HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal of Planning Commission Denial - Conditional Use Permi • y�
' J• RS
HL^7LNGTOr BEACH
TO: Susan Pierce
Associate Planner
FROM: Connie Brockway(
City Clerk
DATE: May 21, 1999
SUBJECT: Letter from Dean Gregg Requesting Return of Appeal Fee— CDP 96-15/
CUP 96-64/ND 96-9 (2200 Pacific Coast Highway)
As we discussed recently, attached is Mr. Gregg's request for return of appeal fee.
When the matter has been determined by the Planning Department and the City Attorney's Office
please inform me. I will do the paperwork to return the fee should that be the decision.
I
FV GROUP, LLC •
- r►v,Tr�:� �n"
CITY OF
HUFITI�IC, 13E ,CI1, CA
1999 MAY 21 A .C: 3
May 19, 1999
Ms. Connie Brockway
City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
RE: RETURN OF FEE FOR APPEAL TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-64/COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 96-15/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-9 (2200 PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY)
Dear Ms. Brockway:
Pursuant to our conversation on May 11, 1999,and as a representative of the FV Group, LLC, I am
hereby requesting the return of our$1,200 appeal fee. As you may recall, the referenced applications
were denied by the Planning Commission on September 23, 1997. The City took it upon itself to rezone
the property from commercial to residential and to also obtain Coastal Commission approval. Coastal
Commission approval was obtained in March 1999. Because we no longer have any intention of
appealing the September 23, 1997 denial, we would like the return of the appeal fee.
If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me at(714) 965-9161.
Sincerely,
FV GROUP, LLC
k��—
Dean O. Gregg
DOG/th
18700 BEACH BOULEVARD,SUITE 205 HUNTINGTON BEACH • CALIFORNIA • 92648-2030
FV Group, LLC
�T onj C,
18700 Beach Boulevard, Suite 205 �a e w
Huntington Beach,California 92648 7` MAY 10109� all — 0
a
CA 8083289
Ms. Connie Brockway
City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
,y Huntington Beach, California 92648
11_' �1 it 1 i lil -Ali
) i ll it l-1G ' %}�.,r�.� 1 ilift f 11f1 i4ii ii�lei1 illi?elli liiillli i ili lilli t
Council/Agency Meeting Held: 41
Deferred/Continued to:
®'A prove Q Conditional) A proved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature
7
C un In at POIDEE 5, 1997
cil ee CE B rtment ID Number: CD 9135
C-;0 a
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACHci
n -'
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION `' "''"
f1 �r,mt
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, Acting City Administrator 07oJ
PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development DirectorA&&--- -WW.
SUBJECT: DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL
AMENDMENT REQUEST (PCH GAS STATION)
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for your consideration is a request from Dean O. Gregg, property owner and
applicant for a proposed convenience market with gas sales at 2200 Pacific Coast Highway
at Goldenwest Street, for the City Council to direct staff to initiate and process a Local
Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) to redesignate the subject property from visitor serving
commercial to residential.
Funding Source:
If the City Council directs staff to initiate the process, there will be no processing fees
collected. If the property owners were to submit applications for redesignating the property,
the process fees equal $14,320. 'i9�a4
Recommended Action: p.
r
Motion to: Y
"Accept the letter and direct Community Development staff to initiate and process the *b<
Local Coastal Program Amendment to redesignate the property at 2200 Pacific Coast
Highway as well as other commercially designated properties on Pacific Coast Highway
north of Ninth Street for residential purposes."
F
*QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIRI
MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-65
Alternative Action(s):
Motion to:
`Deny the request for City-initiated applications to redesignate the property at 2200 Pacific
Coast Highway for residential purposes only."
Analysis:
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-64 with Special Permits, Coastal Development Permit No. 96-
15, and Negative Declaration No. 96-9 represent a request to construct a 3,000-square foot
convenience market with beer and wine sales and three self-serve gas islands with six dual
sided pumps. On September 23, 1997, the Planning Commission denied the request with
findings based primarily on incompatibility with adjacent residential uses. The property
owner has appealed the Planning Commission decision, but is requesting postponement of
the appeal hearing to allow the City Council to consider initiating a land use change for the
subject property.
The appellant desires that the City Council direct Community Development staff to initiate
and process the necessary applications to redesignate the property from visitor serving
commercial to residential. A redesignation to allow residential use requires a Local Coastal
Program Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan, General Plan
Amendment, and Environmental Analysis. Processing will take approximately 10-12 months
through the City and then will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for their
consideration. Should the applications be denied, the property owner/appellant will
reactivate the appeal.
In addition to the subject property, two other half-blocks between Sixteenth Street and
Eighteenth Street are designated as visitor-serving commercial. This area contains 20,
25-foot wide lots owned by eight different property owners. Two of the lots are held
individually; the remaining lots are primarily held in groups consisting of 50 to 75 feet of
frontage on Pacific Coast Highway (see attached map). If the lots were combined, each
half-block would be about 0.88 net acres (38,250 square feet). Approximately half of these
properties are presently vacant. The developed properties are used for a variety of uses
including commercial, office, oil production, office, boat storage, and public utility.
Environmental Status: Not applicable
CD97-65.DOC -2- 12/03/97 3:52 PM
R QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACT
MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-65
Attachment(sl:
City Clerk's
Page NumberNo. Description
1 Letter from Dean O. Gregg dated November 13, 1997
2. Letter to Michael Adams dated November 4, 1997
3. Map of Properties along Pacific Coast Highway between First Street to
Goldenwest Street
RCA Author: Susan Pierce
CD97-65.DOC -3- 11/26/97 1:30 PM
ATTACHMENT 1
* • FV Group, LLC 0
18700 Beach Boulevard, Suite 205
Huntington Beach, California 92648
(714) 965-9161
November 13, 1997
Ms. Melanie Fallon
Community Development Director
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
SUBJECT: Gas Station/Convenience Market
(PCH & Goldenwest(CUP 96-64)
Dear Ms. Fallon:
Thank you for the opportunity to further discuss alternatives for the development of our property.
In response to the suggested direction from the November 13, 1997 meeting, we are requesting a
continuance of the gas station convenience market appeal from the first meeting in December and
second meeting in December in order to provide the City Council an opportunity to initiate an
alternative direction for the site. Pending Council action we will then suspend our appeal request
until final resolve on this issue. We are requesting that a resolution or other legal instrument be
prepared for Council action which will direct staff to initiate and process the necessary application
for redesignating the site to a residential land use, consistent with the City's general plan and
downtown specific plan designation on adjacent sites. We further request that no further studies or
fees be required for the exploration and staff review of these actions.
We recognize that this process will require favorable action by the Planning Commission, City
Council and the Coastal Commission. If for what ever reason the request for residential is denied by
any of the above mentioned bodies, we will request a reactivation of our appeal.
We are confident that the City staff will be able to work on this request in an expeditious manner and
all issues will be resolved within the ten month period or time indicated in your fetter of
November 4, 1997.
Sincerely,
FV Group, LLC
Dean O. Gregg
Manager
Property Owner and Applicant
cc: Ralph Bauer, Mayor Howard Zelefsky
Dave Garofalo Scott Hess
Mike Adams
Signature Page
LUZ
Dean O. Gregg, FV Group, L Brett G. ch Maken R sources, Inc.
hn M. Gregg, FV LL Donald T. Robertson, Makena Resour C.
. Meyer, FV r C
Date:
i
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Huntington Beach
.3 `_, 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA92648
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Building 536-5241
Planning 536-5271
November 4, 1997
Michael C. Adams
Michael C. Adams Associates
1401 Quail Street, Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2725
Re: Conditional Use Permit No.96-64,2200 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Dear Mr.Adams:
I appreciate your kind remarks regarding my staffs analysis and review of the proposed commercial
project for the comer of Goldenwest Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The applicant diligently
addressed all concerns raised by staff and the community prior to the public hearing to ensure a thorough
report was presented to the Planning Commission.
In your letter dated October 7, 1997,you raise several questions as to the appropriate designation for the
subject property. Community Development Staff has reviewed these questions with various
departments. Based on these discussions,the following response to your questions should assist you to
determine the future for this site.
1. Will City and Coastal Staff support a residential project?
Community Development will support a residential project,but we are unable to predict Coastal
Staffs recommendation to the California Coastal Commission. Loss of visitor-serving commercial
property is of concern to the Coastal Commission but could be offset by the expanded commercial
designation in the Downtown core area on the Cal Resources property..
