Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Element Amendment 87-2B - EIR 86-2 - N/W corner of URAFT - LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 86-3 RESUBMITTED. AS LUE 87- 2b ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT $6 -2 A � � hun}ingfon beach planning division j F -z � b TABLE OF .CONTENTS Secton.' Page . y :1 .0 . INTRODUCTION'. . 1 1 .1 : . �METHODOLOGY. l Z. AREA OF CONCERN ' . 3 2.1. NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDENWEST' STREET, AND ELLIS AVENUE . . o 3 2.1 . 1 Background 3 .. 2,1 :2 Analysis o . . . . 8 2.1 .3 Staff Recommendation 15 3:'0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES o o 17 3 .1 SHORTS-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY. 17.. ' 3. 2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES . 18 3,3 GROWTH INDUCSNG IMPACTS. o . , 1 8 APPEND'IX .A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS. AND REVENUE AND. COST, BREAKDOWN APPENDIX B INITIAL.. 'STUDY APPENDIX C LETTERS OF COMMENT I ' t Land Use Categories FDATE MENDMENTS OMM, CITY COUNCIL UTION DATE RESOLUTION 4, RESIDENTIAL 11-6-76 1187 12-6-76 4368 G1.O 6-7-77 1196 8-1-77 4484 �l� 9C G`�a 7�y i Estate s 2un/gac 9_29-77 1202 11-7-77 4551 `O1^ 1' �q 12-6-77 1206 12-19-77 4572jf F� f Estate <-3 un/gac Estate <_4 un/gac 8-1-78 1232 8-21-78 4660 11:21-78 1236 11-1878 4708 /'� OLow Density I I-6-79 1242 12-19-79 4728 �•::;::•.. 3-6-79 1242 3-19-79 4728 / � - _ ,�P Y 0-21-80 1268 12-15-60 4936 / + •'`" j do-? �`6�G , 5-19-81 1273 6-15-81 5005 s SAN DIEGO FREEWAY --/\ / �`\ P OM Medium Density ��- 81 1278 112-7-81 5053 o / Opp Medium High Density 8-2-82 5 6 �F /•` ' ,� i High Density 12-20-82 5206 /^ MESenior Residential 12-7-82 1299 2-7-83 5223 ,,,;,,;,,,c;;``; :, -.-."' 4-19-83 1303 5-16-83 5265 / �/ \ / _ ;:;y- \ "_?%i•''r:'\, COMMERCIAL 10-4-83 1314 11-28-83 5327 - / a / \12-6_83 1315 I-3-84 5341 ME General / --;_ _ _ - - q - 4-3 84 1317 5-7-84 5373 - - - \ - f _ 11-5-84 5457A / _ __ _ y \ Visitor Serving 10-16-84 1333 II-19-84 54578 6_4_ q _ - I - l 8 1344 17 85 5457C \ i n4`n Office Professional `\ P 6-17-85 5532 1-22 56 5-6-86 1357 6-2-86 5670 - -- / \ MIXED US ES ES -- ,r= Mixed Development o me nt s S lP P f: m � O f ice R esidential P i:9::::i:ii:i:i�.i�c:iiiiiii::i::P:iiii::... ..:::::::::::::::. ♦••'•'iiiiiii:i?:i:iii:i: :.,.::. ::. ' . iiiiiiiiiiii"iiiiiia':iiii'e••.....r:^........... ::•••. .... - - fir- ............ .:� ^: -':::::. •..a. +':;', `dz::::::::.........................::•::..... ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::. :::.:::• • Commercial/Support Recreation ...................' € '.::::::::::a ........................ts::::::a ::::s:::::. :.::•. , - TRI >r NDUS AL - / 4............ .. M General -F ., -- ' ,=s UCtIOn ::. ................. � � , ..� \ �Resource Prod - Industrial Energy Production OPEN SPACE N e,.(• A Y� l "� Water q of P h ';`s'', P Conservation Recreation ::. .......... �. o OTHER USE S U •�,`�,���� '�,�.,: v,..,•ls,�K:,r�r :.-�,;n,.,;,�;;;;r,'' P�` Public,Quasi-Public,lnstitutional ��'p-,Vw!af i - gl�Vi,Yi•��l> �:N.n;�.y..gx�F�ral.r _ �• ,�ir.�.�;��, �?����, ,� ,:,�,,, �• t,P • °F:�:_ .Ne����' Im� :,1,:'�A�-�,, ...r,,iJ'.r.:,... � ,�. - Solid Waste Facility Planned Community Y c ;,,;.. - 0 PlanningReserve i LL r., aid "' _ r. Boundary Coastal Zone.g• a �3 a- 4rE.,., Conservation Overlay a� �3 i r;fYf P / P.( 0 a' a .ter.. o av^•• ,.a ,u.� / _ r- a! u. 2`�,a, _�_ -:sue•.-. - ♦♦/I•: ,�/� / �,�s j:i ti;'w _ PACIFIC COAST - - - •�''•_,.-y HWy. - - OCEAN ;•::•: '��'0.%♦ .p: 0 aBa' ...•. �_�-�.-'- � PACIFIC PACIFIC OCEAN �.,:>y�; •"i:o i;:;[�si�. '►�'y@D���� `e�`�'• , y:,..c:. , visa ® GENERAL PLAN HUNTINGT N BE4CH C LIFORNIA LAND USE DIAGRAM lop PLANNING DIVISION Adopted December 1976' Revised JUNE 1986 CRMOIT I f 1 .0 INTRODUCTION This report concerns Amendment 86-3 to the Land Use Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan . The Land Use Element was adopted as a mandated element of the General Plan in December , 1973 ; this is the thirtieth amendment to the element . Planned land uses throughout the City are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagram. 1 . 1 METHODOLOGY The proposed amendment is to change the General Plan designation on a 10 .1 acre site located at the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street . The amendment request on this site will be analyzed in terms of the existing conditions on the site , anticipated impact on surrounding areas, major land uses and ,environmental issues , and consistency with adopted City goals and policies . Section 15148' of the State 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 -1- Y t section or a cover sheet identifying where the general plan document addresses each of the points required. " In conformance with State guidelines , this document will constitute the EIR for Land Use Element Amendment 86-3 . The environmental setting and significant impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial study are addressed under area of concern (Section 2 .1 ) . Alternative land use designations and. feasible mitigation measures to minimize significant effects are also discussed in this section . Section 3. 0 addresses overall environmental changes related to the following considerations : 1 ) the relationship between local short-term productivity; 2 ) irreversible or unavoidable environmental changes; and 3) growth inducing impacts . k T k_ -2- T , 2. 0 AREA OF CONCERN This -section addresses the request area designated in Figure 2-1 . 2 .1 NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDENWEST STREET AND ELLIS AVENUE 2 . 1 .1 Background The area of concern addressed by Land Use Element Amendment no. 86-3 is a 10 .1 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street . The property is currently designated for General Commercial ( Figure 2-2 ) in the City 's Land Use Element . The current zoning on the property is C2-0 with no special conditions limiting number of stories , retail uses or building materials . - The C2 zone permits construction up to 50 feet and allows virtually all retail uses . The area of concern was at one time designated for open space use in the Land Use Element and was one of several areas under consideration for inclusion into Huntington Central Park . At its August 17, 1981 meeting, the City Council voted not to include the area of concern within the park boundaries at that time . Staff was directed to consider a commercial use of the property that would be consistent with the park . -3- 2.1 I, r ,y 1 3 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIK AREA OF CONCERN PLANNING DIVISION Figure 2-1 -4- TALBERT � Li Imo'~LOW:j- - r .DENSITY aG RESIDENTIAL CF-R cW .?ANA) ✓r OPEN SPACE i I i I CF-C GEN. �OMM. ELLIS rer ESTATE RESID. I ESTATE RESID. 3 UNITS/ACRE 2 UNITS/ACRE � E i ESTATE RESID. GENERAL INDUSTRIAL 4 UNITS/ACRE i 4 I i i - AVE. GARFIELD HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PLANNING DIVISION Figure 2-2 —5— f TALBERT i 4- }� M1-co (� 3 s RI- I 1 Rt E .R1� Rf fu RI RI `° wcf . CF—R MI—CD I,I MI—CD I r 'L- - . t RA-0-CD MI Mi-:� - _ _ RA- CD R 0 RA-0—C D C F—C ` 1M 1 , _ a OCa 0-CD -CD MI—CD IIR j os-o- CD Aos-o•cD-_ ca -o-cD� C2-0 �`MI-CD $ M I a-ca -aca DI c _ - u o-ca MI _ RA ca MI'07CD = e. I MI-01I RA—CD -C-a �1 �D6r�oo _ I_u-o,ca RA-O-CD u-o-cD a +� � RA-O-Ca RA-0 RA-0I-CD r 1 � :ebti RA-co 4 J ¢` 4. M.1-C, s Q-RI-(2.7)'0-8,000 'IRA-0 J J RA-0•C MI-0 RA-0 7" o- RA-0RA-0-CD o MI-0-CD" I . - GIs-A-eD,. • ' a - MI-CD MI-01 w W MI-0 " Rp-pl3 RA-Of I RA O-CD M1-01 MFA•CD - MI-0 F = s s e RA-0-CD 1 ]oE R3 8 A-0FCD Nu- FAA AVE. - GARFIELD " Adft HUNTINGTON 8E CCH9 G4LIFORNIA EXI STI IG ZONING PLANNING DIVISION f' Figure-f 2-3 —6— Subsequent- to that Council decision, the property -owner requested a change in general plan designation from Open Space to General Commercial . That request , in conjunction with a zone change to C2-0- (Q) was approved by the City Council on December 21 , 1981 . On January 31 , 1985, the property -owner , A. C. Marion, requested that the General Plan designation of the subject property be changed from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential . The amendment request was GPA 85-2. Additionally, the landowner requested� a concurrent zone change on the subject property from C2-0-(Q) to R2-PD, Medium Density Residential District-Planned Development. Inability to market the land for retail and commercial services was cited by the landowner as justification for the amendment . This .request was denied on June- 17 , 1985, by the City Council . After denying the amendment request , the Council explored the City' s ability to purchase the site for inclusion• in Central Park,. Upon their conclusion that sufficient funds were not available, they directed that a zone change be initiated to remove the "Q" and related conditions from the , property . The "Q" was originally intended to establish conditions that commercial uses on the site be limited to equestrian oriented businesses , that they be one-story construction with wood siding and earthtone colors , that there be parking lot landscaping and that there be pedestrian and horse access . These conditions were intended to ensure compatability with Central Park ; That zone change ( zC 85-13) was ,adopted by the City Council on September 16 , 1985 . On June 10, 1986 , the landowner resubmitted his previously, denied request for the General Plan Amendment and zoning change outlined ' above . In view .of the fact that the applicant and his request are the same as before and that the conditions in the area of concern remain essentially unchanged, the EIR ( 85-1 ) that was prepared for this same request last year is resubmitted herein as draft EIR No . 86-2 for the current request . This is in accordance with Article 10, Section 15153 of CEQA, . "Use of an EIR. from an Earlier Project . " The only changes to this EIR involve updates concerning the history of applications on the site, discussion of the Holly property Land Use Element Amendment request to the southeast of the property , new methodology for assessing fiscal impacts , and a slightly revised recommendation discussion. It should be noted that staff recommended approval of the applicant ' s previous request (GPA 85-2 ) and maintains the same position for the current request . The following analysis covers six alternative land use designations : (1 ) General Commercial ( 2 ) Medium Density ( 3 ) Low Density (4 ) Estate Residential 3 Units/Acre ( 5 ) Open . Space ( 6 ) Open Space/Commercial The area of concern currently contains horse stables and an exercise area for approximately 50. horses . Property to the north of the study area is part of Huntington Central Park and is developed with a commercial horse stable and riding facility. Property to the west of the study area is primarily vacant and is undergoing acquisition by the-City - for Central Park.. Property to the east .of the study . area , across• Gol�denwest -Street, is designated as Open Space . The. 2 . 7 acres at the northeast corner of. Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street is zoned MI-CD and , contains a truck repair; business . The area north and east of this •M1-CD property -contains the Mushroom Farm and Sully,Mi1•ler Lake,-both of which will ultimately be .incorporated into Huntington Central Park . A _port-ion of the :. Mushroom Farm proper,ty' is under construction for . i-nterim use as a mobilehome relocation park . } The • pr,operty directly south of th•e area of concern contains a horse stable.•,. . It is -part of a larger area 's that - is designated Estate Residential 3 Units Per ;"Acre, The 'dr'aft Ellis-Goldenwest. Specific Plan for the area is currently undergoing revision by staff for resubmittal: to the City Council .- " A five acre 15-lot subdivision was "approved in the area to the southwest of the study area in 1984, with another adjacent five acre subdivision pending . _,Planning issues related to development--of the Ellis--Goldenwest. area. include preserving: the topography of the area and, ac.c,ommodatingreques't'rian use's 2 . 1 2 Analysis r ., . 1 � (1 ) Land Use The study,:. area.; lies, within, a. unique part , of the C,Ii;ty. f It is il surrounde.d,•by ..,ex'isting • or proposed Huntington Central Park on three sides and Estate Residential -on the fourth (south)"= side . The 126 acre. Holly Property ( itself the subject 'of CPA 85`=1 ) is located " diagonally 'across Goldenwest SStreet and Ellis Avenue. 'The Holly Property General Plan Amendment request for a change from Estate Residential and General. Industrial to Planned Community wasrecently denied . The -existing.