HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Element Amendment 86-3 - Zone Change 86-21 - Land U LAND USE ELEM' . ENT
AMENDMENT 86 ' 3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 86 -2
um
FT
huntington beach planning division
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Section Page.
1 : 0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 . 1 METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 . 0 AREA OF CONCERN . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 . 1 NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDENWEST STREET
AND ELLIS AVENUE . . . . . . . . 3
2 . 1 . 1 Background . . . . . 3
2 . 1 . 2 Analysis . . . . . . . 8
2 . 1 . 3 Staff Recommendation . . . . . . 15
3 . 0 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3 . 1 SHORT -TERM AND LONG--TERM PRODUCTIVITY. 17
3 . 2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 18
3 . 3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS . . . . . . . . 18
APPENDIX A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
AND REVENUE AND COST BREAKDOWN
APPENDIX B INITIAL STUDY
AFPENDIX C 'L,ETTERS ' OF COMMENT
i
i
I
1 . 0 INTRODUCTION
This report concerns Amendment 86-3 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 thirtieth amendment to the element . Planned land uses
throughout the City are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagram.
1 . 1 METHODOLOGY
The proposed amendment is to change the General Plan designation on
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 FIR Guidelines states that "the
requirements for an FIR on a local general plan element or amendment
thereof will be satisfied by the general plan or element document
and no separate EIR will he required if: 1 ) the general plan
addresses all the points required to be in an FIR by Article 9 of
the State EIR Guidelines , and 2 ) the document contains` a special
-1-
section or a cover sheet identifying where the general plan document
addresses each of the points required . " In conformance with State
guidelines , this document will constitute the EIR for Land Use
Element Amendment 86-3 . The environmental setting and significant
impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial
study are addressed under area of concern ( Section 2 .1 ) .
Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures
to minimize significant effects are also discussed in this section .
Section 3 . 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 .
-2-
J
Land Use Categories
AMENDMENTS
CIDATE
ING COMM, CITY COUNCIL
ESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION �'9 RESIDENTIAL
11-6-76 1187 12-6-76 4368 Q 6p Qh0
6-7-77 1196 8-1-77 4484
9-29-77 1202 II-7-77 4551 00!•y 9'S• �?Oa 9 A��Estate 52un/gac
�o �Estate <_3 un/gac
12-6-77 1232 12-19-78 4572 !'xar Estate 4 un/gac
EI-I-78 1232 8-21-78 4660
10-17-78 1236 11-6-78 4696
11-21-78 1239 12-18-78 4708 - ;:::,• 0 Low Density
3-6-79 1242 3-19-79 4728
3-18-80 1261 4-7-80 4865 ( / / •.• ��\ �P�2t C IN Medium Density
1 4936
5-9 81 1273 6-15-81 5005 .gA, AN [EGO FREEW / ��• / GPo-�`�� Medium High Density
11-17-8 1279 12-7-81 5053 % High Density
II-17-81 1279 12-21-81 5060 O • / .
8-2-82 5147 �P ,
12-20-82 5206 /i-' ''..\ %: „,,': `a,. ;:;., - Senior Residential
/<....
12-7-82 1299 ..... :.:..:... ,.:.r_,,:.,:e-" ;y_?; �.'.'+•
4 19 83 1303 5 16 83 5265 / ""' - COMMERCIAL
10-4-83 1314 11-28-83 5327 General
12-6-83 1315 I-3-84 5341 / %`
4-3-84 1317 5-7-84 5373 \ ��,�• /
II-5-84 5457A / :. ::. `\ Visitor-Serving
9
1 G
10-16-84 1333 II-19-84 54578 :, ,:. '::. '.�. •••••• .. ' '�.: �' � :. '.;.. -...,�, - ••
6 4 84 1344 17 85 5457C .�. -. .: .-' ..............:... :'; ;. �;'.. '. "P�... - - �ii. e0�o- .. Professional
4
1 ................... ... .. :. ...
6 17 85 5532 :.. .:: :. . ..
`:::::::::::aE:a. MIXED USES
I-22-86 1349 2-18-86 5639. - .............................. ,; ::;:. .. .. ' :.• .....i...........
5-6-86 1357 6-2-86 5670 ..................................... .... ...
t
•�:.i /
...........: ::::::::::• \ 5
men
.;;;,{,;.,;�= Ia• ' key;, Mixed Develop
....................
...
...........:.......
...................
fl; ...................
' •�.`;��>` •''''�� \, ,/� PpP� Office/Residential
I:::::::�LNL61tft1�LLC::::L'.:'.'..^.::::::::•ali ................. �:.:, � � .:.: :...; _ ..,;. ..... .. •::1::::'I::::::::::, '''' •• ��i���i,,, � "
ME Commercial/Support Recreation
...:::•:::' : ::::::::::. ......:•:•:::::::::::::......:::.
T IN DUS RIAL
-
0: General
................................... .................................................
..............
...... ................................................................... .. .:,:'.::,.:::.';=�':;<•:::� 11::::.:�ts;tsa �<> \ ,:. ,.- Resource Production
.:.::..::.:..::..::.:.:.:.:.:.:.....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:........................ .
Industrial Energy Production.........................
•::: •.:::::::::::::�::::::�: ,.. ,'-.,-::=;,_, .. ::..;:: .... . ............................... \ \ OPEN SPACE
1
a.
P
tRM Y.
P
Water
t
na:"
\ l
a'S
P
�:����-„��"� •.�t' Conservation
M Recreation
.Y
.................
� OTHER USES
...............
' a ;tu, 'rr>.'„'tr„'r:. .................... Public
,institutional
- ,lnst. tlonal
V� 1,, ff � •:..:�:::::::�::::::::::::::::. ,t,P� O
`P ����;�, �s��•����'�,r,y,,n�>s.�� - Solid Waste Facility
Planned Community
. .. "
Reserve
Planning
-oastal Zone Boundary
�Conservation Overlay
wl :, •��
S,
1,_:':;�•
- i
PACIFIC COAST H . =
r OCEAN
WY.
• ''" .+'1c�1:9•��® sole ,.` .�• - jl PACIFIC
PACIFIC j OCEAN _ ,.. 5••M �� �se R . ,
s
I GENERAL PLAN
HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA LAND USE DIAGRAM
PLANNING DIVISION Adopted December 1976
Revised JUNE 1986 C-RM-31I
, I
I
i 1
I
. 2 . 0 AREA OF CONCERN
This section addresses the request area designated in Figure 2-1 .
2 . 1 NORTI3WES` - CoRNER .OF GOLDEMWFST STREET AND ELLIS AVENUE
2 . 1 .1 Background
The area of concerti addressed by Land Use Element Amendment no . 86-3
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 current zoning on the property is C2-0 with no special
conditions .limitirig number of stories, retail uses or building
materials . The C2 zone permits construction up to 50 feet and
allows virtually all retail uses .
The area of concern was at one time designated for open space use in
the i,and Use Element and was one of several areas under
consideration for inclusion into Huntington Central Park . At its i
August 17 , .1981 meeting , the City Council voted not to include the
area of concern within the park boundaries at that time . Staff was C
directed to consider a commercial use of the property that would be
consistent with the park .
-3-
e
I
I �
i
1
TIL
2.1 u...
AL
HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA AREA OF CONCERN
PLANNING DIVISION
Figure 2-1
—4—
TALBERTLow
s: DENSITY l
RESIDENTTAL- �L
'-.
C F-R
I C F R
OPEN SPACE
-
�
! i
Ij dl'
GEN.
COMM. f
i
i
-_ ESTATEIRESID, ESTATE RESID. I
3 ' UNITS/ACRE -- 2 UNITS/ACRE ;
ESTATE�RES ID. _
GENERAL
4 ACRE NIT INDUSTRIAL
U S/ f
{{ T�
1'
II f •S '
irr, I
AVE• GARFIELD
i
HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PLANNING DIVISION
Figure 2-2
-5- _
* t
TAL3ERT I
i
5 � RI.RI Rl JIV RI RI �\ R1��
;I CF-R ! --CF-R MI-CD
!�
j
i
r 6:1 MI-CD —�
RA-0-CD jR
RA-O.-CD CF-C
ry EMI �i
I I
-OLD 5-0-0 D59-0p
I MI-CD :'R
os o c -o-cD Ros-o-CD -0cD -0-CD Lao2-0
I ;.:p M I
-0CD -000 -0CDi H
l��
U-o-co
• i � Rao-CD
M1-0-CD
RA-C D LU-O-Ca.I 4""'
L�o RA-0--CD:-
)--o-cD I — \
RA-0 'PA'a�col {7A-o CD a
el
Q-RI-(2.7)-0-8,000 Raco MQ RA-0 MI-0
li
S
' - RA- _j a WI
� �zvO Ma-a �
� RA-O I
ERMEST i9 - AVE f YID
RA-0 ILU-0-COI RA-o=ca ,
i r) N j�
D I MI-0 I Ih
RA-0E M1�n�Cl-CD
'
RA-01 RA-0-CD MI-01 a I
RA-0-CD „�_. '� I� R5 I V
AVE. GARFiELD
HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EXISTING ZONING
PLANNING DIVISION
Figure Z-3
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 .
On January 31 , 1985 , the property owner , A. C. Marion, requested
that the General. Plan designation of the subject property be changed
from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential . The
amendment request was GPA 85-2 . Additionally, the landowner
requested a concurrent zone change on the subject property from
C,2-0- (Q) to R2-PD, ' Medium Density Residential District-Planned
Development . Inability to market the land for retail and commercial
services was cited by the landowner as justification for the
amendment . This request was denied on ,Tune 17 , 1985, by the City
Council . After denying the amehdmen't request , the Council explored
the City ' s ability to purchase the site for inclusion in Central
Park . Upon their conclusion that sufficient funds were not
available, they directed that a zone change be initiated° tb remove
the "Q"' and related conditions from the property. The "Q" was
originally intended to establish conditions that commercial .uses -on
the site be limited to equestrian oriented b.usinesses, that they be
one-story construction with wood siding and earthtone colots, that
there be parking lot landscaping and that there be pedestrian and
horse access . These conditions were ihtehded to ensure
compatability with Central . Park . That zone .change . (,ZC 85--13 ) was.
adopted by the City , Council on September 16 , 1985.:
On June 10 , 1986 , the landowner resubmitted his previously denied
request for the General Plan Amendment and zoning change outlined
above . In view of the fact that the applicant and ' his request are
the same as before and that the conditions in the area-of concern'
remain .essentially unchanged, the EIR ( 85-1 ) that was prepared for
this same request last year is resubmitted herein as draft EIR No .
86-2 for the current request . This is in accordance with Article
10 , Section 15153 of CEQA , "Use of an SIR from an Earlier Project . "
The only changes to this EIR involve updates concerning the history.
of applications on the site , discussion of the Holly property Land ,
Use Element Amendment request to the southeast of the .property, new
methodology for assessing fiscal impacts , and a slightly revised
recommendation discussion .
It should be noted that staff recommended approval of the
applicant 's previous request (GPA 85-2 ) and maintains the same
position for the current request
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
-7-
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 Lake , Moth of which will ultimately be
incorporated into Huntington Central Park . A portion of the
Mushroom Farm property is under construction 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-Iot 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
Eil.is-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 120
acre ' Holly Property ( itself the subject of GPA 85-1 ) is located
diagonally across Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue . The Holly.
Property General Plan Amendment request for a change from Estate
Residential and General Industrial to Planned Community was recently
denied.
The existing General Commercial designation on the subject property
was originally intended to provide equestrian oriented -commercial
services which would be utilized in conjunction with the equestrian
center to the north .
Potential uses included feed and grain stores , saddle and tack
shops , western clothing stores. and ,s.pecialty 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
could result in a maximum of 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 . If appropriately'
'designed, this alternative could feature a use that is. both .
compatible with Central Park and economically feasible.
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 may be more
compatible with Central Park than Medium. Density; ; however , it may
not be as economically feasible.
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 . However, the site may ,
. be too small for an estate residential project to be feasible.
Also, . this site ' is - fairly detached from the other estate areas .
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, • cbuntry 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 ) . Since the site is surrounded by existing or proposed
Central Park on three sides, Recreation Open . Space could be
considered a compatible use . A recreational use on the site could
be developed by the applicant , but such a use would not be
economically efficient for a private landowner . if the City were to
acquire the property for inclusion into Central Park , recreational
use on the site' would be more feasible . At this time, however , the
City has forgone any plans of acquiring the site due to its high A
cost .
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 f
The Planning staff developed a revised fiscal. impact methodology for
analyzing the land .use alternatives in this request . Significant
changes from 1985 to 1986 •appear in both the revenue and cost
components of the analysis . A major revenue change is the
difference in Motor vehicle in Lieu Tax generated by the residential
development (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 ) . Because of adjustments in
State subventions the Motor Vehicle in Leiu Tax increased by a !
factor of 13 . For Alternative 2 .that increase totaled $7 ,407 .
-9-
The change in methodology was focused; primarily, on costs'
associated with the different types of development . Representatives
from each department , in the City were interviewed and the budget for
that department was reviewed- program by program. For example, Jim
Engle (Park and Recreation Development - Superintendent ) in .Community .
Services said that none of the residential developments analyzed in
this analysis would have an. impact on programs or services provided
by this department . Les Evans, Public Works Department , ( City
Engineer ) selected specific programs that would be impacted by a
development ( regardless of type ) . That selection resulted in
relatively -low costs .,associated ' wth Public Works Se'rv'ices . -' Appendix
A provides the assumptions and'=which were- used 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* 212 . 67 71 . 77 40 . 71
. Cost* 18 . 30 36 . 39 21 :44,
Revenue Minus Cost* 194 .37 35 . 38 19 .27
Revenue/Cost . 11 . 62 1 . 97 1 . 90
*in- thousands
Alt . 4 Alt . 5 Alt . 6
Estate Open Open Space/
.Residential Space Commercial
Revenue* 29 . 58 19 . 30 83 .03
Cost* 11 . 40 12 . 90 14 . 52
Revenue Minus Cost* 18. 18 6 . 40 68 . 50
Revenue/Cost 2-. 59 1 . 50 5. 72
*in thousands
As shown above, all of the land use alternatives that were ' analyzed
would generate a surplus of revenue for the City. The total fiscal
impact of the proposed amendment would. be optimized if the General
Commercial alternative were selected . This scenario could generate
a surplus of approximately $194 , 367 in the year analyzed. Of the
three residential alternatives, the Medium Density' scenario .would
generate the greatest revenue surplus . The Low Density scenario
would generate the second highest amount of surplus revenue and the .
- Estate. Residential scenario ' would generate the- ,least amount . The . ,
. , Commercial , alternatives generate a surplus of . revenue"due ,to, sales
tax . The Open Space alternative generates , the' least 'surplu's revenue
-10-
because there are fewer retail 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
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 Lillis 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 i.s
presently operating very close to capacity, and adequate
modifications to the stations serving the study area, an'd 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 .
i
I
1
i
i
•
-11- -
b .. . Water
Water mains , in • the,.yicinity of ,the study area :.include -a ,
I2-inch main in Ellis Avenue and• a 14-inch main in ".Goldenwest
Street . These :exi s ng" mains can provide. adequate water
service to the -site under any of, the land use alternatives
C. Storm 'Drains .:
Surface runo"ff f;r,om .the''�site to Goldenwest " Street• will provide
adequate drainage" under_:any of the- .land use` alte,rnat'ives .
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 . Based on City
Police Department planning... standards whereby an extra 535
calls per year constitutes the need' -for an 'additional. officer ,
none of the alternatives herein will generate the" need for
more police manpower . Of all the alternatives , medium density
would generate the most calls"; approximately 202.
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 than 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 6n the area ',s schools .
-12-
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 deinand' 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 .
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 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 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 on that property 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 currently vacant 300+
acres in the area 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
-13-
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 the 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 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 , ber,ming,, .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 impact is ,
not expected to be significant . Projected daily emissions,
from the six alternatives are as fellows
Emission Tons 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
-14-
Emission Tons of
Source Emissions/Day
ESTATE RESIDENTIAL
Mobile .04
Stationary Negligible
Total .
OPEN SPACE
Mobile .17
Stationary Negligible
Total .17 "
OPEN SPACE/COMMERCIAL
Mobile .4.0
Stationary Negligible
Total .40
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 earthgda-kes. 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,. there£ore, 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, Recomme' ndation
Staff recommends approval of the applicant ' s request for a General
Plan Amendment to change the designation of the subject property
from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential (Alternative • j
2) . This recommendation is based on the fact that Medium Density
Residential use on the site may be both 'economically feasible and,
with proper site design, compatible with Central. Park , thus meeting
the City ' s goals and the landowner/developer 's goals. ' None of the- J
other alternatives presented in .this study achieve . the same level of
harmony, I
As previously mentioned in the analysis, the property .has been
unmarketable under its current designation of General Commercial .
Even if it were marketable , a non-restricted commercial use may not
be appropriate for the site . Given the site 's proximity to Central
Park such a use could .create negative impacts on the park in terms
GPA 86-3 ( 0523D)
-15-
' r i
of traffic congestion and noise pollution. Moreover , a commercial
use may not ,complement the aesthetics of the park . In vieK, of this ,
staff is recommending a `"change. in the; land us6 Aesignation of the
property.
Designation- of the property as Medium. Density Residential will
improve its marketability , but more important ,. will enhance its
compatibi_lity , wi.th the surrounding area, especially Central Park .
Compatibility of the proposed project with Central Park can be
ensured by requiring the project to incorporate quality site design ,
including the clustering of _units to preserve,, open space and
maintain view. corridors into the park . Medium Density Residential
in this locaton may -al'so enhance .pedes.trian oriented use- of ,the
park as opposed . to auto_oriented ,use,. thus increasing the, -park 's
utility.
Along with the General Plan Amendment to -Medium Density, the
applicant has .requested a concurrent zone- change ( ZC. 86-21) to R2-PD
(Medium Density Planned, Development ) . If .the" City "approves the
General P1an '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 86-3 ( 0523D)
-lb-
3 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES'
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines ,
an '.e3nv.ironmental assessment 'is required to address .:short-term and
long term effects; irreversible -environmental chang�s , ,and 'growth ..
inducing impacts of the total project or- plan . This section
analyzes these concerns � in context • of the recommender land use
change in Section 2 . 0
3. 1 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Amendment 86-3 does not in, and of itself create long term impacts .
Rather , it makes changes in the general type of land uses that may
he allowed on a particular area at the. time of development .
Amendment 86-3 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 86-3 .( 052.3D)
3. 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 cha.nge'. 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' arigin 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 .
3 . 3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
The proposed amendment will: also have growth'. inducing effects within
the area. of concern . ' An additional .populat.ion of 300" persons .could
be generated by uses under Land Use Element Amendment 8.6--3, thereby,
creating, an increased demand on .public services and' utilities and
incrementally .affecting , air quality, ' water quality,,• traffic, and
noise levels . ;
, The demand for water and 'energy will likely increase as a result of
the proposed land uses ,in this amendment : . Conservation measures .
such as those outlined below can; be implemented CLt'' wide to reduce,
these impacts .
(1 ) Reduce 'evaporation from- reservoirs' by .encouraging underground
storage .'o , coating water . surfaces with -''evaporatian hindering
films - or substances ,.
r
( 2 ) Encourage tertiary treatment of and re use 'of "the return flow
of public water su.ppli.es whereder such use is 'acceptabl;e- and
( 3 ) Water.spread 'where..appropriate. to °recharge the underground-
water -supply;
( 4 ) Meter water .and encourage repair of,, leaky connections t'o
stimulate more` economical use:.
( 5 ) Reduce consumption of '-toil'ets ' 'and . showers' by `requiring;
appropriate modifications to these,-appliances:
( 6 ) Prohibit the use of open gas 'lighting -,in -public''or private
buildings. ;
GPA 8.6-3 4 (.0'S.23D) . .
18` ..
( 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 . -
GFA 86-3 (0523D)
-19-
-20--
5
APPENDIX A
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
LAND' USE ASSUMPTIONS
AND
REVENUE AND COST
INCLUDING LAND USE
AND
REVENUE/COST ANALYSIS
1
GPA 86-3 ( 0523D.)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AC MARION PROPERTY
FISCAL ANALYSIS "
Major revenue and cost impacts are assessed in this' analysi.s for the
10 . 1 acre AC. Marion Property located' on the northwest corner of
Ellis and Goldenwest . Six development alternatives were chosen for
the analysis . The following is a list of assumptions for each
alternative :
ALTERNATIVE 1 -GENERAL COMMERCIAL
- 130, 680 square foot specialty commercial development .
104 ,544 square feet of leasable space.
Estimated development value of $15,141 , 700
ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
- 140 condominiums
$150', 000. per. unit market value
280 people based on 2/unit
ALTERNATIVE 3 - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
- 70 condominiums
$185,00.0 per unit market value
- 140 people based on 2/unit
ALTERNATIVE 4 - ESTATE RESIDENTIAL
- 30 single family homes
$350 , 000 per unit market value
98 people based on 3 . 27/unit
ALTERNATIVE 5- OPEN SPACE/RECREATION
35 ,160 square foot structure associated with tennis , racquet
ball and golf driving range .
$6, 857 , 700 estimated development value .
ALTERNATIVE 6 - GENERAL COMMERCIAL/OPEN SPACE
44 , 250 square foot specialty commercial with 35 ,400 square
feet of leasable space .
17, 000 square foot tennis and racquet ball club facility.
$9 , 461 , 600 estimated development value .
Sources for estimated market values per unit and development values
were:
Mike Browning, Caldwell Banker Real Estate Development
Division
- Mike Minna, Holiday Spa Development ,
Huntington Beach Company, Pacific Ranch Development
- Holly Property EIR
-1- (5940d )
1 . 0 REVENUES
1 . 1 PROPERTY TAX
Property tax revenue is ,derived from t.he' County tax which is one
percent of the market value, of the property and or improvements'. Of
that •one, percent the City collects property tax revenue which , in
tax rate area 4 -010 , is 19 . 12 percent .
The market value assumptions and resulting revenue .estimates for '
each alternative is presented below:*
Alternative 1 c- 130 ,680 square feet of specialty commercial would
have aimar e value per square foot of $60 to construct and market
the building plus land cost of $12 per square foot. The structure
would have a value of $7,840,800 and the l0 ,acre. parcel would` have ' a
value of $5, 227, 200 , resulting in 'a total market" value of
$13,068 ,000 . The City's propert tax revenue would be- ( .01 )
( $13, 068 , 000 ) =$130, 680 ( . 1912 ) =:124, 986 .'
Alternative 2 - 140 condominiums would have an estimated average
rice per unit of $150 , 000 and .a total• development valueAof,
21 ,000, 000 . The roperty tax revenue would be 'J . 01 ) ( $21 ,000,000 )
.=$210, 000 ( .1912) = 40 ,152 .
Alternative 3 - 70 condominiums `would have an -estimated average
rice per unit of $185,000 and a total development value. of
12, 950 , 000 . The property tax revenue would. be ( . 01 ) ' ($12., 950 ,•00.0,.T
$129 ,500 ( . 1912) =$24 , 760.
Alternative 4 - 30 estate homes would ha ve .an; estimated average
price of $350 ,000 and a total development. value of- t10;5,00,000 . The
Mroperty tax revenue would be ( . 01 ) ($10 , 500, 000 )- 1051000
2. ,076.
Alternative 5 - A recreation facility that includes tennis', .
racquetball , etc . with a 35, 160 square foot building would- have an
estimated market value of $8 , 39.1 ,600 . The construction cost
j estimate of $90 per square foot was provided by Michael Minna of
Holiday Spa Corporation . ** Mr . Minna stated that such cos-t,s. as _
marketing, etc , are not feasible to average, therefore this market
value estimate reflects only hard costs ,(construction ) and land
value which is estimated at $12 per square foot . The M , 045 .
perty tax
revenue would be ( . 01, ) ($8 , 391 ,•600 ) .=$83 , 916 ( . 1912 )-
*Review of 1985 estimates and 1986 figures were provided by Mike
Browning of Coldwell Banker ,- Real Estate Development Division,
telephone conversation July 3, 1986.
**Telephone conversation , July 8 , 1986
-2- (.5940d )
Alternative 6 - Commercial and recreation facilities totalling
square feet . As in Alternative 5 the land would have a value
of ,$12 per square foot . The ' commercial structure would have a value
(hard and soft costs ) of $60 per square foot; at 44 ,250 square feet
the value would be $2 ,655 ,000 . The recreation portion' would be
$1 ,530,000 based on 17,000 square feet at $90 per square foot .
Total value for this alternative would- be 9 , 412 , 200 and the
roperty tax revenue would be ( . 01 ) ($9, 412 ,200 ) _ $94,122 ( . 1912 )
17 , 996 .
1 . 2 Sales Tax .
Residential
ALTERNATIVE 2
The 140 condominiums are estimated to have a population of two
people per unit and a market value of $150,000 per unit . Based on
that unit cost, an 1.annual family income of $50 ,000 would be
necessary. That income, according to Internal Revenue' sales tax
tables , would generate $418 in annual sales tax revenue . The City
receives one cent of the six cent sales tax per dollar or $76 per
family. It is estimated, however , that approximately 60 percent of
the sales tax revenue is captured by surrounding communities
( leakage ) resulting in a net revenue per unit of. $28 .
ALTERNATIVE 3
The 70 condominiums will also have a population of two people per
unit . The estimated market value per unit is $185 000 resulting in
an annual family income of $61 , 667 and generating �456 in annual
sales tax revenue . ' The net revenue per unit , minus_ the leakage
factor , ,is $30 per unit .
ALTERNATIVE 4
l
In this alternative the single family estate type unit is expected
to have 'a population of three to four people per household . 1 At
$350, 000 per unit the annual family income would be $116, 667
resulting in an annual sales tax revenue of $796 . The net revenue
collected by the City would be $53 per unit. "
COMMERCIAL
The Urban Land Institute publication Dollars and Cents of Shopping
Centers was used to estimate average sales per square -foot .
Although some recreation facilities have retail components often
referred to as "pro- shops"it is assumed the recreation facilities
in the following scenarios will not have a pro-shop. Pro-shops ,
however , do not generally generate measurable sales 'tax revenue .
-3- ( 5940d )
A third consideration in this segment of' the analysis' is leasable
square footage . For the commercial scenarios a gross leasable area
square footage , 80 percentiof gross square feet, will be :used to
estimate sales tax revenue.
ALTERNATIVE 1 and -ALTERNATIVE 6
L
.These alternatives have similar commercial scenarios that would
generate an estimated $164 .42 per gross leasable space . *
ALTERNATIVE - 130 , 680 gross square feet , 104, 544 gross leasable area
and an estimated annual sales of $17,189,124 resulting in $171 ,891
of sales tax revenue .
ALTERNATIVE 6 - 44, 250 gross square feet , 35 , 400 square feet of
gross leasaSle space generating .$5, 8,20,468 in annual sales resulting
in $58 , 205 in sales tax revenue .
One hundred percent of commercially generated .sales tax revenue' is
captured by the City, and therefore, reported in total in this
analysis . It is important to note, however , that a new commercial
center will probably draw customers from existing centers in the
area thereby reducing sales tax revenue generated by the older
centers .
Sales tax revenue per alternative:
Alt . No. 1 = 171 , 891 r
Alt . No . 2 = 3,920
Alt . No,. 3 = 2 ,100
_Alt . No . 4. = 1 ,590 :
Alt . No. 5 = 3 NA
Alt . No . 6 = $ 58 ,205
1 . 3 Utility User and Franchise Tax
Huntington Beach collects a five percent utility user tax on the
annual sales of electricity, natural gas , telephone and cable
television services. in the City.
A franchise tax of -one percent of the annual electricity sales and
four percent of the annual natural gas sales is collected from the
respective utility providers in the City '.
Factors used for this section of the analysis are. as follows .
According to the Calif6rnia Energy Commission , average electricity
charges are:
Residential = $36 . 99 per unit , per- month
commercial = . 0894 cents per kilowatt hour , using 12 . 2 KWH per
square foot per year applied to commercial and .recreation
developments .
*Urban Land Institute gross leasable space square foot figure for
neighborhood shopping centers in the far west .