2. If residential is an option,what project density would be acceptable?
A maximum of 30 units per net acre is permitted in District 2-Residential of the Downtown Specific
Plan. If residential is going to be pursued staff would recommend this land use category for
compatibility and consistency with adjacent properties.
Michael C. Adams
Page No. 2
3. Is the additional right-of-way dedication on Pacific Coast Highway necessary for a residential
project?
The transportation model conducted in conjunction with the General Plan Update indicates traffic
flow on Pacific Coast Highway requires a right turn lane on Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest
Street, irrespective of the proposed use on the subject property.
4. Can the alley connection to Goldenwest Street be vacated and an easement for public utilities
substituted?
The Fire Department does not support vacation of the alley. This alley is necessary for life safety
access.
5. Is the site adequately remediated for residential development?
Soil remediation followed the guidelines for commercial sites. Additional remediation is necessary
for any residential development. Please consult with the Fire Department for more specific
information.
6. Will the City support any necessary variances and/or special permits to accommodate
residential development?
Staff support of any variance and/or special permits is dependent upon submittal of entitlement
application and plans. Special permits may be granted when a project is proposed which provides
greater benefits than obtained by Code compliance. Staff believes the site can support residential
development without the need for variance/special permit request.
7. Will the City consider a reduction or elimination of development fees to accommodate a
residential project?
All fees are the responsibility of the applicant and/or property owner. There is no mechanism to
grant a waiver or reduction in fees.
S. Will the City initiate and take the lead for the necessary Zone change and General Plan
Amendment through to the Coastal Commission and waive all associated fees?
Staff believes it would be to the applicant's benefit, from a timing point of view,to initiate the Local
Coastal Plan Amendment. If approved by the city Council,the staff will represent the project before
the California Coastal Commission.
Michael C. Adams
Page No. 3
9. How long will the Zone change and General Plan Amendment process take?
Typically a zone change(Zoning Text Amendment in this case)and General Plan Amendment
require a minimum of six months to process through the City. In conjunction with the amendments,
staff conducts an environmental assessment to determine the potential impact of the requested
changes. A public hearing is held by the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to
the City Council. A public hearing is also held by the City Council for final action. If the
amendments are adopted, a Local Coastal Program Amendment must be forwarded to the California
Coastal Commission for their certification. It is expected that the entire process may require 10-12
months to complete.
10. How long will a residential entitlement process take after the Zone change and General Plan
Amendment?
Depending on the type or residential project proposed,the processing time may vary from eight
weeks to four months. Single family development in compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan
and associated policy is processed only to the Design Review Board. Multi-family development
requires Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit processing with a public hearing;
minimum processing time is four months.
I trust this response adequately addresses your concerns. If additional information is necessary please
contact Scott Hess, Senior Planner,at 714-536-5271.
Sincerely,
Melanie S.Fallon
Director
cc: City Councilmembers
Ray Silver,Acting City Administrator
Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director
Scott Hess, Senior Planner
Susan Pierce,Associate Planner
gAadm1ar97\1197sp1
ATTACHMENT 3
i
W6,4 uu Liu uu uu uu uu uu uu uu uu UU UU UU UU UU UU U
0 -- - �— �. �+ - �._. .. .,�._.. ._. •. to
Ce. O F
LA—
W ul L4
[J
IL
:7
U •�..
s
..0
1_
.._. 1'ACIFICCOASrHWY.
PACIFIC OCEAN
MAXIMUM •
GENERAL PLAN ZONING RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY
RH-30-d-sp (Residential High Density) Downtown Specific Plan District 2 (Residential) 25
MV-F8-d-sp (Mixed Use Vertical) Downtown Specific Plan District 1 (Visitor Serving Commercial) 25
MV-F12-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical) Downtown Specific Plan District 3 (Visitor Serving Commercial) 35
RCV-d
(Commercial Visitor) Downtown Specific Plan District 10(Visitor Serving Commercial) 0
PROPERTIES ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
FROM FIRST STREET TO GOLDENWEST
GENERAL PLAN AND-ZONING DESIGNATIONS Il���
RCA ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
LOCAL COASTAL AMENDMENT REQUEST (PCH Gas
Station)
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 15, 1997
RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by City Attomey) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attomey) Not Applicable
Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over$5,000) Not Applicable
Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable
EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS
REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED
Administrative Staff ( ) ( )
Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( )
City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( a )
City Clerk ( )
EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM:
Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use
RCA Author: Susan Pierce
RE EtVE
CITI CLER
�t Y �F
HUNT NCTn E .4 H,CA JF,
OR 5 22 PM 91
TI-
IS,
1
ill's
�►
Of
4
NA
.�,y ► l
4\ s
W
i
c• �..(tit�� �R�y;9�py-.e� I
gym, Ja,�„ .u�� /7�* 021V��l�a�u,ao.
51�lq q
`
from The *sk of.-
City of Huntington Beach ?�o: W�
Phone: (714) 536-5209
Fax: (714) 374-1557 Date:51sr
A, Azwl
C Dry 96!s/A . �. . rC�, u. � Ma�Y L,)�
�J. C..0
T� Ax f .
I v
RECEIVED
r
MAY 15 1998
D PT OF com-num
6 PLANNING DIVISION
IOL��. 2 o b A je-az uee, " Jae: V-,
P. O. Box lgo - 2000 -'Alain Street - Huntington Beach, CaCifornia g2648
��- rom The *- sfe O : 4'13
�.�' f 1
Maybrice 1. Henry
Deputy City Clerk ��
City of Huntington Beach Toe
Phone: (714) 536-5209
,fax: (714) 374-1557 Date 9ef."
01
Biz io 3 /9 i llgJ 'e-/Y
v -
P. O. Box 190 - 2000 -'Alain Street - Huntington Beach, California g2648
� • • • CASH RECEIPT •
• • CITY OF WNT1NVON bEACh
2000 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648
• •A
HUNTINGTON BEACH
/ DATE /y 9.7
ISSUING DEPT. ^�� TELE.#
0 RECEIVED FROM -
ADDRESS �V
FOR /'P c�(� I I gal/1 i M •s.L��
t
AMOUNT RECEIVED ❑CASH CHECK
RECEIVED BY
ACCOUNTREVENUE-- TR FUND I QEPT. I . AMOUNT
k A 7 o I v O GK / `J C, l ,� a
EXPENSE
FINANCE APPROVAL
INITIAL
arc.
TOTAL$ Gu —
3276!27 3 $1200.00 CashReceipts c /'
Fri Oct 03. 1997 11:36 AM £73594• §1 v L�
l
860090
• FV Group, LLC
18700 Beach Boulevard, Suite 205
Huntington Beach, California 92648
(714) 965-9161
October 3, 1997 �G
Ms. Connie Brockway
City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
RE: Notice of Appeal
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-64/Coastal Development Permit No. 96-15/
Negative Declaration No. 96-9 (2200 Pacific Coast Highway)
Dear Ms. Brockway:
In accordance with Chapter 248 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the
undersigned applicant and property owner hereby requests an appeal to the Huntington Beach City
Council of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-64 with special
permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 96-15/Negative Declaration No. 96-9 (Convenience
Market with Gas Sales) on September 23, 1997.
Notwithstanding that the Director was required to give the applicant notice of the decision by the
Planning Commission within five (5) working days thereafter, the applicant has not yet received a
copy of the Resolution and the requisite findings contained therewith. Therefore, in order for
applicant to comply with the ten (10) calendar day time for appeal of the above referenced
application, the applicant submits this Notice of Appeal and shall file a supplemental letter
containing the grounds thereof.
The fee for the appeal is enclosed herewith. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
FV Group, LLC
Dean O. Gregg
Manager
Property Owner and Applicant
cc: John E. Cavanaugh, Esq.
John M. Gregg, FV Group, LLC
Daniel T. Meyer, FV Group, LLC
Brett G. Blanchard, Makena Resources, Inc.
Donald T. Robertson, Makena Resources, Inc.
