Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Element Amendment 87-1 to General Plan - 87-1A and
LAND USE ELEMENT A /VIEND/VIENT 87- 1. Environme' ntal Impact Report 87- 1 huntington beach department of development services RESOLUTION NO. 5763 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-1A 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. 87-1A to the• General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on January 20 , 1987 ; and Thereafter the City Council , after giving notice as pre- scribed by Government Code Section 65355 , held at least one public hearing to consider Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-1A; 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 . 87-1A consist- ing of the following changes is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Land Use Diagram thereof : 1 . That Area 2 . 8 consisting of 8 . 3 acres located on the. north side of Warner Avenue, between Algonquin and Sims Streets be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential . 2 . That Area 2 . 9 consistinq of 2 . 2 acres located on the riorth side of. Garfield Avenue , west of Mora Kai Lane be redesignated from Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential . 1 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on ' the i(,th day of March 1987 . Ma ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: r , City Clerk City Attorney REVIEW D APPROVED: IN TIATED AND D: City Administrator irector of Development Services 1772L 12/15/86 Res, No. 5763 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HMINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. WEN WORTH, the duly elected , qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of March 19 87 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Winchell, Mays, Finley- Kelly. rskipe. Green NOES: Councilmen: Bannister ABSENT: Councilmen: None 1 City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California • a RESOLUTION NO. 576.8 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-1B 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. 87-1B to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on March 31 , 1987 ; and Thereafter the City Council , after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code Section 65355 , held at least one pub-ic hearing, to consider Land Use Element Amendment No. 8;-iR; 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 'unt4ngton Beach pursuant to provis-ions of ''itle 7 , Chapter 3 , Article 6 of California Government Code commencifng with Section 65350 , that Lana Use Element Amendment No. 87-IB consisting of the following change is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Lana Use Diagram thereof : That Area 2 . 7 consisting of 20 . 5 acres located on the north side of Warner Avenue, east of B Street be redesignated from Low .Density Residential to Mixed Development . 1 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of May , 1987 . yor ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM: � s City A ornitY -Clerke _ REVIEW APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City dministrator Director of Dev lopment Services 30221 4/13/87 2 . • a Res. No. 5768 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City- Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of May 19 87 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Winchell , Mays. Finlev, Kelly, Erskine, Green NOES : Councilmen: Bannister ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington. Beach, California EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Land Use Element Amendment 87-1 addresses .nine areas of concern: 2 . 1* West Side of Bolsa Chica Street, North of Warner Avenue 2 .2** South Side of Ellis Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard 2 .3** . North of Utica Avenue between Seventeenth Street and Lake Street 2 .4** Southwest, Corner of Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue 2. 5* South Side of Talbert Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard 2 . 6*** South Side of Warner Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard 2 . 7*** North Side of Warner Avenue,. East of Beach Boulevard 2 . 8**. North Side of Warner Avenue, East of Algonquin Street 2 . 9** North Side of Garfield Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard Area 2 . 1 - West Side of Bolsa Chica . Street, North of Warner Avenue Area of Concern 2. 1 is a request by John March to redesignate 1. 62 acres located on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 400 feet north of Warner Avenue from General Commercial to Medium High Density lesidential . Staff recommends that the property be retained for commercial use due to an' assessed long-term need for commercial development in the area. * Withdrawn ** Processed as Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1A *** Processed as Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1B Area 2 2 - South Side of Ellis Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard Area of Concern 2.2 is a request by Jenson Chen to redesignate 1. 89 acres of property located on the south side of Ellis Avenue, 400 feet east of Beach Boulevard, from General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential . Staff recommends that the property be retained for commercial use due to the need for shared vehicular access with the shopping center to the west and because . the site is identified in the General Plan as a. high-rise node. Area 2 .3 - North of Utica Avenue between Seventeenth Street and Lake Street Area of Concern 2.3 is a request by -the Huntington Beach Planning Commission to redesignate 12. 60 acres bounded by Utica Avenue, Seventeenth Street and Lake Street from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential . Staff recommends that the property be retained as Medium Density Residential as a transitional use between the civic center/high school complex to the north and the Low Density area to the south. Any compatibility concerns may be mitigated through site design. Area 2 .4 - Southwest Corner of Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue Area of Concern 2 .4 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to redesignate 10.3 acres located on the west side of Beach Boulevard between Memphis and Knoxville Avenues from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial . The study area is located within the Beach Boulevard Corridor Project area. Staff recommends that the property be retained as Medium Density Residential due to difficulties associated with providing vehicular access .from Beach Boulevard, compatibility with surrounding residential uses and distance from the 405 freeway. Area 2 . 5 - South Side of Talbert Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard Area of Concern 2. 5 is a request by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to redesignate 15 .00 acres located on the south side of Talbert Avenue, 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard, from Low Density Residential to General Commercial. The property is owned by the Ocean View School District and is located within the Beach Boulevard Corridor Project Area. Staff recommends that only the western 5.0 acres of the site be redesignated to General Commercial in order to provide adequate. site area to recycle the marginal commercial uses further to the west into a quality shopping center. (7263d) Area 2 . 6 - South Side of ,Warner Avenue. East of Beach Boulevard Area of Concern 2 . 6 is a request by the Huntington Beach . Redevelopment Agency to redesignate 4 . 5 acres of property located on the south side of 'Warner Avenue, 200 feet east of Beach' Boulevard (between "A" and "B" Streets) from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial . The property is located within the proposed Beach Boulevard Corridor Project Area. Staff recommends that the property be redesignated to General Commercial in order to achieve a compatible land use with the other high intensity commercial uses at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue and further recommend that a specific plan for the property be prepared in conjunction with the recommended specific plan in' Area 2 . 7. Area 2 . 7 - North Side of Warner Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard Area of Concern 2 .7 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to redesignate 20 . 50 acres located on the north side of Warner Avenue, 500 feet east .of. Beach Boulevard, from Low Density Residential to General Commer:e ai. The site is presently owned by the Oceanview School Distr-,i:ct and is located within the proposed Beach Boulevard Corridor Project Area. Staff recommends that the property be redesignated as Mixed Development in order to encourageRa.:mixed use project which may include commercial on the western portion of the property, and` Medium Density, Residential and public park on the eastern portion. Staff will further recommend that a specific plan beprepared for the property which would also include Area 2. 6- across Wainer Avenue to the south. Area 2 . 8 - North Side of Warner Avenue, East of Algonquin Street Area of Concern 2 .8 is a request by the Department of Development . Services to redesignate 8 .31 acres located north of. Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and Sims Street from Medium Density . Residential to Medium High Density. Residential in order to achieve consistency between the General Plan . and zo,ninq. Staff recommends that the property be redesignate„d .p Medium High Density Residential in order t_o achieve consistency between the General Plan and zoning. Area 2 . 9 - North Side of Garfield Avenue. East of Beach Boulevard Area of Concern 2.. 9 is a request by Lanny Ludwick to redesignate .2 . 24 acres located on the north side of Garfield Avenue,, 570 feet_ east of Beach Boulevard from Medium Density and .Low Density, ` Residential to Medium High Density Residential in order to achieve consistency between the .General Plan and zoning. (7263d) Staff recommends that the property be redesignated to Medium High Density Residential in order to achieve consistency between the General Plan and zoning. (7263d) TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1. 0 INTRODUC'iION. . . . . . 1 1 . 1 Methodclogy. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 AREAS OF CONCERN:.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 5 2 . 1* West Side of Bolsa Chica Street, Noi:th of Warner Avenue. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 . 2** South Side of Ellis Avenue, , East of Beach Boulevard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2 .3** North of Utica Avenue, Between 17th and Lake Street. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 33 2 .4** South of Memphis, West of Beach Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2 . 5* South Side of Talbert Avenue, Each of Beach Boulevard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2 . 6*** South Side of Warner Avenue, Last of Beach Boulevard. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 2 . 7*** North Side of Warner Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard 75 2 . 8** North Side of Warner Avenue, East of Algonquin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 2 . 9** North Side of Garfield Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 3 . 1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity. .. . . . . . . . . . 99 3 . 2 Irreversible Environmental Changes 100 3 . 3 Growth Inducing Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 APPENDICES Appendix A .Fiscal Impact Assumptions Appendix B Air Quality Calculations Appendix C Pierce-Bolsa Chica Market Study Appendix D Initial Study Appendix E Comments and Responses Appendix F Addendum for Areas 2 . 5 and 2 . 7 Appendix G Proposed Beach/Warner Specific Plan Boundary Appendix H Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Boundary Appendix I Fiscal Impact Addendum-Redevelopment Area Considerations Appendix J Addendum for Areas 2. 6 -and 2.7 (LUE 87-1B) * Withdrawn ** Processed as Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1A *** Processed as Land Use Element Amendment NO. 87-1B (0550D) i Land Use Categories AMENDMENTS PLANNING COMM CITY COUNCIL DATE RESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION 4/9 RESIDENTIAL 6 7-77-76 1196 87 18-6-77 4484 0% e�9C 4a CHpG" Estate tun/gac 9_29-77 1202 II-7-77 4551 h'O`♦1. b Q�?p ♦ 12.6-77 1206 12-19-77 4572 11, 8-1-78 1232 6-21-78 4660 0 Estate <3 un/gac Estate <_4 un/gac 10-21-76 1236 11-6-76 4696 �', OLow Density II-21-78 1239 12-18-78 4708 /,.y_:;,, 3-6-79 1242 3-19-79 4728 /_ _ FQ• ME Medium Density 10-21-80 1268 12-15-80 4936 P� Medium High Density 5-19-81 1273 6-15-81 5005 J' SAN DIEGO FREEWAY / 11-3-81 1278 12-7-81 5053 �♦lp - 11-17-81 1279 12-21-81 5060 O - G High Density 8-2-82 5147 12-20-82 5206 Senior Residential 12-7-82 1299 2-7-83 5223 `/ �,i-;,..... COMMERCIAL 4-19-83 1303 5-16-83 5265 10-4-83 1314 11-28-83 5327 12-6-83 1315 1-3-84 5341 / / - -__- 6,P °' \ ®General 4-3-84 1317 5_7_84 5373 -_ `\ pp+ / - II 5 84 5457A / _ _ y \ Visitor Serving 10-16-84 1333 11-19-84 5457B --- \ 0 - 6 4 84 1344 I-7-85 5457C .. �. Office Professional `\ P P s 6-17-85 5539 -22-86 1349 -1 - - - 2 8 86 56 9 3 � \ MIXED USES 5-6-86 1357 6-2-86 5670 / 'iiiii:iiii:isisSiiii::i:::i:iii:ii:::i:::::::::; 'i:i:::i8iiii5iii:. ®Mixed Development % aP Office/Residential .......................�i: \ P /> Commercial/Support Re creation read on ............. ;.. •. ........... ................... : 's INDUSTRIAL -x / \ General \''��i� €i€ [€ �`:::€ �a�i€i�€�?€ : 4 ' i��1€€iii�€�::: -._ - •::::..�:..:..:..... ::.. .. \ •e.: Resource Prod uction o rce P\ \ Industrial En ergyProduction .............. •:::::� `.::"`'»` »"""'�""::.:..:....:. ::::.. .�<:� '' � OPEN SPACE � +t g'I=�+:'is�"I€�`•'sip€iiiiii�::a..;,' /� Ws 0,• 1 r P / Wat er /Y+I P 9 r., e t ®Conservation is �Recreation ti k^v E 1dD'i� 2 HER USES � �..�,,• ` � t k. .1,. o-.`.tx-.,. .•°�iii'i E'i ii::..:�iiiiig.• a' o �w-uY��t,�.,. N,dVi�1;�.� .�lr•.;.,•,,.,r;,k ,4r�`^�'s�'si���€> s: O Public,Quasi-Public,lnstitutional `P ,������ 1�' :"�,•.,��r � :1�:�,:: R 4 �� Solid Waste Facility .................. .I.!;• M Planned Community ......Coastal Zone Boundary lop .� �m Conservation Overlay �0 - .- ✓�� ill{ - 1 Ty- •Ptv O a .`9b •�Il��ti I /. I S/ A� / t4 : x; PACIFIC COAST '• - - OCEAN - C;� , i/l.i V�O,T-1yDhi I PACIFIC PACIFIC I OCEAN a - C:o:.•.•.•a'��♦•"+..'�.��r°.".`41..:�w �®v1.• :::®:r:•>:•::•:>:-::•x•;':: �1r- .zF ^„ ! m � 7/86 ® GENERAL PLAN HUNTINGTON BEACH 04LIFORNIA j LAND USE DIAGRAM PLANNING DIVISION Adopted Decemberl976/ Revised JUNE 1986 C RM-OIT 1 .0 INTRODUCTION This report concerns Amendment 87-1 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 This amendment concerns changes in General Plan designations on nine sites (Figure 1-1 ) . Seven of these sites (Areas 2.1 through 2. 7 ) are covered by the Environmental Impact Report contained in this document . The eighth and ninth sites (Areas 2 .8 and 2.9 ) are "clean-ups" of the General Plan intended to achieve consistency between the General Plan and zoning and are, therefore, not covered by this EIR. Rather , Areas 2. 8 and 2 . 9 are processed with Negative Declarations. The amendment requests for Areas 2.1 through 2.7 will be analyzed in terms of the existing conditions on the site, major land use, circulation and environmental issues, and consistency with adopted City goals and policies. ( 0550D) -1- G E 2 E M1 L._ E Y \ u \ \ 2.7 \ 2. 8 2 .1 , � --�-� EM 2.6 2.5 .� 2.2 \ ELLif 2 .9 2 .3 / \�4k \ f \Q � 2.4 N Figure 1-1 LUE 37-1 AREAS OF CONCERN huntington beach planning division -2- Section 15148 of the State EIR Guidelines states that "The requirements for an EIR on. a local general plan element or amendment thereof will be satisfied by the general plan or element document and no separate EIR will be required if: 1 ) the general plan addresses all the points required to be in an EIR by Article 9 of the State EIR Guidelines, and 2 ) the document contains a special section or a cover sheet identifying where the general plan document addresses each of the points required. °' In conformance with State guidelines, this document will constitute the EIR for Land Use Element Amendment 87-1 . The environmental setting and significant impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial study are addressed under Areas of Concern (Sections 2. 1 through 2 . 7 ) . 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 . (0550D) -3- 2.0 AREAS OF CONCERN 2. 1 WEST SIDE OF BOLSA CHICA STREET, NORTH OF WARNER AVENUE, 2 .1 .1 Background Area of Concern 2. 1 is a request by John March ,to redesignate 1. 62 acres located on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 400 feet north of Warner Avenue from General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential . The site . is presently developed with a 4,470 square foot restaurant. The study area has been designated General ,C,gmmer,cial ;since 1964 when it was redesignated from Low Density Residential. The applicant has requested that the area of concern be redesignated from General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential to allow for the construction of up to 40 dwelling units. A concurrent zone change from C2 to R3 has also been requested. ( 0550D) -5- 2 . 1 . 2 Analysis The following analysis examines four land use alternatives for the subject property: (1 ) General Commercial (Exisiting Restaurant ) 4,470 square feet ( 2 ) Medium High Density Residential (Applicant 's Proposal ) 40 units ( 3 ) Medium Density Residential 23 units ( 4) General Commercial (Retail ) 21 ,200 square feet 2.1 . 2.1 Land Use As shown in Figure 2-1 , the City's General Plan designates most of the property north of the study area as Medium Density Residential . A .82 acre parcel immediately north of the study area, however , is designated General Commercial . The property to the west of the study area is designated as High Density Residential , south of the subject area is General Commercial and directly east of the area, across Bolsa Chica Street, is General Commercial . Northeast of the subject area, is designated as Medium Density Residential . Further east of this area is Low Density Residential . As indicated in Figure 2-2, the area of concern is currently zoned C2. Property to the north and west is zoned R3, including the .82 acre parcel general planned for commercial immediately north of the study area. Property to the south is zoned C2, and the property across Bolsa Chica Street to the east is zoned C21 (Q)R2 and R2. The Meadowlark Airport property is zoned as (Q)MH, Qualified Mobile Home District. ' Existing adjacent land uses are a mixture of conforming and non-conforming uses. An older single family dwelling unit with a small nursery business exists directly north of the subject area and a group of 98 condominiums developed at 14 .92 units per acre units exists further north . The detached house has access off of Bolsa Chica and the condominium complex has access off of both Bolsa Chica and Pearce Street. West of the subject property, on Charlene Circle, is a cluster of 52 residential units developed at 20 .8 units per acre which includes both apartments and condominiums. To the south of the study area there is an older single family detached house. South of that house is a small insurance office with a single family detached house behind it (west of the . business ) . Further south , on the northwest corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, a small complex of auto-oriented ( 0550D) -6- 1111111111 ■ _ �� �r _ i`I7� ' } .w :. 11 111 Tz ON - " ;y'k I� '.J� .� 111 II 11 Iillllllll Ex�a wr.r _' — ■�.. �/Z 11 �■ '�� t�/��IIIII.I {illllll 1 = rrrr CC a ram MCC*. aim. Z low,Z for � `.;fir ��r� ., ........... x 404 RI AVE— — HEIL 334194, 331.37 4 R 3 as �i� ccaas0 — 2 J . R2 R2 R2 C4 ' R2 `� R3 I =�"� �2 R2 R2 MH y R2 9$EFLI._-. UDDER pi. P a U P. DR. RI RI N NEE W TA OR. rl , Q4 CF—R R2 R 2 N R 2 R 2 = R 2 IF.>�v :r ��vR2�» a� &RI] »� »���� " R2 ' T U -j lO�l!!�l R I o _y J J R2 R2 PEAKE ST. Q T N ° co (Q)MH R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 R2 MR2 MILO ST. R3 Z R3 ° ° R3 R3 R3 Z R3 Z Y C2 F U ¢ C4 -R5 I WARNER AVE —i — - - -----_ . C 3 u' 123Q".iLC� Wg 330.03? C2 II (r N a R 5 �e R R3 R R3� ~� + „e R3 R3 R3 R3 CA; R2 R2 F smut % p�''(� //� DUNBAR /] �' � R I 1 \2 N 2 RZ R3—Ig �. JAMES L KING $ NIO ; Rif so-tG . SSSSLI IT _ �' RI f{G RI R. �� a R3-23- - RI RI �oR3-23 RI-CZ W RI-CZ U W J RI-CZ ` ATINE CR. Q x R3 r! ;: RI _� --- RI m ' RI-CZ R3-23 e i UO..D4 s a RI-CZ RA—CZ cs Figure 2-2 HUNTINGTON BMCH C4LIFORNIK EXISTING ZONING PL4NNING DIVISION AREA 2,1 businesses exists including a repair shop and two tire service centers . It should be noted that the three existing single family houses mentioned above are on commercially designated property and are, therefore, non-conforming uses. The land uses across Bolsa Chica Street to the east include the Bolsa Chica and Warner commercial center , and a vacant lot directly north of the office/commercial center which is designated for medium density residential development. To the north and adjacent to this vacant area is .a new 30 unit apartment complex. Eastward of these properties is Meadowlark Airport, a general aviation airport that houses approximately 150 privately-owned proPeller planes. The owner of the airport property has recently proposed a land use designation change from Low Density Residential to Planned Community and a concurrent zone change from R-1 to Specific Plan. As the above description indicates, the study area is located within an area characterized by medium to high density residential uses with a significant amount of commercial use nearby. The study area is presently developed with a 4,470 square foot restaurant. The property owner and his family have owned and operated the restaurant for twelve years to date . The owner now indicates that the restaurant business is no longer viable and proposes to build and manage an apartment project on the subject property. Due to the small size of the subject property and the nature of surrounding property uses, any of the alternatives under consideration in this analysis could be deemed compatible with surrounding uses. The applicant 's request for Medium High Density Residential with an R3 zone designation could result in a maximum of 40 dwelling units on the site . Medium High Density Residential development would generally be compatible with the commercial and medium and high density land uses to the north, south, east and west of the property. The General Plan Land Use Element states that Medium High Density Residential should be utilized in transitional areas between medium and high density land uses, near major transportation routes and highways and in proximity to commercial areas and activity areas . The location of the subject area appears to meet the three criteria. Redesignating the site as Medium Density Residential would allow for approximately 23 units . As with the Medium High Density alternative, a Medium Density use would also be compatible with surrounding uses. The primary difference between the Medium and Medium High Density designations is that Medium Density allows for a maximum density of 15 units per gross acre and the Medium High Density designation allows for a maximum of 25 units per gross acre . The Medium Density alternative would feature 17 fewer units than Medium High .and would therefore generate fewer traffic and infrastructure impacts . These issues are addressed in following sections of this report . ( 0550D) -9- If the existing General Commercial designation were retained, it is possible that the existing restaurant could be recycled and a new retail center constructed on the site. In this scenario, the development of approximately 21 ,200 square feet of retail space may be possible. Such development would be compatible with the commercial uses south of the property and could eventually be tied into new developments on those properties to form a cohesive and complimentary commercial node. This type of development is what was envisioned when the property was initially designated for General Commercial . A . properly designed retail center could also be found to be compatible with the medium and high density uses to the west and north . A market analysis (See Appendix C.) of the Bolsa Chica/Warner area was conducted in 1984 for General Plan Amendment No. 84-2. That document analyzed a request for a change from Medium Density Residential to General commercial on three acres of property on the southwest corner of Pearce Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street (across Bolsa Chica Street from this study area) . The analysis concluded that there would be substantial demand in the near future for virtually all categories of retail commercial uses . Demand would continue to grow as the area approaches build-out, as Meadowlark Airport is developed and as the Bolsa Chica area develops. The market study suggested that demand would be substantial for retail shops , services/offices and eating/drinking establishments . Given this prediction of demand, it may be undesirable to reduce the commercially designated property in the area at this time. Another potential problem with redesignating the site from commercial to residential is that it will isolate the . 81 acre parcel General Planned for General Commercial immediately north of the study area. This parcel is zoned R3, however, and is, therefore, inconsistent with the General Plan. In fact, in order to develop the parcel commercially, a zone change would be required . It is probably more likely that the property will be developed as an R3 residential project because the City does not require consistency between the zoning and the General Plan on parcels less than one acre in size. Such development would be compatible with either a Medium or Medium High Density land use designation on the study area, or the existing Commercial designation as well. The property could also be rolled into commercial development of the study area, however . 2. 1 . 2 . 2 Economic Considerations The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . The revenues an expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one year for comparison purposes . The results are summarized in the table below. Appendix A contains a summary of the fiscal impact assumptions. ( 0550D) -10- Alt . 1 Alt, 2 Alt , 3 Alt. 4 Restaurant Medium Medium General High Density Commercial Density (retail) Revenue $6, 922 $14,991 $101815 $33,234 Cost $2, 007 $ 7, 181 $ 4, 626 $ 3, 020 Revenue-Cost $4 , 915 $ 7, 810 $ 6, 189 $30,214 Revenue/Cost 3 .45 2 . 09 2.34 11. 00 As shown above, Alternative 4 (General Commercial-Retail) generates. the most net revenue and the highest revenue to cost ratio. The primary factor contributing to the significant difference between Alternative 4 and the remaining alternatives were the sales tax revenue assumptions used in the analysis. The sales tax factors were derived from the Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers and based on regional data. In reviewing the above. results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs. 2 . 1.2.3 Housing The applicant has proposed to develop approximately 40 apartment rental units on the subject property under the requested Medium High Density designation. The Medium Density alternative would allow for a maximum of 23 units . The other two alternatives, retaining the existing restaurant use and developing a retail center, do not include residential use. The Housing Element of the City' s General Plan contains policies aimed at providing a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and cost for households of all sizes, socioeconomic racial and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach. The applicant ' s proposal would provide the most rental housing of either of the residential development alternatives . 2 . 1.2 .4 Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers An eight-inch sewer pipe currently exists in Bolsa Chica Street, and as indicated by the City' s Public Works Department, has adequate capacity to serve any of the development alternatives herein. The eight-inch City sewer line allows the sewage to flow by gravity to the Slater Pump Station which is under County jurisdiction. The County Sanitation District has indicated that although the pump station is approaching capacity, any of the alternatives in this study can be adequately accommodated. It should be noted that the Medium High Density Residential Alternative would have the greatest impact on sewage flow. -11- (0550D) b. Water The subject property is currently served by an eight inch water line in Bolsa Chica Street . After reviewing the development alternatives contained in this analysis, the City' s Public Works Department concluded that the existing water distribution system is capable of supporting any of the proposed developments . This conclusion was based on the assumption that normal water main extensions will be constructed with any new development and was qualified by the statement that a computer model of the water distribution system was not available to verify the assessment . Prior to any alternative development on the site, a computer analysis should be performed to verify any possible capacity constraints . c. Storm Drains The existing drainage system, which allows the storm water runoff from the property to flow into Bolsa Chica Street then into a catch basin, can accommodate runoff from any of the proposed land uses . Runoff from the existing Commercial use is adequately accommodated and this . use creates more runoff than any of the proposed uses might create. d. Police and Fire Protection 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 High Density would generate the most calls, approximately 19 per year. Fire protection for the area of concern can be provided by ,the City of Huntington Beach from either the Heil Fire Station at Heil and Springdale or the Warner Station at Warner and Pacific Coast Highway. The area of concern lies within the five minute response area of the stations and can be adequately serviced regardless of the selected alternative. e . Parks The area of concern is located within the service area of Wieder Park, a 5 acre facility at the intersection of Lynn and Pearce Streets . Weider Park will adequately serve either of the residential alternatives . The commercial/retail alternative and the existing restaurant use create no demand for park facilities . f. Schools The area of concern is located within the Oceanview School District and is served by Haven View Elementary School (grades K-6 ) , Harbour View Junior High (grades 7-8) and Marina High School (grades 9-12) . ( 0550D) -12 1 The number of students generated from a Medium or Medium-High density alternative would be minimal and could be accommodated by the school district. A commercial use would have no impact on the area 's schools. The number of students that would be generated, by the residential alternatives contained herein are listed below, Elementary High Land Use Alternative School school Medium Density (23 units) 2. 76 .92 Medium High Density (40 units ) 4 . 80 1 .60 g . Gas and Electrical Utilities There is a three inch gas main under Bolsa Chica Street. Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Cgmp.an ' No problems have been indicated with serving the existing land use on the property, and the gas company has indicated that any of the proposed projects could be adequately served by the existing gas lines . It should be noted that since the gas company is a public utility and is under the jurisdiction of federal and state regulatory agencies, 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 electrical 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. Internal street circulation within any project would have to be designed to accommodate the company' s refuse trucks so as not to require any backing u_p of the trucks within the development. 2 . 1 . 2 . 5 Traffic and Circulation The area of concern has approximately 205 lineal feet of frontage along Bolsa Chica Street, a major arterial with an average daily traffic volume of 26, 800 vehicles near the site location: The study area lies approximately 395 feet north of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. Warner Avenue, also a major arterial, carries an average daily traffic volume of approximately 31 ,000 vehicles per day near the site location. The maximum design capacities for both Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue is 45,000. (0550D) -13- Access to the site is taken from Bolsa Chica via two driveways located at the north and south ends of the property. The Southern driveway is located directly opposite similar driveways for the office development on the other side of Bolsa Chica Street . A center turning pocket exists in Bolsa Chica Street to permit left turns in and out of the subject property. Daily traffic volumes projected to be generated by the alternative land use designations are the following: Daily Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation ( 1 ) General Commercial (existing (existing 4,470 ft2 restaurant ) 500 Average Daily Trips ( 2) Medium High Density Residential ( 40 units - applicant ' s proposal ) 280 Average Daily Trips ( 3 ) General Commercial ( retail 21 ,200 ft ) 2,862 Average Daily Trips ( 4) Medium Density Residential 184 Average Daily Trips ( 23 units ) . As indicated in the table above, the existing designation of General Commercial in conjunction with retail development would generate the most traffic impacts . Redesignation to residential would reduce future traffic generation from the site. Although Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue are major arterials which are intended to convey large volumes of traffic from the land uses which have been planned in the area, retail development of the property may have a negative impact on traffic flows in the long-term. If the property . is developed with a new retail use, left turn access should be limited to the existing driveway on the southern end of the property which. presently has a turning pocket in Bolsa Chica Street . Also, any other commercial developments on adjacent properties should share driveways where possible. These conditions may also hold true if the subject property and any adjacent properties are redesignated for residential development. With regard to public transportation, the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) offers bus service near the study area on Warner Avenue at both Algonquin and Goldenwest. The OCTD does not foresee any significant impact from the alternatives on the existing or any future transit services in the study area. The Orange County Transit District does request, however, that adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be provided. The development project should include paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials. (0550D) -14- • V 2. 1 . 2 . 6 Airport Safety The study area lies within the Federal Aviation Administration 's (FAA) notice area for Meadowlark Airport. According to FAR Part 77 regulations, notice must be filed with the FAA for proposed objects within 10,000 feet of the airport which would exceed one foot in height for each 50 feet horizontally from the edge of the runway. As shown in Figure 2-3, most of the study area lies within 750 feet of the Meadowlark Airport runway. It is recommended by the FAA that structures on the subject property not exceed 37.5 feet in height . This height restriction will ensure that the glide path of the runway is not encroached upon by buildings or structures. The subject property lies just outside of the airport 's recommended flight pattern for landings and departures . As airport policy, aircraft do not fly directly over - the property; However, due to the proximity of the subject area to the flight path, a margin of risk to buildings or inhabitants on the study site or in the vicinity does exist with regard to mid-air collisions and other accidents. To date, the airport is in full compliance with all applicable air safety, regulations and necessary precautions to avoid accidents have been taken. In addition, airport operating personnel stresses the use of flight safety procedures to all pilots that utilize the facilities. 2 . 1 . 2 . 7 Environmental Issues a. Noise Noise exposure on the property ranges from 60 Ldn toward the rear of the property, away from Bolsa Chica Street, to 70 Ldn at the edge of the property along Bolsa Chica. The major source of the noise is traffic along Bolsa Chica Street . Although the study area is in the proximity of Meadowlark Airport, the noise contours created by aircraft activity do not directly impact the site. The recommended flight path of the " airport 's management does not go over th,e subject area . In addition, pilots are encouraged to utilize noise abatement procedures to minimize unnecessary noise. Since 19}79, there have been only nine (9 ) formal complaints from nearby residents about aircraft noise. As indicated in the Huntington Beach Ge,n,,era;l Plan, the noise contour lines from the airport run in a northeast to southwest direction and do not overlap the subject property.. The existing noise levels on the property fall within the normally acceptable range for both the existing restaurant (commercial ) use and the proposed commercial retail use in Alternative 4 of this study. However , noise levels on the front portion of the property exceed the acceptable range of 60 Ldn for residential uses. The use of setbacks, berming, landscaping and sound walls- should- be utilized along Bolsa Chica Avenue if a residential use is selected for the site. ( 0550D ) -15- ' /IIII 11�111111111\ �T �■�i�► ■� 111 S•�111111111�I �' Nmm � ' �11111111111�11 .a 11� ■ 111= . . . �11111111/11111 1�11111�� IIIIIII�IN /I� ■ ' 111 '�'� mom 1 111 11 oil �•�11111� SS Igloos Room ti � sue` � •� �ir�� :��•• = Mom■ ..... , ■IIIIIn11 � : � �-�'_° � !illlllll 111111111t ��11 � ■�■ ��!111�1111■ $ � - - �_ ___-_- � '�1111 111111111 :�%����� - ■ III■�N■■� .•1 ��.����- � ie������■�� $ ■�.� �: . � _Illllliill �11�1 '■ �■ r' e�l�l� �� ' � RON 111 1 �Ys = �! . No significant noise impacts are anticipated to occur from any of the proposed land uses . b. Air Quality Development of the area of concern under any of the alternative land use designations would adversely affect air quality in the South Coast Air Basin, primarily due to increased automobile traffic generated by the additional housing units or retail complex. Projected daily emissions from the area are indicated in Appendix B. C. Seismic, Soils and Geology The study area lies just north of the Bolsa-Fairview fault. This . fault is considered inactive by the State Department of Mines and Geology as it has had no seismic activity in the past 10,000 years . In being categorized as inactive one can assume that seismic risks from this fault are minimal . Incompliance with the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972, a Special Studies Zone has been established in Huntington Beach that includes the most hazardous earthquake faults. This special studies zone does not extend into the study area. Development in the study area, therefore, need not be subject to the zone 's requirements . It will be appropriate to address the mitigation of potential seismic hazards in the study area when a specific project is proposed for development . The study area is not located in an area having peat and organic soil deposits and, therefore, has a low risk potential for liquefaction of subsoil during an earthquake. (Liquefaction is a phenomenon where the soil structure collapses and subsidence of the ground occurs. ) However , a low to moderate expansive clay hazard potential does exist in the study area. Expansive clays can shrink and swell depending on the soil 's water content. Shrink swell hazards include sliding and slippage of foundations and the cracking of foundations . Any development that occurs on the subject property should include proper mitigation measures to avoid shrink/swell hazards . The State Department of Conservation's Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) indicates that there exists an abandoned oil well on the subject property. The oil well , which was drilled in 1955, was owned by Healy and Neyland. According to the DOG, the well was considered to be a "dry hole" and never produced commercial quantities of oil . Since the well was originally abandoned over twenty years ago, reabandonment of the well to current standards 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. The cost of abandonment operations shall be the responsibility of the property owner . At minimum, any wells exposed during excavation or grading shall require remedial cementing operations. ( 0550D) -17- It should be noted that the DOG recommends that building over any abandoned oil wells be avoided. The project proponent must contact the Long Beach District office of the DOG to obtain information on the requirements for reabandoning oil wells or performing remedial cementing operations, and to allow the DOG to review site specific plans. 2. 1 . 3 Staff Recommendation Although a residential land use on the study area could be deemed compatible with surrounding uses, staff is recommending that the existing designation of General Commercial be retained. The 1984 market study prepared for the general vicinity indicated that there will be a long-term demand for retail commercial uses in the area. Staff is concerned that the applicant 's request for residential use will erode the commercial land inventory in the area, and thus limit the area 's ability to meet future commercial demand. Staff further feels that due to the marginal nature of adjacent commercial uses south of the study area, future land consolidation may be encouraged which would result in a larger, high quality shopping center on the site. ( 0550D) -18- 2 . 2 SOUTH SIDE OF ELLIS AVENUE, EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD 2 . 2 . 1 Background Area of concern 2 . 2 is a request by Jenson Chen to redesignate 1 . 89 acres of property located 'on the south side of Ellis Avenue, 400 feet- east of Beach Boulevard, from General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential . This area was the subject of a previous General Plan Amendment request in 1981 (LUE 81-1 ) . The request at that time was the same as the present request for a change from General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential . The 1981 request was denied largely because it was anticipated that an adjacent shopping center would recycle in the near future and that the subject property could be incorporated into a new commercial project at that time. No recycling of the center has occurred, however, and in fact, the southern half of the shopping center was recently sold and the new owner has chosen to refurbish rather than recycle. In view of this fact, it may be reasonable to expect that recycling for the larger area may not occur for a substantial time period - and that another use on the subject property should be considered. ( 0550D) • -19- 2. 2 . 2 Analysis The following analysis examines three alternative land use designations: ( 1 ) Medium High Density Residential 47 units ( 2 ) Medium Density Residential 27 units ( 3 ) General Commercial (Office) 69 , 000 square feet 2 . 2 . 2. 1 Land Use As indicated in Figure 2-4, the study area is presently designated General commercial on the General Plan. Property to the west is also General Commercial and . is developed with a shopping center . Across Ellis Avenue to the north the General Plan is Medium Density Residential , as is the General Plan to the east. Property to the . south of the study area is General Commercial and is used as parking for the shopping center . To the south of that parking lot is Medium Density Residential . Zoning on the site, as indicated in Figure 2--5, is C4. The northern half of the study area is presently vacant and the southern half is occupied by the Der Kinder Garden Pre--School . The adjacent property to the west is also zoned C4 and is developed with a six-acre, two story 'shopping center . Tenants- in the center include offices, small shops, a delicatessen, restaurant, bar and nightclubs. The shopping center , divided :into two parts with two separate owners , faces Beach Boulevard with a 40 foot ingress-egress easement separating the buildings from the area of concern . The property directly across Ellis Avenue to the north is zoned R2 and is presently developed with 20 older single-family homes on 3. 4 acres of land . It is likely that these homes will eventually recycle to multi-family construction to reflect the R2 zoning. Directly to the east of the study area is property zoned R3 . The property is developed with 152 four-plex apartment units separated from the study area by a 20 foot wide alley with garages on the east side and a block wall on the property line . Approximately 140 feet south of the study area is a six-acre, 84 unit four-plex development zoned R2. The area between this development and the study area is a parking lot for the southern half of the adjacent shopping center and is zoned C4 . As indicated above, the study area is zoned C4 which allows office/professional uses as well as other retail uses . In reality, because of the isolated location of the property, retail commercial development of the study area would not likely occur , or it would be of a marginal nature . If offices were constructed,. the site could probably accommodate a maximum of 69 , 000 square feet of building area . Such development would accommodate an estimated 130 .daily employees. ( 0550D) -20- Its mill 1111H11► III 1111111111 �. F � Y ONE Ilk Ila 1" moons ailing it WIN Rr� A � ' i R1 n xINER AvfN xINER AVE ;5:.s; ;,a_•S :AYLOR 0R R) RI 77T 2O �y 'a OR LE CONTE DR 70 TAYL` R JRi " Rt DR �. la = o RI a RI , I= R2 Q R i y Ri-PDy,. e �� _ LN 7 I RI RI R2 ee.11 R 1 '9 7 R3 R3 1 g CF R RI R3 "I 00 R3 7 C4 R3 x <::wneen• ]! 5.._.. FRANKLIN DR C4 ,... ..R2 "RI o RI - R ,`Ri -' RI R3 Rs R2 , a R2 Po i41 R Z R3 R3 i R i ! j-touu Ck _ 132 3 R3 y6603 w r '+ =" C 2 r C2 C4 RR3 R3 2 PaB ! R3 o :)MRM--m 24TI' co I' R2 i; R3 MH—FP2 ' R3 , i IOSSTRICTo gRAZ' rwol _ y� R2 t2 ` J R3 T`�i1tiLwew o /J E Lmw" l opt 90 70 „�..� .:R3 f23 (DISTRiT$ /� R3 R3 3 RI-I`P2 ONE.. CONSTANTINZ RI RrFP2 R 3 A R. T C UNITY PLAN a R2 1CT CIE) " = R3 4 R 3 VFEo O R'I a� = R2 R2 RI RI a a R3 J O R2/�`'� O J y• 4 O I�! AVE GARFIELD / Figure 2-5 A!Mk HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA sT I N G zo N I NG EXISTING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2 2 —22— . The applicant ' s request for a redesignation to Medium High Density Residential would result in a maximum of 25 units per acre, or 47 units', and would generate an estimated population of 104 persons . Mediuin density development would result in a maximum of 15 units per acre, or 27 units , and would generate an estimated population of 53 persons . Medium and High Density Residential designations of the study area would be compatible with the high density four-plexes located to the east and south of the property. Although occupied by single-family homes, the area across Ellis Avenue is designated Medium Density and would be compatible if recycling occurs . The predominantly office uses in the adjacent shopping center' would also be generally compatible with residential development . Exceptions would include the existing bar and nightclub in the shopping center which could have noise impacts on residential uses . Delivery trucks in the service alley could also similarly impact residential uses. The applicant, however , has prepared design features which may adequately mitigate these concerns.. Office/professional development of the study area would be compatible with both the adjacent residential and commercial uses . This use would also provide additional buffering to the adjacent residential uses to the east from noise and visual impacts of the existing shopping center and service alley. A potentially important consideration in the long-term concerns the . 1977 inclusion of the study area within an 80 acre node allowing multi-story development ( Figure 2-6 ) , and the more recent inclusion of the area in the Beach Boulevard Corridor Redevelopment project area .. Many existing uses in the general area were constructed in the early and mid-sixties and consequently may be expected to recycle in the future. The age and marginal occupancy status of the shopping center adjacent to the study area indicates that it may fall within this category. The recent upgrading of the southern half of the shopping center , however , may postpone recycling of the area . The Redevelopment Agency is also not contemplating any recycling of the shopping center at this time. If the shopping center were to recycle to a multi-story use, the land use designation selected for the area of concern at -this time becomes more critical . - The existing residential uses on the perimeter of the study area, because of their garages , alleys and block walls , .would be adequately buffered from future multi-story uses on the shopping center site . Residential development of the study area, however, would constitute an intrusion into the multi-story area without adequate buffering between residential and high- rise uses . i A three-story office use on the study area would not be impacted by multi-story uses and would actually provide additional buffering for the existing residential uses to the east of the site. A further consideration involves the access alley on the western boundary of the property. In 1964, a 40 foot ingress/egress easement was granted by the subject property to the southern most shopping center to the west (see Figure 2-7 ) . That shopping center (0550D) i -23- . . . . .-...�...,�...m....•.....«+,a..,�.M,,...-.w,.,,,:..-::.• ......,...,..y am.,...............p ..... .. ...'+•�-., �.•0� c ............ `�, a _ .,E,.. ......,.......... :-i- ....... ....... ................. ............. ........ .�<,�,.� .___ _ ..,,w,,,.�_,,......_ •.-. :«�v«•.,....,... ,,�.,eoea<R awl[# 3 i k s k � f i ......... ............. ... SLAM v ?- p " STUDY F 3 } � .�.. AREA 'y, �' �'+•,., .v,.w:,.:.r.....:., : ___.....n„-..n.:...a. .....nc-.u„n.r.,w.m... cn,......,:.r,.......e _ w.Itl ID l:.. .•.'.'. ... .•.. ;....,.... ...,.......,. .......,...,�.,...i.....,.. .... TMRTOwry ADAMS ` A. s.. ..s.. s \ �e h ..::... f ....... MMANA►OLA AILANtA EXISTING :..::.:..... : ',.•,�,.'T.� PRIMARY AREA SECONDARY AREA FURTHER STUDY ,may Figure 2-6 HUNTINGTON BEACH CAL F MULTI-STORY IORNIA MULTI QRY AREAS PLANNING DIVISION -24- was conditioned to use that easement to provide access to required parking immediately to the west and south of the subject property. The northern shopping center , however, does not have the right to utilize the easement since -a separate 20 foot access alley was conditioned on its eastern property line . Regardless of the land use ultimately selected for the subject .property, the 40 foot easement must be preserved in some manner for access to the southwest shopping center . The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan which utilizes the easement for primary access to first floor parking . A block wall or other treatment would< be constructed adjacent to the northwest shopping center while the southwest shopping center would retain full use of the easement for vehicular access . Since the easement is utilized primarily for light , volumes of employee parking rather than delivery truck or customer parking, compatibility of uses should not be a significant problem. i - An alternative to retaining all of the 40 foot easement would be to block the easement off at the point where the two shopping centers back up to each other . As shown in Figure 2-7, the southern shopping center could retain access to the rear parking lot through the existing break in the buildings, and could use the southern portion of the 40 foot easement to gain access to the parking spaces at the back of the northern-most building. The study area would then have exclusive use of the northern portion of the easement and thererwould be no mixing of residential and commercial traffic. In orderto implement this, however, the southern shopping center owner would , have to quit-claim their right to the northern half of the easement . Another land use concern involves the shopping center parking area to ' the south of the subject property. The parking lot is a .51 acre area which would become a somewhat isolated remnant commercial parcel if the subject property were designated residential . Since the applicant must retain access to that lot, however , it is conceivable that if the shopping center does recycle in the future, that parking lot could be developed residentially as an addition to the applicant 's proposal . Such a redesignation of the subject property and the parking lot may make sense because the existing shopping centers in conjunction with the subject property constitute a commercial zone which is 573 feet deep. Since the standard depth of commercial property along Beach Boulevard is only 200-400 feet, a change of land use on the subject property and remnant parking lot would create a more standard sized commercial lot . 2 .2 . 2 .2 Economic Considerations The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one year for comparison purposes . The results are summarized in the table below . Appendix A contains a summary of the fiscal impact assumptions . ( 0550D) -25- ELLIS AVENUE PROPERTY LINE }>, PARKING C� a .. .. o oa x EXISTING SHOPS W • EXISTING SHOPS a a� 2 N F >:: r:•:r::: H PARKING w VEHICLE ACCESS EXISTING SHOPS IIiIIIIIIIII PARKING Figure 2--7 HUNTINGTON BE4CH C4LIFORNIN POSSIBLE EASEMENT TREATMENTf � PLANNING DIVISION -26- Alt . 1 Alt , 2 Alt , 3 Medium High Medium Density General Commercial Density Revenue $18, 149 $12, 782 $19 ,481 Cost $ 7, 337 $ 5,437 $ 6,226 Revenue-Cost $10, 812 $ 7, 345 $13, 255 Revenue/Cast 2 .47 2 . 00 3 . 13 As shown above, Alternative 3 ( General Commercial-Office) generates the most revenue and has the largest revenue to cost ratio. In . addition to a higher market value estimate for the office alternative, this type of development also requires less City services, thus generating lower costs . In reviewing the above results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms , only rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs . 2 . 2 .2 .3 Housing The Housing Element of the City' s General Plan contains policies aimed at providing a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and cost for households of all sizes, socioeconomic, racial and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach. The applicant ' s proposal would provide the most rental housing of either of the residential development alternatives . A redesignation to Medium or Medium-High Density Residential would expand the existing stock of land at these densities as well as the i City' s potential' to provide affordable housing. If the study area is changed to Medium or Medium High Density Residential, approximately 28 units and 47 units, respectively, could be added to the City' s housing stock at ultimate development . Medium-High Density Residential would provide the greatest opportunity for affordable housing . t 2 . 2 . 2 .4 Public Services and Utilities a . ' Sewers The area of concern is served by an 8-inch sewer line located in Ellis Avenue that runs into a 10-inch sewer line in Beach Boulevard. This line connects to a 42-inch County trunk line in Slater Avenue, The Department of Public Works and Orange County Sanitation District I have indicated that existing sewer capacity in City and County facilities is adequate to accommodate all of the land use alternatives by connecting into the existing 8-inch Ellis Avenue line. -2 7 (0550D) _ - I 5 M b. Water The area of concern is presently served by a 6-inch water line which connects to an 8-inch line in Ellis Avenue. Another 6-inch line currently exists in Libra Circle, 140 feet south of the study area. The Department of Public Works has indicated that the construction of an additional 6--inch line connecting the south portion of the study area to the line in Libra Circle, may be desirable regardless of the land use alternative selected . Otherwise, existing water facilities would adequately service each alternative. c . Storm Drains The northern most quarter of the area of concern presently drains to Ellis Avenue in the form of surface flow. The southern portion of . the area drains east through an existing alley into a 9 foot catch basin at the south end of Demion Lane. The catch basin connects to a storm drain which runs east down Modale Drive. The Department of Public Works has indicated that existing drainage facilities are adequate for each alternative, but that holes should be drilled in the block wall along the alley to facilitate drainage to Demion Lane . Both residential alternatives would result in less drainage flow than the office/professional alternative. d. Parks The area of concern is located ,northwest of 2. 3 acre Helm neighborhood park . The 1977 Parks Analysis indicates that park capacities within the quarter section in which the study area is located are presently . being exceeded. Redesignation of the amendment area from commercial to residential would increase park demand in the area . Even without the proposed residential project, capacity continues to be exceeded within the general area. However, the area of concern is located one mile from Central Park which could be considered adequate to serve recreation and park needs generated by residential development within the study area . e . 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 . f . Schools The area of concern is served by Perry Elementary School , Dwyer Middle School and Huntington Beach Union High School . Students generated by the alternative land uses being considered are estimated as follows : ( 0550D) -28- I , Elementary School High School (1) Medium Density ( 27 Chits) 3 .2 8 . 9 (2 ) Medium High Density ( 47 Units ) 5. 6 15. 5 The alternative for Medium Density Residential designation would havelthe greater impact on schools, although the districts indicated that :the schools involved can easily accommodate these slight increases in students . Leaving the area designated as General Commercial would eliminate these impacts on the school districts . g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by the Southern California Gas Company and the Edison Company, respectively. A 6-inch steel main gas supply line is located in Ellis Avenue, extending east and west . A 2-inch feeder line runs downithe west property line of the study area to serve the existing shopping center . Additionally, another 2-inch line extends from Beach Boulevard to the study area and serves the shopping, center as well � as the pre-school . An overhead 12 KV electrical line runs along the north side of Ellis Avenue, while another 12 KV line runs south from Ellis along the alley behind the shopping center serving bothlthe shopping center and the pre-school . Gas service is generally provided as a normal extension of existing facilities . However , the availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies . As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Federal regulatory agencies can also affect gas supply. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided according to the revised conditions. Electrical service is provided by the Edison Company. Adequate electrical 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 I 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 alternative land use designations. l i ( 0550D) -29- ` r 2. 2 . 2 . 5 Traffic and Circulation Access to the area or concern is taken via Ellis Avenue which is designated as a secondary arterial . The nearest major intersection on Ellis Avenue is Beach Boulevard to the west, a designated major arterial-. Present traffic volumes for these arterials in the vicinity of the study area are 15,000 daily trips on Ellis Avenue and, 47 ,000 daily trips on Beach Boulevard. The maximum design capacities for these streets are 20, 000 and 45, 000 vehicle trips per day, respectively. Daily traffic volumes projected to be generated by the alternative land use designations are the following: Land Use Alternative Daily Traffic Generation ( 1) Medium High Density 330 Average Daily Trips (47 Units-applicants proposal ) ( 2 ) Medium Density '175 Average Daily Trips ( 23 Units) ( 3 ) General Commercial 1 ,035 Average Daily Trips ( 69 ,000 square feet ) While Beach Boulevard is currently operating slightly above nominal capacity, Ellis Avenue is well below capacity. The projected traffic volumes for any of the three alternatives will add to the excess traffic presently existing on Beach Boulevard. The pending "Super Street" plan for Beach Boulevard, however , will mitigate many of the impacts of the existing traffic volumes when added to the existing traffic volume on Beach Boulevard. None .of the alternatives should cause Ellis Avenue to exceed capacity. Because of undedicated roadway abutting the older residential development on the north side of Ellis, however, the street currently narrows directly in front of the study area. The projected traffic volumes for each alternative may have an impact on this section of Ellis Avenue, causing congestion and difficult access to the study area . until such time as the property to the north is �dedicated. As discussed in the Land Use Section of this report, the applicant has proposed to utilize the existing 40 foot easement on the western property line to provide access to his project. Depending on whether or not the southern shopping center owner is willing to quit-claim their right to the northern half of the easement, there may or may not be mixing of residential and commercial traffic. The Department of Public Works has indicated that the point where the easement intersects Ellis Avenue is an acceptable location for access to the study area. with regard to public transportation, the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) offers bus service near the study area on Beach Boulevard. The OCTD does not foresee any significant impact from the alternatives on the existing or any future transit services in the study area . ( 0550D) -30- The Orange County Transit District does request, however , that adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be provided . The development project should include paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrial accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials. 2. 2 . 2 . 6 Environmental Issues a . Noise The majority of the study area will be subjected to Ellis Avenue traffic noise levels between Ldn 60 and 65. Mitigation measures such as unit modification, building placement and barrier construction may be necessary to reduce noise to an acceptable level of 60 Ldn exterior and 45 Ldn interior . b. Air Quality Development of the area of concern under any of the alternative land use designations would adversely affect air quality in the South Coast Air Basin, primarily due to increased automobile traffic generated by the additional housing units or professional offices. Projected daily emissions from the area are indicated in Appendix B. C. Seismic, Soils and Geology The area of, concern lies on a mesa slightly north of all known active or inactive fault zones in the City. The Bolsa-Fairview fault , however , does run close to the southern boundary of the study area 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 is approximately one mile southwest of the area of concern . Development on this site, therefore, need not be subject to the zone requirements . A 1974 study, Geotechnical Inputs, prepared for the City by Leighton-Yen and Associates, indicates that the soil in the study area has a low to moderate (6%-77% ) clay content. This condition exists in much of the northern half of the City. Since expansive clay soils can cause serious damage to lightly loaded structures, pavements, driveways and sidewalks due to volumetric changes associated with moisture content, a geotechnical study should be done to make proper design recommendations for construction on the property. The Leighton-Yen study did not indicate any peat . or organic soils on or near the site . The Division of Oil and Gas has indicated the possible existence of an abandoned oil well in the vicinity of the southern boundary of the property. Section 3208. 1 of the Public Resources Code authorizes the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to order the i ( 0550D) -31- 0 E y reabandonment of any previously abandoned well when construction of any structure over or in the proximity of the well could result in a hazard. The cost of abandonment operations shall be the responsibility of the property owner . At minimum, any wells exposed during excavation or grading shall require remedial cementing . operations. 2 . 2 . 3 Staff Recommendation At this point , staff is unwilling to recommend approval of any change in designation from commercial to residential due to concerns regarding mixing of commercial and residential traffic. While traffic mixing may not be a significant problem in the short-term, any increase in the commercial success of the shopping center in the future may cause traffic mixing to become a larger problem. Staff has requested that the applicant pursue an agreement with the shopping center owners to the west to quit-claim their right to use of the access easement as discussed in the preceding analysis . If an agreement of that nature can be reached, staff may be able to recommend a change of use on the property. At the present time staff will withhold any recommendation on the site until further discussions have occurred between the applicant and shopping center owners . ( 0550D) -32- b 2 :3 NORTH OF UTICA AVENUE BETWEEN SEVENTEENTH STREET AND LAKE STREET ! 2 .3 . 1 Background Area 2 . 3 is a request by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission to redesignate 12 . 60 acres bounded by Utica Avenue, Seventeenth Street and Main Street from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential . The existing Medium Density designation has been in place since 1976 when the General Plan was amended from the Government Center designation previously placed on it . The property is owned by the Huntington Beach Company. In October of 1982 a request was made by the City of Huntington Beach to change the zoning on the study area from R1-O-CD (Low Density Residential Combined with Oil' Production-Civic District) to R2-0-CD (Medium Density Residential-Combined with Oil Production-Civic District) . The Planning Commission denied Zone Change No. 82-15 on November 2, 1982 and directed staff to .prepare a ! General Plan Amendment redesignating the property from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential . The denial of the zone change was appealed by Councilman Pattinson. The City Council then continued the item to a date uncertain because of a possible conflict of interest . There was no further action taken on the request until July 21, 1986, when the City Council referred the zone (0550D) -33- change request back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reaffirmed their original action by again denying the zone change on August 19, 1986 . It was suggested at that time that a general plan amendment be initiated by the City to redesignate the property bounded by Utica, Seventeenth Street and Lake Street to Low Density Residential . Councilman Kelly appealed the Planning Commission' s denial . On September 15, 1986, the City Council reaffirmed the Planning Commission' s decision by denying Zone Change No . 82715 . The zoning designation on the property remains R1-O-CD. Staff is processing this General Plan amendment in response to the City Council and Planning Commission action on the zone change. 2 . 3 . 2 Analysis The following analysis examines two land use alternatives for the subject property: (1) Low Density Residential 88 units (2) Medium Density Residential 189 units (existing designation) 2 .3 .2 . 1 Land Use As indicated in Figure 2-8, the study area is presently designated Medium Density Residential on the General Plan. Property to the north and west is designated Public, Quasi--Public Institutional_ and is occupied by the Civic Center. Further to the north is Medium Density Residential . . Property across Lake Street to the east is also Medium density Residential . Property across Utica Avenue to the south is designated Low Density Residential . Figure 2-9 , indicates existing zoning . The study area is presently zoned R1-O-CD. Zoning on the Civic Center to the north and west is CF-C. The Medium Density property further to the north is zoned R2-0-CD and is the recently developed Pacific Ranch condominium project . The property across Lake Street to the east is zoned Oldtown Specific Plan (District Two) and is vacant with the exception of a non-conforming industrial shed. The property to the south is zoned R1 and is developed with single family homes . The study area is presently vacant but is utilized for oil production purposes . Section 2 .3 .2 . 6 of this report addresses the impact of oil production on the site. The area is bi-sected by Pine Street running north and south and the assessor ' s parcel maps 'indicate a continuation of the block and alley pattern which is typical of the residential area to the south. If the property is redesignated as Low Density on the General Plan, it could be .developed with single family homes using the existing block and alley arrangement shown on the assessor ' s maps, or the --34- (0550D) � f cL,4 iL • •� ___ •' k EL"A: GV: OFFICE - * MEDIUM 10 GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROFSNL, ; `' DENSITY YORKTOWN - .. . CF- C CF-E - 'h{t• WICHITA AVE •� l�II� PUBLIC AS-PUBLIC, �> t• :. �t � i � f• -� ti Jr ti� ��� I •I I , �i �I { L INSTIT�TIOUNAL I ••: > :: `-:�1 : �I��:,i f 3 I; f. •;- ,•� : .. . 4 MEDIUM J i' E.-ED I}ENS I TY CF— R -- •1 r f-_ �y �� TORJr'1c AVE LOW DENSITY ' S?RlNGrlLl-Cl LLLj L:� zol icy Lr .' � •., i to ?—� `� �- Figure 2-8 AIR*& HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.3 -35- • R 2 R2 Igo" k. !7 (Q)R2]-0] R2 R 2 m I 2 y PLANMWRtCT 13 C C2 LAY-0- — c 2 0 R3 IL "R )"' " 0 itfl R2-0-PD 6 1 9f;2'���' - R2 mi,�! R2-0 -01-Pd . Ot B12 C2-0-,CD r,o C2-0 .'A............ R PD;i:w i! R2-0 R III L&J R 3 20 R2 �k LL".A _T1 w R2-0-Ct) C2-0-CD PQ_j oil R5-MD "R -0-P U- .. 0 C2-CD' YORKTOWN 633 4 Wj?_0_cc 3000, CF-C R2-0 0' R2-0 CF-E- CD cc is cvrsl y` "o R2-0-CD RA ]CHITA-- jCF-E-CD - = a R2-0 CF-E -CD-0 VENICL .':E CrE OF VILA HerWIG IN -0 -0 -0 No too R2 -CD-0 1 . I CF- R R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 -,*U%T0 U-O i 01 0 "H- RI-0 H SPRINIVIELD N 1311 Ahl -0 (DIS F Ol x z R1 RI RI R1 R1 R2 -0 ROCHESTER a AVE, t 0 RI-0 1-02 -0 -0 RI-0 ADAMS I Pi Figure 2-9 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.3 -36- streets and alleys could be abandoned and a condominium project on the consolidated area could be constructed. If the property is retained as Medium Density the land would almost certainly be consolidated for a condominium project. The existing Medium Density Residential designation could result in 189 units . A development of this size would generate some traffic and noise impacts on the adjacent single family neighborhood to the south. These could be mitigated through design features such as constructing a perimeter security wall, prohibiting entrances to the project off Utica and limiting building height directly adjacent to Utica Avenue. With these design features Utica Avenue would provide an adequate buffer between the Low Density and Medium Density Residential districts . The Medium Density Residential project would also serve as a buffer between the five story City Hall to the north and the single family neighborhood to the south. Under the Low Density Residential designation, 88 units could be constructed if the land were consolidated. A low density development would certainly be compatible with the single family neighborhood to the south. Lake Street would separate the area from the medium density property to the east. The five-story City Hall however, might impact the privacy of the residents in the future low density development although these impacts are minimized by the fact that a sloped grassy area and a parking lot lie between the building and the area of concern. If care is taken in the design, a low density residential project could be developed on the site which would be adequately buffered from surrounding land uses . I 2 . 3 .2 .2 EcQnom c _Considerations f The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one Year for comparison purposes. The results are summarized in the table below. Appendix A contains a summary of the fiscal impact assumptions . Alt . 1 Alt, 2 Low Density Medium Density Residential Residential Revenue $72, 741 $102,423 Cost $28, 952 $ 40, 985 Revenue-Cost $43, 789 $ 61, 438 Revenue/Cost 2 . 51 2 . 50 As shown above, Alternative 2 (Medium Density Residential) generates the most revenue and the largest estimated net revenue (although the revenue to cost ratio is not as high as Alternative 1) . The difference is due to the fact that Medium Density contains enough additional units and people to increase tax revenue substantially (0550D) -37- r over Low Density, but costs also increase at a slightly greater ratio . In reviewing the above results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs. 2 .3 . 2 . 3 Housing Both alternatives would result in additional housing units . The Low Density Residential alternative would result in 88 units and the Medium Density Residential alternative would result in 189 units . The Housing Element of the City' s General Plan contains policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes . The Medium Density Residential alternative would provide more than twice as many units as the Low Density Residential alternative and, therefore, the lowest cost per unit. 2 . 3 . 2 .4 Public Services and Utilities a . Sewers Eight-inch sewers currently exist in the alleys between Lake Street and Park Street south of Utica Avenue. A Low Density Residential project could be adequately handled by connecting to these existing lines . Before construction of a medium density residential project, flow testing and studies should be done to determine if additional sewer mains are required. b. Water There are 12-inch water lines in Pine Street and Utica Street . However, the existing water mains in the vicinity of the area of concern are the old cast iron type and are due to be replaced in the future at an undetermined date. These mains should be replaced as a condition of approval of any new development . C. Storm Drains The existing drainage system will be able to convey the flows resulting from a Low Density Residential project . The existing storm drains are located in Utica Avenue and are 24 inches and 30 inches . A Medium Density Residential development would create more runoff and therefore may convey more flow than can be handled by the existing drainage system. A hydrology study will need to be done to find out if the off-site drainage system will need to be upgraded. d. Police and Fire Prot ction. 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 the two alternatives, Medium Density Residential would generate the most calls, approximately 90 per year . (0550D) -38- Fire protection for the area of concern is provided by ,.the City of Huntington Beach from the Lake Street station located'- on' the west side of Lake Street at Frankfort . The area of concern lies within the five minute response area of the station and- can be adequately - serviced for either of the alternatives analyzed. k e. Parks Worthy Community Park is across Main Street, -just west of the study area . within a one=half mile radius are two neighborhood parks, Farquhar Park and Lake Park, and one slated for future development . A five=acre -facil'ity called McCallen Park on Huntington Street north of Utica is undergoing preliminary work this year and will be completed during the 1987-1988 fiscal year . Any residential project will be more than adequately served by these parks. f . Schools The area of concern is - located within the Huntington Beach City School District and is served by Smith Elementary School, Dwyer : School for K-8 and Huntington Beach Union High. School . The schools can easily a'ccommodate' any increase in students generated by either a Low or Medium Density Residential alternative. The number of students that would be generated by the two alternatives are as follows : Elementary Land Use Alternative SchoolHigh School Low Density ( 88 Units) 18 23. t Medium Density (189 Units) 22 " 7 - I g . Gas and Electrical Utilities } Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Extension of the existing 4 inch lines on Utica Avenue will provide adequate gas service for either a Low or Medium Density Residential. alternative. The Gas Company notes, however, Ahat '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 I electric power supply -can be provided from 12 KV distribution lines j in ,the vicinity of the area of concern. Edison notes that the total, electrical system demand is expected to continue to increase I annually; however, excluding any unforeseen problems, their plans for new generation resources indicate that. their ability to serve 'ali customer loads during peak demand periods will be adequate . for I the remainder of the decade. i f -39 I (0550D) h . Solid waste Dis o'sal The Rainbow Disposal . Company -provides solid-waste collection to the City of- Huntington' Beach . - No local- service constraints are- expected under - either ' land use alternative. 2 . 3 . 2 . 5 Traffic and Circulation As . discussed in the Land Use section of this report, the site is presently bi-sected by- Pine ' Street . Oil rigs presently utilize Pine Street to .access oil wells ' in the area. Pine Street is -also utilized by employees and�visitbrs to the Civic Center since it ' Leads to parking spaces o'n" 17th' Street . It is possible; however , that Pine Street may be' abandoned in ,order to 'consolidate the area 'into a 'larger devel'apable parcel . Assuming consolidation of the study area, principle future. access will likely be from Lake Street to the east which is designated as a . primary arterial , but which is actually developed as a two lane collector . This section 'of Lake Street presently conveys average ' daily trips which are below even the limited design capacity of a, collector arterial . 