The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGeneral Plan Amendment 90-3 - GPA 90-3 - Zone Change 90-3 - ! VPC �dre Bock Ph.D. D.C. R( �. 1�A, P. I , -10 Practice of Chiropractic Associations March 15, 1991 American Chiropractic California Chiropractic Orange County Chiropractic Honorable Mayor Peter-=Green American City Council Members Psychological 2000 Main Street Degrees Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Bachelor of Arts Philosophy Re: Reconsideration of General Plan Amendment No. 90-3/Zone Bachelor of Science Change No. 90-3/ Negative Declaration No. 90-23 Biology Master of Arts Dear Mayor Green: Psychology Doctor of On August 20 , 1990 I wrote you as a long time homeowner, Philosophy resident and businessman of Huntington Beach, opposing the Psychology then proposed General Plan Amendment No. 90-3/ Zone Change Doctor of Chiropractic No. 90-3/ Negative Declaration No. 90-23 . I also spoke in opposition to this proposal at the City Council meeting Diplomate November 5, 1990 . My wife and I have our residence in the California Board R-1 property directly south of the proposed project and of Chiropractic Examiners share the same property line with the project at 7821 Lori National Board Drive. of Chiropractic Examiners Because of previous commitments , my wife Susan and I will Member be unable to attend the March 18 , 1991 meeting, and have asked Mr. Sassounian to present this letter to you and the Diagnostic AC distinguished members of the City Council. Imaging After careful review of the new site plans with Mr. Bijan Foundation for Chiropractic Sassounian, taking into consideration of the various objections Education and that were made to the previous project, I would encourage Research your support in adopting Resolution No. 6259 and Ordinance MENSA No. 3098 . Psi Chi National Honor Society in Yours sincerely, Psychology MarcAndre' Bock, Ph.D. , D.C. MB/nd 16371 Beach Boulevard, Suite 121 - Huntington Beach, California 92647-4161 - (714) 847-5350 Authoritad to Publiah AdwrtkantWft d a!kinds indudinp - WAft no*= by Dome d Me&owiar Can d am ps Cows.Cd rnin.Numbw A4214. Sep w6w 2q Joel,and . A,24831 Jww it. IM STATE OF CACIFORNIA County of Orange 1 am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years. and not a party to or interested in the 07-_low entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, PUBLIC NOTICE printed and published In the City of Costa Mesa, ORDINANCE NO. i—O County of Orange, State of Califomia, and that c TY OORDINHUNTINGTON` BEACH AMENDING THE attached Notice is a true and complete copy as HUNTINGTON BEACH OR- DINANCE CODE: BY was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM Valley, Irvine,Irvine, the South Coast communities and MEDIUM AL•DENSIIED DE. Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper to wit VELOPMENT"•TO " MEDI- UM-HIGH DENSIT'( RE- the issue(s) of. SIDENTIAL-PLANNE) DE- VELOPMENT" ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 1.84 ACRES rll 11, 1991 AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERS- ECTION OF TALBERT AVE- NUE AND JOYFUL -LANE, AND FROM "HIGH DEN- SITY RESIDENTIAL- SENIOR SUFFIX" AND "MEDIUM DENSITY RE- SIDENTIAL-SENIOR SUF- FIX" TO MEDIUKI-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL- PLANNED DEVELOP- MENT" ON REAL PROPER- TY GENERALLY LCCATED ON 2.3 ACRES SOUTH OF HAPPY DRIVE BETWEEN JOLLY LANE AND JOYFUL LANE (ZONE CHANGE NO. 90.3)" SYNOPSIS: Ordinance No. 3098 changes the zon- ing on 2.3. acres south of Happy Drive betwe 3n Jolly Lane and Joyful Lane. THE FULL TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILA- BLE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE declare, under penalty of perjury, that the ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Hunt- foregoing is true and correct. ington Beach at an regular meeting held Monday,April 1, 1991, by the following April 11 roll call vote: t 1 AYES: Councilmembers: Executed on AA �9.� MacAllister, Winchell, at Costa Mesa, Califomiaa Green, Kelly, Robitalle, Moulton-Patterson NOES: Council rr.embers: None ABSENT: Council- - members:Silva Si nature CMT OF HUNTING- g TON BEACH , Connie Brockway,City Clerk (_ Published Orange Coast V Daily Pilot April 11, 1991. �� I th228 PROOF OF PUBLICATION REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION e �06 3o98 �q� �� b�s.9 March 18, 1991 A d!�� ,nA�i Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator0tV Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Development Subject: RECONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-3/ ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-3/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-23 Consistent with Council Policy? [VI Yes [ ] New Policy or EXception -,46 •3 09 O Statement of. Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• On November 5, 1990, the City Council considered General Plan Amendment No . 90-3, Zone Change No. 90-3 and 'Negative Declaration No. 90-23 to permit an increase in density to R4, High Density Residential (35 u/gac) on a 4 . 5 acre area at the southwest corner of Talbert Ave. and Joyful Lane. In addition, a development proposal was reviewed for a 135-unit condominium project (CUP No. 90-12) on the site. The request and development plan, which were submitted by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency and Bijan Sassounian/Seaview Village, were denied by the City Council due to concerns over compatibility issues of the proposal with adjacent residential uses . Reconsideration of General Plan Amendment No. 90-3, Zone Change No. 90-3 , and Negative Declaration No. 90-23 is being requested because the applicants have reduced the intensity and redesigned the project to make it more compatible with surrounding residential land uses . The reconsideration represents a request to change the General Plan land use designation and zoning on the subject property to R3, Medium-High Density Residential (25u/gac) . RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends the following motions : A. Approve Negative' Declaration No. 90-23 with mitigation measures (outlined in Attachment #1) ; and B. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 by adopting Resolution No. 44S9 ; and C. Approve Zone Change No. 90-3 with the following findings by adopting Ordinance No. 3 09 . Findings for Approval - Zone Change No. 90-3 1. The proposed zone change from (Q) R2-PD, R2-SR and R4-SR to R3--PD is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and consistent with General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 . v1 \J � PIO 5/85 2 . Zone Change No. 90-3 from (Q) R2-PD, R2-SR, and R4-SR to R3-PD is consistent with the goals and policies within the Housing Element. 3 . The proposed zone change with mitigation measures would facilitate designs aesthetically compatible with the surrounding residential area in regards 'to height, setbacks and landscaping. ANALYSIS• History: On October 2, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval to the City Council General Plan Amendment No. 90-3, which was to redesignate a 3. 83 gross acre area located on the south side of Talbert Avenue, west of Joyful Land (Site A) and at the southwest corner of Happy Drive and Joyful Lane (Site B2 as depicted on Attachment No. 1) from Medium Density Residential to High Density. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Zone Change No. 90-3 to rezone the area to R4-PD (:High Density Residential - Planned Development) . The City Council held a public hearing on November 5, 1990 after an appeal of the concurrent development proposal was filed by Councilwoman Grace Winchell . (Conditional Use Permit No. 90-12 and Tentative Tract No. 14357) . Their action was as follows : CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON NOVEMBER 5, 1990: THE MOTION MADE BY GREEN, SECONDED BY MAYS, TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND TO DENY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-23, DENY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-3 (RESOLUTION NO. 6223) , DENY ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-3, AND DENY ORDINANCE NO. 3086 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: WINCHELL, GREEN, MAYS, SILVA NOES: MACALLISTER, ERSKINE ABSENT: BANNISTER Revised Request : Since the City Council meeting, the applicant has modified his proposal to address the concerns brought forward by the Council and public. Reconsideration of General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 is a request to increase the land use intensity on a portion of the area and reduce the intensity on another. Specifically, the proposed request is as follows : Site A and B2 - Redesignate a 3 . 83 gross acre area from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential . RCA 3/18/91 -2- (8875d) Site B1 - Redesignate a 1.28 gross acre area from High Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential . Jz o � -- -� I - -- 3 U {0—.� Q w stnLf z U `3 Q w 2 W v¢ K J m Q o m _RT ¢� TALBERT N SITE A o j ` 4APPr DR. B-1 I 'B-2 STERLING _ Q CF-R w ,�. ti.. Zone Change No. 90-3 is a request to rezone all three sites totalling 4 . 14 acres as follows : Site A - Rezone from (Q)R2-PD (Qualified-Medium Density Residential-Planned Development) to R3-PD (Medium-High Density Residential-Planned Development) . Site B1- Rezone from R4-SR (High Density Residential-Senior Suffix) to R3-PD (Medium-High Density Residential-Planned Development) Site B2 - Rezone from R2-SR (Medium Density Residential-Senior Suffix) to R3-PD (Medium-High Density Residential-Planned Development) . Due to the initial concerns over compatibility of High Density zoning with the existing Low Density Residential, the Planning Commission requested a reduction of all buildings abutting R1 properties to a maximum of two (2) stores. In addition, the modified development plan proposes a forty (40) foot setback for buildings abutting R1 properties. Environmental Status : Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-23 for twenty-one (21) days;, and no comments either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on General Plan P.,mendment No. 90-3 and Zone Change 90-3, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 90-23 . RCA 3/18/91 -3- (8875d) FUNDING SOURCE: Not Applicable ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may: A. Deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 and Zone Change No. 90-3 . ATTACHMENTS. 1. Resolution No. (o'2Sf to adopt General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 with mitigation measures 2 . Ordinance No. D 9 to adopt Zone Change 90-3 3 . Minutes of November 5, 1990, City Council Meeting. 4 . Request for Council Action dated November 5, 1990 5 . Planning Commission Resolution No. 1435 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. 90-3, 6. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated October 2, 1990 and September 5, 1990 MTU:MA:WC: lp RCA 3/18/91 -4- (8875d) March 14, 1991 Teri Torgeson 7816 Essex Drive #101 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 APPLICATION NUMBER: General Plan Amendment No. 90-3/Zone Change No. 90-3/ Negative Declaration No. 90-23 APPLICANT: Huntington Beach Redevelopment AgencyBijanXSassouniatan re► y City Council Members, � v I have been a resident of the Capewoods Condominium complex since April 1986 and am a concerned member of this community. I am not alone in my concern and objections to the proposed Zone Change application now before you. The residents of the surrounding community have been before you on past occasions, and our objections to the elimination of the established zone plan are still vehement and sound. We wish to see the established zone plan for Qualified Medium Density, High Density - Senior; and Medium Density - Senior Residential development remain as is. My prevailing objection to the proposed zone change is: the complete elimination of the Senior Suffix residential development. It was my understanding at the last meeting regarding rezoning these sites, that this is the only area left in Huntington Beach currently zoned for Senior housing. I cannot help but ask myself, why the need for it's elimination?? Is it in the interest of the Senior community?? Is it to the advantage of our local Senior citizens?? Is it because a more suitable site has been found? Are any of us foolish enough to take any of these questions as more than sardonic quips? The most obvious reason for the proposed Zone Change is financial, i.e., increased profitability for Mr. Bijan Sassounian and his agency. Our first priority must be the quality of life in our community for all of it's members. It is time our community, our officials, and our culture, stopped turning it's back on our Senior citizens. Their interests are always the last to be considered....a passing afterthought, yet always the first on the hit list when exclusions are desirable. I exercised careful consideration when voting for this City Council based on statements and promises you made. I fully expect you to live up to these statements and promises and protect the rights and interests of our Senior Citizens. I expect you to vote against this proposal and any future proposals to change the existing Zone Plan for the area in question. Respectfully yours, PUjIC.11_09 E i PUBLIC NOTICE i PUBLIC NOTICE L. PUBLIC NOTICE I_PUBLIC NOTICE I�P BLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN General Plan Amendment No. 90-3/ Zone Change No. 90-3/Negative Declaration Nc. 90-23 (Amendment to Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan and Zone Change to Medium—High -Density Residential) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, March 18, 1991 , 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: General Plan Amendment No. 90-3/Zone Change No. 90-3/ Negative Declaration No. 90-23 APPLICANT: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency/Bijan Sassounian, Sea View Village LOCATION: A 4.5 acre area (see attached map) consisting of two sites: Site 1 : Southwest corner of Talbert Avenue and Joyful Lane Site 2: Southwest corner of Happy Drive and Joyful Lane. ZONE: Site 1 : (Q)R2—PD (Qualified—Medium Density Resiftntial—Planned Development) Site 2: R4—SR (High Density Residential—Senior Suffix) and R2—SR (Medium Density Residential—Senior Suffix) REQUEST: 1 . To amend the Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan by redesignating property from Medium Density Residential to Medium—High Density Residential ; and 2. To rezone from (Q)R2—PD (Qualified—Medium Density Residential—Planned Development) , R2—SR (Medium Density Residential—Senior Suffix) and R4—SR (High Density Residential—Senior Suffix) to R:3—PD (Medium—High Density Residential—Planned Development) . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 90-23 must be acted upon by the City Council . COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk' s Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If' you challenge the City Council ' s action in court. you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing decribed in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call Wayne Carvalho, Planning Aide at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 'lil!17lfi Il RONALD _ G. —L! � JO CC CO \ Z I I " o X4E -r FEEL EE m TALBERT m I SITE 1 Z CF_ GL4DTB AVE r. ......._..oFF I% a� SITE 2 -- --a jlJ u , wl STERLING " AIINLI + _ E o 0 1. r I _ ` _............ V KINER evEN KIN ER AVE ..4...+.. D I °. T4Y LOR _ DR 41~ J S a TAT LOR OR. LE CONTE OR L" ONTARIO OR i z DANCY CR} ....... i c G EFTIFEER `--' DaNTCta_R vOUEBEC OR1V0 �11 g V ' n 2 F i 1 i • Vicinity Map HUNTINGTON BEACH\`\ II HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION \ Authorized to Publish Advertisemants of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A-6214, September 29, 1961, and A-24831 June 11. 1963 STATE OF CA[JFORNIA County of Orange I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange. State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: March 7, 1991 I declare, under penalty of perjury, thai -he foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 7' at Costa Mesa, California. `�l1YlC�9� Signature PROOF ;�F PUBLICATION 0 .�: UBLIC ON i a7ae NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING General Plan Amendment No. 90-3/ Zone Change No. 90-3/Negative Declaration No. 90-23 (Amendment to Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan and Zone Change to Medium-High Density Residential ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, March 18, 1991 , 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: General Plan Amendment No. 90-3/Zone Change No. 90-3/ Negative Declaration No. 90-23 APPLICANT: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency/Bijan Sassounian, Sea View Village LOCATION: A 4.5 acre area (see attached map) consisting of two sites: Site 1 : Southwest corner of Talbert Avenue and Joyful Lane Site 2: Southwest corner of Happy Drive and Joyful Lane. ZONE: Site 1 : (Q)R2-PD (Qualified-Medium Density Residential-Planned Development) Site 2: R4-SR (High Density Residential-Senior Suffix) and R2-SR (Medium Density Residential-Senior Suffix) RE UEST: 1 . To amend the Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan by redesignating property from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential ; and 2. To rezone from (Q)R2-PD (Qualified-Medium Density Residential-Planned Development) , R2-SR (Medium Density Residential-Senior Suffix) and R4-SR (High Density Residential-Senior Suffix) to R3-PD (Medium-High Density Residential-Planned Development) . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 90-23 must be acted upon by the City Council . COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk' s Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council ' s action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing decribed in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call Wayne Carvalho, Planning Aide at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (See Map on Back) (7471d) RONALD 1 ON y ...i. 1 PF Z u Q V w a7 q— - - ° I f IL• _1 z � uuc w r[q ril I a T L m L t TALBERT SITE I i I N l C F E [R (THKvI -� • � •... ) r GLdDYS AVE. - � NA PY F SITE 2PT u TIIL ..q;l.1l.l1. �.0 STERLING 8 AVENUE CF-R - KINER AVEKINER AVENUE TAYLOR DR. � ~o. F Z I r• y«q 3�N In J TAY'LOR DR. LE CON TE DR. _ Z ONTA R IO DR ' ' LL1.11X'�' E W J N OANMN CFL OUEBEC DR a a < s A ^ m a ALBERTA !J.! r' J II 1! I 1 L J� Vicinity Map [oil HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINI GTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION CM) Continental Land Title Company Subsidiary of Lawyers itleInsuranceCrporation PROPERTY OWNERS CERTIFICATION I , Lynn Tilley certify that on 2/5/91 the attached property owners list was prepared by Continental Lawyers Title Company, pursuant the request of Said list is a complete and true compilation of owners of the• subject property involved and is based upon the latest equilized assessment rolls . I further certify that the information filed is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Contine al Lawyers Title Company By: �-A Y)Y%--"t Q L Date : 0 -�j- ,Ev viv El D z DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVtLOPMENT pl_ANNING DIVISION 1015 North Main Street, Santa Ana, California 92701 • P.O. Box 10100, Santa Ana, California 92711 (714) 835-5575 > ' \ 159-141-06 159-1*1-66 Prepared for: i Redevelopnent Ag Leroy B Collins Kequested by: / City Of Hunt ingt cach %Weibel, �Serge 2OOO Main S S ` Rep: t �r' 231 1/2 S �ale Dr / !' Huntington Bea ` D eve rly |/ills, Ca � 159-14�-68 ' zov-z4z-70 159-141-74 View Village Sea Agency l ' �gency Ci Redevelopnent 2124 Main St Ste 110 City Of ||untington/Beach Of ||untington Beach ^/ *untington Beac�,Ca 92648 2000 Main St 2000 Main St Huntington Bea Huntington Beach, C | � � 159-14z-79 ! 