FROM -�,H I LLER BROOKS PHONE NO. 714 965 9163 Oct.. 03 1997 04:50PM P'2
( 4
FV Group, LLC:
18700 Beach Boulevard Suite -0
Huntington Beach, California 92648
(714) 965-9161
October 3, 1997 0
Ms. Connie Brockway, City Clerk w "
o T
City of Huntington Beach Ln x 1 "m
2000 Main Street CD ps
m
Huntington Beach, California 92648
q
f
RE: ADDENDUM TO LETTER DATED OCTOBER 3, 1997
Notice of Appeal
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-64/Coastal Development Permit No. 96-15/
Negative Declaration No. 96-9 (2200 Pacific Coast Highway)
Dear Ms. Brockway:
The written findings and resolution of the Planning Commission action of September 23, 1997 on
the subject site has not yet been received. As a general basis for the appeal, the owners of the
commercially-zoned property believe that we have been unfairly denied use of our property by the
actions of the Commission. We believe that the 50-year history of commercial zoning of the
property, and the reconfirmation of commercial zoning in 1995 when the Huntington f3each
Company was denied a zoning charge to residential..and the approved General Plan Rewrite in 1996
additionally validates our position. Further, we have worked diligently with various City
departments and received Environmental approval and Design approval from the Planning
department as well as staff findings and recommendations to approve a convenience store xvith gas
sales at this location. Thus,we believe strongly that we have been unfairly denied the development
and use of our property.
Finally,we believe that both the applicant and property owner was not afforded adequate due process
at the time of the public hearing in that we were denied the opportunity to refute ixlaccurate
information given to the Planning Commission.
Please be advised that when the Resolution is received and its requisite findings evaluated we shall
file a supplemental letter containing details of our grounds for the appeal.
Sincerely,
FV Group, LLC
L i
Dean O. Gregg
Manager
Property Owner and Applicant
cc: John E. Cavanaugh, Esq. Brett G. Blanchard, Makena Resources, Inc.
John M. Gregg, FV Group, LLC Donald T. Robertson, Makena Resources, lnc.
Daniel T. Meyer, FV Group, LLC.
FROM MILLER BROOKS • PHONE NO. : 714 965 9163 • Oct. 03 1997 04:49PIl P1
NULLER BROODS ENVIRONNMNTAL, INC.
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
TO: Dr 1 '14 DATE:
A'ffN: CON Jn ) TIME:
FAX#: 7q NUMBER OF PAGES:
(including cove:sheet)
RE:
FROM. d • 9
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
If this transmission is not well received,please contact us at:
Telephone No. 714-965-9161
Telefax No. 714-965-9163
18700 Beach Boulevard,Suite 205 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 965-9161 FAX (714) 965-9163
III � , •
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
- INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
- HUNTDHCTON BEACH -
TO. Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director V re
Gail Hutton, CityAttorney �.. J A �� v
FROM: Connie Brockway � F E 6 1998
City Clerk
DATE: February 5, 1998 CCA E IT 'E! Ce .� ITYICvG:Ur::��:i
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.96-64 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.96-15/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.96-9
(CONVENIENCE MARKET W/GAS SALES)
Please advise the City Clerk's Office if the.appellant will be submitting a letter of
r=' withdrawal of appeal.
If not,please let me know what disposition to make of this document.
cbmems/98-16jc.doc
== NOTICE OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
K
-ems_ OF
9/23/97
=`= Date of Planning Commission Action
TO: Planning Dept (2 copies) DATE: 10/3/97
City Attorney (1 copy)
FILED BY Dean O. Gregg
FV Group,LLC, 18700 Beach Blvd.,Suite 205
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
REGARDING: Conditional Use Permit No. 96-64 with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit
No. 96-15/Negative Declaration No.96-9
Tentative Date for Public Hearing: To Be Determined A 1.1/g-t
Copy of Appeal Letter attached.
LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P.MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S
' OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE
Connie Brockway
City Clerk
x5227
• aE��11��[J
LAW OFFICES OF CITY 4 F r
WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART CM
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ��d a i
701 SOUTH PARKER STREET,SUITE 7000■ORANGE,CA 92868-4720 (714)558-7000 FAX(714)835�]r/87"
DIRECT DIAL(714)564-2625
DIRECT FAX (714)565-2525
October 29, 1997
Honorable Mayor Bauer and
Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-64/Coastal Development Permit No. 96-15/
Negative Declaration No. 96-9 (2200 Pacific Coast Highway,)
Dear Mayor Bauer and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of FV Group, LLC, the applicant and property owner at 2200 Pacific Coast
Highway ("Applicant"), we request that your review of this appeal of the Planning
Commission's ("Commission") denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-64/Coastal
Development Permit No. 96-15 and Negative Declaration No. 96-9 ("Project") consider all
the evidence in light of the whole record before you and that you overturn the
Commission's denial.
This letter will (1) cite the purported findings in italicisation by the Commission in
support of its denial of this Project; and (2) provide the Applicant's factual and legal
response in opposition to each finding.
I. NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO, 96-9
1. Finding for Denial
There is evidence in light of the whole record before the Commission that the
Project cannot be mitigated to eliminate impact on surrounding residential
properties and, therefore, will have a significant effect on the environment,
Response - There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the
Project, as mitigated through both the conditions of approval for the Conditional Use
TERRY C.ANDRUS■MARY E BINNING•M.LOTS BOBAK•BETTY C.BURNEIT■JOHN E.CAVANAUGH■CRAIG G.FARRINGLON■RODELL R.FICK
JOSEPH W.FORBATH■KRIS J.FORKUS-GEIGER■L.OIS E.JEFFREY■MAGDALENA L.ONA-WIANi•S EPHEN M.MILES■THOMAS F.NDCON
JASON E RESNXX 0 JOHN R.SHAW■KINNARD R SMART.JR.6 DAME L SPENCE 9 DANIEL IL SPRADLJN■ALAN R.WATTS■WOMAS L WOODRUFF
Honorable Mayor Bauer and
Members of the City Council
October 29, 1997
Page 2
Permit, Coastal Development Permit and mitigated negative declaration, will have a
significant effect on the environment.
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") is California's broadest
environmental law. When it enacted CEQA, the State Legislature expressed four
objectives of the law. Those objectives are:
(a) To disclose to decision makers in the public the significant environmental
effects of proposed activities.
(b) To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.
(c) To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible
alternatives or mitigation measures.
(d) To disclose to the public reasons for agency approvals of projects with
significant environmental effects.
Generally, the CEQA process entails three separate phases. The first phase
consists of preliminary review of a project to determine whether it is subject to CEQA. The
second phase involves preparation of an initial study to determine whether the project may
have a significant environmental effect and the preparation of negative declaration if no
significant effects will occur. The third phase is the preparation of an EIR if the project may
have a significant effect.
An initial study is a preliminary analysis prepared by a lead agency, in consultation
with other relevant agencies, to determine whether an EIR or negative declaration is
needed. If a negative declaration is prepared, the initial study is used to support the
findings that a project will not have a significant unmitigated environmental impact. [CEQA
Guidelines 15063(c).]
The initial study must contain discussions of the project description, the
environmental setting, the project's environmental effects, mitigation measures for any
significant effects, and the project's consistency with applicable land use controls.
A negative declaration may be prepared when:
(a) No substantial evidence exists that the project may have a significant
environmental effect, or
1139-01
540431
Honorable Mayor Bauer and
Members of the City Council
October 29, 1997
Page 3
(b) The initial study identifies a potentially significant effect but the project's
proponent, before public release of the proposed negative declaration, has made or agreed
to project revisions that clearly mitigate the effects, and there is no substantial evidence
indicating that the revised project may have a significant environmental effect.
Judicial review of the City's decision to adopt a negative declaration as the
environmental document for a project is controlled by the "fair argument" test. The fair
argument standard of CEQA has been one of the most debated components of the law.
However, the term "fair argument" is really somewhat misleading. A more descriptive
name would be the "fair argument/substantial evidence whole record" test.
Under the test, an EIR must be prepared whenever it can be "fairly argued upon the
basis of substantial evidence in the whole record" that the project may have a significant
adverse environmental effect. Evidence that effects will not be significant is insufficient to
excuse preparation of an EIR if there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that
the significant impacts may occur. This is a most important "if" which is often ignored by
project opponents. Under CEQA, it is not sufficient that an argument of a potential
significant adverse effect merely be raised. That argument must be supported by
substantial evidence in the whole record.
"Substantial evidence" is defined as "enough relevant information and reasonable
inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion,
even though other conclusions might also be made." [CEQA Guidelines 15384(a).]
