HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 2 of 2 - Conditional Use Permit - CUP - 87-34 - Negativ i
Section Z. A : SUMMARY OF EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
1 . 1 L•xi s t inc Lane! Use
�. With the Qxceptinn of land uses along; Reach Souleva rd
and two residential sites, all of the patcels within
the Specific Plan area are vacant . (Refer to Figure 3
for existing land use) �% total of thirteen single
family dwelling units are presently located within the
above defined area . Eight (8 ) are located in the
.� northeast section of the area facing Talbert Avenue: .
Five ( 5 ) are located in the southeast section of the
area facing Taylor Drive .
Based on a windshield survey , four out of the thirteen
dwe'l l i.ng tanits are in relatively good to excellent
scarL:itInn . The remainder are in poor to fsi r condition
notdina minor or major improvements .
lrhi rasterly section of the area is presently occupied
by some commercial facilities and one single family
dwelling unit .
South of Taylor Drive is n established residential
neighborhood . A ne% residential development is in the
process of completion in the southwest section of the
Specific Plan Area .
+` 1 . 1 E istina Zoning
They Specific Plan area is presently toned into six
different catelcrins . An inventory of zoning categories
within the above defined area is provided in Table 1 .
Table 1
xisting Existing
Zon inj Acres
M1 13 . 07
RA 15 . 74
CFE 15 . 06
C4 161 . 41
C? 3. 99
CF R : . SG
( See figure 4 for existing zoning )
A. . 3 Master Plan
Within the Specific Plan area , the existing Master Plan
has designated the following acreage allncat iota• by
Master Plat category:
7 .
1
...ref ar�rr....► - . . . . ram.
I
�` .. • • 1"1•Ill .. . ... ... ..• .. .. I .. i. 1,.l.tl.Il.1
.w+r • Jgf�
E
l
MOMMANAWN
"CI : •_ �-
VACANT VACANT s _
" 1
' CF - E 1
1 r
VACANT VACANT '
CF-R ,.
_ ,
VACANT GROTH u I
CHEVROLET
A— low
SINGLE - ~
FAA 1 I. NI LSON 1
REVEL I FORD
OLIMC
i
SINGLE FAMILY WOMES
FIGURE 3
EXISTING LAND USE
I-!-- A-- ---L. - it 4 1 0 --, OL�~wvw 11
irmpff=f %mm~wvmmwm� � ate• &
-
i
i
' TITfi
IT TI
-ITM mll. "t - .;" 3� L OFFICE
iAt
I
♦ r . r-
Ml -
mi
j
CF - E RA p
C 4
I
C2
L I I Ll I I I
a 1 ]
I J
COW
+ R1
FIGURE 4
AtIft EXISTING ZONING
Sian arr�•� r c�
F�
I
• • ..-..r•. . . ♦I+•..• . ♦.�N�lts,i , - 's , I Li
. 4f-1 /1-t. ♦fin
top-
TALK�:T
y / I
,! INDUSTRIAL IND$
AA
. .
GNAT
- V
di
SCHOOL SITE
I
UND�$ I GNATEI#
s
ARK COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL SITE
j
1
w I
i
l
FIGURE 5
EXISTING MASTER PLAN
h -,I � h '
'Wilwo
tic Om a roar . taylcr i b ch
�o.
Table 2
E:xi st injMaster Plan Land Ilse Categories
Categorr Acres
Industry 23 . 0
Commercial 16 .0
Public Uses
School Site 15 . 0
Park Site
Undesignated 16 . 0
I
( Refer to Figure S for existing Master Plan
of the area)
2 . 4 Circulation
Bordering the Specific Plan area on the east i �; bench
Boulevard a major north south highway . Access to Beach
Boulevard is through Talbert Avenue , Taylor Drive and
_ Ellis Avenue . Main Street , a •asor arterial , also
connects to Beach Boulevard at the intersection hetween
Ellis Avenue , Beach Boulevard and Main Street .
Talbert Avenue presently provides cast -west access to
Goldenwest Street and beach Boulevard .
` l: l l i s Avenue , westbound from Beach Amu l eva rd , end,:
approximately where Huntington Street intersects with
Ellis , However, Ellis avenue is scheduled for extension
to link with Gothard Street eastbound fro* Goldenvest
Street .
Currently , Taylor Drive also provides access to Brach
Boulevard . upon completion of the residential develop -
ment located at the southwest section of the Specific
Plan Area , Taylor Arise will connect with Carnahy Lane .
li .
Section 3 , 0 ; PROSl.1:M ASSESSMENT
There are four major problems in the Specific Han Area . !'
3 , 1 the l:x i s t i ng School Sit c
As mentioned in the h:ickground summary section of c h i
document , the Ocean View School District has declared
the Taylor Urive school site as surplus .
The Planning staff frets that the school site surplus
could add an additional 15 acres of prime industrial
land . Furthermore , location of the surplus land is
such that by designatins; it for industrial use , the
concentration of surplus land with adjacent industriall %,
zoned parcels will enhance the opportunities for future
devclopment ,
3. 2 Non - Comrritibi 1 i tv Between the Master Plan and Zoning �
The northeast section of the Specific Plan Area, that is
_ undesignated in the Master Plan should be de
signated for
intiustri3l de-velopment . This specific section i ,;
presently zoned PUN ( Residential Agricultural ) but i -;
undesigisated in .]-,c 'NF- tcr Plan .
3 . 3 Park Site �
There still exists some uncertainty regarding the si :c Op
and location of the proposed Taylor Drive park site .
As mentJoned in the background section of this document ,
the Recreation anti Parks Commission recommends that a
new five acre parr site he obtained . The site recommended
is located on the south side of Ellis Avenue between
Huntington .and Delaware Streets . The Recreation and
Parks Commission feels its recommendation is justifies:
for the following reasons :
" 1 ) The topography of the neo si to would na1 e a better
park development anti several c.( isting , matuTes
:ucalyptus trees could be retained to add immediate
beauty to the developed site .
2 ) The central location wo-, ld better serve both the
single family residents and the residents of the
existing and future apartment -s or planned units to
the south of Ellis .
3) By moving the park from industrial zoned pro erty
to residentially zoned }property the f4;4re gp4j$tion
will he decreased and the industrial 4efiilgc
enIarged . 11
12 .
r
The existing locution of the proposed Taylor Drive parr
site is the second priority area that the Park Commission
41� recommends . However , it ' s recowmendation of this site
includes the Co%xissionsI earlier regezest that t1ie park
encompass a totM: of 5 acres .
Hie N anntng Commis -, lot, favors thr ex i st ing locat lot) of
the proposed park site , encompass ins a total of 2 . 5 :ec rep: .
3 . 4 Taylor Drive
Thy Planning staff has recommended to the Planning;
Commission that Taylor Drive he permanently closed to
through traffic . This recnmmendation is based on two
maior factors :
l ) The heavy traffic generated a:, u result of' Taylor
Drive access to and from Reach Boulevard wi i l he
el in, inated by closing: Taylor Drive .
. ) The degree of traffic haz.erds wi I be al leviated
Fv the closing of 'raylor Drive ,
In lien of the fact tha'. there presently exists a dwelling
that requires access tr Taylor Drive .at a point where
c1o%ure is proposed , some interim program must be
(le ve 1 oiled .
the staff has recommended a plan foi both temporary and
permanent closure: of Taylor Drive in the implementation
section of this document
l �,
Section 4 . 0 : SPl C I FIC PLAN RE:COW IFNI)AT IONS
4 . 1 Lana Use ChanXes
rht- vlanning staff recommends the following lati.l tine
chang,e� as pnrt of the Specific flan .
4 . 1 . 1 That the section within the Specific Plan Arva Oint i �
!_ondes i gnated in the- existing Master Plan and pre--ent Iy
--oiie d RA he designated for light industrial use .
4 . 1 . 2 That the proposed school site referred to as the Taylor
Drive school site b(.- deleted from the Master Plan .
4 . 1 . 3 That the remaining portions of the school site , other
than the portion required as part of t ';e reconfiguration
of the par', site , be redesignated for light industrial
use .
4 . 1 . 4 That the proposed hark site be arranged in a rectangular
configUTation encompassing a total of 5 acres .
4 . 1 . 5 That the remaining northern portion of the previously
proposed park site that would he lost due to reconfigura -
tion be redesignated for light industrial use ,
4 . 1 . 6 That .111 of the state►l recomriended lend use changc� in
this section of the Specific- Plan be in compliance wit `%
the sraphic designations as illusxrated in Figure b .
4 . 2 Zone Changes
The Planning staff recommends the following :one changes
as part of the Specifie flan .
That all presently zariedl kil "l. ingt Industrial Nstricts"
located within the Specific flan area be rezoned to S11 - A
"4�.�• , triCtrci Manufacturing District . "
2 . 2 ; hat the -ectlons of land prese-'nti )- zoned RA "Residential
Agricultural District " within the Specific flan arna be
re zoned to M.l - A .
4 . 1 That rupor: completed negot : at ions wi th the school dirt ric.t
the purt ton of land acquired from the school district a,, j
pa+ .t of the newly con i gurated park si to be rezoned from
ci - 1. "Community FaciIities Educational histriet " to CF - R
"Cop.,,.;:nity } ac I i t i e s Rectreationa1 1)i �► trict , "
4 . 2 . 4 That the remaining northern portion of the exist ing
undeveloped park site presently zoned CF - R be rezoned
to %11 A .
la .
• f
Li
11 Ii1
1 �
TALBERT� .�
1 - _416 "•'
4•~ w
INDUSTRIAL I 11ND, IND• L:
�• i 46
_ '
1
INDUSTRIAL IND • I
- INDUSTRIAL COM.ME P.0 I AL
5♦0 ACRE PARK SITE GROTH
CUFFZR BUFFER CHEVROLET
111
TAAb CA WI LSON
T4ft7-
--+-----I FORD
C OR _
A&I
FIGURE 6
MPOSED LAND USE
' be�a�ch rlI lip
�rrar�t
titic plan tiara. toylor &beach
15•
Ji
.. ••. . �• , .•..�•• • •. . .. . . . . ..• .. 00.• 0. 1 J 1
i
MI-A Ml-A
1
-:74
i 1 �' 1
ml-11 MI-A C2
i
{
CF-R
BUFFER BUFFER
s
w
1
i
I
"Mc op
1
AL
FIGURE 7
PROROSED ZOMP"
--q .o-q P , m I b d
sp*rific plan area. to A booch
4 . 2 . 5 That the deleted school site presently zoned (:l - 1:. he
re Zoned to ill -A.
4 . 2 . t A minimum setback of 45 feet from the property Line of
all industrial sites fronting Taylor Drive shall tie set .
4 . 2 . 7 That all of' the statCd recommended tone changes in this
section of the Specific Plan document be in compliance
with the graphic designation as illustrated in Figure 7 .
a . 3 Street Al ignments
The Planning staff recommends the fol lowing st reet ► 1 ign -
ment � as Dart of the Specific Plan .
4 . 3 . 1 That a new street he .booted to rur. approximately 05
feet south from the centerline of Talbert Avenue al,hrox -
imately 700 feet west of the centerline of Reach AouleVard .
That the newly adopted street have a minimur, width of
60 feet .
4 . 3 . 2 That Taylor Drive be closed to through traffic approx -
imately 660 feet west of the ct•nterline of Beach Boulevard .
4 . 3 . 3 That the stated street conditions called for as part of
the Specific Plan be in compliance with the graphic
designation as illustrated in Figures 8 and 9 .
4 . 4 Buffer Zone
The Planning staff recommends the following buffer zone
conditions as part of the Specific plan .
4 . 4 . 1 That a buft'er zonL br rstablishcd hetween the MI - A
industrial sites fronting Taylor Nvenue and residential
tracts south of Taylor !give .
4 . 4 . 2 That the buffet gone run parallel to Taylor Dries and
maintain a minimta width of no less than lS feet from
the cur") line fronting Taylor Drive .
4 . 4 . 3 That the ph)- sical design of the buffer zone be compatible
to the proposed park site and the general criteria
include land forms such as berns and slor,,s , landscaping
and Yegetat ion and and- additional aesthetically pleasing
elements that meet approval through Administrative Review
before the Board of Zoning Adjustments .
4 . 4 . 4 That in any design of the buffer :once , the safety . health
and welfare of resident .3ns1 park users must not be
endangered .
1 " •
qp
I
-LAN DSCAP ! HG
BLOCK '4ALL WALK
TAYLOR OR .
I
ap
TALMN? dot
i
i
CF•E
1
i
FIGURE 8
TAYOR DRIVE CUDM : PHAM 1
sped it parr area i t b ch
.y BUFFER ZONE
BLOCK WALL. Ile
LANDSCAPING
TAYLOR DR .
PEJESTFtIAN WALK �Z- 1/
BLOCK WALL
- SIDEWALK. /"Z-"
till
i
CF-E �.
i
to
LL
1
l
FIGURE 9
TAy" DMvE CAOM RiAg 2
Ok plan aura • warm%
4 . 4 . S That the design and development of the buffer tone be
the full responsibility of the developer and/or owner (% )
and that it he so stated as a condition for deeeloporat
of N1 • A industrially toned districts within the Specific
Plan area ,
4 . 4 . fl That all of the stated buffer zone conditions in thi ;
section c ; the Specific Man document are applicable to
the "General" area designated as the buffer zone in all
of the graphic illustrations presented in this document .
A general design concept is illustrated in figure 10 .
4 . 4 . 7 That the maintenance of the buffer zone be the full
respon3ibility of the City of Huntington leach.
w
i
CO
; I
BL DG$
PARKWAY ti POSSIBLE
' PARKING
I ST . r,%YL0'; DR . A;:I' A
f iI
B -F E R ZON
5 , 10'
45' SETBACK
PROPERTY Li '�L ,i �
CURB LINE
i
1
r � � i � r• � r i
CF E i l�
Lill
i
Ft �RE 10
CVM SEeCTM
lip
Pkm am wl
?1 .
I
ofluwo.,A re, loop—
TV
I
i'fi+' 0..to
i
r
+
12 . �� :
� r �
}�r opc ^o_'ry
S I
i
tFLA) 1 I c '3es .
rl
i
22 .
Section H ve : IMPLEMENTATION
The rurl)ose of this section is to outline steps requi rod to
implement the Specific plan .
5 . 1 S-Pecific_ Plan Ado on
The authorization for the adoption of a Specific Plan is
given by the Stage of California under State Planning
and waning Laws , Title 7 , Chapter 3 , Article A .
The procedure for adoption of a Specific Plan is outlined
in Article 9 and is included in the appendix of this
document .
5 . 2 Park Site Acquisition
Based on the reconfiguration of the park site , the city
will have to acquire a portion of land rest of the
existing undeveloped park site .
There are two alternatives that the city may negotiate
with the Ocean View School District in acquiring the
portion of land . The city may proceed in purchasing
the land or it any investigate the possibility of
swapping land
If the school district agrees to swap the land , the city
could offer the northern portion of the existing undeveloped
park site in exchange for the portion of school land
fronting Taylor Drive ,
However , if the school district insists that the city
purchase the portion of land , the city would still have
the northern portion of the park site to sell in they
future .
During negotiations with the Ocean }'ier► School District
in acquiring the additional park land , the phasing in of
the park site can begin .
The design of the Taylor Drive park site can begin as
soon as the specific plan is e;.proved . The development
of the part, should he able to commence in the spring of
1974 , as this site is in the 1973 • 74 budget .
5 . 3 Taylor Drive Closure
Tnv staff recommends that the closing of Taylor Drive
as a through street to Reach boulevard should take a
two phase procedure ,
23
1 i r t phase would involve k ltisiug ravfor Drive but
m.eintai1iing street access for rrsi ►lents presently loc.wtotl
on the northeast and southeast frontage nlnng 'r;,Yw!
Drive .
The closure could be done by either installing tcAporary
. treet barricades or preferably , endinS Taylor Drive
westhound from Beach Boulevard as a cul -de- sac ,Pttreet .
(See Figure 8)
The second phrase wruld involve permanently closing;
Taylor Drive from the connecting point between 'faylor
Drive and. 11ann>- Lane . This step would only occur when
dwoIIing units northeast of Taylor Drive would cease to
exist as industrial development would occur . (Refer to
Figure 9 )
In order to avoid an unequal distribution of vehicular
traffic , Phase I should not occur until Huntington strive
and Ll l is Avenue zte fully constructed . To avoid anv
undue construction traffic on the local streets within
the single family area , Phase I should not occur until
the park site is fully developed.
The present construction of Huntington Drive to Ellis
and the near future street improvement of Ellis easthound
to Pclaware will provide another means of access to and
�- from the immediate residential area to Beach Mulevard .
w ' atreliance of Vehicular
Thus . relie� inp, the otherwise total
access along Delaware Street .
5 , 4 New Street Al.i nment Acquisition
The staff recommends that the city enter into agrecr tints
with all affected parties pertaining to street .-ilignments
and dedications .
With respect to the precise plan of street alignnen :
No . 73 - 1 , the Planning staff recommends that the city
promptly negotiate with they Ocean View School District
in ohtaining the portion of land needed for right -of-way .
'11►on completion of negotiations with the affected parties ,
the Planning staff recommends that the city should
immediately develop a program to provide for street
i tap roveme,n t s .
S . Huffer Zone
Thy development of the buffer zone will coincide with
tho development of industrial properties . The industrial
pi-opertles to the west will probably develop first as
. ill the western portion of the buffer . Industrial
properties to the east and buffer will be the last to
i
I
21
i
Ile VO ) oil . It is d ► ffictiIt to est tmite how r►I, i .11v it
wi II takv l'or this deveIolimcnt to occrtr . The i►►d,,istri .sl
land absorption rate has heen shout 40 ,acres/year for
the last several years . This )-ear co • acres have 'itrn
developed with a potential of 81) acre!- _hy the end of the
j year . The Specific: flan has provided the basic i,ngrtdients
for making this area ;attractive for industrial development .
The more vigorously the City provides for industry in this
area the more rapidly it will develop.
5 , t, Phas i ngt'rog am
gut-v let - :1 i in sequential and general time
frame , development of the Specific Plan Area per the
recommentin t i ons of this doc umcn t .
1 . sec i f i c I' i an A , roved - :Adoption of the plan is
expected i, tile end of 0, tohe r 1971 .
i
2 . Negotiations with School District - Upon adoption
of the Specific PM , x e City 5n begin negotiations,
UP with the Occan View School District to acquire the
park site .
3 , Park Site Development. - Upon adoption of the Specific
► an , esign o the dark site can hcgin anti construc -
tion underway by Spring of 19 $14 .
4 . tit rest fro gram • opon ;adopt it:n of the Spec i f i
Ct'an , tile City shonl ,l tAv t;.r necessary ;tepr, to
iniure street access for any industrial properties
that would develop .
.- S . Hurt iribton St reet liunt Ington St reet is under
con_, t ruc t ion in pro► tale ,ace vs s, t h rough to f: : 1 is
and should tie complet :- wi ! `iin si t tteonths .
b . Ellis Avenue inprovement � havt, begun on !: IIis
Avenue . c.ortPlVte improvrments between Delaware
MP and Gothard St reet s shouta he in by the end of
19 ,4 .
PhAse 1 - Closing Tavlor dr i %Pe Upon comt%l et ion
tit V the pares s t c , Hunt ingt on n St rret and 1. 1 1 i s
:Avenue , Taylor Drive can he c lo5ed as indicated
in i fSce Fig . 8 , Pg . 18 ) .
8 . Street Construction - As industrial properties
eve op anJ access is regctired , the streets fron+
Talbert Avenue will have to be developed.
Awd
s
1) . Industrial i*veelojwant western Section - With improved
access ,SM)tan- tial- industrial` iTave ol+oent should OccuI.
in the western portion . �-
10. Buffor Zone Western Sect -Ion Oevelopment of the Imif er
would oMr s mu taneous y with industrial development .
11 . Industrial Development , Eastern Section - By 197A develnp -
men of Me Eastern �Sec'tion should be'g"rn . Within a short
period after , 80t of the industrial land in the Specific
Plan could be absorbed . As wentioned previously , City
polity could significantly affect industrial development
in this area .
12 . Buffer Zone Eastern Section - As industrial properties
develop , the buffer zone cast of the park site would
develop simultaneously .
13 . Phase 11 - Closing Ta for Drive - Upon total development
c;f t e industrial land and completion of the buffer tone ,
'Taylor Drive could be closed as indicated in Pha «, 11
'01 (refer to Fig . 9 , Pg . 19 ) . This would complete develop-
ment of the Specific_ "lan area as recommended in this
document .
zb
&Iter I:.t ,
Aglre&.mF,t% One or
Financial I,�r-,urce both Stret•t5 TAYLOR AVENUE SPECIFIC PLM
PHASING PROGRAM
View 18 Mos. 8 New
4 Street - - ;trra�t
Program
l� i�esrc 2 1
i
i
N�tgotiations
2 with School
District
I
I'
1 3 7 _ y 21 13
specific Park 5 Closinq-- 1 yr. Industrial i 2 yrs. Partial' Closing
. plan 1 Vr. Sires — Y -
' Taylor Devel . or total Taylor
Dsvel. Drive fast Section. Ind. Develop_ Drivo
Fhisr I :ABM II I
1976 1978
S 6 In 12
1kif for suffer
OWtington El 1 L, Zone —__ 7xme
•trewt Ava liestern Eastern
Section
1476 1978
i
i!
A PMIIDIX
I
I
280
i
�Ir
I . (
Vj
44,
14
t� r l •
I
i r• ... .•fir«.. . .. �� . � r ' 1 �, i 1�, � .I ' � '�
...r.
VALIINT AV*
I
►� . . f
w CF - E
1
all 1
1 � f
1
1 '
Oft►a1M10
I r ►
PRECISE PLAN 73-1
1
ADOPTED BY
PLANNING CO MII S t INN '
WAM-11110 KOM ftMWM Wr
F i supw 12
29.
' too si
1 1
47t
. fidw
1 1 1
1 .►w� '.....
••••••.Y•��f1I►•.• . •. •.. 1 ••• 1••y•. •r••••/ . 1
11 1
• 1 • � 1
1
` 1
wq
•�♦ ••1�•,♦••f • •1 �. •1•.Il•f•tlt �•• 11 J
•lEN/ 1 .r ..{ • . .
j IIlDI INN
1 . 1 • . 1 1 '
CF — E
C01 ,11.
��fl
1
:.UFFER �
i t � CF-R -
ONTARIO OR
« / HC
� - - •? -
1 1
• r.
'••: F IGORE 13
- ALTERIATE 1, JUL r 1973
• 30 . , ; i
I
r
4 i
MAN
INTih•DEPARM19MY COMMMICAMN
M monn ing Cowmisslon Frew Reoreastion 1 fall's
Comianton
7W60 r Tailor -treet park site D+aM Juno 23, 1973
i
A, their last regular aeetin;, the Recreation and narks
Conol R ction recomonded that funds ul located for purchase of
k ne! vnborhood park adjacent to Robinwood School in 1973 -74
lludatr be used to purchase an additional 2 ,5 acres of land
from tree Ocean View School District ' s Taylor rite and to
f npr,.)ve , through trade and sole,, the park orientation to
that exlstirig site . Thee •Cowrission also roc nded that
w:- enter into a Joint-powers aArement with the Ocean View
School District to develop and nalntain a 2- acre neighbor-
hood park on Robinwood School .
See attached map layouts of the proposed sites .
Respectfully submitted ,
Iftail?'rt"A, -*ere ry ,
Recreatiun fr Park Cosimission
'i*I : a
At,tachmen%s
CC • Five PolnLs Homeowners Assn .
City Administrator
Recreation and Parks Commission
3i .
vArry or
INTER-OVARTMINT COMMUa:il:ATMON
•h ti M
to H .B. planning Comeission Froth H. B. Recreation i Parks
Commission
U*vct Taylor Street Park 31te Die July 20 , 1973
Mr. Ed Selieh , Chief of Advanced Planning, made a
presentation to the Recreation and Parka Ccmmmisslon at
their last regular seeting of July 11 , relating to the
action taken by your honorable body in reKard to the
Taylor Street neighborhood park realignment . The Recrea-
tion and Parks Cowmisslon moved their original reccomend -
ation to the Planning Commission r�uestln4'zo
a acre n• h-
borhood y jrk be n of iat d ,QQ..r,� t o w t the can V ew
ch�ool�District with the contizuration horta to t e
a scent tr act be brought to tht attention the sty
n strator and the City Council for the following rea-
sons : 1 ) With the removal of the school site , the poten-
tial recreational area is raduced by 10 acres . 2 ) The
service area of the park includes 10 acres of undeveloped
R-2 and 2 acres of undeveloped R-3 south of E111.3 which
In the future will generate a greater need for the park than
now exiats . 3 ) In order to Include into the design of the
park open turf areas suitable for running; train games such as
softball , football and hockey wl:hout the benefit of school
play areas will require a 5 acre site . 4 ) The 5 acre park
will provide a better buffer zone than 7 i/2 acres between
the residential and In ustria? u ea . 5 ) The Ocean View
School District is receptive to a joint-powers agreement
to develop a neighborhood park at Raninwood which Mould
free allocated funds for Robinvood acquisition in the 1973-
74 budget to apply at the Taylor site .
Respectfully Submitted ,
Koren Worthy , Secr tar
Y Y
H . R . Recreation nd P&s %ks
NW: ac Commission
cc : City Council
Mr . Cave Rowlands , City Administrator
Recrea.ion and Parks Commission
R. M . Russoll , President , Plve Points Homeorn*rs Assn.
32 .
vou"
t2lp"*
044WAS MT C+OMAl1�lM1CA
�E Planni n . Commission From Recreation i Parka Comxi o s i'�n
futi:tct Taylor Street Park Site Dot• August; 13 , 1973
After farther investigation, study , and analysis of ;tour
recommendation and the Recreation A parks Co+smission' s
recommendation concerning the neighborhood park fronting
the north side of Taylor Drive , the Recreation and Parks
Comission is now recommending a new park site be obtained
which they feel would better serve the Five Points n*10-
borhood .
At their last regular meeting upon motion by Mr. Jim Curran
the Recreation and 'Parks Commisolon unanimously recommended
to the Planning Cot.,_41,331on that a five acre park site rront-
ing on the south side of Ellis between Huntington and Del&
rare Streets be pursued as first priority for the Five
Points neighborhood with the Cive acre site previously re-
cor=, ended , frontin& on the north side of Taylor Street , be
�.ne second p^iority .
reasons L _ven for the rec ":amended change In location
of ne park site were as follow; : 1 ) The tcpography of
the nAw s : te i-rould make a better park development And
:;,?vet al c•:: 43t 1; . , nature , eucalyptus trees could be retained
to add lrimediate beauty to ` t.e developed site . 2) The cen-
i. ral location would better serve both the single family res-
Idents and the residents or tho existing and future apart-
mcnts or planned units to thu eolith of Ellis . 3 ) 9y Moving
th►- park from industrial tong : property to residentially
Toned property the future popi,lation will be decreases: and
` ne industrial acreage enlar od .
Covington Hrother:s Developmec,r. Co . is in the prose:s of
W designing a rlanne-i Unit Devel npnent on the 10 acre parcel
which th- Cc►unis .,slor, would to have a 5 acre neirhbor-
hood park . They art! prepart�C to d i scuds the possibility of
- r on tholr pr:aNrty on Friday , August 17 , with the sub-
di r iston i Dnnittee
NW.ac
cc; t r. David Pow2ards , City Administrator
Retreat ion ar;j Parks Co:rmisslon
Five Points Homeowners Assn.
INK
,
IN1'B 11•I�J►IiTME M'Y C' iNIC�1TIClr
e Planning Comission From kecreation 4 Wks, C Wissif
t Taylor Stroet Fork Site oe" Septe"er 17 , 1013
At the regular misting of the Recreation i parks Commission
held on September 129 1973 , the Commission discussed the
pros and cons of their August R recoo sdation (attached)
to the Planning Commissiou concernin the relocation of our
nei hborhood park in the area bound* by Talbert , Main.
GotC*d, and Reach Blvd.
Mr . James Shepard moved the Recreation 4 Parks Commission
stand on the.lr August i recommendation to the Planning
Commission. Seconded by Mr . Kent McClish. Ayes 40 Noes i .
.W Motion failed .
RRCOMENDAT I ON
r . Jim Curran moved the Recreation 4 Parks Comission
recoamend to the Planning Commission their priority be
changed to first pursue a S acre park site fronting on
Taylor Street and secondly to pursue a 5 acre site south
and adjacent to Ellis street between Huntington and Dela -
ware . Seconded by Mr . Cooper . Motion car* ed unanimously .
