Loading...
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,