The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGeneral Plan Amenment 90-5 - GPA 90-5 - Zone Change 90-6 - Z - ;.• - •R64Q:-NO' 14 9'7 4 4 Acct-#R-AL-CR-140-7A02-0b II DEPARTMENT USE 10. 1. 0. 1 l I I LJ H A Q 1 6 7 Acc't No. 12 M M D G Y M M D D Y Y 25 78 80 13 18 19 24 Date Required HUW ACH MINGMNERIAL Requested by Office of the City Clerk Approval REO.UISITION Approve by ` "� - Contacted Y For addi nal inform ion call Mae Phone PURCHASING Phone 5227 DATE 1/9/91 #142244 VENDOR # P.O.# e * Anthony Ursino H D 121 - 19th St. I, P O R Huntington Beach, CA 92648 T 0 F.O.B. Destination Delivery within Confirm Plus Frt.-Prepay&Add: Terms. days Refund for appeal not heard by City Council $200.00 TOTAL $ 200.00 REQ.NO. AMOUNT REQ.NO. AMOUNT REQ.NO. AMOUNT i 2 3 6 5 6 7 r.=DADT"=klT :TWW CASH RECEIPT + CITY OF hUNTINGTON bEACh P.O.BOX 711 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 Ho (714)536-5200 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY TREASURER-DONALD L.WATSON i DATE ISSUING DEPT._ RECEIVED FROM 1'1" � ADDRESS / FOR f 11 _ PA 90-5 AMOUNT RECEIVED F-] CASH lecHECK $ do RECEIVED BY� REVENUE TR FUND ACCOUNT DEPT. DIV. AMOUNT O EXPENSE FINANCE APPROVAL INITIAL TOTAL $ /� ov AMOUNT RECEIVED Is CUSTOMER COPY y Ursir Development December 6 , 1990 City of Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor , I have recently appealed my Planning Commission disapproval of Zone Change 90-6 . 1 wish at this time to withdraw my appeal . Please have my $200 . 00 fee refunded to the below address . Your cooperation to the above is appreciated. SinCerel yours , IA'i A &on Ursino A clw �e CC : John March 18652 Florida St. -W 225 Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 842-1401 Ursino yy°'s° Development - c—:— rn _^a C' C= c-,m LO �a r C-0 71 O December 13 , 1990 City of Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: City Clerk Dear Mayor, I have recently appealed my Planning Commission disapproval of Zone Change No. 90-6, General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 and Negative Declaration No. 90-24. I wish at this time to withdraw my appeal. - ' Please have my $200. 00 fee refunded to the below address. v�t Your cooperation to the above is appreciated. � � ;e'®rsyn�o yours, I �� Ff lw John March It Julie Osugi - Planning Department ¢` 18652 Florida St. #225 0 Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 842-1401 U rsino Development c Y i December 6, 1990 City of Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor, I have recently appealed my Planning Commission disapproval of Zone Change 90-6. I wish at this time to withdraw my appeal. Please have my $200. 00 fee refunded to the below address. Your cooperation to the above is appreciated. Sin rely yours, n ; rsino RU clw c: John March 18652 Florida St. #225 Huntington Beach, California 92648 • (714) 842-1401 % r Development U' '�c 18652 Florida St. #225 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 :-eetings CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 l / �ClNG i I U rsino Development a r December 6 , 1990 n City of Huntington Beach - City Council a 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor, I have recently appealed my Planning Commission disapproval of Zone Change 90-6. I wish at this time to withdraw my appeal. Please have my $200 . 00 fee refunded to the below address. ic coo eration to the above is appreciated. rel yours, Ur ino lw cc: John March 18652 Florida St. #225 • Huntington Beach, California 92648 • (714) 842-1401 �,.. m� �, t� 8 �a � �v Ursino Development DEPART%4E-INT Of COM14titiU�!ITY DEV-Lo"'T:!' T December 6 , 1990 P,ANNIN`3 C"'ISIO' City of Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor , r have recently appealed my Planning Commission disapproval of Zone Change 90-6 . I wish at this time to withdraw my appeal . Please have my $200 . 00 fee refunded to the below address . Your cooperation to the above is appreciated. I Sinc;'erely yours , on Ursl.no A c lw cc: John March 18652 Florida St. #225 • Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 842-1401 yyo.so j,"je CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK November 21, 1990 Tony Ursino Ursino Development 18652 Florida St., #245 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Ursino: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held November 19, 1990 closed the public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 90-5, Zone Change No. 90-6, Negative Declaration No. 90-24 and directed staff to readvertise for a future meeting. If you have any questions, please call the Community Services Department at 536-5271. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:me Enclosure CC: City Attorney Community Development Director City Administrator 1051K (Tglenhnnw: 71 A_gg5.5227 i Authorized to Publish Advertisements 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 STATC NOTICE^A��^ P BLIC NOTICE i PUBLIC NOTICE I PUBLIC NOTICE I r PUBIIC NOTICE I1p BUP ,,NOTICE Iv NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5/ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-6/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-24 (To amend the General .Plan land use designation and zoning at 16851, 16871 and 16911 Bolsa Chica Street to allow for Medium-High Density Residential •Development) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. • DATE/TIME : Monday, November 19 , 1990 , 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER : General Plan Amendment No . 90-5/ Zone Change No . 90-6/ Negative Declaration No . 90-24 APPLICANT: Tony Ursino LOCATION: 16851 , 16871 and 16911 Bolsa Chica Street (west side of Bolsa Chica Street , aproximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue) See attached map . I ZONE : C2 (Community Business) and R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) . REOUEST: To amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by redesignating a 2 . 04 acre area from General Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential and rezone from C2 (Community Business) to R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) . And to amend the General Plan land use designation on approximately 0 . 81 acres from General Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential to bring the property into conformance with the existing R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning. This request was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 2 16 , 1990 . •ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Covered by Negative Declaration No . 90-24 . which will also be considered by Council . COASTAL STATUS : N/A ON FILE : A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department , 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California 92648 , for inspection by the public . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS axe invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above . All applications , exhibits , and descriptions of this • proposal are on file with the Office of the City clerk, 2000 Main Steet , Huntington Beach, -California , for inspection by the public . v_ i Huntington Beach City Council C Corinie Bioc;',,,7'aY E 11 City Clerk Dated: November 1 , 1990 CF C I I RZ'\R3 R2 =,.w R2 �1 Je 1n.:: C2 .IR2Ij_I ,R2 IGri I RI ,L' RI ':•R3 RI I R2 I R2 R2 R2 I,.. . �IRI; RI , RI �`— . _-_ I �� •I ql -; 'svirz,;�I ` R2 I t a i rG RI 1 a Ua -•�; Stnz nz U l RIcc R1 10 r(2 R2 I R 2 R 2 `I MEADOWLARKRol ; 1 I I I I R2 R2 I I R3 I R2 SPECIFIC PLAN �RI --- •... ..• Z I .I I�► r--� �a,R2� L lob R3 R3 R3 = R3WARNFR 'R4'::::.. ' I � - c - 5... ', - -- 3 �3 OP IOYea I /� R1 I� Rl — " R3 RJ` C4`el R2—` �R2n .(� RI p9 >RI R ZR 2= ^_ R3-19 ••C2- �I R2. .. az ,.}�/ RI n .�.��I0,104 N R: .,�.. .. .. .. r II`cao"'•'IvI✓V PI'c R3 �.:,;:.• ::,,:..�z( _ �t� '^ R I R „II.YIIe, ! I'I-CZ RI CZ ISI�RI RI -F R Ica : � j `1 RIR RI CZ RI CZ RI 1I � I I 3\fRl cz ri RA-CZ G-PA90-5/ZC90-6/ND90-24 NUNTIN('.T�N 6f A11 HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION 00 Authorised 10 Pubbb AdwrWeMWA or OR kinds kwkx trp puW notices by Oilorss d the SupoW CowtA(Or=p i GWAWA Cs/omis.NW*W A8214.SWWMber 21L 1961.MW A4M June 11,IM F STATE OF CALIFOI M County of Orange - I am 4-Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County abresaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a patty to or interested in the below entitled natter. I am a pdndpal derk of the ORANGE'COAST DALY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa. County of Orange, State of Cdfoffft and that ached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and pUWWW 16 the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beads, Fountain Valley, Irvine,the South Coast commurs and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s)of: November 8, 1990 1 declare, under penalty of perjury. that the foregoing is true and correct. o Executed on November 8, , 199•_ at Costa Mesa,California. Dag&L.Q& Signature L414,25 n PROOF OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5/ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-6/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-24 (To amend the General Plan land use .designation and zoning at 16851, 16871 and 16911 Bolsa Chica Street to allow for Medium-High Density Residential Development) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative -to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, November 19 , 1990, 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: General Plan Amendment No . 90-5/ Zone Change No . 90-6/ Negative Declaration No . 90-24 APPLICANT: Tony Ursino LOCATION: 16851, 16871 and 16911 Bolsa Chica Street (west side of Bolsa Chica Street, aproximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue) See attached map . ZONE: C2 (Community Business) and R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) . REOUEST: To amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by redesignating a 2 . 04 acre area from General Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential and rezone from C2 (Community Business) to R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) . And to amend the General Plan land use designation on approximately 0 . 81 acres from General Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential to bring the property into conformance with the existing R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning . This request was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 2 16 , 1990 . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Negative Declaration No . 90-24 which will also be considered by Council . COASTAL STATUS: N/A N NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING r (Continued) ON FILE : A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department , 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 . All applications, exhibits , and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Steet , Huntington Beach, California , for inspection by the public . Huntington Beach City Council Connie Brockway City Clerk (7558d) cF -- - - R2 — -- --- C� R2 �F— ._�:...<_......- R2 \'\-R3 •wn>:Y,= ,! IC2 JR2 .R2 IAH _ RI K RI ~P.3 -......... is 1---M - _.a_c, , ��g� RI .�.,. R 3 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 °"` ``;,RI 1I^11=` <!RI°RI RI R! N J ,�7�wiirVR2: I RI II nz Rz `� I is RI •:-"R`:: ... MEAOOWLARK R2 1 R2I R2 IR2 R2 R2� R3 ! R2 SPECIFIC PLAN _Z F- C I ;Q R2 J-- R3 _92 I: I I c21 �2N,;:::::.:::r::.: RC R3 R3 UR3 R3 R3 v I ::M1Iq;...._ :.R.4 J� -I e - .:—..__. WARNER _.—._ .__—.- _..— .......... .... _..�.— r J —-- a/II R3 OP q3 v , U R3 xz .—+ R3 R3 C4 !I• R2 R2 R 2= .= R3-19' '.�F2. R! °•C2`-r R R1 RI 4 { nI RI R ... u.. R2 I/••.• ,,,,"''.: RI RI �RI u y t A7:n•-v R aE.. /� RI_ I 3 J, ` b RI RRI A....< o[+o R3RI-CZ RI-CZ C:J"nRI—CZ i ......:::4..;I-CZ RI R3.Z �. Ric--c :. RI-CZ RA-CZ GPA90-5/ZC90-6/ND90-24 0 , IoH HUNTINCTON!EACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION - -ca, n- -rr,m'r--s. t �'-.__�•-mr-- r a„!,S---,I,.-:.�t.. ^ n r t - _ a4 �5 hr � r r 6 )" x r _ 3 c i -M i- r r �e - 'r r 3 -rtr r x ? '� �- „'' - ;s,'� y - r -r X F ,'' r a Alr i'`'' y.Is�_ �.' .oy +.i •ir^-e- z'h=`i s 1-_ ,� .s_�h r'_y >f r s�c ) _ 1 Jr -_ - _s - l r.:c€" r- Y` a:.r r}r,��.4�. rl_f¢4w..ice�c _-� Z - x r�••i 3.- r -3•k'.%G k } r n .max > N _ cr y ' ' t . r r j zL ([ k h '1 ..i`t. to"'�r �.yc't Y AuKi-Y..s.•s it-.�. r j y _ y�"gfG'*.�.�" t YW 5 f_ Yy _ .'� '1 x.yL ! 'x ✓- } 1--_; 5 ri .tr C.�'Yrt,, �.}11 t 4 if+ mac'i- J< - r .r.`..-- -llS.tf y. r- �: - r. 1. r 1)> ��.� , lslt$Tr-c i r x r - - '' - 5•n4r `"�"-_4. ij a p•;r C s'."t°.,[ }�•. { - _ +� � L<_ 'W r.{- s�•'r -- .../_ c _e- - 'rQf h/.F r f.:FF"4M' ��F x 9' o- ro _.� 'y� t... 'r.!'e{ i 1 x F - 'i S _ -�'_ `Fx-8±'� .x Esc C y� .`T�., 'w _3' y "' a�y,',�' `ct)'' .ua hv'x.- `Lt ,r�X ..i i - - j ,S. ;� ^js @r€�tj �ja y k]H� `i 'r z9' ��SrF_• Jl E sikfF 7 s 1r £; 7 �c'+fn:-• ,x:t..u.- 'E?tY#i�4 Sx t -d t " '+"' ;,LL'r . r1.' " � !. -l�, ;� eX. 'R9F?i='T:: '.Ea -3''r. r 'y- -<,> e, yx�nery,.y. ,AR i; s tl 1a.4.aJ1w' 'G -o-k�l�nt,.r.Cs'•1-`Sy.-i t.. '�!' Is'-ti\F r {. _1 /z J1 --i f f- .c t-•.,�TY_cL`r y u' - )1�. - f i ' a J t r}.,�;att t fa.>+tt- t t --mot? 1- r. _i _ f4 b r r 1 i - -JEy _'. `KS sj.- 3-G-f� c� frz } y i F { - - ) - 3 F,ti e -sT r - - - -+ i2 5 ife+ - F - _ :f , « u - - i t-r „ . r•- .. - - - .. .�_... .......t-....r._ 1 J 1 j _ * e i t ? .:::..•v:•ro{t . C .m: : ::''� "..' ..-".': 'rf'::r .,. < f r'mY - - {..c..y.s:_ _.' - '. i F i -} �.1 - h't - 'i ;, 1. .:. . ...t..--.Y- r.. ..a.... ...... ._,._.. ................o •......._ - . L. ,�-t L - _ - ....... .. - - r. - _.. -a _ _ _ :�: „ - _... _ * r r - - -r :.°'- _ am �;;._ - r - - �. _ .t { ay_ K _�, _- -, _ _ - .... ..." :... i - 6 ..,, 4y C 'F £5x� r )+ , T i .cl,� i -y 3 r -_- - r 1.- _ ! i .hn1. xr:y't eir -. - . 3 tv°". i T _ - _ i r } �t+ t •, , cur ,f,1t1 - 1. - - _ _ \ y 1. f .._...._. .. ) o ter,-w.,.' v "�jG .y�'=ie $ J-_42 - ::Y�' .............+_>..v., " - a.•a__ .�...a o:S..i."a l...) i_t. -\- ._ . - _ Office of the City Clerk . 0 City of Huntington Beach L. - Z-� . .. . :' .. . r 5 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 y -r4E t ..� _ __Ifl.A I'1leap0 �rt-_`.f )'_ k,, '~g fQ JUi%��enl�dLir 1.%; _1 F,``f I ' Ik` Wd�r fxl7r'ed _� E�Ifr�t-If S'3:�...£3:L- U�d'1. l�;,ia1g l._a T'S E Y'7.k t:>`-:>0T'1 M 1.,lil;till:1i1i1:tESt;11!H;iid iIiid U;;;11;J 1 i Published 11/8/90 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5/ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-6/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-24 (To amend the General Plan land use designation and zoning at 16851, 16871 and 16911 Bolsa Chica Street to allow for Medium-High Density Residential Development) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, November 19, 1990, 7: 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: General Plan Amendment No. 90-5/ Zone Change No. 90-6/ Negative Declaration No. 90-24 APPLICANT: Tony Ursino LOCATION: 16851, 16871 and 16911 Bolsa Chica Street (west side of Bolsa Chica Street, aproximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue) See attached map. ZONE: C2 (Community Business) and R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) . REOUEST: To amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by redesignating a 2 .04 acre area from General Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential and rezone from C2 (Community Business) to R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) . And to amend the General Plan land use designation on approximately 0 . 81 acres from General Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential to bring the property into conformance with the existing R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning. This request was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 2 16, 1990 . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Negative Declaration No. 90-24 which will also be considered by Council . COASTAL STATUS: N/A 's NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) ON FILE : A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 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. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Steet, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public . Huntington Beach City Council Connie Brockway City Clerk Dated: November 1 , 1990 - - . CF-E %I"a mm C1�� RR3 UrR�1 r ° R2 R2 \�, I C2 _f R2. .R2 AH _ RI RI ",...,,. I' Ni ,. cc R �J PRI, „CF-RR3 R2 R2 R2 R2 "'" R2 IRI RI " RInz 3 � _I R2' RI n,•�... n2 o nN 0 1 fl2 a.t' R3 cI�'� ....`>RI' i R2 I R2 R2 JR2 R2 R2 R3 R2 SPECIFIC P A d — _T S PLAN RI Cz ii I I (0)R2 � .. h C4-CZ' i I ,moo �— — R3 -9?a L do ` RC R3 u R 41 a J R3 R3 "R3 R3 .�,4 c I� ' =RI CZ PI-Cz WARNER' C2 �_ a fOPCa� I N R 3 R3.. " < �I I oon- R3 C41 Ij i R2 R2 7;,w RI — ". R3 R2: R2° R3-I9' - "cz R2. .. ;�xx=� RI u,ch llo. \ ry N r RI RI R, :.,rY...._.iii,'JR21� ...,.,.ua.� RIRI v b 1,:a .a,:B_v R 3 i ;'° 7f R I al CI L_J RI-CZ Ri RI --R3-25' jL •1!oR3-23 R I—C R i" R3 RI-CZ R'I-1,' - n •� �< c,ac�Rl p. o ?I CZ = = d RI CZ e / o 'c 9 - R3-23 RI cz RA-CZ GPA90-5/ZC90-6/ND90-24 1, HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION Ursino Development kECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY,OF BEACH,A CH, CALIF. NOV 5 2 59 PM '90 November 15 , 1990 City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 To whom it may concern, Please continue my appeal regarding zone ..change 90-6 to the second meeting in January 1991 . We are requesting this continuance to give us additional time to determine the economics of the minimum number of units that can be built on the site, if Council would consider approving the Zone Change. Sincerely yours, 1 r Tony 's&ino ARU/ w 18652 Florida St. *245 • Huntington Beach,California 92648 • (714) 842-1401 To: Huntington Beach City Councilpersons Re: Zone Change Application 90-5 and 90-6 by Ursino Development on Bolsa Chica Road Date: November 14, 1990 We are unable to attend your November 19, 1990, meeting and are expressing our concerns and objections in writing. Firstly, we feel it is most important for the Council to remember that one of their primary duties is to promote sound city planning principles that uphold the general public's good. Rescuing developers, real estate persons or individual land owners from previous poor investments can never take precedence over that public good. If this was the case, all residents could expect to come before you, plead their cases of misfortune and rightly expect you to use zone changes and other ploys to save them from situa- tions they got themselves into. This is not your function, and yet this is exactly what you are being requested to do regarding zone change 90-5 and 90-6. It does not logically follow that because this particular restaurant has done poorly over the years that a zone change from commercial to medium high density is in order. Changes in management, food selection, prices, quality, atmosphere or type of commercial usage are in order. City Administrator Mike Uberaga has stated that the city must keep and build up its commercial base. This is a strong mandate to you to avoid changes in the city's general plan that dispose: of commercial lands. Secondly, this request reflects an overly aggressive attempt to gain a higher density than exists on all sides of the proposed project. The existing residential properties are well under the density requested here. The large Huntington Rivera complex directly north is developed at 14.3 units per acre. This is under the R-2 limit, regardless of its R-3 designation on paper. The smaller condo and/or four-plex units to the west are also developed below the density of the request before you. Additionally, we must remind you that a previous zone change request for R-2 density on this same property was denied two years ago. The value of commercial lands was properly recognized then, and should be again by yourselves now. Does the applicant feel this council is not as astute as the previous one? Or does the applicant have friendships and liaisons with this council that will override Planning Department and Planning Commission recommendations? Thirdly, the quadrant where the property is located has an established record of high crime activity as is clearly shown by the Neighborhood Watch bulletin (see attachment) . In fact, Mr. Jim Silva stated two years ago in our living room, before several neighbors that he believed this area could become one of the next slums of the city. We agree! The police agree. They have told us that it is nothing but a "fancier version" of the problem-ridden Huntington Beach City Councilpersons November 14, 1990 Koledo and Commodore Circle areas. Indeed, you can see on the reports that the crimes reported here far exceed the number on the entire page! How could a zone change for more and much higher density serve the public good here council members? Lastly, besides a need to use prudence and recognize the value of commercial sections in the city, there is also a need to realize that the corner of Warner and Bolsa Chica--now somewhat of a dead end--will dramatically change in the near future. The Bolsa Chica with 5, 000+ units, Meadowlark with 600 units, and other smaller developments already approved nearby will create more of a demand for goods and services, and produce much higher traffic counts on Bolsa Chica Road. This request is premature. It is a hastily- drawn up effort which ignores good long range city planning, and various quality of life issues to produce a quick fix for the owners. We urge you to exercise good judgment, to heed the recommendation of your educated planners and appointed planning commissioners, and listen to the many voting residents in the surrounding neighborhood as you join us in a denial of zone change 90-5 and 90-6. Tha )you, nd Mrs. Browning (0, l ___ -4- RESIDENTIAL BURGLARIES AREA 7 AREA 9 (Con't.) AREA 12 3 Residential burglaries entry,2 entries by unknown means, 5 Residential burglaries 3 Commercial burglaries and 1 entry while "house under 5 Commercial burglaries 5 Vehicle burglaries fumigation:' Suspect seen in RD 1 Vehicle burglary 273 Waal open garage entry Residential burglaries occurred in: described as a male white adult, Residential burglaries occurred in: 20's, 5'9", blue eyes, wearing a RD 282 - 1 RD 293 - 1 white baseball hat, beige shorts and RD 156 - 2 RD 158 - 1 RD 292 - 1 no shirt. RD 157 - 1 RD 169 - 1 Streets:Kiner;Speer and Wakefield. AREA 10 Streets: Govin,Heil,Marilyn,Sisson 3 ENTRIES DUE TO OPEN OR and Warren. 2 ENTRIES DUE TO UNLOCKED WINDOWS OR 5 Residential burglaries OPEN OR UNLOCKED WINDOWS DOORS. Out of 3 residential 4 Commercial burglaries OR DOORS. 1 entry by pry tool or burglaries, 2 entries were garage 20 Vehicle burglaries force, 1 entry by unknown means, burglaries. and 1 entry by window smash. Residential burglaries occurred in: There were no garage burglaries AREA 8 this month. RD242 - 1 RD253 - 2 8 Residential burglaries RD 252 - 2 AREA 13 1 Commercial burglary 14 Vehicle burglaries Streets: Aldrich, Holt, Huntington 11 Residential burglaries Village, Malaga and San Angelo. 2 1 Commercial burglary Residential burglaries occurred in: ENTRIES DUE TO OPEN OR 22 Vehicle burglaries UNLOCKED WINDOWS OR RD 178 - 2 RD 189 - 1 DOORS. 2 entries by force or pry Residential burglaries occurred iny- k RD 179 - 2 RD 198 - 1 tool, and 1 entry by unknown RD 188 -2 means. RD 154 - 1 RD 1 - 7 RD 155 - 2 RD 174 - Streets: Edwards, Englewood, AREA 11 Ivorycrest, Quintana, Still Harbor, Streets: Hoskins, Neely, Roundhill, and three entries,on Warner. 5 10 Residential burglaries Rudder, Shorebird, Sims, Via Vista, ENTRIES DUE TO OPEN OR 9 Commercial burglaries and two entries on Heil and Lynn. UNLOCKED WINDOWS OR 13 Vehicle burglaries 5 ENTRIES DUE TO OPEN OR DOORS. 1 entry by pry tool or UNLOCKED WINDOWS OR force and 2 attempts without entry. Residential burglaries occurred in: DOORS. 3 entries by pry tool or Out of 8 residential burglaries, 2 force, 1 attempt without entry, 1 entries were garage burglaries. RD 117 - 2 RD 146 - 2 entry by unknown means, and 1 RD 138 - 1 RD 148 - 1 entry bj forcing through the AREA 9 RD 139 - 3 RD 149 1 skylight. Out of 11 residential burglaries, 2 entries were garage 12 Residential burglaries Streets: Calneva,Capetown,Carrie, burglaries. Suspect seen in RD 165 10 Commercial burglaries Cumberland, Hanover, Melbourne, Sims entry described as a male 23 Vehicle burglaries Pelican, Spa, Swan and White Oak. white adult,25 years,5'10",medium 6 ENTRIES DUE TO OPEN OR build, dark blond hair and Residential burglaries occurred in: UNLOCKED WINDOWS OR moustache. DOORS. 