HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal - General Plan Amendment 89-1 - GPA 89-1 - Zone Chang • CITY 4AF HUIVTIIMGTSIV BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
November 8, 1989
William M. Hall
34700 Coast Highway
Unit 203
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular
meeting held Monday, November 6, 1989 denied your appeal to
Planning Commission denial of Land Use Element Amendment No. 89-1
and Zone Change No. 89-2.
This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant
to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Prodedure of
the State of California, you have ninety days from November 8, 1989
to apply to the courts for judicial review.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
our office at 536-5227.
Connie Brockway, CMC
City Clerk
CB:bt
Enc.
CC: City Attorney
Development Services Director
(Telephone:714-536-5227)
FE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Gait Hutton, City Attorney From Connie Brockway, City Cte)Lk
Subject Item D-3 on 1116189 Agenda Date 11/7/k9
(Fo.e,P.ow-up pnocedune)
Ptease in4oxm me as t6 whetheA the appettant6 shoutd receive the
attached 90-day tetteA putusuant to City kmotutt.on No. 4123 adopted 3/79.
Thi.6 tettteA is usua t y .sent to peopte denied CUP'.5 on UP on mazzue ae pe lum.c,d
and .such.
A,6 this -us a LUE to GPA and Zone Case - shoutd. this tett-ta be tent. �
I must mail tW tetta by Fxiday Aso ptea�se te�spond " soon ass possibte.
Connie
0 d"041
r
C
/pro✓ � V-
1
Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds ncludinv public
notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County,
California. Number A-6214, dated 29 September. 1961- and
A-24831. dated 11 June. 1963.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Orange oYbK uouc. All"n'fM'0by I— Ntwowl, is so in I point
.41" 10 DEC&Cok~.test+
I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of d,
the County aforesaid, I•am over the age of eighteen
years, and not a party to or interested in the below lX
entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange
Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the
NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa,
County of Orange. State of California, and that a
Notice of Public Hearing
of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete
copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, PUBLIC NOTICE Enment5 --Analyzes en-
vironmental setting and sig- PUBLIC NOTICE
Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, NOTICE OF nificant impacts associated
PUBLIC HEARING with the proposed land use 536-5227
APPEAL OF amendment. Published Orange Coast
Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna PLANNING ZC 89-2-Change existing Daily Pilot October 26,1989.
1 time COMMISSION'S zoning from R1-FP2 (Low TH-868
Beach Issues of said newspaper for DENIAL OF Density Residential- _
GENERAL PLAN Floodplain District 2)to R2-
consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of AMENDMENT FP2 (Medium Density Resi-
NO.89-1 AND dent ial-Floodplain District 2)
ZONECHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL
NO.89-2 STATUS:This project is cov-
CONCURRENT WITH ered by Environmental Im-
THE PROJECT IS pact Report No. 89-5. Prior
October 26 t98 9 ENVIRONMENTAL to any action on General
IMPACT Plan Amendment No. 89-1
REPORT NO.89-5 or Zone Change No.89-2.it
NOTICE IS HEREBY is necessary for the City.
198 GIVEN that the Huntington Council to act on En-
Beach City Council will hold vironmental Impact Report
a public hearing in the Coun- No.89-5.
cil Chamber at the Hunt- ON FILE: A copy of the
198 ington Beach Civic Center, proposed request in on file
2000 Main Street. Hunt- in the City Clerk's Office,
ington Beach,California,on 2000 Main Street, Hunt-
the date and at the time in-.ington Beach. California
dicated below to receive and 92648,for inspection by the
198 consider the statements of public.
all persons who wish to be ON FILE: A copy of the
heard relative to the appli- proposed request is on file in
cation described below. the City Clerk's Office,2000
198 DATE/TIME:Monday,No- Main Street, Huntington
vember 6, 1989,7:00 PM Beach,California 92648,for
APPLICATION NUMBER: inspection by the public. A
Appeal of Planning Com- copy of the staff report will
mission's Denial of General be available to interested
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the Plan Amendment No. 89-1 parties at City Hall or the
and Zone Change No.89-2. Main City Library (7111
foregoing Is true and correct. Concurrent with the project Talbert Avenue).
is Environmental Impact Re- ALL INTERESTED PER-
port No.89-5. SONS are invited to attend
A P P L I - said hearing and express
CANT/APPELLANT: Hall opinions or submit evidence
Executed on October 26 198 9 and Associates for or against the application
LOCATION: Southeast as outlined above. If there
at Costa Mesa, California. corner of Garfield Avenue fare any further questions
and cushard Street. please call Mike Connor.As-
ZONE: R1-FP2(Low Den-,sociale Planner at 536-5271.
` sity Residential-Floodplain Connie Brockway
District2) City Clerk
Signature REQUEST: GPA 89-1
Change existing land use;
designation from Low Densi-
ty Residential(6.5 units per
acre) to Medium Density
Residential (15 units per
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
REQUES t FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date November 6, 1989
c x 89 - .z � .L
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by: Paul Cook, City Administrator
Prepared by: Mike Adams, Director, Community Developme t
4
Subject: APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 89-1 AND ZONE CHANGE NO.
89-2; DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-5 IS
BEING PROCESSED CONCURRENTLY
Consistent with Council Policy? j Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
' s
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative.Actions, Attachments:.,
STATEMENT OF ISSUE'
i
Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Hall and
Associates, applicant, to the Planning Commission' s denial of Land -'
Use Element Amendment No. 89-1 and Zone Change No. 89-2 relativ,'e: td
a 2 . 56 gross acreage site at the southeast corner of Bushard Street
and Garfield Avenue. The request is to amend the Land Use Element
of the General Plan from Low Density Residential (maximum 7u/gac) to
Medium Density Residential (maximum 15u/gac) and change the zoning
from R1-FP2, (Single Family Residential) to R2-FP2 (Medium Density
Residential) . Draft Environmental Impact Report No . 89-5 was
certified as adequate by the Planning Commission and is being
forwarded for concurrent action by the City Council .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning Commission Recommendation and Action on September 19 , 1a989 :
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY LEIPZIG TO ADOPT AND CERTIFY ` -'m-
AS ADEQUATE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-5 AND FORWARD '
IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR ADOPTION AND CERTIFICATION WITH :X�,��'
FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Shomaker, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega,
Mountford, Leipzig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-5 :
1. Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 89-5 has been completed
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act as
amended June 1986 and all State and local guidelines .
P1 0 5/85
2 . Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 89-5 adequately
addresses the potential environmental impacts that may be
associated with Land Use Element Amendment No. 89-1 and Zone
Change No. 89-2 and is found to be certifiable.
3 . Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 89-5 was presented to
the Planning Commission for review and consideration of the
information contained in the final environmental impact report
prior to approving the project.
4 . Findings and Facts in Support of Findings have been made for
all significant effects identified in Draft Environmental
Impact Report No. 89-5 .
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO DENY LAND USE
ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 89-1 FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; AND DENY ZONE CHANGE NO. 89-2 FROM R1-FP2 TO
R2-FP2 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig
NOES: Shomaker, Kirkland
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONE CHANGE NO, 89-1:
1. The proposed zone change from R1-FP2 (Low Density Residential-
Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium Density
Residential-Floodplain District 2) would be incompatible with
adjacent and nearby land uses since access to the subject
parcel would be taken solely from streets serving the
adjoining properties .
2 . The proposed zone change from R1-FP2 (Low Density Residential-
Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium Densi :y
Residential-Floodplain District 2) would signi _icantly
increase the amount of traffic originally antiA pated for the
existing residential streets .
3 . The proposed zone change from R1-FP2 (Low Density Residential-
Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium Density
Residential-Floodplain District 2) would severe:ly impact the
amount of on-street parking available to existing residences .
4 . The proposed zone change from R'l-FP2 (Low Density Residential-
Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium Densi-:y
Residential-Floodplain District 2) would subje(:t six units to
noise levels of Ldn 45 or greater due to insuf:"icient setbacks
and other mitigation measures .
RCA 11/6/89 -2- (3934d)
5. The proposed zone change from R1-FP2 (Low Density Residential-
Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium Density
Residential-Floodplain District 2) would facilitate designs
aesthetically incompatible with the surrounding residential
areas in regards to density, height, setbacks, landscaping and
flood mitigation.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning
Commission' s decision by certifying Draft Environmental Impact
Report No. 89-5 and denying General Plan Land Use Element Amendment
No . 89-1 and Zone Change No. 89-2 with findings .
ANALYSIS:
The request is to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and
zoning designation with related environmental impact studies on
approximately 2 . 56 gross acres of land at the southeast corner of
Bushard Street and Garfield Avenue from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential for a planned development. Analysis and
impacts of the request are discussed in the attached report entitled
Land Use Element Amendment No. 89-1 and Environmental Impact Report
No. 89-5 dated July 6, 1989 . Five Development options including a
20, 000 square foot commercial/retail center are also analyzed.
Current land use and zoning for the site allow for ten (10) standard
6, 000 square foot lots for single family home development on a
cul-de-sac street or thirteen (13) single family homes designed as a
planned residential development. The applicant ' s proposal for R2
(15u/gac) zoning would allow for up to 38 apartments or 30
condominiums . The applicant has proposed eighteen (18) detached
single family homes on 35 foot x 110 foot and 45 foot x 78 foot lots
along a private street as a planned residential development .
At their meeting on September 5, 1989, the Planning Commission
determined Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 89-5 adequate and
recommended certification by the City Council . In addition, the
Planning Commission denied Land Use Element Amendment No. 89-1 and
Zone Change No. 89-2 with findings . Related entitlements,
Conditional Use Permit No. 89-17, and Tentative Tract Map No. 14017
for development of a 18 unit detached single family residential
planned development were not considered by the Planning Commission
because without approval of LUE 89-1 and ZC 89-2, the proposal would
not conform with the existing land use and zoning designations for
the property.
Planning Commission and staff are recommending that Draft
Environmental Impact Report No. 89-5 be adopted and certified as
adequate, and that the City Council deny the proposed Land Use
Element Amendment as well as the Zone Change because a medium
density residential use would be incompatible with adjacent and
nearby single
RCA 11/6/89 -3- (3934d)
family residential land uses. This is due to the fact that access
to the site would be solely from a single family residential
neighborhood; several units (six) would be subject to noise levels
of Ldn 45 or greater due to insufficient setbacks from the
arterials; and the increased density of the site and lack of
additional on-street parking would cause additional on-street
parking on the adjoining single family residential neighborhood.
Since the approval of LUE 89-1 and ZC 89-2 would allow for 38
apartments to be constructed on the site and no 38 unit apartment
project has been submitted, staff feels that approval of the
applicant ' s proposal would not have addressed the aesthetic impacts
in a worst case scenario.
Alternative Action:
As an alternative to denial, a limited density zone change may be
considered. A maximum density of 7. 1 units per gross acre on a
medium density residential designation as well as a planned
development suffix (PD) could be imposed. The maximum density
restriction (7. 1) would limit the site to 18 apartments; the planned
development (PD) suffix would further reduce the project to 15 units
due to the adjusted gross acreage requirement for planned
developments . The PD suffix would also require greater open space
and other design standards which would be more harmonious with the
existing low density residential tract adjacent to the project . The
reduction in density would allow for additional parking and open
space as well as a density more compatible with the surrounding land
uses .
It is important to note that if the staff alternative were approved,
a future zone change could be proposed to remove both the maximum
density limitation as well as the planned development designation
without requiring a land use element amendment or environmental
impact report . The land use designation would be for medium density
residential and the option of a 38 unit apartment complex has been
covered under Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 89-5 .
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The environmental impact report discusses impacts in the areas of
land use compatibility, traffic/circulation, housing, public
services and utilities, noise, light and glare, aesthetics, seismic,
soils and geology, flooding and economic considerations . The
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal are
addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives .
Significant Impacts :
There are a number of significant impacts related to the applicant ' s
proposal which would be incompatible with the surrounding areas and
could not be reduced to a level of insignificance:
RCA 11/6/89 -4- (3934d)
Land Use•
Approval of Land Use Element Amendment No. 89-1 based upon the
applicant ' s 18 unit proposal would nearly double (80 percent
increase) the number of units allowed within an otherwise low
density neighborhood.
Traffic Circulation:
The subject property is bordered to the south and east by
Tract 4852. When Tentative Tract 4744 (of which Tract 4852 is a
part) , was approved it was clearly intended for Albacore Drive to
eventually continue onto the subject property as a continuation of
the subdivision and terminate in a cul-de-sac with ten standard
60 foot x 100 foot single family lots.
The applicant ' s proposal is for 18 single family homes arranged
around a private hammer-head street . The lot sizes range from
35 feet x 109 feet to 45 feet x 78 feet. As such, the proposal is
projected to generate approximately 80 more vehicle trips per day on
the existing portion of Albacore Drive than the standard 10-lot
subdivision. In addition, because the applicant proposes a reduced
width private street in conjunction with narrow lots, no parking
would be provided on-street thus, eliminating all guest parking.
Visitors to residents in the project would be forced to park in
front of existing homes on Albacore Drive, thereby eliminating their
guest parking.
None of the proposed alternatives would have a significant .adverse
impact on the Level of Service of the adjacent arterials .
Noise:
The applicant' s request places 6 units adjacent to Bushard Avenue
with only 10 to 13 foot setbacks. Special mitigation measures such
as unit modification, additional building setbacks, walls, berming
and/or landscaping would need to be employed to reduce this noise
exposure and guarantee acceptable noise levels of less than Ldn 45 .
Aesthetics :
All properties abutting and near the subject parcel are single
family homes, one story in height constructed prior to the National
Flood Insurance Program requirements were implemented. The
properties are 60 feet wide with front driveways approximately
20 feet in width leaving front yards 20 to 30 feet deep by 35 feet
wide with a 10 foot wide landscaped parkway (5 foot sidewalk plus
5 foot landscaping) running along the street. The total public
right-of-way is 60 feet wide (40 foot wide street plus a 10 foot
parkway on each side) .
The applicant proposes a private 40 foot wide street with no
sidewalks or parkway, lot widths of 35 to 45 feet to allow for an
additional 8 units and front entry driveways set back 20-25 feet x
20 feet wide. Front yards are then reduced to 10 feet wide in most
RCA 11/6/89 -5- (3934d)
cases . No parkways or sidewalks are proposed. Floor plans include
2-1/2 story homes placed on a pad elevated 3 feet to meet floodplain
requirements making a total height of 36 feet above the existing
grade.
No second story setbacks or building variation are provided. The
cumulative impact of architectural style, lot size, street design,
floodplain requirements, density and building height make the
project aesthetically incompatible with the surrounding area.
Flood Mitigation:
As mentioned earlier, the site lies within flood zone AO Depth 3 as
determined by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) effective
September 15, 1989 . As a requirement of the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) , all habitable (living) areas must be
elevated with the lowest part of the lowest structural member of the
lowest floor constructed at or above the base flood elevation. As a
result, the lowest floor for all homes in the project will be
approximately 3 feet higher than the existing homes in the
surrounding area. Since this is a Federal requirement, no exception
can be made for residential projects .
The conclusion of the environmental impact report is that these
significant impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance if
the number of units are limited to 15 for the site.
FUNDING SOURCE'
Not applicable
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The City Council may approve the General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change with a density limit for 15 units (Alternative 1 - Staff
Alternative) based upon the EIR conclusions, or approve the General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the applicant ' s request which
would allow for up to 38 apartments or 30 condominiums (Alternative
2 - Applicant ' s Request) .
A. Alternative 1 - Staff Alternative
1. Adopt and certify as adequate Draft Environmental Impact
Report No. 89-5 with findings; and
2 . Approve Land Use Element Amendment No. 89-1 by adopting
Resolution No. kW; and
3 . Approve Zone Change No. 89-2 from R1-FP2 (Low Density
Residential- Floodplain District 2) to R2-(7. 1)-PD-FP2
(Medium Density Residential-maximum density 7. 1 units per
gross acre-Planned Development-Floodplain District 2) with
, findings by adopting Ordinance No . 30a3.
RCA 11/6/89 -6- (3934d)
B. Alternative 2 - Applicant ' s Proposal :
1. Adopt and certify Draft Environmental Impact Report No.
89-5 with findings;
2. Approve Land Use Element Amendment No. 89-1 by adopting
Resolution No. 608.3, and;
3 . Approve Zone Change No. 89-2 from R1-FP2 (Low Density
Residential-Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium
Density Residential-Floodplain District 2) with findings
by adopting Ordinance No. Z O 3 .
Attachments :
1. Appeal letter
2 . Resolution No. 6 0S3
3 . Ordinance No. 3 od-
4 . Staff Report - September 5, 1989
5 . Land Use Element Amendment No. 89-1/Environmental Impact
Report No. 89-5 dated July 6, 1989
6. Subdivision Committee Meeting Minutes dated August 2, 1989
7. Subdivision Committee Meeting Minutes dated August 9, 1989
8 . Environmental Board Letter dated August 3, 1989
MA:SH: lab
I
RCA 11/6/89 -7- (3934d)
•ntin ton beach de artmenf community development
9 P Y
sTA f f
REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: September 19 , 1989
SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-5, LAND USE
ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 89-1 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 89-2
APPLICANT: Hall and Associates DATE ACCEPTED:
2717 South E1 Camino Real September 7, 1989
San Clemente, CA 92672
MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE:
PROPERTY William Lamb September 7, 1990
OWNER: HC 60 Box 1050
Bliss, Idaho 83314 ZONE: R1-FP2 (Low Density-
Floodplain District 2)
REQUEST: GPA: Change existing land
use designation from Low
Density Residential (6 . 5 GENERAL PLAN: Low Density
units per acre) to Medium Residential
Density Residential (15
units per acre) . EXISTING USE: Vacant
EIR: Analyzes environ-
mental setting and signi- LOCATION: Southeast corner
ficant impacts associated of Garfield Avenue and
with the proposed land use Bushard Street
amendment.
ZC: Change existing zoning ACREAGE: 2 . 56 gross acres
from R1-FP2 (Low Density 2 . 04 adjusted gross acres
Residential-Floodplain
District 2) to R2-FP2
(Medium Density Resi-
dential-Floodplain
District 2)
1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
(A) Adopt and certify . as adequate Draft Environmental Impact Report
No . 89-5 and forward it to the City Council for their adoption
and certification with findings; and
(B) Deny Land Use Element Amendment No . 89-1 from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential; and
(C) Deny Zone Change No. 89-2 from' Rl-FP2 (Low Density Residential-
Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium Density
Residential-Floodplain District 2) with findings .
C - cp Pt
A-F M-23C
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
The request is to make necessary land use and zoning changes with
related Environmental Impact Studies to allow for an increase in
density from low density residential to medium density residential
for a planned development on approximately 2 . 56 gross acres of land
at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bushard Street and
Garfield Avenue. These changes would permit an increase of
approximately eight residential units . Current land use and zoning
allow for 10 standard 60 foot x 100 foot single family homes on a
cul-de-sac street . The applicant ' s proposal is for eighteen single
family homes on 35 foot x 110 foot and 45 foot x 78 foot lots along
a private street . A zoning designation of R2 (Medium Density) would
allow approximately 38 apartments to be constructed on this site .
An R1-PD (Low Density Residential-Planned Development) zoning
designation would allow for 13 single family homes . Draft
Environmental Impact Report No . 89-5 analyzes the potential impacts
of all of these options as well as a 20 , 000 square foot
commercial/retail center .
Staff is recommending that Draft Environmental Impact Report No .
89-5 be certified as adquate, and that the Planning Commission deny
Land Use Element Amendment No . 89-1 and Zone Change No . 89-2 . As an
alterntive to denial, staff is proposing that Zone Change No . 89=2
place a maximum density of 7 .4 units per gross acre on a medium
density residential designation as well as a planned development
suffix (PD) . The maximum density restriction (7.4) would limit the
project to 18 apartments . The planned development (PD) suffix would
further reduce the project to 15 units due to the adjusted gross
acreage of the requirement for planned developments . The PD suffix
would also require greater open space and other design standards
which would be more harmonious with the existing low density
residential tract adjacent to the tract .
It is important to note that if the staff alternative were approved
at a later date, an additional zone change could be proposed to
remove the maximum density restriction as well as the planned
development restriction without requiring a land use element
amendment or environmental impact report, since the land use
designation would be for medium density residential and the option
of a 38 unit apartment complex has been covered under Draft
Environmental Impact Report No. 89-5 .
The applicant ' s proposal, Alternative 2 , would establish land use
and zoning designations to allow for 38 apartments on the subject
parcel .
Staff Report - 9/19/89 -2- (3640d)
• •
California Environmental Ouality Act Process:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ,
Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 89-5 (DEIR 89-5) was prepared
to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed Land Use Element
Amendment No . 89-1 and Zone Change No. 89-2 . The requisite
procedure that was followed is outlined below:
1 . Notice of Preparation posted, advertised and circulated May 26,
1989 .
2 . Notice of Completion of DEIR 89-5 posted, advertised and
circulated July 6, 1989 .
3 . DEIR 89-5 available for public review and comment July 6, 1989 ,
through August 4, 1989 .
4 . Copies of DEIR 89-5 are forwarded to Planning Commission July
11, 1989 .
5 . No comments were received from either State, local agencies or
other City departments . One letter of opposition to the
increased density was received from the Huntington Beach
Environmental Board. A copy of this letter is attached for
review by the Planning Commission for the September 19 , 1989
meeting.
3 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 89-5 was prepared by Planning
staff to analyze potentially significant impacts of the Land Use
Element Amendment and Zone Change request. DEIR 89-5 must be
adopted and certified prior to any action on Land Use Element
Amendment No . 89-1 which must be acted on prior to any action on
Zone Change No. 89-2 .
The environmental impact report discusses impacts in the areas of
land use compatibility, traffic/circulation, housing, public
services and utilities, noise, light and glare, aesthetics, seismic,
soils and geology, flooding and economic considerations . The
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal are
addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives .
Unavoidable Significant Impacts:
There are a number of unavoidable significant impacts related to the
applicant ' s proposal which would be incompatible with the
surrounding areas and could not be reduced to a level of
insignificance:
Staff Report - 9/19/89 -3- (3640d)
Land Use:
Approval of Land Use Element Amendment No. 89-1 would nearly double
(80 percent increase) the number of units allowed within an
otherwise low density neighborhood.
Traffic Circulation:
The subject property is bordered to the south and east by
Tract 4852 . When Tentative Tract 4744 (of which Tract 4852 is a
part) , was approved it was clearly intended for Albacore Drive to
eventually continue onto the subject property as a continuation of
the subdivision and terminate in a cul-de-sac with ten standard
60 foot x 100 foot single family lots .
The applicant ' s proposal is for 18 single family homes arranged
around a private hammer-head street . The lot sizes range from
35 feet x 109 feet to 45 feet x 78 feet . As such the propsal is
projected to generate approximately 80 more vehicle trips per day on
the existing portion of Albacore Drive than the standard 10-lot
subdivision would. In addition, because the applicant proposes a
reduced width private street in conjunction with narrow lots, no
parking would be provided on-street thus eliminating all guest
parking . Visitors to residents in the project would be forced to
park in front of existing homes on Albacore Drive, thereby
eliminating their guest parking .
None of the proposed alternatives would have a significant adverse
impact on the Level of Service of the adjacent arterials .
Noise'
The applicant ' s request places 6 units adjacent to Bushard Avenue
with only 10 to 13 foot setbacks . Special mitigation mesures such
as unit modification, additional building setbacks, walls, berming
and/or landscaping would need to be employed to reduce this noise
exposure and guarantee acceptable noise levels of less than Ldn 45 . .