-:Genera1- Commercial •.designation -on the subject property, was originally intended to provide equestrian oriented commercial - services which. would .be. utilized in .conjunction with the dquestri-an center to the north . Potential uses included- feed and grain stores, saddle and tack shops; western _clothing stores•: and specialty shops -offering miscellaneous riding accessories . Staff ' s analysis indicated that the equestrian facility, in combination - with the Estate Residential area to the south , would create demand for a commercial center on the property. The applicant, however , has indicated that the demand has not materialized. This may be partly due to the fact that the Estate area has not yet developed. The applicant ' s request for Medium DensitylRe'sidential •on the site could result in a maximum of approximately 140 dwelling units . -8- 7 ' Because of the relationship of the site to Central Park, the design of a residential project will be very important . The project should feature . clustering of units in order to preserve open space and maintain view corridors into Central Park . If appropriately designed, this alternative could feature a use that is both compatible -with Central Park and economically feasible . The alternative for Low Density Residential would result in approximately 70 dwelling units . Similar to the Medium Density alternative, low density units should be clustered to preserve open space and view corridors . Low Density on the site may be more compatible with Central Park than Medium Density; however , it may not be as economically feasible. The Estate Residential alternative would result in approximately 30 ranch style homes . This would constitute an extension of the large . lot subdivision concept which is occurring across Ellis Avenue to the south. Horse trails to and from the equestrian center- to the north could be more easily incorporated into an Estate type development than into the other alternatives . However, the site may be too small for an estate residential. project to be � feasible. Also,. this site is fairly detached from the other estate areas . A redesignation of the site to Open Space would permit the development of a commercial recreation use such as a tennis and racquetball club, swimming pool , par-three golf course, country club or similar use. The type of facilities and amount of building square footage would vary according to the proposed use . Appropriate implementing zoning would be ROS (Recreation Open Space ) . Since the site is surrounded by existing or proposed Central Park on three sides, Recreation Open Space could be considered a compatible use . A recreational use on the site could be developed by the applicant, but such a use would not be economically efficient. for a private landowner . If the City were to acquire the property for inclusion into Central Park , recreational use on the site would be more feasible . At this time, however , the City has forgone any plans of acquiring the site due to its high cost . The last alternative would retain General Commercial on the southern five acres and redesignate the northern five acres for Open Space . This could allow a reduced mix of tennis and racquet club uses on the Open Space portion and a small neighborhood shopping center on the commercial portion . ('2 ) Economic Considerations The Planning staff developer] a revised fiscal impact methodology for analyzing the. land use alternatives in this request . Significant changes from 1985 to 1986 appear in both the revenue and cost components of the analysis . A major revenue change is the difference in Motor Vehicle in Lieu Tax generated by the residential development (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 ) . Because of adjustments in state subventions the Motor Vehicle in Leiu Tax increased by a factor of 13. For Alternative 2 that increase totaled $7, 407. -9— The change in methodology was - focused, primarily, on costs associated with the different types of development . Representatives from , each department --in the City were interviewed and the budget for that department,was . reviewed . program . by program: < For .example, Tim Engle (Park and Recreation Development Superintendent ) in Community Services said- that none of the residential developments analyzed in this analysis would have ,an impact on . programs or services provided, by this department . Les Evans, Public Works Department, • (City .Engineer,) selected. specific programs that would be •impacted by a development ( re.gardless of type ) . That selection resulted: in relative.ly. low costs associated wth Public Works Services ., Appendix .A provides the .assumptions -and .which were used for each � . . alternative . The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for -one, year for compa,r'ison purposes . ' The results are summarized -in the table below. , • ; , . Alt. , 1 „ I Alt. .2 Alt 3 > Genera7 Medium Density Low Density Commercial • • Residential °Residential Revenue* F . 2.12 .67 a 71... 77- •40 _71 'Cost* ,. 18 . 30 36 . 39 21 .44 Revenue -Minus Cost* 194 :33 3.5,. 38 ;� , A , # ;19 .27 , Revenue/Cost 11 . 62 •1 . 97 1 . 90 *in thousands Alt . .4 ' , -Alt:. 5 Alt C Estate Open 'Open Space/ (Residential Space Commercial Revenue* 1•29.. 58 r 19 . 30 83 . 03 Cost* 11 . 40 12 . 90 14 . 52 Revenue Minus Cost* 18.18 6 .40 68 .50 Revenue/Cost 2 . 59 1 . 50 5 :72 *in thousands As shown above, all of the land .use alternatives that were analyzed would generate a surplus of revenue for the City. The total fiscal impact of the proposed amendment would be optimized if the General Commercial alternative were selected . This scenario could generate a surplus, of approx-imately $194,367 in the year analyzed. Of the three residential alternatives, the Medium Density scenario would generate the greatest revenue surplus The Low Density scenario would generate ,the second highest amount of surplus revenue. and the. Estate Residential scenario would generate the least amount . . The Commercial alternatives generate a surplus of revenue due to sales tax. Th,e Open Space alternative generates the least surplus revenue -10-- because there are fewer retail sales . In reviewing the above results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only, rather than as a prediction of exact costs and revenues . ( 3 ) Housing The applicant has proposed development of approximately 140 housing units on the subject property under the requested Medium Density designation . Low Density would allow 70 units . The Estate Residential 3 Units Per Acre alternative . would result in 30 single family detached housing units . The other alternati-ves do not include residential use . The Housing Element of the City 's General Plan contains policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes . The applicant 's proposal would provide the most housing of any of the alternatives and, therefore, the lowest cost per unit. ( 4 ) Public Services and Utilities a . Sewers An eight inch sewer currently exists in Goldenwest Street north of Ellis Avenue . Another eight inch sewer is planned for Ellis Avenue west of Goldenwest Street . Sewage from the study area is intended to flow north to a pump - station at Slater Avenue . The Orange County Sanitation District, however , has indicated that the Slater Avenue pump station is presently operating very close to capacity and adequate modifications to the stations serving the study area and other adjacent areas may not be possible . Completion of the Coast Trunk Sewer , which now terminates at Goldenwest Street and orange Avenue is necessary for long-term service to the property. The Sanitation District has further indicated that the ,project proponent should meet with the district staff to resolve the sewage service problems associated with the project . t -11- b . Water water mains -in the vicinity of' the study area include a 12-inch main in Ellis Avenue and a 14-inch° main in Goldenwest Street . These existing mains can provide adequate water service to the site under any of the land use alternatives . C . Storm Drains Surface runoff from 'the site to Goldenwest Street will provide adequate drainage under any of the land' use 'alternatives . d . Police and Fire Protection Fire protection for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach from the Gothard Station iocated µ -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 . 7i ' 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 Xorktowh 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 ail the alternatives', ymedium density would generate the most calls , approximately 202.` e 'Parks r. The area of' concern is bordered on' three 'sides by land either existing or proposed for, inclusion as a part of Huntington Central Park As such any residential alternativefwill be ' more than adequately provided for in terms of park demand. f . Schools The area of concern is located within the Oceanview School District and is served by Mesa View and Crestview K-8 schools and Ocean View High School . Due to a downward trend in student enrollment , the schools could easily accommodate the increase in students generated by either the applicant ' s requested Medium density designation or the alternative Low Density or Estate Residential . The non-residential alternatives would have no impact on the area 's schools . -12- 9 -1 Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company.. Extension of existing lines in the vicinity of the study area will provide adequate gas service under any of the ' proposed land use alternatives . The Gas Company notes, however , that gas supply may be affected by the overall availability of natural gas and by . State and Federal regulatory policies . Electrical service is provided by the Edison Company. Adequate electric power supply can be provided from 12 KV distribution lines in the vicinity of the area of concern . Edison notes that the total electrical system demand is expected to continue to increase annually; however , excluding any unforeseen problems , their plans for new generation resources indicate that their ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods will be adequate for the remainder of the decade . h . Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City of Huntington Beach . No local service constraints are expected under any of the land use designations . ( 5) Traffic Circulation Access- to the area of concern is taken via Ellis Avenue which is designated as a primary arterial . The property also 'fronts on Goldenwest Street, a designated major arterial . Present traffic volumes for these arterials in the vicinity of the study area are . 600 daily trips on Ellis Avenue and 25, 000 daily trips on Goldenwest Street . The maximum design capacities for these arterials are 30, 000 and 45, 000 vehicle trips per day respectively. Public Works has estimated that the applicant ' s request for Medium Density will produce approximately 1 , 400 vehicle trips per day. Low Density would result in 875 trips while Estate Residential would generate 450 daily trips . The existing General Commercial designation. would generate 6,960 trips per day. Recreational Open Space on the entire property would produce 1 , 875 trips per day with the one-half recreation, one-half commercial alternative producing 6,100 trips per day. As indicated in Land Use Element Amendment 85-1/EIR 84-1 for the Holly Property ,, any development on that property will result in traffic volumes that will exceed the existing capacity of the surrounding arterials . Existing traffic volumes are well below capacity, but will exceed capacity when the currently vacant 300+ acres ' in the area are developed . LUE 85-1/EIR 84-1 identified arterial improvements that will be necessary when the larger area develops . These improvements include the widening of both. -13- Goldenwest Street north of Garfield Avenue and Ellis Avenue east of Gothard Street . Such improvements will allow the arterials to function at Level of- Service C with only peak periods exceeding that capacity. t The -subject property constitutes such a small percentage of the overall vacant property in the area that it will have very little noticeable impact on circulation, regardless of the alternative selected . If the subject property develops' in th'e near future before any of the other property is developed and before the arterials are upgraded, it, will still.- have noIimpact on circulation because- ;the existing arterials are presently operating well below capacity. ( 6 ) Environmental Issues: .. a . Noise. • Noise levels of Ldn 65 and Ldn 60 extend into the southern portion of the site from Ellis Avenue and levels of Ldn 70, Ldn 65 and Ldn 60 extend into the eastern portion of the site from Goldenwest Street . These levels fall within the normally acceptable range for both commercial recreation and general commercial. uses, but .slightly exceed the range for residential uses;. ' Setbacks , berming; landscaping and-soundwalls° should be utilized along Goldenwest Street if a residential use is selected for the site . No -significant noise impacts are anticipated to occur from any of the proposed land uses . The study area• is bordered- by tCentral -Park on two sides , however , acid- care should -be * taken at -the project level •to protect potential passive recreation use of the park from excess noise on the 'study ' site . b . Air Quality Any ,of the land use- alternatives will adversely affect air quality within the South Coast region ; however , the impact is not expected to be significant . Projected daily emissions ' from the ,six alternatives are as follows: Emission Tons of Source Emissions/Day, GENERAL COMMERCIAL ' Mobile . 45 Stationary Negligible Total .45 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Mobile .13 Stationary Negligible _ Total . 13 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Mobile s . 08 Stationary Negligible Total . 08 -14- Emission Tons of Source Emissions/Dad ESTATE RESIDENTIAL Mobile . 04 Stationary Negligible Total . 04 OPEN SPACE Mobile .17 Stationary Negligible Total .17 OPEN SPACE/COMMERCIAL Mobile .40 Stationary Negligible Total —.40 C . Seismic The area of concern lies within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and is traversed by the Bolsa-Fairview Fault. This fault is a potential cause of serious structural damage due primarily to ground shaking. Actual displacement and surface rupture has 'not historically occurred along this fault system in Huntington Beach and the probability is relatively low that it will within the next 100 years, even though one or more moderate-sized earthquakes may occur . In compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972, a Special Studies zone has been established in Huntington Beach that includes the most hazardous earthquake faults . This special studies zone does not extend into the study area . Development in the study area, therefore, need not be subject to the zone 's requirements . It will be appropriate to address the mitigation of. potential seismic hazards in the study area when a specific •project is proposed for development . 