1 entry by force or pry RD 261 - 1 RD 271 - 1 tool, 1 attempt without entry, and 2 Pass your newsletter to a neighbor RD 262 - 4 RD 273 - 4 entries while "house under fumiga- after you reviewed it. RD 263 - 2 tion." Out of 10 residential burglaries, 2 entries were garage Streets: Grass, Hague, Newland, burglaries. Suspect seen in RD 117 Rhine, Terry, Tunstall, Waal, and Spa entry described as a white two entries on Windy Sea and three male, approx. 6% thin build, light entries on Warner. 5 ENTRIES brown short hair and mustache. . DUE TO OPEN OR UNLOCKED Suspect seen in RD 139 Cumber- WINDOWS OR DOORS. 1 entry land fumigation entry described as due to force or pry tool,2 entries by a male white, thin build, 6, E&I window smash, 1 attempt without approximately 160 lbs. 516 REQUEST FOR CITY- COUNCIL ACTION November 19, 1990 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Memb s Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator �_ 5�.. Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Develop Subject: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5/ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-6/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-24 /Yes and V` 30807 Consistent with Council Policy? [ ) New Policy or Exception Rj,ai #6a ?4 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachmefits: 'Tt � �„ J� � Cocc- m r*+m c' 4 r_ STATEMENT OF I S SUE: a Transmitted for your consideration is General Plan Amendment No. 90-5, Zone Change No. 90-6 and Negative Declaration No. 90-24 , submitted by Tony Ursino and the City of Huntington Beach for a 2 . 85 net acre area located on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue. The applications represent a request by Tony Ursino to change the Land Use Map of the General Plan from General Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential and rezone from C2 (Community Business) to R3 (Medium- High Density Residential) on approximately 2 . 04 acres . The City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department is requesting an amendment to the Land Use Map of the General Plan on the remaining 0 . 81 acres from General Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential to bring the land use designation on the property into conformance with the existing R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation: Motion to: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 90-24" ; and B. "Deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-5" ; and C. "Deny Zone Change No. 90-6" . Planning Commission recommendation: Motion to: A. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 90-24" ; and B. "Deny General Plan Amendment No . 90-5" ; and C. "Deny Zone Change No. 90-6" . v Plo 5/85 %i PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON OCTOBER 16, 1990 : On a motion by Williams and a second by Ortega, the Planning Commission voted to deny Negative Declaration No. 90-24, by the following vote: AYES: Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: Bourguignon, Shomaker ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None On a motion by Williams and a second by Mountford, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council denial of General Plan Amendment No . 90-5 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No . 1483, by the following vote: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: Bourguignon ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None On a motion by Williams and a second by Ortega, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council denial of Zone Change No . 90-6 with the following findings, by the following vote: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: Bourguignon ABSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: None Findings for Denial - Zone Change No . 90-6 : 1. The Planning Commission finds that Zone Change No . 90-6 for R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) will reduce the commercial land use inventory in the area, and thus limit the area ' s ability to meet future commercial demand. This is based upon the future residential buildout of the Bolsa Chica area and Meadowlark area . 2 . The Planning Commission finds that the site is wide and deep enough to accomodate a viable commercial use and also is adjacent to commercial uses to the south which adjoin a major intersection. 3 . The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential is too intense for the project site. 4 . The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential will increase traffic during peak traffic hours in the project vicinity which would be undesirable. RCA 11/19/90 -2- (7615d) 5 . The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential will negatively impact sewer capacities in the project vicinity. ANALYSIS: General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 is a request to redesignate a 2 . 85 net acre area, located on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street from General Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential , as shown below. I I U ST. I O / ' M. Ii � Site B l?,.......:.. r) MILO ST. � N � o i�Qo ERE(R. Site A I N Z_ i . Z Z W Y > O v J 2 u I I I v WARNER TLL J f— v W Z ;— DUR3AR �. Z J J>__s CR. xvG CR. W r •C � � _ __ ___ ^m NREIAN� r Zone Change No. 90-6 is a request to rezone the southerly 2 . 04 acres of the area, identified as Site A on the above map, from C2 (Community Business) to R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) . Site B on the map is currently zoned R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) and is not included in the zone change request . The area is currently occupied by a combination of conforming and non-conforming uses . Site A is occupied by a 7, 100 square foot restaurant building (which has been vacant for over one year) and a non-conforming single family residence. RCA 11/19/90 -3- (7615d) Existing adjacent land uses consist of approximately 98 multi-family units (developed at 15 units per acre) to the north, a 44, 000 square foot professional office complex to the east (across Warner Avenue) , an insurance office and non-conforming single family residence to the south and approximately 52 multi-family residences (developed at 21 units per acre) to the west. Although the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change do not constitute any new development, they will allow for future residential development of the subject area. If approved, the request will allow for development of a maximum 25 units/acre or a maximum of 50 condominium units or 62 apartment units on Site A (2 . 04 acres) . Site B is currently zoned R3 and could be developed with a maximum of 21 or 24 apartment units . Five (5) land use alternatives were analyzed in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Those alternatives included Medium-High Density Residential (applicant ' s request) , Existing General Commercial, Recycled General Commercial, Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential. The report concluded that the existing General Commercial designation should be maintained because the site is adjacent to commercial uses and is in close proximity to a major intersection. A change to Medium-High Density Residential would reduce the commercial land use inventory in the area and thus limit the area ' s ability to meet future commercial demand. This is based upon the future residential buildout of the Bolsa Chica area and Meadowlark site. In addition, the 25ou/gac would be too intense for the area, incompatible with surrounding residential uses and adversely impact traffic and sewer capacities in the vicinity (see p. 17, Summary Section of the October 16, 1990 Planning Commission Staff Report) . At the Planning Commission meeting of October 16, 1990, comments from residents in the project vicinity were received. Proponents of the project believed that the site is an undersirable location for retail due to its distance from the intersection and supported the opportunity for provision of affordable housing units . A majority of the speakers were in opposition to the project claiming that Medium-Density Residential is incompatible with surrounding residential developments which have not been developed to maximum R3 (25 u/gac) densities; and it will reduce the City' s commercial land inventory which is in conflict with the City Administrator ' s goals for improving the City' s revenue base. Also concerns were raised regarding potential traffic impacts on Charlene Cir. should any future residential project take access from that street; and higher residential densities would increase crime rates in the area. RCA 11/19/90 -4- (7615d) During the Planning Commission meeting, it was requested that left turn access to Site A from Bolsa Chica Street be analyzed further. The Department of Public Works has indicated that left turn access to the site from Bolsa Chica Street (northbound) is currently available, but may not be permitted in the future. Development of the Bolsa Chica and Meadowlark areas may require extension of the existing left-turn pocket on Bolsa Chica Street (southbound) at Warner Avenue to serve the area. Due to the close proximity of the site to the Bolsa Chica/Warner intersection extension of the southbound left-turn pocket will require closure of the existing pocket . In response to the recommendation for denial by the Planning Commission, Tony Ursino has submitted a request to appeal the Planning Commission action. The basis for his appeal primarily stem from concerns over the viability of the site as a commercial land use and the compatability of Medium-High Density Residential with surrounding land uses (see Attachment No. 6) . It should be noted that an appeal is unnecessary since the Planning Commission is advisory to the City Council regarding General Plan Amendments and Zoning Changes and that they are automatically forwarded to the City Council . Environmental Status : Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development posted Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-24 (see Attachment No. 4) for twenty-one (21) days, and no comments, either verbal or written where 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 Amendment No. 90-5 and Zone Change No. 90-6, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 90-24 . FUNDING SOURCE: Not Applicable ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may make the following motions to approve the request: A. Approve Negative Declaration No. 90-24 with mitigation measures (outlined in Attachment No. 1) ; and B. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 for Medium-High Density Residential by adopting Resolution No. G X 3 O (Attachment No. 1) ; and C. Approve Zone Change No. 90-6 for R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning with findings (Attachment No. 3) by adopting Ordinance No. 3 og'l RCA 11/19/90 -5- (7615d) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 44136 to adopt General Plan Amendment with Mitigation Measures . 2 . Ordinance No . .3091 to adopt Zone Change No. 90-6 . 3 . Findings for Approval for Zone Change No. 90-6 . 4 . Letter from Tony Ursino to appeal the Planning Commission' s recommendation for denial, dated October 24, 1990 . 5 . Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 16, 1990 . 6 . Letter from Byron Henderson, dated October 15, 1990 . 7 . Letter from William G. Thrash, dated July 10, 1990 . MTU:MA:JO: lp RCA 11/19/90 -6- (7615d) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and Amendment to the Land Use Element is necessary to accomplish the objectives of the General Plan, and A public hearing on adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 was held by the Planning Commission on October 161, 1990; and Thereafter the City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code §65355, held at least one public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No . 90-5; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3 , Article 6 of California Government Code commencing with §65350, that General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 consisting of the following change is hereby adopted as an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element thereof : That 2 . 85 acres of land located on the west of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 270 feet north Warner Avenue as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto, be redesignated from General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential . The real property affected by this change of use is described and depicted on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. -1- i BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby adopts the mitigation measures (Exhibit B) as stated pursuant to Negative Declaration No . 90-24 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of November, 1990 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: Ltd, City Administ ator Director of Community Development i -2- . i t p J GEIO�NG Cli• i 21 @11-0 { h J Q o U 1 UTK i ST � - I a T � i O � S I MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIALEUI ✓ ` j N o t000 CHARLENE CR. �^� I SCALC INrcrr { I. rl'1 z r z x z O w = N j _ cc i I 00 WARNER V. � z • J r I w 41 LLJ z i I I Ji-u I V ct, w J _ ! DUN9aR CR. Z { _ Jau 5 CR. KING CR. � w .i #.7j. TI I _ E J --- -- NNELPND r t E ' I I I jI . � I GPA90-05 J' HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MEASURES NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-24 1. The project shall have natural gas and 220V electrical stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units; and low volume heads used on all showers . 2 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off site facility equipped to handle them. 3 . The structures on the subject property, whether attached of detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the state acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the j60 CNEL contours of the property. The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the California insulation standards of 45 dba CNEL. All measures recommended to mitigate noise to acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of the project . 4 . Lighting in the parking lot and/or recreation area shall be energy efficient lamps (e.g. , high pressure sodium vapor, metal halide) . All outside lighting shall be designed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties . 5 . A fire retardant type insulation shall be used within the building walls if foil typeis used. 6 . A grading plan shall be submitted which addresses silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the project . 7. During cleaning, grading, earth moving or excavation, fugitive dust shall be controlled by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust preventive measures; and by maintaining equipment engines in proper tune. 8 . In order to mitigate air quality impacts during construction, the following shall be utilized: 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, I d. Phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts) , e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts . 9 . Prior to initiation of construction, police and fire departments shall be notified and shall be kept informed about duration and extent of construction throughout the process . 10 . Alternate routes for traffic during the construction phase, shall be provided if necessary; and adequate signage shall be provided to warn motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians of construction. 11. A plan for methane overlay compliance shall be prepared. 12 . A water plan shall be prepared which includes detail measures which the project shall implement to reduce peak hour water usage. 13 . A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils engineer which includes 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 . 14 . Development of the site shall eliminate existing curb cuts on Bolsa Chica Street and take access from Charlene Circle. 15 . Development of the site shall be phased based upon the sewage volumes which can be accommodated by existing sewer capacity, as determined by the Orange County Sanitation Department. Any additional development which would generate sewage volumes above capacity levels shall not be permitted until the Slater Pump Station has been upgraded to meet the additional volumes generated. (7739d) ORDINANCE NO. 30F? 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 "COMMUNITY BUSINESS" TO "MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" , ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 2 . 04 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF BOLSA CHICA STREET, APPROXIMATELY 270 FEET NORTH OF WARNER AVENUE. (ZONE CHANGE NO 90-6) . 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. 90-6 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 : SECTION 1: The following described real property, generally located on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue, is hereby changed from C2 (Community Business) to R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) . Parcel I : That portion of Lot 4, Block 16 of Tract No . 86 as per map recorded in Book 10, Pages 35 and 36 of Miscellaneous Maps, on file in the office of the County Recorder of said county, described as follows : Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 4 : thence southerly along the easterly line of said Lot 4 , 204 . 67 feet, more or less, to a point that is 125 . 33 feet northerly of the southerly line of the northerly 330 feet of said Lot 4, thence westerly parallel with the northerly line of said Lot 4, 275 . 03 feet, more or less, to a point that is 25 . 00 feet, measured at right angles to the westerly line of said Lot 4 : thence -1- southerly parallel with the westerly line of said Lot 4 , thence southerly parallel with the westerly line of said Lot 4, 125 .33 feet, more or less, to the southerly line of the northerly 330 . 00 feet of said Lot 4 : thence westerly parallel with the northerly line of said Lot 4 , 25 feet, more or less, to the westerly line of said Lot 4 ; thence northerly along said westerly line, 330 . 00 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 4 ; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Lot 4 , 300 . 03 a feet, more or less, to the point of beginning . TOGETHER with an easement for road and public utility purposes over the east 25 feet of Lot 3 and the West 25 feet of Lot 4 , in Block 16 or Tract No. 86, as per map recorded in Book 10, pages 35 and 36 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county. EXCEPTING therefrom the north 330 feet . Parcel II : That portion of Lot 4 , Block 16 of Tract No. 86 as per map recorded in Book 10, pages 35 and 36 of Miscellaneous Maps, on file in the office of the County Recorded of said county, described as follows : Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 4; thence northerly along the easterly line of said Lot 4, 125 . 33 feet, more or less, to a point that is 204 . 67 feet southerly of the northerly line of the southerly 330 feet of said Lot 4 : thence westerly parallel with the southerly line of said Lot 4, 245 . 03 feet, more or less, to a point that is 25 . 00 feet, measured at right angles to the westerly line of said Lot 4 ; thence southerly parallel with the westerly line of said Lot 4, 125 .33 feet, more or less, to the southerly line of the northerly 330 . 00 feet of said Lot 4 : thence easterly along the southerly line of said Lot 4, 245 . 03 feet, more or less to the point of beginning. (Exhibit A attached hereto. ) SECTION 2 : The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to amend Section 9061, District Map 23 (Sectional District Map 20-5-11) to reflect Zone Change No . 90-6, described in Section 1 hereof (Exhibit A) . Copies of said district maps, as amended hereby, are available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. -2- 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 iCit Attorney � 44 /o J/-90 REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: i y AdminiS a or Director of Community Development -3- �U 1 Lv lCF R)� �,R?;f a1 oQ RI IQ RI RIRI R2 R2 I--1 R 2 .�� < QI I �ssi 10��2lU� ` 2 = a I GcLCNU CP �Im�LJl R2 R2 0 R I C ST. Q 330.57 i C0 J 0 CV CV ' m i MEADOWL R2 R2 R R2 1 R3 R2 SPECIFIC I", ID �JI (0,)R 2 IG PJiLO ST. ��Lp ,,T. F o � � R3 R3 I 396. 0� n - ' LAC CIJ HARLENE CR. O N (; I SCALE IN FEET' I �X 3 �N �Ni 1J 330 v? rdRI 0 1 267.68 130 R3ZR z z 2 MC4 0 o 0" .0, o Z II 1 — J OP 995.65 WARNER u; 330.03q. _ I�0' r_ /� Ti'! (� ,cy 125 rt I C2 I Id N I I —C `T N " O P P(W)-C`t� Z K t1J 0 R tL i 1 IIO rt' N N — 12SE \� In 11 I 409=E 12\ BI 480= 222 125E �• - f R3 R3 C4: R2 R2 jj5 so.IlE c� M1 i r� f DUNBAR _ DR. ' �, R2 .1 —/ nN JAMS$ CR F:ING CR: 46 27f r n---- - - Y R?Q li (Proposed) , Zoning Map HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ATTACHMENT NO. 3 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-6 : 1. Zone Change No. 90-6 from C2 to R3 (25 units per acre) is consistent with the City' s General Plan of Land Use which is Medium-High Density Residential . 2 . The zoning designation of R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) is compatible with adjacent R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning located to the north and to the west of the project site. 3 . Rezoning the subject property to R3 will provide opportunities for affordable housing which is consistent with goals and policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan. (7733d) _� �� S`Y.. �r w� , � �� ,�'F �� ?',F Y.aut 't'a M N�� 1 4 �� max:;?n�� T.,v4 y � L,. �y,�s ��,�, i T� r,t�t :� � �. •� '� Outt py �a y / 0 old V 16" G PR •# qo• S ze /30 Ooa v U C� � � � 1�-t.eK,•Q L 14 ��-�4 U 71y- �/�z - l �lDl Ituntin ton beach departmentf communit development 9Y P sTAf f REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: October 2, 1990 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5/ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-6/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-24 APPLICANTS: City of Huntington Beach/ Ursino Development DATE ACCEPTED: 5362 Oceanus Drive June 27-, 1990 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: PROPERTY John F. March Not Applicable OWNERS: 6541 Crista Palma Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ZONE: C2 (Community Business) and R3 (Medium- Carl Spano High Density Residential) 16911 Bolsa Chica Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 GENERAL PLAN: General Commercial Howard M. Hiroshima 16851 Bolsa Chica Street EXISTING USE: 7, 100 square Huntington Beach, CA 92649 foot restaurant and 2 single family homes RE UEST: To redesignate a 2 . 04 acre area from General Commercial LOCATION: 16851, 16871 and to Medium-High Density Resi- 16911 Bolsa Chica Street dential and rezone from C2 (west side of Bolsa Chica (Community Business) to R3 Street, approximately 270 (Medium-High Density Resi- feet north of Warner dential) . And to Avenue) . amend the General Plan land use designation ACREAGE: 2 . 85 total on approximately 0 . 81 acres net acres from General Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential to bring the property into conformance with the existing R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning . 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: A. Approve Negative Declaration No. 90-24 with mitigation measures and forward to the City Council for adoption; r� A-F M-23C B. Deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1438 and forward to the City Council for denial; and C. Deny Zone Change No. 90-6 with findings and forward to the City Council for denial . 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 is a request to redesignate a 2 . 85 net acre area, located on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue, from a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial to a Medium-High Density Residential land use. General Plan Amendment No . 90-5 is the third amendment request to the Land Use Element in 1990 . Zone Change No. 90-6 is a request to rezone 2 . 04 acres of the area from C2 (Community Business) zoning to R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning. The remaining 0 . 