HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Plan Amendment GPA1986002 - Supporting DocumentsC. P BLIC HEARING ITEMS
C-1 LAND SE ELEMENT AMENDMENT_NO._87-2C/ZONE CHANGE NO.
7-13/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA T REPORT NO 87-2
APPLICANT: DICK NERIO
Land Use Element Amendment No, 87-2C, Zone Change No. 87--18 ane
Environmental Impact Report No. 87-2 is a request to amend the
General Plan by redesignating the 65 acre Meadowlark Airport site,
located approximately 600 feet north and east of the intersection of
Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue , from Low Density residential
to Planned Community containing 50 acres of mixed residential
totaling 750 units and 15 acres of retail commercial . Adopt a
Specific Plan co implement the General Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission recommend to the C!ty Council approval of
General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2C for a change in
land ,use designation from Low Density Residential to Planned
Ccmmunity . Staff also recommends approval with findings of Zone
Change No. 87-13 for the adoption of the Meadowlark Specific Plan,
which would allow 15 acres of commercial and 50 acres of mixed
residential , not to exceed 600 units (an average of 12 units per
acre).
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Dick Nerio, applicant, spoke in support of his proposed 750 unit
plaxi, however, stated that he would accept the 600 unit plan on the
50 acres and requested that the units not be pinpointed to definite
locations on the acreage.
Dick Harlow, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the
proposed project. He stated that he had a concern regarding the
buffer areas and would like an explanation as to what they must
contain.
Jeanne Collins, 6271 Newbury, spoke in support of the 750 unit
proposal. She stated that she prefers building condominiums and
apartments instead of single family homes because of affordability.
$he further stated that she feels the area needs a grocery store.
Olga Paczko, 6281 Newbury Dx:Lve, spoke in favor of the 750 unit
proposal and stated that she would like to see townhomes in the rea.
Charles Haber, 17161 Sandra Lee Street, spoke in support of the
Nerio family and stated that he would support e i ther 750 or 600.
Edward Ramaekers, 4952 SeapineCircle, spoke in support of a 600
unit project, He feels that it will be an asset to the community.
PROVED 1/5/88
MINUTES
HUNTINGTON BEA H PLANNIN• C MMION
N VEMBER 17 19 7 7: , M
Council Chambers -- Civic Center
2000 main Street
Huntington Beach, California
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
P P p P P
ROLL CALL: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig,
P P
Summerell, Livengood
A. CONSENT CALENDAR :
A-1 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 20, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING, AS SUBMITTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzi
Livengood
NOES: None
ABSENT: Norte
ABSTAIN: Summerell
Pat Ramaekers , 4952 Seapine Circl e, spoke in support of the
project. She stated that she would support either 750 units or 600
units because she feels the Nerios will develop something beneficial
to the community.
Jill Senese, 4902 Seapine, spoke in support of a 750 unit project.
Anthony Passannante, 20302 Carlsbad Lane, stated that he supported
the 750 unit Nerio proposal and urged the speeding up of the
development and the closure of the airport. He said that he,is
concerned with a.potential air disaster if the airport isn't closed
soon.
Patricia iochschild , 4841 Curtis Circle, Jacqueline Geier-Lahti,
17192 Lynn Street , and Roy Lahti , 17192 Lynn Street spoke in support
of a 600 unit development with mixed residential.
Sally Graham, 5161 Celding Circle, spoke in opposition to the zone
change. She stated that she prefers the area to be low density.
Mark Browning, 16771 Roosevelt Lane, spoke in support of upholding
the current zoning, He feels that any higher density in the area
will create problems with traffic and sewage capacity and will erode
the future tax base.
Cheryle B. Browning, 16771 Roosevelt Lane,stated that she feels
that 600 units is too high of density in the area because it will
not guarantee any single family homes. She supports the 15 a..res
designated for commercial and feels that addition to the park is
very important. She also stated that she does not feel that garage
should be included when calculating open space.
Kathy Hawksford, 5162 Stallion Circle, feels that residents are so
anxious to get rid of the airport that they are willing to support
and approve any development and feels that the added traffic will be
just a dangerous as the airport. She also expressed concern with
the impacts on the sewers and water supply, She stated that she
feels the only one benefitti.ng from the development are the Nerios.
John Calcagno, 1ES72 Parlay Circle, stated that the property is
currently RI and should stay Ri.
'Don Dodge, member of the airport board, 5291 Kenilworth Drive,
stated that Huntington Beach will no longer be a complete recreation
town without an airport and requested that a relocation plan be
inrltided in the specific plan. He felt that the City should have
considered purchasing the airport because the obtainable FAA funds
would be a grant, not a loan,and would not have had , be paid
back. He asked that assistance be given to the pilots in relocating
their airplanes. He further stated that he is in favor of low
density in the area.
There were no other persons present to speak for or
project and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Higgins stated that he was in favor of a Plannea
Community suffix wi•:h a 500 unit maximum with the Specific Plan
spelling out the raige of acreage for each product type. He
suggested the following product types: single family detached homes
(6 units per acre - 16 to 20 acres), townhomes and condominiums (9
units per acre _ 12 to 18 acres), larger density townhomes (14 units
per acre, and flats (20 units per acre).
Chairman Pierce stated that he was in favor of a Specific Plan
instead of piecemeal development.
Commissioner Livengood said he would like to see Commissioner
Hi,,gin's suggested product types and range of acreage of units per
acre evaluated and would also like to see a buffer between Fernhill
and the Commercial development.
It was also suggested that a proje, :d time line, especially on the
closure of the Meadowlark Airport, included in the Specific
Plan. The Commission also request,,'d that a setback or buffer
between Fernhill and the commercial development be included.
Further suggested additions to the Specific Plan were given that
included: developing Pearce Street as a cul-de-sac, number of
bedrooms limited with parking based on bedroom count, park access.
A MOT EON WAS MADE BY S T LVA, SECOND BY SUC+"Ii 4ERELL, TO APPROVE GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT S7-2C TO " 1 ANNED COMMUNITY AND
CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-13 (SPECIFIC ',AN) TO THE DECEMBER 1,
1987 PLANNING COMMISSIO'^w4 MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood
NOES: Schumacher, Higgins
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSE l
Carrmissianer Leipzig stated that he did not understand the notion
nor the vote and would like the motion reconsidered.
