Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Element Amendment 87-3 - LUE 87-3 - Zone Change 87- PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE rJ_WUBLIC NOTICPUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PLOLI HEARING (LAND USE ELEMENT 87-3, ZONE CHANGE 87-4 & EIR 87-3) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing In th er untingto Beach Civic Center,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California,on the date and at the time indicate a ow to��s the stat ants Of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. •. DATE:February 1, 1988,Mondays r' C+��I�' ',�" it TIME:7:00 P.M. ,,.. SUBJECT:Land Use Element Amendment 87-3,Zone Change 87-4 and Environmental Impact R APPLICANT:Eldon W. Bagstad represented by Robert Corona of Corona Development Corp.,Inc f LOCATION:Eastside of Delaware Street,approximately 280 feet north of the intersection of Delaware Street and Garfield Avenue. j PROPOSAL:Amend the General Plan by redesignating a 1.14 acre site from Medium Density Residential to Senior Residential with a concurrent Zone Change from R2(maximum 15 units/acre)to Q-R3-SR(Qualified-Medium-High Density Residential, 25 units/acre combined with a Senior Residential suffix).With a 50 percent density bonus,this designation would allow a 42 unit senior residential project.The"Q"will require a developer agreement concurrent with the Issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:Environmental Impact Report No.87-3,assessing the environmental impact of the project will also be considered by the City Council. ON FILE:Community Development ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above.All applications,exhibits,and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, ' California,for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL,By:Alicia M.Wentworth,City Clerk,Phone:(714)536-5405 Dated 1/20/88 Published Huntington Beach Independent January 28, 1988 014-638 i M I _I 'RA-0-CD C 2 �RL • -� �1 !CF-C �' ' ;F11 a _-.0 RI . !MI I ��.•zrn' „ I I ..K.-.I y RI R 3 I t MI-CD I RI RI RI RI > MI AllJ A , M j f` `R� 2 MI-0-CD -- — j� IRA-0-CD - \.M _` R2 R5 ~-a ... R 3 M2-0 R3 M I-0 R3 Re I , RA-0 I 1a4� R2. : R3 s," L �C4 -�-�-� _ M1-Q•f•'J ~ ' "'-•-`A PACT CA CA' M.I "PLAN i IF . R 3 I ••• •• •ice... POIS FItCT Owl _ MI 01 i, M2 01•a'• MI-0 SIIQ a x• x x A �I _ ` u g 1 I I R5 R 2 1•: = IRS R2 j Z L 3r R2 6 -I 0A F CI 4 --- - A— -'— _ _ R2 2 i M H - _ C2 I MI o o RA-0 MI R2 �4R2.i' MI-A i a a RA-Oa'7 R2 '� I IA-1-0 R2 -- Ir a:I ==�' =RY I C 4 1 '` R2 �- % R2, I hR21 I =R2 aI Rz : MI R2 �,� C2-Q �w I• r. ....'.�.......� I /� A.r.-•.A J5. 11u' DR c.R2 0 PO vfit R2.0 R24i R21 _ ,. C2-0-CD ._ C2-0 _^ ;_ire ... .I R2 :, » �» R2.0.O0 r - R2 0 I .I ,. _I__y. _ , \..ql�...�,y . =u i R2 R2 R2 ( -_ c�nrn a�•n prun":o-oo o �- R 2 FIG,3 EXISTING ZONING huntington beach planning division STAFF huntington beach department of community development EpoR TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: January 5, 1988 SUBJECT: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-3, ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-4 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-3 APPLICANT: Corona Development Company, Inc. for Eldon W. Bagstad REOUEST: Amend the General Plan by redesignating a 1. 14 acre site from Medium Density Residential to Senior Residential -with a concurrent zone change from R2 (Maximum 15 units per acre) to Q-R3-SR (Medium-High Density, 25 units per acre with a 50 percent density bonus allowing a maximum of 42 units on the subject site) . LOCATION: East side of Delaware Street approximately 280 feet north of Delaware Street and Garfield Avenue. 1 .0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: t A. Recommend to the City Council that Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 be certified as adequate and in conformance with the State EIR Guidelines . B. Approve General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 87-3 for a change in land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Senior Residential and recommend adoption by the City Council . C. Approve Zone Change No. 87-4 , with findings, to rezone the site from R2 (maximum 15 units per acre) to Q-R3-SR (Medium-High Density with a senior suffix which would allow 25 units per acre plus a 50 percent -density bonus totalling 42 units) . 2.0 BACKGROUND: On December 1, 1987, the applicant ' s proposal presented to the Planning Commission included a request to expand the Pacifica Community Plan, District One, to include the 1. 14 acre subject site A-F M-23C t TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: January 5, 1988 SUBJECT: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-3, ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-4 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-3 APPLICANT: Corona Development Company, Inc. for Eldon W. Bagstad REOUEST: Amend the General Plan by redesignating a 1. 14 acre site from Medium Density Residential to Senior Residential with a concurrent zone change from R2 (Maximum 15 units per acre) to Q-R3-SR (Medium-High Density, 25 units per acre with a 50 percent density bonus allowing a maximum of 42 units on the subject site) . LOCATION: East side of Delaware Street approximately 280 feet north of Delaware Street and Garfield Avenue. 1 SUGGESTED ACTION• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: A. Recommend to the City Council that Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 be certified as adequate and in conformance with the State EIR Guidelines . B. Approve General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 87-3 for a change in land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Senior Residential and recommend adoption by the City Council . C. Approve Zone Change No. 87-4 , with findings, to rezone the site from R2 (maximum 15 units per acre) to Q-R3-SR (Medium-High Density with a senior suffix which would allow 25 units per acre plus a 50 percent density bonus totalling 42 units) . 2 . 0 BACKGROUND: On December 1, 1987, the applicant ' s proposal presented to the Planning Commission included a request to expand the Pacifica Community Plan, District One, to include the 1. 14 acre subject site in order to allow a senior residential project at a density of 45 units per acre. The action would have been accomplished through the process of amending the General Plan, a zone change and a code amendment. The owner of the site, Eldon W. Bagstad, represented by Robert Lee Corona, President of Corona Development Co. Inc. , proposed to construct a three-story senior project containing 51 one-bedroom units mirroring the existing senior complex north of and adjacent to the subject site. At the public hearing, testimony was given that the Pacifica Community Plan was originally intended to allow sharing of common facilities and that it therefore does not lend itself to expansion onto small individual parcels . The Commission and staff agreed with this assessment. The Commission then stated a preference for the provided alternative of placing R3-SR zoning on the property and granting a 50 percent density bonus for a total of 42 units . The EIR, however, did not address a reduced size project of 42 units . For this reason, and also because the applicant indicated a preference to send the request on to the City Council for a determination, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change requests and found the EIR inadequate. On December 15, 1987, with the applicant ' s concurrence, staff brought a discussion item to the Planning Commission requesting the reconsideration of Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-3, Zone Change No. 87-4 and Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 . The significant changes to the request would be to change the zone change request from the expansion of Pacifica Community Plan (District One) to R3-SR (senior suffix) which would allow 25 units per acre plus a density bonus of 50 percent that would total 42 units on the 1. 14 acre site. Staff also included a list of information that would be provided on January 5, 1988 : 1. Analysis of an alternative Land Use Element Amendment request to Senior Residential, and Zone Change to R3-SR. 2 . A comparison of the development standards as established by the SR suffix versus the Pacifica Community Plan. 3 . Augment the EIR to include the corrected data regarding City sewer lines and County Sanitation lines and also analyze the impacts associated with a 42 unit senior project. 4 . Discuss City policies and issues regarding density bonuses for Senior Residential projects. 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density ZONE: R2 (Maximum 15 units per acre) LAND USE: Vacant • 0 North of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Development ZONE: Pacifica Community Plan LAND USE: Three-story senior residential project East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density ZONE: R2 (Medium Density Residential) LAND USE: Nine residential four-plexes South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density ZONE: R2 (Medium Density Residential) LAND USE: Convalescent hospital and one four-plex West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density ZONE: R2 (Medium Density Residential) LAND USE: Vacant 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 and the addendum to that report included as an attachment to this staff report. 5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 6. 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: This revised request for the General Plan Amendment to Senior Residential and Zone Change to Q-R3-SR addresses a 42 unit senior citizens project proposed for the 1. 14 acre subject site. The new approach is intended to allow a senior residential project without the need to expand the Pacifica Community Plan. Staff feels that a senior project is an appropriate land use for the property and that the limits and restrictions imposed by the proposed senior residential land use designation and Q-R3-SR zoning will preclude this project from becoming a precedent setting factor for substantial density increases in the surrounding area. Senior Residential Land Use Designation In 1985 a new residential land use category was created, Senior Residential . This land use category (or designation) recognized that, because of low occupancy per unit and reduced vehicle generation rates, residential projects serving senior citizens could be constructed at higher densities and still maintain compatibility with surrounding lower density residential uses . The Senior Residential land use designation is intended to more clearly define the intended use of property when it is determined that a residential project at that same density, but not limited to senior residential, could have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Any designation of property to Senior Residential in the General Plan shall be accompanied by a concurrent zone change to apply the SR (Senior Residential) suffix to the accompanying zoning. The Senior Residential land use designation shall only be consistent with R2, R3 and R4 zoning designation when combined with the SR suffix. The allowable density of the Senior Residential land use designation shall be determined by the underlying zoning and the size of any density bonus granted. Any request to remove the SR zoning suffix from property general planned for Senior Residential shall require a Land Use Element amendment to a non-Senior Residential land use designation. Locational criteria for the Senior Residential land use designation are as follows : a. Proximity to transportation facilities. b. Proximity to shopping facilities . C. Proximity to medical facilities. As stated previously in EIR 87-3, the subject site meets the above locational criteria for the establishment of senior residential land uses. Senior Suffix zone In conjunction with the Senior Residential land use designation, staff is recommending a zone change on the site from R2 (Medium Density Residential) to Q-R3-SR. The "Q" has been added to set in place the requirement for a development agreement in conjunction with the conditional use permit for this proposed project. The Senior Residential Code requires that a conceptual site plan be submitted in conjunction with the applicant ' s request and that a development agreement to be approved with the zone change request . A conceptual site plan was originally submitted with the General Plan Amendment/Zone Change application. In the Meadowland Senior project approval process, however, it was found to be more appropriate to process the development agreement in conjunction with the conditional use permit rather than the zone change. The "Q" sets that process in place as a segment of the zone designation. An R3 zone on the site (Medium-High Density) would allow a maximum of 25 units per acre. With a 50 percent density bonus, for affordable units, the applicant could construct 42 units . The senior suffix, SR, would provide standards for the proposed project designed to meet the needs of seniors. When the suffix is applied to a property, certain development standards will be reduced; I specifically, those related to minimum floor area, site coverage, building separation, building bulk, parking and open space. These reduced standards will enable senior citizen projects to be built and sold or rented at a more affordable cost. The following matrix was developed to highlight some of the standards established under the SR (Senior Residential) suffix and also compare the SR standards with those established in the Pacifica Community Plan. CITY CODE COMPARISONS Article 917 Article 964 Setbacks R3-SR (Senior Suffix) vs Pacific Community Plan Front 10 feet Building 45 feet or less = 15 feet Side Minimum of 3 feet 5 feet Rear Minimum of 10 feet Varies 5 to 15 feet Building Heights Maximum 35 feet District One - 45 feet District Two - 140 feet Site Coverage 50% 45% Number of Bedrooms N/A Maximum one bedroom Unit size 450 sq. ft. 500 sq. ft. Minimum floor area Age of Occupant Minimum one person N/A 60 years or older Parking One space/Bachelor or One space/Bachelor or one bedroom one bedroom 1.5 spaces/Two bedrooms 1.5 spaces/Two bedrooms Open Space Private patio plus 200 ft/unit including communal facilities balconies and communal facilities Support Services N/A Eating facilities, (communal facilities) beauty/barber shop, libraries, private health clubs, health care facilities and retail commercial . LAND USE POLICE CALLS/UNIT Residential -Single family . 60/unit -Multi-family low density . 70/unit -Multi-family Multi-story and high density . 55/unit Senior residential . 10/unit Calls relate to the number of additional officers per year that would be needed to service new development . A patrol officer ' s average annual salary, including benefits , is $54 , 000 . Five or more officers would result in capital expenditures, such as a vehicle. When calls per year reach 535, the Police Department would recommend hiring an officer . For the purpose of this analysis , it will be assumed that the Department will incur a cost whether the calls for a particular project reach 535 or a portion of that total . Calls by type of land use and estimated annual costs for alternatives in each area are shown in detailed tables that are available upon request . 2 . 4 Fire Department It is the the assessment of Fire Department Staff, primarily Tom Poe (Deputy Fire Marshall, Fire Prevention Division) , that new residential development will impact two programs : Public Safety Administration, Program No . 300 and Public Safety, Fire Control Program 302 . The total 1986-1987 budget for these programs, minus capital expenditures, is $7, 528, 860 . The majority of public safety activity, approximately 75 percent, is provided to resi- dential land uses in the City. Assuming costs for public safety on a per capita basis the result would be as follows : ($7, 528, 860) ( . 75) _ $5, 646, 645 divided by the 1986 City population of 184 , 300 = $31 per capita . 2 . 5 Community Services According to Jim Engle, Superintendent of Recreation and Parks Development, neither one of the alternatives analyzed in General Plan Amendment 87-3 would require and/or generate an increase in park acreage in the City. Nor would those scenarios require an increase in community services staff or existing programs that are not self supporting . In addition to any park development costs incurred by the proposed project, it is assumed that new residents in the City will have some impact on the cost of park maintenance. Although park main- tenance is a budgeted program wi !:hin the Public Works department, it will be shown under Community Services in order to identify the cost impacts separate from other '?ublic Works programs . (0619D) i According to Daryl Smith, Superintendent of Park Maintenance, it costs the City $3 , 000 per year, per acre, to maintain the parks . In order to determine a cost per capita the following formula was developed: There are currently 555 acres of park land that are included in the $3 , 000 per acre, per year cost . The current City population is 184 , 300 . Park acreage divided by population results in . 003 acres of park per person that are maintained by the City. Park acreage per person multiplied by cost per acre results in an annual park maintenance cost per capita of $9 . 00 . Acreage Maintenance Annual Maintained Population Cost Cost/Capita (555) / (184 , 300) - . 003 ($3 , 000) _ ($9 . 00) 2 . 6 Public Works In a discussion with Les Evans, City Engineer , it was determined that the scope of development assessed in this analysis would only have a measurable impact on Public Works Programs 530 and 531, sewer maintenance. Mr. Evans also stated that residential development generates the greatest impact on sewer maintenance in the City. For budget year 1986-1987 the total cost for sewer maintenance is $580, 893 . Since residential generates the largest impact it is realistic to measure that impact on a per capita basis . Residential costs are as follows : Seventy eight percent of $580, 893 = $453 , 097 divided by the 1986 population estimate of 184 , 300 = $2 .46 per capita . Summary tables of revenues versus costs are presented on the following page. (0619D) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-3 Revenue/Cost Summary Tables Revenues Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Property Tax $ 5, 075 $ 4 , 736 Sales Tax 4 , 182 2, 720 Utility & Franchise Tax 5, 130 1, 705 State Subventions 4 , 009 1, 770 $18 , 396 $10, 931 Costs General Administration $ 741 $ 741 Police 540 1, 080 Fire 2,387 1, 054 Community Services 693 306 Public Works 54 54 $ 4,415 $ 3 , 235 Revenue - Cost $13 , 981 $7, 696 Revenue/Cost Ratio 4 . 17 3 . 