To determine whether evidence supports a "fair argument of significant adverse
effect, the City must look to the whole record." The whole record includes expert opinions.
The State Legislature amended CEQA in an attempt to clarify the "fair argument"
standard. In these amendments, the lead agency is required to make its determinations
based on the substantial evidence in light of the whole record. What qualifies as
"substantial evidence" was clarified in Section 21080 of the CEQA Guidelines:
"Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which
is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts
which do not contribute to or are not caused by, physical impacts on the
environment, is not substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include
facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinions
supported by facts."
1139-01
54043 1
I
Honorable Mayor Bauer and
Members of the City Council
October 29, 1997
Page 4
Applicant respectfully suggests that Council review of the initial study of this Project
unequivocally reveals that, with the exception of aesthetics, the Project either creates r12
environmental impact or, a less than significant environmental impact. With respect to
aesthetics, City staff concluded that the Project may potentially create significant
environmental impacts unless mitigation measures are incorporated. City staff required
and the Applicant agreed to such a mitigation measure through the removal of signage and
the relocation or replacement of mature trees which mitigates the Project's impact to a level
below significance.
Consequently, there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record which
supports the Commission's finding that the Project will have a significant effect on the
environment. The Commission's finding states that there is evidence shown that the
Project cannot be mitigated to eliminate such impact. In fact, where a negative declaration
is to be considered for a particular project, CEQA does not require that mitigation
measures must eliminate environmental impacts; rather, it must be shown that such
mitigation measures reduce the environmental impact to a level below significance. The
particular mitigation measure as it involves aesthetics as well as all applicable conditions
of approval on the Project conclusively accomplish those goals.
II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-64
9. Findings for Denial
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-64 for the establishment, maintenance and
operation of the 3024 square foot convenience market with beer and wine sales and
gas pump islands, and an eight foot high block wall along the rear property line will
be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity
and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood.
(a) Hazards associated with the storage and dispensing of motor fuel
threaten the safety of the surrounding neighborhood and increase the possibility of
water contamination.
Response - The only concern presented with respect to hazards associated with
the storage and dispensing of motor fuel was presented by the City Fire Department which
identified issues relating to those hazards associated with the Project. A comprehensive
mitigation plan was prepared by fire and safety experts, Hunt Research, Inc., which
minimized any potential hazards including fire safety and water contamination. That
1139-01
540431
Honorable Mayor Bauer and
Members of the City Council
October 29, 1997
Page 5
mitigation plan was comprehensively discussed several times in the record and the City
Fire Department reviewed and approved that plan which was incorporated as a condition
of approval into the Project.
(b) Noise from traffic generated by the proposed use and customer activity
on the site will negatively impact the surrounding residential development
Response - A thorough acoustical noise analysis was conducted by Colia
Acoustical Consultants. That study addressed potential impact from the Project including
vehicular, truck and customer activity on the site. The study concluded that there would
be no negative impact on the surrounding residential development if the following
recommendations were incorporated into the Project:
(1) Construction of an eight foot high, solid grouted wall along the alley
with no openings will reduce the noise level to comply with the maximum day time noise
level established by the City (55 dBA);
(2) Fuel delivery will only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m.
These recommendations were included and agreed to by the Applicant as
conditions of approval for the Project.
(c) Delivery trucks and customer vehicles may intrude into the residential
neighborhood to avoid a circuitous movement to and from the site via Goldenwest
Street and Pacific Coast Highway.
Response - For a relatively small Project, there is an unprecedented 103
conditions of approval that were levied against this Project. Among those conditions of
approval J.,K., and O., clearly address this area of concern:
"J. No driveway access shall be permitted on 22nd Street due to high accident
potential between vehicles approaching Pacific Coast Highway on 22nd Street with
vehicles attempting to access the site from Pacific Coast Highway."
"K. Traffic construction plans shall include traffic signal modifications, stripping,
signing and street light installation on Pacific Coast Highway as required by the Department
of Public Works. New street lights will be required on Pacific Coast Highway at 22nd Street
1139-01
54043 1
Honorable Mayor Bauer and
Members of the City Council
October 29, 1997
Page 6
and at the mid-block point. One new street light shall be installed on 22nd Street between
the alley and Pacific Coast Highway."
"O. All loading and unloading (deliveries) shall be on site. No delivery trucks shall
use 22nd Street for loading/unloading for the proposed use."
In addition, there is the standard condition of approval imposed which grants the
City the right to revoke this Conditional Use Permit in the event there is any violation of
these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal
Code.
(d) Alcoholic beverage sales may increase litter, noise, and loitering within
the surrounding neighborhood and may encourage consumption of alcoholic
beverages at the beach where such use is prohibited.
Response - This issue has been comprehensively addressed through project
design and conditions of approval. For example, in anticipation that loitering may occur on
the site, care has been taken in the project design in the area adjacent to 22nd Street and
in the space between the proposed trash structure and rear property line. A trash area is
proposed near the north corner of the site enclosed with six (6) foot masonry or concrete
block and gates that do not face the street. A locking lid would be provided for the trash
bin to deter unauthorized use. The trash will be picked up regularly by the City's solid
waste hauler, and the applicant will arrange for special pick up if excessive use occurs.
The applicant has made a commitment for daily monitoring of the site for trash and liter and
cleanup as well as preventing an unsightly use within the City. Also, additional conditions
of approval had been imposed to prohibit dining areas, video games, and public
telephones which would substantially minimize loitering activity on the site as well as
prohibiting service station bells.
With respect to alcohol sales, the Project site plan depicts beer and wine located
in an eight (8) foot wide cooler area. Such a display ensures that beer and wine sales are
cil a to the convenience market. The applicant has agreed to a further reduction of
total floor area for the display and storage of beer and wine sales to five percent (5%) of
the total floor area. Furthermore, no sale of individual bottles/cans of beer would be
permitted and, no display or alcoholic beverages advertising on the building, on or in
windows, or at the pump sales would exist. The result of all these measures effectively de-
emphasizes the alcoholic beverage sales at the convenience market.
1139-01
540431
Honorable Mayor Bauer and
Members of the City Council
October 29, 1997
Page 7
2. The Conditional Use Permit will not be compatible with surrounding uses for
the following reasons:
(a) The proposed convenience market with gas sales generates additional
traffic in the neighborhood and jeopardizes pedestrian safety.
Response - The Traffic Impact Study prepared by KHR Associates has also been
summarized several times in the City's record. The Study, which has been approved by
the City's Traffic Engineer, determined that 977 vehicles (1,953 trip ends) per day would
be generated by the proposed Project. More importantly, the Traffic Study estimates that
with passerby traffic in the area, the actual trips are reduced to 557 vehicles (1,113 trip
ends) daily and 46 vehicles (92 trip ends) during the p.m. peak hour. As a result, this traffic
generation is just above one percent (1%) of the existing traffic level in the vicinity. Also,
the Traffic Study indicates that except for local residents who patronize the convenience
market/gas station, the adjacent neighborhood should expect little traffic. The City's Traffic
Division indicates that there are no pedestrian safety issues that can be addressed for this
site. Finally, there is no record of pedestrian accidents at the intersection. A crosswalk is
already provided for pedestrian access from Goldenwest Street and then from the opposite
intersection on Pacific Coast Highway to the beach.
There is no evidence in the record that the one percent (1%) additional traffic
generated by this Project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan circulation element.
(b) The proposed hours of operation introduce new noise impacts on
adjacent residential uses on a twenty-four(24) hour basis.
Response - See response to Conditional Use Permit Finding 1.(b)
(c) The Applicant has not demonstrated proof that the existing on well will
be removed and the possible hazard that may be created by the use on the site with
capped oil wells and an active oil well.
Response - The Applicant has clearly committed to the City that the existing oil
well will be removed. This is a legally insufficient finding of incompatibility with surrounding
uses simply because the City can enforce this provision through a condition of approval
prior to the City granting a building permit. In the event the Applicant fails to comply with
this conditional of approval, no building permit will be issued.
1139-01
540431
Honorable Mayor Bauer and
Members of the City Council
October 29, 1997
Page 8
3. The granting of the Conditional Use Permit will adversely effect the General
Plan. It is not consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan:
(a) Ensure adequate protection from fire and medical emergencies for
Huntington Beach residents and property owners.