Commissioner Livengood stated that he would like to see the Speci
Plan removed from the motion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO RECONSIDER THE
I'IRST MOTION TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENP*`ENT
87-2C TO PLANNED COMMIJNITY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerel,,
Livengood
NOES: None
ABSENT : None
AC:S`1' 11 N None
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SILVA, SECOND ByPIERCE, TO APPROVE GENERAL
:APLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-2C TO PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND
USE DESIGNATION, APPROVE WITH FINDINGS ZONE' CHANGE NO. 87-13 T)
ALLOW 15 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL AND 50 ACRES OF MIXED RESIDENTIAL NOT
TO EXCEED 600 UNITS (12 UNITS/ACRE) AS MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN, BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
APES. Silva, Higgins, Pierce, Summerell, Livengood
NOES: Schumacher, Leipzig
ABSENT: None
ABSTA IN: None
MOTION PASSED
A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND isY SILVA, TO CONTINUE MEADOWLARK
SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE DECEMBER 1, 1987 PLAT+INNING COMMISSION MEETING,
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Schuma"her
Livengood
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSEP
C_2
requested a continuance of the public hearing to November 17, 1987,
to address staff "s concerns over the project. At this time, the
applicant requests a further continuance of the applications noted
above to the January 19, 1987 meeting. The continuance is regvv steel
L (allow the applicant to revise he project proposal to respraid, to
staff's concerns.
NO. 87-77 and Negative t-71aration No. 87-43 was originally
continued from the October 6, 1987 Planning Commission m.meeting d
to insufficient public notification. The applicant subsequently
ins, P': e:rce, Lei pzig, Summerell,
CONDITIONAL
LVARIANCE -NO .. A`L'IVE E ARA' _ NO 7- 43
,(CONTINUED FRQM._ PT NlI ,, A 1) ER 2 c.. 7 NCOMMISSSONj3'.IT GSJ..
APPLICANT: EVANGELICAL FRFF CHURCH
Conditional Use Permit NO.87-37,Conditional Exception variance)
The mandatory proces.sncg date, was waived by the applicant.
Tho conul ission suggested that access to the church be considered
from Beach Boulevard instead of Florida to alleviate stiff's
concerns and to solve the problem of overburdening the neighborhood.
13C Minutes -- 11/17 /87 (9554d)
i
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINE, TO :ONTINUE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-37, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE)
NO. 87-77 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-43, TO THE JANUARY 19,
1988 PLANNING COMMISSCN MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce , Leipzig, Summerell,
Livengood
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
AI3S'rAIN : None
MOTION PASSED
C-3 ZONE CHANGE NO. __ 87-12L,CONQITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-41
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. , 1 32.10,, __CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION VARIANCE
NOx $7- 73__AND N ATIVE nECLAR,TION NO. 87..34
APPLICANT: DAVID DAHL
Zone Change No. 87-12 is arequest to change the zoning on a 4.65
gross acre site from RA--CE (Residential-Agriculture District-Civic
District) to (Q)R1(3)-8,000---CD (Qualified Low Density Residential
District-3 units per acre-Minimum 8,000 square foot lot size-Civic
District) which is consistent with the existing General Plan land
ui, designation. Conditional Use Permit No. 07-41 and Tentative
7i act 13210 is a request to permit a 12 lot subdivision for the
constriction of single family dwellings.
Conditional Exception (Variance) No.87-72 is a request to allow. 25
feet in lieu of 60 feet of lot frontage for two inte;:ior Jots and 25
feet in lieu of 45 feet lot frontage fortwo cul-de-sac lots.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Approve Negative Declaration No, 87-34, Zone Chai.ge No.87-12,
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-41, Tentative Tract 13210and
Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-72 with findingsand
conditions of approval.
THE PUBLIC HARING WAS OPENED
David:Lath, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He stated
that.. the reason for flag lots in his proposed development were to
move the homes closer to the bluff tops not to increase density,
Mary Bell,Equestrian Trails, Inc., 20292 Eastwood Circle, spoke in
support of the 'roposed development. She stated that she is in
favor'of the devel,.per providing the boarding of one horse per every
two dwelling units either on site or off site with each equestrian
lot satisfying the requirement for one horse.
C. PUBLIC HEARING
C-1 ZONE CHANGE NO 7=1 - MEADOWLARK DE IFI PLAN
APPLICANT: DICK NERIO
At the public hearing held November 17, 1987, the Planning
Commission approved Land Use Ele,,:.ant Amendment No. 87-2C, changing
the land use designation on the 65 acre Meadowlark Airport from Low
Density Residential to Planned Comm its' containing 50 acres of
residential with a maximum of 600 ui. is and 15 acres of retail
commercial. The Commission continued the zone change component of
the request in order to provide additional detail and refinement in
the Meadowlark Specific Plan.
The Meadowlark Specific Plan has been augmented in response to
concerns raised by the Planning Commission regarding the need to
have more specific guidelines in the plan focusing on issues related
to circulation, parking, alternative development scenarios
specifying residential product types, buffers, setbacks and park
&udication.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend to the City Council approval of zone Change No, 87-13
Meadowl ark Specific Plan.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Richard A. Harlow, respresenting the apM.,lic xit, addressed his
comments regarding the specific plan. in :regards to closing the
airport, he stated that there should be a grace period allowed to
vacate after shut-don. He requested that the, wording "master plan"
',e changed to "conceptual plan" with details to be contained in an
addendum to the conditional use permit. He also requested
flexibil ity in regards to setbacks.
Dick Lutz, 4911 Seapine, reques ted that a statement of good faith be
obtained from the d--velo per regarding the development and closing of
the airport.
Cheryle Browning, 16771 Roosevelt Lane, directed the Commission to
page 7 in the specific plan regarding circulation. She said that
Roosevelt is not partially improved as stated. She stated that the
four property owners on the other side of Roosevelt should b
notified before bulldozers arrive to improve the street.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the
project and the public hearing was closed.
The Commission suggested that the following revisions be made to the
specific plan:
1. Number of residential units not to exceed 600 units and shall
be distributed among several product types.
2. Street connections be provided between Warner Avenue and Heil
Avenue that would not encourage through traffic.
3. Airport operation to cease within 60 days after approval of
the first entitlement.
