Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTentative Tract 11245 - Negative Declaration 80-56 - Mansion MANSION PROPERTIES, 114C. t,7 2110 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92548 (1141536-8917 II April 15, 1981 V" 'Y TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11245 HAND DELIVERED HUSTOUTUN-UMH CITY COUNCIL , 2000 Main. Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 o r`R► 1r ATTN: CITY CLERK � `+ r• Dear Mayor and Council Members: As you know, we have been working with a Council Committee and City staff persons in an effort to resolve the planning issues that were raised in filing this tentative map. Our most recent meeting with staff led to a mutual understanding that an acceptable solution might be reached if there was more time available to evaluate the issues. we therefore request a continuance of Tentative Tract No. 11245 for a period of 60 days. i Very tr ly yours, . J. EADIE, 5r. Project Representative DJE:nnw cc: Mr. Charles Thompson Mr. Jim Palin I I s REC KJEbT FOR CITY CC JNCIL ACTION Submitted by James W. Palin _, Deportment Development Services Date ftgwred Januaryr23- , 19 81 Backup Materiel Attached [O Yas rjNo Subi t APPEAL ON TENTATIVE TRACT 11245, A 29 LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LAKE STREET, NORTH OF UTICA AND SOUTH OF YORKTOWN AVE. City Administrator's Comments � Approve as Recommended or Statemem of Iowa, Ra ammendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: §=EMENTOFF I_§§_UE: Transmitted for consideration is an appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Tract 11245, a 29 lot subdivision located on the east side of Lake Street, between Utica and Yorktown Avenue. BECQMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and the planning Staff recommend that the City Council sustain the Commission's action and deny Tentative Tract•. 11245. ANALYSIS: APPELLANT: Mansion Properties, Inc. t 2110 Main Street Huntington P�.ach, California 92648 APPLICANT: Same LOCATION: East side of Lake Street, between Utica and Yorktown Avenue. REQUEST: A 29 lot subdivision or. a 2.8 acre parcel located on the east side of Lake Vtreet, between Uticj and Yorktown Avenue, PLANNING C,Oh ISSION ACTION OF DECEMBER 16 1L80 ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11245 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer, ScW.1-macher , Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None no ane • I I I 1 Page Two FINDINGS• 1. Pursuant to Section 66474 (a) c:f the Government Code, the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans insofar• as the proposed alley is located on the former Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way, which has been identified as a portion of the Phase II Bicycle Trail in the Bicycle Trail Implementation Plan, approvc3 by the City Council in March, 1978. 2. Pursuant to Section 66474 (b) of the Government Code, the design or im- provements of the proposed subdivision are not consistent with appli- cable,general, and specific plans, insofar as the proposed map identifies an alleyway to be constructed over an area that has been identified as part of the Phase II Bicycle Trails in the Bicycle Trail Implementation Plan, approved by the City Council in March, 1978. 3. Pursuant to Section 66474 (g) of the Government Code, a portion of the proposed subdivision (lots 28 and 29) is intended to be developed over public easement of record as shown on Final Map, shown on Page 9, Book 13 of the Records in the County of Orange, which has not been formerly abandoned by the City Council. Therefore, improvements of this sub- division will conflict with said existing public easement. DISCUSSION: Tentative Tract 11245 complies with all applicable provisions of the Old Town Specific Plan in regard to lot size and minimum frontage. This map, as submitted, does not have the blue border extending out to the centerline of Lake Street. It is normal procedure that the blue border be extended to the centerline in order for the City to accept dedication, improvements, and resolve any underlining easements that may have occurred in the pant. ThG proposed tract has included the westerly 20 f t. of the former Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way in the blue border of the map. All previous maps located along the east side of Lake Street did not include this portion of the P.E. right-of-way within the boundaries of maps.. Therefore, this map, if approved, would not be in keeping with prior maps approved along Lake Street. It should also be noted that this 40 ft. of right-of-way ban been identified an the Master Plan of Bikeways which was adopted by the City Council in 1978 as part of the Trails Implementation Plan, as a future bikeway. The approval of this map in its existing configuration would not be in keeping with specific plans adopted by the City Council for trails implementation. At the November 3, 19BO City Council meeting, the Council appointed a Special Committee to study future uses along this right-of--way. At the December 9, 1980 City Council meeting, the Council directed the Department of Development Services to prepare an amendment to the Circulation Element which would provide for future preservation of this right-of-way. During the Planning Commission's deliberation the City Council's directive was considered. i i i 1 Page Three gNVIRONMEHTAL STATUS;_ Tentative Tract 11245 was assessed for environmental impacts by Negative Declaration No. 80-56. Negative Declaration No. 80-56 was posted on October 3, 1980 in the City Clerk's office and in the Huntington Beach Independent. All comments that were received by the Department of Development Services have been attached to the accompanying staff report. The Planning Commission did not take any l action on this negative declaration. If the City Council wishes to approve the subject tract, action will have to be taken on the negative declaration to determine that a negative declaration is 1 appropriate for this case. FUNDING: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: I Reverse the Planning Commission's action and approve Tentative Tract 11245 with findings and with conditions of approval. The Council should also adopt Negative Declaration No. 80-56. 1 SUPPgRTZNG INYQR,M,%TIQN• l 1. Letter of Appeal 2. Area Map 3. Planning Commission Staff Reports d."ted November 18, December 2, December 16, 1980. 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 18, and December 16, 1980. k Respectfully submitted, ames W. Palin Director JWP:SMB:gc I w CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TENTATIVE TRACT N&11245D."t d.oc:l6 •goo. Z: '=ACT•.• I• p' •� w�GE r�J O�►•�ui.l-atw.GOJ=+ r+a7 <ecoaoa i p• CT'�.••r4!CO�r'••`a� �v^��l.. a ryrr.0lrVi�• 1 O C T O ZO-z-R 19 ISO �n.w»rL9 •ti.rrC t � ', '� �Ntt.T••eL •1s l il�'S 3 gtiT wCGL,.•.(tar w•oa}�� I � '�-�1„��• Y �Dr�3•...�._y ,n_ _'-+-_... '- _�t.ro ; ro�7.i n r• 7v.�_v rae_' v'CLN�� o �a . v o .o �a _v . �§ �,_ . I -_'-i=- �I -�.^P:�._t-+, t• t... .� i c_ ._r _,. ��•^�i� {� _ �_i'._r3` _i_tLiS _P_._''•�.�. tL1�__Y�.»T_�-��� it "h�':'r�''a f:.q •''�' !bpt 24 i .'1, 2. Ij;` 21 - .7 IT rS- �eliT tL 15 r •j �I i• t .r_ .t .) II ' r A :i4 .Mt, � i i i v •� I. j k u• atl� att .at ' L.t{{t a.►' .alto atf`I aa•! .N ..t, a.t. .' 'a.1- 443_ ut• sal' aat ? ut•: aat aat' aal aai� Vl aaa' µl aaa aa:l taattl.at' w 1 •,.':... a••rt'.: I -� I ' •z vi i v r w' t w v' '� ira .7 •� i .�•'i .T i.•, as f .7 .i .. 1 ,�- ., .� I a .a i le. 00 1' j 7 ► �•._ r � S � . •.r `1.t•.. .�� •w»w. y. �.1. �:C.; .j,j I I.`�.w.4 } •.r � lot ur wot vQ— NO.t•�. 1-moo• + 7c_►� r- r --. i Sq• -��-•+•" - s- - p tn• 7• i i U•.T1N6 LOr w4 CJ•D :Jwa.•tC.}L ..y ••l• y, ' tif�GLL •.��!.Qw 0 Tin i ;•C.7'1w 111T•qr.l t•r-�.r7 CO w,..r.a.9r M.:w -i+�•t�-_• II 1 ( w wV•K w.ry4 G•n ±�w•+••+aTCW GoaC•. l••t..0 I '• ....,'717• !I iII • ►.C+tt►Lt• :p ! vaasS � � � lyl ' ' :� �a.l?OIV:Jf+L Pat•atf« bl• t—= ,:7t� Ll�'''�..;�:L'� YaM�p"y rl0•!l•[��iYc. T} 51�-'C♦:N i-Sr-k.:Or-Ey,INC ' y cl r :u0•.��.0 7f t.A t07i d.4a.s[i>r.GV�! S..•tl't7r 'rv,.tii.::.*;j' -wti...l�-o•� c'\L/.[j:.+ e+ a:us Kwr.. .....,u.••. 7 0�• j L:.KE AVE 11=ICE NVE (na) ti•!r.•etl7 (it.) sav•a�•v , TTPICdL CACTION 'Cw, _C'J^J an�EC ` , 1 ;I •.�:a-++ •s'<�-t 'atr0 t.tanrN ST'tcET .ar•n t. ...�aa..,ac—�Ts�:"' a�r� u.•Tt•1"T00i 7snC+..GaL 1i1.+6 (Ira) $:0•�451 a•..at+tf .,wo .•..•a••e!'c n. `.I i 1-+1ry MANSION PROPERTIES,INC. f 2110 MAIN STREET /�O HUNTINGTON REACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 0 �1r"/cic; erho (714)536.8917 F0 - /4 0,i i December 23, 1980 vI.^� ^ Cq�� rn V APPEAL - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11245 Huntington Beach City Council c/a City Clerk 2000 Main Street, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Bailey and City Council Members: We hereby appeal the Pla?ning Commission's December 16, 1980 denial of Tentative Tract No, 11245. Our grounds for the appeal is that the Planning Commission based their denial on findings suggested by staff which are inaccurate and misleading. Findings for denial Numbers 1 and 2 declare that the subdivision nap and its prr-v3ed design and improvements are not consistent with applicable genein' and specific plans insofar as the map identifies an alleyway over an area that has been designated as a future bikeway in the Trails Tmple- mentatiun Plan. The design of our tentative map has not foreclosed any opportunity for bikeway planning because there is still 20 feet of pro- party outside of the map boundary where the planned bikeway may 'Me imple- mented. Since the City's design criteria for a Class I bikeway can amply be accommodated within a 20 foot area we are puzzled as to why we are inconsistent with any adopted plans. I Finding Number 3 declares the map inconsistent since we have shown lots over the yet to be vacated Yorktown Avenue, We would, as many developers in the past have done concurrently with subdivisions, be willing to accept ; a condition of approval which would require a revised map if old Yorktown Avenue is not vacated. I Our tentative map was denied based on generalized conclusions and not findings of fact. We, tierefore, urge your careful consideration of these , .issues again in hearing our appeal. Sincer y, I PAVE EADIE Sr. Project Representative OJE:nj Attachment: Class I Bikeway Standards ; t Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California Pursuant to: Sections 2373, 2374, 2375, and 2376 of the Streets and Highways Code i I i l I APMOVED: ADRIANA GWMRCO . IDirector of Transportation 1 DATE: June 30, 1978 I f � I State of Califomia Business and Transportation Agency Department of Transportation i i J , FIGURE 1 TWO-WA`( BIKE PATH ON SEPARATED RIGHT—OF—WAY i ,f;C.7 in)M j•r '`� � �ec _ lyl i • :2,(Mh) _ 8' Min. Width Graded . Paved Graded 1 TYPICAL. CROSS SECTION i BIKE PATH ALONG HIGHWAY 2' Graded AreaNin) *5'or 