Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Conditional use permit 75-61 - Business Properties - To perm
"dav t , of P cation C_. oing;on heatch quhar, being duly sworn on oath, soya: That he tz a cititer, United States, over the age of twenty-one years. at he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach �t�Th News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and p,ib- ' llshed in Huntiugtori Beach, California and circulated in the &-id County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the disseminati m of local and other Mews of a general character, and has n bonn fide tt'lr subscription Iist of paying subscribers, and said paper has been Pttabllshed, printed and published In the Stnte of California, find County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication of the first insertlon of this notice; and the said newspaper is not de%-oted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any particular c!nss, profession, tnide, calling, race or denominntion, or any number thereof, put+►rhea Huntington 9re4y Jic:vo, Jan. The Huntington Beach New «•as ndjudicated a legal ne%vspaper 1976• of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scot,•el In the Superior Court NOTICE C PUBLIC mrf .almv . of Orange County. California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931, Appeol.to 04rtiei ct Use Aerrnil 7341 PiDTICE IS HEREBY 4IVE: that is pubs A��'EJ� . �� 1Jg � � T ._7�_ . l ICvjcil of thselil be Ply of hu�Ln/rt�by nlco That Lie In 'the CounrX' Chamber 0 tlw_;CIvla Canter, Huntiriston Beach, at btu"INsat _ of 'c00 h.M., o: as'soot •thrreadtit es of which the atmexed is a printed copy, was published ir_ Bain news- v'aliole, on Monday, the Oth d�ryr 1 January, 197G, .for tho purpum of',U*# siVolinP art asppaet to' the thrllW of Jsa P,.cmit No. 7"1 by IN floni int paper at least ."1�--1 fl.�-!�t'� ----_ -----_._--•._—_— 1 Comcnlssnia,to'11I0w the.constrklle" of a 1221E tw •!q, rt '0"Pine •.certfai �r tuant to Section 91TI cf teh Huntlaaoii commencing from the __._tW1_._ day of Beach ONinsnce two. -the subject tip. potty is ganerallr loestitd ern the sa��tfw �T� east cwner of Adorns•Av*nu* and otooB ��b and on the crer . Pia of --+_+ _IZt RZ'. .. _. __ hartt Streat In !ha C4' Highwsy'.Gc+rtt.. 19_...�.., an ding Y menial UtstzkL A local Onaipthm iw on file in the F4.irl ins poWtmi►nt`.of tic:» 1912_6 - both days inclusive, and as often during said period and All ItAtreeted parvana ere Ittviled.lp times of publication as :arid paper -Ams regularly issued, and in the a►lond :aid hewing at►d rsaraeu ,tfatir, i regular and entire Issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a opinfons to:- i strinst uaW urw,?W"q, supplement, anti :aid notice was published therein on the following rud++er. InforAjoth ttisy bo;r.ft eit i dates, to-wit: ,hum :he Office of the V;y CWc • VATM 12.24.73 1 iLuly or Ht1Il1•1110TON Bt'1 M Jan_ 8,_�2_b_ �._ 8Yjj i Akio M. wentwtrrth., �. Cl(y GiNrk IL PubIb;hrr Subscribed and sworn to before me this t _.._._ day of Jenu�ry 192.�. ._ / - 1�..�.:: •�- �; c Notary Public Orange Cm nty, California ti , !�f7 1.4 Publish Pos tc arch < � NOT IC E ay ,MILJC HEARING Appeal Use Permit 75•-61 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the . City Council of the City of Huntingtcm ?:tech, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:0,0 P .M. , or " soon thereafter as possible , on � londi ►, the I9th day of Januza 19 76,, for the purpose of condi. @Ving an appeal to the of Use Permit No. 75-6). by the - _.�rw atenAts to allow the construction of a 125 ,000 a-4. ft. shopping center pursuant to Section 9472 of the Kuntinmtan Beach Ordinance Code. The subject property 15 generally- located an the southenot corner of . dams Avenue and Brook- burst Street in the C4 Highway Commercial t)istrict. A legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office. I All intereated perso.s are invited to attend said hearing and axpress their opinions for or against said Use Permit further infonotion sty bw obtained from the Office, of the City Clark . DA?lil- 12/24/75 CITY OF RUM N ElCN I BY : ,Alicia M. Wentworth City Clark s 1 . 1 � 1 .�` 5737 Hurrough• �.., 4ww.rrr,w .. •' USE BALL POINT PEN ONLY -PRESS FIRMLY CASH RECEIPT • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. BOX 711 HUNTINOTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92048 1714I 818.5511 CITY TRE&SURF_R - WARREN O. HALL i �• DEFT. ISSUING DATE nECEIVCp F40%1 _ ''�; FOR vu A161OUNT RECEIVED Q_ CASH O CHECK �-=.� :S U n 7" RFCEIVEDBY_ ACCOUNT ! '_ CMVUNT .w -- TOTAL NO. 039515 CUSTOMER ��,`� i BUSINESS PIipPER'nF.S } (aj[gKAAI.AC•COWNT 4 fir;' 17P140 XXV J'AR[ULTi1. 070-0eon rmxa cAlu. 02107 7 5 ! > �cember 22, IS1____ ., r �u>�i>vEes. C5 Dot s crs PROPERTIES- 1?ot.t vix S ;5.00-7 _.. .. �,' t PAY ; r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WDER Huntington Beach, Calif. I :t4 Union Bank _ ..... r wC),_TACM . o �ZT1AIN TMIIS ST TEu[M., .mn[.ciur. - oElc. .rlo•. �' OAT[ i 12-22-75 Brookhurst and Adams Appeal Fee I P-38 �5 I i YC � �`W 5 �� T ' Ge. �q , �• _ ,� sty' � 4 s r ' . Number 10 Excerpt 205_._._ 5 Publish Onca LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING USE PER141T NO . 75--61 - APPEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY i91YFN that i public hearing wi i i l)v held by the City Planning Commission of , he City of Fluntingtotl Beach , California , for the purptse of considering_ an appeal to the approval of Use Permit No . 75--61 by the Boi-iid of Zoning Adjustments to allow the construction of a 125 , 000 sq . ft . shopping center pursuant to Section 9472 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . The subject property is generally located on the southeast corner of Acl£.mr. ,Avenue and Brookhurst Street in the C4 Highway Commercial District. A legal de*cription is on file in the Planning Department Office . Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7 :00 P .M. , on December 16 , 1975 , in the Council Chamber Building of the Civic Center , 2000 Main Str, et , Huntington Beach , California . All interested persons are invited to attend said gearing and express their opinions for or against the proposed Use Permit No . 75-•61 Further information may be obtained from the City Planning Department . Telepho-Ae No . (714) 536- 5271 DATED this 4th day of Decembr , 1975 . CITY PLANNING COMMISSION +,4 xy Richard A. Harlow Secretary I 1 I 155-193--28 151-461-24 151--271-23 Da-,id Firooz Shell Oil Co. F.r.�ln C Biesinger Jr P .O. Box 1132 Property Tax Division .. =l ,gntington Beach, Calif n O, Box 3397 1 0202 Running Sp.inSa Ln • Huntington Beach, Calif Los Angeles , Calii 90051 92046 155-193-29 151-461-25 151-•271-34 Richard F . Wells Pacific Southwest Realty De: mnr Roghair 10101 Jon Day Drive Attn : F .T Klein #130 20212 stunning Springs La Huntington Beach , Calif 3.13 S Hope St 911-12-2 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 Los Angeles , Ca. 90017 9264r, 155-193-30 151-461-26 151-271-35 T s H I.00re A-M Pronerties rn..- Oscar ... Campbell 1 91 Jon Day Drive 2500 , larf.ield 20222 Ii,_lpning Springs Ln II . tington Beach, Calif City of Commerce, Calif Iiunting�,n Beach , Calif 11 9 0-6 90012 92646 153t• .193-31 151-271-26 151-272-15 Thomas V Staley Richard I. Anderson Michael A Patti 1 0'on Clay Drive 9941 Kings Cyn Dr 990 -sings Cyn Dr II ngton Beach , Calif Ifuntinatan roach . Calif Huntington Beach , Calif '9 52646 92646 1 93-3? 151-271-•27 Te ,l Steinbery Vernon '1 Tiradrj 151-272-16 Manuel W. Sgerkel 10071 Jon Day Dri.Vt 9951 Kinr;.3 Cyn Or 9952 Kingn Cyn Drive H ngton Beach , Calif Huntington Beach , calif funtington Deach , Cali f 9 92646 92646 1F05l 93-33 151-271-28 151-.72•-17 L Peek 2nd Gary If 'tanul.kin Mike Bevilacqua L Jon Day Drive 9961 Kinds Cyn T;r 9951 Mammoth Drive Huntington Beach , Calif Huntington Deach , Coil if h;untington Heach, Calif TV 92646 92646 AILA 1 193-34 151--271-29 151-272r-18 Do Id j Dunne James If Mc Mahon John A Turk 10 1 Jon Day Drive 9971 Kings Cyn Dr. 9941 Mammoth Drive Hu ington Beach , Calif `.;untington Brach , Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 155-153-35 151-271--30 151--276902 C iry Mc J11ton Daniel 7wickler George 3 Lundergan 10031 Jon Day Drive 20162 Running Springs Ln 20221 Running Springs Ln Huntington Beach , Calif Ifuntinaton Beach , Calif Huntington Beach , Calif 92646 92646 926/46 15:•-1,93-36 151--271-•31 Robert C. Rice Cary Futura 10011 Jon Day Drive 20172. Running Springs Lane Huntington Reach, Calif Huntington ueAch , Call f 92646 92646 151-461-23 151-271-32 Huntington BeacIl Jahn F Dug an Holding Corp 00192 Runrninrt Springs Ln 12500 V . Slaunon Avenue !1untington 00ACh , CIl i f GAnta Te SpringstCa 2264Ei r r � 155-191-Z1 155-193-07 155-193-17 Lynn L Bicket Juhn O. Barry Carl F Christensen 10151 Meredith Drive 10092 Meredith Drive 10212 %oredith Drive Huntir..gton Baacii, Calif Huntington Bea^-h , Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 155-191-23 155-193•-08 155-193-18 Ronald R . Morello Kenneth R. Thompson Robert W. Whitcher 10161 Meredith Drive 141 14". Taft Avenue 10222 Meredith Drive Huntington Beach , C:a.lif Orange , Calif tijj.,jtington Beach.. Calif 92646 92665 92646 15 -191--24 155-193--09 1,55-1,93-19 St'oxar Spiro J tiaris iahtjnis R. Mc Cracken 1 1 Lawson Lanz 10112 ,•taredith Drive 10" .1 Ton Day Drive ntington Beach , Calif Huntington Beach, Calif I�ujji..t.jj lton Beach, Calif 6 92646 92 646 1 -191-25 155-193-10 155-M-20 Ted A Jipson David V'. Sto-te Craici g O*a 01 1 Lawson Lane 10122 Meredith Drive 10201 Jon Day Drive ington Beach , Calif Huntington Beach, Calif. Huntington Beach , Calif R. 6 92646 92646 i 193-01 155-193--11 155-193-22 W lfam A Naylon frank 11 Randazzo Clyde R. Ballard 10012 Meredith Drive 10132 Meredith Drive 10181. Jon Day Drive r-ank ington Beach , Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach , Calif 6 92646 92646 193-02 155-193�-12 155-193-23 I L Nwards Charles Ailey Jr Lionel W. Irwin 2 Meredith Drive 10142 Meredith Drive 10171 John Day Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Reach , Calif Huntington Bench, Calif Vt66 92646 92646193-03 155-1.93-1.3 155--193-24 ent J De Rocco Harry L Lipset Roger N Baker 2 Meredith Drive 10152 Meredith Drive 10151gt. on Day Drive incn Beach, Calif Huntington Beach , CalifCali£ Huntington Brach, Calif j` 92646 92646 9264E 15.5-193-04 155-19 3-14 155-19 3-?5 RI chard G Mueller David S Bard John R c,era 10052 Meredith Drive 10162 Meredith Drive 10141 Jon Day Drive Huntington Reach, Calif Huntington Reach , Calif. Huntington beach, Calif 92646 92646 92546 15S-1a�-05 155-198-12 155--193-26 George Abbascia Sidney Spinak James H Whites 10072 Meredith Drive 101.72 Meredith Drive 10131 Jon Day Drive Huntington beach, Calif Huntington Beach # Cal.ifi Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646; 92*646 155-193-06 155-193-16 Clarence S . Clark Richard J :iheel+ar Joh S Powell Jr. 10121 Jon bray Drive 10082 Meredith Drive 10202 Meredith Drive Huntington Beach , Calif! Huntington Beach , Calif Huntington Beach , Calif 92646 92646 9:f,46 5"- 7 .r. r t I 135-"172--04 - 155-172-22 155-191-12 Joule E Barnes 'kelvin L Miller ' 10Z22 Drive Driv W . J . Seid+enburge 0222nia Borsch, Calif 10241 Keredith Drive 20192 Princeton Circl. BuntiHuntington untington Beach . Calif Iluntington Beeach, Cal 92645 92646 155--172-36 155-172-23 155-191-13 John It Nichols Patrick E . Campbell John W. !Ae 10241 Wasley Circle 10211 Meredith Drive B Huntington Beach , Calif Huntington each, Calif120x Princeton Circle 92646 `� 111jt;tington 3each, Cali 92646 92G46 155-172--37 155-172-24 CP23 C Kingeland of Veto lAfgairsEugene 0 Frederick Frat1h C. Piarce WQsl,�y ''ircle 14221 teredith nrive 241p1 Tan:aark Circ1A ton Hea. y, Calif' Huntin`ton Beach , Calif Nu.nl:ington Leach, C-a-It g 92646 9264ri2-38 $tx 155-191.