'Lake Street •"intersects -Yorktown Avenue to the north which is developed as a primary arterial . It presently conveys 24, 000 daily trips. Daily traffic volumes" projected to be generated by the alternati-ve land use designations are the following: Land Use Alternative Daily Traffic Generation 1 ) Low Density Residential 616 Average Daily Trips 2 ),• Medium Density Residential r1, 323 Average Daily Trips The traffic volumes projected from the land 'use alternatives indicate that neither Low or Medium- Density development will exceed the capacity,-of Lake Street or Yorktown Avenue. The most desirable means of accessing the site under either Low or Medium Density would be to .retain *.Pz'ne Street a.nd 'feed" traffic between the site and Lake AStreet via .Utica Avenue . The Medium Density alternative, however; would have the potential 'to create traffic impacts on Pine- Street . south ' of Utica Avenue under this scenario'-.' Alternatively, access for a Medium Density pro_j'edt could be taken"excl'usively from, Lake- Street . ,A fire gate could then be installed at Pine Street and Utica Avenue for an emergency ,second access point . rr.' Public transportation is currently .available in. the vicinity of t'he area of concern . ,OCTD p'r'ovides transit service' in the area . Bus stops are located conveniently at , Main Street and Seventeenth 'Street sand at Y,orktown .Avenue' and ' Lake Street . OCTD has indicated that'_it is unlikely that either alternative density wo.uld -have any ; significant impact on the existing or any future transit services . -40- .. 2. 3. 2. E Environmental Issues a. Noise The 'entire area of concern is within an area of acceptable noise level for residential uses . The City's General Plan states that the . optimum outdoor noise level for residential uses is Ldn 60 . The area falls outside the Ldn 60 contour lines generated by traffic on Lake Street and Main Street . No significant noise impacts are anticipated to occur from either of the 'alternative land uses . b. Air Quality Either of the land use alternatives will adversely affect air quality in the South Coast Region; however , the impact is not expected to be significant. Projected daily emissions for each of the two alternatives have been calculated and are contained in Appendix B. c. Seismic, Soils and Geology 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 . The area of concern lies just outside this Special Studies Zone . At the time a specific project is proposed for development, it will be appropriate to require a geologic study to address the mitigation of potential seismic hazards due to the close proximity to the Special Studies Zone. The seismic issues should be considered whether the development is Low or Medium Density Residential . A 19.74 study, Geotechnical Inputs, prepared for the City by Leighton-Yen and Associates, indicates that the soil in the study area. has a low to moderate (6 percent to 27 percent ) clay content . . This' condition exists in much of the City. Since expansive clay { soils can cause serious damage to lightly loaded structures , pavements , driveways and sidewalks due to volumetric changes associated with moisture content, a geotechnical study should be done to make proper design recommendations for construction on the I property. The Leighton--Yen study did not indicate any peat or organic soils on or near the site. Nine ( 9) active oil wells and associated facilities are located on the site . These wells may be plugged and abandoned as part of a large oil consolidation project proposed by Angus Petroleum Corporation . The wells must be abandoned to Division of Oil and Gas i standards and an attempt should be made to avoid building directly over � any abandoned wells . I€ any previously abandoned wells or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during any excavation or grading, remedial cementing operations may be required by the Division of Oil and Gas . ( 0550D) -41- r If the consolidation project does not take place and the wells are not abandoned, the residential development should be designed to preserve the active oil wells and facilities . I.t is recommended that adequate open space and access be provided around and near each of the active oil wells because these wells will require periodic maintenance that may require the use of workover rigs . The area provided should be well secured to prevent entry of unauthorized persons and of animals . The two wells and - associated facilities northwest of Utica Avenue and Pine Street, should be surrounded by an eight-foot block wall . The remaining seven active wells should be protected with, but not limited to, an eight-foot chain link fence that has barbed wire at a 45-degree angle on "the inside of the seven-foot level . The fence should be around the perimeter of the facilities and built on a six-inch concrete curb. Climbable landscaping should also be prohibited around any oil facility, as this defeats the purpose of the restraining walls and fences . A certain amount of noise and odor are a natural part of the oil industry. It is suggested that outside walls of new residential developments that face oil facilities not have windows . Skylights and atriums could be substituted as alternatives . This would not only reduce potential noise and odor problems, but would also mitigate an aesthetic issue . 2 . 3 . 3 Staff Recommendation Staff .feels that the existing designation of Medium Density is appropriate for the study area and that any concerns with such development can be easily mitigated through project design. Staff further feels that Medium Density Residential will serve as a logical transitional use between the 5-story civic center to the north and the single family homes to the south . With these considerations , staff recommends that the existing Medium Density Residential land use designation be retained. ( 0550D) -42- I 2 . 4 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BEACH BOULEVARD AND MEMPHIS AVENUE 2 . 4. 1 Background Area 2.4 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to redesignate 10 .3 acres located on the west side of Beach Boulevard between Memphis and Knoxville Avenue from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial . The study area is located. within the Beach Boulevard Corridor Project area. The Redevelopment Agency has requested that staff analyze the possibility of commercial use of the property. The study area consists of two separately owned parcels . The west half of the study area is owned by Chevron USA, Incorporated, and the east half is owned by the Huntington Beach Company. The area of ' concern currently contains an oil storage and pumping station for Chevron USA and a privately run pre-school . The storage/pumping facility is located on the northeast corner of the property. The southeast corner of the property houses the pre-school which has access off of Knoxville Avenue . The west half of the property, which. fronts the residential uses on Florida Street, Knoxville Avenue and Memphis Avenue, is vacant . I -43- ( 0550D) 2 . 4 . 2 Analysis The following analysis examines three land use alternatives for the subject property: (1 ) a . Medium Density 5 .0 Acres 75 units b. General Commercial 5 . 3 Acres 69,260 square feet ( 2 ) Medium Density 10 . 3 Acres 150 Units ( 3 ) General Commercial 10 . 3 Acres 134,600 square feet 2. 4 . 2 . 1 Land Use As shown in Figure 2-10, the study area is presently designated Medium Density Residential in the City 's General Plan. Property to the north is also designated Medium Density, while property to the west and south is Low Density Residential . A strip of General Commercial along Beach Boulevard also directly abuts the study area on its south end . Directly across Beach Boulevard to the west is the Seabridge Residential project which is designated as Planned Community in the .City' s General Plan. The highest density portion of the Seabridge project is on the property directly -east of the study area . The study area is presently split into two parcels . Although the two parcels share the same land use designation of Medium Density they are zoned differently. As shown in Figure 2-11 , the parcel that is located on the west half. of the property is zoned R3 Medium High Density Residential District . The parcel that is located on the east-side of the property and which fronts Beach Boulevard is zoned C4 Highway Commercial District. The subject area has been zoned in this manner since 1961 when it was changed from M2-0, Industrial District with oil use. Of note is a fifteen foot setback strip that runs between the two parcels and is depicted on the zoning maps . The purpose of this "built. in" buffer strip is to protect the residential uses from encroachment of the commercial uses . The residential area to the north of the subject property is zoned R2-PD-10 (Medium Density Residential with a 10 .unit per acre limit, Planned Development ) . The residential area to the west of the study area is . a part of the Oldtown Specific Plan ( District One ) . The area to the south of "the study area is zoned R3 (Medium High Density) , and C4 ( Highway Commercial ) . It should be noted that the R3 zone designation is inconsistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan designation . The existing land use is built out to the maximum density permitted under the R3 zone. East of the study area, across Beach Boulevard, is the Seabridge Villa Condominium complex presently being operated as an apartment . The property is designated as Planned Community in the Land Use Element and is zoned as the Seabridge Specific Plan . South of the ( 0550D) -44- ~. „'--�j��:•� 11111�1fillill�l111��!�IIIt= = � �; �" t:�� IIIII�1■ ■■■■■�■■� r =► = ��: NII■I� � ,€ � M III■ i gas lag .� MINI III will WX Ali oil IIINIA � ■ s,; _ iN , �, � _ 1�1���� ■ � ■ ■� iFt, � ;;•'" ��■air■■■■ -1■■■�� 1�1111� � ■ � #■� � � �� � :►�. . ,��`�► s 111 wig '��Il�il� �� ■ �� �1111111 ��► ��r .,� _ ��� 9 s ADAMS AVE. 6DAMS J I (a)OLOT w C4 -O W SPECIFIC LAN - R PECIFIC L a ' - ��°_.-.� II I' �: ��PL o �ORTLIMp cR. (DISTRICT 2) K ,"Q^ .• Z OSwEGO V AYE. I REPO-PO aso� -01 •'- t NASITYELLE AVE. uiri, � _.__ IY ,4 'OI `- L f -, - m / R2-Po-10 Y PLAN(D1 RlCT TWO) :-- - ---------:_� —.MEMPHIS o ±nt C� SE as.pRT^ KN�E ' ...,A046'• PxC2 o Ri S i C R3 R3 " 3 C4 ��x ,;�3 �1=Ft MUNSTER L N az I JV�-ff r AY � 4' r Q R I RI ALLOY — u { I i T ) TO RI R� a R3 R3 o R3 C' i l Rl 1 !A A O / INDIANAPOLIS nRI I 0 R I o .51 � I > DRIFlW00D sroo.e ` J REILLY HAk. OR AVE.- , (� RI < RI CF-E GENEVA (FETEftS:iN s�:rlrc?L1 m SAIL CR. U _��, � I RI R FRANKFORT �""'�" C Y SP� DT IFIC A E MH RIcR (DISTRf �/[ ELMtF�` 1 !O RI KINGFISHER I Figure 2-11 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIK EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2,4 -46- Seabridge complex are two parcels of land that front Beach Boulevard and are general planned as General Commercial and zoned as C2 and (Q) C2 (Community Business District and Qualified Community Business District ) . Existing surrounding land uses are generally consistent with the zoning . As such, the study area is surrounded primarily by residential uses on the north, south, west and across the street to the east. Some commercial uses (a 7--11 convenience store, donut shop,lauto insurance office, auto supply store and beachware store ) exist south of the subject area along Beach Boulevard, and southeast of the property across Beach Boulevard (McDonald' s and a vacant office building) . As discussed above, the study area is surrounded on three sides by residential uses . Any development on the subject parcel would impact the surrounding residential uses, especially those to the west and south since they directly face the subject property and are separated from it only by a public street right of way which is currently 30 feet but will be required to be 60 feet once the parcel is developed . I Designating the subject parcel as half Medium Density Residential (the 5 . 0 acres on the west half) and half General Commercial ( the 5. 3 acres on the east half which fronts Beach Boulevard) could result in the development of 75 dwelling units and 69,260 square feet of retail land use, as indicated in Alternative 1 of this report . The dwelling units could consist of duplexes , tri--plexes, apartments, condominiums or townhouse developments . Single family homes , such as patio homes, may also be suitable . The general commercial retail development would include convenience and neighborhood commercial developments , a community shopping center or other highway related retail commercial uses . This scenario of development would require a change in land use I designation on only the east half of the property from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial . The west half pf the property would retain its designation of Medium Density Residential . The development that would be allowed in Alternative 1 may be compatible with the surrounding land uses since the proposed Medium Density Residential uses could provide a transitional use between the existing Low Density Residential ,uses and the proposed Commercial/Retail uses . If this alternative is selected, the residential uses should be adequately isolated from the commercial uses via barrier walls or some form of physical buffer, the existing 15-foot buffer strip between the R3 and C4 zoning on the properties should be maintained, and the existing R3 zone designation should be changed to either R2 (Medium Density) or Oldtown Specific Plan . Additionally, access to the two different land uses should be separate , i The alternative to retain the entire 10 . 3 acre parcel as Medium Density Residential (Alternative 2 ) could result in the development of 150 dwelling units . Such a development scenario would be ( 0550D) -47- compatible with the surroLnding residential uses but would provide no transitional land use between itself and Beach Boulevard. In lieu of a transitional land use such as that proposed in' Alternative 1, a site design that minimizes the impacts of Beach Boulevard on the residential use should be required. Dwelling unit orientation, setbacks, landscaping and berming could be utilized to limit the impacts . Alternative 3 of this analysis is the applicant ' s (the City of Huntington Beach) proposal . The request is to redesignate the entire 10 . 3 acre parcel as General Commercial to allow for the development of a 134 , 600 square foot retail complex. Compared to, Alternatives 1 and 2, this development scenario would have the greatest negative impact on the existing residential uses nearby. If the request is approved, staff recommends that the retail center have access off of Beach 'Boulevard only and (no access should be allowed off of Memphis Avenue, Florida Street or Knoxville Avenue. Staff is concerned, however, that commercial development of the site (even under the Alternative 1 scenario) would create undesirable competition for both the Newland Center to the north and the - Beach/Atlanta shopping center to the south. The Beach/Atlanta center has suffered a high turn-over rate for many years . The City has also discussed the possibility of defining Adams Avenue as the point at which Beach Boulevard transforms from a .commercial corridor to a residential corridor . In view of these considerations it may be desirable to retain the Medium Density Residential designation on the study area . 2 .4 . 2 . 2 Economic Considerations The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in• this amendment . The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one year for comparison purposes . The results are summarized in the table below. Appendix A contains a summary of the fiscal impact assumptions . Alt ,. 1 Alt . 2 Alt . 3 Medium Density/ Medium Density General General Commercial Commercial Revenue $145, 138 $ 72, 048 $212, 111 Cost $ 24 , 777 $ 30, 000 $ 19 , 187- Revenue-Cost ' $120 , 361 $ 42, 048 $192, 924 Revenue/Cost 5 . 86 2 .40 11 . 05 As shown above, Alternative 3 (General Commercial-Retail) generates the greatest amount of net revenue and the greatest revenue to cost ratio of all of the alternatives. Alternative 1, a combination of residential and retail generates the second greatest amount of -48- (0550D) r + revenue. Taxable retail sales constitute the revenue source which cause these alternatives to produce the most positive fiscal impact. In reviewing the above results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs . 2 . 4 . 2 . 3 Housing The Housing Element of the City' s General Plan contains policies aimed at providing a variety of housing opportunities by type , tenure, and cost for households of all sizes, socioeconomic, racial and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach . The existing Medium Density designation would provide the most rental housing of either of the residential development alternatives. The City's request for General Commercial on the subject property will actually reduce housing opportunities in the City, while the alternative for Commercial /Residential will reduce housing j opportunities on the site by only 50 percent . The existing designation of Medium Density will provide the greatest opportunity for affordable housing. 2 . 4 . 2 .4 Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers No direct sewer hookups currently exist for the subject property. A 10-inch line exists in Huntington Street just north of Atlanta Avenue, but the City' s Department of Public Works has indicated that this line is • close to capacity. Any development on this property would impact the sewage flow capabilities of the existing system. However, the Orange County Sanitation District has indicated that the County systems can accommodate any of the alternatives contained herein . b . Water r Water mains in the vicinity of the study area include an 8-inch pipe in Memphis Avenue and a 6-inch cast iron pipe in Knoxville Avenue. The Department of Public Works has indicated that the cast iron pipe would require replacement and that normal water main extensions will need to be constructed. Specifically, an eight-inch line in Beach I Boulevard will be required. C . Storm Drains The storm water line that serves the subject property is in Beach Boulevard and increases from 21 inches in diameter to 24 inches to 27 inches to a 42-inch line at the County pump station at Adams Avenue east of Beach Boulevard. The existing drainage system was designed for residential rather than commercial zoning. Therefore, 5 k 1 ( 0550D) -49- r the additional runoff from commercial development would probably surcharge the existing City drainage system. Also, the_ County pump station to which the property' s drainage would flow may not have the 'additional capacity for a commercial development . The project proponent would need to resolve these issues with the City and County prior to development. d. Police and Fire Protection 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, in and of themselves , will generate the need for more police manpower . Of all the alternatives, Alternative 2 (Medium Density on the entire site) would generate the most calls, approximately 216 . Therefore, this alternative would have the greatest cumulative impact on police service . Fire protection for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach from the Lake Street Fire Station at the corner of Lake and Frankfort Streets . The area of concern lies within the five minute response area of the station and can be adequately serviced regardless of the selected alternative. e. Parks The area of concern will be serviced by two parks that are planned to be built by the City. By the end of 1986, Manning Park , a 2 . 5 acre facility, will be developed at the corner of Detroit Avenue and Delaware Avenue. By 1988 McCallen Park , a 5 acre facility, will be developed on Huntington Street just north of Utica Avenue . Either of the residential alternatives would be adequately serviced by public parks. f . Schools The area of concern is located within the Huntington Beach School District and is served by Kettler Elementary School (grades K-5) , Dwyer Middle School (grades 6-8) and Huntington Beach High School . As indicated by the following table, Alternative 2 (Medium Density) , would generate the greatest demand for public education services . Alternative 3 would have no impact on the area 's schools. Regardless of the residential alternative selected, methods would have a great impact on the school system. ( 0550D) -50- Students generated by residential alternatives: Elementary High Alternative School• School ( P) Medium Density/Commercial 9 3 ( 75 Units ) . ( 2 ) Medium Density 16 6 (150 Units ) g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. A 4-inch gas main currently runs in Beach Boulevard which fronts the property, and a 2-inch feeder line runs under Georgia Street which runs perpendicular to the property. No problems have been indicated regarding gas service to the property thus far , and the Gas Company has indicated that service can be provided to any of the alternatives . . 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 alternative land use designations. Internal street circulation within any project would have to be designed to accommodate the company's refuse trucks without requiring any backing up. I 2 . 4 . 21 . 5 Traffic and 'Circulation The area of concern has approximately 610 lineal feet of frontage along Beach Boulevard, a major arterial with an average daily traffic volume of approximately 24, 000 vehicles . The site lies approximately 700 feet north of Indianapolis Avenue, which is a local street west of Beach Boulevard and a secondary arterial east of Beach Boulevard with an average daily traffic volume of approximately 11, 000 vehicles near the study area. ( 0550.D) -51- i Projected daily traffic volumes generated by the alternative land use designations are: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation ( 1 ) Medium Density Residential 75 units/General Commercial Retail 69 ,260 sq. ft . 7,845 Average Daily Trips ( 2 ) Medium Density Residential 150 units 1 ,200 Average Daily Trips ( 3 ) General Commercial Retail 134, 600 sq. ft . 14, 000 Average Daily Trips If the property is developed with commercial , either wholly or only on the front five acres , staff recommends that access to the site be permitted by a major street-type entry off of Beach Boulevard and minor access driveways off of both -Knoxville and Memphis Avenues. The Beach Boulevard access would permit right turns only while the Knoxville and Memphis Avenue accesses would permit left turns as they presently do . In fact, Memphis. Avenue at Beach Boulevard will eventually be signalized as a result of a previous condition of approval on the Seabridge Villa condominium complex across Beach Boulevard. If commercial traffic intrusion becomes a problem in the residential area west of the study area, traffic control devices such as narrowed one 'way street sections could be incorporated into Memphis and Knoxville Avenues to prevent westward .movement of traffic from the shopping center . It should be noted that the study area is presently graded substantially higher than Beach Boulevard. Additionally, Beach Boulevard -itself is topping a hill in the vicinity of the study area . These conditions mean that access to the site from Beach Boulevard will be somewhat difficult and visibility may be poor . It will , therefore, be important for a commercial project on the site to address these concerns in a circulation study prior to development . with regard to public transportation, the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) offers bus service near the study area on Beach Boulevard. The OCTD does not foresee ,any significant impact from the alternatives on the existing or any future transit services in the study area. The Orange County Transit District does request, however , that Adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be provided. The development project should include paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials . ( 0550D) -52- 2. 4 . 2 . 6 Environmental Issues a. Noise The area of concern is located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, which is the principal source of noise in the area. According to projected traffic noise iinpacts for 1990 by the Wyle Laboratories, the area would be exposed to noise levels ranging from Ldn 60 to Ldn 10: The • highest noise levels occur along Beach Boulevard. Any residential development must be compatible with the Noise Element of the City' s General Flab . If any residential structures are located within the Ldn 65 contour , mitigation measures such as building setbacks, building orientation or noise barriers such as wails or landscaping should be utilized . If the mixed development scenario (Alternative 1 ) is selected; steps to mitigate noise impacts from the commercial use on the residential uses should be employed. b . ' Air Quality Development of the area of concern under any of the alternative land use designations would adversely affect air quality in the South Coast Air Basin, primarily tide to increased automobile traffic generated by . the additional housing units or commercial 'uses . Projected daily emissions from the area are indicated in Appendix B.' C. Seismic, Soils and Geology In compliance with the Algdist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zone Act of 1972, a Special Studies Zone has been established in Huntington Beach . The special zone includes the most hazardous earthquake faults in the City. While the study area does not lie directly within this zone; it is very close (approximately 400 feet south of the study zone) : The site is also located near the Indianapolis Avenue fault zone. Risks posed by this zone are minimal , however , as the zone has not been active for the last 10,000 years and its actual presence has been questioned by some geologists. With regard to soil constraints, the study site is located in a potential area of peat deposits. Peat deposits represent areas where during a major earthquake, potential liquefaction of subsoil (subsidence of the ground ) and ground shaking may be anticipated. It is recommended that a thorough geotechnical investigation be performed for any development or structure to be located within or near these areas . The site has been identified as having. only a low risk of shrink/swell potential from clay-like soil deposits . In addition, no known current or historic (capped) oil wells exist on the site . In light of the risks posed by the Alquist-Priolo hazard zone, the possible (yet minimal ) risks posed by the Indianapolis fault, and the ground shaking risks posed by the peat deposits, staff recommends that geotechnical studies be required and appropriate mitigation measures for potential seismic hazards be addressed. .( 0550D) -53- l s 2. 4 . 3 Staff Recommendation As indicated in the preceding analysis , staff has serious concerns regarding the compatibility of a commercial land use on the study area with the surrounding residential uses . Staff is also concerned that due to the existing grade on Beach Boulevard, safe access to a commercial project would be difficult to achieve. Lastly, staff is concerned that commercial development of the study area would create undesirable competition for both the Newland Center to the north and the Atlanta/Beach shopping center to the south . For these reasons , staff recommends that the existing designation of Medium Density Residential be retained. As a follow-up action, staff recommends that the study area be rezoned from its current R3 and C4 designations to R2, Medium Density Residential , in order to achieve consistency between. the General Plan and zoning. ( 0550D) -54- . S ' t ' k j i F 2 . 5. SOUTH SIDE OF TALBERT AVENUE, EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD 2 . 5. 1; Background Area 'of concern 2. 5 is a request by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to redesignate 15 .00 acres located on the south side of Talbert Avenue, 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard, from Low Density Residential to General Commercial . The property is owned by the Ocean View School District. The study area is presently utilized by Crestview Elementary School , which may be phased out at some point in the 'future. The study area I is separated from Beach Boulevard by a small shopping center which i is somewhat marginal, in nature. As part of the Redevelopment Agency 's plans for the Beach Boulevard Corridor Project they have requested that staff analyze the possibility of a commercial land use o'n the school site which could tie in with and encourage recycling of the adjacent shopping center. I 2. 5 . 2, Analysis The following analysis examines three land use alternatives for the subject property. i ,( 1 ) . Low Density Residential 105 units I .( 2 ) Medium Density Residential '225 units ( 3 ) General Commercial (Retail ) 196, 000 square feet a ( 0550D) -5.5-- IL 2. 5 . 2 . 1 Land Use As indicated in Figure 2-12, the study area is presently designated Low Density Residential on the General Plan. Property to the west is General Commercial . To the north of the study area, across Talbert Avenue, is Good Shepard Cemetery which is designated Public, Quasi-Public Institutional on the General Plan . Property to the east and south is Low Density Residential . Figure 2-13, indicates existing zoning. The study area is zoned CF-E (Community Facilities Education )- with an underlying zone of Rl . The shopping center to the west is C4 . Existing uses include a Der Weinerschnitzel , a car wash, and a small retail building. To the south of the shopping center are three older non-conforming homes on C4 property. To the south of those units are an office building and a hotel . The cemetery to the north of the study area is zoned SP-1 ( Special Use-Cemetery) . The residential subdivisions to the east and south ar.e zoned R1 . The request of the Redevelopment Agency is to redesignate the study area from Low Density Residential to General Commercial . Development of the site with a general commercial use could result in approximately 196, 000 square feet of retail space. If the marginally utilized shopping center to the west is rolled into the project, a larger retail center could be constructed. A shopping center on the subject property would pose no compatibility problems for other uses on Beach Boulevard and with the cemetery on the north side of Talbert Avenue . In fact, commercial would be considered an appropriate use for property near the intersection bf a major and primary arterial . Compatibility of uses may pose a problem for the residential subdivisions to the south and east , -however . Twenty-two homes directly abut the school site and could be subject to noise and light impacts from a commercial use on the property. ' Design- considerations such as ,building setbacks , lighting constraints and parking distribution should be incorporated to. minimize impacts on the subdivisions. If the Low Density Residential designation is retained on the subject property; a total- of 105 housing units could be a constructed . Low Density would certainly be the most compatible land use with the adjacent residences but may not be the most appropriate use considering the potential value of property located at a major intersection. r A Medium Density Jand use designation would also be compatible with the surrounding subdivisions and would also constitute a• re'asonable transitional use from traffic noise on Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue to the Low Density area to the south and east. Neither low nor Medium Density, however , would do anything to stimulate recycling of the marginal commercial uses along Beach Boulevard to the west of the study area. ( 0550D) _56- �'r . ��l�l■■���■����lll�' 111�lI4�f�]� � l��il 1- _— ` ;gr�A. � �- ■� �■ sip ,, � . ��� oil Ron 1111111 TongME NINE MEN rr 111115 1 '��,+�.� ,ems-,ram-��r�.o-.�' ..,,k,.,,�.s:+ - -..�s.?%ax�s - �.,,�,.�•,• �.rngei/IENt« [ .p� �� � EEI/1#IIE�111lIk` •�.■a. ^-={"' _ '""�._'�'��" • �� � 111EEfElEllUEI .ra:l�..�� •"•••�•� � �''•�'`�'�""""�"• `.� �� • ,• MINORu111Is' . !� ! r /��N�NH■�■�. (♦ 1 1 11 i 1�;� � F ./1N • r■�� E� �Y" •-' '��-,..�-��-� .' err "' � � Ell �^--i e. sl uNR2 C4 „N � � R I � Y -- +� R2 . cw R2 -� � M NOBLE CR � r R 3 � o eL uROYO 1 ' R3 n R2 C4 ' `� R I R5 n R5 ..�.. NEK AN AVE 990 t W R2o` a 1 !7[1 390 - w s 26e c R5 SP-1 .� R ALD DR. sG R2w.uwE s v2 a,n £ SEC. 25-S-il 260 TO i. a � i ra prry� 9 R3 "R3 RG—P— - , . R2 R2 C4 �, Cw ,_ U R3� � 1 �P— � a MI $ . ' s(Q)RA RI :8 R5 199 p�p� —r - TALBERT AVE. C4 c RI w Rl r S V1 I A 3t 2-PD so r RI d IQIR RI OF "% TRMErao oR GLADYS AVE R4-SR . C4 struts : R1 RI RI IIl71I ao J a►wTAN GR R4-SR (Q)R2-PD RI C 4 RI.:. sr5 :r:1�CL-• -� T RLING AVENUE RI SR R I 1 " H = a i f yY: s:'..i; J! � > _ �`:•` "�-:'sue J r. RI RI RI RI RI-PD #�+ -•�� +� R) A KIN ER AVT 3: I TArLOII oR. q RI RI 57T20 W ' 10 ;S _ S In OR LE CONTE oil �y , TA V L:,R - 2 DR = Ri = RI " RI FRI"ga RI RI-P ; ' �J a ? NCY CR j .` M z DR RI R1 ,I N R3 R3 J RI . Y (,F-R ,a' l RI n R3 F LLIE r' r r R3 ' I I 'C4 R3 _ N nR a Sa R3 R 35 a m, R2 '�, RI ; R FRANNLIN OR C4 n RI o RI RI $ a o % R R3 R3 ..R2 �' a - ...---- Rl R2 a R2 ' ac 3 RI R2 Rs In R3 Figure 2--13 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.5 —58-- 2 . 5 . 2 . 2 Economic Considerations The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one year for comparison purposes . The results are summarized in the table below. Appendix A contains a summary of the fiscal impact assumptions . Alt 1 Alt. 2 Alt , 3 Low Density Medium Density General Commercial Revenue $56, 639 $110, 056 $303, 869 Cost $26, 040 $ 44, 706 $ 27, 942 Revenue-Cost $30, 599 $ 65, 347 $275, 927 Revenue/Cost 2 . 18 2 .46 10 . 81 As shown above, Alternative 3 (General Commercial-Retail) generates the most net revenue and the highest revenue to cost ratio. The primary factor contributing to the significant difference between Alternative 3 and the remaining alternatives were the sales tag revenue assumptions used in the analysis . In reviewing the above results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs . 2 . 5 . 2 . 3 Housing The existing designation, Low Density Residential, would result in 105 units, if developed. Medium Density Residential will result in 225 units . The other alternative, Commercial, would not result in any housing units . The Housing Element of the City' s General Plan contains a policy stating that surplus school sites should be utilized for residential use where appropriate and consistent with the City' s General Plan (Section 8 . 3 . 1. ) . The Housing Element also contains many policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low And moderate incomes . The medium density residential land use alternative would provide the most housing at the lowest cost and would best carry out these housing policies in the City' s General Plan. 2 . 5 . 2 .4 Public Services and Utilities a . Sewers Talbert Avenue, adjacent to the area of concern, contains an 8-inch sewer line which becomes a 12-inch line as it extends to the east . The existing sewer system will adequately handle a low density residential development . Since medium density residential and commercial development flows are higher than low density residential flows, the downstream sewer capacity would have to be metered and analyzed for capacity before any new medium density residential or commercial development could be approved. (0550D) -59- b. Water Talbert Avenue contains an 8-inch water main which can provide adequate water service under any of the land use alternatives . c. Storm Drains The existing drainage system for this area was designed using a school runoff coefficient . A 24-inch storm drain is located in Talbert Avenue . Runoff from a residential or commercial development is substantially higher than from a school . In addition,.- this area drains to the channel adjacent to Michael Drive, which has experienced flooding. A residential , and especially a commercial project, would impact the current flooding problem. Therefore, from a drainage standpoint, the Public Works Department does not recommend a change in land use designation. d. Police and Fire Protection 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 . The 105 units in a low density residential project would generate about 50 calls per year . A Medium Density Residential project with 225 units would generate about 108 calls . General Commercial would generate the most calls , approximately 116 per year . 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. e.• Parks The closest park to the area of concern is Lambert Park located northwest of Newland Street and Ellis Avenue . It is located within the same quarter section approximately one-quarter mile away. Across Beach Boulevard, south of Talbert Avenue, is another neighborhood park called Terry Park . It is approximately one-quarter mile away but involves the crossing of Beach Boulevard, which may be too great a safety hazard for small children. The nearest community park is just outside of the recommended one and one-half mile service radius, shown in the City' s Recreation Element of the General Plan . Although nearby parks are not abundant, a low or medium density residential development would be adequately served by Lambert Park . ( 0550D) -60- f. Schools The area of concern is currently the site of Crest View Elementary School . Ocean View School District has indicated that presently there is a great need for Crest View School , but there is a possibility that it could be phased out in the long term, perhaps ten years. Crest View School , presently serves the vicinity with grades K-8. If this school is phased out in the long-term future to allow ,development of low or medium density residential buildings or commercial development, the students will have to be accommodated by Oak View and Lake View Elementary Schools and Vista View for seventh and eighth grades. Ocean View High School serves the vicinity of the arba of concern and could accommodate the additional students generated by a residential project . The number of students that would be generated by the residential alternatives are the following: Elementary High Land Use Alternative School School ( 1 ) Low Density (105 Units ) 22 27 ( 2 ) Medium Density ( 225 Units ) 27 9 g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. There is a 4-inch line in Talbert Avenue. -Extension of the 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 either land use alternative. 2 . 5. 2 .5 Traffic and Circulation Access to the study area is presently taken from Lisa Lane which is a local street in the single family subdivision to the south . There ( 0550D) -61- is no existing vehicular access from Talbert Avenue. This circulation system is appropriate for the existing school facility but would not be appropriate for any other land use . A' Low Density and Medium Density land uses could utilize Lisa Lane in conjunction with one other access to Talbert Avenue, but the Commercial alternative would require that the Lisa Lane access be abandoned . Daily traffic volumes projected to be generated by the alternative land use designations are the following: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation Low Density Residential 1 ,260 Average Daily Trips 1.05 units Medium Density Residential 1 ,575 Average Daily Trips 225 units General Commercial (Retail ) 24,500 Average Daily Trips 196, 000 square feet The area of concern is' located 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard. As such project proposals will have to take into consideration proximity to the intersection of Beach Boulevard/Talbert Avenue in the design of ingress and egress to the project whether it is residential or commercial . Since the study area has 1 ,000 feet of frontage along Talbert Avenue, it will be possible to create two major entries into the site for either a commercial or medium density project . The fact that the cemetery on the north side of Talbert Avenue does not have any access to Talbert adds flexibility to the location of access points to the study area. If the property is designated for commercial and is merged with the commercial property to the west, an additional access from Beach Boulevard could possibly be obtained. This access point, however will not permit left hand turns. Overall ,. the additional traffic generated from any of the land use alternatives could be accommodated by Talbert Avenue but may have a detrimental effect on Beach Boulevard which is currently operating over its design capacity . The negative impact would be greater from the commercial alternative than from either of the residential alternatives due to the fact that commercial uses generate many more daily trips than residential uses do. There is adequate public transportation in the vicinity. OCTD currently offers service on Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue with bus stops -at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue and also on Talbert at Hartlund Street. The Orange County Transit District does request, however , that adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be provided. The development project should include paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials . ( 0550D) -62- The 'Orange County Transit District does request, however , that adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be provided. The development project should include paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials . 2 . 5 ..2. 6 Environmental Issues a . Noise Noise levels slightly exceeding Ldn 60 extend into the northwestern portion of the site. This sound level is generated by traffic at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue. The 65 Ldn contour line encroaches a few feet onto the side of the site fronting on Talbert Avenue . For residential uses , these levels are slightly in excess of the acceptable levels given in the City's General Plan of Ldn 60. Features such as setbacks , berming, landscaping and soundwalls should be utilized along Talbert if a residential land use is selected for the site. For a General Commercial use the sound levels are completely within the acceptable range given in the City' s General Plan of Ldn 80 . b. Air Quality Any of the alternatives will adversely affect air quality in the South Coast region, however, the impact is not expected to be significant . Projected daily emissions from each of the alternatives have been calculated and are contained in Appendix B. C . Seismic, Soils and Geology The area of concern lies on a mesa north of all known active or inactive fault zones in the City. 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 is approximately 1 .5 miles from the area of concern . Development on this site, therefore, need not be subject to the zone requirements . In 1974 study, Geotechnical Inputs , prepared for the City by Leighton-Yen and Associates, indicates that the soil in the study area has a moderate to high ( 20%-42% ) clay content. This condition exists in much of the northern half of the City. Since expansive clay soils can cause serious damage to lightly loaded structures, pavements, driveways and sidewalks due to volumetric changes associated with moisture content , a geotechnical study should be done to make proper design recommendations for construction on the property. The Leighton-Yen study did not indicate any peat or organic soils on or near the site . ( 0550D) -63- 2 . 5. 3 Staff Recommendation Although the preceding analysis indicates that a redesignation of the entire study area to General Commercial could result in a - project which could be adequately accessed- and which could be designed to be compatible with surrounding uses, staff feels that such redesignation is not appropriate at this time. The school district has indicated that they presently need Crestview School and that demand will continue for at least ten years. Also, Talbert Avenue is not presently developed as a commercial corridor and there may not be a great deal of market demand for an additional 15. 00 acres of commercial at the subject location. The need to encourage recycling of the commercial property fronting Beach Boulevard immediately west of the study area continues to exist , however. The limited depth ( 260 feet ) of this commercial area is not conducive to construction of a quality- shopping center. Given these considerations, perhaps some portion of the study . area could be designated commercial in order to achieve sufficient depth of frontage on Beach Boulevard to encourage recycling. The majority of existing structures located on the Crestview School site are situated on the eastern 10. 00 acres of the property. Staff, therefore, proposes that the western 5 . 0 gross acres of the study area which abut .the existing commercial property to the west be redesignated for commercial use . This will create a 10. 00 gross acre commercial site which will be conducive to construction of a 116, 000 square foot shopping center on Beach Boulevard. This action will permit Crestview School to continue 'to function while at the same time permitting a quality commercial project to be constructed on Beach Boulevard. -64- 2. 6 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BEACH BOULEVARD AND WARNER AVENUE 2. 6 .1 Background Area. 2. 6 is a request by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to redesignate 4 . 5 acres of property located on the south side of Warner Avenue, 200 feet east of Beach Boulevard (between "A" and "B" Streets ) from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial . The study area was previously designated General Commercial on the General Plan, but was amended to Medium Density Residential in 1977 because sufficient demand for commercial development was not perceived at the time . The redesignafion affected only the study area between "A" and "B" Streets . The area between "A" Street and Beach Boulevard remained General Commercial. The study area is presently characterized by multiple smal'1 Lots and fragmented ownerships with a number of older homes and several strip commercial businesses . The intent of the Redevelopment Agency in requesting this amendment is to facilitate consolidation of ownerships and encourage recycling of the existing uses to a high quality office professional project. ( 0550D) --65- 2. 6 . 2 Analysis The following analysis covers two alternative land use designations: ( 1 ) General Commercial (Offices ) 112,000 Square Feet ( 2 ) Medium Density Residential 65 Units 2 . 6 . 2. 1 Land Use As indicated in Figure 2-14, the study area is presently designated Medium Density Residential on the General Plan. The area to the west , between "A" Street and Beach Boulevard is designated General Commercial . Further to the west (across Beach Boulevard) is also Commercial . Across Warner Avenue to the north is General Commercial on the General Plan, but is presently developed with older commercial and residential uses, much like the study area . Property to the east is designated Medium Density Residential , while property to the south is primarily Low Density Residential with a strip of General Commercial along Beach Boulevard. As shown in Figure 2-15, the study area is zoned primarily. R2 which is consistent with its Medium Density General Plan designation. Two lots fronting on Warner Avenue, however , are zoned C4 and (Q)C4 to permit office uses which are established on them. To the west of the study area (between "A" Street and the access alley 42 feet east of Beach Boulevard ) the zoning is primarily R2 which is not consistent with the General Plan designation of General .Commercial . Existing uses are housing units and a church . The north portion of this area (along Warner Avenue) is zoned C4 and developed with a pet shop . Between the access alley and Beach Boulevard is property zoned C4 and developed with a car wash/gasoline station. Zoning across Warner Avenue to the north is C4 and developed with commercial uses and non-conforming housing units . Property to the east is zoned R2 and developed with two apartment projects totalling 55 units . Property to the south is zoned R1 and developed with a single family subdivision . To the southeast along .Beach Boulevard the zoning is C4 and developed commercially. The study area is situated at an important commercial intersection . and has tremendous potential for office/professional development. • Charter Center is a high quality commercial/office development immediately, across Beach Boulevard to the west . It is felt that- the study area could be designated for an office use which could compliment the Charter Center development and further create an office/professional identity for the Beach/Warner intersection. The study area and adjacent property closer to .Beach Boulevard is presently under-utilized with a mixture of older homes and newer multi-family units as well as several strip-commercial uses . staff has inventoried .residential units in the larger area and has found (0550D) -66- ��� � �■■��■■�� o� � �"'�■ ■sue ,-... . IInNNi ■.0111 IN[. • mill IN .®HIGH ■ MOB f�� y $llllllillll! �� :►•i0iii 0 WON Bobmm . , N mill 2 NOUN Im WOMB WON 0 No WOMB ■� ���� _ p H ��■■Ind h:_ ._:__, . �1■I� BE ■���1■nnn�d �: n - -/�■i�■■� C: MEN Now IN mom mm 001 O. Off■=■N ' r 7 BE mm ■■�1�■■111■n1Is �11� ��._is �nr� r : =. .�..� .■ �1�■�■�■��■■ BRYdNT OR / •..1, w C 4 L � w �) ,a Rr Rr LA iay.• >eC 2 t 'meI LAMBERT / 0 DR :o RI o RI RE RI e00 £ W7e TO t T[RRY OR TERRY DR, u R2 g $ R2 �C4 RE g RI R E � R! R I — W 15N Yl R I LANCASTER DR. ARNETT DR R C4 ,eD 'p RI RI �,A! M�u1ic d1rvE > i 0 C6-� ID _ O. C F. C D C6-2 — "I I H/O ea Iso' IF _ �— } 8 R3 a CA L R2 q4 CF—E M R3 Z e m I`+ ! ar TAMARU J 2n' roL r` R3 {r•:arxF;atiys::lw•rt.l DR.'3 C4 I I R3 cAul s 4 lJ-.. R3 � WARNER AvE — 11� R 5 . ---...__-. _ � x 3 RI RI I J' 5 e° - 1 s _ AMSTERDAM DR C4 MS- x T J R# c` R2I� eo I so IRZ W R2 �`n m !ii1J �, R I R2 R2 J = RI RI RI R2 --L - _-_�_.-.._ - J R1 J RI W crrR[!s — �• a RI MARSEILLE DR R1 POLDER CR 1 C4 R2 I 300 RI RI R2�• R 2 too ITa VALENCIA sr 3161 R I R l w 330 70 3° FRIESLAN --- 1: ' _ �4ANDREL3 DR KRBn#I s1L f p = ea�t RI Z R R3. R3 R3 C 4 ca GUILDERS DR. _ z . aAFTDN DR R3 r RI Rom.CG ) Lj R3 + HOLL--- x I (LADE VIEW S::rYeL) I I 0 0 ;.wx ,..._� . RI . rn rn RI- EPD E PV $ on IC4 96.9,....a �w RI R1 Ri o 0:, R3 -.-� 1196.04R5 N �3 R3 R3 � �..-- 11L ' AVI -- -- 1-----jSLAUR Figure 2-15 T T EXISTING HUN ING ON BEACH C4LIFORNIA EX I ST I NG ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.6 -68- that there are 23 housing units which were constructed prior to 1980 (most are much older than, 1980) and 22 units in multi-family structures which have been° constructed since 1980 . Many of the housing units are in, very poor condition. This' condition; its further exa'derbated' by the` fact that large portions of, "A", and "B" Streets have not been, dedicated and do not have curbs, and' gutters. The intent of the Redevelopment Agency is to redesignate the study . . area for office/professiona-1 uses and stimulate consolidation and recycling of the study area and the adjoining property along Beach Boul'evardi.- Due' to the residential units presently inexistence in the study area, extensive relocation assistance will be necessary as part of any' redevelopment project . Iri terms of compatibility, the existing designation of Medium Density Residential on the study area certainly constitutes a land -use which could be deemed compatible with residential areas to the east and south. Residential on the study . area, however, would not be considered' to be the most desirable land use for the intersection of two of the most heavily traveled arterials in Orange County. Given the nature of the intersection, a commercial land use on the study area would constitute the most compatible and appropriate land use. In fact, an office use of the subject property would provide an effective buffer and transition to the residential areas to the east and south. In order to ensure compatibility of an office use with the adjacent residential areas, certain mitigation measures will be necessary.. The traffic section of this report proposes circulation changes that will limit mixing of commercial and residential traffic. Appropriate setbacks, landscaping and. perimeter walls will also be necessary to ensure compatibility. 2 . 6 . 2 . 2 Economic Considerations The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one year for comparison purposes . The results are summarized in the table below. Appendix A contains a summary of the fiscal impact methodology. Alt . 1 Alt , 2 General Commercial Medium Density Revenue $31, 606 $32, 520 Cost $11, 606 $13, 025 Revenue-Cost $20, 000 $19,495 Revenue/Cost 2 . 72 2 . 50 As shown above, Alternative 2 (Medium Density Residential) generates slightly more net revenue than Alternative 1. Although Medium Density Residential generally produces more cost than Office (0550D) -69- Commercial , the market value and project type assumptions in this analysis caused the two alternatives to generate nearly identical results. In reviewing the above results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs . 2 . 6 . 2 . 3 Housing The Medium Density designation would allow 65 units on the area of . concern. The Housing Element of the City' s General Plan contains policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes; however , the area of concern does not appear to be the most desirable location to encourage and implement residential development . A housing inventory of the area revealed the existence of 22 units less than 10 years old and 23 units older than 10 years for a total of 45 units . The Redevelopment Agency will be responsible for relocating the existing residential uses to a more suitable site. Such action would have the effect of continuing to provide housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes . 2 . 6. 2 . 4 Public Services and Utilities a . Sewers Sewage from the area of concern flows north to Warner Avenue through two existing 8-inch sewer lines; one in "A" Street and the other in "B" Street . The existing lines can provide adequate sewer service to the area of concern under any of the considered land use alternatives . b. Water Water mains in the area of concern include an 8-inch line in "B" Street and an 8-inch line in Blaylock Drive. These existing mains can provide adequate water service to the site under any of the considered land use alternatives. c . Storm Drains Public works has indicated that approximately 75 percent of the study area drains northwest to Beach Boulevard where it enters the Caltrans drainage system via a catch basin located at the . intersection of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue . The remaining 25 percent of the site flows south where it enters the City drainage system. Commercial development of the site would produce more runoff than existing residential use . The City system can accommodate the increased runoff , but Caltrans should be contacted regarding existing capacities within their system prior to commercial construction on the site . ( 0550D) -70- d. Police and Fire Protection Police service for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach which operates from the 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 the two alternatives , Medium Density Residential would generate the most calls, approximately 95. Fire protection for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach from the Murdy Station located north of Heil Avenue on the west side of Gothard Street . The area of concern lies within the five-minute response time area of the station and .can be adequately serviced regardless of the selected alternative. e. Parks The area of concern is located northwest of a 3. 0 acre Lake view neighborhood park . The park analysis indicates that park capacities within the quarter section in which the study area is located would be considered - adequate to serve recreation and park needs generated by residential development within the study area . Furthermore, the redesignation of the area from residential to commercial would decrease the demand on the park capacity. f . Schools The area of concern is located within the Oceanview School District and is served by Lakeview Elementary School and Oceanview -High School . Due to a downward trend in student enrollment, the schools can easily accommodate the students generated by the existing Medium Density designation . The Commercial designation alternative would have no impact on the area 's schools. g. Gas and Electric Utilities Natural gas service is provided in the area of concern by the Southern California Gas Company. Existing 2-inch lines in- "A" and "B" Streets 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 is provided by 12 Kv distribution lines in the vicinity. 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 . ( 0550D) -71- h . Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City of Huntington Beach . No local constraints are expected under any of the proposed land use designations . 2 . 6. 2 .5 Traffic and Circulation Access to the study area is presently taken via "A" and "B" Streets which connect to Warner Avenue to the north and Blaylock Drive to the south which connects to Beach Boulevard further to the east, The Beach and Blaylock intersection features a median break which permits left turns to and from Beach Boul'evard,- though there is no traffic signal . Blaylock Drive also provides direct access to the residential subdivision south of the study area. "A" and "B" Streets at Warner Avenue are both unsignalized. "A" Street does not permit left turns from Warner but "B" Street features a median break in Warner , which does permit left turns, "B" ,Street is presently utilized 'for access by the study area' as well as by the residential areas east and south of the study area. Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue are both presently operating at or near full capacity for their designated arterial status. Beach Boulevard conveys 60,000 daily trips and Warner Avenue conveys 32 , 000 daily trips in the vicinity of the study area . Daily traffic volumes projected to be generated by the alternative land use designations are the following: Land Use Alternative Daily Traffic Generation ( 1 ) General Commercial 1 , 680 Average Daily Trips (office/professional 112 ,000 square feet ) ( 2 ) Medium Density Residential 455 Average Daily Trips ( 65 units ) As indicated in the above table the office/professional use would generate more traffic than the existing designation of Medium Density Residential . In fact, since redevelopment of the study area would also include redevelopment of the 2 .5 acres fronting Beach Boulevard, then traffic .generated by the office alternative may actually increase to 2 ,680 average daily trips. If the designation remains Medium Density. Residential , then the existing circulation system of "A" and "B" Streets and Blaylock Drive can be retained in their present configuration with no changes . - A redesignation of the study area to General Commercial, however , . may necessitate some circulation changes in order to accommodate - the additional traffic to be generated. Public Works has suggested that Blaylock Drive and Granada Lane to the south could be closed off ~72- ( 0550D) with• a knuckle where they intersect in order to eliminate the intrusion of commercial traffic into the residential neighborhood. Blaylock would still intersect Beach Boulevard, but it would function only as a major driveway for commercial projects to the north and south of it. On the north side of the study area, "B" Street could be signalized and could be utilized as a minor entrance for the study area as well as access for the residential areas to the east and south. Signalization of "B" Street will be especially important if a change of General Commercial is approved on the Ocean View School_ District site across Warner Avenue to the north. "A" Street would most likely be abandoned and consolidated into the commercial development . A right turn only driveway could then be constructed into the study area at mid-block on both Warner Avenue and Beach . With this proposed circulation system, most of the access to the study area would be limited to right turns in and out only. The proximity of the study area to the heavily used intersection of Beach and Warner precludes striping for left turns in and out of the project. _ With regard to public transportation, the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) offers bus service near the study area on both Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. The OCTD does not foresee .any significant impact from the alternatives on the existing or any future transit services in the study area . The Orange County Transit District does request, however , that adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be provided . The development project should include paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials . 2 .6 . 2 . 6 Environmental Issues a. Noise Noise levels of Ldn 70, Ldn 65 and Ldn 60 extend into the area of concern from Beach Boulevard and from Warner Avenue. These levels fall within the normally acceptable range of commercial uses, but slightly exceed the range of residential uses . No significant noise impact is anticipated to occur from any of the proposed land uses . The area of concern is bordered by residential on two sides , and care should be taken at the project level to protect such residential areas from excessive noise generated on the area of concern . b. Air Quality Development of the area of concern under any of the alternative land use designations would adversely affect air quality in the South Coast Air Basin, primarily due to increased automobile traffic generated by the additional housing units or professional offices. Projected daily emissions from the area are indicated in Appendix B. (0550D) -73- s � C. Seismic, Soils and Geology In compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard 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 area of concern. 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 area when a specific project is proposed for development. A 1974 study, Geotechnical Inputs, prepared for the City by Leighton-Yen and Associates, indicates that the soil in the study area has a moderate to high ( 20 percent - 42 percent ) clay content . This condition exists in much of the northern half of the City. Since expansive clay soils can cause serious damage to lightly loaded structures, pavements, driveways and sidewalks due to volumetric changes associated with moisture content, . a geotechnical study should be done to make proper design recommendations . for construction on the property. The Leighton-Yen study did not indicate any peat or organic soils on the immediate site, though a probable peat location was identified to the east . 2. 6 . 3 Staff Recommendation Given the commercial potential of the intersection at Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue, staff feels that the existing designation of Medium Density Residential is an inappropriate use of the study area. Residential development of the study area would be considered incompatible with the traffic and noise generated on Beach Boulevard. Additionally, many of the existing residential structures are in disrepair and the existing "A" and "B" Street system is inefficient and outdated. Staff, therefore, recommends that the study area be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial and that a specific plan for the property be initiated. The specific plan should be developed in conjunction with the specific plan recommended by staff for' Area 2. 7 of this document which is located across Warner Avenue to the north. This specific plan would ensure integrated commercial development of the Beach Boulevard/Warner Avenue intersection. It will be very important that the Redevelopment Agency keep the residents and property owners informed about the relocation assistance which will be available as the Beach Boulevard Corridor Redevelopment Project progresses and plans for the study area are developed. -74- { i t i i 2 . 7 NORTH SIDE OF WARNER AVENUE EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD 2 . 7•. 1 Ba'ckgroun Area 2 . 7 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to redesignate 20 . 50 acres located on the north side of Warner Avenue, 500 feet east of Beach Boulevard, from Low' Density Residential to General Commercial . The site is presently owned by the Oceanview School District and - is utilized as district offices on the western half and as a school bus maintenance facility on the eastern half . The property has recently been included within the proposed Beach Boulevard Corridor Project .area for possible development as a retail commercial shopping center . As such, the redevelopment staff has requested that a commercial land use designation be analyzed for the property. R 2 . 7 . 2 Analysis The following analysis examines three land use alternatives for the subject ',property: -(1) Low Density Residential 133 Units (2) Medium Density Residential 307 Units (3)` General Commerci'al -•(Retail) . 268, 000 Square Feet (0550D) -75- s 2. 7. 2. 1 Land Use As indicated in Figures 2-16, and 2-17, the area of concern is presently general planned for low density residential and is zoned CF-E (Community Facilities-Educational District ) . Rancho View. School which is now closed and used only as school district offices is located on the western thirteen acres of the property. The school athletic fields are used for Little League baseball games and soccer . - The eastern seven acres of the site are utilized by the school district as a school bus maintenance and repair facility. The district wishes to relocate the school district offices but has no plans at this time to relocate the bus repair facility. Property. to the west of the study area is general planned commercial but is developed with a mixture of uses . Along the west side of "B" Street -are four older homes and an Edison sub-station. Along "A" Street are 12 older - homes . Along Beach Boulevard is an older . shopping center which has recently been- remodeled. On Warner- Avenue between Beach Boulevard and "B" Street are a gasoline station, a liquor store, and a Econo , Lube. -Most of this property is zoned C4 and the residential uses are non-conforming with the zoning. The Edison sub-station is zoned'R3. To the north of- the study area is an Orange County Flood Control. District channel (C6-2') which varies in width from 75 to 100 feet . Directly across the channel to the north is a low density single family subdivision. Property to the east of the study area is designated medium density on the general. plan and is zoned R3. The property i.s% developed, with older apartments. An alley separates the apartment" projec`t'' from the- study ,area. Across Warner Avenue to the south of the study. area is property general planned both low and 'medium 'density residential : .` The low density property 'is adjacent. to. the e astern half, ,of' the study area: The zoning is RI and the property is developed As "a single family subdivision. The nearest, uni'ts back ' onto Warner . Avbnue. The medium density property ( zoned R2) is located across Warner Avenue from the western half of the study area., This property is developed with apartments . ' , The. City redevelopment staff ,have 'requ4sted that a general commercial land use designation be' considered 'for the study .area. Assuming 30 percent lot coverage, a 268, 000 square foot retail commercial shopping center could be constructed on the site , Such a center could be either a typical multi-tenant community center with two major anchors , or -a single .tenant such as a Price Club. If only the western half of 'the ' site w d ere eveloped commercially, a 170, 000 square foot shopping center with similar tenant possibilities could be constructed. it is also possible .th,at the Beach .Boulevard ' Corridor Project ,could ;consolidate the non-conforming parcels along "A" and *B* Streets, to- ,the west and incorporate ' them into a larger project on the study area . This action would require, the relocation or consolidation of the Edison substation 'on "B* Street . FAR MUM mm ME XMIS milli III ��■■■ �� 6��■■■■■ I■■I■■■I■■■� I■I ■ ■ :; '�I�/ III■■ I 1 III ■/ ■ � m ■■�■■_ l■I■■ I I� / ■■■■■ _� ■o■, , IIII■ � 11 s ■ : � �_ ` �-III■ II■ ■� I I �I�■■I � � 1►r■■■ MIN GIs J� a , .a vo II1111 IM ME �� ■■i. ■■■ r■■■-■mini iII1�� ■ ■ _ `�ixi,iflk/III/11III11\►�II� IIIIIIIII IIII■ sm mom '` ■■Ir ■ MEDIU �■ DENS-ITY AI � ,■ ■i ' /1� ■1■ _.;-•...� �'�. ■IIIII ■■■ •� NINEIN I loom �� � �•�� �I'� IIIIIIIII � � __=■■II III � � • i M � �''"' ■■III■IIII� � ■■� ■ �IIII�II � }.,J� ■I r���■ ■■III C��,� ■■ ■�I■I■ I!I■■Ir ; � � ■IIII �:�'' III / ■II II,IIIIgill �III■II■3 i a , !■ 1n -hy l R2 _ C4 'V I H IL I L_ _ �= U cw J cl r_z a ; oR R I RI I U U U 5 U J L015 CR . RI "V v� �,. RI RI RE RI RI W RI Rt n RI RI RE RI Rl s C4 0. 0 p 2 ; = DONALD CR �I Asa a� RI C 4 aaU5H DR RI Y � , Gti CHRYSLER flR. RI RI LJUEJRY CR _------ BRYANT DR C4 t o RIR! LAMAR LAMBERT DR Ri G 1114 t i 20 RI Ri RI RI [;ORINCCR TO L TEMIY OR TERRY DR R2 � � W iZ3 R2 C4 RI $ RE RI RI Ri RI RI _ ("�/I LANCASTER DR. ARNETT DR ARNETT DR ' C4,°o a RE Ri Ri F. c•�o O Ce-1 DAIaeR J ID O C F. c D Ce-2 1 0. din- - ea C MME M R 'i� 3tOX4 R3iN R2 J. c_a K TAMARUzn' mD R '#R ,�� R3 f. :: Ljl R3 C4 iinn Iri [c i iii' >''ri`i>c >_ c_`; [ : :=; _ ;i: I WARNER Avr- R2 R5 — --- ---_ ,G ac ` N RI RI .l I CITY a AMSTERDAM R I 4 M III _ ' RI R 2 3o s IR2 Ii2 2 R2 N , W 8YG OR 4 �N EW CR � N N Iw- Ix i ao 3W ' Lk W~ RI c I ,o R� r p r� us L R I R 2 I R G DR. RI RI RI NaT 40 RI RI W L—j CY'11053 — — J '� o RI MARSEILLE DR I ¢ POLDER CR f R2 A ,. so C4 '. R2- 300 RI cr RI .a- R R ono r VALENCIA DR to E R I R I R 3 _ ». 330 TO E fRl ^ i L RI J HANDBELL DR KRL4nN cR, z R3 R3 R3 I^4 ; I Ic 4 GUILDERS D, } i Figure 2-17 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIN EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2 .7 —78— If the study area were retained as low density residential on the General, Plan, a maximum of 133 condominiums could be constructed . A . medium density *General Plan designation would permit 307 condominiums to be constructed.. In terms of compatibility with surrounding uses, the existing low density land use designation would certainly have the least impact . The nature of the surrounding uses , however, may indicate that a higher intensity use could be equally compatible on the site. ' The commercial- area (and Edison , sub-station) to 'the west would be compatible with either a medium density residential or general commercial land use designation on the subject property. Likewise, the medium density apartment project to the east of the study area could also be considered to be compatible adjacent to either medium density or general .commercial . The rear of the study area is defined by a flood control channel which provides separation from the single family subdivision to the north. While medium density residential would generally be considered to be more compatible with a single family neighborhood, the buffering provided by the flood control channel in combination with building setbacks could allow 'a general commercial land use to be compatible -as well . The single family subdivision across Warner Avenue to the south of the study area is constructed with the units facing .into the subdivision rather than toward Warner Avenue. . As such a commercial land use designation would have little impact on these units . The major impact would be related to traffic which is addressed separately in this report . The medium density apartments which are also across Warner Avenue to the south would be compatible with either medium density, or general commercial . Since the apartments are adjacent to the western half of the study area, commercial on the western half of the study area would probably be more compatible with uses across Warner than commercial on the entire site. Analysis of land uses along- Warner Avenue throughout the City limits indicates the predominance of medium and high density' and commercial uses rather than low density. Warner Avenue has in fact developed as a high intensity corridor largely because of its status as a major arterial . Low density uses are generally sheltered from major arterials by higher density and commercial uses directly on the arterials . In view of this consideration,, Medium .Density or Commercial on the subject -property maybe consistent with previous development policies in the City. 2 . 7 . 2 . 2 ; Egongmic Considerations The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in this "amendment . The revenues- and expenditures associated with each alteznative were predicted for one. year .for comparison purposes . The results are summarized' in the table below. Appendix A contains a summary of the fiscal impact methodology. (0550D) -79 e i Alt 1 Alt . 2 Alt . 3 -:Low Density Medium Density Commercial Revenue $82 , 644 $155, 229 $428 , 386 Cost $36 , 779 $ 61, 024 $ 38 , 196 Revenue-Cost '$45i865 $ 94, 205 $390, 190 Revenue/Cost 2 . 25 2 . 54 11 . 22 As shown. above, Alternative 3 (General Commercial-Retail) generates the most net revenue and the highest revenue to cost ratio. The" primary factor contributing to the significant difference between Alternative. 3 and the -other alternatives were the sales tax revenue assumpt-ions used in the analysis . In reviewing the above results it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms .only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs . 2 . 7 . 2 . 3 - Housing The Housing .Element of the City' s General Plan contains policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes . The existing designation of -low density residential would result in approximately 133 housing units . Such units would not be expected to be affordable for low or moderate income households . The 307 units which could be constructed under a medium density scenario could possibly be affordable to moderate income households . A general commercial designation on the site would reduce housing -opportunities in the City. It should also be noted that the. housing element contains a policy stating that surplus school. sites should be utilized for residential use where appropriate and consistent with the General Plan. 2 . 7 . 2 . 4 Public Services and Utilities a . Sewers The . subject property .is located in Sanitation District No . 3 . ' An eight inch City sewer in Warner Avenue and "B" Street will convey sewage from -the site into a 69 inch County Main Trunk in Warner . , Avenue . The commercial alternative will generate approximately twice •as much sewage as low density and approximately 30 percent more than ;the medium density.. The. Orange County Sanitation District has expressed concerns about increasing sewage generation City-wide but have indicated that the proposed project can be accommodated. b. Water The school district offices are presently served by an on-site water well . The bus maintenance facility is serviced by a. 6-inch connector extending from another -6-inch line in Minors Lane to .the east . . That line feeds from a 21-inch main in Warner Avenue. (0550D) -80- Construction of any new project on the subject property will require completion of the 6 ich connector from the maintenance facility westward to "B" Street . Depending upon the nature of the project approved, the extensions could be a 12 or 18-inch line. In any scenario, sufficient water is available from the 21-inch mai , line in Warner Avenue. c. Storm Drains Public Works has indicated that any construction on the subject property will require reconstruction of an existing City catch basin located in "B" Street adjacent to the flood control channel . Water from that catch basin will then be pumped directly into the channel . Any low density, medium density or commercial project will require an on-site drainage system flowing to the reconstructed catch basin. d. Police and Fire Protection The Fire Department has indicated that the subject property is within the standard five-minute response time distance from both the Murdy° and Gothard fire stations . In addition, according to the City ' s Automatic Aid Response Agreement , units from Fountain Valley could also be expected to respond to the site . The Fire Department has no concerns regarding residential or commercial development on the site , provided adequate access and on-site circulation are supplied. 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 . Dow density residential would generate 191 calls, medium density 442 calls and commercial 158 calls . e . Parks The area of concern has been scheduled for future development of a 3 .0 acre Neighborhood Park . In 1984, however , the City Council reduced the priority for development of this park site. A part of the consideration for reduction in priority was that the site is presently used for little league and soccer without the need for immediate City improvement . Development of the entire site for commercial uses would eliminate the possibility of future park improvements . A low or medium density residential designation , however , would likely permit the City to retain some portion of the site for park purposes . ( 0550D) -81- If the site is developed commercially with no park retention, the entire quarter secticii (bounded by Warner Avenue, Beach Boulevard, Heil Avenue and Newland Street ) will have no existing or proposed neighborhood park . The nearest park sites would be Lake View across Warner Avenue to the south and Pleasant View across Newland Street to the east . The existence of Huntington Central Park approximately one mile from the study area will further allow park demand to be met , but it would still be desirable to have a neighborhood park within the- quarter section. f. Schools The area of concern is located within the Oceanview School District and is served by Lakeview Elementary School and Oceanview High School . Due to a downward trend in student enrollment, the schools could accommodate the increase in students generated by either a low or medium density designation. The Commercial designation alternative would have no impact on the area 's schools . The number of students that would be generated by the residential alternatives are the following: Elementary High Land Use Alternative School School Low Density (133 Units ) 27 29 Medium Density ( 207 Units ) 24 8 g . Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Extension of the 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 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 . ( 0550D) -82 2 . 7 . 2 . 5 Traffic andit Access to the school district offices and baseball diamonds on the western portion of the study area is presently taken via "B" Street . Additionally, "B" Street can be accessed via either Warner Avenue to the south or Rubidoux Street to the north, which intersects Beach Boulevard. Access to the bus maintenance facility on the eastern portion of the property is taken via a private driveway from Warner Avenue directly across from Rotterdam Lane. None of the- access points to the study area are presently signalized. Daily traffic volumes projected to be generated by the alternative land use designations are the following: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation Low Density Residential 1, 600 Average Daily Trips Units ' Medium Density Residential 2, 149 Average Daily Trips Units General Commercial (Retail) 18, 500 Average Daily Trips As indicated above, the low density alterative would generate approximately 1, 600 daily vehicle trips while the medium density alternative would produce approximately 2, 149 daily trips . Both of these alternatives could be accommodated with the existing access points at "B" Street and Rotterdam. Under the medium density scenario it may be desirable to signalize the Rotterdam intersection. A redesignation of the study area to General Commercial would produce approximately 18, 500 daily vehicle trips . This volume of traffic, when added to the existing 32, 000 average daily trips on Warner Avenue, will have a significant impact on the surrounding circulation system. The intersection of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard is heavily impacted at this time by existing development . Commercial development of the study area, particularly in conjunction with commercial development of LUE 87-1 Area 2 . 6 on the southeast corner of Warner and Beach, will contribute substantially to the further deterioration of traffic flow through the Beach and Warner intersection. The City Traffic Engineering section has indicated that prior to commercial development of any portion of the study area, a traffic study analyzing arterials in the surrounding area should be prepared . Specifically, the need for widening the Newland Street freeway overpass should be examined as well as new traffic controls at Warner and Beach and Warner and Magnolia . Such controls could include elimination of left turns during certain times of the day. (0550D) -83- In terms of direct access to the site , commercial development would likely require the signalization of either Rotterdam or "B" Street at Warner Avenue. Rubidoux Street at Beach Boulevard could be used as a secondary access, but signalization would not be desirable due to its close proximity to the Warner Avenue intersection. With regard to public transportation, the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) offers bus service near the study area on both Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue . The OCTD does not foresee any significant impact from the alternatives on the existing or any future transit services in the study area. The Orange County Transit District does request, however , that adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be provided. The development project should include paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials . 2 . 7 . 2 . 6 Environmental Issues a . Noise Noise levels of Ldn 65 and 60 extend into the western portion of the site from both Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard . Levels of 70 Ldn occur along the southern property line adjacent to Warner Avenue. These levels fall within the normally acceptable range for commercial uses, but slightly exceed the range for residential uses . Setbacks, berming, landscaping and soundwalls should be utilized along Warner Avenue and "B" Street if a residential land use is selected. No significant noise impacts are expected to occur from either of the residential alternatives . The commercial alternative, however , may have noise impacts on surrounding residential uses. The separation provided by the flood control channel to the north and Warner Avenue to the south will mitigate noise impacts from the area somewhat but other controls should also be designed into any commercial project on the 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 three alternatives have been calculated and are contained in Appendix B . C . Seismic , Soils and Geology The area of concern lies within the Newport-Inglewood Fault zone, however, there are no known faults in the immediate vicinity of the property. The nearest known fault is the Bolsa-Fairview approximately one and one-half miles to the south . No unusual seismic considerations need be applied to the site . ( 0550D) -84- A 1974 study, Geotechnical Inputs, prepared for the City by ,Leighton-Yen and Associates, indicates that the soil in the study area has a moderate to high (20%--42%) clay content. This condition exists in much of the northern half of the City. Since expansive clay soils can cause serious damage to lightly loaded structures, - pavements, driveways and sidewalks due to volumetric changes associated with moisture content, a geotechnical study should be done to make proper design recommendations for construction on the property. The Leighton-Yen study did not indicate any peat or organic soils on the immediate site, though -a probable peat location was identified to the east and southeast. There are presently fuel storage tanks located on the eastern seven acres of the property which are used for fueling the school district' s buses. Excavation of those tanks should proceed according to City and State standards prior to any construction on the property. E 2. 7.2 -Staff Recommendation Staff has concerns regarding the ability to effectively mitigate commercial development of the entire 20. 5 acre study area. The School District has also indicated that they presently have no plans to , relocate the bus maintenance facility on the eastern 7. 0 acres of the study area . Staff, is, therefore.- ' hesitant to recommend commercial development of the entire study area. The western 13 . 5 acres is situated in a way that will allow commercial development to be designed in a manner compatible with surrounding uses . As indicated in the traffic section of this report, "B" Street may perhaps be signalized in conjunction with the redevelopment project on the south side -of Warner Avenue. The western 13 . 5 acres are also adjacent to the under-utilized property along "A" and "B" Streets which could be rolled into the project area to obtain Beach Boulevard exposure. The Edison substation on "B" Street will bi-sect the two areas but the substation could possibly be relocated. Rather than redesignating only the western 13 . 5 acres of the study area for commercial development, staff recommends that a Mixed Development designation be placed on the entire site. Mixed Development will permit the same commercial and residential uses which were analyzed in this document, but will also permit greater flexibility in designing an economically viable and residentially compatible project for the study area. Perhaps the western portion could be designed for commercial development and the eastern portion designed for medium density residential and public park development . (0550D) $5" R A specific plan could be prepared to implement the Mixed Development land use desiQration. Staff would further recommend that the specific plan be expanded to include the previously discussed Area 2. 6 on the southeast side of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard as well as".the commercial property on the northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard. The public hearing process for the , specific plan would ensure input from surrounding property owners regarding the mix of uses' permitted and would encourage development of an integrated commercial node on all four corners of the 'Beach Boulevard/Warner Avenue intersection. A traffic study of the arterials. and intersections in . the vicinity should be completed prior to adoption of the specific plan. -86- (0550D) 2. 8 North of Warner Avenue/East of Algonquin Street 2. 8. 1 Background The following request has been initiated by the Department of Development Services as part of a program to achieve consistency between the General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning Ordinance. This item has been covered with a negative declaration. - The area of concern contains 8. 31 gross acres of land located north of Warner Avenue and east of Algonquin Street (Figures 2-18 and 2-19 ) . The property is zoned R3 (Medium High Density Residential ) and contains a variety of uses, including medium high density four-plexes (at 17. 6 units per gross acre) and condominiums (at 22. 1 units per gross acre) , and an older single family home on a large R3 lot. The area of concern is surrounded by' high density uses on three sides as well as medium density condominiums to the north, and low density single family homes to the west. In addition, a proposed project has been filed on 2.4 acres within the area of concern, the site of the single family home mentioned above. The applicant desires to build a project consistent with the R3 zoning classification; however , the existing General Plan -87- ( 0550D) � . '�� � ..-. .- rr �r` :rr :ems •♦� � �■r . , .., �,�� �. �� �I♦.���-.ice-'�- IM loom • � ..�.�� � I lam+'..Y.Y...■+���•• �/ T. e mill INK, ♦ son 11111H p,� 11 111111 �-1 �■ �,� _!' i���111� � �` F x 1111111111 r-�I/h. �.... wasum Ell .• _ ill■ i � -11 1111�I �� ��� � � 11111111113��►�i_i� � �_ } �� ' - ■■ 1 1111111111 �� � i �� � :�a J v IIIIIIIIII��I�liiiiiallll �' -■ _ 1111111111 1111111111 � _ � - �■ '' ��.a°" IIIIIIIIII `1.111111111 =°_:=°'� �II�II�I� i�l. �■�� ���■ s� 1111111111 1111111111 � :� � �►�=.�= �,.��_f■■ ===-,111...E �.■�_. r , � 4 ahc a i — AVE 3 R3 Fe9 w j AK R2 R2 R2 C4 I w FZs SCMO-,: R2 R3 j CF-R : R2 —ay MOMICK K[ V G x CF-R R2 >� � R3 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 29r . �vl2�v ` ctilllc7l " R2 S tR2�:� R2 IN �`----------• PEARCE 5T. Q raMiccet � O R2 i R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R3" -a ti C4—CZ MI YILO sr. R3 — a R R3 C 2 � �.y � .,~ "�b' Fcz WARNER AVE —r— RI-CI R I-CZ RI-CI > .E RI- N R3 Q ,� R3s a Iw �. UNCHL.LU �Y a FMR3 R3 C4' : RI-CZ `� "Oi� R r�Z R R2 RY R3-19 5 - 1 ST 3nr `L U RI �i li _ R3 . ,� RI RI �e ; r �' ' RI-CZ RI-CZ RI-CZ Ri AVE RI-CZ RI-CZ RI N - . RI-CZ cy N -C_ Figure 2-19 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LFORNIA EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2,8 3 designation of medium density limits the site to a lower number of units than allowed by the zoning. Due to this inconsistency, the Planning Commission tabled this request on October 7, 1986 until such time as the land use designation and zone district are brought into conformance. 2. 8 . 2 Analysis Existing development within the area of concern exceeds the density allowed under the General Plan designation of medium density, which is fifteen units per gross acre. Rezoning to implement the General Plan would render existing uses nonconforming and possibly limit property values. Redesignation to medium high density would more accurately reflect existing uses both within and on three sides of the area. At the time of public hearings for Land Use Element No. 85-2, this area of concern was discussed by the Planning Commission. A concern expressed at that time was that the City should initiate a rezoning on all the existing developments to cad the density at that which is existing. The problem with this idea is that with the variety of densities and parcel sizes, it would be impossible to choose a zoning density suffix that could be applied evenly to the properties . One option would be to take the project with the highest density within the area, the condominiums developed at 22.1 units per gross acre, and use this density figure as a cap for the zoning rather than the 25 units per gross acre allowed by the medium high density general plan designation. A second option would be separately rezoning the different areas with one cap for the condominium project and a separate one for the four-plexes ( 17. 6 units per gross acre) . One problem here is that the same cap will not work for all of the four-plex lots. The lot at the northwest corner of warner Avenue and Sims Street, as a corner lot, has a much greater gross acreage. By using a density suffix, it could accommodate a greater number of units than other lots of similar or even larger size. The final option, which is staff 's recommendation, would be to leave the R3 zoning as it is without any density suffix after changing the general plan designation to medium high density residential. It is a difficult mechanical problem to add a density suffix that will work the way it is intended. Staff does not see a great advantage to limiting the density to slightly less than that which is permitted by the general plan designation since medium high density land uses would be compatible and, in fact, would be less dense than the surrounding high density residential uses surrounding the area of concern on three sides . ( 0550D) -90' 2. 8. 3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that: the area of concern be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density residential in order to achieve consistency with the General Plan and zoning. Staff further recommends that the existing R3 zoning be retained without the addition of density suffixes . ( 0550D) -91- � A 1 92- 2. 9 North Side of Garfield Avenue/East of Beach Boulevard 2. 9 .1 Background Area of concern 2. 9 is a request by Lanny Ludwick to redesignate 2 . 24 acres from Medium Density and Low Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential in order to achieve consistency between the General Plan and zoning . This item has been covered by a negative declaration . The study area is located on the north side of Garfield Avenue approximately 570 feet east of Beach Boulevard. As shown in Figure 2-20, the western 1 . 37 acres are designated Medium Density on the General Plan, while the eastern .87 acre is designated Low Density. As shown in Figure 2-21 , the zoning is R3 on the entire property. The applicant has an approved R3 apartment project on the Medium Density portion of the study area but cannot construct the project because of the recently determined General plan inconsistency. This General Plan Amendment request is intended to bring the applicant ' s property, as well as the adjacent property to the east into consistency with the existing zoning. ( 0550D) -93- �y � �■�r� -ems��":"r - :.w�.rsfMn-. '.�. c�n.t^.e.`�:?rr•«t�"+..z wf��.a��ar^.... ��j- . `"S-��.�A��� . �•rr"".`c..s�x.-sr.vcss-r • . � ... � - ��. -`Ems Eli WOMEN ice'_ ■�IIi��1 �� i i!`'�, �" ff��•77� �:;-..-�.,�-� u. ■ AM 0 s■■■[ i t ■ ' 1 a :� r _— '"�� • ��-�� �` �� �� it HUM 01111111-1 milli ��u■�■■■Him ��r11 � r/11 .■����t��•,�. %��� sii� 1!�r� �=i�� �N ■■�-�� � �i/N�. `� �I/ � ��11�* �r i �� �■cif . r ' R3 R3 — R3 - eo R3 'C4 -ou- Z I r R2. v RI I; ' 'A I RI-PD' I o i -RI o RI RIanr,a ' R2 R2 ..R2 g P • � _�:. I I a I I mow_ R3 3 ; R C4 'lR2 PD6 R3 R3 I r I R3 I I R2 R2 � R3 MH ; u 1 ;I R3 BR.r' [R3F-:'F13� i_.._.-------JIJ C^ R2 ` R3 i m I I 't I I •jf�edq}i l oa I I .o .�.., -PR3 �- I I R3 Mrs'. R�3 7° :3 RI .spy.(. C CONSTANT i R3 RI t z F R2 R2 R 3 Rr s W I I F I 4 . " y � R I Ri m R2 R2 ... I I GARFIELD RI RI J R{ Ri 'R2-PD RI ` RI = RIB ` RI I RI RI 0 r o MMClU7 [N S OEAUVLU OR. = s w RI RI RI Rl Cr=-Fr .. _. R[M CA Rl x,rr CR. RA CR M RI �.a, CF—E R1 RI R RI � Ri oa o {i'EWY 5G'C<�Ll nWALO LR C. I - RB__ Rr I ic4, I Mi R1 Figure 2-22 HUNTINGTOIJ BEACH CALIFORNIA EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.9 -95- 2. 9. 2 Analysis Existing land uses in the study area are entirely residential . The 1 .37 acre parcel which is General Planned as Medium Density and is zoned as R3 is currently under-utilized with older homes . The applicant presently has a 34 unit apartment project approved for the site . The project is approved at a density of 24. 3 units per acre which is consistent with the R3 zoning on the property. The eastern two parcels in the study area which are also zoned R3, but General Planned as Low Density Residential , are currently developed to R3 zoning standards . Both of the parcels have a dwelling unit density of greater than 20 units per acre . Development on these parcels is, therefore, inconsistent with the maximum density of seven units per acre for Low Density property. The surrounding land uses in the area are also entirely residential . The area west and north of the study area is zoned R3 and General Planned as Medium Density Residential. The existing density of the area is generally consistent with its corresponding land use designations of Medium Density, although most of the developed densities are slightly higher than the 15 units per acre allowed by Medium Density Residential . This study does not address the General Plan inconsistencies in this area since they are slight, and are not currently at issue. Staff will, however , review the situation and possibly correct the inconsistencies with either a zone change or a General Plan Amendment at a later date. The property to the' east of the study area is General Planned for Low Density and zoned R1 . The existing single family development on this area is consistent with the General Plan and zoning. The property across Garfield Avenue to the south is General Planned Medium Density Residential and is zoned R2 . A condominium project on the property is presently being reviewed by the Planning Commission. In reviewing the applicant ' s request for a general plan amendment to Medium High Density, it is important to examine the impact it will have on surrounding uses . In fact, the applicant 's property is surrounded on all four sides by Medium to Medium High Density Residential projects . The requested Medium High Density designation is certainly compatible with all of these uses. while Medium High Density would not generally be considered compatible with the Low Density area to the east, the fact is that Medium High Density projects already exist on the property adjacent to the single family area . A Medium High Density designation on this property then would be appropriate to reflect the existing land use and zoning. ( 0550D) -96- 2.9. 3 Staff Recommendation In view of the existing densities on the eastern portion of the subject property and in consideration of the surrounding land uses, staff recommends approval of the request to change the land use designation to Medium High Density. This change will bring the General Plan into consistency with the existing zoning and will more accurately reflect existing development in the area. ( 0550D) _. -9'7- 3.0 ENVIRONM.ENTAL 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 changes in Section 2 . 0, 3. 1 SHORT.-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Amendment 87-1-1 does not in and of itself create long term impacts . Rather , it makes changes in the general type of land uses that may be allowed on a 1.particular area at the time qf. development. Amendment 87-1 seeks to identify short-range ' issues within a context Of long-range goals, policies, and environmental planning programs . The amendment itself ac,t,s as a mitigation measure designed, to minimize any adverserm effects on .dong .term productivity resulting fom One of the steps required to implement the amendment is an analysis of the zone changes necessary to }wring 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 . ( 0550D) r 99-..- 3 . 2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The Amendment EIR addresses mitigation measures for most adverse effects . However, irreversible environmental change of a secondary nature can be expected from development under the proposed amendments. 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 674* persons could be generated by uses under Land Use Element Amendment 87-1, 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 City-wide to reduce these impacts. WATER Interior 1 . Supply line pressure: Water pressure greater than 50 .pounds per square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve. 2 . prinking fountains: Drinking fountains be.equipped with self-closing valves. 3 . Hotel roams: Conservation reminders be posted in .rooms and restrooms. Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be installed for bath/shower. * A population of 674 additional persons reflects alternatives for Areas 2. 1 - 2. 7 which would increase residential densities on these sites., and does not include persons who would be expected under, existing densities on those sites. This population number is less than the figure listed in the initial study due to refinements made by staff in.•:the time since the initial study was prepared. (0 5 5 0D) -100- 4 . . LaundryEacil%ties: Water-conserving models of washers be used. 5. tg: Water-conserving models of dishwashers be used or spary emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced flow. Drinking water be served upon request only. 6 . U_jtra-low-f lush_toi letj: ` 1 1/2 gallon per flush toilets be installed in all new construction. Exterior.: 1. Landscape with low--water-using plants wherever feasible. 2 . Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses, such as playing fields . When lawn is used, require warm season grasses.. 3 : Group plants of similar water use to reduce over irrigation of low-water-using plants. 4 . . Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low-water-using landscaping and sources of additional assistance. 5 . Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas . Mulch applied on top of soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. 6 . Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs . Established plants are often adapted to low-water-using conditions and their use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetation. 7 Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water that will reach- the plant roots . Dip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic . irrigation systems are a few methods -of increasing irrigation efficiency. B . Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in ground water recharge. 9 : Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized. 10. Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or grey water for irrigation. 11. Encourage cluster development, which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. (0550D) -101- 12 . , Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage he incorporation of natural drainage systems in new developments. This aids ground water recharge. 13 . To aid in ground water, recharge, preserve flood plains and aquifer recharge areas as open space. 14 . Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow of public water supplies wherever such use is acceptable and safe. Gas. Electric. Air uality: 1 . Prohibit the use of open gas lighting in public or private buildings . 2 . If lighting is included in the parking lot and/or recreation area energy efficiency lamps shall be used (e.g . high pressure sodium vapor, metal halide) . All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 3 . Strategically place electric lights ,to maximize their efficiency. Their size and power consumption should be minimized as much as possible. 4 . Discourage electrical heating in public and private structures. Encourage solar-assisted heating systems . 5. Encourage the use of reflecting and/or' insulating glass in structures where windows a_re .not shaded by exterior architectural projections or natural plants . ' 6. Information on equipment or facilities which may generate air pollutants shall be submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District staff for their review prior to the issuance .of a Certificate of Occupancy for any use within the building. 7. Commercial and office projects should provide on-site day care facilities where feasible in order to reduce private vehicle trips . Ride share programs should also be encouraged. Restaraunts and other shopping opportunities should be encouraged in major employment centers to further reduce the need for private vehicle trips from the site. (0550D) -102 APPENDIX A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FISCAL ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS Th4 City' s standard fiscal impact analysis methodology was utilized to " analyze all of the land use alternatives for' this `General Plan , Amendment . The following are the basic lin"d"u' se, market value and occupancy assumptions which were made for each alternative. Once these basic assumptions are made for each alternative, the model can be .operated. Tie model itself makes many other assumptions for items such as occupant incomes, sales tag per square foot, utility consumption and many other items. For a more detailed breakdown of the fiscal impact methodology, assumptions and outcomes, a technical appendix is available upon request separately from this document. AREA 2 . 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - GENERAL _COMMERCIAL - Existing 4,470 square foot restaurant - Assessed Market Value $406, 962 ALTERNATIVE _2 - MEDIUM HIQH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 40 Apartment units -- $85, 000 per 'unit market value - 70 occupants based on 1.75/unit ALTERNATIVE 3 MEDIUM . 2ENSITY RESIDENTIAL 23 Condominium units - $125, 000 per unit market value 46 occupants based on 2/unit' ALTERNATIVE 4 - GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL 21,200 square feet of retail development 16,960 square feet of leasable space , - Market Value: $1,410,762 AREA 2 .2 ALTERNATIVE 1 - MEDIUM HI H DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 47 Apartment units . $85, 000 per unit market value - 82 occupants based on 1.75/unit ALTERNATYE 2 - MEDIJ3M DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 27 Condominium units - $125, 000 per unit market value - 54 occupants based on 2/unit ALTERNATIVE 3-_GENERAL COMMERCIAL (OFFICE) 69, 000 square feet of general office development - 55,200 square feet of leasable space Market Value $6,238, 916 (6744d) AREA 2 .3 ALTERNATIVE 1 - LQW�D 'NSITY_RESIDENTIAL " 88 Single family detached housing units $250,000 per unit market value 288 occupants based on 3 .27/unit ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 189 Condominium units -- $150,000 per unit market value - 378 occupants based on 2/unit AREA 2.4 ALTERNATIVE 1 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/GENERAL COMMERCIAL 75 Condominium units and. 69,260 square feet of retail commercial development - 55,408 square feet of leasable commercial area Market value: $14 , 062, 660 ($125, 000 per condominium unit, $4, 687, 660 for commercial area) - 150 occupants based on 2/unit ' ' ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 150 Condominium units $125, 000 per unit market value - 300 occupants based on 2/unit, ALTERNATIVE 3 - GENERAL CQMMERCIAL = 134 , 600 square feet of retail commercial development 107, 680 square feet of leasable space Market value: $9, 140, 119 AREA 2 . 5 ALTERNATIVE 1 - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 105 Single family detached housing units - $160,000 per unit market value - 210 occupants based on 2/unit ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 225 Condominium units $135, 000 per unit market value - 450 occupants based on 2/unit ALTERNATIVE 3 -GENERAL COMMERCIAL {RETAIL 196, 000 square feet of retail- commercial- development - 156, 800 square feet of leasable space ; Market value: $12, 597, 676 (6744d) i • STAFI-- RECOMMENDATION - LOW DENSITY/GENERAL R IAL RET 70 Low density attached units - 65,300 square feet of retail commercial development 55, 240 square feet of leasable space ' 140 residents based on 2/unit Market value: $14,702, 810 ($150,000 per residential unit $4,202, 810 for the commercial retail) AREA 2 . 6 ALTERNATIVEE 112, 000 square feet of office development - 89 , 600 square feet of leasable space - Market Value: $9,983, 999 ALTERN TIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTI - 65 Condominium units - $135, 000 per unit market value 130 occupants based on 2/unit AREA 2 .7 ALTERNATIVE 1 ---LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 133 Single family detached housing units $180, 000 per unit market value 332 occupants based on 2 . 5/units ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 307 Condominium units - $135, 000 per unit market value 614 occupants based on 2/unit ALTERN TIVE 3 - GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL 268, 000 square feet of retail commercial development 214 ,400 square feet of leasable space Market value: $17, 165, 140 MIXED--DEVELOPMENT - SCENARIO - OOMMERCIALLMEDIUM DENSITY/PARK 120, 000 square feet of retail commercial development 96, 0.00 square feet of leasable space - 75 condominium units $135, 000 per unit market value - 150 occupants based on 2/unit - 2 acres of public park (674ad) APPENDIX B AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS 1 s Y 1 S AIR QUALITY' CALCULATIONS The General Plan Amendment will not have any immediate impact on existing air quality; however, future development as a result of the amendments may create an increase in mobile and stationary source emissions. .. The following tables illustrate the "worst case" or complete build- out scenario for each amendment area. The California Air Resources Board' s "Urbemis #1" computor model for estimating emissions from land use projects was utilized to arrive at the projections for' each area. The emissions projected are not considered to be significant to the regional air basin. Additionally, it should be noted that when development occurs, the actual amount of pollutants maybe less due to advanced exhaust control technology and more stringent air pollution legislation. As a mitigation measure for 'each amendment area staff has stated that adequate accessibility to Orange County Transit District sites should be provided. Ride share programs, on--site day care facilities and restaurants should also be provided where appropriate in order to reduce private vehicle trips. -AREA 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 NONHOME BASEI_,EMISS.IONS Type of Unit Size 'Carbon Monoxi e T Y = 11 Quality Restaurant 41470/sq ft Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 1 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 1 NONHOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=29054 Assumes Temperature = 55 Nonw`ork 481 2621 Work 4 72 T70 2674— ALTERNATIVE 2 HOME BASED EMISSIONS , Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide T Y)= 13 Apartment 40 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 1 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)_ 0 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=22561 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home-work 16 668 Home-shop 59 150 Home-Other 144, 74.5 Total 279 1604 ALTERNATIVE 3, HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide T Y) = 6 Low Rise Apartment 23 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y)= 0 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 0 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consurfiptio6 (Gal/Year) =11074 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home Work 31 .325 Home-Shop 29 93 Home-other , 71 3-67 137 786 ALTERNATIVE_ 4-, NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide (T Y)= 70 Shopping Center 21200 sq ft Hydrocarbons WY) _ 10 0-50k Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 6 NONHOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year ) =169771 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home ,Work 2804 15281 Work 57 462 2861 15744 *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) AREA 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide )= 18 Low Rise Apartment 47 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = . 2 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 1 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=30342 Assumes Temperature. = 55 Homework 103 905 Home-shop 79 255 Home-Other 193 999 7M ALTERNATIVE 2 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide T Y)= 8 Condominiums 27 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 1 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 0 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=15139 Assumes Temperature — 55 Home-work 51 448 Home-shop 39 125 Home-Other . - 97, 582 Total �1$"7 ALTERNATIVE . 3 NONHOME _BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide (T Y)= 34 General Office Hydrocarbons (T/Y) 4 Building 69000 sq ft Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 2 NONHOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal-/Year ) =72928 Assumes Temperature _= 55 Nonwork 610 33.24 Work 424 3438 1034 6763 *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) AREA 3 ALTERNATIVE l HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxiae Y)= 66 Quality Restaurant 116 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 8 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 4 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year ) =112456 Assumes Temperature = 55 Homework 381 3348 Home-shop 293 946 Home-Other 716 3708 lam$ 8004 ALTERNATIVE 2 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxi e T Y)= 87 Condominiums 259 units Hydrocarbons - (T/Y) = 10 Nitrogen .Oxides (T/Y)= 5 HOME BASED 'Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year ) =146505 . Assumes Temperature = 55 Home-work 496 4359 . Home-shop 382 1233 Home-Other 933 4832 Total —1811 IU"41� * VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) s AREA 4 ALTERNATIVE 1 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of unit Size Car on Monoxi e T Y) = 18 Condominiums 75 units . Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 2 Shopping Center 50- 69260 sq ft Nitrogen' Oxides (T/Y) = 1 100K NONHOME BASED Trips VMT - Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=30745 Assumes Temperature = 55 Nonwork 9163 49938 Work 187 1516 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS 9356 5-1454 carbon monoxide T Y =.. 228 - Hydro Carbons (T/Y) = 35 HOME BASED Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 20 Trips VMT Fuel Consumption(Gal/Year )=554 ,848 Assumes Temperature. = 55 Home Work 104 914 - Home--Shop 80 '258 Home-Other 196 1015 390 -TM. ALTERNATIVE 2 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon -Monoxide� (T/Y)= 50 Condominiums 150 units Hydrocarbons . (T/Y)= 6 — Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)=. 3 HOME BASED ' Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=84782 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home Work 287 2522 Home-shop 221 713 Home-Other 540 2797 1848 6033 ALTERNATIVE 3 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide T Y = 444 Shopping Center 134600 sq ft Hydrocarbons (T/Y ) = 68 100-200K Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 39 NONHOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption(Gal/Year )=1078234 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home-work 17807 97048 Work 363 2943 Total 18170 99992 Total *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. (0550D) AREA 5 ALTERNATIVE 1 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size ar on Monoxiae )= 60 Single Family 105 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) 7 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 3 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year ) =101784 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home Work 345 3032 Home-Shop 265 855 Home-Other 648 3356 1258 7 45 ALTERNATIVE 2 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide (T/Y)= 75 Condominiums 225 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y ) = 9 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 4 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year ) =127331 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home Work 431 3788 Home-shop 332 1072 Home-Other 81.1 4200 1574 9061 ALTERNATIVE 3 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide T Y =• 335 Shopping Center 196000 sq ft Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 52 200=300K Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 30 NONHOME BASED } Trips VMT Fuel Consumption(Ga1/Year )=814103 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home-work 13445 73275 Work 274 2222 Total 13719 75497 *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) AREA 6 ALTERNATIVE 1 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide T Y = 55 General Office Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 7 Building 112000 sq ft Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 4 NONHOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year ) =118406 Assumes Temperature = 55 Nonwork 991 5400 Work 688 5579 Ib'Tg TOg88 ALTERNATIVE 2 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide (T/Y)= 21 Condominiums 65 units- Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 2 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 1 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=36716 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home Work 124 1089 Dome-shop 96 310 Home-Other 234 1212 454 2612 F. *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding . (0550D) AREA 7 ALTERNATIVE 1 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Car on Monoxide T Y)= 76 Single Family. Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 9 . Housing 133 units Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 4 HOME .BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=128962 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home Work 437 3841 Home-Shop 336 1085 Home-Other 821. 4252 1594 9M ALTERNATIVE 2 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide (T/Y) = 103 Condominiums 307 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 12 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 6 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=173682 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home Work 588 5168 Home--shop 453 1463 Home-Other 1106 5729 2147 12360 ALTERNATIVE 3 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit . Size Carbon Monoxide (T Y)= 459 Shopping Center Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 71 200-300K 268000 sq ft Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 41 NONHOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption(Gal/Year ) =1113193 Assumes Temperature = 55 Nonwork 18384 100192 Work 375 3041 Total 18759 163234 *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) APPENDIX C MARKET ANALYSIS a • � PEARCE-BOLSA CFRCA MARKET ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION: Land,Use Element Amendment 84-2 addresses a request by .a private property owner to redesignate approximately 3.0 acres of land south of Pearce Street and east of Bolsa Chica Street from medium density residential to general commercial. The intent of the amendment 1s to incorporate the subject property into a larger shopping area that would include 2.34 acres of commercially designated parcels to the south. Such a development would extend commercial uses 1300 feet along Bolsa Chica Street between Wainer Avenue and Pearce Street. Due to landownership patterns, much of the commercial property at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Boise, Chica Street have developed in a fragmented and piecemeal manner. As a result, the development of a neighborhood shopping center with major food and drug anchors has been precluded in much of the area. The only remaining opportunity for such a development, should demand support it, would be a portion of the Meadowlark Airport site along Warner Avenue east of Boise. Chica'Street. This area was the subject of a General Plan amendment request in 1981 which was eventually withdrawn. The options to develop neighborhood convenience uses on the Meadowlark site and/or at the Pearce-Bolsa Chica site warrants a re-evaluation of the present and future demand for commercial property and land Uses in this area of the City. Commercial uses can be generally classified into five categories based on the size and location of the facility, the kinds of goods and services offered, and the size of the markets area and population served. These categories are: Convenience: - 1/2 to 1 1/2 acres in size - located at intersection of secondary or local arterial streets - 1/2 mile radius market area - 3000 people served Neighborhood: - 1 1/2 to 10 acres in size - located at major or primary arterial intersections - supermarket and/or drug store plus 10-15 smaller retailers, services, or offices - 1 mile radius market area - 10,000 people served Community: - 10 to 35 acres in size - located at major or primary arterial intersections - mini-department store or supermarket anchors plus a variety of other stores - 10 to 15 minute drive market area - 15,000 or more people served . Regional: - 35 or more acres in size - located at major arterial and freeway - 1 to 5 department stores plus other retailers - up to 30 minute drive market area - 500,000 people served Specialty: - size varies - located on major arterials or in tourist areas . (0141D) MH R2 m R i n CF Et'; C RI i AI^ RI RI C2 F + RI CZ RI i RI RI RI CF-E I R' R[ NI RI M RI A! Rt e RI R1 R! ICZ ��� ."� p RI �"'.R RI S RI MH MH RI RI RI RI R[ RI p p RI 5_ RI RI RI e ... R2 R2 C4II RI RI RI z MH CF_E2 R2 1 yy I� RI RI RI Li �R R2 Al! Y i2,Rx Rx R ? RI AI R, n CF-R [ Rl _ RI RI Ros r RI � 6 ICF-R w.-....s.:..- ct R3 R2 R2 R2 R2 �•� Ra w dd RI '' PR Gi Cz iy ' RI-[Y T nl.(;t :fir' �. r- ' -- �` Ewa � � RI cR'•I IR[ ROSq Ri R2 R2 I i R2 R2 ^R2 R2 R3 R2 (C11uIH _•v. RI RI i I � I I �Y C4-CZ .J� R3 yy r 2 t ..... yM� ROS RI , * a u `— R3 R3 R3 R3 I C2 u' cR - R[� RI 6 I CI 4.. - t• 7 ti R3LR3] R ;RI-czRI-cz R3 R3 ca Rz !!p�flt„-y f� R _ .�I ��1, „ca C2 ct a` R R2 R3!9 'Rz T'rI i r A XL2 .FI I lir I}k[ Af �A1 pRI P R wR-cz WR-GZ . ... `-` R, 'In R' � , .>r r� R' RRI RFCZi eR wR RI-CI m,cz RI-G2 r RI•CZ RI '\\ �. R3 `a R�-� 'IJ 1,1� )�''-'� t R2NY[1L� ...�iCi�/i / /, i y�■■p{YY vi 11 II RI-cZ Ri Ri �? ,,,` I w e / ✓ /yE,2^ '�q tai k z RI-cz _ _ �' AI RI v 40 / / ���9 -—- F d `,�sICzJ Ar. I`�� Rr •" r II / !� Cz Cf-ECZ lu RI RI A RI A C �,1j� �' , �j aQ• � RI �R' V RI�. RICI `• ` Ix cz $yJ�� . HUNTINGTON BEACH 04LIFORNIN -- s-en :._"_.-fl PLANNING DIVISION ` � - - * Study- - uses vary, usualiy center around a theme - market area varies population served varies Because of its location, the intersection of Bolas Chica Street and Warner Avenue would not be an optimum location for both regional and community commercial centers. It is three miles from the nearest freeway, and due to its proximity to the coast draws essentially on a 180 degree market. area. Regional centers cater to a market of approximately 500,000 persons; in a suburban area like Orange County this translates roughly to a five to ten mile radius market area. Presently, there are two regional centers located ,in or adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach (Huntington Center and Westminster Mall) as well as two additional regional centers within a twenty minute drive (South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa and Newport Center in Newport Beach). The existence of these competing centers nearby and the poor locational qualities of the site make development of a regional commercial facility unfeasible at Boise Chica Street and Warner Avenue. Community commercial centers operate on roughly a two. to three mile radius service . area. At the present time, a number of community shopping centers exist within three miles of Bolsa Chica and Warner. These facilities are located at the intersections of Algonquin Street and Boardwalk Drive (87,200 square feet); Edinger Avenue and Springdale Street (southwest corner - 132,280 square feet); Goldenwest Street and Edinger Avenue (southwest corner - 169,850 square feet, southeast corner - 197,8B7 square feet); and Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue (northwest corner - 173,157 square feet, northeast corner - L30,000 square feet). Using the formula of one community center per 15,000 persons, the area west of Beach Boulevard and north of Talbert Avenue, which houses approximately 75,000 persons, could be expected to support five such community centers. The six centers listed above appear to provide the quantity and variety of community stores and services needed for the northwest portion of Huntington Beach. Although the question of central location and convenient freeway access are not as crucial a consideration in siting community centers as with regional centers, the 180 degree market areas offered by Bolsa Chica and Warner site is a deterrent to developing a community center considering the competition from existing facilities in the area. The potential may exist for a'specialty shopping center in vicinity of the area of concern. However, some of the dollars used in calculating supportable space may be drawn to existing facilities or future sites in close proximity with greater drawing potential. Any new speciality shopping facility would have to compete with nearby Peter's Landing, a 60,000 square foot development in Huntington Harbour featuring a variety of restaurants and specialty shops. Within one mile south of the Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue site, speciality commercial/visitor serving uses are being planned as a part of the Orange County Local Coastal Plan and State Coastal Conservancy Habitat Plan for the unincorporated Bolsa Chica. Both agencies have been coordinating their planning.efforts for the Bolsa Chica, and will submit the approved Coastal Conservancy plan to the State Coastal Commission in November, 1984. The existing plan would designate approximately 35 acres of land in the Bolas Chica for visitor serving uses, which would feature a hotel, and a variety of restaurants and marina-related speciality shops. As with any specialty . commercial or visitor serving uses developed along the coast, the City's efforts to revitalize the downtown area could also be impacted. Given these considerations, the development of a specialty commercial center at Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue is not visualized as feasible or desirable. While the problems of location, access, and competition make the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue an undesirable location for regional, community, and (0141D) specialty shopping centers, there may be potential for the development of a convenience and/or neighborhood facility in the area. The following analysis addresses the feasibility of developing these kinds of facilities in the Bolsa Chica/Warner area." NEIGHBORHOOD/CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL USES METHODOLOGY: For the purpose of this report, convenience and neighborhood uses are addressed simultaneously in this section. This analysis attempts to determine the market support for neighborhood convenience retail facilities in a given trade area. Market support is primarily a function of the buying power of the trade area residents end an assessment of existing commercial facilities. Buying power is based on the area's population size and median family income. This buying power can be translated into- supportable square footage of retail facilities. A comparison of supportable'square footage to existing and ultimate General Planned facilities indicate whether there is unused potential support for additional commercial uses in the trade area. A combination of housing, population, income and retail sales- data was utilized to determine the total amount of supportable' square- footage for various types of.. neighborhood uses for the market area. The primary market area is defined by taking half the distance between the nearest surrounding neighborhood and community centers, and the intersection in question. For statistical purposes, the primary market area in this analysis is defined as being bounded by Heil Avenue on the north, Springdale Street on the east, the southern limits of proposed development in the Balsa Chica on the south, and Algonquin Street/Warner Avenue on the west (see attached figure). Three alternative population figures are used to produce a range of demand figures based on, (A) existing housing units, (B) ultimate housing units under expected land use designations excluding the Bolse Chica, and (C) ultimate housing units under expected land use designations including the Bolsa Chica. These alternative population figures are multiplied by adjusted 1984 City-wide per capita taxable sales figures in order to estimate the anticipated sales potential for the market area. Data. regarding the typical types, sizes and sales per square foot of uses -found iri neighborhood centers are taken from the Urban Land Institute's 1981 Dollars and Cents of Shopper q Centers and adjusted to 1984 terms. This data makes it possible to translate the sales potential of the area into supportable square footage for the various categories of neighborhood uses to see how much of the current and future demand is being met by existing and prdjected uses in the area. Current and future demand are also measured against the addition of proposed commercial uses at Bolsa Chica and Pearce Streets and a hypothetical commercial development on the Meadowlark Airport property along Warner Avenue. The difference between demand and supply can be used to determine if there is a need for additional neighborhood commercial uses and if so, what types of uses would be most viable for the market area. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the data. (a141D) TABLE I NEIGHBC]RHOOD CENTER POTENTIAL A B C Ultimate Units Ultimate Units Existing Under General Plan Under General Plan Housing Units Minus Bolsa Chica Plus Bolse Chica Households a 4,402 5,973 9,755 Population a 10,992 15,013 24,710 1984 Total b 6,496.25 $6496.25 $6496.25 Taxable Sales Per Capita Total Taxable $71,406,780 $97,528�201 $160,522,330 Sales Potential SALES POTENTIAL BY CATEGORYc CATEGORY Food $12,281,966 $16,774,850 $27,609,840 Drug 2,499,237 3,413,487 5,618,282 Apparel 1,927,983 2,633t261 4,334,103 Liquor 1,071,102 1,4620923 2,407,835 Eating/Drinking 6,855,051 9,362,707 15,410,143 Gen. Merchandise 8,711,627 11,898,440 19,583,724 Home Improvement 2,4492253 3,345,217 50505,916 Services/Office 3,570,339 4,876,410 89026,117 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY CATEGORYd CATEGORY Food 34,024 sq.ft. 46,470 sq.ft. 76,486 sq.ft. Drug 13,546 18,501 30,452 Apparel 12,067 16,481 27,125 Liquor 4,635 6,331 10,420 Eating/Drinking 52,329 71,471 117,635 Gen. Merchandise 92,167 125,883 207,191 }-come Improvement 33t699 46,027 75,756 Services/Office 104 518 142,752 234,957 Total 346,985 473,916 780,022 0141D TABLE 2 EXISTING AND PROJECTED RETAIL AND OFFICE SPACE IN MARKET AREA A B C EXISTING SPACE EXISTING SPACE 1984 EXISTING SPACE PEARCE-BOLSA CHICA PEARCE-BOLSA CHICA CATEGORY EXISTING SPACE PEARCE-BOLSA CHICA MEADOWLARK MEADOWLARK Food 36,046 439546 73,546 73,546 +2,022 -2,924 +27,076 -2,940 Drug 23,589 34,389 49,389 49,389 +10,043 +159888 +30,888 +18,937 Apparel 3,186 8,686 11,686 11,686 -8,881 -7,795 -4,795 -15,439 Liquor 37,205 37,205 37,205 37,205 +32,570 +30,874 +309874 +26,785 Eating/Drinking 56,572 65,692 779692 77,692 +4,243 -5,779 +6,221 -39,943 General Merchandise 30,858 469538 58,536 58,538 61,309 -79,345 -67,345 148,653 Home Improvement 20,483 33,683 41,683 41,683 -13,216 -12,344 -4,344 34,073 Services/Office 1489237 148,237 168,237 168,237 +439719 +59485 +259485 669720 TOTAL 356,176 417,976 517,976 517,976 +9,191 -559940 +44,060 -262,046 (0141D) NOTES TO TABLE 1: a. Household and population figures based on Department of Development Services estimates. b. Date extrapolated from "Trade Outlets and Taxable Retail Sales, "State Board of Equalization, per capita sales figure adjusted according to median family income data taken from the United States Census for the City of Huntington Beach, 1980. c. , Sales of retail goods in .the- categories listed account for approximately 43,percent of total retail sales in Huntington Beach (Source: "Trade Outlets and Taxable Retail Sales", State Board of Equalization): Food 8.6% Drug 2.0% Apparel 2.7% Liquor 1.5% Eating/Drinking 9.6% General Merchandise 12.2% Home Improvement 3.4% Services/Office 3.0% Other 57.0% Apparel and General Merchandise categories are normally not associated with convenience neighborhood centers. However, the applicant is proposing these uses at the Pearce-Bolsa Chico site in lieu of development of some typical neighborhood uses and in combination with some convenience center uses. Consequently, an analysis of the demand for these uses within the market area is included in the study. In addition, much of the developed commercial property within the market area consists of Professional Office and Service complexes. The figures thus. reflect full demand of such uses whether as part of a neighborhood center or existing as separate developments. Dollar figures for the Food and Drug categories are adjusted by factors of 2.0 and 1.75 respectively to account for additional sales of non-taxable items based on total estimated California food and drug sales from various services. d. Median sales per square foot values for typical commercial categories are as follows: Food $360.98 per square foot Drug $184.50 per square foot Apparel $159.78 per square foot Liquor $231.09 per square foot Eating/Drinking $131.00 per square foot General Merchandise $94.52 per square foot Home Improvement $72.68 Per square foot Services/Office $34.16 per square foot (Source: The Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 1981 adjusted to 1984). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of total square footage, the existing supply of commercial uses in the market area is sufficient to meet the current demand (Scenario A). This oversupply can 'be (0141D) attributed, in part to overlapping demand from surrounding market areas, as more than half of the commercial uses listed in Table 2 under the existing scenario were located near the periphery of the defined market area. These uses are supported to some-extent by consumers located outside the market area, increasing the actual demand and sales potential data. This increase is probably balanced by consumers living in the specified market area who visit other commercial centers outside the area. As a result, some oversupply still exists in square footage: Scenario B compares the demand for commercial space with supply over the short-term, and assumes that the remaining areas designated for residential use develop according to the General Plan with the exception mof the unincorporated Balsa Chico which remains vacant. Scenario C represents the long-term, and assumes development in the Balsa Chico. With the exception of the visitor-serving commercial uses , currently under consideration in the Balsa Chico, the only remaining areas for potential commercial development within the market area include the applicant's proposal at Pearce and Balsa Chico Streets, and a portion of the Meadowlark Airport site along Warner Avenue. Consequently, the applicant's proposed commercial development is assumed to develop under the short-term scenario with the Meadowlark site being analyzed under both the short-term and long-term. In Scenario B, the data generally show- that the demand generated by future residential development within the market area will be sufficient to support additional commercial square footage. However, until residential development occurs in the Balsa Chico portion of the market area, demand will only support one additional commercial center at either the Pearce-Bolsa Chico site or at the Meadowlark Airport site. Once the Balsa Chico develops according to the long-term scenario, demand will be more than adequate to support both commercial sites. The overall square footage figures show that future demand will accommodate ultimate potential commercial supply; however, when this supply is broken down into specific categories some imbalances are revealed. Compared to the estimated supportable square footage over the -short-term, the addition of the commercial uses proposed by the applicant translates into a surplus of space in the drug, liquor, and service/office categories, and' a deficiency of space in the food, apparel, eating/drinking, general merchandise and home improvement categories. This takes into account that the applicant is proposing a commercial development with the' following mix of tenants: convenience market/bakery (7,500 square feet), drugstore (10,806 square feet), apparel stores (5,500 square feet), restaurant (9,120 square feet), mini-department store (13,200 square feet), hardware store/nursery (13,200 square feet), and other general merchandise shops (2,480 square feet). The data suggests that the market area can accommodate all proposed commercial uses at Pearce-Balsa Chico with the possible exception of the drug category. the proposed development will add square footage to the already existing surplus of drug establishments within the defined market area. The same conclusion would hold true in the long-term. The addition of a typical neighborhood center at Meadowlark anchored by a supermarket and drugstore in the short-term-would create an oversupply in the food, drug, liquor, and, ce categories. Without the needed food and drug anchors, a shopping service offs PP n9 center at the 100,000 square foot magnitude would be infeasible. However, at ultimate development in the long-term, surpluses would exist in only the drug and liquor categories. This indicates that the market-area could support the proposed: convenience market at the Pearce-Bolsa Chico site as well as a supermarket at the Meadowlark site. Rather than a drugstore anchor at the Meadowlark site, the data,suggests thot it would be feasible to provide an additional anchor in the form of a home improvement store or a general merchandise facility. The figures indicate that:substantial demand will exist in the general merchandise category with both locations probably being able to support such (0141U) uses as major anchors. This would further be substantiated. in the fact that only two of the. six community shopping centers located within the general area contain such anchors. The two shopping centers that accommodate such uses are located at Edinger and Goldenwest, close to the Huntington Regional Shopping Center but outside of the defined market area of this study. Most 'f the existing eating and drinking establishments within the market area consist of small sandwich shops, bars, and fast food operations. The addition of major restaurants at the Pearce-Balsa Chica site and Meadowlark site will still leave considerable demand, for such uses at ultimate development. Since specialty and restaurant uses in the Balsa Chica visitor-serving area were not included in the analysis, it is assumed that restaurant development in the Balsa Chica will bring supply in line with demand for such uses in the study area. The supply of liquor establishments will likely remain relatively constant over the long-term, regardless of whether commercial uses are developed at either of the two sites or both. This is the result of one large liquor establishment recently taking over the total square footage of a former supermarket on the periphery of the market area. The supply of service and professional office uses will show a considerable surplus during the short-term as the result of the high concentration of office complexes at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Balsa Chica Street and within existing neighborhood centers. However, demand will exceed supply as the Balsa Chica develops. The development of expected service uses at the two sites under consideration will not significantly affect this balance. In summary, there appears to be sufficient demand to support additional commercial square footage in specified categories. While the Pearce-Bolsa Chica site and Meadowlark Airport site can support commercial uses in most categories at ultimate development, the overall surplus of square footage in the drug category would appear to preclude that use as a major anchor at either site. Perhaps more appropriate at the Pearce-Balsa Chica site would be a combination of additional retail shops, services/offices, and/or eating/drinking establishments. To complement a supermarket on the Meadowlark site, perhaps a home improvement store or general merchandise use as a major anchor would be more appropriate based on the demand figures for the area. (a14in) APPENDIX D INITIAL STUDY APPENDIX I ENDIROWMMAL CEMCHLIST PGA (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background 1. Name Of Proponent City of Huntington Beach . 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent Development Services 2000 Main Street - - - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 3. Date of Checklist Submitted Au ust 20 1986 4. Agency Requiring Checklist C-ity of Huntington 'Beach 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable General Plan Amendment No. 87-1 II. Eaviromeatal Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:- a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil:? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X -e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes .in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X . 288 Yes Maybe No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air gmlity? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?. X 3. Va.ter. Will the proposal result in. a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine - or fresh waters? -i . X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or low .of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface .water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? - X g. Change in the quantity of CP 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- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: X a. Change in the diversity of species, or-num- ber of any species of plants (including trees, _ _ shrubs, grass; crops, and aquatic, plaats)? X Yes Maybe No b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 5. AM I Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- bers of any species of animis (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and .shell- fish, benthic organisms or insects)?, X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migra-- tion or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or Wildlife, habitat? B. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X S. 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? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will 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 conditions? X 290 Yes Maybe No b. Possible 1iterference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? . .x 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?. X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hour- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movament? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new perking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula tion or movement of people and/or goods? IL e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. - Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _S_ __.. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: - a.. Fire protection? _ X b. Police protection? X _ c. Schools? X d. Parks or'other recreational facilities? X e. .1&intenance of public facilities, including roads? X W f. Other governmental services? X 15. Raergy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X 291 Yes Maybe NO b. Substantial, increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? � 16. utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: x 17. Hamm Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation•of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view{? x 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an 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 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 impact area? x 21. I&nda . ry Findings of Signihca.nce. 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 wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, re- duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate 292 Yes Maybe No 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 rela- tively 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 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 III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) IV. Determination (To be canpleted by the Lead' Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that ,the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 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 attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ❑ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the *Focu, environment, and an ENV'IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. EIR Date Si tune For r (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) ' The EIR is focused on various issues for the project area. The EIR will be prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Amffxkmnt analysis. 293 , . . i A EXPLANATION OF AYES" AND "MAYBE ANSWERS lb . Construction on the sites may require compaction or displacement of soil . id . Grading and landscaping may cause a change in ground surface relief features . lg . The Newport-Inglewood Earthquake Fault System passes through _ the City. 2a . Additional vehicular traffic associated with the proposed projects may result in some deterioration of ambient air quality. 3b. Construction may alter the flow of runoff from the sites. 6a . Development of the sites will generate human and vehicle noise . 7 . Development of the sites will result in additional street lights. 11 . . The proposal may result in approximately 762 additional people residing in the area . 12 . The proposal will create additional housing. 13a. The proposal will generate vehicular traffic. 13c .� The proposal will generate increased demand on existing public and private transportation systems. 13f . Increased vehicular traffic may pose a hazard to pedestrians and bicyclists in the area. 14a-f . The proposed project may require additional governmental services. 16 . The proposed project may require alterations in some utility systems. .21c. The cumulative effect of relatively small impacts on various resources will be examined . ( 5s74d) t 'APPENDIX E COMMENTS AND RESPONSES STATE OF CAIIF UMA—Of!•tCE of THE GOVERN% GEORGE MWEPAN, GcwvenLr OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESPEARCH 1400 TENTH STRfET SACRAWNTO, CA OS014 A� (916/445--0613) Hal Simmons January 20, 1987 City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190/Dept, of Development Services HUP47'/ Huntington, Beach, CA 92648 D�ELO e )NB'EA H Nr S CCS JA ii P.Subject: General Plan Amendment #87--1 SCH# 86091007 Huntin Xi � Eto B� C�9 2b4�, Dear Mr. Simmons: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. TUB letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft envir ntal dccruments, pursuant to the California Envircnnmtal Quality Act. Please call Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the envi ronmental .review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, .please use the eight digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond proaptly. Sincerely, John B. an Chief Deputy Direct Office of Planning and Research December 31 , 1986 HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Planning Commission JAN 0 2 1987 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.U. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Caliiforhia Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Planning Commissioners : I am John March , owner' of Antonia ' s Italian Restaurant at 16871 Bolsa Chica in Huntington Beach. As both a resident and businesman , I am very familiar with the development of the business community in the Bolsa Chica/Warner area for the past twenty years . My wife and I have successfully owned and operated Antonia ' s Restaurant for the past twelve years and during that . time we have witnessed restaurants and retail service-oriented businesses come and go in the neighborhood . Our situation and the immediate business community around us can best be described as "marginal" . This marginal situation has existed for the past ten years . There is every reason to believe that this situation will continue well. into the future . I - am prepared to substantiate my position and question staff.' s recotamendation based upon a two year old market study prepared by staff . . Over two years ago staff expressed their concerns with the general erosion of commercial development in our city and I support their concerns . I take exception , however , to the inappropriate use of a 1984 market study applied to the Bolsa Chica/Warner area to determine long and .short term planning . Originally this market study was prepared to justify a general plan amendment and zone change from R-2 to General Commercial (See attachment -#I) for three acres across the street from my property . Even though this market study recommended commercial use and the Planning Commission approved this change in-: land use , the applicant withdrew his request before the City Council acted on it . The reason is- summarized in a letter addressed to the City Council on 2 i October 24 , 1984 : "During these last few months , since filing , I have had a market analysis done by Charles Clark, a planner, here at the city , and have been working with several . ' brokers regarding developing this into a commercial project . - With the input that has been received from those with experience in the development of stri_.p shopping centers , I have bee6 advised that this is not a good location. " While the need for new general commercial development in this area does not exist, there may be - a need to rennovate some of the existing general commercial..areas , as was • recently done at Lucky ' s Market at Bolsa Chica " and ,Heil . In addition, more . - residential development in the immediate area is needed to support these ever changing businesses as Well as providing housing for young professionals , families , and retirees . The 1984 . market. study is inadequate for the following three basic reasons : ( 1 ) The primary mark'et study area should extend further north to, Edinger and not stop at Heil . Although there may have been a good reason for staff to generally define "primary market areas ' by "taking half the distance between the nearest surrounding neighborhood and community centers and the intersection in question" , 'it 'certainly does not- apply to the F • realistic shopping behavior. of- residents in the Bolsa Chica/Warner area . These residents meet their daily shopping and service oriented needs on route to banks, schools including Mar,ina• High School , and the Graham Library. ( 2 ) The 1984 market study statistics are - limited , to a discussion of how land is presently zoned and the eventual build out of that land . It fails. to consider the past and present economic viability of 'businesses in the study area and especially the • vacancy rate and turnover of. businesses . It is important to note that staff does acknowledge the "marginal nature" of commercial in the market study area . o "Staff further feels that due to the marginal nature of adjacent commercial uses south of the study area , future land consolidation may be encouraged which would result in a larger , high quality shopping center on the site . " (From LUE 87-1 , EYR 87-1. p . 18) ( 3) Staff ' s concern with the "marginal nature"of' the commercial south of my property is valid , but not their recommended solution. It does not make good business sense to reserve land for future shopping centers until existing shopping areas are renovated and used . It should also be pointed out that the potential build-out of the Meadowlark Airport site ( across the street) will provide for more commercial development . My request to change the zoning from C-2 to R-3 will provide a further opportunity to buttress the present and future economic. viability of existing businesses and future businesses at the airport site. The c:ompAtiibility of my proposal is recognized by staff when they assert that my property "is located within an area characterized by medium to high density residential uses with a significant amount of commercial use nearby . " ( From LUE 87-1 , EIR 87-1 , p . 9 ; paragraph 2) .. The size of the remaining acreage of C-2 south of my property is of similar size to other commercial corners surrounded by existing R-3 or R-2 development along Bolsa .Chica ( S,ee attachment#2) . In perspective , it appears unreasonable to include the develop- ment of the Bolsa Chicas in the market study since no one knows when they will be -developed and since we are talking about 1 . 6 acres being contingent on the development of 1600 acres . Furthermore we are talking about requesting 25 quality apartments ( 1300 sq . ft minimum) vs 15 , 000-25 ,.000 sq. ft . of unneeded commercial building space . Environmental concerns. related to traffic congestion also supports my request . Residential units will generate only about 200 average daily car trips whereas general commercial will generate approximately 3000 average daily trips . If and when Meadowlark Airport is developed with commercial and residential , traffic flow on Warner and Bolsa Chica will worsen . Staff is correct when they • e 4 conclude under the traffic analysis section of the EIR that "Retail development of the property may have .a negative impact on traffic flows in the long-term. " I would add ,. in the short term as .well . -. ~ In conclusion, I wish to thank you for taking' the time to understand my position and the reality .of the business community in the Bolsa Chica/Warner area now and in the future. Regardless of the outcome of the Planning Commission deliberations , I have decided not to continue my restaurant after 12 years . Other busi- nesses ' that I would reluctantly consider under the C-2 present zoning would include a used car-lot and/or auto repair service or an animal clinic . I-t is clear that retail , shopping center , food concession, etc . ,, is., not economically viable . I do hope your decision will allow me to build and manage high quality apartments and 'I look forward to working with staff to accomplish' this. Sincerely , �3ohn March " 17211 Sandra Lane 'Huntington Beach , CA . i ES1L �uosryr RI RI Ri �„� R; vurnw I I RI RI RI RI Ri RI RI 1 RI 3 0 C • C D $ I aec R R2 C4� C2 t1} f cart Uzi r M RI RI I Al RI ON R I y -- *2 �R2RR2 R2 R2 F; C4 2 RE RE �� (C2 R R2 MH R2 r— RI $CF- R RI ROS N � CF-R R2 RI R 2 R 2 R} Rt Rt R2 R, �a�irn» R I RI h2 h3 sr OMH R' R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 T—le. RE r E a � . dr IT R3 RI ; ROS R3 1 R3 . R3 R3 C2 ca jL P L UU s/.n." 5 R� R} t R3 a.,e q C4rLE I r EL b0/rlb0 OR. 91 k06E S go IL R3 C4i T R2 R2 RI i. R3 RI RE R! RE Rl Rr [! R2 . ., s. \ R3 Mj R) J� � {} � RI RI ®' R3-23 r.ortwrror ou- 31 r RI-CZ - RI er RI r . RI-CZ RI R3 : KEMIVfORTM RI s t 4 0 1: RI-CZ RE N u C F—E 41 u p. R} Existing Zoning Area of Concern 3 .3 o � � huntington beach planning- division figure 3-6 �,r 4dNING ZONING AM L3 SPtTIONAL DI-STR.ICT MAP 20 -5 - 11 I NOTE . ' ,�''}��� ��' _ 6DOFTLO 0E[FNER 6.It" •w. [4w[a 1p M.r� Ap1`.!• xf rw*[re[a*o csr[re ra rw[c[.t[• fl.Ux Rw/w1 p�, 45TY COUNCI4 01d)19aMai 00.-0O4 {GENO &NKMR warm.W !MINDED �On.50. CK] r t . 6-1•i NI 601 7-1r66--5aa 66i�Ns Iltr1x0 24.43 m »6 -UN' T'INtTON BEACH 7-43 ®] °rar.cwE 1r'nrv'uw9a0.Eu[rnc msu*swwurct IV 1001- 2-5-66 66-SUN9 — r4rn,a1m w."_ cwK S-2-64'.mmoo41 5-4-676672 IX4 c.wnm—""r4 ,1� Oet7 ♦-6-" 4301040 9-16-67 Si-�1549 .srrw.rvc,apt r�DYnrt, ORANGE COUNTY,- CALIFORNIA 6N4 WrJ�y 4-4-44451� 6. 451 �� m . s-a•6a 4251D64 EI_n-a9 a6-s+�r4sl �•:4�[�►•,_ I-7-60 i97 24C12 49y6 6-1S_l6.64 406 11 4.7•69 69.4 A66 ® oo.l.u,nt [LLi Im,,UT[ Dwma . 5�-�E rmrsa-i 4Y96 r 13l4DissY�--76 �T�55Tgg5 6-fi-H4D►A[DI07! T-N-rI 70A F620 c�+6M**..a+!R3 fxa[[ari 7.2- 4 64-7 %2 ' II-R-04 476 1060 11-20.7i 7t20meft Elwnuwax[ ome,c'c f2.7-64 46, r1015 7-S-72 T+,57C11693 KwFcr9C KY�gryFy, A-65496 1165 7-E6-T?PP&77.222DT -'-- CtxlPxilrFa AMIl s!RYra 11 1 IS'350 S 164 7-5-76 76, 2.291 [ tw..v p.Fw ur —•� w.[n.ZcK aex4alr I - AVE L TT EOtN6ER ,x I r RI-Cz v MH RI . RI Rf RI n5 is C2 b I R 2 D CF-E e 9p RI s' R [ crSWE 3 RI I TC,MI o[ RI a L04.6 �� i°�° 16L0 I �� cy P, R!-Ct RI aR R I Cr araa, R DR c1�'d = ;� RI RI \4� _ I-CZ ..orde +- RI RI +d RI-CZ r OAHU OR �1 WR CZ- `OPERETTA DR R1 - RI RI . .............. DIL 641110 +1 RAH RI ---- R' - \, U .RI_CZ C4.1 N C r. C, D - Ew R2 R2 C41'� Y 4 cr*�t N N U U r 1 WR-CZ �, ,� _ AY R3 CIRIST errrso•a4'ss. E Pi0AP�4? mA - wa00 i CF-E �j R2 R2 I~ 9hr 4 RhCi CF-R • R2 ° a • STM RI-Cz R� G as oK �%OrWI K WR-Cz ,� _Fu-,wrur_K.: on RI-CZ P�"t CF-R R2 R!