Assistant Secretary for Resources Subject: Draft EIR for -. .Hal Simmons Huntington Beach .City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Land 2000' Main Street . Use. Element GPA 85-2, Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Orange County , SCH No . 85031301 From 4)4pprtment of Consavation--•Office of the Director j The Department of Conservation has reviewed "the Draft EIR for the,- -proposed '140 unit residential development on ten acres in the -City of, Huntington Beach. We have the following comments on the Draft EIR' s .geotechnical evaluation and on possible oil fit ' impacts Geotechnical The Draft EIR (p . 15 ) acknowledges the site 's proximity to- the Newport-Inglewood fault zone , and its location in recent -alluvial' material less than two miles . from the coast. However , the EIR - does not address the potential seismic constraints that should be applied' to the"proposed development .as the result of: a possible significant earthquake 'along the fault zone . We recommend that the. geotechnical section of the Draft EIR be supplemented to include a discussion of the impacts that a significant earthquake along the Newport-Inglewood fault zone would have on the proposed project. This evaluation should address , among other items the effects of strong ground -shaking and. the - potential for liquefaction due to the. shallow_ depth• of groundwater . Oil Field There are presently many producing and idle - oil wells in the project area. . The Division 's district office -should be contacted prior to any grading or excavation operations for the; purpose of determining . the exact location and mechanical condition of these -wells . If any structure is proposed to be located over or -near any previously abandoned wells , there is the possib.ility , that ,reabandonment of such wells may be necessary . Section 32.08 .1 of the Public Resources Code 'authorizes the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to order: the reabandonment of any previously abandoned well when construction of any structure over or in the, proximity of the well could result in a hazard. Also, the cost of Abandonment operations shall be the responsibility of .the owner of the .property upon -which the structure is to be located. Dr . Go r don F. Snow Mr . Hal Simmons Page' ,2 . In addition , if any excavation or grading results in damage- to the• cemented surface plug in any abandoned well , remedial ' cementing operations may be required. If such damage occurs , the Division 's district office should be contacted for the purpose of. obtaining infdrmation on the requirements and approval to perform remedial cementing operations . Periodic maintenance of the producing oil wells - will be an, ongoing activity until the. wells- are abandoned , therefore , adequate provisions should be taken to ensure that mobile rigs have access to each well. . In addition ,. these wells may. require that each well or wells be surrounded by adequate fencing to , provide safety for the public . Since the project is within an active. oil field, provisions should be .made- for access to possible fu.ture drilling in the area . If you have any questions regarding these comments , please contact me-at ( 916) 322-5873 .. - Dennis J. O' Bryan t A Environmental Program Coordinator cc: Robert Streitz, Division of Mines and Geology Ed Kiess ling, Division of Mines and Geology Lynn Jones, Division of Mines and Geology :K. " Car.lson , Division of Oil and Gas., Long Beach. R. Reid, Division of Oil and Gas , Sacramento 0367C-2 _ RESPONSE' TO DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION COMMENTS Geotechnical- The proposed project is located within close proximity to the Newport Inglewood fault zone . The study Geotechnical Inputs which was done for the City by Leighton-Yen and Associates in 1974 identified the study area as being subject to high seismic risk , " but. being controllable through design and/or setback . The study area is not , however , located within the 'Alguist-Priolo Special < <• Study Zone which identifies the highest seismic risk areas and requires special geological studies prior to construction . Based on the Leighton.-Yen report , however a geological study of the site may be desirable prior to construction. Oil ' Field - There are numerous active and abandoned oil wel_ * located on .the subject property. A condition of approval fot any Conditional Use Permit on ,the site should be that all wells be abandoned to current Division of Oil and Gas standards .. Additionally, every effort should. be made, where feasible to . avoid locating structures over any abandoned ail well LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85 . 2 Environmental Impact Report 85 . 1 m hunfington beach planning division AITACHAUT2. 3 iR TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 1 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. 0 AREA OF CONCERN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. 1 Northwest Corner of Goldenwest Street EllisAvenue . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 . 0 GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4 . 1 Short--Term and Long Term Productivity. . 51 4 . 2 Irreversible 'Environmental Changes. . . . . 52 4 . 3 Growth Inducing Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Fiscal Impact Land Use Assumptions APPENDIX B Initial Study t ' n I a I Land Use Categories AMENDMENTS - PLANNING COMM. CITY COUNCIL 4 DATE RESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION YQ� RESIDENTIAL II-6-76 1187 12-6-76 4368 CO � a ° M Estate <_2un/ ac 9-29 77 1202 9-7-77 4551 !O`♦4' Cy 6p`2O q < g 12-6-77 1206 12-19-77 4572fi Estate _3 un/gac 8-1-78 1232 8.21-78 4660 IM Estate <4un/gac 10-17-78 1236 II-6-M 4696 - /•, ` I 11-21-78 1239 12-18-78 4708 / Q '1 �Low Density 3-18 80 1261 4-7 80 486s ^'\ +� p Medium Density 10-19-81 1273 6-15-81 5005 e�` i Medium High Density 4936 11-3-81 1273 6-7-81 5053 1 SAN DIEGO FREEWAY - / / ii High Density II-3-81 1278 12-7-81 5053 11-17-81 1279 12-21-81 5060 CO 8-2-82 5147 12-20-82 5206 12-7-82 1299 2-7-83 5223 \ / 4-19.83 f3o3 5-16-83 5265 / / \, / \ COMMERCIAL 10-4-83 1314 II-28-83 5327 \/ / / �\�\ ®.General 12-6-83 1315 f-3-84 5341 / ! '.J'i'i e4 3-ea 1317 . -7-84 / dry /4- r-Serving� \ Visitor g P s, / RM Office Professional MIXED USES :€:::::€ € ?::::: : . € ' ®Mixed Development .................................... :::::::::::::: ::::::: :::::: :::: Of Commercial/Support Recreation ................ ......................::::::::::::::: ::.:::. INDUSTRIAL . :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::................... ....::•::::.................... ............................................. .., •:��;�Tin; \:::::::�::::::::::::::•.::::�::::::::::::::::::�::::::................ ;\ M General •::::::::.: . \ ®e-S Resource o rce Production :•:.::::..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:......:..:.:..:::::::•.:::.::.::....... :::::::.:.....:. ::::::. , .: - attasttasttat.>..t..a.,s......s.;..:..:...::. / Industrial Energy Produ ction:::::::.•:•: ::::: OPEN SPACE .................. ors. :;: ,�}i���,.•a?�:•:_•:•:•:.•:. / Water �J P r sl s w Conservation M Recreation 00 8P fir" a �o`' OTHER USES t q '}. -a .._. ...... .. 4e ...;,(:.:.i;, . .�a:. ::: ......_ `\ y X r "I �,� a r � :::::::::::::::::..:::::::::. .��� �+`�;u.' ;,rye: �j .�.A P� �PUbIIC,Buasi-Public,lnstitutional P h.� '� ...r r,.. . .::°<.,.�::::...:.......:...... M Planned Community a'siiB;"i€'s 3 0 Planning Reserve r, : .0 f 5G1 ' '� - aaaia^taaiaaaa- ". •••-- Coastal Zone Bounda ry / INITH ;t:. , i I / j v l iY �6 xa�2�•"'a� .r I PACIFIC COAST --- PACIFIC OCEAN HWY. PA PACIFIC j OCEAN w I e/aa Aft HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN �� LAND USE DIAGRAM PL4NNING DIVISION Adopted December1976 Revised MAY 1984 C.RM-31$ 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report concerns Amendment 85--2 to the Land Use Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element was adopted as a mandated element of the General Plan in December , 1973 ; this is the twenty-seventh amendment to the element . Planned land uses throughout the City are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagram. 1 .1 METHODOLOGY This amendment considers changes in General Plan designations on 22 sites . Twenty-one of the changes are Administrative Items which are intended to establish consistency between the General Plan and existing zoning.- These areas , covered in Section 3 .0 , are not . covered by' the Environmental Impact Report contained in this document . Area 2. 1 is the only amendment item in this document which is covered by the EIR. The area is a 10 .1 acre site located at the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street . The amendment request on this site will be analyzed in terms of the existing conditions on the site, anticipated impact on surrounding areas , major land uses and environmental issues , and consistency with adopted City goals and policies . Section 15148 of the State EIR Guidelines states that "The requirements for an EIR on a local general plan element or amendment thereof will be satisfied by the general plan or element document and no separate EIR will be required if: 1 ) the general plan addresses all the points required to be in an EIR by Article 9 of the State EIR Guidelines , and 2 ) the document contains a special section, or a cover sheet identifying where the .general plan document addresses each of the points required. " In conformance with State GPA 85--2 -1- ( 2185d ) guidelines, this document will constitute the EIR for Lana Use Element Amendment 85-3 . The environmental setting and significant impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial study are addressed under area of concern (Section 2 .11 . Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures to minimize significant effects are also discussed in this section. Section 4 .0 addresses overall environmental changes related to the following considerations : 1 ) the relationship between local short- term productivity; 2 ) irreversible or unavoidable environmental changes; and 3 ) growth inducing impacts . . i J GPA 85-2 2.1 iL HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIN AREA OF CONCERN PLANNING DIVISION Figure 2-1 1 � 2. 0 AREAS OF CONCERN This section addresses the request area designated in Figure 2-1 . 2 . 1 NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDENWEST STREET AND ELLIS AVENUE 2 . 1 . 1 Background The area of concern addressed by Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-2 is a 10 . 1 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street . The property is currently designated' for General Commercial ( Figure 2-2 ) in the City' s Land Use Element . The zoning on the property is C2-0-(Q) , Qualified Community Business District , combined with an oil suffix ( Figure 2-3 ) . The "Q" indicates that special conditions were placed on the C2 zoning on the property to ensure .that development of the site be compatible with Central Park . The area of concern was at one time designated for open space use in the Land Use Element and was one of several areas under consideration for inclusion into Huntington Central Park . At its August 17 , 1981 , meeting, the City Council voted not to include the area of concern within the park boundaries at that time. Staff was directed to consider a commercial use of the property that would be consistent with the park . - Subsequent to that Council decision , the property owner requested a change in general plan designation from Open Space to General Commercial . That request , in conjunction with a zone change to C2-0- (Q ) was approved by the City Council on December 21 , 1981 . CPA 85-2 -5- (2185d ) ! k TALBERT LL i r ,LULJ',1 �I DENSITY j. RE;SIDENTIALy" - 11 C F—R CF—R Ra I.: OPEN SPACE 4i I . CF-C GEN. COMM. ' ELLIS ESTATE RESID. ESTATE RESID. -3 UNITS/ACRE I_ 2 UNITS/ACRE ESTATE RESID. GENERAL 4 UNITS/ACRE INDUSTRIAL III I AVE. GARFIELD - i HUNTINGTON BEACH .CG4I_IFORNIA EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PLANNING- DIVISION" Figure 2-2 TALBERT ` L 5 MI-CD 9- ' N 6 S RI _ ' x RI -RIB RI RI RI W T C F-R CF-R MI-CD -- 64 MI-CD 6ai i7 J N. RA-0-CD = MI Al- .. RA-0—CD R RA-0—CD CF—C Ml S-o-0D -D-CD s-0-cn 1 IW MI—CD n R os-o-cD -o-CD ROS-o-co -o-CD -o-CD� C2-0-(Q) a e M I -0-cD DCD o cD Afl-co L lle Ilr cLsls U-o-CD RA-0-CD b MI ,R MI-0—CD �"�°`" gO-RI-l3S-0-CD-6PW M I-01 RA—CD LU o CD LU-o-CD RA-0—CD .,� U=o-CD ssa o RA-0 RA-a-CD RA-0-CD 7RA-0 MI0 Q-RI'(2.7)-0-8,000 RA cD R 4 4 Q J J J "a wo RA-O-C MI-0 S ' RA-0 ERNE$T B AYE MI RA-0 LU-D-CD RA-0-CD . 3�a M I-o-CD.r F MI/t-0O3 eso - MI-CD MI-01 W MI-A OPGD MI-0 -� L W I R, A-01 = RA-01 RA-0-CD MI-Ol Y < o R5 MI-0 a a �n a RA-0-CD moo- R 5 ?AOFCD MI- a�R,q O m l L AVE. cA RF IELD HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIk EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION or, Figure 2—:3 Since that time , the property owner , A. C. Marion , has been unsuccessful in attempts to market the property for retail commercial purposes . He has now requested that the designation be changed from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential . The applicant has further requested that the zoning be concurrently changed from C2-0- (4) to R2-PD, Medium Density Residential District , Planned Development. The following analysis covers six alternative land use designations : ( 1 ) General Commercial ( 2.) Medium Density ( 3 ) Low Density ( 4 ) Estate Residential 3 Units/Acre ( 5 ) Open Space ( 6 ) open Space/Commercial The area of concern currently contains horse stables and an exercise area for approximately 50 horses . 'Property to the north of the study area is part of Huntington Central Park and is .developed with a commercial horse stable and riding facility. Property to the west of the study area is primarily vacant and is undergoing acquisition by the City for Central Park . Property to the east of the study ,: area , across Goldenwest Street , is designated as Open Space. The 2 . 7 acres at the ,northeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street is zoned Ml-CD and contains ,a truck repair business . The area north and east of this M1-CD property contains the Mushroom Farm and Sully-Miller sake, both of which will ultimately be incorporated into Huntington, Central .Park . i .A portion of the Mushroom Farm property is under study for interim use as a mobilehome relocation park . The property directly south of the area of concern contains a horse stable. It is part of a - larger area that is designated, Estate Residential 3 Units Per Acre. The draft . Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. for the area is currently undergoing revision by staff for resubmittal to, the , City Council . A five acre 15-lot subdivision was approved in ,the area to the southwest of the study area in 1984 with another adjacent five acre subdivision pending. Planning issues related to. development of the Ellis-Goldenwest area include preserving - the topography of the area and accommodating equestrian uses . 2 . 1 . 