38 I (0619D) APPENDIX E South Coast Air Quality Management District Threshold Levels for Land Uses SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Air Quality Handbook Threshold Levels for Land Uses Land Use Unit Threshold Category Size Levels Housing Single Family dwelling 300 units Apartments unit 400 units Parking space 250 spaces Shopping Center Regional square feet 60, 000 ft2 Neighborhood floor area, or 6 acres Indiv. Store or acres of land Industry* Undifferentiated acre 15 acres Mass Production acre 15 acres Industrial Park acre 20 acres Administration acre 20 acres Warehouse acre 20 acres Research & acre 40 acres Development Office Building square feet 100, 000 ft2 Govt . Building square feet 30, 000 ft2 Motel unit 200 units Restaurant Full-serve seat 700 seats Fast-food employee 40 employees Drive-in square feet 4 , 000 ft Theater seat 900 seats Any Facility Attracting or Generating: 2000 motor trips/day (1000 vehicles in and out) * Industrial sources typically are direct emitters of air contami- nants and may require a permit from the SCAQMD. Developers should contact the South Coast Air Quality Management District at (818) 572-6200 . (0619D) APPENDIX F Comments 5540 ESst Slxt;: Street LonE Beech , Californie 90E1k July 20 ,• 19F7 Jeff Abremowitz Ac,gistent Kanner City of F?untir.Eton Beech 2000 MIL in Street HuntIngton Beech , CE11fornia r264E Attn: Pla:nn I nE L.v i e i on Fe : Environmental Im?Ect ne?ort No. E7-; Generei :lan ".amendment NO. 87-? Lear Mr. Abramcu,ltz: I am the owner of en E unit epart:rent bulld '_nc at Flor_ce S l�c� i ,_ 1 .,,.. i::.: ntI aEt or'i Be£ Ci , CE IIf crnIL Without, kr,.ov, 'LrE mcre specIf ics , 1 would :e InclIned to ,favor alter- native 1 df' the IE:nd use or000sels considered fcr the described area . srd c" dice of aiternetive 1 would to contingent on t!;e `oli-3wine czne .tlons. 1. My orooerty and tte other )rpoertieE al one Florida Street from t"e S"af f er Clrcle areE to and incl::d 1^E the corner of Ga. Leld Ave. and Florida Street are desiw-ated edidental ( 45 '.:nit= oer acre ) . 2. :!-_ere Is enough Cff•1ce-'rof&Psiona1 tyoe land aveI1F- 1-1e to add up to 12 acres . I don' t k nck• chat the cite of : :t. inEtcn Eeec._ ,eels about multioie z�ning b-t I d-n ' t t^ink I would to :tronEl'v o0oosEd to a ces_�:r � tion C: Reside nt Ei 45 un1ts cEr Ec_ e . or Of"Ice—PrcfeF-F1onci aiorlp FIor .cG Street . --n other words dual zoning. . t•.^_i:nk you &re w.Ee to consieer ne- zor.. ^g derigrEtIonE for `. -e Erea. You now !-&ve v F.tact on vrEre develooer F %r E Incr ecse In Ce iFlt ' frc:;- 15 to 05- u":LtF when elreEdy cons--_ruc`. ec b'.li1CInEF ElonE F•1or cE Street ere non-conformLng tc the 11-� ur.lts per acre (f-Ei£:'Lt L :-. VeFe tuiidlnwE ve►e built about iC'7-' tc 75 1--her, he CenFitV d1--cF,Erce vat' -lwr-er ttE; . l-- un.tF Ter Ecre. Alt ---.;Eh tier e ;s a Lode.Ete ree ldent .E- l rental, vEcancy fact:,r. tnro::c'r.out CrFnwe County at the present tire , it IS virtuElly certain tract t-ere will be an z:-- ]t: ren' Sl !:ouE'A. s!---rtawe In ii.:ntir.Eton EeF-cn tv the yeEr 2000 if the oreF_nt 1� unit oer ecre type residsnt1ai de,sIty I allowed to remeln ar it is at ore sent . The existing b. lldings are not likely to be chE.nFed in tl-.,a near future but an increase In reeidential density fro-a IS L;nits to 45 units per acre mould sllow the existint build ings to conform to zoni-E and would facilitate re:nodeling , or repiacewent with ltrrer buildings when the rental demEnd and economic cone It lone were concucIve to such devel:)oment. Given -he exietinc medical and convalercent facillties in tt-e area F- nd cl .ee JroxilTity to tu•c sthopoing centers 1t eeemv ''at the << Lcrea Free would be lceel for senior citizer. resleent '_a1 e?crt ments wh1ch r•-Dulc rec-; ire less oerXinv t'ien recuiar a- oertTents. Very truly yours , Harold V. Brace ✓!r _ C i i ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT July 6, 1987 Mr. Jeff Abramowitz Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Abramowitz: SUBJECT: NOP EIR 87-3 FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87-3 We have reviewed this project as described in the NOP and have the following comments: • OCTD currently offers service on Main Street and Garfield Avenue adjacent to the project site, as shown on the attached route maps and schedules. Existing stops are located on: - Northbound Main Street/Farside Garfield Avenue. - Westbound Garfield/Farside Entrance "Garfield Care Convalescence Hospital." • In order to ensure accessibility to the available transit services for residents, employees and patrons of this development, the following transit amenities should be incorporated in this project: - The existing bus stops should be preserved, and bus turnouts provided, if determined by the City traffic engineer to be necessary based on traffic volumes, speeds, and roadway cross section. - The area adjacent to the bus stops should be able to accommodate a passenger waiting area complete with a bus shelter and bench. - A paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessway should be provided between this . stop and the project buildings. i In'7'9 A rin nAfl .,A1 - I n n-- --- r--- Mr. Jeff Abramowitz July 6, 1987 Page 2 I We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to this DEIR and would like to receive a copy when it is circulated for public review. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me or Noel Ibalio (714) 971-4351. Sincerely, h OIL' Christine Huard-Spencer Environmental Coordinator I CHS:PLN-2 3CDG Attachments: Route Maps and Schedules for Lines 29/29A, 74 t i i i oCTa�'. 91sposg4 o �'o P.O. BOX 1026 • HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92647 • PHONE (71 4) 847-3581 June 23 , 1987 City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Servics Planning Division 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca . 92648 Subject : Notice of Preparation Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 General Plan Amendment No. 87-3 Dear Mr. Abramowitz : In answer to your letter regarding the Notice of Preparation Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3-General Plan Amendment No. 87-3 , Rainbow Disposal Company Inc. finds no problem at this time in association with servicing the proposed land use . We would request that we have final review of accessibility to the service area and the bin enclosures . If you have any further questions, or we can supply you with any additional information, please feel free to contact our office . Sincerely, Stanley F. Tkaczyk Vice President SFT f ew SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gas COMPANY ORANGE COUNTY D1VS10N • P 0 BOX 3334. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNLA 92803.3334 June 19, 1987 City of Huntington Beach Building Division 2000 Main St . Huntington Beach, CA Attn: Jeff Abramowitz Subject: EIR 87-3 This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service- Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be served by an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact an the -environment. The service would be in accordance with the Comcany's policies and extension rules on file with the California pubic Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Residential Yearly (System Area Average) Single-family 1095 therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-family 4 or less units 640 .thermts/year/dwelling unit Multi-family 5 or more units 580 therms/year/dweilira unit These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of hones will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. r We have developed several orograms which are available, coon reouest . to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient aooliances or systems for a particular project . (f you desire `urtne- information on any of our energy programs, please contact this oif`ce for assistance. Sincerely, D. C. Moore ra_chica , Sucervisor A:ou HJe N V CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ow axe To: Diana Blaisure From: Jim B. Engl Superintendent Assistant Planner Park Develo nt & Recreation Subject: GENERAL PLAN AMENDKENT 87-3 Date: October 7, 1987 EXPANSION OF THE PACIFICA CONKUNITY PLAN Per your request of October 6, I have reviewed the proposed Pacifica Community Plan. There are three parks within one mile of the proposed development area. The three parks are Perry Park ( 2 acres) , Helme Park ( 2 acres ) , and Terry Park ( 5 acres) . Helme is approximately 1/2 mile from the corner of Florida and Main Streets. Perry is about 1/2 mile from Florida and Garfield. Terry Park is located within a mile of the proposed development site. I believe these existing facilities can adequately serve the new development. Also, Terry Park is adjacent to existing seniors' housing. If you have any other questions, please contact me. JBE:am r 0 . � i Ree~tW and Comnwwal Building eont►achwe - Mr. Jeff Abramowitz Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca.92648 Re: Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 General Plan Amendment 87-3 July 13, 1987 Dear Jeff: I am submitting this letter, as per our conversation today, for your consideration and f iling. Newport Pacific Group has in escrow Lot 14, Parcel 17, Block 121, Huntington Beach, otherwise known as 7801 Garfield Ave. This property is located approximately three hundred feet (300') west of the intersection of Florida Street on the north side of Garfield Ave. The current zoning is R-2. The Newport Pacific Group is an apartment developer specializing in quality apartments and affordable housing. We have been developing apartments since 1975 beginning with our first project in Huntington Beach. We have developed, to date, 24 projects consisting of over 900 apartment units, and 150 condominium units, all of the "infill" type typical of 7801 Garfield. Our goals in Huntington Beach are to work with the Community to provide the type of quality housing for which we have become known. The Pacifica Community Plan, District One, expansion study appears to address the current and future needs of this area. We were applying for just such a zoning change when we were informed of the proposed study. It is our considered opinion that the alternatives proposed are necessary and appropriate. Please include us in your study and contact us concerning any hearings that we might at- tend. Sincerely, Albert J. Marshall cc. Magdy Hanna 4000 M&cARTHUR BLVD..SUITE 680.VEWPORT BEACH.CA 92660 U.S.A. TEL(714)476-2222-TE:EX 685-611 UNI-GOLD i f o f U vt �`j v1 o e cc. .Z par t V e 5 Li e c� : E v r o tee. .�a, �_ tom, PALE re(CV a t �^ �. 0w Vey' o Ll P tcX Lo Cct Ve d oL-, —1 --;". eer ct► Q 4j B o U VA d c, v� �, f f t,e s+ode _ a Vre c Co�I Ce y,�A a�� Co ,.,% wA e arec, a S L,e- �� sade �. {� c< < c � f�►te fro C t7'r c; USAX CMTA `S 9 _ k� ^- _ l2 20560 VIA CAYPANAS - l YORAA LINDA, CA 92686 a05-6o ✓SA, cat,&1 �tkS /o6A - tkkjA cc, . IN THE Superior Court OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and for the County of Orange State of California ) s County of Orange ) , That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of the United States,.over the age of twenty-one years,and that I am not a j party to, nor interested in the above entitled matter, that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the �I Huntington Beach Independent. i a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of I Huntington Beach County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the disemina- lion oflocal news and intelligence of a general character,and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers,and which newspaper has been established,-printed and published'at regular intervals in the said - County of Orange for a period exceeding one year,that the notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy,has been published in the regular and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement thereof, on the following dates,to wit Jan. 28, 1988 1 certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. r Dated at ...............Costa Mesa is I California, this. ..2 8. . . . day of... . n: 19 88 Signature t CITY F HUNTINGTfIN BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 2, 1988 Eldon Bagstad c/o Corona Development Co. Inc. P. 0. Box 78 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, February 1, 1988 denied your application for Land Use Element Amendment 87-3/Zone Change 87-4 and Environmental Impact Report 87-3. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from February 2, 1988 to apply to the courts for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact The Community Development Department - 536-5271. Sincerely yours, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:pm CC: City Attorney Doug LaBelle,Development Services Director Eldon Bagstad 901 Catalina Avenue Seal Beach, CA 90740 1 Telephone:714-536-5227) REQUER FOR CITY COUNCOACTION Date February 1, 1988 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted b Paul E. Cook, City Administrator 'j " Y� Y Prepared by: Douglas N. La Belle, Director, Community Develop nt Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-3/ZONE CHANG NO. 87-4/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-3 All' Consistent with Council Policy? Pq Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception 0w1b _*A 01 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: j STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for the City Council's consideration is Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-3, Zone Change 87-4 and Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 which is a request to amend the General Plan by redesignating a 1.14 acre site located on the east side of Delaware Street 280 feet north of Garfield Avenue, from Medium Density Residential to Senior Residential with a concurrent Zone Change from R2 (Medium Density maximum 15 units per acre) to Q-R3-SR (Medium-High Density 25 units per acre with a 50 percent density bonus allowing a maximum of 42 units on the subject site). RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission's Initial Action on December 1. 1987: ON A MOTION BY LEIPZIG AND SECOND BY SILVA, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-3 AND LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-3 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Findings for denial: 1. The Pacifica Community Plan (District 1) was designed to allow communal use of specific facilities and amenities. The subject site would not have access to these facilities, therefore it would not be appropriate to expand the District to include the subject site. 2. Data regarding the City sewer lines intersecting with the County Sanitation lines was in question based on a letter received from the Sanitation District after the EIR was prepared. P10 5/85 3. The EIR did not include a discussion of an alternative R3-SR project that would contain 42 units instead of 51 units as originally proposed by the applicant. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-14 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-4 TO THE JANUARY 5, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Reconsideration on January 5. 1988: ON A MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PIERCE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-3, LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-3 AND ZONE CHANGE 87-4 (WITH REVISIONS TO EIR AND REVISED FINDINGS TO ZONE CHANGE), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Silva, Schumacher, Leipzig, Pierce NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None A. Recommend to the City Council that Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 (with the addendum) be certified as adequate and in conformance with the State EIR Guidelines. B. Approve General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 87-3 for a change in land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Senior Residential and recommend adoption by the City Council. C. Approve Zone Change No. 87-4 with the following findings to rezone the site from R2 (maximum 15 units per acre) to Q-R3-SR (Senior suffix, maximum of 25 units per acre with a 50 percent density bonus allowing 42 units on the site). FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-4. 1. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Senior Residential as recommended for amendment by the Planning Commission. 2. The proposed zone change will be compatible with the Pacifica Community Plan that is adjacent to and north of the proposed project. 3. The character of the surrounding area is compatible with the proposed project. 4. The proposed project will not generate any significant environmental impacts. 