-CZ R3 , R2 R2 R2 R29 X` R'� G•I, : R WR-Cz UPLARM R2 1G7R4 Jl 57 RI CZ RI-CZ ' WR-CZ R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 RI-CZ N U R I-Cz CZ } ' WR CZ RI CZ Rh-G2 pY CI RI C4-CZ i ti1 sr R3 u F-R I i ' RI-CZ ° R3 R3 R3 R3 ' 0 y2 k RI T_ .. WARNER E ` I rM,r r► I A V •Huntington Beams company 2110 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CaUtomia 92648-2499 (714) 960-4351 }�}��TINGTON BEACH January 12, 1987 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Huntington Be Planning Commission 2000 Main eet P.O. Box 1W Huntin n Bea49 ch, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 926 Subject: Land Use Element Amendment 87-1 Dear Commissioners: The Huntington Beach Company has reviewed proposed Amendment 87-1, which considers changing land use designations on .two properties owned by Huntington Beach Company (areas of concern 2.3 and 2.4). We concur with the Development Services Department in recommending that existing General Plan designations of medium density residential be retained for both of these areas. Area 2.3 involves two vacant blocks of 4.1 and 4.6 acres southeast of City f Hail. ' These blocks were subdivided in the early 1900's -into twenty-two 12,000 to 50,000--square foot lots which have remained vacant because of encumbering oil leases and operations. The City's master plan studies of the mid-1960's designated this and the adjacent land for a government center. After the Civic Center was built in 1974, the City considered the southeasterly site as,surplus to its needs, and in 1976 redesignated this and other lands north of Utica Avenue for medium density residential development. Zoning on the site has never been brought into conformance with the General flan. The Planning Commission and City Council adopted a redevelopment plan for this area in 1982 and, since that time, the Huntington Beach Company has assisted City Staff in exploring alternative consolidation proposals intended to provide more efficient land usage and improve current parking and traffic patterns around City Hall. Amending the land use designation to low density residential would result in poor utilization of the land considering the existing lot configurations and the property's proximity to the Civic Center. The staff report overstates the number of units that could be developed under the two alternatives considered. A low density designation would only allow between 54 and 67 units (not 116) depending on the zoning used and whether or not Pine Street were abandoned. The existing medium density designation would permit between 116 and 178 units, again depending on zoning and consolidation. This is significantly less than the 259 units stated in the staff report. A residential project of 130 to 150 units would be in conformance with the General Plan and would generate increased property tax, sales tax, park fees, and other revenues to the City compared to a low density project. We feel that neighborhood concerns about traffic, parking, and- appearance can be adequately addressed through subsequent site planning and design efforts. For these reasons, we support staff's recommendation to retain the existing medium density residential designation in Area 23. • Area 2.4 involves an 8.0-acre parcel (10.3' gross acres) on the west side of Beach Boulevard at Memphis Avenue. Current zoning on the property would permit a maximum of 102 residential units on the west half of the site in addition to five acres of retail or office development along the Beach Boulevard frontage. A maximum of 116 units could be developed if the entire site were zoned R2. We concur with staffs analysis regarding the viability of a commercial development on the entire site, considering its general location and difficult accessibility from Beach Boulevard. We feel this property is capable of supporting 200 units (19.4 units per gross acre) and ask the Planning Commission to consider an alternative of applying the existing R3 zoning to the entire site (medium-high density land use designation). If this alternative is not acceptable, we would support maintaining the existing medium density residential designation on the property and ask that R3-PD-17.5 zoning be applied to the site to permit a 150-unit project as analyzed and recommended by staff. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. Sincerely, William D. Holman Project Representative WDH/j cc: P16. James W. Palin Mr. tarry McCamish, Chevron U.S.A. RESPONSE HUNTIN!Q=N_ BEACH CONPANY Area 2 .3 Staff has revised the acreage for Area 2 .3 to reflect the proper figure `of 12. 60 acres. Accordingly, staff has also reduced the unit counts under each alternative (88 units for Low Density and 189 units for Medium Density Residential) . Lastly, staff has revised the various sections of the report (economic, housing, police and fire, schools and traffic) to reflect the lower .housing counts. Area 2 .'4 Staff analyzed a 150-unit project under the Medium Density Residential alternative because the General Plan designation of Medium Density permits 15 units per gross acre. The General Plan density, however, does not necessarily correlate exactly to the appropriate zoning, density. In this case, the. appropriate R2 zoning would not actually permit 15 units per acre on the entire site due to the way site area is calculated for zoning. Staff does not concur with the Huntington Beach Company' s request to place R3-PD-17. 5 zoning on the site in order to build at 15-units per gross acre. Staff continues to recommend that the zoning be R2 to reflect. the recommended Medium Density General Plan designation on the site. (726od) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' INTER-DEPARTMENTCOMMUNICATION HUNIWGTON UACH To James W. Palin Fro Step_h n V. er Director of Development Services Pri ` pal R velopment Services Subject COMMENTS ON DRAFT Date Dec , 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR LAND USEAMENDMENT NO. 87-1 I have received a copy of the captioned document and would like to provide you with the following comments. 1. AREA 2.2 - SOUTH SIDE OF ELLIS AVENUE: EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD The Redevelopment Agency staff concurs with the Development Services staff recommendation against a change in designation of this parcel from commercial to residential at this time. It would be preferable to encourage consolidation of this parcel with the adjacent shopping center which fronts Beach Blvd. and to work toward an intensification of this center in the future. This site has been designated a high rise node and the Redevelopment Agency staff would be interested in pursuing plans to fulfill this designation in cooperation with the property owners as a part of the implementation of the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. 2. AREA 2.3 - NORTH OF UTICA AVENUE BETWEEN 17TH STREET AND LAKE STREET This site is within the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area. The Redevelopment Agency staff concurs with the Development Services staff recommendation to maintain the current medium density residential designation on this site. 3. AREA 2.4 - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BEACH BOULEVARD AND MEMPHIS AVENUE This site is within the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. The Redevelopment Agency staff does not concur with the Development Services staff recommendation to maintain the residential designation of this site. At this location the Beach Boulevard Corridor is developed' with residential and commercial uses with commercial uses gaining in dominance. This is a large site and would easily accommodate a mixed use project which will be more appropriate over the expected 35 year life of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. A commercial development of S or more acres at this location would not be "competition" for adjacent centers. Conversely, commercial enterprise tends to perform better when located in proximity to other ,successful commercial uses. Commercial development at this location would, support the objective of strengthening the commercial activities within the ,Beach Boulevard Corridor and the economic base of the community. For James W. Palin December 16, 1986 Page Two this 'reason the" Redevelopment staff strongly recommends that the land use amendment recommendation be amended to include at least 50% of this site as a commercial area with a requirement that a Master Plan for a mix- of commercial and residential uses be prepared. 4. AREA 2.5 - SOUTH SIDE OF _ TALBERT AVENUE, EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD This is the Crest View School site•and it is within the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. The Redevelopment Agency staff concurs at this time with the Development Services staff recommendation not to change land use from residential to commercial. However, this site could be important in the 35 year life of the Redevelopment Project Area and the status of the -site should be monitored. 5. AREA 2.5 - SOUTH EAST CORNER OF BEACH BOULEVARD AND WARNER AVENUE This site is within the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area and the Redevelopment Agency staff concurs with the Development Services staff recommendation to change the land use designation from residential to commercial: 6. AREA 2.7 - NORTH SIDE OF WARNER AVENUE, EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD This site is within the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. The Redevelopment Agency staff concurs with the Development Services staff recommendation that the land use designation on the western .10 acres of the site be changed from residential to commercial. The Agency staff, however, has additional comments regarding the balance of this site. 1. Over the 35 year life of the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment' Project Area there could be sufficient demand to develop the entire site as T commercial. 2. The mixed use development that has occurred in the vicinity, would support medium or high density residential product on a portion of this site. 3. Also a. fully mixed use project (including commercial, office, and residential) may soon be appropriate in the increasingly urban context of the Beach Boulevard Corridor. For these reasons, Redevelopment Agency staff recommends that a Master.Plan of the site with the alternatives outlined above be prepared in the future. In the meantime, the Agency staff recommends that Land. Use Amendment No. 87-1 include an appropriate land use designation that would permit a mixed use project on the entire site. Jaynes'W. Palin December 16, 1986 Page Three I hope this information will be of assistance to you in continuing to process Land Use Amendment No. 87-1. We will be in contact with you in the next few days to arrange a meeting to discuss these comments. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at X5542. S V K:sar xc: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Douglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment Charles P. Spencer, Housing & Redevelopment Program Manager Mike Adams, Principal Redevelopment Planner -Hal Simmons, Associate Planner 0699r RESPONSE TO COMMENTS STEPHEN KOHLER PRINCIRLE REDEVEIOPMENT. SPECIALIST Area 2 .4 In the time since the December 16, 1986 communication, Redevelopment staff has revised its recommendation and now concurs with the Planning staff recommendation to maintain Medium Density Residential on the site. Area 2 . 5 In the time since the .December 16, 1986 communication, Redevelopment staff and Planning staff have reached agreement on a new recommendation to redesignate only the western 5.0 acres of Area 2.5 from Low Density Residential to Genetical Commercial . Area 2 . 7 In the time since the December 16, 1986 communication, Redevelopment staff and Planning staff have reached agreement on a new recommendation to 'redesignate all of Area 2. 7 from Low Density Residential to Mixed Development . (7260d) City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR January 8, 1987 Mr. Kent Pierce, Chairman Huntington Beach Planning Commission 7865 Seawalls Circle Huntington Beach, California 92649 Dear Kent, SUBJECT: LAND USE 87--1 As you know, amendment to a Land Use Element 87-1, was the subject of a public hearing for the Planning Commission on January 27, 1987. A number of the land use amendments included for consideration at that time are ones which have been requested by Redevelopment Agency staff as part of our ongoing effort with a creation of a redevelopment project area for the Beach Boulevard corridor. Please be assured that Redevelopment Agency staff has worked closely with the staffs of the other departments in the formulation of the recommendations to be-presented to the Commission at the public hearing. While the final recommendations embodied in this report differ slightly from the original request of the Redevelopment Agency staff, staff has reviewed these recommendations in detail and concur with the recommendations which appear in the final report. I would like to respectfully request the favorable consideration of the Commission in these requests. We appreciate the consideration by the Planning Commission in this matter. The Agency staff will be present at the public hearing to answer any questions posed by the Commissioners. In the meantime, if you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 4-'V- Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator CWT:lp xc: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator Jim PaIin, Development Services Director Mike Adams, Principal Redevelopment Planner Stephen V. Kohler, Principal Redevelopment Specialist Telephone (7I4) 536-5202 CITY OF iHUNTINGTON BEACH . .y INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION MUNTINGMN•EACH To Tom Livingood, Commissioner From Tom Poe Planning Commission Deputy Fire Marshal Subject ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Date February 18, 1987 REPORT 87-1 Pursuant to your request for an evaluation by the Fire Department of Section 2.7.2.4(d), page 81 of the Environmental Impact Report 87-1, the Department has reevaluated this section and found the.wording to be correct. The attached map shows the location of the nearest fire stations in'relation to the subject property. As the map indicates, three (3) fire stations which could respond to this area are within approximately one and one-half (1-1/2) to two (2) miles. The maximum response time for this distance would be approximately three (3) to four (4) minutes. Generally, one (1) minute reaction time is added to response time for boarding and starting fire apparatus and, therefore, total response time would be approximately five (5) minutes. Should you desire any additional information;-please Call my office at 536-5566. TP/sr Attachment 6214f -; ....,. GARD1EN QVVE FRWY WESTMINSTER HAZARD ` Wr O16t 0 - BOLSA M u R100EN ' ; 1 EDINGER HEIL WARNER IFV SLATER �} :;:..:.:•: . .: : Rd 3 nr: v TALOM ELLIS �;.• �;.,, FACIFICA s*N�?�!'�er �►.,a l�io••w...TI CaARF1ELD r. .. YORKTOWN OIL'F: a -;T4 ADAMS ^ sy $TaT.'�.� RPP•ao,� 3 s.. Z IS ATLAM MA Ay BANNING LU HOSPITAL WAY .t (APPENDIX F ADDENDUM FOR AREAS 2 .5 AND 2.7 Area 2. 5 Addendum Staff has recommended that the eastern 10. 00 acres of Area 2. 5 be retained as Low 'Density Residential and that the western 5. 00 acres be redesignated to General Commercial. The rationale is that the western ' 5 . 0 acres of property could be combined with the existing five acres of commercially designated property immediately to the west, in order to assemble an overall 10.0 gross acre -commercial site. The staff recommendation could result in 70 housing units on the residential portion and 65,300 square feet of retail space on the commercial portion. It should be pointed out, however, that in reality; a 116,800 square foot retail center could actually be constructed on a larger 10 acre parcel using the adjacent existing 5 . 0 acres of commercial property. For purposes of comparison to the other alternatives in the study area analysis, .however, only 5.0 acres of commercial is analyzed below, although the appropriate factors for a 10.0 acre shopping center were incorporated. Staff has estimated that the staff recommendation for 10 .0 acres of Low Density Residential and 5 .0 acres of General- Commercial could generate approximately 9,305 average daily trips. This generation figure falls 'midway _between the traffic generation figures predicted for the other alternatives in the analysis on page 62 of the General Plan Amendment document. That analysis found that the traffic generated by any of the alternatives could be accommodated. As such, the staff recommendation could also be accommodated. Staff also utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the staff recommendation. The revenues and expenditures associated with the recommendation were predicted for one year for purposes of comparison to the other alternatives. The results are summarized in the table below. Loci„ Pgns i ty/Commerc is l Revenue $137,481 Cost $ 26, 672 Revenue-Cost $110,809 Revenue/Cost 5. 15 The outcome shown above falls midway between the other alternatives analyzed on page 59 of the General Plan Amendment document. The five acres of commercial development in the above scenario causes this alternative to generate more revenue than the all residential alternatives, but less revenue than the all commercial alternative. In reviewing the above results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs . (7186d) Apart from the traffic and fiscal impact differences, all other aspects of. the analysis of- alternatives. for Area 2 . 5 in _ the General Plan Amendment document, should remain largely unchanged. Student generation and air .quality . impacts may be slightly different for the staff recommendation, but, as. in the case of the traffic and fiscal outcomes, .will fall midway between the other alternatives and would -not be considered. significant. (7185d) Area 2 . 7 Addendum The staff recommendation for Area 2. 7 is for Mixed Development on the entire 20 , 5 acres. The recommendation does not specify any particular amount of commercial acreage versus residential or park acreage. Rather, staff proposes that at this time only the concept of Mixed Development. be adopted for the site, with the specific mix of uses to be established by a later Specific Plan and detailed traffic study. For purposes of evaluating what could potentially develop under staff ' s recommendation for Mixed Development, some assumptions about land use can be made. The Oceanview School District has been negotiating with various volume discount retailers for the western 13 . 5 acres. of the site. With this knowledge, staff has suggested the possibility of commercial on the western 13 .5 acres, and some mix of medium density residential and public park on the eastern 7. 0 acres . A possible scenario would be 13 . 5 acres of commercial, 5 acres of Medium Density Residential and 2 acres of public park. Given the above described mix of land uses, approximately 120, 000 square feet of commercial building space could be accommodated on the commercial portion and 75 housing units on the residential portion. " Staff estimates that a commercial project of this size would generate 8,400 average daily trips while the residential would generate 900 average daily trips . It is, therefore,. estimated that the staff recommendation of Mixed Development for the entire site could generate approximately 9 ,300 average daily trips, or approximately half of the 18,500 ADT .predicted for commercial development of all 20 .5 acres . It must still be stressed, however, , that the traffic study and specific plan staff has proposed will still be necessary to define how much development can actually be permitted on the site. Staff also utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the above scenario. The revenues and expenditures associated with the scenario were predicted for one year for purposes of comparison to the other alternatives . The results are summarized in the table below. Mixed Development — Commercial/ Medium ,Density/Pgrk Revenue $471, 261 Cost $ 33,279 Revenue-Cost" $437,982 Revenue/Cost 14 . 16 The "outcome shown above exceeds the revenues which were predicted for any of the other alternatives which were analyzed for the site. Even the all-commercial alternative, which featured twice as much retail space as the above scenario, produced less revenue. The principle factor in the extremely positive revenue to cost ratio for this scenario was the very high retail sales generation rate for high volume discount retail stores . The retail sales volume per (7186d) square foot associated with this type of retail use is two and one-half times that of other retail uses. In reviewing . the above results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs. Apart from the traffic and fiscal impact differences,. all other. aspects of the analysis of alternatives for Area 2 . 7, in the General Plan Amendment document should remain largely unchanged. Student generation and air quality impacts may be slightly different for the staff recommendation;• but, as in the case .of the traffic outcome, will fall midway between the, other alternatives and would not be considered significant. i (7186d) APPENDIX G PROPOSED BEACH/WARNER SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY A VE F+E—IL _ INE I CI Y w OF CR J eti eY = � RI v u J v v u � U RI 9 o° R€ RI RI RI, RI W RI RI RE � RI R€ RI +� C4 F w:3 a u ac DR w 1�� R I C `1 N RI fa -50 BRUSH DR S� Ly G1+RYSLER DR _--- R} Ri BRYANT DR o� C 4 a RI RI L C2 O r `r LAMBERT 'g DR L I RI RI U04 .6075 To R O TERRY DR• x TERRY DR u z R2 r w g .. MODNSMADOW m � � � �� 14 8 R2 C4 RI g RI RI RI RI Ri RI 10 >n y 1 ago LAl6CASTER DR. ARNETT DR R _—_� ��,— DAi465K DRIVE _ F. C. D ca-+ O, c F, C D C6-2 RU - ' rr •, 1' hr}•:•:. 11✓��.` 1..•,�.{. a lS. Y R3 O 3 .k.;�S iJ,.' F�.¢•fJ'.c`'�•'ri•" ''�,' •ti ,� �.,r•{' r` r+r. :v C ac TAMARU R,'3 �:.�#,::. ,� ,nab^ , .,• ;';° .^•:; �a .;: ' RD R3�C64 lF WARNER AVE -- .R2 � R5 -- RI RI h C4IR OR, -NiS` tt - AAI3TERDAAI 6R R2 �0 �] s— RI * M � � iL �tih � �p � 50 R G • `w EDA CR Y 14 IZ RI 6O 7 `p� 2 I R 2 +rs L W REMBRANOT DR. R I RI R I R2 = ,o 2 RI e rMlEo' ---'w YPR A s. 0, 1 '. i : 4 RI MARSEILLE DR RI ar POLDER CA 1#4_ r ei I R2 500 4 R I ~ +L,� 1�,7 ti P Is R i Y,.� +YU Y N � 3 A vALEI,FCIA 6� p� J Y' RI RI E330 To a 3N.Y7 R` a n FRIESLAN —7 [ LL DR 2 r 1Itf1Ilf�rs"1flt� R� R� � 3 n J R I f, _ �4P 3. I -�. i .4 � I i �4 � C�tT_rLGF+vS_ --- p� %� PROPOSED BEACH/WARNER SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY AM& HUNTINGTON BEACH CALFORNIN PLANNING DIVISION i APPENDIX PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BOUNDARY 0 •ai i ►�4• ra4d • � rl iq agpunl.7, .I i•uu IIHIIIIIIHl1l1llpuirp[ irfFllllt � � _ rStlip 1 f I w�.�_.•..r.rf. ♦ I f=. 1 Illtr +I.w.. E \ I •Iuin C nulua � 1e_ '�1 n I.qeS y+ � � 1 It j1{ !1pp{ F!!'' f ! ♦ � � F L •n�� iuur'nr�1a4' ��1� ��Es I ZI - SSA 1 Z>`I n+ •._^� ��III/1�1��N111 rIH111p!#1IIFIIII.-� /11l-i� 1r�"'+n .11[f11111AiFEH11F l - � �4. !# r-•. �� f rt-�' ' � �F;i1H111�.-� Hur ulluUiullrl3[rr r- ( Iq�f_.in} � ..1!!i€Illllikflll!� y 4 I � fll.nurtkiy� � � ����}..yY,`rf I��i. • ¢,�!}�i �I31H�.- ww w,.�� �i�w �ili.�i.x.i I.p Ay Illy Z�� � ��'�"��_ 1=�` a • f11H11r.�T-alil311 �=7� � .+ - r�'- ■ U�/. Ili![r _ 111 \\ ,W� ray a 11 l/1 3 lr tlfslr �� C■r'll I�f +1..+I- K� 11 •! rglr/11s11``sesr ��-1Nn�s ��$ I 1! �R r 1 111 IFI' � EI 1" �ww�13�il111ili lllr _ l/ •�T, 11111/�/!il■NEi all!/Etitl _ •.I gg, •lllll;f Ellltl - ' ... "�"`il��I s I1i1# RHIII 41 R, 3�In11111 11!!l I J + ��••`� .L fiNi�_y lrlllfl�l/liil.. / _ 1 s t' � _ Ilr�� ,Iaa t''. +_llliin = L•Nlf '"$Ilr 1� 114[Illiil� r`�:IlFiifMl •i • �IIII I a FFiflill .'�` Z�1 �. �1+}ill if�C w■ � .�R f.y IEllllf'"r �r dill%1 i `= CI .}�' �1,-��' I i1 41 �� ���t i'■#S Firr�ll talc 6�i1[allrtlr,,.�. '' g'iuuri iUr �i�I iii 1' �' ;E:� •niu1E1 ! ,IIItr 10r, 11 ■ ^' •.'..'�, t#wil r a L u/'tl.uvula Ell 111 rfjZ H/r, H..11�11 � areiiiii� ��"'t� � �SA 1:'Z •�Ilrlll ii/Iriir �.<NN1 � :1 ` C ll�f `•� .. 1' • .a .� J, 'nir - ,I,1111lIIIIEI Iw111fIN�4 :a � � � 11�1i�I ' �� � '� �Ilail• MlulhltiiH 1lNMIB „ i-.. �:,� s- �"#TT. _£ wm x. `�.u1A�■ �l lINlHilili WIt/1i•�ni:.�k■I��I���xi11i111��11 � �I� 11��=�`s. man_. Yh' ■ _ 1 .. ,.•1�•, �s' �� �� ltl�il��..�f��������♦♦i� 11����r,�Ii1111 ■�' 1� ■I 1� � ft � iG{E!F IT Ii 'ilk ■ tI 1! Sl 1IRS._.., 'E'1�„4 MR, Ilk_► IM�1aa ._• r�C ,s�t., h ■1111■I ifHt,If3- 'g 7 A�- ti� 'jt1 i111i+ti ;y• E'$, ili�ll�lfc �1pa ■:��'•1�+•��� �-�11FL`E���� 9 _■tlllllllw � _ �' :� 11 1 1"`E�� -t.�:wHunil/I11- �. Ik. /RI al d, ��,i..�,•,-,.r_„ n f {µflpiw ��i u�.111111RI!�3 ",.2!NEii`_t%"/uHurp 11: ! i I11rE E�ll 7• r .■ nnuu,. �'•� iflIII,1!= fl{IIHI� ki -. _-- -.—i�;iF= wz z �� js•F=p71r 1h "��11�111ur sonafa . �:�ri _,�&..�..r �I= 7�i'�.9�I r. 9'F4l � � ...MIA�1!F ' 1��#�t1111�� i 'cam � • • _�r� ����'� .=�4. .� �t _ ��.� jr� s!•�s ;ss�e... )�' 1 H!tll �•�Ilrgtlllrrll.r�ra_�ill; �•:' � �• �f 1 F �7 j{,;� !}I�!'.-�y1�■! '+{' Ilr ii7R,� fYiAi��i,u•I,g�ul�tn#R y_ I �iii�;[I�ktS i,�� slltlttinnnfsi'« e 1 R'� IH11f1 Illili111H1Alllllla{_u[rh - .. alrun.uqy w are ! � ■oom!Ik'filllirlllilll +.lW�III m s• �!'■ � III .I 5E11 IEiI '.111111- III _yrIii±e * � =lu'Illliaugl° 1 !' A _ ,. i� lane H .•'y - FI � It 1 i 1 ilk • 1i �ic 1 \�I 11iE eNiZ ¢ t 1 - iill �' fttl f! = 11 1 �•1 E,II 1 !� � I� �c.S=iOXON S�l�i�' • n��:,��'d":te.�y A ,,�„ .•. r1u11E► ir..sit�i/.1�I .ii S��i1ue.. a II�iE u11N1 r r N elua 1 1 1 i1L r ! ��,. nluw nlnla��u •�C♦rr P,Ilf4 RIr; ,INEIIt„nNl INI,R.[ A 2 !'Jf ,L1111-_�'� �� IIAIII[ • ! f 1ll/r� ��� �i lSltt• �, f►fFilllllTj�$h�ii�?$;i��� ��I=�t=. ��[1q1 Il.Ili �� i*ae I I � ,N �Q Y�1• y��i�1111ii1�1 ;11r� Sy ��'3y��[A if11i1�fR@ i '4l '`i�ii�!/�t.. 5� .#� �e��� _�, r=;l' rryz.* :'� �f►' ``�•�; Ih lIuA�F$li`�lSII "��iix� s —t=t,'�I tl'il -1 yc 9 !! I ± ft1111#� Erp}M �t 1 11,1/.!C� ■.e`i 111 6,:- p ._� ,NIIN►� �/r•,i, r Eu •r/�'.''•+ ♦ a„f,E,E , � i t t t�tt�ll t=1I�1 IiAtt11 3tli ; - ! �Afg�s '1115♦♦ ! 1j1 liR�1 ! /�� Iri r/�Illlf 11 1if 11Ef1 i~1 1� E,Eu1�{� �.' 111� •• _ K� — r �!� � 1 Ije1 L 1 r� fNw��•+ x1����C�11111E �11�/IIIII€fNlil�71� [!i � `IIt It�H ~' _ �: ��II�",� �' r- I �! • u71; ..,. 1': 1 � ,� /11�1r� ����[ 's plI11N'�i '"� �I r - y, • Il� ry -±w_xlil Iu1fE 1 1,� !!! I 111111 1117f F'-k a .:* YAE H, IillWf111 En�1� � �� �,-... SN a�w�,rE..• /ram .'/�11 • .� .� E +t Irntll.l =�i•'3/1T,�i1•I .•�`rrj�r;��:K � _ p A � �� r IIIRSISIIu/ rr„�- �. ,.T«���.- halllll � u U „� • - r . ....All ll�il �..�� r;EI111A luxlE r`� �• j � kj I/i1111����.t � �������II� � � Iti -s 1 � F�t•Y• ��i16il1t�11lII�I �� /Ilit ,WI�� I�1■ �1N! IG~II'Iii3;1[r;Ss, �•�•�. � � $��' ' ;—�. ' • • • - �. ire ::_.. Ks. ••�1 �NEI 1� ->wJ IIII lIIIIF 1� 1 Radii aim {�ti #ill 111111E_ All w3J�+i"Tr(diPmT39� 11lell' RjN silrin#IUA 411l, �F�i��� .. `•' ;°. ����.�.��rr II ii 1 11tliltll�If wli�rr r� ahrrA aAad IpRtl1� ��I�ii ru��lllx+l ,NRf,Aa udfiii�, 'If!E lord gels stlxAl slp Buell tl413A „ mo7'fA}G 91.H>e fGtlAN!I[ilkk 1 ! I�rE uNA!tll111,ieAd 1¢zt�xll li 11�Ai(tilEl#IIAm IAM,YR ANE9 1.!rlleAlill!!pl 9A111 Merl slN/8ri1!6111A 0111D1 A1B91 kNA!] 9 4111� uolle m4n�A 1a141r dlAdn x�Arl�r.�, wr-tell• r la. IeeR[Aue :eaAA slNl d111'llll,�sn•� itiplsr�eas¢(Ages _ ��i tl III 2.;\ � � � � � I � �■I 111 1;<7 ;, $' `� 3 rani III � ;� A1A1 • e1 — -- IAAalfli LkIB Illllillli�'gi tlBaY!AtlBGi!B AAIBC4IIrAjlyF�HNBA®�AII�IANlNibNB g9111�N1&llir lA3ANdRl,IH rN411 .AA:RJA.AIAZAE[A AAe - �,� t—��uIIIIIIINII[il wilNNlwillll 111E �• ��A SIRI S 1— i r ■_- j� 4l/rrrrr IEIIIIAIIIII fltf11111N1 Cl A6 AA aA16: 46siffi ABi S9&AAA \ a 3► CAI ■qr IIIIAl11N11 Ie1e1111TN1�Adlala � � p �t�b��+yyP A IN9.�SEA PBAMAA�Y y� � • IIN flMfll lH d38?�. yr4� �,.,'+A tl'�� s �`I•! ¢��ww�* ��r� r • 1 + I , • i • i f � 41 APPENDIX I FISCAL IMPACT ADDENDUM-REDEVELOPMENT AREA CONSIDERATIONS GPA 87-1 FISCAL' IMPACT MODEL ADDENDUM Redevelopment Area' Considerations 1. Property Tax Revenue The principle source of funding redevelopment programs is with tax increment revenues . Tax increment revenues - are collected. from pro- perty taxes generated within a redevelopment area . The' maximum annual allocation to the Redevelopment Agency; referred to asItax increments, would equal the property taxes generated by the assessed valuation in a redevelopment area in excess of the base year value . Base year values are determined -by the amount of assessed value shown on the tax rolls prior to the adoption of a redevelopment plan. The level .,of taxes which could be anticipated by other taxing agencies including the general fund of the City of Huntington Beach, within a project area would evidently be "frozen" at -the amounts received in the year • a specific redevelopment plan was adopted. . . For example, Area 2 .3 is wi.thin' the Yorktown Lake Redevelopment , Area, established in fiscal year 1982/1983 . At .the time this rede- velopment plan was adopted, the assessed value of the property for , the 12 . 6 acre site (referred to as Area 2 . 3) .was $405 , 544 . The estimated property tax revenue received by the City' s general fund •• would have been $811 based on ($405 , 544) ( . Ol%, County Tax). (2061. City Tax) _ $811 . This is the amount that was "frozen" at that time so that any property tax revenue generated - in excess of $811 would be collected by the City' s Redevelopment. Agency. Therefore; if the property was- developed as proposed in Alternative . I which is com- prised 'of single family homes, al-1 property tax revenue in excess of $811 would" be collected by the Redevelopment Agency. The estimated market value of Alternative l is $29 , 000, 000 generating City pro" perty tax revenue totaling $58, 000 resulting in a net amount of $57, 189 collected .by the Redevelopment Agency. Area 2 . 3 is in an adopted redevelopment area . , Areas 2 . 2, 2 . 4 , 2 . 6 and 2 . 7 are in proposed redevelopment areas but, at the present .time there is no way of knowing if and when the areas will be designated as redevelopment areas . Another factor to consider is that Area 2 . 7 is currently owned by the Ocean view School District . Although the tax assessor reports a value for the property, neither the county nor , the City. col"lect property tax revenue because of the tax 'exempt status . If the district ' s property is incorporated into A. redevel- opment area, any non-exempt property tax generated by that property would be collected by the Redevelopment Agency. For example, if the District s.ol'd the entire site, it would be treated -1- (0591D) as a conventional piece of property for property tax purposes . If the District .retained the land and leased the property to a com mercial business, the improvements for that business (buildings or parking structures) would be taxed and generate property tax revenue. For the purpose of this analysis, however, it will be assumed that areas 2 .4 , 2 . 6 and 2 . 7 become redevelopment project areas and the base year is fiscal year 1986/1987, using the current assessed valuation of land. and/or improvements reported on the tax assessors rolls . The current assessed valuations are as follows : .Assessed * County City/General Area Value Tax Fund Revenue 2 . 2 $ 157,364 $ 1, 574 $ 313 2 .4 2,497, 080 24, 971 4 , 969 2 . 6 2, 390, 282 23 , 903 4, 781 2 . 7 2, 523, 922 none none * Assessed valuation of land and improvements Using alternative number 1 for each area and assuming the. property tax revenue listed above is the base year, the distribution of. revenue would be as follows : Alternative 1 General Redevelopment Area Market Value Fund Revenue Aaency Revenue 2 .2 $ 3 , 995 ,000 $ 313 $ 7, 6.37 2 .4 14, 062, 660 4 , 969 23 , 156 2 . 6 9 , 983 , 999 4, 781 15, 187 2 . 7 * 23 940, 000 none 45, 725 * This scenario assumes that the school district sells the land. -2- (0591D) Again, assuming each area became a redevelopment area in 1987, the redistribution of property tax revenue would 'generate' different revenue to cost ratios . A comparison of the reported and modified ratios are as follows : Modified Revenue/Cost Revenue/Cost Ratio by Area Alternative Ratio As Reported Redevelopment 2 . 2 1 2 .47 1 .43 2 2 .35 1 . 17 3 3 . 13 1 . 19 2 .4 1 5 .86 4 . 92 2 2 .40 1 . 32 3 11 . 05 10 . 36 2 . 6 1 2 . 72 1.41 2 2 . 50 1 . 01 2 . 7 1 2 . 25 1 . 13 2 2 . 54 1. 33 3 11 . 22 10 . 41 4 25 . 16 24 .41 Because 'of limitations placed on the County Tax Assessor by Proposition 13 , the assessed valuation of a property can only increase by a maximum of two percent per year . If any of the areas analyzed in this report became a redevelopment 'area, the property tax revenue received by the Redevelopment Agency would probably . increa•se annually while the property t.ax revenue received by the General Fund would remain fixed or "frozen" as discussed previously. .2 . Retail Sales Tax Revenue. With the adoption of a redevelopment area, the Redevelopment Agency has an opportunity to negotiate a redistribution of retail sales tax revenue . - -The process is referred to as "pledging back" a percent of the estimated retail sales tax revenue that would be generated by a proposed project . Of the sales tax revenue collected by the City' s general fund (16 . 7 percent of the six cent State sales tax) , the Redevelopment Agency may collect one to three percent . The purpose of this pledge-back is to acquire funds .that can be .used to assist the development of desirable, but economically marginal projects for a specific area . -3- (0591D) The pledge-back funds are used only in the area from which •they have been generated- and - the entire process has to .be approved by, the City Counc i1 . It is also important to note that the redistribution of retail sales tax revenue: (pledge-back) is assessed on a case-by-case basis and is not automatically implemented for every redevelopment project area containing 'a retail business . : Because of the individual nature of ' the _process `it is not feasible to assume that any of the proposed redevelopment areas analyzed in this report will be subject to a "pledge-back" of retail sales -tax revenue. CMO:gbm i l -4- (0591D) APPENDIX J ADDENDUM FOR AREAS 2 . 6 AND 2 . 7 (ZUE 87-1B) a ADDENDUM TO LUE 87-1B On February" 10, 1987,, the Planning Commission requested that staff research the following items related to the analysis of Areas 2 . 6 and, 2 . 7 : 1 . Relocation of .the Edison substation .to the northern portion of Area 2 . 7 : r 2 . Explore the lease of -McDonnell Douglas property - located. on the northwest corner of Bolsa Avenue and3Springdale Street as an alternative location for a Price Club Facility. " 3 .' .' Research City ownership of 3 . 0 acres of park property. on ,Area 2 . 7 . 4 . Evaluate the possibility of a mobilehbme park on Area 2 . 7 . 5 . Clarify. the fire response statement on page" 81 of the ILand- Use Element Amendment document . 6 . Research traffic problems on Terry Drive, Relocation of Edison- Sub-station As indicated in the letter from Mr. Michael Martin of the Southern California Edison company dated January 27, 1987, it would be possible' (but "expensive) to relocate the substation. The letter indicates a base cost of $3 . 6' milli6n to move. the equipment : On.. top' of that- cost would- be $165, 000 per• circuit. mile of transmission line (5 transmission circuits) - and $800, 000 per circuit mile of distribution .line (7 distribution circuits) . Assuming. the • substation was moved 500 feet on the property, the circuit relocation costs would total approximately $610, 000 . The total cost of relocating the substation on site would then be approximately $4 . 21 million. The Edison Company Cautions that it is important that if the substation is relocated, there be no reduction in substati'on site . area . :Besides the need . for very expensive custom equipment on a ,smaller site they also foresee the need to. expand operations on the site in. the future to meet growing electrical demand. The company has indicated that they would prefer to 'retain the . substation in its "present. location and configuration- in order to avoid any di'srhption ,of services •or other problems associated with relocation. Potential ' Lease of McDonnell Douglas Property In response to the- Planning Commission' s direction, staff initiated communication with Douglas Realty, the real-estate subsidiary of McDonnell Douglas, regarding their vacant property on the northwest corner at Bolsa Avenue and. Springdale Street . They presently own 60 acres of vacant, industrially designated property at that ( location. Douglas• Realty-- indicated- that they ,had.•very recently rejected an. offer from another volume discount retailer on the. property and were not interested in corresponding with the Price Club.. As such, it appears that the McDonnell Douglas . property is not a viable alternative site' the Price Club. Staff has also explored the feasibility of the presently -vacant Gemco building on'Edinger Avenue as an alternative location for the Price Club. It appears , however, that the Gemco site" has , both inadequate building size and inadequate parking to accommodate a Price Club. type of .operation' 'an&'is;" therefore; not a, viable . alternative location. The only other site that may have potential as an -al,ternative Price Club location is. the "Holly" property on Garfield Avenue and Gothard Street . The Pr-ice Club has recently indicated, however, that very close freeway .access is an important site consideration for them. As such, the ,."Holly" property may be slightly too remote to be an optimum location for such a use. City Ownersh'ip ' of 3 . 0 Acre. Park Site The Recreation Element of the General Plan contains- an. Appendix inventorying- ,existing and proposed parks. in the City. The appendixes indicates a Rancho View. proposed park site with 3 . 0 acquired and undeveloped acres . Staff has researched. the issue and determined that the City does 'not own 'any' park property on the site. Rather, _ the Recreation Element Appendix was intended to convey only that the City intended to eventually purchase 3 . 0 acres' for park development purposes. . Mobilehome Park Alternative Staff has very briefly examined the possibility of a mobi-lehome park use' 'on the Rancho View School Site . _ The consistency matrix on page 142 of the General Plan indicates that MH (Mob ilehome.) zoning is consistent• with° the designation -of Low Density Residential now . on the school site, `and is - -also, consistent with Medium Density.. Residential' and the proposed Mixed .Development designation. As such, none of these land use designations would preclude the rezoning of the property to MH. It is sta€f ' s opinion, however, that given the location and potential value of property located at the intersection of two major arterials , a mobilehome development would not generate enough -2- (7657d) A � income to interest a private developer. There have been no recent inquiries from private parties to develop mobilehome , parks • in the City. The last privately developed- mobilehome park was constructed in 1974 .: Fire Response Statement, The Planning Commission requested that staff reaffirm that Area 2 . 7 is .within the standard Fire Department five-minute response time distance from both the Murdy and Gothard fire stations a.s well as the Fountain, Valley Bushard station. A memorandum from Deputy Fire Marshall Tom Poe, dated February 18, 1987, ,confirms the . accuracy of the information contained in the 'EIR by 'reiterating that all three stations are within the five-minute response range. The memorandum is inc,luded .in Appendix _E (Comments and Responses) in the EIR. Traffic Problems on- Terry Drive Pursuant to citizen complaints registered at the February 10, 1987 Planning ,Commission public hearing, uon. Area 2 . 7, the Planning Commission requested that staff .research traffic problems on Terry Drive, north of the study area . Residents had indicated that Beach Boulevard traffic is accessing Heil Avenue and Newland Street via Terry. Drive. Staff has requested that the Public Works. Traffic Section .study: the problem. Their study, will be completed in April 1987. In the meantime, they have 'indicated that Terry_ Drive at Beach Boulevard. is scheduled to receive a traffic signal . The.y. also responded that Terry Drive could be expected to .convey some traffic -to and from Beach Boulevard- because it does .provide vehicular access to retail developments on Beach Boulevard. If commercial traffic is found to be a significant problem on Terry Drive, a likely solution would be to barricade the street at the back side of the retail area which abuts. Beach Boulevard. Staff will forward the Traffic Section' s complete response to the Planning: Commission when it is .avail'able. I j ' I • j i I � I - I 3_ (7657d) RAFT LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87=1 1A Environmental Impact Report 87- lA A2hk hunting ton ' beach department of development services � f - f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Land Use Element Amendment 87-1 addresses nine areas of concern : 2 . 1* West Side of Bolsa Chica Street, North of Warner Avenue 2 . 2 South Side of Ellis Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard 2 . 3 North of Utica Avenue between Seventeenth Street and Lake I Street 2 . 4* Southwest Corner of Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue 2 . 5* South Side of Talbert Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard 2 .6**. South. Side of Warner Avenue , East of Beach Boulevard 2 . 7** North Side of Warner Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard 2 . 8 North Side of Warner Avenue, East of Algonquin Street 2 . 9 North Side of Garfield Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard P Area 2. 1 - West Side of Bolsa Chica Street, North of Warner Avenue Area of Concern 2. 1 is a request by' John March to redesignate 1. 62 acres located on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 400 feet north of Warner Avenue from General Commercial to Medium High. Density Residential. Staff recommends that the property be retained-for commercial use due to an assessed long-term need for commercial development in the area. i * Withdrawn - � ** Continued to Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1B i Area 2 .2_ -_ SouthSide -of-Ell-is Avenue- East- of Beach Boulevard Area of Concern 2 . 2 is a request by Jenson Chen to redesignate 1. 89 acres of property located on the south side of Ellis Avenue, 400 feet east of- Beach -Boulevard, from General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential . Staff recommends that the property be retained for commercial use due to the need for shared vehicular access with the shopping center to the west and because the site is identified in the General Plan as a high-rise node. Area 2 - North f Utica Avenue w n Seventeenth Street and Lake St_rept Area of Concern 2 . 3 is a request by -the Huntington Beach Planning Commission to redesignate 12 . 60 acres bounded by Utica Avenue, Seventeenth Street and Lake Street from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential . Staff recommends that the property be retained as Medium Density Residential as a transitional use between the civic center/high school .complex to the north and the Low Density area to the south. Any compatibility concerns may be mitigated through site design. Area 2 .4 Cgrner of Beach H 1 vard 'an Memph-is Avenue Area of Concern 2 .4 is a request by the City- of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to .redesignate 10 .3 acres located on• the west side of Beach Boulevard between Memphis and Knoxville Avenues from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial . The study area is located- within the Beach Boulevard Corridor Project area . Staff recommends ' that the property be retained as Medium Density Residential due to difficulties associated with providing vehicular access from 'Beach Boulevard, compatibility with surrounding residential uses and' distance from the 40'5 freeway. Ar ea 2 , 5 - South Side gf - TalbertAvenue, East of B ach Boulev rd Area of .Concern 2,. 5 is a request by the-.Huntington Beach. Redevelopment, Agency to redesignate 15. 00 acres located on' the south side 'of Talbert- Avenue,, ,300 feet east of Beach Boulevard, ' from Low Density Residential to General Commercial . The property, is owned by the' Ocean View School -District and is located within the Beach Boulevard Corridor Project Area. Staff recommends that only the western 5 .0 acres of the site be - redesignated to General Commercial in order to provide adequate site area to recycle the marginal commercial_ uses further to- the west_ into a quality shopping center : (7263d) f ; Area 2 - South Side of Warner v n e Eagt of Beach -Boulevard Area of Concern 2 . 6 is a request by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to redesignate 4 . 5 acres of property located on the south side of Warner Avenue, 200 feet east of Beach Boulevard (between "A" and "B" Streets) from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial . The property is located within the Beach Boulevard Corridor Project Area. Staff recommends that the property be redesignated to General Commercial in order to achieve a compatible land use with the other high intensity commercial uses at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue and further recommend that a specific plan for the property be prepared in conjunction with the recommended specific plan in Area 2 .7. Area 2 . 7 -- North Si f Warn r Avenue, East of BegIch Boulevard Area of Concern 2 . 7 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to redesignate 20 . 50 acres located on the north side of Warner Avenue, ,500 feet east of Beach Boulevard, from Low Density Residential to General Commercial . The site is presently owned by the Oceanview School District and is located within the Beach Boulevard Corridor Project Area . Staff recommends that the property be redesignated as Mixed i Development in order to encourage a mixed use project which may include commercial on the western portion of the property, and Medium Density Residential and public park on the eastern portion. Staff will further recommend that a specific plan be prepared for j the property which would also include Area 2 . 6 across Warner Avenue to the south. i Area 2 - North SiQe f Warner Av n East of Algonquin Street Area of Concern 2 . 8 is a request by the Department of Development Services to redesignate 8 . 31 acres located north of Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and Sims Street from Medium Density R Residential to Medium High Density Residential in order to achieve j consistency between the General Plan and zoning, t Staff recommends that the property be redesignated to Medium High I� Density Residential in order to achieve consistency between the ! General Plan and zoning. Area 2 - N r h Side Q-f---QarfieldAv n East of Bpach Boulevard Area of Concern 2 . 9 is a request by Lanny Ludwick to redesignate ' i 2 . 24 acres located on the north side of Garfield Avenue, 570 feet east of Beach Boulevard from Medium Density and Low Density j Residential to Medium High Density Residential in order to achieve consistency between the General Plan and zoning. I (7263d) M f .Si 1 Staff recommends that the property be redesignated to Medium High Density Residential in order to achieve consistency between the General' Plan and zoning. (7263d) TABLE OF. CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 1 Methodology. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • s • • • • • . • . 1 2. 0 AREAS OF CONCERN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 . 1* West Side of Bolsa Chica Street, North of Warner Avenue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 . 2 South Side of Ellis Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 . 2 . 3 North of Utica Avenue, Between 17th and Lake Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2 . 4* South of Memphis , West of Beach Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2 . 5* South Side of Talbert Avenue, Each of Beach Boulevard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 55 2 . 6** South Side of Warner Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 2 . 7** North Side of Warner Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard 75 2 . 8 North Side of Warner Avenue, East of Algonquin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 2. 9 North Side of Garfield Avenue, East of Beach Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '93 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES. . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 K 3. 1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity. . . . . . . . . . . , 99 3. 2 Irreversible Environmental Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 3 . 3 Growth Inducing Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 APPENDICES Appendix A Fiscal Impact Assumptions Appendix B Air Quality Calculations Appendix C Pierce-Bolsa Chica Market Study Appendix D Initial Study Appendix E Comments and Responses Appendix F Addendum for Areas 2. 5 and 2 . 7 Appendix G Proposed Beach/Warner Specific Plan Boundary Appendix H Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Boundary Appendix I Fiscal Impact Addendum-Redevelopment Area Considerations * Withdrawn ** Continued to Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1B iI I 1 , ' I I I i Land Use Categories 45--196--8836 AMENDMENTS NDM5E-N16TS PLANNING COMM, CITY8 3C OU5N2C6 I5L DATE RESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION II I:::ii:.i:.•.i:.i::.i:.i:::i:.i:--:i:.i::.i:.i::..i:\.i::..i:.i:...i:.i:..�i:.i:..5:.i:..:.i:..•i:.i:..:Ci:.i:..:'Oi:.i�..:.>:.¢i..:.i':i;..:.i:.i:..:.+i:.�:..:.i.:.b.:i:/..�oi:.i:.Y.i::i:....ii:...-i:i;....�ai.i:..:.�i.i;.�..�:i.i:...:i i:.:.:ii:.:.:ii:.:.:i:..:.:/i:.:.:ii;..:.:ii:..:.:ii:..:.:ii:..:.:i.i:..:.:i:i..:./:i.:..:.:i.:..:.::.:.::.:.:°.:. •.:.'..:.�.:.:.:.:.:.::..:.:..:.::..:.::..:.::..:..:..:..:..:.::..:.::..:.::..:.::..:.::..:.:...:.:...:...:..:.....:.....'-.:.....:....,.:.....:.....:.....:......:......:......:\....'..:....'..:...Y..:...t..:...`:�..:....�..:\.,.. .:.t..:.._...:.. .../...../. .-.:.1::-:: \ :::c`•,.:::,. \:,:i�.�ti•I�>Eaa/;, ..:/:-:._:`-::.:( I ;:;;:�;.;:..;:'..;^/:.:::::r::,.:I\.:y...--.^-..�:.�:.:::.••.;:�•;:':.:/:;.. .....•.:.:;.`\-.;�.:, ,'Ik�%O\?./a••::::::I:r...(:�.,:,:.r/IE:�:�.:.::.,�:r-:..G:;7:C::,:::a AJ::,.,:�:.t�^{, (4f:.� ...:i.'S .d.:.i.�.. .a::...,...Y.r... .eI.I. I..-y..:.b:. l Ohl � .`♦P`�0�, I •.1 - t/y G 4`Tj/I /•...:. `\\I P\ iRESIDEN TIAL 7 I661- 77 11 Estate - < 2 u n /g a c- ! 9-29-77 1202 11-7-77 4551 -77 1206 -77 4572 8-1-78 8:21-78 1 4660 Estate <4Un/9aC10-17-78 236 116-78 4696 11-21-78 1239 12-18-78 4708 3 6-79 1242 3 19-79 4728 GLOW Density 0 261 4-7-80 48653-18-8 ME Medium Density 10-21-80 1268 12-15-80 4936 5-19-81 1273 6-15-81 5005 SAN DIEGO FREEWAY 3-81 1278 12-7-81 5053 Medium High Den s ity II-17-81 1279 12-21-81 5060 8-2-82 5147 High Density 12-20-82 5206 Senior Residential 12-7-82 299 2-7-83 5223 COMMERCIAL 10-4-83 1314 11-28-83 5327 2-6-83 1315 1-3-84 5341 6*. ®General 4-3-84 1317 5-7-84 5373 5457A p II-5-84 MM Serving 1 - -84 333 11-1 8 54578 6-4-84 1344 I-7-85 5457C Office Professional 6-17-85 5532 1-22-86 %9 2-18-86 MUSES 357 6-2-86 5670 evelopment®Mixed D ........................:.: :.. . Of iiiiiir.:a Commercial/Support R ecrea ti an :MM INDUSTRIAL : General . ®'Resource Production .............. stria)EnergyProduction OPEN SPACE Water Cy Conservation Recreation a THER USES I Pd,�i.t.,w,''„:;'.:�.y;:,,,;.,;:;.<::;:i:;,y>:-i i:•::•:•::a:::.•:.•:.::.:•:.i.:.i .... .........k.....k''����."�,:°I�7, �Fp•m1�°.8-,1,;-..I, �'.`.-,_ ..: :: " �.• 2 0 Public Quasi Public Insti tutional Solid Waste Facility 0 Planned Community . r .:.....:..b�kPg sIk x NW `_'x..:"� ..::..::'::: .......,:.;.., -r.::: .........��r�U,r':...Irrr���7,W 1:�:9/u:4/�Nbr.-�.,,��.'�,:.(,",.}."r.;,.J{,••V..,l..�,/�:I,:L�-,'.•aIY.S, °s�.y.w'�l...?.+.i.�.'�re�s: s �a:�t.:�.:e..•.::..►......e.,.!.p�.:...�gIw,�m.��.a'::_ iF�1I �-IL.��as.!a Ian.d M,�.°4Y1:5'S��k��..I�.�,:,...�-�-�9f•-,I.F'n A° .'r•.•::•u:•.n.i;•.i•i•:•. n•;.• : 1•.f I1 a k .;:::.>:::.::;.:..;.w;>:•..:... Plannin g Re servel�i IIIii •Coastal Zone Boun dary Conservation Overlay IFIC COAST .MAN, OCEAN PACIFIC PACIFIC OCEAN 7/u GENERAL PLAN HUNTINGTON ACH C4LIFORNIA LAND USE DIAGRA PLANNING DIVISION Adopted December1976M II Revised JUNE 1986 C'RM•11T i i I i 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION This report concerns Amendment 87-1 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 This amendment concerns changes in General Plan designations on nine sites (Figure 1-1 ) . Seven of these sites (Areas 2 .1 through 2 . 7 ) are covered by the Environmental Impact Report contained in this document . The eighth and ninth sites (Areas 2 .8 and 2 .9 ) are "clean--ups" of the General Plan intended to achieve consistency between the General Plan and zoning and are, therefore, not covered by this EIR. Rather , Areas 2 . 8 and 2 . 9 are processed with Negative Declarations . The amendment requests for Areas 2.1 through 2 .7 will be analyzed in terms of the existing conditions .on the site, major land use, circulation and environmental issues, and consistency with adopted City goals and policies . ( 0550D) -1- n s x n L-- E k ... :r i 3 FO.gee \ Hf. \\ 2 . 8 2 .1 2.7 2.6 A.YFR 2 .5 .,..., f . 2 2 .9 2 .3 { 2 :4 Ilia r _ Figure 1--1 LUF 37-1 AREAS OF CONCERN huntington beach Manning division —2— Section 15148 of the State EIR Guidelines states that "The requirements for an EIR on -a local general plan element or amendment thereof will be satisfied by the general plan or element document and no separate EIR will be required if: 1 ) the general plan addresses all the points required to be in an EIR by Article 9 of the State EIR Guidelines, and 2 ) the document contains a special section or a cover sheet identifying where the general plan document addresses each of the points required. " In conformance with State guidelines, this document will constitute the EIR for Land Use Element Amendment 87-1 . The environmental setting and significant impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial study are addressed under Areas of Concern (Sections 2. 1 through 2. 7 ) . 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 . ( 0550D) -3- 2. 0 AREAS OF CONCERN 2 . 1 WEST SIDE OF BOLSA CHICA STREET, NORTH OF WARNER AVENUE, 2. 1 . 1 Background Area of Concern 2. 1 is a request by John March to redesignate 1 : 62 acres located on the west side of Bolsa Cnica Street approximately 400 feet north of Warner Avenue from General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential . The site is presently developed with a 4, 470 square foot restaurant. The study area has been designated General Commercial since 1964 when it was redesignated from Low Density Residential. The applicant has requested that the area of concern be redesignated from General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential to allow for the construction of up to 40 dwelling units: A concurrent zone change from C2 to R3 has also been requested. ( 0550D) -5— 2 . 1 .2 Analysis The following analysis examines four land use alternatives for the subject property: (1 ) General Commercial (Exisiting Restaurant ) 4,470 square feet ( 2 ) Medium High Density Residential (Applicant 's Proposal ) 40 units ( 3 ) Medium Density Residential 23 units ( 4) General Commercial (Retail ) 21 ,200 square feet 2 .1 . 2 .1 Land Use As shown in Figure 2-1 , the City's General Plan designates most of the property north of the study area as Medium Density Residential . A .82 acre parcel immediately north of the study area, however , is designated General Commercial . The property to the west of the study area is designated as High Density Residential , south of the subject area is General Commercial and directly east of the area , across Bolsa Chica Street, is General Commercial . Northeast of the subject area , is designated as Medium Density Residential . Further east of this area is Low Density Residential . As indicated in Figure 2-2 the area of concern is currently zoned g Y C2. Property to the north and west is zoned R3, including the .82 acre parcel general planned for commercial immediately north of the study area. Property to the south is zoned C2, and the property across Bolsa Chica Street to the east is zoned C2, - (Q)R2 and R2. The Meadowlark Airport property is zoned as (Q)MH, Qualified Mobile Home District . Existing adjacent land uses are a mixture of conforming and non-conforming uses. An older single family dwelling unit with a small nursery business exists directly north -of the subject area and a group of 98 condominiums, developed at 14 .92 units per acre units exists further north . The detached house has access off of Bolsa - Chica and the condominium complex has access off of both Bolsa Chica and Pearce Street . West of the subject property, on Charlene Circle, is a cluster of 52 residential units developed at 20 .8 units per acre which includes both apartments and condominiums. To the south of the study area there is an older single family detached house . South of that house is. a small insurance office with a single family .detached house behind it (west of the bus-iness ) . Further south , .on the northwest corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, a small complex of auto-oriented ( 0550D) -6- 4 �a u■� rotor ilp ma® r!'�!. �su susu lrRrnlrlr} _Bill INHI lRtltl111. ©1•:�s•u. � �� rnr nrn:r rrrr nrnr rnnnn��. ��'u� rr�•• �r�ie[�1�ilriiri�iiiiiiii'�n�"in1u� ' kMED DENRIT7, s■1 �� s■lu � § t = � � Illlsu Iluu ���� M � •' � 3 Eke � ■�� �1�� A t�'+.::,,.dL'FlY �MkKq•���., .r, ..�w:,..m� �-C w.p�` � 'a*'"' .nr. �. � � '^ .sour. �� ii►.`�� �� � e ����+s ��� ' • R RI lyl I-I- AVE------ t♦EIL - � '1 l31.77 RK R3 F q 4 — � ;P6�NN C CC Ur k w R2. L% R2�' R2 C4 " R2 R3 �"� �2 R2 R2 MH J - 1r R2 � .-_. - PLODDER dl. PRA DR33133 RI RI M %TA OR. aLLM at. Cr—R NEER2 u R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 tt>>Rx. TE < RI RI RI RI _ 11vRZR1! - 2 * , rvlR2lvl R2 ' z r f` R I RI v m en R2 R2 ST. Q W y (Q)NCH R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 _ R2 (a)R2 - MfLo ST, R3 yR R 3 � �� F2 R3 R3 R3- , R3 Z /'+ II z Y a C2_ I C4 d Z ..�_ — �.. t . WARNER AVE —�r b.rxC 330.03( .. -----.. R3 M R R 3 ,R • xxx _ r � R3 R3 R3 R3 C4; R2 Rz 10 1 l 2 N R 2 r- R2 R3- 9 �4 DAMES CR It1NG g �Gx f10 /I W� R� RS x R !!l.xx t ri' R2 Yw r RI RI n R3-23 - "_"'= - :1�y a RI RI R3 x R3-23 ';,faR3-23 RI CZ W RI-CZ U �, I 4 a o RI CZ c--- RI R3 ��E j :, R,? . RI-CZ RI maR3-23 b¢ 4� RI-Cz RA-CZ k B7 {t'tI Figure 2-2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIk EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2! 1 I businesses exists including a repair shop and two tire service centers . It should be noted that the three existing single family houses mentioned above are on commercially designated property and are, therefore, non-conforming uses . The land uses across Bolsa Chica Street to the east include the Bolsa Chica and Warner commercial center , and a vacant lot directly north of the office/commercial center which is designated for medium density residential development. To the north and adjacent to this vacant area is a new 30 unit apartment complex. Eastward of these properties is Meadowlark Airport, a general aviation airport that houses approximately 150 privately-owned propeller planes . The owner of the airport property has recently proposed. a land use designation change from Low Density Residential to Planned Community and a concurrent zone change from R-1 to Specific Plan. As the above description indicates, the study area is located within an area characterized by medium to high density residential uses with a significant amount of commercial use nearby. The study area is presently developed with a 4,470 square foot restaurant. The property owner. and his family have owned and operated the restaurant for twelve years to date . The owner now indicates that the restaurant business is no longer viable and proposes to build and manage an apartment project on the subject property. Due to the small size of the subject property and the nature of surrounding property uses, any of the alternatives under consideration in this analysis could be deemed compatible with surrounding uses . The applicant 's request for Medium High Density Residential with an R3 zone designation could result in a maximum of 40 dwelling units on the site . Medium High Density Residential development would generally be compatible with the commercial and medium and high density land uses to the north, south, east and west of the property. The General Plan Land Use Element states that Medium High Density Residential should be utilized in transitional areas between medium and high density land uses, near major transportation routes and highways and in proximity to commercial areas and activity areas. The location of the subject area appears to meet the three criteria . Redesignating the site as Medium Density Residential would allb;4 for approximately 23 units . As with the Medium High Density alternative, a Medium Density use would also be compatible with surrounding uses . The primary difference between the Medium and Medium High Density designations is that Medium Density allows for a maximum density of 15 units per gross acre and the Medium High Density designation allows for a maximum of 25 units per gross acre . The Medium Density alternative would feature 17 fewer units than Medium High and would therefore generate fewer traffic and infrastructure impacts . These issues are addressed in following sections of this report . ( 0550D) -9- If the existingg General Commercial designation were retained, it" is possible that the existing restaurant could be recycled and a new retail center constructed on the site . . In this scenario, the development of approximately 21 , 200 square feet of retail space may be possible . Such development would be compatible with the commercial uses south of the property and could eventually be tied into new developments on those properties to form a cohesive and complimentary commercial node. This type of development is what was envisioned when the property was initially designated for General— Commercial . A properly designed retail center could also be found' to be compatible with the medium and high density uses to the west and north . A market analysis (See Appendix C) of the Bolsa Chica/Warner area was conducted in 1984 for General Plan Amendment No. 84-2. That document analyzed a request for a change from Medium Density Residential to General commercial on three acres ofproperty on the southwest corner of Pearce Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street (across - Bolsa Chica Street from this study area) . - The analysis concluded that there would be substantial demand in the near future for virtually all categories of retail commercial uses. Demand would- continue to grow as the area approaches build-out, as Meadowlark- Airport is developed and as the Bolsa Chica area develops. The market study suggested that demand would be substantial for retail shops, services/offices and eating/drinking establishments. Given this prediction of demand, it may be undesirable to reduce the- commercially designated property in the area at this time. { Another potential problem withredesignating the site from commercial to residential is that- it will isolate the . 81 acre parcel General Planned for General Commercial immediately north of the study area . This parcel is zoned R3, however, and- is, therefore, inconsistent with the General Plan . In fact, in - order to develop the parcel commercially, a zone change would be required. it is probably more likely that the property will be developed as - an R3 residential project because the City does not require consistency between the zoning and the General Plan on parcels less than one - acre in size. Such development would be compatible with either a Medium or Medium High Density land use designation on the study area, or the existing Commercial designation as well . The property .could also be rolled. into commercial development of the study area, however . 2 . 1 . 2 . 2 Economic Considerations The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . - The revenues an ` expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for" one year for comparison purposes . . The results are summarized in the table below. Appendix A contains a summary of the. fiscal impact assumptions. i j ( 0550D) -10- Alt , 1 Alt , 2 Alt . 3 Alt . 4 Restaurant Medium Medium General High Density Commercial Density (retail) Revenue $6, 922 $14 , 991 $10, 815 $33,234 Cost $2, 007 $ 7, 181 $ 4 , 626 $ 3, 020 Revenue-Cost $4 , 915 $ 7, 810 $ 6, 189 $30,214 Revenue/Cost 3 .45 2 . 09 2 .34 11 . 00 As shown above, Alternative 4 (General Commercial-Retail) generates the most net revenue and the highest revenue to cost ratio. The primary factor contributing to the significant difference between Alternative 4 and the remaining alternatives were the sales tax revenue assumptions used in the analysis . The sales tag factors were derived from the Urban Land institute, Dollars and Cents of Shopping" Centers and based on regional data . In reviewing the above. results , it is important to view the analysis 'in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs . 2 . 1.2 . 3 Housing The applicant has proposed to develop approximately 40 apartment rental units on ' the subject property under the regpested Medium High Density designation. The Medium Density alternative would allow for a maximum of 23 .units . The other two alternatives, retaining the existing restaurant use and developing a retail center, do not include residential use. The Housing Element of the City' s General Plan contains policies aimed at providing a variety of housing opportunities by' type, tenure, and cost for households of all sizes, socioeconomic, racial and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach. The applicant ' s proposal would provide the most rental housing of either of the residential development alternatives . 2 . 1 .2 .4 Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers An eight-inch sewer pipe currently exists in Bolsa Chica Street, and as indicated by the City' s Public Works Department, has adequate capacity to serve any of the development alternatives herein. The eight-inch City sewer line allows the sewage to flow by gravity to the Slater Pump Station which is under County jurisdiction. The County Sanitation District has indicated that although the pump station is approaching capacity, any of the alternatives in this study can be adequately accommodated. It should be noted that the Medium High Density Residential Alternative would have the greatest impact on sewage flow. -11- (0550D) b. Water The subject property is currently served by an eight inch water line in Bolsa Chica Street . After reviewing the development alternatives contained in this analysis , the City ' s Public Works Department concluded that the existing water distribution system is capable of supporting any of the proposed developments. This conclusion was based on the assumption that normal water main extensions will be constructed with any new development and was qualified by the statement that a computer model of the water distribution system was not available to verify the assessment. Prior to any alternative development on the site, a computer analysis should be performed to verify any possible capacity constraints . C. Storm Drains The existing drainage system, which. allows the storm water runoff from the property to flow into Bolsa Chica Street then., into -a catch basin, can accommodate runoff from any of the proposed land uses Runoff from the existing Commercial use is adequately accommodated and this use creates more r.unof€ than any of the, proposed uses might create. d. Police and Fire Protection 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 High Density would generate the most calls, approximately 19 per year . Fire protection for the area of. concern can be provided by 'the City of Huntington Beach from either the Heil Fire Station at Heil and Springdale or the Warner Station at Warner and Pacific Coast Highway . The area of concern lies within the five minute response area of the stations and can be adequately serviced regardless of the selected alternative . e . ' Parks The area of concern is located within the service area of Wieder Park, a 5 acre facility at the intersection of Lynn and Pearce Streets . Weider Park will adequately serve either of the residential alternatives . The commercial/retail alternative and the existing restaurant use create no demand for park facilities. f . Schools The area of concern is located within the Oceanview School District and is served by Haven View Elementary School (grades K-6 ) , Harbour View Junior High (grades 7-8) and Marina High School (grades 9-12 ) . ( 0550D) -12- ,r The number of students enerated from a- medium or Medium--high density alternative woti d be minimal and could be accommodated by the school district. A commercial use would have no impact on the area' s schools. The number of students that would be generated by the residential alternatives contained herein are listed below: Elementary High Land Use .Alternative School School Medium Density (23 units ) 2 .76 .92 Medium High Density (40 units') 4 . 80 1 . 60 g . Gas and Electrical Utilities There is a three inch gas main under Bolsa Chica Street. Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. No problems have been indicated with serving the existing land use on the property, and the gas company has indicated that any of the proposed projects could be adequately served by the existing gas lines . It should be noted that since the gas company is a public utility and is under the • jurisdiction of federal and state regulatory agencies, 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 electrical 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 . Internal street circulation within any project would have to be designed to accommodate the company 's refuse trucks so as not to require any backing up of the trucks within the development . 2 . 1 .2 . 5 Traffic and Circulation The area of concern has approximately 205 lineal feet of frontage along Bolsa Chica Street, a major arterial with an average daily traffic volume of 26, 800 vehicles near .the site location . The study area lies approximately 395 feet north of the intersection of Balsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. Warner Avenue, also a major arterial, carries an average daily traffic volume of approximately 31 , 000 vehicles per day near the site location. The maximum design capacities for both Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue is 45,000. (0550D) -13- Access to the site is taken from Balsa Chica via two driveways located at the north and south ends of- the property. The Southern driveway is located directly opposite similar driveways for the office development on the other side of Bolsa Chica Street . A center turning pocket exists in Balsa Chica Street to permit left turns in and out of the subject property. Daily traffic volumes projected to be generated by the alternative land use designations are the following: Daily Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation ( 1 ) General Commercial (existing (existing 4, 470 ft2 restaurant ) 500 Average Daily Trips ( 2) Medium High Density Residential ( 40 units - applicant ' s proposal ) 280 Average- Daily Trips ( 3 ) General Commercial ( retail 21 , 200 ft ) 2, 862 Average Daily Trips (4) Medium Density Residential 184 Average Daily Trips ( 23 units ) As indicated -in the table above, the existing designation of General Commercial in conjunction with retail development would generate the most traffic impacts . Redesignation to residential would reduce future traffic generation from the site . Although Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue are major arterials which are intended to convey large volumes of traffic from the land uses which have been . planned in the area, retail development of the property may have a negative impact on traffic flows in the long-term. If the property is developed with a new retail use, left turn access should be limited to the existing driveway on the southern end of the property which presently has a turning pocket in Balsa Chica Street . Also, any other commercial developments on adjacent properties should share driveways where possible. These conditions may also hold true if the subject property and any adjacent properties are redesignated for residential development. With regard to public transportation, the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) offers bus service -near the study area on Warner Avenue at both Algonquin and Goldenwest . The OCTD does not foresee any significant impact from the alternatives on the existing or any future transit services in the study area., The Orange County Transit District does request, however, that ' adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be provided . The development project should include paved, 'lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials . ( 0550D) -14- 2. 1 . 2 . 6 Airport Safety The study area lies within the Federal Aviation Administration ' s (FAA) notice area for Meadowlark Airport . According to FAR Part 77 regulations, notice must be filed with the FAA for proposed objects within 10,000 feet of the airport which would exceed one foot in height for each 50 feet horizontally from the edge of the runway. As shown in Figure 2-3, most of the study area lies within 750 feet of the Meadowlark Airport runway. It is recommended by the FAA that structures on the subject property not exceed 37 .5 feet in height . This height restriction will ensure that the glide path of the runway is not encroached upon by buildings or structures. . . The subject property lies just outside of the airport ' s recommended flight pattern for landings and departures . As airport policy, aircraft do not fly directly over the property. However , due to the proximity of the subject area to the flight path, a margin of risk to buildings or inhabitants on the study site or in the vicinity does exist with regard to mid-air collisions and other accidents . , To date, the airport is in full compliance with all applicable air safety regulations and necessary precautions to avoid accidents have been taken. In addition, airport operating personnel stresses the use of flight safety procedures to all pilots . that utilize the facilities . 2. 1 . 2 . 7 Environmental Issues a. Noise Noise exposure on the property ranges from 60 Ldn toward the rear of the property, away from Bolsa Chica Street, to 70 Ldn at the edge of the property along Bolsa Chica. The major source of the noise is traffic along Bolsa Chica Street . Although the study area is in the proximity of Meadowlark Airport, the noise contours created by aircraft activity do not directly impact the site . The recommended flight path of the airport ' s management does not go over the subject area . In addition, pilots are encouraged to utilize noise abatement procedures to minimize unnecessary noise. Since 1979, there have been only nine' ( 9 ) formal complaints from nearby residents about aircraft noise. As indicated in the Huntington Beach General Plan, the noise contour lines from the airport run in a northeast to southwest direction and do not. overlap the subject property. The existing noise levels on the property fall within the normally acceptable range for both the existing restaurant (commercial ) use and the proposed commercial retail use in Alternative 4 of this study. However , noise levels on the front portion of the property exceed the acceptable range of 60 Ldn for residential uses . The use of setbacks , berming, landscaping and sound walls should be utilized along Bolsa Chica Avenue if a residential use is selected for the site. ( 0550D ) -15- �, � ■ . ��I - �Ti iiiiiiii�l ■ , ■!i■��■■�■Ri "' " � p i�i� i � #�iiiii i� •i� �:��� III ii�iiili / NOVA 1�4�� ' �l1� ■� � ���i�' � f _., wl MEMO 33 INip iiiu4 Il�ilif■ p � ii ii� iiin .•C MOVE �i�:''s 111. 1� Ems'. MIC ZZ- ILL �� � �� *� err■' llili - - �r -� �;• ■iiiiiiiiliii � � s .��_ `_`_`",�� ��-` r i� ■ ■ �� iiuii■ �-� � 1111 Ilui�—�. � � � � iiiiu�fiiii s 1111 !!!l111111111111 ��° -�i iiellil��Ni■ � �■■� � 1111111u "'ll ' �� "' � ■ <} y f- No significant ,noise impacts are anticipated to occur from any of the proposed land uses . b . Air Quality . Development of the area of concern under any of the alternative land use designations would adversely affect air quality in the South Coast Air Basin, primarily due to increased automobile traffic generated by the additional housing units or retail complex. Projected daily emissions from the area are indicated in Appendix B. C. Seismic, Soils and Geology The study area lies just north. of the Bolsa-Fairview fault . This fault is considered inactive by the State Department of Mines and Geology as it has had no seismic activity in the past 10, 000 years. In being categorized as inactive one can assume that seismic risks from this fault are minimal . In compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972, a Special Studies Zone has been established in Huntington Beach that includes the most hazardous earthquake faults. This special studies zone does not extend into the study area. Development in the study area, therefore, need not be subject to the zone ' s requirements . It will be appropriate to address the mitigation of potential seismic hazards in the study area when a specific project is proposed for development . The study area is not located in an area having peat and organic soil deposits and, therefore, has a low risk potential for liquefaction of subsoil during an earthquake . (Liquefaction is a phenomenon where the soil structure collapses and subsidence of the ground occurs. ) However , a low to moderate expansive clay hazard potential does exist in the study area. Expansive clays can shrink and swell depending on the soil ' s water content. Shrink swell hazards include sliding and slippage of foundations and the cracking of foundations . Any development that occurs on the subject property should include proper mitigation measures to avoid shrink/swell hazards . The State Department of Conservation 's Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) indicates that there exists an abandoned oil well on the subject property. The oil well , which was drilled in 1955, was owned by Healy and Neyland . According to the DOG, the well was considered to be a "dry hole" and never produced commercial quantities of oil . Since the well was originally abandoned over twenty years ago, reabandonment of the well to current standards 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. The cost of abandonment operations shall be the responsibility of the property owner . At minimum, any wells exposed during excavation or grading shall require remedial cementing operations. ( 0550D) -17- It should be noted that the DOG recommends that building over any. abandoned oil wells be avoided: The project proponent must contact the Long Beach District office of the DOG to obtain information on the requirements for reabandoning ' oil wells or performing remedial cementing operations, and to allow the DOG to review site specific plans . 2. 1 . 