2 ..l .3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the applicant 's request for a General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the subject property 'from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential (Alternative 2 ) . This recommendation is based ' on the fact that Medium Density Residential use on the site may be both economically feasible and, with proper site design, compatible with Central Park , thus meeting the City ' s goals and the landowner/developer ' s goals. None of the other alternatives presented in this study achieve the' same level of harmony. As previously mentioned in the analysis, the property has been unmarketable under its current designation of General Commercial . Even if it were marketable, a non-restricted commercial use may not be appropriate for the site . Given the site 's proximity to Central Park such a use could create negative impacts on the park in terms GPA 86-3 ( 0523D) -15- ' F of traffic congestion and noise pollution. Moreover , ,a commercial use may not complement the aesthetics of the park . In. view of this , staff is, recommending a change in the land use designation , of. the property. Designation of the property. as .Medium Density Residential will improve its marketability, but more important , will enhance its compatibility , with the surrounding area, especially Central Park . Compatibility,' of the proposed project with Central Park can be . ensured by`requiring the project to incorporate quality site design, including the clustering of units ,to preserve 'open space and maintain. view, corridors into the park . Medium Density Residential in this locationtmay also .enhance . pedestrian oriented use of -the park as opposed- to auto-oriented ruse, thus increasing the park 's utility. t Along withF the General , Plant Amendment to Medium Density, '"the ' applicant has, requested a concurrent zone ,ehange ( ZC 86-21 ) to , R2-PD (Medium Density Planned .Development ) . d f the City approves the General Plan Amendment request for Medium Density, staff would recommend a modification of the requested R2-PD zoning. In order to ensure ` coimatibi'l ty` with Central Park , staff would recommend that a density limit of. 10 units per -acre be added to ,the zoning and that the CD,' (Civic,,Distr'ict.)' suffix also be added to require special desi�gn' -review: ' ' Staff is therefore " recommending R2- ( 10 )'-PD-CD ' zoning in the accompanying zone change staff 'report . ' s GPA 86-3 (0523D) • -16- ,• 3 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines , an environmental assessment is required to address short—term and . long-term effects, irreversible environmental changes, and growth inducing impacts of the total project or plan . . This section analyzes these concerns in context of the recommended land use change in Section 2. 0. 3 . 1 SHORT.-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Amendment 86-3 does not in and of itself create long term impacts . Rather , it makes changes in the general type of land uses that may be allowed on a particular area at the time of development . Amendment 86-3 seeks to identify short-range issues within a context of long-range goals, policies., and environmental planning programs . The amendment itself acts as a mitigation measure designed to minimize any adverse effects on long-term productivity resulting from short--term uses . One of the steps required to implement the amendment is an analysis of the zone changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan . The zoning changes that would result would have significant short-term effects, such as creating non-conforming uses , reducing or increasing intensity of development permitted, and providing stimulus for development. GPA 86-3 ( 0523D) -17- 3. 2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The Amendment will mitigate most adverse effects . However , irreversible environmental change of a secondary nature can be expected from development under the proposed amendment . Loss of open space will occur as vacant land is converted to. other uses . Although the option to recycle the land to open space after development is available , it is probably not economically feasible. Alteration, of topography will be an irreversible .change . Although mitigating measures can be imposed as part of the development process , the natural- topography will experience a negligible degree of modif,ication . 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 o€ .,300 persons .could be generated by., uses under. Land Use Element Amendment 86-3, thereby creating an - increased demand ;on ,publi,c .services and utilities and incrementally affecting air, qua-lIity, . 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 . ( 1 ) Reduce,.-evapora.tion ,from -.reservoi`rs by encouraging, underground s..tor:age , or, coating''water surfaces with evaporation' hindering films or substances . , ( 2 ) Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse -of the return flow of public water supplies wherever such use is acceptable and safe. ( 3 ) waterspread where appropriate, to recharge the underground .water supply. ( 4.)... Meter, water. and encourage- repair-of leaky connections to stimulate more economical use. ( 5 ) Reduce consumption- of .toilets and-, showers by requ:iring - appropriate modifications to these appliances . ( 6 ) Prohibit the use .of open gas ,lighting inapubl-ic or private buildings. _ . . . . GPA 86-3 ( 0523D) -1-8- ( 7 ) Strategically place electric lights to maximize their efficiency. Their size and power consumption should be minimized as much as possible. ( 8) Discourage electrical heating in public and private structures . Encourage solar-assisted heating systems . ( 9) Encourage the use of reflecting and/or insulating glass in- structures where windows are not shaded by exterior architectural projections or natural plants . GPA 86-3 ( 0523D ) -19- APPENDIX A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS LAND -USE ASSUMPTIONS AND REVENUE AND COST INCLUDING LAND USE AND REVENUE/COST ANALYSIS GPA 86-3 ( 0523D) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AC MARION PROPERTY FISCAL ANALYSIS Major revenue and cost impacts are assessed in this analysis' for the 10 . 1 acre AC. Marion Property located on the northwest corner of Ellis and Goldenwest . Six development alternatives were chosen for the analysis . The following is a list of assumptions for each alternative: ALTERNATIVE 1 -GENERAL COMMERCIAL - 130, 680 square foot specialty commercial development . . 104 ,544 square feet of leasable space . Estimated development value of $15 ,141 , 700 ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 140 condominiums $150, 000 per unit market value - 280' people based on 2/unit ALTERNATIVE 3 = LOW` DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -- 10 condominiums $185,000 per unit market value 140 people based on 2/unit ALTERNATIVE 4 - ESTATE RESIDENTIAL ' 30 single family homes $350, 000 per unit market value 98 people based on 3 . 27/unit ALTERNATIVE 5- OPEN SPACE/RECREATION 35,160 square foot structure associated with tennis , racquet balI Ind golf driving range. $6, 857 , 700 estimated ' development value, ALTERNATIVE 6 -- GENERAL COMMERCIAL/OPEN SPACE - 44, 250 square foot 'specialty commercial with 35,400 square feet of leasable space . - 17 , 000 square foot tennis and racquet ball club facility. $9 , 461 ,600 estimated development -value. Sources for estimated market values per unit and development values were: Mike Browning, Caldwell Banker Real Estate Development Division Mike Minna, Holiday Spa Development . - Huntington Beach Company, •Pacific Ranch Development Holly Pioperty -EIR -1- T5940d ) 1 . 0 REVENUES 1 . 1 PROPERTY TAX ` Property tax revenue is derived from the •County ,tax. which is one percent of ' the market value` of the property and b•r improvements,. Of that' one percent the City collects` property. tax revenue which, - in tax rate - area 4 -010 , is 19. 12 ' percent . The market value assumptions and resulting , revenue estimates for each alternative is presented below.* -- Alternative 1, :'- 130 , 680 square feet of specialty commercial would have a market value per square foot .bf $60- to construct and. market the building plus land cost of $12 per square foot. The structure would have a value of $7,840, 800. and the• 10 acre parcel would have a value of $5, 227, 200 resulting in a total market value of $13 ,068,000 . The City's propert tax revenue would be ( . 01 ) ($13, 068,000 ) =$130, 680 ( .1912 ) = �24, 986 . Alternative 2 - 140 condominiums would have an estimated average �rice per unit of $150 , 000 and a total development value of 21 ,000,000 . The roperty tax revenue would be ( .01 ) ( $21 ,000;000) =$210,000 ( . 1912 )=�40,152 . Alternative 3 - 70 condominiums would have an estimated- average rice per unit of $185,000 and a total development value of 12,950 ,000 . The property tax revenue would be ( . 01 ) ( $12 ,950 ,000) = $129 ,500 ( .1912) =$24 ,760. - Alternative 4 - 30 estate homes would have an 'estimated average price of $350 ,000 and a total development value of 10,.500,000. The Mroperty tax revenue would be ( . 01 ) ($`10 , 500, 000 )= $105, 000 ( . 1912 )= ,076. Alternative 5 -- A recreation facility that includes tennis , racquetb'al•1 , etc . with a 35,160 square foot building would have an estimated market value of $8 , 391 ,600'. The construction cost . estimate of $90 per square' foot was provided by Michael Minna of Holiday Spa Corporation .** Mr —Minna stated that such costs •as marketing, etc. are not. feasible to average , therefore this market value estimate reflects only hard costs -(construction ) and ' land value' wlA ch is estimated at $12 'per square foot . The M , 045. perty tax revenue would be ( . 01,) ($8 , 391, 600 ) =$831916 ( .1912}- . *Review of 1985 estimates and 1986 figures were provided by Mike Browning of Coldwell Banker , Real - Estate Developmentr.Division, telephone conversation July 3, 1986. **Telephone conversation, iu1`y 8 ,,. 1986 -2- (5940d ) Alternative 6 - Commercial and recreation facilities totalling 61, 250 square feet. As in Alternative 5 the land would have a value of $12 per square foot . The commercial structure would {have a value (hard and soft costs ) of $60 per square foot; at 44,2501square feet the value would be $2., 655, 000 . The recreation portion would be $1 ,530 ,000 based on 17 ,000 square feet at 90 per square 'toot . Total value for this alternative would be $9 , 412,200 and .the roperty tax revenue would be ( . 01 ) ($9, 412 ,200 ) _ $94,122- ( . 1912 ) 17, 996 . 1 . 2 Sales Tax Residential ALTERNATIVE 2 • The 140 condominiums are estimated to have a population of two people per unit and a market value of $150,000 per unit . Based on that unit cost , an annual family income of $50 ,000 would be necessary. That income, according to Internal Revenue sales tax tables , would generate $418 in annual sales tax- revenue. The City receives one cent of the six cent sales tax per dollar or' $70 . per family. It is estimated, however, ,that approximately 60 percent -of the sales tax revenue is captured by surrounding communities ( leakage ) resulting in a net revenue per unit of $28 . ALTERNATIVE 3 The 70 condominiums will also have a population of two people per unit . The estimated market value per unit, is $185 000 resulting in an annual family income of $61 , 667 and generating 456 in annual sales tax revenue . The net revenue per unit, minus the leakage factor , is $30 per unit . ALTERNATIVE 4 In this alternative the single family estate type unit is expected to have a population of three to four people per household' At $350 ,000 per unit the annual family income would be $116 ,667 resulting in an annual sales tax revenue of $796. . -The net revenue collected by the City would be $53 per unit. COMMERCIAL The urban Land Institute publication Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers was used to estimate average sales per square foot . Although some recreation facilities have retail components often referred to as "pro- shops"it is assumed the recreation facilities in the following scenarios will not have a pro-shop. Pro-shops , however, do not generally generate measurable sales tax revenue. -3- (5940d ) F A third consideratiori in .this" segment of the analysis is leasable square footage . For the commercial scenarios a gross leasable -area . square footage , 80 .percent of gross square feet, will -be used to estimate ;sales ' tax 'revenue. ALTERNATIVE l and' ALTERNATIVE 6 These''alternatives have similar commercial scenarios that would " generate an estimated $164,.42 per gross leasable space .* ALTERNATIVE„- 130 , 680 gross square feet , 104 , 544 gross , leasabl-e area and an es imated `annual sales ; of' 17',189,124` resulting 'in $171 ,891 of sales ' tax revenue .' ALTERNATIVE 6 -, 44, 250 gross, square,.,feet,, 35 , 400 square feet of - gross leasable space generating ` 5;820,468 in annual sales resulting in $58, 205, in sales tax revenue . - One hundr:ed' percent °bf cominercially` generated sales tax revenue is , capturei `by-the' Clty, Land th'er'efore, reported in total in 'this analysis . It is important to note , ,however , that a new commercial center :'+aill probably draw ' customers` from existing centers in' the area -,thereby reducing sale's tax revenue 'generated by the older - centers'! , E� sales tax 'revenue• per''alternative: Alt . No. 11 _ 171 , 891 Alt; ' No , 2' - 3,920` - Alt . No: 3 - 2,100 ;Alt . Nb` A =` 1;590 . :Alt', No': 5" - _.NA ,6 = '-$- 58 ,205 ; a 1 . 3' " 'eUtility User and',Franchise Tax Huntington` Beach collects a five percent utility u' se`r tax on 'the annual- sales ' of. ,electricity, natural gas, telephone and cable television services in the City., r � ' A franchise . tax 'of one percent of the annual electricity safes and four percent of the annual natural gas 'sales is collected from the respective utility providers in the City. Factors used for this section of the analysis are as. follows . According-t-b the ,California' Energy Commission, .average electr icity , - charges are: r : Residential = $36�. 99 per unit , per month 1 Commercial = . 0894 cents per kilowatt hour, using 12 , 2 KWH per square foot per year applied to commercial and recreation developments . *Urban Land Institute gross leasable space square foot figure for neighborhood shopping centers in the far west . ' -4- ( 5940d ) Average natural gas 'charges' ate: Residential . = $33 .02 per unit, per month 4 Commercial = $6 . 69 per million BTU' s, using an annual rate of . 