2 Analysis 1 Land Use The study area lies within a unique part of the City. It is surrounded by existing or proposed Huntington Central Park on three sides and Estate Residential on the , fourth (south ) side . The Holly Property ( itself -the subject of GPA 85-1 ) is located diagonally across Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue. The existing General Commercial designation was originally intended to provide equestrian ,.oriented commercial services which would be utilized in conjunction with the equestrian center to the north . GPA 85-2 -8- ( 2185d ) Potential uses included feed and grain stores, saddle and tack shops , western clothing stores and specialty shops offering miscellaneous riding accessories . Staff ' s analysis indicated that the equestrian facility, in combination with the Estate Residential area to the south, would create demand for a commercial center on the property. The applicant , however , has indicated that the demand has not' materialized. This may be partly due to the fact that the Estate area has not yet developed. The applicant ' s request for Medium Density Residential on the site would result in approximately 140 dwelling units . Because of the relationship of the site to Central Park , the design of a residential project will be very important . The project should feature clustering of units in order to preserve open space and maintain view corridors into Central Park . It is important to note that staff 's recommendation for the Holly Property (Figure 2-4 ) across Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street to the southeast is for a 10 acre Medium Density Residential node at the intersection of these - streets . This may set a precedent for the corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street and may indicate that • Medium Density on the subject property may be a compatible use . The mushroom farm property across Goldenwest Street to the east may be developed with a mobilehome relocation park at approximately 9 units per acre . This would further increase the density of the Ellis-Goldenwest intersection and land credence to the idea of a Medium Density node in the vicinity. The alternative for Low Density Residential would result in approximately 70 dwelling units . Similar to the Medium Density alternative , low density units should be clustered to preserve open space and view corridors , Low Density on the site would not be consistent with the concept of a Medium Density node at the Ellis-Goldenwest intersection, but may be more compatible . with Central Park . The Estate Residential alternative would result in approximately 30 ranch style homes . This would constitute an extension of the large lot subdivision concept which is occurring across Ellis Avenue to i the south . Horse trails to and from the equestrian center to the north could be more easily incorporated into an Estate type development than into the other alternatives . A redesignation of the site to Open Space would permit the development of a commercial recreation use such as a tennis and racquetball club, swimming pool , par-three golf course, country club or similar use . The type of facilities and amount of building square footage would vary according to the proposed use. Appropriate implementing zoning would be ROS (Recreation open Space ) . A recreational use on the site could either be developed by the applicant , or by the City, if the City were to acquire the property for inclusion in Central Park . ,Since the site is surrounded by existing or proposed Central Park on three sides , Recreation Open Space could be considered a compatible use.. GPA 85-2 -9- ( 2185d ) In js a TALBE PT CF-R (HUWr"QTON .[NTNAL PARR) • , CF-R ENE IN;"'FfiTON .EVTRAL PARK) TRANSF_4 POSSIBLE MUSHROOM MEDIUM FARM DENSITY 11 NODE ...,ti MOBILE I � CF C FM I �ais HOME PARK ` MEDIUM , DENSITYr T ` / HOLLY PROPERTY INDUSTRIAL i i 1 i s i i t .r`TTT'r 2 .ff' STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA HOLLY PROPERTY (GPA '85-1) PLANNING olvlsloN AND MUSHROOM FARM Figure 2-4 The last alternative would retain General Commercial on the southern five acres and redesignate the northern five acres for Open Space . This could allow a reduced mix of tennis and racquet club uses on the Open Space portion and a small neighborhood shopping center on the commercial portion . 2 . Economic Considerations The Planning .staff developed a revised fiscal impact methodology . for analyzing the Holly Property ( LUE 85-1/EIR 84-1 ) land use . alternatives . The same methodology was utilized to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . Appendix A provides the assumptions which were made for each alternative. The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one 'year for comparison purposes . The results are summarized -in the table below. Alt . 1 Alt . 2 Alt . 3 General Medium Density Low Density' Commercial Residential Residential Revenue* 108 . 7 57 . 4 30 . 5 Cost* 41 . 6 63 . 2 35 .66 Revenue Minus Cost* 67 . 1 - 5. 8 = 5 . 1 Revenue/Cost 2 . 61 . 91 . 85 . Alt . 4 Alt . 5 Alt . 6 Estate Open Open Space/ Residential Space Commercial Revenue* 25. 8 18 . 7 27 . 5 Cost* 23 . 9 15 . 4 19. 3 Revenue Minus Cost* 1 . 9 3 . 3 8 . 2 Revenue/Cost 1 . 08 1 . 22 1 . 43 * in thousands As shown above, the total fiscal impact of the amendment is optimized if the General Commercial alternative is selected. This scenario may generate a maximum surplus of $67,100 in the year analyzed . Of the three residential alternatives only the Estate Residential alternative would generate surplus revenue. Medium Density and Low Density residential can be expected to generate small deficits for the City. The Commercial alternatives generate a surplus due to sales tax revenues generated . The Open Space alternative generates less surplus revenue because there are fewer -11- • F S ,x retail sales . In reviewing the. .above results , it is: important to view the analysis in -comparative terms only; rather than -as a pr.ediction�.of exact -costs and revenues , 3 . Housing The applicant has proposed development of approximately 140 mousing units on the subject property under the requested Medium Density designation . Low Density would allow 70 units . The Estate Residential 3 Units Per. Acre alternative would result . in 30 single family detached housing -units , yThe -other alternatives do not include -residential use . The. Housing -Element of the City' s General ' Plan contains policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households -with low and moderate incomes . The applicant ' s proposal would provide the most housing of any of the -alternatives and, therefore, the lowest cost per unit . 4 . Public Services . and Utilities a . Sewers An eight inch sewer currently exists in Goldenwest Street north of 'Ellis Avenue . Another eight inch-sewer is planned for Ellis Avenue west of Goldenwest Street . Sewage from the study area is intended to flow north to a pump station at , Slater Avenue . The Orange County Sanitation District, however , has indicated that the , Slater Avenue pump station is presently operating very close to capacity and adequate modifications to the stations serving the study area and other adjacent areas may not be possible . Completion of the Coast Trunk Sewer ,-which now terminates at Goldenwest Street and Orange Avenue is necessary for long-term service to the property.. The Sanitation District has further indicated that the project proponent should meet with the district staff to resolve the sewage service problems associated with the project . b. Water water mains in the vicinity of the study area include a 12-inch main in Ellis Avenue and a 14-inch main in Goldenwest ,Street . These existing mains can provide adequate water. service to the . si.te under any of the land use alternatives . c. Storm Drains _ . Surface- runoff .from the site to. Goldenwest Street will provide adequate drainage under any of the land use alternatives . -12- d. Police and Fire Protection Fire protection for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach from the Gothard Station located north of Ellis Avenue on the west side of Gothard Street . The area of concern lies within the five minute response area of the station and can be adequately serviced regardless of the selected alternative. Police service for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington. Beach which operates from a central facility located at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue . One additional officer may be required if the .Medium Density alternative is selected. e . Parks The area of concern is bordered on three sides by land either existing or proposed for inclusion as a part of Huntington Central Park . As such , any residential alternative will be more khan adequately provided for in terms of park demand. f . Schools The area of concern is located within the Oceanview School District and is served by Mesa View and CrestView K--8 schools and Ocean View High School . Due to a downward trend in student enrollment , the schools could easily accommodate the increase in students generated by either the applicant 's requested Medium Density designation or the alternative Low Density or Estate Residential . The non-residential alternatives would have .no impact on the areas schools . g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Extension of existing lines in the vicinity of the study area will provide adequate gas service under any of the proposed land use alternatives . • The Gas Company notes , however, that gas supply may be affected by the overall availability of natural gas and by State and Federal regulatory policies . Electrical service is provided by the Edison Company. Adequate electric power supply can be provided from 12 KV distribution lines in the vicinity of the area of concern . Edison notes that the total electrical system demand is expected to continue to increase annually; however , • excluding any unforeseen problems , their plans for new generation resources indicate that their ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods will be adequate for the remainder of the decade. -13- T � .p h . Solid Waste Disposal -The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste °collection to the City of •Huntington Beach . No local service constraints are expected under any of the land use designations . 5 . Traffic Circulation Access- to the ,area of concern is taken via Ellis Avenue which is designated as a primary arterial . The property' also fronts on Goldenwest Street ; % a designated major� arterial.. Present traffic volumes for these arterials in the vicinity of the study area are 600 daily tripss on Ellis Avenue and 25, 000 daily 'trips on Goldenwest Street . The maximum design capacities for these arterials are 30, 000 and 45, 000 vehicle trips per day respectively. Public works has--estimated that the applicant ' s request . for Medium Density will produce approximately 1 , 400 vehicle ' trips per day. Low Density would result in 875 •trips while Estate Residential would generate 450 daily trips . The existing General Commercial designation would generate 6 ,960 trips per day. Recreational Open Space on the entire property would produce 1 , 875 trips per day with the one-half recreation, one-half commercial alternative producing 6, 100 trips per day. As indicated in Land Use Element Amendment 85-1/EIR 84-1 for the Holly Property, any development in the general' vicinity of the study area will • result in � traffic volumes that ' will' exceed the existing capacity •of the surrounding arterials. Existing traffic volumes are -. well below capacity, but 'will- 'exceed capacity when the surrounding 300+ acres are developed . LUE 85-1/EIR 84-1 identified arterial improvements that will be necessary 'when the larger area develops. These improvements include the widening of both Goldenwest Street north of Garfield Avenue and -Ellis Avenue east of Gothard Street . Such improvements will allow the arterials to function at . Level of Service C with only peak periods exceeding that capacity. The subject -property const-itutes such a small percentage of the overall vacant property in the area that it will have very little noticeable impact 'on circulation , regardless of alternative selected. If the subject property- develops in the near future before any of the other property is developed and before- the arterials are upgraded, it will still have no impact on circulation because the existing arterials are presently operating- we.11 below capacity. 6 . Environmental Issues' a .• Noise * Noise levels' of Ldn 65" and Ldn 60 extend i'nto ' the southern portion of the site from Ellis Avenue and levels of Ldn 70, Ldn 65 and Ldn 60 extend into the eastern portion of the 14- site from Gol.dehwest Street . These levels fall within the normally acceptable range for both commercial recreation and general commercial uses , but slightly exceed the range for residential uses . Setbacks , berming, landscaping and soundwalls should he utilized along Goldenwest Street if a residential use is selected for the site. No significant noise impacts are anticipated to occur from any of the proposed land uses. The study area is bordered by Central Park on two sides, however , and care should be taken at the project level to protect potential passive recreation use of ' the park from excess noise on the study site . b. Air Quality Any of the land use alternatives will adversely affect air quality within the South Coast region ; however., the impact is not expected to be significant. • Projected daily emissions from the six alternatives are as follows : Emission Tons of Source Emissions/Day GENERAL COMMERCIAL Mobile . 45 Stationary Negligible Total . 45 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Mobile . 13 Stationary Negligible A Total . 13 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Mobile , Og Stationary Negligible Total . 08 ESTATE RESIDENTIAL Mobile . 04 : Stationary Negligible Total . 04 OPEN SPACE Mobile . 17 Stationary. Negligible Total . 17 OPEN SPACE/COMMERCIAL Mobile . 40 Stationary Negligible Total . 40 -15- c. Seismic The area 'of concern lies. within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and is traversed by the Bolsa-Fairview. Fault . This fault is a potential cause of serious structural damage due primarily to ground shaking. Actual displacement and surface rupture has not historically occurred along this fault system in Huntington Beach and the probability is relatively low that ' it -will within the next 100 years, even though one or, more. moderate-sized earthquakes, may ' occur . In compliance. with the Alquist-Priolo Geologic. Hazards Zones Act of 1972 , , a Speci"al Studies Zone has been 'established in Huntington Beach that includes the most hazardous earthquake faults . This special studies zone does not extend into the study area . Development in the study area, therefore, need not be subject to the zone ' s requirements . It will be appropriate to address the mitigation of potential seismic hazards in the study area when a , specific project is proposed for development . 2.1 . 3 Staff• Recommendation .In view1of the fact that staff has recommended medium density on 10 acres on the southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street (Holly Property - LUE 85-1 ) staff is also recommending approval of Medium _Density ,(Alternative 2 ) for this study area. Approval of the two General Plan Amendments with the staff recommendations will create a medium density node atthe intersection of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street . Development of a portion- of the Mushroom Farm as an interim mobilehome relocation park on the northeast. corner will further enhance the concept of a medium density node'. With proper site planning and clustering of units, such development can be made harmonious with Central Park . Medium density in this location may also enhance use of the park by walk-in users rather than drivers and further increase the utility of the park . Along with' the General Plan Amendment to Medium Density , the applicant has requested a concurrent zone change ( ZC 85-2 ) to R2-PD (Medium Density Planned Development ) . . If the City approves the General Plan Amendment request for Medium Density, staff would recommend a modification of the requested R2-PD zoning . In order to ensure compatibility with Central Park , - staff would recommend that a density limit of 10 units per acre be added to the zoning and that the CD (Civic District ) suffix also be added to require special design review. Staff is therefore recommending �R2- ( 10 )-PD-CD zoning in the accompanying zone change staff report . • I GPA 85-2 - -16- ( 2185d ) 3 .0 GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCIES The following 21 requests Figure 3-1 ) have been initiated by the Department of Development Services as part of a program to achieve consistency between the General Plan Land Use Element and ' the Zoning Ordinance . l . . South of Edinger Avenue/West of Bolsa Chica Street A. Background The area of concern contains 6 . 91 gross acres of land located south of Edinger Avenue and west of Bolsa Chica Street (Figure 3-2 ) . Property within the area of concern is zoned R3 and R5, supporting 90 apartments (at 16 . 4 units per acre ) on the R3 lots and small . office-professional buildings on the R5 parcels . The L-shaped area is surrounded by low density single family homes to the west and south , high density and commercial to the east, and the U. S. Naval Weapons Depot to the north . The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . GPA 85-2 -17- ( 2185d ) i S E ti W 1 � 1 7 5 9 ` w..Nfo �.�oexl \ tt45 �`•,� 515 Em 170 21 `INPI.u.vdii \ I r� huntington beach planning division -Figure 3-1 9 `- iJ z � COMMERCIAL. - AUDRIE Y )R. V F- '. L-i N DA C R Q LOW .