159-141-83 Y33-87-2OO Agenc Redevel n t Foundation Healt Kaiser Janes [ Sutton City Of Hu Beach Plan 1nc /801 �sse� �r #1O1^`^''= '' | 2OOO Main St 393 E Walnut St Huntingtun Beach, Ca 9264 Hk^ntington "-� � Pasadena, Ca 91188 / 933-87-20z 933-87-202 933-87-203 Cheryl A Canpbell Fredrick J Miller Thonas B Marietta ` � 7801 Essex Dr 1-102 71:;01 Essex Dr 4106 7801 [ssex Dr 4105 , Huntington Beach, Ca 92640 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264 ` 933-87-20* ' 933-87-205 933-87-206 � Kent W Dowey Erwin I Lewis Debra Lynn Valle � � 7801 Essex Dr 4104 / 9637 La Granada Ave 7796 Essex Dr #101 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264a Fountain Valley, Ca 92708 Huntington Beach,, Ca 92648. 933-87-207 ' 933-87-208 9J3-87-209 ' Dorothy F Garvey William Koch Donald S Murashina 7796 Essex Dr 4102 7796 Essex Dr T:104 7796 Essex Dr #103 vi Huntington Beach, Ca 92640 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648�, �. 933-87-210 / 933'87-211 933-87-212 Chester J Drahoe Pamela A Regan Teri L Torgeson 1670:1. Roosevelt Ln | 7796 Essex Dr #202 7816 Essex Dr #101 Huntington Beach, Ca 926491 Huntington Beach, Ca 92640 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646� 933-87-213 933-87-214 | 933-87-215 Carl E Abadie Dennis K Kato Karen Day � 7816 Essex Dr #1O2 7816 Essex #1O4 7816 Essex Dr #202 � Huntington Beach,. Ca Huntington Beach, Ca 9?648 Huntington Beach, Ca | � l ` 933-87-216 933'87-217 933-87-218 � � Donald W Obert Janes M Holloway Mary L Robinson r816 Essex Dr *202 | 7816 Essex Dr O201 7821 Essex Dr #101 ' Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach,Ca X. Huntington Beach, Ca 92648�` 933-87-219 933-87-220 933-07-221 � Doree Flinn David M Braga Jeffrey P Level 7821 Essex Dr 0102 | 7821 Essex Dr 4104 7821 E-ssex Dr 4:103 /! Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264$ . � 933-87-222 933- 37-223 933-87-224 � Paul L Kollar Robert Ronanski Lyle M Saltzer 60z2 Coral ci 702z [ssex Dr 201 7841 [ssex #1O1 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264 � | -' � � . � ' ' 933-87-225 i 933-87-226 933-87-227 Robert A Herxins | Elaine Krieger Janet 1; powers , 7841 Essex Dr 4102 7841 Essex Dr T104 [ssex Dr 4103 � U-1untin9ton Beach,Ca 92648 ! Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264�i :� 933'87-228 933-87-229 933-O7-230 Victor D Brown Lauranne Brant Fisher Cynthia D Bartus � 70,41 Essex Dr 0202 7841 [ssex Dr #201 11105l Wakefield Ln 0106 Huntington Beach, Ca V0004 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca ,. 92648 933-O7'231 933'87-232 933-87-233 � Bill Schultz Mary A whaley Christopher Nissen � 18O51 Wakefield Ln 0102 | 18051 Wakefield Ln M01 18051 Wakefield Ln ' Huntington Beach, Ca / Huntington Beach, Ca Hunting-Lon Beach, Ca 9264 92648 � 92648 � 933-87-234 | 933-87-235 933-07-236 Mary N Bonello / Cerry Sueua Janes L. Rehxop � ! ~ 1O051 Wakefield Ln 0104 ! 18051 Wakefield Dr 0105 180/1 Wakefield Ln 0101. | Huntington Beach Ca 92648 } Huntington Beach, Ca Hu^tington Beach Ca 926�8 `�. | 92648 ' . ' 933-87-237 | 933-e7-238 933-87-239 Nancy Kirkland / Janes A Glasgow Sally Are�lanes ` i z8O71 Wakefield Ln 0102 18071 Wakefield Ln 106 18071 Wakefield Ln *105 . / Huntington Beach Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington BeacN, Ca 92648 ` - 933'87-240 933-87-241 933-87-242 � Scott A Borzi Ceorge A Chiu A lb ert T F Wong 18071 Wakefield Ln � 18071 Wakefield Ln 0106 7821 >/appy Dr #1O1 Hunting-Lon Beach, Ca | Huntington Beach Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264 ` 933'87-243 933'87-244 933-87-245 Janes M Miles Teri Lynn Wigert Robert 3 Kennedy � 7821 Happy Dr :V102 7821 Happy Dr #104 7821 Happy Dr 0-103 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach Ca 92648 � , ! � 933-87-246 933'87-247 933-87-248 Albert 1-3 Testa � Lillian E Metteer Marla L Miller / ' 7821 Happy Dr 42O1 7O21 Happy Dr � 7 2O2 801 Happy Dr 0101 Huntington Beach Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca ! / . 933-87-249 933'87-250 933-87-251 � Martin R Smith Barbara I Cornfield Stephen Durant ' 7801 Happy Dr 4102 7801 Happy Dr 4104 7801 Happy Dr #103 i Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach Ca 92648 �! ^ �. , 933-87-252 933-O7-253 159-271-09 Leonard V Brown Edward Furu Edward Burlingame Hill 7801 Happy Dr *201 7801 /[appy Dr 1202 18176 Sharon Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264�;� ` i 159-271-10 159-271-11 159-271-12 ' David L Canpbell Janes L Johnson Albert Withers � zO172 Sharon Ln 18z62 Sharon I n Ln ' Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 926 : | � . . � . � 159-271-13 159-271-14 159-271-1�5 Janes M Mras / Barbara A Skinner Stanley J Jay 1.8146 Sharon Lane | 7865 Lori Dr 7861 Lori Dr | Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264G 159-271-16 / 159-271-1/ 159-271-18 Denise J Hill Joseph Hazelett Brian C Song 7855 Lori Dr 785l Lori Dr' Song, Du [ — Huntington Beach, Ca 9264 Huntington Beach Ca 92649 7845 I ri Dr Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 159-271-19 159-271-20 159-271-2:1. Oscar Nino Mahnoud saneh Saker Richard Thonpson 7841 Lori Dr \ 7O35 Lori Dr 783z Lori Dr Huntington Beach, Ca / Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, CO 9264@ / / ! z59-271-22 � l59-271-23 159-271-24 Landmark Properties . Marc A Bock Darwin R Thompson 8581 I arthorn Dr ' 782z Dr �ori Dr Huntington Beach, CO 92646 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 9264V � 159-271-25 159-271-26 159-271-27 Arturo Filippe Robert L. Islas Caroline Sprague 7811 Lori Dr ! 9350 �rippo River Ave 7801 Lori Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 9264A Fountain Valley, Ca 92708 Huntington Beach, Ca 9261-Z / 159-271-28 159-271-29 159-271-30 Daniel V Hoang Natalie M Hearn Kuen C Lee 7795 Lori Dr 19451 Sumner Breeze Ln Lee, Mary Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 Beach, Ca 92648 4 Carver / lrvine,Ca 92714 159'271-31 159-271 '32 159-271-47 Michael KaMnernan Fred M Gruenebaun Josephine L Thompson 1816z Alice Ln 18171 Alice Ln 18176 LT-1 Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca 92640 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264� � 159-271-48 ' 159-271-49 159-271-50 ! Flavio (Tarcia , Hang-Kit Any Fan Eugene R Johnson 18172 Alice Ln 18162 Alice Ln 18156 Alice Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 | 159-271-51 9-271-52 159-271-53 Elmer C Ling Raymond M Rockoff Nancy V Ballan 7822 Lori Dr 7826 Lori Dr Dallan, Nancy J Huntington Beach, Ca 9264P Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 7832 Lori Dr i xunt ing t nn B each,Ca 926 / 159-271-54 159-271-55 159-271-56 Wynn Keyes I Janes P Allie Stephen C Mattoon 2009 California St :i!:A |/ 7842 Lori Dr 7846 Lori Dr Huntington Beach Ca 92646/ Huntington Beach Ca 92646 Huntington Beach , Ca 9264� 159-271-57 *SEARC < COMPLET[ Dayalji C Patel / RECORDS READ: 96 18175 Sharon Ln i RECORDS RETURNED: 96 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264/ LAST APN: 159-271-57 cOpYRIaHT TKw _1988 `` _ / � 159-27162 159-271-63 � Prepared for: � Village Huntington / Village Huntington / / Reqvested by: . Business Service . Dusiness Service Rep: ! 17171 Beach Blvd 17171 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, | Huntington Beach, | / 159-271-64 159-271-65 . 159-271-68 ` Village Huntington Village Huntington / Frank A Richmond Business Service Business Bl 17171 Beach Blvd 17171 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach , Ca 926* xuntington Beach, nuntJ.ngton Beach, 159-2�1-69 159-271-70 159-271-71 Wind River Trading Co Jack Haley Jack Haley Hood, Thomas W 16812 Pacific Coast |�y 16812 Pac-Lfic Coast Hwy '- 181�1 Beach Blvd #3OO Sunset Beach, Ca 9O742 Sunset Beach, Ca 90742 Huntington Deac 159-271-72 159...29l-01 | 15Y 291-18 Jack Haley ! Laszlo Kovacs | �edevelopnent Agency Of 16812 Pacific Coast Hwy | 4645 E Pacific Coast Hwy | CiLy Of Huntington Beach � / Sunset Beach Ca 90742 Long Beach Cal 9O804 2000 Main St ` ` | � Huntington Bea � 933-87-099 933-87-100 / 933-87-101 Lois L Woodnansee i Gene S Uenatsu ' Paul � Chambers � � 18312 Parkview Ln 0101 . 18312 Parkview Ln 0201 18312 Parkview Ln 0102- Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 / / f:.. | ! � 933-87-102 ' 933'87-103 933-87-104 / Acel H Fisher . Charlene A Barnes Lydia I Thonpson 185 S Ulynpia Way / 18312 Parkview Ln 18312 parkview Ln 4-203 Orange, Ca 92669 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 926 933-87-105 933-87-106 933-87-107 Isa J Khanis � Edith Selway Louis A Iacopetti 18312 Parkview Ln | 18312 Parkview 0204 1005 England Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264P HuntjngtonBeach, Ca 9264�-!�' / | ' . . ' 933 O7 1O8 933 87 109 933 87 110 ' - i - - | - - John R Beechwood Joe Muniz | Patricia A Fullmer i 18292 Parkview 1-n.0201 | 18292 parhview Ln 0102 i 18292 Parkview Ln 0202 *untington Beach, Ca j Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92640 | � 933-87-111 933-87-112 | 933 U7 113 ` - - Mary R Corrigan ! Marcia 1. Tennies Jan Paul Garner 18292 Parkview Ln 0103 ! 18292 Parkview Ln 0203 9322 Grackle Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 9264P Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 Fountain Valley, Ca 92708 � 933-87-114 933-87-115 933-07-116 David Spiegel / Anthony J Lanson Esther S Hartnann z829� Parkview Ln #20� 18272 Parxview Ln �10� / 18272 Parkview Ln #201 / / ti t�un n� on Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 926 0 / ' 933'87-117 933'87-118 | 933-87-119 . Mildred Doris Davisson Velma M StewartI Angel Perez ` 1.8272 Parkview Ln *102 18272 Parkview Ln 0202 1 18272 Parkview Ln ~, Huntington Beach, Ca 9264Q Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264� � � . ` . . � . � 933-87-120 i 933-87-121 933-e7-122 Frank M Inlay Irene L. Goree | Kenichiro Sugi1-1ara 18272 Parkview Ln 0203 18272 Parkview Ln 104 ' 18272 Parkview Ln #204 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264q Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 926�3 933 -87-123 \ 933-97'124 � 933-87-125 Anton J Peterson Richard Luft William H Osness ' 18272 Parkview Ln 0105 18272 Parkview Ln 18272 Parkview Ln joy, Huntington Beach, Ca 9264 un Htington Beach, C 9264 Huntington ntingon Beach, Ca 92648�! ' ` `- 933-87-126 933-87-127 1 933-87-128 Donald D Snith | Robert Parten Emery E Martin � i 18272 Parkview L-n *206 18272 Parkview Ln #1O7 z82/2 rarkview Ln 0207 ' ' Huntington Beach, EN 9264B Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 ! � 933'87-129 933'87-130 ' 933-87-131 ' | (',ladys M Sienon . Norma J Peck Robert A Brower � 18272 Parkview Ln *108 18272 Parkview Ln Brovcr, Rob ert A . HuntJ.ngtnn Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 10122 Stonybrook Dr � ti t H B | Huntington on eac ' � 933-87-z32 | Y33-87-z33 Y33-87-134 Margery A Reagan Orrin O Weltsch \ Margaret C O'Connor 18252 Parkview Ln 0201 18252 Parkview Ln M02 1B252 Pafkview Ln #202 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach� Ca 92648� / | ! / �933-87-135 i 933-87' 136 933-87-137 � � R Warforu ! Catherine B Osborne ! Louise H Balzhiser 8391 Deepcliff Dr | 18252 Parkview Ln 1203 18252 Parkview Ln 0104 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 | | ' ! 933-87' 138 933-87-139 . 933-87-140 . John A Falitico Eleo Vandergeugten Denas E George 18252 Parkview Ln 204 ! 18252 Parkview Ln 18252 ParI<view Ln #205 Huntington Beach, Ca 92640 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 | / | � . 933-87-141 / 933-87-142 933-87-143 ' Milton P Mcintosh ! Agnes J Kohl � Arthur L Hibben � | 19611 Sardinia Ln | 10252 Parkview Ln 20031 Mayport Ln Huntington Beach,Ca 92646 | Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach, Ca 9264� / | 933-87-14* / 933-87-145 933-87-146 Lorietta M Luce | Larry L Bender Robert W Letson 18252 Parkview Ln #207 / 9651 Netherway Dr 18252 Parkview #208 ` Huntington Beach, Ca 9264e Huntington Beach Ca 92646 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649j | i 933-87-147 933-87-148 933-87-149 . / Belva L Davidson | Lillian F Branlett ' lone A Rapp � 18242 Parkview Ln 9741 Kings Canyon Dr / 18242 Parkview Ln 1102 Huntington Beach, CM 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 Huntingtnn Beach,Ca 92648 | | 933-87-150 933-87-151 ' 933'87-152 Julia Dominguez Jo A Hoover Wilda V Newton ' 18242 Parkview Ln 0202 | 18242 Parkview Ln 0103 18242 Parkview Ln �2'03 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Bch , Ca | . ^ . . � � 933-87-z53 933-87-154 . paa e/ z5o Linda J Monsen Dee C Hartman . Donald A Weir z8242 Parkview Ln #104 18242 Parkview W 1204 Parkview Ln 7 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264b Huntington Beach, Ca 9264P Huntington Beach , | � 1 . 933-87' 156 9A3-07-157 | 9,13 07 zna Mary C Flaherty Janes O Turner marzxyn cortun 18242 Parkview Ln �205 18242 Parkview Ln 0106 | 18242 Parkview Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92640 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 926A | ' Y33-87-15v 933-87-z60 | 933-87-161 Janes E Cavener Maxine A Chinn Don E marvel 18242 Parkview Ln 4107 18242 Parkview Ln Marvel, Barbara J Huntington Beach, Ca 9264 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 18242 Parkview Ln ] | >|untington 933'87-162 933'B7-163 933'07-164 Louis J Maranville Morris Woolnan | Harriet A *enely 18242 Parkview Ln 06* 18262 parxview Ln *101 19412 Pompano Ln. 10108 Muntington Beach, Ca 9264q Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach 926*8 / \ | 933-87-165 / 933-87-166 933-87-167 Joan John J Doyle ! Mary Mcg�rry ^ . � 18262 Parkview Ln 0102 18262 park View Ln 4202 18262 Parkview Ln #1O3 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca Huntington Beach� Ca 9264%: 92648 .. � 933-87-168 / 933-87-169 933-87-170 / Andre C Bourrie ' Thonas J O"Hagan Janes R Mason 1217 E 27th St ' 18262 Parkview Ln 4104 18262 Parkview Ln 0204 Tulsa, Ok 74114 . Huntington Beach, Ca 9264 Huntington Beach, Ca / i 933-87-171 933-87-172 933-87-173 Burton L Hilborn Edward F Weir Ruth P Koob 18262 Parkview Ln 0105 ' 18262 Parkview Ln 0205 18262 Parkview Ln 4-106 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264P Huntington Beach, Ca 9264 Huntington Beach, Ca 926 ' | 933-87-174 � 933-87-175 933-87-176 ' Ellie Rappaport Noboru Endo ' Ann E C]ouU 18262 Parkview Ln 0206 | 18262 Parkview Ln 0107 18262 Parkview Ln 4:207 Huntington Beach, Ca -9264g Huntington Beach, Ca 9264P Huntington Beach ,h, Ca 92648�� 933-87-177 933-O7-178 933-87-179 Helen Patricia Taylor' '/ Joseph D Kelly � Geoffrey Taylor � ' ( ! 18262 Parkview Ln �108 18262 Parkview W 208 18232 Parkview Ln �. Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 Huntington Beach, Ca 92640 Huntington Beach, Ca 933-87-180 933-87-181 933-87-182 Therese G Hughes | Rose (abbons Andre L. Baca 18232 Parkview Ln *201 | 18232 Parkview Ln 4:102 3.82,32 Parkview Ln #202 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 926 ' 933-D7-183 933-f-37-184 933'87-185 � Joseph B Branick (;race F Narita DolOres E Miller � 18232 Parkview Ln :31O3 z8232 Parxview Ln �2O3 / 18232 Parkview Ln �zO� � 4 Huntington Beach, Ca YZ64H Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 . . . . � 933'87-z8� 933-87-187 933-87-188 ` Ursula Zabel Elsie J Brady Irene Krivicky . 18232 Parkview Ln #204 18232 Parkview Lane 4105 18232 ;arxview Ln #205 Hunt�ngton Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach Ca 92646 Huntington Beach ,Ca 92648 933'87-189 933-87-19O 933-87-191 � Vernon L Dell Thonas W Kerker Doris C Capps _ z82�2 Parkview Ln 18232 Parkview I n 1:206 18232 Parkview Ln .41:107 . Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 92641 �' � 933-87-192 913-87-193 933-87-194 i Newell D Snock Irene Higgins Jacob J Sheiner .. 18232 Parkview Ln 207 18232 Parkview Ln MO8 18232 Parkview Ln 0208 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 |funtington Beach , Ca 9264 165-181-17 165-z81-z8 Emil W Schultz Steven K Johnson Ruby Ruth Scott ` 6362 Loyola Dr 1308 Equities Inc Huntingtn Bch,Ca 92647 Newport Beach Ca 92660 9454 Wilshire Blvd *818 ^ Bever !^ � ` 165-18z-20 165-181-21. 165-181-22 �| Ruby Ruth Scott Beach C. Huntington Bruce � Miller ` 7821 Talbert Ave 7851 Talbert Av 7871 Talbert Ave | Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 Huntington BeacK, Ca 9264K ` 165-181-23 165-181-24 165-181-33 Bruce E Miller Manuel Hidalgo Manuel Hidalgo 7O71 Talbert Ave %lnvestnent Concepts X.lnvestnent Concepts Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 777 S Main St Suite 161 777 S Main St Suite 161 ' Orange, Urange, 165-181-34 165-181-35 *S[ARC11 COMPLETE 4 � � Automobile Club Of Wendy L. Robertson RECORDS R[AD: ` Southern California C/O Palmieri, Tylerf. RECORDS RETURNED: 26O1 S Figueroa Po Box 8090 Dr LAST APN: 165-181-35 Los Angeles, Cal Newport Beach Ca COPYRl�||T TRW 1'988 � ` i ' -` ' ` ' ` POIr. S. 1/2, S. E. 1/4, S. E. 1/4, Sl""' 26, T. SS., R. /l W. / ' 165- 18 30 N ALLEY R J SA 9' /V 362 B»' 2n +/4 Is' i P46 AB' �'�.003'+ ; /32 1 � TRAC' T TRACT O m Zo P. M. 28-/3 40 o Q n o 5g.j6" o W e e.zr 39 5 83.52' 83.60' 6 N ° B s II 4 m m 7 t� /2 k 27 , m 29 13 0 O13 k 12 3 /03.52' 60 /03.50' 8 v s '3 I81 26 v O Q 1 J J I 25 31 0 5 I /4 a 20• /4./s•76. 0 a so' //3./G' W 10 Ln 5O 14 v 19 AL L EY,� m Cal �0 4. ;68 AC.ICI / 9/.99' 32 `� zo• 0 4 � 4 'S V 137.72' /4"4' — 0 I' Zt 15 n 24 nA` ALLEY /7Z. Z7' 3 Q /8 � \ x 0 O m 16 r37Bo• 4g.s/'1 3 � /BB•So 228' /36' Sa /39.c;' 1 h O /35' 3S.0 ) 20 21 n 22 0 m O a 35 m /8 I d $ m n OI 6; 7.83) ..4 1•:�_ F 7gg I ' P /2a 9z' __. /98'/05.04 Srynp ! h h I h TAL BERT �— AVENUE — 35 26 159 -14 MARCH 1974 TRACT NO. 5322 M. M. '199 - 24, 25 NOTE - ASSESSOR S BLOCK Z ASSESSOP. S MAP O TRACT NO. 8/39 Al. M. 328 - /5, /6 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 165 PAGE 18 1 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE TIM X POR. N.E. 1/4, N.W. 1/4, N.E 1/4, SEC. 35, T.55.,R./JW. / ` 159 —2 9 / /00 14 27 339.33 �' TRACT TRAC TRACT 60 Lki Lk le i m � 1.444 AC.(C) ' /00' NO.570' h N Oi I ,r Z25' S /.86AC. TRACT LOT • or c r O m 0.365 AC. N 50' I so" O > ASSOCIATION LO °, `� PROPERTY BLK D cD '" �P 291 e O 8ROOKSHIRE STREET dye PROJECT 933-87 LN. 099-194 5.45AC. zf" 8 Ln a w N LOT B O 2.059AC. Ad, TRACT POR. LOT / ^ 0/7B A~C ti .f. p 17 ya ,2., OL 3.818 AC.(C) BLK C vC, s o • J 3 � stogy o ' ti / 99 AC. � �.�- LOT A' POR Lor 0.497 AC W 0.758AC.(CJ i 2 ASSOCIATION J PROPERTY ~o' NO. 570 'S 'J NO 13065 NO. 12061 NO 570 HUNT/NG a STREE I • . 