3 Staff Recommendation Although a residential land use on ' the study area could be deemed compatible with surrounding uses, staff is recommending that the , existing designation of General Commercial be retained. The 1984 market study prepared for the general vicinity indicated that there will be a long-term . demand for retail commercial uses in the .area . Staff is concerned that the applicant 's request for residential use. will erode the commercial land inventory in the area, and thus limit the area 's -ability to meet future commercial demand. Staff further feels that due to the marginal nature of adjacent commercial uses south of the study area, future land consolidation may be encouraged which would result in a larger, high quality shopping center on the site. r ( 0550D) -18- 1 2. 2 SOUTH SIDE OF ELLIS AVENUE, EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD 2 . 2. 1 Background Area of concern 2. 2 is a request by Jenson Chen to redesignate 1 . 89 acres of property located on the south side of Ellis Avenue, 400 feet east of Beach Boulevard, from General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential. This area was the subject of a previous General Plan Amendment request in 1981 (LUE 81--1 ) . The request at that time was the same as the present request for a change from General Commercial to _ Medium High Density Residential . The 1981 request was denied largely because it was anticipated that an adjacent shopping center would recycle in the near future and that the subject property could be incorporated into a new commercial project at that time. No recycling of the center has occurred, however, and in fact, the southern half of the shopping center was recently sold and the new owner has chosen to refurbish rather than recycle. In view of this fact, it may be reasonable to expect that recycling for the larger area may not occur for a substantial time period and that. another use on the subject property should be considered. ( 0550D) _19- 2. 2 . 2 Analysis The following analysis examines three alternative land use designations: ( 1 ) Medium High Density Residential 47 units ( 2 ) Medium Density Residential 27 units ( 3 ) General Commercial (Office) 69, 000 square feet 2 . 2 . 2 . 1 Land Use As indicated in Figure 2-4, the study area is presently designated General Commercial on the General Plan. Property to the west is also General Commercial and is developed with a shopping center . Across Ellis Avenue to the north the General Plan is Medium Density Residential , as is the General Plan to the east . Property to the south of the study area is General Commercial and is used as parking for the shopping center . To the south of that parking lot is Medium Density Residential . Zoning on the site , as indicated in Figure 2-5, is C4 . The northern half of the study area is presently vacant and the southern half is occupied by the Der Minder Garden Pre-School . The adjacent property to the west is also zoned C4 and is developed with a six-acre, two story shopping center . Tenants in the center include offices, small shops, a delicatessen, restaurant , bar and nightclubs . The shopping center , divided into two parts with two separate owners, faces Beach Boulevard with a 40 foot ingress-egress easement separating the buildings from - the area of concern . The property directly across Ellis Avenue to the - north is zoned R2 and is presently developed with 20 older single-family homes on 3 .4 acres of land. it is likely that these homes will eventually recycle to multi-family construction to reflect the R2 zoning. Directly to the east of the study area is property zoned R3 . The property is developed with 152 four-plea apartment units separated . from the study area by a 20 foot wide alley with garages on the east side and a block wall on the property- line. Approximately 140 feet south of the .study area is a six-acre, 84 unit four-plex development zoned R2 . The area between this development and the study area is a parking lot for the southern half of the adjacent shopping center and is zoned C4 . ti As indicated above, the study area is zoned C4 which allows office/professional uses as -.well as other retail uses . In r.eality, .because of .the isolated loction of the property,- retail commercial development of the study area would not likely occur, or it would be j of a marginal nature. If offices were constructed,. the site could probably accommodate a .maximum of 69, O00 square feet of building area . Such development would accommodate an estimated 130 daily employees. i i ( 0550D) -20- s- f� � • � IIIIM a;i i'�4�'e�c[ ��ramp^T,�M4fe * s -'ii'#R`�E W'a-�". S"R'r!�"kw• ■II�IIII�rl�a�i�lrl�. f�■�- Bill Hills • \/i������'/ � s �;, �,. .�►, � . �. rig°ice � i�A r11N111► �IIu �1N111111�� �.� �-� � � �►rr--� —'� • t�,� ■ :: IN mass t- ■■■ WME ne■■ IN a ■ �2 INER AVE RI .. AVFN K KlNER TAYL011 DN. RI _ RI 57 of 30 TOY L:,R DR LE CONTE DRRl a w RI Iz nx I Ax s o RI a RI 4 J RI-P0• • M r Ll NCY CR* RI I v �x J RI RI foo I. ex+.0 R3 RI 4 _~ Ib! R3 CF-R RI H Do R3 ► L l n y R3 ;C4 R3 J (~ t I I F '3 4 ,a R2 ff - RI "RI o RI , FRANKUN DR ' G4 b RI Rs 40 R2 s . ..R2 v n R2 �.. RI ' R2 RS RI Ri ----':a "' R I 132 faYLalE a - _ 3 , s° � C4 1� C 2 r C 2 CD R2-PDB R3 R Rs R3 = ` E 7= R2 R2 MH—FP2 R\ I a R3 IDISTRKTflR :z [R3 � TWO} N �� R2'm -21iRELwL�D R 3 I:+E unvYDar s0.lMOT'L OO C TM R3 (DISTRICT$ 3 �apwR3 Z RI-•FP2ONEIsi.esl , + '� .R:J(v' ar`em m 1--ssr�t- i' Cp CONSTKNTINf, DR R) .. RI-1=P2 C ICT�OPVE)PLAN a R2 R2 R3 A R T R3 n 4 R 3 R2 i Ck! m �C'' Y s c lL r F- R I a FE w R-1 J R2 R2 R1 on U RI aR3 ;s R.1 FIVE o" ' R2 AVE GARFIELD / Figure 2-5 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2'e 2 —22— The applicant ' s request fora redesignation to Medium High Density Residential would result in a maximum of 25 units per acre, or 47 units, and would generate an estimated population of 104 persons . ,Medium density development would result in a maximum of 15 units per acre, or 27 units, and would generate an estimated population of 53 persons. Medium and High Density Residential designations of the study area would be compatible with the high density four-plexes located to the east and south of the property. Although occupied by single-family homes , the area across Ellis Avenue is designated Medium Density and would be compatible if recycling occurs . The predominantly office uses in the adjacent shopping center would also be generally compatible with residential development. Exceptions would include the existing bar and nightclub in the shopping center which could have noise impacts on residential uses . Delivery trucks in the service alley could also similarly impact residential uses . The applicant, however , has prepared design features which may adequately mitigate these concerns .. Office/professional development of the study area would be compatible with both the adjacent residential and commercial uses . This use would also provide additional buffering to the adjacent residential uses to the east from noise and visual impacts of the existing shopping center and service alley. A .potentially important consideration in the long-term concerns the 1977 inclusion of the study area within an 80 acre node allowing multi-story development ( Figure 2-6 ) , and the more recent inclusion of the area in the Beach Boulevard Corridor Redevelopment project area . Many existing. uses in the general area were constructed in the early and mid-sixties and consequently may be expected to recycle in the future . The age and marginal occupancy status of the shopping center adjacent to the study area indicates that it may fall within this category. The recent upgrading of the southern half of the shopping center , however, may postpone recycling of the area . The Redevelopment Agency is also not contemplating any recycling of the shopping center at this time. If the shopping center were to recycle to a multi-story use, the land use designation selected for the area of concern at this time becomes more critical . The existing residential uses on -the perimeter of the study area, because of their garages, alleys and block walls , would be adequately buffered from future multi-story uses on the shopping center site . Residential development of the study area, however, would constitute an intrusion into the multi-story area without adequate buffering between residential and high rise uses . A three-story office use on the study area would not be impacted by multi-story uses and would actually provide additional buffering for the existing residential uses to the east of the site. A further consideration involves the access alley on the western boundary of the property. In 1964, a 40 foot ingress/egress easement was granted by the subject property to the southern most shopping center to the west (see Figure 2-7 ) . That shopping center (0550D) -23- Y i � lil aau - A F �a k o-, ... .. s<aaa : STUDY e� F I AREA �•.,.�. P049,OWN `-. ` %t��..w..¢. ..... •ewr�e»r - w, ,R T ADAMS d ........... .. ...,...,�.. ...�....�. .. - EXISTING a,LAN,a yc� :•;'tip � k PRIMARY AREA 1 _ ,+aM„ SECONDARY AREA FURTHER STUDY /•f ti. \ Figure 2-6 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIK MULTI-STORY AREAS 'PLANNING DIVISION —24— was conditioned to use that easement to provide access to requ-ir.ed parking immediately to the west and south of the subject property. The northern shopping center, , however , . does not. have the r10t to utilize the easement since 'a -separate 20 foot access alley was . conditioned on its eastern property line. Regardless of the land. use uiti' 'ihately selected for the subj'ec,t property, the 40 foot easement must be preserved in some manner for access to the southwest shopping- center . The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan which utilizes the easement for primary access to first floor parking . A block wall or other treatment would be constructed adjacent to the northwest shopping center while the southwest shopping center would retain full use of, the,weasement for vehicular access : Since the easement is utilized primarily for light volumes of employee parking rather than delivery truck -tor customer parking, compatibility of uses should not be a significant problem. €fs' An alternative to retaining all of the 40 foot easement would be to block the' easement off at the point where th'e two shopping «c,enters back up to each other . As shown in Figure 2-7, the southern , shopping center could retain access to the rear parking .lot through the existing break in the buildings, and could use the southern portion of the 4'0` f6ot easement to gain access to the. parking spaces at the back of the northern--most building. The study ,ara,,wouvld then have excliusriive dse' of the northern portion of the eas,emen,t and there would be no mixing of residential and commercial -tr,affc. . In . order to, implement- this, however, the southern shopping, center .owner would have to quit-claim their right to the northern half of the easement .. Another- land use concern' involves the shopping center par k-ing,, .,area to' the south of the subject property. The parking lot ist,ya4.,.51, acre area which would become a somewhat isolated remnant commercial__, parcel if the suhbje�ct property were designated residential., , Since the applicant must retain access to that lot,' howev`er4,1 conceivable that if the shopping center does recycle in thej ,future,, that parking lot could be developed residentially as.. .an adcii,tion to the applicant 's proposal . Such a redesignation of the., s{ub,jeyct property and the parking lot may make sense because the. exi`s;ting, shopping centers in' conjunction with the subject property,,constiatute a commercial zone which is 573 feet deep. Since the standard depth , of commercial property along Beach Boulevard is only` 200-40P. feet, a change of land use on the subject property and remnant parking lot would create a 'more standard sized commercial lot . 2. 2 . 2 . 2 Economic Considerations The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact- methodoI ' to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one year for comparison-, purposes . The results are summarized in the table below. Appendix A contains a summary of the fiscal impact assumptions . ( 0550D) -25- ELLIS AVENUE PROPERTY LINE PARKING 0 x EXISTING NG SHO PS H S S t� w `{: z W E-� EXISTING SHOPS a P4 2 +-t '. ` PARKING w VEHICLE ACCESS EXISTING SHOPS PARKING i Figure 2-7 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA POSSIBLE EASEMENT TREATMENT PLANNING DIVISION -26- Alt , 1 Alt , 2 Alt . 3 Medium High Medium Density General Commercial Density Revenue $18, 149 $12, 782 $19,481 Cast. $ 7,337 $ 5,437 $ 6,226 Revenue---Cost $10, 812 $ 7, 345 $13,255 Revenue/Cost 2 .47 2 .00 3 . 13 As shown above, Alternative 3 ( General Commercial-Office) generates the most revenue and has the largest revenue to cost ratio. In addition to a higher market value estimate for the office alternative, this type of development also requires less City services , thus generating lower costs . In reviewing the above results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs . 2 . 2 .2 .3 Housing The Housing Element of the City' s General Plan contains policies aimed at providing a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and cost for households of all sizes, socioeconomic, racial and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach. The applicant ' s proposal would provide the most rental housing of either of the residential development alternatives . A redesignation to Medium or Medium-High Density Residential would expand the existing stock of land at these densities as well as the City' s potential to provide affordable housing . If the study area is changed to Medium or Medium High Density Residential, approximately 28 units and 47 units, respectively, could be added to the City' s housing stock at ultimate development . Medium-High Density Residential would provide the greatest opportunity for affordable housing. 2 .2 . 2 .4 Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The area of concern is served by an 8-inch sewer line located in Ellis Avenue that runs into a 10-inch sewer line im Beach Boulevard. This line connects to a 42-inch County trunk line in Slater Avenue. The Department of Public Works and Orange County Sanitation District have indicated that existing sewer capacity in City and County facilities is adequate to accommodate all of the land use alternatives by connecting into the existing 8-inch Ellis Avenue line. -27-- (0550D) s b. Water The area of concern is presently served by a 6-inch water line which connects to an 8-inch line in Ellis Avenue. Another 6-inch line currently exists in Libra Circle., 140 feet south of the study ar.ea. The Department of Public Works has indicated that the construction of an additional 6-inch .line connecting the south portion of the study area to the line in Libra Circle, may be desirable regardless of the land use alternative selected. Otherwise, existing water facilities would adequately service each alternative. C. Storm Drains The northern most quarter of the area of concern presently drains to Ellis Avenue in the form of surface flow. The southern portion of . the area drains east through an existing alley into a 9 foot catch basin at the south end of Demion Lane. The catch basin connects to a storm drain which runs east down Modale Drive. The Department of Public Works has indicated that existing drainage facilities are adequate for each alternative, but that holes should be drilled in the block wall along the alley to facilitate drainage to Demion Lane. Both residential alternatives would result in less drainage flow than the office/professional alternative. d. Parks The area of concern is located northwest of 2. 3 acre Helm neighborhood park . The 1977 Parks Analysis indicates that park capacities within the quarter section in which the study area is located are presently being exceeded. Redesignation of the amendment area from commercial to residential would increase park demand in the area. Even without the proposed residential project, capacity continues to be exceeded within the general area. However, the area of concern is located one mile from Central Park which could be considered adequate to serve recreation and park needs generated by residential development within the study area. e. 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. f, Schools The area of concern is served by Perry Elementary School , Dwyer Middle School and Huntington Beach Union High School . Students generated by the alternative land uses being considered are estimated as follows : (0550D) Elementary School High School ( 1) Medium Density ( 27 Units) 3 .2 8 . 9 ( 2 ) Medium High Density (47 Units ) 5. 6 15. 5 The alternative for Medium Density Residential designation would have the greater impact on schools , although the districts indicated that the schools involved can easily accommodate these slight increases in students . Leaving the area designated as General Commercial would eliminate these impacts on the school districts . g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by- the Southern California Gas Company and the Edison Company, respectively. A 6-inch steel main gas supply line is located in Ellis Avenue, extending east and west . A 2-inch feeder line runs down the west property" line of the study area to serve the existing shopping center . Additionally, another 2-inch line extends from Beach Boulevard to the study area and serves the shopping center as well as the pre-school . An overhead 12 KV electrical line runs along the north side of Ellis Avenue, while another 12 KV line runs south from Ellis along the alley behind the shopping center serving both the shopping center and the pre-school . Gas service is generally provided as a normal extension of existing facilities . However , the availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies . As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California public Utilities Commission. Federal regulatory agencies can also affect gas supply. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided according to the revised conditions . Electrical service is provided by the Edison Company. Adequate electrical 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 alternative land use designations . ( 0550D) -29- 2 . 2 . 2 . 5 Traffic and Circulation Access to the area ofconcern is taken via Ellis Avenue which is designated as a secondary arterial . The nearest major intersection on Ellis Avenue is Beach Boulevard to the west, a designated major arterial . Present traffic volumes for these arterials in the vicinity of the study area are 15, 000 daily trips on Ellis Avenue and 47,000 daily trips on .Beach Boulevard. The maximum design capacities for these streets are 20, 000 and 45, 000- vehicle trips per day, respectively. Daily traffic volumes projected to be generated by the alternative land use designations are the following: Land Use Alternative Daily Traffic Generation ( 1) Medium High Density 330 Average Daily Trips (47 Units-applicants proposal ) ( 2 ) 'Medium Density 175 Average Daily Trips ( 23 Units ) ( 3 ) General Commercial 1,035 Average Daily Trips ( 69, 000 square feet ) While Beach Boulevard is currently operating slightly above nominal capacity, Ellis Avenue is well below capacity. The projected traffic volumes for any of the three alternatives will add to the excess traffic presently . existing on, Beach Boulevard. The pending ."Super Street" plan for Beach Boulevard, however , will mitigate many of the impacts of the existing traffic volumes when added to the existing traffi.c volume on Beach Boulevard. None of the alternatives should cause Ellis Avenue to exceed capacity. Because of undedicated roadway abutting the older residential development on the north side of Ellis, however, the street currently narrows directly in front of the study area. The projected traffic volumes for each alternative may have an impact on this section. of Ellis Avenue, causing congestion and difficult access to the study area until such time as the property to the north is dedicated. As discussed in the Land Use Section of this report, the applicant has proposed to utilize the existing 40 foot easement on the .western property line to provide access to his project. Depending on whether or not the southern shopping center . owner is willing to quit-claim their right to the northern half of the easement, there may or may not be mixing of residential and commercial traffic. The Department of Public Works has indicated that the point where the easement intersects Ellis Avenue is an acceptable -location for access to the study area. With regard to public transportation, the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) offers bus service near the study area on Beach Boulevard. The OCTD does not foresee any significant impact from the alternatives on the existing or any future transit services in the study area . -(0550D ) -30- d r The Orange County Transit District does request, however , that adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be provided . The development project should include paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrial accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials . 2 . 2. 2. 6 Environmental Issues a. Noise The majority of the study area will be subjected to Ellis Avenue traffic noise levels between Ldn 60 and 65. Mitigation measures such as unit modification , building placement and barrier construction may be necessary toF`reduce noise to an acceptable level of 60 Ldn exterior and 45 Ldn interior . b. Air Quality Development of the area of concern under any of the alternative land use designations would adversely affect air quality in the South Coast Air Basin, primarily due to increased automobile traffic generated by the additional housing units or professional offices.. Projected daily emissions from the area are indicated in Appendix B. C. Seismic, Soils and Geology The area of concern lies on a mesa slightly north of all known active or inactive fault zones in the City. The Bolsa-Fairview fault , however , does run close to the southern boundary of the study area . 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 is approximately one mile southwest of the area of concern. Development on this site, therefore, need not be subject to the zone requirements . A 1974 study, Geotechnical Inputs, prepared for the City by Leighton-Yen and Associates, indicates that the soil in the study area has a low to moderate (6%-77% ) clay content. This condition exists in much of the northern half of the City. Since expansive clay soils can cause serious damage to lightly loaded structures, pavements, driveways and sidewalks due to volumetric changes associated with moisture content, a geotechnical study should be done to make proper design recommendations for construction on the property. The Leighton-Yen study did not indicate any peat or organic soils on or near the site. The Division of oil and Gas has indicated the possible existence of an abandoned oil well in the vicinity of the southern boundary of the property. Section 3208. 1 of the Public Resources Code authorizes the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to order the ( 0550D) reabandonment of any previously abandoned well when construction of any structure .over or in the proximity of the well could result in a hazard. The cost of abandonment operations shall be the responsibility of the property owner . At minimum, any wells exposed during excavation or grading shall require remedial cementing operations. 2. 2 . 3 Staff Recommendation At this point, staff is unwilling to recommend approval of any change in designation from commercial to residential due to concerns regarding mixing of commercial and residential traffic.. While traffic mixing may not be a significant problem in the short--term, any increase in the commercial success of the shopping center in the future may cause traffic mixing to become a larger problem. Staff has requested that the applicant pursue an agreement with the shopping center owners to the west to quit-claim their rigght to use of the access easement as discussed in the preceding analysiys . if an agreement of that nature can be reached, staff may be able to recommend a change of use on the property. At the present time ; staff will withhold any recommendation on the site until further discussions have occurred between the applicant and shopping center owners . ( 0550D) -32- 2 .3 NORTH OF UTICA AVENUE BETWEEN SEVENTEENTH STREET AND LAKE STREET 2 .3 . 1 Background Area 2 . 3 is a request by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission to redesignate 12. 60 acres bounded by Utica Avenue, Seventeenth Street and Main Street from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential . The existing Medium Density designation has been in place since 1976 when the General Plan was amended from the Government Center designation previously placed on it . The property is owned by the Huntington Beach Company. In October of 1982 a request was made by the City of Huntington Beach to change the zoning on the. study area from Rl-O-CD (Low Density Residential Combined with Oi1' Production-Civic District) to R2-0-CD (Medium Density Residential-Combined with Oil Production-Civic District) . The Planning Commission denied Zone Change No. 82-15 on November 2, 1982 and directed staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment redesignating the property from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential . The denial of the zone change was appealed by Councilman Pattinson.. The City Council then continued the item to a date uncertain because of a possible conflict of interest . There was no further action taken on the request until July 21, 1986, when the City Council referred the zone (0550D) -33- ' e change request back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reaffirmed their original action by again denying the zone change on August 19, 1986 . It was suggested at that time that a general plan amendment be initiated by the City to redesignate the property bounded by Utica, Seventeenth Street and Lake Street to Low Density Residential . Councilman Kelly appealed the Planning Commission' s denial . On September 15 , 1986, the City Council reaffirmed the Planning Commission' s decision by denying Zone Change No . 82-15 . The zoning designation on the property remains RI-O-CD. Staff is processing this General Plan amendment in response to the City Council and Planning Commission action on the zone change. 2 . 3 . 2 Analya The following analysis examines two land use alternatives for the subject property: (1) Low Density Residential 88 units (2) Medium Density Residential 189 units (existing designation) 2 . 3 . 2 . 1 Land Use As indicated in Figure 2-8, the study area is presently designated Medium Density Residential on the General Plan. Property to the north and west is designated Public, Quasi-Public Institutional and is occupied by the Civic Center . Further to the north is Medium Density Residential . Property across Lake Street to the east is.. also Medium density Residential. Property across Utica Avenue to the south is designated Low Density Residential . Figure 2-9 , indicates existing zoning. The study area is presently zoned Rl-O-CD. Zoning on the Civic Center to the north and west is CF-C. The Medium Density property further to the north is zoned R2-O-CD and is the recently developed Pacific Ranch condominium project . The property across Lake Street to the east is 'zoned Oldtown Specific Plan (District Two) and is vacant with the exception of a non-conforming industrial shed. The property to the south is zoned R1 and is developed with single family homes. The study area is presently vacant but is utilized for oil production purposes . Section 2 .3 .2 . 6 of this report addresses the impact of oil production. on the site. The, area is bi-sected by Pine Street running north and south and the. assessor ' s parcel maps indicate a continuation of the block and alley pattern which is typical of the residential area to the south. . If the property is redesignated as Low Density on the General Plan, it could be developed with single family homes using the existing block and alley arrangement shown on the assessor ' s maps, or the -34- (0550D) i LJ I OFFICE MEDIUM ,— G41 GENERAL COMMERCIAL � PROFSNL, DENSITY YORI(TOWN C F-C �I CF_F WICKTA AVE. ffvn. [ Ili �liii '. PUBLIC QUAS—PUBLIC �• 1R9}C� �--J y IfdSTITOTIONAL I1 c:v4 +LSr�{roc ��—. r MEDIUM , c-�. � DENSITY N 3 -- flil I Ii —I '"''�$ ' CF � �-- --i�— ii•URhri'"'C AVE ,r. — LOIN DENSITY :� - :. U_ P_ 4 / L_:-E �E �x rj— cr Figure 2-8 Aft HUNTINGTON BFACH CALIFORNIK EX I ST I NG GENERAL PLAN PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.3 -35- R2 R2 R (0)R2-01 R2 m I VEMOC Lt'Tri 2 �W S PLAN V"F;tCT 1.1 AY 354 C2-0- R3 R2-0-PD R2-0 - R2 20 Ftl C2-0 CD 30 C2 0 -4' ,3 rLtLf.L AND ------- OFCO —RZ—O-PD;: R2-0 RI C2-wc� N 34 c A k R2-0-CD R5-"D R -0-Po-- R 2 0 2-0-CD YORKTOWN f 34796 R2-0—CO CF-C :R2 041 C)1 , 2 owo CF- E-CD R2-0-CD RA w..-.n..71 wv"iS.J ICHITA— SAYE R2-0 CF-E-CD -I L:cp:- oi 18.) CF-E -CD-0 L:LD-jOl 0 L • 0 [-CD-0] -0 Dco.) -00 -0011 CF- R R I RI RI RI RI R2 -CD-0 Ok ONTO CD-0 0 RI-0 y -0 SPRII GFIELD 0 yNv (DIS LU - tr -0 m RI RI RI R I RI R2\ -0 ROWSTER 9 Iv z —JH 0 lH 0 H Fo H'H r-o A I p I/ pl Figure 2-9 A921b& HUNTINGTON BEACH C41-IFORNIN EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.3 -36- streets and alleys could be abandoned and a condominium project on the consolidated area could be constructed. If the property is retained as Medium Density the land would almost certainly be consolidated for a condominium project. The existing Medium Density Residential designation could result in 189 units . A development of this size would generate some traffic and noise impacts on the adjacent single family neighborhood to the south. These could be mitigated through design features such as constructing a perimeter security wall, prohibiting entrances to the project off Utica and limiting building height directly adjacent to Utica Avenue. With these design features Utica Avenue would provide an adequate buffer between the Low Density and Medium Density Residential districts . The Medium Density Residential project would also serve as a buffer between the five story City Hall to the north. and the single family neighborhood to the south. Under the Low Density Residential designation, 88 units could be constructed if the land were consolidated. A low density development would certainly be compatible with the single family neighborhood to the south. Lake Street would separate the area from the medium density property to the east. The five-story City Hall however, might impact the privacy of the residents in the future low density development although these impacts aie minimized by the fact that a sloped grassy area and a parking lot lie between the building and the area of concern. If care is taken in the design, a low density residential project could be developed on the site which would be adequately buffered from surrounding land uses . 2 .3 . 2 .2 Economic Considerations The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one year for comparison purposes. The results are summarized in the table below. Appendix A contains a summary of the fiscal impact assumptions . Alt, 1 Alt , 2 Low Density Medium Density Residential Residential Revenue $72 , 741 $102,423 Cost $28, 952 $ 40, 985 Revenue-Cost $43 , 789 $ 61,438 Revenue/Cost 2 . 51 2 . 50 As shown above, Alternative 2 (Medium Density Residential) generates the most revenue and the largest estimated net revenue (although the revenue to cost ratio is not as high as Alternative 1) . The difference is due to the fact that Medium Density contains enough additional units and people to increase tax revenue substantially (0550D) -37- over Low Density, but costs also increase at a slightly greater ratio. ' in reviewing the above results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs . 2 . 3 . 2 .3 Housing Both alternatives would result in additional housing units . The Low Density Residential alternative would result in 88 units and the Medium Density Residential alternative would result in 189 units . The Housing Element of the City`s General Plan contains policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes . The Medium Density Residential alternative would provide more than twice as many units as the Low Density Residential alternative and, therefore, the lowest cost per unit . 2 . 3 . 2 .4 Pmbl,i„c Services and Utilities a . Sewgrs Eight-inch sewers currently exist in the alleys between Lake Street and Park Street south of Utica Avenue. A Low Density Residential project could be adequately handled by connecting to these existing lines . Before construction of a medium density residential project, flow testing and studies should be done to determine if additional sewer mains are required. b. Water There are 12-inch water lines in Pine Street and Utica Street . However, the existing water mains in the vicinity of the area of concern are the old cast iron type and are due to be replaced in the future at an undetermined date. These mains should be replaced as a condition of approval of any new development . c. Storm Drain The existing drainage system will be able to convey the flows resulting from a Low Density Residential project . The existing storm drains are located in Utica Avenue and are 24 inches and 30 inches . A Medium Density Residential development would create more runoff and therefore may convey more flow than can be handled by the existing drainage system. A hydrology study will need to be done to find out if the off-site drainage system will need to be upgraded. d. Police nd Fir Pr i n ' 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 the two alternatives, Medium Density Residential would generate the most calls, approximately 90 per year . (0550D) -38- Fire protection for the area of concern is provided by the. City of Huntington Beach from the Lake Street station located on the west side of Lake Street at Frankfort . The area of - concern lies within the five minute response area of the station and can be adequately ' serviced for either of the alternatives analyzed. e. Parks Worthy Community Park is across Main Street, just west of the study area. Within a one-half mile radius are two neighborhood parks, Farquhar Park and Lake Park, and one slated for future 'development. A five-acre facility called McCallen Park on Huntington Street north of Utica is undergoing preliminary work this year and will be completed during the 1987-1988 fiscal year . • Any , residentia.l project will be more than adequately served by these parks . f . Sghho ll The area of concern is located within the Huntington Beach City School' District and i`s served by Smith,'Elementary School; Dwyer School for K-8 and Huntington Beach Union High School . The schools can easily accommodate any increase in students generated by either a Low . or Medium Density Residential alternative. The number of students that would be generated by the two alternatives are as follows: Elementary Land ggeAlternative School Hi_Q --School ,Low Density ( 88 Units) 18 23 Medium Density (18.9 Units) 22 7 g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Extension of the existing 4 inch 1•ines on Utica Avenue .will provide adequate gas service for either a Low or Medium Density• Residential alternative. 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 . an 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. =39- (0550D) 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 either land use alternative. 2 . 3. 2 .5 ; Traffic, and ,.Circulation As discussed in the. Land Use section of this report, the site is presently bi-sected by 'Pine Street . Oil rigs presently utilize Pine Street to access oil wells in the area. Pine Street is also utilized by employees and visitors to the Civic Center since it leads to parking spaces on 17th Street. It is possible, however, that Pine Street may be abandoned in order to consolidate the area into �a larger developable ;parcel. Assuming consolidation of ' the study area, principle future access will likely be from Lake Street to the east which is designated as a primary arterial, but which is actually developed as a two lane collector . This section of Lake Street presently conveys average daily trips which are below even the limited design capacity of a collector arterial . , Lake Street intersects Yorktown Avenue to the north which is developed as' a , primary arterial . It presently conveys 24, 000 daily trips. Daily traffic volumes :projected to. be 'generated by the alternative land use designations are the .following: Land Use Alternative Daily Traffic Generation 1 ) Low Density Residential 616 Average Daily Trips 2) Medium Density Residential 1, 323 Average Daily Trips The traffic volumes projected from the land use alternatives indicate that neither Low or Medium Density development will exceed the capacity of Lake Street or Yorktown Avenue. The most desirable means of accessing the site under either Low or Medium Density would be to retain Pine Street and feed traffic between the site and Lake Street via Utica Avenue. The Medium Density alternative, however, would have the potential to create traffic impacts on Pine Street south of Utica Avenue under this scenario. Alternatively, access for a Medium Density project could be taken exclusively from Lake Street . A fire gate could then be installed at Pine Street and Utica Avenue for an emergency second access point . Public transportation is currently available in the vicinity of the area of concern. OCTD provides transit service in the area. Bus stops are located conveniently at Main Street and Seventeenth Street and at Yorktown Avenue and Lake Street . OCTD has indicated that it is unlikely that either alternative density would have any significant impact on the existing or any future transit services. -40- T 2. 3 . 2. 6 Environmental Issues a. Noise The entire area of concern is within an area of acceptable noise level for residential uses . The City' s General Plan states that the optimum outdoor noise level for residential uses is Ldn 60 . The area falls outside the Ldn 60 contour lines generated by traffic on Lake Street and Main Street. No significant noise impacts are anticipated to occur from either . of the alternative land uses . b. Air Quality Either of the land use alternatives will adversely affect air quality in the South Coast Region; however , the impact is not expected to be significant. Projected daily emissions for each of the two alternatives have been calculated and are contained in Appendix B.. C. Seismic, Soils and Geology 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 . . The area of concern lies just outside this Special Studies Zone. At the time a specific project is proposed for development, it will be appropriate to require a geologic study to address the mitigation "of potential seismic hazards due to the close proximity to the Special Studies Zone. The seismic issues should be considered whether the development is Low or Medium Density Residential . A 1974 study, Geotechnical Inputs, prepared for the City by Leighton-Yen and Associates , indicates that the soil in the study area has a low to moderate (6 percent to 27 percent ) clay content . This condition exists in much of the City. Since expansive clay soils can cause serious damage to lightly loaded structures , pavements, driveways and sidewalks due to volumetric changes associated with moisture content, a geotechnical study should be done to make proper design recommendations for construction on the property. The Leighton-Yen study did not indicate any peat or organic soils on or near the site. Nine ( 9) active oil wells and associated facilities are located on the site . These wells may be plugged and abandoned as part of a large oil consolidation project proposed by Angus Petroleum Corporation . The wells must be abandoned to Division of Oil and Gas standards and an attempt should be made to avoid building directly . over any abandoned wells . If any previously abandoned wells or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during any excavation or grading, remedial cementing operations may be required by the Division of Oil and Gas . ( 0550D) -41- If the consolidation project does not take place and the wells are not abandoned, the residential development should be designed to preserve the active oil wells and facilities . It is recommended that adequate open space and access . be provided around and near each of the active oil wells because these wells will require periodic maintenance that may require the use of workover rigs . The area provided should be well secured to prevent entry of unauthorized persons and of animals . The two wells and - associated facilities northwest of Utica Avenue and Pine Street, should,. be surrounded by an eight-foot block wall . The remaining seven active wells should be protected with , but not limited to, an eight-foot chain link fence that has barbed wire at a 45-degree angle on the inside of the seven-foot level . The fence should be around the perimeter of the facilities and built on a six-inch concrete curb. Climbable landscaping should also be prohibited around any oil facility, as this defeats the purpose of the restraining walls and fences . r A certain amount of noise and odor are a natural part of the oil " industry. It is suggested that outside walls of new residential developments that face oil facilities not have windows . Skylights and atriums could be substituted as alternatives . This would not only reduce potential noise and odor problems, but would also- mitigate . an aesthetic issue . 2 .3 . 3 . Staff. Recommendation Staff feels that the existing designation of . Medium Density is appropriate for the study area and that any concerns with such development can be easily mitigated through project design. Staff further feels that Med-ium Density Residential will serve as a • logical transitional use between the 5-story civic center to the north and the single family homes to the south . With these considerations , staff recommends that the existing Medium Density Residential land use designation be retained. (0550D) -42- f 2.4 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BEACH BOULEVARD AND MEMPHIS AVENUE 2. 4 . 1 Background Area 2. 4 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to redesignate 10 .3 acres located on the west side of Beach Boulevard between Memphis and Knoxville Avenue from Medium beiisity Residential to General Commercial . The study area is located within the Beach Boulevard Corridor Project area. The Redevelopment Agency has requested that' staff analyze the possibility of commercial use of the property. The study area consists of two separately owned parcels. The west half of the study area is owned by Chevron USA, Incorporated, and the east half is owned by the Huntington Beach Company. The area of concern currently contains an oil storage and pumping station for Chevron USA and a privately run pre-school . The storage/pumping facility is located on the northeast corner of the property; The southeast corner of the property houses the` pre-school which has access off of Knoxville Avenue . The west half of the property; which fronts the residential uses on Florida Street, Knoxville Avenue and Memphis Avenue, is vacant. -43- ( 0550D) 2 .4 . 2 Analysis The following analysis examines three land use alternatives for the subject property: ( 1 ) a. Medium Density 5 .0 Acres 75 units b. General Commercial 5 . 3 Acres 69,260 square feet ( 2 ) Medium Density 10 . 3 Acres 150 Units ( 3 ) General Commercial 10 . 3 Acres 134 ,600 square feet 2 . 4 . 2. 1 Land Use As shown in Figure 2-10, the study area is presently designated Medium Density Residential in the City 's General Plan. Property to the north is also designated Medium Density, while property to the west and south is Low Density Residential . A strip of General Commercial along Beach Boulevard also directly abuts the study area on its south end. Directly across Beach Boulevard to the west is the Seabridge Residential project which is designated as Planned Community in the City' s General Plan. The highest density portion of the Seabridge project is on the property directly east of the study area . The study area is presently split into two parcels. Although the two parcels share the same land use designation of Medium Density they are zoned differently. As shown in Figure 2-11, the parcel that is located on the west half of the property is zoned R3 Medium High Density Residential District . - The parcel that is located on the east-side of the property and which fronts Beach Boulevard is zoned C4 Highway Commercial District. The subject area has been zoned in this manner since 1961 when it was changed from M2-0, Industrial District with oil use. Of note is a fifteen foot setback strip' that runs between the two parcels - and is depicted on the zoning maps: The purpose of this "built in" buffer ' strip is to protect the residential uses from encroachment of. the commercial. uses . The residential area to the north of the subject property is zoned R2-PD-10 (Medium Density Residential with a 10 unit per acre limit, , Planned Development) . The residential area to the west of the study area is a -part of the Oldtown 'Specific Plan (District One) . The area to' the south of the study area is zoned R3 (Medium High , Density) ; and C4 ( Highway Commercial ) . It should be noted '. that the R3 zone designation is inconsistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan -designation . The existing land use is built out to -the maximum density permitted under the R3 zone. East of- the -study area ,' across Beach Boulevard,' is the Seabridge Villa Condominium complex presently being operated as an apartment. The property is designated as Planned Community in the Land Use Element and is zoned as the Seabridge Specific Plan . South of the ( 0550D) --44- i 111111111 _ � � ••� , ■ •- � �'� ■ �, Illllllllllllllllllli( III(= � � - �.� A ts� A IA �� Y `PIN 1 .. . Rill I WIN Ifflim i. Emoil Rolf I ;;• ■d®Is■■r =;■■�,� sulfa d f �• . ■ISt■ q 11�«� ,►c p�11 h1 s■l■■o■i■'r ■_■■HIM oil ■■ w� Ills ► ��� Illsis A©AMS AVE. OAMS� IOtOLOT 6 WC2 C4 " �r .rGA�RGf•'"t9}• I � aoD l wir(7�cu+1� 0 CR SPECIFIC LAN - PEC►IFNIC 50 , � �ORTLA { l$Ig1CT � ' . Is:x U � pp i. 0 01 v AVE. RB-PO-10 - ; r0 iMICEP[lfi{- c NASMY3LLE AYE. �wuJ �� -01 _ L W - ' PLANO RlCT TWO) == _ -'•••••MEMPHISP- 0 OUT]I r.3 �- - -31SZ� S[4• - y. j'°1 • f�S� : E �...1] DL L_..� OD KµOXVILLE S C� CC2 � d RI PLAN R3�C4' �� MU++9rER RE RI RI - S ALLOT _ "" Olt I o RI , R1 INDIANAPOL I S DP&-r*Ud 690 f: El- .?RD z AVE. m R I RE� . U CF-E Q GENEYA RI (FE'EkS:iN St;N'.•4L1 LJ m SAIL CR � RI RI ad AN c OLDT N ; Y ' 'I SPECIFIC A — I R I M 1 ELM�IRA D �► RICK KINRISHFR ^—� Figure 2-11 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIN EXISTING ZONING' PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.4 -46- Seabridge complex are two parcels of land that front Beach Boulevard and are general planned as General Commercial and zoned as C2 and . (Q) C2 (Community Business District and Qualified Community Business District ) . txisti.ng surrounding land uses are generally consistent with the zoning. As such, the study area is surrounded primarily by residential uses on the north, south, west and across the street to the east. Some commercial uses (a 7-11 convenience store, donut shop, auto insurance office, auto supply store and beachware store ) exist south of the subject area along Beach Boulevard, and southeast of the property across Beach Boulevard (McDonald " s and a vacant office building) . As discussed above, the study area is surrounded on three sides by residential uses . Any development on the subject parcel would impact the surrounding residential uses, especially those to the west and south since they directly face the subject property and are separated from it only by a public street right of way which is currently 30 feet but will be required to be 60 feet once the parcel is developed. Designating the subject parcel as half Medium Density Residential (the 5 .0 acres on the west half) and half General Commercial (the 5. 3 acres on the east half which fronts Beach Boulevard) could result in the development of 75 dwelling units and 69 ,260 square feet of retail land use, as indicated in Alternative 1 of this report . The dwelling units could consist of duplexes, - tri-plexes, apartments, condominiums or townhouse developments. Single family homes , such as patio homes , may also be suitable . The general commercial retail development would include convenience and neighborhood commercial developments , a community shopping center or other highway related retail commercial uses . This scenario of development would require a change in land use designation on only the east half of the property from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial . The west half of the . property would retain its designation of Medium Density Residential . The development that would be allowed in Alternative 1 may be compatible with the surrounding land uses since the proposed Medium Density Residential uses could provide a transitional use between the existing Low Density Residential uses and the proposed Commercial/Retail uses . if this alternative is selected, the residential uses should be adequately isolated from the commercial uses via barrier walls or some form of physical buffer, the existing 15--foot buffer strip between the R3 and C4 zoning on the properties should be maintained, and the existing R3 zone designation should be changed to either R2 (Medium Density) or Oldtown Specific Plan. Additionally, access to the two different land uses should be separate . The alternative to retain the entire 10. 3 acre parcel as Medium Density Residential (Alternative 2 ) could result in the development of .150 dwelling units . Such a development scenario would be ( 0550D) -47- r compatible with the surrounding residential uses but would provide no -transitional land use between itself and Beach Boulevard. In lieu of a transitional land use such as that proposed in Alternative 1, a site design that minimizes the impacts of Beach- Boulevard on . the residential use should be required. Dwelling unit orientation, setbacks, landscaping and berming could be utilized to limit the impacts . Alternative 3 of this ana•'.ysis is the applicant ' s (the City of Huntington Beach) proposal . The request is to redesignate the entire 10 . 3 acre parcel as General Commercial to allow for the development of a 134 , 600 square foot retail complex. Compared to Alternatives 1 and 2, this development scenario would have the greatest negative impact on the existing residential uses nearby. If the request is approved, staff recommends that the retail center have access off of Beach Boulevard only and (no access should be allowed off of Memphis Avenue, Florida Street or Knoxville Avenue. Staff is concerned, however, that commercial development of the site .(even under the Alternative 1 scenario) would create undesirable competition for both the Newland Center to the north and the. Beach/Atlanta shopping center to the south, The Beach/Atlanta center has suffered a high turn-over rate for many years . The City has also discussed the possibility of defining Adams Avenue as the point at which Beach Boulevard transforms from a commercial corridor to a residential corridor . In view of these considerations it may be desirable to retain the Medium Density Residential designation on the study area. 2 .4 . 2 . 2 Economic Con i er ti ns The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one year-,for • comparison purposes . The results are summarized in the table below., Appendix A contains a summary of the fiscal impact assumptions . . Alt. 1 Alt . 2 Alt . 3 Medium Density/ Medium Density General General Commercial Commercial Revenue $145, 138 $ 72, 048 $212, 111 Cost $ 24, 777 $ 30, 000 $ 19 , 187 Revenue-Cost $120,361 $ 42, 048 $192, 924 Revenue/Cost 5 . 86 2 .40 11. 05 As shown above, Alternative 3 (General Commercial-Retail) generates the greatest amount of net revenue and the greatest revenue to cost ratio of all of the alternatives . Alternative 1, a combination of residential and retail generates the second greatest amount of -48-- (0550D) revenue. Taxable retail sales constitute the revenue source which cause. these alternatives to produce the most positive fiscal impact. In reviewing the above results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs . 2 . 4 . 2 . 3 Housing The Housing Element of the City' s General Plan contains policies aimed at providing a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and cost for households of all sizes, socioeconomic, racial and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach. The existing Medium Density designation would provide the most rental housing of either of the residential development alternatives . The City' s request for General Commercial on the subject property will actually reduce housing opportunities in the City, while the alternative 'for Commercial /Residential will reduce housing opportunities on the site by only 50 percent . The existing designation of Medium Density will provide the greatest opportunity for affordable housing. 2 .4 . 2 .4 Public ,Services and Utilities a. Sewers No direct sewer hookups currently exist for the subject property. A 10-inch line exists 'in Huntington Street just north of Atlanta Avenue, but the City' s Department of Public Works has in that this line is close to capacity. Any development on this property would impact the sewage flow capabilities of the existing system. However, the Orange County Sanitation District has indicated that the County systems can accommodate any of the alternatives contained herein. b. Water Water mains in the vicinity of the study area include an 8-inch pipe in Memphis Avenue and a 6-inch cast iron pipe in Knoxville Avenue . The Department of Public Works has indicated that the cast iron pipe would require replacement and that normal water main extensions will need to be constructed. Specifically, an eight-inch line in Beach Boulevard will be required. c. Storm Drains The storm water line that serves the subject property is in Beach Boulevard and increases from 21 inches in diameter to 24 inches to 27 inches to a 42-inch line at the County pump station at Adams Avenue east of Beach Boulevard . The existing drainage system was designed for residential rather than commercial zoning. Therefore, ( 0550D) -49- the additional runoff from commercial development would probably surcharge the existing City drainage system. Also, the County pump station to which the property' s drainage would flow may' not have the additional capacity for a commercial development . The project proponent would need to resolve these issues with the City and County prior to development . d. Police and Fire Protection 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, in and of themselves , will generate the need for more police manpower . Of all the alternatives, Alternative 2 (Medium Density on the entire site) would generate the most calls, approximately 216 . Therefore, this alternative would have the greatest cumulative impact on police service . Fire protection for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach from the Lake Street Fire Station at the corner of Lake and Frankfort Streets . The area of concern lies within the . five minute response area of the station and can be adequately serviced regardless of the selected alternative. e. Parks The area of concern will be serviced by two parks that are planned to be built by the City. By the end of 1986, Manning Park , a 2.5 acre facility, will be developed at the corner of Detroit Avenue and Delaware Avenue. By 1988 McCal,len Park , a 5 acre facility, will be developed on Huntington Street just north of Utica Avenue . Either of the residential alternatives would be adequately serviced by public parks. f . Schools The area of concern is located within the Huntington Beach School District and is served by Kettler Elementary School (grades K-5) , Dwyer Middle School (grades 6-8) and Huntington Beach High School . As indicated by the following table, Alternative 2 (Medium Density) , -would generate the greatest demand for public education services. Alternative 3 would have no impact on the area 's schools . Regardless of the residential alternative selected, methods would have a great impact. on the school system. ( 0550D) -50- Students generated by residential alternatives; Elementary High Alternative school School (1 ) Medium Density/Commercial 9 3 (75 Units ) ( 2 ) Medium Density 18 6 ( 150 Units ) g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company: A 4-inch gas main currently runs in Beach Boulevard which fronts the property, and a 2-inch feeder line runs under Georgia Street which runs perpendicular to the property. No problems have been indicated regarding gas service to the property thus far , and the Gas Company has indicated that service can be provided to any of the alternatives . 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 load's 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 alternative land use designations. Internal street circulation within any project would have to be designed to accommodate the company' s refuse trucks without requiring any backing up. 2. 4 . 2 . 5 Traffic and Circulation The area of concern has approximately' 610 lineal feet of frontage along Beach Boulevard, a major arterial with an average daily traffic volume of approximately 24,000 vehicles . The site lies approximately 700 feet north of Indianapolis Avenue, which is a local street west of Beach Boulevard and a secondary arterial east of Beach Boulevard with an average daily traffic volume of approximately 11 ,000 vehicles near the study area. ( 0550D) -51- Projected daily traffic ,volumes generated by the alternative land use designations are; Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation ( 1 ) Medium Density Residential - 75 units/General Commercial Retail 69 ,260 sq. ft . 7,845 Average Daily Trips ( 2 ) Medium Density Residential 150 units 1 ,200 Average Daily Trips ( 3 ) General Commercial Retail 134, 600 sq.ft . 14, 000 Average -Daily Trips if the property is developed with commercial , either wholly or only on the front five acres, staff recommends that access to the site be permitted by a major street-type entry off of Beach Boulevard and minor access driveways. ' off of both Knoxville and Memphis Avenues. The Beach Boulevard access would permit right turns only while the Knoxville and Memphis Avenue accesses would permit left turns as they presently do, in fact, Memphis Avenue at -Beach Boulevard will eventually be signalized as a result of a previous condition of approval on the Seabridge Villa condominium complex across Beach Boulevard. If commercial traffic intrusion becomes a problem in the residential area west of the study area, traffic control devices such as narrowed one way street sections could be incorporated into Memphis and Knoxville Avenues to prevent westward-.movement of traffic from the shopping center . It should be noted that the study area is presently graded substantially higher than Beach Boulevard. Additionally, Beach Boulevard itself is topping a hill in the vicinity of the study area . These conditions mean that access to the site from Beach Boulevard will be somewhat difficult and visibility may be poor . It will , therefore, be important for a commercial project on the site to address these concerns in a circulation study prior to development. With regard to public transportation, the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) offers bus service near the study area on Beach Boulevard. The OCTD does not foresee any significant impact from the alternatives on the existing or any future transit services in the study area. The Orange County Transit District does request, however , that adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be provided. The development. project should include. paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials. ( 0550D) -52- 2 . 5 SOUTH SIDE OF TALBERT AVENUE, EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD 2 . 5.1 Background Area of concern 2. 5 is a request by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment. Ag6hdy to redesignate 15. 00 acres located on the south side of Talbert Avenue, 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard, from Low Density Residential to General Commercial . The property is owned by the Ocean View School District. The study area is. presently utilized by Crestview Elementary School , which may be phased out at some point in the future. The stu8�- area is separated from Beach- Boulevard by a small shopping center which is somewhat marginal in nature. As part of the Redevelopment Agency' s plans for the Beach Boulevard Corridor Project they have requested that staff analyze the possibility of a commercial land use on the school site which could tie in with and encourage recycling of the adjacent shopping center 2. 5 . 2 Analysis The following analysis examines three land use alternatives for the subject property: (1 ) Low Density Residential 105 units ( 2) ' Medium Density Residential 225 units ( 3) General Commercial (Retail ) 196, 000 square feet ( 0550D) -5.5- i 2. 5 . 2 . 1 Land Use As indicated in Figure 2-12, the study area is presently designated. Low Density Residential on the General Plan. Property to the west is General Commercial . To the north of the study area, across Talbert Avenue, is Good Shepard Cemetery which is designated Public , Quasi-Public Institutional on the General Plan . Property to the east and south is Low Density Residential . Figure 2-13, indicates existing zoning. The study area is zoned CF-E (Community Facilities Education ) with an underlying zone of R1 . The shopping center to the west is C4 . Existing uses include a Der 'Weinerschnitzel , a car wash, and a small retail building . To the south of the shopping center are three older non-conforming homes on C4 property. To the south of those units are an office building and a hotel . The cemetery to the , north of the study area is zoned SP-1 (Special Use--Cemetery) . The residential subdivisions to the east and south are zoned Rl . The request of the Redevelopment Agency is to redesignate the study area from Low Density Residential to General Commercial . Development of the site with a general commercial use could result in approximately 196,000 square feet of retail space. If the marginally utilized shopping center to the west is rolled into the project, a larger retail center could be constructed. A shopping center on the subject property would pose no compatibility problems for other uses on Beach Boulevard and with the cemetery on the north side of Talbert' Avenue. In fact, commercial would be considered an appropriate use ' for property near 'the ,intersection of a major and primary arterial . Compatibility of uses may pose a problem for the residential subdivisions to the south and east , however . " Twenty-two homes directly abut the school site and could be subject to noise and light impacts from a commercial use on the property. Design considerations such as building setbacks , lighting constraints and parking distribution should be incorporated to minimize impacts on the subdivisions . If the Low Density Residential designation is retained on the subject property, a total of 105 housing units could be constructed: Low Density would certainly be the most compatible . land use with the adjacent residences but may not be the most appropriate use considering the potential value of property . located at a major intersection. A Medium Density land use designation would also- be compatible with the surrounding subdivisions and would also constitute a reasonable transitional use from traffic noise on Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue to the Low Density area to the south and east. Neither low nor Medium Density, however , would do anything to stimulate recycling of .the marginal commercial uses along ' Beach Boulevard to, the west of the study area, ( 0550D) _56_ fF .� ....� uvula on SIMON Mobram■• � 1111������ IN ■■���■� - ■ �I � Iltpt1i111Isllo-1E11 �� i gitp1111111N1�11111 IE' � �_ � r ,�N��H■�■ llllr to ' s 11 [J �] A.{ a*I I i ST UM J ' Jk 0 i W w R j Y -- ; �� R2 NoaLE CR tR 2 R3IV — a `EL 1111RQ10 ! "�' R I OR. 9R3 d R2 C� ' R5 R5 feo - u NEw MAN AVE !DO!(-- R�/y r W 1 2 R2 - ue q 3A Y 9 266 C_ ' R 5 S P -I RONALD DR. >o " R2 N.LINE E I/P sin SW v+ w 6EC. 2e-0-II 260 To r 3 W K / R R3 R3 R2-PD-112) R2 R2 Ca , U R3- ! S P" I (Q).RA Ml J R3 R5 $.. RI iYa os.n II TALBERT AVE. FA J)R2-PD RIC4 so(4RI:: .:VA GLADYS AVE . i.i"P �+�:> =: RI RI RI �T l 115iM•N CR4-SR •_.. .-.. = R TER IN y AVENUE RI tRF�_�v�'sro SR Rl =' , r: R RI RI RI LAVE RI-PD RI LKINER 6J TAYL.OR DR. Q R I R I !` S _ e77.20 W �y J T4YL-.A DR LE[ON TE DR. i� ti a }, eo R I OR n + < a C 2 ii RI RI RI J S RI-PDI" Rx a ¢ R I f 1 INC, GR� a DR RI RI "R2Y J ._..-_ ° RI R3 R3 _ CF-R f ie' Rl a : R3 f LLE " 50 R3 ;C4 a R3 ' P D@ a R3 R ,a ,a 2 R2 = r� Rl R FRaNKLrN DR 04 R I a R l RI $-- �� ••m a s RI R3 p R3 �. R2 o v a R2 '_ 5 Rl ii2 R3 R3 i ut RV 'al. — wru4wcca. Figure 2-13 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORMN EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.5 -58- 2 . 5 . 2 . 2 Economic Considprations The Planning staff itilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one year for comparison purposes . The results are summarized in the table below. Appendix A contains a - summary of the fiscal impact assumptions . Alt, 1 Alt . 2 _ Alt . 3 Low Density Medium Density General Commercial Revenue $56, 639 $110, 056 $303, 869 Cost $26, 040 $ 44 , 706 $ 27, 942 Revenue-Cost $30, 599 $ 65,347 $275, 927 Revenue/Cost 2 . 18 2 .46 10. 87 As shown above, Alternative 3 (General Commercial-Retail) generates the most net revenue and the highest revenue to cost ratio. The primary factor contributing to the significant difference between Alternative 3 and the remaining alternatives were the sales tax revenue assumptions used in the analysis . In reviewing the above results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs . 2 . 5 . 2 . 3 H usin The existing designation, Low Density Residential, would result in 105 units, if developed. Medium Density Residential will result in 225 units . The other alternative, Commercial, would not result in, any housing units . The Housing Element of the City' s General Plan contains a policy stating that surplus school sites should be utilized for residential use where appropriate and consistent with the City' s General Plan (Section 8 . 3 . 1 . ) . The Housing Element also contains many policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes . The medium density residential land use alternative would provide the most housing at the lowest cost and would best carry out these housing policies in the City' s General Plan. 2 . 5 . 2 .4 Public- Services and Utilities a . SQ w rs Talbert Avenue, adjacent to the area of concern, contains an 8-inch sewer line which becomes a 12- inch line as it extends to the east . The existing sewer system will adequately handle a low density residential development . Since medium density residential and commercial development flows are higher than low density residential flows, the downstream sewer capacity would have to be metered and analyzed for capacity before any new medium density residential or commercial development could be approved. (0550D) _59 b. Water Talbert Avenue contains an 8-inch water main which can provide adequate .water service under any of the land use alternatives . C. Storm Drains The existing drainage system for this area was designed using a school runoff coefficient . A 24-inch storm drain is located in Talbert Avenue . Runoff from a residential or commercial development is substantially higher than from a school . In addition, this area drains to the channel adjacent to Michael Drive, which has experienced flooding. A residential , and especially a commercial project, would impact the current flooding problem. Therefore, from a drainage standpoint, the Public Works Department does not recommend a change in land use designation. d. Police and Fire Protection 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 . The 105 units in a low density residential project would generate about 50 calls per year . A Medium Density Residential project with 225 units would generate about 108 calls . General Commercial would generate the most calls , approximately 116 per year . 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. e. Parks The closest park to the area of - concern is Lambert Park located northwest of Newland Street and Ellis Avenue. It is located within the same quarter section approximately one-quarter mile away. Across Beach Boulevard, south of Talbert Avenue, is another neighborhood park called Terry Park . It is approximately one-quarter mile away but involves the crossing of Beach Boulevard, which may be too great a safety hazard for small children.- The nearest community park is just outside of the recommended one and one-half mile service radius , shown in the City's Recreation Element of the General Plan. Although nearby parks are not abundant, a low or medium density residential development would be adequately served by Lambert Park . ( 0550D) -60- f . Schools The area of concern is currently the site of Crest View Elementary School . Ocean View School District has indicated that presently there is a great need for Crest View School , but there is a possibility that it could be phased out in the long term, perhaps ten years. Crest View School , presently serves the vicinity with grades K-8 . If this school is phased out in the long-term future to allow development of low or medium density residential buildings or commercial development, the students will have to be accommodated by Oak View and Lake View Elementary Schools and Vista View for seventh and .eighth grades. Ocean View High School serves the vicinity of the area of concern and could accommodate the additional students generated by a residential project . The number of students that would be generated by the residential alternatives are the following: Elementary High Land Use Alternative School School ( 1 ) Low Density (105 Units) 22 27 ( 2 ) Medium Density ( 225 Units ) 27 9 g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. There is a 4-inch line in Talbert Avenue . Extension of the 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 i 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 either land use alternative. 2 . 5. 2 .5 Traffic and Circulation ' Access to the study area is presently taken from Lisa Lane which is F a local street in the single family subdivision to the south . There i ( 0550D) -61_ I I is no existing vehicular access from Talbert Avenue. This circulation system is appropriate for the existing school facility but would not be appropriate for any other land use. A Low Density and Medium Density land uses could utilize Lisa Lane in conjunction with one other access to Talbert Avenue, but the Commercial alternative would require that the Lisa Lane access be' abandoned. Daily traffic volumes projected to be generated by the alternative land use designations are the following: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation Low Density Residential 1 ,260 Average Daily Trips 105 units Medium Density Residential 1 , 575 Average Daily Trips 225 units General Commercial (Retail ) 24 , 500 Average Daily Trips 196 ,000 square feet ' The area of concern is' located 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard. As such project proposals will have to take into consideration proximity to the intersection of Beach Boulevard/Talbert Avenue in the design of ingress and egress to the project whether it is residential or commercial . Since the study area has 1 ,000 feet of frontage along Talbert Avenue, it will be possible to create two major entries into the site for either a commercial or medium density project. The fact that the cemetery on the north side of Talbert Avenue does not have any access to Talbert adds flexibility to the location of access points to the study area. If the property is designated for commercial and is merged with the commercial property to the west, an additional access from Beach Boulevard could possibly be obtained. This access point, however will not permit left hand turns . Overall , the additional traffic generated from any of the land use alternatives could be accommodated by Talbert Avenue but may have a detrimental effect on Beach Boulevard which is currently operating over its design capacity. The negative impact would be greater from the commercial alternative than from either of the residential alternatives due to the fact that commercial uses generate many more daily trips than residential uses do . There is adequate public transportation in the vicinity. OCTD currently offers service on Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue with bus stops at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue and also on Talbert at Hartlund Street . The Orange County Transit District does request , however , that adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be provided . The development project should include paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials . ( 0550D) -62- The Orange Count yy Transit District does request, however , that adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be provided . The development project should include paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials . 2 . 5 . 2.6 Environmental Issues ' a . Noise Noise levels slightly exceeding Ldn 60 ' extend into the northwestern portion of the site . This sound level is generated by -,traffic at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue . The 65 Ldn contour line encroaches a few feet onto the side- of the site fronting on Talbert Avenue. For residential uses , these levels are slightly in excess of the acceptable levels given in the City' s General Plan of Ldn 60. Features such as setbacks, berming, landscaping and soundwalls. should be utilized along Talbert if a residential land use is selected for the site. For a General Comiriercial use the sound levels are completely within the acceptable range given in the City' s General Plan of Ldn 80. b . Air Quality Any of the alternatives will adversely affect air quality in the - South Coast region, however , the impact is not expected to be significant . Projected daily emissions from each of the . alternatives have been calculated and are contained in Appendix B. c . Seismic, Soils and Geology The area of concern lies on a mesa north of all known active or inactive fault zones in the City. 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 is approximately 1 .5 miles from the area of concern . Development on this site, therefore, need not be subject to the zone requirements . In 1974 study, Geotechnical Inputs , prepared for the City -by Leighton-Yen and Associates, indicates that the soil in the study area has a moderate to high (20%-42% ) clay content. This condition exists in much of the northern half of the City. Since expansive clay soils can cause serious damage to lightly loaded structures, pavements, driveways and sidewalks due to volumetric changes associated with moisture content, a geotechnical study should be done to make proper design recommendations for construction on the property. The Leighton-Yen study did not indicate any peat or organic soils on or near the site. ( 0550D) -63- 2 . 5. 3 Staff Recommendation Althoiigh 'the preceding analysis indicates that a redesignation of the entire study area to General Commercial could result -in a project which could be adequately accessed and which could be designed to be compatible with surrounding uses, staff feels that such redesignation is not appropriate at this time. The school , district has indicated that they presently need ' Crestview School and that demand will continue for at least ten years. Also, Talbert . Avenue is not presently developed as a commercial corridor and there may not be a great deal of market demand for an additional 15: 00 , acres. of-commercial at the subject location. The need to. .encourage recycling of the commercial' property fronting Beach Boulevard immediately west of the study area continues to exist, however . The limited depth' ( 260 feet) of this commercial ' area is, not conducive to -construction' of to quality shopping center. Given these consi-derations, ''perhaps some portion of the study area could be designated commercial in order to achieve sufficient depth of frontage on Beach Boulevard to encourage recycling. The majority of existing structures located on the Crestview 'School site are situated on the eastern 10. 00 acres of the property. Staff, therefore, proposes t.hat the western 5.0 gross acres of the study area which abut the existing .commercial property to the west be redesignated for commercial use. This will create a 10. 00 gross acre commercial site 'which will be conducive to construction of a. 116, 000. square .foot shopping center on Beach Boulevard. This action will permit Crestview School to continue to function while at the same time permitting a quality commercial project to be constructed on Beach Boulevard . 764- 2. 6 SO[ITHEAST CORNER OF BEACH BOULEVARD AND WARNER AVENUE 2. 6. 1 Bail&kg'rouhd; Area 2. 6 is a 'request by th6, Huritington Beach Redevelopment Agency to redesignate 4'. 5 acres Hof r p`ropertyK located o'n th'e south aside Warner Avenue,' 200 feet Feast of kBeach' Boulevard �(ketwe'en wX-ff and "B" Streets )' from, Med-rum Density Res dentia-i to General Corrimercia"1 The study area w'as previou'sl`y designated General. Commerczill on the , �7" , w .� .,. General Plan, but was amended to Nfed'ium� Density Residential in 1°977 because sufficient demand for c-omme'reial dev-elopm6 t was- no't" perceived at the ti'me'. The red6sgnation' affected only the study area between "A" grid "B" Streets . The area ea between' "A'" Street and Beach Bo'ulev r'd' remained 66r e'ral Commerciai. The study area' is' presen'tly' characterized' by multiple .,small; lots and s � � � _`r� fragmented ownerships w' iih a number of older homes arid' several strap commercial businesses . The intent of ttie Redev,`elopment ,.Ag'eh-cy in requesting this amendment is' t6" facilitatet consolidation of ownerships' acid encourage ,recycli'ng of, the e'x` sting uses to a high quality office professional project., ( 0550D) -65- � e 2. 