5. Placement of a sewer line in Delaware Street will mitigate the existing city sewer incapacity of City sewer lines to serve the proposed project. RCA - 2/l/88 -2- (9836d) • • STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends the approval of the Land Use Element Amendment 87-3 and Zone Change 87-4 with the findings approved by the Planning Commission. Background On December 1, 1987, the applicant's proposal presented to the Planning Commission included a request to expand the Pacifica Community Plan, District One, to include the 1.14 acre subject site in order to allow a senior residential project at a density of 45 units per acre. The action would have been accomplished through the process of amending the General Plan to Mixed Development, a zone change to Pacific Community Plan and a code amendment. The owner of the site, Eldon W. Bagstad, represented by Robert Lee Corona, President of Corona Development Co. Inc., proposed to construct a three-story senior project containing 51 one-bedroom units mirroring the existing senior complex north of and adjacent to the subject site. At the public hearing, testimony was given that the Pacifica Community Plan was originally intended to allow sharing of common facilities and that it therefore does not lend itself to expansion onto small individual parcels. The Commission and staff agreed with this assessment. The Commission then stated a preference for the provided alternative of placing R3-SR zoning on the property and granting a 50 percent density bonus for a total of 42 units. The EIR, however, did not address a reduced size project of 42 units. For this reason, and also because the applicant indicated a preference to send the request on to the City Council for a determination, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change requests and found the EIR inadequate. On December 15, 1987, with the applicant's concurrence, staff brought a discussion item to the Planning Commission requesting the reconsideration of Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-3, Zone Change No. 87-4 and Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3. The significant change to the request was to change the zone change request from the expansion of Pacifica Community Plan (District One) to R3-SR (Senior Suffix) which would allow 25 units per acre plus a density bonus of 50 percent that would result in a total of 42 units on the 1.14 acre site. The Planning Commission agreed to reconsider the item with the new approach as proposed. ANALYSIS: The applicant's request is proposed for an area where a significant change occurred in 1977 when the the Pacifica Community Plan was established with the purpose of integrating medical facilities and services with senior citizen residential development. In addition to the senior residential project immediately north of the subject site, the area contains the Pacifica Hospital, Pacifica Towers medical building and Wycliff Towers residential apartments. Property to the southeast and west of the site contain a convalescent hospital and multi-family units. In order to accommodate a senior citizen project on the subject site staff is recommending that a Senior Residential land use designation would be appropriate. This land use designation recognizes that, because of low occupancy per unit and reduced vehicle generation rates, residential projects serving senior citizens could be constructed at higher densities and still maintain compatibility with surrounding lower density residential uses. The Senior Residential land use designation is intended to more clearly define the intended use of property when it is determined that a residential project at that same density, but not limited to senior residential, could have a negative impact on the surrounding area. RCA - 2/1/88 -3- (9836d) Any designation of property to Senior Residential in the General Plan shall be accompanied by a concurrent zone change to apply the SR (Senior Residential) suffix to the accompanying zoning. The Senior Residential land use designation shall only be consistent with R2, R3 and R4 zoning designations when combined with the SR suffix. The allowable density of the Senior Residential land use designation shall be determined by the underlying zoning and the size of any density bonus granted. Any request to remove the SR zoning suffix from property generally planned for Senior Residential shall require a Land Use Element amendment to a non-Senior Residential land use designation: Locational criteria for the Senior Residential land use designation are as follows: a. Proximity to transportation facilities. b. Proximity to shopping facilities. C. Proximity to medical facilities. As stated previously in EIR 87-3, the subject site meets the above locational criteria for the establishment of senior residential land uses. Senior Suffix Zone In conjunction with the Senior Residential land use designation, staff is recommending a zone change on the site from R2 (Medium Density Residential) to Q-R3-SR. The "Q" has been added to set in place the requirement for a development agreement in conjunction with the conditional use permit for this proposed project. The Senior Residential Code requires that a conceptual site plan be submitted in conjunction with the applicant's request and that a development agreement to be approved with the zone change request. A conceptual site plan was originally submitted with the General Plan Amendment/Zone Change application. In the Meadowland Senior project approval process, however, it was found to be more appropriate to process the development agreement in conjunction with the conditional use permit rather than the zone change. The "Q" sets that process in pace as a segment of the zone designation. An R3 zone on the site (Medium-High Density) would allow a maximum of 25 units per acre. With a 50 percent density bonus, for affordable units, the applicant could construct 42 units. The senior suffix, SR, would provide standards for the proposed project designed to meet the needs of seniors. Considering that traffic and other environmental impacts would be negligible and that the area is an appropriate location for the proposed project, because of the proximity of support services, staff supports the applicant's request. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The request is accompanied by Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 87-3 and an addendum to the EIR included in the Planning Commission Staff Report of January 5, 1988. The addendum clarifies previous confusion regarding which County Sanitation District the City sewer line will connect with and also assesses the 42 unit project which is a reduction of the original proposal of SI units assessed in the EIR. Comments from agencies notified are included in the appendices of the EIR. Property owners within a 300 foot radius were notified and comments were received from Robert Zinngrabe, a major developer of Pacifica Community Plan. Mr. Zinngrabe is in support of the proposed 42 unit project. RCA - 2/1/88 -4- (9836d) FUNDING SOURCE: Not Applicable ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. The City Council may deny Land Use element Amendment No. 87-3, Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 and Zone Change No. 87-4 with the following findings. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-4 1. The zone change would not be compatible with the adjacent R-2 properties (existing fourplexes) to the east and south of the subject site. 2. The character of segments of the surrounding area are currently incompatible with the proposed project. Attachments: 1. Area map /✓�' 2. Staff Reports date*ecember 1 and 15, 1987 and January 5, 1988. 3. Resolution to adopt the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-3 4. Ordinance for Zone Change No. 87-4 5. Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 PEC:DLB:MA:DTB:gbm RCA - 2/1/88 -5- (9836d) M I _j ONTARIO OR C2 RA-0-CD RI RI m Cr-C � I F_ E.1 R1 R1 F-E"A.11 rRARaG;A0 ml CR A R3 - R1 mot R1 CF-C ALKFrr E R3 m; R1 R1 R1 KUN m I G4 OR Fn R3 -CD D- MI-CD R1 f7wi-T7 R2 R! R1 MI R2 MI-0-CD R2 L MI-01 R2 7- ;,-.- C2 C2 _9w RA-0-CD I0 R2 ......... % OP M2_0 OP R3 a 'r MI-0 .'--R3 RZ. MIS rRlcr R,2 TMDI .an R2 :J MI-0 (DISTRICT ONE, �CT ERN EST AVE MI OP ; 330 9 ml-o-cc) 0 0 MI-A-COL CIFICA!11 N&NITY PLAN MI-01 __./(DIS"F ICT ONE) R3 01, z MI-A-01-CD6 m1_0 J w i 1. Site MI-01 .1 OP C OPM 2(D OP mj_O E R3 2; R2 :2 I R2 OP 0 PP 2 R2 V22 NI tin RA-0 _CI R2 R2 t mi MH MI R2'a. MI-A C2 R2 0 RA-0 I-�3 M.- 1 0 < R2 .'R2 R 2 L T. < MI-A-0 R2 R2 �V�R2 _ C4 R2 R2 Il R2 R- tQ 2-01 R2 7)R ml 2 _JR2 i PLAN m14T KILT 1.1 L-In. CLAY AvE 3,, C2-0- ....... RI CLI �C 2 R 2 t.aa R2 R2-0-PD R4 1 0 Al'o (erg R2 0 R2 Ig R2 RI 290 RI AVE P. C2-0-CD C2-0 IF R 1 5 R2:0-k)—i R2-0 R III RI AiLUAvS AVE j z V R2 UA R2-0-Cq R 2 a I il OP-0-CD '.R2-0-PD-CC, R 2 C2-0-CD Ai ­0 r.4.- EXHIBIT 1 LUE87-3 EXISTING ZONING/AREA MAP huntington beach planning division To summarize the matrix, the significant difference between the SR suffix and Pacifica Community Plan are: building heights, age restrictions, number of bedrooms and support services (or communal facilities) . The Pacifica Community Plan allows 45 foot to 140 foot tall structures while the R3-SR would restrict heights to 35 feet. The Pacifica Plan has no occupant age restrictions while the SR suffix requires that at least one occupant be 60 years or older. The Pacifica Plan requires ancillary facilities such as banks, beauty shops, health care, etc. while the SR suffix does not. In summary, the SR suffix is generally more restrictive than the Pacifica Community Plan. Density Bonus Section 65915 of the Government Code allows for the granting of a density bonus or other incentive of equivalent financial value in the following instances : (a) When a developer of housing agrees to construct at least: (1) 25 percent of the total units of a housing development for persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code; or (2) 10 percent of the total units of a housing development for lower-income households, as defined in Section 50079 . 5 of the Health and Safety Code; or (3) 50 percent of the total dwelling units of a housing development for qualifying residents, as defined in Section 51.2 of the Civil Code. This project could meet requirement number 3 (qualifying residents are defined as persons over 55 years of age in a senior citizen housing development) . i A density bonus is defined as a density increase of at least 25 Percent over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan. Addendum to EIR 87-3 As requested, staff has assessed a 42 unit project within the context of EIR 87-3 and also resolved the discrepancy regarding City sewer and County sanitation trunk line connections . The addendum is an attachment to this staff report. The results of assessing a 42 unit project for seniors were similar to a 51 unit project for seniors . The 42 unit project generates less impacts and less revenue and like the 51 unit project will nominally impact Beach Boulevard traffic which is currently at level of service C. 10 .0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: A. Recommend to the City Council that Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 (with the addendum) be certified as adequate and in conformance with the State EIR Guidelines. B. Approve General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 87-3 for a change in land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Senior Residential and recommend adoption by the City Council. C. Approve Zone Change No. 87-4 with the following findings to rezone the site from R2 (maximum 15 units per acre) to Q-R3-SR (Senior suffix, maximum of 25 units per acre with a 50 percent density bonus allowing 42 units on the site) . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE N0, 87-4 AND CODE AMENDMENT N0, 87-14 • 1. The proposed zone change and eel- amendment_ is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation as recommended for amendment by the Planning Commission. 2. Considering the proximity and intent of the Pacifica Community Plan, the proposed zone change and _@Eagpdment will be compatible with adjacent land uses in the Specific Plan. 3 . The character of the surrounding area is compatible with the proposed project . 4 . As a result of the proposed project there are no measurable environmental impacts that will adversely impact the area. 11. 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. The Planning Commission may approve the original request for Mixed Development and expansion of the Pacifica Community Plan. 2 . The Planning Commisson may deny Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-3 and Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 and deny Zone Change No. 87-4 with the following findings: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONE CHANGE NO 87-4 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO, 87 14 : - 1. The zone change would not be compatible with the adjacent R-2 properties (existing fourplexes) to the east and south of the subject site. 2. The character of segments of the surrounding area are incompatible with the proposed project . I ATTACHMENTS• 1. Area Map 2. Resolution to adopt the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-3 3 . Ordinance for Zone Change No. 87-4 4 . Addendum to EIR 87-3 5 . LUE 87-3 and EIR 87-3 6 . Staff Report dated December 1, 1987 7. Staff Report dated December 15, 1987 HS:DTB:kla RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and Amendments to the Land Use Element are necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan, and The Planning Commission recommends the following amendment to the Land Use Element: 1. That a 1. 14 acre site located on the east side of Delaware Street, 280 feet north of Garfield Avenue, be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to Senior Residential . WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment to the General Plan No. 87-3 was held by the City Planning Commission on January 5, 1988, in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, hereby approved said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 5th. day of January 1988, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mike Adams, Secretary Planning Commission Chairman ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 87-3 Pursuant to the Planning Commission' s request of December 1, 1987, staff has assessed the environmental impacts of the revised request which now includes a proposal to develop a 42 unit senior project on the 1. 14 acre site. The items from sections of the EIR are included in the addendum only if analysis of the 42 unit project resulted in a quantitative difference or a correction in reference to Alternative No. 1 in the EIR, the 52 unit project. The selected items are as follows : 2 . 1.2 .3 Economic Considerations The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment. The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one year for comparison purposes . The results are summarized in the table below. Appendix D contains a summary of the fiscal impact assumptions . Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 (51 Units) (R-2 (42 Units) Revenue $18,396 $10, 931 $14, 816 Cost $ 4,415 $ 3,235 $ 3,739 Revenue-Cost $13,981 $ 7, 696 $11, 077 Revenue/Cost 4 . 17 3 .38 3 . 96 2 . 1.2 . 6 Public Services and Utilities City Sewers and the Orange County Sanitation District The study area is served by an 8-inch City sewer line in Delaware Street and a 24-inch County truck sewer line in Garfield Avenue. Although the subject site is in the County' s Sanitation District No. 3 the City sewer line in Delaware is serviced by the County' s Newland/Delaware gravity trunk sewer which is in District 11. Upon discussing this issue with the Public Works Department, Tom Dawes of the County Sanitation District agreed that the site should have sewer drainage to the County lines serviced by the Newland/Delaware gravity trunk. Therefore, as stated in the EIR, the Public Works Department will require the applicant to construct a parallel sewer line in Delaware Street south to the County' s Newland/Delaware trunk located at Delaware Street and Garfield Avenue. 2 . 1.2 . 7 Traffic and Circulation The estimated daily traffic volumes generated by the revised 42 unit senior project are as follows : 42 units @ 3 .3 . trips per day = 139 average daily trips In comparison, Alterntive No. 1, the 51 unit project, generated an estimated 168 average daily trips . The 42 unit project would have a nominal impact on Beach Boulevard which is slightly over capacity (Level of Service C) and no measurable impact on Delaware, Main Street or Garfield which are all at Level of Service A. In summary, Alternative 3 for a 42-unit senior residential project will not have any substantial negative impacts on the environment. In all cases, the minor negative impacts which would accrue would be less than the impacts associated with a larger 51 unit project. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-3 Revenue/Cost Revised Summary Tables Revenues Alt , 1 Alt , 2 Alt , 3* Property Tax $ 5, 075 $ 4, 736 $ 4, 179 Sales Tax 4, 182 2, 720 3,304 Utility & Franchise Tax 5, 130 1,705 4, 053 State Subventions 4 ,009 1, 770 3 ,280 $18,396 $10, 931 $14, 816 Costs General Administration $ 741 $ 741 741 Police 540 1, 080 424 Fire 2,387 1, 054 1, 953 Community Services 693 306 567 Public Works 54 54 54 $ 4,415 $ 3,235 $ 3, 739 Revenue - Cost $13,981 $7, 696 $11,077 Revenue/Cost Ratio 4 . 17 3 .38 3 . 96 *EIR Addendum - January 5, 1988 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF A PARCEL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF DELAWARE STREET APPROXIMATELY 280 FEET NORTH OF GARFIELD FROM R2 TO Q-R3-SR WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Change No. 87-4 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper and consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The following describes portion of Lot 10 (assessor of parcel no. 159-121-22 located on the east side of Delaware Street approximately 1,280 feet north of Garfield Avenue) is hereby changed from R2 to Q-R3-SR (Medium-High Density combined with Senior Residential Suffix) The South one-half of Lot 10 in Block G of Tract No. 7, as shown on a Map recorded in Book 9, page 8 of Miscel- laneous Maps, records of Orange County, California. The "Q" shall place the following conditions on the property: "Prior to any development agreement on the property, the property owner and the City shall enter into a developer agreement, approved by the City Attorney as to form pursuant to Government Code Section 65865 et. seq. which shall include provisions for total number of units and continued affordability of units allowed by density bonuses . " SECTION 2. Section 9061 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, District Map 39 (Sectional District Map 12-6-11) is hereby amended to reflect the change contained in this ordinance and on the map attached hereto. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended map. A copy of such district map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1987. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Community Development I sTAff tntington beach department• develop men develo ment REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: December 15, 1987 SUBJECT: RECONSIDER LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-3, ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-4 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-3 APPLICANT: Corona Development Co. Inc. for Eldon W. Bagstad REOUEST: Amend the General Plan by redesignating a 1. 14 acre site from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Development with a concurrent zone change from R2 (Maximum 15 units per acre) to Pacifica Community Plan (45 units per acre) and a code amendment to expand the Pacifica Community Plan to include the subject site. LOCATION: East side of Delaware Street approximately 280 feet north of Delaware Street and Garfield Avenue 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission schedule Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-3 and Zone Change No. 87-4 for reconsideration on January 5, 1988 . Staff will re-advertise the item if reconsideration is approved. 