8'(MinJ:—\ �-r•et."r. H l h,w a y "'w— 2 °/- ' V Edge of povement-� 5' (Min.) - Bike Path *One-Woy: 5 Minimum Width Two-Way: 8 Minimom Width _ xl_ GAFF tiuntington bench deveiopmerit services department - --REPORT TO: planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: December 16, 1980 RE: TENTATIVE TRACT 11245 Tentative Tract No. 11245 is a request to create a 29 lot subdivision located on the east side of Lake Street between Yorktown and Utica. This proposed tract has an alley designated to be located on the west 20 ft. of the former Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way. The location of this alley has created considerable discussion and has raised a number of questions as to the future use of this right-of-way. At the City Council meeting of December 9, 1980, the City Council directed the Department of Development Services to prepare an amendment to the Circulation Element that would provide for the future preservation of this right-of-way. Based on that directive, the staff will continue to support its original recommendation of denial of Tentative 'Tract 11245 with findings as outlined in the staff report dated December 2, 1980. MB:gc ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report dated December 2, 1980 2. Staff Repor4- dated November 18, 1980 i i �I i A•PM•!36 huntington beach development services department I STAff �--R E P O R TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: December 2, 1980 RE: TENTATIVE TRACT 11245 At the November 18, 198n Planning Commission meeting, the Commission continued Tentative Tract No. 11245 in order to allow the staff additional time to clarify the ownership issue of the former Pacific Electric Rail- road right-of-way. As the Planning commission recalls, Tentative Tract 11245 is located along the east side of Lake Street between Yorktown Avenue and Utica and has been designed with a 20 ft. alley located over the west 20 ft. of the former Pacific Electric right-of-way. As of this time, there is nu new additional information .regarding the right-of-way ownership of the former Pacific Electric Railroad right-of- way, however, as stated at the last Planning Commission meeting by legal counFel, the ownership of this land is not relevant to whether or not the Commission should approve or deny Tentative Tract 11245. I Subsequent to the last Planning Commission meeting, a special corrlittee regarding the future use of this right--of-way has met and discussed tots issue. The committee' s recommendation at this time is to request from the City Council at their December 8, 1980 meeting, some direction as to whnL type of trail system the City Council would .like to see along this former right-of-way. The staff's recommendation is still the same as presented to tha Com- mission at the November 18, 1980 meeting. At that time, the staff recommended the Commission deny Tentative Tract 11245 based on vhe fact that a proposed subdivision did not comply with adopted specific plans regarding bike trails along the former right-of-tray. The staff is pro- i viding three revised findings for denial of Tentative Tract 11245. li FINDINGS: 1 1. Pursuant to Section 66474 (a) of the Government Code, the proposed map is not consistent with applicable, general, and specific plans i insofar as the proposed alley is located on the former Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way, which has been identified as a portion of the Phase II bike trail in the Hike Trail _implementation Plan approved by the City Council in March of 1978. 2. Pursuant to Section 66474 (b) of the Government Code, the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans, insofar as the proposed map identifies an alleyway to be constructed over an area that has been identified as part of the Phase II bike trails in the Bike Trail Implementation Plan approved by the Council in March a 1978. A•FM•!]E Page 7160 Tentative Tract 11245 3. Pursuant to Section 66474 (9)of the Government Code, a portion of the proposed subdivision, lots 28 and 29, are intended to be developed over public easement of record, as shown on Final dap, shown on Page 9, Book 13 of the Records in the County of Grange, which has not been formally abandoned by the Council nor has the Planning Commission found any such abandonment in conformance with the General Plan, therefore, the improvements of this subdivision will conflict with said existing public casement. MB:gc t I 77 t I F 1 4 SrAf f huntington beach development services department ` .-RC- PORT -- TO I.M�.��I��.II�.�lY• Imo( I ; Planning Commission FROMi D;jvelopment Services DATE; November 18, 1980 TENTATIVE TRACT N0., 11245 NE,iATIJE DECLARATION N0, 80-56 APPLICANT: Mansion Properties, Inc. DATE ACCEPTED: 1 2110 Main St. October 13, 1980 f Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: ENGINEER: Walde,) & Associates, Inc. December 2, 1980 4002 5. Garry Ave. , 4B ZONE: Oldtown Specific Plan Santa Ana, Ca. 92704 Dist 2-CD-0 ;.,OC_,A't'I.7N: East fide of Lake Street, GENERAL PLAN: between Yorktown and Utica Medium Density Residential Avenues. EXISTING USE: RE VEST: 29 Lot Subdivision vacant/ Industrial Bldg. ACREAGE,t 2.8± Acres 1=0 SUGGESTED ACTION: The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Negative Declaration No. 80--56 and deny Tentative Tract No. 11245 with findings as outlined in Section 8.0. i 2.0 GENEML INFORMATION: Tentative Tract 11245 is a request to subdivide a 2.8 acre site into 29 parcels. The subject property is located nn the east side of Lake Street, north of Utica and south of Yorktown Avenue. 3,0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES: After review of the proposed project by the staff and the Subdivision Committee, the following items have been identified as issues of concern: 1 . The location of the proposed alley in relationship to the former Pacific Electric Railroad Right-of-Way. 2. Status of the existing Eucalyptus Trees along Lake Street. 7 A•F M-236 1 Page Two 3. The conformance of the Proposed subdivision with the Olotown Specific Plan requirements. 4. The ownership of the former Pacific Electric Railroad Right-of- Way. 5. That portion of the proposed project located within the public right.-of-way of Yorktown Avenue. 4.0 ENY.IRONMENT, L_ STATUS: Pursuant to environmental regulations in effect at this time, the r Department of Development Services posted tentative Negative Declaration No. 80.-56 for a 10-day period. This negative declaration was published in the Huntington Beach Independent and posted in the office of the City Clerk on October 3, 1980 and ran until October 13, j 1980. No comments, either in writing or oral have been received on this negative declaration. In addition, the staff has drafted Nega- tive Declaration No. 80-56, which is also attached for the Planning Commission's review as required by Section 15083 (c) (4) of the .State � Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. The initial study information is attached to the negative declaration as docu- mentation in support of the findings. Prior to action on this tentative tract, it is necessary for the , Planning Commission to receive and review comments on and adopt ;. Negative Declaration No. 80-56. 5.,0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING, AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Street-. between Utica and Yorktown Avenues. It is presently zoned Oldtown Specific Plan District Two-Civic District-0. The majority of the property is ! vacant of development except at the north end adjacent to Yorktown Avenue which is presently developed with an older industrial building. Subject property is designated on the general plan as Medium Density Residential. The property located north of the subject site, across Yorktown Avenue, is presently zoned R2-0-PD-^.D, Medium Density Planned Residential + Development -- Civic District - oil Production. This property is presently vacant of development except for a single family dwelling_ and several small office buildings. This property is also designated on the general plan as Medium Density Residential. The properties surrounding the subject site to the east and south are zoned, designated on the general plan the same as the subject site and are presently vacant of development. The property located across Lake, to the west of the subject site, is zoned RI-0-CD, Low Density Residential develop- ment combined with oil Production - Civic District. This property is designated on the general plan as Medium Density Residential and is presently vacant of development. Page Three 6.0 SUHDIVI$I0N C01414ITTEE; Tentative Tract 11245 was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on October 10, 1980. In attendance at the meeting were representatives of the Department of Public Works, the Fire Department, and the Department of Development Services. Also in attendance were Commissioners Schumacher and Winchell. Major issues of concern discussed at that time by the Committee was the location of the proposed alley in relationship to the Pacific Electric Railroad Right-of-Way, the status of the alley - private versus public, the status of the existing Eucalyptus Trees along Lake Street, the cul-de-lacing of Utica Avenue, the addition of an east/west alley to link Lake Street with the proposed north/south alley and that portion of the proposed tract located on the portion of the Yorktown Avenue right-of-way. One of the Committee 's major concerns was the location of the proposed alley in relationship to the railroad right-of-way, and that the alley would utilize a portion of the right-of-way . that was intended for further recreational or transit purposes. The map indicated that the alley is planned for the westerly 20 ft. of the farmer Pacific Electric Railroad Right--of-Way. The staff indicated to the applicant that this right-of-way was depicted in the adopted Trails Element as a future bike path. Another major concern addressed by Subdivision Committee was the ownership o'_` the property formerly used as the Pacific Electric Railroad Right--of--Way. Staff indicated to the Com- mittee that the County Tar. Assessor Parcel Books still show the subject property as belonging to thi. Pacific Electric Railroad. The staff also indicated to the Comni•:tee that the State Board of Equalization has not changed the tax status on this property from the Pacific Electric Railroad to the Huntington Beach Company or Mansion Properties. Other issues discussed at that Subdivision Committee are outlined in the attached Subdivision Committee meeting minutes dated October 10, 1980. j 7.-0- _ANALrYSTS: The proposed subdivision comp?iez with all applicable provisions of thu Oldtuwn Specific Plan in regards to lot size and minimum frontage, the subject tract has extended lots 28 and 29 over a portion of public right-of--way presently used for Yorktown Avenue. The Department of Public Works has indicated that the alignment of Yorktown Avenue will shortly be realigned and the property in the Present right.