4. Master Plan changed to read "Conceptual Master Plan".
5. Circulation: The eastern side of Roosevelt Lane t:, be
improved and dedicated and shall not be a through street to
Warner.
6. Developer shall pay one--fourth of the cost of a traffic signal
at Balsa Chica and at Pearce if Pearce is proposed to access
the project site.
7. Density bonuses within individual product types may be
granted, however the total number of units for the entire
project shall not exceed 600.
$. Commercial use setbacks: building heights not to exceed 30
feet within 70 feet of property, no buildings or service
drives within 20 feet of property line. A minimum of a
20 foot landsu:ape and setback shall. be provided between the
commercial and existing residential area. Front setback line
for proposed project J 50 feet from warner Avenue.
Area set aside on western edge of Gibbs Park for park parking.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECDND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE ZONE
CHANGE NO. 87-13 - WITH REVISIONS TO MEADOWLARK SPLCIFIC PLAN, BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva ,Higgins , Pierce, Summerell, Livengood
NOES: Schumacher , Leipzig
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MoTZQI ..
EINUIN U'--r,-0X A.PP:i4,q ' ,L._w._Z9NE ADC NO. =1
I. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan
Land Use Designation as recommended f`or amendment by the
Planning Commission.
With the development constraints, mitigation measures and
entitlement process which are established in the specific
°:ne proposed zone change will be compatible with adjacent
plan,
properties.
Phasing of the project will assure that the capacities of the
City and County water, sewer, and storm drain systems are
adequate or will be adequate to accornu;!odate the proposed
increase in density as well as all other planned land uses in
the area.
4. With t,,,e proposed mitigation measures the proposed increase in
dens-'y will not have a significant adverse impact on road
capacities and school enrollments.
5. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted
nor is the overall intent of the general plan sacrificed.
C-? CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.--8__L-49 Chi TIN ED FRONT NOVEMBER 3,
1987 PLANNING, CQMNI T S S I O1 .__',1FE Z N( ,
APPLICANT: BRAD HOLLANDER
Conditional Use Permit No, 87-49 is a request to permit a youth
center/youth dancing nightclub within a mixed use industrial complex
by amending the resolution list which specifies commercial uses
permitted within the industrial zone to include such a use pursuant
to Section 9530.14. in addition, the applicant is requesting joint
use of the parking area permitted for the nightclub portion of the
youth center, For the continued hearing, all property owners within
300 feet of the subject property and interested persons who signed
petitions were notified.
STAFF RE NENDA TION :
Approve Conditional Use Permit No 87-49 to amend Resolution
No. 1313 to allow for a youth center/youth dancing nightcl.-o and to
permit joint use of parking with findings and conditions of approval,
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Brad Hollander, applicant, spoke in support of the proposed
project. He stated that the youth of Huntington each need a place
+;o go, and feels that the proposed youth center is the answer,
Natalie Rotsch, 1722 Park Street, representing the applicant, spoke
in support of the project. She stated that final policies regarding
the center will be dictated by the Board of Directors and that
before policies could be finalized that a location was needed.
Edwin Papazian, 8231 Mason Avenue, Canoga Park, stated that the
youth of Huntington Beach need a place to go and that he is prepared
to spend $300,000 for such a place.
Edward Young, L.A. County '-Irobation Department, s
the center aroma the applicant.
PC Minutes 1.2/1/87 -5- (9656d)
Gary Hollander, father of the applicant, spoke in support of the
appli-:ant,.
Cal Faello, 16333 Magellan Lane, spoke in opposition to the youth
center, He stated that the proposed center is located 100 feet from
his hoi.se and feels that there will be too much noise, feels that
the property owners will have to bear the expense of extra police
protection and doesn't feel there will be many requests for
counseling at a center such as this one.
Larry Danlasky, 7031 Heil Avenue, urged the Planning Commission to
deny the request. He stated that he is insulted with the remark
that if there is not a center provided fo,- the youth of the City
that they will turn to churls. re further stated that there are
already too many accidents at the corner of Gothard and Heil and
also too much litter and that the center would create more.
Richaxd Longshore, 7172 Sunliggl,a. Drive, Los Angeles policeman,
stated that problems with youth centers usually do not occur at the
center itself but in the sur:oundingg and adjacent areas. He stated
that through investigation he found that the applicant had tried to
run a good center i.-i Lancaster however was overwhelmed by the gangs
and disruptive incidents that occurred there. He also stated that
the reference from Jack Murphy being used by the applicant should
not be considered.
Mary Barbglio, 1282 Magellan Lane, spoke in opposition to the
center. She stated that she had contacted the principal of the high
school and he was also opposed to the center. She said that the
high school offered, counseling services for$2.00 per hour and she
could not understanding why the applicant was proposing counseling
for $8.00 per hour-,
neighborhood.
Dave Wagner., Serenade Lane, spoke in opposition to the ce
because of the noise. He feels that the center will scar
John Murphy, 7102 Heil Avenue, sp ke in oppositio
he
the cent
Patricia Bradley , age 16, spoke in s,,zpport of the center. She feels
that it will provide teenagers a nice place to go on Friday nights.
She stated that there are not enough dances at school.
Ann Reed, 16261 Magellan Lane, stated that kids will be able to
climb over the feence and walk through the channel becau se she used
to as a child. She also expressed opposition to the mix of ages (13
year olds with 20 year olds).
Deborah lFairon, 16742 Seawitc i, spoke in opposition. She feels that
there should be a disclosure statement required, on such a project
and also feels that property values will go down if permitted.
PC Minutes - 12/1/87 (9656d)
C-1 T tI BL USE P CZT No. 87--39/C D LOPMENT PERMIT
I - N ED FR LY
N
APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-39 Coastal Development Permit No.
87-29 and Negative Declaration No. 87-38 is a request to permit a
subterranean parking structure ?ocated on the Huntington Beach
Municipal Pier and State Beach north of Municipal Pier between
Pacific Coast Highway and Pacific Ocean that will inc1xde public
rectroom facilities, concession facilities (2,500 square feet), a
community facility (8,000 square feet), a restaurant pad (10,500
square feet) and a passive recreational park with beach accessways.
The parking structure roof is proposed to be one foot below the
level of Pacific Coast Highway with passive recreational park
located on top of the parking structure. In addition, it is
requested to expand the Municipal Pier area to include 8,000 square
feet of commercial use.
