HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Plan Amendment 01-01 - Zoning Map Amendment 01-02 - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY
CITY CLERK
February 19, 2002
Sunrise Development Inc.
Attn: Wayne Sant
1837 Pecan Circle
Corona, CA 92882
Dear Mr. Sant:
Please find enclosed the December 17, 2001 minutes of the regular meetings of the City of
Huntington Beach City Council/Redevelopment Agency at which there was action taken
regarding the following:
(City Council) Public Hearing to Consider General Plan Amendment No. 01-01;
Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 (Sunrise Assisted Living) Map Amendments
Filed by Wayne Sant, Sunrise Development, Inc. to Rezone 2134 Main Street
(Northam Ranch House — n/o Yorktown Avenue, w/o Ranch Lane in the Lake/
Yorktown Redevelopment Subarea) — Approve Introduction of Ordinance
No. 3533—Adopt Resolution No. 2001-97
Sincerely, a'oe // -
d004�
Connie Brockway, CIVIC
City Clerk
Enclosure
(Telephone:714-536-5227)
PROOF OF SERVICE OF PAPERS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,
CA 92648.
�b41
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6, on Januaryl*k202, I served the
foregoing documents(s) described as: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION on the interested parties in
this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
Sunrise Development, Inc.
Attn: Wayne Sant
1837 Pecan Circle
Corona, CA 92882
a. [X] BY MAIL -- I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Huntington Beach,
California. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day
in the ordinary course of business, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware
that, on motion of a party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date
or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in the
affidavit.
b. [ ] BY MAIL -- By depositing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope with postage
thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Huntington Beach, California,
addressed to the address shown above.
c. [ ] BY DELIVERY BY HAND to the office of the addressee.
d. [ ] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY to the person(s) named above.
e. [ ] BY FAX TRANSMISSION to no. INSERT FAX NUMBER.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
16
Executed on January lk 4002, at Huntington Beach, California.
c�k
s
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
Ib# OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
January`-5, 2002 CONNIE BROCKWAY
CITY CLERK
Sunrise Development, Inc.
Attn: Wayne Sant
1837 Pecan Circle
Corona, CA 92882
Re: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION
Dear Mr. Sant:
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday,
December 17, 2001 took action on the following Public Hearing: Public Hearing to Consider
General Plan Amendment No. 01-01; Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 (Sunrise
Assisted Living) Map Amendments Filed by Wayne Sant, Sunrise Development, Inc. to
Rezone 2134 Main Street (Northam Ranch House — n/o Yorktown Avenue, w/o Ranch
Lane_ in.--the Lake/Yorktown Redevelopment Subarea) — Approve Introduction of
Ordinance No. 3533—Adopt Resolution No. 2001-97.
The City Council on December 17, 2001 approved General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 by
adopting Resolution No. 2001-97 and approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3533. On
January 7, 2002, the City Council approved Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 with findings for
approval by adopting Ordinance No. 3533.
NOTE: At the City Council meeting of December 17, 2001, discussion was held between the
City Council and the applicant regarding the disposition of palm trees. The applicant stated he
would submit a Side Letter regarding the topic of trees located on the property.
THIS IS A FINAL DECISION. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT PURSUANT TO
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1094.6 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA YOU HAVE NINETY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING OF THIS
NOTICE TO APPLY TO THE COURT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536-5227.
Sincerely,
4��V� 69�;�-
Connie Brockway, CMC
City Clerk
Enclosures: Government Code 1094.6
Findings for Approval
12-17-01 -Action Agenda Pages 9-10
01-07-02—Action Agneda Page 12
cc: Ray Silver,City Administrator—Letter Only
Gail Hutton,City Attorney—Letter Only
Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director
W.Carvalho,Assoc.Planner
g Jfotlowup/appeaV90dayltr.doc
�\ (Telephone:714-536-5227) ,
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 1094.6
§ 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and
party defined; ordinance or resolution
(a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency,other than school district,as the term local agency
is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code,or of any commission,board,officer or agent thereof,
may be had pursuant to Section.1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to
such section is filed within the time limits specified in this section.
(b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision
becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision, or for a written decision or
written findings supporting the decision,in any applicable provision of any statute,charter, or rule,for
the purposes of this section, the decision is final on the date it is announced. If the decision is not
announced at the close of the hearing,the date,time,and place of the announcement of the decision shall
be announced at the hearing. If there is a provision for reconsideration,the decision is final for purposes
-of this section upon the expiration of the period during which'such reconsideration can be sought;
provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursuant to any such provision the decision is final for the
purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. If there is a provision for a written
decision or written findings,the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the date it is mailed by
first-class mA, postage prepaid, including a copy of the affidavit or'certificate of mailing,to the party
seeking the writ_ Subdivision(a) of Section 1013 does not apply to extend the time,following deposit in.-
the mail of the decision or findings,within which a petition'shall be filed
(c) The complete record of the proceedings-shall be prepared by'the local agency'oi its commission,
board, officer, or agent which made the decision and shall be delivered to the petitioner within 190 days
after he has filed a written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its'actual
costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing'the record Such record shall include the transcript of the
proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final
decision,all admitted exlubits,0 rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its commission,•
board,officer,or agent,all written evidence,and any other papers in the case.
(d) If the petitioner files a request for the record as specified in subdivision(c)within 10 days after the
date the decision becomes final as provided in subdivision(b),the time within which a petition pursuant to
Section 1094.5 may be filed shall be extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which
the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of record, if he has
one:
(e) As used in this section, decision means a decision subject to review pursuant to Section 1094.5,
suspending,demoting,or dismissing an ofncer or employee,revoking, denying an application for a
permit,license, or other entitlement,imposing a civil or administrative penalty, fine,.charjte, or cost, or
denying an application for any retirement benefit or allowance.
(f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e), the local agency shall provide notice to the
party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section.
As used in this subdivision,"party"means.an officer or employee who has been suspended,demoted or
dismissed; a person whose permit,license,or other entitlement has been revoked or suspended,or whose
application for a permit,license,or other entitlement has been denied; or a person whose application for
a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied.
(g) This section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to
the subject matter, unless the conflicting provision is a state or federal law which provides a.shorter
statute of limitations,in which case the shorter statute of limitations shall apply.
(Amended by Stats. 1983, a 818, § 3; Stats.1991, c. 1090 (A.B.1484),*§ 6; Stats.1993, c. 926 (A.B2205);
§ 5; Stats.1995,c.898(S.B.814),§ 1.)
ATTACHMENT NO.�.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
ZONING MAP AIMENDMENT NO. 01-02
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 01-02:
1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 to change the zoning on a 4.82 acre parcel from Residential
Medium Density to Public Semipublic is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and
programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed change is
consistent with General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 which is being processed concurrently. The land
uses in the surrounding area are consistent with the proposed change in zoning. There will be
appropriate infrastructure and services available to support the proposed development.
2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning map amendment is compatible with the uses
authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The
changes proposed would be compatible with the uses in the vicinity, which are residential, commercial
and public.
3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The changes would expand the
opportunities for assisted care housing and address the needs for the aging population.
4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice.
The zoning map amendment will provide more opportunities for senior residents in need of assistance
in daily living to live in Huntington Beach
(01sr48a GPA 0 1-0 1 ZMA 01-02)
(9) • December 17, 2001 -Coi•UAgency Agenda - Page 9
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone wishing to speak on an OPEN public hearing is requested to complete the attached
pink form and give it to the Sergeant-at-Arms located near the Speaker's Podium.
D-1. sty Council) Public Hearing to Consider General Plan Amendment No. 01-01:
Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 (Sunrise Assisted Living) Map Amendments
Filed by Wayne Sant, Sunrise Development, Inc. to Rezone 2134 Main Street
(Northam Ranch House— n/o Yorktown Avenue, w/o Ranch Lane in the Lake/
Yorktown Redevelopment Subarea) —Approve Introduction of Ordinance
No. 3533—Adopt Resolution No. 2001-97 (440.50)
Communication from the Planning Director.
Public hearing to consider the following:
Applicant: Wayne Sant, Sunrise Development, Inc.
Request: General Plan Amendment: To re-designate approximately 4.82 acres of
property from Residential Medium Density to Public; Zoning Map Amendment: To
rezone the property from Residential Medium Density to Public Semipublic.
Location: 2134 Main Street (north of Yorktown Avenue, west of Ranch Lane)
Environmental Status: Item is covered under Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
No. 99-2 and Addendum to EIR No. 99-2
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 the City Clerk's Office after Friday,
December 14, 2001.
All INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for
or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,
or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,.the public hearing. If there are any further
questions please call the Planning Department at 714-536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your
written communication to the City Clerk.
1. Staff Report
2. City Council discussion
3. Open public hearing
4. Following public input,close public hearing
Recommended Action:
Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Motion to:
1. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 by adopting Resolution No. 2001-97—
'A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General
Plan Amendment No. 01-01 (Attachment No. 3);"
Adopted 7-0
and
(Continued on Next Page)
(10) • December 17, 2001 -Cotel/Agency Agenda - Page 10
2. Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 with findings for approval (Attachment
No. 2);
Approved 7-0
and
3. After City Clerk reads by title, approve introduction of Ordinance No. 3533— "An
Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinance by Establishing a Public Semipublic (PS) Zoning
Designation on Real Property Located on the North Side of Yorktown Avenue, West
of Ranch Lane (Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02)"(Attachment No. 4).
Approved Introduction 7-0
The City Clerk restated for the record of this public hearing the
Late Communication announced earlier of the PowerPoint
presentation delivered by Associate Planner, Wayne Carvalho.
Discussion held between Council and applicant re: disposition
of palm trees. The developer stated that he would be happy to
submit a Side Letter stating that condition shall be met on palm
trees to retain them on site. He stated the exception of some
pepper trees in front that would have to be removed.
(12) , January 7, 2002 - Council/Aga Agenda - Page 12
G. Ordinances
G-1. Ordinances for Adoption
G-1a. (City Council) Adopt Ordinance No. 3533—To Rezone Real Property on the North
Side of Yorktown Avenue,West of Ranch Lane—(2134 Main Street)—Sunrise
Assisted Living—(Wayne Sant-Sunrise Development, Inc.) (Zoning Map
Amendment No. 01-02) ( )
Recommended Action:
After City Clerk reads by title, adopt Ordinance No. 3533— "An Ordinance of the City of
Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by
Establishing a Public Semipublic (PS) Zoning Designation on Real Property Located on
the North Side of Yorktown Avenue, West of Ranch Lane (Zoning Map Amendment No.
01-02)."
Adopted 5-0-1 (Houchen absent)
G-1 b. (City Council) Approve Adoption of Ordinance Nos. 3520 through 3532 Inclusive—
Amendng 13 Chapters of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Code and
Sections of the Downtown Specific Plan — (City Wide Entitlement Permit Review
Process_Streamlining) (Zoning Text Amendment No. 01-04) (450.20)
Recommended Action:
After City Clerk reads by titles, adopt the following Ordinance Nos. 3520 through 3532
by roll call vote:
Ordinance No. 3520— An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Amending Chapter 203 Thereof
Relating to Definitions,"and
Ordinance No. 3521 — 'An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Amending Chapter 204 Thereof
Relating to Use Classifications,"and
Ordinance No. 3522— An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Amending Chapter 211 C
Thereof Relating to Commercial Districts;"and
Ordinance No. 3523— "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Amending Chapter 212 Thereof
Relating to Industrial Dis tricts;"a n d
Ordinance No. 3524— An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Amending Chapter 214 PS
Thereof Relating to Public-Semipublic District;"and
Ordinance No. 3525— 'An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Amending Chapter 230 Thereof
Relating to Site Standards;"and
(Continued on Next Page)
Y OF HUNTINGTON BEAC-;
9
MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001. DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 01-36
Council/Agency Meeting Held:
Deferred/Continued to:
pproved ❑ Conditionally Ap roved ❑ Denied Del. City Cl r s Signature
ouncil Meeting Date: December 17, 2001 Department ID Number: PL 01-36
0I- 07-e2 .: �o oKD_ Na. 3533 5-0- r
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR ACTION o
o M
-
� l.
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS c,_i-�c
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City AdministratoroPll/ -� MlC)
PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning
I SUBJECT: APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 01-01/ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT NO. 01-02 (SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY)
S tatement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for your consideration is General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 and Zoning Map
Amendment No. 01-02, a request by Sunrise Development, Inc. to redesignate
approximately 4.82 acres of property located at 2134 Main Street (Northam Ranch House)
from Residential Medium Density (RM) to Public (P) on the City's General Plan Land Use
map, and to rezone the property from Residential Medium Density-Oil Overlay (RM-O) to
Public Semipublic (PS) on.the City's Zoning maps.,
The applications have been forwarded from the Planning Commission following the approval
of Conditional Use Permit No. 01-18 and Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 99-
2 for a 97 unit assisted living facility. The general plan and zoning map amendments are
required due to the project's 4.82 acre lot size and the code provision that General
Residential Care uses on sites over two acres be located only in Public Semipublic Districts.
The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the general plan and zoning
map amendments because the new land use and zoning designations will be compatible
with surrounding land uses.
6 .4a,
PL01-36 - 12/5/2001 2:57 PM
� I
I
REQUEST FOR ACTION 0
MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 01-36
Funding Source: Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
A. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 by approving Resolution No. 7
(ATTACHMENT NO. 3)"; and
B. "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)
and adopt Ordinance No.3533 (ATTACHMENT NO. 4)."
Planning Commission Action on November 13, 2001 (ATTACHMENT NO. 10):
THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO APPROVE THE ADDENDUM TO
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 99-2 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 01-01
(ATTACHMENT NO. 11) AND FORWARD RESOLUTION NO. 1565 TO THE CITY COUNCIL CARRIED BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: HARDY, KERINS, MANDIC, LIVENGOOD, KOKAL, BORDEN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: SHOMAKER
ABSTAIN: NONE
MOTION PASSED(6-0)
THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY HARDY, TO APPROVE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
NO. 01-02 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE (ATTACHMENT NO. 4) TO THE
CITY COUNCIL CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: HARDY, KERINS, MANDIC, LIVENGOOD, KOKAL, BORDEN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: SHOMAKER
ABSTAIN: NONE
MOTION PASSED(6-0)
THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 01-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: HARDY, KERINS, MANDIC, LIVENGOOD, KOKAL, BORDEN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: SHOMAKER
ABSTAIN: NONE
MOTION PASSED(6-0)
PL01-36 -9- 12/5/2001 2:57 PM
oZ
0 REQUEST FOR ACTION I*
MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 01-36
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s):
1. "Deny General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02
with findings."
2. "Continue General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02
and direct staff accordingly."
Analysis:
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Applicant: Wayne Sant, Sunrise Development Inc., 1837 Pecan Cr., Corona, CA 92882
Location: 2134 Main Street (Northside of Yorktown Ave., west of Ranch Lane)
General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 represents a request to amend the Huntington Beach
General Plan Land Use Map (ATTACHMENT NO. 5) to redesignate approximately 4.82
acres from Residential Medium Density (RM) to Public (P) pursuant to California Planning
and Zoning Laws and the Huntington Beach General Plan.
Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 represents a request to amend the Huntington Beach
Zoning Maps - District Map No. 2 (ATTACHMENT NO. 6) by rezoning the subject property
from Residential Medium Density— Oil Overlay (RM-O) to Public Semipublic (PS) pursuant to
Section 247.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO).
The amendments to the City's General Plan and ZSO are requested to permit a 97 unit
assisted living facility. On November 13, 2001, the Planning Commission approved an
Addendum to EIR No. 99-2 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-18 to permit the assisted
living facility. The Addendum was completed based on the changes resulting from the
proposed assisted living facility and is discussed further in the Environmental Status section.
The ZSO classifies assisted living facilities as General Residential Care, which is considered
a Public Semipublic use. Public Semipublic uses on sites over two acres in size are only
permitted in Public Semipublic districts. Due to the proposed assisted living facility's 4.82-
acre size, a general plan and zoning map amendment are required to allow the proposed
use.
PL01-36 12/5/2001 2:57 PM
REQUEST FOR ACTION •
MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 01-36
B. BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2000, the Planning Commission certified Environmental Impact Report No. 99-
2, and denied Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53, a
request by PLC Land Co. to subdivide the 4.82 acre parcel for construction of 17 two-story
single family residences. The project was denied with findings of inconsistencies with goals
and policies in the General Plan, including extensive grading over the entire site. The project
also involved the removal of a large number of mature trees to accommodate the new
subdivision.
On August 21, 2000, on appeal by PLC Land Company, the City Council upheld the
Planning Commission's action on the proposed 4.82-acre residential subdivision citing similar
findings for denial.
In May of 2001, Sunrise Development Inc. submitted a proposal to develop the subject
property with an assisted living facility. The proposal required a general plan amendment
and zoning map amendment due to the size of the parcel, the General Residential Care use
classification, and to permit the proposed assisted living facility.
C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
On November 13, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review and
receive public testimony on the following applications:
• Addendum to EIR No. 99-2 (Northam Ranch House)
• General Plan Amendment No. 01-01
• Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02
• Conditional Use Permit No. 01-18
Notification was made to property owners of record within a 300 ft. (and tenants within a 300
ft.) radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning
Department's Notification Matrix), persons who testified at the prior public hearings on the
Northam residential proposal, the applicant, and interested parties. The applicant was the
only person who testified at the public hearing. The Planning Commission discussed the
suggested conditions of approval including the recommended mitigation on historical
resources and a covenant restricting use of the existing knoll for open space. Staff
explained that final approval of the general plan and zoning map amendments was required
by the City Council and the conditional use permit could not be executed until final approval
of the amendments. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of General
Plan Amendment No. 01-01 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 to the City Council and
approved AEIR No. 99-2 and CUP No. 01-18 with a Statement of Overriding Considerations
and Mitigation Monitoring Program. The actions by the Planning Commission on the
PL01-36 - 12/5/2001 2:57 PM
REQUEST FOR ACTION 10
MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 01-36
addendum and conditional use permit are final and are not a part of the City Council's
review.
D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
In considering the proposed change to the General Plan and Zoning designations from
Residential Medium Density to Public and Public Semipublic, respectively, it is necessary to
analyze the proposed designations as they relate to existing and adjacent designations,
existing improvements, and whether the new designations will be compatible with
surrounding conditions.
Compatibility
The proposed land use amendments will be compatible with surrounding land use
designations as well as uses in the area based on the design and intensity of the existing
and proposed development in the immediate vicinity. The properties located north and east
of the subject site have residential land use designations and are developed with the Pacific
Ranch condominium project and a four unit single-family subdivision currently under
construction across Ranch Lane. The property immediately west is designated Commercial
Office and is currently developed with the Seacliff Office Park. The Huntington Beach Civic
Center is located south across Yorktown Avenue and is designated Public. The proposed
Public designation at the subject site provides land use opportunities that allow a logical land
use transition from the residential designations to the north and east. In addition, the
proposed amendments are compatible in terms of design and intensity with the commercial
office and public designations to the south and west.
The project site is also located in close proximity to two approved senior projects anticipated
to be under construction in 2002. The Fountains (previously known as Victoria Woods) is a
271-unit senior apartment project located on the west side of Main Street directly north of the
Seacliff Shopping Center. Bowen Court is a 20-unit apartment project located at the
southeast corner or Yorktown Avenue and Lake Street. Based on the surrounding General
Plan designations and land uses, staff believes that the proposed amendment is an
appropriate land use designation and will result in compatible land uses.
The proposed zoning designation would allow for the proposed General Residential Care
facility. Staff believes that the Public Semipublic (PS) designation is compatible with the
surrounding zoning designations as PS uses are permitted or conditionally permitted on lots
less than two acres in size in any district. Because these uses are permitted in residential,
commercial and industrial lots, staff believes that there would be no adverse impacts based
solely on the project's 4.82 acre size.
PL01-36 -a- 12/5/2001 2:57 PM
s
0 REQUEST FOR ACTION 0
MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 01-36
Traffic/Parkin
The proposed amendments will permit a Residential Care facility. Specifically, the site is
proposed for development of a 97-unit, maximum 126 bed, Assisted Living facility. The
proposed development is anticipated to generate approximately 378 vehicle trips/day based
on a generation ratio of 1 trip/3 beds. This compares with 204 vehicle trips/day anticipated
from the previously analyzed 17 unit single-family residential subdivision. The vehicle
capacity on Yorktown Avenue is 30,000 average daily trips and the current level of service
(LOS) is A and therefore the capacity and design of Yorktown Avenue can accommodate the
additional vehicle trips. The certified AEIR No. 99-2 indicates that the increase in traffic
anticipated from the proposed project is negligible. By way of comparison, the maximum
buildout of the site under Medium Density Residential standards (worse case scenario)
would be 630 trips. The proposed amendments and the anticipated development can
accommodate the additional traffic and therefore no significant impacts to traffic are
anticipated.
Furthermore, the demand for parking would be reduced with the proposed assisted living
facility. Pursuant to the ZSO, parking is required at a ratio of 1 space per 3 beds for the
project or 42 spaces. The single-family subdivision would have required a minimum of 68
spaces excluding street parking. As a result, no impacts to parking are anticipated from the
project.
Aesthetics
The certified AEIR No. 99-2 analyzed the proposed general plan and zoning amendments as
well as the proposed Assisted Living facility and associated potential aesthetic impacts. All
aesthetic impacts have either remained identical or have been reduced under the proposal
for the assisted living facility. The visual quality impacts of the proposed project would not
result in new significant impacts or substantially increase previously identified significant
impacts. However, the AEIR did identify the following significant aesthetic impacts:
1. Alteration of Topography/Removal of Vegetation
2. Inconsistency with General Plan Goals and Objectives applicable to maintaining natural
topographic characteristics and minimizing cut and fill
3. Cumulative Impacts based on the loss of open space and view impacts to scenic
mature landscaping
The Addendum cites that the proposed General Residential Care proposal would retain a
substantial portion of the knoll's mass and height, and would allow the retention of existing
off-site views of the dense mature trees and other vegetation. Based on the design of the
proposed Assisted Living facility, the Addendum's conclusions are that impacts would be
reduced to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the proposal is generally consistent
with goals and objectives to minimize cut and fill and retain the natural topography. The
previous conclusions considered the impacts significant under the 17 unit residential
PL01-36 A- 12/5/2001 2:57 PM
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 01-36
subdivision. The proposed project would still be considered to have a cumulative aesthetic
impact due to the loss of open space and urbanization of the area. Mitigation measures
addressing aesthetic impacts include:
1. Applicant shall incorporate design elements from the surrounding development, including
form, ornamentation, and color, in order to make the appearance of the buildings
proposed as consistent or as complementary as possible to the surrounding development
2. All mature palms shall be preserved in place. Where not possible, palms shall be
relocated on-site, preferably along Yorktown Avenue, Seabluff Drive, and the northern
boundary of the site.
3. The landscape plan shall provide a green buffer between the proposed development and
the Pacific Ranch townhomes by more densely clustering trees along the northern and
eastern boundaries of the project.
The proposed amendments to Public and Public Semipublic could potentially result in
greater aesthetic impacts to surrounding properties due to differences in development
standards. The primary differences are building height, setbacks, site coverage, and open
space. However, the proposed amendments are intended to permit a General Residential
Care use and specifically an Assisted Living facility. Through the review and approval of
CUP No. 01-18, the design of the proposed Assisted Living facility incorporates adequate
setbacks, minimizes building height, provides greater open space and reduces the intensity.
The project is required to comply with mitigation measures and conditions of approval to
minimize aesthetic impacts to the surrounding properties to the greatest extent possible.
Public Services
The public services to the project site will not be impacted as a result of the redesignation or
construction of the proposed assisted living facility. The Police Department and Fire
Department have indicated that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts
to fire or police services. Impacts to schools would be substantially lessened with the
development of the assisted living facility in lieu of the residential subdivision.
In summary, all public service impacts identified for the 17-unit subdivision have either been
reduced or remained identical under the proposed assisted living proposal. The public
service impacts of the assisted living facility would not worsen with respect to the
significance conclusions of the AEIR, and would not result in new significant impacts or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
Environmental Status:
On June 13, 2000, Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 99-2 was certified by the
Planning Commission for 17 single-family residences proposed on the subject property. The
tentative tract map and conditional use permit for the 17-unit subdivision were subsequently
PL01-36 -= 12/5/2001 2:57 PM
7
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 01-36
denied. The City Council reviewed the subdivision on appeal, and sustained the Planning
Commission action. The Final EIR was not appealed.
Since the EIR analyzed the development impacts associated with the 17-unit subdivision, an
Addendum to the EIR (ATTACHMENT NO. 12) was prepared by EIP Associates in response
to changes in the project to accommodate the proposed Sunrise Assisted Living Facility
(General Residential Care use). The purpose of the Addendum was to address the potential
environmental effects of the general plan amendment, zoning map amendment, and the
construction of the assisted living facility. The Addendum also determined whether the
findings associated with the Final EIR remained valid.
Final EIR No. 99-2 concluded that with incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed
17 unit residential development would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to
cultural resources and aesthetics. Impacts to biological resources would be mitigated to
less-than-significant levels. The analysis in the Addendum focuses on the potential changes
in environmental effects that could result from the construction of the assisted living facility.
The EIR Addendum assessed the potential impacts the proposed project would have on
cultural resources, biological resources, aesthetics, land uses, traffic, public services, and
utilities and service systems.
Through the use of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and EIR Addendum,
several of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the new proposal could be
mitigated to a level of insignificance. However, similar to the original 17 unit residential
proposal, several environmental impacts are unable to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. These include:
■ Cultural impacts from the demolition of the remaining locally historic structures;
■ Biological impacts from the removal of the mature trees associated with the project; and
■ Project-specific/cumulative impacts to the cultural resources and aesthetics of Huntington
Beach.
These effects would occur with any development on the property. However, these impacts
could be lessened by mitigation measures suggested in the environmental impact report
which have been incorporated into the conditions of approval on Conditional Use Permit No.
01-18.
Environmental Board Comments:
The Environmental Board was notified of the preparation of the Addendum of EIR No. 99-2.
On November 1, 2001, the Environmental Board reviewed the Addendum and determined
that the proposed project was an improvement over the single family residential proposal
because it will preserve the knoll and majority of the mature trees.