Respectfully submitted,
Ors worthy Socretoy
Recreation i parks Commission
NW: ,Ic
cc : Recreation 1 Parks Commission
Mr . Russell , five Points Homeowners Assn .
Mr . Rowlands , City Administrator
Mr . Berg , Ocean View School District
At ichment
RECLIVIEC
L. F.F 16 1973
so rim r".
{
E 34 .
Stsite of Cal ifotnta 1012kod to
Conservation and Plead
Article 6. Avtbority For and 6e"rf 11pa4he ft wr
Ow. The pleanitar woo my, M it ar di"rrhl by the prepare
�
t" bWY A&% prre &Wi a lie broad ea the Srwd plan clad
drafts of mob=fw
tiw% prerwrto, "AlapMilaN■w r trtq In son
J td be vibe ttYsteearatie eWWOOM of the prtrtre Pke
Md tht iaaiiat any snag' "eesr.taeii moor 1� aw awes"W"
too the tle* body for adenim
Owl. swxh opeelie plane taay intlede:
(a) alluutiom litaitlsy tho keation of beildialp "A abet iMeptqm
male wi 1"peet to OWi•y or ►iraaed ro-a•wry
(b) 14114tie" a( the a" of lased OW beiw&hgk the bt4k OW
belle of boUdI.W tawd the " spaswr abort buildiora
1e) so ffl 1a1,1- of the ter of eye. "0 lost
d) etweot and Iwid vey sminiog aced ■eabotitd plow it seine to
nub the edkial Baum of Strom and h4bef,, ke twmin eordirlay
dv katiea and umeettainty aweig awb Snook OW to ptlwlie N
y systtos for the rsteabtriag of brildiep gad Pompottiew
(a) Both other nutters which will eeccmpliel► Ow purperea of this
ehaPW. including proreddrr for tho a rainiotnUm apt mh gins
( ) Such other weamrw as tray be requind N iseety iht .aftie"
of the gearral pled.
(AmeiMd 4 Ikese titter V& 1 M 1
Article 9. Proeedurt for Adoption of Spoeillk
PINris and Rerul�U om
65500. Before rtcommonding to the kliniat ee body that it Mlapt
a spaoilk plan or eoyuletiOn or any menti,uent 11 it -p+►iM Plaa
or regulation, the pplualloR eowwwil-n .Mal! b*W at least Oft (1)
~� poblia hearing. h'otico of the tiMt And Islaea Of 01101 I+eariaa 4011 be
riven at least 10 ealrada.r days before lb- hearing In the folWaine
Mannar,
(a) If the Matter is before a entinty planning eommi+sina. tko
notice shill be pabliAed at least own o! is a newiophfirr of Mte *TW
circulation pubbibed and circulated to the musty, er it three Is now,
it &ball bo posted in at least thrra public places in the coilnty.
(b) if the matter is brlure a city 1p'Nnr,ing camstiarion. the aofWs
ehaU be published at le,"t once in a newspaper of eirealatk a
publi" and einulated in the city, or if them is none, it •hsil be
posted In at leas: three public plazzes in the city. `
In addition to untie* by publirallorl, it conaty or city nay giro
imtice of the hearing in such other manner as it m,%)* Merin ii.'crtr+ary
or deairoble.
Az,�Imaring way be continued froin time to thar
gar I. The rmimmendation rf any sprcifl.- t+!Au or r••"slavish.
o* at any ameadsaent to a specift plan or re,:ulat". A ill br by
rwvlutiw of The fslaaainp culasission carrW h the asraalk" .area +I
of 04 kas tun a maforitf of its total votior saervsr
OWL A copy of any speciAe plw, ra�lrtirn, or "WW11saewt
r�eeewsoerdad par&raat to the attieh sisall be enbris��l+atl to tlra krMla�
rive bey and " be aaeawnpatiod by a alalrmak of tier plsiwsit
oawwSosi % roaaoae tart tank rrloasosneodatieati.
"M. UPON MWipt of a spy of nay prePWd 1.- *do plea or
PAMISUON oe &Aare kwntt of "A pus or r�r�►�atM�a rraer 1r'�,`illrRlr'r►
asq by ardiaaaco i reo*lntiew rp►t tlA p �r reMlittM
adorw =iul an Priem ttp+rc& plan a rt irtkyl IMr !e idb.
live be M rt Mr+lot of (1) pubb e. �.Nt 11301e at to titer
Mid of said hewing %hall be rivets w ruse Hero aced wrMattr PM do of censor of tlro beei" bs iw 'laa wat�il~
d"as tttpsidw di10a.
�S ,
In Iliiitisw to hectors 4 a+rlltOr or My imar 00
"on ad as Iwarne in "RAW r it "I dean
ON MtINMr.
AAW b"Fleg my ba aortiawd fraim Ow to thm
wileeilwk pp�4r�lotioo, at adoplod w. dWA be &w W so aft sp.
Oam. '1w laridatjra call tarot ltt Ok stony than" ar o+ldi• •
"* tier Is as rvp wd '0 , r+sul•t66% or mro"wall d wv"
twt�atsm@3id by tMa w wallow w fatal aw pumps eww
asd Use bare beta i aftti to the pta N A.-- rawl■irliota 1tr • oa�rt
wA a of t�ba n9M ho Mar Anna ari11~ fl a ►.
reason d tMt plassiffil smab■oar (40) i
air tie nhreea„ or na=rlo
r Itrq b� MwipwM.rl by tM
hoolatiw body, "I be • p�Mww oft O 04two iris
or addition. It aball not be otwonery W the Obaside a to
bald a public bearing err each eibwgtr or Immitlo w.
66M. If the erg doe. tact w a ple"Inag commission, tbte setup
procedural ►taps req>Ireed for t>wo Ado" of a arwww fkift or ME
nbtke or any ataeadteent W or opwiM plan at nrtrlalke aboll ba
these provided In this artirie tar senses by the loofttive body.
ISM. Nothina� in this sriiele applin to the odooks or a=rwi-
ts"t of any ardinattree by the legialAdve boo. whow or we it
may mate to the sub*is nwritionod in Artirte A of ibis tlraptn,
excopt ordinances e:prowlr Weptiog or aattsa4iog a qmr& ptw
initiated pursuant to thin ebatttor.
1 Aaawwk4 1rr MGM INR n, tS1M,t
LW. W'hea it cream it to be for Ow public iftlervot, Ow Wrialalioo
budy may initiate and adopt on ordimnev at twslatim oalilia ll"
a speeiA: plan or an arnrwlamt tb#mo. Tyre lrgielati•r body sM'ap Aral
refer such prolrinal to eatabliah n.och opreide piss or sreeeodal I thereto
to the planning ennimiaaion for At report Mary a king a e"wrt, the
planning commi%awn shall hold at kart one pjblk beariag T14 Plain-
zinc Mraraisaann 61.311 rrlsort within 44 data after tke refea•.ir•Y. at
within such longer period ae roar be c%vgrnetwl by for lrriailathe 1100.
Before adopting the propoved plan or ampodw eat the Irtiolotiw body
$ball 'bald at least One puthe hearing Notiel. of the time a" plaiet of
bearings held pursue+ to tha a►ctmn shall be giwrw is the fiasco and
ep
banner provided for the giving of notiee of 1learktgs by tb�e plo taatr
ayooaaaiaaiou a. spec ilMd i n t3ett ioe G;�.SO().
t A.N44 r, 4#41a► low ate WT.)
Artlek 10. Adminiatratlon of 81wits
Plana and ReCulatiow
$5650. The lerislatave body may Moraine and establish admin•
istrative rules and pro:edamn for the Application and eiatorrrnsrat of
a wd& plane and regvlatioea, and may araoien or dolegetee rash si"In-
istratire func'ona, powem and duties to for planning n other Agawey
oa may be neenury or deesiral-le.
65551. The lerislaatiee body mar erente adsainistraot!" •gamins.
bsaei of rewleo►, appeal, and adjustrneat• and provide for other Wil,
eiarla, and for fwkk for the wa sprneatiun of rub etlew employras,,
ant d ageaneiara sad for this sa ppow t df their wurtt.
SUM No dnd mW be impowwo l snail we owm or arrrrltim
or a dw inprtewalasarts emu be kw or awtrsei"A Is as w Mao "Owe
awl Mrrw" ow W"do loriol U" body b" - I- . so- • aleret
eat bow" pica "a dw maw bas bean rahrrri of 17 p MOWN
ao/sllsy for a nprsrt an to WNWi@ WHY, with attrsbt SWO otr
b7plain rwd a sW of Ow report bona beta sub Mrs bwwr"
y o.lwa ores oti tea f.1M•1wp osw�iitlano appttsos
i) 'Ifs stew& bra biota tar4 oprtra4 ar ralrt ttrw
dw Mow Ms1ro of • petblle dr a prior to do rip flans d to
``b) It oanottpaatir*111111 allM6 A"M wa As
(a) re awtnrpaM �ttnsM riewr ar • titM�ttr>�ar tt�
�!ar t~nwy ap/raoatl�/�1wll�e*web•
tt� h arilR �wtn rMwr ar • wwMsirtlri tt owe
app�rtrwi bg >Aw err.
lrrl► rMrr Mom~ tr fir iylrlrlwr i�r1�► .Mir IMb
(e1!) iiea a err urr Offs r , WN Wbul Mr Mir O■MW MOW.
sb.
L
y
i
RK."LUTION NO. 111 n �
A RZ30LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THL CITY
OF HUNTINOTOX SUCH APPWVIN0 SPECIFIC PLAN
NO 73-1
WH91RAS, pursuant to the Planning and Ionir4K Law, the
' Planning Cornrnission of the City of Huntington Beach, after
notice d!ily given, held a public hearing on August 21 , 19730
which was continued to and concluded at its m**ting of
October 2 , 1973, relative to Specific Plan No . 73-1 to pro-
vide a new street , 6n feet in width, to run approximately
655 foot south from the center- line of Talbert Avenue , approri-
Mately 700 feet west of the center line of Beach Boulevard ,
and to close Taylor Drive to through t.rarrIc approximately
660 feet west .of the center line of Beach Boulevard; ani
On November 1973, at'ter notice duly given pureuant
to law, hearing was held before this Council on the prorobv-1
specific plan, and the matter having been considered , the
Counell finds that the proposed new street, and proposed
closure of Taylor Drive is reasonably necesaary to the orderly
%nd efficient now of traffic , for the preservation of the
health and safety of the inhabitants of the city , and for
the orderly development of the comunity ,
N049 THEREPORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach does hereby resolve as follows :
1 . That Specific Plan No . 73- 1 , as Amended and on file in
the office of the City Clerk , is hereby approved .
2. That the map, desigrated Exhibit "A" attached hereto
ind made a part hereof by preference , is hereby adopted as part
Spre! flc P:an !Io. 13-1 .
PASSED A`iD ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
.tomton11b 1
r
M OUNten !W►sh at • P*gular mooting thoreor held on t!w
or ttoes6or, 1973.
or
APPROM AS TO PORN:
a
11
i
Li
TALKRT '
INMWRIAL ; INa. INDO .iAL 1
1 46
_ 1 � .
I "
1
INDUSTRIAL I ND. a
INDUSTRIAL C+7t'Mf RC I AL �
� lO ACRE PARK SITE GROTN {'
vOUFFER BUFFER CHEY OLET
1 �f
1
T`u" CA _ H 1 LSON
s FORD
J
--- _-etc, ---�- �_
I*1 GURE
R PROPOSED LAND USE
I i Man
• Ian► - Mr � �r
I/ 1
00mv
cl" W OMMON M=
I, ALICIA Us . the duly appointed, gw4llliad City
Clark of the City of Mantiogtor Beach, sod ex-offiaio Chet of 04
City Council of seid City, do hereby certify that the ebe1e +rumor of
tears of the City Council of the city of lhotiastow 6ee+th to Mvem;
Ithtt the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the effirertioa
vote of ewe tiara • =Jority of all the meabers of acid City C acil
at a regular I goeting thereof bold on the 17ta 407
of December , 19 73 by the following vote:
AYSS: Counc i lwsrn:
Shipley, Bartlett , Green' Coon. Duke
I�
Wes : Counc i lmn:
f }tatney
ADSENT: Councilmn:
Gibbs
Of
City Clark and ea-officia Clark
of the City Council of the City
of gun t ing tope leach, Cal i f orw i s
:�i
hwdftbon Mach deveicpwAW Wv60*6 d*0W0HNd
SFAf f
,.
_--X1EP0RXm_
70' Planning Commission
!KN-. Development Services
DACE; July 7, 1987
lSUWXC'f: APPEAT. - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 8 7--15 IN CC)NJUNCT 1 ON
WITH CONDITIONAL L"XCLPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-24 AND
URGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-9; USE PERMIT 00 . 87-34
(CONTI MULLS ?RON JUNE 168 1987 PLANNING COIM I SISOM
PMET I NG)
APPLICANT: Boureeston Development CCXkTID :
3355 Via Lido, Suite 205 April 24 , , 987
Newport 8nsch, CA 92663
am=: Rodevelopment Agency C_1fi=&M,,,ji�xa:
City of Huntington beach Waived by applicant
Richard J. Aprahamian LM : NI--A (Restricted
` Attorney for Triple "H' Manufacturing District)
Properties
10552 MacArthur Boulevard GULAAL i?:.AH:
Irvine, CA 92715 General Industrial j
i
West of Beach Boulevard L)USTXNO UAL: Vacant
and south of Talbert
Avenue (between the east
terminus of Redondo Circle 5 access
and the south terminus of
Kovacs Circler
hl:(2=T: Appeal of the Board of Zoning Adjustment ' s approval of
an Administrative Review request to permit a 122,424
square foot industrial building end a Conditional
Exception to permit a 10-1/2 !Foot front yard setback in
lieu of a 14 -foot front yard setback on Redondo Circle
and to permit a truck well 50 :*et in width in lieu: of
20 feet in width, along with a Negative Declaration .
in addition to the appeal . a Use Permit is beta
requested to permit an industrial building witha 1�0
feet of residentially zoned property and to permit
truck doors to face a public street .
•
Two actions are being requested ;
I . Uphold the Board of ioni.ng Adjustment ' s approval of
Administrative Review go . 87-15, Conditional tsception ft.
87-24 and Negative Declaration go. 67-9 and dent the appeal
based on the findings and with conditions of approval outlined
in this report :
2 . Approve use Permit No . 07-34 based on the findings and with
conditions of approval outlined in this report .
C*AL l uralm l it:
The proposed project consists of one 122 ,424 square foot industrial
building, to be located on a Currently vacant 5-acre parcel . An 11
rear loose: has been executed with a single user for the eoaepleted
project (Southwest Quilted Products , a manufacturer of bedspreads
and draperies) . The project will initially employ 100 persons , up
to a maximum of 200 persons . Approximately 22, 000 square feet of
the building area will be used for offices, and there will be one 50 '
foot loading dock to accommodate 2 to 4 truck deliveries or pick ups
v pot ear. The developer will provide parking and landscaping in
accordance with code requirements , as well as cul-de-sac
improvements on Kovacs from Talbert Avenue to the site. The
proposed use will require no outside storage or use of hazardous
materials .
On April 15 , 1987, the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved
Administrative Review No . 87-15 and Negative Declaration No . 87-9 by
a vote of 5 to 0, and approved Conditional Exception No . 87-24 by a
vote of 4 to 1. Administrative Review no. e7-15 is a request by
Boureston Development in accordance with Section 9510 . 01 of the
Ordinance Code to pormit a new 122 ,424 square foot industrial
building on a 5 acre parcel currently owned by the City of
Huntington beach Redevelopment Agency. Conditional 4zception
('Variance) No. 07-24 is a request to permit a 10-1/2 foot front yard
setback from Redondo Circle in lieu of the required 14-foot setback
as required by Section 9510. 06( b) (3) , aced to permit a truck well to
be 50 feet .in width in lieu of 20 feet in width as required by
Section 9510. 12(b) of the Ordinance Code . These requests are
covered by Negative Declaration No . 87-9 . These actions were
appealed by Triple *HO Properties (Reliable Lumber) . After further
analysis, it was determined by staff that a use permit to also
-equireMd to permit a new in&Astrial use within 150 feet of
residentially toned property, and to permit truck doors to face a
public street (sections 9510 . :,8(a) ( 1) and 9510. 12) . On May 27,
19871 the Board of Zoning Adjustments declined to act on Use Permit
No . 67-34 by a vote of 5 to O in accordance with Section 9815 . 3 of
the Ordinance Code thereby referring the item to the Planning
(5A-4 asion. Therefore, Us* PosNit No . 87-34 has heen submitted in
edit junction with the appeal .
staff Report - 7/7/8:' -Z- Oslld)
F �
I
Those itme iretit cestinuod tton the pl&=169 Casssissiom W"riRg &9
June li, Iftl7, in order to allow the applicant &" the 11ast to
work with staff in exminiag altereitive &wJWW for the ptoppMA
p:oJect . At tb* Force 18, 1967 hestieg, sweral llseatsg
Cowaissione>ts sob property owwrs on lWondo Circle ewtprelfeed
coshrn as to bew the cul-de-sacs prropoa W for itWondo Circle mW
10+racs street would impact traffic flow. The plasaaiwg Cas sissies
directed staff to examine design alternatives that would provide for
a connection of Redondo Circle through to Talbott Avenue and also
prsevide the applicant with an acceptable building layout .
Since that time, staff has met with the applicant and the appellant
to discuss conceptual design alternatives which would provide a
connection for Redondo Circle around or through the site to Talbert
►venue . The various proposals analysed were determiaed to be
inadequate or unworkable dui to restrictions imposed b7 the Uniform
building Code, Tire Department requirements , incompatibility with
the adjacent senior residential development, increased cost and
time, zoning cads requirements and the minimum design criteria
required for the applicant ' s proposed occupant .
Staff maintains that the original layout for the project as proposed
by Boureston Oevelopnent project will not have an adverse impact on
traffic, noise, six quality, or other development in the ace& . A
detailed analysis of the proposal is contained in the attached staff
report doted June 16, 1987 .
Staff reconomnds that the planning Commission uphold the board of
Zoning Adjustment' s approval of A"inistrative Review No. 67-15,
Conditional Exception (Variance) No . e7-24 and Negative Declaration
87--9 and deny the appeal , and approve Use Permit No. 67-341 based on
findings and conditions of approval contained in the attached staff
report .
FillQ11GS_.FOR ApplQYAL .CQHD1T1Og& "CA]M1QH SQ. s7-?s :
1. The site is located at the terminus of two industrial streets .
Therefore, the reduced setback and truck %mil will not
adveerr%el.y impact surrounding residents , or impact the value of
property{ and Improvements in the vicinity .
2 . Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of the zoning Otdinaoee is
found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity and udder identical some
classifications. The lot is an unusual shape, and access from
two cul-de-sacs preie nts a unique circ astans:e.
Staff Report - 7/7/47 s3+ t8'�110)
1
l . "Oe taat i of w• Conditional �rp►teen Mo. •7 2d will apt
Witeriall trieental to the puirlic Welfare, or iajuriena to
property in the gain song Classifications. ANY potentially �
saver" isr' rats have born aoaaidered Md Mitigated.
4 . she granting of the Conditional Zweption will not advot"
affect the General Plan of the City of Neatinoon Robe%. 4L
protect is in conloraanw with the Zoning and Genotal alas
designation for the site.
ti t . aPps yu. - use . 1It go- 87-34 :
1 . The establishment, maintenance and operation of as industrial
building will not be detrimental to:
a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity;
b. property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or
building .
2 . Any potentially adverse impacts have been considered and
mitigated .
3 . The granting of the use permit will not adversely affect the
r General Plan of the City of Huntington beach. The project is
in conformance with the MI-A zone and General Plan designation
t of General industrial for the site.
s . The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
City' s General Plan and Land Use Rep.
1 . The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated
April 1 , 1987, shall be the approved layout , with modifications
as noted in Aftinistrative Review No. 57-15 .
2. All Conditions of Approval of Administrative Review ft . 67-25
shall be applicable .
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated
April i, 1987, shall be the approved layout, with Modifications
as noted in Administrative Review No. 07-15 .
2. All Conditions of Approval of Adwinistrative Review go , 87-15
shall be applicable .
Qa/II.I111M . .J ZZMAL - AQK1MM1TWx3M JWitp No. ez-11 :
1. The floor plans and elevations received and dated April 1,
19870 shall be the approved 18YOUt .
htatf ReOort - 7/7/17 -d- �ts1111)
f
:. A be tafitifPlati44UM April 1, 1967, shall be revised tO dolet
d ns described beceint
a. Lasdsespe planters which abut residmstislly sea" property
shall be a t ialmis of d feet clear width. LOW8060e
planters adjacent to the building shall be reduced in width
accordingly. ,
b. ibow additional 4}1/2 teat of public right-of-way required
on Wando Circle and Kovacs street .
3 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
submit the following plans:
a . Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of
Development Services and Public Works tot review and
approval .
b. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall
indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and
shall delineate the type of material proposed to ■cce*n
said equipment .
4 . Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems
shall be completed prior to final inspection.
5 . Grading plans shall be submitted to the public Mocks Department
along with plans for silt control for all storm ,runoff if
determined to be necessary by the Director of Public Works .
6 . If foil type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type
shall be installed as approved by the building Department .
7. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and
installed pursuant to lire Department regulations.
d. Service roads and fire lands , as determined by the Eire
Department , shall be posted and marked .
9 . r'ire access lands shall be maintained. if fire lane viola-
tions occur and the services of the Fire Department are
required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred .
10. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and
other surplus or unusable watenial , shall be disposed of at an
off-site facility equipped to handle thew.
11 . The deVelopwint shall comply with mitigation measures specified
for MPuture industrial Activity• in the Report prepared bey J .J .
Von Houten and Associates, Inc. , dated April 6, 19$3 (attached) .
12 . Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of water
heaters and central heating units .
t�
staff Report - 7/7/87
"" • i
13 . L4M-velWW beads shall be rased on all spigots awd water gamete. �.
14 . It lighting is include4 in the parking lot, Minh-pressure �...
+odium •eppoor lempe ou i l be used ter energy sswlson. All
outside li4htimg shall be directed to prevent •spillago' onto
adjacent properties.
M Prior to issuance of grading or building pelAits, Tract Nap
11955 shall be approved by the City C .vncil and tocorded.
li. All applicable public Works fees ohs11 be paid prior to
issuance of building permits . '
17 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of
the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and lire Department .
16 . The applicant shall meet all applicable local , State, and
Federal Dire Codes , ordinances , and standards .
19 . Landscaping shall comply with Article 960 of the Huntington
beach Ordinance Code.
20 . Compact parking stalls shall be striped to a depth of i9 feet
where possible.
21 . This approval shall become effective upon approval of Precise
Plan of Street Alignment No. 07-1 and repeal of Specific Plan
No . 73-1 by the City Council .
22 . prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant sball
obtain approval from the Design Review board .
23 . The Planning Commission reserves the Might to revoke
Administrative Review No . 87-15 if any violation of these
conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs .
1 . 0 AL JUM J 1 vZ AC1101i:
The Planning Commission may:
1 . overturn the Board of toning Adjustment ' s approval and deny
Administrative Review No. 67- 15 , Conditional Itaception �
(variance) No . 87-24 and Negative Declaration No. 67-9 baseed on
findings : and deny Use Fernit No . 87-34 based on findings; or
2 . Uphold the board of 2oninq Adjustment' s approval of
Administrative Review No. e7-15, Conditional Ssception
(variance) No. 87-24 and Negative Declaration No. 67-9 and
approve Use Permit No. 87--34 based on a modified site plan with
findings and conditions of approval . The modified plan shall
include the following conditions:
Staff Report - 7/7/87
1
#. A mied#fi•d site pl$s shall be subitted that gills
(1) Provide a street Connection bet~ awke e► Circle and
Talbert AV«aa.,
(2) troVid• a single industrial building at least 120#000
Square feet in area.
(3) C"Olr with fire Departwont repirwnts and the
Wrote building Code ,
(4) Coegtlr with •11 cequiresrents of the 111-A (Reya tricted '
Manufacturing) District , including setbacks. Sarking,
landscaping , building height and sound attenuation.
1 . Aces Map
2 . ?.-kla
ff Report dated June 16, 1987
MA:L
Staff Mport 7/1/87
beg" doww"
f f
TO t Planning cosrsi ss i on
rnm: Develop"At services
Wlt: Juas 160 1167
i WJBJ=: APISAI, - AC11I N I MATIV2 M IM NO. 67-15 IN G CTt0a
WITH ITIM" XURPTION (VAR100) 00. 67-24 AM
IIMt ATIVE DMCIU-MbATION MD. 27-9; UU tRR21IT AD. 81-34
APPLICANT: Boureston Development CA A022rrjQ:
3355 Via Liao , Suite 205 April 24, 1087
Newport Beach, CA 92663
$: Redevelopment Agency ;
City of Huntington Desch June 24, 1Ri7
Richasd J. Aprahamian AM: 141-A (Restricted
Attorney for Triple "M' manufacturing District)
Properties
18552 MacArthur Boulevard
Irvine, CA 92715 General Industrial
IMATIns: West of Beach Boulevard Vacant
and south of Talbert
Avenue (between the east
terminus of Redondo Circle : 5 acres
and the south terminus of
Kovacs Circle
R Appeal of the Board of toning Adjustswsnt ' s approval of
an Administrative Review request to permit a 122*4 24
square foot industrial building and a Conditional
saception to permit a 20-1/2 foot front Yard setback in
lieu of a 14-fora front yard setback on Redondo Circle
and to permit a truck woll 50 feet in width is Lieu of
20 test in width, along with a Negative Declaration.
In addition to the appeal , a Use permit is being
requested to permit an industrial building within 150
feet of residentially coned property and to permit
truck doors to face a public street .
1.DAM UM:
Two actions are being requested:
1 , uphold the board of toning Adjustment ' s approval of
Administrative Review No. •7-15, Conditional Reception Mo.
87-24 and Negative Declaration no. 87-9 and decry the sippeai
b*944 on the filydimys and with c nditieei of approval outliaw
is dyes rrs"rtj
2 . hpproT* Use lerwit No. 57-20 based on the findings and with
conditions of approval Outlined in this repolrt .
On April 19, 19M the Board of Zoning Ad jus•tmMts approver!
Aftinistrative tt view 00. 87-15 and Megstive Dealarstion No. 87-9 by
a vote of s to 0, and approved Conditional option so. 87-24 by a �
vote of 4 to 1. Administrative Review 0a. 47-19 is a request by
Boureston Development in accordance with Section 9510.01 of the
Ordinance Code to Vomit a now 122,828 square foot industrial
building on a 5 actin parcel currently owned by the City of
Huntington beach Redevelopment Agency. Conditional Reception
(Variance) No. 87-24 is a request to permit a 10--1/2 foot front yard
setback from Redondo Circle in lieu of the required 18-foot setback
as required by Section 9510 . 06(b) (1) , and to permit a truck well to
be 50 feet in width in lieu of 20 feet in width as required by
Section 9510. 12(b) of the Ordinance Cole. These requests are
covered by Negative Declaration Mo. $7-9 . 'those actions were
appealed by Triple ON" Properties (Reliable Lumber) . After further
analysis, it was determined by staff that a use permit is also
required to permit a now industrial use within 190 foot of
residentially Bored property and to permit truck doors to face a
public street (Sections 99a0 . 1i(a) ( 1) and 9510 . 12) . On May 27,
1987, the Board of Zoning Adjustments declined to act on Use Permit
No . 87-36 by a vote of 9 to 0 in accordance with Suction 9815.3 of
the Ordinance Code thereby referring the itce to the planning
Comission. Therofore, Use Permit No . 87-34 has been submitted in
conjunction with the appeal .
