HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Element Amendment 83-3 - LUE 83-3 - Environmental I RESOLUTION NO. 5327
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 83-3
WHEREAS, the City Council of the. City of Huntington Beach
desires to update anal refire the General Plan in keeping with
changing community needs and objectives; and
A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No.
83-3 to the General PlAn was held by the Planning Commission on
October 4, 1983, and approved for recommendation to the City
Council ; and
Thereafter the City Council, after giving notice as prescribed
by Government Code §65355, held at least one public hearing to con-
sider Land Use Element Amendment No. 83-3; and
At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to
be heard on said amendment were heard,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3,
Article 6 of California Government Code commencing with §65350, that
Land Use Element Amendment No. 83-3 consisting of the following
changes is hereby adopted:
1. That Section 5. 1. 3 for Administrative Items is added to the
General Plan document. Administrative Items shall include the
following:
1. Creation of new General Plan land use designations. `-
2. Minor word changes within the General Plan document.
3. Procedure changes within the General Plan document.
4. Revisions to the Zoning and Land Use Consistency
Matrix.
5. Interpretations bf General Plan, Land Use Map
boundaries.
2. That a new Estate Residential 0-3 units per acre designa-
tion is established.
3. That 40. 5t acres bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north,
Goldenwest Street to the east, the Estate Residential (0-4 units per
ADL:ps
12/5/83 1•
Rev.
Land Use Categories
RESIDENTIAL
[ Estate s 2un/gac
=Estate <4uNgac
)=Low Density<_7urVgac
=Medium Density 515un/gac
High Density>15un/gac
COMMERCIAL
®General
80 Visitor-Serving
®Mixed Development
MIXED USES
0 Office/Residential
ME Commercial/Support Recreation
INDUSTRIAL
General
M Resource Production
OPEN SPACE
I'0 Water
Fi Conservation
L Recreation
OTHER USES
EEPublic,Quasi-Public,lnstitutional
Ppr' =Planned Community
AFOo =Planning Reserve
C'4
_ njIndusirial Energy Production
Coastal Zone Boundary
E.
F�H
—__ PAC
IF11 COASa
..� CEAN
PACIFIC OCEAN eou:vy
/ .� C ra••.• •-e`�� am.n ru r.re.r:ce umowa.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA Local Coastal Program
PLANNING DIVISION Land Use Plan
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report analyzes Amendment 83-3 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
twenty-first amendment to the element. Existing general plan land uses
throughout the City are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagrams.
1.1 Methodology
This amendment to the Land Use Element considers requests to change the land
use designations in five areas of the City (Figure 1-1). Two of the requests
were from private property owners and three were initiated by the City. The
first site is known as the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan Area. The second is at
the northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Magnolia Street; the third is City
owned property near the intersection of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street;
the fourth is the Oakview Redevelopment Area at the northwest corner of
Slater Avenue and Beach Boulevard; and the fifth area is the Pacifica
Community Plan south of Main Street and west of Florida Street which received
a negative declaration. Being handled administratively are two items;
establishment of Administrative Items as a type of amendment item, and
establishment of a new Estate Residential Designation to replace the two
existing designations. The amendment requests are 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.
Environmental Assessment
1
o
3.2
3-JI rill
3.5
iL
3.
Areas of Concern
0 0) .
2
Figure 1-1
Section 15148 of the State EIR Guidelines states that "The requirements for an
F_IR on a local general plan element or amendment thereof will be satisfied by
the general plan or element document and no separate E_IR will be required if:
1) the general plan addresses all the points required to be in an EIR by Article 9
of the State EIR Guidelines, and 2) the document contains a special section or a
cover sheet identifying where the general plan document addresses each of the
points required". In conformance with State guidelines, this document will
constitute the EIR for Land Use Element Amendment 83-3. An initial study
addressing the first four areas of concern was prepared pursuant to Section
15080 of the State Government Code to identify potentially significant impacts
associated with the proposed land use designations. The EIR focuses on those
impacts that were determined to be significant. The environmental setting and
significant impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial study
are addressed under each area of concern (Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4)
Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures to minimize
significant effects are also discussed in these sections.
Section 4.0 addresses overall environmental changes related to the following
consideratons: 1) the relationship between local short-term productivity; 2)
irreversible or unavoidable environmental changes; and 3) growth inducing
impacts.
3
2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
This section addresses two City initiated administrative c'nanges to the General
Plan. The first item establishes Administrative Items as a defined and specific
type of General Plan Amendment, and the second item involves the elimination
of the two existing Estae Residential designations and the establishment of a
new designation to be used in conjunction with the staff recommendations for
Area 3.1.
2.1 Establishment of Administrative Items
In maintaining and amending the General Plan, there are often changes made
which in themselves obviously have little or no significant potential direct
impact on either the environment or current development patterns in the City.
Such changes would include minor word changes in the document, creation of
new land use designations, and revisions to the Zoning and Land Use Element
Consistency Matrix. None of these types of changes would have direct impacts
because none would actually be applied to specific parcels of land. Rather,
these changes would permit the application of the principles involved to be
analyzed fully in conjunction with future site-specific General Plan
amendments.
Since these types of changes do not result in direct impacts, there is no need
for an extensive analysis of them before adoption. To facilitate the initiation
of such document changes, the term Administrative Item is established.
Administrative Item shall include the following:
1. Creation of new General Plan land use designations.
2. Minor word changes within the General Plan document.
5
3. Procedure changes within the General Plan document.
4. Revisions to the Zoning and Land Use Consistency Matrix.
5. Interpretations of General Plan Land Use Map boundaries.
Any of the above changes to the General Plan may be termed an Administrative
Item, and as such, may be initiated and adopted with only a description of the
change and minimal analysis.
The above wording shall be Section 5.1.3 in the Huntington Beach General Plan.
The adoption of this wording will itself constitute an Administrative Item.
2.2 Estate Residential Designation
The General Plan presently establishes two Estate Residential designations:
one which allows a maximum of two units per acre and one which allows four
units per acre. These designations are employed in the Ellis-Goldenwest Area
where 128 acres are general planned for two units per acre and 152 acres are
general planned for four units per acre. There is presently no implementing
zoning for those designations.
The draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, however, establishes zoning for the
area at three units per acre overall. This was envisioned as an averaging of the
two existing density designations. In the analysis of Area 3.1 in this document,
staff recommends that the entire Ellis-Goldenwest Area be redesignated for
three units per acre. This section establishes the Estate Residential 0-3 Units
Per Acre General Plan designation and deletes the existing designations for two
and four units per acre. This item should only be adopted if staff's
recommendation for Area 3.1 is adopted.
6
The City's Department of Public Works has indicated that two major
trunk lines, one parallel sewer and one pump station will be needed
to collect and convey sewage from the study area regardless of
whether the area is developed at three, four or seven units per acre.
The proposed West Boundary Trunk Sewer is a ten-to-twelve inch
pipe over a mile in length which originates south of Ellis Avenue,
west of Goldenwest Street. It follows an alignment north across the
Specific Plan area, continues across Ellis Avenue through Central
Park and terminates at the City's existing Goldenwest Trunk Sewer
just north of Talbert Avenue.
The proposed Ellis Avenue Interceptor Sewer West is a
ten-to-twelve inch pipe approximately 4,000 feet long which
originates south of Ellis Avenue approximately 1,300 feet west of
Goldenwest Street. It follows an alignment northeast across the
Specific Plan area, crosses Goldenwest Street and terminates at
Ellis Avenue. A pump station will be required at the downstream
end of this sewer to lift wastewater flow into the City's existing
Goldenwest Trunk Sewer. Additional sewer lines will be required to
connect individual developments to one of the two major trunk lines.
The proposed parallel sewer will be approximately one-half mile in
length and will supplement the Goldenwest Trunk Sewer between
Ellis and Talbert Avenue. If the study area is developed at four
units or less per acre, this sewer can be sized at ten inches. The
line will need to be sized at 12 inches if the area is developed at
seven units per acre.
b. Water
The study area is presently served by water mains in Edwards and
Goldenwest Streets and Ellis and Garfield Avenues. The 42-inch
pipe in Edwards Street is a transmission main used to transport
water between Peck and Overmyer Reservoirs. The City does not
allow individual developments or units to connect directly to this
transmission water main. There is a 14-inch distribution main in
Goldenwest Street between Garfield and Ellis Avenues and a 12-inch
distribution main in Ellis Avenue which does not extend all the way
to Edwards Street.
Properties fronting the existing water mains on Ellis Avenue and
Goldenwest Street have adequate water service for domestic needs
and fire flow. Some of the remaining properties may be able to
connect to an existing main with six- to eight-inch pipe and obtain
adequate services.
Eventually, in order to provide adequate water service to all
developments in the study area, distribution water mains will be
required in Garfield Avenue between Edwards and Goldenwest
Streets, in Edwards Street between Ellis and Garfield Avenues, in
Ellis Avenue east of Goldenwest Street and west of the existing
water main and possibly in the proposed alignment of Gothard
Street. Small water mains (eight inches and six inches in diameter)
will also be necessary in any local streets that are developed in the
area to provide service to internal lots.
15
One portion of the study area has a particular problem with respect
to water service. All of the study area west of Edwards Street and
a small portion east of Edwards Street and north of Garfield
Avenue, is at a higher elevation than most land in the City. Existing
pipe pressures in the water system are not adequate to provide
water service to this area. A booster station is planned to serve a
second high point in the City (Reservoir Hill) located approximately
three quarters of a mile to the southeast of the Edwards
Street/Garfield Avenue intersection. Construction of this facility
and a 12-inch water main connection from the booster station to the
study area will be necessary to provide adequate water service to
the southwest portion of the study area. In the absence of this
facility, construction of on-site booster stations to serve individual
projects •would be necessary.
C. Storm Drains
The study area east of Edwards Street is in the City's drainage
district number nine. The area west of Edwards Street is not in a
drainage district. Much of the area west of Edwards Street drains
directly into the Bolsa Chica lowlands via natural ravines cut into
the bluff. The remainder of the site is traversed by two major
ravines which collect and convey storm water runoff in a north and
northeasterly direction into Huntington and Sully Miller Lakes.
The Draft Specific Plan proposes a drainage system that relies on
both open swales and underground pipes. Nuisance water and runoff
from minor storms will be accommodated by surface flow and,
where necessary, by underground storm drains. Runoff from storms
up to a 100-year storm will be accommmodated by natural swales.
The two major swales in the area are preserved as open space
corridors partly for this purpose. Smaller tributary swales have
been designated as sensitive development areas. Development at
any of the alternative densities may occur in these areas as long as
it does not block that portion of the swale needed to accommodate
runoff from the 100-year storm.
d. Parks
The study area is located directly on the southern boundary of
Huntington Central Park. Additionally, the area is also directly to
the east of the proposed Bolsa Chica Linear Park. While there are
no neighborhood parks in the immediate vicinity, the existence of
the two regional parks will provide more than adequate park space
for any development in the study area.
e. Police and Fire
The Huntington Beach Police Department has indicated that full
development of the site at seven units per acre would require the
addition of eleven police officers to the existing staff.
Development at four units per acre would require six additional
officers while three units per acre would require five officers. The
City's Fire Department has indicated that the study area could be
adequately served from the Gothard/Ellis Fire Station.
16
>
f. Schools
The study area lies within the Huntington Beach City School District
and would be served by Smith and Perry Elementary Schools, Dwyer
Intermediate School and Huntington Beach High School.
Development of the area at three units per acre may generate 563
elementary school students and 328 high school students.
Development at four units per acre may generate 750 elementary
and 436 high school students, while development at seven units per
acre may generate 1,313 elementary and 746 high school students.
The school district has indicated that in order to serve all of the
students, some transfer of students between schools may be
necessary, particularly if the seven units per acre alternative is
selected. Due to declining enrollments and the likelihood that the
study area will be developed slowly in phases, however, the impact
on the schools may be less severe than actually indicated.
g. Gas and Electrical Utilities and Telephone
The subject site is currently served by Southern California Gas
Company, Southern California Edison Company and General
Telephone. These companies have indicated that there will be no
difficulty serving future development under any of the threee
alternatives.
h. Solid Waste Disposal
The Rainbow Disposal Company has indicated that it can provide
adequate service to the study area under any of the density
alternatives.
5. Traffic and Circulation
The study area is generally bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north, Garfield
Avenue on the south, Edwards Street to the west and Gothard Street to
the east. Garfield Avenue is classified as a major arterial with a
maximum carrying capacity of 45,000 average daily trips (ADT). Ellis
Avenue is a primary with 30,000 ADT capacity while the proposed
alignments of Edwards and Gothard Streets call for secondary standards
with 20,000 ADT capacity. The present alignment of Edwards is at the
top of the bluffs inside the study area and the existing alignment of
Gothard Street is outside the study area; both are developed to secondary
arterial standards.
Goldenwest Street is an additional arterial which divides the study area.
It is presently classified as a primary arterial north of Garfield Avenue
with a capacity of 30,000 ADT and as a major arterial south of Garfield.
Since the study area is presently undeveloped, very little traffic is
generated in the area. Projected future traffic volumes from the study
area are estimated as follows:
17
Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation
Estate 3 Units/Acre 8,700 trips/day
Estate 4 Units/Acre 11,300 trips/day
Low Density 191800 trips/day
The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan proposed a system of collector streets
taking access from Ellis and Garfield Avenues. Assuming that a similar
plan is eventually approved, 60 percent of the traffic generated from the
study area may be added to Ellis Avenue, 20 percent added to Goldenwest
Street and 20 percent added to Garfield Avenue.
Since the study area is so large, it is also important to examine how the
new traffic will impact the surrounding arterials. In cooperation with the
Orange County EMA, the City used the computerized Transportation
Demand Model to project traffic volumes throughout the City. The model
projected 1995 volumes of 4,330 ADT on Goldenwest Street in the study
area, 43,400 ADT on Garfield Avenue and 23,500 ADT on Ellis Avenue.
These projected volumes included development of the study area with the
present designations (approximately three units per acre overall) and also
assumed development of the Bolsa Chica. The projected volumes indicate
that Garfield Avenue will operate at the C level of service for a major
arterial, Ellis Avenue will operate at the A level of service for a primary
and Goldenwest Street will operate at the F level for a primary. The
table below indicates traffic volumes and levels of service for all three
land use alternatives:
3 Units/Acre 4 Units/Acre 7 Units/Acre
Edwards 7,295 A 7,295 A 7,295 A
Ellis 23,500 A 25,000 B 30,100 C
Garfield 43,800 C 44,300 C 46,000 D
Goldenwest 43,300 F 43,800 F 45,500 F
The traffic projections indicate that higher density development in the
Ellis-Goldenwest area will result in slightly higher traffic volumes on the
adjacent arterials, but that Goldenwest Street will be operating beyond
the capacity of a primary arterial regardless of the density selected. The
excessive volumes on Goldenwest Street could be mitigated by extending
the major arterial designation on the street north from Garfield Avenue.
6. Environmental Issues
a. Noise
The principal sources of noise in the study area are related to
traffic and oil operations. The area is bounded by two east/west
arterial streets, Ellis Avenue on the north and Garfield Avenue on
the south, with two additional arterials bisecting the area from
north to south, Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street. The greatest
volume of traffic occurs on Goldenwest Street. The highest noise
levels also occur along Goldenwest Street with an estimated traffic
noise impact projected for 1990 by the Wyle Laboratories, of Lds
60db, and estimated to occur approximately 175' from the center
lane of traffic. In addition, there are a total of .151 producing oil
wells and several other oil related activities within the area
contributing to the overall noise impact.
1.8
Residential development must be compatible with the Noise
Element of the City's General Plan. If residential structures are to
be located within a CNEL 65 db contour, then mitigation measures
such as building setbacks, building orientation or construction of a
noise barrier, such as a combination wall/berm should be
implemented. Adherance to the City's oil code, which limits hours
of operation and calls for sound alteration measures to be
implemented, should also minimize potential noise impacts from
existing and future oil operations.
b. Air Quality
Development of the area of concern under any of the alternative
land use designations would adversely affect air quality in the South
Coast Air Basin, primarily due to increased automobile traffic
generated by the additional housing units. Projected daily emissions
from the area are indicated in Appendix C.
3.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Ellis-Goldenwest Area be redesignated to Estate
Residential 0-3 Units Per Acre. Designation of the study area for higher density
development will not be likely to result in housing that will be substantially
more affordable for local horse owners. Designation at higher densities will,
however, jeopardize the integrity and the original intent of the draft
Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan by reducing standards for equestrian trails and
open space. Designation to higher densities will also result in substantially
higher observable densities in specific bluff top areas due to clustering around
undevelopable areas.
19
3.2 WARNER/MAGNOLIA AREA OF CONCERN
3.2.1 Background
The area of concern is located on the west side of Magnolia Street
approximately 450 feet north of Warner Avenue. Owned by S & K Greenhouses
Inc., the site contains 9.21 + gross acres (including a portion of an Orange
County flood control channel and currently supports a commercial nursery.
The applicant has requested that the area of concern be redesignated from
general commercial to high density residential to allow construction of 575
affordable apartments for senior citizens.
The area of concern was previously analyzed as a part of General Plan
Amendment 80-2. The site's land use designation was changed from low density
residential to general commercial to allow construction of a proposed 150,000
square foot office condominium development. The proposed office development
was never constructed, and developing interest in the property is now being
handled by a new firm.
This Amendment analyzes four possible land use alternatives for the site: 1)
High Density Residential (62 units per acre), 2) High Density Residential (35
units per acre), 3) Low Density Residential, and 4) General Commercial.
3.2.2 Analysis
1. Land Use
The City's General Plan (Figure 3-4) designates property north and west of
the study area as Low Density Residential and property to the south as
General Commercial. Property east of the study area is located within
the City of Fountain Valley. Surrounding land uses include single family
homes to the west, Pleasant View Elementary School and the San Diego
Freeway to the north, commercial recreation to the east, and a mixture
of retail commercial uses and offices immediately to the south across the
Orange County Flood Control Channel. 21
CR z HASTINGS CR J MAZE CR
J < ) Z
z J yG2
m
Oj♦ �
CR WAGERS CR SAVOY C �s^,�
P
CR ROYER CR DE VILLE CR.
Pleasant View Par
DR a PARKER CR
W CF-E
OAFERGUSON
o
CR Q
J
ROYAL DR.
cn }
CR CAMEL CR. �- Cd
Q CONNER
U b4
J SALEM CR. LOW DENSITY
DR. RESIDENTIAL \
nEREK CR GENERAL
COMMERCIAL C
KENT CR F C 0.
c,
- JERRETT O
CR D
z jY �r 1 -i
J �
C — �
mm—
z GENERAL RECREar�c
W�J n J COMMERCIAL
CR in N ANTHONY D I _
w O ¢
T
a
to D
Cr 0 C F C J Q
Warner Ave.mmimBID 418 BMW zs ao
OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
�n
t�
ANCµO � AVE I
Existing General Plan
Area of Concern 3 . 2
0 0U ( 00 0
O
22 Figure 3-4
The area of concern is currently zoned (Q) R5, Qualified Office
Professional (Figure 3-5). Property to the west is zoned R1 and property
north of the site is zoned CF-E, Civic Facility-Educational. Property
south of the study area has C2, Community Business District, zoning.
The area of concern occupies a strategic location at the intersection of a
major arterial (Warner Avenue) and a primary arterial (Magnolia Street)
and has a high degree of visibility from the southbound lanes of the San
Diego Freeway. Utilizing the entire 9.21 acres, staff has estimated that
approximately 136,3D0 square feet of office professional space could be
built on the site under the existing General Plan designation. The
desirability of the site for office professional use is seriously limited,
however, by the existence of the flood control channel and existing retail
commercial uses and offices which reduce street frontage, hinder access,
and eliminate necessary visibility.
Given the site's restricted access and reduced street frontage, the
development potential for office professional uses in the area of concern
has serious limitations. In addition, many office developments in the City
currently have vacant space available, and three major office
developments are in the planning stages which will add significantly to the
City's supply of office space.
Low density residential development in the area of concern could
accommodate aproximately 64 condominiums. Implementing zoning would
likely be R1-PD (Low Density-Planned Development). Of all the land use
designations considered, low density residential would be most compatible
with the single family homes to the west.
Residential development on the site would be visually impacted by the
existing two story commercial development to the south and to some
extent affected by traffic noise from the San Diego Freeway. With
adequate setbacks, buffering and landscape screening, however, low
density residential development on the site could be properly designed to
both attenuate noise impacts and visually integrate the project with
surrounding land uses.
Staff has analyzed two residential alternatives for the area of concern
which could be developed under a high density residential designation: (1)
322 apartments at a density of 35 dwelling units per acre and (2) the
applicant's request for 575 senior citizen rental units at a density of 62
dwelling units per acre.
If the area were redesignated for high density residential development, a
;maximum of 322 units could be built in the area of concern under R4
zoning. The applicant's request for a 575 unit senior citizen rental project
would likely be implemented through R4-SR (High Density
Residential-Senior Residential) zoning which allows a density bonus of at
least 25 percent for affordable senior citizen residential projects. To
permit development of the applicant's request, a density bonus of 79
percent would be required.
23
Jo -- -- - - -- y - -- - -----
J
T
C,
D
AIE
z a a r z a z orM.ONALO
RI
zo
RI RI ¢ RI RI RI RI RI Z RI RI RI4 RI z RI1 •.OLM C. LVOvORRI RI
RI RI ,I I RI I Ao,L. c. RI DEVIEI.E cR QM�
BRYANT DR RI I I RI
C4 �� I RI
p RI RI LAMAR DR I ,, z. a
§ 1 z
SI LAMBERT DR RI RIB '� RI O` CF—E
LOTL ro E :e I RI
TERRY RI RI RI OWNDA CA
it d i
OR RI 5 LI RI m.n
� I I
ROWARD CA I � L C. RI }Q
I (� RI RI I RI ` �RI ` RI F
I +� J
i 4 RI RI i RI col�l.L+ on Z
r'0 YY
LANCASTER DR- (; 1 Tr C. RI 10)R5 3
ARNETT DR ARMETi DR I I RI Q
R I R I RI RI ; RI IJ oLR[. cR
- o c T c D CG-2
- I e c,
RI
C FI
m { ...n .. 8 t R3 RI `RI 1 I RI rT c. w
�. CF—E 2 o MERLE cR c
�C p4 $ i M R3 < z I RI ca.o. RI RI I
m — RS Iranr-_c-:,.-:v r... ,-:.1 ac iAr R3 CAR �3 RI J RI I RI C 2
DL i O 1 uTMMT DII
LI RS �� RI i D RI RI
- a-ner Ave. — ——
1 CITY Ds F0UWALN VALLEY
RI RI
L S C
m ° R2 " RI
G � I
L RI
RI RI RI "� T
RI J RI W
1
C45
RI MARSEL.LE DR RI POLDER OR
RI RI
YAIENCN DR I
',... RI RI
Existing Zoning
Area of Concern 3 .2
0 0 U 0 @zoo
0
24 Figure 3-5
Development of 322 apartments on the 9.21± acre site could present
significant land use incompatibilites with the adjacent low density
residential to the west and office commercial development to the south.
Extensive landscaping and berming would have to be incorporated into the
project design to adequately buffer any high density residential project.
Construction of the proposed 575 unit senior citizen apartment complex
would even more seriously impact the site's surrounding land uses.
Proposed to be developed at approximately 62 units per acre (assuming
the flood control channel is not incorporated), the project would represent
one of the highest residential densities built in Huntington Beach. To
allow such an intensively developed residential project adjacent to
existing low density residential and commercial uses could be problematic
in terms of aesthetics, traffic generation, circulation and access. The
need for affordable senior housing has been well documented in Orange
County. This increasing demand should not, however, result in
indiscriminately locating senior residential projects without taking into
account significant land use incompatibilities.
2. Economic Considerations
The Planning staff in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc. conducted a
fiscal impact analysis of the land use alternatives using the computerized
methodolgy developed for the City. For purposes of analysis, the
revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a ten
year period, 1983-1993. The land use assumptions and a discussion of the
results are contained in Appendix A. The results are summarized in the
table below:
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4
Cash Flow Basis 65 Units/Ac. 35 Units/Ac. Low Density Commercial
Revenue 412.88 1,476.79 1,979.20 190.09
Cost 326.53 1,156.27 1,546.77 845.58
Revenue - Cost 86.35 320.52 432.43 -655.49
Revenue/Cost 1.26 1.28 1.28 .22
(1) in $1,000
3. Housing
The applicant has proposed development of 575 affordable senior citizen
apartments. Under the requested high density residential land use
designation and utilizing R4-SR (High Density Residential-Senior
Residential) zoning, a density bonus of 79 percent would be required to
develop at the requested density. A high density residential land use using
conventional R4 zoning would permit a maximum of 322 apartments.
Under a low density residential land use designation, approximately 64
condomimiums could be accomodated on the site.
The City's Housing Element of the General Plan includes policies aimed at
increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate
incomes. The applicant's proposed senior apartment project would
certainly provide the most opportunities for low and moderate income
housing of any of the alternatives.
25
The City, however, has made a concentrated effort to help meet the
special housing needs of the elderly. Since 1980, approximately 770 senior
units have been built, or are planned to be constructed in the near future,
in Huntington Beach. Wycliffe Gardens, first occupied in 1981, supplies
192 residential units for seniors. Additionally, 308 senior units are
planned for the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Area. A 53-unit project,
Huntington West, has recently been completed on Delaware Street and
two senior projects have recently been proposed which will add an
additional 217 senior residential units to the City's housing stock.
4. Public Services and Utilities
a. Sew ers
The area of concern is served by an existing eight-inch sewer line
located at Conner Drive that terminates at the western property
line of the site. The line runs through the single family tract into a
69-inch County trunk sewer in Warner Avenue. The Orange County
Sanitation District has indicated that all the alternatives considered
could be accommodated by connecting into the existing eight-inch
Conner Drive line.
b. Water
Existing uses within the area of concern draw water from an
existing eight-inch line in Conner Drive. A 12-inch line was
recently installed along the north side of Warner Avenue connecting
into a new City water well located south of the site. The
Department of Public Works has indicated that any change in use of
the subject property would require connection of an eight-inch line
into the new 12-inch line in Warner Avenue with a cross connection
into the area of concern. Development would further require
connection of the existing eight-inch water main in Royal Drive into
the existing main in Conner Drive. The Conner Drive main must
also be connected into the existing mains serving the commercial
development south of the site. Once this is completed, adequate
water supply could be provided for any of the land use alternatives
considered.
C. Storm Drains
Drainage from the area of concern is conveyed directly into the
County flood control channel. The Flood Control District has
indicated that runoff from development under any of the proposed
land use designations could be adequately accommodated by the
existing facility. Should the open drainage channel be enclosed to
provide additional parking, special drains would have to be installed
to prevent excess storm water in the channel from backng up onto
the site during heavy storms.
d. Parks
The area of concern is located just south of Pleasant View
Elementary School, two acres of which are developed as a
neighborhood park. The 1977 Parks Analysis indcates that park
demand in the quarter section where the area of concern is located
26
will be met or exceeded at ultimate development. Residential
development would increase the demand for park facilities, but due
to the park's proimity to the area of concern, the demand would be
adequately met. Office professional development on the site would
act to reduce park demand within the quartersection.
e. Police and Fire Protection
Police service for the area of concern is provided by the City of
Huntington Beach which operates from a central facility located at
Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. No additional staffing is
anticipated should the site develop as a low density residential or
office professional use. The proposed 575 unit senior citizen
apartment complex is estimated by the Police Department to
require an addition of two to three officers to the existing staff.
Development of 322 apartments would require one to two additional
officers.
Fire response to the area of concern is provided by the City of
Huntington Beach from the Murdy Station, located south of Edinger
Avenue on the west side of Gothard Street. Access to the site is a
potental problem in responding to fires, therefore, emergency
access to the site via Conner Drive may be required if either the
high density residential or general commercial land use designation
is approved. Design of the access on Magnolia Street should allow
adequate width for two fire response units to enter the site
simultaneously.
f. Schools
The area of concern is located within the Oceanview School District
and is served by Pleasant View Elementary School, Westmont Middle
School and Ocean View High School. The school district has
indicated that the schools involved would be able to accommodate
the increase students generated by any of the residential
alternatives considered for the area of concern. Office professional
development or senior citizen rentals would have no impact on the
area's schools. Students generated by the other land uses being
considered are as follows:
Pleasant Ocean
View Westmont View
Low Density 20 23 24
High Density Residential (322 units) 10 3 23
g. Gas and Electrical Utilities and Telephone
Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by the Southern
California Gas Company and Southern California Edison, respectively.
A three-inch gas line currently runs onto the site from Magnolia
Street, which is adequate to accommodate any of the alternative land
uses being considered. Electrical service is available from existing
12KV overhead lines along the site's northern property line.
The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that electrical
load requirements can be met provided that electrical demand does
not exceed estimates, and there are no unexpected outages to major
sources of electrcial supply.
27
i
t
General Telephone has indicated that adequate service could be
provided for the area of concern under any of the land use
alternatives.
h. Solid Waste Disposal
The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to
the City of Huntington Beach. No local service constraints are
expected under any of the alternative land use designations.
However, the proposed high density 575-unit senior citizen
apartment complex could pose accessibility problems. Internal
street circulation within the project would have to be designed to
accommodate the company's refuse trucks without any backing up
required.
5. Traffic and Circulation
The area of concern fronts on Magnolia Street, a primary arterial with an
average daily traffic volume of 26,000 vehicles. Warner Avenue is a
major arterial with an average daily volume of 21,000 vehicles. Projected
daily traffic volumes generated by the alternative land use designations
are:
Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation
Low Density Residential 570 trips/day
Office Professional 2,330 trips/day
High Density Residential
322 apartments 1,951 trips/day
575 senior citizens apartments 2,300 trips/day
Development of either high density residential or office professional uses
would contribute significantly higher traffic volumes to local arterials
than would a low density residential use. The site's limited accessibility
and the location of the freeway offramp present considerable circulation
problems that will be difficult to mitigate.
Access to the site is complicated by the freeway offramp on Magnolia
Street which creates a steady flow of traffic past the site during the
afternoon rush hour. Due to the high traffic volumes generated by the
offramp, the Public Works Department has indicated that access to the
site from Magnolia Street could not be signalized and should be limited to
"right in" and "right out" turns only.
Access for low density residential development could be provided from
Magnolia Street as well as Warner Avenue by extending Conner Drive into
the area of concern. Of all the alternatives considered, low density
residential is projected to generate the least traffic volume. With two
available access points into the site, circulation and traffic impacts on
surrounding arterials would be substantially less than either office
professional or high density residential uses in the area of concern.
28
Under a high density residential or general commercial land use
designation, staff recommends that Conner Drive remain closed to
through traffic to avoid routing additional vehicles through the existing
single family neighborhood west of the area of concern. Under the office
professional or high density residential land use alternatives, then, access
could only be provided from Magnolia Street. With ingress and egress to
the site restricted to right turns only, entrance would only be possible by
approaching the area of concern from the north. Vehicles traveling to the
site from the south would be forced to make a U-turn from the
northbound lanes into the southbound lanes of Magnolia Street to gain
right turn access into the site. Vehicles exiting the area of concern would
be required to proceed southbound on Magnolia Street.
Given the higher traffic volumes generated by either of these land use
alternatives, such limited access may cause serious traffic and circulation
safety hazards. An alternative plan would be to box in and pave over a
portion of the existing flood control channel that parallels the western
boundary of existing commercial uses south of the site. This was
originally planned as an access point for an office professional
development considered for the site in General Plan Amendment 80-2.
The existing channel is an open channel, 18 feet wide with vertical
concrete walls. In order to utilize the channel for access, the entire
affected length would have to be replaced with a box culvert of equal or
greater capacity. Although an expensive undertaking for the property's
developer, this would provide a necessary access point should the site
develop as a high density residential or office professional use. A water
well has recently been installed adjacent to the channel and an
engineering study may be necessary to determine if enough width remains
to provide two-way access.
An alternative plan would be to pursue reciprocal access agreements with
the existing commercial uses to the south. A portion of the flood control
channel would still need to be covered, but there would be no conflict
with the existing water well. This may only be an option, however, for
office professional development; parking and access for residential uses in
the area of concern could not be compatibly shared with existing
commercial uses. A third option would be to provide shared access off
Magnolia Street with the existing commercial use immediately south of
the area of concern. This would still entail covering a portion of the flood
control channel but could be designed to offer separate ingress and egress
for each use from a shared central access point.
6. Environmental Issues
a. Noise
The area of concern lies directly south of the San Diego Freeway
and west of Magnolia Street. Approximately 65 percent of the site
falls within the Ldn 60 contour, with a narrow area along Magnolia
Street within the Ldn 65 contour (based on projected ground
transportation noise contours for 1990). Any of the land uses
considered for the site would be negatively impacted by traffic
noise, particularly the residential alternatives. Special noise
attenuation measures such as unit modification, building placement,
walls and landscaping could be employed to reduce this exposure and
guarantee interior noise levels of less than Ldn 45.
29
I
b. Air Quality
Development of the area of concern under any of the proposed
alternative designations would adversely affect air quality in the
South Coast Air Basin, primarly due to increased automobile and
truck traffic generated by land uses. Projected daily emissions from
the area are indicated in Appendix C.
3.2.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the site be redesignated for low density residential
development. This would provide the most feasible solution to the site's
limited accessibility by allowing additional ingress and egress to the site
via Conner Drive. Of all the alternatives considered for the area of
concern, a low density residential land use would be most compatible with
the single family subdivision to the west.
Office professional use or high density residential development in the area
of concern would contribute significantly higher traffic volumes than
would low density residential development and could serve to increase
traffic and circulation impacts in an area already congested by the
freeway offramp. Additionally, both of these uses, if developed in a
multi-story design, could pose visual and aesthetic incompatibilities with
single story homes west of the area of concern.
30
3.3 MAGNOLIA-BANNING AREA
3.3.1 Background
The third area of concern is a 1.6 acre (1.2 net acres) vacant property owned by
the City of Huntington Beach located at the southeast corner of Banning
Avenue and Magnolia Street (see Figure 1-1).
The area of concern was originally part of a four acre City-owned property
zoned for industrial use. When Magnolia Street was extended to intersect with
Pacific Coast Highway, the alignment split the four acre site leaving two
vacant remnant pieces of property on the east and west side of the arterial.
The area of concern in this analysis is the remnant piece on the east side of
Magnolia Street.
In August, 1982, City staff initiated a change of zoning on the area of concern
from M1-A (Restricted Manufacturing District) to Rl (Low Density
Residential). At its August3, 1982 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled
the zone change request and directed staff to initiate a land use amendment on
the property from industrial energy production to low density residential.
That item was considered in General Plan Element Amendment 82-1 and 83-1,
and no action was taken. The Planning Commission subsequently requested that
the item be reintroduced in General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 83-3
with new emphasis placed on designation of the site to Open Space.
This amendment analyzes four possible land use designations for the site: 1)
Industrial Resource Production, 2) Open Space, 3) Low Density Residential, and
4) General Commercial.