Aesthetics :
All properties abutting and near the subject parcel are single
family homes, one story in height constructed prior to the National
Flood Insurance Program requirements were implemented. The
properties are 60 feet wide with front driveways approximately
20 feet in width leaving front yards 20 to 30 feet deep by 35 feet
wide with a 10 foot wide landscaped parkway (5 foot sidewalk plus
5 foot landscaping) running along the street . The total public
right-of-way is 60 feet wide (40 foot wide street plus a 10 foot
parkway on each side) .
Staff Report - 9/19/89 -4- (3640d)
The applicant proposes a private 40 foot wide street with no
sidewalks or parkway, lot widths of 35 to 45 feet to allow for an
additional 8 units and front entry driveways set back 20-25 feet x
20 feet wide. Front yards are then reduced to 10 feet wide in most
cases . No parkways or sidewalks are proposed. Floor plans include
2-1/2 story homes placed on a pad elevated 3 feet to meet floodplain
requirements making a total height of 36 feet above the existing
grade.
No second story setbacks or building variation are provided. The
cumulative impact of architectural style, lot size, street design,
floodplain requirements, density and building height make the
project aesthetically incompatible with the surrounding area .
Flood Mitigation:
As mentioned earlier, the site lies within flood zone AO Depth 3 as
determined by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) effective
September 15, 1989 . As a requirement of the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) , all habitable ( living) areas must be
elevated with the lowest part of the lowest structural member of the
lowest floor constructed at or above the base flood elevation. As a
result, the lowest floor for all homes in the project will be
approximately 3 feet higher than the existing homes in the
surrounding area . Since this is a. Federal requirement, no exception
can be made for residential projects .
4 . 0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take three separate
actions :
(A) Adopt and certify as adequate Draft Environmental Impact Report
No . 89-5 and forward it to the City Council for their adoption
and certification with the following findings; and
(B) Deny Land Use Element Amendment No. 89-1 from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential; and
(C) Deny Zone Change No. 89-2 from R1-FP2 (Low Density Residential-
Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium Density
Residential-Floodplain District 2) with the following findings .
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-5 :
1. Draft Environmental Impact Report No . 89-5 has been completed
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act as
amended June 1986 and all State and local guidelines therefore.
2 . Draft Environmental Impact Report No . 89-5 adequately addresses
the potential environmental impacts that may be associated with
Land Use Element Amendment No. 89-1 and Code Amendment No . 89-2
and is found to be certifiable.
Staff Report - 9/19/89 -5- (3640d)
3 . Draft Environmental Impact Report No . 89-5 was presented to the
Planning Commission for review and consideration the
information contained in the final environmental impact report
prior to approving the project .
4 . Findings and Facts in Support of Findings have been made for
all significant effects identified in Draft Environmental
Impact Report No. 89-5 .
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONE CHANGE NO. 89-1:
1 . The proposed zone change from R1-FP2 (Low Density Residential-
Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium Density
Residential-Floodplain District 2) would be incompatible with
adjacent and nearby land uses since access to the subject
parcel would be taken solely from streets serving the adjoining
properties .
2 . The proposed zone change from R1-FP2 (Low Density Residential-
Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium Density
Residential-Floodplain District 2) would significantly increase
the amount of traffic originally anticipated for the existing
residential streets .
3 . The proposed zone change from Rl-FP2 (Low Density Residential-
Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium Density
Residential-Floodplain District 2) would severely impact the
amount of on-street parking available to existing residences .
4 . The proposed zone change from R1-FP2 (Low Density Residential-
Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium Density
Residential-Floodplain District 2) would subject six units to
noise levels of Ldn 45 or greater due to insufficient setbacks
and other mitigation measures .
5 . The proposed zone change from R1-FP2 (Low Density Residential-
Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium Density
Residential-Floodplain District 2) would facilitate designs
aesthetically incompatible with the surrounding residential
areas in regards to density, height, setbacks, landscaping and
flood mitigation.
5 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The Planning Commmission may choose one of the following
alternatives :
Alternative 1 - Staff Alternative
A. Adopt and certify as adequate Draft Environmental Impact Report
No . 89-5 and forward it to the City Council for their adoption
and certification with findings .
B. Approve Land Use Element Amendment No . 89-1 .
Staff Report - 9/19/89 -6- (3640d)
C. Approve Zone Change No. 89-2 from R1-FP2 (Low Density
Residential- Floodplain District 2) to R2-(7.4)-PD-FP2 (Medium
Density Residential-maximum density 7 .4 units per gross
acre-Planned Development-Floodplain District 2) with findings .
Alternative 2 - Applicant ' s Proposal :
A. Adopt and certify as adequate Draft Environmental Impact Report
No . 89-5 and forward to the City Council for their adoption and
certification with findings .
B. Approve Land Use Element Amendment No. 89-1 .
C. Approve Zone Change No . 89-2 from R1-FP2 (Low Density
Residential-Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium Density
Residential-Floodplain District 2) with findings .
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Area map
2 . Draft Environmental Impact Report No . 89-5
3 . Letter from the Huntington Beach Environmental Board
4 . Planning Commission Resolution No. 1420
5 . Draft Ordinance No .
6 . Draft Resolution No.
HS:MJC: kla
Staff Report - 9/19/89 -7- (3640d)
i
_ { ' 1411111
j--IY�'
_H—I ` Illil ! III
I'I I I I I I I I I I
—,J t o +.e
GARFIELD�l 1 l e i I I ' TlTm
I II I I I IAV�.I
J .:..-.....
' 5R!1
� _ :a.+z ., R I e(:��:N R I RA I
/ I -gA_.•
_. a R I ALBACORE Da IRI RI RIRI ;RI! 1 dRIO ^C 2 " BASS DR. RI MH •g _ `R 3DR. y _ R
RI RI 4 RI RI � C2
� I Q RI _ a
RI to VELAPDO _QR VELARDO _~ DR.
RI �
a
0. C. F. C. D. :y
106o :oo IA co
o
np .......... ....................... .................•----...Q�..p.�.= Zee
,[
KREPP UR. J FLOUNDER DR
r
RI
W� = '
u ._RONNE
CF-E _ "
T OR. P LACK OR
.RI. raLBEaT s_ RI-,.::I RIu
RI RI RI RI J RI R I I" ..DLAI�EC _ SAILFISH' — DR, MH
RI RI'
ea,OUN 'I MEN ZTARP
RI o RI ff
t o+ W ' u DR. 3 RI RI RI RI R;
GRAND
A, s LFI FAIR : :• _C4 a
IRK TOWN ' : � AVE. w •—�
R I $ R I ��— RI •D RI
VERONICA t OR GREENWICH DR. + � •I:(:CCI e j IMIXma OR
%I RI (, V RI aRIJ RI RI F RI Ri ' I t::KA :HDc;.I RI
F-
eurf)9-17,T-TMo PORTSMOUTMDalloa[— JRII ycc
RI RI RI = RI �x. CF-E RI 5NANTVCKET
14017
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDMENT 89-1
Environmental Impact Report 89-5
huntington beach planning department
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-5
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 8 9-2
PREPARED BY:
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
JULY 6, 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 . 0 INTRODUCTION 1
1 . 1 Methodology 1
2 . 0 AREA OF CONCERN 3
2 . 1 Southeast Corner of Garfield Avenue and
Bushard Street 3
2 . 1 . 1- Background 3
2 . 1 .2 Analysis 5
2 . 1 . 3 Traffic and Circulation 7
2 . 1 .4 Housing 9
2 . 1 . 5 Public Services and Utilities 9
2 . 1 . 6 Environmental Issues 11
2 . 1 . 7 Economic Considerations 13
2 . 1 . 8 Recommendation 13
3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 15
3 . 1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 15`
3 .2 Irreversible Environmental Changes 16
3 . 3 Growth Inducing Impacts 16
GPA No . 89-1 -ii- (3048d)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report concerns Amendment No . 89-1 to the Land Use Element of
the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element was adopted
as a mandated element of the General Plan in December, 1973 ; this is
the thirty-fourth amendment to the element . Planned land uses
throughout the City are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagram.
1 . 1 METHODOLOGY
This amendment concerns a change in General Plan designation on one
site (Figure 1-1) . Section 15166 of the State Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) Guidelines states that "The requirements for an EIR on
a local General Plan Element or amendment thereof will be satisfied
by the general plan or element document and no separate EIR will be
required if : (1) the General Plan addresses all the points required
to be in an EIR by Article 9 of the State EIR Guidelines, and
(2) the document contains a special section or a cover sheet
identifying where the general plan document addresses each of the
points required. " In conformance with State guidelines , this
document will constitute the EIR for Land Use Element Amendment
No . 89-1 . The environmental setting and significant impacts
associated with the issue areas identified in the initial study are
addressed under Areas . of Concern (Sections 2 . 1 through 2 . 7) .
Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures
to minimize significant effects are also discussed in this section.
Section 3 . 0 addresses. overall environmental changes related to the
following considerations : (1) the relationship between local
short-term productivity; (2) irreversible or unavoidable
environmental changes ; and (3) growth inducing impacts .
FIGURE 1-1
AREA MAP AND PRESENT ZONING DESIGNATION
WCIE FREE
B�FEq
L I A�Vll
GARRE D
_J
OF T—T.1 BE—
RI RI
S. C.
c%j R 11 ALBACORE DR
? /_/ 4 R
RI 2"RI RI RI RI R 1:
0
U)
C 2 BASS DR.
Or
RI 12 M H
L—ITCHFIEL OR
CR R I Rt j
k RI L C2
R3 R I z
0
R I
RI
R I Ri
0 C.C. 1060 zoo j
---- ------- --L.,
Al'my R RA
RI
...... ----------- 'C3 1260
R------------ ----------------2-E---- ------------------------- [p 2
KREPP DR. J FLOUNDER OR
RI
CF—E RONNEY POLLACK DR IJ
2�
RI �Rl R I R I
I RI RI RI RI R I i i MH
TR
ONN'
_lE
SAILFISH DR LANE
A R I
E
a C LL TARPON OR.
R!
R I
3 R 11111 R I R I R R;
DR. 3: 2
OR �GRAND RI ti )IA- C4
R I
�R I
=1 $c_ pi - __ i
)RKTOWN AVE.
RI RI 2i
L RI RI CR
DR. DR. IELAF IE:: C
RI XO F Rl R; RI
VERONICA GREENWICH ;y
R I'o RI CR
.AAIIEL. OR.
.PORTSMOUTH DR. —E _�R
R I CF-E RI
RI 'F�T�R I RI
NANTUCKET .00:__
V
RI CF-R RI
R I
D WARBURTON R u�
w HYANNIS PORT DR C0.11-110. OR,
RI RI RI
R I
FCF-C gRl
REc.Rl
RI
�LCA_PE COD DR. ICI.A. OR D I
D hCRTF.M UNE SE 1/4 Na SEC 610
z
CF-E F 1p RG R2
—w GROTON DR R3 R3 R3 kF��.3Jj R3
R2
R3 .......
NE ER R C.—--'4f
1320! To q Re
R I k E .
R3 R3 R3?
. 1� -
r�7 . .3
RI RI RI RI RI Ri R3 [R3 RjR3 I. R3 R3
TTYSBURG DR
RI
R I I al
I . i . 1 7 . 0
.-i D
3
3 _h R 3%
0
CRAW FORD�DC R R3 R
rR�
C4 V: .. - I.1
GPA No . 89-1 -2- (3048d)
2. 0 AREA OF CONCERN
2 . 1 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GARFIELD AVENUE AND BUSHARD STREET
2 . 1. 1 Background
The area of concern addressed by Land Use Element Amendment No . 89-1
is a 2 . 56 acre parcel located on the southeast corner of Garfield
Avenue and Bushard Street . The property is currently designated for
Low Density Residential (Figure 2-1) in the City' s Land Use Element .