3-9 Am ats�►z...PLtld-?Y
Moth and Ifts of Subjwct ftnRartic
CE11ERAY PLAN DR$t ONAT I Ott: General industrial
ZONE: MI-A (Restricted Manufacturing District)
LAND use : Industrial
Sat Red Knuth ai Subject PraatJY:
G=SRAL PLAN MIGRATION: high Density Residential
zon: 10-SR (Nwltiple F mily Residence
District - Senior
Residential Development)
LAND U819: Senior Condominiums
6 . 0 NJLR MfQiT� iTATU$
The Department of Development Services originally advertised draft
Negative [reclaration 97-9 tot a ton day public review 80 comment
period enwo Bing April 0 , 1967. Dutinq that comment period, three
staff Report - 4/16/87 (835")
i
1ett6ts a i tiv - s r r/� Mr0 brpN • Daelrcat ias d7 f into e�lwd from Cao►es►ie
Mandic, Bob Dole*, and the law firm of Aprakesion Md Ducete
representing Triple ON* lsopecties (Reliable lumber) . On May 4,
1947, a letter at opposition to Negative Declatatioa was resiived
from the law firm of Heiser , M&e, Rallmr and Beckmaa, su J---ated
by a letter from Environmental Telesis, a ca"uItIng f i tm, th
representing Triple *N• Wholesale lumber . On May 24, 1967, ■evative
Declaration 67-9 was re-advertised for a ton d• public review szA
u cont period to respond to letters that were recived, to afford
MMitional tiny fort review and commamts and to give motice tk*t the
Planning Comission would be considering the negative declaration on
appeal. On Jute 3, 1947, a second litter was received t com
Enviranerrantol Telesis. On Junin 41 1947, a letter suppottiag the
proposed Bourestan project was received from Pettoncelle Priesd an
behalf of the residents of fterald Cove. On June S. 19678 Negative
Declaration was advertised for the third time for a ten day public
review and comment period to afford additional time for review and
to clarify that the negative declaration covers Aftiniattative
Review No. 87-15, Conditional Reception No . e7-24, Use Permit No .
87-34 , amendment to Precise Plan of Street Alignment 67-1, ameadm of
to Specific Plan No. 73-1 and the disposition and development
agreement between the City and the developer. The correspondences
are attached to this report along with staffs responses to
environmental issues raised in the letters . After tborough analysis
and review of the potential impacts from the proposed project, staff
maintains that the proposed mitigated negative declaration is
sufficient fat this project. Prior to any action on Administrative
Review wog 07-1� , Conditional Exception No. 67-24 and Use Permit No.
67-34 it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review end act
on Negative Declaration No. 67-9 . The letterer received and staff
responses are attached to this staff report.
5.0 w9nWOM .SCAM:
The site is a 5-acre parcel within the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment
area that was ednpted in 1902 .
6. 0 I SSUE>9 MM ABALYB-IS:
The proposed project consists of one 122,424 square foot industrial
building, to be located on a currently vacant 5-acte parcel . An 11
year lease has been executed with a single user for the completed
project (Southwest Quilted Products, a manufacturer of bedspreads
and draperies) . The project toill initially eiaplay led persons, up
to a maxisrun of 200 persons . Approximately 22, 000 square feet of
the building area will be used for offices, and there will be one So
foot loading dock to accommodate 2 to 4 truck deliveries or pick ups
per day. The developer will provide parking and landscaping in
accordance Nith code requirements, as well as cul-de- sac
improveawents on Kovacs from Talbott Avenue to the site. The
proposed use will require no outside storage or use of hazardous
materials.
The subject site is located within the bou>aderies of a format
special study aces which resulted in the Taylor and /each Specific
plan. to the Specific Plan desipAted the site for industrial use
Staff Report - 4/16/67 -3- (935")
add identified beftsrdo Circle "W 16w ce Circle istirsectisd is t!m
•ulriaCt site to fore a Iwo street mteo thr000k to 'Talbert
Avenue. Aftercareful revrew of this documiento staff has c+oMIudW d
that develey"at in the area has been isrple+rssnted in cowarreace
with the istest of the specific llas *ad as a planning tool it is so
1009e9 0e0e884CT for this area. Therefore, staff is din9
the repeal of the Taylor and /eacb Specific Plan with Resolution
no . 1362 and the adoption of a now Precise Plan of street Rlidaerat
No . 87-1 to show the tereination of Kovacs Street and Redondo Circle
with cul-da-sacs on the subject site . These proposals are analysed
In separate staff reports . 'these items should be revived and
approved by the Planning Coweission and adopted by the City Council
prior to the requested entitlement becoming effective (see Condition
No. 21) .
The following is a cede section analysis of the proposal .
Section XNAU Raau red Provided
9510 . 02(s) Lot Six* 20 , 000 S . F. min. 217 , 762 sq . ft.
9510.02(b) Lot Frontage 100 ft . minim" 24S ft . and
125 ft .
9510. 04 Building Height 40 ft. , 12 ft . 29 ft . * no portion
if within 45 ft . within 45 ft . of
of residential residential
9510. 06(b) (3) Front Setback 14 ft . 010-1/2 ft . and
14-1/2 ft .
9510 . 07(s) interior side is ft . Minimum 52 ft .
Setback
9510 . 08 Rear Setback 15 ft . Minimum 60 ft .
9S10 . 13 Landscaping 6 ft. buffet 6 ft. Duffer (AO
variance granted
by DIA)
9510 . 12 Loading facility 20 feet masimum *so feet malts"
width
9520 . 15 Outside Storage special screening Mo outside
required storage proposed.
9600 . 3 Parking Stall 4. 5 ft . s 19 ft . 8. 5 ft . : 19 ft.
dimension
(Standard)
•variance
Staff Report - 6/16/27 -4- (2356d)
9iOO .i Compact Perking
s) big ens 1 !t. x 15 ft. • !t. : 1i !t.
b) Location Distributed Distribution
throu�k parking apprawd by =A
airs$
9400- 12(s) talking Races - 206 218
Nuwbsr Regiu i red
96OO. 16 Landscaper area 17, 420 sq. f t . MOO sq. !t .
96O0. 18 ycont yard 10 f t. wide tlinirisr la f t .
larydecaps planter along wide planter
street sides along street
sides
*Variance
The following is a staff analysis of "a- mints received concerning
the environmental documentation.
The appellant contends that the, subject applications were improparly
noticed for public hearing. Section 15105 of the California
Environmental Quality Act states that a Negative, Declaration shall
be advertised for a reasonable period of time; the City' s policy is
to advertise Negative Declarations in a local nowspaper for 19
days . dative Declaration No . 87-9 was published on April 4 , 1967,
11 days prior to the Board of Zoning Adjustments fearing . With
regard to the Conditional Exception and Admi►ilstrative Review
applications, the Huntington Mach Ordinance Code auction 9614 .2
regarding Notice of Hearing for the board of toning Adjustawrnts
states, 'The board shall gibe or cause to be given notice of the
time, place and purpose of all public hearings by wailing notices at
leash five (5) working days prior to the date of such hearing to the
applicant and all owners of all abutting proporty whose noes and
address appear on the latest available tax Droll . ' Notices were
,,mailed on April 7, 1987, six w*tking days prior to the hearing .
The appellant also contends that the applications filed listing
Soureston Development as the applicant vote improperly filed hwcause
they were twat authorized by the propwsrty ornrer , the City of
Huntington beach RedevelapWsat Agency. in fact , a litter dated
Match 27, 1907, from Charles Tbaiapson, City Administrator# to
eoureston Development authorised doureston Development •to file for
entitiswast-to-use on the subject site now own" by the City Of
Huntington beach' (see attached) .
Staff Report - 6/14/67 -S- (i7Sief)
Mth:rt
lYaat0lsift that the 1"C4 erg Semi 11dJ�,st t• was r to act go the s*bjeat applies oss beet00M they b62466
approval of the pagan" fti-do-secE at A"cMde Circle OW 9" e s
street coastitut+ed a change in the Citp's 0"Wral Barr. Altbomh
the connection of R�nao *ad Roveas was adopted as 0 1frecise R e
Of Stream Aligasiant in 1974 , approval of the proposed ptoiect by the
Seard of Zoning Adiuetwents dons not constitute a General Plan
Awe aftent.
Redondo Circle , as otigirr*lip shown in the 1973 Taylor and Mach
Specific Plan, began at a point Goo feet to the sent of the railroad
right-of-wsy and esteaded southward from Talbert Avenue 660 foot to
a aul-de-sac . Precise plan of Street Alignment No. 74-3 was adopted
as Ordinance No. 1951 by the City Couseil on Deer 14• 1270.
This action roved Redondo Circle 320 feet to the west of the
original alignieent, and curried it eastward to the original
cul-de-sac location (see attached diagram - Precise Plan of Street
Alignment 74-3) .
On February 21, 1970 , the City Council adopted Resolution 4590,
amending the Taylor and Beach Specific Plan . This incorporated
Precise Plan of Strmet Alignment 74-3 into the tpmeific plan, and
extended Redondo Circle 330 feet to the *oat to intersect a proposed
north/south street (Kovacs Street) . (See attached AmeedWwnt to
Taylor Beath Specific Plan. )
On July 1, 19860 Tentative Tract 11959 was approved by the Planning
Co mission, delineating the parcel now proposed for development by
bourestant as well as the proposed new street alignment . That
proposal Mar covered by Negative Declaration No. 03-12. Although it
is staff ' $ position that the street alignment depicted by the
previous Precise Plan and specific Plan adopted by the City Council
can be amended by recordation of this pap, Precise Plan of Street
Alignment No . 67-1 is also being prepared in order to reduce the
likelihood of this item being raised as a legal issue at a later
date. The new precise plan would depict the termination of Redondo
Circle and Kovacs Circle with cul-de-sacs on the subject site, and
is analyzed in a separate staff report dated June 16, 1987 .
Proposed conditions of approval for Administrative Review No. 57-151
Conditional Exception No . 87-26 , and Use Permit No. 87-34 are that
no building or grading permits shall be issued until the Final Map
for Tentative Tract 11959 is approved by the City Council and 1
recorded and the effective date of the implementing ordinance for
Precise plan of Street Alignment No. 07-1 .
The appellant claims that the developer did not present
justification required by Code for the requested exciptions,
specifically that the granting of a variauco would not 0oftatitute a
grant of special privilege. The appellant also contends that the
developer aid not establish that the project would not be
detrimental to the public welter* or surrounding property,
especially with regard to traffic. The board of Zoning Adjustsreata,
however, detersrined that both the** findings can be nedw in the
affirmative. T" Board found that the unusual shape and topogrephy
of the lot and unique access constituted a special circumstance and
Staff Report - 4/18/87 -6- (8236d)
preseut:4; a hsrdtbip to 00 developer. They, also fouad that the �,..
derirelWyW-4At , including traffic generated, Mould be in accordance
Tw
with this plaAMW character of the area, and would not be injurious
to the surrounding property. tstimated traffic counts presented by
staff to the board repre"ated a worst case scenario, not the
traffic generated by this particular ptojact . Even at worst case
figures, the design capacities of lodondo, Kovacs and Talbert are
such that the added traffic volume generated by this project can be
adequately accommodated. (please rotor to Section 4 . 0 of this
report -- Envirowwatal status . )
The ap
pellant cites several sections of the Huntington beach
Ordinance Code which he believes were violated by the action of the
Board of Zoning Mjustments . These sections are included within
Article 951 (Restricted Manufacturing District) and are addressed
be 1 ow .
1 , Section 9510 . 12(s) refers to a minimum 45 foot setback required
for loading facilities . Boureston Development ' s proposal in
not in violation of this code section , as the truck loading
doors are located 45 1/2 feet from the public right-of-May .
2 . Section 9510 . 12(b) states that loading facilities shall not
exceed 20 feet in width . However , a variance wan granted by
the Board for 50-fout wide loading facilities proposed by the
applicant , based on findings outlined in this report .
3 . Section 9510 . 12(d) states that the Board of Zoning Adjustments
shall `endeavor to achieve variations in the street scone" when
considering the location of loading facilities . The board
determined that the location of the subject loading facility
could not create an over- concentration of such facilities on
any one street.
4 . Section 9510 . 12( f) states that adequate area shall be provided
for the safe operation of trucks . Again, the board of Zoning
Adjustments , in their approval , determined that the loading
area was sufficient -o accommodate the safe operation of trucks
due to its proposed width and relation to surrounding streets
acid buildings.
5 . Section 9510. 18 requires that a noise report shall specify
recommended noise mitigation measures for an industrial use to
ensure that noise levels will conform with the City' s Noise
Ordinance (Section 8 .40 of the Municipal Code) . The applicants
utilised a 1983 Noise Study prepared by J -1 . Van Mouten :end
Associates, Inc. , for the sijacent resi-deiitial devolopwnt (sere
attached) . The report analysed the impacts on the residences
from both existing industrial development and from proposed
industrial development on the subject rite . The report
contains several mitigation sitesurhs and standards !or interior
and exterior noise levels to be included as conditions of
approval tot "future industrial Activity- - As those standards
Jtaff 11eport i/lb/07 (8356d)
are designed to mitigate the impacts of industrial users on a
resid4atial project, then are mot* than adequate to rritigat•
aar anise Impacts of the subject development on surrounding
industrial user• . A suggested condition of approval for
Ad�r.inistrrtive Review 87-13 Dad Conditional fteeption 87--24 and
Use Permit No . 67-36 is that •the deVe lopswint shall coepir With
Mitigation &natures specified for •future industrial Activitr"
in the report prepared by J.J . van Houton and Associates, tac. ,
dated April 6 , 1983. 6 Thus# br referencrp, mitigation messurese
including ara:imruw sound levels, an additional acoustical report
detailing methods by which the proposed building will coeply
with the specified standards, and a mechanism for resolution of
complaints , are incorporated as conditions of approval for the
proposed project.
6 . Section. 9510 . 15 refers to outside storage reguiresients. The
applicant proposes no outside storage, therefore, this section
is not applicable .
7. The appellant contends that the development , in general , does �
not comply with Article 951 (Restricted Manufacturing �
District) . However, the development complies with the Zoning
Code in all respects except for a 3 1/1 ft . encroachment into
the front yard setback and this width of the truck wee l l , for
which variances were granted by the board of Zoning
Adjustments . ( Please see Matrix at the beginning of this
section - Issues and Analysis) .
The appellant contends that the, actions of the Board of Zoning
Adjustments are invalid pursuant to Government Code section 65960
relating to zoning consistency Kith the General Plan. The toning on
the subject site is ail--A (Restricted Manufacturing) , which is
consistent with the site ' s General Plan designation of General
Industrial . The Board of Zoning Adjustments acted upon r proposal
that is permitted within the M1-A district subject to such
entitlement, and is consistent with the General plate . The actions
of the board did not constitute a change in the General Plan of the
City.
The appellant cites additional sections of the Ordinance Code which
he believes were violated bf the project ' s approval . Sections
9600 .3 and 9600 . E regarding parking stall dimensions and compact
parking are addressed In the matrix at the beginning of this
analysis and reflects compliance with these sections of the cede .
With regard to Section 9600 . 5. the appellant contends that Public
Norks' approval was not given for design anid drainage of the parking
area. *mftver , during the land use entitlement phase of a project,
the layout and circulation of the parking lot and the placement of
driveways are among those factors considered by the board of Zoning
Adjustments in their decision. Per standard development procedure,
a detailed review of drainage by the Public Works Department will
occur prior to issuance of grading and building permits . The storm
drainage plan for the projsp%�t must conform with all Public Forks
Standards and Specifications , including compliance with the Citr
Master Plan of Storm Drainage .
Staff Report - 6/26/87
The appellant a l leages that: the City f a i leed to Cooduc t an
enviroiureatrl study, and that an Raviromental Impact Report should �
be prepared is lieu of a 6"stive Declaration. In fact, on initial
environawntal study was conducted by staff, as ropiterd Coo# rend it
was determined that • mitigated Negative Declaration could be
filed . Agencies must prepare an Envi ronn*ntal Impact Report oely if
a project Ray hone a significant effect on the envi roriaent. It the
project cats be modified or conditioned to eliminates significant
impacts, a mitigated negative declaration may be filed in lieu of an
Environsrontal Impact Report , Any potential impacts from t►re subject
proposal , such as noise and stores water runoff, will be mitigated .
Other issues including traffic, geology, public services, and air
quality were determined not to have a potentially signif!cant
adverse impact on the enviro mrrnt . The initial study aroA Negative
Declaration were prepared in accordance with CW guidelines and
City Ordinances . All areas of concern identified by C'Aty Staff and
by written responses from intererst�d parties were addressetl by Staff
prior to the eoarl of Zoning Adjustments meeting of April 15 , 1981 .
j 9.9 IkZQMU>iD.dT.l.4ft
Staff reconamends the planning Commission uphold tha board of Zoning
Adjustrrents approval and deny the appeal based on the following
findings and conditions of approval . ^pprove UsG hermit No. 57-34
based on the following findings and Conditions of approval .
I
FIB R�MR. APP _ - CORD iT IOMAL,=CEp"rIM rLit... 8 2-2 :
1 . The site is located at the terminus of two industrial streets .
Therefore, the reduced setback and truc'R well will not
adversely impact surrounding residents , or impact the value of
property and improvements in the vicinity.
2 . because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property-, including site, shape, topography, location or
surroundings , the strict application of the zoning Ordinance is
found to deprive they subject property of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone
Classifications . The lot to an unusual shape, and access from
two cul-dc -sacs presents a unique circumstance .
3 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 87-24 will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to
property in the seals sons classifications . Any potentially
adverse impacts have been considered and mitigated .
4 . The granting of the Conditional Exception will not adversely
affect the General Plan of the Citr of Huntington beach. The
project is in conformance with the Zoning and Genera 1 Plan
designation for the site .
btaf f Report -
i. The establishment , maintenance and operation of an industrial
building will not be dettim atal to:
a . The general welfare of persons residing or motki" in the
vicinity;
b. property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or
building .
2 . Any potentially adverse impacts have beee considered and
mitigated .
3 . The granting of the use permit will not adversely effect the
General plan of the City of Huntington Beach. The project Is
in conformance with the MI-A none and General Plan designation
of General Industrial fat the site.
+ . The proposal is consistent with the goals and objen.tives of the
City' s General Plan and Lana Use Flap.
1 . The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated
April 1 , 19e7, shall be the approved layout , with modifications
as noted in Administrative Review► No. 87-- 15 .
2 . All Conditions of Approval of Administrative Review go. e7--15
shall be applicable .
COMP"t iNA og Arklym AL - UAX IT Iwo. s7-14 :
1. The site plan, floor plans , and elevations received and dated
April 1 , 1987, shall be the approved layout, with modifications
as noted in Administrative Review No . 87-15.
3 . All Conditions of Approval of Administrative Moview Mo . 87-15
shall be applicable.
COND11 RO 01SXMTjYE MIEN MD, 47-15 :
1 . The floor plans and elevations received and dated April 1 .
19870 shall be the approved layout .
1 . The site plan dated April 1, 1987, shall be, revised to depict
the modifications described herein :
a. Increase width of landscape planter adjacent to South
property boundary to a minimum of six feet (reduce width of
landscape planter adjacent to building accordingly) .
Staff Report - 4/16/17 46- 035")
1 . prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant gull
submit the following plans:
a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of
Development Services and Public Works for review and
approval .
b. Rooftop Mechanical Rquipoent Plan. Said plan shall
indicate screening of all rooftop anchanical equipment and
shall delineate the t"w of material proposed to screen
said equipment .
4 . Installation of required landscaping and irrigation system
shall be completed prior to final inspection.
S. Grading plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department
along with plans for silt control for all storm runoff if
determined to be necessary by the Director of Public Works .
6. If foil type insulation is to be used,, a fire retardant tn► ,@
shall be installed as approved by the Building Department .
7 . An autoriatic fire sprinkler system aliall be approved and
installed pursuant to Eire Department regulations .
e . Service roads and fire lands, as deternirted by the Firm
Department , shall be posted and marked .
9 . Fic:e access lands shall be maintained . If fire loner viola-
tions occur and the services of the Fire Department are
required , the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred.
10 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber , wire, pure, and
other surplus or unusable material , shall be disposed of at an
o[f--sit• facility equipped to handlo them.
11 . The development shall comply with mitigation measures specified
for "Future Industrial Activity" in the Report prepared by J.J.
Van Houton and Associates, Inc . , dated April i , 1953 (aptached) .
12 . Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of water
heaters and central heating units .
13 . Low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets .
14 . If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure
sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings . All
outside lighting shall be directed to prevent •spillage• onto
adjacent properties .
15 . Prior to issuance of 9cading or building permits, Tract Map
11955 stall be approved by the City Council and recorded .
Staff Report - 6/16/67
16. All +ppliCeble ftblie Mika Ceres shall be paid priew to
issuance at building ressiits .
17. The development shall CO i1pat with all sppllCsble psovisim W of
the Ordinance Code, bui ldiag envision, and Fire Dspertmeet .
1s. The applicant shall seem all applio4ble local , State, and
Federal lire Codes, Ordinances„ and standards.
19 . Landscaping shall comply with Article 960 of the Huntington
Beach Ordinance Code.
20 . Compact parking stalls shall 'be striped to s depth of 19 Bret
whore possible.
21 . This approval shall become effective upon approval of Precise
Plan of Street Alignment no. 87-1 by the City Council .
22 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke
Administrative Review Mo . 87-15 it any violation of these
conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs.
11D . o "LA"MT. d
Overturn the board of Zoning Afljustment ' s approval and deny
Administrative RQvie" No. 07-13 , Conditional Exception Me. 87-24 and
Negative Declaration No . 57-9 based on findings ; Deny Use Permit 1
No. 67-34 based on findings.
1. Area Map
2 . Site plan
3 . Letter of Appeal dated April 24 , 1947
4 . Environmental Docuument.ation:
a . Letter dated April 13 , 19971 from Mrs . Connie Mandic.
opposed to Negative Declaration 87-9 .
b. Letter dated April 13 , 1987 , from Aprahamian and aucotee,
opposed to Negative Declaration 87-9 .
c . Letter dated April. 13 , 1987 , from Real Estate Investment
Services , Bob Solon, opposed to Negative Declaration 87-9 .
d . Staff response to April 13 , 1987 transmittals .
e. Letter dated May 4 , 1907, received from Weiser, lane,
dallmer and Berkman, supplemented by letter from
Environmental Telesis, Mr . Christopher Joseph.
f . staff response to May 4 , 1967 transisittal .
q . Letter from environmental Telesis dated June 2 , 1987,
opposed to Negative Declaration 81 -9 .
h. Staff response to June 2 , 1957 transmittal .
1 . Declaration from City Traffic Rngineeer that no significant
traffic impacts will be generated by proposed project .
better dated June 2, 1987 from Petroncella Friend on behalf
_ of emerald Cove residents.
Staff Report - 6l16/87
ATTACOMIS
S. Letter of Autbosinatios
i. board of Posing Moat" dated April 15, 1067
7. Pt*Cisi Plan of itrNt A11QVM St 74- 3
d . Amendment to the Taylot and beach dpocific Plan
{ 9 . Tentative Tract 11935
10 . ncerpts - Malmo Assesswrat prepared by J.J. Van Mouton and
Associates, Inc. ,, dated April i, 1983.
MA: : k1a
start Report - 6/16/17 -13-
�M
CF—R
t / � MI-CO ;wr 1' -mom�TO R try/'
i ... _�j rt 2 �.
RZ
MI
t :dill —CD R2 4 >R
Not
AL
C 4
r
CF—R MI-Ca i MI-n �.. �ROr
•, , MI—CD , ... R1
ra
cF-R ,pqTo
4
J fRl
1
1 MI -?, C�
A-a-Ca '_ R,
m
row
on !?I
Mr-Ca phi oil ""
c.
foram
1 IlM�f�� MAC" ftAMNOW 01MOOM
� J
I
I
@Age �• •CCiit
� 11 , 111
AL •,.
•
• I
` 1
i
f
JIUATINGTON OEAt;J �t { •� �. I�'' '4�
AYEIU?kKNT
i .it
ttt ski
p.j. DJA IJ� t ' t t t _
�ucIUn
�!IG11 ACM CA
11� 1 •
�41it/1IST Ott M ,i��•• •
by Mosseftyer
^POIAHAMI^04 d, OUC OY9
etcPOO"J AMla"484 wq •7.•#196"irtildVeM►rM ►itt�•t•�i
w�A+Q�d t out��i.Jll t�rtlis - 1>' ++ fl�•a�os
Boo capita
"OTGOWO "Wt1CV4&G* .Porr m
It1y1Mr,L•.li�t,t*�+71w•I♦j10 A�� n .•
1 � A1V I ► M�l•
April 24 , 1987 �M19
L�(J ( 1 ► � �
BUIL
Secretary
City Plannin4 Cormission �Ut~
City of Huntington Bleach , California
Bee : Notice of Appeal of Decision of board of
Zoning hdjustments
Gentleatnt
on behalf of oar clitnt , Triple W Properties. i
appeal is hereby made to the City Planning Commission
protesting and appealing the decision of the Huntington Beach
Board of Zoning Adjustments in approving Conditional Exception
No . 87-24, Administrative Review No . 87-15, and Megative
Declaration No. i7-9. Triple 'pa Propert iesr by Its appeal ,
hereby asks that the City planning Commission ovtrturn and
review the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustsants , and
auks that the Applications of Bourtston Developsent , Inc. for
Conditional Exception 14o. 27-74 , Administrative Review Na.
S7-15, and Megatise Declaration 87-9 bo disapproved and denied
by the City Planning Cotsiission .
Triple W properties is a California Gen4ral
Partnership which owns a 10 acre parcel of land in Huntington
Beach . Triple 080 ' s property is adjacent to the Talbtrt-Beach
re-developrent site which is the property the subject of the
t
Board of Zoning Adjustments ' decision appealed hereby . Triple
T
0110 Properties believes the action of the board of boning �-
Adjustmenta was illegal , improp4r , and , if the underlying
development in allowed to proceed , th* property of Triple N .
Properties will be severely dawaged .
The grounds for the appeal are as follows: •
(A) JMPROFB HOTICa(S)and IMPRO�PIRAPFUC„AT_I N
( 1) failure to Provide Adtauite vatic* _ of
Rear_ink
California Govetneental Code Section No.
65, 905 requires that a public hearing be held on all
l
applications for conditional exception, and , presum-
ably, for administrative review and negative
decl
aration, when a r~e0 ative declaration is the J
basis for a proceeding betore a Board of toning
Adjustment . Government Code Section 6 5. 0 91 pre-
scribes a period of not less than 10 days for notice
to be given by mail to owners of property within 300
feet . In this case , the board gave notice of such
hearing on April ?, 1987 . A copy of the wailing
list from the City ' s records , together with a
notation as to the date of sailing, is 2ttached as
Exhibit 'A' hereto. This is 2 days short of the
period required by Government Code Section 65, 061 ,
and , accord i ng ly this Ord shau ld remand this
MOtter to the ftqr4 of inning Adjustments and rul+
that the action by the board of toning Adjustments
is without •tract .
2) Avol„igations ,byDeey3,lMc Were tftr"*r
Under Ordinance Code Section 9413 . 1 , it
the applicant for a conditional exception,
administrative reviaw, and approval of negative
declaration is not the owner of the property
affected by the applications. 0 . . . . . a letter
from the property owner authorising the agent to act
in his behalf shall accompany the applWation" . No
such letter was attached to the Application of
i
Boureston Development is copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit 680) . As the property owner , at,
least as of the date of application and hearing , was
and presumably is. the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Roach, California , and as no
i
letter from the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington beach authorising such application
accowpanied the application of soureston
Deve lopm*nt , the board of boning Adjustments and no
power to act on the application of bourestort
De ve laysee n t .
1
Accordingly, as the application ( s) acted
o by the Board were ; sproper. , and ss :nAdgnuats
public notic* was given , it is requested , On
procedural grounds , that this Commission, without
the need to consider the underlying technical abuse's
pervasive in :.:se arplivation , reverse the derision
of the Board of zoning A0justNenis , anc reject the
above-referenctd applications for conditional
exception , administrative review , and acceptance of
negative declaration .
(a) EXCEPTIONS� REQVES Ln ARE BEyono POWER Or BOARD
OF ADJUST""TS ZONING
�► lication Is !!e once 5ca of 8E!1 Power
• �i.■�Y■■YIYiY ■ - -i YI
Under Article tS of the Ordinance Code
of the City of Huntington Beach , the board of Zoning
Adjustments may act only when a minor or, variance of
some other regulation or ordinance is so-.ight . In
this instance, approval of the applk.,ation, by
virtue of the abandonment of a preclOw plan of
future street , constitutes a change in the general
or Master Plan of the City. ",* Board of Son i ng
Ad justswnts is without p wer to act until the City
Counc i 1 has effectuated a change in the Mae to c Plant
and , accoraldglr: the decisism of the Roar! of
towing Adjustments should be overturned , with
di .ections .•-z the applicant to reapply if and when
the Master flan of the City has beer, amonded to
allow lai. itude for Board of zoning Adjustment
(2) De velm*r I'a ii l*d to Present
jupt i f icat ion for *xcenion. and Thum
BSA I i Without Powe t tc Act
Under Ordinance Code Section 9611 . 1 . 1 ,
any applicant/developer Must affiraati�,:ly *stab-
light
(a) That the granting of a conditional
exception will not constitute a gran- of
special privilege inconsisthnt upon other
propertieffi in the vicinity and under an
identical son* classification .