-4- ( 5940d )
Average natural gas charges are:
Residential = $33 . 02 per unit , .,per month
Commercial = $6 . 69 per million BTU ' s , using an annual rate. of
. 42 BTU's per square foot applied to commercial and
recreational developments.
General Telephone could not provide 'an average service cost for
residential customers in the City, therefore ,an: average ,c.,harge of
$40 has .been used. in this analysis.
Annual phone charges for. commercial and .recrea-tionalentities were_
not .avalable and , 'due ,to the differences in phone usage ,per
'business , an average bill orld' se , could not be ,calculated_ at this .
time
For cable T.V. service in the City, the basic rate, paid by' residents
is $12 .50 .per month . It is assumed that all new' residents in the
City will subscribe to the cable service.
UTILITY USER TAX ANNUAL REVENUE
Alternative 1
Electric Gas . Phone Cable TV Total
Commercial 7,127 1 ,836 N/ANN/A� 8,963
Alternative 2
Residential $3 , 107 $2 , 714 $3, 360 $1 , 050' $10, 291 -
Alternative 3
Residential $1 , 554 $1, 387 $1 , 680 $ ' . 525 $ -5,146
Alternative 4
Residential $ 666 $ 594 $ 720 ' $ 225 $ 2,205
Alternative 5
Recreation $1,917 $ 494 N/A N/A. $ 2,411
Alternative 6 '
Commercial/
Recreation $3 ,340 $ 861 N/A $ N/A $ 4,201
-5- (594Od )
FRANCHISE TAX ANNUAL REVENUE ,
ELECTRIC GAS TOTAL
Alternative -1
Commercial $ 1 ,425 $ 1 , 469 2, 894
FRANCHISE TAX ANNUAL REVENUE
Alternative 2 Electric Gas Total
Residential $ 621 2 ,219 $ 2,840
Alternative 3
Residential $ . 311 $ 1 , 109 $ 1 , 420
Alternative 4
Residential $ 133 : $ 475 $ 608
Alternative 5
Recreation $ 383 $ 395 $ 778
Alternative 6
Commercial $. 668 $ 688 $ 1 , 356
1 .4 Business License Fee Revenue
The commercial and recreation facilities in Alternatives 1, 5 and '6
will require employees and will also generate business licence fee
revenue .
Business license fees are based on the number of employees per
business and also a fee per number of trucks . It is not feasible to
estimate the number of trucks per business, but employees have been
estimated based on the following assumptions.
Commercial = a City survey of 52 specialty commercial stores
identified 2 . 4 employees per store . It is assumed that the
commerical land uses in this report will average 1000 square
feet per business . Alternative No . 1 would, therefore, have
105 business • and 252 employees,. For one to three employees the
City' s Business License Department charges $37 . 50 per year .
Tile total business license revenue generated� by Alternative No.
1 would be $3,938.
Applying the same methodology, the commercial development in
Alternative No 6 would have 32 businesses generating 77
employees , with a total revenue of $1 , 200 .
-6=- ( 5940d )
Recreation = A survey of recreational 'faciliti:es ( i .e . athletic '
club, health. club, fitness center and racquet club ) identified
an average •of 11 employees per facility, - The business license
fee for 11' employees is, $6.7 . 5.0 per year.
Total Business License Fees,:
Alternative Fee*
Alt . No. l 31938
Alt : No: 5 68.
Alt . No. 6- 1 , 268
*Amount rounded to the nearest dollar .
1 . 5 Additional Revenue
Additional revenue is received from new residential •development on a
per capita basis . In this analysis Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 ate
residential developments . In the Preliminary City Budget , Fiscal
Year 1986-1987, four major revenue items are applicable to this
analysis . .Based on the January 1986 State Department. of Finance
population estimate for Huntington Beach of 184,300; the revenues
are calculated as follows:
Fines Forfeitures and Penalties is $2 ,195, 000 'di.vided by
U4 ,300 equals $11 . 90 per capital .,
Cigarette Tax is $532,100 divided by 184 , 300 equals $2'. 89 per
capita
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax is $5 ,248 ,'000 divided by 184 , 300 and
equals $28 .48 per capita .
Gas Tax Funds (2107 and 2107 . 5 ) are $1, 620, 600 divided by .
184,300 equaling $8 . 79 per capita.
Additional Revenue Alternative . 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Fines, Forfeitures $ 3,332 $1 , 666 , $1 ,666
and Penalties
Cigarette. Tax 809 405 283
Motor Vehicle 7,974 3;987 ' 21791
In-Lieu Tax
Gas Tax Fund 2, 461 1, 231 861
l4 i 57.6 7,298 5;101
2 .0 COSTS
Research and discussions with each department has resulted in the
application of different methods- to assess relative costs . These
-7- ( 5940d )
results depended on the amount of data available and the level of
automation in each department . For example , the police department
has the most sophisticated data analysis related 'to activity by type
of land use . Working with the police department computerized
archival data it was possible to assess the number of calls for a
particular type of land use . The number of calls has a direct
relationship to the number of officers needed and ultimately a
recommendation for the hiring of additional officers based .on the
impacts from development .
Essentially, each department has been treated on a case by case
basis rather than applying a standard methodology to all of the
factors considered.
2 . 0 Cost Assumptions
The City of Huntington Beach Preliminary Budget , Fiscal Year
1986-1987, was used as the primary source for- this section of the
analysis . Capital expenditures were excluded from the budget as .z
they are not applicable to future or -proposed development . The
applicable programs under each budget item can generally be assigned
to privately developed acreage in the City on the - following basis :
Residential land uses comprise approximately 78 percent of privately
developed acres , commercial land uses comprise 10 percent and
industrial land uses comprise 12 percent . Where appropriate, this
land use . distribution will be used to assess cost .impacts .
2 . 1 General and Administration Expenditures
While this fund includes numerous programs (a total of 20 ) , new
development would measurably impact only the non-departmental
category. Non-departmental activities range from Cit utility costs
to liability program costs with a 19.86-87 budget of �7, 950, 300 .
Rosidentail' related impacts would be $6 , 201 , 234 , industrial related
impacts , would be ,$950, 036 and commercial related. impacts would be
$795 , 030 . The most equitable. method. of, .distributing�,this
expenditure is based on costs per acre.
There are approximately 9, 539 acres developed for <residenti'al land
uses with an estimated cost of $650 per acre, 1 ,223 acres developed
for commercial , land uses with a cost of ..$650 per acre; and 1:, 468
acres of industrial developement with a per acre cost of $647.
Since the cost per acre for residential and commercial land uses '
(using the above methodology) is the same and all alternatives use,
10 acres , the . cost for each alternative is , $6 , 500 .
2 . 2 Police Department
From surveys of similar land uses police calls per type of
development were derived . Calls relate to additional officers per.
ear . One officer ' s average annual salary, including benefits , is
54, 000 . Five or more officers would result in capital ,expenditures
-8- ( 5940d )
such as a vehicle . when calls per year reach 535 , then the police
department would recommend hiring an officer at the annual cost of
$54 , 000 . Calls and officer time involved per alternative are shown
in the following table.
Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6
Calls 77 202. 101 18 34 43
Additional
Officer. .14 . 38 .19, . 03 04 . 07
As shown in Table I none of the Alternatives generated a number
greater than one . Based on the percentages resulting from the
survey, police costs per Alternative will be assessed on the cost
per. office multiplied by the percentage per Alternative .
ALTERNATIVE PERCENT OF OFFICE ANNUAL COST
Alt . No. 1' ( .14 ) ( 54 ,000 ) = 7 , 560
Alt . No. 2 ( . 38 ) ( 54, 000 ) = 20, 520
Alt . No. 3 ( . 19 ) ( 54, 000 ) = 10, 260.
Alt . No . 4 ( . 03 ) ( 54,000 ) = 1 ,620
Alt .. Nd, 5 ( . 04 ) ( 54,000 ) = 2 ,160
Alt . No . 6 ( . 07 ) ( 54,000 ) = 3, 780
2 .3 Fire Department
It is the the assessment of Fire Department Staff, primarily Tom
Poe (Deputy Fire Marshall, Fire Prevention Division ) , that new
residential development . will impact two programs : Public 'Safety
Administration, Program No. 300 and Public Safety, Fire Control
Program 302 . The total 1986-1987 budget for these programs , minus
capital expenditures , is $7, 528, 860. The majority of public safety
activity, approximately 75 percent, is provided to residential land
uses in the City. Assuming costs for public safety on a per capita
basis the result would be as follows :
( $7, 528 , 860 ) ( . 75 ) = $5,646, 645 divided by the 1986 City population
of 184, 300 = $31 per capita
Commercial land- uses , however , have a relatively small impact on the
Fire Department . Six percent of Fire Safety service can. be
attributed to commercial uses , or ( . 06 ) ($7 , 528, 860 )=$451 ,732 . In
addition to Fire Safety, Commercial uses also impact program 308 ,
Hazmat Response Unit , It is estimated that 25 percent of the
1986-87 program budget or ( . 25) ($36,130 ) = $9, 033 can be attributed
to commercial uses . ' Of the three programs the total cost is
W460, 76
0, 765. Applied on a per acre basis the cost distribution is
5 divided by 1223 commercial acres = $377 'per acre. Due to a
limited data base, for this analysis Alternative 1 , . 5, and 6 would
generate the same annual cost, ($377 ) (10 acres ) $3 , 770 .
-9- ( 5940d )
Costs per -alternative are;
1 2* 3`** 4*** 5 ' 6
$3 , 770 $8,680 $4-,340 $3.,038 $3 ,770, $3, 770
* Base.d on a Population of
** Based on a population .of 140
*** Based on a population of 98 .
2 .4 Community Services
According to Jim Engle, Superintendent o.f Recreation and Park
Development , none of the residential developments in -Alternatives
2, 3 or 4 would have an impact on Community Services .
There would 'be not increase in department services' or the need for
additional park acreage in response to any of -the Alternatives ..
2 . 5 Public Works
in a discussion with Les Evans , City' Engineer , it was determined
that the scope of development assessed 'in this analysis would only
have a measurable impact on Public Works Programs 530 and 531 , sewer
maintenance . Mr.. Evans also stated that residential development
generates the greatest impact on sewer maintenance`-in the City. For,
budget year 1986-1987 the total cost for sewer maintenance isr
$580 , 893 : Since residential generates the largest impact -it i,s
realistic to measure that impact on a per capita basis . For,
commercial. land uses the cost -wi.11 .be measured 'on',a -- per acre basis .
Residential costs are as follows:
Seventy eight percent of $580 , 893 $453 , 097 ' divided by ,the 1986 .
population estimate of 184`, 300 = °$2 . 46 per capital . '
The per acre cost is -derived from the balance of the programs which
equals $127 ,796 divided by Z,-691 -adees (commercial ; and_ industrial'. )
and results in $47 . 50 per acre:
' COSTS PER ALTERNATIVE
Commercial
Alternatives 1 , 5 and 6, are all 14 acres , (10 ) ($�47. 50 ) _ $475 .
Residential Population Per Capita Cost Total
Alternative 2 280 2 .46 $689
Alternative 3 140 2 .46 344
Alternative 4 98 2 .46 241
-10- (5940d)
- r -
3 .0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
This analysis is based on a one year comparison of revenues
generated to, and service cost impacts upon , the City of Huntington
Beach from each land use scenario. The categories used in this
analysis reflect major revenue and cost factors The purpose of
this analysis is to examine on-going revenues versus costs ;
therefore, one-time only development fees are not included. Also,
"this analysis is riot intended to replace or be used as a detailed
market feasibility study.
Six alternatives ate compared on' the basis of their relative cost
and benefit impacts . By comparing relative revenues and costs the
results of the analysis, as" shown in Table 2, indicate that all
alternatives would have a positive revenue impact ranging from
Alternative ' 5 with a net revenue of $6, 397 to Alternative l with 'a
net revenue of $194 ,367. .
-ll (5940d)
TABLE A-1
POLICE DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
CALLS GENERATED BY TYPE. OF LAND USE
Total Calls/
Recommended Number of
Units or Calls/Unit Threshold for Additional
Land Use Square Feet or Sq. Ft . Calls/Year Additional Officers Officers
Alternative No .l
Commercial 130 , 680 1/1693 77 77/535 .14
sq. ft.
Alternative No. 2
Multi-Family 140 1 . 44/ 202. 202/535 . 38
Medium Density unit
Alternative No . 3
Multi-Family 70 1.44/ 101 101/535 .19
Low Density unit
Alternative No . 4
Residential
Single Family 30 . 60/unit 18 18/535 .03
Alternative No. 5
Recreation 35,160 . 1/1634 22 22/535 .04
( Health Club) sq. ft .
Alternative No . 6
Commercial 44, 250 1/1693 26 26/535 .05
sq. ft .
Recreation 17, 000 1/1634 10 10/535 .02-
sq. ft . 07
TABLE A-2
AC MARION
REVENUE/COST .ESTIMATES
Revenue Alt. 1 Alt . 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5. Alt . 6
Property Tax $24,986 $40, 152 $24, 760 $20, 076 $16, 045 $17, 996
Sales Tax 171 ,891 3, 920 2,100 1 ,590 N/A 58 ,205
Utility/
Franchise Tax 11 , 857 13, 131 6 , 566 2 ,813 3 ,189 .5, 557
Business Licemse 3,938 N/A N/A N/A 68 1 , 268
Fines., Forfeitures
and Penalties N/A 3, 332 1 , 666 1,166 N/A N/A
Cigarette Tax N/A 809 405 283 N/A N/A
.Motor Vehicle N/A 7, 974 3, 987 2, 791 N/A N/A
In Lieu Tax
Gas Tax Fund N/A 2 ,461 1 , 231 861 N/A N/A
Totals $212, 672 $71 , 769 $40 , 715 $29, 580 $19, 302 $83, 0.26
Costs
General/Admin. $6, 500 $6, 500 $6 , 500 $6 ,.500 ' $6, 500 $6, 500
Police Dept . 7,560 20 ,520 10 ,260 T ,620 2,160 3 ,780
Fire Depart. 3, 770 8, 680 40, 340 3,038 3, 770 3, 770
-`Commu.ity Services -0- -0- -0- 0 -0- -0-
Public Works 415 689 344 24.1 475 475
Total .$18, 305 $36, 389 $211444 $11 , 399 .' $12 ,.905 $14, 525
Revenue Minus Cost $194,367 $35, 380 $19 ,271 $18,1.81 $6, 397 $68,501
Revenue/Cost Ratio- 11 . 62 1 . 97 1 . 90 2 .59 1 . 50 5 . 72
APPENDIX B
INITIAL STUDY
i
- r
GPA 86 ' 3 (0523D)
APPFNDI X I
ENVIRONMENTAL C�ECIICLIST .FORM
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
1. Nome of Proponent City of Huntington Beach.
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2000 Ma i-n Street_
Huntington Beach,. Ca. 92648 (714) .536-5271
3. Date of Ckecklist Submitted March 6,,- 1985
4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach
S. Name of Proposal, if applicable Genera I ,P Ian Amendment NQ.. 85--2•
II. EnvirdraTlental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "moybe" answers are required on attached sheets:)
Yes Maybe No
I. Eath. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions o'r in changes
in geologic substructures? X
b. Disruptioris, displocerrients, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? x
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief fq otures? x
d. The destruction, covering or mod'rfio6tion
of any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind o'r water erosion of
soils- either on or off the site? x
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands or cho iiltati de
�es n siltation, pOSlt IOn Of
erosion which 'nay modify the,channel of a
river or :stream or the,b.ed of the ocean or �
any bay, inlet of lake?' x
r
115
Yes
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:
G. 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 charge in_Climate,
either locally or regionally? X
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
i
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-
6uding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
f. Alteration of the direction or rote 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
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public water
supplies? X
i. Exposure of people or property to water re- X
lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
116
Yes be 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 rxwmbers 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
shillfish, benthic organisms at insects)?
b. Reduction o.f 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 Imovement of animals? X
�. Deterioration 'to existing. fish or wildlife
habitdt? 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. Witt 'tfw proposal produce
new light or glare? X
8. Lord Uhe. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the present'or planned
land use of on area? X
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? X
117
Yes No
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource? X.
10. Risk of Upset. YVill the proposal involve:
a. A-risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals,or .
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset condi t ions? X
b. Possible interference with an emergency►
-response plan or an -emergency evacuation
plan? X
1-1. Populatiorw 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 irrpoct upon existing transpor-
tation systems? X
r.
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods? X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air.
traff ic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles,-bicyclists or pedestrians? X
14. Public Services. Will the propoaa1.have an
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
Yes � I`jo
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
r.. Maintenonce of public facilities, includinq
rods? X
f. Other govemmerital services? X
15. EneiV. 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 sys tems? X
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks? X
e. Storm water drainage? X
f. Solid waste and disposal? X
17. F-k� Fk-alth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creations of any. health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? X
I
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hoz arils?
18. Aesthetic+. 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
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? X
20. Cultvral Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of 'a prehisitoric'•or
historic archaeological site? X
119 +"
Yes Mom No
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a-prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? 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 religious
or .sacred -uses within' the' potential irnpcct
area? X
21.,, Mandatory, Findings of'S*iflcaace.
a. Does the project-'hove 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 onimal 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 hove the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvci toge of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, dcfinit.ive' ;
period of time while long-term impacts
will-endure well into the future.) X
c. Does the project have irrpocts which are'
individually limited, but cumulatively can-
sideroble? (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?. X
Ill.. Discussion of Ernrironmental Evaluation
IV. Nterminat ion
(To be completed by'.the Lead Agency)
120
On the basis of this initial evoluotiont
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project cold have a significant effect tt
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case � t
because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been odded to the project, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE. PREPARED.
1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- *Focused
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. `XXXI I
March 6, 1985 `
to 5 ignatur
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 EIP.
wi'II be prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment Analysis.
r v
1
1
121
FXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS
lb. Construction on the site may require compaction or displacement of soil .
C. Construction on the site may result in reduction of 'some swaie areas.
g. The Bo I sa-Fa i rv,i ew •Earthquake -Fault passes th_ rough the v i c i n,i ty of the
project area.
_3b'. Construction w i:l I-'a I•ter the' f low of run-of f ;i nto the.. swale area_ s.
da. Dev6lopment of the site will generate human and vehicle noise.
7. Deve I opment 'of the s i,te ,w i',I I resu I t.-i-n additional street , fights.
S. The site is presently used as horse stables, 'and the existing .p'hanined 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 bicyclist,
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.
2.1c. The cumulative effect of relatively small impacts on various resources will
be examined.
APPENDIX C
LETTERS OF COMMENT
a
GPA 86--3
. � (0,523D). .
state of Wifornin THE RESOURCES 'AGENCY OF -CALIFORNIA
. Memoran .dum
To Dr . Go r don F Snow pate MA`(
Ass'is tan t Secretary for Resources
Subject: Draft EIR for
Hal Simmons Huntington Beach
City " of ' Hun tington Beach_ General Plan Land
2000 Main Street Use Element GPA 85-2 ,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Orange, County,
SCH No . 85031301
From Department of CanserVation--Office of the Diiector
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 -arid on possible oil field
impacts ;
Geo techn ical
The Draft" EIR "(p . 15 ) acknowledges the site 's proximity to the j
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 thaE 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 o"f
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 possibility that
reabandonment of such wells may be necessary . Section 3208 .1. of
the Public Resources C m
Code authorizes the State Oil and Gas
Supervisor to order the reab.andonment 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:
_ i
Dr . Gordon , F. Snow
Mr . Hal Simmons
Page 2
In addition , 'if any excavation or grading res ul is in damage to
thee. 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 w.ill 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 .future ' dr il'lir g in the area .
If you have any question_ s regarding these comments , please
can tact-. me at ( 916) 322-587.3 .
Dennis . J. O' Bryan t
Environmental Program ,.Coordinator.
CC: Robert Strei tz; Division of Mines and Geology
Ed Kiessling, Division of Mines and Geology
Lynn Jones , Division of Mines and Geology ;
K. Carlson , 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 pri'o'r '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 wells
located on the subject property. A condition of approvai.' for any
Conditional Use Permit' on the site should b.e 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 .
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS .. '
OF ORANGE COUNTY; CALIFORNIA
�c P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
�'••"' 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018
.(714) 962=2411
August 11, 1986 HUNTINCITON BEACH
City of Huntington Beach
P.O. Box 190 _
Huntington Beach, CA 926,4$ i
�iuntingtan Beach, CA 92648
Attention: Catherine Miller
Regarding: Development, at Ellis Avenue and Golden -,West Street
City of Huntington Beach,
Dear Catherine:
In response to your inquiry, subject area has been master planned by .the
District for industrial development using a flow coefficient of 388.0 gallons per ,
day per acre. This area is within County Sanitation District No.- 3 but would; be
served by City owned lines tributary to County Sanitation District °No. 11
facilities. As you are aware, the District is concerned about the amount of
available capacity remaining to serve areas of District No. 11 which feed into . _ .
the -Slater Avenue Pump Station. The staff will soon make recommendations to the
Directors regarding the appropriate connection fee for this area, and we request . .
that you not give connections until the Directors receive same. .
However, we have no. objections to development levels which .generate sewage equal
.to what has previously been 'master planned. In the meantime, we are actively
working with your City, the County and the developers, to improve .capacity
through completion of the Coast. Trunk Sewer. '
I'f you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call .
Siricer ly,
Thomas M. Dawes
Director of Engineering
TMD:HJB:1b
.cc: Director of. Finance
General Manager
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET '. CALIFORNIA 92648
P. O. Box 190, COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION (714) 536-54M "
HUNTINuTCr) BEACH '
DEVELONEW S;*R'1i,i
Septembe:. 2, 1986' .
P.;�. Sox 1ju
• Huntington Beach Planning Commission Huntington Beach, CA 92648 .
P. O Box 190
Huntington Bleach, CA 92648
Dear Commissioners:
Re: September 3, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting
Item C-12
On June 12, 1985, the Community Services Commission took
the following action:
Moved by Vander Molen, seconded by Kennedy, the
r Community Services Commission recommends' to the City
�. Council that the A.C.Marion property zoning change
from' general commercial to medium density be.- denied
and that the property either stay in its present '
zoning designation (Qualifed Community Business
District (C2-0 '(Q) ) , which would make it, compatible
with the. adjacent equestrian stable, or be rezoned
to recreational open • space. `
Pursuant to the above. action, I would like to ask that
tie Planning' Commission not rezone the A.C.Marion
property in a manner that would not be compatible with
the park usage.
Sincerely,
NORMA VANDER MOLEN
Chairman
NVM:cs
Attachment
cc: Community Services Commission.
Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator
Melvin M. Bowman', Director
er
F (44.
MINUTES '
REGULAR MEETING
COMMUNITY SE. RVICES COMMLSSION`
Wednesday, June 12; 1985; 7:00'PM .
Council Chambers, Civic Center
2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach", CA '92648 ,.
• e in f. Community mm�
Chairperson Frost called the regular, meet g .o the Services Commission to
order at 7:08 PM and led the salute to the flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Glen Dysinger; Jeffrey Frost; Betty Kennedy; William Osness;
Jay Rivera; Norma Vander Molen
MEMBER_ S ABSENT: Judy Blankinship (excused absence); Art Giese; (excused
absence); Marilyn Jensen (unexcused ' absence); Loren Moll
(excused absence); Karen O'Bric (unexcused absence)
STAFF PRESENT: Vivian Borns; Melvin M. Bowman; Doug D'Arnall; aim Engle;
Bill Fowler; Library Division Staff (Walter 3ohnson,
Ron Hayden, Mary Ann Hutton, Gary Shippey); Daryl Smith;
Carolyn Strook
GUESTS: Ira Toibin, HBUHSD, will be replacing Glen Dysinger in
September as District representative.
PRESENTATIONS-COMMENDATIONS
LIBRARY ' DIVISION - Walter 3ohnson, Library Director, Ron Hayden, Public Services
Librarian, Mary Ann Hutton, Librarian, and Gary Shippey, Technical Services Technician,
gave a presentation on the Children's. Division, Technical Services and other general
services currently being provided by. the Library. _ Library staff will be making
presentations -the next few -,months .in order . to enlighten the Commission on current
services provided by the Library.
MINUTES - REGULAR MEETINGt MAY 92 1985
MOTION: MOVED BY RI ERA, SECONDED BY KENNEDY, THE ' COMMUNITY
SERVICES COMMISSION APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD
ON MAY 9, 1995 AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: DYSINGER; KENNEDY; OSNES_S; RIVERA; VANDER. MOLEN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: BLANKINSHIP; GIESE; JENSEN; MOLL; O'BRIC'
ABSTENTION: FROST
DIRECTOR'S NON-AGENDA ITEMS
HUNTINGT5N CENTRAL 15ARK (HCP) COMMITTEE, PARK CONCESSION
IMPROVEMENTS _ Director requested a committee meeting for the purpose of discussing
proposed HCP concession improvements. A meeting was scheduled for 'Wednesday,
June 26, 7:00 AM, 5th floor conference room.
r
`~.COMMUNITY SERVICES COt'...lSSION June 12, 1985
.MINUTES - 499 U Page 3
MOTION: MOVED BY OSNESS, SECONDED BY FROST, THE COMMUNITY SERVICES
COMMISSION, DIRECT, THAT IF THE NEW ZONING 15 APPROVED, THE HUNTINGTON
C FNTRAL PARK COMMITTEE PREPARE CONDITIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.'
• OF THE A.C. MARION PROPERTY AND SUBMIT THEM TO THE COMMISSION FOR .
APPROVAL AND SUBMITTAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: DYSINGER, FROST, KENNEDY, OSNES$, RIVERA,
VANDER MOLEN
NOES: NONE
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
PEDALn BOAT OPERATION, HUNTINGTON LAKE IN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK -
The only proposal received 'was from Don Levy, Recreation Boat Manufacturers. The
agreement is being prepared by the City Attorney's Office.
WIEDER PARK BIDS - The request for bids were opened on June 4 and the request for
approval will be submitted to the City Council by Public Works.
t3ARTLETT PARK PLAQUE - The area has been sodded and the plaque mounted in river
stone adjacent.to the parking lot. A picture of Ted Bartlett standing next to the plaque
will be displayed in the Newland Barn.
LIAk 11-11A INSURANCENSE OF ALCOHOL IN CITY FACILITIES- - The issue of alcohol
in city facilities was pulled from the May 6 Council agenda in order to allow the City
insurance and Benefits Office an opportunity to research the possibilities of acquiring
` liaL-i'ity insurance. Insurance, and Benefits has acquired an insurance policy. This has
eliminated the problem of having patrons get their own liability insurance certificate
when serving alcoholic beverages in city facilities.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE
Jay Rivera attended the May 16, 1985, committee meeting. A copy of the minutes were
included in the packet. A second survey with changes in definitions will be sent. A public
meeting will be held after the policies are drafted so people will have something to react
to.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Kennedy asked staff to check on the CPRS 1985-86 dues with Rose Mary Forehand who is
currently working on "fixing the mess" in the computer in Sacramento.
Osness liked the "new look" of the SANDS; reported that Supervisor Wieder is conducting
a Town Hall meeting on June 13 at the Huntington Beach Civic Center.
Vander Molen asked park maintenance to check on frisbee golf course signs and drinking
fountains by the lake in HCP.
Dysinger suggested that park maintenance look at placing "extra" trash cans in HC:P
during this tirne of the year since the existing trash cans do not seem to be adequate.
y. Toibin stated that "as an observer" the meetings seem interesting.
3
COMMUNITY SERVICL_' COMMISSION �"� June l2,'1985 '
MINUTES - 499 Page 4
ITEMS DISTRIBUTED TO COMMISSION
MONTHLY MANAGEMENT REPORT - APRIL, 1985. `
LETTER FROM MAYOR BAILEY asking for opposition to AB. 21.98 `(Felando) which would
repeal the "Naylor Act" requiring school districts to offer a percentage of their surplus
playing fields (30%) to cities and park districts for purchase 'at prices that are at times
below market value.