PL01-36 Is- 12/5/2001 2:57 PM
8'
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 01-36
E. SUMMARY
Staff recommends the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 and Zoning
Map Amendment No. 01-02 for the following reasons:
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to re-designate
4.82 acres from Medium Density Residential to Public and Public Semipublic is
compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning designations.
The proposed changes would expand the opportunities for assisted care housing and
address the needs for the aging population.
The land use amendment and proposed project will provide for special needs housing
compatible with adjacent residential uses, and will not impact surrounding properties.
Approval of the land use and zoning map amendments will not result in any adverse
environmental impacts.
Attachment(s):
NumberCity Clerk's
Page . .
1. Vicinity Map
2. Findings for Approval -Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02
3. Resolution No.--?d0-97 - General Plan Amendment No. 01-01
4. Ordinance No.�- Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02
5. Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
6. Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations
7. Existing and Proposed Land Uses
8. Narrative dated June 22, 2001
9. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 13, 2001
10. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 13, 2001
11. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1565
12. Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2
RCA Author: Wayne Carvalho/Herb Fauland
PL01-36 -'W- 12/5/2001 2:57 PM
9
ATTACHMENT 1
a
b r9
a
PROJECT J
SITE
f�
5 1
f
N
•2UlC�
raw
¢treun.cnwutiaxdn;nn etr,,w actw�•?art a�eu �" ..5
�7
1`
CF-C j
CF-E ,Cx r$(SCAI
wt :
2
VICIMTY MAP
General Plan Amendment 01-01
Zoning Map Amendment 01-02
Conditional Use Permit 01-18
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT NO.11-
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 01-02
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 01-02:
1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 to change the zoning on a 4.82 acre parcel from Residential
Medium Density to Public Semipublic is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and
programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed change is
consistent with General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 which is being processed concurrently. The land
uses in the surrounding area are consistent with the proposed change in zoning. There will be
appropriate infrastructure and services available to support the proposed development.
2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning map amendment is compatible with the uses
authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The
changes proposed would be compatible with the uses in the vicinity, wluch are residential, commercial
and public.
3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The changes would expand the
opportunities for assisted care housing and address the needs for the aging population.
4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice.
The zoning map amendment will provide more opportunities for senior residents in need of assistance
in daily living to live in Huntington Beach
(01sr48a GPA 0 1-0 1 ZMA 01-02)
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-97
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 01-01
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 is a request to amend the Land Use
Element of the City's General Plan to approve a redesignation of approximately 4.82 acres of
property located north of Yorktown Avenue,west of Ranch Lane from Residential Medium
Density(RM) to Public (P); and
Pursuant to California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan
Amendment No. 01-01 and recommended approval of said entitlement to the City Council; and
Pursuant to California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No.
01-01; and
The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 is necessary for the
changing needs and orderly development of the community, and is necessary to accomplish
refinement of the General Plan and is consistent with other elements of the General Plan:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach as follows:
SECTION 1: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution (hereinafter
referred to as the "Subject Property") is generally located north of Yorktown Avenue, west of
Ranch Lane, and is more particularly described in the legal description and sketch attached hereto
as Exhibits "A" and "B," respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set
forth herein.
SECTION 2: That the General Plan designation of the Subject Property is hereby
changed from Residential Medium Density(RM) to Public (P).
SECTION 1 That General Plan Amendment No. 01-01, which amends the General Plan
Designation for the Subject Property as stated herein, is hereby approved, and the Land Use Plan
in the Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended to implement General Plan
Amendment No. 01-01.
t
PDA: 2001 Resol: Gen. Plan Amend 0 1-0 1
• • Res.No.2001-97
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof on the 17th day of December
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk IZ-20-0) ly o/City Attorney Q/
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIA D AND APPROVED:
ity Administrator Planning Director
Attachments:
Exhibit A Legal Description
Exhibit B Property Sketch
2
PDA: 2001 Resol: Gen. Plan Amend 0 1-0 1
Res. No.2001-97
Ex. A
EXHIBIT A
• • Res.No.2001-97
Ex. A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 83-562, as shown on a map
filed in Book 183, s,Pages 44, 45 and 46 of Parcel Maps,
p
Records of Orange County, California
Res.No.2001-97
Ex. B
EXHIBIT B
Ex. B
t � ,
a
mci t g
d 6Cfi1�
PROJECT '., '• , .
SITE
,w
t
. AU1
tsuaw"
--------------
CL-
may, �; ;�_•-r_x•t :«_ �` J,A� tf
ttA0lt Ft YPW.7:irT[V ��wrr?s.^:i.•[!11 I i
u
CF-C
CF_E ,z"n a-tea
VICIMTY MAP
General Plan Amendment 01-01
Zoning Map Amendment 01-02
Conditional Use Permit 01-18
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Res. No. 2001-97
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of
the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said
City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was
passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the
members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th
day of December, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Garofalo, Dettloff, Bauer, Cook, Houchen, Green, Boardman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
City Clerk and ex-officio Cferk of the
City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
ATTACHMENT 4
�
ORDINANCE NO. 3533
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC
SEMIPUBLIC (PS) ZONING DESIGNATION ON REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF YORKTOWN AVENUE,
WEST OF RANCH LANE (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 01-02)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning
Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate public hearings relative to Zoning
Map Amendment No. 01-02, wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented
at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning
Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that such zone
change is proper, and consistent with the General Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1: The following described real property located on the north side of Yorktown
Avenue, west of Ranch Lane more particularly described as Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 83-562, as
shown on a map filed in Book 183, pages 44, 45 and 46 of Parcel Map, Records of Orange County is
hereby changed from a Medium Density Residential-Oil Suffix (RM-O) zoning district to Public-
Semipublic (PS) district. (District Map No. 2.)
SECTION 2: The Director of Planning is hereby directed to amend Sectional District Map 2Z
of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance so as to reflect the changes contained in this
ordinance. The Director of Planning is further directed to file the amended map. A copy of such map,
as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 7th day of January , 200 .2.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk 61 City, tt.orney ---� 4lb I
�
l
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INI TED AND APPROVED:
6 �c
City A inistrator D ector of P anni
jmp/planning/zma 01-02/8/24/01
Ord. No. 3533
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City
of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby
certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach is seven;that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 17th day of December, 2001, and was again read to said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of January, 2002, and
was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members
of said City Council.
AYES: Dettloff,Bauer, Cook, Green, Boardman
NOES: None
ABSENT: Houchen
ABSTAIN: None
I,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of
Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City
Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this
ordinance has been published in the Independent on
C"�
,2002
In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
Connie Brockway, City Clerk of the City Council of the City
Deputy City Clerk of Huntington Beach, California
ATTACHMENT 5
! i I I I III I l II!c L
1 ...wfIF78`0.:..i1, I
-15
M H-S P ,' _-, i
�''L:%1,('•." � I .i�:...�A.� .n �sel av:� 6
• 1 i ?"'I _ 1 f
CO-F2 ,:}t�" =ram•ff• ��$ i�w _ _
IS'.Y�:7'I, iTi:9.t,w10lPV11.fMZ11 c'..Y::}r?srp-=;y y = �3
YORKTOWS 2
y P
P(RL)
• .� � WICMIT� �VL
a II1111If711
• V N
• EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
L
.rL As
RM-15 • u�
MH-SP r ii
• meaetrneetaaftsllaror�a�c'aN �a,Yn.r+ztww
P
P
P(RL)
I�iN�AT�f18lGC„SHv[I!90M�:u
1
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN •�
ATTACHMENT 6
,I
• •
I ' I M111111111111(^ L
Sp-9(M) RM-O "
fill
co
uy:un.;M��aio►nun�:377rat a�.sv�ir t�*i,•t neai ,.,,; �
YORKTO
N PS
CF-E
� y
. W .
107R'.iT717 8fi.:.'4 W Q1 MON:,C+.::1.1
• v �
I
EXISTING ZONING
i II
- I L Ir 11 ( 0%11111111111T( L
1 j RM-0 �� � J�
co ,
itRLG:7�7 ysiaa6 a7of1ro70 ataar=nt iRonin:rt0.7 rim
PS y
PS
e
(AtlN wY01�L tI1L'.Glt�iwt NMN�TMCU
i
i
1
PROPOSED ZONING
'k, ENT 11\10�
� ATTACHMENT 7
I itIIIIIII{IIf= L
WE F
°� - 1' :4 •:�c air avG [[
�ca,:avN YORKTO qV �fy 4
CANIC,
CZWMK
W
Ir.4:aS;T•:F: w,w h: .. Y wr r ave
r
• V NfG fJ C.
_ .unrra
EXISTING LAND USE
L
CL:•
7
f.StJGVOW tUMM 00"090 Q{RTZ�
G1vI G '
tAVGT' I wr r• s
r
• M V
PROPOSED LAND USE
Y A
i ATTACHMENT 8
JUN 2 2
DFPAaTMENTOF PLANNING
SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AT YORK d OWN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project and Services
The proposed project is an Assisted Living Facility matching the zoning code's "Residential
Care, General" use category. It is subject to licensing and oversight by the State's Department
of Social Services as a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) under"Community Care
Facilities."
The facility as proposed consists of a 2-story main building facing Yorktown with an attached 2-
story easterly annex for memory-impaired residents. The connecting corridor transitions from
the first floor of the main building to the second floor of the annex, whose first floor is one level
below the main building's first floor, responding to the site's natural topography.
A single-story satellite building is located near the northwest corner of the site.
The proposed facility will provide a full range of personalized Assisted Living services for frail,
elderly residents who can no longer live on their own but do not need complex medical care.
Services range from help with activities of daily living (ADL) such as eating, bathing, dressing
and medication management, to a specially designed program for residents with Alzheimer's
disease and other forms of memory impairment.
The applicant, Sunrise Assisted Living, is an acknowledged national leader in its industry,
distinguished by its exceptionally high standards of quality of services and the elegance of the
home-like environments it creates and maintains for its residents. Its well-trained staff
encourage the independence, preserve the dignity, and protect the privacy of its residents.
Typical Resident Profile:
■ Average age: Women 83.3 years, Men 80.9 years
■ 78% Female
■ 2% Married Couples
■ 3.1 ADL Deficiencies
■ Average length of residency: 2.2 years
• ,1'`..'t 'Uri 3a. '\?T 4 V,11,
A:\Admin; Projects; Sunrise; Huntington Beach Yorktown ; 2.01; Design Narrative
Resident Activity Profile:
Daily Activities
• Exercise — morning stretch, Tai Chi
• Afternoon "Snack& Social"—cheese platter, fresh fruit, baked cookies
• Trips within the community—local restaurants, markets and specialty stores
Weekly Activities:
• Scenic drives within the community to local points of interest
• Scheduled shopping trips to local department and drug stores
■ Games such as Jeopardy, trivia, bingo, Casino Night and various card games
■ Spiritual services including Jewish Friday evening service, Sunday morning Mass and
other religious services
■ Movie Night showing classics as well as new releases
■ Reading sessions with book reviews, current events, travel reports
Monthly Activities:
■ Birthday parties
■ Visits from elementary school children and Girl/Boy Scout Troops
■ Resident Council meetings
■ "Crafty Club," Scrabble Club and other°Clubs" organized in each residence
Staff Ratio
■ The Peak Hour staff in the building will be approximately 25 employees. This will occur
between the hours of 9:00am and 3:00pm
■ During those times of the day when there is a maximum of activity, the resident ratio will
be approximately 4:1 (residents per staff person).
• About 50% of the staff utilizes public transportation, particularly in urban areas.
■ Volunteers will contribute up to 120 hours per month assisting in specially defined
projects (exercise, craft, reading, entertainment, etc.)
■ The hair salon is typically operated 6 hours per day, 3 days per week.
0—i �Jhi' fi 11 l d a O. - -
Project Size and Capacity
1. Main Building (Assisted Living):
2-stories, 35,328 gross square feet
21 one bedroom suites
■ 26 two bedroom suites
2. Annex (Alzheimer's and Assisted Living):
■ 2-stories, 19,161 gross square feet
- 15t Floor(Alzheimer's Wing):
0 9 one bedroom suites
0 6 two bedroom suites
-2Rd Floor(Assisted Living):
0 9 one bedroom suites
0 8 two bedroom suites
3. Satellite Building (Assisted Living):
■ Single-story, 11,536 gross square feet
■ 9 one bedroom suites
■ 9 two bedroom suites
Grand Totals
• 66,025 gross square feet
■ 48 one bedroom suites
■ 49 two bedroom suites
■ 97 total suites
■ 126 beds approx. capacity
Unit types-description:
All room types include a bathroom with an accessible shower, generous closet space, a tea
kitchen with a counter top, refrigerator and sink, 6' X 6' windows, individual temperature controls
and an emergency call system.
I
Single-set up as a studio style suite that ranges in size from 310 to 350 SF with an entry foyer
and bedroom area.
Double- Ranges in size from 450 to 500 SF, its a two- room suite that could serve as a living
room and bedroom or as two bedrooms. Of all the room types, this is more adaptable to two
residents because both rooms have a window. Married couples, sisters or close friends looking
to reduce their individual cost often rent this room type. At least half of the doubles are rented to
individuals who desire separate living and sleeping areas.
Denver- Ranges in size from 450 to 500 SF this unit can be rented as either a one or two
bedroom suite. Configured with the bathroom in the middle of the suite, a bedroom along the
window and a parlor or second bedroom between the front door and the bathroom. The room is
configured so that the inner parlor/bedroom area receives adequate lighting from the outside
window.
Parking Provisions:
Due to their frail condition, nearly 100% of the residents do not drive a car anymore.
Thus staff and visitor traffic primarily determine the parking demand.
This is reflected in the City's zoning code requirements for parking provisions at "Residential
Care, General"facilities, which call for 1 stall per 3 beds.
Stalls required:
■ Beds (maximum)/3 = 121 /3= 41
Stalls provided: 50
Grading and Landscaping:
The site plan and resulting grading plan for the site respects its natural topography and
minimizes re-contouring. The existing knoll in the northern portion of the site is essentially left
intact, preserving the existing mature tree clusters that characterize the site. Landscaping
intervention focuses primarily on the immediate periphery of the proposed new buildings and
includes a secured outdoor garden area connected to the Alzheimer's annex.
Reasons for initiating this Application:
Sunrise Assisted Living strives to make its unique blend of high quality assisted living services
available within its own specifically developed homelike residential environments in those
geographic areas which show a distinct demand for services of this quality, coupled with a
matching caregiver profile with the readiness and ability to take advantage of Sunrise's offerings
on behalf of their parents in need of such services.
Based on Sunrise's marketing research, the City of Huntington Beach and its surrounding
communities match this profile closely. This geographic area was therefore identified as a
desirable location for a new Sunrise facility.
Our entitlement application is based on the City's zoning requirements as they relate to the
proposed use and the current zoning designation of the parcel in question.
�o�% , 'tle.
During the initial screening process by planning staff, it was recognized that the following
applications need to be processed for approval before the project can be undertaken:
1. Zone Change from Residential Medium Density to Public Semi-public. This
would allow the conditionally permitted General Residential Care use to be
developed on the site's 4.82 acres, while the present zoning designation
limits this use to parcels no larger than two acres.
2. General Plan Amendment to reflect the change in land use designation to
ensure consistency between zoning and general plan designations as
required by State Law.
3. Conditional Use Permit for the intended use.
4. Design Review.
5. Environmental Assessment.
Surrounding Uses:
The site is located on the north side of Yorktown Avenue between Seabluff Drive to the west,
from where it takes its access, and Ranch Lane to the east.
The area west of Seabluff Drive is occupied by the Seacliff Office Park, a commercial
development project with contemporary office buildings, mainly 3-stories high.
To the north and east, the property is surrounded by the Pacific Ranch residential development
project, with its gated main entry drive off Yorktown Avenue abutting the site's easterly property
boundary.
Across Yorktown to the south is the City's Civic Center Complex and, further to the east, the
Classics residential neighborhood along Lake Street.
b e jl 5 NO.
ATTACHMENT 9
Lin, g)
City of Huntington Beach Planning Department
STAFF REPORT
LAV
NTINGTON BEACH
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning
BY: Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner Lzf--
DATE: November 13, 2001
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 01-01/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO.
01-02/ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 99-2
(Sunrise Assisted Living Facility)
APPLICANT: Wayne Sant, Sunrise Development Inc., 1837 Pecan Cr., Corona, CA 92882
PROPERTY/
OWNER: PLC Land Co. 19 Corporate Plaza,Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: 2134 Main Street(Northside of Yorktown Ave., west of Ranch Lane)
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 request:
- Redesignate 4.82 acres of property from Residential Medium Density(RM) to Public (P).
• Zoning Map Amendment 01-02 request:
- Rezone 4.82 acres of property from Residential Medium Density—Oil overlay(RM-O)to Public
Semipublic (PS)consistent with the proposed General Plan designation.
• Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2
- Identifies potential environmental effects from amendments to the General Plan and Zoning
designations.
- Identifies potential environmental effects from construction of proposed assisted living facility.
- Determine whether Final EIR 99-2 analysis remain valid with revised project.
• Staff s Recommendation: Approve Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2, and
approve General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 with findings
based upon the following:
- Proposed General Plan designation specifies goals that provide for human service uses that support
the needs of existing and future residents.
- New land use designation will allow for development of housing for senior citizens, and the
physically and mentally challenged.
- Re-designation will result in compatible land uses and will not impact surrounding property
values.
- Proposed amendments to General Plan and zoning designations will not result in significant
adverse environmental impacts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
A. "Approve Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2 with findings (Attachment No. 6);"
B. "Recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 by approving Resolution No. 1565
(Attachment No. 2) and forward to the City Council for adoption;"
C. Recommend approval of Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 with findings (Attachment No. 1) by
approving the Draft Ordinance(Attachment No. 3)and forward to the City Council for adoption."
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as:
A. "Approve Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2 with findings and recommend denial
of General Plan Amendment No. 01-01, and Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02, by adopting
Resolution No. 1566 (Attachment No. 10) and forward to the City Council."
B. "Continue General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 and direct
staff accordingly."
C. "Withdraw General Plan Amendment No. 0 1-0 1 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 at the
request of the applicant."
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2 addresses the potential environmental effects
of the amendments to the General Plan and Zoning on the property, and the construction of the proposed
assisted living facility. The Addendum is an informational item that provides additional review relative to
the proposed project revision.
General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 represents a request to amend the Huntington Beach General Plan
Land Use Plan(Attachment No. 7)to re-designate approximately 4.82 acres from Residential Medium
Density (RM) to Public (P)pursuant to the California Planning and Zoning Laws and the Huntington
Beach General Plan.
Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 represents a request to change the zoning map (District Map No. 2)
(Attachment No. 8)by rezoning the subject property from Residential Medium Density—Oil overlay
(RM-O)to Public Semipublic (PS) pursuant to Section 247.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO).
The amendments to the City's General Plan and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) are requested
in conjunction with a 97 unit assisted living facility proposed on the subject property. The ZSO classifies
PC Staff Report- 11/13/01 -2- (01 sr48a GPA 01-01 ZMA 01-02)
assisted living facilities as General Residential Care, which is considered a Public Semipublic use. Public
Semipublic uses on sites over two acres in size are permitted in Public Semipublic. Due to the proposed
assisted living facility's 4.82 acre size, a zoning map amendment and general plan amendment are
required to allow the proposed use.
The applicant's request for the general plan and zoning map amendments is contingent on the approval of
the assisted living facility. If the Planning Commission considers denying the conditional use permit for
the assisted living facility, the commission should also deny the request for the general plan and zoning
map amendments. However, prior to any action on the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission
must first consider and adopt the General Plan and Zoning designations.
Background
On June 13, 2001, the Planning Commission certified Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2, and denied
Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53, a request by PLC Land Co. to
subdivide the 4.82 acre parcel for construction of 17 two-story single family residences. The project was
denied because of inconsistencies with goals and policies in the General Plan, including extensive grading
over the entire site, especially to the existing knoll at the northeast portion of the site. The project also
involved the removal of a large number of mature trees to accommodate the new homes and street.
On August 21, 2001, on appeal by the applicant, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's
action on the proposed 4.82 acre residential subdivision citing the same findings for denial.
ISSUES:
Subject Property And Surrounding Land Use,Zoning And General Plan Designations:
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE
Subject Property: RM-15 (Residential RM-O (Residential Vacant
(EXISTING) Medium Density) Medium Density- Oil)
Subject Property: P (Public) PS (Public Semipublic) Vacant
(PROPOSED)
North of Subject RM-15 (Residential RM-O (Residential Pacific Ranch
Property: Medium Density) Medium Density - Oil) condominiums
East of Subject RM-15 (Residential RM-O (Residential Pacific Ranch
Property (across Ranch Medium Density) Medium Density- Oil) condominiums
Lane):
South of Subject P (Public) PS (Public Semipublic) H.B. Civic Center
Property (across
Yorktown Ave.):
West of Subject CO-F2 (Commercial CO (Office Seacliff Office Park
Property (across Office—0.5 FAR) Commercial)
Seabluff Dr.):
PC Staff Report- 11/13/01 -3- (01sr48a GPA 01-01 ZMA 01-02)
The following maps depict the proposed General Plan and zoning map amendments.
�I - i I FL I I I I?=iIHU1IIIII MWIM L
RM-15 MH-SP RM-15
CO-F2 C1 N r E
CO-F2 . �•
,yy YOR i q .nrm.. P
a �
F P
P(RL) P(RL)
`catCnc.uaaum�mx musl � wryer uuwcn wfwweeu Q
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
w
RM-0 �" -RM-0
SP-9(M) I�
co TM �
P' co
O
,'�rra ` PS
�m.tm 4V � U w� y
PS G PS
CF-E CF-E
EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
PC Staff Report- 11/13/01 -4- (01sr48a GPA 01-01 ZMA 0 1-02)
General Plan Conformance:
The proposed General Plan Amendment to Public (P)and Zoning Map Amendment to Public Semipublic
(PS) are consistent with the following goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan:
Land Use Element
Objective L U 13.1 Provide for the development of new uses, such as human service, cultural,
educational, infrastructure, religious, and other uses that support the needs of existing and future
residents and businesses.
Goal LU 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse,
economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach.
Objective L U 9.S Provide for the development of housing for senior citizens, the physically and
mentally challenged, and very low, low and moderate-income families.
Policy LU 9.5.2 Require that special needs housing is designed to be compatible with adjacent
residential structures and other areas designated for other categories of use provided that no adverse
impacts will occur.
The proposed amendment will provide increased opportunities for senior housing in the community. In
addition, the Public land use designation will be compatible with adjacent Public, Commercial and
Medium Density Residential land use designations and existing uses in the area. The Public designation
will allow for uses compatible in nature and intensity with the surrounding area and will provide buffering
between the existing commercial and public uses and Pacific Ranch residential project.
Zoning Compliance: Not applicable.
Environmental Status:
In June 2000, Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 99-2) was certified by the Planning Commission for
17 single family residences proposed on the property. The tentative tract map and conditional use permit
for the 17 unit subdivision was denied. The City Council reviewed the subdivision on appeal, and
sustained the Planning Commission action. The Final EIR was not appealed.
Since the EIR analyzed most of the development impacts associated with the 17 unit subdivision, an
Addendum to the EIR(Attachment No. 6)was prepared by EIP Associates in response to changes in the
project to accommodate the proposed Sunrise Assisted Living Facility (General Residential Care use).
The purpose of the Addendum is to address the potential environmental effects of the general plan
amendment, zoning map amendment, and the construction of the assisted living facility. The Addendum
will also determine whether the findings associated with the Final EIR remain valid.
PC Staff Report- I1/13/01 -5- (01sr48a GPA 01-01 ZNIA 01-02)
Final EIR No. 99-2 concluded that with incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed 17 unit
residential development would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources and
aesthetics. Impacts to biological resources would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. The
analysis in the Addendum focuses on the potential changes in environmental effects that could result from
the construction of the assisted living facility. The EIR Addendum assesses the potential impacts the
proposed project may have on cultural resources, biological resources, aesthetics, land uses, traffic, public
services, and utilities and service systems.
Through the use of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and EIR Addendum, several of the
potentially adverse impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
However, similar to the original 17 unit residential proposal,there are adverse environmental impacts
anticipated from the proposed project that cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures.
These include:
■ Cultural impacts from the demolition of the remaining locally historic structures;
■ Biological impacts from the removal of the mature trees associated with the project; and
■ Project-specific/cumulative impacts to the cultural resources and aesthetics of Huntington Beach.
These effects can be lessened by mitigation measures suggested in the environmental impact report,and
staff recommends these be incorporated into any approved project.
Prior to approval of the EIR Addendum, the Planning Commission may amend the document. However,
removal of or changes to any of the recommended mitigation measures would require findings and
justification. All mitigation measures that are approved with the EIR Addendum must be applied to any
approved project.
The Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2 is forwarded to the Planning Commission as an
informational item. However, should the proposed project be approved, Findings of Fact and a Statement
of Overriding Considerations must be approved in conjunction with any development (see Conditional
Use Permit staff report) finding that the social and overall benefits of the proposed project outweigh its
potentially adverse impacts. In addition, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall be
approved to assure implementation of the mitigation measures.
Environmental Board Comments:
The Environmental Board was notified of the preparation of the Draft Addendum of EIR No. 99-2. On
November 1, 2001, the Environmental Board reviewed the Draft Addendum and determined that the
proposed project was an improvement over the single family residential proposal because it will preserve
the knoll and majority of the mature trees.
Coastal Status: Not applicable.
Redevelopment Status: Not applicable.
PC Staff Report- 11/13/01 -6- (01sr48a GPA 01-01 ZMA 01-02)
• •
Public Notification:
Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on November 1, 2001,
and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 300 ft. (and tenants within a 300 ft) radius of
the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's
Notification Matrix), persons who testified at the prior public hearings on the Northam residential
proposal, the applicant, and interested parties. As of November 7, 2000, no communication supporting or
opposing the request has been received.
Application Processing Dates:
DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S):
September 26, 2001 Not applicable because GPA/ZMA is a legislative act not
a development permit
ANALYSIS:
In considering the proposed change to the General Plan and Zoning designations on the subject site from
Residential Medium Density to Public and Public Semipublic, respectively, it is necessary to analyze the
advantages and disadvantages of the two different land uses as they pertain to the existing conditions and
elements that surround the subject property.
