Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Element Amendment 81-2 - Environmental Impact Repor
l RESOLUTION NO. 5053 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LAND USE ELEMENT AMEND- MENT NO. 81-2 TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-2 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on November 3, 1981, and approved. for recommendation to the City Council; and Thereafter, the City Council, after giving notice as pre- scribed by Government Code section 65355, held at least one public hearing to consider said Land Use Element No. 81-2; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of the California Government Code, commencing with section 65350, that Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-2 to the General Flan, consisting of the following changes is hereby adopted: 1. That a medium-high density residential category per- mitting up to 25 dwelling units per gross acre be added to the Land Use Element as worded in Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-2 . 2. That reference to the size criteria in Figure 3-15 of the General Plan not be made when making a finding of consistency in the city' s coastal zone. 3 . That all request items in a General Plan Amendment be forwarded to City Council after review by the Planning Commission, and that the resolution forwarded to City Council by the Planning Commission plainly set apart those request items recommended for approval from those recommended for denial. JF: lm 1/24/81 1. 4. That the existing Medium-density Residential designa- tion on the 97.0 acre area bounded by Goldenwest Street, Garfield Avenue, Huntington Street and Clay Avenue be retained and that staff be directed to prepare a specific plan for said area. 5 . That 4. 5 acres located on Commodore Circle between Huntington and Delaware Streets be redesignated from Medium to Medium-high Density Residential with the condition that prior to approval of a tentative tract map and/or conditional use permit for the site, the developer must submit a plan acceptable to the city addressing the relocation of displaced families. 6. That one acre on the northeast corner of Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street be redesignated from Medium-density Residential to Office Professional. 7 . That 9. 8 acres located east of Beach Boulevard 1, 022 feet south of Atlanta Avenue be resdesignated from General Commercial and Medium-density Residential to High-density Residential with a maximum of 290 units permitted on the site; that any develop- ment on the site be a gated community; and that the provision of a frontage road parallel to Beach Boulevard be addressed in any site plan for the area. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of December, 1981. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney 2. 1,71 REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator irector of_ evelopment Services 3 . • Res. No. 5053 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of December , 19 81 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: MacAllister, Thomas, Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the l�i'ty Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California LAND USE ELEMENT I $ 1END4111ENT oi - 2 'Environmental Impact Report 81 -4-1 huntington beach department of development services nisi TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Methodology 1 2.0 CITY AND STAFF INITIATED PROPOSALS 5 2.1 Medium-High Density Residential 5 2.2 General Plan Consistency in the Coastal Zone 6 2.3 Modification of the General Plan Amendment Process 7 2.4 Garfield-Goldenwest Area 9 2.5 Coastal Land Use Plan Diagram 19 3.0 AREAS OF CONCERN 21 3.1 Meadowlark Airport Area 21 3.2 Commodore Circle Area 41 3.3 Newman-Van Buren Area 51 , 3.4 Beach-Atlanta Area 58 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 73 4.1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 73 4.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes 74 4.3 Growth Inducing Impacts 74 APPENDICES AMENDMENTS PLANNING COMM. CITY COUNCIL Land Use Categories DATERESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION 11-6-76 1187 12-6-76 4368 RESIDENTIAL 6-7-77 1196 8-1-77 4484 9-2977 1202 11-7-77 4551 Estate <2 un/gac 12-6-77 1206 12-19-77 4572 8-1-78 1232 8-21-78 4660 M Estate <_4 un/gac -21 78 239 11-18-7 4696 708 Low Density <_ 7 un ac II-21-78 I239 12-18-TS 4T08 � y /g 3-6-79 1242 3-19-79 4728 a� „�YAY - Medium Density <_15 un/gac 3-18-80 1261 4-7-80 4865 ^ SAr•I � 10-21-80 1268 12-15-80 4936 5-19-81 1273 6-15-81 5005 a High Density >15 un/gaC COMMERCIAL �`•�'� /'� / ®General Office Professional Mix Development ed - INDUSTRIAL n Ge era B PU LIC USE c�'ry 0 -public, Ins tituti onaPublist uasi ..........�.i.......€..�....'s........i...p.�....�...".�...�..i..'s.�.....i....i..'...'s.i.i.€�i'';,;., _..=.........:.:.::. b " �., Pe n Space e PLANNING UNITS _ :::::::::: Planning Reserve rve NN - Planned Community OTHER USES r_Ss 1 Resource Production l�rf if�'�°�'"`���'� a,'Yrr �0;1~�j;._�,•:::L :::::::. �o,�>f`t*'o. 7;a,=,:�,;;�` :. ,j.�a,� �'�-•'cam., -�.,f .1♦ � ,��:}� �:�.:q ass*J�' �.'S `���'%,�',�ls, For Land Use m the Coastal Zone See Local Coastal P,an, i = _� - -= cr::'i1;,:r•;:°.'?ifi:`.: J.� .�h,.;� ..:id� PACIFIC COAST -"-!%_- - "~�f=Fir:=' y==';•t:=s, L:..•.:•:::•.:::..: _ _ any==�z=y; �:3�•: r:;;. ;•l �' !fib' yf County 'Orange � the C' 9 I Being Revised by Y -- J •.'!+�� ,,':. - �'•.:••• coastal Plan. I - Zen S- I Zo coast al —� �__� �— / 'z:✓' Nr For Land Use in theI OCEAN PACIFIC PACIFIC iOCEAN -- HUNTINGTON BR4CH, CALIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN a PLANNING DEPARTMENT LAND USE DIAGRAM Adopted December 1976 Revised JUNE 1981 aM 3,. I ,I i I- tt Land Use Categories RESIDENTIAL FEE Estate s 2un/gac Estate <_4 un/gac 0 Low Density<_7un/gac FW Medium Density:515un/gac i ®High Density>15 un/gac COMMERCIAL ®General EM Visitor-Serving ®Mixed Development MIXED USES Mg Of Me Commercial/Support Recreation INDUSTRIAL General M Resource Production OPEN SPACE ®Water WMConservation Recreation �Gq c°`O OTHER USES �ti Public,Quasi-Public,lnstitutional i Planned Community Cy/C9♦♦♦ set/� Sl 41 eAOO \°� 0 Planning Reserve .,nq' 4'rr �� 2Ell Industrial Energy Production .... 00 AAFS�i�A'7rJJ.n'Jr':{ui� `�, - P�` °PeF ••� -Coastal Zone Boundary ERB .,F r�. T r/. .s� ._�c - - - -__ __- �•:v�:w�e''c't_,'�'c��;,�n•'��L.a"nr�,';'cHE_r •�'f••��•�. l PACIFICCOAST - - -- - - '�o�� ,--•,r a`y1:,T"-�.>�r-.d-�-rs �FI��__e__'a_alr-_�m- ---` - •=- � - II PACIFICOCE AN N NOTE:Ge i Pi a aa aa m di ta e r N omsas m e bomeav PACIFIC OCEAN e e ror reverence oaraoses. x m B/•1 lopHUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA Local Coastal Program PLANNING DIVISION ( Land Use Plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report concerns Amendment 81-2 to the Land Use Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element was adopted as a mandated element of the General Plan in December, 1973; this is the sixteenth amendment to the element. Planned land uses throughout the City are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagram. 1.1 Methodology This amendment to the Land Use Element includes staff-initiated proposals to add a medium-high density residential category to the existing general plan land use categories and to clarify the criteria used to determine general plan consistency within the coastal zone; a Council initiated request to add clarifying language to the amendment process description; and a Planning Commission request to analyze a resource production overlay in the Garfield/Goldenwest area (Section 2.0). This amendment also includes a revised General Plan Land Use Diagram to reflect the Coastal Land Use Plan adopted by City Council in January, 1981. Section 3.0 of this amendment considers requests by private property owners to change the land use designations in four areas of the City (Figure 1-1). The first site is Meadowlark Airport located north of Warner Avenue approximately 700 feet east of Bolsa Chica Street; the second site is located on Commodore Circle north of Main Street between Delaware and Huntington Streets; the third site is located on the northeast corner of Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street; and the fourth site is located east of Beach Boulevard, 1022 feet south of Atlanta Avenue. The amendment requests on these four areas will be analyzed in terms of the existing conditions on the site, anticipated impact on surrounding areas, major land uses and environmental issues, and consistency with adopted City goals and policies. 1 3.1 ' _ \ �.3 3.2 ! B \ 0 MuwYPM • / �RWO 3.4 I Areas of Concern 0 0 q o 2n 0 O M JuneB81 O huntington beach planning division 2 Fiqure 1-1 Section 15148 of the State EIR Guidelines states that "The requirements for an EIR on a local general plan element or amendment thereof will be satisfied by the general plan or element document and no separate EIR will be required if: 1) the general plan addresses all the points required to be in an EIR by Article 9 of the State EIR Guidelines, and 2) the document contains a special section or a cover sheet identifying where the general plan document addresses each of the points required." In conformance with State guidelines, this document will constitute the EIR for Land Use Element Amendment 81-2. The environmental setting and significant impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial study are addressed under each area of concern (Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4). Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures to minimize significant effects are also discussed in these sections. Section 4.0 addresses overall environmental changes related to the following considerations: 1)the relationship between local short-term productivity; 2)irreversible or unavoidable environmental changes; and 3) growth inducing impacts. 3 2.0 CITY AND STAFF INITIATED PROPOSALS This section addresses a staff-initiated proposal to add a medium-high density residential category to the existing land use plan categories, a Council initiated request to clarify the procedure for amending the General Plan, and a request by the Planning Commission to investigate the application of a resource production overlay in the Garfield-Goldenwest area. 2.1 MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Prior to 1976, the City's General Plan included a medium-high density residential land use designation which permitted densities of 21 to 35 units per acre. (The medium density category at that time permitted 8-21 units per acre and the high density designation, 35 units and over.) In 1976, the format of General Plan Land Use Element was changed to make it less specific in nature, and the medium-high density category was dropped. Many properties in the medium-high density category were redesignated medium density residential. The medium density category was revised to permit only 15 units per acre or less and the high density category was revised to accommodate any densities greater than 15 units per acre. As a result of these revisions there are approximately 44 areas in the City where a medium density residential designation allowing 15 units per acre is implemented by R3 zoning which permits up to 25 units per acre. In these areas, the zoning and the General Plan are not consistent with each other. 5 Staff is proposing that the medium-high density category be reinstated into the Land Use Element. This will provide a method for bringing designations on the land use plan into conformancy with existing zoning.1 In a subsequent general plan amendment staff will present the areas where a redesignation to medium-high density residential would be most appropriate. The new category will also enable the City to provide more direction when designating areas for higher density use. The current high density residential category has no upper limit and can accommodate developments ranging from 15 to over 35 units per acre. A medium-high density category will enable the City to specify a ceiling of 25 units per acre at the general plan level. 