Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIR 78-4 "The Ranch" Planned Residential Development e i, CITY OF I- UNTINGTON BEACH P.O. BOX190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA92648 BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION (714)536-5271 October 9, 1981 To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed -is a draft supplement to Environmental Impact Report No. 78-4 which assesses the environmental effects of a proposed 692-unit planned residential development on a 49. 7 acre site bounded by Main Street, Clay Avenue, Huntington Street and Yorktown Avenue in Huntington Beach. Environmental Impact Report No. 78-4 was distributed to the general public and other public agencies for review in 1979 . The draft supplement (prepared pursuant to Section 15067 .5' of the State EIR Guidelines) assesses a revised project on the site. In order to determine all possible environmental effects associated with the present project proposal, we are requesting your comments in writing no later than November 25, 1981 - If your comments have not been received by this date, we will assume that you con- cur with the adequacy of the draft supplemental EIR. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to con- tact our office. Sincerely, )James R. Barnes Associate Planner JRB:jlm Encl. • HISTORY OF THE PROJECT AREA • The project is proposed for construction on land formerly owned by Colonel Robert J. Northam, who owned the Huntington Beach mesa and operated the La Bolsa Ranch during the late 19th century. The Ranch house currently on the knoll in the southwest corner of the property was originally built on a site in northern Orange County. Colonel Northam had the house moved to its present site in the fall of 1896. After some remodeling and additions, it became the headquarters for the Ranch which included some 1 ,300 acres of the surrounding area. Activities on the ranch included farming and cattle grazing. The property was acquired by the Huntington Beach Company in 1904, and the Ranch house became the company's headquarters. It has been used as both company the headquarters and as a residence by various employees of'the company to the present. Oil production on the project site and surrounding areas began in 1920 and has continued to the present at gradually declining rates. Wells on the site are expected to be productive for approximately 15 more years. • • 5 g_ SUMMARY • SYNOPSIS OF THE PROJECT The proposed project consists of a 692-unit Planned Residential Develop- ment known as "The Ranch" on a 49.7 acre parcel of land generally bounded by Main Street, Clay Avenue, Huntington Street, and Yorktown Avenue in Huntington Beach, California. The project will comprise 180 townhouse units and 512 condomininum flat units, recreation facilities, parking, and landscaped open space. The existing Northam Ranch house will most likely be maintained as a private residence by employees of the Huntington Beach Company. The proposed project plans and density are in conformance with existing • zoning regulations. The site is currently used for oil operations which will be centralized into four islands as development of the site proceeds. The site has been heavily disturbed by oil operations and is mostly vacant land, with the exception of the oil wells, and the Northam Ranch house on a knoll at the southwest corner of the site. • Homes are expected to range in price from $135,000 to $180,000. The project will be constructed in phases of 75 units per phase, over a period of 4-6 years. A detailed description of the proposed project is included elsewhere in this report. A brief synopsis of the environmental impacts of the proposed residential development follows. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Aesthetics The knoll on which the Northam Ranch house sits would be altered by the development of the proposed project. The Ranch house would remain atop the knoll but cuts would be made into the knoll for streets and building pads and the northwest portion of the knoll would be filled for the pads for six town- homes. •, The stand of trees on the knoll would be permanently changed. Many of these trees would remain, but the a number would be removed from the knoll area. The applicant intends to incorporate extensive landscaping into the site design which with the retention and movement of some trees from the knoll area will mitigate some of the effects of removal of the trees from the knoll area. Fire Services The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department has voiced several concerns regarding this site design. One street is over 600 feet long and several com- binations of streets are approximately 600 feet long without providing secon- dary access. In addition, the Fire Department is concerned that parking may occur on the 24-foot wide streets which would not allow sufficient room for two fire trucks to pass by each other. • 6 r._4. _ For the streets that are longer than 600 feet secondary access should be provided. This could be accomplished by interconnecting several streets • within the complex. The Fire Department also indicated that the distance requirement might be waived if domestic sprinkler systems are included in building design. They also proposed that internal streets be 40 feet wide rather than 24 feet wide or to provide for some other means to prevent encroachment by parked vehicles. Traffic and Circulation The proposed site plan allows for only one means of vehicular access for any dwelling unit within the project site. The proposed site design leads to a 30 percent increase in traffic using the Clay Avenue entrance as compared to the design evaluated in the previous EIR. This will mean that there would still be significant peak hour delays at this access point even though the entrance has been redesigned. The City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works is also concerned that residents of and/or visitors to the town- house units fronting on Main Street or Yorktown Avenue may park on the street rather than utilize parking space within the project site. • Provision of a second access on Clay Avenue could significantly reduce the peak hour loading at the proposed Clay Avenue access (recommended in the previous EIR) . Other recommendations include interconnecting streets to allow for more than one access point for each residence and the provision of bus turnouts on Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. Recreation Trail A The applicant has proposed a bicycle and pedestrian trail for the eastern periphery of the site. Several concerns have been raised with regard to this and alternative recreation trails for the proposed site. The proposed trail crosses both Huntington Street entrances to the project site which could lead to a conflict between trail users and the approximately 2,600 vehicles using the Huntington Street access points. Other concerns relate to liability and maintenance of the recreation trail . The applicant has proposed that this trail be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach and that the City assume liability. Negotiations between the applicant and the City will be necessary to determine who should maintain the trail (applicant, homeowners, or the City) and who should assume liability (homeowners or City) . Other trails which would mitigate the vehicular conflict problem are discussed below under Summary of Alternatives. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES Recreation Trails Two alternatives to the proposed trail have been evaluated. One alter- native would be adjacent to "A" Street and the other would wind through the common areas of the project site, generally following the former railroad right-of-way. These two alternatives each have advantages and disadvantages • as compared to the proposed trail . 7 S rain - g • The "A" Street trail would expose trail users to fewer potential conflicts with vehicular traffic (over 200 less vehicles per day) but this alternative would cross more intersections (five) than the proposed trail (three). The primary disadvantage of this alternative is that it provides public access to the interior of the site which would reduce the security and privacy of project residents. In addition, the question of liability and maintenance would be clouded and it is possible that both liability and maintenance would fall on future homeowners. The second alternative which winds through the project site would elimi- nate the potential conflict between vehicular traffic and trail users, as this trail would not cross any streets or intersections. However, this trail would: provide public access to the interior of the site; isolate the • northeastern portion of the site from its recreation area; and possess the same liability and maintenance problems as the "A" Street alternative. Alternative Transit Corridors Two means of retaining the option for a future transit corridor in the • vicinity of the project site have also been evaluated. The applicant has proposed that the future corridor be retained in the medians of Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The other alternative would utilize the former Pacific Electric Right-of-Way which passed through the project site. The applicant's proposed corridor would remain outside the project site which would preserve the privacy and security