Compatibility
The proposed land use change will be compatible with surrounding uses in the area because of the design
and intensity of the proposed development. The properties located north and east of the subject property
have residential land use designations, which allow for multi-family or single family developments. The
subject property is surrounded by the Pacific Ranch condominium project to the north and a four unit
single-family subdivision currently under construction to the east across Ranch Lane. The property
immediately west is designated Commercial Office and is currently occupied by the Seacliff Office Park
complex. The Huntington Beach Civic Center is located south across Yorktown Avenue and is
designated Public.
The project site is also located in close proximity to two senior projects anticipated to be under
construction in 2002. The Fountains (previously approved as Victoria Woods) is a 271 unit senior
apartment project located on the west side of Main Street directly north of the Seacliff Shopping Center.
Bowen Court is an approved 20 unit apartment project located at the southeast corner or Yorktown
Avenue and Lake Street. Based on the surrounding General Plan designations and land uses, staff
believes that the proposed amendment is compatible and will result in compatible land uses.
The proposed zoning designation would allow for the proposed General Residential Care facility.
Although classified as Public Semipublic,the proposed facility is residential in nature and would not
impact the existing residential, commercial or public uses in the immediate area. Staff believes that the
Public Semipublic designation is compatible with the surrounding zoning designations as PS uses are
PC Staff Report- 11/13/01 -7- (01srUa GPA 01-01 ZMA 01-02)
permitted or conditionally permitted in any district. For example, schools, churches, and other public uses
are permitted in all residential districts, including Low Residential Districts. Uses permitted in the PS
district include, but are not limited to schools, churches, hospitals, public safety facilities, cultural
institutions, parking facilities, and utilities.
As stated above, the applicant is requesting that the proposed map amendments be approved in
conjunction with the approval of the assisted living facility. Staff supports the request based on the
proposed land use and the requirement for a two-acre project site. Based on the site's proximity to an
adjacent Public Semipublic district (Civic Center), and the adjacency to Yorktown Avenue, the proposed
designation is compatible with the surrounding designations and with the existing land uses.
Aesthetics
All aesthetic impacts identified in the Addendum to Final EIR No. 99-2 have either remained identical or
have been reduced under the proposal for the assisted living facility. The visual quality impacts of the
proposed project revisions would not worsen with respect to the conclusions of the Final EIR, and would
not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant impacts. Significant aesthetic impacts identified in Final EIR No. 99-2 include:
1. Removal of Existing Topography and Vegetation
2. Inconsistency with General Plan Goal ERC 4 and Objective ERC 4.1 (in reference to design
sensitivity to natural topographic characteristics/minimizing cut and fill)
3. Cumulative Impacts
The Addendum cites that because the proposed General Residential Care proposal would retain a
substantial portion of the knoll's mass and height, and would allow the retention of existing off-site views
of the dense mature tree stands and other vegetation, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant
level. Furthermore,the new proposal is generally consistent with General Plan Goal ERC 4 and Objective
ERC 4.1, which was considered significant under the original proposal. The proposed project would,
however, still be considered to have a cumulative aesthetic impact due to the loss of open space and
urbanization of the area. Mitigation measures addressing aesthetic impacts include:
1. Applicant shall incorporate design elements from the surrounding development, including form,
ornamentation, and color, in order to make the appearance of the buildings proposed as consistent or
as complementary as possible to the surrounding development
2. All mature palms shall be preserved in place. Where not possible, palms shall be relocated on-site,
preferably along Yorktown Avenue, Seabluff Drive, and the northern boundary of the site.
3. The landscape plan shall provide a green buffer between the proposed development and the Pacific
Ranch townhomes by more densely clustering trees along the northern and eastern boundaries of the
proj ect.
The proposed land use amendment could potentially result in greater aesthetic impacts to surrounding
properties because of differences in development standards. Building heights and setbacks allow for
PC Staff Report- 11/13/01 -8- (0 1 sr48a GPA 0 1-0 1 ZMA01-02)
greater intensity in the PS District. In addition, the PS District does not include any site coverage
restrictions or open space requirements.
Traf f ic/Parkin;
Development of the proposed assisted living facility would generate approximately 378 vehicle trips/day
based on a generation ratio of 1 trip/3 beds. This compares with 204 vehicle trips/day anticipated from
the previously analyzed 17 unit single-family residential subdivision. However, due to the vehicle
capacity on Yorktown Avenue(30,000 average daily trips)and current level of service(LOS A), the
additional trips can be accommodated and therefore no significant impacts to traffic from the revised
project are expected.
The EIR Addendum indicates that the increase in traffic anticipated from the assisted living project is
negligible. Traffic generation associated with the project constitutes approximately one percent of the
existing traffic levels in the vicinity and is projected to have a negligible impact to the level of service on
Yorktown Avenue. By way of comparison, the maximum buildout of the site under Medium Density
Residential standards (worse case scenario) would be 630 trips.
Furthermore, the demand for parking would be reduced with the assisted living proposal. Pursuant to the
ZSO, parking is required at the ratio of 1 space per 3 beds for the project or 42 spaces. The single-family
subdivision would have required a minimum of 68 spaces excluding street parking. As a result, no
impacts to parking are anticipated from the revised project. In fact,the project proposes additional
parking than that required by code.
Public Services
The public services to the project site will not be further impacted as a result of the redesignation or
construction of the proposed assisted living facility. The site remains within the Fire Department's five-
minute response time boundary. The Police Department and Fire Department have indicated that the
proposed project would not result in significant impacts to fire or police services.
Impacts identified in Final EIR to schools would be substantially lessened with the development of the
assisted living facility. The average age of residents in the assisted living facility is over 80 years. There
would not be any school-aged students generated from the new project with the small exception of
employees with children who have moved into the school district.
In summary, all public service impacts identified for the 17 unit subdivision have either been reduced or
remained identical under the proposed assisted living proposal. The public service impacts of the assisted
living facility would not worsen with respect to the significance conclusions of the Final EIR, and would
not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant impacts.
PC Staff Report- 11/13/01 -9- (01sr48a GPA 01-01 ZMA 01-02)
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Addendum to Final EIR No. 99-2, General
Plan Amendment No. 01-01 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 0 1-02 for the following reasons:
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to re-designate 4.82 acres from
Medium Density Residential to Public and Public Semipublic is consistent with the surrounding land
uses.
The proposed changes would expand the opportunities for assisted care housing and address the needs
for the aging population.
The land use amendment and proposed project will provide for special needs housing compatible with
adjacent residential uses, and will not impact surrounding properties.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Suggested Findings for Approval - Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02
2. Resolution No. 1565 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. 01-01
3. Draft Ordinance—Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02
4. Narrative dated June 22, 2001
5. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2
6. Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2 (with Findings)
7. Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations Map
8. Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations Map
9. Existing Land Uses Map
10. Resolution No. 1566 recommending denial of General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 (Alternative
Action)
SH:HF:WC:rl
PC Staff Report- 11/13/01 -10- (01sr48a GPA 01-01 ZMA 01-02)
� ATTACHMENT 10
0
PC Minutes DRAFT
11/13/01
Page 3
B-2a. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 01-01: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO.
01-02: ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 99-2
(SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY): Applicant: Sunrise Development,
Inc. Request: GPA: To re-designate approximately 4.82 acres of property from
Residential Medium Density to Public; ZMA: To rezone the property from
Residential Medium Density to Public Semipublic. Location: 2134 Main Street
(north of Yorktown Ave., west of Ranch Lane). Project Planner: Wayne
Carvalho
• General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 request:
- Redesignate 4.82 acres of property from Residential Medium Density
(RM) to Public (P).
Zoning Map Amendment 01-02 request:
- Rezone 4.82 acres of property from Residential Medium Density—Oil
overlay (RM-O) to Public Semipublic(PS) consistent with the proposed
General Plan designation.
Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2
- Identifies potential environmental effects from amendments to the
General Plan and Zoning designations.
- Identifies potential environmental effects from construction of proposed
assisted living facility.
- Determine whether Final EIR 99-2 analysis remains valid with revised
project.
Staff's Recommendation: Approve Addendum to Final Environmental
Impact Report No. 99-2, and approve General Plan Amendment No. 01-01
and Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 with findings based upon the
following:
- Proposed General Plan designation specifies goals that provide for
human service uses that support the needs of existing and future
residents.
- New land use designation will allow for development of housing for
senior citizens, and the physically and mentally challenged.
- Re-designation will result in compatible land uses and will not impact
surrounding property values.
- Proposed amendments to General Plan and zoning designations will not
result in significant adverse environmental impacts.
B-21b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-18 (SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING
FACILITY): Applicant: Sunrise Development, Inc. Request: a) To construct a
two-story 97 unit assisted living facility in three buildings totaling 66,000 sq. ft.
and associated site improvements; b) to develop a lot with a grade differential
greater than three (3) feet between the high and low points of the site; and c) to
construct retaining walls with a maximum height of 6-8". Location: 2134 Main
Street (north of Yorktown Avenue west of Ranch Lane) Project Planner:
Wayne Carvalho
(01 pcm1113) 3
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 4
Conditional Use Permit No. 01-18 request:
- Construct a 97 unit assisted living facility (General Residential Care use)
in three buildings totaling 66,000 sq. ft.
- Development on a lot that has a grade differential greater than three (3)
feet between the high and low points.
- Retaining walls with maximum heights of 6'-8"
• Staffs Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 01-18 with
modifications and a Statement of Overriding Considerations with CEQA
Findings of Fact and with a Mitigation Monitoring Program based upon the
following:
- Project is consistent with proposed Public (P) Land Use designation of
the General Plan.
- Project will provide housing for senior citizens, and the physically and
mentally challenged.
- Project is designed to be compatible with adjacent land uses and will
minimize impacts to the existing topography and mature vegetation.
- The social and overall benefit of the project outweighs the potential
adverse impacts to cultural resources and aesthetics on the site.
• Staffs Suggested Modifications:
Conditional Use Permit No. 01-18
- Retaining walls along north side of access road be terraced to minimize
impacts to the existing topography and mature vegetation.
Commissioners Kerins, Livengood, Kokal and Borden all disclosed that they
visited the project site. Commissioner Hardy disclosed that she spoke with the
applicant.
Staff made a presentation to the Commission.
Questions/comments included:
• Why are certain measures repeatedly mentioned in different sections of
the staff report?
• What qualifies a project as being in keeping with the goals and
objectives of the General Plan?
• What is the permitted public access area of the project?
• What is the closest nursing facility?
• Does the gazebo pictured in the site plan cover one of the two
abandoned oil wells mentioned in the staff report?
Staff explained that specific mitigation measures repeat themselves because
they are similar but not identical, and that staff will try to eliminate any
unnecessary items.
(01pcm1113) 4
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 5
Staff suggested that the Commission refer to the project's findings within the
staff report and elaborated on the project features in order to explain how the
project meets the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED:
Wayne Sant, applicant with Sunrise Development, provided the Commission
background information on his company. Mr. Sant explained the objectives of
assisted living facilities, including the services they provide to their residents.
He handed out photos of other properties managed by Sunrise and mentioned
that Sunrise offers specialized services for those afflicted by Alzheimer's
Disease. He also addressed concerns voiced by past City Council and Planning
Commission Members related to grading and project square footage.
Mr. Sant voiced concerns about the funding obstacles associated requiring a
covenant on the open space/knoll area.
Mr. Sant requested that the Commission allow Sunrise to name the facility
"Sunrise of Huntington Beach", and that the knoll area be referred to as
"Northam Park". He further added that Sunrise would provide an arborists'
report to update the tree preservation information provided in the report.
The Commission voiced concerns about public access to the open space/knoll
area. Mr. Sant explained that Sunrise of Huntington Beach is a semi-public
facility, and although they would not encourage public access to the open space
area, they would not restrict it either in order to serve those who visit or reside at
the facility.
The Commission inquired about the number of vehicles owned by residents.
The applicant stated about 3 of 126 residents own vehicles and eventually sell
them because the facility provides transportation.
The Commission inquired about the monthly rental rate. The applicant stated
that monthly rent with full service begins at $2000.00 and increases depending
on the amount of nursing care needed. Alzheimer's patient's monthly rental
rates start at approximately $4000.00.
The Commission inquired about the cottage building roof height and the
applicant stated that Sunrise would comply with the building code requirement
of 18 feet.
The Commission inquired about the applicant's plan for a permanent, historical
display. The applicant stated that Sunrise will consult with a local historian
about the design, but where to locate the display was undecided at the present
time.
The Commission asked the applicant to define "tea room". The applicant
explained that a "tea room" is another term for"kitchenette", or an area including
a sink and microwave oven or small refrigeration appliance.
(01pcm1113) 5
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 6
In reference to a question asked of staff earlier in the presentation, the applicant
stated that the closest nursing facility was Sun Bridge Nursing Home, located
near Florida and Delaware streets.
WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS
CLOSED.
The Commission praised the applicant for presenting a high quality project that
is aesthetically pleasing and provides a valuable use to the City. They also
commented on their willingness to mitigate concerns raised in previous
discussions with the Commission and City Council.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY KERINS TO
APPROVE THE ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO.
99-2 AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Hardy, Kerins, Mandic, Livengood, Kokal, Borden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Shomaker
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY
BORDEN, TO APPROVE THE PROJECT (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
01-18) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Hardy, Kerins, Mandic, Livengood, Kokal, Borden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Shomaker
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
Discussion ensued regarding the need for a covenant assuring that the existing
knoll be maintained as open space.
The Commission requested that the applicant consider adding an additional
historical display to the proposal.
The Commission voiced concerns about burrows on the site.
The Commission requested that the applicant consider including as part of the
historical display some of the existing brick pavers currently located on the
property.
(01 pcm1113) 6
PC Minutes •
11/13/01
Page 7
The Commission read through additional conditions of approval suggested by
Public Works staff.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY KERINS TO
APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 01-01 AND FORWARD
RESOLUTION NO. 1565 TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES: Hardy, Kerins, Mandic, Livengood, Kokal, Borden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Shomaker
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HARDY, TO
APPROVE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 01-02 WITH FINDINGS AND
FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Hardy, Kerins, Mandic, Livengood, Kokal, Borden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Shomaker
ABSTAIN:- None
MOTION PASSED
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY KERINS, TO
APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-18 WITH FINDINGS AND
MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Hardy, Kerins, Mandic, Livengood, Kokal, Borden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Shomaker
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 01-02:
1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 01-02 to change the zoning on a 4.82 acre
parcel from Residential Medium Density to Public Semipublic is consistent
with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the
General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed change is
consistent with General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 which is being
processed concurrently. The land uses in the surrounding area are
(01 pcm1113) 7
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 8
consistent with the proposed change in zoning. There will be appropriate
infrastructure and services available to support the proposed development.
2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning map amendment is
compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the
zoning district for which it is proposed. The changes proposed would be
compatible with the uses in the vicinity, which are residential, commercial
and public.
3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The changes
would expand the opportunities for assisted care housing and address the
needs for the aging population.
4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare
and good zoning practice. The zoning map amendment will provide more
opportunities for senior residents in need of assistance in daily living to live
in Huntington Beach
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-18:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 01-18 for the establishment, maintenance and
operation of the 97 unit assisted living facility, development on a lot with
greater than a three foot grade difference between the high and low points,
and retaining walls up to 6'-8" in height will not be detrimental to the general
welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the
value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Based upon
the conditions imposed, the proposed project will not impact the surrounding
properties including Pacific Ranch and the Seacliff Office Park.
2. The proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding land uses.
The design of the three buildings and associated parking, open space and
landscaping improvements is in keeping with the surrounding residential and
commercial developments. The building heights will not exceed the heights
of abutting residential and commercial structures, while grading of the site
will minimize impacts to the existing topography. The design of the access
road, terraced retaining walls and landscaping will maintain the existing
topography and mature landscaping on the majority of the site.
Furthermore, the existing knoll will remain as a passive open space area.
3. The proposed assisted living facility will comply with the provisions of the
base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance with the exception of the
requested retaining wall heights. In addition, any specific condition required
for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project
will comply with all height, setback, landscaping and parking provisions of
the ZSO. The proposed retaining walls are designed to protect the
proposed cut and will terrace the existing slope condition while minimizing
grading impacts to the knoll.
(01 pcm1113) 8
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 9
4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of
Public on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following
goals and policies of the General Plan:
a. Obiective LU 13.1 Provide for the development of new uses, such as
human service, cultural, educational, infrastructure, religious, and other
uses that support the needs of existing and future residents and
businesses.
b. Obiective LU 9.5 Provide for the development of housing for senior
citizens, the physically and mentally challenged, and very low, low and
moderate-income families.
c. Policy LU 9.5.2 Require that special needs housing is designed to
be compatible with adjacent residential structures and other areas
designated for other categories of use provided that no adverse impacts
will occur.
The assisted living facility will provide housing opportunities for elderly
persons with special needs including assistance with activities of daily
living (ADL). The proposed use will be designed to be compatible with
surrounding uses and structures.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-18:
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated May 7, 2001
shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications:
a. Final design of building elevations including colors and materials shall
reflect the action by the Design Review Board. (DRB)
b. Maximum building height for the cottage building shall be 18 ft. to comply
with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
c. A minimum 30-inch high open view(e.g. wrought iron) fence shall be
installed along Yorktown Avenue at the top of slope adjacent to the Main
and Satellite buildings. (PD)
d. The used brick remains from the Northam Ranch House shall be
incorporated into the project in the means of brick pavers at the lookout
point at the top of the knoll.
e. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative
Code. (Code Requirement)
f. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices
and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be
(01 pcm1113) 9
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 10
screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a
required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults.
Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback
and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement)
g. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all
sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the
exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is
not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing
lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally
compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If
screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop
mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for
review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code
Requirement)
h. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air
conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal
Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on
a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to
appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible
with the building and non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and
comply with required setbacks.
i. If outdoor lighting is included, energy saving lamps shall be used. All
outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage" onto adjacent
properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations.
j. The developer shall construct a catch basin at the northwest comer of
Ranch Lane and Yorktown Avenue. This structure shall be designed to
accommodate the additional flows anticipated from the proposed project.
(PW, Mitigation Measure)
k. To the extent practicable, and to the satisfaction of the City of
Huntington Beach Planning Department, the Applicant shall incorporate
appropriate design elements from the surrounding development,
including form, ornamentation, and color, in order to make the
appearance of the buildings proposed as consistent or as
complementary as possible to the surrounding development. (Mitigation
Measure)
I. To the extent practicable, and to the satisfaction of the City of
Huntington Beach Planning Department, the landscape plan for the
proposed project shall provide a green buffer between the proposed
development and the Pacific Ranch townhomes by more densely
clustering trees along the northern and eastern boundaries of the project
site. (Mitigation Measure)
2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the following shall be completed:
(01p=1113) 10
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 11
a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and any
other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of
any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These
requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of
removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water,
proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any
and all involved agencies.
b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed.
c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District.
d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the
South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification
procedures have been completed.
e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any
portion of any building.
f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos
removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to
the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public
Works.
g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition
permit application for review and approval by the f3uilding and Safety
Director.
h. Under supervision of the City Director of Planning, the Applicant shall
retain a qualified consultant to prepare comprehensive documentation of
the remains of the Northam Ranch House (notably the brick and stone
foundation) and Garage/Carriage House as it currently exists, performed
prior to the commencement of any alteration, grading, and/or demolition.
The documentation shall be consistent with Historic American Buildings
Survey (NABS) standards and involve consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Office and National Park Service. (Mitigation Measure)
3. Prior to issuance of grading-permits, the following shall be completed:
a. A Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil--f---ngineer, shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department foreview and approval. The
plan shall also include an erosion and silt control plan for all water runoff
during construction and site preparation work. The following shall be
incorporated into the grading plan:
(01 pcm111s) 11
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 12
1) Private sewer system.
2) Private storm drain system.
3) Storm drain catch basin at the northwesterly comer of Yorktown
Avenue and Ranch Lane.
4) Remove existing driveway approach along Yorktown Avenue and
replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk, per City standard plans. (PW)
b. Final hydrology and hydraulic studies for both on and off site facilities
shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval, including
Yorktown Avenue and Lake Street intersection calculations. (PW)
c. A sewer study for both existing and proposed shall be required. In
addition, flow tests may be required as determined by the Public Works
Department. (PW)
d. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer.
This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of
materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and
fill properties, liquefaction, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (PW)
e. A complete set of landscape plans, prepared by a licensed landscape
architect, shall be submitted to the Park, Tree and Landscape Division
for approval. The plans shall depict all slope planting. (PW)
f. In 1998, an arborist report (Holcomb) identified all 134 trees on site as
healthy. The developer shall submit a separate or updated arborist
report of all existing mature trees on site (Mature trees are those which
have a 10" trunk caliper @ 4'-6" above grade). The arborist report shall
state the health of the tree and if it is to be removed. Any healthy trees
removed shall be replaced with (2) 36" box trees (or the palm height
equivalent) on the site (PW, Mitigation Measure)
g. There are existing "Phoenix Canariensis" palm trees existing on site.
Prior to transporting or removing them, a palm specialist, approved by
the City's Landscape Architect, shall determine their health and that they
are free of disease. (PW)
h. Developer shall where possible, translocate existing palms to their
permanent locations on site. When this is not possible, the palms shall
be temporarily held in a holding area within the general vicinity of the
site. The palms shall be irrigated, fertilized, and maintained per
professional palm transplanting and arboricultural standards. A palm
specialist shall provide BI-monthly reports as to the health and
recommendations for the palms during the temporary storage and during
the final installation, plant establishment, and maintenance period. The
length of establishment and the maintenance/guarantee period shall be
365 days (1 year) for existing site palms. Newly imported palms
purchased from growing grounds further than 10 miles from the coastline
shall be guaranteed for 730 days (2 years). (PW)
(01 pcm1113) 12
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 13
i. Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for
1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for
Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). Applicant shall provide a
consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall
quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The
report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if
any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept
from the trunk. (PW)
j. A remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and
Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City
Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval, including
methods to minimize remediation related impacts on the surrounding
properties. (PW)
k. The name and phone number of a field supervisor hired by the
developer who is on-site shall be submitted to the Departments of
Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be
posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating whom to
contact for information regarding this development and any construction/
grading related concerns. This contact person shall be available
immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent
property owners during the construction activity. He/she will be
responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein,
specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise,
etc. Signs shall include the number of the applicants contact, City
contact (Public Works Construction Manager 714-536-5431) regarding
grading and construction activities, and "1-800-CUTSMOG" if there are
concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No.
403. (PW)
I. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet
of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least
30 days prior to such grading. (PW)
m. A construction vehicle control plan shall be prepared by the developer
for approval by the City Department of Public Works. The developer
shall also coordinate with the Department of Public Works, in developing
a truck haul route if the import or export of material is required. This plan
shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed
truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities
can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to
adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the
Department of Public Works. (PW, Mitigation Measure)
n. The applicant's grading/erosion control plan shall abide by the provisions
of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. (PW)
(01 pcm1113) 13
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 14
o. A plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department
for review and approval that details how all drainage associated with the
remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants
shall escape the site. (PW)
p. A plan shall be prepared and submitted to both Public Works and
Planning Department's identifying wind barriers around remediation
equipment. (PW)
q. In accordance with NPDES requirements, the Applicant shall submit to
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region,
a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with NDPES, and a water quality
management plan (WQMP) shall be prepared by a civil or environmental
engineer, for the City's review, prior to issuance of a grading permit. The
WQMP shall include provisions for protecting runoff and ground water
quality in the event of well removal or re-abandonment, and shall identify
Best Management Practices to reduce any potential effects to a less-
than-significant level. (Mitigation Measure)
r. The developer shall pay fair share fees, to be determined by the City, for
improvements to the water supply and distribution facilities necessitated
by the proposed project. (Mitigation Measure)
s. The developer shall obtain a 'Will serve" letter from the Orange County
Sanitation District, or the City of Huntington Beach Public Works
Department, whichever is deemed appropriate by the City, for sewer
services. (Mitigation Measure)
t. The developer shall pay fair share fees, as deemed appropriate by the
City, for the improvements to the existing sewer system necessitated by
the proposed project. (Mitigation Measure)
u. To the approval of the City Director of Planning, the Applicant shall
salvage any historical elements or fittings of the structure(s) which may
be useful for reuse or display prior to the commencement of any
alteration, grading, and/or demolition of the site. Any salvaged elements
or fittings shall be given to the City of Huntington Beach Department of
Public Works for safe keeping and/or future use in structures or public
displays. (Mitigation Measure)
v. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide the
City of Huntington Beach and other public venues, such as the local
library, Historical Society museum, and schools with the full
(NABS/H A ER) documentation and elements of the historic property in
the form of traveling and permanent exhibits commemorating the historic
resource. (Mitigation Measure)
w. Where avoidance or transplantation of on-site trees are not possible, the
proposed development should be landscaped with mature, healthy trees
;V 1 f/l.11l 11 13) 1`f1
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 15
of comparable species. Landscape plans shall be approved by the City
Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works prior to project
approval. In addition, refer to Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 for a detailed
description of the measures required to reduce impacts caused by the
removal of mature trees to a less-than-significant level. (Mitigation
Measure)
x. To the maximum extent practicable, all mature palms on the project site
(as determined in PRAC 1998) shall be preserved on-site, in place.
Where preservation in place is not possible, mature palms, where
practicable, shall be relocated on-site, preferably along Yorktown
Avenue, Seabluff Drive, and the northern boundary of the project site.
For all tree species, mature specimens (as determined in PRAC 1998)
shall be incorporated into the landscape palette, and relocated on-site to
the extent practicable.