-1.5 Theodore W. Denney 20191 Tanbark Circle Huntington Beach, Cali 52646 5 172�-38 155--1.74 --,`1 155-191-1fi J ph R. Carroty AT�iys Jr Larry Leedy 10221 Wesley Circle 17, 20201 Craimer Lane 20181 Tanbark Circle FI ington R©ach , Calif Huntington Bench , Calif Huntington Beach, Calii 6 b 92646 92646 5-172-25 155-192-01 155-191-17 rk M Rona Dale D Conrad Dale S !Menke w12 Weslei• Circle 111211 Neredith Drive 20182 Tanbark Circle Huntington beach , Calif Huntington nec,ch , Calif Huntington Beach , Calif 6 6 92646 92646 1 z''i2�'2fi 155--191--08 155-191-18 B an 7.1 Staphane Iae Iioepn-r Albert Natale 1 22 Wesley Circle 10011 Meredith Drive 20192 Tanbark Circle H tinc�ton baacf; , Calif Huntington Reach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 02646 92646 92646 155-172-27 155-191-09 155-•191-r19 Andrew Manfre Gerald E. Chrysonq Robert G. Caceres 10232 Wesley Circle 20191 Princeton Circle 10121 Meredith Drive 92646lluntin9t`��': Beach , Calif Iluntington Beach, Calif Huntington Reach , Calif 92646 92646 y512Fal hn E l 155-191-10 155-191-20 Z42 Wesley Circle Dewuyne L Loate James R. Welton 1O ltunti 242 tan Roach , Calif ' 20181 Princeton Circle 10131 Meredith Drive g Huntington Rencrh, Calif Huntington F3each , Cali 92646 92646 9.2646 155--172-22 155-191.-11 69orge C2iveri Frederick W. Woods 175-191-r21 10251 Meredith Drive Z0182 Princeton Circle Dv.-ien P . Mc Convilla Iluntington Urtach; Calif. Iluntington Beach , Calif 10141 Meredith Drive 91646 92646 tiuntin:3ton Beach , Calif 92646 1 1 1 xx xxxxxx 155--161-16 :55-152-09 bn O c on M#1 on B . Eastwood Kenneth W. Alateen a rLO a 20022 Colgate Circle 20101 Lawson Laneer 'x 1if Huntington Reach , Cal Mtington Peach, Calif A n : s .r c np ., 92646 46 Dept. of transportation II . t1• Flementary Schoc.' 155-�M -0�1 ljo -� 17th Street A Los An Huntington School District 120 n Ses , ' StreetCalif 90052 Iluntil;gton Heach, Calif 1902 - 17th Street Angeles , Attn : District Sulu. Huntington Beach, Calif Attn : Staff Assistant Attn: District Supt. Dc s icln B 155 1-01 Fountain Valley School 155-3 Fa~17 Ch 1 F Durkin District Ei.tgenc� is . Hyde 20032 �.tilaate Circle 200 2 Lawson Lane # 1 Lighthouse: I,ane " Hun 3ngton Beach, Calif Fountain Val ley , Cal i.f IIw� f t�rltryn Beach, Calif 926 6 Atti1 : District Supt. 926d 155--161-02 Ronald E. Jenner 155 -•161-4 155-.1. 74--01 Chit s C , Coppedge Dept . of gets Affairs ) f tIJ Joan Kueti 20111 i,awF •-Nn Line 200 awson Lane 20071 Colgate Circle t;unt.t�gtoi Beach, Calif Hun i, ton Beach , Calif Huntington Beach , Calif 92646 926 6 92646 ,- Edward It . Kerins 155-171-01 1 i 1.55- 1 -03 20061 Co1g t�: Circle Richa' d J .`Ielchor � Robert J Mc Roberta 20121. Lawson Lane 200 awson Lane Il�ntinetr.,n t�c��ch , Calif Huntington Beach , Calif 9..64G Hun ton Beach, Calif 9264y" � 9Z6 155-1E1-1t) 155--161--1. 1 155--171-0' 155' 61.-09 Phillipti . !1c Elroy Franklin P . r"Aenn J,ar. Imoel.lixxeri 20131 Law.:on Lang �0051. Colcare Circle 20052 L�►•rrson Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Iiuntincttor, Beach , Calif Hun ton Beach , Calif H2nt6 92646 926 155-161--12 155- 171-04 1.55- I -05 IterWrt J Jones Hen Richardson Donald 1-1. Itol•torf 20157, 7.awnDn Lane 2046 Lawson Lane lunti Colgate Circle Hunt.inyton Beach, Calif Huntington. Beach, Calif 92646 92646 F1e.�scn , C:;1. 1 f 92646 92646 92646 It155-161-13 i55-172--01 155�161-0d ar�� Edward P . Steinbeek Alvin if Crum Harold II Roach Dept. of Veta Affafts HB 20072 Lawson Lane 20021 Colgate ton Beach Calif20122 Lawson Lazne 3untington Beach , Calif 'hinti9264E 9 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 47fi4O; 55-161-07 155-11.1-.18 155--1.72-02 DomiV J renney Lloyd 8 Britt 2008nic Cesare Lane 20011 Colgate Circle 20112 Lawson Lane Huntington Lawson Poach, ti.ngton Beach # Calir. Iuntington Beach , Calif Hunt`ng ties I+�aeah, Calif ttur` 92646 92, 46 97046 155-161-05 1.55-161-15 155-172-03 Gasper Russon I4it,sud ► suda Albert Cominsky 2001.2 Co#date C.1 cl.e 20102 Lamson T an6 20081 �olgat�e Cf.rcla Ituac:r,gtor livaGh , Calif li n ki.nrlton Beach , Calif Iuntington Deach, Calif 9264h 92646 ZlS4G 1 530- 23-24V Ifiliian F. Majar 030-23-255 155-091-08 10138 Ascot Circle Dnnald R . Fl-llett Fritz W. Loetz Hunt-ington Beach , Calif 10164 Ascot Circle 19941 Ranger Lane 10.1'92646 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington. Beach, Calif 92646 92646 930••23-246 John E Batey 930--23-256 155•-0'?1-09 1689 Samar Drive Adeline C . %jaki Tani. R. Glasgow Costa Mesa, Calif 10166 Ascot Circle 1.9961 Sanger Lane 92626 Huntington !leach, Calif Huntington Beach , Calif 92646 g2.G46► 93n-23-24? Me L Earner v30-23-257 155 • 162--01 10 4 Ascot Circle Bernice M Sparling Lori-cr tjtiG G Loobey Vu ington Beach , Calif P .O . Box 1961 20011 Lawson Lane 92 6 Costa Mesa, Calif Huntington Beach , Calif .J 92526 92646 930 -240 Bernice W. seller 930-23-258 155-162-02 10C13i Ascot Circle John Gargan William H Melcher Yt� gton Beach , Calif 10170 Ascot Cir.cle 20021. Lawson Lane 92 Huntington }Beach , Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 926.1r- 92646 93 -249 Iala ?Mastro 930-2 ;-259 155 -«6?-03 1724 Madagascar Street Leonard B . ' odd James B. Goodin Co Mesa , Calif 19922 Pi.ccad{lly Lane 20032 Lawson 'Lane 92 6 Huntington Beach , Calif Huntington Reach, Calif 9i646 92646 93 23-250 930-23-26 C 155-162-04 Wa er F Young 10174 Ascot Circle Rudolph Johncola 10154 Ascot Circle Huntington Beach , Calif 20051 Lawson Lane Hunt!n ton Beach, Calif. 92646 Huntington Beach , Calif 92 6 9264� , 9?0 --251 930--23-261 1.55-�112-05 1 1 ne White Dolores Duncan Brewster B :�allup 101 Ascot Circle 10176 Ascot Circle 20061 Lawson bane Hunt ngton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach , CaliF Hunting 97646 92646 92646 ton Beach, Calif 930-23- 252 930-23--262 155-162-06 Roberta T Jones Holland L Robinson Robert J Johnson 10158 Ascot: Circle 10179 ]Ascot Circle 20071 Lawson Lane Ho264ngl:on Beach , Calif 9266 Huntington Leach , Calif ttuntington Beach , Calif 46 9264E 92646 930-23-253 2.55-091--06 1r5--152--07 Sara C . Kahn Sharon L rragg Russell T. Holloway 10160 Ascot Circle 19911 Ranger Lane 20081 Lawson Lang huntington Beach , Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Reach , Calif 9264E 92646 92646 93,0--21--•234 155-u31--07 155-162--08 Mabel E . Dri.ggs3 'Mark A 5crttgyr CoVa K Kelly 10162 Ascot Circle 1gg;ta, Ranger Lane20091 Lawson Lane Huntington Bloch , Calif 11tintington noach. Calif Huntington Bench , Calif 92646 92646 92646 T 930-23--028 930-23••2'26 930-23-237 Georg�� Hlink-a Paulette L K' asell Dorothy L Ailmond 10213 Ascot Circla 19931 Piccadilly Lane I.0J.55 Ascot Circle }. µntingtori Beach , Ca:if - sting ton Seaci: , Calif tuntington Beach, Calif 92646 .,eh46 92G46 930-23-029 930-23-228 930-23-238 Marshall Wilson Charles L ODonnall Nola ►3 Adkins 2369 W 2nd Street 19937 Piccadilly Lane 3.0151 Ascot Circle San Pedro, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif flontington beach , Calif 90732 92646 92646 Zti 3•-031 980-23-229 930--23•-239 Aisthrpo Raymrid R . Holt ^.urti,g ;4c Cullough Ascoc Circle 19941 Piccadilly Lane 10145 Ascot Circle ngton Leach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cal: f Huntingtop Beach, Calif 92546 92646 i 930-23--032 930--23--230 930-23--240 W Blair Paul Cornuke John Wiggins 1 5 Piccadilly Lane 19947 Piccadilly Lane 101,41 Ascot Circle 13 t ntgon Beach , CaI Huntington Beach , Calif Huntington Beach , Calif .9 4 U92646 92646 i 93 25-33 930-23-�231. 98Rs+�9ft IAlk A?.atn C Wilson Olive M Scrorle Bokit 1 'Picadil!, Lane 19951 Piccadilly Lane Y Y l3roKe ngton 9F ach, Calif Huntington Roach , Cal. Lf 9 92646 3-034 930-23-232 930-23-241 Itz Mary Barxer Gary W. Nelson 19942 9.1.6ccAdilly Lane 10171 Ascot Circle 10092 .Ton Day Drive H t' gton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach , Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 9 4 92646 92646 93 3-035 930-e3-233 930-23--242 Da E. puinn Chester D . Ayers Karaha L Ourkhamer 19 8 Piccadilly Lane 10169 Piccadilly Lane 10131 Ascot Circle Huntington Beach , Calif Huntington Saach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92'w646 92646 92646 930--2' -036 930-23-234 930 23-243 Jean Riopelle Frank Rice click Madrid 19932 Piccadilly Lana 10167 Ascot Circle 10142 Ascot Circle r',Lntington Beach , Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 42646 92646 92 646 930-023-n37 Irma Abolis 930-23-235 9i0-23-244 Ralph C . Monroe 10222 Holhurn Drive Lillian I Remillard � 19928 Picnaclilly Lane Huntington Beach, Calif 10140 Ascot Circle Huntington Desch, C!slif 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif. � 92646 926.46 I 930--23-226 930-21m236 Billie McXi�ernan Howavl A I'avix3 930',lets F Major 2a-245 L19927 Piccadilly Lane 101a� Ascot Circle 10 Huntington beacsh# Calif liuustlx,'iton Reach , Calif, clunti Ascot nach,e 97646 92645 �tus�ti7gton Hn:►ch , Cnlif 92645 11P 175-61 Appeal AI' ' s typed by Jana H . 930--23-004 Business Properties Arty Sasyc 17640 Sky Park Blvd. 10208 Ascot Circle Irvine , Calif 927111 Huntington Beach , Calif l,S Deering 1.0242 Asscot Circlo 92646 ` 11U11t:.1.it -on Beach , Calif 930-23-005 f)'sl'A Roy K . Sakioka 155-191-02 F,lr.,:3ra 0 ?fan y 14850 E . Sunflower Ave 10210 Ascot Circle in•,.;' 3- 016 Swita Ana , Calif. auntington Beach , Calif' ScilvAtore Marino 92705 92646 10�4 f Ascot Circle Hun t.l.rl it-.on Beach , calif 930 -2"3--n06 926dr, is 5 1-01 Dale F Spencer Do _ Saving,; & Loan 16731 Tunstal]. Lane 41. 930-23•-0111 P. Box 728 Huntington Beach , Calif Mary j r"aliti.co Do,oncy , Cal- if 90241 926,17 10236 ;kucoc: Circle j� rfuntint1ton Beach, Calif -'/ 930- 3-007 ,264E 155•-051 -05 Willian J ritzRerald Sa.v-- -Realty Inc 10171 Perigrine Circle Glenn If Lamphe:ar Sa ' Drugs Stores Fountain Valley, Calif 19808 Ramegate Lane 481V 0inc*ln Blvd. 92708 Huntington Beach, Calif MaxDel Rev , Cal . 