(b) That o habt ranting of Conditional
materially drtc iwental I
Exception will n
to the public welfare or Injurious to propertY
in the race* lone clasmifications.
The applicant/developer in this wattr►r
has not met his burden . Indeed , the evidence before
the Board of Zoning Adjustments estabiishta that, by
virtue of the Planning Coowission ' s own staff rtport
that approximately six (6) times the volume of
traffic projecte4 by the developer will bye thrown
onto MedmWe Circle, and this 410nO will constitute
PON-
a taking of the right of P.ccess of the owners of
adjacent prop@r ~v , n special and uncompensatF.'
privilege for the applicant . 'thus , not -only is
approval by the Roard of Zoning Adjustments of the
conditional exception ( s) a grant of , special
privilege , its action is also injurious to owners of
adjarerit property .
(C) vIOLATI014S OF ZONING CODES
The action of the Board of Zoning Adjustments
appealed froL constitutws a violation of the
following sections of the City Ordinance Cody:
ro► err ty , as with the subject site , in �
qulating p p
property zoned as Restricted Manufacturing Dis-
tricts (MI-A)
( 1) 9510 . 12 (m) - violation of minimum set-
back requiresenter
( 2) 9510. 12 (b) - Loading facilities shall
not be over 20 feet in width;
( 3) 9510. 12 (d) - Traffic shall not be
regulated to concentrated on one streets
(4) 9510. 12 ( f) - The area for truck opera-
tion is inadequate for the safe operation of truckat
(S) 9510 , 1$ Mandatory ibis* Study has not
bean performed ae rued by the Ordinance Code .
� S -
i
( 6) 9510 . 15 - Outside Storage - there has
bob •n nu compliance with outside et- .-age require-
ments .
( 7) Under 951 of the Ordinance Code ,
parking , landscaping , stst-hacks, and other• building
requirements have not boon observer'. , and other
provisions of the Zoning Ordinances of the City
applicable to the size , shape, and landscaping
required for buildings in the M1-A Zoning
Classification in tha City of Huntington beach .
(p) VIOLATIONS Or GOVERNMENTAL CODES
The actions of the Board of Zoning
Adjustments , as heretofore mentioned , constitutes a
change in the Master Plan of the City, under
California Governmental Code Sections 65# 350 and
65 # 907 . These changes are invalid under Governmental
Code Section 65 , 860 as being out of conformity With
the General Plan of the City of Huntington ®each .
{E) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCE CODES
Triple "M' properties believes, additionally ,
that the proposed developrent , if allowed to
procetd , will be in violation of the following
sections of the Runtington Beach Ordinance Codea :
i
(1) 9600 . 3 - Proscribing minimum parking
s �11 dis�ensic::s•� .
(2) 9600 . 4 - Requiring the distribution of
compact cal spaces throughout the property and
proposed development .
( 3) 9600 . 5 - Design of lots and drainage
Department of Public Works approval does not appear
to have been given .
(F) FAILURE Tt� CONDUCT ENV I RONMLNTAL STUDY
The Pub-tip: Resnurces Code of the State of
California , S%!!ctions< 21000 et . seq . , requires that
an environmental study be conducted prior to
approval of a project of this t'•Pel by the C i ty
I
leajslative body or prior to the approval of a
conditional exception, absent a valid 'negative
declaration Wbtre a question exists as to the
PP p
a ro ri3teness of the use of a negative
declaration , recent California case law requires
that such study be conducted . See Friends of
1lestvood v. Los An e1e�t wherein the requireswnts
for environmental assessment are set foith .
(California Court of Appeal , Second Appellate
Distt ict) .
The requirements of Westwood , alone , seem
clearly applicable . As the burden of traffic which
the proposed development promises to throw upon
Redondo Circle is, in a word , tremendous . The
applicant has estimated and represented *that the
proposed project will generate 250 vehicular trips
per day . However , this commission ' s own staff has
estimated that in excess of 1500 vehicular trips per
day will be made into the subject site from traffic
related to the development . Not only does this
constitute a material misstatement of the data
I
previously submitted to the City Council , it also �
constitutes a clear basis to apply the Westwood
rationale , and to require the Environmental Study,
prior to the issue of any conditional exception, or
approval of any administrative review or negative
declaration .
(C) USE or REDEVELOPMENT LAMS TO TARE PROPERTY OF
OTHERS
Under the Talbert--@each Redevelopment Plan
adopi:ed by the City of Huntington beach , the City
and the Redevelopment Aqe ncy are mandated to engage
in the redevelopment process without injury to the
property of others,, whether within or without the
r aevelopwent arem . Triple "H" properties is
CLrarly such an owner , and Triple H ' 58 property will
be damaged , both by the eliat:tation of a 'precise "
plan of future street , and by a deluge of traffic on
an already overcrowded and largely fmpassahle
street . Yet , without the barest sense of fair play
or due process , and without the slightest adherence
to :.general plan or envirommntal concerns , the
development appears destined to proceed , ah if of
its own volition . Triple "HI ca,A only speculate as
to the motives which prompt :he approval of such
development by thc% City , i ;.A adminis►.rative bodies ,
and its Redevelopment Agency , but thtrse not ives
appear to be development at any speed .
This Commission has the opportunity to
enforce , by upholding til :z appeal and overturning
the Board of Zoning Appeals action , the spirit and
intent of the statutes and ordinances governing
projects of this type . Triple OR* properties
respectfully requests that this Commission do so and
uphold its appeal .
rf this Cos ission does not uphold this appeal , and
does not ireverse the dtcirion of the Board of Zoning Appeals
below;
a written statement of decision, after public hearing
.. 10 _
hereon, is respectfully rtqutstrd , for purposes of future
a-ipeal .
APR
�MAMIANI i D TS .
41CIIARD J. APRAIIAM No
Attorney for rtip a "H" Properties
Ica .� �1L-03 159-241-��'� 93347-M
� i
CITY OF HUNTINLIUM DFACH FdMV# D"+�1+R' AGENCY VW DO KPtSIK ,.CM. P
2000 MAIN ST s000 St 19312 PAAKVIW IN 1203
W..Wr:..4=cN me%a, CA 9 2f 9 HLWINr,MN BEACH, (A 92640 HLWINCTM BE.1ON, CA 92648
1 3-r'I� '06 159-291--07 933-97-105
SCO MA:`I ST CITY OF HLTR'If�"tC"tr BEACH! BAR?CM .4GM1 I.
'41 �000 MAIN ST 18 31` PApirl I L'#4 LN 1104
9E?�'. . ':A '6 4 8 M W I NG"M BEACH, "A 3...4 I HLNi'I I Ctd 8t.'+ �.
159-291--08
F MV.-M p?4EM WJE WY WINDWAM COVE r-rN cm.::t I L'M
7 CCO MAIN ST 19 C AFCPPATE PLAZA
HL'NTI%IGICN BEAC}{, r�A 92648 NEWPrRT BEACH, CA 3:.660 '
159-291-09 -
.%Me/U,'F%.Vn AGc`,1CY WIN WIPD rXI&E r'1CwMINILlm
.00G MAIN ST 19 CCW.,P.ATE PLAZA
t{LWrj,C':CN BEACz{, CA 92648 NEwp.Wr BEACH, CA 92660 -
159-291-10 913-97-:06
.RE Zr.iELZPM L'%tT 1GE`V'-Y i11:.Li.1.y5 :.EF A
WIh'CJNrAAD COVE C�CMI`I L1M
2COO MAIN ST 143:2 PAR."Tr U Ln I:O�
-, r y2648 19 rL�'O�iA-CE PLAZA :�C'Yt:vG:n,Y 3E.iC y. :A
n,ll-ri,X;�N BECF, A NEW 'r-�f? REALli, CA 12660
L59-271-2C- i.59-291-15 912-9"-I07
"S•LAS PCSEn L ?PLC, £CT 933-87 We PSTTT U;ur} A
4350 GRIPPO RriT-P Ka 1005 EvGLA.VD .
:�(,iYi'11IN JAIZif �► 92;08 HL'.v~rvG:^oH 9E,1�'Y, CA
159-271-27 933-87-099 9»- V-100
SPRAGCE CAROLINE WOOCWMEE LDIS L. VrAA CUSMO
1-801 LORI Lit .18312 PAWIEW LAN 4101 18292 PARKVIEW Lv
iil.t'rI'I,9CiCN 8t:,��, CA 92648 h'tM'ING'" BEA�"H, A 92648 MUNrryGTX r BEACH, ca 9:640
159-271-28 933-87-100 911-87-109
C14ARLES G SHULAM RITA WNrz Joe
7795 LM DR 18312 PAMIW LN 1201 18292 PAXXVIL"W LN 1)02
HURrING1,C" BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGIM 8f'JKMj CA 92648 KUxTrNk:ToM wACN• CA 92648
933-.,7-i01 -
159-?71 29 9» I7-IIo
HEARN IMATALI E M CHAM OM PA UL G rULZ X pA rR IC rJ1 A
1945L S14M1 DIME LN 18312 PARxv EN LI4 0102 18292 PANICVXSW LM 0202
HLWrING*M seACH, CA 92649 WUMT7tl uG N BEACHt CA 92648 MuNrrmarl N OXACRI CA 92648
1.'l-271-62 933-87-102 93.1-87-111
"Ll"TI31Iv" `!ILLAM 8'tsM AM It CCMR,t'raa ulkav r
17171 sw= sum L6312 1U111RKOW GM 0202 CA
11Jf? l�J1RIr1�IrR�► I+�1
! !` CA 92"'? M"t c h quarrrlr�rics�r �cr, C�
--- EXHIBIT
M8* wM M 403� l�iif Oww"21W ter ft03
sou
PURCTLL �'1 9L JJtNSO JAMS 0 66s rA gr .4- e
18J;2 IC WtVZZW Lo 0208 18242 PAXXVIE'M La #JOG 6ii uwj ''a
NUWrYU700 WAVCM, CA $26 nWrrMciraa ORACE, CA 91648 xY Pcrt�sAxl , JFC Z96i�
. 7-147 933-87-1st 933-87-16t
LM v t DSOM MCWARD A Co RTU11 m"zz ry O'NAGA.V IWC^M J
1*242 PAR)ri SE1i Lm I101 18242 PARA'VtGM In 1206 :1262 PARKVIE1il Ll 110s
i{'!N:':VCTCN REACH , CA 9 '� :: Nrz.,vG.ocN AF.:"H, CA 92648 KL:YT:XGTGN BrACR, CA 99'64I
9�3 -87-118 933-97-170
933-8'-159
BPAVfXrr RAY XASCN JAMES A
9741 KINGS CANTON OR CAV£VER 1814: pAJtKVtE AKVrEjAmri EK L.'I I107 11-6 RK'
: PA :r.+ Lv
KU:vTt:�G:ClV BF .CH, CA 92646 Hr�NTiYGTUN BEACH, CA 9:b18 .y:':VGTtJA fiesch, :a 92644
•
933-d7-149 933-87-160 91i-+7--171
d US.i LI.VVS 8 mr L LER AARRAAA H MI LJ kVN !X►R Z' Y L
1d:42 PARlVIEW L7 $102 19242 PARKVtEW Lv 1207 18262 PARr-ptrw zx I105
ltUvT:.MGrot; BEACH, CA 92648 !'1ocrimGTON BEACH, CA 92640 l(t:.v 't.VCTON WA.:M, CA 9:d4d
933-87-' 5U 913-/7-172
931-81 -161
D1Cni.vGUE.� JUL.IA AIARVSL DON 6 TR WL'As"JR t Rvt.v J
19242 PAuvtEf+► LY 4202 18742 PARKVIEW Lv 0108 11262 PAPKVIEM EX 0205
HU,VTIVGT:N REACH, CA 92648 HUVTr.VGTCN REACH, CA 91648 KUNTtVG'i'OW OfACH, CA 92b18
•37-: 31 3) 3-_37- 16: 933-87-17J
'ER RCEERT `t CA.RROLL 9ERNADE"E L Ktulb PUTH P
:3:i: PA•�K:'t�'tr �V 4103 18?4: PAP.kVIEN t..r 1209 ;S 6: PARJ�f' rry Lv 1:06
NUN':'tVGT/K BE.jC.* C11 9.648 NvN,.ptv%:,7cw BEACH, CA 92648 HL�Y?IVG7cat! PEACH. CA 93049
933-d7-:52 9)J..87-163 9J3-17-174
OARTHI+L ER,YEST J: WXLX" JMQlPRIS i IORETDA VLWCOMB RICNAPD R
18242 PARJCVt ► I,Ai /203 18262 PARJrVIEW LK 308 KJIREV
DR
NU.Y:'t.YG;'G'K BEACH, CA 92648 tfVN7rVG7CW BEACH, CA 92649 PftE5CcrT, AZ 86301
Ii
93J-d7-153 93J-e7-175
9 3 3-17-16 I ENDO 1000000
1MCySF.v LINLIA J r1STZ MUNO
I8242 PAJt1CYIJM 1.•t /t06 1/?F2 PAJt><YIE1r !JI /?Ol 1e262 PARJcvtre► LJr i107
CA 926Ie Nr2ArttMG"W U W E, CA 92640
Nf,1NTxxc rw MACv, mwrroGIt?N SeACQ, CA 92648
933-e7-158 93]-e7-145 9]1-17-176
jairm" Der C lLl" JOAO Jr CLOUD ANN N
18242 #A#tKVZCW LiN 0204 18262 PAAKVZIW LN 18262 PARMEM 90 0207
1R/ rZMGTCN MAC*, CA 92648 OLW?,tXGT171r A WACM, CA 92640 N"NTZAr* MACR, CA t261I
MEJfJ� { AJ.D A rArUm Jtw A
ON
200 ST lJi1I ��� ter 1il�' P
in"
%mw;op;l1l mo", Ca• mum1p CA
lo
.�r
now MOVE 10
mum*- -
•� New
!3J-IT-121
91J•/7-1! ] � 9JJ-t7-1�S
1'�rr Itzcxm 1s
GAR.V6R JAH PAUL '1161 1�iI1�lAOd DRWARM" it
7951 SOXPI7il LAliCv DK 07 8391 mKPCL.t rr DR
NUNrIV(;rCN dt ON. CA 94 6•.4 MUNTM70N REACH, CA 92647 NUNrZN C7CM MRACK, CA 9244G
SJJ-07-114 M- 87- 125 93J-87-1J6
SP: CFL DAM XrAl) VLVrRA r OSSCRVI CAr?IrRlYE a
PAR!f::r*d I.Y I:OJ 19272 PARKIIIEW L'/ I10b 1 d 2:: PAPirVIrW UV /2 01
BEACH, CA 9.164d Y'.YT CSI;I•C,Y BEAD CA 926:J 'f''..:I.YGTCK A£AC11, CA 907649
33J-9'-!1� 97J-d'-::6 9JJ-8i-lJ7
LA YSOM A VTHCHY J S.M1:'H DCNA LD 0 £;. rO T RQBfRT r
13272 PARKVf-rW LY r •O1 ld2:: PARK'VrEW ::l 0206 Id252 PAR„✓lrW Lr 1104
HL'YT:NGit;N 9EAC.7, CA 9:6.19
HVNTI,YC: ,,v nr ic!, , CA 926 1 :•14 v:'t.yGTCR 3rACH. CA 9:649
fflJJ-47-116
W:CxERSH,LV JA.YE A PAR rEV ROB:R r L'E cRc:W CHAP Iza E
15 7; PARKVIEW LY f201 18272 PARI '✓f:N ;,.Y 1107 1d:52 t�tFY'✓:!."M t� I:Oi
y�, HUNT:VG:^ON BEACH, CA 11od9 X.',VtI.Y�:'CV BEACH, CA 92649
.YTI Vc;?CN BEACH, !'A 9.6Jd
3)3-3--217 1.1- 9JJ- f7-: J��
X :'✓ASME: :SAAC KAFris £.aigr E F:CRl ,'YTr.1O gAudwrc:o 5
23::2 FES';Vo I d:76 PARKVrEW LN 0:07 J B.'S 2 PARJXYrrw LY 0101
„ HUVrIVG:Y.'N SEACH, CA 9:648 tfC.Y:'1Ve;h`:v AEACY C,1 9:643
.. 91J- 37- 1:9 9J1-d"-lia i
S:E.MC'•N •;1.3Pr5 v
-:REE:: WRY 8 GFCRGE VEMAS E rR
PAA•rV.�� yv d:J? !3:, : P.�.+LYY:s'W Iv �.cJa 1d252 P11R?K�.Ew :.Y I205
r NC'.tiT1.tiGTC`N BFACN, Ca 3:Fi9 HU."sINC70N SEACH, CA 9264d
8J)-87-119 93!-87-1JO 933-27-141
BRACrETT ROBERT L Rrrwp LOUIS J MCfX7"OSH ,glLTOM P
19272 PARKVIM LJV /10 J ,402 AVIATrov BLVD fc 19611 SARDI,YIA LII
Nl,'.ti':'ING'lON BEACH, CA 99648 REDQNDO BEACH, CA 90278 MUMTZ.YGTtW SUM CA 92646
IJJ-87-120 9JJ-07-IJI 9J1-0:-112
MAY FRANK M MROVSR ROSSR2' A MAPson gvrald
18272 PARKVZXW IA l2.IJ 10122 sitwrsRwx DR 2407 PLIzA L.6 ALArA
NuxrrYG7uv BA:A(.M, CA 92648 NVNTrmG?tw MKACM, CA 92646 SAM CLEMEMTt, CA 92672
91 J-d 7-I J2 9JJ-S7-11)
RJI-/7-121 RIAGAm MAAGKRY A
CAP.ONK EMMA C 18257 PIIRJt XrW Lr 0201 MrSUM Arthur 1
10272 PAA "Vr&W Lr 0104 ffWrrJFGtJff UAC'M, CA 92640 200JI RAYPC1RT LM
MNNTtMC" WACM, CA 92448 WEC ZNCVX UACM, GA 936"
9)1-t7-I?� 111-t7-11 a !»�i7-lI6
i1M7lrAM AM1/1 C JW MLrom OWN O
lj/222 f 7N /2�f J0252 MMATWM to /102 o �t�1
AUMNOW mom, a 92"s mm=n r ARAC-
ENO, CA 92c ;,q
Psw MW Jf 91�-•����s
&Comma anmaAwr C ammm SSL AM At
IMP ri►AMW W Ili-__ in" muvrw W 130�-- -- :.:,oast mom= iw-I1M-, _
city of wl•tIalt•a o*+.s
Mflarlt•••tt of 00901000 4 Mf.lra•
INt Male Itraat
to vim - I1ltl 1/1-1I11
BE I
.Ifsl visa .••19041/sag
Ile
--
• AI •
colt.At. ►/L ':.L Oar A it
�. t•1•••1Nf CNs•laslM A -1_
, N•rt of fa.lst A4f.•Isi.wts w !►L N•�= �. ►*
� I•
TOM
�. �� f•s. .l t•w••�t.: ;, f lMd bay
tt��t ts. 011 flats lit
6r a v�M.s 1 apw*I all" �`_"
IF lit
_...�...�....._.�_ V�►cL.�V �.. ,_
71g�..�..�-� [7:10"4
at 1 MN Mt.�lai
T•1•►h•.• f••.,•af
CM II�IfI1k�,,lU:l Nf ICI
�ns•f It~ 's_ cstsy.ctc•l teelrst•r. l tYl l��i�lFltf ;1�.
• �f r•1. �•„tMrstMily v•ftflea! tw
rT'!t . • - -------gyp
�.l•IW. AM.. JN11fIfN1 ;:n 1.f. CA �
1
• .�w.w t �t•lfatt llf�t;
M � l
1• Life ail
pY r a.•.t t a l �G......�-��- � •r►
• se ran a•rltta•f rfJnj
• flab! aflrf f11tivra t. "It.at IMtvtoift:7w tlttNtl ' • • T • 1 - 1
teo•t. Ml, "' r
a s•.a•a•r'e v•fcal t•NYaf 1-� -yi CA
a 'fleet— 1 i 1� '�' stage
• sect taw �'-: ftrwlM!/ ' ++N.�..a- ..--•-
1, -��'.Lrti��`'�Lr � .'. - -.jr, , - --- �.,• rflM ..� •a+>•rat.o,l
�il'aa" FrTa1" Tear .
all at.t•lMltt• 1•alNl•t) Of f11104 rpatffmate w to* rflogrve Diva 1111. .Allfatla+l. t M law
pot Jeff that tM+ftwe"Ibe statomwti,t Mtn me Otte N t »• flfsi •/*aaltP Of
.1�•.laf• aft. ,-�� � �- �
I r1��•f+f
Mum mom ol Now v � r�� MON= v
tXNAN atht Most FAMr m rN 1:06 r � gar so
I IF IT4;AV WAC o CA 9:6 7 mor'lmomw nwoo CA node ca
W-17-191
1I?)1 MRR VtICM L11 OZ-1 1 i23: PAWVISN LAP i 1,;,%
�R.'lY' f.V(&r1�Mt WACM, CA 92C48 MV1VTrW7t'Nr WA.-M. CA 92648
vii-A7-1oft, 9)J-•97-192
GINA S Amr Swcr VSWU.
18231 PARMEN Ly 0102 11232 PARKVITK is 0207
MLWrZMCTXW WACK, CA 92648 Ht1NTr.VG%V SCACK, CA 92648
933-d7-102
WA +i.MDrtJ!' L 9 J J-87�191
tt1?1? PAJt1t"i'fL'M' L�r d?Q: Nfr,Cf.Vs iRd.YE
JiVNTf.�AG?"CaN MACH, CA 92611 tf?32 PIIRKYIFM LH II01
NUNTrYCTOM MACH, CA 9?618
431-87-1dJ 911-97-194
'JRA.VICK JOSSPH R SRFIWrR JACOB J
I18212 PAxX IM LV 4101 1e2)2 PAP"IrW L'! 6200
HuNr:vr.,wcN BEACH, CA 92648 HV.VTIVGTt.AN MACH, CA 92619
159-301-0.I
.#Amr rA (;A ACL" t'
5:12 e'''A1�!X'.':aU► :,Y 1:O3 GALL�lCxF1P MOMS d YR
BLr.�C!�. C ,i ;�:61 d '1911 L.GS PA;'10� AM
AG"XI INCTON A'ACM, CA 92649
4J1••81-1B5 159-JOI-07
MILLER DIDIDUS F NA.ACi xzcNAjw G i cNiNn
"TDOCTIpN WACN, C A 92648
JtrdJC1NDU IR.tCk, 92640 rj
t
!»-17-1il6 1f9-301-03
SOWL uMZA
19212 rAJtlt'Vtd`Mr tar iJOA crust it c ivoor rR 7
oNrINGTVw i� MS, CA 92648 y CYJ�'TA �t
RANCRO J XWR, CA *2270
9)3i87-187 J9
Ws$ ift7lrgttTT df 1S!-)Iia-M �7 r• f
10.03 MtGA'!'tMGilltaC Sr GR1'C1�t 1�i1GL � (�
f.A.t�r rAstrtr, CAlt70I Mot IA[acwA7 Ct.N
wtrrzrc" MCAM CA 0?s"
!3�-�7•t tI
•� m so cub= Affiv1omp
m MOM 017�M � ii0� 7�ti.t aivlL� � Il
1l . It asuv, a l�Mi
•
w OUT
AW
April 13. 1987
OALBROT-89ACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJBCT
RE t WD 87-9
To Whom It May Concern :
This letter is to serve a?, ay wri tL,in objection to the Boureston
Development Project being approved on a Negative Declaration . I feel
an Environmental Impmct Report should be required for saveral reason&.
Redondo Circle in severely impacted by traffic , parking and
related safety problems now. It appears to be serving in excess ct its
planned capacity at this time and cannot accomodate !ii�n furtwer traffic
related to the Soureston project as it is planned w9tF tRK cul de sac .
The elimination of the proposed extension of Redondo by the Boureston
project places additional burden on existing businesses while providing
no relief to the surrounding neighbors .
In additions not enough information is given on grading and fill
in the ND to adequately address drainage in the area.
I believe short term goals have been considered to the detriment
of long term goals and risk to the city . Plus the sheer site of this
building lend& itself to problem* not adequately addressed in an ND.
Therefore , again , I request the the ND be denied and an BIN be
required to be prepared .
Respectfully ,
I
Connie Mandic
1112 main Street
Huntington Beach , CA 92648
Cl t dbd
1
APBORAHAMIAN s, OUCOT(
AtCwAA� • t�AAMdMiAy O1�IONiw.. couredar"Ne rili�l.IM
gulf& 1443
11o• •6.4 .1.•..ve OOu►tvAAO f ., •i/ iia/
lAVINi,GAtiOpgwlA 08foO•4tQ J.• • ♦e •usM+
April 13 , 1987
Board of Zoning Adjustments
City of Huntington Beach , California
Re : Conditional Exception No . 87-24s
Administrative Review 87-15
Negative Declaration 87-9
8ourston Developo*ntf1 lke Todd!
Gentlemen :
We represent Triple OV Properties which is the
owner of a 10 acre site adjacent to the. S acre Talbert mach
tndust: ial Site , the aforementioned site being the subject of
the above Requests for Conditional Exceptions .
This project has proceeded , to date. on Negative
Declaration 87-9 . However , on behalf of Triple H Peoiporties ,
we request that the Negative Declaration be withdrawn, and a
full environmental impact report be prepared to &seems the
impact of the Ivtloaing aspects of the project :
(a ) The projected increase in traffic which
Redondo Circle will experience will , if the project is Allowed
to proceed , be so large as to substantially interfere with and
reduce access to my clients ' property . This will constitute
an inverse condemnation of ■y clients ' real estate.
gib) Despite developer assu= ances that noise will
not be a factor , no assessment has been made of the impact of
noise caused by the potential development .
(c) No drainage and storm-rates study has be*n
undertaken. Nowevec , the spectre and poWitial damage of tte
storm rater can-ollf into streets from a % 15#000 squat* lint
buildi" has not been considered . W"cdinglr, tbo j
environmental impact of such storm vatic an my clients
estate, and those o! otbets, shavIA be considered. ;
1l000c41091rO, wi CS@P$etfwllr spat N"4?AlVQ ,
Dom laea t ies t. 87-0 be dec laced by tb i s 0orecd a*
insuf f iai"t basis mn e61*b to pseoo", mW tbat %his "%%at
be Wet cad e 909 tM r"90 9048M a to the Plam i eq E ft
i
AOs t 1 130 its?
Pat* T"*
of the City of Huntington Brach tot a full environmental study
and cepart .
Very truly yours ,
A►PRARAM IAN i DU OTE
c
Harold A. Du o e , J
RAD/pm
cc : Mr . Jerry tlsgman
Mr . Dan R igman
k
{t
k
REAL ESTATE
INVESTRZRTMERVICES K50NIA 6cc aCM►MarEarVWWOU
323 "on ftoo t • MuwtUsgtos iltrch. CA 936"
April 13, 19d7
Talbert-Beach Redevtlopmant Pro jem
Re: N.D. 87-•9
Dear Planning Comission:
After Ming with pcops rty owners affected by the doureston DevelopMent
Project* I staadfastly object to the approval of said project an a Naga -
tive Declaration. I feel an Bnviccxwm tal IsF.act Report is def inately
indicated here.
Redondo Circle is not only ioWted by traf f ic, but the parking sand safety
problain a are worsening. The area is already being pushed hand capacity seed
further traffic as r"latetl to the project as plarxned with the eul de aw would
be intolerable. The elimination of the propored ext4mion of Redondo Circle
by the project places a burden on existing bus ineases while f a.i.},i rol to benwrf i t
the surrounding neighbors.
Also, thence is not enough infocustion regarding grading and fill in the N.D.
to adequately address possible drainage problave in the area.
Apparently short terra goals have taken ptesi over long two goals, posing
a risk to the city. The site of this building .lwv% itself to a vhola realm
of problan not discuaaed in the N.D.
Againe t emphatically request that the N.D. be denied and an Nnviramo tal
Xmpect itepoct required in it,s place.