30 MARCH 1960 TRACT NO. 570 M.M. /9- 71 NOTE • ASSESSOR•S BLOCK d ASSESSOR'S MAP TRACT NO 12061 MM. 521-33,34,35 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 159 PAGE 29 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY Of ORANGE POR. S. l/2, N E 1/4, N E //4, SEV 35, T,5 S., R. /l W. 159-27 m 14 w2 J Q J W 1 <l so' 28 4O27 26 25 40'24 35'2J 475e'22 4p. 2/ 20 b' /9 t}41)8 40 /7 45 /6 /5 41" /4 240• '20' lol' �s �h y e TRA 27 Q26 25 24 23 22 N 21 a 20 19 18 17 n 16 15 14 .� 70 71 y 7 ( Cr 1 3c 1 ' ti Qc Q I, , I ajr5 v ^♦ V r. ♦ - $ 4o n' J 7e 95' w ar 5969' 1 174d' 3.5o rt/ m et - ( I I I ( I `� 1 55.t' 1 I t 540, J W e90 >5 � arLOR' / N /FR/+VATE SrREE♦♦/TSI NOR$(VE � STERLIN G /.057AC.lCJ2 3 AV£N0£ 75 -6 29 79• 4 9 19.90 NM1O 3 ♦a '• n oi0 N 0 '• ~ 101.17' i 5S' a x Q 30 O Q h 50 ^e 51 52 . 53 54 55 56 of e vs J 50 R J4sn' q 54 es 6♦ 56t sbe 31 79.50 s - 55 3/ S/ ta' 524e' 53 u v S9Sui i '1 6 8 . CJ P.M. 52-6 v44 i mO forc' 032 loo' 2.124a9 SO' Q� 0, 48 /O u W J •R � 48 57 r4 os a V (V n 33 47 ♦ ..94s58 r S 946< 9 0 Ct S51e54 I'+ , "� O47 O 3 58 �405� —s44 41os' 1 4 0 64 LOrC 0 v^RF If 3514' 91' It40'.� isic O 8 x 1) r 59 20 o In G 0.246AC ° n it loz u' LOT B i 59 94 sr Lb", a 'T 2 R a91' R 63 Q 4 ^.' 34 S; m lot sc 7 `� 2 34 59.45' 60 9450 m ,74 a4 /'� 4 J 1 46 45 44 /•470AC. to, 60 066� 79 f r• J Y A 2 W lit So' {„ �reL l\O-/� 6 0 104 52 3$ 99.So' N J NO O O� 6/ 9154.0 ti5�e 5n� J 67 5 O 8 36 I 0 + LOTH ', + a tv 91• �i r 15r 3.94AC. 36 so.0<' 11`P O 9 1 47So' 40' 45' 5<15' n-954y r94rt 214 9 ' 54' 1 62 0 55on nCONNIE/PRIVATE STREET) DRIVE H eb U. /14-50 /.585AC. - •� .O 66 (D O O 37 q 38 39 40 41 42 43 R Q a 2 3 NO. 8/97 m • 1552' Si' 195r' 47ci 37 4o'38 39 40 4/ "' 42 434691., 44 91' / to' 2 40 3 as' 4 rex' i. J 7A)IOR•3 DRIVE " 15 x W 04 03 o " MARCH /980 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK & ASSESSOR'S MAP TRACT NO. 8/97 M M. 452-42T048/NC. PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK159 PAGE27 GD SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE fl% w 159- 14 I • W ro 165 - �8 m m TACBERT AV UE 26 zs 0 0 35 36 _ BLX.E 'o "I 'I N BL K.A -�- L3L K.B - I BL K. C A�- BL .0 _ _ _ _ _ _ 7 " TR.aCT I 999.59' - -I — _— 47 48 � 1 6 I : Z I � 4tn �5se— 16r 2 7 B / // /2 7 8�_ 9 !0 // /2 8 /0 // /2 /3 /RAC -- - - - ---'- - - -I- - - �'- - - ; -- I- - - 4- —I- -__ L9 2 /4_ e I� /7 _ _ /346 /4 15 /6 I/7 I/B I/5 I/6 Iff I/B I/9 120" - -I - - __I- - -4 - - -� - - F- - -I- - -1_. - - I- - IOP' Sti w57B//,//222OS2 Bl 3/__2---_✓_-3•__-__-1____�_-��-++i1II'1I'('I 2 44S6/3/2373,5/TS 73-_-_-_--___-__--___-��1 F�r11�I1III:I 2 23_ �'!I2 442 /4-9 /'1IIF:I/I//.- SJ4'O I:I/2 Z'___•'_II1I'I�,11 ___-___�__+1IrIII _____ IF1rI11I 22__--_ 1III 2 3_-_--_ 32 _ }+II1�I1I1I 6 20 BL -- 9/73T4 49 2 _ 24 - t-1 _ + _ F — 674 6 ._ �•' O�OmjQm¢m~2JI r_" /002F 1 0 I , _2 � 26 27 29 � _ I3/ -26 � 3 71 46 3/ 32 36 7 3 39041 10 I 66 38 6 Z PROJECT 933-87 / 37 38 40 42 �43 61 48 1 200-253 81 2.96AF. 37 4 4 44 4 46 7 4 2 - 3 +45 LOT + _55 I C 45JBLg.54 - 5 -158- BLK 6oF6L - -162 39 57 5 ' 5 6 67 68 - �69 _56_ ,+ 3.26 AC. 55 56 _ _i _: � I6/ 65 � 6 6/ 1 . 634 64 16 I7/ 1 I75c-I- _ t6 l6A 4 6,9 / 70 '7/ '78 '9 8 8/ �B2 _ L3 00 iB5 186 I 'BB 1;3- ;J 4 7 I 7 i .89 79 68 2. 9 1 94 6l4 -I � 74I 9 /00@ _ + 96B nlEB +/O/ _:/02 4NO. //560 -1I 6 ja4' 96 191 ,495 196_ _ F/06 �107 1/08 IF/0 _:/O _t/L B3/7 .98 I LO/ _ O- - _ih- - I- � r - F/6H7FL81 NAPPY b DRIVE 1106 2.727A F(c) 80 �/04o '/06 07 /20 '(25 3 � l2T l2B 1/9 - /Q-- I[L _ _ 41, _ _ +/4 - i/09 / r32 //6 II/7 /20 /36 7 8 T20_ — i - -IO /39 t 1 tll'/24 / 5 6 /2/ /23 L2425 12 Z 43 4 45 /2AG I 90 / / 2 / J2l/29 I/30 , 7 128 I I :27 I 29 2 I4B I49 S I _10_ ,/3! Y -4 _ 4154 I/ I/57 134 135 �36 /3 i3 :3 I 3 60 O 1/62 I/63 I/64 I67 00 24 � 9 _ _I40 r4/ � I I 1/49 /?5 +, 7! /72 173 1�/74 25 /46 /47 114 49 /5o /47 1)' 148 o N9 /50 ` /4 !47 ✓4 BLK.E BLK A BLK.B A BLK.0 8LK.0 27 *PR/VATE STREET MARCH 1975 TRACT NO. 172 M.M. 12-22 NOTE - ASSESSOP'S BLOCK 8 ASSESSOR'S MAP TRACT NO. 11560 MM 536-12,3 PARCEL ::UMBERS BOOK159 PAGE 14 8 fHO'NN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE Page 6 - Council /Agency Minutes - 11 /5/90 he Mayor declared the public hearing open. Da 'd Lautner, applicant, stated that his intent was that the project would be a r taurant and pub. He showed a slide of an artist' s rendition of theY;Yz inter. r of the project. :.. Mark Sick r spoke in support of the project and stated he would be establish- ing the res urant with David Lautner. David Hone sp e in favor of the project and on behalf of David Lautner' s character as bei trustworthy and responsible. Doug Langevin, ap icant, presented a history of staff' s directions and approval and example of other projects that had been approved in the downtown area. He used slides o show the various completed projects and his proposed project. He stated the tate Historic Code allows his type of project and he requested Council to al w him to continue with the restoration of the historic building. Discussion was held regardin what type of establishment the applicant proposed. Doug Langevin stated the proposed pr 'ect was primarily a restaurant and would have restaurant business hours . George Arnold spoke in favor of the proje r There being no one present to speak on the tter and there being no protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was losed by the Mayor. A motion was made by Mays , seconded by MacAllist to continued the opened public hearing on the appeal to Planning Commissi approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-43 to November 19, 1990. The otion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: Winchell , Green ABSENT: Bannister / (City Council ) PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-3/ZONE CHANGE / NO. 90-3/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-23 - DENIED - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/ SASSOUNIAN - SEA VIEW VILLAGE ORDINANCE NO. 3086 - INTRODUCTION DENIED (420.40) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider the following: APPLICATION NUMBER: General Plan Amendment No. 90-3/Zone Change No. 90-3/ Negative Declaration No. 90-23 APPLICANT: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency/Bijan Sassounian, Sea View Village .1 LOCATION: A 4.5 acre area consisting of two sites : Site 1 : Southwest corner of Talbert Avenue and Jovful Lane and Site 2: Southwest corner of Happy Drive and Joyful Lane. J Page 7 - Council /Age+,cy Minutes - 11/5/90 ZONE: Site 1 : (Q)R2-PD (Qualified-Medium Density Residential-Planned Develop- ment) and Site 2: R4-SR (High Density Residential-Senior Suffix) and R2-SR (Medium Density Residential-Senior Suffix) r�y RE UEST: 1 . To amend the Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan by redesignating property from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential ; and 2. To rezone from (Q)R2-PD (Medium Density Residential-Planned Development) , R2-SR (Medium Density Residential-Senior Suffix) and R4-SR (High Density Residential-Senior Suffix) to R4-PD (High Density Residential-Planned Development) . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 90-23 must be acted upon by the City Council . COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable ON FILE: A copy of the proposed rquest is on file in the City Clerk' s Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after November 2, 1990. Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk' s Office by staff had been mailed, published, and posted. Five letters and one petition with 56 signatures were fa received in opposition. a The City Clerk presented Resolution No. 6223 for Council adoption - . "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-3." The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 3086 for Council approval - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "QUALIFIED-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT" TO "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT" ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 1 .84 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF TALBERT AVENUE AND JOYFUL LANE, AND FROM "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-SENIOR SUFFIX" TO "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT" ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 2.3 ACRE SOUTH OF HAPPY DRIVE BETWEEN JOLLY LANE AND JOYFUL LANE (ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-3) ." (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL FILED BY COUNCILWOMAN WINCHELL UPHELD - PC DECISION OVERRULED - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-12 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14357 - DENIED - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 90-23 - DENIED - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/SASSOUNIAN (SEA VIEW VILLAGE) (420.40) Public hearing to consider the following: fir APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 90-12 with Special Permits/ Tentative Tract No. 14357/Negative Declaration No. 90-23 TAPPLICANT: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency/Bijan Sassounian, Sea View Village APPELLANT: Councilwoman Winchell 106 Page 8 - Council /Agency Minutes - 11/5/90 L 'ATI N: South side of 'ialbert Ave. , west of Joyful Lane; and south of Happy Drive between Jolly Lane and Joyful Lane EXISTING ZONE: R2-SR (Senior Medium Density Residential ) , R4-SR (Senior High Density Residential) , and Q-R2-PD (Qualified Medium Density Residential Planned Development) PROPOSED ZONE: R4-PD (High Density Residential Planned Development) REQUEST: Appeal of the Planning Commission' s approval of a 135-unit condomin- ium project and associated Tentative Tract Map, with Special Permits for set- backs , building separation, ramp slopes, and average dimension of main recrea- tion area. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This project is covered by Negative Declaration No. 90-23, which the Council will also act upon. N FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Develop- ment Department, 2000 Main Street, H:;ntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. . Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk' s Office by staff had been mailed, published, and posted. No communications or written protests were received on the matter. The Community Development Director presented a staff report. Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director, presented a staff report on the ` ~ Conditional Use Permit No. 90-12. Barbara Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development, answered Councilman Silva' s questions regarding the encyclopedia• lots which must be obtained. Scott Hess, Senior Planner, presented a slide report on General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 and Zone Change No. 90-3. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Ernie Vasquez, Sea View Village architect, presented slides of the landscaped site. Joseph Hazelett presented a letter to the Council and the City Clerk in opposition of Zone Change No. 90-3. Mary Ann Hazelett spoke in opposition to the proposed project which would result in a two and three-story building close to her back yard. She asked those persons in the audience who were opposed to the proposed project to stand. Susan Allie spoke in opposition to the proposed project due to increased noise, traffic, and crime. She questioned why the project would be accepted without a clear title to the property. Dr. Marc Bock spoke in opposition to the proposed project because of the higher density zoning that is requested. He compared it to Commodore Circle. 107 Rage 9 - Council /Ag-ency Minutes - 11/5/90 Victor Brown spoke in opposition to the proposed project. He stated he believed the quality of life would be affected due to the increased traffic that would be detrimental to the nearby school and seniors who walk in the area. E 4 George Bennenuti spoke in opposition to the proposed project and stated his concern for safety due to he increased traffic in the area. Cynthia Bartus spoke in opposition to the proposed project and in opposition of changing the residential senior suffix to low-income housing. She expressed her concern that it would lower the value of her property. Iva Miles spoke in opposition to the proposed project due to the proposed den- sity increase and the impact that would have on the traffic, that it would increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Alma Johnson stated she would be in favor of the proposed project since it would have sidewalks . Margaret Rockoff presented a petition bearing approximately 57 signatures of persons opposed to the reclassification of the two lots south of Happy Drive from R4-SR and R2-SR to R4-PD. She expressed her concerns to reduce density, adhere to the original setbacks , and to preserve the privacy of the people whose backyards will abut the proposed development. Cheryl Campbell spoke in opposition to the proposed project and stated the �ro city should build the senior development as had been planned. She stated she did not believe R4 zoning was compatible with the established neighborhood and that the medium density should be retained. George Arnold spoke in opposition to the proposed project and R4 zoning. Lyle Saltzer presented 27 letters, a list of 11 persons , and a petition bear- ing approximately 39 signatures of persons in opposition to the proposed project. He expressed his concerns regarding increased density, parking difficulties, possible earthquake damage, and stated he believed the project was not compatible with the neighborhood. Albert Wong spoke in opposition to the proposed project. He stated that three stories was impractical for seniors. Peggi Harvey stated she moved to the area for lower density. She expressed her safety concerns for pedestrians and seniors. She stated she believed the Environmental Impact Report did not address traffic, water pressure, or parking adequately. Jim Sutton stated he believed a high density project in the area would promote higher crime rate. He stated his realtor had told him it would be a senior project and that he believed the city had a responsibility to adhere to those plans. Denise Hill spoke in opposition to the--::� p pp proposed project and stated she believed the project should maintain the senior suffix. David Sullivan spoke in opposition to the proposed project and stated that others who were opposed could join Huntington Beach Tomorrow. , There being no one present to speak further on the. matter and there bei ni" further protests filed; the..'hearing was closed by.;the'.Mayor. Page 10 - Council /kg•ency Minutes - 11 /5i90 A motion was made by Green, seconded by Mays, to uphold the appeal and to deny _ Negative Declaration No. 90-23, deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 (Resolution No. 6223) , deny Zone Change No. 90-3, and deny Ordinance No. 3086. Discussion was held by Council and staff. Bijan S ssounian, applicant, requested a continuance to work out concerns. The motion made by Green, seconded by Mays, to uphold the appeal and to deny Negative Declaration No. 90-23, deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 (Resolution No. 6223) , deny Zone Change No. 90-3, and deny Ordinance No. 3086 carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Winchell , Green, Mays, Silva, NOES: MacAllister, Erskine ABSENT: Bannister RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of Council at 9:55. p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:10 p.m. ty Council) PUBLIC HEARIN - CODE AMENDMENT NO. 0-4 - APPROVED - AMENDS A I LE 985 - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERSHIP - ORDINANCE NO. 3085 - ' IN DU TI N APPROVED (440.90) The Mayo announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider t following: APPLICATION NUM R: Code Amendment No. 90-4 APPLICANT: City of tington Beach LOCATION: City-Wide ZONE: All zones RE VEST: To amend Article 985, Desi Review Board, of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, to change the appointme of membership to reflect two (2) additional members for a total of seven (7) . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pu ant to Section 15061 (b)(3) the California Environmental Quality Act. Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk' s Office by aff had been mailed, published, and posted. No communications or written prote were received on the matter. The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 3085 for Council appr al - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 98 OF THE ;_ 3 HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9853 RELATI TO APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERSHIP AND AMENDING SECTION 9853.1 RELATING TO TERM OF OFFICE (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 90-4) OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD." 109 ` REQUAT FOR CITY COUNA ACTION November 5, 1990 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Development Subject: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-3/ZONE CHANGE NO. 90- / NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-23 Consistent with Council Policy? IKI Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is General Plan Amendment No . 90-3 , Zone Change No. 90-3 and Negative Declaration No . 90-23 , submitted by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency and Bijan Sassounian, Sea View Village for a 4 . 5 acre area at the southwest corners of Talbert Avenue and Joyful Lane, and Happy Drive and Joyful Lane. They represent a request tc� change the General Plan land use designation from Medium Density Re-g�id� ential to High Density Residential and rezone from (Q) R2-PD (Qu�li_fied- Medium Density Residential=Planned -Development) , R2-SR (Medium Density Residential - Senior Suffix) and R4-SR (High Density Residential - Senior Suffix) to R4-PD (High Density Residential - Planned Development) . RECOMMENDATION• Planning Commission and Staff Recommend the following motions : A. Approve Negative Declaration No. 90-23 with mitigation measures (outlined in Attachment #1) ; and B. Approve General Plan Amendment No . 90-3 by adopting Resolution No . ; and C. Approve Zone Change No. 90-3 with findings (outlined on page 2 herein) by adopting Ordinance No. Planning Commission Action on October 2, 1990 : ON A MOTION BY LEIPZIG AND A SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-23 WITH MITIGATION MEASURES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Leipzig, Bourguignon, Mountford, Ortega, Shomaker NOES: Kirkland ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: None PIO 5/85 gi ON A MOTION BY LEI IG AND A SECOND BY BOURGU NOW :--THE 2P ANNINGto �' COMMISSION VOTED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY .CO UN CIL-;`APPROYAL: OF_= ' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-3 BY ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1435, AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL 'OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-3 WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Bourguignon, Shomaker, Mountford, Leipzig NOES : Kirkland, Ortega ABSENT : Williams ABSTAIN: None Findings for Approval - Zone Change No . 