(b) Ensure that existing and new development does not degrade the City's
surface waters and ground water basins.
(c) Require design features, operating procedures, preventative
maintenance, operator training, and emergency response planning to prevent the
release of toxic pollutants for applicable uses and all business parks, industrial
parks, and industrial designated areas.
(d) Prevent and mitigate and adverse impacts of excessive noise exposure
on the residents, employees, visitors, and noise sensitive uses of Huntington Beach.
(e) Minimize noise spill over or encroachment from commercial and
industrial land uses and to adjoining residential neighborhoods or"noise-sensitive"
uses.
(f) Reduce to the greatest degree possible, the potential for harm to life,
property and environment from hazardous materials and hazardous waste.
(g) Avoid, to the extent feasible, risks from hazardous materials through
sensitive uses such as hospitals, schools, residences, and environmentally
sensitive areas.
Response - In addition to the information discussed above which address many,
if not all of these concerns articulated under subparagraph (a) through (g), Applicant
respectfully submits to this Council the following information:
The General Plan and zoning designation of this property reveal that the site has
been zoned for commercial purposes since November 17, 1947. Service stations had
been permitted on this site since that time. The General Plan requires a higher quality and
project design and additional landscaping on the site to enhance the visual quality of the
entrance to the Downtown area and the Pacific Coast Highway street scene. This Project
proposes more than three (3) times the Code required landscaping and quality
construction. The proposed landscape plan is designed to discourage loitering and to
1139-01
54043 1
Honorable Mayor Bauer and
Members of the City Council
October 29, 1997
Page 9
reduce light/glare impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed commercial building and
canopy have been designed to comply with the Mediterranean theme established in the
Downtown design guidelines. Also, the conditions of approval for this Project require that
parking area light standards include a shield to direct light downward away from residential
properties. In addition, the Project has been designed to minimize coastal view impacts
for the adjacent residential properties. The convenience market building height is twenty-
four (24) feet and the canopy is twenty-three (23) feet. The location of the buildings and
pitch roof design on both structures allow residents view opportunities to the coast
between the buildings, over the buildings, and in locations where there are no structures.
The proposed Project would include "state of the art" technology which would
reduce to the greatest degree possible, the potential for harm to life, property and the
environment from any possible hazardous situation. For example, the site will be designed
to drain away from the residential properties toward the landscaped areas. The truck
unloading and pump island fueling areas include a four (4) inch high berm for spill control.
A bermed area will contain five thousand two hundred seventy five (5,275) gallons of liquid
plus two (2) inches of rain water and will drain into a twelve thousand (12,000) gallon
storage tank. The sprinkler system within the building will extinguish any non-fuel-
associated fires. Two fire hydrants will be installed for purposes of exposure protection
from the proposed use. One will be located on 22nd Street mid-way adjacent to the
handicapped entrance. The other is proposed on Pacific Coast Highway, east of
Goldenwest, adjacent to the right-turn lane. Emergency fuel pump shut-offs will be
installed to prevent fuel dispensing during a possible fire. A soil mitigation plan was
submitted indicating that the water table on the site ranges from twenty five (25) to twenty
eight (28) feet below the surface of the site. Under this Project, the fuel storage tanks will
be constructed with double steel walls and include leak detection monitoring. Methods to
minimize flotation of the tanks or rupture of the tanks/fuel lines during an earthquake
include strapping, leak detection, shut-off valves, and flexible connectors.
The measures proposed above substantially exceed those requirements by the City
and the industry for this type of project. The Commission concluded, without any evidence
in the whole record which would indicate to the contrary, that the above measures taken
by the Applicant reveal that this use has a potentiality of creating an adverse impact on the
residents and areas surrounding the site. This is simply untrue. Rather, there is no
evidence in the whole record which would indicate that the hazards speculated by either
the members of the public or members of the Commission would even exist; however, the
Applicant has taken extraordinary steps to ensure the potentiality of these perceiv
hazardous risks would either be eliminated or reduced to the greatest degree possible.
1139-01
54043_1
Honorable Mayor Bauer and
Members of the City Council
October 29, 1997
Page 10
III. SPECIAL PERMITS
1. Findings for Denial
The following requested special permits do not provide a better urban
environment.
(a) Zero (0) foot interior side building set back in lieu of three (3) feet
(b) Street access in lieu of alley access.
Response - Zero (0) foot interior side building set back in lieu of three (3) feet will
provide a better separation between the commercial use and residential alley. The
proposed building will be constructed with maintenance-free materials at the property line
with no openings that would allow noise, light, or view intrusion on or from the adjacent
parcel. Zero (0) lot line construction provides a noise and light buffer to residential uses
north of the alley. The zero (0) foot rear building setback focuses vehicular/customer
activity to the front of the site and eliminates any area for loiters and trash.
It is the City staffs position that the alley should be maintained as a residential alley
and, therefore, access to the proposed market with gas pumps should be obtained from
Pacific Coast Highway and Goldenwest Street, not the alley. City staff concludes that alley
access will generate noise impact on the adjacent multi-family residential development
whereas street access will reduce those impacts. The block wall and proposed building
along the rear property line as part of this Project will buffer vehicle light, reduce vehicle
and customer noise impacts, and promote a better living environment.
2. The requested special permits do not provide better land planning techniques
with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, sight
layout and design. The building location and street access focuses vehicular
activity toward the street to create possible traffic conflicts and reduces pedestrian
safety.
Response - See responses to 111.1.(a) and (b).
3. The requested special permits are not consistent with objectives of the
Downtown Specific Plan in achieving development adapted to the terrain and
compatible with the surrounding environment The proposed Project increases
noise and hazard impacts onto the adjacent residential properties.
1139-01
540431
Honorable Mayor Bauer and
Members of the City Council
October 29, 1997
Page 11
Response - In addition to the information discussed hereinabove which addresses
this unsubstantiated finding, the proposed Project either meets or exceeds every zoning
requirement articulated under the Downtown Specific Plan.
IV. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 96-15
1. Coastal Development Permit No. 96-15 for the development Project does not
conform with the General Plan which includes the Local Coastal Program.
Response - See responses to Findings for Denial to Conditional Use Permit.
V. DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS
Both the Commission and City Council act in a quasi-judicial capacity on matters
which implicate Constitutionally protected property and liberty interests. Under the
Fourteenth (14th) Amendment to the United States Constitution, those with an interest at
stake in the decision-making process must be accorded due process before such decision
is rendered. That due process procedure employed must be fair and accord those with an
interest in the matter a meaningful opportunity to prepare and be heard. Furthermore, the
decision-maker must be fair and impartial. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit is
an example of a quasi-judicial action which requires due process. This typically takes the
form of a properly noticed public hearing. In addition to the public hearing being properly
and timely noticed, all considerations of due process apply a meaningful opportunity to
prepare and be heard before an impartial decision-maker must be accorded. The
fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.
In addition to the responses to the Commission's findings of denial as articulated
above, this Applicant appeals to this Council that the Applicant was not afforded adequate
due process during the public hearing in which the Commission considered the Project.
At the September 23, 1997, public hearing, and after the staff presented their report to the
Commission, the Applicant, presented both written and expert testimonial evidence in
support of the Project. The Commission then allowed members of the public to speak both
in favor of or in opposition to the Project. As the record will indicate, those individuals who
spoke in opposition to the Project presented testimony in the form of argument,
speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, or evidence which the Applicant believed to be
clearly inaccurate or erroneous. The Commission did not afford the Applicant the
1139-01
54043 1
Honorable Mayor Bauer and
Members of the City Council
October 29, 1997
Page 12
opportunity to be heard to rebut any such inaccurate or erroneous evidence.
Consequently, the members of the Commission expressed opinions based solely on
testimony by those individuals opposing the Project and the purported findings contained
in support of the Commission's denial of the Project reflect this conclusion.
Furthermore, the purported findings in support of the Commission's denial of the
Project, are not supported by evidence in the record as required by law. As has already
been discussed above, there is no evidence in the whole record that the proposed Project
would cause the adverse impacts that cannot be addressed by the proposed Project's
design, mitigation measures, or the substantial number of conditions of approval which the
applicant has consented. The findings articulated by the Commission are legally
insufficient in that they are boilerplate and conclusionary which did not recite specific facts
upon which the particular findings are based.