6 . 2 Analysis The following analysis covers two alternative land use designations: ( 1 ) General Commercial (Offices ) 112,000 Square Feet ( 2) Medium Density Residential 65 Units 2 .6 . 2 .1 Land Use As indicated in Figure 2-14, the study area is presently designated Medium Density Residential on the General Plan, The area to the west, between "A" Street and Beach Boulevard is designated General Commercial . Further to the west (across Beach Boulevard) is also Commercial . Across Warner Avenue to the north is General Commercial on the General Plan, but is presently developed with older commercial and residential uses, much like the study area . Property to the east is designated Medium Density Residential , while property to the south is primarily Low Density Residential with a strip of General Commercial along Beach Boulevard. As shown in Figure 2-15, the study area is zoned primarily R2 which is consistent with its Medium Density General P1an ' designation. Two lots fronting on Warner Avenue , however , are zoned C4 and (Q)C4 to permit office uses which are established on them. To the west of the study area (between "A" Street and the access alley 42 feet east of Beach Boulevard) the zoning is primarily R2 which is not consistent with the General Plan designation of General .Commercial. Existing uses are housing units and a church . The north portion of this area (along Warner Avenue) is zoned C4 and developed with a pet shop. Between the access alley and .Beach Boulevard is property j zoned C4 and developed with a car wash/gasoline station. Zoning across Warner Avenue to the north is C4 and developed with commercial uses and non-conforming housing units . Proper-ty to the east is zoned R2 and developed with two apartment projects totalling . 55 units . • Property to the south is zoned R1 and developed with a single family subdivision. To the southeast along •Beach Boulevard the zoning is C4 and developed commercially. The study area is situatedJat an important commercial intersection and has tremendous potential for office/professional development., Charter tenter is a high quality commercial/office development_ immediately across Beach Boulevard to: the west . It is felt that the study area could be designated. for an office use which could compliment the Charter Center development and further create an office/professional identity for the Beach/Warner intersection. The study area and adjacent property closer to Beach Boulevard is presently under-utilized with a mixture of older homes and newer multi-family units as well as several strip-commercial uses . Staff.- hastinventoried 'residential units in the larger area- and has found ( 0550D) -66- r - Ilk mill 11 �MINI� . ��� . '� . � Y- -_.fie 4 bu��` tirti:.i.:t;•y4„���' HIGH • �».rr�.=o. ,�-a;. ,':..aa..:,. :k,.v�.,,:�--. -. rr�'i:.�r��.� s.r,� ,-we-��.Sc 11 , �:ri..�H■1 � 1.1111111111 - m.. IIIjt ��� N■ '"■■ n /HMI _! � � �, IIIII�r :. �■� ■� �� �IIIIN ii - _- -- � ��� - �■�- y 1.- ' �.�. _■■ .a■ n n.1N0/// ='T m ■ ■■ r���.w�ww�rrtrrlli/ri��i�.. �.,:cna wvd C 1 BfiYANT DR I m L Gp I ,o RI RI LP C 2 § LAMBERT DR PoJ RI ° RI RI RI s eoTe TO R TERRY DR TERRY DR. ,dS 2 u R2Z J ]� 'jj 3 g R C C� RI RI RI RjJjFR R I ' .C4r LANCASTER ARNETT DR F ,,, C RI RI DaW9R DRIVE D O. C F. C D C6-z -- C6-i m ID - e•e is - Bal. pl6 C eo -,,,aCF-� R # R3 cc 1 G R2 c q4 d R3 m TAMARU 215 # C4 p r R3 ~({:a�rl;c r��xs::,:er.L1 DR a R3 C♦ I _ c R3 ill -- 3°°I WARNER AVE - 1��R 5 I �-. _._�. . _...- x RI RI w ` (°o e - AMBTERpAY DR C4-MS a - RI J c' =R2Ian Rz W R2 -- &L ]� N EDA OR Y .. � R I a R I RI RI - -R2 -1 - -�--- R 2 .-°� RI J RI } C VPR[{9 W J 7o Rt POLDER CR < OR MARSEILLE DR ¢ i90 ��I R2' Co� o RI u RI R2 R —jljL too 10 +� lA4LENC14 ----- I x•xT R i R I 4 ana TO FRIESLAN R. 6 KRsrn Ck ateNDRELL OA o Z ss� R I j a J Y R3 R3 R3 a R I [ Z. GUILDS s DR. C4 � a � . BARi04 DR R I CF—E R 3 HOLLAND rc ('LAKE VIEW sCH:OCi) I I ow J Lq R i to . K3 M M f+] M RI' wPD N a " A RI RI Ri Ic4 469� (:zIx L-I G a L-Li JL R3 .j I - .° i--- ISL ATER Figure 2-15 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIN EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.6 -68- f that there are 23 housing units which were constructed prior to 1980 •(most are much older than 1980) and 22 units in multi-family structures which have been constructed since 1980 . Many of the housing units are in very poor condition. This condition is further exacerbated by the fact that large portions of "A" and "B" Streets have not been dedicated and do not have curbs and gutters . The intent of the Redevelopment Agency is to redesignate the study area for office/professional uses and stimulate consolidation and recycling of the study area and the adjoining property along Beach Boulevard. Due to the residential units presently in existence in the study area, extensive relocation assistance will be necessary as part of any redevelopment project . In terms of compatibility, the existing designation of Medium Density Residential on the study area certainly constitutes a land use which could be deemed compatible with residential areas to the east and south. Residential on the study area, however, would not be considered to be the most desirable land use for the intersection of two of the most heavily traveled arterials in Orange County, Given the nature of the intersection, a commercial land use on the study area would constitute the most compatible and appropriate land use. In fact, an office use of the subject property would provide an effective buffer and transition to the residential areas to the east and south. .In order to ensure compatibility of an office use with the adjacent residential areas, certain mitigation measures will be necessary. The traffic section of this report proposes circulation changes that will limit mixing of commercial and residential traffic. Appropriate setbacks, landscaping and, perimeter walls will also be necessary to ensure compatibility. 2 . 6 . 2 .2 Economic Considerati_pm The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment. The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one year for comparison purposes . The results are summarized in the table below. Appendix A contains a summary of the fiscal impact methodology. Alt. 1 Alt , 2 General Commercial Medium Density Revenue $31, 606 $32, 520 Cost $11, 606 $13, 025 Revenue--Cost $20, 000 $19,495 Revenue/Cost 2 . 72 2. 50 As shown above, Alternative 2 (Medium Density Residential) generates slightly more net revenue than Alternative 1. Although Medium Density Residential generally produces more cost than Office (0550D) -69- k Commercial , the market value and project type assumptions in this analysis caused the two alternatives to generate nearly identical results. In reviewing the above results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs . 2 . 6. 2 . 3 Housing The Medium Density designation would allow 65 units on the' area of concern. The Housing Element of the City' s General Plan contains policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes; however, the area of concern does not appear to be the most desirable location to encourage and implement residential development . A housing inventory of the area revealed the existence of 22 units less than 10 years old and 23 units older than 10 years for total of 45 units . The Redevelopment Agency will be , responsible for - . relocating the existing residential uses to a more suitable site. Such action would have the effect of continuing to provide housing opportunities for households with- low and moderate incomes . 2 . 6. 2 .4 Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers Sewage from the area of concern flows . north to Warner Avenue through two existing 8-inch sewer lines; one in "A" Street and the other in "B" Street. The existing lines can provide adequate sewer service to the area of concern under any of the considered land use alternatives . b. Water Water mains in the area of concern include an 8-inch line in "B" Street and an 8-inch line in Blaylock Drive. These existing mains can provide adequate water service to the site under any of the considered land use alternatives . C. Storm Drains Public works has indicated that approximately 75 percent of the study area drains northwest to Beach Boulevard where it enters the Caltrans drainage system via a catch basin located at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue . The remaining 25 percent of the site flows south where it enters the City drainage system. Commercial development of the site would ' produce more runoff _than existing residential use . The City system can accommodate the increased runoff, but Caltrans should be contacted regarding existing capacities within their system prior to commercial construction on the site . ( 0550D) -70-. d. Police and Fire Protection Police service for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach which operates from the central facility located at Main street anc' 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 the two alternatives, Medium Density Residential would generate the most calls, approximately 95. Fire protection for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach from the Murdy Station located north of Heil Avenue on the west side of Gothard Street. The area of concern lies within the five-minute response time area of the station and can be adequately serviced regardless of the selected alternative. e. Parks The area of concern is located northwest of a 3. 0 acre Lake View neighborhood park . The park analysis indicates that park capacities within the quarter section in which the study area is located would be considered adequate to serve recreation and park needs generated by residential development within the study area. Furthermore, the redesignation of the area from residential to commercial would decrease the demand on the park capacity. f . Schools The area of concern is located within the Oceanview School District and is served by Lakeview Elementary School and Oceanview .High School . Due to a downward trend in student enrollment, the schools can easily accommodate the students generated by .the existing Medium Density designation. The Commercial designation alternative would have no impact on the area 's schools. g. Gas and Electric Utilities Natural gas service is provided in the area of concern by the Southern California Gas Company. Existing 2-inch lines in "A" and "B" Streets 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 is provided by 12 KV distribution lines in the vicinity. 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 . (0550D) -71 '' 1 . h . Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the ' City of Huntington Beach . No local constraints are expected 'under any of the proposed land use designations . 2 . 6. 2 . 5 Traffic and Circulation Access to the study area is presently taken via "A* and "B" Streets .which connect to Warner Avenue to the north and Blaylock Drive to the south which connects to Beach Boulevard further to the east. Th-e Beach and Blaylock- intersection features a median break which permits left turns to and from Beach Boulevard, though there is no traffic signal . Blaylock Drive also provides direct access to the residential 'subdivision south of the study area. "A" and "B" Streets at Warner Avenue are both unsignalized. *A" Street does not permit left turns from Warner but *B" Street features a median break in Warner, which does permit left turns. "B" Street is presently utilized for access by the study area as well as by the residential areas east and south of the study 'area. Beach Boulevard and- Warner Avenue are both presently operating at or near full capacity for their designated arterial status. Beach Boulevard• conveys 60, 000 daily trips and Warner Avenue conveys 32 ,000 daily trips in the vicinity of the study area . Daily traffic volume's projected to be generated by the alternative land use designations are the following: Land Use Alternative Daily Traffic Generation (1 ) General Commercial 1 ,680 Average Daily Trips (office/professional 112 ,000 square feet ) ( 2 ) Medium Density Residential 455 Average Daily Trips ( 65 units ) As indicated in the above table the office/professional use would generate more traffic than the existing designation of Medium Density Residential . In fact, since redevelopment of the study area would also include redevelopment of the 2.5 acres fronting Beach Boulevard;. then traffic generated by the office alternative may actually increase to 2 ,680 average daily trips . If the designation remains Medium -Density Residential, then the existing circulation system of "A" and "B" Streets and Blaylock Drive can be retained in their present configuration with no changes . . A redesignation of ,the study area to General Commercial , however , may necessitate some -circulation changes in order to accommodate the additional traffic to be generated. Public Works has suggested that Blaylock Drive and Granada Lane to the south could be closed off ( 0550D) -72- with•.a knuckle where they intersect in order to eliminate the intrusion of commercial traffic into the residential neighborhood . Blaylock would still intersect Beach Boulevard, but it would ,function only as a major driveway for commercial projects to the north and south, of it . On the north side of the study area, "B" street could be signalized and could be utilized' as a minor entrance for the study area as well as access for the residential areas to the east and south. Signalization of "B" Street will be especially important if a change of General Commercial is approved on the Ocean View SchoolFDistrict site across Warner Avenue to the north. "A" Street would most likely be abandoned and consolidated into the commercial development : A right turn only driveway could then be constructed into the study area at mid-block on both Warner Avenue and Beach. With this proposed circulation system, most of the access to the study area 'would be limited to right turns in and out only. The , proximity of the study area to the heavily used intersection of Beach and Warner- precludes striping for left turns in and out of the project . With regard to public transportation, the Orange County Transit District (OCTO) offers bus service near the study area on both Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue : The OCTD does not foresee any significant impact from the alternatives on the existing or any future transit services in the study area. The Orange County Transit District does recUest, however , that adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be provided. The development project should include paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials . 2 . 6. 2 . 6 Environmental Issues a. Noise Noise levels of Ldn 70, Ldn ,65 and Ldn 60 extend into the area of concern from Beach Boulevard and from Warner Avenue . These levels fall within the normally acceptable range of commercial uses, but slightly exceed the range of residential uses . No significant noise impact is anticipated to occur from any of the proposed land uses. The area of concern is bordered by residential on two sides , and care should be taken at the project level to protect such residential areas from excessive noise generated on the area of concern. b. Air Quality Development of the area of concern under any of the alternative land use designations would adversely affect air quality in the South Coast Air Basin, primarily due to increased automobile traffic generated by the additional housing units or professional offices. Projected daily emissions from the area are indicated in Appendix B. ( 0550D) -73- C. Seismic, Soils and Geology In compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard 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 area of concern. 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 area when a specific project is proposed for development . A 1974 study, Geotechnical Inputs, prepared for the City by Leighton-Yen and Associates, indicates that the soil in the study area has a moderate to high ( 20 percent - 42 percent ) clay content. This condition exists in much of the northern half of the City. Since expansive clay soils can cause serious damage to lightly loaded structures, pavements, driveways and sidewalks due to volumetric changes associated with moisture content, a geotechnical study should be done to make proper design recommendations . for construction on the property. The Leighton-Yen study did not indicate any peat or organic soils on the immediate site, though a probable peat location -was identified to the east . 2. 6 . 3 Staff Recommendation Given the commercial potential of the intersection at Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue, staff feels that the existing designation of Medium Density Residential- is an inappropriate use of the study area . Residential development of the study- area would be considered incompatible with the traffic and noise generated on Beach Boulevard. Additionally, many of the existing residential structures are in disrepair and the existing *A* and "B* Street system is inefficient and outdated. Staff, therefore, recommends that the study area be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial and that a specific plan for the property be initiated. The specific plan should be developed in conjunctio n with the specific plan recommended by staff for' Area 2. 7 of this document which is located across Warner Avenue to the north. This specific plan would ensure integrated commercial development of the Beach Boulevard/Warner Avenue intersection. It will be very important that the Redevelopment Agency keep the residents and property owners informed about the relocation assistance which will be available as the Beach Boulevard Corridor Redevelopment Project progresses and plans for the study area are developed. -74- 2. 7 NORTH SIDE OF WARNER AVENUE EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD 2. 7. 1 Background Area 2. 7 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to redesignate 20. 50 acres located on the north side of Warner Avenue, 500 feet east of Beach Boulevard, from Low Density Residential to General Commercial . The site is presently owned by the Oceanview School District and is utilized as district offices on the western half and as a school bus maintenance facility on the eastern half. The property has recently been included within the Beach Boulevard Corridor Project area for possible development as a retail commercial shopping center. As such, the redevelopment staff has requested that a commercial land use designation be analyzed for the property. 2 . 7. 2 Analysis The following analysis examines three land use alternatives for the subject property: (1 ) Low Density Residential 133 Units ( 2 ) Medium Density Residential 307 Units ( 3 ) General Commercial (Retail ) 268, 000 Square Feet -75- r + 2. 7 . 2. 1 Land Use As indicated in Figures 2-16, and 2-17, the area of concern is presently general planned for low density residential and is zoned CF-E (Community Facilities--Educational District) . Rancho View School which is now closed and used only as school district offices is located on the western thirteen acres of the property. The school athletic fields are used for Little League baseball games and soccer . The eastern seven acres of the site are utilized by the school district as a school bus maintenance and repair facility. The district wishes to relocate the school district offices but has no plans at this time to relocate the bus repair facility. Property to the west of the study area is general planned commercial but is developed with a mixture of uses . Along the west side of "B" Street are four older homes and an Edison sub-station. Along "A" Street are 12 "older homes . Along Beach Boulevard is an older shopping center which has recently been remodeled. On Warner Avenue between Beach Boulevard and "B" Street are a gasoline station, a liquor store, and a Econo Lube . Most of this property is zoned C4 and the residential uses are non-conforming with the zoning. The Edison sub-station is zoned R3. To the north of the study area is an orange County Flood Control District channel (C6-2 ) which varies in width from 75 to 100 feet. Directly across the channel to the north is a low density single family subdivision. Property to the east of the study area is designated medium density on the general plan and is zoned R3 . The property is developed with older apartments . An alley separates the apartment project from the study area . Across- Warner. Avenue to the south of the study area is property general planned both low and medium density residential . The low density property is adjacent to the .eastern half of the study area. The zoning is kl and the property is developed as a 'single . family subdivision. The nearest units back onto Warner Avenue. The medium density property ( zoned R2) is located across Warner Avenue from the western half of the study area. This property is developed with apartments. The City redevelopment staff have regbested that a general commercial land use designation be considered for the study area. Assuming 30 percent lot coverage,' a 268, 000 square foot retail commercial shopping center could be constructed on the site . Such a center could be either a typical multi-tenant community center with two major anchors or a single tenant such as a Price Club. If only the, western half of the site were developed commercially, a 170, 000 square foot shopping center with similar tenant possibilities could be constructed. It is also possible that the Beach Boulevard Corridor Project could consolidate the non-conforming parcels along "A" and "B" Streets to the west and incorporate them into a larger project- on the study area . This action would require the relocation or consolidation of the Edison substation on "B" Street . -75- w •�,.� , .:. � r,r�r,�a ■�r.�■r.ter.�■� -� ■■■■ Elm mm r■ r•. !�l�i WINr.mm IN l� free Nl�ii r•r• a . ��■■■ '�� , ,_ � 'jib �'��r•■! ■� !■!� �� s® fir. ■! . ��■■■ ,��� �1ru �1��1■�■ ■err■�Irrrlr■•r■■ ONE IN x E ioi■■ f► rrr■■ r r ■ ■r ■ . . , Aso (roil �� !ram 4 : ,■!r. .R �s..IN I:'IN _ s ■ MEDIU ■■ ■ ■ .77 Niglio moll f = �ItIldrr. �I�lrs y 7�►' 1LY r �[� ����■ ■��r1■�/■■■ :�':■ ■ ■-■fir®■,■■ ■ p . � s as ���� r�� ■ ■ '.i1i fir- ���� �. ■�■!�� _ � t HiEIL INC CITY •—• m u RI aR J r u z Ix °� u RI U W LOIS CA . RI 'S� oQ Ri F RI r RI RI RI W RI RI i Rf Rf RE RI RI r $ C.4 a u R I a } 2 # _ -DONALD CR 4 BRUSH DR Ri Z I �� • CMRYSLER DR. ---- Rf RI JUDY CA b _--.,_ I BRYANT DR RI .� 1 a a o C 4 Io RI RE LAMAR OR �' rho?'••: �� � LAM9ERT � DR Rf G' f so RI 4 RI RI RI ORIw CR TERRY 69. TERRY a DR. RI R2 L=AlKCAiSTER JJ+ W r HOWARD CR +F�-Qaa71 RZ C� RI RI Rl LRl RI 50 Ri 1 C/I DR. ARM1 DR ARNETT DR ' saD ca R I R I RI e,9 DAWSR OR1V( J O C F. O- F. C, D Ca-I m ID no -7— ea Mm C .F I a In RI roD' R3 x 0: MERLE CR II E LE _.i • 4 a R3 I W q I R RI 2 �c pis D: TArARu m 3 zrs' DR. 1 GLASGOW CA C41 „ J J I _ WARNER AvE R2 R 5 �..--- ---._ x C H RI RI l urr �50 a A�C�_ a AMSTERDAM DR IR DR. '� C 4-MSS rs R2 ;- RI C'R2 _' so sot iRZ R2 p2 W srt► OR 7� 191 CDA CR N N .lY W_ o :°j ' , RI $60 R2 °' L R IDR WR I RI RRE AND: r -- --- j - - - Ri RI W CYPRESS• j '—AVE I 5 J fWR A a: R) r MARSEILLE DR j RI OS¢ POLDER CR } pp IIyy e. SD f�G � + —Call190 v f I ''C 4ry W W ^ I R2 I aoo RI t o RI Ltoo 1i0 r _ VALENCIA DR Sea xr R I R I sso ro E °Q FRI SLAND Q MANDREL DR 1[R67 N LR, p R. y N �, �I Ss� RI ? R3 R3 s�. I' R 3 v- .103 r+ l f Ic4 �G111L[3ER5 i / Figure 2-17 AIML HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIR EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.7 -78- If the study area were retained as low density residential on the General Plan, a maximum of 133 condominiums could be constructed. A medium density General Plan designation would permit 307 condominiums to be constructed. In terms of compatibility with surrounding uses , the existing low density land use designation would certainly have the least impact. The nature of the surrounding uses, however , may indicate that a higher intensity use could be equally compatible on the site . The commercial area (and Edison sub-station) to the west would be compatible with either a medium density residential or general commercial land use designation on the subject property. Likewise, the medium density apartment project to the east of the study area could also be considered to be compatible adjacent to either medium density or general commercial . The rear of the study area is defined by a flood control channel which provides separation from the single family subdivision to the north . While medium density residential would generally be considered to be more compatible with a single family neighborhood, the buffering provided by the flood control channel in combination with building setbacks could allow a general commercial land use to be compatible as well . The single family subdivision across Warner Avenue to the south of the study area is constructed with the units facing into the subdivision rather than toward Warner Avenue. As such, a commercial land use designation would have little impact on these units. The major impact would .be related to traffic which is addressed separately in this report . The medium density apartments which are also across Warner . Avenue to the south would be compatible with either medium density or general commercial . Since the apartments are adjacent to the western half of the study area, commercial on the western half of the study area would probably be more compatible with uses across Warner than commercial on the entire site. Analysis of land uses along Warner Avenue throughout the City limits indicates the predominance of medium and high density and commercial uses rather than low density. Warner Avenue has in fact developed as- 'a high intensity corridor largely because of its status as a major arterial . Law density uses are generally sheltered from major arterials by higher density and commercial uses directly on the arterials . In view of this consideration, Medium Density or Commercial on the subject property may be consistent with previous development' policies in the City. 2 . 7 . 2 . 2 Economic Considerations The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one year for comparison purposes . The results are summarized in the table below. Appendix A contains a summary of the fiscal. impact assumptions . ( 0550D) -79- s Alt . 1 ,$fit 2 Alt , 3' Low Density Medium Density- Commercial Revenue $82, 644 $155, 229 $430,458 Cost $36, 779 $ 61, 024 $ 38, 196 Revenue-Cost $45, 865 $ 94, 205 $392,262 Revenue/Cost 2 . 25 2 . 54 11 .27 As shown above, Alternative 3 (General Commercial-Retail) generates the most net revenue and the highest revenue to cost ratio. The primary factor contributing to the significant difference between Alternative 3 and the other alternatives were the sales tag revenue assumptions used in the analysis . In reviewing the above results it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs . 2 . 7 . 2 . 3 Housing The Housing Element of the City' s General Plan contains policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes. The existing designation' of low density residential would result in approximately 133 housing units .- Such units would not be expected to be affordable for low or moderate income households . The 307 units -which could be constructed--under a medium density scenario could possibly be affordable to moderate income households . A general commercial designation- on -the-site would reduce housing opportunities in the City. It should also be noted that the housing element contains a policy stating- that surplus school sites should be utilized for residential use where appropriate and consistent with the General" Plan. 2 . 7.2 .4 Public Services and Utilities , a. Sewers The subject property is located in Sanitation District No . 3 . An eight inch City sewer in Warner Avenue and "B" Street will convey sewage from the site into a 69 inch County Main ,Trunk in Warner Avenue. The commercial alternative will generate approximately twice as much sewage as low density and approximately 30 percent more than the medium density. The Orange County Sanitation District has expressed concerns about increasing sewage generation City-wide but have indicated that the proposed project can be accommodated. b. Water The school district offices are presently served by anon-site water well. The bus maintenance facility is serviced by_ a 6-inch connector extending from another 6-inch line in Minors Lane to the east. That line feeds from a 21-inch main in Warner Avenue. -80- (0550D) t F Construction of any new project on the subject property will-- require completion of the 6 i.:ch connector from the maintenance facility westward to °B ! Street . Depending upon the nature of the project approved, the extensions could be a 12 or 18-inch Line . In any scenario, sufficient water is available from the 21-inch main line in Warner Avenue. C. Storm Drains Public Works has indicated that any construction on the subject property will require reconstruction of an existing City catch basin located in °B" Street adjacent to the flood control channel . Water from that catch basin will then be pumped directly into the channel . Any low density, medium density or commercial project will require an on-site drainage system flowing to the reconstructed catch basin . d. Police and Fire Protection The Fire Department has indicated that the subject property is within the standard five--minute response time distance from both the Murdy and Gothard fire stations . In addition, according to the City 's Automatic Aid Response Agreement, units from Fountain Valley could also be expected to respond to the site . The Fire Department has no concerns regarding residential or commercial development on the site, provided adequate access and on-site circulation are supplied. 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 . Low density residential would generate 191 calls, medium density 442 calls and commercial 158 calls. e. Parks The area of ' concern has been scheduled for future development of a 3 .0 acre Neighborhood Park . In 1984 , however , the City Council reduced the priority for development of this park site. A part of the consideration for reduction in priority was that the site is presently used for. little league and soccer without the need? for immediate City improvement . Development of the entire site for commercial uses would eliminate the possibility of future park improvements . A low or medium density residential designation, however , would likely permit the City to retain some portion of the site for park purposes . ( 0550D) _gl_ If the site is developed commercially with no park retention, the , entire quarter section (bounded by Warner Avenue, Beach Boulevard, Heil Avenue and Newland Street ) will have no existing or proposed neighborhood park . The nearest park sites would be Lake View across Warner Avenue to the south and Pleasant View across Newland Street to the east . The existence of Huntington Central Park approximately one mile from the study area will further allow park demand to be met , but it would still be desirable to have a neighborhood park within the quarter section . f. Schools The area of concern is located within the Oceanview School District and is served. by Lakeview Elementary School and Oceanview High School . Due to a downward trend in student enrollment, the schools could accommodate the increase in students generated by either a low or medium density designation. The Commercial designation alternative would have no impact on the area 's . schools . The number of students that would be generated by the residential alternatives are the following: Elementary High Land Use Alternative School = School Low Density (133 Units ) 27 29 Medium Density ( 207 Units ) 24 8 g . Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Extension of the 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 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 . ( 0550D) -B2 2 . 7. 2 . 5 Traffic and Circulation Access to the school district offices. and baseball diamonds on the western portion of the study area is presently taken via "B" Street. Additionally, "B" Street can be accessed via either Warner Avenue to the south or Rubidoux Street to the north, which intersects Beach Boulevard. Access to the bus maintenance facility on the eastern portion of the property is taken via a private driveway from- Warner Avenue directly across from Rotterdam Lane. None of the access points to the study area are presently signalized. Daily traffic volumes projected to be generated by the alternative land use designations are the following: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation Low Density Residential 1, 600 Average Daily Trips Units Medium Density Residential 2, 149 Average Daily Trips Units General Commercial (Retail) 18, 500 Average Daily Trips As indicated above, the low density alterative would generate approximately 1, 600 daily vehicle trips while the medium density alternative would produce approximately 2, 149 daily trips . Both of these alternatives could be accommodated with the existing access points at "B" Street and Rotterdam. Under the medium density scenario it may be desirable to signalize the Rotterdam intersection. A redesignation of the study area to General Commercial would produce approximately 18, 500 daily vehicle trips . This volume of traffic, when added to the existing 32, 000 average daily trips on Warner Avenue, will have a significant impact on the surrounding circulation system. The intersection of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard is heavily impacted at this time by existing development . Commercial development of the study area, particularly in conjunction with commercial development of LUE .87-1 Area 2 . 6 on the southeast corner of Warner and Beach, will contribute substantially to the further deterioration of traffic flow through the Beach and Warner intersection. The City Traffic Engineering section has indicated that prior to commercial development of any portion of the study area, a traffic study analyzing arterials in the surrounding area should be prepared. Specifically, the need for widening the Newland Street freeway overpass should be examined as well as new traffic controls at Warner and Beach and Warner and Magnolia . Such controls could include elimination of left turns during certain times of the day. (0550D) -83- In terms of direct access to the site, commercial development would likely require the signalization of either Rotterdam or "B" Street at Warner Avenkke. Rubidoux Street at Beach Boulevard could be used as a secondary access , but signalization would not be desirable due to its close proximity to the Warner Avenue intersection. With regard to public transportation, the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) offers bus service near the study area on both Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. The OCTD does not foresee any significant impact from the alternatives on the existing or any future transit services in the study area. The Orange County Transit District does request, however , that adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be provided. The development project should include paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessways between project buildings and ,the adjacent transit streets and arterials . 2 . 7 . 2 . 6 Environmental Issues a . Noise Noise levels of Ldn 65 and 60 extend into the western portion of the site from both Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Levels of 70 Ldn occur along the southern property line adjacent to Warner Avenue. These levels fall within the normally acceptable range for commercial uses , but slightly exceed the range for residential uses . Setbacks, berming, landscaping and soundwalls should be utilized along Warner Avenue and "B" Street if a residential land use is selected. No significant noise, impacts are expected to occur from either of the residential alternatives . The commercial alternative , however , may have noise impacts on surrounding residential, uses. The separation provided by the flood control channel to the north and Warner Avenue to the south will mitigate noise impacts from the area somewhat but other controls should also be designed into any commercial project on the 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 three alternatives have been calculated and are contained in Appendix B. C . Seismic, Soils and Geology The area of' concern lies within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, however, there are no known faults in the immediate vicinity of the property. The nearest known fault is the Bolsa-Fairview approximately one and one-half miles to the south . No unusual seismic considerations need be applied to the site . ( 0550D) _84_ A 1974 study, Geotechnical Inputs, prepared for the City by Leighton-Yen and Associates, indicates that the soil in the study area has a moderate to high (20%-42%) clay content. This condition exists in much of the northern half of the City. Since expansive clay soils can cause serious damage to lightly loaded structures, pavements, driveways and sidewalks due to volumetric changes associated with moisture content, a geotechnicai study should be done to make proper design recommendations for construction on the property. The Leighton-Yen study did not indicate any peat or organic soils on. the immediate site, though a probable_ peat location was identified to the east and southeast. There are presently fuel storage tanks located on the eastern seven acres of the property which are used for fueling the school districts buses. Excavation of those tanks should proceed according to. City and State standards prior to any construction on the property. 2 .7.2 Staff Recommendation Staff has concerns regarding the ability to effectively mitigate commercial development of the entire 20.5 acre study area. The School District has also indicated that they presently have no plans to relocate the bus maintenance facility on the eastern 7 .0 acres of the study area . Staff, is, therefore, hesitant to recommend ' commercial development of the entire study area . : The western 13 . 5 acres is situated in a way that will allow commercial development to be designed in a manner compatible with surrounding uses. As indicated in the traffic section of this report, "B" Street may perhaps be signalized in conjunction with the redevelopment project on the south side of Warner Avenue. The western 13 .5 acres are also adjacent to the under-utilized property along "A" and "B" Streets which could be rolled into the project area to obtain Beach Boulevard exposure. The Edison substation on "B" Street will bi-sect the two areas but the substation could possibly be relocated. Rather than r.edesignating only the western 13 . 5 acres of the study area for commercial development, staff recommends that a Mixed Development designation be placed on the entire site. Mixed Development will permit the same commercial and residential uses which were analyzed in this document, but will also permit greater ' flexibility in designing an economically viable and residentially compatible project for the study area. Perhaps the western portion could be designed for commercial development and the eastern portion designed for medium density residential and public park development . (0550D) -85- A specific plan could be prepared to implement the Mixed Development land use desiq_ nation. Staff would further recommend that the specific plan be expanded to include the previously discussed Area 2. 6 on the southeast side of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard as well as the commercial property on the northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard. The public hearing process for the specific plan would ensure input from surrounding property owners regarding the mix of uses permitted and would 'encourage development of an integrated commercial node on all four corners of the Beach Boulevard/Warner Avenue intersection. A traffic study of the arterials and intersections in the vicinity should be completed prior to adoption of the specific plan. -86- '� (0550D) 2 .8 North of Warner Avenue/East of Algonquin Street 2. 8.1 Background The following request has been initiated by the Department of Development Services as part of a' program to achieve consistency between the General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning Qrdinance . This item has been covered with a negative declaration. w .,•,. The area of concern contains 8. 31 gross acres of land located north of Warner Avenue and east of Algonquin Street ( Figures 2718 and 2-19 ) . The property is zoned R3 (Medium High Density Residential) and contains a variety of uses, including medium high density four-plexes (at 17.6 units per gross acre) and condominiums (at 22.1 units per gross acre) , and an older single family home on a large R3 lot. The area of concern is surrounded by' high density uses on three sides as well .'as medium density condominiums, to the north, and low density single family homes to the west. In addition, a proposed project has been filed on 2.4 acres within the area of concern, the site of the single family home mentioned above. The applicant desires to build a project consistent with the R3 zoning classification; however , the existing General Plan -87-- (0550D) - - _ - LM /w /W--*:fir►`,•.�� INN MEN `1 !�1 I� ��� ����1i1� � �� /111111111 � r�l!� �.■■.. . IOff;1 � _ �y } Illlllllll ���► �i ii t. �,_ � ■�# 1H1 '- 1 111111111 !: k �.:�.■ ..k� -- � 1111H111. NMI i �� �iri � IIIIIIIII���lii�iilllll �' y • i11111Hill E I Illllllll , - �� ME �il:•��� 'iifi ■ ulllllllr �.11II11111 r = �� " r E __ �L-- AVe H ,5 R3 a 0an CF�E R24 W-0-k RZ �-m R2 R2 C4 CF�R Dit F4C"ICK WE oa ��.c. Z CF—R R2 _ R3 R2 R2 R2 R2 ` °" ��� � w u R " R2 R2 R2 PEARCE ST J FA O m R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R3' Rti-�� Ry-C.z r C4—CZ �,Lo grt. R3 - R R3 . .. ..:. R3 R3 a U ti pit V f :�y5' MMVOSOR. 2 -' u MGZ WARNER AVE - —T— R I-cz Ri- R 3 E R3 1 0C4:"Q N3 R3 R3 R3RE-CZ � � �xtiR R 2R3—I9 5 Klm�R I-Cz $ 3or ' N IV RI L c? R I R1 RI R3 NTINGTON HARBOR OC 'V =RI-CZ RI-CZ -- :LUS SPECIFIC PLAN ��� ■ R I-cZ R1 -------------------- ' - --- RI-CZ & Rkcz RI AVE. N RI-CZ ~c s Figure 2-19 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EXISTING ZON I NG PL4NNING DIVISION AREA 2.8 designation of medium density. limits the site to a lower number of units than allowed by the zoning. Due to this inconsistency, the Planning Commission tabled this request on October 7, 1986 until such time as the land use designation and zone district are brought into conformance. 2 . 8. 2 Analysis Existing development within the area of concern exceeds the density allowed under the General Plan designation of medium density, which is fifteen units per' gross acre. Rezoning to implement the General Plan would render existing uses nonconforming and possibly limit property values . Redesignation to medium high density would more accurately reflect existing uses both within and on three sides of the area. At the time of public hearings for Land Use Element No. 85-2, this area of concern was discussed by the Planning Commission. A concern expressed at that time was that the City should initiate a rezoning on all the existing developments to cap the density at that which is existing. The problem with this idea is that with the variety of densities and parcel sizes , it would be impossible to choose a zoning density suffix that could be applied evenly to the properties . one option would be to take the project with the highest density within the area, the condominiums developed at 22.1 units per gross . acre, and use this density figure as a cap for the zoning rather than the 25 units per - gross acre allowed by the medium high density general plan designation. A second option would be separately rezoning the different areas with one cap for the condominium project and a separate one for the four-plexes (17 . 6 units per gross acre) . One problem here is that the same cap will not work for all of the four-plex lots. The lot at the northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Sims Street, as a corner lot, has a much greater gross acreage. By using a density suffix, it could accommodate a greater number of units than other lots of similar or even larger size. The final option, which is staff 's recommendation, would be to leave the R3 zoning as it is without any density suffix after changing the general plan designation to medium high density residential. It is a difficult mechanical problem to add a density suffix that will work the way it is intended. Staff does not see a great advantage to limiting the density to slightly less than that which is permitted by the general plan designation since medium high density land uses would be compatible and, in fact, would be less dense than the surrounding high density residential uses surrounding the area of concern on three sides . ( 0550D) -90- 2. 8 . 3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density residential in order to achieve consistency with the General Plan and zoning. Staff further recommends that the existing R3 zoning be retained without the addition of density suffixes . (0550D) _91_ J -92- 2. 9 North Side of Garfield Aveftue/East Of Beadh go' ui6v&rd 2 .9 .1 Background Area of concern 2. 9 is a request by Lanny Ludwidk to redesignate 2.24 acres ftom Medium Density and Low Density Residential to Medium L High Density Residential in ord6f to achiOV6. d6fisistbrjdy betW60fi the General Plan and zoning . this item has been covered by a negative declaration. The study area is located on the north side of Garfield Avenue approximately 570 feet east of Beach Figure A9 sh6Wfi in 2-20, the western 1 . 37 acres are designated Medium Density on the General Plan, while the eastern .97 acre is designated LOW DehSity. As shown in Figurd 2-21 ,1 the zoning is R3 on the entire property. The applicant- has an approved R3 apartment project on the Medium Density portion of the study area but cannot construct the project ,because of the recently determined General plan inconsistency: This General Plan Amendment request is intended to bring th6 applicant 's property, as well as the adjacent property to the east into consistency with the existing zoning. ( 0550D) -'9 3 •�•r�.��y� "" Ill ili If_.:. �� �::==�7� =�-r� � WAM IRMO IMM FAIM � �•��_�.�'� � dill `�`I!■■A//!■ `��1■� � • I■■■■ .� ems,... �� • --i' t���■/■fir a�� ��11111 � � i��■�r� �`�s���, •.vnwivt,�s...�_+,a.,cw. s....r-�� � �rrir ��i�� w�w��l�aat��.l R3 R3 ! I R3 f LL Do R3 �V� I I C4 Cl C, f �... na k z as I oalumil� i w I R2 At RI 11 RI-PD'.� I o I g I i Fd zz _ RI. I�I •,.� autiitrao= I 3 R3 C4 IR2 PD6 I R3 R I ti I R3 I R2 x � R3 MH Rz '� I I,e u i R3 I I aR►�, "_ . .:. _aR --------;R3 r I I C4 R2 R3 I �>Ji LW000om I I I ; R3 R ,,',` aNOT. RI ...� ... at7'�L- era n' R CR * I I o cONS NT _ .. Rl R2 R2 R 3 i W _ I = I m , 4 R3 D , I o I CR. I N { RI Rl R2 R2 RI RI yV� XaTNY7Wi(pq # I � . L f1 ol GARFIELD J RI - .. I R at RlRi �. . _ - D RI FtiiE a. I RI RI RI Rl J WM�U.N, OEAUVL � U RI °` Ri RI U RE N CFl I WHIT CR M R RA CR R� roeoe CF-E Rl RI R. ....,RIB - I pp o (Pmy Sac.:L) e�rt�Eio cr 1 d, RlRl ._.-....._R�.-.W. i w.. -1 !C4 c a I z Rl S � Figure 2-2I HUNTINGTOIl BEACH C4LIFORNIA EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2, 9 —95— 2.9 . 2 Analysis Existing land uses in the study area are entirely residential . The 1 .37 acre parcel which is General Planned as Medium Density- and is zoned as R3 is currently under-utilized with older homes . The applicant presently has a 34 unit apartment project approved for the site. The project is approved at a, density of 24. 3 units per acre which is consistent with the R3 zoning on the property. The eastern two parcels in the study area which are also zoned R3, but General Planned as Low Density Residential , are currently developed to R3 zoning standards . Both of the parcels have a dwelling unit density of greater than 20 units per acre . Development on these parcels is, therefore, inconsistent with the maximum density of seven units per acre for Low Density property. The surrounding land uses in the area are also entirely residential . The area west and north of .the study area is zoned R3 and General Planned as Medium Density Residential. '' The existing density of the area is generally consistent with its corresponding land use designations of Medium Density, although most of the developed densities are slightly higher than the 15 units per acre allowed by Medium Density Residential. This study does not address the General Plan inconsistencies in this area since they are slight, and are not currently at issue. Staff will, however; , review the situation and possibly correct the inconsistencies with either a zone change or a General Plan Amendment at a later date . The property to the east of the study area is General Planned for Low Density and zoned RI . The existing single family development , on this area is consistent with the General Plan and zoning. The property across Garfield Avenue to the south is General Planned Medium Density Residential and is zoned R2. A condominium project on the property is presently being reviewed by the Planning Commission. I.n reviewing the applicant 's request for a general plan amendment to Medium High Density, it is important to examine the impact it will have on surrounding uses. in fact, the applicant 's property is surrounded on all four sides by Medium to Medium High Density Residential projects . The requested Medium High Density designation is certainly compatible with all of these uses. While Medium High Density would not generally be considered compatible with the Low Density area to the east, the fact is that Medium High Density projects already exist on the property adjacent to the single family area . A Medium High Density designation on this property then would be appropriate to reflect the existing land use 'and zoning. ( 0550D) -96- 2.9. 3 Staff Recommendation In view of the existing densities on the eastern portion of the subject property and in consideration of the surrounding land uses,' staff recommends approval of the request to change the land use designation to Medium High Density. This change will bring the General plan into consistency with the existing zoning and will more , accurately reflect existing development in the area, (0'550D) _ A i -9 8- t 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL cHANGES In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, an environmental assessiiient is required to address s' ho- t-tcriii and long-term effects, irreversible „enV4ronmental changes, and growth inducing impacts of the total pro3ect or plan. This sectirin analyzes these concerns in context of the recommended land use changes in Section 2 , 0 3. 1 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-=TLRM PRODUCTIVITY Amendment 87-1 does not in and of its, create long term impacts . Rather, it makes changes in the generai type of land uses that may be allowed on a particular area at the time of development; Amendment e7-1 seeks to identify short'=range issues within a context of to The long-range goals, policies, and environmental planning programs . 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 . ( 0550D) 3 .2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIROIMNTAL CHANGES The Amendment EIR addresses mitigation measures for most adverse effects . However, irreversible environmental change of a secondary nature can be expected from development under the proposed amendments . 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 674* persons could be generated by uses under Land Use Element Amendment 87-1, 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 City-wide to reduce these impacts . WATER . Interior: 1. Supply line pressure: Water pressure-. greater than 50 pounds per square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve. 2 . Drinking fountains: Drinking fountains be equipped with self-closing valves. 3 . Hotel rooms: Conservation reminders be posted in rooms and restrooms., Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be installed for bath/shower , * A population of 674 additional persons reflects alternatives for Areas 2 . 1 - 2 . 7 which would increase residential densities on these sites, and does not include persons who would be, expected under existing densities`;on those sites. This population number is less -than the figure listed in the initial study due to refinements made by staff , in the time since the initial study was prepared. , (0550D) -100- - 4 . Laundry FacilAt es: Water-conserving models of washers be used. 5. aura Water-conserving models of dishwashers be used or spary emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced flow. Drinking water be served upon request only. 6 . Ultra-1 -flush toile: 1 1/2 gallon per flush toilets be installed - in all new construction. ' ..Exterior: 1 . Landscape with low-water-using plants wherever feasible. 2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses, such as playing fields . When lawn is used, require warm season grasses. 3 . Group plants of similar water use to reduce over irrigation of low-water-using plants. 4 . Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low-water-using landscaping and sources of additional assistance. 5 . Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas . Mulch applied on top, of soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. 6 . Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs . Established plants are often adapted to low-water-using conditions and their use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetation. 7 . Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the plant roots . Dip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. B . Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in ground water recharge. 9:. Grade slopes. so that runoff of surface water is minimized. 10 . Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or grey water for irrigation. 11. Encourage cluster development, which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. -70 (0550D) 1- 12 . Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage he incorporation of natural drainage systems in new developments . This aids ground water recharge. 13 . To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood,.plains and aquifer recharge areas as open space. 14 . Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow of public water supplies wherever such use is acceptable and safe. Gas . E1eg ric. Air Quality: 1. Prohibit the use of open gas lighting in public or private buildings. 2 . if lighting is included in the parking lot and/or. recreation area energy efficiency lamps shall be used (e.g. high pressure sodium vapor, metal halide) . All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties . 3 . Strategically place electric lights to, maximize their efficiency.' Their size and power consumption should be minimized as much as possible. 4 . Discourage electrical heating in public and private structures . Encourage solar-assisted heating systems . 5. Encourage the use of reflecting and/or insulating glass in structures where windows are not shaded by exterior . architectural projections or natural plants. 6 . Information on equipment or facilities which may generate air pollutants shall be submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District staff for their review prior to the , issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any use within the building . 7 . Commercial and office projects should provide on-site day care facilities where feasible in order to reduce private vehicle trips . Ride share programs should also be .encouraged. Restaraunts and other shopping opportunities should be encouraged in major employment centers to further reduce the need for private vehicle trips from -the site. --102- (0550D) APPENDIX A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FISCAL ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS The City' s standard fiscal impact analysis methodology was utilized to analyze all of the land use alternatives" for this"General Plan Amendment . The following are the basic land use, market value and occupancy assumptions which were made for each alternative. Once these basic assumptions are made for each alternative, the model can be operated. The model itself makes many other assumptions for items such as occupant incomes, sales tax per square .foot, utility consumption and many other items . For a more detailed breakdown of the fiscal impact methodology, assumptions and outcomes, a technical. appendix is available upon request separately from this document . AREA 2 . 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - GENERAL COMMERCIAL Egistin- 4,470 square foot restaurant - Assessed Market Value $406, 962 ALTERNATIVE 2 MEDIUMI DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 40 Apartment_ units $85,000 per aunt market value - 70 occupants based on 1. 75/unit • ,ALTERN TIME 3 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL _ ., . , .. , 23 Condominium units $125, 000."per unit market value - 46 occupants based son '2/unit ALTERNATIVE_ 4 - GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL 21,200 square feet of retail development 16, 960 square feet of leasable space - Market Value: $1,410, 762 AREA 2 .2 ALTERNATIVE 1 '- MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY _RESIDENTIAL 47 Apartment units - $85,000 per unit market value 82 occupants based on 1. 75/unit ALTERNATIVE__2 - MEDIUM DEN5 TY _1_---RESIDENTIAL 27 Condominium units - $125, 000 per unit market value 54 occupants based on 2/unit ALTERNATIVE 3 - GENERAL COMMERCIAL (OFFICE) 69, 000 square feet of general office development - 55,200 square feet of leasable space Market Value $6,238, 916 (6744d) AREA 2.3 ALTERNATIVE 1 - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 88 Single family detached housing_ units $250, 000 per unit market value 288 occupants based on 3 .27/unit . ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 189 Condominium units $150,000 per unit market value 378 occupants based on 2/unit AREA 2.4 ALTERNATIVE 1 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/GENERAL COMMERCIAL - 75 Condominium units and 69, 260 square feet of retail_ commercial development - 55,408 square feet of leasable commercial area - Market value: $14,062, 660 ($125, 000 per condominium unit, $4 , 687, 660 for commercial area) - 150 occupants based on 2/unit ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 150 Condominium units $125,000 per unit market value - 300 occupants based on 2/unit ALTERNATIVE_3 - GENERAL, COMMERCIAL 134 , 600 square feet of retail commercial development 107, 680 square feet of leasable space Market value: $9, 140, 119 AREA 2 . 5 ALTERNATIVE 1 - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 105 Single family detached housing units . $160,000 per unit Market value - 210 occupants based on 2/unit ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 225 Condominium units - $135, 000 per unit market value 450 occupants based on 2/unit ALTERNATIVE -GENE L COr9ME CIAL (RETAIL = - 196, 000 square- feet of retail commercial development 156, 800 square feet of leasable space Market value: $12, 597, 676 (6744d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION - LOW I)ENSIT—YZGENERAL COMMERCIALARETAIL) - 70 Low density attached units - 65,300 square feet of retail commercial development - 55,240 square feet of leasable space - 140 residents based on 2/unit -- - Market value: $14 ; 702, 810 ($150, 000 per residential unit $4, 202, 810 for the commercial retail) AREA 2 . 6 ALTERNATIVE 1 - QBNERAL COMMERCIAL (OFFICE - 112, 000 square feet of office development -- 89 , 600 square feet of leasable space - Market Value: $9, 983, 999 ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 65 Condominium units - $135,000 per unit market value- - 130 occupants based on 2/unit AREA 2 . 7 ALT R ATIVE 1 - LOW--DENSITY RE ID NTIA - 133 Single family detached housing units -- $180, 000 per unit market value - 332 occupants based on 2.5/units ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 307 Condominium units $135,000 per unit market value - 614 occupants based on 2/unit ALTERNATIVE 3 - GENERAL COMMERCIAL-_(RETAIL) - 268, 000 square feet of retail commercial development - 214,400 square feet of leasable space - Market value: $17, 165, 140 MIXED.,,-DEVELOP NT SCENARIO - CQMMRCIAL/MEDIUM DENSITY/PARK - 120, 000 square feet of retail commercial development - 96, 000 square feet of leasable space - 75 condominium units - $135, 000 per unit market value -- 150 occupants based on 2/unit - 2 acres of public park (6744d) APPENDIX B AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS The General Plan Amendment will not have any immediate impact on existing air quality; however, future development as a result of , the amendments may create an increase in mobile and stationary source emissions. . The following tables illustrate the "worst case" or complete build- out scenario for each amendment area. The California Air Resources Board' s "Urbemis #1" computor model for estimating emissions from land use projects was utilized to arrive at the projections for each area. The emissions projected are not considered to be significant to the regional air basin. Additionally, it should be noted that when development occurs, the actual amount of pollutants may be less due to advanced exhaust control technology and more stringent air pollution legislation. As a mitigation measure for 'each amendment area staff has stated that adequate accessibility to Orange County Transit District sites should be provided: Ride share programs, on-site day care facilities and restaurants should also be provided where appropriate in order to reduce private vehicle trips. AREA 1 , ALTERNATIVE 1 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Car5on Monoxide T Y = 11 Quality Restaurant 4 ,470/sq ft Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 1 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 1 NON80ME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=29054 Assumes Temperature 55 Nonwork. 481 2621 Work 9 72 2694 ALTERNATIVE 2 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxi e T Y) = 13 Apartment 40 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 1 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 0 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year) =225,61 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home-work . 76 668 Home-shop 59 190 Home-Other . 144 145 Total 279 1604 ALTERNATIVE 3 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide T Y)= 6 Low Rise Apartment 23 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y)-- 0 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 0 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=11074 Assumes Temperature 55 Home Work 37 325 Home-Shop 29 93 Home-Otter 71 367 137 T86 ALTERNATIVE 4_ NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS .Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide (T Y)= 70 Shopping Center 21200 sq ft Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 10 0-50k Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 6 NONHOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=169771 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home Work 2804 15281 Work 57 462 2861 15744 *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) i AREA 2 ALTERNATIVE ,1 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Car on Monoxide Y)= 18 Low Rise Apartment 47 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 2 - Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 1 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year ) =30342 Assumes' Temperature = 55 Homework 103 905 Home-shop 79 255 Home-Other 193 999 .2 Y6_8 ALTERNATIVE 2 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit _ Size Carbon Monoxide T Y)= 8 Condominiums 27 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y)= 1 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 0 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=15139 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home-work 51 448 Home-shop 39 125 Home-Other 97 582 . Totals t ALTERNATIVE 3 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide (T Y)= 34 General Office Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 4 Building 69000 sq ft Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) 2 NONHOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year)=72928 Assumes Temperature = 55 Nonwork 610 3324 Work 424 3438 r` 1034 6763 *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) AREA 3 ALTERNATIVE 1 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of' Unit Size Carbon Monoxiae )= 66 Quality Restaurant 116 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 8 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 4 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=112456 Assumes Temperature = 55 Homework 381 3348 Home-shop 293 946 Home-Other 716 3708 ALTERNATIVE 2 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide T Y)= 87 Condominiums 259 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 10 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 5 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=146505 . Assumes Temperature = 55 Home-work 496 4359 Home-shop 382 1233 , Home-Other 933 4832 Total 1811 .10 4 Tb * VMT columns may not add up due to rounding . ( 0550D) AREA 4 ALTERNATIVE 1 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Car on monoxide T Y) = 18 Condominiums 75 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y )= 2 Shopping Center 50- 69260 sq ft Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 1 100K NONHOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=307.45 Assumes Temperature = 55 Nonwork 9163 49938 t` Work 187 1516 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS 3= 3TM Car on Monoxide T Y = 228 Hydro Carbons (T/Y) = 35 HOME BASED Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 20 Trips VMT Fuel Consumption(Gal/Year )=554,848 Assumes Temperature = .55 Home Work 104 - 914 Home-Shop 80 258 Home-Other 196 1015 _. 2187 ALTERNATIVE 2 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide (T/Y)= 50 Condominiums 150 units Hydrocarbons (.T/Y) 6 - Nitrogen Oxides, (T/Y)= 3 - HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=84782 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home Work 287 2522 Home-shop 221 713 Home-Other 540 2797 1848 6M ALTERNATIVE 3 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide T Y = 444 Shopping Center 134600 sq ft Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 68 100-200K Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 39 NONHOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption(Gal/Year )=1078234 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home-work 17807 97048 Work 363 2943 Total 18170 99992 Total *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) AREA 5 ALTERNATIVE 1 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon onoxi a )= 60 Single Family 105 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 7 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 3 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year ) =101784 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home Work 345 3032 Home-Shop 265 855 Home-Other 648 3356 1258 T245 ALTERNATIVE 2 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide (T/Y)= 75 Condominiums 225 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 9 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 4 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=127331 Assumes Temperature 55 , Home Work 431 3788 Home--shop 332 1072 Home-Other 811 4200 1574 9061 ALTERNATIVE 3 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide T Y = 335 Shopping Center 196000 sq ft Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 52 200-300K Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 30 NONHOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption(Gal/Year )=814103 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home-work 13445 73275 Work 274 2222 Total 13719 75497 ' *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) c AREA 6 ALTERNATIVE 1 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size carbon monoxide T Y = 55 General Office Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = - 7 Building 112000 sq ft Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 4 NONHOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year ) =118406 Assumes Temperature = 55 Nonwork 991 5400-" Work 688 5579 ib7l IU988 ALTERNATIVE 2 HOME BASED EMISSIONS' Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide (.T/Y)= 21 Condominiums 65 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 2 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 1 HOME BASED Trips Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=36716 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home Work 124 1089 Home-shop 96 310 Home-Other 234 1212 454 2612 T *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding, ( 0550D) AREA 7 ALTERNATIVE- 1 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Car on Monoxide T Y)= 76 Single Family. Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 9 Housing 133 units Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 4 HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year ) -128962 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home Work 437 3841 Home-shop 336 1085 Home-Other 821 4252 1594 9179 ALTERNATIVE 2 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide (T/Y) = 103 Condominiums 307 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 12 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 6 HOME BASED Trips . VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year )=173682 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home Work 588 5168 Home-shop 453 1463 Home-Other 1106 5729 2147 12360 ALTERNATIVE 3 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit . Size Carbon Monoxide (T Y)= 459 Shopping Center Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 71 200-300K 268000 sq ft Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 41 NONHOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption(Gal/Year )=1113193 Assumes Temperature = 55 Nonwork 18384 100192 Work 375 3041 Total 18759 103234 *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 055 0 D) APPENDIX C MARKET ANALYSIS PEARCE-BOL,SA CHICA MARKET ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION% Land Use Element Amendment 84-,2 addresses a request by a private property owner to redesignate approximately 3.0 acres 'of�land South of Pearce Street and` east of Balsa Chica Street from medium density residential to general commercial. The intent of the amendment is to incorporate the subject property into a larger shopping area that would include 2.34. acres of commercially designated parcels to the south. Such a development .would extend commercial uses�i3fl0 feet along Balsa Chica Street between Warner, Avenue and-Pearce Street. Due to landownership patterns, much of the commercial proPerty at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street have developed in a fragmented and piecemeal manner. ,4s a result, the development of a neighborhood shopping center with major food and drug anchors. has been precluded in much of the' area: The .only remaining opportunity for such a development, should demand support it, would be a portion of the Meadowlark Airport site along Warner Avenue east of Bolsa Chica. Street. This area was the subject of a General Plan amendment request in 1981 which was eventually withdrawn. The options to develop neighborhood convenience uses on the Meadowlark site and/or at the Pearce-Balsa Chica site warrants a re-evaluation of the present and future demand for commercial property and land uses in this area of the City. Commercial uses can be generally classified into five categories based on the size and location of the facility, the kinds of goods and services offered, and the size of the market area and population served. These categories are: Conyenfence: 1/2 to I ll2 acres in size located at intersection of secondary or local arterial streets l/2"mile radius market area 3000 people served Neighborhoods r 1 I./? to 10 acres in size located at major ar primary arterial intersections - supermarket and/or drug store plusr 10-15 smaller retailers, services, or offices . 4 . .� ri.., � � . r . , , . .. . 1 mile radius market area 10,Q0© people served z w Community: - 10 to 35 acres in size - located at major or primary arterial intersections mini-department store or supermarket anchors plus a variety of other stores - IQ to 15 minute drive market area 15,60'0 or more people served Regional; - 35 or more acres in size located at major arterial and freeway 1 to 5 department stores plus other retailers up to 30 minute drive market area SOQ,000 people served Specialty: - size varies - located on major arterials or in tourist.are.as (0141D) r � 1 I$,°.*eZ_ �•\� ,1.y1m..1 _IR"I' _RI — LI Rfl FMH R2 C2 CF E RIM-n�RI-CZ RI E RI RI fl{ I RI CF-E II �MR-CZ4 .CZ '. ... iYaw.c.w:a.i RI • RI AI RI i RI " RI RI f:Rf-CZ MH RI MH RI P 9 RI fll R2 R2 C4j RI - RI RI MH R! I Rf 0.1 AS C + - Re tl $ ReRZ .., R2 R2 C4 RI RI I s C R2 ,!I -R2RI RI R] t cR-R� .:. .. � �� 2 Rz Mri - e C F-R 3 n P" R�- � av 71--� RI W^[Z rwr ._ RI RI 1 Rds ,. y R3 v R2 R2 R2 R2 e R n m RI m R RI RI RI I nl l Rae-d Ri a °y T"'� R2 jl R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 (Q)MH R r —Y RIRI dA nl $ t Rwx u = C4 CZ R2- R3 i $ R3 R3 R3 R3I R3 C2 ROS RI /R� C a 9 a � C4 R5 �tlmre' �—. I '"� RI RI-CZ - ..__ t R3' C41 RZ Rz , R' I I 1 R C4 �C2 R3 - ^Mel R2 R3-19 = lcz ._r�z .� .� nl z�� II -C' i •t,-"„t=�liY WR.C2 ! wR"CZ N RIYR3 RI W R RIRII� yl RIJ/ kI Ri RI RI 3 r:? f-�.; J I �i�. �q�—ql. - 5 RI-Cz�RI-cZ Ic RI kl 9t x a �.cx WAFT ♦ RICz Fi:GZ R' E? IY j 5VQ I; I'.• ��-�/� /i !� RI RI-CZ RI - 41 CIA II`` RI 1- �' nRI RI RI ♦ may_ c u PI-- Rl RI RI �RI A - 1 RI F 2(4 Rt �CFE,CZU RI to 40 ✓000, 'iy RI 9 RI ti.�j f N _ 1 4 R C�l Rl_CZ M n' �4� fi R � I HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIK -. .. _..:'.