Mature specimens of any species that cannot practicably be relocated
on-site shall first be offered to the City for planting in City parks. For
specimens that have been offered to the City, but which the City cannot
accommodate, one of the following actions shall be implemented, in the
order of preference listed below:
1) Thirty-six inch boxed specimens of identical species, where
practicable, shall be planted on-site at a 2:1 replacement-to-impact
ratio; or
2) The monetary equivalent of the value of either the existing tree or the
two required (per 2:1 City formula) 36-inch box tree replacements,
whichever is greater, shall be provided by the Project Applicant. All
funds shall be deposited in an account established for the sole
purpose of funding the establishment or enhancement of tree
planting projects within the City of Huntington Beach. (Mitigation
Measure)
y. The developer/landowner shall have entered into a written mitigation
agreement with the school district which shall require payment, as school
mitigation fees, of the maximum amount permitted by law. (Mitigation
Measure)
z. The property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County
Recorder a covenant assuring that the existing knoll, topography, and
landscaping, as modified with the approved site plan, be maintained as
open space in perpetuity. The covenant shall be submitted to the
Planning Department, reviewed and approved as to form by the City
Attorney, prior to recordation. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for inclusion into the entitlement
file.
(01pcm1113) 15
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 16
aa. Blockwall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and
elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls,
and fences) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited.
Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted
identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and
shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The
plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage.
4. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed:
a. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the following:
1) Final design of elevations including proposed colors and materials.
2) Conceptual landscape plan.
b. Submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations
incorporating the Design Review Board's (DRB) action for review and
approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Planning Department;
and submit 8 inch by 10 inch colored photographs of all colored
renderings, elevations, materials sample board, and massing model to
the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file.
c. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on
one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for
issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical,
mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index.
The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point.
d. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and the processing fee to the
Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD)
e. The facility shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical
standards for buildings that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the
property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an
acoustical analysis report and plans, prepared under the supervision of a
person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the
application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement)
f. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating
the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject
property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in
compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report.
Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated
g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of
building permits. (Code Requirement) (Mitigation Measure)
(01pcm1113) 16
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 17
g. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed
in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the
locations of cooking facilities, water heaters and central heating units.
h. The Applicant shall incorporate the Northam name into any development
on the subject property, and shall include appropriate signage indicating
the name chosen. (Mitigation Measure)
5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed:
a. An Alquist Priolo study shall be required. (PW)
b. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the
City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. (PW)
c. The Consulting Arborist (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall
review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the
selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection
measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to
remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations
and/or requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist
report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as
construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall
include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet
signature on the final plan. (PW)
d. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted
to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom
facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during
the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be
impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and
approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The
applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the
Department of Public Works.
e. Habitable structures (occupied for greater than 2,000 hours per year)
shall be located outside of setback zones, in accordance with the
provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act. No development shall be allowed
within a 50-foot structural setback zone on either side of the fault, with
the exception of a 20-foot"special design encroachment zone}"which
shall be designated as the outer 20 feet on each side of the 100-foot
total width structural setback zone. Structures located within this
encroachment zone shall require special structural designs, and school
and hospital uses shall be forbidden. (Mitigation Measure)
f. Structures within the "special design encroachment zone" (the outer 20
feet of the 50-foot structural setback zone) shall be constructed
according to prevailing City Code standards for strong ground motion.
(Mitigation Measure)
(01 pcm1113) 17
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 18
g. Utilities that cross the setback zone shall be equipped with automatic
shutoff valves and flexible connections to help prevent the possibility of
disruption. (Mitigation Measure)
h. All structures shall be constructed in accordance with the 1997 Uniform
Building Code. (Mitigation Measure)
6. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be
approved, and utilities cannot be released, and Certificate of Occupancy
issued until the following has been completed:
a. Any existing water meters and service laterals serving the site shall be
abandoned per the City Water Division Standards, unless approved
otherwise by the Water Division. (PW)
b. The proposed development shall have a separate domestic water
service and meter, installed per Water Division standards, and sized to
meet the minimum requirements set by the Uniform Plumbing Code
(UPC). The domestic water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in
size. (PW)
c. The fire protection water system shall be private and shall be separate
from the domestic and irrigation systems. (PW)
d. Common and landscaping shall have separate irrigation service(s) and
meter(s), sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the Uniform
Plumbing Code (UPC). The irrigation water service shall be a minimum
2-inches in size. (PW)
e. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be
completed. (PW)
f. All public water facilities and appurtenances shall be located within the
public right of way or within easements approved by and dedicated to
the City of Huntington Beach. The developer shall enter into a Special
Utility Easement Agreement with the City for maintenance and control of
the area within the (public) water facilities easement, which shall address
repair to any enhanced pavement, etc. if City water facilities require
repair or maintenance. (PW)
g. Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed per Huntington
Beach Water Division Standards for domestic, irrigation and fire
suppression water services. (PW)
h. The existing water service and meters located on Yorktown Avenue and
Ranch Lane shall be abandoned per Water Division standards. The
existing vault shall be removed to Water Division standards. (PW)
(01pcm1113) 18
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 19
i. An Automatic sprinkler and fire alarm system shall be installed
throughout. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire
Department prior to system installation. (FD)
j. Food preparation fire protection systems shall be submitted as separate
plans for permits to the Building and Safety Department for routing to the
Fire Department. (FD)
k. Fire hydrants shall be installed before combustible construction begins.
Prior to installation, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public
Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate
hydrant locations and Fire Department connections. The project
requires three (3) hydrants. (City Specification No. 407). (FD)
I. Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with Fire Dept. City
Specification No. 415. (FD)
m. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with Fire Dept. City
Specification 401. Include the Circulation Plan and dimensions of all
access roads. (FD)
n. A Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted to Fire Department approval in
compliance with City Specification No. 426. (FD)
o. The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire
Code and Fire Dept. City Specification Nos. 422, Well Abandonment.
(FD) (Mitigation Measure)
p. The project shall comply with all provisions of Huntington Beach
Municipal Code Title 17.04.085 and Fire Dept. City Specification No.
429, Methane District Permit Requirements. (FD)
q. Address numbers shall be installed on structures to comply with Fire
Dept. City Specification 428. (FD)
r. Street names shall be approved by the Fire Department per City
Specification No. 409. (FD)
s. Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The
minimum dimensions are 6'-8"wide by 4'-3" deep with a 42-inch wide
right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54-inch depth.
(FD)
t. Exit signs and exit path markings shall be provided in compliance with
the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Title 24 of the California
Administrative Code. (FD)
(01 pcm1113) 19
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 20
u. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with
Huntington Beach Fire Code Standards found in City Specification No.
424. (FD)
v. The area designated for the Cottage Building (Phase Two) shall be
landscaped to the satisfaction of the City's Landscape Architect until
such time the building is constructed.
w. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be
accomplished and verified by the Planning Department.
x. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other
surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility
equipped to handle them.
y. To the approval of the Director of Planning, and prior to the issuance of
an occupancy permit, the Applicant shall create a permanent, on-site
interpretive display presenting the history of the property and possibly
incorporating HABS/HAER documentation and elements of the historic
property within an area of the project accessible to the public. At
minimum, two historical markers shall be installed in public accessible
locations including one at the top of the knoll and the other at the bottom
or adjacent to Yorktown Ave. A pamphlet summarizing the history and
illustrating the architecture would be an educational public benefit that
shall be made available to the public at the Newland House and Central
Library. (Mitigation Measure)
z. If any archaeological deposits or features are encountered, and they
cannot be avoided, impacts can be reduced to a less than significant
level by scientific data recovery, analysis, and report. (Mitigation j
Measure)
7. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the
following shall be adhered to:
a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be
used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp
enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PW)
b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or
leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday
through Friday only. (PW)
c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded,
in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW)
d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible.
(PW)
(01 pcm1113) 20
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 21
e. All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed
surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the
surrounding areas. (PW)
f. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on
a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and
impacting public streets. (PW)
g. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403, particularly to
minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW)
(Mitigation Measure)
h. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW)
i. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages
concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of
fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW)
j. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating
condition to reduce emissions.
k. Use low sulfur(0.5%)fuel by weight for construction equipment.
I. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes.
m. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days
first stage smog alerts.
n. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts.
o. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site
identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to
contact for information regarding the development and any
construction/grading activity.
p. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise
Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with
construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to
Monday— Friday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, and Saturday 8:00 AM to 5:00
PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays.
(Code Requirement)
q. Applicant shall retain a State-Certified Engineering Geologist to be
present during grading to verify the findings of the PSE studies, and
to document any pertinent changed conditions, particularly regarding
the mapped faults in PSE Trenches T-1 and T-2. The geological
consultant shall also examine soil exposures during grading to
(01pcm1113) 21
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 22
determine if repositioning the setback zones is necessary, d6pending
upon the final finished grades. (Mitigation Measure)
r. The City shall arrange for a qualified professional archaeological
monitor to be present during demolition, grading, trenching, tree
removal, and other excavation on the project site. (Mitigation
Measure)
8. The assisted living facility use shall comply with the following:
a. There shall be a maximum of 126 residents/beds permitted in the
assisted living facility.
b. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire
Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained. If fire lane
violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required,
the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. (FD)
c. Only the uses described in the narrative shall be permitted (See
attached Narrative).
d. The developer shall provide, to applicable staff of the proposed
project, information approved by the City Department of Public
Works regarding and encouraging participation in the City's and or
County's applicable AB939 compliance programs. Program
applicability shall be determined by the City Department of Public
Works. (Mitigation Measure)
9. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are
complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any
changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a
result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued
until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed
changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's
action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a
substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by
the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
10. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for
ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City
for review and approval.
11. Conditional Use Permit No. 01-18 shall not become effective until
General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 and Zoning Map Amendment No.
01-02 has been approved by the City Council, and is in effect.
(01pcm1113) 22
i •
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 23
INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 01-18 shall not become effective until the ten
calendar day appeal period has elapsed.
2. Conditional Use Permit No. 01-18 shall become null and void unless
exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is November
13, 2002 or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director
pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a
minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date.
3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use
Permit No. 01-18, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any
violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs.
4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as
applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and
standards, except as noted herein. (Mitigation Measure)
5. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments
shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
6. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting
of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The
check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the
Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's
action.
7. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department prior
to the issuance of Building Permits.
8. Traffic Impact Fees ($120 per trip) shall be paid prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy. (PW)
9. State-mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of
building permits.
10. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in
conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any
landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public
Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval
by the Planning Commission.
11. All permanent, temporary, or promotional signs shall conform to Chapter
233 of the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs or installing
promotional signs, applicable permit(s) shall be obtained from the Planning
(01 pcm1113) 23
i •
PC Minutes
11/13/01
Page 24
Department. Violations of this ordinance requirement may result in permit
revocation, recovery of code enforcement costs, and removal of installed
signs.
12. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-
way. (PW)
13. Standard landscaping code requirements apply, Chapter 232 of the Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinance. (PW)
14. Water Ordinance No. 14.52, the "Water Efficient Landscape
Requirements" apply for projects with 2,500 sq. ft. of landscaping or larger.
(PW)
15.A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department
and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying the
buildings.
(01 pcm1113) 24
ATTACHMENT I I
• i
RESOLUTION NO. 1565
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 01-01
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 has been prepared and analyzed
in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 13, 2001; and
General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 is a request to amend the Land Use Element
of the City's General Plan to incorporate a redesignation of approximately 4.82 acres of
property located north of Yorktown Avenue, west of Ranch Lane from Residential
Medium Density(RM)to Public(P); and
The Planning Commission held a public hearing pursuant to Government Code
Section 65353 on November 13, 2001 to consider said General Plan Amendment; and
The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City
Council on the amendment to the General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section
65354.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Huntington Beach as follows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission desires to update and refine the General
Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives.
SECTION 2: General Plan Amendment is necessary to accomplish refinement of
the General Plan and is consistent with the other elements of the General Plan.
SECTION 3: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed land use
amendment will not result in any significant adverse impacts to the environment.
SECTION 4: The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation of
Public-Semipublic will be consistent with the proposed zoning on the property and will be
compatible with surrounding land uses.
SECTION 5: The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach hereby
adopts said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said amendment to the General Plan of the
City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington
Beach at a regular meeting held on the thirteenth day of November, 2001.
AYES: Hardy, Kerins, Mandic, Livengood, Kokal, Borden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Shomaker
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
Ho Zele , Secretary Planning Commission ehairperson
(Reno 1565) -2-
ATTACHMENT, 12 ,
City of Huntington Beach
Addendum
to the Northam Ranch House
Final Environmental Impact Report
(SCH No. 1999081123, EIR 99-2)
SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
November 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................................3
2. Revised Project Description.....................................................
3. Project-Specific Environmental Analysis.........................................................................................8
4. Conclusion of this Addendum.........................................................................................................29
5. References...........................................................................................................................................29
Appendices
A. Northam Ranch House Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program, as amended
10262-00\Addcndum\worth=Find.\ddmdum 3.doc 1 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
Pjj ti
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Summary Of Project Site Characteristics and Comparison of Project Attributes......................... 5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Follows Page
1 Project Vicinity and Regional Location Map...................................................................................... 3
2 Aerial Photo of Project Site................................................................................................................... 3
3 NRH Project Site Plan............................................................................................................................3
4 NRH Reduced/Revised Project Alternative................................................................................... 3
5 Sunrise Site Plan...................................................................................................................................... 5
10262-00\Addcndum\Xorth:un Final Addmdum 3.doc 2 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
• •
Administrative Draft Addendum
to the Northam Ranch House Final Environmental Impact Report
for Sunrise Assisted Living of Huntington Beach
October 2001
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project History
On June 13, 2000, The City of Huntington Beach certified the Final Environmental Impact Report
(SCH #1999081123) for the Northam Ranch House development project (NRI-1), hereinafter
referred to as the NRH Final EIR. The project involved the construction of 17 single-family, two-
story, residential dwelling units along a private, non-gated cul-de-sac that was to be constructed as
part of the project. The 4.82-acre NRH project site, which is located at 2134 Main Street, is
bounded by Yorktown Avenue on the south, the Pacific Ranch condominium development on the
north and east, and the Seacliff Office Park on the west. Figure 1 shows the regional location and
local vicinity of the site, and Figure 2 provides an aerial photograph of the site.
The NRH development project was not approved, and a revised project (the Sunrise Assisted Living
Facility) was subsequently submitted to the City. This document is an Addendum to the NRH Final
EIR, and has been prepared in response to changes in the project to accommodate the Sunrise
Assisted Living Facility (Sunrise), rather than the single-family residences originally envisioned.
Accordingly, the project description and environmental analysis provided in the NRH Final EIR
(SCH #1999081123) are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
As part of the overall evaluation of the effects of the originally proposed NRH project (see Figure
3), the NRH Final EIR analyzed alternative lot and roadway configurations, as well as alternative
uses such as multiple-family residential units, to accommodate the alternative configurations
proposed. The current proposal is similar in site configuration to the Reduced/Revised Project
Alternative (Landscape Maintained) evaluated in Section 4.3.3 of the NRH Final EIR (see Figure 4
of this document). The alternative evaluated development on the southern 40 percent of the site
and on two parcels in the northwest corner of the site. The alternative also realigned the on-site
roadway southward. These modifications were proposed to avoid substantial grading of a knoll that
occupies the northern portion of the site, and to avoid clearing dense vegetation on the knoll
promontory, which includes the majority of the 134 mature trees on-site. The knoll and the
vegetation, in addition to status as aesthetic resources, are also part of the historic setting for the
Northam Ranch House and associated structures, as described in Section 3.1 of the NRH Final EIR.
10262-00\Addcndum\Xorthu Fm. Addmdum Moc 3 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
�a �,..�i C HM,P Ku
�s
The Sunrise project proposes the development of two buildings, a secure garden, and an on-site
roadway and parking area in about the southern half of the project site. A third building is proposed
in the northwestern quarter of the project site, and a footpath would be constructed to the knoll,
which would be left as open space. The project is described further below in Section 2, Revised
Project Description.
1.2 Purpose of this Addendum
The purpose of this Addendum is to address the potential environmental effects of construction of
an assisted living facility, and to determine whether the findings associated with the NRIJ Final EIR
remain valid in light of the proposed project revision. As described in Public Resources Code
Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, preparation of an Addendum is
appropriate where a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) requires revision, but
none of the conditions requiring the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR have
occurred. These conditions include:
■ Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in
the seventy of previously identified significant effects;or
■ Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revision of the previous EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or
• New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete, shows any of the following:
■ The project would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in a
previous EIR;
■ Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR;
■ Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project,but the
project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative;or
■ Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or
alternative.
As presented in the following environmental analysis, none of the conditions or circumstances that
would require preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, exist in connection with the
t0262-00\--ldd—dum\Northam F"mat Add—d—3.Jo< 4 Northam Ranch House
• s
proposed assisted living facility; therefore, there are no substantial changes to the NRH Final EIR,
no substantial changes in existing circumstances, and no new information of substantial importance
that would result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects. No additional environmental analysis or review is required to address
the environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project, as
revised, other than as provided in this Addendum.
2. REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Characteristics
The proposed project, as revised,is an Assisted Living Facility that would be subject to licensing and
oversight by the State Department of Social Services as a residential care facility for the elderly
(RCFE) under "Community Care Facilities." As shown in Figure 5, the complex would generally
consist of three main structures: the Main Building, located along Yorktown Avenue; a Satellite
Building, also along Yorktown Avenue; and a Cottage Building in the northwestern portion of the
project site.
The facility would provide a full range of personalized assisted living services for elderly residents
who can no longer care completely for themselves, but who do not require complex medical care.
Services emphasize assistance with daily living, and generally include eating, bathing, dressing, and
medication management. Sunrise would also include a specialized program for residents with
Alzheimer's disease and other forms of memory impairment.
Table 1 summarizes the project site characteristics and compares the attributes of the originally
proposed NRH development and the Sunrise project. Additional discussion is provided below.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS
AND COMPARISON OF PROJECT ATTRIBUTES
NRH Final EIR Sunrise project
Assessor's Parcel Number: 023-010-18 Same.
Gross Acreage: 4.824 acres Same.
Number of Lots/Structures: 17 numbered,plus 3 lettered: One lot,with three structures
■ Lots 1-17 are residential lots;
■ Lot A is a private street;and
■ Lots B and C are landscape lots.
Total Square Footage: N/A 66,025 gross square feet(gsf)
Maximum Structure Height 35 feet 30 feet for Main and Satellite Bldgs.
18 feet for Cottage Bldg.
Proposed General Plan Medium Density Residential(RBI-15) Public(P)proposed
Designation
10262-00\addendum\Northam final addendum ldm 5 Northam Ranch House
FipaI d¢ d�"Z . . .
0
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS
AND COMPARISON OF PROJECT ATTRIBUTES
NRH Final EIR Sunrise project
Existing Zoning: Medium Density Residential combined Medium Density Residential combined
with Oil Production(RIM-0) with Oil Production(R-M-O)
Proposed Zoning Same as existing Public Semi-public (PS)
Existing Land Use: Vacant Same.
Proposed Land Use: Single-Family Residential Residential Care,General(Assisted
Living Facility)
Utilities/Providers: Water: City of Huntington Beach(public) Same.
Sewer: City of Huntington Beach(private
except as noted on Walden&Associates
1998)
Gas:Southern California Gas
Electric:Southern Califorrua Edison
Telephone:Verizon
Oil wells: Two on-site. rU oil wells and facilities Same.
will be abandoned and removed pursuant
to current standards.
Pad Elevations: Range from 72.0 to 75.5 feet above mean 58.0,70.0,and 74.0 feet above mean
sea level(,%ISL),t 1 foot sea level(N1SL):t 1 foot.
Sources:Walden&Associates 1998,Sunrise Development 2001
As summarized above, the NRH Final EIR analyzed the construction of 17 single-family residential
dwelling units around a private cul-de-sac. The private cul-de-sac effectively bisected the project
site,its centerline closely following the on-site branch of the Newport-Inglewood fault. Because no
habitable structures may be constructed within 50 feet on either side of the fault branch (i.e., within
the Alquist-Priolo zone), the cul-de-sac also provided distance from the fault branch, using the
otherwise lost space for infrastructure. However,this arrangement necessitated extensive grading on
the entire site, which would have destroyed the knoll on the northern two-thirds of the project site.
Because this site plan was inconsistent with City General Plan policies regarding design sensitivity
with respect to site topography, a project alternative evaluated in the Final EIR shifted the cul-de-sac
further south on the project site, preserving the majority of the knoll and its vegetation (including
several mature trees), and allowing for development only on the south side of the cul-de-sac, and in
the northwestern comer of the project site.
Since certification of the NRH Final EIR, the original purpose of the proposed structures changed,
as well as the number and locations of these structures. The current project proposes a 126-bed
(maximum) facility consisting of three structures that encompass a total of 66,025 square feet, and
contain a mix of one- and two-room suites. The two-room suites would not all contain two beds:
some would be used only as living space. The structures would be arranged on the site in a similar
I0262.00\Addendum\Northam Final Addmdum 3.doc 6 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
• •
manner to the EIR alternative described above. The current proposal calls for development of two
structures south of the proposed private cul-de-sac, and one structure in the northwest corner of the
project site.
Main Building. The proposed Main Building is a two-story assisted living facility of approximately
35,328 gsf. The building would include 21 one-bedroom suites and 26 two-bedroom suites. The
building would occupy the pad in the southwestern portion of the site. The pad elevation is 70 feet
above MSL, and the building would have a maximum height of 30 feet.
Satellite Building. The Satellite Building is an annex to the Main Building, and is a two-story
building that encompasses 19,161 gsf. A connecting corridor extends from the first floor of the
Main Building to the second floor of the Satellite Building. The Satellite Building would have a
maximum height of 30 feet, and would be built on a 58-foot MSL pad (a maximum of 2 feet above
the existing grade). The first floor would lie one level below the first floor of the Main Building.
This would be facilitated by a 2:1 manufactured grade on the north site of the structure (towards the
knoll), as well as a retaining wall immediately north of the manufactured slope, to allow maintenance
of relative grades in response to the site's existing topography.
The first floor of the Satellite Building is a care facility for residents with Alzheimer's disease, and
comprises nine one-bedroom and six two-bedroom suites. The second floor is an assisted living
facility with nine one-bedroom and eight two-bedroom suites. Adjacent to the Satellite Building to
the east is the Secure Garden, an outdoor landscaped area enclosed by a perimeter wall.
Cottage Building. The Cottage Building would be constructed on a 74-foot MSL pad in the
northwestern comer of the project site. The pad would he a maximum of 2 feet above and 18 feet
below the existing grade. In the area where substantial cut is required (about the eastern third of the
building pad), a maximum 2:1 slope would be manufactured from the knoll and the northern
perimeter of the site to maintain the elevation of the knoll promontory, while providing a recessed
pocket within which the building would be constructed. The building would be a 18-foot-tall, single
story assisted living facility that encompasses 11,536 square feet. The facility would include nine
one-bedroom suites and nine two-bedroom suites.
In addition to the structures described above, the project includes a combination on-site roadway
and 50-space parking lot, which would extend east from Seabluff Drive onto the project site. As
with the building pads, some grading of the base of the knoll is necessary to provide a suitable grade
for the road; however, a retaining wall would be constructed along the northern edge of the parking
area to allow the majority of the knoll's existing grade to remain intact. The elevation maintained at
the top of the retaining wall ranges from 71 feet MSL (4 feet above existing grade) at the
westernmost extent, to 80 feet MSL (maintenance of the existing grade) at the easternmost extent.
10262-00\Addmdum\\orthu Final Addwdum ldx 7 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
As stated above, the majority of the mass and existing grade of the on-site knoll would also be
preserved. Grading on the knoll promontory- would reduce the existing elevation by about 1.1 feet
to allow a footpath of an acceptable grade (5% maximum) to be constructed from the Cottage
Building and roadway/parking area to the promontory. The existing, mature tree clusters on the
promontory would also be retained. The additional landscaping proposed with the project
emphasizes screening the periphery of the site and the proposed structures, as well as plantings in
the Secure Garden.
2.2 Requested Approvals
Zoning Map Amendment. Because the City Zoning Code for the project site does not permit the
construction of a care facility on a site that is designated for Residential Medium Density under the
General Plan, and which is greater than 2 acres, the Sunrise project also proposes a zone change,
from Residential Medium Density to Public-Semi Public, a use that conditionally permits a
residential care facility on the project site's 4.82 acres.
General Plan Amendment. The Applicant also proposes a General Plan Amendment to reflect the
change in land use designation, which would ensure consistency between the zoning and General
Plan designations for the project site, as required by law.
Conditional Use Permit. A residential care facility is a conditionally permitted use in a Public Semi-
public zone.
3. PROJECT-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides an analysis of whether the potential revisions to the NRH project would result
in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects. The NRH Final EIR concluded that with incorporation of mitigation measures, the NRH
development project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources and
aesthetics. Impacts to biological resources would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels.
For each environmental topic, the following analysis presents the standards of significance from the
NRH Final EIR and a summary of the analysis provided in that document (represented by a table
that summarizes the NRH impacts; provides a list of the adopted mitigation measures; the
significance of each impact, assuming implementation of the mitigation measure(s); and a
determination of whether the NRH Final EIR significance conclusion would change as a result of
the proposed revisions to the project). Some NRH impacts are not relevant to the assisted living
facility, and are acknowledged as "not applicable" within the table. Mitigation measures that are
assumed to be applicable to the Sunrise project are indicated by boldface text. The complete text of
the mitigation measures that were proposed in the NRH Final EIR and this Addendum is included
10262-00\.iddrndum\\o,tha Find Addendum 3.d« 8 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
in the NRH Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is attached as Appendix A to this Addendum.
Following the table, a discussion of the potential environmental impacts of the NRH development
(as analyzed in the NRH Final EIR) is presented. This is followed by a discussion of whether the
proposed revisions to the project would result in new significant effects or an increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects. Analysis originally limited to the NRH Initial Study, but
which may be subject to change under the Sunrise project, is evaluated more briefly, in the sections
following the EIR analysis.
The analysis in this Addendum is focused on the potential changes in environmental effects that
could result from the construction of the assisted living facility rather than the originally proposed
NRH development. The impacts associated with the construction of the NRH development were
previously analyzed and disclosed in the NRH Final EIR. The proposed project revision would
involve reduced grading to allow building footprints that have been shifted away from the center of
the project site, with the majority of development proposed in the southern portion of the project
site. The new building footprints he primarily south and west of the knoll on the project site. The
NRH development originally contemplated lots spanning the entire project site, while the Sunrise
project has considered the existing topography of the site.