31
3.3.2 Analysis .
1. Land Use
Area of Concern 3.3 is located within the City's coastal zone and is
designated for industrial energy production in the Coastal Element Land
Use Plan (see Figure 3-6). This designation was developed for use on
areas identified as potential wetland areas by the California Department
of Fish and Game and is intended to protect a unique environmentally
sensitive area without precluding expansion options for energy
production. Area of Concern 3.3, however, is not a wetland area and was
not identified in the survey of potential wetland areas by the Department
of Fish and Game.
Property to the north and east of the subject area is general planned,
zoned and developed as low density residential. The eastern boundary of
the site backs directly onto the backyards of existing single family homes
(see Figure 3-7).
The subject area is bounded to the south by an Orange County flood
control channel. The property south of the channel is designated
industrial energy production and zoned LU, Limited Use.
The property to the west of the subject property is general planned
Industrial, zoned M1-A (Restricted Manufacturing) and developed with
fuel storage facilities related to the Southern California Edison
generating plant.
The existing general plan designation and zoning on the site could result in
the development of approximately 27,000 square feet of industrial and
light manufacturing uses which would generate approximately 22
employees. The likelihood of such industrial development occurring on
the site, however, is small due to the isolated location of the site in
relation to other industrial and commercial uses, the small size of the
site, and its irregular shape.
A redesignation of the site to open space would accommodate
development of a small park or other recreation facility. The site,
however, is not particularly appropriate for a neighborhood park use. It is
approximately one-third the size of a typical neighborhood park and is
located outside of the developed residential tracts, adjacent to an
arterial. The site is not included in the City's master plan of parks and
funds have not been earmarked for landscaping and maintenance. It is
presently covered with iceplant, however, and could conceivably be
maintained by the City in its present condition.
A general commercial designation on the site could result in the
development of approximately 11,000 square feet of convenience
commercial use such as a quick food pickup store and several small shops.
32
I PUBLIC , QUASI-PUBLIC ,
J INSTITUTIONAL
R A DR.
3
KAHULUI DR.
0
A A 0
0 INDUSTRIAL
LOW DENSITY
� USTRIAL *-
\ � ��� RESIDENTIAL �
\ ENERGY a KAPAA w
z
PRODUCTION � o I
\ HA
W
\ N
9
---- BANNING
0 -� J
C,
U PLAYA DR.
C 3
O
J
2
2
�/ cyRis " Q -
a°
Q g
o
h
Q
CO Q C V?
Q C v
r,.
c^'�F
tk� gTjO ti
N Wy
Existing General PlanArea of Concern 3.3
0
0
33
Figure 3-6
RII. RI RI
' i i I RI CF-R
IRAs
Ji!.j L
P
- __
6-C RI R I RI
..........
;R I RI
RI RA RA-0 r.
RI R I
I RI
I rA AM
RI 21 R t 5 RI
I I rA I I C.
m 8, CA -WTI DR K a
-A-0 I RI M I ;R I RI RI I
0 4 0
RI RI RI 41 A
...... RI RI
4, Ica
R)
RI Rl RI
Iv I RHOO111A DR MONMAN DR
R I
1 RI
OR .".ON
M2-0 f7ARI
KAHVLVI RI Ct
OR
E
CF
R I (EAIER ICHC-0 E R A.
M2-0 -I MAHALO L. RI
z
0 R I Q.LSI..w G R,
KAPAA rp y RI RI
DA . C.
ALOHA OR RI
CF-W7-1
BANNING
M2_0
0 MI.A R
PLANA OR
RI RI 9 RI
a 2
RI. RI RI R1,.... 1
RI RI Al
RI RI
(LUD)LINTED USE k LA POLLA CR. TIM CR
DISTRICT RI
8 CR
0
LUD)LVATED USE RI RI
DISTRICT D LMW RIDR
WIS.
(LUD)LIMITED USE DISTRICT
RI
Existing Zoning
Area of Concern 3.3
34 Figure 3-7
A redesignation of the site to low density residential could result in a
division of the site into four or five single family lots or the development
of approximately eight homes within a planned residential development.
These developments would result in a population of approximately 13-17
persons.
An industrial use on the subject property could adversely impact the
adjacent single family homes particularly those immediately to the east.
Manufacturing machine shops and other similar uses permitted under the
MI-A zoning typically generate noise from daily operations and truck
traffic in excess of what is characteristic for a residential neighborhood.
There is also the potential for outside storage of materials, glare from
parking lot lighting, dust and odors, that could adversely impact
neighboring homes if an industrial use is permitted on the property.
A commercial use of the site, like an industrial use, could have adverse
impacts on the adjacent single family homes. Truck deliveries and
customer traffic could create noise in excess of what is characteristic for
a residential neighborhood. Evening noise levels from potential uses such
as a restaurant or bar could be particularly disruptive.
A low density residential development on the subject property would be
compatible with the residential development to the north and east of the
site. Such development on the area of concern would be adequately
buffered from existing and potential industrial uses to the west and south
by Magnolia Street and the Orange County flood control channel,
respectively.
An open space or park use on the site would have no significant impacts
and would be compatible with surrounding land uses.
It is important to note that the study area lies within an area which the
Federal Emergency Management Agency projects will flood to a water
surface elevation of eleven feet above mean sea level in the event of a
100 year flood. The City's flood plain development regulations will
require that new residential construction in the area be constructed with
the lowest habitable floor elevate at or above the projected flood level
(approximately six feet above existing grade). Commercial or industrial
development would not need to be elevated, but would be required to be
floodproofed. Such regulations on such a small site may pose a serious
constraint to development.
2. Economic Considerations
The Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a
fiscal impact analysis of the three land use alternatives using the
computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of
analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were
projected over a ten year period, 1982-1992. The land use assumptions
and a discussion of the results are contained in Appendix A. The results
are summarized in the table below:
35
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4
General Low-Density
Cash Flow Basis Industrial Commercial Open Space Residential
Revenue (1) 79.96 161.22 58.28
Cost (1) 72.20 97.33 N/A 53.26
Revenue minus cost (1) 7.76 63.89 5.02
Revenue/Cost 1.11 1.66 1.09
(1) In $1,000
3. Housing
Retaining the industrial designation or redesignating the site to open
space or general commercial would have no significant impact on the
City's housing stock. A redesignation to low density residential could
result in an expansion of the City's housing stock; however, the addition
would not be significant because of the small size of the area.
4. Public Services and Utilities
a. Sewers
Sewage generated from the area of concern will have to be
conveyed to the 78-inch County sewer trunk line in Banning Street
at the northernmost corner of the subject property. The County
Sanitation Districts of Orange County have indicated that this
facility would be able to accommodate the sewage generated under
any of the land use alternatives.
b. Water
The area of concern is served by 12-inch water mains in Magnolia
Street and Banning Avenue. The City's Department of Public Works
has indicated that these facilities would be adequate to serve
development on the site under any of the four land use alternatives.
C. Drainage
The subject area is located immediately north of a County flood
control channel. However, runoff from the site could not be drained
into the channel unless pumping facilities are utilized because of the
elevation of the site relative to the water level in the channel
during a storm. Drainage under any of the four alternatives would
most likely be accomplished by grading the site so that runoff
ultimately flows onto Magnolia Avenue or Banning Street.
d. Parks
The area of concern is adequately served by nearby park facilities.
Eader Neighborhood Park is located approximately one quarter mile
east of the subject area on Banning Street. Edison Community Park
is located approximately one-half mile north of the site. Huntington
State Beach is also within one quarter mile of the area of concern.
The Community Services Department has indicated that there would
be no adverse impacts on the City's park facilities under any of the
land use alternatives.
36
e. Police and Fire Protection
The City's police and fire departments have indicated that adequate
service could be provided to the area of concern under any of the
four land use alternatives.
f. Schools
The Huntington Beach Elementary School District and the
Huntington Beach Union High School District have indicated that
existing schools could adequately accommodate the students
generated by the residential land use alternative.
g. Gas, Electric and Telephone Utilities
The Southern California Gas Company, the Edison Company, and
General Telephone have indicated that adequate service could be
provided for the area of concern under any of the four land use
alternatives.
h. Solid Waste Disposal
The Rainbow Disposal Company has indicated that it can provide
adequate service to the property under any of the land use
alternatives.
5. Traffic and Circulation
Access to the area of concern would be off of Magnolia Street. Magnolia
Street is a primary arterial with a capacity of 30,000 trips per day.
Existing traffic volumes are approximately 6,300 daily trips south of
Banning Avenue and 8,200 daily trips north of Banning Avenue. Magnolia
Street is expected to carry roughly 12,000 daily trips at ultimate
development in the year 1995.
Projected future traffic volumes from the study area are estimated as
follows:
Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation
Industrial Energy Production 116 trips/day
Open Space 7 trips/day
General Commercial 660 trips/day
Low Density Residential 111 trips/day
Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982
The City's Public Works Department has indicated that Magnolia Street is
adequate to accommodate traffic volumes from any of the four
alternatives.
The Public Works Department has also indicated that access from the site
shoud be limited to one point on Magnolia Street. Access out of the site
should be restricted to right turns only because of the proximity of the
site to the intersection of Magnolia Street. and Banning Avenue and
because of the poor visibility caused by the bridge structure on Magnolia
Street south of the area.
37
Left turns off of Magnolia Street into the area of concern may also pose
safety problems and may require modification of the Magnolia/Banning
intersection to create a left turn pocket.
The limited access out of the site might pose problems for a residential,
commercial or industrial use on the site because of the relatively large
number of daily trips generated by these uses and the possibility of truck
traffic.
6. Environmental Issues
An initial study was prepared for the area of concern pursuant to Article
7, Section 15080 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines.
This initial study is included in Appendix B. No significant environmental
impacts were identified for any of the three land use alternatives other
than those already discussed in this analysis.
3.3.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the site be redesignated from Industrial Energy
Production to Open Space. The site could be maintained in its present condition
or fully developed as a park in the future.
Flood plain development regulations may be difficult for any type of
development on the small site to meet.
Industrial or commercial uses on the site could result in significant adverse
noise impacts particularly to the single family homes that back directly onto
the eastern boundary of the site. The large number of daily trips generated by
a commercial use and potential truck traffic from an industrial use could create
safety and traffic flow impacts on Magnolia Street. The safety hazards would
also apply to residential uses on the site.
38
3.4 Oakview Redevelopment Area
3.4.1 Background
This item involves an area located on the north side of Slater Avenue
approximately 200 feet west of Beach Boulevard (See Figure 1-1). It is a 37.6+
acre area which is zoned R3 and designated Medium Density Residential in the
General Plan. R3 zoning is not consistent with the Medium Density General
Plan designation, and the existing developed density of 18.04 units per acre also
exceeds the 15 units per acre allowed under Medium Density.
The study area also is within the southern portion of the Oakview
Redevelopment Area. Plans for this area include rehabilitation of 16 existing,
four-plex apartment buildings, construction of new five-car garages for each
building, and at the option of each owner, the construction of one new unit
above each new garage. The existing R3 zoning is appropriate for the project,
but the Medium Density General Plan designation is not. Analysis for
redesignation of this area from Medium Density to Medium High Density (15-25
units per acre) was requested by the City Redevelopment Staff for inclusion in
this amendment.
This Amendment analyzes two possible land use designation for the site: 1) the
existing Medium Density Residential designation, and 2) Medium High Density
Residential.
3.4.2 Analysis
1. Land Use
The area of concern encompasses 37.6 acres and is bounded by Slater
Aveune to the south, Nichols Street to the west, Mandrell Drive to the
north and Keelson Lane to the east (see Figure 3-8).
39
•
C
lit - long 11E: ..
ININ ■
z - r�
Surrounding uses include general commercial along Beach Boulevard
directly to the east, medium density residential to the north, Oakview
Elementary School and an industrial park to the west, and industrial uses
and a mobile home park across Slater Avenue to the South (see Figure 3-9).
Existing uses in the study area are primarily four-plex rental units plus
one 118 unit apartment complex. The total number of dwelling units is
approximatly 678 with an overall density of 18.04 units per acre. The
units are in generally poor condition and the carports and garages are in a
state of disrepair. The redevelopment proposal for the area involves
rehabilitation of existing units, construction of new garages and possible
construction of new units above the garages. Only 16 additional units are
likely to be constructed in the short-term because parking and setback
requirements are such that new units in most of the area cannot be
constructed without substantial City involvement. In order to develop to
the maximum 25 units per acre allowed under Medium High Density, the
existing units would have to be entirely destroyed and all new
construction occur.
Regardless of whether the study area is rehabilitated according to plans
or is entirely reconstructed at up to 25 units per acre, there should not be
any compatibility conflicts with surrounding uses. Since the project area
is within an area already occupied by fairly intense industrial, commercial
and residential uses, the proposed Medium High Density designation is
appropriate. Noise from surrounding uses can be adequately buffered
through the use of noise attenuation walls and landscaping.
2. Economic Considerations
The Planning Staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc, conducted a
fiscal impact analysis of the two land use alternatives (existing and
proposed) using the computerized methodology developed for the City.
For purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures for each
alternative were projected over a ten year period, 1983-1993. The land
use assumptions and a discussion of the results are contained in Appendix
A. The results are summarized in the table below:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Cash Flow Basis Medium Density Medium High Density
Revenue (1) 3,141.15 3,932.21
Cost (1) 2,957.41 3,474.92
Revenue minus cost (1) 183.74 457.29
Revenue/cost 1.06 1.13
(1) in $1,000
3. Housing
Since the study area is entirely developed with rental units, it provides a
significant amount of relatively affordable housing within the City. There
are 678 dwelling units which would continue to exist, though in an
increasingly dilapidated condition if the Medium Density designation is
retained. The intent of the redevelopment project and redesignation to
Medium High Density, however, is to ensure that the existing housing is
preserved and upgraded through rehabilitation, and to provide
opportunities for construction of additional units consistent with the
redevelopment
41
AVE
1D Ohh0 , WARNER
MI R2 9 RR5 -- -- I. 3 RI
�• �•1 FaO Q . AMSTERD►M
FIR DR p C4-MS
CAIN AVE R 2 ` ,o ,0 t RI R2 =
I
MI W MI R2 R2 �°
— RI
a - R-2 r RI AlRI r
,o Il
I — J RI
CF-R
A r RI
c(D.R AVE •_ R2 ,yp 4 RI A MARSEILLE DR
yM�
R 2` R 2 . 2 R' a
• MLENW �----
< RI I RI
R3
('::A1 v:_w S•'�•:!:LI WNDRELL DR .R.,.Ia FRIE a. RI
R3 R3 I R3 RI
M I M I a
I � J I_
1 M •[;4 GUILDER DR
SARMN DR 3 R I
R3 Cl
CI
(LAKF.V:(:
RI
I „ ffi RV PD
R3 _ RI RI R
�Z
R3 l=RL3=1W R3 I I¢ — RS U
•�rJ --"LATER
.D� sentN Z
arMI MH =�a °..<<, 2 - R2 w
sM I ! I R2 N LIME ,RACT -.AAz
RR
.o
$ — k
,
� so((R C4
ox/I 0 3 R3€ M w ' NM Ia R2 N' I )MIM 1R3LIBER,.R3 R2 C4 ' Y" R5
_... - ---
hE w.A.h AV —�
MI-CD MI R2 m
o x �. R5 SP-I
p C RONALD DR- L
p V
MIml
oc
r_— •aY • RS"RJ
I R2 R2 C4 1
RD I SP- 1 (0)RAa
J MI-CD M I M I cz
AS- J R5 $
AVE TALBERT
I
Existing Zoning
Area of Concern 3.4
0 0luq 00 0
0
42 Figure 3-9
plan. If tax exempt bonds are utilized for rehabilitation and construction,
the City will require that 20 percent of all of the units assisted be rented
to households making 80 percent or less of the median County income. If
tax exempt bonds are not used, the City will instead work with the owners
to see that rents for all units do not exceed HUD Section 8 fair market
rental rates.
If the area is entirely demolished and reconstructed at up to 25 units per
acre, a substantial amount of additional housing would become available
in the City. At 25 units per acre, a total of 940 housing units could be
constructed; 262 more units than presently exist.
The City's Housing Element of the General Plan includes policies aimed at
increasing housing oppportunits for households with low and moderate
incomes. Redesignating the study area to Medium High Density could
thus expand the City's potential to provide affordable housing.
4. Public Services and Utilities
a. Sewers
All of the streets within the study area contain eight inch sewers,
the majority of which flow to a ten inch sewer in Slater Avenue.
This sewer then flows east and becomes a 15 inch line at Beach
Boulevard. The eight inch lines that flow north connect to a 15 inch
line in Warner Avenue. The City Department of Public Works has
indicated that existing sewage flows in the area are well below
capacity and that additional sewage from Medium High Density
development can be accomodated.
b. Water
The Water Division of the City Department of Public Works has
indicated that water lines within the study area are marginally
adequate at present and would require substantial upgrading if the
area were developed at 25 units per acre. The study area presently
contains six and eight inch water lines which connect to an eight
inch line in Slater Avenue. Only one eight inch line, in Oak Lane,
connects to the 21 inch line in Warner Avenue. The Water Division
has indicated that to provide adequate water for fire flows in
conjuction with medium high density development, the water line in
Slater Avenue should be upgraded to 12 inches and additional
connections to the line in Warner Avenue should be made. When the
Mola Development Corporation's office project is constructed on the
southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue, some new
lines will be installed which could be tapped into to provide the
desirable loop of water lines to the study area. The need for such a
loop was identified in Public Works' comments on the Oakview
Redevelopment Project EIR.
43
{
C. Storm Drains
The study area south of Barton Lane drains to Slater Avenue in the
form of surface flow. A catch basin at Slater and Koledo collects
the water into a 48 inch pipe and carries it southwest to Huntington
Central Park. The northern half of the study area drains in the form
of surface flow to catch basins in Cypress Avenue. The 36 inch
Cypress line and 48 inch Warner line both carry the water to the
north.
d. Par ks
The study area is presently served by Oak View Neighborhood Park.
This is the only neighborhood park in the area and the study area
would be considered park deficient if it were not so close to
Huntington Central Park. Since Huntington Central Park is only one
quarter mile to the west of the study area, all existing and future
park needs of the area can be deemed to be met.
e. Police and Fire Protection
The Police Department has indicated that if the study area is
redeveloped at 25 units per acre, one additional police officer would
be required. No additional officers would be required under the
existing redevelopment proposal which would add only 16 units. The
Fire Department provides service to the study area from its fire
station at Gothard Street and Ellis Avenue. The area is well within
the desired five minute response range from that station. The Fire
Department's primary concern is with fire flows in the area
associated with the generally poor existing water lines. Fire flows
are adequate for existing units but would be inadequate if developed
at 25 units per acre. The Fire Department is also concerned with
preservation of alley width for manueverability of fire equipment.
The existing alleys are marginally wide enough and the Fire
Department wishes to ensure that any redevelopment of the area
includes alleys of adequate width.
f. Schools
The Oceanview School District has indicated that the district can
easily accomodate any students which would be generated by the
proposed density amendment. Students would attend Oakview
Elementary School, Crestview Intermediate School and Oceanview
High School.
g. Gas and Electrical Utilities, Telephone Service
The Southern California Gas Company, the Edison Company, and
General Telephone have indicated that provision of sevices to the
area of concern poses no problem under the requested land use
amendment.
44
h. Solid Waste Disposal
The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to
the City . No local service constraints are expected a a result of
the proposed land use change.
5. Traffic and Circulation
Access to the study area is primarily taken from Slater Avenue, a
secondary arterial, which forms the southern boundary of the project.
Jacquelyn, Koledo, Queens and Keelson Lanes all connect to Slater
Avenue and also conncect to a system of other internal streets which also
link the area indirectly to Beach Boulevard, Warner Avenue and Nichols
Street. There are no traffic signals at any of the internal street/arterial
intersections.
The Department of Public Works has indicated that the study area
presently generates approximately 4,100 daily trips and would generate
approximately 5,800 daily trips (1,700 additional) if developed at 25 units
per acre. Slater Avenue, which now carries approximately 9,050 daily
trips, would not be significantly impacted by the additional vehicles.
Traffic signals would not be warranted at any of the internal street-Slater
Avenue connections, although some stacking of vehicles on Keelson and
Koledo Lanes may occur during peak traffic hours.
6. Environmental Issues
a. Noise
The area of concern is exposed to an exterior noise level of 60,
which is within the normally accepted range for residential uses.
This should 'pose no constraint to the proposed land use change.
Noise generated from the site is not expected to be significant.
b. Air Quality
Development of the area of concern at the higher proposed density
will adversely affect air quality in the South Coast Air Basin,
primarily due to increased automobile traffic generated by the
additional housing units. Projected daily emissions from the area
indicated in Appendix C.
3.4.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the site be redesignated Medium High Density
Residential. The deteriorated quality of the existing housing units indicates
that the proposed redevelopment and rehabilitation program is necessary.
Redesignation of the area from Medium Density to Medium High Density will
establish the required consistency between the General Plan and redevelopment
plan and permit the project to be implemented.
45
3.5 PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN AREA
3.5.1 Background
This section addresses a City initiated proposal to change the General Plan
designaton on the area covered by the Pacifica Community Plan from Office
Professional (Figure 3-10) to Mixed Development Commercial. Since the
Pacifica Community Plan zoning has been in place since 1977 and since the
Mixed Development General plan designation is considered as a more
appropriate designation to reflect that zoning, this amendment item received
Negative Declaration No. 83-35. As such, the analysis for this item has been
substantially abbreviated.
3.5.2 Analysis
1. Land Use
The Pacifica Community Plan covers a 26.60± acre area generally
bounded by Main Street, Florida Street, Garfield Avenue and Huntington
Street (Figure 3-11). The purpose of the Community Plan is to integrate
into the area an office/professional, medical, senior citizen multistory
residential complex, and to provide necessary support services that will
meet the health, business and housing needs of the elderly of the
community. Existing uses include the Pacifica Community Hospital,
Wycliff Towers Senior Housing Project, Huntington West Retirement
Apartments and Condominiums, Huntington Plaza Dental Offices and a
Shell gasoline station. Under construction are Pacifica Medical Towers
and a senior citizen condominium project. Within the Communty plan
area, only 1.83 acres remain vacant with no development proposals filed.
47
_ 1t_Sri ��_- ��-=Knuurn■uF= ( --- ��� �
■■IRK 1�= �■N -- ---� ice. �� �.
SEVIN
rINS, �• � ■NI■1OEM
♦�---.■H■fits -..� �---� --•�-N-.......
111111111111111 C' �` I \ '� s %}1�I� '� •' � ' -
qjt. .
Lq
�� .� Igo
■ GiG///4 •
i I T aK a I R RI
I
MI
MI�RI ONTARIO J DR C2 �t RI RI 0 RI RI r
R
j € RI RI
CF—C MI Ow CR -- RI RIG „ °0":..,, �= RI
�puEBEC OR
its R3 I
--- I RI RI b
L
rt,o._ � ALBERTA pR o R3 .C4 R3
Ml-CD IRI RI RI RI =v S I I R2 Rt
g �' I l�RRANKLIN OR 1 RI •�M u ON
oR C4 I RI E RI
RS R3 -,
oR R2' R2 S R2 a F
I •"'"V RI R3 RI R2 R� Rs I RI
-1——-- _
11 RI —r—-- — -
2
----
-0-CD a MI �; - _- /
. ,.., R2
I
M of , R2 C2 c2 C4 R2-roe
x�o.;... MI a�— ,;
R2 R3 R
.l I - COMMODORE CR KM[ay.N i R2 RZ R3 5
M2 0 R3 r"
no 1.a a R3
MI-0 al R3R3� R2
i"
DISTRICT ['.r� a R3 R3 �
n rwof-
x "o, r oo C4 Rz • ROR
JR--`411I1/Of'
u ..
.�
az I I
a;R2 (DISTRICT .R3 1s
CNEI R3
CONSTANT
01
ACIFICA UNITY PLAN R3 R2 R21 R3
,ec.+ (DIS7 F ICT ONE)
4 R3
R
R5 R5 R 2 R2 R2; R-I
RS `
o _ aono -
rw
so SitR5 I R2 R2 R2 R2 � R3
I
RA-0_ Rs> R2 R I
FW cl o•.punr
>s
R2 R2 r a
I i RI ° RI
MH _ R2-PD RI NNQNaf a
r
MI R2;: M�_A C2
R2
x WIE 0.xva00a
R2 �n �'°
RA-0 i,-,....._ ,.... �_.. Ld1 A"� R2 R2 aO v RI �RI �F �
C41 > w°" •" CF—E
- RI
R 2 m .rp ,�- -
R2 >�. M R2 L .
r R e i & OLD
R2 I RI .—
A 2 - VLANOWTRICT I.) aoo ie (/j ..
R3 - p• R4 R2 R3 cx. RI ; C—
....y./+ M I^...x����.x _
1�`•O-T..r" I\L V O O Q _sio R2 x i.,E M a R 2 - A I- '.RANT pR
.:. R) zvp
Existing Zoning
Area of Concern 3.5
0
0
49
Figure 3-11
The Mixed Development designation permits a wide range of land uses,
including office/professional, residential, retail and specialty
commercial,hotels and motels and open space and recreational facilities.
It is felt that this designation more accurately reflects the intent of the
Pacifica Community Plan and the existing uses than the existing
Office/Professional designation.
Apart from the Community Plan area, staff is additionally proposing that
the Mixed Development designation be placed on 4.40 acres of land on the
east side of Florida Street south of Main Street (Figure 3-12). This land is
primarily developed with offices, and only .45 acres remain vacant. The
existing General Plan designation is Office/Professional and the zoning is
R5. The area is recommended for inclusion in the Mixed Development
designation, because if left as Office/Professional it would no longer meet
the minimum general plan size requirement of 10 acres. R5 zoning is
consistent with the Mixed Development designation.
It should also be noted that covering only the Pacifica Community Plan
and above noted R5 areas with the Mixed Use designation will create a
4.17 acre island of Office/Professional on the east and west side of
Florida Street in the vicinity of Shaffer and Palin Circles (Figure 3-12).
These areas are R2 and R3 respectively and are both developed
residentially. The property immediately to the south of them is
designated Medium Density Residential by the General Plan. In order to
avoid creating a less than ten acre land use designation area, staff
recommends that this 4.17 acre area be incorporated into the Medium
Density designated area directly to its south. Such action will also bring
the existing zoning and land uses into closer consistency with the General
Plan.
2. Housing, Public Services and Utilities,Traffic and Circulation
Because of the nature of this amendment, an analysis of these items is not
applicable. Since the Pacifica Community Plan itself received a negative
declaration in 1977, all major projects in the area have required
environmental assessment. The same will hold true for any future
projects in the area. The issues of housing, public services and utilities
and traffic and circulation will be addressed at such time.
3.5.3 Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Pacifica Community Plan be designated Mixed
Development Commercial on the General Plan and that the Mixed Development
area be expanded to include the 4.40 acres of land on the east side of Florida
Street. Staff further recommends that the 4.17 acre area in the vicinity of
Schaffer and Palin Circles be redesignated Medium Density Residential.
50
TA R
AV OR Lc fOM`[ Da
ONTARIO DR
CF—C c DR
VIRE STA OTkA-M ;FAf.
_ ILLDERTa OR
LIN OR
YUKON DR ! .� T-j�f✓.-
j
AVE.
cowwaooaE cR. �
.•�K.Yb. � - ,MODALI•—E
g GORSTAMTW[ DR r.�
i
/n` a
J I.-IM
—� CF—E
r
w,i rn DR
a
av .
D - _ s
_ _ J a
GRANT OR
FT-1
Pacifica _ .. - -i owFr r�rrrTT vE 1 T C
Pacifica Conrrnznity Plan / Office Professional Area To Be Designated
Mixed Development
R5 / Office Professional Area To Be Designated Mixed Development
R2 and R3 / Office Professional Area To Be Designated Medium
Density Residential
Area- of Concern 3.5
0 0 0 0
0
0
51
Figure 3-12
4.0 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 changes in Section 3.0.
4.1 Short-term and Long-term Productivity
Amendment 83-3 does not in and of itself create long term impacts. Rather, it
makes changes in the general types of land uses that may be allowed on a
particular area at the time of development. Amendment 83-3 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.
4.2 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.
53
Although mitigating measures can be imposed as part of the development
process, the natural topography will experience a negligible degree of
modification. Construction materials of mineral origin will also be needed for
development to occur, and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods to
satisfy local energy demand.
4.3 Growth Inducing Impacts
The proposed amendment may have growth inducing effects within the areas of
concern. An estimated population of 2,873 persons could be generated in the
areas of concern under the existing General Plan land use designations. If the
higher density alternatives are chosen in each of the areas of concern, an
estimated population of 7,930 persons could be generated. This would be an
increase of 5,107 persons over the City's existing General Plan. Any increase in
population would increase demand on public services and utilities and
incrementally affect air quality, water quality, traffic, and noise levels.
However, the proposed uses in accord with General Plan policies and programs
should mitigate many of the adverse effects generated by the expected growth.
An Air Quality Management Plan for the south coast area has been developed
based on population projections which reflect the existing general plans of this
City and other jurisdictions. If the alternatives chosen in this General Plan
Amendment result in a net gain in population over and above that predicted by
the existing General Plan, then the amendment may be inconsistent with the
region's Air Quality Management Plan. Mitigation measures would include any
actions at the project level or City-wide to reduce increases in automobile
traffic and increase the use of mass transit facilities.
The demand for water and energy will likely increase as a result of the proposed
land uses in this amendment. Conservation measures can be implemented City-
and County-wide to reduce these impacts such as:
1. Reduce evaporation from reservoirs by encouraging underground storage
or coating water surfaces with evaporation hindering films or substances.
2. Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow of public
water supplies wherever such use is acceptable and safe.
3. Waterspread where appropriate to recharge the underground water supply.
4. Meter water and encourage repair of leaky connections to stimulate more
economical use.
5. Reduce consumption of toilets and showers by requiring appropriate
modifications to these appliances.
6. Prohibit the use of open gas lighting in public or private buildings.
7. Strategically place electric lights to maximize their efficiency. Their
size and power consumption should be minimized as much as possible.
54
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.
55
APPENDIX A
Fiscal Impact Land Use Assumptions
In cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., the computerized fiscal impact methodology was
used to analyze the proposed land uses presented in Land Use Element Amendment 83-3.
The fiscal impact evaluation encompassed the land use alternatives considered for areas
3.1 through 3.4.
Area 3.1 - Ellis/Goldenwest
Three land use alternatives were evaluated for the 280 acre area:
1. Estate Residential 3 Units Acre - 810 estate density units with an estimated
average selling price of $300,000 per unit.
2. Estate Residential 4 Units Acre - 1,080 estate density units with an estimated
average selling price of $250,000 per unit.
3. Low Density Residential - 1,890 low density condominiums with an estimated
average selling price of $180,000 per unit.
Results:
Alternative I Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Cash Flow Basis 3 Units/Acre 4 Units/Acre 7 Units/Acre
Revenue (1) 10,396.35 12,512.94 18,591.42
Cost (1) 9,032.36 1 1,1 13.41 17,356.56
Revenue - Cost (1) 1,363.99 1,399.53 1,234.86
Revenue/Cost 1.15 1.13 1.07
(1) in $1,000
The above table indicates that, over a ten year period, all of the alternatives will
generate a surplus to the City ranging from $1,399,530 for Estate Residential 4
Units/Acre to $1,234,860 for Low Density Residential.
Area 3.2 - Warner/Magnolia
Four land use alternatives were evaluated for the 9.21 acre area located west of Magnolia
Street and north of Warner Avenue:
1. High Density Residential
a. Senior Citizen Apartments - 575 high density senior citizen apartments
with an estimated average value of $37,700 per unit and 3,000 square feet
of support commercial with an estimated value of $800,000 per acre on
0.40 acres.
b. High Density Residential - 322 high density apartment units with an
estimated value of $70,000 per unit.
2. Low Density Residential - 64 low density condominiums with an estimated
average selling price of 130,000 per unit.
3. General Commercial - 136,300 square feet of office space with an estimated
value of $855,000 per acre.
Results:
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4
Cash Flow Basis 65 Units/Ac. 35 Units/Ac. Low Density Commercial
Revenue 412.88 1,476.79 1,979.20 190.09
Cost 326.53 1,156.27 1,546.77 845.58
Revenue - Cost 86.35 320.52 432.43 -655.49
Revenue/Cost 1.26 1.28 1.28 .22
(1) in $1,000
The above table indicates that, over a ten year period, all of the residential alternatives
will generate a surplus to the City ranging from -$1,979,200 for Low Density Residential to
$412,880 for Senior Citizen Apartments. The General Commercial/Office alternative will
create a deficit of $655,490 over the ten year period. The deficit reflects a lower value
per acre for office as opposed to residential, a lack of sales tax generation characterized
by other retail commercial uses, and a lack of in-town spending by permanent residents
who would reside in a residential development.
Area 3.3 - Magnolia/Banning
Four land use alternatives were evaluated for the 1.60 acre area located at the southeast
corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street:
1. Industrial - 26,400 square feet of industrial space with an estimated value of
800,000 per acre.
2. General Commercial - 11,360 square feet of retail commercial space with an
estimated value of $800,000 per acre.
3. Open Space - a 1.6 acre City-owned neighborhood park.
4. Low Density Residential - 8 low density condominiums with an estimated
average selling price of f150,000 per unit.
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4
General Low-Density
Cash Flow Basis Industrial Commercial Open Space Residential
Reven'T (1) 79.96 161.22 58.28
Cost (1 72.20 97.33 N/A 53.26
Revenue minus cost (1) 7.76 63.89 5.02
Mvenue/Cost 1.11 1.66 1.09
In $1,000
The above table indicates that, over a ten year period, all of the alternatives, except
Open Space, would generate a surplus to the City, ranging from $161,220 for General
Commercial to $58,280 for Low Density Residential. A neighborhood park developed
under the Open Space designation would not be expected to generate any revenue and
would require a maintenance expenditure of approximately $3,360 per year. If the site
were left as an undeveloped park, there would be no measurable costs or revenues
associated with it.
Area 3.4 - Oakview Redevelopment Area
Two land use alternatives were evaluated for the 37.6 acre area:
I. Medium Density Residential - 562 medium density apartment units with an
estimated average value of $75,000 per unit.
2. Medium-High Density Residential - 940 medium high density apartment units
with an estimated average value of $60,000 per unit.
Results:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Cash Flow Basis Medium Density Medium High Density
Revenue (I) 3,141.15 3,932.21
Cost (1) 2,957.41 3,474.92
Revenue minus cost (1) 183.74 457.29
Revenue/cost 1.06 1.13
(1) in $1,000
The above table indicates that, over a ten year period, the medium-high density
alternative will generate a surplus to the City of $3,932,210 and the medium density
alternative will generate a surplus of $3,141,150.
Summary of Results
Fiscal impact analysis of all of the land use alternatives indicates that adoption of staff's
recommendations (3.1 - Alternative 1, 3.2 - Alternative 3, 3.3 - Alternative 2, 3.4 -
Alternative 2) will result in a surplus to the City of $2,250,350 over a ten year period.