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: On December 1, 1987, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission, during discussion of the above request, raised several concerns including the following: 1. The Pacifica Community Plan (District 1) was designed to allow communal use of specific facilities and amenities. The subject site would not have access to these facilities, therefore it would not be appropriate to expand the District to include the subject site. 2. Data regarding the City sewer lines intersecting with the County Sanitation lines was in question based on a letter received from the Sanitation District after the EIR was prepared. A-F M-23C I 3 . The EIR did not include a discussion of an alternative R3-SR project that would contain 42 units instead of 51 units as originally proposed by the applicant . Based primarily on these concerns, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council denial of General Plan Amendment and determined the Environmental Impact Report inadequate, and continued the Zone Change and Code Amendment to the January 5, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. In response to the Planning Commission' s concerns, staff has met with Mr. Robert Corona and Mr. Robert Zinngrabe to discuss the issues raised on December 1, 1987. They are both agreeable to the optional placement of the senior residential land use designation on the site in conjunction with R2-SR or R3-SR zoning with a density bonus . As such, they would like to have the Planning Commission reconsider the EIR and zone change request motion. If the Planning Commission agrees to reconsideration on January 5, staff will provide the following information: 1. Analysis of an alterantive Land Use Element Amendment request to Senior Residential, and Zone Change to R3-SR. 2 . A comparison of the development standards as established by the SR suffix versus the Pacifica Community Plan. 3 . Augment the EIR to include the corrected data regarding City sewer lines and County Sanitation lines and also analyze the impacts associated with a 42 unit senior project. 4 . Discuss City policies and issues regarding density bonuses for Senior Residential projects . A letter from the applicant regarding the reconsideration will be distributed to the Planning Commission on December 15, 1987 . HS:DTB:kla Staff Report - 12/15/87 -2- (9616d) huntinston beach dspartt of communi development 2 srAFF EPORIC TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: December 1, 1987 SUBJECT: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-3/ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-4/ CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-14/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-3 APPLICANT: Corona Development Co. Inc. DATE ACCEPTED: for Eldon W. Bagstad April 14, 1987 P.O. Box 78 Hunt. Beach, CA 92648 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: REOUEST: Amend the General Plan by April 1988 redesignating a 1. 14 acre site from Medium Density ZONE: R2 (Medium Density Residential to Mixed Residential) Development with a con- current zone change from GENERAL PLAN: Medium R2, Maximum 15 units per Density Residential acre, to Pacifica Community Plan which would EXISTING USE: Vacant allow 45 units per acre and a code amendment to expand ACREAGE: 1. 14 acres the Pacifica Community Plan to include the site. LOCATION: East side of Delaware Street approximately 280 feet north of the intersection of Delaware Street and Garfield Avenue 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: A. Recommend to the City Council that Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 be certified as adequate and in conformance with the State EIR Guidelines. B. Approve General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 87-3 for a change in land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Development and recommend adoption by the City Council. A-f M-23C t C. Approve Zone Change No. 87-4 and Code Amendment No. 87-14 with findings to rezone the site from R2 (maximum 15 units per acre) to Pacifica Community Plan for purposes of constructing a 51 unit senior citizen's apartment project at 45 units per acre and in order to include the 1.14 acre site in the Pacifica Community Plan. 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: The applicant ' s proposal is to expand the Pacifica Community Plan, District One, to include the 1. 14 acre subject site in order to allow a senior residential project at a density of 45 units per acre. The action would be accomplished through the process of amending the General Plan, a zone change and a code amendment . A conditional use permit describing the precise site plan, floor plans and elevations of the project will be processed separately. The owner of the site, Eldon W. Hagstad, represented by Robert Lee Corona, President of Corona Development Co. Inc. , proposes to construct a three-story senior project containing 51 one-bedroom units mirroring the existing senior complex north of and adjacent to the subject site. 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: f Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density ZONE: R2 (Maximum 15 units per acre) LAND USE: Vacant North of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Development ZONE: Pacifica Community Plan LAND USE: Three-story senior residential project East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density ZONE: R2 (Medium Density Residential) LAND USE: Nine residential four-plexes South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density ZONE: R2 (Medium Density Residential) LAND USE: Convalescent hospital and one four-plex West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density ZONE: R2 (Medium Density Residential) LAND USE: Vacant Staff Report - 12/1/87 -2- (9501d) 4 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 . 5. 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7. 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: The request in this report includes a proposed expansion of the, Pacifica Community Plan to include the 1.14 acre subject site. A portion of the area within the Plan also comprises the property immediately to the north of subject site. 8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable. 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: The applicant ' s request is proposed for an area where a significant change occurred in 1977 with the establishment of the Pacifica Community Plan with the purpose of integrating medical facilities and services with senior citizen residential development. In addition to the senior residential project immediately north of fhe subject site, the area contains the Pacifica Hospital, Pacifica Towers medical building and Wycliff Towers residential apartments . Property to the southeast and west of the site contain multi-family units and a convalescent hospital . With the type of existing land uses adjacent to the subject site, staff considers the proposed project to be compatible with existing as well as potential future developments . Considering that traffic and other environmental impacts would be negligible and that the area is an appropriate location for the proposed project, given the proximity of support services, staff supports the applicant ' s request. In order to accommodate the applicant 's request an amendment to the City Zoning Code, Article 964, is desirable to include the subject site in the Pacifica Community Plan. The attached EIR outlines the reasons why the proposed project would be a compatible extension of the Pacifica Community Plan. The code amendment (No . 87-14) includes revisions to the area map, specific plan map and the legal description of the Pacifica Community Plan (see attachment to this report) . As part of the continuing Division 9 revisions the Planning Commission recently approved Code Amendment No. 86-13 to remove all specific plans from the Ordinance Code for adoption by Resolution. If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission, future code amendments would not be necessary for the augmentation of a specific plan. As such, the proposed code amendment for expansion of the Pacifica Community Plan is likely the last time that such a code amendment will be necessary. Staff Report - 12/1/87 -3- (9501d) In conjunction with the previous discussion, staff is also requesting that the Planning Commission provide direction regarding further analysis of the expansion of the Pacifica Community Plan. In Section 4 .0 of the Environmental Impact Report a preliminary assessment of the merits of expanding the Pacifica Community Plan was discussed as well as potential environmental concerns. Because there are other individuals interested in developing properties adjacent to the Community Plan staff would recommend that the entire area, extending west to the intersection of Main and Garfield, south to Garfield, east to Florida and north of the southern perimeter of the Pacifica Community Plan, be studied in detail regarding an expansion of the Plan. An expansion of the Plan could provide a measure of control regarding orderly and compatible development of that area with special consideration to the containment of high rise structures in specific districts and expanding the number of districts to include those set-aside for only residential land uses. 10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: A. Recommend to the City Council that Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 be certified as adequate and in conformance with the State EIR Guidelines . B. Approve General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 87-3 for a change in land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Development and recommend adoption by the City Council . C. Approve Zone Change No. 87-4 and Code Amendment No. 87-14 with the following findings to rezone the site from R2 (maximum 15 units per acre) to Pacifica Community Plan for purposes of constructing a 51 unit senior citizen' s apartment project at 45 units per acre and in order to include the 1. 14 acre site in the Pacifica Community Plan. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO, 87-4 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO, 87-14 1. The proposed zone change and code amendment is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation as recommended for amendment by the Planning Commission. 2 . Considering the proximity and intent of the Pacifica Community Plan, the proposed zone change and code amendment will be compatible with adjacent land uses . 3 . The character of the surrounding area is compatible with the proposed project. 4 . As a result of the proposed project there are no measurable environmental impacts that will adversely impact the area. Staff Report - 12/1/87 -4- (9501d) I • 11. 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1 . The Planning Commission may approve Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-3 for Mixed Development, Zone Change No. 87-4 and Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 and deny Code Amendment No. 87-14 . In this alternative, the zone change would exclude the Pacifica Community Plan expansion and in its place rezone the site to R3-SR (Medium-High Density, Senior Residential) which would still allow the development of the proposed project with the granting of a 75 percent density bonus. 2 . The Planning Commisson may deny Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-3 and Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 and deny Zone Change No. 87-4 and Code Amendment 87-14 with the following findings: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONE CHANGE NO, 87-4 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO, 87-14 : 1 . The zone change would not be compatible with the adjacent R-2 properties (existing fourplexes) to the east and south of the subject site. 2 . The character of segments of the surrounding area are incompatible with the proposed project. ' ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution to adopt the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-3 2 . Ordinance for Zone Change No . 87-4 3 . Ordinance for Code Amendment No. 87-14 4 . Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 HS:DTB:kla Staff Report - 12/1/87 -5- (9501d) hereby directed to prepare and file an amended map. A copy of such district map, as amended, shall be available for inspection--. in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1987. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: P City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Community Development (9377d) A. 9b4b.10 SPECIFICOM MAP. LEGEND DISTRICT ONE A. WSPITAL CCI!4'U V0F'Fr E I'NUE'F.SSIGIAI,/*1)ICAL BUTIDTN(; +. CMIALLSCENr AND RESIDE' r I AI. C ARC RFS I OEM IAL CARE/APAIWNU IS AND CCNDCMI N I U14S +.. RBLIWATICN PARK r:. MEDICAL FACILITY V. MEDICAL HUIIDIM AND OFF'ICE/'PROFESSIONAL X., i DISTRICT TWO Residential (4 fice/Professional and Public Institutir,ns J. -----SPECIFIC PLAN B(X ZWY UISTRICC SE:PAFt11'NON UNE DISTRICT I TWO . TRANSIT SPDP S� I 140 Feet Height Limit E. I C. 1 U l0' 60' PARKING 160 toot I A.1 F DISTRICT ONE Height Limit —— � 45 foot height Unto j 15' Min � F. � 1 Setback 1 Y D c c O o `^ Par kinq C _ __ _c v ;1 � � o 1 Laz C jI o rX 1 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 9641, 9646 .10 RELATED TO AMENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN The City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Sections 9641 and 9646 .10 to read as follows: S. 9641 SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARiEs. The real property described herein is inc u ed in t e Pacifica Community Plan and shall be subject to development provisions and requirements set forth in this article. The Pacifica Community Plan encompasses that area located Within the specific plan boundaries as delineated on the area map in subsection (a) hereof and described in subsection (b) hereof. (a) Area Map. •'' \ 1 l 1-1 L 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 i i 1 it. i i l+� a►w c b Pacifica Community .29 Plan ti � Jr r -- - — art (b) Legal Description. lecisely, Pacifica Community Plan includes the real property described as: The North 1/2 of Lot 20, Block H of Tract No. 7, Block F, Lots 1-5; Block G, LotL 1 411Ksf 16(/Af )WY # x16f 10 of Tract 7 and Lot 21 and the south half of I.ot 20, Block H, as recorded iL Book 9, page 8 of Miscellaneous: Maps of Orange County, California. (Ord 2543-4/82,2627-6/8 3) NO FURTHER TEXT ON THIS PAGE RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 87-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, .California, desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and Amendments to the Land Use Element are necessary to accompliah refinement of the General Plan, and The Planning Commission recommends the following amendment to the Land Use Element: 1. That a 1. 14 acre site located on the east side of Delaware Street, 280 feet north of Garfield Avenue, be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Development. WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment to the General Plan No. 87-3 was held by the City Planning Commission on December 1, 1987, in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, hereby approved said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 1st day of December 1987, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mike Adams, Secretary Planning Commission Chairman (9501d) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF A PARCEL LOCATED ON THE BAST SIDE OF DELAWARE STREET APPROXIMATELY 280 FEET NORTH OF GARFIELD FROM R2 TO PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN (DISTRICT MAP 39) WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Change No. 87-4 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper and consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The following describes portion of Lot 10 (assessor of parcel no. 159-121-22 located on the east side of Delaware Street approximately 1,280 feet north of Garfield Avenue) is hereby changed from R2 to Pacifica Community (District Map 39) : The South one-half of Lot 10 in Block G of Tract No. 7, as shown on a Map recorded in Book 9, page 8 of Miscel- laneous Maps, records of Orange County, California. SECTION 2. Section 9061 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, District Map 39 (Sectional District Map 12-6-11) is hereby amended to reflect the change contained in this ordinance and on the map attached hereto. The Director of Community Development is (9377d) Ountington beach departmenRf community development SYAff -REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: November 17, 1987 SUBJECT: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-3/ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-4/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-3 APPLICANT: Robert Lee Corona Corona Development Co. Inc. REQUEST: An amendment to the General Plan by redesignating the 1. 14 acre site from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Development and a concurrent zone change from R2 (15 units per acre) to Pacifica Community Plan, allowing a 51 unit senior residential structure. LOCATION: Approximately 280 feet north of the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Delaware Street BACKGROUND: Staff has prepared an environmental impact report, general plan amendment and zone change to expand the Pacifica Community Plan on a 1. 14 acre site located on Delaware Street adjacent to and just south of the existing Pacifica Community Plan. The applicant is requesting the change in land use designation and zone change in order to develop a 51-unit senior residential project that would essentially mirror an existing senior residential project immediately to the north of the subject site. This request will be brought to the Planning Commission on December 1, 1987, with recommended action after the public hearing . Staff suggests a study session prior to the meeting to discuss the above request . RECOMMENDATION• Schedule a study session December 1, 1987, 6: 00 PM, for discussion of Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-3, Zone Change No. 87-4 and Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area map HS:DTB:kla (9447d) A-F M-23C A L� Q i , i f �0 W Site voo � I FIG.1 L. U.E. 87-3 AREA OF CONCERN huntington beach planning division RESOLUTION NO. J�� A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO 87-3 TO THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-3 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on January 5, 1988, and approved for recommendation to the City Council; and Therefore, the City Council , after giving notice as pre- scribed by Government Code sections 65355 and 65090, held at least one public hearing to consider Land Use Element No. 87-3; 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 section 65350, that Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-3 is hereby amended as follows : Area 2 . 1, as shown on Exhibit 1 attached hereto, shall be amended from Medium Density Residential to Senior Residential to achieve consistency with the General Plan, and existing zoning. 1 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1988 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City A t t o r n e REVIEWED AND APPROVED: ITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator 1 ctor of Community De lopment 2853L:ps 2 . ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF A PARCEL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF DELAWARE STREET APPROXIMATELY 280 FEET NORTH OF GARFIELD FROM R2 TO Q-R3-SR WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Change No. 87-4 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all informa- tion presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council , the City Council finds that such zone change is proper and consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1 . The following described portion of Lot 10, assessor 's parcel no. 159-121-22, located on the east side of Delaware Street approximately 1,280 feet north of Garfield Avenue, is hereby changed from R2 to Q-R3-SR (Medium-High Density combined with Senior Residential Suffix ) The South one-half of Lot 10 in Block G of Tract No. 7, as shown on a Map recorded in Book 9, page 8 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California. The "Q" shall place the following conditions on the property: "Prior to any development on the property, the property owner and the City shall enter into a development agreement , approved by the City Attorney as to form pursuant to Government Code § 65865 et . seq. , which shall include provisions for total number of units and continued affordability of units allowed by density bonuses . " 1 . SECTION 2 . Section 1111 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, District Map 39 (Sectional District Map 12-6-11 ) is hereby amended to reflect the change contained in this ordinance and on the map attached hereto. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended map. A copy of such district map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk . SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1987. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Z---z�- ZZ., City Clerk City Attorney Z-Q)V REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Community Development 2784L 2 . Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach RR �/►> NSTOp Office of the City Clerk �`' P. O. Box 190 FIRST C L A`��'S x� >o z JAN 2 i e Huntington Beach, CA 92648 . r __,... 1 F800I397 w 159-121.12,.;. '13 hl C �• i C.W:`Burri11 -Jr. ,- J 15592-Pasadena Ave. 'A X 45 S�4p�/, 'al ,S Tustin, Ca 92680 Jl-- S- /hf c r EHUR 92 3021,5: 6AI. FMD 'T-I'mr.6582 I :XF�Ii • !JE7'3*1*M 1 N',:-;'T'EKR CA t�xit�83--•::3751. ®4 nfe Fil:::-TURI\! TO SEl*1.DF-F't Aar FIRST CLASS MAIL HUNTINGTON!EACH II I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-3, ZONE CHANGE 87-4 & EIR 87-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: February 1, 1988, Monday TIME: 7: 00 p.m. 5 UB!E_QT: Land Use Element Amendment 87-3 , Zone Change 87-4 and Environmental Impact Report 87-3 A_P?LI ANT: Eldon W. Bagstad represented by Robert Corona of Corona Development Corp. , Inc . LOCATION: Eastside of Delaware Street, approximately 280 feet north of the intersection of Delaware Street and i Garfield Avenue. F_<OPOSAL: Amend the General Plan by redesignating a 1. 14 acre site from Medium Density Residential to Senior Residential with a concurrent Zone Change from R2 (maximum 15 units/acre) to Q-R3-SR (Qualified-Medium- High Density Residential, 25 units/acre combined with a Senior. - Residential suffix) . With a 50 percent density bonus, this designation would allow a 42 unit senior residential project . The "Q" will require a developer agreement concurrent with the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3, assessing the environ- mental impact of the project will also be considered by City Council . Qy FILE: Community Development ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth 000-5 City Clerk Phone: (714) 536-5405 � (9837d) MI RI "I MI I� L C 2 1,j ;' I MI`� ONnRIo oR RA-0-CD RI R I iRI CF-C j MI CR DUEBEC DR RI RI _ •• I,.-a rRANHG:.0 I IR3 1 7aa I R 1 CF-C :'� ALBERTA I,'nLEE 4 c i I J axn 1 a RI RI V RI RI yp� n ly -- _W M I e FAI"KUM OR o rUtON DR C4 MI-CD a I R, R3 FM wl-CO °� i V•"``° RI R3 ELLIS RI -- T—-- +--•-- MI �• -..S, R2 MI-0-0 C2 C2 .so M I 1 RA-0-CD -- R2 / oP ' .'° 10 R 3 % IR � corwooRE cR I M2-Q R3 y° OP R3 / ID.STRILTp TA-0M I-0 'rR32 R2 ;� r•Nol ,e, ^I RA-0- M1.0 WI R / IoISrRlC7 •' ONE) ERNEST AWEa OP " •. IC41 "01 MI-0-CD F "I �• f ooe W .10 wh7-co ,.., •PACIFICA C AMUNITY PLAN 3 MI-01 a wt. (DI ICT ONE) R3 _ MI-0 nrz-01,at — _ I-4-01-cc �. Site Az a V W I MI-01 OP =az vNrrc +I i Q A wl-o ; OP sa ro - - R3 2- R2, S m WA-CD 7so f i 9 R OP a R2 I'� R2 ,�waaco RA 0 7 OPT 2 — i — RA-0 P CI --- — , R2 2 DO M H -I o MI R CD M I-A L_m I $ C2 �� R2 .. Q Q RA- ;2'a R2 R2 R 2 _';: . R MI A-0 I n so- R2 -.. R2 I C 4 R 27R2 L s R2 . RZ R2rR - 3 QR2-01 R2 - -" MI2 CLOT .'Wi� AVE C2-0- 7 - IDE[F...Y:31 i �a�b �' „'a r c ., i R3 e^ 'M° R2-0-PD a::.,a . ao".' R4 'R R2 .P � s .a$''h o: R2-O :o R2 .u.c,.7.so _ R2 •+ ''�" is - - .. 4 -RI aa.oK ¢ Y: 290 C2-0-CD C2-0 _ ::: :i` =.. y RI 3 Ep 7n•n r ..aofa•r.... 1R;J041)- I` R2-0 C� RI cos 1111 Al N _c2o4 .. j/ ss.�n -- io-07.'. `•, _ +a ssso 7s• R2 R W ni OP-0-CD R2-D-Do r o C2-0-CD TR2-0 PD o �� R2 EXHIBIT 1 LUE87-3 EXISTING ZONING/AREA MAP huntington beach planning division NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM TO: CITY CLERK' S OFFICE I II DATE: FROM: &W'►W&,-4 PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE _ 14 DAY OF � Nl-� 198& A�P' s are attache AP's will follow No AP's . Initiated by: Planning Commission Planning Department x Petition * Appeal Other Adoption of Environmental Status (x) �C R ND NON Has City Attorney's Office been ES NO informed of forthcoming public I hearing? Refer to '�a` S�r''rl-Iftnj Planning Department - Extension # ,'J'C) for additional information. * If appeal , please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal . IF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - PLEASE MARK ( ) ( ) APPEALABLE NOT APPEALABLE LAND USE ELEMENIMum AMENDMENT 8 Environment Impact Report 87-3 huntington beach department of development services EXECUTIVE SUMMARY General Plan, Land Use Element, Amendment 87-3 addresses one area of concern: A request by the Corona Development Company, Inc. to redesignate 1 . 14 acres located on the east side of Delaware Street, approxi- mately 280 feet north of Garfield Avenue, from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Development . A concurrent zone change request has been filed to rezone the property from R2 (Medium Density Residential) to Pacifica Community Plan. The applicant is proposing to develop a 51-unit Senior Residential project on the site. Staff supports the applicant ' s request as it will result in an appropriate land use considering adjacent, existing uses and current development trends in that area . The proposed project and alternative land use analyzed in this report have either zero or nominal environmental impacts . Land Use Categories AA�NOEEENTS P�ANNNG CAAEM. CITY COUNCIL DATE PEB0.1fIlON DATE PESOCUTICN RESIDENTIAL II96 18-1-]6 4368 r1 4' ME < state 2u Ezoz 4551 ti tr4~ Estate 53un/gac 2-6m 1232 rz-19-n 4sSO "s� ®Estate 54Un/gaC 0-I'm 1232 jI_E_TE 4660 10-21-]8 1239 r1-6-]8 AM. �, II-21-]8 1239 12-.-n 4)OB 3-18 E I2.1 3-I9-80 486 / - GLOW Density 31880 Iz61 4-r-fio ae6sr" M Medium Densit 10 21-80 pfie 12-IS-W 49M Y ;3-81 a 6-IS-81 So05 SAN OIFGO iIEE A 11:17-6 12)9 12-21 1 5053 4 o�A` f Medium High Density n-n-61 12)9 Iz-zl-61 Soso - 03 High Density 12-2 82 5206 p-]-82 1299 2-]-83 522J / 's`:- - =Senior Residential 4-19-83 1303 5 16-83 5265 10-4-e3 1314 \ COMMERCIAL 12-6-83 E315 r 3-84 5341 / _ ', �� ' , ®General 4-3-84 CUT �5 84 5e51A / v 10-16-B4 1333 I-19-64 545]8 \ S�p - Serving s Visitor-Ser 6-4-84 r344 1-)-85 545)C _ - •'i -.> .....:....._... 6-I)-85 553z a: '° \ , - \\\ M Office Professional 1-22-86 134. 2-IB-86 -_ e pi 5-6-86 135! 6-2-86 56]0 _ _ / MIXED USES MM Office/Residential Commercial/Support Recreation :.:...:.-:___...:.::.....:-.-::::::::::..lt_::::a:;== _ _... a"" \ • INDUSTRIAL •''.i-iE::i:ii:_:'.::'.�''.::-__:i°is'.:'.:'.:=:;:::::::ii�:;:iiiiF - _ - <;.\ :.............. ....._..._......... �. ........._ .> „� _\ - _ M General � M Resource Production . OPEN SPACE / ®Industrial Energy Production - rrw: - - t. \ Water tion MRecreation * e©ER USES � ia �; Public,Quasi-Public,lnsiitutanal : ♦ M Solid Waste Facility a, Planned Community _ - - - Planning n ' Re serve ry- e e - - -Coastal Zone Boundary / O Conservation Overlay ff PACIFIC COAST •� - r..- ' MWY. OCEAN r ® GENERAL PLAN HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA Y PLANNING DIVISION LAdopptedSDeceember19 6M Revised JUNE 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pang 1 . 0 Introduction 1 1 . 1 Methodology 1 2 . 0 Area of Concern 4 2 . 1 Corona Development 4 2 . 1 . 1 Background 4 2 . 1 . 2 Analysis 5 2 . 1 . 2 . 1 Description of Alternative 5 2 . 1 . 2 . 2 Land Use 5 2 . 1. 2 . 3 Economic Consideration 9 2 . 1. 2 .4 Housing 9 2 . 1 .2 . 5 Senior Services 9 2 . 1 . 2 . 6 Public Services and Utilities 11 2 . 1 .2 . 7 Traffic and Circulation 13 2 . 1. 2 . 8 Environmental Issues 14 2 . 1 . 3 Staff Recommendation 16 3 . 0 Environmental 17 3 . 1 Short-term and Long-term Productivity 17 3 . 2 Irreversible Environmental Changes 18 3 .3 Growth Inducing Impacts 18 4 . 0 Consideration of Pacifica Community Plan 20 Future Expansion LIST OF FIGURES Page 1 . Area Map 2 2 . General Plan Land Use Map 5 3 . Zoning Map 6 4 . Possible Expansion of Pacifica Community Plan 21 APPENDICES Appendix A California Environmental Quality Act Environmental Checklist Appendix B General Assumptions Appendix C Division 9 , Article 964 Pacifica Community Plan Appendix D Fiscal Impact Analysis Technical Appendix Appendix E South Coast Air Quality Management District Threshold Levels for Land Uses Appendix F Comments 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report concerns Amendment 87-3 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 thirty-second amendment to the element . 1 . 1 Methodology This amendment concerns changes in the General Plan designation on one site, see area map Figure 1 . The amendment request is covered by Environmental Impact Report 87-3 contained in this document . The request will be analyzed in terms of the existing conditions on the site, major land uses, circulation, environmental issues, and consistency with adopted City goals and policies . Section 15148 of the State EIR Guidelines states that "The requirements for an EIR on a local general plan element or amend- ment 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 -1- (0619D) 9 A L f s ! s a \I> .K� site a, i FIG. 1 L. U. E . 87-3 AREA OF CONCERN huntington beach planning division plan document addresses each of the points required . " In confor- mance with State guidelines, this document will constitute the EIR for Land Use Element Amendment 87-3 . The environmental setting and significant impacts associated with the issue area identified in the initial study are addressed under Area of Concern Section 2 . 0 . An alternative land use designation and feasible mitigation measures to minimize significant effects are also discussed in this section. Section 3 . 0 addresses overall environmental changes related to the following considerations : 1) the relationship between local short- term productivity; 2) irreversible or unavoidable environmental changes ; and 3) growth inducing impacts . Section 4 . 0 addresses consideration of a future expansion of the Mixed Development land use designation in conjunction with expansion of the Pacifica Community Plan. -3- (0619D) 2.0 AREA OF CONCERN 2 . 1 CORONA DEVELOPMENT 2 . 1 . 1 Background General Plan Amendment No . 87-3 is a request by Corona Development Company to redesignate a 1 . 14 acre site on the east side of Delaware Street approximately 280 feet north of Garfield Avenue from Medium Density residential to Mixed Development (see Figure 2) . A concurrent zone change has also been filed to change the zoning district from R2 (maximum 15 units per acre) to Pacifica Community Plan for the purpose of constructing a 51-unit senior citizen apartment project at 45 units per acre (see Figure 3) . The proposed project would mirror the existing senior residential building immediately adjacent to, and north of, the subject site . The site is currently vacant . The current owner of the site is Eldon W. Bagstad represented by Robert Lee Corona, President of Corona Development Co . , Inc . -4- (0619D) r _ A li I 1 � ' : . � CF_C , , LOWS DENSITY rRE7ATIONAL ----, wR+T• G MEDIUM .DEN ITY„ z � m MEDIUM GENERAL z ESTATE < 2un/gac I DENSITY': C0MMERC GENERAL D. HIGH 1 I I ! INDUSTRIAL I DENSITY ESTATE < 4un/gac ' I DENSI IXED + .• DEVELOPMENTaj Ip I W I GENERAL p� ---------- -INDUSTRIAL i ----- 4�•pow I Site ' — GAKPiELD + MEDIUM II I — " � DENSITY H MEDIUM -DENSITY - za = • wz r z GENERAL COMM�ERCIAL — E v..}_�:::_ -MEDIUit • —(`� DENSITY --' OFFICE = - ~ •� _ I PROFESSIONAL FiG ,2 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION huntington beach planning division r 1� M I ti • I I aR7.Rq DR ,i C2 RA-0-CD �, t FRICF-C MI �autecc DRRI R116RI RIR� •.tcRn - 3 MI-CD IA I RI i i RI I, RI t ; MI rU[oN ••.ftKu" DR Ca I co Q RI •� � '' _ lu RI R3 p _ RI R2 •�f- o — R2 -- ! MI-O-CD 1 - R2 M R 2 - C 2 C2 Ri co,.gRoc� I cm M2-O R3 Mi-O i R3R3 A-O R2 � /I asiRCT. + . . , 7.qI .� RA-o-! I.o� I y, f Ow) iR Sy .a g. W� R5 I L JC4' > 3 wIr•CO ..., .... .L>d,--� PACIFICA CQ TY R3 _ MI-01 } �(DIS'( ICT ONE) z saco MI-0 Site I• x .• x MI-01 I R5 RS I a R5 R2 �>o R2 s R3 a R 5 R2 R2 R2 R2 e o a'RA-0 R 3 L '— ---- — GARFfE 4 -- . RA-0 F8 ct R2 5 I 2 M i M H o I o RA-0 MI I R2R MI-A C2 R2 I R 2 Q RA 0 s R2 I R2 r R2 •- :s R? � R2 L— R,Z I R2 i 4 I 1y R - =S o>R2 a Rz M I R2 AVE C2-0- . .. .;i. r• fIR R3� R] DR2-O-PO ! p `c R2 O } R2 R4 R2 2 , C2-0-CD C2-p R2-0 RI IVE RI RI R2-0 PD .7III �m RI vV w L Q R2TR2 I (YlR2-O-cD ? o I �' R 2 ! i R FIG , 3 EXISTING ZONING huntington beach planning division 2 . 1 . 2 Analysis : 2 . 1 . 2 . 1 Description of Alternatives In addition to the proposed project, this analysis will examine an alternative development scenario based on the existing general plan designation for the subject site (Medium Density Residential) . Alternative Land Use Designations Number of Units 1 Mixed Development 51 (Senior Residential Apartments) 2 Medium Density 17 (Residential Condominiums) Alternative No . 1 is the applicant ' s proposal to expand the Pacifica Community Plan, District One, to include the 1 . 14 acre subject site in order to allow a senior residential project at a density of 45 units per acre (see Appendix C for details on Pacifica Community Plan) . The proposed project would consist of a two and three story complex, with a maximum building height of 32 feet, containing 51 one-bedroom units . As stated previously, this proposed project mirrors an existing three-story senior residential complex on an adjacent site directly north of the subject site. The existing adjacent senior complex is within the boundaries of the Pacifica Community Plan, District One. Alternative No . 2 would conform with the existing general plan designation and zoning on the site allowing a maximum of 15 units per acre. At that density the site would accommodate 17 condo- minium type units . 2 . 1 . 2 . 2 Land Use Properties surrounding the subject site, their general plan designation, zoning and current land use are as follows : North - The property on the north side of the site is designated Mixed Development, zoned Pacifica Community Plan and, as discussed previously, contains a three-story senior condominium complex fronting on Delaware. East - The property on the east side is designated Medium Density Residential , zoned R-2 and contains nine residential four-plexes fronting on Florida . South - One property abutting the south side of the site is designated Medium Density Residential , zoned R-2 and contains a convalescent hospital fronting on Garfield. The second property abutting the site to the south also has a designation of Medium Density Residential and is zoned R-2 . It contains one four-plea fronting on Delaware. -7- (0619D) West - Directly acrozs Delaware the property is designated Medium Density Residential, zoned R-2 and is vacant . The subject property is located just south of the Pacifica Community Plan area . The Pacifica Community Plan was established in 1977 in order to integrate medical facilities with senior citizen residential complexes in order to provide convenient and accessible health care for the elderly of the community. The Pacifica Community Plan area is at this time largely built out . The highest intensity uses are the Wycliff Towers residential project on Florida Street and the Pacifica Towers Medical Building on Delaware Street, approximately 300 feet north of the study area . Both of those projects exceed 130 feet in height . Apart from the two high-rise projects, the remainder of the Pacifica Community Plan area is developed with moderate intensity medical and senior residential uses . As noted above, the property immediately to the north of the study area is developed with a senior citizen condominium project . That project is 53 units (45 units per acre) and 31 feet in height . The applicant ' s proposal is to mirror that project with a complex of similar height and density. The property surrounding the study area on the south, east and west is designated Medium Density Residential and zoned R2 . Existing uses include apartments, a convalescent hospital and vacant land. The R2 zoning district presently permits building heights of 35 feet . The applicant ' s proposal is for a residential project not to exceed 32 feet in height and could, therefore, be deemed compatible in terms of height . Although the applicant is proposing a denser project (45 units per acre) than the surrounding R2 zoning would permit (15 units per acre) , it must be pointed out that senior projects cannot be compared on the same terms as conventional residential properties . Senior residential units are substantially smaller (500 square feet minimum with exclusively one bedroom units) than other residential units . As such, a much higher density senior project may in fact be no larger or bulkier than a much lower density conventional residential project . In consideration of this fact, the density of the applicant ' s proposal could also be deemed compatible with surrounding uses . Apart from compatibility of uses, the appropriateness of the proposed use should also be considered. As stated previously, the Pacifica Community Plan was established to provide medical facilities in proximity to housing opportunities for senior citizens . The subject site is adjacent to the Pacifica Community Plan area, and if developed with a senior project could easily take advantage of nearby medical facilities . Section 2 . 1 . 2 . 