3.1 Cultural Resources
Standards of Significance
The NRH Final EIR indicated that a project would have a significant impact if it would:
■ Demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or
eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15064.5[b][2][A]);
■ Demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account
for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to local ordinance or
resolution (PRC Section 5020.1[k]), or its identification in an historical resources survey
meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g) (CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5[b][2][B]); or
■ Demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristic of a resource
that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for its inclusion on the
California Register as determined by a lead agency (CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5[b][2][C]).
10262-00\Addendum\Northam Fn:d Addendum 3.do 9 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
Analysis in the NRH Final EIR
Does the
NRH Final EIR Conclusion
Applicable NRH Significance Change With the
Final EIR Conclusion Proposed
Mitigation (With Revisions to the
NRH Final EIR Impacts Measures Mitigation) Project?
The:aviary(less than significant) None Less Than No
Significant
Poolhouse and Raised Deck(less than significant) None Less Than No
Significant
Impact 3.1-1: Loss of the Historic Landscape. 3.1-5,3.1-6,3.1-7 Less Than No
Significant
Impact 3.1-2: Potential Destruction of 3.1-8,3.1-9 Less Than No
Archaeological Resources. Significant
Impact 3.1-3: Demolition of the Northam Ranch 3.1-1,3.1-2,3.1-3, Significant Not applicable:
House. 3.1-4,3.1-10 see discussion.
Impact 3.1-4: Demolition of the Garage/Carriage 3.1-1,3.1-2,3.1-3, Significant No
House. 3.1-4,3.1-10
Impact 3.1-5: Inconsistency with Applicable Plans None Significant No
and Policies.
Impact 3.1-6: Loss of Historic Character of the City 3.1-1 to 3.1-10 Significant No
of Huntington Beach(cumulative).
Source:City of Huntington Beach,2000
As described in Section 3.1.2 and in Appendix C (Historical Resources Impact Analysis) of the NRH
Final EIR, the knoll that forms the northern two thirds of the project site, and the dense, mature
vegetation were integral to the historical feeling and association of the project site: historical
accounts suggest that the knoll,and the views of the surrounding ranch land that it afforded,was the
primary factor in the selection of the site as a residence by Col. Robert Northam, the owner of the
land that would eventually become the City of Huntington Beach. Northam moved his house from
the Buena Park area in or around 1897 and enlarged it soon afterwards. The house was assessed as
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Garage/Carriage House
is believed to be contemporaneous with the house,and was assessed as a contributing element to the
house. The 134 mature trees and other dense vegetation present on the site (with its highest
concentration on the knoll) are thought to have been planted at or near the turn of the century, and
were planted to provide a feeling of shelter from the surrounding land, as development began to
occur nearby in what would become the City. Other structures also existed on-site at the time that
10262-00\Addmdum\Nonham Fin:d.kddcndum 3-doc 10 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
the NOP for the NRH EIR was filed. These included a poolhouse and raised deck adjacent to the
house, and a wood and wire aviary on the northeastern portion of the site; however, both of these
structures were recently constructed, and possess neither individual nor collective historical
significance.
Implementation of the original NRH project assumed that the knoll on-site would be substantially
graded (from a peak of about 90 feet above IVMSL to house pads and a street bed at about 72 feet
above MSL). The vegetation on the knoll—primarily mature trees—would be removed and the
Northam House and Garage/Carriage House (both of which were moved to the site in 1897) would
be demolished to allow development of 17 residential lots. The destruction of the topography,
vegetation, and the historic structures on-site formed the basis of the cultural resources impact
analysis. The project would potentially affect three general types of cultural resource:
Historic Landscape. This included the vegetation and topography of the site, as they provided an
intact historical setting for the Northam House that retained the feeling of the working ranch and
the foundation of the Huntington Beach Company. The removal of 134 mature trees, and the
compromise of the isolated knoll-top location of the house, constituted a significant impact to this
landscape. The NRH Final EIR concluded, however, that Mitigation Measures 3.1-5, 3.1-6 and 3.1-
7 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Potential Archaeological Resources. The presence, extent, and importance of such resources
remain unknown, but the age and function of the property suggest that archaeological resources may
be present in trash deposits and privies, and may be damaged by grading and other construction
activities. However, the NRH Final EIR concluded that Mitigation Measures 3.1-8 and 3.1-9 would
reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Historic Structures. As summarized above, the Northam Ranch House and Garage/Carriage
House are structures of a type now rare in the region, and associated directly with the origins of the
City of Huntington Beach. The house has been assessed as eligible for the NRHP, and the
Garage/Carriage House was assessed as a contributing element to the House. The destruction of
each of these structures was consequently considered to be a significant impact. Although
Mitigation Measures 3.1-1, 3.1-2, 3.1-3, and 3.1-4 were proposed to reduce these impacts, the
impacts would remain significant. However, during the preparation of the NRH Final EIR, the
Northam Ranch House burned to the ground, leaving only portions of the concrete and stone
foundation intact. Public safety concerns regarding asbestos and lead-based paint prompted the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to require the removal of the remains
of the house, so the City contracted with a qualified historic resources consultant to implement
Mitigation Measures 3.1-1, 3.1-2, and 3.1-4 to ensure that adequate documentation and salvage could
occur. If either the original or the revised project is approved, Mitigation Measure 3.1-3 would still
be implemented as written.
10262-00\Addendum\Northam Find Addendum 3-doe 11 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
Conflicts with applicable plans and policies were also considered to be significant impacts, as these
conflicts relate directly to the physical effect of the destruction of the historical resources on the
project site. Additionally, based on the impacts identified and the significance of the historical
resources on the project site, the NRH Final EIR identified a significant cumulative impact to the
historical character of the City of Huntington Beach.
Potential Environmental Effects of Proposed Project Revision
The proposed assisted living facility is generally similar in concept to the Reduced/Revised Project
Alternative analyzed in Section 4.3.3 of the NRH Final EIR. The alternative assumed demolition of
the Northam Ranch House and Garage/Carriage House, and the preservation of the majority of the
knoll and its vegetation as open space. Under the alternative, development would occur primarily in
the southern 40 percent of the project site, and in two smaller lots in the northwest corner of the
site.
As shown in Figures 4 and 5, the Sunrise project would follow this general form, but would
construct the Cottage Building on a larger footprint in the northwest corner of the project site. The
promontory of the knoll is left largely intact as open space, with about 1 foot of grading, and a
footpath would be constructed that leads from the Cottage Building to the top of the knoll. The
existing, mature vegetation on the promontory and southern slope of the knoll would be
maintained. Development other than the Cottage Building would occur in the approximate
southern half of the site, similar to the NRH Reduced/Revised Project Alternative. As described
above, some grading of the base of the knoll would be required, particularly at the southeast,where
the knoll is most steep, to produce an acceptable grade for the access road, parking area, and Main
Building. Some fill would be required in the "bowl' area of the southeastern portion of the project
site to provide a pad for the Satellite Building and Secure Garden. Installation of a retaining wall is
proposed along the toe of the knoll, where grading is to occur, and would prevent the more
extensive grading that would create a radically different artificial slope. However, the proposed
Main and Satellite Buildings would stand 30 feet tall and would therefore represent a visual
encroachment that would obscure the knoll and compromise the historical setting for the property
that the knoll provides.
Grading on areas of the site other than the knoll will result in the removal of some of the mature
trees on areas of the project site, as well as visual encroachment by new construction. Under the
thresholds of the significance of the NRH Final EIR, these impacts would be considered significant.
However, as described above, the NRH Final EIR has evaluated this impact, and recommended
appropriate Mitigation Measures that reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Further, the impacts under the Sunrise project with respect to the historic landscape would be
substantially less severe, due to the reduction in grading and the reduced impact upon the knoll, and
the preservation of the knoll promontory and its associated vegetation as open space. The
mitigation measures proposed in the NRH Final EIR would still reduce the impact to the historic
10262-00\addendum\\onhim Final addmdum 3.doc 12 Northam Ranch House
/R� _Fin�waol EIR
(�A_ddendum
-- - !mot d � AE .Peif:�7.�°` �i •.Z�
landscape to a less-than-significant level, and the conclusions of NRH Final EIR Impact 3.1-1 would
not be altered under the Sunrise project.
Additionally, because some grading would still occur under the Sunrise project, impacts to
archaeological resources that may be present could still occur. This potential effect was evaluated in
NRH Final EIR Impact 3.1-2, and mitigation measures were proposed to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level. No new information indicates the nature of any potential archaeological
resources, nor even their presence. The baseline circumstances regarding this impact remain
unchanged, and the Sunrise project would not increase the amount of grading from that anticipated
under the Northam Ranch House development. The mitigation measures proposed in the NRH
Final EIR would still reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the
conclusion of NRH Final EIR Impact 3.1-2 remains unchanged with respect to the Sunrise project.
NRH Final EIR Impact 3.1-3, Demolition of the Northam Ranch House, no longer applies to any
development on the project site. As described above, the remains of the house have been removed,
pursuant to DTSC requirements, and documentation of these remains, as well as salvage of
appropriate building elements, has occurred. NRH Final EIR Mitigation Measures 3.1-1, 3.1-2, and
3.1-4 have already been implemented, and the Lead Agency will require that any applicant
implement Mitigation Measure 3.1-3 (interpretive display), as written, should any development
occur. Construction of the Sunrise project could not, therefore, affect the Northam Ranch House
or its remains.
Demolition of the Garage/Carriage House would occur under the Sunrise project, just as under the
originally proposed project. This project effect, under the Sunrise project, is identical to the effect
of the original project, as evaluated in NRH Final EIR Impact 3.1-4. NRH Final EIR Mitigation
Measures 3.1-1 to 3.1-4 would apply to the Sunrise project, but as with the originally proposed
project, would not reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. This impact would remain
significant and unavoidable under the Sunrise project, identical to the conclusion reached in the
NRH Final EIR for the originally proposed project. Additionally, the loss of the Garage/Carriage
House and the compromise of the historical setting of the site would still constitute a conflict with
policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan that relate to historic resources, as well as
with State and Federal historic preservation policies. Because the conflict with these policies relates
directly to the physical effect of the destruction of historical resources, the conflict represents a
significant impact. As described above, the Sunrise project's impact to the project site's historical
setting is substantially reduced from that of the originally proposed project, and would be mitigated
to a less-than-significant level with implementation of NRH Final EIR Mitigation Measures.
However, the impact associated with the demolition of the Garage/Carriage House remains
significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the policy conflict discussed here would also remain
significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.1-5 of the NRH Final EIR reached an identical conclusion;
therefore, the Sunrise project would not alter the conclusion of the NRH Final EIR with respect to
consistency of the originally proposed project with applicable plans and policies.
10262-00\Addendum\Xonhun Final Addendum 3.doc 13 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
Development of the Sunrise project would also have cumulative effects similar to those of the
proposed project. Although the Northam House no longer stands, and its demolition would not be
considered an impact of the Sunrise project, the loss of the Garage/Carriage House and the effects
of the project upon the historic setting of the site would still result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to impacts associated with the ongoing loss of historic resources in the City of
Huntington Beach, particularly because so few resources of this type remain. Impact 3.1-6 of the
NRH Final EIR reached the same conclusion; therefore, the Sunrise project would not alter the
conclusion of the NRH Final EIR with respect to cumulative impacts to cultural resources, although
the severity of the impact would be reduced.
Conclusion
The conclusions of the NRH Final EIR with respect to impacts to cultural resources remain
unchanged under the Sunrise project, with the exception of NRH Final EIR Impact 3.1-3, which
would not apply. With the implementation of NRH Final EIR Mitigation Measures, the cultural
resources impacts of the proposed project revision would not alter the significance conclusions of
the NRH Final EIR and would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant impacts. No new or different mitigation measures are
required.
3.2 Biological Resources
Standards of Significance
The NRH Final EIR indicated that significant impacts would occur if the project would:
■ Adversely affect, either directly or through habitat modifications, any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations,
or by the CDFG or the USFWS;
■ Interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory species;
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources;or
■ Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened
species.
10263-00\.addendum\Nonham Final.3ddcndum 3.doc 14 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
• 0
Potential Environmental Effects
Does the
NRH Final EIR Conclusion
Applicable NRH Significance Change With the
Final EIR Conclusion Proposed-
Mitigation (With Revisions to the
NRH Final EIR Impacts Measures Mitigation) Project?
Common Species and Habitats(less than significant) None Less Than No
Significant
Sensitive Habitats (less than significant) None Less Than No
Significant
Sensitive Species (less than significant) None Less Than No
Significant
Wildlife Corridors (less than significant) None Less Than No
Significant
Impact 3.2-1: Removal of mature trees. 3.2-1 Less Than No,but reduced
Significant under Sunrise
project
Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources 3.2-1 Less Than No,but reduced
Significant under Sunrise
project
Source: City of Huntington Beach,2000
The NRH Final EIR determined that short-term construction activities could disrupt local and
common plant and wildlife species (such as Anna's hummingbird, red-shouldered hawk, and
mourning dove) that occur or potentially occur on-site. However, after construction, such species
are expected to return to available habitat provided by the proposed landscaping, or in adjacent
areas. These species are not protected by any statute or regulation, and their disruption or loss does
not contribute to an overall loss of species population over their respective ranges. No sensitive
plant or wildlife species were observed on the project site during surveys, nor are they expected to
occur, as no suitable habitat that can support these species exists on the project site. Similarly, as a
relatively isolated area of its kind (the site is surrounded by developed parcels), the project site does
not serve as a stopover for migratory- bird species, particularly because nearby vacant lots, Central
Park (a noted stopover location), or the nearby Bolsa Chica coastal wetlands provide far more
suitable habitat. Further, the common terrestrial species observed and expected to occur on-site are
non-migratory in nature. Project implementation was, therefore, not anticipated to impede the
movement of wildlife.
The NRH Final EIR acknowledged, however, that construction of the originally proposed project
would result in the removal of all 134 mature trees on-site, as well as other vegetation. Removal of
10262-00\Addendum\Nonham Fina]-addendum 3-dm 15 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
ATTf.I`P`iila-'N17 N1f)_
• •
mature trees without replacement or other acceptable compensation would represent a conflict with
Section 232.04 of the City's Municipal Code, and would constitute a significant impact, as the policy
conflict would have direct consequences for the physical environment.
Regarding cumulative impacts to biological resources within the City, the NRH Final EIR concluded
that implementation of the NRH development would contribute to the loss of vegetation biomass
within the City, but that relocation of the trees or their in-kind replacement at a 2:1 ratio, pursuant
to NRH Final EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-1, would reduce the cumulative contribution of the NRH
development to a less-than-considerable level.
Potential Environmental Effect of the Proposed Project Revision
The NRH Final EIR concluded that no sensitive plant or wildlife species are known or expected to
occur on the project site. The Sunrise project would not, therefore, affect any sensitive species, and
impacts resulting from such effects would remain less than significant.
Under the Sunrise project, construction-related impacts to local, common plant and wildlife species
would be similar to those anticipated under the NRH development, because construction activities
such as grading, excavation, noise, and brush clearance would be identical. Common species are not
protected under any ordinance, and their disruption or loss does not contribute to an overall loss of
species populations over their respective ranges. Further, most common wildlife species would still
be expected to return to available habitat provided by neighboring landscaped areas, as well as areas
on the project site. The NRH Final EIR determined that this impact was less than significant under
the NRH development, and the circumstances and construction methods have not changed;
therefore, this impact would remain less than significant under the proposed project.
As stated in Section 3.2 of the NRH Final EIR, the terrestrial species observed or expected to occur
on-site would not be characterized as migratory in nature. Further, the project site is neither a link
between natural areas, nor a known stopover location for migratory birds, especially given the far
more suitable habitat in nearby natural areas, such as Central Park and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands.
As with the originally proposed project, impacts to wildlife movement would remain less than
significant under the Sunrise project.
Under the Sunrise project, the mature trees on the knoll promontory would be preserved, resulting
in the removal of substantially fewer trees than the originally proposed project. However, removal
of trees elsewhere on the site because grading, such as on the perimeter of the site, could still result
in the removal of mature trees and other vegetation. Consistent with NRH Final EIR Mitigation
Measure 3.2-1, mature trees shall be preserved in-place or relocated on-site, where practicable.
Mature species that cannot be relocated on site shall first be offered to the City for planting in City
parks. For trees that the City cannot accommodate, either 36-inch boxed specimens shall be planted
on-site at a 2:1 ratio, or the monetary equivalent of the original tree or two 36-inch boxed
l0262-00\Addendum\Northam Final.Addmdu 3-doc 16 Northam Ranch House
Final ELRAddendu»2-N
• •
replacements, whichever is of greater value, shall be provided by the project applicant for the sole
purpose of funding the establishment or enhancement of tree planting projects within the City.
Impact 3.2-1 of the NRH Final EIR concluded that implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1
would mitigate the impact of tree removal to a less-than-significant level under the originally
proposed project. Due to the substantially reduced number of tress anticipated to be removed
under the Sunrise project, implementation of the appropriate NRH Final EIR mitigation measures
would also reduce tree removal impacts under the Sunrise project to a less-than-significant level.
Additionally, because the NRH Final EIR concluded that with mitigation, the originally proposed
project would not contribute considerably to the cumulative loss of vegetation biomass in the City,
and because the number of trees proposed for removal under the Sunrise project would substantially
decrease, the contribution of the Sunrise project to the cumulative loss of vegetation biomass in the
City would also be less than cumulatively considerable.
Conclusion
Because the Sunrise project is anticipated to require the removal of significantly less (approximately
five to ten) mature trees, as compared to the proposed project (which proposed to remove all 134
trees), and because NRH Final EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would reduce the associated impact to
a less-than-significant level, the biological resources impact of the proposed project revisions would
neither alter the significance conclusions of the NRH Final EIR, nor result in new significant
impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. No new
or different mitigation measures are required.
3.3 Aesthetics/Visual Quality
Standard of Significance
The NRH Final EIR indicated that a significant impact on visual quality would occur if the project
would have a substantial and demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Since no empirical criteria exist
to assess visual impacts, the assessment of visual impacts is, by its nature, a subjective undertaking.
The criteria employed to determine the significance of impacts in the NRH Final EIR stated that the
project would result in a significant impact if it would:
■ Introduce a new visible element where the proposed project would be inconsistent with the
overall quality,scale and character of the surrounding development;
■ Remove existing visual elements that enhance the character of the area;
■ Result in the casting of shadows on adjacent residential properties for more than three
hours;or
■ Conflict with applicable plans and policies. Inconsistency with any of the policies provided
by the General Plan in support of a specific goal or objective constitutes inconsistency with
the goal and objective, as well.
10242-00%Addendum\\onty Final.Addendum Mac 17 Northam Ranch House
_ Final EIR Addendum -
Analysis in the NRH Final EIR
Does the
NRH Final EIR Conclusion
Applicable NRH Significance Change With the
Final EIR Conclusion Proposed-
Mitigation (With Revisions to the
NRH Final EIR Impacts Measures Mitigation) Project?
:-Alterations to Viewsheds From the Project Site(less None Less Than No
than significant) Significant
Shade/Shadow Effects(less than significant) None Less Than No
Significant
Impact 3.3-1: Potential Inconsistency with 3.3-1 Less Than No
Surrounding Development. Significant
Impact 3.3-2: Removal of Existing Topography and 3.3-2,3.3-3 Significant Yes:reduced with
Vegetation. Sunrise project.
Impact 3.3-3: Inconsistency with General Plan Goal None Significant Yes:reduced with
ERC 4 and Objective ERC 4.1 Sunrise project.
Cumulative Impacts 3.3-1,3.3-2,3.3-3 Significant No
Source: City of Huntington Beach,2OW
The NRH Final EIR concluded that under the originally proposed project, no significant impacts
would occur with respect to publicly held views or shade/shadow effects. No significant, publicly
held views exist from the project site: the site is privately owned and these views would be gained
illegally. Therefore, no public views from the site would be affected. With respect to shade and
shadow, the NRH Final EIR examined shadows cast by the structures proposed under the Northam
Ranch House development. The NRH Final EIR evaluated shadows on the Summer and Winter
Solstices of 1999 Qune 21 and December 22, respectively), as these two days represent the most
extreme shadow effects during the year. The Summer Solstice provides the shortest shadows;
Winter Solstice, the longest. Structure heights were assumed to be a uniform 35 feet for the
purposes of the study. All shadows projected to come closest to neighboring structures were those
cast by proposed project structures on Lots 16 and 17, the two lots in the northwestern corner of
the project site, at the approximate location of the Cottage Building proposed under the Sunrise
project. No project structures on the southern portion of the project site cast shadows that could
affect neighboring properties. No Summer solstice shadows extended to any structures on
neighboring properties. Winter Solstice morning (9:00 am) shadows from structures on Lots 16 and
17 extended nearly 100 feet to the northwest, reaching a portion of the Seacliff Office Park building,
but this shadow receded in less than three hours, and was not considered to be a significant effect.
Winter Solstice shadows at 3:00 pm extended up to 115 feet northeast, but most did not reach
Pacific Ranch homes. The exceptions were shadows cast from Lots 16 and 17; however, the
10262-00\Addendum\Nortfi:un Fnal Addmdum ldo 18 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
shadows were not anticipated to persist for three hours, and this effect was, therefore, considered to
be less than significant.
The NRH Final EIR identified potential inconsistency with surrounding development as a
potentially significant impact of the proposed project. This was primarily due to the nature of the
originally proposed structures, which were single-family detached residential homes, as opposed to
multiple-family homes (townhomes) in the surrounding Pacific Ranch development. However, the
NRH Final EIR concluded that with the incorporation of design elements that are either consistent
with or complementary to the Pacific Ranch development, this impact would be reduced to a less-
than-significant level.
The NRH Final EIR also concluded that substantial grading (a 15-foot reduction) of the knoll and
removal of the vegetation, as well as the fill of the bowl portion of the project site to meet the newly
created slope from the graded knoll, would constitute removal of existing visual elements that
enhance the character of the area. Although NRH Final EIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 required the
relocation or 2:1 replacement of removed trees (or the monetary equivalent, as described above in
Section 3.2, Biological Resources), the development pattern under the originally proposed project
precluded the possibility of planting these trees in sufficient densities to maintain the existing effect
of the dense knoll-top vegetation. Additionally, the originally proposed grading plan conflicts with
policies in the City's General Plan Environmental Resources/Conservation (ERC) Element that
require design sensitivity to natural topographic characteristics of sites and the minimization of cut
and fill. Under the originally proposed project, no mitigation would have reduced these related
impacts to a less-than-significant level,and they remained significant and unavoidable.
The NRH development would also have resulted in cumulative impacts to the aesthetic quality of
the City. The NRH Final EIR concluded that the removal of the topography and vegetation on the
project site and the resulting loss of open space would have contributed to the loss of private open
space and visual buffers in the City of Huntington Beach, as well as the loss of now rare sites
containing distinctive topography. This impact was determined to be cumulatively considerable.
Potential Environmental Effect of the Proposed Project Revision
As shown above in Table 1, the proposed building pad elevations for the Main and Satellite
Buildings are 72 and 58 feet, respectively, the same as or lower than the building pad elevations
proposed under the NRH development for the structures on the southern portion of the site.
Additionally, the maximum building heights for the Main and Satellite Buildings are five feet lower
than those proposed under the NRH development. The shadows cast by these two structures
would, therefore, be shorter than those anticipated from the southernmost buildings of the NRH
development. Because shadows from those originally proposed buildings were not anticipated to
affect neighboring structures, the shorter shadows from the Sunrise project's Main and Satellite
10262-00\Addendum\\onhun Fi"Addendum ldo 19 Northam Ranch House
Fin9al EIR Addendum -
Buildings would also not affect neighboring structures, and any shadow impacts from these
structures would remain less-than-significant.
As described above, the only shadows that the NRH Final EIR anticipated could affect neighboring
structures to any degree were those anticipated from the structures on Lots 16 and 17 in the
northwest corner of the NRH development. The Sunrise project's Cottage Building, which would
occupy the general location of previously proposed Lots 16 and 17, is anticipated to lie on a building
pad at an elevation nearly equal to the elevations proposed for those lots (74 feet MSL for the
Cottage Structure, compared to approximately 74 feet MSL for lots 16 and 17). However, the
Cottage Structure would only be one story, and would reach a maximum height of 18 feet, or 51%
of the height of the 35-foot-tall structures proposed under the NRH development. Using the same
sun angle assumptions as those employed in the NRH Final EIR, the longest shadows that could
affect a neighboring structure that would be cast by the Cottage Building would still occur at 9:00
am and 3:00 pm on the Winter Solstice, and would extend about 44 feet to the northwest and 69
feet to the northeast, respectively. The 9:00 am shadows would be about 56 feet shorter than the
shadows cast by the NRH development's structures on Lots 16 and 17, which just extended to the
Seacliff Office Park facade, and which receded in less than 3 hours. The shorter 9:00 am shadows
anticipated from the Sunrise project would not reach the Seacliff Office Park, and the 3:00 pm
shadows cast by the Cottage Building would be 46 feet shorter, and would not reach neighboring
Pacific Ranch structures. Shadows cast by the Sunrise project would therefore result in a less-than-
significant shade and shadow impact.
The grading proposed under the Sunrise project has been substantially reduced from the proposed
project. The promontory of the knoll is left largely intact as open space, and would be graded by
about 1 foot. The northwestern portion of the site would be graded about 6 feet. This compares
favorably to the 15-foot cut from the knoll promontory proposed under the originally proposed
project. Some grading of the base of the knoll would be required, particularly at the southeast,
where the knoll is most steep, to produce an acceptable grade for the access road, parking area, and
Main Building, and fill would be required in the "bowl" area of the southeastern portion of the
Project site to provide a pad for the Satellite Building and Secure Garden. Installation of a retaining
wall is proposed where grading is to occur, and would prevent more extensive grading,which would
create a substantially different artificial slope. The pad for the Main Building in the southwestern
portion of the site would require a maximum of 6 feet of grading and 10 feet of fill,slightly less than
the cut and fill required for house pads that would occupy the same space under the NRH
development. The reduced quantity of grading would keep more of the form and mass of the knoll
intact than would the originally proposed project. Further, the Sunrise project leaves the majority of
the knoll promontory intact as open space, which also allows the retention of the majority of the
mature trees on-site, as described above in Section 3.2. This also retains the views from the west,
east, and south of the dense knoll-top vegetation, and the visual relief that the vegetation provides.