Adoption of the best alternatives, from a fiscal impact standpoint (3.1 - Alternative 1, 3.2
- Alternative 3, 3.3 - Alternative 2, 3.4 - Alternative 2), would result in a surplus of
$2,317,600 over the same period, while adoption of the worst (3.1 - Alternative 3, 3.2 -
Alternative 4, 3.3 - Alternative 3, 3.4 - Alternative 1) would result in a surplus to the City
of $759,750.
Qualification of Results
It must be noted that the results of the fiscal impact analysis should only be considered to
be approximations of the costs and revenues associated with the land use alternatives.
Actual taxable building values, spendable resident incomes and commercial sales tax
generation rates may vary from those figures used to operate the model. Such variations,
along with unforeseen State tax formula changes, may substantially affect the actual
revenues generated. City expenditures may also vary from estimated levels. As such, the
fiscal impact results should be recognized as approximations and should be considered in
comparative terms only, rather than as absolute projections of costs and revenues. If cost
and revenue tables for different alternatives appear to be somewhat close to the same,
then the alternatives should be considered to have identical fiscal impacts rather than
measurable differences. Additionally, fiscal impact results which are close to the
breakeven point should be considered to be inconclusive rather than actual statements of
whether a land use will result in a fiscal surplus or a deficit to the City.
APPENDIX B
Initial Study
� w
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
I. Background
I. Name of Proponent City of Huntington Beach
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 — (714) 536-527
3. Date of Checklist Submitted June 30 , 1983
4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable General Plan Amendment No. 83-3
II. Environmental Imposts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
Yes Maybe No
I. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
o. Unstable earth conditions or in changes Area
in geologic substructures? Area l
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction 1
or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface Area
relief features? 1
d. The destruction, covering or modification Area
of any unique geologic or physical features? 1
Area
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of 1
soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of o Area
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
115
y
Yes Maybe No
_
g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- Areas
gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? .1r3
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration Areas
Of ambient air quality? 1, 2
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? X
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of di-
rection of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters? X
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- Area
terns, or the rate and amount of surface 1
runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface water in
any water body? X.
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature, Area
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 1
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow Area
of ground waters? 1
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an Area
aquifer by cuts or excavations? 1
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public water
supplies? X
i. Exposure of people or property to water re-
loted hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X
116
s
Yes Maybe be No
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including Area
trees, shrubs, gross, crops, and aquatic 1
plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? X
C. Introduction of new species of plants into Area
on area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? 1
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? X
S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds, Area
land animals including reptiles, fish and 1
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 Area
migration or movement of animols? 1
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife Area
habitat? 1
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: Area
1, 2 , 3, 4
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Area
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 2
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare? X
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the present or planned Areas
land use o f an area? 1, 2 , 3
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
G. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? X
117
Yes Mqy� No
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource? X
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an occident or Area
upset conditions?
b. Passible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? X
II. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the Areas
human population of an area? 1, 2 . 3
12. Housing. Will the Areas
proposal affect existing hous-
ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 1, 2 , 3, 4
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional Areas
vehicular moverent? 1, 2
b. hffects on existing parking facilities, or A 4 a
demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- Areas
tation systems? 1, 2
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- Areas
tion or movement of people and/or goods? 1, 2
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor Area
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 2
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:
a. Fire protection? Areas
Areas
b, Police protection? 1 , 2 , 4
Areas
C. Schools? 1,2,4
118
s
Yes Maybe No
Areas
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. 2 • 4
e. Mointenonce of public facilities, including
romis? X
f. Other governmental services? X
IS. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in. demand upon exist-
ing sources of energy,-or require the Areas
development of new sources of energy? 1,2
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
Areas
a. Power or natural gas? 1, 2 , 4
Areas
b. Communications systems? 1
Ar_ eYs
C. Water? 1,2 , 4
Areas
d. Sewer or septic tanks? 1, 2T4
Areas
e. Storm water drainage? 1 , 2 , 4
A re-a-s
f. Solid waste and disposal? 1, 2 , 4
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential X
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? X
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open Areas
to public view? 1, 3
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing Area
recreational opportunities? 1
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration Area
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or 1
historic archaeological site?
w
k
119
t
Yes Maybe No
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? X
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? X
d. Will the proposol restrict existing religious
or socred uses within the potential impact
area? X
21. Mandatory Findings of -Significance.
o. 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-
taininq levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal comrrn,inity, reduce the
number or restrict the rnnge of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? X
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve Short-terra, to the disadvantage of
long-terra, envircximentol goals? (A short-
terrn impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, dt-finitive
period of time while long-terra impacts. X
will endure well into the future.)
c. noes the project have impacts which ore
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. Dods the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects X
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
111. Discussion of E nvironmentol Evoluol ion
IV. fk-terminotion
(To be completed by the Lend 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 a significant effect
on the environment, there will not he a significant effect in this case —_�
hec:ause the mitiyotion measures described on on attached sheet have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
find the proposed project MAY have o significant effect on the environ- X FOCUSED
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I—) EIR*
Q 1 l c�s3
Gate V ig ture
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 different project areas.
The Eir will be prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Amend-
ment analysis.
121
lip
acre ) Land Use designation boundary to the south and Edwards Street
r' to the west are redesignated from Estate Residential ( 0-2 units per
acre ) to Estate Residential ( 0-3 units per acre ) .
4. That 1. 6t acres located at the southeast corner of Banning
Avenue and Magnolia Street immediately north of the Orange County
Flood Control Channel are redesignated from Industrial Resource Pro-
duction to Open Space .
5. That 37. 6t acres bounded by Slater Avenue to the south,
Nichols Street and Oakview School to the west, a parallel line 145
feet norh of Mandrel Drive to the north, and a parallel line 300
feet west of Beach Boulevard to the east are redesignated from
Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential .
6. That 26. 6f acres covered by the Pacific Community Specific
Plan and 4. 40t acres covered by R-5 zoning, both areas .generally
located on the south side of Main Street and 290 feet west of Beach
Boulevard, are redesignated from Office Professional to Mixed
Development ; and that 4. 17t acres covered by R-3 zoning in the
vicinity of Shaffer and Palin Circles are redesignated from Office
Professional to Medium Density Residential.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
adjourned
Huntington Beach at a/regular meeting thereof held on the 28th
day of November 1983.
- 5 44
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney /'n
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator ector of Development
Services
,w
2.
Ro No. 5327
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) es:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 28th day
of November , 19 83 , by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Pattinson, Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mandic
NOES: Councilmen:
None
h
ABSENT: Councilmen:
MacAllister, (Thomas - out of room)
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
RESOLUTION NO. 5327
r�
A RESULUTIUN OF '.('HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING LAND USE ELEMEN'L'
AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 83-3
WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with
changing community needs and objectives ; and
A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No.
83-3 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on
October 4, 1983, and approved for recommendation to the City
Council ; and
Thereafter the City Council. , after giving notice as prescribed
by Government Code §65355, held at .least one public hearing to con-
sider Land Use Element Amendment Nn. 83-3 ; and
At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to
be heard on said amendment were heard,
NOW, Bf.-; IT Rl::S)OLVI.0 by the Ci ty Counci. .l of the City
I of Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter. 3,
Article 6 V California Government. Code commencing with Y6535U, that-
Land Use Element. Amendment No. 83-3 consisting of the following
changes is hereby adopted :
1 . That Section 5. 1 . 3 for Administrative Items is added to the
General Plan document . Administrative Items shall include the
following :
1 . Creation of new General Plan .land use designations.
2. Minor word changes within the General Plan document .
3 . Procedure changes within the General Plan document .
4. Revisions to the Zoning and Land Use Consistency
Matrix .
5. lnterpreLations of Kener. al Plan Land Use Map
boundaries .
2. That a new Estate Resid-nLial U-3 units per acre desiyna-
tion is established .
3. That 40. 51 acres h"undod by El 1 i.s Avenue to the north ,
iGoldenwest Street to the east , the Estate Residential ( U-4 units per.
/ aL ps
12/5/83 L .
Rev.
acre ) f,and Use designatinrr h0urid<Iry to the sr7uth and Edwards Street
to the west are re-designated from (-:.state Residential ( 0-2 units per
acre ) to Estate Residential ( 0-3 units per acre ) .
4 . That 1 . 6± acres Located at the southeast corner of banning
Avenue and Magnolia Street immediately north of the Orange County
Flood Control Channel are redesignated from Industrial Resource Pro-
duction to Open Space .
5. That 37. 6t acres bounded by Slater Avenue to the south,
Nichols Street and Oakview School to the west , a parallel line 145
feet norh of Mandrel Drive to the north, and a parallel line 300
feet west of beach boulevard to the east are redesignated from .
Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential .
6. That 26. 6t acres covered by the Pacific Community Specific
Plan and 4 . 40t acres covered by R-5 zoning , both areas generally
located on the south side of Main Street and 290 feet west of beach
Boulevard , are r.edesi.gnaLed from Office Professional to Mixed
Development ; and that 4. 17t acres covered by R-3 zoning in the
vicinity of Shaffer. and Palin Circles are redesignated from Office
( Professional. tO Medium Density Residential .
PASSED AND AD0P'f'13D by the City Council of the City of
�dj
nrrrncrl
Huntington beach at a/regutar meeting thereof held can the 2flth
day of November , 1983.
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO NORM :
City Clerk City Attorney 60
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INLTLATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator liector of Development
Services
'L .
Res. No. >327
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANG17 ) se:
r CITY OF 11UNT INGTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WF,NTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-off.isio 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 28th day
of November , 19 83 , by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Patti.nson, Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mandic
NOES: Councilmen:
Norse
ABSEN-I': Councilmen:
MacAllister, ( Ilwmas - out of room)
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
"YA cap
U/
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH \
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
2000 N,M1.N STREET
. tiUt1I1NGT9fY REACH.CALIF�64a
LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT 83-3
Environmental I mpact Report 83-2
R , huntington beach department of
development services
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Methodology 1
2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 5
2.1 Establishment of Administrative Items 5
2.2 Estate Residential Designation 6
3.0 AREAS OF CONCERN 7
3.1 Ellis-Goldenwes t Area 7
3.2 Warner-Magnolia Area 21
3.3 Magnolia-Banning Area 31
3.4 Oakview Redevelopment Area 39
3.5 Pacifica Community Plan Area 47
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 53
3..1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 53
3.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes 53
3.3 Growth Inducting Impacts 54
APPENDICES
Appendix A Fiscal Impact Land Use Assumptions
Appendix B Initial Study
Appendix C Air Quality Calculations
Appendix D Letters of Comment
AMENDMENTS
PLANNING COMM.N DATE
COUNCIL land Use Cat@gall@S
DATE RESOLUTIOATE RESOLUTION
II_
fia6 1187 12-6-76 4368 RESIDENTIAL
6-9-77 1196 B-1-77 4 Estate tun/gac
-2sv ce u n-7- a551 ssl Estate <_4 un/gaC
12 6-77 1206 12-19-77 9572
8-1-78 1232 B-21-78 4660
10-17-78 1239 II-1-78 4696 LOW Density 5 7 un c
_� ` Y /ga
II-21-78 1239 1218-78 4708 "�7V7
3b 79 1242 3-19-79 4728 S
3-I6-80 1261 4-7-80 4865 nEw ws
10 21-80 1268 12-15-80 4936 o -Q ®Medium Density <_15 un/gac
P Medium High Density�A<__25un/gac
5-13-61 1273 6-IS-81 5053 �u ' -High Density>25 uvgac
II-17-6 1279 12-7-81 5053
I I-17-81 1279 12-21-81 5060
COMMERCIAL
C ®General
®� \ ®Mixed Development
Office Prof
,\ xed
INDUSTRIAL
General
PUBLIC USE
Public,Quasi-Public,Institutional
::................................................ ...........
::::::::::::::::::.......................... ;
Open Space PLANNING UNITS
Planning Reserve
1 �
MI Planned Community
OTH
ER,B ER USES
\ 79� Resource Production
4 Jl�
F
Y
aes L ee Ica Dana P�ae _ - ..:� A> F� HWNWAY
r
PACIFIC COAST
r � z
coui
r
OCEAN
L� HUNnNGTON 1364CH, 04LIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN
PIANNING DEPARTMENT LAND USE DIAGRAM
Adopted December 1976
Revised DEC.1981
c...p
3.0 AREAS OF CONCERN
3.1 ELLIS-GOLDENWEST AREA
3.1.1 Background
This General Plan Amendment item has been requested by Lindborg/Dahl
Investors, Inc. The request is to change the General Plan designations on ten
acres of land on the south side of Ellis Avenue approximately 1,650 feet east of
Edwards Street from Estate Residential two units/acre to Estate Residential
three units/acre. Because the request is in the still unresolved Ellis-Goldenwest
Specific Plan area, staff has expanded the area of concern to cover the entire
Estate Residential area. The total area covered by this item is 280 acres.
Since this area has been analyzed in such detail in the Ellis-Goldenwest
Conceptual Study and Specific Plan, much of the information contained in this
analysis has been excerpted from those documents.
The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area has been the subject of special planning
efforts for several years. In December 1980, the City Council reviewed a
General Plan amendment request to redesignate a portion of the area from
estate residential to high density residential. The City Council retained the
estate designation and directed staff to study the feasibility of low density
equestrian planned developments. A conceptual study of the area was
concluded in May 1981; and in July 1981, the Planning Commission directed
staff to prepare a specific plan for the Ellis-Goldenwest area to implement the
estate-residential designation and the objectives contained in the conceptual
study. On July 7, 1982, the Planning Commission approved the draft Specific
Plan. On August 13, 1982, however, after numerous public hearings on the
specific plan, the City Council declined to take the recommended action on the
plan and instead directed staff to consider higher density development for the
area.
7
This Amendment analyzes three possible land use designations for the site: 1) a
new Estate Residential 0-Three Units Per Acre designation as established in
Section 2.1 of this document, 2) Estate Residential Four Units Per Acre, and 3)
Low Density Residential.
3.1.2 Analysis
1. Land Use
The area of concern is generally bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the
Coastal Zone boundary and Bolsa Chica area to the west, Garfield and
Ernest Avenues to the south and a line extended north from Crystal Street
to the east as shown in Figure 3-1. The area is largely undeveloped and is
characterized by rolling topography.
The City's General Plan designates the northern and western portions of
the area for estate residential development of two or less dwelling units
per gross acre. The southern and eastern portions of the area are
designated as estate residential at four or less dwelling units per gross
acre. Because of its natural features and resources, the area is
designated for planned open space development in the Open Space and
Conservation Element of the General Plan.
Existing zoning within the area (Figure 3-2) consists of a mixture of RA,
Residential Agricultural (148 acres); R1-8000, Low Density Residential
with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet (15 acres); R1-15,000, Low
Density Residential with a 15,000 square foot minimum lot size (five
acres); M1, Light Industrial (82 acres); and LU, Limited Use (20 acres).
All but 20 acres of the study area has oil production suffix zoning which
allows servicing of producing wells and reactivation of idle wells. All
properties with frontage on Ellis Avenue or Goldenwest Street
(approximately 121 acres) also have the CD, Civic District, suffix which
requires any development on these parcels to be reviewed by the City's
Design Review Board.
Ownership patterns in the study area vary depending upon the location.
The areas west of Edwards Street and east of Gothard Street are largely
under single ownership while ownerships in the area between Edwards and
Gothard Streets are more fragmented. Within this area there are also
three small lot areas with multiple ownerships. Development of the study
area under the draft Specific Plan would require consolidation of small
parcels into minimum ten acre projects.
In regard to existing land uses, the majority of the study area is presently
utilized for oil and natural gas production and appears vacant except for
scattered oil wells, storage tanks, pipelines and service roads. A
transmission substation is located on top of the bluffs west of Edwards
Street on a seven acre parcel owned by the Southern California Edison
Company. Between Edwards and Goldenwest Street, four commercial
horse stables occupy approximately 17 acres in addition to several private
horse stalls and a 36-acre nursery. Informal riding trails criss-cross the
central portion of the study area. The property east of Goldenwest Street
contains scattered oil wells and three single family homes.
8
TALBERT
LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) ,J _ CF_R _
�.. T_ PUBLIC USE -
"�< OPEN SPACE I `
, : ONTAPID
'r 1 -
��.. 4 , CF-CI '
\-r
G !ESTATE RESIDENTIAL
_- 0-2 UNI.TS/ACRE
-- -'-- GENERAL \\
►-' __ INDUSTRIAL
_ I
ESTATE RESIDENTIAL
0-4 UNITS/ACRE
--. - .I I i
RECREATION
f
OPEN SPACE• �• _ _... � - - � i
PLANNED RESOURCE MEDIUM DENSITY; , ^'
COMMUNITY PRODUCTION RESIDENTIAL
I
HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA Existing General Plan '
�� PLANNING DIVISION Area of Concern 3. 1 �
r R otl KI r MI nl � (£' \ I I
O RI " CF-R
R I CERTR4 FSRR) C F-R ;MID
RI ::,; ::ii 4TR41.
R
IM- £ MI-CD
RI r t , RI � (� `•� R� `.D
RI RI
RI �.•`; RA-0-CD I' __-- RI
RI RI 'y (PREZONED) RA-0-CD IC i CF-C
+�
RI-CD ""'
P
0
++COY ��• I �D �iq,
• �� (PREZONED) RI R
RI s-0•c D ROs-O-CD -0-c c g MI-CD
` ....,,.:. MI
' � I
•�b� '�.b - (PREZONED) O-CD *CD D MI-co a
`+D RI
b I
F0-_CD RA-0-CD MI
ftjRA-CD RA-O-CD 7 MI -CD .� ., °MI-o1 R
P- RA-0 a -0-CDRA-0-CD10
ti .C..9' W 4.01-J,
M RA-0 s RA-MD RA-O-CDW . ..0£ tno a
^' Q Q-RI-(2.7)-0-8,000 m-w R ¢ A-0
M 1-0
,Not-N- RA-0- MI-00
RA-0 �L
Mi
..ral,•• RA-0 LU-O-CD RA-O-�
MI.O-CO
M I-O I I-A CO d'
MI-01
MI-CD •hM21tA•a ;r
MI-0
RA I RA 01 RA-0-CD MI•A-CD MI-0 Rg
RS
➢ RA-0-CO RA-0 FR5 R5
ww •s
/— ....- I I -
AA2-Q v �� RA 0 R2 CI
�. RA-0 I-CD
CI-0 MI 1R2;
Rv.. . ..,� R4-0 - :R M2-01 6 -� RA-0 R2 'o�' z M
HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA Existing Zoning O ❑
lopPLANNING DIVISION Area of Concern 3 . 1 -
Adjacent land uses include the Better Built Industries Horse Stables and
Huntington Central Park to the north of the study area, the southern
terminus of the Gothard Industrial Corridor to the east, the Seacliff
Planned Community and Chevron oil production field to the south, and the
Bolsa Chica and potential Linear Park area to the west. Most of these
properties are currently vacant or marginally utilized.
Under the existing Estate Residential General Plan designations of two
and four units per acre, a total of 864 units could be constructed in the
area of concern. While the General Plan establishes estate densities for
this area, there are presently no implementing ordinances for such
densities. The predominant RA zoning in the area allows only one unit per
acre.
It was largely in response to the need for an implementing ordinance that
the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan was prepared. The Specific Plan
actually established a maximum density of three units per acre over the
entire area. This was envisioned as an averaging of the two General Plan
designations: two units per acre and four units per acre. Since the
Specific Plan has not been adopted, however, the General Plan still limits
construction to only two units per acre on 128 acres. The proposed
General Plan amendment to three units per acre would allow development
to occur at densities consistent with the draft Specific Plan. Some 840
dwelling units and a population of 2,873 may be expected to result.
Alternatively to averaging the two and four units per acre densities, the
City may consider expanding the four unit per acre density to cover the
entire area. This would allow the Specific Plan to remain largely intact
as zoning for the area while permitting more housing units and possibly
slightly more affordability. Some 1,120 dwelling units and a population of
3,830 may be expected to result.
Another option is to entirely eliminate the concept of estate densities and
instead redesignate the area for low density development with a maximum
of seven units per acre. If this alternative is selected, an obvious zoning
solution would be standard R1 zoning. It is also possible that the Specific
Plan could be substantially modified to accommodate seven units per acre
while also retaining some open space, horse trails and grade retention
policies. Some 1,960 dwelling units and a population of 6,703 may be
expected to result.
It is important to note that regardless of the overall density selected, the
existence of several rather severe gullies in the area will likely prevent
even and consistent development over all properties. The proposed linear
park may also consume otherwise developable acreages. Because of these
situations, it is likely that some projects will need to be developed as
Planned Unit Developments and clustered on the developable portions of
the properties at higher densities than otherwise permitted. Figure 3-3
indicates general areas where clustering of units at higher densities may
be expected to occur.
11
TALBERT
J-. J - --- - ..
CF-C
;
y I II 5E
1 _
ILJL
G
v' - - Area B —
II ,
I '
Area C Area D
-N- Area A
-` ;® Blufftop and Swale Preservation Areas �
w ~� HUNTINGTON BEACH poo*
�
f v PLANNING DIVISION Developable Areas Subject to Clustering`
Area A involves a total of 70 acres under one ownership, of which
approximately 35 acres may he required to remain as open space under
proposed policies for preservation of bluff areas. The proposed Linear
Park may also consume some of the otherwise developable acreage. Area
B is a minimum developable site area of ten acres as established in the
draft Specific Plan of which 3.5 acres of ravine may be preserved as open
space. Area C is also a ten acre area of which 2.75 acres may be
preserved as open space. Area D involves 48.5 acres under one ownership
of. which 6.2 acres of swale area may be preserved. The following table
indicates the resulting clustered densities and numbers of units which may
be expected to occur in each area under each alternative:
Clustered Density/Total Units
Overall Density Area A Area B Area C Area D
Alt. 1 3 Units)Acre) 6.0 210 4.6 30 4.1 30 3.5 145
Alt. 2 (4 Units/Acre) 8.0/280 6.2/40 5.5/40 4.6/194
Alt. 3 (7 Units/Acre) 14.0/490 10.8/70 9.7/70 8.0/340
The table indicates that despite the overall approved density, observed
densities in certain areas may actually be much higher. If a density of
seven units per acre is approved, the area east of Edwards Street may
actually appear to be developed at medium density. Clustered densities in
other portions of the study area may be less substantial, but the
appearance will still be of higher density than that approved for the area
overall. In analyzing these clustered densities, it must be pointed out that
they are only general possibilities of what could occur. Depending upon
how property ownerships are eventually consolidated, higher or lower
clustered densities may actually result.
In terms of compatibility with surrounding uses, the fact that all of the
alternatives are low density means that they will all fall within a similar
range of compatibility. Any of the alternatives should be equally
compatible with the southern terminus of the Gothard Corridor, assuming
that equal and adequate buffering between the residential and industrial
uses is constructed.
The proposed realignment of Gothard Street with Crystal Street should
provide a reasonable break between the two uses. There should be no
compatibility problems between any of the alternatives and the Seacliff
Planned Community and Chevron oil field to the south. Because two sides
(north and west) of the study area border existing or proposed regional
park areas, however, the estate density alternatives may actually be more
desirable than the low density alternative. The estate densities would
have the least visual and noise impacts on the proposed park lands.
Additionally, since planning for the Linear Park, the southern portion of
Huntington Central Park and the study area in general has for sometime
included provisions for equestrian trails and facilities, the three and four
units per acre density alternatives would also seem more desirable than i
the seven units per acre alternative.
13
In preparation of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, an overall density of
three units per acre was found to be most desirable for provision of
equestrian oriented residential living in conjunction with those facilities
offered in Central Park. The four units per acre alternative would
slightly reduce the effectiveness of the Specific Plan and the seven units
per acre alternative would significantly reduce the integrity of the plan.
2. Economic Considerations
The Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a
fiscal impact analysis of the three land use alternatives using the
computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of
analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were
projected over a ten year period, 1983-1993. The land use assumptions
and a discussion of the results are contained in Appendix A. The results
are summarized in the table below:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Cash Flow Basis 3 Units/Acre 4 Units/Acre 7 Units/Acre
Revenue (l) 10,396.35 12,512.94 18,591.42
Cost (1) 9,032.36 11,1 13.41 17,356.56
Revenue - Cost (1) 1,363.99 1,399.53 1,234.86
R�venue/Cost 1.15 1.13 1.07
(l in $1,000
3. Housing
Designating the entire Ellis-Goldenwest area for three units per acre
would result in a total of B40 dwelling units. Development of four units
per acre would permit 1,120 units while seven units per acre would result
in 1,960 dwelling units. One of the City Council's principle concerns with
the draft Ell is-Golden west Specific Plan was that it would not result in
housing which would be affordable to the majority of horse owners in the
area. Development at four units per acre rather than three units per acre
is such a small difference that little reduction in purchase prices can be
expected. Development at seven units per acre would certainly increase
the affordability of the area, but prices could still be expected to be
beyond the reach of many moderate income families. The City's Housing
Element of the General Plan includes policies aimed at increasing housing
opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes. None of the
alternatives under consideration can be expected to significantly expand
the City's potential to provide affordable housing.
4. Public Services and Utilities
a. Sewers
The Ellis-Goldenwest area is located within the service area of the
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County and the City of
Huntington Beach. The area is not served by public sewerage
facilities at this time.
14
The City's Department of Public Works has indicated that two major
trunk lines, one parallel sewer and one pump station will be needed
to collect and convey sewage from the study area regardless of
whether the area is developed at three, four or seven units per acre.
The proposed West Boundary Trunk Sewer is a ten-to-twelve inch
pipe over a mile in length which originates south of Ellis Avenue,
west of Goldenwest Street. It follows an alignment north across the
Specific Plan area, continues across Ellis Avenue through Central
Park and terminates at the City's existing Goldenwest Trunk Sewer
just north of Talbert Avenue.
The proposed Ellis Avenue Interceptor Sewer West is a
ten-to-twelve inch pipe approximately 4,000 feet long which
originates south of Ellis Avenue approximately 1,300 feet west of
Goldenwest Street. It follows an alignment northeast across the
Specific Plan area, crosses Goldenwest Street and terminates at
Ellis Avenue. A pump station will be required at the downstream
end of this sewer to lift wastewater flow into the City's existing
Goldenwest Trunk Sewer. Additional sewer lines will be required to
connect individual developments to one of the two major trunk lines.
The proposed parallel sewer will be approximately one-half mile in
length and will supplement the Goldenwest Trunk Sewer between
Ellis and Talbert Avenue. If the study area is developed at four
units or less per acre, this sewer can be sized at ten inches. The
line will need to be sized at 12 inches if the area is developed at
seven units per acre.
b. Water
The study area is presently served by water mains in Edwards and
Goldenwest Streets and Ellis and Garfield Avenues. The 42-inch
pipe in Edwards Street is a transmission main used to transport
water between Peck and Overmyer Reservoirs. The City does not
allow individual developments or units to connect directly to this
transmission water main. There is a 14-inch distribution main in
Goldenwest Street between Garfield and Ellis Avenues and a 12-inch
distribution main in Ellis Avenue which does not extend all the way
to Edwards Street.
Properties fronting the existing water mains on Ellis Avenue and
Goldenwest Street have adequate water service for domestic needs
and fire flow. Some of the remaining properties may be able to
connect to an existing main with six- to eight-inch pipe and obtain
adequate services.
Eventually, in order to provide adequate water service to all
developments in the study area, distribution water mains will be
required in Garfield Avenue between Edwards and Goldenwest
Streets, in Edwards Street between Ellis and Garfield Avenues, in
Ellis Avenue east of Goldenwest Street and west of the existing
water main and possibly in the proposed alignment of Gothard
Street. Small water mains (eight inches and six inches in diameter)
will also be necessary in any local streets that are developed in the
area to provide service to internal lots.
15
I
One portion of the study area has a particular problem with respect
to water service. All of the study area west of Edwards Street and
a small portion east of Edwards Street and north of Garfield
Avenue, is at a higher elevation than most land in the City. Existing
pipe pressures in the water system are not adequate to provide
water service to this area. A booster station is planned to serve a
second high point in the City (Reservoir Hill) located approximately
three quarters of a mile to the southeast of the Edwards
Street/Garfield Avenue intersection. Construction of this facility
and a 12-inch water main connection from the booster station to the
study area will be necessary to provide adequate water service to
the southwest portion of the study area. In the absence of this
facility, construction of on-site booster stations to serve individual
projects would be necessary.
C. Storm Drains
The study area east of Edwards Street is in the City's drainage
district number nine. The area west of Edwards Street is not in a
drainage district. Much of the area west of Edwards Street drains
directly into the Bolsa Chica lowlands via natural ravines cut into
the bluff. The remainder of the site is traversed by two major
ravines which collect and convey storm water runoff in a north and
northeasterly direction into Huntington and Sully Miller Lakes.
The Draft Specific Plan proposes a drainage system that relies on
both open swales and underground pipes. Nuisance water and runoff
from rninor storms will be accommodated by surface flow and,
where necessary, by underground storm drains. Runoff from storms
up to a 100-year storm will be accommmodated by natural swales.
The two major swales in the area are preserved as open space
corridors partly for this purpose. Smaller tributary swales have
been designated as sensitive development areas. Development at
any of the alternative densities may occur in these areas as long as
it does not block that portion of the swale needed to accommodate
runoff from the 100-year storm.
d. Parks
The study area is located directly on the southern boundary of
Huntington Central Park. Additionally, the area is also directly to
the east of the proposed Bolsa Chica Linear Park. While there are
no neighborhood parks in the immediate vicinity, the existence of
the two regional parks will provide more than adequate park space
for any development in the study area.
e. Police and Fire
The Huntington Beach Police Department has indicated that full
development of the site at seven units per acre would require the
addition of eleven police officers to the existing staff.
Development at four units per acre would require six additional
officers while three units per acre would require five officers. The
City's Fire Department has indicated that the study area could be
adequately served from the Gothard/Ellis Fire Station.
16
f. Schools
The study area lies within the Huntington Beach City School District
and would be served by Smith and Perry Elementary Schools, Dwyer
Intermediate School and Huntington Beach High School.
Development of the area at three units per acre may generate 563
elementary school students and 328 high school students.
Development at four units per acre may generate 750 elementary
and 436 high school students, while development at seven units per
acre may generate 1,313 elementary and 746 high school students.
The school district has indicated that in order to serve all of the
students, some transfer of students between schools may be
necessary, particularly if the seven units per acre alternative is
selected. Due to declining enrollments and the likelihood that the
study area will be developed slowly in phases, however, the impact
on the schools may be less severe than actually indicated.
g. Gas and Electrical Utilities and Telephone
The subject site is currently served by Southern California Gas
Company, Southern California Edison Company and General
Telephone. These companies have indicated that there will be no
difficulty serving future development under any of the threee
alternatives.
h. Solid Waste Disposal
The Rainbow Disposal Company has indicated that it can provide
adequate service to the study area under any of the density
alternatives.
5. Traffic and Circulation
The study area is generally bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north, Garfield
Avenue on the south, Edwards Street to the west and Gothard Street to
the east. Garfield Avenue is classified as a major arterial with a
maximum carrying capacity of 45,000 average daily trips (ADT). Ellis
Avenue is a primary with 30,000 ADT capacity while the proposed
alignments of Edwards and Gothard Streets call for secondary standards
with 20,000 ADT capacity. The present alignment of Edwards is at the
top of the bluffs inside the study area and the existing alignment of
Gothard Street is outside the study area; both are developed to secondary
arterial standards.
Goldenwest Street is an additional arterial which divides the study area.
It is presently classified as a primary arterial north of Garfield Avenue
with a capacity of 30,000 ADT and as a major arterial south of Garfield.
Since the study area is presently undeveloped, very little traffic is
generated in the area. Projected future traffic volumes from the study
area are estimated as follows:
17
Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation
Estate 3 Units/Acre 8,700 trips/day
Estate 4 Units/Acre 11,300 trips/day
Low Density 19,800 trips/day
The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan proposed a system of collector streets
taking access from Ellis and Garfield Avenues. Assuming that a similar
plan is eventually approved, 60 percent of the traffic generated from the
study area may be added to Ellis Avenue, 20 percent added to Goldenwest
Street and 20 percent added to Garfield Avenue.
Since the study area is so large, it is also important to examine how the
new traffic will impact the surrounding arterials. In cooperation with the
Orange County EMA, the City used the computerized Transportation
Demand Model to project traffic volumes throughout the City. The model
projected 1995 volumes of 4,330 ADT on Goldenwest Street in the study
area, 43,400 ADT on Garfield Avenue and 23,500 ADT on Ellis Avenue.
These projected volumes included development of the study area with the
present designations (approximately three units per acre overall) and also
assumed development of the Bolsa Chica. The projected volumes indicate
that Garfield Avenue will operate at the C level of service for a major
arterial, Ellis Avenue will operate at the A level of service for a primary
and Goldenwest Street will operate at the F level for a primary. The
table below indicates traffic volumes and levels of service for all three
land use alternatives:
3 Units/Acre 4 Units/Acre 7 Units/Acre
Edwards 7,295 A 7,295 A 7,295 A
Ellis 23,500 A 25,000 B 30,100 C
Garfield 43,800 C 44,300 C 46,000 D
Goldenwest 43,300 F 43,800 F 45,500 F
The traffic projections indicate that higher density development in the
Ellis-Goldenwest area will result in slightly higher traffic volumes on the
adjacent arterials, but that Goldenwest Street will be operating beyond
the capacity of a primary arterial regardless of the density selected. The
excessive volumes on Goldenwest Street could be mitigated by extending
the major arterial designation on the street north from Garfield Avenue.
6. Environmental Issues
a. Noise
The principal sources of noise in the study area are related to
traffic and oil operations. The area is bounded by two east/west
arterial streets, Ellis Avenue on the north and Garfield Avenue on
the south, with two additional arterials bisecting the area from
north to south, Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street. The greatest
volume of traffic occurs on Goldenwest Street. The highest noise
levels also occur along Goldenwest Street with an estimated traffic
noise impact projected for 1990 by the Wyle Laboratories, of Lds
60db, and estimated to occur approximately 175' from the center
lane of traffic. In addition, there are a total of 151 producing oil
wells and several other oil related activities within the area
contributing to the overall noise impact.
1.8
Residential development must be compatible with the Noise
Element of the City's General Plan. If residential structures are to
be located within a CNEL 65 db contour, then mitigation measures
such as building setbacks, building orientation or construction of a
noise barrier, such as a combination wall/berm should be
implemented. Adherance to the City's oil code, which limits hours
of operation and calls for sound alteration measures to be
implemented, should also minimize potential noise impacts from
existing and future oil operations.
b. Air Quality
Development of the area of concern under any of the alternative
land use designations would adversely affect air quality in the South
Coast Air Basin, primarily due to increased automobile traffic
generated by the additional housing units. Projected daily emissions
from the area are indicated in Appendix C.