of the residents of the proposed development. Noise impacts on project residents would be less than the alternative using the former right-of-way because the nearest residences on Main Street would be 50 to 60 feet from the future corridor while residences within the project site would be much nearer. The primary disadvantage of the applicant' s proposal is the potential future conflict between motor vehicles and the system at the intersections along Main Street. These inter- sections might require redesign at the time of transit design to eliminate conflicts between left turning vehicles and a transit system. The alternative corridor which follows the former railroad right-of-way would allow public access into the site until such time as a transit system is constructed (if ever). The noise impacts on project residents would likely be greater in comparison to the other alternative. This alternative would, however, have less conflict with vehicular traffic and would not require the future redesign of intersections. i • • 8 S f , 9P R'r ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES • As stated in the Introduction, this EIR is a supplement to the previous Final EIR for "The Ranch", published in November of 1979. Discussion of the setting for each of the following impact sections can be found in "The Ranch" FEIR. Impact sections not included in this supplemental report were deter- mined to be insignificantly different from the impacts discussed in the previous FEIR. Mitigation measures suggested in the previous EIR which are still applicable, are again presented here. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impacts • The City of Huntington Beach was completing surveys for archaeological sites in 1973. That survey and the one carried out for "The Ranch" FEIR indicated that there would be no impact on any known archaeological resources. The site is, however, the site of the Northam Ranchstead. The Northam Ranchstead will be retained on the project site; plans for the Ranchstead involve continued ownership, maintenance and use of the house by the Huntington Beach Company. Mitigation No project-related mitigation is required, however, if any sub-surface archaeological remains are encountered during development, construction should be halted temporarily and a reputable archaeologist should be contacted for an assessment. AESTHETICS Impacts The present version of the project contains two changes that would affect the aesthetic assessment of the site. First, the number of dwelling units has increased from 649 units to 692 units and second, three-story condominium flat buildings have been added to the site plan. The condominium flats would be approximately 30-35 feet tall (3.5 stories, 0.5 story of the parking garage is above grade) , but would not be the most visible buildings on the site. The most visible buildings on the site would be the garden townhouses (building height of approximately 28 feet) proposed for the knoll near the Northam Ranch house. These townhouses have pad heights that are 10 to 20 feet above the pads of the condominium flat buildings to the north and would therefore be three to 18 feet taller than the nearest condominium flat buildings. • As noted in the earlier Ranch EIR, the project represents an almost total change in the appearance of the site. The knoll area of the site would be subject to cut and fill operations. The Ranch house would remain at the top of the knoll , but the southern face of the knoll would be cut and filled for a road. The northwest portion would be filled and the southeast portion � I cut into for townhomes. Removal of a number of the existing trees is planned; 9 • rcRU,UI • TC oil wells will be consolidated as islands and buffered with walls and appro- priate landscaping. The resulting visual environment will be dominated by modern dwellings of varied heights, sizes and cluster arrangements, and by landscaping. Mitigation The developer plans to incorporate extensive landscaping into the site design. The site design also includes several lakes and ponds. Retention of as many of the existing trees as is possible would preserve some of the more attractive existing aesthetic characteristics of the site. Requirements of the Huntington Beach City Code, Section 9362.17(d), would partially mitigate the impact of the removal of mature trees. This section specifies that • trees are to be provided as follows: "One thirty inch box tree for each residential unit or the equivalent of thirty inch box trees." PUBLIC SERVICES Sewer Systems Impacts Information supplied by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department indicates that each dwelling unit would produce approximately 160 gallons per day of domestic sewage. Total generation of sewage from the 692 • units at the project site would be approximately 110,000 gallons per day. The closest location of a City sewer line for connection to the project site would be the 12-inch line in Yorktown Avenue. The capacity of this line is currently being evaluated for the City by Walden and Associates. In the event that this line is found to have insufficient capacity, then the 8-inch line in Holly Avenue could be extended southerly to serve the project site (Tindall , 1981 ) . The City's sewer lines connect to 24-inch County trunk lines in Delaware Street (Yorktown Avenue line) and in Garfield Avenue (Holly Street line). Mitigation None is required as long as the 'Walden and Associates report on the City's sewer system indicates that there is sufficient capacity in either the 12-inch Yorktown Avenue sewer line or the 8-inch Holly Street sewer line. Storm Drain Systems • Impacts Storm runoff from the project will be collected in on-site collection basins and drainage lines. Connections would be made to existing 39-inch lines. One line terminates at the property boundary on Yorktown Avenue; the other is beneath Huntington Street and terminates just north of the Yorktown Avenue-Huntington Street intersection. The Public Works Department indicated in the previous EIR for "The Ranch" that the applicant would be responsible for extending the storm drain line to the project site. 10 W(Wp Environmental Assessment • Socio-economics • Financial Feasibility 6380 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 804, Los Angeles, CA 90048 • (213) 653-1086 d i I 4 I l I © r�:GTE' BLAvI- PirN^:IMn. DEPT. P. 0. Box 190 IBeacl- r• b e�do�o���c���� r��o�r��c�� • Environmental Assessment • Socio-economics • Financial Feasibility • 6380 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 804, Los Angeles, CA 90048 • (213) 653-1086 • r Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report "The Ranch" Planned Residential Development • • Prepared for: City of Huntington Beach • • • October, 1981 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • Page INTRODUCTION 1 Identification of Petitioners 1 Project Description 1 • Project Location 2 Project Characteristics 2 Project Timing 4 History of Project Area 5 SUMMARY 6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 9 Cultural Resources 9 Aesthetics 9 Public Services 10 • Sewer Systems 10 Storm Drain Systems 10 Police Protection 11 Fire Services 11 Traffic and Circulation 12 Recreation Trail 13 • Economics 15 ALTERNATIVE RECREATION TRAILS AND TRANSIT CORRIDORS 16 Recreation Trails 16 Transit Corridors 19 • REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 23 CORRESPONDENCE 24 APPENDICES • Appendix 1 : Public Fiscal Analysis Appendix 2: Design of Recreation Trails • • i • e� ;;ri • LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page • 1 . Proposed Site Plan 3 2. Bicycle/Pedestrial Plan 14 3. Alternative Recreation Trails 17 4. Alternative Transit Corridors 20 • • • • ii • INTRODUCTION • This Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the signi- ficant environmental effects of the proposed development of "The Ranch," a 692-unit Planned Residential Development on a 49.7-acre parcel of land in the City of Huntington Beach. A Final Environmental Impact Report was pre- pared for an earlier version of this project on this site in November of • 1979. This Supplemental EIR addresses only those impacts that are signifi- cantly different from those described in the previous EIR. The Initial Study and all Environmental Setting material are also included in "The Ranch" Final EIR. IDENTIFICATION OF PETITIONERS The applicant for the proposed project is, jointly, (1 ) Mansion Proper- ties, Inc. , 333 West Yorktown Avenue, Huntington Beach, California 92648, and (2) Urban West Communities, 3030 South Bundy Drive, Los Angeles, California 90066. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is a 49.7-acre parcel of land, most of which is an open field covered with weeds. The site has been heavily disturbed for many years by oil operations and various other activities: At the southwest corner, the Northam Ranch house and ancillary structures are situated on a prominent knoll overlooking the area. The Northam house presently serves as a residence. The knoll and surrounding areas contain most of the vegetation found on the site, including pine, pepper, palm and eucalyptus trees, as well as numerous shrubs. There are over 180 trees on the site, including a number of mature specimens. Animal life on the site is minimal , due to the lack of vegetative cover and the long-term presence of human activity. The • northern half of the site most clearly shows signs of consistent disruption of native ecological patterns. Weeds and grasses cover 70 percent of this area. The other 30 percent consists of highly compacted areas with no vege- tation. The proposed project will consist of 180 condominium townhouse units and 512 condominium flats contained in 23 three-story buildings. Also included in the proposed project are internal circulation paths, recreation centers, parking and common open space. The 16 oil wells presently on the site will be centralized into approximately four oil islands (buffered areas enclosing the pumping and maintenance facilities) as construction of the proposed development proceeds over a 4-6 year period. Oil operations will be phased out as the wells become uneconomical to operate. An estimated timeframe for this phase-out is 15 years. The flats are located. in three-story buildings on grade with elevators, landscaped interior courtyards and below grade parking spaces. The plan calls for 512 of these units. Running through the site from north to south, approximately in the center, is an abandoned railroad right-of-way, now a ravine which supports • only small palms and seasonal grasses. Mature trees that bordered the site 1 `a - r` — -_ along the east have not been maintained, since they will be removed in the course of a planned street realignment. PROJECT LOCATION The proposed site is located in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange • County, California. Huntington Beach is located along the southern California coast, south of the City and County of Los Angeles. Surrounding municipal- ities include Westminster, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach. Seal Beach Naval Weapons Center is also nearby. As shown in the Proposed Site Map, Figure 1 , the project site is adjacent to the Seacliff Office Park and is bounded by Main Street on the west, Clay Avenue on the north, Huntington Street on the east, and Yorktown Avenue (presently being realigned) on the south. Much of the surrounding land to the north across Clay Avenue is vacant and currently used for oil operations. Some industrial structures are also north of the site. The Seacliff Shopping Center is west of the project site across Main Street. The Huntington Beach Civic Center is to the southwest across Yorktown Avenue. Areas to the east across Huntington Street and to the south across Yorktown Avenue, on the southeast side of Seventeenth Street, are primarily residential neighborhoods. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Planned Residential Development consists of clustered dwelling unit groups, private streets, and common open space for an estimated 1 ,356 residents of middle and upper income households. Of the 692 total units, 180 will be townhouse type structures in buildings containing 3 to 7 dwelling units, and 512 flats in buildings containing 22 dwelling units each. The 180 garden townhouse units have private two-car garages and private on-grade patios. The condominium flats are contained in three story buildings with elevators landscaped interior courtyards and underground parking spaces. The following table describes the mix of sizes, bedroom counts and estimated selling prices: No. of No. of Estimated Dwelling Units Bedrooms Selling Price Garden Townhouses 2 bedrooms 72 144 $160,000 3 bedrooms 108 324 185,000 Subtotal 180 468 Flats 2 bedrooms 327 654 130,000 3 bedrooms 185 555 145,000 Subtotal 512 1 ,209 Total 692 1 ,677 `. 2 CLAY AVENUE 'uj T 6 • 14 8 PROJECT DATA TOTAL UNITS:692 GARDEN TOWNHOUSES 180 UNITS X.) .,al gj V"A THREE-STORY FLATS Sill UNITS Mli� .4, FUTURE TRANSIT CORRIDOR E E A. 7- Jr 01;m Gee 05 to SITE PLAN eo"Oeoesietiee Figure 1. Proposed Site an --- 0 0 40 Total projected occupancy is approximately 1 ,356 residents. The unit sizes range from: Gardens Townhouses 1 ,850 - 2,175 square feet Flats 1 ,140 - 1 ,600 square feet Net average density is 13.9 dwelling units (DU)/acre, based on a gross area of 49.7 acres. Provision for parking is as follows: Covered (resident) 1 ,384 Covered (guest) 157 Uncovered (guest) 191 Total 1 ,732 The proposed project will include four private recreation centers with swimming pools in each. There will be 17.92 acres of common open space with foot paths, wooded areas, and foot bridges. These will be designed in a varied pattern. Also included in the proposed project is the centralization of existing oil operations into oil islands, containing oil wells, pumps, holding tanks, • transmission pipelines, and maintenance facilities. The islands will remain in operation throughout the 4-6 year construction period. As the project is occupied, the islands will be walled off to limit negative aesthetic and noise impacts. Oil operations are projected to last approximately 15 years; phase out will occur as the wells become uneconomical to operate. PROJECT TIMING Construction of dwelling units is proposed in 4-6 month phases of 75- 125 units per phase. A tentative schedule based on 75-unit construction phases is as follows: Units June, 1982 - December, 1982 75 January, 1983 - June, 1983 75 June 1983 - December 1983 75 January, 1984 - June, 1984 75 June, 1984 - December, 1984 75 January, 1985 - June, 1985 75 June, 1985 - December, 1985 75.. January, 1986 - June, 1986 75 As oil operations are phased out 72 Total 692 4 • r1­, _)c1aL? gPE`i Mitigation None is required. Police Protection Impacts • The major concern of the City of Huntington Beach Police Department to the previous design of "The Ranch" was the circuitous street design. The present site design incorporates more direct street routes, but there is only one primary access route from outside the project site to any area of the project site. This is discussed more fully in the section on fire services. • Mitigation Safety measures recommended in the previous Ranch EIR for the security of property include: enclosed garages with secure locking devices; secure locks on all doors and windows; window gratings; alarms, safes, and sufficient lighting (Robitaille, 1979). A discussion of measures designed to ameliorate • the impact of the cluster street design on emergency response time is included in the section on Traffic and Circulation. Fire Services Impacts The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department has reviewed the proposed project and has voiced several concerns. The majority of the Fire Department's concerns relate to access to areas of the project in the event of an emergency. Under Fire Department regulations streets that are longer than 600 feet must have secondary circulation routes. The proposed project has a street and a combination of streets that are approximately 600 feet or longer without providing a secondary access route. "V Street, which parallels Yorktown Avenue and is just south of the Northam Ranch House, is longer than 600 feet. The combination of "E" Street (the southern entrance on Huntington Street) with its offshoot streets ("F", "G" and "H" Streets) results in a series of streets, each of which is approximately 600 feet long. Another concern of the Fire Department is that there will be vehicles parked along the streets of the development. The Fire Department requires a net road width (after parking) of 24 feet. Since many of the streets in the project site are only 24 feet wide, any parking on these streets would not allow sufficient _free access for the Fire Department. While the applicant • does not intend to allow on-street parking, it is likely to occur on some portions of the roadway. Other Fire Department concerns relate to design parameters for the project site. Traffic circles within the project site must be of a design that will allow Huntington Beach fire apparatus forward progress the full length of the roadway without maneuvering; Fire Department access planned 1 along arterials must be fully visible and delineated by walkways; fire lanes, where acceptable, must be to Fire Department requirements. 11 • • g= v MR2 • Mitigation For those streets that are longer than 600 feet, secondary access routes should be provided. For example, "V Street and "H" Streets could be connected to form a dual access street. Connecting "G" and "I" Streets would accomplish a similar purpose. The Fire Department also noted that the 600 foot require- ment might be waived if domestic sprinkler"systems were included in building design. Widening streets within the proposed project or providing additional surface parking would reduce the possibility of encroaching on the Fire Department' s 24 feet of free access. Other recommendations included in the previous Ranch EIR are still applicable. At that time, the Fire Department recommended: 1 ) a 28-foot • turning radius be provided at each intersection, with an additional eight feet provided wherever cars can be parked; 2) a street width of 40 feet (or some other measure to prevent encroachment by parked vehicles) ; and 3) con- nection of the cul-de-sac clusters via an interlying street system. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION • Impacts The proposed site plan allows only one means of access to the site for the dwelling units in any area of the site. The entrances to the project site provide access to the following .number of units: • o Clay Avenue, 265 units o Huntington Street (north) , 138 units o Huntington Street (south), 156 units o Yorktown Avenue, 133 units The proposed site plan leads to a significant increase in traffic using the Clay Avenue entrance, as is shown in the table below. Part of this increase is due . to an increase in the number of units on site, and part is due to the single point of access for each of the units. Overall traffic flows from the site would increase to 6,228 daily trips for the proposed site plan as compared to 5,361 trips for the previous site design. • TRAFFIC GENERATED BY ALTERNATIVE SITE DESIGNS Average Daily Traffic Access Point Previous Design Proposed Design • Clay Avenue 1 ,917 . 2,487 Huntington Street (north) 1 ,585 1 ,154 Huntington Street (south) 854 1 ,418 Yorktown Avenue 1 ,005 1 ,169 • Total 5,361 6,228 12 • NKC`iu1.a^-_g g'T: The previous EIR noted several deficiencies with regard to internal traffic circulation. The site plan included traffic circles that were too close (approximately 50 feet) to the public streets (e.g. , Clay Avenue) and had insufficient access for emergency vehicles. The present design retains the traffic circles, but has moved them to at least 150 feet from the public streets. This movement of the traffic circles should reduce the peak hour cueing that was forecast in the previous EIR by providing smoother access to the site. There would, however, still be significant peak hour delays at the Clay Street access point. Also, as discussed in the section on Fire Services, the proposed traffic circulation design still does not meet the access requirements of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. The Huntington Beach Department of Public Works also expressed concern about several aspects of the project design. The proposed design has a number of townhouse units fronting on Main Street and Yorktown Avenues. The Depart- ment is concerned that visitors (or residents) might park on these streets rather than utilizing the parking spaces within the project site. In addition, the proposed site design does not include bus turnouts along Main Street or Yorktown Avenues (Gilmer, 1981 ). Mitigation Several mitigation measures suggested in the previous EIR are still applicable to this design. These recommendations are to: o provide a second access to Clay Avenue; o provide roadways or defined routes between isolated clusters; and o utilize public streets rather than private streets (see previous EIR for a discussion of this issue). Other mitigation measures that should be considered would be: o The provision of bus turnouts on Main Street and Yorktown Avenues to • smooth traffic flows on these streets and to provide the residents with easier access to public transportation; o Interconnect the streets of the project site to allow each residential more than a single access street to the site; and o Retain a transit corridor for future transit options (see Alternative Transit Corridors). RECREATION TRAIL Impacts • The proposed project includes the provision of a recreation trail (separated pedestrian path and bikeway) . This recreation trail begins at the Clay Avenue entrance on the north side of the project site (Figure 2). The trail proceeds easterly along Clay Avenue to Huntington Street, then southerly along Huntington Street to Yorktown Avenue, westerly along Yorktown Avenue to the intersection of the former railroad right-of-way at which point the trail leaves the property. 13 • CA.AY A NUE .�••••••• •••• ••• •• ••••••••••t••• --o'--�e�uyp��yo,,,,,,,.__, --a o�,ynenms,�� ■� ,�. ' � i1 � • � • ,1 ` 1 I I , •1�• 1I7 i• 000 • : • 1••••••••••••tR• ••a WAS � ,• �� I t • • • 'I I z •• .I :... ac • ' I I. ! 1, -*NGPCM LOW 'a 066 .1 t ,way;. r• 1 •t • � •,,.- � � 1 i 'I ,. . 1 /• f i • • • •' • ,. i • •�•••••••• SECTION A.•rm•mw a Tmw - a.Amw r : '•f `L '(. ,a�• ••0•• •• •fi f�•••f - f -- -----1 1/ f •• A • 1 i • , • n'' • �: • 1 I z 1 • • ".4 0 • a all SECTION IS�-r•••. _ w•era•r•a ♦ ul••rL : �'�' i I\ �• 0 I0 0fl •. >; 00900 SEC r•w rwor.n w•cra•'r•r• e►yr ••f s ••• i 1 _ • LEGEND 01000PRIVATEPEDESTRIAN WALKWAY qF to b • •''•' ••• �y • • . G&V REM BICYCLE EwA PEDESTRIAN SYST o tipF }•1 { • •• • ', •L BICYCLE/PEDE-STRIAN PLAN , Figure 2: Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan nlw T.- 9 9P. r; There are several concerns that have been raised .with regard to this aspect of the project. The applicant has expressed concern about the security and privacy of project residents, liability for accidents and maintenance of the trail . The Department of Public Works also expressed these concerns and added conflict between trail users and vehicular traffic. The proposed recreation trail parallels the existing public rights-of- way along Clay Avenue, Huntington Street and Yorktown Avenue. This trail passes adjacent to nine condominium flat buildings and 16 townhouse units. These units are, however, already adjacent to the public streets. The proposed trail therefore should lead to only a minor decrease (if any) in privacy and security for project residents. Users of the recreation trail will , however, have to compete with vehicles entering and exiting the project via Huntington Street. Daily traffic using the Huntington Street entrances is expected to average approximately 2,600 vehicles. This does not include the vehicles entering and leaving the existing apartment building on Huntington Street which is adjacent to the project site. At the present time, it is unclear who would be responsible for main- taining the recreation trail or who would be liable in the event of an accident on the recreation trail . There are at least three options for maintaining the recreation trail . The Huntington Beach Public Works Department could maintain the trail , the Public Works Department could contract with the applicant or the project's homeowners association to maintain the trail , or the applicant and homeowners association could maintain the recreation trail as part of overall site maintenance. A decision as to which entity would maintain the recreation trail is the subject of future negotiations between the applicant and the City of Huntington Beach. The question of legal lia- bility is also unsettled and will have to be determined through negotiations between the City and the applicant. The applicant has proposed that this recreation trail be dedicated to the City and that the City assume liability. • 'i Mitigation See the chapter on Alternative Transit Corridors/Recreation Trails. ECONOMICS Impacts The Fiscal Analysis (see Appendix 1 ) shows that the proposed "Ranch" development would yield a surplus (revenues greater than costs) of approxi- mately $1 .75 million over the ten-year period covered by fiscal years 1982- �. 1991 . This surplus is a result of development fees paid at the initiation of development and the large amount of property taxes ($1 .75 million) received over the ten-year period. Also, the lower population density of these units (1 .96 persons per unit) leads to lower public service costs. Mitigation r None is required. 15 • s r;a LL IIC `r ALTERNATIVE RECREATION TRAILS AND TRANSIT CORRIDORS • The previous FEIR for "The Ranch" evaluated a lower density alternative and the no-project alternative. Those alternatives will not be reevaluated here. Instead, alternatives dealing with recreation trails and transit corridors will be examined here. • RECREATION TRAILS The proposed project includes a separated pedestrian/bike trail on the periphery of the eastern half of the site. A discussion of this trail is found in the impact section on Recreation Trail . Two alternatives to this • recreation trail have been proposed for the project site. The first would connect with the existing offsite corridor on Clay Avenue as does the proposed trail . Instead of proceeding easterly, as does the proposed trail , this alternative would proceed southerly from the Clay Avenue entrance to the site (A Street) and parallel A Street to Yorktown Avenue. At Yorktown the trail would turn easterly until it intersected the former railroad right-of-way. • At this point the trail would leave the project site and proceed to the south (Figure 3). The second alternative trail would generally follow the former railroad right-of-way. This path would meander through the common areas rather than paralleling proposed roadways. This trail is also shown in Figure 3. • The primary difference between the proposed recreation trail and the alternative trails is that the proposed trail is in some sense offsite (at the periphery of the site) while the alternative trails are onsite (run through the site). The potential differences between alternatives relate to: o Ability of the plan to accommodate alternative trails, o Privacy and security of project residents, o Maintenance of the trail , o Liability for accidents, and o Conflict between trail users and vehicular traffic. The alternative trail that follows A Street could be accommodated within the proposed project plan. Two of the condominium flat buildings on Yorktown at the terminus of Lake Street would need to be relocated approximately 15 feet north and the condominium flat building at the southeast corner of Clay Avenue and A Street would need to be relocated approximately 15 feet east. The relocation of these three buildings would be accomplished by moving the . eastern half of the site plan 15 feet north and east, which would appear to be feasible in the absence of the