Sincsr*11!�
dob Bolen ,
w . ,
WSW
i
J�lluaw,ea u
il
•
Man
INTER•04PARTMENT COMMUNICATION
Ya board of toning Adjustments Fnun Catherine O'Hara
Assistant Flanner
Suaact NEGATIVE DECLARATION 97-9 fiat" April 15, 1"7
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 97--13.
CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 57-24
DOURSTON DEVELOPMENT/MIKE TODD
i have reviewed the letter fnam Aprahamian and Ducote to the Board of Zoning Adjustments
regarding the above project and have the following comments.
I. Environmental Impact Report versus Mitigated Ncptive Declaration.
The application of CEQA Is a three-steps evaluation process:
a. determine that a proposal is in fact a "project"
b. conduct on Initial study
c. depending on initial study findings, require a Negative Declaration. a Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an Environmental impact Report.
Agencies must prepare an EIR only If a project "may have a significant effect on the
etreironment." Further. mitigated negative declarations may be filed in I%u of an EIR
if the Project proponent can be convinced to modify the project so as to eliminate all
significant Impacts. (See attached guldelirwa)
After reviewing the initial study for the subject project, it was determined that a j
mitigated negative declaration would satisfy CEQA regulations. Any potential
Impacts such as noise and stem water runoff will be mitigated. Increased traffic is
not an issue. The zoning and general plan designatiort on the subject property will
permit the proposed use and the project will comply with all applicable ordinances.
2. Traffic
Per Daily Vehicle Trip Generation Rates from the Orange County Ennvirontamtal
Management Agency, the proposed 122,424 square foot industrial bungling is expected
to generate approximatel± IS91 trip ends per day. There will be approcirsately
100-200 employees and 3 to 4 truck deliveries per day.
i
Traffic generation from the propose project will not be significant.
- The existing stretu are designed for industrial capacity per g0srerai plan.
New industrial devek9im rnt built per general plan and toning ottde will nut wer
• bur&n street capacity. A tr*Mc study for the project is rm wartarnto&
The proposed pr**1 will have mininul impact an Talbert Av;.Vm taPrity.
bxntan Della WPWMt/Mik* Todd
Jr►pril 15, M
pant 2 `..
3. Noise
Adequate noise mitigation measures have been developed by a certified acoustical
engineer as conditions of approval for said project. (See Cor.xlttions of Approval).
Mitigation measures focused on the project complying with resldentlal noise stan-
dards. Consequently, standards for Industrial areas will be exrseJed. The project
shall comply with Chapter 5.40 of the City's Municipal Code.
4. Drainage
Project storm drainage plan will comply with City Master plan of Storm Drainage.
Per standard development proctdure, storm drains will be extended to sine the
proposed project. No significtm; ;negative draittiage impacts will be generated by said
project.
The draft mitigated negative declaration (27-9) prepared for this project adequately
addresses and mitigates any potential negative impacts from the proposed project. Ann g1R
In this case is unwarranted.
CMO:gbm
Note: This memorandum w" prepared and forvarded to the staff planner
S/15/87 of the Board of Zoning Adkatnmu for her Information. Also, it
shm%:J be noted that the initial study that staff utilised to review
the project for environmental Impacts includes the five (S) page
Standard City Environmental information Form.
1
�l�
I�
• ,►w tf.ufw•••r, J
�Ow A7►e1lLR�. CAl1�o11friw tt�Ktil�
4644 cart f 1•
�tf+l(.• • wt tr{� •t,{rw/at « • :.lC •11• l /•wt/• lr••l �•
•+.:i t1�..�t • page Cr�f1 •rr�•
. � .. . May 4 , 1987
t+• t 'tests .•
• ,•f .
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
Members of the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Agency
Cite of Huntington Beach
Fe : "a l be r t -Beach Disposition and -Jeve l opr-en t Agraeontr•=
ion able Mayor and Me. be . s he _ . .; Coin.:
:`�: s : irn represents :'r:Fie v, R•i1 :aC:E 'Lumber ( "Reliable" ) in
tonne:: : on with the City ' s cnnsidarat :on of a proposed develop=*r.t
:cr :.he 5-acre vacant property ( the "P:operty" ) wr.Lch the ':albert-
°each redevelopment Project Area Radeveltpxent Plan ( t` e,
"meat:•e! opsent Plan" ) shows to be bisected ry Redondo C:r cl e •
Sce: : fically, Peliable Lumber objects to the Opproval of the
•: ispcsitian and developuent agraeuent before you tonight whirr
would permit conveyance of the property to dourestorr• Development
and permit the construction of a 000 sq. "oat industri•3 ;
facility ( the "project" ) . Reliable Lumber further objects to the
use or approval of a negative declaration for the project and
demands that an environmental impact report ( "SIR" ) be prepared .
iinallr , the hearing on the DDA has not been proptrly noticed and
the record before you lacks evidence to support required findings
as to the value of the property boinq sold . Approval of a n y
development for the Property which precludes completion of Redondo
Cxrc: e violates the Guntrai Plan cf the city as well as ti.t
;:ede,velopment Plan and , hence, would be invalid . Furthetwore .
there are a number of environmental concerns which have not been
addressed or have been inadequately addressed in the course at your
environmental review for the Project . rinally. the City ' s
procedures in perforwinq, noticing and presenting the envirerawntal
reviev required by law are so flawed as rake any approval of a
negative declaration in any fora illegal and invalid.
Honorable !Mayor and Moa"rs �
MAY 41 1917
Pagt 2
Gt nets 1. :a33
All actions of a redevelopment agency must be consistent with
::►a; city ' s general plan and with the pertinent redevelopment. plan .
Cal : !crnia Health and Safety Code 1 33331 . The pertinent aspect of
the city ' s General Plan for this Project is the
Specific Plan . That Specific Plan was
amended in 1979 specifically to provide that Redondo Circle would
be extended eastward through the five-acre parcel and connect to
the nortn-south street exten ing into the five-acre parcel ,
referred to in recent City documents as Kovacs Street . The
Specific Plan amendment was in direct response to traffic
circulation problems with the industrial area, caused primarily by
the busi^esses , including Reliable Lumber , developing along Redondo
= ircIa . Several industrial developments were built snd!or
es ' aclished along Redondo Circle in anticipation of the extension
F edondo Ci .c 1 e . See letters from grope:ty cwners and businesses
a : -_n; P.el.ondc Circle and petition sirr.ed t~} the name attache^
='.: ..:ddQ d pa~ of tte record he c ., . _}' t . s %' . t e. Ce.
Ap--r oval o ! the ODA before you: -oL; : d ne In:or,s :%tent -ith t'.t o
=: an and , hence , the General ;laN, since Redondo C., rc :e
n:.t oe comp: eted , as provided in the Specific Plan. The
S nec i c Plan atttndnant was in direct response to t ra f ' is
c �r.:;:lat : on problems with the industrial area , including Reliable .
deve_ op: ng along Redondo Circle . Several industrial developsents
were bu: ; t and/or established along Redondo Circle in anticipation
C. the extension of Redondo Circle . See letters -from property
owners and businesses along Redondo Circle and petition signed ty
:~e same attached hereto and made a part of the record herein by �
t:: is re ! erence .
nsor.sist na.With $tdsvva12wM=nt. P1an
The Redevelopment Plan also provides that Redondo Circle will
be extended eastward to meet with Talbert . ( See map at page -
. ) The DDh is , therefore , inconsistent with the Redevelopment Plan
and cannot be legally approved . Cal . Health and Safety Cale
Section 33432 .
wi&A If2iss Elamaris...nL....Mo se ,erlaliAnt., stardatds
The City notified several Sevelopers eawpaitirq with bourtstcn
Development that a twise study per Section 9520. 28 of the NuniCipol
code would have to be submitted. Yet IQ such noise study has b";0
indiaat*d in my records before You for this Project, and such a
study is notably absent from mention in the proposed Magstive
I
Honorable Mayor and Memb*rs
may 4 , 1957
Paq e 3
Declaration. . without any use restrictions on the Project and
absent such a noise study , the Project is inconsistent with both
the noise performance standards of the municipal Code and the Noise
Eler►ent itself .
: ocon.sis ency with Circulation ,Llentr.:
The City ` s Circulation Element provides that the City extend
a:id otherwise improve arterial streets and further to provide
j adequate traffic facilities for industrial developments . Redondo
Circle is an access road to Talbert Avenue , an arterial street .
f Trie impact of this Project on 'Talbert avenue must , therrfere , be
considered . As presently designed, development of the Project wall
thwart implementation of the policies of ;.he Circulation Element,
particularly where read in conjunction with the Specific Plan for
the area .
' 7``" ,ar 220se: �P..� . ..� nec: arm.;moo^ �'�+� =s^� €w.: �' ,v�' tsd. and
:nten e.:• are: :c• a . o : the neat :•:e decla .at .cn prcpesed `,c ze
air :: .•e� cc-:-e=; : cn w :th the action c .1 airrov:nz the
On �.p:: ! : , t.',%e City not iced t.*.e antic rated apprc•:a 1 c: a
regative dec . aration :n connection with two pe:�:irs/app:cva : s :or
..,e Project to be heard by the Hoard of Zoning Appeals ( "SZA" ) on
April 1. 5 . The notice referred to an initial study which was not
signed until April 6 ( the "4/ 6 Initial Stud)" ) . -Wherefore , :t
appears notice failed to allow even the i0 dabs for review tha
notice itself allowed .
':he 4/ 6 Initial Study was Apparently rs-signed on April 30 by
planning staff ( the 04i30 Initial Study" ) . 4/,30 initial Study
differed from the 4/6 Initial Study in that several mitigation
measures were imposed by the bZA on April 15 and incorporated into
t'e :/ 30 Initial Study . There has bean no public comment period
respect to the 4,130 :nitiail Study . In fact , there has bevn r:o
public cor.-.*nt period for any environmental review associated wits
t2he action before you tonight -- the approval of the DOA .
The City/Agency may not legally "piggyback" on the negative
declaration approved by the btu►. That nogative declaration was
itself invalid on the basis of inadequate public notice .end for the
substantive reasons the 4/20 Initial study is invalid, as set forth
below. Moreover, the Califerni• snvironwntel Quality Act ("CAA")
requires that the "dseisloo-sraltire9" bWy a roving a project Itself
approve the emirmaestal ant support its extion. 14 Cal
Ads. Cede seektieft 15354 &" 15074 .
i
Honorable Mayor and !:embers
Mtay 4 , 1967
Page 4
22th --t e _ 4lb anf.the... 4.LZit.J&Ial atuditom_ l fai
..�._.So- Con:ides A21
FQ-tIntli 1.Invl,ro _ ental IrMaCt .
The checklist er..ployed by the city in preparing the 4/6 and
4i30 Initial studies is wholly inadequate and lacks the specificity
required by CEQA. The 5 general questions on the form (which
apparently is found only in the city of Huntington beach) fall tar
short of the specific inquiry which might reveal possible
env.zronmental impacts . In contrast the initial study checklist
used by the City in determining whether or not to prepare an UN
for the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project is seven pages long ,
containing some 65 specific questions . Many questions as to
•.ehether there night be environmental impacts associated wit h
deve 1 opment within the Project Area were answered in the
a f f irsrat ive , indicat inq the need for environmental evaluation
.e a rd i na for example :
9 . �
1b . Disrupt :en , etc of soil ;
1c . Change in around sur! a�•e rel . ef
ly . Exposure of people to geologic hazards :
2 . Change in rat• or amount of water runoff :
6 . Increased noise :mp&cts :
7 . ln=reased light and glare ;
: ]a . Generation of substantial additional vehicular mover"en, :
13b. Demand effect an parking :
13d. Alteration to circulation patterns :
1;a• f . Effect upon numerous public services
16a . f . impact upon utilities --
Without agreeing or disagreeing with the initial study
prepared for the Redevelopment Plan , the City should explain why : t
reached the conclusion that there are significant environmental
effects from development of the Project Area , while simultaneously
concluding there are absolutely no potential *ffect free
construction of the sinqle largest industrial facility within the
prc; ect area . We believe that that prior initial study prove% the
4,, E and 4,130 Initial Studies incorrect .
:he iniwl Swiss Emil t2 ?akg,into Account Cuiulative..., ■oao s
CtQA requires that cumulative impacts of pest current and
probable future projects be taken into account when deciding
whether or not to prepare an t1R (approving an 19IN) . California
public Resources Code section 71083 ; 24 Cal A". Coda section
15065 (e) . The 4/6 and 4/30 initial Studies completely fail to take
those setters into account. Met notably, the logoate soy treffie
lroaa existing industrial development alb Redondo Circle together
with the prepomW dwalapedat has not boon analysed In any
__ J
Honorable Mayor and Members
May 4 * 1961
page 6
I
impacts from the Project to be 1500 vpd . The EIR Only ant iC ipe ted
400 vpd from a proposed 100 , 000 sgvare foot building on the same
fivenacre parcel . The analysis in the EIR is , therefore,
inaccurate and cannot logically be relied upon. even if it was
legal to do so.
SummarX Pcpgr& dgga not ProvideWith Sufjirigat
f 1►l1f.o a t i o n
i
California and Health and tafety Cade Section 33433 rea7uires
that prior to sale of property by the Agency it shall wake
available for public inspection no rater than the tirae of
publication of the first notice of the hea r i nq on the approval of
t~e DOA . ':her* is no record teat the Summary Kepert and DDA, which
.as subm ., tted to the Agency nenbers on April 24 , 1981 was zarde
availat '_e to the public: sr ac,.:ordance w *,th St,fLe lr,w .
Mcreover. L:;e Sunr. a-;.- Peport :roes not contain suf f : ere no.
in : o_r.,ation to : nfc-t- :.he p::bl : c as to ne est.eared value cr th•
pr opsr ty conveyed at th a highest use pe :nitted urodvr :he
Aedevelcpnent- Plan . NO facts whatsoever are sutnitted ty A;enc:
star : o: anvzne else in ;.hi% regard .
Respect lil13 ), s»trr.itted ,
Murray o , Kane,
John W . eelsher
nr:
IN
i
Mwmrable myorr and K*"ers
Nay 4 . 1961
Palle S
eowpetant tref f is study . Yet Staff admits theme will be an imp►bat
of some 1500 vehicles per day from the Projact alone . Sett Memo to
62A iros the CMOs Assistant planner dated 4/1 a/•7 , attached herote
and incorporated hereto by this t•tference . There ire also nuswrous
developments underray or plannod for the near future which will
impact traffic .
TneCX_denc±�agagirRft that pa EIR kgs 1!rgipiLed
As sat forth in the 1 utter of Chris Joseph, submitted
herewith , evidence already in the record shown that there is
substantial evidence to support the conclusion that there may be a
significant effect on the environment as a result of the project
and that , therefore , an EIR must be prepared pr :or to the Project ' s
arprcval .
i�.JrrY ''�.i S u C S � t a C. �.dam' W+ �•��.-• n •j r ��jA� r1 t�d�n • �a t
.•r . 1 . ♦ t r• • • • •
7Fe r: anning staffs stiggested : ca: : on n►ees1s.es :+:�:t•
% s conclusion per t::e 4 ; 6 And ; ,,� 20 : r, :: : a1 Stud -. as that. there
are no pcssiblu adverse envirornmental e : feits fro.:, the proj *Ct -
6
da4es QQ Nszt rcngidgr.
r �
The ODA does not limit the potentia! uses of the structure to
be built . The 4 /6 and 4/ 30 Initial Studies are ;ntrorrectly done
because they do riot consider any use other than that by the
proposed tenant . :ne Initial. Studies must analyze the impacts
associated with any use allowed in the *4- 1 A zone .
��.
t 9eve1uatent . Plan MAN ARRuxed
ne City/Agencf may not rely upon the EIR certified by the
C :tyj Agency in connection with the adoption of the ftedevelop+eert
rlarz . That EIR specifically anticipates that envirr+r► wntal review
would be required for specific projects within the ft6develop"nt
Plan area . See 911t at pads 1 and 2 .
!"urUortsorre, the project considered in that *Ip has alatgd
significantly 1y virtue of (1) the proposed elimination e= U*
oxtaww ien and ONVI et i on of Ci rc 1 e t (2) 12 SO&UGM Of tM
Yogi low of ter donioar Citise" CMte r sod r 3) othm ow k"a
�r t�. l�r�i►�t a� lwt i� of i�rw,l�� MMr�r+Mre �;�.
Mottle ftu asss for owAb o, MmU a tii Wattle
lot
0.4
dPkP
ber
IRZ
WAII
dpop
d/AlAe 7U
cimp
Af
dt kApel AAR dk
dIL
A.
„ ■
Y /
r
r�
0
(W44 dOrmlC
76
Ap
ADA '!
64M
� ,
s • + �' /�
v Wqww. 6�- -
,1Ot
•r . 4 r
oLz
I � w
Fr
• .... an
46oreq�i
r
.00, � i J
MOM
r a+� T�'F• � � f+r��fiy'l�.,ir'��+M/"„ ��r�i�"/ ice• x+/ � �?'"� .. r. r
atl
d2f*ojjlo�qw (Aft& Aopp4rwjjrjftX
""' ~
s
' t
14 Y/
.�
ONO
f 7kK/ ,4C..
100,
NMAW
I - r
cow
TMW
Ab
_. . ,
0.0
s
� f
i
j �,,• ,.ram-�.r�!�".rfr+w. /I,,,,�I.fr"'.,rr• ���±t'T��'��' ►" ;,��"'��.:•�;�'..,,w.��+�. �"""��i+,
Imp1w
do
, � v,G
r "
---._.�
dop . -------------
db c •r�
r
�r
/f��•�-rt /'.mot. � r'.� _..
• r
r
/ Mor• � •� .f .r,.. �✓�/� ram '... ,r..- ,'�1�.. / I'�,
Vol
-494
r
.�'
V
-71 r
ENVIRONMENTAL TELESIS
MIy 10 1"7
abis amt ftl low & smomm
134 NoLh #pr iv strong "it* 4n
Lee Ampoleso cal ifecnia mil
us JAolysls a[ Amiremnow tiw er tow ftlbert-8606 rMArtiri"
� It+t�rjeKt.
a
Dear Mr. dot shot: •
This letter r"rt will servie as my analysis of the erwirer tal
docOmentatian tepording the Talbert-beach Industrial projwt. To assist in
this analysis, the doc~ts listed in Appehd i s A were rev ie W o and an on-
site inspect ion ma ode of the pto ject site dus inq the morning of My 4 .
rleaa* note that the Negative Declaration/Initial Study was nat available
until April 311. only four day* ago. 1 do not bol ieve that lour days
constitutes a sufficient tiow period fat the public to romp to trio
propo sod Wgot i vet Declaration, as pr ov i died in Section 15073 of the Cf QA
-' G.;IdoI i1ms. I also believe that the "tive omclarat io--. ciccu+:atod foe
public review does not adigrmtelr document thr fees" to suppett the girding
that Vie project will not have a significant irWt , as ar'rdatod by Section
:5471 o: the CZQA Guidelines. In fact , that Initial Study checklist for this
project does not even state which significant ix$ects are being Ait syated.
Mat wi t hs tag 4 i nq the i rtiariaguac too of the ptgmiw d "t i vw Declaration
and Initial Study, my analysis indicates tlrst time is emovo mercy that
that project mar haw a significant i•patt and, conseyuentlyg that an
Cnvirorm nta1 Impact Repact should be propsred. Usential1y, I believe that
the City statt her itder9stimoted the awicammental imprcta reewltitq tram
this project and (too thr i s propose 1 in con jw-t ice with post, ptasrrt, and
reasonably anticipated foture pco)owls, all of which will pram rriwlativo
impacts. trrilowing is ter ratimisle for this aseettioa, dbicb is discum"
by mvirorawtal catalwy:
CI MMIATio11. Al CAvMb city staff Ass aor rvet 1 y prod ictod that they
project will 9ieeeeate r 1,"l V"icte trips pae day, er studies er*so
prep "d 09mmmi4g tlsr traffic impretr as a* AN MA m mak psriaM dt Of
int+srsm ease MV 01 tm peo)"t ai ti aid st tAs 40 jar iwt"em"AWA is oft
PCA t Umewe AM ur mmmia d4ssity ate 1a is VOW4111 aM�Ahvid Or
1rf awi"NUM4 ad lsatis r�gilMd Ar a As t
a Pmjmt•d MS. �► a "r wmwrmmmmo as
tear dwA � Numm as inbm as �e lone go
a" 40 tit Now �
�f;., iR� �► air � �r .M��r
]a]i
1r . yl
�Y ^I
I
IEf JAN 061 NOM
Noy 4, M
The ptograea Me"R ive Dw latat ion ad Initial Study tar the project also
98 i l t to out"$ the pto j sc-t' s access and par k i nq ispoc t s an tM el rwrly
eretbair+dened 1Mdeldn circle. Without the coapletion of the Owteweion roadwy
betwen ledondo cirel* O d Kovacs dtroet (as provided for in the ftylor i
iesth 1pfti f is Plan) it can be ttpacted that that per eparat inq want ieft,
IMMINPOte swell systw and turning radii, &M deficient ww-street puking
an 0 -80-mii Circle will be further e:ambsted if tlse irAkattial pc* Wt is
approved as proposed. A detailed analysis of these Imp- is should be 1
analysed within an Envitorrernta1 lmp*ct Repar t .
I
J1ib OWWWT!. The City Staff has failed to ana 1 yze t!w air quality
impacts Associated with psolect-!gated Vehicular traffic# which l bell"* !
are significant and re"i re mitigation. to facto not only will large isewtts
of pollutants be .pitted, but the level of pollutants g~ated will tar
exceed threshold levels of s i qn i f i ca-x* e>stabl i s'rod by the South Coast Air
QuaiIty Manrgwent District .
.to WAQIC's Ca? ifcrnia L%nvirovwn:al Qtal ity Act (CLQA) lapl~tataun
Gut dr: i-m**1 suggests a number of cr 3ter to :n deterwinttiq thresholds of 0
styn.—ica:ree for air qual tty impacts. Or* such cx itet ion state* that a
s:gnj: :cast air quality i*Wt would occur when a project would:
"Resv. It in a net w iss soy increase, before ons s to offsets,
Owivalent. to the current tatw Source Review significance levels as
defined in S *M Regulation X 111 , un l less mcdel i ng demonstrates
that the saurct will not cause an ev st inq eacmedance, cc sake
measurably worse an existing e:ctedence, of any state ac feW..al
aabi,ent sit quality standard.'
This wasuce of signif icancit *Wl ies to both stationery sour ctes (a ,source of
pollutants which is Immobile) and pro jocts such as the islbtrt-aeac+
industrial prae)wt wheats pr it st y source is the gwwr a t i w of rew is of f is
(pal l utarnts s aitted by autombi lath trawl inq to and from that pn)ert site) •2
It* District's l w Source Itev tw (MSR! Rule threshold levels are
coated to the pcojwt's expected swobilo emission profile in Uw tail•
below. AssuwOV pro jWt-genstated traffic at l e"I daily tt,p♦, ~a" trip
layrgth of VA oil" ttwel ing at 15 ass 1*s parr h,,u t and prrer)ct WtWJWW7 is
1 b04, tort yr oJOn $new aetoi d►r i 1 r tbeeshold lava si of awbw ftawiftp
"blob Mrrww aaNtm Its" a ariod idM K IffiPwt "M Ott grrl lty. hots 'Impy,
this )apace *1pleltf660190 GkWU ire rlSftW vithiS Oar SWitOaWartr &I
Ott OqpOrt ad appopUfte sitilrtla swomm dw%W he l�iO�MM br
� `���dt Www—
lt�r � lrr11 iO1alOLMMe
y a Ap ADIP now* NU so swum � bbb
�L Ave""! "4 O1 . IMF W into
1
w„
1"
h 0+1
00
' • iiii/iiatoo,*iiiw.wwiiiiiiiwwiiiiiiii.•ii♦
car bon moos i do SS• S6 9 yes
Total "recaftons yS SJ Ma
Nstt"an Dioxide 61 Ma
suitor Dioxide 150 1 Mo
hatticulates 150 12 Mo
l Pounds pot day.
� •rcifriiwrr••.iiiwi+•wwiii••••••r••rrrwrr•••r�•rrrr•rri•rir.rr.w.rwwiriwriw
roduot suC!n sods to acmptabla levels,
Even with the regi ;na: air qua: i:y im,acts classified as st4ni:icant, an
an.Alysis should a:so be prepared on the p ro3ect 's neat-field
:,xa: 1 of foots , putt -ularly in light of ter. fact that circulation pcobl�
o:, podondo C i r e will wor um with t nt p r o)tr t and v i t'ao u t t:ra Pedonda;Kov ecs
extension, causing au:aaobt :es and trucks more sdl inQ time, tesulting in
:arQer asounts of pollutants emitted. Ne:.r-f ie:d irfocts or. the sewior
r. i s i zeros complex should be evaluated .
rinaliy, no rmnticn was mWe in existing prc)ect docummintat son regarding
vltt:rer or not t!rt project will *nit any stationary source tfactory)
4101 ss t oris . If to, es i ss i on to 1 Cu 1 at i ons should be prepared Muff —tes u l t i rig
ispscts analyzed.
IMISK. Chapte± SS, Sec t ivn 9511 . 18 of the stun i c i pa 1 Cade re"i r es t?re
prtparation of a • fse analysis for this prc)et unless, aaong ofhair haws,
provisions ere s6 :or ad"to noise mitigation messures. AlUwagh the
Ne9ativie Oecle. tio.. loss contAin mitigation measures, their adoqom tof
this protect st old be oealusted within the contest of a drtai led nisi studs
which examines the • )Toys noise 4erwrating optralsons, including its
Machirreryt c: pro* st truck loading operation►*, end project-Meted
traffic. Alt vtz the City staffs should extend the tine period tot
review o9 tl+e ni t h Ay se teat the IM aatso study cam bo ewe yvW to
detommiie tiie aftqaw the pressed ei t igat ion Usa wles. At a a,isi�`
torn atr steel eoraw. twicau to tow isltisi surly vow to a i9t seallow-146 an
j
TO 3 Will Wil
Ulu to am am& iota t 1M iA tw
Se . . ad M MGM 0 Bid ON ft so r
l�1r1 • M�i11r 1� ti�w !
r '
`I
�J
w ftwe
thr eMouletive eirtulot ion ioWts itaaa ftci nt industrial d velop■of 4IWq
orb Circle showN be eameinsd in asnjwiction with this ptsjWt. 00 this
bai i s •l ene, an tnv i ron�mtrl lit 1lsprsr t should be prfpr ted fee this
pta}eet.
Should you have my gist ions or concerns roWd ing this Wovot pl*&"
contact a u soon a possible.
*i Ar�t't 1 y r i
�t IS
Cfd stopher A. Joarph
Pt incipmd
rY TTR.
Iwo 11ir•',',Y r 1r
t* initial /tom• "Pt iw O wuWat ion, lkwlrer Natal Cloagetwe matt, M
POUlat Ma Tsar !os do pa jat. dead apr!l 39, 1"7+
3. 1 ► s Mi reb Sre it it flan 73-1, W# rAWd an 1tswrty 22# 1979,
a, Irinal taCON4 UviraOMnta1 impact ""gt for they Talbott-ft"a
relopwt tto�wt. Apt i 1, 1912.
t. rolaptraOt Flan tot the Talbert-beach Iteelevtlopws t Ptejett .
pts t9 1042.
S. Muntjrwltah teach Municiprl Cie, Articl* 9510 K-A Disttict .
G. MMC*n&o trars I*CND. Assistant Plamer' to WA, Atted April 15, 1947.
7+ Miscellaneous UA lettets reryardirq Owditioml 1tcvption Mo. 17-21,
Adeinrsuat ivo Review w No. 17-15, and M"at iv* Doclarat ion Me. 17-9.
1. Crayont 1ttters from *x ist inq bus ine &wp an Re-+ondo Circle.
4. Noise Assessment , Ptcposed Senor Ci ! :ten Pet.-dent .-al Develo;arnt ,
Ptepered b va% Houttrn i Associn:ec. April. :963 .