—1 sa Chica PLANNING DIVISION' s uses vary, usualiy center around a theme market area varies - population served varies Because of its location, the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue would not be an optimum location for both regional and community commercial centers. It is three miles from the nearest freeway, and due to its proximity to the coast draws essentially on a 180 degree market area. Regional centers cater to a market of approximately 500,000 persons; in a suburban area like Orange County this translates roughly to a five to ten mile radius market area. Presently, there are two regional centers located in or adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach (Huntington Center and Westminster Mall) as well as two additional regional centers within a twenty minute drive (South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa and Newport Center in Newport Beach). The existence of these competing centers nearby and the poor locational qualities of the site make development of a regional commercial facility unfeasible at Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. Community commercial centers operate on roughly a two to three mile radius service area. At the present time, a number of community shopping centers exist within three miles of Bolsa Chica and Warner. These facilities are located at the intersections of Algonquin Street and Boardwalk Drive (87,200 square feet); Edinger Avenue and Springdale Street (southwest corner - 132,280 square feet); Goldenwest Street and Edinger Avenue (southwest corner - 169,850 square feet, southeast corner - 197,887 square feet}; and Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue (northwest corner - 173,157 square feet, northeast corner - 130,000 square feet). Using the formula of one community center per 15;000 persons, the area west of Beach Boulevard and north of Talbert Avenue, which houses approximately 75,000 persons, could be expected to support five such community centers. The six centers listed above appear to provide the quantity and variety of community stores. and services needed for the northwest portion of Huntington Beach. Although the question of central location and convenient freeway access are not as crucial a consideration in siting community centers as with regional centers, the 180 degree market areas offered by Bolsa Chica and Warner site is a deterrent to developing a community center considering the competition from existing facilities in the area. The potential may exist far a specialty shopping center in vicinity of the area of concern. However, some of the dollars used in calculating supportable space may be drawn to existing facilities or future sites in close proximity with greater drawing potential. Any new speciality shopping facility would have to compete with nearby Peter's Landing, a 60,000 square foot development in Huntington Harbour featuring a variety of restaurants and specialty shops. Within one mile south of the Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue site, speciality commercial/visitor serving uses are being planned as a part of the Orange County Local Coastal Plan and State Coastal Conservancy Habitat Plan for the unincorporated Bolsa Chica. Both agencies have been coordinating their planning efforts for the Bolsa Chica, and will submit the approved Coastal Conservancy plan to the State Coastal Commission in November, 1984. The existing plan would designate approximately 35 acres of land in the Bolsa Chica for visitor serving uses, which would feature a hotel, and a variety of restaurants and marine-related speciality shops. As with any specialty commercial or visitor serving uses developed along the coast, the City's efforts to revitalize the downtown area could also be impacted. Given these considerations, the development of a specialty commercial center at Bolse Chica Street and Warner Avenue is not visualized as feasible or desirable. While the problems of location, access, and competition make the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue an undesirable location for regional, community, and (0141D) 1 l specialty shopping centers, there may be potential for the development of a convenience and/or neighborhood facility in the area. The following analysis addresses the feasibility of developing these kinds of facilities in the Bolsa Chica/Warner area. NEIGHBORHOOD/CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL USES METHODOLOGY: For the purpose of this report, convenience and neighborhood uses are addressed simultaneously in this section. This analysis attempts' to determine the market support for neighborhood convenience retail facilities in a given trade area. Market support is primarily a function of the buying power of the trade area residents and an assessment of existing commercial facilities. Buying power is based on the area's population size and median family income. This buying power can be translated into supportable' square footage of retail facilities. A comparison of supportable•square footage to existing and' ultimate General Planned facilities indicate whether there is unused potential support for additional commercial uses in the trade area. A combination of housing, population, income and retail sales data was utilized to determine the total amount of supportable square footage for. various types of neighborhood uses for the market area. The primary market area is defined by taking half the distance between the nearest surrounding neighborhood and community centers, and the intersection in question. For statistical purposes, the primary market area in this analysis is defined as being bounded by Heil Avenue on the north, Springdale Street on the east, the southern limits of proposed development in the Bolsa Chica on the south, and Algonquin Street/Warner Avenue on the west (see attached figure). Three alternative population figures are used to produce a range of demand figures based on (A) existing housing units, (B) ultimate housing units under expected land use designations excluding the Bolsa Chica, and (C) ultimate housing units.under expected land use designations including the Bolsa Chica. These alternative population figures are multiplied by adjusted 1984 City-wide per capita taxable sales figures in order to estimate, the anticipated sales potential for the market area. Data regarding the typical types, sizes and sales per square foot of uses found in neighborhood centers are taken from the Urban Land Institute's 1981 Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers and adjusted to 1984 terms. This data makes it possible to translate the sales potential 'of the area into supportable square footage for the various categories of neighborhood uses to see how much of the current and future demand is being met by existing and projected uses in the area. Current and future demand are also measured against the addition of proposed commercial uses at Bolsa Chica and Pearce Streets and a hypothetical commercial development on the Meadowlark Airport property along Warner Avenue. The difference between demand and supply can be used to determine if there is a need for additional neighborhood commercial uses and if so, what types of uses would be most viable for the market area. Tables I and 2 summarize the data. (0141D) TABLE 1 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER POTENTIAL A B C Ultimate Units Ultimate Units Existing Under General Plan Under General Plan Housing Units Minus Balsa Chica Plus Balsa Chica Households a 4i402 5,973 9,755 Population a 109992 15,013 24,710 1984 Total b 6,496.25 $6496.25 $6496.25 Taxable Sales Per Capita Total Tazeble $74406,780 $97,528)201 $160,522,330 Sales Potential SALES POTENTIAL BY CATEGORYc CATEGORY Food $12;281,966 $16,774,850 $27,609,840 Drug 2,49%237 3,413,487 5,618,282. Apparel 1,927,983 2,633,261 4,334,103 Liquor 1,071,102 1,462,923 2,4079835 Eating/Drinking 6,855,051 9,362,707 150410,143 Gen. Merchandise 8,711,627 11,898,440 19,583,724 Home lmp�oveMbnt 2,449;253 3,345,217 . 5,505,916 Services/Office 3,570,339 4,876,410 69026,117 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY CATEGORYd CATEGORY Food 34,024 sq.ft. 46,470 sq.ft. 7614$6 sq.ft. Drug 13,546 18,501 30,452 Apparel 12,067 16,481 27,125 Liquor, 4635 61331 10,420 Eating/Drinking 52,320 71,471 117,635 Gen. Merchandise 92,167 125,883 207,191 , Home Improvement 33,699 46,027 7.5,756 Services/Of#ice 1041518 142,752 234,957 Total 346,985 473,916 780,022 0141D TAKE 2 EXISTING AND PROJECTED RETAIL AND OFFICE SPACE IN MARKET AREA A B C EXISTING SPACE EXISTING SPACE 1984 EXISTING SPACE PEARCE-BOLSA CHICA PEARCE-BOLSA CHICA CATEGORY EXISTING SPACE_ PEARCE-BOLSA CHICA MEADOWLARK MEADOWLARK Food 36,046 43,546 73,546 73,546 +2,022 -2,924 +27,076 -2,940 Drug 231589 34,389 49,389 49,389 +10,043 +15,888 +30,888 +18,937 Apparel 3,186 8,686 11,686 119686 -8,881 -7,795 -4,795 -151439 Liquor 37,205 37,205 37,205 37,205 +32,570 +30,874 +30,874 +26,785 Eating/Drinking 56,572 65,692 779692 77,692 +4,243 -5,779 +6,221 -391,943 General Merchandise 30,858 46,538 58,538 58,538 61,309 -799345 67,345 148,653 Home Improvement 209483 339683 419683 41,683 -13,216 -12,344 -4,344 -349073 Services/Office 148,237 1489237 168,237 168,237 +43,719 +5,485 +259485 -66,720 TOTAL 356,176 417,976 517,976 517,976 +9,191 -559940 +44,060 -262,046 (0141D) NOTES TO TABLE 1: a. Household and Population figures based on Department of Development Services estimates. b. Data extrapolated from "Trade Outlets and Taxable Retail Sales, "State Board of Equalization, per capita sales figure adjusted according to median family income data taken from the United States Census for the City of Huntington Beach, 1980. c. Sales of retail. goods'in the categories listed account for approximately 43 percent of total retail sales in Huntington Beach (Source: "Trade Outlets and Taxable Retail Sales", State Board of Equalization): Food 8.6% Drug 2.0% Apparel 2.7% Liquor 1.5% Eating/Drinking 9.6% General Merchandise 12.2% Home Improvement 3.4% Services/Office 3.0% Other 57.0% Apparel and General Merchandise categories are normally not associated with convenience neighborhood centers. However, the applicant is proposing these uses at the Pearce-Bolsa Chica site in lieu of development of some typical neighborhood uses and in combination with some convenience center uses. Consequently, an analysis of the demand for these uses within the market area is included in the study. In addition, much of the developed commercial property within the market area consists of Professional Office and Service complexes. The figures thus reflect full demand of such uses whether as part of a neighborhood center or existing as separate developments. Dollar figures for the Food and Drug categories are adjusted by factors of 2.0 and 1.75 respectively to account for additional sales of non-taxable items based on total estimated California food and drug sales from various services. d. Median sales per square foot values for typical commercial categories are as" follows: Food $360.98 per square foot Drug $184.50 per square foot Apparel $159.78 per square foot Liquor $231.09 per square foot Eating/Drinking $131.00 per square foot General Merchandise $94.52 per square foot Home Improvement $72.68 per square foot Services/Office $34.16 per square foot (Source: The Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of Sh2212ing Center 1981 adjusted to 1984). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of total square footage, the existing supply of commercial uses in the market area is sufficient to meet the current demand (Scenario A). This oversupply can be (0141D) 1 A attributed in part to overlapping demand from surrounding market areas, as more than half of the commercial uses listed in Table 2 under the existing scenario were located near the periphery' of the defined market area. These uses are supported to some extent by consumers located outside the market area, increasing the actual demand and sales potential data. This increase is probably balanced by consumers living in the specified market area who visit other commercial centers outside the area. As a result, some ' oversupply still exists in square footage. Scenario B compares the demand for commercial space with supply over the short-terra, and assumes that the remaining areas designated for residential use develop according to the General Plan with the exception .of the unincorporated Balsa Chica which remains vacant. Scenario C represents the long-term, and assumes development in the ' Bolsa Chica. With the exception of the visitor-serving commercial uses currently under consideration in the Balsa Chica, the only remaining areas for potential commercial development within the market area include the applicant's proposal at Pearce and Balsa Chica Streets, and a portion of the Meadowlark Airport site along Warner Avenue. Consequently, the applicant's proposed commercial development is assumed to develop under the short-term scenario with the Meadowlark site being analyzed under both the short-term and long-term. In Scenario B, the data generally show that. the demand generated by future residential development within the market area will be sufficient to support additional commercial square footage. However, until residential development occurs in the Balsa Chica portion of the market area, demand will only support one additional commercial center at either the Pearce-Balsa Chica site or at the Meadowlark Airport site. Once the Bolse Chica develops according to the long-term scenario, demand will be more than adequate to support both commercial sites.. The overall square footage 'figures -show that future demand will accommodate ultimate potential commercial supply; however; when this supply is broken down into specific categories some imbalances are revealed. Compared to°the estimated supportable square footage' over the short-term, the addition of the commercial uses proposed by the applicant translates into a surplus of space in the drug, liquor, and service/office categories, and a deficiency of space in the food, apparel, eating/drinking, general merchandise and home improvement categories. This takes into account that the applicant is proposing a commercial development with the following mix -of tenants: convenience market/bakery (7,500 square feet), drugstore (10,800 square feet), apparel stores (5,500 square feet), restaurant (9,120 square feet), mini-department store (13,200 square feet), hardware store/nursery (13,200 square feet), -and other general merchandise shops (2,480 square feet)- The data suggests that the market area can accommodate all proposed commercial uses at Pearce-Balsa Chica with the passible exception of the drug category. the proposed development will add square footage to the already existing .surplus of drug establishments within the defined market area. The same conclusion would hold true in the long-term. The addition of a typical neighborhood center at Meadowlark anchored by a supermarket and drugstore in the short-term would create an oversupply in the food, drug, liquor, and, service/office categories. Without the needed food and drug anchors, a shopping center at the 100,000 square foot magnitude would be infeasible. However, at ultimate development in the long-term, surpluses would exist in only the drug and liquor categories. This indicates.that the market area could support. the proposed convenience market at the Pearce-Bolse Chica site as well as a supermarket at the Meadowlark site. Rather than a drugstore anchor at the Meadowlark site, the data suggests that it would be feasible to provide an additional anchor in the form of a home improvement store or a general merchandise facility. The figures indicate that substantial demand will exist in, the' general merchandise category with both locations probably being able to support,such (0141D) 1 i uses as major anchors. This would further be substantiated in the fact that only two of the six community shopping centers located within the general area contain such anchors. The two shopping centers that accommodate such uses are located at Edinger and Goldenwest, close to the Huntington Regional Shopping Center but outside of the defined market area of this study. Most of the existing eating and drinking establishments within the market area consist of small sandwich shops,- bars, and fast food operations. The addition of major restaurants at the Pearce-Bolsa Chico site and Meadowlark site will still leave considerable demand for such uses at ultimate development. Since specialty and restaurant uses in the Bolsa Chica visitor-serving area were not included in the analysis, it is assumed that restaurant development in the Bolsa Chica will bring supply in line with demand for such uses in the . study area. The supply of liquor establishments will likely remain relatively constant. over the long-term, regardless of whether commercial uses are developed at either of the two sites or both. This is the result of one large liquor establishment recently taking over the total square footage of a former supermarket on the periphery of the market area. The supply of service and professional office uses will show a considerable surplus during the short-term as the result of the high concentration of office complexes at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chico Street and within existing neighborhood centers. However, demand will exceed supply as the Bolse Chica develops. The development of expected service uses at the two sites under consideration will not significantly affect this balance. In summary, there appears to be sufficient demand to support additional commercial square footage in specified categories. While the Pearce-Bolsa Chica site and Meadowlark Airport site can support commercial uses in most categories at ultimate development, the overall surplus of square footage in the drug category would appear to preclude that use as a major anchor at either site. Perhaps more appropriate at the Pearce-Bolsa Chica site would be a combination of additional retail shops, .services/offices, and/or eating/drinking establishments. To complement a supermarket on the Meadowlark site, perhaps a home improvement store or general merchandise use as a major anchor would be more appropriate based on-the demand figures for the.area. (QZ41.D) APPENDIX D INITIAL STUDY SIX I ENVIRONMWAL CEM=BT is (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) 1. Bwkground 1. Name of Proponent City of Huntington Beach 2. Address and Phone Number of 'Proponent Development_ Services__ 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 926#8 3. Date of Checklist Submitted August ,20, 1986 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable General Plan Amendment No. 87-1 11. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X . e. Any increase in wind or water. erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or X any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 288 Yes Maybe No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will, the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either- marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or low of flood waters? X d. "Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. • Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?. - X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise-available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?- X 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: X a. Change in the diversity of species, or num-, ber' of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X 289 .._ . Yes Maybe No b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- bers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migra- tion or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? AL 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new. light or glare? X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources.. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will 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) is the event of an accident or upset conditions? X 2W IL Yes Maybe No b. Passible isterference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,. distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X — 12. Dousing. Will the proposal affect existing hour- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing .transpor- tation systems? _X — d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? IL e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X — 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: a.. Fire protection? X — b. Police protection? X c. Schools? X d. Parks br other recreational facilities? X e. maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? X _ 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy'? X— 291 Yes Maybe -No b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? � 16. utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: A___ 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? x 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an 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 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 impact area? x 21. Dads ry 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 wildlife population to drop below' self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, re- duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate 292 Yes Maybe No important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have .the potential to achieve short-tezm, to the disadvantage of long"-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively 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 array 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. Dues the project have environmental e#fects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X III Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) IV. Determination (To be canpleted by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: o I find that the proposed project CC1ULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have'& significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A %MATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ❑ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the * environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ® EOCi' EIR Date Sipature 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. She E1R will be prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Amaximrit analysis. 293 F_. EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND 'MAYBE" ANSWERS lb. Construction on the sites may require compaction or displacement of soil . id . Grading and landscaping may cause a change in ground surface relief features . 1g . The Newport-Inglewood Earthquake ' Fault System passes through the City. 2a . Additional vehicular traffic associated with the proposed projects may result in some deterioration of ambient air .quality. 3b . Construction may alter the flow of runoff from the sites. 6a. Development of the sites will generate human and vehicle noise. 7 . Development of the sites will result in additional street lights . 11 . The proposal may result in approximately 762 additional people residing in the area. 12 . The proposal will create additional housing. 13a. The proposal will generate vehicular traffic. 1.3c.w The proposal will generate increased demand on existing . public and private transportation systems. 13f . Increased vehicular traffic may pose a hazard to pedestrians and bicyclists in the area. 14a-f . The proposed project may require additional governmental services. 16 . The proposed project may require alterations in some utility systems. 21c . The cumulative effect of relatively small impacts on various resources will be examined. ( 5970d) 'APPENDIX E COMMENTS AND RESPONSES STATE OF CAtOORMkA—•OFFICE OF THE GOV ER!' A # GEORGE 0EUKMENAN, Govvehaf OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH _- 1400 TENTH STREET . �Y SACRAMENYO, CA 9301A eat (916/445-0613) Hal Simmons January 20, 1987 City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190/Dept, of Development Services HUNTING Huntington, Beach, CA 92648 D�CLC NT�BR CH cis 4 Subject: General Plan Amendment #87-1 SCH# 86091007 Hun t�n P. ()• SoX 2 • gto: B�' CAOg� �v 1 Dear Mr. Simmons: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental, docuamt to selected state agencies, for review. the review. period is closed and none of the state agencies have cannnts. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirnts for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Envirntal Quality Act. Please call Glenn Stober at 916/445-•0613 if you have any questions regarding the envirommntal review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this clatter, please use the eight digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may r'spand proMtly- Sincerely, John B. Chanian Chief Deputy Direct Office of Planning and Research December 31 , 1986 HUNTINGTON BEACH . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Planning Commission JAB! 0 2 1987 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Sox 190 Huntington Beach, Calii.fornia Huntington Beach, CA 9260 Dear Planning Commissioners : • I am John March , owner of Antonia ' s Italian Restaurant at 16871 Bolsa Chica in Huntington Beach. As both a resident and businesman , I am very familiar with the development of the business community in the Bolsa Chica/Warner area for , the past twenty years . My wife and I have successfully owned and operated Antonia ' s Restaurant for the past twelve years and during that time we have witnessed restaurants and retail service—oriented businesses come and go in the neighborhood . Our situation and the immediate business community around us can best be described as „marginal" . This marginal situation has existed for the past ten years . There is every reason to believe that this situation will continue well into the future . I am prepared to substantiate my position and question staff ' s recommendation based upon- a two year old market study prepared by staff . Over two years ago staff expressed their concerns with the general erosion of , co,mmercial development in our city and I support their concerns . I take exception , however , to the inappropriate use of a 1984 market study applied to the Bolsa Chica/Warner area to determine long and short term planning; Originally this market study was prepared to justify a general plan amendment and zone change from R-2 to General Commercial ( See i attachment #1 ) for three acres across the street from my property . Even though this market study recommended commercial use and the Planning Commission approved this change ' in land use , the applicant withdrew his request before the City Council acted on it . The reason is summarized in a letter addressed to the City Council on 2 i 4 October 24 , 1984 . "During these last few months , since filing ; I have had a market analysis done by Charles Clark, a planner here at the city , and have been working with several brokers regarding developing this into a commercial project. With the input that has been received from those with experience in the development of strip shopping centers , I have been advised that this is not a good location. " While the need for - new general commercial development in this area does - not exist , there may be • a need to rennovate some of the existing general - commercial areas , as was recently ,done at Lucky ' s Market at Bolsa_ Chica and Heil— In• addition, more residential development in the immediate , area is needed to support these ever changing businesses as well as providing housing for young professionals , families , and retirees . The 1984 market study is -inadequate for the following three basic reasons : ( 1) The primary market study area should extend further north to Edinger and not• stop -at Heil , ..Although there may have been a good reason for staff to generally define ' "primary market areas ' by "taking half the distance between the nearest surrounding neighborhood and community centers and the intersection in question" , it certainly does not apply to the realistic shopping behavior of residents in the Bolsa Chica/Warner area, These residents meet their daily shopping and service oriented needs on route to banks , schools`. including Farina High School , and the Graham Library . ( 2) The 1984 market study statistics are limited to a discussion of how land is presently zoned and the eventual build—out of that land . ' It fails to consider the past and present economic viability of businesses in 'the study area and especially the vacancy rate and turnover of businesses . It is important to. note that staff does acknowledge the "marginal nature" of commercial' in" the market study area. i "Staff further feels that due to the marginal nature of adjacent commercial uses south of the study area , future land consolidation may be encouraged which would result in a larger , high quality shopping center on the site . " (From LUE 87-1 , EIR 87-1 . p . 18) ( 3) Staff ' s concern with the "marginal nature"of' the commercial south of my property is valid , but not their recommended solution. It does not make good business sense to reserve land for future shopping centers until existing shopping areas are renovated and used . It should also be pointed out that the potential build-out of the Meadowlark Airport site (across the street) will provide for more commercial development. My request to change the zoning from C-2 to R-3 will provide a further opportunity to buttress the present and future economic viability of existing businesses and future businesses at the airport site . The compatibility of my proposal is recognized by staff when they assert that my property "is Located within an area characterized by medium to high density residential uses with a significant amount of commercial use nearby. " ( From hUE 87-1 , EIR 87-1 , p . 9, paragraph 2) . The size of the remaining acreage of C-2 south of my property is of similar size to other commercial corners surrounded by existing R-3 or R-2 development along Bolsa Chica ( See attachment#2) . In perspective , it appears unreasonable to include the develop- ment of the Bolsa Chicas in the market study since no one knows when they will be developed and since we are talking about 1 . 6 acres being contingent on the development of 1600 acres . Furthermore we are talking about requesting 25 quality apartments ( 1300 sq . ft minimum) vs 15 , 000--25 , 000 sq . ft . of unneeded commercial building space . Environmental concerns related to traffic congestion also supports my request . Residential units will generate only about 200 average daily car trips whereas general commercial will generate approximately 3000 average daily trips . If and when Meadowlark Airport is developed with commercial and residential , traffic flow on Warner and Bolsa Chica will worsen . Staff is correct when then 4 conclude under the traffic analysis section of the EIR that "Retail development of the property may have a negative impact on traffic flows in the long-term."' I would add , in the short term as well . In conclusion , I wish to thank you for taking the time to understand my position and .the reality of the business community in the Bolsa Chica/Wa.rner area now and in .the future . Regardless of the outcome of the Planning Commission deliberations , I have decided not to continue my restaurant after 12 years . Other busi- nesses that I would reluctantly consider under the C-2 present zoning would include a used car-lot and/or auto repair service or an animal clinic . - It is clear that retail , shopping center , food concession , etc . , is not econom1cally viable. I do hope your decision will allow me to build and manage high quality apartments and I look forward to working with staff to accomplish this . Sincerely , .John March / 17211 Sandra Lane 'Huntington Beach, CA . 0. i e . Ps . R1MH 1 R1 RI RI R1 RI RIRFN 1 RI C4I � C2 - RI R2 MH RI R1' J � RI RI- R I 'AV[ I � . -- �02. R2 R2 C4 yRI Rt4R!3 �1 �;2 R2 R2 IMN f CA .RI RI ROS a CF- R CF-R.. R2., RI RI RI RI R ' rcvq�iv� - R2 t RI ex ro� o» 01 RI (Q)MHI R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 •—=- ZRil R32 RCVS R3R3 R3 R3 R3 —� - aWAPNCR c[�a TIC4 ecWHADO OR i "' a R3 R3 c4` R2 RI " R C itKM R3-19 R2 i U- RI R RI Rl RI RF- R2- dtRI RI ' ' R1 R 3 J,R I �z RI o^, a�.twlRo. on. �: t' � •_ . R3-23 �i RI-CZ Ri .� ° RI RI-CZ RI R3 KCM atop,« � K „. RIOld •�. . � a e. RE R1 CZ �1 CF—E R1 ff xiSting Zoning Area of Concern .3 Q3 "��Qo a o O " - P. huntington beach planning division figure 3-6 PLANNING ZONING DM 23 , SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP p 20 -5 - 61 �- NOTE CITY ."rlaro�M wR[�r rE[T 4DO"C' OMNI*S.I"* � my.4Jurc asr Ir T o[r �r[s4n Te tn[;e To T.9 c[.T[a w a[ OF C171' COUNCIL 04O1M4110E M6.-6fM 92 LEGEND ayrgmxp C.w0 m mI artR u um Rip w EE � — R[sn[wv m*w[* Vv� r �� ���� BEACH 6- 4'g3 M 607 7-13-66 44a61210 ® ` (E,y�I JI( 11 11 _ 6-ri-63 L2 676 7-W-6i 6625tffi4 © �'"T* r'r'[a! WnrT 10-7-43 567 1007 2-5-66 6"S 1262 - 7RwrT [uO 4eTres �+�[ 3-2-64IM W 3-6-67 6672 1504 Q 4-4-M 410 104E 9-16-67 6T-12 f349 I P6ip2e.7 7-1�',� ; '. �� :;,::ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA9� I-7-079-T NIMI o� _-6-I-644061046 47 6"1466 "�twca,gr a4rnn 2575 .M4446M=076 7-19-71 7"F620 ® ca.Krn 1.a c Ix[ Tlal ;114711CI 14-4- Ri'8 2561 II-E-64 476 1066 12-20-7f Tr2065M62 ® wcp ER nm"�c'r i-2- 64-T 27" 12-T_64 461 I1" 7-3-T2713GCI1693 ® IWCI4E ft-tiiwwErlr 1J 16-65 496 1193 7-16-77P T-t220T - oE7.a+m r.TC sr[¢Ts :1-f 66 SSO 1164 Ta 76.1 2261 �4/m n.®.iTIOM zm[91+1P11 1 EDINKR ------------------ RI-CZ Rf HRIF R� LRI R3 R3 C2 I M H R 2 I _ Amp `pI 1 3 RI "'°E CF-E RI . _ I �KCGL I E 2 R I I [ONA R3 !f RI MILD OIL t $ K oa R I P� �!-Cz RI 1uLP6o or or maul c1E L RI R �* I-CZ .............. RI RI R1 1 T WR-CZ RI-CZ m apcllcrn oR ou6 oft. Q�� c RI RI = RI ` ' . RI o[ a6. (~ M6p�.['9y1 RE RI — 1, G/-1 C C r. c. 6� b �y I. J 4 HELL A V WR-CZ �p c14HSTuwn eIs"sO �" b R3 nS1G7p, A L CR2 R2 RI-CZ Cf-R p nolwlcK WR-CZ = RI-CZ �\ CF--R R2 V +� y r� 1Fx.Rr.7 RFCZ GL •T►4 R3 R2 R2 R2 R2 . rrvlZrcv x R W112 R-CZ CNS a\� "°.� _"_ n2 IG�RY 7l RI CZ K 0CIT Ir4i�w! R I-CZ ' WR cz \_cx 3 RI-cz R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 N R 1-GZ � x +zti ct 1 ; : wR-cZ Rf-CZ -Cl R1-Cl C4-CZ M1 O ST. R3 ;I U R 1-CZ u — R3 R3 R3 R3 N C2 I rwRNER t r ` r Q rountington Beams Company 2110 Main street. Huntington Beach, California 92648-2499 (714)960-4351 HUNTING-ION BEACH January 12, 1987 ' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES l =• Huntington Be Planning Commission N 2000 Main eet P.O. Box 190 Huntin n Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Subject: Land Use Element Amendment 87-1 Dear Commissioners: The Huntington Beach Company has reviewed proposed Amendment 87-1, which considers changing land use designations on two properties owned by Huntington Beach Company (areas of concern 2.3 and 2.4). We concur with the Development Services Department in recommending that existing General Plan designations of medium density residential be retained for both of these areas. Area 2.3 involves two vacant blocks of 4.1 and 4.6 acres southeast of City Hall. These blocks were subdivided in the early 1900's into twenty-two 12,000 to 50,000-square foot lots which have remained vacant because of encumbering oil leases and operations. The City's master plan studies of the mid-1960's designated this and the adjacent land for a government center. After the Civic Center was built in 1974, the City considered the southeasterly site as surplus to its needs, and in 1976 redesignated this and other lands north of Utica Avenue for medium density residential development. Zoning on the site has never been brought into conformance with the General Plan. The Planning Commission and City Council adopted a redevelopment plan for this area in 1982 and, since that time, the Huntington Beach Company has assisted City Staff in exploring alternative consolidation proposals intended to provide more efficient land usage and improve current parking and traffic patterns around City Hall. Amending the land use designation to low density residential would result in poor utilization of the land considering the existing lot configurations and the property's proximity to the Civic Center. The staff report overstates the number of units that could be developed-under the two alternatives considered. A low density designation :would only allow between 54 and 67 units (not 116) depending on the zoning used and whether or not Pine Street were abandoned. The existing medium density designation would permit between 116 and 178 units, again depending on zoning and consolidation. This is significantly less than the 259 units stated in the staff report. a A residential project of 130 to 150 units would be in conformance with the General Plan and would generate increased property tax, sales tax, park fees, and other revenues to the City compared to a low density project. We feel that neighborhood concerns about traffic, parking, and appearance can be adequately addressed through subsequent site planning and design efforts. For these reasons, we support staff's recommendation to retain the existing medium density residential designation in Area 2.3. • Area 2.4 involves an 8.0-acre parcel (10.3 gross acres) on the west side of Beach Boulevard at Memphis Avenue. Current zoning on the property would permit a maximum of 102 residential units on the west half of the site in addition to five acres of retail or office development along the Beach Boulevard frontage. A maximum of 116 units could be developed if the entire site were zoned R2. We concur with staff's analysis regarding the viability of a commercial development on the entire site, considering its general location and difficult accessibility from Beach Boulevard. We feel this property is capable of supporting 200 units (19.4 units per gross acre) and ask the. Planning Commission to consider an alternative of applying the existing R3 zoning to the entire site (medium-high density land use designation). If this alternative is not acceptable, we would support maintaining the existing medium density residential designation on the property and ask that R3-PD-17.5 zoning be applied to the site to permit a 150-unit project as analyzed and recommended by staff. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. Sincerely, lllJu'���6't William D. Holman. Project Representative WDH/j cc: tdr. James W. Palin Mr. Larry McCamish, Chevron U.S.A. RESPONSE HUNNTINGTON BEACH• COMPANY Area 2 .3 Staff has revised the acreage for Area 2.3 to reflect the proper figure of 12 . 60 acres. Accordingly, staff has also reduced the unit counts under each alternative (88 units for Low Density and 189 units for Medium Density Residential) . ' Lastly, staff has revised the various sections of the report (economic, housing, police and fire, schools and traffic) to reflect the lower housing counts. Area 2- Staff analyzed a 150-unit project under the Medium Density Residential alternative because the General Plan designation of Medium Density permits 15 units per gross acre. The General Plan density, however, does not necessarily correlate exactly to the appropriate zoning density. In this case, the appropriate R2 zoning would not actually permit 15 units per acre on the entire site due to the way site area is calculated for zoning. Staff does not concur with the Huntington Beach Company' s request to place 93-PD-17. 5 zoning on the site in order to build at 15-units per gross acre. Staff continues to recommend that the zoning be R2 to reflect the recommended Medium Density General Plan designation on the site. (7260d) Lap CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTING'FON BEACH To James W. Palin Fro Stepti n V. er ❑irector of Development Services Pri pal R ,velopment Services Subject COMMENTS ON DRAFT Date Dec , 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR LAND USEAMENDMENT NO. 87-1 I have received a copy of the captioned document and would like to provide you with the following comments. 1. AREA 2.2 - SOUTH SIDE OF ELLIS AVENUE, EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD The Redevelopment Agency staff concurs with the Development Services staff recommendation against a change in designation of this parcel from commercial to residential at this time. It would be preferable to encourage consolidation of this parcel with the adjacent shopping center which fronts Beach Blvd. and to work toward an intensification of this center in the future. This site has been designated a high rise node and the Redevelopment Agency staff would be interested in pursuing plans to fulfill this designation in cooperation with the property owners as a part 'of the _ implementation of the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. 2. AREA 2.3 -.NORTH OF UTICA AVENUE BETWEEN 17TH STREET AND LAKE STREET This site is within the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area. The Redevelopment Agency staff concurs with the Development Services staff recommendation to maintain the current medium density residential designation on this site. 3. AREA 2.4 - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BEACH BOULEVARD AND MEMPHIS AVENUE This site is within the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. The Redevelopment Agency staff does not concur with the Development Services staff recommendation to maintain the residential designation of this site. At this location the Beach Boulevard Corridor is developed with residential and commercial uses with commercial uses gaining in dominance. This is a large site and would easily accommodate a mixed use project which will be more appropriate over the expected 35 year life of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. A commercial development of 5 or more acres at this location would not be "competition" for adjacent centers. Conversely, commercial enterprise tends to perform better when located in proximity to other successful commercial uses. Commercial development at this location would support the objective of strengthening the commercial activities within the Beach Boulevard Corridor and the economic base of the community. For 9 James W. Palin December 16, 1986 Page Two this reason the Redevelopment staff strongly recommends that the land use amendment recommendation be amended to include at least 50% of this site as a commercial_ area with a requirement that a Master Plan .far a mix of commercial and residential uses be prepared. 4. AREA 2.5 - SOUTH SIDE OF TALBERT AVENUE EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD This is the Crest View School site and it is within the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. The Redevelopment Agency staff concurs at this time with the Development Services staff recommendation not to change land use from residential to commercial. However, this site could be important in the 35 year life of the Redevelopment Project Area and the status of the site' should be monitored. 5. AREA 2.5 - SOUTH EAST CORNER OF BEACH BOULEVARD AND WARNER , AVENUE This site is within the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area and the Redevelopment Agency staff concurs with the Development Services staff recommendation to change the land use designation from residential to commercial. 6. AREA 2.7 - NORTH SIDE OF WARNER AVENUE EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD This site is within the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. The Redevelopment Agency staff concurs with the Development Services staff recommendation that the land use -designation on the western 10 acres of the site be changed from residential to commercial, The Agency staff, however, has additional comments regarding the balance of this site, 1. Over the 35 year life of the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area there could be sufficient demand to develop the entire site as commercial. 2. The mixed use development that has occurred in the vicinity, would support medium or high density residential product on a portion of this site. 3. Also a fully mixed use project (including commercial,, office, and residential) may soon be appropriate in the increasingly urban context of the Beach Boulevard Corridor. For these reasons, Redevelopment Agency staff recommends that a Master Plan of the site with the alternatives outlined above be prepared in the future. In_ the meantime, the Agency staff recommends that Land. Use Amendment No. 87-1 include an appropriate land use designation that would permit a mixed use project on the entire site. James W. Palin December 16, 1986 Page Three 1 hope this information Will be of assistance to you in continuing to process land Use Amendment No. 87-1. We will be in contact with you in the next few days to arrange a meeting to discuss these comments. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at X5542. SV K:sar xc: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Douglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment Charles P. Spencer, Housing & Redevelopment Program Manager Mike Adams, Principal Redevelopment Planner .Hal Sim t ons; Associate Planner 0699r RESPONSE TO COMMENTS STE I!BEN KOHLER PRINCIPLE REDEVELOPMENT 9RECIALIST Area 2 .4 In the time since the December 16, 1986 communication, Redevelopment staff has revised its recommendation and now concurs with the Planning staff recommendation to maintain Medium Density Residential on the site. Area 2 , 5 In the time since the December 16, 1986 communication, Redevelopment staff and Planning staff have reached agreement on a new recommendation to redesignate only the western 5.0 acres of Area 2.5 from Low Density Residential to General Commercial . Area 2 .7 In the time since the December 16, 1986 communication, Redevelopment staff and Planning staff have reached agreement on a new recommendation to redesignate all of Area 2. 7 from Low Density Residential to Mixed Development . (7260d) �. City of Huntington Beach ° 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92B48 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR January 8, 1987 Mr. Kent Pierce, Chairman Huntington Beach Planning Commission 7865 Seawalk Circle Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Kent, SUBJECT: LAND USE 87-1 As you know, amendment to a Land Use Element 87-1, was the subject of a public hearing for the Planning Commission on January 27, 1987. A number of the land use amendments included for consideration at that time are ones which have been requested by Redevelopment Agency staff as part of our ongoing effort with a creation of a redevelopment project area for the Beach Boulevard corridor. Please be assured that Redevelopment Agency staff has worked closely with the staffs of the other departments in the formulation of the recommendations to be presented to the Commission at the public hearing.. While the final recommendations embodied in this report differ slightly from the original request of the Redevelopment Agency staff, staff has reviewed these recommendations in detail and concur with the recommendations which appear in the final report. I would like to respectfully request the favorable consideration of the Commission in these requests. We appreciate the consideration by the Planning Commission in this matter. The Agency staff will be present at the public hearing to answer any questions posed by the Commissioners. In the meantime, if you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, CJ.4� L/Z/- Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator CWT:lp xc: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator Jim Patin, Development Services Director Mike Adams, Principal Redevelopment Planner Stephen V. Kohler, Principal Redevelopment Specialist Telephone (7I4) 536-5202 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION , HUNTINGTON BEACH To Tom Livingood, Commissioner From Tom Poe Planning Commission Deputy Fire Marshal e Subject . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Date February 18, 1987 . REPORT 87-1 Pursuant to your request for an evaluation,by the Fire Department of Section 2.7.2.4(d), page 81 of the Environmental Impact Report 87-1, the Department has reevaluated this section and found the wording to be correct. The attached map shows the location of the nearest fire stations in relation to the subjec# property. As the map indicates, three (3) fire stations which could respond to this area are within approximately one and one-half (1-1/2) to two (2) miles. The.maximum response time for this distance would be approximately three (3) to four (4) minutes. Generally, one (1) minute reaction time is added to response time for boarding and starting fire apparatus and, therefore, total response time would be approximately five (S) . minutes. Should you desire any additional information, please call my office at-536-5566. TP/sr i :Attachment 6214E GARDEN GROVE BLVD _ GARDEN GROVE mm •,x<•, ..•, WESTiAM�STER r HAZARD 80 SA Ali 4S z MCFADDEN 'EDINGER r r.*Rt�5 Ltd ry { HEIL rY WARNER + sf. TASLATER F. SrA TALBERT •' � �'••"� v 7 ELMS P"pose GARFIELD VORKTOWN � �„ � �:h1iN�TE/�L I`'�. �t. r / r�; a sr.► M ADAMS f. y � ATLA Mo IS i? ti:;: �.T•.., -. NTA • >r-r BANNING lu HOSPITAL WAY i4.r.Vf• . . APPENDIX F ADDENDUM FOR AREAS 2.5' AND 2.7 Area 2 . 5 Addendum Staff has recommended that the 'eastern' 10. 00 acres of Area 2 .5 be retained as Low Density Residential and that the western 5 .00 acres be redesignated to General Commercial. The rationale is that the western 5.0 acres of property could be combined with the existing five acres of commercially designated property immediately to the west, in order to assemble an overall 10.0 gross acre commercial site. The staff recommendation could result in 70 housing units on the residential portion and 65,300 ,square feet of retail space on the commercial portion. It should be pointed"•out, however, that in reality, a 116,800 square foot retail center could actually be constructed on a larger 10 acre parcel using the adjacent existing 5 .0 acres of commercial property. For purposes of comparison to the other alternatives in the study area analysis, however, only 5 . 0 acres of commercial is analyzed below, although the appropriate factors for a 10. 0 acre shopping center were incorporated: Staff has estimated that the staff recommendation for 10 . 0 acres of . Low Density Residential and 5.0 acres of General Commercial could generate approximately 9,305 average daily trips. This generation figure falls midway between the traffic generation figures predicted for the other alternatives in the analysis on page 62 of the General Plan Amendment document. That analysis found that the traffic generated by any of the alternatives could be accommodated. As such, the staff recommendation could also be accommodated. Staff also utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the staff recommendation. The revenues and expenditures associated with the recommendation were predicted for one year for purposes of comparison to the other alternatives. The results are summarized in the table below. Low Density/C9mme-rcial Revenue $137,481 Cost $ 26, 672 Revenue-Cost $110,809 Revenue/Cost 5. 15 The outcome shown above falls midway between the other alternatives analyzed on page 59 of the General Plan Amendment document. The five acres of commercial development in the above scenario causes this alternative to generate more revenue than the all residential alternatives, but less revenue than the all commercial alternative. 1n reviewing the above results, it is important to view the . analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs . (7186d) Apart from the traffic and fiscal impact differences, all other aspects of the analysis of alternatives for Area 2 .5 . in the General Plan Amendment document should remain largely unchanged. Student generation and air quality impacts may be 'slightly different for the staff recommendation, but, as in the case of the. traffic and fiscal outcomes, will fall .midway between the other alternatives and would not be considered. significant . l (7186d) I 1 Area 2 . 7 Addendum The staff recommendation for Area 2.7 is for Mimed Development on the entire 20 .5 acres. The recommendation does not specify any particular amount of commercial acreage- versus residential or park acreage. Rather, staff proposes that at this time only the concept of Mixed Development be adopted for the site, .with the specific mix of uses to be established by a later Specific Plan and detailed traffic study. For purposes of evaluating what could potentially develop under staff ' s recommendation for Mixed Development, '-some assumptions about land use can be made. The Oceanview School District has been negotiating with various volume discount retailers for the western 13 . 5 acres. of the site. With this knowledge, staff has suggested the possibility of commercial on the western 13 . 5 acres, and some - mix of medium density residential and public park on the eastern 7. 0 acres . A possible scenario would be 13 .5 acres of commercial, 5 acres , o€ Medium Density Residential and 2 acres of public park. Given the above described mix of land uses, approximately 120,000 - square feet of commercial building space could be accommodated on the commercial portion and 75 housing units on the residential portion. Staff estimates that a commercial project of this size would generate 8,400 average daily trips while the residential would generate 900 average daily trips. It is, therefore, estimated that the staff recommendation of Mixed Development for the entire site could generate approximately 9,300 average daily trips, or approximately half of the 18, 500. ADT predicted for commercial development of all 20 . 5 acres . It must still be stressed, however, that- the traffic study and specific plan staff has proposed will still be necessary to define how much development can actually be permitted on the site. Staff also utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the above scenario. The revenues and expenditures associated with the scenario were predicted for one year for purposes of comparison to the other alternatives. The results are summarized in the table below. Mixed Development - Commercial/ Medium Density/Palk Revenue $471,261 Cost $ 33,279 Revenue-Cost. $437, 982 Revenue/Cost 14 . 16 The outcome shown above exceeds the revenues which were predicted for any of the other alternatives- which were analyzed for the site. Even the all-commercial alternative, which featured twice as much retail space as the above scenario, produced less revenue. The Principle factor in the extremely positive revenue to cost ratio for this scenario was the very high retail sales generation rate for high volume discount retail stores . The retail sales volume per (7186d) square foot associated with this type of retail use is two and one-half times that- of other retail uses . In reviewing the above results, it is impoirtant to view the analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs. Apart from the traffic and fiscal impact differences, all other aspects of the analysis of alternatives for Area 2. 7 in the General Plan Amendment document should remain largely unchanged. Student generation and air quality impacts may be slightly different for the staff recommendation, ,but, as in the case of the traffic outcome; will fall midway between the other alternatives and would not be considered significant. (7186d) 1 APPENDIX G PROPOSED BEACH/WARNER SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY a AVE Icp f z Cf Y Of J a RI J a u x R rc ¢ J R U u R U U J U U U RI g, as R1 RI a RI RI RI W RI RI z RE RI RI R1 3 (`4 w a u DR4 it (� R1 BRUSH DR 6yf CHRYSLER OR RI RI BRYANT DR C o of C 4 a RI Ri L `,p $ C 2 G r; LAMBERT '� DR 4 c !r m el "E 20 RI ° RI RI RI /V •_.... .... �UU O�4 3075 TO C} TERRY _ DR x TERRY on wON 6 p [l ShArXM a 2 RI RI RI R1 RI Rt3 �C4RI se w N ARNETT DR iL OR !0W OA"SN flRIVE R I R w F. D CB-I O. C F. C D C6-2 zR I W ti i1 µti •�}:�v,�_'�:�.�'i'.,r✓ �D+'a n,�p . .{ R3 �y R� r< �� � rY�rc'• v vP� -0d.fr1G •{t7. IY TAMARV DR.'# J }`,:, .: , .• yr, 4y ''abJr; f.` ME R 3 C 4 �l WARNER AVE o : R1 R1 l IR DR. r50 C/1-MS r ,' AlASTERDAM DR Rw ( 50 `T� EE1Y/11 L ,, �ti R2 Yn R1 J 41 L Y0 N 1 BYCa .•.^.-^ •rr ? EDA CR Y N h b 4C fr � _ o r ----���. RI _. f• R 1 so. 'R 2 I R 2 19s LN OR, R1 RI RI REMBRANDT R i R Z I n x — ---- 1 — -- �— RI YPR6 A D. EIL i �• e. _ �0 RI � MARStE DR � R1 � POLDER CA R - 190 — -- 9 R1 '° "o ,^ YALENCIA DR a: 2p E ns0 TD r� W.27 R I R �� R3 ea F IESLAND i:E G:t41 MANDRE x _.— R. LL DR _z e:,z TR3 R3 R3 ��' RI— — RI 11ro I , (� I I � {?ZJ'rLDFkS_ V"' / �woss PROPOSED BEACH/WARNER SPECIFIC PEAR BOUNDARY HUNTINGTON BEACH C&FORNIN :: PLANNING DIVISION s a ;APPENDIX H BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BOUNDARY -�Ir A.�"�lura y . :`•fuN �,1lltlilll1111111lUIIIIIIII Ito • .. i r, '� y i Sties. • I�# 1111 �1� 1 Fop � i ituluutlil 8 . dS 7 9.iY ► 1= . x1x-u,y1 �YIIII/1ltll■ rlf/� TiIONAI IIYLB- a[af- '�. - - ! t ••,�,,,..�$.{ n n\,., Rif/IIIHt111rY/ //Ar.r�IHilHllia�1111 �� Il 111ltY IfhF�ll;�� E�_ `�i�iiiiiiiZ rt<,alllll! s•^t+ix 1[ ,� �A � .Lkl IIIYttk111E11f .1-`p E \.111111._- ►.YI,1 �._. :_.IY . 1 . aft[./ 1!E+{- • - "d/.i1111 ':C ✓ r /YYI ria .6.��1_ ++rs 1i111 '' \ VII 1!1 111 [ 1t`f . 1 Irtt1111,If1'4 1 •' ,Y is EI/aE 1 111 i/tl n11Y1.III IF 11 y.i 5-lfillll x� 11fA1� �' -7£1 11 1,111ill 7 - y' anal nttl1 ��ulfn I 1 f1=. z, t 1 C,. •,.- i�.its I i :7= pnlRr IIIllllil UN • s ; wwww� '- uYlui ■ ir ".IkS. .S.:.nlnln■ • r� u1.Yllhir:'�7" '-� , •• 11�\;F "N+s+'� �k111111 ��RR� ,'11 fiilt!lf Flll ■�lllillM � r"R• '•"`�Y^ ��--_+�«� rr4 , 1611 a SE1l1t1 ■.a. � =i�1 �� � xlllnitf .'��'��®,I� n'RAiq1/9lin�f-tll{� - �fRlaaRR « .5.77�11lI1 71: ��j11..k_ ! r �.`.•x r1�f•t� r. - /IRII� NS% /iYlilll f v h-I.IIi F7 IYII'!I r1111fH1 i iI .11/ ""• .. �r _s.._ �i ~: A.n1Y 4�•fbTi n. ;� � - x'Ir/�i1:uuu+s � tll loll �'iri►q�Ia tlltl "au1�i ili F �IE'�a E_ Rlli O11 IE 1E11ir t wr EU A�,R -x 1 J ` W� �''� - 1 11tt p11.11?11>11```; 1 �i11L,,flal uw�atll*[j.r ri HIM �,'>Si li�' ■.n�a.+�� • 1 r ,Y,.... � ,z ���111[iEFl11l1 IYir■{�1lDIIeiEl♦`■ E it p ii11�I a n 1l�# t� .r+.r, - / - ua11, 1 � on.� !kill . .:�11 N■1 �f • �1 _-tea.. — .��.■�I i ■ —ram.'x,. � s-i��.. � 3 1f11 �Eil�i- � � �`�` � �{■ '• r■C C'�� �-`��'���¢����r un � _ - ie iile�lllll'1'1' • E i=��i::�. '�`I'i`��'�-�.rrlilill�p 1ap�j1NIff1,1 I � � �s �� 1!]��''1 1413�i 1 E31;� • E11sCi1�C/•1�*.r �p:f 'F:a ii9■-■,,,�IE1111. ��1- � 1 11 ��:ra;i,=�+Irl,urflnfry.': 1� r�wl��n••�• -._.lk+-twl���3/urw,llll Ea " n qt/• luafa+�.-• .!-A�..-.rr�♦ i111 I�.E1'� I u� Lak... n pE'_:.'iiiiiiiir111t1� a MIIEI EII��� �F�� ( � • ..111111l11•� Illll/r. if il,. •Y ■ + ailr S �`\■+``�: 4ultlln lu E# nu 1111111% '*"'■t•'C • _ /1= x..,ti.•33 r- nulllo� E#tlr■�■ 1 I_ f ��fi +lria■eEiw 1 INo_I •x a 'x x=r�'x11a '�.. yf�a, _ - ' �I:I11U11 � �.c;;y _: • N ■C"� ��'. x �� �I��`7 iiiiin2 ��,S p15= �� ;if�iSjii 1♦ ['i:'gg3lbr i:-�.�lnlli+ • - E11=1y �/1!i1 1 Ilfl r _ '���■ - '� 'Ilfltllilipll. �11�1 r ■1-.■.11 l'I--- �-. �1�i.�1I■._.I_Iw,�.-�!,rg--at"1l—un��fu�■rn..•. I1Il11IllIIIII�—+---_�■ �_ �i _W • lll�' '�-.....__■_ �F`,l.1m�.■r aI lAFI�1�1II;tlI'1�1 Itnil Jill. 'E EIInlii _1 lElkA{ II [(1��]J1{i tI���il���iAS �E�#i�����' N�_Af7Bi.r,a.!■[aI Ii�."■II�i'I�._�IInI1rauI1I1Iu 1��1u�EIa/L-r,• i ,r•,1 l • w ,1 i • 49 41° s" / ii Y �"�7t°`.�g �Ma9F;�t�sm% I N� �qF' gpiFe.3PY�IIIYIIIIlIfI 111111lIEnl������♦♦ � I !� ` � ' ,`�A'�`i�lCIa66 aeY 1!®��� .. �./cE!6PSL 1 IIIIIIIIFI 1lIt11tNlk1 Iltl� !� ,i ' � �i ttl•eti ti LP ilIII g11111I1!#141 nlltklllltlllu i•�� aionillYtl11iY1 4pt3f.Mill,!R laellYPh6 ltM3 9%llRi#Irli 1#Ila#YMai1Ca i31e•�1fW\��,�gIJaYEJt afnaPk=qna i+wa gPltllW _ — •: I H 6 t .11yy y ■■ Ira; ��� ' ���������� ,, ar • IaYYa of Yijadn!r� soil.Illl€'Mil iIYC!1lhi�11•tli Will AO■Iki'leu yy€y Cgils Ya€Ia uaira n ants�Ni RR1R1 13a�t8111 ti@l!F MIIMF 1111%161i fllll 1/Ili YIIS€ i s;IM�I\IkIYI YgiJlt nflllEk {k[ `•.�rl ils � F,+ '^\r�lla ItlffiM Ilki aFrIiEP call rR lIBY€ilAYl iYal+3 un t'j 94RI\hall.hHIIF adtl!!11� �' � ■, v..�:-� IAI Y!![fY1 11lSi r1Y}a IYIIY DIY!RFgtl lhPlli Y 1; i Yl WIN i\II Itllagt llq� 111€ � aii 41191=till y5ltll arJf: 3 lllla Lunr€I!"U5lh Fllmrx[l. :1 `1 Y i�` �• Y1111 Will h1Mll 11lta w HVt1 � rldii�liltl�lf=ili��lil��� IIII�i1W �������'■���j_ Ipa rl/r arun�w tl ul a#yllilaR upra}=-11 111111 till 1.(IEiI!�4IIL�irkH gpl 1� Y11ill 4111 - Y �� ■ ��� ■ • 1414 .� tl 111E1!' 1r I R } 6 ¢,rs■f� rill !�" �Itt mail • • ��` y N rAl w., �IhlltflllrinnuulY r. 1, .;_,-1 !< .I,/i��lIf �111{EI'tgl111■�h .1 i Iliil�l#l�t11l. li •..„,� Rj�. o o n ,I �t€ I '••3 + o � r�r'7 !�lHIIl,Id��a11�YIIII�. ■ a131! t • ��* � � T JlArtlllli11Y1 r C- _ � t1Ei114 - i� .� �,� ���w€Y•YYYIYHYI I! � T�K -wH.Y�IDO", � r•� �I11 k111 L rJ !• i11fl1Ai • /YII 1 a M r 1AI�1 Z JJ t111iY" •-�'•R a f r r mn ♦� !S 1q�Inn IN3: ill Il Y NI' � R 1 w<Y11 � tH S � 3�i�i.tii31 � �1 _ /1 i�i11i Iih�11 =i /3f�i11 � g �� .j n� iYt inl J: ✓<„�'.�-. e#a � t--` I3=iiw3.3311 3� .`.'€ s !�►� Ili€n ;a, -�iur`Y:�s ■�''� ! s � �����,'7 � :yp�� ,� w333liii333=���� Ir '•3N1333p'33� S i�aiY=11�i'�ii.`: 7��Y�� 1•y Rs•�i�i 6 .Yam1. ��iiil�R s:.i �{ :.:� 1 it' ~ ��: u9iiri s5 !!3i �/lllinutu��l�r aiiNs S' `'%s= - � 11 • �l/allli i YW41 _3 -�_3•-5�.:gil \ .i V al 1111 nuglYlolMnn�ilf �IJII n11•�L :all t. 1 [a71111111 Ini{-Y =n pll.i1 anli �, • • �iin�InT1111ii j-a lefun a �uy '.�f: /S��n m �j wiYAllir r ie�, t Q rs `.s'�', w"� ['w 1 3'"'iiii�3re'e'33i3iiiii3=3: �T: " ,,�� �' 'T1;,`: �udiu �• � s �- * .�� �*M�=� ..IE•1 `NYI�'1�1=1i �i�� •�.. �_ _;-� �1 • rAA3iA:n'� •1 AI � � r 4 - � 1 �1u3.3f�3a � : A } APPENDIX I FISCAL IMPACT ADDENDUM-REDEVELOPMENT AREA CONSIDERATIONS r GPA 87-1 FISCAL IMPACT MODEL ADDENDUM - Redevelopment- Area - Considerations 1 . Property Tax Revenue The principle source of -funding redevelopment programs is with tax increment revenues . Tax increment revenues are collected from property taxes generated within a redevelopment area . The maximum annual .allocation to the Redevelopment Agency, referred to as tax increments, would equal the property taxes generated by the assessed valuation in a redevelopment area in excess of the base -year value.. Base year values are determined bythe amount ' of, assessed value shown on the tax rolls prior to the adoption of a redevelopment plan. The level of taxes which could be anticipated by other taxing agencies including the general fund of the City of Huntington Beach, within a project area would evidently -be "frozen" at the- amounts received in the year a specific redevelopment plan was adopted . For example, Area 2 . 3 is within the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Area, established in fiscal year 1982/1983 . At the time this redevelopment. plan was adopted, the assessed value of the property for the 12 . 6 acre site (referred to as Area 2 .3 ) was $405,544 . ' The estimated property- tax - revenue received by the City.' s general fund would have been $811 based on ( $405,544 ) ( . 01% Co.unty Tax) (20% City Tax) $811 . , This is the amount that was -"frozen" at . that time so that any property tax revenue generated in excess of $811 ,would be collected by the City 's Redevelopment Agency. Therefore , if the property was developed as proposed in Alternative 1 which is . com rised of single family homes, all property tax revenue in excess . of 811 would be collected by the Redevelopment Agency'. The estimated market value of Alternative 1 is $29, 000, 000 generating , City :property tax revenue totaling $58, 000 - resulting in a net amount'- of $57, 189 collected by the' Redevelopment -Agency. While Area ' 2 : 3 is in. an adopted redevelopment area, Areas 2 . 2, 2 .141 2 . 6 and 2 . 7 . are in proposed redevelopment areas . ` There is no way of knowing; at this time, if and when these areas will become redevelopment areas. For the purpose of .this analysis it will be assumed that . the base year is fiscal year 1986/1987 using the current assessed valuation ` of land and/or improvements reported on the : tax ,assessors .rolls . The current .assessed valuations are as follows: Assessed * Count City/General Area Value Tax Fund Revenue 2 .2 157,364 1 ,574 313 2 .4 2,497, 080 24,971' 4,.969 2 .6 2 ,390,282 23, 903 4 781 2 .7. 12,523i922. 250,239 _ $4,821 * Assessed valuation of land - and improvements Using alternative number 1 for each area and assuming the property tax revenue listed above is the .base year, the distribution of revenue would be as follows.: Alternative 1 General Redevelopment Area Market Value Fund Revenue Agency Revenue 2 . 2 3, 995, 000 313 7, 637 . 2 .4 14,062, 660 4, 969 23, 156 2 . 6 9, 983, 999 4, 781 15, 187 2 . 7 123, 949, 000' 14, 821 - 140, 904 . t : Again, assuming each area became a redevelopment area in 1987� the redistribution of property tax revenue would generate different revenue to cost ratios . A comparison of the reported and modifi6d ratios are as follows : Modified Revenue/Cost Revenue/Cost Ratio For' Area Alternative Ratio As Report Re eveTo-pment j 2 . 2 1 2 .47 1.43 2 2 .'35 1 . 17 3 3. 13 _2 .4 1 '5 . 86 4 . 92 2 2 .40 1 : 32 3 1.1 .'05 10 .36 w 2 6 1 = �' 2 .572, 'I.�41 t 2 -2 . 50 1 ., or 1. 7 l 2 . 25 1 , 13' ; . 2 2 . 54 1 .33- 3 11. . 27 10 . 54 4 _ 25 .20 24 .`55' , Because of .limitations placed on the• County Tax Assessor by ` Proposition 13,, the -assessed. valuation of a property can only, increase by a maximum of two, percent, per _ year.`-' ' If -any of the Areas analyzed in this .report became a redevelopment area, the property' tax revenue received by the Redevelopment -Agency would probably increase annually while the property tax revenue received by they. General Fund would remain fixed or "frozen" as discussed' previously. . 2. Retail Sales Tax Revenue With the adoption of a redevelopment area, tb e 'Redevelopment Agency has an, opportunity to negotiate a redistribution of retail sales tax revenue. - The process is _ referred to as "pledging back" a percent of . the estimated retail sales tax revenue that would be generated by a ( 7466d) -2- e proposed project . Of; the sales tax revenue collected by the City ' s general fund ( 16. 7 percent of the six cent State sales tax) , the Redevelopment Agency may collect one to three percent . The purpose of this pledge-back is to acquire funds that can be used to assist the development of desirable, but economically marginal projects for a specific area . The pledge-back funds are used only in the area from which they have been generated and the entire process has to be approved by the City Council . it is also important to note that the redistribution of retail sales tax revenue (pledge-back ) is assessed on a case-by-case basis and is not automatically implemented for every redevelopment project area containing a retail business . Because of the individual nature of the process it is not feasible to assume that any of the proposed redevelopment areas analyzed in this report will be •subject to a "pledge-back" of retail sales tax revenue. ' DB: jr ( 7466d) -3- RESOLUTION N0. 5763 'n i h A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING. LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-1 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 . 87-1 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on January 20, 1987 ; 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 . 87-1 ; 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 .. 87-1 consisting of the following changes is -hereby adopted as an amendment to the Land Use Diagram thereof: 1 . That Area 2 . 8 consisting of 8 . 3 acres located on the north side of Warner Avenue, between Algonquin and Sims Streets be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to .Medium High Density Residential . 2 . That Area 2 . 9 consisting of 2 . 2 acres located on the north side of Garfield Avenue, west of Mora Kai Lane be redesignated from Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16 h day of March 1987 . /0 . Ma ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEW D APPROVED: IN TIATED AND ED: 7 -�� City Administrator irector of Development Services 1772L 12/15/86 i i I I i Res. 5763 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: ' CITY OF EM INGTON BEACH ) :j I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of, March 19 87 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Winchell, Mays Finley, Kelly. Erskine, Green NOES: Councilmen: Bannister ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California I I a H 4' CITY OF HUNTIN GTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To HONORABLE MAYOR JACK KELLY AND From GAIL HUTTON MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL City Attorney Subject General Plan Amendments Date March 13 , 1987 QUESTION• When the Planning Commission reviews proposed general plan amendments , is it necessary to forward all such amendments to the City Council? ANSWER: No ANALYSIS • The Planning Commission is only obliged to send general plan amendments it recommends for approval to the City Council . The current procedure requires the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and consider proposed general plan amendments (Government Code § 65853 ) . The Planning Commission' s recommendations on amendments of the general plan are then forwarded to the council (Government Code § 65354 ) . There is no requirement that amendments not recommended by the Planning Commission be sent to the council . Any party who wishes to bring amendments disapproved by the Planning Commission before the council may do so by filing a written request and paying fees (Government Code § 66354 . 5 ) . GAIL HUTTON City Attorney I j I . I I i Tow_n & Country Investors March 16 , 1987 � . Mr . Hal Simmons / Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach Re : Zone Change & General Plan. Amendment 8102 Ellis Ave . , Huntington - Ca - 92648 Dear Mr . Simmons ; This letter is in', regard to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission ' s meeting held ' Pebruary 10 , 1987 in which William H . and Judy •Hassoldt , owners of .the property located` at .8102 Ellis Avenue , Huntington Beach ; Ca 92648. submitted to. the planning commission a zone change from C4 .commercial to R3 and a General Plan Amendment in which we , the owners . of 18582 Beach Boulevard , Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 ` were not informed as to the ' time and place of above stated meeting . Even though the Commissioners rejected the zone change; we feel that it could. have been a hardship on our investment ,:. had it passed . It just happened that one of our investors `tuned in to the ongoing commissioner ' s meeting . We: th.en 'acquired a audio 'tape of above meeting in which Mr . and Mrs . W. Ha-ssoldt (owner ' s of 8102 Ellis Ave . , Huntington. Beach., Ca 92648) incorrectly stated_ that we had been notified by mail that they had appeared before our executive committee , in. which. ' : they mentioned light traffic , no traffic in the mormin"g hours and that they had even offered' u.s money. Our center and the center south of us have approximately eight (8) heavy ,ttrucks driving through entering from Ellis into the backs of both shopping centers ; for example ! food and supplies for the Sizzler. Restaur.ant.' trash trucks , .U.P 'S .., ' liquor and/or, bar: supply trucks , Ha'li Spechtts Lamp_Ael1 veries ,; groce.ry. store d;e,l"iverie.s , .- 'These .deliveries-, and, services occur, every _day 1982 ' . The Hassoadt ''s purchased this ;proper.t,y July' 1 , wit h the purpose .of o .erti a ng a day car e„ender::•p We would appreciate your coopera-tion con.cerniag th1 matter Respectively ; 1100, V cc : Mayor Jack Kelly PT/s Phil .Tymofi wner "/Manager CA 18582 Beach Blvd., -6068 ..Suite-15, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ❑ (714) 964 , T. C. CORPORATION v 9911 Anthony Place . Beverly Hills, Ca. 90210� HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SER12ES MAR March 16, 1987 P.U. oox i J juntington Beach, CA 92648 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 RE: Re-Zoning of Beach/Ellis Property Dear Gentlemen: We are the Owners of the Town & Country Shopping Center located at 18502-18552 Beach Blvd. , Huntington Beach, Ca. We are adamantly opposed , to re-zoning the property immediately .behind the Town & Country Shopping Center as it will .create a burden for our existing tenants. With Parking and Security problems, mixing residential and commercial properties will have an adverse effect on all parties concerned. Sincerely, . T. C. CORPORATION Marta Keller President i I ' - I . I '002 = i, CIT Y ®F HUNT�INGT ONBEACH £° 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 18, 1987 Jensen Chen 8722 Cliffside Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, March 16, 1987 denied your request for amendment to the General Plan - area 2.2. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to . .provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from March 18, 1987 to apply to the courts for judicial .review. 'If- you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office - 536-5227. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:js Enclosure cc: City Attorney Development Services Director I+ -- f I (Telephone: 714-536-5227) OF HUNTINGTON �ACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION MUNTINGTUN BEACH. To Charles W. Thompson From 'James W.' Palin, Director City Administrator ' Development Services Subject LUE 87-1A (AREA 2. 3) Date ' ,. March 13, 1987 LAKE STREET/UTICA AVE./ 17TH STREET . COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM F-2a On March 16, 1987, the City Council will consider ' LUE 87-1A (Item F-2a) . Area 2.3 of Land Use Element Amendment 87-1A is a request by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission to redesignate 12. 60 acres bounded by .Utica Avenue, Seventeenth Street and Lake Street from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential. . The Planning Commission requested the General Plan Amendment on. August 19, 1986. The request. for the amendment was entirely the Planning Commission 's and there was no similar action requested by the City Council. On February 10, 1987, the Planning Commission acted on Land Use Element Amendment 87-1 . Their action on that date included a 4-3 vote to deny the amendment of Area 2.3 and retain the existing Medium Density Residential designation. On February 17, 1987, the Planning Commission reconsidered their action on Area 2.3 due to Commissioner Silva ' s determination that he was ineligible to vote on the item because of a conflict of interest . The Planning Commission's reconsideration without Commissioner Silva resulted in a 3-3 vote both for approval and denial of Area 2. 3. The effective result of this vote was that Area 2. 3 was denied and the Medium Density Residential land use designation retained. Since the Planning Commission was the original applicant for Area 2. 3, and inasmuch as their action was a denial of their own request, they may be deemed to have withdrawn the item from further consideration. As such, there is no need for the City Council to act on the item at their March 16, 1987 meeting. If the item is pulled from the agenda, however, an announcement should be made at = the beginning of the meeting as Area 2.3 was advertised by newspaper and mailing. JWP:HS :jr ( 7588d) _ �rIIdL-IL�U77LC I rUDLIL it UUDLIV 11U11UL I 1.,,TUDLIU R-J11%,L NOTI( I. BLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-1A,ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 87-1A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-56 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-60 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, California, at the hour of 7:00 PM, or as soon _ thereafter as possible on Monday,the 16th day of March,1987,for the purpose of considering Land Use Element Amendment 87-1A,Environmental Impact Report 87-1A,Negative Declaration 86-56,and Negative Declaration 86-60.Land Use Element 87-1A is an amendment to the General Plan which covers the following items: Area 2.2— a request by Jenson Chen to redesignate 1.89 acres of property located on the south side of Ellis Avenue,400 feet east of Beach Boulevard,from General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential. Area 2.3—a request by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission to redesignate 17.90 acres bounded by Utica Avenue,Seventeenth Street and Lake Street from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential. Area 2.8— a request by the'Department of Development Services to redesignate 8.31 acres located north of Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and Sims Street from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential in order to achieve consistency between the General Plan and zoning.This item is covered by Negative Declaration No.86-56. r Area 2.9—a request by Lanny Ludwick to redesignate 2.24 acres located on the north side of Garfield Avenue,570 feet east of Beach Boulevard from Medium Density and Low Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential in order to achieve consistency between the General Plan and zoning.This item is covered by Negative Declaration No.86-60. A legal description and copy of the above described documents are on file in the Department of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the applications as outlined above.If there are any further questions,please call Hal Simmons,Associate Planner,at 536-5271. Alicia Wentworth,City Clerk Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot March 6, 1987 F517 I I I i 1 1 - � n v l z z \ Z 2.8 LWARNER . 1m \ 0�. b - n \ ' q 212 ,:,LlS GARFIELD 2.9 2.3 .YORKTOWN \4, \� ADAMS 7/1 1 �Y LUE 87-1A AREAS OF CONCERN huntington beach planning division Published Orange coast Daily Pilot March 6, 1987 F-517 Authoni'ed to Publish Advertisements of all kinds Including public ! notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September. 1961, and A-24831, dated 11 June, 1963. STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4 County of Orange Puoiic Nouce Acvenuing covered - :i`•'.by INS affidavit IS Sol in 7 point-•. > c .r _,. - - wom io pica column width - i,1• r. t •:s ' I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid-, I•am over the age of eighteen' years, and°not a party to or interested in the below ?' _ entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a-newspaper.of general circulation,, printed and published in the City of Costa•Mesa, ;tr f County of Orange, State of.California, and that .a Notice of Public Hearing of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper for one time $t�msl�lsudiw�xvr�fslss to wit the issue(s) of March 6 198 .7 198 198 I 198 198 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 6 , 198 7. {. at Costa Mesa, California. f _K1 Signature r F. PROOF OF PUBLICATION 3 o . WITHDRAWN � 2,8 �.2 .i 2:�7 cbN1I1INUED TO LUE 87-1B'' 1 \\ 206 CONTINUED TO LUE 87-1B ;WITHDRAWN . 2.5 .f.. \ 2.2 fu15 == 2.3 . r \ 4 ` ;-WITHDRAWN. :J 2.4 Figure l-1 LUE 37-1A J AREAS OF CONCERN . .Huntington beach planning ,division 2 , - i n REQUESO I=OR CITY COUNCIPACTION Date n cpuNGiL City Honorable Mayor and Submitted to: y y Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat ?I---~ Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Vic Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT NO. 87-1A/ENVIRONMENTAL IMP C REPORT NO. 87-IA/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-56/NEGA VE DECLARATION NO. 86-60 Consistent with Council Policy? -}.Yes ( ] New Policy or Exception if,5 � (rJ Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE : Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1A, Environmental Impact Report No., 8771A, Negative Declaration No. 86-56 and Negative Declaration No. 86-60 . The amendment addresses a number of, proposed changes to the Land Use Element as requested by private property owners and the City of Huntington Beach . The requests are being forwarded to the City Council along with the Planning Commission ' s recommendations as part of Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1A. The Planning Commission and staff recommendations are the same on all of the items . RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission Action on February 10, 1987 : For the Planning Commission votes on each Area of Concern, see Attachment. 6 (Planning Commission minutes dated February 10, 1987) . ON MOTION BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY SILVA, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-1A, WAS APPROVED, AS AMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES : Leipzig, .Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-56 (AREA 2 . 8) WAS APPROVED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None V� Plo 5/85 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-60 (AREA 2 . 9) WAS APPROVED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell , Silva NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY PIERCE, LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-1A WAS APPROVED BY APPROVING RESOLUTION 1386, AS AMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, .Summerell, Silva NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Recommendation : 1. Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 87-1A 2. Approve Negative Declaration No. 86-56 3. Approve Negative Declaration No. 86-60 4 . Approve Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1A with the .recommendations indicated in Attachment 1, Summary of Requests Staff Recommendation: Same as above. ANALYSIS: Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1 initially contained nine land use amendment items. Additionally, two concurrent zone changes were processed with the amendment . Prior to the Planning Commission 's February 10, 1987 public hearing, however, Areas 2 . 1 and 2 . 5 were withdrawn by the applicants . zone Change No. 86-25, being processed concurrently with Area 2 . 1, was also withdrawn. At the Planning Commission ' s February 10, 1587 meeting, they denied Area 2 . 2 and the concurrent zone change request which was processed with that item. Area 2. 2 has been continued on to the City Council with the rest of the document, but the zone change was. not appealed, and is, therefore, no' longer being processed. RCA - 3/16/87 -2- (7510d ) i Areas 2. 6 and 2 . 