�. .,,.. .:.,•::.,-DEN517Y }DENSITY CHE RYA DR. a HILO CR. ---} o 0 .J KAUI DR. SISSON � J ' MAUI CR. R. Q OPOSED LOW U .. ___ __._ DENSITY _ ` z OAHU DR. MEDIUM DENSITY z o Q Y J a i 3 m O AREA of CONCERN 1 d8x<'r> fief "PIN fm bc6s pb{.: k.F 3 huntington beach planning division Figure 3-2 ■. ,x , s. Analysis The area of concern supports existing development that exceeds the maximum density allowed under the General Plan designation of medium density. The R5 office-professional uses are considered consistent with either the medium or medium high density residential designation by virtue of heir small size and would not be affected by the proposed amendment . In December , 1977, the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment 77-3, which redesigned 1 . 78 acres located immediately adjacent to the area of concern high density residential . Given the redesignation of the adjacent land area , and the existence of medium high density apartments within the area of concern, it seems logical to redesignate the area medium high density residential . The proposed amendment will better reflect the character of the area and increase the accuracy of the General Plan in its role as a useful planning tool . C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated -from medium density -residential to medium high density residential . 2 . North of Warner Av,enu'e/East of Algonquin Street A. Background The area of concern contains- 8 . 31 gross acres of land located north of Warner Avenue and east of Algonquin Street (Figure 3-3 ) . The property is zoned R3 and supports a variety of uses, including medium high density fourplexes and condominiums (developed at 18 . 1 units per acre ) , older single family homes on large R3 lots, and vacant land: The area of concern is surrounded by high density uses on three sides as well as medium density condominiums to the north , and low density single family homes to the west . . The planning staff recommends that the area be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential , B. Analysis As with the previous area, existing development within the area of concern exceeds the density allowed under the General Plan designation of medium density. Rezoning to implement the General Plan would render existing uses non- conforming and possibly limit property values . Redesig- nation to medium high density would more accurately reflect existing uses both within and on three sides of the area of concern . GPA 85-2 -20- ( 2185d ) sJ y PEARCE BAREFOOT CR.'. Zy HIGH DENSITYur, dEAa. MEDIUM DENSITY COMME.RciAL HIGH DENSITY r HIG z Qy v MEDIfUM '` ": DENSITY DENSITY.: : . WARNER J ::' ,hI F C A LLJ r �- L O W °DENSITY.- r MEDIUM - ,.IMES CH�-.. DENSITY" . i M N AREA OF CONCERN . 2 f n". huntington beach• planning division Figure 3-3 C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . 3 . South of Warner Avenue/West of Bolsa Chica Street A. Background The area of concern covers 1 . 19 gross acres located south of Warner Avenue and west of Bolsa Chica Street ' ( Figure' 3-4 ) . The property is zoned C2 and is occupied by the offices of General Telephone . The subject area is surrounded by high density residential developments to the south and west , medium density residential to the east , and a commercial development of mixed office and retail uses to the north. 'The planning staff recommends that" the area be redesignated from high density residential to general commercial . B. Analysis The area of concern contains office uses which arse likely to remain in operation during the time frame set in the General Plan. It is contiguous to the commercial - development to the north and should be , regarded as a,n extension of that use. Redesignation of the site to general commercial is most appropriate to accurately reflect the use of. the site and resolve the existing inconsistency. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from- high density residential to general commercial . 4 . South of Warner Avenue/East of Bolsa Chica Street A. Background The area of concern contains 15. 38 gross acres of land located south of Warner Avenue and east of Bolsa Chica Street ( Figure 3-4 ) . The property is zoned R3 and R3-23, and supports medium high density condominiums and apartments ( 23 units per acre ) . The. area of concern is surrounding by medium density uses to the north , medium density and single-family subdivisions to the east , recreation open space to the south , and high density apartments to the west . The planning staff recommends that the area be redesignated from medium and high density residential to medium high density residential . GPA 85-2 -22- ( 2185d ) AVE -- WARNER N HIGH COMMERCIAL J DENSITY W J w cc J V JAMES CR, KING CR. — MEDIUM ...� _ DENSITY HERMA N CR. S RTIS LOW .GU ` ' :':'.`''i DENSITY sEAPINE CR. : w HIGH ? DENSITY77 AVE RECREATION t� I � AREAS OF CONCERN 3 & 4 huntington beach planning division Figure 3--4 S B, Analysis The existing developments within the area of concern • reflect residential densities allowed under the General Plan designation of medium high density residential . s The development on the north half of the site exceeds the density allowed - under the medium density designation as the result of 'density 'averaging. Redesignation of the entire property to medium high density residential would more accurately reflect existing uses over the planning time frame set by the , General Plan, while at the same time maintaining compatibility with adjacent uses . C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated 'from . medium density residential and high density residential to medium high density •residential . 5 . . South of Heil Avenue/East of Graham Street A. Background The area of concern covers 2. 98 acres of land located south ,of Hei1 • Avenue and east of Graham Street (Figure 375 ) .. The property is zoned R3 , and supports an apartment development at 18 . 1 units per acre. The area of concern is surrounded by single-family homes to the west across. Graham Street; medium density apartments to the north, and Meadowlark Golf Course to the east and south . The planning staff recommends that the area be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . B. Analysis The area of concern supports existing development that exceeds the maximum density allowed under the General Plan designation of medium density. This development was constructed in the 19601s , and has not presented any compatibility problems with the golf course . Giver the existence of medium high density apartments within the area of concern, it seems logical to redesignate the area medium high density residential . C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . GPA 85-2 -24- ( 2185d ) t fu ` ' v L ,. DR ( :! z x z z z J J - LOW - - DENSITY - VENTURI -- - 2� z - - - Z - w 00 V o X a _ 3 x MARSiIALL Q -- - � - Z - J J Y O Q L9 Q cal a Q m U, m DR I MiDDLECOFF u i - - - a HEIL i MEDIUM 3 DENSITY rR LOW DENSITY CF n RECREATION 11 . 7 1 T AREA of CONCERN 5 huntington beach planning division Figure 3-5 6 , forth of Warner Avenue/East of Springdale Street A. Background . . The ,area of • concern consists of a 1 .81 gross acre site located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Warner_ Avenue and, Springdale Street ( Figure 3-6 ) . The site was rezoned C4 in 1978•,. and now supports a commercial shopping center . The area of concern is surrounded 'by a mobile home park to the north and east , and 'by commercial uses to the south and west. The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density - residential •to- commercia'1 . B. Analysis x" The size criteria for, determining land use designations indicate that commercial areas over one and -one-half acres in size should be shown on _the Land Use -Diagram. Both the size and the zoning designation of the area of concern suggest that' the " commercial 'land use designation' is appropriate. The intersection at which the area of concern is .located currently supports nearly 26 acres of commercial uses on three corners . Redesignation of the area of concern to commercial would -comply with the General Plan size criteria and further reflect the commercial character_ of the intersection. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to general commercial . 7 . South of Warner Avenue/East of Springdale Street A. Background The area of concern contains 10. 40 gross acres of land located south of Warner Avenue and east of Springdale Street ( Figure 3-6 ) . The property is zoned R3 and supports 164 apartments at a density of 15. 8 units per acre. Surrounding uses include high density apartments .to the east , low density single family homes and an elementary .school to the south , a neighborhood commercial center to the west, and a mobile home park to the north across Warner Avenue . The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . GPA. 85-2 -26- ( 2185d) 2 SHIELDS w `LOW J DENSITY Q r 1 C. C- F C, D. t Z d - MEDIUM DENSITY.--_„ .- WARNER ------------- ,;•.qr.E.r HIGH COMMERCIAL DENSITY 1.�,.t•.: :< is MEDIUM DENSITY w SlJMMERDALE '`� '°� o� ... LOW DENSITY � . DR. CF_R N Z z W C F—E JUNf 6R. Z L1Er' DR. wLT t— ROSEMONT DR. * FREEBORN + FZ OHENT DR. . z z i .� J �A10 Ar LTA DR ATHENA AREAS of CONCERN 6 & 7 huntington beach planning division Figure 3-6 B. Analysis Existing R3 development within the area of concern exceeds the maximum density allowed under the General Plan designation of medium density. If the present zoning is changed to R2 to be brought into conformance with the General. Plan, the 164 existing apartments will become nonconforming uses. The area of concern is related more in character to the medium high density area immediately to the east than to the medium density mobile home park to the north across Warner Avenue. Redesignation to medium high density residential will more accurately= reflect the existing development and the surrounding area. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern to be redesignated fr.om medium density residential to medium high density residential . 8 . South of Heil Avenue/West of Goldenwest Street A. Background y The area of concern contains 'l . 78 gross• acres of land located at the southwest corner of -the, intersection of .Heil Avenue and Goldenwest Street ( Figur!e" 3-7 ) . . The property is. zoned' C4 and supports a gas station as well s an 18, 000-square foot office-profess•ional,; building.- The area of. concern is surrounded by low density residential uses on three sides, and by- medium density fourplexes to the . east across Goldenwest Street . The planning staff recommends that the area be redesignated 'from low density residential to general commercial . B. Analysis As with a previous area of concern, the General Plan size criteria requires that commercial areas in excess of one and one--half acres be designated on the Land Use Diagram. The area of concern' s size, location, zoning, and existing uses warrant the proposed redesignation to general commercial , as rezoning to R1 to implement the General Plan designation of low density residential is not desirable for this location. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from low density .residential to general commercial . GPA 85-2 -28- ( 2185d ) ��__�.. . I 3• `I I I 1 1 I i I .I I i ..j.. - �: LOYOLA DR U �dLENTEN€ DR z a Ir DEFIANCE J91i ¢ # SUNLIGHT DR. 1-77 H'z� J a km gDRA , HEIL A BONNIE R. � s / MEDIUM 0- 2 z � LOW Is C DENSITY m a DENSITY MADDOX DIR RUTH DR. V . W FVLA Z J J �� C F� E w a YUJIF SYLVIA CARLA C m - Z W • J LYDIA DR. PUBLIC, QUASI-PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL AREA of CONCERN S Aell Af .E huntington beach planning division Figure 3-7 9 . South of Heil Avenue/East of Goldenwest Street A. Background The area of concern encompasses, 40 . 00 acres of - land located south of Heil Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street (Figure 3-8 ) . The area is zoned R3 and CF-E supporting 444 apartments at a density of 16. 0 units per acre as well , as an elementary school. Surrounding land uses include low density residential homes to the west and north, an industrial park to the east , and Murdy Community. Park to the south . The planning staff recommends' that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential'. B. Analysis The area of concern supports R3 fourplexes developed at a density that ..exceeds the maximum allowable density under the General Plan designation of medium density residential . Rezoning to implement the General Plan is not desirable, as such action would render the existing . uses nonconforming. The General Plan should be amended to reflect the existing uses within the area of concern and be consistent with the R3 zoning. The elementary school should carry • the same designation as the surrounding properties as a matter of area character . C. Recommendation : E F t Staff recommends that the area of .concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . 10 . North of Warner Avenue/West of Gothard Street A. Background The area of concern encompasses 8. 66 gross acres of land located north of Warner Avenue and west of Gothard Street ( Figure 3-8 ) . The property is zoned R3 and supports 136 apartments at' a density of 15. 7 units per acre. Surrounding land uses include an industrial park to the north and east across Gothard Street , high density apartments to the south, and Murdy Community Park to the west . The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . B. Analysis The area of concern is developed at a density that exceeds the maximum allowable density allowed under the GPA 85-2 -30- ( 2185d ) Ya am mG,, 1 s {..�.€ INDUSTRIAL 10�' . ,1L '•_c ?:.M1 �..one as _ xM.. PUBLIC,INSTITUTIONAL .a8dtlE7A MEDIUM y Lei 7.4" t i Illlll IIIIIIII � ! � ' ' t 5 tllll�I illl tInIIIIIIIItIII �IIIIIIIII �' � i ` ■��I present medium density designation. An identical development directly south of the area of concern is designated high density residential on the Land Use Diagram. Redesignation of the area of concern to medium high density residential will more accurately reflect the existing development and the surrounding neighborhood . C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . 11 . North of McFadden Avenue/West of Goldenwest _Street A. Background The area of concern consists of .2 . 10 gross acres of land located north of McFadden Avenue and west of Goldenwest Street (Figure. 3-9 ) . The area is zoned R3 supporting . an. apartment development at 16 units per acre . Surrounding land uses include single-family homes to the north , commercial uses to the east and south , and' Greer Park to the west . The planning staff recommends that the area be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . B. Analysis The area of concern supports R3 'apartments at a density that exceeds the maximum allowable density under the General Plan designation of medium density residential . Rezoning to implement the General Plan would -render the existing uses nonconforming. The General Plan should be amended to reflect the existing uses within the area of concern and be consistent with the R3 zoning. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . . 12 . South of Edinger Avenue/West to Sher Lane A. Background The area of concern encompasses 15. 01 gross acres of land located south of Edinger Avenue on the west side of Sher Lane ( Figure 3-10 ) . The property is zoned R3 and supports 249 apartments at a density of 16 . 5 units per acre . Surrounding uses include a commercial center GPA 85-2 -32- ( 2185d ) J V CT (GILL. SCHOOL) w BRUNSW 7R,0{;Y M/f _ H y I DR -, EAIERSdN 2 CF-R `2o z _ O k PAR' R 4 - NOCKMOUh Y ' LOW TrM DENSITY OR - CF-R (GREER PARK A N NE x) GAS LIGHT OR CHESTNUT DR. 3 PUBLIC, QUASI- ,eSKYVIEW DR z Z PUBLIC, INSTITUTIONAL J r W -' BLUEOC 0 J RV o� O r DR L'? IARWOOD DR Z m u u y H n DR. MOONBEAM DR. AREA of CONCERN 11 0.1111 P. Um huntington beach planning division Figure 3-9 EDINGER _ z d X o -COMMERCIAL LORGE CR. ^' ;>< < r HIGH 51 •...... MEDIUM �... ..... . .;..,... DENSITY = : DENSITY =.::.::.i .QMlI.'