M
r1
M TO Irk. ClfRlSTOlIiEA A. JOSEPOM LrMk
TO NIL JOHN NE1JMR DATED MAY Al. 1"7
i. Neptivo Drclarstion 87-1 and its accoispisaying documeetntian was m1bW for
public omomm and review eutueeraencing April 4. 1"?. Em tat d tge ON
for the n eptive declaration intciudes Envirmntsental Informatiaa Fam coo riir+ted by
the pre)wt prapmm t. urea ataps, photographs, and staff row rarertd�i d e ti`atke
measurws. A notice stating that the docuawnts were available for review wW
comment was posted in City Hall an the bulktin board for pubhe notlaaa aad was rlae
advertised in Cher Orangs County Daily pilot on May 4, 19d7. W. Joeq h's allegation
Cunt the file was not available for review until May 30, W is iaoorwee . A visit to
the City Clerk or planning offkt of ter May 4. 1987 would have afforded his the
opportunity to review the dvcumen ts.
it should be noted that the legal notice that was posted and advertised was not
intended to serve as the actual negative deciaration, but rather to pax tiler grnsral
Public that a negative declaration may be filed for the project if adopted by the
decision-making body. The notice stated that the negative declaration regmm was at
f file at the City and could be reviewed at City Hail.
7. Circulation
Staff conducted a baseline traffic capacity study whereby raaximv.m traffic Senwstion
from a "buildout" scenario of Redondo Circle was analyzed. (See Appendix A) In
summary. it was concluded that if Redondo Circle were built out and fully occupied
(including the development of the subject 5.0 acre site presently owned by the City),
the total Average Daily Trip Generation (ADT) from the projects fronting and taking
access off of Redondo Circle would be, at wand case scenario, between 2567 and 306S
ADT. According to the United States Department of Transportation Highway
Capacity Manual, the average capacity for an industrial collector cul-de-sac operating
at Level of Service C. is approximately &.000 Annual Average Daily Trips (ADT).
Given the facts that Redonda Circle is not level te"aln, has curb cuts, has some
curvature, and includes some on-street parking, the City's traffic engineering staff
indicated that maximum capacity limits may be less than 8,000, possibly closer io
6,000 AADT on Redooft Circle. Even so. the maximum build out scenario for traffic
generation on Redondo Circle is for below the capacity for the street to maintain, an
acceptable level of service.
6,000 - 8.000 AADT - Capacity for ;.OS C (Source: Highway C'apecity
Manual, USDOT)
2,S67 i 3.90$ ADT Worst Case Scenario of Average Daily Trip
Generation for guildout ar Redonddo Circle
(Source: Sight analysis and Orange City
Enviroramewtal Agency)
Staff i baseline study Indicates that there will not be a impact an traffic
from t!"+t proporad project. Coammp antiy. furthrr traffic analyeas is rrar doewnd
warrwrtsxl. �
With c" srd to tent specific prropMNMd prv*ct6 tiiMe pr+ajoct prepimom hm NO,, t4d
that 60 ra ft "too of dw bobtew t:,r* daylhrrriaa win be ItU"M I*
rrtMtr ► tbe+o. per d1w. Odd the dw Baal Iwam win be
warpse
:a
ato2/eR' rkbeher*. ward on dw pr op eai On limited truck &ftwiqw, md
ay1� or " d traffic. It =8 to I -asaattrbly W MtrIS" dart two PMIM WM We amle►
w101nmat "Unic Imp"-
TM %WWW«as-awl p wkkg tart Mr. Joao nPerreel to it dw =oft +v dw facet
ftt clot sdatitts hSht ltftstrial developments Imted as Rotlumb Cif wo at
prrapWlal Vol Z ttg t+aqulrad O1 .-eite pu*ft f&Mtk& t oft a altrr "at 0 tits
pvct trtwr, stiff aheev V tltNt arrao of for bwlrMaar on Wiliaft twadr as*y #*
psrtkg fadlitUM for starape of outarials or "kiklas r,"tod " ft by n"M•s
Opposed to et atanrr and err pkWw patrtla& As a re"t, buaiaess ears ems sd
art roqulred to park are the sawt thus cmt1ag mimkw eire letk a lwpscts
ce oa ioA. Fiee ment of a�-acts partir MuLrrrrrrta (art" lorlrtr�IMr
locate! an AMnn io Ckek wouM alleviate meat of the c6%vistian btrrdt am Oat
sttroet. 1 t should be rioted thr t the preim p asad prajac t will be pr+ovidft 218 perkUM
RUM at-situ twelve, more than the City's Zoning Code requires.
3. Panting
The City of Huntington Beach Ordinarom Cade requires that 2O6 ettf►-sitet parking pacers
be p vvided for the project. The projrct MWone nts have en d this t+ —dr-met;
212 parking paces will be provided. Emptayw parking. as well as hntamittent iwst
parking will be ad*;uately accomawlated at site so as not to impact traffic
eirculatior on Redondo Circle.
4. Air Quality
Staff utilized the "URREMlS"l eomputtr model designed by the California Air
Resources Board to determine the air quality impacts of an industrial light
manufacturing land use with a 121,424 square foot building. The awdel utilized the
following assumptions: 1) A trip genrratian rate of 13 vehicle W4s per 1000 square
feet; 2) Average trip lengths varying from three to seven miles (depeending on the trip
type); 3) Average speeds of thirty miles per hour; 4) A cold start temperature of SS
degrees farenheit; 5) A buildout year of 1991, and 6) The project will be developeel in
the Southern California Ammiation of Governments region.
The results are listed in Appendix B and are summarized below shag with the South
Coast Air Quality Management Dis'rict's New Source Review (NSR) Threshold levels:
ISSR1 eyel MOW a iMWAYr
Carbon Monoxide 550 3113
Hyd am WWI 75 44
Nitrwt l7xidts 100 22
Suffer Dioxide ISO N/A
Particulates ISO NIA
• California Air Resources Ord URREMIS Male)
1 Use of this model is cr iwsind by the South Coast Air Quality MA pemem alstritt
(SCAQOe1D' ffekoaft aosryeatlon with W. Brisn W. Fw t, Heel. Eat►=4
Fol h orrsarnr► Sanwa of tlrt SCAQW, Jove t. 1957.
As '1M 1 N 1 d aAa ^ a W&NbWNia1 Mere a 1=434 fats ao do
QW01 r Moused ay slew RON46W Q t1rrr>dtol/ lawie. bwbK the �
air� tl17 Ww" ft" tar t Rrrretrtra d VNli�mff k aftm be me WIN
th e AF N*aid 1s NIL WMW it M amm w somw tltet a w -iddcdw uaffla
POWN-1 base a On" sm to no* emi W
basin's slwbiattt air i ,y vRiUi6g saWavW6ted a= h is clear dot do
I opmeed ~ Will W " a irap m anti flee aml air guilty,
two oulatiwe or 06M win.
Dra io the lieu" Of tlwe projset (Marnufactwme at drapes MW 0t rro
d�prirkent stationery or �iorar* ems am apacted. There wiR be walk
v ake, funmo &aft ar adore tawreted by flee pr+apo wd use. Cortsegtesatly, an iswwt
analysis of such `portentlal" emission is not warranted.
S. Noise
A condition of approval for Administrative Review 97-15 Is that "the dsweltepesetwt
shall commy with mitigation me•ares sparcified for 'Future Industrial Activity In the
repart preprrod by J.J. Veen Neaten and Associates, Inc., dated April 6. 1M." By
referaewce, several mitiptien measures mW standards for interior and :atteior sa
levels were made catditkm of apprraveI for flee pn*oo d prK,)wt. Ins WW in than
mitigation measures is the requirement that an seoustical t54Siesarini r+ W% be
submitted as port of the application for a building pereait. The acomftal repori wit)
indicate means by which the owner proposes to comply with the noise standards
recommended by the J.J. Van Houton and Associates Study. It will include anistr
measurement data, analysts, drawings, etc. sufficient to kletntify the sows-als of ash
and r"thods of mitiption used to red cwe the level of the m*w to the standards
specified In the study referenced above. Conditkm noted above will ensure that the
pro %=W project complies with City devise standards and regula t ions.
6. Cumulative Imprcis
Cumulative impacts of this project were considered. In this case, they were not
deemed to be "significant." Per Dafly Vehicle Trip Generation Rates from the Orange
Ccvnty Em►ironmental Management Agency (August 1952), a standard industrial land
use is projected, as a west case st. icy, to produce between 176 trip ends per day
per acre and 13 trip axis, per day, per 1000 ujuare feet of but iding area. In this can,
the proposed 122, 424 spare foot project is projected to ganerate, as a worst case
scenada, between t110 and 1 S91 vehicle trips per day. In the memorandum dated April
15, M from Catherine M. O'Hara Zo UZA, the 1591 trip generation rauaber was sited
to indicate wt,rst case scenario for the proposed project. In actuality, the pr�ased
use will most likely Generate far less traffic than even the lower UO trips per day
figure. The project proponents gave itdicated that due to the nature of the bustrawt.
truck deliveries will be limited to spprOAIMately three per day, and that the projected
100-200 employees will be eroouraged to carpool and/or ride-share. Based on the
nature of the proposed use and the limited truck deliveries and auto traffic. staff
cowludeed that the project would not maw significant traffic impacts nor would it
create significant air quality impacts.
A
TO MR. A,
LXffn DATBD MAT 4 IN
Soum: Ad*m FUas
ldkWa lydm A.P. Fike
C of O f11"
A.P. &X*A
Appraodmate •quars foouW facins and taking direct accm off of Redndo Omit
Light Indwaisl/tr "011*1 Prk
sulk! Out OCEMA Trip Genwatim Frojeelkws
14"1 21,939 1 .0 295 176
1 an 1/091 24,960 1.0 325 176
18101 21,660 1.1 tA1 194
181011 12.120 .78 157 137
15092 17,004 .7S 221 132
19062 19,500 1.0 2 S3 176
7600 19.239 9.4 250 1,i34
Subtotal 136.421 1 S.d3 1,772 2,645
P1"K m
B►ou mton 122,424 5.0 795.S 112 on 440 1/2 an
Kovacs Kovacs
Total 239.845 20.03 2.567.5 3.015
As defined by the United States Department of Trarsipartaticn's Highway Capacity Modal,
the maximum capacity for an industrial collector cu1-4k-sac stmwt. amming a level of �
service (LOS) C. is 2,000 Annual Averase Daily Trips (AADT). Due to the facts that
11edofdo Circle Ms chw*n in Bade. mme curves, on-stares parities and cwt cuts, City
traffic staff estimates that the AADT an Reid ndo Circle for LOS C is closer to
6,000 AADT as oppomW to 8.000 AADT.
I
1 w gymt
M
f �.
T1►G OF UNIT a
~at AlMa rao
M�MA�� �11OEP
TN Y V"T
Md�MOlIK 1�i �,
M R 1432 11613
-MAIM
TOTAL 1591 124M
HOME BASED
Ylt 1 PS VMT
HOME wow a Q
HOME-Smap a a
HOME-OTWiR a a
TOTAL a a
MC00401ME EASED EMISSIONS
CARDON MC*V X l OBE (T/V)m 70 3 P 1bl dl
HYDROCAR (T/Y) a a Ibkat .
H3TROMN OXIDES (T/V)n *
FUEL CONSI. MPT I ON (GAL/VEAR) w 134 575
mom N^KD EMISSIONS
CAoRftM MOMD X I K I T/V)- a
MYDROCARaOrla i T/Y)s a
NlTFOWH OX1DEa (T/V) a a
FUEL CONaIMP T I ON (OAL/YEAR ) = a l
A1rk*%6 TEMPERATL►a!E w iS
APPENDIX a
' ,fir•,
�+ � Io M9tar (atwle+Mt�rlttl �'ili � / t .
Nro t � firs"I zatte. WSW td artt�
dated May �1, 1
�eaie►tie�r )ti�.� t Elte�et s�edi,,��, rrrerdaa� �t 1 Jett
A coaditko of opprNpval for Administrative Review 87-1 S is triat "the dnmelafisom altoil
comply with mitiption measum specified for 'Future Indutttriah Activity' In alert roport
prepared by J.J. Van Noutein aM Associates, Inc., doted April 6. 190." by r efevn e,
save I mitiption measures and standards for inuw pr and exterior ttoW levels were toe*
iCronditiotu of approW for the proposed project. included in those mitiption mosetrw is On
rsquiremoat that an s caudal eWasering report be subteitted as part of On application
for a building permit. the acouisticai repat will indicate On mew by which the owner
propm es to comply with the noisc standards recommanddd by the JJ Van Hiovton and
AasociateRs Study. It will include noise measurement data, amlyess, drvwbp, etc. suMciertt
to identify the sources of noise and methods of mitigation used to reduce the Ievtl of the
noise to the standards spec. tied in the study refearewed above. Cadditio ns noted about will
ensure that the propose project compiies with City moist standards and regulatitm.
lam,,,f hig" )yrC DUJAMtioe NEW Imp aMIX Nntired aad ML-- id
The DDA was courted by Negative Declaration 87-9 which was approved and acioptod by the
Board of Turning Adjustments an April i5, IM.
Staff received the Environmental Information Form for the boureston Dwoel 9ownt project
on April 1. 1927. Staff reviewed the information forts and other docunwntation an April 1,
19a7 and April 2, 1987 and determined that in accordance with CEO A, Article 6 Section
15070, a mitigated negative decimban could be filed for :aid project. A public notice was
advertised an Saiurday, April ;, announcing that the request for the ne ptive declarstian
had been reviewed and was available for public review and comment for ten (10) days.
Contrary to W. (Cane'• and Mr. Belsher's illeptions, the ptablic rlatke made no Owntiart Of
an initial stu ty. On Monday, April 6,, farms, including Ow City's initial study form, ►►ere
typed in final forts to be attached to the negative declaration file. It tdmM be noted that
ail review aced amlyters were completed prior to April ,, 1917. It should also be noted that
public con zatnu were accepted up until April 15. 1927. twelve (12) days after titre April e
advertisensent.
The "April 30 initial Study►" referred to in Mr. Kane's and Mr. Bel><her's letter is a
misnomer. On April 30, M, another staff member requested an ~witinar aw of the
initial study for Negative Declrrstkm 57-9 to include in the ACA to Comte I for the DDA.
A new farm whiff contained the exact information as the April 6, 1%17 fort~ was filled out
aW signal. In effact. On initial study referred to as the "April 30 Initial StW is artualty
the same as the "April 6. WWI Study." perhaps it wauMd h ev* bten war appropxiste to
have xanmed the "April 6 bluish Stuq>r' to include im the RCA, or to htav* bockdated thte
*April Sit Itdtiai Stuff' to retie "April 6, mr." Staff reputes the aartftsskm that was
C*uw . Ap* thorn is only m (1) Witial at%* for Ntpative Declartrtiw 87-9, oW dot
,� stub was --p1atA Pier to die April 15 BZA hearing.
Noun
At WMW abrw@6 On "April 30 NOW StW b a alum~. Further, do tibt/Mlrtb1
stu* fart tMt was twd in revkvft tlr potmt1al sir ter Doerr mum Is •
fam that his bm trod bW that City for ever thv pstma. MM' , no de r Ilm bNr
sago we of the fort. It should also be elated tlrt ss+n► reviotr b Not
liarrt�sd ai roiling out the clrocrcis". Weed, site visits atad �tnwa IM we to
detwuitart rc►lWrsr sigrdflcant geologic, flood, traffic, nobs or other tat 1mwrcts
sty► occur due to the project or that may affect the project I nelf in do coot ft Was
deterralow that the iota that nra occur emu be adrgitrtrAZy a l pted atad that a
mitipted MM pth* dach"don couid be led for the prraAv.
'T tiel5t►dLag�T to Apt C
i
Cumulative irapatis of this project were considered, in the case, me they were not deed to
be "sipdtkant." her Daily Vehicia Trip Generation Rasa from the Orattp Eortnty Etrvi-
ronmentai Malrapatent Aj ► (August 1912). a standard bWwtftl land use Is projected, as
a war* case scenario, to proth between 176 trip out par dale per sere wad 13 trip weds,
per clay, pir 1000 s urrr feet of building arts. in this case, tyre proposed 122,434 squarre
foot project is projected to generate. as a worst cage scenario, between ill and 1591
vehicle trips per day. in the memorandwo dated April IS, I"? from Catherine M. G'Hars
to Me the 1591 trip gentration number was sited to indicate woo t case sc nario for the
propm ad project. In actuality, the pxaf used use will aaost likely genmtt far less truffle
Ow even the lower UD trips per clay flgurt. The project p"Wormots have indicated that
due to the nature of the business. truck deliveries will be limited to a itnately three par
day, and that the projected 100-200 employees will be encouraged to carpool "War Ads-
share. Based an the nature of the proposed use and the limited truck deliveries and auto
traffic, staff concluded that the project would not create significant traffic itapocts aar
would it create significant air quality Impacts. cumulative or otherwise.
Mitigated Neptiwe Declaration 17-9 raven the proposed project in conjunction with
Conditional Exception 87-24 and Adrninisttstive Review 97-15. The project pu t his
agreed to coarpiy with all raml ti ns of approval. Consequently, no signrificant enwinav-
mental effects will occur from the propasad project. 1n view of this, an EIR is unMavwtod.
r
t
R
(1 1174C
ENVIRONMENTALTES. tS
ErwMantrw ManoonmO, anal Tra Valw Non V
Juts 2, 1961 IWOM CTON KAU
DEVELDPAUNT
Wpnrtamt of Developmwt Services . ., . .
Cnvirorawtal Resources 6action
City of Nmunitm lurch f.U. dw J aJ
P.O. eons 190 Hun iflOw kah. CA
Huntington Wach, California 02648 -
RR: Comets c:t Mitomettt:.l Rerriew fit* for toed.) Study and
tgatiweclarstiaa 97-9.
Dear S:: Cr I,@Ad=:
Th4z firm r-presonts :r:,;,:e Wiitei :able Lx=ler in cor.:�•:ion with t'v� Ci.y's
ccnat.'.era::�r, of a 1)rr�F�s►_d in:IZLrial develcpner.t fo: the 5-acre va=ant
prozo-•rty at the site a:nnonly r�•ferred to the Tl_`.,►ert-E-aCh prcperty. This
i
r..y ans.,s:s c& the e::v i.o•...enta; c3cumentatiae
ti-e Ta. o,_ Lwzch 1:0wtr ibl project . Weral1, there a.•e a homer
�:►r1;�^��.•:itai cc,ncer.is which hive not teen addressed or have been
:r.adoksJ,5te1•f a-Jress•jd ir. the course of ;;our anviro; ita_ review of th*
p:o :. Trerefo.c, Lased car. the of exist.'rg doc=entation
and the probability that the pro joct may have a s:5-;::icant i"Ct on the
env:rarrne,a (as defi:�e.i by th*.• California Envirc.-ental Qus:ity ;.ct) , it :s
our bial irf that the: i c;;►: ive Dh'lacat:Gn should not be rppro�•ed and that an
crvi:ornental impact Report shcald be prepa:c-d for the project. Following is
the rationale for this :%serf ior.:
PKLv1 GW fXV I :11t+ DXIMUT hT IOM. The E:R preps:ed for the Redsti e:opmen:
Plan for the, ^.all,e;t Sjxr-i tic Plan, .adopted in 1963, envisio.0 i ti.:•
,here wot:ld 1.)e a:: E;it fcr this parti%cvlar deve;vpzent . Sinat this
envi rorrvnta; LwLcrmirotv3 that an EIR would have to be prepared,
t::e sar.c• finding use, necor-sarily by m&* with respect to the largest
Industrial project envis ►cued by the -odevelopment P:an, which is now
ro,-y,r.A with over tA,i1on more square feet ^f spwp than that originally
conAimrwd in t:* P16N. tireaver, Lhe data specified in this EIR is
ado-O ttul ;: un .ham planning staff's o%m ntxu4-.rr.. For
tire a;e sisal •:e%x1v trips Mr dFly from lecol"1 i r:quar.9
foot irsdortr ;al lx.: A inq, o•:er 1 ,I59a trips per day are predictcj from
ttx,, p:opised prcu jrc&,. Tiw' anal fs:a in t1s::• EM if;,, 0*refore, inaca.•u-ate are!
�an:v-,t tv+ lagical:y be relied uti.m, a.•.d s:could be &upple ted, " reyaired
by Sty:ice a 151E2 and 13:S3 of CE DA, with. a new env i ro.. tal impact teport.
C;` _'.'C>IaN. A. L:.ouc;• City staff het.- mtrectly predicted that Ux: project
gerer:te saw• 1,591 vehicle trips per def, no st•.-dies Witte prepared
concerning the trxffi: impacts on the AM and Py peak periods at the
:saCt�o. s.er:ire the pro;mc:; site and at else ma-'orire:ersect::,its is� rise
project locale. e.n inwavc:tior. capacity analysls :s yane:ally ecasidered by
w th env i rora►anti, a;-O. tra!f is et►nsu l tants to be a key co powK in xmwm r irq
n=* Avenue. A.-'►ata. ColflorNo 91331 (8 i ) M0.1•134-1
�f
y
t
DspMtbw-t at Owelop■ont setvie"
June 2, 1997
ft" TWO
a project a cicculation iets. In fact, wch intonation VU re wstad
bythe City's bVineerinq Planner as for back as July, 19U. The verlomm to
this rest as stated in the final ICIR tot the Medevelopmot wlad ran that a
specific projects propoad pursumt to the Kan would be subjected to lvrtfm
soviroessm tal analysis. Cleary , this anal is has not boo aondMum %dth
� Y lla ,.
respect to this issue and should be examined within a now 1911.
The p ropmed Megat i vt Declaration urrd Initial Study for the project also
tails to address the proje+rt'6 access and parking iopscta an the already
ooverbarde ed Fedowki Citcle. Mitlwut the caq-letion of tho rxtensioa tomboy
between E,etdnndo Circle and Kcvacs Shoot (af Provide! for in t!w Taylor i
&-3ch Specific Plan) it car, dx exf„wtad Drat the pm- operating owdaions,
irwckquate ac.rvss systuA and tarnirrg radii, a:rd deficient on-str"t (arki.nq
4x: Redondo Circle will b+: further exacerbated if the indurtr ial project is
approved as prop,m4. A delailod analysis of impacts should ko
anal)�zW wit.hin an i:r.•:i rot .tal 1rpact Report .
V*- roc.-ently i tepared "U d&-%vd Traffic Gwnts* submittod by Che City and t;w
DeclAratior. by t:w City's Traffic F.ryirruer are eonf11CL(-,ngg imimplete, and
sorely inadequate, aMd do not address the traftic and rircclatim; issues
which I ;Lve outlinw.4 a:"-,ve. For oxaVle, th* City T:affit En;ineer failed
to address tratf:c arki ci;cula::ors rxpacts on Redondo C:rcl• from the
propc3*d project, sa well as the cumv.].-it i ve circulation implications.
Moreo%,er, Ci ozy calculated impacts; based an average dsi ly trips, which
as mentioned is not relevant. The st a!!: ana l ys i t still awe not address the
peak period traffic, parkin,, and ata•ss irfac:s on Redondj Circle and
intersections in the project locale which serve taw project site. Similarly,
as desc. abed further bo!low, Ow City's w k attempt to &Wrebs cu::ativr
Lraf:is IMmets st: :1 doers not AMIress planned caeve:oft (related projects;
in the surroundinn locals, and does rc; mention many existing Frupertits such
as the auto service reps:r s!vops in the locale which also contribute, to the
traf:is prcbleras. rina:ly, the roo r4ation for a trAn4wrtation systems
simaemer:t pr:.;ram for V* pzc ject !"car twc; ing and/or r i rare sharing") is
la%Ailrilc, but :udicrous in that tree ;projected employee penu:at ton would not
likely be 'arge enough for such an ei f ort wi_;wut OA: support at surrounding
bus i rwases.
Alit gci LITY. Tier City Staff hhcs fa::ai z.� n:.«:yze t::o air S.:a?ity 0p&.-ts
asnociALcsi with PG,14CL-je cra►tec' vehic.1a_ tra:i:c, which 7 bel ieve are
aic"mif:cart ar.: rrgt:::f &:LIoAtion• :n fait, rot cam-::)- wi:i large mmmm;s of
r.)Iluwnts be exi ttoad, but tie level o: pt,=utantx ge:Wzatcd will far excwrd
threshold ievaas of significance, aztab: isr-ed by t'ee South Coast kir Quslity
� ,a;cat Cistr izt.
w "OM's Ca:ifacr.is shvi.-Mowtal OM'.ity M (Czgh) Imlomentat ion
' mpar towt Of amelownt SWV ices
June 2, 1987
Pop 7hrae
•
Cuidel ine►sl suggasts a number of criteria In datersainira+f thresholds of
significance for sir quality iaapcts. o:* such cr i ter ion Mat" that a
significant air quality ipgwt would accvr Wen a project would:
"Result in a not 40ission Increase, befom onsite offsets,
equivalent to the current liar Source mview signific&we Ievola as
&-f irwd in SCAM Regulation X111, unle" sodaling demw*trates
that the source will not cause awi existing exCoodance r at Wke
nezaurabl;► worse an existing exceedamm, of any state or federal
ambient sir quality starriard."
T:a:6 mast::a of s ign i f f cimice applies to both stationary soutces (a source G:
poll.utar.ts which is immobile) and projects such as the Talbcrt-leach.
in dust: :al pro;L*-_t W!,Ausr primary source is taw! gerwration of rww traffic
(F,ollutants emitted by autcmoL 'A:es travel irg to and from th# pro;oct site) .2
ii•.: ms:r:cL' & Ncw •:,::rcw Re. iew t:ZA11 Ru+e thres');.ld :cvels are Compaeed :c
%,he prc ;ect 'E expected mbi :c mOssion prc! ile in the table glow. Ass=irg
Pro*:cc:-cemr&t*d traffic &t 11,591 daily traps, ave:ags trip len.;th of 1C.F
m ics trzvo: it.; st 25 Miles pUr r:,Ur, arm ptcjec:-;.pupa:e;' ;a 1y88, 64.114
p:ozct :;:�:� excrc� dniiy ::.zvL,:o.d Ie►�e_s A caitx: t :ox:"-, wr.:c: wot::d ,
constitute a si-nificant. mpict upon air quality. Accordingly, this i:!;Ac*. i
signif ican:0 shc';lc be acknow1odged Within an Llv _ m*ntal lbp&:t Report and j
appropr:ate mit iya•_ion misures should be i::91cw.-acd to reduce such irr;acts
to acceptable levels.
.+...r.r•.r...r. rrr.rr+r. ....r.r.....•..•..r••r......r.rrr .rwr..rrr.i•i•...r
POLLU OT No Err,s.1 'T1 sicg MCWr :WACrr
C:Ark o: Monoxide 551 %9 yes
Total 75 5J NO
Nitrogen Dioxide M 61 No
sulfer Dioxide 150 9 No
particulates 154 12 MO
1 Pounds per dais.
.•.r. ...wr ..r.. r .., .r.. . .. r .rrr. r. .•...... ..rrr.l..wr..r•..r. .i••ir�t....r..
�::�•:, ,.. t!: tho rc :zn3; ai: c :_ y impacts clLssi::ed as significant , ar. f
envsro%rm:Aa: ai.•7 be prepared an the project's rw ar--fic:d
I "Ca1itrirnia 6nvit -nmttst,-i* (%m1ity het 2mplawontation Oidellogs."
SuuLh ccoowt hit Jw;icy llrnauement District. February 60 1987.
2 Mt . u: ian „•. f'j+rris, 11--4d, F.nctgy ro; Dnvitonrent Section of the
South wiser As. Cx-a i t: y ranaga wn. District. Parch 16, 1967.
a wbont of ilirvelapa mt sacvic*s
JUM 20, 19n
" nwr
ilocal) effects, particularly in lint of the fact that circulation peablsrs'
an ltrdontb Ci rcla will worsen with the project and without the Wonffib/liavacs
extension, causing autom biles acid truces ire idling tiara, moulting in
larger amounts of pollutants emitted. hear-field iapwts an the sfnior
cit i tens complex should be evaluated.
r i na l l y, no m nt ian was made in existing project docuwntat ioa regarding
whether or not the ptojert will emit any stationary source ( factory)
emissions. If so, emission calculations should to prepared and resulting
impacts analyzed.
YOISR. Chapter 95, Section 951A.18 of the Huntington Beach Aunicipal Code
requires the preparation of a wise analysis for this project unless, aaong
other items, provssiors arc made for a0eguate no!&* a:tigation measures.
Although the Negative declaration Sm contain mit.-gation measures, their
adequacy for this project should be evaluated within the context of a
detailed noise study which examines the project' ; noise generating
including its machinery, compressors, truck loads, operations,
operations, g Y• eP s n9 +� ,
and project-generated traffic. The City Staff has tequested that an an
acoustic&: engineering report be sAmitted as Fart of the application for a
building permit for this project, Such a study should be prepared as part of
a comprehensive envirormrentsl analysis for this project, +and should 'logically
(and lega:l;) be prepared before City approval of thw project.