LETTER FROM MAYOR BAILEY urging support of SB '885 (Maddy) which would provide
that any person or public agency which renders assistance at the scene of a vessel
collision, accident, or other casualty without objection by any person assisted, is not liable
for civic damages sought as a result of the,rendering of assistance, or for, other.actions
taken in the course of rendering assistance: ,.
LETTER FROM VICKI EDW'ARDS ZIESCHE extending appreciation for Jim. Engle's
efforts in working on the handicapped day camp program.
HBUHSD REPRESENTATIVE, FY 85-86 - Glen Dysinger will continue serving on the
Commission until August, 1985. Dr. Ira Toibin, Principal of Marina High School, has.been
chosen by the Board of Trustees'-to replace Mr. Dysinger. The City Council has been
asked to officially appoint Ur. Toibin to the'Commission. prior to,September I., J `
CPRS CONFERENCE SACRAMENTO - Copy of the ,article in the CALIFORNIA PARKS
be RECREATION magazine. - -
PARK MODIFICATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE THE HANDICAPPED - Report on the=tour
of park facilities conducted in response tc concerns; ,r.egarding , facilities_ -for` the
handicapped.
EXCERPTS COUNCIL MEETING, JUNE 3, 1985
BRIGHT OUTLOOK - June, 1985. -
SANDS --'Summer, 1985.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Community Services Commission regular meeting was
adjourned at 9:30 PM in honor of VIVIAN BORNS, who is retiring on June 28, after 31
years of dedicated service to the city.
Respectfully submitted,
JIM B. ENGLE, Acting Secretary
Community Services Commission
By: Carolyn Strook, Recording Secretary
JBE:cgs
0632E
Page 2 —Council Minutes - 12/15i66
• PUBLIC HEARING - CONTI3dUZD OPEN TO 3/16/87 - APPEAL' TO PC DENIAL OF ZONE
CHANGE 86-28 - NECATIVE DECLARATION 86-54 - DAVID DAHL
The .Mayor announced that .this was. the day and hour set for a. public hearing to
consider an appeal filed by David Dahl to the Planning Commission's denial of
Zone Change 86-28 and Negative Declaration No. 86-54 which would modify the
conditions of the "'Q" zoning to allow a single family home to be constructed
on a lot set aside for equestrian stables. The subject property is located
south of Ellis Avenue,: east of Edwards Street = Country View Estates - (6722
Shetland Circle) .
The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publi-
cation and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications
or written protests to the matter.
The Mayor declared the hearing open. .
A motion was made by Finley, seconded by Mays, to approve appellant's request
to continue hearing; open to March 16,, 1987 to allow time for 'staff and: appel-
lant to explore other avenues by which the equestrian needs in, the area can be
addressed. The motion carried by the .following roll call vote:
AYES: Winchell, Mays, Finley, Kelly, Erskine, Green, Bannister
NOES: None _
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING — MOTION TO APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 86-2 .AND TO
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO 5713 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) FAILED -'REOPENED NEGOTIA-
TIONS TO ACQUIRE A. C. MARION PROPERTY
The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a'public hearing to
consider an appeal filed by A. C. Marion to the Planning Commission's denial
of .his , request for General Plan Amendment 86-3 and Zone Change, 86-21. : •His
request is 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 86-21 is being pro-
posed concurrently with this request. to change the zoning from C2-0 (Community
Business District Combined with Oil) to R2-PD .(Medium Density Planned Residen
tial Development). • The request , could. result in approximately 140 ..dwelling units. '
The -Mayor stated that Environmental Impact Report 86-2 is being processed con-
currently with this application.
The City Clerk• announced that all legal requirements for notification, publi-
cation and posting had been .met, and .that .she had received no communications
- or written protests to the matter.
Hal Simmons, Associate Planner, presented a staff report. Discussion was `held
• between Council and staff regarding possible uses on the property. `
The Mayor- declared the hearing open.
JJt %C
Page 3 - Council. Minutes 12/15I86
Merry Bell, representing Equestrian Trails, Bonnie Wakeham, Victor Leipzig, ._
representing Amig:,s de Bolsa' Chica, Dean Albright, representing the Environ-
' mental Board and Reuben Ortega spoke in opposition ,to allowing residential
development on the A. C. Marion property. as they believe a residential use on
the property is incompatible with the Equestrian Center.
Tom Harman, representing Huntington Beach Tomorrow, urged Council to, take
whatever steps necessary to acquire the A. C. Marion property for Huntington
Central Park.
Ron 'Pattinson, representing A. C. Marion, stated that he believed the issue
was not whether the property should be part of Huntington, Central Park but
whether the property should be zoned commercial or residential.
There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there'- being no
further protests filed, either oral or, written, the hearing was closed by the
Mayor.
The City Clerk presented 'Resolution No. 5713 for Council consideration - "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE .CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING LAND
USE, FIEMENNT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. #86-3, .
The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2873-B for Council consideration
"AN -ORDINANCE :.OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM
COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, TO MEDIUM-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT COMBINED WITH CIVIC DISTRICT AND 10
UNIT PER ACRE DENSITY LIMIT ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH-
WEST CORNER OF ELLIS AVENUE AND GOLDENWEST STREET (ZONE CASE NO. 86-21)."
Following discussion, a motion was made by Bannister, seconded by Kelly, . to
approve Environmental Impact Report '86-2, as amended, and adopt Resolution
No. 5713. The motion failed by the .following roll call vote:.
AYES: Mays, Kelly, Bannister
NOES: Winchell, Finley, Erskine, Green
ABSENT: None
A motion was made by .Winchell, seconded by Green, to call a Closed Session of
Council to discuss the' matter.' The motion carried by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Winchell, Mays, Finley, Kelly-, Erskine, Green-
NOES: vBannister
ABSENT: None
Closed Session
Mayor Kelly called a Closed . Session of Council pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8 to give instructions to the City's negotiator regarding nego-
tiations -with A. C. Marion concerning the purchase of the property' located at
the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street.
Recess Reconvene
The Mayor called a recess of Council at 8:32 'P.M. The meeting was reconvened
at 94.21 P.M.
3 1
-
t_. rr, 2 Y.:r�c .,-iI dery of the �Irsng . PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE
1 *= Y PILOT. 'i,,I'h 'stliiGfl' jS c-oir bii.v=d, $ 2 NOTICE OF tion and copy of the
a n^ . c• PUBLIC HEARING proposed General Plan
r}r r-er.er I cir c .'.?tion.' APPEAL TO Amendment, Environmental
~ i : PLANNING Impact Report and Zone
„.'t=. 'a c:aC � ui,z` E.. i.. i I� 'J� 1+`.s, � ucs� COMMISSION Change is on.file in the De- '
_ _ partment
ttforria. a, II at g of Devemen
GENERIAL-PLANAL ' Services,,2000Man'St ett
AMENDMENT 86-3/ Huntington Beach, Cali-
t 1 J✓.1 1^ H o a r`z n n ,A r,t c= ZONE CHANGE fornia 92648, for inspection
88-21 by the public.
P1annang CO?11MiSS10II Den1a.'1 QF' NOTICE IS HEREBY ALL INTERESTED PER-
- - GIVEN that,the Huntington SONS are invited to attend
�Y Z O I7 e_,C h a n a e Beach City Council will hold said hearing and express
&public hearing in the Coun- opinions or submit evidence
oil Chamber at. the Hunt- ! for or against the application
s `_=_ "+ .r.eG' c` i'� 1 cfi;u C•" --: tt ngton Beach Civic Center,I' as outlined above.All appli-
s 2000 Main Street, _Hunt- cations, exhibits, and de-
i° ,5 ington Beach,California,on ;'scriptions of this proposal
I the date and at the time in- are on file with the.Office of
_ E-adicated below to receive and ; the City Clerk, 2000 Main
consider'the statements of Street, Huntington .Beach,
- Si - y;e, �, ±' c ;:, rt, $, s, all persons who wish to be California,for inspection by
heard relative to the`,appli- the public.
is a nation described below. HUNTINGTON BEACH
DATE: Monday, Decem- ' CITY COUNCIL, By: Alicia
4 ber 15, 1986,7:00 P.M. - M. Wentworth, City Clerk,
+ 't`' '1t=' 3 j SUBJECT: General Plan Phone: 714 536-5405
X.? ..}.1 �.>'_.]x.5 ,k Amendment 86-3/En- Dated 12/2/86
vironmental Impact Report Published Orange Coast
86-2/Zone Change 86-21 - Daily Pilot December 4,
(Appeal) 1986
A P P L I' Th303
D e c ems Y 4 G � CANT/APPELLANT: A. C.
Marion
LOCATION: ,Northwest
corner of Ellis Avenue and
_ Goldenwest Street
PROPOSAL:An appeal by
I A.C.Marion to the Planning
Commission's denial of his
' 98 requst for General Plan
Amendment 86-3 and Zone
Change 86-21.His request is.,
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 86-21
is being proposed concur-
rently with this request to
change the zoning from
=:.i au -f', i;.r`K .:.l°�i,- C2-0 (Community Business
District Combined with Oil)
$. t'.?• c C to R2-PD (Medium Density
Planned Residential De-
velopment). The request_
j could-result-in approziinate-
ly 140 dwelling units.
.. .. _,.- `_:s D:?.G�3C�Sy d _ iz."3 _E.e ENVIRONMENTAL"
- - STATUS:Environmental Im-
pact Report 86-2 is being
c processed concurrently with
this application.
p
ON FILE:A legal descrip-
Po I
n �
REQUEW FOR CITY COUNCP ACTION .
Date December 15, 1986
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by:
Charles W.. Thompson, City Administrat&� C V
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Service 0
Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 86-3/ENVIRONMENTAL " MPACT
REPORT 86-2/ZONE CHANGE 86-21
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No.
86-3, Environmental Impact Report No. 86-2 and Zone Change 86-21 .
The amendment addresses a request by A.C. Marion to redesignate 10. 1
acres located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest
Street from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential .
At their 5eptember,.16, 1986 meeting, the Planning Commission denied
A.C. Marion ' s request for General Plan Amendment 86-3 and Zone
Change 86-21 . The Commission did, however approve Environmental
Impact Report 86-2, in addition to requesting the City Council to,
within ninety ( 90) days, take measures to acquire the A.C. Marion
property. Further, the Commission requested that if the City finds
it infeasible to acquire the property for inclusion in Central Park,
that a zone change that is compatible with the surrounding area be
prepared and adopted.
A.C. Marion appealed the Planning Commission ' s denial of the Land
Use Element Amendment to the City Council and a hearing was
scheduled for October 6, 1986. At that time the Council voted to
table the item and requested staff to pursue the possibility of
acquiring the land for the City. At their meeting on December 1,
1986, the Council voted to remove the subject agenda item from the
table and staff was directed to set a public hearing date for
General Plan Amendment 86-3 and the property owner ' s appeal to the
Planning Commission ' s denial of Zone Change 86-21 .
A copy of the Request for Council Action from the. October 6, 1986
Council meeting is attached for your review. The Request for I
Council Action presents the Planning Commission' s recommendation f
which was made at their September 16, 1986 meeting, and staff ' s
recommendation and analysis.
RECOMMENDATION:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
1 . Approve Environmental Impact Report 86-2 as amended to discuss
changes to the fiscal impact methodology.
P10 4/84
I
2 . Deny Land Use Element Amendment 86-3 and concurrent Zone Change
86-21.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1 . Staff recommends that the City Council approve, by resolution,
Land Use Element 86-.3, after acting upon Environmental Impact
Report No. 86-2. Approval of the amendment will change the
land use designation of approximately 10.1 acres of land at the
northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from
General . Commercial to Medium Density Residential.
2. Staff also recommends concurrent approval of Zone Change No.
86-21 as amended by staff (Ordinance B, as attached) . The
property owner has requested a concurrent zone change to
R2-PD. Staff believes that the requested zone change should be
modified to reflect a 10 unit per acre density limit and to
include the CD (Civic District ) suffix in order to require
special design review. Staff' s recommended zoning is
R2 (10)-PD-CD.
The modification to the requested zoning will help to ensure that
development of the parcel will be compatible with Central Park .
Staff ' s conclusion is that a Medium Density project with density
limits and requirements for Design Review Board approval is
preferable t.o the present zoning which will permit unconditioned
commercial business district uses.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . RCA dated October 6, 1986
2 . Staff Report dated September 16, 1986
3. Minutes of October 6, 1986 Council Meeting -
4. Appeal letter from A.C. Marion dated September 17, 1986
JWP:CM:tl
RCA - 12/15/86 -2- ( 6812d)
t �
AY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CA 86-129
COUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
r
To Honorable Mayor and. From Charles W. Thompson,
City Council Members City Administrator
Subject A. C. MARION PROPERTY ACQUISITION Date December 15, 1986
Attached is the information provided previously for the City Council's review at the
November 17, 1986, Council meeting (closed session).
R.espEct' submitted,
�TarIes, W. Thoj'Tipson,
City Administrator
Attachment
f -
,r_
~ A. C. MARION PROPERTY •
ACQUISITION PROPOSAL
Terms: Acquisition for $3,300,000. Down payment of $800,000 with balance paid over no
more than five years with minimum annual 'payment of.$500,000. Interest on. balance to
be paid to seller at 7.2% for the first year and adjusted annually thereafter to be equal to '
the llth District rate. City to,have option to accelerate payments at anytime after first
year to pay off all or any portion of balance due. Acquisition to be structured as annual
"options" on part of City. All mineral rights, oil wells, equipment, and rights of surface
entry on property includes' plus all such rights on 7.5 acre parcel known as "Clark"
property.
2825j
P A Y N11-1 N T S._. .-f J .G t3
Estimated
Phase Date (FY) !'.mount Interest @ 7.2$ Total
1 Close Escrow (1986/87) $ 800,000 $ 800,000
2 11/1/87 (1987/88) 50t,'9000 1 $ 165,000 2 665,000
3 11/l/88 (1988/89) 500,000 144,000 644,000
4 11/l/89 (1989/90) 500,000 108,000 608,000
5 11/l/90 (1990/91) 500,000 72,000 572,000
6 11/1/91 (1991/92) i500,000 36,000 536,000
TOTAL $ 3,3009000 $ 525,000 $ 3,825,000
NOTES:
1. Minimum annual payments of $500,000 may be, increased at option of City in order to reduce interest
payments.
2. Interest adjusted annually to equal IIth District rate (calculated at 7.2% for purpose of this estimate).
2825j
O VA vm -T W- -� � - •-- � - v - r - - \- ^, _.�
34 ' r5s, R // W. - 110 -
-:�°�
,a Kq AP, ►/l D-18'0— a1, t S, A PAACVt tl'G j- G/WSs AC.
650 �
o
4. 78 AG.
2
R. S. 67 - 23 ?
G�7
f
I
i J ry 0
46 ac. , C. W
o
2 I '
G30' I
I
EzL/S a VENUE
21
NOTE — ASSESSOR'S BLOCK B. ASSESSOR'S MAP
9 • . PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 110 PAGZ' 18
34 SHOWN /N CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE
- PARK ACQUISITION'AND DEVELOPMENT FUND
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS 1986 - 1992 '
1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92
Estimated Revenue $ 2,175,000 $ 1,512,000 $ 1,612,000 $ 1,812,000 ? ?
Project Commitments
Hudson Property 250,000
Mushroom Farm Acquisition 1,800,000
McCallen Park 225,000 490,000
A.C. Marion Property (Proposal) 800,000 665,000 644,000 608,000 572,000 536,000
Sub-Total 1,275,000 2,955,000 644,000 608,000 572,000 536,000
Annual Surplus (Deficit) 900,000 (1,443,000.) 9689000;. 1,204,000 ? ?
Plus Fund Balance 190,000 1,090,000 (353,000)`' 615,000 1,819,000
si
Net Available (Cumulative) 19090,000 (353,000) 6159000 1,819,000 ? ?
Other Projects
City Gym & Pool 300,000 500,000
HCP Sports Complex 1,380,000
Bolsa View Park
HCP Lake Improvement Z62,000
Newland Barn 100,000
Irby Park 162,000
Sully Miller Lake 814,000
Bartlett Park 8979000
Equestrian Trails 1899000
Gun Range Refurbishing 150,000
Methane Gas Removal 150,000
Other Projects 198,200 _ 1.9()?00() _ 1642000 110,000
Sub-Total 2,178,200 1,065,000 1,240,000 1,196,000
2825j
MINUTES
Council Chamber, Civic Center
.; Huntington Beach, California
Monday, October 6, 1986
A tape recording of this meeting is
on file in the City Clerk's Office
Mayor Mandic called the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach to order at 7:30 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION
The Flag Ceremony was conducted by Boy Scout Troop #287 - Leader Gary Dennis.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Eagle Scout Matthew McCoy: The Invocation
was given by Life Scout David MaCallister.
ROLL CALL
Present: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green
Thomas (arrived 7:40 P.M.)
Absent: None
A C MARION PROPERTY - APPRAISAL ORDERED - NEGOTIATIONS FOR ACQUISITION BY
CITY AUTHORIZED
Mayor Mandic stated that the A. C. Marion property was discussed by Council
earlier in the evening during Closed Session.
A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Bailey,. to direct the City
Administrator to order an appraisal of the A. C. Marion property located on
the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street and to authorize
the City Administrator to negotiate for acquisition and report back to the
Council. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas
NOES: Kelly
ABSENT: None
Bob Sangster, Deputy City Attorney, stated that staff will arrive at an agree-
ment with Mr. Marion, pending these negotiations, to withdraw the zone change
proceedings and application.
PRESENTATION - "THIRD ANNUAL CHRISTIAN ACHIEVDIENT AWARD" - JENNIFER SHEPHERD
The Mayor presented a plaque to Jennifer Shepherd winner of the "Third Annual
Christian Achievement Award."
4 A
Page 3 - Council Minutes - 10/6/86
There being no one present to speak. further on the matter and there being no
further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the
Mayor.
The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2871 for Council consideration - "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDI-
NANCE CODE BY ADOPTING PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 86-1 ALIGNING- WAL-
NUT AVENUE BETWEEN SIXTH STREET AND LAKE STREET: SIXTH STREET BETWEEN PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY AND ORANGE AVENUE: SIXTH STREET BETWEEN ORANGE AVENUE AND LAKE
STREET: ORANGE AVENUE BETWEEN SIXTH STREET AND THIRD STREET: AND LAKE STREET
BETWEEN ATLANTA AVENUE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY."
A. motion was- made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Precise Plan
of Street Alignment 86-1 (Areas A, C, D, E & F and after reading by title, to
approve introduction of Ordinance No. 2871, with the inclusion of exhibits
and wording recommended by the Planning Commission and to direct staff to
immediately implement a study on the impact of the Precise Plan of Street
Alignment on existing bus routes on Sixth Street, Lake Street and Orange Ave-
nue. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Bailey, Green, Thomas
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Mandic
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO PC DENLALT OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-3/ZONE
CHANGE 86-21 - TABLED (DUE TO PRIOR ACTION TO ORDER APPRAISAL AND AUTHORIZE
NEGOTIATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY) - A C MARION
The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to
consider an appeal filed by A. C. Marion to the Planning Commission's denial
of his request for General Plan Amendment 86-3 and Zone Change 86-21. His
request is 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 86-21 is being pro-
posed concurrently with this request to change the zoning from C2-0 (Community
Business District Combined with' Oil) to R2-PD (Medium Density Planned Resi-
dential Development) . The request could result in approximately 140 dwelling
units. An appeal to the Planning Commission's September 16 1986 denial of
General Plan Amendment 86-3 Zone Change 86-21 has been filed by the property
owner A. C. Marion.
The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publi-
cation and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications
or written protests to the matter. i
Discussion was held between Council and Deputy City Attorney Sangster regard-
ing procedure.
i
A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to table the appeal to
the Planning Commission's denial of General Plan Amendment 86-3 and Zone
Change 86-21. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green
NOES: Thomas
ABSENT: None
V '
RECTIVIO
a
�l[p i r ;
A. C. MARION .
POST OFFICE BOX 108
HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648
Office(714)847-1246 Home(714)842-7926
September: 17, 1986
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Huntington Beach, California
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
We wish to Appeal The Decision. of the Planning
Commission Reference Zone "Case #86-2-1 and General
V Plan _Ammendment #86-3 .
We disagree completely with the_ _findings of the
-- Planning Commission.
Their-- only solution seems to be that the city should
buy our property..
The fifth and last reason for denial was that we
could not build within 300 (three hundred) feet of
the _existing city stable in the park. I.f this is
a valid reason then you have already condemned half j
_of our property. Section 9382. 7 of the Huntington
-Beach Ordinance Code .
.Sincerely,
REQUER FOR CITY COUNCI ACTION
Date October 6, 1986
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administratore.w
James W. Palin Director Development Service
Prepared by: � � P O p
Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 86-3/ENVIRONMENTAL I PACT p 1111 -
REPORT 86-2/ZONE CHANGE 86-21
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception �85
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No.
86-3, Environmental Impact Report No. 86-2 and Zone Change 86-21 .
Staff advised the applicant that the filing of a formal appeal to
the Planning Commission 's denial of Zone Change 86-21 is not
necessary for City Council to hear it since in this case the zone
change request is concurrent with the General Plan Amendment (GPA)
and would automatically be heard by the City Council with the GPA
request . However , Mr . Marion chose to file .a formal appeal in order
to legally ensure himself the opportunity for a public hearing and
to establish, on record, the fact that he followed correct procedure
for an appeal . The amendment addresses a private request to
redesignate 10 . 1 acres located on the northwest corner of Ellis
Avenue and Goldenwest Street from General Commercial to Medium
Density Residential . The request is transmitted to the City Council
along with the Planning Commission ' s recommendations as part of Land
Use Element Amendment No. 86-3.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission action :
ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 86-2 WAS APPROVED AS AMENDED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Rowe, Winchell , Livengood, Porter , Erskine,
Mirjahangir, Pierce
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PIO 4/84
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL, .AND SECOND BY ROWE, LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT
86-3 AND ZONE CHANGE 86-21 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: Pierce
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1 . The subject. property was originally changed from Open Space to
General Commercial is 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
which lies to the north, west and east of the property, and the
Ellis-Goldenwest Estate residential area which lies south of
the property.
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.
5. The 10 .1 acre site would encroach within 300 feet of an
existing permanent equestrian facility. _ This is in direct
conflict with Section 9382 .7 of the Ordinance Code.
A , MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE., SECOND BY PORTER, TO REQUEST .THE CITY
`COUNCIL TO, WITHIN 90 DAYS, TAKE IMMEDIATE MEASURES FOR ACQUISITION
-OF THE A. C. MARION PROPERTY (THE ACQUISITION TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN
A ONE YEAR PERIOD) . IF THEY CANNOT ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY THE CITY
SHOULD PREPARE A ZONE CHANGE FOR THE PROPERTY THAT WILL BE
COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Porter ,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Recommendation :
1 . Approve Environmental Impact Report 86-2 as amended to discuss
changes to the fiscal impact methodology.
2. Deny Land Use Element Amendment 86-3 and concurrent Zone Change
86-21 .
RCA - 10/6/86 -2- (6294d )
Staff Recommendation:
1 . Staff recommends that the City Council approve, by resolution,
Land Use Element 86-3, after acting upon Environmental Impact
Report No. 86-2. Approval of the amendment will change the
land use designation of approximately 10 .1 acres of land at the
northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from
General Commercial to Medium Density Residential .
2. Staff also recommends concurrent approval of Zone Change No.
86-21 as amended by staff (Ordinance B, as attached ) . The
property owner has requested a concurrent zone change to
R2-PD. Staff believes that the requested zone change should be
modified to reflect a 10 unit per acre density limit and to
include the CD (Civic District) suffix in order to require
special design review. Staff 's . recommended zoning is
R2 (10)-PD-CD.
The conditions will help to ensure that development of the parcel
will be compatible with Central Park . Staff ' s conclusion is that a
medium density project with density limits and requirements for
Design Review Board approval is preferable to the present zoning
which will permit unconditioned commercial business district uses .
ANALYSIS:
A previous request for the same land use element amendment and zone
change was disapproved by the Planning Commission on June 4, 1985 ,
and was denied by the City Council on June 17, 1985. After denying
the amendment request, the City Council explored the City ' s ability
to purchase the site for inclusion in Central Park . Staff estimated
the value of the subject property as 2. 0 to 2 .5 million dollars in
1985 and concluded that the City had the. following options to
purchase the property:
1 . Sell three of the City's surplus properties identified below to
generate the funds to purchase the A. C. Marion property.
a ) Property located off of Talbert Avenue. Estimated value in
1985 : 1 . 5 million dollars
b ) Property on Gothard Street in front of the Police
Helicopter Maintenance Facility. Estimated value in 1985 :
. 7 million dollars
c ) Property along Lake Street, including the Lindborg/Dahl
property and the old #1 Fire Station . Estimated value in
1985: 1 . 6 million dollars
Total estimated value of surplus properties outlined above:
approximately 3. 8 million dollars .
RCA = 10/6/86 -3- (6294d )
2 . Postpone 1985 plans for the development of four park.s (Wieder ,
McCallen, Manning, Lambert) for which approximately 1 .3-25
million ' dollars. was appropriated. Other slated projects that
could have been postponed to add to the 1 .325 million dollars
were also identified. (See .Attachment 4, Council-Administrator
Communication from Charles W.' Thompson, City Administrator , to
the Mayor and City Council Members . )
The .City Council, ultimately concluded that sufficient funds were not
available to purchase' , the A. C. Marion property without foregoing'
other important projects .. ,Subsequently, the Council directed that a
zone change be initiated to remove conditions from the commercial
zoning in order to make the subject property more marketable That
zone change ( ZC 85-13 ) removed the %" from the pro.p•erty and
established the present C2-0 zoning in .place of the previous C2-0-Q
zoning. The '.'Q" had required that construction be limited to one
story, that uses be equestrian oriented, that construction materials
be wood siding and earthtones , that there- be parking. lot landscaping
.and that- there- be pedestrian and horse access to . the- site. The
present C2-0 zoning which was adopted on Sep,tember: l6,.. 19.85 permits
construction up to 5.0 feet in he.ight 'and allows virtually all .
commercial uses.
At present, a permanent commercial horse facility exists directly ,
north of the subject property and a te'mpory commercial horse
facility, whose Conditional Use Permit has expired- and for which a
request for extension has not been filed, exists across Ellis
Avenue, south of the property. At their September 16, 1986 meeting
the Planning Commission expressed concern that the applicant ' s
request for this amendment violates the 300 foot setback requirement
contained in Article 967 ( Community Equine Standards ) which
prohibits horse stables within. 300 feet of •residential . units .
, Staff interprets this ordinance to- restrict the development 'of new
commercial horse facilities, not the development of new residentia l
structures . The ordinance states that new commercial horse
facilities may not be erected within 300 feet of any property zoned
or general planned as residential . It does not say . that new
residential development, residentially zone..d:. or general planned
property may not occur within 300 feet of an existing commercial
horse facility. If such restrictions on residential development
`were intended they would be properly contained within the ordinance
code 's standards ' for . residential development . .
Furthermore, at their August 19, 1986. meeting, the Planning
Commission voted to remove a -condition of approval from a -'
Conditional Use Permit for a temporary equine facility which
required the facility to shut down once a .residential use was
established within 300 feet of the stable.. It was further requested.
that .'if such a condition exists on any other Conditional Use Permit ; ..
that said condition be removed. This enforces the fact that the
setback requirements in Section 9670 . 5 .are only for new equine-
facility development and are intended to -protect existing
residential uses from encroachment of horse facilites, = not the
reverse.
RCA 10/6/86 -4- ( 6294d ) :
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Environmental Impact Report 85-1 which was prepared by the City for
the applicant ' s previous request and was certified in June 1985 is
being resubmitted as draft Environmental Impact Report. 86-2 for the
applicant 's current request . ` , This is ' in accordance with Article 10,
Section 15153 of CEQA, "Use of an environmental impact report from
an earlier project" . The EIR has been updated to include a revised
fiscal impact analysis and a slightly revised recommendation
discussion . Otherwise, the document is virtually identical to that
which was previously certified.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable,
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The City Council may deny the requested changes as recommended by
the Planning Commission, they may approve the amendment request and
concurrent zone change with conditions as recommended by the
Planning Staff, or they may' modify them as desired .