42 BTU' s per square foot applied to commercial and recreational developments . General Telephone could not provide an average service cost for residential customers in the City, therefore an average charge of $40 has been used in this analysis . Annual phone charges for commercial and recreational entities were not available and, due to the differences in phone usage per business, an average bill or use could not be calculated at this time . . For cable T.V. service in the City, the basic rate paid by residents is $12 . 50 per month . . It is assumed that all new residents in the City will subscribe to the cable service . UTILITY USER TAX ANNUAL REVENUE Alternative 1 Electric Gas Phone Cable TV Total Commercial $7,127 $1 ,836 N/A N/A 8,963 Alternative 2 . Residential $3, 107 $2 , 774 $3, 360 $1 , 050 $10, 291 Alternative 3 Residential $1, 554 $1,387 $1 ,680 $ 525 $ 5,146 Alternative 4 Residential $ 666 $ 594 $ 720 $ � 225 $ 2,205 Alternative 5 Recreation $1, 917 $ 494 N/A N/A $ 2, 411 Alternative 6 R Commercial/ Recreation $3 , 340 $ 861 N/A $ N/A $ 4, 201 -5- (5940d ) FRANCHISE TAX ANNUAL REVENUE ELECTRIC , GAS: -. , TOTAL Alternative, 1 g T r u . Commercial ' $ 1 ,425" $31 ,469 $ 2, 894 s FRANCHISE TAX ANNUAL REVENUE Alternative 2 Electric Gas Total Residential 62.1 2 ,219 $ 2 ,840 Alternative 3 Residential; F i,. } 311 ,_ 1, 109 $. 1 ,420 , Alternative 4 : i , �,,�� _ . _ �_ _'_ „ t . ; . . ; }, • „ : Residential. s :F. i $ 133 475 , ,,, 608 Alternative 5 t Recreation. 383 }395 778 Alternative 6 Commercial 668 •'688r z , . 1 , 356 1 .4 Business License Fee Revenue The commercial and recreation facilities in Alternatives 1 , 5 -and 6 will require employees and will also generate business licence fee revenue. Business license, fees are based . on the- number •of employees`,.per business and also a fee per -number of trucks . It is not feasible to estimate the number of trucks per business, but employees have been estimated based on the following assumptions, Commercial = a City survey of 52 specialty commercial stores identified 2 . 4 employees per store . It is assumed that :the commerical land uses in this report will average 1000 square feet per business . Alternative No . , 1 would, therefore, have 105 business .and 252 employees. For one. to three employees the City ' s Business License Department charges $37. 50 per year . The total business license revenue generated by Alternative No. 1 would be $3,938. Applying the same methodology, the commercial development in . Alternative No 6 would have 32 businesses . generating 77 employees , with a total revenue of $1 ,200 . -6- ( 5940d ) Recreation = A survey of recreational facilities (i .e . athletic club, health club, fitness center and racquet club ) identified an average of 11 employees per facility. The business license fee for 11 employees is $67. 50 per year . Total Business License Fees: Alternative Fee* Alt . No. 1 3, 938 Alt . No . 5 68 Alt . No. 6 11 ,268 *Amount rounded to the nearest dollar. 1 . 5 Additional • Revenue Additional . revenue is received from new residential development on a per capita basis . In this analysis Alternatives 2,. 3 ' and 4 are residential developments . In the Preliminary City Budget, Fiscal Year 1986--1967, four major revenue items are applicable to this . analysis . Based on the ' January 1986 State Department of Finance . population estimate for Huntington Beach of 184,300, the revenues are calculated as follows : Fines , Forfeitures and Penalties is $2 ,195, 000 divided by 300 equals $11 . 90 per capital . Cigarette Tax is $532 ,100 divided by 184 , 300 equals $2 . 89 per capita . Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax is .$5 ,248, 000 divided by 184 , 300 and equals $28 . 48 per capita . Gas Tax Funds ( 2107 and 2107 . 5) are $1 ,620 ,600 divided by 184,300 equaling $8.79 per capita. Additional Revenue Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Fines, Forfeitures $ 3,332 *1 ,6661 , 666 and Penalties Cigarette Tax 809 405 283 Motor Vehicle 7,974 3.,987 2, 791 In-Lieu Tax Gas Tax Fund 2,461 4231 861 �14,576 $7 ,298 5,.101 .2 . 0 COSTS Research and discussions with each department has resulted in the application of different methods to assess relative costs . These -7- (5940d ) results 'depended on 'the amount of 'data available and the level of automation in each department . For example , the pcjice - department has ' the most 'sophisti'cated data analysis related to activity by type of land use . Working with the police' department computerized archival data it was possible to asses's the number of calls for a particular type of land use ; The number of -calls hasa ;direct relationship `to • the number ' of -officers needed and ultimately a recommendation for the hiring of additional officers based on the, impacts from development . Essentially; each- department has been treated on a case by case basis rather than applying a standard °methodology to `all' of the factors considered: " t- 2 to ' 'Cost Assumptions The City of Huntington Beach Preliminary Budget, Fiscal Year 1986-1987', was -used ias• the `primary •source for this section of ,.the .j analysis: }Capi't'al ` expend tures were ' excluded • from the'' budget' as they are ,notEapplicable `to future or proposed development The applicable programs under each budget item. can generally be assigned to privately developed acreage in the -City- on the,Ifollowing basis :. Residential- land, uses •comprise` approximately 78 percent of privately developed' acres , commercial land uses comprise 10 percent and industrial land uses comprise 12 percent . Where appropriate, this land use distribution will beAused to assess:cost- impacts. 2 .1 General and Administration Expenditures While this fund includes numerous programs (a total of 20 ) "new development would measurably impact only ,the non-departmental category.' Non-depar'tment'al activities range -from .Cit utility costs to* liability program costs with a 1986-87 budget of �7,§50, 300 . Residentail related impacts would be $6 ,201 , 234 , industrial related impacts. would be $950, 036 'and commercial related .impacts ;would- be $795,030 . The most equitable method of, distributing thi.'s expenditure is based on costs per acre. There are approximately 9, 539 ` acres •developed for residential land uses with an estimated cost of $650 per acre, 1 ,223 acres developed for commercial land uses with a cost of $650 per acre; and 1, 468 acres of industrial developement with a per acre cost of $647'.' Since the cost per acre for residential and commercial land uses (using the above methodology) is the same and all alternatives use 10 acr.es , .the cost for each alternative is, $6, 500 . 2 . 2 Police Department r From surveys of similar land uses police calls per type of development were derived . Calls relate to additional officers per ear . One officer ' s average annual salary, including benefits , is 54 ,000 . Five or more officers would result in capital expenditures -8- (5940d ) such as a vehicle . When calls per year reach 535, then the police department would recommend hiring an officer at the annual cost of $54, 000 . Calls and officer time involved per alternative are shown in the following table. Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 Calls 77 202 101 18 34 43 Additional ' Officer .14 .38 .19 .03 . 04 . 07 As shown in Table I none of the Alternatives generated a number greater than one. Based on the percentages resulting from the survey, police costs per Alternative will be assessed on the cost per office multiplied by the percentage per Alternative . ALTERNATIVE PERCENT OF OFFICE ANNUAL COST Alt . No. 1 ( . 14 ) ( 54,000 ) = 7, 560 Alt . No. 2 ( . 38 ) ( 54, 000 ) = 2.0, 520 Alt . No. 3 ( . 19 ) ( 54 , 000 ) = 10, 260 Alt . No: 4 ( .03) ( 54,000) = 1 ,620 Alt . No. 5 ( . 04 ) ( 54 ,000 ) = 2 ,160 Alt . No. 6 ( .07 ) ( 54, 000) = I 3; 780 2 .3 Fire Department It is the the assessment of Fire Department Staff , primarily Tom Poe (Deputy Fire Marshall, Fire Prevention Division ) ; that new residential development will impact two programs: Public Safety Administration-, Program No. 300 and Public Safety, Fire Control Program 302. The total 1986-1987 budget for these programs , minus capital expenditures , is $7,528,860 . The majority of public safety activity, approximately 75 percent , is provided to residential land uses in the City. Assuming costs for public safety on a per capita basis the result would be as follows : ( $7,528,860 ) ( .75 ) = $5,646,645 divided by the 1986 City population of 184, 300 = $31 per capita . Commercial land uses , however , have a relatively small impact on the Fire Department . Six percent of Fire Safety service can be attributed to commercial uses , or ( . 06 ) ($7 , 528 ,860 )=$451 , 732 : In addition to Fire Safety, Commercial uses also impact program .308, Hazmat Response Unit . It is estimated that 25 percent of the 1986-87 program budget or ( . 25 ) ($36,130 ) = $9, 033 can be attributed to commercial uses . Of the three programs the total cost is 460 ,765. Applied on a per acre basis the cost distribution is 460 , 765 divided by 1223 commercial acres = $377 per acre. Due to a limited data base for this analysis Alternative 1 , 5, and 6 would generate the same annual cost, ($377 ) ( 10 acres ) _ $3, 770. -9- ( 5940d ) Costs per alternative are: l i * � 3** 4*** 5= .. 6 $3 ,770 $8, 680 $4:1'34,0 0,038 $3 ,770 7+ °$3,770 * Based on a Population of 280 ** Based 'on a population"of 140 *** Based on a population of 9;8 . 2 .4 Community SServices According to 'Jim Engle, Superintendent of Recreation and Park Development,,: none of' ,the residential developments in. Alternatives 2, 3 or' 14 would have an impact on 6`mmu'nity Services There 'wodl:d` `be` `not increase in' department services or the need for „ additional park acreage in. response to any of the Alternatives . 2 . 5 Public, Works, `. i ?o• I''t to '. t ,-�},, i .k �' � � 1, i In., a .discussion with Les Evans,. City Engineer , it was determined tht the ,scope ,of developm�nt. 'astsessed -in this 1an'alysis woiuld,` only have a, ,' measurable impact ;on Public` Works Prograi�s9 530 *and 531, sewer maintenance ; Mr .' Evans 'al'so stated that residential development generates the' greatest impact- one ,'sewer maintenance in. the .City. For budget. years, 1986--198'1� the,;total cost for sewer maintenan'66'.is $580, 893 .' Since residential gene`ra�tes' 'the largest impact- it- is realistic to measure that impact on a 6per capita �basisi. For commercial 'land uses the' cost 'will l be measured o,n a+-per acre basis . . Residential costs are as follows: Seventy . ei.ghtr 'percent- of '.$580' 893 `=` $453,'097 divided by the 1986 populat'ion%-estimate 'of 184, 300 $2 .46 per capital ., The - per acre - cost is derived from the balance of the `prog'rams 'which equals •$127, 796 'd'ivi8ed by 2,691 acr`e's '( commercial and industrial ) and results in $47 . 50 per acre . ` COSTS PER ALTERNATIVE Commercial Alternatives 1•; 5 and 6 are 'all 10 'acres , ( 10,) ($47-50 ) _ $4.7.5,. Residential -Population Per Capita Cost Tot a1, Alternative 280 2 .46 $689' Alternative 3 -140 2 .46 344 Alternative 4 .98 2 . 46 241 ' ' - -10- (5940d) 3. 0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS This analysis is based on a one year comparison of revenues generated to , and service cost impacts upon , the City of Huntington Beach from each land use scenario. The categories used in this analysis reflect major revenue and cost factors . The purpose of this analysis is to examine on-going revenues versus costs ; therefore , one-time only development fees are not included. Also, this analysis is not intended to replace or be used as a detailed market feasibility study. Six alternatives are compared on the basis of their relative cost, and benefit impacts . By comparing relative revenues and costs the results of the analysis , as shown in Table 2 , indicate that all alternatives would have a positive revenue impact ranging from Alternative 5 with a net revenue of $6 , 397 to Alternative 1 with .a net revenue of $194, 367. -l1- (5940d) TABLE A-1 POLICE DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS CALLS GENERATED BY TYPE OF LAND USE Total Calls/ Recommended Number of Units or Calls/Unit Threshold for Additional Land Use Square Feet or Sq. Ft . Calls/Year Additional Officers Officers Alternative No .l Commercial 130 ,680 1/1693 77 77/535 .14 sq. ft. Alternative No. 2 Multi-Family 140 1 . 44/ 202 202/535 . 38 Medium Density unit Alternative No . 3 - - Multi-Family 70 1 . 44/ 101 101/535 .19 Low Density unit Alternative No . 4 Residential Single Family 30 .60/unit 18 18/535 .03 Alternative No. 5 Recreation 35,160 1/1634 22 22/535 .04 (Health Club) sq. ft . Alternative No . 6 Commercial 44,250 1/1693 26 26/535 .05 sq. ft . Recreation 17,000 1/1634 10 10/535 . 02 sq . ft .07 TABLE A-2 AC MARION REVENUE/COST ESTIMATES Revenue Alt . 1 Alt . 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt . 5 Alt . 6 Property Tax $24, 986 $40,152 $24, 760 $20, 076 $16, 045 $17, 996 Sales Tax 171 ,891 3, 920 2,100 1 ,590 N/A 58 ,205 Utility/ Franchise Tax 11 , 857 13, 131 6, 566 2 ,813 3 ,189 5, 557 Business License 3,938 N/A N/A N/A 68 1 ,268 Fines , Forfeitures and Penalties N/A 3, 332 1, 666 1 ,166 N/A N/A Cigarette Tax N/A 809 405 283 N/A N/A Motor Vehicle N/A 7, 974 3, 987 2 ,391 N/A N/A In Lieu Tax Gas Tax Fund N/A .2 ,461 1,231 861 N/A N/A Totals $212,672 $71 , 769 $40, 715 $29 , 580 $19 , 302 $83, 026 Costs General/Admin. $6, 500 $6, 500 $6, 500 $6 , 500 $6, 500 $6, 500 Police Dept . 7,560 20, 520 10,260 1 , 620 20,160 3,780 Fire Depart. 3, 770 8 , 680 4, 340 3, 038 3, 770 3, 770 Commuity Services -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Public Works 475 689 344 241 475 475 Total $18, 305 $36, 389 $21 , 444 $11 , 399 $12,905 $14, 525 Revenue Minus Cost $194,367 $35, 380 $19,271 $18,181 $6, 397 $68,501 Revenue/Cost Ratio 11 . 62 1 . 97 1 . 90 . 2 . 59 1 . 50 5 . 