VI. CONCLUSION
Applicants for this Project respectfully ask the City Council to overturn the
Commission's decision to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 96-64 with special
permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 96-15 and Negative Declaration No. 96-9 in light
of the facts contained in the whole record that the proposed Project fully complies with all
goals and policies of the City General Plan, zoning requirements of the Downtown Specific
Plan, all City Code codes and regulations and, the California Environmental Quality Act.
Respectfully submitted,
WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART
.q9t, (C- PQ4Ma410)
N E. CAVA UGH
ORNEYS FOR FV GROUP, LLC
cc: Connie Brockway, City Clerk
FV Group, LLC
Makena Resources, Inc.
1139-01
540431
J� City of Huntington Beach
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BaIldlng 536-5241
G Planning 536-5271
February 3, 1998
Michael C. Adams Associates
1401 Quail Street, Ste. 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2725
Subject: Goldenwest/PCH Land Use Redesignation
Dear Mike:
In response to your letter of December 30, 1997 regarding the severability of the corner property
at PCH and Goldenwest and reactivation of the appeal, Community Development staff concurs.
Staff would support bringing the redesignation request for the corner property forward
independently if necessary, and the appeal remains on file until withdrawn.
We have prepared a preliminary schedule for the project, which is attached for your information.
When feasible we will expedite the schedule and will keep you posted if there are any changes.
If I may be of further assistance,please contact me.
Very truly yours,
Melanie Fallon,
Director
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
TO: Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director ( ' i
Gail Hutton, City Attorney cj ' P,
FROM: Connie Brockway F E B 1
City Clerk �9`'$
DATE: February 5, 1998
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.96-64 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 96-15/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-9
(CONVENIENCE MARKET W/GAS SALES)
Please advise the City Clerk's Office if the appellant will be submitting a letter of
withdrawal of appeal.
If not, please let me know what disposition to make of this document.
cbmems/98-16j c.doc
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMNUSSION ACTION
OF
9/23/97
Date of Planning Commission Action
TO: Planning Dept (2 copies) DATE: 10/3/97
City Attorney (1 copy)
FILED BY Dean O. Gregg
FV Group,LLC, 18700 Beach Blvd., Suite 205
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
REGARDING: Conditional Use Permit No. 96-64 with SQecial Permits/Coastal Development Permit
No. 96-15/Negative Declaration No. 96-9
Tentative Date for Public Hearing: To Be Determined 11 I-l'9?
Copy of Appeal Letter attached.
LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P.MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S
OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE
Connie Brockway
City Clerk
x5227
Fror►�i lrhe lbesk of.•
J4aybrice L. Henry
Deputy City Clerk
k City of Huntington Beach moo:
` Phone: (714) 536-5209 5� �
Fax: (714) 374-1557 Date:j-/5/9,�
� ¢ 1
.f ,
P. O. Box 190 - 2000 -%lain Street - Huntington Beach, CaCifornia 92648
i
From The Vsk of.•
-'Atay6rice L. Henry
Deputy City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach To: a,�- �
Phone: (714) 536-5209
,fax: (714) 374-1557 Date:
yf�[. /D 3 A?7
�F`
P. O. Box ig0 - 2000 -'Alain Street - Huntington Beach, Caffornia g2648
(15) • 12/15/97 - Coun lAgency Agenda - Page 15
F-2. (City Council)Approve Transfer Of$1 8 Million To City's Workers' Compensation Self
Insurance Fund & Liability Self Insurance Fund (320.20)
Communication from the Deputy City Administrator-Administrative Services informing
Council that due to the continuing economic recovery, 1996/97 revenues from ongoing and
one-time sources exceeded estimates as documented in the recently distributed Quarterly
Budget Report. Staff recommends that the amount of the fund balance exceeding the
budget estimates be transferred to replenish the depleted reserves and the Workers'
Compensation and Liability Self Insurance Funds.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Approve the transfer from the General Fund Reserve of$1,000,000 to the City's Workers'
Compensation Self Insurance Fund and $800,000 to the Liability Self Insurance Fund.
[Approved 6-0 (Bauer out of room)]
F-3. (City Council) Direction To Staff Regarding Zoning Text Amendment-General Plan
Amendment And Local Coastal Amendment Request- Pacific Coast Highway Gas
Station
Communication from the Community Development Director transmitting a request from
Dean O. Gregg, property owner and applicant for a proposed convenience market with gas
sales at 2200 Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street, for the City Council to direct staff
to initiate and process a Local Coastal Program Amendment(LCPA)to redesignate the
subject property from Visitor Serving Commercial to Residential.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Accept the letter from Dean O. Gregg, property owner and applicant, dated November 13,
1997, and direct Community Development staff to initiate and process the Local Coastal
Program Amendment to redesignate the property at 2200 Pacific Coast Highway as well
as other commercially designated properties on Pacific Coast Highway north of Ninth
Street for residential purposes.
[Approved 7-0 with direction to staff to work with the applicant any
way possible through the zoning process]
F-4. (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) City Council Resolution No.97-82 -Redevelop
Agency Resolution No. 285-Accept And Adopt The 1997 Investment Policy (310.20)
Communication from the City Treasurer transmitting the annual statement of investment policy for
the legislative body for acceptance.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
1. Approve the Investment Policy for the City of Huntington Beach for the years 1997/1998.
[Approved 7-0]
an
2. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 97-82- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Providing the Annual Fiscal Year 199711998 Investment Policy"
[Approved 7-0]
and
3. Adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 285-A Resolution of the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Annual Fiscal Years 1997/1998
Investment Policy".
[Adopted 7-01
(15)
9vtay6ri " . lenry ,
Deputy ty CCerk
I City of Huntington Beach r
+ Phone: 536 5209
1
,fax. 374-1557
?/Sf�s 3(o S 27/,
i
j
r
(15) • 12/15/97 -Cou&Agency Agenda - Page 15
F-2. (City Council) Approve Transfer Of$1.8 Million To City's Workers' Compensation Self
Insurance Fund & Liability Self Insurance Fund (320.20)
Communication from the Deputy City Administrator-Administrative Services informing
Council that due to the continuing economic recovery, 1996/97 revenues from ongoing and
one-time sources exceeded estimates as documented in the recently distributed Quarterly
Budget Report. Staff recommends that the amount of the fund balance exceeding the
budget estimates be transferred to replenish the depleted reserves and the Workers'
Compensation and Liability Self Insurance Funds.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Approve the transfer from the General Fund Reserve of$1,000,000 to the City's Workers'
Compensation Self Insurance Fund and $800,000 to the Liability Self Insurance Fund.
[Approved 6-0 (Bauer out of room)]
F-3. (City Council) Direction To Staff Regarding Zoning Text Amendment-General Plan
Amendment And Local Coastal Amendment Request- Pacific Coast Highway Gas
Station
Communication from the Community Development Director transmitting a request from
Dean O. Gregg, property owner and applicant for a proposed convenience market with gas
sales at 2200 Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenwest Street, for the City Council to direct staff
to initiate and process a Local Coastal Program Amendment(LCPA)to redesignate the
subject property from Visitor Serving Commercial to Residential.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Accept the letter from Dean O. Gregg, property owner and applicant, dated November 13,
1997, and direct Community Development staff to initiate and process the Local Coastal
Program Amendment to redesignate the property at 2200 Pacific Coast Highway as well
as other commercially designated properties on Pacific Coast Highway north of Ninth
Street for residential purposes.
[Approved 7-0 with direction to staff to work with the applicant any
way possible through the zoning process]
F-4. (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) City Council Resolution No. 97-82-Redevelopment
Agency Resolution No. 285-Accept And Adopt The 1997 Investment Policy (310.20)
Communication from the City Treasurer transmitting the annual statement of investment policy for
the legislative body for acceptance.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
1. Approve the Investment Policy for the City of Huntington Beach for the years 1997/1998.
[Approved 7-0]
and
2. Adopt City Council Resolution No.97-82- 'A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Providing the Annual Fiscal Year 1997/1998 Investment Policy"
[Approved 7-0]
and
3. Adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No.285-A Resolution of the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Annual Fiscal Years 1997/1998
Investment Policy".