2.1.1 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the medium-density residential category allow densities of 25 units per acre or less to correspond with the R3 zoning district and that the following wording be added to the Land Use Element to describe the new category: 4. Medium-High Density: This residential category is designed to allow a greater concentration of development than is permitted under the medium density category while setting an upper limit on density that is lower than the most intense and concentrated residential development allowed in the City. Apartments, condominiums, and townhouse developments are expected to predominate in this category. The allowable density is 25 or less dwelling units per acre and location criteria are as follows: a. In transitional areas between medium and high density land uses. b. Near major transportation routes and highways. C. In proximity to commercial areas and other activity areas. 2.1.2 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that a medium-high density residential category permitting up to 25 dwelling units per gross acre be added to the Land Use Element as worded in Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-2. 2.2 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY IN THE COASTAL ZONE The California Government Code requires that zone changes and divisions of land (e.g., tract and parcel maps) be consistent with the General Plan. Section 4.1 of the City's General Plan presents the criteria by which such findings of consistency are to be made (See Appendix A). Findings of consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan are based primarily upon the consistency matrix presented in Section 4.0. Reference may also be made to the size criteria shown in Figure 3-15 of the General Plan. In general, a zoning and subdivision project on parcels of small size (e.g., less than one acre) can be found consistent even if not so indicated on the consistency matrix. 1 Section 65860 of the California Government Code requires that city zoning ordinances be consistent with the City's general plan. 6 A Coastal Land Use Plan was recently adopted for that portion of the City within the coastal zone. Although this Land Use Plan is part of the City's General Plan it is intended to be more specific in nature in order to meet the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Because of this specificity, it is not necessary nor desirable to permit exceptions from the Land Use Plan for parcels of any size regardless how small. Such exceptions could set a precedent in the coastal zone which contains numerous small parcels and could jeopardize the successful implementation of the Plan. 2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that size criteria not be referred to when determining general plan consistency in the coastal zone and that the following sentence be added to paragraph two of Section 4.1 of the General Plan: "Reference to the size criteria in Figure 3-15 will not be made when making a finding of consistency in the City's coastal zone." 2.2.2 Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission recommends that reference not be made to size criteria in Figure 3-15 when making findings of consistency in the coastal zone. 2.3 MODIFICATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS Section 5 of the City's General Plan outlines the procedure for processing general plan amendments. The City Council has directed staff to modify the language in, Section 5 to ensure that Council reviews all amendment requests. The amendment procedures call for public hearing and review of proposed amendments first by ,the Planning Commission and second. by the City Council. As currently worded, if the Planning Commission recommends denial of a particular request it is deleted from the proposed amendment and is not forwarded to the Council. The Commission's decision must be formally appealed in order for the request to be heard. Requests that are appealed must be considered as separate items on the Council's agenda rather than as part of the proposed general plan amendment. If the City Council wishes to, overturn the decision of the Planning Commission, the appealed requests must be reinserted into the amendment before final action is taken. This process is cumbersome and requires some applicants to pay additional appeal, fees in order for their requests to be heard by City Council. In order to streamline the amendment process, staff proposes that items recommended for denial by the Planning Commission after public hearing be automatically forwarded to City Council along with the remainder of the general plan amendment. 2.3.1 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Step 6 in Section 5 of the City's General Plan be modified as follows: 7 M2-0 �R3 �e° e.o f i nn ezv.e ro E RA_0 MI-0 e R3R2 f' RA}0C MI-0 =I R2 ERNEST eke. AVE m� I R5 o. MI-0-CD a '' PACIFICA C f (DIS7 R J� MI-0 -019 °e MI-A-CD"-- '- ----- .. R5o i MI-0 `e _ R5- R 2 w r� T.ER5c^P300 R2II Ro R5 R2 '°RA-Om R5�^ VR2 GARFIELD a RA-0 8 CI F ' R2T 5 sw R5 o MI R 2 0 0 RA-0 R2 0 °Rz e� N L E 8LK woe ewo. a� Q RA 0 R2 Rz - R2 MI R 2 R2 M i o - R OLE T-v,N 3PECIFIC 3 PLANMISTRICT I.) CLAY R2-0-PD 0 �'�°R=° R2 R20 PD o o (� I I � RI C2-0-CD ro C2-0 �,,. r �� N MI 11LIU.Ku �r - � C �T:"4' IIIII� .•,ae.•..Sc:oKx:l°—T-a R2 oo•er'e: -ro RI e° LLLLLL!!!!!! 1 1^ � Rt -Poc0wi I $ ` U C2-0-CD R5-O�D R2-0-r,'f)CD � YORKTOWN .-...�... ♦\\\ i GARFIELD/GOLDENWEST AREA Zoning huntington beach planning division 8 2-1 6. Planning Commission Public Hearing - General Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment goes before the Planning Commission for public hearing. Planning Commission may recommend approval or conditional approval, in whole or in part, or denial after receiving public comment at the hearing. Notice of the time and place of hearing is to be published at least ten calendar days before the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City. If a General Plan Amendment request is recommended for denial by the Planning Commission, Applicant has tan days to We an anneal with the City Clerk fQr- City Council consideration Filing fees ior appeals ap f ar�er I D12+n OmanrIment renWactR chall ha ertAhlisharlby City CouRei-I P86e!UtiGR. Fee-A- for- appeals 9R ZeRe QhaRge Feque6tr. shall be ar. rspeeified, it shall be forwarded to the City Council, with that recommendation, along with the rest of the items in the amendment. The resolution forwarded to the City Council shall plainly set apart those items recommended for approval from those items recommended for denial. The Planning Commission may not delete an item from a general plan amendment unless so requested by the applicant. Staff further recommends that the flow chart depicting the General Plan Amendment Procedure (Figure 5-1 in the General Plan) be amended to reflect the new procedure. 2.3.2 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that all request items in a Land Use Element Amendment be forwarded to City Council after review by the Planning Commission, and that the resolution forwarded to City Council by the Planning Commission plainly set apart those request items recommended for approval from those recommended for denial. 2.4 GARFIELD-GOLDENWEST AREA In June, 1977, the Department of Development Services received an application for a general plan amendment from several property owners within a 97-acre area located south of Garfield Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street. The group of nine owners requested a land use redesignation from medium density residential to industrial. The Planning Commission considered the amendment- request on July 17,1979 and directed. staff to conduct further analysis . and return with land use alternatives for additional review at the July 24, 1979 study session. At this meeting, the Planning Commission discussed a range of land use alternatives, including .industrial, residential and a mix of the two. In Land Use Element Amendment 80-1, the Planning Commission recommended that staff investigate the feasibility and legal ramifications of placing a resource production overlay on the existing medium density residential designation to protect oil uses from premature residential, development. This amendment considers that request. 2.4.1 Background An extensive description and analysis of the Garfield-Goldenwest Area is contained in the staff report for Land Use Element Amendment 80-1 and is reprinted in Appendix B of this report. A brief summary of the area's existing land uses is included in this section for review purposes. For additional information on the area's history, existing zoning, ownership patterns, public 9 works capacities, etc. the reader is referred to Appendix B. The area of concern encompasses approximately 97.4 acres bounded by Garfield Avenue on the north, Huntington Street on the east, Clay Avenue on the south and Goldenwest Street on the west. (See Figure 2-1.) Three north-south streets (Stewart, Crystal, and Holly) and the Pacific Electric right-of-way divide the study area into five 19.5 acre blocks. Main Street traverses the two blocks between Crystal.Street and the railroad right-of-way. Existing land uses within the area are shown in Figure 2-2. While oil extraction activity and related services are dominant, the area also supports a diverse mixture, of industrial, equestrian, commercial and residential uses. Oil wells connected to localized tanks cover much of the area; there are 50 active wells and 89 oil storage tanks occupying 30 acres. Oil production is concentrated primarily on the three blocks west of Holly Street. A number of industrial businesses are located throughout the Garfield-Goldenwest area, occupying a total of approximately 15 acres.' The businesses are typically located along Stewart and Crystal Streets and include small oil field equipment supply outlets and maintenance and storage services. Other uses include a recreation vehicle storage facility, a welding shop, and several auto repair shops. The most substantial industry in the area is the Cambro plant which covers almost six acres at Huntington Street and Clay Avenue, and employs 250 persons. A City water reservoir, warehouse and office occupies eight acres at the northerly end of this block. Commercial uses are relatively insignificant in the area (occupying about three acres of land), and consist of a real estate office, restaurant, and several equestrian stables. Two high density apartment developments with a total of 62 units are located at Holly Street and Garfield Avenue. A 158-unit condominium project on 11 acres was recently constructed east of Holly Street and south of Main. Excluding this large parcel, most of the remaining vacant land (28 acres) is dispersed in small fragments throughout the amendment area. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the entire Garfield-Goldenwest area as medium density residential (Figure 2-3). Ownership patterns in the study area are depicted in Figure 2-4. 2.4.2 Analysis During its review of Land Use Element Amendment 80-1, the Planning Commission indicated its desire to see residential as the ultimate use of the area. Staff concurred with this intent noting in its previous recommendation that ultimate development of the area as medium density residential will preserve compatibility with the Seacliff Planned Community to the west, and other medium density areas to the east and south, will enhance the "gateway" function of Main Street (and possibly Goldenwest Street) which serves these areas, and will create less adverse environmental impacts (air, traffic, and noise) than would be associated with industrial development. A residential designation is also compatible with the equestrian oriented estate residential developments envisioned for the Ellis-Goldenwest area to the northwest. 10 J I GARFIELD-GOLDENWEST AREA r1 , I I L GARFIELD AVE. i i ♦ f ♦ If '.