•i �aric�i;�»='�[i i[?fr i�f :...:�i: � C F-R 7 1 He J RHOW LN. INDUSTRIAL ANITA LN: i = J rLIET LOW _ DR. LOW a DENSITY GLENCOE NANCY DR. z l - -- MEDIUM DENSITY A ALHAMBRA LHAMBRA HEIL AREA of CONCERN 12 AlkE.. 11 huntington beach planning division Figure 3-10 to the north , high density apartments and a neighborhood park to the east , low density single family homes to the south , and industrial uses to the west. The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . B. Analysis The existing apartment development within the area of concern exceeds the maximum density allowed under the General Plan designation of medium density. The area is similariin character to the high density area to the east ;, redesignation of the area of concern to medium high density would provide a natural transition of the area as a buffer between commercial and low density residential uses As with the other areas of concern, the medium high density designation would more accurately reflect the existing patterns of development throughout the City, and redesignation of these areas constitutes a necessary refinement of the General Plan . C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . 13 . South of Heil Avenue/West of Viewpoint Drive A. Background The area of concern contains 9 . 64 gross acres of land located south of Heil Avenue on the west side of Viewpoint Drive (Figure 3-11 ) . The property is zoned R3 and supports 148 apartments at a density of 15 . 4 units per acre. The area of concern is surrounded by commercial uses to the east , high density apartments to the south, and low density single family homes to the west and north across the Orange County Flood Control District Channel C5-4 . The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential . to medium high density residential . B. Analysis This area of concern also supports development that exceeds the maximum density allowed under the medium density designation . Although the maximum density of 15 units per acre under medium density is exceeded only slightly in this. and a couple of areas previously addressed, the cumulative effect of all of these inconsistencies is significant when using the General Plan to project requirements for transportation, GPA 85-2 -35- ( 2185d ) Jy CR DANUBE DR z R _ SEINE 0j ..� _.... .... y�f C11RYS'_ER DR - ON pow DENSITY in , : `':`::E DEA'.cP DENSITY RHINE 'i:* +w+:* DR MEDIUM DENSITY — �'�p � heuvna.vw�uw u HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL DAMASK DR. Q O. C F. C; D -I J MEDIUM DENSITY i MEDIUM I = DENSITY Q w SHfNGTON AV WARNER AREA of CONCERN 13 A. a k� huntington beach pianning division Figure 3-11 educational , and recreational facilities in addition to public services and utilities . By redesignating these areas so that they are consistent with existing development patterns , the General Plan becomes a more accurate and useful planning tool for the implementation of City policies. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . 14 . South of Edinger Avenue/East of Beach Boulevard A. Background The area of concern encompasses 19. 72 gross acres of land located south of Edinger Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard• (Figure 3-12 ) . The area is zoned R3 and supports a total of 383 apartments at a density of 19 . 4 units per acre and is located between a . high density apartment complex and the Huntington Beach Executive Park , directly south of the San Diego Freeway. The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . B. Analysis The area of concern is, due to its location and density of development , clearly a medium high density area. The medium density designation is not appropriate for the character of the area , and redesignation is necessary to correct the General Plan so that it may be used effectively in future planning efforts . C. Recommendations Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . 15 . South of Talbert Avenue/West of Beach Boulevard A. Background The area of concern consists of 3 . 51 gross acres of land located south of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard (Figure 3-13 ) . The area is zoned (Q) R2-PD and is currently vacant . The surrounding uses consist of 'medium density uses to the north and west , and commercial uses to the east and south. The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from general commercial to medium density residential . GPA 85-2 -37- ( 2185d ) r m HIGH DENSITY W GEC p 'F0 COMMERCIAL :w ,c k MEDIUM : .� DENSITY STARK AV ;;;.;: ,, cti;: HIGH QEI Y T NS ' 0 r AREA' of CONCERN 14 go A '{; huntington beach planning division Figure 3-12 l 1._1 OFFICE ! Tw PROFESSIONAL RONALD MEDIUM - - DENSITY ` sl a � c� s PUBLIC, QUASI- PUBLIC, INSTITUTIONAL z m TAtBErRT �U2 I. ... ... ... .. COMMERCIAL F— HIGH. ? DENSITY U LOW w DENSITY _ - f m STERLING i N s Z LOW7\ / ' ,u DENSITY { --- KINER AVENUE AREA of CONCERN 1.5 huntington beach planning division Figure 3-1.3 B. Analysis Although vacant , the site is located within a redevelopment project area which is intended to be used for a ,conventional medium density planned development in conjunction with the-'senior citizen housing project to the west. The property offers limited potential for commercial development since it is isolated from Beach Boulevard by an existing shopping center to the east . The site should therefore be redesignated to establish consistency with current planning policy in the general area. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from general commercial to medium density residential . 16 . North ofiGarfield Avenue/East of Florida Street A. Background The area of, concern consists of 7 . 03 gross acres of. land located, north of Garfield Avenue and east of Florida Street ( Figure 3-14 ) . . The area is zoned R3 and supports several apartment complexes at a density' of 25 units per acre. The surrounding uses' include' medium density uses to the west , commercial developments to the east and south, and the Pacific Community Specific Plan _Area to -the north and west . The planning staff recommends , that the area be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . B. Analysis- The existing apartment developments within the area of concern exceeds the maximum density allowed under the General Plan designation of medium density.' The designation of the site as medium density residential would render the area nonconforming. As with other similar areas of concern, the medium high density designation would more accurately reflect the existing uses on site and be compatible with -surrounding uses over the planning time frame set by the General Plan. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . GPA 85-2 -40-' ( 2185d ) — _ ----- _ ....._. ro`7 LWDENIYUOD DI1 oa -- - MIXED - -- s ,� cot f/. DEVELOPMENT CONSTANTINE MEDIUM PE GR- rr�:•..._ ' --- DENSITY z -- to Q I µ GARFIELD MEDIUM DENSITY 0 yN all PRESTWICK CR. COMMERCIAL L r CF-F WADE BRIDGE ' LOW -T]T• � DENSITY -r-•-•• v 2AR TMOOR DR T� -- W� AREA of CONCERN 16 MW MM 14 y huntington beach planning division Figure 3-14 � A 17. North of Yorktown Avenue/West of Brookhurst Street A. Background The area of concern consists of 38. 48 gross acres -of land located' north of Yorktown Avenue and west of Brookhurst Street (Figure 3-15) . The area- is zoned . MH and. supports °a mobile home park at 10 units per acre. The surrounding uses include medium density mobile homes to the north , single--family subdivisions to the east , south and. west, and commercial uses to .the south., The planning staff recommends that the area be redesignat`ed. 'from low density residential to medium density resideential . , B. Analysis The existing mobile home use within the area of concern exceeds the maximum density allowed under the - General Plan designation of low density residential . The designation of the , site as medium density would reflect the existing 'use as well as the density- of the mobile home park tolthe north . The area would remain compatible .with the surrounding single-family 'homes . By redesignating' tfe areY to establish consistency, the General Plan also becomes a more accurate and useful planning tool for the implementation of City policies . C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the' area of concern be redesignated from low density residential to medium density residential . 18 . North of Orange Avenue/East , of Seventeenth Street A. Background The area of concern contains 1 . 63 gross. acres of land located north of Orange Avenue and east of Seventeenth Street (Figure 3-16 ) . The area is zoned C2 and supports a convenience shopping center. The site is surrounded by medium density uses to the north , east , and south, and the Senior Recreation. Center to the west . The planning staff recommends that the area be redesignated from medium density residential to general commercial . B. Analysis The area of concern is covered by a convenience shopping center which meet the locational and size criteria established for such uses in the General Plan. The proposed amendment will preserve the local convenience commercial aspect of the area. GPA 85-2 -42- ( 2185d ) S. J pUA DR- MEDIUM g DENSITY Y i_.. .. KUKUI D ' i I I I :. KAMUELA z z J J Z L J - W HA A A DR L --�.' LOW D E N S I T Y DR Ll - (1� DR fr Y FAIR TIDE_ -CR � O � J z COMMERCIAL a I J . d] .U� AVE YORKTOWN LOW I I � �• DENSITY cr.AFIELD GR m FREQERICK cR FORK RESTAL- D DR z MOORE GR VALLEY FORGE rF "E AREA OF CONCERN 17 a huntington beach planning division Figure 3-15 1, ? �� ,� •, LOW DENSITYPo q 4, \ • �� Q� MEDIUM o DENSITY XXN \ \ L HIGH DENSITY ,�.Z• Nly AREA OF CONCERN 18 AL, r huntington beach planning division Figure 3-16 C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to general commercial . 19 . South of Adams Avenue/Wet of Beach Boulevard A. Background The area of concern encompasses 3 . 12 gross acres of land located south of Adams Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard (Figure 3-17 ) . The site is zoned C2 and supports retail and office uses . Surrounding land uses include medium density residential developments to the west and south, and commercial uses to the north and east . The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to general commercial . B. Analysis The site is occupied by commercial uses which represents a logical extension of such uses along Beach Boulevard to establish a commercial' character for this intersection. The area meets the size and locational criteria specified for commercial designations in the General Plan. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to general commercial . 20 . South of Atlanta Avenue/West of Newland Street A. Background The area of concern contains 10. 46 gross acres of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Newland Street (Figure 3-18 ) . The property is zoned R2, R3, and R3-0 and supports 208 apartments at a density of 19 . 9 units per acre . Surrounding land uses include low density residential uses to the north and east , medium density condominiums to the south, and high density apartments to the west . The planning staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high density residential . B . Analysis Apartment development within the area of concern exceeds the maximum allowable density under the medium GPA 85-2 745- ( 2185d ) R � 2 OPEN SPACE z I Q J � w CMD WiSANM - ALTAMAR DR --- _ COMMERCIAL F a Q d� MEDIUM o DENSITY o J LL ADAMS — w — .. ezix — 'w )CFANHI L DR. �• co m FF , i I PLANNED COMMUNITY ✓ ' Z r� � a AREA OF CONCERN 19 IF hunti.ngton beach planning division Figure 3-17 � T 7:AB�Al J-1 C %' _ IRD CR ALVARADO l J DR f � _ 1.... Pt:ERTOEM i a" i _ ._. VELYN CR O CASTILIAN 4� LOW �_ A l Y * . DENSITY _ a. _ ZEll OR - w T� - -I_l. . - z ATLANTA -77: HIGH TINQJE Do DENSITY r i ATTL®D CR J I is == DR., .MEDIUM DENSITY •x LOW -t 1_ f DENSITY O OC - r Lk = i 1Yi11�Eits CD4 k.W _w a x I � _ n Z 11 N LOW DENSITY _ SABLE SCONE DR ui v, - O = - GR1lE)1 DR ST. 41WJSTIME" AREA of CONCERN 24 ',C . tat 0 huntington beach planning division Figure 3-18 density land use designation. The character of the area of concern is similar to the high density area to the west and the medium density condominiums to the south. Redesignation of the area to medium high density re'sidential will more accurately reflect the "existing development and refine the General Plan for this part of the City. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that -the area of concern be redesignated from medium density residential to medium high den's'ity residential . 21 . North of , Brookhurst Street%East of Bushard Street A. Background The,.area of concern contains 1 . 82 gross acres of land located at the ihtersection. of Brookhur'st and Bushard Streets (Figure 3-19 ) . The property is zoned C4 and supports a small commercial and office-professional building. The area of concern is surrounded by low density residential uses to' the ' west and north , and by the Orange County -Sanitation Districts Treatment Plant to 't-he east and south across Brookhurst Street . The planning staff recommends that the area of concern. be redesignated f.rom low density residential to general commercial : B. Analysis ' The area of concern meets both the size and , locational criteria for designation on the Land Use Diagram of the General Plan Land Use Element . The property is not suitable for RI zoning that would implement the low density land use designation. Rather , redesignation to general commercial is more appropriate to accurately reflect the use of the site and resolve the existing inconsistency. C. Recommendation Staff ,recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from low density residential . to general commercial . GPA 85-2 -48- ( 2I85d ) -LOKAI DR. ---� o ALLISON CR 9y t x z i A JOLLA CR. TIKI CR. 0. - TAHITI CR LANAI LOW S DENSITY tp 0 LEILANI DR. WATCH HA d ="` 4 i GASTINE DR- U C-ATESHEA: DR. ;Y T J - S ` RYIA LL z S U E -- DR IN BEST j PUBLIC, QUASI- _-_ PUBLIC, INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL } ENERGY r9 O RAOIO PRODUCTION TRANS. is 0 c, ORANGE COUNTY -- — -- SANITATION TREATMENT VISITOR SERVING \ PLANT AREA OF CONCERN 21 oW huntington beach planning division Figure 3-19 4 .0 . ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines , an environmental assessment is required to address short-tOrm and long-term effects , irreversible environmental changes , and growth inducing impacts of the total project or plan . This section analyzes these concerns .in context of the recommended land use change in Section 2 . 0 . 4 . 1 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Amendment 85-2 does not In and of itself create long term impacts . Rather , it makes changes in the general types of land uses that may be allowed on a particular area at the time of development . Amendment 85-2 seeks to identify short-range issues within a context of long-range goals , policies , and environmental planning programs . The amendment itself acts as a mitigation measure designed to minimize any adverse effects on long-term productivity resulting from short-term uses . One of the steps required to implement the amendment is an analysis of the zone changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan . The zoning changes that would result would have significant short-term effects , such as creating non-conforming uses , reducing or increasing intensity of development permitted, and providing stimulus for development; GPA 85-2 -51- ( 2185d ) 4 . 2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The Amendment will mitigate most adverse effects . However , irreversible environmental change of a secondary nature can be expected from development under the proposed amendment . Loss of open space will occur as vacant land is converted to other uses . Although the option to recycle the land to open space after development is available , it is probably not economically feasible . Alteration of topography will be an irreversible change. Although mitigating measures can be imposed as part of the development process , the natural topography will experience a negligible degree of modification . Construction materials of mineral origin will also be needed for development to occur , and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods to satisfy local energy demand. However , such development would be consistent with existing land use designations . 4 . 