-cif-way could be added as additional lots to Tentative Tract 11245. However, it should be noted that formal abandonment has not taken place to this date and recordation of this map in its existing configuration � could not occur until that abandonment is completed by the City Council and applicable departments. The Department of Public Works has not yet started the abandonment procedures on this portion of Yorktown Pending some additio•,ial information to be prcvided by the applicant. The map as submit-tec? does not hove the blue border extended out to the center line of Lake Street. It is normal procedure that the blue border be extended to the center line in order. for City to accept dedication, imp.-ovements, and resolve any underlying easements that I o I i i Page Four may have occurred in the task. The proposed tract has included the westerly 20 feet of the former Pacific: Electric Railroad Right-of-Way in the blue border of the map. All previous maps located along the east side of Lake Street have not included this portion of the PE right-of_way within the boundaries of the maps. Therefore, this map, if approved, would not be in keeping with prior maps approved along Lake Street. It should also be noted that this 40 ft. right-of-way has been identified on the Master Plan of Bikeways which was adopted by the City Council in 1978 as part of the Trails Implementation Plan, as a future bikeway. Therefore, the approval of this map in its existing configuration would not be in keeping with specific plans adopted by City Council for trails implementation. At: the November 3, 1980 Council meeting, the Council appointed a special committee to study future uses along this right-of-way. Approving this tentative map at this point in � time, would reduce many of the options that may be considered by this Committee. The applicant has revised the map since the Subdivision Committee meeting and has included an alleyway adjoining Lake Street to the north/south alley along the right-of-way. The map has also been revised including lots 28 and 29 on that portion of the Yorktown Avenue right-of-way. It is the staff's concurrence that approval of Tentative Tract 11245 would reduce many of the options that presently could be considered by the City for the future use of the abandoned railroad right.-of-way. The approval of this crap would also be in violation of previously adopted Specific Plan for the tight-of-way identifying t► future bike trail along this property. 8.0 RECOMMENDATION: The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve ; Negative Declaration No. 80-56 and deny Tentative Tract 11245 with ; the following findings: 1. The proposed r, ',ley location is not in keeping with the Trails Implementation Plan adopted by the City Council in March of 3978. 2, Insofar as V%e City Council has recently appointed a special committee: tv. study future uses for the former Pacific Electric Railroad-'.tiql,.t-of-Way. The approval of this map would considerably reducs O L, number -of options that may be considered by this Committee. ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION: if the Planning Commission elects to approve Tentative Tract 11245, the Staff is recommending that this item be continued for a two week period In order to give the staff adequate time to prepare appropriate fin4.ings and conditions and to start the amendment procedure on that portion of the map which is prenently within the Yorktown Avenue right- of-.way. I I Page Five B:gc ATTACEtMENTS: ' 1. Site Plan received and dated October 27, 1980 2. Negative Declaration No. 80-56 3. Letter from Mansion Properties, Inc. received acid dated November 10, 1980 4. Letter from Huntington Beach Company to Orange County Transportation Commission dated October 2, 1980 5. Letter from Orange County Transportation Commission received and dated November 6, 1980 6. Inter-departmental memo from George Tindall received and dated October 28, 1980 7. Subdivision Committee Minutes of October 10, 1980 f ., 1 1II i ,1 a MANSION PROPERTIES, INC. NU, 'GTQit a rXH 2110 MAIN STREET PLANNING VEPT. HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 (714)536.8917 NOV .10 1980 P. 0. Hoc K0 November 10, 1980 Huntington 8ewh,CA92648 TENTATIVE TRACT 11245 DISPOSITION OF OIL FACILITIES DELIVERED BY HAND Mr, Savoy Fellavia Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Development Services Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach; CA 92648 Dear Mr. Bellavia: As noted on our Tentative Tract Map the existing oil well located at the southerly portion of the site shall remain and comply with all city ordinances governing oil operations. The 16h foot easement for pipelines as shown on the map will be moved to the proposed alley bordering the east side of the map at such time as development occurs. Similarly, that portion of the easement bisecting the proposed alley and Lot 17 shall be relocated to fall within the alley upon development of the property. I hope this suffices as to the anticipated method of dealing with existing oil facilities. Please call me if you have any questions. Very t ul yours, 1 D. EADIE Sr. Project Representative DJE/h i s J�"IM CITY OF HUNTINCTON BEACH INTFR-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION rn vnw,rov IIKu To Savoy M. Dellavia From James R. Barnes J Senior Planner Associate Planner Subject ND 80-56 (TT 11245) Date November 7, 1980 Background: eased on the Staffs initial study of this project a Draft Negative Declaration was published in the local newspaper and posted in the uf.f.ice of the City Clerk for a 10-day public review period ending October 13, 1980, and no comments were received. The blue border of the Tract Map extends aver the abandoned Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way. The City through several actions in the past has encouraged preservation of the P.E. right-of-way as a transit corridor. On August 10, 1979 the Orange County Transit District sent the atta--hed letter to our department stating that the right-of-way has been identified as a future transit cor:-_dor in OCTD's Master Plan for transit development. The leter further states that OCTD considers "it in the public interest to preserve the right-of-way so as not to foreclose any opportunities for this corridor. " This viewpoint is apparently shared by our Planning Ccmmission, who on November 4 , 1980 adopted a resolution recommending approval of the City's Local Coastal Plan with the inclusion of the following policy: "Preserve the Pacific Electric right-of-way parallel to Lake Street to the City boundary as a transit corridor. " Recommendation: The Environmental. Resources section recommends that the Planning Commission approve Negative Declaration No. 80-56 finding that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The following mitigation measures will reduce potential environmental effects resulting from the project and are recommended as conditurns of approval. n e NU 80.-56 Page 2 1 . The applicant shall quit claim to the City all rights, it any, on that portico of the property located on the abandoned Pacific Electric Railroad right.-of.-way. 2. Naturc.1 gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers. 3. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 4. Low volume heads shall be used on all showers. S. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus: or unusable mciterial, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 6. The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached shall be constructed in compliance with the state acoustical utandards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the California insulation standards of 45 dba CNEL. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person exper- ienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s) . All measures recommended to mitigate noise to acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of the project. JRg/gc I I r 1 ( 10.4 CITY Or HUNTINGTON BEACH � DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT P.O.Box 190 H117(TI�pTDN1 BVxH • Huntington B��.Sr,CA.92848 f°1231f'I�IIN tKJ A MENYT Tt1: 1714)538.5271 SEP 181980 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM P. 06 ft A" W Fee - 015-:8$- Hulling on Reif, ON,UM 4 105� FOR CITY USE ONLY MANSION PROPERTIES, INC. Date Annlicant Author zed Agent Received: Project _ Number: .- ._._.. 2110 main street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Department of Origin: } M4ilina Address .____�''"rltlai4 • '�,/��cry 1 I (714) 536-0917 Other Applications or e ep one Permit Numbers: 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY Pronerty Owner �' + 2110 Main Street Hunt. Beach,CA 92(,48 (7]41 pro-e351 4 � Mailinct Address Telephone 1.0 Proiect Information (please attach Plot Plan and submit p otohrap s of-subject property) 1. 1 Nature of Project: Give complete description of the proposed }project. 21 lot subdivision with potential for future residential development under specific plan ordinance. 1.� Location of Project: (Address, nearest street intersections) East side of bake Street between Yorktown and Utica Avenues. 1. 3 Assessor' s Parcel Number: 23-040-13,2 ,Ro 1 . 4 101at is the present zoning on the property? Oldtown spacific plan 1 .5 What is the surrounding .land use to the: North Vacant South vacant East Ftesidc phial Development West Vacant 1.6 If the project is commercial or industrial give a complete description of activities and other pertinent information including but not: limited to estimated employment per shift and any potential hazardous materials which may be used, etc. N.A. i i 1.7 If the project is residential, indicate number, types and size of units and associated facilities. k Potentially 29 single family units or an equivalent number of multi.-family units per code could be built. 1.8 If the project is institutional, indicate the major function, 4 estimated employment per shift and maximum occupancy. N.A. , 1.9 Project land area (acres) 2'0 Ac. Number of parking SPaCQ5 Per code 1.10 Square feet of building area Leer code Numbez: of floors per code 1. 13. Height of tallest structure involved in the project N.A. 2.0 Environmental Setting 2. 1 Drainage and flood Control i . .0 r1easiv describe how on-site drainage will. be accommodated. f Surface flow to street. i i Q 2. 2 Land Form •a) is the site presently graded? No b) Indicate the gross cubic yards of gradinq proposed + 6,000 c.y. � the acres of land to be graded 2.6 Ac. , the amount of earth to be transported on the site ,500 a. , and the amount of earth to be transported off the site 500 c.v. c) What will be the maximum height and grade: of cut on fill after grading is completed? + 2 feet, 2. 3 soils a) Type of soils on the subject site? (Submit soils report if available) . Clayey sands, 2.4 Vegetation a) Attach a inao indicating the location, type and size of trees located on the site. Indicate below the number, type and size of trees to be removed as a result of the project. Thv disposition of txecq within the Lake Street right of wny are subject to city requirements. I ' 2. 5 Water Quality I � a) Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches, estuaries, bays, tidelands, or inland water areas? No b) Describe how the project will effect any body of water. I No effect. 2. 6 Air Quality I a) If the project is industrial, describe and list Air pollution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. N.A. 2. 7 Noise a) Describe .any adjacent off--.3ite noise sources (i .e. , I *,,-- ports, industry, freeways) . ti.A. h) Wh-it nnk;r will be produced by the project? If available, ploase hive noise levels in decible measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be produced. Typical residential noise factors. I i -3- • C. now will noise produced by the project compare with existing noise levels? Increase over that of vacant land. 2.8 Traffic Approximately how much traffic will be generated by the project: (check, one) 0•-50 vehicular trips per day 50 - 250 vehicular trips per day X 250 - 500 vehicular trips per day over 500 vehicular trips per day 3.0 Public Services and Facilities 3. 1 Water a) Will the project require installation or replacement of new water lines? Yes b) Please estimate the daily volture in gallons required to serve the project. 16,000 gal/day. 3. 2 Sew.2r a) Will the project requira installation or replacement of new sewer lines? Yes b) Please indicate the approximate amount of sewage gene rated from the project. 10,000 gal./day. 3. 3 Solid Waste a) If the project is industrial, describe the type and amount (pounds/day) of solid waste generated by the project. N.A. 4.0 social 4.1 Population Displacement , . , a) Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? NO b) Describe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. None - 1- ti 5.0 Mitigating Measures 5. 1 Are there measures included in the project whic'i may conserve nonrenewable resources (e.g. electricity, gan, water) ? Please describe. Standard Huntington Beach M;ild;ng code practices. 5.3 Are there measures included in the project which would protect or enhance flora and fauna? please describe. Maidential landscaping. I 5.3 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution? Please describe. Standard Huntington Beach Building Code practices. 5.4 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project t (e.g. architectural treatment and landscaping) which have � been coordinated with design of the existing community to 4 : minimize visual effect? Please describe. The project will compliment the latest residential designs along Lake Street. i 5.5 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce wafer pollution? please describe. Similar measures as that or other residential developments along J Lako Street. 5.6 Are there measures proposed which would reduce air pollution. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. Similar measures as that or other residential developments along Lake Street. 5.7 Are there measures or facilities designed into the project to � facilitate resource recovery and/or energy conservation (e.g. solar heating, special insulation, etc. ) ? Please describe. Similar measures as that or other residential developments along Lake Street. 6.0 Alternatives 6.1 Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? Please explain all project alternatives on an attached sheet. The project would improve and positively impact the immediate vicinity. 1 ht-reby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. i 9-17-80 i Signature date Filed ! D. J. EADIE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT 19/9 i 11r. .lamr!; H. N.Irnes Associate PInnllr.r t:ily of ilunt tnl;too ilracll lit-ll;irtmoti( of I'lafltttrill, and I'.nvirutlment;tl Hesourcer P.O. it►x 1911 Ilurltlogtnn livorli, Glllfornla 92648 Dent- Mr. fiarnes: 1 'I'll(- f)ranl;e Cottnty ''rant;It DIMrir.t. Muff ha!: revtrwed Lhe FIlt on t.ho flit- proput{ed "it:tttctl" (level opment, nlld Wl"lle!; to robtrylt the fel]owittg 'i'ho area of tho proposed drvelrrprumt inr•lodeti a port ism of the IIba ill Ill pit-if 111►otinl,fon li,;arh llranrh of the Pact fir IAvvtHe (now t fiomthern IlacifIc) Ita11road. 11ii,: right-of-way has brim Metal fled .1. .1 lotnr.• tr ul^it co1•ridnr Ill vCj*U1t; ILII;te.r 111.i11 for 1'ransit 1!1-velollmmrt , adopted by the iCIP floard of i ro--tort; on flarclt 18, 1974. lllfy phut w:us stil'I'orted by ill(- 111mrtfnl,toll ll .uh City council , wltlrll adopted a ileraolutlon (1to. 11142) on February 19, 1974, ! exprerr,ing the CiLy's mupport for the finer' flan. ! t Ilowev-,r, tht� Fitt pro oral a1dret-,sod in tho I:iII Inr "The ,, clev,�lol�rl{ i I iz; fie h' Devtlinllmeot. it; going, to orc.rr on the 1lacifir I;lertric itight- r►f-Ila% . 'fill, act iom i, In cotrl: t.;t with l)C'I'l)';; 1U,,ter i'Ino. '1'hntll,t► 0(:'i'I) has not entertalnrtl ally III.-Iodf;Ite for develollinl; I t he corr idttr ui, ►mt i l now, OC11) door, comf•f der It ill III(, Public illlerl�l:i ill presort'e till' rfght -of-way ;o ;11: 11„t 111 ftln,cle11" ativ oppnrlunft(e;: for thl. vorrfdor. We would al-m IwIl,-ce that. your City 1*11unr11 tcnmld share fill!: interest , in view of their inngsLand- fnl, sttppnt-1. for Ill,- corridor. t,',. w.111111 n1-:11 1,,11nt out that the virrt11:1Linit mial%' is of the l,t'11111�.'il' 1 III'yeltirm mt (Page 10) rel'(1$lmentl5: Mot "tho developer reLain (hi, ra f i r,l.{d rf I;ht -,1f-w;t} In ,t l,r ern ivy 1 t gone not t I t11c• r inc the 4,0111.1111. ►mt !; of the I r.m.p11rt.1t (on rnrr idor ,zt oily h.lve determined their I'lmdini;r, and the public ln%uvr are renllc:rll." I t l?J?ACArIA PAllK1VAY. 1',1 IIIIX.IIIu!.• r:Alll1LN GR(1VF,CAI tt{lnl:IA t1:GIJ� r'llt)111 1T14t<J71 ri:nn 1 I { 1 s Mr. Jnme. R. Barite. Attrilr,t 10, 1979 t Page Tkn f At t arhod tr, lter:Dint l ou No. 19-26 o»na imou•l y adol+t ed ley the hoard of I►i rer.tor. of the ttrautte Coititty Tranni t 1►i..trict ot► Au1,oqt G, 1979, i urgently re-lt.c,.tAng that Lite City (if Iluntington beach take those i acrionn tti-cennary to reserve cite right-of-way for use a future f transport.stlon corridor. ' Should you have any tluerttons about the.c cormnents , plens'? feel free t to contact me nt 971-6483, or Mr. Norman Steinman at 971-6411. Very truly curs, CorIett l Manager of Planning; ift(::VI. 1•:nc 1 r�u rr cc .1. 11. Pelchert If. Ilornung; 1 . i s ! ; l t t t 430 Y 1 October 2, 1980 . VIA ERRAND BOY Orange County Transportation Commission 1020 North Broadway Santa Ana, Ca. Attention: Tor. Thomas Jenkins Exec6tive Director Dear Mr. Jenkins Mansion Properties , Inc. has filed a subdivioion map to create residential lots on the southeast corner of Lake Street and Yorktown Avenue in Huntington Beach. The map encompassed within its boundaries, portions of the former P.E. right of way which was abandoned in 1977 and has since reverted to adjacent property � owners. The City of Huntington Beach han informally expressed interest in � preserving the former right: of Hay for future use as a made transit; corridor although there are no definite plans to implement this oh.jective. Since the Orange County Transportation Commission is the key agency involved i.n planning and funding there pro rums we would appreciate your response to the questions listed be ow in order to clarify the status of this matter. 1. Where is the Beach iloulevard corridor on your priority list for study and financing? 2. What are the limits of the corridor contemplatect for use in Huntington reach and what alignment is preferred? 3. Is the former P.C. right of way a viable option for consideration as n mass transit corridor and, how does rhis relate to Beach Boulevard as a posoible option? 4. Unless a fixed guideway system is envisioned, is it re-alistic to think of using, the former P.E. right of way for rapid transit as opposed to surface streets and highways? r i �. if�.P k���,� t�+j,;� + � S�I;k•,•,�' ,��� ds'Rr� ,1��, �� t y '+r;+f)'�,tiP.�' {�" r• y "i'�j. 4�° `" ( '74. ~��, �SH ' � vKy�,y�.. F } ...�'"'• _ " �yY �'.5�0 ?tY d '►',, r ,S 1 +�.y1 'c� - ,w" wA r �` + i t. (.. "v P ,,'�l'� k' ,.i4� �w. �i•' i ,,!'��f, "1�. .i���yti� �'1 t '� �'�;, st,v�"Ft. i £v 1 I (.:yPYvF4P��i, `t t [� �t I,,�1I���J1 ,p, �`,��yt ` yy� ! � q +!• y+• �y�,y {}•`, yy I•' '�`' 1• t rr'.1. S'�'SIfY Y, i�,l' Y� � 'A `'7�FY�j Y4•>,.'•�i;.Y'FI '1,5 IA�i����0�.�h�t,,..' � '} ;�1y, ^.�I''. k� r.1,4 SO .Y tti�df�{w.', NY•''*�t t� y� �P .�e a h },t,i l h fit, , n f, S•.,i 1 , �v)Y , 7 'YA +• r (,R. �!1 Rr`'�n:S "•'N, 1,'',q•, i,' I.�g1r P `{'� � N wrP,. *; .•1 v. +4 f �I. vn�+:+,�. �{'i,4�.V`N'I�.�.�'(.pYt�}'; ( k � `�{!(��i,j,'�1 ..( �tP ��•,.l',{�^id�rs�4,�% ,,,p��"^�*. � , � ,. v � �•r�Qf9 �:' e �Td1,'F{tqS+;�� '� �;! i� .� ..» � 7,�'1 .lt"�. � ' +r.t7 h• r �• P. .�'" FP.14•,.'i"I' ,'.� F � L ' ,'d�;:.;r'�`.lJw '� rk" •,•�'S.,'�,a�• �1r,�r , � �a,+5�y +�,��Ir'�F.t •.i. `'�` �+ .. s*� �r }4p Y �''i � r "� t` �'�,, y�r'�`,, f itF.' L� 11 .:�Y., i4 ,��r l;Y;{ '.F�'er 1��� '•�t � y5�'1�. , 'i�,,Ss�f,�1 i t1'"f (� w•�is` '.J'�M1i� .n 'Av,. '�, � •,4• r, ,y�' jnY�� r ,•f"�',:�[''i`l. ,�.. � { I� ilSi�'•►, 1 � Y�ll+iLl:l/l i�1'' "� ('�It I.i'+:.1'11p��i'��.:Il]�}.•2i:L�.�..rt::isLtf�Nl.,j �•�.5.f t. '*, , '���••1 �� v} q���;ti,•�'°r. Y,t i 4 �.+.�ar.,�l7..sSw.. l.�.,ik.' iu. 11:i`J:..i i"' � � �: ii:...u'.:..rig..,.�llor�,-�:;4..�.�''.z�"i�:�.}:�►a�..,.�+s1.s.,id'.�J..11::.te� t' rl Fage 2 5 . If a fixed guideway system is considered fensibl,e, is the foirner right of way width of 40 feet adequate for sound attenuation from the adjacent residences? If noV, what menoures would be taken to mitigate the imt:act on the neighborhood? 6. 'ghat is the likelihood of any corridor plans being approved for funding by OCTC south of Edinger Avenge? 7. What is the timing for significant events or action dates between now and when such a facility would be a reality? 8. Who will acquire the right of way? 9. When will the pr:perty be acquired? " 1 Ue have been asked to attend a City Subdivision Committee meeting on October 10 tc discuss this and other matters pertaining to the subdivision snap and expect: I'lanning Conmission review later in the month. We appreciate your help in explaining this matter. i Sinc rely, EADIE Sr. Project Representative DJE/h CC: Mr. Paul Cook bc : Mr. R. A. Harlow Mr. R. J. Work- DJE i i i 1 i 'J t !�i tt R f Jai' "` i Y, 7 .. ..�fr.y r3 i.Yi,•..:i � t r r...Y r' , � �' •� b.�iy �jFITk��:� �i�...;�J�,''•}.t',�'�¢�r�� ''rP�S",+�y'�•+"�� y� L�'•' •;- � a " � , .Y. tr•. , �.,, 6« w •,,M ����1(:` . r�r�f)•,.�a, y�yS�� Zt'�1����'yT+a4�.}�} �17� Y.h3,.:�`••rr, ±aiy 1 �f .,1 r'y.ti r' 't�, ^'� l+k' r4� �•" 4 •^A.''•1 r,`,,j��;.Al' �)'. 4��,gip I�• F, ',,�'Y•�'4�5+�,��+n1•� ,��,;' •1+,��,�Y,k• � � ,•� it�' /• ,r••• Y''j' •'' r 'Sj4rb,iF �5" f 1 Y � F IS r1R. 4.1�!'l'�' 'i fl�- i4. �' ,�. r .• l({' y �` 1�,.yy{�5 ,y.,�y� ,�..E' Sr (iy�.•i Yj , ,1�[yJ• i; �•j{`'i �* ,�+ t M 41 �1' y '`�� r''y'YY i��� !ly p'I r'� Id Y,� .�"7.�r 1,6 .Ap� ,�;.1'1j� &5•+ i'Y.�`, � , 1•'�41�.�� • i� .y� y� 'jr �'•al •J `+ t ,�,r .�' ,� ,' ,r'r.. 'fi b!1\,�'l � 1 r � .h'.F' r'T 1 �ij'ti'�, {a�q��,,''l�,i.��'x} 't.+ .wy�.i••,u�,`• ,.. � �: i K�Y1�j�I M1 ` I"d�,+l'PIYpy J�(�F •}' ,7(,1�: { .l ,t y1��•..�, �.� 'L.i>t�.� 1�ry}7�`{ r `�+if � l` ir,�••"..11l f 1•: 1Y. .j;!Y 'M` � {d f;` `'•'r i' v, R • .�••�;1 ����� �J�:. 5..:7 ''lii....l... 11 t:'h•'�rIJ,/:,d��.w2u5:.�::..4.5:... 1 TI I A N S P 0 1 tl"ATIOf) r CO'N'U-N,11 J STUN Z� t"rroN d, 1020 N!i,iri 13rnrrd.,,ay. Stitle 300 ril^11.1 -tt unid 2 . �•I,�1�i�El� •]5B1 r,t•Y•illcc•••t,•it Y" �,trilYt,ltYr�.•r• flovembur 5, 1980 l rY•Y1YY,, t ��I,•.; IT7111INGTON BEACH rt. . t, �• rti,►i PLANNING DEPT. NOV 6 1980 Mr. D. J. Eadic Sr. 1'rnject flep►•esenLativc, P. 0. Box 190 Mansion Proper-Lies Huntington Ileach,CA 92648 2110 Main Street Iuntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Eadie: r' i in response to your r^c uest, of October 2 1980 letter s ,This f Y I (letter attached) , related to the status of the Beach Boulevard corridor and the abandoned Pacific Electric right-of-way betdeen +"�► Garfield and the Pacific Coast Highway. I vii11 try to respond to the questions asked within our current policies and status of plan- i ping major transportation corridor improvements in Orange County. I would like to current the first sentence of the second paragraph of your letter. The City of Huntington 13cach has forllially requested the preservation of this P.E. right-of-way through an application to the California Transportation Coninission (CTC) in Vvicember 1979. Also, the City requested endorsement by the Orange County Transit District and such indorsement was adopted by resolution of the Orange County Transit District Board of Directors on August 6, 1979, and I subsequently a letter of support for the CTC application was supplied ! by OCTD (dated Decerlber 21 , 1979) . On February 1 , 1980, the City ' further presented testimony in support of their ipplication to the CTC Ma.; Transportation Coimiittee. Bused un Ll,v actions of the City and the GCTD to (P to, I have noL seen any formal recitiv%L for a chance in their positions. Therefore, the answers to your questions will b, fl-vil+ a technical basis of our Mult.i-Modal transportation SLudy and the timing required to do the detailed corridor studies, financial analyses , and imple- mentation procedures. 1 . Where is the (leach Boulevard corridor on your priority list for study and financing? I I I I a.+ � •�+,h@ 1' al'.�y��'� ,�, �A'k"f.y,3'?f9 'S l•.[� �f(.•'' i• �F.,A.•�Y'. br �x F•'7'di• 1� J' ����� p�• ,�1�',5�� + �� '� '''i ryr} �i ;s�', k• y}'.�It;3�r. P. f ���,, J � pp'��; v� .' .4$ri;'sA� „t.s.k;�, fw,..,�� 1: �. �+4 f �' A �•rJf 7,'!.:11.'��. Liar,+ ��, S� ;,�,'.��, 1..1�,• �� ,1� . +u? ��'R�y 'i�"J" Y71.�'�a,1.. '� J,'�;p;�l i�1•'�+' ,+y.i. 'Y"' (�+. 1§f(: �' ,,;� „ c"`�• Kr. � ...; la A i 1,IJi °+1 "J�. ,,p t {, ^ ,�, r` C �;C,Y'• � :r•,\ 1�. , +1� i � �.., 'f, �,'�•.f t 4�1r'1,�•{�•.,+s;5.,•f+, f�iy �+tu M�i^� �•1' `6. � �'I�t v� r' `'��'�k#, ^���.j�r 1:.' '� ��1''°; �•' ��.:r�J ,;^• ! !c• 1 `"l'. 1t�.��i'��+'•.�''y,:It uYi �ti `�ill�u+:i:'14..'.7u�`'L��Pa...;ii%:l+ts�.� �' �6..'. 1 I Mr. U. J radio Novemts^r 5 , 198G fag( 2 i The Beach Boulevard corridor was adapted number 5 in priority of corridors requiring detailed analysis to determine the needed transportation improvements. This was adopted by the OCTC on February 25, 1980. The corridor was identified as having fixed guideway potential. This means that fixed guideway alternatives would be considered in th, detailed corridor study. The corridor study has not been pr•ogrampied as yet and I woul(j estimate it would not be considered until fiscal year 1983-84. This study would he a major undertaking for our C,omnission, OUD, Caltrans , SCAG, the cities in the corridor and the federal govern- ment. We would expect to apply for bath state and federal funds I to do the study. The study would he (lone in two phases similar to the Santa Ana Corridor Alternatives Analysis Study, and would require a 3 to 4-yeer period before a draft EIS would be completed. At the 18-month point, though, the alternatives to be 'considered in the draft EIS would be narrowed. This would mean definitive (� improvement proposals would not be known until 1987-1988. Then, ! � of course, implementation of the major improvements would take � 5-10 years. Financing determination for the improvements would be part of 1 the study process and as you know, the OCTC hi)s estimated a $10 billion shortfall related to implementing the (•eneral proposals adopted in the NITS. 1. What are the limits of the corridor contemplated for use in Huntington Beach and what alignment is -preferred? The corridor limits would extend from La Habra to the coastline and normally the corridor would be a width of 3-4 miles centering on existing Beach Boulevard (Route 39). There is no preferred alignment in Huntington Beach or the corridor for a fixed rvideway proposal , 3. is the forivor P-C. right-of-way a viable option for consideration as a wars tr5r11Sit corridor and, how does this relate to Beach Boulevard as a possible option? A!. i stated in re,ponse to question 2, no specific or preferred align- ment has hewn proposed. The 40-font right-of-way on the P.E. could reduce its attractiveness related to the facilities that have a wider right-of-way available. 4. llnlr:s a fixed guideway system is envi,-ionod, is it realistic to think of using the fonue►• P.E. right-of-way for rabid transit as opposed to surface streets and highways? i ii y �b A' �"1 'ice' t•t w,• ij '�yo�t n' �: n.Ytt I 1 '1�'(�f''j��. �• '�. r, �, �j�';l u'�� �! �t" ��d`' 'r >{5�:' }' �•: +^ter t,k',q��" r� � � !^?' '7 i�yY.•:1''T yy;y'�1,.'�+'1",{ �,.. �fR •'Y' q.��.,r. y. .• 1�" 'S,r i .}• �}`�l ' fi�,''�t ,ti � y i'f!tQr yl: .ya ,,,JJy�.P�t., •�, ,iy,t p''k 11�' yr..4 "��';i'„'n;l+t'{,1 ` i• ii.� 4, YI ]'�.•,li K ''1` �'1' t%•.y�a,. r 4) 77"" 1' ► 4t,�'• Iy , ,,,,r,.Y�, ' i ,5 ����, •74 kr. I[ '•Y!• iiii S�•�fj t Y f,ri 1' ..I.�',.•��� i`,,1,;�,� r � {,1. •"5:b'.{� 1 I, f r s y.i,ry�" Le't�' '!i`sia3i Lla I1 r'� ' , .,,' ;ti aSiuf!. ► 'i � ate:: f� 'b�Y Y'.41'vs �f .�.+ylc;Sf, Mr. D. J. fadie �--�, tlovembel. 5. 1980 Page 3 This ►i r_stion is a little cm.rfusing, but I think the city would be the agency to loot: at its potential for use as a street or highway. The restricted right-of-way would appear to limit its potential use for a Eja or street or higlnra;!. 5. if a fired guideway system is cnnsidered feasible, is the forgoer• right-of-way of 40 feet adequate for sound attenuation from the adjacent residences? If not, what measures would be taken to mitigate the impact oil the neighborhood? The 40-foot width is physically call-lble of accepting two tracks and a platform, but there viould he many environmental problems including noise, visual ,access, etc. , that mould have to be mitigated. These would be identified in the draft EIS. , G. What is the likelihood of any corridor plans being approved for furtidinq by OCTC south of Edinger Avenue? I prestune this question relates to the likelihood of a fixed guideway project south of Edinger. The corridor study proposed in q and l No. 1 would define the need more clearly, but the MMTS and previous OCTD studies show that the projected transit patronage south of Edinrer is very low compared to the seefrient between Buena Park, and Edinger Avenue. 7. What. is the. timing for significant events or action dates between now and when such a facility would be a reality. • 1 Again, I presimre this question related to a fixed yuide►•ray project. Activitx Date Corridor St.udv Start ff 19113-8.1 Stage I - Alternatives ndrrowed FY 1985-8e Draft EIS (Sla(le 11) rY 1987-88 ( inal EIS fY 1%F1-89 ('rn,ject f.nclin►'� rind. (l�:ign. lY 1989-1995 Construction (`►-G years) Operat iunal 1995 .. .. _ 1 .. .. ....._. .. I . ..: ...it • T (( 1 ,;'4f!• .Y,. .� q'y n,l!•.Y T'� .4,, �. ,4• Tr` �+,r",7r�' ..�.t.•.* v ,£; t i �„tT; '•.�',•'..5,'^" n. 4 .B S r F /�, ,R7a �. ti ( f ry t M k. i.'•�,r Y 1 t t T' � :i?.x'"�7'r ;`� 1'i'.. (.tA�• k ��, F.'�a �" 7 {Ni3 �6 11y�' ts• '}.: 1,.�{r ��a ya �y?'r�� j'k�'M y�tit�. �{ �+; + M �^C�.' + R k•M S• , ray yp�r�' �% y-3 W,�YY i'� Y..4+'•� jY' 1�i^ '''''I �anY,••,l. '"ryi Ar, �iti',(�1y� 4�y . ;.f' •rY"�,X Y 'T'i t�'"'�•.k 4 f7.r1Ky4 't4��i[ Y`j3,1` t,"tu.��5 .�y, I'y tk�' •�..y��+�r�r�.r•�7� !Pf' �f y . +e + f� �bf,• ', '} ty1'�.�� � ,Ss;�'',�;A-1°)'`� '+�+,p�7+j•��.°�a}C';', x"yl�y Z'M�6 t1t„-1 ;xl'i�4jk ;*rt.cs c'A. �' ic i Yya .�y 1 4?r�;)P i,, +� r�".. �+M1 •;i�.�FdL�. r'+•;',. A h + t ' 1.4t t..l !� + ' +, � t,u. �"',.,. y{ h .1� Y yrt+i s.•i r•��1�i��',�4 F� h}y 1.� r Y2 rr�77'' I"'� 1. '�',}k1'.,�", f�+r:�af,•`^Y,.,'+r'1.f +/1 ,�/'�' 'Y tP �Lfl,�' tt �, .+1 '' �.1r F"•�y�i^: c�7..'{ lr...J, ,..+ t' S ''.5.6: �9';,`i �•,t;.:t,+4+1' ''t"y'�'1'1•y�.••i'�g••..!:r r t,s9p a .I�,j 5'"�4� );h�f�'Tr �y14�!F'f7t' ` ' `��+, 'n�+. li,t 'S'y,," 4,.- r h � t., I r} ++y }f.� 4, t:�• M,. + l4'r.;� t,+ ..rt'0 � t' !+ � (t }7j i.�� +. +3`.. yC" ��Gds��' r Mr. D. J. E:adie ilovember 5, 1930 Page 4 8. Who will acquire the right-of-way? If thr, study drEvrrrined I.N. desirability for a fixp+I quicieway pr-oject, the Orancle County Transit i)istrict irmuld be the agency acquiring the property. 9. When still the property be acquired? If federal funds were used it could not be acquired until tlse EIS has been finaled. 1 know this is a very complicated and lengthy letter•, but the subject you requested rr,sponse to is also very cor,1plic,lteci. If you have any questions, please call . Sincerely, -0"1 hlt J­ /'_7 Thomas L. Jenkins Executive Director Attachment cc: City Manager, Huntington Beach Planning Director, Huntington Beach Paul Cool: Jim Reichert OCTC Conrnissioners fi 1 t I i I 1 • `fin r I. )y.- V Syr ;• j . y r f .fy'�4�'• •.,; vti5'y,!`r5 ';t`.'$iN � `Vr !'�'+'4 � •kv' :M k; r �:�`;lj}.,{a#:"4 1, ..'� 1' t• �k�t';i 4'. �! ,� ,4 '$. , $� "". r I�i w Il,r�1,�, a ,;r YY,'�.�,►,{,,ta 5.,+�I ( t y �,r ,'i ' � }'.�' 'v' 1;1 1! ''i';ins lSr,itr...�•41.� ,� ,�,.., r}'•�,.���..��'i. ����... Y1l1 i I', f;{ �t�• l i t l� ''t, r+;"' !! �' e i�N4L:I '''"a t .$� .1, n tt �' 1�'''`' .�, ' r, •�! AF.' , ?'i1, r'd• ff111.11�+7aT1+L�, �AiAY:�� " ,� 4 .'�. +�:. � •;M+4 'i t�! �a • •16+': .',.•� L3.l�oi�...�'�.'',�u x�x1�.f+� AP MANSION PRO PERT IE5;rNC. 2110 RAIN STIIEE i t �� FIUrJTItIGTON EIE.A(;II, CAlIFOItNIA 926411 ; ' � .��'� `•h 1 October 2, 1980 OCT cntiGE CGV1ry � . YRANSt'ORfA?roy fey Orange County Transportation Cotircission 1020 North Broadway Santa Ana, Ca. Attention: Mr. Thomas Jenkins Executive Director Dear Mr. Jenkins : Mansion Properties , Inc. has filed 1a subdivision map to create residential lots on the southeast corner of Lake Street and Yorktown Avenue in Huntington Beach. The map encompasses within its boundaries , portions of the former Y.E. right of way which was abandoned in 1977 and has since reverted to 'adjacent property ,7wners . The City of Huntington Beach has informallye ed interest in preserving the former right of way for uture use as a mass tr,)nsit corridor although there are no definite plans to implement this objective. Since the Orange County Transportation Commission is •'*`', the key Agency involved in planning and funding these programs we would appreciate your response to the questions listed below in i order to clarify the status of this matter. 1 . Where is the Beach Boulevard corridor on your priority list for study and financing? - 2. What are Hie limits of the corridor contemplated for use in Huntington Beach and what alignment is preferred? 3. Is the former I'.E. right of way a viable option for consideration as a mass transit corridor and, how does this relate to Beach Boulevard as a possible option? 4. Unless a fixed guideway System is etivisioned, is it realistic r to think of using thc. former Y. }:. right of w,1 for ra id transit f; F, y I as opposed to surface streets and highways? ' i• ' •�.. ., ,,. ., ., C . .,.;gip' .'i. r "� i I, I N,$' "•!� § V; „A '.�1' '1 'M' ,IT �' ¢^R}.'':ip,'y R�I..r•ra•r,�u e w� y i•r-.n�: k ,IVY S'I,r s, :�Trr,��r,,.�� '�� wT"�' "' i,.4 � ,y;; 'Y� .� A ,. .� "��; 4ydd ��pwAd��f ,i, y,.Y,,"��,+*'t,r�• .}�!i';�;,,o1'i�'a� sr �`r«`�'',..1 � 51�.`�, •9�?N' 1�i'�''S�i�.4 �:.'�:,.�'p: � , , ' �! �"+ "l� r.�'�"''w� //c 7}.Sg 1 �, t 1, ,•� "Li� ' tr�� �Y{'T '����'{, �cVY'3es.'S�`J`i3!i1'1� "� '. 1, 1'rtge 2 . 1 r 5 . If .1 f1XCcl f,uideway SyStC'm i; considered feasible , is the � i former right (If way width of /+0 feet aclequate for sotmd r attenuation from the adjacent residence? T.E nor , what measures would be tat-en to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood? 6. What is the likelihood of any corridor plans being approved i for funding by OCTC south of Edinger Avenue? 7 , What is the timing for significant events or acCi.�n dates between now and when such a facility would be a reality? B. Who will acquire the right of. way? 9 . When wi11 the property be acquired? we have been asked to attend a City Subdivis: on Committee meeting on October 10 to discuss this and other matters pertaining t_o the subdivision map and expect Planning Commission reviLw ?ater in the month. We appreciate your help in explaining this matter. Sinc ee J. EADIH Sr. Project Representative DJE/h - CC : Mr. Paul Cook i I I it k i t r, '•F � r'I,�y R 'r 1„ ' te.: + ,� .,�.. 1 I~ ° ,t �'. � '> i• •a' y CrR Pil' �' rp±S ti{ ryl` r�ir, r1 114 1i •1 �ij4 :;.#� �;.l.(•r..'. !I r7 i3r; . 1, i. ". . , ' N. Y• s •`�`,�� X�;1. �• ' • �d�' R :,��. ;,�•4�`.�' ' , ��� ' �r,'j, ', °F=�''"��. ?�. �` �• ,� r • ypy { tr•• y �Y' r. t• i v ' ,'a '�•',8 r;k i ,� !"d.a 'A;0.• �.•Ft�i�,ffy1l�1 WK"' + ,11� '31 Nrlf ' t �1far f •�.r ,'.,S r ' �f,{ a.., ,} •.t., r• i i °47•"�'�i�{y' ..1,�'r '•�,4•"p 1�...�'fy�.f,�•;11.;�;•L,L r ti/ 4.:�.ql s ,7�,,, ,ri .k':.� �y ` Cj•7� i q.•. 1 r (Wt� � y, '1.l C.,K`?',1"� u, r . Yi !'qr{� R' ���r r! Ydi39i1 �+ tt�� {•}�, ''9�:�.y'�l �� ti 1. �'S 'ti• •v 'j1.'$l�i....S::Ckui.Y1;+,u•nY.`�.1,':�t h+y�.f1 v�� 1�4•�i.'c'."Y.'1 '2� :J: '�'t:f:��� • IJi: iWd t.::r �...�..�'i1:i. C.C.'S::.»'�Y.h!_:iihi t r ' y CITY OF I.-JU ' TINGTON �~ 20GO MAIN STREET P. 0. 30X 190 CAUFORNiA 926 Paul E. Cook Publi':�' ;rkt CLpa:::n�-.! Directo► (714) 636.5421 October 27, 1980 D. J. Eadic Sr. Project Representative Mansion Properties, Inc. 2.110 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Right-af-Way Vacation Tentative Tract 112.15 Dear Mr. Eadie: t Please be advised that this office received your le;.ter of Cc:.. 3, 1980 relative to vacation of rights-of-way on 7.ake S: :_e : i-1 conjunction with the processing of Tentative Tract 11245. T'r:_. ; I office will proceed with the requested vacation if yOu %:; -I the following: (a) A title report verifying who has underly:_::y to the subject property. (b) A legal description of the area proposed to b-- vaca--,�ci. I Please contact me to discuss this matter a;. your c3nven:-once. Very truly yours•, Geor4e L. '.'indall City Engineer' GLT: jy cc: Jack Miller Charley Davis 1 Jim Palinl/ i t 1 • A�+ e r ` ..f.y ,+ rob. �. � s i+�r,1' ���''��.�• �`�+•� �q� e, �, '•�}�� 1 1` M 1"r�+V•`' �15�uR� ,, h° ' �,'�j ' d�;�i,r�+•' F ,, } �1 �a�='•°���•''rol' tf" ', .. •�'ro .•.sf ,+ � r 3 �t 'kq,'•¢. 1,tY ,+ � •� �' it:,,��U� l�'[i4.,, • � • 14�ro, 3 •.��.,� � •}t'••�`'��' 1 r 't�•� `a�•) 4 �+ �`' � e i�'.'.•�1. 1 �,�. i,,�, 1.'�F �! .,fix.. .l�n. +' ���. 1'� l,F�f • f''; .', ,5 y .ipf yp, ,�7�.1. 'ti Y' .r' •,/. 3)ll' 4'F M.' !•, til �••:'.'1Y1..7•�` .741 '1 �� 1;� •T1r (P 1 ��,7 ,� A" M �• s�7 ,I � + A' •a l s h T+'i V. iA r �� !�.(A:f,• ."� l., t, �'�h I' '"!�•;', r.'• y si G7:l , f�f�f'�d x'!+:• [�,� ,! , ys {� r �x5f, 1 t \ ��. h•';��'{'._ IVY:° i:�3�`."•.,s�Gi wS >w.:.7.t.``,�a.h'<•. "•:...3.1.� :i4�!'I • k,+ .ii. �' '°5 h''T�, '+ i ` '1►11ti'ySa �:i :'Jima+i4S.fi �':i:l,a1.w+.�,dG. '.a::'S,. ' ) :subdivision Committee 'Minutes October 10, 1980 Page 5 THNTATIVE TRACT NO. 11245 Applicant• Company To permit a 29 lot subdivision on the east side of Lake Street between Utica and Yorktown. Dick Harlow and Dave Sadie were present to represent the application. INTRODUCTION- Savoy Be.11avia introduced the application to the Subdivision Committee. He stated that part of the map (2) lots were located in Yorktown which will be abandoned. DEVELOPMENT :SERVICES COMIJENTS: 1. The Development Services Department requests that the alleyway not be shown on existing Pacific Electric railroad right-of-way. { 2. Question in ownership of Pacific Electric railroad right of way. 3. The applicant has requested that the tentative mar be heard in conjunction with the abandonment of the old part of Yorktown Avenue and incorporating the two lots within the tentative tract map. 4. The map as presented conforms with the zoning of Oldtown Specific Plan. 5. 1);1cifie:• Electric, Pailrozd Right of way has been adopted by the CiLy rounc=i1 as a bike path in 1977. G, I:xistiny trees are an environmental concern. Would like to have as many trees preserved as possible. I—ICI- �4JORKS I)E1'AItTMJ:NT COMMENTS, UEs,rio"Js, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 11rury Gilmer and Don Noble, representing the Public Works Department ureeie• Iliv follouinel comments and recommendations. 1 i 7t r, 'b. '. •1 G• 11 df� Are '+ �} v Y, 1 •.1 I(ay 5��' . '):•, fs'YR' 'w.r d1.P I '1;D1'�e.�•til,ry +.r`,� �y•4+ � +f �� `.( ''.tY�.���}� 'W� .� ,•! �,'� L4+1���,!'y��! 't+: : i. b A� �+� ¢+���' •�I' ' 1Y�` VY �:.�.'rs `�' "4 '!T ,f �. •`""!� � ! }r(}�, 'lTf• i� .,. .s1,s� A'+.. 11� t)i'�. ''i�t i i;. }• 1 ,. � � 'Ir'Y 'N PJ's.t 'S�l 1'iJ 'AV 1' 'r•Y •1h'M1. ' x 1' w. 'TM,?'t�.; �Ur ..!',�'.'t�A',}• f. Y� �� •'��'R."'d+� t 6,+ .lih. s'�; " 'y�' ;Tr` { t' .` " :,� .�-.1 , y�5.�';�a, lA, M,�.��i�i'F+Y . 4, . ,.t' '!y, ; sn,Y,. ,�.•�+ yMY`• +.} '1�..n)' ,1 '�{ i•'�'+')p,/�,• • •'�. '�'nv r•v 1'• '.�'4.•?k�Ipl �`'••+?y� y .,y. , ! {,T' �•,1.' I'.y s f "•� x, A`. 1�I f .:��i�id�;�r� %1i .�M, Y. '+ ��:'a• 'L'JLAJdf[.SA,� •rt• ;4 ilA+1'il...:Ak7:.:1s...-t4!A.f u. ..:.Y.iv1•: ji.;lti«:dY'r'"t�Li' L.t�.i'L'L.iu.wY Subdivision Committel'"tiinutes October 10, 1980 bags: 6 1 . `Pratt Map Drawing a . Does the blue border represent the fee ownership line? b. The parkway on the east wide of Lake St, is 15 feet bride, not 8 feet as shown. 2. Sewer a. Lake St. sewer line to be extended per City standards. 3. Storm Drain a. Catch basin and storm drain lateral to be constructed across Lake St. per City standards. �I 4. Traffic Circulation and R/W a. Move proposed alleyway 20 feet to the west and dedicate abandoned P.E. R/W to City for transportation purposes. I b. Access from alleys only. C. Constr.ucc private alley lighting system along and adjacent to � roadway. d. Utica Ave. to be dedicated and fully improved to centerline of street with construction of a cul-de-sac at the east property line with pedestrian and bike access for east-west travel. e. Request construction of 20 feet wide alley, with corner cutoffs, between lots 14 and 15. f. hake St, to be improved in accordance with Public Works Standards. � (I. Alleyway to be private with common access. Cost of m./intenance to be covered in the C.C.6 R. 's. 5. Landscapinci a. Lake St. trees to be professionally trimmed, including root structure. FIRE E)E1E1ARTMEN7' COMI-IEsNTS: E•'d Vasi le stated that the only concern the Fire Department had was the number and placement of fire hydrants. l l '.yaa''�`,�y '�p dj�y A+�'.�g ,.yy,�• <*i5" ?�� •��' , ll5; +, �.�iy� id�fr #,"3� ,�f f: ,fy.y7G; ,G�� ".�.. k,�k�y ,� tib 1 'i�• .� ��. ���. '.P�. ,/I r 'i' ') 'tit 5+y � �� r! �W�+f�',.'0 � •� 5 S'�i'f� qJ �,,��`�����ti i4��?.'..�.• �+ 5' Ir t r�+ � � � .1'�' .11. '�'1' A�.�yl • �..�1 ,A ti r.i �+i.��. .i� �',y�'v• '`+��. ,�� f ,�., ,'�',i,'Y.'Y"s�tr., i�J t ,� Ir �5�,•y.'ri�°f .',! '}a 4 y rI d �, g t J•. ysy,y.yl�j' j4• 'Y ;,j=�M .4 a� •.:�G} :+I?.-f1:1L'J;:'.t1'S:'1;�:a"a�P'4„�idi�' �� 1����I ,subdivision Coinmittu_ Minutes Qctober 10, 1980 Page': 7 Commissioner Winchell stated that the prospective buyers should be made aware of the railroad right of way as a transportation corridor behind their property, Commissioner Schumacher expressed concern regarding location of pipeline across lots 1-17. Savoy Bellavia stated that there would be a relocation so as not to cross over the parcels, Dave Eadie of the Huntington Beach Company stated that in his opinion the last seven years prior to railroad abandonment, the City has not initiated mass transit-, therefore an abandonment for mass transit now is not feasible. Mr. iadie then suggested the transportation corridor I be used as recreational trails. Messrs. Harlow and falie both felt that it was not certain what the mass transit situation would be 15.-20 years down the road, therefore, to identify the corridor with mass transportation would be hazardous to a sales approach. Commissioner Schumacher felt that when the mass transit concept does happen 10 - 20 years down the road, it would be difficult to conceive what type of transportation will be there, however, the 40 ft. trans- portation strip should be available at that time, even if it is only for a bike trail. r Mr. vadie stated that the Huntington Beach Company was not willing to reserve this strip of land for mast; transportation purposes, however, was wi llirtq to discuss. a less intensive use. , i .e., bike trail, equestrian trail exc•ludinq mass transit wording. Cocruni::.:ionvr Schumacher stated that the corridor is nGw being used monthly by an equestrian group to assure that it will stay a public transportation corridor. Coiiuitissioncr Schumacher requested assurance that the pipe easement would bra moved tinder the private rilleys. Mr. Harlow assured her that they would bcr. i a; :u- 'y} s, ij s* r iyt'q'• .r « F. !i "fib+Y •.r ` h ,y 'F 7 ,r,;. y; :�: v _ �,,., ..4 �, } y, ,ttk.. ;�i^5 > yf i ��1 s •Ct `^F+ a 'i�'��1 4 fir,T1't al � d, k J, .�.;a��,S�y�ir�i�,i i tl' ,•�� '�H{# �• r t'..��, <. �F�Y,t t�1 . •'1 'I;t, '� �r 'j}a,e•t:� •��•' . ,� :r ,eti ,r,�j� •.'i�:�:j � .� •� 1'�ME�:i:.:aa�i'•.ui'R�r s:.�, � �si :e."-:.:iiht:',°�.:ilC�hi.::ir,.lhti'� '� sal A Stbdivision committ," Minutes '~ October 10, 1980 Page 8 Savoy Sellavia stated that the recommendation of the Subdivision committee would be the same treatment of this right of way portion that has been approved on other projects so far on Lake Street, which is a. public transportation corridor. Savoy M. Sellavia . I Senior Planner i Gqc 1 3 I i I r; I I I I r. �ti �..r4�� f., i���n'���'��1�.1��1{• '�4i�.�R Ah� ��1°` `T!";Y�.��'74Y� y � ��' ��,,A��' N4{1. 1 .o• .� '<+ y,� .� `'vff ,� '4� '�,o�• A,SFr•�iv,Y.' y' i � 4�,r�.� (^ .,.'y,' •I •tS �� ' �' t t w F � � eT �, 3• ,i�, �e`,tk �4• ,4,/,•��t�r�l'p: �..yrr+J.ti<:°�; i y b� ���.'�t;w•• { t+,.01rd'�. .i tt � .��+, 4 � �b ,'�" 7 r i{ e. J.' s'�4J� '+���,r'C���1�,��' •�1�;?.�4'p�i t.,�t � fi :� �•�i :ti• ',y ��'. •• c'f�.. ;,.��•'`�.• ,'� t,r,►'�,i� .f,:,L.i�„siis'h'`i�.'`�.....�L�:+u,w..i1::. Minutes, II.n. Planning Commissior: November 18, 1980 Page 2 ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY GREER CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 80-18 WAS APPROVED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYE':: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer, Schumacher, Bauer NOLS: Bone ABSENT: None ABSTAI14: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11245/NEGATIVE DECLAMATION NO. 80-55 A2plicant: Mansion Properties, Inc. To permit a 29-lot subdivision of 2.0 acres of property located on the east side of Lake Street between Yorktown and Utica Avenues. Savoy Bellavia called the Commission's attention to a letter from the applicants requesting vacation of a portion of the Yorktown Avenue right-of-way and to revised findings which had been submitted to them at this meeting. The Commission briefly discussed the future alignment of Yorktown and its possibly effect to the subject proposal. The meeting was opened to public testimony. Dave Eadie, representing the applicant, addressed the Commisuion in support of the proposed subdivision. He addressed certain points presented in the staff report concerning the ownership of the rail- road right--of-way and the alignment of Yorktown Avenue. He des- cribed the history of the right-oi-way ownership, noting that the i City Attorney has categorically stated that her analyuis of the i title report submitted by the Huntington Beach Company indicates that the Huntington Beach Company is the property owner. H.B. Company as property owner has authorized Mansion Properties to file on the site. In regard to the ma not question of the blue border of the going q p 9 g to centerline on Lake Street, Mr. Eadie noted that this is in fact a resubdivision of the original subdivision of the property in 1914 when street dedication was made, and in the company's view no further dedication is required. In response to the prior requirement placed on other maps on Lace Street to quitclaim any interest in the right-of-way, if any, to the City, he said that this is the first map to be filed which encumbers j any of that right--of--way. lie addressed the revised findings in regard to the bicycle trails � and the abandonment of Yorktown by saying that the width of a Class 1 b,ike trail could be accranuaodated on the remainder of the right-of-way and the abandonment adequately covered by conditions of approval. He added, however, that the applicants would be amenable -2- 11-18--80 - P.C. { -I i i J� 4 9�'i'r Iry ,{ ! t` A i{. i ' ��a,��k�'N �' 1��1�{�1F� � 1..1'. , y^:j;l'r•4.�i ,?.• rr•+ � I:.;f•'. :;nt4. ���^' ,� t� 'a.i/ld +'W � 1 �pkn7' r '"6'/�.+ ,I'1 � ''/ ,;`�'.� '�' ;� �� •i � f��T7. 4��iY,Lti,�.;t�� rr'�"'' ��t+ W " (�• ', N �` � ..4 p. "�. �' l +��I�..t9?� �i��Y. � i.'��� �, „1 r��e�F �<1 7Y`.'y �� {}"�,,� ° '� " .i .} + '+•:1. fk tijn •' �ll�,, '.d;,':.r jyy.t''�^ �a`'? Y�. i.•���{wi. ,�i-`'.R f�n;°.lLt v '� .y,, k1ll Ya'.5:. ':i' ' 1.A,�.'.Wt• ' ;,r w,.11ix-� ti.:s.L.o'1:..: f 3w ,Y�1t�+ �. .�A;yt�• '`" f,� ��Sila�+. yJ�.,f..1 dl.l''A' 4 " Minutes, li.B. P.Ldnninq Commission November 18, 1980 Page 3 to a continuance on the map to reconcile the question of York- town Avenue and to allow the Trails Committee to begin its deliberation on what configuration the bicycle trail might take south of Yorktown Avenue. Members of the Commission questioned Mr. Eadie in regard to the matter of ownership and possible alternatives for a trans- portation corridor in the event that approval of this map ; should preclude future use of the old right-of--way for that pur- pose. Mr. Eadie quoted a letter from the Orange County TrLns- portation Committee which had outlined the need for a future transportation • orridor to be within two or three miles of Beach Boulevard. lie stated his opinion that the old right-of- way is not a proper place for such a corridor because of insufficient setback from existing and planned residential dev- elopments and the difficulty of providing noise mitigation j measures. On the question of ownership, he again pointed out l that the question of ownership has been adjudicated by the City Attorney and ,the Huntington Beach Company is not willing to consider any reservation of that right-of-way. Legal counsel Jim Georges pointed out that ownership of the corridor is not relevant to consideration of the tract map, and that the Commission should consider only whether or not the proposed subdivision conforms to the General Plan and/or any specific plans of the City. Commissioner Winchell asked aLout' how ingress/egress and main- cenance would be provided in relation to the existing oil wells on the property, to which Mr. Eadie replied that no construc- tion would take place at all on Lot I and possibly not on Lot 2 until the wells had either been relocated or abandoned. Access is planned from the to-be--vacated right-of-way of Utica Avenue. Connie Mandle, 119 171th Street, discussed the ownership, saying that sufficient cloud existed on the title in 1977 when tha Trails Stud was made that the Planning staff at that time recom- mended g mended that a legal report be done; the City Council, however, slid not authorize the expenditure of the estimated $20,000 to cover such a report, The Council did on three separate occasions; state that its intent for the corridor was to use it an an interim bikeway and future mass transit facility. Mrs. Mandic .lso informed the Commission that the Huntington Beach Company is not carried on the tax rolls as the owner of the property and dons not pray taxes on it. in response to a statement by bars. Mandic that the right-of-way had been "sold" for t,ranspurtation purposes, Mr. Eadie responded that an easement was granted by Colonel Northam for the railroad but that the property had never been sold by him. Frank. Mola, 808 Adams Avenue, commented that opposition to the use of this corridor for any type of mass transit would in all -3- 11-18-80 P.C. 1 e w Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 18, 1980 Page 4 likelihood come from the people living adjacent to the strip, who could not be expected to favor the construction of such a facility so close to their homes. Commissioner Kenefick noted that no one knows what the state of the art for transportation facilities may be at some time in the future, and the City should preserve its options. Commissioner Bannister stressed the need for the Commission to know who owns t:ye land. Fie said that the ownership of property does not carry with it the inherent right of an to build on that land, but if research shows that the Huntington Beach Company does indeed own the subject strip and the City tells them they cannot use it the City should reimburse them for that property and the surroundirq land. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AIdD SECONDED BY KENEFICK TO POSTPONE TENTATIVE TRACT 11245 TO THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. In the discussion which followed the motion, Commissioner Schumacher expressed the opinion that the Commission is not qualified to make a legal judgment as to who owns the property. She said the decision the Commission should be considering is whether it wlsnes; to main- tain the City's; past position for retention of the corridor. Commissioner Winchell said that: staff indicates the map is not con- sistent with the General Plan which Mr. Georges has said is the criterion which should be applied; however, she would be willing to agree to a continuance to discuss the findings if that is the in- tent of the continuance, but she did not want to get into the own- ership question. Commissioner Bannister clarified his motion by stating that it was made specifically so the Planning Department would have time to determine the: actual ownership of the property. Further discussion took place on the possibility of establishing ownership; Secretary Palin outlined the City's prior efforts to obtain state funding for title search and informed the Commission that he :' .I not believe: any more: informa- tion could be provided within Lhe two weeks, continuance . i THE MOTION TO CONTINUE WAS PASSED BY WE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, K:nnefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer � NOES: Schu►.:acher, !3auer ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: hone. DISCUSSION ITEMS: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10853/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 79-23 � Applicant: Idol a Development Company Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that this review is for the purpose of giving the developer some preliminary direction on his; lay- out for this 224-unit condominXumc project prior to its upcoming -4- 11-18-80 w P.C. t _ Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission i t December 16, 1980 Page 13 6. '111 access rights along Bolsa Chica except at the intersec- tion of the private drive shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter. , Greer, Schu- macher, Hauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11245/ttEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-56 Applicant: Mansion Prop re ties, Inc. (Cont. from 12-2-80) To permit a 29-lot subdivision of 2.8 acres of land located on the Past side of Lake Strset between Yorktown and Utica Avenues. Savoy Bellavia reported no further information to submit other than that contained in the staff report. Dave Eadie, representing the applicants, addressed the Commis- sion to urge approval of the mats. fie stated that in his opinion the ownership cf the railroad right-of-way is not an issue and that the findings for denial are not justified by fact, as there is no reference in the General Plan as to what width a bicycle trail should be and the 20 feet on the easterly side of the right-of-way should be more than adequate for that purpose. He also indicated that the finding of non-conformance because a portion of the right-of-way of Yorktown Avenue has not been vacated could he handled by a condition of approval. Commissioner Bannister concurred that the width cf the trail was not addressed in Lhe Bike Trails Implementation Plan and expressed concern that the Commission might appear to be denying a request on the basis of something that "may" occur in the future. I I Staff and the Commission dis::ussed the areas of rion-conformity, and Secretary Palin outlined the steps to be taken by the applicants to eliminate those non-conformities; and brie,., the proposed map into compliance_. ON MOTION BY XENE:FICK AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TENTATIVE TRACT No. 112,15 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, BY THE; FOLLOW- ING VOTE: 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: I . Pursuant to Section 66474 (a) of the Government Code, the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general. and specific plans insofar as the proposed alley is located on -13- 12-16-80 P.C. n Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission f December 16, 1980 Page 14 the former Pacific Electric Railroad right--of-way, which has been identified as a portion of the Phase II bicycle trail in the Bike Trail Implementation Plan approved by the City Council in March of 11078. 2. Pursuant to Section 66474 (b) of the Government Code, the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are not consistent with applicable general and specific plans, insofar as the pro- po3ed map identifies an alleyway to be constructed over an area that has been identified as part of the Phase II bike trails in the Bike Trail Implementation Plan approved by the City Council in March of 1978. 3. Pursuant to Section 66474 (g) of the Government Code, a portion of the proposed subdivision (Lots 28 and 29) is intended to be i developed over public casement of record as shown on Final Map, shown on Page 9, Book 13, of the Records in the County of Orange, which has not been formally abandoned by the City Council. Therefore, the improvement of this subdivision will conflict with said Existing public easement. AYES: Bannister, Henefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-17 Applicant: John A. 'Thomas To permit a change cf zone from MI--A-CD to t11-A--O--CD on . 33 acre of lane; loc=ited on the north side of Garfield Avenue approximately 200 feet east of Goldentiest Street. Savoy Bellavia noted that the staf" recommendation is the same on this request as it has been on prior similar requests - for a tabling a-ction to permit the Oil Committee to supply a recommendation for uniform addition or deletion of the "0" suffix on properties in the City. Conunissioner Greer asked if any ccmmiSsioner felt that he should not participate in this discussion; after informal poll, no commisaioner objected to Mr. i;reer's participation. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Thomas spoke in support: of his request, pointing out that the "0" suffix had been remove: --m this same prol.erty in 1973 when the Civic District designat-ion was added. lie also noted that he is asking for "0" designation on only a 15 by 60 foot parcel, rather than the whole site . fie explained that the well on the property had been operating under a temporary 90--day hermit and he has been cited -14- 12-16-80 - P.C. I i 'Oom CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK i IFebruary 3, 1981 Mansion 'Propertles, Inc. 2110 Main Street Huntington Bench, LA 92648 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, February 2, 1981 continued the public hearing on your appeal to the denial by the Planning Covinission of TT #11245 to the March 2, 1981 Council meeting. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Ip'W:CS:js Enclosure (Talwhow 71+420-ra227) '1 Superior C;ouri 4JrTM: STATE oFCALIFORNIA In:tnd for tile.t'ounl v of(Ira ngv CITY OF RUNTI14370N BEACHr CITY CLERK �r �' 1'ItnnFt►F•I;leltr,u',�•rinti I� PUBLIC HEARING IU45 wt>tinr tt�raw r� ti:ntro(('nlifnrni't 1 TL�WWO (••nintyof Orange :�ATSCE Ld KAilnt}t}tY{1J;►+t r Rita J. Richter 1. r el+t q �+t a Lx, w1�.rtticlr.r r.1.K'ta. That I nn and at all time,herein mentioned w•as it citirrn of oweel'A" P. K Aa as r tlth'WSAW Y P AI k M the I Inited Statl•s,o"rr the age of twenty-one y.ars,and that 1 �y.aw me,Y 0 f+brswN•Vol am rota patty to,nor inwrord in the Alone entittrli matter: tr �R 7aw&I Moaiiss*Mrs,4"J that I am the.principal clerk of the-priwer W the. to W ilk , fty"� ' wbliws's d+as+l/c,.Ppetattrr ! MAk a M1113 It :>t�ilriM tJt rcw Huntin'Iton Beach Independent Review OW t, wet i6119>K�. a nrw-oPaper of Rrneral eireelntuilt,pvbikh(A in the City of `.•T•.♦x:,;;rj*d.M*(j* %,- try Det"i0ec�sel t>Ff.t1P1F-.:,.•. Huntington Beath ekrrtpuc+„r, �k .ttl. r L Tokuea+t rl L►r+►x►srwy . �Ah 1lMIr1/Jd yy��A.1Y R7,blll�tA Ll County of Orange and which newspaper in published for the• 014 1.rM+�/ y+A ta4� ti1� du.emination of li al new+an,l intrilifrner:f a general chtrur• �4+IN i�'4t+++t+reJ Pvt• ter, and which ne•wx a H r at all times herrin mentionedl had ilftttMlrlt 1"r 1r ail""'6e�►' p 1 c'JDer.e1 1l1.eev rrA,t�•tafa two.,, ' ardstillha-iaNaisfide.ulncriplior:listo;pu:ingstutwcribers, �RnuA. Hnt'io>Jan,'tJtota ��aJ;4mx; AM which nea.tpaper has keen rstahlishrd, p*r0rd anei pub• l2a+d.t111J42~!,,;, r �'1A1Y'CeJklutrt��LY;t'IAt, =.J hshtd at reguletr intervals in the Said County o�Orange fora arHll! f7VChtYNFat. ' peri.xi rtceedin.- tine year, that thr notice. of which the Ur At"ifls!�lee.:rfliGRl d. :) annexed is a printed ropy, lum been publisheed in tb.' teaular f,1; tenc yl(7eta ;`� and entire b*ue of s•tid new-,apnper,and not-n any supplrtnrnt Nii.N.W 1 .S +d Re.+. thereof,on the follow'r•R date+,to wit; I January 95 1981 1,.1►^,�J ry I certif)'(or deriarr)under jwnalty of perj• y that the fo:rgo- inl:b trup sod corrrr 1. 7 {ftPIX, Garden Grove f'c>� Datedat................................ ... ('alifornia.thi/ �t liarY A 4....% `rA' r -� d� '; .signature � t 10 S reo Car-6118I a II 1 1S-�y Publishes 'IIly NOTICC OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO PC DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT d11245 NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that a Public hearing will be held by the City Council of Lhe City of Kin tington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of P.M. , or as soon thereafter as 1211 ;=sari.,/+P.Y possible on Monday' the +9W day of jz . 19-11j• for the purpose of considering an appeal to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission's denial of Tenta4ive Tract No. 11245, , request to subdivide a 2.8 acre site located on the east side of Lake Street between Yorktown and Utica Avenues into 29 parcels. The Council will also consider Ne^ative Declarat;on No. 83-96. A lega; description is on file in the Department of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to ettend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said appeal Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED_�}��=��. CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk r Publish 1 • Postcards WOKE OF I'QELIC IiWING ,, .+....i " L*) r HO'.CICE IS HEREBY GlVZZil that a public hearing will be held by the . •v o� CityCouncil of the Ci►. ,. Huntington Bergh in the Council 8 , Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of '70 P.M, , or as noon thereof ter as pose lble, on ���''�►�� f ttre )��.. c!a!! of January 19 81,, for the purpose of i considering, are appeal to the Huntington Feach Planning Comminsion's denial of '.entative Tract No. 112a5) a*ir��g.r�+►*e�"i�'u4-�xr��r-�-`�,�.. a request to subdivide a 2.8 acne site located on the east aide of Lake street between Yorktown and Utica Avenues into 29 parcels. `7'X , /NC ,' L �.JI ( ( At 7 J L,';.^ sa'_ �Fs1it�,..,,0 rri/h .•-�.. A'I.� ` I i I All Intereated porsore sre ikivitesd to attend said hearFng and appeal#te•- �rrrra. . r�-4it ��t, express their opininns for or maminat said Purthe.r informatim may koe abW ad from the Office of ti►e City Clovk. DATED: I CITY OF HUNTIHCI N BEACH BY: Alicia M. Wentwrth City Clark A T NOTICE: TO CLERY 1-0 SC111•:11lILl; PUIILIC HEARING ITEM T ( A TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE- A��.�� FROM: 1 %M(a zljx 6gcr•r i(WC S. PLEASE.SCHEDULE A I'UULIC IIFARIM USI14C THE AWACIIkiU LEGAL HUME FOR TM DAY OF 4 1P'a are attach.qyi, AP's will fallow Initleted by: PIanning Comiasion Planning Department ,'etition Other 1 Adopt.lon of Environmental Status (x) 1 YE lid Refor to ��,c ����/��., , 1'lanninp Department - Extenainn t1 sa 7 for jidditional infom.ation. i * If a11pc 1 , please transmit exact wording to br. required i1 Lite lei;cl" . 1 i Y I P.O. BOX 190 DEPARVAENTOF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA 92648 BUILDING DIVISION(714153"Z41 PLANNING DIVISION(7141 53ff271 TO: Honorable Mayor. and City Council ATTN: Frank B. Arguello, Acting City Administrator FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: March 2, 1981 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 140. 11245 i r The Departments of Public works and Development Services are requesting that the City Council continue Tentative Tract 11245 fol: 30 days to allow the two departments to work with County staff on widths and types of uses of the Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way adjacent to thiL proposed subdivision. f Attached is a letter from Mansion Properties concurring with this con- tinuance until your April 6, 1981 meeting. Respectfully submitted, atn Palin, Director JWP:df Attachment -A MANSION PROPERTIES, INC. 2110 MAIM STREET , HUNTINGTON REACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 (714)536.8917 O"I� 0.� ;�,'!.'� `>` ••G~+'' February 26, 1981 z TENTATIVE TRACT 11245 �' '4atj HAND DELIVERED ... Huntington Beach City- Council r 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: City Clerk Dear Mayor Bailey and City Council Members: We hereby consent to a continuance of Tentative Tract Map No. 11245 until your April 6, 1981 meeting. This additional time is needed to facilitate further dis- cussion of the :issues with both City and Transportation i` Commission staff personnel. i ?Since ly, EADIE Project Representative i� DATE;e cc: Mr. Jim Palin � i