90-3 1 . The proposed zone change from (Q) R2-PD, R2-SR and R4-SR to R4-PD is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and consistent with General Plan Amendment No . 90-3 . 2 . Zone Change No . 90-3 from (Q) R2-PD, R2-SR, and R4-SR to R4-PD is consistent with the goals and policies within the Housing Element . 3 . The proposed Zone Change with mitigation measures would facilitate designs aesthetically compatible with the surrounding residential area in regards to height, setbacks and landscaping . ANALYSIS: General P1an. Amendment No . 90-3 is a request to redesignate a 3 . 83 gross acre area located on the south side of Talbert Avenue, west of Joyful Lane (Site A) and at the southwest corner of Happy Drive and Joyful Lane (Site B2) from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, as shown below. Site B1 is not part of the amendment because it is currently designated High Density Residential . w I 5C.ALE I c U_l J w Z �' —� co m I I JAk C R T TALBERT' H Z _ _ _ _-_. � SITE A In I O COI J J J LL HAPPY DR. STERLING j N r rl 't.tl. W I I During staff ' s review three land use alternatives were analyzed for the subject property. Those alternatives included Medium Density Residential (R2) , Medium High Density Residential (R3) , and High Density Residential (R4) . Further discussion of these alternatives are contained within the Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 5, 1990 (Attachment #4) . Zone Change No . 90-3 is a request to rezone all three sites totalling 4 . 14 acres as follows : Site A - Rezone from (Q)R2-PD (Qualified-Medium Density Residential-Planned Development) to R4-PD (High Density Residential-Planned Development) . Site B1- Rezone from R4-SR (High Density Residential-Senior Suffix) to R4-PD (High Density Residential-Planned Development) Site B2 - Rezone from R2-SR (Medium Density Residential-Senior Suffix) to R4-PD (High Density Residential-Planned Development) . Existing adjacent land uses include multi-family dwellings to the north, a commercial center to the east and single family homes, to the south. Located directly west of (Site A) is a 54 unit condominium project, while west of Site B consists of an apartment complex. Although the general plan amendment and zone change do not constitute any new development, they will allow for future residential development of the site. If approved, the request will allow for development of a maximum 35 units/acre, or a total of 155 condominium units on the 4 . 14 acres . The applicants received approval by the Planning Commission at their October 2, 1990 meeting for Conditional Use Permit No. 90-12 and Tentative Tract Map No. 14357 for development of a 135 unit condominium project at 30 DU/AC. The project includes 82 affordable units . The specific project is discussed in the RCA Report for Conditional Use Permit No . 90-12 . The approval of the Conditional Use Permit and the Tentative Tract Map is contingent upon the approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change by the City Council . At the Planning Commission meetings, comments from residents in the project vicinity were received. Proponents of the project believe the project will be compatible with the surrounding properties as suggested mitigation measures would minimize adverse impacts . These measures are included as part of the Resolution for approval (Attachment #1) . A large majority of the speakers were in opposition to the project because of claims that ,it would be incompatible with the abutting Low Density Residential properties, that the project would generate unwanted noise and traffic, and would decrease surrounding property values . Opponents were also concerned about the removal of senior residential zoning . RCA 11/5/90 -3- (7499d) Due to the concerns over compatibility of High Density Residential to Low Density Residential, and the restriction of homeowners to moderate income, first-time buyers, the Planning Commission requested several changes to the applicant ' s initial proposal . The Planning Commission requested a revised development plan illustrating a reduction of all buildings abutting R1 properties to a maximum of two (2) stories . The Planning Commission also requested that seniors be eligible to purchase a unit if they wished to do so . The applicant has since revised his plans to address the concerns of the Planning Commission and residents . In addition, the applicant has proposed to provide intensified landscaping between the project and the abutting R1 properties . Environmental Status : Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised Draft Negative Declaration No . 90-23 for twenty-one (21) days, and no comments either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action of General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 and Zone Change 90-3 , it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No . 90-23 . FUNDING SOURCE: Not Applicable ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may: A. Approve Negative Declaration No. 90-23/General Plan Amendment for Medium High Density Residential/Zone Change to R3-PD (Medium-High Density Residential-Planned Development) . B. Deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-3/Zone Change No. 90-3 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. to adopt General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 with mitigation measures 2 . Ordinance No. to adopt Zone Change 90-3 3 . Planning Commission Resolution No. 1435 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No . 90-3 4 . Planning Commission Staff Reports dated October 2, 1990 and September 5, 1990 MTU:MA: RCA 11/5/90 -4- (7499d) RESOLUTION NO. 1435 ( . � A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION j. . OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-3 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No . 90-3 has been prepared and analyzed in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 5, 1990; and General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by redesignating a 3 . 83 gross acre area of land from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential : and Such 3 . 83 acre area is generally located on the south side of Talbert Avenue west of Joyful Lane, and south of Happy Drive west of Joyful Lane as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto; and The Planning Commission held a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65353 on September 5, 1990, to consider said General Plan Amendment; and The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Council on the amendment to the General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65354 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach as follows : SECTION 1: The Planning Commission desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives . SECTION 2 : General Plan Amendment No . 90-3 is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan. SECTION 3 : General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 is consistent with other Elements of the General Plan. SECTION 4 : General Plan Amendment No . 90-3 implements the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan by providing affordable housing for moderate income households . SECTION 5 : The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach hereby adopts said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 1 1. 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the fifth day of September, 1990 . � 1 Michael C. Adams, Secretary Planning Commission Chairwoman t (6966d) tr •tin ton beach department 0 community' development 9 P P STAf f REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: October 2, 1990 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-3/ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-3/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-23 (CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 5, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: Redevelopment Agency, DATE ACCEPTED: City of Huntington Beach May 17, 1990 and Bijan Sassounian 2124 Main Street MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Not applicable 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: A. Approve Negative Declaration 90-23 with mitigation measures and forward to City Council for adoption; B. Approve General Plan Amendment' No. 90-3 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1435 and forward to the City Council for adoption; and C. Approve Zone Change No. 90-3 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption. 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: The Planning Commission continued this item from the September 5, 1990 meeting in order to allow the applicant time to address the concerns brought forward by the Planning Commission and the public. These include: 1. Compatibility with adjacent properties . 2 . Setbacks, building height and landscaping for buildings abutting R1 property to the South. A-Rip A-F M-23C 3 . Deficiency in the number of required guest parking spaces within each building. 4 . Concerns that the affordable units would be for moderate income families only, excluding seniors from the project . In response to the action taken by the Commission, the applicant has met several times with staff to discuss these concerns . The applicant has since proposed the following site plan modifications : a. Reduce the total number of units from 140 to 135 . b. Provide required guest parking within each building (each building currently has required resident parking) . c. Provide intensified landscaping along adjacent residential properties . d. Reduce the height of all buildings along adjacent R1 properties to maximum 25 ' in height. e. The designated affordable units will be for seniors as well as moderate income families . Most of the concerns were related to details of the site plan. Those details are addressed more fully in the staff report for Conditional Use Permit No. 90-12, Tentative Tract No. 14357 and Negative Declaration No. 90-23 which are being processed concurrently with this application. Staff is recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change as discussed in the September 5, 1990 staff report. 3 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: A. Recommend to the City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment for Medium-High Density Residential (25 units per gross acre) and zone change to R3-PD (Medium-High Density-Planned Development) ; or B. Recommend to the City Council denial of General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 for High Density Residential (35 units per gross acre) by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1435A and denial of Zone Change No. 90-3 for R4-PD Zoning with findings . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 5, 1990 HS:WAj 1 Staff Report - 10/2/90 -2- (7264d) • huntington beach department ox community development SYAf f REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: September 5, 1990 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-3/ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-3/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-23 APPLICANT: Redevelopment Agency, DATE ACCEPTED: City of Huntington Beach May 17, 1990 and Bijan Sassounian 2124 Main Street MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Not applicable ZONE: R2-SR (Senior Medium PROPERTY Redevelopment Agency, Density Residential) ; OWNER: City of Huntington Beach/ R4-SR (Senior High Density Sea View Village Residential) ; and 2124 Main Street No. 170 (Q)R2-PD (Qualified Medium Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Residential with a Planned Community Suffix) GENERAL PLAN: Medium Density REQUEST: To redesignate property Residential; and High Density from Medium Density Residential Residential to High Density .Residential; and EXISTING USE: Vacant to rezone from R2-SR, R4-SR and (Q)R2-PD to R4-PD. ACREAGE: 5. 11 gross acres; 4 . 14 net acres consisting of LOCATION: Two sites : one south of two sites : a 1. 84 acre site Talbert Avenue, west on the southwest corner of of Joyful Lane; and the Talbert Avenue and Joyful other south of Lane; and a 2.3 acre site Happy Drive between Jolly between Jolly and Joyful, Lane and Joyful Lane. south of Happy Drive. 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: A. Approve Negative Declaration 90-23 with mitigation measures and forward to City Council for adoption; f � B. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1435 and forward to the City Council for adoption; and C. Approve Zone Change No. 90-3 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption. A-F M-23C _IA0,10i 2) .-+ 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 is a request to redesignate a 3 . 83 gross acre area located on the south side of Talbert Avenue, west of Joyful Lane (Site A) and at the southwest corner of Happy Drive and Joyful Lane (Site B2 as depicted on Attachment No. 1) from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential . Zone Change No. 90-3 is a request to rezone three areas totalling 4 . 14 acres (see Attachments 1, 4, and 5) as follows : Site A - Rezone from (Q)R2-PD (Qualified-Medium Density Residential-Planned Development) to R4-PD (High Density Residential-Planned Development) . Site B1 - Rezone from R4-SR (High Density Residential-Senior Suffix) to R4-PD (High Density Residential-Planned Development) Site B2 - Rezone from R2-SR (Medium Density Residential-Senior Suffix) to R4-PD (High Density Residential-Planned Development) . The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are being submitted for review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and then forwarded to the City Council for final decision. Although the requests do not constitute any new development, it will allow for residential development of the site. If approved, up to 155 condominium units may be constructed. Concurrently being processed with this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is Conditional Use Permit No. 90-12 with Special Permits and Tentative Tract No. 14357 for 140 condominiums . The specific project is discussed and analyzed in a separate report. This report is designed to investigate the concerns associated with the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and zone change, and to analyze whether such an action is compatible with surrounding land uses and in conformance with the goals and policies of the General Plan. 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential/High Density Residential ZONE: R2-SR (Medium Density Residential - Senior) (Q)R2-PD (Qualified Medium Density Residential - Planned Development) R4-SR (High Density Residential - Senior) LAND USE: VACANT Staff Report - 9/5/90 -2- (6918d) • North of Subiect Property: (north side of Talbert Avenue) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: R2 (Medium Density Residential) LAND USE: Mixed Office/Residential East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Retail Center South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential ZONE: R1 (Low Density Residential) and C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Single Family Homes, Vacant West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential ZONE: (Q)R2-PD (Qualified-Medium Density Residential-Planned Development) R4-SR (High Density Residential-Senior) LAND USE: Residential Apartments and Condominiums 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-23 for twenty one (21) days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action of General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 and Zone Change 90-3, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 90-23 . 5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The subject property is located within the City' s Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area. Property owners for the proposed project include the Seaview Village Corporation, and the Redevelopment Agency, City of Huntington Beach. Staff Report - 9/5/90 -3- (6918d) • 7. 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. 8 . 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests that a 3 . 83 gross acre area be redesignated from a Medium Density Residential land use designation to a High Density Residential land use designation. In addition, the entire 4 . 14 net acre are is proposed to be rezoned from R2-SR (Medium Density Residential-Senior Suffix) , R4-SR (High Density Residential-Senior Suffix) and (Q)R2-PD (Qualified Medium Density Residential-Planned Development) to R4-PD (High Density Residential-Planned Development) to allow for residential development . This general plan amendment and zone change will allow for future development of a maximum of 35 units per acre or a total of 155 condominium units . The area consists of two sites separated by Happy Drive (see Attachment No. 1) . Each site is briefly discussed below: Site A: Site A consists of approximately 1. 84 net acres of vacant land located at the southwest corner of Talbert Avenue and Joyful Lane. This portion is designated as Medium Density Residential and is currently zoned (Q)R2-PD (Qualified Medium Density Residential-Planned Development) The new project proposes redesignation of Site A to High Density Residential and a Zone Change to R4-PD which will allow for the development of a maximum of 69 condominium units . Site B: Site B is a 2.30 net acre site located south of Happy Drive, between Jolly Lane and Joyful Lane. For purposes of the analysis, Site B has been divided into two sub-sites (B1 & B2) as they conform to the present land use map and zoning map. Site B1 located on the westerly portion of Site B, is currently designated High Density Residential and zoned R4-SR (High Density Residential-Senior Suffix) . Site B2 on the easterly portion of the site is designated Medium Density Residential and zoned R2-SR (Medium Density Residential-Senior Suffix) . The proposed project would include the redesignation of Site B2 to High Density Residential and a zone change of the entire site to R4-PD which would allow for a maximum of 86 condominium units . Staff Report - 9/5/90 -4- (6918d) 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: A. Land Use Compatiblity: The following analysis examines three land use alternatives for the subject property: 1. Medium Density Residential (existing) . 2 . High Density Residential (proposed) . 