5 (Senior Services) of this report further explores the availability of services in the area for senior citizens . -8- (0619D) i As a final point, it must* be noted that the proposed Mixed Development land use designation and Pacifica Community Plan zoning would permit the optional development of a medical office building rather than a senior apartment project . Since the applicant ' s request was specifically for a residential project, however, the office alternative is not analyzed in this document . In fact, office uses in the Pacifica Community Plan are generally located in the northern portion of the area (on or close to Main Street) , rather than to the south where the subject site is located. If the Pacifica Community Plan is expanded to include the subject property, staff would recommend that it be conditioned for residential use only. 2 . 1 . 2 . 3 Economic Considerations The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to analyze the alternatives in this amendment . The revenues and expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one year for comparison purposes . The results are summarized in the table below. Appendix D contains a summary of the fiscal impact assumptions . Alt . 1 Alt . 2 Revenue $18, 396 $10, 931 Cost $ 4 , 415 $ 3 , 235 Revenue-Cost $13 , 981 $ 7, 696 Revenue/Cost 4 . 17 3 . 38 As shown above, Alternative 1 (the proposed project) generates the most revenue and the largest net revenue. The difference is caused by a higher density and larger population, impacting population sensitive revenues . 2 . 1 . 2 .4 Housing The Housing Element of the City' s General Plan contains policies aimed at providing a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure and cost for households of all sizes, socioeconomic status , and racial and ethnic groups . The general plan amendment being analyzed would provide rental and/or for-sale housing opportu- nities for senior citizens . A redesignation to Mixed Development, in conjunction with a zone change to Pacifica Community Plan, would expand the stock of higher density property as well as increase the potential for the provision of affordable housing for senior citizens . 2 . 1 . 2 . 5 Senior Services Article 932 . 5 (Senior Residential Suffix) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code establishes four major service issues which must be addressed when considering the application of that suffix to property in the City. Those ssues are: 1) Public Transpor- -9- (0619D) I tation, 2) Shopping Areas , 3) Medical Facilities and 4) Other j Services . Although this request is not for the SR suffix, it is a request for a Senior Residential project, and those same issues should be considered. a . Public Transportation The Orange County Transportation District (OCTD) has numerous bus routes that serve Orange County with connections to Los Angeles County' s Rapid Transit District . The routes that would be the most accessible to the proposed project would be Route 37 (providing service along Garfield Avenue) and 29 providing service on Delaware. On Main Street near Garfield, passengers could also access route 74 or 76 that would provide transportation to the senior center at 17th and Orange. OCTD also has Dial-A-Ride service with reduced fares for seniors . The Dial-A-Ride is a curb to curb mini-bus service within a designated neighborhood zone. There are reduced bus fares for seniors on local routes during peak commuting times , other hours seniors can ride the bus free. b. Shopping Areas The City offers a variety of shopping opportunities ranging from small neighborhood centers to a regional mall . Within 600 feet of the proposed development is the Five Points Community Shopping Center containing stores, restaurants and a movie theater that can be accessed, if walking, by a traffic signal at Florida and Main Streets . Within 1200 to 1500 feet are two neighborhood shopping centers at the southwest and southeast corners of Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue that can be accessed by a stops ign/pedestrian crossing at Garfield and Delaware and a traffic signal at Beach and Garfield. Within three miles is the regional facility, Huntington Center . Also, the proposed project or the next project in that area will necessitate a traffic signal at the intersection of Garfield and Delaware. c. Medical Facilities The Pacifica Community Plan, which is adjacent to the study area (and which is being studied for expansion as part of the appli- cant ' s request) was established to provide medical facilities in extremely close proximity to residential opportunities . As such, the Pacifica Community Hospital is located on Delaware Street approximately 450 feet north of the subject property. There are also additional medical offices and services available within the immediate area . -10- (0619D) d. Other Services In addition to necessary services, there are religious and recre- ational services that are important to note. Several churches are within walking distance and/or a short drive from the subject site, they include: the First United Methodist at 2721 17th Street, Jehovah' s Witness at 1900 Delaware, Latter Day Saints at 19191 Delaware, Evangelical Free Church at 1912 Florida and the Calvary Baptist at 8281 Garfield . The Huntington Beach Senior Center is at 17th and Orange, within two miles of the site. Huntington Central Park and Library are also within two miles, located at the corner of Talbert and Goldenwest . 2 . 1 . 2 . 6 Public Services and Utilities a . City Sewers The study area is served by 8-inch city sewer line's located in Huntington, Delaware and Florida Streets, and a 24-inch county trunk sewer line in Garfield Avenue. After flow metering by the Public Works Department, it was determined that Huntington Street has adequate capacity, but Florida and Delaware Street lines are over capacity at the present time. The Department of Public Works has indicated that in conjunction with development on Delaware Street the installation of a parallel sewer line shall be required. b. Orange County Sanitation District The subject site is located within District No . 3 of the Orange County Sanitation District service area . The site is serviced by a pump station located near the intersection of Delaware and Yorktown. According to Tom Dawes, Director of Engineering for the Sanitation District, the pump station near the subject site could accommodate either the proposed project or Alternative No . 2, the 17 unit multi-family scenario . c . Water The study area is presently served by 8-inch water lines in Main, Huntington, Delaware, and Florida, and a 12-inch line in Garfield Avenue. Lines also exist in Shaffer Circle and Timber Drive, as well as in an easement adjacent to the northern boundary of the applicant ' s requested parcel . The consultant currently working on the master plan for water in the City indicates that there will be no measurable impact on the system from the proposed project . -11- (0619D) d. Storm Drains Within the study area there is a forty-two inch storm drain in Delaware Street that continues south of Garfield Avenue. The surface flow is both north and south, but predominately the latter . Water flowing to the north runs into a storm drain north of the subject site which goes east-west under the Pacifica Hospital . Surface flows draining south are carried into a twenty- four inch storm drain in Garfield Avenue which joins the southern-flowing drain in Delaware. Increased development will increase run-off . The Department of Public Works has indicated that the increase in flows would not have a measurable effect on the downstream City system. e. Parks There are three parks within one mile of the subject site: Perry Park, a two acre neighborhood park, one half mile southeast of the site; Helme Park, two acres, also one half mile from the site; and Terry Park, five acres, one mile from the site. Huntington Central Park and Library is located within two miles of the site. Although Community Services has indicated that the proposed project should be adequately served by the existing park facil- ities in the general area, the 1977 Park Analysis stated that within the quarter section containing the subject site demand for neighborhood park land exceeded supply. Based on the contrasting assessment of park availability, staff recommends that Community Services analyze the area further with consideration given to existing land uses as well as the possible further expansion of senior housing and related services . f . Fire Protection Fire protection for the site is provided by the City of Huntington Beach from the Gothard Station located north of Ellis Avenue on the west side of Gothard Street . The site lies within the five minute response area of the station and can be adequately serviced . g . Police Police protection for the subjec� site is provided by the City Police Department, located at City Hall, at Main and Yorktown, within two miles of the site. The proposed project or Alternative No. 2 would have no measurable impact on police services . Typically, senior developments generate . 10 calls for service per unit . The senior project would result in approximately five calls per year . Medium density multifamily developments generate . 70 calls per unit . A 17 unit development would result in approxi- mately 12 calls per year . -12- (0619D) h. Schools The study area is served by Perry Elementary School, Dwyer Middle School and Huntington Beach High School . Since the proposed project (Alternative No . 1) would be designed for senior citizens, there will be no additional demand on any of these schools . Alternative No. 2, 17 condo-type units would generate approxi- mately three students, elementary and high school level . Alternative No. 2, therefore, would not measurably impact the school system. i . Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by the Southern California Gas Company and the Edison Company, respectively. Gas service is generally provided as a normal extension of existing facilities . The Southern California Gas Company indicates that service to the proposed project could be served by an existing main without any significant impact on the environ- ment . The availabil-ty of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies . As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of federal regulatory agencies . Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions . Electrical service is provided by the Edison Company. Adequate electrical power supply can be provided from 12 KV distribution lines in the vicinity of the area of concern. Edison notes that the total electrical system demand is expected to continue to increase annually; however, excluding any unforeseen problems, their plans for new generation resources indicate that their ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods will be adequate for the remainder of the decade. j . Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City of Huntington Beach. The Company has indicated that there are no service constraints in accommodating of the proposed project . They do request, however, that they be given the oppor- tunity to review specific development proposals for accessibility to the area and to individual trash enclosures . 2 . 1 . 2 . 7 Traffic and Circulation Access to the subject site is taken from Delaware Street, Main Street, Garfield Avenue and Beach Blvd. Beach Blvd. is designated as a major arterial, Garfield Avenue and Main Street as primary arterials, and Delaware Street as a secondary arterial . The -13- (0619D) current traffic volum--s on Delaware are 5382 daily trips . On the major and primary arterials in the area traffic volumes are 15, 700 daily trips ( level of service A) on Main Street, 21, 000 daily trips ( level of service A) on Garfield Avenue, and * 45, 000 daily trips on ( level of service C) Beach Boulevard. The maximum design capacities for these streets are 20 , 000, 30, 000, 30, 000, and 45, 000 vehicle trips per day, respectively. Estimated daily traffic volumes generated by the proposed project and alternative scenario are as follows : 1 . Senior residential, 51 units @ 3 . 3 trips per day = 168 average daily trips . 2 . Medium density multifamily, 17 units @ 7 . 0 trips per day = 119 average daily trips While Beach Boulevard is currently operating slightly above capacity, the other arterials are below capacity. The projected traffic volumes for the proposed project and alternative scenario would add to the current excess traffic on Beach Boulevard although the impact would be nominal . The proposed improvements to Beach Boulevard with the "Super Street" improvements should mitigate the nominal impact created by either alternative. Potential residents of the proposed project may, at times walk to local retail and medical facilities . Short vehicle trips not using Beach Boulevard may occur as well With respect to public transportation, the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) offers bus service near the site as stated in a previous section of this report . OCTD does not foresee any measurable impact from the proposed project on existing or future transit services in the area . OCTD does request, however, that adequate accessibility from the subject site be provided to the transit sites . The project should include paved, lighted and handicapped-accessible pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit stops . In addition, areas adjacent to bus stops should contain a bus shelter to accommodate waiting passengers . 2 . 1. 2 . 8 Environmental Issues a . Noise According to the General Plan, the noise level on Delaware, adjacent to the subject site, is at a level of 60 Ldn. This is an acceptable exterior noise level for residential development in the City and no mitigation measures are proposed for a senior project or multifamily development. -14- (0619D) b. Air Quality Development of the site would not measurably affect air quality in the South Coast Air Basin, according to emission generating guide- lines provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, see Appendix E. C . Seismic. Soils and Geology The study area is rated under the category of lowest risk on the city' s Geotechnical Land Use Capability Map. The rating is based on fault rupture potential, peat deposits, liquefaction potential, beach erosion and tsunami hazards . Nominal risk (Risk I) areas display the least problems from a geotechnical point of view. The study identifies the Huntington Beach Mesa as the terrain unit most suitable for high intensity development and critical facilities . There are no known active or inactive fault zones within the area . The Yorktown fault, however, does run close to the tip of the study area near the intersection of Main Street and Garfield Avenue. A 1974 study, Geotechnical Inputs, prepared for the City by Leighton-Yen and Associates, indicates that its exact alignment has not been determined. A second fault, the inactive* Bolsa- Fairview, runs north of the study area, near the intersection of Main Street and Beach Blvd. In compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972, a Special Studies zone has been established in Huntington Beach that includes the most hazardous earthquake faults . This special studies zone is approximately two miles west of the study area . Development on this site, then, is not subject to any special seismic requirements . The city' s Fault and Geologic Conditions map indicates the study area as older alluvium. A technical report for 1979-1980 (O.F.R. -80-19 L.A) prepared by the State in cooperation with the County of Orange, indicates that the soil in the study area is Unit 6, "Silt, consolidated Quaternary marine and alluvial deposits . " This unit has a predominant silt. content, but is consolidated. * There is no geologic evidence of activity in recent geologic time, within the last 10, 1000 years . -15- (0619D) 2 . 1 . 3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the study area be redesignated to Mixed Development and that the Pacifica Community Plan be expanded to permit a 51-unit senior residential project on the site. This recommendation is based on the assessment that the study area is an appropriate location for a senior residential project given the proximity of support services . Staff has further determined that the proposed use will be compatible with surrounding uses and that traffic and other impacts will be negligible. Staff further recommends, based on the discussion contained in Section 4 . 0 of this report, that additional consideration be given in the future toward a further expansion of the Pacifica Community Plan area . -16- (0619D) 3 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act guide- lines , an environmental assessment is required to address short- term and long-term effects , irreversible environmental changes , and growth inducing impacts of the total project or plan. This section analyzes these concerns in context of the recommended land use change in Section 2 . 0 . 3 . 1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity Amendment 87-3 does not in and of itself create long term impacts . Rather, it makes changes in the general type of land uses that may be allowed on a particular area at the time of development . Amendment 87-3 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 . -17- (0619D) i 3 . 2 Irreversible Environmental Changes The Amendment EIR addresses mitigation measures for most adverse effects . However, irreversible environmental change of a secondary nature can be expected from development under the proposed amendments . Loss of open space will occur as vacant land is converted to other uses . Although the option to recycle the land to open space after development is available, it is probably not economically feasible. Alteration of topography will be an irreversible change. Although mitigating measures can be imposed as part of the development process, the natural topography will experience a negligible degree of modification. Construction materials of mineral origin will also be needed for development to occur, and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods to satisfy local energy demand. However, such development would be consistent with existing land use designations . 3 . 3 Growth Inducing Impacts The proposed amendment will also have growth inducing effects within the area of concern. An additional maximum population of 77 persons (for the proposed project) could be generated by uses under Land Use Element Amendment 87-3 , thereby creating a nominal increase of demand for public services and utilities and incremen- tally affecting air quality, water quality, traffic, and noise levels . The demand for water and energy will increase slightly as a result of the proposed land uses in this amendment . Conservation measures such as those outlined below can be implemented City-wide to reduce these impacts . Water Interior : 1 . Supply line pressure : water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square inch (psi) can be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve. 2 . Drinking fountains : Drinking fountains can be equipped with self-closing valves . 