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 87-1B - Resolution 5763 - Resolut
Authorised 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 County of Orange Public MoliCe Ad•erueing covered by INS eMldevil 0 aol in 7 Pohl .,in 10 p1Ce eof.T -dtn I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of Lf 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, County of Orange, State of California, and that a Notice of PUBLIC HEARING -- — PUBLIC NOTICE of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete NOTICE OF copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, PUBLIC HELEMEN p LAND USE ELEMENT. Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valle AMENDMENT 87-1B p g y ENVIRONMENTAL 'IMPACT REPORT 87-113, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Lag Una NOTICE IS HEREBY Beach issues of said newspaper for ONE TIME GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Coun- cil of the City of Huntington consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of Beach, .in the Council Chamber of the civic PUBLIC'NOTICE Center, Huntington Beach, California, at the hour of Project Area. . 7:00 PM, or as soon there- Area 2.7-a,request by the April 9 � after as possible on Monday, Huntington. Beach Re- 7 the 20th.day of April, 1987, development Agency to re- for the purpose of consider designate 20.50 acres ing -Land , Use Element located on the north side of Amendment.87-1B and En- Warner Avenue, 500 feet 98 vironmental`Impact Report east of Beach Boulevard 87-1B. Land Use Element from Low Density Residen- Amendment 87-113' is an tial to General Commercial. amendment to the General The site is presently owned 98 Plan which covers the follow- by.!he Oceanview School. i`ng items: District and is located within ' Area 2.6-a request by the the proposed Beach Huntington Beach Re-� Boulevard Corridor Project 98 development Agency to re- ;Area. designate*5 acres of prop- A legal description and erty located on ,the south copy of the above described side of Warner Avenue,-200 documents are on file in the feet eas o1 f:Beach Boulevard Department of Development 198 (between .—X" and "B" Services. from Medium Den- All interested persons are ,Streets) sity Residential to General invited to attend said hear- Commercial.The property is ing and express`opinions or located within the proposed submit 'evidence for or declare, under penalty of perjury, that the Beach Boulevard Corridor against the applications as foregoing is true and correct. outlined above. If there are any further questions, please call Hal Simmons,. Associate Planner, at 536-5271. : April 9 7 Alicia Wentworth, City Executed on 1198 — clerk at Costa Mesa, Calif nla. Published' Orange Coast Daily Pilot April 9, 1987 Th583 t S' nature f� 2- 6 eleek CITY OF HUNTINGT'ON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION (714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714) 536-5271 i April 8, 1987 I 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 . 6 outlined -on -the attached map.. The proposed General Plan amendment is a request by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to .redesignate 4 . 5 acres o'f property located on the south. side of Beach Boulevard between A and B Streets from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial . The request is being processedwith Environmental Impact Report 87-.1B . A public hearing on Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-lB/ Environmental Impact Report No . 87-1B will be held before the City Council on April '20, 1987 at whi-ch time you may address the Council and state your position concerning the amendment. and Environmental Impact Report . 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 and Environmental Impact Report are on file in the Department of Development Services for inspection by the public. Sincerely, �' II a 1 James W. Palin Director, Development Services JWP:HS: tl (7099d-6) a ' 11 1�-- F DR. DEALER DR. ILLLLLU FJ DR TERRY u I Z J J ¢ � Q Z LLai OOr'6IMOPK � z F-----o ..._ 2 - g � W - Z LAW-ASTER DR. � ARHETT DR. � J DAMASK cw Q D c6-1 > O. C. f c D C6-2 J m 1+ J ftt,pt,1/11.1 �C F 14 -E i 1 ♦� 1i < TAMARU J 1I4�1��♦ u !cl.;,µ-:c�rJ Vrt:M Si:NC•O!) DR. 3 1i. 1 1• m z ` I WARNER AVE f!l 1 _Lili L✓r� 1 4MSTEROAM 'DR I z 1 � _ f` w M7jY• REMBRANDT DR .Q j-{ = I 1njDR fill MERSEILLE ¢ z POLDER CR z H 7 VALENCIA OR I - �, - fRIESLAND Hl FR IFFFE Ti DR, KNOT"ANDEIE)_L OR 1. _ J - - GUILDERS DR. _ I :--I-J 0 1 �BARTON DR. C F-E i NOLLAHD 7y] y HUNriNGroN BEACH C4UFORNIN LAND �SE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-1 <+ PLANNING 'DIVISION AREA 2. 6 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT ' 87-lB ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 87-1B ' 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 20th. day of .April , 1987, for the purpose of considering Land Use Element Amendment 87-1B and Environmental Impact Report 8^-1B . Land Use Element Amendment 87-1B is an amendment to the General Pian :which covers the following items: ; Area 2 . 6 - 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 to Corridor Project Area . Area 2 . 7 - a request by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to :redes.ignate 20 . 50 acres located on the north side of Warner Avenue, 500 feet east ,ofBeach .Boulevard from Low Density Residentia_1 to -General Commercial . The site is presently owned by the Oceanview -School District and is located within the proposed Beach Boulevard Corridor Project Area . A legal description and copy of the above described documents .are on f..i;le .in the .Dep,artment of Development Services . Al'l 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 (7783d) Fernandez, Joe L. Madley, Gerald B. Park View Mutl' Water Club' 16932 A .Street 16942 A Street 16911 A Street Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92641 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-100-52 107-100-67 and -68, -71 107-100-7.8 School, Ocean View District Pearson, George Rizzo, Joseph "R.. 17021 H. Beach Blvd. %G & M Oil Econo-Lube N. Tune Huntington Beach, CA 92647 2120 Main Street, STE_ 140 4911 Birch Street, Suite 100 Huntington ,Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92660 167-321-02 167-321-03 167-321-04 Murray, Viola B. Sundance Properties Ltd. Rocco, Philip J. 8081 Bolsa Ave. %New West Realty 13032 Birchwood Street Midway City, CA 92655 19145 Bloomfield Street Garden Grove, CA 92643 Cerritos, CA 90701 167-321-05 167-321-06 167-321-07 Armijo, Moses A. Borges, Richard Edwards, Donald 252 Knoz Street 15829 W. Ada Street 17071 B Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Canyon Country, CA 91351 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-321-08 167-321-09 167-322-06 Rowe, . Stephen C. Lujan, Ramon V Miller, Arthur D. P.O.Box 244 19442 Northstar Lane 8111 Marseille Drive Surfside,. CA 90743 Huntington Beach, CA 92446 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-321-10 167-321-17 , 167-321-24 ,Pedersen,, .David H. Anthony, William P. Thompson, Paul R 10141 Crailit :Drive 10226 Peregrine Circle 5072 :.Tashman Drive •Huntington 'Beach, CA 92646 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 167-321-11 167-321-18 167-321-25 Nakao:, Steven S. Schley,. Lawrence .D. Mandix, Robert P. 16668 Glass Mountain Street 1120 Pacific Coast Hwy 12689 Lanakila Lane Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Garden Grove, CA 92641 ' 167-321-12 167-321-19 167-322-01 Reigle, William C. Salamanca, Domingo Sikie, Michael F 17112 A Street 19209 Roseton Ave. 8i12 Blaylock Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Cerritos, CA 90701 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-321-13 167-321-20 167-322-02 Palmer, Robert Etchegoyen, Craig K. Taylor, ,David Allan 17102, A Street 19671_ Beach Blvd. 4th Fl.. 8102 Blaylock Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167 321-14 167-321-21 167-322-03 Whelan, John Swartz, Fred R. Martin, Harry C. 743 W. Baker Street Carraway, Patricia G. 8092 Blaylock Drive Suite D 24731 Eldamar Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 El Toro, CA 92630 167-321-15 167-321-.22 167-322-04 Schley, Lawrence D. O'Brien, William T. Kolian,, Simon K - 6692 Harbor Key Circle P.O. Box 6057 8091 Marseille .Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92615 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-321-16 167-321=23 167-322-05 Brown,,. Robert E. City of Huntington Beach Willis, Karen S. 3357 .Burt0..'Ave. City Hall 8101 Marseille Drive Rosemead.;' CA 91770 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-323-01 167-324-04 167-324-12 Kwok, Tai Y. Ulloa, Jorge Nesbit, G A 2nd 8112 Marseille -Drive 17031 A Street 14 Blazing Star Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Irvine, CA 92714 167-323-02 167-324-05 167-324-13 Kennedy, Ronald W. Di Segna, William Nesbit, G A 2nd 17172 Treehaven Lane 13417 Gandara Ave., 14 Blazing Star Huntington Beach, CA 92647 La Mirada, CA 90638 Irvine, CA 92714 167=323-03 167-324-06 167-324-14 Cruz, Richard M. Klevens, Lee B. Ying, Hau En 8092 Marseille Drive oLBK Suite 140 16653 Grand Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 807.1-.SlaterAve. Bellflower, CA 90706 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Yaghjian, . Channes 167-324-07 167-323-05 8091 Valencia Drive Long, Rex R. Baca, Robert C. Huntington Beach, CA 92647. P.O.Box 9631 8101 Valencia Drive 167-323-04 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-324-09 167-323-06 167-324-101 Yin, Joe Buzzard, Carol J. Church, General Baptist 19702 Ditmar Lane 8111 Valencia St. of Oceanview Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 oDickey, D.L. 17101 A Street Huntington 'Beach, CA 92647 167-325-11 16.7-325-12 167-325-13 Tyte, Glenn A. Richards, Roger L. Barela, 'Thomas 17151 Granada Lane 17141 Granada Lane 17131 Granada Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-325-14 167-325-15 and -16 167-331-03 Boehler, Lawrence A. Bank, California First Sullivan, Lawrence J. 17121 Granada Lane Site Location Div. 1215 Riverview Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 P.O.Box 1311 Fallbrook, CA 92028 an Diego, CA 92112 167-325-10 .167-331-04 167-331-05 Deane, Dorothy P. Stellrecht, Robert L. Ocean View Mutual Water Co. 17171 Granada Lane 16591 Graham Ave. Beal, Doris Huntington Beach, CA92647 Huntington Beach, CA92649 17062 A Street Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-331-12 167-331-06 167-331-13 Bemiss, Derald A. Sullivan, Lawrence J. Galvan, Eduardo G 8151 .Blaylock 1215 Riverview Drive 8171 Blaylock- Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Fallbrook, CA 92028 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 4 167-331-09 . 167-331-10 167-331-11 Borges, Alfred R. O'Halloran, Joseph K. Wooldridge, Terry V. 15829 W. Ada Street" 8131 Blaylock Drive 8141 Blaylock Place Canoga Park, CA '913.51 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-331-33 167-.332-06 167-331-21 Ray, Tom Arehart, Robert L. i Trupiano, Philip P.O. Box 8890 8142 Blaylock Place 1124 W. La Entrada Circle Fountain Valley, CA 92728 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Anaheim, CA 92801. 167-331-34 167-332-07 167-331-28 Ruiz, Al Blaylock Property Assoc. Chiu, Ping Hong 6541, Walton Drive 18220 Santa Arabella Street 9711 Bay Meadow Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 167-332-08 167-331-29 167-332-09 Keicher, Dale R. Chen, Lien-Hui Zmuda, Eugene J. 8122 Blaycock Drive 11313 E. Ridgegate Drive 8121 Marseille Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Whittier, CA 90601 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-331-30 167-332-10 167-331-31 _Wong, Tommy J. Privitt, Arthur E. Tamulaitis, Gytis A 4250 Lakewood Blvd. # 9 1614 Meeker Ave. 506 California St Long Beach, CA 90808 West Covina, CA 91790 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 167-332-11 167-332-32 167-332-05 Among, Enrico E. Choi,, Byeong Chul Roberts, Marilyn L. 8141 Marseille Drive oVillage Liquors 8152 Blaylock Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 19090 Brookhurst St. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 r %, CITY Off= H UNTI GTI V BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET :CALIFORNIA 9-2648 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION (714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION (714) 536-5271 April :8, 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 . 7 outlined on the attached map. The proposed General Plan amendment is a request by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to iredesignate 20 . 50 acres of property located on the south side of. Warnfer Avenue, 500 feet east of Beach Boulevard from Medium Density Rfesidential to General Commercial . The reque-st is being processed- with Environmental Impact Report 87-1B-. A public hearing on Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-1B . . Environmental Impact Report No . 87-1B will bel held before the City Council on April 20, 1987 at which time you may address the Council and state your position concerning the amendment and Environmental Im-pact Report . 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 and Environmental Impact Report are on file in the Department of Development Services for inspection by the public . -Sincerely, .James W. Palin Director, Development Services JWP:HS: jr (7623d-2) ���� � %//IIIIIIIIIII ■11111111111■1 11 : o � `. all I�r1t■■ i11111Ii1�■�■i■■! Wall logo NONNI M M II■■�■■ ■11111111■■III■■i : : on 11111111101 Ell 10111111 NO ® . ���/�/IIIIIIIIIII��Ili1■111111�■I t ■tt_ sm MEN t ■ tato�t®� it_ tt_ tt_ it . ■am _ is_ ®■. 011101 am Wall! NONNI 1111111/1 NONE .�'�-MEMIN Will � : . . ®® ® ■Io11 ■IIIIIr, �C ■r �1i1i�����■ ■111�111■IIIi■Iis ;: Elm ®11r ® � i■Iu ni■ -� h NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-1B ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 87-1B 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 onIMondEy, the 20th. day of April , 1987, for the purpose of considering Lana Use Element Amendment 87-1B and Environmental Impact Report 8"-1B . Land Use Element Amendment 87-1B is an amendment to the General Plan which Covers the following items : Area 2 . 6 -, 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 'Cor-ridor Project Area . Area 2 . 7 -- a -request by the Huntington Beachedevelopment. Agency to redesignate 20 . 50 acres .located .on the north s Ride of Warner .Avenue, 500 feet east of Beach. Boulevard from Low Density Residential to General Commercial . The site is presently owned by the Oceanv.iew School District and is located within the proposed Beach Boulevard Corridor Project Area . 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 aid 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 (7783d) a` 107-69,:1-10 Clinton Sherrod Moyer, M i chea-1 . D. City of Fountain_ Valley 81.52 Lancaster Drive Planning Department Huntington Beach, CA 92647 1020.0 -Slater Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 107-691-12 Southern California, Edison 7333 Bolsa Avenue Livingston, James E . Westminster, CA 92683 8162 Lancaster 'Drive Attn: Michael Martin Huntington Beach, Ca. 9264.7 107-691-13 . Brockman.n, William J 8172 Lancaster Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-691-14 Bentley ,' Michael . D 8.182 Lancaster Drive. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-'691-15 Martini , Mark W 8192 Lancaster Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-691-1b Woken, Peter P 8202- Lancaster Drive Huntington ,Beach, CA 92647 107-691-17 Martin , Reynaldo P . 8212 Lancaster Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-691=18 Arrastia, Miguel A B222 Lancaster Drive -luntington Beach, CA 9.2647 107-69f-19 Bunker,. Roy G. 3232 l ancaster Drive -Lunt i ngton Beach, 'CA 92.647 a 107-692�12 107-692-19 107-692-13 Fresca, Victor A. Murphy, Bernard J. Foster, Jalynn D. 8221 Iancaster Drive 16781 St. Cloud Circle P.O.. Box 1344 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647, Oroville,, CA. 95965 107-692-20 107-692-14 107-692-21 .Waggoner, Gary L. Thomsen, Ernest O. Gattanella, . Alexander A. 16791 St. Cloud Circle 16792 St. Cloud Circle 16801 St. Cloud Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-692-22 107-692-23 107-701-04 Scharf, Fred Str itch, John 'J. Truss, Robert S. 3935 Elm Ave. . . 16792 Heritage Lane 16782 Glenhaven Lane Long Beach, CA 90807 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA, 92647 107-701-05 107-701-06 107-702-07 Moline, Milton B. Howell, Jones V. Chapman, Jesse W. 16792 Glenhaven Lane 1855 Pitcairn Drive 16791 Glenhaven Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Costa Mesa, CA. 92626 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-702-01 107-102-02 107-702-03 Buxton, Marvin L. McFall, Edward Ray Peppers, Frederick E. 8352 Arnett Drive 8342 Arnett Drive 8332 Arnett Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-702-04 107-702-05 107-702-06 ' Murphy, Ausma J. Burgess, Arthur M. zimmerman, Earl W. 16831 Glenhaven Lane 16821 Glenhaven Lane 16801 Glenhaven Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 'Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647• 107-702-21 107-702-22 1D7-762-16 Sergenti, David L. • Balderrama, Jose A. Howard, William J. 8282 Lancaster Drive 12692 Alonzo Cook St. 16792 Montclair Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92645 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-702-23 107-702-17 101-702-24 . Meneses, Juan Francisco Duggin, John T. Porter, Donald E. 8262 Lancaster Drive 16802 Montclair Lane 8252 Lancaster Drive Huntington Beach, CA .92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-702-18 107-.702-25 107-703-07 Harrigan, Charles J. Di Luccia, Carrolleen A. Caldwell, Joan T. 16822 Montclair Lane 8242 Lancaster Drive 2008 Pintoresco Ct. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Carlsbad, CA 92008 107-702-19. 107-703-08 107-702-20 O'Hare, James A. Ross, Stanley Jr. Olsen, Wayne L. 16832 Montclair Lane 16801 Montclair Lane 8292 Lancaster Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-703-09 107-703-10 107-703-11 Brophy, Thomas .J. Burnett, Jerald M. Hoiness, Robert D. 1,6821 Montclair Lane 16802 SccLtsdala Circle 16792 Sgo"dale Ci.rcie HuntJ...1Qt on Be rh; 926 ' 1nt:ir gtcP Beach; ;n. 92647 gSOnt'i -or, �c� t h. Cam. ,9 26'47. 107-.662=14 107-662-15 107-662-16 Hedani, Ge6rge ,M. Crawford, Marguerite Ida_ Musgrove, Edith J. 8391 Arnett Drive 8381 Arnett Drive 8371 Arnett Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-665-07, - 107=662-17 107-663-07 107-664-08, -09, -10, 07 Flores, Hector A. Ewing, Roger C. Hanks, J. Donald 8361 Arnett Drive 8392 Arnett Drive 2445 E. Evergreen Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 West Covina, CA 91791 107-666-01,02103,04,05,06,07,08 107-663-08 107-663-09 107-663-10 Smith, Gladys I. Barker, Robert D. Long, Michael P. 8382 Arnette Drive 8372 .Arnett Drive 8362 Arnett Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647, 107-663-05 107-663-06 107-665-13 Parks, Steven R. Clark, Roger A. Rinker Development Corp. 8422 Arnett Drive 8402 Arnett P.O.B'ox 660 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 San Francisco., CA 94101 .107-691-08 107-691-09 107-.691-06 Stratos, Gregory T. Kim,. Jerry Gal"itzen, Mary 16821 Heritage Lane 16831 Heritage Lane 16791 Heritage Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-691-07 107-691-22 107-691731 Dudrow, George R. Ford Leasing Development Co. Schafnitz, Theodore C. 16801 Heritage Lane 300 Renaissance Center 16831 Leafwood Circle. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Detroit, MI 48243 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-691-28 107-691-29 107-691-30 Hewes, .Joseph P. Campbell, Robert-K. Sprague, William E. 16791 Leafwood Circle 16801 Leafwood Circle 16821 •Leafwood Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-691-32 107-691-33 107-691-34 Norton, Frank R. Mc Guire, Kenneth P. Taylor, Robert L. 16841 'Leafwood Circle 16842 Leafwood Circle 16822. Leafwood Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA9264.7 107-691-28 107-691-35 107-691-29 Hewes, Joseph P. . Chen, Mark Hsiao-Ming Campbell, Robert K. 16791 Leafwood Circle 16822 Leafwood Circle 16801 Leafwood Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-691-36 107-691-30 107-691-37 Propas, Ronald T. Sprague, William E. . Wallace, David B. 16802 Leafwood Circle 16821 Leafwood Circle 16792 Leafwood, Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 107-69.2-10 107-692-24 107-692-11 Cabrales, Alfaro Mategorin, Oleg T. Romero, Victor F. 16791 Scotsdal.e Circler 16782 Heritage Lane 8231 Lancaster Drive 9'utitinufic-r,, 11�:a* n cz,, 926 47 s i_CiYi , mac"uc, C'PS 9,2647 7 107 703z-12 107-'771-01 f 167-321-02 Alfieri, Emilio L. School, Ocean View.District Murray-,-,W,1i B. 16782 Scotsdale Circle 7972 Warner Ave. 808 olsa''Aae:- Huntington Beach, ; CA 926.47 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 MXdway City, CA 92655f'_ M Y 167-321-03 167-321-04 167-321-21 Sundance Properties Ltd. Rocco, Philip J. Swartz, Fred R. %New West Realty 13032 Birchwood St. Carraway, Patricia G. 19145 "Bloomfield St. Garden Grove, CA 92643 24731 Eldamar Ave. Cerritos, CA 90701• El Toro, CA 92630 167-321-22 . 167-331-01 167-321-02 O'Brien, William T. Sun, Yung H. Murray, Viola B. P.O. Box 6057 16721 Carousel Lane 8081 Bolsa Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92615 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Midway City, CA 92655 167-331-33 167-331-27 167-331-34 Ray, Tom Trupiano, Philip Ruiz, Al P.O. Box 8890 1124 W. La Entrada Circle 6541 Walton Drive Fountain Valley, "CA 92708 Anaheim, CA 92801 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-331-28 167=331-29 167-331-30 Chiu, Ping Hong Chen, Lien-Hui Wong,, Tommy J. 9711 Bay Meadow Drive 11313 E. Ridgegate Drive 4520 Lakewood Blvd.#9 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Whittier, CA 90601 Long Beach, . CA 90808 167-331-31 . " 167-331-32 167-341-05 Tamulaitis, Gytis A. Choi, Byeong Chum Durell, Raymond 506 California-St. oVillage Liquors 8311 Amsterdam Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92.648 19090 Brookhurst St. Huntington Beach, CA 92647. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 167-341-06 167-341-07 167-341-08 Kilpatrick,, Jack Jr. Vasquez, Kevin De Pari, F,rank 8291 Amsterdam Drive 8281 Amsterdam Drive 8271 Amsterdam Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-341-01 1677341-02 167-342-Q1. Huntington Beach Estates, Inc. Church, St. John's Venables, George W. 905 N. Euclid St. 8341 Amsterdam Drive 8342 Amsterdam Drive Anaheim, CA 92801 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-341-03 167-341-04 167-343-01 Boughne'r, Shirley S. Love, William F. Ham, Chin-Ok 8331 Amsterdam Drive 8321 Amsterdam Drive 8292 Amsterdam Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-34.2-31 167-343-30 167 343-31 Karakesisoglu, Havayim Teurfs, Raymond P. Glover, Verlon Mack 17042 Kampen Lane 8272 Amsterdam Drive 8282 Amsterdam Drive Huntington Beach., CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-344-01 167-344-02 167-344-03 - Phillips, Harry J. Goldstone, Harvey R. Watkins, Virginia M. et al , 17001 Rotterdam Lane 9531 Castine Drive i 17031 Rotterdam Lane H.u, ritington E;each, CA 9264`/. C:A 9264t i Hunt:i.rTgto_n' F,e"ach, 'CA 92647 107-100-20, !-30 107=100-31, -32 107-100=25, -26, -27,-67,-68,-7t Meier; Gary Allen Fernandez, Lupe J. Pearson, George A. -71 • 2521 S. Diamond Street 16920 A Street" %G & M Oil Santa Ana, CA 92-704 Huntington Beach, . CA 92647, 2120 Main St.Suite 140 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 107-100-33 107-100-35 107-100-28 Madley, Gerald B. Park View Mutl Water Club Files, Ila 16942 A Street 16911 A Street 16892 A Street Huntington Beach, CA 92641 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 . Huntington Beach, CA 92647 - 107-100-41,-42,-43 107-100-77 107-100-78 Hunt,. Margie M. Ackerman, Thelma L. Rizzo, Joseph R. 16881 B Street 16911 A Street Ecorio-tube N Tune Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 4911 Birch St_Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 107-100-44 107-100-52 107-100-72, -73 Mitchell, Judith A. School, Ocean View Dist. Bank, Security Pacific National 16861 B. Street 17021 H. Bch Blvd. ' Tax., Div...#05-2-00587-0 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 P.O.Box 60802 Term.Annex Los Angeles, CA 90060 107-100-53 107-100-58, -76 107-100-75 Orange County Flood McDonald' s Corp. Welchel, Marjorie Fae Control District %MC Donalds Corp.#136/04 16911 A Street P.O. Box 66207 AMF .O'Hare Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Chicago, IL. 60660 107-662-03 107-662-04 , 107-662-13 Crawford, Gary ,W. Daigle, Harold L. Buck, Robert J. 16771 Jeffrey Circle 651 S. Magnolia Ave. 16811 Irby Lane, Hunt Huntington Beach, CA92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Anaheim, CA 92804 167-344-04 167-351-14 167-351-15 Clair, Kimi Kenyon, Robert W. Putnam, Howard C. 16772 Montclair Lane 5361 Heil Ave. 8401 Amsterdam Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ., Huntington Beach., CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 • 167-351-16 167-351-17 167-351-18 Hutchison, Jerry L. Trover, William F. 2nd Pitts, Wayne 14461 Calneva Lane 8271 Amsterdam Drive 8361 Amsterdam Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 167-351-19 167-352-16 167-352-17 Halvorson, Ralph H. Plate, Millard A. Meeks, Jerry L. .8351 Amsterdam Drive 8362 Amsterdam D ive 16161 Mt. Baden-Powell Huntington Beach, CA, 92647 Huntington Beach,X CA 92647 Fountain Valley, CA 927.08 ._.. huntington beach development services department . STAf f . REPOR TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services .DATE: February 10, 1987 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.. 87-11, AREA 2. 7 ADDENDUM REVISIONS Recent information provided to Development Services has resulted_ in revisions to data used in the fiscal analysis for the Area 2 . 7 Addendum. The revisions, using data provided by The Price Company are as follows : 1. Approximate square feet of building area- 100, 000 sq. feet versus 120, 000 used in the analysis . 2 . Estimated value of the structure is $3 mullion or $30 per square foot versus the estimated construction value of $`60 per square foot ori-ginally used in the analysis . 3 . Estimated annual gross sales = $100 million with a net taxable retail sales of $78 million (approximately 22% of Price Clubs sales are not taxable) versus $40 million of retail sales previously used in the analysis . The revised revenue/cost summery is as "follows : Mixed Development - Commercial/ i Medium Density/Park Revenue $838, 685 Cost $ 33, 279 Revenue-Cost $805,406 Revenue/Cost 25 . 20 . 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 i _ _ _ A'-.F M-23A i s _ principle factor in the extremely positive revenue *to cost ratio fore this scenario was the very high retail sales generation rate for high volume discount retail stores, The retail sales volume per square foot associated with this type of retail use is more than six times that of' other retail uses 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: JWP:DB:jr (7357d) I ,I I ll LAND USE • . • n w w m 1.1 ESTATE 1.2 LOW DENSITY 03161 rA 1.3 MEDIUM DENSITY 1.4 . g'Im MEDIUMo r \ram 1 n NEW 1GENERAL mom wommm • IN mom o l ' ,� mac•c r, + + "Oil Ele IN KINK 5.1 PLANNED COMMUNITY ANNING RESERVE Xpoj NJ • , S huntington beach development services .department STAB . REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM,: Development Services . DATE: March 31,, 1987 SUBJECT: , LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 'NO. .87-1B/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. REPORT NO. -87-1B 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACT.ION:: Staff recommends that ,the` Planning Commission recommend to the City Council certification of 'Environmental Impact Report No. 87-1B and appproval of General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 87-1B with the recommendations contained in Attachment' l and adopt, Resolution 1377 . 2 . 0 BACKGROUND• On February 10, 1987, the Planning Commission considered Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1/Environmental Impact :Report 87-1. The action was to _split the Amendment and EIR into two groups of items to .be acted on separately. Items 2 .2, 2 .3-, 2 :4, 2 . 8 and 2 . 9. were acted on as 'LUE 87-lA/EIR 87-1A. Items 2 . 6 and . 2 . 7 were held over to March 31, 1987 as ,LUE * 87-1B/EIR 87-1B: Items 2.. 1 and 2 . 5 were. withdrawn by the applicants prior .to Commission action on them. When the Commission continued action on Area 2 . 6 and 2. 7, they requested that staff . prepare' additional information related to the items prior to the March 31, 1987 meeting. . Staff has prepared an Addendum to the EIR (Appendix J) which addresses those items . . ,The analysis section which follows is a reprint of the addendum. Staff also prepared an Addendum for Redevelopment Area Fiscal Impact Considerations which is. Appendix I in the EIR. 3 .'0 f ANALYSIS 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 . 2 . Explore the lease of McDonnell Douglas property located on the northwest corner of Bolsa Avenue and Springdale Street as an ,alternative .location for 'a .Price Club Facility. Adtk .A-.FM-238 3 . Research City ownership of 3 . 