Consequently, although the Sunrise project would require some alteration of the knoll, and as stated
10262-00\:\ddendum\Northam Final.\ddmdum 3.doc 20 Northam Ranch House
• •
above in Cultural Resources, the proposed structures would encroach upon the view of the knoll's
mass, the project would retain a substantial portion of the knoll's mass and height, and would allow
the retention of off-site views of the dense vegetation stand that currently exists on the knoll
promontory. Further, the revised grading plan maintains the sense of the relative topography of the
site (greatest heights in the north-central to northwestern portion of the site, sloping downward
towards the south and west, with the lowest elevations in the southeastern portion of the site).
Under the Sunrise project, therefore, NRH Final EIR Impact 3.3-2 would be substantially reduced,
and although the removal of five to ten of the on-site mature trees and other vegetation would
constitute a significant impact, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2, would reduce the
significance of NRH Final EIR Impact 3.3-2 under the Sunrise project, to a less-than-significant
level.
As summarized above, the NRH Final EIR linked impacts associated with ERC Element policy
inconsistency to NRH Final EIR Impact 3.3-2 (Removal of Existing Topography and Vegetation).
The Sunrise project would retain a substantial portion of the knoll's mass and height, and would
allow the retention of existing off-site views of the dense mature tree stands and other vegetation,
thus reducing the significance of NRH Final EIR Impact 3.3-2 to a less-than-significant level.
Because the Sunrise project's grading plan has reduced the cut and fill associated with the creation of
building pads, access roads, and parking grades, and has maintained the feel of the relative
topography on-site, the Sunrise project demonstrates an effort to maintain the topographic
characteristics of the site, and minimize the area and height of cut and fill. The Sunrise project is,
therefore, generally consistent with City General Plan Goal ERC 4 and Objective ERC 4.1, and
NRH Final EIR Impact 3.3-3, which was considered significant under the NRH development,
would be considered less than significant under the Sunrise project.
As described above, the cumulative impact of the NRH development was evaluated on a City-wide
basis, and was determined to be cumulatively considerable. Although the Sunrise project has
reduced the aesthetic impacts substantially from those of the proposed project, development of the
site would still contribute to the loss of private open space within the City,and would still contribute
to the rapid urbanization of the area. While some private open space would be maintained under
the Sunrise project, the area of open space would be reduced, and the undeveloped nature of the
parcel would be substantially diminished with the development of the proposed structures, which
would substantially reduce the ability of the site to provide a true visual buffer between uses. The
cumulative aesthetic impact of the Sunrise project would therefore remain cumulatively
considerable.
Conclusion
As described above, all aesthetics impacts identified for the NRH development in the NRH Final
EIR have either remained identical, or have been reduced under the Sunrise project. Therefore, the
visual quality impacts of the proposed project revisions would not worsen with respect to the
10262-00\Addmdum\Northam F 1 Addendum 3-doc 21 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
----- - - _ - s�.-•,"'F'!1 Gam?! !'r i!i'�9^r A F A'j
significance conclusions of the NRH Final EIR and would not result in new significant impacts or a
substantial increase in the severity, of previously identified significant impacts. No new or different
mitigation measures are required.
3.4 Land Use(Initial study)
The NRH Initial Study (Appendix A of the NRH Final EIR) concluded that the originally proposed
project would not conflict with the General Plan or zoning designations of project site: the project
consisted of residential development on a site that was designated for residential uses. Further, the
NRH project proposed development at a density that was substantially below that allowed in the
General Plan for the site (17 units proposed; up to 70 allowed under the General Plan). The project
site was not located in such a way that any development upon it would physically divide an
established community, and no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan
applies to the project site. Therefore, the NRH IS concluded that no significant land use impacts
would result from development of the NRH project. Accordingly, the NRH Final EIR did not
analyze land use. However, implementation of the Sunrise project would requite both a zoning
change and a general plan amendment. Therefore, this addendum shall revisit the issue of land use
and planning impacts.
Standards of Significance
The criteria employed to determine the significance of impacts in the NRH Initial Study stated that
the project would result in a significant impact if it would:
■ Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect;
■ Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan;or
■ Physically divide an established community.
Potential Environmental Effects of the Project Revision
As with the NRH project, no natural resource or habitat conservation plan governs the project site,
and development of the Sunrise project would not divide an established community. The project
site lies between residential (Pacific Ranch townhomes) and commercial (Seacliff Office Park) uses.
Pacific Ranch, the residential use that lies adjacent to the project site on the north and east, is a
discrete, developed community that cannot be divided,and no related impact would result.
Development of the Sunrise project could represent a potential conflict with the General Plan and
zoning designations for the project site, as assisted living facilities are not allowed on parcels larger
10262-00\Addcndum\Northam Final Addcndum Moc 22 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
A ti
• •
than two acres within the current General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (RINI-15)
and the current zoning of Medium Density Residential combined with Oil Production (R-M-O). The
change in General Plan Land Use designation to Public (P) and the zoning designation to Public-
Semipublic (P-S) would permit Sunrise to construct its facility on the 4.824-acre parcel. Thus, parcel
size, rather than the nature of the proposed use,is the conflict under the Sunrise project: the Sunrise
project use is otherwise allowed under current zoning, and is considered fundamentally compatible
with the allowed RM-15 uses, as well as uses that are permitted adjacent to RM-15 uses. Because the
uses are considered to be compatible, no land use conflict would occur; therefore, the proposed
General Plan amendment and zoning change for the Sunrise project would not result in a significant
environmental impact with respect to land use and planning.
Conclusion
As described above, the significance of all land use impacts identified for the NRH development in
the NRH Final EIR has remained identical under the Sunrise project. Therefore, the land use
impacts of the proposed Sunrise project would not worsen with respect to the significance
conclusions of the NRH Final EIR and would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. No new or different mitigation
measures are required.
3.5 Traf j`ic(Initial Study)
The NRH Initial Study analyzed impacts to traffic and circulation with respect to the proposed
development and concluded that construction-related traffic,with mitigation, would be reduced to a
less-than-significant level: all other impacts were concluded to be less than significant. Accordingly,
traffic was not discussed in the NRH Final EIR. However, implementation of the Sunrise project
would involve the construction of more units than the 17 proposed under the NRH project.
Therefore, this addendum shall revisit the issue of traffic impacts.
Standards of Significance
The criteria employed to determine the significance of impacts in the NRH Initial Study stated that
the project would result in a significant impact if it would:
■ Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing local traffic load
and capacity of the street system;
■ Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways;
■ Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks;
■ Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses;
10762-00\Addmdw \Northun Final Addend=Mot: 23 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
■ Result in inadequate emergency access;
■ Result in inadequate parking capacity; or
• Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation.
Potential Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project Revision
According to the Transportation Manager for the City of Huntington Beach, the NRH project
would generate 204 daily vehicular trips, assuming 12 daily trips per unit for each of the 17 single
family units. With respect to the Sunrise facility, 126 assisted living beds at three trips per bed would
generate 378 daily trips. Yorktown Avenue (which serves the project site) is a four-lane primary
arterial, divided road, with a vehicle capacity of 30,000 average daily trips. According to the City
Public Works Department, Yorktown operates at level of service (LOS) A. The increase in traffic
anticipated from the Sunrise project is negligible: traffic generation associated with the project
constitutes approximately one percent of the existing traffic levels in the vicinity and is projected to
have a negligible impact to the level of service on Yorktown Avenue. By way of comparison, the
site's general plan designation of Medium Density residential would result in 630 daily trips under
maximum build-out of 70 multi-family units. Construction-related traffic (trucks) could have the
potential to interrupt traffic along Yorktown Avenue, but as with the NRH project, NRH Initial
Study Mitigation Measure VI-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
The Sunrise project would not affect air traffic patterns. A helipad on the roof of the City Hall
(across Yorktown to the south) is currently in use; however, the City determined that the NRH
project would not interfere with air traffic, and the structures proposed under the Sunrise project are
shorter (30 feet maximum) than those proposed under the NRH project (35 feet), and would be
constructed on lower grades. Therefore, the Sunrise project would not interfere with air traffic, and
no impact would occur.
Parking for the facility exceeds the requirements of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code: the
Code requires 42 parking stalls, and the project provides 50 No impacts related to a shortage of
parking would occur.
As with the NRH project, Seabluff Drive would provide primary access to the project site. Seabluff
Drive is currently used by Seacliff Office Park, and no sharp curves or dangerous intersections exist
or would be created as a result of the Sunrise project. Emergency access to the site is also gained via
Seabluff Drive, which is considered adequate. The private driveway onto the site from Seabluff
Drive will not be gated. No significant impact with regard to design hazards or emergency access
would occur.
10262-00\addendum\Northam Fnal addendum ldo 24 Northam Ranch House
_ nit A �, wPn
Conclusion
As described above, the significance of all traffic impacts identified for the NRH development in the
NRH Final EIR has remained identical under the Sunrise project. Therefore, the traffic impacts of
the proposed Sunrise project would not worsen with respect to the significance conclusions of the
NRH Final EIR, and would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant impacts. No new or different mitigation measures are
required.
3.6 Public Services
The NRH Initial Study concluded that,with implementation of applicable City codes,specifications,
and standard conditions of approval, impacts to fire and police services would be less than
significant. The Ocean View School District and Huntington Beach Union High School District
detemuned that the NRH project would contribute to an existing overcrowding problem, but that
with the payment of school mitigation fees,this impact would be less than significant. The City also
determined that potential impacts to parks would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by
implementation of General Plan policies.
Accordingly, public services were not analyzed in the NRH Final EIR. The criteria employed to
determine the significance of impacts in the NRH Initial Study stated that the project would result in
a significant impact if it would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response tunes or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
■ Fire protection;
■ Police Protection;
■ Schools;
■ Parks; or
■ Other public facilities or governmental services.
Potential Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project Revision
According to the City of Huntington Beach Fire and Police Departments, the proposed Sunrise
facility, with implementation of applicable City codes, standards, and conditions of approval, would
not result in significant impacts to fire or police services, respectively. Additionally, the project site
is still within the Fire Department's five-minute response time boundary.
10262-00\Addendum\Northam Final Addendum 3.doc 25 Northam Ranch House
Final EIIl Altn� m
-t' —'f-1a t;
As summarized above, the NRH project, as a single-family residential use, would have resulted in
the generation of new students within the Ocean View or Huntington Beach Union High School
Districts. As Sunrise is an assisted living facility, its residents would be elderly (average age 83.3
years for women and 80.9 years for men). Therefore, Sunrise would be expected only to generate
new students if employees with school-age children move into the City of Huntington Beach, or
into an area served by either of the school districts listed above. This impact would therefore be
reduced under the Sunrise project, but would still be considered significant, as an overcrowding
problem in the school districts exists. Mitigation Measure XI-1, as stated in the NRH Final EIR,
would still be required with the implementation of the Sunrise project. The mitigation required of
the Sunrise developer would likely be less than that required of the NRH Final EIR project
developer, as the specific amount would be determined by the number of students that the project
would generate.
The age of the residents of the Sunrise project would also substantially reduce the amount of active
park use compared to that expected from the NRH project. Assisted living facilities are classified
differently from residential uses for the purposes of determining "fair share" park fees. Because
residents in assisted living facilities are not permanent residents, and are also limited in their
mobility, regular City park use is not assumed to regularly occur. Consequently, such projects are
not required to pay parks and recreation fees to the City, and the impact of the assisted living facility
on City parks is considered to be less than significant. Therefore, NRH Initial Study Mitigation
Measure XV-1, which required the payment of parks and recreation fees for the NRH project,
would no longer apply.
The City Public Works Department and other departments have initially reviewed the Sunrise
project, and determined that compliance with applicable City codes, specifications, and standard
conditions of approval would ensure that adverse impacts to other public facilities or governmental
services would remain less-than-significant.
Conclusion
As described above, all public services impacts identified for the NRH development in the NRH
Final EIR have either been reduced or remained identical under the Sunrise project. Therefore, the
public services impacts of the proposed Sunrise project would not worsen with respect to the
significance conclusions of the NRH Final EIR, and would not result in new significant impacts or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. No new or different
mitigation measures are required.
3.7 Utilities and Service Systems
The NRH Initial Study concluded that, with mitigation (which consisted primarily of standard
conditions of approval), any potentially significant impacts to water, water treatment, and sewer
iozcz-ao\.,aaendu„\Nonh. rail AddM,d=lda 26 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
7,,I P 'P": -� ' K@Pi
--- — n. :. r% e! 9
systems would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Impacts to storm water systems and solid
waste were considered to be less than significant. Consequently, utilities and service systems were
not analyzed in the NRH Final EIR.
The criteria employed to determine the significance of impacts in the NRH Initial Study stated that
the project would result in a significant impact if it would:
■ Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board;
■ Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects;
■ Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;
■ Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, requiring expanded entitlements;
■ Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments;
■ Not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs; or
■ Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Potential Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project Revision
In addition to the topics listed above, impacts related to electricity consumption and distribution
were not evaluated in the NRH Final EIR. However,given the shortfalls in electrical generation and
distribution experienced during the Summer of 2001, the electricity provider for the project site
(Southern California Edison) was contacted to ensure that electrical service could be provided to the
project. Edison representatives have indicated that the proposed project would not adversely affect
Edison's ability to provide adequate service to its customers, and that current and planned facilities
are anticipated to be sufficient to meet anticipated demands. Therefore, the Sunrise project is not
anticipated to result in a significant impact with respect to electricity generation and distribution.
As with the NRH project, Mitigation Measure IV-1 in the NRH Initial Study would ensure
compliance with RWQCB requirements, and would ensure that any potentially significant impacts
with respect to wastewater treatment requirements would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
As with the NRH project, the Sunrise project would require the extension of utilities onto the
project site. Utility connections to the new facility would occur in accordance with all applicable
Uniform Codes, City ordinances, Public Works Standards, and Water Division criteria, pursuant to
10262-00\Addcndum\\orrfa Find.{ddmdum 3-doc 27 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
Mitigation Measure IS-1 (which requires compliance with the aforementioned codes). The City
anticipates that extension of these utilities would not result in significant, adverse effects.
Additionally, Mitigation Measures IV-4 and IS-1 in the NRH Initial Study would mitigate any effects
of catch basin construction to a less-than-significant level.
According to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the proposed Sunrise facility
will use more water and generate more wastewater than the NRH project analyzed in the NRH Final
EIR; however, the Public Works Department does not consider this increase to be substantial.
Mitigation Measures IV-4 and IS-1 in the NRH Initial Study would still reduce the potential water
impact to a less-than-significant level, and Mitigation Measures XII-1 and XII-2 in the NRH Initial
Study would still reduce wastewater and wastewater treatment impacts to less-than-significant levels.
With respect to solid waste, although Sunrise will generate more solid waste than the 17 units
analyzed in the NRH Final EIR, the Bee Canyon Landfill in the City of Irvine,utilized by the City of
Huntington Beach, still has a remaining capacity in excess of 30 years, based on present solid waste
generation rates. No significant impacts are anticipated. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure XII-3
of the NRH Initial Study would ensure that Sunrise complies with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations regarding solid waste. Mitigation Measure XII-3 shall be adapted for the Sunrise
facility whereby the developer shall distribute information to Sunrise staff,rather than all households
residing in the 17 units under the NRH project, as follows:
Mitigation Measure XII-3: The Developer shall provide, to applicable staff of all heasehelds Fesiding in the
" units develepea un e. the proposed project, information approved by the City Department of Public
Works regarding and encouraging participation in the City's and/or County's applicable AB939 compliance
programs. Program applicability shall be determined by the City Department of Public Works.
Note that this revision does not constitute a change in intensity or scope of the original mitigation
measure. Because the specific parties who would carry out the actions that the measure is intended
to inform would change—staff for the Sunrise project, versus permanent residents under the NRH
project—the language of the measure must be tailored to address these parties.
Conclusion
As described above, all utilities and service systems impacts identified for the NRH development in
the NRH Final EIR have either been reduced or remained identical under the Sunrise project.
Therefore, the utilities and service systems impacts of the proposed Sunrise project would not
worsen with respect to the significance conclusions of the NRH Final EIR, and would not result in
new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
impacts. No new or different mitigation measures are required.
10262-00\Addmdum\\otth.n F-1 Add-dum ldo 28 Northam Ranch House
Final EIR Addendum
4, ,G W.'''�
4. CONCLUSION OF THIS ADDENDUM
As presented in the preceding environmental analysis, none of the conditions or circumstances that
would require preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, exist in connection with the
proposed Sunrise facility; therefore, there are no substantial changes to the NRH Final EIR,
substantial changes in existing circumstances, or new information of substantial importance that
would result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects. No additional environmental analysis or review is required to address the
environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project, as
revised, other than as provided in this Addendum.
5. REFERENCES
Bowles, Spring. Design Service Representative, Southern California Edison. 2001. Letter to Kelsey
Bennett,EIP Associates,regarding Northern [sic] Ranch House H.B. October 1.
Broeren, Mary Beth. Senior Planner, City of Huntington Beach. 2001. Personal Communication
throughout January,May and June.
Carvalho, Wayne. Associate Planner, City of Huntington Beach. 2001. Personal Communication
from June to October.
HPI Architecture and Ivy. 2001. Sunrise Assisted Living of Huntington Beach [Site and Landscape
Plan].
Huntington Beach, City of(City). 1996. General Plan. Prepared by Envicom Corporation. May 13.
Huntington Beach, City of(City). 2000. Northam Ranch House Final Environmental Impact Report. State
Clearinghouse No. 1999081123. Prepared by EIP Associates.
PLC Land Company. 1997. Black/White Aerial photographs (1" = 260D.
PLC Land Company (PLC). 1998. City of Huntington Beach Planning Division Environmental
Assessment Form. EA No. 98-21.
SB&O, Inc. 2001. Preliminary Grading Plan: Sunrise Assisted Living, Huntington Beach.
Sunrise Development. 2001. City of Huntington Beach Planning Department General Application.
Sunrise Development. 2001. Sunrise Assisted Living of Huntington Beach at Yorktown: Project
Description.
Walden and Associates. 1998. Site Plan, Tract No. 15689, Yorktown West, PLC Land Company,
Huntington Beach,California.
i
10262-00\Addmdu NNoctha Ffn.d Addmdu ldo 29 Northam Ranch House
RCA AOUTING &iEET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
SUBJECT: Approve General Plan Amendment No. 01-01/Zoning Map
Amendment No. 01-02 (Sunrise Assisted Living Facility)
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: I December 17, 2001
RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attomey) Not Applicable
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable
Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable) Attached
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached
EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS
REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED
Administrative Staff ( )
Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( )
City Administrator (Initial)
City Clerk
EXPLAN TION F R RET RN OF ITEM:
�- O 7S
Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use
RCA Author: HZ:SH:HF:WC
Et;i'i VLr tI
CITY CLERK
CITY OF
HUNTINGTUH BEACH, CA
I I P 2: 5$
RISE ASSISTED L.,IVIN
...............___ .
NERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 0 1 -0 1
NING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 0 1 -02
y
LICANT: SUNRISE DEVELOPMENT, INC.
- RES. MEDIUM DENSITY TO PUBLIC
- RES. MEDIUM DENSITY TO PUBLIC,
(PUBLIC
97 UNIT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY
ERAL RESIDENTIAL CARE)
UIRED FOR GENERAL RESIDENTIAL CARE
S ON LOTS > 2 ACRES
i
.82 ACRE PARCEL (NORTHAM SITE)
WC YORKTOWN & RANCH LN.
URROUNDING USES
Il PACIFIC RANCH
Il SEACLIFF OFFICE PARK
LI 4 LOT SFR SUBDIVISION
T1 HB CIVIC CENTER
' I
NING COMMISSION (JUNE 1 3, 2000)
ERTIFIED EIR 99-2
ENIED TTM/CUP FOR 17 SFR SUBDIVISION
II EXTENSIVE GRADING OVER ENTIRE SITE
REMOVAL OF MAJORITY OF MATURE TREES
ALTO CITY COUNCIL(AUGUST 21 , 2000)
M/CUP DENIAL UPHELD
i
2
MPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES
PACIFIC RANCH
4 SFR SUBDIVISION
HB CIVIC CENTER
SEACLIFF OFFICE PARK
ZI SEACLIFF VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
rxTHE FOUNTAINS (SENIOR APTS.)
)t BOWEN COURT (SENIOR APTS.)
I
I
WE
NSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN GOALS
INIMIZE GRADING/MAINTAIN TOPOGRAPHY
ROVIDE HOUSING FOR SENIORS WITH
CIAL NEEDS
OMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES
UILDING DESIGN/SITE PLAN LAYOUT
MPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING STRUCTURES
O VARIANCES REQUESTED
I
3
PLICANT:
MET WITH PACIFIC RANCH HOA
HELD OPEN HOUSE AT CENTRAL LIBRARY
200 NOTICES SENT
PACIFIC RANCH LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE
COLTON COMPANIES
(SEACLIFF OFFICE PARK)
I
s
HEARING HELD NOV. 13, 2001
SPEAKER (APPLICANT)
ING COMMISSION APPROVED ADDENDUM TO
D CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR:
NIT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY
i
LOPMENT ON LOT WITH>3 FT. GRADE DIFFERENTIAL j
INING WALLS UP TO 6'-8" HIGH
ING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF
ALL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP
MENT
i
i
4
F RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF GPA 0 1-0 1 ,
A 01-02, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING:
OPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION AND GENERAL
DENTIAL CARE USE COMPATIBLE WITH
OUNDING LAND USES
REASING NEED FOR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES
VISED PROJECT MINIMIZES IMPACTS TO
GRAPHY AND VEGETATION
OJECT BENEFITS OUTWEIGH POTENTIAL ADVERSE
RONMENTAL IMPACTS
'�'�\` v�?R.„ �;'"y�v<-K`.�"' � �e E � `•��c�`� ��w �c �` v, �s'.�;,.r, � :•5'°
'gym. ��.���;,,;; ,� �• � ,�x.� -<
4r € /ACCESS
D our;;-
r� >�. BIIi"Ci71NGS�ERF2A�E"
m
�>�., �, �1F;�tr .. �, `AL'E7NG2l"t�C'OG12,+�P►iY a ,
�.• ' �;�� � hiIA1NTAtN5,KN01..�� „"'
, y ;. MAlOR1TI,C7E ;
�EiSTFNG'1"REES r
CAP»T06'$;,I11GH;;;'.,;t+:
,H:•d-�.;�r-<'.,92- iTREES RE'L:OtA7`�ED
o,x
SITE
5
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ..
) SS.
County of Orange )
I am a Citizen of the United States and a I NOTICE OF (Density to Public Semi-
PUBLIC HE/l(RING public. Location: 2134
resident of the County aforesaid; I am BEFORE THE Main Street (north of
/ CITY COUNCIL OF Yorktown Avenue, west
over the age of eighteen years and not a THE CITY OF of Ranch Lane) Project
/ HUNTINGTON Planner: Wayne
BEACH Carvalho
party to or interested in the below NOTICE IS HEREBY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 1 is
entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of GIVEN that on Monday. covered under Final
December 17, 2001, a.- Environmental Impact
7:00 p.m. in the City Report (EIR) No. 99-2
the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a ;Council Chambers, I and Addendum to EIR
2000 newspa er of general circulation printed ington Be Street, Hunt- No. 99-2.
/ ington Beach, the City ON FILE: A copy of the
Council will hold a public proposed request is on
and pu lished in the City Of Huntington hearing on the following file in the City Clerk's Of-
planning and zoning fice, 2000 Main Street,
Beach, County of Orange, State Of items:
GENERAL PLAN forHuntington Beach, Cali-
AMENDMENT NO. tionib 92648, for A cop-
California, and that attached Notice is a 01-01; ZONING MAP lion by the public.A copy
AMENDMENT NO. of the staff report will be
true and complete copy as was printed 01.02 (SUNRISE available to interested
ASSISTED LIVING MAP parties at the City
De-
and published in the Huntington Beach AMENDMENTS): Appli-,Clerks Office after De-
cant: Wayne Sant, ALL cember 1 I
and Fountain Valley issues of said Sunrise Developpment,' INTERESTED
Inc. Request: GPA: To PERSONS are invited to
newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: re-designate ap-lattendexpre said hearing and
proximately 4.82 acres express opinions or
of property from Resi- submit evidence for or
dential Medium Density acation
s outlined above.aainst the If you
to Public; ZMA: To re- challenge the City Coun-
zone the property from cil's action in court, you
Residential Medium maybe limited to raising
only those issues you or
someone else raised at
December 6, 2001 the public hearing de-
scribed in this notice,
or in written cor-
respondence delivered
to the City at,or prior to,
the public hearing. If
there are any further
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that questions please call the
Planning Department at
the foregoing is true and correct. 536-5271 and refer to
the above items. Direct
your written communica-
tions to the City Clerk.
Connie Brockway,
City Clerk,
Executed on December 6 , 2001.- HuntingtonCityo9each,
at Costa Mesa California. 2t100 Main Street
/ 2nd Floor,
Huntington Beach,
California 92648
(714) 536-5227
Published Huntington
Beach Independent
December 6, 2001
122-551
-Signature
• s
MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001
DEPARTMENT SUBJECT:
REQUESTING:
Economic Development Bowen Court DDA Amendment
Planning Sunrise Assisted Living GPA 01-0;. ZMA 01-02
7 0
TODAY'S DATE November 27, 2001
VERIFIED BY
ADMININSTRATION: elb4-1k�
APPROVED BY: Q
Ray Silver
City Administrator
11/27/01 2:18 PM
�11 Xe� l 1, Z1�a
rk ))Sw
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, December 17, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.
in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City
Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items:
❑ 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 01-01, ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT NO. 01-02 (SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING MAP
AMENDMENTS): Applicant: Wayne Sant, Sunrise Development, Inc.