90291 264r; 930-2.3-008 930-23--019 I5 1-OG Madeleine Ostrander Robert if Cowhill 10216 Ascot circle 930-23--020 747 Green St .Sui.te 202 Ifuntingtor► Beach , Ca'Jf Charles A Grossman pa F na , Calif 91101 92646 1.0142 Aeverly Drive Huntington Beach , Calif 930-23--009 92)646 151 051--07 Grvilla E. i.rpenbac:`- Vo Grocery Co . 10230 Ascot Circle 930-23--021 P.O. Dox 3338 Term Annex Huntington Bench , Calif Beniarnin F Barnett Loy A c,eleS, t'.alit 9264E iuntinAtontII�ach1eCalif 90 1 930-23-010 92646 155 1-10 IAyrtle E C�,eshi.re Bro way Oil Co. 102.29 Ascot Circle 930•-23-023 Ph,' ' ips Petroleum Co. Huntington Beach , Calif, Janes Campbell, 155 ovet Rd.Suite 675 92-646 20131. Ascot Circle San Mateo , CaV.f 94402 Huntington Beach , Calif 930-23--12 92646 155-051-11 Ray Barrett-o C. X 5 Development Co . 22761 Jubilo Place 930-23-024 Bank of Uiorica Tax Dept El Toro, Calif Fabian B Cooney P.O. Box 37000 92630 1.0227 Ascot Circle San YranciaQo.Ca. 94137 Huntington Beach, Calif 930-23-13 92.646 21*xx 930-23--002 A1da A Livermore Bessie De Noss .1,0222 Ascot Circle 930•-23-026 10204 Ascot Circle '-tunti.nrrton Beach , Calif A, D Ken►riall Huntington Beache Calif 92646 10219 Asoot Circle 92646 Huntington Leach , Calif 9 30-23-014 :12646 930-23--003 Ray E Bxonerr .r Arthur Peterson 10220 Ascot Circ.lo 930--23-027 10206 Ascot, Circle Huntington Reach , Cap't f Vivian It Heyardahl nuntington 0*4ch , Ced if 02646 10215 Asco(. Circle 92646 fluntingtgon Bach , Callif t i r. h lz„�C� mt one or M►LIC RVAI NG Appeal to Une Permit 75-61 I DICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be 11,11c.1 by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center Huntington Beach at the .� h ho�.�t of' 1 7:00 P. M. , or as soon theraa f ter as pon s ib i.e , on the 19th — day day Of .ianuary 19 76 , for the jpurpome of consideringan o e:l to a a , ova f t o e� � - , pP � � pr � L o_ L ti P . unit tin, . 5 61 6y ttit_ e,oard of Zoning Adiustments to aLlow the corintruction r, ,7 .215,006 ::q, ft. shopping center pursuant to Scction 9472 of the Iiunticistton Beach Ordinance: Lade. The subject propa!rty is generalLy located on the !;nu 'leaii: corner of el.dlams Avenue and Brook- hurst Sti:eet in the C4 Highway ConrnHrci :►l. istrict. A lc >;:tl description is en file in the Planning Department Office . All intereated perscma are invited to attend said hearing and +ex msa their o i.nicm for or � P againa t Iletld Use Perini c , f'ur0w-r information My be obt,ainod from tha Office of the Gi.t r Clark . j l 1/24/75 CITY OF NM I N �t.J1C�1 Ay A1icis M. K+nt"or?:h City Clark Occupant Occupant I) I 10202 Ascot Drive 1017: Ascot Drivo It► 1 )8 ot Drive Huntington 9ea.cli , Ca 1 i f Huntington Bench , Ca 1 i 1 Beach , t';t 1 i 1 92646 92646 Occupant occupp.lit 10204 Ascot Drive 101. 32 Ascot Drive fluntinf;ton Beata , Ca l i I' plait t i n,gttort Avac-tt , Ca 1 i f 92164G 926 ,16 Occupant Occupant. 1.0206 Ascot Drive 10162 Ascot Drive Huntingt:on Beach , Calif Htint .in►;tkjn Reac li , Calif 92646 92646 Occupant Occupant 10208 Ascot- Drive 10164 Ascot Drive flunti.nt;ton Beacti , Ca l i f Hunt i ni' tots Be"wit , Ca 1 i r 112646 926.16 I Occupant occupant 10210 Ascot Drive 10166 Ascot I?rive Huntington Beach, Ca I i f tauntingtnii Beach , Ca 1 i f 92646 =t2646 Occupant Occupant 1.0212 Arcot Drivr: 10163 Ascot Drive Huntington death , Calif Hunt ington f4eadi , Ca I i f 92646 926,16 Occupant Occupant 10214 Ascot Drive 10170 Ascot Drive Huntington Beads , Calif Huntington Ketch , C.i 1 i 1' 92646 .926,16 Occupant ac-upant 10216 Ascot Drive 10172 Ascot Drive Ilunti.ngton .Beach , Calif llunrini,Jon Beach , Calif 92646 92646 Occupant Occupant 10220 Ascot Drive 10174 Ascot Drive Huntington Beach, Ca I i f Hunt inp,ton Beach , Calif 02646 92.64(5 Occupant tJ���:upa►�t 14247 Ascot Drive 10176 Asyut Drive Huntington Beach , Calif 11untingtOn ilcach , C13111' 9Z646 920646 owl D1,L'ISI,t)['M1:ST C(1ti!TRI'MION 1.L'A(II:?I1:NT 1T11.1o1 %I(Y YMIN It1) 11IN ISM CALIFORNIA 01-1714 (714) (079-1111QU II _ December 23 1975 J r • / I� u� III I City Council. City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach , California 92648 Reference : Use Permit 75-61 fHonorable Council : The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular hearing on December 16 , 1975 upheld an appeal by Meredith Gardens homeowners Association of Use Permit 75-61 which had been approved on November 12 , 1975 subject to conditions by the Board of Zoning Adjustments . The reason stated for upholding the appeal and denying the use permit was the broad discretionary powers available to the city under the "general welfare" portion of the city ordi- nances with specific emphasis upon traffic considerations and a portion of the property not being included in the site plan . It is our opinion that the Planning Commission reacted to the emotional pleas of residents of the area rather than on the facts . The questions of the property included within the total ownership but not included in the site elan approved by BoLrd action was adequately covered under the conditions of approval set forth under Condition; C . 2 and C . 3 . Statements were made by the Public Works repreoentative at the hearing which indicated that the intersection of Brook-- hurst & Adams is presently carrying traffic at approximately 68% of its design capacity and that based upon traffic; anal- yses , the maximum anticipated volume through the intersection after full development of the property would be 82% of design capacity. r City Council December. 23 , 175 Page 2 Ile therefore appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to deny Use Permit 75-61 and respectfully request the Council to uphold the Board of Zoning Adjustment action of November 12 , 1975 . Enclosed is a check in the amount of $75 covering the fee for such appeal . Very truly yours , BUSINESS PROPERTIES Charles G. Ball I � CGB :pb Enclosure i [I Huntington Beach Planning Commission !`z: P.O. Sox 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council. FROM: Planning Commission DATE : January 19 , 1976 ATTENTION: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator RE : USE PERMIT NO. 7 5-61 : APPEAL TO DE141AL f APPLICANT: Business Properties 17840 Sky Park; Boulevard I Irvine , California 9271.4 APPELLANT: Business Properties 17840 Sky Park Boulevard Irvine, California 92714 LOCATION : Southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street REQUEST : To permit the construction of a 125 , 000 sq . £t . shopping renter pursuant to Section 9472 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ON MOTION BY SHEA AND SECOND BY ELRINS APPEAL TO APPROVAL Or, USE PERMIT' NO. 75-61 WAS APPROVED AND USE PERMIT NO. 75-61 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS AND BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE Partial development is not the most desirable for the property and contributes to the detrimental effect on the -adjacent properties . Also, traffic problems are engendered by the proposed plan as it exist::. I AYES : Parkinson, Finley, Shea , Boyle, Kerins j NOES : Bazil , Slates ABSENT: None A minority report was filed which indicated that a lack of a total development plan should not be a basis for denial , and further that traffic concerns should not be a basis for denial because if the streets will not maintain the traffic , the property should not have been zoned for commercial uses . It was also pointed out that any subsequent development proposals will. have to be reviewed by the City for develop- ment status. 1 1 ' Page . 2 Use Permits No. 75-61. Appe-11 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Commission recommends denial. of. Use Permit No. 75-61 for the reasons enumerated above. SUrTHARY REPORT: Use Permit No. 75-61 is a request to permit the construction of a 125, 000 square foot commercial. retail center . The development will encompass approximately 1.2 . 56 acres of C4 (Highway Commercial) property which has been zoned as such since September of 1.963 . 'rho remaining 3 . 75 acres or the e-;ist.i_ng parcel. are proposed for future rommerci-A development . The Hoard of Zoning Adjustments at: its meeting of November 12 , 1975 , conditionally approved the pro ect. Present: at that meeting were re,presc:ntatives of the homr�owner.s ' association for the Meredith Gardens residential development that surrounds the proposers site . Discussions took place concerning the 3 . 75 ore parcel that was designated as vacant on the site plan , with the Board indicatinq that .any subsequent development would be :subject to all tha required administrative appli- cations . This c•.�nditional approval Y:as appealed by the Meredith Gardens Homeowners, Associatiior. on November ,1 , 1975 . The Manning Commission at its meeting of December 16 , 1975 , considered each of the specific cbjec;ions of the appellant. The major concerns discussed by the Planning Commission involved the partial development concept and the traffic generations that can be anticipated from the project . The Planning Staff on several occasions had reviewed the design and layout of the proposed project and specifically the Phase li concept: ( 3 . 75 acre parcel) as shown on the plan, and determined that it was the r,�:)st desirable layout , as it would not lend itself to separation from the overall parcel by a division of land nor would it lend itself to any type of alternative zoning ( i .e. , multiple-family residential ) because of lack of St.ree t- frontrigez . The Planning Commission also considered the traffic concerns of the appellant, specifically the driveway widths on the east p:'oper. ty line and the driveway to the immediate south . The Staff pointed out that thr.. driveway widths do meet Lhe minimum requirements ; but , more importantly, noted that these particular driveways were secondary di-ives , with two major alley type entrances , one for each arterial. servicing the project . However, the developer submitted revised maps showing an increase in the easterly driveway width to 25 feet :and a relocation away from the residential properties to the east . The Flomeowners ' Association stated their objection to the anticipated 24-hour operation of the supermarket shown on the proposed plan . The Staff Report indicated that it has ;,ot been a policy of the City to restrict the hours of operation for commercial, enterprises . 