72 APPENDIX B . INITIAL STUDY GPA 86-3 . (0523D) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Boc.kgraA►d 1. Name of Proponent .City of Huntington Beach 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,Ca. 92648 (714) 536-5271 3. Date of Checklist Submitted , March 6, 1985 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington BeaS:-h � 5. Name of Proposal, if, applicable G;neraI Plan Amendn nt Nn._-85-2 II, Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all 'yes" and "maybe" onswers are required on attached sheets.) Yes be No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of 'the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. 'Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X 115 g. Exposure 'of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial ,air_emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b.- The-creation of objectionable odors? X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperoture, -or any -change in climate, either locally or regionally? = X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in.currents, or. the course 'of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or. the rate and amount of .surface ` runoff? _.x_._ - c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any c ` 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 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of on aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the omaunt of water otherwise ovallable for public water supplies? X i. . Exposure of people or property to water re- X lated hazards such as flooding or tidol waves? 116' Yes Mn�rbe No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into anarea, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in ocreoge of any agricultural X crop. S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and X shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? � X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stentiol alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result. in: a. Increase .in the rate of use of any natural resources? X 117 Yes t,6o b. Substantial depletion,of any.nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset: ViilI''the' proposal' 6v;ivm a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances,(including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or a. radiation) in the event of'on accident or upset conditions? X b. Possible interference with an emergency respcins+e'plan or an"eriiergency evbcu6tion" ' plan? X 'Poprlvtiori '•"Will the proposal alter the location, distribution,,density,, or ,growth gate of the ` human poPU —lat ionof` an area. X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hour- F ing, or ;create a demand .for.,odditional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result' in• a. Generation of substantial additional. : vehic'uloF movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or X demand` for new uric ing. c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- ' tation'systems? r X d. Alterations to present patterns.of circulo- tion or movement of, people,.and/or goods? X 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 governmental services in any of the following areas: X a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X c. Schools? X 118 Yes rbe No d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roods? X f. Other governmental services? X IS. Energy. Will the proposal result in: o. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities.- Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Commun icat ions systems? X c. Water? X. d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainoge? X. f. Solid waste and d isposol?• X 17. F*nTa+ Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health haz ards? -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 p roposa I result i n an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreation! opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of .or the destruction of o prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X 119 _ yes Maybe No - b, Will the proposal result in adverse phrysical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or .historic building, structure, or object? X c., Does the proposal have the potential to . cause a physical chAxW which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d, Will the proposal restrict-existing religious -_. rysacred uses within the potential impact X 'area' 1 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a, Does the project have,the potential to degrade the quality of the. environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish , or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- - -- taining levels, threaten 'to'elimindte a ` plant -or animal community, reduce the - number or restrict the' range of- a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important• examples sof the major 'periods of California history or prehistory? X b, ., Does the project hove the potential to -achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term; environmental goals? (A short- . -.term.-impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive F period of time while long-term 'impacts will endure well into the future.) X �. . c. Does the project have irnpocts'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 hove environmental effects which-will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X III, Discussion of Environmental Evaluation iV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead`Agency) 120 On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have o significant effect tt on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described an an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect an the efwiron- *Focused meta, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. XXXI E 1 R March b, 1985 Date ignatur For (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) The EIR is focused on various issues for the project area. The EIR will be prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment Analysis. 121 EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS lb. Construction on the site may require compaction or displacement of soil . c.' Construction on the 'site may result in reduction of some swale areas. g. - The Bolsa=Fairview Earthquake Fault passes through the vicinity of the project area. ,• 3b. Construction w i I.1 a I te.r ,the. f I ow of run-off into the swa I e areas, 6a. ,- Development of the side' will generate human and vehicle noise. 7. Deve l'opment•of the`s i te' w i I I result' i•n add i t i ona l street I i ghts. 8. The site ' is' p-re'sently used as horse stables, and the existing planned use i"s General Commercial.. ,The proposal is for residential . 11 . The proposal widl result in approximately 250 additional people residing in the area. 12. The proposal will create=additional housing. 13a. The :proposa,i ..will generate vehicular traffic which may be substancial . c. The proposal ..will generate increased demand on existing public and private transportation systems. f. Increased vehicular traffic may pose a hazard to pedestrians and bicyclists in the area. 14a--f. The ' rop6sed�4project may require additional governmental services. 16a-e. The proposed project may require alterations in some utility systems. 18. The proposed project may impact views into the Huntington Beach Central Park area.' 19. The proposed project is surrounded on. three sides by existing or proposed Huntin"gton *Central Park lands. 21c. The cumulative effect of relatively small impacts on various resources will be examined. APPENDIX C LETTERS OF COMMENT GPA 86-3 ( 0523D) hate of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY. OF=CALIFORNIA Memorandurn 1� To Dr . Gordon F. Snow Da+e MAY 1.3. 1S05 Assistant Secretary for Resources SOiect: Draft EIR for . Hal Simmons Huntington Beach'. City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land .2000' Main Street Use Element GPA 85-2, Huntington Beach , CA 92 64-8 Orange County , SCH Nod., 85,031301 From_ Department of Conservation-=Office of the Director 1 . The Department of Conservation has reviewed the Draft EIR for the . proposed 140 unit residential development on ten acres in the City of Huntington Beach. We have the .following comments on the Draft EIR' s geotechnical evaluation and on possible oil field impacts , Geotechnical The Draft EIR (p. 15) acknowledges the site 's .proximity to the Newport-Inglewood fault zone , and its location in recent alluvial material less than two miles from the coast. However, the EIR does not address the potential seismic constraints that should be applied to the proposed development as the result of a possible signi fican't earthquake along the fault zone We recommend, that the geotechnical section of the Draft EIR be supplemented. to include a discussion, of the impacts that a significant earthquake along the Newport ._In.gle,.wood fault zone would have on the proposed Project. This .evaluation should address among other< items , the .effects. .o,f. strong ground sh ak in g and the potential for liquefaction due, to the shallow depth of- 'groundwater . Oil Field "There are presently many producing and idle oil wells in the project ar ea. The ' Division 's district of fi ce should be, contacted prior to any grading or excavation operations for the purpq a of determining- the, exact location and mechanical .condition, of these wells . If. any. str:uctur,e, qs proposed to be located over .or near any: previously abandoned, :K.ells , there is the possibility that r eab:an donmen t of .such wells may be necess e ary. S ,cti.on 12.Q8 .1 of the Public 'Resour;ces Cod_ a authorizes the State. Oil and. Gass Supervisor to order the reabandonment of- an:y previously abandoned well .Wen constr-u;ction of any structure; over or in. :the; ,.pr.ox mit.y of the well could result i n a h.az ar•d: Also, the Cost o f; :abandonment o-per:at,ions. shall ,b,e. the_ res.ponsibili,ty., of .th,e owner, �,: of the _property upon which the structure is� to. be hocated Dr . Gordon F. Snow Mr . Hal Simmons Page 2 In addition , if any excavation or grading results in damage to the cemented surface plug in any abandoned well , remedial cementing operations may be required. If such damage occurs, the Division 's district office should be contacted for the purpose of obtaining infdrmation on the requirements and approval to perform remedial cementing operations . Periodic maintenance of the producing oil wells will be an ongoing activity until the wells are abandoned ; therefore , adequate provisions should be taken to ensure that mobile rigs have access to each well. In addition , these wells may require that each well or wells be surrounded by adequate fencing to provide safety for the public . Since the project is within an active oil field, provisions should be made for access to possible future drilling in the ar ea . If ' you have any questions regarding these comments , please contact me at ( 916) 322=5873 . Dennis J. O' Bryan t Environmental Program Coordinator CC: Robert. Strei tz, Division of Mines and Geology Ed Kiessling, Division of Mines and Geology Lynn Jones , Division of Mines and Geology K. Carlson , Division of Oil and Gas , Long Beach R. Reid, Division of Oil and Gas,. Sacramento 0367C-2 .RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION COMMENTS Geotechnical-- The proposed project is located within close proximity to the Newport Inglewood fault zone . The study Geotechnical Inputs which was done for the City by •Leighton-Yen and Associates in 1974 identified the study area as being subject to high seismic risk , but being controllable through design and/or setback . The .study area is not ; however , located within the Alguist-Priolo Special Study Zone which identifies the highest seismic risk areas and requires special geological studies prior to construction . Based on * the Leighton-Yen .repor,t , however a geological study of the site may be desirable prior to construction. Oil Field - There are numerous active and abandoned oil wells located on the subject property. A condition of approval for any Conditional Use Permit on the site should be that- all wells be abandoned to current Division of Oil and Gas .standards , Additionally, every effort should be made, where feasible to avoid locating structures over any abandoned oil well . "AT,o" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS u� OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 °'•°•"' 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 C (714) 962-2411 August 11, 19.86 HEN T��;OTON BEACH pEV=-1 C?a'17NT SER':!I�cS City of Huntington Beach f l q P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �648 guntington Beach, CA 9� Attention: Catherine Miller Regarding: Development at Ellis Avenue and Golden West Street City of Huntington Beach Dear Catherine: In response to your inquiry, subject area has been master planned by the District for industrial development using a flow coefficient of 3880 gallons per day `per acre. This area is ,within County Sanitation District No. .3 but would be served by City owned lines tributary-to County Sanit ation. District No. 11 facilities As you are aware, the District is concerned about the amount of available capacity remaining to serve areas of District No. .11 which feed into the Slater Avenue Pump Station. The staff will soon make recommendations to the Directors regarding the appropriate connection fee_for this area, and we request that you not give connections until the Directors receive same. However, we have no objections to development levels which generate sewage equal to what has previously been master planned. In the meantime, we, are actively working with your City, the County and the developers, to improve capacity through completion of the Coast Trunk Sewer. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to .call . Sincerely, Thomas M. Dawes Director of Engineering TMD:HJB:lb .cc: Director of Finance' General Manager it CITY OF HUNTINGTON ,. BEACH,,`.. 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 P. O. Box 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION (714) 536-5486 IiUNTINIU BIRCH • DEVELOP AUIT SEB'-lICES September 2, 1986 F.j. Brix iA .. • Huntington Beach Planning Commission fluntingto Beach, CA P4548 P. O. Box 190 .Huntington Bleach, CA 92648 Dear Commissioners: Re: ' September 3, 1986 Planning , Commission _Meeting Item C-12 On" June 12, 1985, the Community Services Commission took. the following action: Moved by Vander Molen, seconded by Kennedy, the Community . Services Commission recommends to the City t .