3 . Laundry Facilities : Water-conserving models of washers can be used. 4 . Ultra-low-flush toilets : 1 1/2 gallon per flush toilets can be installed in all new construction. -18- (0619D) Exterior : 1 . Landscape with low-water-using g plants wherever feasible. 2 . Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses, such as playing fields . When lawn is used, require warm season grasses . 3 . Group plants of similar water use to reduce over irrigation of low-water using plants . 4 . Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low- water-using landscaping and sources of additional assistance 5 . Use much extensively in all landscaped areas . Mulch applied on top of soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. 6 . Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the plant roots . Dip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. 7 . Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in ground water recharge . 8 . Grade slops so that runoff of surface water is minimized. 9 . Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or grey water for irrigation. 10 . Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage systems in new develop- ments . This aids ground water recharge. -19- (0619D) 4 .0 CONSIDERATION OF PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN FUTURE EXPANSION In the process of analyzing the request to expand the Pacifica Community Plan to include the 1. 14 acre subject site, staff has also preliminarily assessed the possibility of future expansion of the Pacifica Community Plan south to include a larger area of approximately 23 acres (see Figure 4) . The Pacifica Community Plan currently serves as a mixed-use zoning permitting hospitals, medical and dental facilities, professional offices, rest homes, senior citizen housing, recreation and related services . The maximum height is 45 feet for most of the area, with two multi-story nodes allowing structures from 140 to 150 feet tall . One of these nodes is located at the southwest corner of Main Street and Florida Street; the other on the east side of Delaware Street, southerly of Main Street . The Community Plan calls for special setbacks and more stringent site coverage requirements for structures taller than forty-five (45) feet . In addition, reduced parking requirements are established for the senior housing units . -20- (0619D) li RA-O-CD �` It RI R I r---'-tsOt---- - i� RI �• I CiF't. MI a _�aucecc oR RI RI II • RI RI �r ALKWTL� A R3 MI-CD RI RI RI ' 1 RI „ M I IL i c '•�•�,. �R C4 ON ■1-co; u•"``��IRI R3 RI R2 •)Fa a --J ELL,3 TR M s• I ''_ R2- -— MI-0-CD �M1-0 R2 �� K '••, � � 'I R2 r -L 1 M2-0 R3 A-O M I-0 I. RA-0- MI-0 - w, I - R5 R2 Iaowl AWC C4I N 0.[1 IIMClT J MI-0-CD • '••• m i MIA-co PAACFICA TY PLAN MI-01 a°c.. (01 ICT ONE) R3 ; MI-0 W2-01 °s MI-01 Ry Rs o- m r• :s- R3 I;; FR �, tY3 $ o}co b RA'0 iV.. A w RA-0 CI - - �� R2 � R2 i o �MI MI R2� MI_A MHO C2 a Rao R2Cr cr _,L 2 -A R2 R2 �, C4� R2 'yj R2 - - R2 R2 i R2 R2 01 R2', M I R 2 I • —JR 2 I " PIAMIpISTRKt I.1 •°° e•u .. C2-0 ...1�{ M.P�M'..111• R3 �• ; R3 u V ... gi�n R2 R2-0-PO 9 b `o R2-0 1 - R2 R4 I R2 " .•• o-o..d 1 :.p g :r:..• R I RI •� C2-0-CD C" C2-0 °A ; ,( ��� '; . . i1, R2 R2-0-PD ,c: b .4 _ ' ru c. I �e 1J'w.;en' om ;p C R2-0 RI 4+ n -r RI a • AIu lAv w R2 UR2 R2 RZ.O-CO •:: o �4 R 2 Div FIGA POSSIBLE EXPANSION- OF PACIFIC/ COMMUNITY PLAN huntington beach planning division -21— As noted previously in this document, the existing Pacifica Community Plan area is presently nearly built out . The immediate surrounding area, however, does contain a number of vacant and underutilized parcels of land. The subject of the preceeding land use analysis was in fact one of those adjacent vacant parcels . Although only one adjacent property owner has thus far filed an amendment request to expand the Pacific Community Plan area, staff has been made aware of similar interests by other property owners in the area . Given this potential interest, it may be desirable to analyze a future expansion of the Pacifica Community Plan area . Staff ' s initial analysis of a larger expansion of the Pacifica Community Plan indicates that the idea does have merit . As shown in Figure 4 , the Pacifica Community Plan could be expanded as far as the Garfield Avenue to the south and the intersection of Garfield and Main Street to the west . This would create a well- defined area which could be further developed under the mixed use/senior residential concept . Since this area has been found to contain most of the amenities and support services necessary for senior citizens , expansion for additional similar uses may be desirable. By expanding this area for senior/medical uses, the City may also be able to make the policy statement that this is the appropriate area in the City for such uses, and thereby discourage the widely scattered requests for senior housing projects which have occupied over the past several years . While the above are valid reasons for a larger expansion of the Pacifica Community Plan area, there are also some potential problems with such an expansion. First, the surrounding area is not entirely vacant or under-utilized . Creation of non-conforming uses may be a problem, regarding compatibility concerns . Grand- fathering of existing uses and stepping down of heights and inten- sities may be necessary to implement an expansion of the area . Apart from compatibility and zoning code concerns, there also may be environmental issues related to a larger expansion of the Pacifica Community Pian area . Traffic generation would certainly be a concern if additional medical offices were to be permitted in the area . Although Garfield Avenue and Main Street are presently operating below capacity, additional traffic signals may be required. The Sanitation District has also indicated that the pump station which serves the area is approaching capacity and may not be able to accommodate a major increase in intensity of development . An analysis to determine whether or not uses which may occur under the Pacific Community Plan would in fact constitute an increase in intensity should be pursued. -22- (0619D) In summary, staff ' s preliminary analysis is that there are poten- tial environmental problems associated with a larger expansion of the Pacifica Community Plan. At the same time, there may be benefits to such an expansion, including the creation of a policy on the appropriate location in the City for senior residential projects . Given that the subject area contains vacant and under- utilized parcels , an expanded plan may also allow the city control and continuity of development not presently achievable on a parcel-by-parcel basis . -23- (0619D) APPENDIX A California Environmental Quality Act Environmental Checklist APPII®I3 I ENVIRCNHMTAL CHBMIST Pam[ (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I . BLckground 1 . Name of Proponent Corona Development Company, Inc. 2. Address and Phone Number of ProponentPO Box 78, Huntington Beach CA 92648 Phone: (714) 960-1606 �- 3. Date of Checklist Submitted June 12 , 1987 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach--Community Development" 5. Name of Proposal , if applicable General Plan Amendment No. 87-3 II . Environmental Impacts kExplanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1 . Barth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, ccmpaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? 1� e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X Yes Maybe No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? — 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? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or Row of flood X craters? _ d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body, X e. Discharge into surface craters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity. f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground craters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an X aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated haaards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- ber of any species of plants ('including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X Yes Maybe No b. Reduction of the numbers o1 any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? � 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 num- bers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, 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 migra- tion or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? x 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? ?� 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Yes Yam No b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Sousing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? �C b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? �C c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? ?� f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, x bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. public Services. Will the proposal have'an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? >( _ b. Police protection? k c. Schools? )< d. Pads or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Yes Waybe No b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following IL4,0 y, K _ S}orw. ,J4L4C41 or sold wgS+P' d1SfoS•.1) 17. Hunan 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 creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. toes the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect f unique ethnic cultural values? L 1C d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21 . Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade iAr the quality of the environment, substantially .reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten j' V r ' to eliminate a plant or- animal camnunity, re-- duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate " �� Yes Maybe No important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? �C b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the X 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 ba each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X _ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) IV. Determination (To be canpleted by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: • I find that the proposed project COULD AAT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NMATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WUL BE PREPARED. [] I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIF1ONMWrAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date �— gnatyr Assistant Planner (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) EXPLANATION OF `Y AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS lb. Construction on the site may require compaction or displacement of soil. lc. Grading and landscaping may cause a change in ground surface relief features. le. During grading and construction, there may be a temporary increase in wind and/or water erosion of soils on the site. 2a. Additional vehicular traffic associated with the project may result in some deterioration of ambient air quality. 3b. Construction on the site may alter absorption rates and the flow of runoff. 7. Development of the site may result in additional light from parking lot lighting and the addition of more street lights. 8. The site is presently planned for medium density residential uses and office professional uses. The proposal is for some mix which includes higher density residential uses along with professional office uses. 11. The Alternative One proposal will result in approximately 485 additional people residing in the area. (Since the area is expected to cater mainly to senior citizens, a factor of 1.25 people per unit is assumed.) 12. The proposal will satisfy a demand for additional housing. 13a. The proposal will generate additional vehicular traffic. 13b. The proposal will impact demand for parking; however, any new construction would be required to provide adequate off-street parking.- 13c. , The proposal may substantially impact existing public and private transportation systems. 14a-f. The proposal may require additional governmental services, with the exception of school facilities. The units would generally be one bedroom only and, again, occupied by senior citizens. 16. The proposed project may require alterations to some utility systems. 20b. Although there is no specific construction project planned other than on a 1.14 acre vacant site, the study area includes several single-family structures which may have been built between 1915 and 1925. The general plan amendment may encourage recycling of the properties on which they are located due to the increase in development intensity permitted. (8373d) APPENDIX B General Assumptions GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS DENSITY POPULATION SEWAGE TRAFFIC STUDENTS POLICE FIRE PARKS (Units/ Persons/ GPD/AC Daily Trips/ Students/Unit Acre Unit (Peaking Dwelling Units Edison/H.B. High Calls/Unit/Yr Calls/Unit/Yr Ac/1000 Pop :AND USE Factor 2.5) "fixed ,evelopment 45 1 .50 5820 4 0 .10 .18 •92 Senior) Medium 15 2.0 3880 7 .12/.04 .70 .07 .92 jensity ^61°D> APPENDIX C Division 9 Article 964 Pacifica Community Plan PLANNING_ _ MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICT S. 9640 ARTICLE 964 PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN (2484-6/81, 25 3- 82, 2627-8 83, 2806-12/85) S. 9640 PURPOSE. The purpose of this article is to establish a specific plan to promote the orderly development and improvement of a section of the City of Huntington Beach referred to as the Pacifica Community. This specific plan is intended to integrate the area into an office/professional , medical senior citizen multistory residential complex, and to provide necessary support services that will meet the health, business and housing needs for the elderly of the community. S. 9641 SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARIES. The real property described herein is included in the Pacifica Community Plan and shall be subject to development provisions and requirements set forth in this article. The Pacifica Community Plan encompasses that area located within the specific plan boundaries as delineated on the area map in subsection (a) hereof and described in subsection (b) hereof. (a) Area Map. NA p r r 1 C — Pacifica Community r' . _ •- •-- - Plan PPW ILL I 7H I I l� r----� r-----i r----'--� \ o•aaLo we 00 Legal Description. Precisely, Pacifica Community Plan includes the real property described as: S: 964L(b) MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS _ PLANNING The North 1/2 of I.ot 20, Block 11 of Tract No. 7, Block F, Lots 1-5; Block G, Lot.; 1-9; the north half of Lot 10 of Tract 7 and Lot 21 and the south half of I.ot 20, block H, as recorded ii. Book 9, page 8 of Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County, California. (Ord 2 543-4/8 2,2 0 2 7-8/8 3) S. 9642 DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this article the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth. (a) Building site shall mean a legally created parcel of land bounded by property lines after dedication. (b) Office/professional uses shall mean office building used for the following professional services: Accountant, architect, attorney, chiropractor, collection agency, dentist, engineer, insurance broker, optometrist, physician and surgeon, private detective, real estate sales, social workers, surveyor, pharmacies or similar uses and occupations. Diagnostic laboratories and biochemical laboratories that do riot exceed twenty-five hundred (2500) square feet in gross area are also considered office/professional uses. (c) Perimeter setback shall mean the required setback distance between the specific plan boundary line and any proposed buildings along said boundary lines. (d) Property line shall mean the lot line established after street dedication. (e) Resident shall mean the occupant or occupants of residential dwelling units located within the specific plan area. (f) Specific plan shall mean the Pacifica Community Plan as adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. (9) Specific plan mal, shall mean the map described in Section 9646.10. S_ 9643 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED. Any development under the provisions of this specific plan shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit as provided in Article 984 of the Iuntington Beach Ordinance Code. In addition to the criteria provided ir, Article 084, development proposals within the specific plan area shall be subject to the imposition of conditions to provide for future parking needs ir, addition to the minimum parking requirements herein. S. 9644 ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT AREAS. This specific plan is divided into District One and District Two, as delineated in the specific plan map contained in Section 9646.10. PLANNING MISCELIANEOUS DISTRICTS S. 9645 S. 9645 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Proposed development within the Pacifica Community Plan shall comply with the following development standards, provided further that all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code shall also apply except where there is conflict with the provisions of this article, in which case the provisions of this article shall take precedence. S. 9645.1 PERMITTED USES. The following uses are permitted in the specific plan area in accordance with the development standards contained in this article, and as delineated on the specific plan map: (a) District One Permitted Uses (1) Hospitals and convalescent hospitals; (2) Medical and dental buildings; (3) Pharmacies; (4) kest homes, nursing homes, residential health care facilities and sanitariums; (5) Office/professional uses; (6) Service stations with or without convenience markets in conformance with C2, "Community Business District" and SS, "Service Station Standards." No person owning, operating or having control of a convenience market combined with a service 4r' station, as defined in this code, shall sell any alcoholic beverage or permit or allow the sale or consumption of any alcoholic beverage on such premises. As used in this section, "alcoholic: beverage" shall mean any malt, spirituous or vinous liquor containing more than one-half of 1 percent or more of alcohol by volume, which is fit for beverage purposes either alone or when diluted, mixed or combined with other substances. (7) Apartments or condominiums when support services prescribed herein are integrated into such