7 were removed from Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1 by the Planning Commission on February 10, 1987, and were rescheduled for public hearing on March •31, 1987. Staff has, therefore, assigned those items to Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1B/Environmental Impact Report No. 87-1B. The remaining items of Land Use Element No. 87-1/Environmental Impact Report No. 87-1 have been assigned the number 87-1A. Lastly, on March 4, 1987, the Redevelopment Staff withdrew Area 2 . 4 from Land Use Element No. 87-1A. That item will no longer be considered as part of the amendment . Attachment 4 to this report is the Agency 's letter of withdrawal . The remaining four items (Areas 2 . 2, 2. 3, 2 . 8 and 2 . 9 ) are indicated in Attachment 1, Summary of Requests, with the appropriate staff and Planning Commission recommendations . These items are processed as Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1A. Areas 2 . 2 and 2. 3 are processed with Environmental Impact Report No. 87-1A, while Areas 2 . 8 and 2. 9 are processed with Negative Declaration 86-56 and 86-60, respectively. At their February 18, 1986 meeting, it must be noted that the Planning Commission reconsidered their previous action .on Areas 2 . 3 and 2. 4 due to Commissioner Silva ' s determination that he was ineligible to vote on these items due to campaign contributions he received from the property owner. As indicated in Attachment 5, the Planning Commission voted both for approval and denial of Area 2 . 3, and both motions resulted in 3-3 ties . As such, their February 10, 1987 denial of the item stands . They also revoted to deny Area 2 . 4 and to approve the Land Use Element and Environmental Impact Report as amended . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Environmental documentation for Areas 2 . 2 and 2. 3 of Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1A may be found in the amendment report which also serves as Environmental Impact Report No. 87-1A. Environmental Impact Report No. 87-1 was posted for a 45-day review period which ended on January 20, 1987 . Public comments and staff responses constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report and are incorporated in the appendix of the report . Negative Declarations No. 86-56 and 86-60 were posted for 10-day review periods and no comments were received. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The City Council may adopt the Land Use Element Amendment as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, or they may modify j it as desired. i RCA - 3/16/87 -3- ( 7510d) . I ATTACHMENTS • 1 . Summary of Requests 2 . Area Map 3 . Resolution 4. Letter from Charles W. Thompson dated March 4, 1987. (Withdrawal of Area 2 . 4) 5.. Planning Commission minutes dated February 18, 1987 6. Planning Commission minutes dated February 10, 1987 7. Pl.anning Commission staff report dated February 10, 1987 8 . Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1A/Environmental Impact Report No. 87-1A JWP:HS :kla RCA - 3/16/87 -4- ( 7510d) SUMMARY OF REQUESTS ATTACHMENT 1 REQUEST ENVIRON- PLANNING ITEM/AREA MENTAL STAFF COMMISSION OF CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE APPLICANT REQUEST INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION z/X IXIJ97 R(Pf93 K�X �/�xXX/KX/ K� KX�X KKf�X/K� /¢X�X /xoxx/0x�x90 BK�zz Withdrawn 2.2 South side of 1.89 Jenson Chen General EIR 87-1A Retain existing Same as Ellis Avenue, Commercial General Commercial Staff 400 feet east to Medium designation A)iO of Beach Blvd. High Density Zone Change Residential KK�z7 denied and note /� / �l � appealed Y 2.3 North of Utica 12.60 Huntington Medium Density EIR 87-1A Retain Medium Same as Avenue, between Beach Resid^ntial Density Residential Staff 17th. Street Planning to Low Density designation and Lake Street Commission Residen`ial Withdrawn KK�X�XXX� Withdrawn SUMMARY OF REQUESTS (Continued) REQUEST ENVIRON- PLANNING ITEM/AREA MENTAL STAFF COMMISSION OF CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE APPLICANT REQUEST INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION 2.6 South side of 4.50 Huntington Medium Density EIR 87-1B Continued Warner Ave., Beach Residential to 3/31/87 200 feet east Redevelopment to General as LUE 87-1B of Beach Blvd. Staff Commercial (between A & B Streets) 2.7 North side of 20.50 Huntington Low Densitv EIR 87-1B Continued Warner Ave., Beach Residential to 3/31/87 500 feet east Redevelopment to General as LUE 87-1B of Beach Blvd. Staff Commercial 2.8 North side of 8.31 Huntington Medium Density ND 86-56 Medium Density Same as Warner Ave., Beach Residential to Residential to Staff between Development Medium High Medium High Density Algonquin and Services Density Residential Sims Streets Residential 2.9 North side of 2.24 Lanny Ludwick Low and Medium ND 86-60 Low and Medium Same as Garfield Ave. , Density Resi- Density Residential Staff 570 feet east dential to. to Medium High of Beach Blvd. Medium High Density Residential Density Resi- dential (7318d) City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 i OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR - March 4, 1987 1A s Mr. James W. Palin City Council IV • QCity of 8 City Mai Huntington n treet Beach $doh 19, Huntington Beach, California 92648 �`�� ' SUBJECT: WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR GPA'87-1 AREA 2.4 Dear Mr. Palin: As you know, upon Agency request staff has been cooperating with the staff of the Department of r Development Services to process the pending General Plan Amendment No. 87-1. Several of the requests for a change in the land use designation were forwarded by Redevelopment Agency staff.- Among these was Area 2.4 at the southwest' corner of Beach and Memphis. Through staff review of the recommendations on this General Plan Amendment it has been determined that the Redevelopment Agency will not pursue the request for a change in the land use designation on this site at this time. As mentioned to you in my previous letter endorsing staff recommendations, this area should be considered withdrawn. I understand that this will assist the City Council in expediting the public hearing process on these general plan amendments. Of course, if you should have any questions, we will be happy to respond. Very trul urs, 109 ���� -- r es�W.Tho t City Administrator Executive Director CWT/SVK:sar Telephone (714) 536-5202 ATTACHMENT 5 On February 18 , 1987 the Planning Commission voted to reconsider their February 10, 1987 action on Areas 2 . 3 and 2. 4 due to Commissioner' Silva' s determination that he was ineligible to vote on those items due to a conflict of interest. The following -- -a-re- the motions -and votes which ensued: - Planning Commission Action on February 18, 1987 ON MOTION BY PIERCE, SECOND BY HIGGINS, ACTION TO RECONSIDER THEIR FEBRUARY 10, 1987 VOTE ON AREAS 2 .3 AND 2 .4 OF LAND USE ELEMENT N0. 87-1/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-1 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell , Silva NOES : None t � f i ' A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION IN AREA 2 .3 . THE MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : 1 AYES : Schumacher, Livengood, Leipzig NOES : Pierce, Summerell, Higgins ABSTAIN: Silva A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY HIGGINS TO RETAIN MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION IN AREA 2 . 3 . THE MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : { AYES : Pierce, Higgins, Summerell NOES : Schumacher, Leipzig, Livengood ABSTAIN: Silva A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO RETAIN MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN AREA 2 . 4. THE MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell NOES : None ABSTAIN: Silva A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-1/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-1 . THE MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell NOES : None ABSTAIN: Silva ATTACHMENT 6 Planning Commission Minutes dated February 10 , - 1987 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-1/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87--1 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-23/ZONE CHANGE NO. A 86-60 Land Use Element Amendment No.. 87-1 is a request to change the General Plan designations on nine sites. Each area was addressed separately, the public hearing opened, the staff recommendation noted and a straw vote taken after each area . Two' of the amendment items (Areas 2 .1 and 2 .5 ) have been withdrawn by the applicants . Concurrent Zone Change No . 86-23, which was being processed with Area 2 . 1 , has also been withdrawn . As indicated in the Summary of Requests, staff is recommending denial of Areas 2 .2 , 2 .3 and 2 .4 as' well as Zone Change No. 86-27 . Staff is recommending approval of Areas 2 . 6, 2 . 7, 2 . 8 and 2. 9. , AREAS 2 .1 AND 2 .5 (WITH ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-27 ) AREA 2 . 1 REQUEST: Change General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential and C2 to R3 LOCATION: West side of Bolsa Chica Street, . 400 feet . north of Warner Avenue. AREA 2 . 5 REQUEST: Low Density Residential to General Commercial LOCATION: South side of Talbert Avenue, 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO WITHDRAW AREAS 2 . 1 AND 2 . 5 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-23, BY THE' FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell , Silva NOES : None STRAW VOTE MOTION PASSED AREA 2 .2 REQUEST : General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential and C4 to R3 LOCATION: South side of Ellis •Avenue, 400 feet east of Beach Boulevard STAFF RECOMMENDATION: RETAIN EXISTING GENERAL COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION AND DENY ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-27 PC Minutes - 2/10/871, -2- (7428d ) MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH- PLANNING COMMISSION February 10, 1.987 - 7 :00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 'Main Street .. Huntington Beach, California f PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P\, P P P ROLL CALL : Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, P P Summerell , Silva A. CONSENT CALENDAR: None B. . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS_ Commissioner Silva referred staff. to a letter received from John Marsh on February 5, 1987, regarding a~zone change request, and requested an update on the status of the entitlement . . i THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Judith Hassoldt, 17011 Beach Boulevard #800, spoke in support of- the zone change . She stated that the access easement involves 25 percent of her property and creates a hardship . Jenson Chen, 8722 Cliffside Drive, applicant , spoke in support of the zone change. He stated that the change, would be compatible with the surrounding area . ' - Judy Chen, 8722 Cliffside Drive, spoke in support of the zone change . Bill Hassolt, 17011 Beach Boulevard, spoke in support of the zone change. There -were no other persons present to speak for or against Area 2 .2 a-nd the public hearing was closed . A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER , TO RETAIN THE EXISTING GENERAL COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION AND DENY ZONE CHANGE NO . 86-27, ERASED ON FINDINGS , .BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher , Livengood, Higgins, Summerell , Silva NOES : Pierce STRAW- VOTE MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-27 (AREA 2 .2 ) : 1 . Residential development of the subject property may result, in undesirable mixing of residential and commercial vehicular traffic . 2'. Residential development of the subject property may hinder future recycling of the adjacent commercial property into a cohesive project . 3 . The requested R3 'zoning would be inconsistent with staff ' s recommended land use designation of General Commercial on the property. AREA 2 .3 REQUEST : Medium Density Residential to 'Low Density Residential LOCATION: North of .Utica Avenue, between 17th . Street and Lake Street STAFF RECOMMENDATION: RETAIN MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS 0PFNED Faye Ogden, 1832 Main Street , spoke in -support of changing the designation to low density . She is concerned about the increased traffic. PC Minutes - 2/10/87 • -3- (7428d ) George' Abbonn, 1848 Park Street , spoke in opposition to retaining the medium density designation . He stated that there is already too much traffic in the area and he objects to the City giving $2 million property away to the Huntington Beach Company. Tom Harman , Huntington Beach Tomorrow, 2i30 Main Street , spoke in support of the low density designation . He stated that the student-generated traffic in the area is presently too heavy and that to maintain the safety of the students and residents, - the area should not be allowed to develop any further . He also stated that there is presently a severe infrastructure problem. ' He also expressed concern over the notification process of the City to surrounding residents . Dean Albright , Environmental Board, spoke in support of changing the designation to low density . He feels there should be an open space buffer between the existing residential area and City Hall . Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Company, spoke in support of retaining the Medium Densit Residential designation . He stated that he was not aware of any 2 million , gift, from the City and ,that the Huntington Beach Company has not proposed any developments on the site and would not until the traffic and circulation problems were addressed. He * feels that any development proposed would have to provide adequate parking on site . His preference would be to see the area developed as Medium Density with Pine Street .closed to through traffic. Bob Bolen, 1818 Pine Street , spoke in opposition to' reta'ining Medium Density Residential because of traffic, problems . ' Verle� Cowling, 1828 Park Street, spoke in support of changing the designation to Low Density. He also stated that he was not notified of the public hearing and was concerned with the City' s. process of notification . Dick Dusterhoff, 1817 Park Street, also stated that he had not been notified and was very concerned with the City' s notification' process. . He also stated that he supported a Low Density designation . There were no other persons present to speak for or against Area 2 . 3 and the public hearing was closed. -, Commissioner Silva asked staff about the acclaimed $2 million gift to the Huntington Beach Company. Staff responded that a ' $2 million gift was erroneous information . The City has never set a value on the land at $2 million . There was a proposed exchange of property (on a foot by foot basis ) with the Huntington Beach Company and that this area has been Medium Density Residential for many years . There was concern expressed by some of the Commissioners regarding sewers, drainage and infrastructures . PC Minutes - 2/10/87 -4- ( 7428d ) Commissioners Leipzig, Schumacher and Livengood stated preference for a Low Density Residential designation . They felt that there have been extensive study sessions and public hearings .since 1982 on the area with both the Planning Commission and City Council voting to set R1 zoning . The environmental impact report completed on the area stated that a Medium Density Residential development would be more than could be handled with the existing storm drainage system. It also recommended the use of Pine Street as an access for a Medium Density development . This would create traffic . impacts on Pine Street south of Utica Avenue . They do not feel that Medium Density Residential would be compatible with the adjacent unique R1 neighborhood and that increased density in an already impacted area (Civic Center, Police Station, Huntington Beach High School. , Low Density Residential ) would not be desireable . A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION FOR AREA 2 . 3 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Leipzig,_ Schumacher, Livengood NOES : Pierce, Higgins, Silva, Summerell STRAW VOTE MOTION FAILED A STRAW- VOTE MOTI.ON , WAS MADE BY SILVA, SECOND BY HIGGINS TO RETAIN MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION IN AREA 2 . 3, BY THE -FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Pierce, Higgins, Summerell , Silva NOES : Leipzig, Schumacher , Livengood STRAW VOTE MOTION - PASSED Commissioner Livengood requested that a minority report be prepared . AREA 2 .4 REQUEST : Medium Density Residential to General Commercial LOCATION: West side of Beach. Boulevard between Memphis and Knoxville Avenues STAFF RECOMMENDATION: RETAIN MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Larry McCamish, Chevron U.S.A . Inc . , spoke in opposition to the request . He stated that he would like to see the request denied or withdrawn . Clancy LaNier, 721 Ashland Drive, spoke in opposition to the request . She feels that a commercial development would de-value the existing residential property. PC Minutes - 2/10/87 -5- (7428d ) a a Annette Robertson, 1409 Arrow Lane, spoke against the request . She feels that a commercial development would create an adverse traffic impact on Beach Boulevard and that it -vould ,not be compatible with 'the Super 'Street plans because there is not sufficient signa.rization . She further stated that a• commercial development would have an adverse impact on infrastructures , would create financial problems and .vandalism and urged the Commission to deny the request . Dean Albright , Environmental Board , spoke in opposition to -the request .- Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Company, spoke in opposition to the request . There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA , TO DENY THE REQUEST AND RETAIN A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION IN AREA 2 .4 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher , Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell , Silva . NOES : None .STRAW -VOTE MOTION PASSED r l y AREA 2 . 6 REQUEST: Medium Density Residential to General Commercial LOCATION: South side of Warner Avenue, 200 feet east of Beach Boulevard STAFF RECOMMENDATION: CHANGE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dean Albright , Environmental Board,, addressed his concerns regarding traffic and noise. Richard Packer, 18196 Goldenwest Street , stated that 'he was not notified and was very concerned with the City ' s notification process . He stated that he was concerned with what would happen to his property value if commercial development existed. There were no other persons- to speak for or against-the request and the public hearing was closed. It was felt by the Commission that further study was needed in this" area, especially on t}ie three corners of the area. PC Minutes - 2/10/87 -6- (7428d ) R A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST FOR AREA 2. 6 TO THE MARCH 31 , 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins , Summerell , Silva NOES : None STRAW VOTE MOTION PASSED AREA 2 . 7 REQUEST: Low Density Residential to General Commercial LOCATION: North side of Warner Avenue, 500 feet east of Beach Boulevard STAFF RECOMMENDATION: CHANGE LOW DENSITY RERSIDENTIAL TO MIXED DEVELOPMENT THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Debbi Leinweber, Board President of Oceanview School District , spoke in support of a Mixed Development designation . She stated that the district needs to balance their budget and that the value of their property would be higher with a mixed use designation . Dale Coogan, Superintendent of Oceanview School District , spoke in support of a. Mixed Development designation . He stated that revenue could be developed for the district by designating their property as mixed used and. that revenue needs to be developed to benefit current students . Dean Albright , Environmental Board, addressed his concerns with a Mixed Use designation . He feels that the traffic generated from a major project in this area would be a hazardous situation. Carolyn Hunt, 6651 Crista Palma Drive, spoke in support of a mixed use development designation. She feels that the school district needs additional revenue. . Janet Garrick, 6942 -Los Amigos , Trustee, Oceanview School District , spoke in support of a mixed use development designation . She feels that it would afford the school district with options concerning their property and could develop some revenue for the district . Bill Brockman, resident , expressed his concerns over the notification process of the City . He feels that the traffic problems that exist today in this area need to be addressed . Bud Murphy, resident, expressed his concerns over the traffic in the area . He stated that he is opposed to a change in the designation . He feels the residential areas are being walled in. PC Minutes - 2/10/87 -77 ( 7428d ) Pat Anderson , 8131 Bryant Drive, stated that re-zoning should not be considered until all of the traffic problems in the City are addressed and mitigated : Carol Ross, 8361 Terry Drive, spoke in opposition to the change in designation . ' She stated that traffic - is such a problem in the area that emergency vehicles cannot enter her residential tract in- a timely manner . Joe Marsico, 8261 Terry Drive , spoke in opposition to the change in designation . Donna Griffith, 8212 Lambert Drive, spoke in opposition to the change in designation . Neil Williams, 8232 Lambert Drive, spoke in opposition to the change in designation . He stated that he feels there should be a traffic light at Terry and' Beach Boulevard . Charles Osterlund, Oceanview School District , stated that there is a traffic problem. However , the school 'district needs a zone change to further study future uses of their property. School sites need to .be closed as- soon as possible . 'He urged the . Commission to approve the request to' change the 'land use designation. Caressa Wagoner, 16771 St . Cloud Circle, spoke in opposition to the change in land use designation . She stated that a zone change that would increase the traffic in the area would be a major problem for the City. There were no other persons present -to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed . r The Commissioners expressed several' concerns with the request to change the land use designation to Mixed Development . Since discussions regarding the future use of the school property included a major discount retail store, traffic problems and circulation problems were the major concerns . ' Concern was expressed over the response . time • to the area by the Fire Department . The Commission requested that further study and evaluation of the area be conducted . It was suggested that an evaluation be made , regarding.. , traffic signals and stop signs in the area. It was also suggested , that the area be. evaluated for a future mobile home park site . a A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE- BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST FOR AREA 2 . 7 TO THE MARCH 31 , 1987 -PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : -.,Leipzig, Schumacher, Li'vengood, Pierce, Higgins , Summerell , Silva NOES : None . STRAW VOTE MOTION PASSED ' ~ 4 PC Minutes - 2/10/87 8- ( 7428d) AREA 2 . 8 REQUEST: Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential' LOCATION: North side of Warner, between Algonquin and Sims Streets STAFF RECOMMENDATON: CHANGE -MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Annabelle- Cristich, 4581 Warner Avenue, spoke in support of the change to Medium High Density Residential . Richard Harlow, 8076 Adams Avenue, spoke . in support of the change to Medium High Density Residential . Jack Leverenz, 17071 Malta Circle, stated that he supports the land use designation change however he feels a wall or sound barrier should be constructed along Warner Avenue to decrease the noise to the surrounding residential properties. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY -HIGGINS, TO APPROVE THE CHANGE TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN AREA 2 . 8, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Leipzig,! Schumacher, Livengood , Pierce, Higgins, Summerell , Silva NOES : None STRAW VOTE MOTION PASSED . AREA 2 . 9 REQUEST: Low and Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential LOCATION:- North side of Garfield Avenue, 570 feet east of Reach Boulevard STAFF RECOMMENDATION: CHANGE LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Lanny Ludwick, applicant, spoke in support of the change of land use designation . He feels that the land use designation should ' conform to the zoning. He further stated that the zoning has been R3 since 1964 . He also pointed out to the Commission that Mora Kai Lane (questioned earlier by one of the Commissioners) was a 40 foot road and that there were not any present access problems on the road. PC Minutes - 2/10/87 -9- (7428d ) There were no other persons present to speak for or against the' request and the public hearing was closed . A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO 'APPROVE THE CHANGE TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN AREA 2 . 9, .BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell , Silva NOES : None STRAW VOTE MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-1 , AS AMENDED, BY THE -FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Leipzig,' Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins,• Summerell , Silva NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None* MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE- BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-56 (AREA 2 . 8 ) , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell , Silva NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN : None t MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO . 86=60 (AREA ,2 . 9 ) , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell, Silva, ' NOES : = None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 2/10/87 -10- ' (7428d ) A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS , SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1386, AS AMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins, Summerell , Silva NOES : None ABSENT.: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Commission reviewed and approved the 'Finding for Approval regarding Affordable Housing on Conditional Use Permit No. 86-65 with Special Permits/Tentative Tract Map -No. 12936/Coastal Development Permit No . 86-39 . E . DISCUSSION ITEMS None F. PENDING ITEMS Commissioner Livengood requested that the width of Mora Kai Lane ( located in Area 2 . 9 of Land Use Amendment No. 87-1 ) be measured to determine if there is proper access from garages located on the street. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The Commission requested that 'staff have the Planning Commission Agenda printed in the local paper the Friday- or Saturday before the scheduled meeting, if possible . On any future entitlements generated by the City, staff was instructed to obtain Ownership Lists prepared and certified by , - a Title Insurance Company for the notification process . H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS The Commission was notified of a City Council Bolsa Chica Study Session to be held in Room B-8 at 5 : 30 on Thursday, February 12 , 1987 . PC Minutes - 2/10/87 -11 ( 7428d ) I . ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, AT 11 :05 PM, - TO ADJOURN THE MEETING TO WEDNESDA,Y, FEBRUARY 18, 1987, AT' 4 :00 PM -FOR THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST/SPECIFIC PLAN AREA VAN TOUR AND STUDY SESSION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-63 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 11769 ON DAHL 'S 30-LOT SUBDIVISION ON ELLIS AVENUE AND THE PROPOSED LAKE STREET CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AND THEN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISISON MEETING AT 7 : 00 PM, BY H,E FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Leipzig , Schumacher, Livengood , Pierce , Summerell , Silva NOES : None ABSENT: Higgins/(Out. of. Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED: James/ W. Paliri, Secretary Kent M. Pierce, Chairman kl PC Minutes - 2/10/87 -12- ( 7428d ) ff huntington beach development services department A � REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services ' DATE: February 10, 1987 SUBJECT: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-1/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT -REPORT 87-1/ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-27/NEGATIVE "DECLARATION 86-56/NEGATIVE DECLARATION. 86-60' 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Environmental1 " Impact Report 87-1, Negative Declaration 86-56 and Negative Declaration 86-60 and 'take action on General Plan Amendment 87-1 items as indicated in Attachment 1 and adopt Resolution 1368. . Staff. further recommends denial of Zone Change No. 86-27 with the findings ' contained in Section 3 . O. of this report.. 2 . 0 BACKGROUND: ' The attached Summary of Requests indicates all of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change requests . Two of the amendment items (Areas 2 . 1 and 2 . 5) have been withdrawn by the applicants ., Concurrent Zone Change No . 86-23, which was being processed with Area 2 . 1, has also been withdrawn. As indicated in the Summary of Requests, staff is recommending denial of Areas .2 .2, '2_3 and 2 .4 as ' well-' as Zone Change No. 86-23 . Staff is recommending approval of Areas 2 . 6, 2 . 7, 2 . 8 and 2 . 9 . Attached to this staff report are the most recent comments which , have. been received regarding the General Plan Amendment items. For , previously received comments and the staff responses,- please see Appendix E in the Land Use Element Amendment document. Also, please review Appendices F, G and H in the document . These appendices contain addendums to Areas 2 . 5 (withdrawn)' and 2 . 7 in the document, . as well as maps depicting the proposed, boundaries of a Specific Plan for the Warner/Beach area and the ''boundaries of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Corridor Project . 3 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Environmental Impact Report. 87-1 and Negative Declaration . 86-56 and 86-60 and approve the staff recommendation for LUE. 87-1 'as contained in Attachment 1 by adopting Resolution .1368.. Deny Zone Change 86-27 with the following findings : ter" A-FM-23A - FINDINGS FOR DENIAL . - ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-27 (AREA 2 .2) : 1. Residential development of the subject property may result in undesirable .mixing of residential and commercial vehicular traffic. t 2 . —Residential development of the subject property may hinder E future 'recycling of the adjacent commercial property into a cohesive project. l 3 . The requested R3 ,zoning would be inconsistent with staff ' s recommended land use designation of General Commercial on the j property. ATTACHMENTS i 1 . Summary .of Requests 2 . Area map 3 . Resolution 1386 a 4 . 'Zone Change Ordinance (86-27) 5 . Letter from John' March- dated .February 5,: 1987 (Withdrawal of . i Area 2 . 1 - Bolsa Chica and Warner) 6 . Letter from Charles W. Thompson dated February 5, 1987 (Withdrawal of Area. 2 . 5 Crestview School) i 7. Letter from Ocean 'View School District dated January 28, . 1987 8 . Ocean View School District Resolution dated February 3, 1987 9 . Letter from Southern California Edison Company dated January 27, 1987 10 . Letter from Kenneth Pearson dated January 29 , 1987 + 11 . Land Use Element' Amendment No. 87-1/EIR 87-1 JWP:HS: k'la i I 1; Staff Report - 2/10/87. -2- (7316d) SUMMARY OF REQUESTS ATTACHMENT 1 REQUEST ENVIRON- ITEM/AREA MENTAL STAFF OF CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE APPLICANT REQUEST INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION ZLX WdXE191dd/df /X.IBZ JOHAIMAteM 0999tdX EXR/Ba/X RdEa3X�i/dEXMEf�ir Arid BdXgd/QMX@24/SEL zdRWdfdXAX gd�Idfz4X/Qdm�SdfdXdX zdgd/eHAAgd �80/fE,l/�IdfEM Ed/�Iddfric� ddgX�J�IdEXd�I/24�Id N611HEIZZ 6f1WAt idf 0j6AY/Z6Ad10XAA4g AVdMdd R9M1d0AtXAX BS/zz Withdrawn AAd/eZ/Ed/Rz 2 . 2 South side of 1.89 Jenson Chen General EIR 87-1 Retain existing and Ellis Avenue, Commercial General Commercial Zone Change 400 feet east to Medium designation and No. 86-27 of Beach Blvd. High Density Deny Zone Change Residential 86-27 and C4 to R3 2 . 3 North of Utica 12 . 60 Huntington Medium Density EIR 87-1 Retain Medium Avenue, between Beach Residential Density Residential 17th. Street Planning to Low Density designation and Lake Street Commission Residential 2 .4 West side of 10 .30 Huntington Medium Density EIR 87-1 Retain Medium Beach Blvd. Beach Residential Density Residential between Redevelopment to General designation Memphis and Staff Commercial Knoxville Avenues ZLB 9d9tX/M1d9/6f X9100 YigAEXAgk6g Ldtb/H Axity EXR/Ba/X RdE24X�i/zd�/PSd�IgXE T24XBdfE/Xz6d l,� Bdz4dM RdEXdd�IEXdX/Ed 6A/EM9/9M9E0tA1X010 z001f0dt19A9t R9d909X6gR19IE 00A9tAX MdfdML/RdddMX¢J�IdEd Withdrawn df/B9AeM/9X0d1 SEMff 06MM16tdXdX ffdaci/mzbluxxXEy/Ed gd�idfz4X/QdalttSdf/ ezAX/dui/kMd 0d9EdfA13z0 Mdt,69z SUMMARY OF REQUESTS (Continued) REQUEST ENVIRON- ITEM/AREA MENTAL STAFF OF CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE APPLICANT REQUEST INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION 2 . 6 South side of 4 . 50 Huntington Medium Density EIR 87-1 Medium Density Warner Ave. , Beach Residential Residential to 200 feet east Redevelopment to General General Commercial of Beach Blvd. Staff Commercial (between A & B Streets) 2 . 7 North side of 20 .50 Huntington Low Density EIR 87-1 Low Density Warner Ave. , Beach Residential Residential to 500 feet east Redevelopment to General Mixed Development of Beach Blvd. Staff Commercial 2 . 8 North side of 8.31 Huntington Medium Density ND 86-56 Medium Density Warner Ave. , Beach Residential to Residential to between Development Medium High Medium High Density Algonquin and Services Density Residential Sims Streets Residential 2 . 9 North side of 2.24 Lanny Ludwick Low and Medium ND 86-60 Low and Medium Garfield Ave. , Density Resi- Density Residential 570 feet east dential to to Medium High of Beach Blvd. Medium High Density Residential Density Resi- dential (7318d) :. r \ . , - WITHDRAWN' 2.7 \ 2.8 2.1 2.6 WITHDRAWN `\ 2.5 2.9, 2 3 a. 2. 4 _ Figure `1 1 z `! LUE `a7 1 AREAS OF CONCERN � � w huntington beach Planning division 1.x `� J ,:,�'! k ,°�t a. a .r} a y.'r iyx y' �£y'#'vY'^'(.•. .RESOLUTION NO. 1368 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-1 WHEREAS; the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, desires to update and refine the General. Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and WHEREAS, amendments, to the Land Use Element are necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the, following amendment to the Land Use Element : . 1. That' Area 2 . 6 consisting of 4 . 5 acres located on the south side of Warner Avenue, between A and B Streets be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial and that a specific plan be prepared for the property. 2. That Area 2 . 7 consisting of 20. 5 acres located on the north side of Warner Avenue, .east of B Street-'be redesignated from Low Density Residential to Mixed Development and that a specific plan be prepared for . the property. 3 . That Area 2 . 8 consisting of 8 .3 acres located on the north side of Warner Avenue, between Algonquin and Sims Streets be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential . 4 . That Area 2 . 9 'consisting of 2 .2 acres located on the north side of .Garfield Avenue, west of Mora Kai Lane be redesignated from Low Density Residential. and Medium Density Residential to' Medium High Density Residential . WHEREAS', a public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment to the General Plan No. 87-1 was held by the City Planning Commission on January 21, 1987, in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, hereby approved said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council. of the City of Huntington Beach, California . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington �Beach,California, on the 21st. day of January, 1987, by. the following roll call vote: ti AYES: NOES ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: James 'W. Palin, Secretary Planning Commission Chairman (6970d) RECEIVED . February 5, 1987 y IT FEES 5 P1411 34 21 R'j"-r ^ r Mr . Jim Palin, Planning. Director City of Huntington Beach SERVICES 2`000 Main . Street Huntington Beach,' California Dear Mr , Palin: After much deliberation my wife ,and I have decided- to. rescind our application for a General Plan Amende-mnt and- Zone Change on our property at 16871 Bolsa . Chica , Huntington Beach. There are many personal considerations for our decision, much of which was influenced by such-.-.recent exorbitant f.ees as the new school . fees , plus the continued delays: for us ,to get to public hearing since our filing- on July 23 , 1986 . Please refund my fees for GPA , ZC,, and Use Permit at this time . - Sincerely , ohn F. March 17211 Sandra Lee r Huntington Beach, California City of Huriting ton Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALI FORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR February 5, 1987. HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FEB O ' 11a87 Mr. Kent Pierce P.U. box JU Planning Commission Huntington Beach., CA 92648 City of. Huntington Beach' 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: WITHDRAWAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST. AREA 2.5 CREST VIEW SCHOOL Dear Mr. Pierce: As you know, as part "of the General Plan Amendment for Land Use 87-1 now under review, the Redevelopment Agency has requested consideration of a change in the underlying land use designation for the Crest View School. Specifically, the Agency's original request was to re-designate the entire site as commercial. As you also know, however, subsequent to staff review and discussion this request was changed and reduced to request for a change to commercial use on only the westerly five (5) acres of the site. Recently it has come to our attention that even this reduced request has met with considerable opposition from the surrounding residents.. While we still 'firmly believe that .for long range planning purposes the westerly portion of this site should be considered for commercial uses, we are withdrawing the Agency's request included in the General Plan Amendment 87-1. As always, we appreciate the cooperation and assistance of the Planning Commission in the review of the pending general plan amendments. Staff will be present at the Commission's February 10, 1987 public hearing on this matter to answer any questions of the Commission. Very trul rs, 77 es W. Thompson City Administrator CWT/SVK:sar -5202 Telephone (714) 536 i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-1A, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 87-1A, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8&56 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-60 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Counc.il of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center , Huntington Beach , California, at the hour of 7 : 00 PM, or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday, the 16th . day of March, 1987, .for the purpose of considering Land Use Element_ Amendment 87-1A, Environmental Impact Report 87-iA, Negative Declaration 86-56, and Negative Declaration 86-60 . Land Use Eleme`n,t 87-1A is an amendment to the General Plan which covers the following items : Area 2 . 2 - a request by Jenson Chen to redesignate 1 . 89 acres of property located on the south side of Ellis Avenue, 400 feet east of Beach Boulevard, from General Commercial to. Medium High Density Residential . Area 2. 3 - a request by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission to redesignate 17 . 90 acres bounded by Utica Avenue, Seventeenth Street and Lake Street from Medium Density Residential to Low Density . Residential . Area 2 . 8 - a request by the Department of Development Services to redesignate 8. 31 acres located north of Warner Avenue between Algonquin Street and Sims Street from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential in order to achieve consistency between the General Plan and zoning. This item is covered by Negative Declaration No. 86-56 . Area 2 . 9 - a request by Lanny Ludwick to redesignate 2 . 24 acres located on the north side of Garfield Avenue, 570 feet east of Beach Boulevard from Medium Density and Low Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential in order to achieve consistency between the General Plan and zoning . This item is covered by Negative Declaration No. 86-60. A legal description and copy of the above described documents are on file in the Department of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the applications as outlined above. If there are any further questions, please call Hal Simmons, Associate Planner , at 536-5271. Alicia Wentworth City Clerk ( 7506d-6 ) r ti A � . x • m fl H ,\ Z 2. 8 WARNER 2 ' 2 ' ELLIS rj +'` Q GARFIELD 2 . 9 2 . 3 YORKTOWN ADAMS. I N. LUE 11-1A AREAS 11 CONCERN huntington beach planning division CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-527� March 5, .1987 Dear Property Owner : The City of Huntington Beach is considering an amendment to the Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan for Area 2 .2 outlined on the attached map. The proposed General Plan amendment is a request by Jenson Chen to redesignate 1 . 89 acres located on the south side of Ellis Avenue, 400 feet east of Beach Boulevard, from General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential . The request is being processed with Environmental Impact Report 87-1A. A public hearing on Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1A/ Environmental Impact Report No. 87-1A/ will be held before the City Council on March 16, 1987. at which time you may address the Council and state your position concerning the amendment, Environmental Impact Report and zone change . The hearing will take place in the Civic Center Council Chambers at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California at 7 :00 p.m. Please contact Hal Simmons of my staff' at (714) 536-5271 if you have any questions regarding the proposal . A copy of the proposed Land Use Element Amendment, Environmental Impact Report and zone change are on file in the Department of Development Services for. inspection by the public . incerely, James W. Palin Director, Development Services JWP:HS :tl ( 7509d-4 ) } r I( p f ll1_f.�_ L _=1, -- '- - ., f.6 1_i. I i 1 I r ti (('�I�'� .,.� •'.i - - ' TER I E .AVENUE t- - �\'12C•Ti.iiF KIN I.' AVENUE KIN R AV '..�'ac�_� "✓':� 11 TTTn I, I N J TAYLOR DR. LE CONTE �DR.' I s7117-7-1 DR r pg DANCY CR j MU IU I FORELLE - LN,��D,_.fir;; — LA wa wA AVE AVE.. L Lff— I TIM 'W VVP I uT GRAT`►D s c> � i • " pin, ?IJ�Mil W09DOP. ElMN000 lN) j / :Y,F:;:L•:.�i. "-N0�"-'"?4° ,F MGDALE DR. I , Tlllgpp SPRING CI t pAC;FI ,: g CONSTANTINC - OR. V—�- 4J1r'i�IA:, _ ' I 1 I SNA FEN CA a .---- '-- •;i.l_fd%\Ei W Ucc cc Tl a a a UMA M MIMI , _j AIM& i HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA �'LAID USE ELEME=Mr AMEND`UlT 87-I ........ .. Fe PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.2 . I. • I + i iTY OF HUN T`INGTON BEACH • 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 E DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION (714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-5271 March 59 1987 Dear Property Owner : The City of .Huntington Beach is considering an. amendment to the Land Use Element .of the City ' s General Plan for Area 2 . 2 outlined on the attached map The proposed General Plan amendment is a request by Jenson Chen to redesignate 1. 89 acres located on the south side of Ellis Avenue., 400 feet east of Beach Boulevard, from "General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential . The request is being . processed with Environmental Impact Report -87-1A . A public °.hearing .on Land 'Use Element Amendment No. 87-1A/ Environmental Impact Report No . 87-1A/ will be held before -the City Council 'on March 16, 1'987 at which time you may address the .Council and" state your position concerning the amendment , Environmental Impact Report and "zone change . The hearing will take place in the Civic Center Council Chambers at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California at .7 : 00 p.m: Please contact Hal' -Simmons of my staff at - ( 714 ) 536-5271 if you have any questions regarding the proposal . A copy of the proposed. Land Use Element Amendment ,- ,.Environmental Impact Report and zone change are on file in`- the Department of Development Services for inspection by the public . incerely,, James W. Palin Director, Development Services JWP :HS :t1 ( 7509d-4 ) �` 11� a � �� �r �/■/`sew -�� ®��, sw '�� � �, ,_ �� �.,•11�1.10. �� ,It i . - .� Boom Elm mill i111111: :1��: INN s IM IM ® ■ ®' ® _ son* ®� {> ».„` 157-341-07 157-341-08 157-341-09 Vince Lanni Pauline C. Mc Murray George E. Wright 1347 S., Empire St. 1347 S. Empire St. 8051 Ellis Ave. , Anahe;jr7- CA 92804 Anaheim.; CA 92804 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1.57-341-10 157=341-11 1577341-12 Willie R.-Parker Swa 0. Newman Joseph M'. Apple 8061 'Ellis Ave'., 22018 S. Norwalk Blvd. , 8071 Ellis Ave. , Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Hawaiian Gardens,- CA 90716 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 157-341 -13 '157-343-14 157-343-15 Marcel Boulanger Charles Shephefd Emery Takacs 17636 Walnut St 18441 'Goodwin Ln P.O. Box 6188 . Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 157=343-15 157-343-16 157-343-17 Emery'Takacs James E. Peary Standard Avenue. Church; P.O. Box 6188 7252 Saturn Dr. , 8121 Ellis Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 157-343-18 157-343-19 157-343-20 John Craney Earl E. Parker Joseph -M-. Apple 8101 Ellis Ave 4009 S. Chestut 8071 E.: Ellis Ave. , Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Broken Arrow; OK 74001 Huntington Beach, MCA 92646 157-343-2-1 157-343-22 157=343-23 Joseph M. Apple Pacific- Fourteen-,LTD Loy K'. Stephens 8071 E- Ellis Ave. , 10101 Slater Ave 11211 -8102 La Palma Huntington Beach, "CA '92646 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 157-471=04 _ 157-471-05 157-471.06 T C Corporation T C Corporation Goor-Arie Kadosh 9911 Anthony PI 9911 Anthony Pl 6399 Wil.shire°Blvd Suite 714 Beverly Hills, CA '90210 Beverly- Hills, CA 90210 Los Angeles, CA 90048 157-471 -13 157-471-14 157-471`-15 Lloyd Dennis Rhoton Zlatko Zadro Dolores L. Mann 16390 Woodruff St. , 9641 Dove Cir 1321 Alpine Ln. , Westminster, 'CA 92683 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington .Beach, CA 92646 157-471 -16' 157-471-17 157-501-05 Zaher F. Khalaf Ching Ho Lin & Yeh H. Shaw Bruce M. Greer T8212 Newmoon Ln. , 18662 Libra CT. 2788 Longwood Ct.., , Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 157-501-06 157-501-07 157-501 -08 Bruce M. Greer Donald R. Clark Gerald W. Long 1. 2788 Longwood Ct., 8588 Trinity River Cir., 18151 Lakepoint Ln. , Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 157-501-09 1.57-501-10 157-501-11 6Y kirk S. Boman Niall J. Hamilton Katsuji Kawai 1734 Harvard Ave. , 20052 Beaumont Cir., Z Cir. , : Salt Lake City, UT 84108 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 157-501-12 157-501-13 Katsuji Kawai Onno Kirleis ` Robert .L. Brandon 17787 Santa .Fe Cir. ; 0474 Egret Ave. , 6781 Buckeye Cir., Fountain 'Val..ley, CA 92708 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 -Fountain Valley, CK 92708 157-501-15 157-501-16 j 157-501-01 Simon Desoto i Titleholders Exchange Inc. Bruce M. Greer 9651 Rindge Cir.. , 18642 Demion Ln, , * 2788 Longwood Ct. , Fountain Valley, CA 92708 y, CA 8 i Costa Mesa, CA 92626 157-502-02 157-502-03 p 157-02-04 Bruce M. Greer Joseph F. Sawaya Gerald H. Smith 2788 Longwood Ct. , 3923 San Pablo 8315 Manifesto Cir. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Oceanside, CA 92056 Huntington .Beach, CA 92646 ' 1`57-502-05 157-502-06. 157-502-07 Virginia B. Goodyear Joseph F. Sawaya D ' u�s Edward Leonetti 15111 Bushard' St. Space 23 31.2.72 A�nnr, 601 .Alcott .Ave., Westminster, CA 92683 San Jtta -Cap $rio, CA 99645- Placentia; CA 92670 157-502-08 157-502-09 157=502-10 Yu-wen Chang Ronald S. Bun yak ' Donald Lee Jenkins . 30136 Ave de Calma 18611 Demion Ln. , 18621 Demion Ln. Rancho Palos- Verdes, CA 90274 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1-57-502-11 157-502-12 157-502.-14 Donna G. O'Connell Richard D. Lorenz Doris L. Mescher 4009 Cason St. , 9921 Hummingbird Ln. , 2006 Nauti'1is Ln. , Torrance, CA 90503 Garden Grove,. CA 92641 Newport Beach-; CA -9266,0, . i r 4- - a. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH . . 2600 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92W DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION (714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION (714) 536-5271 March 5, 1987 Dear Property Owner : The City, of Huntington Beach is considering_ an amendment to the Lane Use Element of the City ' s .General Plan - for Area 2 . 9 . outlined on the attached map . The proposed General Plan amendment is a request by Lanny Ludwick to redesignate 2 -24 acres of property locates on the north side of Garfield Avenue , 5.70. feet east of Beach Boulevard tr'o.Tr Low and .Medium Density P.esidential to Medium High Density P,esidential .in order to achieve consistency between the General Plar, and zoning . The recuest is be,inc processed with Negative Declaration. No . 86-60 . y A public' hearinc on Lund se Element Amendment No . 37-1A/Negative Declaration 86-60 will be hneld before the Citv Council on March 1987 at which time you may address the City Council an state your positio._ concerning the amendment and Negative Declaration . The ' hearing will take place in the. Civic Center Council Chambers att000 Main Street , Huntington Beach , California at 7 : 0"0 p .m. Please" contact Hal Simmons of my staff at ( 714 ) 536-5271 if• you have any questions regard.ing' t-he proposal . A copy of the proposed Land Use Element Amendment and -Negative Declaration are on file in `the Department of Development Services .for inspection by the public . Sincerely , James W. Palin Director , Development Services JWP :HS : tl . (-7509.d-3 } Iv i Z Q t L � O - - -- W • �, ' '� n � O GR►ZJ - IAUREI rOOOi DP ijoLD)AI- DR —77 -SPRING DII _ CONSTANTINI L51 CA j i J ' I L 3 W GARFIEI D 'AVE U D a. 1 ! zLN t ca - - DEAWILLE DR - - CF R PEN CA _ a.N.l N�k i - - r -- b CF—Er 01 Tr •J Do DR GRANT w' . 'HUNTINGTON BEACH C41_IFORNIA LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-1 » PLANNING -DIVISION AREA 2 . 9 Mau ha t L. Gideon Dv na Zd E. Noe Sung Hong Choi 18911 Lizten Lane �8232 Katherri,ne Dtive. 6861 Avenida De Saint%ago Hu►ttiA' ton Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 i Ana.he.ilm; CA 92807 15,7-402-06 157-402-22 157-452-05 `A41 wLi.n Patana.ng kuha John B. Van Cei 6 e.E'en Yung H. Pan 1.8912 Ca&o.Zyn, Lane 8242 KatheA,Zne D4ive P.C. Box 6094 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92615 1,57-402-07 157402-23 157-452-06 Da►ii"e,Z H. Cetda John B-idot Pang Hong Ch;i:u l E 9 0 2 Catco,,Zyn St. E241 Gan6-ie.Zd Ave. . 20332 CaAXSbad Lane .Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach;-'CA 9264 6, 157-402-08 757-402-24 157-452-07 Jvfty H. Mittet Anna Z. . Pvn ten Ga 6 ieZd Pnopekti u 18887 Cano.Zyn Lane 8237 Gv-L6.ieCd Ave. 10101 Sta vL Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92641 Hu►tingto►. Beach, CA .92646 Fountain IVae.Zey,` CA 9270E 157-402-15. 157-402-25 157-452-08 ° t Annie L. Agu vLe Faye'-P. Coughtty John A. M.iUen 18891 Catotn S - � �• 8221 Gan�.ie,Zd Ave. 116.24 1:85�h S�. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Antu,ia,. CA 90701 -157-402-16 157-402-26 157-452-09 ".Danny Joe Cooh - Geo?cge Sandm5on Stuhgez . Sheng Lu 18901 'Cano.Zyn Lane 8207 Gang etd Ave. 31048 Regent Bivd.' Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntingtior. Beach, CA 92646 U n C tu, 'CA 9 4.5 8 157-402-17 ''157-402-27 157=452-10 ChahZu B. Lacy Bve.Zyn J. Meyen Robert H.- Vinh 18911 CanoZyn St. 8791 Ga,,L ;ietd Ave. 9191 WittheZm CAI Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92641-. 15.7-402-18 , 157-402-28 157-4'52=1.1 ChcrhZe,s E. Lacy C. Joaeph Heinz Samuet S. Song 18911 Cahwtvn St. 9535 Nanmandy Way 9 Ruth Dtive Huntington Beach, CA 92646, Cypne�a, CA 90630 New City,. NY 1095 157-402-18157-402-30,31 157-452-14 . Donatd E. Tneeee Natco ReaP,ty Fund Mohammed S. Outm h. 18921 CatoZyn St. 701 W. ManchateA. Btvd. 9921 Mammoth Dkive. Huntington" Beach, CA 92646 Ingtevood, CA 90307 Huntington Beach, CA 92646' 157-402-J9 157-402-.35 . 151-452-15 De.Zman D. Ba4d.6tey City o6 Huntington Beach KeZv.in Kei Wei She 18931 Can"otyn St. City Ha2.2 18902 VatQee' Cit. Huntington beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, A- 157-4102-20 157-402-36 157-452716 Stephen W. Yunkiewiez Hi obhi D. . Hamada Kha1a Zuhun.u.ddin 8222 Katheni.ne Ave. 25037 Sa.u.6atito Dki.ve 18912 Va tey Cit Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Laguna H.c U-6, CA 92653 Huhti.ngton Beach, . CA 92646 157-1402-21 157-452-04 . 757-452-17 Sooki.e Van-ta.ni.an L. Haine66 20. N. . 4 9th St. 02 Pne.6tw.i:ck C ic Monttbe,P,�o, CA 90640 Ootge ntington Beach, CA 157-452- 18 153-022=08 Michaee ,D. Buette t Rona.Bd P. Chapman 307 Grand Can.ae 8192 Pneatwi.ck Cvc Batboa Idtand, CA 92662 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 157-452-19 153-022-09 Ph.iti:p ZZ5afiiz. Matthew B. Beucten . '16351 Tu6t6 Lane 308 � aUe Lupita Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 San Luiz Ob.i.zpo, CA 93407 157-452-20, 21 1'53-022-10 Swu.nden K. Bhati.a Denn,i 6 D. Webb 16220 Raneh,ita Dti"ve 19001 'Co.2chestvL Lane DaU-aL; .TX 75248 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 157-452-22 153-024-02 18982 VaUey Ci)Lcf'-e Inc. 00 Hautd C. Hi,czch 695 Town Ce►titen D)ti.ve to 19011 Cof-chesten lane Co.6ta Melia, CA 92626• Huntington Beach, CA 92646 157-452=23 153-024-03 ' et,i ement Fund TAust _ Michaet -L. Joh6ton . 3810 Wi.Esh,ine Blvd. ]9031 Co�eh�te�c Lane Loa Ange,Leh, CA .90.010, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 153-04.1-20, 21,, 24 153-024-04 Jamey Davila Fmif-io B. Vahga-6 8167 Pn.0 twit k Gin 14.04l Cotchebten Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 753-022-01. 153-024-05 Jerome B. Gaynor Retirement Fund TAust 8163 Pne6twick Cik 3810 .Witzh,iAe Btvd. Huntington ( each, CA 92646 Los Angetes, CA 90010 153-022-02 153-024-54 wat teh. H. Stwcm 8165 Pnutw.cck Cin Huntington Beach, CA 92646 153-022-03 Mahton CaQ"houn 8167 Pnedt ich. Cilc 'Huntington Beach, CA 92646 153-022-04 Sd-a i. M. Akin 3450 Wayne Ave. &Dnx, NY 10467 153-022-05 ' � I �, CITY F Hl.lN TING`ON .BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET. CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION (714) 536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION (714) 536-5271 March 5, 1937 Dear Property Owner: The City of Huntington Beach is considering an amendment to the Land Use Flement of the City ' s General Plan for Area 2 . 8 outlined .on . t;he attached map..' The proposed General Plan amendment is a recuest . hy the Huntington Beach "Department of Development Services to redesignate 8 . 31 acres of property located on the north side of Warner, Avenue _between Algonquin and Sims Streets .from Medium . Density Peside'ntial to Medium High Density Pesidential in order to , achieve consistency between the General Plan, and zoning . The . recuest is being processed with Negative Declaration Ne . 86-56 A pub..16 Aaiing on. Land Use Flement Amendment No . P-IA/Negative Declaration 86-56 will be held before , the City . Council on March 16 , 1987 , at which time you may address- the Council and state your position concerning the amendment and . Negative Declaration . The. hearing will take place in the Civic Center Council Chambers at 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach , California at 7 : 00 p.m. Please contact Hal Simmons of my staff "at . (714 ) 536-5.271 if you have any questions regarding the proposal . A copy of the proposed Land Use Element Amendment and Negative Declaration are on file in the Department of Development Services for inspection by the public. Sincerely. /,lames W.Palin Director , Development Services JWP :HS : tl ( 75096-2 ) R ►a xu eia Cr Aw OR CF-R . P$CKWKZ CR.kA , I rc , oaa, C F-R , 1 PE ARCS CE OP 04RnWALR DP M�_o t tr s .. �~ r � t DR O, ¢ J '$ .. EDGEWATEF i \ 1 AT.MERL'f 6Ati 'CF- R: AVE i .�C.. wTQ. C", owtk'-nsOl MVM 1N�!QS _ At=& HUNTINGTON BEACH C41-IFORNIA LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-1 PLANNING DIVISION AREA Z.$ 110-026-02 178-242-12 ' 178-252716 City of Huntington Beach , Kwan Ming . o, Henry H * St-. Marys .Circle Box 595 Westminster, CA 92683 Los. Alamitos, Cal.iforni 90720 110-026-03 178-242-13 178-252-17 City of Huntington Beach Azzara, Louis Jr. Akashi , MIE Peterson, Roger C ET AL 6690 Vista Del. Mar #F 8422 Ivy Circle Playa Del Rey-, CA 90291 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 163-301-01 178-242-1.4 178-252-23 Downing, Ralph Horne, Robert 'L Pel:ican Cove Homeowners 2647 E. Almond #D 2607 Buckeye. St. Assn Orange, Cal iforn.ia 92669 Newport Beach, CA 92660. 808 Adams Avenue Hunt i n9ton Beach, CA 92648 i63-301'-09 178-252-06 178-253-04 Welch, Hilda R Mullens, Laura Redd TR Morningstar, Robert D `P.O. Box 2795 4581" Warner Avenue 26007 Beaumont Avenue Seal Beach, California 90740 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Loma Linda, CA 92354 178-252-08 i63-301-10 178-253.-22 Wi,IIiams, Lotus Ni 'Evans, Richard D. , Van Herk., Johannes A 16466 Harbour Lane . 16242 Wayfarer Lame 16285 Mt.. Dana ,Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Fountain Valle CA 9 708 . Huntington Beach, Ca- 92649 Valley , 178-242-06 178-252-09 178-253-23 Berge, Orin G Jr.. Hu hes Douglas W .Hudson:, Geor.�ge A 99 , 23231 Mindanao Circle- 3561 Venture Drive 20062 Suntan Circle Laguna Niguel , Ca 92677 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington. Beach, CA 92646 178-242-07 178-252-10 178-253.-25 Bragg, Vena Clauss, °Lloyd Greeen Bert H Lane -5540 E. 6th Street � 16742 Intrepid6012 Point Loma Huntington Beach, CA, 92649 Long 'Beach., California _ Huntington Beach, CA 92647 90914 178-242-08 178-252-11 178=253-26 Gallagher, Thomas P Cappelletti , John Smith, Larry ._M 4151 Pierson . Drive 23791 Brant Lane 807 Walkwood Circle Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 Laguna Niguel., CA~ 92677 Houston, TX 77079 178-242-09 1'78-252-12 178-253-27 Wood, Leslie P Rideout, William M Jones, David Kieth 16842 Sims St. #'1 C/O Mc Kenna & Company 3044 Java Road Huntington Beach, CA 92649 P.O. Box 30189 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Long Beach, California 90853 178 .242-10 178-252-14 178-253-29 Zagustin, Elena Fabian, David L Warner Partnership 16862 Morse Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 16931 Sims Street 15233 Ventura BLVD. 510 . Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 178-242-11 178-252-15 178-253-30 Schmitz, Harold A. . Doyle, Michael Warner Partnership 16851 Blanton St. APT. A 19631 Quiet Bay Lane SUite 160 HUntington 'Beach, Ca. 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 16152 Beach Blvd. East Huntington .Beach, CA 92647 178-271-03 178-284-26 Resident �Ascot Investments Crooks, R C 4681 'Pinecrest- Circle 2150 Shattuck Avenue 1819 17101 Malta Circle Huntington Beach, C 926, Berkeley, CA 94704 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 `` 3 178-171-04 178-284-31 Res dent Ayvazian, Zadoor A Miichellt, Matthew W. 468 Pinecrest Circle 16921 Algonquin .Street 17042 Courtney Lane' Hunt ngtori. Beach, CA 92349 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 178-272-02 178-284-32 Reside t Hatashita, Kim TR Dalton, Thomas B. 4691 Pi ecrest Circle` 16991 Malta Circle 17032 Courtney Lane Hunting on Beach, CA 26 9 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington. Beach, CA 92649 178-272-03 178-284-33 Resident ::hang, Enrique G. Wiener, Myrna J. 4664 Pine rest Circle` 3922 Sirius Drive 17022 -Courtney Lane HUntingto Beach, a 926 9 `iunt ington Beach, CA '92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 �Lp� RES I DENT ` 178-284-19 178-284-34 4666 P i riecre IC i rlde 3ayhi ,'.Henry .J Thomas; Richard R JR 17001 Malta Circle 2235 San Marco Drive' Huntington Bach], ;CA 926 9 luntington -Beach, CA 92649 Los Angeles, CA 90068r� P 78-284-20 178-284-35 Resident 1 ennings, Stanley D. Minow, Robert A TR 4672 Pinecrest 1 ircle. 7011 Malxa' Circle 16262 San Clemente Circle Huntington Beac , CA 92619 IUnt i ngton .Beach, 'CA 92649 Huntington Beach,' CA 92649 78-284-21 Resident Resident tiles, . Ronald E. 4665 Pinecrest Circle 4676 P,inecreL Cir le 7021 Malta Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington each, A 92649 untington Beach, CA 92649 G1� 178-284-22 Re ident Resident cconomakos, Peter W. 466 Pinecrest Circle 4678 Pinearest Circl 17031 Malta Cr. Hun •ngton Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, C 92 49 HUnt i-ngton Beach;: CA 92649 gLt� • 3 178-284-23 Resident Resident =ul.lmer, Paula R. 4671 Pin rest Circle 4682 -Pi ecrest Circle 17041 Malta Circle Huntingto Beach, CA 92649 Huntin ton Beach," "CA -92 49 -luntington Beach, CA 92649 78-284-24 Resident Resid nt Yinger, Ronald 4675 Pinecrest ircIe 4686 Pinecrest Circle 7051 Malta Circle Huntington Beac , CA 92649 HUn rngton Beach, CA 92 4 luntington Beach, CA 92649 78-284-25 'Resident R ident .everenz, Jack 0 4677 Pinecrest Circle . 4 92 Pinecrest C i rc l e 7071 ' Malta Circle Huntington Beach, CA 649 untington Beach, CA 92649 luntington Beach, CA 92649 Sc.DF�I . 3 ��,:• �.} :51 bcNT R S I DENT Kesi cent 5 Twintreet Dr. 1 Redwing Lanw Bldg. 6 omeowner's Associati n HL ngton Beach CA .92649 06781 Sims-recreation bldg. u t i ngton Beach, CA 92649 g ' Huntington Beach, CA 92649 " esi d nt REST D NT Homeowner's Associ at i n. 567 w'intree Drive 16852 wing Lane Bldg.. 6= Recreation Building unt i ton Beach, CA 92649 Hunt i n on Beach, Ca 92649. 16800 Algonquin Huntington Beach, CA 92649 6 t,D •_5 esi dent Resident Pesi dent. i 16854 Re win Lane Bldg. 6 16802 Algonquin Ln.B DG A 671 Tw"i�In tree Drive g g. lun,t i ngt Beach; CA 92649. Hunt i ngt n Beach, CA 92649. H t i ngton. Beach, C 92 9 Resi cent Res dent. esi dent 16804 Algonquin BLDG A 675 16854 Redwing Lane Bldg. 6 Huntington' Beach, CA 92649 wintree Di-.� Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Lunt i ngton ''Beach, CA 92649 t Reside t tesident , Resident 16806 A gonquin Bldg A 677 Twintree' Drive- 16812 Redwin� Ln. Bldg. 7 Hunting on Beach, CA 92649 iuntington BeEach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 1 1 Resident ,`•. tesi den t Resident 1 16808 'Algo�pquin Bldg A i681 Tw'intree Der. 16816 Redwing Lane Bldg. 7 Hunti`ngton`' Beach, CA 92649 4untington ,Beach, CA' 92649 �1� ngton Beach, CA Resident Resident 16810 Algon uin Resident 16822 Redwing La''� Bldg. 7 BUILDING' A 111 +687 Twintree Dri�e. Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington. Beach, Ca 92649" 9 Auntington Beach,.VCA 92649 Resident Resident Resident 1682.4 Redwing Lane Idg. 7 on ui "BLD D 4691 Twintnee Drive 16812 Al g q 92649 Huntington Beach, C�. 92649 Huntington Beach, .0 Huntington Beaekt-i C 92649 ' 9 , . Resident Lane BI- g. 7 Resident Resident 4 t 16836 Redwing Lane B'LDG 6 16832 Redwing � 16834. Algonquin 9ldg. E Huntington Beach, CA `92649 Huntington Beach, CA 12649 HuhlingtonBeach, CA 92649 Resident Resident Resident 16842 Redwing Lane BL G. 6 16808 Redwing Lane Bid 8 16836 Algonquin B1d c Huntington Beach, ,CA 9 9 Huntington Beach, CA 92 49 Huntington Beach, C 92649 . Resident Resident Resident 16844 Redwing Lane Bfdg. 16810 Redwing Lane Bld 8 16838 Algonquin Bldg. t� Huntington Beach, CA 9264 Huntington Beach, CA 92 . 9 Huntington Beach, _CA 92649 934-160-23 934-160-34 34-160-45 .v Roth, Scott, M 9 Carpenter Mar y Walker, John C P , 16812 Algonquin St 21843 Dumetz Rd 1686'6 Algonquin St Huntington Beach, CA. 92649 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Huntington Beach, CA 92649" 934-160-24 934-160-35 934-160-46 Pazanti , Jack L Campbell , Bruce R Hermann, La Vonne R 6902 Nyanza Dr 16854 Algonquin St 16868 Algonquin Street Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 934- 160-25 934-160-36 934-160-47 Hewko, John F Crutchley', Gary A Miller, Keith W 16808 Algonquin St 16852 AI fonqu i n St 16830 Algonquin St' Nun,tington Beach,, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 934-160-26 934-160-37 934=160-48 Schubert, Billy Nelsom Michael D Barry, Edward, P 5592 Serene Dr 23140, Hei ss St 15881 Gol denwest St Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Huntington Beach., Ca 92647 934-160-27 934-160-38 934=160-49 Morris,, Donald R Biedjian, Leon Hahn, Richard. M ,16804 Algonquin St 6802 Kings Harbor Drive. 16826 Algonquin St Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 Rancho Pal:is Verdes, CA 90274 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 934-160-28 934-160 39 934-160-50 Johnson, Erik A Coker, Jerry Higgi.nborham, Walter C John Algonquin St 16171 Nassau Lane 5502 Rockne Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 Whittier, CA 90601- 934-160-29 934-160-40 934-160-51 Anderson, Gary L Freiheit, Kathleen A Trojahn", Patricia D 16856 Al gon qu i ri St 16822 Algonquin St OICC Med, Madrid,. Spain Huntington Beach.- CA 92649 Huntington n ton Beach C 92649 APO New York.,. NY. 09285 9 Beach, , 934-160-30 934-160-41 934-160-52 Rosenblatt, Stanly Rub A Redel., John P � Wallace, Y 9168 Molt River Cir 16707 Graham 5t 8114 Manitoba St #10 Huntington Beach., CA 92649 Playa a Del Re CA 293 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Y Y� 9.34-160-31 934-160-42 934-160-53 Gardner, Richard A Atteberry,, Robert r= Bert i no Carmen 16860 Algonquin St 16838' At gonqui n St 3315 Tempe Drive 9 Huntington Beach, CA .92649 Huntington Beach C 92649, Huntington, Beach, CA 92649 934-160-32 934-160-43 934-160-54 Gol.ding, Jerome A Litten, Barbara Ann - Saulson, Donald S Vesper C i r 16665 Algonquin St 6561 Ves ib840 Algonquin St P Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA, 92649 Huntington 'Beach,. CA 92647 .934-160-33 934-160-44 934--570-01 Iacunato, 'Anthony J Mc Mullin, Richard H Horne, Robert L 16842 Algonquin St 16864 Algonquin St. 2607 Buckeye St Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Newport Beach, •CA 9 660 934-570-03 0-570-14 9570-25. Sharpe, Keith H ' Rotbl att, Shol i Keity, John A _16722 Intrepid Lane 1176 Main. Si . P.O. Box 1716 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Irvine, CA 92714 HuniingtonBeach, CA 92641 .934-570-04 934-570--15 934-570-26 Spartas, Gus A Uri st, Carol R- Stange, Danield J 4677 Twintree Dr 4666 Pinecrest Cir 4688 Ranchview Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntingtoo Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 934=570-05 934-570-16- 934-570-27 Evans, Thomas A Rouse, Joan D Evasovic, Michael M 4675 Twintree Dr 4664 Pinecrest "Cir. 4684 Ranchview Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 HUntington Beach, CA 9264 934-570-06 934-570-t7 934-570-28 Gardner, Richard H . Kelly, John A Jr. Hobbs, Sharon- A P.O. Box 3148 P_0. Box 1716 4680 Ranchview Cir Seal Beach., .CA 90740 Huntington Beach, 'CA 92649 HUntington Beach, CA 9264 934-570-017 934-570-18 934-570-29 Vasquez, Christina D Miller, Michael Roy Kagawa, Takeshi S 4667 Twintree Drive 4687 Pinecrest Cir 229 W. Markland Dr'. Huntington Beach, CA' 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Monterey Park,, CA 91754 934-570-08 934-570-19 934-570-30 Cesareo, John L Mehan, -Janet Clymer, James L 46.65 .Twintree Dr 4681 Pinecrest Cir 4670 Ranchview Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington .Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 934=570709 934-570-20 934-570-31, Newman, George R Oswald, Deborah R Cucurny,' Marius i3047 Premier Ave 4677 P.O. Box 671 Downey,. CA 90242 Pinecrest Circle Sunset Beach, CA 90742 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ' 934-570-10 934-570-21 934-570-32 Heller„ Warren I Cibbarelli , Edward L Wilkinson, David W 396 Belle Monti CT 4120 CataIine 26360 Regent St Aptos, 'CA 95003 cloy; AZ 85231' Lomita, CA 90717. 934-570-11 934-570-22 934-570-33 .Sharpe, Karen M Sharp, Stephen D. Brooks, Galena I 25685 Weston Dr. 4671 Pinecrest Cir 4691 Ranchview Cl Laguna Niguel., Ca 92677 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 934-570-12 934=570-23 934-570-34 Hollinger, Anne Marie Shahian, Glen La Puma, Philip C 4678 Pinecrest Cir 4667 Pinecrest Circle 1786 N. Pheasant St Huntington Beach, Ca 93649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Anaheim, CA 92806 934-570-13 934,-570-24 Chmielinski, John .E. 934-570-35 •Goldberg, Ernest.' M Koch Edward J 20171 Big` Bend Lane 4665 Pinecrest Cir. , Huntington Beach CA 92649 13404 Haiwath Lan n Huntington Beach, CA 92646 g , y�R�� )34-570-36. 3ichmond Dennis M. . M2 Si 11:i man Drive -luntington Beach, .CA 92649 334-570-37 3arauskas, Andrew L i675 .Ranchview Cir Auntington, Beach, CA 92649: 334-570-38 larema, Edward J !671 Ranchvie.w. Cir: -luntington .Beach, CA 92649 934-570-39 >humway, Lloyd D 4667 Ranchview Cir ` Huntington Beach,• .Ca 92649 934-570-40 Perz, David D 4665 Ranchview Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 934-570-41, Konoske '. Robert M 16742 Redwing Lane Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 934-570-42 Butler, Vera J 5142 Warner Ave' Suite 101 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 -934-570-43 9.34-570-54 �? Unda P. Straten Gera.ld_ Donohue o 17652 Redwing Ln. 16806 Redwing Ln Huntington Beach , CA Huntington Beach , CA 92649 92649 934-570-44 934-570-55 934-570-66 � ` Kerry Ruskin Soi chi K. Yonesato Gene Cook 16852 •Redwing Ln 16756 Redwing Ln ; 168Q8 Redwing Ln Huntington Beach , C 92649 Huntington Beach , CA 92649 Huntington. Beach , CA 92649 934-570-56 934-510-67 934-570-45 Lance Ralston Wa1 lace K .Pre'st idg Michael L Estep 16810 Redwing Ln 16854 Redwing Ln , 16762 Redwing Ln Hunt ingt on .Beach , CA 92649 Huntington Beach A 92649 Huntington Beach , CA 92649 934-�.7C=46 934-570-57 Gary Einstein Richard E . Thomas 16812 .Redwing, Ln 17091 Pleasant Ci r. Hunt ington Beach , CA 92649 Huntington Beach , CA 92649 ' 934-5.70-58 934-570-47 Wal ter D Lipps Lawrence :S: Draus Charles T Spencer 16772 Redwing Ln 17591 Roque Ln Huntington Beach , CA. 92649 q Huntington Beach , :'CA 92647 934-570-59 934-570-48 James F Czuleger John F Parodi 5702 Serene Dr 5821, .Lancef i el Dr ` Huntington Beach , CA 92647 yun't•i ng ton Beach , , CA 92649 934-570-60 934-570-49 Michael R Guerin John R. Trounce 16824 Redwing Ln 1 67'82 Redwing Ln Hun ti ngt on Bech , CA 92649 Huntington Beach , CA 92649 934-570-61 934-570-50 John Schuesler 2'obert.` J Cassi ngham - 4832 Curtis Ci r. 16835 Akgonquin St #152 Huntington Beach , CA 92649• Hun.`tington Beach, CA 92649 934-570-62 934-570-51 Michael Wilson inda L Pugsley 1684.2 Redwing Ln i6792 Redwwng Huntington Beach , CA 92649 Huntington Beach , CA 92649 934-570-52 934-570-64 Janet K Reece Eric M St Johm 16796 Redwi rig 16844 Redwing Ln Huntington Beach , CA 92649 Huntington Beach , CA 92649 934-570-65 934-570-53 Francis Goodyear John Strachan 16846 Redwing Ln 19721 .'Seacliff Ln Huntaington_Beach. , CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Atkinson, Elsie 6/o Atkinson B Company ; 13633 Central:.Avenue Los Angeles., California 90059 . i Point Surfside Homeowners Association 4682 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92649 110-023-07 Shaw, Glen H P.O. Box 1972 Huntington Beach, California 92649 110-023-08 Johnson, Harold P. 1176 Main Street Irvine, California 92714 110-023-23 Jacobson, Fred 12400 Monteci to Road #223 -Seal Beach, California 90740 110-023-25 f Wilson, WiIkiam 16961 Bolero Lane HUntington Beach, - Cal:ifornia 92649 �.,. unen, mao i a s, 96 Mohawk Avenue Noewood, JN 07648 �.. 110-021-03 Swanigan, Herbert V Tr 17132 A Harbor Bluffs Circle Huntington Beach, California 92649 110-021-04 Anderson, Joel. W 18582 Vallata Drive ;Huntington Beach, Cal iforma 92646 110-' 021=13 'Clark, Ralph T 15881 Pl.ymout'h ' Lane Huntington Beach, California 92647 110-021-15 Cochrane, Mary- P.O. Box 1117 Yorba Linda, California 92686 110-021-23 Hodder, Odi l,e R: 410 Mani toba- •Street Playa. Del. Rey, California 90293 CITY OF. HIJNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET . CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION (714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION (714) 536-5271 "larch '5, 1987 Dear Property Owner : The City of Huntington Beach is considering an amendment to the Land Use `Flement - of the City ' s General Plan for Area 2 . 3 outlined on the attached map. The proposed General Plan amendment is a request by , , the Hunt,inaton Beach Planning .Commiscion to redesignate 12,. 6. acres of property bounded by Utica Avenue, Seventeenth Street and Lake Street from Medium Density -Pesidential to Low Density Residential . The, reauest is'` being processed with Fnvironment"al Impact Report 87-1A A public hearing on TCa Use Element. Amendment No . 87-1A/ Fnvironmental . mpact Report No . 67-IA will be held before the City CcUnc'i1 'on March 16 , . 1987 at which time you -may adcress the Council and state your position concerning the amendment , Environmental Impact Report and zone -change . The hearing will take place in the Civic Center Council Chambers at 2000 Main Street , Huntington- P'eacl:" California at 7 : 00 p .m: Please contact Hal Simmons of my staff at ( 714 ) 536-5271 if you have any- questions regarding the, proposal . A copy of the proposed Land Use Element. Amendment and Environmental Impact Report are on file in the Department of Development Services for inspection by the public . incerely, ames. W. Pa 1 i n Director , Development Services JWP :.HS : tl ( 7509d-1 ) Ll -T-T C:tltl►AC WiL -7-777 JJi ? k CF CF-E h . .:::: wiCNiTA AVE T - . »:.. ..... ' II II �i I � VENICE AVE ::... UT ICA .- - --- — I TORONTO AVE CF RLl - a _ SPRINGF IE LD nAlyl 77-7 pr .A .iJ 7Q4S � Z - _ - ROCHLSTEF AYE e _. �'I�II� �I _ _ cr_. ¢ let L]Lj NUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT •87-1 PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.3 Huntington Beach, Co Robert Laughlin Oroperty Tax 0 Park Street �832 Main Street 8 . P'.O. Box 7611 Onti ngton .Beach, CA 92648 untingt6n Beach, 'CA 2648 San Francisco, . CA' 94120 Pacific Ranch Homeowners Urban- West Communities Robert Waschkeit David Frampton 520. Broadway Ssuite 100 315 W Utica St 1834 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 2648 Mansion Hi l I Barry Waters 3030 S Bundy Dr 1841 .Pine St John Peterson Los Angeles, CA 90066 Huntington Beach, CA 9.2648 1808 17th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, High School Peter Yamazaki Daniel Montoya 1902 -17th St 305 Utica Street 1848 Lake Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, :CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach Co `Kurt 'Clemens 2110. Main Street Dept. of Vets Affairs of Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1846 Lake Street Huntington State of Cal.Beach, Ca 92648 Robert Letson 1842 Park Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Michael Husk-ins Robert Borns 1842 Lake Street 19841 Sea Canyon C i r Huntington Beach, CA 926 •. Huntington -Beach, CA 92648 W.B.Harrell Dennis Niccole Huntington . Beach Co Donald ''Murray. 400 Third street ', P.O. Box 7611. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1$38 Lake_ street San 'Francisco, CA 94120 Huntington Beach; C 92648 Walter Van Deusen Robert Hubbart William Kerry 1841 Park Street 1833 Pine St 1836 Lake Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 926248 Huntington Beach, CA, 92648 George Abbon d• Will Fowler California Federal S Fs .L 1848 Park St 1837 Park Street Unit 300 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 12001 San Vicente Bi d. Huntington Beach, 'CA 92648' ` Los Angeles, CA 900 9 W.i l l i am Bruce- Robert Tarzi an 1837 Pine Street . 1833 Park street Walter Brauch Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1828 Lake street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, ' C 92648 Roger Hosmer 1836 Park Street Clarrissa Pierson Huntington Beach,CA 92646 .1831 Park street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Leonard Bern a Konrad -10023-074705 7812 Liberty *09 Santa Cristobal Withem, Donald Huntin.qton Beach, CA 92647 Fountain -•Valley, CA 92709 10182 Beverly Dr Huntington Beach, CA, Nancy Luksa James Allan 023-074-06 P.O. Box 26454 Richard Mc William Mastright, John Santa Ana, CA 92799 526 20th street 17371 Drey. lane Huntington. Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, C A_ 023-074-18 Tien Min a Newland,. Virginia 023-061-23 223 N•` Vega Street 1828 Pine Street Cowling, Verle Alhambra. CA 91$01 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1828 Park St Huntington Beach, CA92646 H_ C G Associates 023-074-19 023-061-43 2972 Coleridge Dr. Croft, Don Alford, larry • Los Alamitos, CA 90720 1830 Pine .Street 1827 Pine Street. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington,. Beach, CA 9264�-: C ,M G Associates 023=074-20 023-062-18 " 5832 Sunmi sf .Dr. Batchelor,, Stephen D'Arrigo, Anthony Rancho Palos Verdes,, CA� 1836 Pine Street 1825 Park Street -90274 Huntington Beach., CA 9.264'8 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 , Thsai Ten Lin 023-074-21 023-062-24 6821 Scenic Bay Lane Taylor, Christopher Danielson, Lloyd `Huntington Beach, Ca' 92648 1840 Pine Street 1828 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, C k92648. Ming Wei Chang 023=074-23 8851 Bolin- Circle Remington, Melvin Hunt i ngton Beach, CA -92646 . P.O. Box 503 .Huntington Beach, CA 92647 - John Betts 023-074-01 19582 Phoenix Lane Day, Hope Huntington Beach, CA 92646 205 .Utica Ave.. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Arthur. Wessel man.. 023-074-02. Alabama Properties 2117 Alabama Street Apt 1 9061 Bolsa Ave Huntington. Beach, CA 92648 Westminster, CA 92683 Raymond Wi'Ison 023-074-03 Attn "Marsha Cook Pasini., Lorenzo 10101 .Sl-ater Ave #102 1831 Lake Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington -Beach, Ca 92648 Richard 'Schlottman 023-074-04Gilliland, Howard 2021 Alabama Street 1831 .Lake Street Huntington 'Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648