� Council that the A.C.Marion property zoning change from general commercial to medium density be denied and that the property either stay in its present zoning designation (Qualified Community Business District (C2-0-(Q)-) , which would make it compatible with the adjacent equestrian stable, - or be rezoned 4 to recreational open space. Pursuant to the above action, I would like to ask that the Planning Commission not rezone the A.C.Marion property in a manner that would not be compatible with the park usage. Sincerely, NORMA VANDER MOLEN Chairman NVM:cs Attachment M cc: Community Services Commission Charles- W. Thompson, City - Administrator Melvin M. Bowman, Director MINUTES REGULAR M FETING COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION-. Wednesday, June 12, 1985; 7:00 PM Council Chambers, Civic Center 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach; CA 9264.8 Chairperson Frost called the regular meeting of the Community Services Commission to order at 7:08 PM and led the salute to-the flag. :. MEMBERS PRESENT: Glen Dysinger; Jeffrey Frost; Betty Kennedy; William Osness; Jay Rivera; Norma Vander Molen W MEMBERS ABSENT: Judy Blankinship (excused absence); Art Giese; (excused absence); . Marilyn Jensen, (unexcused absence); _ ;Loren Moll (excused absences Karen O'Bric (unexcused absence) STAFF PRESENT: Vivian Borns; Melvin M. •Bowman;-vDoug.D'Arnall; , AJim Engle; Bill Fowler; Library Division. ; : Staff. -(Walter Johnson, Ron Hayden, Mary Ann Hutton, Gary Shippey); Daryl Smith; Carolyn Strook GUESTS: ''Ira Toibiri, HBUHSD, will be replacing. Glen Dysinger in September as District representative.- PRESENTATIONS-COMMENDATIONS LIBRARY DIVISION Walter Johnson, Library Director, Ron Hayden, Public Services Librarian, Mary Ann Hutton, Librarian, and Gary Shippey, Technical Services Technician, gave a presentation on the Children's Division, Technical Services and other general services currently being'' provided by the 3 Library.. Library staff .will be making presentations the next few- months in order' to enlighten--�the:.Commission, on current services provided by the Library. M MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING MAY 8 1995 MO ION: . MOVED BY RI ERA, SECONDED BY KENNEDY,, , THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MAY S, 1995 AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:. AYES: DYSINGER; KENNEDY; OSNESS; RIVERA; VANDER MOLEN NOES: NONE ABSENT: BLANKINSHIP; GIESE; JENSEN; MOLL; O'BRIC ABSTENTION: FROST DIRECTOR'S NON-AGENDA ITEMS _HUNTINGTON L RK (HCP) COMMITTEE, PARK • 'CONCESSION IMPROVEMENTS - Director requested a committee meeting for the purpose of discussing proposed HCP concession improvements. A meeting,„was scheduled for Wednesday, June 26, 7:00 AM, 5th floor conference room. ' I • l..Uh'MVlvll i JCKVII� • �..vIV�IV11J.7wiv � �,.,.,,, ,�, , MINUTES - 499 Page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS MIJSHKOOM FARM PROPERTY/MOBILE HOME RELOCATION UPDATE - Mike Adams, c Senior Planner, Development Services Department, updated the Commission on the current status of the subject property. After presentation of proposed site 'plan, - the ,Commission made the following motion: MOTION: MOVED BY VANDER MOLEN, SECONDED BY KENNEDY, THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION DIRECTED THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF TO. WORK WITH PLANNING STAFF IN REGARD TO THE CONCEPTS THAT WERE FORMALLY BROUGHT TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK IN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK AND TO KEEP THE COMMISSION INFORMED AND UPDATED ON THE PROGRESS OF THIS PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DYSINGER, FROST, KENNEDY, OSNESS, RIVERA, VANDER MOLEN NOES: NONE ABSENT: BLANKINSHIP, GIESE, JENSEN, MOLL, O'BRIC REZONING OF A.C. MARION PROPERTY ADJACENT TO HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK HCP Commission was given LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 85-2 for review and recommendation to the .Planning Commission and the City Council. The .property is a 10.1 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street.. The zoning . on the property is C2-0-(Q), Qualified Community Business District, combined with an oil suffix. The "Q" indicates that special conditions were placed on the C;2 zoning on the property to ensure that development .be equestrian oriented- and compatible with HCP. This property was at one time designated for open space use and was one of several areas under consideration for inclusion-into HCP. k At its August 17, 1981, meeting, the City Council voted not to include the area within the park boundaries at that time. Staff was directed to consider a commercial use of the property that would be consistent with the park. Subsequent to that Council decision, A. C. Marion requested a change in general plan designation from Open Space 'to -General Commercial. That request, in conjunction with a zone change to C2-0-(Q), was approved, by the Council on December 21, 1981. A. C. Marion has been unsuccessful in attempts to market the property for retail commercial purposes. He. has now requested that the designation be changed from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential. After discussion, Commission made the following motion: MOTION: MOVED BY VANDER MOLEN, SECONDED BY KENNEDY, THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT. THE A.C. MARION PROPERTY ZONING CHANGE FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY, BE ❑ENIED AND THAT THE PROPERTY EITHER STAY IN ITS PRESENT ZONING DESIGNATION (QUALIFIED COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT (C27.0-(Q), WHICH WOULD MAKE IT COMPATIBLE.WITH THE ADJACENT EQUESTRIAN STABLE, OR BE REZONED TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DYSINGER, FROST, KENNEDY, OSNESS, RIVERA, VANDER MOLEN NOES: NONE , . Staff to forward this action to the City Council. ' COMMUNITY SERVICES C01�, SSION June.12; 1985 ' :MINUTES - 499 Page 3 MOTION:4=,MOVED 'BY ;OSNESS,s'SECONDED WBY: FROST,`THF-�C6MNIIfNIT'Y-?SERVICES 'COMMISSION. DIRECT,.,THAT IF THE 'NEW ZONING IS APPROVED, THE HUNTINGTON C .NTRAL" PARK. COMMITXEE PREPARE CONDITIONS FOR FUTURE- DEVELOPMENT • 'OI= "THE A.C. MARION PROPERTY,„AND SUBMIT, THEM TO-_THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL AND SUBMITTAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTES AYES: 'D.YSINGER, FROST, '. KENNEDY,- ° '`OSNESS, *%'RIVERA, VANDER MOLEN NOES:-NONE"' INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ,. PEDAL BOAT OPERATION?,HU-NTINGTON 'LAKE IN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK The only proposal received 'eras' from' Don 12evy-,' Recreation F Boat-41vlanufacturers. The agreement is heing:prepar`ed by the,City Attorney's Office. WIEDER PARK BIDS - The request for bids were opened on June 4 and the request for _approval will be submitted,to the City Council by Public Works. t3ARTLETT-PARK PLAQUE --The area' has' been sodded and the plaque mounted in river stone adjacent to the parking lot. A picture of Ted Bartlett standing next to the jplaque will be-displayed in the Newland Barn. ` is .; • q.. r , LIABIL11A -INSURANCE/'U5E OF ALCOHOL IN CITY FACILITIES - The issue of -alcohol . in city facilities was pulled from the, May 6 •Council agenda in order to allow' the- -City Insurance and, Benefits ,Office -an opportunity ,to research the possibilities -of "acquiring liability insurance. Insurance and Benefits' has acquired 'air insurance policy. This has eliminated..the, problem ;'of' having patrons get `their own liability insurance 'certificate when serving alcoholic beverages in city facilities. • ? COMMISSION.BUSINESS-. ` • f" r COMMISSION,COMMITTEE.REPORTS , ' ENEWAL PLAN AMENDMENT2 CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE Jay Rivera attended the May 16, 1985, committee meeting. A copy of the minutes were included in the packet. A second survey with changes in definitions will be. sent. -A public . meeting will be held after the policies are drafted.so people will" have somethingLto react to. -COMMISSION COMMENTS Kennedy asked staff to check on the C:PRS 1985-86 dues with Rose Mary Forehand who is currently working on "fixing-the mess" in the computer in Sacramento. ' — Osnes',Iiked the "new look" of-:the SANDS; .reported that Supervisor Wieder is conducting a Townihall meeting-on June.-13 -at-the'Huntington Beach Civic Center. Vander Niolen asked park maintenance to check on frisbee golf course signs and drinking fountains by the lake in HCP. u shiner suggested that park maintenance look at placing ""extra" trash cans 'in HC:P during this-tirne of the year since the existing trash cans do not seem to be adequate. Toibin stated that "as an observer" the meetings seem interesting. COMMUNITY SERVICIS COMMISSION June 12, 1985 ; MINUTES - 499 Page 4 ITEMS DISTRIBUTED TO COMMISSION tv1 N HLY MANAGEMENT REPORT - APRIL, 1985. ` LETTER FROM MAYOR BAILEY asking for opposition to AB 2198 (Felando) which would repeal the "Naylor Act" requiring school districts to offer a percentage of their surplus playing •fields (30%) to cities and park districts for purchase at prices that are at times below market value_ LETTER FROM MAYOR BAILEY urging support of SB 885 (Maddy) which would provide that any person or public agency which renders assistance at the scene of a vessel collision, accident, or other casualty without objection by any person, assisted, is not liable for civic damages sought as a result of the rendering of assistance, or for other actions taken in the course of.rendering assistance. LETTER FROM VICKI EDWARDS ZIESCHE extending appreciation for Jim Engle's efforts in working on the handicapped day camp program., HBUHSD REPRESENTATIVE, FY 85-86 - Glen Dysinger will continue serving. on the Commission until August, 1985. Dr. Ira Toibin, Principal of Marina High School, has been chosen by the Board of Trustees to, replace Mr. Dysinger. The City Council has been asked to officially appoint Dr. Toibin to the Commission prior to September 1. , CPRS CONFERENCE, SACRAMENTO - Copy of the article in the CALIFORNIA PARKS be RECREATION magazine. PARK MODIFICATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE THE HANDICAPPED - Report on the tour �e of park facilities conducted in -response tc concerns regarding facilities for .. the handicapped. EXCERPTS COUNCIL MEETING, JUNE 31 1985 , BRIGHT OUTLOOK - June, 1985. SANDS - Summer, 1985. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Community Services.Commission regular meeting was adjourned at 9:30. PM in honor of VIVIAN BORNS, who is retiring on June 28, after 31 years of dedicated service to the city. Respectfully submitted, JIM B. ENGLE, Acting Secretary Community Services Commission By: Carolyn Strook, Recording Secretary JBE:cgs 0632E E i � RESOLUTION NO. 57.96 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. .87-2b, CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY NEAR ELLIS AVENUE AND GOLDENWEST STREET 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 . 87-2b to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on June 2 , 1987 ; and Thereafter the City Council , after giving notice a prescribed by Government Code Section 65355 , held at least one public hearing to consider Lard Use Element Amendment No. 87-2b; and At said searing 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 . 87-2b j 3 i consisting of the following change is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Land Use Diagram thereof: I I That approximately 10 . 1 acres located on the northeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street be redesignated from General Commercial to Open Space Recreation . I The real property affected by this change of use is described and depicted on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of adjourned Huntington Beach at a regular /meeting thereof held on the 27th day of July 1987 . ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk CityAttorney - REVIEW ND APPROVE • INITIATED AND APPROVED : Administrator r for of 75o unity Development 2335L I I ( Iv■,„N,r,.H ,,,T�., C F-R. M I C D M I A Ml-CD WA; RI-(D- , — - ���✓✓✓` R A-0—CD I� MI wl■ RI p11A�,0 RA-0-CD . _. RI RI (PREZONEDI RA-0-CD . I CF-C a RI—CD - "" C i -P .0-CD RM-D-co O-c -0-c C2 0 ��.. M I-C D RI RI RI - M N,.co .-- (PREZONEO) ODD OCD 0-co �ui.ecoi![���� RI •••• R _CD ,. u-0-CO an o cn WQJ MI-0-CD I �' RA-CD o�e�tacD gpoo --'g-- MI-01 R2 ! RA-0 A Lu-0-CD � 1 u-0-�� RA-0-CD „a t.--�,�-- s� "C1 RA-0 RA-aco qA�O-CD M2-0 L 8 8 Q-R I-(2.710-6,000 RA C0 A-0 M I-0 J J J ■ I�IL U-0-C MI-0 RA-0 +zo RA-01 RA-0 Lu-0-Co RA-0-Co ""` �'g_" _ M R6 Ml-o-co MI_CD_- - -- hu CII MI_n Mz_ -o�'V LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-28/E I R 86-2 0 EXHIBIT A "TINGI(Nl 11411 HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION Res. No. 5796 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) 1', ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City. of Huntington Beach, and ex-of'ficio 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 adjourned meeting thereof held on the 27th day of July 19 87 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Winchell Finley, Erskine, Green NOES: Councilmen: Kelly, Bannister ABSENT: Councilmen: Mays City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk + of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California uthohzod to Publish Advertisements of all kindsl�Gding public FCA-- oitces by Decree,of,the Superior Court of Orange County. alifornia, Number.A-6214, .dated 29 September, 1961; and 24831, dated 11 June, 1963. STATE'OF CALJfORNIA IUT4 .,County 'ot Orange Gubl2-Nance Aorernyng co�w6d O a _ by this stria Cvrt is fist in 7 Point ,.�,..o--'F ....---w•� .with 10 PIC*Column wioth - PUBLIC NOTICE' NOTICE OF � PUBLIC HEARING .