proposed peripheral recreation trail . This alternative trail would have both advantages and disadvantages as compared to the proposed peripheral trail . The primary advantage of this alternative trail is that it does not cross any of access points for the project site. Users on the proposed trail would cross both of the entrances • to the project site on Huntington Street (approximately 2,600 vehicles per day) as well as the entrance to the existing seven-unit apartment complex on Huntington Street. Users of the alternative (A Street) recreation trail 16 • � �� ■■�■■ i■■■■ 1 Y its s: � i I �� � l 0-9 IN i PIP son ass,ri►'11 ri r a NW r. rGa'S would, however, cross five internal streets (compared to three access points for the proposed route) but would encounter fewer project-related vehicles (approximately 2,400 vehicles) and none of the apartment-related vehicles. The primary disadvantage of the A Street trail is that it provides public access to the interior of the site. The proposed recreation trail parallels • the existing public streets and allows for access to the site only from the exterior. The A Street alternative for the recreation trail would still allow public access to the site from the exterior along the public streets but would also allow access to the interior of the site from the public recreation corridor. This additional public access would reduce the level of privacy and security enjoyed by residents of the interior of The Ranch. • The second onsite alternative would wind among the residences and recre- ation areas of the site. The primary advantage of this alternative is that it avoids all conflicts with vehicular traffic. Rather than following the public and private streets, this alternative would begin at Clay Avenue and A Street (as do the other trails) and proceed easterly along Clay Avenue past two of the condominium flat buildings. Between the second and third • buildings the trail turns south and runs between buildings to the recreation center, then along the eastern edge of the recreation center and lake, between the buildings at the end of G and I Streets. The trail again turns easterly and circles the condominium flat buildings at the end of K Street to rejoin the proposed recreation trail on Yorktown Avenue. Again, the primary disadvantage of an onsite recreation trail relates to privacy and security. This alternative will allow public access to the interior of the development and be adjacent to six condominium flat buildings and 17 garden townhouse units that are not located adjacent to the surrounding public streets (Yorktown, Huntington, and Clay Avenues) . The residents of these units would experience less privacy and security under this alternative than from the proposed recreation trail . This second alternative would also tend to separate the eastern half of the site. The northwestern portion of the site is already separated from the eastern half of the site by A Street. The A Street recreation trail would expand this separation but would not create a new separation. The second alternative, however, would have both the A Street separation and additional 15-foot corridors (plus building setbacks) running through the site. Attempts to maintain privacy and security for project residents by building the bikeway below grade or by fencing it off (see Appendix 2) would further aggravate this feeling of separation. Grade separation or fences would significantly increase the cost of the bikeway and might make it financially infeasible for the developer to implement. The development of the recreation trail through the site would mean that residents walking across the site would have to concern themselves with bicycle traffic. along the recreation trail . Unless the project site is redesigned, residents in the northeastern part of the would also be separated . from their recreation center by the recreation trail . Since the onsite recreation centers are oriented toward the ponds, it appears unlikely that the northeast recreation area could be redesigned to avoid the conflict with the bike path. 18 • Another consideration for the placement of the ' recreation trail is maintenance and liability. The proposed recreation trail is at the exterior of the property and is partially within the street rights of way. Maintenance of the proposed recreation trail would either be provided by the applicant (and subsequently by the homeowners association) as part of normal right-of- way maintenance, or the City of Huntington Beach might have to maintain the bike trail as part of its maintenance of transportation facilities. The alternative trails, however, are almost completely within the project site. This could mean that the applicant and homeowners association would have to maintain the trail , as the recreation trail might be viewed as a private improvement which is available for unlimited public access (Gilmer, 1981 ). Also, with the recreation trail almost completely within the project site, civil liability is likely to fall on the homeowners association. At • the present time there have been no decisions made with regard to maintenance of the recreation trail . Any decision on recreation trail maintenance (and to a lesser extent liability) will be the result of discussions and negotia- tions between the City of Huntington Beach and the applicant. TRANSIT CORRIDOR • The project site is situated within an area that is designated for use as a future transit corridor. The corridor, as defined by the Orange County Transit District, extends one and one-half miles in either direction from Beach Boulevard. Two alternatives to preserve this potential transit corridor have been proposed. The first (proposed by the applicant) is a peripheral treatment that would be aligned with the existing railroad right-of-way north of Garfield Avenue. South of Garfield Avenue the right-of-way would follow Main Street to Yorktown Avenue, then easterly along Yorktown Avenue to the former railroad right-of-way, then south along the former railroad right-of-way (Figure 4) . The second alternative would be to redesign the project to retain the former railroad right-of-way as a greenbelt and future transit corridor. Both of these alternatives are likely to be accceptable to the Orange County Transit District as long as several conditions are met. First, the transit corridor must have a minimum width of 14 feet. This width would accommodate a single track but would not allow for noise buffers, stations, or a second track (Corlett, 1981 ). In addition, the peripheral corridor would need to provide for the turns from Main Street to Yorktown Avenue and from Yorktown Avenue to the former railroad right-of-way. On a curve the minimum radius of 42 feet is required for the inside rail of a light rail system (Landgraf, 1975). Both corridors would satisfy , these requirements. Finally, the corridor would need to be preserved for future use to meet the goals of the Transit District' s Master Plan. The proposed transit corridor which proceeds southerly along Main Street and easterly along Yorktown has advantages and disadvantages. The primary advantage of this corridor is that the privacy and security of the interior of the project site preserved. Since the corridor is , at the exterior or would be outside of the property, there would be no public access to the interior of the site. The corridor would be located in the median strip of Main Street and Yorktown Avenue which would tend to reduce the noise impacts 19 e • 0 J � m • I Former; Rai lroad« Corridor: PROJECT Main ♦ SITE Street Alternative 1 Sea- Cliff o Office • rk YORKTOWN t � Q YORKTOWN a a9 J 7 :1 Q❑ ❑ L) 41 ?�r Q❑ /��� � ❑❑ r N Figure 4. Alternative Transit Corridors • 20 • r9c6?a gpoc.u on project residents. The median of Main Street is approximately 45 to 50 feet from the project property line. The closest residences would be at • least ten feet further back. In addition, only 18 townhouses front directly on Main Street and two condominium flat buildings face Yorktown Avenue in the area of the transit corridor. The primary disadvantage of this corridor would be the potential conflict between transit vehicles and automobiles on Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. Some level of conflict would exist whether the corridor is located in the median or outer edge of the affected streets. A corridor proceeding down the median of Main Street and turning to the median of Yorktown Avenue would conflict with left-turn traffic on Main Street between Gothard and Yorktown Avenues. Transit vehicles using the corridor would also conflict with west- bound traffic that is turning left to Main Street from Yorktown Avenue and with eastbound traffic on Yorktown Avenue at the point where the transit corridor would turn south. The intersections along Main Street might have to be redesigned (at the time of transit system design) to eliminate left turn bays from the medians to avoid conflicts between motor vehicles and the transit system. In addition, the intersections might require different signal mechanisms - for safety purposes - to prevent conflict between transit vehicles, motor vehicles and pedestrians. Depending on the design of the system, transit users might be more exposed to accidents when the station is in the median than if it were at the curb. Transit corridors on either side of the Main Street right-of-way