-
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Area map
2. Resolution adopting Land Use Element 86-3
3. ordinance 'A (adopting R2-PD zone)
4 . Ordinance B (adopting R2-( 10 )-PD-CD zone ) .- Staff Recommendation
5 . Staff report dated September 16, 1986
6. Council-Administrator Communication dated 7/12/85
7. Land Use Element Amendment No. 86-3
JWP:CM: kla
RCA - 10/6/86 -5- ( 6294d )
Y I (HLNT!NC�Otl CENTRAL,,'vIKI I C F—R M I-(,D
I I ' g• it I':::!I/:1Y.?f:F: ':f:H(R.'1.r.,.) a MI-A
i1 ., -cz ..R. 6,U. _
M L-
RA-0—CD _ 3 RI cE
RA-0-CD MI M► RI TARgr
- -
(PREZONED) RA
- - —.�� _.— RI
RI-CD CF-� C,
.l -0co ocD 4"D e e r
s-0-CD o-co Ros.0•CD oco s-0•co M I—C D RI RI RI �
C2-0 _ 1
e MI ! T \
O CO �SOCDI
O CD MI•CD
(PREZONEDI .,..rat RI
-CD RI
u-0-C.D RA-0-co
MI-0—CD p I
LU-0-CD o RFca►o-co spoo __ :M I M R 2
RA—CD -
�D—
r RA-0 LU-0-CD sJ� MI II
i... u-o-co RA-0-CD
� a
l RA-0
$ Rka-CD RA-0-CD I
"L- M2-0
..0 4.— -- ` F
II no
I( 9 Q-RI-(2.7)-06,000 RA-CO 3 RA-0 MI-0
1
... _
I' RA-0-C MI-0 y '
RA-0 __lm.._ f t.
' RA-01 RA-0 LU-0-CD RA-0-CD RN ' ONE » - R5 :
i r _. f —DD►. MI-A-CO
MI-CD t .. MI-01 h MI-0
1
f36-Z it
u ESCY-,-3/F,19 Bro-2/, C
i
HUNTINGTON 8FACII
HUNTINGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION
t 'Ordinance•
ORDINANCE NO. 2V3,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE
BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE
OF ZONING FROM COMMUNITY BUSINESS
DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, TO
MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ELLIS AVENUE AND
GOLDENWEST STREET ( ZONE CASE NO. 86-21)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law,
the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City
Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case
No . 86-21 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all
information presented at said hearings, and after due
consideration of the finding and recommendations of the Planning
Commission and all evidence presented to said. City Council, the
City Council finds that such zone change is proper , and consistent
with the general plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach does ordain as follows :
SECTION 1. The following described real property,
generally located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and
Goldenwest Street, is hereby changed from C2-0, combined with oil
production, to R2-PD "Medium-Density Planned Residential
Development District" :
The southeast quarter of the southeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section
34, Township 5 South, Range 11 West in the
Rancho Las Bolsa, as per map recorded in
I
Book 51 page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps in the
1 .
i
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 amended to reflect the change contained in this
ordinance and on the map attached hereto. The Director of
Development Services `is hereby directed to prepare and file an
amended map. A copy of said district map, as amended, shall be
available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days
after its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the
day of , 1986 .
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
T
City Clerk City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I TIATED AND ED:
City A ministrator irector f Development Services j
2 •
i
Ordinance* Staff Recommendation
ORDINANCE NO. q
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE
BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE
OF ZONING FROM COMMUNITY BUSINESS
DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, TO
MEDIUM-DENSITY -RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT COMBINED WITH CIVIC DISTRICT AND 10
UNIT PER ACRE DENSITY LIMIT ON REAL PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
ELLIS AVENUE AND GOLDENWEST STREET ( ZONE CASE
NO. 86-21 )
WHEREAS, pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law,
the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City
Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case
No. 86-21 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all
information presented at said hearings, and after due
consideration of the finding and recommendations of the Planning
Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the
City Council finds that such zone change is proper , and consistent
with the general plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach does ordain as follows :
SECTION 1 . The following described . real property,
generally located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and
Goldenwest Street, is hereby changed from C2-0, combined with oil
production, to R2-(10 )-PD-CD "Medium-Density Planned Residential
Development District" , combined with Civic District and 10 unit
per acre density limit.
The southeast quarter of the southeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of Section
34 , Township 5 South, Range 11 West in the
0
Rancho Las Bolsa, as per map recorded in
Book 51 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
amended to reflect the change contained in this ordinance and on the
map attached hereto. The Director of Development Services is hereby
directed to prepare and file an amended map. A copy of said
district map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the
office of the City Clerk .
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days
after its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the
day of , 1986 .
i
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
e
I
REVI WED AND APPROVED: IN TIATED AND A D:
i
City Admini trator ��� ec o D Ael �pm e n Services
I
2 .
11
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING LAND
USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL
PLAN NO. 86-3
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with
changing community needs and objectives; and
A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment
No. 86-3 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission
on September 3, 1986; and
Thereafter the City Council, after giving notice as
prescribed by Government Code Section 65355, held at least one
public hearing to consider Land Use Element Amendment No. 86-3; 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 the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of Title 7 ,
Chapter 3, Article 6 of California Government Code commencing with
Section 65350 , that Land Use Element Amendment No. 86-3 consisting
i
of the following changes is hereby adopted as an amendment to the
Land Use Diagram thereof :
That approximately 10 . 1 acres located on the northwest corner
of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street be redesignated from
General Commercial to Medium Density Residential with the
following condition:
The requested concurrent. 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.
,I
1 .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day
of , 1986 .
R.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk Ci y Attorney
REVIEW AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator 'Services
or of Dev op n
I,
2 .
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 85-51
COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON UACH
To Honorable :Mayor and From Charles W. Thompsm,
City Council :Members City Administrator
Subject NEGOTIATIONS-40ARION PROPERTY/ Date July 12, 1985
-- MUSHROOM• FARM
The following material- is to outline the general- considerations involved in the city negotiations
for. possible acquisition of the A. C. Marion property and for the Mushroom Farm.
The A. C. Marion property, located at the northwest corner of Goldenwest and Ellis, is an.
approximate 10 acre-site which staff currently estimates has an approximate value of $2.0
to $2.5 million in land value. This land value would 'nave some additional value dependent
upon the oil well located on the site which could increase the.value to up to $3 million. It
should be kept in mind that these are staff estimates and must be confirmed by professional
-appraisals prior to any .final staff recommendations.
Staff has approached the two items involved in this report on the basis of priorities as cur-
gently understood which, in this case, involves our current program to redevelop the downtown
area to include the extension of Walnut ,•,venue to a terminal point with Beach Boulevard.
The extension of Walnut Avenue is a vital link in the ultimate development of the downtown
area, and that street extension could involve, ultimately, the relocation of upwards of 50 mo-
bilehome units considering both the Mayer property and the Huntington Beach Company prop-
erty. The Huntington Beach Company property currently-has 21 units which the Huntington
Beach Company would relocate to a site prepared by the city, with the Huntington Beach Com-
pany being obligated to pay $250,000 as the final obligation under their relocation plan. Re-
location of the units from their present location to a city site would be -totally at the expense
of the Huntington Beach Company. Under this arrangement, the city would be required to have
the sites available no later than April 1, 1986. The current schedule for development of the
Mushroom Farm is predicated on meeting that schedule.
The city currently has properties which are surplus to city needs located off of Talbert Avenue,
on Gothard Street in front of the Police Helicopter Maintenance Facility (now under construc-
tion), and property along Lake Street,'including the old Lindborg/Dahl property and the old #1
fire station. The Talbert property predicts a sale value of approximately $1.5 million, the Goth-
ard property approximately $.7 million, and the Lake Street properties totaling $1.6 million.
Under this scenario, the three properties should yield in the neighborhood of $3.8 million.
Through the immediate sale of these properties, the city would have funds to purchsse the
A. C. :Manion property.
A second option would be for the city to postpone current plans for the development of four
parks (Wieder, McCallen, :Manning, Lambert) for which approximately $1.325 million has been
appropriated. In addition, another $.5 million has been appropriated for improvements to the
city-owned property where the Sully Miller Lake is located. These Sully Miller Lake improve-`
meats. were contemplated in order to allow the city to free up this 20 acres of property which
now is unusable. In addition, certain projects scheduled for 1986/87 could be postponed .for two
to three years along with the above mentioned projects to free up approximately an.additional-
$2 million. These projects would include the pool and. gym property now being leased from the
-school'district which is slated for Fiscal Year 1986/87. The sports complex;: which has'been
long delayed, is also slated for 1986/87 and is programmed at $1 million. Depending upon tim- .
• • :•ems •
• .. .. - .. . - _ ,..'4 ....,- i .....r �Zia. .. "�.'
CA 85-51 -2- July 12, 1985
ing, the rescheduling or postponing of these 1986/87 projects could free up funds within approx-
imately one year in order to purchase the Marion property. Obviously, some combination of
the above two options could also be considered.
It should be pointed out, however, that the development and utilization of Central Park is ex-
tremely important in order to maintain a viable conformance with the Quimby Act for which
park funds are scheduled. Lastly, funds totaling $150,000 have been appropriated for the mit-
igation of methane gas problems in the Central Park area, but staff does not believe there
is,any viable way to postpone that project.
It appears to staff that it is of extreme importance that we maintain our program to develop
out the section of Central Park, east of Goldenwest and between Talbert and Ellis, which would
mean the acquisition of. the Bradley and Hudson properties and the Mushroom Farm. The city
has, in addition to the $250,000 coming from- the Huntington Beach Company as mentioned
above, a state grant of $609,000 which must be utilized very soon or this money will be lost.
It would, therefore, be our very strong recommendation that we attempt to acquire the Mush-
room Farm under one of the two following options:
Ootion No. 1 - Acquire the southern portion of the Mushroom Farm of approximately 5 acres at
an-offered price of $1,050,000. This would be proposed to be broken down as $900,000 for land
value, $150,000'for severance value.and for a required easement as a secondary or emergency
access to Goldenwest.- Under this scenario, the remainder of.the Mushroom Farm would have
to be left to future negotiations. This price is consistent with what was previously offered as
a part of a total package to acquire all of the. Mushroom Farm over a three..year period. The
risk in this option is that the price for the remaining 15 acres (approximately) of the Mushroom
Farm is left for future negotiations. In addition, this would result in the. mobilehome relocation
park next to the Mushroom Farm operating for an indefinite.period of timer _
Option No. 2 This option, would be set forth on a three-phase acquisition virtually identical to
what has been proposed in the past. The principal difference being that our offer would be
increased by $300,000 and be offered at $1.5 million for phase one which would include the
southern five acres and with two additional payments occurring each year for the following two
years to total $5.5 million, Broken down as to return to the city on interest income, this offer
still equates to approximately $4.9 to $5 million. Funding for this acquisition would be covered
as previously described to the Council, and monies would be available for the acquisition.
It, should be pointed out, once again, that Quimby Act considerations are of vital importance.
Further consideration should be given to the fact that a major infusion of investment into the
Mushroom Farm by the current owners could make it virtually impossible for the city to .acquire
that facility in future years since it is conceivable that a very lucrative operation might de-
velop in that business. The acquisition of this property not only sets in motion the accomplish- `
ment of building out the park, but it also makes the Walnut Avenue extension and downtown
development a much more realistic possibility. It also provides a more desirable result by
freeing uo the approximate 20 acre Sully Miller Lake property which could then be utilized for
public park purposes. Presently, that property is a virtual waste since it is fenced off and can- .
not be used at all. In other words, the acquisition of approximately five acres, plus the Hudson
and Bradley properties, makes available to the city an additional 20 acres.
One last practical possibility exists, and that would be to acquire the A.. C. Marion property for
the purpose of developing the mobilehome park on that property. This could also be done but !
would not be recommended. It would be better to purchase the A. C. Marion property util=
,y
r
CA 85-51 -3- July 12, 1985
4.
izing one of the methods outlined above and temporarily use it for recreational vehicle stor-
age -from which the city could derive a substantial income. At the same time, then, the
city could acquire at least the southern five acres of the :Mushroom Farm, locating the mo-
bilehome park as planned. This then allows for planning and development to proceed as
previously set forth.
We. believe these above possibilities are realistic and perhaps offer a logical choice to be
selected.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles W. Thompson,
City Administrator
CWT:pI
kc: gob Franz A
Jim Palin
Doug LaBelle
huntington beach development services department
STAff
REPOR
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Development Services
DATE: September 16, 1986
SUBJECT: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 86-3/ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-21
APPLICANT: M. D. Janes Company, Inc. DATE ACCEPTED :
2950 Airway Avenue, Site D9 June 10, 1986
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE :
OWNER: A. C. Marion August 9, 1986
6341 Athena Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ZONE: C2-0 - Community
Business District Combined
REQUEST: To change the land use with Oil
designation of subject
property from General GENERAL PLAN: General
Commercial " to Medium Commercial
Density and concurrently
chanae the property ' s EXISTING USE: Horse stables
zoning from C2 * 0 to R2-PD and exercise area
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Ellis ACREAGE: 10 . 1± acres
Avenue -and Goldenwest
Street
1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve by resolution Land Use Element Amendment No. 86-3 with the
findings outlined in ' this report after acting upon Environmental
Impact Report No . 86-'2 and recommend adoption by the City Council .
Approve Zone Change No. 86-21 (Ordinance B ) with findings contained
in this report .
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
Due to the length of the agenda for the September 3 , 1986 Planning
Commission. meeting, this item was continued to the meeting of
September 16 , 1986. The public hearing was not opened by the
Planning Commission on September 3, 1986.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Staff. Report dated September 3, .1986
2. Letter from Community Services Commission dated September 2, 1986.
J4iP:HS: kla .
(6200d)
A-FM-23A
huntington beach development services department
STA f
__.REPO
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Development Services
DATE: September 3, 1986
SUBJECT: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT N0 . 86-3/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 86-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-21
APPLICANT: M. D. Janes Company, Inc . DATE ACCEPTED:
2950 Airway Avenue, Ste D9 June 10, 1986
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE:
OWNER: A.C. Marion August 9, 1986
6341 Athena Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ZONE: C2-0 - Community
Business District Combined
REQUEST: To change the land use with .Oi1
designation of subject
property from General GENERAL PLAN: General
Commercial to Medium Commercial
Density and - concurrently
change the property ' s EXISTING USE: Horse- ,stables
zoning from C2-0 to R2-PD ano exercise area
LOCATION Northwest corner of Ellis ACREAGE: 10. 1± acres
Avenue and Goldenwest
Street
1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Approve b resolution Land Use Element Amendment No 86-3 with the
PP Y 1
findings outlined in this report after acting upon Environmental
Impact Report No : 86-2 and recommend adoption by the. City Council .
Approve Zone Change No. 86-21 (Ordinance B) with findings contained
in this report .
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No.
86-3/Environmental Impact Report No . 86-2/Zone Change No. 86-21 .
The appl.icant ' s request for amendment is to redesignate 10.. 1 acres
located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest
Street from General Commerical to Medium Density Residential . Zone
Change 86-21 has been filed by the applicant to be processed
concurrently with the amendment request .
C-- t :L
A-FM-23A.
r
3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS :
North of Subject Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space Recreation
ZONE: RA-0-CD (Residential Agriculture
Combined with Oil and Civic District
suffix )
LAND USE: Horse Stables , Riding and Exercise
Area , Central Park
East of Subject Property :
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space Recreation
ZONE: 2 . 7 acres at northeast corner of Ellis
Avenue and Goldenwest Street is MI-CD ,
the remainder of the area is zoned
RA-0-CD.
LAND USE: The M1-CD area contains a truck repair
business . The area to the north and
east of the Ml-CD property contains the
Mushroom Farm, Phase I of ' tne City ' s
Mobilehome Relocation Park , and Sully
Miller Lake . The entire area is slated
to be incorporated into Huntington
Central Park at a Future date .
South of Subject Property :
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate Residential 3 units/acre
ZONE: RA-0-CD
LAND USE: Horse Stables
West of . Subject Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space Recreation
ZONE: RO5-0-CD (Recreational Open Space
Combined with Oil and Civic District
Suffix )
LAND USE: Primar,ily. vacant
4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS :
Land Use Element Amendment No. 86-3 was prepared in conjunction
with , and covered by, Environmental Impact Report No . 86-2 .
Environmental Impact Report 86-2 was posted for a 45-day review
period to end on September 1 , 1986 . To date, no written comments
have been received .
If any comments are received before the scheduled public hearing on
September 3, 1986., they will be submitted , with staff response , to
the Planning Commission at that hearing date .
5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS:
Not applicable.
Staff Report - 9/3/86 -2- (6032d )
6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS:
Not applicable .
7. 0 SPECIFIC PLAN:
Not applicable .
8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE:
Not applicable .
9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS ,
A previous request for the same land use -element amendment and zone
change was disapproved by the Planning Commission on June 4, 1985
and was denied by the City Council on June 17 , 1985 . After denying
the amendment request the City Council explored the City ' s ability
to purchase the site for inclusion in Central Park . Upon their
conclusion that sufficient . funds were not available , they directed
that a zone change be initiated to remove conditions from the zoning
in order to make it more marketable. That zone change ( ZC 85-13 )
removed the "Q" -from t}�e property and established the present C2-0
zoning in place of the previous C2-0-Q zoning . The "Q" had -required
that construction be limited to one story, that uses be equestrian
oriented, that construction materials be wood siding and earthtones ,
that there be parking lot landscapinq and that there be pe.des.trian
and 'horse access to the site . The present C2-0 zoning which was
adopted on September 16 , 1985 permits construction up to 50 fe'et in
height and allows virtually all commercial uses .
In the 10 months since the "Q" was removed from the property, the
applicant has still found the property to be unmarketable under the
commercial designation . As a result he has resubmitted his 1985
request for general plan amendment to Medium Density and zone change
to R2-PD. Environmental Impact Report 85-1 which was prepared by
the City for the applicant' s previous request and was certified- in
June 1985 is being resubmitted as draft Environmental Impact Report
86-2 for the applicant ' s current request . This is in accordance
with Article 10 , Section 15153 of CEQA, "Use of an environmental
impact report from an earlier project" . The EIR has been-updated to
include a revised fiscal impact. analysis and a slightly revised
recommendation discussion . Otherwise , the document is virtually
identical to that which was previously certified .
As with the applicant ' s previous request , staff recommends approval
of the requested Land Use Amendment to change the land use
designation of the subject property to medium density residential .
With regard to .Zone Change No. 86-21 , staff recommends a
modification of the requested- R2-PD .zoning : R2- ( 10 )-PD-CD
(Ordinance B, as attached ) . This will help. to ensure that
development of the parcel will be compatible with Central Park . The
recommended zone will limit the density to 10 units per acre and
Staff Report - 9/3/86 -3- ( 6032d )
will add the Civic District (CD) suffix to require special design
review . Staff ' s conclusion is that a medium density project with
the limits on 'density and requirements for Design Review Board
approval that staff is proposing is preferable to the present zoning
which will permit unconditioned Commercial Business District uses .
10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve by resolutio.n
Land Use Element Amendment No . 86-'3 changing 10 . 1 acres of General
Commercial to Medium Density Residential after acting upon
Environmental Impact Report No . 86-2 , and recommend adoption by the
_ City Council . Additionally, staff recommends concurrent approval of
Zone Change No . 86-21 as amended by staff (Ordinance B ) .
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - LAND USE ELEMENT 86-3/ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-21 :
1 . The proposed. land use designation of Medium Density Residential
will be more compatible with Central Park than the existing
land use designation of General Commercial .
2 . A Medium Density Residential project may be designed which is
compatible with Central Park and the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest
Specific Plan ,
A Medium Density Residential land use will enhance .pedestrian-
oriented use of Central Park as opposed to auto-oriented use , "
thereby increasing the park 's utility.
4 . Zone Change No . 86-21 will be consistent with the .propose.d land
use designation of Medium Density Residential .
5 . Zone Change No . 86-21 (Ordinance B ) will limit density to
10-units per acre and will require design review -board approval
of development plans . These zoning restrictions will ensure,
compatibility of the project with Central Park .
11 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Deny Land Use Element 86-3/°Zone Change No. 86-2 with the following.
findings for denial which were devised and acted on by the Planning
Commission on June 4, 1985 .
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - LAND USE ELEMEidT 86-3/ZONE CHANGE NO. 86=21 :
l . , 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 .
Staff Report 9/3/86 -4- ( 6032d )
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 .
ATTACHMENTS:
_ 1 . Land Use Element 86-3/Environmental Impact Report 86-2
2 . Area Map
3 . Resolution adopting Land Use Element 86-3
4 . Ordinance A (adopting R2-PD zone )
5 . Ordinance B (adopting R2- ( 10 ) -PD-CD zone ) - Staff Recommendation
6 . City Council minutes dated September 16, 1985 . ( 7one change
85-12 ) .
CK
JWP : CM: kla
Staff Report - 9/3/86 - -5- ( 6032d )
CF-R
CF-R MI-CD
MI-A
Ml—CD
RA—O—CD MI MI.FP E
-n ONTAFtiO
RA-0-CD l- R,
Rjj�]
(r,R*E ZONED) RA-0-CD
RI-CD CF-C
0 CO 43SO CD
All
•
ios-o-CLI O-CD ROS-0 CO O-CD 0 CO Ml-CD RI RI RI
T C2--o L
-_aTl�a mles y
CYS-OCD CD
(PREZONED) Fo
RI
-CD
U-O-CO RA 0-CD
Ml-o-CD
RA-CDQ-RH3Y0-CD-6PO0 R 2
A
I
Lkl-O-CD
RA-0 RA-0-CD
M",
FAG.
RA-0 RA 01-CD RA-O-CD R M2-0
-ui
F
RA-CC MI-0
O-Rl-(27)-0-8,000
RA-0
ks
L
RI
07C D RI
"O.CD[ t.
�FUO-__CD
R 2
_,J-O-CD Li _D
uo
Rn 0 �jj M;-o
RA-0 �,, I
m AVE R5
RA-01 RA-0 LU-(J-CD RA-0-CD ----—-
M2-01.1 I L1A
MI-() CC.
Fm
HUNIINCION BFACII
HUNTINGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION
RESOLUTION NO. 1363.
A RESOLUTION' OF THE PLANNING COMM7SS70�: OF T :E
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , CAL_FORN.�. _.�CO`'VENDiNG
ADOPTTON OF) LAND USE ELEMENT ..ME�dDPr�"` O 71.
. GEN�RA J. P�?�N NO. bO-J I .
VV S / _1;C C _G„rr i. _ `.J'1'.'..�.l c.:. _J r: V'-. - .�' Ll __
nczon Beacn , =c nC _ice lE nE
G_eicra1 Plari _rt };E:..._n_ N_ _.. C%an_=n
0t jcct�Ves ; anc.
/ �..._.,c = -G ; E �anC c ii_ to n= _
�.� w ri C01'. :'1 S `� ._.....:ii Ens J: �.iYie Gener�G_ _ i a. .....:c
r
'� ?-- a.. n Corr t::._S t .,.'J rl _ E C C i�.i rl'u E ..��y ..'W :1�;
,. -'"'�: _ ,..:Gnc ...tie .__elttEin -
a::t _01 iT acres ?.o CG_e-_ on _nE .._
J _ .
JEi :E ana GO_ E `v�ESt Street De rEQES.�Sna.Ed _rG1t G_neral
y C _ M, .1.m D.G L _'�e.�..
C��n:�t�_ _�_ to �Ed �r�� n � �v ise ntial .
puDi_c ne-arina on acoptl_on o� Inc 'vsE E —men -
<ime,nC 'ent tv �ne Genera-- ?i�.^. NC . bF-S vvG iE_CI DV r:E _
P� r i CJ %lSS1Cri Cr. S2ptc DEr 3 , 1°�6 , in acco—Jar.ce WJt:n
w ii''
roviSions of the State Government Code ;
NOW mHER�F0R= , - F.ESOLVED that the Piannin
Cvi. mI.:. _or, Ci the City of Huntington Beach , Callforn , he-r..n,v
a r0 �c JG_4 amen .Tent �C he General Plan Cf t:ie City O_
:�r.�ing�on Beach .
BE IT FUR.zER RCSOLV_D :a-, sai amendment to the General
p--mr, o_ ..ne C1 �Y of :ur,t_nczon Bea�Ci: _S rP..O1.TcEnaeu �lJr u.vNi.I On
by ..ne City C o u n c i o e l..-..v Cf Hi z!_ 0rl `Jew Cr / t.,a_ Z.or n a
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning commission of the City
of Huntington Beach , California , on the 3rd day of September , 1986 .
A� „�L�S T�, �
sa es W Paiiii , Secretary T_om. Li encooc, Cnairman
ND '" PPROVED . -I' - - -• -D ? Z.p>?CV7D TO ^ORS' .
Ci-v :cr:_n-s-ra7- or _ � r� _crney
�► i
Page 4 - Council Minutes 9/16/85
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:-
AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic, Bailey., Green, Thomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Finley
PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE 85-13 -
-ZONE CHANCE 85-13 APP OVED - ORDINANCE NO A - INTRODUCTION APPROVED -
TMOVES Q - MIS/GOLDEN- WEST - COUNCILMAN JOHN THO
The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to
consider an appeal filed by Councilman John Thomas to the denial by the Plan-
ning Commission of Zone Change No. 85-13, a request by the City of Huntington
Beach to change the zoning on 10 acres of property located at the northwest
corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from C2-0-(Q) (Qualified Commun-
ity Business District combined with Oil Production) to C2-0 (Community Busi-
ness District combined with Oil Production) . The proposed zone change will
remove the (Q) (Qualified) designation-,.from the zoning. The (Q) was origin-
ally placed on the zoning to require that any commercial development of the
site be equestrian oriented. The proposed zone change will remove that
requirement. Alternatively, the conditions on the (Q) may be modified to
allow a wider range of uses on the property than the existing (Q) permits.
This action would allow fewer land uses than if the (Q) were deleted.
The Mayor announced that the City Council would also consider Negative Declar-
ation 85-46 assessing the environmental effects of said zone change.
The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publi-
cation and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications
or written protests to the matter.
Jim Palin, Director of Development Services, presented a staff report. Discus-
sion was held regarding the matter.
The Mayor declared the hearing open.
Councilman Thomas, appellant, stated that he believed the property was not
going to be included in Central Park and if it was not going to be part of the
park the "Q" zoning should be removed.
There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no
protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor.
The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2800(A) for Council consideration -
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM
(QUALIFIED) COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, TO COM-
MUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, ON REAL PROPERTY GEN-
ERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ELLIS AVENUE AND GOLDENWEST STREET
(ZONE CASE NO. 85-13(A)". Removes "Q"
A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Thomas, approve Negative
Declaration #85-46 overrule the Planning Commission and approve Zone Case
85-13 based on findings and following a reading by title, approve introduction
of Ordinance No. 2800(A). The findings were as follows:
�t
Page 5 - Council Minutes - 9/16/85
1. A change of zone on the subject property from C2-0-(Q) to C2-0 is consis-
tent with the General Plan designation, which is General Commercial.
2. The proposed zone change is compatible with surrounding land uses which
include a commercial equestrian center directly to the north.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey, Thomas
NOES: Mandic, Green
ABSENT: Finley
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 85-32 - APPROVED AS AMENDED - ADMINIS-
I REVIEW - - APPEAL FILED BY COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY
The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to
consider an appeal filed by Councilman Jack Kelly to the Planning Commission's
approval of a request to construct a 85,600 square foot, three-story mini
warehouse and relocate 4,400 square feet of an existing building on the pro_,.
perty with the following variances: (1) to allow a portion of the relocated
building to encroach 8 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback; and
(2) to permit a reduction in planter width adjacent to a landscaped bank
adjacent to McFadden Avenue, within the M1 (Light Manufacturing) District on a
triangular-shaped lot north of McFadden Avenue approximately 2,200 feet west
of Beach Boulevard (7531 McFadden Avenue) .
The Mayor announced that the City Council would also consider Negative Declar-
ation 85-25 assessing the environmental effects of said project.