CMXATM IMDAMS. According to Section 15865 (c) of the CE4% Guidelines,
can ElR is regLired when the project has possible enviromnwntal effects which
ale cumulatively mnsidesable. i b&lieve it is reasonable to assuap that the
ir.pacts of post, current, and Frob%sLit future projects in the surrounding
locale analyzed in conjunction with t.: i s project could be considered
"cumulatively consi&rable," which Js above the tareshold at which such
irfacts may have a significant impact on the environrenit. For exar.fle, tht
Cumulative circulation impacts froa recent industr :ai dovelopment along
Redondo Circle should be exac:ined in conjunction with this project. As
wnt i oned, the City has considered only limited existing development on
fiedondo Circle in t:.eir inaccurate &-Alys:s of cumuld:ivv teaffic imacts.
\n Etn R:-^)uld be prepared which examines Uric icPacts from all
}Watentially s:9nif(cant anvilOnmental issues, aW s.'houad consider Use ioWts
nt all past, currrent, and probable future prcjects, as required by the
C♦ .l i:ornia Envirorimtel Quality Act.
rank you for the opportunity to comments
Sincerely,
Chr i st J1. Joirph
principal
MPOWTOUL A. Larrm
I
The rocurod Eavtnaaeatntal Itrpact Report far tha Talbert Roach Rye 4-1 - Wprerm
Arse which was adopted in 100 did wt "and' t#st an additioMl on VMW
be pr apar�ad
for deveiopaarrt of the dubi*t prroW,. Rather, the EIR reftsamend d fwtbw OHNI W.
tauatal WhO far Mhwqmt proWIC It was lawrAsd that d w hdtlal wiN maarrt&I
review would dtterruire wbethor an EIR, a ■ttipte+d mptiw dretwetlort or a ugadve
declaratl+an with no talc tiger areeu vas ahruld be preW The floated I IR in
19AU to no way tatended to lopm the arrert tlat a ill 1UR be prspered for so
specific project. IndWed, for purrposaa m blilty, the UrWAp was Intentiatral'ly► vaM,
The environmental review carducted for the propose ra ratan project Is new turd nrionst.
Information from thtr 1983 EIR was not utilized due to the fact that it Is outdated and is rot
project specific. Consequently, the trip Vne, tion numbers quested In that IM Elk art
moat at this point.
Mr. Joseph's allegation that the 19113 EIR Is an to tool to be used for tal
review (tla proposW A'a t Is entirely aary ect. huhmed, that Is why :tiff bar not rtlieed
upon the docuariat as a data source. Staff cardrmeted tOVk1=="tal analysis of oleo specific
protested project based as the bat available drat:. Roults of tlrt analysis concluded that
the air quality, circulation, soul aWas iarpacts that may be Vnerated by the m i p oee4
projdct, and which the appellant teas talte+n issue with, (ice addition to other potaMrtial
Impacts) are either insiinifle nt (based on State and Federal Standards{) or will be
mitigated. In view of this, staff prepared a draft neptivt declaration to be flied for the
project and the City's Dowd of Zenkg Adjustments nts approvWcentfied this native
declaration an April IS, 1987.
See attached staff regxnw to NW. Joseph's May 4, 1"? Witter. Mr. Jano's June f. 19►M7
letter basically rei testes the use Issew ralsed W his May ,, 1"7 letter. It slermW be
noted, towtver. that while Mir. Joewph finds riderlreeitrd and carpooling to be 'Uudible Out
ludicrous" rnitiption measures for reducft traffic and air quality Infects, the United
States Department or Transport Oce. the South Coast Air Quality Mlaeuapeont [District and
the Saudw n Califa mW Anowlatiar of Coverdmnts find theca to be valid. useful and
acceptable saitiptioru taeteasuree.
Air Qmlitx
As indicated in starry response to Mir. Joseph's May 4, W letter (attachoO, acaardit to
the UR'EIMIS air quality eradtl dreidnrd by the s w State Air Itard sal endorsed by
the South Coast Air Quality Mtaenapeew nt . the proptrsrd project will sot paaetrate
sit quality irerpeCts. to the tlR saadrl. vsrhiclsr paearrated
p llutants cwmW by the pe'ap!Ned Project ar+e mr'aleo't d w be j" h@1= the south Coast Air
Quality MlaeaReant Dsstrrict s blew ioN 98 Review R) thmdwW Iw*k..
60
Owed es do Wbrw W. IN--Nb ' :
NNWNRFterry. The City wda. do Stage Ak A ad beaaaae ft b
tuCoaenGOM and aadaread Ir the SCE. ". C1 r avert dw w +svocl
VNI trot a a*-paint wwwo air q tea veer br0 00 t
V .Mae nMdts.
Due to tyre eatwe of the proposed wmd'actwft use, t mme mltaioaa we we as Ww
.rich r"" to air O"ty I,eprca• as Pt at rerfp afro s trws fttp w as bk.
Joeapb•s May 49 1967 kttar.)
Because tiro pro*oad a�ott-paitrc loam air quouty ingwo aye watt below the bCAQMD`e
NSR thr d oid howls, and paint swrce air quaiity In4sur ana not as Irrwg the p+apartMtfon
of a full Snviraata - tal leripact Report (es 010ft red by fire CalKorrda Est 41 Okanty
Act) is unwarranted.
Hiles
Ste staffs rogww to Mr. Jamph'r May 41 1"7 fetter. It bhoufd be noted that it Is
reaa�onablt and cwtomary for a 4r i6m-waking body of the City of HuntkWm lfa&b to
C Pr''�►'e a dev*kpowt project. In this can, an smatkai unghwa1ft report
must be prapot by the project joapaMrant and r breitted to the City gft to the iswwnw or
a budfdft perwit. In other , no awww rrtiarr or dswkpaoont ran tart placw until the
City Iran revlawM and approved as aaowtical anp1rt00 Mg .Wot for tie p vJect. Civw the ,.
imposed ultipOw mesaves for potential naive IwWsca, furdrer a wbum rrrttal review in
the fame of an Fjmhvn atntal In Voct Ruport is unwarranted.
In view or the tact that the circulation, air and rrAw Impoct imm raised by the apprrilant
have bmn mitigated with cwrditkw of approval or am car Weed as defined by
State and Fades I threshold l wtb, and also coersiderinp the fect that with the dmiapmant
of the pr+uorod project, the Itedonda Cbvle bu arvial ones will be chore to brit built-ail,
It is rsaeanable to assume that future and eumula" lopects Prims the proposed project Will
also be lsw pdfirant.
AdWt Aht
r 1p CRr Ab
e1r
1�MrIIt Mhmet
mantis too lea"t Calit6ralS 92441
# (1141 lag-$M
At tormis fee Oerendante
7
d SUP92102 COURT Of CAL I fORiit A
9 COuWa Y or OUNCE
10
1 TAME M. FACIPERTI , A ! CASE NO . - -77
General Pactnecahip !
17 ! DECLAVATION OF INKS
Plaintiff , 1 CIL M is M " " of
13 ) xOetou TO gxpmg US
VP. ! PESDINS CCP 1409. 1
1� )
REDMLOVAINT AGENCY Of THE 1 CAM June 4, 1987
1� CITY of HUNTINGTON PEACH , 1 :IN2 : 9: 14 A.!!,
CALIPCISIAs CITY COUNCIL AND 1 DZIPT: 21
16 CITY Of MUNTINGTGN BEACH# )
CALIfORNIA= 9WRESTON DEVELOP - 1
17 NZXT, INC. $ SOUTHWEST QUILTED I
PACOUCTE, INC. : JCE t. )
18 MOSERTSCN s JACK XZLLY r JOHN 1
ENSEIM MLs BANNIST911 RUTH !
19 etNLErj PESEA GREEM: TOM XAYSs )
GRACE WIMCMW CHARLES W . !
20 TMORPSCMs and DGES i through !
• IV# ln�lusire, )
21 )
Defendant . 1
22 )
23 DICLARA7I2li OP,.l,1pCE gILflEX
24 to SSuct CIUMM, declare as follows :
25 i . 1 an the TcaElle tnginfeg for the MY Of 80MlxMii'll'OM
so OXACM.
37 1 * t have been eePXOYtd by the CITY of INTSIMON on= 2
'i 28 the t fourteen 114 ) T"ts.
�. = M familt4c Vitt the traffic 11" sitrartiom as
Fes. 2 Talbert avow* as it prommkir entats«
4 . AS: the prOsent .time tb* teatttc *a Talbert Oesde In
tar loss thaa the capacity the ftteat can accoewodate.
S S. t aar tasiliac Wit.0 the ptoitct piafthed tot the subject
6 pcopetty and that traffic that the FfoJeCt will generates
'i i . The tca!!lc generated team the proposed ptoJect will
have OnI7 a minor Lapact On the traffic flow an Talbott Avenue .
I ce:tify under penalty at perjury that the foregoing is
10 true and correct .
11 DATCO: .May IS , 1.987
12 Huntington beach, California
13
i4 9 G•LMISt
'rraE,�ic tngireer
1a
17
1A
19
20
v
2
24
23
26
' Opp f -. VO
do
ab
i
I
W. Kaft fIwee
Qtairem-PlamIng Qmariasian
aty of lmtirrgton bach
2 "bin Barret
!•1mUncton bean, CA 92648
Dean W . K arce
on behalf or the residents of herald crave, please be v4visea we have held a
meeting to discuss t * Aedorwio Circle site, and we aywr%helsringly support the
concept of the Ibureston DevelopeenVSDuthwrst Ojilted Products pmpoaal .
We favor the Ddurestoo proposal for the following reasmst
1. Peace and quiet--the location of the true:k loadir4 and the solid earl]
facing our developmt will insure our privacy.
2. Less tr affio.-r•wa believe there will be better control and, ultimately,
less traffic on the site.
3. Good nc ithbor- w have tat with the President or .0t thweat W i l tom,!
Products and we approve of his organization . .
4. Gated use.-re tat 1 iev a Southwest Qu i 1 ted Pt od uc i s is an appropr i ate
light amufacturinA use for this locetim.
We waul d hope that oar feelings will, have a pos: t i v e Impact upon the ti ty' s
doe) Sion ir, this matter.
Gly Of Huntington Beach
.' -..._ OFFICE OF THE CITY ADVII`t *,'MATOR
March 27, 1947
Mr. Michael h. Todd
fooureston Development, Inc.
33$5 Via Lido, Sprite M
!Newport beach, California 92663
SU53ECT: AUTHORITY TO FILE FOR ENrinEMENTS -
TALOERT-BEACH INDUSTRIAL PARCEL
Dear Mr. Todd:
Pursuant to the pending Disposition and Developmeat Agree"nt ►xtween the
Redevelopment Ager-ty and your firm (Mureston Develrprnent, Inc.) and ttv: actiat of the
Redeveloprent Agency on March 16, 1997, ycmi are tweeby authoeiterd to We for
entitlements-to-use on the subject site now owned by the City of Huntiriftan Mach. This
lc:tcr of authority will provide you the opportunity to file for the &ard of ZonJng
Adjustments and any other review procedures which -nay be required by the City's l-04rds
and CornmisRions.
As always, I appreciate Your cooperation and assistance in this regard. It you should have
any questions or require additional information,, please do not hesitate to tontact us.
Very trul ts
rs,
t
C es �'. rn so
City Administrator
CWTISVK:sar
xc: Douglas N. La Stile, Deputy City Adi"INstrator/Redevelopment
Stephen V. Kofrl!!r, Pfintipal Rtdevilopm+ent Specialist
� r11e �i III �.1ii.''f?
Mi►autrra, t�. a. poard of goatee 4I justawto
April 150 1986
page d
b. Rooftop Mechanical of i"Itallottop
Piss. said pion shall
Indicate screening a ascbanical ogoip=mt a
shill deligmete the type at material proposed to WC
aid equipment.
4 . Install ion of required laadsooping sad irrigation taws
shell be leted prior to find inspection.
3 . The two and -half toot (2 -1/f 1 ) alley dedi son shill be
wade to the C1 to satistactiou of the Pub c works Department .
G . All building spot , such as unusable 1 to wire, 1pe, and
other surplus of us able material, a 1 be dlspenes of at an
off-site facility " ped to hendl bem.
7 . Natural gas shall be stu In the locations of cookies
facilities, water heaters, and antral beating units .
A . bow-volume heaps shall be on 61:1 spigots and Water faucets.
4 . All applicable Public ka too shall be paid prior to
issuance of building writs.
1 . The developmen shall comply with all a licable provisions of
the Ordinanc Code, luildling Division, a Tire Department .
2 . The appli nt shall owt all applicable loc stake, and
Federal its Codes , Ordinances , and standards
3 . band aping shall Comply with Article ill of t Huntington
Na Ordinance Coda .
Ayn: Godfrey, Krejci , Sm i t h
lass avans, fte
None
OWD I T IOMAL RXCIPT ISM NO. e 7-Z 4
ADMINI8*RATIV2 Mil" NO. 87-15
NMGATIn I(M 00. 47-9
Anli&"t.:__- o_ 23ESI �tMks Tad!!
QJ_1 t: To permit 1) a three and one-halt foot (3-mi1/21 )
*acroaelssnnt into required fourteen foot (14` ) front Ord setback on
Redondo Circles 2) a truck well fifty foot (SO' ) in M dtk to lieu of
twenty foot (206 ) . and 3) a three toot (3 0 ) wide landoesps buffer in
lieu of rem i red slat toot (40 ) .
low 4.r
I Rep, N. R. Board of seeiag Adjustments
J1pri Y ISO loss ,
role S
To permit an one buodred tumty-two thmeand, tout
huadtnld twOnty-four (122r424) Square foot industrial building.
subject property is located Wat of Beach Boulevard and kmtb of
Talbott Avenue (between tho Rant terainus of Re"aao Circle and
fouth toranious of Kovacs Circle) .
This request is covered by M Watine Docletsti,oa f. 47 -f.
Me . Phillips reported the requests were for construction of an
industrial building with variances. Staff recoasssadMi isrcreasing
the landscape planter on the South side by decroasing the planter on
the North side of the driveway it the Eire Deparbawt. had no
objections. Staff further motioned letters had bend received
stating an Ravironmental Impact Report be fil4d rather thaa
procenring a *native Declaration for the project; haver* Lice the
Rnvie amintal staff m udot tools witiga�iofts pleced on the Negative
Declaration will be ,sufficient for the project . Start **Worsted
the conditions and restrictions being placed on construction of the
building . Staff recommended approval of the three rovests.
The public Hearing was opened 64 Michael D. Todd was present to
speak for Bouteston Develop pent . others present to reptemmt they
applicant were Los Mieder, Oary Pietson, .roe X. Robertson, and
Robert Goodman. Mr. Todd stotod be concurred with Staff 's
recommendations.
Daniel a . Higman stated he was owner of Reliable Lumber Company
which war located on the some street with the proposed project .
Mr. Mignon indicated his opposition to the construction because of
additional traffic pxobleyms, truck deliveries, and the fact the
street had not boon continued through as promised. Mr . NiVos asked
that the Board deny the variances .
Harold Ducat* stated he was an attorney representing Reliable Lumber
Cos:pany and inteodueed the subject of ownership of the property. He
stated it was his understanding the property was owned by the City
of Huntington Bosch and his client had not roceived prior notice of
hosting* hold by the City. "I . Ducat* futthel. stated that, in his
opinion, an Environmental Impact Report was required sod indicated
the application was improperly before the Soard.
Another aodondo Circle tenant, Bob tilver, spoke is opposition to
the project because of th* iaeteased traffic and the fact the street
had not bMa extended througb es originally planned .
I ** Mieder said it was his unndorstanding the bearing Mas properly
advertised ated the appropriate parties wore notified . Mr . VIVader
further stated there had been previous public hoorirngs regarding the
op
project, and he thanked Staff Ayers for their assistance, in
-5- s/li/f? - NZA
.. board - ad feauw #d$Vat�omts
J14Pri1 i!, It"
*ate i
processiao the colmost. 11c. Iwate informed Mr. Viader there Mad
bee* other bearings but this was the first time adjacent property
asses to bad been not i f tad.
Mr. Todd stated truck deliveries would be limited to three pox day one for pick up of finished products sad tore tot delivery, of ace.
meaterial$. He further added noise paitoblem s would not be greatly
increased by operation of this facility. Me . Nigreaa tueetiomw who
meowed be mouitorise daiiveeiss and Sic. Robertson stated they would
control the truck traffic.
Connie Nandic reminded the board they were approvinq a building
which ~would be there for many years sad sight be occupied br other
tenants at a later time.
There was no one also present to speak for or against they project so
the Public Nearing was closed .
Daryl Smith asked Steven Kohler for an lanation concerning the
Y �P q
ow wr•hip of the parcel . Mr . Mohler indicated the Redevelopment
Agency of the City still 6%w. ned title to the land and a letter
indicating the property, owner's approval had been placmd is the
file. Mr . goblet further 2tated the City Council had selected the
applicant which was before the board on this date.
upon questioning by Daryl Smith, eta . Phillips repeated the
information she had given concerning traffic study figures used in
calculstiona for this project, as well so other industrial buildings .
io■ Yvans initiated the subject of Tentative Parcel Map rrequiromnts
for the project .
Daryl 8aith irAicated he would move for approval of all three
requests - the Negative Declaration, Conditional Zxception and
Aftinittrative Review. to" svans requested that the motions be made
separately.
URM W:-tO* by BRITH AXD 23COND NY OODFREY, WWATIVf DSCI.AaATION
NO. 7-24 W" APPOOM IT TNs PDLLOMING VVf
AYRS: graces, "af eery, Xreici , RM, $with
0028 : None
AW11 T: Pow
VPGw Wr ION BY WITH AND WCOND BY GODrIST o CONDITION" UCZ"ION
no. •7-24 W1s APP!!Dt►U MI TW TNR P LLOVl NG f I NDI POS AND COWI T I OU,
BY THR Po:.tr NING ors:
..t_ 4r19/87 - NU
Sow
1lisnt40@ M. We board of oaf AdJMa1oftts
f April M bras
► 7
1 , The site is located at the terminus of tiro isdastrial streets.
Thetafote, the reduced setback and truck well will not
adversely impact surrounding residents, or impact the value of
property and imptovevests is the vicis►itT.
2. pause of speci a 1 circumstances applicable to the subject
property. Includiud aisi, shop*, top grsphy, location oR
surroundings, the strict application of the Using Ordinance is
found to deprive the subject property of prima es enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity and under isst1cal some
cl*esHications .
t. The asant! of Conditional ssrception 1e . 87- 24 will not be
"t*riall astrimeatel to the public welleri, or injurious to
property in the same none clessitications.
d . The granting of the Conditional inception will not adversely
affect the Oensssl flan of ,the City at Ituatinpton De"h.
1 . The site plan, floor plans, and, iletatiobs received Mee dated
April 1 , 19/7, shall be the approved layout, with modifications
an notod in Administrative "view do. 67-15.
Z . All Conditions of; 2proval of Administrative Review No . 87-15
shall be applicable .
ATU: Goa!rey, Krejci , Poe, Smith
MM: sv aaa
ASO MT: $000
UM NOTION ST /ITN AND SECOND BY 000" Y, AgOINIOMTIVX RJMIXN
Nib. p 7-15 WAS AVMMMM WITH T!R FOLLGMI Nd CONDIT I , " TM
VOUA M 1 go Vfl+!'i:
� s
1. The floor plans and elevations received and dated April 1 ,
xts7, shall be the approved layout .
1 . The site lea dated April 1, 1167, shall be t*vio4A to depict
tM modif�cations described botela:
a. tact*&$* width of landscape planter adjacent to South
property bouwdarty (Reduce width of landscape planter
adjacent to building accordingly) .
-7- 4/19/87 - B&A
Winut", d1 a. ford of Noise Ad jv sti ks
dpwtl its 1986
rave •
3. prior to isauass* of beiidietq powt■, the applicant s"ll
suit the following plans t
a . Landscape and irrigation plan to the DepartMeent of
DrvolopMent Bervices and ftblic 10orks for ,review sag
approval .
b. Rooftop Mechanical Rquipment Plop. Said elan shed
indicate scteening of all rooftop wechasical equipment and
shall delineate the type of Material proposed to sctoem
said equipment .
4 . installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems
shall be completed prior to final inspection.
9 . Grading lane shall be submitted to the Public lierks Department
along with plans for silt control tar all stoma runoff it
I
deterrai nad to be necessary by the Director of public Works.
i . It foil type insulation is to be used, a fire reterdeat type
shall be installed so approved by the building Department.
7 . An automatic fire aptinkler system shall W approved and
instilled pursuant to Dire Department regulations .
d . Service roads and fire lanes , as determined by the lire
Department, shall be posted and marked . 0*4
9. Eire access lanes shall be maintained . it fire lane violatioas
occur and the services of the lire Department ago soquired, the
applicant will be liable for esponses incurred .
10. All building spoils , such as unusable lumber , wits, pipe, and
other surplus or unusable material , shall be disposed of at an
off-sits facility equipped to boodle them.
11 . The development shall comply with mitigation areasures apocifisd
for stuture Industrial Activity* in the Report, prepared by
J . J. Van Houton and Associates , inc. # dated April i, 1943
(attached) .
12 . Natural gar shall be stubbed in at the locations of water
heaters and central heating units .
13 . Low-volume heads shall be used on all •pivots &ad water famous .
14 . rf lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure
sodium amp 9�
sum vapor 1 s shell be used for energy save S. All
outside lightiriv shall be directed to prevent •s�1Is"* outo
ad j scent properties.
I
I
�d-- 4/15/47 - Rill
r�r
OL
Niant"t N* S. board of 3004" 1Just""a
April Is* 198d
page ! r^,
15. irsior to issubsee of building permits, applicant shall silo a
Parcel wale to do l ire ste the a l ipaara►t of solosdo Circle and
Kovacs citele. •aid map shill be reeordd prior to final
i nspecOve and a spy sW i tted to the Dopartwast of
MWsl�dpMlrt IkCV1Cis.
If . All applicoblo Sublic Mr+cks fors shall be paid ptios to
lesson" of bvildiAp permitse
1 . The 1lovolopwoat : bill cossrly with all applicable provisions of
the Ordinance, code, buildiaq Division, and Tito Departemat .
2 . The applicant shall greet all applicable local, state, and
Federal sits Codes, bcdisances, and std dads .
1 . Landscapinaf shall ctrwply with Article 060 of the Muntialton
Beach arei"ares code.
4 . " e board of teensy Adjustwents taservea the =isbt to revoke
Administrative Review No. 07-15 if, nay vioiatioa of these
coed i t i ohs o! the Heat in0ton Beach Otdisaace Caade occurs .
ATsi: RVass, Oodfrer, Krejci , fte, Dalth
Sour; some
Mane
piNllIT 00. 67-18
A rogues perralt a one (1) der charity basest i shopping
canter pack lot oft Nary 20 1947 . subject Pc ty is located at
lsifs Algonquin coot (Neat rid« of Alpo Street between
D+sweepoort Driven a ardwa1k Drive) .
This request is covered stpoc 1 Asemption. Class s ,
California savicoawe"tal Quo t. 1*66 .
Staff inforwd the iostd • appl i • s representative could not be
present cad had requester a Comtieua o April 22, 19s7, in the
*vast the board espe to alter any of conditions placed on
the r est in Para eace. l 0mvett', staff r am the son
toaditom irpo the previous rant and the cue to beer rhee
project .
dlen G ey asked if car negative reports had been r ived in
ptee is year* ce�acdiaq the baMssar, and Staff replied she hod
p
r ivtd A* sat we Comments from for Police D•partl i t.
IIIIIrrrlll�bifitl{rl#li
.+IIiF►FFII/illI/IFI//11/ f
1111�# ; 1111tif11#1111l111 �
ltl��Illlli�lirll�lllrt`1
111f1/�Illti�111iI11111!!
tllllt� tFlt1��1lIIF11111
Iil11i'Iltllellllllll1111 •
� IlJlit 11111FIilIFF11El1� -
. Itllrl'�IJ#11il1rlllrrE111E �
/41�1�ltltli+lMlt1!!!ti
t1!fiiV1111111i11tUKls
111f14111l1111111iiil>M! ' 111111111111
ii 1 l t 1I<i1i1 i�i 111��
11111tf1I1ll1I1I11111t11 `
1111111$fullfilI Iloilo 11*11111 '" •
isitsIImt111ilovisi1N
• lilrltlltllilltlrl!rlilttt
Iill$14IsIrllff11j1 111
SOM01+111i1111111
Itllt/ti1111l1111111t1 i
I fit I1111111111111111111�
tltl1111111111t111IM114
i11 11 1 1�
11ft#!11#liltilltttlit
ItlliltillNi1t11111tilli �� along#�
n0 amen
SIM
0 low
now% ice ...... .�
.■ !rrs����s a��r
R —��...
.Lr.w.....s
_i 4m 4so
ram
NAM
�� rr _....,.........._
rr .�..�— —...
GM
loll 11111lif"It111111 him
• !! ,rr UIl111111111141111411#!1
' - violi ■s -
r ItiLti/�(t6tl »tl rl 1144141
Iltlli1111111111i14111111 �'' �''
ii � _ * ll W Ill�fi� ilifiillalll
11['•�iid'titift1t11111111111
� II �It1E1�141tllrlr'Iti111<
�������,�_ � f itC.�lillllfx11111111#I11
u u !II`��►nalrr.�llrl�rt�rlr
tlfr<r�rr�rr rrlrE�r���tr
• � !• II Fi,�ltlldli ! Itlliltlllll
i. Lr �� � 111-,111111111111111111'1
11l.11itllill1ll pill lll111
� tllell'+I�e{!Itlrlf��rl��r1
� s lllrli �ii �iiiltrrt• rrlirr
i Millf�i�+
• � .r., . , ... 1
0 f I r+rrrf
• t r i —;r�Itlrlt
• � { 1. 1 illlll�
� { 1 Iit11H
I�r
1
OL . !
I
' �• •
NP
ills
• 1 1 o*
` • r
44
dpw
i•,,
•i -�
OFF-
Lt.,WNW, 0
1. ;. VAN I1()U1'FN h ASSOC.'WIS, Inc.
1164 w "Wo" hVIINM SUITS D. ^x"alY. CALIFOMW11% •1161
"14 J VAN "OUT". rx
V nwylls" llso ww• An Asa wiY ..
GrAICH
. 1. 1rES
April 6, 1983 PC r7:. 1 .;� Project File No. 1233-83
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAK _
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Attention : Mr . Glen K . Godfrey
Suo ject : Noise As3es5atnt, Proposed Senior Citizen Residential
Development, City of Huntington Beach
Reference : 1 . "City of Huntington Beach Central Park Traffic
I Study", prepared by Kunsman Assoc istts
2 . Site plans prepared by Hales-Langston Architects,
March 3 , 1983
Gentlemen :
Figure 1 identifies the study area and si1:e plan for the proposed
Senior Citizen Residential Devel opmont within the City of Hunt-
ington Desch. Measurements have been obtained and an analysis
has been performed to determine the existing and projected noise
levels within the study area of this proposed development. In
addition to arterial traffic,,. the Impact of other sources of
noise associated with the exia:Ing and future industrial activity
have been identified, Vhere considered ner;esssry , mitigation
methods are indicated as needed to reduce the noise to standards
specified by the City. T'iif fallowing provides the f-esulta or tr.
assessirent :
GAF- 911 lag Cal An MT A M
The Noise Elirtctt of the General Plan for the C.lty of Muntiugton
Beach indicates that tha cos unity noise equivalent level (C1190
shall not emoted 60 dl withl" the sxtorior 11vivig *peat* of
resldentla•l laootlo.ns and shall not •speed NS 48 miihAo th*
imo*elrler spaces. Refer to AppeMis t for an explemariem of tRe
A-6wifhd0d aewowrt or seise level arm We CJWL wessoro of soar•
etpe�re.
1
CITY OF HUNT I NGTON BEACH PROJECT FILE $0. 1233-83
In addition to the noise _element standards , the noise ordinance
for the City of Huntington Sexcis specifies nolat levels which
Mall not be exceeded at 1 ocatlons within the residestial devel -
opsent when exPored to the noise generated by the nelghborlog
Industrial activities. The oxteri or noise standards apeelfied In
the ordinance are as follows:
��.,.Use Ile i_._, ' u- WAI ISO-22r,d
Residential 55 des A) T am - 10 ps
SO doM I po - Y s~
In the event the intruding industrial noise coliaists #atlrely of
Impact noise , simple tone noise , speech, music, or may r.�;m0ina-
tion of these sources, each of the above noise levels is seduced
by 55 MAL These standards are further altered to account for
and permit higher noise levee a for various durations eoah hour.