3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The proposed amendment will also have growth inducing effects within the areas of concern . An additional population of 300 persons could be generated by uses under Land Use Element Amendment 85-1 , thereby creating an increased demand on public services and utilities and incrementally affecting air quality, water quality, traffic, and noise levels . However , the proposed uses in accord with General Plan policies and programs should mitigate many of the adverse effects generated by the expected growth . The demand for water and energy will likely increase as a result of the proposed land uses in this amendment . Conservation measures can be implemented City- and County-wide to reduce these impacts such as : ( 1 ) Reduce evaporation from reservoirs by encouraging underground storage or coating water surfaces with evaporation hindering films or substances. ( 2 ) Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow of public water supplies wherever such use is acceptable and safe . ( 3 ) Waterspread where appropriate to recharge the underground ' water supply. ( 4 ) Meter water and encourage repair of leaky connections to stimulate more economical use. (5 ) Reduce consumption of toilets and showers by requiring appropriate modifications to these appliances . ( 6 ) Prohibit the use of open gas lighting in public or private buildings, GPA 85-2 -52- ( 2185d ) ( 7 ) Strategically place electric lights to maximize their efficiency. Their size and power consumption should be minimized as much as possible . {8 } Discourage electrical heating in public and private structures . Encourage solar-assisted heating systems . ( 9 ) Encourage the use of reflecting and/or insulating glass in structures where windows are not shaded by exterior architectural projections or natural plants . GPA 85-2 -53- ( 2185d ) APPENDIX A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND REVENUE AND COST BREAKDOWN { f � 1 AREA 2. 1 - NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDENWEST STREET AND ELLIS AVENUE Six land use alternatives were analyzed for the 10. 1 acre site . The following is a listing of the basic assumptions for each alternative: 1. General Commercial - 130 , 680 square feet of specialty commercial uses with an estimated total value of $15, 141 , 700. 2 . Medium Density Residential - 140 condominiums with an estimated value of 140,000 per unit . 3 . Low Density Residential - 70 condominiums with an estimated value of $150, 000 per unit . 4 . Estate Residential - 30 single family detached estate type homes wHth an estimated value of $350,000 per unit . 5 . Open Space - a combination of tennis club, racquetball club and golfball driving range with combined building area of 35, 160 square feet and an estimated total value of $6 , 857 , 700. 6 . General Commercial/Open Space - 44 , 250 square feet of specialty commercial uses and 17, 000 square feet of tennis and racquet club building area with an estimated total value . of $9 , 461 , 600 . AREA 2 . 1 REVENUE AND COST BREAKDOWN Alt . 1 Alt . 2 Alt . 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 General Medium Density Low Density Estate Open Open Space Commercial Residential Residential Residential Space Commercial REVENUES Property Tax $ 30 ,025 $38,945 $20, 864 $20 ,864 $13, 626 $18,800 Sales Tax 70, 567 946 489 364 1, 899 3, 308 Utility Use .Tax 5, 094 8,890 4 ,495 1 ,927 2 ,014 3,508 Franchise Tax 2, 640 3, 337 1, 668 715 967 1 , 686 Business License 398 --- --- --- 167 233 Fines , Forfeitures , and Penalties --- 2 ,831 1 ,596 1 ,071 --- --- Cigarette Tax --- 761 429 288 --- --- Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax --- 567 320 215 --- --- Park and Recreation User Fees --- 1 , 046 590 396 --- --- Total $108, 724 $57,423 $30,451 $25, 840 $18,673 $27 ,535 COSTS General and Administrative $ 7 ,770 $10, 575 $ 5, 961 $ 4 ,001 $ 2 ,865 $ 3 ,612 Fire 7, 571 10, 290 5, 801 3, 894 2,788 3,515 Police 14 , 385 19, 555 11 , 023 71399 5, 298 6 ,680 Community Services -- 6,677 3 , 764 2, 526 --- --- Public Works 11, 861 16, 125 9 ,090 6, 101 4, 369 5,508 Total $ 44, 596 $63, 222 $35, 639 $23, 921 $15, 350 $19, 315 Revenue - Cost = $67 , 128 .( $5, 799 ) ($5, 188 ) $ 1 ,919 $ 3 , 323 $ 8 , 220 Revenue/Cost = 2. 61 . 91 . 85 1 . 08 1 . 22 1 . 43 `(2493d ) APPENDIX B INITIAL STUDY . APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background 1. Name of Proponent City of Huntington Beach 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 (114) 536-5271 3. Date of Checklist Submitted March 6, 1985 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach S. Name of Proposal, if applicable Genera I P(an Amend ,Men Nn.__85-2 I!. -Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets'.) Yes Maybe No 1. EcrtK Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or charges in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? . X 115 Yes No g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,. mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of obient air quality? X on b. - The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature; or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- ' rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow X of ground waters? g. Chooge in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct -additions or with- drawals, or through interception of .an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. `,ub.stonhrjl reduction in thr ofTwAant of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. . Exposure of people or property to water re- toted hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X lib` . i Yes Mum No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or ' number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and X shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X C. Introduction of new species of m;Ma Is into an area, or result. in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 8. Land Lbe. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned laid use "of an area? X 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X 117 i f Yes N rbe No - b. Substantial depletion of any -nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involves a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardoeu substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an occident Cr upset condi t ions? X b. _Possible _interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evocuotion plan? X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the .1. human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ' X ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: r a. Generation of substantial additionol vehicular rnovernent? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or. demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne,'rail or air troff ic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles' bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal. have an -effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemrnental services in any of the X following areas: a. Fire protection? - X b. Police protection? X C. Schools? X !!8 Yes M 1 d. Parks or other recreational .facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, includinq roads? X f. Other governmental services? X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the. following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. F urnan t-lealth. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18: Aesthetics. Will the proposal 'result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impoct upon the quality `or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X 119 Yes MM be No b. " Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or abject? X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. lAlill the proposal. restrict existing religious -or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. Mandatory Findings of S ign i f icance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or 'restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important-examples of. the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the, project have the potential to " achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X C. Does -the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con-, siderable? (A project may 'in-pact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total bf those impacts on the environment is significant,) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects an human beings, either directly or indirectly? X 111. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 120 ' On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect ! on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. t I find. thot although the proposed project could have a significant effect — -4 on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case, because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. IXXXI E I R March 6, 1985 to Signatux For (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) The EIR is focused on various issues for the project area. The EIR will be prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment Analysis. , . 121 EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS 1b. Corstruction on the site may require compaction .or displacemert.of soil . c. Construction on the site may result in reduction of some swale areas, g. The Bolsa-Fairview Earthquake Fault passes through the vicinity of the project area. 3b. Construction will alter .the flow of run-off into the swale areas. 6a. Development of the site will generate human and vehicle noise. 7. Development of the site will result in additional street lights. 8. The site is presently used as horse stables, and the existing planned use is General Commercial . The proposal is for residential . 11 . The .proposal will result in approximately 250 additional people residing in the area. 12. The proposal will create additional housing. 13a. The proposal will generate vehicular traffic which may be substancial . c. The proposal will generate increased demand on existing public and private transportation systems. f. Increased vehicular traffic ,may pose a hazard to pedestrians and bicyclists in the area. 14a-f. The proposed project may require additional governmental services. 16a-e. The proposed project may require al.terations, in some utility systems. 18. The proposed project may impact views into the Huntington Beach Central Park area. 19. The proposed project is surrounded on three sides by existing or proposed Huntington Central Park lands. 21c. The cumulative effect of relatively small impacts on various resources will be examined. "< ( PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE I PUBLIC NOTICE NO PUBLIC HEARING r/Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all k.� s including public — - LAND 0'Or: ENT_.AMENDMENT 85 2/_ tices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, II ENVIRO14TAL IMPACT REPORT 8571 lifornia, Number A-6214, dated 29 September,.1961, and I AND ZONE CHANGE 85-2` 24831, dated 11 June, 1963. I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held liy the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M.,or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 17th day of June, 1985, for the purpose of considering Lane Use Element Amendment 85-2, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Environmental Impact Report No.85-1,and Zone Change No.85-2.Land Use Element i Amendment 85-2 is an amendment to the General Plan which covers the following tems: County of Orange Public Notice Advertising covered Area 2.1 — a request by the M. D. Janes Company to.change the General Plan by this affidavit ie set in 7 point designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential on 10.1 acres of with 10 pica column Mdtft Iproperty located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street.Zone Change No.85-2 is being processed concurrently with this request to change the zoning 'from C2-0-(Q)(Qualified Community Business District combined with Oil) to R2-PD ,(Medium Density Residential Planned Development). The request could result in I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of approximately 140 dwelling units. Environmental'impact Report 85-1 assesses the environmental impact of the the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen proposed Land Use Element Amendment. . Areas 3.1 through 3.21—A request by the City of Huntington Beach to amend the years, and not a party to or interested in the below General Plan Land Use Designations in 21 areas of the City as depicted on the attached map,in order to establish consistency between the General Plan and zoning.These are ' entitled mat'�r. I am a principal clerk of the Orange treated as Administrative Items and are not covered by Environmental Impact Report 85-1. Coast DAILY PILOT, With Which is combined the 1 A legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, or against said Land Use Element Amendment 85-2,Environmental Impact Report 85-1 and Zone Change 85-2. printed and published In the City of Costa Mesa, Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California 92648-(714)536-5227. County of Orange, State of California, and that a Dated:June 4, 1985 CITY OF HUNTINGINGTON BEACH Notice of Public Hearing + By:Alicia M.Wentworth f City Clerk Published'Orange Coast Daily Pilot June 6, 1985 Th-050 of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and:published in the Costa Mesa, _ 1 Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, - _ Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper for 1 time 5 9 cQI%MUA 12mmwk Ito wit the issue(s) of — June 6 198 5 ,ter 198 17 f i 198 198 2, 198 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-2 ® ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 3.1 - 3.21 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the CENCRAL PLAN `"�°NEISTE"CIEs foregoing is true and correct. a huntingtori beach planning division NOTICE OF PUBLIC-HEARING Executed on June 6 , 198 5 APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL I at Costa esa, Callfofnla. OF ZONE CHANGE NO 85-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will beheld the City Council of the Civic City of Huntington Beach,in the Council Chamber,of the Civic Center,Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M.,or as soon thereafter as possible on.Monday the 17th day of June,1985,for the purpose of considering an appeal filed to the denial by the Planning Signature Commission of Zone Change No. 85-2, a request to rezone 10.1 acres of property g located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from C2-0-(Q) (Qualified Community Business District combined with Oil Production) to R2-PD (Medium Density Residential Planned Development).The zone change request is being processed concurrently with Area 2.1 of Land Use Element Amendment No.85-2. A legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said appeal. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Hun-ingtonfBeach,California 92648-(714)536-5227. Dated:June 5, 1985 i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By:AliciaM.Wentworth ler City Clerk PROOF OF PUi Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot June 6, 1985 Th-051 ,t REQUE FOR CITY COUNCO✓� ACTION Date June 7 , 1985 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato t Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director , Development Services Subject: ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-2 ( IN CONJUNCTION WIT 2. 1 OF LAND USEJI�D ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-2 ) � E _ D ` B Cg .COLIC Consistent with Council Policy? rA Yes { ] New Policy or Exception j Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Ac ons, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for publichearing is Zone Change No 85-2 a request to change the zoning on 10 . 1 acres' of property located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and .Goldenwest Street from C2-0-(Q) (Qualified Community Business District Combined with Oil ) to R2-PD (Medium Density Residential Planned Development ) . This zone change request was filed in conjunction with Area 2 .1 of Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-2. The zone change is transmitted to the Council on approval by the property owner A. C. Marion after denial by the Planning Commission on May 22 , 1985. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission action : ON MOTION BY SCH'UMACHER AND SECOND BY ROWE, ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-2 WAS DENIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher , Livengo.od, Porter , Mir.jahangir NOES: None. ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-2: 1 . The proposed zone change is not consistent with the existing General Plan Designation of General Commercial . 2 . The proposed zone change is not consistent or compatible with the draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan study. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: DENY Zone Change No. 85-2 with the above findings . - V PIO 5/85 M1 - i • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that contingent upon approval of Area 2 . 1 'of LUE 85-2, the City Council approve Zone Change No. 85-2 with the modifications specified in the Analysis section of this report , and with the following findings and conditions . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The rezoning of this property from C2-0-(Q) to R2-(10 )-PD-CD is consistent with the recommended Medium Density Residential designation in Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-2. 2 . Rezoning the site to include a maximum, of 10 units per acre density and to add , the PD and CD suffixes will ensure that development of the site is. compatible with surrounding uses . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . Zone Change No. 85-2 is approved on the condition that a development agreement be prepared and signed specifying the conceptual site plan featuring clustered units , received and dated May 8 , 1985 as the approved conceptual plan for development of the site. ANALYSIS: On March 2, 1982, the City Council approved Zone Change No . 82-3 to rezone the subject property from RA-O-CD (Recreational Open Space, Oil , Civic District ) to C2-0- (Q) (Qualified Community Business District , combined with Oil Production ) . The zone change was in conjunction with Land Use Element Amendment No 81-3, for a change from Open Space to General Commercial. The qualifications placed on the C2-0- (Q) zoning required; 1 ) a conditional use permit prior to ' development , 2 ) one-story development with wood siding and earthtone colors , 3 ) parking lot landscaping, 4 ) pedestrian and horse access , 5 ) uses limited to equestrian oriented commercial facilities . The intent was to ensure compatibility with equestrian uses in Central Park to the north ., The project , however, was never constructed. The applicant has subsequently requested a new General Plan Amendment to Medium Density Residential . As such, the requested zone change to R2-PD is appropriate for the requested land use redesignation. This zoning would permit a medium density condominium development . Staff noted in the recommendation section of the Land Use Amendment that if Medium Density Residential is approved, however , the zoning request should be modified to ensure compatibility with Central Park . Rather than allowing up to 15 units per acre as provided for in R2 District, staff is recommending that the density be limited to 10 units per acre. This density would allow a maximum of 100 units RCA - June 7, 1985 -2- ( 2607d ) which is consistent with the conceptual site plan the applicant has prepared for the project . Scaling back the allowable density to 10 units per acre would lessen the visual impact the project will have on Central Park . Staff would further recommend that the CD ( Civic District ) suffix be . placed on the zoning. This will require that the City Design Review Board examine any proposed development plans for architectural and aesthetic compatibility with Central Park . The CD suffix is commonly applied to properties which are adjacent to public facilities. Because the project will require a conditional use permit, and because of staff ' s recommendation for the CD suffix, there is no need to place a (Q) suffix on the zoning. Staff proposes that R2-(10 )-PD-CD zoning be adopted for the site. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The subject property is addressed in Environmental Impact Report No . 85-1 f-or LUE 85-2 which is being processed concurrently with this zone change . Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time , the Department of Development ' Services posted draft Environmental Impact Report No. 85-1 for a 30-day comment and review period to. end May 20, 1985 . FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The City Council may deny the .zone change as per the. Planning Commission ' s recommendation (commensurate with denial of Area 2 . 1 of LUE 85-2 ) or approve the zone change without staff 's recommended modifications (commensurate with approval of Area 2. 1 of LUE 85-2 ) . ATTACHMENTS: . 1 . Area Map 2 . Draft Minutes of Planning Commission 3. Planning Commission Staff, Report dated May 22 , 1985 4. Letter of Appeal dated May 23 , 1985 5. Zone Change Ordinance JWP: HS: kla RCA - June 7 , 1985 -3-. ( 2607d ) .,- .. ..-- .. ---TAL.BERT - __] CLMi11LL Rxtlt OR MI-CD s e RI s RI RIB RI R[ RI .6 I ET CF—R CF—R , EMI—£.D I ' Z ,660Q MI—CD �pQppggry, ,__ RA-0-CD MI. RA-0-CD RA-O-CD CF—C AAIW I W "...T— ROS-0-CO -o-c MI—CD R0S D -0-CD ocD -0 c C2-0-(Q (` MI LMICDaCD $ e ' E LIS I v-o co RA-0-CD MI ` MI-0-CD rT, I RA-CD a Rat o cD-enoo ` M I-01 LU-0°CD S I Sso MI s LU-O-CD RA-0-CDI q U-0-CD I. lio 860 I 660 RA-0 ,I RA,01-cD. RA-o-cD ~u" JJa -660 ¢ a Q-R1-(2.7)_M,000 RA-CD x 4 . 4 4 RA-0 M.I-0 J J J RA-0-C MI-0 8W RA-0 ERNEST (soLsAl AVE xl RA-0 LU-o-cD_ ,. RA-0-CD MI-0-CD F F c I' J MI-CD' MI-01 - 0IEET A,. AO CD MI— - RA-01 � RA-01 RA-0-CD M1-01 - _ u5JR MFA-cD = MI-o >RA=O-CD J3a6 RA-O— AVE. - GARFIELD N mie HUNTINGTCNV BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION '�� ICM4W ON -MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ROWE AREA OF CONCERN 2 .1 WITH FINDINGS WAS DENIED .BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, AND SECOND BY PORTER AREA OF CONCERN 3 . 1 THROUGH 3 . 21 WAS CONTIN.U'ED TO THE JUNE 4 , 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None C-5 ZONE CHANGE-,NO. 85-2 ( IN CONJUNCTION WITH LUE 85=2 , AREA 2. 1 AND EIR 85-1 ) Initiated by the M. D. Janes Company, Zone Change No. 85-2 is a request to rezone the property located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from C2-0-(Q) (Qualified Community Business District Combined with Oil ) to R2-PD (Medium Density Residential , Planned Development ) . This zone change is being considered concurrently with Land Use Element Amendment No . 85-2 , Area 2.1 , a request for redesignation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ron Pattinson spoke in favor of the proposal . There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commission review ensued. After a brief discussion the Commission in unison were opposed to the proposal because they felt that the zone change was not in conformance with the General Plan or with the draft Specific Plan Study. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ROWE ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-2 ( IN CONJUNCTION WITH LUE 85-2 , AREA 2 .1 AND EIR 85-2 ) WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Porter , Mirjahangir .NOES : None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-2 1 . The proposed zone change is not consistent with the existing General Plan of General Commercial . 2. The proposed zone change is not consistent with the draft Ellis/Goldenwest specific plan study. -8- P.C. May 22, 1985 x-MN ME N" ] 4 1 ft t t y 5 1. = huntington beach development ' services department -ST f LRE PORT TO;, Planning Commission FROM. Development Services DATE: May..22, ' 198.5 r SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE �t0'. ' 85-2` (.IN CONJUNCTION WIT F�' LUR 85.-2 AREA 2 . 1 AND E'IR 85-1 )° APPLiICANT': M. D. Janes Company DATE ACCEPTED: 2950 AirwayAve- Ste. D9 Januar •:..15, ,1985 . Costa Mesa , CA 9262:6 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE REQUEST:, To `rezone approximately Not appli-cable lr&. 1-. acres of property from C`2-0-(Q.) (Qualified' ZONE: Community Business C2-0-(;Q)- (Qualified, District combined' wi.th Community' Busiiness District oil )' to R2-PD (Medium Combined with .Oil) Density Planned Development ) GENERAL PLAN.: LOCAT.•ION: Subject property is General Commerciall- located• on the northwest corner. of Ellis Avenue EXISTING USE and Goldenwe.st S'tr.eet Horse Stable ACREAGE: 10 . 1, acres 1'.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve Zone Change No.. 85-2 with modifications and recommend adoption to the City Council based on the findings outlined in this report. 2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Initiated by the M.. D. Janes, Company, Zone Change No.. 85-2 is a request to rezone the property located' on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue •and. Goldenwe.st Street .from C'2`-0-(Q)` (,Qualified Community Business. District .Combined with Oil ) to. R2.-PD .(,Medium .:,.Dens-ity Residential , Planned Development) . . This ;zone :cha qe,.:is being consider.ed' concur.r.ently .with Land Use Element Amendmen.t. No . 85-2-, Area 2 .:1., a request for redesignation from. General Commercial to Med`ium� D.ensi.ty Resident 'a,l A-FM-23A 3 .0, ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS ' The subject property is addressed in Environmental Impact Report No.. 85-1, for LUE 85-2 which is being processed concurrently with this zone change. Pursuant to the environmental-regulations in effect at this time,. the Department of. Development Services posted. draft Environmental Impact Report No. 8.5-1 for a 30-day comment and review period to end May 20 , 1985 . 4 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE`,. ZONING, AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS : Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C2-0-(Q) (Qualified Community Business District Combined with Oil ) LAND USE: Horse Stable North of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Recreation Open Space ZONE : RA-O-CD (Residential Agricultural , Combined with Oil, Civic District ) LAND USE: Horse Stable East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Recreation Open Space ZONE: RA-0-CD (Residential Agricultural , Combined with Oil , Civic District ) and. Ml-CD (Light Manufactuxing,, Civic District ) LAND USE: Truck repair , single family house, Mushroom Farm South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate Residential , 3 Units Per Acre ZONE: RA-O-CD (Residential Agricultural , Oil , Civic District ), LAND USE: Horse Stable West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Recreation Open Space ZONE: ROS-O-CD (Recreation Open Space, Oil , Civic District ) LAND USE: Horse Stable, Vacant 5. 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS : On March 2 , 1982, the City Council approved Zone Change No . 82-3 to rezone the subject property from RA-0-CD (Recreational Open- Space, Oil, Civic District ) to C2-0-(Q) (Qualified Community Business Staff Report - 5/22/85 -2- ( 2489d ) District , combined with Oil Production ) . The zone change was in conjunction. with Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-3 , for a change from Open Space to General Commercial.. The qualifications placed' on the C2-0-(Q) zoning required; 1 ) a conditional use permit prior to development, 2 ) one-story development with. wood siding and- earthtone colors , 3') parking lot landscaping, 4 ) pedestrian. and horse access , 5 ) uses limited to equestrian. oriented commercial facilities . The intent was to ensure compatibil.ity with equestrian uses in Central Park to the north. The project, however , was never constructed'.. The applicant has subsequently requested a new Genoral Plan Amendment to Medium Density Residential . As such, the requested zone change to R2-PD is appropriate for the land- use redesignat.ion:. This zoning, would permit a medium density, condominium development . Staff noted in the recommendation section of the Land Use Amendment that if Medium Density Residential is approved, however , the' zoning request should be .modified to ensure compatibility with Central Park . Rather than allowing up to 15 units per acre as provided. for. in R2 District , staff is. recommending that the density be limited to 10 units per acre. This density would allow a maximum of 100 units which is consistent with the conceptual site plan the applicant has. prepared for the project . Scaling back the allowable density to 10 units per acre would lessen .the visual impact the project will have on Central Park . Staff would further recommend that the CD (Civic District ) suffix be placed on the zoning_ This will require that the City Design Revi.ew Board examine any proposed development plans for architectural and aesthetic ,compatibility with Central Park . .The CD suffix: is commonly applied to properties which are adjacent to public facilities . Because the project will require a conditional use permit., and because of staff 's recommendation for the CD suffix, there is no need' to place a (Q) suffix on the zoning. Staff proposes that R2-( 10 )-PD-CD zoning be adopted for the site. 6 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Zone Change No . 85-2- with modifications , and recommend adoption to the City Council based on- the following findings: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1 . The rezoning of this property from C2-0-(Q) to R2-(10 )-PD-CD is consistent with the recommended Medium Density Residential designation in Land. Use Element Amendment No. 85-2 . 2 . Rezoning the site to include a- maximum of 10 units per acre density and to add the PD and CD suffixes will ensure that development of the site is compatible with surrounding uses . Staff Report - 5/22/85 -3- (2489d ) ATTACHMENTS• 1 . Area map. 2. Ordinance JWP:HS:kla Staff Report - 5/22/85 -4- ( 2489d ) ? +TrI A. C. MARION POST OFFICE BOX 108 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 Office(714)847-1246 Home(714)842-7926 May 23 , 1985 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Huntington Beach, California Dear Mayor and City Council Members , We wish to Appeal The Decision o,f the Planning Commission Reference Zone Case #85-2 . We:fifeel the Planning. Commissions -major concerns on General Plan Ammendment #85-2 was that the complete area south of Ellis needs more general planning is an unfair burden to put on us as .property owners in the general area . Therefore General Plan Ammendment #85-2 failed to pass the Planning Commission, Zone case #85-2 was not in Conformance with The General Plan. Sincerely, A. Mar i Publish June 6.1 1.985 ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO 85-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN- that a public hearing will be held by the. City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7130 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the l7th day of June, 1985, for the purpose of considering an appeal filed to the denial by the Planning Commission of Zone Change No. 85-2, a request to rezone 10.1 acres of property located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from C2-0-(Q) (Qualified Community Business District combined with Oil Production) to R2-PD (Medium Density Residential Planned. Development). The zone change request is: being. processed concurrently with Area 2.1. of Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-2. A legal description is on file in the Department. of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said appeal. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 - (714) 536-5227. Dated: June 5, 1985 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth. City Clerk 'od Zone Change No. 85-2 - to considegzone Change" 5-2, .a request to rezone '10 .1 acres .; ocated on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest'Street from. C2-0- (Q) (Qualified Community Business- District combined with 'Oil Production) to R2-PD .(Medium Density Residential Plawned" Development) . Thezone change request is being processed concurrently with Area 2 .1 of Land Use, Element Amendment No. 85-2. 1*A legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services. L " Pacific Amer. Oil Co.- City of"Huntington Beach City,- of-, Huntington _Beach 17220 Newhope. #127 2000r Main. St. ' • ;P,.0.: Box .190: '{ Fountain. Valley, CA ' 92708 :k ,.Huntington Beach,. CA. 92648 -110-180-01 Huntin on'Beach, CA 92648- 110-182=12: 110-18.4-lL City of Huntington Beach , Cit of Huntington C of Huntington Beach . P.O. Box 190 Y gton Beach. City g 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ;.. New Owner Huntington Beach, CA 92648: 110-182-01 110-184-01 110=184-12. George Cantor _ Ci:ty. of Huntington 'Beach Mercedes. Quine 'P.O. Box 60564 P.O. Box., 190' 2206 Park Newport fan Los Angeles, C- A 90051 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport.Beach,, CA 92660 110-182-02 110-184-02. .. 