3.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Ellis-Goldenwest Area be redesignated to Estate
Residential 0-3 Units Per Acre. Designation of the study area for higher density
development will not be likely to result in housing that will be substantially
more affordable for local horse owners. Designation at higher densities will,
however, jeopardize the integrity and the original intent of the draft
Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan by reducing standards for equestrian trails and
open space. Designation to higher densities will also result in substantially
higher observable densities in specific bluff top areas due to clustering around
undevelopable areas.
19
3.2 WARNER/MAGNOLIA AREA OF CONCERN
3.2.1 Background
The area of concern is located on the west side of Magnolia Street
approximately 450 feet north of Warner Avenue. Owned by S & K Greenhouses
Inc., the site contains 9.21 + gross acres (including a portion of an Orange
County flood control channels and currently supports a commercial nursery.
The applicant has requested that the area of concern be redesignated from
general commercial to high density residential to allow construction of 575
affordable apartments for senior citizens.
The area of concern was previously analyzed as a part of General Plan
Amendment 80-2. The site's land use designation was changed from low density
residential to general commercial to allow construction of a proposed 150,000
square foot office condominium development. The proposed office development
was never constructed, and developing interest in the property is now being
handled by a new firm.
This Amendment analyzes four possible land use alternatives for the site: 1)
High Density Residential (62 units per acre), 2) High Density Residential (35
units per acre), 3) Low Density Residential, and 4) General Commercial.
3.2.2 Analysis
1. Land Use
The City's General Plan (Figure 3-4) designates property north and west of
the study area as Low Density Residential and property to the south as
General Commercial. Property east of the study area is located within
the City of Fountain Valley. Surrounding land uses include single family
homes to the west, Pleasant View Elementary School and the San Diego
Freeway to the north, commercial recreation to the east, and a mixture
of retail commercial uses and offices immediately to the south across the
Orange County Flood Control Channel. 21
I I I I I jk( I l /\
CR z HASTMS CR Z MAZ! CR
z J 2�
0 "4'y
u Q,
CR -i )AGERS CR SAVOY C
U
CR ROYER CR DE VILLE CR
Pleasant View Par -
i.
DR O: PARKER CR
a
CF—E
O o
H4FERGUSONY c= �_ :...
CR R1—j Q
J
ROYAL
cn }
CR CAMEL CR. — Cd
� a
0
Q CONNER
U -
LOW DENSITY
SALEM CR. RESIDENTIAL
DR. ,
DEREK cR GENERAL
C I I COMMERCIAL
KENT CR }-4- F C D.
_ I i
v
JERRETT O
CR D
z Y -
J O
J _- J GENERAL RECREATI
N ANTHONY o COMMERCIAL
CR w
o «
m , Q O C
Warner Ave. r --
OF F FOUNTAIN VALLEY
�n
N
ANCHO � F AVE I
T—� T ^f�T�l v�T�'"1 v+
Existing General Plan
Area of Concern 3 . 2
0 0U ( 00 0
0
22 Figure 3-4
The area of concern is currently zoned (Q) R5, Qualified Office
Professional (Figure 3-5). Property to the west is zoned R1 and property
north of the site is zoned CF-E, Civic Facility-Educational. Property
south of the study area has C2, Community Business District, zoning.
The area of concern occupies a strategic location at the intersection of a
major arterial (Warner Avenue) and a primary arterial (Magnolia Street)
and has a high degree of visibility from the southbound lanes of the San
Diego Freeway. Utilizing the entire 9.21 acres, staff has estimated that
approximately 136,300 square feet of office professional space could be
built on the site under the existing General Plan designation. The
desirability of the site for office professional use is seriously limited,
however, by the existence of the flood control channel and existing retail
commercial uses and offices which reduce street frontage, hinder access,
and eliminate necessary visibility.
Given the site's restricted access and reduced street frontage, the
development potential for office professional uses in the area of concern
has serious limitations. In addition, many office developments in the City
currently have vacant space available, and three major office
developments are in the planning stages which will add significantly to the
City's supply of office space.
Low density residential development in the area of concern could
accommodate aproximately 64 condominiums. Implementing zoning would
likely be R1-PD (Low Density-Planned Development). Of all the land use
designations considered, low density residential would be most compatible
with the single family homes to the west.
Residential development on the site would be visually impacted by the
existing two story commercial development to the south and to some
extent affected by traffic noise from the San Diego Freeway. With
adequate setbacks, buffering and landscape screening, however, low
density residential development on the site could be properly designed to
both attenuate noise impacts and visually integrate the project with
surrounding land uses.
Staff has analyzed two residential alternatives for the area of concern
which could be developed under a high density residential designation: (1)
322 apartments at a density of 35 dwelling units per acre and (2) the
applicant's request for 575 senior citizen rental units at a density of 62
dwelling units per acre.
If the area were redesignated for high density residential development, a
maximun of 322 units could be built in the area of concern under R4
zoning. The applicant's request for a 575 unit senior citizen rental project
would likely be implemented through R4-SR (High Density
Residential-Senior Residential) zoning which allows a density bonus of at
least 25 percent for affordable senior citizen residential projects. To
permit development of the applicant's request, a density bonus of 79
percent would be required.
23
J `
0
a
J
EIL-
m a z or RI• RI
U
• J U LOIS CA I I w T. S w O
RI RI WERNRI RI RI RI i RI RI RI RI J I RI RI
IC 4
I a a
3 i ; A: i OODIALO Ca I v i r.rsn a vwY a
L. B use OR RI I 1 RI RI �'
C iLLt RI RI .,uor cR RI I —E. Z. RI DE VLLREI CR. Qt�
BRYANT OR RI i I RI
of I I ,
C 4 RI RI LANua Da I
I z
LAWBERT a DR RI RI
p i RI b CF-E
:o- RI RI RI RI ORINDA cR
WTf ro t
TERRY DR =RI � Ll RI .ark OR
j I
V S 6 z NovuRO ca ` u RI +J
C(� RI A RI RI $ RI p RI PRI RI RI i i RI coN.t. R. i
5 tb St I I [r . RI O
LYNC.ASTER DR- ARNE7T DR ARNETT DR J I I RI (Q)Rrj a
RI RI RI I RI I RI oo=. cR
i
T�4
o c T c D ce-z D C.I C. RI
.N i>
o t RI `RI I w
CF-E J R3 L--
O MERLE CR RI TT t. C D.
` R3 i = I C-
Ci R TAMAR DR. 3 RI RI I RI n c. RI I RI 4
W R3 tea�ru:.-.;EtY;r.:�„�:�1 R3 CA Y I RIC 2
m _ aAa I g -,"a-
RI
1 R3 D
-- ' artier Ave. -- —— —
RI RI I CITY ; OF FOLMAIY VALLEY
o I A ;
m R2 RI
C d:
a it
J":
RI IL
RI RI RI
J
RI RI
C4 RI wasEUE DR RI POLDER cR
RI A.
RI u
u
W l[NCIA DR I
RI RI
Existing Zoning
Area of Concern 3 .2
0 0g ( 0 0 0
0
24 Figure 3-5
s
Development of 322 apartments on the 9.21± acre site could present
significant land use incompatibilites with the adjacent low density
residential to the west and office commercial development to the south.
Extensive landscaping and berming would have to be incorporated into the
project design to adequately buffer any high density residential project.
Construction of the proposed 575 unit senior citizen apartment complex
would even more seriously impact the site's surrounding land uses.
Proposed to be developed at approximately 62 units per acre (assuming
the flood control channel is not incorporated), the project would represent
one of the highest residential densities built in Huntington Beach. To
allow such an intensively developed residential project adjacent to
existing low density residential and commercial uses could be problematic
in terms of aesthetics, traffic generation, circulation and access. The
need for affordable senior housing has been well documented in Orange
County. This increasing demand should not, however, result in
indiscriminately locating senior residential projects without taking into
account significant land use incompatibilities.
2. Economic Considerations
The Planning staff in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc. conducted a
fiscal impact analysis of the land use alternatives using the computerized
methodolgy developed for the City. For purposes of analysis, the
revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a ten
year period, 1983-1993. The land use assumptions and a discussion of the
results are contained in Appendix A. The results are summarized in the
table below:
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4
Cash Flow Basis 65 Units/Ac. 35 Units/Ac. Low Density Commercial
Revenue 412.88 1,476.79 1,979.20 190.09
Cost 326.53 1,156.27 1,546.77 845.58
Revenue - Cost 86.35 320.52 432.43 -655.49
Revenue/Cost 1.26 1.28 1.28 .22
(1) in $1,000
3. Housing
The applicant has proposed development of 575 affordable senior citizen
apartments. Under the requested high density residential land use
designation and utilizing R4-SR (High Density Residential-Senior
Residential) zoning, a density bonus of 79 percent would be required to
develop at the requested density. A high density residential land use using
conventional R4 zoning would permit a maximum of 322 apartments.
Under a low density residential land use designation, approximately 64
condomimiums could be accomodated on the site.
The City's Housing Element of the General Plan includes policies aimed at
increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate
incomes. The applicant's proposed senior apartment project would
certainly provide the most opportunities for low and moderate income
housing of any of the alternatives.
25
The City, however, has made a concentrated effort to help meet the
special housing needs of the elderly. Since 1980, approximately 770 senior
units have been built, or are planned to be constructed in the near future,
in Huntington Beach. Wycliffe Gardens, first occupied in 1981, supplies
192 residential units for seniors. Additionally, 308 senior units are
planned for the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Area. A 53-unit project,
Huntington Vilest, has recently been completed on Delaware Street and
two senior projects have recently been proposed which will add an
additional 217 senior residential units to the City's housing stock.
4. Public Services and Utilities
a. Sew ers
The area of concern is served by an existing eight-inch sewer line
located at Conner Drive that terminates at the western property
line of the site. The line runs through the single family tract into a
69-inch County trunk sewer in Warner Avenue. The Orange County
Sanitation District has indicated that all the alternatives considered
could be accommodated by connecting into the existing eight-inch
Conner Drive line.
b. Water
Existing uses within the area of concern draw water from an
existing eight-inch line in Conner Drive. A 12-inch line was
recently installed along the north side of Warner Avenue connecting
into a new City water well located south of the site. The
Department of Public Works has indicated that any change in use of
the subject property would require connection of an eight-inch line
into the new 12-inch line in Warner Avenue with a cross connection
into the area of concern. Development would further require
connection of the existing eight-inch water main in Royal Drive into
the existing main in Conner Drive. The Conner Drive main must
also be connected into the existing mains serving the commercial
development south of the site. Once this is completed, adequate
water supply could be provided for any of the land use alternatives
considered.
C. Storm Drains
Drainage from the area of concern is conveyed directly into the
County flood control channel. The Flood Control District has
indicated that runoff from development under any of the proposed
land use designations could be adequately accommodated by the
existing facility. Should the open drainage channel be enclosed to
provide additional parking, special drains would have to be installed
to prevent excess storm water in the channel from backng up onto
the site during heavy storms.
d. Parks
The area of concern is located just south of Pleasant View
Elementary School, two acres of which are developed as a
neighborhood park. The 1977 Parks Analysis indcates that park
demand in the quarter section where the area of concern is located
26
will be met or exceeded at ultimate development. Residential
development would increase the demand for park facilities, but due
to the park's proimity to the area of concern, the demand would be
adequately met. Office professional development on the site would
act to reduce park demand within the quartersection.
e. Police and Fire Protection
Police service for the area of concern is provided by the City of
Huntington Beach which operates from a central facility located at
Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. No additional staffing is
anticipated should the site develop as a low density residential or
office professional use. The proposed 575 unit senior citizen
apartment complex is estimated by the Police Department to
require an addition of two to three officers to the existing staff.
Development of 322 apartments would require one to two additional
officers.
Fire response to the area of concern is provided by the City of
Huntington Beach from the Murdy Station, located south of Edinger
Avenue on the west side of Gothard Street. Access to the site is a
potental problem in responding to fires, therefore, emergency
access to the site via Conner Drive may be required if either the
high density residential or general commercial land use designation
is approved. Design of the access on Magnolia Street should allow
adequate width for two fire response units to enter the site
simultaneously.
f. Schools
The area of concern is located within the Oceanview School District
and is served by Pleasant View Elementary School, Westmont Middle
School and Ocean View High School. The school district has
indicated that the schools involved would be able to accommodate
the increase students generated by any of the residential
alternatives considered for the area of concern. Office professional
development or senior citizen rentals would have no impact on the
area's schools. Students generated by the other land uses being
considered are as follows:
Pleasant Ocean
View Westmont View
Low Density 20 23 24
High Density Residential (322 units) 10 3 23
g. Gas and Electrical Utilities and Telephone
Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by the Southern
California Gas Company and Southern California Edison, respectively.
A three-inch gas line currently runs onto the site from Magnolia
Street, which is adequate to accommodate any of the alternative land
uses being considered. Electrical service is available from existing
12KV overhead lines along the site's northern property line.
The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that electrical
load requirements can be met provided that electrical demand does
not exceed estimates, and there are no unexpected outages to major
sources of electrcial supply.
27
General Telephone has indicated that adequate service could be
provided for the area of concern under any of the land use
alternatives.
h. Solid Waste Disposal
The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to
the City of Huntington Beach. No local service constraints are
expected under any of the alternative land use designations.
However, the proposed high density 575-unit senior citizen
apartment complex could pose accessibility problems. Internal
street circulation within the project would have to be designed to
accommodate the company's refuse trucks without any backing up
required.
5. Traffic and Circulation
The area of concern fronts on Magnolia Street, a primary arterial with an
average daily traffic volume of 26,000 vehicles. Warner Avenue is a
major arterial with an average daily volume of 21,000 vehicles. Projected
daily traffic volumes generated by the alternative land use designations
are:
Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation
Low Density Residential 570 trips/day
Office Professional 2,330 trips/day
High Density Residential
322 apartments 1,951 trips/day
575 senior citizens apartments 2,300 trips/day
Development of either high density residential or office professional uses
would contribute significantly higher traffic volumes to local arterials
than would a low density residential use. The site's limited accessibility
and the location of the freeway offramp present considerable circulation
problems that will be difficult to mitigate.
Access to the site is complicated by the freeway offramp on Magnolia
Street which creates a steady flow of traffic past the site during the
afternoon rush hour. Due to the high traffic volurnes generated by the
offramp, the Public Works Department has indicated that access to the
site from Magnolia Street could not be signalized and should be limited to
"right in" and "right out" turns only.
Access for low density residential development could be provided from
Magnolia Street as well as Warner Avenue by extending Conner Drive into
the area of concern. Of all the alternatives considered, low density
residential is projected to generate the least traffic volume. With two
available access points into the site, circulation and traffic impacts on
surrounding arterials would be substantially less than either office
professional or high density residential uses in the area of concern.
28
Under a high density residential or general commercial land use
designation, staff recommends that Conner Drive remain closed to
through traffic to avoid routing additional vehicles through the existing
single family neighborhood west of the area of concern. Under the office
professional or high density residential land use alternatives, then, access
could only be provided from Magnolia Street. With ingress and egress to
the site restricted to right turns only, entrance would only be possible by
approaching the area of concern from the north. Vehicles traveling to the
site from the south would be forced to make a U-turn from the
northbound lanes into the southbound lanes of Magnolia Street to gain
right turn access into the site. Vehicles exiting the area of concern would
be required to proceed southbound on Magnolia Street.
Given the higher traffic volumes generated by either of these land use
alternatives, such limited access may cause serious traffic and circulation
safety hazards. An alternative plan would be to box in and pave over a
portion of the existing flood control channel that parallels the western
boundary of existing commercial uses south of the site. This was
originally planned as an access point for an office professional
development considered for the site in General Plan Amendment 80-2.
The existing channel is an open channel, 18 feet wide with vertical
concrete walls. In order to utilize the channel for access, the entire
affected length would have to be replaced with a box culvert of equal or
greater capacity. Although an expensive undertaking for the property's
developer, this would provide a necessary access point should the site
develop as a high density residential or office professional use. A water
well has recently been installed adjacent to the channel and an
engineering study may be necessary to determine if enough width remains
to provide two-way access.
An alternative plan would be to pursue reciprocal access agreements with
the existing commercial uses to the south. A portion of the flood control
channel would still need to be covered, but there would be no conflict
with the existing water well. This may only be an option, however, for
office professional development; parking and access for residential uses in
the area of concern could not be compatibly shared with existing
commercial uses. A third option would be to provide shared access off
Magnolia Street with the existing commercial use immediately south of
the area of concern. This would still entail covering a portion of the flood
control channel but could be designed to offer separate ingress and egress
for each use from a shared central access point.
6. Environmental Issues
a. Noise
The area of concern lies directly south of the San Diego Freeway
and west of Magnolia Street. Approximately 65 percent of the site
falls within the Ldn 60 contour, with a narrow area along Magnolia
Street within the Ldn 65 contour (based on projected ground
transportation noise contours for 1990). Any of the land uses
considered for the site would be negatively impacted by traffic
noise, particularly the residential alternatives. Special noise
attenuation measures such as unit modification, building placement,
walls and landscaping could be employed to reduce this exposure and
guarantee interior noise levels of less than Ldn 45.
29
b. Air Quality
Development of the area of concern under any of the proposed
alternative designations would adversely affect air quality in the
South Coast Air Basin, primarly due to increased automobile and
truck traffic generated by land uses. Projected daily emissions from
the area are indicated in Appendix C.
3.2.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the site be redesignated for low density residential
development. This would provide the most feasible solution to the site's
limited accessibility by allowing additional ingress and egress to the site
via Conner Drive. Of all the alternatives considered for the area of
concern, a low density residential land use would be most compatible with
the single family subdivision to the west.
Office professional use or high density residential development in the area
of concern would contribute significantly higher traffic volumes than
would low density residential development and could serve to increase
traffic and circulation impacts in an area already congested by the
freeway offramp. Additionally, both of these uses, if developed in a
multi-story design, could pose visual and aesthetic incompatibilities with
single story homes west of the area of concern.
30
3.3 MAGNOLIA-BANNING AREA
3.3.1 Background
The third area of concern is a 1.6 acre (1.2 net acres) vacant property owned by
the City of Huntington Beach located at the southeast corner of Banning
Avenue and Magnolia Street (see Figure 1-1).
The area of concern was originally part of a four acre City-owned property
zoned for industrial use. When Magnolia Street was extended to intersect with
Pacific Coast Highway, the alignment split the four acre site leaving two
vacant remnant pieces of property on the east and west side of the arterial.
The area of concern in this analysis is the remnant piece on the east side of
Magnolia Street.
In August, 1982, City staff initiated a change of zoning on the area of concern
from M1-A (Restricted Manufacturing District) to R1 (Low Density
Residential). At its August3, 1982 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled
the zone change request and directed staff to initiate a land use amendment on
the property from industrial energy production to low density residential.
That item was considered in General Plan Element Amendment 82-1 and 83-1,
and no action was taken. The Planning Commission subsequently requested that
the item be reintroduced in General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 83-3
with new emphasis placed on designation of the site to Open Space.
This amendment analyzes four possible land use designations for the site: 1)
Industrial Resource Production, 2) Open Space, 3) Low Density Residential, and
4) General Commercial.
31
3.3.2 Analysis
1. Land Use
Area of Concern 3.3 is located within the City's coastal zone and is
designated for industrial energy production in the Coastal Element Land
Use Plan (see Figure 3-6). This designation was developed for use on
areas identified as potential wetland areas by the California Department
of Fish and Game and is intended to protect a unique environmentally
sensitive area without precluding expansion options for energy
production. Area of Concern 3.3, however, is not a wetland area and was
not identified in the survey of potential wetland areas by the Department
of Fish and Game.
Property to the north and east of the subject area is general planned,
zoned and developed as low density residential. The eastern boundary of
the site backs directly onto the backyards of existing single family homes
(see Figure 3-7).
The subject area is bounded to the south by an Orange County flood
control channel. The property south of the channel is designated
industrial energy production and zoned LU, Limited Use.
The property to the west of the subject property is general planned
Industrial, zoned MI-A (Restricted Manufacturing) and developed with
fuel storage facilities related to the Southern California Edison
generating plant.
The existing general plan designation and zoning on the site could result in
the development of approximately 27,000 square feet of industrial and
light manufacturing uses which would generate approximately 22
employees. The likelihood of such industrial development occurring on
the site, however, is small due to the isolated location of the site in
relation to other industrial and commercial uses, the small size of the
site, and its irregular shape.
A redesignation of the site to open space would accommodate
development of a small park or other recreation facility. The site,
however, is not particularly appropriate for a neighborhood park use. It is
approximately one-third the size of a typical neighborhood park and is
located outside of the developed residential tracts, adjacent to an
arterial. The site is not included in the City's master plan of parks and
funds have not been earmarked for landscaping and maintenance. It is
presently covered with iceplant, however, and could conceivably be
maintained by the City in its present condition.
A general commercial designation on the site could result in the
development of approximately 11,000 square feet of convenience
commercial use such as a quick food pickup store and several small shops.
32
I PUBLIC , QUASI-PUBLIC , IA-LJ"W"'W
INSTITUTIONAL
A DR.
14-M -111
KAHUWI OR.
' \ O
MA HA 0
0 • LOW DENSITY
INDUSTRIAL ITRESIDENTIAL'6A
ENERGY KAPAA DR. W
a z
N!PRODUCTIO It
` ]L
- BANNING
0 J J
C
PLAYA OR.
O a
J
2
2
0 �
Q
`yv �QQ
O h
Q�
v �
N Wy
Existing :General Plan_ -Area of Concern 3.3
0
0
33
Figure 3-6
I
J
RI (� RI � � RI I ' pl f ( C .-. ,.. :.r � -- - - . .. -- - - I -
U � ,R._.
s
RII'L�R
. '9 a RI-c RIaRI 9 RI...:.:-�- o
�....... ........... S 4 Rt
RI ".", a RI RI
,p
ILTON '
R I R I RI RI
TrA C4 AN
R I = RI = _ 5 RI
awA.
iI rn "
ji
`, //�� NUTI DR G R
o M l-N-o RI RI RI _ RI RI
�\
R.
\` \, RI RI RI I z RI
�A�A rN �I r
RI RI RI '�
{y I —R-MIA DR a J.-
M tR1ANA OR.
RI
RM A OR " RODbON OR. j t
M2-0 RI RI Y RI
"°" °' ORCF—E
:.__.... •\ - Q R I 1 tEAt;=�arv;.� r•A EER
M2-0 J — MARALO LA RI
O Ir
\ R I auLaT■..n a R,Q .avaA JrR . RIRIR 1 x e 0—OWA C.
ALOHA RI
R I RI M
p p MI-A
MBANNING- u '
2—0 �R��4 '` R c PLAYA OR) C CA
v o A RI Q RI RI t
RI, RI RI a RI Is.r N f
o
RI RI RI RI
(LUD)LIMTED USE 9 r
DISTRICT RI Rt u u+ a �+
• I RI RI F
CO,sT A� J Q r uE L CR
"•,y< LUD)LINTED USE RI RI 3 RI
DISTRICT LAM oR
RI
0
w_,{s A i
CIA"iQ o "w' (LUD)LIMITED USE DISTRICT RI
CA �
V •
R�
CCf C
,41
Existing Zoning
Area of Concern 3.3
0
o ,
34 Figure 3-7
A redesignation of the site to low density residential could result in a
division of the site into four or five single family lots or the development
of approximately eight homes within a planned residential development.
These developments would result in a population of approximately 13-17
persons.
An industrial use on the subject property could adversely impact the
adjacent single family homes particularly those immediately to the east.
Manufacturing machine shops and other similar uses permitted under the
MI-A zoning typically generate noise from daily operations and truck
traffic in excess of what is characteristic for a residential neighborhood.
There is also the potential for outside storage of materials, glare from
parking lot lighting, dust and odors, that could adversely impact
neighboring homes if an industrial use is permitted on the property.
A commercial use of the site, like an industrial use, could have adverse
impacts on the adjacent single family homes. Truck deliveries and
customer traffic could create noise in excess of what is characteristic for
a residential neighborhood. Evening noise levels from potential uses such
as a restaurant or bar could be particularly disruptive.
A low density residential development on the subject property would be
compatible with the residential development to the north and east of the
site. Such development on the area of concern would be adequately
buffered from existing and potential industrial uses to the west and south
by Magnolia Street and the Orange County flood control channel,
respectively.
An open space or park use on the site would have no significant impacts
and would be compatible with surrounding land uses.
It is important to note that the study area lies within an area which the
Federal Emergency Management Agency projects will flood to a water
surface elevation of eleven feet above mean sea level in the event of a
100 year flood. The City's flood plain development regulations will
require that new residential construction in the area be constructed with
the lowest habitable floor elevate at or above the projected flood level
(approximately six feet above existing grade). Commercial or industrial
development would not need to be elevated, but would be required to be
floodproofed. Such regulations on such a small site may pose a serious
constraint to development.
2. Economic Considerations
The Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a
fiscal impact analysis of the three land use alternatives using the
computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of
analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were
projected over a ten year period, 1982-1992. The land use assumptions
and a discussion of the results are contained in Appendix A. The results
are summarized in the table below:
35
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4
General Low-Density
Cash Flow Basis Industrial Commercial Open Space Residential
Revenue(l) 79.96 161.22 58.28
Cost (1) 72.20 97.33 N/A 53.26
Revenue minus cost (1) 7.76 63.89 5.02
Revenue/Cost 1.11 1.66 1.09
(1) In $1,000
3. Housing
Retaining the industrial designation or redesignating the site to open
space or general commercial would have no significant impact on the
City's housing stock. A redesignation to low density residential could
result in an expansion of the City's housing stock; however, the addition
would not be significant because of the small size of the area.
4. Public Services and Utilities
a. Sewers
Sewage generated from the area of concern will have to be
conveyed to the 78-inch County sewer trunk line in Banning Street
at the northernmost corner of the subject property. The County
Sanitation Districts of Orange County have indicated that this
facility would be able to accommodate the sewage generated under
any of the land use alternatives.
b. Water
The area of concern is served by 12-inch water mains in Magnolia
Street and Banning Avenue. The City's Department of Public Works
has indicated that these facilities would be adequate to serve
development on the site under any of the four land use alternatives.
C. Drainage
The subject area is located immediately north of a County flood
control channel. However, runoff from the site could not be drained
into the channel unless pumping facilities are utilized because of the
elevation of the site relative to the water level in the channel
during a storm. Drainage under any of the four alternatives would
most likely be accomplished by grading the site so that runoff
ultimately flows onto Magnolia Avenue or Banning Street.
d. Parks
The area of concern is adequately served by nearby park facilities.
Eader Neighborhood Park is located approximately one quarter mile
east of the subject area on Banning Street. Edison Community Park
is located approximately one-half mile north of the site. Huntington
State Beach is also within one quarter mile of the area of concern.
The Community Services Department has indicated that there would
be no adverse impacts on the City's park facilities under any of the
land use alternatives.
36
e. Police and Fire Protection
The City's police and fire departments have indicated that adequate
service could be provided to the area of concern under any of the
four land use alternatives.
f. Schools
The Huntington Beach Elementary School District and the
Huntington Beach Union High School District have indicated that
existing schools could adequately zccommodate the students
generated by the residential land use alternative.
g. Gas, Electric and Telephone Utilities
The Southern California Gas Company, the Edison Company, and
General Telephone have indicated that adequate service could be
provided for the area of concern unde- any of the four land use
alternatives.
h. Solid Waste Disposal
The Rainbow Disposal Company has indicated that it can provide
adequate service to the property under any of the land use
alternatives.
5. Traffic and Circulation
Access to the area of concern would be off o:' Magnolia Street. Magnolia
Street is a primary arterial with a capacity of 30,000 trips per day.
Existing traffic volumes are approximately 6,300 daily trips south of
Banning Avenue and 8,200 daily trips north of Banning Avenue. Magnolia
Street is expected to carry roughly 12,OCO daily trips at ultimate
development in the year 1995.
Projected future traffic volumes from the study area are estimated as
follows:
Land Use Alternative TrafFic Generation
Industrial Energy Production 116 grips/day
Open Space 7 t-rips/day
General Commercial 660 trips/day
Low Density Residential 111 trips/day
Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982
The City's Public Works Department has indicaed that Magnolia Street is
adequate to accommodate traffic volumes from any of the four
alternatives.
The Public Works Department has also indicatE d that access from the site
shoud be limited to one point on Magnolia Street. Access out of the site
should be restricted to right turns only because of the proximity of the
site to the intersection of Magnolia Street. and Banning Avenue and
because of the poor visibility caused by the bridge structure on Magnolia
Street south of the area.
37
Left turns off of Magnolia Street into the area of concern may also pose
safety problems and may require modification of the Magnolia/Banning
intersection to create a left turn pocket.
The limited access out of the site might pose problems for a residential,
commercial or industrial use on the site because of the relatively large
number of daily trips generated by these uses and the possibility of truck
traffic.
6. Environmental Issues
An initial study was prepared for the area of concern pursuant to Article
7, Section 15080 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines.
This initial study is included in Appendix B. No significant environmental
impacts were identified for any of the three land use alternatives other
than those already discussed in this analysis.
3.3.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the site be redesignated from Industrial Energy
Production to Open Space. The site could be maintained in its present condition
or fully developed as a park in the future.
Flood plain development regulations may be difficult for any type of
development on the small site to meet.
Industrial or commercial uses on the site could result in significant adverse
noise impacts particularly to the single family homes that back directly onto
the eastern boundary of the site. The large number of daily trips generated by
a commercial use and potential truck traffic from an industrial use could create
safety and traffic flow impacts on Magnolia Street. The safety hazards would
also apply to residential uses on the site.
38
3.4 Oakview Redevelopment Area
3.4.1 Background
This item involves an area located on the north side of Slater Avenue
approximately 200 feet west of Beach Boulevard (See Figure 1-1). It is a 37.6+
acre area which is zoned R3 and designated Medium Density Residential in the
General Plan. R3 zoning is not consistent with the Medium Density General
Plan designation, and the existing developed density of 18.04 units per acre also
exceeds the 15 units per acre allowed under Medium Density.
The study area also is within the southern portion of the Oakview
Redevelopment Area. Plans for this area include rehabilitation of 16 existing,
four-plex apartment buildings, construction of new five-car garages for each
building, and at the option of each owner, the construction of one new unit
above each new garage. The existing R3 zoning is appropriate for the project,
but the Medium Density General Plan designation is not. Analysis for
redesignation of this area from Medium Density to Medium High Density (15-25
units per acre) was requested by the City Redevelopment Staff for inclusion in
this amendment.
This Amendment analyzes two possible land use designation for the site: 1) the
existing Medium Density Residential designation, and 2) Medium High Density
R esi denti al.
3.4.2 Analysis
1. Land Use
The area of concern encompasses 37.6 acres and is bounded by Slater
Aveune to the south, Nichols Street to the west, Mandrell Drive to the
north and Keelson Lane to the east (see Figure 3-8).
39
■EMI 111.1O■ �
-'�� 11 1111111■ � I1�■ ��
NO �
Elm . Ali
01111110;-:11101110 ■ 1 m
i
-
�� i1 EZ
Slater Ave.
M M
■
Surrounding uses include general commercial along Beach Boulevard
directly to the east, medium density residential to the north, Oakview
Elementary School and an industrial park to the west, and industrial uses
and a mobile home park across Slater Avenue to the South (see Figure 3-9).
Existing uses in the study area are primarily four-plex rental units plus
one 118 unit apartment complex. The total number of dwelling units is
approximatly 678 with an overall density of 18.04 units per acre. The
units are in generally poor condition and the carports and garages are in a
state of disrepair. The redevelopment proposal for the area involves
rehabilitation of existing units, construction of new garages and possible
construction of new units above the garages. Only 16 additional units are
likely to be constructed in the short-term because parking and setback
requirements are such that new units in most of the area cannot be
constructed without substantial City involvement. In order to develop to
the maximum 25 units per acre allowed under Medium High Density, the
existing units would have to be entirely destroyed and all new
construction occur.
Regardless of whether the study area is rehabilitated according to plans
or is entirely reconstructed at up to 25 units per acre, there should not be
any compatibility conflicts with surrounding uses. Since the project area
is within an area already occupied by fairly intense industrial, commercial
and residential uses, the proposed Medium High Density designation is
appropriate. Noise from surrounding uses can be adequately buffered
through the use of noise attenuation walls and landscaping.
2. Economic Considerations
The Planning Staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc, conducted a
fiscal impact analysis of the two land use alternatives (existing and
proposed) using the computerized methodology developed for the City.
For purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures for each
alternative were projected over a ten year period, 1983-1993. The land
use assumptions and a discussion of the results are contained in Appendix
A. The results are summarized in the table below:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Cash Flow Basis Medium Density Medium High Density
Revenue(l) 3,141.15 3,932.21
Cost (1) 2,957.41 3,474.92
Revenue minus cost (1) 183.74 457.29
R venue/cost 1.06 1.13
0 in $1,000
3. Housing
Since the study area is entirely developed with rental units, it provides a
significant amount of relatively affordable housing within the City. There
are 678 dwelling units which would continue to exist, though in an
increasingly dilapidated condition if the Medium Density designation is
retained. The intent of the redevelopment project and redesignation to
Medium High Density, however, is to ensure that the existing housing is
preserved and upgraded through rehabilitation, and to provide
opportunities for construction of additional units consistent with the
redevelopment
41
AVE
, WARNER
Fm I R2 RR5 -- - I� 3 RI
F t e. fIR OR. '�i�o Q AMSTERWY
CAM N AVE I R2 r i C4-MS
so _ so ° Iin Rlto
w R2
�
I N �
AJI
R2' R2 RI DR RI RI RI
+ . R2
J CF—R — _ J RI l
A R2 I „e RI euRSELLE oR RI
M� I : ,� R2` R 2 Ro 4 RI 10
// a
-7 3 ,OLENM
I{ RI I RI
I{ (:tss-a:_w st�.�C.� R3 .wen,cw IESLAND
MI M I ! LL DR
3 R3 R3 I R3 �z RI
M 4' �q Il R D
BARTON oR 3 R I
R3 I hoLLAND C I
- _ e` ILAxE ve
M RIto a.
R3 u R3 Cr _ Cr ir ¢ Cc I ,. x Rh y.PD 'R I
I
I
c R I RI
3 o
R3 R3 R3 — R5
/ LATER
MI MH C; 0. �R 2 R2 TRACT . t
,� R2
M I N LiM[ Of� �
p I RI
U a oaa¢ o RQL
o w =
O SaECR .� Icq R3 RI `r RI
�V'
N.Ia R2 I
N N N a
Q o Ir R I _.
MI RT♦ R2 �-
MI R3 �� _ NoelE cR
R3 R2 C4 ' Yw R5 ,,, R5 R I
_ r
MI-CD Mi R2 m
°—D
R5 i SP-1
O C R NAlO R V
i s MIMI I uc ae
A R3 R3
R2 R2 C4
MI-CD M I M I i (Q)RA
Rs R5
J, >s
AVE TALBERT
I
Existing Zoning
Area of Concern 3.4
O Olu ( Oo �
O
42 Figure 3-9
plan. If tax exempt bonds are utilized for rehabilitation and construction,
the City will require that 20 percent of all of the units assisted be rented
to households making 80 percent or less of the median County income. If
tax exempt bonds are not used, the City will instead work with the owners
to see that rents for all units do not exceed HUD Section 8 fair market
rental rates.