A TIQContinue Conditional Use Permit No, E -39, Coastal Development
Permit No. 87-29 and Negative Declaration No. 87-38 until such time
as the State Beach General Plan is adopted by the State Parks
Commission.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCH tACHER, TO CONTINUE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-39, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.
87-29 AND NEGAI TVE DECLARATION NO, 87-38 TO THE DECEMBER 15, 1987
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Iii TVE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pxerc , L'ipzig, Livengood
NOES: None
ABSENT: Sumrnereil
ABSTAIN: None
N A
C-2 LAND j E ELENf,ENT AMENDME +'T_! O,.,_.7~2 12 A 'T x _.87
V T L IM PA('T _ EPt 1 T NCB s$.
APPLICANT, Dick Nerio
Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2C, zone Change No. 87-13 and
Environmental Impact Report No. 87-2 is a request to amend the
General Plan by redesignating the 65 acre Meadowlark Airport site
located approximately 600 feet north and east of the intersection of
Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue from Low Density residential to
Planned Community and implement the designation with a Specific Plan,
containing 50 acres of mixed residential totaling 750 units and 15
acres of retail commercial.
,PPROVED 10/20/87
'UM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
T
Council Chambers -- Civic Cpater
2000 main Street
Huntington Beach, California
P P P P P
ROLL CALL: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig,
A P
Summerell, Livengood
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
None
4
STAFF RE MNLENDATION:
Recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Impact
Report No. 87-2 and approval of General Plan Land Use Element
Amendment No. 87--20 for a change in land use designation from Low
Density Residential to Planned Community. Staff also recommends
approval with findings of Zone Change No. 87-1.3 for the adoption of
the Meadowlark Specific Plan, which would allow 15 acres of
commercial and 50 acres of mixed residential, not to exceed 600
units (12 units per acre overall).
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Richard A. Harlow, representing the applicant, presented slides of
similar projects in the City and spoke in support of the applicantls
request to develop his property with 15 acres of commercial and 750
units on the remaining acreage. He addressed the land use plans and
specific plan buffers.
Dick Dario, applicant, spoke in support of his request, He stated
that he does not want to keep or sell the airport property and feels
that his proposed development will be beneficial co the community.
Edward Ramaekers, 4952 Seapine Circle, presented a video reflecting
the noise created by the airport and spoke in support of the
proposed development.
area.
Byron Beam, 17052 Green Street #2, stated that he lives in the
Montecello Apartments and feels that it is noisier than the
airport . He feels there are too many vehicles in the area and
stated that it would be insane to allow anything more than R1 in the
area,
Guy Van Patten, 4842 Curtis, stated thath opposes the airport and
would like to see 400 or 450 single family units developed in the
Nancy Van Patten, 4842 Curtis, ,tated that she wa
closing the airport.
noise created by the airport and the possibility
Pat Ramaekers, 4952 Seapine Circle, expressed her concerns with.
Seapine Circle; Jill Senese , 4902 Seapine Circle,
in favor of
The following speakers expressed support in the closing of the
airport: Meaghan Ferrall, 4901 Seapine; T my Senese, 4902 Seapine
Circle; Jennifer Filipan, 16531 Cotuit Circle; Joyce Gouin, 4942
Seapine Circle,Dan Senese, 4902 Seapine Circle,John Ferral:l., 4942
result of the airplanes.
" ony Hochschild, 4841 Curtis Circle, ' trivia Hochschild, 4841
Curtis Circl e, Dick Lutz, 4911 SeapirzL-, and Gary Armstrong, 16292
Del Mar Lane spok e in support of closing the ai rpor t .
PC Minutes 9/29/87 (923id)
Dave Benson, 4912 Seapine Circle, stated that he supports staff's
recommendation and commended Mr. Nerio for his proposed development.
Lilian Merg, 16311 Saratoga Lane, stated that she would like to see
the property developed with it current zoning with no changes. She
said she is against high rfise .nd anything other than low density.
Corinne Welch, 8062 Mermaid, memter of the Environmental Board,
stated that this property is an archaeological site and that the
methar- -as determined present on the site could cause air
pollutic,ii. She further stated that water will be a problem and that
open space will be eliminated with the proposed density. She said
that she would like to see the area Low Density with the landscaping
kept natural
LaVonne M . Benson, 4912 Seapine Circle, stated that she was in favor
of closing the airport.
Cecil Wright, 5612 Middlecoff Drive, expressed his concern with
pollution and stated that he wants the area to be Low Density.
A°athony Passannante, 20302 Carlsbad Lane and Roy Lahti, 17192 Lynn
Street spoke in support of cl'.sing the airport.
Cheryle Browning, 16771 Roosevelt Lane, stated that she questions
the level of integrity regarding the proposed development and
expressed her concern with sewage problems, pollution, and traffic.
She is in favor of R1 zoning.
Bob Floyd, 30 Via De La Mesa, Rancho Santa Margarita, pilot, said he
feels that the property owner has a right to develop his property
the way he wants however feels that the pilots are getting c' "bum
rap,"
Jacqueline Lahti, 17192 Lynn Street, spoke in support of closing the
airport.
Sally Graham, 5161 Gelding Circle,
R1 zoning and presented a petition wi
R1 zoning.
d that she was in favor of
187 names also in favor of
Jeanne Collins, 6271 Newburg, said that she feels the airport should
be closed and that the Nerio°s should be given fair zoning for the
property since he already dedicated Central Park property.
Janet Lewis, 16322 Bayshore Lane, stated that the traffic light
presently on Graham and Meadowlark and the proposed light at hell
and Del Mar had no-'[-- been addressed and she was concerned with
problems created by these lights. She farther stated that she would
rather have the airport than a: high density development.
Kathy Hawksford, 5162 Stallion Circle, stated that she is against
high density and ruining the community just for a profit to the
property owner.
Torn Huntley, 41382 Seapine Circle and Robert McMullan, 1',172 Sandra
Lee 'sane spoke in support of closing the airport.
Mark Browning, 16771 Roosevelt Lane, stated that he was in favor of
Rl zoning is the area.
Steve Lefferdin .k, 17181 Green Street and Charles P. Haber, 17161
Sandra Lee Street spoke in support of closing the airport.