81 acres (APN 178-233-04) located at the northernmost portion of the area is currently zoned R3 . The General Plan Amendment will not alter the land uses that can currently be built on this portion of the site. It is only necessary to achieve consistency with the zoning on the property. The requests are being submitted for review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and then will be forwarded to the City Council for final decision. Although the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change do not constitute any new development, it will allow for residential development of a maximum density of 25 units per acre on the site. If approved, the amendment request will allow for development of a maximum 50 condominium units or 62 apartment units on the 2 . 04 acre site. The balance of the area ( . 81 acre) will allow for development of maximum 21 condominium or 24 apartment units . No development plans have been submitted at this time. This report is designed to investigate the concerns associated with the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and to identify whether such an action is compatible with surrounding land uses and in conformance with the goals and policies of the General Plan. As such, the report has been structured in the following manner . Section 4 . 0 details the environmental processing conducted for the project . Section 8 . 0 consists of a description of the project and the project site. Section 9 . 0 discusses the project issues . Section 10 . 0 discusses the project ' s conformity with the goals and policies of the General Plan, followed by Section 11 . 0 which consists of a brief summary of the Fiscal Impact Analysis conducted for the site. Sections 12 . 0 and 13 . 0 summarize staff ' s recommendation and Section 14 . 0 presents alternative actions . Staff Report - 10/2/90 -2- (7146d) 'f • • Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C2 (Community Business) LAND USE: 7, 100 square foot vacant restaurant building and two single family residences . North of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) LAND USE: 98 unit condominium complex East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C2 (Community Business) LAND USE: 44 , 000 square foot of Professional Office Space South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C2 (Community Business) LAND USE: 3, 000 square foot Professional Office Space and Auto Repair Complex West of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Residential ZONE: R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) LAND USE: 52 Apartment and Condominium Units 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: On July 11, 1990, the Environmental Review Committee determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would adequately address all of the environmental concerns regarding this project . Pursuant to environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-24 for twenty-one (21) days . Staff did not receive any comments during the review period. On August 22, 1990, after amending the project description to include the 0 . 81 acre portion of the site, the Environmental Review Committee reviewed the revised checklist for the project and once again determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would adequately address all of the environmental concerns associated with the project . Staff Report - 10/2/90 -3- (7146d) Pursuant to environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised the revised draft Negative Declaration No . 90-24 for twenty-one (21) days . Staff did not receive any comments during the review period. Prior to any action on General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 and Zone Change No. 90-6, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 90-24 . 5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. 6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable. 7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable. 8 . 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General Plan Amendment No . 90-5 and Zone Change No . 90-6 is a request to redesignate 2 . 85 net acres from a General Commercial land use designation to a Medium-High Density Residential land use designation and rezone a 2 . 04 acre portion of the site from C2 (Community Business) to R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) . Since a portion of the area entails a zone change request as well, the area has been separated into two sites for analysis purposes . A brief analysis and history of each area has been presented below. Site A• Site A consists of approximately 2 . 04 net acres located on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue and includes a zone change as well as the general plan amendment request . Site A is currently occupied by a 7, 100 square foot vacant restaurant building and a single family residence. Site A has been designated as General Commercial since 1964 when it was redesignated from Low Density Residential . In 1987, the property owner of a portion of Site A (16871 Bolsa chica, the parcel containing the restaurant) requested that the restaurant site be redesignated from a General Commercial land use and a C2 (Community Business) zoning to a Medium-High Density Residential land use designation and an R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning to allow for development of a maximum 40 apartment units on the 1. 62 net acre site (General Plan Amendment No. 87-1) . At that time, staff found the Medium-High Density Residential land use to be compatible with surrounding land uses, but recommended that the General Commercial land use designation be retained based upon the following concerns . A market study prepared in 1984 (Attachment No. 8) for the general vicinity indicated that there would be a long-term demand for retail commercial uses in the area . Staff was concerned that the applicant ' s request, at that time, for residential use would erode the commercial land inventory in the area, and thus limit the area ' s ability to meet future commercial demand. Staff further felt that Staff Report - 10/2/90 -4- (7146d) due to the marginal nature of adjacent commercial uses south of Site A, future land consolidation may be encouraged which would result in a larger high quality shopping center on the site. The applicant is requesting that Site A be redesignated from a General Commercial land use designation to a Medium-High Density Residential land use designation and rezoned from C2 (Community Business) to R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning to allow for residential development . The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will allow for future development of a maximum of 25 units per acre or a total of 50 condominium units or 62 apartment units within the 2 . 04 acre site. Site B• Site B consists of approximately 0 . 81 net acres, located on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street, approximately 600 feet north of Warner Avenue immediately to the north of Site A. Site B is currently occupied by a single family residence. Site A has been zoned R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) since 1965 when it was rezoned from R1 (Low Density Residential) . The City has initiated this portion of the general plan amendment to amend the General Plan land use designation on Site B from General Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential to bring it into consistency with the existing R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning. This action will not alter the land uses which are currently permitted under the existing R3 zoning on this portion of the site. A total of 21 condominiums or 24 apartments may be developed on the site. 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: The following analysis examines five land use alternatives for Site A as follows : (1) Medium-High Density Residential (maximum 62 apartment units/50 condominium units-applicant ' s proposal) . (2) General Commercial (Existing 7, 100 foot restaurant and non-conforming single family residence) . (3) General Commercial (Projected development of the site, if recycled; approximately 17, 890 square feet) . * (4) Medium Density Residential (maximum 36 apartment units) . (5) High Density Residential (maximum 86 apartment units) . * Estimate based upon factors provided in the City of Huntington Beach Fiscal Impact Model prepared by Ultrasystems, Inc. (1980) . Staff Report - 10/2/90 -5- (7146d) Amending the General Plan to Medium-High Density Residential for Site "B" , the . 81 acre portion of the project area, will bring it in consistency with the R3 zoning designation and is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts . Therefore, the analysis primarily focuses upon Site "A" . A. Land Use As shown in Attachment 2, the City' s General Plan designates most of the property north of the study area as Medium Density Residential . The property to the west of the study area is designated as High Density Residential, south of the subject area is General Commercial and directly east of the area, across Bolsa Chica Street, is General Commercial . Northeast of the subject area, is Low Density Residential . As indicated in Attachment 3, the area of concern is currently zoned C2 (Community Business) . Property to the north and west is zoned R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) , and R2 (Medium Density Residential . The vacant Meadowlark Airport property is located further to the east and is zoned Meadowlark Specific Plan. Existing adjacent land uses consist of a mixture of conforming and non-conforming uses . A group of 98 condominium units developed at 14 . 92 units per acre exists directly to the north of the subject area . The condominium complex has access off of both Bolsa Chica and Pearce Street . West of the subject property, on Charlene Circle, is a cluster of 52 residential units developed at 20 . 8 units per acre which includes both apartments and condominiums . To the south of the project area there is a small insurance office which is currently vacant with a single family detached house behind it (to the west of the office building) . Further south, on the northwest corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, a small complex of auto oriented businesses exists including a repair shop and two tire centers . It should be noted that the existing single family residence mentioned above is on commercially designated property and is, therefore, a non-conforming use. The land uses across Bolsa Chica Street to the east include the Bolsa Chica and Warner commercial center, 44, 000 square feet of professional office space and a 26 unit residential development . Eastward of these properties is the vacant Meadowlark Airport site, which is proposed for development of 15 acres of commercial along Warner Avenue and a total of 600 residential units . There is currently approximately 25 acres of commercial property (including the project site) within a half mile of the project area. This plus the proposed 15 acre commercial development of the former Meadowlark Airport site provides a total of 40 acres of commercial property within the project vicinity. Staff Report - 10/2/90 -6- (7146d) If the existing General Commercial designation were retained, it is possible that the existing restaurant and non-conforming single family residence could be recycled and a new retail center constructed on the site. In this scenario, the development of approximately 17, 890 square feet of retail space may be possible. Such development would be compatible with the commercial uses south of the property and could eventually be tied into new developments on those properties to form a cohesive and complimentary commercial node. This type of development is what was envisioned when the property was initially designated for General Commercial . A properly designed retail center could also be found to be compatible with the Medium and Medium High Density Residential uses to the west and north. As the previous description indicates, the project area is located within an area characterized by medium to high density residential uses with a significant amount of commercial uses nearby. The study area is presently developed with a 7, 100 square foot vacant restaurant building and two single family residences which are non-conforming uses . The restaurant has been vacant for over a year. The applicant indicates that the commercial land use and existing restaurant business has not been and will not be a viable use with the proposed 15 acre commercial project proposed for the Meadowlark site. Due to the small size of the subject property and the nature of surrounding property uses, the Medium and Medium-high Density Residential alternatives under consideration in this analysis could be deemed compatible with surrounding uses . The applicant ' s request for Medium-High Density Residential with an R3 zone designation could result in a maximum 62 apartment units on Site A. However, the applicant has expressed an intent to develop 50 condominium units; under the PD (Planned Development) standards, the project will be required to comply with more stringent development requirements for open space, setbacks and building bulk and would result in a lower density project . Medium-High Density Residential development would generally be compatible with the Commercial, and Medium and High Density land uses to the north, south, east and west of the property. The General Plan Land Use Element states that Medium-High Density Residential land uses shall be located in areas between Medium and High Density (or more intense) land uses, near major transportation routes and highways and in proximity to commercial areas and activity areas . The location of the subject area appears to meet the three criteria. Redesignating the site to Medium or High Density Residential would allow for approximately 36 or 86 apartment unitscPSite A, respectively. As with the Medium-High Density Residential alternative, a Medium Density and High Density use would also be compatible with surrounding land uses . The designations of the Medium Density allows for a maximum of 15 units per gross acre, the Medium-High Density designation allows for a maximum of 25 units per gross acre, and the High Density designation allows for maximum 35 units per gross acre. The High Density alternative would allow for 24 more units than the Medium-High Density alternative and would result in greater impacts to the area; it, therefore, is not considered Staff Report - 10/2/90 -7- (7146d) • • superior to the proposed project. The Medium Density alternative would feature 26 fewer units that Medium-High and would therefore, generate fewer traffic and infrastructure impacts . These issues are addressed in the following sections of this report . B. Housing The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has created an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) directed toward reducing pollutant emissions in the region. A primary goal of the plan is to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality by reducing vehicle miles traveled through achievement of a jobs/housing balance. The City' s Housing element has determined that Huntington Beach has a housing need of 6, 228 units over the next five (5) years . The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would create new residential property not anticipated in the City' s General Plan and may be seen as beneficial in light of the need for housing units in the City to meet the City' s identified housing need. The applicant has expressed an intent to develop 50 condominium units on Site A under the requested Medium-High Density designation. However, the request does not include a PD (Planned Development) suffix and could allow for development of a maximum 62 apartment units . The Medium and High Density Residential designations would allow for development of a maximum 36 apartment units and 86 apartment units respectively. The other two alternatives, retaining the existing restaurant use (and non-conforming residences) and developing a retail center, do not include additional residential development. Should the Medium-High Density Residential land use designation be approved/ at the entitlement stage of the review process, staff will be recommending a provision for affordable housing units which will further the City' s housing goals . Furthermore, with the Medium-High Density Residential land use designation, the applicant will be able to provide affordable housing units which may not be feasible under a Medium Density designation. Staff will be recommending that the applicant provide 20 percent of the residential units as affordable units, which complies with the City' s policies to encourage the provision of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. C. Public Services 1. Sewers : The project is served by both City and County sewer facilities . The City' s sewer system in the project vicinity currently has adequate capacity to serve any of the residential or commercial alternatives presented above. Staff Report - 10/2/90 -8- (7146d) The project area is also served by Orange County Sanitation District Number 11. OSCD No. 11 is currently deficient in meeting long-term sewage needs . The Orange County Sanitation District has indicatied that it will not approve any project with sewage generation levels which will exceed existing capacity until improvements are made to bring the Slater Pump Station system up to meet long-term needs . Therefore, residential development of the site will be required to be phased so as not to exceed existing sewage volumes until the Slater Pump Station has been upgraded. To determine the number of units allowed for the first phase of development, the OCSD has provided the City with the following sewage generation rates to estimate the amount of sewage generated by each land use designation: Land Use Sewage Generation Rates Low Density Residential 1, 500 gallons/acre/day Medium Density Residential 2, 000 gallons/acre/day Medium-High Density Residential 5, 880 gallons/acre/day High Density Residential 7,495 gallons/acre/day General Commercial 3,230 gallons/acre/day Based upon these rates, Site A has a current sewage capacity of 6, 569 gallons per day (2 . 04 acres at 3 ,230 gallons per acre per day) . The proposed medium-high density residential land use (25 units per acre) is estimated to generate approximately 5, 880 gallons per acre per day or 235 gallons per unit per day. Based upon these calculations, the existing capacity of the sewer system will allow for a development of an estimated 28 Medium-High Density units at this time. The balance of the units allowed based upon density is 34 apartment (or 22 condominium) units which could be developed upon completion of improvements to the Slater Pump Station. A Medium Density Residential land use (15 unit per acre) is estimated to generate 2, 000 gallons of sewage per acre per day or approximately 133 gallons per unit per day. A High Density Residential land use (35 units per acre) is to generate 7,495 gallons of sewage per acre per day or approximately 214 gallons per unit per day. Based upon these calculations, the existing capacity of the sewer system will allow for development of the entire 35 Medium Density project or 30 High Density units at this time. The remaining 56 High Density units could not be constructed until improvements to the Slater Pump Station have been completed. Staff Report - 10/2/90 -9- (7146d) 2 . Water : The subject property is currently served by double eight inch water line in Bolsa Chica Street. After reviewing the development alternatives contained in this analysis, the City' s Public Works Department concluded that the existing water distribution system is capable of supporting any of the proposed land uses . 3 . Storm Drains : The existing drainage system, which allows the storm water runoff from the property to flow into Bolsa Chica Street then into a catch basin, can accommodate runoff from any of the proposed land uses . Runoff from the existing commercial use is adequately accommodated. 4 . Police 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. Based upon City Police Department planning standards whereby an extra 535 calls per year constitutes the need for an additional officer; the alternatives will generate the following police manpower increases . Police Calls/ Alternatives unit or sq. ft . Projected Calls Medium-High Density Residential (Proposal) .70/unit 43 Commercial (Existing) . 0006/sq. ft . 4 Commercial (Projected) . 0006/sq. ft . 10 Medium Density Residential . 70/unit 25 High Density Residential . 70/unit 47 As shown above, the High Density Residential alternative will generate the greatest need for police manpower. Any alternative can be adequately serviced by existing police service capabilities and will not require any significant increase of police manpower or facilities . 5 . Fire Protection: Fire protection for the area of concern can be provided by the City of Huntington Beach from either the Heil Fire Station at Heil and Springdale or the Warner Station at Warner and Pacific Coast Highway. The area of concern lies within the five minute response area of the stations and can be adequately serviced regardless of the selected alternative. Staff Report - 10/2/90 -10- (7146d) 6 . Parks : The area of concern is located within the service area of Wieder Park, a 5 . 0 acre facility at the intersection of Lynn and Pearce Streets . Weider Park will adequately serve any of the residential alternatives . The commercial/retail alternative and the existing restaurant use create no demand for park facilities . 7. Schools : The area of concern is located within the Oceanview School District and is served by haven View Elementary School (grades K-6) , Harbour View Junior High (grades 7-8) and Marina High School (grades 9-12) . The number of students generated from a Medium, Medium-High or High Density alternative would be minimal and could be accommodated by the school district. A commercial use would have no impact on the area ' s schools . 8 . Gas and Electrical Utilities : There is a three inch gas main under Bolsa Chica Street. Natural gas service is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. No problems have been indicated with serving the existing land use on the property, and the gas company has indicated that any of the proposed projects could be adequately served by the existing gas lines . It should be noted that since the gas company is a public utility and is under the jurisdiction of public regulatory agencies, gas supply may be affected by the overall availability of natural gas and by state and federal regulatory policies . Electrical service is provided by the Edison Company. Adequate electrical power supply can be provided from 12 KV distribution lines in the vicinity of the area of concern. Edison notes that the total electrical system demand is expected to continue to increase annually; however, excluding any unforeseen problems, their plans for new generation resources indicate that their ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods will be adequate for for the site. 