3 . Medium High Density Residential . As shown on Attachment No. 2, the City' s General Plan designates the property to the north of the subject area as Medium Density Residential with General Commercial zoning to the east . The property adjacent to the south is designated Low Density Residential, while property west of the study area is located to the west and southwest currently designated High Density Residential . As illustrated in Attachment 4, the subject property is currently zoned (Q)R2-PD (Site A) and R4-SR and R2-SR (Site B) . Zoning designation for property to the north is R2, while property to the east is zoned C4 . There is R1 zoning to the south of the subject area and R4-SR (High Density Residential-Senior Suffix) zoning to the west . Existing adjacent land uses include multi-family dwellings to the north, a commercial center to the east and single family homes, to the south. Located directly west of (Site A) is a 54 unit condominium project, while west of Site B consists of an apartment complex. As the above description indicates, the study area is located within an area characterized by Medium to High Density Residential uses with the exception of low density to the south. There is also a significant amount of commercial uses nearby along Beach Boulevard. The request for High Density Residential with an R4-PD zone designation could result in a maximum of 155 condominium units on the site. The applicant has proposed a 140 unit condominium development which includes approximately 82 units for moderate income, first time buyers . Further discussion on the issue of affordable housing is addressed in the following sections . The General Plan Land Use Element states that High Density Residential areas should be utilized in transitional areas between Medium-High land uses, near major transportation routes and in proximity to commercial areas and activity areas . The location of the subject area meets the three criteria, with the exception of the Low Density designation to the south. Mitigation measures placed on development to reduce the impact on the abutting R1 would include a minimum twenty foot (20 ' ) average setback for buildings with a maximum two story height restriction. In addition, intensified landscaping would be required to minimize adverse impacts . Staff Report - 9/5/90 -5- (6918d) Redesignating the site currently designated as Medium Density Residential to Medium High Residential would allow a maximum of 110 condominium units on Sites A and B. As with the High Density Residential alternative, a Medium High Density use would also be compatible with surrounding uses . The primary difference between the Medium High and High Density designations is the allowable density. Medium High density allows a maximum of 25 units per gross acre, in relation to the 35 units per gross acre permitted in an area designated High Density. The Medium High Density alternative would feature 45 fewer units than High Density and would therefore generate less traffic and infrastructure impacts . These issues are addressed in more detail in the following sections of this report . B. Housing• The applicant has proposed to develop a 140 unit condominium complex on the subject property under the requested High Density designation and R4-PD zoning. The Medium High Density alternative would allow for a maximum of 110 condominium units . The existing Medium Density/High Density alternative would only allow 93 units; 125 units would be permitted subject to approval of a density bonus (50%) . The Housing Element of the City' s General Plan contains policies aimed at providing a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and cost of households of all sizes, socioeconomic, racial and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach. The applicant ' s request for 140 condominium units includes 82 units for moderate income households sponsored through the City Redevelopment Agency' s housing set-aside program. C. Public Services & Utilities : 1. Sewers : The subject property is within Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) No. 3 . Previous planning by the Orange County Sanitation District is consistent with the proposed use. Adequate capacity is available in district lines to serve the project. According the OCSD, the sewage generated from this site drains toward the County Sanitation Districts Slater Avenue Trunk Sewer at a manhole in Slater Avenue at Beach Boulevard via City of Huntington Beach sewage facilities . Waste water generated within the Districts service is processed at treatment plans located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. Staff Report - 9/5/90 -6- (6918d) 2 . Water• The City of Huntington Beach Water Division is only able to furnish the minimum level of water supply to serve the proposed development ' s fire and domestic needs . The City' s water system is installed in the adjacent streets and is adequate to serve any of the proposed land uses . 3 . Storm Drains • The City' s Public Works Department has indicated that the existing storm drain system can adequately accomodate runoff from any of the proposed land uses . A preliminary review of the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project hydrology was conducted by the Utility Design Section of the Department of Public Works . The study revealed that the area of concern was evaluated as high density, multiple family residential, and that the existing storm drain system would not be impacted by any of the proposed land uses . 4 . Police and Fire Protection: Police service for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach which operates from a central facility located at Main street and Yorktown Avenue. According to the Police Department ' s Planning and Research Unit, development under the existing zoning would generate approximately 44 calls for Police service per year. The proposed plan (R4-PD) will generate approximately 86 calls for service per year, in effect, doubling the number of service calls per year and increasing the demand for police manpower by one half ( . 5) officer . Fire protection for the subject area can be provided by the City of Huntington Beach from either the Gothard Fire Station at Gothard and Ellis or the Murdy Fire Station on Gothard at Edinger. Paramedics and Ladder Truck services would be provided by Fountain Valley Fire Station #1 (17737 Bushard Avenue) . The area of concern lies within the five minute response area of the stations and can be adequately serviced regardless of the selected alternatives . In addition, future development on the subject property will require conditions to be imposed to further aid in fire protection. These measures may include comprehensive built-in fire protection and alarm systems and contributing to the funding of the City' s "Opticom" traffic signal control system. Staff Report - 9/5/90 -7- (6918d) 5. Parks : The subject property is located within the service area of Terry Park, a 5 . 0 acre neighborhood park located approximately 500 feet southwest . In addition, Huntington Beach Central Park is located approximately one quarter mile west of the subject property. Both Terry Park and Central Park will adequately serve any of the residential alternatives . 6. Schools : The subject property is located within the Oceanview School District and is served by Crest View Elementary and Junior High School (grades K-8) , and Ocean View High School (grades 9-12) . The number of students that would be generated by the residential alternative contained herein are listed below: LAND USE ALTERNATIVE CRESTVIEW OCEANVIEW H.S. K-8 9-12 Medium Density (93) 11.76 3 .72 Medium-High Density (110) 13 .20 4 .40 High Density (155) 18 . 60 6 .20 The number of students generated from a Medium-High or High Density alternative would be minimal and could be accommodated by the school district . 7 . Gas Natural Gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. The Gas company has indicated that any of the proposed alternatives could be adequately served by existing gas lines . It should be noted that since the gas company is a public utility and is under the jurisdiction of federal and state regulatory agencies, gas supply may be affected by the overall availability of natural gas and by federal and state regulatory policies . 8 . Electric: The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that the subject property is located within the company' s service area. According to the Edison Company, the electric loads of the proposed land use are within the parameters of the overall projected load growth. Staff Report - 9/5/90 -8- (6918d) 9 . Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City of Huntington Beach. No local service constraints are expected under any of the land use alternatives . D. Traffic and Circulation: The project area has approximately 175 lineal feet of frontage along Talbert Avenue and lies approximately 550 feet west of the intersection of Talbert Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Talbert Avenue is designated as a primary arterial and has average daily traffic volume of 14, 000 vehicles near the site location. Beach Boulevard, a major arterial, carries an average daily traffic volume of approximately 58, 000 vehicles per day near the site location. Access to the project area is taken off of Talbert Avenue via two streets located at the east (Joyful Lane) and west (Jolly Lane) ends of the subject property. Daily traffic volumes projected to be generated by the alternative land use designations are based upon trip generation rates taken from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Handbook. They are as following: LAND USE ALTERNATIVE DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATION 1) High Density Residential 648 -Planned Development (applicant ' s proposal) 2) Medium Density/High Density 507 (existing zoning) 3) Medium Density/High Density 665 + Density Bonus 4) Medium-High Density 671 -Planned Development 5) High Density Residential 740 As indicated in the table above, the proposed land use designation of High Density-Residential Planned Development would generate approximately 648 vehicle trips per day. This represents a 141 vehicle trips per day increase over the existing mixed land use designations of Medium and High Density Residential, which is 507 vehicle trips . This is not deemed to have a significant impact upon traffic in the vicinity. Each of the other alternatives would generate more vehicle trips than the existing and proposed land uses . Staff Report - 9/5/90 -9- (6918d) With regard to public transportation, the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) offers bus service near the study area on Beach Boulevard at Talbert Avenue. The OCTD does not forsee any significant impact from the alternatives on the existing or any future transit services in the study area. The Orange County Transit District does request, however, that adequate accessibility from the study area to the transit sites be provided. OCTD suggested the project include paved, lighted and handicapped accessible, pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials . This will be included as part of the development plan. E. Environmental Issues : 1. Noise• The major sources of noise among the proposed project is vehicle traffic along Talbert Avenue. The existing noise levels on the property fall within the normally acceptable range for all of the alternatives discussed. Noise levels on the front portion of the property along Talbert Avenue often exceed the acceptable range of 60 Ldn for residential uses . However, the use of setbacks, berming, and landscaping will be utilized along Talbert Avenue at the time of residential development . No significant noise impacts are anticipated to occur from any of the proposed land uses . 2 . Air Ouality: Development of the proposed project may indirectly generate automotive and off-site energy generation emissions in the Huntington Beach region by attracting users, establishing a use on a vacant site, etc. These emissions may incrementally contribute to the degradation of local air quality. However, the project ' s contribution is not anticipated to be significant . 3 . Seismic, Soils and Geology: In compliance with Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972, a Special Studies Zone has been established in Huntington Beach that includes the most hazardous earthquake faults . The project area does not fall into this special studies zone. Development in the study area is need not be subject to the zone' s requirements . Staff Report - 9/5/90 -10- (6918d) The study area is not located in an area having peat and organic soil deposits and, therefore, has a low risk potential for liquefaction of subsoil during an earthquake. (Liquefaction is a phenomenon where the soil structure collapses and subsidence of the ground occurs . ) However, a low to moderate expansive clay hazard potential does exist in the study area. Expansive clays can shrink and swell depending on the soil ' s water content. Shrink swell hazards include sliding and slippage of foundations and the cracking of foundations . Any development that occurs on the subject property should include proper mitigation measures to avoid shrink/swell hazards . 4 . Light and Glare: Any development on the subject property would result in new light sources on the site. In effect, increased general nighttime illumination would be generated in the area. The initial study conducted by staff identified this as a potentially significant adverse impact. However, mitigation measures included in Negative Declaration No. 90-23 would reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance. F. Public Notification: There were 209 notices mailed to residents within a three hundred (300) foot radius of the subject area . Two written notices in opposition to the request were received by the Planning Division and are included in the report (attachment 11) . 10 . 0 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY: The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change conforms to the Land Use and Housing Element goals and policies established by the General Plan. The General Plan goals and policies which are pertinent to the proposed project are discussed below. A. Land Use Element: The project and subsequent development, with recommended mitigation measures contained in Negative Declaration No. 90-23 will be consistent with many goals and policies of the City' s Land Use Element including: 3 .4 . 2 . 5 Housing. To provide and maintain a quality living environment so that members of all economic, social and ethnic groups may reside in Huntington beach by: a) Providing a variety of housing types in all areas of the City. b) Providing an adequate level of community services, facilities, improvements and maintenance in all areas of the City. c) Encouraging rational use of land use and other natural resources . Staff Report - 9/5/90 -11- (6918d) 0 • 3 .4 .2 . 7 Residential Development . To encourage and maintain a well balanced variety of residential densities and uncrowded living environments by: a) Encouraging development of neighborhoods that are available and attractive to diverse economic groups . b) Insure adequate open space in all residential areas . The project complies with the following General Plan locational criteria for High Density Residential land uses : 1) In or adjacent to intensive land use areas . 2) Near major transportation routes and highways . 3) In proximity to commercial and activity areas . 4) Near or highly accessible to work areas . B. Housing Element: If the requested General Plan Amendment and zone change are approved, the applicant intends to proceed with an application for phased development of approximately 140 units of which approximately 52 percent will be affordable housing units . Thus, approval of this application will be consistent with the following housing policies pertaining to meeting the housing needs of all social and economic segments of the community: a. Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the community, with variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities . b. Encourage both the private and public sectors to produce or assist in the production of housing with particular emphasis on housing affordable to lower income households, as well as the needs of the handicapped, the elderly, large families and female-headed households . c. Promote rezoning of vacant or recyclable parcels of land to higher densities where compatible with surrounding land uses and available services in order to lower the cost of housing. d. Undertake economically feasible programs to provide for housing throughout the community to meet the needs of low and moderate income households . Staff Report - 9/5/90 -12- (6918d) e. Ensure that any adverse impacts are minimized when increasing densities or relaxing standards in order to provide for low and moderate income housing. f . Encourage the participation and financial commitment of private entities in attaining housing goals . 11. 0 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: The Planning staff utilized its standard fiscal impact methodology in analyzing various land use alternatives for the project site. The analysis consisted of an assessment of the major revenue and cost impacts, in current year dollars, for the first full year after development . The results are summarized in the table below: Alt . 1 Alt. 2 . Alt . 3 Alt . 4 Alt . 5 High-PD Med/High Med/High Med-High High (Proposal) (Existing) D.B. PD 155 Units 93 Units 125 Units 110 Units 177 Units Revenue 374, 275 183, 009 250, 616 289, 671 283,331 Cost 34 ,410 22, 074 28,455 25,454 38, 757 Revenue-Cost 339, 865 160, 935 222, 161 264 ,217 244, 544 Revenue/Cost 10 . 88 8 .29 8 . 81 11.38 7.31 As shown above, Alternative 1 (High Density-Planned Development) would generate the greatest net revenue. However, Alternative 4 (Medium-High Density-Planned development) would generate the highest revenue to cost ratio. 12 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions : A. Approve Negative Declaration No. 90-23 with mitigation measures and forward to the City Council for adoption, B. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. and forward to the City Council for adoption; and C. Approve Zone Change No. 90-3 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption. Staff Report - 9/5/90 -13- (6918d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-3 : 1. The proposed zone change from (Q)R2-PD, R2-SR and R4-SR to R4-PD is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and consistent with General Plan Amendment No . 90-3 . 2 . Zone Change No. 90-3 from (Q)R2-PD, R2-SR and R4-SR to R4-PD is consistent with the goals and policies within the Housing Element . 3 . The proposed Zone Change with mitigation measures would facilitate designs aethetically compatible with the surrounding residential area in regards to height, setbacks and landscaping . 13 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: A. Recommend to the City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment for Medium-High Density Residential (25 units per gross acre) and Zone Change to R3-PD (Medium-High Density-Planned Development) ; or B. Recommend to the City Council denial of General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 for High Density Residential (35 units per gross acre) by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. and denial of Zone Change No. 90-3 for R4-PD zoning with findings . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2 . Existing General Plan Designation Map 3 . Proposed General Plan Designation Map 4 . Existing Zoning Map 5 . Proposed Zoning Map 6 . Existing Land Use Map 7. Negative Declaration No. 90-23 (with mitigation measures) 8 . Fiscal Impact Analysis 9 . Planning Commission Resolution No. 1435 to recommend to the City Council adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 10 . Draft Ordinance (Zone Change No. 90-3) 11. Comment letters received (2) 12 . Planning Commission Resolution to deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 HS: 1 Staff Report - 9/5/90 -14- (6918d) I# luauzpt,11V (fl I 1 � JAFIESTOWN L—L f, � KOvnCS Sl � -— '' T BROOKSHIRE LNG GEORGETOWN ••PAkKVIF.W fu JQ f x LN BARON CR. _ JOLLY C J 1 �f`ll NI �i MARTY,LN, y' II.00..I D XI `�o� i w_AKEFIELD_ D Z `_ �`Ar _ RO_ N•^ m • 00u O I I lotl i X iii I _ 00 _ JQifUIL LN. LL Q l+. v � Fil � BEACH Z I m --- r GLEADA ST z - --- - -- o x z M m VALLCA CA C l�l I U: .. I f•EMBERCP C❑ rn 1 ' I •.0 c C i ( �� m i N. o D Z < 1 0 W rn z 0 � o m WHARTON STREET x � r D I' 3 _ o W u Medium Density 1000 I ( � U W o Residential w SCALE IN FEET IN cl U w W o I J CIDPublic, Quasi-Public �^ o m ( Institutional General _-_ Industrial TALBERT • I _ i General Y ;W, C F- E CommercialLij cLA; iYi - ,.. .. .. ...... C) I 3 w, - ! Low Density LO C Residential STERLING_ 1 =��""� .`a -s. -'� (-5l== - ��•- STERLING � AVENUE N J IIZZ --- rLow Densit -F= 0 Y;C; a C F -R i4Residentia� a a (-;�_ ..-.. -^;) �ONfvi r; DR`• .,.. .. .. . ... KINER AVENUE KI' "F (Existing) General 'Plan Land Use Designation loin HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION 3 z 3: V O 1000 r ¢ U N � w W SCALE IN FEET.; IJ U Medium Density Q W z Residential w N m Public, Quasi-Public o m Institutional 0 CD TALBERT Z I J General - , _ Industrial General— i C F_ c Commercial L :.,A �� Low Density r.+ _' �� Residential !A STERLING AVENUE CD -- r 'Low Density, a ' w - � Resident C F -R W f ON ,_ � ...._... KINER AVENUE DR. ~ _j TAYLOR DR. LE Cr mm v1� (Proposed) JJ General 'Plan Land Use Designation HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION z r O J N I 0 IO 10 fn 0 U M U Q W 3 R 3 R 3 i SCALE H IEFT R2 R2 w C4 WI R -Z 4 R3 SP- I th L Z wR3M °OPa OP N O 6 3: cn TALBERT ( I i71 5 Z 6155 i I 300 :—'------ _`c_SS�:C ` J • (Q)- M I I M I-A �; (Q)R2-P D LL ' 50`33e / 50 P 4 C F— E MI-A iR cvIE - J V Y 01 PPT Gn 0 i R4-SR _ R2-SR - ----- - - -- 539 30 Q � 300 —� 675- p I I R CD f�r , � � -------' G �'.. a-�;�,--- '-R;• o STERLING AVE R4-SR R I; I 0 660= I O ZZ6 " 65 s ID = RI a RI R 0. C F- lr----- R '1` - J C 2 a •„� . onlv! yr-eR_•; 1n R� m K I N E R AVENUE (Existing) Zoning Map HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION z 3 ? I- I- J w N 0 10,)0 O u U rn F - w o 3to R 3 " R 3 SCALE IN FcrI R2 R2 w C4 WI J Z P R ? I J I S 1 I M I = M I R3� - R30 .. � � .. CC OP w OP � � O 196 �' 330 Q� _BERT m TALBERT rn5 z 6165 I 300 J J J (0)-Ic M I I M I-A n; - 55�EQ)R2 a- , so /� 330 J 150 -P D� 0 -� •� C4 C F- E -/-1 / PARKVI J J l y, `I 5 N HAPPi T F 0 675: RI. I RI o� = ��-I'-*--" J o STERLING AVEN I� M R4-SR R I; � J Q I L. O 660' Q -y`7 I \ 77 'D = Rl < RI RI ol �1 ..a 'Qa' M �DR. I W KINER AVENUEm (MI) rAI 71111,TAYUOR OR. R I • 1� �Z 57720 RI N TAY! ..P OR (Proposed) Zoning Map HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION 1 J Z 3 W �,� O 1000 r MULTI-FAMILY ul RESIDENTIAL (APTS.) SCALE IN F E E T o J Co ES CEMETERY INDUSTRIAL a w COMMERCIAL m OFFIC CENTER E F TALBERT • MULTI- INDUSTRIAL- _ FAMILY - COMMERCIAL °' RESIDENTIAL CENTER o (CONDOS) _ Vacant C C F E GLA LLJ INDUSTRIAL �� DR. l ,..... ) Cr- - - _ MEDICAL SCHOOL CD4 ` J Vacantt acant N 46.. VACANT RESTAURANT SINGLE FAMILY �' STERLING AVENUE SINGLE FAMILY - OFFICES RESIDENTIAL N RESIDENTIAL Z CF -R mil, LJ. .. E::j PARK� ;Nf�r - �r-loR KINER AVENUE K • (Existing) J. Land Use Map [COB HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION -41 II z r CITY OF HUNTINGTON -BEACH . • INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH - To Laura Phillips From Julsugi Associate Planner Pla ing Aide ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Date July 2, 1990 Subject FORM NO. 90-23 Applicant: Sea View Village, Bijan Sassounian Request: General Plan Amendment No. 90-3/Zone Change No. 90-3/Conditional Use Permit No. 90-12 is a request to amend the land use designation and zoning from Medium Density Residential and R2-PD, R2-SR and R4-SR, respectively, to High Density Residential and R4 to allow for development of 141 stacked condominium units with subterranean parking. Location: Northeast and southwest corners of Happy Drive and Joyful Lane. Back rg ound Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment form noted above and has determined that a negative declaration may be filed for the project. In view of this, a draft negative declaration was prepared and was published in the Daily Pilot for a twenty-one (21) day public review period commencing July 9, 1990 and ending July 30, 1990. If any comments regarding the draft negative declaration are received, you will be notified immediately. Recommendation The Environmental Review Committee recommends that the Planning Commission approve Negative Declaration No. 90-23 finding that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Mitigation Measures X The attached mitigating measures will reduce potential environmental effects resulting from the project and are recommended as conditions of approval. JO:kjl (6281d) ONVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 90-23 1 . Name of Proponent Sea View Village, Biian Sassounian Address 2124 Main Street. Suite # 170 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phone Number (714) 960-5505 2. Date Checklist Submitted for Review June 20, 1990 3. Concurrent Entitlement(s) General Plan Amendment No 90-3/ Zone Change No. 90-3/Conditional Use Permit No. 90-12 4. Project Location Northwest and southwest corners of Happy Drive and Joyful Lane 5. Project Description Request to amend the General Plan Designation and Zoning from Medium Density Residential and R2—PD, R2—SR and R4—SR, respectively, to High Density Residential and R4 to allow for development of 141 stacked condominium units with subterranean parking. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of answers are included after each subsection.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ _ X Discussion: The project is not located within the Alquist—Priolo Special Study Zone or in the vicinity of any known unstable earth conditions; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. :; • • Yes Maybe No b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X Discussion: Development of the site will result in displacement of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of soil , as well as compaction and overcovering of soils. However, anticipated drainage impacts can be mitigated (see 3b) and no signigicant impacts are anticipated. C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X Discussion: The proposed projbct will increase the grade of the site by a maximum of five (5) feet. However, drainage impacts can be mitigated (see 3b) and no significant impacts are anticipated. d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ _ X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ X Discussion: Minor short term wind erosion may occur during construction. However, Mitigation Measures No. 11 & 12, requiring dust control measures will reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ _ X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ _ X Discussion: The project site is not located within the Alquist—Priolo Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ X Discussion: Short—term — .Minor short term deterioration of local ambient air—quality may occur during construction as a result of construction equipment emissions and dust. However, impacts are not considered significant and will be further reduced by Mitigation Measures No. 11 & 12 which requires dust control and maintenance of equipment in proper tune. - Long—term — Development of the proposed project may indirectly generate automotive- and off—site energy generation emissions by (attracting users, establishing a use on a vacant site, etc). These emissions may incrementally contribute to the degradation of local air quality. However, the project's contribution is not anticipated to be significant. Environmental Checklist —2— (6115d) • ' • Yes Maybe No b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ _ X Discussion: No objectional odors will be generated by the project. C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ _ X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh.waters? X Discussion: Properties located to southwest of the project site currently drain across a portion of the proposed project site. Grading associated with development of the proposed project may result in alteration of currents, flow patterns as well as changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and amount of surface runoff. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures No.8 & 9, requiring submittal of a grading plan installation of a drainage system to maintain drainage through the site, no significant impacts are anticipated. b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? _ X Discussion: See 3a. C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X Discussion: The project site is not located within the 100 year flood plain and does not drain directly into any natural water body. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ _ X Discussion: See 3a. e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ _ X Discussion: See 3a. f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ _ X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ _ X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _ _ X Environmental Checklist —3— (6115d) ` C\ • • Yes Maybe No i . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as _flooding or tidal waves? _ _ X Discussion: See 3a. 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _ _ X b. Reduction of the numbers of any mature, unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ _ X C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ _ X d. Reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop? _ _ X Discussion: No plants are anticipated to be affected. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? _ _ X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ _ X C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ _ X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ _ X Discussion: No animals are anticipated to be affected. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ X Discussion: - Development of the site will result in increases in noise levels in the project site vicinity; however, increases in noise levels are not anticipated to be significant. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ _ X Discussion: Development of the project site may result in increased noise levels during construction phases. However, with Mitigation Measure No. 13, limiting construction hours, no significant impacts are anticipated. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X Discussion: The project will result in new light sources on the site. However, with Mitigation Measure No. 6, requiring directed lighting, no adverse impacts are anticipated. Environmental Checklist —4— (6115d) • Yes Maybe No d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _ _ X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ X _ Discussion: During the construction phase of the project, pedestrian and bicycle flow may be impeded from time to time; however, with implementation of Mitigation Measure No.15, requiring adequate warning signs for pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle traffic, no significant impacts are anticipated. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? _ _ X b. Police protection? _ _ X C. Schools? _ _ X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ _ X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ X Discussion: Development of the proposed project will require construction of public improvements such as sidewalks, which will be maintained by the City. However, the projects contribution is not considered significant. f. Other governmental services? _ _ X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ _ X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing source of energy, or require the development of sources of energy? _ _ X Discussion: Anticipated energy demands created by the proposed project are within parameters of the overall projected demand which is planning to be met in the area. 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? _ X Discussion: All utilities are available to the site. Environmental Checklist —6— (6115d) • • Yes Maybe No b. Communication systems? _ _ X Discussion: See 16a. C. Water? _ _ X Discussion: See 16a. d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ _ X Discussion: See 16a. e. Storm water drainage? X Discussion: Sites located to the southwest of the project currently drain across a portion of the proposed project site. Development of the site may result in alteration of drainage patterns; however, with implementation of Mitigation Measure No. 9, requiring installation of a drainage system to maintain drainage through the site, no significant impacts are anticipated. f. Solid waste and disposal? _ _ X Discussion: See 16a. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ _ X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ _ X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ _ X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? _ _ X 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _ _ X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _ _ X Environmental Checklist —7— (6115d) • • Yes Maybe No C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which .would affect unique ethnic vultural values? _ _ X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? _ _ X Discussion: No known archaeological sites are in the project vicinity. Furthermore, with Mitigation Measures No. 10, prescribing actions which shall be taken should any archaeological resources be discovered, no significant impacts are anticipated. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, sub— stantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? _ _ X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short—term, to the disadvantage of long—term, environmental goals? (A short—term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long—term impacts will endure well into the future.) _ _ X C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively consid— erable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) _ _ X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ _ X Environmental Checklist —8— (6115d) \ DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there X will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL _ IMPACT REPORT is required. Da� Sig Lure Revised: March, 1990 For: City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department Environmental Checklist —9— (6115d) 0 • Attachment No . 8 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-3 September, 1990 Prepared by City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department FISCAL IMPACT MODEL TECHNICAL APPENDICES GPA # 89-3 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the fiscal impact model is to evaluate the public revenues and costs associated with each land use alternative. It examines current revenues and costs generated by each land use alternative if developed and operating in one year. The fiscal impact revenue items listed in Table 1 represent immediate revenues that will be generated. Direct or primary revenues include property tax, tax increment, sales tax, utility/franchise tax, fines, cigarette tax, motor vehicle in-lieu tax and gas tax fund. The fiscal impact cost items listed in the same table are broken down by City Department to show the primary costs that will be incurred by each land use alternative. The net Revenues or costs are presented at the bottom of the table as well as the revenue/cost ratio. A higher revenue to cost ratio represents greater fiscal benefits to the City. However, land use decisions should not be based upon a fiscal impact model alone. It serves as a planning tool to aid in evaluating each land use alternative. Other factors such as land use compatibility, consistency with other general plan elements, and potential environmental impacts are equally important considerations . Major revenue and cost impacts are assessed in current year dollars in this analysis for the first full year after development of the proposed project and alternatives . Assumptions and planning factors have been derived from staff research, other agency data and private sector sources . Implementation of the model has been aided by the use of a Burroughs B-25 micro-computer using Enhanced Multi-plan software. Attachment - 9/5/90 -2- (6984) There are five alternatives analyzed for General Plan Amendment No. 90-3/Negative Declaration No. 90-23 . The following list identifies the alternative land use scenarios including estimated market valuations for each alternative and the estimated population generated by residential scenarios . ALTERNATIVE 1 - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT- (APPLICANT' S PROPOSAL) - 155 condominium units - $170, 000 per unit market value - 419 residents based on 2 . 7 people/unit - Total market value = $26,350, 000 ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/ MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (EXISTING GENERAL PLAN) - 64 apartment units/29 condominium units (93 total units) - $190, 000 per unit market value - 251 residents based on 2 . 7 people/unit - Total market value = $11, 910, 000 ALTERNATIVE 3 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/ MEDIUM?HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-WITH DENSITY BONUS - 96 apartments/29 condominium units (125 total units) - $190, 000 per unit market value - 338 residents based on 2 . 7 people/unit - Total market value = $14 , 150, 000 ALTERNATIVE 4 - MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - 110 condominium units - $180, 000 per unit market value - 297 residents based on 2 . 7 people/unit - Total market value = $19, 800, 000 ALTERNATIVE 5 - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 177 apartment units - $100, 000 per unit market value - 478 residents based on 2 . 7 people/unit - Total market value = $17, 700, 000 The following table represents a summary of Revenue and Cost items and presents a Revenue/Cost ratio. Attachment - 9/5/90 -3- (6984) TABLE 1 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 High-PD Med/High Med/High-D.B. Med-High-PD High 155 Units 93 Units 125 Units 110 Units 177 Units REVENUE ITEM Property Tax 50,329 22,748 27,027 37,818 33,807 Tax Increment 275,000 131 ,010 184,360 217,800 194,700 Sales Tax 6,975 4,092 5,375 4,290 6,903 Util/Fran. Tax 17,288 10,373 13,942 12,269 19,742 FFP 5,204 3,117 4,198 3,687 5,937 Cigarette Tax 817 489 659 579 932 Motor Vehicle 15,059 9,021 12,148 10,674 17,179 Gas Tax Fund 3,603 2,159 2,907 2,554 4,111 Total 374,275 183,009 250,616 289,671 283,311 COST ITEM Gen. Admin 3,618 3,618 3,618 3,618 3,618 Police 10,315 6,189 8,319 7,321 11 ,779 Fire 14,665 8,785 11 ,830 10,395 16,730 Comm. Services 4400 2,636 3,549 3,119 5019 Public Works 1 ,412 846 1 ,139 1 ,001 1 .611 Total 34,410 22,074 28,455 25454 38,757 Revenue Minus Cost 339,865 160,935 222,161 264,271 244,544 Revenue/Cost Ratio 10.88 8.29 8.81 11 .38 7.31 Attachment - 9/5/90 -4- (6984) Revenue and cost categories used in this analysis are detailed in summary tables following the conclusion of this text . 