110-184-I3 Hsi Lee Mlton.Marow City of Huntington Beach 9872 Olympic Blvd. 864 Bundy P.O. Box 190- Huntington Beach, CA 92646' Los Angeles, CA. 90049 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 110-182-03 110-184-03" 110-184-14,15 City of Huntington Beach Hsi Lee William Blanchard P..O. Box 190 9872 Olympic Blvd. P-.0. Box-243 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Sedona, AZ 86336 110-182-04 110-184-04 110=184-16- Regina Kahle City of Huntington Beach Charles Barrett 736 Weelo .2000 Main St.. 2630 Westwood Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Huntington Beach, CA' 92648 Los Angeles, CA. 90064 110-182-05 110-184-05 110-184-17 City of Huntington Beach Milton Marow Myron. Wasson ' P.O. Box. 190 864 Bundy 23636 Sidney Bay Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677` 110-182-06 '110-184-06 110-184-18 City of Huntington Beach. Ci of Huntington- Beach City of Huntington Beach.. tY 2000 Main St. 2000 Main St.. 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,- CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648' 1101-182-07,08 110-184-07 110-184-19`,20,21 City of Huntington Beach City.of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach R.O. Box 190 P.O. Box 190 . P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA, 92648 Huntington Beach,- CA 92648 ' Huntingtori. Beach, CA 92648 110-182-09 110-184-08 .110-184-22 City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Bradley Davidson 2000 Main St. 2000 Main St. 24281 Hillview -Huntington Beach, CA . 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 110-182-10 110-184-09 110-184-23 Waldo Bemis Charles Kimball City of Huntington Beach 416 Las Palmas ! 2404 Laguna- Vista P.O. Box 190- Fullerton, CA 92632 Novato, CA 94947 Huntington Beach, CA 9 648 110-182-11 110-184-10 ' 110-186-01 _ James Burcham, Marvin Alder Donald". Hamilton 9331 .Nantucket a •,8906 Warner 'P.O. Box, 698 'iHuntington,Beach, .CA 92646 Fountain Valley, 'CA 92708 Wilrh ngton,, CA 90748 110-186-02 '' 110-186-13 110-170-10 - Arlen Torgerson Herman Harms. City of Huntington. Beach 13707 Crenshaw -5655 116th P.O'. Box 190 Hawthorne, CA 90250 ;:.. Bellevue, Wash 98004 Huntington Beach, CA! 92648` .110-186-03 110-186-14 - � 110-170-15, Hsi Lee Julian Hathaway William Landis 9872 Olympic.' P.O. Box 3404 #470, Century City . Huntington Beach, CA 92646, Santa Fe Springs., CA 90670 Los- Angeles, CA 90.067" 110-186-04 110-186-15 - 110-210-01 y: City of Huntington Beach Alice Hughes Dahl Lindberg, P.O. Box 190 P.O. Box 3404 . 17220 Newhope: #226" Huntington Beach, CA: 92648 Sante Fe Springs, CA 90670 Fullerton, CA 92708 110-186-05 110-186-16 110-200-03 Milton Marow Milton Marow. Ocean View Mushroom 864 Bundy- 864 Bundy _ 18196 Golden. West Los Angeles, CA 90049 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 110-186-06 ' 110-186-17 111-071-19 Patricia Pbyyak City of Huntington Beach Mabel Bradley 9757 Toucan 2000 Main St. 20302 Laverton Fountain Valley-, CA 92708 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Katy, TX 77450 110-186-07 110-18-1& . 111-071-25 Carl Obert- City of Huntington Beach Richard Pariseau 15271 Shasta P.O. Box 190 .5622 Brighton Huntington Beach, CA 926.47 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 110-186-08' 110-186-19 111-071-26 J A Johnson Rudolph Manning Huntington Beach Ccopany 3079 Maiden 1650 3rd St. P.O. Box 7611 Altadena, CA 91001 Norco, CA 91760 San Francisco,, CA 94120, 110-186-09 110-186-20 111-072-18 Lester Layton. Orville Carter Ocean View Mushroom 1261 San Julien P.O. Box 1080 18196 Golden West Lake San Marcos, CA. 92069 Hawthorne, CA 90250 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 110-186-10 110-186-21 111-101-01,03,04 George. Bainter City of Huntington Beach Angelina Gilclaone 6901 Ellis P.O: Box 190 248 Patton 'Huntington Beach,' CA 9.2648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648• San Pedro, CA 90732• 110-186-11 110-186-22 111-101-02 Yvette Lawrence Charolette Low 6901 Ellis - 2906 Overland ` Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Los Angeles, CA 90064, 110-186-12 111-101705 Ocean, View. Mushrocn A C ' Marion, .(0 ner)` . { �819,&,Golden West 6341 Athena Drive" _ flu t ngton. Beach, CA 92648 Huntington. Beacfi, Ca. 92647 111-101-06,08,.09,10,.11.,12,13 oY M:D`. Janes Co. Inc. (Applicant) Ler Greisch 323 W. 18th St. 2950 Airway, Ste. D=9 Santa- Ana. CA 92706- Costa Mesa CA 92626 111-101-67 - Ocean View Mushrocn .18196 Golden West Huntington Beach, CA 92648 111-101-14,15,16-,.17,18',19" Nancy Shipley 615 Vista Bonita Newport Beach, CA 92660 111-101-20 ,Ocean View Mushrocra 18196 Golden West Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1.11-101-21,.22,23,24,25 Jean Hethcock 312 Mansfield Los Angeles,, CA= 90036 111-101-26. Ocean View Mushroan 18196 Golden West Huntington Beach, CA 92648 111-101-27`,28,30:,32,33 Christian Biery .2435: Carroll Escondido, CA 92025 111-101-29 . Matthew Dalany 631 Orange Grove Sierra Madre, CA 91024 111-101-31. e p �pw;Y CITY C,UUNG.��. REQUESOFOR CITY COUNCI �sr19 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat Prepared by: James W.. Palin, Director , Development Services `KJ0 Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-2/ENVIRONMEN L IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-27 Consistent with Council Policy? DOI Yes [ ] New Policy or Exceptions + sS3 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: �. STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-2, Environmental Impact Report No. 85-2 and Negative. Declaration No. 85-27 . The amendment addresses a private request . (Area 2 . 1 ) to redesignate 10.1 acres located on the northwest corner . of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from General Commercial - to Medium Density Residential . ' The amendment also addresses 21 City-initiated requests . Areas 3. 1-3. 21 are handled as Administrative Items and are not covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 85-1 ; they were instead covered by Negative Declaration No. 85-27 . The requests- are transmitted to the City Council -along with the Planning 'Commission 's recommendations as part of Land Use Element Amendment. No. 85-2 . RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission action: ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-1/NEGATI,VE DECLARATION NO. 85-27 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Livengood, Porter , Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Mirjahangir , Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND' SECOND BY WINCHELL, LAND USE ELEMENT. AMENDMENT NO. 85-2 WAS APPROVED (PER STRAW VOTES) ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1344 AS AMENDED TO . REFLECT PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION, AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood , Porter , Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 1310 5/85 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 85-1. 2 . Approve the recommendations of the Planning Commission (as indicated in Attachment 1 , Summary of Requests ) and adopt by resolution, Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: . The Department of Development Services staff 's recommendations are shown in Attachment 1, Summary of Requests. ANALYSTS ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:. Environmental documentation for the Area 2 . 1 may be found in the amendment report which also serves as Environmental Impact Report No: 85-1 : The EIR was posted for a 30-day period ending June 1985. Public comments and staff responses constitute the Final EIR and are incorporated in the appendix of the report. Areas 3 . 1-3. 21 of the amendment were covered by Negative Declaration No. 85-27 which was posted for a mandatory 10-day review. No comments , either written or oral , were received. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE_ ACTIONS: The City Council may adopt the requested changes as recommended by the Planning Commission, as recommended by the Planning Staff, they may modify them as desired, or may retain the existing designations in the Land Use Element. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Summary of Requests (including Findings for Denial of Area 2 . 1 ) 2. Land Use .Element Amendment No. 85-2 3. Draft minutes from Planning Commission Public Hearings 4 . Resolution JWP: HS: kla RCA - June 7, 1985 -2- ( 2609d ) ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF REQUESTS AREA 2 . 1 = A request by the M. D. Janes Company to redesignate 10. 1 acresf om General Commercial to Medium Density Residential . Zone Change No. 85-2 was submitted by the applicant to be processed concurrently with this land use amendment. request . Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial with the following findings : 1 . The subject property was originally changed from Open Space to General. Commercial in order to develop an equestrian oriented .commercial use which would compliment the equestrian uses adjacent to the subject property in Central Park . Medium Density Residential on the subject property is contrary to the City 's intent for the property. 2.. Medium Density Residential is incompatible with Central Park . 3. Medium Density Residential is inconsistent with the Ellis-Goldenwest study for the Specific Plan area to the south. 4 . An overall development plan for the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area should be approved prior to considering a Land Use Element Amendment on the subject property. Additionally, the Ellis-Goldenwest planning area should be expanded to include the subject property as well as the entire Holly Property. 'Staff Recommendation: Approval of the applicant 's request for Medium Density with the following conditions: 1 . The requested zone change for the subject property be modified to reflect a 10 units per acre density limit and include the CD (Civic District ) suffix in order to require special design review. 2. That a development agreement be entered into between the applicant and the City Council requiring that the conceptual site plan featuring clustered units submitted by the applicant and received and dated May 8, 1985 be the approved conceptual development plan for the site. AREAS 3.1 to 3. 21 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS - Includes 21 areas in the City as initiated by the Department of Development Services to achieve consistency between the General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Commission Recommendation in Two Parts : PART 1 . Approve the following land use changes : Area 3 . 3 Redesignate 1 . 19 acres south of Warner Avenue and west .of Bolsa Chica Street from high density residential to general commercial . Area 3 . 4 - Redesignate 15. 38 acres south of Warner Avenue and east of Bolsa Chica Street from medium density residential and high density residential to medium high density. residential . Area 3 . 6 - Redesignate 1 . 81 acres north of Warner Avenue and east of Springdale Street from medium density residential to general commercial . Area 3. 8 - Redesignate 1 . 78 acres south of Heil Avenue and west of Goldenwest Street from low density residential to general commercial . Area 3. 15 - Redesignate 1 . 65 acres south of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard from general commercial to medium density residential . Area 3 .16 - Redesignate 7. 03 acres north of Garfield Avenue and east of Florida Street from medium density residential to medium high density residential . Area 3 . 18 - Redesignate 1 . 63 acres north of Orange Avenue and east of Seventeenth Street from medium density residential to general commercial . Area 3. 19 - Redesignate 3. 12 acres south of Adams Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard from medium density residential to general commercial . Area 3. 21 - Redesignate 1 . 82 acres north of Brookhurst Street and east of Bushard Street from low density residential to general commercial . PART 2 . Continue the following areas to Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-3 for consideration concurrently with zone changes to limit residential densities to reflect the existing development densities : Area 3 . 1 - 6 . 91 acres south of Edinger Avenue and east of Algonquin Street. Area 3 .2 - 8 . 31 acres north of Warner Avenue and east of Algonquin Street. Area 3 : 5 - 2 . 98 acres south of Heil Avenue and east of Graham Street. Area 3 . 7 - 10 . 40 acres south of Warner Avenue and east of Springdale Street. Area 3 . 9 - 40 . 00 acres south of Heil Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street . Area 3 . 10 - 8 . 66 acres north of Warner Avenue and west of Gothard Street. ( 2613d ) Area 3. 11 2. 10 acres north of McFadden Avenue and west of Goldenwest Street . Area 3 . 12 - 15. 01 acres south of Edinger Avenue and west of Sher Lane. Area 3 . 13 - 9. 64 acres south of Heil Avenue and west of Viewpoint Drive. Area- 3 . 14 - 19 . 72 acres south of Edinger Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard. Area 3. 17 - 38. 48 acres north of Yorktown Avenue and west of Brookhurst Street. . Area 3 . 20 - 10 .46 acres south of Atlanta Avenue and west of Newland Street. The continued items involve areas where a General Plan amendment would raise residential densities , i .e . , from medium to medium high density residential . The Planning Commission recommends that the densities should not be increased beyond that .of the developments occupying the sites . The Commission therefore recommends continuance to the next amendment so that zone changes can be processed concurrently whereby the base zoning on the sites will be suffixed with a designator to limit densities to reflect the densities of the existing developments . Staff Recommendation : Staff concurs with the Planning Commission 's ), recommendation on Areas 3 . 1 and 3 .21; ( 2613d ) Commission Review ensued. After some discussion, the Planning Commission expressed strong- opposition to the proposal stating t t they want to keep the existing General Plan as is until a stud for master planning the area had been done. They directed staff o have a consultant brought in to study and incorporate the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan with a master plan study o the whole area , Commissioner Porter stated that he would like the Co issioners comments incorporated into findings for denial . ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER NERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 ( HOLLY PROPERTY) WAS DENIE WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher , L ' vengood, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 1 . The City needs to deve op a comprehensive plan for the Ellis/Goldenwest are prior to changing the land use designation on the olly Property. 2 . There is a need o retain existing industrial designated property in t City in order to accommodate the expanding industrial b se. 3 . Industri property is necessary to provide employment opport ities and a balanced community to rezone a significant size arcel at this time . 4 . T City should retain the existing general plan on the Holly roperty until Gothard is realigned with Crystal . 5 . The Planning -Commission further recommends that the City Council consider hiring a consultant to prepare an overall master plan for the area. C-4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-2 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-1 Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No . 85-2/Environmental Impact Report No . 85-1 . The amendment considers changes in General Plan designations on 22 sites . Twenty-one of the changes are City-initiated Administrative items which are intended to establish consistency between the General Plan and existing zoning . These areas , Items 3. 1-3 . 21 are not covered by the . EIR, i Area 2 . 1 is the only amendment item which is covered by the EIR and j which is not City initiated . The amendment consists of the following recommended changes : ilk ATTW_,q NA;F-N 4i d -6- P.C. May 22, 1985 2. 1 - The applicant 's request is to redesignate 1.0. 1 acres located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street. from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential . zone Change 85-2 has been filed by the applicant to be processed concurrently with the. amendment request.. Staff recommends approval of. the requested change to Medium Density Residential . Staff ' s recommendation on the zone change request is contained in the separate Zone Change 85-2 staff report. A City-initiated request to- amend the General Plan designation on 21 sites in order to achieve consistency between the General Plan and existing zoning. Staff recommends approval of all 21 sites . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED George Alvarez , representative for M.D. Janes ,. spoke in. support of the proposal . Ron Pattinson, consultant for Mr . and Mrs . Marion, displayed renderings of the proposal in support of the project. Geri. Ortega spoke in opposition to the proposal stating that she favored Estate-Equestrian Residential and that a long range well defined plan is needed for the area . Steve Feldman spoke in opposition to the proposal . Dave Roberts spoke in opposition to the proposal . Richard Tumora spoke in support of the proposal . There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner- Review ensued. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that Parks and Recreation should provide written comments on the proposal prior to action by the City Council . Commissioner Schumacher stated that she was opposed to higher density so close to the City Park . 1 She also stated that she cannot support the change until there is an overall plan for the area . Commissioner Winchell stated that she would like to have comments from Parks and Recreation and feels the area needs a master plan. -- i Commissioner Rowe also stated that the area needs an overall master plan . I Chairman Livengood stated that the area needs an overall plan. He also expressed concern regarding helicopter patterns and the need for horse access . i A straw vote was taken on area of concern 2 . 1 to deny. I ;ti C. f1"r •s 85 -7- P.C. May 22, 19 I ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND. SECOND BY ROWE AREA OF CONCERN 2 . 1 WITH FINDINGS WAS DENIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER AREA OF CONCERN 3 ..1 THROUGH 3 . 21 WAS. CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 4 , 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher , Livengood, Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None C-5 ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-2 ( IN CONJUNCTION WITH LUE 85-2 , AREA . 1 AND EIR 85-1 ) Initiated by the M. D. Janes Company, Zone Change No. 85- is a request to rezone the property located on the northwest orner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from C2-0- (Q) (Qual ' led" Community Business District Combined with Oil ) to R2 D (Medium Density Residential , Planned Development ) . This z e change is being considered concurrently with Land Use Eleme Amendment No . 85-2, Area 2 . 1 , a request for redesignation fro General Commercial. to Medium Density Residential. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ron Pattinson spoke in favor of the pr osal . There were no other persons to spe for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commission review ensued. Af er a brief discussion the Commission in unison were opposed to t' e proposal because they felt that the zone change was not in co ormance with the General Plan or with the draft Specific Plan Stu ON MOTION BY SCHUMA ER AND SECOND BY ROWE ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-2 ( IN CONJUNCTION WITH 85-2 , AREA 2. 1 AND EIR 85-2 ) WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS BY THE LLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR ENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-2. XThe oposed zone change is not consistent with the existing l Plan of General Commercial . oposed zone change is not consistent with the draft Goldenwest specific plan study. �i" l' E. -8- P .C. May 22 , 1985 E Publish June 6, 1985 NOTICE'OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-2/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. 85-1 'AND ZONE CHANGE 85-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Hunti-ng.ton Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beac-h, at the-hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as 'soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 17th day of June, 1985, for the purpose of considering Land Use Element Amendment 85-2, Environmental Impact Report No. 85-1, and Zone Change No. 85-2. Land Use- Element Amendment 85-2 is an amendment to the General Plan which. covers the following items: Area 2.1 - a request by the M. D. Janes Company to change the General Plan designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential. on 10. 1 acres of property located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street: Zone Change No. 85-2 is being processed concurrently with this request to change the zoning from C2-0-(Q) (Qualified Community Business District combined with Oil) to R2-PD (Medium Density Residential Planned Development) . The request could result in approximately 140 dwelling units. Environmental Impact. Report 85-1 assesses the environmental impact of the proposed Land Use Element Amendment. Areas 3.1 through 3.21 - A request by the City of Huntington Beach to amend the General Plan Land Use Designations in 21 areas of the City as depicted on the attached map, in order to establish consistency between the General Plan and zoning. These are treated as Administrative Items and are not covered by Environmental Impact Report 85-1. A legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Land Use Element Amendment 85-2, . Environmental Impact Report 85-1 and Zone Change 85-2. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 - (714) 536-5227. Dated: June 4, 1985 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk (SEE MAP ON REVERSE) .l b •x 5 NP9 �1. •ur � 17 y1 �i 21 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-2 ` ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 3 . 1 - 3 . 21 GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCIES hunington beach planning divisiont:: LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE -OF PUBLIC HEARING' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held .by- the Ci:ty 'Planning Comm'is'sion of the City of Huntington. Beach, California, for- the purpose of -considering Land Use' Element Amendment No. 85-2/Env'.ronmental_ Impact Report Now. 85—Zone Change No852 . LandrSlse Element Amendment 85-Z is an . amendmen.t to the: General Plan which.-covers- the following items : Area 2 . 1 - 'A request by the M. D . Janes Company' to• change. the General Tian designation from General Commercial. to. Medium Density Residential on 10 . 1 ac:res of orooertv .located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and_ Goldenwest Street . . Zone Chana.e No. 85-2 is beina nr. ocessed concurrentiv. with this request to c ange the znninq from C2-0- (Q) (Qualified Community Business District combined with .Oil) to R2-PD (Medium Density. Resi.dential Planned .Development) . The request could,, result in approximatly 140 dweylpling units . _I. �✓....,y;'1Ji.:`r•-,.+.....1,.G�<... ..y1.f,� :.ut-( — :�i..+:2.::-;J r.'«+:. ''^l.....l.li..t...a.v�3"s'�'( : f .'�, S-�Ns _.tlr.�- ".1 `� n,J: ' Areas 1. 1 through 3 . 21 - A request by the City-, of Huntington Beach to amend the General Plan Land Use Designations in 21 areas of the City as depicted on the attached map, in order to establish consistency between 'the General Plan and zoning. . These are, treated as Administrative Items and' are not covered by EIR 85-1 . A legal descrip.tion' is on file in the, Department of-. Development Services, lacated- ���--'.��F~lt�r-=-at--�2-E}B�-P�r rrTM-•St � i�g�e��B�'a>eh.: Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7 : 00 P .M. , on May 22 , 1985.* in the Council Chambers Building of the Civic Center; * 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions. for or against the proposed Land Use Element Amendment. 85=2/EIR 85-1/Zone Change 8.5-2 . Further information may be obtained from the City Planning Department. Telephone .No. (714) 536-52.71 DAT$D this 9th day of May, 1985 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.. 1 By to r 0-UI 1�IN—iM '✓.N(!Z�f.. .}I�it�x tt e K 1 i 17 5 ? i F a eY r mr 4 WAQ r AVE -a 'yam • � is �r :.i L AVEE LS h i • }_� �f#� yea�.¢� + ���� �, � � .,. ,. �..• t - t f ` GENERAL 'PLAN 'AMENDMENT. 'NO '85-2 HUNTINGTON BEACH:.CALIFORNIA: PLANNING .DIVISION Area 1 . t „H S : ' LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public .hearing. will be held by the City Planning Commission of- the City of Huntington Beach, California, for the purpose of considering Land Use Element Amendment ; No. 85-2., Environmental Impact :Report No: 85-1 , Zone Change No. 85-2 , a proposed -` amendment to the General Plan CLUE 85--2 ) which covers , a' request by the M.D. Janes Company to change the General Plan designation .from General Commercial .to Medium. Density Residential on 10 . 1 acres of property located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street.. Zone Change No.. 85-2 is ..being processed concurrently with this request to change the zoning from C2-0- (\Q) (Qualified `Communty Business District combined with Oil) to R2-\PD (Medium . Density Residential Planned Development ) . The request could { result in approximately 140 dwelling units. ` A legal description is on file in the Department of -Development -Services located- on'- the 3rd Floor at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach. Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7a00 P .M.., on p May 22 , 19B5 in,the' Council Chambers Building of the -Civic Center', 200'0 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. All- interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and ' express their"`opinions for`ror against the }proposed Land Use Element Amendment 85-2. EIR 85- , Zone` Change.�: 1 85-2. Further information may be obtained from the City -Planning Department. Telephone Noy. (714) 536-5271 DATED this. loth day of May, 1985 CITY PLANNINGr COMMI,SSION- y a..,•. -. r'^"`. 'NSF . Fes`-•:`.ea Planning CommisslOn INotice • sn T. v !fy '~i f\ilf_•t �t: �� City of"Huntington Beach Department of Development Services a P Box 190 �ALI� t�6:b3zize�V— Hun�irigton Beach,.CA92648 A.C. Marion (Owner) r . . 6342 Athena Drive Huntington Beach., Ca. 92647 j.. - 4 FIRST CLASS MAIL - . '•sue .. • .. T' * 1 M1 f. C F (HUFTl.W5TbV CENTRA1. PARS C F - R XWE ` a , s 3 4 a E S Hal I AVIE y `GENERAL -PLAN AMENDMENT ,NO. 85-2 HUNTINGTO.N BEACH CALIFORNIA PLANNING„ .DIVISION Areal . . 4 �a y CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH JA ' 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 21, 1985 Mr. A. C. Marion P. O. Box 108 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, June 17, 1985 denied the appeal which you filed to the Planning C mrdssion denial of Zone Change No. 85-2. "This .is a finaly decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant .to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the .Code of Civil Procedure of .the State of .California you have ninety days from June 21, . 1985 to apply to:.the courts for judicial review." ' If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office - 536-5227. . Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:js cc: . Gail Hutton, City Attorney M.D. Janes Co: 2950 Airway Ave. Suite D-9 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (Telephone: 714-536-5227) Nfit o D q c fiox/ ti- ORDINANCE NO. 2778 AN ORDINANCE# OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CP{E BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM QUALIFIED COMMUNITY BUSINES,6 DISTRICT; COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTIO- , TO DIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED' DiVELOPMENT D STRICT ON REAL PROPERTY.GENERALLY/LOCATED ON TH NORTHWEST CORNER OF ELLIS AVENUE AND GOLD WEST STREET ( ZONE CASE NO 85-2 ) WHEREAS, pursuan to the state Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planni g Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separat public h arings relative to Zone Case No. 85-2 wherein both both s hav carefully .considered all information presented at said h rings, and after due consider- ation of the . findings and reco endations of the Planning Commission ,and _all evidence ese ed to said City Council, the City Council finds that suc zone c nge is proper, and consis- tent with -the -general pla NOW, THEREFORE, the ity Council of he City of Huntington Beach does ordain as fo lows : SECTION 1 . The f lowing described rea property, gener- ally located on the orthwest corner of Ellis venue and Goldenwest Street; ' s hereby changed from (Q) C -0, (Qualified) Community Business District, " combined with oil p duction, to to R2-PD, "Mediu density Planned Residential Devel ment District : A por ion of the south half of the . southeast quar er of the southeast quarter of the northwest qua ter of Section 34; Township 5 South, Range 11 West in the Rancho Las Bolsas; as per map 1. - 1 r • • �'^/�"/LO D N C f/o�fi Fib//�-11 recorded in Book 511- page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County; California. SECTION 2 . Section 9061 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, District Map 38 (Sectional District Map 34-5-11) is hereby a ended to reflect the change contained in this o * fi- nance and on the map attached hereto. The Director o Developmen Services is hereby directed to prepare a d file an amended map. A ,copy of said district map, as ame ed; shall be available for inspection in the office of the C' ty Clerk. SECTION 5 . his ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its passage\.- i9! /gyp by the City Council of the City of ------------ Huntington Beach at a regular meeting th reof held on the 17th day of June 1985. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVE v City Administr or Director of Deve op Services 3475/0557L RCS:ahb 5/2/85 2. PLANNING ZONING DM7 38 000 SECT IONAI DISTRICT MAP -34-5-1I : . °L.LE . kFELT . .. -NOTE: ADOPTED AUGUST IS, 1960 ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET IS I ZONE ADTOINEX ANY RIGHT OF CENTER CITY 0 j O INTENDED TO EXTEND TO THE CENTER CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE N07.(7ry�T96 of such RIGHT of WAY AMENDED 00 ORD.NO, AMENDED WORD N0, LEGEND RA RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. 6-3-63 315 970 - 14-82 81-3'2530 �'COM-ED -ITN OIL PROOJCTION - '_ \ T11 \ V 1 01. \ .�L BEACH •_6-66 505 1132 1-16_626111 2531 Z���-T�-,� LOMT IN w1TR DR. CT�W '12-5-69 66;49 1271 I-I8-828114 2536:� ' _-.^J SN4LEFAM IY gE41DENCE DISTRICT 2-3-69 68-46 1467 5-3-82.82 2 2553, © LIu,.HW INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT IL ST RICT 6-26-70 70;8'1578 4-19-82 82 3 2551 ® COMB NED Ay �rN OIL I vRooucTloN ' q-19-70 70-10 1606 12-5-8383.482666- W' ® AIIDISTgICT 7-17-71 '71 659 7-2-84 84-1 270 COMMUNITY ACILITIES(RECREAON CI DISTRICTG RAN E COUNTY, GALIFORNIA q-18-71 71-26-1681 PNNED OE ELOPMENT I-17-72 71-17 17D9 TWO FDMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 2.-22-72 71-44 1722 LIMITE USE 10-15-7373-20 1876 " Q QUALIFIED CLASSIFICATION - ' • 4-7-74 74-22 1977 FRTSJ RECREATIONOPEN SPACE 9-15_75 74-5 2010 C2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT 7-6-76 74-22 2077 CZ coASTAL ZONE SUPPLY 2•n'• - II-21-77 77-19 2229 2T 26 . !!I!4/ - —•-- C04$TAL BOUNDARY - '3A]S `1 AUF{ni LAM' R '{/ RI_'CZ RI-CD-CZ IN RI-CD-CZ CENTRAL RIC R RN I320. ** EWaAry DR zCC, J4 A. j N d ff' ;RI RI- r< RI-CZ RI-Cz RI-CD-CZ n 6 �Z ` RI RI- RIg RI N IR - RI-c2 cti o C F R U RI-CZ _ 3 , kENWILk. � i 4 lyV p , Cq. r ODF CJ~ 1 *qL RIB W T RI-CZ _ <D 'Qi,�, �< co-cz . LITTL E ' R: LD 0 20 z ci R1-C Z RA-0-CD •,Q/�c'�` /C�- RI-CZ� `'h (PR ONED) - RA-0-CD - .hs�z -CD Q� - OS-0-CDROS-0-CD S-O-CD a�ry o �;+ (PREZONED) RI OS-0'61) :0-CD ROS-O-CD -0-CD S-O-CD t C2"0-(Q) Q•JP4 ._J (PREZONED) OS-0-CD OS'UCD ROS-0-CD - -CD: ' . LU-O-CD A 0- C RA—CD 0 R A—C D LU'D'CD 0 RI-(3�0-CD 6JJ00 -- 19•A2 SI W Io 959.60' $ RA-0 s LU-O-CD e Ia t aea - ss° a RA-0 RA-a-CD RA-0-6 31. =I R Q-RI-(2.7)- -8000 RA-CD x 4 ' . .10 RA-0 Ne aeaw 724.l0 RA-01 RA-0 LU-O-CD '.RA-o-cD . _ OF L - )RA-01-. CZ MI,cD 3RA-01 r RA-01 RA 6 e o i m 0 II- �: _ e RA. CD - �N ( - .•� _ Rm GARFIELD - _ " AVE. 1.ue - ! E ZONE CHANGE 85-2 i Ord. No. 2778 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio/,lerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify t at the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of �ntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the l7th day of June 19 85 and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 19 , and war. P &4:Z � adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council AYES: Councilmen: Kelly, MacAllister NOES: Councilmen: Mandic, Bailey,Jinley, Green, Thomas ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 9 t f