Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Appeal Cup 91-57/Revised CDP 92-2 Revised ND 92-9 - Basem
BY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 5, 1994 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members CD94-36 Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrato l L-1 —= Prepared by: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Developmentt� o� Subject: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-57R, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-211,AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-911 Consistent with Council Policy? [XI Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: �e 'l///9i/ 7'/%//9 Lorrfih� c3pem b'/i/9�1. a'i y &,irmue�6,)P ��a19 STATEMEN OF ISSUE: S a/9v- ellfbnued/iecarrny A ems, `yb ��if/95L, Ella-Xeaty q e apa. '1.91i9/Q� y�y/gfL�",�eci.S�o��p/redasrno�o��a �jr„d� ��'Yr 34- Transmitted for City Council consideration is an appeal by Councilman Robitaille of the Planning Commission's denial of Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57, Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2, and Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9. These applications represent a request to allow a 4,400 square foot basement addition to an approved project proposed for construction at 303 Third Street. The Planning Commission denied the request at their May 3, 1994, meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission Recommendation: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON MAY 3, 1994: THE MOTION MADE BY GORMAN, SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO DENY REVISED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-9 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:, AYES: GORMAN, DETTLOFF, RICHARDSON, INGLEE, BIDDLE, KERINS NOES: NEWMAN ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION PASSED THE MOTION MADE BY GORMAN, SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO DENY REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 91-57 AND REVISED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-2 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: GORMAN, DETTLOFF, INGLEE, BIDDLE, KERINS NOES: NEWMAN, RICHARDSON ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION PASSED Staff Recommendation: Motion to: ".Overturn the Planning Commission's action and approve Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9, Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57, and Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2 with findings and suggested conditions of approval" (see Attachment No. 6). ANALYSIS: History The applicant submitted plans and received building permits in 1991 to rehabilitate a historic building at 303 Third Street for use as a health facility. At that time, 57 parking spaces were grandfathered. Subsequently, it was determined that the structure needed to be demolished and reconstructed. As a result, the applicant submitted a conditional use permit for the building and received approval by the Planning Commission in 1992; the 57 spaces were again grandfathered. The applicant proceeded with the plans and demolished the building. In 1992, the California Coastal Commission overturned the City's grandfathering policy which had a direct impact on this project. Project Description Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57 and Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2 represent a request to allow a 4,400 square foot basement addition to a previously approved project for a 13,200 square foot, two (2) story building for health club use. CUP No. 91-57 with special permits and Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2 were approved by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1992. The special permits allowed the building to encroach into the front and side yard setbacks (0' setback in lieu of 5') and into the rear yard setback (0' setback in lieu of 3'). The subject property is located in the Downtown Specific Plan, District 5, which allows establishment of a health club pursuant to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. The project was granted a one (1)year extension which expired on April 17, 1994. A request for an additional one year extension of time was approved by the Planning Commission action on June 14, 1994. RCA7/5//94 2 G:RCA\CD94-36 i The proposed 4,400 square foot basement addition will bring the total project building area to 17,600 square feet. It will consist of a lap swimming pool, spa, restrooms, and pool equipment rooms. This addition is considered to be compatible with surrounding land uses since the use was previously analyzed and the addition does not affect the building's exterior. The health club building will be located across the street from the 200 Block Parking Structure. A Parking Master Plan for the downtown area has been prepared that analyzes the mix of uses downtown. This study includes the health club use without the basement in the master buildout of the area and utilizes the existing parking of the downtown area. Fifty-seven parking spaces have been accounted for in the Parking Master Plan. Nine parking spaces will need to be satisfied by payment of in-lieu parking fees. An additional parking demand of 22 spaces results from the basement addition. Planning staff identified two primary issues relating to these applications: parking and floor area ratio. Parking Requirement Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57 was approved by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1992, to permit construction of a 13,200 square foot, two story building for a health club. Parking for a facility of this size requires 66 spaces at which time 57.parking spaces were"grandfathered" or credited to the project. The balance of the nine (9) required spaces were to be satisfied by payment of in-lieu parking fees. In the latter part of 1992, the California Coastal Commission considered and denied the City's "grandfathering" policy relative to parking. Ordinance No. 3180 was then adopted by the City Council on February 1, 1993, clarifying the requirement for off-street parking for properties located in the Downtown Specific Plan areas. Section 4.2.01(d) of the Downtown Specific Plan states that: "If fifty percent (50%) or more of an existing structure is demolished and reconstructed, the new structure must provide the required off-street parking. The parking may be provided through the payment of in-lieu fees as allowed by the Downtown Specific Plan in-lieu parking program." Because building permits were not issued prior to adoption of the Ordinance, this provision applies to the property at 303 Third Street. Since there is insufficient area on-site (except in subterranean parking)to accommodate parking, Staff advised the applicant that three (3) options are available for satisfying the parking requirement: (1) participate in the in-lieu parking fee program, (2) postponement of the applications until the Coastal Commission considers the Downtown Parking Master Plan, or(3) file a variance application for reduction in parking requirements. The applicant engaged an attorney who provided the City Attorney with an argument that they do not have to comply with Ordinance No. 3180 because they have vested rights. However, the applicant did submit a variance application for 57 parking spaces and proposed payment of parking in-lieu fees for 31 parking spaces. RCA7/5//94 3 G:RCA\CD94-36 Parkins Building Area Required Proposed Parking 1992 Approval: 13,200 sf building 66 in-lieu fees for 9 spaces Proposed Expansion: 4,400 sf basement 22 in lieu fees Total 17,600 sf building area 88 In-lieu parking fees for.31 spaces Conditional Exception No. 94-12, a variance for 57 parking spaces, was denied by the Planning Commission on May 3, 1994, and was not appealed. Therefore, prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed 13,200 square foot health club building, the applicant must provide all required parking spaces on site, postpone the permit issuance date until the Parking Master Plan is approved by the City Council and Coastal Commission, or pay in-lieu parking fees for all required parking spaces, 66 spaces for the health club building. If the appeal is overturned, the applicant must also pay in-lieu parking fees for 22 spaces required for the basement addition. Planning Commission Action During the Planning Commission public hearing of May 3, 1994, three persons addressed the Commission. The applicant, Jeff Bergsma, expressed the history of activity relating to the rehabilitation permit issued for the original building, the subsequent conditional use permit to reconstruct the building for a health club, and acquisition of a tenant. Bob Bolen, a downtown property owner and businessman, requested that, if the City approves this project with a substantial parking reduction and excludes the basement as floor area ratio, this action should be codified to apply to all properties in the downtown area. Michael Fein addressed the Commission explaining the circumstances applicable to the parking issue and reduced alley width. Following considerable discussion regarding the request for additional floor area, lack of code required parking, substandard alley width, and floor area ratio, the Planning Commission denied the request to add a basement to the health club. Appeal Councilman Robitaille has filed an appeal (Attachment No. 1) to the Planning Commission's denial. He believes that the findings for denial are not actual facts; they are contradictory with previous Planning Commission approvals. They are not supported by the staff reports presented at the hearing and are largely neither relevant nor appropriate items to be considered. Councilman Robitaille also states that the findings relative to the Parking Master Plan and to the fact that no site has been selected for future parking facilities have no bearing on the development of this parcel. The Community Development Department supports the applications and recommends approval of the basement addition with findings and conditions of approval. (Attachment No. 6) However, the project cannot proceed until the parking has been satisfied. RCA7/5//94 4 G:RCA\CD94-36 Coastal Status: The proposed project is within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2 is being processed concurrently with the revised conditional use permit. The City Council must determine that the project complies with the findings stated in Section 989.5.4G(6) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Those findings and suggested conditions of approval are listed under the recommendation section of this report. Redevelopment Status The proposed project is located within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. Redevelopment staff supports these applications. Environmental Status: Staff revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9 and determined that a revision was necessary due to the increase in square footage of the health space. Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9 was prepared and advertised for thirty (30) days. The revised negative declaration, however, was not further amended to reflect the conditional exception (variance) request. Written comments were received, and staff has provided responses. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a revised negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on the Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57 and Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 92-9. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may make the following motion: A. "Approve Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57, Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2, and Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9 with recommended findings and conditions of approval." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter of Appeal dated May 13, 1994 2. Notice of Action and Findings for Denial dated May 3, 1994 3. Site Plan and floor plans dated October 29, 1993, and elevations dated February 4, 1994 4. Narrative 5. Revised Negative Declaration 6. Alternative Findings for Approval and suggested Conditions of Approval 7. Proposed Parking Management Plan MTU:MSF:SP RCA7/5//94 5 G:RCA\CD94-36 . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK September 27, 1994 Jeff Bergsma 221 Main Street,#H Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, September 19, 1994 denied the appeal filed by Councilmember Robitaille on your behalf and denied Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57R, Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2R, and Negative Declaration No. 92-9R. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from September 27, 1994 to apply to the courts for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact our office-536-5227. Sincerely, Connie.Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:cc Enclosure 1 cc: City Attorney Community Development Director City Administrator g:cc\90dayltr (Telephone:714-536-5227) • I Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA S2643 Man- 6. 199' ,:ff 3e:c_:?;a _ I '\lain S1 t =H I?,-,n. ^-ic.n 3esch. CA 9 6 4 S SUBJECT: REVISED CO\DITIGN. 1_ USE PER",:IT N0. ;] REVISED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-2 REVISED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-9 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (V.-IRIANCE)NO. 9 -l? REQUEST: Conditional L'se Pen-jt ang Coastal Development Permit: To pernit a A ision to a Orevio-u \' a.-r0\ems Co �iciQn21 t:Se ;+eri'.lit :^. Order to 2llo•\ a 400 sgi are :Oot basen-,e:t ad'Ci:i n io a 1-.0 sG_L•a_e foot. -,Nvo slot\' s c e ;Or h-_alta c la _� Cl•il�iillli,,... ppii 'G: ille 1♦' Te:11at a rC�:.icul'n i.i re'.�r+'L.irZl- vatlii~2 Space_ r Cm C t0 _ .. L 0 C A T IO\: Third Street D..jEGi ,l. 1 'ON: Max- 199 , FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - REVISED CO\DITIO\.AL USE PERMIT NO. 91-57/ CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARJANCE) NO. 94-12: I. The proposed 4.400 square foot basement addition and reduction in required parking has a detrimental effect on the Qenera] health: \\°e;fa e. safety and convenience of persons residing or \\•orkin` in the neighborhood, and is detrimental to the value and improvements in the area beC2L`se: a. .Re\-ised Conditional Use Pzmtit No. 91 is a sLbstamial_-chane- and increases.the fioo.r area to 17.600 square feet: a maximum l_..I 8 se ��-; feet is alle\\'ed for this site. b. The propose0 downtown Parkin_ Mader Pian-stiidy for the area has not been approved by nnn:.w City Council or Coastal Conission. {^cci(l -ll Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 91--;7/ Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2' Revised Neeative Declaration No. 92-9/ ConditionalException (Variance) No. 94-12 Paee Two c. Sufficient parkin_ spaces do not exist in :l:e VicinitV to service the spaces required for the health club with a basement. d. The proposed basement addition to a previously approved health club facility increases traffic volume in the vicinity of the site. e. There is no site selected for construction of an off-street parking facility funded by payment of in-lieu parking fees. - FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - REVISED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-2: 1. Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92.-2 is inconsistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix, District 5 (Mixed Use) of the Dovk-nto\t-n Specific Plan as well as the provisions of the - Huntin2ton Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the addition of a basement to a previously approved project because the proposed basement increases the parking demand and insufficient parking exists in the vicinity to accomodate the proposed addition. I hereby certiA, that Revised Conditional ' se Pe-pit\o. 91-57.Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2-Revised Negative Declaration'.o. 92-9.;Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 94-12 vvas denied by the Planning Commission of the Cite of Huntington Beach on Mav I. 1994 upon the foregoing findings. - Sincerely. Howard Zelefsky. Secretary Plannina Commission � R b;- Scott Hess Senior Planner (pcc1007-2) 10 Si'F.C1Ai. rRQCEEDiK� Part Nola n.nnded for iww trial de um,,. Prt•>,,•„d ,. winr.l .•nnu i,-inswr hnd t:u jurit.dictinn 1'nlifnrnln 1'neutplo�tneut {u:. .\pinalx It,l. am{ di,l nut It-11, clue tnt•ritr. \\Serra Air tnaoo) 1'-17 1'al.fil,tr, !itll, 57 1'.,\.:ttl _t. I.lttex in,% v. toldrxkl (wtil) 1': Cnl.ttl,tr. _ 'Trial vourl'x jm1l;a,t•u1 d,-atit:G writ of i 1f1, Ihl t•„\;:,1 3tM, ninndatn to compel ,lirc,•tor of nGrit•tiltnro Ihu•t that letter dixcharGittt; xcttior tyl,• in xct amide hiv th•,-{s{o+t revnUlig ia•tltinn• It:t vl••rk in office of vlerk „Sated er's liet•uxr ox nirt•raft I,ilnt in hn■inr„x ,4 Ihut nhr u:tx Guilty of nti"•ouduct in re. prtit emorol wax revermed and euxe re mot-im: ynblie rreorl+ from ilia files and taawleil in trial t•t+nrt With ,lirrl•I;nitx to imitilaiinc and xrerelit•q tht+n on vnrioux r•atnnit enxts In director for purp,me of dutcx, wherenx iu hcarint: heforo county ,1 r,4onxidcriut; the pctu,lty previously im• vivil service mininixxion evidence wax in• jwsed, where it was found iltnt notne of iroduerd only nit to n•1,nt took place on — this charges aKninxt prtiliont•r wera not ono of tilt- dntrm. ,lira unt require tile. dix- xnlilwrted Iw cvidrnce.. Wingfirld v. t rirt i uurt ,•f alq,r.nl nn al•1,ett) from ju11: Dliactnr•-of Atricultim (1i1721 10.) Cal. Surat owarli it xruior lyl,i.•t clerk writ of �ltptr.019,20 C,A.311 201; mandate• after reverafntt il:o jndgmcut of. tTtitlS t Procesditig for review of tlen;al by eom• the xulterior rnurt, to rcmnn,l the n,atitr niNsfoner of rorlmrittionx of hermit to to the e,•mu,ix,iuu for re.nnsiAcration, "" '`:ttin»t;e volint; riGhtx of f NL whi&rn there wnx n ximilnrhy of forts our- would he n n+nndnd to xis l coact furnrrhul,l,rx romitlfnG rrnu,v.0 of the tlorutncnls un :dl of the ihHt•r. 11ratt V. Mirelrx Goan- detcnnituttion whathcr there .,na i:uhrta't- ty Civil Nt•rvivn l'omtnitryfuu (1952) 233 Si^,3 -lixl evidetice to xupport cmi%111 stiotteC's 1':.'d S. lUy C:.A°d lla. ftudlopt. where court 'improperly t•eter. 1094.6. judicial reviet�; decisions of local Rgeri(ies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and j arty defined; or- dinance or resolution (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local. agency, other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 511 of the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent the^eof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094:15 of this code only if ;. the petition for writ-of mandate pursunrt to such section is filed "within the time limits specified in this section. (b) Any such petition Shall be filed nut later than the 90th day - following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision in any applicable provi- sion of any statute, charter, or rule, for the purposes of this section, the decisit;7a is final on the date it is made. If there is such provision for reconsideration, the decision is final for the purpose's of this sec- tion upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsidera- tion can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursu- ant to any such provision the decision is final for the.purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is reiected. (c) The complete rrrord of the proccedings sh.111 1x• prepared by lilt! 1(xx11 .1gerlc•,y or if.-; ronuniscion, licrtrtl, officer, (+r a-unt whir•h made the decision and shall ix• dolivcrcil to the I) titioner within 90 bays Sifter he has filed .I written rctfucst Hici-efw•. The local agency may recover from the petitioner ite uc:tual costs fc.• tl al:scribing cr otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the trap- Script of tht_ procoedings, all pleadings, all notices Sind i:rders, any proposed decision by a healing officer, the final decision, all admitted . 674 1 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 5, 1994 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members CD94-36 Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator —IC Prepared by: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Development s Subject: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-57R, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-21;1,AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-9R Consistent with Council Policy? [XI Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: 'I�S�fC l n" �••xa 71, O 11 y Chu aye„ Qc� STATEMENT OF ISSUE: y���9� for nub o� Transmitted for City Council consideration is request to continue the public hearing on an appeal by Councilman Robitaille of the Planning Commission's denial of Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57, Revised Coastal Development Permit No..92-2, and Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9. These applications represent a request to allow a 4,400 square foot basement addition to an approved project proposed for construction at 303 Third Street. The Planning Commission denied the request at their May 3, 1994, meeting. The appellant will be out of town during the month of July and the applicant requests that the appellant be present at the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Continue the public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57, Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2, and Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9 to the August 1, 1994, City Council meeting." ATTACHMENT: X 1. Request for continuance dated June 28, 1994 N 3- .gym n c. LZ „06-28-1994 09:40AM FROM TEAM TO 5365233 P.01� a • d���IYEG f11Y CLEna CONSTRUCTION '[ 3IIITT TO: City of Huntington Beach DATE: 6/28/94 City Clerk PROJECT: 303 3rd St. ATTN: Pat PHONE: 536-5579 #OF PAGES FAX#: 536-5233 INC. COVER: DESCRIPTION/MESSAGE: As the Applicant for C.U.P. Amendment 91-57, 1 request the City Council to continue the Appeal Hearing scheduled for July 5, 1994 until the appealate, Councilman Earl Robitaille is present for the hearing. 5 ' SENT FOR YOUR: ( ) APPROVAL ( ) INFORMATION ( X ) RECORD ( ) USE ( ) REVIEWAND COMMENT ( ) QUOTE COPY TO: SENT BY: Jeff Bergsma 221 MAIN STREET, SUITE H HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 PHONE (714)969-8326 FAX (714) 960-3350 i J. ' CITY .OF HUNTINGTON - BEACH - - CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Earle Robitaille, City Council Member DATE: May 13, 1994 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON CUP#91-57 REVISED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT#92-2,AND REVISED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92-9 Under my name on the next Council Agenda please place my appeal to the Planning Commission's May 3, 1994 decision on the above referenced matter. This appeal only concerns the actions on the Conditional Use Permit 991-57 which seeks an amendment to previously approved plans to add a basement swimming pool. The findings for denial are not actual facts. They are contradicted by the prior approvals of the Planning Commission. They are not supported by the staff reports presented at the hearing and are largely neither relevant nor appropriate items to be considered. Finally, the findings that a proposed Parking Master Plan has not yet been approved and that there has been no site selected for construction of additional off street parking facilities have no bearing on the development-of this specific parcel. ER:paj xc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mike Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Pat Dapkus, Management Assistant ATTACHMENT N09= :F I Huntington Beach Planning Commission J —__........,..,...... P.O. Box 190 California 92648 Date: May 6, 1994 NOTICE OF ACTION A is nt: Jeff Bergsma, 221 Main Street =H, Huntington Beach CA 92648 Su iect: REVISED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-57iRE'v7ISED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PER_T\1IT NO. 92-2/REVISED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-91'CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARI.k'N'CE)NO. 94-12 Your application was acted upon-by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission on Mav 1994 and your request as: NVITHDRkNN1 APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS (see attached). DISAPPROVED X_X TABLED CONTINtiED liNTIL Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code,the action taken by the Planning Commission is final unless an appeal is filed to the City Council by you or an interested party. Said appeal must be in Writing and must set forth in detail the actions and Grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested pam, deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of twelve hundred (S1.200) dollars and be submitted to the City Clerk's office within ten (10) days of the date of the Commission's action. In N7our case..the-last day_36r filing an appeal and pacing the filing fee is MaN? l 1994. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that any application becomes null and void one-(1) year after final approval. unless actual construction has started. 'S V,TACHMEENT N0o _.. iacc1007-1) i Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.G. 3GX 190 CF+LiF vRh'A S2645 6. .99' jeiI Be'�-. ;a Beach. CA S CB.LC T. REVISED CONDI T CN- t c_ a ` ;, O. e: :- t�E� iSED . =.I � COASTAL DE\'iLOP'\1E\T PER', IT\G. 9-' _ REVISED NEGATIVE DLCLARATION NO. 9 -9 CO'-DI T IONAL EXCEPTION (v.aRIANCE) N0. 94-1 REQUEST: Co-1di anal Use Pe;,,:it an- Coastal Development Pe�;rit: To pewit a -e\7sloii t0 a previously annro\ec condn. anal usze mit per in order to alloxv sior"\` st".rCtL'-e fOr :;ea't:i C:'_� tae. 1 ilia C��ie illii i,; rem iret: L0CA ON: !Il?rQ Street D.kTE OP .-,LTIGN. NlG\ 19y� FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-57r CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIA CEI NO. 94-11: 1. The proposed 4,400 square foot basement adcition and reduction in required parking has a detmmental effect on the general health. \,°elfa-e, safe-,\ and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. and is `etrin ,-ntal to the value and improvements in the area because: a. Re\lsed Conditional L se PerniltNo. 91 is a su stantlal chance and increases the f100r area to 17.600 square feet: a maximum 1=.=1$ sous-: feet is allc%ved for this site. b. Tie pr.�pOsc' d0\\-nio\\'n P ar niri_L' liast:r for the area has not been aF pro\ed by Ci.\ C Ol nCil cr Coastal Colnriissiol". r - - l f Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57' Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2' Revised Negative Declaration No. 9-1-91' ConditionalException (Variance) No. 94-12 Pace Two c. Sufficient parking spaces do not exist in the vicinity To ser,,-lce the spaces required for the health club Nvith a basement. d. The proposed basement addition to a previously approved health club facility increases traffic volume in the vicinity of the site. e. There is no sire selected for construction of an off-street parking facility funded by payment of in-lieu parking fees. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - REVISED COASTAL DEVELOPNfENT PERMIT NO. 92-2: 1: Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2 is inconsistent«with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix, District ; (Mixed t°se) of the Downtown Specific Plan as yell as the provisions of the - Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the addition of a basement to a previously approved project because the proposed basement increases the parking demand and - insufficient parking exists in the vicinity- to accomodate the proposed addition. I hereb,,, certify that Revised Conditional Use Pe_:_.it\o. 91-57.Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2"Revised?\7ecative Declaration- o. 92-9.`Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 94-12 was denied b\ the Planning Commiss on of the Citv of Huntington Beach on "Mav =. 199-1 upon the foregoing findings. Sincerelv. Howard Zelefskv: Secretary Planning Commission .1 by I If Scott Hess Senior Planner (pcc1007-2) LU _ Jlrs.Cr i I I II I. I ( 1 ooC✓ECT Oi no Wgoo S. 1 +� I rJv fa Ir �. � f o...l /IeN rA.lKe 1r ' J ,�•� t 0 i rr Nl -,It's /1a1.-I/!Cs tus i Q ' V Ili ! N I I Ge0/a OlscAllll,y. -a.v ra..d lyv Je/C .At C, s01 Jrs 1. 2 Oe•- !wl.o orfl /7 • I 'I 11 .aGOr/!II llO I.W. _rf J 1/. !J7 so ill fJ I �•\� 11 � l..IG JlM •Me/J IIsr IG JP� ryJa J7 / f!_-310 It 7oa swoo sJ 12 JOO so / ' M IWOV11wO 12 JOO /JOO {! S..C- �+�.w i I I I Jl sl.Clf INrII •' I r ! C!s lel IIGa/a! •' Iles. �I J 4•l2rine :w�1 � 1 CL I vE r vENUE o W _ Yo +Fjg _ � •`+• 0 Q � Q0 R b 4 t J r Q S raves 6F '!r I I F+ES TgOON --------------- - ------------------ I t OCKE�S ' = I 'SN✓wEa ii C�+CiOVtSC[/L.a<7 • I FFIC=• J eoo sd�r '�- ;I I � alas r �c l/EL rL 00.E : 7L.4N I v _ v J TI_-1II-Iti MIT 3 O O i I' i � 1 ?EB FO ❑ ❑ ❑ .�.. .,...°� ° ° ° f r EAST ELEVATIQiV WEST ELEV ATION Ja— ' aTe 00 NOT SCALE ^1/ ORANINOS SGIf ❑ ❑ ❑ VOL THIS Sm ORIYIRE is ��•'A'�' E iROYERTT p0 FILE: AND COPYRIGHT Of THE ARCHITECT i HUNTING TON A THL ETIC JEFFHUNTING TON &PC sEAEC,IISM BEACH, CA APCNITECI SOUTH EG.EVA TIO/V ° ° ° °� I ....� ° F ° ° 1 EE EAST ELEVA TIOrV NEST ELEVA TSON LU Lu a re •��,� ,u�� DO NOT SCAG S OR ANIN w(e ❑ ❑ ° MIL r onwrEE tb ••••-, b eac raa►Enrr cm ncE�• 1 �w wvrnleNl Q. Of THE ARCHITECT HUNTING TO A THLETIC CL UB •� •�'`•` •�d`� `� I 303 3fi0 S I HUNTING TON I JErr N eEaelMA BEACH, CA L' ARC ITECT TFJW -r,ru.s�_u..� - O•E•9•ICY•N SOUTH EL EVA TION Huntington Athletic Club Amendment to C.U.P. 91-57 303 3rd St. Huntington Beach, CA NARRATIVE -On April 7, 1992, the Planning Commission approved C.U.P. 91-57 with special permits. On April 20, 1993, an extension of time was granted by the Planning Commission. The extension was needed to find a replacement tenant for Nautilus Plus. A replacement tenant has now been found. The tenant, Huntington Athletic Club, is requesting the property owner provide a lap swimming pool in the basement. The addition of the basement will expand the amount of usable floor area and thus require additional parking spaces. The basement addition.will not expand the bulk and density of the approved two story - building (F.A.R.will not be exceeded.) The addition of a pool and spa would greatly enhance the list of amenities the Athletic Club can offer. The Huntington Athletic Club will be a valuable addition to downtown and the inclusion of a pool and spa in the basement would have no negative impact on the community in relation to the previously approved Conditional Use Permit. yi`., 4Vi 0. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO.92-9(Revised) 1. Name of Proponent: Jeff Bergsma Address: 221 Main Street,#H Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Phone Number: (714)536-5888 2. Date Checklist Submitted for Review: December 17, 1993 3. Concurrent Entitlement(s): Coastal Development Permit No.92-2 Conditional Use Permit No.91-57 4. Project Location: 303 Third Street,(northeast corner of Olive Avenue and Third Street) 5. Project Description: Request to construct a two-story 13,000 square foot health spa facility with a 4,400. square foot basement on an 8,600 square foot lot. 6. State Clearinghouse Number: #92021070 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of answers are included after each subsection.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? Discussion: Excavation of the site in preparation for construction of a two story building with basement will alter the geological substructure of the site. Soil removal will occur to allow 4,400 square feet of basement area to be constructed. Oil operation activities adjacent to the site may have oil lines below the surface of the subject property. Soil contamination from the adjacent oil operation and previous auto use may exist. The project will be subject to standard conditions of approval which require preparation of a detailed soil analysis by a registered soils engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The analysis will include soil sampling and testing to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading,compaction and foundations. Because the site is located within a Methane Overlay district,the Municipal Code requires all uses to comply with Section 17.04.85 which will require a methane barrier to be installed and abatement if methane exists on site. b. Disruptions,displacements,compaction or overcovering of the soil? {_ Discussion: The project site was previously occupied by an auto repair business and was predominantly paved: Those structures and paving were previously removed due to structural instability. The site has previously been graded. As stated in 1 a above, the project will include excavation and will be subject to soil analysis and detailed recommendations prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impacts resulting from excavation,compaction and overcovering associated with the proposed project are not anticipated to be substantially different from those of the previously existing structures. No significant impact is anticipated. C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? Discussion: Refer to Discussion#lb. d. The destruction,covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Discussion: The project site is relatively flat and does not contain any unique topographical features. ATTACHMENT NO. i C. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,either on or off the site? _ _ X_ Discussion: Development of the proposed project may result in short-term wind and water erosion impacts during the grading and construction phases. However,the project will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring implementation of dust control measures during construction as well as submittal of drainage and erosion control plans to prior to issuance of grading permits.No significant impacts are anticipated. f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,or changes in siltation,deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,inlet or lake? Discussion: The project is not located in the vicinity of any body of water. g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes,landslides, mudslides,ground failure,or similar hazards? Discussion: The proposed project site is not located in the vicinity of the Alquist-Priolo Special Hazards Study Zone or any other known geologic hazard. No significant impact is anticipated. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? Discussion: Short-term: The proposed project may result in short-term emissions from construction equipment and grading activities. However,the project will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring implementation of dust control measures and restriction of construction activities during second stage smog alerts and high ozone days. No significant impact is anticipated. Long-Term: Development of the site may result in emissions due to vehicle traffic to the site. However,vehicle emissions resulting from the project are not anticipated to be substantial. No significant adverse impact is anticipated. b. The creation of objectionable odors? Discussion: The project will not generate any objectionable odors. C. Alteration of air movement,moisture,or temperature,or any change in climate,either locally or regionally? Discussion: The project does not propose any activities which will alter air movement,moisture,temperature or change in climate. 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents,or the course of direction of water movements,in either marine or fresh waters? _ b. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Discussion: The project site was previously occupied by a auto repair business which was substantially covered by paving. The previous structures were recently demolished due to structural instability. The proposed project will increase the amount of impervious surfaces and will result in increased runoff compared to what presently exists on the site. However,the runoff generated by the proposed project is not anticipated to be substantially different from runoff generated by the previous use. C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Discussion: The project site is not located in the flood zone and does not have any activities which will effect flood waters. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ _ JL Discussion: Refer to discussion under item#1 f. Environmental Checklist EA 92-9(R) 2 c:\splpl55 C. Discharge into surface waters,or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X Discussion: Refer to discussion under item#If. 1'. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Discussion: Excavation of the site in preparation for the basement with swimming pool may impact groundwaters.Groundwater in the area is between 5-10 feet. The project will be subject to standard conditions of approval which require preparation of a detailed soil analysis by a registered soils engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The analysis will include soil sampling and testing to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading,compaction and foundations. g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Discussion: Refer to discussion under item 3f. h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Discussion: The proposed project will increase water usage on the site but is not anticipated to substantially reduce the amount of water available to the city. i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Discussion: The proposed project site is not located in the vicinity of the flood plain or any bodies of water. 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species,or number of any species of plants(including trees, shrubs,grass,crops,and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any mature,unique,rare or endangered species of plants? _ _ _ZC_ C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop? _ _X_ Discussion(a-d): The site was previously occupied as auto repair business and does not appear to support any unique plant or animal species. No significant impacts to plant or animal species are anticipated to result from development of the proposed project. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species,or numbers of any species of animals(birds,land animals including reptiles,fish and shellfish,benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,rare or endangered species of animals? _ C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Discussion(a-d): Refer to discussion under item 4(a-d): Environmental Checklist EA 92-9(R) 3 cAsplp155 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X_ Discussion: Short-term: Development of the proposed project may result in short-term noise increases associated with grading and construction activities. However,the project will be subject to standard conditions of approval which restrict the hours of construction to 7:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.,Monday-Saturday. No significant impact is anticipated. Long-term: Future occupants of the site may increase noise levels on the site. However,the site is located in the downtown area and not located near any noise sensitive uses. No significant impact is anticipated. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Discussion: Refer to discussion under item 6a. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ _X_ _ Discussion: The project will allow for construction of a two-story structure with outdoor lighting. The proposed project will increase the light and glare in the project vicinity. However,the project is located in a primarily developed area and is not anticipated to generate more intense lighting than other commercial uses in the area. Furthermore,the project will be subject to standard conditions of approval which require submittal of a lighting plan to insure that lighting on the site will be directed away from adjacent properties. No significant impacts are anticipated. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Discussion: The proposed project complies with the land use designation and zoning on the site. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of.use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? _ _ _x Discussion(a-b): Construction and operation of the spa facilities may increase the demand of natural and energy resources. However,the increase usage is not anticipated to be substantial and any impact to the rate of usage or depletion of supplies is anticipated to be negligible. Impacts will be reduced further through implementation of the Energy Conservation Standards in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code as required through standard conditions of approval. 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances(including,but not limited to oil,pesticides,chemicals or radiation)in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ X_ Discussion: The site is located within the methane zone and may be subject to methane related hazards;however the project will be subject to standard conditions of approval which require sampling and monitoring of the site pursuant to Fire Department specifications. No significant impact is anticipated. b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan?_ _ A- IL Population. Will the proposal alter the location,distribution,density,or growth rate of the human population of an area? Discussion: The proposed project may provide additional employment opportunities in the city. However,the number of jobs created is not anticipated to be substantial. The potential impacts to the city's growth rate an housing demand in considered negligible. Environmental.Checklist EA 92-9(R) 4 c:\splpl55 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,or create a demand for additional housing? Discussion: Refer to discussion under item 11. 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Discussion: The proposed project will generate additional traffic in the vicinity of parking facilities in the area. Trip generation impacts in the parking area vicinity are not anticipated to be substantial because clients will be entering and leaving the parking structure at staggered times,throughout the day. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. b. Effects on existing parking facilities,or demand for new off-site parking? _ Discussion: The proposed project does not propose the construction of any on-site parking. Based upon parking space ratios contained in article 960"Parking and Landscaping'of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code,(HBOC)the project will require 88 parking spaces. The project site has 57 parking spaces grandfathered in which will be credited to the project. These spaces were calculated into the existing downtown area parking need and have been accounted for in an area-wide parking plan. The remaining 31 spaces will be covered by payment of in-lieu fees,in compliance with Section 9606.2 of the HBOC. This fee is assessed on a per space basis for projects in the Downtown Specific Plan area. The fees go toward construction of parking facilities in the downtown area. C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Discussion: The access design is not considered a substantial alteration to the existing circulation system. No significant impact is anticipated. d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne,rail or air traffic? Discussion: The proposed project does not propose any activities which will alter waterborne,rail or air traffic. f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians? Discussion: Due to the presence of construction traffic,the project may result in increased obstacles to vehicles,bicyclists and pedestrians during the construction phases of the project. However,the hazards are short-term and are not anticipated to be substantial. Furthermore,standard conditions of approval require that adequate warning signage for vehicles,bicyclists and pedestrians. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? _ _ J_ Discussion(a-b): Police and Fire Service are currently operating at an adequate level of service and will not require any additional manpower or facilities to serve the proposed project. C. Schools? Discussion: No schools will be affected by the proposed project. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? Discussion: The project will not impact any parks or other recreational facilities. Environmental Checklist EA 92-9(R) 5 c:\splpl55 e. Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? _ Discussion: The proposed project will not require any additional public maintenance. f. Other governmental services? Discussion: No additional governmental services will be required to serve the project. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing source of energy,or require the development of sources of energy? Discussion(a-b): Refer to discussion under item 9(a-b). 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b.- Communication systems? _ _ —X— C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Discussion(a-f): All utilities are currently available to the site and can adequately accommodate the proposed project. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard(excluding mental health)? _ _ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ _ 3 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ _ Discussion: The proposed project site does not provide any view opportunities. The proposed project is located within the Downtown Specific Plan area and will be reviewed by the Design Review Board for aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding uses;no significant impact is anticipated. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Discussion: Refer to discussion under item 14d. 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _ _ -A- Environmental Checklist EA 92-9(R) 6 c:\splpl55 b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric — — or historic building,structure,or object? _ X C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would al l'ect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? _ X_ Discussion(a-d): Although the project site is the former location of a historical structure. However,the structure was removed during the latter part of 1991 due to structural instability. The project site is not located in the vicinity of any known archaeological sites. No significant impact is anticipated. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,sub- stantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? _ _ X_ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief,definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,but cumulatively consid- erable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a X_ NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there _ will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached . sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL _ IMPACT REPORT is required. i Date Signature Revised: March, 1990 For: City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department Environmental Checklist EA 92-9(R) : 7 c:\splp 155 o 0 *00 3200 O eOLSA o = ARGOSY < i 0! FADDENZ a < 2 FDINGER HFII WARNER -SLATER ` IALURT r_ EIIIS < G < GARi1flD I � � /rORK TOW N ? j �* ADA. INDIANA►OI IS / /ATLANTA NA.IETON NANNING / 1R VICINITY MAP HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION r r 19 T23 24 25 37 , - BEACH .^O. 2900- 1-----7— -- "' O 7 +ORANGE: AVENUE en v n.fe•-- �. m.se• nso• er - n� ql lC gf.f0 � m.Y N N 1 as 27 � --- --'--- ALO 27° w -----�- 23------ ---�-Z6 2S 10 $ 2y5 24 Al 23 I « --�• — -- • N __ er 21 R ' 22 21 R 2 22 21 22 ------20 19 ------ -- -20 19 --t0 -- 4i O c o P __ ►v • 17 � v Z6�3 OS 14 4 44) .0 ^ 1 If gSK G0 WIf-t 12 ll'k19 BL K.ro 9304 9 � �0 94 0 413let so-•• '• wt,f0 F) Of A VENUE q7.50' ef.f0' 20 mx• m!0• n).f' ♦ Ze L- - -b 1 28 27 > m.fo-V 26 ---- 23 10 26 ?S ------ ------- - 35 21 2j11 ?I 2J -- -- -T ------- ----- ------- ---- '3^36' 22 21 3 o.ss• + ------12 i------- �����. ^' 1! v' --- - - z0 N 31 e.ff• 20 q -- v .'` o •o N w N ^ • 205 j BLK.re 1720 to ,,,,'" BLK. Ip n 203 -- --- � N - - w k 1 IS trj n. • �/ 11 U 3 11-- 13---- Environmental Assessment No . C2 HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION Responses to Comments Negative Declaration No. 92-9 Revised I. INTRODUCTION This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Negative Declaration No. 92- 9 Revised. This document contains all information available in the public record related to the Revised Negative Declaration as of Friday, January 28, 1994 and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This document contains six sections. In addition to this Introduction, these sections are Public Participation and Review, Comments, Responses to Comments, Errata to the Revised Negative Declaration, and Appendix. The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to provide public review and solicit input on the Revised Negative Declaration. The Comments section contains those written comments received from agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals as of Friday, January 28, 1994. The Response to Comments section contains individual responses to each comment. The Errata to the Revised Negative Declaration is provided to show corrections of errors and inconsistencies in the Revised Negative Declaration. It is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to include this document in the official public record related to the Revised Negative Declaration. Based on the information contained in the public record the decision makers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all information related to the environmental consequences of the project. II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested groups, organizations, and individuals that a Revised Negative Declaration had been prepared for the proposed project. The City also used several methods to solicit input during the review period for the preparation of the Revised Negative Declaration. The following is a list of actions taken during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Revised Negative Declaration. 1. A cover letter and copies of the Revised Negative Declaration were filed with the State Clearinghouse on December 17, 1993. The State Clearinghouse assigned Clearinghouse Number 92021070 to the proposed project. A copy of the cover letter and the distribution list is available for review and inspection at the City of Huntington Beach, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648. 2. An official thirty (30) day public review period for the Revised Negative Declaration was established by the State Clearinghouse. It began on December 23, 1993 and ended on Wednesday, January 21, 1994. Public comment letters were accepted by the City of Huntington Beach through January 28, 1994. 3. Notice of the Revised Negative Declaration was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on Thursday, December 30, 1993. Upon request, copies of the document were distributed to agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals. III. COMMENTS Copies of all written comments received as of Friday, January 28, 1994, are contained in Appendix A of this document. All comments have been numbered and are listed on the following pages. All comments from letters received have been retyped verbatim in a comment-response format for clarity. Responses to Comments for each comment which raised an environmental issue are contained in this document. IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9 was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of thirty(30) days. The public review period for the Revised Negative Declaration established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on December 23, 1993, and expired January 21, 1994. The City of Huntington Beach accepted comment letters through January 28, 1994. Copies of all documents received as of January 28, 1994, are contained in Appendix A of this report. Comments have been numbered with responses correspondingly numbered. Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue. Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the Revised Negative Declaration, do not raise significant environmental issues, or request additional information. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Such comments are responded to with a"comment acknowledged" reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration. Response to Comments ND 92-9 -2- rtc929 Responses to Comments Negative Declaration No. 92-9 Revised HBEB-1: Comment: The City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board has received and reviewed the above mentioned project. The Environmental Board concurs that a Revised Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of environmental review for the project. In addition to the areas of concern addressed on the Revised Negative Declaration,the board feels that the following issues need to be clarified. Response: Please refer to HBEB=2 through HBEB-6 responses. Comments Section 31,this section addresses the basement swimming pool with relation to the ground water,but does not address the oil well adjacent to the project and any piping that may be underground and could create an additional hazard. Res on nse: Sections 3a-i pertain to the possible impacts the proposed project may have on water. Section la addresses the possibility of oil lines below the surface of the subject property. In addition,the development must comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification#422 and 431 for their abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. Discussion under Section 1 a on page 1 of the checklist will be amended to reflect compliance with these specifications. Please see HBEB-2 Response on Errata. HBEB-3: Comment: Section 6:11;the hours of operation during construction activities should be revisited due to the residential areas south of the proposed site. The hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday - Saturday would be a significant impact on those residences. Response: The standard condition of approval pertaining to hours of construction is in compliance with Section 8.40.90(d)of the Noise Ordinance, Chapter 8.40, of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The comment will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project. Response to Comments ND 92-9 -3- rtc929 HBEB_4: Comment: Section 13a, the board disagrees with the conclusion that the vehicular movement "are not anticipated to be substantial", this is subject to the hours of operation of the health spa. Response: Hours of operation the health club may be established by the discretionary body to minimize vehicular movement impacts on the area. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project. HBEB-5: Comment: Section 13.c, the existing transportation system in the area consists of narrow'street that would be seriously impacted by the high volume of traffic that a spa generates, especially in consideration of the residences that reside in the area. Perhaps the long term plans for the area need to be evaluated. Response: Comment noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project. HBEB-b: Comment Section 13.b,parking access in the parking structure are dependent upon the hours the structure will be open in co-ordination with the hours of operation of the health spa. Response: See response to HBEB-4 comment above. HBEB-7: Comment: The Environmental Board recommends approval of the Revised 92-9 subject to the adequate analysis and resolution of the above mentioned issues. If you have any questions or concerns regarding our comments, please contact Theresa Rey, Chairperson of the Review Subcommittee. Response to Comments ND 92-9 -4- rtc929 Res onse: Comment noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project. DOT4: Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9. The proposed project is for the construction of a two story 13,000 square foot health spa facility with a 4,400 square foot basement on an 8,600 square foot lot. Caltrans District 12 has the following comments for your consideration. Response: Comment noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project. DOT-2: Comment: Caltranss-primary concern is how this project will impact traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. The city should be aware of the adverse cumulative impacts small projects close to Pacific Coast Highway will have on traffic circulation in the area. In addition,was a traffic study done for this project to determine no adverse impacts would result from its construction. Responses The City of Huntington Beach is aware of the cumulative impacts small projects adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway may have on traffic circulation. The Downtown Specific Plan addresses these circulation concerns in Sections 3.3 and 3.3.1. In addition a traffic study was prepared in conjunction with the proposed Parking Master Plan and includes the parking needs for this facility. DOT-3: Comment.• We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions concerning these comments,please contact Aileen Kennedy at(714) 724-2239. Response: The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed code amendment. Response to Comments ND 92-9 -5- rtc929 GOPR-1: Comment: The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named proposed Revised Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Mark Goss at(916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter,please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Response: Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision makers prior to action on the proposed project. i Response to Comments ND 92-9 -6- rtc929 V. ERRATA TO REVISED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following changes to the Revised Negative Declaration and Initial Study are as noted below. The changes to the Revised Negative Declaration as they relate to issues contained within this errata sheet do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. The changes are identified by the comment reference. HBEB-2 Response: On page:1 of the Revised Initial Study Checklist the discussion under l a has been amended to read as follows: Discussion: Excavation of the site in preparation for construction of a two story building with basement will alter the geological substructure of the site. Soil removal will occur to allow 4,400 square feet of basement area to be constructed. Oil operation activities adjacent to the site may have oil lines below the surface of the subject property. Soil contamination from the adjacent oil operation and previous auto use may exist. The project will be subject to standard conditions of approval which require preparation of a detailed soil analysis by a registered soils engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The analysis will include soil sampling and testing to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, compaction and foundations. The project will also be subject to Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specifications#422 and 431 for the abandonment.of.oil wells and site restoration. Because the site is located within a Methane Overlay district,the Municipal Code requires all uses to comply with Section 17.04.85 which will.require a methane barrier to be installed and abatement if methane exists on site. Response to Comments ND 92-9 -7- rtc929 Environmental Board CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .i .I!Nf.HAH1A(fI Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, Californi a 92648 TO: Julie Osugi January: 28-, 1994 JAN2 �a FROM: City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board SU'BJE 'T : Environmental. ::SSeSsme%t Form No . 92-9 revised, to construct a two-story 13,000 square foot health spa facility with a 4 , 400 ssquare foot basement on a 8 , 600 square foot lot . The City of .Hunt.ing.ton Beach Environmental Board has received and reviewed the above mentioned project . The Environmental Board concurs that the revised Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of environmental review for this project . In addition to the areas of concern addresssed in the ND; _ the -board 'fel,ls that the following issues need to be clarified. .. 1 . Section 3 . f , this section addresses the basement swimming pool with relation to the groundwater, but does not address the oil well adjacent to the �g EB'2- project and any piping that may be underground and could create an additional hazard. 2 . Section 6 . a, The hours of operation during construction activities should be revisited due to the residential areas south of the proposed site . j�L3FB -.3 The hours of 7 ;00 a.m. to 8; 00 p.m. , Monday - Saturday would be a significant impact on those residences'. 3 . Section 13 . a, The board disagrees with the conclusion that the vehicular movement "are not anticipated to be substantial" , this is subject 9BF -� to the hours of .operation of the health spa. ' 4 . Section 13 . c, the existing transportation system in the area consists of narrow streets that would be seriously impacted by the high volumne of traffic that a spa generates , especially in consideration of #BEB-5 the residences that reside in the area . Perhaps the long term plans for the area need to be evaluated . 5 . Section 13 . b, Parking access in the parking structure are dependent upon the hours the structure will be open in co-crdindation the wit:: the hours of operation, of the health spa . The Environmental Board recommends approval of the Revised 92-9 subject to the adequate analysis and resolution of the above mentioned issues . /BFP>-7 If you have any questions or concerns regarding our comments , please contact Theresa Rey , Chairperson of the Review Subcommittee. cc : All members of the Subcommittee Mark Singer and Dan Torres i 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 0AN Ti PUCT 2 s 1 N STREET TA ANA, CA 92705 January 20, 1994 Ms. Susan Pierce "fit File: IGR/CEQA City of Huntington Beach Jl Iv `„ 1 J,-; SCH # none Community Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 9264$ Dear Ms. Pierce: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Revised Negative Declaration No.92-9. The proposed project is for the construction of a two story 13,000 square foot health spa facility with a 4,400 square foot basement on an 8,600 square foot lot. Caltrans District 12 has the following comments for your consideration. Caltrans primary concern is how this project will impact traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. The city should be aware of the adverse cumulative impacts small projects close to Pacific Coast Highway will have on traffic circulation in the area. In addition, was a traffic DOT— Z study done for this project to determine no adverse impacts would result from its construction. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Aileen Kennedy on (714) 724-2239. �3 Sincerely, EVERRE ANS, Chief Office of Planning and Public Transportation cc: Tom Loftus, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Alberto Angelini, Project Management T.H. Wang, Traffic Operations Dorothy Uyehara, Transportation Analysis STATE OF CALIFORNIA • • PETE WILSON, Governor GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 January 21, 1994 SUSAN PIERCE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 Subject: ND 92-9, CUP 91-57, CDP 92-2 SCH J: 92021070 Dear SUSAN PIERCE: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental r✓OPIQ'� documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Mark Goss at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions a regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. aincerely. - ti ., Michael Chiriatti, Jr. Chief, Sta 3 C1_arirghouse • ALTERNATIVE ACTION • FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-57: 1. The revision to a previously approved conditional use permit in order to allow a 4,400 square foot basement addition to a 13,200 square foot health club use does not constitute a substantial change because it will not be visible from outside the building. The use of property with a 4,400 square foot basement will remain the same. 2. The revision complies with all applicable provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan and Huntington Beach Ordinance Code which allow visitor-serving commercial uses and payment of in-lieu parking fees. Also, use of the basement addition to the previously approved health club is consistent with the uses permitted within District 5 (Mixed Use) of the Downtown Specific Plan. 3. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed tents properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. The basement is incorporated into the previously approved building and does not modify the historic design elements of the exterior. 4. The access to an parking for the proposed basement addition does not create an undue traffic problem. There are sufficient parking spaces existing in the vicinity to serve the two (2) story health club with the basement addition. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- REVISED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-2: i 1. The proposed basement addition to a previously approved health club conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. It is a visitor serving commercial use. 2. Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2 is consistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix, the District 5 (Mixed Use) of the Downtown Specific Plan which allows health clubs subject to conditional use permit approval as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3. At the time of occupancy, the proposed basement addition to the previously approved health club can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan. 4. The proposed basement addition to a previously approved health club conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The health club with basement does not obstruct access to the beach. The health club with basement offers an additional recreational amenity to the Downtown Area. VTT '--'HMENTNO. FINDINGS FOR APPRAL- CONDITIONAL EXCEPTIONAARIANCE) NO. 94-12: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that do not apply generally to other properties or uses in the district. Initial development of the property ocurred in 1991, when grandfathering of the 57 parking spaces was allowed and the applicant demolished the building based upon the original building permit approval. A conditional use permit was approved for the health facility in 1992, that included the grandfathering of 57 spaces. The Planning Commission has approved a parking Master Plan for the downtown area that considers the mix of uses downtown which includes the health club facility and concludes their is adequate parking based upon the parking Master Plan recommendation. . 2. The granting of Conditional Exception(Variance)No. 94-12 for a reduction in 88 required parking spaces to 31 parking spaces is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The previous building did not provide on-site parking. Providing the parking on-site today would prevent the reconstruction of the building of historical architectural design. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception(Variance)No. 94-12 for a reduction in 88 required parking spaces to 31 parking spaces will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, nor injurious to the conforming properties in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission has approved a Parking Master Plan for the Downtown Specific Plan area that indicates that 57 parking spaces are available to service this site and are located within 350 feet as allowed by the Downtown Specific Plan. . 4. The granting of this conditional exception(variance) to the parking requirements will not adversely affect the General Plan nor defeat the general purpose of the Specific Plan which is to provide a variety of commercial and office uses by encouraging pedestrian uses of the commercial facilities and use of public transportation. 5. The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for which the conditional exception (variance) is sought and will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-57/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 94-12: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 29, 1993, and the elevations received and dated February 4, 1994, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall complete the following: a. Submit proof of payment to the Community Development Department of in-lieu parking fees for 31 parking spaces. b. Submit an interim parking and/or building materials storage plan to'the Department of Community Development to assure adequate parking is available for employees, customers, contractors, etc., during the project's construction phase. 3. Prior to issuance of Ce*ate of Occupancy, the applicant shall Rplete the following: a. Submit a Parking Management plan consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department. Said plan shall address parking for members and employees, use of public transportation, hours of operation, and other features that reduce the need for additional parking facilities and reduce the number of vehicle trips to the health club and vicinity. Said plan shall be approved prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 4. All conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57 and Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2 shall be applicable except Condition Nos. 4d and 4f which are no longer required by Public Works. 5. This revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57 and Coastal Development Permit No.. 92-2 shall not become effective for any purpose until an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property and returned to the Planning Division; and until the ten(10) day appeal period has elapsed. (G:VARDOC:KL156) i . .. `, 2 i iJ.J'T HUNTINGTON ATHLETIC CLUB 303 3rd Street Huntington Beach, CA _ - -- PROPOSED PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Utilizing the guidelines of the Downtown Master Parking Plan the following actions would be implemented to leviate parking congestion: 1. Establish a parking permit program with the City's Community Services Department so as to fully utilize the under-used parking spaces on the fourth level of the City's Parking Structure (located directly across the street from the gym.) Parking permits would be required to be purchased or included with each membership. The permit decal could be of a distinctive color to differentiate it from other parking decals. The monitoring of this program would be done jointly by the Athletic Club staff and the City. 2. All Athletic Club staff would be required to park on the fourth level of the parking structure which could also help in monitoring this area. 3. Gym class would be scheduled during non-peak hours of the Downtown area to leviate congestion. 4. Bicycle racks would be installed at the front of the building and members would be encouraged to cycle or walk/jog to the gym. Cycling, walking and jogging would be included as part of the Athletic Club's fitness programs for fitness and to lessen parking. PROPAR '----- ---- ---- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST E st-rr� y q0 0 17,-Wd. 4-o t3A LLM�01-t- eZ-, Wi. c I b SUBJECrAN4 PC Du�;1 4,1," (L)P �o , "Ind if o-P� .= �Z, /;,V,Sj DEPARTMENT: MEETING: NUMBER OF OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS: (PER- Initial) AUTHORIZATION: 021,, ,A,.��'u, Ray Silver Assistant City Administrator PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. County of Orange ) ' I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am _ over the age of eighteen ears and not a PUBLIC.NOTICE' REQUEST:_To avow-ke g g Y w' NdT10E OF '`"_ 4,400 square" foot base- PUBLIC HEARING men' addnion to an ,ap party to or . interested In the below APPEAL OF THE_ proved 13200 squaWfoot, entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of PUINNING club ing for use;as a health P p COMMI-SSION'S 1 ENVIRONMENTAL STA. the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a DENIAk -FREVISED TUS: Covered--by Revised CONDIT?1, NA USE :� Negative -Declaration No. newspaper of general circulation printed PERMITN0.9.157, 92-9 which`will also be r P REVISED COASTAL considered by' Council DEVELOPINENT COASTAL .STATUS The and published in the City of Huntington proposed pro)ectlslocated PERMIT MO.92.2, within a non appealiblei Beach, County of Orange, State of 1 AND REVISED area of the Coastal Zone: (III NEGATIVE ON FILE A'""copyy Fo"f"the. California, and that attached Notice is a DECLARATION proposed request Is;:on-file' " NO.924 1 m"the Community Develop-I ment Department .2000 true_ and complete- :copy as was printed (Basement,addlticn Halo_ Street:XtHuntington' to previously Beach Cailfornla 9264%. and published In the HUntington Beach epproved`health for:lnspect!6&bythe.s'pu6=. club at,303 lie. A copy of the staff re. and Fountain Valley issues of said Third StFeef) port will be available:to In- NOTICE IS HEREBY terested partles at City Hall newspaper to wit the issue(s) of:. GIVEN that the Huntington or, Maln,::City Library Beach City ;Gouncil� will (7111 Talbert.Avenue) after hold a pubi&biring InN -6 June 30,1994. Council Chamber at°-the ALL INTERESTED: PER-: Huntin` ton B'_ 12Clvic SONS are Invited to attend Centerg 2000 M`aln tr-t; said'hearing"and express Huntington Beach,'Califor- 'opinions.or sUbmlt ,to',the, June 23, 1994 j nia, on the date and at the City Clerk written evidence. time Indicated below to re• for or against the appliev calve and. consider the tlon_:as outlined,-above If statements of all persons You''chalfenge. the.-City. who wish to be heard rela- Councils' action In: court,,' tive to:the application de- you maybe limited to.rats- scribed below" Ing,only those issues'you j DATE/TIME Tuesday:July or someone is raised at I declare under penalty of perjury, that 5',994,(700tPMk- the publlorhearing :de: 'APPLICAT,IONE,iNUM6ER scribed in thIs;.notice or in Appeal of `the Planning wrl in correspondence de. the foregoing is true and correct. Commission's denial of Re- livered to the City .at, or Aped Conditional Use Per- prior to,the public hearing. mit No. 91-57, Revised If there'are any further Coastal Development.'Per. 4uestions please call mit No. 92.2, and Revised Susan_zPlerce>-rAssociate June 23 Negative Declaration No Plannersatt(7a14)g536e527-..1 . Executed on , 199 4 989 ConhIC--Brockway, APPLICANT Jeff Bergsma Huntington.Beach City at Costa Mesa, California. APPELLANT:: Council Clerk C ' member Earle Robltaille I _.publlshed,• Huntin ton LOCATION 303P 4%Y-a , i fl Beach FounYaln`Valle In Street, �dependehtiCne"231 Y` , ZONE Downtown Specific '1994 Plan District 5(Mixed Use �p y 064-718� Commerclal/Office,/'Resl dential) aw.) Signature i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-57, REVISED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-2, AND REVISED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-9 (Basement addition to previously approved health club at 303 Third Street) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIM[E: Tuesday, July 5, 1994, 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57, Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2, and Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9 APPLICANT: Jeff Bergsma APPELLANT: Councilmember Earle Robitaille LOCATION: 303 Third Street ZONE: Downtown Specific Plan, District 5 (Mixed Use: Commercial/Office/Residential) REQUEST: To allow a 4,400 square foot basement addition to an approved 13,200 square foot building for use as a health club ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9 whi ch wi 11 al so be considered by Council COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue) after June 30, 1994. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit to the City Clerk written evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you GA1ega1\\cup91-57r I' challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to.raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call Susan Pierce, Associate Planner, at (714) 536-5271. Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk GA1ega1\\cup91-57r M e . tk - G�^ r .,� Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk + ,�r t P.O. BOX 190 g` ,E hr Huntington Beach,CA 92648 r xi�,.P�, 4� �!� � x�4 ♦w Ya -F ,� i 1 I ' 't k ' 1 • NGTpy 024 144 04 11 z ' _ _ F9s United States Of America � No Address No Address �,¢��r C�• a n 1999.♦ \` NTI pp� gyp` 4�. LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING r�>rntr /3 �- 0 • �'° CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION �JQ^ � HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk �) FROM: Earle Robitaille, City Council Member /vim DATE: May 13, 1994 r SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON CUP#91-57 REVISED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT# 92-2,AND REVISED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92-9 Under my name on the next Council Agenda please place my appeal to the Planning Commission's May 3, 1994 decision on the above referenced matter. This appeal only concerns the actions on the Conditional Use Permit #91-57 which seeks an amendment to previously approved plans to add a basement swimming pool. The findings for denial are not actual facts. They are contradicted by the prior approvals of the Planning Commission. They are not supported by the staff reports presented at the hearing and are largely neither relevant nor appropriate items to be considered. Finally, the findings that a proposed Parking Master Plan has not yet been approved and that there has been no site selected for construction of additional off street parking facilities have no bearing on the development of this specific parcel. ER:paj xc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mike Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Pat Dapkus, Management Assistant 1 i Approved by City Administration COVER SHEET FOR CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS N/A YES NO a (� Has the City Administrator's Office authorized the public hearing to be set? (Attach Asst.City Administrator's approval slip) Is day of public hearing correct-Monday/Tuesday? Does Heading of Notice Reflect City Council Hearing (Not PC) If appeal, is appellanfs name shown on legal notice? ! ( ) ( ) If the project includes residential use,is "legal challenge paragraph" included? ( ) (xj ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, has the Master Legal Notice Document been used. Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? (Y) Is Title Company verification letter attached? ( ) ( ( ) Were the latest Assessor's Parcel Rolls used? Are the appellant/applicant's names and addresses on mailing labels? ( ) ( ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, are the RESIDENT labels attached and is the Coastal Commission Office on the labels? For Public Hearings at the City Council level,-please insert the below paragraph of the public hearing notice "ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit to the City Clerk written evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions,please call (insert name of Planner) at 536-5271 CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET-2ND FLOOR HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5227 PUBHER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-57, REVISED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-2, AND REVISED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-9 (Basement addition to previously approved health club at 303 Third Street) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIM[E: Tuesday, July 5, 1994, 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57, Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2, and Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9 APPLICANT: Jeff Bergsma APPELLANT: Councilmember Earle Robitaille LOCATION: 303 Third Street ZONE: Downtown Specific Plan, District 5 (Mixed Use: Commercial/Office/Residential) REQUEST: To allow a 4,400 square foot basement addition to an approved 13,200 square foot building for use as a health club ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9 whi ch wi 11. al so be considered by Council COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue) after June 30, 1994. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit to the City Clerk written evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you GA1ega1\\cup91-57r challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing describbd in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call Susan Pierce, Associate Planner, at (714) 536-5271. Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk I I GA1ega1\\cup91-57r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-57, REVISED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-2, AND REVISED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-9 (Basement addition to previously approved health club at 303 Third Street) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Tuesday, July 5, 1994, 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57, Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2, and Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9 APPLICANT: Jeff Bergsma APPELLANT: Councilmember Earle Robitaille LOCATION: 303 Third Street ZONE: Downtown Specific Plan, District 5 (Mixed Use: Commercial/Office/Residential) REQUEST: To allow a 4,400 square foot basement addition to an approved 13,200 square foot building for use as a health club . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9 whi ch wi 11 al so be considered by Council COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue) after June 30, 1994. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit to the City Clerk written evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you .,,Sew \ GA1ega1\\cup91-57rblk-1 C P� ) / • challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call Susan Pierce, Associate Planner, at (714) 536-5271. Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk G:\legal\\cup91-57r _rnd Alit F NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-57, REVISED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-2, AND REVISED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-9 (Basement addition to previously approved health club at 303 Third Street) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TENAE: Tuesday, July 5, 1994, 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57, Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2, and Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9 APPLICANT: Jeff Bergsma APPELLANT: Councilmember Earle Robitaille LOCATION: 303 Third Street ZONE: Downtown Specific Plan, District 5 (Mixed Use: Commercial/Off ce/Residential) REQUEST: To allow a 4,400 square foot basement addition to an approved 13,200 square foot building for use as a health club . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9 which will also be considered by Council COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue) after June 30, 1994. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit fto the City Clerk written evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you G:\1ega1\\cup91-57r tiV�' } challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence _ delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call Susan Pierce, Associate Planner, at (714) 536-5271. Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk 't GA1ega1\\cup91-57r _ /a 3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-57, REVISED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-2, AND REVISED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-9 (Basement addition to previously approved health club at 303 Third Street) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIlVIE: Tuesday, July 5, 1994, 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 91-57, Revised Coastal Development Permit No. 92-2, and Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9 APPLICANT: Jeff Bergsma APPELLANT: Councilmember Earle Robitaille LOCATION: 303 Third Street ZONE: Downtown Specific Plan, District 5 (Mixed Use: Commercial/Office/Residential) REQUEST: To allow a 4,400 square foot basement addition to an approved 13,200 square foot building for use as a health club . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Revised Negative Declaration No. 92-9 which will also be considered by Council COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue) after June 30, 1994. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit to the City Clerk written evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you r J G:Vega1\\cup91-57r challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call Susan Pierce, Associate Planner, at (714) 536-5271. Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk G:1ega1\\cup91-57r 06-28-1994 09:40AII FROM TH-Pri TO 5365233 P.01 7 E. (11Y ;t-LERK df=G�k�Elj �,l CONSTRUCTION t "i-. JUN k8 53 Ali '94 TO: City Of Huntington Beach DATE: 6/28/94 City Clerk PROJECT: 303 3rd St. ATTN: Pat PHONE: 536-5579 #OF PAGES FAX#: 536-5233 INC. COVER: DESCRIPTION/MESSAGE: As the Applicant for C.U.P. Amendment 91-57, 1 request the City Council to continue the Appeal Hearing scheduled for July 5, 1994 until the appealate, Councilman Earl Robitaille is present for the hearing. SENT FOR YOUR: ( ) APPROVAL ( ) INFORMATION ( X ) RECORD ( ] USE ( ) REVIEW AND COMMENT ( ) QUOTE COPY TO: SENT BY: Jeff Bergsma 1 - 6 221 MAIN STREET, SUITE H HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 PHONE (714)969-8326 FAX (714) 960-3350 TOTAL P.01 06-28-1994 09:40AM FROM TEAM TO 5365233 P.01 • • clfY GLux CONSTRUCTION R� S , ITT � - TO: City of Huntington Beach DATE: 6/28/94 City Clerk PROJECT: 303 3rd St. 'ATTN: Pat PHONE: 536-579 #OF PAGES FAX#: 536.5233 INC.COVER: DESCRIPTION/MESSAGE: As the Applicant for C.U.P. Amendment 91-67, 1 request the City Council to continue the Appeal Hearing scheduled for July 5, 1994 until the appealate, Councilman Earl Robitaille is present for the hearing. SENT FOR YOUR: ( ) APPROVAL ( } INFORMATION ( X ) RECORD ( ) USE ( ) REVIEW AND COMMENT ( ) QUOTE COPY TO: SENT BY: Jeff Bergsma f 221 MAIN STREET, SUITE H HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 PHONE (714)969-8326 FAX (714) 960-3350 TOTAL P.01 i CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP LIST T ATTAC=--:D LIST REPRESENTS TEE N -S AND ADDeL_-SSES OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED V—ZTEIN 300 FEET OF THE EXT E ZOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LOC-FTED T s TEIS INFORM TIOK W&S OBTAINED FROM. THE LATEST ORANGE COIINTY ASSESSKMEENT ROLLS. Susan W. Case 917 Glenneyre St#7 Laguna Beach CA 92651 714 494 6105 024 164 09•� 31 ✓ 024164 10 32 ✓ 024 164 11 33 Southwest Air Balance Corp Carmel Ling Henry Dellano 322 3rd St 5401 Mesagrove Ave 8412 Country Club Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Whittier CA 90601 Buena Park CA 90621 02416413 34 02416414 35 02416415 36 Resorts Beach Resorts Beach '� Beach Resorts Inc 222 5th St 222 5th St 222 5th St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024164 16 " 37' 024165 02 38 ✓ 024165 03 39 Beach Resorts Inc Charles E Cather Steven Jay Felli 222 5th St 2292 N Long Beach Blvd 215 2nd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Long.Beach CA 90806 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 165 07 40 ✓ 024165 08 41 024 165 09 42 Joyce M Derigo Robert R Allen Charles A Derigo 211 Olive Ave Po Box 610 222 3rd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 165 10 43 ,/ 024 165 11 44 / 024 165 12 45 t j Steven Jay Felli Steven Jay Felli Ronald Hsueh 1877 Nueva Vista Dr 1877 Nueva Vista Dr 7111 Stonewood Dr La Habra Heights CA 90631 La Habra Heights CA 90631 / Huntington Beach CA 92647 ✓ot 02416521 46 024 165 23 . 47 024 165 25 48 Dewey Davide Robert B Goodrich o.8 S Joseph J Weiser Po Box F P 31v 221 2nd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 165 26 49 024 165 27 50 937 192 32 51 Richard A Hyman Marc D Richonne Redevelopment Agency City Of H 223 2nd St 225 2nd St Po Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Jed'-� [3�r9sma Gowv�; lw�a.n Rdot+o:1k 937 192 33 52 4 a 5«�b6,Ea vlc i� Robert J Koury 2 2� Ma:�� 5�'. � Q zb►�-8 Po Box 65176 u� rg10h Tb caa GA g Z6 q 9 Los Angeles CA 90065 i 024 143 08 1 024143 09 2 024143 10 3 Redevelopment Agency Of The Ci Redevelopment Agency Of The Ci Huntington Beach Redevelopment 2000 Main St 2000 Main St 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 143 11 4 024 143 12 5 024 143 23 6 Redevelopment Agency Of The Q/ -James E Koller Redevelopment Agency Of The Ci 2000 Main St ✓ 16001 Ballantine Ln 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 143 24 -- 7 024 144 01 8 024 144 02 9 Redevelopment Agency Of The Ci / John I Parnakian ✓ Robert D Bolen ;✓ 2000 Main St ✓ 205 1st St 1818 Pine St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 144 03 10 024 144 04 11 024 144 10 12 Robert D Bolen United States Of America John I Parnakian 1818 Pine St No Address 205 1st St Huntington Beach CA 92648 No Address ; Huntington Beach CA 92648 02414411 13 J 02414412 14 �� 02414413 15 Leon Dubov Marcus M McCallen 20222 Deervale Ln egrap (.Apra r 22818 Costa Bella Dr Huntington Beach CA 92646 El Toro CA 92630 S,,"Fra,g".o;Ud qI of . 024 144 14 16 02414710 17 024 147 11 18 - R4eh'a*��*�� Y, )4,�r awn. `am Trainer ? Ben A Trainer es er ie A�7AI 6?,-0'r5e1 L,,,2364 3rd St 2364 3rd St R - 70' '/9 San Francisco CA 94107 San Francisco CA 94107 024 147 14 19 024 147 15 20 024 147 31 21 Douglas M S Langevin ✓ Thomas R Wurzl ✓ City Of Huntington Beach 8196 Pawtucket Dr 5199 E Pacific Coast Hwy Po Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Long Beach CA 90804 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 147 32 � 22 024 164 01 23 ✓ 024 164 02 24 en Adam Trainer �� Hayward C Johnson Jr. Craig Starbuck Atkins III V 2364 3rd St 2236 Vista Grande Dr 321 2nd St San Francisco CA 94107 Vista CA 92084 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 164 03 25 024 164 04 26 024164 05 27 „ / Satenig Deundian Donald M Perry Martha Elizabeth White 0 317 2nd St 313 2nd St 309 2nd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 164 06 28 024 164 07 29 0 024 164 08 30 G P Building Enterprises Inc Dennis Niccole U / 17032 Palmdale St#C 400 3rd St 205 ,_t St �II9 je lae Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntingtn Bch CA 92648 ��yrs Q.2648— i 024.144 03 10 ° 024144 03 10 024 144 04 5 �1 Occupan Occup u IZr 8 P ' t � ' � 316 m St 316 rve Ave ntington Beach CA 9 648 Wntington Beach CA 92648 ntington Beach CA 92648 �024 144 12 14 `! 02414414 02414414 16 ei''T�'"�'`� Occupant OccupantIm , 3 a31 3"d 315-e d St 315-a 3rd st tington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 144 14�16 024 144 14 16 024 144 14 16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 315-b 3rd St 315-c 3rd St 315-d 3rd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 144 14 16 02414414 16 024 144 14 16 Occupant Occupant. Occupant 315-f 3rd st 315-f 3rd St 315-g 3rd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 144 14 16 024 14414 16 024 144 14 16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 315-h 3rd St 315-i 3rd St 315,j 3rd st .Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 144 14 16 024144 14 16 024 144 14 16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 315-k 3rd St 315-13rd St 315-m 3rd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 1 024144 14 16 024164 05.27 024 164 06 28 5 e-171e Occupant k.9, r t r r r \ {� �o P 315-n 3rd St nd-3t— _30� Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hnntirrgten43eaeb-C-A-92648 < untington Beach CA 92648 CO244165._07i--40'' 024 165 07 40 024 165 07 40 Occupant 7 rz) Occupant Occupant 222 3rd St#a 222-C 3rd St 222-B 3rd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 Occupant P I1 '- ' Occupant Occupant 200-101 Main St N 200-103 Main St 200-104 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 192 32,33 51,52 937192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 Occupant Occupant Occupant 200-105 Main St 200-106 Main St 200-107 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 Occupant Occupant i Occupant 200-102 Main St 200-108 Main St 200-109 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 Occupant Occupant Occupant 200-115 Main St 200-117 Main St 200-200 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 193 32,33 51,52 Occupant Occupant Occupant 200-206 Main St 200-204 Main St 200-103 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 i 024 143 08 1 024 143 09 2 024 143 10 3 Redevelopment Agency Of The Ci Redevelopment Agency Of The Ci Huntington'Beach Redevelopment 2000 Main St 2000 Main St 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 f 024 143 11 4 024 143 12 5 024 143 23 6 Redevelopment Agency Of The Ci James E Koller j Redevelopment Agency Of The Ci 2000 Main St 16001 Ballantine Ln 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 143 24 7 02414401 8 024 144 02 9 Redevelopment Agency Of The Ci John I Parnakian I Robert D Bolen 2000 Main St 205 1st St 1818 Pine St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024144 03 10 024 144 04 11 024 144 10 12 Robert D Bolen United States Of America John I Parnakian 1818 Pine St No Address 205 lst St Huntington Beach CA 92648 No Address ; Huntington Beach CA 92648 024144 11 13 0241 4412 14 024 144 13 15 Leon Dubov Gold Coast Exchange Inc Marcus M McCallen 20222 Deervale Ln 3140 Telegraph Rd 22818 Costa Bella Dr Huntington Beach CA 92646 Ventura CA 93003 El Toro CA 92630 024 144 14 16 024 147 10 17 024147 11 18 Richard Marcz Ben Adam Trainer Ben A Trainer 8 Chesterfield Rd 2364 3rd St 2364 3rd St Rolling Hills CA 90274 San Francisco CA 94107 San Francisco CA 94107 024 147 14 19 024147 15 20 024 147 31 21 Douglas M S Langevin Thomas R Wurzl City Of Huntington Beach 8196 Pawtucket Dr 5199 E Pacific Coast Hwy Po Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Long Beach CA 90804 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024147 32 22 024 164 01 23 024 164 02 24 Ben Adam Trainer Hayward C Johnson Jr. Craig Starbuck Atkins III 2364 3rd St 2236 Vista Grande Dr 321 2nd St San Francisco CA 94107 Vista CA 92084 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 164 03 25 024 164 04 26 024164 05 27 Satenig Deundian Donald M Perry Martha Elizabeth White 317 2nd St 313 2nd St 309 2nd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024164 06 28 024164 07 29 024164 08 30 G P Building Enterprises Inc Dennis Niccole John I Parnakian 17032 Palmdale St#C 400 3rd St 205 1st St Huntington Beach CA 9 2647 Huntingtn Bch CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024 164 09 31 024 1'64 10 32 024 164 11 33 Southwest Air Balance Corp .Carmel Ling Henry Dellano 322 3rd St 5401 Mesagrove Ave 8412 Country Club Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Whittier CA 90601 . Buena Park CA 90621 02416413 34 02416414 35 02416415 36 Resorts Beach Resorts Beach Beach Resorts Inc 222 5th St 222 5th St 222 5th St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 1 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024164 16 37 024165 02 38 ':. 024165 03 39 Beach Resorts Inc Charles E Cather Steven Jay.Felli 222 5th St 2292 N Long Beach Blvd + 215 2nd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Long Beach CA 90806 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024165 07 40 024 165 08 41 ' 024 165 09 42 Joyce M Derigo Robert R Allen i Charles A Derigo 211 Olive Ave Po Box 610 222 3rd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 i Huntington Beach CA 92648 02416510 43 02416511 44 02416512 45 Steven Jay Felli Steven Jay Felli ! Ronald Hsueh 1877 Nueva Vista Dr 1877 Nueva Vista Dr 7111.Stonewood Dr La Habra Heights CA 90631 La Habra Heights CA 90631 Huntington Beach CA 92647 024165 21 46 024 165 23 47 ! 024 165 25 48 Dewey Davide Robert B Goodrich Joseph J Weiser Po Box F 900 Pacific Coast Hwy#2 221 2nd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024165 26 49 024 165 27 50 937 192 32 51 Richard A Hyman Marc D Richonne Redevelopment Agency City Of H 223 2nd St 225 2nd St Po Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Je�'-� [3�r9smA Gou�n�.lv�na.� 1:a..Ylc 7�olot+o:lk - -93719233 52 22I Ma:%v) 5+. Robert J Koury u u1J�Y% {pA T5, a&CA , GA I L(a` g, Po Box 65176 3 Los Angeles CA 90065 �.. 16V 024 144 03 10 024144 03 10 024 144 04 11 Occupant Occupant Occupant 316-a Main St 316 Main St 316 Olive Ave Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 1 02414412 14 02414414 16 02414414 16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 303 3rd St 315-e 3rd St 315-a 3rd st Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 ' Huntington Beach CA 92648 024144 14 16 024-14414 16 02414414 16 Occupant I Occupant Occupant 315-b 3rd St 315-c 3rd St 315-d 3rd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 i 024 144 14 16 02414414 16 024 144 14 16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 315-f 3rd st 315-f 3rd St 315-g 3rd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 02414414 16 02414414 16 02414414 16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 315-h 3rd St 315-i 3rd St 315 j 3rd st Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 I Huntington Beach CA 92648 024144 14 16 02414414 16 I 024 144 14 16 Occupant Occupant i Occupant 315-k 3rd St 315-13rd St 315-m 3rd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024144 14 16 024164 05 27 024164 06 28 Occupant Occupant Occupant 315-n 3rd St 309 2nd St 305 2nd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024165 07 40 024165 07 40 024165 07 40 Occupant Occupant Occupant 222 3rd St#a 222-C 3rd St 222-B 3rd St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 Occupant Occupant Occupant 200-101 Main St 200-103 Main St 200-104 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 Occupant Occupant Occupant 200-105 Main St 200-106 Main St 200-107 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 I. Connie Brockway,City Clerk - City of Huntington Beach P M/... Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 ' ' Huntington Beach,CA 92648 i A'" i c," 1 i �HTINGTp California Coastal Commis `r y South District Office sion • _ _: dF W.W 245 `Q_`MCO0.POR4IFp` 9�, . �7 Broadway No. 380 C-j . - _ y Long Beach,CA Wo F '09.PO QUNTY LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING ON K NOWl It ,,,, 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 Occupant Occupant Occupant 200-102 Main St i 200-108 Main St 200-109 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 j Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 i 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 Occupant Occupant Occupant 200-115 Main St 200-117 Main St 200-200 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 192 32,33 51,52 937 193 32,33 51,52 Occupant i Occupant Occupant 200-206 Main St 200-204 Main St 200-103 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 I Huntington Beach CA 92648 i I I ! { i r 03-15-1994 03:41P11 FROM 7-HAM TO 3741540 P,01 CONSTRUCTION TRANSMITTAL TO: City of Huntington Beach DATE: 8/15/94 PROJECT: 303 3rd Street ATTN: Susan Pierce PHONE: #OF PAGES FAX M 374-1540 INC. COVER: 1 DESCRIPTION/MESSAGE: We are still waiting for the court's decision regarding the base building and therefore m request a continuation of the appeal hearing until the council meeting of September 19, 1994. SENT FOR YOUR: ( ) APPROVAL ( ) INFORMATION j X ) RECORD ( ) USE ( ) REVIEW AND COMMENT { ) QUOTE COPY TO: SENT BY: Jeff Bergsma 221 MAIN STREET, SUITE H HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 PHONE '(714)969-8326 FAX (714)960-33S0 Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 ' JUN 23 •94 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ,�:.. zt �% ''S' ; � 1' t o ✓ e.'J tip 71risu.°`4:1@1lj; t`,';� �',�i. "li q:..',a•, _.._.-- v �J 024 147 15 20 o��pNtINGTpy� somas R 'urzl _ Fqy 5 E Pacific Coast Hwy �, Long ach CA 90804 • Q � a cOGNTY ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING : 9rr ...... ,i Connie Brockway,City Clerk ..\ City of Huntington Beach v.. , ..-._..•..,:w,,: .,,:u:`,..,...�.,.-^-. :.•. .� r. <� - t r 4.c. Office of the City Clerk r W P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 :•c'.,.Jt r.,7!o,f'F�.��� l'r'1[•;�{� C 1�� •i � t: � r r 024 164 13 34 02416414 35 I 02416415 36 I NGTp�, o`� =NCORPORq�Fo BF 024164 16 37 Beach Resorts Inc _ 222 5th St a rLg1'. Huntington Beach CA 926¢$ �O .. 4R0 FcOpNTY CPS\ Ep car LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARINGj { S .. r n❑ ��ElnrElE{E�{Erttul�Erlrrrr�l{ )rlrrlln)ErIEIEEEE)!:n�l)rrlrulr)Erit))EIEEI Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach . �.•••t — ti :�� r--ti .r. :Yr v. .:�''•.°• •ram,^•:,:.,:•�:'..''l'. .�.,. .�"s:kt"}. Office of the City Clerkrj'.{,� t. i,.. _ _ :.; _ ��r•� t�` �: �. : `j�ti:..... P.O. Box 190 z uJ�B ;j JJI`li.J'�4 • .1 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 t tt aw a �1 3 A 024165 07 40 SONG yJoyce M Derigo Q� `M�ORPORglF BF 211 Olive Ave Huntington Bea#-T- I"" n1le "" -.- uER1211 926481014 1593 QE3r'0 f`4 FORT EXPIRED TIME EXPIRE • —� DERIGGt TO i!E M Pa SOX 232E ',�ItJDF©INT IQ 838b�t—Q8Es3 F cpUN . RETURN TO. SENDER LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING "' lilt 11n1,114111$u1 Ills Atilt fill„tiltI III,u111„III I Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk ,. P.O. Box 190 ;.,.r..s�.I,-a Jai!23 r I ,�.: ; ,, '•• Huntington Beach,CA 92648 G ` Attempted Unknown No Such Number Insufficient Address �pNTINGTpy 024 144 12 14 Forwarding Order Expired Cl - — [ , Occupant Vacant , 303 3rd St F o::i I ,) Date Huntington Beach CA 92648 Carrier Int ---� 9/� A FCUUNTY ���\\ LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING i } } } {y I i j j till" !I1111III IIII1111111111ItI II sit I I III I I III I I iE Ill li l I l!1III 11 I4 . A'D Connie Brockway,City Clerk ;j" City of Huntington Beach _ .r _•-,..,•:•� -.,.. :.:.:: °r J� ? ;wr,; «, Office of the City Clerk 1- t`,t' `141 _� _°. =-�`:rz'-` y�'` " •�` ;_. •;,� ::, .�...F4, ` r. P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92648 is _... 024164 03 25 INGr Satenig Deundian =NGORPORq rf �FA 317 2nd St Huntington Beach C.' DEUN317 92b481��14 lb93 FORWARDING TIME EXPIRED DEUNDIAN 205 . 1_T _T Es 1l,1999•~ o HUhlT�:t�I*TQN BEACH EA 92b48—S303 RETURN TQ SENDER .' �ouNtr ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 1.. q,V 1 .: 1