The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publi-
cation and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications
or written protests to the matter.
The Director of Development Services presented a staff report.
The Mayor declared the hearing open.
Councilman Jack Kelly, appellant, stated that he was satisfied with the recom-
mended action.
Don Gardner, President of the development company proposing the mini-ware-
house, stated he believed a mini-warehouse was a good use of the property. He
addressed Council regarding Condition #7 which required an emergency fire
access across adjacent property owned by Frank Hoffman. he stated that Mr.
Hoffman was willing to sign such a permit provided he were assured the permit
were not recorded.
Frank Hoffman, Jr. addressed Council regarding the fire access permit across
his property. he stated that in 1977 he gave the City an easement for a sig-
nal in front of his property that was never utilized, that there was a thirty
foot sewer line easement on his property and that when his new building was
y built he gave the Fire Department permission for access and was told he must
keep that area open. He stated the area was in the same area under discussion
and he did not see the need for any further agreement; he was willing to give
the Fire Department a license, but did not want it recorded and encumber the
property in any way.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
P. 0. Box 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION (714) 536-5486
TI:''`r inl
Septembe 2, i986
Huntington Beach Planning Commission ��rt��._ ;?,r h _b+i3
P . 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Commissioners:
Re: September 3, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting
Item C-12
On June 12, 1985, the Community Services Commission took
the following action:
Moved by Vander Nolen, seconded by Kennedy, the
Community Services Commission recommends to the City
Council that the A.C.Niarion property zoning change
from general commercial to medium density be denied
and that the property either stay in its present
zoning designation (Qualifed Community Business
District (C2-0-(Q) ) , which would make it compatible
with the adjacent equestrian stable, or be rezoned
to recreational open space.
Pursuant to the above action, I would like to ask that
the Planning Commission not rezone the A.C.Marion
property in a manner that would not be compatible with
the park usage.
Sincerely,
NOR MA VANDER MOLEN
Chairman
NVM:cs
Attachment
I
cc: Community Services Commission I
Charles W. Thompson, City . Administrator
Melvin M. Bowman, Director
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
Wednesday, .June 12; 1985; 7:00 PM
Council Chambers, Civic Center
2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Chairperson Frost called the regular meeting of the Community Services Commission to
order at 7:08 PM and led the salute to the flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Glen Dysinger; Jeffrey Frost; Betty Kennedy; William Osness
Jay Rivera; Norma Vander Nlolen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Judy Blankinship (excused absence); Art Giese; (excused
absence); Marilyn Jensen (unexcused absence); Loren Moll
(excused absence); Karen O'Bric (unexcused absence)
STAFF PRESENT: Vivian Borns; Melvin M. Bowman; Doug D'Arnall; Jim Engle;
Bill Fowler; Library Division Staff (Walter Johnson,
Ron Hayden, Mary Ann Hutton, Gary Shippey); Daryl Smith; .
Carolyn. Strook
GUESTS: Ira l'oibin, HBUHSD, will be replacing Glen Dysinger in
September as District representative.
PRESENTATIONS-COMMENDATIONS
LIBRARY DIVISION - Walter Johnson, Library Director, Ron Hayden, Public Services
Librarian, Mary Ann Hutton, Librarian, and Gary Shippey, Technical Services Technician,
gave a presentation on the Children's Division, Technical Services and other general
services currently being provided by - the Library. Library staff will be making
presentations the next few months in order to enlighten the Commission on current
services provided by the Library.
MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING, MAY 81 1985
MOTION: MOVED BY RIVERA, SECONDED BY KENNEDY, THE COMMUNITY
SERVICES COMMISSION APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD
ON MAY 8, 1985 AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: DYSINGER; KENNEDY; OSNESS; RIVERA; VANDER MOLEN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: BLANKINSHIP; GIESE; JENSEN; MOLL; O'BRIC
ABSTENTION: FROST
DIRECTORS NON-AGENDA ITEMS
HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK (HCP) COMNiITTEE, PARK CONCESSION
IMPROVEMENTS - Director requested a committee meeting for the purpose of discussing
proposed HCP concession improvements. A meeting was scheduled for .Wednesday,.
June 26, 7:00 AM, 5th floor conference room.
G
COMMUNITY SERVIC WMMlSSION June 12, 1985
MINUTES - 499 Page 2
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
MUSHROOM FARM PROPERTY/MOBILE HOME RELOCATION UPDATE - Mike Adams,
Senior Planner, Development Services Department, updated the Commission on the
current status of the subject property. After presentation of proposed site plan, the
COMMisSion made the following motion:
MOTION: MOVED BY VANDER MOLEN, SECONDED BY KENNEDY, THE COMMUNITY
SERVICES COMMISSION DIRECTED THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
STAFF TO WORK WITH. PLANNING STAFF IN REGARD TO THE CONCEPTS THAT
WERE FORMALLY BROUGHT TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE PARK IN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK AND TO KEEP THE COMMISSION
INFORMED AND UPDATED ON THE PROGRESS OF THIS PROJECT. MOTION
CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: DYSINGER, FROST, KENNEDY, OSNESS, RIVERA,
VANDER MOLEN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: BLANKINSHIP, GIESE, JENSEN, MOLL, O'BRIC
REZONING OF A.C. !b1ARION PROPERTY, ADJACENT TO HUNTINGTON CENTRAL
PARK HCP - Commission was given LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-2 for
review and recommendation to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The
property is a 10.1 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of .Ellis Avenue and
Goldenwest Street. The zoning on the property is C2-0-(Q), Qualified Community
Business District, combined with an oil suffix., The "Q" indicates that special conditions
were placed on the C2 zoning on the property to ensure that development be equestrian
oriented and compatible with HCP. This property was at one time designated for open
space use and was one of several areas under consideration for inclusion into HCP.
At its August 17, 1981, meeting, the City Council voted not to include the area 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, A.
C. Marion 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 Council on December 21, 1981. 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. After
discussion, Commission made the following motion:
i
MOTION: MOVED BY VANDER MOLEN, SECONDED BY KENNEDY, THE COMMUNITY j
SERVICES COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE
A.C. MARION PROPERTY ZONING CHANGE FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO
MEDIUM DENSITY, BE DENIED AND THAT THE PROPERTY EITHER STAY IN ITS
I
PRESENT ZONING DESIGNATION (QUALIFIED COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT
(C2-0-(Q), WHICH WOULD MAKE IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT EQUESTRIAN
STABLE, OR BE REZONED TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE. MOTION CARRIED BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: DYSINGER, FROST, KENNEDY, OSNESS, RIVERA,
VANDER MOLEN
NOES: NONE
Staff 'to forward this action to the City Council.
COMMUNITY SERVICES • CSSION June 12, 1985
.MINUTES - 499 Page 3
MOTION: MOVED BY OSNESS, SECONDED BY FROST, THE COMMUNITY SERVICES
COMMISSION DIRECT, THAT IF THE NEW ZONING IS APPROVED, THE HUNTINGTON
VENTRAL PARK COMMITTEE PREPARE CONDITIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE A.C. MARION PROPERTY AND SUBMIT THEM TO THE COMMISSION FOR
APPROVAL AND SUBMITTAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: DYSINGER, FROST, KENNEDY, OSNESS, RIVERA,
VANDER MOLEN
NOES: NONE
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
PEDAL BOAT OPERATION, HUNTINGTON LAKE IN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK The only proposal received was from Don Levy, Recreation Boat Manufacturers. The
agreement is being prepared by the City Attorney's Office.
WIED R PARK BIDS - The request for bids were opened on June 4 and the request for
approval will be submitted to the City Council by Public Works.
BARTLETT PARK PLAQUE - The area has been sodded and the plaque mounted in river
stone adjacent to the parking lot. A picture of Ted Bartlett standing next to the 'plaque
will be displayed in the Newland Barn.
LIABILITY INSURANCE/USE OF ALCOHOL IN CITY FACILITIES - The issue of alcohol
in city facilities was pulled from the \/lay 6 Council agenda in order to allow the City
Insurance and Benefits Office an opportunity to research the possibilities of acquiring
liability insurance. Insurance and Benefits has acquired an insurance policy. This has
eliminated the problem of-having patrons get their own liability insurance certificate
when serving alcoholic beverages in city facilities.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE -
Jay Rivera attended the May 16, 1985, committee meeting. A copy of the minutes were
included in the packet. A second survey with changes in definitions will be sent. A public
meeting will be held after the policies are drafted so people will have something to react
to.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Kennedy asked staff to check on the CPRS 1985-86 dues with Rose Prlary Forehand who is
currently working on "fixing the mess" in the computer in Sacramento. i
f
Osness liked the "new look" of the SANDS; reported that Supervisor Wieder is conducting
a Town Hall meeting on June 13 at the Huntington Beach Civic Center.
Vander rMolen asked park maintenance to check on frisbee golf course signs and drinking
fountains by the take in HCP.
Dysinger suggested that park maintenance look at placing "extra" trash cans in HC-P
during this time of the year since the existing trash cans do not seem to be adequate.
i
Toibin stated that "as an observer" the.meetings seem interesting.
i
' tr-
_ t
Publish 12/4/86
•J
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-3/ZONE CHANGE 86-21
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold
a public .hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic
Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and
at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all
persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described
below. The matter was tabled by the City Council on October 6, 1986
DATE/TIME: Monday, December 15, 1986, 7:0-0 .P.M.
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 86-3/Environmental Impact Report
86-2/Zone Change 86-21 - (Appeal)
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:; A. C. Marion
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street
PROPOSAL: An appeal by A. C. Marion to the Planning Commission's
denial of his request for General Plan Amendment 86-3 and
Zone Change 86-21. His request is 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 86-21 is being proposed concurrently with this
request to change the zoning from C2-0 (Community Business
District Combined with Oil) to R2-PD (Medium Density
Planned Residential Development). The request could
result in approximately 140 dwelling units.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: . Environmental Impact Report 86-2 is being
processed concurrently with this application.
ON FILE: A legal description and copy of the proposed General Plan
Amendment, Environmental Impact Report and Zone Change is
on •file ion the Department of Development Services, 2000
Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for
inspection by the public.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express
opinions or submit .evidence for or against the application as outlined.
above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are
on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington
Beach, California, for inspection by the public.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
By: Alicia M. Wentworth, City Clerk
. i
Phone (714) 536-5405
Dated 12/2/86
Publish .-
NOTICE OF. PUBLIC HEARING
� . APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-3/ZONE CHANGE 86-21
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN .that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a
public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center,
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time
indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish
to be heard relative to the application described below. '' �2 'r7r2?Tep{ WaS
-*-b led ;b y 7X e� NTI C`'�,�y/e iG ol C�,�o,�e/�, �,�5;e
Teceovb&
DATE/TIME: Monday, ^- �-6, 1986, 7:36 PM
APPLICATION NUMBER: General Plan Amendment 86-3/Environmental Impact
Report 86-2/Zone Change 86-21
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street.
PROPOSAL: , An appeal by A.C. Marion to the Planning Commission's denial 6f
his request for General Plan Amendment 86-3 and Zone Change
86-21. His request is 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 86-21 is being
, proposed concurrently .with this request to change the zoning
from C2-0 (Community Business District Combined with Oil) to
R2-PD (Medium Density Planned Residential Development).. :The
request could result in approximately 140 dwelling units. An
appeal to the Planning Commission' s September 16, 1986 denial of .
General Plan Amendment 86-3/Zone Change 86-21 has been filed by
the property owner A. C. Marion.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report 86-2 is being processed
concurrently with this application. .
ON FILE: A legal description and copy of the proposed General Plan
Amendment, Environmental Impact Report, and Zone Change is on
file in the Department of Development Services, 2000 Main .
Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by
the public.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express
opinions or submit -evidence for or against the application as outlined above.
All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with
the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street_, Huntington Beach, California,
•for inspection by the public.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL �/
i
By: Alicia M. Wentworth / �frmo
'City Clerk
Phone: (714) 536-5405 .
City of Hunt n ach J. A. Johnson Rudolph C. Manning
2000 Main 3079 Maiden Lane • 1650.3rd St.
HIL on Beach, CA 9269 ; Alta Dena, CA' 91001 Norco, CA 91760
-TT0-184-21 11.0-186-09 110-186-20
City of Huntin ach Elva Layton Orville W. Carter. .
P.0. 1261 San Julian P1 P.O. Box 1080
ngton Beach, CA 92648 Lake San Marcos, CA 92069 Hawthorne, CA 90250
110-184-22 110-186-10 110-186-21
City of Hun tin ach George W. Bainter I City of Huntington ach
2000 Main 6901 Ellis Ave. j P.O. Box 19
Hun on Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Hun Beach, CA 92648
0-184-23 110-186-11 ! 1 -186-22
I
City o i.ngton Beach Yvette C. Lawrence Don Raymond Albrecht
Box 190 6901 Ellis Ave. 21292 Yarmouth Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646
110-186-01 110-186-12 110-200-01
i
i
Marvin P. Adler Lsndborg/Dahl.
James G. Burcham 17220 Newhope St.
9331 Nantucket Drive 8957 La Dona Ct.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Fullerton, CA 92708
110-186-13 110-200703
110-186-02 -
Arlen `Iorgerson Herman Hanns William Landis
13707 Crenshaw Blvd. 5655 116th Pl. Suite 470 Century City
Hawthorne, CA 90250 I Bellevue, Wash 98004 Los Angeles, CA 90067
110-186-03 110-186-14 110-210-01
I
Hsi Hsiang Lee I Julian I. Hathaway SBE Financial Corp.
9872 Olympic Blvd. P.O. Box 3404 19671 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA 92646 i Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Huntington Beach, .CA 92648
110-186-04 110-186-15 111-071=19
I
City of Hun ir on Beach ! Alice E. Hughes Nancy Bradley Smila
P.O. 0 P.O. Box 3404 20302 Laver-ton
Afttlrington Beach, CA 92648 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Katy, TX 77450
110-186-05 110-186-16 111-071-25
Milton H. Marow Milton H. Marow Richard J. Pariseau
864 N. Bundy Drive 864 N. Bundy Drive 16522 Pro Circle Unit D. I
Los angeles, CA 90049 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Huntington Beach, CA 92649
110-186-06 _: 11.0-186-17 111-071-26
Patricia G. Poyyak City of_ Hizntinz S B E Financial Corp.
9757 TDucan circle 2000 g"-"- 19671 Beach Blvd.
Fountain Valley, CA 92708 ington F3each, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I
110-186-07 110-186-1_8 111-071-28
Carl J. Obert City of Hunt' tf�each SBE Financial
15271 .Shpta Lane P.O. 19671 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ngton Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 _,
1.10-186-08 110-186-19 111-071-29 .
City of. Hunt' rlleach City of Huntingto cy
Donald Hamilton 2000 Main
P.O. Box 698 • P.O. Bo •
H ton Beach CA Hun on Beach, CA 92648.
Wilmington, CA 90748 g 184-09
110-170-10 0-182-09
i
City of Huntington aC'Yi City of Huntington h Charles B. Kimball
P.O. Box 2000 Main S 2404 Laguna Vista Dr.
Hun on Beach, CA 92648 Hunt' Beach, CA 92648 Novato, CA 94947
-170-15 -182-10 110-184-10
I
Pacific Amer. Oil Co. Corp. Waldo E. Bemis City of Huntington Beach
17220 Newhope St. 416 W. Las Palmas Drive i P.O, Box 190
Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Fullerton, CA 92632 Huntin ach, CA 92648
110-180-01 110-182-11 1 4-11
City of Huntington h City of Hunting ach City of Hun �hBeadh
P.O. Box 1 2000 Main S 2000 Mai
H on Beach, CA 92648 Huntin Beach, CA 92648 Hun on Beach, CA 92648
110-182-01 2-12 -184-12
City of Hunt' each City of Huntingt ach Marcedes V. Quine
2000 2000 Main 2200 Park Newport $401
gton Beach, CA 92648 Hunt' n Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92660
110-182-02 -184-01/110-184-02 - 110-184-13
Hsi Hsiang Lee Milton H. Marow, City of Huntingto h
9872 Olympic Blvd. 864 N. Bundy Drive P.O. Box
Huntington,Beach, CA 92646 Los Angeles, CA . 90049 H on Beach, CA 92648,
110-182-03 110-184-03 0-184-14
City of Hutington eY�^ Hsi Hsiang Lee City of Huntingto ach
P.O. Box ' 9872 Olympic Blvd. P.O. Box '
H on Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 H g on Beach, CA 92648
0-182-04 110-184-04 0-184-15
i
Regina C. Kahle City of Huntington William B. Blanchard
736 Weelo Drive 2000 Ma' P.O. Box 243
Costa Mesa, CA 92627, f on Beach, CA 92648 Sedona, AZ 863.36
110-182-05 110-184-05 1-10-184-16
Milton H. Marow �n,l C.
f
;City Of Huntingt CFiarles ettOBo
864 N. Bundy Drive
ngton Beach, CA 92648 Los Angeles, CA 90049
110-182-06 1.10-184-06 1 84-17 L3`�
City of Hun gE City of Huntington Be Myron M. Wasson
2000 St. 2000 Main St 23636 Sidney Bay St.
ngton Beach,79�26148 Hunt' Beach, CA 92648 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
110-182-07 -184-07 110-184-18
City of Hunt in ►' City of Huntington Beac City of Huntine ch
2000 Ma' P.O. Box 190 2000 Ma'
gton Beach, CA 92648 Hun Beach, CA 92648 Hun on Beach, CA 92648:
110-182-08 �-�� -184-08 1 0-184-19
Huntington Beach C npany SBE Financial Corp.
P.O. Box 7611 19671 Beach Blvd.
San Francisco, CA 94120 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648
111-072-18 111-101-30,32,33 I\
S B E Financial Corp. Matthew P. Dalany
19671 Beach Blvd. 631 E. Orange Grove
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Sierra Madre, CA 91024
111-101-01 -11 101 31
Angelina M. Giacalone I Charles F. Barrett
248 N. Patton Avenue 38-211 Vista Drive
San Pedro, CA 90732 Cathedral City, CA 92234
111-101-02
S B E Financial Corp.
19671 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA _92648
111-101-03,04,06
j
Charlotte Low
2906 Overland Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90064
111-101-05 I _
Leroy G. Greisch
17931 Whitford Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 �, .
111-101-07 n /
S B E Financial Corp. j !'" �� e-w -7d-4 Z 0
19671 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
111-101-08,09,10,1.1,12,13,14
15,16,17,18,19
Nancy M. Shipley
615 Vista Bonita
newport Beach, CA 92660
111-101-20
I
SBE Financial Corp.
19671 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
111-101-21,22,23,24,25,27,28,
• I
i
Jean M. Hethcock
312 N. Mansfield
Los Angeles, CA 90036
111-101-26
Christian F. Biery
2435 Carroll Lane
Escondidd, CA 92025
111-101-29
Publish 12/4/86
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-3/ZONE CHANGE 86-21
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold
a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic
Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and
at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all
persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described
below. The matter was tabled by the City Council on October 6, 1986
DATE/TIME: Monday, December 15, 1986, 7:Q0 P.M.
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 86-3/Environmental Impact Report
86-2/Zone Change 86-21 - (Appeal)
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: A. C. Marion
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street
PROPOSAL: An appeal by A. C. Marion to the Planning Commission's
denial of his request for General Plan Amendment 86-3 and
Zone Change 86-21. His request is 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 86-21 is being proposed concurrently with this
request to change the zoning from C2-0 (Community Business
District Combined with Oil) to R2-PD (Medium Density
Planned Residential Development). The request could
result in approximately 140 dwelling units.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report 86-2 is being
processed concurrently with this application.
ON FILE: A legal description and copy of the proposed General Plan
Amendment, Environmental_ Impact Report and Zone Change is
on file ion the Department of Development Services, 2000
Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for I
inspection by the public.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express
opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined
above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are
on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 20.00 Main Street, Huntington
Beach, California, for inspection by the public.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
By: Alicia M. Wentworth, City Clerk
i
Phone (714) 536-5405
Dated 12/2/86
Publish - 9/25/86
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 1
APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-3/ZONE CHANGE 86-21
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a
public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center,
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time
indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish
to be heard relative to the application described below.
DATE/TIME: Monday, October 6, 1986, 7:30 PM
"APPLICATION NUMBER: General Plan Amendment 86-3/Environmental Impact
Report 86-2/Zone Change 86-21 ,
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street.
PROPOSAL: An appeal by A.C. Marion to the Planning Commission's denial of
his request for General Plan Amendment 86-3 and Zone Change
86-21. His request is 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 86-21 is being
proposed concurrently with this request to change the zoning
from C2-0 (Community Business District Combined with Oil) to
R2-PD (Medium Density Planned Residential Development) . The
request could result in approximately 140 dwelling units. An
appeal to the Planning �Commission's September 16, 1986 denial of
General Plan Amendment 86-3/Zone Change 86-21 has been filed by
the property owner A. C. Marion.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report 86-2 is being processed
concurrently with this application.
ON FILE: A legal description and copy of the proposed General Plan
Amendment, Environmental Impact Report, and Zone Change is on
file in the Department of Development Services, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by
the public.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express
I
opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above.
All applications; exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with
the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California,
for inspection by the public.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
Phone: (714) 536-5405
Donald Hamilton City of Huntington Beach City of Huntingto
PO. Box 698 �� P.O. Box 190 2000 Main
0748 •' Huntin ach, CA • Hunti - n Beach, CA 9264
Wilmin�n, CA 9 - a4 09
11:0-1.70-10 11 =09
City of Huntingtq each City of Huntin teach r Charles B. Kimball
P.O. Box 19 2000 Main . 2404 Laguna Vista Dr.:
Hunti Beach, CA 92648 n Beach, CA 92648 Novato, CA 94947
ll 70-15 182-10 ' 110-184-10
Pacific Amer. Oil .Co. Corp. Waldo E. Bemis City of Huntington Beach
17220 Newhope St. 416 W.-Las Palmas Drive P.O. Box 19
Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Fullerton, CA 92632 Huntin_ Beach, CA 9264
110-180-01 110-182-11 84-11
City of Huntingto ch City of Huntin mach City of Huntington Beach
P.O. Box 19 2000 Main 2000 Main S
Hun Beach, CA 92648 Hun n Beach, CA 92648 Hun n Beach, CA 9264
182-01 182-12 184-12
City of Huntington ai City of Huntingto ach Marcedes V. Qune
2000 Main S 2000 Main 2200 Park Newport $401
Hunt, n Beach, CA 92648 Hun ' n Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92660
1 82-02 -184-01/110-184-02 - -10-184-13
Hsi Hsiang Ise Milton H. Marow City of Huntington ch
9872 Olympic Blvd. 864 N. Bundy Drive P.O. Box 190
Huntington,Beach, CA 92646 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Huntin ch, CA 9264f
110-182-03 110-184-03 - 84-14
City of Hutingto c Hsi Hsiang Lee City of Hun Beach
P.O. Box 1 9872 Olympic Blvd. P.O. 0
Hung n Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 H ' gton Beach, CA 9264E
182-04 110-184-04 0-184-15
Cityof Huntington Be
Regina C. Kahle 20 0 Main St. � William B. Blanchard
736 Weelo Drive P.O. Box 243
Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Huntingt ch, CA 92648 Sedona, AZ 86336
110-182-05 -05 110-184-16
Milton H. Marow tl
City .Of Huntington Beach l�e�s gTa sett ?Cr��
P.O. Box 190 864 N. Bundy Drive
Huntin ach, CA 92648 Los Angeles, CA 90049 1es-, CA
- 82-06 110-184-06 110-184-17
City of Huntingto ach City .of Huntingto ch Myron M. Wasson
2000 Main 2000 Main S 23636 Sidney Bay St.
Hun n Beach, CA 92648 Hun n Beach, CA 92648 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
182-07 184-07 110-184-18
I
Cityof Huntington City of Huntington h City of Huntington Beach
P.O. Box 190 2000 Main St I 2000 Main St.
Huntin ch, CA 92648 Hun Beach, CA 92648 Huntin ach, CA 926 4
110- 82-08 1 -184-08 11 4-19
City of Huntington _ - ' J. A. Johnson - ' Rudolph.C. Manning
2000 Mani St. 3079 Maiden Lane 1650 3rd St.'
Huntin ch, CA 9264 Alta Dena, CA 91001 • Norco, CA 91760
4=21 -- 110-186-09 110-186-20
1
I
City of Huntin reach Elva Layton Orville W. Carter
P.O. _.1261 San Julian P1 P.O. Box 1080
gton Beach, CA 92648 Lake San Marcos, CA 92069 I Hawthorne, CA 90250
110-184-22 110-186-10 110-186-21
City of Huntin ch George W. Bainter City of Huntington ch
2000 I�lain 6901 Ellis Ave. P.O. .Box 19
-Hung n Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA' 92648 Hun n Beach, CA 92648
0-184-23' 110 186-11 ! 11 186-22
i
City of Huntington teach Yvette C. Lawrence Don Raymond Albrecht
P.O. Box 19 6901 Ellis Ave. 21292 Yarmouth Lane
Hunt' n- Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648, Huntington Beach, CA 92646
-186-01 110-186-12 110-200-01,
James G., Burcham Marvin P. Adler Lindborg/Dahl
9331 Nantucket Drive 8957 La Dona Ct. 1 17220 Newhope St.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Fullerton, CA 92708.
110-186-02 310-186-13 110-200-03
Arlen 'Ibrgerson Herman Harms William Landis
13707 Crenshaw Blvd. 5655 116th.Pl. Suite 470 Century City
Hawthorne, CA 90250 Bellevue, Wash 98004 Los Angeles, CA 90067
110-186-03 110 186-14 110-210-01
Hsi Hsiang Loee i Julian I. Hathaway SBE Financial Corp.
9872 Olympic Blvd. P.O. Box 3404 . . 19671 Beach Blvd.
.Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
110-186-04 110-186-15 111-071=19
City of Huntington Be Alice E. Hughes . Nancy Bradley Smila
P.O. Box 19 P.O. Box.3404 20302 Laverton
Hun n Beach, CA 92648 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Katy, TX 77450
' 186-05 110-186-16, 111-071-25
Milton H. Marow Milton H. Maraw Richard J. Pariseau
864 N. Bundy Drive 864 N. Bundy Drive 16522 Pro Circle Unit D.
Los angeles, CA 90049 Ios Angeles, CA 90049 � Hu_ntington Beach, CA 92649�
110-186-06 - 110-186-17 111-071-26
I
Patricia G. Poyyak City of Huntington Beach S B E Financial Corp.
9757 Zbucan circle 2000 Main St. 19671 Beach Blvd.
Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Hun ch, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
110`186-07 -186-18 111-071-28
Carl J. Obert City of Hunti.ngto SBE Financial
15271 Shata Lane P.O. Box 1SK 19671 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Hun Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
110-186-08 ll - 86-19 111-071-29
Huntington Beach Ccnpany �; SBE Financial Corp.
P.,,O. Box 7611 `. 19 �71'`Beach Blvd.
-,San Francisco, CA 94120 -Kfintington Beach,CA 92600
111-072-18 I11-SO1-30,32,33
.-. _ -------
S B E Financial Corp. Matthew P. Dalany
19671 Beach Blvd. 631 E. Orange Grove
:Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Sierra Madre, CA 91024
1111-101-01 111-101-31
Angelina M. Giacalone
248 N. Patton Avenue
Sari Pedro, CA 90732
111-101-02
S B E Financial Corp.
19671 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA .92648
111-101-03,04,06
i
Charlotte Law
2906 Overland Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90064
111-101-05
Leroy G.' Greisch
17931 Whitford Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
111-101-07
S B E Financial-Corp
1967ch Blvd.
iuntington Beach, CA 92648
111-101-08,09,10,11,12,13,14�.
15,16,17,18,19
Nancy M. Shipley
615 Vista Bonita
newport Beach, CA 92660
111-101-20
SBE Financial Corp..