�/ i`J► ' a - - f 3 Ar „ d * + �- + �/ W � ...:::::::::::::i::is iii:-}:• 3 ♦♦ ♦ :? J a ::::::::. : v:::::::.::::::.::.: . d ♦ ` H Air d '•: W •: O Q :v: N — r J 3 r Q J ♦ cc O P — r V ►� c� O r d' z N 7 ♦ ♦ or 1.7 . . . ....... ......... . .. ......... . C L A Y AVE. r ® OIL WELL ® COMMERCIAL or OFFICE � I INDUSTRIAL HORSErSTABLE Or 'RECREATION INDUSTRIAL-OIL RELATED-NE APARTMENTS Q PUBLIC USE TANKS RESIDENTIAL-PLANNEUDEVELOPMENT huntington beach planning division Existing Land Use Figure 2-2 G O O G O U O O�RROC OUO"000000 000000000 °0°a®a°a®®B°■ ODUOOOGOOOOOC 0000000OO 9 a m a 9 0000000000000pp00000O0U00 i000000000000 E OOOOOOOpp G000uL) 000 00000u C �op000000 �000 0000000GG °a°■°■®■®■°■® ��:; G0000c0000000 000000pGGo 60 a a a a a ;_oc.oc00000000 0000000Go ■ a ® ® ® ■o[,U000000000 00000�000 ® ■ ■ ■ a a a I,;—,;;�p pC UG �° U U O O O O ■ ■ m a ■ ■ ■ ■ a a m ■ ■ p ■ ■ ■ ■ a a a ■ ■ .■ r OC p� 0 )°r O O G O • ■ a a a a a ■ a®am■® :�,.:%:':i:•. O u G ■ m ■ m a ■ ■ a Is ■ ■ c CJ. 0 0 O U O 0 0 O O ■ a ■ ■ ° a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ �•.•••.�•:••-r C O O 00 O O )O pC O 0 ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a ■ ■ ■ ° a ; :I: :�:{:I:l:�:��:i:1:r}:!:\:I:{:�.` / / / / ::::.......:....................................................................... ................................ / / r r. / / / i / / / / i i , / N / ,r/ r W r / / r r r /// / / 1 r / r r // r / / r/ r r / .r r W �• f r ••Y . . ::'..:':: —+Cl ..° ®®rr ® :» :siicEE c ii a c's i c� cE .......... . .:':. .. ..... . :. ::: 0 .. ..... . .. ;, ... .. ... /-,- ... ...............' i ' " " .. ... .. .. �i:�: -i: •� r.• "..'. _ RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL PUBUC USE ESTATE 4 Z un/9ac. GENERAL PUBLIC.OUASI-PLIBLK.IhSTITUi ESTATE 4un/gac ;=;= • OFFICE PROFESSIONAL OPEN SPACE LOIN DENSITY iS7ui/sac INDUSTRIAL OTHER USES MEDIUM DENSITY ■ ■ GENERAL ] RESOURCE PRDDUGTIQN - ; . GENERAL PLAN ARFIELD G®LDENWEST AREA huntington beach planning division 2-3 12 LGARMILD- QOLDENWEST AREA GARFIELD AVE. i r � M ►: N H. N W H �. ; 3 > O w c9 .. C S w = CIAY AVE. mx* LOT OR LOTS UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP huntingt®n beach planning division OWNERSHIP W 2-4 The area however, is currently occupied by a large number of industrial and oil uses. The Planning Commission has indicated its desire to allow these existing uses to continue in the area by directing staff to analyze a resource production overlay to the General Plan. Development of new residential uses in portions of the study area which contain oil and industrial facilities may create incompatibilities particularly with respect to noise, traffic and aesthetics. Residential developments are likely to occur on a piecemeal basis as oil and industrial uses phase out on -individual parcels. This may result in numerous .small .developments which are not coordinated with respect to access and design. This analysis looks at the need to protect existing oil and industrial uses from residential encroachment and the alternative ways in which this may be accomplished (including the resource production overlay). One issue that should not be overlooked is the possibility of consolidating oil uses throughout the study area into a small number of oil islands leaving the remainder of the area open for residential development. Consolidation on a large scale may be difficult since the existing wells are operated by numerous individual property owners and lease holders. Also, as the area develops there may be a need to preserve future access to underground oil reserves. The advantages and constraints regarding consolidation and preservation of access are discussed extensively in a series of reports prepared by the Department of Development Services entitled the Huntington Beach Energy Series.2 Protection of Oil and Industrial Uses Oil operations in the study area may currenty be protected in part by lease arrangements. When oil operators do not own the land outright, they must have leases to the ground surface above their oil reserves. The terms of these leases differ but generally enable the oil operator to construct wells, tanks and storage enclosures on the surface area for as long as the wells are active. Owners of property encumbered by such a lease often cannot remove oil operations without the permission of the lessee. In the Garfield-Goldenwest area, approximately two-thirds of the wells are operated under lease arrangements with the other third operated by the property owners. Existing oil operations in the area of concern are also protected in part by the -0 suffix which is established in Article 968 of the City's zoning ordinance. The majority of the study area's 50 oil wells are located in zoning districts with this suffix. (Those which are not may soon be rezoned according to a City Council directive.) The -0 suffix allows the operation, maintenance and redrilling of existing wells and the construction of storage tanks. It.should be noted that while oil wells and tanks are permitted in the -0 suffix, equipment storage sheds are not. Existing sheds have legal non-conforming status which means that they may continue to be utilized, but cannot be significantly enlarged or rebuilt if destroyed. 2 Particularly the Coastal Energy Impact Program report, February, 1980; and Preserving Surface Access to Underground Oil Reserves, February 1981. 14 In addition, Zoning Article 968 requires that all proposed developments of property on which oil operations exist .include a plan for the disposition or treatment of these oil operations which ,is acceptable to the oil operator or lessee and which meets the requirements of the municipal code.3 These provisions in effect .prevent the removal or modifications of oil wells, oil storage tanks, equipment sheds, etc., for the purposes of development without the consent of the oil operator and/or the City. It is important to note that neither the lease arrangements nor the -0 suffix prohibit residential development if the property owner and/or oil operator agree to remove or incorporate existing oil operations into a residential development. With respect to the protection of industrial uses, approximately half of the industrial uses in the study area, including the Cambro Plant, are located in M1 zones. Under this zoning the industrial uses can continue to operate and ,can expand or rebuild. The industrial uses that are not located in M1 zones are legal non-conforming uses. They may continue to operate but they cannot expand or rebuild. Fifty-three acres of the study area have a base zoning of either RA, M1 or C1. The RA district allows development of single family homes on one-acre lots (or smaller lots legal existing at the time the ordinance was established) but does not allow further subdivision. The M1 and C1 zones do not allow any residential development. Thus, the base zoning on over half of the study area acts to discourage residential encroachment until such time as the properties are rezoned. It should be noted that M1 and C1 zoning are not consistent with the area's medium density residential designation on the General Plan. According to the, California Government Code (Section 65860), zoning and general plan designations must be brought into conformance with each other within a reasonable time. The remaining forty-five acres of the study area are currently zoned R2. Twenty-two of these acres are already developed as residential or as City water facilities. This leaves a total of 23 acres in the study area which are zoned R2 but are not yet developed as residential. Some of this acreage contains active oil wells and storage tanks although the -0 suffix has not yet been applied. This undeveloped R2 property is all concentrated east of Crystal Street. While the base zoning and the presence of active oil wells and leases throughout much of the study area all act to discourage or delay residential development they do not necessarily preclude it. With the appropriate plans approved by oil operators and/or a zone change, many properties in the study area could open up for development. As discussed previously, the presence of new residential uses in some portions of the study area which contain numerous oil and industrial facilities could create incompatibilities. For this reason, an analysis of alternative methods to discourage incompatible residential encroachment is pertinent. 3 If the oil operator or lessee does not approve the plan, the City may approve it nonetheless. if it is found to meet all the provisions of Zoning Article 968 regarding access to wells, provision for reasonable expansion, screening, etc. 15 Alternative Protection Strategies The following five strategies for discouraging or preventing residential encroachment into the Garfield-Goldenwest area are analyzed: 1) Retain the existing medium density residential designation and the current zoning; 2) Place a resource production overlay over the medium density residential designation; 3) Retain the existing medium density designation and prepare a specific plan for the area; 4) Change the general plan. designation to resource production; 5) Change the general plan designation to planned community-residential. 1. Retain Existing General Plan Designation and Current Zoning The first alternative is to retain the existing general plan designation and the current zoning. As discussed previously, the medium density residential designation reflects an appropriate and desired ultimate use for the area. The current zoning on the western half of the study area (from a line midway between Holly and Crystal Streets to Goldenwest Street) is either M1, RA-0 or RA-0-CD.4 The M1 district allows no residential development. The RA district allows agriculture and limited residential development of one unit per acre (or per legal lot existing at the time the zoning ordinance was adopted). It is unlikely that much development will occur under this zoning. Thus, by retaining the existing zoning, the City can discourage residential encroachment into the western portion of the study area. As mentioned previously, the M1 and C1 zoning will continue to be inconsistent with the General Plan. The extent to which residential encroachment is prohibited under this strategy depends heavily on the future actions of the Planning Commission and City Council with respect to zone change requests in the area. Property owners with RA-0 and RA-0-CD 'zoning.can be expected to request zone changes to R2 in the future. If these zone changes are granted before oil and industrial uses have phased out inappropriate residential developments may occur which are incompatible with the remaining oil uses. The eastern half of the study area is zoned predominantly R2 which does not afford protection against residential encroachment. Significant residential development has already occurred in this area, however, including the recently constructed Pier Pointe condominiums. Much of the remaining vacant acreage is in large parcels under single ownerships which would provide for coordinated residential developments. It may be desirable to allow the conversion of remaining vacant parcels in this area to a residential use. 4 CD, Civic District: denotes areas in which proposed developments must be approved by the City's Design Review Board. 