would have similar problems. Development of a corridor on the northwest side of Main Street would displace the existing bike path and would conflict with vehicular traffic at the Yorktown Avenue and Main Street intersections. A corridor on the southeast side of Main Street might require the relocation of the Main Street traffic lanes or condemation of property from existing developments (e.g. , Mola and Seacliff Office Park). The original Pacific Electric right-of-way passed through the property, between Holly Street and Huntington Street. It was this corridor that was used as an example in the OCTD's Master Plan. Retention of this former railroad right-of-way as a future transit corridor would have several advan- tages. First, the corridor would be linear, without the curves and turns of the Main Street alternative. Also, a corridor has been retained immediately north of Clay Avenue (adjacent to the Mola Development). This corridor would also minimize the conflicts between the future transit system (if or when built) and vehicular traffic on Main Street and Yorktown Avenues. The 40-foot wide former corridor would also provide room for the bicycle path in the short-term and a bicycle path/single rail system in the future. A dual rail system in the future would, however, eliminate the ability to include a bicycle path in the corridor when the system is developed. • Retention of the corridor would require significant revision to the applicant' s proposed site plan. the former railroad . right-of-way passes through four of the condominium flat buildings, four of townhouse clusters and one of the lakes. In addition, two other condominium flat buildings near Yorktown Avenue would be separated from their access road, but this • could be remedied by connecting them to the access road to the east. It is 21 • not possible to estimate noise impacts along this corridor because the pro- ject would need to be significantly redesigned to retain the former railroad right-of-way as a corridor. It is likely, however, that more units would be affected by the corridor, and these units are likely to be nearer to the corridor than units along Main Street or Yorktown Avenue. Retention of this corridor would also split the project site, and development of a grade sepa- rated corridor would make it difficult for residents to travel across the • site. However, until development of the corridor for rail transit, the corridor could serve as a greenbelt through the project site. However, this greenbelt would allow public access to the interior of the site unless the corridor is grade separated from the rest of the site. • • • • • 22 gF0u REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED • Barnes, J. , Associate Planner, City of Huntington Beach Planning Division. Personal communications, March through September, 1981 . City of Huntington Beach Planning Division. "Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Proposed Ranch Project in the City of Huntington Beach." October, 1981 . Cooper, W. , Deputy Fire Marshall , City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Letter dated July 30, 1981 . Personal communications, July and August, 1981 . Corlett, S. , Manager of Planning, Orange County Transit District. Letter dated April 3, 1981 . Environmental Resources Group. Final Environmental Impact Report "The Ranch", Planned Residential Development. November, 1979. Gilmer, B. City of Huntington Beach, Department of Public Works. Personal • communication, July, 1981 . Landgraf, Robert J. "Light Rail Permanent Way Requirements and Sources." June, 1975. Noble, D. City of Huntington Beach, Department of Public Works. Personal • communications, March and July, 1981 . Roubitaille, E. , Chief of Police, City of Huntington Beach. Letter dated March 27, 1979. Timdall , G. , City Engineer, City of Huntington Beach, Department of Public Works. Letter dated May 18, 1981 . • e 23 �o:�h 1 r - ,Z • • • CORRESPONDENCE • • • • • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET P. 0. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 • Paul E. Cook Public Works Department Director (714) 536-5431 May 18 , 1981 RECEIVED 1 • Mr. David B. Morgan Socioeconomic Analyst Environmental Resources Group 6380 Wilshire Blvd. , Suite 804 • Los Angeles, California 90048 Subject: Supplemental E. I.R. for Tentative Tract Map 11417 (Mansion Hill-Huntington Beach Co. ) Dear Mr. Morgan: The following information is provided in accordance with your written request of March 10, 1981. Re: Storm Drain Facilities 1. Size, location & capacities of storm drains: The existing 39 inch R.C.P. storm drain line at Yorktown and Huntington (see Exhibit "A") is sized to accept drainage from the proposed development. 2. Required new facilities: • I, The 39 inch R.C.P. storm drain line on Huntington, at York- town, will have to be extended northerly to State Street. 3 . Anticipated modification of existing facilities: None • Re: Sewer Facilities 1. Sewage line capacity concern: The capacity of the existing 12" sewer main in Yorktown Ave. (see Exhibit "B") is being investigated by Walden & Associates, Inc. If this line is not capable of handling the additional sewer discharge, then the southerly extension of an 8 inch line in Holly Street is a viable alternative. 2. Location and size of existing sewer mains: Sewer mains, applicable to this proposed project, are the 8 inch Holly Street and 12 inch Yorktown Avenue lines (see Exhibit "B") . Mr. David B. Morgan May 18, 1981 Page 2 • 3. Acceptable. generation factors: Rl - 230 gpd/dwelling unit R2 - 160 gpd/dwelling unit • R3 & R4 - 130 gpd/dwelling unit 4. Capacity of sewer system in the area: Walden & Associates is doing a sewer study. 5. City sewer connection to County lines: Holly Street line connects to a 24 inch (east-west) County line in Garfield Avenue. Yorktown Avenue line connects to a 24 inch (north-south) County line in Delaware Street. Re: Surface Streets 1. Vacation of Streets: The vacation of streets within the project site will be accomplished when the development is fully approved by the City and all applicable conditions have been met. . 2. Use of private streets within the development: a. Construction All private streets must be constructed in accordance with approved City standards (see Exhibit "C") . b. Circulation Circulation patterns of private streets are reviewed and approved by City staff (i.e. , acceptable fire protection and safety routes are required) . 3 . Effect of proposed project on local streets: A The existing E.I.R. addressed general traffic concerns. How- ever, additional concerns regarding bicycle traffic, the Main Street entrance and the general effect of the proposed transit corridor were raised at the preliminary subdivision committee meeting. These issues are to be addressed in the supplementary E. I.R. • • Mr. David B. Morgan May 18 , 1981 Page 3 • Hopefully, this information will help you expedite your supplemental document. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Don Noble of this office at (714) 536-5431. Very truly yours, Wore Tindall' Cityneer GLT:DRN: jy • Attach. cc: Jim Barnes Bruce Gilmer Don Noble • ' Bill Patapoff T.T. File 11417 • • A • • 024 I I I iL fr: I 1 ! F.ARiillE7f3o}i !x 3x3 i \ / f :r a FIA IOWr LOWTIDE J u 3x36 14 14 Y :: 2 AFr f • _..._...._...._........._...._...._..._ I I f i » ..... . _.._ 3X3G 2x3G 000 f i M tA Z4 Ate' f • r i ..._........ -.._..._.._._..___...._....... ......__.._.._..._._._..__. ._. ..,_, f �4J r W, / i +... .......... 14 f I J f t.IEVEtl.ND:AVE, iAhlA CR 4 - I WILLIAMSAVE Sl'A7E•: Ai.'E74 ..,...-___.i._ ...i + 1 f f.. �1W l f. ....... ..;.� _ .............L..� ...._...._ _...__�. .. _..... Z; u { x + j �. m IORKTOWI. AVE. _..._ _ 1 _ ' •, 24 18 z... V,�. 7 ..._.- �� 1 24"GSA CF - C / z�� r x3G J/ ...: ,... I (� ....-..-...--.... ..1�... ...,..,.!... . . } _......NIaIITA AVE. ... .... .............l ........_ --.._.....__...-_.... ll r . PLANNING 'ZONING DM 2 I --'-� ECTIONAI DISTRICT MAP 20 6- II =EALE ADOPTED MARCN 7NCE NOTE CITY OF -11 DIMExfroT AR[y/EET CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 774 ANY.:ox[ AaowwD •T Rpxr a u • If wTExOEp TO [.1[Np i0 MINI CENTER ORQ NO. AMENDED ORD. a SUC" AID-Or .xr 1 LEGEND: 1 6-15-6 0 773 2.21-ee 1186 T-ie-60 701 ID-3-°8 1276 swill[r•Wv P[f10[NC[01[T61Ca 1I-16-6-e 1 798 2-17-679 11708 I� T•O FAMILY R[f10[N CE DISTRICT 817 2-17.69 1474 DDMMu.nT rOILITICS([puCATION AL IDIST.ICT 6.3•N1 614 0.G.fig I527 ySRHUNTINGTON BEACH 9 .61 84 -19-70 06 RESIDENTIAL ADRCILTORAL CE"W= ee Iv� 1 691 QLIxT 1R1TRIAL DIlTRIDT11. e7e 32 163 7-7•e900 12.6-71 1607 (—. . —ST.... DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 3.21-62 203 7-17-72 1760 ® CON—Y w[Ix[u DISTRICT AMENDED 6Y ZONE CARET 6-4-61 907 7-17-T2 1762 C€?, "'•"••' [ON" C'•L • 10-17-62 932 9.7.72 1771y .f LIMITED WLrIRE FANRLT Rf.wNC9 04TMT . IN.t23,138,147,176,177.1a8, IL-3-62 93a 12-17-73 1889 © NO6RCIR COMMERCIAL 179.160.143.200.206.212.237. 1.7-63 847 MNLTiftf FAMILY RESIDENTIAL z-4-63 970 ()� CO UM"MMITILS(CIV41 DISTRICT 744,246,269,2e2,289,302,0, . [ 6-24-63 9766978 5 9T.U. LANE 68Al.68-52.69-23, .e8-[0. I CpNn O CDNwNCG •ITN OIL RIMOUCTI°N i 86•16,86.32,69.2],70-10,70-28, � p I.6-61 i026 I� 71-Ia.71-32.T2-18(F),T2.161L1,72-23,73L22, `QIJAl y 10-7-64 1090 ®� 1132 •CD C.VIC DISTRICT jf„ff �IGARFIELO 1 Y y t' 4VE L Af f[ f r } 2 cl ,� q r—•- RI •-, ; RA- _ R3 EW I Z4 • t N MI i Ml .w R5 Co�ni`Y i (r > C2 I RA-0 RA-0 R3. N uN s ssop 1 RA-0 R3 L� C4j_ ' o R2 MI R 2 =a 3 y�M R3 - & MI' /zl� DDQ 1E aI CLAY —W CIS AVE. C2-0 (RESERVOIR) f Ci•01P, 8 R3 D R3 C2 f.�ya R4 R 2 F RI-0 'RI-0 R R2 •�` R O O 0 ZO 290 x Lw TR SO `M I 1 N RI R�l f C2-0 I Cj anu..D / i FR2 -C2I .ff0 • F w»YA•T RA•a•• -� RI-�ti . ros TN.2150 v ' W o Rg M ph powo Sit o c3 R2 + R2 R2I 1 C2-0 C2-0—CD N N I �,^ 3 LI 9 / R C 4.. J ,• © �G rGG MANSION E • .MIA[ IAs "ro Ia rf=aj i l 4� 2.MI f000t �F—C ►g - I.f f—T:,,r cl+r�al, e` u -O-CD CF-E CF-E-CD I H M20 WIC - (IWNT'INGTON 8EACN ANON MiGN SCHOOL) p x C p U I d M2-0-C [� L Go N 0 1 O I>x� M2-0-C e4 R2, I • e O V AVE- ,U zlr 3 " OG a (J7v ffD R4 r. .T• [v NrRA �-- uT1cA F•. .A•frArL •''•N•• - R2-O-CD O O 0 O RZ-0 RZ-O .9 >te t7 �p R2-O-CD N ¢al ¢ s O RI RI RI RI RI R2 a 01 0 0 I RI-0 �� a: 20CD r; I ? 0 IIQ AO CQ 2 CQ N N z Rz-0-cD N NW. R2 I. A. r. ]PRINGFIELD - C4 I I N .r 0 0 _ R2-0 R2-0I O O ALTANAR DIS j l C N N NjIN N N N 0 0 1 •♦� d r p= Q.- 0 O I �I C S ril N P 2 RI RI RI RI RI R2 N N e R3 R! a R3-0 I?Q Q In 0 .T I �� 1 SOR2 I¢ R3 0 R3-0 : i RIO RIr�ADAMS 4�1 1 a AVE j5e r ZA C�()�� f eoYA N 0AR0 Pro I VAT � . 5TMf 5 F6C I F ICAt10H5 1' 40' v 91E1 !� 37' 3(0' 3 3 3' C I;{ R/w— Xl&gf of WAY • P — PAVt; AW �' G � — CURB FAGS is I'I • `I y� a i K/w 5EE fJOtE 2 I I, ► i 5EE NOTE 2 2P �qP i 5EE NOTE I • i v NOTES . • I. 5TRUCrU9AL SECTION fO BE DEfERMINEo 13Y 5m rESt APO TRAFFIC If'OEX W/1A10- OF VA.C. WITH EA I. 6OAf. OVE9 (c" R.13. I 2. 60tAi3,i 1oH CLI O APO &IJM> TYPE h-I , 6-I OR C PER era PLAN 202 09 205 OK dot ovRl3 PzR 41f0. PLAN 1,10. i4 77 i I • I.; i DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS rvt. 5tR5� - rYP 5 � c rlot CITY OF HUNTIN TON BtACH APPROVED: D1REC OP, OF PUS WOF�K5 tea.rF_- CAL.IF® IA STANDARD RIEV3110N DATE PLAR9, Nn. 21 Fi 'Aim City City of Huntington Beach �- P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 •I FIRE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED ALT, 3 t98� • July 30, 1981 • Jim Rabe Environmental Resources Group 6380 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 804 Los Angeles, California 90048 Dear Mr. Rabe: Re: Huntington Beach Development "The Ranch" Enclosed, is a copy of the minutes from a meeting on July 24, 1981 concerning subject 01. development. If I can be of any further assistance in explaining any aspect of this meeting or anything contained on the enclosed memo, please advise. Sincerely, • William Cooper Deputy Fire Marshal WC:cw Enclosure I s Twf CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTO.N BEACH To File From William Cooper Deputy Fire Marshal • Subject THE RANCH" Date July 24, 1981 A meeting was held on July 23, 1981 with Chief Kelly, representatives of the • Huntington Beach Company and myself regarding the development formerly referred to as "The Ranch". The major concerns voiced by the Fire Department were as follows: 1. Streets over 600 feet in length must have secondary circulation. This requirement might be waived with the inclusion of domestic sprinkler systems • in units served by such circulation routes. 2. All streets must be of a width that will net 24 feet of free access after , any parking takes place, i.e. , along blank curds over 12 feet in length. 3. Traffic circles must be of a design that will allow Huntington Beach fire apparatus forward progress the full length of the roadway without maneuvering. 4. Any Fire Department access planned along arterials must be fully visible and delineated by means of walkways. • 5. Fire lanes, where accepted, must be to Fire Department requirements. WC:sh • V��'vrtti.n. • ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT April 3, 1981 Ms. Louise W. Hall Manager, Socioeconomic Studies Environmental Resources Group 6380 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 804 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Dear Ms. Hall: In response to your March 24, 1981 letter inquiring about our • position on the transit corridor in Huntington Beach, I have attached a copy of Resolution 79-26 which was approved by the OCTD Board of Directors on August 6, 1979. You will note that the Resolution urges the City of Huntington Beach to preserve the Pacific Electric corridor for future transit development, inasmuch as our Master Plan for Fixed Guideways, which includes the branch • of the Pacific Electric that you refer to, was adopted by the Board in 1974. The Transit District would be receptive to alternative ways for the City to protect the opportunity for developing a fixed guideway facility along the general vicinity of the Pacific Electric right- of-way in later years. Such an alternative should preserve a right-of-way that will be wide enough to accommodate the geometric requirements of a fixed guideway facility, either single track or double track, and should offer sufficient provisions to accommodate minimum turning radii required by contemporary rapid transit technologies as well. Three weeks ago, Brian Pearson from OCTD, Tom Jenkins from OCTC, Paul Cook and Ralph Leyva from the City of Huntington Beach met to discuss alternative ways to preserve rapid transit options in the Pacific Electric corridor. Our comment at the time was that either of the two alternatives you suggest in your letter, reserving the right-of-way directly through "The Ranch" development or reserving a right-of-way around the periphery of the development, would be acceptable to OCTD provided that the reserved path be 14 feet wide at an absolute minimum, rather than 10 feet wide as you suggest. Although a wider cross section would permit additional space for stations, noise buffers or a second track if required, the suggested 14 feet is the absolute minimum for an at-grade, s single track facility. 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 3005 • GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92642 • PHONE(714)971-6200 Ms. Louise W. Hall April 3, 1981 Page Two More importantly though, our understanding of the outcome of a second meeting between OCTD and Huntington Beach staff was that a third alternative not mentioned in your letter and involving a deviation from the Pacific Electric right-of-way to the Main Street right-of-way and subsequent return to the Pacific Electric appeared to be the most viable solution and would probably be acceptable to the OCTD. However, we have not yet reviewed the City's proposal for reserving such a right-of-way as it would be included in their Circulation Element, and therefore, I cannot comment in greater depth. I hope this clarifies the District's position on the subject. If you have any further questions, please call me at (714) 971-6483. Si cerely, • Michael Corlett Manager of Planning SMC:C Attachment • cc Tom Jenkins, Executive Director, OCTC Paul Cook, Director of Public Works, City of Huntington Beach /5 RESOLUTION 2 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 3 of 4 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT 5 August 6, 1979 6 Upon motion of Chairman Clark , seconded by Director Hollinden, and 17 carried, the following resolution was adopted: 8 WHEREAS, on March 18, 1974, the Board of Directors of the Orange 9 County Transit District adopted a Master Plan for transit development 10 which included the Huntington Beach Branch of the Pacific Electric 11 Railroad (now Southern Pacific Transportation Company) as a potential N c 12 transit corridor; and U A E+ 13 WHEREAS, on February 19, 1974, the Huntington Beach City Council rr c 14 unanimously adopted Resolution No. 3842, which expressed the City's 15 support for said Master Plan; and 16 WHEREAS, on November 15, 1976, the Huntington Beach City Council 17 _ adopted Resolution No. 4362, which expressed the City's desire that said 18 right-of-way be protected for future transit use; and 19 WHEREAS, a Planned Residential Development is being reviewed and 20 considered by the City of Huntington Beach which may be in conflict with 21 the Orange County Transit District Master Plan and the stated policy of 22 the Huntington Beach City Council concerning use of the said right-of-way; 23 and 24 WHEREAS, if said development is allowed to take place on said 25 right-of-way, the citizens of Orange County will have lost the opportunity 26 forever of enjoying the benefits of a transit facility within said Page 1 of 3 Pages Resolution No. 79-26 =�; • • 1 corridor; and 2 WHEREAS, said right-of-way is within the jurisdiction of the City of 3 Huntington Beach; and • u WHEREAS, the Orange County Transit District desires to insure the. 5 availability of said right-of-way as a future transportation corridor, 6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the ' 7 Orange County Transit District hereby reaffirms that the public need and 8 necessity require the preservation and protection for future transit use 9 of the Huntington Beach Branch of the Pacific Electric Railroad (now • 10 Southern Pacific Transportation Company) right-of-way in the City of 11 Huntington Beach. N 12 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Transit District hereby U N • a 13 urgently requests that the City of Huntington Beach take those actions H 14 o necessary to insure that the former Pacific Electric Right-of-Way is 15 reserved for use as a future transportation corridor. 