[Adopted 7-0]
(15)
206 Golden West Street 6;)
` Huntington Beach, California 92648
City of Huntington Beach December 16, 1996
City Council
2000 Main Street RECEIVED FROM
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 AND COUNCIL OF A PART—OF THE RECORD A�T E
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Attention: Mr. Dave Garofalo CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK
Councilman
Subject: Coastal Development Permit (CDP)No. 96-15
Proposed Service Station at the Corner of Golden West Street and Pacific Coast
Highway in the City of Huntington Beach, California
Dear Mr. Garlfalo:
I am extremely concerned about the possibility of a gas station/mini-mart being constructed
on the East corner of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and Golden West Street. My concerns
are raised from both the standpoints of knowledge of Huntington Beach's General Plan and
familiarity with the PCH/Golden West intersection. I have resided near that intersection for
over three years and have become very familiar with the intersection's traffic flow and
pattern from both a driver's and a pedestrian's point of view.
"The General Plan is the fundamental policy document of the City of Huntington Beach,"
and as such, it "provides the framework for management and utilization of the City's
physical, economic and human resources." It provides "a basis for rational decision
making" and serves as a guide for "civic decisions regarding land use, the design and/or
character of buildings and open spaces, ... supporting infrastructure ..., and the protection of
residents from natural and human-caused hazards." Understanding this, I will freely quote
the General Plan while addressing my concerns.
Current zoning does not permit a gas station/mini-mart on the East corner of PCH
and Golden West Street. The property fronting PCH at the East corner of the PCH and
Golden West intersection is in the "Old Town" district. It is also designated as a "PCH
Node" and as such, is to act as a"focal" point to enhance the"village" character of the "Old
Town" residential area, maintaining it as a distinct neighborhood of the City.
The permitted use of the site is Mixed Use; an integration of housing and visitor-serving
commercial uses. "Mixed use structures incorporating residential units on the second floor
and/or rear of commercial uses; with restrictions on the type of commercial uses to ensure
compatibility with the housing." Acceptable visitor-serving commercial uses for the site
include: "Hotels/motels, restaurants, recreation-related retail sales, cultural uses (e.g.,
museums) and similar uses oriented to coastal and other visitors to the City." Please note
that "Gas Station/Mini-Mart" is absent from the list of acceptable uses.
A maximum total building floor area allowed is approximately 51,500 square feet, including
a maximum commercial floor area of about 12,000 square feet. The floor area not used for
commercial can incorporate up to 19 or 20 residences.
The Downtown Specific Plan "require(s) structures on the property to be sited along PCH
frontage, with parking to the rear, sides or within structures." The structures are to be
designed "to achieve a consistent visual character and be compatible with adjacent
residential units ... ."
The above land use description includes a lot of businesses, but not a gas station nor does
include a mini-mart!
A gas station/mini-mart on the East corner of PCH and Golden West is a threat to
pedestrian safety. The General Plan seeks to "Promote the safety of bicyclists and
pedestrians ... ... It stresses that: "Future design of the circulation system should focus
upon safety of the pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist." The Plan also states: "Limit
driveway access points and require adequate driveway widths onto arterial roadways and
require driveways be located to ensure the smooth and efficient flow of vehicles, bicycles
and pedestrians."
The PCH/Golden West intersection serves as beach and public transportation access for a
large residential area and numerous City visitors that use the residential area's streets for
parking. Many of the pedestrians that use the intersection are families with small children
and babies in strollers. There are also a number of pedestrians that are mobility impaired.
The pedestrian flow is steady, especially during the summer, and many show or express
safety concerns about crossing the two major arterial highways.
The proposed gas station/mini-mart, with one driveway on PCH and another on Golden
West possess an even greater threat to pedestrian safety. The threat is not readily apparent
and as a result will catch pedestrians unprepared to react. The threat comes as south bound
PCH drivers turn left onto Golden West and immediately negotiate the gas station/mini-
mart entrance. Vision of the driveway will be impaired by other left turning vehicles in front
of the gas station/mini-mart customer. Further, the driver will be distracted by concerns
about vehicles behind rear-ending him or her while slowing to enter the station/mini-mart.
The usual speed of traffic making that left turn, coupled with the obstructed driveway view,
the "rear-end" distractions, and unprepared pedestrians is a formula for disaster. A disaster
that will haunt you the rest of your life if the gas station/mini-mart becomes reality.
A gas station/mini-mart on the East corner of PCH and Golden West will cause traffic
intrusion into the neighboring residential area. The General Plan recognizes that
"Traffic from many commercial areas is intruding onto adjacent residential streets" and the
City's desire to "Decrease non-residential traffic on local residential-serving streets."
2
I struggle with the questions: "How will a south bound PCH traveler resume south bound
PCH travel after filling-up?" "How will a north bound PCH traveler resume north bound
travel after filling-up?"
The south bound traveler has four choices. 1) Exit the PCH driveway into north bound
PCH traffic, immediately cross four lanes of traffic (remember circulation plans include
expanding PCH to three lanes, plus the right turn lane), and make a U-turn at the
PCH/Golden West intersection. This option is not likely. It is difficult at best to just enter
north bound PCH traffic at 22nd Street during the summer and on weekends.
2) Turn around in the gas station to maneuver out the Golden West driveway, make a U-
turn at some point on Golden West, and turn left from Golden West onto south bound
PCH. This option holds some promise, but the U-turns may represent an additional traffic
hazard.
3) Turn around in the gas station to maneuver out the Golden West driveway, turn right at
Walnut Avenue (a residential street), turn right on 22nd Street (a residential street), turn
right into north bound PCH traffic, immediately cross three lanes of traffic and make a U-
turn at the PCH/Golden West intersection. Chances are better to cross the three lanes from
22nd street than four lanes from mid-block as required by Option 1.
4) Turn around in the gas station to maneuver out the Golden West driveway, turn right at
Walnut Avenue (a residential street), proceed to 17th Street and make a right turn, and turn
left at the light onto south bound PCH.
One-half of the south bound traveler's options impact residential streets after filling-up.
The north bound PCH traveler has a somewhat easier assignment after filling-up. The
number one (1) option probably is to maneuver in a relatively confined space (facing north
in the pump area), avoiding cars entering the Golden West driveway, and returning to the
PCH driveway. From the driveway make a right turn, across the PCH right turn lane, and
enter north bound traffic. The main problem is getting into traffic. As I stated earlier, I
have difficulty from 22nd street during the summer and on weekends; mid-block across the
PCH right turn lane will be worse.
2) Exit the Golden West driveway (the direction the driver is already facing at the pumps),
make a U-turn at some point on Golden West, and turn right from Golden West onto north
bound PCH. This option appears to be the most practical.
3) Exit the Golden West driveway (the direction the driver is already facing at the pumps),
turn right a Walnut Avenue (a residential street), turn right on 22nd Street (a residential
street), turn right into north bound PCH traffic. I believe this option is the most likely to be
used, but residential streets are impacted and, as previously mentioned, that right turn into
PCH traffic from 22nd Street is not always easy.
3
Reviewing the gas station/mini mart exit options for PCH travelers, it is apparent that
residential streets would be impacted by additional non-residential traffic.
In addition to the residential streets, PCH and Golden West traffic will also be impacted and
congestion increased. Motorists will not be able to enter and exit the gas station/mini-mart
driveways smoothly and efficiently and safety will be impacted. These problems can not be
mitigated in the gas station/mini-mart becomes reality.
A gas station/mini-mart on the East corner of the PCH/Golden West intersection
would be a continuation of current hodgepodge zoning problems. The General Plan
clearly identifies existing land use conflicts and the problems of fragmented commercial
corridors:
"Commercial corridors are fragmented, without a sense of center, and contain a mix
of land uses that do not distinctly identify the corridors. A land use pattern should
create an identifiable center or centers ..."
"Huntington Beach's commercial districts occur along the arterial corridors or as
centers in which multiple uses are consolidated. Generally, the corridors are weakly
defined, with little unity or consistency, while the centers convey a more distinct and
positive image for the City due to their density of building and activity."
The Plan also addresses "visual elements which confuse, diffuse, and weaken the
community's identity and sense of place."
"Development in many commercial corridors is fragmented with few concentrations
of uses. This results in the absence of identifiable and unified districts. Viable
commercial districts necessitate the clustering of compatible uses in limited areas,
rather than dispersion along corridors. A lack of distinctive character in the districts
and corridors contributes to an overall weak visual image for the City."
The gas station/mini-mart would change existing PCH frontage land use between 17th
Street and Golden West to 45% residential, 30% commercial (up from 10%), and 25%
vacant or oil producing. In other words, hodgepodge.