'tie proposed location of: a trash collection area adjacent to the permanent wall on the south boundary of the development was also a basis of.appeal . The Hoard of Zoning Adjustments conditioned the relocation of this trash cnclosure to a more appropriate area . The developer agrc+ed, and deleted the questionable trash area . I Page 3 I Use Permit No. 15-61 Appeal The appellcnt also stated a desire to increase the perimeter landscaping area on the eastern boundary from four ( 4 ) feet to ten ( 10) :eet. The applicant has agree' to increase this landscaped area as suggested and has submitted revised plans indicating such an increase. In conclusion , the Planning Commission felt the partial development approach and the traffic cons iderat.ions were z:uch that the proposed development would „ave a detrimental effect on the adjacent properties and thus approved the appeal denying the project and overruling the Board of Zoning Adjustments. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : I The applicant , Business Properties , requested a reconsideration by the Planning Conmiission at its .January 6 , 1976 meeting. This reconsideration was requested after modifications had been made to the original plan . These revisions were the result of meetings with representatives of the Homeowners ' Association and City Staff , and included a proposed conceptual plan for the reserve parcel., an increase in the landscape area on the east property line , an increase in the driveway width, a deletion of the trash area adjacent to the south property line, and a further clarification of traffic generations that can be anti.^ipated from the project. All of these revisions and clarifications were as requested by the original. appellant and as discussed by the Planning Commission at its meeting of December 16 , 1975. This revised plan was considered by the Planning Commission at its meeti.ng of January 6 , 1976 and was once again denied for the reasons enumerated previously. An appeal by the applicant was thus sub- mitted to the City Council . The applicant has submitted a third site plan For the City Council ' s consideration. This modified plan reflects all of the previously required revisions with the exception of a conceptual plan on the reserve parcel . The applicant feels that because tenant commitments have not been arranged and because the City will maintain complete discretionary approval authority over the parcel , such a plan is not necessary . However, the third plan does reflect an additional request on the part of the adjacent homeowners and Planning Commission by removing the driveway adjacent to the east property line and implementing a fifteen foot landscaped area. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code specifies under Section 9818 that if a Use Permit has been denied, no further application covering the same premises for the same or similar use shell be filed or considered within the period of one (1) year from the date the determinations thereof become final.. Therefore a denial by the City Council would in effect preclude any further development permit procesBing on this site for a period of one year. Page 4 Use Permit No. 7 i-G1 Appeal During the Planning Commission public hearing Lt was alp suggested by the Homeowners ' Association that a: a condition of approval a traffic signal be placed at the intersection of Lawson Lane and Adams Avenue . The applicant has indicated that should the City Council desire such a condition the applicant would Uc responsible for the percentage amount determined to be the result of the propcsud center . The applicant has also prepare. and made available for the City Counci.l' s information revenue projections emanating from the proposed commercial center . ENVIRONMENT STATUS : The Envirrn►nentai Review Board at its meeting of November 11 , 1976 , granted Negative Declaration No. 75- GG , having found th:nt the proje_!rt will not have a significant adverse effect upon the physical environ- Ment. SUPPORTING INFOR.t41ATION: 1 . Staff Repclrt j 2 . Area ?dap 3 . Letter of Appeal Q . Revenue Pr.ofe--t.ion, Inform-tion 5 . Revised Site Plan Resp ctfully s bmi.tted , kichard A. Harlow Secretary RAH :JNC: ja I i huntin ton beApkmingrfineni staff report TO: PLANNING COMMISSICJ;d FROI4: PLAN?ITING DEPARTMENT DATE : January 6 , 1976 RE: RECONSIDERATION OF USE PERMIT NO. 75-61 USE PEW4I'I.' NO. 75-61. -- APPEAL TO APPROVAL f I'LINC, DATE : Oct . 2 3 , 1975 APPLICANT : Business Properties 17810 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine , Calif . 92714 2A0 rt APPEI.I�AN I : Meredith Gardens rlomeo+arzrr. s Assoc . P. O. Box 373 Huntinc ton Beach , Calif. 92046 LOCATION : Southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Brookhurst- Strout REQUEST: To permit. the. construction of a 125, 000 sq. ft. shopping runt(`& pursuant to t=c�c. 9472 of the Huntington Deaclh Ordinance Code . l. � Attached herewith is a letter submitted by Business Properties, dated December 23 , 1975 requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider their prior action on Use Permit 'No . 75-61. The Planning Commission had sustained the appeal filed by Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association and denied Use: hermit No. 75-61. A revised plot l-)Ian is attached herewith incorporating those recommendations and conditions imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments as well as showing a conceptual :layout upon the Phase II Previously designated vacant area. It should be noted , however, that in a preliminary discussion with the Attorney ' s Office, it was pointed out that it would be improper for the Planning Commission to act on the total plan under Use Permit No. 75--61 as it had only been filed for a 125 , 000 sq . ft. shopping center . The expansion for Phase ?I development shoul3 require a subsequent application before the Doard of Zoning Adjustments or be referred back by thc: Planning Commission for Board review and recorunendation. UP 75-f 1 Page Two The Att-orney ' s Office did indicate, however , that it would be proper for the Planning Commission to add or tinend the conditions of approval previously outlined by the Beard of Zoning Adjust - ments in its approval cn this matter . If the Planning Commission concurs on the request for reconsideration ? you may wish to condition Phasc II as to height and bulk of buildings , landscaping buffer along the periphery in the R1 area , setback of structures from the R1 single family area on the south and east side of this property and to provide for proper circulation between the two phases of the development . REOXIMENDATION . In view of the above information and that contained in the orig.- nal staff report , the staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant the request for a reconsideration and approve the original Use Permit_ No. 75-61 with the conditions as imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments and any additional conditions the Planning Commission feels are necessary to obtain a well integrated develop-- inent with sufficient protection for the R1. residents . JWP: g c I I i i I i 1 report TO : PLANNING COMMISSION FROM : PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE : December 16 , 1975 USE PERMIT NO . 75-G: - APPEAL TO APPROVAL APPEAL FILING DATE : November. 21 , 1975 APPLICANT: Business Properties 17840 Sky Park Blvd. Irvine , Calif . 92714 ZONE : C4 APPELLANT : Meredith Gardens Homeowners Asaoc . P. O. Box 373 Huntington Beach , Calif . 92646 LOCATION : Southeast corner of Adams Avenue and orookhurst Street. REQUEST: To Kermit the construction of a 125, 000 sq. ft . shopping, center pursuant to Sec. 9472 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . i . 0 APPEAL An appeal was filed on the Board of Zoning Adjustments decision to approve UsQ Permit No . 75-61 by the Meredith Gardens Home-- owners Association on November 21 , 1975 . In their, letter of appeal , it is stated that the basis for the appeal is that im- plementation of the plan would create a situation in their opinion, that will be injurious to the general welfare of persons rz-sidinq or working in the vicinity and injurious to the properties and improvements in the vicinity of the use . For more information on the specific objections a.-, stated in the November 21 letter of appeal. , ploase refer to the attached letter , as well as Section 3 . 0 of this report. 2 . 0 ORIGINAL REQUEST: Use Permit Na. 75-61 , fa.lod on October 73, i975 was a request to pennit the construction of a 125, 000 sq. ft. shopping center pursuant to Section 9472 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . The property is located at the csout:heast intersection of Adams, and B rookhurs,'. .w..wn.w......rrrMwr.w. w Page 1"e4o 7 . I GENERAL INFORMATION: Downey Savings and Loan property , the 1 . 93 acre parce), of land at this intersection was developed in 1973 at which time the project was designed such that access, could be provided over driveways at four locations . The plan submitted to the City for Us` Permit No. 75-61 has taken into consideration the prior design to facilitate reciproca ingress and egress over and across both parcels . 2 . 2 PRESENT LAND USE AND- ZONING: Subject property is presently zonec? Cal (Commercial ) and is vacant at this time. This zoning designation was placed on the property on Feb . lea , 1970 .. it should ho noted that this pr.opei4; has been zoned comm,'rc i a l since Sept . 16 , 1963 . 2 . 3 GENERAL PLAi4 : The Land U!.e Element of the General Plan his subject property designated commercial,'retail ; therefore , the proposed project, is in compl.iarnc< "%!i.th t hrl General Plan . 2 . 4 EINVI RONMEWPAI. STATUS : Or tvovemi�er 11 , 1975 , the E:nvi ronin;_nt-al Board granted Ilea ~ ivr_ De: lar. ation 75-66 for proposed project, having found that tilt' project-_ will riot; h3'de a si'"nificant adverse effect upon the physicinl onvironment . The Environmental Poview Board ' s r(?C„:rir-.iE?.')daati.OnS :32' -2 at -_ached her-:'with in its trannmit.tal . 2 . 5 BOARD 0(' 7c�t:;N(_� ttUJUS�'I�lEri1'S REVII W AND ACTIO14 : The Board of. Zon.in,_-? Adj us tm^nt's hold public hearing on Use Permit No. 75- 61. At: its Novembei: 12 , 1975 meeting at 'which time- two representatives from the Meredith x1dens Association appeared befor_! the Board of Zorsinq Adiustrnent:: and questioned a number of aspect:; of the project . Mr . 13,0 t. , :;epresenti.r.rl Busin,. s Properties , responded to their questions expl fining that the economic- con- straints ..;ere such that it made it extremely d i f flCLtlt t:o develop the total parcel all at once . Mr. Ball .also ont l ined some secondary type contmr�rcial operations which they :could at. ':.empt to pursue for the second -phase , the Southeasterly portion of the project. Concern was expresscd about alternative development. on the portion at the southeast.,nr1 corner of the property and thc, audience was informed that: the second phase could not: be segregated from the shopping canter and dcvolop,-�d later until 1.,rop,2r applications had been filed :.'i t:h the ri t,.