0 acres of park property on Area 2 . 7. 4 . Evaluate the possibility of a mobilehdme park on Area .2 . 7 . 5 . Clarify the fire response statement on page 81 of the Land 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 dated January 27; 1987, it would be possible (but expensive) to relocate the substation. The letter indicates a base cost of $3 . 6 million to move the equipment . On top of that cost would be $165, 00,0 per circuit mile of transmission line (5 transmission circuit1s) 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'lwould 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 substation 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 disruption of. services or other problems associated with relocation. Potential Lease of McDonnell Douglas Property In response to the Planning Commission' s dirlction, 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 Streets 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 for 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 and is, therefore, not a viable alternative location. Staff Report 3/31/87 -2- (7660d) :The only other site that may have potential , as an alternative Price Club location is the "Holly" property on Garfield Avenue and Gothard Street . The Price 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 Ownership 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 appendix . 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 mobilehome park use on the Rancho View School Site. The consistency matrix on page 142 . of the General Plan indicates that MH (Mobilehome) 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 staff' 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 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 as well as the Fountain Valley Bushard station. A memorandum from Deputy Fire Marshall Tom Poe, dated February 18, 1987, confirms the that of the information contained in the EIR by reiterating that all three stations are within the five-minute response range. The memorandum is included in Appendix E (Comments and. Responses) in the EIR. Staff Report 3/31/87 -3- (7660d) Traffic Problems on Terry Drive Pursuant to citizen complaints registered at the February 10, 1987 * Planning Commission public hearing on Area 2 . 7, the Planning Commission requested that staff research trafIfic problems on Terry Drive, north of the study area . Residents had indicated that Beach Boulevard traffic is accessing Heil Avenue an1d 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 e meantime, they have indicated that Terry Drive at Beach Boulevard is . scheduled to receive a traffic signal . Theyalso responded that Teary Drive could be expected to convey sometraffic 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 th4e Traffic Section' s complete response to the Planning Commiss'ion' when it is available. . 4 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 87-1B and appproval of General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 87-1B with the recommendations contained in Attachment 1 and adopt Resolution 1377 . 'ATTACHMENTS• 1 . Summary of Requests 2 . Area Map 3 . Resolution 1377 4 . Planning Commission Minutes dated February 10, 1987 5 . Staff Report dated February 10, 1987 6 . Letters and Petitions - submitted by the public 7 . Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-1B/EIR 87-1B CWT•JWP:HS jr Staff Report 3/31/87 -4- (7660d) SUMMARY OF REQUESTS LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-1B 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 87-1B 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 87-1B Low Density Warner Ave. , Beach Residential Residential to 500 feet east Redevelopment to General Mixed Development of Beach Blvd. Staff Commercial (7671d) C E i = _1 2 j7 \\ 2 j 6 a • \� Q L .•a.K.r«K � . 1MMLLNM •I LUE 37-1B AREAS OF CONCERN wm huntington beach planning division i 3 �� 4 8pp 1 - , � �6 AM March 26, 1987 ji " 'r j gal ail' y IN QUEST OF EXCELLENCE" Mr. Kent Pierce, Chairmanfi ' _h_ l ��b_ . Huntington Beach Planning Commission SER'ICES 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Pierce: The Ocean View School District Board of Trustees supports the Redevelopment staff's request. to redesignate the Land Use, Element of the City's General Plan for area 2.7 from low density residential to general commercial. The District owns approximately 17 acres of the 20.5 acres under consideration. The Board feels that an orderly development of this property for the best interests of the City and School District can be accomplished through the City's approval requirements of zoning and ultimately the specific plan that would lock in the site as to how. it could be developed. f As Board Members, it is our responsibility to utilize every asset we own to provide the best possible education for the nearly 9,000 students we serve. This parcel of property is one of the few District resources available to generate supplemental income which will prevent additional student program cuts over the next several years and may provide enrichment opportunities for generations of students. In the best interest of the students, tax payers of the Ocean View School District and the City, we respectfully request that this District-own4ed parcel be redesignated to general commercial. We thank you for giving this request your consideration. Sincerely, Debra Leinweber President, Board of Trustees Ocean View School District DL:jd Ok"'EAN V1 SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES Dale Coogan Debbi Leinweber,President."NOOL DIS"TRICTASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS Carolyn Hunt,Clerk Sheila Marcus,Member Monte McMurray Charles Osterlund,Member Paul Mercier Janet Garrick,Member Joseph Condon 16940 B STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92647 we Are An Equal opportunity Employer 7141847-2551 This District does not discriminate on the basis of age,gender or handicap. January 21, 198-7 Mrs. Caressa Wagoner a.�Lr�!e r 16771 r3,t. Clou(a Circle JAN 2 Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 CITY OF HUNTINGTe,I1 REACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Mr. Jack Kelly , Mayor- Hur!tjngton B-ach City Hall 2000 "lain Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Dear Mr. Kelly, i am Wrltting to you concerning the possibility of the Ocean View School Board long ter rn leasing the property located at 16940 B Street, HunitinGton °eaCh to tiie Price Club. After watching the C i t y Council !IfC{ll t on 4ce reY *1JtVon ! f CUI1:.e that you have not. yPt been. _illy appr<:I d of the situation and feelings; ,s , - -e a ;u nir neighborhood'!:-.-{ u ; e l:ni; r o!! t.ilI w:4_ _; t�l r '' `i ✓ rliFlit, i ��ci��rfiS�I 7i fy !i 1�.�,` It hard t�� JF i1C'v� tiit consideration for fir is property at all. However, as it. is 1 find it rtF r' S''t7r v to Wi i to to you. -ii /4, +�t- ter S avvai.L t .fit{ `}Et ,L:r'f�i peC1!.1l , ar e e.J YY of S�I�� t1�Ci: ! l ri 1.li i.i o;, nib Y'Iarr; �t�!l!ie'rards, Ac cordjfig to the Dept. of Plijlljc W '' s t-ii1' ilt7c i ec l�`v d i e o ,'D 1 ; ti of �, , �- . c i t ( ' F' e t l -� eZt p:1.� iole ratiri�j ` c.i!d r�e ii `� r}"L " Ccl by ti o �u tngto' Besch Fi Dept, that a rejole t I!! v 'D t i j!i e co ene.rgenc'r call frori; c+�r neighborhood 1s effected by the contested traffic condition, surrounding our homes. Even now with the Charter Centre only 50""o occupied at this time, our traffic will continually increase as the occupancy in this building does. According to Mr. Hal Simmons, the Price Club is estimated to bring approximately 18.500 cars ger day into our area. In speaking with Mr. Qruce "ilium of the Dept. of Public Works, he advised me that this will affect streets from Beach to Brookhurst. I realize that the school district has a need for additional revenues. However, with the estimated one million dollars they expect to receive frorn the lottery this year coupled with the estimated five hundred thousand dollars they anticipate receiving from the new developer's fees this year, 1 believe they can and SHOULD afford some consideration to the effects the leasing of this property to the Price Club would have on the city of Huntington Beach acid i trs c1 ti p '�,ens. f°'Jt '� cv • • �/i.� .�f. ,.�.�..C..�.d��l;C.-c'-Lc_ �•�-B of..�C.Cr..,••cL_. c�,_. -r_ � i �:r, �y� f .��`��/1 /, •S.� k'.r. t . �.ti._.-r • �� n�y /��.:�..�t,r' �ii.%t-Z�-i` '��/L(.:� . .�i�r._� C.L�T.I-�y.—T :: - FC.;�-4..ec:_�..-.`1 ;�i.''j;/i-�..�,1!'1.1 �����'d'?./ �.t..: _,,i�•C. 4i '�-�?�:' r'J��-�•-� p . � .. �.�%�-L�'_.. (��... `,C�',r�l-C:.•2,:�_._.: :'� -'tom£..=:3-c-t...;�_ t=Y.- `%.-�'�'•---t�-�' (.,�•�N.,_,.� S3')IA83S tf:1 d s.. roil company 2120 Main Street, Suite,, 1Q • ti gI �B'wac}�, E, 2648 • (714) 960 2471 EV-3 I[ u 1 .`4.V L. S,.�y January 4, 1987 iJ 5E VICE Mr. James W. Palin City of Huntington Beach Depar_tment_-of_.Development_Ser-vices - - 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Palin: - i This letter is in response to your letter of January 30, 1987, concerning the proposed General PlanAmendment `of the 20.5 acres located at Warner and "B" Streets. I will be out of town on .the date of your hearing, but since I own two properties (three lots at Robidoux and "A" Streets and the entire Beach and Warner corner) located near the site, I wish to convey my feelings concerning the proposal. I am for the proposed changes as the new use will fit more directly into the general transformation of Warner Avenue into a "commercial- retail" use. The proposed use would benefit thfe City of Huntington Beach and appears to be the highest and most advantageous use for . the parcel. Thank you. Sincerely, -- -- George A. Pearson GP:dc t r I huntington beach development services department f F .-REPORT . . k TO: Planning Commission j 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. r 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission! approve Environmental Impact Report 87-1, Negative Declaration 86-5.6 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. 186-27 with the findings ' contained in Section 3 . 0 of this report . i 2 . 0 BACKGROUND: I { 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. 86-277. 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 i 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 . 1 Also, please review Appendices F, G and H in1the 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 i Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Corridor Project . 3 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Environmental Impact Report 87-1 andlNegative Declaration 86-56 and 86-60 and approve the staff recommendation for LUE 87-1 as f tained in Attachment 1 by adopting Resolution 1368 . Deny Zone nge 86-27 with the following findings :' A-FM•23A i t r 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. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Summary of Requests 2 . Area map 3 . Resolution 1386 4 . Zone Change Ordinance (86-27) 5 . Letter from John March dated February 5, 1987 (Withdrawal of Area 2 . 1 - Bolsa Chica and Warner) 6 . Letter from Charles W. Thompson dated February 5 , 1987 (Withdrawal of Area 2. 5 Crestview School) 7 . Letter from Ocean View School District dated January 28, 1987 B. Ocean View School District Resolution dated February 3 , 1987 9 . Letter from Southern California Edison Company dated January 27, 1987 1.0 . Letter from Kenneth Pearson dated January 29 , 1987 .11 . Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-1/EIR 87-1 JWP:HS:kla Staff Report - 2/10/87 -2- (7316d) SUMMARY OF UESTS ATTACHML _ 1 REQUEST ENVIRON- ITEM/AREA MENTAL STAFF OF CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE APPLICANT REQUEST INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION ? ZLX W6Xt/AXd9/df /X,IBZ ddHA/MAtdH 09A9tdX EZK/97/X KdtHiC�I/HgYHff�i� HHd SdXHzi/QHXdzi/StL 0dMM9f91AX gdtidfz4X/Qd�c[Acidtd',HX ZdA0/0Mz A40 40ff1fkz1Adttx t16/MOKOX1401 ddHt�Jri2(ftdrl/drld NdL/BB/Za df1WAtA9t KXdX10dAg1Y HdH /Zdrid/ZH24�I¢Jd 1�1ir�Yfkfd KdHYddrlttdX BS/ZB Withdrawn AAd/ZZ/td/Ka 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 ZLS 9d9tX1A1d9/6f XSLgB HXAUAgt6A Ldfb/OgAgIty EZK/97/X Kdtzitri/Edy6/Pfd�igYt TdXb0tt1XVgL4' MA16H KdgtdrdrltYaiX/td zoolfddt/ddgt KddezfdXd Sdrlt 00A0fAX Hdtdg!/Kdddtt�Jridtd Withdrawn df1E0A9X/0XVd! gkAff 0dMM,6t91AX ftdtti/L�i6/BdngYt / d gd�idtdX/QdtttRSdt/ daCa4X/drt/tx� v6r�ttdtri/Slfd �dtd�L SUMMARY OF REQUESTS (Continued) REQUEST - ENVIRON- ITEM/AREA MENTAL STAFF OF CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE APPLICANT REQUEST INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION P 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) � e I ' WITHDRAwN- 2. g 2 .1 2.71 �j 2.61 WITHDRAWN 2.5 .,... .2 2.9 2.3 , 2 j4 * y Figure • �, LUE 37-1 AREAS OF CONCERN huntington beach planning division I RESOLUTION NO. 1368 . A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, 1RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-1 I 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: t 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 plian be prepared for the property.. 2 . That Area 2 .7 consisting of 24. 5iacres located on the north side of Warner Avenue, east' of B Street be redesignated from Low Density Residential to Mined 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 . I 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 Res Iidential and Medium Density Residential to Medium Higfh Density Residential . WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment to the General Plan No. 81-1 was held by the City Planning Commission on January 21, 1987, in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code; I 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: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: James W. Palin, Secretary Planning Commission Chairman (6970d) ` J I f REf7FI`l.E� / f • February 5 , 1987 '07 FED Mr_ Jim Palin, Planning Director r, ., City of Huntington .Beach `' }� ''' `� 2000 Main. Street . Huntington Beach , California Dear Mr . Palini After much deliberation my wife and T have decided to rescind our application for a General Plan . Amendemnt 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 fees 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 Per mit at this time . Sincerely., oh'n F. March ' 17211 Sandra Lee Huntington Beach, California i j z.r City of Huntington Beach « 2000 MAIN STREET, CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR February 5, 1987 HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES " Mr, Kent Pierce P.O. 60A ijU Planning Commission Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ,. Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJLCT: 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, es W. Thompson City Administrator CWT/SVK:sar Telephone (714) 536-5202 January 28, 1987 . 1N QUEST OF1U{Y I �'I BEACH Mr. Kent Pierce, Chairman OEVELC PIMIE€dT S['WiIOES Huntington Beach- Planning commission 2oo0 Main Street4L� Huntington Beach; 'CA 92648 Dear Mr. Pierce: Cra a2W The Ocean View 'School-• District Board 'of T usteea respectfully requests that, • as redevelopWieht plans are considered', the District-owned , parcel located 'near the corner' of; Beach " , ` rezoned fors commercial .use: . Boulevard and Warner Avenue be - As Board Members it is ourresporisibiliy to utilize every asset we own to provide tYie best • p s ibl' education - for the young people of Huntington Beach. Consummating a `Long-term ground . lease of this property with a 'large commercial venture would • provide a ., considerable f nancial adva"ntage to our students for the coming years. Our financial plight•' is `very immediate and serious: TYie income ` provided - through the _leasing of this property will _prevent drastic educational `cuts over the next several years, and . provide `enrichment opportunities for generations of students that will follow. • In. the best interest of all the students of Huntington Beach, we " ask that" you give this request your consideration: Sincerely, Debra Le°inweber Presideht, Board of Trustees ` Ocean View School District DL:pg OCEAN VI .. V� SUPEI71NTENDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES Dale Coo`ari SCHOOL DISTRACT 9 Debtii Leinwetier,President -- •"�• -_ -•�•�, •••• Garolyn Hunt Clerk • ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS Sheila Marcus,Member Monte McMurray Charles Ok6kund, Member Paul Mercier Janet Garrick,Member Joseph Condon 16940 B STREET i HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92647 �- 714/847-255 We Are An Equal Opportunity Employer This Oistricf does not discriminate on the basis or age,gender ar handicap. y HUNTINGTON BEACH' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT FEB Q 5 lqe� HUNTINGTON'BEACH, CALIFORNIA d'h 10 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Resolution #34:8687 Trustee Responsibility to Utilize Available Resources for Education February 3, 1987 On a motion of Mr_ nsterl und_ duly seconded and carried, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, members of the Ocean View School District Board of Trustees were elected to govern and to provide for the education of the 9;000 children of the District, and WHEREAS, providing, the best, possible educational program for the students it serves requires the Board,to available itself of all fiscal resources, and WHEREAS, the: property located near , Beach and. Warner that currently houses the District-Offices has.long term positive financial potential if properly managed,_ and WHEREAS," the Board has carefully studied . the impact of adjacent commercial development on this, property and. sought- counsel on the . appropriate disposition of this site, now zoned residential, and WHEREAS, there ..is -full agreement that redevelopment is appropriate for this area, ; and that the maximum potential -income for this property , wo'uld be realized through a commercial lease venture and . . WHEREAS, in order to consummate a lease, the District, needs' rezoning from residential to commercial use, and WHEREAS, such a zoning change, is the, ultimate responsibility of the Huntington Beach City Council, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach be urged to incorporate a zoning change in their plans for the District site, and recommend that change to City Council, and further, that the City and District join together to encourage orderly development of this property for the best interests of the children and taxpayers of the Ocean.View School District. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of February, 1987, by the Governing Board of the Ocean View School District, by the following vote: AYES: Osterlund, Garrick, Hunt, i.einweber, Marcus NOES: None _ ABSENT: None or Secretary of theZgoard _ Page 254. 1 - / 5711 Mangrum Drive Hunt inngton Beach California 1�2649 January 29, , 1967 Mr. Hal Simmons City Planner City of Huntington Beach California 92648 Dear Mr. Simmons ; As a long time resident, 11am' very much in favor of a Price Club being constructed on the Ocean View School Distr-i8t site. I feel it will benefit the city and • the folks who like to shop there. Wh1: should we take our dollars to spend in Santa- Ana when Huntington Beach can reap the benefits? We lost our Gemco Store onjEdinger end . Golden lest and we could use a replacement. Please give consideration to this quality ` plus for our city. Thank you, Mrs. Ke 6earson Southern Callforale Edison Company K 6W .0 WESTMINSTER L A January 27 , 1987 M. D. MARTIN - .. TELEPHONE MANAGER.HUNTINGTON BEACH - �� ' [7141895-0255 Mr . Hal Simmons , Assoc . Planner Dept. of Development Services City of .;Huntington Beach P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. 926`48 SUBJECT: Oceanside SubstationPrap'brty Consolidation/Relocation Dear Mr. Simmons : ' 7 ,, ¢ In response to your letter dated November 24 , 1986 requesting an estimate of the -.feasibility of either relocating the Southern California Edison Company' s substation or consolidating it on a smaller piece of property at Warner Avenue and "B" Street, the following is submitted for your review: Consolidation or Restructuring a The onsite consolidation and restructuring of the Oceanview 'Substation to half of the existing property could be accomplished. However, it is not practical due to the exorbitant cost of replacing existing standard equipment with special , custom switch gear that would be required for the smaller piece of property. Since. this equipment is non--standard, and would have to be special-ordered, no exact cost estimates are available at this time. We would also be opposed to this plan because of the maintenance problems it would cause us . In addition, it would prohibit any future expansion to serve new electrical needs of the area, including any increase of load as a - result of the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. Relocation o The order or magnitude cost to relocate the substation to another site is $3 , 600 , 000 . This does not include the property acquisition costs nor does it include the transmission line (66 , 000 volt) and distribution Line (12 , 000 volt) relocation costs that would be required to accommodate such a move. o The cost of land to accommodate the substation relocation varies with the location and size of the property. The minimum land area that would be required for a new site is 2 1/2 acres . . The average cost of • Hal . Simmons Page 2 recent acquisitions in Orange County has been- approximately $1, 500 , 00.0 (average of $15/square foot. ) o The cost per single circuit mile of transmission 'line ($66 , 000 volt) is $165 , 000 . This cost consists of , overhead, wood pole construction only. It does not include any steel pole costs that might be required during the relocation process . ItIshould be ,noted that there are five transmission circuits at the present location. 01 The cost per single circuit mile of distribution line (12 , 000 volt) is $800 , 000 . This cost would be for underground construction. There are -presently seven distribution circuits that are fed from the substation. I would .like to bring .to your attention that all costs noted in this letter are estimates only, without -the benefit of engineering. Should the Redevelopment Agency wish to pursue this matter further- and obtain engineered costs , we would require engineering fees so that we ,could assign personnel • to work on your request specifically. If _ I can be of any further assistance, or if you have any questions ,, please call me . I will be looking forward 'to hearing from you in'-response to these proposals . Sincerely, . rr MDM:ct - cc : J.W. Palin D.N. LaBelle C.W. Thompson f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION 3 Date t Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council ; Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services 0 Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT NO. 87-1B AND ENVIRONMENTAL I P CT REPORT NO. 87-1B Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or ELeption IS y g ve Actions, Attachments: Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternati STATEMENT OF ISSUE: I Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Eliement Amendment No . 87-1B and Environmental Impact Report No . 87-11B The amendment addresses two proposed changes to the Land Us'e Element as requested by the City of Huntington Beach. The request?s are being forwarded to the City Council along with the Planning Commission' s recommendations as part of Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-1B . The Planning Commission and staff recommendations for each item are indicated in Attachment 1, Summary of Requests . RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission Action on March 31 1 87 :� ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, AREA 2 . 6 WAS RECOMMENDED TO BE RETAINED AS MEDIUM DENSITY 'RESIDENTIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1 AYES : Leipzig , Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Summerell, Silva NOES: Higgins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, AREA 2 . 7 WAS RECOMMENDED FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED DEVELOPMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins , Summerell NOES : Silva ABSENT: None {� ; ABSTAIN: None 1 1f ' i i I V F I No 5/85 i I ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-1B WAS APPROVED, AS AMENDED, BYITHE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Leipzig, Schumacher, Livengood, Pierce, Higgins , Summerell, Silva NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None t ON MOTION BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY SUMMERELL, LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-1B 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: I 1 . Approve Environmental Impact Report No .j 87-1B . 2 . Approve Land Use Element Amendment No . i87-1B with the retention of Medium Density Residentiall on Area 2 . 6 and the redesignation of Area 2 . 7 to Mixed Development and adopt the attached Resolution as amended to reflect the above recommendation. Staff Recommendation: ' 1 . Approve Environmental Impact Report Noi 87-1B . 2 . Approve Land Use Element Amendment No . �87--1B with the redesignation of Area 2 . 6 to General Commercial and the redesignation of Area 2 . 7 to Mixed Development and adopt the attached Resolution. ANALYSIS: 1 f On March 16 , 1987, the City Council voted ontLand Use Element Amendment No . 87-lA/Environmental Impact Report 87-1A. Those documents consisted of five items which had originally been processed as Land Use Element 87-1/Environmental Impact Report 87-1, but which were split off for separate processing . Those items were split off for purposes of timely processing while staff provided additional information on the remaining two areas . Transmitted herein is Land Use Element Amendment 87-1B/Environmental Impact Report 87--1B which contains Areas 2 . 6 and 2 . 7, and constitutes the second half of Land Use Element Amendment 871/Environmental Impact Report 87-1 . I i i RCA -- 4/20/87 -2- ; (7806d) I Staff has prepared additional information for Areas 2 . 6 and 2 . 7 in the attached Environmental Impact Report . Appendix I addresses fiscal impact considerations related to redevelopment project areas . Appendix J addresses a number of concerns the Planning Commission requested analysis of . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental documentation for Areas 2 . 6 and' 2 . 7 of Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-1B may be found in the amendment report which also serves as Environmental Impact Report No. 87-1B. Environmental Impact Report No . 87-1 was posed for a 45-day review period which ended on January 20, 1987 . Publd c comments and staff responses constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report and are incorporated in the appendix of the report . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The City Council may adopt the Land Use Element Amendment as recommended by staff or ' as recommended by then Planning Commission, or they may modify it as desired. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Summary of Requests 2 . Area Map 3 . Resolution 4 . Letter from Oceanview School District 5 . Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 31, 1987 6 . Land 'Use Element Amendment No . 87-lB/Environmental Impact Report No . 8 7--1B JWP:HS : kla I k I J i RCA - 4/20/87 -3- (7806d) . I I SUMMARY OF 2EOL3ESTS LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-1B REQUEST ITEM/ ENVIRON- PLANNING AREA OF 14IENTAL STAFF COMMISSION CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE APPLICANT REC:UEST INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION 2.6 South side of 4.50 Huntington Medium Density EIR 87-1B Medium Density Retain. Medium Warner Ave. , Beach Residential Residential to Density 200 feet east Redevelopment to General General Comm. Residential of Beach Blvd. Staff Commercial (between A & B Streets) 2.7 North side of 20.50 Huntington Low Density EIR 87-1B Low Density Low Density Warner Ave. , Beach Residential Residential to Residential to 500 feet east Redevelopment to General Mixed Development Mixed of Beach Blvd. Staff Commercial Development (7671d) n e s ti-- • � •RGOir : � r.00sX � FdXGv 2.3, � XrR 2.6 fpGeeRr Fj rws o �• - GARAf�p 77 {FSr '�CrO'x'X f poaXs � Io11N I \ \ d � prows I Xpwfmx ! I uxXiXG 1 I LUE .37-IB AREAS OF CONCERN AIS huntington beach planning division i HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENTSERVICES APR "1 u 191 April 10, 1987 P.O. fia 1{untingtor3 Bech, CA 92648 Honorable Jack Kelly �N QUEST OF EXCELLENCE- Mayor of Huntington Beach and Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 t Dear Mayor Kelly and Members of the City Council: The Ocean View School District Board of Trustees: wishes to reinforce our position regarding the importance of designating our Warner Avenue parcel of land as General Commercial for future development. This designation would_ allow us the flexibility to seek land use proposals from the private sector that would be in the best interest of both the City of Huntington Beach and the schools that serve the children of this city. .I Since any plan that is ultimately adopted for thedevelopment of this land would require recommendations from the Planning Commission and the approval of the City Council, we feel a general commercial designation would allow the maximum flexibility and creativity for those who wish to develop such plans. The enclosed letter outlines our position and has been sent to all residents (approximately 700) who 'reside near our site. Please note this letter assures these residents that every attempt will be made to blalance 'the District's needs with their- concerns, and that negotiations with the Price Club have been terminated. Thank ou for your consideration of this request. Since el 4 i D 1e Coogan Superintendent o Schools DC/pg l OCEANVIEW`� SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES SCHOOL ®ISTRK I Dale Coogan Debbi Lei ,President ? Carolyn Hunt,Clerk ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS Sheila Marcus,Member Monte McMurray Charles Osterlund, Member Paul Mercier Janet Garrick, Member Joseph Condon 16940 B STREET I HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92647 we Are An Equal Opportunity Emplayer 7141847-2551 this District does iiot discriminate on the basis of age,gender or handicap I i f I HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES � APR 1 1°8•7 April 9, 1987 ! � � P.O. iiux 1'@ Huntington Beach_, CA 92648 Dear Westmont Community Member: -IN QUEST OF EXCELLENCE" Recently, there has been much discussion regarding the eventual use of a land parcel owned by the Ocean View School District that is separated from your community by the flood control channel. This property faces Warner Avenue) and extends from B Street on the west through the current location of the District's maintenance yard and bus garage on the east. For many years this property was used as a school f site (Rancho View Elementary). Because of declining student enrollment, this school was closed in 1976. Soon after. that time, the District administrative offices and Library were moved) to this location. Because of additional school closures, it is now possible to move the District Office and Library to a closed school site located on land that has no real estate value to the District because it is owned by the State of California. The Warner Avenue parcel, which will be vacated, is owned by the District and could have significant long term financial value to our educational program if properly managed. We are now in the process of attempting to market the Warner Avenue parcel. To do this will require a series of zoning changes, environmental hearings, etc. Despite inaccurate reporting in the local press, please be assured that the District does not intend to lease the property to the Price Club. We engaged in preliminary discussions with that organization, but when it became a `g� apparent that this was not an acceptable use, those negotiations were terminated. The primary responsibility of the Board of Trustees of t}ie Ocean View School District is to maximize the income available to the District through the wise use of this asset. This objective must be balanced with the best interests of the total community, as well as those of the local community. I To- carry out our responsibility regarding this land parcel, we will continue to seek the most flexible zoning arrangement so that we have room to negotiate with potential renters. It is our hope that the final' disposition of this .property will be in the best interests of the School District, the City of Huntington Beach, and thc'local community. I Sincer l I D lc Coogan Superintendent of drools OCEAN VI SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES SCHOOL ® 5"Ri =t Dale Coogan Debbi Lei ,President r Carolyn Hunt,Clerk ASSISTANTSUPERINTENDENTS Sheila Marcus, Member Monte McMurray Charles Osterlund,Member Paul Mercier Janet Garrick,Member Joseph Condon 16940 B STREET I HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92647 I 714/847-2551 We Are An Equal Opportunity Employer This District does not discriminate on the basis of age,gender or handicop. L J AI �A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4' H INTER-DEPARTMENT COMM;James TION HUNTINGTON BEACH i To Charles W. Thompson W. Palin., Director City Administrator S bevelopment Services Subject MIXED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO ate April 30, 1987 FOR AREA 2 . 7 OF LUE 87-1B At the April 20, 1987 City Council public hearing for Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-1B, the possibility ,of Mixed Retail/ Industrial as a land use for Area 2 . 7 was railsed. Staff has prepared the following information. There is presently no land use designation in the City' s General Plan which is specifically called Mixed Retai'1/Industrial . That type of a land use mix would, however, be permitted under either the Mixed Development or General Industrial land ,use designations . A specific plan could be prepared to implement the designation, or alternatively, MI-A (Restricted Manufacturing District) could be utilized. This district allows industrial projects to include a maximum of 35% of their square footage for retail use. The types of allowable retail uses are then specified in a resolution which is adopted in conjunction with any such mixed use project . If a mixed retail/industrial project is approved for Area 2 . 7, the resolution should also specify allowable industrial uses . Apparently, the Council is interested' in a mixed retail/industrial land use for the site because it is anticipated that industrial uses would generate less traffic than other uses . ' In fact, however, office and residential land uses may have similar or even lesser traffic impacts . Industrial uses typically generate 13 trips per 1, 000 square feet, office uses generate 15 trips per 1, 000 square feet, and residential uses generate 7 trips per unit . For comparison purposes, staff has prepared several mixed development scenarios which feature 35% of the site as either retail or office and 65% as other uses (industrial, ioffice and medium density residential) . As indicated in the results below, retail/industrial is not the lowest traffic generator, nor is it significantly less than retail/office which is the highest traffic generator . 1 . Retail/Industrial 7 acres 98, 800 sq. ft . Retail x 70 trips/1, 000 sq. ft . = 6 , 566 13 acres 174 , 200 sq. ft . Industrial x 13 trips/1, 000 sq. ft . = 2 , 264 8 , 830 ADT } I Mixed Development Scenario ; for Area 2 . 7 of LUE 87-1B (Continued) 1 I 2 . Retail/Office 7 acres 93 , 800 sq. ft . Retail x 70 trips/1, 000 sq. ft . = 6, 566 13 acres 174 , 200 sq. ft . Office x 15 trip s/1, 000 sq. ft. = 2, 613 9, 179 ADT I 3 . Retail/Residential 7 acres 93 , 800 sq. ft . Retail x 70 trips/1, 000 sq. ft . = 6, 566 1 13 acres 195 Med. Den. Residential x 7 tripfs/unit = 1,365 i 7, 931 ADT 4 . Office/Residential 7 acres 93 , 800 sq. ft . Office x 15 trips/1, 000 sq. ft. = 1,407 i 13 acres 195 Med. Den. Residential x 7 trips/unit = 1, 365 2, 772 ADT I 5 . Office 20 acres 268, 000 sq. ft . Office x 15 trips/1, 000 sq. ft . = 4 , 020 ADT I i Staff has also analyzed the fiscal impact ofaa mixed retail/industrial project on the site. The same scenario as number 1 above with 7 acres of retail and 13 acres of industrial was analyzed. The following are the various costs and revenues associated wit�h a retail/industrial project : I Revenue It Cost Item I Property Tax 29 ,458 ;Gen. Admin. 13 , 263 Sales Tax 166, 964 ' Police 12 ,420 Util/Fran Tax 18, 549 Fire 4 , 869 Business License 4 , 024 ;Comm. Services 0 FFP 0 (Public Works 974 Cigarette Tax 0 I Motor Vehicle 0 ! TOTAL: $ 31, 526 Gas Tax Fund 0 i i TOTAL: $218 , 995 Revenue $218 , 995 Cost ! 31, 526 Revenue-Cost 187,469 Revenue/Cost 6 . 95 I i (8015d) Mixed Development Scenario for Area 2 . 7 of LUE 87-1B (Continued) I The above results indicate that a positive fiscal impact could be expected from a mixed retail/industrial project . The impact is more positive than would be expected from an all residential project and less positive than an all retail project . In terms of the other mixed use concepts shown in the traffic analysis above, it is likely that retail/industrial would generate less revenue than retail/office and more revenue than office/residential or retail/residential . i i The above discussion of traffic and fiscal impacts indicates that retail/industrial is not necessarily a clearly more desirable mix than other, mixed use possibilities . It should also be noted that industrial may have the potential to create more truck traffic, noise and odor impacts than the other land uses . For these !reasons staff recommends that Area 2 . 7 not be limited to retail/industrial at this time. Rather, staff would prefer to retain the flexibility of the Mixed Development land use designation, with the final mix of uses to be determined only after all of the impacts of alternative mixes have been considered. i I i i , I I I i I !I(r l +I Ii i l� I (B015d) I Fol-"AB CITY OF HUNTINGTON 'BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMU TION HUNTINGTON BEACH I O To Charles W. Thompson James W. Palin, Director City Administrator .r Development Services Subject MIXED DEVELOPMENT Date April LAND USE DESIGNATION 1 The staff recommendation for Area 2.7 of Land Use Element Amendment 87-1B (the north side of Warner Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard) is for Mixed Development. The purpose of this memo is to define Mixed Development and provide examples of existing Mixed Development projects in the City. t The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the following definition and list of allowable uses for the Mixed Development land use designation: Mixed Uses The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan includes a broad mixed development category intended to encourage maximum flexibility. f 1. Mixed Development: Mixed development is designated for the property north of the Huntington Shopping Center and other areas in the City. Types of uses allowable are: a. Retail and specialty commercial b. Office—professional C. Hotels and motels d. Residential e. Public facilities 1 The consistency matrix in the General Plan which is attached indicates that virtually all zoning classifications in the City are consistent with the Mixed Development land use designation. As such, the Ranchoview School site (Area 2.7) 'could ultimately be zoned all commercial, all residential or some mix of the two, if it is designated Mixed Development. Alternatively, and as recommended by staff, a specific plan could be prepared as zoning for the property. A specific plan could permit the same range of allowable uses as regular zoning, but may have the additional benefit of allowing greater sensitivity to traffic and compatibility concerns on the site. I Mixed Development land use designations have been established in four areas in the City; the North Huntington Center/Old World/One Pacific Plaza area, the Pacifica Hospital area, the Huntington Harbor Bay and Racquet Club area, and the Warner/Magnolia Apartment and Mini—Warehouse area. Of those four areas, the zoning was implemented by specific plan for the first three, while the Warner/Magnolia site used standard zoning. Attachment: Consistency Matrix sop JWP:HS:gbm (787bd) P.FG,7? T( r r 4 l GQ. Alj UPI-RSIGNED ARE OPPOSED. TO ANY CHANGE TO THE . CURREY DNING.OF ,AREA 2.7. THE AREA 2.7 IS KNOWN AS THE , C,UR� T OCEAN VIEW , SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICES, - BUS �v.WkIkENANCE YARD AND LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD AND IS LOCATED ` ON WARNER AVENUE, 500 FEET EAST OF BEAdl BOULEVARD. NAME ADDRESS j PHONE -12 ` B S Z GflivcA57 ��R - o A'71 r - t ti IV a,, ! _ a _ _ WE .TIIE. :UNDERSIGki),' ARE OPPOSED TO ANY CIiANGE TUa THE CURRENT ZONING OF AREA 2.7. .THE AREA 217 I3 KNOWN AS'-THE „ CURRENT OCEAN VIEW SCIIOUI, . = DISTRICT. OFFICES, . hBUS ' ' MAINTENANCE YARD AND ,LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD AND IS LOCATED ;. ON WARNER AVENUE,1500 FEET EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD. . ' NAME ADDRESS PHONE , • ` {jam///`�/f{ / � � '. bA Ll — 71 ' F7 7 llv�fQf EVE, THE UNDER5IGNEll: ARE OPPOSED 'TO „AN'� CIi ANGE TO THE. CURRENT ZONI��U OF AREA 2.7. _ THE AREA. 2f7 IS KNOWN AS THE CURRENT OCEAN VIE SCHOOL : DISTRI-CT OFFICES. BUS ., MAINTENANCE YARD. AND LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD AND IS LOCATED- ON :DARNER AVENUE; 500 TEET EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD.- . NAME ADDRESS PHONE tl i r C .5 o eyek� 31 • -� L CY ! Yl'_" 1.. f- f', { /"\ /fit., _ ti' '1 ',� ZLI 7 7 WE THE UNUI:RS�GNEU ARE OPPOSED TO ANY CIIrL?JGE _. 'ft) 'fliE CURRENT 'ZONING OF- AREA 2.7- THE AREA 2.7 IS KNOWN AS iTHE ,- CURRENT, ._OCEAN VIEW-. SCIIOOL`' DISTRICT , OFFICES, BUS MAINTENANCE YARD AND LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD AND IS LOCATED' ON WARNER AVENUE, 500 FEET EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD. NAME ADDRESS PHONE JA ZZ .. o k W E THE UNDERSIGNED' ARE OPPOSED TO ANY C11Ai4GE TO T�HE CURRENT. ZON1i1G 4F A:ZI; 2.7. '['lIE AREA 2.7 1S KNOWN AS THE - L'1�1 SCHOOL DISTRICT , OFFICES BUS.CURRENT OCEAN V I MAINTENANCE YARD AND LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD AND IS LOCATED ,,- 0 IN WARMER AVENUE, 500 FEET EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD NAME ADDRESS PHONE u 1,6 ape,�v zAlel 1 f k QA GLLlut T R W)b 020,F1 I( -Ig l R84 I L+2-6 4 93 a ;- IAL -93 7 A 414 r q5 . IMR7 C.I. VVE 'TII% UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED' TO ANY CHANGE TO TIIE CURRENT ZONING OF AREA 2.7. THE AREA 2.7 IS KNOWN AS JT RE. .. CURRENT OCEAN VIEW- SCHOOL. DISTRICT. OFFICES, BUS MAINTENANCE,YARD AND LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD AND IS LOCATED ` ON WARNER AVENUE, 500 FEET EAST OF BEACH BOULEV ARD NAME ADDRESS PHONE 145P, 5r ^� Yq 7 0��1 -54�,Aj1 1=`, 7�.� 9Z- - -- - =- - �. l 6 , Zt WE TIin. UND:3RSIGNEll ARE' OPPOSED TO ANY C I;1iJGE TO 'FIiEn . �. CUIRREi1'T 7.ONI.1 n'r t\REA 2.7. .TIIE ARE �_7 IS KNOWN. ��S T IE CURRENT- OCEAN ' V IEW SCHOOL DISTRICT ' OFFICES,_ " SUS " MAINTENANCE YARD AND LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD AND IS LOCATED ON .DARNER A �IEi�U£, 5DB FEET EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD. NA 'ADDRESS, PHONE :. 05 7 yI cz� 172,3 dfn / a,&z�P'24, / r�► / �hAAoa Cry - oP,z W E THE E;NDLRSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO r�I`IY CH ANGE Tt)" TIfE CURRENT ZONING OF AREA 2.7. THE AREA '2.7 IS KNOWN AS THE • CURRENT OCEAN VIEW, SCHOOL' DISTRikC't OFFICES, BUS` ~ i MAINTENANCE YARD AND LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD AND IS LOCATED ON WARNER AVENUE, 500 FEET EAST OF 65ACH 'BOULEVARD.'; NAME ADDRESS PHONE nit �"'Q/V/J( lelL - ---- --�1 -1 ' lPWaA.Rl' ry 6?/os�a53 • a--a r c( 3 $� 7 ?: _ 1L-1 d' 3 - a si WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE, OPPOSED TO ANY! CHANGE., . TO THE CURRENT ZaNI NG"OF IAREA• 23. THE AREA 217, IS LNOWWAS THE CURRENT- OCEAN, - V IEV/ - _. SCHOOL' DISTRICT OFFICES,^ BUS MAINTENANCE YARD AND LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD AND IS LOCATED ON WARNER AVENUE, 500 FEET EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD.s NAME ° ADDRESS FHONE ' WE, THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO ANY CHANGE - TO THE ` CURRENT ZONING.OF tLIt EA 2.7. THE AREA 247 IS KYOWN"A'S, THE" ' CURRENT OCEAN VIEW , SCH4UL DISTRICT OFFICES, BUS :MAINTENANCE YARD AND LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD`ANDrIS LOCATED ON WARNER AVENUE, 500 FEET EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD: NAME, ADDRESS- -PHONE le " Y -77 r WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO ANY CHANGE TO THE., . _.CURRENT 7,ON1N(i'()F AREA 2.7. TIIE AREA 2.7 IS KNOWN AS THE CURRENT OCEAN ' VIEW SCHOOL DISTRI�Cl' OFFICES,` BUS _ MAINTENANCE YARD AND LITTLE LEAGUE.FIELD AND IS LOCATED " ON WARNER AVhNUE, 500.FEET EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD. NAME - ��� ADDRESS PHONE WA-Z I Yoj�A-*-, 8/9 S*l-- -F/17 Y15-7 lyl it I �y GAY 1912- 9�� �. o APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL DRAFT :D1 CITY CLERK LAND. USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87m . 1 B Environmentai impacf Report 87- 1, B huntington beach department of development services ,�� i i 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 Balsa 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 . * withdrawn ** Processed as Land Use Element Amendment No. � 87-1A *** Processed as Land Use Element Amendment No .' 87-1B i ` 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 Seventeens 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 rn r of .B a h 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 Iof 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 . i 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 Commercial . The site is presently owned by the Oceanview School District and is located within the proposed Beach Boulevard Corridor Project Area ., Staff recommends that the property be redesignated as Mixed Development in order to encourage a mixed use project which may include commercial on the western portion of th'e property, and .Medium Density Residential and public park on the eastern portion. Staff will further recommend that a specific plan be prepared for the property which would also include .Area 2 . 6 across Warner 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 zoning. + Staff recommends that - the property be redesignated to Medium High Density Residential in order to achieve consistency between the General Plan and zoning. , Area 2 . 2 - 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 . i (7263d) f Staff. recommends that the property be redesignated to Medium High Density Residential in order to ' achieve consistency between the General Plan and zoning . (7263d) 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS i SECTION PAGE 1. 0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. 1 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. 0 AREAS OF CONCERN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 . 1* West Side of Balsa Chica Street, Northof 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, I East of Algonquin. . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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... . . . . . . . . 6 . 99 3 . 2 Irreversible Environmental Changes 100 3 .3 Growth Inducing Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 i APPENDICES i i 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 i 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) 1 � * Withdrawn ** Processed as Land Use Element Amendment No.' 87-1A i *** Processed as Land Use Element Amendment NO. 87-1B i i Land Use Categories AMENDMENTS CPLANNING COMM CITY COUNCIL j E RESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION �9G. RESIDENTIAL 6 -77 1196 87 18-6-77 4484 00 �C,S, O`6 Kok;' 9-29-77 1202 II-7-77 4551 O`O°y 9 �?a Estate <_2uMgac «a 0 Estate s 3 un/gac 12-6-77 1232 B-19-78 4572 F.P, Estate <_4un/ ac 8-1-78 1232 8-6-78 4696 11-21-78 1239 II-6-78 4696 /'> =Low Density g 3-21-78 1242 12-18-78 4728 3-6-79 1242 3-19-79 4728 / 3-I8-80 1261 4-7-80 4865 ( /\ / ��\ �p��t aMEMedium Density 10-21-80 1268 6-15-81 5005P�0 ( Medium High Density 4936 5-19-81 1273 6-15-81 5005 J` SAN DIEGO FREE WA -- / II-3-81 1278 12-7-81 5053 11-17-81 1279 12-21-81 5060 0O ) High Density 8-2-82 5147 �F 12-20-82 5206 /^ ✓ \ % \ /J'' ' < - Senior Residential r 12-7-82 1299 2-7-83 5223 4-19-83 1303 5-16-83 5265 COMMERCIAL 10-4-83 1314 II-28-83 5327 /r ``%';{"�';�;.'--`. - _ 12-6-83 1315 1-3-64 5341 / \/ - -_ - - 6y / , \ ®General 4-3-84 1317 5-7-84 5373 --_- . \ OO / II-5-84 5457A /" `\ Visitor-Serving ii... \ ♦ G 10-16-84 1333 I I-19-84 54578 6-4-84 1344 - - I - - 0 1 7 85 5457C - - e a Office Professional - \ P i 6-17-85 5532 -- -- -- 4 / -22-86 1349 -I - - -`I 2 8 86 5639 / \ MIXED US ES E S -6-86 I 7 -5 -35 6 2-86 5670 - -- - - Development- M'xed S Of f P i .............................................. ...... .................... r ................... [::. ' ........................................... ................................ e�',,, :::'� - ;;.,nF°,, ��° . Commercial/Support ort Recreation .....:..................................... .................................. _'�,,.�,_,'° �•:� .... _ .mom�, - _- Pp -- �'�,�~"`� - �a INDUSTRIAL 4 M General n 3m ` ��:::::::::::• .:::::�tatsattt:sss�:a::::s�tats:a:::aa:�a:aa . , . .............. . ...... '�'' > """"""�� �������� \ �1- Resource Production <' �€�� �€ I€ :� i � ::::::-:: Industrial EnergyProduction n --- AC OPEN SPACE 4, e E t 9 6 :h, C ,cr�r.�;crd'Ydr' --- P ti 2 Water HiMiflHHiiiii Y"> P r3M, Conservation M Recreation ♦ !;J )�� 4 t. }art: *n q .:tea •K:: THE USES R U q <r O Public6uasiPub'c Ins ti utiona 04 I, u r, ', N 'iJ•. l Facility:f�•� Waste t, - Solid r P `L ,. r.r� s -- s�-R ^1 " -. , - ' Planned Community t ! �fi• F - ! >+t. - - Fe� -—Fl. - Planning Reserve ti _ f _ ll: \ "a - _�� ..- -Coastal Zone Boun dary Y •F$iL - Conservation nOv erlay mn '� / ♦ b'v - / ♦ a r k°= ry`YY�3 a•b G>f -/ f. o s 'Q - o / w A,�a _ 1 _ rc T ;r/ 5 s V _ -.__ ems` ♦ - / WNW - PACIFIC COAST maw-_ HWY - -- - �;Fn' - »'.-ra'=-_ _ _ OCEAN .. . ,.� ... '♦"i®'�auDC :::.::®<j;:? ....... PACIFIC PACIFIC OCEAN eia'•-a-' - L......v'' ♦�+�•o♦s:� L��7�•�i\a10 .• :;®':r:•:r:•::•: -:,v_v-,'�n ,� '`"`f„ j "uae� �♦�4�i✓t,4 '�YaM� ►C�.w �.aa.Rom:•O• - _ D I Taw PLAN ERAL ® HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA LANDNUSE DIAGRAM PLANNING DIVISION Adopted December1976 Revised JUNE 1986 C RM-JIT i I I I i I 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report concerns Amendment 87-1 to the Land Use Elemerit 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 used 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. I I i I i F ( 0550D) -1- r � S E � i = n L-- 4 `W a 9 li \ 2 . 8 2 ..1 2.7 2 .6 2 .5 \ ✓ . 2 «„ TZI 2 .9 0 2 .3 a 2.4 ' ..�. I I�1 � N Figure 1-1 LUE 37-1 AREAS OF CONCERN huntington beach planning division —2— r 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 a.n 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 . I � r . I i • { I t I f 1 I ( 0550D) -3- . I I i 2. 0 AREAS OF CONCERN 1 2 . 1 WEST SIDE OF BOLSA CHICA STREET, NORTH OF WARNER AVENUE, f f 2 .1 .1 Background ; t Area of Concern 2. 1 is a' request by John Nmz'cY to redesigtiat'e 1'.62 acres located on . the west side of Bol'sa dfiica Sheet approximately 400 feet north of Warner Avenue from General Comm'ercia2 to Medium High Density Residential . ,The site is preseihtiy �eveiope'd with a 4, 470 square foot restaurant. The study area has been designated Generai dommerciai since 1954 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 E for the construction of up to 40 dwelling units: A concurrent 'one change from C2 to R3 has also been requested. I i { I ( 0550D) -5- I s '! 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 this area ' s Low Density Residential .east of t i z y rd z 1 . 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 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 . business ) . Further south, on the northwest corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, a small complex of auto-oriented ( 0550D) -6- Sm ■� "w � 1 1111111 IYIIII11INI HIM n ►x,If �� ■ w w!r fr ■. 01� f ,� �■ ■ 1111111/11 i�� ili���, {. Illaf -. #■illilll • S�� 1111111111 l��l�'1 �flllllll � - .. : - e s LT 484, l R Rl AVE---- HEIL �t ,q w R3 j o►6U ?. icctr a TIR'2 T R2 - R2 R2 C4R2 ,R3 q eu�ro=�* MH i �C2 r� V p7in bR. Rl Rl w TA DR a a�LLM oeERI NEE Es CF--R R2 �y . R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 IP°.'`'V ?E` n a RI Rl R) z „ !iU!!R�! t U ,i lvRl2ly! R2 ' _ a Qi T l07R2 U Rl o ,� m 1 R2 R2 ST. Q may (Q)MHN R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R3- R R2 (0)R2 } IL _ MILO ST. R3 - Q •••,,,f 2 g k R3 R3 R3 z R3 z R3 ct C2 c4 f WARNER AVE - 3 w.xi� R 5 Q}e „ r,4 R3 q ii �df C4 fa R 3 $ a xrx R3 azaamp R3 R3 C4 R2 R2 R 2 n }}�� Q �} buNW - - - -- R 2 h fat 7 R3—I V ES C KING $ CL x10 /1 R� I DR RI 3asixf , - ---- » C R! R3-23 = R2 RI I RI—CZ Rl-CZ RIRI R3-23 i -2W RI-CZ R� nPNE �eft.. j�R3 � -----_-:-oa r RI-C� R3-23 e w RI OD .rya $ —CZ Figure 2-2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIN EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2, 1 —3— 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 i Residential with an R3 zone designation could result in a maximum of I 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 . i 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 . I ( 0550D) -9- If the existing General Commercial designation were retained, it is possible that the existing zestaurant- 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- I 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 tax factors were derived from the Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Center 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 j 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 Utilitie , a . Sewers I I An eight-inch sewer pipe currently exists in Bolsa Chica Street, and E as indicated by the City' s Public Works Department, has adequate capacity to serve any of the development alternatives herein. The f 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 I study can be adequately accommodated. It should be noted that the Medium High Density Residential Alternative would have the greatest impact on sewage flow. � h I (0550D) E b. Water The subject property is currently served by an eight inch water line in Balsa 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-b ) , Harbour View Junior - High (grades 7-8) and Marina High School (grades 9-12 ) . ( 0550D) -12- 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 i 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 willbe adequate for the remainder of the decade. h . Solid Waste Disposal j 1 I 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 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. i ( 0550D) -13- . i 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 ( re.tail 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 i'n 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- 2. 1 . 2 . 6 Airport Safety 1 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 i a. Noise Noise exposure on the property ranges from 60 Ldn toward the rear of f the property, away from Bolsa Chica Street, to 70 Ldn at the edge of i 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 i procedures to minimize unnecessary noise. Since 1979, there have been only nine ( 9 ) formal complaints from nearby residents about i aircraft noise. As indicated in the Huntington Beach General Plan, the noise contour lines from the airport run in a northeast to i 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 a and the proposed commercial retail use in Alternative 9 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 uti-lized along Bolsa Chica Avenue if a residential use is selected for the site. ' i ( 0550D ) -15- � 111 � !!llll!!1�l11 �� �■ o.:. �11111 1 11 l�il#ll�llIN,1 nnen■nn, H�nee■eeeie` � �-� Dell:lelle. 1 1� 1111l11lR� 11lIIIi11lIgIINN � ■ Il j�\ ' '1!1 �' ��NI■ 1 !! 1� � nlll�*� ell��� �� _■:� - :ems .i a �'�■. - ��.r '1�■ Ilse: - �:����� 1y' S 55 ■ eellnel��i � ' _�'-'� � '�Illlllil 1111111111 �!�'�� � ' i. � - F�"--'� " C �•,__-==_=_= !11%!till lilllllil �� r• - ■ • �111l11111 = lll - • i►�Nlunlii! = � 4 � �e lilill�!lill �liil�lli� ` i1 �1■�=1 � � . . e eieeeeee����e■ ��� illlllill �il 1 ■ ` I! II it 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 ofthe 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 . i 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 . I The State Department of Conservation ' s Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) i indicates that there exists an abandoned oil. well on the subject i property. The oil well , which was drilled in 1955, was owned by I 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 I abandonment operations shall be the responsibility of the property I owner . At minimum, any wells exposed during excavation or grading shall require remedial cementing operations. r ( 0550D) I -17- r 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- I I i i f I i 1 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 projedt 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) j -19- 1 y 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- • Ilia = IN low to ME soon Ma .,rr��� r;ems-xw. c.c•+.r��������r ,..:rRnrr��r 111111I1► r/1� . �1lllillll�� , fr '� � ��►•��■ ,ram ■� ��...��1 Ili -- ��� - ■ �� r aU1H1L: t_PP' RI MINER AJ'FN KI NE AVE S>T2O So T4KL' R DR LE CONTE OR � ; 00 1. RI ol EJ 00 DR �� R2 o RI S RI RI J RI-PD� r wcr cR R I Ri RI311,31 R2 " Ino.41 R3 R3 RI CF R RI R SO H � J R3 `IR ,C4 R3 I c::rsrotr�, R2 RI a.._. xRAN►LIN OR C4 RI o Ri -I _ RI R3 R3 , _R2 S w° R2 _ RI `�' °' 7ooaa_a'f RI ¢ ' s _ R I R2 R3 RS i R 2 I R I ! t` j�-Cw►uawE ui S� — 33R3 i e0 FC �� C4 R2 PP8 I / R3 / _ u R2 � '� R3 MH-FP2 R2I! R3 (aISTRICTo rAZ1 R-'� a R3 R3 II 12 TM'01 ioo R2 m -.:-. UkLWCM- R3 ;AELMWOOn50 (DlSTR4CT$ RRI-FP2R3i�r_ .,.,.. CPL CONSTANTIN� DRRi ,. Rh-FP2 C A WUNITY PLAN o R3 R2 R2 R3 A R. ICT ONE? z � 4 R3 z I Rr R2 �kti m 34W, Y I c < F. FE : o R-1 �1 CC a # R2 R2 RI R I a ¢a R3 I ;s rrncrot on cl R2 U. " j L_ 11 a . 'z R-I tiC —+ — Ir AVE GARFIELD / Figure 2-5 HUNTINGTON BEACH CLIFORNIA EXISTING ZONING 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 . 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 theJ ong-term concerns the . j 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 . t i 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) E -23- k �ewwuw+roKri�>Y� 3 '' - sf • { F �h �!s 5 111 rz, I Til H � � STUDY sus 4.. F AREA ik,�'� � "^ ...-...,.,.:,.,,.,,.,,, � .-......- y ..,.......,....,...,,..,..ww.ywi..w....+..u..w.,,a...r.>.w �a....................... O/liM lD a y S ..�..l:�.• 3 s £ •, S ...... ................ .... ..._- ADAMS WMANAPmPS ATLANIA EXISTING F PRIMARY AREA � A SECONDARY AREA 4+ FURTHER STUDY Figure 2-6 AMN HUNTINGTON BEACH M L CALIF RNIA MULTI-STORY AREAS o , PLANNING DIVISION -24- I i i 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 th'e 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 shoul'd not be a significant problem. 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 there would be no mixing of residential and commercial traffic. 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 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 redesignaton 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 I 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 i assumptions . � f ( 0550D) -25- ELLIS AVENUE i PROPERTY LINE 1)00� PARKING w 0 w... ` as ` < x EXISTING SHOPS :...... H EXISTING SHOPS a z *��, FA PARKING -; 04 maw VEHICLE ACCESS EXISTING SHOPS IiIIIII � � II PARKING Figure 2-7 HUNTINGTON 8FACH C4I_IFORNIN POSSIBLE EASEMENT TREATMENT PLANNING DIVISION —20'— 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/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 alsoirequires less City services, thus generating lower costs . Insreviewing 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 i 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 E 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 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. (0550D) --27- f 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- Y 1 I 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 are'a 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 .! I Gas service is generally provided as a normal extension of existing j 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 I 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 j for new generation resources indicate that their ability to serve. I 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 . i k r i 1 ( 0550D) -29- Y 2. 2 . 2 . 5 Traffic and Circulation Access to the area of 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 Dail-y 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- I i The Orange County Transit District does reque'st, 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 an.d arterials. 2 . 2. 2 . 6 Environmental Issues a . Noise I 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 . i 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 °pro£essional 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 . k 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 M 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. i The Division of Oil and Gas has indicated the passible existence of I an abandoned oil well in the vicinity of theksouthern boundary of the property. Section 3208 . 1 of the Public Resources Code authorizes the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to order the � f ( 0550D) -31- 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- 'r } . I I I I I I I 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 UticalAvenue, 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 I 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 f 1 (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. 82-15 . 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 Analysig 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 R2-0-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) CL:., '77iiaki- AVE cn OFFICE IMED :_ = • �� - -- I GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROFSNL. DENSITY - `�` •��� ;'`�N.?'�F� _� '--ter. i '� YORKTO^ irt;; —•1 _ — I � ! CF- C CF--E I ; I LPU WICrOTA AVEAVC QUAS-PUBLIC,T6TIONAL :�,�: ,�~� rr. � ��.����;���� -_ -=��_�•...._ � }, MED I UVI DENSITY T I LOW DENSITY El SaRINGFIF LG _JAI•,- Figure 2-8 • 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIN EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ; PLANNING DIVISION I AREA 2.3 -35 R2 R2 jR2 ml IR R2-ne O)R2-01 R2 w it ME' r!WW a 2-..R PLAN MMRPCT 1.1 CLAY � 2 C C2-0 2-0- 4U, R2-0-PD ILK R3 0 1 wo f�?': :fmS w J: R2,0 ;12o R2 C2-0-CD C2-0 V2-Como- Rl ------- aroR2-0-PD��r R2-0 RI efi En 9C2-OKT�- R2-0 CD -.1 "R -0-pD- 0 • C2-0-CD R5-0-CD c" A L R2-0-CD F30DW R2-o 2 0 CF-C R2-0-CD 290 CF- E-CD I ZRA ICHJTA_— CF-E- CW o R2-0 9 CF-E -CD-0 VEWCL k GF U7,L -0 -0 -0 -1-1-0 — CF- R RI RI RI Rl RI R2 -CD-0 �Oku%TO 0 .0 RI L—i SPRINGFIELD d Frw -j Ir -0 -0 -0 -0 z RI RI RI Rl RI R2-, ROCHESTER A R2 11HUL -JL.--, � J -0 ~ -0 -0 �-0 -0 1-0 1.0 r— A)A I I S Figure 2-9 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.3 -36- 1 . 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 wouldlalmost certainly be consolidated for a condominium project. 1 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 featuresJUtica 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 compatible1with 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 andia parking lot lie between the building and the area of concern. If +care is taken in the design, a low density residential projecticould be developed on the site which would be adequately buffered from surrounding land uses . 2 . 3 .2 . 2 Economic Considerations 1 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 i $ 61,438 Revenue/Cost 2. 51 2 . 56 As shown above, Alternative 2 (Medium Density Residential) gerierates 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 MediumiDensity contains enough additional units and people to increase tax revenue substantially i i (0550D) -37- i 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 H.nggino ' 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 fines 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 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 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 iprovided by the- City of ' Huntington`Beach from the Lake Street station, locatedson the west side 'of Lake Street at Frankfort . The area of concern li'es:: within the five minute response area of the station and can- be adequately serviced for either of the alternatives analyzed. e.. Parks Worthy Y .Community Park is across Main Street, just west of the„l �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 residential project will be more than adequately- served by these. parks .. r f.. Schools The area of concern is located within the Huntington Beach, City School District and is served by Smith Elementary School, Dwyer School fo.r 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 Use Alternative School _High School I Low Density { 88 Units) 18 23 Medium Density (189 Units) 22 7 g . Gas and Electrical Utilities 4 - Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Extension of the existing 4 inchtlines• on Utica Avenue • wi11 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 annually; however, excluding any unforeseen problems, their 'plans for new generation resources indicate thatitheir ability: to serve 'all customer loads during peak demand periods will be adequate for the remainder of the decade. -39- (0550D) t ■ h,. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow� Dispasal. 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-se`cte'd by Pine' Street . Oil rigs presently utilize Pine Street., to- access .oil wells- in the area . ` Pine Street is also utilized 'by employees an'd 'visitors to. the Civic Center since it leads to: parking spaces on' l7th• Street . It is possible, however, that Pine Stre rr et nay' Ue 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 . Thi-S . ection_ .of Lake Street presently conveys average' daily; grips' which are' below 'even the limited design capacity of a collector arter.faCY.: . Lake Street intersects Yorktown Avenue to the north `whi.ch '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. .af Lake . Stre.et 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 Stireet via Utica Avenue . The. Medium Density alternative,. however, wduld have the potential to create traffic impacts on Pine Street south of UticaAvenue under this scenario. Alternatively, access_ for a Medium Density project could be taken exclusively from Lake' Str.eet . .. 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- 2. 3. 2 . 6 Environmental Issues a. Noise j a 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 residentialluses is 'Ldn 60 . The area falls outside the Ldn 60 contour lines generated by traffic on Lake Street and Main Street. 1 No significant noise impacts are anticipated to occur from either of , the alternative land uses . b . Air Quality i Either of the land use alternatives will adversely affect air quality in the South Coast Region; however , Fthe 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. t 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 belconsidered 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 27Jpercent ) 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 geotechnI.ical 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 tolDivision 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- y 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 . It is recommended that adequate- open space and access-'be provided . around and near each of the acti've - 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 . 1 i I I E 1 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 j 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 FloridajStreet, Knoxville Avenue and Memphis Avenue, is vacant . i I I i I � -43- ( 0550D) a . - 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- CP* r "tip III' f�l�ll��� � •L:.�,.���....✓ ' �� il��t111111111I111E��' 5 :j•>� . r ;,-���:•� �lilltflflflfifllfl�l��ill�� `' �" `'��, ��I� i�■ir�ll� — � .Ya■• MINI •. RR HIM _ — _ _ _ ,� �� ■ I { jI rr no oil m up lull 0 1, J ANN Li moll E ME � ��p ;� a= � � �■•ram � lull milli IT oil • „ ' 41 a • ADAMS AVE. DAMS/ ---- w H ` (0)0LDT mC2 C4 . ; ';At-8rA6R I '-C -O C SPECIF LAN t J PECIFIC PORTLAA,D (DISTRICT 21 ,. , ~ , O •soi -0 ', .trot RI= os V AVE. R2-PD-10 -Q -01 - �r - -PD-Id . i1 R2 x }, Is : N AS MYILLf AYf. , �• tI .oI .Kfwvrf _ W - � i7t m PL ,N{� RIOT TWO) I > _ = ' I� -PD-a '' 1�-je z —AAEMPNIS -- �M�A/ 4NO� SE 0.VOR7 KNp E 1 ; AVE. 4 wl E Clf �+ , .C2 � o RI a C n I cs w� MVIt T R R� R3 R�C4 HftmF>LjrN 1!¢ .. U RI 9 A RI RI ALL _ da �Jl !HN't c o R3 R3 o R3 C' I o"" Ri RI E1 --- 0 Rl RI l :A A -� / INDIANAPOLIS - FL Ri�,_,. rf i TWDOD AVE. / m RI REiLIY Rl CF-E (FIE TEkS+iN%CW,-C•I,) GENEVA LLJ SAIL CA t- —� � C � RI RI FR�RT �•+•�••� C 1OLD W 1 x SPECIR A - MH RI - (I]ISTRI E f R I E LMI� R� R I LL KINGFISHER Figure 2-11 AIM& HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA 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 Commercialland 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, 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 (McDon'ald ' s and a vacant office building) . I As discussed above, the study area is surroun1ded 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 j commercial retail development would include convenience and neighborhood commercial developments, a community shopping center or other highway related retail commercial uses .1 i 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 h may be compatible with the surrounding land uses since the proposed f Medium Density Residential uses could provide a transitional use between the existing Low Density Residential uses and the i 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 (M'edium 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- Y 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 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 $ 36, 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) i 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 J the subject property will actually reduce housing opportunities i'n 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 gill provide the greatest opportunity for affordable housing. 2 .4 . 2 . 4 Public Services and Utilities a . Sewers No direct sewer hookups currently exist for ithe 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 ofIthe 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 indicatedithat 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; j. ( 0550D) -49- f 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- i Students generated by residential alternatives : Elementary High Alternative School 1 School ( 1 ) Medium Density/Commercial 9 3 (75 Units) ( 2 ) Medium Density 18 6 ( 150 Units ) a I 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 I the remainder of the decade. I 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 f accommodate the company' s refuse trucks without requiring any backing up. 2 . 4 . 2 . 5 Traffic and Circulation I The area of concern has approximately610 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 studyJarea. I I ( 0550D) 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 gill 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 iodated on the west side of Beach Boulevard, which is the principal source of noise in the area . According to projected traffic noise impacts for 1990 by the Wyle Laboratories, the area would be .exposed to noise levels ranging from Ldn 60 to Ldn 70 . .The high6e t . noise levels occur along Beach Boulevard. Any resi, dential development must be compatible with the Noise Element of the tity,' s General. Plan . If any residentialistructures, are located within the Ldn 65 contour , mitigation measures such as building setbacks; building orientation or noise barriers such as walls or landscaping sh6uid be utilized . if the mixed development scenario (Alte`riiative 1 ) is selected; steps to mitigate noise iiripacts from the commercial use on the 'residential uses should be employed. b. Ai,r. Quality Developrient of the area of concern under anykof 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 orl commercial Use's . Projected daily emissions from the area are indicated in Appendix B. I � C. Seismic, Soils grid Geology In c6mpliance' with tY6 Alquist-Piiolo Geologic Hazards zone Act of 1972, a Special -Studies Zone has been established in Huntington Beach . The special crone includes the most hazardous earthquake faults in the City. While the study area does not lie dire&"tly within this zone; it is very close (approximately 400 feet south of the study zone ) : The site is also located n`'ear the Indianapolis Avenue fault zone. Risk's posed by thi"s zone are minimal; however ; as the zone has not been active for the lasts 101,000 year`s an"o. its actual presence has been questioned bg some 'geologist's : i i With regard to soil `constraints, 'the study site is located in a potential area of peat deposits . Peat depo's,its 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 geotechnic'al investigation be performed for any development or structure to be located within or near these areas. ! l The site has been identified as having only a low risk of ,. shrink/swell p"otential from clay-'like 'soil deposits . In addition, no known current or historic (capped) oil wells exist on the site: In light of the risks g posed by the Alquist-Priolo hazard zone, the I 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. .( 0�50D) -53- 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 pro3ect 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- i F I 2 . 5 SOUTH SIDE OF TALBERT AVENUE, EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD I i 2. 5 . 1 Background I 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. i } I The study area is presently utilized by Crestview Elementary School , which may be phased out at some point in the future. The study 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 possibilityjof a commercial land f use on the school site which could tie in with and encourage recycling of the adjacent shopping center . 2 . 5 . 2 Analysis I 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 ) i196, 000 square feet ( 0550D) -55- 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 are 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 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- �Al : WE 5 �rr1!.,�� �� ems• ��r■��`� � ,iBoom SEEM � ` �i � i��j\/'�\�. � ter■■■�■ ..�`�� ' �`�r�■1� �.a. are. ��` �- " �• � ■■i fir■ 1 i=. ., ME .. NINE !!l�nll�lrrl��,M,�es ,�rr�"`���rw��R•�_ ''-—� .tea. � �� •• i � , iiiii:iiR,�_ _ .... I I nil -� .. 1111INI � tlRw;f � • `f nw- Uhl Ri 2 C4' (V = BENJAi/R! pR D I �c� r w PI K' R 2 'R3 LIBERTY 79a I ��` R� NOH4� 0 F R r EL MROY6 R3 - R 2 C4 ' R5 R5 n I -a9 4 o - -- - i}I ___ 306 NE�k A[v '�'VE '— lY01 W R2 .- R2 s� x x� :77- R5 SP-� C RONALD �] DR. ao R 2 N.LINE !1/2 B I/R Br 1/4 aEC 26-B-II 2&0 TOw- • R3 L'R3 R2-PD-02) 1 R2 R2 C4 I S P- I 27 J DR M I Z Rap (Q).RA R8 R5 $ RI —�— -- TALBERT AVE. Ai3YR4-SR )R2-,'PD r C4 R I 3 RI�!I A a o R!GLAbYS AVE R4-S {4FfC9Ri:i?iki ? ;:_c RI RIRI .JSARTM CRiD ^C 4 RI:.TER IN AVENUE R I `,�•Rl-PD��,u�x�iro 1- RI m RI RI RI z a RI-PD r RI ✓<INER A KINER AVE RI TAYLOR DR. Q RI 1 z 97720 W TAYLIR u DR LE CONTE DR, C14 DR C 2 R! RI Ri RI Rl-PD* ' ^�1Z R2 a a RCY GR R 1 3.____ R I R t _ �R2 :�•-_ -. DR I. R3 •.0 R3 RI r CF-R f RI R3 F LE Lj R3- C4 R3 R3 R 33,. R2 na J � Rk i xRANKUN DR C 4 ,..,...... "R I o R I R! a o 4 rur a a R RI R3 n RS JO• R2 Rn Y u n R2 , RI •--_._._- G ;r �lYELR4=J � CC R1 R2 RD RS i2! ;. }o�w.eUk Figure 2-13 AM& HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2, 5 -58- 1 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 . ; r 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 exactirevenues 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 alit extends' to the east . The existing sewer system will adequately Yandle 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. I -59 (0550D) f ' ■ i 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. i 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 se;rves' the vicinity of the area of concern and could accommodate the additi-onal students generated by 'a residential project . The number of students that would be generated by the residential alternatives are the following: Elementa'ry 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 r ( 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 sane 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 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 betwdbh , project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials . k 2 . 5. 2. 6 Environmental Issues a . Noise Noise levels slightly exceeding Ldn 60 - extend into the noirt western 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 acid soundwalls should be utilized along Talbert if a residential land use is seledted for the site. For a General Commercial rise the sound level`s 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 grid are contained in Appeddix 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 I 1972, a Special Studies Zone has been established in Huntington Beach that includes the most hazardous earthquake fault's . This I 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 requirement's . I In 1974 study, Geotechnical Inputs, prepared for the City by Leighton-Yen and Associates , indicates that the soil in the study I area has a moderate to high ( 20%-42% ) clay content. This condition exists in much of the northern half of the City. Since. expansive j 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- A •, r 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 I r I f E 2 . 6 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BEACH BOULEVARD AND WARNER AVENUE I 2. 6 .1 Background f Area 2.6 is a request by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency S 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" i 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 redesignation affected only the study ' area between "A" and "B" Streets . The area between "A" Street and Beach Boulevard remained General Commercial. E The study area is presently characterized by multiple small 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. I � 1 ( 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 Rl 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- r - - { HIGH ��♦:�,iui■1 � . �' � 11111111111 � _� �. TV DENS 13Ymooed ILI �■s_� Mo 11: �■ � � � �� � � � S' ,� MINI■ �� IN�IN� m� �IIIIMO■RW...■r �� �NIN _� � ■ IIIi�i �� � NINO mo ir �III�INNIII� �� U -- .i -f/111111 ii �I�IIIIIIIIN�III�. ■.. ■.r. o� -� . ', ■ �_�1��������� r WONN �■� r �+ �-- BRYANt DR / y RI o- a oI C 4 RI LA .•2�'• C 2 LAMBERT DR J.... ..•• �0 i RI o RI RI RI so E WT5 YD C TERRY DR. TEARY DR. ' t g Dow lRRI RI RI RI RI PRIAD 3 g0RI '" LANCASTER pR, �4RNETT DR ! ' o RI Rr DAMASK DRIVE > [D ce-+ J DOUX c5-2 0. c F. c D _ f€ ea C ro W. * 1 CR Ll �! q4 _ - CF_E n M R3 F R2 11 m ! 1 � TAMARV DR. xrs ], ro i* R3 ~t F Arxtx•VIEW S:":1-1cot.] !S C4JL R3C, U— R3 � I «_ � —: m + WARNER AVE 3 - - RI I - AMSTERDAMRr _ __C4-MS ,M M+ 50 I� W ti R2 RI[■ RI RI RI _ I z J FRI W e. ± °; 50 RI $ MARFSEILLE DR Rl RI POLDER CR i - if r96 . 4 I . f' I RZ �00 R I r -ill R 2 R 2 'a RI 'O YALENI u 2,5 u__ aSOToQ billy Rl RI ' R 3 MRaT1N CR !G A I AN R MANDRELL DR i sas RI z 7 -a! R3 R3 R3 ��' RI J C4 4 GUILDEflS DR, Z BARTON DR 3 ! RI C F--E o 1 R3 HpLLAND z v I ANC v+EIY SC1irC1 1 I I O O �[} .' R I s a rs a RI= rPD x m Ir a: 57� t - RI RI Ri :- C 4 z 0: LL # o �g fC �3]0 R3 R3 � R3 . '+ - I J •ve __ 11_— I--- r5L ATFF+ Figure 2-15 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2l6 -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 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 Considerations The Planning staff utilized its standard 'fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . The revenues and i 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 _ I General Commercial Medium Density E 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 I (0550D) -69- f 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) -10- d. . Police and Fire Protection Police service for the area of concern is pr-ovided 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. f 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 . k 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 i 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 . f ( 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 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 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 ( 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 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. i The Orange County Transit District does request, however , that I'I 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 j 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 cont-ent , . 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 , 2. 7 NORTH SIDE OF, WARNER AVENUE EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD •2 .7. 1 Back round 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 Lour 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. 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, 06.0 Square Feet (0550D) -75- 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 apartmentlproject from the. study area. Across Warner Avenue to the south of the study a•r.ea 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 R1 and the property is�• devel;op,ed"as''''al single family subdivision. Tife 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 requested 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. -76- ! �� � ' � � ,ter,� nr. ter,ter. �■� ._.� �■■1® _ � ►.■ �■� r■■ ■� �■r ae■ a■Ar ■�ii i�■ a �■ 1�1/■ ♦ � � 1,►�re1■111// / ■IIIi11��f11■1111 � � mom moo _ ■lS■■ ��E2�. f��■I//111 moo II<►�/II/ III11111i ■1111■ Y' "� "y.."1-.� tri'+6n A` a,:e.• F=��r74' .III �"'� s loll INRITY, PH q E nj� 1�11� � a �1� ` ■� �'� ��i �� � ■ �t 1 1� a 1�1� �l��r� 'C EI 111� •r .. ���1� I■■1■' F- 1 ■ x , f - - hiEIL CR OF ]_j CR _ J ^ a Z q a 2 R I. U w RI U U J U c� U J LOTS CR . w RI 9� oR` I,. Ri J.- R Rk RI Ri W RI RI �+ RI RI RI RI RI .� s C4. a o(` # DONALD CR 0� RI "� usk ` DR RI Y 'p C%RYSLER Lh - RF R1 , JUOY CR O _ -- - BRYANT 'DR L:�� '� •' '_ s 1 - of V 4 ° RI Ri LAMAR 4 . I Q. - 'ej 9 �, ! LAMBERT DR RI xo RI RI E i RI i Ri IN CR Son To It TERRY DR. TERRY OR. RI R2 6 °i >• HOWARD CR W x m �� g 2 � LU Cq RI � RI F al a RI Li I W LANCASTEA DR, A - DR ARNETT DR /� � RNETT ' 4 o RI RI RI _ i616 DAMASK DRIVE i O C F, C P Cif-2 f 0. w RI le0' �ic� R3 M z t � II MERL CR I _I 6 q a R3 i !d J i I R 2 � 'C a AAI R T ARU aD aAE%.w R ( �r r R3 :::::::::: •::::•::::::::::. :. ::: C4 n� y =.. OL SGOW CR �I_. R ae0 J r� WARNER:; rAVE C�C RI RI fn F CITY �R2 ! R 5A /� �j{ _ AMSfE 11RDAM aRCDR. k `?—IYIS_ i _ { R2 C I R2 =� RI ! S4 sot R2 R2 2 m N 1 srt 7, R EDA CRN �� ,,,, R Iz cr cc .� o R I eo 2 ios ` - L DR. RI RI RI R NDT R2 z RI RI GYPRGS9 /h�sa MARSEILLE DR RI RI a va DEfl ca R� -ISO~ r •L 4^I W W , -.ass' ,• RZ soo ti R I a o R R �/ R 2 .a 1 L. I .70 r VALENCIA - DR e:-jam x.s E �l}I Sail? RI R __—_.._.- 130 TO rt I E:�K:lFRI SLAND R •.:�t 11,;1 f MRL4TIN CR. Z HANDBELL DR n v� R I _ R I J R3 R3 R3 �I �+lf7ER5� e i Figure 2-17 Aft HUNTINGTON 864CH 04LIFORNIA 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 .Defisity 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 methodology. i -79- (0550D) 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 $45 , 865, k $ 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 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 dens.i.ty , - 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 hous,ing, element contains a policy stating that surplus school sites - should be utilized for residential use where appropriate and cons.istent 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' ,propo,sed '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- t Construction of any new project on the subject property will require completion of the 6 inch 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 . s i e . Parks i 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 i density residential designation, however , would likely permit the City to retain some portion of the site for park purposes . ( 0550D) r � a 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 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. i (0550D) -83- ' • T In terms of direct access to the site, commercial development would likely require the srygnalization 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�a-42%) clay content. This condition exists in much of the northern half of the City. % Since expansive clay soils can cause serious damage to li6ht3y loaded structures, pavements, driveways and sidewalks due to voiumetrlc changes associated with moisture content, a geotechnical study should be done" to make`r'operdesign 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. 2 . 7.2 Staff RgggMMgndgtign Staff has concerns regarding the ability to effectively mitigate commercial development of the entire 20. 5 acre study azea. 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 Iproject ' on the south side of Warner Avenue. The western 13 . 5 acres are also adjacent to the under-utilized property along "A" and1'"B" "Streets which could be ' rolled intoYthe"project area toyobtain Beach Boulevard exposure. The Edison substation on "B" Street iaill bi-sect the two areas but the substation could possibly be relocated. i Rather than redesignating only the western 13 . 5 acres of the study III area for *commercial development, staff recommends that a Mixed 1 Development designation be placed on the entire site. Mixed_ Development will permit the same commercial and residenti,al• 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 pyblic park development . I (0550D) -85- A specific plan could be prepared to implement the Mixed Development land use designation. 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. =a6- (©550D) i I { i I 2. 8 North of Warner Avenue/East of Algonquin street y 2. 8. 1 Bac�ound 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. I 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 I 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 I three sides as well as medium density .condominiums. to the north, and low density single family homes to the west. In addition a proposed ro p p projec t has been filed on 2.4 acres within I 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 I 87 . (0550D) MINIM Bills11. � r 1;1•�� ~r�. Illy:=__ ��F'��`�L �. '�� ���. �. •• ==__ 1111 IMI IIIIIIIIII �o �+q ����•>.� 1'1�IIIIIr �:..==___= IIIIIIIII:� 11111IIIIt ,,�;;�.►.