-- •J✓� GENERAL PLAN I am�a Citizen Of the .United States and a resident of .'LAND USE �" ELEMENT AMENDMENT the,County aforesaid-, I am over the age of eighteen 87-28/ENVIRONMENTAL Gix IMPACT REPORT 86-2 _„�=•_"' years, and not a party to or interested in the below NOTICE IS HEREBY it! �.,•/ GIVEN that the Huntington[,;, entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Beach City Council will hold.it a publichearing in the Coun-iC DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the cil Chamber at the Hunt-G ington Beach Civic Center_-) NEWS`-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, 2000 Main street, Hunt r;i n ington*Beach, Calfornia, on ri �- 1 printed and published in the City of.Costa Mesa, the date and at.the time in t' dicated below to receive and County of Orange; State of: California, and that a consider the statements.of li ' all_persons=who wish'to ble t' DV "Notice of heard relative.to•the apple-,ir'� cation described-below: tr,t DATE:July 20,1987 ;ti# TIME:7:00 p.m. ;S _ SUBJECT: General Plan ; Land Use Element Amend .,� of which copy attached hereto is`a true and complete Iment 87-2b/Enviro6mental Impact Report 86-2 ! Copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, APPLICANT:City of Hunt .! ington Beach Newport. Beach,Huntington Beach, Fountain Valle LOCATION:• Northwest y, Corner of Goldenwest Street Irvine,.-the South Coast communities and Lagunag land Ellis Avenue I REQUEST: Change the tt one time m e General Plan Land use des �, Beach issues of said newspaper for ignation on 10.1 acres of.°t eland owned by the City,of v consecutive weeks,to wit the issues) of - Huntington Beach` from ti General 'Commercial toiOf Open Space-Recreation. t ENV-IR0NMENTAL t STATUS: General .Plan Amendment 87-2b is cov J u l y 9 198 7 ered"by Draft Environmental s Impact Report No.86-2 and{', will also be presented for Council consideration.. 198 ON FILE: A copy of the I -ml proposed.application ds on file in the City Clerk's office; i 2000 Main Street,. Hunt ts$ i ington ,Beach, California ; 92648,for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PER—,1 . �98 SONS are invited to attend-,'r said Bearing, and ekpress,•.I opinions,or submit evidence. for or'against the applicationic,E. as outlined above.All apple >u cations, exhibits, and de scriptions of;this proposal(: are on file with the Office of ii the City Clerk, 2000 Mamma,4 Street, Huntington' Beach�t}( declare, under penalty of perjury, theit the California, for inspection by;.^ the public. foregoing s true and Correct. HUNTINGTON BEACH, I, CITY COUNCIL, By: Aliciar M. Wentworth, City Clerk,: Phone(714)536-5405. r i Extcut�'d OTl J.0 l y 9 Published Orange.Coast a 1.gg 7 Daily.Pilot July 9, 1987 ' at Cost liflt✓Sa, Th865y Culif0l'n13. ti Signature Ilk s RE UES� FOR CITY COUNCPACTION Q Date 20,, 1987 i Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator' ' Prepared by: Douglas N. LaBelle, Director, Community Development .( Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-2b/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-2 (FORMER A.C. MARION PROPERTY) Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2b and Environmental Impact Report No . 86-2 . Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-2b constitutes a resubmittal of Land Use Element Amendment No . 86-3 (EIR' 86-2) which was previously processed in September and October of 1986 . The amendment addresses a change in land use designation from General Commercial ;to Open Space Recreation on 10 . 1 acres of property located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street. RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission Action: ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY LEIPZIG,' THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-2b FOR A CHANGE TO OPEN SPACE RECREATION, AND CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 86-2 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce,. Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve, by resolution, Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-2b, for a change to Open Space Recreation, after acting upon Environmental Impact Report No . 86-2 . e PIO 5/85 ANALYSIS• Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-2b was originally processed as Land .Use Element Amendment No . 86-3 . The applicant at that time was the property owner A. C. Marion, and the request was for a change in Land Use Designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential . Staff originally recommended approval of the requested Medium Density designation. The Planning Commission recommended denial, with direction for the City to pursue purchase of the property for park purposes . The City Council declined to act on the amendment and EIR, and instead directed staff to purchase the property. The City has recently purchased the property for park purposes . The appropriate land use designation for park uses would be Open Space/Recreation (Alternative 5 in the attached analysis) . This land use designation would permit tennis, golf, equestrian and other recreational and support services on the subject property. Staff recommends approval of a redesignation from General Commercial to Open Space Recreation. Upon approval of the Land Use Element Amendment, staff will initiate a zone change from C2-0 to ROS-O-CD (Recreational Open Space combined with Oil Production and Civic District) . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-2b was prepared in conjunction with, and covered by, Environmental Impact Report No . 86-2 . Environmental Impact 'Report No . 86-2 was posted for a 45-day review period to end on September 1, 1986 . FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Deny Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2b, or, approve an alternative land use designation. This will likely prevent incorporation of the property into Central Park. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Area map 2 . Resolution adopting Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-2b 3 . Planning Commission Minutes dated June 2,' 1987. 4 . Staff Report dated June 2, 1987 5 . Land Use Element Amendment No.. 87-2b/Environmental Impact Report No. 86-2 DL:HS: kla RCA - 7/20/87 -2- (8572d) /�, /I ( ,i,lN :II (:E au.:: :•,n.l C F R M M I-A IE _ MI-CD lApp,xAl. Cz IV` - --'--- I• Z7I �t;E R A-O-CD M I a RA-0-CD !-' RI RI IPREZONEDI RA-0-CD CF I -C IM II MI `" RI-CD - �. OCD OCD O-CD '� ?�-- s 5 = i RI RI RI -o- -0-CD ROS-O-co -0-C -O-CO C2-0 Z, _ - M I-C D M I ` RI Ire OCD 4CD co .••ee lq. • 1PREZONEDI OCD , �— _ RI 111 t -CD u-0-CD bMI RA-O-CD .•'`•,F MI-O-CD -.�,r I . rn1-01 R2 oee QitF(3F0-CD-6n00 --� .-------i,�x----,•,, MI r•y„ • ,„.. RA—CD cuO cD RA-0 D CD 00 RA-0-CD RA-0 R RA-a-CD RA-0-CD A 3I MZ-O L j� �a a u. MI-0 I 9 Q-RI-(2.7)-0$,000 RA CD RA-0 ,"•`�,�, RA O GgJ MI-0 RA-0 11 RNE RS - RA-01 RA-0 Lu-O-CD RA-0-CD ---- __ M MIi1-CU r i h11-01 MI M2 01. -CU---- MI-0 ---- LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 37-28/EIR 56-2 �"Iff HVNTINGION WACII HUNTINGTON REAM PLANNING DIVISION RESOLUTION NO. <' r A, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 'HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING LAND 'USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THO GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-2b, CONCERNING. REAL PROPERTY NEAR ELLIS AVENUE AND GOLDENWEST STREET WHEREAS, the City Council of the City 'of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General, Plan in keeping with chang.ing ,community needs and objectives;. and A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2b to the General Plan was held by .t'he. Planning Commission ' on June 2 , 1987 ; and Thereafter the City Council , after giving notice as prescribed -by Government Code Section 653.55 , : he.ld at least one public hearing to consider Land Use Element- Amendment. No. 87-2b; 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 . 87-2b t consisting of -the following change : is hereby adopted as an i amendment to the Land Use Diagram thereof: That approximately, 10 .1 acres 1-ocated on the northeast corner of -Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street be redesignated -from .General Commercial to Open Space Recreation. The real property affected by `this change of use is 'd'escribed and depicted on Exhibit A, attached hereto ;and incorporated by reference herein. PASSED- AND ADOPTED -by the City Council; of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the . day of , 1987. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM-: C-ity .Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED. AND APPROVED: City 'Administrator Director; of Community Development 2335E C F—R � � �11 ,,.,,,,,..„ 7,,,w., •,.,, C F—R MI—CD MI—A RICO -- — — cz R A-0—CD MI MI. RI Ri k�. Ri K (PREZONED) RA-0-CD � � — CF_C MI a R F K—.0 -0 O-CD ca�ng-- ROS-0- O CD - Ros-o-co -o-c o-c ;. MI-CD RI RI RI � C2-0 Mi - �(P:EZQNED) OCO OCD 4CD ••••" R _ ! —CD rxua _ RI u-O-cD RA-0-CO M MI-0—CD 1 CC) '" RA—CD o-Rlta►o-co(inoo —_�:c MI-01 R2 f RA-0 . I_U-O-CD RA-0-CD RA-0 RA-I-CORA-0-CD sot M2-0 I Q-RI-(2.7)-0$,000 RA-CD A_0 MI-0 •;,�, RA•O C , RA-0 +co MI 0 z: RA-01 RA-0 Lu-O-CD RA-0-CD " "" Rf� . �36 4- MI-O-CC� k MI CD — ---- Mf-01 M2-01 .I: Fr -- n LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-2B/EIR 56-2 EXHIBIT A ' - IIUfJTINGI(Hi/f A(71 HUNTINGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION w , RESOLUTION. NO. 1378 (Continued) ° WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the following amendments to the. Land Use Element: 1. That Area 2.2 consisting of 2. 10 acres -located on the. northeast corner of Gothard Street and Center Drive be redesignated from Public, Quasi-public Institutional to Mixed Development. WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of ; Land .Use Element Amendment to the General' Plan No.. 87-2 was held by the City Planning Commission on June 2, 1987, in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning. Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, hereby approved .said amendment to the General Plan of the City of. Huntington .Beach. ' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said amendment to. the General Plan 'of the City of Huntington., Beach is recommended- for adoption by, the City Council.- of the City of Huntington Beach, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the. Planning` Commission of' the City- of Huntington Beach,- California, on the 2nd. ! day of June, 1987. A MOTION WAS-MADE BY LIVENGOOD', SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO CONTINUE ZONE. CHANGE (AREA 2 .2),�TO THE JULY 21, " 987 PLANNING COMMISSION, BY THE -FOLLOWING VOTE: " AYES: 'Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce•, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood ?. NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-2b - AREA 2 . 1 is a request. init.iated by the City of Huntington Beach to redesignate a 10 . 1 acre parcel located at° the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from General Commercial to Open Space'Recreation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: i Recommend to the' City Council. certification of Environmental . Impact Report No. 86-2 and adopt Resolution No. 1379 for approval of Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2b (for a change from General t Commercical to Open Space Recreation) . PC ,Minutes - 6/2/87 -9- (8334d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons present to speak for oragainst and the public hearing" was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, . TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LAND USE ELEMENT'AMENDMENT 87-2b AND CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 86-2 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:- AY ES: Silva .Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, � Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN:' None MOTION PASSED RESOLUTION NO. 1379 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. OF THE -CGITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF _LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-2b- WHEREAS, the PlanningCommission of the; City of Huntington Beach, California, desires to update and refine the General Plan . �a 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: l., That Area 2. 1 consisting of 10 . 1' acres 'located on .the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street be redesignated from General Commercial to Open Space Recreation. r WHEREAS, a public 'rearing on adoption of Land Use .Element Amendment to the General Plan No. 87-2b was held by the City Planning .Commission on June 2, 1987, in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code; t 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. PC Minutes - 6/2/87 -10 (8334d) _ z huntington beach developmen services department T f f w OR TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: June 2, 1987 SUBJECT: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. . 87-2b/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, NO. 86-2 .. APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach DATE ACCEPTED: Not. Applicable REOU(? EST: To change the . land use MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE designation of subject.• Not Applicable property from General ZONE: Commercial to Open Space . C2-0 - Community Business Recreation District Combined with Oil LOCATI6*`N: Northwest corner of Ellis GENERAL. PLAN: Avenue and Gold:enwest General Commercial Street ACREAGE 10. 1± acres EXISTING USE: Abandoned Horse Stables and exercise area 1 . 6 SUGGESTED ACTION: Recommend to •City Council certification of Environmental Impact, Repor No. 86-2 and adopt Resolution No-. 1379 for approval of Land Use Element' No. 87-2b. (for a change from General;-Commercial to .Open Space Recreation) . 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Transmitted for public hearing is .Land Use. Element Amendment No. 87-2b/Envi_ronmental Impact Report No. 86-2.. ;, Land Use Element Amendment' No. .87-2b constitutes a resubmitta.l. of Land ,Vse ,Element- ;,.,. Amendment 86-3/EIR No 86-2 -which was previously processed in , ry September and October i986 . The amendment addresses• a changerin land use from General Commercial to Open Space Recreation-on -10.1- acres' of Property located on the northwest corner ,at E11iiF, nue and Go ldenwest Street. r: r t 1, f a ' 'T , t + C m 1 A-FM 23Axr ,nk � - ...