The current zoning on the property is Rl-FP2 . The R1 zoning permits
single family residential construction and the FP2 suffix requires
that ' the project be constructed in compliance with the City' s
floodplain development standards . The flood depth on the site is
three feet above adjacent grade and new construction must be
elevated with the bottom of the lowest structural member of the
lowest habitable floor above that elevation.
On April 14 , 1989 , the applicant, Hall and Associates , filed a
request for Land Use Element Amendment on the property for a change
to Medium Density Residential . This request was filed concurrently
with Zone Change No . 89-2 a request to change the zoning designation
from R1 (Low Density Residential) to R2 (Medium Density Residential)
and with Conditional Use Permit No. 89-17 and Tentative Tract No .
14017 for 18 single family units on 35 foot wide lots . The four
applications are covered by EIR No . 89-5 and are being processed
concurrently.
GPA No . 89-1 -3- (3048d)
^fit;"j/ j���� %� • ••
r
see
- . - ••
I' ll�� �- , � •
EMS
PIC ma
The applicant has requested to construct 18 single family detached
homes on the site at a density of 7 . 1 units per gross acre. The
existing Low Density land use designation would allow 13 attached
dwelling units at a maximum 6 . 5 units per gross acre, or 10 single
family detached units on 6 , 000 square foot lots .
The following analysis will examine four alternative land use
scenarios in addition to the existing General Plan of Low Density.
The alternative land use designations are as follows :
( 1) Low Density Residential - 10 single family detached units
(existing General Plan designation)
(2) Low Density Residential - 13 single family attached units
(existing General Plan designation Planned Development)
(3) Medium Density Residential - 18 single family detached units
(applicant ' s request)
(4) Medium Density Residential - 37 apartments (maximum allowable
under Medium Density Residential)
(5) General Commercial - 20, 000 square foot convenience market
The analysis of alternatives will focus on land use compatibility
issues , traffic and parking issues, aesthetics, noise issues,
geologic and soil issues , light and glare issues, as well as the
provision of public. services .
2 . 1 . 2 Analysis
2 . 1 . 2 . 1 Land Use
The study area is located in an area that is largely typified by low
density residential development . The only adjacent areas that
differ from this land use pattern. are the small convenience oriented
shopping centers which lie directly across Bushard Street to the
west and across Garfield Street to the north. The shopping center
to the west was constructed in 1984 after General Plan Amendment No .
84-1 was approved for a change from Low Density Residential to
General Commercial . That center is 2 .21 gross acres in size and
contains 19 , 940 . square feet of commercial space. The principle
tenant is a 7-11 convenience market . The 2 . 5 gross acres shopping
center across Garfield Street to the north is actually located in
Fountain Valley.- That center has been in existence for a number of
years .
Immediately to the south and east of the study area are single
family subdivisions which were constructed in 1963 . The homes are
zoned R1 and are designated Low Density Residential in the City' s
General Plan. The majority of the homes are single. story units with
6 , 000 square foot lots and 60 foot street frontages .
GPA No . 89-1 -5- (3048d)
The subject property is zoned R1-FP2 and General Planned Low Density
Residential . It has been utilized for farming purposes for many
years . One single family residence located on the property will
need to be demolished to make way for new development . when the
subdivision to the east (Tract 4852) was constructed in 1963 ,
Albacore Drive was stubbed out at the eastern study site property
boundary since the lot was not a part of the subdivision. Tentative
Tract No . 4744 , of which Final Tract No . 4852 is a part, indicates
that it was clearly intended for that street to eventually continue
onto the study site as a continuation of the subdivision. Up to _
this point in time, continuation of the subdivision has not occurred .
The applicant has requested to complete Albacore Drive as a private
hammerhead in a single family subdivision on the study site. Rather
than construct standard 6 , 000 square foot lots , however, the
applicant has requested to be permitted to create 35 foot lots .
This would allow 18 single family detached homes on the parcel , as
opposed to 10, 6 , 000 square foot lots with single family homes .
Since the applicant ' s request will slightly exceed the maximum
number of units allowable under Low Density Residential, a General
Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report are necessary.
Any of the residential land use alternatives on the study site will
impact the adjacent single story subdivisions in terms of building
height and aesthetics . This is due to the need for three feet of
grade elevation to comply with floodplain standards, and due to the
fact that any new residential construction could be anticipated to
be two stories in height . In order to minimize height impacts ,
zoning code standards pertaining to building setbacks , open space
and fencing should be strictly adhered to .
A positive aspect of residential development on the on the study
site is that easy access may be obtained from Albacore Drive to the
east . Residential development will allow Albacore to be continued
onto the study site where a proper cul-de-sac or hammerhead
turnaround can be constructed. At the same time, however,
additional residential traffic on Albacore may lead to concerns
related to parking and vehicle trip related impacts . Those impacts
will be addressed in the traffic portion of this analysis .
A commercial development on the study site would promote
compatibility with the convenience centers which exist immediately
across Bushard Street to the west and Garfield Avenue to the north.
A convenience market at this location would take advantage of the
visibility and easy access from the two adjacent arterial highways .
Given that shopping opportunities already exist on the two corners,
however, there is a concern that there may not be adequate market
demand for more commercial at that location. A commercial center on
the subject site would also not be able to promote the completion of
a cul-de-sac or hammerhead on Albacore Drive to the east and would
suggest possible negative impacts on the adjacent single family
homes in the form of increased noise from delivery trucks and
GPA No . 89-1 -6- (3048d)
customer traffic . Any commercial center in this location would need
to be designed to minimize delivery traffic at the back of the site
and would have to incorporate appropriate setbacks and landscape
screening as was done on the shopping center to the west .
2 . 1 . 3 Traffic and Circulation
The 'study area is located at the signalized intersection of Garfield
Avenue, a primary arterial with a capacity of 30 , 000 dai.ly vehicle
trips, and Bushard Street , a secondary arterial with a capacity of
20 , 000 daily vehicle trips . Existing traffic volumes total
approximately 18 , 900 daily trips on Bushard Street south of Garfield
Avenue, and approximately 18 , 200 daily trips north of Garfield
Avenue. These volumes place Bushard Street at Level of Service "C" ,
which is acceptable. Garfield Avenue presently conveys 17, 800 daily
trips west of Bushard Street and 1.2 , 000 daily trips east of Bushard
Street, placing it at a Level of Service "A" , which is excellent .
Access to any of the residential alternatives would need to be taken
exclusively from Albacore Drive. Albacore Drive is , in turn
accessed from Garfield Avenue by way of Bluefin Lane . Residential
access to the study area would then necessitate that vehicles drive
405 feet through the existing subdivision to the east . Due to the
small size of the study area and the small number of units that
could be constructed, it is not anticipated that any of the
residential alternatives will generate traffic that will exceed the
capacity of the local street which will be traversed. This is
particularly true since Albacore Drive west of Bluefin presently
serves only seven homes and consequently experiences very low
traffic volumes .
Any commercial development of the study area would be required to
obtain all access directly from Bushard Street and Garfield Avenue.
Public Works has indicated that driveways would need to be 'located
immediately adjacent to the driveways which exist in the shopping
centers across Garfield and Bushard in order to take advantage of
existing striped medians and turning pockets .
The following table indicates the traffic volumes which are
estimated to be generated by each of the land use alternatives :
Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation
(1) Low Density Residential 100 Daily Trips
(10 detached homes)
(2) Low Density Residential 130 Daily Trips
(13 attached homes)
(3) Medium Density Residential 180 Daily Trips
( 18 attached homes, applicant ' s request)
GPA No . 89-1 -7- (3048d)
Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation
(4) Medium Density Residential 259 Daily Trips
(37 apartments)
(5) Commercial 2, 600 Daily Trips
(20, 000 square feet)
As estimated above, none of the residential alternatives , when added
to existing traffic volumes on Garfield and Bushard, will generate
sufficient traffic to reduce levels of service on those arterials .
The Low Density Residential alternative and the applicant ' s request
are fairly similar in traffic impact on the local street system. A
project which is built out to the maximum density (37 units) allowed
under a Medium Density designation on. the site, however, will
generate considerably more traffic than the other two residential
alternatives . While this amount of traffic would not exceed the
capacity of Albacore Drive, the additional traffic would be
noticeable to the residents and could be deemed undesirable. Since
the commercial alternative raises certain street circulation and
access problems , a site plan showing proposed curb cuts and on-site
circulation would be subject to review and approval of the Public
Works Department .
Apart from daily trip generation, another traffic related impact is
that of vehicular parking . A typical single family subdivision with
60 foot lot frontages will allow considerable on-street parking in
conjunction with the two car enclosed garages on-site which are
required by code. The generous parking opportunities afforded by
standard 6 , 000 square foot lot subdivisions contributes greatly to
the Low Density "open" feel such subdivisions typically have. The
applicant, however, while he is proposing single family homes, is
also requesting that lot widths be reduced to 35 feet . Since his
design does not feature rear alley garages, all garage access will
need to be from the central local street . The result of this type
of design is to eliminate off-site parking opportunities . Given
that off-site (on-street) parking will not be available within the
new subdivision, it is possible that the existing residences on
Albacore Drive will be impacted by additional overflow on-street
parking of vehicles to the east of the study site.
In order to address the on-street parking issue, while still
considering the applicant ' s request for 18 housing units, it may be
desirable to examine the benefits of an attached unit project . An
18 unit attached housing project on the site would allow for a more
efficient use of land. , Rather than consuming large amounts of land
area in sideyard setbacks, that area could be consolidated into
common open space and common parking areas which would be in
addition to two-car garages for each unit . In order to eliminate
on-street parking impacts associated with an 18 unit project, an
attached unit design may therefore be necessary. This mitigation
should be implemented through the zoning, conditional use permit and
tentative tract process .
GPA No . 89-1 -8- (3048d)
2 . 1 .4 Housing
The City is presently in the process of preparing the five-year
update of its Housing Element . Among the policies identified in the
Draft Housing Element are those related to the provision of adequate
housing opportunities in various income categories . Housing
opportunities are to be promoted through various programs such as
the streamlriirig of zoning and development processing, inventorying
of available land, and the consideration of increasing allowable
densities on appropriate parcels of land. The applicant ' s request
for Medium Density Residential on the study area would be consistent
with draft housing policies for the provision of additional housing
opportunities in the City, though the request would only add five
additional homes beyond what the existing .General Plan would allow,
The fourth alternative for 37 units (maximum under Medium Density)
under a Planned Development scenario would provide the greatest
number of new housing opportunities (24 additional homes beyond Low
Density Planned Development) . The commercial alternatives would
service to eliminate housing opportunities in the City.
2 . 1 . 5 Public Services and Utilities
2 . 1. 5 . 1 Sewers
The study site is located within Orange County Sanitation District
Number 3 which is not experiencing any substantial service
constraints . Development of the subject property would require
connection to the 8-inch line which exists in Albacore. That line
in turn feeds into a 54-inch County trunk sewer which runs in
Bushard Street . The commercial alternative would require the
construction of an 8-inch line to the 54-inch County trunk line
which exists in Bushard Street or Garfield Avenue.
2 . 1 . 5 . 2 Water
Any of the residential alternatives would receive sufficient water
supply from the existing six-inch main in Albacore Drive., The
commercial alternative would require connection into either 12-inch
water main in Garfield Avenue or Bushard Street . It is important to
note, however that although Huntington Beach has never experienced
predicted peak hour demand, the current system is unable to meet
that demand. There are system-wide improvements which need to be
made in order to ensure the long-term acceptability of service.
Those planned improvements have been tentatively approved by the
City Council through their adoption of the Water Master Plan dated
June 1988 .
GPA No . 89-1 -9- (3048d)
2 . 1 . 5 . 3 Drainage
The Public Works Department has indicated that any of the
residential alternatives could be designed to drain onto Albacore
Drive, Garfield Avenue or Bushard Street . The commercial
alternative should be designed to drain to Bushard Street or
Garfield Avenue. Any grade elevation program for the site which
will be required to comply with the floodplain development
regulations should follow these drainage guidelines .