1.0 REVENUES 1. 1 Property Tax Property tax revenue (see Table 2) is derived from County property tax placed on new development, which is one percent of the market value of the land and (or) improvements . Of that one percent, the City of Huntington Beach collects (through the General Fund) a specific percent of the revenue, determined by the tax rate area (TRA) in which the proposed project is located. The proposed project is located in TRA 04-033 . The City collects 19 . 1 percent of the one percent County tax. Market value assumptions were based on residential unit value derived from current residential sales in the City. Because of limitations placed on the County Tax Assessor by Proposition 13, the assessed valuation of a property can only increase by a maximum of two percent per year. Tha land value of the proposed project site has been adjusted to reflect allowable increases per year . 1.2 Sales Tax The State of California places a six percent sales tax on retail sales . Of that six percent the City receives 16 . 6 percent or one cent for every six cents collected.. Sales tax for residential projects (see Table 3) is based on an estimated family income determined by the unit or house value. In this analysis it was assumed that thirty percent of the cost of the unit would be required as a minimum annual family income. The annual retail sales tax collected is then derived from the Internal Revenue Service "Optional State Sales Tax Tables . " It is assumed that a large percent -of Huntington Beach residents spend retail dollars outside of the City. Therefore, it is estimated that for every new resident the City captures only 40 percent of the annual retail sales tax revenue generated by that resident. Attachment - 9/5/90 -5- (6984) • 1.3 Utility User and Franchise Tax Huntington Beach collects a five percent utility user tax (see Table 4) on the annual sales of electricity, natural gas, water, telephone and cable television services in the City. A franchise tax of one percent of the annual electricity sales and four percent of the annual natural gas sales is collected from the respective utility providers in the City. Factors used for this section of the analysis are as follows . Electricity According to the California Energy Commission, average electricity charges based on the total bills collected for 1989, are: Residential = $51. 13 per unit, per month Natural Gas According to the California Energy Commission, average statewide natural gas charges are: Residential = $29 . 58 per unit, per month Water Based on City Water Department analyses : Average residential water billing is $18 . 69 for a two month period, per unit . Telephone For comparison purposes, an average estimated residential telephone bill is forty dollars ($40 . 00) per month. General Telephone is unable to provide the City with any data on average phone billings for residential customers . They do not compile the type of information that would be appropriate for a fiscal analysis . Cable Television For cable T.V. service in the City, the basic rate paid by residents is $21. 95 per month. It is assumed that all new residents in the City will subscribe to the cable service. Attachment - 9/5/90 -6- (6984) 1.4 Additional Revenue Additional revenue (see Table 5) is generated by new residential development on a per capita basis . This revenue is derived from funds* collected by the State of California that are distributed back to local municipalities using a formula that is primarily based on that municipality' s population. In the Preliminary City Budget, Fiscal Year 1990-1991, four major revenue items are applicable to this analysis . Based on the April 1988, Orange County Forecast Analysis Center population estimates for 1990 for Huntington Beach of 194 , 755, the revenues are calculated as follows : Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties is $2,419, 000 divided by 194, 755 equals $12 .42 per capita. Cigarette Tax is $380, 000 divided by 194, 755 equals $1 . 95 per capita. Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax is $7, 000, 000 divided by 194 , 755 and equals $35 . 94 per capita. Gas Tax Funds (2107 and 2107. 5) are $1, 674, 000 divided by 194, 755 equaling $8 . 60 per capita. 2.0 COSTS Research and discussions with each department have resulted in the application of different methods to assess relative costs . These results depended on the amount of data available and the level of automation in each department. For example, the police department has the most sophisticated data analysis related to activity by type of land use. Working with police department computerized archival data it was possible to assess the number of calls for a particular type of land use. The number of calls has a direct relationship to the number of officers needed, and, ultimately, a recommendation for the hiring of additional officers based on the impacts from development. * State subventions . Essentially, each department has been treated on a case by case basis rather than applying a standard methodology to all of the categories considered. Attachment - 9/5/90 -7- (6984) 2 . 1 Cost Assumptions The City of Huntington Beach Preliminary Budget, Fiscal Year 1990-1991, was used as the primary source for this section of the analysis . Capital expenditures were excluded from the budget as they are not applicable to future or proposed development . The applicable programs under each budget item can generally be assigned to privately developed acreage in the City on the following basis : Residential land uses comprise approximately 78 percent of privately developed acres, commercial land uses comprise 10 percent and industrial land uses comprise 12 percent. Where appropriate, this land use distribution will be used to assess cost impacts . 2 .2 General and Administration Expenditures While this fund includes numerous programs (a total of 20) , new development would measurably impact only the non-departmental (budget program 101) category. Non-departmental activities range from City utility expenditures to liability program expenditures and comprise, of the 1990/1991 budget, $9, 835, 100 . The most equitable method of distributing this expenditure is on a cost per acre, regardless of the type of land use. There are approximately 12,230 privately developed acres in the City and divided into the above budget figure results in a cost per acre of $804 . The proposed project site is 5 . 1 gross acres yielding a cost of $3618 . 2 . 3 Police Department From surveys of major land uses in the City, police calls per type of development were derived. The police calls by type of land use are detailed below. POLICE CALLS/UNIT LAND USE OR SQUARE FEET Residential -Single family . 58/unit -Multi-family low density . 70/unit -Multi-family Multi-story and high density . 55/unit Commercial 1/1693 square feet Office and retail or . 0006 calls per square foot These calls relate to the number of additional officers per year that would be needed to service new development. A patrol officer ' s average annual salary, including benefits, is $65, 000 . Five or more officers would result in capital expenditures, such as a vehicle. Attachment - 9/5/90 -8- (6984) When calls per year reach 535, the Police Department would recommend hiring an officer. Consequently, the cost per call is approximately $121. For the purpose of this analysis, it will be assumed that the Department will incur a cost whether the calls for a particular project reach 535 or a portion of that total . Calls by type of land use and estimated annual costs for alternatives are shown on the summary Table 6 titled Police Services Costs . 2 .4 Fire Department It is the the assessment of Fire Department Staff (see Table 7) , primarily Tom Poe (Deputy Fire Marshall, Fire Prevention Division) , that new residential development will impact two programs : Public Safety Administration, Program No. 300 and Public Safety, Fire Control Program 302 . The total 1990/1991 budget for these programs, minus capital expenditures, is $9, 018, 686 . The majority of public safety activity, approximately 75 percent, is provided to residential land uses in the City. Assuming costs for public safety on a per capita basis the result would be as follows : ($9, 018, 686) ( . 75) = $6, 764 , 015 divided by the 1990 City population estimates of 194 , 755 = $35 per capita. 2 . 5 Community Services According to Jim Engle, Acting Director, Community Services Department, none of the development scenarios analyzed in General Plan Amendment 90-3 would require and/or generate an increase in park acreage in the City. Nor would those scenarios require an increase in community services staff or existing programs that are not self supporting(see Table 7) . It is assumed, however, that new residents in the City will have some impact on the cost of park maintenance. Although park mainte- nance is a budgeted program within the Public Works department, it will be shown under Community Services in order to identify the cost impacts separate from other Public Works programs . According to Daryl Smith, Superintendent of Park Maintenance, it costs the City $3, 700 per year, per acre, to maintain the parks . In order to determine a cost per capita the following formula was developed: There are currently 555 acres of park land that are included in the $3, 700 per acre, per year cost . The City population estimates for 1990 are 194, 755 . Park acreage divided by population results in . 003 acres of park per person that are maintained by the City. Park acreage per person multiplied by cost per acre results in an annual park maintenance cost per capita of $10. 50 . Acreage Maintenance Annual Maintained Population Cost Cost/Capita (555) / (194, 755) _ . 003 ($3, 700) _ ($10 . 50) Attachment - 9/5/90 -9- (6984) 2 . 6 Public Works In a discussion with Robert Eichblatt, City Engineer, it was determined that the scope of development assessed in this analysis would only have a measurable impact (see Table 7) on Public Works Programs 530 and 531, sewer maintenance. Mr. Eichblatt also stated that residential development generates the greatest impact on sewer maintenance in the City. For budget year 1990-1991 the total cost for sewer maintenance is $842,380 . Since residential generates the largest impact, it is realistic to measure that impact on a per capita basis . Residential costs are as follows : Seventy eight percent of $842,380 = $657, 056 divided by the 1990 population estimates of 194 , 755 = $3 .37 per capita . Summary tables of revenues and costs follow this text . Attachment - 9/5/90 -10- (6984) TABLE 2 PROPERTY TAX (City tax collected is 19.1% of one percent) Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 High-PD Med/High Med/High-D.B. Med-High-PD High 155 Units 93 Units 125 Units 110 Units 177 Units Number of Units 155 93 125 110 177 Market Value per unit 170,000 100,000/ 90,000/ 180,000 100,000 190,000 190,000 Total Market Value 26,350,000 11 ,910,000 14,150,000 19,800,000 17,700,000 Total Property Tax 50,329 22,748 27,027 37,818 33,807 Attachment - 9/5/90 -11- (6984) "1 • • TABLE 3 SALES TAX REVENUE Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 High-PD Med/High Med/High-D.B. Med-High-PD High 155 Units 93 Units 125 Units 110 Units 177 Units Market Value (.per unit) 170,000 100,000/ 90,000/ 100,000 100,000 190,000 190,000 Estimated Household Income (per unit) 51 ,000 38,000 34,000 30,000 30,000 Estimated Annual Retail Sales Tax 686 667 653 589 589 per household (from Tax Tables) City' s Tax portion 114 ill 108 98 98 (16.6% of Sales Tax) 40% Capture Rate 45 44 43 39 39 Number of Units 155 93 125 110 177 City Tax Revenue 6,975 4,092 5,375 4,290 6,903 Attachment - 9/5/90 -12- (6984) TABLE 4 UTILITY USER AND FRANCHISE TAX Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 High-PD Med/High Med/High-D.B. Med-High-PD High 155 Units 93 Units 125 Units 110 Units 177 Units Electricity 4755.10 2853.05 3834.75 3374.58 5340.00 Gas 2750.90 1650.56 2218.50 1952.28 3141 .40 Telephone 3720.00 2232.00 3000.00 2640.00 4248.00 Cable TV 2041 .35 1224.81 1646.25 1448.70 2331 .09 Water 869.09 521 .45 700.88 616.77 992.44 Franchise Tax Electricity 951 .02 570.61 766.95 674.92 1086.00 0X of annual sales) Gas 2200.72 1320.45 1774.80 1561 .82 2513.12 (4% of annual sales) SUBTOTAL 17288. 18 10372.93 13942.13 12269.07 19742.05 Attachment - 9/5/90 -13- (6984) `5 TABLE 5 ADDITIONAL REVENUE Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 High-PD Med/High Med/High-D.B. Med-High-PD High 155 Units 93 Units 125 Units 110 Units 177 Units Estimated Population 419 251 338 297 478 Fine. Forfeitures and Penaltiej Revenue per capita 12.42 12.42 12.42 12.42 12.42 Total 5204.00 3117.00 4198.00 3687.00 5937.00 Cigarette Tax Revenue per capita 1 .95 1 .95 1 .95 1 .95 1 .95 Total 817.00 489.00 659.00 579.00 932.00 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax Revenue per capita 35.94 35.94 35.94 35.94 35.94 Total 15059.00 9021 .00 12148.00 10674.00 17179.00 Gas Tax Funds Revenue per capita 8.60 8.60 8.60 8.60 8.60 Total 3603.00 2159.00 2907.00 2554.00 4111 .00 Attachment - 9/5/90 -14- (6984) TABLE 6 POLICE SERVICE COSTS Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 High—PD Med/High Med/High—D.B. Med—High—PD High 155 Units 93 Units 125 Units 110 Units 177 Units Number of Units 155 93 125 110 177 or square feet Calls/Unit .55 .55 .55 .55 .55 or square feet Calls/Year 85.25 51 .15 68.75 60.50 97.35 Cost per call $121 $121 $121 $121 $121 Total Cost $10,315.25 6,189.15 $8318.75 $7320.50 $11 ,779.35 Attachment — 9/5/90 —15— (6984) TABLE 7 ADDITIONAL COSTS Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 High-PD Med/High Med/High-D.B. Med-High-PD High 155 Units 93 Units 125 Units 110 Units 177 Units Residential Estimated Population 419 251 338 297 478 Fire Service Costs Costs per capita 35 35 35 35 35 Total 14665 8785 11830 10395 16730 Community Service Costs Costs per capita 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 Total 4400.00 2636.00 3549.00 3119.00 5019.00 Public Works Costs Costs per capita 3.37 3.37 3.37 3.37 3.37 Total 1412.00 846.00 1130.00 1001 .00 1611 .00 * Commercial cost per acre Attachment - 9/5/90 -16- (6984) ATTACHMENT NiO. 9 RESOLUTION NO. I 43s- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-3 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 has been prepared and analyzed in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 5, 1990; and General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by redesignating a 3 . 83 gross acre area of land from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential : and Such 3 . 83 acre area is generally located on the south side of Talbert Avenue west of Joyful Lane, and south of Happy Drive west of Joyful Lane as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto; and The Planning Commission held a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65353 on September 5, 1990, to consider said General Plan Amendment; and The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Council on the amendment to the General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65354 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach as follows : SECTION 1: The Planning Commission desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives . SECTION 2 : General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan. SECTION 3 : General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 is consistent with other Elements of the General Plan. SECTION 4 : General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 implements the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan by providing affordable housing for moderate income households . SECTION 5 : The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach hereby adopts said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. a BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the fifth day of September, 1990 . Michael C. Adams, Secretary Planning Commission Chairwoman (6966d) MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers . 2 . Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units . 3 . Low volume heads shall be used on all showers . 4 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 5 . The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the state acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the California insulation standards of 45 dba CNEL. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s) . All measures recommended to mitigate noise to acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of the project. 6 . If lighting is included in the parking lot and/or recreation area energy efficient lamps shall be used (e.g . , high pressure sodium vapor, metal halide) . All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties . All outside lighting shall be noted on the site plan and elevations . 7. If foil-type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department. 8 . A grading plan shall be submitted to the City' s Department of Public Works . A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the project may be required by the Director of Public Works if deemed necessary. 9 . Drainage system, per the Department of Public Works specifications, shall be incorporated into the project to maintain existing drainage patterns through the project site. 10 . Should any cultural materials be encountered during the initial site survey or during grading and excavation activities, all activity shall cease and the archaeologist shall be obtained to determine the appropriate course of action. 11. During cleaning, grading, earth moving or excavation, the applicant shall : a. Control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust preventive measures . b. Maintain equipment engines in proper tune. 12 . During construction, the applicant shall : a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site, b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day, c. Use low sulfur fuel ( . 05% by weight) for construction equipment, d. Phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts) , e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts . 13 . Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7: 00 AM to 8 : 00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays . 14 . Police and fire departments shall -be notified prior to initiation of construction and the departments shall be kept informed about duration and extent of construction throughout the process . 