+ t "�` ..� r- a ' .*`_r e�.d,; ,pay`yd +.•"".,,f, J ,— � } .. S y+� �Syr �'-. r R Y ,.++1, k.; • '_ �'`4'"z r., � M SG"+'+t 4w}t.'s 5 n �i :,,, A^q,^`YF� &�: a 1. 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS North of - Subject Property: t GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space Recreation ZONE: RA-O-CD (Residential Agriculture combined with. Oil and Civic District suffix) . LAND USE: Horse Stables, Riding and Exercise Area; Central Park East of Subiect -Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open 'Space Recreation ZONE: 2 . 7- acres at northeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street is Ml.-CD; the remainder of the area is zoned RA-0--,CD , LAND USE: The M1=CD- area contains a truck repair business . The `area to the north and . -east .of the M1-CD property contains the Mushroom Farm., 'Phase I of the. City' s Mobilehome Relocation Park, and Sully. Mil.ler. Lake. The entire area is- 'slated to be incorporated into Huntington Central Park at a future date. South of Subject Property: + { GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate Residential 3 units/acre ZONE: RA-O-CD . LAND USE: Horse Stables West of Subject Property: GENERAL.PLAN DESIGNATION: Open. Space Recreation ZONE: '- ROS-O-CD (Recreational Open' Space combined .with Oil and Civic District Suffix) LAND USE: Primarily vacant. 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2b was prepared in -conjunction with,'`and covered' by, Environmental Impact Report No. 86-2. Environment'al , Impact Report 86-2 was posted 'for. a '45-day review t period' 'to` eend on September 1,` '1986. t 0 ` COASTAL STATUS: . S h p. -,Not applicable. ryx a zi �. 0 'REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: x x Not, applicable x E . MER # u a Staff Reporty 6%2/87 a ' ,. 3;y. � ''' ��. .-µs..?,;x{, '�..s"��,TM""ia"'K"``' ` -,3 s"<'*'x". sk�t'�+'��'':,• ;n'"-e y. ;@-x�y�"� .? +s.. c ' ar�Y.t �, .:a s _� 7r-'tt�T,e.�»x.,1^'{^ ',t� v . ,—.mm. .. '§«5—_:.., —'a-'a .._r _sue..... . ., ..,,R 'a za...<.` ae.vvm:<,�:,..'�°.a. .acet��#u.s..�a.evi..?.�_ -_'�.,.....,r .— z .,•,i`���,..,_n. �, rr,<�.-..;f.�r..:�.,.... .. ,zs,-". • i 7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN :.. Not applicable W ti . 8 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not ..applicable. 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-2b was originally processed as Land ., Use Element Amendment. No' . 86-3 . ' The applicant at that time was the property owner A.C. Marion, and the request was for a change in Land Use ,Designation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential': Staff_ original.ly recommended approval of the requested Medium Density- Designation The Planning Commission recommended denial, ,with direction for the City to pursue purchase of the property for. park purposes . The City Council declined to act on .the amendment and EIR and instead directed. staff to purchase the property. The, City has recently purchased the property for park purposes . The appropriate land use designation for park uses would be Open Space/Recreation- (Alternative 5 in the attached analysis) . This land ..use designation would permit tennis, golf, equestrian and other. recreational and support services on the subject property. Staff recommends approva-1 -6f a redesignati.on from "General Commercial to Open Space Recreation,. Upon approval of theLand 'Use Element Amendment, staff will ixit l e a zone change from, C2-0 to ROS•-0-CD (Recreational Open Space combir,4; with Oil Production and Civic District. _10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No . 86=2 and adopt Resolution No. 13.79 for approval of Land Use Element No. 87-2b (for a.. change from. General : Commercial to Open "Space Recreation) ,. . `11. 0 ALTERNATIVE-- ACTION: ` Deny Land Use Eiement - endm6nt or approve an alternative land- use `p , designation.' : This will likely prevent incorporation of the property into-Central Park. ATTACHMENTS I 6 , 1.. Area Map ,-. . . 2 . Resolution 3 Land Use, Amendment No. $7=2b%Environmental Impact Report . JWP:HS j r m � .., ,; «R�a+ ..:u..r .i5,:s?c�' ,���b'3:*�.� s' +z� ls»m»a�"yua-,P�*N -:s..z"as. *.-•:� ,..-�.,..»,�... _ � LL � ,�r��' Y Staff Report 6/2/87 3 (8277d) Y hA•Y -2„ 'R`"(- -� .9d'v�n^v � g. i 3� k d 4JY'�°7.,ky'f.+�'..M,. `�' . .:f 3 1 ^ w"` . r' � 'r. F !� � Yv, ...s N.:1'r c+a ham'' "` 1 r_d ,°4,��+y �'•� y:.� c- �'3` �P}'�'s� "'�,s `, ',� July 71 1987 a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING; GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-2b AND i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 86-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard' relative to the application described below. DATE July 20 , 1987 TIME : 7 : 00 p.m. SUBJECT : General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 87-2b/ Environmental Impact Report 86-2' APPLICANT : City of Huntington Beach LOCATION : Northwest Corner of Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue REQUEST : Change the General Plan land use; designation on acres of land owned by the City of Huntington Beach . from General Commercial to Open Space-Recreation ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : General Plan Amendment 87-2b is covered by Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 86-2 and will also be presented for Council consideration. ON FILE : A copy of the proposed application is on file in the City Clerk 's office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above . All applications, exhibits; and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for ' inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By : Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Phone ( 714) 536-5405 July 7, 1987 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING' GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT-AMENDMENT 87-2b . AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 86=2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach" City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of . all persons who wish to be'. heard; relative to the application described below. r i DATE July 20, 1987 TIME : 7 :00 p.m. . SUBJECT : General Plan Land Use Element Am'endnient 87-2b/ Environmental Impact Report 86-2j , APPLICANT : City "of • Huntington Beach LOCATION: Northwest 'Corner of Goldenwest Street- and Ellis Avenue REQUEST : Change- the General Plan land use; designation on .l 0 . 1 acres , of land owned by the- City of Huntington Beach from General Commercial to Open Space-Recreation . x ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : General Plan Amendment87-2b is covered by Draft Environmental Impact Report No.. 86-2 and will also be presented for Council consideration. ON FILE A copy of the proposed application is on file in the City Clerk ' s office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California' 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for , or against the application as outlined above . All applications, exhibits; and de.scriptions of this proposal are on file' with the Office of the City Clerk, . 2000- Main Street, Huntington Beacch,. California, fort inspection by- the public. 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By.: Alicia M. Wentworth; City Clerk Phone ( 714) 536-5405 , CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-5271 July 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 2.1 outlined on the attached map. The proposed General Plan amendment is a request by the City of'Huntington Beach to change the General Plan_ Designation on a 10.1 acre site located at the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from General Commercial to Open Space-Recreation. A public hearing on Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2b/, Environmental Impact Report No. 86-2 will be held before the City Council on July 20, 1987 at which 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 Simm6ns 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 Community Development for inspection by the public. Sinc rely, Dougla LaBelle, Director Community Development DLB:CMO:gbm (7099d-12) r j a s a a TALBERT w CF- R (HWr. 'O.N CENTRAL PARK) CF—R ORANGE (1;NTWGTnN CENTRAL PARK) CC 741TY RANSFER i STAT30N s i S CF-C anavo AVf ELLIS 1E IT Adft i i LAND USE ME= AUNT 877-,2b lopHUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA EwiRoNIl AL IMPACT REPORT 861,-:�2 PLANNING DIVISION AREA 2.1 • ' r r , , • /. City of. Huntington Beach • P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648., , :.- • - Elva .Layton 1261 San Julian Pl Lake San Marcos, CA 92069 1L0-186-101 . " %. City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 • i J. A. Johnson 9 3079 Maiden .Iane Alta Dena, CA 1001 110-186-09 _ - AI • • , Y }Y '3 Fny-Cit o f•. Huntington Beach."" ! P.O.BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92648 Yvette C. Lawrence C r r 6901 "Ellis Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 110-1 86-712, . w ��. City of Huntington, 'Beach• 1 �j , -P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 : t George W. Bainter 6901 Ellis Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92648. , 110186-11 , r F, �. City of. Huntington Beach > 4 ,j P:O.BOX 190 'CALIFORNIA'92648 , •, k • W' Cater. prville 080! p,p. me c{ .90250 `. Ila _ �. City of Huntington Beach 'P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 i t Fbdo3d'.pti -S, Manning 1650 r t. Norco �66A 91760 11 0-1 e e .r He City of HuntingtonBeach P.O.BOX 190' , CALIFORNIA 92648 „ Nancy Bradley S�nila 20302 Iaverton Katy, TX 77450 _ lIl- 7 -25 • /. City of Huntington Beach Y g • P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 t " _ Y , Richard.'J P . ._ ariseau 16522 Pro circle Unit D. Huntington Beach, CA 9264S lll-071-26 • , , " , w , , _ '/. City of` Huntington Beach• . P.O.'BOX 190., CALIFORNIA 92648 ' C William Ianclis Suite 470 Century City . Los Ange 1 es, CA- 90067 - -Ol 110 210• • ,, f - �J. City of Huntington .Beach QP P.O.BOX190 CALIFORNIA 92648 4 SBE :Financial Corp." . 19671 Beach Blvd. Huntington'Beach, CA 92648 111-071=19 j • j . _ ' He City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 - t t r Marvin P. Adler 8957 `la 'Dona Ct. Fbulntain Valley, CA 92708 - =13 r , 110 186 .. ' a , , , I J. City i of Huntington Beach F P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA'92648 I borg/Dahl{ Neva 17220 ope St Fullerton, CA! 92708 110-200-03 { i. City of Huntington Beach : P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 i - i f•• Julian I. ,liathaway P.O. Bow, 3404 CA 90670 Santa Fe Springs 110-186-15 i i { , i `/. City of Huntin ton Beach P.O.BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92648 i { Hen'c,-jn Hates, 5655 116 h Pl' 98004 gellE,vue, Wash f . i F f L . ��. City of Huntington Beach q P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Ai ice E. Hughes P.O. Bbx 3404 Santa Fe Strings, CA 90670 110-186-16 J. City . ofHuntington -Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 I . i • f - • 1 SBE Financial 19671 Beach Blvd. 3 Huntington }Beach,. CA- 92641 111-071-291 1 i I ' i . l i 1 i i I& .City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 � . I { I Milton H. Marad 664 N. .Bundy Drive IAs Angeles, CA .90049 ` u0-186-17 1. t , f FOE City of Huntington Beach 04 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 F TOVI w B1va. piles' a Cr 9p23p i372 U, I�vr�1g6 p3'. i • llq y I I , 1 City of . Huntington Beach 1 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 i . Hsi Hsiang Lee , 9872 Oly�ic Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 110-186-04 i . i f %. City of Huntington. Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 I James G. Burcham 9331 Nantucket Drive Huntington Beach, cA 92648 110=186-02, i - , • - 1 I i. City of Huntington Beach 1 . P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORN[A 92648 1 i t Don Rayrrond Albrecht 21292 yaxTrcuth lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646- 110-200-01 Mi ' k • I ' . I i. City of -Huntington Beach , P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 car-1 J. .art 15271 Shata Lane HWti-ngton ;Beach,: CA 92647 110-186-08i i i i - - *w 1 t3 _ �I. City of Huntington .Beach r P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 j Pacific Amer! Oil Co Corp. 17220 .23ewaope St. Fountain Valley, CA 92708 110-180-01 j } t City of Huntington Beach ;. " P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 r 1 , ` 1- Milton H. Ma-ow 864 N. Bundy;Drive Ibs angeles, ;CA 90041 110-LA6-06 k f k City of Huntington Beach i f P.O.BOX 190 CALiFORNIA 92648 , 1 I } Waldo E. Banis 1 416 W. Las Palmas .Drive Fullex-ton, CA 192632 110-182-11 i k 1 k City of Huntington Beach ; P.O.BOX.190 CALIFORNIA 92648 k - I k f r Hsi Hsiang 'Lee 9872 OlYMIc Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 110-184-04 I I i �. City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Marcedes V.' Quine 2200 Park Newport $401 Newport. Beach, CA 92660 - 110-184-131 { i . . i { • f i. City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 I i F . 1 _ William B., Blanchard P.-O. Box 2,43 Sedona, AZ, 86336 110-184-16 j 4 a • City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 i Hut►tingt o, Beac1, zY ' P.O. 'riox 7611 San Francisco,,l CA 94120. 111-072-18 i a t R /. City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 9.2648 i ponald liamllt�?1 p.C. Box 698 i 90748 _ Wilms-n5�n' C • 0-170-10 c i • i f City of Huntington Beach �j P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 1 -- 1 Christian F. B ery 2435 Carroll -IR ►e Escondido, CA 92025 . 111-101-29 I . a - t . r City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Fin j Charles F, Barrette 38-211. Vista Dr i t Af 92234 , Cathedl , �tr. - . i .. - ze gggq �� Rs M1 He City= of Huntington£ Beach . p.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 , , icia G' rarele g2�p8 Ya vcan g15� f1c Valley, i �y>a 4 t( 34fP+ - 1 �, '��. ��•�"z = ram-• ��' - P .. t �a , -„ .. e?r +:'s ytC x gA �h