19671 Beach Blvd.
H�gton Beach, CA 92648
111-101-21,22,23,24;25,27,28,
Jean M. Hethcock
312 N. Mansfield
Los .An geles, CA 90036
lll�101-26
Christian F. Biery
2435 Carroll Lane
Escondido, CA 92025
111-101-29
- I
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
JJ
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
October 13, 1986
Mr. and Mrs. A. C. Marion
P.O. Box 108
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. and Mrs. "Marion:
The City Council at' its October 6 , 1986 Council meeting tabled
your appeal to the Planning Commission' s denial of General Plan
Amendment No. 86-3 and Zone Change No. 36-21 . The City Council
also directed that an appraisal of said property be made and
authorized negotiations to acquire property.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call the
Development .Services Department - 536-5271 .
Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
AM1W:cb
cc: James Palin - Development Services Director
Gail Hutton - City Attorney
(Telephone: 714-536-5227)
PUBLIC NOTICE
r i}' NOTICE OF
i:u1 razed to Publish Advertisements of all kinds'ineluding public PUBLIC HEARING
not. s by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, APPEAL TO (�(p (�r+(T►� 7((j
Cablr_ nia. Number A-6214, dated 29 September.-1961, and PLANNING COMMISSION
DENIAL OF.
A-248 f, dated 11 June. 1963. GENEFIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 81
/ZONE CHANGE
STATE OF 86-21
,CALIFORNIA I
NOTICE IS HEREBY
- GIVEN that the Huntington
Beach City Council'.will hold
County of Orange P o„C.Ho„� coven s+np'cov«w a'public hearing in the Coun-
- ''..by this •rtidsvit ,s sot n 7,point �:,' C
rith t0 pica Column,ridtn ' r ci Chamber. the Hunt- .I am at e
ington Beach Cre Hunt-
C
2000 Main Streeet, Hunt-
' ington Beach California,on
the date and at the.timeJn
I am a Citizen Of the Llnited States and a resident of dicated below to receive and
consider the statements of
the County aforesaid; I am Over the ase Of,eighteen all persons who wish to be
heard relative to the appli-� ■/ /j
years,-and not a party to or :interested in the below cation described below. ■ N /re
_ I DATE/TIME:Monday,06-1
f
entitled matter. am a principal clerk of the Orange tuber 6, 1986,7:30 PM I
APPLICATION„>NUMBER:
ti. Coast ,QA AY'-P.ILOT, with which is combined the, General Plan Amendmenii 4
` 86-3/Environmental Impact s
NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, " Report 86-2/Zone Change
86-21
printed' and published in the City.of Costa Mesa, LOCATION: Northwest
corner of Ellis Avenue
County of. Orange,`State.of California;.and that a' Goldenwest Street.
PROPOSAL:An appeal by
•• PUBLIC:HEARING., A.C.Marion to the Planning
N011Ce Of Commission's denial of his }1
request for General Plan Gi
Amendment 86-3 and Zone
Change 86-21.His request is
— to change the General Plan
designation,:from General
of which copy attached hereto is-a true,and complete commercial to Medium •
COPY, was printed'and ublished in the Costa Mesa, Density Residential at 10 .
p acres of property located on
.
Ella
Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valle the northwest comer of
p, g. y� Avenue andd Goldenwst Est
Street. Zone Change 86-21
Irvine, the South`Coast CORtmuflltleS and Laguna is being proposed concur-
ONE 'TIME rently with,'Ols request to
Beach-issues Of said newspaper for change the ,zoning from
C2-0 (Community Business
Y",t� MN*V' s to.wit the issue(s) of District Combined with Oil)
to.R2-PD (Medium Density
Planned,°Resldential De-
velopmeAt).','The request.
could result in approximate-
ly 140 dwelling units.An ap-
$eptember.- 25 1•98 6 peal to the Planning Com
mission's September 16,:
-1986 denial of General Plan „
Amendment 86-3/Zone)
198 Change 86-21 has been filed
by;the property owner A.C.
Marion.
ENVIRONMENTAL
. 98 STATUS:Environmental Im-
pact Report 86-2 Is being
processed concurrently with
this application.
ON FILE:A legal descrip-
tion and copy of the
proposed General Plan
Amendment, Environmental I;
198 Impact Report, and 'one
Change is•on,file in the De-
partment of Development '
Services,2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, Cali-
fornia 92648 for inspection
1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the by the public.
ALL INTERESTED PER-
'foregoing is true and correct. f SONS are invited to attend
said hearing and expressl
opinions or submit evidence
for or against the application
Executed.On September -2 5 1 s8 6 as outlined above.All appu-
cations, exhibits, and de-
scriptions of this proposal
at o to Mesa, Ca (fornia. are on file with the Office of
the City Clerk, 2000 Main
Street Huntington-Beach,
_. 9
` Cahforrna^for'inspec' e�`
public j
ignature HUNTINGTON`BEACH
CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia
M. Wentworth, City Clerk,
Phone:(7:.4)536-5405 pp
Published Orange Coast4
JDaily Pilot',September 25,
1986
Th118 �
PROOF, OF PUBLICATION
Publish - 9/25/86
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ;
APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-3/ZONE CHANGE 86-21
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a
public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center,
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time
indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish
to be heard relative to the application described below.
DATE/TIME: Monday, October 6, 1986, 7:30 PM
APPLICATION NUMBER: General Plan Amendment 86-3/Environmental Impact
Report 86-2/Zone Change 86-21
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street.
PROPOSAL: An appeal by A.C. Marion to the Planning Commission's denial of
his request for General Plan Amendment 86-3 and Zone Change
86-21. His request is 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 86-21 is being
proposed concurrently with this request to change the zoning
from C2-0 (Community- Business District Combined with Oil) to
R2-PD (Medium Density Planned Residential Development). The
request could result in approximately 140 dwelling units. An
appeal to the Planning Commission's September 16, 1986 denial of
General Plan Amendment 86-3/Zone Change 86-21 has been filed by
the property owner A. C. Marion.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report 86-2 is being processed
concurrently with this application.
ON FILE: A legal description and copy of the proposed General Plan
Amendment, Environmental Impact Report, and Zone Change is on
file in the Department of Development Services., 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by
the public.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express
opinions*or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above.
All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with
the Office. of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California,
for inspection by the public.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL.`
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
'City- .Clerk
_s:fir' .: a • ;z. vt,....e= 171& . S36ASAn 5_oft.._._ �.
NOTICE- OF' PUBLIC . HEARING
NOTICE` IS BEREBY GIVEN that' the Huntington Beach. C;i_ty Council wi11
hold a: public hear.in"g in, the Council Chamber, at the Huntington -Beach
Civic Center , 2000.,Main Street, .Huntington Beach,; California',. oh.' the
'date- .and -at' the- time indicated below to receive and consider the y
statements of all persons who 'wish to be heard relative to the .
application described below.
DATE/TIME:. Monday, October 6 , 1986 , 7 : 0 PM
APPLICATION. NUMB'ER: General Plan Amendment 86-3/Environmental.
Impact Report 86-2/Zone Change 8,6-21 GQ
LOCATION: Northwest corner of E11.is a n d Gol,denwest, Street:,
� ,,,Q��
PROPOSAL L' -7 ' change the General Plan designation- from General
Commercial to Medium Density Residential .on 10'. 1
acres of property located on the northwest corner of
E11-is Avenue and Goldenwe'st Street . Zone Change
86-2-1 is being proposed concurrently with this- ..
request to '`change- the zoning from C2-0 (Community
Business District Combined with Oil ) 'to R2-PD (.Medium
Density Planned Residential Development ) .. The,
request could result in� approx mately 140 dwelling
units. /�r. z��ez� }�-e at..;r; +. •rJ S'��, IG� rys6 v�e.,i2i�
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Environmental Impact Report 86-2 is being
processed concurrently with this application j.
ON FILE • A,t.copy .'of the proposed General ..Pl'an Amendment.'
Environmental Impact Report , and Zone Change is on
file in the Department of Development Services,. . 200
Main Street, Huntington Beach, California '92648,., for
inspection by the.. public.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing..and
express opinions o'r submit evidence for or against the application
as outlined' above— Ali applications , exhibits, and` descriptions` of ,
this proposal a.re on, file with' the Office of the City Clerk,,• 2000 !.
Main Street, . Huntington- Beach, . California, for i.n:spection by the , - -
public .
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ,�E
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
Cit C1erR
Phone: (.714) 536-5:405 '� . 'e
('6276d-4 ).
,
. .
'tr+ '.. ..s ,.,`, `�'t" '.,,,v ,::�,,,' -%',t rr F a, "�ssr .Yw q M. ,;',a r +vsu .w e. 5
Kxr «. ck � - .- .... r saltSi
T,q dxR ", > sr ,y:,s >
. . __ ,r+.-:+�A S`. •a, F-rt;.,,, r�. '' , .. s,* *•a *K v. ar. ,s. i s' .x �,. - s+ a•:.:r>s .,;u..TM11 ;_r 3;
y x s ,- n s
xJas- 4t,. e,tw r...�.ar.., «? Ftk2'Y :..w th . i .v .•:`�� a"`0.`3 .:.� .fa'..�^,'. sue-.
sw =.. wr ,� :� i; "§ �. :%y, � Ya-A a
.. ...,.._..� �..,.: .t.�. ,,y .eld' r �
Huntington Beach Y :k sMASBE Financial Corp � �
x� ..% "i .ty�z c:.` .c; .)e. `w a...''-'.• µ t` �n-.'>YaaE+3'�. ;3. .+ ,�''"X� .IP«t�
- P O.. Box 7611 �� .a > rx 19671 Beach Blvd aA
tw - .,.� "" `e �x
San Francisco" CA 94120#�� 1` ; funtington Beach, CA' 92648 _ F
•,hr a"`Fi wa���k;. ;., �-� x�3 s 2 ?'-t -:,c.y„�tz'"wp¢Y ; n. �. y
°� 111-072 '18 4111 101 30,32,33
K.
�p�„��.�,,,.�ii ta.,.:.a �y �' .,: I�^v�i� ;a' s� u..:*az x�4 -'`5'a a�, � � vt d = �}��M Tq �..^ ,� `a'� x"y''.;:k •�E L �,#....,. -,�C _
a.; s' 3zr't w st•;.nw x��'
•
A y,f r ,«, 3,{sY»'➢'`. _ :.:,� `s Ft' ` ''t.•. p u :`' 3 4
x S BE Financial Ca,,.rp Matthew P Dalany `
'� «' t ,o x. f1A, ."' ,� :, z4 •'_ .t".,kip is 4e �*''�
& '.n, d�,i ,};tq# „. z„ :ter`" f r'`# SF,� S.t 3.``e ..✓ w :t` ,� L x
' 19671 BeacYi.Blvd ri ;z< -: ,t 631 E° Orange 'Grove Y
x 324 µ, 0.p
Huntington Beach, CA 92648Sierra Madre, CA 91024
} 111-101 Ol s ,k Y 11l 101 31
3
aa�" 2 'f L a r. '•� �. :.,� i rx k fr f,z g., t„�? a°` .� > '� y
A `j �,. 3. d+: � k ' �{x� i, �r i ..rye{ i X� r •..
Anger na:M 'Gacalone
.�248 N. Patton Avenue f
San.Pedro, CA 90732
111-101-02
-
S'B E Financial Corp
19671 Beach Blvd,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
111-101-03,,04- 0
. r
Charlotte Lowe
2906. Overland Ave. ,
Los Angeles, CA 90064.
111-101-05
Leroy G. Greisch
17931 Whitford Dane.
Huntington Beach,. CA 92649
111-101-07
S' B E:Financial.Corp.
19671 Beach. Blvd.: ..
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
' 111-1OT-08,09,10,11,12;13,14,
15,16,1718,,19 ..:
Nancy M. Shipley
:.
.615 Vista Bonita
newport. Beach, CA '.92660
r
111-101-20
,f
l
SBE
Financial Corp..Corp.
.' 19671 Beach Blvd. `.
� I
` Huntington Beach; CA ` 92648
111-101-21,22,23`,24,25,27,28, 1
` � 4
I
Jean M -Hethcock "� t
312 N Mansfield
Los Angeles, CA 90036
3 ° �. 'r: � r <� aa'^ a $'' r r n .�'' r� s •a r'w`w :.z d '� w- s } '.s a , 1:
� s' -� s a.
� M � +� ,M s an.
,+: w` �`* ��> 's,s 3. a.-a.: !�t,,, e} s z Y �.r s :n- '4. y f 1 i k +. y,• �h ..^' q t
�f 'a�L',h a,_ .-ka ...en'� 'i � Dt_ � $ �5 �. � ..h _ s �,° y :v *.e «� ,��w+* �kf �,,:s <t ss-a•e^. s- t
A h.,�:+ � k ,�'-• e.w 1a• ,� 1t ,y tr y}" 3 'i..'-3 t ' x 'k tom, � }? v�,-ri,.? i K ,�r`-'+ y, -«r n � � r �,..
s .,�.�:�..� v�� ;h� r. ��;�` ek;�6 s f+t'. �•rrs`-ry':. .`� C�x""`�� '�o .,��°z,. .�: k � z � a ''" .°.` � � a Y...� 1p d_ p ,.�w. ,
'Chri Stan F ' Biery�y
`l. ,yb„t
ek,. .t 24 35
EC Carroll Lane
r ,
;Esconclldo, CA. 92025
. . "•111-101-29. r . . .x_,k.,., t. .x ? . . .. .,_ . �_ �. � . .. .. 'S,. t �..,41� S y ^Y ry 4
City, Of Huntington BeaCn .1: .t-1. uviu�vii T r = tQ2Q01j7I1 �. ljcizulliig
2000'Main ;St :; . " 3079 Mai den' Lane 1650 Orel St _
,Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Alta Dena, CA 91001 � rt Norco; CA 91760 '
} 110 1 -4 21 { ; , .w 110 186 09 ,„ 110 186 20 f 4 �4
a 3 a v rt re I t t nr w #
F 5 4;
.dta.:
City jy of Hu ttJ_n ton BeachElva`Layton k Ory lle W. Carter f
1
kt r
P.O: Box. 190 �;. .- 1261 San, Juhan,Pl PX. BoX�, 1080 x t ti S'"
Huntington Beach; CA 92648 Lake San Marcos, CA '92069 Hawthorne, 'CA' 90250 '�
110-184-22 110=186 10 _ 110-186-21
r .
of Huntin*gton Beach ;i George W. Bainter ` City ofHuntington Beach
, .. . : ;
2000 Main St: .. 6901 Ellis Ave. P..O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA , 92648 j Huntington Beach, CA .92648 Huntington Beach, CA , 92648`
110-18.4-23 110 186-11 110-186-22
_ s.. .. ..
City of :Huntington Beach Yvette C. Lawrence Don Raymond Albrecht
P:O. Box 190 = 6901 Ellis Ave. ! 21292 Yarmouth .Lane.
Huntington Beach; CA •92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 'Huntington Beach, CA. 92646
110-186=03 i 110-186-12 110-200-01
James G. Burcham Lindborg/Dahl
9331 Nant
ucket Drive 895 LaPDona Ct. 17220 Newhope St.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i Fountain Valley, CA 92708 i Fullerton, CA 9.2708
'110-186-02 1-10-1.86-13 110-200-03.
Arlen. Torgerson Herman Hann= William Landis
13707 Crenshaw Blvd, 5655 116th :Pl. Suite 470 Century City
Hawthorne, CA 90250 Bellevue,- Wash 98004. Iris Angeles, CA 90067 .
110-186-03 ! 110-186-14 110-210-01
Hsi',Hsiang Lee Julian I. Hathaway SBE Financial Corp.
9872 Ol ic .Blvd. 1 P.O. 'Box 3404 19671 Beach Blvd.
Y��
Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Santa Fe Springs:, ;CA 90670 Huntington..Beach, -CA 92648
110-186704 110-186-15 311-071=19
City of Huntington Beach Alice E:, ,Hughes Nancy Bradley Smila
P.O. Box 190 P.O. `Box 3404 .20302. Laverton
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 . ; Santa Fe Sj.rings., CA 90670,. Katy, TX 77450
110-18&-05' - 1107186-16 111-071-25
w .
Milton H. .Marcw ; Milton H. Maraw Richard J..'Pariseau
864 N. Bundy Drive . 864` N: Bundy Drive 16522 .Pro Circle Unit-D.
Los 'angeles., CA 90049 z IAS ,Angeles,_-CA '90049 Huntington.Beach, 'CA 92649
110-186-06 110-186 17 . `> 111-071-26. ' .
�.t
Patricia jG Poyyak City of Huntington Beach S 'B E ".Financial :Corp
97.57 °Toucan, circle... ;� 2000 _11a St ,# 19671 Beach Blvd
Hunt n n."Beach CA 92648
` .Fountain'Valley, CA 92708 �4 -Huntington Beach' "'CA 9264E
fi 110110 186 18 x r 111 071 28
v'
z
a r FinanClal
a Carl J Obert P.O Box 190 gton Beach 3 X
£ 15271 .Shata Lane _. , #n �� 19671''Beach
Huntington Beach; CA'92647 Huntington,;Beach, CAE 92648 #` Huntington Beach, 7CA 9264 f
s "",
� * �
y �:t' ,%i yY ,��t .�' z`'x'r 5p ,�`.: �',„✓�§;:�r''` �q"w R'� a,. .^,�.'M '.. L , �.;�t&- s:,z�. .,e„ l��' u @ Y �,5y. T >Is<J ` ': ,.> ,a�s;{. "'` z,_�,, "t;' yro $
Huntington Beacy
£ , City of Huntington Beach t� , r
Donald Hamiltona z. .
: 2000 Main St.
P O Box 698 P O .Box 190 s
s Huntington Beach, CA° �. Huntington Beach, CA-'-,9264E
F Wilmington CA 90748 r a
t ' 110 184 .09
11 _0 170
♦> 'r �tk.'r~' a.k^ x _ ". � ': r . ? ! -.e 1, t ,.. 3 6. r€tt� d ,. e }, .^.,s Y'$..4 � fir''� a
of Huntin n Beach' ' Cz �of Huntington Beach Char es:B Kimball xa
} tY. 1
°„ 2000'Main. St
P O."Box 190 2404 Laguna Vista',Dr
} Huntington Beach, CA 92648 z. Huntington Beach, CA' 92b48 Novat6 CA 94947' `
} 110 170 1S " 184-1
110 182
w
Pacific Amer. YOi l Co. Corp " blaldo E. BermsZZ
City-of Huntington Beach
416 W. has Palmas Drive
.11220 NeWhope St. P.O. Box 190
Fountain Valley:, CA ✓92708 :v-Fullerton, CA 92632 { Huntington Beach, "CA 9264E
110-180-0 _ - -
� 0,182 11 t
YCi of.1- intro n Beach
City of Huntington Beach ' o '_= City o1 Huntington Beach
P.O. BOX 190 '2000 Main St.` i 2000 Main ,St.
Huntington -Beach, CA 92648 - :Huntington Beach, CA 926481. ,:Huntington Beach, CA 9264E
110-182-b1 .. 110-182-12 110-184-12
City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach ;. Marcedes V. Quine
.2000 Main St. 2000 Main',St. 2200 Park Newport $401
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92660
110-182-02 110-184-01/110-184-02 110-184=13
Hsi Hsiang Lee Milton H.'Marow City of Huntington Beach
9872 Olympic Blvd. 864 'N. Bundy .Drive P.O. Box 190:
Huntington,Beach, '.CA 926.46 Los Angeles; CA 90049 Huntington Beach, CA . 9264E
110 182-03 110-184-D3 110-184-14
_
City of .Hutington Beach � ; Hsi Hsiang. Lee i City of Huntington Beach
'R:O. .Box 190 i . , 9872 Olympic Blvd. P.D. Box 190
g ... Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 9264E
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
110-182-04,: � � .
110-184-04 110-184-15 ,
Regina C: Kahle :City of Huntington Beach 'William B. Blanchard
736 -Weelo Drive 2000 Main=St. P.O. Box :243
Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ': Sedona,.AZ '. 86336 :r
=' 110-182-05�-
110-184-05 110-184-16
C1 Of ~Huritin Beach
Milton H. Marow ,
ty gtan ° ! `• , : . Charles F. Barret
P.O. .Box`190. 864 N. Bundy Drive; 2 � d �
Huntington
2t ch 92648 Los`Angeles, CA 90049 Los Angeles, CA 90064��.a,�`�
Huntington Bea
8 -06
110 184 06 llfl 184 17
s v "of Huntin a
G ty of Huntington Beach' { ; ty gton Beach Myron M Wasson ^,
2000 Mani' St Y 2000 Main St ,� t 23636 Sidney Bay "Sty, 4
_ 'Huntington Beach CA 92648 7= Huntington Beach, CA 92648 x Laguna.,Niguel, CA 926,77a.
11.0 184 07 4
110 182 07 ^r r 110 18 18 Y
r'.
r5'S- f .'sue s rr' p^
71
Ci of Huntin n Beach
C>ty of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach ,F
Ori Boxy 19 Y y k '#., * t:-,R
2000 Main St4 . _;; ayP.t sw 4 0 ? 3 r , OO ;Main:;St uryKS , r
8 0
' ,x Be c a un Beach CA 9264�
Huntington Beach �CA 92648 z Huntington° a h, CA 9264 k H tington ,r
: ;>
110-182
•.+.:nsra.,r,, r:.y„. ^, ...„ a. ..,!"ewe.. 1 .�a� �Y- ..,.�w r 'r .�;>'9'a. s t :�;
�� �_€ ',rl'"�f:t�:M > ';•. �+, 7'i"�;.: �,+Tx ;.t`S �' 'AY^`'a�+� a'' ', .r �,'Y.,` .+r „"=-"t#»,^�.:4:'� �'"rati�`c :� ''.a�%�"" .,r+5. M"... Z... t '�
s
^r•r—
ORDINANCE A
ORDLNANCE. NO.
ANORDINANCE G� CT '/ OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
? LADING THE f?�..:NTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE
3Y' AMENDING SECTION 9061 TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE
OF ZONING :ROM COM7,?i-1,4r-' 30SI'IESS
J_ TRI m , CC 1B i E D Wl'T1i 0 L ?R 0DUCT10 M4 , to
/I L.D lJ�"1-J�.�IJ_TY :`-�5_D-N-- PJA'N�D D���E' O�.\�E iT
D;STR7�CT ON REAL -PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON
'UE NORTHWEST CORDER OF ELLIS AVENUE A.ND
JOLDEtislE.ST STREET ( ZON CASE NO 36'- ' )
v?,--;AS , pursuant to .t'ne state Planning and Zoning Lana ,
:_,e Hu%tington 3eaci P1anning .Commission and Huntington Beach City
Counci IL had separate public hearings relatLVE' to Zone Case
No . 35-21 wherein both bodies have carefully considered al`l
intor ilatlOn presented at Sala nearings , and after aUe
onsi-deration of :he f -nd g�n and recommenaat_On5 0= _he lanniiig
udTsi5s Cin and all e`, Je :r'� e `-e +- �. _� -c n 1
r _ nC� _s n�•_G �O Sxl': ! .tl CL
C;3 CL_ fi of t( a Suci' Zone Cnange _S rODer , ail 0 C,,)r,L ciit
7' -J° _ ,e City Counc _ oL _:�e CL=_� o_
HunT:incron 3each Goes orddin as follows;
` S EEC T10N 1 `The following aescribed real ofooe- tv,
genera `i 1ocate,a on ti,e nOrthweSt corker of _i_ i3 venue
Goiden'riest Street , LS heieby changed from C2-0 , co l Lned wL,n L
procuction , to R2-PD ° 'Iedi l.lm-Density Planned Res.L ential
De-velooment DLstrict° '
1:1e soutl_a s t auarte� of the southea�st
quarter of the northeast quarter of Secti0il
34 , Township .S. South , Range 11 siest in the
Rancho Las 3olsa, as per map recorded in
Book 51 page 13 of Miscellaneous daps in the
1 . .
ORDINANCE A
office 'of the COu;nty .Recorder of Orange
Count], CalirorZia .
SLC"IOct Section 9061 of the Huntinccon 3each
Ordinance Code , District Mao' 38 ( Secticnal District Map 34-5-i.1 )
is. hereby a:.mended to ref'lec the cnance contained in tnis .
ordinance and on -he map attached hereo . The . DirectOr. Of
Development Services is hereny directed to prepare and file an
amended map . A copy or said district Rlap, -as amended, shall be
available for inspection in the, office of the City Clark . ,
S CTION This ordinance shall sake effect thirty a.ays
aLter .its, cassage .
PASS D A-\iD ADO?TED b_r the Ci-v Counc-il of t he C-.Lt_I o�
i'un-.I n�_�on .Be a�.�:- � a .r 2gula� mee=i,nq ^ere0i C1e_�:. On t'.;'?
da'I
y o r:
ATTES'T'. PPRO`JED AS TO FORM.
City Cler;{ City Actornev
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: LNITIATED A.ID APPROVED :
CI.ty AGM inIstrator Director of DC`;e10D Men= D e f V I C e's
2 .
ORDINANCE B
ORDINANCE NO.
AN 0RD7NIA ICE ,DF THE CITY OF HONTI?IGTON 3DAC:_
AMZNDING Tim HUNT.I`iGTON BEACH ORD7NAi10E CODE
BYA.n� 1D=?IG SEA'=7ON 9001 O PROVIDc :OR C, A`i'
D=STR7CT , COiI3 -.1 D N-TH PRCD�JCT 1_O ,
:1SDD iS7�" R�S_D-2i^7AL PLA_'d?i_D DEVELCP:^._.,im
D7: S 'R C`)MB "iTD ,J= -:: v_'i-C DIE' R=CT .AND 1'3
7J?I _ � P�R ,^.lam D LVS_Tf, J-.r1_7 VLI R�a1- P. _:,-`-
��'C:�-T' D ON T:7 'iO T ";737
IS A-I-ENUE AND GOLD- NWd S_ Z(DNE CA-I
6v iERAS , ,ursuant to "he sz.ate Manning and Zoni nq Law ,
=^:e _unCInc;on 3eac'I P I arming COil:lission and Hunt:;in —on 3-?acn C, I
COun it d`Ie :nac secar -e publ_c hearings r .1a=lve to Zone Cast
,IQ . 5- 1 wherein 'oCth bodies have re Liv con-'s4-Qe_ ed a! l
_n_ .r:i"a`-on 3reSen da t .Samoa n e a L:CS , a n a a er _
C0%SLQ a1:10n O e L _n :Ln- _nQ CO in:ueI:G =_O nS O_ -he _ _a:iii�nq
OCt1i;i: 31' 1 encO or Zer,eQ 0 ui -`I v '
r,c '.i..n,^S _^aa- such '.O ri -a, _s _ rO v;'_._ , �..0 Cv � �s -_._ _
iunt_. =an 3ea n does ordain as =oi_ows .
1 . '-he io11owing :eSCr _3e-. real cr-joe ,
_ _ _ ! lcca:_d cn the ncrchwes` Corn-_
Go11.Qenwest Stree is herby cnangg zro:-a C_-0 , co,t�
Dr0QuC=L0nf CO R2 L0 ) -PD-CD ° _ledl':,.,-Dr'n'si i ?i ann S _ - _- -
Develocme'nt. D i s ict cobLne-d wL=.. C1`IiC D
Der acre Qensit`! li 11t ..
The southeast quarter of the southeast
quarter. o if the .northeast quarter or Sectio,rr
34 , Township 5 South , Rance 11 West in the
ORDINANCE B
Rancho Las Boisa, as per map recorded in
Book 51 page A of Miscellaneous .Maps in the
office of the Cohn^+/ Recorder of Orange
_'ot1nny , California .
SECTICN 2 . Section 3061 of the Huntington Beach ordinance
Coce , District :Map 33 ( Sectional District Map 34- 5-11 ) is hweoy
amended to refiecr_ the change contained in this ordinance and on the
map attached hereto . The Director of Development Services is hereby
directed to prepare and file an amended map . A copy of said
district map, as amended, shall be availaole for inspection in the
office of the City Clerk .
.SECTION 5 . his ordinance shall tak= effect thirty days
after its passage .
SS:D jD ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
unt _. _ =on Beach at a regular meeting _hereof held on the
a'_I . f
Mayor
ATTEST : A??ROVE0 AS TO FORM:
city Clerk cizy Allorns'y
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED :
City Administrator Director or Development Services
2 .