2 . 1 . 5 . 4 Parks
There are no neighborhood park facilities located within the subject
quartersection. The nearest park facilities are the 2 . 5 acre
Bushard Park site across Yorktown Avenue, one-half mile to the south
and 5 . 5 acre Talbert Park located one-half mile across Bushard
Street . Although there are no neighborhood parks within the
quartersection, the Recreation Element of the City' s General Plan
considers the study area to be adequately served by parks because of
the proximity of the two neighborhood parks identified.
2 . 1 . 5 . 5 Police and Fire Protection
Police service for the area of concern is .provided by the City of
Huntington Beach which operates from a central facility located at
Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. Police staffing is established by
the General Plan at one officer per thousand population. Because of
the small size of the study area, no additional staffing is
anticipated should the site develop under any of the alternatives
considered in this report .
Fire response to the area of concern is provided by the City of
Huntington Beach from the Bushard Station located approximately one
mile south of the study area. Because of the close proximity of the
fire station, no significant concerns are anticipated at this time
in providing adequate fire protection for any of the alternatives
considered for the site.
2 . 1 . 5 . 6 Schools
The area of concern is located within the Fountain Valley School
.District and is served by .Miola Elementary School and Huntington
Beach High School . The school district has indicated that the
school involved would be able to accommodate the increase in
:students generated by any of the alternatives . Commercial
development would have no impact on schools .
2 . 1. 5 . 7 Gas , Electrical and Telephone Service
Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by the
Southern California Gas Company and. Southern California Edison,
respectively. The Southern California Edison Company has indicated
that electrical load requirements can be met for any of the land
GPA No . 89-1 -10- (3048d)
uses considered for the study area provided that electrical load
demand does not exceed estimates , and there are no unexpected
outages to major sources of electrical supply. Similarly, the
Southern California Gas Company foresees no difficulty in service
future development under any of the proposed land uses provided
current natural gas supplies continue to be available. The General
Telephone Company, which provides telephone service for Huntington
Beach; has indicated that adequate- service- can be provided for the
area of concern under any of the land use alternatives .
2 . 1 . 5 . 8 Solid Waste Disposal
The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the
City of Huntington Beach. No local service constraints are expected
under any of the alternative land use designations assuming there is
adequate access to accommodate the company' s refuse trucks .
2 . 1 . 6 Environmental Issues
2 . 1 . 6 . 1 Noise
The area of concern lies at the intersection of a primary arterial
(Garfield Avenue) and a secondary arterial (Bushard Street) . Based
on projected 1990 Ground Transportation Noise Exposure Impacts, the
majority of the site falls within the Ldn 65 noise contour, with
only a small portion around the north and west perimeter of the site
within the Ldn 70 noise contour .
These noise levels are within acceptable levels (Ldn 80) for
commercial development and therefore would not impact the commercial
alternative. Residential development, however, would be affected by
traffic noise. The applicant ' s request places six units adjacent to
Bushard Avenue with only 10 to 13 foot setbacks . Special mitigation
measures such as unit modification, additional building setbacks,
walls , berming and/or landscaping could be employed to reduce this
noise exposure and guarantee acceptable noise levels of less than
Ldn 45 .
Apart from noise impacts on the site, the land use selected for the
site also has the potential to generate noises which would impact
the surrounding residential uses . In particular, the commercial
alternative could impact the adjacent residential uses with delivery
truck and customer noises . Any commercial center should be designed
to prohibit rear building truck deliveries . The residential
alternatives would have very little potential to increase noise
impacts on the surrounding residential uses . Any impacts that could
exist should be mitigated by construction in conformance with the
setback and fencing requirements of the City zoning code .
GPA No . 89-1 -11- (3048d)
2 . 1 . 6 . 2 Light and Glare
Any of the proposed residential alternatives on the subject site
will feature street lighting and probably landscape lighting . The
commercial alternative would possibly feature parking lot lighting .
All of these additional light sources would have the potential to
increase light and glare into the surrounding neighborhood. In
order to mitigate this impact , all lighting should be directed to
flood only those areas required on site .
2 . 1 . 6 . 3 Aesthetics
All of the land use alternatives could have potential adverse
aesthetic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The surrounding
area is primarily one-story single family detached homes on 60-foot
wide lots constructed prior to the City' s participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program. The applicant ' s proposal is for
two-story, single family detached homes on 35-foot wide lots . These
new homes must have the lowest floor elevated approximately
three (3) feet above existing grade. As a mitigation measure of
these impacts particular design emphasis shall be placed on
providing varying setbacks, architectural movement, second story
setbacks, compatible materials, and a landscape easement along
arterials .
2 . 1 . 6 . 4 Seismic, Soils and Geology
In compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of
1972, a Special Studies Zone has been established in Huntington
Beach that includes the most hazardous earthquake fault locations .
The study area is located well outside the Special Studies Zone.
Although the site is not in the .Alquist-Priolo zone, it does lie in
very close proximity to the Bolsa-Fairview earthquake fault which
runs just southwest of the site. Given the proximity of this fault,
a geologic study to address mitigation of potential seismic hazards
should be prepared prior to entitlement for any of the land use
alternatives .
A 1974 study, Geotechnical Inputs, prepared for the City of
Leighton-Yen and Associates, indicates the existence of a peat layer
one-half to five feet thick in the vicinity of the study area . The
report also indicates that there is .a low percentage (7%) of clay in
the soil . Since peat deposits and expansive clay soils can cause
damage to structures, a geotechnical study should be done to make
proper design recommendations for construction on the property.
2 . 1 . 6 . 5 Flooding
The study area is located within Zone AO (Depth 3) on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map prepared for the City by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. This designation means that the site will be
flooded to a depth of 3 feet in the event of a 100-year flood.
GPA No . 89-1 -12- (3048d)
Due to the flood status of the property, any new residential
construction must be elevated so that the lowest structural member of
the first habitable floor is located three feet or more above the
adjacent grade. Commercial development must either be elevated or
floodproofed to the same three foot elevation.
2 . 1 . 7 Economic Considerations
The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology to
analyze the alternatives in this amendment . The revenues and
expenditures associated with each alternative were predicted for one
year for comparison purposes . The results are summarized in the
table below. Appendix A contains a summary of the fiscal impact
assumptions .
Alt . 1 Alt . 2 Alt . 3 Alt . 4 Alt . 5
Low Density Low Dens . PD Medium Medium Convenience
Residential Residential Density Density Market
10 units 13 units 18 units 38 units 20, OOOsq. ft .
Revenue $11, 095 $12, 000 $16 , 582 $23 , 023 $16 , 380
Cost $4 , 136 $4 , 921 $5 , 998 $7, 615 $4 , 832
Revenue-Cost $6, 959 $7, 079 $10 , 584 $15 , 408 $11, 582
Revenue/Cost 2 . 68 2 . 44 2 . 76 3 . 02 3 . 39
2 . 1 . 8 Recommendation
This EIR has indicated that the number of units which the applicant
has requested is five more than the existing Low Density Land Use
Designation would allow under Planned Development Standards . While
most impacts of the request are minimal and easily mitigable,
problems related to on-street parking and noise impacts from the
adjacent arterials do exist . In order to address those concerns,
staff would recommend that units be dropped from the project in
order to provide on-street parking and additional building setbacks
from Bushard Street and Garfield Avenue. By deleting those units,
however, the density may not exceed the existing allowable density
under Low Density Residential . As such, there would be no need to
amend the General Plan and the amendment request should be denied.
Alternatively, this EIR has indicated that the applicant ' s density
request can be effectively mitigated if the project design is
suitably modified. Those modifications would involve redesigning
the project from a detached unit product to an attached product . By
doing so, additional parking and setbacks can both be obtained . One
concern with this approach, :however, is that once the General Plan
is amended, the applicant could then request a 37 unit apartment
project which would be the maximum allowable under the Medium
Density designation . A proJ.ect of this nature would not be
compatible with the adjacent neighborhood in terms of traffic
generation and character .
GPA No . 8971 -13- (3048d)
If it is determined that the applicant ' s 18 unit request has merit,
then special zoning should be adopted for the site which would limit
the maximum number of units to 18 and which would contain other
conditions to ensure compatibility. It would be appropriate to
attach a density cap of 7 . 1 units per gross acre to the R2 zoning,
as well as requiring that the PD (Planned Development) suffix also
be attached . Conditions related to parking provision, setbacks and
building heights should also be included under the Q (Qualified)
suffix. With those conditions , staff feels that the applicant ' s
request for Medium Density Residential can be fully mitigated.
GPA No . 89-1 -14- (3048d)
3 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines ,
an environmental assessment is required to address short-term and
long-term effects, irreversible environmental changes, and growth
inducing impacts of the total project or plan. This section
analyzes these concerns in context of the recommended land use
changes in Section 2 . 0 .
3 . 1 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Amendment No. 89-1 does not in and of itself create long term
impacts . Rather, it makes changes in the general type of land uses
that may be allowed on a particular area at the time of
development . Amendment No . 89-1 seeks to identify short-range
issues within a context of long-range goals , policies; and
environmental planning programs . The amendment itself acts as a
mitigation measure designed to minimize any adverse effects on
long-term productivity resulting from short-term uses .
One of the steps required to implement the amendment .is an analysis
of the zone changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance
with the General Plan. The zoning changes that would result would
have significant short-term effects, such as creating non-conforming
uses, reducing or increasing intensity of development permitted, and
providing stimulus for development .
GPA No . 89-1 -15- (3048d)
3 . 2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The Amendment EIR addresses mitigation measures for most adverse
effects . However, irreversible environmental change of a secondary
nature can be expected from development under the proposed
amendments . Loss of open space will occur as vacant land is
converted to other uses . Although the option to recycle the land to ,
open space after development is available, it is probably .not
economically feasible. Alteration of topography will be an
irreversible change. Although mitigating measures can be imposed as
part of the development process, the natural topography will
experience a negligible degree of modification. Construction
materials of mineral origin will also be needed for development to
occur, and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods to
satisfy local energy demand. However, such development would be
consistent with existing land use designations .
3 . 3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
The proposed amendment will also have growth inducing effects within
the area of concern. An additional population of 85 persons could
be generated by uses under Land Use Element Amendment No . 89-1,
•thereby creating an increased demand on public services and
utilities and incrementally affecting air quality, water quality,
traffic, and noise levels .
The demand for water and energy will likely increase as a result of
the proposed land uses in this amendment . Conservation measures
such as those outlined below can be implemented City-wide to reduce
these impacts .
3 .3 1 Water
3 . 3 . 1 . 1 Interior
(a) Supply line pressure: Water pressure greater than 50
pounds per square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less
by means of a pressure-reducing valve. .
(b) Drinking fountains : Drinking fountains be equipped with
self-closing valves .
(c) Hotel rooms : Conservation reminders be posted in rooms and
restrooms . Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be
installed for bath/shower .
(d) Laundry facilities : Water-conserving models of washers be
used.
(e) Restaurants : Water-conserving models of dishwashers be
used or spray emitters that have been retrofitted for
reduced flow. Drinking water be served upon request only.
(f) Ultra-low-flush toilets : 1-1/2 gallon per flush toilets be
installed in all new construction.
GPA No . 89-1 -16- (3048d)
3 . 3 . 1 . 2 Exterior
(a) Landscape with low-water-using plants wherever feasible.
(b) Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses,
such as playing fields . When lawn is used; require warm
season grasses .
(c) Group plants of similar water use to reduce over irrigation
of low-water-using plants .
(d) Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of
low-water-using landscaping and sources of additional
assistance .
(e) Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas . Mulch
applied on top of soil will improve the water-holding
capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil
compaction.
(f) Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs .
Established plants are often adapted to low-water-using
conditions and their use -saves water needed to establish
replacement vegetation.