15 . Public Works Department shall provide alternate routes for traffic during the construction phase, if necessary. Adequate signage shall be provided to warn motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians of construction. 16 . A water plan shall be submitted to the water department for review and approval . The plan shall detail measures which the project shall implement to reduce peak hour water usage. 17 . A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities . In addition, the soils analysis shall address shrink swell hazards on expansive clays . 18 . The applicant shall provide a comprehensive built-in fire protection and alarm system. 19 . The applicant shall contribute tot the City' s "Opticom" traffic signal control system at Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue. 20 . Buildings closest to Low Density Residential properties shall generally not exceed two stories . 21. A minimum twenty (20) foot average building setback shall be required for buildings adjacent to Low Density Residential (R1) . 22 . The Applicant shall provide paved, lighted and handicapped accessible, pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials . Nb - ro 1 FT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "QUALIFIED-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT" TO "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT" ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 1. 84 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF TALBERT AVENUE AND JOYFUL LANE, AND FROM "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-SENIOR SUFFIX" AND "MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-SENIOR SUFFIX" TO "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT" ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 2 .3 ACRES SOUTH OF HAPPY DRIVE BETWEEN JOLLY LANE AND JOYFUL LANE (ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-3) WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate public hearings relative to Zone Change No. 90-3 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : ,, :f • SECTION 1. The following described real property, , 1.�� Joy i `located at the southwest corner of Talbert Avenue and iul� a� ��.L,,_ e4j s f hereby changed from (Q) R2-PD (Qualified Medium Density Residen' *-Al -Planned Development) to R4-PD (High Density Residential-Planned '} Development) : Parcel I : THAT PORTION OF TRACT NO. 172, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 12, PAGES 21 AND 22, of MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BLOCK "A" OF SAID TRACT, LOTS 107, 108, 113 , 114 , 119, 120, 125, 126, 131, 132, 137, 138, 143 , 144, 149 , AND 150 . BLOCK "B" OF SAID TRACT, LOTS 103 , 104 , 105, 109, 110, 111, 115, 116, 117, 121, 122, 123, 127, 128, 129 , 133 , 134, 135, 139 , 140, 141, 145, 146 AND 147 . SECTION 2 . The following described real property, generally located south of Happy Drive between Jolly Lane and Joyful Lane is hereby changed from R4-SR (High Density Residential-Senior Suffix) and R2-SR (Medium Density Residential-Senior Suffix) to R4-PD (High Density Residential-Planned Development) : PARCEL I : THAT PORTION OF TRACT NO. 172, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 12, PAGES 21 AND 22, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDED OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BLOCK "B" OF SAID TRACT, LOTS 106, 107, 108, 112, 113, 114, 118, 119, 120, 124 , 125, 126, 130, 131, 132, 136, 137, 138, 142, 143 , 144 , 148, 149 AND 150 . BLOCK "C" OF SAID TRACT, LOTS 103, 104 , 105, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123 , 124 , 127, 128, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 136, 139 , 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 147, AND 148 . EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EASTERLY 18 . 00 FEET OF SAID LOTS 106, 112, 118, 124, 130, 136, 142 AND 148 OF BLOCK "C" OF SAID TRACT. BLOCK "B" OF SAID TRACT, LOTS 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 24, 29 , 30, 35, 36, 41, 42, 47, 48, 53 , 54, 59, 60, 65, 66, 71, 72, 77, 78, 93 , 84 , 89 , 90, 95, 96, 101 AND 102 . BLOCK "C" OF SAID TRACT, LOTS 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 , 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 25, 26, 31, 32, 37, 38, 43 , 44 , 45, 49, 50, 51, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63 , 67, 68, 69 , 73, 74, 75, 79 , 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 93 , 94 , 97, 98, 99 AND 100 TOGETHER WITH THE WESTERLY 6 . 00 FEET OF LOTS 21, 27, 33 AND 39 ALL OF BLOCK "C" OF SAID TRACT; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EASTERLY 18 . 00 FEET OF SAID LOTS 82, 88 , AND 94 OF BLOCK "C" OF SAID TRACT. (6803d-2) SECTION 3 . The Director of Community Development is .'- directed to amend Section 9061, District Map 39 (Sectional---� Map 35-5-11) to reflect Zone Change No. 90-3 described in Sectio 1 i and 2 hereof . Copies of said district maps, as amended hereby, are available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 4 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1990 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Community Development (6803d-3) Z Z 0 -I � N O IOJO F - 0 3 R3 v R3 SCALE IN iEfi R2 R2 W C4 y R ..JC. j SP- R3 MI Jo3Oj 0 ox wP ° m 0 330 w _BERT m I TALBERT i71 5 Z 6185 J 300 .. J J (Q)-M I I M I-A R: _�_Tb)R2 ,o J - -- N � C4 CF- E �30 P D 150 J - d- PARKV I V4 � L l_ v . --R4-SR- � '� � • N MAPP7 5 Q�. /� , 300 _ -- 3 P _ 675: RI. J +' 4 I R I -��'--- 0 STERLING AVEN --'----- R4-SR R I. ; 1 I J 23 Ri w 660= C �„ RI W RI RI o I U CF-R -- J C2 a I ,tonrr��-----r�`-oR' R�I M W m KINER AVENUE y TAYLOR DR. RI 57720 I RI N -' . _ _ TAY! ..K DR - (Proposed) Zoning Ma zGao � / p HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION t r Marc Andre dock, Ph.D., D.C. - Practice of Chiropractic Assoclatlons - August 20 , 1990 Arerican Chiropractic California Mayor Tom Mays Chiropractic Huntington Beach City Hall Orange County 2000 Main Street Chiropr[ctic Huntington Beach, CA 92648 American Psychological Re: Proposed General Plan Amendment No. 90-3/Zone Change 90-3 Degrees Bachelor of Arts Dear Mayor Mays : Philosophy Bachelor of Science Biology As a long time homeowner, resident and businessman of Master of Arcs Huntington Beach who will be directly affected by the passing Psychology of the proposed general plan amendment No. 90-3 and the zone Doctor of change 90-3 , I wish to strongly oppose this proposed new law Philosophy due to the negative effect it would have on the value of my Psychology property. Doctor of Chiropractic I am aware of your concern for the health and well-being Diplomate of those in our community and, as a member of the California California Board Chiropractic Association for many years , I was pleased to of Chiropractic join my professional association in their monetary support Examiners for your election to the State Assembly District 58 . National Board of Chiropractic Examiners One of the important reasons I purchased a home in the Member Huntington Village Estates at 7821 Lori Avenue in Huntington ACA Council on Beach was because the City Redevelopment Agency had zoned Diagnostic the vacant lots, which are directly north of my property, to Imaging be low to medium density (R-2) as are the Senior' s Complex Foundation for (Emerald Cove) . This proposed new law would change that Chiropractic Education and zoning to R-4 which would allow a high density, three story, Research low to moderate income housing project to .be built. .on. that MENSA site. Psi Chi National Honor This type of housing would block view, light and air due Society o to its three story proposed height and the im act of such a Psychology Y P P g P large number of non senior residents to the area would create the unnecessary disruption of an otherwise quiet and peaceful neighborhood. In addition, one of the roads of the proposed project would be right behind my fence which backs up to the now vacant pro- perty. This is a completely unacceptable and unhealthy situation for my family and the other residents of the Huntington Village Estates community. If I wanted to live on-.,a busy street I would have purchased my home somewhere else for less money. The noise factor alone from this type of proposed project is appalling and not in the best interests of the local community. 1637) Beach Boulevard, Suite 12) -Huntington Beach, California 92647-4161,- )714) 847-5350 MarcAndre Bock, Ph.D., D.C. Mayor Tom Mays August 20 , 1990 Page 2 As a member of the .Huntington Village Estates Homeowners ' Association, I would like to add my family' s vote to those of my fellow members and local residents who are opposed to the General Plan Amendment No. 90-3/Zone Change 90-3 , and encourage you as a representative of the community to vote against this proposal at the Planning Commission meeting when it is con- sidered. It is my understanding that the General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 is now scheduled to be considered on September 5 , 1990 . Even though we have not been given notice of this hearing as is prescribed, we will be present to voice our continued opposition to this proposal. Yours sincerely, MarcAndre '. _Bock, Ph.D. , D.C. MB/nd cc: City Council Planning Department Housing and. Redevelopment Department - BSB- Backer Spielvogel Bates,Inc. 2010 Main Street,Suite 700 Irvine,CA 92714-6095 USA Susan L.Bock �• -�, Vice President y Administration �/ 714 757 3703 " August 20, 1990 1990 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEtqr PLANNING DIVISION( Planning Commission Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Proposed General Plan Amendment No. 90-3/Zone 90-3 Dear Planning Director: My husband and I love Huntington Beach and we love living in Huntington Beach. After months of house shopping, we purchased a home at 7821 Lori Drive. We just learned of the above mentioned Amendment being considered which will adversely effect our property, property value and the quality of living environment we are currently enjoying. The proposed General Plan 90-3 and Zone 90-3 is of major concern to us as as well as other property owners in our area. One of the reasons we purchased 7821 Lori is because the City Redevlopment Agency had zoned the vacant lots directly north of our property as low to medium density (R-2) . The proposed Amendment would change the zoning to R-4 and would enable the builder to construct a high density, three story, low income housing project. Such a structure would seriously disrupt our quiet and peaceful neighborhood. This three story structure would also block the view of every homeowner on Lori Drive. To provide access to this project, the builder is planning a road adjacent to our property line. This is completely unacceptable to us as well as other Lori Drive property owners. The traffic noise alone, from this type of high density project, would be significant. A Company of Backer Spielvogel Bates Worldwide,Inc. 140 Offices in 46 Countries ' EM Proposed Central Plan Page 2 As a member of the Huntington Village Estates Homeowners Association, a property owner, a registered voter and as a tax payer, we enlist your aide and support in opposing this Amendment when put before the Planning Commission for consideration. Currently it is scheduled for the September 5, 1990 meeting. Respectfully, cc: City Council Planning Commission Housing and Redevelopment Agency A Company of Backer Spielvogel Bates Worldwide,Inc. 140 Companies in 46 Countries r � � • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-3 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 has been prepared and analyzed in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 5, 1990; and General Plan Amendment No. 90-3 proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by redesignating a 3 . 83 gross acre area of land from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential; and Such 3 . 83 acre area is generally located on the south side of Talbert Avenue west of Joyful Lane, and south of Happy Drive west of Joyful Lane as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto; and The Planning Commission held a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65353 on September 5, 1990, to consider said General Plan Amendment; and The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Council on the amendment to the General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65354 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach as follows : SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds General Plan Amendment 90-3 for the proposed land use designation of High Density Residential incompatible with surrounding land uses including adjacent Low Density Residential located to the south of the project area . SECTION 2 : General Plan Amendment No . 90-3 proposes a High Density Residential land use designation which is too intense for the project area . SECTION 3 : The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach hereby denies 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 denial by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the fifth day of September, 1990 . Michael C. Adams, Secretary Planning Commission Chairwoman (7027d) CA j r lU17�7 &' 2 Mac ireC kd 12617'a 0� pub lIC Aaar117� . �1 e-O-Se cl o n© t 0 r�vC Zone Chia PP ag-6 no qo - 3 . m i s a e.ea a,& 66 our lI'Ve s aad &tarn-e 1�!Irsf 71-7,-"-e /-1 0rnQ, ba gers 4A nt (Cl , l qqo, lcJ� �ldrrihas-�d Our hcyhe, Q 6 w Cori arm�rt� �h e- zon i itQ S i t-e— 7 ( Lea u pho& q&ut,-- 0-6rnm )'f m,el? � to -hhov- 06 Us r,/ho , bocVh�- h omn w i i-ti und&,,s1aad11q or fie cuo-elgf t/ -ty per o C an Si S 1-a0 (Ju M �h� Grr/ f- Zoe its cv odd b-'r, C:b 71 dun �in9t� ��:�C�-� -79�o W-d 12D�7-a 6e PUZ-) I/C p1 e ose do n o 74- 0#t-n1c Zone C hoagc. q0 - 3 OUK- IlVeY OaO( &Caln-e 'AYrSl 7L7"--*n-e /70we Lqur hoe, a 6 cff n Lt2 Li,0h.C& '/ 0 Mov- 06 uS (tlho boueh h om e-,s w i tfi wtd-,oal�tqdllz� oC he - off' Pro),z c c ejw I-a 0 1/?� e--li(1Yt1-2 f -ZOO I/7c W 0-Lj d b-C o� S� �2eC b(� aid app�o�� e . • T> Qb 7S'o I ur�-� �� rr�G�` f2O�?�C� �� dub l i G C1r�r� . eOSe CIO not Zone- no qo - 3 • W.-e- hooe- huted 4/mL lhl',S ae-ea alJ' 6#6 CUK- II'VeY 0110( &Cal-ne bu. ve-/,5 w nt hi qgo, 6CM loldrol-?Qceyl Ow homes O-6W -1--he- . zon ) itch S uph-old 0-Gnu tlj- � Me� rl -to M05,e 06 S Gc�h n ho�J n r Md1l)71a,12dIlq zoo ) il-17-� �WfiZ/? � -ZOn II' zq 6u CLU a b-c C6 l{uo lm 4�x_l Q�a� � ��r��rs, Pl ease do fio /- 01 t-vve Zone- Charzq_6 q0 -- 3 . • W-e- homa htl�d UvL' lhl-,S Ge-ea at�J' &0 our I,-Vey 0,10( &Caln-e bu cier•5 61A �Zi �c� , l q40• �� pl.�rG�S�� eurho�'Y�� CL 6 / Co»arm �h e Z(�n 1 1 m f m �� to ho 06 Us who houeh�- om e.,5 w ifli YndPAnl?dIlz OC Ih-e � 6-t1fiZ1,-) k -ZOO its 6o Ctka Qb dun �� P�zC� 12ab I/c Pl e O se CIO t7Of Zone- Choaqx, no . qo - 3 . • hov� li'ved UA MIS ae-ea a 6yo 11-VeY OaO( &Cal-n-e -ArS/ 741 /-7 OW-� ba gel-5 61A At (LI 10ljr-Cl?aSC4�(. Our h0y)?6 0-6w cc)-) iqrml ' -�he- zon ) ' �j I 6m M ), � m 6/7 to �-fi 05-e 06 us- L;h o ' booth� h om e,,5 w i f-h, M6U1151atIdlei or ll e wrr?,01-2 � -Z on Ia, lq w O-Lu cl be- 75� IVA!f4 4 64; J Q�ar C � C C� p1 �e�se ego fio7'- 01p,,vve Zone Chaage,, ne . qO 3 • hove hoed &�,l a,& (Ze II'VeY Oad &Carn-ersf 747l-'n-e /-7oy7v-,, ba ve/--s w �t (c, jqqO, 6(M purc1?as(d D9u e, 0-6 fel,- ce-n Iq rl?l zon m f m el,7 to hfi 05,e 06 u s- mho b 0 ae 7 h omes (k) Jfi lh-e /9-Y) I- -ty pe or pr`o)"zC4- c an SJI)pa(? -Z 6()0-ul a ig-c 7S,L/) p1 �c�se coo �o t C�p�r�UG zone- chaage-, • U)t /-Iotlt hoed ��t' aO 4-1 OUK- II'VeY OaO( &Cal�n-e Itlir-'151 7 1-n-e /�7cy2l& w bu ve-/- j7�s plrGl�Secy 0 6M I-r) ) f lyr, el'7 r tO th c-D A Us 60h 0 h om i tv) �� Z 00 1 Oq 7'y PY 0,,C proJ-z- C(w 5-/-5 fia 0 A ) 200 cl b-c < p1 �c�se clo �o � .gyp r�rr� 2vne ��a2� GO OUr l I'Ve s Oad &earn--e bu gel-5 61A �� , l�40. G(JC purGl?d SCE Sur h on,e, a 6 MY car? f'rm�1IN -the zon ) �y 5 z . O-OmmJ �nm � to i-hO5-e 06 u 6&1�0 b uol7 ' home's w i t*l utqd-,�ak7(Wllz� or �h-e zo01� �- (,u 2 - �1 0 cow . -7a'o/ u� any ge"-1 C, fi6l7a c9 y pub 11C �1 e-ose C16 no o/lymi/c zone- o-oag"C' no OUr II'VeY Oad &-eCal"n-ers f 771-n-e w nt cc (qqo. � p�rc�l d 0-6w P U asv- uphold qeur ci 0 66fmml' fmel2l to f-hO5,e 6 u Is' L1110 /--) h. ome,,s w i'tti ynd�ak71qd11q oC IJ?-e -z 00 1 � y �� o� proye� C'�s��s t-a� �- � s� ,zec bLe aid app�p��a�e . n c:b • 17WIZ�� pub l/G p1 ease coo no f 014 rope Zone C�ia2� ne . 40 - 3 . ho t/e hoed t" M l'S aeea C-L&"" our l i've S O d &Cann-e /1Ca-l& ba �l ors hoYhe Nasa- u pho& ��ur 016mml,f rnel� t to fhode oO us, 6v'/�o r h ornes w i g ynd e t�itWllz� a i-he o�- pro),ec*- Cansista(? �- (k) lM e4,,rfiZ1? f 20n Inc, W CU�e cY b-C Sin C6 6,o Q�ar� �� nc��s, O,Ae lnea� 126 17-a Pub //c Aear-21",,j 4- eoSe Cjo t?0 ,7 Zone- (f harzge, tic) . qo - 3 . CUK- JI'V6Y Oad l earn e rs 7 4-1 1-n-e Co- �.,� hG�'he Q6 �f-°� C��rm�rzq -�h� ZC�t r i� w At (cl aM laUr-CII?as ba Om in )'f 11-n ell) to ore 06 cz s ��c ho�,�Jh r h om e,,s w i t-vi Y06WA7,12d1a� or lhe (v 11112-� ewfi-e4 6U O-Ld Cl PC cte Y/ le, e a b Le 01-7d eMfNMpook . 51 n C*&v&Lj .: ... - - . -.. _ �{ A ' • _ - -. �- - !,'b-- r a dr ra f •aF-. � J max. - Lm- 1 t - � e y`,x .a'`"'x' '� �.�'^�tf'9, � _:c �� .-''.:,-c• h ,r``{E t*�w•g•-f - ✓ sCTr s--r "s s � �. ft ` r..t•:._,�,x a r�y�:y I2i iolt JLL Office of the City Clerk - -;�z r t t,;;.=z : 'aJ �', .} f Beach . . .-<. �_•. : -= .. . City o Huntington szv tt,; n.� �a : J P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 old 7.<:i cl 1"1 t.t 11.J.D cl 1.0 T'1 <p nt t e s:;s:; e:t r v:i C e? �� ,�LTtt�t�• ' rlc t t- r� I+�•:.�f:r c:I•r ,F,2 / \� 'V: I � -- �«�.,�h_, Office of the City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 i - { 1 1 Return to sender,. Insufficient address I MUDY Ia.tt.Ir Sc:c)tt ''/.;;l•.�:•>r).i.r-,cl h:yu i.-t•.:i.E::�s; :f.nc_ `4!-.�R W:i.'I.<_:;hi. rc� DevE3 T. '.'t e,�i} ,15.i 1 `^,'f `. ILS] 4S�Ste""!fSt�il Esltll 'iai r y �rx.JY3�}'irk,} AJ!•.I�IiMil�it, +i��l} p +t 's- roil M r �y17:„'r 1 rot�t' it�fe btv+�§ ) 4 i"t S a�:k� w 4lrt t t r 13i�1e� ) !�'b �t�s `t!tK i t1 nb ?It� .i• I3rklti{�t .l mmW i :•vt. i�c" r�L ct ;r+. tr``::s�+�t'ii r ! #t'5y, db1C 9 K .+ i 1 �:1 } tif�fi4f 7�sCyY}ix�ttift ,frnxs tt It0 ._ -- o rl;;t $ i R �' 1 11�1 ��' bL`V'. �47 t 7t' 1 ) r Qt '.: J '+ t.. j !t•. '.t i 3 f'�ti.l 1 i ,. �,��"+ / c, �r r �: -t x y .t t 1 a y I ,a 1" n.� ryi t f i 1j�� ..r, r r- 1i r t Ellrf i C 2 w �' f �?-i>,.t`• � a 1 1 a t tt, f r 1 t r, �''�... t d�ti�) rmy s S 1 {{rb4 E tSSJXt '.. iy (`x 1 n ti,t r r t sJ l r s f tt 4yf � F itl l i� Y.4 t Ur tl ?', n3! SDI{ �j ' +,' '.. 7 }Ir F.. e. 1 ibf4Z tb',r• 1 ) r r i f rti `` '1 EVEN itit J t' {cf Nf I .......fr4{� 4 tt tl�'�{iytP i�r It` I 1i" 1 c t...... ,.j x, x i_•, t„....C. i r b.i r.t{l�• ti l�if.t.}f Y�t,rr., f 1 j1° r�CCyy t � tl iuic 7fJtt1 t: SiS bi.�' )f Kkr 51 t� t it:JI 11 ff ) t, I I ^ MAIN 1 �' 41 t�t t J[�t�l7trrJ '.i 1!; �f' ! t<1 a'.9, .. 'a ` } 1 e4 i•--•""" 1' 1 ± oX, S ) 0, 3iip Not,inlays qlttao�� ru }..tart .tl�t D � �4 �4iifrfE 1�t 1a?4�?te,r�t f s t k t if ,1eY •� !n/ / i 1 r s ...... TH t i i if• 1 I. 1 s 1 11 d S F ttl yi C�3 SAz * f f 2. 27 y 1 O tr'7 it y k U )VF ,!"j. } Wirt �,t• ,� Ir ,t u r 1� ��•