Paul . Durazo , 8102 Artesia Boulevard, Buena Park, Search and Rescue
Pilot, stated that he feels the property owner has a right to
develop his property however feels that noise, traffic, sewage, etc.
will be i ncreased . He said he feels the community needs an airport
in ^ase of a national disaster.
Doll Dodge, 5291 Kenilworth, stated that the runway at Meadowlark is
not too short however does not meet the FAA requirements because it
is a private airport. He feels the airport would generate revenue
for the City, the property owner would profit with -tax write-offs,
and that it would be beneficial to the community.
John Ramsay, 4862 Curtis Circle, stated that the airport should be
closed and the property owner should be able to develop his property
the way he wants.
Bob Asadourian , 17122 Newquisy Lane, spoke in support of closing the
airport and i opposition to a high density development. He said
that he would like to see single family homes in tlv; area.
Jolene M. Foord, 6142 Fenley Drive, spoke in support of closing the
airport . She asked the Commission why the City has a General Plan
if the zoning is constantly being changed . She asked that the
residents of the City be considered and stated that the City does
not need additional traffic.
Loretta Wolfe , 411 6th . Street , Hunti ngton Beach Tomorrow, ex pressed
her concern with the added population and traffic that will be
generated by the proposed development.
John Calcagno, 16672 Parlay Circle, sta
in the area
John Clark, 6561 Halifax Drive, said that he feels the ".ity
reconsider purchasing the airport, He sai d that he feels th,
would be get all of their money back in one year.
Marjorie A. Barnes, 17132 Newquist Lane,
see the airport sired. She is concerned
will increase traffic,
PC Minutes -- 9/29/87 -5-
d
y
id that she would like to,
h any 5evelop .ent that
Larry Plank, 17152 Swain Lane, expressed his concern with a high
density development that Will add more traffic to the area and said
that he i s favor of keeping the airport.
Ralph Ricks, 5362 Old Pirate Lane, stated that be is against,
approval of any of the recarnmendatioias made so far,
Samuel Moreno , Los Patos Drive, spoke in support of low density.
Dean Albright , 17301 Breda Lane , m ember of the Environmental Board,
expressed his concerns with the overloading of sewer lines and
problems with water i n the area and feels that these issues should
be addressed further.
Jack Humber, 3441 Val Verde Avenue, Long Beach, pilot, stated that
he resented remarks made aboutpilots and feels that the airport is
a good site for c-racuation in case of a rational emergency.
Wayne Kratzer, 5304 Overland Drive, stated that he would rather have
airplanes in his back yard rather than a block wail and a high
density project,
James MacMillan, 5181 Stallion Circle, spoke in opposition to a high
density development.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the
development and the public hearing was closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY SILVA, TO RECOT',MEND TO THE
CITY COUNCIL THAT THE CITY NOT PURSUE ACQUISITION AND CONTINUED
OPERATION OF MEADOWLARK AIRPORT WITH FINDINGS; BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Higgins, Piero, Leipzig,Livengood
NOES: Schumacher
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN : None
MOTION PA ET)
FINDINGS A AST A COU15_] YTIU
The Planning Commission does not recommend that the City Cou
consider acquisitio n of Meadowlark Airport based on the fol.l
findings:
1. The airport does not meet the current FAA Standa
"Basic Utility Type II" airport and does not meet a
requirements .
PC Minutes
Ing
2. To qualify for FAA funds, FAA requiraments would have to be
met. To accownodate 1,C;00 hoot clear zones, at each end of
the runway, would require the purchase of private propertyat
each end of the Lonway. This is not consistent with City's
General Plan land use designation and would negatively impact
established neighbornoods and commercial uses. Over 5o homes
on the north end would have to be purchased and on the
take-off clear zone apartments, homes and commercial property
would be impacted.
3. The character of the surrounding area would be adversely
impacted by increased use of the airport and leng`chenirg of
the runway.
Cost is prohibitive, with land cost estimated at 32.5 million
and an additional cost of 7.5 million to 17. million to meet
FAA Standards. Neither the County nor the city has funds for
acquisition and the State policy is to set up a loan that
would have to be paid back, There is no guarantee FAA will
provide funds.
The existing landowner does not wan: to sell or lease the
property. The only recourse the City would have is to enact
eminent domai n to take over the property. The City's policy
has been to limit such action and have a large percentage of
property owners to support the action. In this case , there is
one landowne r who strongly opposes the action.
6. The City would have to invest an estimated $200,000 or more
for studies. The FAA review time would be approximately 2
years. This process is a gamble for the City, and creates a
financial hardship for the property owner.
7a Sixty-five acres would be taken out of private land subject to
property tax, ar,d changed to public land which is not taxable.
Werner and Heil may have to be realigned to accommodate the
FAA clear zones which would have a negative impact on prope
owners, who would have to give up their land for the
right-of-way.
Based on written tetimony, existing businesses on th
.y
property were notified 10 years ago that the property ow:ier
was considering closing the airport. Closing the airport at
this time does not create undue ha.-Jship for the businesses.
10. The City, as the operator of a "Basic Utili ty Type II" airport
could greatly increase the City's exposure to high liability
claims and subsequent costs.
1I. Increased jet aircraft landings at Long Beach Airport creates
an increased risk factor ,for airplanes landing and taxing off
at Meadowlark Airport.
Due to :eoise pollution, some homes in " he area have already
experienced reverse/negative value of homes.
Y
recreation and water issues on the environmental checklist. He felt
that the checklist indicated No or Maybe and felt that they should
have been checked Yes. Staff explained that the checklist was
prepared prior to the analysis of the area, and pointed out that the
issues were subsequently addressed in the environmental impact
report and stated that an addendum would be prepared showing exactly
where they are addressed.
Commissioner Livengood expressed ^oncern regarding utilities,
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SE':OND BY PIERCE, TO RECO?411END
CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMR.=$T REPORT NO. 87-2 WITH AN
ADDENDUM INDICATING ,,oHERE UTILITIES, RECREATION AND WATER ARE
COVERED IN THE EIR, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE
AYES., Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce,
NOES : None
ABSENT: Summerell
ABSTAIN: None
TI N A ED
eipzig, Liveng
Chairman Pierce stated that s,- would like to see a Specific Plan
compl eted on the area.
Specific P an.
Commissioner Schumacher said that she would prefer a Planned
Development (PD)put on the property not a Specific Plan.