LANDUSE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT 86�3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 86 -2
huntington beach planning division
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 . 0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . 1
1 . 1 METHODOLOGY. . . .. . . 1 .
2 . 0 AREA OF CONCERN . . . . . 3
2 . 1 NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDENWEST STREET
AND E•LLIS AVENUE . . 3
2'. 1 . 1 Background . . . . . . . . 3
2. 1 . 2 Analysis . . .. 8
2 . 1 . 3 Staff Recommendation 15
3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES. . . . . . . . . 17
3 . 1 SHORT—TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUC_TIVITY. 17 ,
3 . 2 IRREVERSIBL:E ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES . . 18
3 . 3 GROWTH ILNDUCING IMPACTS . . . . . . . 18
APPENDIX A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS LANs) USE ASSUMPLIONS
AND REVENUE AND COST BREAKDOWN
APPENDIX B INITIAL STUDY
APPENDIX C LETTERS OF COMMENT
1 . 0 INTRODUCTION
This report. concerns Amendment 86-3 to the Land. Use Element of the
Huntinaton Beach General Plan . The Land Use Element was adopted as
a mandated element of the General Plan in. December , 1.973 ; this is
the thirtieth amendment to the element. Planned land uses
throughout the City, are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagram.
1 . l METHODOLOGY
,The proposed amendment is to change- the General Plan designation on
a 10 .'l 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 1.5148 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
-.l_
section or a cover sheet identifying where the general plan document
addresses .each of the points required. " In conformance with State
guidelines , this document will constitute the EIR for Land Use
Element Amendment 8-6-3 . The environmental setting and significant
impacts associated with the issue areas identified i.n 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 3 . 0 addresses overall environmental changes related to the
following considerations : l ) the relationship between local
short-term productivity; 2 ) irreversible or unavoidable
environmental changes ; and 3 ) growth inducing impacts .
-2-
}
2 . 0 AREA OF 'CONCERN
This section addresses the request area designated in Figure 2-1 .
2 . 1 NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDENWEST STREET AND ELLIS AVENUE.
2 . i . 1 Background
The area of concern addressed by Land Use Element Amendment no . 86-3
is. a 10 . 1 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Ellis
Avenue and Goldenwest Street . The property is currently designated' .. .
tor -General Commercial ( Figure '2-2 ) in. the City' s Land Use Element .
The current zoning on the property is C2-0 with no special
conditions limiting number of stories , retail uses or building
materials . The C2 zone permits construction -up to 50 feet and
allows virtuallv all retail uses .
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 :
-3-
o s
t
I
+, '
ALIN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIN AREA OF CONCERN
PLANNING DIVISION
Figure 2-1
-4-
• s
TALBERT
LOW
--DENS I LYT
RESIDENT_�L' �.
!_
CF_R Ii
I � -
CF R
I
OPEN SPACE
I Ii
IL
L
CF_C
' +� I!11 Will i!,' I
nll +Till !.rl ! IL;, li II I — I
i GEN.
Illi III II'I till!i I III I' I'! j COMM. I L
I IL
j iili I! I� ICI+i'l ! I+!Ilii44
{ ELf Is I�"
I
�I ESTATE RESID. ESTATE RESID I ! I
i" 3 UNITS/ACRE 2 UNITS%ACRE
I �l
— EST_aTE RESID. � = GENERAL
i
EEE]
I
i I INDUSTRIAL
y UNITS/ACRE +
is
�i. I iI I. 'lll �
�r =� 7 /T7
AVE. GARFIELD
4 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIN EXISTING` GENERAL PLAN
PLANNING DIVISION
Figure 2-2 .
—5--
s .
-AL3ERT
M I-C Z) e
ryryry '•' 5R I
I RtI RI 12 RI . RI RI
-71
—i
i
CF, R. CF-R MI-CD
- D
MI-CD
I R A-0-CD
%RA j M I MIS.
I -O-CD R
RA-0-
CD i CF-C nV71
�� aCD• - �}CPS-OCD
cs-o-c a-co' �cs-o-c� o-cD a-cD�i
4 C2-0 ! +I rvi I
ilos
I - RA-C-.. I •�
MI-O-CD
ml
RA-CD
Lua-cDr � i - _ •���`-'�� NIA
RA-0 CD
RA-0
Q-RI'-(2.7)-0-3,000 RA c� o � 1 j I Rq_p M I-p
i
RA-0 w o cD RA-0-CD
MI CD I MI 01'Wj
MI-0
MI 01
RA OFt .I RA 01 RA-0-CD MI 011
Rs
I 1 Mt J I,
RA R 5 li
RA-0
. AV E. GARFiELD
n HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIK EXISTING ZONING
PLANNING DIVISION
Figure 2-3
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 .
On January 31 , 1985 , the property owner , A. C. Marion, requested
that the General Plan designation of the subject property be changed
from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential . The
amendment request was GPA ,.85-2 . Additionally, the landowner
requested a concurrent zone change on the subject property from
C2-0- (Q) to R2-PD, Medium -Density •Residential District-Planned
Development . Inability to market the land for retail and commercial
services was cited by the landowner as justification for the
amendment . This request was denied on June 17 , 1985 , by the .City
Council . After denying the amendment request, the Council explored
the City' s ability to purchase- the site for inclusion in Central
,Park . Upon their conclusion that sufficient funds were not
available , they directed that a zone change be initiatedto remove
" the "Q" and related conditions from the property. The "Q" was.
oriainally intended to .e.stablish conditions that commercial uses on
the sitebe 1-imited to" equestrian oriented businesses, that they be
one-story construction with wood siding and earthtone colors , that
there be. parking lot landscaping and that there be pedestrian and
or se access . These conditions were intended to ensure
compatability with Central Park . That zone change ( ZC 85-13 ) was
adopted by the City Council 'on September 16 , 1985 .
On June 10 , 1986 , the landowner resubmitted his previously denied
reauesr_ . for the General Plan Amendment and zoning change outlined
above . In view of the fact that the applicant and his request 'are
the same as before and that the conditions in the area of concern
remain essentially unchanged, the EIR ( 85-l') that was prepared for
this same request- last year is .resubmitted herein as draft EIR No'.
86-2 for the current request . This is in accordance with Article
10 , .Section 15.153 of CEQA, "Use of an EIR from an Earlier Project . "
The only changes to this EIR involve updates concerning the history
of applications on the site , discussion of the Holly property. 'Land
Use Element Amendment request to the southeast of the property, new
methodology for_ assessing fiscal impacts , and a slightly revised
recommendation discussion .
It should be noted that staff recommended approval of the
applicant ' s previous request (GPA 85-2 ) and maintains the same
position for the current request .
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
-7-
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 M1-CD and contains a truck repair business . The
area north and east of this M.l-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 construction for interim use as a
mobilehome relocation parka 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
El1is-Coldenwest 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 1.20
acre Holly Property ( itself the subject of GPA 85-1 ) is located
diagonally across Coldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue . The Holly
Property General Plan Amendment request for a change from Estate
Residential and General Industrial to Planned Community was recently
denied .
The existing General Commercial designation on the subject property
was originally intended to provide equestrian oriented commercial
services which would be. utilized in conjunction with the equestrian
center to the north .
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
could result in a maximum of approximately 140 dwelling units .
-8- •
Because of the relationship of the site to Central Park, the design
of a .resident-ial 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 . If appropriately
designed, thisalternative could feature a use that. is both
compatible with Central Park and economically feasible .
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 Densi'ty `on the site may be more
compatible with Central Park than Medium Density; however, it may ,-
not be as economically feasible .
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 inc-orporated into an Estate type
development than into the other alternatives . However , the site may
be too small for an estate. residential project to be feasible ..
Also, this site is fairly detached from the other estate areas .
A redesicnation of the site to Open Space would permit the
development of a commercial recreation use such as a -tennis and
racquetba-11 club , swimming pool , par-three golf course , count.r.y club
or si:Tiilar use . The ype of facilities and amount of building
square footace would vary according to the proposed use .
Appropriate implementing zoning would be . ROS (Recreation Open.
Space )' . Since the site is surrounded by existing or proposed
Central Park on three sides , Recreation Open Space could be
considered a compatible use.. A recreational use on the site could
be developed by the applicant , but such a, use would not be
.economically efficient for a private landowner . If the City were to
acquire the property for inclusion into Central Park , recreational
use on 'the site would be more feasible . At this time, however , the
City has forgone any plans of acquiring the site due to its ' high
cost .
The last alternative would retain General Commercial 'on the southern .
five acres and -redesignate the . northe-rn five acres for Open Space ,
. This could allow a reduced mix . of tennis and racque-t 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 land use alternatives in this request . Significant,
changes from 1985 . to 1986 appear in both .the revenue and cost
components of the analysis . A major revenue change is the
difference in Motor Vehicle in Lieu Tax generated by the residential
development (Alternatives 2, 3 and '4 ) . Because of adjustments in
State subventions, the Motor Vehicle in Leiu Tax increased by a
factor of 13 . For Alternative .2 that increase totaled -$7 , 407 .
-9-
The change in methodology was focused, primarily, on costs
associated .with the different types of development . Representatives
from each department in the City were interviewed and the budget for
that department was reviewed program by program. For example, Jim
Engle ( Park and Recreation Development Superintendent ) in Community
Services said that none of the residential developments analyzed in
this analysis would have an impact on programs or services provided
by this department . Les Evans , Public Works Department , ( City ,
Engineer )selected specific programs that would be impacted by a
development ( regardless of type ) : That selection resulted in
relatively low costs asso,cia`ted wth Public Works Services . Appendix
A provides the assumptions and which were used 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 .
Alta 1 Alt . 2 Alt . 3
General Medium Density Low Density
Commercial Residential Residential
Revenue* 212.. 67 71 . 77 40 . 71 '
Cost* 18 . 30 36 . 39 21 . 44
Revenue Minus Cost* 194 . 37 35 . 38 19 . 27
Revenue/Cost 11 . 62 1 . 97 1 . 90
*in thousands
Alt . 4 Alt . 5 Alt . 6
Estate Open Open Space/
Residential Space Commercial
Revenue* 29 . 58 19 . 30 83 . 03
Cost* 11 . 40 i2 . 90 14 . 52
Revenue Minus Cost* 18 . 18 6 . 40 68 . 50
Revenue/Cost 2 . 59 1 . 50 5 . 72
*in thousands
As shown above , all of the land use alternatives that were analyzed
would generate a surplus of revenue for the City . The total fiscal
impact of the proposed amendment would be optimized if the General
Commercial alternative were, selected . This scenario could generate
a surplus of approximately- $194, 367 in the year analyzed . Of the.
three residential alternatives , the Medium Density scenario would
. generate the greatest revenue surplus . The Low Density scenario
would generate the second highest amount of surplus revenue and the
Estate Residential scenario would generate the least. amount . The
Commercial alternatives generate a surplus of revenue due to sales
tax . The Open Space alternative generates the least surplus revenue
-10-
because there are fewer retail 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
cost per unit :
( 4 ) Public Services and Utilities
a Sewers
An eight inch sewer currently exists in Goldenwes't. 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 propone.nt should, meet with the dis._trict staff to ,
resolve the sewage service problems associated with the
project .
--11-
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 site under any of the land use alternatives .
c . Storm Drains
Surface runoff from the site to Goldenwest S.t.r'eet will provide
adequate drainage under •any of the land use alternatives .
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 conce.rn . is provided by the City
of Huntington Beach which. operates from a -central facility
located at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue Based on City
Police Department planning standards whereby an extra 535
calls' per . year constitutes the need for an additional officer ,
none of the alternatives herein will generate the - need for
more police manpower . Of all. the alternatives , medium density
would .generate the most calls , approximately 202 .
e . Parks -
The area of concern is bordered -on three sAdes. by land either
existing or proposed for inclusion as a part ' of Hunti-ngton
Central Park . As such, any residential alternative . will be
more than 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 area ' s schools..
-12
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 .
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 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 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 on that property 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 currently vacant 300+
acres in the area a,re 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
-13-
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 the 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 701.
Ldn 65 and Ldn 60 e.xtend into the eastern portion of the 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 ,,. bermingy 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 duality
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
Total . 13
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Mobile . 08
Stationary Negligible
Total .08
-14-
Emission Tons of
Source Emissions/Day
ESTATE RESIDENTIAL
Mobile . 04
Stationary Negligible.
Total 04
OPEN SPACE
Mobile . 17
Stationary Negligible
Total . 17
GP EN SPACE/COMMERCIAL
Mobile . 40
Stationary Negligible
Total
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 an.d surface
rupture has not historically occurred along this fault system
in Huntington Beach and the probability is relatively'Jow 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 Hazaras 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� is proposed
for development .
2 . 1 . 3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the applicant ' s request for a General
Plan Amendment to, change the designation of the subject property
from General Commercial to, Medium Density Residential . (Alternative
2 ) . This recommendation is based on the fact that Medium Density
Residential use on the site may be both economically feasible and,
with proper site design, compatible with Central Park , thus meeting
the City' s goals and the landowner/developer ' s goals . None of the
other alternatives presented in this study achieve the same level of
harmony.
As previously mentioned in the analysis , the property has been
Unmarketable under its current designation 'of General Commercial .
Even if it were marketable , ,a non-restricted commercial use may not
be appropriate for the site. Given the site ' s proximity to Central
Park such a use could. create negative impacts on the park in , ter,ms
GPA 86-3 ( 0523D)
-15-
of traffic congestion and noise pollution. Moreover , a commercial
use may not complement the aesthetics of the park . In' view of this ,
staff is recommending a change in the. land use designation of the
property.
Designation of the property as Medium Density Residential will
improve its marketability, but more important, will enhance its
compatibility with the surrounding area , especially Central Park .
Compatibility of the proposed project with Central Park can be .
ensured by requiring the project to* incorporate quality site design ,
including the clustering of units to preserve open space and
maintain view corridors into the park. Medium Density Residential
in this location may also enhance pedestrian oriented use of the
park as opposed to auto-oriented use , thus , increasing .the park ' s
utility.
Along with the General Plan Amendment to Medium Density, the
applicant has requested a concurrent zone change ( ZC 86-21 ) 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 t.o require special
design . review . Staff is therefore .recommending R2- ( 10 ) -PD-CD zoning
in the accompanying zone change staff report .
GPA 86-3 ( 0523D)
-16-
3 . 0 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 .
3 . 1 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Amendment 86-3 does not. in and of itself create long term impacts .
Rather , it makes changes in the general type of land -uses that may
be ahlowed on a particular area at the time of development .
Amendment 86-3 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 .
G.PA 86-3 ("0523D )
-17-
3. 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 .
3 . 3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
The proposed amendment will also have growth inducing effects within
the area of concern . An additional population of 300 persons .could
be generated by uses .under Land. Use Element Amendment 86-3 , thereby
creating an increased demand on public services and utilities and
incrementally affecting air quality, water quality, traffic , and
noise levels .
The demand for water and energy will likelv. increas.e as ,a result of
the proposed land uses in this. amendment . Conservation measures
such as those . outlined below can be implemented City-wide to reduce
these impacts .
( 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 lea;,y 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 86-3 ( 0523D)
-18-
( 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 86-3 ( 0523D )
-19-
-20-
APPENDIX A
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
AND
REVENUE AND COST
INCLUDING LAND USE
AND
REVENUE/COST ANALYSIS
GPA 86-3 ( 0523D)
}
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AC MARION PROPERTY
FISCAL ANALYSIS
Major revenue and cost impacts are assessed in this • analysis for the
10 . 1 acre AC. Marion Property located on the northwest corner of
Ellis and Goldenwest . Six development alternatives were chosen for
the analysis . The following is a list of assumptions for each
alternative :
ALTERNATIVE 1 -GENERAL COMMERCIAL .
130 , 680 square foot specialty commercial development .
104 , 544 square feet of leasable space .
Estimated development value of $15 , 141 , 700
ALTERNATIVE 2 - -MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
- 140 condominiums
$150 , 000 per unit market value
280 people based on 2/unit
ALTERNATIVE 3 - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
70 condominiums
$185,000 per unit market value
140 people based on 2/unit
ALTERNATIVE 4 - ESTATE RESIDENTIAL
30 single family homes
$350 , 000 per unit market value
98 people based on 3 . 27/unit
ALTERNATIVE 5- OPEN SPACE/RECREATION
35, 160 square foot structure associated with tennis , racquet
ball and golf driving range .
$6, 857 , 700 . estimated development value .
ALTERNATIVE 6 - GENERAL COMMERCIAL/OPEN SPACE
44, 250 square foot specialty commercial with 35 , 400 square
feet of leasable space .
17 , 000 square foot tennis and racquet ball club facility .
$9 , 461 , 600 estimated development value .
Sources for estimated market values per unit and development values
were:
- Mike Browning, Caldwell Banker Real Estate Development
Division
Mike Minna , Holiday Spa Development .
Huntington Beach Company, Pacific Ranch Development
Holly Property EIR
-1- ( 5940d )
1 .' 0 REVENUES
1. 1 PROPERTY TAX
. Property tax revenue is derived from the County tax-. which is one
percent of the market ' value of the .property and or improvements . Of
that one percent the City collects property tax revenue which , in
tax rate area 4 -010 , is 19 . 12 percent .
The market value assumptions and resulting revenue estimates for
each alternative is presented below . *
Alternative 1 : 130 , 680 square feet of specialty commercial would
have a marR—eE value per square foot of $60 to construct and market
the building plus land cost of $12 per square foot. The structure
would have a value of $7, 840, 800 and the 10 acre parcel would have a
value of $5 , 227, 200 resulting in a total market value of
$13 ,068 ,000 . The City ' s propert tax revenue would be . ( . 01 )
($1-3, 068 , 000 ) =$130 , 680 ( . 1912 ) - �2-4, 986 .
Alternative 2 - 140 .condominiums would have an estimated average
rice per unit of $150 , 000 and a total development value of
21 ,000 ,000 . The property tax revenue would be ( . 01 ) ( $21 , 000 , 000 )
=$210 , 000 ( . 1912 ) =$40 ,,152..
Alternative 3 7.0 condominiums would have an estimated average
.price per unit of $185,000 and a total development value of..
$12 , 950 , 000 . The property tax revenue would be ( . 01 ) ($12 , 950 , 000 )
_ $129 , 500 ( . 1912) =$24 , 760. -
Alternative 4 - 30 estate homes would have an estimated average
price of $350 ,000 and a total development value of 10, 500 , 000 . The
roperty tax revenue would be ( 01) ($10 , 500 , 000 )= V05, 000 ( . 1912 )
20 ,076 .
Alternative 5 - A recreation facility that includes tennis ,
racquetball , etc . with a 35, 160 square foot building would have an- -
estimated market value of $8 , 391 , 600 .. -The construction cost
estimate of $90 per square foot was provided by Michael Minna of
._Holiday Spa Corporation . ** Mr . Minna stated that such costs as
marketing, etc . are not feasible to average ,. therefore this market
value estimate reflects only hard costs (construction ) and land .
value which is estimated at $12 per square foot . The property tax
revenue would be ( . 01 ) ($8 , 391 , 600 ) =$83 , 916 ( .1912 ) - $16 , 045 . .
*Review of 1985 estimates and 1986 figures .were provided by Mike
Browning of. Coldwell Banker , Real Estate Development Division ,
telephone conversation July 3, 1986.
**Telephone conversation, July 8 , 1986
-2- ( 5940d )
Alternative 6 -'Commercial and recreation facilities to-talling
61 ,250 square feet . As in Alternative 5 the land would have a value
of $12 per square foot . The commercial structure would have a value
(hard and soft costs ) of $60 per square foot; at 44•,250 square feet
the value would be $2 , 655 , 000 . The recreation portion would be
$1 ,530,000 based on 17 ,000 square feet at 90 per square foot .
Total value for this alternative would be 9 , 412, 200 and the,
property tax revenue would be ( . 01 ) ( $9 , 412 ,200 ) = .$94,122 ( . 1912 )
$17 , 996 .
1 . 2 Sales Tax
Residential
ALTERNATIVE 2
The. 140 condominiums are estimated to have a population of two
people per unit and a market value of $150 ,000 per unit . Based on
that unit cost , an annual family income of $50 , 000 would be
necessary . That income, according to Internal Revenue sales tax
tables , would. generate $418 in annual sales tax revenue . The City
receives one cent of the six cent sales tax per dollar or $70- per
family .. It is estimated, however , that approximately 60 percent of
the sales- tax revenue 'is captured by surrounding communities
( leakage ) resulting in a net revenue per. unit of $.28 .
ALTERNATIVE 3
The 70 condominiums will. also have a population of two people .per
unit . The estimated market value per unit i;s $185, 000 resulting in
an annual family income of $61 , 667 and generating $456 in annual
sales tax revenue . The net revenue per unit , minus the leakage
factor , is $30 per unit ,
ALTERNATIVE 4
In this alternative the single family estate type unit is expected
to have a population of three to four people per household At
$350, 000 per .unit the annual family income -would be $116 , 667
resulting in an annual sales tax revenue of - $796 . The 'net revenue
collected by the City would be $53 per unit .
COMMERCIAL
- The Urban Land Institute publication Dollars and Cents of Shopping
Centers was used to estimate average sales per square .foot .
Although some recreation facilities have retail components often
referred to as "pro- shops"it is assumed the recreation facilities
in the following scenarios will not have a pro-shop. Pro-shops ,
however, do not generally .generate measurable sales tax revenue .
-3- :( 5940d )
A third consideration in this 'segment of the analysis is leasable
square footage . For the commercial scenarios a gross leasable area
square- footage , 80 percent of gross square feet, will be used to
estimate sales tax revenue.
ALTERNATIVE 1 and ALTERNATIVE 6-
These alternatives have similar commercial. scenarios that would
generate an estimated $164. 42 per gross leasable space. *
ALTERNATIVE - 130, 680 gross square feet , 104 , 544 gross leasable area
and an es 1mated annual sales of $17, 189,124 resulting in. $171 ,891
of sales tax revenue .
'ALTERNATIVE 6 - 44, 250 gross square feet, 35, 400 square feet of
gross leasable space generating $5, 820, 468 in annual sales resulting
in $58 , 205 in sales tax revenue .
One hundred percent of commercially generated sales tax revenue is
captured by the City, and therefore , reported in total in this
analysis . It is important to note, however , that a new commercial
center will probably draw customers from existing centers in the
area thereby reducing sales tax revenue generated by the older-
centers .
Sales tax revenue per alternative :
Alt . No. 1 171 , 891
Alt . No . 2 = S 3 ,920
Alt . -No . 3 = 2 ,100
Alt . No . 4 1 , 590
Alt . No . 5 = S NA
Alt . No . 6 = $ 58 ,205
1 . 3 Utility User and Franchise Tax
Huntington Beach collects a five percent utility user tax on the
annual sales of electricity, natural gas , telephone and cable
television services in the City.
A franchise tax of. one percent of the annual electricity sales and
four percent of the annual natural gas sales is collected from the
respective utility providers in' the City.
Factors used for this section of the analysis are as follows .
According to the California Energy Commission, average electricity
charges are:
Residential =_ $36 . 99 per unit, per month
Commercial = . 0894 cents per kilowatt hour, using 12 . 2 KWH per
square foot per year applied to commercial and recreation
developments .
*Urban Land Institute gross leasable space square foot figure for
neighborhood shopping centers in the far west.
-4- ( 5940d)
Average natural .gas charges are:
Residential = $33 .02 per unit , per month
Commercial = $6 . 6.9 per million BTU' s , using an annual rate of
. 42 BTU' s per square foot applied to commer°cial and
recreational developments .
General Telephone could not provide an average -service cost for
residential customers in the City, therefore an average charge of.
$40 has been used in this analysis .
Annual phone charges for commercial and recreational entities were
not available and, due to the differences in phone usage per
business , an average bill or use could not be calculated at this
time .
For cable T.V. service in. the City, the basic rate paid by residents
is $i2 . 50 .per month . It is assumed that all new residents in the
City will subscribe to the cable service .
UTILITY USER TAX ANNUAL REVENUE
Alternative 1
Electric Gas Phone Cable .;V Total
Commercial $7, 1.27 $1 , 836 NT/A N/A 8, 963,
Alternative 2
Residential $3 , 107 $2 , 774 $3 , 360 $1 , 050 $10 , 291
Alternative 3
Residential $1 , 5,54, $1 , 387 $1 , 680 $ 5.25 $ 5, 146
Alternative 4
Residential $ 666 $ 594 $ 720 $ 225 $ 2'1205
Alternative 5
Recreation $1 , 917 $ 494 N/A N/A $ 2, 411
Alternative 6
Commercial/
Recreation $3 , 340 $ 861 N/A $ N/A $ 4, 201
-5- ( 5940d )
FRANCHISE TAX ANNUAL REVENUE
ELECTRIC GAS TOTAL
Alternative 1
Commercial $ 1, 425 1 , 469, 2 , 894
FRANCHISE TAX ANNUAL REVENUE
Alternative. 2 Electric. Gas . Total
Residential 621 2 ,219 2 , 840
Alternative 3
Residential $ 311 $ 1 , 109 1 ,420
Alternative 4
Residential 133 475 '608
Alternative 5
Recreation $ 383 395 778 '
Alternative 6
Commercial 668 $ 68.8 1 , 356 .
1 .4 Business License Fee Revenue
The commercial and recreation facilities in Alternatives 1, 5 and 6
will require employees and will also generate business licence fee '
revenue .
Business lic.ense fees are based on the number of employees per
business and also a . fee per number of trucks . It is not feasible to
estimate the number of trucks per business , but employees have been
estimated based on the following assumptions .
Commercial a City survey of 52 specialty commercial stores
identified 2 . 4 employees per store . It is assumed that the
commerical land uses in .this report will average 1000 square
feet per business . Alternative No . 1 would, therefore , have
105 business - and 252 employees . For' one to three employees the
City ' s Business License Department .charges ,,$37 . 50 per year .
The total business license revenue generated by Alternative No.
1 would be $3., 938.
Applying the same methodology, the commercial development in
Alternative No 6 would have 32 businesses generating 77 ,
employees , with a -- total revenue of $1 , 200 .
-6- ( 5940d )
Recreation . = A survey of recreational facilities ( i .e. athletic
club, health club, fitness center and racquet club ) identified
an average of . 11 employees per facility. The business license
fee for 11 employees is $67. 50 per year .
Total Business License Fees :
Alternative Fee*
Alt. No. 1 3 , 938
Alt . No . 5 68
Alt . No . 6 1 , 268
*Amount rounded to the nearest dollar .
1 .5 Additional Revenue
Additional revenue is received from new residential development on' a
per capita basis . In this analysis Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are
residential developments . In the Preliminary City Budget , Fiscal
Year 1986-1987, four major revenue items are applicable to this
analysis . Based on the January 1986 State Department of Finance
population .estimate for Huntington Beach. 'of 184 , 300 , the revenues
are calculated as follows :
Fines , F.orEeitures and Penalties is $2 , 195 , COO .divided by
184 , 300 equals $11 . 90 per capital .
Cigarette Tax is $532 , 100 divided by 184, 300 equals $2 . 89 per
capita
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax is $5 , 2.48 , 000 divided by 184 , 300 and
equals $28 . 48 per capita .
Gas Tax Funds ( 2107 and 2107 . 5 ) are $1 , 620, 600 divided by
184, 300 equaling. $8 . 79 per capita.
Additional Revenue Alternative 2 . Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Fines , Forfeitures $ 3 , 332 $1 , 666 $1 , 666
and Penalties
Cigarette Tax 809 405 283
Motor Vehicle 7 ,974 3 , 987 2 , 791
In-Lieu Tax
Gas Tax. Fund 2, 461 1 , 231 8'61 '
14 , 576 T7 ,298 T5, 101
2 . 0 COSTS
Research and discussions with each department has resulted in the
application of different methods to assess relative costs . These
-7- ( 5940d )
results depended on the amount of data available and the level of
automation in each department . For example , the police department
has the most sophisticated data analysis related to activity by type
of land use , Working with the police department computerized
archival data it was possible to assess the number of calls for a
particular type of land use . The number of calls has a direct
relationship to the number of officers needed and ultimately a
recommendation for the hiring of additional officers based on the:
impacts from development .