structures to implement the purpose of this article. (8) Support services to apartments and condominiums, including but not limited to, eating facilities, beauty/barber shops, libraries, private health clubs, health care facilities and retail commercial establishments. ( b) District Two Permitted uses (1) Apartments when support services prescribed herein are integrated into such structures to implement the purpose of this article. (2) Support services to apartments including but not limited to eating facilities, beauty/barber shops, libraries, private health clubs, health care facilities and retail commercial ...,, establishments. S. 9645.1(b)(3) MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICT PLANNING (3) Office/professional uses. (4) Public institutions. S. 9645.2 MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA. (a) Buildings. forty-five (45) feet or less in height shall have a minimum building site area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (b) Buildings exceeding forty-five (45) feet in height shall have a minimum building site area of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. S. 9645.3 MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE. Total site coverage shall not exceed 45 percent of site, provided further, buildings exceeding forty-five (45) feet shall not exceed 25 percent of site coverage. S. 9645.4 REAR YARD AND INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK. Except as provided in Section 9645.6, the minimum rear yard and interior side yard setback shall be five (5) feet, provided further that all buildings exceeding forty-five (45) feet in height shall have an additional setback of one (1.) foot for every two (2) feet above forty-five (45) feet of building height plus art additional one (1) foot setback for every ten (10) feet of building length facing said yard. S. 9645.5 SETBACK FROM PUBLIC STREET. Except as provided in Section 6 5.6, all buildings and structures shall be set back from a public street as follows: (a) All buildings and structures forty-five (45) feet or less in height shall be set back from a public street a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. (b) All buildings and structures exceeding forty-five (45) feet in height shall be set back from a public street a minimum of twenty (20) feet, provided further that said setback shall be increased one (1) foot for each two (2) feet above forty-five (45) feet of building height plus an additional one (1) foot setback for every ten (10) feet of building length facing said street shall also be required. (c) The required setback shall be measured from the property line parallel to the public street. .S. 9645.6 PERIMETER SETBACK. All buildings not exceeding forty-five 45 feet in height shall have a minimum perimeter setback of twenty (20) feet from the- boundaries of the specific plan unless otherwise designated on the specific plan map. All buildings exceeding forty-five (45) Meet in height shall have a minimum perimeter setback of twenty (20) feet provided further that an additional two (2) foot setback for every ten (10) feet above forty-five .(45) feet of building height plus an additional one (1) foot setback for every ten (10) feet of building length facing said yard shall be required. The required perimeter setback sliall be measured from the property line along the specific plan boundary. PLANNING MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS S. 9645.7 S. 9645.7 MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS. The minimum distance between maisi buildings shall be fifteen (15) feet provided urther that an additional one (1) foot separation shall be provided for every 10 additional two (2) feet of building height above forty-five (45) feet. Where more than one structure exceeds forty-five (45) feet in height, the separation between adjacent buildings shall be calculated by using the tallest structure proposed to be developed on the site. S. 9645.8 BUILDING HEIGHT. Building height within the specific plan area shall not exceed the limitations for each district as delineated upon the specific plan map. S. 9645.9 MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE. * All dwelling units within a residential multistory structure shall be exclusively one (1) bedroom units of not less than five hundred (500) square feet of floor area. S. 9645.10 PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Parking facilities shall be incorporated as part of the development proposal. The number of parking spaces provided, arrangement and drive widths within the specific plan shall conform to Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, provided further that the number of onsite parking spaces for apartment structures within District Two shall be provided at a ratio of one space per 3.0 residential units. Parking spaces for apartments or condominiums within District One shall be provided at a ratio of one space per each residential unit. (2484-6/81) 9645.11 PARKING AREA LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING. Parking area landscaping and screening shall conform to Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. S. 9645.12 PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY SYSTEM. A continuous pedestrian walkway system shall be provided within District Two of the specific plan for the benefit of the residents. S. 9645.13 OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. (a) Excluding any portion of a setback area assigned for parking purposes, all setback areas fronting a public street and all recreation, leisure and open space areas shall be landscaped and permanently maintained in an attractive manner. (b) Decorative landscape/architectural design elements such as fountains, pools, benches, sculptures, planters, gardens and similar elements shall be provided and incorporated as part of the landscape plan. (c) Permanent irrigation facilities shall be provided in all landscaped areas. (d) Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and subject to approval by the Director of Building and Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. S.._ 9645.13i _______ _!MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICT PLANNING (e) Landscaping in the public right-of-way shall be installed in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Department of Public Works. (f) Such landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection. S. 9645.14 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION AREAS. Open space and recreation areas shall be provided to serve the recreational and leisure activity needs of residents within the specific plan area. Open space and recreation areas shall conform to the following criteria: (a) The amount of open space and recreation area shall be provided at a ratio of two hundred (200) square feet per dwelling unit. (b) Common open space and recreation areas may include but not be limited to game courts or game rooms, swimming pools, gyms, saunas, putting greens, garden roofs or grounds, and other similar type facilities. (C) At least one (1) main recreation area or facility shall be provided. This area shall be conveniently located to afford maximum use by all residents and shall be located within District Two of the specific plan area. (d) Enclosed buildings used for recreational or leisure facilities shall not constitute more than 50 percent of the required open space and recreational area. (e) Private balconies shall be provided to serve the private open space needs of residents within the specific plan area. Such balconies shall be located adjacent to the unit they are intended to serve and shall have a minimum area of sixty (60) square feet. S 9646 GENERAL PROVISIONS. In addition to satisfying the development provisions contained in this article, all proposed development shall comply with the applicable general provisions set out herein. S. 9646.1 TRANSIT FACILITIES. There shall be a transportation transfer facility provided adjacent to Main Street for the purpose of accommodating mass transit vehicles. Said facility shall include a canopy shelter for the convenience and comfort of persons utilizing the facility which shall not be subject to setback requirements of this article. The location of the facility shall generally conform to the location designated upon the specific plan map. S. 9646.2 SIGN REGULATIONS. All signs shall conform to Article 976 of The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. S. 9646.3 SEWAGE AND WATER SYSTEMS. FIRE PREVENTION. (;a) All sewav,— systems shall comply with standard plans and specifications of the city and shall connect to the city sewage system. (b) All water systeans shall comply with standara plans and specifications (it the city and shall connect to the city water system. PIA MING _ MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS S. 9646.3(c� (c) All fire protection appliances, appurtenances, emergency access and any other applicable regti.rements pursuant to Chapter 17.56 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, shall meet the standard plans and specifications on file with the Fire Department. S. 9646.4 TELEPHONE AND ELECTRICAL SERVICE. All on-site electrical lines excluding lines in excess of 12KV) and telephone lines shall be placed underground. S. 9646.5 LIGHTING. The developer shall install an on-site lighting system on all vehicular access ways and along sidewalks. Such lighting shall be directed onto driveways and walkways within the development and away from adjacent properties. Lighting shall also be installed within all parking areas. S. 9646.6 REFUSE COLLECTION AREAS. (a) Opaque materials shall be used to screen outdoor refuse containers from view from access streets and adjacent property. (b) No refuse container area shall be permitted between a street and the setback line. S. 9646.7 UNDEVELOPED AREAS. Undeveloped areas for future expansion shall be maintained in a weed and dust-free condition and shall remain free of debris. S. 9646.8 NONCONFORMING USES AND BUILDINGS. Existing uses and buildings which do not meet the criteria contained in this article are declared non-conforming and subject to the applicable requirements of Article 971 and Article 948 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. S. 9646.9 PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES. Any residential developments with the specific plan shall be subject to the requirements of Article 974, Park and Recreation Facilities, of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (this article continues on the next page) � 1,:L`LNi i11Nt V', 10"'Fid('1" 964b. 10 ti. 9646. 10 SPECIFIC PLAN MAP. LEGEND DISTRICT ONE A. HOSPITAL C)MPLEX/0F'FICE: PIUi TSSICrI"•DICAL I3IlI IDTNC; H. C( AND RFSIDUVrIAI, CARE RES I Dwr IAL CARE/APA- wV'I`S AND CCt D I N I LP4S i). RECREATION PARK E'. MEDICAL FACILITY I'. MIDICAL BUIMING AND OFFICE/PROFESSIOVAL DISTRICT TWO Residential Office/Professional and Public Institutions I ---------SPECIFIC PLAN KXJNWY - DISTRICC SF:PAwri(-)N I,TNL•' DISTRICT TWO - TRANSIT STOP y I 140 Feet Heirjht Limit E. 1 I ��J I C. o �o' W PARKING i 150 foot A./F DISTRICT ONE Height Limit -- Y � 45 foot height lima 15' Min. F N Setback >` D c � A S LA � A ' C O B. o u' 'x Parking a c C C YU FT Con I Y - q 7/83 APPENDIX D Fiscal Impact Analysis Technical Appendix FISCAL IMPACT MODEL TECHNICAL APPENDICES Major revenue and cost impacts are assessed in this analysis for the first full year after development of the proposed project (or alternative) , in current year dollars . Assumptions and planning factors have been derived from staff research, other agency data and private sector sources . Implementation of the model has been aided by the use of a Burroughs B-26 micro-computer using Enhanced Multi-plan software. There are two alternatives analyzed in General Plan Amendment 87-3 . The information provided below includes the proposed project, an alternative scenario, estimated market valuations and the estimated population for each alternative. Alternative 1 - Proposed Project Senior residential complex 51 units Market value per unit $50, 000 Population per unit 1 . 5 Alternative 2 - Medium density Condominium development of 17 units Market value per unit $140 , 000 Population per unit 2 . 0 Market value assumptions are based on current City projects . Each revenue and cost category used in this analysis is detailed in table format . This format enables the reader to follow the rationale used to achieve the results which are summarized in the report . Summary tables follow the conclusion of this text . 1.0 REVENUES 1 . 1 Property Tax Property tax revenue is derived from county property tax placed on new development, which is one percent of the market value of the land and (or) improvements . Of that one percent, the City of Huntington Beach collects, through the General Fund, a specific percent of the revenue, determined by the tax rate area (TRA) in which the proposed project (or alternative) is located. The City is divided into twenty-eight (28) TRA' s ranging from TRA 04-001 to TRA 04-045 . The TRA applicable to GPA 87-3 is 04-013 and the percent of County revenue collected for the City' s general fund for that TRA is . 199 of one percent . (0619D) 1 . 2 Sales Tax The State of California places a six percent sales tax on retail sales . Of that six percent the City receives 16 . 6 percent or one cent for every six cents collected. Sales tax for residential projects is based on an estimated family income determined by the unit or house value. It is generally assumed that the family' s income is 30 percent of the market value of the unit . The annual retail sales tax collected is then derived from the Internal Revenue Service "Optional State Sales Tax Tables . " It is assumed that a large percent of Huntington Beach residents spend retail dollars outside of the City. It is assumed, there- fore, that the City captures only 40 percent of the annual retail sales tax revenue generated by that new residents . 1 . 3 Utility User and Franchise Tax Huntington Beach collects a five percent utility user tax on the annual sales of electricity, natural gas, water, telephone and cable television services in the City. A franchise tax of one percent of the annual electricity sales and four percent of the annual natural gas sales is collected from the respective utility providers in the City. Factors used for this section of the analysis are as follows . Electricity According to the California Energy Commission, average electricity charges are: Residential = $36 . 99 per unit, per month* Natural Gas Average natural gas charges are: Residential = $33 . 02 per unit, per month Water Based on City Water Department analyses : Average residential water billing is $18 . 69 for a two month period, per unit. * Figures have been rounded in the analysis (0619D) Telephone General Telephone is unable to provide the City with any data on average phone billings for residential or commercial customers . They do not compile the type of information that would be appro- priate for a fiscal analysis . * An average estimated residential telephone bill is forty dollars ($40 . 00) per month. This data was derived from the Holly Property EIR. However, there are no studies available at this time from either public or private sources that could enable staff to esti- mate an average commercial telephone billing . Cable Television For cable T.V. service in the City, the basic rate paid by residents is $14 . 50 per month. It is assumed that all new residents in the City will subscribe to the cable service. 1 .4 Business License Fee-(not applicable to this analysis) 1. 5 Additional Revenue Additional revenue is generated by new residential development on a per capita basis . This revenue is derived from funds** collected by the State of California that are distributed back to local municipalities using a formula that is primarily based on that municipality' s population. In the Preliminary City Budget, Fiscal Year 1986-1987, four major revenue items are applicable to this analysis . Based on the January 1986 State Department of Finance population estimate for Huntington Beach of 184 ,300 , the revenues are calculated as follows : Fines. Forfeitures and Penalties is $2, 195, 000 divided by 184 ,300 equals $11 . 90 per capita . Cigarette Tax is $532, 100 divided by 184 , 300 equals $2 . 89 per capita . Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax is $5, 248, 000 divided by 184, 300 and equals $28 .48 per capita . Gas Tax Funds (2107 and 2107 . 5) are $1, 620, 600 divided by 184 , 300 equaling $8 . 79 per capita . * John Kiefer, General Telephone, Tax Payment Department ** State subventions . (0619D) 2.0 COSTS Research and discussions with each department have resulted in the application of different methods to assess relative costs . These results depended on the amount of data available and the level of automation in each department . For example, the police department has the most sophisticated data analysis related to activity by type of land use. Working with police department computerized archival data it was possible to assess the number of calls for a particular type of land use. The number of calls has a direct relationship to the number of officers needed, and, ultimately, a recommendation for the hiring of additional officers based on the impacts from development . 2 . 1 Cost Assumptions The City of Huntington Beach Preliminary Budget , Fiscal Year 1986- 1987, was used as the primary source for this section of the analysis . Capital expenditures were excluded from the budget as they are not applicable to the proposed development . The applicable programs under each budget item can generally be assigned to privately developed acreage in the City on the following basis : Residential land uses comprise approximately 78 percent of privately developed acres, commercial land uses com- prise 10 percent and industrial land uses comprise 12 percent . Where appropriate, this land use distribution will be used to assess cost impacts . 2 . 2 General and Administration Expenditures While this fund includes numerous programs (a total of 20) , new development would measurably impact only the non-departmental (budget program 101) category. Non-departmental activities range from City utility expenditures to liability program expenditures and comprise, of the 1986-87 budget , $7, 950, 300 . The most equitable method of distributing this expenditure is on a cost per acre, regardless of the type of land use . There are approximately 12 , 230 privately developed acres in the City and divided into the above budget figure results in a cost per acre of $650 . 2 . 3 Police Department From surveys of major land uses in the City police calls per type of development were derived . The police calls by type of land use are as follows : 0 (0619D)