Request: GPA: To re-designate approximately 4.82 acres of property
from Residential Medium Density to Public; ZMA: To rezone the property
from Residential Medium Density to Public Semipublic. Location: 2134
Main Street (north of Yorktown Avenue, west of Ranch Lane) Project
Planner: Wayne Carvalho
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 1 is covered under Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 99-2 and Addendum to EIR No. 99-2.
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 the City
Clerk's Office after December 14, 2001.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express
opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If
you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the
public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning
Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written
communications to the City Clerk
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Huntington Beach, California 92648
(714) 536-5227
(g:legals:01 cc 1217)
�a ® WITV COUNCIL/REDP LOPAT AGENCV
PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
SUBJECT: (WA 01-01 1' ZNfP� 01-n 409r-':6 U��► �
DEPARTMENT f"r 4JO MEETING DATE TAG « i ��1
CONTACT ��.� ,� CA0AL40 PHONE: X.5�5
Please refer ta Section -3 2f thl "Aaenda Process Manual"
N/A VES NO
❑ ❑ Is the notice attached?
❑ ❑ 'Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council (and/or
Redevelopment Agency) hearing?
❑ ❑ 'Are the date, day, & time of the public hearing correct?
XEl
❑ "If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice?
❑ X -Is there an Envirormental Status to be approved by Council?
❑ ❑ ]5� ` Is a map attached for publication?
❑ ❑ g 'Is a larger advertisement required? Size
❑ ❑ 'Is the the verification statment attached indicating the source and
accuracy of the mailing list? 5;� fKp wWrDD A-�� OtPe�'P
❑ ❑ 'Are the applicant's name and address part of the Ji ailing label?
❑ ❑ Are the appelant's name and address part of the mailing label?
❑ ❑ -If a Coastal Development Permit, does the notice include appeal
language?
❑ ❑ -If Coastal Development Permit, is the Coastal Commission included
in of the mailing labels
❑ ❑ 'If Coastal Development Permit, are the residents labels attached?
�' ❑ ❑ 'is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Items only)
What is the minimum number of day from publication to the hearing date?
What is the minimum number of times to be published?
What is the specified number of days between publications? —_N�A
w s
E:)' a�����v��00000eoaaao�000v�c®�o�v�oos®��000seov���0ao�®00000aovo�ia®oa
Dependable Business Services
CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS
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
2-13q ANAA Q 5�-
APN# 0 2 - O L O - l a
THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM METROSCAN, A DATA SOURCE,
UTILIZING THE COUNTY ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND OTHER DATA SOURCES.
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS GENERALLY DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT IS
NOT GUARANTEED.
DATE:
S STOUT
DEPENDABLE BUSINESS SERVICES,INC.
871 N Maplewood St. Orange, CA 92867 (714) 744-2845 Fax (714) 744-5123
Pager (714) 804-2097 Email: dstout@socal.rr.com Web Site: dbsinc.org
1 L 3
023 010 15 023 010 18 023 010 19
CITY OF HUNTING ACH Gp PI • Janice D�
PO Box 190 2134 t 2120 nj
Hunt' each,CA 92648 n n each, CA 92648 H tington Beach, CA 92648
4 5 6
023 010 21 023 031 14 023 042.18
PACIFIC RANCH HOMEO�Wi ERS CITY OF HUNTINGTON B _ - C REDEVELOPMENT AGI�GL �f
ASSN PO Box 190 2000 Main St
31 Journey#250 Hu each, CA 92648 H each,CA 92648
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
7 8 9
023 042 19 023 042 20 023 042 21
REDEVELOPMEi REDEVELOPMENT A REDEVELOPMENT
2000 Mai 2000 Main S 2000
Uj; o!`Beach, CA 92648 Hu each, CA 92648 Hun on Beach, CA 92648
10 11 12
02304222 02304303 02304306
REDEVELOPMENT Y Charles L Ramey Philip J Jr McBride
2000 Main St 1945 Lake St 1935 Lake St
Hu each, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
13 14 15
023 043 07 937 152 91 93715292
F Stephen Olim Dorothy M Kelly Rebecca Baxter
1931 Lake St 7402 Yellowtail Dr#101 7402 Yellowtail Dr#201
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
16 17 18
937 152 93 937 152 94 93715295 95
Matthew A Montgomery Becky Topper Tim P umate
7402 Yellowtail Dr 9202 7402 Yellowtail Dr#102 7402 4 w r#203
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Hun to on each,CA 92648
19 20 21
937 152 96 93715297 93715298
Carmela Foulihan Tyzz-Dow Lu Shirley J McCown
7402 Yellowtail Dr#103 7402 Yellowtail Dr#204 7402 Yellowtail Dr#104
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
22 23 24
937 152 99 93715300 93715301
Connie L Smith Sharon B Gee William Edwards Jr.
7402 Yellowtail Dr#205 7402 Yellowtail Dr#105 7402 Yellowtail Dr#206
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
25 26 27
937 153 02 93715303 93715304
James Lee Sankey Eleanor S Haggerty William R Lee
7402 Yellowtail Dr 9207 6321 Turnberry Cir 424 Goldenwest St
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
28 29 30
937 153 05 937 153 06 93715307
Judith Yim Farzin Kamkari Gregory L Schwartz
7362 Yellowtail Dr#101 11733 Goshen Ave 9104 PO Box 8011
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Los Angeles,CA 90049 Newport Beach, CA 92658
o. C. .poi spidwa3:,s�11 s xs�aa� piD93 z�gov�a
J1 JL Jr
J37 153 08 937 153 09 937 153 10
f orene Anderson e Linda A Stine Joan 0&Dorothy J Mayer
7362 Yellowtail Dr#102 7362 Yellowtail Dr 4203 7362 Yellovvtail Dr#103
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92643 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
34 35 36
13715311 937 153 12 93715313
krlene C Key Gregory Yang Gre ory
2326 Pinehurst Dr 7362 Yellowtail Dr 4205 323 an n Pt
Tustin,CA 92782 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 L g Beach, CA 90803
37 38 39
337 153 I4 937 153 15 937 153 16
bchard&Linda Ester Denise E Pester Velma J Phillips
62 Yellowtail Dr 4206 7371 Coho Dr#101 737i Coho Dr r102
Iuntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
40 41 42
�37 153 937 153 18 937 153 19
Jos a ' Linda L Baker Jacquelyn Jones
74 r 7371 Coho Dr 9104 7371 Coho Dr#105
�Unti gton Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
43 44 45
)37 153 937 153 21 937 153 22
Sohn R& rench Virginia Yee Jr. Lorrainr
$800 a Ln 7371 Coho Dr#107 7371 r
ve ort each,CA 92660 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntin on Beach,CA 92648
46 47 48
l37 153 23 937 153 24 937153 25
Marice M Supry Allan A Hirata Karen Foster
7381 Coho Dr#101 7381 Coho Dr#201 7381 Coho Dr#202
Runtington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
49 50 51
J37 153 26 937 153 27 937153 28
Ronda M Wood Nicholas J Cook Clemens&Linda S Spengler
7381 Coho Dr#102 7381 Coho Dr 9203 7381 Coho Dr#103
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
52 53 54
)37 153 29 937 15330 937 153 31
James C Waterhouse Bill Bennett Derry S &Norma J Parsons
7381 Coho Dr 9204 7381 Coho Dr#205 7381 Coho Dr 9104
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
55 56 57
137 153 32 937 153 33 937153 34
John J&Patricia A Starr Florence I Garratt Patin Khalaf
?381 Coho Dr#206 19351 Bluefish Ln#101 19351 Bluefish Ln 9201
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
58 59 60
)37 153 35 937 153 36 937 153 37
Randi A Warner Leslie Burbank Shannon Gray
19351 Bluefish Ln#202 19351 Bluefish Ln 9102 19351 Bluefish Ln 1*203
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
S
0091
937 153 38 937 15339 937 153 40
Kelley Washington • Michael Cervenak • Margaret S Kuzee
19351 Bluefish Ln#103 19351 Bluefish Ln#204 19351 Bluefish Ln 4104
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
64 65 66
937 15341 937 153 42 937 153 43
Ronald M Roesch Ruth E Swanstrom Jeff&Diane Kri stol
19351 Bluefish Ln#205 19351 Bluefish Ln 9105 19351 Bluefish Ln#206
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
67 68 69
937 153 44 937 15345 93715346
Dorothy Hernandez Terence J Gibson Anita Ryba
19351 Bluefish Ln 9207 19351 Bluefish Ln#106 19351 Bluefish Ln#208
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
70 71 72
937 153 47 937 153 48 93715349
Le c PACIFIC RENCH HOMEOWNERS Gary R.Prunty
193 a sh ASSOC 19352 Bluefish Ln#202
Hunt' gton Beach,CA 92648 19900 Macarthur Blvd 41070 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Irvine, CA 92612
73 74 75
937 153 50 937 153 51 93715352
Fritzi&Barry Goldman Joseph Broderick Mary M Martin
19352 Bluefish Ln#102 19352 Bluefish Ln#203 19352 Bluefish Ln#103
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
76 77 78
937 153 53 937 15354 937 153 55
Frank&Suzanne Bideau Joe E Galvan Jeanette E Ryan
19352 Bluefish Ln#204 19352 Bluefish Ln#104 19352 Bluefish Ln#205
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
79 80 81
937153 56 93715357 937153 58
Stephen J&Kathryn Tvorik Bobbie J Frech Nancy Stalnaker
19352 Bluefish Ln 4105 19352 Bluefish Ln 4206 19352 Bluefish Ln#207
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
82 83 84
937 153 59 93715360 93715361
Robert R.&Claudia L Marlin Ryan&George Heuser Robert&Beverly Sands
19352 Bluefish Ln#106 19352 Bluefish Ln#208 7442 Coho Dr#101
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
85 86 87
937 153 62 937 15363 937153 64
William J McCarty David S Cowen Leonard J Johnson
7442 Coho Dr#102 7442 Coho Dr#103 7442 Coho Dr 9104
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
88 89 90
93715365 93715366 937153 67
Muriel Y Summers Joseph C Garbrous John A&Elaine M Favor
7442 Coho Dr#105 7442 Coho Dr#106 7442 Coho Dr#107
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
�yflayy joj s;qd 11a13ce
937 153 68 937 153 69 937 153 70
Mike&Karen Daugherty •Gloria Cowan • Terry E&Kathy F Bess
7442 Coho Dr 4108 7442 Coho Dr#109 7442 Coho Dr#I10
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
94 95 96
937 153 71 937 153 72 937 153 73
Lee B &Debbie Klevens David Trent Paul J&Cathie A Yamikoski
2845 Mesa Verde Dr E 95 7442 Coho Dr#112 19431 Ranch Ln 9101
Costa Mesa,CA 92626 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
97 98 99
937 153 74 937 153 75 93715376
Bruce G&Terumi McCoy Robert E&Mary C Blake Gerald M Mulholland
19431 Ranch Ln f 1o1,. 19431 Ranch Ln#103 19431 Ranch Ln#104
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
100 101 102
937 153 77 937 153 78 93715379
Frank James Williams Stephen&Margo Faust Alan&Sharon L Heinig
19431 Ranch Ln#105 19431 Ranch Ln#106 19431 Ranch Ln#107
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
103 104 105
937 153 80 937 153 81 93715382
Raymond Eugene Ward Sandra Jacobs Eric Rall
19431 Ranch Ln 9108 19431 Ranch Ln 9109 19431 Ranch Ln 9110
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
106 107 108
937 153 83 937 153 84 937153 85
Boverianda A Nanjappa Daniel D&Beth Woodman Mark Koidin
19431 Ranch Ln#111 19431 Ranch Ln -#Il? 2601 E 28Th St 4308
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Signal Hill, CA 90806
109 110 111
937153 86 937 153 87 93715398
Gary D Kuhn Marilyn Deangelis Doris T Lew
7401 Seabluff Dr#102 7401 Seabluff Dr#103 7401 Seabluff Dr#104
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
112 113 114
937153 89 93715390 93715391
I David Lakso Vincent Frank A Pickett
7401 Seabluff Dr#105 740 u 1 6 7401 Seabluff Dr#107
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntingt n Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
115 116 117
937 153 92 937 15393 937153 94
Gregory&Joy Stich H Stankley Ishikawa Gary Byers
7401 Seabluff Dr#108 7401 Seabluff Dr#109 7401 Seabluff Dr#110
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
118 119 120
937 153 95 937 15396 937 153 97
Donald V Eide Terrence&Patty Giannone Phillip Zeidenberg
7401 Seabluff Dr#111 7401 Seabluff Dr 4112 7402 Coho Dr#101
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
937 15398 93715399 937 154 00
3eorge N Giacoppe Michael Furman Leah Smith
'7402 Coho Dr 4102 • 7402 Coho Dr#103 • 7402 Coho Dr#104
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
124 125 126
)37 15401 93715402 93715403
Zobert Traver Lester Harold&Flo Mead Jr.
7402 Coho Dr#105 590 v #489 7402 Coho Dr#107
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Hunti o each, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
127 128 129
)37 15404 93715405 93715406
?aul D Loreto Edmond G Copelin Lois Williamson
7402 Coho Dr#108 7402 Coho Dr#109 7402 Coho Dr 9110
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
130 131 132
?37 154 07 937 154 08 937 154 13
Dorothy A Steege Philip&Michele Haradon Kenneth a aufelberger
7402 Coho Dr#111 7402 Coho Dr#112 7371 S UK
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hu gto Beach, CA 92648
133 134 135
?3715414 93715415 937154 6
Scott& Susan Marantz Robert&Judith Guidotti Ron Vo y
7371 Seabluff Dr#102 7371 Seabluff Dr#103 7371 4
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 on Beach, CA 92648
136 137 138
)37 154 17 937154 18 937 154 19
Kiyoshi&Masako Terashima John&Mabel Watcher David&Mary Booker
7371 Seabluff Dr#105 7371 Seabluff Dr#106 7371 Seabluff Dr 9107
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
139 140 141
937 15420 937 154 21 937 154 22
Aaron J&Adam S Cowen Donald M Zimmerman Katherine O Klein
7371 Seabluff Dr 4108 7371 Seabluff Dr#109 7371 Seabluff Dr#110
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
142 143 144
937 154 23 937154 24 937 154 25
Howard M Warner Steven&Joan Purdue Glenda Lee
7371 Seabluff Dr 9111 7371 Seabluff Dr#112 19501 Ranch Ln#101
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
145 146 147
937 154 26 937154 27 937 154 28
Celeste A Post Gladys L William A Reid
3421 Wexford Ln#101 1950 03 I9501 Ranch Ln#104
Las Vegas,NV 89129 tngto Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
. 148 149 150
937 15429 937 154 30 937 154 31
Chester G Donaldson Nancy L Treister Yash P Subberwal
19501 Ranch Ln#105 19501 Ranch Ln#106 19501 Ranch Ln#107
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
@09T:irij Qt�i.Jule$Osfl. S1�e:��j ;3ce� glpo f1G
1J1 tJG tad
)37 15432 937 15433 937 15434
fan Wallace&Margaret Michael Wine *Richard J&Maureen K McDonald • Stephen er,gian
19501 Ranch Ln#108 7412 Seabluff Dr#101 7412 Se _
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Hu n Beach,CA 92648
154 155 156
)37 15435 937 154 36 937 154 37
roan Vanalst Joseph , T i Peggy A Kohl
7412 Seabluff Dr 9103 7412 04 7412 Seabluff Dr 9105
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Hun ' on each, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
157 158 159
?37 154 38 937 154 39 937 154 40
filbert Paul Carrasco William Tiehen John &Lauren Ott
7412 Seabluff Dr#106 7412 Seabluff Dr#107 7412 Seabluff Dr#108
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
160 161 162
?37 154 41 937 154 42 93715443
Katrina M Hill Charles Smith Ralph&Ann Kajdasz
7412 Seabluff Dr#109 7412 Seabluff Dr#110 7412 Seabluff Dr#111
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
163 164 165
)37 154 44 937 160 87 937 160 88
Margot M Hume Lucia Dean John Joseph Kernan
7412 Seabluff Dr#112 7492 Seabluff Dr 4107 7492 Seabluff Dr#108
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
166 167 168
)37 16089 937 160 90 93716091
41vin Greenberg Joel& Shirley Panning Frank J&Janet F Berry
'7492 Seabluff Dr#109 7492 Seabluff Dr#110 7492 Seabluff Dr#111
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
169 170 171
)37 16092 937 160 93 937.16094
Elmar John Banter Jay&Phylis Gordon Carol Craft
7492 Seabluff Dr#112 7492 Seabluff Dr#101 7492 Seabluff Dr#102
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
172 173 174
937 160 95 937160 96 937 160 97
remre J Vouga James R Holechek Karen E McLaughlin
'7492 Seabluff Dr#103 7492 Seabluff Dr#104 6502 Doriane Cir
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92647
175 176 177
937 160 98 937 160 99 937 161 00
Robert S&Pamela J Herb James R Creason VA in �udela7492 SeabluffDr#106 19502 Ranch Ln#101 185 n
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ington Beach,CA 92648
178 179 180
937 16101 937 161 02 937 161 03
:A%erio G&Tina J Viray Brian W Ferris Russell L Bivens
19502 Ranch Ln 9103 19502 Ranch Ln#104 19502 Ranch Ln#105
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
®fl9=5 aoj-,)Ieidw;,,asIl wsS49045 Pa.-4 gJ00-U,
)3 7 161 04 937 161 05 93716106
Charles H McKinley • Louis&Mercedes Apodaca • Steven&Martie Lee
19502 Ranch Ln 4106 19502 Ranch Ln'1107 19502 Ranch Ln-103
EIuntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92645
184 185 15_
13 7 161 07 937 16108 93716109
3ruce A Robbins Frank Ung Marc K Vogt
19502 Ranch Ln 4109 19502 Ranch Ln#110 19502 Ranch Ln r111
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
187 188 18;
13716 10 937 161 11 937 161 12
Der R immer Phillip A&Christina L Glasgow Edward K Aahjayan
1950 112 19532 Ranch Ln 9101 r 19532 Ranch Ln 4102
Kuntin on Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
190 191 192
137161 13 937 161 14 937 161 15
2ichard&Bonnie Gould Lynne Kallman Jenean Beyer
19532 Ranch Ln#103 19532 Ranch Ln#104 19532 Ranch Ln 4105
3untington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
193 194 195
?37161 16 937 161 17 937 161 18
Donald R Powel Robert& Sharon Pell Gary Grady
19532 Ranch Ln#106 19532 Ranch Ln 9107 19532 Ranch Ln 4!108
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
196 197 198
137 161 19 937 161 20 937 161 21
Paul Bums Marianna Pinter Thomas Parker
19532 Ranch Ln#109 19532 Ranch Ln 9110 19532 Ranch Ln*111
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
199 200 201
137 16122 937 161 28 937 16129
Joanna Yu Fu Robert&Denise Carleton Kenneth W
19532 Ranch Ln#112 19521 Pompano Ln#101 19521 P
IIuntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hu ngton each, CA 92648
202 203 204
)37 161 3 937 161 31 937161 32
s erne Jay& ar Bennett W Root
195 1 0 #287 19521 n 288 19521 Pompano Ln#105
13u gton Beach,CA 92648 Hu ' on each, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
205 206 207
)37161 33 937 161 34 937 161 35
-d Kenneth C Fetty F52
ur&Ju
1952 L 7#2S90 19521 Pompano Ln#107 #292
Hu gton Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 tn each,CA 92648
208 209 210
)37 161 36 937 161 37 937 161 38
rawrence&Jeannine Lanza Robert T Gorson Jr. Chazlen R
-00
19521 Pompano Ln#109 19521 Pompano Ln#110 19521 CA 926P 95
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hun' n Beach, 48
@()9TS JOa 91�Jd :aj ash W'L5 as Za-. 'Zoc
LL1 L1L cLO
937 161 39 937 16140 937 16141
Robe E- • James&Marilyn Orens • Kathy A_Black
19521 o 9296 19481 Pompano Ln 4101 19431 Pompano Ln 9102
Hunt' , on Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA_926..8 Huntington Beach CA 92648
214 215 216
937 16142 937 16143 937 161 44
Perry P Alper Chih-Pi Bernhard J Hadeler
19481 Pompano Ln 9103 19481 P 104 19481 Pompano Ln 4105
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Hugi+�� n each, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
217 218 219
937 161 45 937 161 46 937 161 47
Peter Kaplan Charles P Cohen Charle &rTe a
19481 Pompano Ln#106 19481 Pompano Ln 9107 194 o n 9304
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hurnngton Beach, CA 92648
220 221 222
937 16148 937 161 49 937 161 50
Alexander Lynn Beckman Joseph A Leick Richard F Daniels
19491 Pompano Ln#109 19481 Pompano Ln#110 19481 Pompano Ln 9111
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
223 224 225
937 16151 937 161 52 937 161 53
James A&Margaret Cheney Beard Mari J Ricky S S
19481 Pompano Ln f 11j. 1 1 Ln 19451 P n 310
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 H on Beach, CA 92648 Hun ' n Beach,CA 92648
226 227 228
937 161 54 937 161 55 937 161 56
H A 5301
s Chang Jui A Ho Dennis Jenkins
194 ano n 19451 Pompano Ln#104 19451 Pompano Ln#105
gton Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
229 230 231
?37 16157 937 161 58 937 161 59
Leon B Homberger Manuel D&Marva L Abeyta Louis Lardas
19451 Pompano Ln#106 19451 Pompano Ln#107 19451 Pompano Ln 9108
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
232 233 234
?37 161 60 937 161 61 937 161 62
Lisa Sc e' Mata L ' ca DeLa Richard J Meyer
19451 9317 1945 Ln#318 19451 Pompano Ln#111
Hun ' eac A 92648 H gton Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
235 236 237
?37 1616 937 163 47 93716348
Sa$ng
Joseph Marvin&Julia Marie Ingram Ruth E Ferris
194o n#320 19562 Pompano Ln#110 19562 Pompano Ln#109
n Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
238 239 240
)37 16349 93716350 937 163 51
[kuo J Nakano Paul&Jennifer Woods William B&Elisabetta M Graff
16322 S Manhattan Pl.#4 19562 Pompano Ln#107 19562 Pompano Ln#106
3ardena, CA 90247 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
t 09LS aoj almdual ash �1 �SayS aa_ �;aoo;��
93716352 937 163 53 93716354
John J&Margaret A Richey William R& Sharon L Wilkins Jr. • Paul M Honeyford
19562 Pompano Ln#105 - 19562 Pompano Ln 4104 19562 Pompano Ln#103
Huntington Beach, CA 92643 Huntington Beach, CA 92643 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
244 245 246
937163 55 937 163 56 937 163 57
Robert Viii&Dennise Lucas Leslie Cushing Patricia Angela Menden
19562 Pompano Ln 4102 19562 Pompano Ln"101 19581 Pompano Ln n108
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
247 243 249
937 163 58 937 163 59 937 163 60
Juan Felsmann Thomas B O'Connor Charles C Whang Jr.
19581 Pompano Ln#107 19581 Pompano Ln#106 19581 Pompano Ln 14r105
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
250 251 252
93716361 93716362 93716363
Don&Deborah Evans David K Murray John S Rowan
19581 Pompano Ln#104 19581 Pompano Ln#103 19581 Pompano Ln#102
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
253 254 255
937 163 64 937 163 65 93716366
Philip J Lord Joseph D&Joanne M Coletta Ted& Janet Quarciagrossa
19581 Pompano Ln#101 19561 Pompano Ln#112 19561 Pompano Ln#111
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
256 257 258
937163 67 937 163 68 937163 69
Darryl W Watanabe Colin M&Laurie R Bilbrsck Manuel M Flores
19561 Pompano Ln#110 19561 Pompano Ln#109 19561 Pompano Ln#108
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
259 260 261
937 163 70 937 16 71 93716372
Rudy Ruiz Geo e e Jeanne Brown
PO Box 219 195 1 o L #6 19561 Pompano Ln#105
El Centro,CA 92244 H gton Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
262 263 264
937163 73 93716374 937 163 75
Betty J Arango Charles S Dinsmore Chris M Lambert
19561 Pompano Ln 0104 19561 Pompano Ln 4103 19561 Pompano Ln#102
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
265 266 267
937163 76 93716475 937164 76
Niall&Karen Moynihan Elisa P Garcia Laura Yarus
19561 Pompano Ln#101 215 Wichita Ave#101 215 Wichita Ave#102
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
268 269 270
937 164 77 93716478 937 164 79
Joel W Wooldridge Irwin B &Carolyn L Kanode Diana Kuka
215 Wichita Ave#103 215 Wichita Ave#104 215 Wichita Ave#105
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
ofj,9's.tn;w2l'awal-So, W.LSP S N A 4a00'J'C
I37 164 80 937 16481 93716482
Tohn F Miller •Kevin Pham 0Borge E Freeberg Jr.