If the area is entirely demolished and reconstructed at up to 25 units per
acre, a substantial amount of additional housing would become available
in the City. At 25 units per acre, a total of 940 housing units could be
constructed; 262 more units than presently exist.
The City's Housing Element of the General Plan includes policies aimed at
increasing housing oppportunits for households with low and moderate
incomes. Redesignating the study area to Medium High Density could
thus expand the City's potential to provide affordable housing.
4. Public Services and Utilities
a. Sewers
All of the streets within the study area contain eight inch sewers,
the majority of which flow to a ten inch sewer in Slater Avenue.
This sewer then flows east and becomes a 15 inch line at Beach
Boulevard. The eight inch lines that flow north connect to a 15 inch
line in Warner Avenue. The City Department of Public Works has
indicated that existing sewage flows in the area are well below
capacity and that additional sewage from Medium High Density
development can be accomodated.
b. Water
The Water Division of the City Department of Public Works has
indicated that water lines within the study area are marginally
adequate at present and would require substantial upgrading if the
area were developed at 25 units per acre. The study area presently
contains six and eight inch water lines which connect to an eight
inch line in Slater Avenue. Only one eight inch line, in Oak Lane,
connects to the 21 inch line in Warner Avenue. The Water Division
has indicated that to provide adequate water for fire flows in
conjuction with medium high density development, the water line in
Slater Avenue should be upgraded to 12 inches and additional
connections to the line in Warner Avenue should be made. When the
Mola Development Corporation's office project is constructed on the
southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue, some new
lines will be installed which could be tapped into to provide the
desirable loop of water lines to the study area. The need for such a
loop was identified in Public Works' comments on the Oakview
Redevelopment Project EIR.
43
f
C. Storm Drains
The study area south of Barton Lane drains to Slater Avenue in the
form of surface flow. A catch basin at Slater and Koledo collects
the water into a 48 inch pipe and carries it southwest to Huntington
Central Park. The northern half of the study area drains in the form
of surface flow to catch basins in Cypress Avenue. The 36 inch
Cypress line and 48 inch Warner line both carry the water to the
north.
d. Parks
The study area is presently served by Oak View Neighborhood Park.
This is the only neighborhood park in the area and the study area
would be considered park deficient if it were not so close to
Huntington Central Park. Since Huntington Central Park is only one
quarter mile to the west of the study area, all existing and future
park needs of the area can be deemed to be met.
e. Police and Fire Protection
The Police Department has indicated that if the study area is
redeveloped at 25 units per acre, one additional police officer would
be required. No additional officers would be required under the
existing redevelopment proposal which would add only 16 units. The
Fire Department provides service to the study area from its fire
station at Gothard Street and Ellis Avenue. The area is well within
the desired five minute response range from that station. The Fire
Department's primary concern is with fire flows in the area
associated with the generally poor existing water lines. Fire flows
are adequate for existing units but would be inadequate if developed
at 25 units per acre. The Fire Department is also concerned with
preservation of alley width for manueverability of fire equipment.
The existing alleys are marginally wide enough and the Fire
Department wishes to ensure that any redevelopment of the area
includes alleys of adequate width.
f. Schools
The Oceanview School District has indicated that the district can
easily accomodate any students which would be generated by the
proposed density amendment. Students would attend Oakview
Elementary School, Crestview Intermediate School and Oceanview
High School.
g. Gas and Electrical Utilities, Telephone Service
The Southern California Gas Company, the Edison Company, and
General Telephone have indicated that provision of sevices to the
area of concern poses no problem under the requested land use
am en dm ent.
44
h. Solid Waste Disposal
The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to
the City . No local service constraints are expected a a result of
the proposed land use change.
5. Traffic and Circulation
Access to the study area is primarily taken from Slater Avenue, a
secondary arterial, which forms the southern boundary of the project.
Jacquelyn, Koledo, Queens and Keelson Lanes all connect to Slater
Avenue and also conncect to a system of other internal streets which also
link the area indirectly to Beach Boulevard, Warner Avenue and Nichols
Street. There are no traffic signals at any of the internal street/arterial
intersections.
The Department of Public Works has indicated that the study area
presently generates approximately 4,100 daily trips and would generate
approximately 5,800 daily trips (1,700 additional) if developed at 25 units
per acre. Slater Avenue, which now carries approximately 9,050 daily
trips, would not be significantly impacted by the additional vehicles.
Traffic signals would not be warranted at any of the internal street-Slater
Avenue connections, although some stacking of vehicles on Keelson and
Koledo Lanes may occur during peak traffic hours.
6. Environmental Issues
a. Noise
The area of concern is exposed to an exterior noise level of 60,
which is within the normally accepted range for residential uses.
This should pose no constraint to the proposed land use change.
Noise generated from the site is not expected to be significant.
b. Air Quality
Development of the area of concern at the higher proposed density
will adversely affect air quality in the South Coast Air Basin,
primarily due to increased automobile traffic generated by the
additional housing units. Projected daily emissions from the area
indicated in Appendix C.
3.4.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the site be redesignated Medium High Density
Residential. The deteriorated quality of the existing housing units indicates
that the proposed redevelopment and rehabilitation program is necessary.
Redesignation of the area from Medium Density to Medium High Density will
establish the required consistency between the General Plan and redevelopment
plan and permit the project to be implemented.
45
3.5 PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN AREA
3.5.1 Background
This section addresses a City initiated proposal to change the General Plan
designaton on the area covered by the Pacifica Community Plan from Office
Professional (Figure 3-10) to Mixed Development Commercial. Since the
Pacifica Community Plan zoning has been in place since 1977 and since the
Mixed Development General plan designation is considered as a more
appropriate designation to reflect that zoning, this amendment item received
Negative Declaration No. 83-35. As such, the analysis for this item has been
substantially abbreviated.
3.5.2 Analysis
1. Land Use
The Pacifica Community Plan covers a 26.60± acre area generally
bounded by Main Street, Florida Street, Garfield Avenue and Huntington
Street (Figure 3-11). The purpose of the Community Plan is to integrate
into the area an office/professional, medical, senior citizen multistory
residential complex, and to provide necessary support services that will
meet the health, business and housing needs of the elderly of the
community. Existing uses include the Pacifica Community Hospital,
Wycliff Towers Senior Housing Project, Huntington West Retirement
Apartments and Condominiums, Huntington Plaza Dental Offices and a
Shell gasoline station. Under construction are Pacifica Medical Towers
and a senior citizen condominium project. Within the Communty plan
area, only 1.83 acres remain vacant with no development proposals filed.
47
■
M ■ �� 1� ■� - ► ' -1
N■■■��■�1■1■W■H�`— —; s
dK
no, a RI RI
Ml I RI ,o
MI RI 3 RI awr4aio = Da N C2 is R) RI I RI
Rl RI
RI RI
CF'C MIy Dw cR ---DUEBEC DR J RI RIB- Fet RI
zs As
R3 1
RI RI
4LBERT4 DR o a' R 3 I: C4 R3
MI-CD RI RI RI Rl o E ( 1
�I ' I R2 �� RI
M I Y �A4MKLIN oa C4 RI L RI V RI
114KKKOOAMMI DDDRRR RI RS RS y w
I R2� R2 s R2_ A R
1 I • -,E- Rl R3 RI R2 a; a� — RI
_ ' u
`�RI R2 T
J
R2 - C2 ci. C4 LsR2-PDS
.;� MI"I R2 .
.o , R3 R
R5
I „a R3 R3
coww000aE ea aa,eax.x 3 R2 �� Sx
M2-C R3 a2
.._io ci rzrzr To ' R3 `.
MI_0 I i:R3N.:R2. � caiwoiT= a R3 3
:' - C/1 R2 f R3 -riw
w I zss.o R3
(DISTRt ONE) R3 .R3 `' :
ONE)
R5 4 ■.r
cons-
„ t—
a y ACIFICA CIMMUNITY PLAN R2 R2 R3
:.4c..�•m (DI ICT ONE) R3 e
M2-01 �._ _ �,,,� !C4 R3 -
q!" �,.• R�
R5 R5 R 2 R <W I I IR•2� R2: R I R�
o
o RS R3 -
R 5 I R2 R2 R2 W R2 —,
RA-0_ R5j j
-- RA-O CI'T— --- ---- —. — i .a
_( ow awsr
R2 >o R2 9 r 7�
a — I RI a RI
MH _ R2-PD RI �".` m
I� .-
MI R2 C2
: M�_A R2 ,-..�•.,.-`. = ,. ALE Da'
.u.z n<row eroo. x�
RA-O ' R2 � ¢MI-A-O T R 2 pn ro; no -b rw �RI CF-fir ....
C > " CF—E
R2= R 2 - i m _rp RI
R2 >�. 2 R2
M
a �~y R 8 J
3 R RI
2 x oL wn 2 I
PLAN mI$TRICT I.1 y
� r�wouTw oK �
•zr m (� /� 1 �l
R3 DR4 R2 R3 D=i `+"f I RI `C� L
I rr—�_1 V '• Q O O !�o '`2 Y WK Ta r I- EM—_ ly 'R4MT DR
.. - i RZO 1. R I z�
I
Existing Zoning
Area of Concern 3.5
0
0
49
Figure 3-11
The Mixed Development designation permits a wide range of land uses,
including office/professional, residential, retail and specialty
commercial,hotels and motels and open space and recreational facilities.
It is felt that this designation more accurately reflects the intent of the
Pacifica Community Plan and the existing uses than the existing
Office/Professional designation.
Apart from the Community Plan area, staff is additionally proposing that
the Mixed Development designation be placed on 4.40 acres of land on the
east side of Florida Street south of Main Street (Figure 3-12). This land is
primarily developed with offices, and only .45 acres remain vacant. The
existing General Plan designation is Office/Professional and the zoning is
R5. The area is recommended for inclusion in the Mixed Development
designation, because if left as Office/Professional it would no longer meet
the minimum general plan size requirement of 10 acres. R5 zoning is
consistent with the Mixed Development designation.
It should also be noted that covering only the Pacifica Community Plan
and above noted R5 areas with the Mixed Use designation will create a
4.17 acre island of Office/Professional on the east and west side of
Florida Street in the vicinity of Shaffer and Palin Circles (Figure 3-12).
These areas are R2 and R3 respectively and are both developed
residentially. The property immediately to the south of them is
designated Medium Density Residential by the General Plan. In order to
avoid creating a less than ten acre land use designation area, staff
recommends that this 4.17 acre area be incorporated into the Medium
Density designated area directly to its south. Such action will also bring
the existing zoning and land uses into closer consistency with the General
Plan.
2. Housing, Public Services and Utilities,Traffic and Circulation
Because of the nature of this amendment, an analysis of these items is not
applicable. Since the Pacifica Community Plan itself received a negative
declaration in 1977, all major projects in the area have required
environmental assessment. The same will hold true for any future
projects in the area. The issues of housing, public services and utilities
and traffic and circulation will be addressed at such time.
3.5.3 Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Pacifica Community Plan be designated Mixed
Development Commercial on the General Plan and that the Mixed Development
area be expanded to include the 4.40 acres of land on the east side of Florida
Street. Staff further recommends that the 4.17 acre area in the vicinity of
Schaffer and Palin Circles be redesignated Medium Density Residential.
i
50
■Nunn ■ossoo=Ns/■/■ �� �11111�//■//■�■■■
■solos Nelson oosoo■
= C•pC.■■■■Nei �i �� ��� ��
Mix
MEN
�':���.� �IIII■��= �■■N■■orb .� �,
I�/111111■ ' =
' { M �
• t
u :�� =�iiiii•�■ir
�•�� , III IIIII _ �� ��• ��s■�■/i:�:.
oil
4.0 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 changes in Section 3.0.
4.1 Short-term and Long-term Productivity
Amendment 83-3 does not in and of itself create long term impacts. Rather, it
makes changes in the general types of land uses that may be allowed on a
particular area at the time of development. Amendment 83-3 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.
4.2 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.
53
Although mitigating measures can be imposed as part of the development
process, the natural topography will experience a negligible degree of
modification. Construction materials of mineral origin will also be needed for
development to occur, and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods to
satisfy local energy demand.
4.3 Growth Inducing Impacts
The proposed amendment may have growth inducing effects within the areas of
concern. An estimated population of 2,873 persons could be generated in the
areas of concern under the existing General Plan land use designations. If the
higher density alternatives are chosen in each of the areas of concern, an
estimated population of 7,930 persons could be generated. This would be an
increase of 5,107 persons over the City's existing General Plan. Any increase in
population would increase demand on public services and utilities and
incrementally affect air quality, water quality, traffic, and noise levels.
However, the proposed uses in accord with General Plan policies and programs
should mitigate many of the adverse effects generated by the expected growth.
An Air Quality Management Plan for the south coast area has been developed
based on population projections which reflect the existing general plans of this
City and other jurisdictions. If the alternatives chosen in this General Plan
Amendment result in a net gain in population over and above that predicted by
the existing General Plan, then the amendment may be inconsistent with the
region's Air Quality Management Plan. Mitigation measures would include any
actions at the project level or City-wide to reduce increases in automobile
traffic and increase the use of mass transit facilities.
The demand for water and energy will likely increase as a result of the proposed
land uses in this amendment. Conservation measures can be implemented City-
and County-wide to reduce these impacts such as:
1. Reduce evaporation from reservoirs by encouraging underground storage
or coating water surfaces with evaporation hindering films or substances.
2. Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow of public
water supplies wherever such use is acceptable and safe.
3. Waterspread where appropriate to recharge the underground water supply.
4. Meter water and encourage repair of leaky connections to stimulate more
economical use.
5. Reduce consumption of toilets and showers by requiring appropriate
modifications to these appliances.
6. Prohibit the use of open gas lighting in public or private buildings.
7. Strategically place electric lights to maximize their efficiency. Their
size and power consumption should be minimized as much as possible.
54
s
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.
I
55
i
APPENDIX A
Fiscal Impact Land Use Assumptions
In cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., the computerized fiscal impact methodology was
used to analyze the proposed land uses presented in Land Use Element Amendment 83-3.
The fiscal impact evaluation encompassed the land use alternatives considered for areas
3.1 through 3.4.
Area 3.1 - Ellis/Goldenwest
Three land use alternatives were evaluated for the 280 acre area:
1. Estate Residential 3 Units Acre - 810 estate density units with an estimated
average selling price of $300,000 per unit.
2. Estate Residential 4 Units/Acre - 1,080 estate density units with an estimated
average selling price of $250,000 per unit.
3. Low Density Residential - 1,890 low density condominiums with an estimated
average selling price of $180,000 per unit.
Results:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Cash Flow Basis 3 Units/Acre 4 Units/Acre 7 Units/Acre
Revenue(l) 10,396.35 12,512.94 18,591.42
Cost (1) 9,032.36 11,113.41 17,356.56
Revenue - Cost (1) 1,363.99 1,399.53 1,234.86
R venue/Cost 1.15 1.13 1.07
0 in $1,000
The above table indicates that, over a ten year period, all of the alternatives will
generate a surplus to the City ranging from $1,399,530 for Estate Residential 4
Units/Acre to $1,234,860 for Low Density Residential.
Area 3.2 - Warner/Magnolia
Four land use alternatives were evaluated for the 9.21 acre area located west of Magnolia
Street and north of Warner Avenue:
I. High Density Residential
a. Senior Citizen Apartments - 575 high density senior citizen apartments
with an estimated average value of $37,700 per unit and 3,000 square feet
of support commercial with an estimated value of $800,000 per acre on
0.40 acres.
b. High Density Residential - 322 high density apartment units with an
estimated value of $70,000 per unit.
2. Low Density Residential - 64 low density condominiums with an estimated
average selling price of 130,000 per unit.
3. General Commercial - 136,300 square feet of office space with an estimated
value of $855,000 per acre.
Results:
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4
Cash Flow Basis 65 Units/Ac. 35 Units/Ac. Low Density Commercial
Revenue 412.88 1,476.79 1,979.20 190.09
Cost 326.53 1,156.27 1,546.77 845.58
Revenue - Cost 86.35 320.52 432.43 -655.49
Revenue/Cost 1.26 1.28 1.28 .22
(1) in $1,000
The above table indicates that, over a ten year period, all of the residential alternatives
will generate a surplus to the City ranging from-$1,979,200 for Low Density Residential to
$412,880 for Senior Citizen Apartments. The General Commercial/Office alternative will
create a deficit of $655,490 over the ten year period. The deficit reflects a lower value
per acre for office as opposed to residential, a lack of sales tax generation characterized
by other retail commercial uses, and a lack of in-town spending by permanent residents
who would reside in a residential development.
Area 3.3 - Magnolia/Banning
Four land use alternatives were evaluated for the 1.60 acre area located at the southeast
corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street:
1. Industrial - 26,400 square feet of industrial space with an estimated value of
$800,000—per acre.
2. General Commercial - 11,360 square feet of retail commercial space with an
estimated value of $800,000 per acre.
3. Open Space - a 1.6 acre City-owned neighborhood park.
4. Low Density Residential - 8 low density condominiums with an estimated
average selling price of V150,000 per unit.
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4
General Low-Density
Cash Flow Basis Industrial Commercial Open Space Residential
Reven17 (1) 79.96 161.22 58.28
Cost (1 72.20 97.33 N/A 53.26
Revenue minus cost (1) 7.76 63.89 5.02
Revenue/Cost 1.11 1.66 1.09
(I In $1,000
The above table indicates that, over a ten year period, all of the alternatives, except
Open Space, would generate a surplus to the City, ranging from $161,220 for General
Commercial to $58,280 for Low Density Residential. A neighborhood park developed
under the Open Space designation would not be expected to generate any revenue and
would require a maintenance expenditure of approximately $3,360 per year. If the site
were left as an undeveloped park, there would be no measurable costs or revenues
associated with it.
Area 3.4 - Oakview Redevelopment Area
Two land use alternatives were evaluated for the 37.6 acre area:
1. Medium Density Residential - 562 medium density apartment units with an
estimated average value of $75,000 per unit.
2. Medium-High Density Residential - 940 medium high density apartment units
with an estimated average value of $60,000 per unit.
Results:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Cash Flow Basis Medium Density Medium High Density
Revenue (1) 3,141.15 3,932.21
Cost (1) 2,957.41 3,474.92
Revenue minus cost (1) 183.74 457.29
Revenue/cost 1.06 1.13
(1) in $1,000
The above table indicates that, over a ten year period, the medium-high density
alternative will generate a surplus to the City of $3,932,210 and the medium density
alternative will generate a surplus of $3,141,150.
Summary of Results
Fiscal impact analysis of all of the land use alternatives indicates that adoption of staff's
recommendations (3.1 - Alternative 1, 3.2 - Alternative 3, 3.3 - Alternative 2, 3.4 -
Alternative 2) will result in a surplus to the City of $2,250,350 over a ten year period.
Adoption of the best alternatives, from a fiscal impact standpoint (3.1 - Alternative 1, 3.2
- Alternative 3, 3.3 - Alternative 2, 3.4 - Alternative 2), would result in a surplus of
$2,317,600 over the same period, while adoption of the worst (3.1 - Alternative 3, 3.2 -
Alternative 4, 3.3 - Alternative 3, 3.4 - Alternative 1) would result in a surplus to the City
of $759,750.
Qualification of Results
It must be noted that the results of the fiscal impact analysis should only be considered to
be approximations of the costs and revenues associated with the land use alternatives.
Actual taxable building values, spendable resident incomes and commercial sales tax
generation rates may vary from those figures used to operate the model. Such variations,
along with unforeseen State tax formula changes, may substantially affect the actual
revenues generated. City expenditures may also vary from estimated levels. As such, the
fiscal impact results should be recognized as approximations and should be considered in
comparative terms only, rather than as absolute projections of costs and revenues. If cost
and revenue tables for different alternatives appear to be somewhat close to the same,
then the alternatives should be considered to have identical fiscal impacts rather than
measurable differences. Additionally, fiscal impact results which are close to the
breakeven point should be considered to be inconclusive rather than actual statements of
whether a land use will result in a fiscal surplus or a deficit to the City.
APPENDIX B
Initial Study
i
I
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
i
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
I. Background
I
I. Name of Proponent City of Huntington Beach
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 — (714) 536-527
i
3. Date of Checklist Submitted June 30 , 1983
4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable General Plan Amendment No. 83-3
i II. Environmental Impacts
I i
j (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
Yes Maybe No
I. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
j G. Unstable earth conditions or in changes Area
in geologic substructures? 1
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction Area
1
or overcovering of the soil?
I
C. Change in topography or ground surface Area
relief features? 1
d. The destruction, covering or modification Area
of any unique geologic or physical features? 1
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of Area1
soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a Area
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? 1
115
I
Yes M Tbe No
g. Exposure of people or property to geolo-
gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, Areas
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 1, 3
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration Areas
of ambient air quality? 1, 2
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? X
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of di-
rection of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters? X
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pot- Area
terns, or the rate and amount of surface 1
runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface water in
any water body? X
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in- Area
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 1
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow Area
of ground waters? 1
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with- Area
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? 1
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public water
supplies? X
i. E"xposure of people or property to water re-
lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X
116
Yes May No
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including Area
trees, shrubs, gross, crops, and aquatic 1
plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? X
C. Introduction of new species of plants into Area
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? 1
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? X
S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds, Area
land animals including reptiles, fish and 1
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 Area
migration or movement of animals? 1
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife Area
habitat? 1
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: Area
1, 2 , 3, 4
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Area
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 2
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare? X
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the present or planned Areas
land use of an area? 1, 2 , 3
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? X
117
Yes Maybe No
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource? X
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involves
a. A risk of on explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
rodi(rtion) in the event of an accident or Area
upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? X
II. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the Areas
human population of an area? 1. 2 . 1 4_
12. Housing. Will the r Areas
proposal affect existing hous-
ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 1, 2, 3, 4
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional Areas
vehicular movernent? 1, 2
b. f_ffects on existing parking facilities, or Area
demand for new parking? 4
c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- Areas
tation systems? 1, 2
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- Areas
tion or movement of people and/or goods? 1, 2
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor Area
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _2
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect up(yn, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection? Areas1.._2�4
Areas
I). Police protection? 1 L 2 , 4
Areas
c. Schools? 1,2-►-4
118
Yes Mabe No
Areas
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. 2 , 4
e. Mnintenance of public facilities, includinq
roods? X
f. Other governmental services? X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in. demand upon exist-
ing sources of energy,-or require the Areas
development of new sources of energy? 1, 2
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
Areas
a. Power or natural gas? 1, 2, 4
Areas
b. Communications systems? 1
Adells
c. Water? 1, 2 , 4
Areas
d. Sewer or septic tanks? 1 . 2 . 4
Areas
e. Storm water drainage? 1 , 2 , 4
AreaS
f. Solid waste and disposal? 1, 2 , 4
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? X
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? 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 Areas
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view? 1, 3
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing Area
recreational opportunities? 1
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration Area
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or 1
historic archaeological site?
r
119
Yes Maybe No
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? X
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? X
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or socred uses within the potential impact
area? X
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a, Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause o fish or wild-
life population to drop below self sus-
taininq levels, threaten to eliminate a
pinnt or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or onimol or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? X
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
lonq-term, environmental goals? (A short-
t(rrm impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts . X
will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.) X
d. Dors the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects X
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
IV. Determinotion
(To be completed by the Leod Agency)
120
J
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. —�
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect —
on the environt7Jent, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have —
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- FOCUSED
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X
— EIR*
Date (/ o igvYture
For
(Note: This is onl
y a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own
format for initial studies.)
* The EIR is focused on various issues for different project areas.
The Eir will be prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Amend-
ment analysis.
121
EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS
la. Consolidation of oil operations in Area 1 may result in
changes to the geologic substructure.
b. Construction in Area 1 may result in removal and overcovering
of soil.
c,d. Construction in Area 1 may result in modification of the existing
topography, especially in swale areas .
e. Construction in Area 1 may increase erosion of bluff areas and
swales.
f. Construction in Area 1 may result in added deposition in the
Bolsa Chica and Central Park areas.
g. The City-wide Geologic Study, prepared by Leighton - Yen and
Associates, indicates that the North Branch fault crosses Area 1
and the South Branch fault crosses Area 3.
2a. Construction in Areas 1 and 2 may generate increased air emission
from equipment and traffic. A cumulative assessment of air
quality impacts should be prepared taking into account existing
air quality standards.
3b. Projects which are eventually constructed in Area 1 may sub-
stantially decrease absorbtion rates and increase runoff . Some
areas are at lower elevations than others and may experience
poor drainage.
d. Discharges from development and equestrian uses in Area 1 may
alter surface water quality within the Central Park lake system
and Bolsa Chica.
f,g. Consolidation of oil operations may alter the course of ground-
water flow and quality.
4a,c. Construction in Area 1 may result in displacement of existing
trees and shrubs .
5a, c, d. Some species of animals may be displaced from Area 1 while others
will relocate 'to new niches within the residential developments .
6a. Increased automobile traffic and short-term construction in
Areas 1, 2 , 3 and 4 may result in increased noise levels .
b. Area 2 lies within an Ldn 65 Noise Contour area .
8. The proposed land uses will resul% in a substantial change from
existing vacant, oil, equestrian and nursery uses to residential
and/or commercial uses of varying intensity .
f
10a. Consolidation and operation of oil activity in Area 1 may subject
the new developments to hazardous substances and/or explosions .
11. The proposed residential developments in Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 will
add population to those areas.
12. The proposed projects will add housing to the local supply.
Projects in Areas 1 and 3 will not provide significant oppor-
tunities for low and moderate income housing. The requests
for Areas 2 :and 4 , however, may provide significant opportunities
for low and moderate income households.
13a, b, Projects eventually constructed in both Areas 1 , 2 and 4 result
c, d, f. in a substantial amount of automobile traffic which may signifi-
cantly impact the City ' s circulation system. Based on the number
of additional trips generated by projects which will ultimately
develop on the sites, a general assessment on street and incer-
section capacities should be presented.
14a-f. The potential increases in intensity of use resulting from projects
which will be developed in Areas 1,2, and 4 may result in significant
demand for the expansion of governmental services . A general
assessment of the concerns of the potentially affected governmental
units should be determined and presented in the EIR.
15. Development of Areas 1 and 2 may result in substantial demand
for energy sources .
16a-f. The potential increases in intensity. of use resulting from pro-
jects which will be developed in Areas 1 and 2 may result in
significant demand for expansion of existing utility systems .
A general assessment of the concerns of the potentially affected
agencies should be determined and presented in the EIR.
18 . The change in land uses from vacant to developed in Areas 1 and 3
will alter the aesthetic characters of the two areas .
19 . The proposed projects in Area 1 will result in additional re-
creational opportunities in the area (equestrian, bicycling, etc. )
20. The proposed land use changes in Area 1 may alter archaeological
sites along the bluff areas.
21. Because the General Plan Amendment encompasses three areas , the
cumulative. impacts will need to be considered.
f
APPENDIX C
AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS
The General Plan Amendments will not have any immediate impact on existing air quality;
however, future development as a result of the amendments, may create an increase in
mobile and stationary source emissions.
The following table illustrates a "worst case" or complete buildout scenario of each
amendment area. The figures used represent 1982 emissions for average vehicles in the
South Coast Air Basin as developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
These emissions are not considered to be significant to the regional air basin.
Additionally, it should be noted that when development occurs, the actual amount of
pollutants may be less due to advanced exhaust control technology and more stringent air
pollution legislation.
AREA 1: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST AREA
ESTATE RESIDENTIAL (3 units/acre)
Mobile Emissions .70 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .018 tons/day
TOTAL .718 tons/day
ESTATE RESIDENTIAL (4 units/acre)
Mobile Emissions .90 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .024 tons/day
TOTAL .924 tons/day
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIALI
Mobile Emissions 1.58 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .043 tons/day
TOTAL 1.62 tons/day
AREA 2: WARNER-MAGNOLIA AREA
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Mobile Emissions .049 tons/day
Stationary Emissions Negligible
TOTAL .049 tons/day
OFFICE PROFESSIONAL
Mobile Emissions .14 tons/day
Stationary Emissions Negligible
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (346 apartments)
'Aobile Emissions .16 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .0047 tons/day
TOTAL ..1647 tons/day
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (600 senior citizen apartments)
Mobile Emissions .23 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .0082 tons/day
TOTAL .2382 tons/day
AREA 3: MAGNOLIA-BANNING AREA
INDUSTRIAL ENERGY PRODUCTION
Mobile Emissions .0011 tons/day
Stationary Emissions Negligible
TOTAL .0011 tons/day
OPEN SPACE
Mobile Emissions Negligible
Stationary Emissions Negligible
TOTAL Negligible
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
Mobile Emissions .037 tons/day
Stationary Emissions Negligible
TOTAL .037 tons/day
AREA 4: OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT AREA
MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Mobile Emissions .46 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .012 tons/day
TOTAL .472 tons/day
EXISTING USE (18 units/acre)
Mobile Emissions .32 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .0093 tons/day
TOTAL .3293 tons/day
APPENDIX D
LETTERS OF COMMENT
aCTa
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
September 19, 1983
HUNTINGTON BEACH
Hal Simmons DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Assistant Planner
i
City of Huntington Beach SE P 2 3 W3
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
P.O. Box 190 i
Dear Mr. Simmons: Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: DEIR LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 83-2
We have reviewed this DEIR and would like to make the following
comments:
i
I I
o The proposed land use amendments for Areas 3. 1, 3.3 and 3.5
will not result in any impacts on existing transit service.
I
o Existing transit service to Areas 3.2 and 3.4 is shown in the
i attached table. Area 3.2, which would allow the development of
575 affordable senior apartments at Warner Avenue and Magnolia
Street, may generate significant levels of demand for transit
service.
0 Area 3.4 on Slater Avenue, west of Beach Blvd. , could result in
an additional 260 residential units being added to the existing
700 units in the area, which could lead to increased transit
ridership in the area.
i We are requesting that the City consider provision of passenger
amenities such as benches, shelters, turnouts and information aids
as part of the proposed developments for Areas 3.2 and 3.4.
i
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this DEIR. If you have
any questions, please contact me or Christine Huard-Spencer at (714) i
971-6419. i
I
Sincerely,
Dick Hsu j
Environmental Coordinator
i DH:XL
11222 ACACIA PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 3005 • GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92642 • PHONE (714) 971-6200
( i
Existing Transit Service In
Areas 3.2 and 3.4
Effective September 11, 1983
Weekday
Peak
Area Route Frequency Service Days Destinations Served
3.2 33 30 Weekdays, Saturdays Fullerton, Anaheim,
Garden Grove,
Fountain Valley,
Huntington Beach
3.4 141 60 Weekday Peak Only Irvine, Santa Ana,
Fountain Valley,
Huntington Beach
091983DHXL
•
RESPONSE
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
The recommendation for consideration of passenger amenities such as
benches, shelters, turnouts and information aids as part of the proposed
developments for Areas 3.2 and 3.4, is hereby noted and taken under
consideration.
i
LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT 83�3
Environmental impact Report 83-2
CITY OE I�UNTINGTON BEACH
IC1= 0; i si t C,*(Y CLERK
Z,)OQ MAIN STREET
VjUpITINGTON BEACH,CALIF&S26-0
huntington beach department of
development services
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Methodology 1
2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 5
2.1 Establishment of Administrative Items 5
2.2 Estate Residential Designation 6
3.0 AREAS OF CONCERN 7
3.1 Ellis-Goldenwest Area 7
3.2 Warner-Magnolia Area 21
3.3 Magnolia-Banning Area 31
3.4 Oakview Redevelopment Area 39
3.5 Pacifica Community Plan Area 47
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 53
3.1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 53
3.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes 53
3.3 Growth Inducting Impacts 54
APPENDICES
Appendix A Fiscal Impact Land Use Assumptions
Appendix B Initial Study
Appendix C Air Quality Calculations
Appendix D Letters of Comment
i
AMENDMENTS {DATERPLA S LUTIOCOMM CITY COUNCIL Land Use Categories
DATE RESOLUTION.DATE RESOLUTION 1_ U V l..
II-7-77 1196 12-1-77 4368
84 RESIDENTIAL
6-7-77 1196 8-I-77 4484
9.29-77 1202 II-7-77 4551 Estate 5 2 un/gac
12 6-78 1232 12-21-78 466 M Estate <_4 un/gac
0-I-78 1232 8-6-78 4696
10 17-78 1236 1-18-8 4708 s .� 0 Low Density <_7 un/gac
II-21-78 1232 13:19-B 4728
3-18-B 1261 3-19-79 486 :aN ' ®Medium Density 515 un/gac
3-IB-BO 1261 4-7-80 4865 qEw
10 21-80 1268 12-15-110 4936 �^
5-19-81 1273 6-t5-81 5005- , Medium High Density 525un/gac
II 3-81 278 11 12-7-81 5053
u v-sl z79 Iz-zl-el solo ✓'\ ® (� �, High Density>25 un/gac
COMMERCIAL
General
®� Office Professional
p ®Mixed Development
INDUSTRIAL
General
............................:::..........
-= € ®_ PUBLIC USE
Public Quasipublic,Institutional
..................................................
_ 0
e
- � - P
Open O Space
P
-,
............................................. .'..,' PLANNING UNITS
a
Planning Reserve
® ' O Planned Community
� -.. s<• �:; �spa �' � � OTHER USES
\ } ff rr ®
Resource Production
••F
lad
k�`
•�.,. {
00
Eo-Ease use n up coa•�a zore See Eoca cassia�aR � '"' p0H
r
r_�--` r_-�L__ ; ::.h i 7 r did, fi.• fa,Ea,w u•e m w coaa�al zo�a sea Eoeai co.a�ai P1aa,
•� �.�<__.�, ... rr_ y
OCEAN
PACIFIC
OCEAN
HUNTINGTON MACH, CALIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN
PUNNING DEPARTMENT LAND USE DIAGRAM
Adopted December 1976
Revised DEC.1981
Land'Use Categories
RESIDENTIAL
Estate <_2un/gac
MEstate 154un/gac
OLow Density<_7un/gac
®Medium Density<_15un/gac
High Density>15un/gac
COMMERCIAL
®General
ME Visitor-Serving
9 Mixed Development
MIXED USES
ED Office/Residential
ME Commercial/Support Recreation
INDUSTRIAL
General
Resource Production
OPEN SPACE
FM-Water
ERConservation
Recreation
OTHER USES
�9• �Fi 0 PubticQuasi-Public,lnstitutional
+' 0 Planned Community
=Planning Reserve
�sr Industrial Energy Production
w
,�1f7 � �r ,.P -••Coastal Zone Boundary
x f ac
UU
x
_ PACIFIC COAST
- oCEAN uorz care. w e
PACIFIC
PACIFIC re, ,re Coen u:ore^ e.e I OCEAN
-' ti...�_ .�.- �)..el.4 .sue-�•(r..a..-m_�.®1 .