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 designations . Internal street circulation within any project would have to be designed to accommodate the company' s refuse trucks so as not to require any backing up of the trucks within the development . If necessary, this concern will be addressed during the entitlement process . Staff Report - 10/2/90 -11- (7146d) D. Traffic Circulation The area of concern has approximately 350 lineal feet of frontage along Bolsa Chica Street, a major arterial with an average daily traffic volume of 21, 600 vehicles near the site location. The study area lies approximately 270 feet north of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. Warner Avenue, also a major arterial, carries an average daily traffic volume of approximately 35,300 vehicles per day near the site location. The maximum design capacities for both Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue is 45, 000 . Existing access to Site "A" is taken from Bolsa Chica Street via three driveways, two located at the north and south ends of the restaurant property and one for the single family residence to the south. Should the property be redesignated to a residential land use and zoning, staff would recommend all access be from Charlene Circle, no access from Bolsa Chica. Access to the site off Bolsa Chica may be undesirable during summer months due to the vehicle stacking potential on the south bound right hand turn lane on to Warner Avenue. In order to mitigate this all access to the site, if designated residential, should be from Charlene Circle. Daily traffic volumes projected to be generated by the alternative land use designation are based upon trip generation rates established by the County of Orange. They are as follows : Land Use Alternative Daily Traffic Generation Medium-High Density Residential 434 Average daily trips/ (62 apartment units/50 condominium units 350 Average daily trips -Proposed) General Commercial (Existing) (7, 100 sq. ft . restaurant & single family residence) 782 Average daily trips General Commercial (Projected) 801 Average daily trips Medium Density Residential 252 Average daily trips (36 units) High Density Residential 662 Average daily trips (86 units) Staff Report - 10/2/90 -12- (7146d) As indicated in the preceding table, the existing General Commercial designation in conjunction with retail development would generate the greatest number of trips, approximately 782 to 801 average daily trips . The commercial designation would retain access from Bolsa Chica Street and provide three (3) curb cuts on Bolsa Chica Street . There is currently no left turn access from Bolsa Chica Street (northbound) . There is also no left turn access out of the site. Traffic desiring to head northbound on Bolsa Chica Street are required to make a U-turn at Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. Although Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue are major arterials which are designed to accommodate large volumes of traffic from the land uses which have been planned in the area, maintaining the existing commercial land use designation on the project area may have a negative impact on traffic flows in the long term and is anticipated to generate the greatest traffic impacts of any of the alternatives . Redesignation to Medium, Medium-High, or High Density Residential would reduce future traffic generation by 530, 348, or 180 trips per day, respectively. Residential development of the site, if required to take access from Charlene Circle, would eliminate curb cuts along Bolsa Chica Street . Traffic circulation impacts in the project vicinity would be reduced by preventing U-turn movements at Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue and by eliminating circulation hazards caused by ingress and egress on to Bolsa Chica Street . The Public Works Department has indicated that residential streets in the project vicinity have adequate capacity to accomodate any additional trips generated and that access from Charlene Circle is preferred for the site. With regard to public transportation, the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) offers bus service near the study area on Warner Avenue at both Algonquin and Goldenwest. The OCTD does not foresee 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. The development project should include paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessways between project buildings and the adjacent transit streets and arterials . E. Environmental Issues : 1. Noise: The major source of noise among the proposed project is vehicle traffic along Bolsa Chica Street . The existing noise levels on the property fall within the normally acceptable range for all of the alternatives discussed. Staff Report - 10/2/90 -13- (7146d) Noise levels on the front portion of the property along Bolsa Chica Street exceed the acceptable range of 60 Ldn for residential uses . However, the use of setbacks, berming, and landscaping along Bolsa Chica Street will be addressed through the entitlement process at the time of residential development. No significant noise impacts are anticipated 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 vacated 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 not subject to the zone' s requirements . 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: Development on the subject property may result in new light sources on the site. In effect, increased general nighttime illumination may 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. 90-24 would reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance. 10 . 0 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY: A. Existing General Plan Land Use Designation (General Commercial): Retaining the existing General Commercial land use designation conforms to the following land use goals and policies of the General Plan. Staff Report - 10/2/90 -14- (7146d) 1. Land Use Element 3 .4 . 2 . 8 Commercial Development and Tourism. To insure commercial development that is economically viable, attractive, well related to other land uses, and satisfies the needs of the City' s residents . (1) Encouraging planned commercial development that will coincide with residential growth. (2) Continuing to diversify the economic base of the City and increasing the tax base. (6) Continuing to promote development of commercial centers . (7) Distributing commercial centers and relating them to service areas . The 1984 market analysis of the area indicates that the commercial land use will be a viable use in the future and will be required to satisfy the commercial needs of residents in the area, especially once Bolsa Chica is developed. As displayed by the fiscal impact analysis, a recycled commercial use provides the greatest economic benefit to the City. Furthermore, due to the marginal nature of adjacent commercial uses south of the site, future land consolidation may be encouraged which would result in a larger high quality shopping center on the site. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would conform to the land use and housing goals and policies established by the General Plan. The General Plan goals and policies which are pertinent to the proposed project are discussed. B. Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation (Medium-High Density Residential) : 1. Land Use Element : The project and subsequent development, with recommended mitigation measures contained in Negative Declaration No . 90-24, 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: (1) Providing a variety of housing types in all areas of the City. 3 .4 . 2 . 7 Residential Development. The project also complies with the following General Plan locational criteria for Medium-High Density Residential land uses : (1) In transitional areas between medium and high density (and more intense) land uses . Staff Report - 10/2/90 -15- (7146d) (2) Near major transportation routes and highways . (3) In proximity to commercial and activity areas . 2 . Housing Element . If the requested General Plan Amendment and rezone are approved, the applicant intends to proceed with an application for phased development of approximately 50 condominium units of which 20 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. 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. Attachment 8 contains a summary of the fiscal impact assumptions : Alt . 1 Alt. 2 . Alt . 3 Alt . 4 Alt . 5 Alt. 6 Med-Hgh Med-Hgh Existing Projected Medium High PD (pro) (Apts) Comm. Comm. Density Density 50 unts 62 unts Revenue 37, 031 45, 891 11, 691 25, 732 30,286 55, 079 Cost 12, 016 14 , 366 4,216 4 , 743 7, 161 19, 115 Revenue-Cost 25, 015 31, 525 7,475 20, 989 23, 125 35, 964 Revenue/Cost 3 . 10 3 . 19 2 . 77 5 .43 4 . 23 2 . 88 Staff Report - 10/2/90 -16- (7146d) As shown above, Alternative 6 (General Commercial-Retail) generates the most net revenue and the highest revenue to cost ratio. The primary factor contributing to the significant difference between Alternative 6 and the remaining alternatives were the sales tax revenue assumptions used in the analysis . The sales tax factors were derived from the Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers and based on regional data . In reviewing the above results, it is important to view the analysis in comparative terms only, and to realize that this is only an estimation of the square footage of retail that may be developed should the site recycle, rather than as a prediction of exact revenues and costs . 12 . 0 SUMMARY: Although a Medium-High Density Residential land use designation on the subject property could be deemed compatible with surrounding uses and goals/policies of the General Plan, staff is recommending that the existing designation of General Commercial be retained based upon the following issues . The 1984 market study prepared for the vicinity indicates that although there may currently be a surplus of commercial property, there will be additional demand for commercial land once the Bolsa Chica area is developed. The study made this determination based upon earlier projections of 35 acres of commercial development in the Bolsa Chica and a maximum ten (10) acres of commercial at Meadowlark. Although the proposed commercial development at Meadowlark is 15 acres, the commercial development in the Bolsa Chica area is anticipated to be up to ten (10) acres below the 35 acres projected in the study. Staff is concerned that the applicant ' s request for a residential land use designation on the property will erode the commercial land inventory in the area and thus limit the area ' s ability to meet future commercial demand. It should also be noted that the project area is located along one of the major arterials into the proposed Bolsa Chica development . This should improve the area ' s chances for successful recycling . Furthermore, the retaining of the commercial land use will also have reduced impacts to water and sewer systems . With respect to traffic impacts, although the residential land use designation may generate fewer trips, the commercial land use designation is likely to generate a majority of its trips during off-peak hours, unlike the residential use. In addition, it should be noted that based upon the letter dated July 15, 1990 (see Attachment No. 13) from Charlie Cruzat, owner of property adjacent to the west of the project site, it is anticipated that the residential development will not be able to access off of Charlene Circle. Therefore, the complete elimination of curb cuts on Bolsa Chica is unlikely. Staff Report - 10/2/90 -17- (7146d) 13 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions : A. Approve Negative Declaration No. 90-24 with mitigation measures and forward to the City Council for adoption; and B. Deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No . 1438 -and forward to the City Council for denial; and C. Deny Zone Change No . 90-6 with findings and forward to the City Council for denial . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-3 : 1 . The Planning Commission finds that Zone Change No. 90-3 for R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) will reduce the commercial land use inventory in the area, and thus limit the area ' s ability to meet future commercial demand. This is based upon the future residential buildout of the Bolsa Chica area and Meadowlark area . 2 . The Planning Commission finds that the site is wide and deep enough to accomodate a viable commercial use and also is adjacent to commercial uses to the south which adjoin a major intersection. 3 . The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential is too intense for the project site. 4 . The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential will increase traffic during peak traffic hours in the project vicinity which would be undesirable. 5 . The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential will negatively impact sewer capacities in the project vicinity. 14 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: A. Recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 for Medium-High Density Residential (25 units per gross acre) by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. and approval of Zone Change No . 90-6 for R3 zoning with findings . Staff Report - 10/2/90 -18- (7146d) 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. 90-24 (with mitigation measures) 8 . 1984 Pearce-Bolsa Chica Market Analysis 9 . Fiscal Impact Analysis 10. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1438 to recommend to the City Council denial of General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 11. Draft Ordinance (Zone Change No. 90-6) 12 . Planning Commission Resolution to recommend to the City Council approval ofGeneral Plan Amendment No . 90-5 13 . Letter from Charlie Cruzat dated July 15, 1990 14 . Letter from Claudia Boyd dated September 20, 1990 15 . Memorandum Report prepared by Ursino Development (September, 1990) HS:49.kj 1 Staff Report - 10/2/90 -19- (7146d) Z 0 I U1111111 GELDNG CA. iZI L) ST. U. A T N -- J I �/ O � / ti L Site B (;,:.. ...... .., ) MILO ST. • H r I � y o I000 ENE CR. Site A — -- - I . --� 5CALE IN FEET , N I Z Z I i N Z N W } - to J = LL I ✓ I ' C WARNER EEh� =L z J I W J W H Z W OUN9AR J CR, Z J•=+a=5 CR. Y.IttG CR. W W0m ;'"- -rci• r' �Q' ITT—'T— Vicinity p Ma �J � HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION z / - v, I c I- I LOW DENSITY cELaNc ca. z i J RESIDENTIAL �n m v & ST. V F _MEDIUM DENSITY, a r-- V, RESIDENTIAL � ,� o , OTHER USES CRARLENE CR. PLANNED �c�� COMMUNITY I SCALE IN FEET F Z I --I I GENERAL ' A� -- z -_..._.i__.-..... . w I r LJ 0, HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL y�gRNER ( MEDIUM HIGHD.ENS[TV I RESIDENTIAL J N i— J W z -MEDIUM DENSITY -MEDIUM DENSITY DUN9AR z RESIDENTIAL J'" `5 OR KING cR. � RESIDENTIAL �, w m t • _ I4 \_ ---- — VINELAN6 r (Existing) General Plan Land Use Designation HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION N Q I a LOW DENSITY cLaNc ca. RESIDENTIAL ix 0 / MEDIUM DENSITY ST. RESIDENTIAL F- . 1j ..j . IJ FF J � ,t : .:;..: : :....... ...... _.;:, r MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY ,OTHER USES RESIDENTIAL-.___ ' o 1000 CHARLENE CR. PLANNED 'z COMMUNITY SCALE IN FEET N I i i Ff Z w - - GENERAL- HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL CDit - RESIDENTIAL i I i ARNE * + MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY w RESIDENTIAL _i'Aii 11 1 1 ' J ui r J I I I— 3 W MEDIUM DENSITY .0 J MEDIUM DENSITY ouNSAR �. z RESIDENTIAL `R ""`c `R' RESIDENTIAL w DUI. m � � • - VINELAN7 r (Proposed) J4"Je General Plan Land Use Designation HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ncCLI t,n. U lV U J �-� CF .:R" _R2Io Q RI la R! RI l RI �,� !�!�Ill%li - -R 2 R2 2: R2 I I -;;4 R2 , �)� 4 J L�, I I ! lv�l/lei_ ,i R 2 2 ( z Iz i R2 w' W R! J z I »4 flO�lr!%�l. I V o Ico IrI R2 R2 C� R I o R L C I ST. Q IST - 330.57 1 I NMEADOWL oN R2 R2 R 2 �2 R23 R2 SPECIFIC F ► , I �JI R3 I� YiLO ST. �} MILO ST. R3 (a)R2 I o r�1 f 396. 0� C = — loeo I I L�, r� �� HARL.ENE CR. C.2 N o w . I I SCALE !N FEET C 2 R3 rI01 267.68 107 j3 4�IR3 I R3No R3 d Z V 2 C, C4 cr lid II o +� WARNER _-- ---- - " ` 61, n 3A.4 rt I 330.03 _ IIO' F c��I25CL n `� w C2 I �t IId t% 1 _—VI N -0- 4-H I o T. /T o n3 nI3 rn 409=F 12� 81 400 222 R 3 d Z Ic N R 3 C 4; R2 R2 i3s m0.IIft R 3 I --•• - - _ OUNBAR ----- - - 0� v ILL nR O JAMES CR h:ING CR: 46' zTf r ^ R2 a (Existing) Zoning Map HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION lye; CF_Q �/ r l ;,�,: .:, �� R -I to Q RI �a RI , RI 1 RI r l!iIl�'%l o R2 R21-- 12 I I R2 ^�1 I I ;` R2 ��, s Iz I r R2 U Ll R2 P.2 R I ST. Q a< -� c� 1 J Imo, I O N c CO MEADCWL R2 R2 R 2 -2 R2 R3 R2 SPECIFIC I A'k R3 VIL0 ST. MILO ST. R� (a)R2 r 0 ~ o � 1 R3 I 396. 0 4 n - 10,00 I 0 of �s FiARLENE CR. O N SCALE r N IN cEr `j 2 o x 1 \3 �N r101 267.68 F.{ R 3 I R 3 cn R 3 J30 III 0 I i30 p z z v2 '� C4 z u N e� r 0 o 1 _� f —.. _ �_ L__ ". _ 0P 9-5 85 WARNER - —A- 0__-- - _ N T25�t n R� �Z Flo —C 4 P fQYC--4-r-� z 3 O I10 rt Obi i25 r< ti rn ; 409=E 12� BI 480= = 222 N 1236 I R3 �. -+R2 _ rR2 � � u5 i R3 - C4: R2 (G DUNBA.9 �. o Rom,-.I -I M JAMES CR h:RIO CR: a5' 2n' r r��---- - - i:R?q I!-` (Proposed) MHUWINGTON Zoning Map HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION Z ' - O I I C7 J GELD'NG CR. /j /i to Z % Q O i n m v R S T. U j N U) y MULTI-FAMILY o �F 4A, RESIDENTIAL (Condos) Eli, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 07p, .,< •:. 9FSr s� VACANT I 9G9 ' G IDGD CHARLENE CR. �1r SINGLE FAMILY 1 5CALE IN FEET - RESIDENTIAL 0 i ram, MULTI-FAMILY z n RESIDENTIAL (Apts.) w COMMERCIAL_ ;I CENTER 9 s WARNER �MULTI-FAMILY m I �s o� RESIDENTIAL (Condos) N o c '�i�, m r 4� --1-n �9 _ w D ( DI MULTI-FAMILY X J I JAM S cR Kit cR. D�, RESIDENTIAL (Condos) `R� �Lj ( _<uFIT� m ffT n T1 m " F VINELAND F (Existing) J. ,& Land Use Map HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION lgCITY OF HUNTINOTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGU N BEACH ''\\ To File From Juli 'Wsugi Plaing Aide Subject Date August 22, 1990 Applicant: Southridge Homes/Ursino Development Request: To redesignate and rezone a 2.85 acre area from a General Commercial land use designation and C2 (Community Business) zone to a Medium High Density Residential land use and an R3 (Medium High Density Residential) zone. Location: Westside of Bolsa Chica, approximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue. Background 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 August 24, 1990 and ending September 14, 1990. If any comments regarding the draft negative declaration are received, you will be notified immediately. Recommendation The Environmental Resources Section recommends that the Planning Commission approve Negative Declaration No. 90-24 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: lp (6410d ) 7a ��'-�av S-a�•90 LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Notice is hereby given by the Department of Community Development, Planning Division of the City of Huntington Beach that the following Draft Negative Declaration request has been prepared and will be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission for their consideration in October 1990. The Draft Negative Declarations will be available for public review and comment for twenty-one (21) days commencing August 24, 1990. (Revised) Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-24 in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 and Zone Change No. 90-6 is a request to amend the land use designation and zoning on a 2.04 acre area, located on the west side of Bolsa Chica, approximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue, from a General Commercial land use designation and C2 (Community Business) zone to a Medium High Density Residential land use and an R3 (Medium High Density Residential) zone and a request to amend the General Plan Land Use designation on approximately 0.82 acres located on the west side of Bolsa Street immediately adjacent to the north of the above site, from General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential to bring the Land Use into conformance with the existing R3 (Medium High Density Residential) zone for the site. A copy of the request is on file with the Department of Community Development, City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. Any person wishing to comment on the request may do so in writing within twenty-one (21) days of this notice-by providing written comments to the Department of Community Development, Environmental Resources Section, P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. (694ld-3) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 90-24 (Revised) Nam. pEe ,, 1. Name of Proponent Southridge Homes/Ursino Development Address 5362 Oceanus Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Phone Number (714) 893-7111 2. Date Checklist Submitted for Review July 11, 1990 3. Concurrent Entitlement(s) General Plan Amendment No. 90-5/ Zone Change No. 90-6 4. Project Location 16911, 16871 Bolsa Chica. and 16851 Bolsa Chica, approximately, 270 feet north of Warner Avenue. 5. Project Description A request to amend the General Plan Land Use designation and zoning, on 2.04 acres at 16911 and 16871 Bolsa Chica from General Commercial and C2 (Community Business), respectively, to a Medium High Density Residential designation and an R3 (Medium High Density Residential) zoning to allow for development of 50 condominium units and to amend the General Plan Land Use designation on approximately 0.82 acres located immediately to the north of the above referenced location at (kgWolsa Chica from General Commercial to Medium High Density Residential to bring the General Plan in+o conformance with the existing (R3) zoning on the property. 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. b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? _ X _ Discussion: Upon development of the site compaction and over covering of the soil may occur. However, the site has been previously graded and presently is occupied by a restaurant and single family home. No adverse impacts are anticipated. ., • • Yes Mavbe No C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ _ X Discussion: The general plan amendment and zone change request in itself does not constitute development and will not impact the topography around surface relief features on the site. However, subsequent development may have impacts which will be addressed through the entitlement process. 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 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: See la. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ _ _X_ Discussion: Subsequent development of the proposed project area 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. b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ _ X 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 b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? _ X _ Discussion: Grading associated with development of the project site 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. 7, requiring submittal of a grading plan prior to issuance of a grading permit, no significant impacts are anticipated. Environmental Checklist —2— /` (6286d) • Yes Maybe No C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ _ X Discussion: The proposed project site is not located within the 100 year flood plain. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ _ X Discussion: The site does not drain directly into any natural body of water. e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ _ X 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 i . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _ _ X Discussion: See 3c. 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 (a—d) Discussion: The site has previously been cleared of natural vegetation and developed; No unique species of plants will 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 Environmental Checklist —3— I (6286d) Yes Maybe No 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ X _ Discussion: Development of the site will increase existing noise levels in the project vicinity, but increases are not anticipated to be significant. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ X Discussion: The project site is adjacent to Bolsa Chica Street and is, therefore, within a 65 CNEL contour; however with implementation of mitigation measure no. 15, requiring submittal of an acoustical analysis report to verify compliance with State standards for interior noise levels. No significant impacts are anticipated. Noise levels may increase during site preparation and construction phases, however, with implementation of mitigation measure 10, limiting hours of construction, no significant impacts are anticipated. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ X _ Discussion: The project may result in new light sources on the site. However, with Mitigation Measure No. 5, requiring directed lighting, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X _ Discussion: The proposed project consists of an amendment to the Land Use plan of the City's General Plan and a compatible rezone and therefore varies from the present or planned land use of the area. The proposal is a logical continuation of Medium High Density residential uses already existing on adjacent properties. If the project is approved, subsequent development will require Use Permit (for apartment units) or Conditional Use Permit (for condominium units) approval . All land use related impacts can be addressed through the entitlement process; therefore no mitigation measures are recommended and no significant impacts are anticipated. For further discussion see the attached narrative. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ _ X b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? _ _ X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ _ X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? _ _ X Environmental Checklist —4— )� (6286d) � L �� Yes Maybe No 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ _ X Discussion: Approval of the project will allow for development of approximately 74 condominium units not originally anticipated by the General Plan; however, due to the small scale of the project, no significant impacts are anticipated. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ _ X Discussion: Implementation of the proposed project will allow for development additional housing units but is not anticipated to impact existing units. 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X Discussion: Subsequent development of the project area under the proposed land use designation will result in generation of an estimated 602 average daily trips (ADT) calculated based upon the County of Orange trip generation rate of 7 trips/unit/day for Medium—High Density Residential units. The existing land uses generate an estimated 799 ADT based upon O.C. trip generation rates of 110 trips/thousand square feet/day for restaurants and 12 trips/unit/day for single family residences. The proposed project, therefore, represents a potential reduction in trip generations. Arterials in the project vicinity are operating well within acceptable levels of service. No significant impacts are anticipated. b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new off—site parking? _ _ X Discussion: The proposed project in itself does not constitute any development; parking facilities provided by subsequent development will be addressed through the entitlement process. C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ _ X Discussion: See 13a. d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _ _ X Discussion: Upon development of the site, construction of the project may temporarily alter traffic circulation and may create a minor hazard to anyone using the subject roads. The applicant will be required to provide adequate warning regarding the construction area with flagging, fences, cones and other appropriate measures, if necessary. e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ X Environmental Checklist —5— -- (6286d) Yes Maybe No Discussion: Upon development of the site, pedestrian and bicycle flow may be impeded from time to time; however, with implementation of Mitigation Measure No.16, 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 Discussion: Upon development of the site, construction activities may alter traffic circulation and, thus, temporarily effect Police and Fire service to the area. However, with Mitigation Measure No. 11, requiring notification to the Fire and Police Departments thirty (30) days prior to the initiation of construction, no significant impacts are anticipated. b. Police protection? _ _ X Discussion: See 14a. C. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ _ X f. Other governmental services? _ _ X Discussion: Development of the proposed project will not require construction of public improvements. 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 and services are available to the site to serve the proposed land use. Environmental Checklist —6— /' a (6286d) \ C �i Yes Maybe No b. Communication systems? _ _ X Discussion: See 16a. C. Water? X Discussion: The Huntington Beach Water Department has indicated that adequate water facilities and service are available to the site to serve the proposed land use. d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ X Discussion: Sewer systems in the project vicinity are at or near capacity for existing land uses. The proposed Medium High Density Residential land use will exceed existing capacity; however, with implementation of mitigation Measure No. 13, requiring phasing of development based upon sewer capacity, no significant impacts are anticipated. e. Storm water drainage? _ _ X Discussion: See 16a. 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 Discussion: The proposed project site is located within a methane zone; however, with implementation of mitigation measure no. 14 requiring submittal of a methane plan; no significant impacts are anticipated. 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 Environmental Checklist —7— j o (6286d) Yes Maybe No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _ _ X C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural 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. 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 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. Date 6f Sign ure Revised: March, 1990 For: City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department/ --' Environmental Checklist -8- �' a (6286d) ATTACHMENT 1 NARRATIVE The proposed project will alter existing development possibilities for the site and render the existing restuarant and residential buildings as a non—conforming use. The single family home is currently a non—conforming use. However, the applicant has indicated an intent to submit plans for development shortly after approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change request; therefore, if the request is approved, it is anticipated that the non—conforming structures will be replaced by residential uses within two years. In regard to land use compatability, the Medium—High Density Residential land use would be a continuation of the Nedium—High Density Residential land use designation existing to the north and west of the project area. Although property immediately adjacent to the north boundary of the project site are designated for medium—high density residential units, it is currently occupied by two single family homes. However, properties located further north and to the west of the project site are currently occupied by medium—high density condominium units and Medium—High Density apartment units. The site is in convenient proximity to commercial, recreational, and professional facilities and has easy access to the public transportation system. The location of Medium—High Density Residential land uses near major transportation routes and highways complies with the General Plan location criteria for Medium—High Density land uses. Further compatability will be determined based upon potential environmental impacts identified here. Environmental Checklist —11— (6286d) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SEMUNOW MITIGATING MEASURES N,p 447 9O z y 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. 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. 6. If foil—type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department. 7. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 consttu•;tion equipment, d. Phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts), e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 10. Construction shall be limited to Monday — Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 7 f Environmental Checklist —9— (6286d) 11. Prior to initiation of construction, police and fire departments shall be notified and the departments shall be kept informed about duration and extent of construction throughout the process. 12. 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. 13. Development of the site shall be phased based upon the sewage volumes which can be accomodated by existing sewer capacity, as determined by the Orange County Sanitation Department. Any additional development which would generate sewage volumes above capacity levels shall not be permitted unitl the Slater Pump Station has been upgraded to meet the additional volumes generated. 14. Prior to issuance of building permits, a plan for methane overlay compliance shall be submitted, for review and approval, to the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 15. 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. 16. Prior to occupancy 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. Development of the site shall eliminate existing curb cuts on Bolsa Chica Street and take access from Charlene Circle. Environmental Checklist —10— {mil (6286d) Attachment No. 8 PEARCE-BLOSA CHICA MARKET ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-2 Prepared by City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 8� PEARCE-BOLSA CHICA MARKET ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION: Land Use Element Amendment 84-2 addresses a request by a private property owner to redesignate approximately 3.0 acres of land south of Pearce Street and east of Bolsa Chica Street from medium density residential to general commercial. The intent of the amendment is to incorporate the subject property into a larger shopping area that would include 2.34 acres of commercially designated parcels to the south. Such a development would extend commercial uses 1300 feet along Bolsa Chica Street between Warner Avenue and Pearce Street. Due to landownership patterns, much of the commercial property at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Bolse Chica Street have developed in a fragmented and piecemeal manner. As a result, the development of a neighborhood shopping center with major food and drug anchors has been precluded in much of the area. The only remaining opportunity for such a development, should demand support it, would be a portion of the Meadowlark Airport site along Warner Avenue east of Bolsa Chica Street. This area was the subject of a General Plan amendment request in 1981 which was eventually withdrawn. The options to develop neighborhood convenience uses on the Meadowlark site and/or at the Pearce-Bolsa Chica site warrants a re-evaluation of the present and future demand for commercial property and land uses in this area of the City. Commercial uses can be generally classified into five categories based on the size and location of the facility, the kinds of goods and services offered, and the size of the market area and population served. These categories are: Convenience: - 1/2 to 1 1/2 acres in size - located at intersection of secondary or local arterial streets - 1/2 mile radius market area - 3000 people served Neighborhood: - 1 1/2 to 10 acres in size - located at major or primary arterial intersections - supermarket and/or drug store plus 10-15 smaller retailers, services, or offices - 1 mile radius market area - 10,000 people served Community: - 10 to 35.acres in size - located at major or primary arterial intersections - mini-department store or supermarket anchors plus a variety of other stores - 10 to 15 minute drive market area - 15,000 or more people served Regional: - 35 or more acres in size - located at major arterial and freeway - 1 to 5 department stores plus other retailers - up to 30 minute drive market area - 500,000 people served Specialty: - size varies - located on major arterials or in tourist areas (0141D) �10- - uses vary, usually center around a theme market area varies population served varies Because of its location, the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue would not be an optimum location for both regional and community commercial centers. It is three miles from the nearest freeway, and due to its proximity to the coast draws essentially on a 180 degree market area. Regional centers cater to a market of approximately 500,000 persons; in a suburban area like Orange County this translates roughly to a five to ten mile radius market area. Presently, there are two regional centers located'in or adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach (Huntington Center and Westminster Mall) as well as two additional regional centers within a twenty minute drive (South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa and Newport Center in Newport Beach). The existence of these competing centers nearby and the poor locational qualities of the site make development of a regional commercial facility unfeasible at Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. Community commercial centers operate on roughly a two to three mile radius service area. At the present time, a number of community shopping centers exist within three miles of Bolsa Chica and Warner. These facilities are located at the intersections of Algonquin ' Street and Boardwalk Drive (87,200 square feet); Edinger Avenue and Springdale Street (southwest corner - 132,280 square feet); Goldenwest Street and Edinger Avenue (southwest corner - 169,850 square feet, southeast corner - 197,887 square feet); and Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue (northwest corner - 173,157 square feet, northeast corner - 130,000 square feet). Using the formula of one community center per 15,000 persons, the area west of Beach Boulevard and north of Talbert Avenue, which houses approximately 75,000 persons, could be expected to support five such community centers. The six centers listed above appear to provide the quantity and variety of community stores and services needed for the northwest portion of Huntington Beach. Although the question of central location and convenient freeway access are not as crucial a consideration in siting community centers as with regional centers, the 180 degree market areas offered by Bolsa Chica and Warner site is a deterrent to developing a community center considering the competition from existing facilities in the area. The potential may exist for a specialty shopping center in vicinity of the area of concern. However, some of the dollars used in calculating supportable space may be drawn to existing facilities or future sites in close proximity with greater drawing potential. Any new speciality shopping facility would have to compete with nearby Peter's Landing, a 60,000 square foot development in Huntington Harbour featuring a variety of restaurants and specialty shops. Within one mile south of the Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue site, speciality commercial/visitor serving uses are being planned as a part of the Orange County Local Coastal Plan and State Coastal Conservancy Habitat Plan for the unincorporated Bolsa Chica. Both agencies have been coordinating their planning efforts for the Bolsa Chica, and will submit the approved Coastal Conservancy plan to the State Coastal Commission in November, 1984. The existing plan would designate approximately 35 acres of land in the Bolsa Chica for visitor serving uses, which would feature a hotel, and a variety of restaurants and marina-related speciality shops. As with any specialty commercial or visitor serving uses developed along the coast, the City's efforts to revitalize the downtown area could also be impacted. Given these considerations, the development of a specialty commercial center at Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue is not- visualized as feasible or desirable. While the problems of location, access, and competition make the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue an undesirable location for regional, community, and (0141D) q MH R2 '�J'U I'' c2 ! a RI-CZ CF E I'' r 1r RI al C2 q r r CF_EI •��` RI 9 RI 1 � RI Rl 1 RI I•WC,C^ RI-Cf - Z RI aI AI RI f// Irl R I Ri•CZ MH "= ^' MH 1 J R2 R2 c4 i YRI 1 MH WR-CZ F- �_ -JZ_- RI RI _......,.._ .", CF..E..._. f m 'd Rx S R2 •:C4 P\.Gt r-Z I,` C2 2I RZ 'I u % - I RI G RI a2 R I 1� RI I RI i csc P\-ct R3 R2 R2 R2 R2elcc-n.Y CF R ROS �I wnn.( vR21—i Atl RI RI Po NI ,1•�/.,�'R,i�ir RI + ], R2 R2 FFR2 R2 R2 R2j R3 (0)MH I. I R2 i ( A (•Z Artt ' C4-CZ l— `0- ¢ .. RI vry I•' ^' RI I R3 R3 R3 R3 R3 ROS C2 —- - \ARI•[� .�(r i I- I• _JS-a _ ]4 Ct ,� RI-CZ. ) - - RS -_1 ( - 1 .•RI •C4 I RIrcZ WR•CZ�..�_ _ ¢� RI iR2 •�'R3-19';f— :.�.I R2.. = j rC22 R2 3" ;) '] _ C C2 Z'tt1•£n RI.CZ ,R4C2] `l u RI l \ 9-it--�R2 ^ _TAI 1'1. -^-a•a. ._ I.r r.n ....r.(.a 11 I RI.CZ ....w w.r n.. ¢ �I AI-CZFRI-CZ - RI IRI\R3 �/: RI`;al' ry R2 ' RI _ Ii51.CZ al-CZ P.• 1 r. L` WARY ._ ♦ :I RI-CZ i a, tJam..,- A3'23 -i ..rl•i�•z r �..�I;,�_ .r R R /- ---�1¢ 'I ER r RI CZ j( _ f' RI-CZ YRI_. `It R3 > .•R_ --�Y i,^• '-P J�' --�. •i R2 DICd .P ��1• '/,• 51 , Ri \ RI-CZ ? =.1 YZ, •'S' •.'.-I CF-E R � RI C' ,, y'I_�ul I .'mil-' i '1 , RI ♦ �, �_s�"3ywt11.. 1 :J,rt«I. .cz R11 RI \ V♦ - % ,, -\,4� \ \��'7��c -1.z%�CF-E-CZ: RI I I aI �v 3� .ct ��R'CZ .�. 4 Z C Cf 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH C41-IFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION Pearce-Bo/sa Chica Market Study. Area:: specialty shopping centers, there may be potential for the development of a convenience and/or neighborhood facility in the area. The following analysis addresses the feasibility of developing these kinds of facilities in the Bolsa Chica/Warner area. NEIGHBORHOOD/CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL USES METHODOLOGY: For the purpose of this report, convenience and neighborhood uses are addressed simultaneously in this section. This analysis attempts to determine the market support for neighborhood convenience retail facilities in a given trade area. Market support is primarily a function of the buying power of the trade area residents and an assessment of existing commercial facilities. Buying power is based on the area's population size and median family income. This buying power can be translated into supportable square footage of retail facilities. A comparison of supportable'square footage to existing and ultimate General Planned facilities indicate whether there is unused potential support for additional commercial uses in the trade area. A combination of housing, population, income and retail sales data was utilized to determine the total amount of supportable square footage for various types of neighborhood uses for the market area. The primary market area is defined by taking half the distance between the nearest surrounding neighborhood and community centers, and the intersection in question. For statistical purposes, the primary market area in this analysis is defined as being bounded by Heil Avenue on the north, Springdale Street on the east, the southern limits of proposed development in the Bolsa Chica on the south, and Algonquin Street/Warner Avenue on the west (see attached figure). Three alternative population figures are used to produce a range of demand figures based on (A) existing housing units, (B) ultimate housing units under expected land use designations excluding the Bolsa Chica, and (C) ultimate housing units under expected land use designations including the Bolsa Chica. These alternative population figures are multiplied by adjusted 1984 City-wide per capita taxable sales figures in order to estimate the anticipated sales potential for the market area. Data regarding the typical types, sizes and sales per square foot of uses found in neighborhood centers are taken from the Urban Land Institute's 1981 Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers and adjusted to 1984 terms. This data makes it possible to translate the sales potential of.the area into supportable square footage for the various categories of neighborhood uses to see how much of the current and future demand is being met by existing and projected uses in the area. Current and future demand are also measured against the addition of proposed commercial uses at Bolsa Chica and Pearce Streets and a hypothetical commercial development on the Meadowlark Airport property along Warner Avenue. The difference between demand and supply can be used to determine if there is a need for additional neighborhood commercial uses and if so, what types of uses would be most viable for the market area. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the data. 90 . TABLE 1 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER POTENTIAL A B C Ultimate Units Ultimate Units Existing Under General Plan Under General Plan Housing Units Minus Bolsa Chica Plus Bolsa Chica Households a 4,402 5,973 9,755 Population a 10,992 15,013 241710 1984 Total b 6,496.25 $6496.25 $6496.25 Taxable Sales Per Capita Total Taxable $71,406,780 $97,528)201 $160,522,330 Sales Potential SALES POTENTIAL BY CATEGORYc CATEGORY Food $121281,966 $162774,850 $27,609,840 Drug 2,499,237 37413,487 5,6181282 Apparel 1,9277983 2,633,261 42334,103 Liquor 1,071,102 1,462,923 2,407,835 Eating/Drinking 6,855,051 9,362,707 151410,143 Gen. Merchandise 8,711,627 11,898,440 1925837724 Home Improvement 224492253 32345,217 51505,916 Services/Office 3,570,339 47876,410 8,02611 17 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY CATEGORYd CATEGORY Food 34,024 sq.ft. 46,470 sq.ft. 76,486 sq.ft. Drug 13,546 18,501 302452 Apparel 121067 16,481 27,125 Liquor 4,635 6,331 10,420 Eating/Drinking 52,329 71,471 117,635 Gen. Merchandise 92,167 125,883 207,191 Home Improvement 33,699 46,027 75,756 Services/Office 104,518 1422752 2347957 Total 346,985 473,916 .780,022 -_ 0141DCD M A TABLE 2 EXISTING AND PROJECTED RETAIL AND OFFICE SPACE'IN MARKET AREA A B C EXISTING SPACE EXISTING SPACE 1984 EXISTING SPACE PEARCE-BOLSA CHICA PEARCE-BOLSA CHICA CATEGORY EXISTING SPACE PEARCE-BOLSA CHICA MEADOWLARK MEADOWLARK Food 367046 43,546 731546 .731546 +27022 -2,924 +271076 -21940 Drug 237589 34,389 492389 49,389 +10;043 +151888 +30,888 +181937 Apparel 3,186 8,686 11,686 11,686 -8,881 -7,795 -42795 -15,439 Liquor 37,205 37,205 37,205 37,205 +32,570 +301874 +301874 +26,785 Eating/Drinking 562572 651692 77,692 771692 +4,243 -5,779 +61221 -39,943 General Merchandise 30,858 467538 58,538 581538 61,309 -79,345 -67,345 148,653 Home Improvement 20,483 332683 41,683 41,683 -13,216 -121344 -4,344 -34,073 Services/Office 1482237 148,237 168,237 1682237 +43,719 +5,485 +25,4.85 -66,720 TOTAL 356,176 417,976 517,976 5171976 +9,191 -55,940 +44,060 -262,046 (0141D) NOTES TO TABLE 1: a. Household and Population figures based on Department of Development Services estimates. b. Data extrapolated from "Trade Outlets and Taxable Retail Sales, "State Board of Equalization, per capita sales figure adjusted according to median family income data taken from the United States Census for the City of Huntington Beach, 1980. C. Sales of retail goods in the categories listed account for approximately 43 percent of total retail sales in Huntington Beach (Source: "Trade Outlets and Taxable Retail Sales", State Board of Equalization): Food 8.6% Drug 2.0% Apparel 2.7% Liquor 1.5% Eating/Drinking 9.6% General Merchandise 12.2% Home Improvement 3.4% Services/Office 3.0% Other 57.0% Apparel and General Merchandise categories are normally not associated with convenience neighborhood centers. However, the applicant is proposing these uses at the Pearce-Bolsa Chica site in lieu of development of some typical neighborhood uses and in combination with some convenience center uses. Consequently, an analysis of the demand for these uses within the market area is included in the study. In addition, much of the developed commercial property within the market area consists of, Professional Office and Service complexes. The figures thus reflect full demand of such uses whether as part of a neighborhood center or existing as separate developments. Dollar figures for the Food and Drug categories are adjusted by factors of 2.0 and 1.75 respectively to account for additional sales of non-taxable items based on total estimated California food and drug sales from various services. d. Median sales per square foot values for typical commercial categories are as follows: Food $360.98 per square foot Drug $184.50 per square foot Apparel $159.78 per square foot Liquor $231.09 per square foot Eating/Drinking $131.00 per square foot General Merchandise $94.52 per square foot Home Improvement $72.68 per square foot Services/Office $34.16 per square foot (Source: The Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 1981, adjusted to 1984). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of total square footage, the existing supply of commercial uses in the market area is sufficient to meet the current demand (Scenario A). This oversupply can be 4 �, (.0141D) attributed in part to overlapping demand from surrounding market areas, as more than half of the commercial uses listed in Table 2 under the existing scenario were located near the periphery of the defined market area. These uses are supported to some extent by consumers located outside the market area, increasing the actual demand and sales potential data. This increase is probably balanced by consumers living in the specified market area who visit other commercial centers outside the area. As a result, some oversupply still exists in square footage. Scenario B compares the demand for commercial space with supply over the short-term, and assumes that the remaining areas designated for residential use develop according to the General Plan with the exception of the unincorporated Bolsa Chica which remains vacant. Scenario C represents the long-term, and assumes development in the Bolsa Chica. With the exception of the visitor-serving commercial uses currently under consideration in the Bolsa Chica, the only remaining areas for potential commercial development within the market area include the applicant's proposal at Pearce and Bolsa Chica Streets, .and a portion of the Meadowlark Airport site along Warner Avenue. Consequently, the applicant's proposed commercial development is assumed to develop under the short-term scenario with the Meadowlark site being analyzed under both the short-term and long-term. In Scenario B, the data generally show that the demand generated by future residential development within the market area will be sufficient to support additional commercial square footage. However, until residential development occurs in the Bolsa Chica portion of the market area, demand will only support one additional commercial center at either the Pearce-Bolsa Chica site or at the Meadowlark Airport site. Once the Bolse Chica develops according to the long-term scenario, demand will be more than adequate to support both commercial sites. The overall square footage figures show that future demand will accommodate ultimate potential commercial supply; however, when this supply is broken down into specific categories some imbalances are revealed. Compared to the estimated supportable square footage over the short-term, the addition of the commercial uses proposed by the applicant translates into a surplus of space in the drug, liquor, and service/office categories, and a deficiency of space in the food, apparel, eating/drinking, general merchandise and home improvement categories. This takes into account that the applicant is proposing a commercial development with the following mix of tenants: convenience market/bakery (7,500 square feet), drugstore (10,800 square feet), apparel stores (5,500 square feet), restaurant (9,120 square feet), mini-department store (13,200 square feet), hardware store/nursery (13,200 square feet), and other general merchandise shops (2,480 square feet). The data suggests that the market area can accommodate all proposed commercial uses at Pearce-Bolsa Chica with the possible exception of the drug category. the proposed development will add square footage to the already existing surplus of drug establishments within the defined market area. The same conclusion would hold true in the long-term. The addition of a typical neighborhood center at Meadowlark anchored by a supermarket and drugstore in the short-term would create an oversupply in the food, drug, liquor, and, service/office categories. Without the needed food and drug anchors, a shopping center at the 100,000 square foot magnitude would be infeasible. However, at ultimate development in the long-term, surpluses would exist in only the drug and liquor categories. This indicates that the market area could support the proposed convenience market at the Pearce-Bolse Chica site as well as a supermarket at the Meadowlark site. Rather than a drugstore anchor at the Meadowlark site, the data suggests that it would be feasible to provide an additional anchor in the form of a home improvement store or a general merchandise facility. The figures indicate that substantial demand will exist in the general merchandise category with both locations probably being able to support such (0141D) =? uses as major anchors. This would further be substantiated in the fact that only two of the six. community shopping centers located within the general area contain such anchors. The two shopping centers that accommodate such uses are located at Edinger and Goldenwest, close to the Huntington Regional Shopping Center but outside of the defined market area of this study. Most of the existing eating and drinking establishments within the market area consist of small sandwich shops, bars, and fast food operations. The addition of major restaurants at the Pearce-Bolsa Chica site and Meadowlark site will still leave considerable demand for such uses at ultimate development. Since specialty and restaurant uses in the Bolsa Chica visitor-serving area were not included in the analysis, it is assumed that restaurant development in the Bolsa Chica will bring supply in line with demand for such uses in the study area. The supply of liquor establishments will likely remain relatively constant over the long-term, regardless of whether commercial uses are developed at either of the two sites or both. This is the result of one large liquor establishment recently taking over the total square footage of a former supermarket on the periphery of the market area. The supply of service and professional office uses will show a considerable surplus during the short-term as the result of the high concentration of office complexes at the intersection of Wagner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street and within existing neighborhood centers. However, demand will exceed supply as the Bolsa Chica develops. The development of expected service uses at the two sites under consideration will not significantly affect this balance. In summary, there appears to be sufficient demand to support additional commercial square- footage in specified categories. While the Pearce-Bolsa Chica site and Meadowlark Airport site can support commercial uses in most categories at ultimate development, the overall surplus of square footage in the drug category would appear to preclude that use as a major anchor at either site. Perhaps more appropriate at the Pearce-Bolsa Chica site would be a combination of additional retail shops, services/offices, and/or eating/drinking establishments. To complement a supermarket on the Meadowlark site, perhaps a home improvement store or general merchandise use as a major anchor would be more appropriate based on the demand figures for the area. gip."45;:51• �. Y.'�.i}.,�,iJ:y' Attachment No. 9 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5 August, 1990 Prepared by City, of Huntington Beach Community Development Department i • FISCAL IMPACT MODEL TECHNICAL APPENDICES GPA # 90-5 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 - 10/2/90 -2- (7146d) FISCAL IMPACT MODEL TECHNICAL APPENDICES GPA # 90-5 There are six alternatives analyzed for General Plan Amendment 90-5 . The following list identifies the alternative scenarios including estimated market valuations for each alternative and the estimated population generated by residential scenarios . ALTERNATIVE 1 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 36 apartment units - $275, 000 per unit market value - 97 residents based on 2 . 7 people/unit - Total market value = $9, 900, 000 ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM DENSITY HIGH RESIDENTIAL - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - APPLICANTS PROPOSAL - 50 condominium units - $225, 000 per unit market value - 135 residents based on 2.7 people/unit - Total market value = $11,250, 000 ALTERNATIVE 3 - MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 62 apartment units - $225, 000 per unit market value - 167 residents based on 2.7 people/unit . - Total market value = $13, 950 .00 ALTERNATIVE 4 - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 86 Apartment units - $175, 000 per unit market value - 232 residents based on 2.7 people/unit - Total market value = $15,050, 000 ALTERNATIVE 5 - EXISTING LAND USE - 7, 000 square feet of commercial restaurant space - $647, 934 market value based upon adjusted assessed valuation of the propety - 1 single family unit - $177,227 market value based upon adjusted assessed valuation of the property - Total market value = $825, 161 ALTERNATIVE 6 - COMMERCIAL GENERAL- (RECYCLING OF SITE) 17, 890 square feet of retail market value (projected based on square footage factors identified in fiscal impact model) - Total market value = 1. 08 million Attachment - 10/2/90 -3- �G (7146d) TABLE 1 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Med Den Med Hi Den PD Med Hi Den High Den Existing Restaurant Projected Commercial 36 Units 50 Units 62 Units 86 Units 7,000 sa.ft. 17,890 sa.ft. Revenue Item Property Tax 19,008 21,600 26,784 28,896 1,584 2,074 Sales Tax 1,548 11900 2,356 2,924 9,170 23,338 Util/Fran. Tax 4,016 5,577 6,916 9,593 704 1,629 Business License 0 0 0 0 99 765 FFP 1,205 1,677 2,071 2,881 0 0 Cigarette Tax 189 263 326 452 0 0 Motor Vehicle 3,486 4,852 6,002 8,338 108 0 Gas Tax Fund 834 1,161 1,436 1,995 26 0 Total 30,286 37,030 45,891 55,079 11,691 25,732 Cost Item Gen. Admin 2,002 2,002 2,002 2,002 2,002 2,002 Police 2,420 3,388 4,114 5,687 605 1,331 Fire 3,395 4,725 5,845 8,120 1,339 1,234 Comm. Services 1019 1,418 1,754 2,436 32 0 Public Works 327 455 563 782 150 140 Total 7,073 11,928 14,278 19,027 4,128 4,707 Revenue Minus Cost 23,213 23,213 250123 36,052 79563 21,025 Revenue/Cost Ratio 4.28 3.10 3.21 2.89 2.83 5.47 Attachment - 10/2/90 -4- p (7146d) 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 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 04-007. The City collects 19 .2 percent of the one percent County tax. Market value assumptions were based on: 1. Residential unit value derived from current residential sales in the City. 2 . Commercial square footage derived from current market rates in the City. 3 . Commercial land - Orange County tax assessor tax rolls, assessed market valuation of land or land minus improvements . 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. The 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 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 esti- mated that for every new resident the City captures only 40 percent of the annual retail sales tax revenue generated by that resident. Attachment - 10/2/90 -5- (7146d) Commercial retail sales tax revenue is based on an estimated sales per gross leasable square feet, (80 percent of the total building square footage) derived from the Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, compiled and published by the Urban Land Institute. 1.3 Utility User and Franchise Tax Huntington Beach collects a five percent utility user tax 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 Commercial = .0894 cents per kilowatt hour, using 12 .2 KWH per square foot per year applied to commercial and recreation developments . Natural Gas According to the California Energy Commission, average statewide natural gas charges are: Residential = $29 .58 per unit, per month Commercial = $. 669 per million BTU' s, using an annual rate of .42 million BTU' s per square foot applied to commercial and recreational developments . Water Based on City Water Department analyses: Average residential water billing is $18 . 69 for a two month period, per unit. Data on commercial billing can not be identified per unit or store because one water meter may service many units or stores . Commer- cial water customers include all customers except residential and comprise approximately 27 percent of the water billings in the City. Attachment - 10/2/90 -6- OW (7146d) 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 or commercial customers . They do not compile the type of information that would be appro- priate 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. 1.4 Business License Fee The City requires all businesses, commercial and industrial, in the City to have a license. Business license fees are based on the number of employees per business and also a fee per number of trucks . It is not feasible to estimate the number of trucks per business, but employees have been estimated based on the following assumptions . Alternative 5 (Existing Commercial) : Alternative 5 consists of approximately 7,000 square feet of restaurant space. As mentioned above, Business Licensing fees are determined by the number of employees per business . The City' s Business License Department estimates that quality restaurant businesses employ approximately 3 employees per 1, 000 sq. ft. Based upon this average, if re-established, business license fees generated by the restaurant would be approximately $99 . 00 annually. Alternative 6 (Commercial General): Alternative 6 consists of approximetely 17, 890 sq. ft . of retail space. As mentioned above, business licensing fees are determined by the number of employees per business . The City' s Business Licensing department estimates that retail businesses are an average of 1, 000 sq. feet and employ approximataely 3 employees per business. Based upon this average, business license fees generated by the retail commercial businesses would be approximately $765 annually. 1. 5 Additional Revenue Additional revenue 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 * State subventions . Attachment - 10/2/90 -7- (7146d) 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 : Essentially, each department has been treated on a case by case basis rather than applying a standard methodology to all of the categories considered. 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 tolassess 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 . 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 . Attachment - 10/2/90 -8- �I,� (7146d) 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 approximately 2.49 gross acres yielding a cost of $2002 . 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. 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 titled Police Services Costs . 2 .4 Fire Department It is the the assessment of Fire Department Staff, 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 Attachment - 10/2/90 -9- (7146d) Cq 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. Commercial land uses, however, have a relatively small impact on the Fire Department . Six percent of Fire Safety service (programs 300 and 302) can be attributed to commercial uses, or ( . 06) ($9, 018, 686) _ $541, 121. In addition to Fire Safety, Commercial uses also impact program 308, Hazmat Response Unit . It is estimated that 25 percent of the 1990/1991 program budget or ( .25) ($794, 152) _ $198, 538 can be attributed to commercial uses . Of the three programs the total cost is $739 , 659 . Applied on a per acre basis the cost dis- tribution is $739, 659 divided by 1223 commercial acres = $605 per acre. 2 . 5 Community Services According to Jim Engle, Acting Director, Community Services Department, none of the development scenarios analyzed in General Plan Amendment 89-3 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. 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 - 10/2/90 -10- � � (7146d) .1 •`i 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 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 . For commercial land uses the cost will be measured on a per acre 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 . Commercial and industrial costs are as follows : The per acre cost is derived from the balance of the programs which equals $185,324 divided by 2, 691 acres (commercial and industrial) and results in $68 . 87 per acre. Summary tables of revenues and costs follow this text. Attachment - 10/2/90 (7146d) • TABLE 2 • PROPERTY TAX (City tax collected is 19.2% of one percent) Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Med Den Med Hi Den PD Med Hi Den High Den Existing Rest. Projected Commercial 36 Units 50 Units 62 Units 86 Units 7.000 sq.ft. 17.890 sq.ft. Number of Units 36 50 62 86 7,000/sq.ft. 17,890 square feet Market Value 275,000 225,000 225,000 175,000 92.56/sq.ft. 60.39/sq.ft. per unit Total Market 9,900,000 11,250,000 13,950,000 15,050,000 825,161 1,080,000 Value Total Property 19,008 21,600 26,784 28,896 1,584 2,074 Tax Attachment — 10/2/90 —12— (7146d) 5 • TABLE 3 • SALES TAX REVENUE Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Med Den Med Hi Den PD Med Hi Den High Den Existing Rest. Projected Commercial 36 Units 50 Units 62 Units 86 Units 7.000 sa.ft. 17,890 sq.ft. Residential Market Value (per unit) 275,000 225,000 225,000 175,000 Estimated Household Income (per unit) 82,500 67,500 67,500 52,500 Estimated Annual Retail Sales Tax 647 578 578 509 per household (from Tax Tables) City's Tax portion 107 96 96 84 (16.6% of Sales Tax) 40% Capture Rate 43 38 38 34 Number of Units 36 50 62 86 City Tax Revenue 1,548 1,900 2,356 2,924 Commercial Gross Sq. Ft. 7,000 17,890 Gross Lease Sq. Ft. — 14,312 (80% of gross sq. ft.) Sales per year per sq. ft. 131.00 163.07 Annual Sales 917,000 2,333,789 City Tax Revenue 9,170 23,338 (Annual Sales) Attachment — 10/2/90 —13— (7146d) • TABLE 4 • UTILITY USER AND FRANCHISE TAX Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Med Den Med Hi Den PD Med Hi Den High Den Existing Rest. Projected Commercial 36 Units 50 Units 62 Units 86 Units 7,000 sq.ft. 17,890 sq.ft. Electricity 1104.48 1534.00 1902.16 2638.48 412.42 980.52 Gas 639.00 887.50 1100.50 1526.50 116.09 251.34 Telephone 864.00 1200.00 1488.00 2064.00 - Cable TV 474.12 658.50 816.54 1132.62 - Water 201.96 280.50 347.82 482.46 - Franchise Tax Electricity 220.90 306.78 380.41 527.66 82.48 196.10 0% of annual sales) Gas 511.20 710.00 880.40 1221.20 92.87 201.07 (4% of annual sales) 4,015.66 5,577.28 6,915.83 9,592.92 703.86 1,629.03 Attachment - 10/2/90 -14- ii1� (7146d) TABLE 5 • ADDITIONAL REVENUE Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Med Den Med Hi Den PD Med Hi Den High Den Existing Rest. Projected Commercial 36 Units 50 Units 62 Units 86 Units 7.000 sg.ft. 17.890 sg.ft. Estimated 97 135 167 232 3 0 Population Fine. Forfeitures and Penalties Revenue per capita 12.42 12.42 12.42 12.42 12.42 0 Total 1204.74 1676.70 2070.80 2881.44 37.26 Cigarette Tax Revenue per capita 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 0 Total 189.00 263.25 325.65 452.40 5.85 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax Revenue per capita 35.94 35.94 35.94 35.94 35.94 0 Total 3486.18 4851.90 6001.98 8338.08 107.82 Gas Tax Funds Revenue per capita 8.60 8.60 8.60 8.60 8.60 0 Total 834.20 1161.00 1436.20 1995.20 25.80 Attachment - 1012190 -15- CO) (7146d) . TABLE 6 • POLICE SERVICE COSTS Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Med Den Med Hi Den PD Med Hi Den High Den Existing Rest. Projected Commercial 36 Units 50 Units 62 Units 86 Units 7.000 sa.ft. 17,890 sg.ft. Number of Units 36 50 62 86 7,000 sq. ft. 17,890 sq. ft. or square feet Calls/Unit .55 .55 .55 .55 1/1693 sq. ft 1/1693 sq. ft. or square feet Calls/Year 20 28 34 47 5 11 Cost per call $121 $121 $121 $121 $121 $121 Total Cost $2,420.00 $3,388.00 $4,114.00 $5,687.00 $605.00 $1,331.00 Attachment — 10/2/90 -16— (7146d) • TABLE 7 • ADDITIONAL COSTS Alt. 1 Alt. 2. Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Med Den Med Hi Den PD Med Hi Den High Den Existing Rest. Projected Commercial 36 Units 50 Units 62 Units 86 Units 7,000 sg-ft. 17,890 sg.ft. Residential Estimated Population 97 135 167 232 3 0 Fire Service Costs Costs per capita 35 35 35 35 605* 605* Total 3395 4725 5845 8120 1234 1234 Community Service Costs Costs per capita 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 0 Total 1018.50 1418.00 1754.00 2436.00 32.00 0 Public Works Costs Costs per capita 3.37 3.37 3.37 3.37 3.37 0 Total 326.89 455.00 563.00 782.00 10.00 0 Costs per Acre 68.87* 68.87* 140.00 140.00 * Commercial cost per acre Attachment — 10/2/90 —17— (7146d) RESOLUTION NO. 1438 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5 . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach reviewed a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan; and The amendment to the Land Use Element is to redesignate 2 . 85 acres of land located on the west side of, Bolsa Chica Street, approximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue as depicted in Exhibit A (attached) from General Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential; and A public hearing on adoption of General Plan Amendment 90-5 was held by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on October 2, 1990 in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach as follows : SECTION 1 : The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential will reduce the commercial land use inventory in the area, and thus limit the area ' s ability to meet future commercial demand. SECTION 2 : The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential is too intense for the project site. Iba SECTION 3 : The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential will increase traffic in the project vicinity which would be undesirable. SECTION 4 : The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential will negatively impact sewer capacities in the project vicinity. 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 on the 2nd. day of October, 1990, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mike Adams, Secretary Planning Commission Chairwoman Staff Report - 10/2/90 -2- I �j� (7146d) 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 "COMMUNITY BUSINESS" TO "MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" , ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 2 . 04 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF BOLSA CHICA STREET, APPROXIMATELY 270 FEET NORTH OF WARNER AVENUE. (ZONE CHANGE NO 90-6) . 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. 90-6 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 : SECTION 1: The following described real property, generally located on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street approximately 270 feet north of Warner Avenue, is hereby changed from C2 (Community Business) to R3 (Medium-High Density Residential) . Parcel I : That portion of Lot 4, Block 16 of Tract No. 86 as per map recorded in Book 10, Pages 35 and 36 of Miscellaneous Maps, on file in the office of the County Recorder of said county, described as follows : C11 Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 4 : thence southerly along the easterly line of said Lot 4, 204 . 67 feet, more or less, to a point that is 125 . 33 feet northerly of the southerly line of the northerly 330 feet of said Lot 4 , thence westerly parallel with the northerly line of said Lot 4 , 275 . 03 feet, more or less, to a point that is 25 .00 feet, measured at right angles to the westerly line of said Lot 4 : thence southerly parallel with the westerly line of said Lot 4, thence southerly parallel with the westerly line of said Lot 4, 125 .33 feet, more or less, to. the southerly line of the northerly 330 . 00 feet of said Lot 4 : thence westerly parallel with the northerly line of said Lot 4, 25 feet, more or less, to the westerly line of said Lot 4; thence northerly along said westerly line, 330 . 00 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 4; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Lot 4, 300 .03 a feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. TOGETHER with an easement for road and public utility purposes over the east 25 feet of Lot 3 and the West 25 feet of Lot 4, in Block 16 or Tract No. 86, as per map recorded in Book 10, pages 35 and 36 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county. EXCEPTING therefrom the north 330 feet. Parcel II : That portion of Lot 4, Block 16 of Tract No. 86 as per map recorded in Book 10, pages 35 and 36 of Miscellaneous Maps, on file -in the office of the County Recorded of said county, described as follows : Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 4; thence northerly along the easterly line of said Lot 4 , 125 .33 feet, more or less, to a point that is 204 . 67 feet southerly of the northerly line of the southerly 330 feet of said Lot 4 : thence westerly parallel with the southerly line of said Lot 4, 245 . 03 feet, more or less, to a point that is 25 . 00 feet, measured at right angles to the westerly line of said Lot 4; thence southerly parallel with the westerly line of said Lot 4, 125 .33 feet, more or less, to the southerly line of the northerly 330 . 00 feet of said Lot 4 : thence easterly along the southerly line of said Lot 4, 245.03 feet, more or less to the point of beginning. (Exhibit A attached hereto. ) SECTION 2 : The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to amend Section 9061, District Map 23 (Sectional District Map 20-5-11) to reflect Zone Change No. 90-6, described in Section 1 hereof (Exhibit A) . Copies of said district maps, as amended hereby, are available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. 1 L� SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days' after its 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 1989 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Community Development (6754d) Ili slG I I ryC F—R U U RI Q RI� Ri RIoR2 � a �L�� R2Z f Y `> N Lf l az co I�I�R2 R2 ;{ — R 1 S RI ST. Q PKEARCFI 3 30.5 7 c) T0:--.cx\ Jw I`' 10 MEADOWL R2 R2 R —�2 R2 R3 - R2 SPECIFIC F. �J! P(Q)R 2 f Q ,',',ILO S7 MILp Sr. R3 _ 1 396. 0 r.. v, - �,�`• `�� I�00 R3 I �c HARLEfJE�R. s C 2 O N I� I SCALE I IN FEET 0X N M R 3 I R 3 R 3 ,3o 1267.30 I z u C 2 co" C4 m o (� Z O In N M } 0 - - =I .__ - _ OP WARNER - _ IIo I LP 33 0.i2 41, E 30.03 C c. Z �_.t I _ yUc" ; t35� Fz 81 R In Cto = 222[ (Q) 0) � 400= 253 R3 R2:R3 Lj L2E 46' ?.,v OUNBAR R2 Ll� GR h: NGCR (Proposed) 4.H — J. Zoning Map HUNTINGTON BEACH S HUNTFNGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No . 90-5 has been prepared and analyzed in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 2, 1990; and General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by redesignating a 2 . 85 net acre area of land from General Commercial to Medium -High Density Residential; and Such 2 . 85 acre area is generally located on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street, north of Warner Avenue, as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto; and The Planning Commission held a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65353 on October 16, 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. 90-5 is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan. SECTION 3 : General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 is consistent with other Elements of the General Plan. SECTION 4 : General Plan Amendment No. 90-5 implements the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan by providing additional housing opportunities within the community. cpag. ytL�1�y 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 with the mitigation measures as stated pursuant to Negative Declaration No. 90-24 . 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 second day of October, 1990 . Michael C. Adams, Secretary Planning Commission Chairwoman l2b Staff Report - 10/2/90 -2- (7146d) J GELdNG CA. j i 1 fallQ U S T, V. A T - 0 O 1 m, } MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MILD ST. (:'.'.c......... .., ') • rrr 1 0 l000 CHARLENE CR. LL SOLE IN FCCT ` I V) I z m z r w Z x i � � O WARNER -LL) t ' I W I W d w Z 1 J u J DUN96R CR. _ .taN=S CR. xlrrG CR. n w _ w • m � r 1 � VINELANr E /—TI— 0 GPA90-05 -1' 1& HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION 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 . 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. • • 10 . 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 . 11. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7 : 00 AM to 8 : 00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays . 12 . 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 . 13 . 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. 14 . Prior to issuance of building permits, a plan for methane overlay compliance shall be submitted, for review and approved to the Huntington Beach Fire Department . 15 . 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. 16 . 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 . 17. Development of the site shall eliminate existing curb cuts on Bolsa Chica Street and take access from Charlene Circle. 18 . Development of the site shall be phased based upon the sewage volumes which can be accomodated by existing sewer capacity, as determined by the Orange County Sanitation Department . Any additional development which would generate sewage volumes above capacity levels shall not be permitted until the Slater Pump Station has been upgraded to meet the additional volumes generated. July 15 , 1990 REC IV?-,.D 01"T a ,, 1990 Southridge Homes DEPARTME;—� . . 5362 Oceanus Drive COMMUNITY .F.= ::. ._ .T Huntington Beach , California 92649 PLANNING Utrb.ily Dear Duf : Thank you for your letter outlining the use of Charlene Circle as access to your project . I am . not in favor of using Charlene Circle as an access to your property . Dumping traffic onto Charlene would further congest that street . The street needs the existing parking on both sides of the street and finding parking in that area is difficult . Charlene is a short street and traffic would back up from Green Street thereby blocking driveways . Should you want to discuss this matter or need me to discuss it with the City , please contact me . Sincerely , Charlie Cruzat r. 1990CEP �� J 13502 E.Virginia Avenue The Best Enterprise Baldwin Park, California 91706-5885 Is A Free Enterprise IWWOUT (818)338-5587 "God Bless America" @X%- BURGER September 20, 1990 REC . . Or'T U ingo Mr. _P f S f reddo 5362 ceanus Drive UEPARI.. Huntington Beach, California 92649 COMMtJN I� Re: 16911 Bolsa Chica Huntington Beach, California Dear Duf: The purpose of this letter is to confirm our earlier discussions regarding the above-referenced property. As you know, In-N-Out Burger was pleased to have an opportunity to consider this as a location for one of our new restaurants because we are indeed eager to acquire a site in Huntington Beach. This particular property is somewhat removed from the more dynamic commercial corridors where we hope to locate, so we will have to decline the site at this time. Thanks for thinking of In-N-Out; talk to you soon. Sincerely, Claudia Boyd Director of Real Estate CB/ck Enclosure The Customer Is Everything To Us Ursino Development 1990 IS COMMU..,iITY DEVEI C)PPAENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM REPORT Rezoning a Commercial Site Located at 16871 and 16911 Bolsa Chica, Huntington Beach to Medium, High .Density Residential (R-3 ) . Prepared by URSINO DEVELOPMENT September 1990 18652 Florida St. *245 • Huntington Beach, California 92648 • (714) 842-1401 r INTRODUCTION: Specifically, Ursino Development is requesting that the subject site be rezoned from commercial to medium/high density residential (R-3 ) . The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit findings in our study of the market as it relates to our request for a zone change. In the course of our study, we performed the following tasks: Reviewed and analyzed existing market research performed by Economics- Research Associates, May 3 , 1990 and Pearce-Bolsa Chica Market Study. Physically surveyed all areas in both studies. Analyzed, published and unpublished reports prepared by other government agencies and private firms regarding retail sales and other factors relating to the site ' s potential as a commercial site. Interviewed officials of public and private sector agencies or firms regarding various aspects of the site and the factors that influence residential development on this site. Reviewed documents and reports prepared by or for the City of Huntington Beach that relate to commercial development in and around the Bolsa Chica/Warner area of the City. Prepared this memorandum report and the tables and exhibits that are included. Page 1 BACKGROUND: The 2 acre property was utilized as a restaurant site. Several names and types of restaurants have been tried, however none have had any success and the premises has been closed for three years. The property was placed on the market for sale and no suitable offers were received. The familiar statement - "It' s not a good place for a restaurant" - had meaning at this location. Less than one half mile away, the Golden Bear Restaurant has had four different names in the past 3-1/2 years . Consideration was given to other retail uses. There were no offers from buyers to convert the restaurant property into a strip center. There are other strip centers along Bolsa Chica and the mid-block location is not as desirable a location for a strip center. Additonally several fast food chains were contacted. Specifically In- and-Out Burger and MacDonald' s. They conducted their own studies and both declined the site as a fast food use. Claudia Boyd of In-and-Out said they would prefer Beach Boulevard and she is working on a location there. An abundance of related stores and centers exist in the immediate area. The success rate of the individual units appears to be minimal at best. Vacancies at 250, per center is common. The largest center nearby is the Huntington Harbour Mall. It has mixed use of retail and office. The retail activity in the center is less than desired. Most recently, larger signage on Warner was approved by the City to assist in drawing shoppers to this location. This center has 80 , 000 square feet of retail. Forthcoming to the area is an additional 123 , 000 square feet of detail in the Meadowlark Airport site on 15 acres of land. Most recently the City Council approved a zone change from commercial to residential for two properties nearby the Meadowlark site. The impact of this new center certainly had a bearing on their decision to approve the change. Other commercial centers in the area are not so-called bonanzas. Peter ' s Landing and the Sunset Beach area have numerous restaurants and retail space. Per capita wise, the sales in these areas are less than the Orange County average according to Sales and Marketing Management Magazine Survey of Buying Power. Page 2 _ 's SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis that follows and our observations during the course of preparing this memorandum, we conclude that the best and highest use for the benefit of the City at large would be to rezone this property to R-3 . Through the efforts of the City a private developer is processing through the City Planning Department, a 123 , 00 square foot commercial site at the northeast corner of Bolsa Chica and Warner (within 500 feet of this property) . Many of the existing commercial sites within a 2 mile radius have been notably unsuccessful and this tendency may only be accelerated in the future. Existing commercial retail establishments in Huntington Beach perform at levels below average for Orange County, indicating that existing commercial sites are more than adequate to serve the area' s present and at least near-term future needs. Businesses in the immediate Huntington Harbour Mall on Algonquin, close and/or change ownership with surprising frequency. The existing restaurant on the site has not been successful for several years. In fact, three different types of restaurants have failed. The site has been completely closed for the last 3 years not producing any revenue for the City of Huntington Beach. The property is bounded on all four sides by R-3 residential apartments and condominium developments . The development of this site as residential will only help the existing commercial sites, therefore contributing to the revenue of the City. Page 3 The following three locations were researched and all three show notable commercial vacancies: Peter ' s Landing Located on Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Harbour, this uniquely-designed center (reportedly modeled after Port Grimaud on the Gulf of Saint Tropez in France) contains a total of 65 ,000 square feet of retail shops, 28,000 square feet of office space, four restaurants and two banks. At present, two of the restaurant locations ( totalling 14 ,000 square feet) and one 500 square foot shop, as well as a total of about 7 ,600 square feet second floor office space are vacant. Asking rents are $1. 75 ( full service) for offices and $2. 00 (NNN) for retail. The restaurant spaces have been vacant for about four to five months, and the site is considered "difficult" for restaurants, according to leasing agents . Turnover in the retail shops, although not quantifiable, appears to be fairly high. Most of the center' s customers come from the immediate local area, including Huntington Harbour and Sunset Beach. It is anticipated by Peter ' s Landing agents that the center under construction at Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street will provide significant competition to Peter ' s Landing. Huntington Harbour Mall This neighborhood center is located on Algonquin Street between Boardwalk and Davenport, about one-half mile northeast of the subject site: The center was built about 20 years ago by Signal, and was acquired by its current owners (who refurbished it and recently built a 10 , 000 square foot addition) about 3 years ago. There are approximately 100 , 00 square feet in the center, including 80 , 000 square feet of retail and 20 , 000 square feet of office space. At present, vacancies include one retail space ( 1 , 188 square feet at $1 . 94 per square foot per month NNN) and three small offices ( $1 . 35 to $1 . 55 per square foot per month full service) . The center, which is anchored .by__a supermarket and drug store and has primarily independent local-serving businesses as tenants, . has a trading area that generally includes Huntington Harbour as well as the area west of Bolsa Chica and south of Heil. Only minimal business comes from visitors , primarily in the summer. Page 4=15e Sunset Beach Sunset Beach is an unincorporated area located along the Pacific Coast Highway generally between Anderson Street on the north and 2nd Avenue (the western extension of Warner Avenue) on the south. Along Pacific Coast Highway, the area is characterized by a large concentration of generally older visitor-oriented businesses, including approximately 15 restaurants or bars and about 10 motels , many of which have been constructed in the years since certification of the Huntington Beach LCP. Rack rates at the newer accomodation facilities are in the $80 to $100 range, and motels reportedly fill during the summer months ( staring in June) but appear to have significant vacancies the balance of the year. Much of the area' s retail stock has turned over in recent years and/or is in need of refurbishing, and there are numerous signs offering facilities for lease and/or sale. A retail center at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Warner (about one mile west of the -subject site) offers a mix of local resident-serving and visitor-oriented shops, including restaurants and food stores of various types , a bar, a beachwear store, a surf shop, a laundry and dry cleaners, a travel agency, a liquor store and a large convenience store/market. One storefront housing an auto parts outlet, apparently has been closed for over a year. The gas station at the corner of the site at Pacific Coast Highway and Warner has. recently been remodeled and expanded to include a car wash. As estimated by Sales and Marketing Management Magazine' s Survey of Buying Power in 1988 , the only expenditure catagories in which per capita sales in the City exceeded County averages were general merchandise and furniture, both of which this site would not support. In the catagories of food, eating and drinking places and drug stores, Huntington Beach consumers were generally outspent on a per capita basis by their Orange County neighbors ( see Table II ) . In conclusion, it is generally understood at all levels within the City and Public that more residential development is needed to support the current commercial sites. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE WE ARE SOLICITING YOUR CONCURRANCE IN APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE TO R-3 . Page 5 osr� RETAIL SALES BY CATEGORY l ( 25 y Retail Sales by Category Huntington Beach vs . Orange County I Thousands 10 I >: r� 6 . . .. ...... . ... ........... ................. ....... ......... . . . ... ... . . . . .. •i �1 Ni:Ji'5,:: ��. j 4 . ................................................. ................. ................. ... ..... ......... .. . . ... ... .. ....... . . . . '. 2 ';F`°Y ( .... ........................................................... ........... ........... ......... . .... .... . .... ?...... . . ..... ....... .. . . . > ail J •%:$�5 ...c.L.;. .:: I M %7 Total Retail Sales Food Eat/Drink Genl Merch Fum/Appl Auto Drug County Per Capita City Per Capita Table II Per Capita Sales by Category Huntington Beach vs. Orange County - 1988 Orange County(000) Huntington Beach (000) Sales/Capita Total Sls/Cap Total Sls/Cap Index Total Population 2273.7 191.2 • Total Retail Sales ($) 17,860,987.0 7,855.5 1,340,777.0 7,012.4 0.89 Food 3,467,139.0 1,524.9 270,887.0 1,416.8' 0.93 Eating&Drinking Places 2,397,016.0 1,054.2 149,481.0 781.8 0.74 General Merchandise 1,904,945.0 837.8 176,621.0 923.8 1.10 Furniture/Furnishings/Appliances 758,020.0 333.4 76,777.0 401.6 1.20 Automotive 4,152,216.0 1,826.2 296,523.0 1,550.9 0.85 Drug 588,609.0 258.9 48,023.0 251.2 0.97 SOURCES:Sales and Marketing Management Magazine Economics Research Associates .0 t1i'ts.x k CONSTRUCTION INC. Residential Building & Development qr 5362 Oceanus Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 • (714) 893-8378 RECEIVED ED July 10 , 1990 ^T 1 5 1990 DEPARTMENT OF OORAI,1UNITY DEVELOPMENT Ursino Development PLANNING DIVISION Y8652 Florida, Suite 245 Huntington Beach , California 92648 Dear Tony : This letter is in response to your request that I provide a letter on the property on Bolsa Chica for the strip center . As I mentioned in our conversation , I have no interest in purchasing the property for commercial purposes . My observation is that there is more than enough retail in the area right now and the existing centers have more desireable locations - i .e . corners . Traffic headed south on Bolsa Chica goes past centers on the corners of Edinger and Heil before passing your mid-block property . Being at corners , they benefit in east-West traffic also . Whereas a mid-block property on a divided highway does not have the same appeal . Traffic is travelling faster and effectively in one direction . I appreciate your. contacting me regarding this site . Please keep me in mind should you have other sites available. in the future . Sincerely , * CON TION INC . am�G. Thrash redent WGT/bh The Henderson Insurance *ncy Insurance for the Fabrlcare Industry October 15, 1990 RECEIV ED. HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Huntington Beach Civic Center. OCT 1 51990 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92646 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Re: URSINO DEVELOPMENT/CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEA91;'KNNING DIVISION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-5 Z014E CHANGE NO. 90--6 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-24 Dear Planning Commission Members : I own the commercial property just to the south of 16871-91 Bolsa Chica. My property is located at 16927 , 16931-35 Bolsa Chica. My insurance agency is located at 16931-35 Bolsa Chica. Your staff report on Page 6 indicates that mybuilding is vacant which is in error. I have owned this property' for ten years and have occupied the entire building operating as an insurance agency since 1984. I do not desire to have additional apartments or condos along Bolsa Chica or in the area. ,- We have enough already. I bought this property to expand my commercial interests in the Huntington Beach area. I believe by keeping and expanding the commercial C2 Zoning for 16851 Bolsa Chica South to -Warner would better serve our local area than adding additional apartments and condos to an already blighted residential area north of Warner and west of Bolsa Chica. C2 zoning will allow one of the last large parcels of commercial land to be developed and as the Bolsa Chica wetlands and Meadowlark Airport areas develop, north Huntington Beach will need commercial business tax money and servies to subsidize the tax drain from the residential sections planned in this area. Commercial areas bring tax money to the city while high density apartments and condos bring needs for more services . Quite frankly, the future commercial business ventures I had planned for my C2 property could be adversely affected by changing 16871-91 Bolsa Chica to R3. THANK YOU for your consideration of my request to deny a zone change on 16871-91 Bolsa Chica from C2 to R3. Yours truly, BYE kHENDERSON P.O. Box 2210, 16931 Bolsa Chica, Huntington Beach, CA 92647-0210 (213) 592-3317 (714) 846-1361 (415) 836-6571 C FOR 'FIE RIDE Office of the City Clerk Pm 'G- A 3#0'V 13� '0 City of Hunt*ngton Beach 0-10%A 0% 3v r 63V �90 P.O.a 491 zl�� Cc' i ox 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 do &'It, 0 Svc; P'10 left no addrq I ISIS riot f, .Jr Or or- ,, 263-1.4 Ra I p I"I 1---4aUeT- -1.6 8 6 2 G'T'E:�er, S-L HUTILiTIcJ'LOT's Beach, C-) 92649 from the desk of: CONNIE BROCKWAY, CMC CITY CLERK _ (714) 536-5 6%"- OA CA P.O. BOX 190 � HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 :A 1- Iz '!lam p Rlk! �j -AMA iU R4 q F. ............. Office of the City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ilk!L 1-3 0 ,A r 81 03 t_ F-ii-J.bul TOT)gbi-Al. A.t 92701- Huntington Beach vl;.- Ix 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 k! Se D 7J. 1 1, u cl a I T-, lu(v lt:1. (jtc e<.lch , Ca 92,-.)49 gtoli Beach City of Huntin P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 z... A. DT' 4 C F 4 3 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORN[A 92648 /V Z/2 9 3 3 Rl-0 5`5 L7 CyT-jthj.a VE?T-ltlirlg 4970 B ito Dr HUrltirl;T, Beach Ca 92649 Office oft City Clerk -N of Hu ntlngton Beach E30X 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 V �v 9 pz ow 11 ZI Y'V T-i _1096 'Sk , 11 u Y-1-t j.v,g.t NEI(-:?a C h 9"'646 � . �L h.I.... Office of the City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 933 F,.j. t0x Y*4`1 r Irl S'L T*(:)r,g (I C)T,9 CD A 1.60:1.-2 E-(a I"Y"-Icuda LY-1 u T-1 t j.T*1 C)T-1 1yea e/7 j P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 926443 AT-mEAT-OT-ig 160:1.2 F."a LKT'1C:Lkda Lrt I.-I u y-,-L J.n g-L c)I ach , Ca 92649: "Huntington Beach 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 W I)0bT-:LaT'1 �_ �0 1 I li.AT:'L:i.rj, II-Tl BeaC:1'1 , l.a 92.649 Office of the City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ar�r: f'oi� a 4936Wd EI1.(T• (' J.r:c:j't'.T', P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 • tea'` o�� :,A ��lG �5��'O: 933 4£:39l:3 F'C: c)T'C:(,d :jt FO a C 92-c549� C13 11ryry //fi•�r�t� Ti•Y� I'1iLlnOffice of the City Clerk r � CotCity of Huntington Beach �` P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 r � 1.78.. 263.-1.4 1.6862 (x T'e'eri S-L F UTA- il"g'LOT's Beach , C:a 9.:'64Y t , t 1 xn -777 CMContinental Lawyers Title Company Subsidiary of ..Lawyers]de Insurance&poration PROPERTY OWNERS CERTIFICATION I , Lynn Tilley certify that on 10/18/90 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: rLAA Date : -� pEPPRTMEtiC 01 IER 1TY Dc�CCoPM p1V1S�0t-k iI 1015 N.Main Street,Santa Ana,California 92701 • P.O.Box 10100,Santa Ana,California 92711 (714)835-5575 MAILING LABELS 7329d—GPA 90-5 j I 146-601-01,03 146-601-08 146-601-15, 16 Gladys A. Little Mike C. Park Satinder Swaroop 3651 Pirate Cir 409 Elmhurst P1 8 Oakmont Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Fullerton CA 92635 Newport Beach, CA 92660 146-601-02 146-601-09 Autumn Moon Inc. Allen Yuen—Kuan Yuan 12534 Pacino St. 16772 Moody Cir. #D Cerritos, CA 90701 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 146-601-10 146-601-17 Esther Ke Grage—Willson P. 0. Box 272 2062 Business Ctr.Dr.#105 Cerritos, CA 90701 Irvine, CA 92715 146-601-04 146-601-11 146-601-18 Donald R. Andrews, Sr. David S. Eisenman Mark J. Browning 5901 Warner Ave. 352 2869 Boa Vista Dr. 16771 Roosevelt St. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 146-601-12, 13 146-601-19 Claude H. Kouchi Simon De Beer 7721 Colgate Ave. 19128 Kay Ave. Westminster, CA 92683 Cerritos, CA 90701 146-601-06 146-601-20 Dennis G. Midden Diana Elaine Quine 16812 Moody Cir. #C 16808 Roosevelt St. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 146-601-07 146-601-14 146-601-21, 39 Robert G. Allison Francis J. King Janet T. Moody 2126 E. 7th St. P. 0. Box 5971 4641 Los Patos Long Beach, CA 90804 Huntington Beach, CA 92615 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 146-601-23 146-601-24 146-601-25 Jan Law Art M. Nerio Enrique G. Chang 16811 Roosevelt St. 17122 Marina View 3922 Sitius Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 146-601-26,28 146-601-27 Ricardo J. Sabella Winchica Community Water Co. 853 E. Valley Blvd. Ste 200 P. 0. Box 103 San Gabriel , CA 91776 Sunset Beach. CA 90742 �Jw d Nib j MAILING LABELS 7329d—GPA 90-5 146-601-33 i Robert G. Vaughn 1137 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa Island, CA 92661 146-601-38 Gia Moody 4641 Los Patos Huntington Beach, CA 92649 146-601 40 — 46 San Clemente Business Prop. 2532 Dupont Dr. Irvine, CA 92715 1 _ 6ETHEA SESS 3' _ s_z . . ::_. __,;1� -. _ -� --=-- �- ; '"-- _..__ '- ' ._._ . ::: ..,... _ �_ _ �..t _ ��•....._ _ _ SSOR DEPT_PURPOSES, f°THE'fASSESSOR 1, l` Yy-.• 'MAKES.NO=GUARANTEE--AS TO:ITSA000RACY NOR f- - •�+ ''— _ ASSU/,IESNYstiIABILITY FOR_;OTHERtUSE_S NOT _ TO'BEiREPRODUCED ALL RIGHTSRESERVED FFF M1 COPYRIGHT ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR = �J 24 RECEIVED 17 I ROOSEVELT* pp�c 66 .e /32' LANE 4-1 DEPARTMENT w STREET a I - - �` M ��ROOSEVELT LANE r°t f 2 83.13' 65' 65' DEPARTMENT OF 260' 'r COMM •P- - UNI TRACT TAB COMMUNITY DEVELOP Sa � MEIyT qo toy . 27, 16 PAR 2 18 r 19 20 •w ,^ - - s Qv PM /04-38 24 `0 ` p ill z3< 15 ? I 2.92AC. - y 290 Q r>.5+'PAR. I PM 3-3/ y _ y 234 1 i P 40 AC. I n7 130' O LOT 2 j I - LOT 4 - 14 P. M. 2/O- 4 V a ry 27 'raa' y 21 38 } 310. 38' y + < N j Q ; { /68.73' /6/.17' 12 601 � Q 9' LA N_ I N /s' 130 234' 66 66 BLK .J PAR.2 /6.so' n 28 2 , 1 72' // c9.>s' /0 7S:vs' g 8s.z5' 8 66.25' 7 3 ]3.36 116.1/' 4 73• 5 - - --- -- -- ----PAR.3 -- - - m t7 N TRAC P TRACTS ® - o /s- 33 - - - 1 - - -- - - - - - -, — -p .m 8 V 270.38' y 2 p I I i l® O O O o ® 0, iz M /64-3/ a i ' >- AS.18' Al'. 119.63'� 49' SQ' , u y a2.5o' Yi sti 30' ® 0 �656'49.44' 69.75, f9.S637?7 10 Bb.94 2 N e 6 /45.59' 10.25' t0 6 yR'9y. m �_ 9b.bt '1 /55.84' LOT 3 MOODY C/RCL E 6O H ' o P LV - /4 s' C� :go 49.3/' 69.75' Sn.11' )1.yA le Bb.b<' O ® oFJ Q �� ® ° PAR./ M P® y P. M. /57-2 n L40.59'/ N A 96. P / /0$.89' L \ /06.60, 7 r . H O y O ® o ® o c Q V v 46 r ® IA a � �52 O r 9 .. n �' boy I bo NO. /22 6 .N0./32/2N 69.75' 2 75'- 3 SS.25' 4 Gle.iS' S 73. R 73.21' /81.30 1z5 G, 19 - BOLSA CH/CA � -a �� 61J O�I�LNAC— STREET ° N 13 178-23 178-26 9F PRIVATE STREET NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 8 ASSESSOR'S MAP MARCH /986 TRACT NO. 86 M.M /0-35,36 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 146 PAGE60 3 �) TRACT NO. /2206 M.M. 538-49,50 ---� 7Y7A7`7- All) I39I9 MM 628-39.40 SHOWN IN, CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE ` 146-601-05 �kdhu Sidne� A Crossley �or� '' � ` « ' - '� ~ - ��t�d oy. 21882 Via Genoa ' � Suite 201 " ! nRep . Laguna Niguel Ca 92677 . 16912 Bolsa Chica St Huntington Beach, Ca 146-601-30 ---\ 146-6O1-: 1 146-601-32 Breuer-Harrison Inc | Sidney A Crossley Orange City Bank Breuer, C J .� Suite 2O1 2730 E Chapman Ave 1750 Ladera Vista Dr | 16912 Bolsa Chica St Orange, Ca 92669 Fullerton, Cal 9263 Hur!tington Beach, Ca 146-601-34 \ 146-601-35 � 178-233-03 H A T Properties Bijan Haghighat � Roger De Young 16882 Bolsa Chica St 0100 9512 Netherway Dr ' � 20951 Brookhurst St Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 92640 Huntington Beach , Ca 9260' ' | 178-233-04 933-81-001 933-81-002 Howard M Hiroshima Robert F Erickson Albert B Herbold 16851 Bolsa Chica Rd_ 4892 Pearce Ave 16128 Tortola Ci.[ Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 92645 933-81-003 933-81-004 933-81-005 Terry Nielsen Jeanne Marie Lally Allen L Manna 4898 Pearce St 4902 Pearce St 2206 Via Del Sol Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 La Verne Ca 91750 933-81-006 933-81-007 933-81-008 Lester Alan Epstein Robert F Curley Michael J Frantz 4908 Pearce St 4912 Pearce St 4916 Pearce St Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 92641.'' 933-81-009 933-81-010 933-81-011 Grace FeIty Clarence A Pruden Eduardo Y Garcia 4918 Pearce Ave 4936 Pearce St 5462 Bankton Dr Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 92= 933-81-012 933-81-013 933-81-014 Carol A Plechner Kate H Val6v Louis R Schumacher 4942 Pearce St Kalpakoff, Karen E 7906 Waterfall Cir Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 4946 Pearce St Huntington Beach , Ca 9260' Huntingtn Bch , Cal 933-81-015 933-81-016 933-81-017 Frank L Burlison Gloria W Huang Robert F Goeke 4952 Pearce St 4440 Ironwood Ave 88 Seton Rd Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Seal Beach , Ca 90740 Irvine, Ca 92715 933-81-018 933-81-019 933-81-020 Kathleen D Ellis Laura S Roberts Rita A Grass P O Box 102 4972 Pearce St 4976 Pearce St Sunset Beach , Ca 90742 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 9260 933-81-021 933-81-022 933-81-023 Howard H Miller Matthew Janes Kelly . George L Warren 4978 Pearce Ave 4982 Pearce Ave 2604 S Border Huntington Beach , Ca49 Huntington Beachp 'Ca 92649 Corona , Ca 91720 '~~ ~^ / '"" =^-`~M" Debra K Thurman Harald H Dett John E C th it ^ ^ i o n ros wa ,Thurnan, Ralph S 4992 Pearce St 16591 Melville Cir ;361 Canada Sombre Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 : Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 La Habra , Ca 9063 ! 933-81-027 ^ 933-81-028 | 933-81-029 Jacob W Dobrian Elane K Cannon Huntington Riviera 4966 Marlin Dr 4968 Marlin Dr %arnstrong, W C / Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 16827 Bream Ln ' Huntington Beach , Ca 933-81-030 933-81-031 933-81-032 | Paibul Tongbai Kathleen E Phillips Judy E Norton Apt #w119 1/2 | 4978 Marlin Dr 4982 Marlin Dr 1125 E 17th St | Hdntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 Hunti! gtn Bch , Cal 92649 Santa Ana , Ca 92701 933-81-033 933-81-034 —933-81-035 Janes A Tullio Henry L Williams Dale R Hersh 5331 Glenstone Dr _ 4988 Marlin Dr #34 4987 Bonita Dr ~ Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Huntington Beach , CA 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 933-81-036 933-81-037 933-81-038 Robert F Townsend Gregory S Benham Anna Jean Ogle 4981 Bonito Dr 4977 Bonita Dr . 4975 Bonita Dr Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 Huntington Beach Ca 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 92641 ~ 933-81-039 933-81-040 933-81-041 Andrienne Jaffe Ritva S Hanu Lars Eriksson 4971 Bonito Dr 305 Columbia St 3521 Heather Cir Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Newport Beach Ca 92663 Seal Beach, Ca 90740 � ' 93U81-042 933-81-043 933-81-044 Craig J iaranowski Marie A Carley Carla L Miller 4961 Bonito Dr 16801 Snapper Ln 16809 Snapper Ln Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 92647 933-81-045 933-81-046 933-81-047 Adolfo Lopez Joan M Ingran H Thomas Ganz 16811 Snapper Ln 16815 Snapper Ln 17932 Portside Cir Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 Huntington Beach ,Ca 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 933-81-048 933-81-049 933-81-050 Terrell L Fink E E Degarinore Christin Wentworth 16825 Snapper Ln 3251 Oak Knoll Dr 4964 Bonito Dr Huntington Beach , Ca Los Alamitos, Ca 90720 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 933-81-051 933-81-052 933-81 -053 Patricia C Guerin Olivia Hughes Louis Lee 4966 Bonito Dr 4968 Bonito Dr 4972 Bonito Dr Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 933-81-054 933-81-055 933-81 -056 Robert P Lang Cynthia Ventling Lourdes Serrano 4976 Bonito Dr 4978 Bonito Dr 4962 Bonito Dr Huntingtn Bch , Cal .92649 | Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 . Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Waller F Farley . Akira Konishi . George W Hubbard 1498G Bonito Dr 4971 Shark Dr 9678 Chenilie Ave ;Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 ! Huntington Beach , Ca 926491 Fountain Vly, Cal 92708 { 933-81-060 933-81-061 933-81-062 Roy L Mollet Keith D Phillips Nicholas C Giancanilli ! 203 2nd St �- 4967 Shark Dr � ' 4961 Shark Dr Seal Beach , Ca �70740 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 ! Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 | | | 933-81-()63 � � 933-81-064 933-81-065 � Libby-Ann Et Movsowich Joanne M Barry Ray D Heslop ! .4957 Shark Dr 4955 Shark Dr '' 20051 Port Greenwich Ln ! Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 ' Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 Hunti#gton Beach , Ca / . 92646 933-81-066 933-81-0 7 933-81-068 Richard N Hargis William Armstrong Kenneth W Stone 4947 Shark Dr _ 16827 Dream Ln 16831 Dream Ln . Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 933-81-069 933-81-070 933-81-071 Gary Riphagen Evelyn J Perkins Peter K Kropfli Riphagen, Merle 19832 Scenic Bay Ln 16841 Dream Ln 11445 E 178th St Huntington Beach , Ca 92648 Huntington Beach , Ca 926%, Artesia , Ca 90701 933-81-072 933-81-073 933-81-074 Frank A Paul M Catherine Cox Kwang Young Han 16843 Dream Ln 27 Glorieta West 16847 Dream Ln Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Irvine, Ca 92720 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 933781-075 933-81-076 933-81-077 Richard /\ Shelton John T West Rick Stone 12442 Amethyst 5512 E Britton Dr 4907 Shark Dr Garden Grove Ca 92645 Long Beach , Cal 90815 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 933-81-078 933-81-079 933-81-080 Joel Sheldon Robert C Byrnes Albin D Balazs 4905 Shark Dr 4901 Shark Dr 4897 Shark Dr Huntington Beach Ca 92649 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 933-81-081 933-81-082 933-81-083 William L Bradshaw Dianne M Stojakovic Robert E Sobczyk 4895 Shark Dr 4891 Shark Dr 16832Barracuda Ln Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 933-81-O84 933-81-085 933-81 -086 K D Zitko Jeanne Eddlenan Samuel Sogoian 16828 Barracuda Ln 5835 E Shenandoah Ave 3892 Sirius Dr Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Orange, Ca 92667 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 933-81-087 933-81-088 933-81,089 Havovie R Lilaoowala Richard L Klein Alan J Brough 16822 Barracuda Ln 16818 Barracuda Ln | 426 S La Esperanza Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 | Huntington Beach , Ca | San Clemente, Ca 92672 ' George A Armstrong ` Huntington Riviera Marvin L White Huntington Barracuda Ln 1 %arnstrong , George A 4896Skipjakk Ln IHuntington Beach , Ca 926491 16812 Barfacuda Ln Huntington Beach , Ca 92646 Huntington B _- - _ - 933-81-093 933-81-094. 933-81-095 Robert M Fithian ' Jane L Kelly Donn C Kirby 6582 Rennrick Cir 1 4962 Skipjack Dr 4Q6 Skip 'ack Dr Huntington Beach , Ca 926471 Huntington Beach , Ca 926491 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 933-81-096 | 933-B1-097 933-81-098 | Walter J Wojtaszek Broker Family Trust George Dominic Bellino 4908 Skipjack Dr ' 12 Hunter Ave - ' � '4916 Skipjack Dr Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92649 . Irvine, Ca 92720 ~� Hul ' n Beach , Ca 92649 z ` �� 178-263-07 178-263-08 ! ' 'l78-263-U9 Wilbur W L rbeer Wilbur W Lorbeer Lewis Szall ay 23 57th Pl 23 57th Pl '16961 Balsa Chicg Rd Long Beach ,Ca 90803 - Long Beach Ca 90803 . Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 178-263-10 178-263-11 178-263-14 Byron P Henderson Carl Spano Ralph H Bauer 3592 Aquarius Dr 16911 Balsa Chica Rd 16862 Green St Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 Huntington Beach ,Ca 92649 Huntington Beach , Ca 92649 178-263-15 178-263-16 178-263-17 Marcus D Dodson Inv Fund 290a Mdh Richard B Forsyth u o rsy 9302 Grindlay St 8939 S Sepulveda Bl 0460 17926 Oak Cypress, Cal 90630 Los Angeles, Ca 90045 Fountain Valley Ca 92708 ^ ^ 178r263-18 178-263-19 178-263-20 Charles 6 Cruzat Marc J Leitner 4922 Charlene Apartment 17352 Avalon Ln 10821 Vida Dr %taylor , R E Huntingtn Bch , Cal 92647 Orange, Ca 92667 10412 El Dorado Way Los Alamitos, Ca 90 178-263-21 178-263-22 178-263-23 Earl L Platt Albert J Moro Anthony J Lane 39834 Brandy Ln 18426 Santa Belinda 16912 Green St #4 Murrieta , Ca 92362 Fountain Valley Ca 92708 Huntington Beach ,Ca 92649 178-263-25 *SEARCH COMPLETE Stanley G Anderson RECORDS READ: 123 32392 Coast Hwy RECORDS RETURNED: 123 Suite 100 COPYRIGHT TRW 1988 South Laguna ,Ca 92677 ****************** ` . . '? < r 146-60 Q 24 i"_JOY J ROOSEVELT 65' 13V L ANE � STREET ° ROOSE VEL T L ANE a3.,3• 65' ' TRAC T I 1 N ORA R.2 ^. PM 104-38 o � t 1 I 2.92AC. s +'FAR./• 1 1 ► ; 290 � + 22 23 1 P. V .3-J/ 230' t /.0 AC. I t7' 130• LOT 2 I LOT 4 •- n I 26 P.W. 2 l 0. 4 .ry n r2' 27 To- + 21 1 310. 38 H j 12 � (6D? 0 1�U.3s � b IS r O r T n N /s• /3o i�a' 6c' bi' PAR.2 /• co' PAR. 3 N 28 U 67.75' /0 757S 9 85.15' 9 66Is• J ^ - --- - - - - - -= a r1) TRAC T O •- 10 ° O O 8 V O V n 36. 270 O U. 164-31 4 5' 22 so' / S C 3 o' 09 O s o f !i' y Bb.li' LOT ,a 6 . ' 3 MOODY C/RCL E Q.1 36 PAR 4 d. ' + 14 V }9. 3r' G7.75' 10.1/' 1]! 86.6� 3 N P M /S7:- L / to PAR. W o 60' o O o y• u Go NO. 12206 M A10. 86 � 90.51'/ 49.75' 2 7S' j ti.ii' 4 G4.iS' 147.70' /82 lo' /Z5' 132' d BOL SA CH/CA 5 T RE 0 ^ r .O V 178- 3 178-2.6 rrOTF ASSESSOR'S BLOCK b ASSES:'OP MAP �8 AfARCH /986 TRACT NO 86 1N.IV /0-35, 36 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 146 PAGE 60 TRACT NO. /2206 M.M. 538_49,50 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY Of: nRAhrt;-PARCEL-- M . . __ _ p. - /04---3$. -/64-3/ - 23 VM/LO AVENUE $ Z .3 4 5 TRACT TRACT ` TRACT ,, �,. r:; �jLj , 20 /38 c3 114 s. , • o _ o - o /38 W 15 0\9 z° 5� B.^. „ + 3�J cl (. 34 .4C CNARL ENE CIRCLE 2 I8A f4 54 1-1516 2 2 1 S J O 3 17 16 ��' Sz O /3 /4 14 1 /0 /3 /4 �zs as 'o O O O(13' 2i z� .. 3 ' /1/r� 8689 i LOT 4 O O O .J /�• i4o o,' :i•: 9' 6o B o47T 7 ro4' ._6� _� r+�' Y 27v.o3' BLK /6 _ O BLK. / 14 O BLK. H PM 46-/1 IJ $ r /3e' 9 /D f� 9 /D -- /�r 3a 3 12 CDT 3 zs I 30 s 60 13 O7 m 7 B " Psl R / zr - - - - v s r BB AC. O 5 6 O ? O 5 6 138 03' Sa N Y iL5' � Pal. /70 Z ,olo 8 II 4 II t.: O O 9 � - sa• ,.�' 34 30 o3' - - - -O- - - -3 4 NO. -5 Qz 0 � OoJ . 3 - .uu a•+ to .of• m L JD LSo o3y„.. . '- _^ • ..- . ...._..._. -o � � 9 _ UE .'9] 2/ WARNER N i WINTERSBi/RGl AVEN �� 28 0 3 IL 163 - 29 163- 28 • \ fli-�lE /;SSESSGR S PlC)CK a •>»f5S(-)k S M:;i' PARCEL NUMBERS l`(')(JK 17,9 1',1� "6 MRACN / / TRACT NO 86 M. Al /O- .35, .36 - - • )UNf Y OF - - -Cr- 1 /8 19 20 2I 22 h PEARCE '� �' h ---q—� AVENUE -- - t' TRACTO 16 a O 22 TRACT 1920 /�i.as + ,je' /9 20 { W � /moo• � 4i 1718 y 17,18 • _ 1 = lGc: O2 14 �3 23 s¢ 1516 sz /5 /6 PROJECT 933-81 —r LOT c 27'I i7 1 O 13 14 , �4 0 6.892 AC.(C) 1314 /40.03' 1314 "o BLK. F BLK. G s: so' 024 v O5 17 r CD N Qc) N (D era• ins 22 2B O7 15 � S* 78 sz' 78 L 23 29 8O 14 13 h NO. 8289 m 3 4 3 4 iso.o3' i,o o� y�. N .. .� WA�ER/!G Z O 8 �$ 26 °v �9 12 $ n Z,e.03 4 cIRcc. Ir:' ° ►qo' ise.03 Zs' z1' LOT 2 / Jc.oc' Z 3s• / 2 i.7soJ' 30�.of• y S2 Z' TRACT [OT .+ I �� «, O o 27 / 4 s7' f v ?� NO. 34 Q BL K. m /6 NO. 6 M/LO AVENUE 8 g i . • S2' 26 MARCH /97/ /O-35, 3 NO. 86 T�q,4C7' M. M. 6 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK & ASSESSOR'S MAP TRACT NO. 349 M. AI. /5-/7 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 178 PAGE 23 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TRACT NO. 8289 M.M. 3.37- 42,�IC3 . t• f )- V r } 1) 71 rl from the desk of: CONNIE BROCKWAY, CMC CITY CLERK (714) 536-5404 S G � l `a- ✓� P.O. BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Gail Hutton From Connie Brockway City Attorney City Clerk Subject PUBLIC HEARING 11/19/90 Date November 15, 1990 Attached are copies of returns we have had on the legal notices for Public Hearing GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NQ. 90.-5/ . ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-6/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-24. The 90-91 parcel maps were used, but the labels were from 89-90 we were informed today by Kathy Smith of TRW. TRW furnishes the labels to Continental Title Company and Continental was under the impression that they were updated daily by TRW. However, TRW informs us that the 90-91 addresses will not be loaded into their system until the end of the year. Will this still be in compliance? CB:pm CC: Mike Adams Office of the City Clerk - :-ity of Huntington ' Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 i ( C. � t i.s,..:•::.t:; I:{;:�T�r<i r::t.t ca;:i L..T-, L rI Ca 92649 City of Huntington Beach .• < _- `. _ I CALIFORN IA 92648 P.O.BOX 190 or- y... ' 9:ti.; f �; /f j `✓ I� 11.1,lilt,1,11,,,1 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ~' 933--M.-0 mac; CYT',thj.a VE•Dt]..i.Tl(g. 1 �� 4978 B ,' to Dr Huntir,y r, Beach Ca 92649 Office of the City Clerk IT City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 9 �� `.. ,-v- - ^}''^'-..r:} vo I I 933 Ell.—09 MZ1 T'V i C, j.T-1 c'T C 92646 -T Office of the City Clerk City of Huntington Beach V P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 .. ... HUT-1tj.T'1gt(.)T-1 1'J.V:j.(---T- 933 A GG L.L L I L16 LU11 U Ca C11 YJr=vov Ij- 'Sl T U I P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 jJ!'(d) .)3 E31.-090 16812 BaNrlICUda Ln each , Ca 92649. FILLY'll'.J.T19-t 0"R Office of the City Clerk City f'Huntington Beach lit C'T P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 V61 Jac:(-.).b W D0bT:i.,)T-1 496--, M-)T''.I T) I)r I-ALATYLIT)Tt,tan Beach Ca 92.649 Office of the City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ;3� 9 T*I(::I c I C.].a r,e 4936 92649 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 9 3 TC�T*T*y l\1:i.ejj:;er,, 4890 F'eEIT-Ce st 1-'1UT'1-t-AT'jc'j'LCm Firz?ar-l-1 , Ca 92649 . � Office of the City Clerk -- ,- City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 C,.: £;a a. 92649 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Ox N/�FQ Deach ., Ca 92649 lltlt,t,I.I±IItt±IttILl,±ttiltti±ltlttlt,llttL,l±I VTTICe oT ine lacy werK City of Hunting ach Huntington Be E�� %``--� �• �. ^` ;- .... JJ P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 � tJ 9 i:3...£:3:1.-O:.;6 (_.UI.IT-dc-' i SC:?Y'rana 49£32 I+ordto DT- HUnting'Lon Beach, Ca 92649 - ' -`�_.::'..I.*.. "i.-, .-.-.- __ ._�,74".'j;��"� ..':..�.;.;,;' , , .�.:<f.'_Nh'��.�.'i:-_.,-�.z.':`.�' . - , '!_ �.:�I-.,,..�...�:!':-;:- ._...... - - ',..-,.'�� .:7'.�..;.:..'..w. ..-,- ...' _... .� m��.;F .:r. - '' ., _.- ,---- ' . _. .... .-.-i'--.'.'..-.:�.-._:-';..'1'%�'.iT. - .�':. . . ...- . . , .. ��-,.�.-�,.�;":."��'-'.�,:-Zlz.,-.;:-. t% ' .�1 j,_,.�;�;'.� A Y.��..� Tf.,':.:;:...-.'.-r;,r' "..1 ;-.r 4-l'r....-..n..4.� x_A�'.,,,.;�, 1w1 '...._.' -I V � 7 .....j� -I'L i ! ": mfv:1 , - _N--a-r f _ % " y - j1 f �' .'..�. - V y!i 1 � I, ;� f y', l (.j , .'.i_ _,..�. '�.�-'....:.1U.... ..2r:. ..- .......;,-'t, ,- S.".1-- , - ��.., . i..'.."-�----'-.;"zi�:1 F . , . .n'.:-'�'... . --1:J.-.;'...4- ...:. - ' _.... _' �j�_._'I.'.'!"�. 'n�� _ !�,;;:;.�-.:'.1.7,"i��ir-.:",�:-:�-�..:t��!L ,1.1"'=-".;.'.��SL Z� .7'� U!�-`;'�� -'��'!'.:�'_ .'. . .":%.'.. ;:'-_tt','.,�: .�F�- �"j_-�'-_f�'� -l",%'*--"''_-- - j'..: =- .':-; -.'�.':.!�;: ,';' -".t�.�-, �': ' ,.!�tff-;� -. ; -.- . . i ; '".. -.1�i ,--. , -.:.�n ."I.z."'-. j.,� �:; ": - " 2� � ,�*"_.%_-''_.1_ .'�.�.4,;: , :}"'', �-f�1-.;� ..'.'..�:.. ..W...y! ,.---- , M_..-.;; � v- 1: . —..:'... z!.._ I: .1 �; .x ' e 1 , *sz;4-z 4^? Z- R'.W z_A. J j M ��.'j.-4 Qd,,A'" ,.i, *: �6'k I�, . �W� " ft N %_ -4 % !imI. .. . .. �' xiv!1 '0 K !F�&WNs_ 5 0P11�i- i r T 1 t ' - '...V i �"a. --Oqj.C *�Y-�%. � omKG - U M �'�- .mk-'5-m3 �"W z. E k-.,V!- ,- .-�. .'.;... .�, � ' : � .i.;f�"-N . i�4jm'�'- �W fls- -- - �, W- K. - --k.i;- �M&M-.N 1 3 , 7' j � I�.'. ;.141'.-'_Z'-r"n'F��5� Z'��"-* " '5 ix�. ' -tI I,Q� ,""., M.�" T ��' mqES� I- -it.�-4',��.�:,' ' " _ i e---- z"JM',.--4.1.� "�!,j."-.� Li-�,"' ,, � .,- .X,,':"�..-';,' �"..�.,: Lt�f�-:',i,m� .M .F!.-;j..;:.' : 'w:,�:'.. �... N" � "-._:-'_LI,...:".C , �,'. :..�"; �"-. . 1..:; .__..'�:. '.,;.. !..,-.'..."...�.:......wn;.;.�i'-.-.�*-I._.'''..-!!.................................... W ....`"`....'::... "' ' �?q K�� K� w A" j . " 1 _ j'�" j-�"f� u -I��n!y �i � KE � 4TJT U - Y N :..................�- "4' ,... '.'I - - " . .' f `i' .i -i N : l -, -1 !- 1. '........, ..-S..: � '..1.1.-.. . V'....,.......�. . t�--. 1-.- (:: ..-.....',..� : i' � ;� !i I, � ;!': '-' 4 I .. . : ---- - :r�� ` — - "._i � �,.!" . :1L. ...:..... !-.;�:.�........:_. , ... ,..z.".-.-. _ ......1 . -: 1...'.7- .� : - : .. _ . ..., ,_..:.. ., ;�', ._R - - * ,. '• - -- .. , o:--,:..- 4.- ' ";_ -.? -! - " _ _ ' i Y N '' '_ " �Y_ �, " a mL , .. ':-. _-. .. ..!. -, . - `. - - - .. .;'� '` . _ - 7 I -- '-. . � .. . .. . I . . . .- - ':- . . ..:... - :"7;�k z .- - . . � - .*.-*-.�.--.-;:...��.-.r.'. .'-- �T'��" � . . ".'�"..'--..,:,'---L�:!'*�-.. . -.. ... : . . ... . . " . t:; T'� .� . . _ .. . :- '��:: ..--.__1�. . , . . , - .;-.... , . --.-.-- - - � -- - - . - . ... . . � .-, . ... r, . . : . : . ': �.-,':e'.,.;_'-.�.;.1:t _ '.._ 'FX� , � �-:. -I— . - .. -. . " ' - . . . . L.- ., -, . % ,_: --"'._-�'..'.. :' :�. -, � �.'W . . � . - . - I . ' ', .' ' - , �.' ; - ." . . � I . . . . . .. 11 _. "-:.! . ..-�..� .. , .::. . . .. .. , . ,, - . �,_ :'...7:_�.'*. .-.�'. .. - -.. ....-.. " . ... . . .. , :. . . � . -. .. -...-- �".-. "._ '-,:.':,-*--.._'. ... ..- -.. .'.. . . .-:.. ... ..: . .. .- , z,. :. . . .- :. . .. . ...--., �--,"',..��t-'..;�... .� j. .i..:��! . .; . . , ... . .. . .:. .i. . ' . . � ,I �........ .., -. .� . .:..0. - -- a- .'.. .. ..': . .. . . . . . .....-.:� ... . I . .:.�. . . _.: -, .. . . . . . ;...... -. ' '_� ,:: _-� ..'....:i '.. . . '.z .. �- -;, --.. -.:,�._�3 . ., ., � - . . .... . ........ . . . .� "' .';"'.-. I . I . - - .- . ..�'�%�� - . -�_e;. �.-. 1-.t� !:...t_._.""'-.-_-.--.�'-;"--..---.-", , - -.t. ..- .. . . . -'� - ' - ��l�'.'.--,-,,�--,..'-.. .z',.. . .. . '; !-I;-�'� - - -. - 1 - � .. - :-:� ...�i I., . .- � ..-... .. . ...-� . .. . . -. .. -- _:i'- ..:.:�.i"&.:'---. ...-. :'z.'j;_7_'�P'.�4 L� �3.�-':: -f.- - I ,---,:: ��-.��,� -! I ...-��--., .- . " � :.�. ._� .- ...'. .. .'�.. . . - -" .. .�- � �: � ". - :.:.a.: . .':.��.---:' �.'..�' . '_--im I - .. ... .. . . �i, :'.�. -!.�`-'.�; ... . ,j ".-,.-.--` --*' v ' : .. . 2�'.._-'.:r -, - ,. ". . . . - . � .'.�.11.� - - - ..- .--..'t'.....��,-'- ' : .�-i .--,.:i, _ " '�. . - ,.t . i. -, � i�m-'z,--..-.-' -..:�Jt.�- ��. � . . , .-..-, . � , . -.�` . . -.- - ---� '.j� -_ - �.�_--i,.f��:.'�-.".;-��-'Z:..'.2 -_-_ ..'.f�-.�..i. .�". . r . . ..-_.. . '_'�_-�'�%!_....'7'.-�,�,�7., -,,-- . .."..". -". - .... .. . . - _. . , * • _. f! �. . .. - - " �_-,,-,-*-"-.:':�;;-':n�.-:�.-��'.-�-._-�'�-.�:", .- - '.'-�' .-' .;. -, - -.5i4 . . " -:�- '.' � - lz�_' ' ! .1. -- .- : . .�.:,.:�"..l.Z. ..' .� . s - .. ' ' . % -, . -4 r;7--j _.'�-'.;_;;��__�" .;i . .:` ' - V ,iit.'..a�-.:�"'�:!-.'-. . .� " ' -' ..--:..;.4 w.:.. -' - , -_... - " -.-.._._�' __�! - _.. .1 . .:; .. - 1., _%: . -.'!.._..._ � - - . - .�,. .., �. .��. '�.',.'.'... ___.�1- -:��:" - , . .. - . — . ,... . . ...... - , " "',.' �*. '__.."�_'.'z,; �. . .. . - . - . . , .`.'.'s..]Z-.-`; �'.: _ .i '-.- :!-'.:--. .._...... -.' '� .-.-: :� : . � . . ...'_�X� .- : - .- -- '.--, -, '-, ';";' - .: - :.: , ..-� -..: ,-- -' - - - . - I . . . .I I I . I . _�. ..1.�'.. � . , �-, ,;�.: - �:'%.;' -,� : . . I� . .. 1* " . - ....; - ,...111. ,, ,,; .:.: ..... "�--�-._-A"-.'.,�.�a.,.��- I . . z .... z:.,.- -_.::_.... ".�"..' - ..r;,�-.i�.�:�� -..., . ., . : :,. - ... - .-T,..:.:.,---, , . I . ... . _.: .. .I I.. - - � - .V . :' :'. . . . . *-:a�"�".�. -,'--'. - - - - ,i �ii�'-�:r.'� "-,.,-,-,...�,. .. -�t-�'.. - I . . .: . .:. ' - ' - -- . .- - . . � ... . - - ,'7--�- '_,'. �F 'L.. . . - .:. ,:,.!.f_.' :f�-�..'.' --'.Cr..��'�L. --I -'- .;- ,%..,-4j Zzi, '. rq.!..i_'��.'� '._._..." . � ��t ,�. ;--;�i�.t�:...-�..i:�---�'*-��' . . ' . �... --�--t:�'--. ''- �t'-'�_!-':�, "-'�I�', - � -- ...-.... - I... " ,"-., . ' .. ' I -- , .- . � - , ..�. - . ... . .C: Fes...,. -.- ,1 �. , -_.-,�..��..':.,.-'.: ; M�!';--- :. .. . ,! .�-"�,!4�.i�:-.��,,-,- &&��_�______--.,:----...-- I .. m ,,-,--�..i�� .. . __-I------��.4 -. . . . . . - . . . , 1''� I ��-��.,4 '4��4'� .:��' - . � - ..' ;:�:: . �'-. � I �-Z'-!-� - . �: -- I %'\ . \ - I L , - - . � ..1.'3 Office ffice of the City Clerk Clerk /\I1 1 � fH n Beach :1 / : " .'. : .- ) City o untingto % (_ �j P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 " :1�.".. ..� 33,-S �' I . t.rl.. -W--.-9i. � .i �..t .A ' - 1_.-. , - � � .. .. ..� 1 4 I - ;, .. ._ [441 1 -_.. ----..---.-..----..---.-----�--.�---.-. r f t�t 1 • L.. . �, ni W. . . . .. ...._. . -xai.`L:z F' r.- ( e^; F 1 _ r _ a _ t�t ` ts 'dtlr _ - ` 7rt a' a _.4 "'c - -rc ya kf�•� •'a Z R . +� �• ° �• h4rfr-tx�ry- eA'F \ __1 S ¢ Il k ;R.azH1 r �T�,i Ll•M^, L ➢''i 5�. ,t f/'+�' L _ si i Sta >< i f i '-,<i,,;;��v��__t «, Y _ .r -rI.K- �:.�.. �d, - ` ` L. t -1 <- '•>tE` f•r n . 4iAti'•c�'r< - ;! 'fir°x.fSy'-r -c" y 1 a �, s k_ 's t i f `.t_,CI,,t.t tY � 1� �.. :r - `•a Y R .r�' �- -_ - �+ b tJp 3- wz a-f _�..•... .. - . ........t;.,.li.., - c- t Office of the City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 f:3 a....0 76 .....i::;::,:i.2 I::. I:s T.J.'l'.'l.t:t r'1 I)Y. L..t:tr'1t L.ca<at_I't , G<a'1. 900:1.;:; Office of the City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ON P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 • ice'_\ 146-601-17 Grage—Willson 2062 Business Ctr.Dr.#105 Irvine, CA 92715 1