1030 13Th St 215 Wichita Ave#10 7 215 Wichita Ave 9108
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
274 275 276
)37 16483 937 16484 937 16485
Zichard William Nelson Susan Ann McClarin Fred E Marquez
2.15 Wichita Ave 4201 215 Wichita Ave 9202 215 Wichita Ave 9203
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
277 278 279
)37 164 86 937 16487 93716488
Cathleen Harris Frank J Vitonis Dawn Arnold
4362 Flowerdale Ct 3621 W Macarthur Blvd 910 215 Wichita Ave 9206
Las Vegas,ti`V 89103 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
280 281 282
)37 164 89 93716490 93716491
:raig B Carstens Betty S Hayashi Hans&Christa Boedeker
115 Wichita Ave 9207 215 Wichita Ave#208 10491 Cowan Heights Dr
3untington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 92705
283 284 285
)37 164 92 93716493 937164 94
fames G Lanzano Benjamin K Kitzke Linda Masterton
al Wichita Ave#302 215 Wichita Ave#303 215 Wichita Ave#304
Auntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
286 287 288
)37 164 95 937 164 96 93716497
Robin J Clark Keith R Hopkins John M Graeff
115 Wichita Ave#305 215 Wichita Ave#306 215 Wichita Ave#307
3untington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
289 290 291
)37 164 98 937 164 99 93716500
kloward Jay Frantz Richard J Winkle Jeffrey A Blesener
I I Whitewood Way 115 Irvine Cove Ct 21152 Shaw Ln
Irvine,CA 92612 Laguna Beach,CA 92651 Huntington Beach, CA 92646
292 293 294
)37165 01 937 165 02 93716503
Anthony J Kubis Jr. Douglas P Whitney Linda R Ogan
861 Victoria St 215 Wichita Ave#404 215 Wichita Ave#405
—osta Mesa,CA 92627 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
295 296 297
)37165 04 93716505 937 165 06
Cleo R Turner Carl Edmund Ball Alexander Khurgel
115 Wichita Ave#406 3615 Walnut Ave 215 Wichita Ave#408
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Long Beach, CA 90807 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
298 299 300
)37165 07 93716508 937 5 09
Diary&Dallas Day Jeannie Dimalanta San e
1215 Wichita Ave#409 215 Wichita Ave#501 215 A
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 H tin on Beach, CA 92648
0,09?510J f3ple-ual anti �v_�3a��� Paai j44a01~?i
9i/ 10- lu 9.3/ lob 11 yS/ lb-1) 1:
Rosa Mahin Robert A Dunn Ernest M Goldberg
215 Wichita Ave#503 •215 Wichita Ave#504 20171 Big Bend Ln
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92643 Huntington Beach, CA 92646
304 305 306
937 165 13 937 165 14 937165 15
George A Woodley C Barr&Jean Fletcher Chart Assawapimonpom
17051 Marina Bay Dr 215 Wichita Ave#507 215 Wichita Ave 4508
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92643 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
307 303 309
937 165 16 937 165 17 937 165 18
Jennifer Leicht Christ er Cattle Frank M Fiorillo Sr.
215 Wichita Ave#601 PO Bo 17741 Falkirk Ln
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 H ngt Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92649
310 311 312
937 165 19 937 16520 937 165 21
James Simmons Dorothy Gillespie Nanette Markham
215 Wichita Ave#604 17812 Quintana Ln 215 Wichita Ave#606
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
313 314 315
937165 22 937 165 23 937 165 24
Nestor Vargas Jeffrey Alan Page Dolores M Dwyer
215 Wichita Ave#607 215 Wichita Ave#608 20601 Suburbia Ln
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92646
316 317 318
937 1 93716526 937 165 27
Cheste an rch Debra Susan Rice Anna Yamauchi
159 Or k 2323 Huntington St#703 2323 Huntington St 1 o y
R nds,CA 92374 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
319 320 321
937165 28 937 165 29 937 165 30
Joan Elliott Laurel Freeman Joseph&Rebeca Meneses
2323 Huntington St#705 15211 Newcastle Ln 2323 Huntington St#707
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
322 323 - 324
937165 31 937 165 32 937 16 33
Michael Galanos George A Woodley Sc S
2323 Huntington St 9708 17051 Marina Bay Dr 232 on t#802
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 in on Beach,CA 92648
325 326 327
937165 34 937 165 35 937165 36
Edward J Knight III Karen Leland Timothy R Bridger
2323 Huntington St#803 2323 Huntington St#804 2323 Huntington St#805
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
328 329 330
937 165 37 937 165 38 93716539
OLD TOWN lNC Kenneth C Atherton Mary K Haynes
12132 Topaz Cir 2323 Huntington St#807 263 Chesterfield
Garden Grove,CA 92845 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92660
@','9T�c.10�3;2MUla? a3 tT11��c'dai4�J baa r3t3'i1�
7J/ lui Yu 7.)/ tv.r IT i-I i tv� -r:
Ilene S Green Robert Neal Warne • Bert H Green
2323 Huntington St 9901 • 2323 Huntington St 9902 6012 Point Loma Dr
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92647
334 335
33E
93716543 93716544 93716545
Rosti&Magda Vana William J Correia Gayle F Glenn
2323 Huntington St#1008 4191 Pierson Dr 2323 N._untinr5ton St#906
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
337 338 339
937 16546 93716547 937 165 48
Anthony Peter&Helen Raptis Kevin D Boroff Valencia Lorren Dennis
2323 Huntington St#907 2323 Huntington St#908 2323 Huntington St#1001
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
340 341 342
937 165 49 937 165 50 93716551
John Piekarski Noriko Yoshioka Deborah K Moussafir
7585 Ocean Point Ln 2323 Huntington St#1003 2323 Huntington St#1004
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92643
343 344 345
937165 52 93716553 937165 54
Pamela J Periolat Karen L Stees Maureen Patton
2323 Huntington St 91005 2323 Huntington St 91006 2323 Huntington St#1007
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
937 165 55 346 02502406 347 02304104 343
Rosti&Magda Vana Plc City of Huntington Bte
2323 Huntington St#1008 23 Corporate Plaza Dr.#250 2000 Ma•
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Huotfff on Beach,CA 92648
st1Nt� - � G• PLG- LAO co
1857 f r�--CA9 CR- l'l C&X-tvaRr6 PLAN
cogogj� cot 72F302 NW#V R-7'WAC4 co! q2100
� 60 t��-o V iG � 0v f �)1-7
OVA,&j 13001;Cl� � it hi�lb� �,irt, c�°k �Z -� z�R �� Aeero '�T 4 Zbo
Wss10N\11C*0 CA-Rat 1
1q9;(,p1 f'oMpANa W• W-106 I��® �I11E �'
tW J r1 d 6'MN POCO CA- r 74-12 sVAOUT Z-,P lP-
0,fl9j5 joj apidwea asZ 1,41sle-Ou,'Paa� 4900wS
023-010-18 023-010-19 U23-020-21
PLC �ohn T. Moore Tr. Pacific Ranch Honj, s Assn
23 Corporate Plaza Dr. Ste. 250 1712 Port Margate 39 Argonaut
Newport Beach, CA 92660-7911 Newport Beach,CA 92660-7911 �. "'�-
937-152-92 937-152-95 937-153-13
Rebecca E. Baxter Robert E. Castillo Tr. Gregory Rowe
7402 Yellowtail Dr. #201 3320 Tempe Dr. 7136 T imberview Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2439 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1919 Dublin, OH 43017-1019
937-153-17 937-153-22 937-153-34
James T. Corbett Lorraine E. Moyer Fatin Khalaf
7371 Coho Dr. Unit 103 240 Highland Ln. 19351 Bluefish l,n#210
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2428 Bryn Mawr,PA 19010-3709 Huntington Beach,CA 926408-2435
937-153-47 937-153-71 93-153-90
Robert Lucas VIII Joseph R. Davis Charles C. Richie
19352 Bluefish Ln. #101 .7442 Coho Dr.#111 7401 SeaBluff 4106
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2436 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2431 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2433
937-154-02 937-154-16 937-154-34
Lester L.Blanchard Ronald Von Freymann Stephen K. Perizigian
7402 Coho Dr. Unit 106 8310 Atlanta Ave 4103 9999 W.Katie Ave#1004
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2430 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6161 Las Vegas,NV 89147-8348
937-154-42 937-160-97 937-161-00
Charles B. Smith PUB 315 Walter S. Rousseau Jr. Vincente Perez De Tudela
5942 Edinger Ave. #113 7492 Sea.bluff Dr.#102 19502 Ranch Ln. #102
Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1773 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-2459 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2456
937-161-10 937-161-29 937-161-30
Derek R.Wimmer Tr. Kenneth W.Roberts H Dennis Tierney Tr.
3171 Eagle Ct NE 17 Haggerston Aisle 1250 Pine St. #100
Cedar Rapids,IA 5 2402-263 8 Irvine, CA 92612-5732 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3633
937-161-31 937-161-33 937-161-35
Jay Park Edward Ybarra Arthur Henry
19521 Pompano Ln. #101 19521 Pompano Ln. #106 19521 Pompano Ln.4108
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2480 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-2480 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-2480
937-161-38 937-161-39 . 937-161-43
Charlene Buchagen Robert Eggink Glenn Richardson
19521 Pompano Ln. #111 19521 Pompano Ln. #112 19481 Pompano Ln #104
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2480 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-2480 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-2480
937-161-47 937-161-52 937-161-53
Charles Warner Marilyn J.Moreira Ricky Sanford
19481 Pompano Ln#108 19451 Pompano Ln.#101 19451 Pompano Ln.#102
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2479 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-2477 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-2477
Ij/-101-J4 Yj/-101-Ov Y i/-101-01
Howard J. Reiss •11sa Schreiman • Luis De La Mata
19451 Pompano Ln.#103 19451 Pompano Ln. #109 1945 1 Pompano Ln. 4110
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2477 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2477 Huntington Beach, CA 9264-0-2477
937-161-63 937-163-54 937-163-71
Sandra H. Hoyle Paul Honeyford George O.Neuman
19451 Pompano Ln.4112 1649 E Castlebrook Dr 19561 Pompano Ln. #106
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2477 Fresno, CA 93720-3451 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-6405
937-164-78 937-164-87 937-164-88
[-win B. Kanode Tr. Frank Vitonis Dawn Arnold
17382 Alta Vista Cir. 215 Wichita Ave 01,205 PO Box 24042
Huntington Beach, CA 92647-6130 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2878 Indianapolis, IN 56224-0042
937-165-01 937-165-09 937-165-20
Anthony J. Kubis Jr. Sangeeta Rani Gupta Dorothy E. Gillespie
9332 Velardo Dr. 215 Wichita Ave#502 215 Wichita Ave. #605
Huntington Beach, CA 92646-2315 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2879 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2879
937-165-23 937-165-25 937-165-39
Jeffrey Alan Page Chester E. Murch III Mary K. Haynes
322 6u' Street 1630 Marion Rd 2405 Vista Nobleza
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4602 Redlands, CA 92374-6300 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3546
937-165-45 937-165-47
Jayle Glenn Kevin Boroff
26567 Hummingbird Ct 40 Via Di Nola
Loma Linda, CA 92354-6750 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-9008
PUB&-EARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLj*R"
AILING LABELS-October 15,2001
G:Labels\Labels\Public Hearing
President 1 Huntington Harbo 10
H.B.Chamber of Commerce P.O.B
2100 Main Street,Suite 200 L,' each, CA 90742
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Betty Jo Woollett 2 William D.Holman 11 ;19671
Johnson 16
Orange County Assoc.of Realtors PLC
25532 La Paz Road 19 Corporate Plaza Drive " on Beach,CA 92648
Laguna Hills,CA 92653 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912
President 3 Mr.Tom Zanic 12 Edaa Littlebury 17
Amigos De Bolsa New Urban West Glda St. Mob.Era. Owners Leag.
16531 Bol ca Street,Suite 312 520 Broadway Ste. 100 11021 Magnolia Blvd.
' on Beach,CA 92649 Santa lfonica,CA 90401 Garden Grove,CA 92642
Sunset$each Communiti�. 4 Pres.,FLB.Hist.Society 13 Pacific Coast Archaeological 18
Pat Thies,Presi C/O Newland House Museum Sodety,Inc.
PO Bo 19820 Beach Blvd P.O. Boa 10926
each,CA 90742-0215 Huntiugtoa Beach,CA 92648 Costa Mesa,CA 92627
Attw Jane Gothold
President 5 Community Services Dept. 14 County of Orange/EMA 19
Huntington Beach Tomorrow Chairperson VLchael.At Ruane,Dir.
PO Box 865 Historical Resources Bd. P.O.Box 4048
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Sang Ana,CA 92702-4048
i
Julie Vandermost ��� 6 Council on Aging 15 County of Orange/EMA 19
BIA-OC 1706 Orange r J Thomas Mathews
9 E c Circle#100 Hun" each,CA 92648 P.O.Box 4048
e Ca 92714-6734 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048
Richard Spicer 7 Jeff Metzel 16 Planning Department 19
SCAG >Hn
OA Orange County EMA
818 West 7th,12th Floor b Circle P.O.Box 4048
Los Angeles,CA 90017 Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048
E.T.I.Corral 100 8 John Roe 16 County of Orange/EMA 19
Mary Bell Seacliff HO Tim Miller
20292 Eastwood Cir. 1938 a Lane P.O.Box 4048 .
Huntington Beach,GA 92646 4illwoa Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048
Frank Caponi 9 Lou Mannone 16 Plaaaiag Dir. 20
Environmental Board Chairman SeacU f H City of Costa Mesa
6662 Glen Drive 198 ean Bluff Circle P.O.Box 1200
Huntington Beach,CA 92647 on Beach CA 92648 Costa Mesa,CA 92628-1200
PUBIS T.EARESIG NOTIFICATION CHECKLIO "
MAILING LABELS-October 15,2001
G:Labels\Labels\Public Hearing
Planning Du. 21 Dr. Gars Rutherford,Superintendent 29 Countr, View Estates HO -
City of Fountain Valley HB City Elementary School Dist. Carrie Thomas
10200 Slater Ave. 20451 Craimer Lane 6642 Tzpz. nve
Fountain Valley,CA 92 708 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 on Beach CA 92648
Planning Director 22 Jerry Buchanan 29 Country View Estates,_- 37
City of Westminster HB City Elementary School Dist. Gerald C�hBeacha
8200 Westminster Blvd. 20451 Craimer Lane 67,Westminster,CA 92683 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 .un CA 92648
Planning Director 23 James Jones 30 HB Hamptons HOA_. 37
City of Seal Beach Ocean View Elementary Keystone Pa p. Mangmt.Inc.
211 Eight St. School District -^ Avenue,Suite 200
Seal Beach, CA 90740 17200 Pinehurst Lane I e, CA 92606
Huntington Beach CA 92647
California Coastal Commis ' 24 Barbara Wmars 31 Sally Graham 38
Theresa Henry Westminster School District Meadowlark
So�Coastffice 14121 Cedarwood Avenue 5161 cle20h Floor Westminster CA 92683 on Beach,CA 92649
each,CA 92802-4302
California Coastal ssion 24 Patricia Koch 32 Cheryle Browmiag 38
South Coas a ffice HB Union High School Disrict Meadowlark
20eBeach,
ate, 1 Oth Floor 10251 Yorktown Avenue 16771 e t Lane
CA 92802-4302 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 on Beach,CA 92649
Robert Joseph 25 CSA 33 Hearthside Homes 39
Caltrans District 12 730 El Camino Way#200 6 Executive Circle,Suite 250
3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 Tustin,CA 92680 Irvine,CA 92614
Irvine,CA 92612-1699
Director 26 Goldenwest College 34 Bolsa C'hica Land Trust 40
LocaeAnaCA
F Attn:Fred Owens Nancy Dono
O. Agency 15744 Goldenwest St 4831 atos
Huntington Beach CA 92647 tsagton Beach,CA 92649
ant702
New Growth Coordinator 27 OC County Harbors,Beach 35 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 40
Huntington Beach Post Office and Parks Dept Evan H
6771 Wamer Ave. P.O.Box 4048 1812 Place
Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Beach,CA 92660
Marc Ecker 28 Huntington Beach! 36 John Scott 41
Fountain Valley Eletnentu7 School Dist Attu:Pat Ro SEHBNA
17210 Oak Street 7777 ei Ave.#300 2203 istrano Lane
Fountain Valley CA 92708 OOCngton Beach CA 92647 on Beach,CA 92646-8309
Bolsa Chica Land Trust 40
5901 Warner Avenue,#103
Huntington Beach CA 92649-4659
PUB18,zIEARIIVG NOTIFICATION CHECKL 'B"
-AILING LABELS-October 15,2001
G:Labels\Labels\Public Hearing.
OC Sanitation Districtwl 41 Ed Blackford,Presid 41 John Ely 1
10844 Ellis: a.ES Huatia ach,LLC 22102 Rock ort�Lau
Fou e CA 92708 21730 and Street Hum ' P 1
y Qrr C_� 9266
on Beach CA9264G
Richard Lov 41 HB Coastal Communities As.sGV6 42 Downtown Business.association 43
\Lr.Steve Daniels 9062 Kahului D�uv =y David Guido .v'�'a _
Huntina�tc�sr CA 92646 143 E.ti1e e 200 tiiain Stree 1
Ors _ 2865 Hu ' each,CA 92648
Downtown Residents Ass a 44 Chairperson 45 Juaneao Band of Mission Indians 46
Ms.Marie St. Cabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council Acjachemen Nation
505 Alab PO Box 693 31411 La Mstanza Street
H W nBeach, CA 92648 San Gabriel,CA 91778 Saa Juan Capistrano,CA 92675-2625 own
AYSO Region 117 47 AYSO Region 1 47 AYSO Re ' 55 47
John Almanza Commissioner] 'Delany David Smith
9468 Corrnoran Cr 5052 Sisson Dr 16452 Woo ock in
Fountain Valley CA 2708 Huntington Bea CA 9 649 Huntington ach, 92647
AYSO Region 5 47 Fountaia Valley nth Ba ball* 47 HB Field H ey* 47
Commissioner fAn lerson Bret Harden Mani-W Pa
9832 Kings Can n 10222 Niagra Dr. 17782 Metz Dr.
Huntington Bea Ca 2646 Huntington Bea 92 Huntington each,C 92647
Huntington Bea Girl Softball* 47 H.B.Jr.All-Aare an F ball** 47 HB Pop W er Foot all- 47
Paul Fuzzard Joe I.amkin Steven She
17181 Greenleaf 16691 Turnstill 3 P.O.Box 50
Huntington Bea CA 2649 Huntington Bea 9 47 Huntington ch, 92615
Huntington Valle ttl League 47 Huntington Beach occ League* 47 North Hun' ach Soccer Club*
Renee Aumiller Felipe Zapata President Ge tton 47
209 Hartford P.O.Box 136 18601 N St. 94
Huntington Bea CA 2648 Huntington Bea 2648 Huntington ch, 92646
North HB Soccer ub 47 Ocean View Little� 47 Rcbincv�ood e e 47
D-Wana Hughes Rick Fraser Steve Scukai
20471 Allport 22162 Laguna Cr 6692 Halifax r
Huntington Bea CA 2646 Huntington Bea 646 Huntington ach,CA 92647
South Coast Socce lub* 47 South HB Jr.Miss an 47 Wolfpack Soc r Cl 47
President Bruce B Marie Eusey President Cal ardl
9961 Kings Cany d. P.O.Box 7332 9863 James er Cr
Huntington Beach, 9 46 Huntington Bach, 92&5 Fountain Vall ,CA 2708
YMCA*-J.Mot F. aarely-Stretch 47 YMCA Soccer-Jam Mot 47
7777 Edinger Ave 10 7777 Edinger Ave# 0
Huntington Beach, 92647 Huntington Beach, 9264
937-152-95 937-153-13 937-153-17
Robert Castillo *Gregory Rowe • James Corbett
3320 Tempe Dr 7136 Timberview Dr 7371 Coho Dr#103
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dublin, OH 43017 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
937-153-20 937-153-22 937-153-47
John French Lorraine Moyer Robert Lucas
3800 Topside Ln 240 Highland Ln 19352 Bluefish Ln#101
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
937-153-90 937-154-02 937-154-13
Charles Richie Lester Blanchard Thomas Smith
7401 Seabluff#106 7402 Coho Dr#106 7371 Seabluff Dr#101
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
937-154-16 937-154-34 937-161-00
Ronald Von Freymann Stephen Perzigian Vincente Perez De Tude;a
8310 Atlanta Ave#103 9999 W. Katie Ave#1004 19502 Ranch Ln#102
Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Las Vegaas,NV 89147 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
937-161-10 937-161-29 937-161-30
Derek Wimmer Kenneth Roberts Dennis Tierney
3171 Eagle CT NE 17 Haggerston Aisle 1250 Pine St#100
Cedar Rapids,IA 52402 Irvine, CA 92612 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
937-161-31 937-161-33 937-161-35
Jay Park Edward Ybarra Arthur Scott Henry
19521 Pompano Ln#104 19521 Pompano Ln#106 19521 Pompano Ln#108
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 9648
937-161-38 937-161-39 937-161-43
Charlene Buchhagen Robert Eggink Glenn Richardson
19521 Pompano Ln#111 19521 Pompano Ln#112 19481 Pompano Ln#104
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
937-161-47 937-161-52 937-161-53
Charles Warner Marilyn Moreira Ricky William Sanford
19481 Pompano Ln#108 19451 Pompano Ln#101 19451 Pompano Ln#102
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
937-161-54 937-161-60 937-161-61
Howard Reiss Lisa Schreiman Luis De La Mata
19451 Pompano#103 19451 Pomapo Ln#109 19451 Pompano Ln#110
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
937-161-63 937-163-71 937-165-09
Sandra Hoyle George Oscar Neuman Sangeeta Rani Gupta
19451 Pompano Ln#112 19561 Pompano Ln#106 215 Wichita Ave#502
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
r
937-165-25 023-010-8 023-010-19
Chester Murch • PLC • John Moore
1630 Marion Rd 23 Corporate Plaza Dr 4250 1712 Port Margate
Redlands, CA 92374 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660
II
I
r
Connie Brockway, City ClerkX ,. , ...
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190 ;�, •; ..-. �, . ._
Huntington Beach, CA92648 �Z _/7_ n. `' T,_n
G � x:,• .1i Ui aL 12fff?/gl
INGTp�f,�� CSA 33
a y 730 El Camino Way#200
— _ y Tustin,.CA.92680
LEGAT f-�-OTI-
CE - PUBLIC HEARING
Si646-6130 IIi{ttttlt{tl{tta{till it{tilutntllitlnl{tt1l1{ttlltttttltll
•
Connie Brockway, City Clerk .UR�
City of Huntington Beach < '�•
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
FA
INGTpy 937-153-47
io`� ,.�•ro•,,,, B�9 Pobert Lucas VIU
• _ — y 19352 Bluefish Ln. #101
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2436
R E I UR',' "_--. IRETURt,^^�
�NTY a
p c LEGAL NOTIC �E I MEA LNG
��..�,
L
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190 (2_I7
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
• C p �f w
937-153-47
Robert Lucas
INGTpy 19352 Bluefish Ln 4101
C-ai = 9y Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE1IJn _��_ RETURN
r 0 6 TO SEN LrQ<:.- �'rn LEGAL NOTICE - PU LIC-MEARING,;
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
V� To 121 V117 I
6�A 023-010-8
ING PLC
Ile 2-3) Corporate Plaza Dr 4250
• — y Newport Beach. CA 92660
C-2
1,U R 11
n r, 7
F W
, 0 L 1EGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
Connie Brockway, City Clerk D
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Fatin Khalaf
19351 Bluefish L 0
1
���NSINGTpy�FHuntington ch,CA 26400-2435
C-2
_Tj
T U R N
LINTY LE AbNQTJ0E/7_PUI3L-IQ HE-ARING
S'Z'6 0,ek I-A
III III till IIIII
ON
Connie Brockway, City Clerk f� T
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk !.rr , - +
P.O. Box 190 _ f .., %'
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
12-]7- 0)
•n.
�-1
6P�
INGTOy� 937- 1-31
ip _•`n"ro' F9 Jay Par
s 19521 Po ano Lm #101
o —_—_ - :-�__:_::•:•.-.�:_�.,::.. -:._: Huntington eachiCA-92648=-2480:J—,-
9 OQ nRETUr�i� ��� nCTI1RN
LE "flTkC ANINGE i?UBLI �HE ;4
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach w�
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
93716553
INGTOy Karen L Stees
�•`�"'0'�% ��9 2323 Huntington St#1006
= y Huntington Beach,CA 92648
—_—_ --- - - - ze.7
R'- �dONTY�x - -
T O S .. lEG'AL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING.
��saa; _ ►aa� Rill,,►1,1,11,1,1,1 ,11,,,1,i,Jl,,,fill 11
'r
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach J> < � I
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190 l_0)
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
02502406
INGTp Pic
OE B 23 Corporate Plaza Dr.#250
_'� ro�" F9�, Newport Beach,CA 92660
`' s
Q -- RE7LI
9yC� ter'� ►o ``gyp Rail) R'N
UNTV
LEGAL NOTICE.. f.P.M-1CMEWNNG
J
Connie Brockway, City Clerk y
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk f
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Y� w
&��Nt I NGTpy� f6
93 7-160-9
p"'°""'� Walter S. R4 eau Jr.
j ' y / 7492 Sea bl r. #102
.7SSzF
�_ gton Beac CA 92648-2459 ..�.,i
(I;-
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLf T �TEo
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk `
P.O. Box190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 " �'- •` �, E
X*X H U,K? 1/U? 111
INGTpy�
=��ro44
r`O F9
ARNC04� 4622Nr7041 IN 17 12/14/01
ca — -- ` RETURN TO SENDER
9 NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE
UNABLE TO FORWARD
RETURN TO SENDER
cpGNTY CP
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING J +
� �yA•G��'"tw1�� 4 i ��t�n ttltll��l�t'ttllttlt'I a ttI1l��tlttl�t►tII'11I'tttttlt�l
t.
Connie Brockway;/City Clerk j �<;I'UM�`'. I
City of Hunting#e Bye C!�
Office of the City Clerk IZ_}7_O/1 F
P.O. Box 190 t t -, �J:','j
11 ,:
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 •.�, `, ,, ,��;;:.;,• � .
�VNtINGT y 023-010-18 i
p PLC
23 Corporate Plaza Dr. Ste. 250
Newport Beach, CA 92660-7911
050
R E T U 113
�pppNTY G c f i- ; k fRFTIIRN /~
LEGAL NO TEARIN6-
a= ,A`- � :au���'
i
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
n
City of Huntington Beach ••
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box190 -
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �,•, ;� _•,� %,; 1 'n.
INGTpy
• 279
►e�J''` F9 t1-11-- 93716488
Dawn Arnold
o —___ - - � 5 Wichita Ave 9206
i -..... .. .. . _: _ Hunting-ton Be ... 926
.� ach,,C,A 48 -�
NTI
.LEGAL,NO.TICE PUBLIC",HEARING
ss5 s �t�P
Connie Brockway, City Clerk �'``` •
City of Huntington Beach ;
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RT. -- - .
� _ 937-1 63-54
IM6 t�
�NTTp _i? �.--
y� of Paul Honeyford
1649 E Castlebrook Dr
F-lONE649 TURN TO +4 ND Oq 12/12/01
RETURN TO SENDER
O -_
a �7 . NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE
�. UNABLE TO FORWARD
t 1_ �� f ��'1t n��►p .��� i 1.: nvri JONI Tn RFNmFR
LEGAL NOTE�'POB�'I HEARING
%V E� ! E: