Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Plan Amendment 76-2 - GPA 76-2 and Negative Declarat .JeR ome M. BAME ATTORNLY AT. I-AW yid /T-CF TOWN 6 COUNTORY CENTER /P 19568 BEACH SOULCYARDp SUITC E13 HUNTIr/QTON BEACH, CALI/O MA 02640 00276611 t f . -September .24, 1976 �f To: CITY COUNCIL City ,of Huntington Beach City Hall.,_ 2000 MainLStreet Huntington'Beach, California Re: Area of Concern 2. 12 LGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-2 PART B: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS This is ,written and presented on behalf of the owners and prop6sed 'deVe1'opers' 6f Area of Concern 2. 12 of the General Plan Amendment,, : Part!=B: Miscellaneous Items -- which property is located` on, �he,"Northeast Corner of Hamilton Avenue and Brookhurst Street`'in -the;City-'of� Huntington Beach. t , The sub" t!'property consists of approximately 9.90 gross acres and'8. 794''net' acres, and is presently vacant. OWNERS' REQUEST The owners of this 'property 'have requested that the City' s General Plan' land use designation be changed from retail commercial to medium.Aensity residential. , SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES The "surroundin� zoning; and land uses are indicated graphically on 'the` colored sectional-ludg- attaehed hereto and presented on the following page. ADJACENT ZONING AND USES SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUATY, CALIFORNIA A.LAM?A NG RI RI RI RI i I CF-E o , RI wsE. W 9p f MRR! R2 R2t RI ,,� . s ' .RZ C4 i .16eui:.R'd —R': '- -T R2 4 _ R2 1 RI RI RI RI / \ a f / R3 I t RI I CF-R RI RI I • RI F I I � 1 I RA-0 �. a SUBJECT PROPERTY. R3 ZONE/USE. . . . , , , , . R1 ZONE/USE. . . . . . - COMMERCIAL ZONE/USE. R2 ZONE/USE. . . . . . r September 24, 1976 Page Three As indicated on the foregoing map, the subject property is bordered: On the NORTH: By the Southern California Edison Company' s Hamilton Substation On the EAST: By the Santa Ana River ; On the SOUTH: By a Kentucky' Colonel Fast Food I Establishment and a Service Station On the WEST: By R2 (medium density residential) and an Alpha Beta Shopping .Center and Satellite Stores and Service Station LAND CONFIGURATION The subject property is comprised of 2507300 "postage stamp lots" as small as 10 x 10' . The owners of this property have spent the past 8 years clearing title to and purchasing sufficient lots within this subject property so as to assemble a marketable parcel. Accompanying this letter, within this packet, is a letter from Abco Equity Funds, Inc. , dated August 31, 1976, one of the, two owners of the subject property, which presents a history of this property and the owners' activities through the years in attempting to market the subject property as presently zoned. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Huntington Beach Planning Commission has recommended, by a vote of 6-0 (with one commissioner absent), that the subject property be redesignated to R2, medium density residential. OWNERS' CONCURRENCE The owners of this property concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission that this property be redesignated- to R2, medium density residential. ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING REDES_IGNATION FROM "COMMERCIAL" TO "RESIDENTIAL" ZONING I. NUMEROUS AND INTENSIVE MARKET ANALYSES HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO DEVELOP THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. I September 24, 1976 Page Four A. The letter from Abco Equity Funds, Inc. , which follows, clearly indicates that numerous reputable commercial developers seriously inquired about, made investigations into, and opened escrows to purchase the subject property as a commercial development; however, in each instance, the interested buyers either failed or refused to proceed to purchase the sub- ject property. Each concluded that it was unfeasible to develop the subject property as a commercial development. B. The demographics of the subject property do not lend themselves to a commercial development. The property is "odd shaped", in that it has somewhat of a triangular configura- tion. The property is entirely bordered on the east by the Santa Ana River, giving it only what has been termed a 180 degree commercial exposure. C. Presented to the Planning Department, in support of the owners ' position, was an Economic Survey and Report by McConnell' s Economic Surveys of Costa Mesa, California. This report (consisting of S pages) and accompanying map/economic history/economic analysis/chart concluded: "It is our strong recommendation that the development of the sub- ject area be confined solely to beach and residential housing because: (1) the area surveyed could not support an additional shopping center; and (2) the location of the property and its proximity to the beach are ideal for such development." McConnell' s Economic Survey and Report was supported by their "thirty-six years of experience with hundreds of shopping centers throughout California and other states . " Approximately twelve (12) copies of McConnell ' s Economic Survey and Report were given to the Planning Staff and would be available for your review in the event you have not already been provided with such. September 24, 1.976 Page Five II. THE OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAVE SERIOUSLY ATTEMPTED, BUT HAVE FAILED, TO MARKET THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ITS PRESENT COMMERCIAL ZONING TO A- COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER. . A. As is clearly demonstrated in Abco Equity Fund, Inc. ' s letter that follows, the owners of the subject property have expended substantial effort at a tremendous cost to accumulate sufficient lots within the parcel to market this property. However, time -and time again, their efforts to sell this property in its present commercial zoning have failed. B. As the old saying goes, "Experience is the best teacher". The owners ' past experience, and failures., in their attempt to market this property is the best example that this property is not a viable site for commercial development,. III. THE PLANNING STAFF RECOGNIZED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOULD BE REDESIGNATED FROM "COMMERCIAL" TO "RESIDENTIAL". A. In the Staff Report prepared by the Planning Department, Staff acknowledges that sufficient recreational areas ,exist within the area of the subject property to serve a medium density residential development. B. Staff' s Report further indicates that all .levels of schooling (elementary, intermediate and high school) within a one mile or less radius of the subject property are sufficient to support the desired redesignation. C. Staff' s Report indicates that retail commercial. land within the immediate area of the subject property is primarily developed and sufficient to support a residential redesignation of the subject property. D. Finally,- the Staff recommends that this area of concern be redesignated from "Commercial" to "Residential". ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING AN R2 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) REDESIGNATION I. THE SURROUNDING AND ADJACENT USES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE REQUESTED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL REDESIGNATION. September 24, 1976 Page Six A. As is graphically demonstrated on the foregoing sectional map, the surrounding and adjacent uses to the subject property are compatible with the desired medium density redesig- nation. B. Property to the immediate west is already zoned and developed medium density residential. -Areas to the south are already honed and developed high density residential.. C. Medium density residential would be compatible with the already developed commercial uses to the immediate south and west. II. THE SERVICES PERFORMED, EXPENSES INCURRED AND HARD- SHIPS ENDURRED BY THE OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WARRANT A REASONABLE RETURN FOR THEIR EFFORTS. A. But for the efforts of the owners of the subject property, this property (consisting of 250-300 small-sized lots) would not now be in a condition and capable, once properly developed, of returning substantial tax revenues to the City and County. B. The owners of the subject property have expended. substantial effort and spent tremendous sums in clearing title to and accumulating blighted lots of sub-standard .size in multiple ownership so as to produce a marketable parcel. These costs must necessarily be considered in determining the selling price for the subject property in a similar manner as a municipality con- siders such costs when considering property by the use of a redevelopment agency. C. The configuration and "odd shape" of the property makes medium density residential :the most economical. III. THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE ULTIMATE CONTROLtOVER A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. The Planning Commission .and City Council will have ultimate and final approval over the open space/green areas of the subject property if developed as .medium density residential. September 24, 1976 Page Seven CONCLUSION For the reasons hereinbefore mentioned, it is respectfully requested that Area of Concern 2. 12 be redesignated to R2, medium density residential. Respectfully submitted, I JEROME M. BAME JMB:cr Attachment I i i ABCO 'EQUITY FUNDS, INC. 8929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD • SUITE 402 • BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211 Telephone (213) 6�2-5653 August 31, 1976, Mr. Jerome M. Bame Attorney at Law . Town & Country Center 18582 Beach Boulevard, Suite 213 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Rezoning 9.90 gross acres of land at NE Corner 'of Brookhurst & Hamilton 'Streets, Huntington Beach, Calif. From C4 to Medium Density Residential (General Plan Amendment 76-2, Part B: Area of Concern '2.12) Dear Mr. Bame i This letter, and the information supplied herein, is submitted to you in your endeavor to secure a rezoning of the above-indicated + property from its present zoning of C4 to Medium Density Residential. ABCO EQUITY FUNDS, INC . and It-ESTAMCO INVESTMENT each of whom is a federally licensed Small Business Investment CO, .,Company, are the current owners of the subject property. Being Federally -Licensed Small Business Investment Companies, this means therefore, that approx- imately -one-half of the moneys invested in the subject property is Federal Government dollars. , Our companies first acquired the initial lots within the subject property in 1968 as a result of a default on a loan made by these companies to an investor who placed said lots as security for said loan. The subject property (Area of Concern 2.12) consists of three (3) tracts , comprised of 250-300 lots of varying sizes as small as 101 x 101 , totaling 8,?94 net acres . Attached to this letter are copies of three separate diagrams taken from Title Reports prepared for the subject property, which together indicate the nature and number of the total lots within the subject property. In our attempt to sell the lots which we initially acquired within the subject property,. we have spent the past 8 years .tracking down the owners of the other lots within the subject property to clear and acquire title thereto to accumulate a marketable total piece of property. Needless to say, we were required to contact and negotiate with countless owners in numerous states, and become engaged in numerous legal actions and estate proceedings to accomp- lish this .purpose . l Commencing about four (4) years ago, the Federal Government directed our companies to sell and divest ourselves of ownership in this subject property. This order was issued because our in- j vestment in this property is considered to be an inactive investment, i LOANS TO SMALL.BUSINESS A Federal Licensee Under The Small Business Investment Act. Mr. Jerome Bame August 31 , 1976 Page Two for the reasons hereinbelow stated, and'we have been directed to redirect and reinvest our funds to more active investments . For this reason, we have had the incentive to, and have actively pur- sued, the marketing and sale of this subject pro erty. We, our- selves, have cleared title to and accumulated 1 of the lots that comprise the 250-300 lot subject parcel. To the best of our knowledge.. the subject property has been zoned C4 from its inception. During the past several years, between 30-40 seriously interested buyers of commercially zoned property have expressed a legitimate interest in the property. Most of those interested parties have themselves surveyed the subject property, expended substantial effort and expense to conduct a market analysis and. have , in some cases, proceeded to open an escrow with us . NONE , HO`vdEVER; HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.. Each concluded that . it was unfeasible to develop the subject property as a commercial development, 'and, theref ore, .eith.er refused `or failed to consummate the transaction and purchase the subject property. As an example, listed below are but eight credible buyers developers of commercially .zoned property who expressed serious 'interest in the subject property, but did not proceed to purchase the same : NAME DATE OF NEGOTIATIONS & ESCROWS l.. Foods Co. , Supermarkets Letter of Intent-Sept. 23 1974. ' Closed negotiations Oct. 6, 1974• 2. Pacific Property Trends Letter of Intent-Oct. 17, 1974. Closed negotiations Oct. 24, 1974. 3. Hanover Holdings N.V. Letter of Intent-Nov. 2, 1974• Closed negotiations Nov. 22, 1974. 4. Dupont Land Developers Letter of Intent-Nov. 26, 1974. Closed negotiations Dec. 4, 1974• 5. Santa Anita Development, Negotiations started Dec. 10, 1974• Corporation Escrow opened Apr. 28, 19750' Escrow closed Oct . 20, 1975. 6. William Simpson Investments Escrow opened Oct. 23, 1975, Escrow closed May 12, 1976. 7. Ray Watt W.D.Commercial Letter of Intent May 14, 1976. Properties, Inc. Closed negotiations May 20, 1976. 8. Reinhart Development Co. Negotiations started May 20, 1976. Negotiations closed May 24, 1976. i 1 �I Mr. Jerome M. B ame August 31, 1976. Page Three i 1 As a further example of our inability to market the property in its present commercial zoning, the Beverly Hills Federal Savings &' Loari Association applied for a Charter with which to conduct banking operations at the subject location. However, they too elected riot to proceed with the transaction and did not purchase the sub'jec't property. 'I In all of the 30-40 cases, ..the demographics did not appeari to warrant the interested parties to proceed to develop the subject property.. commercially. , They would either indicate that there were not enough residences situated in or around the immediate vicinity of the site or there was already too much commercial development on Brookhurst Street. The aforementioned 30-40 seriously interested buyers consisted � of some of the largest and most reputable buyers/developers - of com- mercially zoned property in this area. Their failure or refusal to proceed with this subject property leads us to believe that we will be unable to market this property in its present Commercial zoning. 1 Our companies, as owners, have expended a tremendous amount of ! money and endured hardship to. clear title and acquire the indicated lots over these years . We now find ourselves in a position that, like it or not, we must proceed in any reasonable manner to divest ourselves of this property pursuant to the directive from the Federal Small'Business Administration.. After failing in our attempts to sell the property to commercial buyers--developers, we have entered into -an escrow with Arthofer & I Howard Levelopment Co. ,Iric. , who are residential investors/developers . I The closing of this escrow is contingent upon the requested zone i+ change from C'L� to Medium Density Residential; all other contingencies i having been satisfied. We .are; therefore, hopeful that this requestedI change of zone may be' accomplished so that our companies may proceed i to sell the subject property as directed. i If we may be of further assistance to you or the City of Huntington Beach by supp.lying ,additional information or material please do not hesitate to request such. ' Very truly yours, ABCO EQUITY FUNDS , INC . 11i:STAMCO INVESTMENT COMPANY i i M. D. Sharpe i ' - -- � __.. • - ,�.. -------.tom—.� � .... _..._ --f.:_.-�. -_ � __'�- -- w1 ov e-.,r or cn 0-3 t EO 777 05 :IC ..__-•_- ?•--------- --•- u t 2-• -� j �/ w► �--. �.i~ram) •� f �' - .. � ! -' -.. . ... ... . '�.r� - -.. � t _ `1 !� ` ' ; Affidavit of Pv ' ation o 1 (o 11 (4 State of California County of Orange � ss City of Huntington Beach ) published Huntington Beach Neyrs, 'Sept.` George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a 2.4, 1976: r citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. I I NOTICE 6FItBvl'c`AEARRRG_ ;� t That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach GENERAL:PL'AN ANIENDNI"EN7�"'76-2 News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- (AND-NEGATIVE DecL�ARRATioci"7&78 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub-' lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said , , County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination ! hearing will lie held ny1.the city g 6puncil of°the-City of Huntingh6n Beach,' of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide ,n. the Council Chamber oft.the civic subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been enter, Huntington Beach, :R :the hour established, printed and published in the State of California, and Of 7:00 P.M., or as .soon tt,,erei3fter-as Count of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication I possible, '19 Wednesday; urry 6th day of y g Y p :October, 1976, for the purlrose of-con- of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not sidering General Plan Am,:ndment 76-2' devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any and Negative becialralib. rib-78; as in- particular class, profession, -trade, calling, race or denomination, or itiated by the Planning Commission. 'Six- teen areas of the City are iinvol3ed:, any number thereof. The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper 1. South' of rMain`street' afnd 'east of Florida Street of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court 2. Northwest corner of.Warner Avenue, of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. and Beach eou'levard-I 3. North of Clay'Avenui3 and east of Goldenwest Street'' t' That the GE ERAL P ME LAN ANDMENT 76-2 4. North of Tayfor sfrr;i:t aril we-st of t Beach Boulevard 5. North of Talbert AvBinue and west of j AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 76-78 Beach Boulevard t" ` 6. North of Slater Av,3r,lue and west of of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- Gothard street 7. Gothard Streef, soa�f;h of`0eil'Avenue S. South of Edinger Avenue and west of, paper at least one issue Gotttard Street, 9. North of Garfield Alvenue dnd east of Beach Boulevard commencing from the 23rd day of September 10. North of Adams,'tavenue and east of Beach Boulevad 11. North of Utica Avenue and west of 1926 and ending on the 23rd September Lake Street j day of 12. East of Brookhuist street and north Of Hamilton Avenue �� 13. Bolsa Chica Street South of Warner 19' � both days inclusive, and as often during said period and Avenue times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the 14. East of "B" Str+_et and south of War- ner .Avenue regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a 15. South of Aldrich Avenue and west of supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following Beach BbuleVaedl dates, to-wit: 16. South of the �Jan*biego Freeway and y east of San Angelo Drive All interested 'persons are invited to Sept 21 , 1976 attend said hearing aqd express their opinions for or against said proposed General Plan ,Amendment 76-2 and Ne- gative Declaration 76-78., Further information -may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. DATED: September 20, 1976. Publisher ° ' CITY;.OF7-HUNTINGTON,BEACH By:Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of cit>Ai csa`Ivi. wentwortfP Se tembe r 19--7-6- Notary Public�� �, Ilk 61 Orange County, California THOMAS D. WYLLIE �, Notary Public-California i p v �•P Orange County 'cU, + My Commission Expires September 12, 1978 It --------------------------------I City of Huntington Beach County of Orange State of California Af fidavitof Publication of GEORGE FARQUHAR Publisher Huntington Beach News Filed Clerk By Deputy Clerk V & I N LL Huntington Beach Planning Commission .J P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator DATE: September 28 , 1976 RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-2 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 8 , 1976 : 1. ON MOTION BY PARKINSON AND SECOND BY BOYLE NEGATIVE DECLARATION 76-78 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea 2. ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY PARKINSON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-2 WAS APPROVED AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES: Parkinson, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES : None ABSENT : Shea , Finley PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve Negative Declaration 76-78 . 2. Adopt General Plan Amendment 76-2 , miscellaneous changes to the Land Use Element. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The proposed Amendment is. the second General Plan Amendment of 1976. It includes miscellaneous areas throughout the City. The Amendment i has been initiated by private persons and organizations as well as the Planning Department. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 76-78 was posted in the office of the City Clerk on September 1, 1976. The Planning Department recommends that the Negative Declaration be granted since the project will not have a substantial adverse effect upon the physical environment. V /T f� ' V t Page 2 i SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1. Amendment Summary 2. Transmittal from Environmental Resources Department 3. Negative Declaration No. 76-78 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1175 i iRespectfully submitted, I dda d D. Selich Acting Secretary EDS :MF:ja i i v . v GENERAL PLAN , AMENDMENT 76-2 SUMMARY Area Location Request Applicant Recommendation 2.1 South of ;Main Street & Office Professional to William F. Helm No change East of Florida Street Hiqh Density Residential 2. 2 North of Warner Avenue Office pr fessional & Retail Foxx Development Corp. Redesignate.-to High Density West of Beach Blvd. Comriierci�� to High Density Residential Residential Dora Odom 2. 3 North of Clay Avenue & Planning, Reserve to Light Huntington Beach Planning Redesignate to. Light. Indus. �•� • I Gniden-,-des . Street Industrial F. ''!t=•d. Den. ReS. Der)r'3rtme'nt r, Medium Dens_ic, Residential �.4 North of Taylor Street & Industrial to High W. Sterling Buck and Redesignate to Low Density West of Beach Boulevard Density Residential Associates Residential 2. 3 North of Talbert Avenue & Light Industrial to Buccella Engineering No change. Continue to i•lest of Beach Boulevard "Iedium Density Residential Builders GPA 76-3. 2.6 North of Slater Avenue & Light Industrial to Robert L. Stellrecht Redesignate .a portion to West of Gothard Street Low Density Residential Low Density .Residential 2.7 South of Heil Avenue & Light Industrial to C£LS Corporation No change. Continue to Gothard Street Low Density Residential GPA 76-3 2.8 South of Edinger Avenue& Light Industrial to A>hwill=Burke & Co. Redesignate a portion to West of Gothard Street Commercial Retail Commercial Retail. 2.3 ':crtn of Garfield Avenue & :ledium Density. Resid'entt�?l Huntington Beach Planning Redesignate-to Commercial East of Beach Boulevard to Commercial Retail 1, Department Retail 2.10 N-orth of Adams Avenue & Commercial Retail to Huntington Beach Planning Redesignate to Open- Space Last of Beach Boulevard Open Space Department 2.11 :.orth of Utica Avenue & Government Center to Medium Huntington Beach Planning Redesignat-& to Medium 1.1est of Lake Street Density Residential Department Density ,Residential 2. 12 east of Brbokhurst Street Commercial Retail to Arthofer & Howard zedesignate •to Medium & North of Hamilton Avenue `:odium Density Residential Development Co. Density. Residential 2.11. East of Bolsa Chica Street Low Density Residential to Crosman Advertising Co. Continue to GPA 76-3 1 & South of Warner Avenue :tedium Density Residential -- 2.13 ',:est of Solsa Chica Street Low Density Residential to Richard Annigoni Redesignate to Medium 2 ti South of Warner High Density Residential Density Residential 2. 14 Last of "B" Street & Commercial Retail to Henry H. Uyekawa Redesignate to Medium South of Warner Avenue Medium Density Residential Density*Residential 2:15 South of- Aldrich :'Avenue & Commercial Retail to Tarbell Realtors Redesignate:to- -High :est of Beach Boulevard High Density Residential Density Residential 2. 16 South of San Diego Fwv. Planning Reserve to Huntington Beach Planning Continue to GPA 76-3 s East of San Annelo Dr. Eigh Density Residential Department DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES V TON.c�cH Post Office Box 190 City of Huntington Beach California 92648 HUNTINTO: Planning Department FROM: Department of Environmental Resources DATE: September 8 , 1976 SUBJECT: Negative Declaration No. 76-78 (General Plan Amendment 76-2) APPLICANT: Advanced Planning PROJECT: General Plan Amendment Negative Declaration No. 76-78 was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on September 1, 1976, and as of September 8 no comments have been received as the result of this public posting. RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Environmental Resources recommends that the Negative Declaration be granted having found that the project will not have a substantial adverse -effect upon the physical environment. No Environ- mental Impact Report has been prepared. The findings are based upon the information supplied in the environmental documentation, staff review, and the public notice and review process. • Melv 'n A. Tooker�� Department of Environmental Resources MAT:gc ;;. DAT E f. HUNTING ': BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL RESO NT- .S SECTION POSTED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9-1-76 M'' TO: William E. St. John, _-'ount Clerk DATE: - - - _- P.O. Box 687 Santa Ana, California 92702 General Plan Negative Declaration No. 76-78 Application or Permit No. Amendment No. 76-2 I DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREPARED: Proposed changes in land use designations for 15 areas of the City of Huntington Beach i PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS: located as indicated in the negative declaration 1 application and preliminary enviri5mentaal deescription, on file fn the Department of Environmental Resources, Huntington Beach Pursuant to the procedures of the City of Huntington Beach for implementa- tion of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the Environmental Resources Department has reviewed the preliminary environmental description data and information on the environmental setting of the proposed project as submitted by the project sponsor and does hereby find: That the proposed project will not have a significant (substantial ad- verse) effect on the physical environment. ' U Brief statement of reasons to support findings:. i A Negative Declaration is therefore granted for this project and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. That even though the proposed project may have an adverse effect upon the environment, the project is a lesser part of another project for which an Environmental Impact Report has previously been prepared and that the original project and EIR were approved, and also that no sub- stantial environmental changes are proposed which will require major revisions of the original EIR. Brief statement of reasons to support findings: A Negative .Declaration is therefore granted to this project and the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report is thereby not necessary. Approved by:__. - - - RESOLUTION NO. 1175 " y A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN 76-2 WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives, and WHEREAS , amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of said amend ment was held by the City Planning Commission on September 8 , 19761 in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 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, California on the 8th day of September, 1976, by the following roll call vote: AYES : Parkinson, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle . NOES : None ABSENT: Shea, Finley ABSTAIN: None ATTEST Edward D. elich Ro er Slates Acting Secretary Chairm 4 ' l - Y r. �r JEROME M. BAME ATTORNEY AT LAW TOWN 6 COUNTRY CENTER I8592 BEACH- BOULEVARD, SUITE 213 Gf'T y�T�-CFI HUNTINGTON BEACK, CALIFORNIA 92646 �y6'Tr�Tr(FFQ' ., (714j 962-6611 September 24, 1976 A�! 1 , 1� To: CITY COUNCIL City of Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Re: Area of Concern 2. 12 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-2 PART B: - MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS This .is written and presented on behalf of the owners and proposed developers of Area of Concern 2. 12 of the General Plan Amendment, Part B: Miscellaneous Items -- which property is located on the Northeast Corner of Hamilton Avenue and Brookhurst Street"in the City of Huntington Beach. The subject property consists of approximately 9.90 gross acres and 8 . 794 net acres, and is presently vacant. OWNERS' REgUEST The owners of this property have requested that the City' s General Plan land use designation be changed from retail commercial to medium density residential. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES The surrounding zoning and land uses are indicated graphically on the colored sectional map attached hereto and presented on the following page. CENT ZONING AND USES SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH A ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AI LAN T• Ave e al RI RI °RI I" I RI RV� F RI jCF-E a RI RI RI ` la:wr. aCn0.�1 t w` ; RI .._.._._._ A-0 k 4M • • � RI .an:A$m .+R2j I Rz C4 r RI RBI RI I R2se ,•Rw?•s C2 wl 7 1 1 � RY --- ° mt - —� R2 Rlw RI / RI ' RI RI ! m a w •, u w R3 R3 ` ! RI T I .r CF-H • RI c RI � RI RI ' I RI fe RI j RI RI c55�2'oTT1�Ta'2� SUBJECT PROPERTY. R3 ZONE/USE. , , , , , , , , R1 ZONE/USE. . . . . . COMMERCIAL ZONE/USE. R2 ZONE/USE. . . . . . gl : September 24, 1976 Page Three As indicated on the foregoing map, the subject property is bordered: On the NORTH: By the Southern California Edison Company' s Hamilton Substation On the EAST: By the Santa Ana River On the SOUTH: By a Kentucky Colonel Fast Food Establishment and a Service Station On the WEST: By R2 (medium density residential) and an Alpha Beta Shopping Center and Satellite Stores and Service Station LAND CONFIGURATION The subject property is comprised of 250-300 "postage stamp lots" as small as 10 x 10' . The owners of this property have spent the past 8 years clearing title to and purchasing sufficient lots within this subject property so as to assemble a marketable parcel. Accompanying this letter, within this packet, is a letter from Abco Equity Funds, Inc. , dated August 31, 1976, one of the two owners of the subject property, which presents a history of this property and the owners ' activities through the years in attempting to market the subject property as presently, zoned. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Huntington Beach Planning Commission has recommended, by a vote of 6-0 (with one commissioner absent) , that the subject property be redesignated to R2 , medium density residential. OWNERS' CONCURRENCE The owners of this property concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission that this property be redesignated to R2, medium density residential. ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING REDES_IGNATION FROM "COMMERCIAL" TO "RESIDENTIAL" ZONING I. NUMEROUS AND INTENSIVE MARKET ANALYSES HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO DEVELOP THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. i i September 249 1976 Page Four A. The letter from Abco Equity Funds, Inc. , which follows, clearly indicates that numerous reputable commercial developers seriously inquired about, made investigations into, and opened escrows to purchase the subject property as a commercial development ; however, in each instance, the interested buyers either failed or refused to proceed to purchase the sub- ject property. Each concluded that it was unfeasible to develop the subject property as a commercial development. B. The demographics of. the subject property do not lend themselves to a commercial development. The property is "odd shaped", in that it has somewhat of a triangular configura- tion. The property is entirely bordered on the east by the Santa Ana River, giving it only what has been termed a 180 degree commercial exposure. C. Presented to the Planning Department, in support of the owners ' position, was an Economic Survey and Report by McConnell' s Economic Surveys of Costa Mesa, California. This report (consisting of S pages) and accompanying map/economic history/economic analysis/chart concluded: "It is our strong recommendation that the development of the sub- ject area be confined solely to beach and residential housing because: (1) the area surveyed could not support an additional shopping center; and (2) the location of the property and its proximity to the beach are ideal for- such development. " McConnell' s Economic Survey and Report was supported by their "thirty-six years of experience with hundreds of shopping centers throughout California and other states . " Approximately twelve (12) copies of McConnell ' s Economic Survey and Report were given to the Planning Staff and would be available for your review in the event you have not already been provided with such. f i September 24, 1976 Page Five 1 II. THE OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAVE SERIOUSLY ATTEMPTED, BUT HAVE FAILED, TO MARKET THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ITS PRESENT COMMERCIAL ZONING TO A - COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER. A. As is clearly demonstrated in Abco Equity Fund, Inc. ' s letter that follows, the owners of the subject property have expended substantial effort at a tremendous cost to accumulate sufficient lots within the parcel to market .this property. However, time and time again, their efforts to sell this property in its present commercial zoning have failed. B. As the old saying goes, "Experience is the best teacher". The owners ' past experience, and failures, in their attempt to market this property is the best example that this property is not a viable site for commercial development. III. THE PLANNING STAFF RECOGNIZED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOULD BE REDESIGNATED FROM "COMMERCIAL" TO "RESIDENTIAL". A. In the Staff Report prepared by the Planning Department, Staff acknowledges that sufficient recreational areas exist within the area of the subject property to serve a medium density residential development. B. Staff' s Report further. indicates that all levels of schooling (elementary, intermediate and high school) within a one mile or less radius of the subject property are sufficient to support the desired redesignation. C. Staff' s Report indicates that retail commercial land within the immediate area of the subject property is primarily developed and sufficient to support a residential redesignation of the subject property. D. Finally, the Staff recommends that this area of concern be redesignated from "Commercial" to "Residential". ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING AN R2 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) REDESIGNATION I. THE SURROUNDING AND ADJACENT USES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE REQUESTED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL REDESIGNATION. September 24, 1976 Page Six A. As is graphically demonstrated on the foregoing sectional map, the surrounding and adjacent uses to the subject property are compatible with the desired medium density redesig- nation. B. Property to the immediate west is already zoned and developed medium density residential. Areas to the south are already zoned and developed high density residential. C. Medium density residential would be compatible with the already developed commercial uses to the immediate south and west. II. THE SERVICES PERFORMED, EXPENSES INCURRED AND HARD- SHIPS ENDURRED BY THE OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WARRANT A REASONABLE RETURN FOR THEIR EFFORTS . A: But for the efforts of the owners of the subject property, this property_ (consisting of 250-300 small-sized lots) would not now be in a condition and capable, once properly developed, of returning substantial tax revenues to the City and County. B. The owners of the subject property have expended substantial effort and spent tremendous sums in clearing title to- and accumulating blighted lots of sub-standard size in multiple ownership so as to produce a marketable parcel.. These costs must necessarily be considered in determining the selling price for the subject property in a similar manner as a municipality con- siders such costs when considering property by the use of a redevelopment agency. C. The 'configuration and "odd shape" of the property makes medium density residential the most economical . III. THE PLANNING COM_- MISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE ULTIMATE CONTROL OVER A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. The Planning Commission and City Council will have ultimate and final approval over the open space/green areas of the subject property if developed as medium density residential. September 24, 1916 Page Seven CONCLUSION For the reasons hereinbefore mentioned, it is respectfully requested that Area of Concern 2. 12 be redesignated to R2, medium density residential. Respectfully submitted, JEROME M�. BAME JMB:cr Attachment ABCO EQUITY FUNDS, INC. 8929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD • SUITE 402 • BEVERLY HILLS. CALIFORNIA 90211 Telephone (213) 652-5653 August 31, 1976. Mr. Jerome M. Bame Attorney at Law Town & Country Center 18582 Beach Boulevard, Suite 213 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re : Rezoning 9.90 gross acres of land at NE Corner. of Brookhurst & Hamilton Streets, Huntington Beach, Calif. From C4 to Medium Density Residential (General Plan Amendment 76-2, Part B: Area of Concern 2.12) Dear Mr, Bame : This letter, and the information supplied herein, is submitted to you in your endeavor to secure a rezoning of the above-indicated property from its present zoning of C4 to Medium Density Residential. ABCO EQUITY FUNDS, INC . and ir.TSTAMCO INVESTMENT CO . , each of whom is a federally licensed Small Business Investment Company, are the current owners of the subject property. Being Federally Licensed Small Business Investment Companies , this means therefore , that approx- imately one-half of the moneys invested in the subject property is Federal Government dollars. . Our companies first acquired the initial lots within the subject property in 1968 as a result of a default on a loan made by these companies to an investor who placed said lots as security for said loan. The subject property (Area of Concern 2.12) consists of three (3) tracts , comprised of 250-300 lots of varying sizes as small as 10 , x 1011 , totaling 8.794 net acres . Attached to this letter are copies of three separate diagrams taken from Title Reports prepared for the subject property, which together indicate the nature and number of the total lots within the subject property. In our attempt to sell the lots which we initially acquired within the subject property, we have spent the past 8 years tracking down the owners of the other lots within the subject property to clear and acquire title thereto to accumulate a marketable total piece of property. Needless to. say, we were required to contact and negotiate with countless owners in numerous states, and become engaged in numerous legal actions and estate proceedings to accomp- lish this purpose . Commencing about four (4) ,years ago, the Federal Government directed our companies to sell and divest ourselves of ownership in this subject property. This order was issued because our in- vestment in this property is considered to be an inactive investment, LOANS TO SMALL BUSINESS A Federal Licensee Under The Small Business Investment Act: Mr. Jerome Bame August 31„ 1976 Page Two for the reasons hereinbelow stated, and we have been directed to redirect and reinvest our funds to more active investments . For this reason, we have had the incentive to, and have actively pur- sued, the marketing and sale of this subject pro erty. We, oiir- selves, have cleared title to and accumulated of the lots that comprise the 250-300 lot subject parcel. To the best of our knowledge , the subject property has been zoned C4 from its inception. During the past several years, between 30-40 seriously interested ,' buyers of commercially zoned property have expressed a legitimate. interest in the property. Most of those interested parties have themselves surveyed the subject property, expended substantial effort and expense to conduct a market analysis and have, in some cases, proceeded to open an escrow with us. NONE, HOWEVER; HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.. Each concluded that it was unfeasible to develop the subject property as a commercial development, and, therefore., either refused or failed to consummate the transaction and purchase the subject property. As an example, listed below are but eight credible buyers developers of commercially zoned property who expressed serious °interest in the subject property, but did not proceed to purchase the same: NAME DATE OF NEGOTIATIONS & ESCROWS 1.. Foods Co. , Supermarkets Letter of Intent-Sept. 23 1974. Closed negotiations Oc•t. �, 1974. 2. Pacific Property Trends Letter of Intent-Oct. 17, 1974. Closed negotiations Oct . 24, 1974. 3. Hanover Holdings N.V. Letter of Intent-Nov. 2, 1974. Closed negotiations Nov. 22, 1974. 4.. Dupont Land Developers Letter of Intent-Nov. 26, 1974• Closed negotiations Dec. 4, 1974. 5. Santa Anita Development, Negotiations started Dec. 10,. 1974. Corporation Escrow opened Apr. 28, 1975. Escrow closed Oct . 20, 1975. 6, William Simpson Investments _ Escrow opened Oct. 23, 1975, Escrow closed May 12, 1976. 7. Ray Watt W.D.Commercial Letter of Intent May 14, 1976. Properties, Inc. Closed negotiations May 20, 1976. 8. Reinhart Development Co. Negotiations started May 20, 1976. Negotiations closed May 24, 1976. 1 at ' Mr. Jerome M. B August 31, 1976. Page Three As a further example of our inability to market the property. in its present commercial zoning, the Beverly Hills Federal Savings & Loan Association applied for a Charter with which to conduct banking ! operations at the subject location. However, they too elected not to proceed with the transaction and did not purchase the subject property. In all of the 30-40 cases, . the demographics did not appear to warrant the interested parties to proceed to develop the subject property. commer.cially. . They would either indicate that there were it not enough residences situated in or around the immediate vicinity of ' the site or there was already too much commercial development on { Brookhurst Street. lJ The aforementioned 30-40 seriously interested buyers consisted of some of the largest and most reputable buyers/developers of com- i mercially zoned property in this area. Their failure or refusal to proceed with this subject property leads us to believe that we will be unable to market this property in its present Commercial zoning. ' ! Our companies, as owners, have expended a tremendous amount of money and endured hardship to clear title and acquire the indicated , lots over these years . We now find ourselves in a position that, like it or not, we must proceed in any reasonable manner to divest i . ourselves of this property pursuant to the directive from the Federal Small"Business Administration. Aft'er failing in our attempts to sell the property to commercial , buyers--developers, we have entered into an escrow with Arthofer & Howard Levelopment Co. ,Inc. , who are residential investors/developers The closing of this escrow is contingent upon the requested zone change from C4 to Medium Density Residential; all other contingencies ! having been satisfied. We are, therefore, hopeful that this requested � change of zone may be accomplished so that our companies may proceed ! to sell the subject property as directed. y If we may be of further assistance to you or the City of Huntington Beach by supplying additional information or material please do not hesitate to request such. ! Very truly yours, ABCO EQUITY FUNDS , INC . Z•VE,STAMCO INVESTMENT COMPANY M. D. Sharpe . ' j1 1 �� •fee ? _r _! eft '7 trrl n t lb It f r I dr Cn -7-1 r CT • _-� -_-��-�_1�. :L, _ _ �_ :�' _-jam OC- \. � � =1Pl.ii-;---�J•-_ - ;SSS; i IS. � .` I �cl-4� � - ~'jl� � i. -,/•�- •I�r��__-_ -� -_--_-_ - --5-�\J �� � `! -�' - _ - �. _ _- - �_���_--_-mot: t - •11' •...'•��`� _�-__ � ';. + Publish 9/23/76 Postcards -0- NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-2 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 76-78 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the . City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:0__0 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on Wednesday, the 6th day of October , 19_, for the purpose of considering General Plan Amendment 76-2 and Negative Declaration 76-78, as initiated by the Planning Commission. Sixteen areas of the City are involved: 1. South of Main Street and east of Florida Street 2. Northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard 3. North of Clay Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street 4. North of Taylor Street and west of Beach Boulevard 5. North of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard 6. North of Slater, Avenue and west of Gothard Street 7. Gothard Street, south of Heil Avenue 8. South of Edinger Avenue and west of Gothard Street 9. North of Garfield Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard 10. North of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard 11. North of Utica Avenue and west of Lake Street 12. East of Brookhurst Street and north of Hamilton Avenue 13. Bolsa Chica Street south of Warner Avenue 14. East of "B" Street and south of Warner Avenue 15. South of Aldrich Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard 16. South of the San Diego Freeway and east of San Angelo Drive All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said proposed General Plan Amendment 76-2 and Negative Declaration 76-78. ^Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk . DATED: s_etember 20, 1976 CITY OF- HUNPINGTON BEACH BY: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk bjSIJ� . Number of Excerpts r� 1a-OV0 ^� Publish Once LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV$Ngthat a public hearing will be held by the City of the City of Huntington Beach, California, for the purpose of considering 1. South of Main Street and east of Florida Street 2. Northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard 3. North of C1ay .Avenue and- east of Goldenwest Street 4. North of Taylor Street and west of Beach Boulevard 5. North of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard 6. North of Slater Avenue and west of Gothard Street C,o4t u, -ck S+.A j 7. Aouth of Heil Avenue and GettrdITI—Stree-t- 8. South of Edinger Avenue and west of Gothard Street 9. North of Garfield Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard 10. North of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard 11. North of Utica Avenue and West of Lake Street 12 . East of Brookhurst. Street and north of Hamilton Avenue I 13. Bolsa Chica Street south of Warner Avenue 14. East of "B Street and south of Warner Avenue 15. South of Aldrich Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard 16. South of the San Diego Freeway and east of San Angelo • Drive CITY By Richard A. Harlow Secretary APPROVED MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8 , 1976 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Boyle, Newman COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Shea was excused from the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY NEWMAN THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 17 r AND AUGUST 24 , 1976 WERE APPROVED AS AMENDED BY THE .FOLLOWING VOTE: i AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES : None ABSENT: Shea SCH.[:DULED ITEMS: GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENT/LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 76-2 Chairman Slati-t:- stated that the staff had recommended approval -•- of Negative Declaration 76-78 , adoption of General Plan Amendment 76-2 , miscellaneous changes to the Land use Element, and a continuance of the General Plan document to the November 16, 1976 meeting. Viewqraphs were presented of the following areas of concern by Tom Moseley : 2. 1 SOUTH OF MAIN STREET AND EAST OF FLORIDA STREET is a request- by William P. Helm to change the land use desig- nation from office professional to high density residential. The staff recommended no change. The public hearing was opened. There was no one present to speak on this area, and t ,e public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY PARKINSON THE COMMISSION SUSTAINED THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO LEAVE THE PROPERTY GENERAL PLANNED OFFICE PROFESSIONAL BY 'THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea z � M;.nutes : H.B. Planning Commission Wedncsday, September 8 , 1976 Page 2 2 . 2 NORTH OF WARNER AVENUE WEST OF BEACH BOULEVARD This is a request by Foxx Development Corporation to change the land use desig:ation from office professional and retail commercial to high density residential. The staff recommended that it be re- designated high density residential. Chairman Slates stated that he would abstain on this area since there might be a conflict of interest. He then turned the chair over to Vice Chairman Gibson. Vice Chairman Gibson opened the public hearing. There was no one present to speak on this area. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY PARKINSON AND SECOND BY BOYLE THE COMMISSION RE- DESIGNATED AREA 2. 2 - FROM OFFICE PROFESSIONAL AND RETAIL COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSTAIN: Slates ABSENT: Shea 2 . 3 NORTH OF C1.1Y AVENUE AND EAST OF GOLDENWEST STREET This is a request to change the land use designation from planning reserve to light industrial and medium density residential. This was initiated by the staff of the Planning Department. Tr,.- pul-lic hparinn was opened. There was no one present to speak on this area and the public hearing was closed. r. MOTION WAS MADE BY BOYLE AND SECONDED BY SLATES TO REDESIGNATE ?,3 FROM PLANNING RESERVE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY �IESI DENTIAL. Commissioner Gibson inquired as to the background of the planning .reserve designation for this area. Acting Secretary Selich stated that a previous Amendment had refElected a recommendation for medium density residential for this area, but the City Council had re- quested that it be given further study. As a result of this request, the Land Use Study was made. Commissioner Finley stated that since many of the requests for re- designation were based on the Industrial Land Use Study, a document which had not yet been reviewed by the City Council, :.`+e would not be in favor of changing the designation until the Council' s reaction to the Study has been determined. -2- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8 , 1976 Page 3 Commissioner Parkinson concurred with Commissioner Finley, He stated that the Industrial Land Use Inventory showed this area as being one of the lowest priorities for industrial development. He fe1L that it should be kept in planning reserve until it could be further evaluated. VOTE: AYES: Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson ABSENT: Shea THE MOTION FAILED. There was a discussion between staff and .Commission as to what method would be used to transmit the information to the City Council. Chairman Slates stated that he felt it was unfair to the property owners in that area to hold up development of their property with the planning reserve designation. Commissioner Finley stated that she would be willing to change her vote to allow it to be transmitted to City Council. ON MOTION BY FINLEY AND SECOND BY PARKINSON THE COMMISSION RECONSIDE. THE PREVIOUS MOTION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT : Shea ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECONDED BY SLATES THE COMMISSION REDESIGNATE AREA 2. 3 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : . Finley, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES : Parkinson, Gibson ABSENT: Shea Commissioner Finley requested that the record show that her only reason for an affirmative vote was to allow staff to transmit to City Council. 2. 4 NORTH OF CLAY AVENUE AND EAST OF GOLDENWEST STREET This is a request initiated by W. Sterling Buck and Associates to change the land use designation from industrial to high density residential. The staff :,,.:commended no change in land use designatic Chairman Slates noted that a lengthy petition h. 3 been submitted to the Commission requesting that this land be designated for low density. -3- Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 4 W. .S. Buck addressed the Commission and spoke in favor of the changing of the designation to low density residential. He felt that leaving the designation as it is constitutes spot zoning in a residential area. He noted that the petition had been amended and changed to request low density residential rather than previously requested high density residential. Leroy Collins, developer of a shopping center on the corner of Beach and Talbert, spoke in favor of low density designation. Barbara Horowitz stated that she was the one who had circulated the petition. She suggested that Chairman Slates poll the audience. Chairman Slates requested that those in favor of low density so indicate by raising their hands. He noted for the record that a sizeable number of persons in the audience were in favor of the low density designation. The public hearing was closed. Acting Secretary Selich' stated that existing Council policy for the area is reflected in the Taylor/Beach Specific Plan which designated the area industrial. ON MOTION BY PARKINSON AND SECOND BY FINLEY THE COMMISSION RE- DESIGNATED AREA 2 . 4 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AS CHANGED IN THE REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: ..., AYES: Park-Lnson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea Acting Secretary Selich stated that if this area becomes low density, the City should go north and take in all the small lot areas west of the commercially designated properties on Beach Boulevard. By minute action the Commission recommended that the industrial small lot area, as designated by Acting Secretary Selich, be put into the next amendment. The Chairman called a two minute recess at 8: OO p.m. 2. 5 NORTH OF TALBERT AVENUE AND WEST OF BEACH BOULEVARD This is a request by Buccella Engineering for a change in land use designation from light industrial to medium density resi- dential. The staff recommended that no change be made in designation and that it remain light industrial. -4- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8 , 1976 Page 5 The public hearing was opened. Frank Buccella addressed the Commission and reviewed the reasons why he felt the property should be designated R2. He stated that at one time Beach Boulevard and the .proposed freeway made it a good industrial area but that those have been deleted. He further stated that the railroad which is about a block or so away from the property might have been an important consideration at one time but no longer is used as much as it formerly was. He noted that other uses in the Gothard Industrial Corridor seem to be marginal with wrecking yards and other uses that are not really attractive for the City. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Finley stated that she felt Mr. Buccella had some good arguments in favor of his request but that she still felt the Industrial Land Use Study will have to be looked at more closely and reaction from the City Council obtained. . ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY FINLEY AREA 2. 5 WILL REMAIN DESIGNATED AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO OBTAIN FURTHER INFORMATION AS TO HOW THE REDESIGNATION WOULD AFFECT THE ADJACENT AREF.G, TO BE HEARD ON NOVEMBER 16, 1976 IN CONNECTION -- WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AMPOMENT 76-3BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea 2. 6 NORTH OF SLATER AVENUE AND WEST OF GOTHARD STREET This is a request by Robert L. Stellrecht for a change of light industrial to low density residential designation. The staff recommended a portion be redesignated low density residential. The public hearing was opened. Bob Stellrecht stated that he would be glad to answer any questions. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY PARKINSON A PORTION OF AREA 2. 6 WAS REDESIGNATED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finl::y, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea -5- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 6 2 . 7 SOUTH OF HEIL AVENUE AND GOTHARD STREET This is a request by CELS Corporation to redesignate the area from light industrial to low density residential. The staff recommended no change. The public hearing was opend. Tallas Margrave, President of CELS Corporation, spoke in favor of the redesignation. He stated that in Huntington Beach and Orange County there is a tremendous demand for R1 property which is selling at a higher price than either R2 or R3. He further noted that neither the developer, the owner, the prospective owner, nor property owners in the area wanted this property to remain in the Ml designation. He stated that a petition signed by ad- jacent property owners objecting to the MI designation was on file. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOYLE -AND SECONDED BY NEWMAN TO APPROVE CHANGE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO R1 ON THE BASIS 'THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE RESIDENTIAL AND IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT- TO BUFFER ADEQUATELY THE INDUSTRIAL USE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL. Acting Secretary Selich stated that the City Council is going to have to look very carefully at the Industrial Land Use Study the Planning Department has made and come up with some reasonable policy on evaluating these General Plan requests. Commissioner Finley stated that she felt there are some natural buffers. insofar as this site is concerned such as the flood control channel and railroad track on the other side of Gothard. She stated that she would not want to remove this area from industrial zoning, but would like to have the City Council look at the study. There was a discussion on when the Industrial Land Use Study would be transmitted. Although the staff had originally planned to transmit the document to the City Council along with the General Plan, it was the consensus of the Commission that this document should be transmitted as soon as possible. VOTE: AYES: Boyle, Slates NOES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Newman ABSENT: Shea THE MOTION FAILED. ON MOTION BY PARKINSON AND SECOND BY FINLEY AREA 2.7 REMAINED DESIGNATED AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUT WILL BE REVIEWED 'S PART OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT ON NOVEMBER 16, 1976 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES : None aucPum! Shea Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 197E Page .7 2. 8 SOUTH OF EDINGER AVENUE AND WEST OF GOTHARD STREET This is a request by Ashwill-Burke & Co. for a redesignation from light industrial to commercial retail. The staff recommended a portion be redesignated commercial retail. The public hearing was opened. A representative of the applicant addressed the Commission and stated that he was in agreement with the staff' s recommendation. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY FINLEY A PORTION OF AREA 2.8. WAS REDESIGNATED COMMERCIAL RETAIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: None 2. 9 NORTH OF GARFIELD. AVENUE AND EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD This is a request by the Huntington Beach Planning Department to redesignate Area 2. 9 from medium density residential to commercial --- retail. The public hearing was opened. There was no one present to speak on this area. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY- FINLEY AREA 2. 9 WAS REDESIGNATED AS COMMERCIAL RETAIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates , Newman, Boyle NOES : None ABSENT: Shea 2. 10 NORTH OF ADAMS AVENUE AND EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD This is a request by the Huntington Beach Planning Department to redesignate Area 2. 10 from commercial retail to open space. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY. S14ATES AND SECOND BY PARKINSON AREA 2. 10 WAS REDESIG - NATED OPEN SPACE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, :Boyle NOES.: None ABSENT: Shea -7- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8 , 1976 Page 8 2. 11 NORTH OF UTICA AVENUE AND WEST OF LAKE STREET This is a request by the Huntington Beach Planning Department to redesignate this area from Government Center to medium density residential The public hearing was opened and there was no one present to speak on this area. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY PARKINSON AREA 2.11 WAS REDESIG- NATED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Parkinson, Finley, 'Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea 2 . 12 EAST OF BROOKHURST STREET AND NORTH OF HAMILTON AVENUE This is a request by Arthofer and Howard Development Co. for a redesignation from commercial retail to medium density residential. The Planning staff has recommended that it be redesignated low density residential. Acting Secretary Selich stated that the staff had been influenced in its decision on redesignation to low density by the fact that a number of high density uses already are adjacent to the area _.. and the Greenbelt Commission recommended low density. The public hearing was opened. Jerry Bame addressed the Commission and stated that the property owners have spared no effort in past years in trying to sell the property with the commercial zoning, but that it is just not a Viable commercial piece of property. He further stated that the owners felt R2 would be conducive to development of this area and were requesting medium density residential. Mr. Leonard Muskin spoke in favor of redesignation to medium density. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Slates stated he would have no argument with medium density residential but if it ever comes up for a zone change he would want it• to be with a PD suffix. ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY PARKINSON AREA 2.12 WAS RE- DESIGNATED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES : None _.._ ABSENT: Shea -8- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 9 2 . 13. 1 EAST OF BOLSA CHICA STREET AND -SOUTH OF WARNER AVENUE This is a request by Crosman Advertising Company for a re- designation from low density residential to medium density residential. The staff recommended that it be redesignated medium density residential. The public hearing was opened. Barbara Baker spoke in favor of the area remaining low density. Sandra Bunsch, a resident of the area, spoke in favor of low density for the area. Frank Buccella spoke in favor of redesignation to medium density residential. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Slates stated that he felt the area merited a more detailed study of the residential uses in the area. ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND .BY BOYLE AREA 2.13. 1 WAS CONTINUED TO THE NOVEMBER 16, 1976 MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates , Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea 2. 13. 2 WEST OF BOLSA CHICA STREET AND SOUTH OF WARNER This is a request by Richard Annigoni for redesignation from low density residential to medium density residential. The staff recommended it be redesignated medium density residential. The public hearing .was opened. There was no one present to speak on this area and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gibson stated that he would not be in favor of this redesignation since the flight pattern from Meadowlark Airport is over the area. He also cited the deficiency in park and open space areas as a reason for his not being in favor of the re- designatiqn. ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY PARKINSON 2.13.2 WAS REDESIGNATED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: Gibson ABSENT: Shea -9- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 10 2. 14 EAST OF "B" STREET AND SOUTH OF WARNER AVENUE This is a request by Henry H. Uyekawa for redesignation from com- mercial retail to medium density residential. The staff recommended redesignation of medium density residential. The public hearing was opened. There was no one present to speak on this area and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY BOYLE AREA 2.14 WAS REDESIGNATED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea 2. 15 SOUTH OF ALDRICH AVENUE AND WEST OF BEACH BOULEVARD This is a request by Tarbell Realtors to redesignate commercial retail to high density residential. Staff recommended it be re- designated high density residential. The public hearing was opened. George Hanna- spoke against the redesignation to high density, stating that he bought the property as a commercial piece of --- property and waned it to remain as such. Juan Estrada stated that he had owned lots for ten years in the area and it cannot be developed as commercial. He requested high density residential designation. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY NEWMAN. AREA 2. 15 WAS REDESIGNATED TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman NOES: Boyle ABSENT: Shea �. 16 SOUTH OF SAN DIEGO FREEWAY AND EAST OF SAN ANGELO DRIVE This is a •request by the Huntington Beach Planning Department to redesignate the area from planning reserve to high density resi- dential. Chairman Slates stated that this property is presently in litigation. For this reason he felt it should be continued. The public hearing was opened. There was no one preset : to speak on this area and the public hearing. was closed. -10- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes : H.L. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 11 ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY PARKINSON AREA 2. 16 WAS CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 16, 1976 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES : None ABSENT: Shea ON MOTION BY PARKINSON AND SECOND BY BOYLE' THE GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENT WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF 'NOVEMBER 16, 1976 TO PERMIT FURTHER REFINEMENT OF SECTIONS 4. 0 AND 5. 0 BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE. AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates , Newman, Boyle NOES : None ABSENT: Shea ON MOTION BY PARKINSON AND SECOND BY BOYLE NEGATIVE DECLARATION 76-78 WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES : None ABSENT: Shea ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY PARKINSON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-2 WAS APPROVED AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES• None ABSENT: Shea, Finley ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY BOYLE THE STAFF WAS REQUESTED TO ALTER ENVIRONEMENTAL ASSESSMENT TO REFLECT PLANNING COMMISSION MODIFICATION OF THE AMENDMENT BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Gibson, Slates, Boyle NOES: None - -- - __ ABSENT: Finley, Newman, Shea ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY, PARKINSON RESOLUTION 1175, A RESOLUTION OF. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN 76-2, WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea, Newman -11- 9/8/77 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 76-18 Applicant: Walt Babcock This is a request for development of a racquetball club on the southeast corner of Warner Avenue and Sims Street. The Planning Commission at its meeting of July 27 , 1976 discussed the above referenced application. The staff recommended a con- tinuance on the matter so as to allow a readvertising of the legal notice, and to allow completion of research as to the legal status of the subject parcels. This has been completed and the parcels determined to be accurately plotted on the site plan. The public hearing was opened. R. Geroci , whose parents own property across the street from the proposed racquetball club; addressed the Commission and stated that he did not know this type of development would be allowed in R3 zone. He was advised by the Commission that it was a legal use for the property. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY PARKINSON .CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 76-18 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : FINDINGS: 1. The proposed plan substantially complies with the applicable ordinance code requirements. 2 . The proposed design and layout of the facilities will provide for a compatible land use with the adjacent residential properties. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan dated June 10, 1976 shall be the approved layout. 2 . Prior to the issuance of building permits, building elevations indicating colors and materials shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Department of Building and Community Development for review and approval. -12- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8,* 1976 Page 13 4. The hours of operation shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 10: 00 P.M. 5. The developer shall participate in the local drainage as.sessment district. 6. Warner Avenue and Sims Street shall be dedicated and improved as required by the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 7. A parcel map showing elimination of all interior property lines shall be recorded with the County Recorder' s Office prior to occupancy a of the use. 8. A six (6) foot high wall shall be installed on the southerly and easterly property lines. The design and materials of said wall shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department. 9. The developer shall participate in the Orange County Sanitation Annexation District No. 11 requirements and fees. AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 76-17 Applicant: T. J. Hennes, Gold Bar Stables In Conjunction With CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 76-08 Applicant: Ted Hennes, Gold Bar Stables Conditional Use Permit No. 76-17 is a request to permit the continuance of an existing commercial horse stable in an area located on the southwest corner of Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue. Conditional Exception No. 76-08 is a request to permit encroach- ments into the required front, exterior side, interior side, and rear yard setbacks. A vugraph was shown. John Cope addressed the Commission and stated that several modifications had to be made to the existing facilities. The public hearing was opened. Ted Hennes, applicant, addressed the Commission, and discussed ._ the hay stack removal. There was a discussion on meo;:ing parking requirements. -13- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8 , 1976 Page 14 The public hearing was closed. It was the conser)sus of the Commission that further work should be completed on the plans prior to consideration. ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY BOYLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 76-17 AND ,CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 76-08 WERE CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 21, 1976 BY-THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES : None ABSENT: Shea Commissioner Gibson stated that he would like to see what has been done on the other horse stables and requested that the staff `provide a report on this. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9468 Subdivider: Wonacott, Shah & Panchal In Conjunction With CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.. 76-23. Applicant: Wonacott, Shah & Panchal, Inc. Tentative Tract 9468 in conjunction with Conditional Use. Permit No. 76-23 , filed on July 21, 1976,. is a request to allow a 40-unit Planned Residential Development on a 3. 69+ acre parcel of land. Subject property is located at the southeast corner of Heil Avenue and Algonquin Street. Architectural renderings were displayed. Chairman Slates opened the public hearing 'on Conditional Use Permit No. 76-23 and solicited testimony on Tentative Tract 9468. Mr. Panchal addressed the Commission and expressed appreciation for the cooperation obtained from the Staff. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY SLATES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 76-23 WAS APPROVED -WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -14- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 15 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated September 1, 1976 shall be the approved .layout of the 40 unit condominium development. 2. All utilities shall be, installed underground. 3. All details and amenities of the development as shown on the site plans submitted for approval shall be constructed within this development, such as the recreational building, swimming pool, a jacuzzi, etc. , as well as those areas within the pedestrian and vehicular circulation to be constructed with stamped concrete to aesthetically improve the project. 4. The exterior elevations of all buildings proposed for construction within the project shall comply with the architectural design of the unit submitted in conjunction with the site plan and tentative map. 5. If the developer chooses to build with a modified sidewalk section pursuant to the most recent standards on file with the Department of Public Works, a landscaping maintenance agreement shall be entered into and approved by the City prior to the recordation of a final map. 6. The CC & R' s and association rules shall set forth provisions for the exclusive use of those open parking spaces immediately ad- jacent to the units intended to serve and as delineated upon the site plan received and dated September 1, 1976 and shall provide for common use of all other open parking spaces. 7. If the developer proposes to provide air conditioning, the insulation in the ceiling and exterior wall shall be a minimum of R-19 and R-11, respectively. If no air conditioning is to be provided, the insulation in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a minimum. of R-13 and R-7, respectively. 8. All building spoils such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus and unusable material shall be disposed of at an off site facility equipped to handle them. 9. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the lo- cation of clothes dryers. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the location of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 10. The structures on subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards as set forth for all units that lie within the 60 CNEL contour of subject property. -15- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 16 11. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the surface acce.11eration for earth movement for subject property. 12. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. 13. All structures proposed for construction within this subdivision shall be constructed in compliance with the .g factor calculations and chemical and physical soils analysis. 14 . Community antenna facilities shall be installed by developer in compliance with specifications as set forth in Resolution No. 4281 adopted- by the City Council July 19, 1976. AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY PARKINSON TENTATIVE TRACT 9468 WAS APPROVED WITH THE. FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: -- The .Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, along with its design and improve- ments, is consistent with general and specific plans for the area in that: 1. The proposed subdivision of this 3. 69+ acre parcel of land zoned R-2 .(which allows 15 units per gross acre) is proposed to be constructed having only 16. 8 units per gross acre. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation for this type of housing. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for Medium Density residential was placed on said property. 4. The lot size, depth, .frontage, street widths, and all other design and improvements features of the proposed subdivision are proposed -to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City, as well as in compliance with the State Map and supplementary City Sub- division Ordinance. -16- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 17 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: ._ 1. The Tentative Tract Map received and dated September 1,. 1976 shall be the approved layout. 2. The sewer, water, and fire hydrant system shall be subject to City standards. 3. The water system shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's water system. 4. The sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach' s sewage system. 5. The property shall be subject to local drainage assessment requirements and fees. 6. Drainage for the subdivision shall be approved by the Department of Public or prior to the recordation of a final map. This system shall be designed to provide for siltation erosion control both during and after construction of the project. 7. All required improvements shall, be constructed under the super- vision of and to the approval of the City Engineer. Costs for the inspection shall be paid by the subdivider. 3-1/3 percent of the amount of the improvement bond shall be posted with the City Engineer for construction costs. 8. A 45 inch RCP storm line and catch basin shall be constructed at the intersection of Heil Avenue and Algonquin Street. 9. Vehicular access rights to Heil Avenue shall be dedicated to the 'City of Huntington Beach except at street intersections. Vehicular access rights to Algonquin Street shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach except at the two driveways as shown upon the plan received and dated September 1, 1976. 10. The off-site improvement of Sells Circle, Heil Avenue, and Algonquin Street shall be dedicated and improved to City stand- ards and specifications on file with the Department of Public Works. '11. Developer shall participate in the Orange County Sanitation Annexation District 11 requirements and fees. AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea -17- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 18 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9481 Applicant: L. D. .Zehnder Engineer: Emerald Engineering Tentative Map No. 9481 filed on August 3, 1976 is a request to subdivide approximately a 1. 9 acre of land into a 6 lot medium density subdivision. Subject property is located at the southeast corner of Delaware Street and Yorktown Avenue. There was a discussion on the conditions of approval. A vugraph was shown. ` The applicant, L. D. Zehnder, presented plans for viewing by Commission. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND. BY GIBSON NEGATIVE DECLARATION 76-70 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY PARKINSON TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9481 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF. APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : FINDINGS: The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, along with its design and improve- ments, is consistent with general and specific plans for the area in that: 1. The proposed subdivision of this 1. 9+ acre parcel of land zoned R-2 (which allows 15 units per gross acre) is proposed to be constructed having only 12.1 units per gross acre. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation for this type of housing. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of 'land use at the time the land use designation for Medium Density residential was placed on said property. Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 19 4. The lot size, depth, frontage, street widths, and all other design and improvements features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specification on file with the City, as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplementary City Subdivision Ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The tentative map received and dated August 27, 1976 shall be the approved layout. 2 . The sewer, water, and fire hydrant system shall be designed to City standards. 3. The water system shall be through the City of Huntington Beach' s water system. 4. The sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach' s sewage system. 5. The property shall be subject to local drainage assessment district requirements and fees. 6. Drainage for the subdivision shall be approved by the Department of Public Wortis prior to the recordation of a final map. This system shall be designed to provide for siltation and erosion control bcth during and after construction of the project. 7. The developer shall participate in the Orange County Sanitation District #3 sewer annex district. 8. Vehicular access rights along Delaware Street and Yorktown Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach, 9. All utilities shall be installed underground. 10. A decorative masonry wall shall be constructed to City specification: along Lot 1., which sides onto Delaware Street. Said wall shall be six inches wide and six feet high. The height of said wall shall be measured. from whichever side is higher at finished grade. The architectural design of said wall shall be approved by the Planning Department. The structural design shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and shall be included as part of the street improvement plans. 11. A landscape planter shall be provided at the intersections of Delaware Street and Yorktown Avenue and at the end of section of England Street and Yorktown Avenue. Such planter shall conform to the plans and specifications on file in the Department of Public Works and to the requirement of the Plann�..g Commission. It is the developer' s responsibility to landscape such planters and provide irrigation facilities in conformance with the Depart- ment of Public Works specifications and requirements. -19- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 20 12 . A fire alarm system conduit and appurtenances shall be installed by the developer at locations and specifications provided by the Fire Department. 13. The exterior elevations on buildings to be constructed on Lots 1 and 4 .shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department. The intent of this requirement is to improve the street scene by having the developer provide architectural features and variations of building materials on exterior faces of buildings that are viewed from an arterial highway. 14. If the developer proposes to provide air conditioning, the insulation in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a minimum of R-19 and R-11, respectively. If no air conditioning is to be provided, the insulation in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a minimum of R-13 and R-7 , respectively. 15. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus and unusable material shall be deposited in an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 16. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at locations of clothes dryers. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at locations of surface units, cooking facilities, water heaters and central heating units. 17. The structures on subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the state acoustical standards set forth .for all units that lie within the 60 CNEL contour of the property. 18, Community antenna facilities .shall be installed by developer in compliance with specifications as set forth in Resolution 4281, adopted by the City Council July 9, 1976. AYES : Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea TENTATIVE PARCEL. MAP NO. 76-31 'Applicant: Rodney B. Lauter In Conjunction With CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 76-07 Applicant: Rodney B. Lauter Tentative Parcel Map -No. 76-31 in conjunction with Cond*itional Exception 76-07, filed on July 30, 1976, is a request t - allow — a 110 ft. parcel to be subdivided into two parcels having 55 ft. frontage in lieu of the 60 ft. as required by the Ordinance Code. -20- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 21 Subject property is located on the west side of Delaware Street, ._ approximately 170 ft. north of Yorktown Ave. Jim Palin stated that he had nothing to add to the suggested conditions of approval contained in the staff report. The public hearing was opened on both applications. Rodney Lauter addressed the Commission and stated that he was prepared to answer any questions. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY PARKINSON AND SECOND BY FINLEY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 76-07 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1. The size, shape, and location of the property is such that the existing surrounding use to the north, .west, and south make the property impossible to develop in - any other configuration than what has been requested by this conditional exception as it is currently impossible to provide street access Along the south or west property lines of subject property. 2,. This request will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the community as the development proposed upon this 55 ft. parcel is proposed at a less intensity than all surrounding uses and there are more. than 15 parcels within 600 f't. having less frontage than what is being proposed by this request." AYES : Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, aoyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea ON MOTION BY PARKINSON AND SECOND BY BOYLE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 76-31 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby find that the proposed subdivision along with its design improvements is consistent with General and Specific Plans in the area in that: a. The proposed subdivision �,-f this 1. 39+ acre parcel of land. zoned R-2, which allows 15 units per gross acre, is proposed �— to be constructed having only 8.5 units per grog acre. -21- 9/8/76 - PC' Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8 , 1976 Page 22 b. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of -- land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of housing. c. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for medium density residential was placed on subject property.. d. The lot size, depths, street widths and all other design im- provement features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and speci- fications on file with the City as well as in compliance with State Map Act and supplementary City subdivision ordinances. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Tentative Parcel Map received and dated July 30, 1976 shall be the approved layout. 2. A .parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the County Recorder. 3. Delaware Street .hall be dedicated to City standards at the time the parcels ara developed. 4. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's water system at the time said parcels are developed. 5. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach' s sewage system at the time said parcels are developed. 6 . All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said parcels are developed. 7 . Compliance with all applicable City Ordinances. 8. The property shall participate in the local drainage as district at the time said parcels are developed. 9. A copy .of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Planning Department. 10. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach on Delaware except at the location of the private drive to serve both parcels as shown upon the parcel map received and dated July 30, 1976. 11. Reciprocal drive easements shall be provided across the southerly portion of the northerly lot and across the northerly portion of the southerly lot to provide vehicular ingress and egress for both parcels over the common drive. -22- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 23f 1976 AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES : None -- ABSENT: Shea TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 76-36 Applicant: Robert J. Eadie In Conjunction With CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 76-09 Applicant: Robert J. Eadie Tentative Parcel Map No. 76-36 is a request to permit a two lot division of land located on the southwest corner of Huntington Avenue at Springfield Avenue.: Conditional Exception No. 76-09 is a request for reduction of 2. 5' on corner lot which requires 65' total width in lieu of Section 9162. 2 John Cope stated that he had no information to add to that con- tained in the staff: report. The public -hearing was opened. There was no one present to speak on these applications and the public hearing was closed. Commission di:;cussion ensued. ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY FINLEY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 76-79 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY NEWMAN CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 76-09 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS ?3Y THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 76-09 - FINDINGS: 1. The reduction in lot width of 2. 5 feet and in the lot area of 20 square feet is not significant and will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. This conclusion is based on the fact that the usual lot width for similar developments is 54 feet. 2. The exception will allow the property owner the use of a portion of his property for the same purpose as the other properties which are not encumbered by resource production. AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea -23- 9/8/76 - PC • ' Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 24 ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY NEWMAN TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 76-36 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 76-36 - FINDINGS: 1. The proposed division of land is consistent with the adopted General Plan Land Use Element objectives and the existing z•,)ning adopted by the City. 2. The' subject site and existing structures are suitable for the site of the proposed division of land. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 76-36 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO USE OR OCCUPANCY OF SAID PARCELS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1. The tentative parcel map received by the Planning Department on August 24, 1976 shall be the approved layout. 2. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by, the Department of Public Works, and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3. Huntington 'Street and Springfield Avenue shall be dedicated to City standards at the time 'said parcels are developed. 4 . Water suppil, shall be through the City of Huntington Beach' s water system at the time said parcels are developed. 5. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach' s sewage system at the time said parcels are developed. 6. The property shall participate in the local drainage assessment district at the time said parcels are developed. 7. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Planning Department. 8. Huntington Street and Springfield Avenue shall be fully. improved as required by the Department of Public Works prior to the occupancy or use of Parcel No. 1 for any purpose. 9. A six (6) foot high solid fence shall be provided on the property line separating the two parcels prior to the occupancy or use of Parcel No. 1 for any purpose. AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea -24- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 25 PRECISE PLAN' OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 76-5 This is a request to precisely plan a sixty (60) ft. local street commencing from Nashville Avenue and continuing northerly to Oswego Avenue and to precise plan two alleys commencing from Nashville Avenue and continuing northerly to Oswego.Avenue. One such alley will be located approximately 125 ft. east of Huntington St. and the other will be located approximately 125 ft. west of Delaware Street. The proposed precise plan will provide for a local north/south street to be .between Nashville Ave. and Oswego Ave. The street will be a 56 ft. rightway located approximately 294 ft. east of the centerline of Huntington Street. In addition, the proposal will precise plan two north/south alleys, 20 ft. in width,, and also located between Nashville and Oswego Streets approximately 153 ft. east of the center- line of Huntington Street and approximately 166 ft. west of the center- line of Delaware Street. The public hearing was opened. There was no one present to speak on this Precise Plan of Street Alignment, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY PARKINSON AND SECOND BY BOYLE PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 76-5 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES : None ABSENT: Shea ON MOTION BY' BOYLE AND SECOND BY PARKINSON RESOLUTION NO. ,1177 ; A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 76-5 TO PROVIDE FOR A NORTH/SOUTH 56 FOOT LOCAL STREET AND TWO TWENTY FOOT ALLEYS LOCATED BETWEEN NASHVILLE AVENUE AND OSWEGO AVENUE,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES : None ABSENT: Shea PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 76-7 - DOLORES STREET CUL-DE'-SAC Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 76-7 is a proposal to cul-de-sac the north end -of Dolores Street approximately 610 feet north of Pearce Street. I ._. Dolores Street is a local street located just east of' Algonquin Street between Heil and Warner Avenues. -25- 9/R/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 26 It is intended that this proposed street alignment will provide a more - efficient and safe circulation system within the immediate area. The public hearing was opened. There was no one present to speak on this Precise Plan of Street Alignment. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY FINLEY PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 76-7 WAS APPROVED BY THE- FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY PARKINSON RESOLUTION NO. 1176, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 76-7 TO PROVIDE CUL-DE-SAC ON DOLORES STREET 610 FEET NORTH OF PEARCE STREET, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea -- MISCELLANEOUS LETTER FROM COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DATED AUGUST 24, 1976 CONCERNING ARTERIAL BIKEWAY ROUTE 17B John Cope stated that the intent of this letter is to request the Commission to determine the proposed project's conformity with the General Plan. ON MOTION BY PARKINSON AND SECOND BY FINLEY RESOLUTION NO. 1179 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING THE PROPOSED PACIFIC COAST OFFROAD BIKEWAY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON SHIPLEY STREET John Cope discussed a proposed residential development on Shipley Street that .will incorporate the previously discussed cul-de-sacing of Shipley and thereby necessitate some additional dedications and vacations of rights-of-way. -- Chairman Slates stated that he would have to abstain on this item . and turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Gibson. -26- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.H. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 27 ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY PARKINSON .THE COMMISSION CONCURRED THAT SAID VACATIONS AND DEDICATIONS ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea ABSTAIN: Slates REPORT ON THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Monica Florian addressed the Commission and stated that the Commission had before it (1) Draft of Planning Commission Report on the Redevelopment Plan, (2) Draft of proposed Section 11. 0 for possible inclusion in the Redevelopment Plan, and (3) Resolution No. 1178 finding the Redevelopment Plan in conformance with the General Plan and recommending for adoption. The Commission suggested some revisions to the transmittal. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOYLE AND SECONDED BY PARKINSON TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT AS CORRECTED AND APPROVE THE SECTION 11. 0 AS PRESENTED, AND AUTHORIZE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO SUBMIT THOSE ITEMS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY GIBBS RESOLUTION 1178 FINDING THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN PROJECT AREA IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND RECOMMENDING THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ADOPTION BY THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY .WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES: None. ABSENT: Shea There was a discussion on permitting a single family home in con- junction with a temporary horse stable in the RA District. ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY PARKINSON STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO INITIATE A CODE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THE ALLOWANCE OF A PERMANENT SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN CONJUNCTION WITH A TEMPORARY STABLE AND REQUEST AN OPINION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON BOTH QUESTIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman- Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Shea -27- 9/8/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Wednesday, September 8, 1976 Page 28 STAFF' S COMMENTS Acting Secretary Selich discussed the action of City Council at its September 7, 1976 meeting. ADJOURNMENT: ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY PARKINSON THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11:10 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Newman, Boyle NOES : None ABSENT: Shea Edward D. Selich Ro er Slates Acting Secretary Chairman i .Affidavit of P°ilklication State of California County of Orange ss City of Huntington Beach 'Published Huntington Beach News, Nov. George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a 4' 1976. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. GENERAL PUN AMENDMENT 76-2 That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach I AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 76-76 News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub- lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said lic hearinf. WWI be held by the City County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination Council of of Huntington Beach, In the Council l Chamber of the Civic of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide Center, Hunting" Beach, dt the hour subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been of 7:00 P.M., or as' soon thereafter as established, printed and published in the State of California, and oossfbie, on 'Monday, the 15th day of County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication Novemtter,1976,for'the purpose of recon- 6-2 of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not and elvGenerel plea Amendment 7in- ,and Negative Declaration- 76-7$, �as in- devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any itiated 'by the Planning Commission. particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or Sixteen areas of the City are Involved: any number thereof. 1. SoiAh of Main Street and east of The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper Florida street 2•,Iltorxvie�at, corner of .Warner Avenue of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court and""lieach"'Hoiildvard of Orange County, California. August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. 3 *rth of Clay -Awn* and east of Gulaonwest Street 4. Noah df Taylor Street and west of That the GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-2 AND Beach'6ou1'ev*d . 5. North of.'I:albert Avenue and west of NEGATIVE DECLARATION 76-78 Beach Boulevard6. North of S1Met`'Avenue and west of of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- Gothard Street P 7. Gothard Street. ,south Of Heil Avenue 8. South of.Edinger Avenue and west of Gothard Street Il paper at least one i s a ue 9. North of Garfield Avenue and east ot Beach Boulevard a 10. North of'Adams•Avenue and east of commencing from the 4th day of November Beach Boulevard ' 11. North of litica'Avenue and west of Lake Street 1976 and ending on the �_ day of November i2. East m tonBro Avenukhurste. Street and north of Hamilton Avenue. . 13. Bolsa Chico Street south of Warner Avenue 19'Lf_, both days inclusive, and as often during said period and 14. East o01811•'street and south of War- times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the ner Avenue regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a 15' South ach Aldrich. ule hard sue and west supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following 116. South of the San Diego Freeway and, dates, to-wit: east of San Angelo Drive All Interested persons are invited to Nov. 4 1976 attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said proposed. General Plan Amendment 76-2 and Nege- Declaration 76-78. further information may be obtained �•, J from the Office of the City Clerk. DATED: November 1, 1976. CITY OF HUNTINGTOK.09ACH Publisher By Alicia M. Wentworth' I City Clark yR>' Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of sjNovember 197tL--. Notary Public Orange County, California -----------------------------ry - THOMAS D. WYLLIE ; i Notary Pu41ie-California It i Orange County I i My Commission Expires I September 12, 1978 1 -------------- ----------t 40 of Huntington Beaolr , County of Orange State of California J ffidavit ofPublication of GEORGE FARQUHAR Publisher Huntington Beach News Filed Clerk By Deputy Clerk �/1�176 4 h+ubli 11/4/76 tG Postcards -0- WrICE OF MILIC 119W lG GENERAL PLAN AN$ODMENT 76-2 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 76-78 NOTICE IS HERESY GIVER that a public hearing will be held by the . City Council of the City of Vantington breach, in .the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Nontington Beach, at the hour of 7:0._.r 0.._._ P.M. . or as soon thereafter as possible, on „onaay, the Beth day of November , 196 , for the purpose of reconsidering General Plan Amendment 76-2 and Negative Declaration 76-78, as initiated by the Planning Commission. Sixteen areas of the City are involved; 1. South of Main street and east at r4ort" $tageet 2. Northwest corner of Burner and $each Boulevard 3. North of Clay Avenue and east of Coldenwest Street 4. North of Taylor Street 4" west of leach Boulevard 5. North of Talbert Avenue MA west Of $each Boulevard 6. North of Slater Avenue and Mist of Gothard Street 7. Gothard Street, south of Mail Aftnue a3. south of Edinger Avenue aaA most of Cothard Street 9. North of Garfield Avenue and east of leach Boulevard 10. North of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard 11. North of Utica Avenue and wrest of lake Street 12. East of Brookhurst Street and north of Hamilton Avenue 13. Bolsa Chica Street south of Warner Avenue 14. East of W street and south of Warner Avenue 15. South of Aldrich Avenue " west of M*&oe Boulevard 16. South of the San Diego Freeway aid east of San Angelo Drive All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said &=sod General P14n Amendment 76-2 and Nigativ--Mclaration 76-78. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. A?1EA' November 1y"'1$76 CITY OF. IIIG'i+OS' SOH By: iaTe�art rth tficial ty Gerk ggl76 blish Postcards -0- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-2 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 76-78 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the , City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, 'in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on the 10k day of , 19 76 , for the purpose of ee considering General Plan Amendment 76-2 and Negative Declaration 76-78, as initiated by the Planning Commission. Sixteen areas of the City are involved: 1. South of Main Street and east of Florida Street 2, Northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard 3. North of Clay Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street 4. North of Taylor Street and west of Beach Boulevard 5. North of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard 6. North of Slater Avenue and west of Gothard Street 7. Gothard Street, south of Heil Avenue 8. South of Edinger Avenue and west of Gothard Street 9. North of Garfield Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard 10. North of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard 11. North of Utica Avenue and west of Lake Street 12. East of Brookhurst Street and north of Hamilton Avenue 13. Bolsa Chica Street south of Warner Avenue . 14. East of "B" Street and south of Warner Avenue 15. South of Aldrich Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard 16. South of the San Diego Freeway and east of San Angelo Drive All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Proposed General Plan Amendment 76-2 and Negative Declaration 76-78. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. Ne. ,, 1 I I476 DATED: CITY OF- HUNTINGTON BEACH BY: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk al ,►1�s ` Development Corp. October 20, 1976 City Council RE: Our file #305 City of Huntington -Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Subject: General Plan Amendment 76-2. Dear Honorable City Council: On October 5th, you considered General Plan Amendment 76-2. The majority of the properties contained in this amendment were approved and adopted as General Plan Amendment 76-2. Some of the properties were referred back to the Planning Commission for various reasons. One of the properties which we own is located J ust westerly of Beach Boulevard, northerly of Warner and southerly of the flood control channel. We understand that the reason for the referral back to the Planning Commission was procedural, inasmuch as the designation of high density zoning, as presented to you, did not meet with your approval and you wanted medium density zoning which our company was willing to accept. After discussing our situation with some of the members of the council, it is the consensus that the council did not intend to defer the action on our property to General Plan 76-3 which will appear before you on December 20th. After discussing our situation with the-.City Attorney's office, their recommended procedure would be for the City Council, at their meeting for October 26th, to move to reconsider the entire General Plan Amendment 76-2 and to instruct the Planning Commission to prepare their report regarding the recommended density for our property. The Planning Commission would, then, prepare their report at their November 2nd meeting. The City Council would, then, be able to consider the i General Plan Amendment 76-2 for adoption and passage at the November 15th meeting. This procedure would admittedly cause the amendment, as it now stands, to be delayed approximately three weeks. In our discussions with the Planning staff, it is their opinion that this will not cause any undue hardship on any of the other properties, inasmuch as there have been no development plans submitted and they are presently working on the zone change package anyway. We respectfully request the Council's consideration in this matter, in order to save our company approximately ten weeks' processing time under General Plan Amendment 76-3. / 305 17th Street. Huntington Beach , California 92B4B Lic. 291022 M City Council City of Huntington Beach Page 2 October 20, 1976 Respectfully submitted, FOXX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Cames L. Foxx 'dent JLF:nel " V CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To William S . Amsbary From John O' Connor Assistant City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Subject General Plan Amendment 76-2 Date October 21, 1976 Procedure is a motion for reconsideration of General Plan Amendment 76-2 , must be made by council person who voted in favor of the amendment - matter would then be set for public hearing on November 15 before City Council - Council would then act on the general plan including Foxx property. . (V, (�F JOC :bc i I • ��.3 vim.v e4 TAM O DA TIME P �O odef, Yt0 Q PM HFROM - ARE ODE—TELEPHONENO.—OROPER. o M or N OF EXTENSION M U � E W O E H O � N W - E � • O Phoned Call Returned ❑ Wants To ❑ Will Call See a Back Call See You Again In Operator p TO DATE TIME AM PM HFROM AREA CODE—TEL NE NO. ROPER. V$7 O M or N OF �O • U E - O W Z E Q W u E3 r j SIGNED O[Phoned CallEiK Returned ❑ Wants To Wi a ❑ Was See ❑ a Back Call See You Again In Operator r[ Deyelopment Corp. i October 20, 1976 I City Council RE: Our file ##305 City of Huntington .Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Subject: General Plan Amendment 76-2. i Dear Honorable City Council: I On October 5th, you considered General Plan Amendment 76-2. The majority of the properties contained in this amendment were approved and adopted as General Plan Amendment 76-2. Some of the properties were referred back to the Planning Il Commission for various reasons. .f�l One of the properties which we own is located -just westerly of Beach Boulevard, I northerly of Warner and southerly of the flood control channel. We understand that the reason for the referral back to the Planning Commission was procedural, inasmuch as the designation of high density zoning, as presented to you, did not meet with your approval and you wanted medium density zoning which our company was willing to accept. After discussing our situation with some of the members of the council, it is the consensus that the council did not intend to defer the action on our property to General.Plan 76-3 which will appear before you on December 20th. After discussing our situation with the. City Attorney's office, their recommended procedure would be for the City Council, at their meeting for October 26th, to move to reconsider the entire General Plan Amendment 76-2 and to instruct the Planning Commission to prepare their report regarding the recommended density for i our property. The Planning Commission would, then, prepare their report at their November 2nd meeting. The City Council would, then, be able to consider the i General Plan Amendment 76-2 for adoption and passage at the November 15th meeting. This procedure would admittedly cause the amendment, as it now stands, i to be delayed approximately three weeks. In our discussions with the Planning staff, it is their opinion that this will not cause any undue hardship on any of the other properties, inasmuch as there have been no development plans submitted and they are presently working on the zone change package anyway. We respectfully request the Council's consideration in this matter, in order to save our company approximately ten weeks' processing time under General Plan ! Amendment 76-3. i 305 17th Street. Huntington Beach , California 9264B Lic. 291O22 ►� 'WHITE-CITY ATTORNEY BLUE-CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH No. • GREEN-CITY ADMINISTRATOR CANARY -DEPARTMENTAL „v�n.c�mnan REQUEST for or RESOLUTION Date Request made by Department • ll/l/76 Tom Moseley Planning INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation Of ordinance. In a separate paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an O=e`fi&or Resolution is hereby requested: Please prepare a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan by Adopting General Plan Amendmnt No. 76-2 • Desired effective:date Signed: Approved as to availability of funds 11/'15/76 Director of Finance City Attorney— Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by: ity Administrator Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator DATE: November 3 , 1976 RE: REPORT ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-2 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AT THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2 , 1976 : 1. ON MOTION BY GIBSON AND SECOND BY BOYLE A RECOMMENDATION OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR AREA OF CONCERN 2. 2 OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-2 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Gibson, Boyle, Shea NOES None ABSENT: Finley, Newman ABSTAIN: Slates PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt: General Plan Amendment 76-2 as amended to reflect a Medium Density Residential designation in Area of Concern 2 . 2 . SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The City Council at its October 26, 1976 meeting determined to reconsider General Plan Amendment 76-2. Although technically the entire amendment is being reconsidered only that portion designated as Area of Concern 2 . 2 was referred back to the Planning Commission for report. The Planning Commission has reconsidered its original high density residential recommendation and now recommends medium density residential. The appropriate action for the City Council is to act on the recommendation for Area of Concern 2 . 2 by readopting General Plan Amendment 76-2 as amended. No individual consider- ation is necessary for the other areas of concern. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 76-78 was approved by the City Council October 4 , 1976. The environmental assessment used to determine that a negative declaration should be approved for General Plan Amendment 76-2 will be amended to reflect the lower environmental impacts of a Medium Density Residential use as opposed to the original recommendation of a High Density Residential use. SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1. Staff Report to the Planning Commission. 2. 0 ober 0 76 Foxx Development Corporation letter. Re tf u ted, r elich Acting Secretary EDS:TM:gc .a huntington planning department staff report TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: November 2 , 1976 RE: RECONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-2 The City Council at its October 26, 1976 meeting was addressed by a representative of the Foxx Development Corporation requesting' reconsideration of its amendment request from high density residentialto medium density residential. The City Council concurred and determined to reconsider General Plan Amendment 76-2 at a public " hearing on November 15, 1976. Specifically, the Council has requested additional consideration of the Planning Commission' s high density residential . recommendation for Area of Concern 2 . 2 located west of Beach Boulevard and north of Warner Avenue. Attached is the background material, analysis and recommendation prepared by staff for the subject property and a letter addressed to the City Council from Foxx Development Corporation. Negative Declaration 76-78 for the amendment was adopted by the City Council October 4 , 1976, therefore, no further action on the environmental document is necessary. SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve a medium density residential designation for Area of Concern ;; ; 2 . 2 and forward the Planning Commission' s recommendation to the City Council. TM:gc West of Beach Boulevard and North of Warner Avenue Background The area of concern encompasses 8 . 84 acres .Located at the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue (map attached) . Of this , approximately 3 . 82 gross acres are .retail commercial . The property is presently sub- divided into small lots (25' x AM ) . The property is vacant except .for an older single family home that fronts on Warner Avenue . The existing land uses to the north , across the Orange County Flood Control Channel, consist of retail commercial (CM and high density residential (R3) . Land use to the west is high density residential . To the south is retail commercial that fronts on Warner Avenue. The property directly across Warner Avenue to the south is designated .retail com- mercial but is used as a Little League baseball. field . The property to the cast, designated retail commercial (C4) , is presently vacant except .for some commercial_ development- at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. The Planning Department has received requests to change the designated land use on the subject property from retail commercial and office professional to high density residential . Analysis The subject property is located at the intersection of two of the busiest arterial streets :in .the City, thus it - is an ideal location for commercial uses . :several specific .problems , however, reduce the desirability of the parcel for commercial development. The major_ diffi- culty arises from a lack of access to the property from Beach Boulevard, due to the existing commercial uses lining the highway . The development of a proposed office- commercial building adjacent to the area of concern would completely block access to Beach Boulevard all but eliminating market interest in the parcel as a commercial site. The eastern , po.rti_on of the area of concern could conceivably support .a commercial use by itself, but the type of use would be less than optimal given the prime location. J."urLhe.rmoic , such (.1evelopment-- evould make 1--fic remainder of the area of concern oven less clevelopable. Because of the problems of piecemeal development, the City Council has identified the area as a proposed re- development area wliich, if a.dopL(:-.d , would ass]*-f.-,t in consolidating the encyclopedia lots to allow comprehensive development. Despite the unsuitability of the area of concern for commercial development, the surrounding neighborhood supports an estimated 9 , 600, persons who are not currently serviced by a neighborhood shopping center. Although some 27 acres of commercially-designa Led land exists around the intersection of Beach Bou'l-evard and Warner Avenue, the majority of this land has already been developed into highway-orientcd. uses , or scattered residential and vacant small lots . The 9 . 5 acre site .it the southwest corner of the intersection is presently used as the Ocean View School District Office and ]_,tittle League baseball fields . The District has considered moving g its office to another location which could make the property )roperty available for development under its present commercial designation. If developed, this siLe would adequately serve the surrounding neighborhood, eliminating the need for commercial acreage in the area .of concern. Although -the property would support high density uses , as the owner has requested, medium density is also feasible given surrounding uses and the odd shape of the parcel. Development under medium density standards would produce a maximum of 133 units and an estimated 313 additional persons . The Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report (Huntington Beach Planning Department, August 1976) identifies the quarter section in which the subject property is located as being deficient in neighborhood park land by 4 . 5 acres . The rodesignaLion of the property from retail commercial and office-professional. to medium density residential would inLerisify the nood for neighborhood park land in this location . E,n c o ura g e- rile-i-it of a planned development would help mitigate the open space deficiency. Development )inent of the F;Ludy area as medium density resi- dential would result in approximately 43 children of elementary -school age and 16 children of high school age. The elementary school population would be serviced by ..... .... .. ... .. .... ... .... .... . ..... .... Oat: View l lemen Lary School , south of: Wa ner. Avenue and west- of Leach Boulevard; and Starv:i_ew Elementary School, north of Heil Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard. The high school students would be served by the new Ocean View High School . The Huntington Peach Union high School District plans to begin handling only ninth grade shudents the first- year and then adding a grade each succeeding year. Recommendation This Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element recommends that the area of concern be redesignated from retail commercial and office professional to medium density residential . AOL Al HAMIMA DR A]-If A HDRA ELF-PTE1 F U) HEIL TTRHINE TIM ft DANUDE Ui2 ........ (X U LLI SEINE co J E T Aj L c"Hyst.Ell DR DON COMMERCIAL D _E, (r 10 <p INS I TY RHINE 0. \,-RLIALL-J TER11( �)R ^� t;, COMMERCIAL H I G H B E N S I T :Y l,J O. C F C 0 _T HIGH Il-, 1 � �If ► Fil 5 111?IG TONAVE .111.I l.t,l:l-..�.�:: I - {'4 DENSITY I F::. :::::..;.�: . 0 r I A�� .N. .1J �r . WARNER AVE RETAIL C0111"IERC I AL EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD & NORTH OF WARNER AVENUE Page #10 - Council Minutes•0/76 On motion by Shenkman, second Pattinson, Council deferred any action until a meeting could be held with the Recreation and Parks Commission, said meeting not to be held until the question concerning the Master Concessionaire is resolved. Motion carried. Mayor Pro Tempore Pattinson took the chair in Mayor Wieder's absence, at 9: 15 P.M. CLARIFICATION RE: MEADOWLARK AIRPORT HEARING - 11/1/76 Mr. Thomas Livengood stated that in requesting a hearing of the Meadowlark Airport at the last Council meeting, he spoke for Home Council regarding violations and requested the hearing to consider all areas. PLANNING COMMISSION FIELD TRIP The City Clerk presented a communication from the Planning Commission inviting the Council on a field trip set for October 30, 1976 to tour the City. DPW APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY The City Clerk presented a Communication from the Director of Public Works stating that applications to the Economic Development Agency for local Public Works capital had been sent to the Seattle office, and recommended that an official representative of the City be designated. On motion by Pattinson, second Gibbs, Council named H. E. Hartge, Director of Public Works, to be the responsible person to represent the City with regard to the applications to the Economic Development Agency. Motion carried. DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS GUILD - BICENTENNIAL CELEBRATION DOWNTOWN ACTIVITIES - DEFERRED 1 The City Clerk presented a communication from the Downtown Merchants Guild regarding their request for refund of fees paid in connection with the Bicentennial Celebration Downtown Activities. On motion by Gibbs, second Pattinson, Council denied the request for refund of fees paid the City. Motion failed by the following tie roll call vote: AYES: Pattinson, Gibbs NOES: Shenkman, Bartlett ABSENT: Coen, Wieder ABSTAIN: Siebert Th tter was continued to next meeting. OMMUNICATION - FOXX DEVELOPMENT CORP. - GPA 76-2 The City Clerk presented a communication from Foxx Development Corporation requesting Council's reconsideration of their action on General Plan Amendment 76-2 as it relates to their property located westerly of Beach Boulevard, northerly of Warner Avenue and southerly of the flood control channel. { The Acting Planning Director presented a resume' on the matter. _ A motion was made by Shenkman, second Bartlett, to reconsider GPA 76-2 and set for Public hearing on November 15, 1976. Motion carried. Page #6 - Council Minutes 1t%/76 Assistant Planning Director, James Palin, presented a resume' and slides of the Planning Commission's reasons for recommending approval of Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 76-5. Mayor Wieder declared the hearing open. There being no one present to speak on the matter and there being no protests filed. either written or oral, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. The Clerk was directed to give Ordinance No. 2118 a first reading by title - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 23 TO INCLUDE PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT N0. 76-7 TO CONVERT THE NORTH END OF DOLORES STREET TO A CUL-DE-SAC." On motion by Bartlett, second Coen, Council approved Precise Plan of Street Alignment 76-7 and waived further reading of Ordinance 2118 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Coen, Siebert, Shenkman, Wieder NOES: None ABSENT: Pattinson, Gibbs PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-2 - NEGATIVE DECLARATION 76-78 - RES. NO. 4334 ADOPTED Mayor Wieder announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing on General Plan Amendment 76-2 involving sixteen areas of the City, and Negative Declaration 76-78. Council took separate votes on each of the following areas involved. 1. South of Main Street and east of F1'orida Street. 2. Northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard. 3. North of Clay Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street. 4. North of Taylor Street and west of Beach Boulevard. 5. North of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard. 6. North of Slater Avenue and west of Gothard Street. 7. Gothard Street south of Heil Avenue. 8. South of Edinger Avenue and west of Gothard Street. 9. North of Garfield Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard. 10. North of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard. 11. North of Utica Avenue and west of Lake Street. 12. East of Brookhurst Street and north of Hamilton Avenue. 13. Bolsa Chica Street south of Warner Avenue. 14. East of "B" Street and south of Warner Avenue. 15. South of Aldrich Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard. 16. South of -the San Diego Freeway and east of San Angelo Drive. A70 Page #7 - Council Minute- 10/6/76' The City Clerk informed Council that all legal. requirements of publication and posting had been met and that she had received a communication from Mr. Jerome M. Bame, attorney, presenting zoning requests from the owners and developers of property located at the northeast corner of Hamilton Avenue and Brookhurst Street; and that she had received no communication or written protests to Negative Declaration 76-78. The Mayor declared the hearing open. 1. South of Main Street and east of Florida Street On motion by Bartlett, second Coen, Council sustained the recommendation of the Planning Department - No change. Motion carried. Z. Northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard - Referred to Staff Mr. Jim Foxx addressed Council, stating that R-3 'zoning would give him greater flexibility in the development of his property. Considerable discussion was held among Council members. On motion by Siebert, second Shenkman, Council denied the recommendation of the Planning Commission to redesignate this area to High Density Residential by the following roll call vote: AYES: Coen; Shenkman, Siebert NOES: Bartlett, Wieder ABSENT: Pattinson, Gibbs Further discussion was held, and on motion by Coen, second Shenkman, Council referred this item back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Motion carried. unanimously. 3. North of Clay Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street On motion by Shenkman, second Bartlett, Council approved the recommendation of the Planning Commission - to redesignate to Low Density Residential. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Coen, Shenkman, Wieder NOES: Siebert ABSENT: Pattinson, Gibbs 4. Idorth of Taylor. Street and west of Beach Boulevard On motion by Rn��-tlett, second Shenkman, Council approved the recommendation of the Planning Commission to redesignate this area to Low Density Residential. Motion carri,�:a. 5. North of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard On motion by Bartlett, second Siebert, Council sustained the recommendation of the Planning Commission - No change. To be included for consideration in General Plan Amendment 76-3.. 6. North of Slater Avenue and west of Gothard Street On motion by Siebert, second Shenkman, Council sustained the recommendation aif the Planning Commission to redesignate a portion of this area to Low Density Residential. Motion Carr:ed. 7. Gothard Street .south of Heil Avenue On motion by Siebert, second Coen,' Council sustained the recommendation of the 'Planning Commission - No change. To be included for consideration in General Plan Amendment 76-3. Motion carried. .A • � s PAge #8 - Council Minutes - 10076 8. South of Edinger Avenue and west of Gothard Street On motion by Siebert, second Bartlett, Council sustained the recommendation of the Planning Commission to redesignate a portion of this area to Commercial Retail. Motion carried. 9. North of Garfield Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard On motion by Shenkman, second Bartlett, Council sustained the recommendation of the Planning Commission to redesignate this area to Commercial Retail. Motion carried. 10. North of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard On motion by Bartlett, second Coen, Council sustained the recommendation of the Planning Commission. to redesignate this area to Open Space. Motion carried. Councilwoman Gibbs arrived at 8:20 P.M. 11. North of Utica Avenue and west of Lake Street On motion by Bartlett, second Shenkman, Council sustained the recommendation of the Planning Commission to redesignate this area to Medium Density Residential, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Coen, Siebert, Shenkman, Wieder NOES: None ABSENT: Pattinson ABSTAIN: Gibbs 12. East of Brookhurst Street and north of Hamilton Avenue Mr. Sharp addressed Council regarding Beverly Hills Federal Savings Co. involvement in this area. At the request of Councilman Shenkman, Mr. Sharp 'took the podium. Councilman Shenkman wished to clarify a statement made by Mr. Sharp on page no. 3 of his communication stating that the Beverly Hills Federal Savings Company decided to withdraw their application from the area east of Brookhurst Street and north of Hamilton Avenue due to the non-feasibility of commercial development. Councilman Shenkman as' a senior director of the Beverly Hills Federal Savings Company, stated that their application for a licenSe was denied as the Federal government did not feel that the area would be serviced by another federal savings company. He further stated that this area is a-commercially sound area. Mr. Sharp stated that their broker informed them that the site was not suitable for commercial development. Mr. Jerome M. Bame addressed Council with regard to his communication dated September 24, 1976 setting forth the request of the owners of this property that the land use designation be changed from retail commercial to medium density residential. On motion by Bartlett, second Shenkman, Council sustained the recommendation of the Planning Commission to redesignate this JreA to Medium Density Residential.. Motion carried by the-following roll call. vot@: AYES: Bartlett, Siebert; Shenkman, Wieder NOES: None ABSENT: Pattinson ABSTAIN: Coep, Gibbs Page #9 - Council Minutes - 10/6/76 13. (1) East of Bolsa Chica Street 6 South of Warner Avenue - Refer_red to Staff (2) West of Bolas Chica Street & South of Warner -,..Re errecT�to Staff On motion by Siebert, second Coen, Council referred this item back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Motion carried. 14. East of "B" Street. and south of Warner Avenue On motion by Bartlett, second Gibbs, Council sustained the recommendation of the Planning Commission to redesignate this area to .Medium Density Residential. Motion carried unanimously. 15. South of Aldrich Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard Mr. George Hanna, property owner, addressed Council requesting that this property be designated High Density or Commercial. Mr. M. P. Burns,' City resident, addressed Council and requested that this property be redesignated to High Density Residential. Mr. Juan Estrada, property owner, addressed Council requesting their concurrence with the Planning Commission's recommendation to redesignate this area to High Density Residential. On motion by Shenkman, second Siebert, Council sustained the recommendation of the Planning Commission to redesignate this y.roperty to High Density Residential. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Coen, Shenkman, Wieder NOES: Siebert, Gibbs ABSENT: Pattinson 16. South of the San Diego Freeway and east of San Angelo Drive On motion by Bartlett, second Shenkman, Council sustained the recommendation of the Planning Commission to consider this area in General Plan Amendment No. 76-3. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Coen, Siebert, Shenkman, Wieder NOES: Gibbs ABSENT: Pattinson There being no one further present to speak on the matter and there being no further .protests filed. Gtther written or oral, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. The Clerk was directed to give Resolution No. 4334 a reading by title - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE LA1ND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 76-2." On motion by Coen, second Bartlett, Council adopted Negative Declaration #76-78, approved General Ptb n Amendment 76-2, as amended, waived further reading and adopted Resolution No. 4334 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bartlett, Coen, Siebert, Shenkman, Wieder NOES: None ABSENT: pa=t in90A f A$STAIN; Gibbs y . �,3 d v RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 76-2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the Land Use Element of the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and General Plan Amendment No. 76-2 is necessary to meet the community needs; and A public hearing on adoption of said amendment was duly conducted before the Planning Commission and approved by a majority of the voting members of the Commission. Thereafter , the City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code Section 65355, held two public hearings to consider General Plan Amendment No . 76-2; and At said hearings before the City Council , all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to provisions of Title 7 , Chapter 3 , Article 6 of the California Government Code commencing with Section 65357 , that General Plan Amendment No . 76-2 is hereby approved and adopted and the Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of November, 1976 . ATTEST : Mayor City Clerk JOC : cs 1. � REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: C 4,gy A ministrator ow y, t n e y INITIATED AND APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: NO FISCAL IMPACT FISCAL IMPACTic FISCAL IWiP " _ -, REQUIRES FINANCIAL IMPACT RE°ORT 1 \� 2 . JEROME M. BAME ATTORNEY AT LAW TOWN 6 COUNTRY CENTER 1-8S62 BEACH BOULEVARD, SUITE 213 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92646 (714) 962-6611 c // September 24, 1976 4,� � - f To: CITY COUNCIL City of Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Re: Area of Concern 2. 12 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76-2 PART B: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS This .is written and presented on behalf of the owners and proposed developers of Area of Concern 2. 12 of the General Plan Amendment, Part B: Miscellaneous Items -- which property is located on the Northeast Corner of Hamilton Avenue and Brookhurst Street 'in the City of Huntington Beach. The subject property consists of approximately 9.90 gross acres and 8 . 794 net acres, and is presently vacant. OWNERS' REQUEST The owners of this property have requested that the City' s . General Plan land use designation be changed from retail commercial to medium density residential. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES The surrounding zoning and land uses are indicated graphically on the colored sectional map attached hereto and presented on the following page. r "nJACENT ZONING AND USES SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP CITY - OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA I 6 I- 1 RI Al RI � M RI RI RI RI p R I CF-E RI • RI 81 � � ' RI .......... ITMLe nr..ca.l : y' p, RA-0 /y Y k FM I1 /• RI RI R2 R21 T RI � .g ., R2 C4 VAT PJA RI RI RI R2sa IR1Rt — R2 L 1 RI RI � RI• RI / ��••... RI Al uw. � R3 R3 \ ll (�9R b e f RI RI RI .M c j RA-O � 1 i SUBJECT PROPERTY. R3 ZONE/USE. . . . . . . . . R1 ZONE/USE. . . . . . COMWERCIAL ZONE/USE. . R2 ZONE/USE. . . . . . September 24, 1976 Page Three As indicated on the foregoing map, the subject property is bordered: On the NORTH: By the Southern California Edison Company' s Hamilton Substation On the EAST: By the Santa Ana River On the SOUTH: By a Kentucky Colonel Fast Food Establishment and a Service Station On the WEST: By R2 (medium density residential) and an Alpha Beta Shopping Center and Satellite Stores and Service Station LAND CONFIGURATION The subject property is comprised of 250-300 "postage stamp lots" as small -as 10 x 10' . The owners of this property have spent the past 8 years clearing title to and purchasing sufficient lots within this subject property so as to assemble a marketable parcel. Accompanying this letter, within this packet, is a letter from Abco Equity Funds, Inc. , dated August 31, 1976, one of the two owners of the subject property, which presents a history of this property and the owners ' activities through the years in attempting to market the subject property as presently zoned. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Huntington Beach Planning Commission has recommended, by a vote of 6-0 (with one commissioner absent) , that the subject property be redesignated to R2, medium density residential. OWNERS' CONCURRENCE The owners of this property concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission that this property be redesignated to R2, medium density residential. ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING REDES_IGNATION FROM "COMMERCIAL" TO "RESIDENTIAL" ZONING I. NUMEROUS AND INTENSIVE MARKET ANALYSES HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO DEVELOP THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. September 24, .1976 Page Four A. The letter from Abco Equity Funds, Inc. , which follows, clearly indicates that' numerous reputable commercial developers seriously inquired about, made investigations into, and opened escrows to purchase the subject property as a commercial development ; however, in each instance, the interested buyers either failed or refused to proceed to purchase the sub- ject property. Each concluded that it was unfeasible to develop the subject .property as a commercial development. B. The demographics of the subject property do not lend themselves to a commercial development. The property is "odd shaped", in that it has somewhat of a triangular configura- tion. The property is entirely bordered on the east by the Santa Ana River, giving it only what has been termed a 180 degree commercial exposure. C. Presented to the Planning Department, in support of the owners ' position, was an Economic Survey and Report by - McConnell' s Economic Surveys of Costa Mesa, California. This report (consisting of S pages) and accompanying map/economic history/economic analysis/chart concluded: "It is .our strong recommendation that the development of the sub- ject area be confined solely to beach and residential housing because: (1) the area surveyed could not support an additional shopping center; and (2) the location of the property and its proximity to the beach Are ideal for such development. " McConnell' s Economic Survey and Report was supported by their "thirty-six years of experience with hundreds of shopping . centers throughout California and other states. " Approximately twelve (12) copies of McConnell ' s Economic Survey and Report were given to the Planning Staff and would be available for your review in the event you have not already . been provided with such. September 24, 1976 Page Five II. THE OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAVE SERIOUSLY . ATTEMPTED, BUT HAVE FAILED, TO MARKET THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ITS PRESENT COMMERCIAL ZONING TO A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER. A. As is clearly demonstrated in Abco Equity Fund, Inc. ' s .letter that follows, the owners of the subject property have expended substantial effort at a tremendous cost to accumulate sufficient lots within the parcel to market this property. However,. time and time again, their efforts to sell this property in its present commercial zoning have failed. B. As the old saying goes, "Experience is the best teacher". The owners' past experience, and failures, in their attempt to market this property is the best example that this ' property is not a viable site for commercial development. III. THE PLANNING STAFF RECOGNIZED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOULD BE REDESIGNATED FROM "COMMERCIAL" TO "RESIDENTIAL". A. In the Staff Report prepared by the Planning Department, Staff acknowledges that sufficient recreational areas exist within the area of the subject property to serve a medium density residential development. B. Staff' s Report further indicates that all levels of schooling (elementary, intermediate and high school) within a one mile or less radius of the subject property are sufficient to support the desired redesignation. C. Staff' s Report indicates that retail commercial land within the immediate area of the subject property is primarily developed and sufficient to support a residential redesignation of the subject property. D. Finally, the Staff recommends that this area of concern be redesignated from "Commercial" to "Residential" . ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING AN R2MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) REDESIGNATION I. THE SURROUNDING AND ADJACENT USES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE REQUESTED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL REDESIGNATION. September 24, 1976 Page Six A. As is graphically demonstrated on the foregoing sectional map, the surrounding and adjacent uses to the subject property are compatible with the desired medium density redesig- nation. B. Property to the immediate west is already zoned and developed medium density residential. Areas to the south are already zoned and developed high density residential. C. Medium density residential would be compatible with the already developed commercial uses to the immediate south and west. II: THE SERVICES PERFORMED, EXPENSES INCURRED AND HARD- SHIPS ENDURRED BY THE OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WARRANT A REASONABLE RETURN FOR THEIR EFFORTS. A. But for the efforts of the owners of the subject property., this property (consisting of 250-300 small-sized lots) would not now be in a condition and capable, once properly developed, of returning substantial tax revenues to the City and County. B. The owners of the subject property have expended substantial effort and spent tremendous sums in clearing title to and accumulating blighted lots of sub-standard size in. multiple ownership so as to produce a marketable parcel. These costs must necessarily be considered in determining the selling price for the subject property in a similar manner as a municipality con- siders such costs when considering property by the use of a redevelopment agency. C. The configuration and "odd shape" of the property makes medium density residential the most economical . III. THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE ULTIMATE CONTROL OVER A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. The Planning Commission and City Council will have ultimate and final approval over the open space/green areas of the subject property if developed as medium density residential. September 24, 1976 Page Seven CONCLUSION For the reasons hereinbefore mentioned, it is respectfully requested that Area of Concern 2 . 12 be redesignated to R2, medium density residential. Respectfully submitted, JEROME M. BAME JMB:cr Attachment ABCO EQUITY FUNDS, INC. 8929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD • SUITE 402 • BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211 Telephone (213) 652-5653 August 31, 1976.. Mr. Jerome M. Bame Attorney at Law Town & Country Center 18582 Beach Boulevard, Suite 213 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re : Rezoning 9.90 gross acres of land at NE Corner of . Brookhurst & Hamilton Streets, Huntington Beach, Calif. From 04 to Medium Density Residential (General Plan Amendment 76-2, Part B: Area of Concern 2,12) Dear Mr. Bame This letter, and the information supplied herein, is submitted to you in your endeavor to secure a rezoning of the above-indicated property from its present zoning of C4 to Medium Density Residential. ABCO EQUITY FUNDS, INC . and li.TSTAMCO INVESTMENT CO. , each of whom is a federally licensed Small Business Investment Company, are the current owners of the subject property. Being Federally Licensed Small Business Investment Companies, this means therefore, that approx- imately one-half of the moneys invested in the subject property is Federal Government dollars . : Our companies first acquired the initial lots within the subject property in 1968 as a result of a default on a loan made by these companies to an investor who placed said lots as security for said loan. The subject property (Area of Concern 2.12) consists of three (3) tracts , comprised of 250-300 lots of varying sizes as small as 10 , x 101 , totaling 8.794 net acres . Attached to this letter are copies of three separate diagrams taken from Title Reports prepared for the subject property, which together indicate the nature and number of the total lots-. within the subject property. In our attempt to sell the lots which we initially acquired within the subject property, we have spent the past 8 years tracking down the owners of the other lots within the subject property to clear and acquire title thereto to accumulate a marketable total piece of property. Needless to say, we were required to contact and negotiate with countless owners in numerous states, and become engaged in numerous legal actions and estate proceedings to accomp- lish this purpose . Commencing about four (4) years ago, the Federal Government directed our companies to sell and divest ourselves of ownership in this subject property. This order was issued because our in- vestment in this property is considered to be an inactive investment-, LOANS TO SMALL BUSINESS A Federal Licensee Under The Small Business Investment Act. • Mr. Jerome Bame August 31„ 1976 Page Two for the reasons hereinbelow stated, and we have been directed to redirect and reinvest our funds to more active investments . For this reason, we have had the incentive to, and have actively pur- sued, the marketing and sale of this subject pro erty. We, our- selves, have cleared title to and accumulated of the lots that comprise the 250-300 lot subject parcel. To the best of our knowledge', the subject property has been zoned 04 from its inception. During the past several years, between 30-40 seriously interested buyers of commercially zoned property have expressed a legitimate interest in the property. Most of those interested parties have themselves surveyed the subject property, expended substantial . effort 'and expense to conduct a market analysis and have, in some cases, proceeded to open an escrow with us . NONE, HOWEVER, HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.. Each concluded that it was unfeasible to develop the subject property as a commercial development, .and, theref ore, either refused or failed to consummate the transaction and purchase the subject property. As an example, listed below are but eight credible buyers developers of commercially zoned property who expressed serious 'interest in- the subject property, but did not proceed t.o purchase the same : NAME DATE OF NEGOTIATIONS & ESCROWS 1.. Foods Co. , Supermarkets Letter of Intent-Sept. 23 1974. Closed negotiations Oct. �, 1974. 2. Pacific Property Trends Letter of .Intent-Oct. 17, 1974. Closed negotiations Oct . 24, 1974- 3. Hanover Holdings N.V. Letter of Intent-Nov. 2, 1974. Closed negotiations Nov. 22, 1974. 4. Dupont Land Developers Letter of Intent-Nov. 263, 1974. Closed negotiations Dec. 4, 1974. 5. Santa Anita Development, Negotiations started Dec. 10, 1974. Corporation Escrow opened Apr. 28, 19750 Escrow closed Oct . 20, 1975. 6. William Simpson Investments Escrow opened Oct. 23, 1975. Escrow closed May 12, 1976, 7. Ray Watt W.D.Cormnercial Letter of Intent May 141 1976. Properties, Inc. Closed negotiations May 20, 1976. 8. Reinhart Development Co. Negotiations started May 20, 1976. Negotiations closed May 24, 1976. Mr. Jerome M. B a0 • August 319 1976. Page Three As a further example of our inability to market the property in its present commercial zoning, the Beverly Hills Federal. Savings & Loan Association applied for a Charter with which to conduct banking operations at the subject location. However, they too elected not ; to proceed with the transaction and did not purchase the subject j property. In all of the 30-40 cases,,-.the demographics did not appear to warrant the interested parties to proceed to develop the subject property.. commer.cially. . They would either indicate that there were not enough residences situated in or around the immediate vicinity of the site or there was already too much commercial development on Brookhurst Street. The aforementioned 30-40 seriously interested buyers consisted of some of the largest and most reputable buyers/developers of com- mercially zoned property in this area. Their failure or refusal to proceed with this subject property leads us to believe that we will + be unable to market this property in its present Commercial zoning. I Our companies, as owners, have expended a tremendous amount of money and endured hardship to clear title and acquire the indicated lots over these years . We now find ourselves in a position that, like it or not, we must proceed in any reasonable manner to divest ourselves of this property pursuant to the directive from the Federal i Small 'Business Administration. I After failing in our attempts to sel_l-•the property to commercial buyers--developers,. we have entered into an escrow with Arthofer & Howard Levelopment Co. ,Inc. , who are residential investors/developers. The closing of this escrow is contingent upon the requested zone change from C4 to Medium Density Residential; all other contingencies having been satisfied. We are, therefore, hopeful that this requested change of zone may be accomplished. so that our companies may proceed { to sell the subject property as directed. If we may be of further assistance to you or the City of ` Huntington Beach by supplying additional information or material please do not hesitate to request such. Very truly yours, I ABCO EQUITY FUNDS , INC . ; I4ESTAMCO INVESTMENT COMPANY M. D. Sharpe 1 i it •Fey _ r t � _: � '•• - J -. -t. ---fir;,—•�------ ' rr / I —..-- .� ----�—�•_r a-----. ..�_+ ; _—,_� a rya .y. { ,.r. cn En o CA ID Aw 1 + •-�__» - _ •:,.. ' .77. • 1. - a.e-�-T -. �1. -_ - .w.,►hiK _-: �-- - -�. , _ - -as��.;a„-;c '�' w .M 1 At ; - ir I' , `� S� ._. _ � _ --• - _�-._ram-----�i; ' - - •lye _ , --ram r_•-�-------- �,.�.%:- - r .i.. -' RESOLUTION NO. 4334 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 76-2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to, update and refine the Land Use Element of the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and General Plan Amendment No. 76-2 is necessary to meet the community needs; and Public hearing on adoption of said amendment was duly con- ducted before the. Planning Commission and approved by a majority of the voting members of the Commission. Thereafter, the City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code Section 65355, held at least one public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 76-2; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 65357, that General Plan Amendment No. 76-2 is hereby approved and adopted and the Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of October, 1976. -, '2 ,1 --a Mayor 1. JOC:ahb e ' • ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk Ci y At orn APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED, INITIA G DEPARTMENT: 2 Ci yAEministrator NO FISCAL IMPACT y FISCAL IMPACT -- BV )DGETED FISCAL IMPACT NOT BUDGETED REQUIRES FINANCIAL IMPACT RE°ORT 2.. �• 4334 1 • Resto. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) se: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 6th day of October 19_7L_, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Coen, Siebert, Shenkman, Wieder NOES: Councilmen: None_ ABSENT: Councilmen: Pattinson ABSTAIN: Councilmen: Gibbs 'l aj//�J , City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 7- 1359 Las Canoas Road Pacific Palisades, Ca. October 1 1976 9 ,G City Council vCj Civic Center Huntington Beach, Ca. 100, Dear Sirs: As a property owner on Aldrich Street, I would like to submit my approval of the proposed zoning change from C-4 toR3. For many years the street has failed to be developed commercially. The majority of the existing houses have been used as rental properties and the tenants have let them become eyesores to the community. Further continuance of this matter will cause undue hardship on me and the other property owners who have the opportunity to sell at this time. The sale is contingeiztonn the prospective buyer being able to utilize the proposed zoning change to R-3. Sincerely, Tract 417, Lot 51 Cvi^,�c{�� _ "UNTIKG CI r J .RK 476 OCT P11 4 act :39 -7 . Huuat iag..tox 3e::cr, C i 1 if. Dear Sirs : I am pronerty�, .ow er on Aldrioh Strest is Huntington Beach. After maay years." of trying to sell this property as it is presently zoned, to no avail, there is st �tnfs ltime a reasonable offer from a prospective buyer to p ircha.se I 1 my property. The 6f-fer is, however, eontingert upol the buyer being able to 6ftaix city permission to build alz apartmext bufldiag. 1% i"s 1y urgext request that yon' t tha,_ city eouicil grsnt tkit .rA u.est for a change from t1tt.,-:..002- =*reia.l uaeage -to reiidextial ineome. use. •It is. . -,Akjt9f that tkis skart q#reet In Wre aais it. menace aYd a less+ uAt i l this okange `i a made ` . ixeeroly, bra k ,L a r t ix 7902 nldrics Lot 54 Tr 417, G HUM7,N ; L:: 'ALIF, 15112 Capetown Lane 2 Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 September 20, 1976 CITY COUNCIL HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL: Re : Property located on 7800-7900 block of Aldrich Street, Huntington Beach, CA. It is our understanding that, at the October 6th, 1976, meeting of the City Council, recommendations made by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission will be oonsidered by the members of the City Council, one of said recommen- dations concerning the above-captioned property. As Huntington Beach residents, as well as owners of prop- erty located at 7912 Aldrich St. in Huntington Beach, we are requesting the City Council's concurrence with the Planning Commission's recommendation in changing the zon- ing of this property from C-4 to high density residential. Having owned the property in question for, approximately, 12 years, it has been our experience that this propertyy does not have the desirability for development as a C-4 property, since it has been on the market from the time we purchased the property with a C-4 zoning, and we have not received a single proposal to purchase and develop same with this type of zoning. The Planning Commission, after receiving a recommendation from their staff, who, we are sure, conducted an exhaus- tive study, agrees that the community would be best served if this property were to be developed for high density residential uses. In view of the foregoing, we are urgently requesting your approval and concurrence with the Planning Commission's recommendation, enacting a change in zaing from C-4 to high density residential of the above-captioned property. Sinceriply, / w 4ean Estrada HUNZI 176 CT 4 Pit . 1 2 14724 So. Van Buren Gardena, CA. 90247 September 21, 1976 City Council of Huntington Beach, California Members of the Council: Re: Property Located on 7800-?900 Block of Aldrich Street, Huntington Beach, CA. On October 6th, 1976, it is my understanding that the City Council of Huntington Beach will consider the re- commendations made by the Planning Commission, one of said recommendations concerning the above-captioned property. As an owner of property located on the above-mentioned block, I am requesting the City Council's concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission in changing the zoning of this property from C-4 to high density residential. After 12 years of having this property on the market as C-4 property, no offer has ever been received to purchase or develop this property as such; therefore, it can only be concluded that this property does not have a C-4 potential. The Planning Commission, in their recommendation to the City Council, obviously feels that this property is best suited for high density residential use; there- fore, I am urgently requesting the City Council's con- currence with the Planning Commission's recommendation, enacting a change in the zoning from C-4 to high density residential of the above-captioned property. Sincerely, Manabu Miyakawa