The maximum noise level which soy be generated by the Industrial
park and experienced within a residential locatlrja to TS
during the daytime and TO MA) during the alghttlee.
Three sources of noise have been exaiined for this study: 1 )
traffic on the arterials within the study arts , Z) activity at
the existing industrial park. and 3) activity within the future
Industrial park which is to be located directly adjaotst to the
proposed development.
Noise seasurements were obtained at five positions In the study
area. These positions are Identified In Figure y. The data
obtained is provided in Appendix It and Is summarised in Table 1.
It is noted that the primary traffic noise is produced along
Talbert Avenue . The noise of traffic from vehicles on $each
Boulevard is buffered by the existing buildings and by the dis-
tance to the nearest proposed residential locations.
In addition to the noise measurements , an analysis has been
performed using the data of the rererenced traffic study to
dettrmine the CNEL generated on the arterials within the projeat
site. The results of this anslysisl Including the diatanee from
the arterials to the CHL contour Hass (60 , 65. and 70 dg) for
the existing ( 19111 ) gal :vture ( 1995) %rattle volumes are pro-
vided In Table 2.
y
). j. VAN Ht3U SN it AT&% arc.
' OF HUNTINGTOk BEACH PROJECT FILE 00 . 1233-83
"IS111ifi. INS ATSI►L. if iYY?�
The most predominate source of noise affecting the @are westerly
portion of the project alto involves, the existing lumber will and
yard oprtratlons at the northerly end of Redondo Lane. The noise
generated by the mill activity is clearly experienced throughout
the site of the proposod "aeeior condos". At locations nearest
to the westerly boundary of the "senior condos" the existing
sound levels generated by the mill exceed the City of Huntington
Beach 's noise ordinance standards. That low the average sound
level measured during a mid-moraLng period was 59 dd( A). The
daytime standard set by the City is 55 db( A ) . When fork 1 efts
within the mill yard operate near the easterly boundary of the
mill , the short term sound levels approach 70 to 75 de(A).
To aww extent, the future industrial park structure3 will serve
to buffer a portion of the lumber mill noise from the proposed
"senior rentals". For the various Restricted Manufacturing Dis-
trict uses which are permitted, those involving machine shop or
metal working shops and some assembly optratior,s could produce
noise which causes annoyance within the proposed senior citimen
residential development. These operations , with entry doors
opened , could produce levels of noise which exceed the City 's
noise ordinance standards. In addition, truck loading docks , if
placed where there is a line-of-sight to the residential loca-
tions, will cause annoyance and will exceed the City's standards.
The impact and mitigation of this potential annoyance and that
associated with arterial trarric on Talbert Avenue are addressed
In the next sections.
The impact of noise in relation to the City of Huntington Beach
noise ordinance and Noise Element has been assessed for each of
the three sources of noise within the study area: 1 ) traffic on
the arterials, 2) activity at the existing lumber rill and indus-
trial parlt, and 3) the potential impact of the future industrial
park. The impact associated with each of these sources are
discussed below $long with methods of mitigating the significant
impacts .
3
1. . VAN FROG 6 A ATIM Mc.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT FILE 00 . 1233-83
1z'%U1e- ¢A UUCP' MAW fed 9eaeh Bedler "
Traffic on Talbert Avenue is oxpeeted to generate a CKL of about
65 dB when ozperionoed at the nearest proposed units to the
arterial . For conventional residential construction, with win-
dows closed , the reduction of the traffic noise is at least 20
dB. Mende, the interior CNEL will not exceed 45 dA as specified
In the City 's Nola@ Element. The noise of traffic on Meath
!Boulevard is adequately buffered by the existing twilldibgs and
distance from the nearest proposed residential units. None#, this
will assure that the interior and ex terlor living spares of the
development comply with the City 'si Noise Element policy for the,
noire associat*d with beach Boulevard.
IMSbar-Mill- AA; !mfIniffistriffil - eirk
As previously noted, the lumber mill produces significant levels
of noise which now propagate to locations throughout the proposed
wx*Alor condo" development site. If not adequately reduced, this
noise will cause annoyance and a significant advers@ impact at
the proposed residential units. M141gati on of thts noise may be
accomplished by the following methods :
1 . Placing a wall or earth fill and yal 1 combination between the
proposed •senior condos" and the lumber mill . The precis*
wall or wall/hero height will depend on its la.- Won r*lative
to the proposed residential units and the various mill activ-
ities ( i.e., fork lift operation, truck wavements, &owing and
milling operations, dust collector, etc.) . A barrier holight
of about 10 to 12 feet is likely to be needed in order to
reduce the exterior sound levels to the City 's noise ordin-
once standards.
2 . Sound rated windows should be placed at second floor loca-
tions of the proposed senior condos nearest to the mill and
the existing Industrial activity. Again, the aperifit loci
.
tlon of windows and the adjacent industrial sauraes nerds to
be considered as part of the final engineering of tie pro-
Ject. In general , the noise may be adequately reduced by
placing crystal strength glass in well ritttd find coaled
frfineD St secooA floor levels. The second floor molts di -
rectly adjacent to the are11 will require a double window
assembly with at least two to three inches between the glastd
sections of the windows.
�. t, VAN "OtM M 6 AlIMAM ice. -- _ --
CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT FILE NO . 1233-83
r�•
EuS.Ntf- Industrial P,r
As a condition of approval for all new industrial operations in
DD P
the vicinity of the proposed project, the City 's sound control
roquirements as upecified in the Pulse Ordinance should be stated
as a r*quiremont. The specific standards of concern and bug-
gested wordage for a conditioned approval for such projects art
Andicated in Appendix III. In general , these requirements may be
uet by applying the following daj ign measures:
I . Truck loading docks should be placed on an elevation of the
new building( s) which does not face the residential units or
suitable wing wally and/ or noise barrior walls should be
positioned to eliminate the line-of-sight to the residential
units .
2 . All entry doors into the new industrial operations should be
well fitted units which seal the entry when closed and remain
closed when not in use. Large entries into shop ur assembly
areas should be positioned to eliminate the line-of-Sight to
the proposed residences.
3 . Co%pressers and/or other supporting equipment used in the new
industrial operations should be housed within the Building
structure. All exhausts and/or intakes needed for the opera-
tion of such equipment should be ruffled as needed do comply
with the City's nighttise noise standard wlsen experienced A
the propr+3ed residential units.
4 . hoof mounted air conditioning and / or ventilation equipment
should be completely enclosed and/or designed to assure that
the City '& nighttime horse standard is set at the nearest
residential units.
A2DL110 1L- SDUACES - QF -,��,j E- 11�• RELATE -101PACYE
Sources of noise more directly associated with f%: .ure commercial
and industrial uses within the study area , other than that of
traffic on the roadways and *slating lumber will and industrial
park discussed above , include:
t . Construction activity during development of the property ,
2 . Trish pick up and coipeating , and
3 . Truck movem*nts into and out of service area.
co
�. �. VAN FlOtr11k AMKXXAM laic.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON REACH PROJECT FILL W. 1233-83
The level of noise, potential Impact , and methods of mitigating
each of these source , It needed, are discussed in the following :
S&AAIru l UI! &
Not ** genernted by construction activity as the project is de-
veloped will be experienced in the vicinity of the existing and
proposed residential tracts. The, predoxinste source of noise will
be truck movoweats on and off the property. figure 3 identities
the range of noise levels which my be expected.
3LLNh- Plak - ida- nd- crallsting
Trash pick up and compacting vehicles are also a anus* of com-
plaints near aommerclal / industrial operstions. These vehicles
use hydraulic equipment to raise and lower the metal trash dins
and to compact their contents. Typical noire levels range from
bO to e5 MA) at 50 feet during the raising, loweringe and
eompaating operations. A typical trash pick up tales approx -
imately three minutes with the higher noise levels occurring
during about one-half o.4' the operations. The control of refuse
collection noise should be considered for those manufacturing
parcels nearest to residential locations.
Sete:ldess"M&A To- AAA ..Frge- MM . Sienite JAI-ladUstCJAL.- frebo t1e1
The noise produced by trucks delivering and picking up goods at
comwi-cial/ industrial ores& could be a potential source of an-
noyance. Noise levels within 50 foot of the service areas , ' f
these vehicler are unprotected , may approach L10 values of from
T5 to $0 dl(A). When experienced at residential locations near-
est to the service areas , truck noise wi 1 1 be reduced by 10 to 20
dB depending on the distance and shielding between the homes and
service areas.
In order to mitigate the noise that may be generated by future
counreial or industrial activities within the study area, it is
recommended that the conditions of approval outlined in Appendix
III be applied to all new come*relal/industrial projects. Tlwse
require the developer to design the project In such a way that
recognized noise standards will reduee the impact of ciommoreiel -
industrial solo* and will assure that the project will comply
with the requirement$ of of Apvewdia III:
i
CITY Of HUNTINGTON NEACW PROJECT FILE 00 . 1233-83
I . Construction activity should be limited to the hours of 7:00
a .m. to 6 : 00 P.M. on weekdays. ' There should be no construc-
tion work on weekends.
2 . The slope of service rasps should be as gradual as possible
to minimize the power required for trucks to accelerate from
loading erase in proximity to residential locations.
3 . Truck drivers should be instructed to minimize acceleration
when leaving a ramp area in proximity to residential loca-
tions.
4 . A policy should be Indicated to Shut down eng inea , air con-
ditioning , and refrigeration equipment on trucks when they
are in loading areas in proxinity to residential areas.
f dAQjU 30r
Measurements have been obtained and an analysis been per-
formed to deteroir,e the existing and projecteq ► I levels
within the study area for the proposed senior citize asidential
development. I!, is found that a significant impact cue to traf-
f i c will exist at the location of un Its to be constructed nearest,
to Talbert Avenue. However , ril tigation of this impact may be
achieved with minimal alteration In a conventional design.
This predominate source of noise within the study area involves
the *slating lumber •rill operation. Nedur.lon of the noise may
be achlevfd by the construction of a suitably positioned will or
earth bnrv: end t.•ill combination located between the mill and the
proposed residential units . The height of this noise barrier
should be about ten to twelve feet. The precise height will
depend on the location and configuration of the barrier. it
should be designed as part cf tha detailed engineering of the
project. In addition to the noise barrier , the proposed residen-
teal units will raquirf sound rated windows for those units near
the lumber yard and the existing industrial park.
Noise control should be considered in the design of all new
Industrial operations which are adjacent to the proposed develop-
ment. In particular, consideration should be riven to the loca-
tion of loading docks, large entry ways into the buildings ,
support equipment such as compressors , ventilation sod/or hosting
and air vonditlening units. In addition, all new Industrial
operations should be required, as a condition of approval t to
comply with the provisions of the City'• Noise Control Ordinance.
T
1. 1. VAN HOIX'i M # AMKKIA7U W.
CITY OF NUNTINGTON •EACH f NO.ILCT FIt.t 00 . 1233-13
?less* contact the underaitaed at (T 14) 6 35-4320 if YOU re461 re
additional information or clarification of the 858e880e4t ssd
recomesdatidar contalood herein.
Very truly 7oura ,
J . J . VAN WUTU A A330CI iTtS a INC.
Is$
V Pets N& Jim
Aeer in Acoustics
�aYltiAs �i �
A tt acla to/erd fed CAt
AlrtNdLl iIx
CONDITIONS Of APPIOVAL, FUTURE IMC•WRIAL ACTIVITY
CITY OF NUVINGTON OEACN , CALIFORNIA
CONDITION 1 - NOISE INTRUSION INTO REAIDLITIAL PROPERTY FROM
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL FARM OPERATIONS ADJACENT TO A
PROPOUD SENIOR CITIZEN RE31DLSTIAL DLr tWP NEXT
A. The industrial park activity *hall not produce noise when
experienced on residential property in the S*neral vicinity
• of the industrial park that exceeds the fallowing standards:
1IEIIA&seeAE ASURAM
Ed&j�a�<1
7 : 00 a .m. - 10: 00 p.m. 55 dA( A)
10: 00 p .m. - 7 : 00 a.m. 50 dl( A)
B. In consideration of these exterior noise standards, the
owner( s) of the industrial park operations shall not allow
the creatlon of any noise on property owned, leased , oc-
cupied , or otherwise controlled by the property owner( s) ,
when the foreSoing causes the noise level , when measured ors
any residential property in the general vicinity of the
proposed industrial park, to exceed:
1 . The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than
thirty (30) minutes in any hour, or
2. The noise standard plus five ( 5) WA) for a cumulative
period of more than fifteen ( 15) minutes in any hour, or
3 . The noise standard plus ten ( 10) dB( A) for a cumulative
period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour, or
,S. The noise standard plus fi rteen ( 15) MA) for a cuwla-
t1 ve period of more than one ( 1 ) minute in any hour, or
5 . The noise standard plus twenty (20) dB( A) for any period
of time.
C. In the, *vent that the ambient noise level on the residential
properties exceeds any of the first four solo* limit oat-
agovLes above, the cumulative period applicable to the cat-
egory shall be increaser to reflect the ambient nose 1*vel.
In the event that the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth
noise limit category, the maximum allowable note* level uod*r
the category shall be lneressed to reflect the amaxieve am•
bient cola* level*
b. Each of the noise limits specified abovt shall be reduced by
five S dh(A) for Impact, or predominate tone noise or for
noises consisting of speech such as would be generate4 by a
posing systes.
E. The Industrial park activity shall not produce noise when
experleneod within a residence in the general vicinity of the
Industrial park that exceeds the following standardto
7 : 00 a.m. 10: 00 p.■ . 55 dB(A)'
10:00 P.O. - 7 : 00 a . %. 45 dB(A)
F . In consideration of these Interior noise standards, the
owner(&) of the Industrial park shall not allow the creation
of any not&* on property owned , leased , occupied, or otber-
wise ooAtrolled by the owntr(s) wh*n the foregoing causes the
noise level when measured within any reaidesae in the general
vioiai� j of the industrial park to e:cesd:
1 . The intsrl or noise standard for a cumulative period of
more than five (5) minutes in any hour , or
2. The interior noise standard plus five (5 ) MA) for a
cumulatl vt period of more than one ( 1 ) minute in any
hour, or
3. The interior noise atandsrd plus ten ( 1 0 ) dB(A) for any
period of time.
G. In the event that the ambient noise level exceeds either of
the first two noise 1 emit categor les above , the cumulative
period appllcable to the category shall be, increastd to
reflect the ambient nalse level . In the event the ambient
noise level exceeds the third noise limit category , the
maximum allowable noise level under the category shall be
increased to reflect the sari■um ambient miss level .
M. Lach of the noise limits specified above shall be reduced by
five ( 5 ) MA) for iepact or predominant ton* noises, or for
noises consisting of ap*tcn, such as would be generated by a
paging stater.
CONDITION 2 « ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
The owner(a) of the proposed Industrial park operations shall
submit as part of the application for a building permit an aeeus-
tidal engineering report prepared by an Individual dualities In
the field of adousttoal engineering. The report shall indicate
the •saga by whieft the owner proposes to comply with the prowl-
&I*** of 0onditlew 1g abott. It shall loolude ae►iar essaaroment
�. �. VAN W1'M h MKXUT K eat.,
data analysis , drawings , eta . , sufficient to i !leatify the
sources of noise and aethods or sittgation used to reduce the
level or the noise to the standards speeltled in Condition 1 ,
above.
CONDITION 3 - FIELD TESTS
Where a complaint as to non-compliance with Condition 1 roqulres
a field test to resolve the complaint, the complainant 3ha11 post
a bond or adequate funds , as determined by the City , in escrow
for the cost of said testing. Such costs shall be chargeable to
the complainant when such field tests show that compliance with
the Condition is present. If such tests show non-eospl lance,
then such costs shall be borne by the industrial park owner(s).
CONDITION 4 - VIOLATION OF THE STANDARDS
i
'in the event nf a violation of the standards of Conditiom I # as
determined by the field test of Condition 3, the industrial perk
owner(s) shall be required to alter the industrial park oenfigur-
ati or. and/or activity as needed to comply with the Cond i tiea. A
determination of a violation of these standards shall oely be
made by the City of Huntington Desch based upan acoustical engi-
neering field studies.
i
CONDITION 5 RESPONSIBILITY of OWNER( S )
Compliance with Conditions as stated above shall be the responsi-
bility of: the Sndustrial Dark owner( % ) and/ or uny subsequent
owners) of the property occupied by the industrial park.
J, �. VAN HOiJTM h AN=ATU lac.
UNION MENTAL*
FUTM PhOUSTRIAL PARK
,V .w
L�Jrj
I ( Ibll � I
C F-41 c4
Y a wI
f
# I- CD .I
YI MI a
sent ..,__,_- �� •• A�
•_ 1
M. _CF.R MI-CD .�� MI- -�• . .. + I
• CF• x�. 'f+ Cz
I
1 M I �� ON C
RA-0-CD �= f
ih in
in
Mae -d
SENIOR CONDO:
SOURCE OF W: Existing Zoning . LVE 83- 2 . Huntington beach rlamLnt
Division
Figure 1 . Site Plar.. and Location of tha propo**4 Senior Cititum
ftVGlopM t . City of Mmtington leach, California
r
BY BWKSTON DEVELOP14LNT TO PLIN N I!4G C"I SS I Ow'SS t�C, SI S ION
WTICZ tS HLAEOY GIVZN that the Huntington Beach City Council will
hold a public hearing in the Council ChenDer at the Huntington Mach
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California, on the
date and at the ties indicated belo-w to rec*ive and conrider the
statements of all persons Who wish to be heard relative to the
application described below.
DATE/TTM: Monday , July 20 , 1907, 7 00 PM
APELjCAn/h ULLLM : Boureston Development
bpPyICATiON M MBEB : Appeal - Administrative Review No . 87-15, Use
Permit No . 87-34 , Negative Declaration 87-9 .
Conditional Excepticn (Variance) No . 57-24 ,
Precise Man of Street Aligwwnt No . 87-1 ,
Repeal of Specific Plant No. 73- 1 .
LOCATIQS : west of Beach Boulevard and south of Talbert Avenue
between the easterly terminus of Redondo Circle And the
southerly terminus of Kovacs Street) : Specific Plan area
bcrdered by Talbert Avenue to the north, beach Boulevard
to the east , Taylor Drive to the south and the Southern
Pacific Railroad to the west .
p, AL: Appeal of the conditions of approval imposed by Planning
Commission in l.heir approval of Administrative Review No .
87- 1 Use Permit No . 87- v 7-
5 , s t 3� and Negative Declaration e 9
to permit a 122 , 424 square foot industrial building :
Appeal of the Planning Commissions denial of the
following : Conditional Exception. (Variance) No. 87-24 to
permit a ! 0- 1;2 foot front yard setback in lieu of o 14
foot setback on Pedondo Circle and to permit a truck well
50 feet in width in lieu of 20 feet in width, Precise
Plan of Street Alignment No . 87-1 to terminate Redondo
Circle end Kovacs Street with cul-da-sacs on the adjacent
property and the Repeal of Specific Plan too . 73-1 (Taylor
ai%,d Beach Specific Plan) .
XY 3:AL STATUS : This proposal is covered by Negative
Declaration 87-9 .
I
on IrZyr: A copy of the proposed appeal is on file at the
Department of Conmunitl, Development , 2000 Main Street ,
Huntington Beach, California 92648 .
ALL INTtRESTZD PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and
expre.as opinions or submit evidence foc or against the application
a$ outlined above . All applications, exhibits , and descriptions of
this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Cleck, 2000
Main Street, Huntington beach, California Cot inspection by the
public .
HUN Z'INGTON BZAC 1 CITT CO MC 1L
by: Alicia N. /Iatworth
City Clark
P%c. ,* (714) 536-S403
> 11�2 i't+ca 1�obirt ftni i w .. &i 1 3/
Drive 3 Srin►11be ive Xualkaft
i41t 3"Tter M�1, CA 9a ,ti tingt� Mean. C' - 264A Mwsko CA OWT,
I
11Ra 08"Oh Ton Michael Spencer ■i"w Aria A.
Vets Cnnnie Drive 7416 Conni• drive P.O. Aoer 54S
1laatington beelch, CA 921:411 Matington Deachq CA 92446 R "r CA 91774
florid Crane Geraldine iafeld Jim R. Cook
18176 Alice lane 7822 Connie Drive 14175 Alice Ln.
tlUntington Mach, CA 92648 Huntington beach, CA 92649 MmUngtow Beach, CA 92641
Ran NA09-11t ANY Resid nt Alan M. Dollar
10942 Agate ^lrcle 16201 Alice Ln.
14162 Alice Lane Hunt i ngi can Beach, CA 92649 Runtingtae Wasch. CA 92446
ilantington Beach, CA 92648
Jeff Swenson 111nd !Giver Trading :oapany Ten Berge �,odotre
IGISi Alice lane 7962 loth Street, Ste 100 12205 Alice La.
Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Westminster, CA 92683 1luntin9ton Reach. CA 92441
Dina R a rt son a k i n hen Mon Bon
7822 c Drive 464 S E. Pac: _ Coast
i La i l e Hwy 11312 R. Ridgegat• b. .
I llYntington Beach, CA 9264e i.On9 Be ar-h# CA 90004 Whittier. CA 90601
I I
Windward Cove Condominium Paul Weatherly Karl Rest
19 Corporate Plata 7622 Talbert Avenue 9561 Laerthorn Drive
lievpvlrt Beach. CA 92660 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Mach$ CA ON266,
I
Tlrowas Gallagher R.Schard Palkovic
4921 Loa Paton Ave. 521 Lori drive
Matington beache CA N-antington Mach, CA 9264
92649
Resident original Ausica 1 Inatrume Deepens Prvdskis
7792 Connie Drive 18106 Redonda Cir. 71-54 170th Ottiet
Mantington Beach* CA 92648 Nuhti"ton !lurch. CA 92648 Fresh lleadume, BT tills �
I
Catharine Lin Robert Islas
7902 Connie ■rive 9250 Otippo River A".
Mwtiogton reach, CA 92044 romtoin rail*y. CA �A7'Ai
NBtt lWrs 1eT Are ie�1 talraaa
L'1�wto Drive liSAO Dolor Aw.
Smatimpon Dowp ,. CA 92640 POMWs Sall. CA 927.0-
J
*In
A 1 Lofti b rivw R l�ncdw Sae Ro i.ut2SSlfttlf2jt� & a-Ch, CA 9�640 ftnti"ton Sr, ash, CA !►..4• am0 TR 7S02•
Natalio nos" David L. Campbell Robert Ring
19401 d�sr crease Lam 16172 sharoit Lane 4+ub1 1lrlbw�frfrs Prxive
WInti"Iton ■sash, CA 92649 Iftntington beach, CA 9244•
Huntington Rrar,h, CA 94647
Lee Kufn Chan James L. Johnson
4 Carvor 18162 Sharon Lane tv*l yn Maim
Ifrelne, CA 92714 Muntingte- !Mach CA 92648 231. /2 S. Gals
Beverly Villa. 90211
Fred Gruenbauw Mark G. floryatta
18171 Alice Lane 18146 Sharon Larne Jo Scott
Nuntington (beach, CA 92648 Huntington flear:h , CA 92645 13561 poach Blvd.
flestaiaratera CA, 92663
Steven skstedt Barbara Skinner merge Knapp
7636 Connie Drive 7865 Lori Drive 650 Cordova Apt 12
Mantington beach, CA 92646 Huntinqton beach, CA 92648 Pasadena, CA 91101
Paul Albert Stanley Jay Coll'ns-=voibel
71142 Conie rorive 7861 Lori Drive 211 1/2 S . Gate Driver
ftntington (leach, CA 92648 Huntington beach, CA 92648 Neverly Mills, CA 90211
i
Oscar J . Rosales sae Meg 11ht David Seasons
784f• Connie Drive 7655 Lori Drive
IRauitington Reach, CA 926411 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1u201 Sharon !Sawa
9 Nuntingtiaad beech, CA 92640
Rob*rt Stel l reeht Ted Noland
P.G. Box 1746 78!1 Lori Orive David ha+q
S
Ifvatington beach. CA 92647 Huntington beach# CA 92648 Hunts Sharon tin
g Huntington MRach, C21 12649
i
Mae Park Young gong Rvnn Seek Huntington village !state
18212 Sharon I.an* 7445 Lori Drive 17171 Beach Blvd.
Mmtington beach, CA ffuntingtvn ((each, CA 9x644 ffuntiat3tana beaehr CA 92041
920411
Leelle Haynes Wia* Oscar *!mare• King
10202 Sharon Lane 1841 Lori Drive 1304 Sho o,t Oak Or.
Orfwtiraltcft Peach, CA 92648 I taatin"on Peach, CA S26 ..1 F- atverw, PA 1925S
iMnt Nee 1+�io Arawdw bowie of ant loa
lo t$ abacus eve taws' 7662 Talbort AV*.
M, CA S3040 Hawti"taw fteak, CA 02640 ter.S How
is CA
� ! Gerald Carbone
7036 Uwl Drive Silt stallion Civele
Mswtl"toA Ow h, CA 92646 ftatington s+eac:h, CA 92649
Jmmo S�ers ft4dy R a Combest
7932 Lori Drive Rancho Los lalmos C C
• Stati"ton Peach, CA 9264E Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
lei O'mai l l Doures ton Qev..
Y 3355 Via Lido
7146 Wri Drive Suite 205
Montington Mach, CA 92647 Newport Beach, CA 92663
lux seaward
18173 Sharon Lane
OuntingUm peach, CA 92648
Jack L. Grimes
16195 Sharon Lane
Ountington beach, CA
92648
i
Michael Tedesco
f 18191 Sharon Lane
ftntington beach, CA
9264•
i
i
I
APPEAL BY ROURESTON DEVELOPMENT TO PLANNING CO MISSION'S KCISI
wrict IS KRUSY CtVEN that the Huntington Beach City COUScil will
hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington beach
Civic Center, 2000 Main Streit, Huntington beach; California, on the
seta and at the tiew indicated below to receive and consider the
state"nts of al: persons who wish to be hoard relative to the
application described below,
W= T,UM: Monday, July 20, 1967s 1 :00 PR
Y_.IC�►li�l�,PPLLr.1�l�~` 8oureston Development
j ARPLICATIQN ff=ER : Xppeal - Administrative Review No . 67-15, Use
Permit No. 87-34 , Negative Declaration 87-9 ,
Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 67-28 ,
Precise Plan of Street Alignment No . 87-►1,
Repeal of Specific Plan No . 73- 1 .
L=Tlf2d: West of Beach Boulevard and south of Talbert Avenue
between the easterly terminus of Redondo Circle and the
southerly terminus of Kovacs Street) ; Specific plan area
bordered by Talbert Avenue to the north, Beach Boulevard
to the orst , Taylor Drive to the south and the Southern
Pacific Railroad to the west .
pROPQSAL : Appeal of the conditions of approval imposed by Planning
Commission in their approval of Administrative Review No.
87- 150 Ube Permit No . 87-34 and Negative Declaration 67-9
to permit a 122 , 424 square foot industrial building;
Appeal of the Planning Comminsion ' s denial of the
following : Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 87-24 to
permit a 10-1/2 foot ! ront yard setbac►c in lieu of a 14
foot setback on Redondo Circle and to permit a truck well
50 feet in width in lieu of 20 feet in width, precise
Plan of Street Alignment No . 67-1 to terminate Redondo
Circle and Kovacs Street with eul-de-sacs an the adjacent
property and the Repeal of Specific Plan No . 73-1 (Taylor
and Beach Specific PILO .
: This proposal is covered by Negative
Declaration 87-9 .
C1 A copy of the proposed appeal is on file at the
Department of Community Development , 2000 Main Street ,
Huntington Bosch, California 92648 .
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and
e:press opinions of submit evidence for or against the application
as outlined above . All applications , o:hibits, and descriptions of
this proposal are on file with the Dffice of the City Clerk, 2000
Main Streit, Huntington Beach , California for inspection by the
public .
WJRT I N0"!'ON BRACH CITY COVNC 1 L
37: Alicia N. Wentworth
City Clock
"*no (71I j Sii;id0s
MrMM
1M�li���G■r!t �
P. 06
IM F amok CA am
FIRST CLASS MAIL
i
i
i