• and apl�r-c:•�r�l . The Board of 2oninn Acijustmunts than approved Permit `.u. 75-161 subject to (A number of condi_tic-ns . PI 'i,e 1.cfe.r to ►November 12 , 1975 B-Dard of Zzining Adjustments, mintite s , attached herr_wit'i for additional inforniAt.ion or, discuss—ion and t.onditions r;f ap)')r.;1 vaI . Page Three 3 . 0 STAFF ANALYSIS : The Meredith Gardens 11onncowners Association outlines five specific objections in their November 21 , 1975 letter . Following is a surtmnary of those five objections «s well as staff comments to each. 3 . 1 The plan indicates that only 12 . 52 acres of the 15 . 45 acre parct?l will be developed at: this time with remaining 3 . 924 acres being reserved for future development . They further state that they prefer a total development plan on the total parcel rather than a piecemeal approach. 'They also request in their summary of recom- mendations that th : s parcel be relocated within the project to facilitate fr. ontac7e or, Adams or Brnokhurst:. taf£ Comments : ThL, st af; � F has reviewed with the dev�, 1 (-,per the design and layout of tho pr.-)pose ,i project -end felt that Phase 1 .1 as shown upon the plan is t.hc, most desirable location as the parcel will. I not lend itself to segregation by a division of land nor would the configuration of suhject parc-_,1 lend itself to an-'., type of land use: amendment or rezoriinq as it would be consid', rcrd spot: zOnina without havinci frontage onto a majorarterial highway . TIIErl; :GIs:, indic:ttE� the c�urrr,nt site pl ,)n delineates alocation of a trash collection: ai:t?.a adjacoint to t:1ae r_)�_,r.man2nt wall on the sough boundary of the dev,A-opm nt. . Staff Comments : Thy- Board of Zoning %J ju,t ivents discussed the location of this trash area with he proponent and stated that a revised plan submitted back ,,;i.th th(� amendments as srielled out within the on- ditions of approval wouldalso have to t.,ike into consideration a re- location of this trash area to the north :.; ide of the periphery drive . It should be noted at this time that. the Board of Zoning Adjustments also marked up the plot. plan reviewed, at .its November 12 , 1975 Meeting to show the relocation of this trash area. 3. 1 The offset between the perimeter wall and the access road on the eastern side of thn d,!velopment is four feet . The Association also states t at they prof,:.,r that a ten foot wide Landscaped area be established at that location . Staff Comments : It should be noted Loat there is sufficient area by reducing the overall widths of t:hQ drives along this frontage:' to provide sufficient area to accornodate a ten foot landscape strip along this easterly property line within Plisse I . flowever, the Hoard of Zoning Adjustments felt that the four feet waa sufficient to accorTunodate~ landscaping to provide screening at this location and the Board did not li avu �uf fic'&' ent. information on whother trees along this property Line would interfere with ex i st~inq rusi- dential swimming pools . Paae four 3 . 4 The wic3ths of the driveways on the eas4 and south are discussed in their letter of appeal as being a 20 ft . wide and 25 ft. wide accessway . Staff Comments : The southerly drive along Phase T is shown as 25 ft . which is in excess to the 20 ft . minimum drive required for two-way traffic along the rear of commercial developments . The easterly drive which is delineated as 20 ft . is sufficient to accommodate two--way traffic . H awever, it should be noted that this drive is only a secondary drive and was not proposed .:o be used for emergency vehicles. Also, the Hoard of Zoning Adjustment: made recommendations for revisions to the circulation plan and widths of driveways to accommodate periphery circulation fur emergency vehicles . Tt should also be noted that the Huntington Beach Ordinance "ode only requires one alley-type entry into a project of this nature. However, in preliminary discussions , � II .. it was determined that because of the volume of traffic at this. location , it would he desirable to have two major entrie 3 , one from each of the two major arteriel.s. 3 . 5 The association also states their objection to the prevailing history- of tours of operations on the supermarket shown within Phase I of the complex . ,Staff Comments : The Board of Zoning Adjusttiients reviewed Ji.th the member of the association present at thc-A Board meeting hours of operation. It was stated that the City has never in the past re- stri.c-ed the hours of operation for supermarkets within thc..) City. The Board also stated that it could be a dangerous precedent to start mandating the hours of operation for the commercial and in- dustrial enterprises within the City . 4 . 0 REC:OMMEId7AT ION: In view of the above information, and the attachments herewith, the staff recotr.nendr, that the Planning Commission sustain the Board of Zoninq Adjustments and deny the appeal filed by the Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association . JWP : g.. 0 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF JONING ADJUSTMENTS CIVIC CENTER 2000 MAIN STREET BASEMENT, ROOM B-B HUNTINGTON BEACH , CALIFORNIA WED ESDAY OV M :R - N N F. Bt 12 , 1975 1 . 15 P .M. BOARD MEMBERS : James Malin , Bruce Crosby , Pat Spencer STAFF MEMBERS : Addy % anderlaan , Fire Department MINUTES : ON MOTION BY PALIN AND SECOND BY CROSBY , THE MINUTES OF THE: REGULAR MEETINGS OF OCTOBER Be OCTOBER 15 , AND OCTOBER 22 , 1975 , WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : PALIN , CROSBY, SPENCER NOES : NONE ABSENT: NONE REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS : USE, PERMIT NO. 75-58 Applicant : Standard Oil Com2any of California To permit the construction of a gas treatment plant pursuant to Section 9686 of tnv Huntington Beach Ordinance Ccie , located 415 feet south or Garfield Avenue and 495 feet west of Goldenwnst Street , in an RA-02-CD, Residential-Agricultural combined with Oil Production District . Secretary Palin informed the Board chat a request has been received from the applicant requesting continuance of this item. ON MOTION BY PALIN AND SECOND BY SPENCER, USE PERMIT NO. 75-•58 WAS CONTINUiD AT THE REQUEST OF THE; APPLICANT TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19 , 1975 , BY THE FOLLOWING VGTE: AYES: PALIN, CRCSSY , � SPENCER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE; USE E'EPj%iIT NO. 75-61. AU1icanL : Business Prol)erti.es To permit th�r construction o. a 1.25 , 000 square foot shopping center purXuant to 5ection 9472 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code , located on the south side of Adams Avenue approximately 200 feet east of Brookhurst Stract, in at C4 , Highway Commercial District . 1 Minutes , 11 . 8 . 40rd of Zoning Ad justmentso November 12 , 191 � Page 2 The Chairman informed the Board that Negative Declaration No. 75•-66 had been granted for this project by the Environ- mental Review Board on November 11 , 1975 . Charles Ball was present to represent the application . ' The Chairman opened the public hearing. Barbara Mc Conville , resident of Meredith Gardens , spoke in opposition to the project . She said that it was the concern of the residents in the area that the total piece of property should he developed at the same time because it was feared that the residual piece would become an eyesore . Ms . McConville also indicated her feeling that there is already ample coimnercial development at this intersection. George Taze , from Meredith Gardens Homeainers ' Association, also addressed the Hoard, requesting more information on what the applicant is planning and how it differs from the project which was previa-asiy proposed for this parcel . Charles Ball responded tc their remarks , explaining the econ- omic constraints which would make it difficult to develop the total parcel all at on,�e. fie reviewed for the benefit of the audience the uses proposed to occupy the center , the proposed landscaping on the south property line planned to screen the project from the adjacent residential , and the proposed future uses and access provided thereto for the residual property . lie enumerated some possible uses in the future : nursery, profes- sional offices, dental and medical uses , real estate, etc . , all being able to take access from. the major access points provided for the first phase of the development . Mr . Ball also indi- cated that it is hoped to begin construction cn this first phase in February or March of next year at the earlest. There being no other persons to speak regarding the project, the Chairman closed the public hearing. The Board reviewed the application . Secretary Palin informed the persons who had spoken against the project that there is no way a jurisdiction can mandate that all the property be devel- oped at the same time. tie also noted that the second parcel cannot be segregated from the shopping center and developed later under another type of use until proper applications have been filed with the City . Further Board discussion included width and turning radii of access streets ; recormnendations from the Traffic Department on signaling , medians , and access from the abutting arterials; Fire Depart;rent requirements; relocation of a planter area at the main access drive ; maintenance of the residual parcel; drainage on the property; and the need for reciprocal easements with the Downey Savings i Loan parcel . BZA 11 -12-75 Page 2 - -- • 1 0 Minutes, H .B . 1cd of Zoning Adjustments November 12 , 1975 Page 3 ON MOTION BY PALIN AND S£CO14D BY CROSBY, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 75-66 WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD, INCORPORATING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEVI BOARD REC.'OMMF.NDATIONS NOS . 4 THROUG11 81 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : PALIN, CROSBY, SPENCEn NOES : N014E ABSENT: NONE ON MOTION BY PALIN AND SECOND BY CROSBY , USE PERMIT NO. 75-61 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLO'AiNG CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS : 1 . The plot plan received October 23 , 1475 , shall be the approved layout, subject to the modifications described herein : a . The main access driveway from Adams Avenue shall be redesigned to a minimum width of 28 feet at the rear of the supermarket and snail he provider] with a curv- ilinear design immediately sough of the controlled entry to facilitate access for emergency vehicles into the development around the peripheral drive. This curvilinear entry drive shall be designed to have a 17-Foot minimum inside turning radius . b . This approval has no bearing on the ultimate placement of the signs , nor does it approve the signs as indi- cate6 an the plan. A plan delineating said modif.ir.ations shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Board . If such plan complies with the modifications outlined by the Board , said plan shall be approved and made a permanent part of the administrative file. in its approval action, the Board of zoning Adjustments considered the following issues relating to the conceptual plan: • Traffic circulation and drives : . Parking layout; . Lot area , width , and -'epth ; . Type of u:+e and it3 relation to property and improvements in the immediate vicinity; . Past administrative action regarding this property. 2 . The following plans shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Board: SZA 11- 12-75 Page 3 4 Minutes , H . B . _ a rd of Zoning Adjustments �zl November 12 , 1975 Page 4 a . Landscape and irrigation plan complying with • Article 979 of the Huntington beach Ordi.r -ice Code and landscaping specifications on file in the Department of Public Works . b. Rooftop mechanical equipment screening plan. Said plan shal 1 indicate screenin(i of all rooftop mech- anica). equipment and nhal1 delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. c . A siqn program for the total ,hopping center sl'all be submitted to the Board of Zoning Adjust- ments for review and approval action. 3 . Soil and compactic i reports shi-ill be submitted by a certified soils engineer . Said reports shall be sub- mitted to the Dep�3rtment of Building and Community Development and shall be subject to approval by that Department . 4 . Fire protection systems , includei, 1 ititomatic sprinkler systems, standpipe systems , fire hydrants , fire alarm systems, and any other required fire protection and detection devices or systems shall comply with the specific:tions of the Huntingt-Jr, Beach Fire Code . Plans for such systems and devices shall be submitted to the Fire Department and shall be subject to approval by the � Departments of Fire and Public ►forks . 5 . The developer shall participate in the local drainage assessment. d i strict . 6 . The developer shall participate in the orange County Sanitation District 43 Annex I)isstrict . 7 . All applicable fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits . B. TO BE CwI,E rED PRIOP TO FINAL INSPECTION : 1 . A raised median shall be constructed along Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue within the Limits of the pro- ject , and the developer shall, participate in the costs to `he extent of the following percentage of increase in traffic on those arterial highways : B:ookhurst : 201 increase Adams Avenue : 11t increase Intersection : 16q increase 2 . A fixed time controller at the intersection of Brookhur yet Street and Adams Avenue shell be replaced by a Type 90 controller , and the developer shall participate in the cost to the extent of the 16V, increase generated by this development: ns iir-tcd abovo . HZA 11 - 1 2--75 Page 4 • Minutes, H . B . "Ted of 7oninq Adjustments lti.r w Ndvember 12 , 1975 Page 5 3 . If the raised medians ( :%nd landscaping therein) cannot be constructed at this time , a bond in lieu of such improve- ments shall, be posted with the Department of Public Works . 4 . brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue shall be improvLld to the centerlines of such rights-of-way. Such improvements shall include curbs , gutters , sidewalks , paving, street trees , street lights , street signs , street drainage , and r sewer and water main extensions , in full compliance with he City of Huntington Beach street standards and require- ments . I C . GENERAL CONDITIONS : 1 . The applicant shall pursue with the abutting property owner the e-o. abl i shment of reciprocal aye. eealents &for � ingress-egress to the property . 2. The second phase of this project shall be subject to sepa- rate application for review and aj--nr,-)val action by the Bor-; rd of Zoning hdjustmont- s . 3 . The parcel of land in,- ludnd in the second phase of Lhis project shall be maintained in a clean and weed- free condition . 4 . The majority of the runoff from this project shall be taken to the southeast corner of the property and t led into the existing 21-inch drain line at that location. Such storm drain shall be constructed to comply with the requirements of the Department of Public Works . 5 . A catch basin shall be constructed Roast of the rcrai.n entry off Adams Avenue and tied into r_he existing 18-inch line . h . if the developer proposes to provide air conditioning , the insulation in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a minimum of R-19 and R- 11 , respectively . If no Air condi- tioning is to be provided , the insulation in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a minimum of R-13 and R-7 , respec- t ively . 7 . All building spoils , such as unu;-L-ible lumber, wire , pipe , and other :surplus or unusable rn.�terial , shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. B . An ungine%ring geoi o(l ist shall he erigaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface aecelevation from earth movement for the project property . 9 . All structures propose. , for construction within thits sub.- division 4ha ll be constructed in compl Lancc- with the g-f&etora as indicated by the geo1oyi.9t ' a report. 11ZA 11 -- 12-75 Page 5 Minutes, H . B . B d of zoning Adjustments `ww November 12 , 1915 Page 6 C . 10 . Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review. AYES : PALIN, CROSBY , SPENCER NOES: NONE ABSENT : NONE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 75--148 Applicant : Harbour Pac_ fis Lt To permit the relocation of a ales office from Tract 7250 to Tract 8636 pursuant to Section 9730 . 18 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, located in Tract. 8636 on the south side of the channel , east of 'Trinidad Lane approximately 12 , 000 feet south of Edinger Avenue in an R1 , Low Density Residential District . I The Chairman informed the Board that this request is a Categ- orical Exemption , Class III , Ca itornia Environmental Quali':y Act , 1970 . i Tho Board reviewed the proposal c t)N "d0TION BY PALIN AND SECO N'D B CROSBY , ADMIr•:ISTRATIVE REVIEW r4o. 75- 148 WAS APPROVED WITH Tilt FOLLOWING CONDITIONS , BY THE I-'T)1.1.0WIr1WG VOTE ; i f CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - A . TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BU T LDING PERMITS : 1 . The conceptual plat piatt received October 28 , 1975 , shall be the approved layout . 13 . GENERAL CONDITION: 1 . No subsequent application sha 1 be required for the model complex when the appl ic..nt is ready to open such complex. A revised Flat plan shall be required which shall incorporate all landscaping , fencing, location of models , and parking ':o serve the facility. AYES : PALIN, CROSBY , SPENCER INOiES : NONE ABSENT: N014E ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 75- 149 Applicant : � H niE T . Ma rusks To permit the conversion 0Z an er,isting metal bnildi.ng used for residential housing to a light o ufacturi.ng and storage use , BZA 11.-1.2-15 Page 6 ►u�r..n_ �wr a eta. iaer,c��:rf,t'i��l 1 111/Mtltirfl.l ( NI,h4 /. ("/,tJl (7H111A t s.t Lir.c.z-twn-re. i P. O, Dog 37?, Huntington Qrcri,, Col�fr:/r,ln 9?ci iG 21 Novenlv!r 1971.5 HUN i INGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. F{untinFton Beach NOV 21 1975 PInnning Cm-ani ns ion Attention - ;i ch(:rd Ilnrlowe 2t?OQ Main street P. 0. Box 19t? ttuntinr'+on Brush , CA. 0216 8 Huntington Beach, CA 526�i� Dear ;ir. Harlowe : Enclosed please find n check for the amount of t75.00 as payment for filing o f an appeal of the Board of Zoning Adj u stment e s dec ision regarding Use Pernit tJo. 75-61. 'I'tic Board of Toning Ad,luottrent voted to approve the Uae Permit at rL November 12 , 1975 fleeting on the basin of the plan for develouin,:! t presented by Business Properties , Inc. , the applicant. Ile, the undersigned , after investigntion of', and deliberation on all of the information pertaining to the planned development , gave voted to appeal the approval decision on the plan as currently defines.. The busis for the arperl is that implementation of the plan would creete a situation, in our opin:.on, that kill be injurious to the general wel.fnrc of persons renidinoz or Working in the vicinity and injurious to prrn)erty and impro)►cments to 41.,hc vicinity of such u^e (rafe:ence Paragraph 9811.2 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Division 9) . Specific objections to the plan and rfecotrsrendcd modifications are contained in the following naragraahs . Specific objections to the current plan are as follows ( 1) 'Me plan indi•- catcs that only 12. 52 acres of the 16. 45 acre parcel will br! developed at this tine, With the remaining 3.927 acres being teserv►_d for future develonnent. We prefer a total. development plan nppror ch , rather than the pi ecempal approach shovn. Moreover, the reserved parcel In shown in the I;F; corner of the develop- meat , with no frontage on either Adam or Brookliurst. This l.inited access; win make future development of thin parcel more difficult: . ( All example 0.24 Such poor plrtnninF can be seen in the situation on the 1J.4 corner of the Magnolia and Acl&mE intersection. ) . The undeveloped land wci ld al-no become an nren for aaccumulntion of trash. (2) The current site develoremen`,. Iolem irdicates the Ineation cf' trash collection receptacle nd,lncent to the wa l on the southern i�oundnz^f of the dcvelc:�arent, lie pref,-r th,y.t it be located cn the north side of the nccens road :su%-h that it not he a part. of the 10-foot: wide landscaped strip running along the wr-11 . t 3) 'llie ,•,off ne+; i.(!t::ccn the peri- meter Wall and the access road otl the! ecs;,ter-i side (,f t1, • deve,lo-)mtrnt is 4-feet, 'rle prefer t:hnt it b2 10-feet Vlft, Witt: '_�.nrl:lcr1riitg , to be tini fer-r, with the 1nndncnpr.-d ,trip runniha rn-lone tho mouth/_rr. wall . (11) The access roasts shown on the Site Development Plan are cO-fe(:t Wide and 25-feet wide on the want and South sides of the development , respectively. We believe the ingreas/egrens provisions from Adams and Brookhurst to be narrower than required by the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (5) The Site Development Plan as currently shown indicates n market located in the 12. 52 acre pnxcel. It is our understanding thnt the tenant is Albertsvn 's , a chain that has a prevailing hiator-, of 2Ji--hour operation. We doubt the wisdom of a third Supennarket on the corner of Aroe'r hurst and Adrvnn . but more imnortently, we feel that the presence of a 2h-hour store operation adjacent: to the ideridith Carden!: develoranert w` 11 detract from the property v&luen ar.d will very probably be a contributing- facto; to ir.cr�,msed prime in the area, during, the post-nJdnight 0-ime period. In .ummar-j, the objective of our appeal is not for denial of the: Use Permit No. 75-61, but for rrodifications to the proposed plan for developllient. Srecifically, •while we are very interested in it total development approach, if that is not economically viable , we would recormend as a minimum that the 3.927 acres reserved for future development be moved frorn the ;'1, earner of the parcel to have frontag,,r, on either Rrookhurrt or Adams . ".'his would protect against the pm)blen of ha•.ing a parcel of land thnt is hidden behind a developed area with .limited access for future development . .secondly, we womld ask that the operating hours of the market be restricted to no later than rrNnight so as to mininize the negative impuct on the neighborhood. Thirdly , .ve would Beek to have a 10-foot landscaped strip between the entire length of perimeter wall and the cop-ereicrl development when comple red to provide an attractive interface between the c „wnercial property and adJoining "'cridith Gardens horses. Lastly, we would ask that the access road ingrecr/egress provisions he configured. to Greet all Hutitington Beach Ordinance requirements , and thai care be taken to prevent easy access from Brookhurst to Adams and vine versa through use of the roadwuys provided between the perimeter wally; and the rear- of the commercial development. Please sentl any correspondence on this matter to 2Wl Beaumont Circle, Huntington Bench, California 92.6h6. Very truly yours , Meridi,th Gardens 11ameowners Asnociation '`;.- 4- � HUNTINGTON BEACH Robert G. Riedesel , ;'resident PLANNING DEPT. NOV 21. 1975 P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92b48 �+ EnYIRO(IMEnTAL REVIEW BOARD CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-CALIFORNIA • .S P.O. SOX 1"-"644 TO: Board of Zoning Adjustments FROM: Environmental Review Board DATE: November 11 , 1975 SUBJECT : negative Declaration No. 75-66 (UP 75-61) APPLICANT : Busine-s Properties PROJECT : Construction of a 100 , 000 square foot Commercial shopping center . TXCATION : Located at the southeasterly corner of Frookhurst Street and Adams Avenue , The Environmental Review Board , at itg meeting of November 11, 1975 , granted the above negative declaration, having found that the proposed project will not bave a ifica t_nt adverse effect.- upon the ph sical environment . �' 5igr� No environmental impact report has becn prepared for this project. Findings are based upon the information contained in the negative declaration and supplemental information thereto , di:scusaion by this Board , and the following recommendations : 1. Replacement of the existing traffic signal system should be considered , with the installation of a more, responsive controller as necessary. 2 . A raised median should be: considered for Adams Avenue, eopeci.all,_,, in the vicinity of Picadilly Lane, to control access from the project. Further channelization to define vehicular paths in the segment of the roadway shoul3 he accomplished, using a ra+.sed median island on Adams between ?,awson Lane and Picadillv Lane. 3. AlternaLive lighting systems should be investigated , such as the use of high pressure sodium vapor lighting , in order to effect a long--term energy savings . 4. If the developer proposes to ;provide air conditioning , the insu- lation in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a mininamn of R-19 and R•-11 , respectivcll If' no air conditioning is to be provided, the insulation in ceilings arid exterior wally shall he a minimum of R-13 and R-- 7 , respectively . 5 . All building spoils , such as unusable lumber, wire , pipe, anit other surplus or unusable material, shall. be disposed of: at a_, offelte facility equipped to handle thefts. I Negative Declaration No . 75-66 November 11, 1915 Page 2 6. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the project property. 7. All structures proposed for construction within this subdivision shall be constructed in complLance with the o-factors as indicated by the geologist' s report . V S . Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall. be submitted to the City for review. e—dVI�A,L%. ga 4 Melvin A. Tooker, Acting Sec ary Envi ronmeu to 1. Review Hoard _df i R 1 � �• f1 r� N wN TTI r' r. , W ' 1 N �•,- t R u 0 i m . w LN ell 4r BROMIURST ' L � r�lwcIE rPOTi.. LAWSON COLGAiE' GR - 1 i BEAIUwOk? CR v Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, December 16 , 1975 Page 3 Gib MOTION BY FINLEY AND SECOND BY BOYLE STANDARD OIL COMPANY ' S APPEAL TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1, 9 and 10 FOR USE PERMIT NO. 75-58 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Condition No. 1 - It is necessary to establish existing noise ccndi.tions along the property lines to determine at some later date whether the gas processing plant would have a detrimental effect upon this noise level. Condition No. 9 - This condition does respond to concerns of J:ome- owners and the potent tial impact of the oil resource use on adjoin- ing residential area . Condition No. 10 - This condition also responds to homeowners' concerns on the impact on residential area. AYES: Parkinson, Bazil , Finley, Slates, Boyle, Kerins NOES ., None ABSTAIN: Shea ABSENT : None There was a discussion on the recommendation by the Board of Zoning Adjustments to study the possible Tezoning of the approximate 38 acre base industrial zone (M2) of this oil operation site . Possible future rezoning of the property should not remove the 0-2 designation under which the oil facilities are currently operating . ON MOTION BY KERINS AND SECOND BY FINLEY THE: STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO STUDY THE POSSIBILITY OF REZONING THE. APPROXI14AIIE 38 ACRE BASE INDUSTRIAL 'LONE (M2) OF OIL OPERATION SITE W7:THOUT REMOVING THE 0-2 DLSIGNATION UNDER WHICH OIL FACILITIES ARE CURRENTLY OPFPL%TING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE- AYES : Parkinson , Bazil, Finley, Slates , Boyle , Kerins NOES: None ABSTAIN: Shea j ABSENT: None The Chairman ca ,led a five minute recesL at 8 : 30 P .M. USE PERMIT NO. 75-61 - APPEAL TO APPROVAL usiness Properties APPELLANT: Meredith Gardens homeowners Association Use Permit No. 75-61 is a request to permit the construction of a 1251000 sq. ft. shopping center pursuant to Section 9472 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . The property is located at the southeast intersection of Adams and Brookhurst and is zoned C4 . At the public hearing of the Board of Zoning Adjustments at their November 12, 1975 meeting the plans were discussed and two rep- resen''atives from Meredith Gardens were present and questioned aspects of the project. Mr. Ball l # representing Business Properties , -3- .12/16/75 M Pr. Jow Minutes: H. B. planning Commission Tuesday, December 16, 1975 Page 4 explained that the economic constraints were such that it made it extremely difficult to develop the total parcel all at once. The Board of Zoning Adjustments then conditionally approved Use Permit No. 75-61. A photograph of the site was presented on the screen. John Cip% stated he had no information to add to the Staff Report. He discussed the JHX traffic study made in 1974 . There was a lengthy discussion on traffic at harbor and Adams among Commission and Staff concerning inconsistences in traffic reports. There was further discussion on excess commercial zoning in the City in some areas. Chairman Slates opened the public hearing . Bob Riedesel , representing Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association, addressed the Commmission and stated that his objections were based on the fact that the approved plan was not a total plan. He stated that approximately 4 of the 164- acres are being reserved for future development which land locks it. He stated that they did not want III apartments in the area . It was also of concern to Mr . Riedesel that Albertson ' s, the largest tenant, has a policy of staying open 24 hours per day which he felt would have a detrimental effect on property owners in the Meredith Gardens area. He also discussed the appre- hension that a speedway could occur without proper planning or possible use of speed bumps. He also felt that a 10 foot median divider should be provided on both sides of the property. Mr. Leon Alta discussed the present traffic problems at this inter- section and the creation of additional traffic which would be generated from this development. Mr. Ted. Denny inquired about underground utilities and was advised that some utility poles will have to remain but those backing on to residential areas will be underground. Mr. Dale Menke addressed the Commission and stated that he wan in agreement with Mr. Riedesel on all issues except the request that 10 feet of landscaped median be provided . It was his feeling that at least 20 feet should be provided. Mr . Holland Robinsoa stated that he was not opposed to development in that area but he agreed with the statement, Commissioner Boyle made concerning the bad traffic situation at the intersection , particularly between 5 and 6 in the afternoon. 14r . Charles Ball , representing Busincss Properties, addressed the Commission and stated that he had studied the property for 2 1/2 years and had discussed with the Staff during that time his develop- ment plans . He stated that before hr: could develop the approximate 4 acres to be included in Phase 11 it would be neccasary to develop - 4•• 12/1G/75 - PC Minutes : H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, December 16, 1975 Page 5 the valuable fronl.aLje property which would place a higher value on the 4 acres. He discussed the possibility of using this area for a nursery operation with plants to be contained both inside and outside. This proposed use would be retail only. He discussed the landscaping to be provided on the rear The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY SHEA AND SECOND BY KERINS APPEAL TO APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 75-61 WAS APPROVED AND USE PERMIT NO. 75-61 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS AND BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: i Partial development is not the most desirable for the property j and contributes to the detrimental effect- on the adjacent properties. Also, traffic problems are engendered by the proposed plan as it exists. i I AYES: Parkinson , Finley , Shea, Boyle , Kerins NOES: Bazil , Slates ABSENT: None I Commissioner Bazil stated that he did not feel the Commission had the right to demand that the parcel be entirely developed, although he would have preferred the 4 acre parcel to be located somewhere else on the property. He further stated that if the streets will not maintain the traffic the property should not have been zoned conunercial , and that it should not he denied on the basis of traffic problems. Also he stated that the plan could be amended to reflect different curb cuts . Also he pointed out that when the 4 acre parcel is developed it will have to be through filing of a Use Permit which the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review and approve or disapprove . Commissioner Kerins stated that perhaps the applicant, Charles Ball , could revise the plans and bring back to the Commission at their January 6, 1975 meeting and request reconsideration at that time. Commissioner Finley expressed concern or probable excess of com- mercial Zoning in the City. ""ONE CASE NO, 75-10 APPLICANT: Allen Klingensmith and James Lange Zone Change No. 75--10 is a request for a change of zone from R2 (Medium Density Residential ) to CAS (Highway Commercial ) . The subject property is intended to be utilized in conjunction with existing commercial properties to they east. It is located cn the north side: of Ronald Road and is the second lot west of Beach Boulevard. John Cope stated that the Staff i:: in agreement with the proposed rezoning and believes it will raault In the best use of the sub- -5,- 12/1.6/75 - PC ' . _ t••o �S _•_..... 1`1PtwL *06. 'iITYJ�I. w0, 11-7 ri .•1 . . ** , ,76 i `\•` \ #; �•�,� •1 T•��`.\. �...I w ' !.�-may,,, f i,.1S,,,' • :� i'. 'ni•. :.:': �_!:.� _ \1�e. �i2J �, r �r Et,�n! rc-:i Cczi"'-i, CA f-12-648 i 1 `} y f r���L-i ��..: '�Zia\ �'.`\�i�.1�>�f!t'.� ►—� ' ` �\.'.M", `.(��;t��!� 9iTE 2G1mwp_eMENT mN lz 4 -7- ► 1 M f 1 ` 1 t r„ y .�'.'..' 1 r ( • i Hill ply _ A'V Lq,R►�a+�T 4kall 1®r Warta ...,+wta.fw•n,,o.. r BUSINESS PROPE RTIE S AEYEMPMUNT CO.NSTRUC77ON - IlANA( RMENT 170-10 14KY PARK DOULFMIL D • 111VIN1:, CAI.II'QRNIA 1112714 f71.09r9-0000 December 23 , 1975 IlUtMWTON BEACH PI.AMNINO DEPARTMENT OF C 2 ,t 1975 P. 0. Box 19() ftfd goon Beach, Cai;f, Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Secretary of Planning Commission Reference : Use Permit 75-61 Brookhurst & Adams Huntington Beach , California Gentlemen : Since the meeting of December 16, 1975 , we, Business Properties, applicant under subject use permit have met with members of the Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association appellant on appeal to the Commission. From the information obtained in that meeting, it would appear that the possibility exists that a common ground can be found for mutual agreement for development on subject property. We therefore respectfully request that the Commission reconsider the action to deny use permit 75--61 at the next regular hearing . During the interim pericd, additional. infor- mation will be gathered and a resolution to this situation. sought. Sincerely#. BUSYNESS PROPERTIES Charles G. Ball CGB: 17b BUSINESS PROPERTIES DEVEMPMENT CONS TI VIC ION MAN.AORMENT 1711.40 SKY PARK IIOULFWAND • I11VINE. CIAI.IPOYiNIA 0771•L f71•4l•)79-11000 January 12 , 1976 i i City of Huntington Beach 200 Main Huntington Beach, California i Reference : Use Permit 75-61 Projections for Economic Impact for Development of SEC of Brookhurst & Adams Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen : I . Sales Taxes Based ,upon the Phase I site plan as submitted to the City, Y the following projections are made for the volumes of the anti- cipated tenants in order to arrive at sales tax revenue: Total volume at maturity for anticipated square footage of retail buildings is projected to be $16 , 425 , 500 . 00 , of which $6 , 280, 000 is anticipated to be non-taxable sales. A majority of the non-taxable sales is for food sales with an additional reserve for service tenants . Also deducted from gross sales is a projection that part of the shopping center will be devoted to financial institutions which do not generate taxable sales . Therefore, it is anticipated that the net taxable sales at maturity for the shopping center will be in the neighborhood of $10 , 145 , 500. At the current time, one percent ( It ) of sales goer to the City. Therefore, the City would realize $101 , 455 based upon the above projections . II . Real Estate Taxes The current taxes on the subject property in its unimproved state are approximately M , 000 per. year . Upon completion of City of Huntington Beach January 12, 1976 Page 2 Phase I, the total cost for land and improvements is projected to be $4 , 450 ,OOO or an assessed value of $1, 101, 250 . Taking this times the current Orange County tax rate would yield real estate taxes of $117, 800. In addition, it is anticipated that Phase Il development could have a. total development cost of $1, 344 , 000 , which would result in county taxes of $36 , 000 . Therefore, the total estimated economic ramifications of the development at completion of Phases I and II could yield the City the following: a . Sales taxes $101, 455 b. Real estate taxes Phase I $117, 800 Real estate taxes Phase II 36 , 000 Less current tax revenue ( 29 , 000) Net real estate tax increase* 125L800 Total tax increase $227 , 255 *Based on total county tax bill of which approximately 60% goes to Huntington Beach schools , 15% to City of Huntington Beach fund and 25% to County of Orange. III . Employment It is anticipated that the total number of persons working in the shopping center will be in excess of 150. The above is based upon projections made by Business Properties utilizing the information realized from other shopping centers owned within the County of Orange and City of Huntington Beach . The projections are made for the total development at completion and maturity. Very truly yours , BUSINESS PROPERTIES Charles G. Ball CGB:pb 8 UT SITE SS Z'ROPIE RT113 S DIM131A11MENT CONSTRUMON NAMAOBMENT 178-90 SXY PARK DOXILEWAUD • I11VINE, OALITORrIA 09271•1 (714)979-till 00 January 13 , 1.976 City Council City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach , California 92648 i Reference : Use Permit 75-61 I SEC Brookhurst & Adams Huntington Beach , California Honorable Council : On December 23 , 1975 , we filed an appeal of Planning Commission action in the above referenced case. In addition , we requested the Planning Commission reconsider its former action . A meeting was held with officers of the Meredith Gardens Home- owners Association and a representative from the city staff . As a result of that meeting, a conceptual plan setting forth a possible development for the reserve area was submitted for staff and Planning Commission review. The Planning Commission at its regular meeting of January 6 , 1976 approved the request for reconsideration, reviewed the revised plan and once again voted for denial of the use permit. As a result of the discussion at that meeting, is has been concluded that in the best interests of public safety and welfare the plan should be revised to eliminate the curb cut and driveway onto Adams Avenue lying adjacent to the easterly boundary line of the site . Transmitted herewith are copies of the plan revised to reflect this driveway revision and various other revisions required by the Board of Zoning Adjustments approval action of November 12 , 1975 . Additionally, it has been suggested by the representatives of the 'Homeowners Association that as a condition of approval of this use permit a traffic responsive signal be placed at the intersection of Lawson Lane and Adams Avenue . If in the op::nion of the Council this development is in part responsible far the necessity of such traffic signal, we would accept such additional condition, but only as to the extent of such effect just as we accepted Conditions B. I. B. 2 and B. 3 of the Board of Zoning Adjustments approval action. Sincerely, BUSINESS PROPERTIES i Charles G. Ball CGB/am Wage 2 J •f 212 January 16 , 1976 '1e the uncersignpd residents of Nered.ith careens , whose homes ahrzt t!,o r.�ri.r�o. tar wall. are oo o.c;P,? to a 24 hnur market operation -ir. the (:nrrrrerciit bror*%. rty at the corner of Orockhurst and Adams . ';e feel this kind or" operation would add to noise and sight potlt.- tion at our homes . We atso are concerned about the increase in crime we feet would be the result of a 24 hour operation. We Rent 011r. ippines. a d sa,7Pty is trore important than a 24 hour operation f _ L he r S c r� total- ' �I&IeLff7••ow CIL Z sJ j Lr- A" le� i r C F3 Ali 00 G r •tr► o.r, ,,, . ,2 •.47 wseJON 4r,a^4%. . A v 09 repl� w0wor t l e . r � 01 1 4b • &- /7� r:.. January 19 , 1976 Honorable Mayor - Members of our City Council: Y I am Darrell Ward, President of the Chamber of Commerce , r•. , . .. My home address fa: 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach. On Monday, 1/19/76 , the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors voted in favor of,the appeal filed by Business Properties to the denial of USE PERMIT NO. 7"-61 by the Planning Commission to allow construction of a 1251000 sq. ft. shopping center, located at the southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street. The Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors respectfully requests the Huntington Beach City Council to approve USE PERMIT NO, 75-6 1 , r, The Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce concurs with the minority report filed by the Planning Commissioii, which indi- cc�ted that a lack of. a total development plan of the entire 16 .31 acres should not be a basis for denial when a plan for development of 12. 56 acres was submitted, leaving only 3 , 75 acres uncommitted., but totally controlled by the city for development status . The other basis for denial was the increase' in traffic , when in fact the Huntington Beach Public Works Department's own figures Indicate the intersectic n of Brookhurst and Adams is presentiy carry- ing traffic at about 68% of design, capacity, and that based upon traffic analysis the maximum anticipated volume through the Inter- section , after full development of the property, would be 82% of design capacity. In addition , the Huntington Beach City Council should also consider the economic impact of this development . The current taxes oil the subject property, In its unimproved condition , are about $28,000 per year. With full development, the net areal estate tax increase will.be 'S125, 800. The developer esti- ma:as the salos tax rev,arrue 'would be .$01. ,455 , for a tonal ta•x in- crea ae to the City of Huntington Beach of $Z Z7 155S. ;W. H.B. City.Council page Z 1/19/76 Employment is anticipated to be in excess of 150 persons working in the shopping center. Since this property is zoned for the proposed development, has met the requirements of the city staff, .will improve the city's flow of tax dollars with a minimum of services required , the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors respect- fullyrecommends that the Huntington Beach City Council either overrule the Planning Commission's denial of USE PERMIT NO. 75-61 , or refer it back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration . Thank you for your consideration. I