�- •i r � 111111111�1 .;1111111g1 . . ;,, G �::� ■z� _ � 1` 1111!lIIII:� �IIIIIIIIII i� _ .t �` ■ � 1111111111 1 � i � IIIHIIII �' 13 �� `�� 1111111111 la �.- 1111111111 1 111'1- ����.�- ' '_ a�: � :1 •. �mollWit �tr�# ' Jill 111111 ;tip �■■ �11111111�,,. �;�� �W :3 ■� ow �s � - ��F_ , ��� , sir► � fl mill f 1 Y• FAIL— 12R Ra R2 R2 C4 CF--E R2 ::xa;aF :sxr scrsu; L+ °R CF-R ' R2 = 5 A&IoR I Fl �a CF-R R2 1 tPy R3 R2 R2 R2 R2 9r�` C11 ;. 4R2 = R2 R2 R2 VL ;dn O R3 R�-cz R2 I R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R3• C4-CZ I RI-�Z R1-c� � YII-o sT. R3 _J o R : R3 R3 R3 R3 4 s> C 2 i yp�pgrjR. c7 I-C�Iz +: WARNER AVE _ R,.. RI{2 naq >aoRu4 - i R I-Cz RI- N R 3 R3 ",� Ri-CZ `_' rr a �' �� R3 R3 C4 E R 2 R3-19 v� �§ 7EWAT'tR R .MMES - KING � R I-CZ 3AY . —�`, N U R I rt(i�9 R3 NTINGTON NARBM t'If J RI—CZ RI-CZ � RI LUB SP£CiFfC PLAN \� # -------------------- RI-CZ I RI-CZ R CZ AVE I AVE. RI-CZ Y cs ` t Figure 2-•19 I HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EX I ST I NG ZONING 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 than 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 . ' 1 i i ( 0550D) _91 i s I I I� I I I i If� I - I i fI ' I ' I f • I I I -92- I 1 I I i I 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 achievelconsistency 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 i 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 f 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- a :�'��►�-� ����e� ill � 1����;, ,�� : _�='� � �� � �,ice::�� .�w:_H/n///////�•- •�O���r�1 � � �� ■■� Cw Room NO EWA � . ■logo ■g■n■n i RSR 3 RI _ I F it 50 C4 R3 a ): 1 . �... r , Z KO i R2 Rl owa+aaF!1.� i . I 'i RI-PD' I R2 = RI Rl OWN CA 8 N R2 .^ R2 R! j R3 i R3 �----- C 4 R2-PM 4 R3 R I 4 I R3Imo , i • I � I R2 Rz Jr R3 MH ; u i'o R3 i C4 R2/1 -----77lRLk*Lwcoow 1 I R3 f.!cuwom 50 ew::elIR3 R3 R3 ..>� -aYt- mn 1 CR CONSTANT RI I I RI I I W R2 R2 R 3 i W 4 R3• RI ' IQI s.o'- RI R I Im R2 R2 RI� � J I I .TNi Jll J„ R I I GARFIELD OW R � RI RI RI r R2-PD RI `"1ENLEONRI RI RI RI RI WOft A'J7 x RI RI R i wM cJL RA FCR RI CF-"E RI RI RI 0 �.os ! R i RO u (PERRY SQ CK-r-) cW4L0Rl LR uJ - RI Ftlr OR I 1 Y V h h:;.•.xJ �:k ..1 !C4 E p �x 1 1 a� r.. o� ,.rl. r.+� RI I h Figure 2-21 HUNTINGTOtj BEACH C4LIFORNIA EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2, 9 —95— I 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 Rl . 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. I I I I i ( 0550D) -97- { Y i I I I ' I 4 I 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, an environmental assessment is required to address short-term and { long-term effects , irreversible environmental changes, and growth inducing impacts of� the total project or p at1. This section analyzes these concerns in 'context of the' recommende'd land use changes in Section 2 . 0. 3 . 1 SHORT-TERM AND LONG7TERM PRODUCTIVITY Amendment 87-1 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 onTa particular area at the time of development. J Amendment 87--1 seeks to identify short-range issues within a context o€ long-range goals', policies , and environmental planning programs . The amendment itself acts as a mitigation measure designed to minimize any adverse effects on' long-term productivity 'resulting- from short-term uses . One of the steps required to implement the amendment is an analysis of the zone changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance } with the General Plan . The zoning changes that would result would have significant short--term efipcts, such as creating non-conforming uses, reducing or increasing intensity of development permitted, and providing stimulus for development . ( 0550D) -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 pr@ssure: 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: Dri-nking 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- 1 4 . Laundry Facilities : Water--conserving models of washers be used. 5. Restaurants: 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-low-flush toilets : 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 t'o 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. I 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 j efficiency. 8 . Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in ground water recharge. ' I 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. ; " I 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. - r (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 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. (0550D) 7102 APPENDIX A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - 3 i f � I I 1 I +I I I I j FISCAL ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS i 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, assumptionsiand outcomes, a technical appendix is available upon request separately from this document. AREA 2 . 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - GENERAL CON�NlER�IAL ! - Existing 4,470 square foot restaurant . - Assessed Market Value $406, 962 ALTERNATIVE - MEDIUM HjQH DENSITY E AL f , 40 Apartment units i -- $85;000 per unit market value 70 occupants based on 1. 75/unit 4 ALTERNATIVE 3 - MEDIUM DENSITY 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 i AREA 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 - MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY REEIDENTIAL 47 Apartment units - $85,000 per unit market value 1 - 82 occupants based on 1. 75/unit ALTERNATIVE- 2 --MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL', - 27 Condominium units i - $125, 000 per unit market value - 54 occupants based on 2/unit ALTERNATIVE 3 - GENERAL COMMERCIAL (OFFICE4 - 69, 000 square feet of general office development 55,200 square feet of leasable space - Market Value $6,238, 916 1 (6744d) AREA 2 . 3 ALTERNATIVE I - -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 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) s STAFF RECOMMENDATION - LOW DENSITYZGENERAL COMMERCIAL (RETAIL) 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 - GENERAL 112, 000 square feet of office development - 89, 600 square feet of leasable space} Market Value: $9,983, 999 ALTERNATIVE 2 - MED11M DENSITY RE ID N IAL 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 - $180, 000 per unit market value - 332 occupants based on 2 . 5/units ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY RE$IDENTIAL, 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 pEVELQ,PMENT - SCENARIO^, COMMERCIAL/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- . r 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 . r� AREA 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide T Y = 11 Quality Restaurant 4 ,470/sq ft Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 1 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 1 NONHOME 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 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 76 668 Home--shop .59 190 Home-Other . 144 745 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-Other 71 367 137 7-86 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) AREA 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 - HOME - BASED EMISSIONS Type of unit -Size Carbon Monoxi a Y)= 18 Low Rise Apartment 47 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = . 2 HOME BASED Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 1 � •, ' Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year ) =30342 Assumes Temperature = 55 Homework 103 905 Home-shop 79 255 Home-Other 193 999 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 3,9 125 Home-Other 97 , 582 Total -1�T- TP55 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 1034 6763 *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) AREA 3 ALTERNATIVE_ 1 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit size Carbon Monoilde 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 2.93 946 Home-other 716 3708 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 12.33 Home-Other 933 4832 Total 1811 1UTT6 VMT columns may not. add up due to rounding .! ( 0550D) AREA 4 ALTERNATIVE 1 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon 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 73,59 5145Z Carbon Monoxi e T X = .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 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 60J3 ALTERNATIVE 3 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Car on 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 )=107.8234 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home-work 17807 97048 Work 363 2943 Total 18170 99992 Total *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) M AREA 5 ALTERNATIVE 1 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon onox e ' )= 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 125T 72.45 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--Oth_br 811 4206 1574 9061 ALTERNATIVE 3 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide T Y W" 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) r AREA 6 ALTERNATIVE 1 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of• Unit Size Carbon MonoMe T Y = . . 55- General Office - Hydrocarbons (,T/Y) = . 7 Building 112000 sq ft Nitrogen bxides (T/Y)= 4 NONHOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year ) =118406 Assumes Temperature = 55 Nonwork 991 5400 Work 688 5579 lb /9 1u9$H 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 )-367.16 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home Work 124 1089 Home-shop 96 310 Home-Other 234 1212 454 2612 *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) AREA 7 ALTERNATIVE 1 HOME BASED EMISSIONS _Type of Unit Size Carbon 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 -1 9 , 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 Consurnption(Gal/Year )=1113193 Assumes Temperature = 55 Nonwork 18384 100192 Work 375 3041 Total z5 103234 I • II 4 I G *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ; ; I ( 0550D) APPENDIX C MARKET ANALYSIS s PEARCE-BoLSA CHICA MARKET ANALYSIS INTRbDUCTION: Land U96 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 is to incorporate the subject property into a larger shopping area that would include 234 acres of commercially designated parcels to the south. Such a development Would extend corritnercial uses 1300 feet along BbWa Chica Street between Werner Avenue and Pearce Street: Due to landownership patterns, much of the commercial property at the intersection of Warner Avenue end Boise Chica Street have developed in a ftagmented 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 remiiihing opportunity for such a development, should demand support it, would be a portion of the Meadowlark Airport site along Warner Avenue' east of Boisd 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 end/or at the Pearce-Boise Chica site Warrants a re-evaluation of the present and future denifind 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: Convehierice: - 1/2 to 1 i/2 acres in size - located et intersection of secondary of local arterial streets 1/2 mile red•ius m6iket area 3000 people served Neighborliood: - 1 1/2 to i0 eicrea in size located st major or primary arterial intersections supermarket end/or drug store plus 10-i5 smaller retailers; services, or ©ffices 1 mile radius fnarket area 10,000 people s&,V6d Community: - 10 to 35 acr"es in size - located at nnajor or primary arterial intersections - mini=department store or supermarket, anchors plus a variety of other stores - 10 to 15 minute drive market area - 15,00h or more people served . Regional: - 35 or more acres in size located at major arterial and freeway - Fto 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) E MH R2 ; CF-E kl $ ��� , nl RI C2 F LUJa�LJJ !RI-CZ RI RI � I RI Ik RI CF-E—�1�I RI RI 9i xl Ri Po RI ! RI ° PRI w,l. RIRI AI ; RIJ MH G1' MH RI RI RI fll RI R! RI Z RFCI R2 R2 Cal _ RI RI RI _ Z MH Y � I 1 RI RI RS C wR cz $a — .� 2 Ill R2 R2 C, RI R[ y Rz Rx MN RI RI Rs 0 C -R F Rz RI RI RI .<z • L R3 R2 R2 R2 R2 &F R z R R RI R CAR �5kl Q RI��eRI •R-[i cZ cti PS ^�•- p po RI MI I I RI j pV•Ct - v. _ � RV RI (Q)MH RI Rnaa I R2 R2 R2 R2 ]R2R2 R3 R2 rRI r - R .R-cz P..1 RK2 R. rci 1{I C4 CZ R3 ROS •� v i_ F — — R3 R3 R3 R3 C2 icz _-,_-�• -- _.. I ��.�u RS -_..Il.......k RI �-C4 I C4- 1x fl ,1 It n R3 R3� .ee-yg Re ipeose+._- �nf ` y! P L7 fi�1 RI-CZ fl3/�C�41 R2' Rr.� �e RI P .I� RIRI , C9 R2 R3 19 s f' 4 V _ f �f I�RI I RI �RI RI RI f R_ R • } tZ I WR'CZ .r.-.. N RI°� 2laram-♦� '•` "'- 1q RI fll RI RI -• Ar RI RI-CZI RFLZ7 `l U ... RI RI R3 ¥ W _JY \� III �, ! I /i RI y w eR a ;RI RI-CZ v-,,- R3-23 I �•" � 1111 InImY ,rlRl 4 b_ I n RI RI-CZ .� a ] RI CZ R;- j RI \ '� R3 . -RI . , c RI'RI . PI y�CJ{Z N I-CZ AI-C .... ... � R-CZ RI-CZ RI � RI-CZ FRI i�Cti At RI {' 4 fl1 -0100 AI-CZ ! .Y RI RI RIRI RI e eaelS'Ttr a�'�h�'�� it, RI e & Ni.�l a RtCZs- R Y y 411 4 OF AML C\ C HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIN _. _ .-._--_...Is a - c ; .y. PLANNING DIVISION •- � - uses vary, usuaiiy center around a theme - market area varies - population served varies Because of its location, the intersection of Bolsa Chita 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 Mail) 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 Balsa 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 Balsa 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 Balsa 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 Balsa Chica. Both ,agencies have been coordinating their planning efforts for"the Balsa 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 Balsa 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 Balsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue is not visualized as feasible or desirable. While the problems of location, access, and competition make the intersection of Boisa Chica Street and Warner Avenue an undesirable location for regional, community,' and y r 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 Bolas 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 exi"sting 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 amoijht' 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. I"or 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 Shoppim 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 additions 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 l and 2 summarize the data. (0141D} • J 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 Bolsa Chica Households a 4,402 5,973 9,755 Population a 101992 15,013 24,710 1984 Total b 6,496.25 $6496.25 $6496.25 Taxable Sales Per Capita Total Taxable $71,406,780 $97$ 2%201 $160,522,330 Sales Potential SALES POTENTIAL BY CATEGORYc CATEGORY F ood $12,281,966 $16,774,850 $27,609,840 Drug 2,499,237 3,413,487 5,618,282 Apparel 1,927,983 2,633,261 4,334,103 Liquor 1,071,102 1,462,923 2,407,835 Eating/Drinking 6,855,051 9,3621,707 15,410,143 Gen. Merchandise 8,711,627 11,898,440 19,583,724 Home Improvement 2,449,253 3,345,217 . 57505,916 Services/Office 3,570,339 4,876,410 8,026,117 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY CATEGORYd CATEGORY Food 34,©24 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 Home improvement 33,699 46,027 75,756 Services/Of fice 104,518 142,752' 234,957 Total 346,985 473,916 7807022 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 +279076 -2,940 Drug 23,589 34,389 49,389 49,389 +10,043 +15,888 +309888 +18,937 Apparel 39186 8,686 11,686 119686 -8,881 -7,795 -49,795 -15,439 Liquor 37,205 37,205 37,205 37,205 +32,570 +30,874 +30,874 +26,785 Eating/Drinking 569572 65,692 77,692 771,692 +4,243 -5,779 +6,221 -39,943 General Merchandise 30,858 46,538 589538 58,538 61,309 -79,345 -67,345 148,653 Home Improvement 20,483 33,683 41,683 41,683 -13,216 129344 -4,344 -349073 Services/Office 148,237 1489237 168,237 168,237 +439719 +5,485 +259485 66,720 TOTAL 356,176 417,976 5179976 517,976 +9,191 -55,940 +44,060 -262,046 (0141D) 1 i 7 NOTES TO TABLE It 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 Chics 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 Sh_appinq 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) r 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 of the unincorporated Bolsa 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 Boise Chica, the only remaining areas for potential commercial development within the market area include the applicant's proposal at Pearce and Bolsa 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. Ili 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 Boise Chica portion of the market area, demand will only support one additional commercial center at either the P earce-Bolsa:Chic a site or at the Meadowlark Airport site. Once the Bolsa 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-Bolsa Chica 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, 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 drag and liquor categories. This indicates that the market area could support the proposed convenience market at the Pearce-Bolsa 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 (0141-D) 4 J F 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 Chica 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 Bolse 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 Chica Street and within existing neighborhood centers. However, demand will exceed supply as the Bolsa 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. APPENDIX D INITIAL STUDY I a a APPEMIX I MVIRONbMqTAL C iST FM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background 1. Name of Proponent City of Hunt i ngton Beach 2.. Address and Phone Ntmiber of Proponent Devel o ment Services. 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 3. Date of Checklist Submitted w August 20 1986-- -� 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable General Plan. Amendment No. 87-1 II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Barth. 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 baazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 288 Yes Maybe Na 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air missions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or anyechange in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Waster. 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. Cha,nges 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- drawal;,., 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 t. _ 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- went 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 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? � 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.? -2L 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 M # Yes Maybe No' b. Possible iaterference 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. lasing. Will the proposal affect existing hods- ing, or create a demand for additional bousing? '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? I, e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic bards to motor vehicles, ` bicyclists. or pedestrians? � — 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. idaintena.nce 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 demaad upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? -3F 16. utilities. Will the proposal result in &'neeed for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: X _ _ 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 hay n rds? �^ 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 vied? 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 i*act area? x 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially . .reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels,ithreaten to eliminate a plant or animal comunity, re- duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate 292 s 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 rely- 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 enviromnental impacts.) IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: • I find that the proposed project CCULD NDT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NWATIVE 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 moires described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 'WATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ❑ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVI� E!RTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. � IR X% Date Si tune For (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their awn format for initial studies.) *The ElR is focused on various issues for the project area. The ElR will be prepared i n conjunct i on with the General Plan Animdtient an alysi s. 2M EXPLANATION OF °YESa AND *MAYBE" ANSWERS lb . Construction on the sites may require- compaction or displacement of soil . lc. 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 .Y 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 j resources will be examined. i ( 597Dd) E I 'APPENDIX E COMMENTS AND RESPONSES I STATE OF CALV<X"A--OfftCE OF THE GOYERNC4, GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH . IAM TENTH STREET . { SACRAMENTO, CA 9581e A� (916/445-0613) Hal Simmons January 20, 1987 City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190/Dept. of Development Services HUp4--1 Huntington, Beach, CA 92648 ,DEVELOF, S8R rC H E5 ` Ai'l 2f P. Subject: General Plan Amendment #87-1 SCH# 86091007 H�ntlnEton X1 B , 0 A Dear Mr. Simmons: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above naned environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have cants. This letter acknowledges that you have coMlied with the State Clearinghouse review requir-emnts for draft envira'mntal documents, pursuant to the California Envirvm-Amtal Quality Act. Please call Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have 'any questions regarding the envirormntal review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight digit State Clearinghouse mmiber so that we may re-spored promtly. Sincerely, John B. Chanian Chief Deputy Direct Office of Planning and Research E December 31 , 1986 N1NTlNGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Planning Commission JAN Q 2 1987 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 19U Huntington Beach, Caliifornia Huntington Beach, CA 92548 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 r 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 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 #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 I • I 2 s 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 -comme' rcial 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 tdinger- 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 Marina High School , and the. Graham Library . ( 2) The 1984 market study statistics are limited- to a discussion of h'ow land is presently zoned - and the', eventual build—'out of that land . It fails to consider the past and present economic �s ' ' es in t viabilityof bu mess he study area and ri especially-, the vacant.-y rate and turnover ' of businesses . It . is important to note that staff does acknowledge the "marginal nature"` of commercial- in' "the' market study area . "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 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 ( 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 2.5 quality apartme'nts ( 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 S ' 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 .- It 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 , /John March ; / 1721.1 Sandra Lane j %'Huntington Beach, CA . 1 I!1 I v I1[. wIC Dow 0. In RI pl 1 R, vEvr�2 I I 1 H RI . RI RI RI RI RI RI I RI •i 0 C I C 0 -•--- ari � � RI R2 CAI I Cz MH uLtwrR, 1 � 4 RI L _ Rr. - RI , g R2 ° R2 r r R2. R2 �l R2 S C4 owlZ R2 R2 MH RI RI R3 R2 r— RI RI ROS -9 � � ICF- R CF-R R2 s R! R! RI RI IPL4x R2 R2 R2 x R1 •� �o r<rnv R I RI R2 R2 ST. iw (Q)MH �1 Rasc R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 �•w.�i RI , .. R3 a RI Y UtLO R7. •� . ROS R3 L"t 24 ; v R3 R3 R3 C� A. �R WARMER AVE RI I RI r S 7} f e R3 a 11 'T r-a h.E. ..c' # i T. EL oaaoo OR R3 R3 cal Rz R2 RI I a R I s (� ...� C2 ' , R2 fa I i� R2 R3_19 R I RI RI RI ' V' ":,•'• RI R2 RI RI :0! RI { RI R3 R2Rr sRl�--w t i1 RI RI ei' R3-23 kY.6LEMIiOv. . Ge.- ' �t RI-CZ +RI u RI-CZ RI �' R3 REMIL--' cR 1 + RI e 4 •4- - -Po-l4{� / .. C • - �. RI "EI-M U-, RI-CZ N C F-E k- R I /• G. G� Existing Zoning. ' . Area of Concern 3 .3 . 9 (O �54 C7 huntington beach planning division figure 3-6 PLANNING ZONING DM 23 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 20 -5 -- 11 . • NOTE ..a erA .rc In fell '- • CITY ®F 40T£D 4 lfi0 N mMe m�wl.l.e ur.I.t w weea ro cnt�ro rwa unT[• LIT' CplIMC1L O0"*hfb E No-904 4c LE GE 1,E H D w wr I im_ WENDED WW off?00 M0 D M on MO. Q U�t a T ��+ T�/ '�`0{ �—�{�® BEACH . 6.24 62 m 507 5-16-6 06- 1210 ® rr9�11, J{pj'� ({�1V-� .fie}J�A {-x4-sa m :07 7-6-66 4440$2'0 © o�r.ulr. wssess mr.rc, q•7•443 3671007 -an.Wss 1269 _ fir tylp yP.yel c,q 3.{-64maAW 041 5-6-67 66 72 1504 y,aye,�. Tarr m, 4-6-N 4q 1045 s•16-{7 6T-a 134E svin �.ata-rr D�arl,cT ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ��a�71'� s e 4n 1044 11 e_i7Ql 11451 1.7-00797 240E�s 6-1{-64 43410f6 P-17•69 Gb�9014T1 T mrOaa4 netr„IL* 5�-llaaY{D-I 4Vs66-I-04 406 IOif 4-7-{f 6"Me l� ml+l4,wrT r+ea+Ta[s a Uffm o41rCr 9'-0D'6P 62.7 2575 {.19-64462E 0=9 7-A-7I T09 If20 cOrla[n ti 10 14atICSr,p i o,[II[cl 11.1- 62 170 =1-;.64 4T6 1066 I?_5-717F20®1692 �." iIOML[NOYC D6TM[T T•P- 54- E7D6 4t W_44 451 IKIf 7 1 -72TdOq 1595 r�tcac xu u,Sn. ' +3 U-Bd 4sB IIB] � 7-It-T7aR1T7->!pp207 ="_=' OFBY.YaTC5 A4,Tt lT4[ra II 1 90 5W 1164 7-y-79 734 2291 00 q.Ly;D pg n*N 1 o4 my o" r EpNGER AVE L - Poe Ri-CZ - I MH RI RI Rf RI Q1 R2 »� RS e2 ?a # RI D CF-E R p` RE cxo71 C : 1®i j E �RI a R I Lap Pi, HILO OR a R1-CZ RI c� well ai CGS d q ` RI qi �? n I-CZ .mire...' ..•' RRi Rf +° RI-CZ AV WR-CZ- ±� R[Traauw oR. CF RRi r Ri - RI 0 DR. Ft MH :RI-CZ Fr R2 R2 C41 J P� WR-CZ �t�9 }g u41LSTUWa MkW'»'2a•r R3 2 {atAC15L[ ;k�a mm � �Ilo � n w. ;.r ,Tel_ CF—E R2 R2 C4 a„ .10 r .G_ cxcn R2' R3m: RI-CI CF-R != {vr�'., R 2 ".� RI-CZ c� K W R-Cz 4[ RI-cz P CF—f2 R2 = R1-Cz �1 r �► R3 j R2 R2 R2 R2 `3 xR wR Rz Cz , Z Ii J R2 R2 Fe ANCE C RI-CZ WR cz N cz ' R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 R I-CZ CI • RI•CZ � < 4 Rt-CZ y 1 u WR-cI RI-CI Rr-cz Rj C7 ` C4-CZ4 R3 � Fit I ' IIz RI-CZ L.— --.J 0 R3 R3 ' R3 R3 C2 N V RS e nun i ton Beams .; Company 2110 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648-2499 (714)9604351 BUNTING T Old BEACH January 12, 1987 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Huntington Be Planning Commission 2000 Main eet P.O. Box 190 Huntin n Beach, CA 92648 "o ington Beach, CA 925�8 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 Hail. 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 25.9 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 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, William D. Holman Project Representative WDH/j cc: idr. James W. Palin Mr. Larry McCamish, Chevron U.S.A. RESPONSE HUNTTNGTON 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 .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. (7260d) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Ht1NT1W.10 J BEAC14 To James W. Palin Fro Ste p_h n V. er Director of Development Services Pri ` ipal R velopment Services Subject COMMENTS ON DRAFT Date Dec ' , 086 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 AVENUE2 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 encodrage 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 IJTICA AVENUE BETWEEN 1.7TH 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 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 30% 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 theland 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 # .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. SVK: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 a699r i RESPQNSE TO COMMENTS_ STE,PiEN KOHLER PRINCIPLE-REDEVELOPMENT .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 General Commercial. i 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) A 9 h City ®f Huntington Beach ° 2000 IIAAIN STREET "LIFORNIA 92M8 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR January , 1997 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, Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator CWT:lp xc: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator Jim Palin, Development Services Director , Mike Adams, Principal Redevelopment Planner Stephen V. Kohler, Principal Redevelopment Specialist ' f Telephone•(714) 536-5202 CITY OF HUNTINGTON 13BACH .r INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION /) HUNTINCMN BEACH To . Tom Livingood, Commissioner From Torn 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 inforination, please C611 my office at 536-5566: TP/sr Attachment 6214f • s 1 ` F F i i W-0 c N GROVE eLVD G�DM GIB FRWY _ — s WESTMINSUER HAZARD r J kw 4 iff +� r tMCFADDEN EDINGER Ae� 9t d -HEIL rYy* 1�4RNER sir: or SLATER TALB'ERT T. ELUS. f•. I F" r GARF'ELD YORKTOWN +; ADlMlAS T X. ,. ,';�i.�e�y. 'ST'oT.�..� _ eQpp�x 3 6^• � is ac s ti2' x a � :ST�r•'� o .. }` z. `�.;SjiT•'�o�- / tioL:A, ATLJ�NTA MA `was~ HAI1lilL T BANM S :S HOSPITAL WAY 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 nest, in order to assemble an overall 10.0 gross acre commercial site. The staff recommendation could result in 70 housing units on the portion ortion 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 9,30.5 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/Commercial 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 viers the analysis in comparative terms only,, rather than, as a prediction of exact revenues and costs. r i (7186d) r r 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 3argely 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. (7186d) 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 131.5 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' o€ 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/ Density/Parki. 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 f (7186d) i 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 . - (7186d' 3 APPENDIX G PROPOSED BEACH/WARNER SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY i - i i t i fa' S I I i AVE Y INR CITY Z 0i R rc RI 0 U f zcr v U 1 c� RI 9� a� IW RI W RI RI Ri ' RI RI RI z RI RI R1 RI �d IC4 a DR �� R I C 4 3 O i RI �a BRUSH i OR Y G7 ___ CHRYSLER !7R I �.._ RI RI E[� _..Q..� BRYANT DR L �. v Gm C4 o RI R) L C2 G + } J $ # LAMBERT OR C f G =r m I zo., RO RI RI RI L 0 TERRY OR' Z TEMY DR R2 J a } Mrootislwx}w w �jj[R z R3 Q R2 C4 RI RI RI I RI RI 150 b RI m LANCASTER 8R ARN£TT DR OILi AA 4 RI RI s510 SK ORSVE F- C O C6-1 O C F C 0 C6-2 A ae �R V R2 [:a5•{ ti ••+: `v..., }l•Str•F.{,.K '}'✓. �.O'4r'r ridrfis ;'.. LL TAMAF�U DR.' °. A4.x,''� Yjc..`.',,`. '�*'�.'' '�^.'.cr•.�;:.' � ��;..;a;;��.1r ;;., 1 .;fir• ,�;y�t�,; �� .,,.:'��•• .; �. �k{ JS � ' r R3 WARNER AVE RI RI 1 R2 R 5 cn 1 AMSTERDAM DR I 'iR DR. -- --C4-MS` R 2 { ' 60 ' i5 R2 1 x RI : 00 2 N 1 � # EOk tR Y II ppa�yy//�� //�� ro 9Y / sa F 0 L r o W m R I Z I 99 �� L.. �s R I g c °R" RI RI Ri REMBRANOT R _!__—_ crPR RI `` � RI YPR a R2e, 190 Q G 4 RI MAR5EILLE OR RI orPOLDER CR .o RI .a--� R 2 2 pro j VALENCIA DR !! Y ----- " mi E330 TO f, JM27 R 1 R I Rasa -- si:tail:ll-) i KRIStp FRIESLANb MANORELL DR a.12 DR Ni � R3 R1 l SQ I R3 C' 4 ; � PROPOSED BEACH/WARNER SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY AML HUNTINGTON BEACH C&IFORNIN PLANNING DIVISION 1 f APPENDIX H PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT- PROJECT BOUNDARY i 1 i i 1 i _ t i l r G ' i se' � s ,1 r ' t' e,• n ■nfw , �, � 1r i ■ + : ■■■■�■■ �`�� >R Y�'14��p���F"= 111 nEiEl,umr,m- u ���#■■�■■�'� ���� ii�lii i�.i� �. lfliilllllll Il1� 1 l�1 �'1� 1 �a uH�ns1>1`Jt,w•a- 'IllEilgiErl,��� � -•Ii IlliuflrdsAlu� .��11�� - •1 - ��fluuulldl:rrl� � t f, Il�r suru_i \�€tliI111111111Hi1111111i11 uur\4iuri ■/1 .nntnn .1.`,',���"_� a€����u� � � ��� ■ � � •ter' fi— �+4T ��Illly - :w urlS i� r js R � 1!■■■� � 3A ul/a m1nnnw uiun a c -�-. =1`ili11f1��Iw ■ r rr� � {¢4fs,�1�r ,r.ar��ll Lr t'.r- ;ln6r/�t/� : �'Z�.�ql G:= _.eantn• ��� r��i Ei�3�::i�l lidx, sr�� '� TwiC :�•� uunu 1 .� ��'���� 3 + ?5"_`^�T.�.�•�"s?: ' ��t�lllflill� + _ iu lei€ ■ '.�`� „n +L�:a: � � e_�al:�. 1 �� 5i i�CAS,:wl * inw`l 1 ,� '�sy�/���■�:EI'xl �� 1 's1.3�5 .ae.: ■ .'•r; _!-�1■11 111 I N liu■ ■ IYIIwFi s11Yu1n�? � ��.[;.. _ u■ r rraf�++iiiiiit =1u t x-';1f11111�-'_ .- .....� nului ;,Ilii/nn .� Y i k 'a'- .utm esy s 1 to �{ `IT_{ •�•A�•�1 c T.r:;Y J11rlfeunw r MAN f s !I 1 ■IHiIIiJ■ pC E �i1j y Alul�'��'� i111111111111����tr -` �, .�� i1MIF11%■- .��C��E��.111��ki��� '-u, ,'? '~girl -:. ! w r711111nnnA�„' r� _� ����® '� IZ���J� �� . �� i1NlIN1�1�j����i 3��� � z`��r r_� °ram �=i=r=i��'�•� :�� �.. - -.- -_ r-; �._ _^P}�'"�'w.-;,il■Ir i E4� R 1 r.�. �l-� ■ �i :. - ,1 `. IF�1�11. ■1111 E: ���! �Ni�il��l�l�� . Ill■ plll8ilili ■�,■ to ■■iiii _-'p, a. � j'�1.i`1't �., a 11 . rli 11,}, - �,�+ III■il ■/1 i a 'j : � ■fl■� .� lwl. � L� 1"' 1 I11k,BIFl11 i ��f3 L•+rF ,, :; 1? fntuMl I/Id11iY1111 +''' firtnAlY� Csiu •�� room nllui E{ � + irrrua '1 ■.. JJ1YrrMq nnni <�tlii - illuu t : �: n=lla r1 R rinl�r' .3' -`_ S -- 1 eta nrntr ekx � ;. ■rlfnn� :� +,.ui` 1 = Z= ulnl Ld J. .. r unrrr �r nail• e _ .a.rulfl�s } qr n r�..�Saa� � aqqqqq����noun.� � 1'.Iluunla ul.�-.. �� 1^ S nlntli • li a r,l„ YIIIHY f.�:- �!�• ■Ipr/A1: ,� t' 11 � :_ L nmr•-C y-�'= r,1' �j 1{III r_•■..L r � � �IIIIY!ln11171T�� � i�ill�= 7 }> ,,..� ri1' � �.�A`� ': 3 u r 1 u/a :uu l uular ! :?: �nsu■i 3 IGlri(ul ur fput a uri'ii .ter a ` tuunla 1 _ ?S�almi 1 1 �7111F n .r I ��NRr1 it aA n �....111/fRll/ yE rFNia H zi��nnlli C In�rn�•r,�r•� y._. �,.tf tea. lnllI_Z ^.€/Hn �•InNAr-^•.=�41i11i1�� • ��_�1 ra�-�:.3`d���.�,:� 1111M f. __? _ i• - Zl.11in C..-C:Inru��!_ ii�uu A �� i�lli.! �'.1"MI�Iu�dR+ �I��w� r111rrfR1 I n11111111n111ns. � IIIIL� � ���� � 111r�rinr.nrr•rra l�n '�'�:=Illlllllr�� •� �,t, _ 'J' r-al.,:��`r3�rnYrnsa �.� t. �.-M. � r ■ Rrs uiulrluenuul�uul fin.-i ..SC" � �r s-• � '` �jy:': -u: .wG�', x� 7 �n li'� �� p n. n A �r11".�_ xr�.+:::._ ,a�.;�+ -''•rl� �111111RIall'i"SI'g u � �� � 1 1 JI ?>Ei I ry} I::1 I:Z 1 =1 A? •nnln/+• �ti I let YirA� .*.' �. ( :\ ,r ��w !- r.+h. l �•� ..'fir 5• ap�ll�•��: :y� E� � ; d 1 �� � [ Illli InFilf� unfIH1111/iRlpllFl111 a of I. t.iun.Grf FI _ f u��' � • ►� P7P9 m u. • . I • r V + i ' � r''��2i f�q�Ia �'k'➢. � •.itti�. �yytgCii'€ati'���1� � // aEile iE@�IIIINIIq�:�Iki111i1 �� 1 da�619@&& ".aAltlll P '. N* III vml [ rE1RP 9Ptl r111111l111111 11111}IIII@I���� w • �:pox .a IaAaec s11 saki®E��1 '`�.�AeP�auA�sAIA@rmm nuAmm�r o u�€11 �. Ir i1N•r■1!i��!#ll NIIa1N1111{Nl Fl1I1111111110 __ .. !�@a1ax191Il1 IMklt�tlYt13E K'!ASraWrtl i91;HIP.11r@I NAklN11>IAI�3�e!&N116R f�l it il' a!I rrn YNllln"i1511g1tl11q -- il "�1 Nflllll • � � �f=��� !� ��=III ��m �l��i� ;, � , :,....._..._. I1ld i�gr aria. - i1111 IA:1.M�I!•111na 1lwa 11111 wll ilo r@i ui � rJ'.N'#Fa!:i IlAlll!1 mo�,u u,. -Ikill- ►� �� •11 II I sr•� N IIIHE WIIIS� �@AAA lA9i Rfll#IRA�1B�!IE IIIp pill€110 ni111 11j1A.. l�li�'F iAj it i141A1 A!>1lIA AIWII.' * rI-CIA€1AalA:!N@$ilM�I 1110 wrF 118oP II1ts IM 1�. Z 1 u'UI�1 ill@al d<Q'R nitl:f! �!p( #�11 i,�e 4 ■ 1a All!"WAS I1tl1A I11Y:Isltl 1PtiRl I.IAA 11FO A F IMI i �a L`�GIfG iial 1 AA11f �11�1 -}p�. k'AA'? :> o6--r. $tellti=Nil!Nl�M BEN f Orr Alegi ''{ ' 11 A11ia gdii€II E 11111:Ili KRlm ii11: gUlll O11.,I ly;p !I r;Nil pIr ! !. �@ �� •+ s 11111 11111 alp 1 u►r1 nlaaxtGillo IYi��E 11111�IiYI �� ��i■®�®► 7 g ardl u1f UP miff R#cill tilleed� @911 11- "'DP:'°'"M xP _�Ir1GIFll lllrPlkllilli ill 1��Hk111 Jill ,� I�-r_��■� ,__ E#@I 111A lipl� '. . • y �a+. I{II ilt1111lflIUllEI i� �v { », .._:�;.;"`", _ ..,.s ' ��1�■�1�II���j��lun71-1rilu���l� i� �®t1�111�����li��w � IN _r _ ��11_� r -� I �,��. ���,•*;._.,I11r�iuuuP�% ■•`�[, �-@Hlll�nl.� �1#ul#nlll"� ■■ 3 1111r1Imm�„ 1rF _ '�F1111 . �. - - .-r j'� 1Q:. n o n `� i;�iirrPq .ws►v-.r �i i —. .,.ram oil Ill. • ® Iwwnr� nln// IF i11�1� Ir :1 1ii 5i }02-- n * p.pM $-■�1 iy_1W1 1i Irlti: Y F, �I 1 13 ArAJ U.N. .Ir�.nN►�w f C$ Lf�� js ,. e1Pn �I�R�Ep11IAA '1-- plot 1 Si t f wu�. • '• � y Ii1 t. i -� , Iii11111r�11i� _ -IRS IINI�IIt(i�l If- =rill ':' ��vT=1111��11 a f Or $ 1 allrl i �Ilir a •+7 11 NO • s< HI fIRAl ��1� � .f GrC H �aa�glll ly�ia ,x � Iflulllllp`��:o .�In; fI � Q OCR Utt •A���.�i�� v v ff Ai Ii1AiiH1lNlns!-IM Ilkt an � @ � 1111111a I11111 M111= rl1„11 f111 N • 1 1 ■i�li�ll111111if r1111 it rary }� +�f;I11J r=Nrlllllr .h,F'KI: +an ;s„rPprti { _. �IM'IIIIi1ai1: 'q�111•f1`I ►ff1A.MM,11 11�11111rn1/' n ...� ' ' L�..�r Z i /i� •�Z� ;` i �I �;1 � �I�fl,ry li '�f r111 ! w S ll 1 I /// C!■ ]i■ Mir �� rlarOl�l `-: i {1 , __ @ IN 11 N � Y� �� f � ��YI� la�l� ;� �.� �=i��l•1'I�ii*�r� �� �L_��I1�4�� ���� � f ��,�', Pr�1��� V APPENDIX I FISCAL IMPACT ADDENDUM-REDEVELOPMENT AREA CONSIDERATIONS t ' G I f I 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 alredevelopment '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 by the amount of assessed value shown on the tax rolls prior to the adoption of a redevelopment plan. The le% vel of taxes which could be antfcipated 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 'fiscai ' Year' i982%i983 . 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) 'w'as' $4'' 5, 544 : The estimated property tax' revenue received by- the"dity' s general fund would have been ' $811 based on ($405, 544) ' ( . Ol% County, Tax} (20a City Tax) = $811 . T"his ' is' the a 1. 1mount 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- prised of single family homes; ' a11 property tax revenue in 'excess of $811 would .be . collected by the Redevelopment 'Agency. The estimated market value of Alternative -! is $29 , 000 , 000 generating 'City pro- perty tax revenue totaling $58 , 000 resulting in`alnet amount of $57, 189 '�'coilected bythe Redevelopment' Agency_ . h 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 I is 'that Area 2 . 7 is currently owned by the Ocean view School District . Although the k tax assessor reports a value for the property, neither the county $ nor the City collect property tax revenue because of the�'tax exempt status . If the district ' s property. is incorporated into a redevel- opment area, any nonexempt property tax generated" by, that .property would be collected 'by the Redevelopment Agency. For example, if the District sold the entire''site, it' would be treated ' I =1- (05.91D) 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 , r� 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 , 9.95, 000 :'.. $ '313 $ 7, 637 2 . 4 -14 , 062, 660' ' 4, 969. 23 , 156 2 . 6 -9 , 983 , 994 4 , 781 1.5; 187 2 . 7 * 23 , 940, 00-0 none s 45, 725 * This scenario assumes that` -.the school district sells the land . eV -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 I Because of limitations placed on the County Tax Assessor by ! Proposition 13 , the assessed valuation of a property can only E 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 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 I 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) ` w 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 . CMO:gbm -4- (0591D) APPENDIX J ADDENDUM FOR AREAS 2 . 6 AND 2 . 7 (LUE 87-1B) kI I 1 I y i E , r ' I I ADDENDUM TO LUE 8 7--1 B 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 t 1 . Relocation of the Edison substation to the northern portion of Area 2 . 7 . 2 . Explore the lease of McDonnell Douglas property located on the northwest corner of Bolsa Avenue and Springdale 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 mobilehome park on Area 2 . 7. 5 . Clarify the fire response statement on page 81 of the Land Use Element Amendment document . I 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 million 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 i 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 substation site area . Besides the need for very expensive custom equipment on a smaller site, they also foresee the need to expand operations on 11 the site in the future to meet growing electrical demand. The company has indicated that they would prefer to retain the i substation in its present location and configuration in order to I avoid any disruption of services or other problems associated with relocation. E I E f I I Potential Lease of McDonnell Dougla5 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 for 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 PriceC1ub type p o€ o eration and is therefore not a viable alternative location. The only other site that may have potential as an alternative Price Club location is the "Holly" property on Garfield Avenue and Gothard Street . The Price 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 ownership 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 appendix 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 mobilehome park use on- the Rancho View School Site. The consistency matrix. on page 142 of the General Plan indicates. that MH (Mobilehome) 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 staff ' 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) 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 as 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 included in Appendix E (Comments and Responses) in the EIR. TrgffiS Problems on Terry Drive Pursuant to citizen complaints registered atithe February 10, 1987 Planning Commission public hearing on Area 2 . 7, the Planning Commission requested that staff `rese' arch 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 . They 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 available. f t 5 1 1 I`! ' I -3- (7657d) VIA- Cd SAND USE ELEMENT ENT 87= 1 , Environme' ntal Impact Report 87- 1 i i i I i huntirogton beach department of development services f 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 cityof 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 'Genera.l 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-lA;' 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 ing of the following changes is hereby adopted as an amendment to- the- Land Use Diagram thereof: I . 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 north side of Garfi-eld Avenue , west of Mora Kai Lane be" redesignated from Low Density Residential and Medium Density ,Residential-to Medium High Density Residential . 1 . A PASSED AND ADOPTED by the 'City' Council of the City of Huntington Beach a,tra regular meeting thereof held on the 16th- day of March 1987 . Ma ATTEST: F APPROVED AS 'TO" FORM:' City Clerk City At 11 t pin ey ' � REVIEW D APPROVED: � IN TIATED AND D: City Administrator irector of Development Services 1772E _ t 12/15/86 _ :r f Res, No. 5763 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNn OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF HUNTING*TOH 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 16th day of March 19 87 by the. follawing. vote: AYES : Councilmen: Winchell, Mays, Finley, K�-,IJsX, Erskine, GrPPn NOES: !"ouncilmen: Bannister ABSENT: Councilmen: None r City Clerk and ex-offieio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington beach, California RESOLUTION NO. 5768 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-lB to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on march 31 , 1967 ; and .Thereafter the City Council , after giving notice as :,rescri'bed by Government Code Section 653557, , held at least one puflic hearing to consider. Land Use Element Amendment No .. 0 -1B; and At sai:: hearinc before the City Council all persons desiring tc oe :;ears on said amendment were heard , NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the :lun-J ngton Beach pursuant prov_s _ons of T tle Chapter 3 , Article 6 of California Government Code commencing with Section 65350 , that Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-1B consisting of the -Following change is hereby adopted as an amendment tc the Lana Use Diagram thereof : That Area 2 .7 consisting of 20 . 5 acres located on the north side of Warner Avenue , east of 8 Street be redesignated from Low Density Residential to Mixed Development . . 1 . •' T 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 . 3yor ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM : at -Cler' k Cit y A t o r n e� l REVIEW APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City dmini.strator Director of Dev lopment Service: 30221 4/13/87 2 . Res. No. 5768 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) couN o oR�►Nc£ ) s s: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) 1, 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 Mav 19 87 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Winchell . Mays, rinlev. Kelly, Erskine, GLQen NOES : Councilmen: Bannister ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California EXECUTIVE SUMMAkY. Land Use Element Amendment . 87-1 addresses nine areas of concerns 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 BeachBoulevard ' 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 Residential. 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-iB Area 2 .2 - South Si,dP of Ellis Avenue, E,a5t of Reach Boulevard Area of Concern 2 . 2 is a request by ienson 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- i-s- 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 :.prop=er-ty be retained as Medium Density Residential as a transitional- use between the •civi.c 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 gf Beach Boulevard n Memphis Avenpo 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 h side of' Beac Boulevard between Memphis and Knoxville Avenues from Medium Density Residential• to General Commercial . The study area is located within the Beach'• Boulevard' Corrido rProject area. Staff recommends that the property -be retained gas 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 Si f Talb r` Avenue,' East of Beach. Boulevard AreaFof 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 i's• 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 Boach. B.4ulevard Area •of Concern 2 .6 'i's 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 BQulev_ard 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 eas;t, ,of,d.,.Beach Boulevard, from Low Density Residential to General Commerci i'alj.. The site is presently owned by the Oceanview School District and is located within the proposed Beach Boulevard Corridor Project Area. Staff recommends that the property be redesignated as Mixed 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 the property which could also include Area 2 . 6. across Warner 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 zoning . Staff recommends that the property be redesignated to Medium High Density Residential in order to achieve consistency between the General Plan and zoning. Arpg 2 - North id f arfi 1 Av n Ea f B h Boulevar 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 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 1 Methodology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 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 a a 1 ' ' I , Land Use Categories AMENDMENTS PLANNING COMM. CITY COUNCIL - DATE RESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION 4f RESIDENTIAL 11 6-6-77 1187 12-6-77 448 Estate 2un/gac 6-7-77 1196 8-I-77 4484 007 �9T, to 1.Or� � 9-29-77 1202 11-7-77 4551 �'"4' y O�rO q El Estate s 3 un/gac 12-6-77 1206 12-19-77 4572 ,rt '� 8-1-78 1232 8- -78 4660Estate <4 un/gac 10-17-78 1236 II-6-78 4696 96 0 Low Density II-21-78 1239 12-18-78 4708 �•.......•• 3-6-79 1242 3-19-79 4728 / 10 2-80 1268 2-5 80 4936 I /\ / .•:.: ��\ P'� o ME Medium Density 5-19-81 1273 6-15-81 5005 .r, SAN DIEGO FREE - ,• _ ��`. II-3-81 1278 12-7-81 5053 �. , / M Medium High Density ' OP? 11-17-81 1279 12-z1-81 5060 O'O High Density 8-2-82 5147 gF / 12-20-82 5206 / \ / I"'• / , Senior Residential 12-7-82 1299 2-7-83 5223 / �••'••••. _ 4-19-83 1303 5-16-83 5265 / �/ \ / / \ COMMERCIAL 10-4-83 1314 II- 83 5327 ,''\ ®.General 12-6-83 1315 -3-3-84 5341 / Am 4-3-84 1317 5 7-84 5373 II 5-84 5457A / �'Iy Visitor-Serving 10-16-84 1333 II-19-84 54578 \6-4-84 1344 1-7-85 5455372 CI !- \ `� G�•2' \ � O ice Pr ofessional 6-17-85 5 1-22-86 1349 2-18-86 5639, 5-6-86 1357 6-2-86 5670 pp„ ............ .... 1 _1 MIXED USES .... / ®Mixed Development • •�<:>:�>• / � P Office/Residential 0 raal/S pp ecreatio El Comme u ort R n ................... ::>:. :: :::::: :. / INDUSTRIAL : .::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::......... 4 .fi ; General ���•••�•••���• �'����`° \ °� •e= Resource Production Industrial Energy Production ' Y._ °°• OPEN SPACE :.. .......... 6"*tp.f i ................... ............ :::: r RM Water nt,, " P on Conservati x f M Recreation \ s0 OTHER USES r \ ..z. . . t,.. ::••::••::••:::•:•• :::••::••. tional �s)• - �Public,Quasi-Public,lnstitu ' '- '....N"�i~'4 k�l'k�. ���. .. :::: I::.Y� �7f -'�/,. �r°`niF u"''•^i::ii�ii:::::�::�::::::�: ' ::- �� k.�,g:•:, .: ;;'. 'i: .. a 1 d. N'r .: Yylar�n/ ............ .;' �' :: •::;:::::: ' , ��._ �� Solid Waste Facility 5c M Planned Community Planning Reserve - \ ...... Coastal Zone Boundary. I : ja. M � •- 0 Conservation Overlay V • + \ v p lT 4 I ♦ I / ... �' � �. ••• � 1./ .'v li. ��/Wt-.-,w � ,I r -err, ___ PACIFIC COAST •"" HWY :::::::. A '� OCEAN � a,.e� � ��s y,. .•.�=' PACIFIC PACIFIC j OCEAN �ti� _�- `C y�•1..•�L Q�"•i�s' h��uv`.�e�lO'`ti �..•� \ , m 7/a j I ® GENERAL PLAN HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA LAND USE DIAGRAM lop PLANNING DIVISION Adopted December 1976' Revised JUNE 1986 C RM 31: 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 , 1913; 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) `lw s z_ f 2. 8 2 .1 2 . 7 ,.. 2.6 2.5 \ f .2 ems 2 .3 I 2 . 4 :I i r 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 . ( 0550b) -3- 2. 0 AREAS OF CONCERN 2 . 1 WEST SIDE OF BOL,SA 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 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 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 ._ y 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- M1 ��. �� �� �� 1llrnrrrler ■ ka ��_ li ril! 111rl.! Ilfl'Ifll!! lrtl!{l111: ni- IN �■'■■ ■��• ■�l�Irrulllirl�lrrrrrll�uul�!llrnlrl' '• ..� ■END ■� �INS f _■�' A I +■�� � 1ffl .,�.. �■■ L DE�■ �� tMMtttt■ , - _ :moo..' ■� ■� ��� A' 1 r 1 . a i tit 11E1 i■ I ■?� , frW1'�' ""�'altiTdiPJ*+ tN'+=•'•�aa»: :,tea, o-v ».�+e+a+m' Sim i x" 1 y �• ' � ��1♦r1►� 7�o.,e;,,oxy.-ew .raw.. r.<: '�� �^,,:�.. a+"�� �s ■ � , rM tta ■ ■■■ ■■■�►�. i ;" J Ivi ri #C414 [ R vE — HEIL R z: N a2 > � R2 Rz ° C4 T R2 R3 MAC 95' "2 R2 R2 M H W i l I �F [, R2 PRb ppJay N RI Rl N %I TA OR. 4LLqjR 'PL •. . NEE CR--R R2 A e a RI Ri RI aR2 R2 R2 = R2 "''4v :Y ` R2 -„� �ivz RZR2 'Rz Rz RIrR, sT. c (Q)MH R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 R2 (Q)R2 -- MILO ST R3 cm �C R2, R3 R3 1:1Z R3 K R3 ¢ CZ�, ca Li WARNER AVE - -�>e:` �� .6f I;4 OY - - R R3 R3$ n ,�: R3 R3 R3 R3 C4 R2 Rz F sso u f _ R 2 2 R2 R3—�g ES CR NING OOa6 2r' 7/;, WNW R2 R �(� R ~ V �� 4 55s.axf n' --- R I RI R3-23 .�; Rl R RI R 3 a = `'gyp 4; � RI—CZ RK /,R,3 2 w w c Rl WIRE cR. a R R3 1' 7J R1 v o RI-CZ _ 1 --lmg�___------ RI-CZ RI m �.G.R3-23 f a ��. RI-CZ RA-CZ. 7� Figure 2-2 HUNTINGTON BE4CH C4L.IFORNIN EXISTING- ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2 a 1 —3— 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 res'idential 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 4-0. 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 , 20.0 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 Balsa 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 $10, 815 $33,234 Cost $2, 007 $ 7, 181 $ 4 , 626 $ 3, 020 Revenue-Cost $4 , 915 $ 7, 8.10 $ 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 Ian 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- The number of students�}enera.ted 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 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 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- R. . 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 'Alternati:ye Traffic Generation ( 1 ) General Commercial (existing. (existing 4, 470 ft2 restaurant ) 500 Average Daily Trips ( 2) Medium High Density Residential ( 40 units -- appl-icant 's proposal-)- 280 Average Daily Trips ( 3 ) General Commercia, (retail 21 , 200 ft } 2, 862' Average' Daily Trips ( 4) Medium -Density Residential "l'84: -Average Daily Trip ( 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 . i's 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!Me MINIMUM KEiiN gill li vii/ ! ■ ��'�� '�'f1� g a ���! f ! ! i IN ! ���l11\ it. ! ! Ii! !!n . MIN �tag !i! . !!!� %► Nil oil 174Mill IN pt ` �1�► -� 1!l1�11 t ` �iei i Iii! i►�i ,_,,. � A _■ �i .� isw www■ �,rw��=_ ems; J � "`- �.■rr»Mw■�,�� � �t��, _- 11111!!!l1 11 tlllllllll �l°�l� = 1 fit iiiil/ t11! �■� _ � � ■ � . .� 111111 lil �11 � ■ �� '�; a �� �. 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. ( 0550D) -18- j 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 th,e 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 As. 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-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 souther-n- 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- . a��r..'x"�':r-.�.a,r+;�..�5�.:`�a,Fzu-v�-viw�'s�^a��.v ..�.:>w��.:�"'^�s�ax,+la�z.—c� r.�.re•a.a.rR a�..r:�:a?r ,=ws�x.-�.��-.-s+�a�v+�.,ei.- �.:5a.-�.-:a.--nnr- � r e +n+e'Nr�a.'x-Ca - F.YKAIMY-S-':?a��C.r in sk'.X'ar`w. '�:��%''�'.s y, E`�,��■, _ �� iii ��r�'i :. ■. fir: rnr� '■ - s t� 'J' `" � .� y � ,� h= }{rim �■ �!�� ��. �� ililllll► `Q� 1111111111 �� r � ��:� �� • ��� ■�s .. Mn I Union mass 4T i- 9+'✓f: . �. ..raL,•car IN - �logo INrll■: im NONE ul P. P�`' FiI X .C'` U KINER AVFN - J=�,,,.� Li?Siw.ew -, `u .fs KINER AVE IAVLOR OR. RI RI 57T 20 50 TAYL-R 4_F11 nRl ;: OR C 2 l R2 a 7 RE a R I 4 R I J Ri-PDSyd'y 8 NC CR s RI' , �l R2" RI RI eoi.0 R3 RI a R 3 CI-R RI » . R3 LL r R3 ;C� R3 R2 =Fts RI IRR4NKLIN bR `. "R o R( X'. O RI R3 R3 eo• RZ S s RZ RI a ncrea=a 1 RI Ri R2 0 3 R3 R2 RIi 1 - i32 cc a $ 33R3 y y e5ox r ea C4 C2 C2 m 'R2 PD8 so I R 3 R , v R3 � R2 I UR3 MN-FP2 4 R3 iz TWOS too �� R2 m •--- ._ / R3 1+FELLA wo0n I 'Lioi_irodu oli Z DR s9R.a° r R3 • (DISTRICT R3 r R3 5 RI'FP2 ! ONE) :yea'- o •- .' -j 1•- .:9t: - • Cj4 -,sar'=E--. x rrrooe n 1; +uram _ne re' CA CONS TWINE DR .. $ RI'F P2 G 1CUNITY�PLAIV p R3 � � R2 R2 R3 rR - Z R3 C FE w i r �.{ } a'� W R2 R2 d RI Kam. N om RI d rc m R3 - J �- •a7rrtronE ON C r IF L—A R-i AVE GARFIELD / Figure 2-5 HUNTINGTON BEACH 04LIFORNIN EXISTING ZONING 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 . 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 tall 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- I 11 L ; p i RATE f1 . .:. . 0 � r " I ! STUDYIlk eLn F i AREA i YORKTOWN MMNAPOLK , S 3 AIL ANTA EXISTING .. � S A x' .�. .�. \'.'. PRIMARY AREA ® . SECONDARY AREA . '.�:.• �' .... 6ANNMiG FURTHER STUDY rigure 2-5 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFoIZNIN MULTI- STORY 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. 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 there would be no mixing of residential and commercial traffic. 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 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 a w x EXISTING SHOPS EXISTING SHOPS w 2 H E-+ PARKING W VEHICLE ACCESS i [ Illiti # illif -EXISTING SHOPS PARKING Figure 2-7 Ag=k HUNTINGTON BEACH G4LIFORNIN POSSIBLE EASEMENT TREATMENT PLANNING DIVISION -26- Alt , I. _ 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/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 Ho in 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 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 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) 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- 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- j R a I 2-. 2 . 2 . 5 Traffic and Circulation Access to the area of 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 dlay, 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 t'raffic, 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. hone 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- a 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 Buntington 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) -31- 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 . { 0550b} -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 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. 82-15 . The zoning designation on the property remains Rl-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 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 Rl 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- producti•on '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 --3 4- (0550D) :-4..... 4 cm ----------- ------ ----- - ----- L z ------ OFFICE MEDIUM 0 GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROFSNL, --,,-PENS I TY YORKTOWN CF- C CF-E N MCHITA AVE, 7T-F C PUBLIC C VE AV—E. -PUBLIC,INST I T�PUBLIC QUAS BLIC EIJ7 INSTIT6TIONAL MEDIUM DENSITY =7 7 �7 RCF AVE j -j LOW DENSITY r- 9PRINGFiEL1 lcr— mk— z rcr zz t7=— F-E < Flgure 2-8 AIML HUNTINGTON BE4CH CALIFORNIN EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.3 _ m ._ � •� -3f a R o R2 r " N Ietl Aa � R� � � w - 8 (0)R2-01 0 2 TL �' a PLAN(CI FOOT I.) - GLAY ser r'li -Ibe' i--x7o- c�_o_ r ----;MME --?, I 'z�, R3 Rl ir�o6'i" v aco -R2-0-PD; g } R2 0 RI 77 3I� + e s"•as ee c C2-Orco�4 IeL tl n "bYW tAJ z a47-��_Ti�w ;,`•• "7� 3 w R2-0-CD 1 1 C2-0-CD 4I R5-0-CD :R -o-PD-' <�' nQ R 2 lV �� -- ',ORx t'OYVN Sue-39•S"•L __"._ - . g Rl-DI-COI t% R2-0-CC R2.0 1�12 0 C F-C Z90 CF-E-CD. ,A, R2-0-CD r R A ICHITA_.,..-AVE f CF-E-CD W _ R2-�0 b CF-E dW F'; -CD-O VEN,CE r� • o I• -CD-O 21, III .,,°•�x�E I�t I -cD-a , I �g s �u• -CD-Q(No -OD 0 -0 CF-- R RI Ri RI RI Ri R2 -CD-0 �•- " -CD-O a -0 -0 -0 -0 L_jlj_-L_Lj�_ Cl SPRINGFIELD _ .•N. �.re s. N s (Ds cl 1 � a cr � -0 -0 -0 -0 -Q -0 N Ri RI RI R I RI R2 -0 a�R�OQCHESTERL]L W J 0 Lju Q�J-0 ,H Y bo ]RIOT Pi r Ir .'..1 F 1 ADAMS Figure 2-9 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIEORNIK EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.3 -36- t 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 . 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 tag revenue substantially (0550D) -37- d 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. Wa er 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 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 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�acr.e 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 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 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 : A Elementary Land' Use Alternative School High School Low .Density ( 88 Units) 18 23 Medium Density (189 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 lines on Utica Avenue will„provide adequate gas service for either a Low or Medium. Density Residential alternative. The Gas Company notes, howeve.r, , 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 wi-11 be adequate for the remainder of the decade. -39- (0550D) h . Solid Waste Dis 2sa1 The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the Ci�ty_ 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 i"s presently bi-sected `by" Pine Street . Oil rigs presently utilize Pine Street. to, access 911_ 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- co'nsolidate 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 collectors .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 . lt `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 PineIStreet . 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.. wo,u.ld have :any significant impact on the existing or any future transit services . -40- 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- ' • 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 . 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 . 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- 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 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 . -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 feed. 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 "bui.lt 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 0ldtown 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 ��I�If��I .. ����.•.." � �N a��IIIIII11Illlll����! G, II:. � ��i ■■% r1�il���'11�111I�I�1i�.���Ir� -� � i` �'- pill r hill .110111V _.. . .pow • f ' �, ' �. = GIs■■ Kill, iA, Him •- .....uP.l"�" 5 1Y' S f ADAMS AVE. ADAMS� ,-1 1 �LL a to col o nT g C2 ca�" ,.� E`AI R f: 'I, I r� kTl ti SPECIFIC LAN i gPECIFIC cot (DISTRICT 2).3o -a RIp =Bear==-"• � � :.'� �` o. ':�r o3WEG0 V - AVE. I R2- 'D-iO- 1301 "01 Y RxP -10 , + I Z x, NASHVlLLE AVE. ayn '� --- I 14 w -01, • - } v L 4SPECIFIC 1512-P11,10 PLAN(� TRCT TWO) --- — — �,: I R2-PD 10 1 Y noflE ]LIE L3 If a EC� OL J 0 UL _ 'staiorti KNOMLLE AVE. 34• S I �+. � WEM ,C2, t o RI � LAN V R3 R3 •3 Cd} �� Mk1N9T R f 3� R 1 A � 4 JC RI aLLOYiT a: R3 R3 lox R3 C I o"" Ri W J � x5a- a R I ZZ ''., A �r— INDIANAPOLIS .. z I I D RI o RI =riz-, _j HAk�Y9R AVE. m RI REILLY ,': r T IMMIX U CF-E GENEVA a Q RI Li SAIL CR u RI PR ORT �....�..�...� RIc 1 1 Y ' SPEC(�T A - ' M H RI -- I QISTRI E CR R I IrE4MiRA I so RI 4 KINGFISHER t_— Figure 2-11 HUNTINGTON BEACH -C4LIFORNIN EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 21 A —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, 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- ' ! f 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 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 t.o 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 .l. scenario) would create undesirable coinpetition 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) 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 th'e 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 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 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 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 ( 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 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 banking 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: -51- ( 0550D) L � 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 1.34, 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 . I-t 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 Orangd 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- 1 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 impacts for 1990 by the Wyle Laboratories,, the ` area would be exposed to noise levels ranging from Ldn 60 to Ldn 70. The highest noise levels occur along Beach Boulevard. IAny residential development must be compatible with the Noise Element of the City' s General, plan . If any residential structures are located within the Ldn 65 contour , mitigation measures such as building' setbacks, building orientation or noise barriers such as wa11s 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 due to increased automobile traffic generated by the additional housing units or commercial uses . Projected daily emis,sion.s from the area are indicated in 'Appendix B. C. Seismic, Soils and Geology In compliance with the Alquist-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 invest-igation 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- 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. ` F ( 0550D) -54- 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 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) -55- • a ► 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 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 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 commerctal' 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- K-s"< 'm a+.t -as+.yty�y.n-yiq'. .n•::-?' - ap rr ' �� ��--r��..-vs .-SSv'•�' -;� vtls�yt Ya��3r�ttrR"4f.11'3"e A^ v�Yt�•:a�Y"°, `_ E t�ii�■�■�■ 111�11' �ffllt �l��lt [�'' MINES •f!■■art MEW- VIEWmemo 11111 �gig �siiSO NINE oil saw SO SE r � , - WE NEW USE ONE Illinin ' IIr1��i� � �W.+Y'.wie�"sY'✓.T2rszAR'vzpT�l^iT•.sF�.8.'i:Yi#"�� ���,� _ an'�{�.�i ��k�ii`.' • r ' f it ONE ■ priii#lln n lflii ni l f ���H� ■���.: �■" ONEMEW lair a .� ONE Kill NEW ►=�: ,, 5' . t �+ (� II Q i Y !@EN.iAYAt OR o f M w R I ... R2 AV R 3 F R2 A NOBLE CR. �- r F o I eL ARRO�'A I �' fl 'R3 R2 jAV R5 NEWMIAN R2 ' T R2 37AVF 2ss R5 SP`I L+ RONALD �] DR. 50 R2 N.LINE It 1/[ 6 E/4 IW 1/4 _ III Er 25-5-II 60 TTC(L R3"R3 R2—PD-(12) j R2 R2 C4 SP- I x R3� (Q).RA M I R5 J R5 M Rl roe ao� -,r-- - TALBERT AVE. s6 !W) RI w Z R� E4:q .r 2 2- RI Al-A Q PD so( �i RI ..•.��.•• TAAOE+MINO CA ' ': GLADYS AVE a R4-SR , 'C4 `• se :: RI RI Re !tl71I I �E J SANTANA CA R4-SR (Q)R2-PO my R( C 4 :Rl --- . T R iN AVENUE RI S,�\ -�1-v�•A�.o SR n I a f R I E i 4 I 1: R1 m Rt RI RI 4 Q -PD RI _ ` wisatUt •--•, ;-go•-� c2 KINER AJ 1CINER AVE RI rAYLOR oR a R I R I h x 577 20 W �N 1 m YAYLJ R DR LE CON7E OR50 . DR a C 2 i R� i Rl ` RI R( J R2� x R1-PD• `� g E a NtY CA R I 7 r DR RI RI ` 11 ' � Rz~ J R( Q y-_ In' R3 P� 7 CF-R 4 F 50 R F LLE D RI : R3 "� j� ;C4 R3 Ra T q IN �J- \ N F Y R3 R 33 _. R2 RI FRANKLIN a DR C4 o RI , R?- RI E A R RI R3 RS R2 u c�a n RZ ••, +1; /.�a � - R2 RI 3 RI RI R2 R3 R3 ; 3z Figure 2—I3 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIN 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 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, 921 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 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. 5.Qwer5 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. (055 0D) -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 115 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 o'f 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- t 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 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- R. R 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- y a .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 . , r 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 Crestvi-ew 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 redesignation 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 small 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 prdjects totalling . 55 units. Property to the south is zoned RI 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- ■ �nr 4 ' fit r■ur■■���r� _ "� � �' �� �" 11 �r� r $F Hill IGH ENS �r • �� I'Tgill u�■��Nuru �� �� .: .I n��m :. s , BRYANT OR� a $ C� .o RI RI Lf LAMBERT DR RI or o RI RI RI G 500.0 E eOTS TO t TERRY OR TERRY DR. R2 I5 J J y W MoorgreopN c ll = R3 $ R2 �C'4 R! � RI RI RI R! RI[�) l LANCASTER DR. ARNETT DR t C4,oq RI RI ,pl °611A6R °RIVE v_ D - C6-1 IU O, C f. C D C6-2 BOI {H.A b C i �— q4 Ld o CF—E R3 fn ` b " J R 2zff 4�m»w i �,F1Ar r NO JiF.lY s:a i•Ot.1 TIWARU DR.'# C4� !- R3 R3 a � R3 r WARNER AVE — I R 5 -- "_— x 3 RI RI s0 C4 �� � a AYSTENOIIM DR I is = C' "-R2 so RILu en R2 It2 1 40 RI � R.2 I R 2 Iva $ c RI RI RI AN T --� -- ---�--- R2 -' ` RI j RI [rPRF{4 -MIL 14 R W ¢ J 190f ° W 0 I d MARSEILLE DR R1 POLDER CR o R 2e. r R2 C4 m RI RI r0 ' u VALENCIA DR --- Ir{aYr R I R - 1 ( F23 7A0 TO 4 - ran 1(RISTIN CR ffilE AN WNNDRELL DR x " R I z r R3 R3. RJ +xJ RI {f. C 4 C4 «nLOERs nR. BARTON DR 3 � R I Z CF—E L J R3 HOLLAN0 uk !LAKE VFEW s--wlcL1 Rl RI 0 0 RI a arc w a w L3, RI ,PD r Fr RI a RI RI 8 Jc 4 1"94 z in �3-J� R3 R3 w R3 o it # eean avt_ --- ----{SLAFER Figure 2-15 Ag=llk HUNTINGTON BE4CH CALIFORNIA EXISTING 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 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 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 uni-ts 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 P P Y 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- � f 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 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 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. Akredesignation 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- f 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- i i 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 ' gerrerated 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- r , . r • it ', 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 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. 2 . 7 . 2 Analysis The followi"ng. analysis examines three land use alternatives for the subject property: (1)` Low Density Residential" 133 Units (2) .Medium 'Density Residential 307 Units (3) Gener'al Commercial (Retail) .268, 000 Square Feet (0550D) -75- i 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 apartmentlproject from' the- study. area. Across Warner Avenue to} th,e south of the study' area is property general planned both low 'and medium density . residential : ' The low density -.property is adjacent' to 'the ,.eastern, hal'f of the study area: The zoning is ' R1 "and the, property i's, 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 t.have requested 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 atypical multi-tenant community center with ' two major anchors or 'a single .tenant such as a Price_ Club.. If only the western half of _ the11site ' 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 r`equir,e the" relocation or consolidation of the Edison substation on "B" Street. :1� F �1 � - . � ■r, r,� ��r.ter:ter, �■ ._� w�l■■■ .� ♦ �� _. � gyp■ �� ��■ rr■r� �� �� ��i ®� � '�"�' �/■■■ . � � � ��■ �■ , ■ram ■■� �■� ��: �� � � � .. � `�� 3� ��� �■�i ■�■ �■�■ ■■r�r ■ram ■■ter "r"�■■ ie � 1■■■■ . � ¢ .- ��i���f�i/II�III■��11t►�/i1�i! ��■�■1/�I ���ts■ 4 } - � ■w ae� � fllr . ��� ���{►.►. � ■��■ 1 �� ■ ■��■ ■■sir� �C j wm l son Mill 111111 son son MED I UT. c iIII fit- s Ain I 1 ■■� ■ _ � r . 4 �� cp J 6 CITY ofMOY5 RI Cc tj � U J RI "� o� Iw I RI Ri cc RI RI RI W RI RI RI RI RI RI of $ Ci 4 r w �- W a U •R - 3 p = = RI C 4 BRUSH DR Y ? _ Ly ClIRYSLER pp. _ RI RI Q.^ BRYANT DR RI f x o C/4 o Ri RI LAMA D C 2 ~4 I LAMBERT DR RI o: i 20 ` RI i RI RI RI ORIN CR s0a. E eons To ! TLRRY 0R TERRY OR RI R2 s LUR HOWARO CR R� g R2 �C4 MOONSAAMW RI & RIRI RI RI +�RIRI /1 _.JL R DR. ARNETT DR ARNETT OR ,,° © RE RI RI i0lo DAMASK ORWE F. C. 0 C6-I ID O C F. C D C!f-2 0. r01 1 e�e. rri Ri b0 R 3 f' x A•' --- ir MERLER U :Q A d R 3 � w a I Ri R2 I c � TAM -"1. ARV m . # :;i:5:�'ict c'�' :.5i�r'i;"� ' i;i; ;i is %31 (� ' 3 wt Z. :::::.::::::::::•.:::.:.::.::: RC4s 3:c'•:c ' GLASGOW CRRI WARNER AVE }{ �41 ---- IC c N 3 R1 10T CITY �R2 R 5e0 s AMSTERDAM ;R DR. e. C 4-MSS r5 ,�. _ R 2 z_:,°O eo iR2 R2 R2SYG►MORE .�5 N�- °'nR� ne r R 2 103 R l W L LDR• RI RI R1 Cl z z _ — — — R2 _ RI Rc W CYRRLSS NlF J +� A so MAASEILLE DR 4 Rl POLDER CR < fZ 2 ie0= C4N RI u y r up -��- 2^' 2 � R2 I yao RI 4 o RI .o� ITO + VALENCIA DR 2,3 E ,...Lt R I R f e� 330 TO,F 'ao R� �msnncR. FRI 'SLANG R. HANDBELL DR N ,,,,_ °" _ R I z n R3 R3 3 $ R I .,o ee Fr f I 1�411LAER5 _pf r1 < Figure 2-17 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 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' desigration would have little impact on these units . The major impact would 'be related to traffic which is addressed separately in this 7report . 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 .co.rridor largely. because .of its status as a' major arterial . Low density uses are generally sheltered from major arterials by higher. den_sity 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 Considerat-ions 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. -79- (0550D) 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 $45,'865. . $ 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 al-ternatives 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 . 7 . 2 . 3 Housing F 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 derisi-ty 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- housixig element contains a policy stating that surplus schoo l; sites should--be- utilized for residential use where appropriate .and consistent 'with the General' Plaw. 2 . 7 . 2 .4 ;.Public Services and Uti.li.ties - 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 sewagelf.rom 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 'approxi'matbly 30 percent more than the medium density.- The Orange County Sanitation Di,str'ict- . - has expressed concerns about incre'asind sewage generation City-wide but have indicate' d 'that the proposed project can be accommodated. b. water The school distract offices are presently served by an on-site water well . The- bus maintenance• faci-lity is serviced by a 6-inch connector extending from another '5-inch line >:n Minor-s 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 5 inch 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 wili 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 bepartment has indicated that the subject property is within the, standaid 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 concerri's 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 tie 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 sectica (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 - annual-ly; 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 -and-CirgUlation 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 G neration 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 vorlume 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 .substantiaily to the further deterioration of traffic flow through the Beach and Warner intersection. The City Traffic Engineering section has indicated that piior 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 tr'affie 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 j 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. 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 .o€ 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) `85- I • A specific plan could be prepared to implement the Mixed Development land use designation. 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) E i kvl� 5 BENUE 111111111 ��� 1/11111111 Illlililltr�1111111111 •� :� • � f �t ILI 11111g�!l1 �-1111111111 ►h; . �` ■ .�t.r 1111111111 =� 1 ��€ Eke �- /11111111 !NEW- T, � r , ♦;r=�I �� �����/+ i/���I� � ,rem a� ♦ ♦ ♦• sr OR�♦ 1�1 �•� ��,r �'�, j,�� e In rn *01,-- AVE - H 3 R 3 R2 '4 CF-E - � � R2 R2 C VARMF vmw scmcpG*- R2 R3 l CF-R $7 R2 •� F1R — e ►!u OR CKW ICk us to we CF-R R2 a ti� R 3 R 2 R2 R 2 R 2 9X a R T R2 = �F -C Rz u PEARCE r�z Rz ST vk nr,ara[ O 2 R� m _c R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R3' a� E Fkt- cZ fk,-cY C4-CZ R3 - MI MILD ST. R3 — o R R3 R3 R3 cFcz {{ mac. _ Ri... r.< •:. ,;::r r>. .. — - RI-CZ '"?"'�::••��..` �" WARNER AVE R I-CZ RI- RI CZ R 3 $b( R3� c. y RI-CZ - � R3 ,�,( R3 R C4 L °C R R 2 Rz R3-195 KING =T iEwATF7t f, R f-cz s C2 IQF74( ' --- ---^—� sue,=( ��• 3Ar •L e� U RI rR R3 NTINGTON F4ARBG4t RI S 5PECFJC PLAN Gti RI—CZ RI—CZ RI—CZ �APW Ck -------------------- RI AVE. � RI-CZ � F ~r s Figure 2--19 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EXISTING ZONING PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2'.8 i i 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) _g"l _-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- s ..�.�. %cam ���■.. -�+% a - � �",� 1111■■1111BOB ��a'�1 ►�/111� /��� .'• a i s low /►��1 �/11���1%' f ISRoss loll C:�: : :moo a�n■■■��■���"► ��i4�►lr�►����i ,� �_ �� . �� ����'� n�i,�si:a=■■■�.��, �1���/�►��/1� � �� �■fir �� �..Fi350 R3 F LL :C4 R3 nw Z r R2 � ;. RI ' i Rt-PD'� I RI RI F ° t � q RI AMRq11 W R2 R2 8 :R2 RI —kas.uILIrok i I R3 R3 t I �-fllao: c�-�•�:a C 4. R2-PI M R3 R3 I I � I R3 I � 1 R2 z � R3 R2U MH � I I i V �i R3 I I ' I I aaA ' U3§6 C4 R2 R3 ... On. i f 1'3 ..� R3 3 , b,d. �c RI f p� at COR$TARTF i1 d RI I E R2 R2 3 i = k - R3. Rl E I �- R l I o R I I E R2 R2 Rl �]ItRM a RI f { R-E - GARFIELD RI �« a R j Rl RI .R2-PD RI iw4m%q E c& RI RI RI RI RI o r o G1! WN XA" S pF.NIVILLE = 3 . j RI a 1 I . _ RI RI cF_I 9f{Yi R[N CR RI xHT CR ,. RA F a RI C F—E RI RI R RI I RI p0 Fl+EAR'f S%F-IL:ii) eMF.[t0 tR �, � o RI RI RI -1 IC4 u R 1 i a op ter. 01 .1�. of zIJ i Figure 2-21 HUNTINGTOti BEACH CALIFORNIN EXISTING ZONING 5. 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- T 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) " -97- f i r -98- Y !f 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines,. an environmenta:i assessment is required to address short term and long-tern 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 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 particular area at the time cif development. Amendment 81-1 seeks to identify short-range issues within a context. of long-range goals, policies, and environmental planhinq programs . The amendment itself acts as a iiiitigation measure designed to minimize any adverse effects on long-term productivity resulting. from short-term uses . One of the steps required' to iinplement 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) s i 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 unposed 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_ roong : 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 resideritial densities on these sites; and does not include persons who would be expected under existing de_nsities, on those sites. This population number is less than the figure listed in the initial study due to refinements made by .sta€f in.Ahe time since. the initial study was prepared. (0550D) -100- 4 . ' Laundry Facilities : Water-conserving models of washers be used. 5. Restaurants : 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-low--flush tgilgts: 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. 8 . 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. (055OD) -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 Ouality: 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. - s =-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, \ mar-ket' va_ lue 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 Existing 4 ,470 square foot restaurant Assessed Market Value $406,962 ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM HIGH DEN bENEITX RE51]?EIRTIAL - 40 Apartment units $05, 000 per unit market value - 70 occupants based on 1. 75/unit D 23 Condominium units $125, 060 'per' unit market value - 46 occupants based on 2/unit ALTERNATIVE 4 QENERAL, 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 DEN ITY RESIDENTIAL .47 Apartment units - $85, 000 per unit market value - 82 occupants based on 1.75/unit ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY REEIDENTIAL - 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 W DENSITY RE91DENTIAL -- 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 - ALTERNATI'V'F 3 - GENERAL COrM4ERCIAL 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 M - Market value: $12, 597, 676 (6744d) STAFF- RECOMMENDATION - LOW DENSITY/GENERAL OMMER IAL (RETAIL) 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: $14i702, 810 ($150, 000 per residential unit $4, 202, 810 for the commercial retail) AREA 2 . 6 ,ALTERNATIVE 1 - GENERAL 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 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 ALTERNATIVE 3 - GENERAL COMMERCIAL (RETP,IL)_ - 268, 000 square feet of retail commercial development - 214 ,400 square feet of leasable space Market value: $17, 165, 140 MIXED DEVELOPMENT - SCENARIO - COMMERCIAL/MEDIUM 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 (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 = ll Quality Restaurant 4,470/sq ft Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 1 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = 1 NONHOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption , (Gal/Year ) =29054 Assumes Temperature = 55 Nonwork 481 2621 Work 9 72 2 4 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 76 668 Home=shop 59 190 Home-Other . 144 745 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-Other 71 367 137 796 ALTERNATIVE 4 j 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 15 44 *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) • s AREA 2 ALTERNATIVE l HOME BASED`EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Car on Monoxi a Y)= 18 Low Rise Apartment 47 units Hydrocarbons (T/Y) = 2 Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y) = I HOME BASED Trips VMT Fuel Consumption (Gal/Year ) =30342 Assumes Temperature = 55 Homework 103 905 Home-shop 79 255 Home-Other 193 999 75 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 16T� 113� 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 1034 6763 *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) u AREA 3 3 ' ALTERNATIVE 1 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide T )= 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 E 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, 1 * VMT columns may not add up due to rounding . ( 055OD) AREA 4 ALTERNATIVE 1 HOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon 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 T= 51454 Carbon Monoxide T Y = 228 Hydro Carbons (T/Y) = 35 HOME BASED Nitrogen Oxides (T/Y)= 20 Trips VMT Fuel Consumption(Ga1/Year )=554,848 Assumes Temperature = 55 Home Work 104 914 Home-Shop 80 258 Home-Other 196 1015 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 Car5on Monoxide TVY)= 60 Single Family A0Iunits 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 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 811 4206 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) s y AREA 6 ALTERNATIVE 1 NONHOME BASED EMISSIONS Type of Unit Size Carbon Monoxide T X 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 - f TF77 Imo'n 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 Home-shop 96 310 v Home-Other 234 1212 454 2612 *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) AREA 7 i 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(Gai/Year )=1113193 Assumes Temperature W 55 Nonwork 18384 100192 Work 375 3041 Total. 19759 103234 *VMT columns may not add up due to rounding. ( 0550D) r APPENDIX C MARKET ANALYSIS f j 3 i j j PEARCE-BOLSA CHICA MARKET ANALYSIS i INMODUCTION: 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 Chico 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 1300 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 Balsa 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 Balsa 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 resent.and fu ture uture 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: i 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 i Neighborhood: - 11/2 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 .i 101000 people served Community: - 10 to 35 acres in size # - located at major or primary arterial intersections 1 - mini-department store or supermarket anchors plus a variety of i other stores i - 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 - I 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 (D141D) •I 102 -:� MH [A R2 !RI R 'l_J�J N :L CF-E ILi' i l s nl..,, s 3 RI nl RI i G2 F RI-CZ R RIRI RI.'o RI S NI RI FRI I,� . RI `CF vE - RI .R ?ill RI RI RI RI E Rl 'RFCZ MH R! RI MH a RI NI RI RI R I RI 4 RI RI RO RI a V. / R2 R2 cal RI All Rt cx MH WR'CZLLJ r �® I ..RI R! RI R4 R' C ■■ R2 R2 R2 C4 RI R! RI CF-R .:. •.,.,. R2 N.[' 2-m RP YH 91 RI R! _ Y CF-R i 'RP RI RIDS m-CZ W_l i� fCF-R 2 IR 111 RI M iCFtlR �z R3 R2 R2 R2 R2 RZ W-[2` a la R•..,. RI Al RI AI JRI RI 111 ,I .[.. peke al'U' R2 R2 1 R2 R2 [R2 R2 R3 (Q)MH R _..-_.,.._� RI RI C4-C7. — R3 ._._R .....,, ' R3 1 J R3 R3 R3 R3 C ,; n'� 2 F @ a u C9 k�oR3 R3- yaF RR i ` � � RI W `f pIFvR,� 7� RI-GZ RI-CZ 3rc R3 R31 C41 R2 1 YRI .:RI ,. { Ca C2 R R2 ..a R3-19 �c -�, �.�� R' RI T - 6 ��RI nl RI Id RI AI ' R R-CZ WR"ri� � N N RI q' R2 I RI RI 31 RI ! 'J 1P� � I-cz� arm `1 " � I ... RIB �R3 __ (� "JYL I�JeL.,° zz II II � ��. ' w �RI{Z-RI-C2 a r_':nw.—� • R g I1�®J A R - RI Al q�PC�.Cz N --..--- R C �c2 Rlc PI / RI war» v, RI-CZ - - 1 4 / 5,1� R RINI 4 I�I!{ I 'cz �� ♦ eo� /. i .,� 5) y �I1(n RczI- IJ _� A. � 6 g'P. eyn � RI RI RI v .� p�5 � fr I Al 0000010 go s10 - �- icy i -nl.cz •-...., R' - Y RI-c2 RIi1 plyP m. 3 - HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIK ftarce!78ofsaChica, PLANNING DIVISION AL Marker - /' . uses vary, usually 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 5000000 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 Bolas 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 7510G0 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 1n the Bolsa 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 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 Bolse 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 Balsa 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 198.4 terms. This date 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 1 and 2 summarize the data. (01.41.D) f a TABLE 1 Imo: . NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER POTENTIAL A B C Ultimate Units Ultimate Units Existing i , Under General Plan Unc#er General Plan Housing Units Minus Balsa Chica Plus Bolsa Chica Households a 4,402 5,973 9755 Populstion a 109992 15,013 24;710 1984 Total b 69496.25 $6496.25 $6496.25 Taxable Sales Per Cepita Total Taxable $71;406,7811 $97,528y201 $160,522p330 Sales Potential SALES POTENTIAL BY CATEGORYC CATEGORY Food $12;2811,966 $16,774,850 $271-609,440 Drug 2,499;237 3,413,487 5,618,282 Apparel 1;927;983 2,6331261 4,334,103 Liquor 1,971002 1,462,923 2,407,035 Eating/Dri6kin6 6,855,051 9,3620707 15,410,143 Gen. MeicHFini ise 8,711,627 11,898,440 19;583 724 Home Trhoi6 6r4-nt 2;449;253 3;345,217 5;505;916 Service`s/Office 3 570;339 4,876,410 8-,026;117 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY CATEGORYo f CATE60RY Food 34,024 sq.ft. 46;470 sq.ft. 76,486 sq:ft. Drug 13,546 18;501 36;452 Apparel 12,067 16i481 27,125 Liquor ,4;635 6,331 10,420, Eating/Drinking 52,329 71,471 117,635 Gen. fvlerchar8ise 92,167 125,883 207,191 H me Improvement 33,699 46,027 . 75;756 Se.ivices/Dffice 1UA,518 1422752 234,957 Total 346,985 473,9 i6 780,022 s - 0141D TALE 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 431546 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 -151439 Liquor 37,205 37,205 37,205 37,205 +32,570 +30,874 +309874 +26,785 Eating/Drinking 56,572 65,692 77,692 77,692 +4,243 -5,779 +6,221 -39,943 General Merchandise 30,858 46,538 58,538 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 148,237 148,237 168,237 168,237 +439719 +5,485 +259485 -66,720 TOTAL 356,176 417,976 517,976 517,976 +90191 -55,940 +44,060 262,046 (0141D) + i ' I 1 MOTES TO TABLE 1: a. Household and Population figures based on Department of Development Services estimates. b. IData 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. i Co '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% I 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 II uses and in combination with some convenience center uses. Consequently, an i 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 leased 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 t General Merchandise $94.52 per square foot I Home Improvement $72.68 per square foot Services/Office $34.16 per square foot !(Source: The Urban Lend 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 1 I (0141D) I 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. Asa 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 of the unincorporated Boise Chica which remains vacant. Scenario C represents the long-term, and assumes -development in the Boise Chica. With the exception of the visitor-serving commercial uses currently under consideration in the Boise 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 Boise 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 Balsa 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 (130200 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 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, 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-Bolsa 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) 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 visitorserving 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 Chica Street and within existing neighborhood centers. However, demand will exceed supply as the Bolas 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 I 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. i i f f I I E i I i E j 3 (0141D) 3 i APPENDIX D ! INITIAL STUDY 11 I I . i t J F i I I I I f 1 Y ! APPENDIX I E y AL CEMMU rw FORK (To Be C=Pleted By Lead Agency) 1. Background i j1. Name of Proponent City of 'Huntington Beach 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent ©evelapment Services_- 2000 Main. Street Huntington .Beach CA 92648 a 13. Date of Checklist Submitted August 20, 1986 4. Agency Requiring Checklist � City of Huntington .Beach #:5. Nave of Proposal, if applicable General Plan Amendment No. 87-1 i II. ffivironmental Impacts i (axplanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) ! Yes Maybe No !1. Farth. Will the proposal result in: - a.. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, ccmpaction' or X overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? 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 1 any bay, inlet or lake? 1 g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X _ 1 288 Yes Maybe No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air qua,.lity? 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 crater 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 Crater 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 Lite. 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 larea, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- 1 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, X rare or endangered species of animals? X a.. 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. Fight 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) in the event of an accident or if upset conditions? X I ' 2W Yes Maybe No b. Possible Literference 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 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. Parrs or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including _ roads? X f. Other governmental services? X r 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial aaotnts of fuel'or energy? X 291 I 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: -17. Huzman 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 120. 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. lkndatory 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 anJ l or eliminate 2% 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-terns, to the disadvantage of long-terra, 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 were 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 completed 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 NWATIVE DECLARATION WELL BE PREPARED. ❑ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the *Focus I�environment, and an ENVIRO A EIR IMPACT REPORT is required. ® IR . Date - -- Si tune For (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) `The EIR is focused on various issues for the project area. The EIR will be prepared i n conjunct i on with the General Plan Amaxkmnt anal ysi s. 293 .- , E EXPLANATION OF °YES° AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS lb. Construction on the sites may require compaction or displacement of soil . lc : 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. j The proposal will generate vehicular traffic. i 13c .� The proposal will generate increased demand on existing I 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. f I (597Od) r �k r I k j 1 1 'APPENDIX E r COMMENTS AND RESPONSES t I f 1 i t 1 r J� r STATE of CAMMMA-0MCE of THE GOVERN% GEORGE D VIMEAAN. Go.&M., I OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH t° 1400 TENT# STREET . . I SACRAMENTO, CA MIA +� (916/445-0613) Hal Simmons January 20, 1987 City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190/Dept, of Development Services Ht1�iT� Huntington, Beach, CA 92648 DEVELoAM ENT s8E CH } CES JAIrl 2t1 iJ�. Subject: General Plan Amendment #87-1 SCH# 86091007 Hun $to tin $BoX 0 f A 9 �4� Dear Mr,I. Simmons: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above natured environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environtaental documents, pursuant to the California Envirent.-mtal Quality Act. I Please call Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this n.atter, lplease use the eight digit State Clearinghouse number so that we M respond promtly. Sincerely, I John B. avulian Chief Deputy Direct 'Office of Planning and Research G i II • • 1 i[I • 1 iI t{� fYI December 31 , 1986 HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Planning Commission JAB'! 0 2 1987 Cityi of Huntington Beach P.O. Box !90 2000� Main Street Huntington Beach, Caliifornia Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DearlPlanning 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 time1we 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 well1into 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 . { 10ver two years ago staff expressed their concerns with the general erosion of commerci-al 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 #l } for three acres across the street from my property . Evenjthough 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 I I 2 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 maybe 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 Marina 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 - th-at ' land . It fails to consider the past and present economic viability of businesses in the study area and ` especially the' vacancy rate and-t-urnover . of businesses . It is important to note that staff does acknowledge the "marginal nature" of `commercial in the market study area . k "Staff further feels that due to the marginal nature of adjacent commercial uses south of the study area , future l.and • 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) I ( 3) Staff ' s concern with the "marginal mature"of the commercial south of my property is valid , but not their recommended solution . • k 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) i will .provide for more commercial development. - I 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 LUE 87-1 , EIR 87-1 , p . 9,j 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- menti, 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 2.5 quality apartments ( 1300 sq . ft minimum) vs 115 , 000-25 , 000 sq , ft . of unneeded commercial building space . IEnvironmental 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 t approximately 3000 average daily trips . If and when Meadowlark Airport is developed with commercial and residential , traffic flow j on Warner and Bolsa Chica will worsen . Staff is correct when they j • I 4 conclude under the traffic analysis section of the EIR that "Retail development of the property may have a negative . impact on traffic flows ' iA 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 . It 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 , John March ! 17211 Sandra Lane ;'Huntington Beach, CA . k e Fii RI R1 RI R• wnm 1 1 1•'1 RI RI RI RI RI RI Fa R1 R1 }}�1 p C F C D i ULL R 2 C4 C2 M H cRn r I RI R1 ] RI AVf -�^ ps c sa R2 E R2 �i R2. R2 R2 C4 Ra R2 1Ali RI RI R'J R .. �z01 R1 RI RIDS ° fR kCF- RCF-R R2 Fd RI R1 R2 R2 R R2 R2 (Q)MH URI Rosc R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 ~ •- . RI 1 . i 4 MIL aT R3 ,� R ROS R3 4. ; R3 R3 R3 2 d -.- _ L. - -- NJ �.�--------� _ t YfAR�ER MVE am a w i w�' R I: — R I R1 R3 Ica - , Et ADO c. ' r, NDOE s � R, R3 R3 C4i �,: R2 i x RI Fft R� R3-19 •` C2 ' R2 w ' RI OH RI RI .ua a RI R2 Ok R k R 1 ' R I RI R3 I' Rz Rr R, mr.r 1 R1 R1 o'' R3-23 �7 f C. RI-CZ. RI R3 Rl'CZ RI �� aLM5LY011TM 1 � 1 4 ♦ p R 1 CZ a C F-E N RI u a- Rt a.x-C:=rs-: y Existing Zoning,. . 1 Area of Concern 3 .3 huntington beach planning'' division figure 3--6 PLANNING ZONING DM 23 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 20 -5 -. 11 W �° NOTE "ORTEC flEE;mo S.1Mo n ser—u.48"T o.r CITY OF ' .,t[wun eo c[se.e e crTr oouxuL oRgxarCF 2q.!w LEGEND zm a42ENDED�per.xq �O€ �DIM.RQ Il "'+I-[ ..r., a[o[.a a-4-62 ti7 107 5.16-66"4QLZIO ® H UNTI GTON BEACH ! A4 Lti m7 .T1 1-.-6{66.2EIZE1 © � q-7-p sal 1007 �-5-66 are?[269 3-_•f4716A�W i 3-a-6f arT2 Il04 w+n[a ru.u ,rps[t.0 o1m[cT 64 416 7o4! 9-1 _67 67-22 134% 4ip[..t,y IaoEw-n.ossw[T ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ba, T�� s=:°_6 Boa a_ro_ '4, �T marr'. � K' I-7-!O 79d laOY 11�� 6-I6-64 4!4 tON 1.17-89 WZO 1471 'a.+�+7 rp..1[6� WIWI 60-1 49➢a 6-I-64 404 1061 4-7-of 11.4 I06 ® o�w[wn[t ctww�Dnwv •sl-o"Mmom" 7-f9-71 70i2 lat0 ® c�•S M1 wvrt�1'E��7q..L1 WIC,, 11-R-64 4'f6 1066 Q-PO-717>aXSN92 CW .or�[,ar[ os7.�cr 1R-T-M 41. f100 7.3-T27rml 1413 ' C'[[Ru 4w�.[., 1J_96-654961163 7-1a-77p677-23I07 1164 7-$-T9 72d m R i4 io4[o1W_ EDWGER AVE L 1. ur4 �.- .-_»_.. - RICZ i" j RI 3 u i RI-CZ 1 MH RI RI RI R, R3 R3 C2 R 2 I I 3 RI `"°E CF-E 9 RI Y�vv,,TeY R 9r� `cl C.. RI ® � LoVG Qr`C RI xao cK ly � w fM R I C� r RNVlOOT OR HAu1 LR ��� � j RI R I I-cz RI R I I< ' - iEREr •a ti T WR-CZ- RI-cZ d OK!ETA off , oaxu. o1T. CF RI R! - RI RI or � x x RI Rl �ti M H a " RI-CZ Q U ro rl R2 R2 C41I U C) WR-CZ a or , xGL_ GafST ANA tl�'N[0�oo w ej � � R3 :cNiD ,TY— CF-E R2 R2 C4 �,Zua7. .Zs R2 R3 tr..-j [� RI—Cl CF-R .00 ^�: RI-CZ P� up HO(Wi M RI-cz CF-R R2 . S W 11'Av::S.,k 11 llLL RI-CZ c R3 , R2 R2 R2 R2 3l� R NN Rzz WR-CZ RI-C2 Ix7 t6..-....... st R!-CZ 'rr WR zl-cz �`"cZ Ra R ! I R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 N RI-CZ U wR cz RI-cz R1-�x Rl�Y C4-CZ 1 x1tO ST R3 ix I R 1-CZ 0 < s R3 R3 R3 R3 C2 t[to ir Rs [[ M6ARNER F RS F C�4. Huntington Beach FcB:Company 2110 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648-2499 (714)960-Q51 yUVITINGiON BEACH January 12, 1987 pEVEEOPMENT SERVICES Huntington Be Planning Commission 2000 Main eet P.O. Box 190 Huntin n Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 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. i 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. i 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 I l6) depending on the zoning used and whether or not Pine Street were abandoned. The existing medium density designation F 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 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, William U�dam William D. Holman Project Representative WDH/j cc: 44r. James W. Palin Mr. Larry McCamish, Chevron U.S.A. i IE , i REFiFONSE HUNTINGTON BEACH C ANY i 4 i Area 2 .3 i 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. t 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 reflectEthe recommended Medium Density General Plan designation on the site. i f r • i II� I t � II I I i i I 3 � f e (7260d) � i �. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUW NGFON BEACH 1 . To 3ames W. Palin Pro Steph n V. ler Director of Development-Services Pri pal R velopment Services Subject COMMENTS ON DRAFT Date Dec , 198b ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR -LAND"USEAMENDMENT NO. 87-1 I 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 AVENUEt EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD i 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. i 2. AREA 2.3 - NORTH OF 'UTICA AVENUE BETWEEN 17TH STREET AND LAKE STREET This isite 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 comrriercial 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 Isuccessfui commercial uses. Commercial development at this location j would'i support the objective of strengthening the commercial activities within the Beach Boulevard Corridor and the economic base of the community. For i 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. - _ _ ^ AVENUE, EAST. 6. AREA 2.7 NORTH SIDE OF WARNER 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 staf f .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. f G I , James 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 arrarige'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. SVK:sar t xc: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Douglas N. La Belie, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment Charles P. Spencer, Housing do Redevelopment Program Manager Mike Adams, Principal Redevelopment Planner Half Simiri"ns'- Associate Planner 0699r i i ! i { I . . I i i I 1 + f!I ff14 I I 4 i. I j i RESPONSE TO COMMENTS STEPHEN KOHLER PRINCIPLE REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST i i L AKAU 2. f In the time since the December 16, 1986 communication, Redevelopment staff has revised its recommendation and now concurs with the Planning1staf€ recommendation to maintain Medium Density Residential on the site. Area i i t ' 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 LowDensity Residential to General Commercial . Area 2 . 7l 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. t i I i S I t I4 1 (7260d) City of Huntingtoneach ° 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA92648 i OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR January 8, 1987 E Mr. Kent Pierce, Chairman Huntington Beach Planning Commission 7865 Seawalk Circle Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear,Kent, SUBJECT: LAND USE 87-1 i 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 incIu;ded 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 matier. 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, f Charles W. Thompson, City' Administrator CWT:lp xc: IDouglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator JJim Palin, Development Services Director Mike Adams, Principal Redevelopment Planner 'Stephen V. Kohler, Principal Redevelopment Specialist t Telephone (7I4) 536-5202 f .d. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION TWNT{NGMN 8WH i To; fI Tom Livingood, Commissioner From - Tom Poe I Planning Commission Deputy Fire Marshal Subject ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT bate February 180 1987 REPORT 87-1 1 Pursuant to your request for an evaluation by the Fire Departifient 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 Imap 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. 1 Should you desire any additional information, please dall my office at 536-5566. TP/sr , Attachment j t GARDEN GROVE B-VD PIZ- GARDEN GROVE FRWY WESTMINSTER HAZARD Irk - O" Y BDLSA-4 �;��K j."..•. � W � 47 Z ktFADDEN `` 1 EDWGER HEIL WHAM WARNER &ATER PAA sTA r ELMS �... 00, FACIF CA ' T GARF'IELD ST Frt� TAJ`Iy? YOR N ADMS YZ 14 KW IS lw ATLANTA .;, :.. MA NOL:A wueb;`' HAAMLIM BANNING, r rl'x HOSPITAL WAY r F t € r rAPPENDIX F ADDENDUM FOR AREAS 2.5' AND 2.7 i i i r i f { f E r i i I I • I I Area 2 . 5! Addendum Staff ha°s recommended that the eastern 10. 00 acres of Area 2 .5 be retainedlas 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 wrest, 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 thelother ' 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. I Staff alfso 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/Commercial Revenue $137,481 Cost $ 26, 672 Revenue-Cost $116,809 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. i I (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. (71s6d) I i 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 particul'ar amount . of commercial acreage versus residential or park acreage.E 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, purpIoses of evaluating what could potentially develop under staff ' s 'recommendation for Mixed Development, some assumptions about land use, can be made. The ©ceanview 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 ofl 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.1 ' 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. 3 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 Densi-ty/Park 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 thelall-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). ' ' r 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 fi--scal 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) y 1 k i E F j APPENDIX G } PROPOSED BEACH/WARNER SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY f F I I t f f t E E I 1 i { r i F� IEf f f k k AVFI WE I z Cl Y = 2 -- z TRI . 4 RI u u uRli Sa� '" RI RI RI RI RI RI RI iRI ' :3R I �d ' IC 4 a W DR u W g RI C 4 3� T RI �6sD B us►+ DR Y rp � Lry - CMRYSLER OR I -- RI R C� --._. I 6AYANT OR r C 4 r �•;;,• {^_ a o RI RI L + 1. V �' I ' i LAMBERT `�' DR C RI RI L t 007. TD C 0 TERRr OR' = TERRY DR � R2s r MC1DN9iADrJ,Y L�jj i 2�3R2 C4 RI RI RIRI Ri Rle LANCADR. ARNETT DR DAYasx DR,ve R I R F. C D C6-1 0. c f c D c6-2cFt ` J0,) BOt ti. •^>, ; '• ,• 4 ',gyp "s '. I[ e : { -fir: •.P-;•r: -r' :ram '. ram'. Fn z.: ,� Lrfi ,b.' �' fey R2 !v,v :r ;:+ tjh"' + ' %t as '•: ' 3 ; rir a cc TAMARU pR.'3 R '• #: 'Y r. r { '.�h1 q l,'rja`� 'Z� ^ `` �,fY R3C4 2 WARNER AVE .R2 R5Ln aD s 5 i .: AMSTERDAM DR co C' IR on, - - 4 :r r _ R 2 w `'4 R I J 60-C4MS 50 R2 c. E EDA CR rRl RZ " it. R G RI W $ c R 2 DR. R I RI RI REMBRANDT _�___ ---,_._- _ _ _ I RI J RI CrpR I a ,� 14 I 19D` o.YPRM AV ° RI A MARSEILLE DR RI POLDER CR Lo a4 r ,�w J9'= [®� . R2 bDp- F R I ofa RI •' VALENCIA DR - a1 r 3s Ri RI i 3B�.3T r E ., R3 $3D TO F 1 l_area F RIMAND i::H':llDL) r' KM Ot f DR. MBNDRELL DR p z a:a R I f R.3 R3 50 R3 a J R I .- 4903� J PROPOSED BEACH/DARNER SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY nm HUNTINGTON SUCH CALIFORNIA I PLANNING DIVISION t t , - I - APPENDIX H !PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BOUNDARY i t i i I h ' I f - I i } HI • • ,1 1 �.• n: .ula tit ;l. � �!!�■■■■ ,7�'� �ILiii" IIIphHI!ltnlh g!■■■■�: � may. .Ir 1 r 111 mnrulllt m= i i � r " w■■I■�\rr �E3fiIL � ��,�d ••^�. . Iluualntl,ilt= % #1- 1-111111 illllltillll111r1lN Il Ill fill i l nl�i �wTi ii it � ■ ``33 }rt � ��IlllllillllllfiHll-ZIIIIIII .umw1 — - .,unr ti/-,-rl.. f tl(1� il�� i��li��1■ ROME l lyt r •iw H :"nu�uli+L S ~iiii C �: .nr.+l�+J� .' I■1�■�?1ii'If'Is+(' 1 sIC L:y:'.iiiiC?=i ; Z • ��1rH1111'� !II It11 k '�C -liri�-S r �' 2 ■ii■ ■ iiI11FF1111 .. �,+..L I.1 -i•ii 7E,S�.� ■ - Ir :rl�'•f�"�"+ 1•irrrrEr �eii. ■ wluul wleriue�3 • r+•yj= Ii1. r+/ lunll rnr,- n r.'pr21 7 uafu a flllut,l ■� ���-�•� _.�• n`Ir 3;lpfltll'.li,Y� �..rr.�r.- _.■ .• fH,Ynlrrun-r �r �� 11 11 �• 11111111 �I�i H 41 '-�.� �6y��i.11»a��■ - Illllllllllilkl�'� �'��- 1'INuni�; �I���li�Iq��E�;'ss r! i+`It'- t•��ryl C-:�_ • _ rill■Elllllnlltr rw�sitl�ff9. Ig�� aItA�ll w +a 7}�F�{i�� '�a�ri..��f ■ ' ■� Fr --':��I� � � I i,l■I�IM�;*ji�i��r��� 11��34i� ��-1{:•....�. 4C-r��____ �� _a J 1 f _. 1 1 i qiq� E 7 - ei-. S,:I:, 1 f -y! =1'--.'i �®�1�:■ li�llu■1.' I�i■■ ■ ■ !f r �#� I 1 I .r■,r,� �`�r, i _�`� ■ ■ 11f�I��'�#���Ill:l�lllll .� I 1 �� �i7 a�lwl �� fiT RI°�EIR '�6. k-"f 1 r a -4.04. anl, ■■ � ■ � � i-. i ■ ' 1 1111■ir>/111fr1 r-.�.r ulEl - g11111M1f s . :!• +n. ael. �T, f jl euailull I -=. III HOUR I71ue,1117� ' 1{• :rnrr,.�,f`". s ,� 1�� Itlllil■-±• _ +�=Illfll'i 1 .. nlll Be>:4=1� �I(111 ! nrrnu�fr efl:.: - t.. 4.+.•-.'Illllri• • lira.�l n�nw.:L'fill �iaa�n: 4.�Rs r71ir•�(.: �. ---— IrIFrYt IIrIrIt{:h + ll� " 717 1f/ r1^'�+ Be, `slJ s i �aii•11111�-- .1. ••' -x`err 111I I -«Ifl H-•s.. .�� .11ltlllr I........ r :Illllf 1 \nl p ,�„s .11NIf111�-+ • 111�IIIInYi.: -lull llliljlll�- 1ti:. llllltl+ _•„.. _. �13^•Bel., i �� - ') Iril p 1 1 rrli f11uu1r11Ur_ yS . C_C :� 7'. 1' i1 •�l it Zi=l1�11111 --1--- r 1 ,T� \�: F 1 is 3=' =r�illkr {V •'i�.(11 1 `1 IClrllilll Ili yllfl/1 tl1114 ■ nlf ainnufEuiirp I'fll! ' ��Ili11 - j .'fill ��Mj�'?rE,r- Allnnnf rf"' n It e • aunullrnn i 7�:�: 7 nlllif.0; Ife tY Y• � �Irl / ��� >�t:� ; nl lu!1 :r��a:.il ulenr.��.-...s t• t C iry� !! �f •-�. �� � s:'-:'i.� T%" S;E _ ' iZ li!lIIfN • x i LIIN . il,reu i'w.i:«017�-ulrifr•--..�j. x=-1 j•'a : £.�qA i,'1 4 nw u1T"Iti111i1f--7 Iflaa $g S.lYuull •- 'Y����Ltilrlllnl � � ,. I , �1���� nIIllllrnx.Hrn�ar.fl • �5��; 1 _i :.�� � { - nuq Irlalulls, • •W � l��. �T - �+r_ ��7 1��� `ff!■ 11111 I./r.11nilr II//I�,�.1=i•rµi11111fr� •/f3'1 Ctr�l F CIS I' _:• , 1.::..�i}i rfui�aa.��C.�.�.S I •a: s� 111 1.1 1 t 1 ,• 1 ii•IpiFi`If^IIIIIFl1�!I��11 a S�I!l!i{{III1I1 I�tFf I� 7+,�urzyg�1es�,1: 7e••eI in 7linr —Val I ` W.H.C. . liltuuunon:n I,y3$(�jyj1�r�;u��/�Uu.♦►w'.. .r� 1i+�i�u a.panlpn:lnr,yllula�ri•. =:y•�.n. l: ulur �• i ..rir�.•4f1 iaa:•. 1 rr �` i • r � r • lr • t,e Bp♦ �i.r. .11tra s a;SS►1"� ' /f eiild i:l�Ililllllil#i#!IIlINi - ems. 413E:3'aSCp 1 F ' {Y, j [ 9EIFo CF9�:p11C IIIIIi111H1 IIIEIIIFIICI#aaa##�..� ;or'e umnnm nutlnnn nnaa 777 I �• 3�If /E�Ilsl 1111111111111p UI WHIM 1�ig1111Cirl Igpg r'rNpl +P;hIB111171`3q7 giC1111N1 a illMoolNillrll 131W I,l iIgAM�FF��A1!IIIIIIL - RNJ�a IMM IJIYJIlI _ �n� ■ �, - " • ` �1�' I1�[e,�-e"�7 � w i� IGr•S�? ES '4 � - y "~ pi �1aaa■-�■ i ,< i • _ i a ur 11i11= �J s`:nJ s:r":il uiEd nn:'aas arrE pae Is•`.� Il1aau` ►� R1I IIIE111 1 � IE`IIIR mll1,i/RB i:en i16�latlo IrCS s15C IAII Nail ulgl I!I!111a1: alpl irr�;r p7Nc glpllg 1'Jldp+RtIRI ♦11 • 41 Ile M'z • rl�l1 N111B I;CkI#lnlF g4fa�•111i IINI ifil`g® J�'. 1/ Ll{� t'IACI�Ip1 7'llxh:III •�• II�■, �_� a1i�@r 113�lI elrll rll1:gosh YY11 1;111 111111 11; INaI• 1 1JIlG IIIIN Al3iIIP 311p1E w li:1'11 3 aao iRN4tl�0gIPl1 ttIHH @rr n tool ►�3Tr.1� �J� I !: HI - Alrf7 Inc/.Ilia Hull 3ua S!!IIiJi 3_'�tl �l `1!u�llSny�u,-jls:1'JnJ; p�l 1 ri sR• :� ■. 3'- =null T�tiH I JS�p_1lsti l� IUR1L� 1i l:IIHI R'Jr7 ai■ =ILi�E p1 101 i1r' "i wi�:111 1t/1111111 {III 1L C!:fi'i4-•'�! num /NlIg81 RN.kli caNll=:Illll�ll�illllll it li�•i , �,�����.���■. \\\ a �� • I!•111= '1.•1 �p MM.. 11� - IIE IIIN t1E! � _ r w�.-. . . ` •/ s,5 laa,-w NIIHUIIIINIi{lpll 4. ^i, �ll I ■lll111±G�,�#�*� i�Eli� � �! .A -► _ 4r p =El 7fi�r:11i -,. 1 it ■= !� •_ ..x�.ur� 1 Il I .•..�- + - • . .. u1111i111!-�+•�Ililfillfl�- rIM., � _ s-: -r1 =!`I-•:^ -.•nllarelnu�� � � �l11111►. i -■ = o n rt _.�anaa` 1� vy_ err. t � t I, .ul I -- :�v� I ■i� 1!1 1�)`.,l ��MITI!7 ^ rn1ii11 ' �� N/IIIIIIIIFl11N 1/- r�ir I Hnn �. ~ r111I! • A ►.r- Erliu ~ 3�1=h„ Il IMI11f i11 iaF r: Hillq �♦- ? Tom" r11n _ _r !t 1 Frr i Ili 1! w p ss r ♦ • 1 m an � iir Fe, � � �" '�� �jrlrlrll� � �1� !�r' `lotto N�i 1iF 11� �i�l��:1::1:11r,e•:=►� � 1 �� ��s -'S..I �iA�lllry � ;i_�;�±� S � Llliilr;{I1111 11p1 .,'f.1.1 1 l i �: •��.':� 3.f-� �, �.��.��.lT, •e• <t ��r�� I +n.:�i.g yi 1 - [r} •1ll�Ilil 111 nn m1. f lid n 111J!In r �tlill NI sfI� i. ■! ��, 7 gel n1. 1«�;'� ll! qr i1ri�ILw+1�111��r� e•S��\:IIC III 1//�► �•+1�'� St � � � ■i!■i■ i II p:' .SrS 111 a Ilulr� !'+"'�+�1�,'- 'Is.'�►�'.'�� �` �. 1 .�! � ,+ . ! i�•fa� ~� i g =_� : �7a11•�i , � ,a.rr1 �111• /♦1� •1 ��r �� •' n/ �� I�t ��l ! I14;ZI::E..:e1Li14�� ��iYf 'VI1111111111f��1 �Irf1 ,runt .i w::7 it a a V 4 IIIII nnururrrnni r rll 51H1•11QI1-.a^:: t I�.tum�iunrlr =n 1 r u [11 . riiul.nT�n ur.;�..1 S f= 1.'�► a r: 'r•." .,1 __! F_ 4 �n ��� r:n1 rr Nrinl \rr;am Ir 1-L,:e,� 1 N :�MIIIMnIrNI. Z rnl.n r..�. . r-T� i C r. �,Y• 11 1 t .rr '- „ uuen ( 1 �� 1� ��a; ru>'.rnlRs I w 15511111movill � 1e11:1• es 1 w • r f F f - ' APPENDIX I F}ISCAL IMPACT ADDENDUM-REDEVELOPMENT AREA CONSIDERATIONS i. i r � i 1 3 S r S � f _ " f 1 i i 4 f f - k ' f , r . L GPA 87-1 FISCAL IMPACT MODEL- ADDENDUM i Redevelopment Area Considetations 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 as t"ax 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 incl-uding 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 adiopted. For example, Area 2 .3 is within 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 12L6 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% County Tax)'. (.20% City Tax) '=[ $81I . 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 l which is com- prised; of single family homes , all property tax revenue in excess of $811 would .be - collected by the Redevelopment Agency, The estimated market3value of Alternative 1 is $29 ;000, 000 generating City pro- perty tax revenue ' totaling $58, 000 resulti.n"g in a net amount of $57, 189 collected by the Redevelopment Agency_ , 4 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 collect property tax revenue because of the tax exempt status . If the district ' s property is incorporated into a redevel- opmentiarea, any^ non-exempt property tax generated by that .property would be collected by the Redevelopment Agency. For example, if the District sold the entire site, it would be treated -1- (0591D) ' . r 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 th'e 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 , 9,03 4 , 781 2 :7 2 ;'523 ,.922 -none none * 'Asses'sed valuation of land and improvement's Using' 'alternative number I 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 Geene'ral- Redevelopment Area Market Value Fund Revenue Agency 'Revenue $' . 313, $• 7', 637 2�.4 14, 062, 660 4; 969 23 , 156 2.. 6 , ' 9 , 983 , 99.9, 4 , 781 151187 2 . 7 *' 23-, 940, 000 none 45 , 725 * Thig. scenario' assumes that the school district sells the land. - r s _ -2- (0591D) i - Again,jassuming each area became a redevelopment area in• 1987, the redistribution of property tax revenue would generate different revenu' 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 i 2 . 2 1 2 .47 1 .43 2 2 . 35 1 . 17 F 3 3 . 13 1 . 19 2 .4 1 5 . 86 4 . 92 { 2 2 .40 1. 32 3 11 . 05 10 . 36 f j 2 . 6 1 2 . 72 1. 41 2 2 . 50 i. 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 increase annually while the property tax revenue received by the General Fund would remain fixed or "frozen" as discussed previously. , i 2 . :Retail Sales Tax Revenue With the adoption .of a redevelopment area, the Redevelopment Agency has anopportunity 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 generai fund ( 16 . 7 percent of the six cent State sales tax) , the Redevelopment Agency may collect one to threelpercent . 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 . z i 1 -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 Council . It is also important to note that the redistribution of retail sales taxa.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 -4- (0591D) I APPENDIX J ADDENDUM. FOR AREAS 2 .6 . AND 2 . 7 (LUE 87-1B) I E { • j i ` I ' I E i 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 . 1 : 1 . Relocation of the Edison substation to the northern portion of Area 2 . 7 . 2 . -Explore the lease of McDonnell Douglas property located on the northwest corner of Boisa. Avenue and Springdale 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 mobilehome park on Area 2 . 7 . 5 . Clarify. the fire response statement on page 81 of the Land Use Element Amendment document . 6 . Research traffic problems on Terry Drive. Relocation of Edison Sub-station. As indiicated 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 'million to move the equipment : On top of that cost would be $165 , 000 per circuit mile of transmission line (5 transmission circuits) and• $80Q, 000 per circuit mile of distribution lihe• (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 substation 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 disruption.• of 'services or other, problems associated with relocation. j � f 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 for 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"and""is';' therefore,, not a viable alternative location. The only other site that may have potential. as an alternative Price Club location is the "Holly" property on Garfield Avenue and Gothard Street. The Price 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 Ownership '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 appendix 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 mobilehome park use on the Rancho View School 'Site. The consistency matrix on page 142 of the Geheral' 'Plan indicates that MH (Mobilehome) 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 staff ' 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) ' l f incomelto 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 { station`s as 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 station' s, are within the five-minute 'response range . The memorandum is included 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 hear ri'g&' ion Area 2 . 7, the Planning Commission requested that staff ''research traffic problems on Terry Drive,lnorth of the study area. Residents had indicated that Beach Boulevard traffic is accessing Heil Avenue and Newland street via Terry Drive. i Staff has requested that the Public Works Traffic Section study the problein. 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 . They. 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 ba'r'ricade 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 available.. 1 a { -3- (7657d)