NGT BEACH CALIFORNIA
PLAN D Local Coastal Program
lop PLANNING DIVISION Land Use Plan
Y
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report analyzes Amendment 83-3 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
twenty-first amendment to the element. Existing general plan land uses
throughout the City are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagrams.
1.1 Methodology
This amendment to the Land Use Element considers requests to change the land
use designations in five areas of the City (Figure 1-1). Two of the requests
were from private property owners and three were initiated by the City. The
first site is known as the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan Area. The second is at
the northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Magnolia Street; the third is City
owned property near the intersection of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street;
the fourth is the Oakview Redevelopment Area at the northwest corner of
Slater Avenue and Beach Boulevard; and the fifth area is the Pacifica
Community Plan south of Main Street and west of Florida Street which received
a negative declaration. Being handled administratively are two items;
establishment of Administrative Items as a type of amendment item, and
establishment of a new Estate Residential Designation to replace the two
existing designations. The amendment requests are 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.
Environmental Assessment
1
r-
3. 3.2
� i w
Areas of Concern
00
Figure 1-1
Section 15148 of the State EIR Guidelines states that "The requirements for an
EIR on a local general plan element or amendment thereof will be satisfied by
the general plan or element document and no separate EIR will be required if:
1) the general plan addresses all the points required to be in an EIR by Article 9
of the State EIR Guidelines, and 2) the document contains a special section or a
cover sheet identifying where the general plan document addresses each of the
points required". In conformance with State guidelines, this document will
constitute the EIR for Land Use Element Amendment 83-3. An initial study
addressing the first four areas of concern was prepared pursuant to Section
15080 of the State Government Code to identify potentially significant impacts
associated with the proposed land use designations. The EIR focuses on those
impacts that were determined to be significant. The environmental setting and
significant impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial study
are addressed under each area of concern (Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4)
Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures to minimize
significant effects are also discussed in these sections.
Section 4.0 addresses overall environmental changes related to the following
consideratons: 1) the relationship between local short-term productivity; 2)
irreversible or unavoidable environmental changes; and 3) growth inducing
impacts.
3
2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
This section addresses two City initiated administrative changes to the General
Plan. The first item establishes Administrative Items as a defined and specific
type of General Plan Amendment, and the second item involves the elimination
of the two existing Estae Residential designations and the establishment of a
new designation to be used in conjunction with the staff recommendations for
Area 3.1.
2.1 Establishment of Administrative Items
In maintaining and amending the General Plan, there are often changes made
which in themselves obviously have little or no significant potential direct
impact on either the environment or current development patterns in the City.
Such changes would include minor word changes in the document, creation of
new land use designations, and revisions to the Zoning and Land Use Element
Consistency Matrix. None of these types of changes would have direct impacts
because none would actually be applied to specific parcels of land. Rather,
these changes would permit the application of the principles involved to be
analyzed fully in conjunction with future site-specific General Plan
amendments.
Since these types of changes do not result in direct impacts, there is no need
for an extensive analysis of them before adoption. To facilitate the initiation
of such document changes, the term Administrative Item is established.
Administrative Item shall include the following:
1. Creation of new General Plan land use designations.
2. Minor word changes within the Ceneral Plan document.
5
3. Procedure changes within the General Plan document.
4. Revisions to the Zoning and Land Use Consistency Matrix.
5. Interpretations of General Plan Land Use Map boundaries.
Any of the above changes to the General Plan may be termed an Administrative
Item, and as such, may be initiated and adopted with only a description of the
change and minimal analysis.
The above wording shall be Section 5.1.3 in the Huntington Beach General Plan.
The adoption of this wording will itself constitute an Administrative Item.
2.2 Estate Residential Designation
The General Plan presently establishes two Estate Residential designations:
one which allows a maximum of two units per acre and one which allows four
units per acre. These designations are employed in the Ellis-Goldenwest Area
where 128 acres are general planned for two units per acre and 152 acres are
general planned for four units per acre. There is presently no implementing
zoning for those designations.
The draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, however, establishes zoning for the
area at three units per acre overall. This was envisioned as an averaging of the
two existing density designations. In the analysis of Area 3.1 in this document,
staff recommends that the entire Ellis-Goldenwest Area be redesignated for
three units per acre. This section establishes the Estate Residential 0-3 Units
Per Acre General Plan designation and deletes the existing designations for two
and four units per acre. This item should only be adopted if staff's
recommendation for Area 3.1 is adopted.
6
s
3.0 AREAS OF CONCERN
3.1 ELLIS-GOLDENWEST AREA
3.1.1 Background
This General Plan Amendment item has been requested by Lindborg/Dahl
Investors, Inc. The request is to change the General Plan designations on ten
acres of land on the south side of Ellis Avenue approximately 1,650 feet east of
Edwards Street from Estate Residential two units/acre to Estate Residential
three units/acre. Because the request is in the still unresolved Ellis-Goldenwest
Specific Plan area, staff has expanded the area of concern to cover the entire
Estate Residential area. The total area covered by this item is 280 acres.
Since this area has been analyzed in such detail in the Ellis-Goldenwest
Conceptual Study and Specific Plan, much of the information contained in this
analysis has been excerpted from those documents.
The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area has been the subject of special planning
efforts for several years. In December 1980, the City Council reviewed a
General Plan amendment request to redesignate a portion of the area from
estate residential to high density residential. The City Council retained the
estate designation and directed staff to study the feasibility of low density
equestrian planned developments. A conceptual study of the area was
concluded in May 1981; and in July 1981, the Planning Commission directed
staff to prepare a specific plan for the Ellis-Goldenwest area to implement the
estate-residential designation and the objectives contained in the conceptual
study. On July 7, 1982, the Planning Commission approved the draft Specific
Plan. On August 13, 1982, however, after numerous public hearings on the
specific plan, the City Council declined to take the recommended action on the
plan and instead directed staff to consider higher density development for the
area.
7
This Amendment analyzes three possible land use designations for the site: 1) a
new Estate Residential 0-Three Units Per Acre designation as established in
Section 2.1 of this document, 2) Estate Residential Four Units Per Acre, and 3)
Low Density Residential.
3.1.2 Analysis
1. Land Use
The area of concern is generally bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the
Coastal Zone boundary and Bolsa Chica area to the west, Garfield and
Ernest Avenues to the south and a line extended north from Crystal Street
to the east as shown in Figure 3-1. The area is largely undeveloped and is
characterized by rolling topography.
The City's General Plan designates the northern and western portions of
the area for estate residential development of two or less dwelling units
per gross acre. The southern and eastern portions of the area are
designated as estate residential at four or less dwelling units per gross
acre. Because of its natural features and resources, the area is
designated for planned open space development in the Open Space and
Conservation Element of the General Plan.
Existing zoning within the area (Figure 3-2) consists of a mixture of RA,
Residential Agricultural (148 acres); R1-8000, Low Density Residential
with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet (15 acres); R1-15,000, Low
Density Residential with a 15,000 square foot minimum lot size (five
acres); M1, Light Industrial (82 acres); and LU, Limited Use (20 acres).
All but 20 acres of the study area has oil production suffix zoning which
allows servicing of producing wells and reactivation of idle wells. All
properties with frontage on Ellis Avenue or Goldenwest Street
(approximately 121 acres) also have the CD, Civic District, suffix which
requires any development on these parcels to be reviewed by the City's
Design Review Board.
Ownership patterns in the study area vary depending upon the location.
The areas west of Edwards Street and east of Gothard Street are largely
under single ownership while ownerships in the area between Edwards and
Gothard Streets are more fragmented. Within this area there are also
three small lot areas with multiple ownerships. Development of the study
area under the draft Specific Plan would require consolidation of small
parcels into minimum ten acre projects.
In regard to existing land uses, the majority of the study area is presently
utilized for oil and natural gas production and appears vacant except for
scattered oil wells, storage tanks, pipelines and service roads. A
transmission substation is located on top of the bluffs west of Edwards
Street on a seven acre parcel owned by the Southern California Edison
Company. Between Edwards and Goldenwest Street, four commercial
horse stables occupy approximately 17 acres in addition to several private
horse stalls and a 36-acre nursery. Informal riding trails criss-cross the
central portion of the study area. The property east of Goldenwest Street
contains scattered oil wells and three single family homes.
8
TALBERT
"LOW DENSITY.!IJ
RESIDENTIAL / CF-R
i i 1 �,� R. C F- R
PUBLIC USE
< - OPEN SPACE i I
r� !;� '.' I - III• .-_ - __. ._ ., 'i ^-�. 1�
CF
IAL
f _
• - i -
.__...._
}
`Q ESTATE RESIDENTIAL.--
G -
--- 0-2 UNITS/ACRE
GENERAL
,.. I INDUSTRIAL
-N- - I
o • -
ESTATE RESIDENTIAL
0-4 UNITS/ACRE (' 4
- I,I,II I
»rrk
RECREATION
OPEN SPACE.
PLANNED RESOURCE MEDIUM DENSITY}
COMMUNITY' PRODUCTION RESIDENTIAL -
HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA Existing General Plan' o
PLANNING DIVISION
Area of Concern 11 ,
QI fiI • �' \ u ll
0 RI I CF-R
I RI •RI ep CXNTRAL F.'.R`c) CF-R MI-CD
Po- i MI-CD _
• CD C�
RI <° R I _
RI CD
RI "
•° ,� `` RA-0-CD I MI MI•
RI a ,,� . RA-0-CD != RI
•`, RI RI sY (PREZONED) RA-0-CD
RI-CD CF-C
I" MI
ID
(PREZONED)
RI so-c CD Roso-co MI-CD RI R
A � MI
y'•�� '+. - (PREZONED) OCD D CD MI-CD 3 "
b
-CD RI
o. T-0-CD RA-O-CO 7
MI CD gMlpRA-O-CD Y � ;MI-01 R� RA-CD R 1 °' MI
RA-0 `°°°° RA-0-CD
((D ••' ` ••••• RA-0 s RA-0I-(J RA-0-0
W .o aso
U U p
0-13142.7)-M,000 RA-CO R 4 A-0 I M I-0
J J M
-N- RA-0- MI.O W
RA-0 _gym I
..,y,«. RA-0 L° D-co RA-0-CD ERNEST
MI-0-CD
M 1-01
L I A-CD' a��2
it
MI-CD MI-0I
MI-0 -01
RA-01 �►-D1 RA-0-CID Ml a-cD. MI-0 R5
f a RS
° .✓ I-A-CDO W
i $ A RA-0-CID "°E " Mlma FR5 RS
r--
� .r«•m•� RA-0
4 " RA-0 Cl
M2-0
I$ �^ R2
�..:'
MILM
R4-0 CI-0 �. RA-01-CD $ _ - y �:
ar.n 4 MI .,�
R2;; M
- ,.roo 'q M2-01 0 o RA-0
R2
...�. o�
o
AMX HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA Existing Zoning O
lopPL4NNING DIVISION Area of Concern 3 . -
Adjacent land uses include the Better Built Industries Horse Stables and
Huntington Central Park to the north of the study area, the southern
terminus of the Gothard Industrial Corridor to the east, the Seacliff
Planned Community and Chevron oil production field to the south, and the
Bolsa Chica and potential Linear Park area to the west. Most of these
properties are currently vacant or marginally utilized.
Under the existing Estate Residential General Plan designations of two
and four units per acre, a total of 864 units could be constructed in the
area of concern. While the General Plan establishes estate densities for
this area, there are presently no implementing ordinances for such
densities. The predominant RA zoning in the area allows only one unit per
acre.
It was largely in response to the need for an implementing ordinance that
the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan was prepared. The Specific Plan
actually established a maximum density of three units per acre over the
entire area. This was envisioned as an averaging of the two General Plan
designations: two units per acre and four units per acre. Since the
Specific Plan has not been adopted, however, the General Plan still limits
construction to only two units per acre on 128 acres. The proposed
General Plan amendment to three units per acre would allow development
to occur at densities consistent with the draft Specific Plan. Some 840
dwelling units and a population of 2,873 may be expected to result.
Alternatively to averaging the two and four units per acre densities, the
City may consider expanding the four unit per acre density to cover the
entire area. This would allow the Specific Plan to remain largely intact
as zoning for the area while permitting more housing units and possibly
slightly more affordability. Some 1,120 dwelling units and a population of
3,830 may be expected to result.
Another option is to entirely eliminate the concept of estate densities and
instead redesignate the area for low density development with a maximum
of seven units per acre. If this alternative is selected, an obvious zoning
solution would be standard R1 zoning. It is also possible that the Specific
Plan could be substantially modified to accommodate seven units per acre
while also retaining some open space, horse trails and grade retention
policies. Some 1,960 dwelling units and a population of 6,703 may be
expected to result.
It is important to note that regardless of the overall density selected, the
existence of several rather severe gullies in the area will likely prevent
even and consistent development over all properties. The proposed linear
park may also consume otherwise developable acreages. Because of these
situations, it is likely that some projects will need to be developed as
Planned Unit Developments and clustered on the developable portions of
the properties at higher densities than otherwise permitted. Figure 3-3
indicates general areas where clustering of units at higher densities may
be expected to occur.
11
TALBERT
FIL
_R
C :.
, y
y� -
G r ,
:
---
w -. _._ .. .. Area B
- I ,
Area C Area D
. ,! I
j
-H- Area A Z --
s
At ``� Blufftop and Swale Preservation Areas
gg HUNTINGTON BEACH p
PLANNING DIVISION Developable Areas Subject to Clustering- '�
Area A involves a total of 70 acres under one ownership, of which
approximately 35 acres may he required to remain as open space under
proposed policies for preservation of bluff areas. The proposed Linear
Park may also consume some of the otherwise developable acreage. Area
B is a minimum developable site area of ten acres as established in the
draft Specific Plan of which 3.5 acres of ravine may be preserved as open
space. Area C is also a ten acre area of which 2.75 acres may be
preserved as open space. Area D involves 48.5 acres under one ownership
of which 6.2 acres of swale area may be preserved. The following table
indicates the resulting clustered densities and numbers of units which may
be expected to occur in each area under each alternative:
Clustered Density/Total Units
Overall Density Area A Area B Area C Area D
Alt. 1 3 Units Acre) 6.0 210 4.6 30 4.1 30 3.5 145
Alt. 2 (4 Units/Acre) 8.0/280 6.2/40 5.5/40 4.6/194
Alt. 3 (7 Units/Acre) 14.0/490 10.8/70 9.7/70 8.0/340
The table indicates that despite the overall approved density, observed
densities in certain areas may actually be much higher. If a density of
seven units per acre is approved, the area east of Edwards Street may
actually appear to be developed at medium density. Clustered densities in
other portions of the study area may be less substantial, but the
appearance will still be of higher density than that approved for the area
overall. In analyzing these clustered densities, it must be pointed out that
they are only general possibilities of what could occur. Depending upon
how property ownerships are eventually consolidated, higher or lower
clustered densities may actually result.
In terms of compatibility with surrounding uses, the fact that all of the
alternatives are low density means that they will all fall within a similar
range of compatibility. Any of the alternatives should be equally
compatible with the southern terminus of the Gothard Corridor, assuming
that equal and adequate buffering between the residential and industrial
uses is constructed.
The proposed realignment of Gothard Street with Crystal Street should
provide a reasonable break between the two uses. There should be no
compatibility problems between any of the alternatives and the Seacliff
Planned Community and Chevron oil field to the south. Because two sides
(north and west) of the study area border existing or proposed regional
park areas, however, the estate density alternatives may actually be more
desirable than the low density alternative. The estate densities would
have the least visual and noise impacts on the proposed park lands.
Additionally, since planning for the Linear Park, the southern portion of
Huntington Central Park and the study area in general has for sometime
included provisions for equestrian trails and facilities, the three and four
units per acre density alternatives would also seem more desirable than
the seven units per acre alternative.
13
In preparation of the Ell is-Golden west Specific Plan, an overall density of
three units per acre was found to be most desirable for provision of
equestrian oriented residential living in conjunction with those facilities
offered in Central Park. The four units per acre alternative would
slightly reduce the effectiveness of the Specific Plan and the seven units
per acre alternative would significantly reduce the integrity of the plan.
2. Economic Considerations
The Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a
fiscal impact analysis of the three land use alternatives using the
computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of
analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were
projected over a ten year period, 1983-1993. The land use assumptions
and a discussion of the results are contained in Appendix A. The results
are summarized in the table below:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Cash Flow Basis 3 Units/Acre 4 Units/Acre 7 Units/Acre
Revenue (1) 10,396.35 12,512.94 18,591.42
Cost (1) 9,032.36 11,113.41 17,356.56
Revenue - Cost (1) 1,363.99 1,399.53 1,234.86
Revenue/Cost 1.15 1.13 1.07
(1) in $1,000
3. Housing
Designating the entire Ellis-Goldenwest area for three units per acre
would result in a total of 840 dwelling units. Development of four units
per acre would permit 1,120 units while seven units per acre would result
in 1,960 dwelling units. One of the City Council's principle concerns with
the draft Ell is-Golden west Specific Plan was that it would not result in
housing which would be affordable to the majority of horse owners in the
area. Development at four units per acre rather than three units per acre
is such a small difference that little reduction in purchase prices can be
expected. Development at seven units per acre would certainly increase
the affordability of the area, but prices could still be expected to be
beyond the reach of many moderate income families. The City's Housing
Element of the General Plan includes policies aimed at increasing housing
opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes. None of the
alternatives under consideration can be expected to significantly expand
the City's potential to provide affordable housing.
4. Public Services and Utilities
a. Sewers
The Ellis-Goldenwest area is located within the service area of the
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County and the City of
Huntington Beach. The area is not served by public sewerage
facilities at this time.
14
i_
EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS
la. Consolidation of oil operations in Area 1 may result in
changes to the geologic substructure.
b. Construction in Area 1 may result in removal and overcovering
of soil.
c,d. Construction in Area 1 may result in modification of the existing
topography, especially in swale areas .
e. Construction in Area 1 may increase erosion of bluff areas and
swales.
f. Construction in Area 1 may result in added deposition in the
Bolsa Chica and Central Park areas .
g. The City-wide Geologic Study, prepared by Leighton - Yen and
Associates, indicates that the North Branch fault crosses Area 1
and the South Branch fault crosses Area 3.
2a. Construction in Areas 1 and 2 may generate increased air emission
from equipment and traffic. A cumulative assessment of air
quality impacts should be prepared taking into account existing
air quality standards.
3b. Projects which are eventually constructed in Area 1 may sub-
stantially decrease absorbtion rates and increase runoff . Some
areas are at lower elevations than others and may experience
poor drainage.
d. Discharges from development and equestrian uses in Area 1 may
alter surface water quality within the Central Park lake system
and Bolsa Chica.
f, g. Consolidation of oil operations may alter the course of ground-
water flow and quality.
4a,c. Construction in Area 1 may result in displacement of existing
trees and shrubs .
5a, c,d. Some species of animals may be displaced from Area 1 while others
will relocate 'to new niches within the residential developments .
6a. Increased automobile traffic and short-term construction in
Areas 1, 2 , 3 and 4 may result in increased noise levels .
b. Area 2 lies within an Ldn 65 Noise Contour area .
8. The proposed land uses will result in a substantial change from
existing vacant, oil , equestrian and nursery uses to residential
and/or commercial uses of varying intensity.
10a. Consolidation and operation of oil activity in Area 1 may subject
the new developments to hazardous substances and/or explosions .
11. The proposed residential developments in Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 will
add population to those areas.
12. The proposed projects will add housing to the local supply.
Projects in Areas 1 and 3 will not provide significant oppor-
tunities for low and moderate income housing. The requests
for Areas 2 :and 4 , however, may provide significant opportunities
for low and moderate income households.
13a , b, Projects eventually constructed in both Areas 1, 2 and 4 result
c, d, f. in a substantial amount of automobile traffic which may signifi-
cantly impact the City' s circulation system. Based on the number
of additional trips generated by projects which will ultimately
develop on the sites , a general assessment on street and inter-
section capacities should be presented.
14a-f. The potential increases in intensity of use resulting from projects
which will be developed in Areas 1,2, and 4 may result in significant
demand for the expansion of governmental services . A general
assessment of the concerns of the potentially affected governmental
units should be determined and presented in the EIR.
15. Development of Areas 1 and 2 may result in substantial demand
for energy sources .
16a-f. The potential increases in intensity. of use resulting from pro-
jects which will be developed in Areas 1 and 2 may result in
significant demand for expansion of existing utility systems .
A general assessment of the concerns of the potentially affected
agencies should be determined and presented in the EIR.
18 . The change in land uses from vacant to developed in Areas 1 and 3
will alter the aesthetic characters of the two areas .
19 . The proposed projects in Area 1 will result in additional re-
creational opportunities in the area (equestrian, bicycling, etc. )
20. The proposed land use changes in Area 1 may alter archaeological
sites along the bluff areas .
21. Because the General Plan Amendment encompasses three areas , the
cumulative. impacts will need to be considered.
,
APPENDIX C
AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS
The General Plan Amendments will not have any immediate impact on existing air quality;
however, future development as a result of the amendments, may create an increase in
mobile and stationary source emissions.
The following table illustrates a "worst case" or complete buildout scenario of each
amendment area. The figures used represent 1982 emissions for average vehicles in the
South Coast Air Basin as developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
These emissions are not considered to be significant to the regional air basin.
Additionally, it should be noted that when development occurs, the actual amount of
pollutants may be less due to advanced exhaust control technology and more stringent air
pollution legislation.
AREA 1: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST AREA
ESTATE RESIDENTIAL (3 units/acre)
Mobile Emissions .70 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .018 tons/day
TOTAL .718 tons/day
ESTATE RESIDENTIAL (4 units/acre)
Mobile Emissions .90 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .024 tons/day
TOTAL .924 tons/day
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
Mobile Emissions 1.58 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .043 tons/day
TOTAL 1.62 tons/day
AREA 2: WARNER-MAGNOLIA AREA
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Mobile Emissions .049 tons/day
Stationary Emissions Negligible
TOTAL .049 tons/day
OFFICE PROFESSIONAL
Mobile Emissions .14 tons/day
Stationary Emissions Negligible
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (346 apartments)
Mobile Emissions .16 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .0047 tons/day
TOTAL .1647 tons/day
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (600 senior citizen apartments)
Mobile Emissions .23 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .0082 tons/day
TOTAL .2382 tons/day
` M
AREA 3: MAGNOLIA-BANNING AREA
INDUSTRIAL ENERGY PRODUCTION
Mobile Emissions .0011 tons/day
Stationary Emissions Negligible
TOTAL .0011 tons/day
OPEN SPACE
Mobile Emissions Negligible
Stationary Emissions Negligible
TOTAL Negligible
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
Mobile Emissions .037 tons/day
Stationary Emissions Negligible
TOTAL .037 tons/day
AREA 4: OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT AREA
MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Mobile Emissions .46 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .012 tons/day
TOTAL .472 tons/day
EXISTING USE (18 units/acre)
Mobile Emissions .32 tons/day
Stationary Emissions .0093 tons/day
TOTAL .3293 tons/day
APPENDIX D
LETTERS OF COMMENT
V
j
acTa
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
September 19, 1983
HUNTINGTON BEACH
Hal Simmons DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Assistant Planner
City of Huntington Beach SEP 2 3 9 �
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
P.O. Box 190 i
Dear Mr. Simmons: Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: DEIR LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 83-2
We have reviewed this DEIR and would like to make the following
comments:
o The proposed land use amendments for Areas 3. 1, 3.3 and 3.5 i
will not result in any impacts on existing transit service.
o Existing transit service to Areas 3.2 and 3.4 is shown in the
I attached table. Area 3.2, which would allow the development of
575 affordable senior apartments at Warner Avenue and Magnolia
Street, may generate significant levels of demand for transit
I service.
I i
I o Area 3.4 on Slater Avenue, west of Beach Blvd. , could result in
! an additional 260 residential units being added to the existing
! 700 units in the area, which could lead to increased transit
ridership in the area. I
i
1 We are requesting that the City consider provision of passenger
amenities such as benches, shelters, turnouts and information aids
as part of the proposed developments for Areas 3.2 and 3.4.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this DEIR. If you have
any questions, please contact me or Christine Huard-Spencer at (714)
971-6419.
i
Sincerely,
!
e
I
Dick Hsu
Environmental Coordinator
i DH:XL
11222 ACACIA PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 3005 • GARDEN GROVE. CALIFORNIA 92642 • PHONE (714) 971-6200
1
u
Existing Transit Service In
Areas 3.2 and 3.4
Effective September 11, 1983
Weekday
Peak
Area Route Frequency Service Days Destinations Served
3.2 33 30 Weekdays, Saturdays Fullerton, Anaheim,
Garden Grove,
Fountain Valley,
Huntington Beach
3.4 141 60 Weekday Peak Only Irvine, Santa Ana,
Fountain Valley,
Huntington Beach
091983DHXL
RESPONSE
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
The recommendation for consideration of passenger amenities such as
benches, shelters, turnouts and information aids as part of the proposed
developments for Areas 3.2 and 3.4, is hereby noted and taken under
consideration.
IN TUB
Superior Court
OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In and for the County of Orange
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH+ CITY CLERK SJ
J
PROOF F PUBLI ATION
PUBLIC HEARING 83-3
State of California ) I Nti ICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
County of Orange )S& 1J LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 83.3
&ENVIRONMENTAL BIIPACr REPORT 83.2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City
Council of the City of Huntington Beach,in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,
Rita J. Richter Huntington Beach,at the hour of 7:30 P.M.,or as soon thereafter as possible on
Monday the 21st day of November.1983 for the purpose of considering a proposed
That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan(LUE 83-3).Environmental
ImPact Report 83-2(EIR 83-2)which includes the following items-
the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I I. Establishtment of Administrative Items as defined and specific type of General Plan
am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; 2 Amentment.
Elimination of the two existing Estate Residential Designation and the creation of a
that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the new Estate Residential Designation to permit three(3)units per acre.
3. Redesignate 280 acres bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north,the City Boundary to
the west Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south,and a line extending north
from Crystal Street to the east.from Estate Residential 2 and 4 units per acres to
HUNTINGTON BEACH I ND. REVIEW
Estate Residential 3 units per acres.
a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of 4. Redesignate 9.21 acres located on the went said of Magnolia Street,approximately
450 feet north of Warner Avenue from the General Commercial to High Density
Residential.Low Density Residential is included as an alternative.
HUNTINGTON BEACH 5. Redesignate 1.2 acres located at the southeast corner of Henning Avenue and
Magnolia Street immediately north of the Orange County Fluud Control Channel
County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the from Industrial Resource Production to Open Space.
6. Redesignate 37.6 acres bounded by Slater Avenue to the south,Nichols Street and
disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- Oakview School to the west,a parallel line 145 feet north of Mandrell Drive to the
ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had north and a parallel lipe 30 feet west of Beach Boulevard to the east,from Medium
and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential
P P Y g Z Redesgnate cre the 26.60 a area covered by the Pacifica Community Plan south of
and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- Main Street and 290 feet west of Beach Boulevard from Office Professional to
lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a Mixed Devebpmsot and redesignate 4.17 acres in the vicinity of Shaffer and Palin
Circles from Office Professional to Medium Density Residential.
period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their
annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular opinions for or against said Land Use Element Amendment 89-3&Environmental
and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in an supplement Impact her i form
Y PP Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000
thereof,on the following dates,to wit: Main Street,Huntington Beach,California.92648-(714)536-5227.
DATED November 4,1983
CITY OF HUNnNGTON BEACH
By Alicia M.Wentworth
City Clerk
November 109 1983
rN�� �
I certify(or declare) tinder penalty of perjury that the forego-
ing is true and correct
Dated at...........JGard.en-Gr.o ue................... \
83
Y �lovember t . .Ca ------•---- \
'fo .this . .-.Na o ..........19........ ..... .,
� ....Rita.J...Rish.ter•.....
Signature CITY COUNCIL
AppROVED BY C
.L� 19-3
Y CLERK J f/
Form No.POP 92082
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date November 9, 1983
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services
Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 83-3/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 83-2
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No. 83-3
and Environmental Impact Report No. 83-2. The amendment addresses a
number of proposed changes to the Land Use Element as requested by
both private property owners and the City of Huntington Beach. Sec-
tion 2.0 of the amendment addresses Administrative Items and Section
3. 0 addresses changes to the General Plan Land Use Map. The requests
are being forwarded to the City Council along with the Planning Com-
mission' s recommendation as part of Land Use Element Amendment No. 83-3.
Planning Commission Action:
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 83-2 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Higgins , Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
The Planning Commission took separate straw votes on each request
item. These votes, along with any discussion, are included in the
attached draft minutes of the Planning Commission October 4, 1983
meeting.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 83-3 WAS APPROVED (PER STRAW VOTES) ADOPTING RESOLUTION
NO. 1314 AS AMENDED TO REFLECT PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION, AND RECOM-
MENDED TO THE .CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Recommendation:
1. Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 83-2.
Pl 0 4181
LUEA 83-3/EIR 83-2
Page 2
2. Approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission (as in-
dicated in Attachment 1, Summary of Requests) and adopt by res-
olution, Land Use Element Amendment No. 83-3 .
Staff Recommendations:
The Department of Development Services staff ' s recommendations are
shown in Attachment 1, Summary of Requests.
Environmental Status:
Environmental documentation for the amendment requests may be found
in the amendment report which also serves as Environmental Impact
Report No. 83-2. EIR was posted for a 30-day period ending October
3, 1983 . Public comments and staff responses constitute the Final
EIR and are incorporated in the appendix of the report.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council may adopt the requested changes as recommended by
the Planning Commission, as recommended by the planning staff, they
may modify them as desired, or may retain the existing designations
in the Land Use Element.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary of Requests
2. Land Use Element Amendment
3. Draft Minutes from Public Hearing before the Planning Commission
4 . Alternative resolutions for City Council to adopt
JWP:HS : sr
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF REQUESTS
2.1 - Establish Administrative Items as a defined and specific type
of General Plan Amendment which does not require the normal detailed
land use analysis. (Please see pages 5 and 6 of General Plan Amendment 83-3) .
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval
Staff Recommendation: Approval
2. 2 - Eliminate the two existing Estate Residential land use designa-
tions (0-2 and 0-4 units per acre) , and create a new Estate Residential
0-3 Units Per Acre designation. This action should be taken only if
the original staff recommendation for Area 3 .1 is also approved.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve creation of Estate Resi-
dential (0-3 units per acre) designation, but do not delete the
two existing designations.
Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
3.1 - The applicant' s request is to redesignate 10 acres located on
the south side of Ellis Avenue, approximately 1, 650 feet east of
Edwards Street from Estate Residential 0-2 Units/Acre to Estate Resi-
dential 0-3 Units/Acre. Since this request is in the Ellis-Goldenwest
Specific Plan area, the area of concern was expanded by staff to cover
the larger area of 280 acres. Staff' s recommendation was originally
to redesignate 280+ acres generally bounded by Ellis Avenue on the
north, the coastal zone and city boundary to the west, Garfield and
Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from Crystal
Street to the east, from Estate Residential 2 and 4 Units Per Acre,
to Estate Residential 0-3 Units Per Acre. In order to approve any
redesignation to 0-3 Units Per Acre, Council will first have to have
established the Estate Residential 0-3 Units Per Acre designation as
per Administrative Item 2. 2 above. Zone Change No. 83-4 was submitted
by the applicant to be processed concurrently with this land use amend-
ment request.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Redesignate from Estate Residential
(0-2 units per acre) to Estate Residential (0-3 units per acre)
only the 40. 5+ acres bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, Golden-
west Street to the east, the Estate Residential (0-4 units per
acre) boundary to the south and Edwards Street to the west. Delete
all other portions of the expanded 280 acre area of concern from
the amendment.
Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
ATTACHMENT 1 - SUMMARY OF REQUESTS
Page Two
3 .2 - The applicant' s request is to redesignate 9.21 acres located
on the west side of Magnolia Street, approximately 450 ft. north of
Warner Avenue from General Commercial to High Density Residential to
permit 47 units per acre (revised from 65 units per acre) .
Planning Commission Recommendation: Delete area 3.2 from the Land
Use Element Amendment.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council re-
designate the study area from General Commercial to Low Density
Residential.
3. 3 - A City-initiated request to redesignate 1. 6+ acres located at
the southeast corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street immediately
north of the Orange County Flood Control Channel from Industrial Re-
source Production to Open Space. Zone Change No. 83-13, from M1-A
to LUD was prepared by staff to be approved concurrently with this
land use amendment.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval
Staff Recommendation: Approval
3.4 - A City-initiated request to redesignate approximately 37 .6 acres
bounded by Slater Avenue to the south, Nichols Street and Oakview School
to the west, a parallel line 145 feet north of Mandrel Drive to the north,
and a parallel line 300 feet west of Beach Boulevard to the east, from
Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Delete area 3.4 from the Land Use
Element Amendment. Consider the possibility of granting existing
and future uses a - density bonus in recognition of the affordability
of housing units in the area.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the request. The City Council may con-
sider the possibility of directing staff to initiate a zone change
to place a density designator of 20 units per acre on the existing
R3 zoning. This would permit the proposed Koledo Lane rehabilita-
tion project to continue in conjunction with the proposed incentive
of permission to build a limited number of additional units.
3. 5 - A City-initiated request to redesignate a 26.60+ acre area covered
by the Pacifica Community Plan and a 4 .40+ acre area covered by R5 zon-
ing, both areas generally located on the south side of Main Street and
290 feet west of Beach Boulevard, from Office Professional to Mixed
Development. Also, to redesignate 4 .17+ acres covered by R-3 zoning
in the vicinity of Shaffer and Palin Circles from Office Professional
to Medium Density Residential. Staff recommends approval of the request.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval
Staff Recommendation: Approval
A motion was made by Livengood and seconded by Higgins to approve
Special Sign Permit No. 83-3 with findings that strict compliance o
the sign code would cause economic hardship and that the additio of
another freestanding sign on Adams Avenue would not adversely fect
other signs in the area. Chairman Porter said he would vote gainst
the motion unless it was restated to require a monument sig The
motion failed to attain four affirmative votes as follows :
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir
NOES : Winchell , Schumacher, Porter
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
ON A SUBSEQUENT MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY INCHELL SPECIAL SIGN
PERMIT NO. 83-3 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWIN FINDINGS AND
CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1 . Strict compliance with the ordi nce code will result in a
substantial hardship to the ap icant because of competition of
existing signs in the area.
2 . Addition of another frees nding sign in the vicinity of Adams
Avenue and Brookhurst St et would not adversely affect other
signs in the area.
3 . The proposed or exi ing sign will not be detrimental to the
property located i the vicinity of such sign.
4. The proposed or existing sign does not obstruct pedestrian or
vehicular tra is vision.