Staff explained that the project could be guided better through
Commissioner Leipzig said that he feels ?l is the best zone for the
area and that the community needs more sr.ngle family development as
evidenced by the petition presented to t'ie Commission containing IP7
signatures in favor of low density. He further stated that he would
like to see single family homes and four-plexes in the area.
THE FOLLOW ING VOTE:
A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENCOOO a SECOND BY T EIP IG,TO
DESIGNATE THE REMAINING 50 ACRES AS LOW DENSITY R SIDENTIAL(Rl>,
AYES. Schumacher , Leipzig, Livengood
NOES ,dilva, Higgins, Pierce
' RAL V . JTION FAILED
t
The Commission directed staff to diagram site plans showing 350
units and 600 units and to cor.plete an anai.ysis on the proposed 15
acre reta:d/cornrnereial tuned area with a phased development plan
addressing sewers and water syst e ms.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, DIREC.i'I1 a STAFF TO
DIAGRAM SITE PLANS SHOWING 350 UNITS AND 600 UNITS, BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE :
AYES: Higgins, Pierce , Leipz ig, Livengc, ad
NOES: Silva, Schumacher
ABSENT : Summerell
ABSTAIN : None
TI N PA E.::)
A MOTION WAS MADE BY IVENGOOD, SECODN'D Bt PIERCE, TO CONTINUE
GEL ER.AL r"N` LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-2C AND ZONE CHANGE
NO. 87-1'-TO THE, OCTOBER 20, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, L eipzig, Livengood
NOTES : None
ABSENT: Summerell
ABSTAIN: None
MTI NPA cED
(923Id)
D. ITEMS NOT 'v, 3]L ! _, FiE ARgN
None
DISCUSSI ON ITEV10-
None
F. PE V IiafC ITEM
None
C. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
None
if. lZTY DEVELO PMENT . ITEMS
None
A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO ADJOURN 10
THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED Z EETINC AT '7:('ry,OCTOBER 6,
1987, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Hicjgin:, Pierce, Leipzig, Livengood
NOES: !gone
ABSENT: Sur merell
ABSTAIN.* Nona
M TION PAS ED
APPROVED:
PC Minutes -- 9/29/87
0
HUNFINGTON "AGH
Boyle Engineering has been selected to prepar e a Master Plan for
the City of Huntington Beach Water System; therefore, at this time
it would not be prudent of us to state what the impact would be
on nu - system.
Attached is a copy of a portion of. 4FM (Water Facility Map) No.. 241
which shows the location and sizes of the watermains at the inter-
seetior in question - Center Drive and Gothard Street. Center Drive
is supt. ' ed with water by a 12°' asbestos-cement watermain. Gothard
Street i supplied with an 81' asbestos-cement watermain.
If you have any ques"ions, please feel free to contact MMr. Stanley
Farber at 536-5528.
Thank you.
SF:bb
Enclosure (1)
C IT Y 14UN T INGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
Cathering M. O'Hara From Stanley Farber r
Assistant Planner Civil Engineering Assistant
Subject GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Date April 29, 1987
No . 87-2
ORANGE COUNTY Tl P NS T DISTRICT
May 14, 1987
Ms. Catherine O'Hara
City of Huntington Beach
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Ms. O'Hara:
SUBJECT: LAND USE AMEND! NT 87-2/DEll 87-2
We have reviewed this document and appreciate City st«<ff's efforts in
producing this thorough report. We concur with the information provided
in the report but are concerned that the staff recommendation (page 56),
supporting alternative 2, may restrict the development potential of the
site. While the City's concerns regarding potential traffic impacts on
Gothard Stre.=t are valid, we believe that the additional environmental
evaluation that would be necessary for the mixed-use development woulu
adequately address the traffic impacts issue.
We would like to request that the final ETR be modified in the following
way to provide for consideration of the maximum development potential for
the site. The City staff recommendation on page 56 could be revised to
the more general language shown in the executive summary:
"Staff recommends that the land use designation be
changed to mixed use but that prior to the granting of
any entitlements, further traffic analysibp be conducted
to address the circulation concerns identified in
section 2.2.2.5 of this report."
Again, we appreciate the City staff's effort in preparing the material
for the general Plan Amendment. if you have., art) questions, or reouire
additional information, please call me or Christirsw Huard-Spencer at
(714) 971-4348.
Sincerely,
efk,.ey . Ordway
Manager of Planning
JPO: PLN--21CDO
11222 ACACIA pAF KWA' e P 0 BOX 3005o GAR0EN GROvE, CA€:t=OANIA 5204' e 01411371
Plannin Commis ion Action on December 1 198
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO ROVE ZONE
CHANGE NO. 87-13 - WITH REVISIONS TO MEADOWLARK SPECIE PLAN, BY THE
FOLL OWING VOTE,
A ES: Silva, Higgins, Pierce, Summerell, Livengood
NO S: Schumacher, Leipzig
ABS NT: None
ABST N: None
Findi', s r A roval- Zone Chanee No. 87---13-
3. Phasing of the pro ct will assure 'ha "the capacities of the City and County water,
sewer, and storm dr `n systems are , equate or will be adequate to accommodate
the proposed increase 'n density asp ell as all other planned land uses in the area.
4. With the proposed mitig Lion me lures the proposed increase in density will not
have a significant adverse ipa on traffic volumes and road capacities, school
enrollments, and recreation r sources.
compatible wit adjacent properties.
E1
I. The pr osed zone change is consistent with t1,-46 General Plan Land Use Designation
as reco ended for amendment' by the Play ng Commission.
2. With the de lopment constraints., mitigat-`a5n measures and entitlement process
which are est fished in the specific plaq the proposed zone change will be
5. The character of the surroun - u area is not adversely impacted nor is the overall
intent of the general plan s/ rifii fed.
Pla,nnin ommi si n Action on r, mbe I '--M -7
A MOTION WAS MADE BY L ENGOOD, SE OND BY PIERCE, TO ACCEPT THE
REVISED MEADOWLARK S C1FIC PLAN A FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES; Silva, Schuma, er, Higgins, Pierce, Leip, Livengood
NOES: None
ABSENT: Summerell
ABSTAIN: None
Staff Recommenda
Staff recommend that the City Council approve General Plan L d Use Element No.