(g) Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff
and evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the
plant roots . Dip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and
automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of
increasing irrigation efficiency.
(h) Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce
surface water runoff and aid in ground water recharge.
(i) Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized.
(j ) Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste
water, stored 'rainwater, or grey water for irrigation.
(k) Encourage cluster development, which can reduce the amount
of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the
amount of impervious paving created and thereby aid in
ground water recharge.
(1) Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage he
incorporation of natural drainage systems in new
developments . This aids ground water recharge.
(m) To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood plains ar,d
aquifer recharge areas as open space.
(n) Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return
flow of public water supplies wherever such use is
acceptable and safe.
GPA No . 89-1 -17- (3048d)
3 . 3 . 1 . 3 Gas , Electric, Air Quality
(a) Prohibit the use of open gas lighting in public or private
buildings .
(b) If lighting is included in the parking lot and/or
recreation area energy efficiency lamps shall be. used (e.g .
high pressure sodium vapor, metal halide) . All outside
lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto
adjacent properties .
(c) Strategically place electric lights to maximize their
efficiency. Their size and power consumption should be
. minimized as much as possible .
(d) Discourage electrical heating in public and private
structures . Encourage solar-assisted heating systems .
(e) Encourage the use of reflecting and/or insulating glass in
structures where windows are not shaded by exterior
architectural projections or natural plants .
(f) Information on equipment or facilities which may generate
air pollutants shall be 'submitted to the South Coast Air
Quality Management District staff for their review prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any use
within the building .
(g) Commercial and office. projects should provide on-site day
care facilities where feasible in order to reduce private
vehicle trips . Ride share programs should also be
encouraged. Restaurants and other shopping opportunities
should be encouraged in major employment centers to further
reduce .the need for private vehicle trips from the site.
GPA No . 89-1 -18- (3048d)
GD
HALL
and ASSOCIATES, INC.
October 2, 1989 �-
�4
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
Attn: Mr. Michael Conner
RE : Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
Land Use Element Amendment No. 89-1
Zone Change No. 89-2
Dear Mr. Conner;
We are appealing the decision of the Planning Commission denying our
requests for a zone change and land use amendment. We are being denied
the same use of the property that other property holders in the area
enjoy.
Our project is less intensive than adjoining properties. Three of
the adjoining corners of the intersection are commercial. A commercial
zoning has an adverse impact on the area as you can see from the
Environmental Impact Report. Our project would not have this negative
impact. The Environmental Impact Report states that "due to the small
size of the study area and the small number of units that could be con-
structed, it is not anticipated that any of the residential alternatives
will generate traffic-that will exceed the capacity of the local street
which will be traversed."
Our project would provide the look and feel of the single family
dwellings in the neighborhood, and with the slightly larger number of units
we have requested, we would not have a negative impact. Any concerns
in connection with noise and aesthetics can be mitigated through the
designs and landscaping of the project.
We therefore request the City Council to examine our request for a
Zone Change and Land Use Amendment.
Sin r ly,
'lliam M. Hall
3 nc &ast Hwy., Unit 203, Capistrano Beach, California 92624 714.496.5200 FAX 714.496.8481
e
RECEIVED:
CITY CLERKHAU
--G�v� � /
CITY C£' v,C
and ASSOCIATES, INC. HUNTINCTCt CE Cif.CALIF:
SEP 29 255
September 22, 1989
City Council
City of Huntington Beach
Attn: Mr. Mike Conner
RE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT
NO. 89-1 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 89-2.
Dear Mr. Conner;
In the September 19, 1989 meeting of the Planning Commission, the Land Use
Element Amendment No. 89-1 and Zone Change No. 89-2 were denied. We would
like to appeal this decision before the City Council.
These plans were submitted only after extensive work was done directly with
the staff of the Planning Department. These staff members indicated a very
positive response to these plans.
We feel our project would provide necessary housing in Huntington Beach, and
we respectfully request the City Council to examine the decision of the Planning
commission.
Sincerely,
illiam M. Hall
WMH:j w
34700 Coast Hwy., Unit 203, Capistrano Beach, California 92624 714.496.5200 FAX 714.496.8481
=6A DRAFTENVIR IMPACT ... RT. 1 AND E ELEMENT
AME NT N -1 ND N N
APPLICANT: Hall and. Associates DATE ACCEPTED:
2717 South E1 Camino Real : •. Septembe.r, 7; , 1989
San Clemente CA 9267.2,
MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE:
PROPERTY William "-Lamb- September 7, 1990
' OWNER: HC 60 Box 1050
j' Bliss, Idaho 83314 bNE: R1-FP2 (Low Density-
:
Floodplain District 2)
REQUEST: 9U: Change existing. land
use designation from Low. .
Density Residential (6. 5 GENERAL PLAN: Low Density
units per acre) to. Medium Residential
Density Residential (15.
k units per acre) . EXISTING USE: Vacant
FIR: Analyzes environ-
mental setting and signi- LOCATION:Southeast corner
ficant,. impacts associated of Garfield Avenue and
with the. proposed land use Bushard Street
amendment .
&: Change existing zoning ACREAGE: 2. 56 gross acres
from R1-FP2 (Low Density 2.04 .adjusted gross acres
Residential-Floodplain
District 2) to R2-FP2
(Medium Density Resi-
dential-Floodplain
District 2)
1 . Staff Report
2 . Public Hearing
3 . Commission Discussion
4 . (A) Adopt and certify as adequate Draft Environmental Impact
Report No. 89-5 and forward it to the City Council for
their adoption and certification with findings; and
(B) Deny Land Use Element Amendment No. 89-1 from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential; and
(C) Deny Zone Change No. 89-2 from R1-FP2 (Low Density
Residential- Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium
Density Residential-Floodplain . District 2) with findings.
MJC ADOPT/CERTIFY AS ADEQUATE EIR 89-5: TO DENY LUEA 89-1 AND zC 89-2•
Ortega MOTION Orte a
AC_-9 MOTION.... ».......
SECOND Leipzig SECOND ms
AYES 7 AYES S
NOES None - NOES Shomaker, Kirkland
A13SENT None ABSENT None
'"'.
ABSTAIN None ABSTAIN None
APPROVED XX with findings APPROVEDwill be forwarded XX with findings
DENIED • to City Council DENIED
C�;; ruVUED CONTINUED
MOTION PASSED MdtION SSED
C-6A (3653d)
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
AUGUST 2, 1989
1:30 PM
Subdivision Committee Members Present :
Geri Ortega, Kirk Kirkland, Ken Bourguignon, Bruce 'Crosby
(representing Bill Patapoff) , Ward Kinsman (representing Steve
Parker) , Scott Hess '(representing Mike Adams) (Mike Adams arrived at
2 :45 p.m. ) `
Staff Present :
Robert Franklin, Michael Connor
Tentative Tract No . 14017:
Applicant : Hall & Associates
Tentative Tract .No . 14017 is a request for an 18-lot detached single
family planned residential subdivision. The 1. 9 acre project is
located at the southeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Bushard
Street . The property is currently zoned R1-FP2 (Low Density
Residential-Flood Plain) which allows for 6 . 5 units per acre.
Access to the subdivision is from Albacore.
In conjunction with the subdivision request is a general plan
amendment and zone change to R2 (Medium Density residential) which
would permit up to 15 units per acre on the property. The proposed
subdivision represents 10 units per gross acre.
Robert Franklin presented an overview of the project as well as the
following concerns and requirements from Community Development :
1 . Special permits will be required for lack of common open space
with recreation amenities and guest parking .
2 . Access from Albacore as presented is recommended. Access to
the arterial streets is not recommended.
3 . Planned Residential Development Standards are required.
4 . Parking on private streets is prohibited due to a narrow
street section and lack of curb space.
5 . Increase variety in building setbacks; the current design
creates a straight line effect .
6 . A 10 ' landscape buffer is recommended along arterial streets .
The Committee discussed the density of the project . Commissioner
Ortega suggested that the project be revised as a 13-unit
subdivision instead of the proposed 18 . Discussion ensued. John
Cowles, applicant, requested that the Committee vote on the plan as
it was presented. He did not wish to change or revise the project .
Bruce Crosby presented the following requirements of Public Works :
1 . The Tentative Tract Map shall be revised to show:
a . 7 ' of dedication on Garfield Avenue along Lots 13 - 18 .
b. The proposed streets to be private
C. Parcel I (proposed streets) shall be lettered lot .
d. Elimination of Parcel II .
2 . All vehicular access rights to Garfield Avenue and Bushard
Street shall be dedicated to the City.
3 . The existing driveways on Garfield Avenue shall be installed
where required.
4 . Street lights on Garfield and Bushard shall be installed where
required.
5 . Deteriorated public improvements, (streets, curb and gutter,
sidewalk, etc. ) shall be removed and replaced adjacent to the
Tentative Tract .
f
6 . Grading and drainage patterns shall be approved by the Public
Works Department .
7 . A soils report is required.
8 . Water facilities shall be public and constructed per the Water
Division requirements . The water mains shall be constructed
in the private streets .
9 . Each dwelling unit shall have a separate water service.
10 . The perimeter planter areas shall be constructed per City
Landscape Standards and maintained by the Homeowner' s
Association.
11 . The sewer mains within the private streets shall be privately
owned and maintained.
12 . If a security gate is desired, its configuration shall be
designed and approved with the street improvements .
13 . A vehicular turnaround shall be designed at the westerly end
of Albacore Street and approved by the public Works Department .
14 . Private street turnaround shall be designed to accommodate
trash trucks .
Ward Kinsman of the Fire Department presented the following
requirements :
i
1 . Provide one (1) new fire hydrant .
I
2 . "Hammerhead" portion of street shall be a designated fire lane
with no parking allowed.
Subdivision Minutes -2- (3383d)
Planning Commission Comments :
1 . Commissioner Ortega recommended that the project be reduced to
a 13-lot planned residential development; and expressed
concern regarding on-site/off-site guest parking and
buffer/setback problems to existing residences and arterial
streets .
2 . Commissioner Kirkland stated that two-thirds of the units back
or side an arterial . He expressed concerns regarding the lack
of a sound buffers for those units as well as concerns about
the elevation (3 ' higher than adjacent properties) of the
proposed residences .
3 . Commissioner Bourguignon was concerned with the possible
visual problems of the residences from the street . The
current design of the plan lacks variety in the building
setbacks and presents small front yard areas .
All three Commissioners expressed great concern about the proposal ' s
lack of on-site/off-site parking (i .e. guest parking, resident
parking) .
The Committee requested that the applicant provide for more on-site
parking . The two allotted spaces per unit were not sufficient for
the site.
After lengthy discussion between the Committee and the applicant, a
i suggestion was made to revise the plan. The applicant agreed to
submit a conceptual layout of duplexes instead of the proposed
single family detached residences .
Commissioner Ortega made a motion to continue this item to the next
Subdivision meeting scheduled for August 16, 1989 at 1 :30 p.m. This
would allow time for the applicant to revise the tentative map to
address the concerns stated herein and re-submit it for the
Subdivision Committee' s review. Commissioner Bourguignon seconded
the motion and it passed 6-0 .
i
Subdivision Minutes -3- (3383d)
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
AUGUST 9 , 1989
1 :30 PM
Subdivision Committee Members Present :
Geri Ortega, Kirk Kirkland, Ken Bourguignon, Bill Patapoff,
Ward Kinsman (representing Steve Parker) , Mike Adams
Staff Present :
Scott Hess
Tentative Tract No . 14017:
Applicant: Hall & Associates
This item was continued from the August 2, 1989 Subdivision
Committee to allow the applicant time to submit revised plans
addressing the concerns of the Committee. The applicant had agreed
to prepare two plans, one depicting 9 duplexes and one as an
alternative single family residence plan showing more guest parking
spaces . Subsequently, the applicant requested that the Committee
make a determination on the project as it was presented with no
revisions .