16 AYES: DIRECTORS: ANTHONY, FARRIS, HOLLINDEN, HOLT, CLARK 17 NOES: DIRECTORS: NONE 18 ABSENT: DIRECTORS: NONE 19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )as 20 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 21 I, Patricia B. Scanlan, Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Orange 22 County Transit District, Orange County, California, do hereby certify that 23 the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the 24 Board of Directors of said District at a regular meeting thereof held on • 25 26 Page 2 of 3 Pages Resolution No. 79-26 • 1 the sixth day of August, 1979. 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 3 sixth day of August, 1979. 4 • 5 PATRICIA B. SCAN LAN Clerk, Board of Directors 6 Orange County Transit District 7 Orange County, California • 8 By 9 ` 10 11 a 12 E+ C� rr z0000 H 13 • a� ~ 14 o � 15 16 • i 17 18 19 • 20 21 22 • 23 24 �5 RESOLUTION N0. 79 - 26 Preservation of Abandoned 26 Railroad Right-of-Way in Huntington Beach Page 3 of 3 Pages I • • env Fo,-nu. 7 r- S ,,T 9MU D • • APPENDIX 1 • PUBLIC FISCAL ANALYSIS • • • • • FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED RANCH PROJECT IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH In cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., the computerized fiscal impact methodology (see: Final Report on the Development and Application of a Land Use Fiscal Impact Methodology for the City of Huntington Beach Volume 1 Methodology Development, November 1, 1979) was used to evaluate the proposed 'Ranch" planned residential • development. For analysis purposes, the ten-year period from July 1, 1981 through June 30, 1991 was selected, representing fiscal years 1982 through 1991. The 'Ranch" project is proposed to consist of 692 dwelling units to be constructed on 48.80 acres at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. Included in the 48.80 acres are 3:60 acres of oil operations which gradually phase out to be replaced by the new residential development. The specific features of the development and the proposed schedule of development can be summarized as follows: 1. 180 medium density condominiums with an average value of $175,000 and with 1.96 persons per dwelling unit - 68 are built in FY 83, 68 are built in FY 84 and 44 are built in FY 87; 2. 512 medium density condominiums with an average value of $135,000 and with 1.96 persons per dwelling unit - 120 are built in FY 83, 119 are built in FY 84, 119 are built in FY 85, 119 are built in FY 86 and 35 are built in FY 87. Table 1 shows that over the ten-year period chosen, the proposed 'Ranch" development generates a surplus, in which revenues exceed costs by $1,750,170 on a cash flow basis-1 Tables 2 and 3 present a detailed listing of the cumulative revenues and costs, respectively, by source over this time period. It should be noted that the large initial surplus of revenues over costs indicated in Table 1 may largely be attributed to the development fees collected at the beginning of construction and to the low costs associated with land which is not fully developed. By the time development is concluded in FY 87, however, it can be seen that the revenue-cost ratio has markedly declined and, in fact, continues to decline to the end of the ten-year period of analysis. In effect, high development fees and low dwelling unit completion and occupation are conditions which produce a more favorable revenue to cost ratio in the short-term than in the long-term. An additional factor in the ten-year surplus produced by this project is the large amount of revenue generated by property tax (Table 2). Because the units are coming onto the market at a high value, the property tax generated is also high. Local governments are beginning to see that the current inflated housing costs associated with both new construction and turn-over of existing units are partially negating the impacts of the property tax limitations of Proposition 13. • 1 Cash flow refers to valuing costs and revenues by accounting for inflationary changes over time. TABLE 1 ANNUAL REVENUE AND COST.COMPARISON ON A CASH FLOW BASIS (IN $1,000) FOR THE PROPOSED RANCH PROJECT IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FISCAL YEAR REVENUE COST REVENUE-COST REVENUE/COST 1981 - 1982 115.85 1.24 114.61 93.43 1982 - 1983 136.86 27.79 109.07 4.92 • 1983 1984 208.36 87.89 120.47 2.37 1984 - 1985 321.79 147.54 174.25 2.18 1985 - 1986 390.92 205.46 185.46 1.90 • 1986 - 1987 441.63 264.05 177.58 1.67 1987 - 1988 519.76 305.77 213.99 1.70 1988 - 1989 551.27 335.45 215.82 1.64 1989 - 1990 586.37 368.31 218.06 1.59 • 1990 - 1991 625.53 404.67 220.86 1.54 TOTAL 3,898.34 2,148.17 1,750.17 1.81 • i 1 I , • TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE TEN-YEAR REVENUES ON A CASH-FLOW BASIS (IN $1,000) FOR THE PROPOSED RANCH PROJECT IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE SOURCE Property Tax 1,753.91 OTHER LOCAL TAXES Sales Tax 620.64 . In-Lieu Water Utility Tax 30.24 Water Utility Tax 10.09 Gas Utility Tax 40.71 Telephone Utility Tax 19.23 Electricity Utility Tax 61.81 Cigarette Tax 26.12 Real Property Transfer Tax 78.45 887.29 LICENSES AND PERMITS Animal Licenses 4.53 REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees 487.25 Gasoline Tax 79.72 566.97 + DEVELOPMENT ORIENTED CHARGES , Permit and Processing Fees 336.52 Library Fees 41.45 377.97 OTHER REVENUES Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties 225.20 Miscellaneous Revenues 34.21 Oil Production 48.26 307.67 TOTAL 3,898.34 • TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE TEN-YEAR COSTS ON A CASH-FLOW BASIS (IN $1,000) FOR THE PROPOSED • RANCH PROJECT IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COST SOURCE General Government and Administration 704.08 PUBLIC SAFETY Police Protection. 590.03 • Fire Protection 420.67 1,010.70 HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS Harbors and Beaches 11.95 Parks and Recreation 33.65 45.60 PUBLIC WORKS Administration and Engineering 36.95 Facility and Equipment Maintenance 212.49 Street Maintenance* 0 249.44 LIBRARY Library Operations 138.35 TOTAL 2,148.17 • * No new public street footage is required to be constructed and additional maintenance costs for existing streets will be minimal. • • e L! @ ' ` • • APPENDIX 2 • DESIGN OF RECREATION TRAILS S • • • • we WIPM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION • IIUNTINGTON REACH To James W. Palin, Director From ke Adams Development Services Assistant Planner Subject BIKE PATH DESIGN Date RIGHT-OF-WAYS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS The following are items suggested by staff for consideration in the development of bike paths within and through residential projects. ACCESS POINTS Ingress and egress for residential projects should connect with logical Z points outside of the project area. J ! 1 Access may be controlled through the �3 use of bollards, however, this may ? prevent sweeping equipment from accessI for maintenance. The transition from residential project path to regular path may be designed in such away as to avoid I� confilicts with the two. Cyclists will travel at the maximum II j speed the path will allow, therefore I creating baffels that may reduce any potential conflicts at juncture points. i Mid block exits from residential projects should be discouraged or designed as to not J create a conflict. 0 BIKE PATH DESIGN Page 2 Access through residential projects should be open to the general public, however, access to the .' ' _'• project interior from the path o should be controlled with card operated gates. o Minimum right-of-way through residential projects should be ' 20 ft. with an optimum width of 40 ft. The minimum will allow for a 10 ft. path and five foot buffer on either side. Access points should be designed with adequate width and radius for ' • proper maintenance. Require public access through �1 ts� 101 Ll existing residential projects at the time of request for public dedication of streets. i DESIGN CRITERIA: ' Preserve and utilize existing right-of-way easements or other ' • �'; : "• ' access routes through the project whenever possible. '. e Preserve and utilize any topograph- ical changes in elevation or other natural settings for trail location. Iw Landscaping in buffer area adjacent to path should be selected for easeF£� of maintenance and year-round screen- ing quality. (no disciduous tree.) Maintenance for the landscape buffers should be the responsibility of the home owners association. Retaining walls should be designed to discourage loitering and vandalism. Pathway should be lighted and should ` j � �y • be designed to not interfere with adjacant residents. BIKE PATH DESIGN ' Page .� I Trails should not be accessible to the private open areas of any of the projects units. No bike rest areas or other gathering spots should be provided along paths through projects. 'Mfzx-,443�-�5 Additional bike racks may be provided inside project guard gates provided along the path. View opportunities from the path • into the residential project should be limited or avoided. Q D • The use of signs should be limited •v (due to vandalism) . a• MLSCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS: � Require bike path dedication on new 4 residential projects; may count as part of common open space require- ment.. Require guest bike parking or L} other bike related amentiy for b large residential projects. MA:nb