87--2i` fora dill e in land use designation from Low Density Real tial to Planned
Community. St, ff also recommends approval with findin gs of Zone tinge No. 87-13 for
the adoption,---' the Meadowlark Specific Plan, which would allow 1 ac of commercial
and 50 acres mixed residential, not to exceed 600 units (an overall live e of 12 units
per acre).
ANAL YSIS:
transmitted for action is a request by the Nerio Family to redesignate a 65-acre site
(most of the existing Meadowlark Airport), located on the north side of Warner Avenue,
the south side of Heil Avenue mind 600 feet east of the northeast corner of Bolsa Chica
Street and Warner Avenue, from U w Density to Planned Community implemented by a
Specific Plan that will allow 15 ac.'-es of commercial and 50 acres of residential (maximum
600 units).
The application for general plan amendment was initially submitted in January of 1986.
At that time, staff required that the applicant supply numerous special studies to address
important issues such as sewage, traffic, archaeoiogy and economics. Those studies took
more than a year for the applicant's consultants to complete, After the requested studies
had been submitted, staff incorporated them into the FIR and transmitted it to the
Planning Commissioy'i in May of 1987.
As a result of the public hearing process, the Fly as well as the applicant's request and
staff recommendation have changed consicerably. The attached chronology of events
explains the process and changes that the project has progressed through.
As indicated in the chronq ; of events, tl `Trma r isspgg. sidered by staff and tl:--
Planning Commission were,rafilci!)atfn<p't?rrd neral compatibility. In order
to addres' those issues a Specific plan was de Ioped .ir cn 3Ii set~, as t ie
imp Teriiritang zanirforrthect:fsc:rfl",f2b i-c,re.s i#" E^tirsetua zaei- plan
' Te appFcve at tfie time of first entitlement, requires phasing in conjunction with
infrastructure availability , establishes circulation parameters, indentifies a maximum
number of residential units divided into specific density ram es and requires perimeter
buffering to enhance compatibility . The following is a summary, of the major issues as
addressed by the Specific Plan and FIR.
The original traffic study was revised several tinies and expanded to include consideration
of potential traffic generated by the development proposed for the Poisa Chica. Traffic
is expected to increase in that area withh. or without the Meadowiark project or the Bolsa
Chica project. For the proposed project and that alts-rnatikes, the re;:aaii commercial
portion generated the majority of traffic associated with development on the site. For
example,-, the maximum develop- tent alluwed in the Sj. ecific Plan will generate an
estimated 13,200 average dais; trips 90000 f which rare attributed to the retail
comrn rcih en e :' he pc i osed project will measurably reduce the long-term level of
service (LOS) on both Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street. For example, the LOS on
Warner will go from C to D and on Bolsa 1'hic a. (Heil to Warner) from to C.
The Specific Plan addresses circulation issues Icy estrbiisning the follow-An requirements:
Limited acce;:s to Pearce Street rnay be permitted. but shall be designed that
trips per day do not exceed 2SOO.
Signalization at the southern and no
Internal circulation planned in a circ uitou s manner to d scourage through traffic
between Warner and Heil Avenues.
Sewer and Water
The Specific Plan will require that prior to issuance of building permits within any of the
areas designated as a separate phase of development on the phasing plan, clearance shall
be obtained from the Orange County Sanitation District and City Water Department
stating that such development will not adversely impact the sewer and water systems.
Such clearance shall be in the form of a letter to the Director of Public Works and the
Director of Community Development.
Comp ti'
The Specific Plan requires that a buffer system be incorporated into the proposed project
adjacent to the existing single family development that abutts the subject site on portions
of its eastern and western borders. This measure was developed to mitigate the
incompatibility of any proposed multi-family development on the subject si*a and the
existing single family.
In addition to the buffer system, the Specific Plan also addresses the type and distribution
of residential product types. The cific Plan reguires_tl : _graduct tyy s inclizelin
minimum of 18 acres of single fe et q g miss The following table appears in the
""°e l a'f`e-PlW "fiesta is t'-te product types.
Acres ape ez_11rtir}psity
Minimum Detached
of 18 Single Family
the Planning Commission staff report of September 29, 134.7. Because the air ort impacts
an area that is greater than 300 feet, property owners withi;i a 1000 foot r diu were
Maximum Multi Family
of 20 Medium Density
Maximum Multi Family
of 12 Medium-high
density
Total 50 acres
7/acre
e
The request is accompanied by Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 87-2. Comments
from agencies notified are included in the appendix to the report and • an also oe found in
r noe2"T2ea`"a rcrtrr ifs were ircri e :
FUNDIN G SOUR CE:
Not applicable.
.11
ALTERNATIVE ACTT;
The City Council 'nay deny Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2C and Environmental
Impact Report No. 87-2 and deny Zone Change No. 87-11 with the following findings:
1. The proposed zone change would result in a land use which would not be compatible
with surrounding properties.
2. There is not existing sewer capacity to support the proposed uses and densities.
3. The proposed increase in density will have an adverse im; dct on traffic volumes and
road capacities.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Area Map
2. Project Chronology
3. Resolution Adopting Land Use Element Amendmera. No. 87--2C
4. Ordinance for Zone Change No. 87-13
5. Meadowlark Specific Plan
6. Environmental Impact Report No. 87-2
7. Addendums to the EIR
8. Traffic Analysis and Revisions
DLE.MA:HS:DTB:gbm
P1 nnin mm' 1 n A i n n D m r l 1
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE ZONE
CHANGE NO. 87-13 - WITH REVISIONS TO MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN, BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva , Higgins, Pierce , Summerell, Livengood
NOES: Schumacher, Leipzig
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Fin d inr-s f r A r val - Zone hinge No. 87--U--
I . , tie p; ojosed zone char) c.,consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation
as recommended for me. sent by the Planning Commission.
2. With the development constraints, mitigation measures and entitlement process
which are established in the specific plan, the proposed zone change will be
compatible with adjacent properties.
3. Phasing of the project will, assure that the capacities of the City and County water,
sewer, and storm drain systems are adequate or will be adequate to accommodate
the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned land uses in the area,
4. With the proposed mitigation measures the proposed increase in density will not
have a significant adverse impact on traffic. volumes and road capacities, school
enrollments. and recreational resources.
5. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted nor is the overall
intent of the general plan sacrificed.