' Following the applicant ' s request, the Subdivision Committee met on
this date to review and discuss the proposal . The applicant was
unable to attend the meeting . After brief discussion, Commissioner
Kirkland made a motion to recommend denial to the Planning
Commission of the 18 unit detached planned residential development
project as presented based on insufficient guest parking .
Commissioner Ortega seconded the motion and it passed 6-0 .
� I
Subdivision Minutes
(3402d)
HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRO-NKENTAL BOARD
Huntington Beachr'TA.* Hall
2000 MainIt Street
` l
Huntington Bea 't',.,California 92648
v,
C� C
August 3 , 1989
Kelly Main
Planning Department
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Ms . Main:
The Environmental Board has reviewed EIR No. 89-5 . the
General Plan Admendment for the southeast corner of Garfield and
Bushard.
There is no significant justification presented in this
document for the proposed rezoning of the parcel from RI (Low
Density Residential) to R2 (Medium Density Residential) .
Construction of two-story homes three feet above existing
grade would have a considerable negative impact on the existing
neighborhood of modest single story homes. mitigation measures
must address aesthetics , glare, and noise emanating from such a
project. Setbacks and screens of mature trees should be
considered to avoid adverse impact on neighbors.
Parking, as noted in the report, will be a definite problem.
Even using existing R1 zoning, off-site parking will be severely
limited in the proposed cul-de-sac situation.
Not addressed in this report is the considerable negative
impact of construction debris and noise generated by this project
within a previously developed residential area. Construction
equipment and materials will be transported through the tract to
the Albacore cul-de-sac.
Additionally, existing buildings on the site must be
evaluated for asbestos content. Demolition of any structures
demonstrated to contain asbestos should comply with OSHA and
Huntington Beach City mandates for the removal of hazardous
substances. Extreme caution should be used to avoid air-borne
contamination of adjoining inhabited sites.
Sincerely,
Mark Conley (Ad Hoc Committee Members : Irene Alfieri,
Chairperson Mark Conley, Suzanne Heritage)
cc: Vic Leipzig, Liaison, Planning Commission
Peter Green, Liaison, City Council
AFFIDAVIT OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP LIST
The attached list represents the names and addresses of all property owners
located within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property located
at 9542 Garfield Ave, Huntington Beach CA 92646
This information was obtained from the latest 1989 Orange County Assessment
Rolls, on September 29, 1989.
Susan W. Case
1461 Glenneyre St #F
Laguna Beach CA 92651
714-494-6105
J /
V-
CASH RECEIPT
JJ CITY OF hUNTINQTON bcAch
P.O.BOX 711
HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648
(714)536-5200
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY TREASURER-DONALD L.WATSON O
DATE
ISSUING DEPT.
RECEIVED FROM
ADDRESS 3 7 7
FOR ' G
AMOUNT,RECEIVED 0 CASH HECK 1 $,3-5. D
RECEIVED BY 5r J�""�
REVENUE ''TR FUND ACCOUNT DEPT" ; DIV. AMOUNT
e oa
� R
6N ENSE ;
FINANCE APPROVAL
INITIAL
TOTAL $ Od
AMOUNT RECEIVED
'3286/12 13Uct89 001/10 $35.00 RAA7010OCK140 CASH
5 2 6 0 6 9CUSTOMER COPY
I
• �blish 10/26/89
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
I
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION' S DENIAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. '89-1 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 89-2
CONCURRENT WITH THE PROJECT IS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-5
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will
hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the
date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the
statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the
application described below.
DATE/TIME: Monday, November 6, 1989, 7: 00 PM
APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Planning Commission' s Denial of
General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 and Zone
Change No. 89-2 . Concurrent with the project
is Environmental Impact Report No. 89-5 .
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Hall and Associates
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Bushard Street .
ZONE: R1-FP2 (Low Density Residential-Floodplain District 2)
REQUEST: GPA 89-1 - Change existing land use designation from Low
Density Residential (6 . 5 units per acre) to Medium Density
Residential (15 units per acre) .
EIR 89-5 - Analyzes environmental setting and significant
impacts associated with the proposed land use amendment .
ZC 89-2 - Change existing ,zoning from R1-FP2 (Low Density
Residential-Floodplain District 2) to R2-FP2 (Medium
Density Residential-Floodplain District 2)
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This project is covered by Environmental Impact
Report No. 89-5. Prior to any action on
General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 or Zone Change
No. 89-2, it is necessary for the City Council
to act on Environmental Impact Report No. 89-5 .
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City
Clerk' s Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,
California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy
of the staff report will be available to interested
parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111
Talbert Avenue) .
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and
express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application
as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call
Mike Connor, Assistant Planner, at 536-5271.
Connie Brockway
Huntington Beach City Clerk
-ti ;1
Bi.7.1 'fa`11 741 �i
.,!9 54*2' Garfield Ave • 1 '
ti?untington Beach CA 92646
300' Lis;ing
153-371-04:05 Z /-7 9 '�
September 2° , 1989 9�S
Page 1 � ,
1" James O'Connell II; 9 *"arilyn Conyers 1S Lawrence McCafferty
19012 Mathew Cir 9591 Albacore Dr 9612 Albacore Dr
Huntington Beac:`: CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646
153-362-35 � Huntington Beach CA 9264-.
53-371-01 153-371-10
,•. 2 Melvin Harper/ Et al N E-r3—Eox\�••,05 ;c�c.
� � f(,,,7 S�G, //
19 Donald Jamison_
10211 Kaimu Dr 9581 Albacore Dr o
Huntington Beach C_� 92646 072 Tigerfish Cir
_g__ Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA '9264 .
153-362-36 153-371702
153-371-51
C , CCc:2�o5 Lo�t� �auc�
3 Gary Cavalier' 11 .� �garet Gonzales 20 Bette Baber L-f A
19032 Mathew Cif 9571 Albacore Dr
' Huntington Beach CA 92646 19062 Tigerfish Cir
g Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 9264"
1.53-362=37 .- 153-3.71-03
153-371-52 =..'
4 William Bouchard 12 William Lamb
21 .Edward Luoarello
19042 Mathew Cir i
_4 H. C 60 Box.: 1050 9892 Saline Dr.;;:. . .•' ';:.'..
Huntington Beach CA 92646 Bliss ID 83314 a
Huntington. Beach CA 926 _,:
153-362-38 i53-371-04,06 153-371-53
5 Elizabeth Olsen f(C Coo 13`y (05 3
3 William Lamb Kei th Snider
19062 Mathew Cir � _ Garfield Ave J
Huntington Beach CA 92646 ( SS O P 0 Box 8766
9 Hvncrngtor. Beach CA 9264 Fountain Valley CA 9270
153-362-39 153-371-05
153-371-54 /
6 George Lugaro 15 -..Richar-d_Boo-t-h �" ' p�"�� L' 1
23 Daivd Robertsno
19072 Mathew Cir 9582 Albacore Dr
Huntington Beach CA 92646 19091 Tigerfish Cir
9 / Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 9264E
153-362-40 V 153-3
i53-371-55
:Z-arl
e 5� �o �7 State Board Of Eaualiz. 16 Lamb Et Al24 Julian Gich
28 Civic Center Dr Smoketree Ave iol01 Tigerfish Cir
Santa Ana CA 92704 ltain Valley CA 92708Huntington Beach CA 9264E_
153-362� 3 11-08 i -
�J . 5 53-37_-56
��O LLll
8 International Building tea " �QK( n
17 Wayne Westfall 25 Dallas �edrick
P 0 Box 248 1812 Fenanore Ave
Wilmington. CA 90748 19102 Walleye I,n
Camarillo CA 93010 Huntington Beach CA 2964E
'153-362-44 153-371-09
153-371-65
�Nv
2 2-
?+_i4rys5;w.ncn :i.::i
l' ?+:"':.:�Sa�: z..,._.. �•- ,
Paul H :'el er 35 C11 o o d Bonner % Bank of A-ner Ica
8851 =.reel C__ P 0 Box 63700
Huntington Beach CA 92646 -'-:,,:nzI-c;zcn Beach Cam. 92646 Sa-: Francisco CA 94163
153-371-66 153-373-01 1- 57-284-02
�4ti(Q �• �--
$ :
Mary Bonner 36 Thomas Emmerich 45 -4erman Rose Jr 4:=
O 9341 Portsmouth Dr 19101 Wall-eve Ln 9393 Shimizu River Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 29646 Fountain Vallev CA 9270 F
153-371-67 153-373-02 157-284-29
Charles Froelich 7 -C-e---t� 46 Steve Mason a
19072 Walleye Ln 19102 Bushard St 9383 Shimizu °-
m�zu River Cir
Huntington Beach CA 29646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Fountain Valley CA 9270;
153- 371-68 _53--372-11� 157-284-30
i Carl Greifzu F9W
d Croft 47 Edwin Mc Intvre
300 S Mentor #4 Bushard St 9582 Shimizu River Cir
Pasadena CA 91106 gton Beach CA 92646 Fountain Valley CA 9270f
153-371-69 �-12 157-284-31
Jeanne Singleton m Reynolds 48 Mervin Jacka !
9541 Bass Dr Warbler Ave 9588 Shimizu Rive_ CirHuntington Beach CA 92646ain Valley CA 92708 Fountain Valley CA 9270E153-371-70 3-11 157-284-32
i
Robert Anetsberger 4_0 Joseph Bangan 49 Daniel Auger
4509 Greermeadows Ave 9486 Warbler Ave 59 ; ; :
9�,o S ,.. z� River Cir
Torrance CA 90505 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Fountain. Valley CA 92708 +"
153-371-71 157-253-12 157-284-33
Tomoko Aoki 41 Ronaldo Storf. 50 Adrian Romero
8311 Briarwood St 18966 Caoense St -
9606 Shimizu River Cir
Stanton CA 90680 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Fountain valley CA 92708
153-371-72 -- —_ 157-253-13 157-284-34 :^
h
Cam( A
_JO sr,-G�z"ra:r- Et ALA- 42 Evelyn Hvatt '
Y 51 Frederick Brown
17870 Cashew 18956 Capense St 9616 Shimizu River Cir
Fountain Valley CA 92708 Fountain valley CA 92708 Fountain Valley CA 92708
153-371-73 157-253-14 157-284-35
Michael Ortolani 43 Mosbacher-AG Company 52 Windsor Center
9611 Albacore Dr 2828 N Haskell Ave 2976 Queensbury Dr
Huntington Beach CA 92646 Dallas TX 75204 '
- -- . .. Los Angeles, CA 90064
153-372-01 157-284-01
� 157-284-43 -
IV° �o }
➢r,Cye 2
26 •� Heller ' 35 /11woos 3onner % . Ha:-�k o: Pie~i ca
8851 Arcel C_= ;36^l _ o=ts:^o:;.-.- D_ /� ? 0 Box 63700
i '-i n n ea , CA 92646 Hunz: ncton Beac-. C=- 92646 I n L 4
Huntington B c �.. Sam Francisco a Cisco C_ 9 163
153-371-66 /� 153-373-01 157-284-02
MCr�.�4 �.