Please understand that the current ten percent commercial usage has minimum
improvements on the property, allowing a relatively easy transition to all residential zoning
along the PCH frontage.
How can the City consider making the same hodgepodge mistakes made in the past with the
General Plan, the fundamental policy document of the City, used as a basis for decision
making?
4
Rather than fragmentation that weakens the City's image, the General Plan states that
one of the City's goals is to "Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington
Beach" and to "Identify and reinforce a distinctive architectural and environmental image
for each district in Huntington Beach." The Plan also clearly states that: "Fostering or
enhancing the identity of the individual communities that make up the City is key to
strengthening the City's overall image and the ability of a person to identify it or associate it
uniquely with Huntington Beach."
The General Plan identifies the intersection of PCH and Golden West as a secondary entry
node. The Plan also states that "Entry points should announce arrival into the City of
Huntington Beach and should epitomize the City as a whole through their image. Gateway
entries should serve as key orientation points within the city, allowing residents and visitors
to establish their bearings." "A clear identity should be established for each node as a way
to orient travelers." "Nodes ... should establish the character and themes for the areas
surrounding them and serve as the focus of local activity." "Each node should incorporate a
design theme of the neighborhood or district within which it is located. It should have a
unique character to distinguish it from other similar nodes or small centers, and incorporate
features that allow it to serve as a kind of landmark in the urban landscape."
In addition, the Plan identifies PCH and Golden West as primary paths. "A"path" provides
the means of vehicular and pedestrian movement in the community, connecting land uses
and areas of activity. Since people observe their city while moving through it, paths form
the predominant image of the community. Their quality is communicated through the
streetscape character and the image of the nodes located along their length."
In accordance with the General Plan, "A "landmark" is defined as a significant reference
point, either a structure, space, landscape, or freestanding element, which helps to identify a
particular area in the City. Frequently, Huntington Beach's landmarks are not readily
identifiable." "New landmarks could be introduced at appropriate locations to aid in
establishing orientation and direction." "The coastal character of the City can be reinforced
through ... the preservation of open space and the natural setting along Pacific Coast
Highway."
The City has a rare opportunity. An important entry node into the downtown area is vacant
and a new important landmark could be added to upgrade the City's image. Please let
visitors to the City know how we feel in our heart about Huntington Beach! Let our
community pride show! End the hodgepodge! Upgrade the City's image!
Sincerely,
i
Charles R. Wolter
714/960-8484
r
5
Page 1 of 3
December 16, 1996 City Council Meeting RECEIVED FROM
AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT TH
City of Huntington Beach COUNCIL MEETING Of-
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
80NNI9 BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK
Public Comment Provided By: Michelle A. Gillette
Huntington Beach Resident
Public Comment Concerning:
1. Project Title: Service Station
Concurrent Entitlements Conditional Use Permit No. 96-64
Coastal Development Permit No. 96-15
Design Review No. 96-50
Environmental Assessment No. 96-9
2. Project Location: 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, inland side of
Pacific Coast Highway between Twenty-second Street and
Goldenwest Street
3. Project Proponent: Makena Resources Inc.
(Presently is in escrow to purchase the property from
Morgan Stanley/Vickers II).
4. City of Huntington Beach
General Plan Designation: MIXED USE
5. Zoning: Specific Plan 5 (Downtown Specific Plan - District 1
VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL
6. Project Description: A 24 hour gas station with a liquor store/market. The
project proposes a liquor store/market of 2,916-square feet,
a 3,600 sq. ft. canopy covering 12 multi-product
dispepensers on a 35,390 net square foot site. As each
pump is capable of fueling two cars at a time (one care on
each side of the pump), this station is capable of fueling 24
cars at the same time.
Page 2 of 3
December 16, 1996 City Council Meeting
City of Huntington Beach
Public Comment Provided By: Michelle A. Gillette
Huntington Beach Resident
Commentary:
We urge the City Council, to visit this project site, and carefully study the significant impact of
this proposed project. Please give it your technical depth of understanding and vision it
deserves, and help us avoid an exploitation of this beautiful City's image, and one of it's most
striking assets - the ocean vista and beachfront.
The Draft Environmental Checklist Form prepared by the City of Huntington Beach Planning
Division (Environmental Assessment No. 96-9) indicates a determination that "although the
proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project", and
a mitigated negative declaration will be prepared.
This proposed mitigated negative declaration is grossly inappropriate for this site, and fails
to properly evaluate the significance of many critical factors. A few of these factors are:
I. Land Use
The proposed 24 hour gas station and liquor store/market is a land use that is not consistent with
the General Plan. The General Plan clearly states acceptable visitor-serving commercial uses for
the site, and gas stationiliquor store IS NOT one of them. Fuel storage and dispensing is an
industrial activity, and the property is clearly not zoned for this activity. It is startling to see
the City's Planning Department assess the proposed land use conflicts and inconsistencies as
"less than significant impact" and "no impact".
Council members: Please stop the exploitation of the City's assets and deny a
conditional use permit.
2. Fire Safety for Surrounding Residential Housing
The project proposes to incorporate a portion of the alley right-of-way. This will effectively
block any fire fighting equipment from entering the alley from the Goldenwest Street. This is a
significant adverse impact to fire protection/prevention for the adjacent residential homes. In the
recent past, this very alley way was used by the fire department, to fight a fire that occurred in
this neighborhood.
Council members: The alley right-of-way will require vacation by the City Council.
Please do not allow this project to diminish the fire and police access
to our residents.
Please do NOT vote in favor of vacating the alley right-of-way.
Pale 3 of 3
December 16, 1996 City Council Meeting
City of Huntington Beach
Public Comment Provided By: Michelle A. Gillette
Huntington Beach Resident
3. Environmental Hazards
The environmental hazards are many. They include surface water run-off into the storm drain
system, which would allow beach outfall of hazardous materials such as, antifreeze from
radiators, benzene, toluene and zylene (constituents of gasoline), and other hazardous petroleum
products.
The proposed industrial activity of storing and dispensing fuel,will require by State law,
that persons within the exposure zone are warned about the chemicals used in the conduct
of this activity. This warning is required pursuant to Proposition 65, and will require that
residents are warned that the storage and dispensing of fuel involves the use of gasoline, other
petroleum products and their vapors - known to the State to cause cancer, birth defects or other
reproductive harm.
The proposed land use is clearly involves activity classified as INDUSTRIAL.
Council members: Do not permit the applicant to exploit a commercial/mixed-
use designation, by allowing a conditional use permit for
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY.
LOS ANGF1.6S FINIFS
WARNING
Chemicals known to the State to cause cancer,birth defects,
or other reproductive harm are found in gasoline,crude oil,and many
other petr6-hum prod ucts and their vapors,or result from their use.
Read and follow label directions and use care when handling or using
all petroleum products.
Chemicals known to the State to cause cancer, birth defects,
or other reproductive harm are found in and around gasoline stations,
refineries,chemical plants,and other facilities that produce, handle,
transport,store,or sell crude oil and petroleum and chemical product:;.
Other facilities covered by this warning include,for example,
oil and gas wells,oil and gas treating plants,petroleum and chemical
storage tanks, pipeline:systems, marine vessels and barges, tank trucks
and tank cars,loading and unloading facilities,and refueling facilities..
The foregoing warning is provided pursuant to Proposition 65.
"This law requires the Governor of California to publish a list of chemicals
"known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity."This list is
compiled in accordance with a procedure established by the Proposition,
and can be obtained from the California Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposition 65 requires that a clear and reasonable warning be given to
persons exposed to the listed chemicals in certain situations.
ARCO Santa Fe
Atlantic Richfield Company Pacific Pipeline Partners, L.P.
BP Oil Company Shell Oil Company
and its subsidiaries
CHEVRON CORPORATION Texaco USA
and its subsidiaries
Time Oil Co.
Exxon Company,U.S.A.
a division of Exxon Corporation, Tosco Corporation,
and affiliated companies its divisions and subsidiaries
Jackpot Convenience Stores,Inc. Ultramar Inc.
Beacon
Mobil Oil Corporation, UNOCAL Corporation,
its affiliates and subsidiaries its divisions and subsidiaries
Pacific Refining Corppany The Valvoline Company
and affiliated companies . a division of Ashland Inc.
For more information, please'call:
1-800-523-3157
1 1.90