P1 inning Commis sion Asti , ?n D m r 1 t9 V,
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO ACCEPT THE
REVISED MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE;
AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Liveng,
NOES: None
ABSENT: Summerell
ABSTAIN; None '
Staff R omm n a i n
Staff recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Land Use Element No.
87-2C for a change in land use designation from Low Density Residential to Planned
Community. Staff also recommends approval with findings of Zone Change .No. 117-13 for
the adoption of the Meadowlark Specific Plan, which would allow 15 acres of commercial
and 50 acres of mixed residential, not to exceed 600 units (an overall average of 12 units
per acre).
ERRATA SHEET
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-2C
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-2
(Response to Planning Commission Request September 29, 1987)
Addendum inoicating where utilities, recreation and water are covered in the EIR.
Utilities:
Recreation:
Water-,
Section 2.1.3.4
Public Services and Utilities
Pages 17-22
Section 2.1.3.4
Public Services and Utilities
Subsection F. Parks, page 21
Section 2.1.2.7
Regional Airport/Air Traffic Impacts
Page 39
And Attachment 2 Staff Report of September 2
Section 2.1.3.4
Public Services and Utilities
Subsection B. Water
Report. Also Staff Report of September 29, 1987 and Specific
Plan in November 17, 1987 Staff Report.
1987
And 87-2c Addendum, Attachment 4 of July 28, 1987 Si
RESOLUTION No,
A RESOLUTION OF TLL CIT Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT NO 87 -7o TO THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS , the City Counk4 4. e:t the Ci ty of Huntington Beach
desires to update anti refine 1 rye ;general Plan in keeping with
changing community needs and oLj ctives;and
A public hearing on aco' t_1-oii of Land Use Element Amendment
No, 87-2b to the General Pian wa., held by the Planning Commission
on November 17, 1987, inc approved for recommendation to the City
Council; and
Therefore , the City Co unci l, atter 11V`Tng notice as pr(
scribed by Government Code sections 65355 and 65090, held at least
one public hearing to eanj i der Lana Use Element No,8?-2c.- and
At said hearing b t r€ tne: City Council all persons desiring
to be heard on said amendment: were
NOW, THEr- FO E, BE uy tine City,
City of Huntington Ueacni purse ant tr)provisions of Title 7,
Chapter 3, Article 6
with section 65350,
hereby amended as to
Area 2 .1p as sn
amended from Low Derr
3k Cal i- +orr.''i a (3 Vf-,Kzijt
Lana U, r ; Element
on i'1Xi0b>i t l
achieve consistency wit
el e n t. i a
0 sera
Amendment
mm n ing
67 -2
cried hereto, shall be
Planned Community to
Plan, and existing zoning.
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
REVIEWED AND APPROVED.
4
/i/ -;Fcity Attorne
INITIATED AND APPROVED;
City Administrator Dire or of Community
Deve. ,lament
AA,41 *40 ,;or
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE
BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 24 TO INCORPORATE
MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code
section 65500, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
held a public hearing on Meadowlark Specific Plan and
Environmental Impact Report No. 87-2 on
which was continued to
on ; and
, and concluded
Adoption of Meadowlark Specific Plano covering sixty-five
acres, more or less, located appro;:imately 600 feet north and east
of the .,tersection of Balsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue,
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, is the most
desirable method of providing regulated development of the area
included within said specific plan in accord with the objectives
set out in such specific plan; and
On ,after notice duly given, hearing
was held before this Council on Meadowlark Specific Plan and
Environmental Impact Report No, 87-2, and the Council finds that
such specific plan is necessary for the orderly, regulated
development of the real property included within Meadowlark
Specific Plan , and find. that the policies and procedures set out
in such specific plan are satisfactory and in agreement w.
general concept as set out in the city's General Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council Of the City of Huntington
Beach does ordains follows,
1. District Map 24 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is
hereby amended to incorporaf----2 Meadowlark Specific Plan.
2.,Meadowlark Specific Plan, attached hereto
and by this reference incorporated herein,
copies of such specific plan shall be maint
the office of the city Clerk and the Depart
Development
b i b i t A
hereby appro ved, and
fined for inspection i
ent of Community
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the Cit': of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the
day of f 1988.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED;
ity At orney
INITIATED AND APPROV D:
City Administrator e tor of Community
be opment
\-l1'8
C4
R2
HEIL
R2
R2 if C4 1.
9000[4 CR
4CC A.
CF .t,
li
R2rl
Rz, rW%!77 '
R2 R2
R2 R2
uu-o
R3
R2
s
R3
WARNER
R3
R3
tlD
C2 MH
HUL-- CALIENTE
RI
r sl
R1
R2 ji R2 MHI
RI ;JI RI
soup. .r a+..
RI RI. RI RI
,
mm RI
^I N
R2
C4:;
OP
lcllo pE'41c x
RI
OPR3
_q I R3
3-19 'W4[.CR ,4, -
unc
11 R2 R2R 3 1 C4j
R2C2 110'
R4 I 3 23.'o.S4,upj
a4.
R2
RI
RI
CF- R
LO RA O
li
n R I I
YIDDLEC.:.`F
`R'I
RI
R2 R2
--m•...• ulna
O
RI
RI
OR.
ii IT „Ra I
J3 R I I-FP2 •
RI RI 'FP2
FP?.
RI 0I-FP2
I IF
nc
ROS-01
ROS-FP2
RI
fIRrOOERS -i@
I I7
OR.
RI RI
At
RI RI
Alk Oft1eel ;tee tit A t u 3&10,
ROS
i
J _
/ a
P.RI-FP2 f'0
II VIEW CR.Ri_._
-FP?.
RI
RI' F.I c,
.e.
RI-FP2
TROPHY OR
arr
RI"FF2
RffP2
ti'I DoHL>'a'•n,srz R-1F
FRANUAR CR
R I-FP2
Er DYONDS C.R.
r+ I R 1-f P2
g u ILORCD C11:
RI-FP
C4-FP2 1
71f' - --..
HUNTiNGTON REACH
HUNTFNGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
HEIL
Lo F,/
MARCH 1962
9.48A .
333
TGE,?HAc'r i1VE;}?
4,0E 4C.
3//, S Z3 ,
63,'2'2-
7 ¢ y; 9 M1' `IrA2 I 11 I r
PAR, P, IF-
P. ,i1, 66 12 uIgI
0147 6PAR 2
/3",
11
$VARNER
PAGEI;UF,