27 Mary Bonner 36 Thomas Emmerich e5 -e_man Rose Jr
7 0 9341 Portsmouth Dr 19101 Walleve Lr- 9593 Shimizu River Cir
Huntington. Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 29646 Fountain Vallev CA 9270
153-371-67 153-373-02 157-284-29
LG`'r._l0 �QSL-� �^ wCS`"VhpCil� '�e�C� yJ
Charles Froelich 7 -C u =z =r'- J 46 Steve Mason
19072 Walleye Ln 19102 Bushard 5t 9583 Shimizu River Cir
Huntington Beach CA 29646 Huntington Beach Cy 92646 :ountain Valley CA 9270
153- 371-68 _53=�72-1`1 �: 157-284_-30
29 Carl Greiizu 3 Richard Croft 47 E'dwin Mc Tntvre
300 S Mentor 44 19092 Bushard St 9582 Shimizu River Cir
Pasadena CA 91106 Hun-tington Beach CA 92646 Fountain Valley CA 9270t
153-371-69 153-37�-12 157-284-31
30 Jeanne Singleton 39 William Reynolds 48 Mervin Jacka
9541 Bass Dr 9476 Warbler Ave 9588 Shimizu River Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92646 Fountain Valley CA 92706 Fountain_ Valley CA 9270£
153-371-70 157-253-11 157-284-32
Zl Robert Anetsberger 40 Joseoh Bangan 49 Daniel Auger
4509 Greenmeadows Ave 9486 Warbler Ave 9596 Shimizu River Cir
Torrance CA 90505 Fountain Vallev Ca 92708 Fountain. Valley CA 9270E
153-371-71 157-253-12 137-284-33
32 Tomoko Aoki 41 Ronaldo Storf 50 Adrian Romero
8311 Briarwood St 18966 Capense St 9606 Shimizu River Cir
Stanton CA 90680 ' Fountain Valley CA 92708 Fountain Valley CA 9270E
153-371-72 -- 157-253-13 157-284-34
33 Et AL- 92 Evelyn Hyatt 51 Frederick Brown
17870 Cashew 18956 Capense St 9616 Shimizu River Cir
Fountain Valley CA 92708 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Fountain Valley CA 92708
153-371-73 157-253-14 157-284-35
,�-
34 Michael Ortolani 43 Mosbacher-AG Company 52 Windsor Center
9611 Albacore Dr 2828 N Haskell AVe 2976 Queensbury Dr
Huntington Beach CA 92646 .._-Dallas TX 75204 Los Angeles, CA 90064
153-372-01 157-284-01... 157-284-43
I
i
des � t4 (� t/
oft
c_5
J
I � �
74
B i 11 l 1, 7 41 2 1{� r -��12 Grp
r
9542 •3rfield Ave
Huntington Beach CA 92646 v 7 K
300' Lis' ing
153-371-04 05
September 29, 1989
Page 1
1 James O'Connell -III--- --- 9 Marilyn Conyers 18 Lawrence McCafferty
19012 Mathew Cir 9591 Albacore Dr 9612 Albacore Dr
Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646
153-362-35 153-371-01 ( 153-371-10
OR I(�r5 6, c sfi�. ,/
2 Melvin Harper/ Et al �� 10 tea -m oS L Q 4V-/
—--- - - j 19 Donald Jamison
10211 Raimu Dr
9581 Albacore Dr 9072 Tigerfish,-Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington.Beach CA 92646 I Huntington Beach CA "92646
153-362-36 153-371=02 153-371=51
i
3 &arY Cavalieri
11 garet Gonzales 20 Bette Baber L`{ At
19032 Mathew Cif j 9571 Albacore Dr 19062 Tigerfish Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646
153-362=37 153-371-03 153 371-52 .,
4 William Bouchard 12 William Lamb .
19042 Mathew Cir 21;Edward. Luparello
iunt36gton Beach CA 926 46 14 H-'C: 60 Box:;1050. 9892.; Saline
Bliss ID' 83314 .. ::
53- 2 38 Huntington Beach CA 92646
153-371-04,06
I
5 Elizabeth Olsen e (oo 6()y 1os p 3
13 William Lamb Keith Snider
19062 Mathew Cir '9S larfield Ave AJ(,5 S I�
Huntington Beach CA 92646 q P O Box 8766
-Hi tington Beach CA 9264 Fountain Valley CA 92708
153-362-39 153-371-05
JI' 153-371-54
6 George Lu aro Srt�4� +w o�✓
g g 15 —R�•c.h��--�Qa�k�-- �� C_ 23 Daivd Robertsno
19072 Mathew Cir 9582 Albacore Dr 19091 Tigerfish Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92646 / Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington. Beach CA 92646
153-362-40 V/ 153-371-07 153-371-55
�/SOR esi, Jase��
7 State Board Of Equaliz. 16 t-A], 24 Julian Gich
28 Civic Center Dr 9576 Smoketree Ave 19101 Tigerfish Cir
Santa Ana CA 92704 Fountain Valley CA 92708
Huntington Beach CA 92646
�`5 5 153-362(�� 153-371-08 153-371-56
�o
8 International Building �a ) A'
17 Wayne Westfall 25 Dallas Pedrick
P 0 Box 248 1812 Fenmore Ave
Wilmington CA 90748 19102 Walleye Ln
Camarillo CA 93010 Huntington Beach CA 29646
153-362-44 153-371-09 153-371-65
��--��j
Bi1�s.H. tl 741
Page 2
26 Paul Heller 35 Ellwood Bonner 44 Bank of America
8851 Arcel Cir 93641 Portsmouth Dr P 0 Box 63700
Beach CA 92646 ton
Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington San Francisco CA 94163
153-371-66 153-373-01 157-284-02
�asera In•
$r�Kc tt'
27 Mary Bonner 36 Thomas Emmerich 45 Herman Rose Jr
Cro 9341 Portsmouth Dr 19101 Walleye Ln 9593 Shimizu River Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 29646 I Fountain Valley CA 92708
153-371-67 153-373-02 157-284-29
GQv.�O �ci`�1 (,veg�OtKoo� :S
Charles Froelich 37 - z ate- i 46 Steve Mason
19072 Walleye Ln 19102 'Bushard St 9583 Shimizu River Cir
Huntington Beach CA 29646 ✓Huntington Beach CA 92646 i Fountain Valley CA 92708
153- 371-68 a3 372-11 157-284-30
r
29 Carl Greifzu 3 Richard Croft 47 Edwin Mc Intyre
300 S Mentor #4 . 19092 Bushard St 9582 Shimizu River Cir
Pasadena CA 91106 I Huntington Beach CA 92646 Fountain Valley CA 92708
153-371-69 153-37�-12 157-284-31 -
30 Jeanne Singleton 39 William Reynolds 48 Mervin Jacka
9541 Bass Dr 9476 Warbler Ave 9588 Shimizu River Cir
Huntington Beach CA 92646 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Fountain Valley CA 92708
153-371-70 157-253-11 157-284-32
L� b Cav
31 Robert� Anetsberger 40 Joseph Bangan J'1�1 49 Daniel Auger
4509 Greenmeadows Ave 9486 Warbler Ave 9596 Shimizu River Cir
Torrance CA 90505 I Fountain Valley CA 92708 Fountain Valley CA 92708
153-371-71 157-253-12 157-284-33
I
32 Tomoko Aoki 41 Ronaldo Storf 50 Adrian Romero
8311 Briarwood St 18966 Capense St 9606 Shimizu River Cir
Stanton CA 90680 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Fountain Valley CA 92708
153-371-7 �i 157-253-13 157-284-34
La w C.a.
3fuw�e) SFa�,leL
33 _Joha-�z•na.-r-Et A-L- 42 Evelyn Hyatt 51 Frederick Brown
17870 Cashew 18956 Capense St 9616 Shimizu River Cir
Fountain Valley CA 92708 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Fountain Valley CA 92708
153-371-73 i 157-253-14 157-284-35
34 Michael Ortolani 43 Mosbacher-AG Company 52 Windsor Center
9611 Albacore Dr 2828 N Haskell AVe 2976 Queensbury Dr
Huntington Beach CA 92646 11 Dallas TX 75204 Los Angeles, CA 90064
153=372-01 1 157-284-01; 157-284-43VOT I
/
.....,....
� � 7
Legal Notice
City of Huntington Beach •
Office of the City Clerk •
P. O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
17 Wayne Westf_all
1812 Fenmore Ave
Camarillo CA 93010
153-371-09
0 WE IS �.�? 11�30LA91 10/;30/f39
44 � NOTIFY SE.NDER 01:7 NEW AI. DRE:Sf3
WG::iTF�AI_L
Hu~ T�w.�,�„ FIRST CLASS MAIL ("AiviADES �; ��'�.9%
3a10
_ I
r �.
cL.
_ Office of the City Clerk •
City of Huntington Melach 0
g -
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 0111
i
Lamb, Ear A.
Yomosido, Kent Stanton
9581 Albacore Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
153-371-02
Melvin Harper/et al
Orin Phillips
10211 Kaimu Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
153-362-36
Lity or riuntingron toeacn
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORN[A 92648
153-362-41
Harper, Melvin I
Gast, Ronald W.
19092 Mathew Circle
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Office of the City Clerk •
�. City of Huntington B*h
-P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
Soresi , Joseph W.
Earl Lamb Et Al
9576 Smoketree Ave
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
153-371-08
Iffy L,1Ly ul nuiitiii��v�� L� a�la
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
William Lamb
H C 60 Box 1050
Bliss, ID 83314
153-371-05
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
Carlos/Margaret Gonzales
9571 Albacore Dr.
9571 Albacore Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
office of the City Clerk • •
Cityy_ of Huntington Beach
fp.0.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
Westbrook, PeggyJ.
19102 Bushard St.
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
153-372-11
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
P.O.BOX 190 CALIF0RNIA 92648
Lamb; Earl -A.
Blume, Stanley M.
17870 Cashew CA 92708
Fountain Valley,
153-371-73
Lam Earl A.
Jungbluth, Richard .J.
c/o Keith Snider
P.O. Box 8766
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Legal Notice
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk
P. O. Box 190
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
40; '.3oseph gangan
t .9486 Warbler Ave
;_tFountain Valley CA 92708
-X A7-253-12
,
FIRST CLASS MAIL
IINGToN BEACH
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648:
--
Lamb� Ear A.(�
Yomos=f¢o, Kra-t`-Stia'nton
9581 t` acor6`Dr ;;.
Hunting n Beach,;CA 92646
153-371
Legal Notice
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk
P. O. Box 190
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
r
A �' /5 3- 0r)
Smith, David C.
�y 9582 Albacore Dr
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
r•,J �J ;:iP"T f:32 ::3801.`. :1f:31. :1.1./01./E:39
l FIRST CLASS MAIL I�E TURN TO
nvnnicrory sEA[n MOVED I._l,:l:.T ..0(J faDIJF;E:::i•`.:i
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
tj do
Lca" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Howard Zelefsky From Connie Brockway
Director Planning City Clerk
Subject Public Hearings Date October 30, 1989
As you can see the attached hearings, at the very last minute
were up-dated to the 1989 Parcel Book, to correct the AP's on
both attached hearings.
On the GPA-89-1 there were AP numbers on your 1988 list that did
not appear on the 1989 list. Please inform me why this is if
1989 maps were used, see Hilite).
The Downtown CUP hearing was also from the 1988 book, and as you `
can see updated to the 1989 book. —
It is necessary that I receive your personal. -verification that
the 1989 update is based on the 1989 parcel maps (including
Fountain Valley) by receiving the attached affidavit signed.
This is necessary due to the fact that you initialed the CUP-
Downtown Hearing as being based on 1989 maps and they were not.
The GPA hearing of Mike Connors was an understandable error,
however, it too will need the same verification.
If, in comparing the AP list with the parcel maps you find people
it should be sent to we can do this if you get this office the
addresses by Wednesday.
The hearings cannot be held if I do not receive this information,
as I will not be able to prepare minutes of the hearing which
state "that all legal requirements for notification" were met.
Please do not have the Planner who did the previous verification
again do this.
�
r
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Howard Zelefsky From Connie Brockway
Director Planning City Clerk
Subject Notification for Public Hearings Date October 30, 1989
for:
Cl) CUP-89-1 - RPPdAI
(2,) Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of
General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 and Zone Change No. 89-2
Both scheduled to be held 11/6/89
Be advised that there has not been any recent subdivisions,
tentative parcel maps, or lot line adjustments within the
notification area which would affect the mailing list..-..The
attached lists were based on the 1989 ma s_ as well as 1989
Map Books. The notification labels pro-vi3ed meet the —intent
of the requirements of Division 9 and State Law.
i"', �, /J-" L
FectXk
cl 1-ee
tor P1 g