CONDITION OF APPR AL:
1 . The sit plan dated September 1, 1983, shall be the approved
layout rovided that the freestanding sign be a monument sign
with maximum height of 9 feet and a maximum sign area of 60
squ a feet. The location of said sign shall be subject to the
ap royal of the Department of Development Services.
AYES : Higgins , Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOE None
A ENT: Erskine
STAIN: None
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 83-3/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 83-2
Area 3 .1 Applicant : David Dahl „
Area 3 .2 Applicant: Don VaVerka
All other areas and administrative item, city-initiated
The Chairman requested that the public hearing will be held
concurrently with appropriate zone change requests . The public hearing
was opened on EIR 83-2 .
-8- 10/04/83 - P.C.
I
Area 2 .1
Establish administrative items as defined and specific type of General
Plan Amendment which does not require the normal detailed land use
analysis . Staff presentations for all areas were made by Hal Simmons .
The public. hearing was opened. Seeing that no one wished to speak to
this item, the public hearing was closed.
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD AREA 2.1 WAS APPROVED
BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
Area 2 .2
Eliminate the two existing Estate Residential land use designations
( 0-2 and 0-4 units per acre) , and create a new Estate Residential , 0-3
Units Per Acre designation. The action should only be taken if staff
recommendation for Area 3.1 is approved.
The public hearing was opened. David Dahl spoke in opposition to the
4 staff recommendation. He said that 0-2 and 0-4 was redundant and not
the proper method to use. Commissioner Livengood commented that he
believed that the City Council action on the Downtown Specific Plan
should come before action is taken on this item. Commission consensus
was to take a straw vote on this area after action on Area 3 .1 .
Area 3 .1 and Zone Change No. 83-4, Applicant: David Dahl
The applicant 's request is to redesignate 10 acres located on the south
side of Ellis Avenue, approximately 1 ,650 feet east of Edwards Street
from Estate Residential (0-2 units per acre) to Estate Residential (0-3
units per acre) including 280 acres in the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific
Plan Area. Staff recommends redesignate the 280 acres from Estate
Residential 0-2 and 0-4 units per acre to 0-3 units per acre.
The public hearing was opened. Dave Eadie spoke on behalf of the
Huntington Beach Company. He said that the company owned the Holly
properties (100 acres) and plans will be presented to the City shortly
for a General Plan Amendment and requested that it be omitted from any
action tonight. He spoke of another parcel west of Edwards to the
bluffs which falls in the coastal zone and asked that it be excluded
until the Local Coastal Program is adopted.
David Dahl of Lindborg/Dahl, spoke in favor of his requests . He said
he did not believe that a General Plan Amendment was appropriate
because of difference in topography, economic utilization, street
capacity, etc. He gave a brief overview of the history of the property
including modifications that had to be made during discussion of the
-9- 10/04/83 - P.C.
Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan. He preferred elimination of conditions
on the qualified zone change except for trails around the perimeter .
Commissioner Higgins said he found it hard to go along with staff ' s
recommendation to make the whole area in question 0-3 units per acre on
the designation.- Chairman Porter said he had no problem with that for
the 10 acres if that was maximum density. Mr . Dahl responded that he
has been before this body since 1969 with attempts to change the zoning
and all he wants is an increase in the General Plan designation to
allow him to do what he wants to do. Chairman Porter said that if the
City Council ' s intent was to allow more units per acre he was agreeable
to reducing the size of the area to a boundary line between Edwards and
Goldenwest and eliminating the rest of it . Commissioner Schumacher
argued in favor of equestrian uses in the area, she said you are not
going to have affordable housing in estate residential .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS AREA 2. 2 WAS APPROVED AS
FOLLOWS : ADD 0-3 ESTATE RESIDENTIAL TO THE OTHER TWO ESTATE
RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS; RETAIN TWO EXISTING ESTATE RESIDENTIAL
DESIGNATIONS (0-2 AND 0-4) AND ADD NEW DESIGNATION OF 0-3 UNITS PER
ACRE, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Winchell, Livengood, Porter , Schumacher ,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL AREA 3 .1 WAS APPROVED AS
FOLLOWS : REDESIGNATE AREA BOUNDED BY EDWARDS, ELLIS AND GOLDENWEST AS
ESTATE RESIDENTIAL 0-3 UNITS PER ACRE WITH BALANCE LEFT FOR FURTHER
STUDY, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
Area 3 .2, Applicant: Don VaVerka
The applicant ' s request is to redesignate 9.21 acres on the west of
Magnolia Street, north of Warner Avenue , from general commercial to
high density residential to permit 67 units per acre. Staff recommends
that it be designated low density residential , however , if applicant ' s
request is approved, staff recommends that the units be for senior
citizens only.
The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Mr . VaVerka, stated that
there was a need in the City for affordable housing and requested the
Planning Commission to approve his request for senior citizen units .
He felt that the major concern from surrounding residents may be the
access on Magnolia. He said a reciprocal agreement was reached between
-10- 10/04/83 - P.C.
himself and Dr . Brown (adjacent property owner) . He further stated he
was willing to install a signal with left-turn-only lane and a raised
median. He said as far as the neighbors to the west, that landscaped
buffers would be placed between the buildings . He felt that his
proposed project would not add to traffic at peak hours due to the
nature of the tenants . Commissioner Livengood asked the applicant for
the setback figure on the west side. Mr . VaVerka said it was 85 feet .
Melvin Ferdick spoke in opposition to the EIR addressing the Land Use
Element Amendment, he said it does not reflect the current traffic
problem. He was also opposed to the applicant ' s request because he
said he would loose his view - he favored commercial.
Wayne Cronnester said he was not against senior citizens, however, he
said the residents in the area signed a petition against any
residential development occuring on this property.
Frederick Lake said he was concerned for the senior citizens who would
reside there, that it was not the best place for them with a race track
so close. He also said he was concerned with the applicant ' s plan
which showed an opening through to the existing tract. He said he did
not think anyone would like another opening with 575 apartment tenants
available to that tract. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Higgins thought that the traffic counts shown on the
report should be half of what was listed. Commissioner Livengood said
i that he thought the freeway noise was not condusive to future tenants .
Commissioner Schumacher cited safety as a major concern. She said
everyone is for more senior housing, however , we owe it to them to
provide a decent place to live. Chairman Porter said he did not care
for the setbacks and building bulk. He saw a problem with traffic
backing up on the freeway offramp and bridge. The Chairman allowed
William Kamakawa, owner of the adjacent nursery to speak to the
Commission. He said he believed his hands were being tied, that the
property is zoned commercial and his property is being used as a
wholesale nursery. Commissioner Winchell thought that 575 people on 9
acres of land was very dense.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO EXCLUDE AREA
3. 2 FROM THE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT. MOTION PASSED BY THE
FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Livengood, Winchell, Schumacher , Mirjahangir
NOES : Higgins, Porter
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Porter requested staff to send a notice of the City Council
public hearing on this matter to the three residents who spoke .
Area 3.3 and Zone Change No. 83-13, Initiated by the City
A request by the City to redesignate 1 .6 acres at the southeast corner
-11- 10/04/83 - P.C.
I
of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street from Industrial Resource ''"IqN
Production to Open Space. After brief staff presentation the public
hearing was opened for Area 3 .3 concurrently with Zone Change No.
83-13 . Seeing there was no one who wished to address the Commission on
these items, the public hearing was closed.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS AREA 3. 3 WAS APPROVED PER
STAFF 'S RECOMMENDATION, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher ,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
Area 3 .4
A request by the City to redesignate approximately 37 .6 acres bounded
by Slater to the south, Nichols and Oakview School to the west , a line
145 feet north of Mandrel to the north and a line 300 feet west of
Beach Boulevard to the east from medium density residential to medium
high density residential . The City Redevelopment Agency has plans to
include this area in the Oakview Plan and staff ' s recommendation is to
accommodate those plans by a change to medium high density residential
designation. The public hearing was opened . Seeing there was no one
who wished to address the Commission on these items, the public hearing
was closed.
Chairman Porter stated that he did not believe that high density in
this area was consistent with the City' s goals. Commissioner
Schumacher pointed out that, although the staff report indicates that
the redesignation to high density residential would be out of
conformance with the General Plan, if the density bonus allowed for new
affordable housing were applied to the area, it would not be out of
conformance.
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION
FOR AREA 3 .4, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher ,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
Area 3 .5
A request by the City to redesignate a 26.6 acre area covered by the
Pacifica Community Plan and a 4.4 acre area covered by R5 , both
generally located on the south side of Main Street, 290 feet west of
Beach Boulevard from office professional to mixed development; and a
request to redesignate 4. 17 acres covered by R3 zoning in the vicinity
of Shaffer and Palin Circles from office professional to medium density
residential .
-12- 10/04/83 - P.C.
The public hearing was opened. Richard Harlow spoke on behalf of
Robert Zinngrabe (Pacifica Community Plan area) , who said he favored
staff ' s recommendation as long as it remained R1 zoning. The public
hearing was closed on all items .
Commissioner Livengood asked staff about the letter that was submitted
by David Adler regarding this property. Mr . Simmons stated that Mr .
Adler did not understand that the zoning would not allow residential
and further stated he would write a letter back to Mr. Adler informing
him of this. (Staff also distributed a letter from the Orange County
Transit District in response to the Land Use Element Amendment and EIR. )
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR AREA 3.5 WAS APPROVED
PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 83-2 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher ,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 83-3 WAS APPROVED (PER STRAW VOTES) ADOPTING RESOLUTION
NO. 1314 AS AMENDED TO REFLECT PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION, AND
RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-4
Applicant: Lindborg/Dahl Investors, Inc.
A request to rezone 10.0 acres of property from. Rl-O-CD-Q-15,000 and
RA-O-CD to Rl-O-CD-6, 000 on property located approximately 1650 feet
east of Edwards Street, south of Ellis Avenue. For public hearing see
Land Use Element Amendment 8-3, Area 3.1 .
Chairman Porter suggested including two conditions ( #1 and #4) as
recommended by staff . Mr. Simmons stated that the City Council
directed staff to come up with equestrian uses in that area and
suggested that Condition #1 could be defined as a perimeter horse trail
-13- 10/04/83 - P.C.
The public hearing was opened. Richard Harlow spoke on behalf of
Robert Zinngrabe (Pacifica Community Plan area) , who said he favored
staff ' s recommendation as long as it remained R1 zoning. The public
hearing was closed on all items .
Commissioner Livengood asked staff about the letter that was submitted
by David Adler regarding this property. Mr . Simmons stated that Mr .
Adler did not understand that the zoning would not allow residential
and further stated he would write a letter back to Mr . Adler informing
him of this . (Staff also distributed a letter from the Orange County
Transit District in response to the Land Use Element Amendment and EIR. )
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR AREA 3.5 WAS APPROVED
PER STAFF 'S RECOMMENDATION, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir.
NOES : None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None ---
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 83-2 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter , Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 83-3 WAS APPROVED (PER STRAW VOTES ) ADOPTING RESOLUTION
NO. 1314 AS AMENDED TO REFLECT PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION, AND
RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter , Schumacher , Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell , Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-4
Applicant: Lindborg/Dahl Investors, Inc.
A request to rezone 10 .0 acres of property from R1-O-CD-Q-15 ,000 and
RA-O-CD to Rl-O-CD-6, 000 on property located approximately 1650 feet
east of Edwards Street, south of Ellis Avenue. For public hearing see
Land Use Element Amendment 8-3, Area 3.1 .
Chairman Porter suggested including two conditions ( #1 and #4) as
recommended by staff . Mr . Simmons stated that the City Council
directed staff to come up with equestrian uses in that area and
suggested that Condition #1 could be defined as a perimeter horse trail
-13- 10/04/83 - P.C.
• OM MISSION.RECOMMENQAT ION
RESOLUTION O. 5327 (a )
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITZ COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APP OVING LAND USE ELEMENT
ENDMENT TO THE GENERA PLAN NO. 83-3
WHEREAS, e City Council f the City of Hu ington Beach
desires to update and refine the General Plan keeping with
changing community eeds and obj ctives; and
A public hearing on adoptio of Land U e Element Amendment No.
83-3 to the General Pla was hel by the lanning Commission on
October 4, 1983, and appro ed foi reco endation to the City
Council ; and
Thereafter the City Counc of er giving notice as prescribed
by Government Code §65355, held z east one public hearing to con-
sider Land Use Element Amendment o 83-3 ; and
At said hearing before the ity uncil all persons desiring to
be heard on said amendment wer eard,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT R SOL ED by the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach pursua to Erovisions o Title 7, Chapter 3,
Article 6 of California G vernme t Code commencing with §65350, that
Land Use Element Amendme t No. 8" -3 consisting of he following
changes is hereby adop ed:
1. That Sectio 5. 1. 3 for dministrative Items i added to
the General Plan doc meet. Admin strative Items shall inc ude the
following :
1. Cr ation of New Ge ral Plan land use designatio
2. M' nor word changes ithin the General Plan documen
3. rocedure changes w thin the General Plan document.
4. Revisions to the Zo ing and Land Use Consistency
Matrix.
5 Interpretations of G neral Plan Land Use Map
boundarie .
2. That a new Estate Residential 0-3 units per acre designa-
tion is established.
3 That 40. 5t acres bounded b Ellis Avenue to the north,
Goldenwest Street to the east, the E tate Residential (0-4 units per
ADL:ps
11/17/83
1. /,
I
acre ) Land Use designation boundary to the south d Edwards Street
to the west are redesignated from Estate Residen ial ( 0-2 units per
acre ) to Estate Residential ( 0-3 units per acre .
4. That 1. 6t acres located at the sout ast corner of Banning
A nue and Magnolia Street immediately north of the Orange County
Flo o Control Channel are redesignated from Industrial Resource Pro-
ducti to Open Space .
5. That 26. 6t acres covered by th Pacific Community Specific
Plan and . 40t acres covered by R-5 zon ng, both areas generally
located on the south side of Main Str t and 290 feet west of Beach
Boulevard, a e redesignated from Office Professional to Mixed
Development ; a d that 4. 17t acres c vered by R-3 zoning in the
vicinity of Shaf er and Palin Cir es are redesignated from Office
Professional to Me 'um Density R sidential.
PASSED AND ADOP D by the ity Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a gular eeting thereof held on the
day of 1983.
Mayor
ATTEST: PROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk (A&a- C y Attorney j
REVIEWED AND APPROVE INITIATED A APPROVED:
"V
ity Admini or Director f Develo ent
Services
2.
F1 �
November 7, 1983
Dear Property Owner:
The City of Huntington Beach is considering an amendment to
the Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan for the area
outlined on the attached map. The proposed General Plan amendment
is to redesignate 37. 6 acres bounded by Slater Avenue to the south,
Nichols Street and Oakview School to the west, a parallel line
145 feet north of Mandrell Drive to the north and a parallel line
300 feet west of Beach Boulevard to the east, from Medium Density
Residential to Medium High Density Residential .
A public hearing will be held on Land Use Element Amendment No.
83-3 on November 21, 1983, before the City Council at which time
you may address the Council and state your position concerning the
proposed amendment. The hearing will take place in the Civic Center
Council Chambers at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California,
at 7: 30 P.M.
Please contact Hal Simmons of Development Services at (714) 536-5271
if you have any questions regarding the amendment proposal.
Sincerely,
Alicia Wentworth
City Clerk
AW:BA: jh
Encl:
A
3 'v
I�
Telephone: 714-536,5227 V
N
War" Ave.
J
FIR DR.
GENERA1,
COMMERCIAL
Sy AMORE AVE
o- MEDIUMBELSITO DR. N Y
DENSITY
C F-R — — YPR A
- --- (F'a'?K) �YF'RE55 A -
,
GENERAL = -
, INDUSTRIAL _
J
m
• _" F _ � m
(tJ4.i: VIEW :i::li. . _� L DR 0 KRlSTIN 0 HANDBEL
,
J
�T
I I L
BAF TON DR.
HOLLAND
z
DENSITY _ _ — COMMERCIAL
�waGON ZJ- --
OR
How
W ..-- — O
O aO W W � .
V a®le
Slater Ave.
MEDIUM
' DENSITY
71
Existing General Plan
Area of Concern 3 .4
0
0
Figure 3-8
_l 3 Tsai Oakview Redeveloprient Area
Lang Tu (JH)
'.4 Tiffany Place 3.
-llerton, Calif 92633
-35-225-05 165-291-03
-old G Kudish Luigi Canale Jr
A60 Charing Cross Rd 17575 Morgan Lane
-)s Angeles, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
J024 92647
65-225-06 165-291-04
idney Wasserman Gerald T Lamb
7331 Beach Blvd. 17601 Morgan Lane
untington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
?647 92647
,j7-225-08 165-291-07
3ginald De La Cuesta Roger A Johnson
311 Glenco Avenue Apt 1 7662 Slater Avenue
-intington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
2647 92647
65-225-09 165-291-08
lliam G Susman B & G Properties LTD
055 Country Club Drive 7652 Slater Avenue #B
osta Mesa, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
2626 92647
65-321-01 165-291-09
1 E MacLeod William L Hamm
710 W 232nd Street 7622 Slater Avenue
orrance, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
•0505 92647
-65-321-02 165-331-01
-ola B Murray Central Park Industrial
?081 Bolsa Avenue 18700 Beach Blvd.
tidway City, Calif Suite 100
,2655 Huntington Beach, Calif 92648
65-321-03 - 111-340-41
C Enterprises James Lumber Cat y
7501 Beach Blvd. P.O. Box 1188
iuntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
,2647 92647
-65-321-04 16 5-2 91-10 111-340-48
:aside Ranchos William L Hamm ++ Vkj)4kjJtjEFy&
Vo Robert C Polly 14682 Monroe Street i c/o
'.O. Box 444 Midway City, Ca.
-Justin, Calif 92680
L65-291-01
11-340-48
_Ligi Canale Jr
Walter A Frorre
2627 Durfee Avenue
3822 Campus Drive,Suite 202
1 Monte, Calif
)1732 Newport Beach, Calif
92660
;-65-291-02 165-241-01
�rle E Cade Norman Sands
'15 10th Street 16602 Sell Circle #55
:Untington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
12648 92649
165-241-22
,ert C Davis Oakview Redevelopmen Harold Pazanti
-,:D1 �-,indlass Drive Area (JH) James Ji Hu Wang
.;ntington Beach, Calif 5762 Bellfield Lane
1646
65-241-04 165-241-15 165-241-26
.:ard Y H Lee Stanley E Moore Jr Philip T Ching
)26 Briarwood Drive 7058 Westminster Avenue 16782 Coral Cay Lane
_)rrance, Calif Westminster, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
)505 92683 92649
65-241-05 165-241-16 165-241-27
.card Y H Lee William R Wilson Judy Levy
.0. Box 1337 4328 Rutgers Avenue Sylvia Peretz
,)rrance, Calif Long Beach, Calif 10429 -GHayford St #58
,)505 90808 Bellflower, Calif 90706
65-241-07 165-241-17 165-241-28
eve Diu anti Angelo Rinaldi Melvin A Kimmel
.Y662 Rollingwood Rd Ruby Annitst ead 17341 Coronado Lane
1 Torn, Calif P.O. Box 1097 Huntington Beach, Calif
2630 Westminster, Calif 92683 92647
65-241-08 165-241-18 165-241-29
Dhn F Whelan Vernon H Lee Gary A Greenberg
43 Baker Street 21831 Su rerwind Lane Gail P Pickart
osta Mesa, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 7 San Mateo Way
2626 92646 Corona Del Mar, Calif 92625
65-241-09 165-241-19 165-241-30
,semary K Russell Joseph P Gargano Ronald W Kolstad
730 Samar Drive 4904 W White Cr 1530 23rd Street
osta Mesa, Calif Torrance, Calif Manhattan Beach, Calif
2626 90503 90266
.65-241-10 165-241-20 165-241-32
ester L Stewart Richard M Edmonton James T Tso
572 Kelso Drive 18333 Santa Stephana Circle Yi M Chang
untington Beach, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif 23146 Califa Street
�2646 92708 Woodland Hills, Calif 91367
65-241-11 165-241-21 165-241-33
ceanview School District David H Pedersen JEN-LEE CHM
.6940 "B" Street 10141 Crailet Drive 17961 Mt. Coulter Street
_Untington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif
•2647 92646 92708
.65-241-12 165-241-22 165-241-34
;lrich K Stenzel Cecilio Vergel De Dios ls .n-Hua Lin
_7162 Northfield Lane Sylvia Peretz 1355 Paseo Corrido
luntington Beach, Calif 10429 -G Hayford St #58 San Dimas, Calif
;2647 Bellflower, Calif 90706 91773
:65-241-13 165-24.1-23 165-241-35
'aul Y Qaqundah Orville Emerson Roger J Schmidt
001 Legend Circle 25322 Barents Street 18350 Mt. Stewart Circle
luntington Beach, Calif Laguna Hills, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif
)2649 92653 92708
L65-241-14 165-241-24 165-241-36
hillip M Cooley Orville Emerson Norah Fung
)712 E Swarthmore Drive Yang Su Choi 16565 Mt. Michaelis Circle
I-rzheim, Calif 11392 Anegada Street Fountain Valley, Calif
)2807 Cypress, Calif 90630 92708
-vl 165-232-11
vir, F Warnpler Oakview Redevelopment 7801 Limited
•552-Co ldenwest Street Area 3546 Windspun Drive
-intington Beach, Calif �, Huntington Beach, Calif
_1647 92649
-35-242-03 165-232-01 165-232-12
-hard H Tbrgerson Bruce C Stewart Gualbero N Vergara
6783 Beach Blvd. 8572 Kelso Drive 3670 Marigold Street
antington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Seal Beach, Calif
2647 92646 90740
65-242-04 165-232-02 165-232-13
.-)hn-Nan Hsu Ky Ngoc Nyuyen sty H Fisher
/o Olive Lin 12391 Elnwood Street 5829 Los Pacos Street
321 Scenic Bay Lane Gardent Grove, Calif Buena Park, Calif
.intington Beach, Calif 92648 92640 90620
65-231-01 165-232-03 165-232-14
-jene Campbell Tang May Chan Howard J Durham
1211 Brunswick Way 6921 Dresdon Circle c/o Sue Earlabaugh
anta Ana, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 16156 Portola Circle
2705 92647 Huntington Beach, Calif 92649
65-231-03 165-232-04 165-232-15
rome J Goldfein Lyman G Chan
551 Farinella Drive 6921 Dresden Circle Harveyx 5251ff
:untington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif P.O. Box
2647 92647 Huntingtonn Beach, Calif
92646
65-231-04 165-232-05
6
lliam R Dory John Chiu 2
illiam D Munce 2128 Mesa Drive Joohnhn F F Whelan
.o. Box 11492 Newport Beach, Calif 735 Baker Street
Costa Mesa, Calif
osta Mesa, Calif 92627 92660
92626
65-231-05 165-232-06
2-17
-ratic A Cerrito John F Whelan
3173 Santa Cecilia 735 Baker Street Jan
-es Bruce Hunt
Bruce Bender et al
-juntain Valley, Calif Costa Mesa, Calif 1310 Palm Avenue
2708 92626 Hrmtin n Beach - Calif92648
— ---- - to ---- -
67-231-07 165-232-07 165-232-18
ack J Apodaca Saing Soo Kim Daniel Crecelius
6541 Tiber Lane 12935 Abbot Cr 9268 Wintergreen Circle
untington Beach, Calif Garden Grove, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif
2647 92641 92708
65-231-08 165-232-08 165-232-19
avid M Findley Koledo Properties 2nd William Shubin
75 Hanley Avenue 9582 Hamilton Avenue 2959 W Norwood Place
,os Angeles, . Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Alhambra, Calif
+0049 92646 91803
65-231-09 165-232-09 165-232-20
,turu-Chirra Investments To Quang Pham Harvey E Gomberg
./o Y R Reddi 5201 Blairwood 16301 Niantic Circle
'092 Edinger Avenue La Palma, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
luntington Beach, Calif 92647 90623 92649
65-231-10
'•4hjJ h.]h
Oakview Redevelopnent
orin '.t Sounders Sidney Wasserman
',3600 Main Street, Suite 150 Area ��� 17331 Beach Blvd.
intingtoon Beach, Calif 2 Huntington Beach, Calif
32648 J 92647
165-233-02 165-233-14 165-234-14
James R Mallek David K Ferrier Anna Capocciama
9503 c/o Seymour Realty 6371 Athena Drive
1 S Christina Way
9503 os, Calif 1324 S Euclid Street Huntington Beach, Calif
3errit30701 Anaheim, Calif 92802 92647
165-233-03 165-233-15 165-234-17
nan Van Nguyen George B Muse Elizabeth Dispalatro
3592 Nevada Drive 1804 Agnes Rd 7911 Slater Avenue
intington Beach, Calif Manhattan Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92647 90266 92647
L65-233-04 165-233-16 165-222-01
,rank C Lin Kenneth E Friess Shirley Unger
L7362 Zeider Lane P.O. Box 175 17281 Koledo Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif San Juan Capistrano, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
32647 92675 92647
L65-233-05 165-233-20 165-222-02
.3rold D Stewart James R Dent Royston D Warren Jr
Jerry W Gross 7042 Blue-sails Drive 4426 Fairway Drive
41 Willowgrove Huntington Beach, Calif Lakewood, California
Irvine, Calif 92714 92647 90712
165-233-06 165-233-21 165-222-03
John Kenneth Susman Sharon M Dickinson Minda C Monifacio
17422 Queens Lane 1544 N Harding Street 20061 Tranquil Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Orange, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92647 92667 92646
165-233-07 165-234-01 165-222-04
Francis R Gunning Kenneth S K Yee George G Sinopoli
27371 Via Segundo 9591 Duke Drive c/o Realty Interchange Inc
;Mission Viejo, Calif Westminster, Calif 17815 Sky Park Blvd. #H
92675 92683 Irvine, Calif 92715
165-233-09 165-234-02 165-222-05
Robert J Dix Bruce D Trumpis Rodrigues-Yeturu Investments
6872 Silver Beach Circle 316 30th Street 17331 Koledo Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Manhattan Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 90266 92647
165-233-10 165-234-03 165-222-06
Daniel L Klein Fathi Salem Darius J Antia
c/oTom Rossi & Assoc Inc 17382 Keelson Lane 26436 Fresno Drive
14181 Yorba Street,Suite 204 Huntington Beach, Calif Mission Viejo, Calif
Tustin, Calif 92680 92647 92675
165-233-11 165-234-04 165-222-07
Lin J Ju Genevieve C Denault John F Whelan
9801 Oceancrest Drive 8241 Zitola Terrace 743 Baker Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Playa Del Rey, Calif Costa Mesa, Calif
92646 90291 92626
165-233-13 165-234-07 165-221-01
Richard Maytorena Double Gemini Ayyad R Ghobrial
17441 Keelson Lane #B 16551 Brookhurst Street 8412 Northport Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
'2047 92708 92646
Sao 114-14
bhn C-rcwhurst Oakview Redevelopment Area Frank K Yorita
_43? Meadow Circle 18342 E Adams Ranch Rd
Huntington Beach, Calif .5� Villa Park, Calif
92649 92667
165-221-03 165-224-04 165-224-15
::enley Hunt Frank M Fukuhara Eric Lauterer
!6242 Rascal Lane 5812 Carbeck Drive 3171 Estara Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Los Angeles, Calif
92649 92648 90065
165-221-04 165-224-05
Ralph L Rodefeld DeweyBarnhart et al Burton
Burton Sehler
3640 Violet Street 19602 Phoenix Lane
Seal Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 7921 E Garner Street
90740 92646 Long Beach, Calif
90808
165-221-05 165-224-06 165-224-17
Lester G Hufford Franz J Heusler
18782 Main Street 28822 Jaeger Drive Jack A Stansbery
Huntington Beach, Calif Laguna Niguel, Calif 10182 nster,NorthhaCalifnpton Avenue
Westminster, Calif
92648 92677 92663
165-221-06 165-224-07 165-224-18
Howard R Greene Tarry T Oden Eun Ho Shin
18674 San Felipe Street 21912 Starfire Lane 5848 Whitewood Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Lakewood, Calif
92708 92646 90712
165-223-01 165-224-08 165-224-19
,Tay L Shepherd Estate Planning Investments Ltc Gloria M Russo
8694 Hudson River Circle 18943 Date Street 5021 Greencap Street
Fountain Valley, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif Irvine, Calif
92708 92708 92714
165-223-02 165-224-09 — --- --- 165-224-20 -- - -
_bng S Reeh Tom Meyer Gloria S Myers
6692 Healey Avenue Myron T Meier Paul E Brown
Garden Grove, Calif 24 Westport 10889 E1 Mar Avenue
92645 Irvine, Calif 92714 Fountain Valley, Calif 92
165-223-03 165-224-10 165-224-21
(an-Chow Ma K C Seshagiri Rap Jawad Anabtawi
30806 Casilina Drive 15451 Archwood Street 16622 Nalu Circle
Palos Verdes, Calif Van Nuys, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
90274 91406 92649
165-223-04 165-224-11 165-225-01
Donald.Hamilton William Dale Smith Ferol Ballenger
c/o Lockhart Realty 7801 Barton Drive 17242 Elm Street
9582 Hamilton Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92647 92647
165-224-01 165-224-12 165-225-02
Dmcan C Manning Allen E Johnson Roger J Schmidt
Robin C McClinton 3542 Windspun Drive 18350 Mt Stewart Circle
3020 E Chapel Hill Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif
Orange, Calif 92667 92649 92708
165-224-03 165-224-13 165-225-03
rai Yuen Kwok Harold G Kudish Bradrick A Hildreth
8112 Marseille Drive 10460 Charing Cross Rd 1237 Reeder Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif Los Angeles, Calif Covina, Calif
92647 90024 917 24
;, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
` ' 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
November 7, 1983
Dear Property Owner:
The City of Huntington Beach is considering an amendment to
the Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan for the area
outlined on the attached map. The proposed General Plan amendment
is to redesignate 37.6 acres bounded by Slater Avenue to the south,
Nichols Street and Oakview School to the west, a parallel line
145 feet north of Mandrell Drive to the north and a parallel line
300 feet west of Beach Boulevard to the east, from Medium Density
Residential to Medium High Density Residential.
A public hearing will be held on Land Use Element Amendment No.
83-3 on November 21, 1983, before the City Council at which time
you may address the Council and state your position concerning the
proposed amendment. The hearing will take place in the Civic Center
Council Chambers at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California,
at 7: 30 P.M.
Please contact Hal Simmons of Development Services at (714) 536-5271
if you have any questions regarding the amendment proposal.
Sincerely,
arc%/
Alicia Wentworth
City Clerk
AW:BA: jh
Encl:
(Telephone:714-536-5227)
jpwWar.Lier Ave.
TTm-j -
`� FIR DR.
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
SYCAMORE AVE _- - —
a - MEDIUM Y
BELSITO DR. DENSITY
C F—R CYPRESSAVE
-
---- (PARK) (,YPRESS A
GENERAL = 2
, INDUSTRIAL ? !
m
C� F - E
(t)A:,% VIE'N KRtSTNI
MANDRELL DR
J I
FF7
BARTON DR.
-- r-711 A
HOLLANO
r-
Z J I
MEDIUM J - __ — GENERAL �
DENSITY - — COMMERCIAL
waGpl LLLL
o z --- — o � .
g a o Uw H.
� �
U -
IV
Slater Ave.
MEDIUM F
DENSITY
Z
T1Z T
-11
Existing General Plan
Area of Concern 3 .4
0
0
Figure 3-8
r • •
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
November 7, 1983
Dear Property Owner:
The City of Huntington Beach is considering an amendment to the
Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan for the area outlined
on the attached map. The proposed General Plan amendment is to
redesignate a 26 .6+ acre area covered by the Pacifica Community
Plan south of Main Street and 290 feet west of Beach Boulevard
from Office Professional to Mixed Development and redesignate 4 . 17±
acres in the vicinity of Shaffer and Palin Circles from Office
Professional to Medium Density Residential .
A public hearing will be held on Land Use Element Amendment No.
83-3 on November 21, 1983, before the City Council at which time
you may address the Council and state your position concerning
the proposed amendment. The hearing will take place in the Civic
Center Council Chambers at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,
California, at 7: 30 P.M.
Please contact Hal Simmons of Development Services at (714) 536-5271
if you have any questions regarding the amendment proposal .
Sincerely,
6 a��%,
Alicia Wentworth
City Clerk
AW: BA: jh
Encl:
(Telephone:714536-5227)
AdkL
TrITM
TAILOR • OR
ONTARO OR
CF-C - - _ - -
DUC9CC a - - ---
fT
r
• �ZrT.l� - Tyr
ALR[RTa
DR
. 1 —
a-.E II ( -
4 =
CDYYDOCr+C CR.
t
Yooa c cR
j. X.
F. .if yy �
-
r CF-E
- - - - - - -
GRANT DR
7 7—
Pacifica COMMity Plan / Office Professional Area Zb Be Designated
Mixed Development
R5 / Office Professional Area Zb Be Designated Mixed Development
® R2 and R3 / Office Professional Area 7b Be Designated Mediu-n
Density Residential
Area- of Concern 3.5
U@ O O o �
0
0
8
Figure 3-12 51
cse-.e, Coe r
..ipR DR .r rr.rr
TWAR* DR
LOWDENSIT Y —
CF-C I 11 - - _
r RESIDENTIAL
n r
CA
ALBERTA 1 ll
- ru.ON pR
,�- � 111�.v•
- MEDIUM
DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL GENERALW.
COMMERCIAL
- --- �I111�RI - • - _ -. -. �� �
lirfUmillf _ _..(MEDIUM
f
- I DENSITY
L
GENERA — RESIDENTIAL+ w+
INDUSTRIAL i ` _ " OFFICE--
PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE
-
�
1 I ' MEDIUM ,�.....• ` 5� 11
1.' DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL —� • -P -- CF-R 1111 11
cn — r
W DENSITY
/ m -tIRESIDENTIAL
Df--fTTIFi
I
Existing General Plan -
Administrative stem 2.2
0 0 0 0
0
0
( see OUe r
1 - 159-102-30
,;rt S Espitia General Plan Amnck ant 83-3 David L Adler
9,3761 Huntington Street Pacifica Ooamunity Plan 18586 Main Street #200
WJk,.int--*r#on Beach, Calif
�648 Huntington Beach, Calif
4 92648
111-242-10 159-102-06 15 9-10 2-31
.De Bruno Hans J Schroeder William A Cruikshank Jr
%3965 Jurupa Avenue P.O. Box 4249 708 N Arden Drive
loomington, Calif So• Lake Tahoe, Calif Beverly Hills, Calif
2313 95729 90210
L1-242-24 159-102-08 159-111-01
ntington Beach Coapany Albert J Kallis Louis J Russette
S candard Oil of California 528 N Palm Drive 18751 Beach Blvd
(=roperty Tax Division Beverly Hills, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
,�25 Bush Street 90210 92648
.3n Francisco, California 159-102-10 iU 159-111-02
g4120 Robert J Bielefeldt Melvin G Potts
13292 Lynne Drive 18771 Beach Blvd
Garden Grove, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92643 92648
59-091-03 159-102-11 159-111-03
her Western Enterprises Joseph P Gargano Arthur I Bonin
c�,00 112th Ave NE #213 4904 W White CT P.O. Box 1220
allevue, WA Torrance, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
13004 90503 92648
59-092-03 159-102-12 159-111-04
cliffe Gardens Inc Huntington Beach Medical Dot Datsun Inc
/o Lomco Condominiums 18835 Beach Blvd.