Essentially,, each department has been' t.reated on a case by case `
basis rather than applying a standard methodology to - all of. the -
factors considered .
.2 . 0 Cost Assumptions
The City of .Huntington Beach Preliminary Budget , Fiscal Year
1986-1987, was used as the primary source. for this section of the
analysis . Capital expenditures were excluded from the budget as
they are not applicable to future or proposed development . The
applicable programs under each budget item can generally be assigned
to privately developed acreage in the City on the following basic:
Residential land uses comprise approximately 78 percent of privately
developed acres , commercial land uses comprise. 10 percent and.
industrial land uses comprise 12 percent , Where appropriate, this
land use distribution will be used to assess cost impacts .
2 . 1 General and Administration Expenditures
While this fund includes numerous programs .( a total of 20 ) , new
development would measurably impact only the non-departmental
category. Non-departmental activities range from City utility costs
to liability program costs with a 1986-87 budget of7 , 950 , 300 . '
Residentail related impacts would be $6 , 201 , 234 , industrial related
impacts would be $950 , 036 and commercial related impacts would be
$795 , 030 . The :most equitable method .of distributing this
expenditure is based on costs per acre .
There are approximately 9 , 539 acres developed for residential land
uses with an estimated cost of $650 per. acre , 1 ,223 acres developed
for commercial land uses with a cost of $650 per acre ; and 1 , 468
acres of industrial developement with _a per . acre cost of $647 . .
Since the cost 'per acre for residential and commercial land uses
( using the above methodology) is the same and all alternatives use
10 acres , the cost for each alternative is , $6 , 500 .
2 . 2 Police Department
From surveys of similar land uses police calls per type of
development were derived .' Calls relate to additional officers per
ear . One of ficer ' s ' average annual salary, including benefits , i.s
54, 000 . , Five or more officers would result in capital expenditures
-8- ( 5940d )
such as a vehicle . When calls. per year reach . 535, then the police
department would recommend hiring an officer at the annual cost of
$54 , 000 . Calls and officer time involved per alternative are shown
in the following table .
Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6
Calls 77 202 101 18 . 34 43
Additional
Officer . 14 . 38 . 19 . 03 . 04 . 07
As shown in Table I none of the Alternatives generated a number
greater than one . . Based on the percentaaes' resulting from the
survey, police costs per Alternative wili be assessed . on the cost
per office multiplied by the percentage per Alternative
ALTERNATIVE PERCENT OF OFFICE ANNUAL COST
Alt . No . 1 ( . 14 ) ($54 , 000 ) = 7 , 560
Alt . No . 2 ( . 38 ) ( 54;000 } = 20, 520
Alt . No . 3 ( . 19 ) ( 54 , 000 ) = 110i260
Alt . No . 4 { . 03 ) ( 54 , 000 ) = 1 , 620
Alt . No . 5 ( . 04 ) ( 54 , 000 ) = 2 , 160
Alt . No . 6 ( . 07 ) ( 54 , 000 ) = $ 3 , 780.
2 . 3 Fire Department
It is the the .assessment of Fire Department Staff, primarily ' Tom
Poe ( Deputy Fire Marshall , Fire Prevention Division ) , that new
residential. development will impact two programs : Public Safetv
Administration , Program No. 300 and Public Safety, Fire Control
Program 302 . . The total 1986-1987 budget for these programs , minus
capital expenditures , is, $7, 528, 86D . The majority' of public safety
activity, approximately 75 percent , is provided to residential land
uses in the City. Assuming costs for public safety on a per capita
basis the result would be as follows :
( $7, 528 , 860 ) ( . 75 ) =, $5; 646 , 645 divided by the 1986. City population
of' 184 , 300 $31 per capita .
Commercial land uses , however , have a. relatively small impact on the
Fire Department . Six percent o'f Fire Safety service can be
attributed to commercial uses., or ( . 06 ) ($7; 528 , 8,60 )=$451 , 732 . In
addition to Fire Safety, Commercial uses also impact program 308 ,
Hazmat Response Unit. It is estimated that 25 percent of the
1986-87 program budget or ( . 25) ( $36, 130 ) = $9, 033 can be attributed
to commercial uses. Of the three programs the total cost is
$460, 765 . Applied on a per acre basis. the cost distribution is
$4.60 , 765 divided by 1223 commercial acres = $377 per acre. Due to a
limited data base for this analysis Alternative 1 , 5, and 6 would
generate the same annual cost, ($377 ) ( 10 acres ) _ $3 , 770 .
-9- ( 5940d)
Costs per alternative are:
1 2* 3** 4**,* 5 6
$3,770 $8, 680 $4 ,340 $3 , 038 $3 ,770 $3, 770
* Based on_ a Population of 280
** Based on a population of 140
*** Based on a population of 98 .
2 .4 Community Services
According to Jim Engle, Superintendent of Recreation and Park
Development , :none of the residential developments in Alternatives
2, 3 or 4 would. have an impact on Community Services .
There would be not increase in department services, or the need for
additional park acreage in response to any of the. 'Alternatives .
2 . 5 Public �dorks
In a discussion .with Les Evans, City Engineer , it was determined
that the-scope ' of development assessed in this analysis would .only
have a measurable impact on Public Works Programs 530 and 531 , sewer
maintenance . Mr . Evans also stated that residential development
generates the greatest impact on sewer maintenance in the City . For
budget year 1986-1987 the total cost for sewer maintenance is
$580 , 893 . Since residential generates the largest impact it is
realistic to measure that impact on a per capita basis . For
commercial land uses the cost -will be measured on a per. acre basis . -
Residential costs are as . follows :
Seventy eight percent of $580 , 893 $453 , 097 divided by the 1986
population estimate of 184 , 300 $2 . 46 per capital .
The per acre cost is derived from the balance of the programs which
equals $127 , 796 divided by 2', 691 acres (commercial and industrial )
and results in $47 . 50 per acre .
COSTS PER ALTERNATIVE
Commercial
Alternatives 1 , 5 and 6 are all 10 acres , ( 10 ) ( $47 . 50 ) _ $475 .
._ Residential Population Per Capita Cost Total
Alternative 2 280 $2 . 46 $689
Alternative 3 140 - 2 .46 344
Alternative 4 98 t2 . 46 V41
-10- (5940d)
s
3 . 0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
This analysis is based on a ,one year comparison of revenues
gener.ated to , and service cost impacts upon , the City of Huntington
Beach from each land use scenario. The categories used in this
analysis reflect major revenue and cost factors The purpose of
this analysis* is to examine on-'going revenues versus costs ,
therefore , one-'time only development fees are not. included . Also ,
this analysis ' is not intended to replace or be used as a detailed
market feasibility study.
Six alternatives are compared on the basis of their relative cost
and benefit impacts . By comparing relative revenues and costs the
results of .the analysis , as shown in Table 2 , indicate that all
alternatives would have a positive revenue impact ranging from
Alternative 5 with a net revenue of $6 , 397 to Alternative 1 with a
net revenue of $194 , 367 .
-ll- (5940d)
TABLE: A-1
POLICE DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
CALLS GENERATED BY TYPE OF LAND USE
Total Calls/
Recommended Number of
Units or Calls/Unit Threshold for Additional
Land Use Square Feet or Sq . Ft . Calls/Year Additional Officers Officers
Alternative No . l
Commercial 130 , 680 1/1693 77 77/535 .14
sq . ft .
Alternative No. 2
Multi-Family 140 1 . 44/ 202 202/53'5 . 38
Medium Density unit
Alternative No . 3 -
Multi-Family 70 1 . 44/ 101 101/535 .19
Low Density unit
Alternative No . 4
Residential
Single Family 30 . 60/unit 18 18/535 .0�
Alternative No . 5
Recreation 35, 160 1/1634 22 22/535 .04
( Health Club ) sq . ft .
Alternative No . 6
Commercial 44 , 250 1/1693 26 26/535 . 05
sq. ft .
Recreation 17 , 000 1/1634 10 10/535 .02
sq . ft . 07
TABLE A-2
AC MARION
REVENUE/COST ESTIMATES
Revenue Alt . 1 Alt . 2 Alt . 3 Alt . 4 Alt . 5 Alt . 6
. Property Tax $24 , 986 $40 , 152 $24 , 760 $20 , 076 $16 , 045 $17 , 996
Sales Tax 171 ,891 3, 920 2 , 100 1 , 590 N/A 58 ,205
Utility/
Franchise Tax 11 , 857 13 , 131 6 , 566 2 , 813 3 , 189 5, 557
Business License 3, 938 N/A N/A N/A 68 1 , 268
Fines , Forfeitures
and Penalties N/A 3 , 332 1 , 666 1 , 166 N/A N/A
Cigarette Tax N/A 809 405 283 N/A N/A
Motor Vehicle N/A 7 , 974 3 , 981 2 , 791 N/A N/A
In Lieu Tax
Gas Tax Fund N/A 2 , 461 1 , 231 861 N/A N/A
Totals $212 , 672 $71 , 769 $40 , 715 $29 , 580 $19 , 302 $83, 026
Costs
General/Admin . $6 , 500 $6 , 500 $6 , 500 $6 , 500 $6 , 500 $6, 500
Police Dept . 7 , 560 20, 520 10 , 260 1 , 620 2, 160 3, 780
Fire Depart . 3, 770 8 , 680 4 , 340 3 , 038 3 , 770 3, 770
Commuity Services -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
Public Works 475 689 344 241 475 475
Total $18 , 305 $36 , 389 $21 , 444 $11 , 399 $12 , 905 $14, 525
Revenue Minus Cost $194 , 367 $35, 380 $19 , 271 $18 , 181 $6, 397 $68 , 501
Revenue/Cost Ratio 11 . 62 1 . 97 1 . 90 2 . 59 1 . 50 5. 72
APPENDIX B
INITIAL. STUDY
CPA 36-3 ( 0523D )
APPENDI X
OVIRONMENTAL Ct ECK-15T FORM*
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
I_ Background
. Name of Proponent City of Huntington Beach
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2000 Main Street
Huntincton Beach, Ca. 92648 (714) 536-5271
3. Date of Checklist Submitted March 6, 1985
4. Agency Requiring Checklist C i tv of Hunt i neton Beach
.5. Name of Proposal, if applicable !=enera I PI=n ,Amendment Nn, p,S-�
Il. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe", answers are required on attached sheets.)
Yes No
I . Earth Will the proposal result in:.
G. 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 changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or 'stream or the bed of the ocean or
any boy, inlet or lake? X
115
Yes NO
g. Exposure of people or property to geolo-
gic hazards such as earthgvokes, 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, moistures 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 X
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in. absorption rates, drainage pot-
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 3 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
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public.water
supplies? X
_i. Exposure of people or property to water re- X
lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
116
Yes tse No
4. Plant Life. WHI the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of .species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plenis? %<
c.. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any, ogricvltural
crops X
'5. Anima!` Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? {
b. Reduction o.f. the numbers of any unique,
rare or .endongered species of animals? <
C. Introduction of new species of animalsinto
an area, or result in a berries to the
migration or movement of animals'.
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 !evels? X
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce ,
new light or glare? X
B. 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 ;<
resources? •
117
�r s
Yes
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource? X
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involyet
a. A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (inc!uding, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals a
rodiation) in the event of an occident or
upset cond i t ions? X
b. Passible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? X
II. Population. Wi!I the proposal alter the !ocation,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the .
human population of an area? X
{2. '-4cxssing. Will the proposal affect existing hous-
ing, or create a demand for additional housing. X
13. Transportation/Circulation,. Will the proposal
resu!t in:
a". Generation of substantial additional
veh icu iar movernen t? X
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? X
c. Substantial impact won existing transpor-
tation systems? X
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods? %<
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traff ic?
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 governmental services in any of .the
following areas: X
a. Fire protection?. X
b. Police protection? _X _
c. Schools? X
113
Yes Maw No
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities, inc!vdinq
rods? `{
f. Other governmental services? X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantiol amounts of fvei or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist-
ing sources of energy, or. require the
development of new sources of energy? X
!b. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems? %<
C. Water? `
d. Sewer or septic tanks <
e. Storm water drainage?
;<
f. Solid waste and disposal? ;G
17. Hua-,an Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? X
b. Exposure of people to potential health '
hazards? ;<
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result 'in the
obstnxtion. 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
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 archaeological site? X
119
Yes No
b, Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? X
c. Does the proposal have the,potential to
cause a physical charge which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? <
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or socred 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-
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 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
irrpacts 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? X
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I20
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 wi!I be prepared. �Jf
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case !�
because the mitigation measures described on an attoched 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-
menf, and an 1—:7NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.' i,XXX
Z
^March 9°5
_ to :gnatvr
For
(Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own
format for initial studies,)
4 Th_e EIR i=_ focused on various issues for the .nr�� iecT area. The E�IR
will e ore --red in con;unc'ion with the, General �Plan Amendment Analysis.
121
DPLANAT ION OF "YES" AND ",%W(H" ANSWERS
lb. Construction on the site may require compaction or displacement of soil .
Construction on the site may result in reduction of sore Swale areas. .
Earthcuake caul - casSes throuc7h the -vicinity of the
roject area.
3b, Construction will alter the flow of run-off into the swale ar=_as.
oa. Development Of the Site wiII generate human and vehicle noise.
evelccmeni of .the Site will result in additional --tree' lichTs.
�. the Slue 15 present Used as horse stables, and- the exiStiin�_ planned Use
i3 General Commercial . Tihe DrOp0SaI Is for residential .
1i . The proposal wiii result in approximately 250 add it-i.OnaI people residi.na
in the area.
2., The proposal will. create additional housing.
�8. he p r o p o s a l will cenerate v e h l cu iar trot`.i c wh i c;h may be SuDs a n c i s l
C. i ne 'proposal w i i l cenera'e increased demand on exi =t i nc Dub i i ` and ,r i va'tq
transcOrtation sysztems. v
I ncreaS.ed `/eii i cu I a tr a f c may pose a hazard t0 pedestrians and b l /Cl I Sty
in the area.
L 1a,- The proposed ;project may requireire additional g overnmenra i Services.
ioa-e. The proposed project may require alterations in some utility sys ems.
13. The proposed project may impact views into the I`,unt,i ngtcn leach -Centro I
Park area.
19. - The proposed project is surrounded on three sides by existine or proposed
Huntington Central Park Lands.
21c. The 'cumulative effect of relatively small impacts on various resources will
be examined.
APPENDIX C
LETTERS OF COMMENT.
GPA .86-3 ( 0523D)
State of California • T ESOURCES AGENCY OF CAUFORNIA
Memorandum
To. Dr . Gordon F. Snow . Date N"F;Y 3 E03
Assistant Secretary for Resources
Subject: Draft EIR for
Hal Simmons Huntington Beach
City of HL^^�tington Beach General Plan Land
2000 Main Street Use Element GPA 85-2 ,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Orange County ,
SCH No . 8503 1301
From Department of Conservation--Lufice of the Director
^'he Deoartment of Conservation has reviewed the Draft EIR for` the
croposed l40 unit residential development on ten acres in the
City of Huntington Beach. We have the following comments on - the
Drat EIR' s. aectechnical . evaluation and on possible oil field
impacts .
Geotechnical
The Draft EIR (a . , 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
aoclie' d to the proposed development as the _result of a aossib1e
signi fica.-!- ear thauake along the fault zone .
We recommend that the geotechnical section of the Draft. EIR be
suppleme_-rated 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 possibility that
reabandonment of such wells may be necessary . Section 3208 .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.
r
Dr Gordon F Snow
Mr . Hal Simmons
Pace 2
n 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
Civision ' s district of-lice should be contacted for 'the purpose of
obtainina infdrmation on the requirements and approval to perform
remedial cement-inc 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 tug-e dr ill inc in the ar ea .
,f you have any questions regarding these comments , please
contact me at (1916 ) 322-5373 .
Dennis J . O' Brvan t
Environmental Program Coordinator
CC: Robert Strei tz , Division of Mines and Geology
Ed Kiessling, Division of Mines and Geology
Lynn Jones , Division of Mines and Geology
K . Carlson , Division of Oil and Gas , Long Beach
R. .Reid, Division of Oil and Gas , Sacramento
0367C-2
RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION COMMENTS
G,eotechnical- 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 wells
located on the subject property . A condition of approval for any
Conditional Use Permit on the site should be that all wells be
abandoned to current Division. of Oil and Gas standards .
Additionally , every effor� should be made, where feasible to avoid
locating structures over any abandoned oil well .
COUNTY. SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
r
\, P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018
kcc CO" (714) 962-2411
i
i
Li
August 11, 1986ov r
C1ty of Huntington Beach
P.G. Box 190
Huntington Beach,. CA, 92648ou
•,ttention: Catherine Mi l ler
Reaardino: Development at Ellis Avenue and Golden W,es,' Street
City of Huntington Beach
Dear Catherine:
In response to your inq.ulrv; subject area. ha<_ begin master planned by the
District for industrial development using u Mow coefficient of B880 gallons per'
day per acre. This area is within County Sanitation District No. 3 but would be
served >by City owned lines tributary to C o u n ty Sanitation District No. 11
f aci l i ti?S . As you are aware, the District' i s concerned about the ariount of
available capacity remaining to serve areas cf District No.. 11 which feed into
the-Slater Avenue Pump Station. the staff will soon make recommendations . to the
Directors regardina the appropriate connection fee for this area, and we request '
that you notVgive connections until the Directors receive same.
However, we have no objections to development levels which generate sewage equal ,
to what has previously been master planned. In the .meantime, we are actively
workina 'with, your City, the County and the developers , to improve capacity
through completion "of the Coast Trunk Sewer.
Ii- you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call .
Sincerely,,
0:4,
Thomas M. Dawes
Director of Engineering
TMD:HJB:16
cc: Director of Finance
ueneral Manager
i
i, CITY„C3F. HUNT1I%lGT0N . BEACH-f
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
P. O. Box 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION (714) 536-5486
HUNTINUM BEACH,'
S DI=V�LOF;,4E�dT
September 2, 1986 . ,
F...r. 3 0 X iA -
• Huntington. Beach Planning Commission ;iuntington Beach, CA 92548
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Commissioners:
Re: September 3, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting
Item C-12 .
On June 12, 1985, the Community Services Commission took
the following action:
Moved by Vander Molen, seconded by Kennedy, the
community Services Commission recommends to the City
t:�.. Council that the A.C.Ma.rion property zoning change
from general commercial to medium density be denied
and that the property either stay in its present
zoning designation (Qualifed Community Business
District (C2-0-(Q)) , _ which would make it compatible
with the _ adjacent equestrian stable, 'or be rezoned
to recreational open space.
Pursuant to the• above action, 1 would like to ask that
the Planning Commission not rezone the A.C.Marion
property in a manner that would not be compatible with
the park usage.
Sincerely,
NORMA VANDER MOLEN
Chairman
NVM:cs
Attachment
z, cc: Community Services Commission
Charles' W. Thompson, City Administrator'
Melvin M. Bowman, Director
J'
7., (499)
Z
I.CR
*,..I
MINUTES
-
REGULAR MEETING
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
Wednesday, June 12, 1985; 7:00 PM
Council Chambers, Civic Center
2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190. ,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Chairperson Frost called the regular meeting of the Community Services Commission to
order at.7:08 PM and led the salute to the flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Glen Dysinger; Jeffrey Frost; Betty Kennedy; William Osness;
Jay Rivera; Norma Vander Molen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Judy B lankinship (excused absence); Art Giese; (excused
absence); Marilyn Jensen (unexcused absence); Loren Moll.
(excused absences Karen O'Bric (unexcused absence)
STAFF PRESENT: Vivian Borns; Melvin M. Bowman; Doug D'Arnall; Jim Engle;
Bill Fowler; Library Division Staff (Walter Johnson,
Ron Hayden, Mary Ann Hutton, Gary Shippey); Daryl Smith;
Carolyn Strook
GUESTS: Ira Toibin, HBUHSD, will be replacing Glen Dysinger in
September as District representative.,
PRESENTATIONS-COMMENDATIONS
LIBRARY DIVISION - Walter Johnson, Library Director, Ron Hayden, Public Services
Librarian; Mary,Ann Hutton, 'Librarian, and Gary Shippey, Technical Services Technician,
gave a presentation on the Children's Division, Technical Services and other general.
services currently being provided by the Library. Library staff � will be making
presentations the next few months. in order to enlighten the Commission on current
services provided by the Library.
MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING, MAY 8, 1985
MOTION: MOVED BY RIVERA, SECONDED BY KENNEDY, THE COMMUNITY
SERVICES COMMISSION APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD
ON MAY 8, 1985 AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: DYSINGER; KENNEDY; OSNESS; RIVERA; VANDER MOLEN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: BLANKINSHIP; GIESE; JENSEN; MOLL; O'BRIC
ABSTENTION: FROST
DIRECTOR'S NON-AGENDA ITEMS
HUNTINGTON CENTRAL F—ARK (HCP) COMNATTEE, PARK CONCESSION
IMPROVEMENTS - Director requested a committee meeting for the purpose of discussing
proposed HCP concession improvements. A meeting was scheduled.' for Wednesday,
June 26, 7:00 AM, 5th floor conference room.
COMMUNITY SERVI 'OMMISSION f June 12, 1985
MINUTES - 499 Page 2
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
MUSHROOM FARM PROPL'RTYJMOBILE HOME RELOCATION UPDATE - Mike Adams, �
Senior Planner, Development Services Department, updated the Commission .on the
current status of the subject property. After presentation of proposed site plan,- the
Commission made the following motion:
MOTION: MOVED BY VANDER MOLEN, SECONDED BY KENNEDY, THE COMMUNITY
SERVICES COMMISSION DIRECTED THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
STAFF TO WORK WITH PLANNING STAFF IN REGARD TO THE CONCEPTS THAT
WERE FORMALLY BROUGHT TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE PARK IN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK AND TO KEEP THE COMMISSION
INFORMED AND UPDATED ON THE PROGRESS OF THIS PROJECT. MOTION
CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
_ AYES: DYSINGER, FROST, KENNEDY, OSNESS, RIVERA,
VANDER MOLEN
NOES: NONE
.ABSENT: BLANKINSHIP, GIESE, JENSEN, MOLL, O'BRIC
REZONING OF A.C. MARION PROPERTY, ADJACENT TO HUNTINGTON CENTRAL
PARK HCP - Commission was given LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-2 for
review and recommendation to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The
property is a 10.1 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and
Goldenwest Street. , The zoning on the property is C2-0-(Q), Qualified Community
Business- District, combined with an oil suffix. The "Q" indicates that special conditions
` were placed on tine C2 zoning on the property to ensure that development be equestrian
oriented. and compatible with HCP. This property was at one time designated for open
space use and was one of several areas under consideration for inclusion into HCP.
At its august 17, 1981, meeting, the City Council voted not to include the area, 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, A.
C. Marion 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'Council on December 21, 1981. 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. After
discussion, Commission made the following motion:
,MOTION: MOVED BY VANDER MOLEN, SECONDED BY KENNEDY, THE COMMUNITY
SERVICES COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE .
A.C. MARION PROPERTY ZONING CHANGE FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO
MEDIUM DENSITY, BE DENIED AND THAT THE PROPERTY EITHER STAY IN ITS
PRESENT ZONING DESIGNATION (QUALIFIED COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT
(C2-0-(Q), WHICH WOULD MAKE IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT EQUESTRIAN
STABLE, OR BE REZONED TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE. MOTION CARRIED BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: DYSINGER, FROST, KENNEDY, OSNESS, RIVERA,
VANDER MOLEN
NOES: NONE
.,Staff. to forward this action to the City Council.
}
COMMUNITY SERVICES Q- t,,_,,15SION `J June 12, 1985
:MINUTES - 49.9. Page 3
MOTION: MOVED BY OSNESS, SECONDED BY FROST, THE COMMUNITY SERVICES
COMMISSION DIRECT, THAT. IF THE NEW ZONING IS APPROVED, THE HUNTINGTON
C:FNTRAL PARK COMMITTEE PREPARE CONDITIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
• OF THE A.C. MARION PROPERTY AND SUBMIT THEM TO THE COMMISSION. FOR
APPROVAL AND SUBMITTAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: DYSINGER, FROST, KENNEDY,, OSNESS, RIVERA,
VANDER MOLEN
NOES: NONE
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
PEDAL BOAT OPERATION, HUNTINGTON LAKE IN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK The only proposal received was from Don Levy, Recreation Boat Manufacturers. The
agreement is being prepared by .the City Attorney's Office.
WIEDER PARK BIDS - The request for bids were opened on June 4 and the request for
approval will be submitted to the City Council by Public Works.
BARTLETT PARK PLAQUE - The area has been sodded and the plaque mounted in river
stone adjacent to the parking lot. A picture of Ted Bartlett standing next to the plaque
will be displayed in the Newland Barn.
LIABILII:Y INSURANCE/USE OF ALCOHOL IN CITY FACILITIES - The issue of alcohol
in city facilities was pulled from the ,May 6 Council agenda in order to allow the City
Insurance and Benefits Office an opportunity to research the possibilities of acquiring
liability insurance. Insurance and Benefits has acquired an insurance policy. This has
eliminates the problem of having patrons get their own liability insurance certificate
when serving alcoholic beverages in city facilities.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
C0,10MISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS .
GENERAL PLAN AiViENDMENT, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE -
Jay Rivera attended the May 16, 1985, committee meeting. A copy of the minutes were
included in the packet. A second survey with changes in definitions will be sent. A public
meeting will be held after the policies are drafted so people will have something'to react
to.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Kennedy asked staff to check on the CPRS 1985-86 dues with Rose Mary Forehand who is
currently working on "fixing the mess" in the computer in Sacramento.
Osness liked the "new look" of the SANDS; reported that Supervisor Wieder is conducting
a Town Hall meeting on June 13 at the Huntington Beach Civic Center.
Vander Molen asked park maintenance to check on frisbee golf course signs and drinking
fountains by the lake in HCP.
Dysin&er suggested that park maintenance look at placing "extra" trash cans in HCP
during this time of the year since the existing trash cans do not seem to be adequate.
Toibin stated that "as an observer" the meetings seem interesting.
. .
COMMUNITY SERVIC'� COMMISSION �"� June 12, 1985 ;
MINUTES - 499 Page 4
ITEMS DISTRIBUTED TO COMMISSION
MONTHLY MANAGEMENT REPORT - APRIL, 1985.
LETTER FROM MAYOR BAILEY asking for opposition to All 2198 (Felando) which would
repeal the "Naylor Act" 'requiring school districts to offer a percentage of their surplus
playing fields (30%) to cities and park districts for purchase at. prices that are at times
below market value.
LETTER FROM MAYOR BAILEY urging support of SB 885 (Maddy) which would provide
that any person or public agency which renders- assistance at the scene of a vessel
collision, accident, or other casualty without objection by any person assisted, is not liable
for civic damages sought as a result of the rendering of assistance, or for other actions
taken in the course of rendering assistance.
LETTER FROM VICKI EDWARDS ZIESCHE extending appreciation for Jim Engle's
efforts in working on the handicapped day camp program.
HBUHSD REPRESENTATIVE, FY 85-86 Glen Dysinger will continue serving. on the "
Commission until August, 1985. Dr. Ira Toibin, Principal of Marina High School, has been
chosen by the Board of Trustees to replace Mr. Dysinger, The City Council has been .
asked .to officially appoint Ur. Toibin to the Commission prior to September 1.
CPRS CONFERENCE, SACRA&IENTO - Copy of the article in the "CALIFORNIA PARKS
do RECREATION magazine.
PARK MODIFICATION,5 TO ACCOMMODATE THE HANDICAPPED - Report on the tour
of park facilities conducted in response tc concerns regarding facilities for the
.handicapped:
EXCERPTS COUNCIL MEETING,'JUNE 3, 1985
BRIGHT OUTLOOK - June, 1985.
SANDS - Summer, 1985.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Community Services Commission regular meeting was
adjourned at 9:30 PM "in honor of VIVIAN BORNS,, who is retiring on June 28, after 31 .
years of dedicated service to the city.
Respectfully submitted, .
JIM B.. ENGLE, Acting Secretary =
Community Services Commission
By: Carolyn Strook, Recording Secretary "
0632E