;2360 Pacific Avenue 1303 Avocado Ave #225 Huntington Beach, Calif
ong Beach, Calif 90806 Newport Beach, Calif 92660 92647
.59-092-04 159-102-13 159-111-05
:in Medical Arts Associates L W Rylee Inc Harris L Woods
:aufman & Enzer 1303 Avacado Avenue 4225 Dot Datsun Inc
1.6133 Ventura Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif 18835 Beach Blvd.
.ncino, Calif 91436 92660 Huntington Beach, Calif 92648
59-092-05 159-102-14 159-111-06
'ain/Florida Professional William F Cardinal Viola M A]mgren
J3600 Main Street Suite 300 18662 Florida Street Dot Datsun Inc
:untington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 18835 Beach Blvd.
•2648 92648 Huntington Beach, Calif 92648
.59-101-01 159-102-18 159-111-07
:ty of Huntington Beach Main Office Professional Bldg. Wayne M Comeau
18652 Main Street #300 18861 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92648
92648
_59-102-02 159-102-20 159-111-08
:untington Beach Conpany Kartron Properties Sidney A Crossley
:illiam Simpson Inv. Inc 18652 Florida Street #200 Bill Maxey Toyota Inc
.�401 Beverly Blvd. Huntington Beach, Calif 18881 Beach Blvd.
,os Angeles, Calif 90057 92648 Huntington Beach, Calif 92648
.39-102-03 159-102-29 159-111-10
:ntington Pacific Corp Inez L Carroll Sidney A Crossley
,,9,110 Main Street 18592 N Main Street 1055 Rose Avenue
untington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Palm Springs, Calif
-2648 92648 92262
rl t r=.rr � 15y-1 L1.-LL
.r.hryn T MacMillan :Pacifica
neral Plan Amendment 83- Eldon W Bagstad
.ion Oil Co of Calif 901 Catalina Avenue
-open-.Y Tax Division C mnunity Plan Seal Beach, Calif
;�. BOx 7600 (JH90740
)s Angeles, California 159-121-12 159-121-23
)054 Linda McLeod Mildred M Jettie
822 N Hill Street 936 7th Street
Ooeanside, Calif Sibley, Iowa
92054 51249
,9-111-12 159-121-13 159-121-24
�thryn T MacMillan Lanny E Ludwick Huntington Beach Company
1005 12th Street
o Mpg � Hsu Huntington Beach Calif Safecare Co.. Inc
,
j49 Garfield Avenue 900 4th Avenue, Suite 800
intingtonBeach, Calif 92648 92648 Seattle, Washington 98164
159-121-14
�9-111-13 159-121-25
:ginald De La Cuesta Harold V Bragg Safecare Company Inc
'11 Glencoe Avenue #1 5540 E 6th Street 900 4th Avenue Suite 800
intington Beach, Calif Long Beach, Calif Seattle, Washington
?647 90814 98164
i9-111-16 159-121-15 159-121-26
_orida Gardens Ching-jone Chang
P C Moran
.O. Box 6348 18315 Mt. Kristina Street
_-ange, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif Kaufman & nzer
?667 927pg 16133 Ventura Blvd., #800
Encino, Calif 91436
-39-121-01 159-121-16 159-191-04
.-io Barnes C J Chiu Huntington Signal Oil Co.
)x 6313 , 9711 Bay Meadow Drive 3913 Long Beach Blvd
)have Valley, Arizona Huntington Beach, Calif Long Beach, Calif
)440 92646 90807
59-121-02 159-121-17 159-192-01
zfecare Company Inc Diane K Pound Sylvia Shandrick
)0 4th Avenue Suite 800 7801 Garfield Avenue 228' Main Street
?attle, Washington Huntington Beach, Calif
Huntington Beach, Calif
>164 92648
92648
,9-121-04 159-121-18
159-192-02
,affer Investment Co. Winn Enterprises Rick Byers
.rviz Dehghani 2218 N Harbor Blvd. 3015 Harbor Blvd.
'51 E. Chapman Avenue #213 Fullerton, Calif Costa Mesa, Calif
11erton, Calif 92631 92635 92626
,9-121-05 159-121-19
,nald M. Cleland Yoon Pyo Eun 159-19> Colonial 1043 S Pearl Street William J Paden
vine, Calif Tacoma, Washington 2636 Hollister Ter
�714 98465 Glendale, Calif
91206
LRX2 159-121-09 159-121-20 159-192-06
;rm3n I Wheatcroft Carl E Gabrielson James L Foxx
:12 Acapulco Circle 7761 Garfield Avenue 15052 Springdale Street
:ntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Suite C
_646 92648 Huntington Beach, Calif 92649
,9-121-11 159-121-21 159-192-11
,uis F Cesena Harold R Pearson Manor Apartments
41 Palermo Drive Lester A Pearson c/o Vistar Financial
.ntington Beach, Calif 2600 W Rainier Way 13456 Washington Blvd.
�6 La Habra, Calif 90631 Marina Del Rey, Ca lif 90291
.L59-192-1 15 J-Lb}U15
"umber Apartments General Plan Amendment 83-3 Jack M Potash
/oVastar Financial Inc Pacifica Conmunity Plan 18814 Racquet Lane
L3456 Washington Blvd. (JH) � Huntington Beach, Calif
4a.rina Del Rey, Calif 90291 � 92648
159-261-02 159-264-05 159-264-16
antington Townhouse Partnership Thomas J Matlock Ronald L Hooz
e
17932 Sky Park Blvd. Huntington 18762 t Lane Beach, Calif 18818 Racquet Lane
Irvine, Calif 92648 Huntington Beach, Calif
92714 92648
159-262-01 159-264-06
159-264-17
Pacifica Medical Donald W Whitacre Dorothy Z Grant
Properties Associates ZWo 6212 Guam Drive P.O. Box 2704
18821 Delaware Street Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92647 92647
159-262-02 159-264-07 159-264-18
Ben W. Schein Peter, Dorsa Christine
Christine A Rice
c/o Howard Rubenstein 18484 Santa Isadora Street 18131 Ivorycrest Lane
15010 Ventura Blvd. #223 Fountain Valley, Calif
Sherman Oaks, Calif 91403 92708 Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
159-262-03 159-264-08
159-264-19
Stafac Inc Elzie J Rea Clare Marie Drllemann
Shell Oil Co. 18782 Raoquet Lane 18809 Clun Lane Unit 19
Western Tax Region Huntington Beach, Calif
P.O. Box 4848 92648 Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
Anaheim, Calif 159-264-09
92803 Lorraine Rase 159-264-20
Deborah J Donnan
------- — -- ,� 18786 Racquet Lane 18801 Club Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
159-262-04 159-264-10
Caren G Yuppa Helen S Davis 159-264-21
n
Lisa C
18821 Delaware Street #202 18790 Racquet Lane 18795 Club Club Ls Hoyden
Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92648
159-264-01 159-264-11 -- - --- _ 159-264-22 -
Ina Kay Eastham Scott A Kisting Alex G Logan
18746 Raquet Lane 18794 Racquet Lane 18789 Club Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
�2648 92648 92648
159-264-02 159-264-12 -- ------ - - -
23
Mary Alice Kubisak Richard K Harsh finny Schilling18750 t bane Jinny K Sce 7197 Riptide Circle 18783 Club Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
92648
159-264-03 159-264-13
Judith Kallmr�aru Lite59-264-24
1854 Rogerr O Taillon 3�jkjy
t Lane 18806 Racquet Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
159-264-04 159-264-14
Nitin N Trivedi Gordon L Collier 159-264-24
18925 Mt. Demeter Circle 18810 Racquet Lane James M McCauley
18777 Club Lane
Fountain Valley, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 18777 n Beach, Calif
92708 92648
92648
_59-264-33
'arles E Barron General Plan Amend-ent 83-3
--)501-,Xrinette Pacifica Community Plan
�� den Grove, Calif (JH)
-)2645
L59-264-34 159-264-44
-'eter J Scl"aAer Gregory R Joslyn
!8756 Club Lane 18757 Racquet Lane
Untington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
)2648 92648
_59-264-35
unes M Brooks
)471 Tattershall Avenue
+estminster, Calif
)2683
59-264-36
.ichard V Peterson
_8772 Club Lane
luntington Beach, Calif
2648
.59-264-37
eff L Rosen
8778 Club Lane
.untington Beach, Calif
2648
59-264-38
.niel T Gross
8784 Club Lane
untington Beach, Calif
2648
59-264-39
onald A Dossinger
053 Swan Drive
osta Mesa, Calif
2626
-)9-264-40
ivid W McKay
3773 Racquet Lane
antington Beach, Calif
648
>9-264-41
,cy Bailey Turner
3769 Racquet Lane
_Lntington Beach, Calif
'648
)9-264-42
Berrie S Tamura
>765 Racquet Lane
mtington Beach, Calif
'648
,9-264-43
f f rey F Slocum
761 Racquet Lane
.ntington Beach, Calif
3
November 7, 1983
Dear Property Owner:
The Department of Development Services has received a request
to amend the Land Use Element of the City ' s General Plan for
the area outlined on the attached map. The applicant has re-
quested that 9. 21+ acres located on the west side of Magnolia
Street, approximately 450 feet north of Warner Avenue, be re-
designated from General Commercial to High Density Residential .
A public hearing will be held on Land Use Element Amendment
No. 83-3 on November 21, 1983, before the City Council at which
time you may address the Council and state your position con-
cerning the proposed amendment. The hearing will take place in
the Civic Center Council Chambers at 2000 Main Street, Huntington
Beach, California at 7: 30 P.M.
Please contact Hal Simmons of Development Services at (714) 536-5271
if you have any questions regarding the amendment proposal .
Sincerely,
Alicia Wentworth
City Clerk
AW:BA:jh
Encl :
3. 0
(Telephone: 714-536-5227)
.i. T ...... ...-...1—
CR z —►IASTINGS CR -- 7 MAZ' CR I
J z z �,
J 2 I
0 `� 3c�♦ 4-
--CR QJ WAGERS CR SAVOY C C ♦��1'ti XE Y �R 1
U s�
CR ROYER CR — DE VILLE CR �S
z
DR W PARKER CR -
F- CF- E
z
Q
0 o
CR FERGUSON CR d
J
ROYAL DR
cn }
CR CAMEL CR -T , cb
_ , -I
G — CONNE_R 0
U0 — �� a
J SALEM CR LOW DENSITY
DR RESIDENTIAL Jr \
- - PEREK CR GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
C
KENT CR — 1 I II I- /F C D
-- -- JERRET, - C O
CR — w F D
z Y
C _- o�__1_ �_ + ���;s
J O � L
K - -y /
1 = GENERAL RECREAfK
'il n ANTHONYJ D COMMERCIAL
CR vi _ V) - - — -�-
LD -C F r.
Warner Ave. I _ _ _ .z. Ilk
OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
F-
tn
rr
ANCHO AVE
Existing General Plan
Area of Concern 3 . 2
0
O
Figure 3-4 -
SILLIAM E . TWINEM r EE H . LIAO
•8792 Derek Circle 8852 Jarrett Circle
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 Huntington Beach , Ca . 926b
AP NO . 107-812-22 AP NO . 107-812-33
3. i
JOHN S . BOZEK ROBERT BLUNDELL
8782 Derek Circle 8842 Jarrett Circle
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 Huntington Beach , Ca . 926h
AP NO . 107-812-23 AP NO . 107-812- 34
RICHARD E . MOREE ARDESHIR ROSHAN
8762 Derek Circle 9602 Port Clyde Dr .
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 Huntington Beach , Ca . 926L
AP NO . 107-812-24 AP NO . 107-812-35
JOHN MC FARLANE MIKE LOUROS
8761 Jarrett Circle 8822 Jarrett Circle
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 Huntington Beach , Ca . 926L
AP NO . 107-812-25 AP NO . 107-812-36
HERMAN K. BRUSS JOHN D . LANG
8781 Jarrett Circle 8802 Jarrett Circle
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 Huntington Beach , Ca . 92(
AP NO . 107-812-26 AP NO . 107-812- 37
MIGUEL ABASCAL GERALD L . WOLF
8791 Jarrett Circle 8792 Jarrett Circle
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 ~Huntington Beach , Ca . 9261
AP NO . 107-812-27 AP NO . 107-812-38
GAYSON HAUG DEPT OF VETS AFFAIRS OF
18341 Gum Tree Lane 8782 Jarrett Circle
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92646 Huntington Beach , Ca . 926
AP NO . 107-812-28 AP NO . 107-812-39
ROBERT K . LANDERS SIDNEY R . PARSLEY
5041 McFadden Ave . 8782 Jarrett Circle
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca . 926
AP NO . 107-812-29 AP NO . 107-812- 39
KAE ANN RODRIGUEZ DALLAS F . WALKUP
8831 Jarrett Circle 8762 Jarrett Circle
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 Huntington Beach , Ca . 926
AP NO . 107-812- 30 AP NO . 107-812-40
SEUNG SUF CHA MANION F . LEE
8841 Jarrett Circle 16902 Rogue Lane
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 Huntington Beach , Ca . 926
AP NO . 107-812-31 AP NO . 107-812-41
TERRY C . MEYER AUGUST JOHN MARSH
8851 Jarrett Circle 8761 Anthony Or .
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 Huntington Beach , Ca . 92F
AP NO . 107- 812 - 32 AP N0 . 107- 812 - 42
• ANNA LEHMAN
• 8781 thony Dr .
Huntington Beach Ca . 92647
AP NO . 107-812-41
ERNEST A . GROVE
8791 Anthony Dr .
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647
AP NO . 107-812-44
Y
VICKIE LYNN APPLEBY
8801 Anthony Dr .
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647
AP NO . 107-812-45
MARSHALL K. H . LIN
8821 Anthony Dr .
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647
AP NO . 107-812-46
GUENTER KITTLAUS
8831 Anthony Dr .
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647
AP NO . 107-812-47
JORGE RUIZ
8842 Anthony Dr .
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647
AP NO . 107-812-48
PHILIP KLIPPEL
8852 Anthony Dr .
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647
AP NO . 107-812-49
JUDITH E . MOSER
8822 Anthony Dr.
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647
AP NO . 107-812-50
ANDRE SAATI
8802 Anthony Dr .
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647
AP NO . 107-812-51
JOHN M . HUISH
16800 Magnolia Ave .
Fountain Valley , Ca . 92708
AP NO . 143-294-01
FOUMTAIN VALLEY GOLF PARK
33208 Paseo Cerveza
San Juan Capistrano , Ca .
AP NO . 143-294-02 92675
VERNE J . SOLTIS -
�6721 Landau Lane
untington Beach , Ca . 92647
AP NO . 107-653- 19
CLAYTON E . BOOKER JR . TAMURA ENTERPRISES
8851 Conner Drive 8881 Warner Ave .
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 Huntington Beach , Ca . 926b
AP NO . 107-811 -01 AP NO . 107-231 -07
JEROME A . SKANDS ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTF
11337 Snowdrop St . i DisrRICT
Fountain Valley , Ca . 92708 Santa Ana , Ca .
AP NO . 107-811 -02 AP NO . 107-231 -08
CHESTER C . MATSEN JR . UNION OIL CO . OF CAL .
8831 Conner Drive Property Tax Division
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 P . O . Box 7600
AP NO . 107-811 -03 Los Angeles , Ca . 90054
AP NO . 107-231 -09
JAY C . MILLER JOHN C . BROWN
8821 Conner Drive 2845 Mesa Verde Dr . E #7
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 Costa Mesa , Ca . 92626
AP NO . 107-811 -04 AP NO . 107-231 - 10
MARC COHEN OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DIST .
7212 Sunbreeze Dr . 7972 Warner Ave .
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 ~Huntington Beach , Ca . 9261
AP NO . 107-811 -05 AP NO . 107-231 - 11
IRVING GREEN
17530 Santa Domingo CircFe
Fountain Valley , Ca . 92708
AP NO . 107-811 -06
AMBROCIO C . JUAREZ CHARLES A . VOGELGESANr.
8781 Conner Drive 16671 Landau Lane
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 Huntington Beach , C a . 9 2 6
AP NO . 107-811 -07 AP NO . 107-653- 15
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PAUL C . FOCHT
P . O . Box 190 16681 Landau Lane
Huntington Beach Ca . 92648 Huntington Beach , C a . 9 2 6
AP NO . 107-811 -08 AP NO . 107-653- t6
LEROY BARNES JR . i BILL D . TERRY
8761 Conner Drive 16691 Landau Lane
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 Huntington Beach , C a . 9 2 6
AP NO . 107-811 -09 AP NO . 107=653= 17
RUSSELL L . WRIGHT ; COAST HOMES
8782 Anthony Dr . 10082 Garfield Ave .
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92647 Huntington Beach , Ca . 92(
AP NO . 107-811 -28 AP NO . 107 -653- 18
•
HERMAN VAN DER UPWICH
„ 9025 Warner Ave .
Fountain Valley , Ca . 9270
AP NO . 143-301 -21
JAMES W . HUISH
9063 Recreation Circle
Fountain Valley , Ca . 9270
AP NO . 143- 301 -31
� JAMES W . HUISH
D. VaVAlta Drive erka 9063 Recreation Circle
Valencia, Calif Fountain Valley , Ca . 927(
Valen len AP NO . 1 43-301 -32
91355
.................................. ...
FOUNTAIN VALLEY GRAND
16524 111 Ave .
Edmonton , Alberta , Cana_
AP NO . 143-301 -35
TOMDAN ENTERPRISES , INC .
2575 W. Beverly Blvd .
Los Angeles , Ca . 90057
AP NO . 143-301 -36
S & K Greenhouses, Inc
18611 Magnolia Avenu
Huntington Beach, CaPl.if 9264-
OADE N . HOY ,
LUCILLE RICE
0791 Derek Circle 1
8792 Anthony Dr.
Huntington Beach , Ca. 92647 Huntington Beach Ca . 926
AP N0 . 107-812-11 AP NO . 107-811 -23
PAUL W. BONAVRIES EDWARD ANDREW ARMSTRONG
2401 W. Adams St . 8852 Conner Drive
Santa Ana , Ca . 92704 Huntington Beach , Ca . 926
SAP NO . 107-812- 12 '' AP NO . 107-812-01
�;� �► JAMES J . BROWNE RAY80NO KUPCH I K
8821 Derek Circle 8842 Conner Drive
Huntington Beach , Ca .92647 Huntington Beach , Ca . 926
AP N0 . 107-812- 13 AP NO . 107-812-02 '
CHARLES L . CLARK
HAROLD W. SEELEY
9512 Hightide Dr . 8832 Conner Drive
Huntington Beach , Ca . 92646 Huntington Beach , Ca . 926
• AP N0 . 107-812- 14 � AP N0 . 1 07-812-0 3
'�• RAY W. SMAGLIK ROBERT RAISIG
8841 Derek Circle 5184 Cal-zado
Huntington Beach , Ca .92647 Laguna Beach , Ca . 92655
G CS AP N0 . 107-$12- 15 AP NO . 107-812-04
>i
GLENN W. HARRIS RONALD L . KRENZIN
P . O . Box 385 8802 Conner Drive
Montrose , Ca . 91020 Huntington Reach , Ca . 926
AP NO . 107-812- 16 AP N0. 107-812-05
GLEN A. BACON
RALPH L. MARTIN
8852 Derek Circle 8792 Conner Drive
Huntington Beach , Ca .92647 Huntington BEach , Ca . 926
F
AP NO . 107-812- 17 AP NO . 107-812-06
PAUL E . EDWARDS WILLIAM C . OTT
8842 Derek Circle 8782 Conner Drive
Huntington Beach , Ca. 92647 Huntington Beach , Ca .926
AP NO . 107-812- 18 AP NO. 107-812-07
WAYNE K. CHRONISTER
JORGE A. GONZALEZ
8832 Derek Circle 8762 Conner Drive
Huntington Beach , Ca .92647 Huntington Beach , Ca . 926
AP NO. 107-812-08
AP NO .• 107-81 2- 19
JOSE L . GOLDSTROM HIDETOSHI MIYAGI
_ V. 8822 Derek Circle 8761 Derek Circle
Huntington Beach , Ca .92647 Hunttngton Beach , Ca . 926
AP N0 . 107-812-20 AP NO. 107-812-09
FRUTOZO SENA PAUL K ! BONNEY
8802 Derek Circle 8781 Derek Circle
'�.`. Huntington Beach , Ca .92647 Huntington Beach , Ca. 926
AP N0 . 107-812-21 � AP NO. 107-812-10
Publish
NOTICE F PUBLIC HEARING
Us e. �� 3-3 �1�3i�� �1A6 zMP�r
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach , in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,
Huntington Beach, at the hour of -7'�3 O P.M. , or as soon thereafter as
possible on Mohlaa the Si day of NoVeYv, 19
for the purpose of considering
a proposed amendment to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan(LUE 83-3) , Environmental Inpact Report 83-2 (EIR 83-2)
which includes the following items:
1. Establishuent of Administrative Itenis as a defined and specific type of General Plan
Amendment.
2. Elimination of the two existing Estate Residential Designations and the creation
of a new Estate Residential Designation to permit three (3) units per acre.
3. Redesignate 280 acres bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north,.. the City Boundary to the
west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from
Crystal Street to the east from Estate Residential 2 and 4 units per acre to Estat(�
Residential 3 units per acre.
4. Redesignate 9.21 acres located on the west side of Magnolia Street, approxinvrtely
a450 feet north of Warn(�r Avenue from Ge/p''eral Cocsiercial to High Density Residential.
5. Redesignate 1.2 acres located at the southeast corner of R-inning Avenue and Magnolia
Street imrediately north of the Orange County Flood Control Channel from Industrial
Resource .Production to Open Space.
(see next page for rrore items)
A)] interested persons are invited to" attend said hearing and express their
opinions for or against said . G4yera� �a� �2.,� U,se Fle&c.4 4mP^J e'4 tip. 33-3
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227
DATED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
L �
6. Redesignate 37.6 acres bounded by Slater Avenue to the south, Nichols
Street and Oakview School to the west, a parallel laze 145 feet north of
Mandrell Drive to the north and a parallel line 300 feet west of Beach
Boulevard to the east, from Medium Density Residential to Medium High
Density Residential.
7. Redesignate the 26.60 acre area covered by the Pacifica Comnunity Plan
south of Main Street and 290 feet west of Beach Boulevard from Office
Professional to Mixed Developnent and redesignate 4.17 acres in the
vicinity of Shaffer and Palin Circles from Office Professional to Medium
Density Residential.
I
Publish November 19e3
NUTILE OF PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 83-3 8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 83-2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, f
Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as
possible on Monday the 21st day of November iy 83
for the purpose of considering a proposed ariendment to the Land Use Element of
the General Plan (LUE 83-3), Environmental Impact Report 83-2 (EIR 83-2) which
includes the following items:
1. Establishrne nt of Administrative Items as a defined and specific type of General
Plan Amendment.
2. Elimination of the two existing Estate Residential Designations and the creation
of a new Estate Residential Designation to permit three (3) units per acre.
3 1 3. Redesignate 280 acres bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north, the City Boundary to
C • 1 the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north
from Crystal Street to the east from Estate Residential 2 and 4 units per acre
to Estate Residential 3 units per acre.
•�� 4. Redesignate- 9.21 acres located on the west side of Magnolia Street, approximately
450 feet nurtn of Warner Avenue from General Commercial to High Density Residential.
Low Density Residential is included as an alternative.
5. Redesignate 1.2de'1cres located at the southeast corner of Banning Avenue and
Magnolia Street immediately north of the Orange County Flood Control Channel
from Industrial Resource Production to Open Space.
6, Redesignate 31.6 acres bounded by Slater Avenue to the south, Nichols Street
and Oakview School to the west, a parallel line 145 feet north of Mandrell
Drive to the north and a parallel line 300 feet west of Beach Boulevard to
the east, from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential.
7. Redesignate the 26.60 acre area covered by the Pacifica Community Plan south
f of Main Street and 290 feet west of Beach Boulevard from Office Professional
to Mixed Development and redesignate 4.17 acres in the vicinity of Shaffer and
Palin Circles from Office Professional to Medium Density Residential.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their
opinions for or against said Land Use Element Amendment 83-3 8 Environmental Impact
Repo't -2
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227
DATED November 4, 1983 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
S & K Greenhouses, Inc.
• 16811 Magnolia Street
Huntington Beach, California
November 16, 1983
City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
Dear Council Members :
The Senior Citizen Complex that is being planned for the area
presently occupied by S & K Greenhouses, Inc. has some unique and
unusual problems that have to be examined carefully. Since the land
is bordered by the freeway off-ramp, flood control, a school , a
residential neighborhood and has very little frontage, only a few
limited uses for the land are available. I feel that a senior citizen
complex would make the best use of the land. Since the Zone Cha!:ge
Commission meeting, the original plans have been changed from 575 units
to 432 units due to the input from meetings with the neighbors , planning
staff, the developer and us, the sellers of the property. This has
greatly altered some of the concerns that were stated in the original
city staff report. I will try to iddress some of the main concerns
such as traffic, visibility , noise, ai,d alternate ucs.
One of the main concerns is traffic: how to get it in and out
safely and how much would be generated. I, as well as the Public 1,'orks
Departments for the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley,
- 2A
�� 3.2
. r
now feel that a one-way traffic light would solve the traffic flow
problems. Part of the flood control channel world be covered to make
a joint entrance for the senior citizen complex and the commercial
property to the south of us. The signal would stop southbound traffic
only when t:)ere is someone wishing to make a left turn into the property
or a right turn out. Even though senior citizens generally do not
travel much during the peak traffic hours, slowing of traffic at this
point may help some of the off-ramp congestion. By slowing southbound
traffic on Magnolia Street, off-ramp vehicles could merge easier with
the general traffic flow and thus prevent many rear-ender accidents
at this location. A traffic light at the freeway exit would be better
but would require a total re-design of the offramp. New traffic
generated by this amended project would now only be about 1036 usages
per day rather than the original 2300. These figures are tased on
.6 cars per unit with four usages per day rather than the one car per
unit with four usages for a non-senior citizen complex.
A fire gate was originally proposed for Conner Drive. This would
have given a second entrance in case of a major fire for both the
complex and the adjoining neighborhood. The adjoining neighbors do not
want this gate due to their fear that it may be used for general traffic
at some future date. Instead, a secondary fire gate is planned over
the flood control channel. The senior citizen coml:lex would be totally
sPrinklered to help prevent a major fire.
Visibility and noise are two i.mport.arnt environmental concerns .
Careful planning was done to use landscaping, additional setbacks,
and building alignment to produce an aesthetic environment. We have
worked with the developer in order to reduce the buildings from four i
stories to two and three story buildings. This reduced tl;e number of
units from the originall y proposed 575 units to only 4=52 units. f t
• these new heights and alignments, there should be little visual impact.
Special barriers and sound proofing will be added where. needed to
cut the noise from the freeway and the amusement center.
Alternate uses for the land must be considered carefully. To me,
a senior citizen complex would make the best use of the land. It would
provide much needed affordable housing with the favorable weather and
environment that Huntington Beach has to offer. The complex would have
an attractive setting with food and recreational facilites that research
has found that senior citizens want most. These units are affordable
due to their smaller size while maintaining many built-in amenities.
This location is close enough so that they can be visited by family
and friends with bus routes and a Greyhound station nearby if they
want to travel without driving.
If an office professional building were to be built as the
is presently zoned, the amount of -traffic would be more than double
than a senior citizen project would produce. A commercial project
would bring a more adverse environment. Senior citizens watch out
for each other and their neighborhood especially at night when a
commercial project would be empty. They would become an integral part
of the neighborhood that cares for what goes on around them.
If a Low or Medium Density Residential project were allowed to be
built at this location, more problems would arise than if the senior
uitizun project were to be built. 'since a person has to be sixty to
get are apartment, they would not create a lot of noise or disturbances
that a younger family group might produce. A residential project would
open Conner Drive to general traffic flow through the adjoining neigh-
borhood. Our neighbors and we do not wish to see that happen.
i
A last concern that the neighbors brought up just at tonight' s
meeting with them was the future use of Pleasant View School, if or
when it might be closed. They expressed concern that if a high density •
senior citizen project Vent up on our land then the school land might
also be changed to a high density residential . Looking at Sectional
District Map 24-5-11 , it can easily be seen that the school land could
only be developed as residential due to traffic congestion on residential
streets. Our proposed project would not increase traffic at all on
neighborhood streets.
After studying and working with variolisdevelopers to solve the
many problems that concern this location, I believe that a senior citizen
project at this location is the best use of the land and for the
neighborhood.
Respectfully submitted,
��yeShimohara
Co-owner
PLANNING •
SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 24 . 5 - II
r CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
USE OF PROPERTY— PAP
Ljj r—
�JU
1 /
EDINGER " AVE
1 }
cl
> q.
I J H
\�•r- fC
\ M O O
off [
t
STARK AV \ Q�.[``
0
rtsr.ws+r+ _r G G N
wvr 1
' Z i
D s S o
1 [ i
v.r. Q � �•l TT::LIB
u u Lo11 CA z s.Ncs C. 1p- j.r;•
u W Z
u J 6
GI 3 6 Z DONALD CA < .�r.5 C. SAVOY CP
9..SN - AVE .-
JVV D� _..t .�.. q �..
— `�[• DE viLlE CP
BPYANT pP
R
LAMAP OP ...[. C —
Ix
L.NBENT UN — —
CF-E
— 7 \
IjHH]
.{ LINDA CIA
3 r1.Gr5rv�C.
+rnaL
M,10WAP0 cP AWL ca
ANNI 11 OP ANNI I )J I S T
rT
O C r C D CB-] ^ C l\\ [NI•CA I I I
.[rr
L, CF_E �:
i
CID _ 1'.>.Y.,-= .....i--.-1 =lA4.YR1 pP ���
I T�
- _� y® _
r WARNER AVE
I
October 1 , 1983
.,We, the undersigned, being concerned citizens directly g� {; y g
a' affected b redesi atin a 9 . 21+ parcel of land I
:. Y gTl g P • : . I �
located on the west aide of'Ma olia .Street a roximatelY.
450 feet north of Warner.Avenue from General Commercial
'� to High Density ,Residential , ; do hereby petition the /{ O q�
57
City of Huntington Beach to make no such redesignation
Further, we are opposed to any Residential redesignation }
of that particular property.
Name Address Registered
Voter (Yes)
U
�
Z _
yr' 79 a '
^J i
(� CJe,
' g
�� ��•;��� .L� /��,C � L 1` /�,`� 1: ter ?:
ix
sr c ___:
C 4.i
lj k? L) D�'�f C"A-b )J, 0
CC ti S
i
•
•
`October 1 , 1983
We , the undersigned, being concerned citizens directly
affected by redesignating a 9. 21+ parcel of land
located on the west aide of Magnolia Street , approximately
450 feet north of Warner Avenue from General Commercial
to High Density Residential , do hereby petition the
City of Huntington Beach to make no such redesignation. S
o
Further, we are opposed to any Residential redesignation
of that particular property.
Name Address Registered
V ter (Yes)
2e
I
r 4. ��.t.
J -
�lev,
17
?i1A, 7rIL)16
7 �
l
eill
' �`e
36 C r C
C �GclG'L1�N
all
� CIA
c -,X1, _
r �
e
October 1 , 1983 '
We, the undersigned, being concerned citizens directly
affected by redesignating a 9 . 21+ parcel of land
located on the west side of Magnolia Street , approximately
450 feet north of Warner Avenue from General Commercial
'to High Density Residential , do hereby petition the
City of Huntington Beach to make no such redesignation.
Further, we are opposed to any Residential redesignation
of that particular property.
Name Address Registered
Voter (Yes)
Y/
lo
��it �f'L-C�ZJ CP •��,,'.�Itc /(<!'� f� �Z'.1' �,L,� �i� •• / •
/6%,�� �,�,����' �✓ ��-� yes
. , i1 ' ;_� �`.,,�1�•ti, A-./C.`�� / / /y
W41
Li
{ �L
,I
-%(in
� I
l� �
47
9,1/ / '
,t
October 1 , 1983
We, the undersigned, being concerned citizens directly
affected by redesignating a 9 . 21+ parcel of land
located on the west side of Magnolia Street , approximately
450 feet north of Warner Avenue from General Commercial
to High Density Residential , do hereby petition the
City of Huntington Beach to make no such redesignation. -
Further , we are opposed to any Residential redesignation
of that particular property.
Name Address Registered
Voter (Yes)
e-S
IWA)6-
�� S
00"_1 Y6
sZ L ( J
", •, n -7 Cart j f 1.�_�,i�� ��<<.:.�� L� c,��� J c---�
NNLe
LL
2�.�-� �lo Ste(/ ���L.tJi C-��'�.�1 l► • [� • �=�4�
LN111-7
_V 87e2
- �La2 � �l�r-Cf2��fu-•q� 3 SJ�� [ t-,FCt/�LC..-�- ��t. o- "_ Z� -
Oc-tober 1 , 1983
• 'r
We, the undersigned, being concerned citizens directly
affected by redesignating a 9 . 21+ parcel of land
r._ '... ,located on the west side of 'Magnolia Street , approximately
• 450 feet north of Warner .Avenue from General Commercial :
to High Density Residential , do hereby petition the
o
City of Huntington Beach to make no such redesignation " ' � y,i, '
Further, we are opposed to any Residential redesignation
of that particular property.
Name Address Registered A�., . i.-
Voter (Yes)"
lei ,G y
16,5
�7-% ,
�` -
O
f �h - , /
c. �..�
r-
1,,13.
October 1 1983
3
We, the undersigned, being concerned icitizena . directly'w,.� `�
affected by redesignating a 9. 21+ parcel of land qz -
, located on the west aide of 'Magnolia:'Street ,, approximately
450 feet north of Warner Avenue from General-,Commercial< -:
to Nigh Density ,ResidentiaL .: do hereby, petition the'
City of Huntington Beach to -make no such- redesignatiori�-��; "s p�tis • ,
Further, we are opposed to' any Residential :redesignation'' �
of that particular property. h ; ,: K `;u `' }�
- ', a -, •, - (J�-_r-t r ('��yy � y li •r
Name Address .':Registered~":-
L
Voter (Yes ` ...
Qaj
i. C'. /._ -L)(. .7 l CAN/✓ Sii - �' - � l ► ''�y
/rri)�, l�k F"i�,L I1� ����'�_ C Y;�.,I��•J � •I�)C �!� _ ' .` �`.�' �.' ���•'6rtat`;�= '�
c lc ".
-r4.
1i, 4,
is
N.
1.' `J�+y ,�•,4 � to
��'. - - ..i ,- - '.fit - •w!�`V�. -� 1
oe
Ve i
•
j