16 2. Resource Production Overlay The second strategy is to superimpose a resource production overlay on the existing medium density residential designation. This strategy was suggested by the Planning Commission during its consideration of the area in General Plan Amendment 80-1. The intent of the overlay would be to prohibit development of new uses in the Garfield-Goldenwest area (except for new oil related uses) for a specified amount of time such as five or ten years with an option to extend the time . after appropriate review. Development inconsistent with this intent would not be in conformance with the General Plan and, thus, would not be allowed. Once the overlay was removed, zone changes and development consistent with the base residential designation could proceed. It would be the City's intent to remove the overlay when oil and industrial uses in the area had phased out or when orderly residential development could occur without compatibility problems. It should be noted that parcels in the study area containing no oil and/or no industrial uses may be under the restrictions of the resource production overlay for years until uses on neighboring properties phase out. 3. Specific Plan The third alternative is to prepare a specific plan for the Garfield-Goldenwest area which would delineate appropriate uses on a block-by-block basis while addressing the problems of internal compatibility, phasing of development, consolidation of parcels and other concerns. Work on the specific plan could begin as soon as previous planning commitments have been completed including the Downtown and the Ellis-Goldenwest specific plans. Completion of a specific plan for the Garfield-Goldenwest area could be completed within approximately two years of this date without rearranging current priorities. The existing zoning in the area would be retained until the adoption of the specific plan. 4. Resource Production Designation The fourth alternative is to amend the General Plan designation on all or part of the Garfield-Goldenwest area from medium density residential to resource production. This designation is intended for areas where oil production constitutes a major land use and which are likely to remain in resource extraction for the life of the planning period. New oil uses would be consistent with the resource production designation. Industrial zoning districts would also be compatible with the resource production designation. Subdivision of existing parcels for residential development would not be allowed since this land use would not be in conformance with the new designation. As discussed previously, residential development without subdivision would be permissible under much of the existing zoning but would not be likely to occur. It should be noted that parcels with no oil and/or no industrial uses will be subject to the restrictions of the resource production designation for as long as the designation is applied. 17 Placing a Resource Production Designation on the Garfield-Goldenwest area will cause the existing R2 and C1 zoning to be inconsistent with the General Plan. As mentioned previously, the California Government Code requires that zoning be consistent with the General Plan. In the event that inconsistencies arise as a result of a general plan amendment, the zoning ordinance must be brought into conformance within a reasonable time. 5. Planned Community Designation The last strategy is to amend the General Plan designation on the study area from medium density residential to planned community-residential. This designation allows property owners to submit development proposals which are reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the City before entitlements are granted. Projects must be planned for an area of 50 acres or more. (The City might want to reduce this requirement to 20 acres or more in the Garfield-Goldenwest area to correspond with the 19.5-acre block sizes.) Again, this would not affect the property owners' rights under existing zoning to develop limited residential units without subdivision. It would probably have the effect of delaying residential development until such time as 50- or 20-acre parcels could be consolidated. Also, the City would have the opportunity to review detailed development proposals on an individual basis before project approvals. 2.4.3 Staff Recommendation The City Attorney has indicated some concerns regarding the placement of a resource production overlay in the Garfield-Goldenwest area. (See October 5, 1981 memo reprinted in Appendix C.) Basically, the City must not enact land use regulations which have the effect of precluding economically viable use of land. A resource production overlay in the Garfield-Goldenwest area would prohibit the development of all new uses except for those related to oil extraction. It may be argued that this overlay would preclude economically viable use of some parcels where oil facilitis do not currently exist or where the landowners do not have mineral rights to underground oil reserves. Staff recommends that a resource production overlay not be placed on the Garfield-Goldenwest area because of questions regarding its legality. Staff also recommends against redesignating the area of concern to Resource Production in part because of the same legal questions raised by the overlay alternative. Other problems with a Resource Production designation are (1) it would not reflect an 'ultimate use of the area as residential, (2) it would render existing R2 zoning in the area inconsistent with the General Plan, and (3) some new industrial developments would be consistent with the designation which could detract from the area's suitability for residential use. Relying on existing zoning to prevent incompatible residential encroachment would not provide any protection for the parcels which already have R2 zoning and is not an adequate long term solution. 18 Designating the area Planned Community would not provide significant guidance at the General Plan,level and may not achieve the desired objectives. The large minimum parcel size may also create problems because land ownerships are already divided into one-acre parcels in some instances. Staff recommends that a specific plan be prepared for the Garfield-Goldenwest area. Authority to prepare specific plans is given in Section 65450 of the California Government Code. As discussed under alternative,three, the specific plan would delineate appropriate uses for the area on a block by block basis while addressing the problems of internal compatibility, phasing of development, consolidation of parcels and other concerns. The specific plan can establish standards for the 97-acre area as a whole unit and can incorporate many concerns and guidelines that are not included in a traditional zoning district. The City can impose a zoning moratorium to postpone development of new uses in the area while the specific plan is being prepared. Authority to impose such a moratorium is given in Section 65858 of the California Government Code. 2.4.4 Planning Commission Recomendation The Planning Commission recommends that the existing Medium Density Residential designation on the 97.0 acre area bounded by Goldenwest Street, Garfield Avenue, Huntington Street and Clay Avenue be retained and that staff be directed to prepare a specific plan for said area. 2.5 COASTAL LAND USE PLAN DIAGRAM The land use plan contained in the City's Coastal Element (adopted January, 1981) supercedes the land use diagram contained in the existing General Plan document for that portion of the City within the coastal zone. The land use diagram shown at the beginning of this amendment has been modified to reflect the coastal land use plan and, as such, is the official General Plan Land Use Diagram for the City of Huntington Beach. 19 3.0 AREAS OF CONCERN This section addresses each request area designated in Figure 1-1. 3.1 MEADOWLARK AIRPORT AREA The first area of concern addressed by Land Use Element Amendment 81-2 is located on the existing Meadowlark Airport site north of Warner Avenue and east of Bolsa Chica Street (Figure 3-1). 3.1.1 Background The applicant (Dick Nerio) has requested redesignation of-64.0 acres of land located north of Warner Avenue approximately 700 feet east of Bolsa Chica Street from low density residential to commercial and medium density residential. The commercial designation is requested for 15 acres fronting on Warner Avenue. Alternative land uses under consideration in this amendment are: 1)low density residential; 2) general commercial on 15 acres fronting Warner Avenue and low density residential on the remainder; 3) general commercial on 15 acres fronting Warner Avenue and medium density residential on the remainder; 4) high density residential on 15 acres fronting Warner Avenue and medium density residential on the remainder; 5) mixed commercial-residential development on 15 acres fronting Warner Avenue and medium density residential on the remainder (See Figure 3.3). High and medium-high density residential are not considered feasible for the entire 64-acre site because of incompatibility with adjacent land uses. 21 i KONA DR RI RI = Rl CF—E RI RI RI ®RG - ,i........_ .._.........i:..1 LITTLER R. CHERYL RI R I 1 HILo w. i RI <' RI 0 CLARK DR KAUI DR. RI SISSON pp s.ow : RI MAUI CR. F D CF—E R I iB0 10 c RI RI RI RI MEADOWLARK DR 'v IF::Y°,.....:i) OAHU OR. z z z z z i Rr z RI 8 3 RI RI J J J J L—J`_ ; RI DR. M H VENTURI DI RI RI RI < RI : RI RI RI RI oRI I RI c D < i z o RI < rc a o 3 ' )IO U F JMARSHALL ` 1. d m 1 a R I W R I /� a m m R 2 III C4 G2 CALIENTE DR MIDDLECOFF I MH RI RI RI RI RI RI �l AVE HEIL — k — 4 — !!!, dJR1 R2 6 R2 R2 C4 R ,I F N CR R R2 �;(`2 R2 R2 MH RI R3 ,3 RWDER U 63! = RI RI Warn RCS DRY U e+9TALLKa� , /!!S C F R (P NEE R. CF—R " ,aRK<;TE) a RI RI RI RI N $ n, R2 - R2m o RI m RI RI ST (Q)MH RI < ROs-01 R R2 R2 N R3 R2 U'i6'E A RI a asCtY R _ R MILD ST. R3 a of JC4 - RI eAi as 96 00& R I C2 ROC FTROPHYR3 JR3 z R3 a WffiWiVQNf d = : C2e .._ --- WARNER R3 cE n ay�f C4 R5 '[(©)'@4 RI RI_ RI 3 EL DORADO DR. RUGER; rc DR. N � R3 ' C4` R2 7 R2 j RI =RI�y�RI' i I 5 Ri �PENDA N IOILI I I ¢�waTLaR 9 C2 R2 d r U_ - Rl RI RI RI RIRIDRa RIR3 q h' z w RIRI RzI RI R3'18 v'GLENROY u,' 0 a I ai INK DR. RI R3 WP RI I RI R' = KENILWORTH _ DR. I 1 �1 RI am os v� 1 rj R2-PD-14 1• N 'IT'W77300'Ak �. l RI I I'�--�-- RI I 'FE 40 TILLIIRG u DR. RI KAL[ IN EL[T pa^, RI / RI IEND` CR J Area ., of Concern 3.1 0 C3 0 22 Figure 3-1 LOW DENSITY oR '' m °" MEDIUM z y RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY °R DENSITY - - VENT RESIDENTIAL_ ar RESIDENTIAL �`5 Z - z 1 M ED ,K O f - 2 N - J — J I,I DEN . CALIENTE DR MI LECO�F !� iLl II RES . M EDGENERAL . MED. ;DEN . s _ --- RES . .R COMMERCIAL DEN. _ u — _ 4 �' C F R LOW DENSITY >>.< >- :.. t J 5 fi ♦ , . ¢ m RESIDENTIAL > >> > > . iw - - ---- ifftffiffi _ MEDIUM IUM OPEN — DENSITY SPA CE E DEN I Y RE S IDENT MCA w cot IAL E ;:;:;:{aid;Pye;tistna;>:?tsk%;�:�.::'::::........................• � T Ll R.GG L -.• — oA -- - -- G E MEDI UM M ENRAL DENSITY _ W Y RESIDENTIALOMMERCIAL , iLL-- a WARNER HIGH _ EL OORA00 OR 1T `---— - _=s_t.ram=T-rs s=-i �, I DEN . MEDIUM - J LOW DENSITY ` - .,W,`p RES. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NELNO 00 05 0— V RESIDENTIAL a J i — i - ` '. ��—�� GLEN ur DID i = sc•LE iN PUT 4v�� a a r — e � HIGH DEN . RES. Area of Concern 3.1 o o 0 Figure 3-2 23 I I as as I �\111111 11�� _ �\IIII11111/� I I I • as as ■ ■ Ilion ��1111 11 Ii1� ��1111 11 1114 ..•. 111/� .:.. �. ling NINE ■� i � _pia ■ ��niii ■■ ��n,,,� it ' 1 ' ► ' ► • ' The 64-acre site has a designation of low density residential on the General Plan implemented by (Q) MH, qualified mobile home zoning. The property is currently used as a small craft airport for recreational fliers and commuters. Incidental uses on the airport site include a flight school, cafe, and aircraft service and repair facility. The property located north of the subject site (across Heil Avenue) has a low density residential designation, is zoned R-1 and is developed with single family dwellings. (See Figure 3-2 for general plan designations.) Property located to the east of the subject site starting at the intersection of Heil Avenue and Graham Street is zoned R-1 and is designated on the General Plan as low density residential. The area contains a church, single family dwellings and vacant lots. Eight hundred (800) feet south of Heil Avenue east of the airport is an undeveloped City park site (4.5 acres) zoned CR-R, community facility recreation, containing a mature grove of eucalyptus trees. Property south of this park site is general planned as low density residential, zoned R-1 and developed as single family units. The northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Graham Street is general planned medium density residential and developed as condominiums. The property located west of the subject site immediately south of Heil Avenue is designated low density residential and contains a four-acre, 65-space mobile home park. Property further south is designated low density residential and developed as single family residential. The area west of the study area immediately south of Pearce Street is general planned medium density residential and developed with a mixture of apartment buildings, older single family houses and vacant lots. The property immediately north of Warner Avenue is general planned for commercial and partially developed with general commercial and office professional uses. The area south of the airport, across Warner Avenue, is designated low density residential and general commercial and is partially developed with these two uses. 3.1.2 Analysis 1. Land Use Figure 3-4 summarizes the projected total units and resultant population that could occur in the area of concern under each of the five land use alternatives under consideration. The existing low density residential designation on the site (alternative one) is implemented by MH, Mobile Home zoning which was applied to the area in September, 1980, at the request of the applicant, Dick Nerio. The applicant's intent at the time of the zone change was to submit plans for a 450-space mobile home park. This would generate a population of approximately 760 residents. Low density residential implemented by R-1 rather than MH zoning could result in a range of 4.5 to 6.5 units per acre, or 288 to 416 units, and would generate an estimated population of 985 to 1169 persons.1 1 The higher number of units could be implemented under R1 zoning with a PD, planned development suffix. 25 N O� ALTERNATIVES PROPOSALS SUMMARY MEADOWLARK AIRPORT AREA 3.1 DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL TOTAL TOTAL ALTERNATIVES UNITS COMMERCIAL POPULATION Mobile Low Medium High Square Home Density Density Density Total Footage 1. Low Density Residential a. with existing Mobile Home zoning 450 450 760 b. with R1 or RI-PD zoning 416 416 1,169 2. Commercial/Low Density Residential 343 343 150,000 580 3. Commercial/Medium Density Residential 735 735 150,000 2,065 4. High Density/Medium Density Residential 735 525 1,260 3,541 5. Mixed Development/ Medium Density Residential 847 847 54,994 2,380 SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981. Figure 3-4 Alternative two, general commercial on 15 acres of the site and low density residential on the remainder, would most likely result in a 15-acre community shopping center fronting Warner Avenue and 49 acres of residential development. The community shopping center would typically contain small shops and offices anchored by a junior department store and/or supermarket and may include a bank or savings and loan, major restaurant or drug store. Total square footage would be approximately 150,000 square feet and the center would generate approximately 430 employees. The residential portion of the site would result in a maximum of seven mobile home spaces per acre, or 343 units, and would generate an estimated population of 580 persons. The applicant's requested designation of 15 acres of general commercial and 49 acres of medium density residential development (alternative three) would result in a similar configuration to that described above. The 49 acres of residential, however, could result in a maximum of 15 units per acre, or 735 units, and would generate an estimated population of 2065 persons. (This alternative is analyzed at the maximum density of 15 units per acre. It should be noted that the applicant, at this time, proposes to develop 25 of the 49 residential acres as mobile homes. At the maximum permitted density of nine mobile home spaces per acre this could result in 216 mobile homes and 375 condominiums.) Alternative four, high density/medium density, would result in a maximum of 35 units per acre on the 15 acres fronting Warner Avenue and 15 units per acre on the remaining 49 acres. This would result in a maximum of 1260 units total on the site which would generate an estimated population of 3541 persons. Alternative five proposes that 15 acres of the site fronting Warner Avenue be designated for a mixture of commercial, office professional and residential uses. These uses could be separated in individual buildings or integrated with residential units on the second floor above commercial shops and offices. A 50 percent mix of commercial and medium density residential on the 15 acres would result in approximately 54,994 square feet of commercial and/or office uses and 113 residential units. The remaining 49 acres developed at medium density residential would result in approximately 735 units. This alternative would generate approximately 157 employees and an estimated total population of 2380 persons. All five alternatives described above are generally consistent with adjacent land uses although special attention to buffering techniques will be important in several cases. The low and medium density uses proposed for the site would be compatible with the primarily low and medium density residential developments on adjacent properties. Low density development (alternatives one and two) would be most compatible with single family residential uses adjacent to the northern portion of the site. Medium density residential development (alternatives three, four and five) would be more compatible with medium density residential and commercial/office uses adjacent to the southern half of the site. 27 a NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER POTENTIAL AREA OF CONCERN 3.1 A. B. Existing Ultimate Units Housing Units Under General Plant Population2 7,644 10,798 1980 Total Taxable $3,922.33 $3,922.33 Sales Per Cap1ta3 Total Taxable $29,982,290 $42,353,318 Sales Potential Supportable Square 88,448 124,943 Footage4 1 Includes 49 acres of Meadowlark Airport at medium density residential. 2 Planning Division estimates. 3 State Board of Equalization, Taxable Sales in California, 1980. 4 Based on median sales figures contained in the Urban Land Institute's Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. Figure 3-5 �R Development of a commercial center fronting on Warner Avenue (alternatives two and three) would be compatible with commercial uses to the west and to the south. Adequate buffering would be needed to assure compatibility with residential uses to the east and with proposed residential uses on the remainder of the site. Problems could arise if the commercial center contained entertainment uses that operated late at night as this could adversely impact residential uses proposed to be located behind the commercial center. High density residential uses fronting on Warner Avenue (alternative four) would be compatible with commercial and office uses to the west and south and with medium density residential uses to the north and east. Alternative five, which proposes a mixture of residential and commercial uses on 15 acres fronting Warner Avenue, would require that special attention be given to buffering to prevent internal compatibility problems. '2. Economic Considerations The Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the five land use alternatives using the computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a ten year period, 1981-1991. The results are detailed in Appendix D. A second economic consideration is the amount of market support for commercial uses on the site. The 15 acre area proposed for commercial uses on the site could accommodate either a community or a neighborhood commercial center. Community commercial centers operate on roughly a two to three mile radius service area. At the present time, six community centers exist within three miles of Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street. 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), Springdale Street and Warner Avenue (southwest corner; 69,147 square feet), Goldenwest Street and Edinger Avenue (southwest corner; 169,850 square feet), Goldenwest Street and Edinger Avenue (southwest corner; 169,850 square feet), Goldenwest Street and Edinger Avenue (southeast corner; 197,887 square feet), and Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue (northwest corner; 173,157 square feet). A seventh community center is planned for the northeast corner of Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue (130,000 square feet). Using the formula of one community center per 15,000 persons, the area within a three mile radius of Meadowlark Airport (which will house approximately 64,254 persons at ultimate development) could be expected to support four such community centers. The seven centers listed above appear to provide the quantity and variety of services needed for this portion of Huntington Beach. With respect to neighborhood commercial uses, the primary market area is defined by taking half the distance between the nearest surrounding neighborhood centers and the intersection in question. In this analysis, the primary market area is defined as being bounded by Pearce and Heil Streets to the north, the boundary of Meadowlark Airport to the west, 29 Graham Street to the east and the City boundary to the south. Two alternative population figures were used to produce demand estimates based on (A) existing housing units and (B) ultimate units under existing land use designations (Meadowlark was calculated at 49 acres of medium density residential). These alternative population figures were multiplied by 1980 City-wide per capita sales figures in order to estimate the anticipated sales potential for the market area (See Figure 3.5). Data regarding the typical sales per square foot of uses found in neighborhood centers was taken from ULI's 1978 Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. This data made it possible to translate the sales potential of the area into supportable square footage. As shown in Figure 3.5 the Meadowlark Airport site can be expected to support approximately 88,448 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses at this time and approximately 124,943 square feet at ultimate development of the General Plan. 3. Housing In 1979, the City adopted a state-mandated revision to the Housing Element of the General Plan which includes policy aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes. The revised element includes provisions for consideration of an inclusionary zoning ordinance that could - require a certain percentage of new residential developments to be affordable to lower income households. The existing low density residential designation on the area of concern (alternative one) is implemented by MH, mobile home, zoning. The applicant's previous plans for the site were to develop a 450-space mobile home park with 20 percent (90 spaces) available for families with children. New mobile homes presently cost from $30,000 to $70,000 and the rental fee for a space in the park is typically $200/month. After financing at current interest rates, the monthly payments plus space rental on a new mobile home will likely average $660/month for a $30,000 coach and $1,280/month for a $70,000 coach.1 This does not include the cost of moving the mobile home to the desired site. At these monthly payments, even the most inexpensive new mobile home would not be affordable for low income families under the definition of affordable utilized in the Housing Element.3 All but the least expensive unit would also be unaffordable to moderate income households. Adoption of an inclusionary zoning ordinance, however, could potentially require that a certain percentage of the mobile homes be affordable. A 20 percent inclusionary requirement could result in 90 affordable units. 2 Calculation of monthly payments assume an interest rate of 18.4 percent, a 20 percent down payment, and a 25 year payback period. Source: Security Pacific Bank loan department. 3 Housing is considered affordable if the monthly mortgage or rent payment does not exceed 25 percent of the household's income for low income families and 30 percent for moderate income families. Low and moderate incomes are 80 percent and 120 percent of the Orange County median income, respectively, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 30 If the City redesignates 15 acres of the site as general commercial and retains the remainder as single family residential (alternative two), it will be reducing its potential to provide affordable housing. A redesignation to medium density, however, on the northern 49 acres of the site would expand the existing stock of vacant land at this density and possibly the City's potential to provide affordable housing. If 49 acres of the study area are changed to medium density residential (alternative three), approximately 735 units could be added to the City's existing housing stock at ultimate development. Adoption of an inclusionary zoning ordinance could potentially require that 147 units be affordable. Alternative four which combines a high density designation on 15 acres and medium density on the remaining 49 would provide the City with an even greater potential to provide affordable housing. A total of 1260 units could be developed on the site. Adoption of an inclusionary zoning ordinance could potentially require that 252 units be affordable to low and moderate income households. The combination of mixed residential/commercial on 15 acres with medium density residential on the remainder (alternative five) will also increase housing opportunities. Approximately 847 units could be developed on the site. Adoption of an inclusionary zoning ordinance could potentially require 170 affordable units. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. . Sewers The study area is served by a 15-inch sewer in Heil Avenue and a 21-inch sewer in Warner Avenue. The majority of the sewage generated by the study area will flow north into the Heil Avenue sewer. Units immediately fronting Warner Avenue may be served by the 21-inch sewer in that street. This sewer was recently constructed to parallel an existing 21-inch sewer in Warner Avenue and is adequate to accommodate the small amount of sewage, if any, that would flow into it from the study area. Figure 3.6 shows the expected sewage generation from the study area under each of the five land use alternatives. A worse case assumption is made that all sewage will flow into the Heil Avenue sewer. This flow is added to the sewage generated from the larger tributary area flowing into the Heil Avenue sewer. As shown by the resulting depth to diameter ratios, the sewer, can safely accommodate the flow generated by each of the five land use alternatives. Sewage carried by both the Heil and the Warner Avenue sewers ultimately flows into the County's Slater Avenue Pump Station. This station is currently overloaded and in a deteriorating condition. The County Sanitation District recently authorized $150,000 worth of improvements to the pump station which will correct the existing capacity and repair problems. These improvements are expected to be complete by 1982. According to information provided by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC), discharges from the area of concern under alternatives three, four and five may exceed the master planned discharges for which County sewerage facilitis were designed. In the event one of these alternatives is chose, the City should coordinate with the CSDOC to determine the impact of proposed development on County facilities and require flow reduction devices or other mitigation measures if necessary. 31 W N SEWAGE GENERATION MEADOWLARK AIRPORT AREA 3.1 SEWAGE ADDITIONAL SEWAGE TOTAL PEAK GENERATION GENERATION FROM SEWAGE PEAK DEPTH (Million TRIBUTARY AREA TOTAL GENERATION TO DIAMETER DEVELOPMENT gallons (Million gallons (Million gallons (Million gallons RATIO IN HEIL ALTERNATIVES per day) per day) per day) per day) SEWER 1 1. Low Density Residential a. With Existing Mobile Home Zoning .054 .237 .291 .567 .36 b. With Rl or Rl-PD Zoning .096 .237 .333 .639 .40 2. Commercial/Low Density Residential .079 .237 .316 .610 .39 3. Commercial/Low Density Residential .156 .237 .393 .741 .44 4. High Density/Medium Density Residential .185 .237 .423 .791 .45 5. Mixed Development/ Medium Density Residential .154 .237 .391 .737 .44 1 The Heil Sewer can safety accommodate a depth to diameter ratio of 0.67 or less. SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981. Figure 3.6 b. Water The area of concern is currently served by a 12-inch water main in Heil Avenue, an 8-inch main in Pearce Street and a 16-inch main in Warner Avenue. Development under any of the five land use alternatives will require that a 12-inch water main be installed bisecting the site from north to south. Eight-inch mains branching off of the 12-inch pipe will be required on internal streets to serve individual units. C. Storm Drains Existing storm drains in the vicinity of the study area terminate at the intersections of Heil Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street and at Warner Avenue and Graham Street. Any of the five land use alternatives will require that a storm drain of approximately 42 inches in diameter be installed in Heil Avenue from the site west to Bolsa Chica Street. If development on part of the site is designed to drain towards Warner Avenue, a small storm drain may be required in that arterial to prevent street flooding. d. Parks There is a 4.5 acre park site (Gibbs Park) located adjacent to the area of concern which is proposed for development in 1984/85. Chris Carr neighborhood park is located two thirds mile to the east and a neighborhood park site (Warner Park) located one quarter mile to the west of the study area is proposed for development in 1982/83. Marina Community Park is located three quarters of a mile to the north. The 1977 Parks Analysis indicates that park demand in the vicinity of the area of concern exceeds park supply and will continue to do so in the future. The analysis grouped the Meadowlark Airport site into ,a larger area containing approximately six quarter sections and estimated a deficiency of 6.7 acres-of neighborhood/community park space in this larger area at ultimate development. The addition of the 4.5 acre Gibbs Park site subsequent to the 1977 analysis reduces this deficiency to 2.2 acres. A change in general plan designation on the area of concern to Alternative two, would reduce park need by approximately two acres. Alternatives three, four and five would increase neighborhood/community park need by 2.9, 7.7 and 3.9 acres respectively. The provision of common recreation areas and private open space within residential development on the area of concern could help meet some of this additional park need. e. Police and Fire Protection Police service for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach, which operates from one central facility located at .Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. In determining future manpower needs for new developments, the police department 33 STUDENT GENERATION MEADOWLARK AIRPORT AREA 3.1 Land Use Alternative Number of Students Meadow View/ Haven View/ Village View Marina 1. Low Density Residential a. Mobile Homesl 1 5 b. Single Family 279 162 2. Commercial/Low Density Residentiall 1 3 3. Commercial/Medium Density Residential 330 169 4. High Density/Medium Density Residential 351 206 5. Mixed Development/Medium Density Residential 381 195 1 Student generation factors for mobile homes are generally low. If any proposed mobile home projects for the Meadowlark Site include a certain percentage of units for families with children then the number of students generated would be slightly higher. SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981 34 Figure 3-7 utilizes the national average of 2.0 officers per, 1000 population for computing average calls for service per officer. Each alternative for this area of concern would require the following additional officers: Land Use Additional Alternative Officers 1) Low density residential 2 officers 2) Commercial/low density residential 1 officer 3) Commercial/medium density residential 4 officers 4) High density/medium density residential 7 officers 5) Mixed development/medium density residential 5 officers SOURCE: Huntington Beach Police Department, 1981 Fire protection for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach from the Heil Station located at Heil Avenue west of Springdale Street and from the Warner Station located on Warner Avenue near Pacific Coast Highway. The area of concern is within the five minute response Area of both of these stations: The Heil Station is currently undermanned with three men per station shift. An additional man per shift at the Heil Station would be needed to serve any of the five proposed land use alternatives. f. Schools The area of concern is served by Meadow View, Haven View and Village View Elementary Schools and Marina High School. Students generated by the alternative land uses being considered are as shown in Figure 3.7. The Oceanview Elementary School District' and the Huntington Beach Union High School District indicate that existing schools could adequately accommodate the students generated by any of the five alternative land use designations. g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by the Southern California Gas Company and the Edison Company respectively. Two 2-inch gas feeder lines extend into the site from a. 12-inch main gas supply line located in Warner Avenue. There is also a 3-inch gas line in Heil Avenue. Extension of these lines will provide adequate gas service to development under any of the alternatives. The Gas Company notes, however, that gas supply may be affected by the overall availability of natural gas and by State and federal regulatory policies. Adequate electric 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 and if plans to proceed with future construction of new generating facilities are delayed, Edison's capability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods could become marginal by the mid 1980's. 35 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES MEADOWLARK AIRPORT AREA 3.1 Land Use Alternative Daily Trips Warner Heil Bolsa Chica St. Avenue Street (Via Pearce) 1. Low Density Residential a. Mobile Homes 780 780 780 b. Single Family 1,220 1,220 1,220 2. Commercial/Low Density Residential 4,590 892 892 3. Commercial/Medium Density Residential 4,590 1,617 11617 4. High Density/Medium Density Residential 3,728 2,426 2,426 5. Mixed Development/Medium Density Residential 3,546 1,863 1,863 SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981. Figure 3-8 36 h. 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. 5. Traffic and Circulation Access to the study area is presently taken from Warner Avenue. This major arterial has a design capacity of 45,000 vehicle trips per day and present traffic volumes average 19,710 daily trips. The northern portion of the study area fronts on Heil Avenue which could also be used for access. This secondary arterial has a design capacity of 20,000 vehicle trips per day and currently handles 5,800 daily trips. Pearce Street, a local street, dead ends at the western boundary of the site and could be used for additional access. Traffic on Pearce Street flows into Bolsa Chica Street which is designated a major arterial. The design capacity of Bolsa Chica Street is 45,000 vehicle trips per day and existing traffic volumes average 15,700 vehicle trips per day. Projected traffic volumes generated by the alternative designations are shown in Figure 3-8. For the alternatives which propose commercial development, it is assumed that all commercial traffic will take access off of Warner Avenue with the residential traffic divided between Heil and Bolsa Chica or along all three arterials as appropriate. In the residential alternatives, traffic volumes are assumed to be distributed evenly among all three arterials. Projected traffic volumes under all five alternatives will add significant amounts of traffic to the three arterials. Traffic volumes, however, will still be well below design capacities. The projected traffic volumes under all alternatives will have a significant adverse impact on Pearce Street which must carry all traffic bound for Bolsa Chica Street. To mitigate adverse impacts on this local.street, development of the study area may have to utilize Warner and Heil Avenues as major access points. The projected traffic volumes will also have a significant impact on the major intersections in the vicinity of the study area. Of particular concern is the intersection of Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street since additional traffic from future development south of Warner Avenue will also flow through this intersection. The cumulative traffic impacts from the study area and other future development in the same vicinity may ultimately create the need for improvements to nearby intersections. The Orange County Transit District indicated that the higher density alternatives would tend to have a positive effect on transit ridership on existing routes and may create demand for new transit services. The City should consider on-street bus facilities and amenities to improve transit accessibility when reviewing developmet proposals for the site. 6. Environmental Issues a. Noise Noise levels of Ldn 70 and Ldn 65 extend into the southern portion of the site from Warner Avenue and into the northern portion of the site from Heil Avenue. Residential developments adjacent to these arterials will be subjected to noise levels in excess of the normally acceptable levels for residential areas. Typical exterior treatments 37 PROJECTED DAILY EMISSIONS MEADOWLARK AIRPORT AREA 3.1 1. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EMISSION SOURCE TONS OF EMISSIONS/DAY Mobile .73 Stationary .008 TOTAL .738 2. GENERAL COMERCIAL/LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Mobile 1.0 Stationary .007 TOTAL 1.007 3. GENERAL COMMERCIAL/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Mobile 1.60 Stationary .011 TOTAL 1.611 4. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Mobile 1.70 Stationary .019 TOTAL 1.719 5. MIXED DEVELOPMENT/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Mobile 1.36 Stationary .013 TOTAL 1.373 NOTE: Vehicular emissions were calculated from EPA AP-42 for the average vehicle in the South Coast Air Basin. The 1980 emission factors were used to determine vehicular generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, particulates, and hydrocarbon emissions. Stationary emission factors were obtained from the Air Quality Management District for commercial and home heating, and were adapted from the Journal of APCA, April 1962, page 158. SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division Figure 3-9 38 such as walls and berms may not be adequate to reduce the Ldn 70 level to the City standard of Ldn 60 for exterior and Ldn 45 for interior noise levels. In this case, special mitigation measures such as larger setbacks, more insulation and prohibition of windows facing the street, would be required to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The noise levels fall within the normally acceptable range (Ldn 75-Ldn 80) for commercial and office professional uses which are proposed for the acreage fronting Warner Avenue in three of the land use alternatives. The interior of the site is exposed to exterior noise levels of Ldn 60 or less. This should pose no constraint to residential development under any of the land use alternatives. Ultimate development of the study area under any of the land use alternatives will require that use of the existing Meadowlark Airport be discontinued. This will have a beneficial environmental impact on the surrounding land uses by eliminating noise from aircraft operations. b. Air Quality All five land use alternatives would adversely affect air quality within the south coast region. The primary air emissions generated include carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, particulates and sulfur oxides from mobile and stationary sources. Automobile and truck traffic produce most of the pollutants with a small portion attributable to local heating. Figure 3-9 summarizes the air emissions generated by the five land use alternatives. The estimated tonnage of pollutants may be reduced as newer motor vehicles replace older models, new advances in engine design are implemented, public transportation is expanded, or regional plans are adopted to reduce vehicular traffic volumes. C. Archeological Resources In 1973, the City of Huntington Beach hired a consultant to inventory archeological sites within the City. One archeological site (No. 368) identified in this inventory extends into the area of concern. The site is approximately ten acres in size and is located midway between Bolsa Chica and Graham Streets, bisected by Warner Avenue. The portion of the site south of Meadowlark Airport has been partially developed with residential uses which most likely destroyed any archeological resources. The portion lying within Meadowlark Airport is vacant, indicating that any artifacts buried here may still be intact. Development of the area of concern would adversely impact the archeological value of Site No. 368. Mitigation measures include further study of the site prior to development, and if warranted requiring that a qualified archeologist be present at the time the site is graded so that any artifacts that are encountered can be salvaged. 39 TALBER7--- - I o s.o w0 ~ " MI-CD ca � ! w .rY MIA i iC4 i CF-E L« (Q)R2-PD w C 4 i :Ts' '.'ASOK•F MI-CD I T R INS RI MI-CD RI R •�I RI ..., R EC F-R :rart«=:=: --ow. 'RI C2 KINER A N TAYLOR w R I � STT20 M I 3 RI RI 50 TAVL..R OR MI ONTARIO DR C 2 RI 5 __� -- RI RI RI J �; R2 t o RI RI a CF-C 60048 R2 Q =MI w CAN CR. --�QUEBEC RI RI «311.5, ze9.11 "R3 a R3 RI RI I w R3 FL N urrt�oY ALBERTA DR ;C4 R3 MI-CD RI RI RI RI v a Q w R2 r M I FRANKLIN DR G4 -D "RI • RI Y KON DR RI R3 R3 ao• m R2 C o W oR R2 pVPLE9Yu RI R3RI RZ R3 „ R3 fl � \\ F i -� �I ._ _. MI .. . --- 2- _ b - - R3 3 R3 g t��Q ..-1 ..._�, MI-0-CD +;:� W R2 5 MI oI R2 C 2 �, C2 C4 r 650 i. . " R2:' 4; 6M: • 50 I R3 R - R5 ITO o ' •�\ OM D RE R /\` Im R_ 2RT=' M2-0 f{L R2 I50 � R3.::_. M I-0 R3 _R2`! (DISTRICT oR•2' °�" R3'R3 R2 �` Two) !! N.LN LOT, 00 > — R•I TN sod R;R2 rRz E=D R3 R3 ' AVE wi RG o, R5 C4I w uer R3 pi CONSTANTI o. ACIF ICA COMMUNITY PLAN R2 f2 wc.»a•�'� (DIS1 R ICT ONE) R3 _ 299w 41 R MI-0 - R R'- z .4a•, m wr R5 o J FE \ — F R5 R52- R 2 ; am ' ( R2 R2 o 301.,0 - m R3 _ I 30o R R5 R5 R2 R2 R RZ W R2 .R.I, GARFIELD AVE GARFIELD o loan .GALE Area of Concern 3.2 O O o 0 0 o . 40 Figure 3-16 3.1.3 Staff Recommendation Land uses adjacent to the area of concern are primarily low and medium density residential. A medium density residential designation on the site would be compatible with these adjacent land uses and would increase housing opportunities in the City. Staff recommends that the northern 49 acres of the site be designated medium density residential. The portion of the site that fronts Warner Avenue is an appropriate location for commercial uses because of the arterial access, visibility and proximity to residential market areas. As discussed in section 3.1.2, a preliminary market analysis of the site indicates the potential for, approximately 125,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial use which could be accommodated on 12.5 acres. Designating 15 acres for commercial use may be overestimating the market potential of the site. Staff recommends that the 15 acres fronting Warner Avenue be designated mixed development (Alternative five) which will accommodate a commercial center but also allow other uses including office and residential. 3.1.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the existing low density residential designation on the Meadowlark Airport area of concern be retained. 3.2 COMMODORE CIRCLE AREA The second area of concern addressed by Land Use Element Amendment 81-2 is located on Commodore Circle between Huntington and Delaware Streets (See .Figure 3-10). The amendment request was filed by Charles MacGregor and Scott Strohbehn on behalf of approximately half of the property owners in the area. 3.2.1 Background The applicants' request is to redesignate 4.5 acres of land (acreage includes Commodore Circle) from medium to medium-high density residential. The three land use alternatives considered in ' this amendment are medium, medium-high and high density residential. The area of concern is presently developed with 20 four-plexes (80 apartment units). The density of 18 units per acre is consistent with the R3 zoning on the site but inconsistent 'with the medium density general plan designation (See Figure 3-11). Property to the north of the study area is zoned R2 and contains a 9.4 acre medium density condominium development with 92 units. To the west of this condominium development is an eight-acre, 104 unit apartment complex. Property immediately west of the study area between Huntington and Gothard Streets is designated (and zoned) for industrial uses and is currently vacant except for three industrial buildings along Gothard Street. To the south of the study area is another medium density condominium development (13.5 dwelling units per acre) occupying 7.7 acres with R2 and R3 zoning. The Five-Points Shopping Center is located to the east of the area of concern. 41 non soon GEN . .. • ^iii monoDENSITY /III i� ' 1 111 •,111� rMEDIUM RESIDENTIAL I; PPP Ell -COMM . §W.OAN IA OW I N � we i �. .��. 1 • 3.2.2 Analysis 1. Land Use! The area of concern is divided into 21 lots with an average size of 6,157 square feet each. Twenty of these lots are occupied by four-plexes. The remaining lot is substandard and contains an empty swimming poo1.4 Parking for the development is provided by carports located behind the fourplexes on two alleys, one north and one south of the units. The alleys provide vehicular .access to Huntington and Delaware Streets. The tract is currently developed to the maximum density permitted under the R3 zoning given the existing lot sizes. The area of concern can be developed at a higher density only if the existing lot configurations and the existing general plan designation are changed. The existing lot lines. and, possibly, the alignment of Commodore Circle would have to be abandoned and the entire site developed as a coordinated project. All property owners would have to agree to the abandonment of the existing tract map. The applicants' plans are to demolish the existing four-plexes and develop to the maximum density permitted under the R3 zoning. A redesignation to medium-high density residential could then result in a maximum of 25 units per acre or 113 units and would generate an estimated population of 316 persons. A redesignation to high density residential could result in approximatly 35 units per acre or a total of 158 units and would generate an estimated population of 444 persons. The area of concern is located between medium density residential areas to the north and south and is buffered in both directions by a block wall and an alley. All three land use alternatives for the site (medium, medium-high, and high density residential) would be compatible with these adjacent residential areas. Future development of the industrial property immediately west of the study area could pose' compatability problems with any residential uses on Commodore Circle. All three alternatives would be compatible with the commercial shopping center to the east across Delaware Street which is adequately buffered from the site by roadway and parking area. 2. Economic Considerations The planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the three land use alternatives using the computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a ten-year period, 1981-1991. The results are detailed in Appendix D. 4 The Board of Zoning Adjustments recently approved a tract adjustment to merge this pie-shaped lot with an adjacent lot to enable the property owner to replace the swimming pool with another four-plex. 43 i SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COMMODORE CIRCLE AREA OF CONCERN 3.2 AND OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE. Census Tract 22 Area 4 - (Includes Commodore Circle) City-Wide Median Income $17,607 $22,187 Percent Mexican American 23% 3% Percent Southeast Asian 18% 0.9% Average Population/Household (Four-plexes) 3.93 2.51 SOURCE: 1979 Special Census Figure 3-12 44 3. Housing As noted earlier, the City's Housing Element includes provisions for consideration of an inclusionary zoning ordinance that could require a certain percentage of new residential developments to be affordable to lower income households. The Housing Element also contains a policy to encourage the provision of alternative housing through replacement housing and/or relocation for low or moderate income households displaced by public or private developments. The existing units on Commodore Circle provide rental housing for a number of low and moderate income families. According to data from the 1979 Special Census, the median income of Census Tract 22, .Area 4, of which Commodore Circle is a part, is $17,607. This is below the City-wide median of $22,187 (See ,Figure 3-12). The City's 1979 Special Census indicates that a number of units on Commodore Circle are occupied by persons of Latin or Asian descent. As shown in Figure 3-12, Census Tract 22, Area 4 contains a significantly higher percentage of Mexican Americans and Southeast Asians than the City as a whole. The area is also characterized by larger than average households. A conservative population estimate for the neighborhood would be 300 persons. Rents charged on Commodore Circle range from $385 to $450 for a two-bedroom unit.5 These rents are affordable to both low and moderate income families according to criteria used in the City's Housing Element.6 Redesignation of the study area to medium-high or high 'density residential may result in the displacement of low and moderate income families and in the removal of 80 rental units from the City's existing housing stock. The City's Housing and Community Development Division has indicated that some method of providing relocation assistance to the displaced families should be considered by the developer if these units are to be demolished. One method would be to require that the developers of Commodore Circle contract with the Orange County Housing Authority to identify affordable housing units for the displaced families somewhere in Orange County.? It may be necessary for the developer to also provide relocation payments to help defray the cost of moving. In the event that the developer wishes to demolish units immediately, temporary lodging (e.g., hotel rooms) could be provided for some interim period of time while the housing authority searches for appropriate units. 5 Rental information.was obtained from the applicants and is current as of July 1981. 6 See Footnote 3 on page . Calculated using $29,900 as the 1981 median income. 7 The Orange County Housing Authority has indicated that it would be receptive to providing this type of service, but would have to see a detailed proposal before making a definite commitment. 45 To offset the reduction in affordable housing units, the City may want to require that a certain percentage of units in any new development on Commodore Circle be made available to low and moderate income families. A 20 percent inclusionary policy could potentially result in 22 affordable units under the medium-high density designation and 31 affordable units under the high density designation. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The study area is serviced by an eight-inch sewer in Commodore Circle which connects to a 24-inch county sewer located in Huntington Street. These lines would be adequate to accommodate the sewage generated by any of the three proposed land use alternatives. According to information provided by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange Cointy (CSDOC), discharges from the area of concern under alternative three may exceed the master planned discharges for which County sewerage facilities were designed. In the event this alternative is chosen, the City should coordinate with the CSDOC to determine the impact of proposed development on County facilities and require flow reduction devices or other mitigation measures if necessary. b. Water The area of concern is serviced by a six-inch water main in Commodore Circle which connects to an eight-inch main located in Huntington Street. At development under the medium and medium-high density designations, existing water mains are expected to provide adequate service. Under the high density alternative it is possible that these mains will have to be upgraded in order to meet fire flow requirements. C. Drainage There are no storm drains located in the immediate vicinity of the study area and water runoff currently drains along the street surfaces. This street surface drainage will be adequate to serve new development under any of the three land use alternatives. d. Parks The 1977 parks analysis indicates that park demand in the vicinity of the study area is presently exceeding park supply and will continue to do so in the future. There are no parks located within or proposed for the same quarter section of the City as the area of concern. The closest neighborhood park is 5.5-acre Terry iPark located one-third mile north of the study area. Huntington Central Park is within a mile of the study area and may help satisfy some of the park need. 46 Retention of the existing medium density residential designation will have no impact on park need. A redesignation to medium-high density may decrease the park need slightly due to the influx of smaller families than currently reside in the area. A redesignation to high density is not expected to have a significant impact on park need. e. Police and Fire Protection Police service for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach, which operates from one central facility located at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. In determining future manpower needs for new developments, the Police Department utilizes the national average for level of manning of 2.0 officers per 1000 population. Using these figures the medium-high and high-density designations might increase staffing needs by one officer. With respect to the existing development on the site, the Police Department has indicated that Police reports for Commodore Circle are higher than for the majority of apartment complexes in Huntington Beach. (See October 8, 1981 Police Department memo in Appendix E.) Fire protection for the area of concern is provided by the Gothard Station located north of Ellis Avenue on the west side of Gothard Street. The area of concern lies within the five minute response area of the station and can be adequately serviced regardless of the selected alternative. Discussions with Fire Department staff indicate that fire hazards in the Commodore Circle exist due to structural problems (e.g., holes in interior walls) and due to a lack of familiarity with fire prevention and fire reporting procedures on the part of area residents. f. Schools The area of concern is served by Smith Elementary, Dwyer Middle and Huntington Beach High Schools. Students generated by the alternative land uses being considered are estimated as follows: Land Use Alternative Number of Students Huntington Smith Dwyer Beach Medium Density Residential 15 21 18 (existing development) Medium High Density Residential 3 1 8 High Density Residential 5 2 11 SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981 47 The Huntington Beach Elementary School District has indicated that Smith Elementary and Dwyer Middle Schools are presently operating at capacity. A redesignation to medium-high or high density residential may result in fewer school age children than presently live in the study area due to the tendency of smaller families to occupy higher density units and to the possible deplacement of the existing large families currently occupying the area. These designations would not adversely impact school capacities. Huntington Beach High School would have no problem accommodating students under any of the three alternative designations. g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by the Southern California Gas Company and the Edison Company respectively. A three-inch steel main gas supply line is located in Delaware Street and a two-inch supply line runs the length of Commodore Circle. Three-quarter inch feeder lines extend from the Commodore Circle line to service the existing four-plexes. These lines or extensions of these lines will provide adequate gas service for development under the medium, medium-high or high density designations. The Gas Company notes, however, that gas supply may be affected by the overall availability of natural gas and by State and Federal regulatory policies. Adequate electrical power is supplied to the site by overhead 12 KV distribution lines in Huntington Street and in the alleys north and south of the site. The Edison Company notes, that the total electrical system demand is expected to continue to increase annually and if plans to proceed with future construction of new generating facilities are delayed, Edison's capability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods could become.marginal by the mid 19801s. h. 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 alternative land use designations. 5. Traffic and Circulation The area of concern takes access off of Delaware and Huntington Streets. Delaware is a secondary arterial with a capacity of 20,000 vehicles per day and existing traffic volumes of 1,536 daily trips. Traffic . on Delaware Street flows into Ellis Avenue to the north or into Main Street to the south. Huntington Street is a local street that intersects with Main Street to the south and deadends at Ellis Avenue to the north. Both Main Street and Ellis Avenue are currently operating below design capacity. There are also plans to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Main and Delaware Streets which will help the flow of traffic in this area. 48 Projected future traffic volumes from the study area are as follows: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation Medium Density Residential 568 trips/day Medium-High Density Residential 802 trips/day High Density Residential 1,122 trips/day SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981 The arterials and local streets in the vicinity of the study area are expected to be adequate to accommodate traffic volumes from any of the three alternatives. 6. Environmental Issues a. Noise The area of concern falls within an acceptable noise level of Ldn 60 for residential development. Traffic generated by development of additional residential units on the site is not expected to have a significant impact on noise levels in the surrounding areas. b._ Air Quality All three land use alternatives would adversely affect air quality within the South Coast region although the impact will most likely be insignificant. A medium density residential use would generate less pollutants (.11 tons/day) than the proposed medium-high density residential (.18 tons/day) which in turn would generate fewer pollutants than a high density use (.22 tons/day) as shown in the following table: Emission Tons of Source Emissions/Day Medium Density Residential Mobile .11 Stationary Negl. TOTAL .11 Medium-High Density Residential Mobile .16 Stationary Negl. TOTAL .16 High Density Residential Mobile .22 Stationary Neql. TOTAL .22 SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981 49 C. Mature Trees The area of concern presently contains a significant number of mature trees of several varieties. Removal of these trees would have an adverse environmental impact. Efforts should be made at the project level to retain as many of these trees as possible in order to mitigate these adverse impacts. 3.2.3 Staff Recommendation The existing units on Commodore Circle, in their current condition, are incompatible with adjacent land uses and are creating higher than average demands on some City services. The units are currently in a state of disrepair. Complaints regarding the visual impact of Commodore Circle have been received from adjacent property owners, and past surveys of the site by City personnel have revealed the accumulation of miscellaneous debris throughout the alleys and damage to perimeter walls and carports. (See July 23, 1979. memo from the Land Use Division in Appendix E.) As discussed previously, the Police Department has indicated that the number of Police reports filed for Commodore Circle is greater than for the majority of apartment complexes in Huntington Beach. Discussion with Fire Department staff indicates that fire hazards in the, Commodore Circle area exist partly because of structural problems (e.g., holes in interior walls) and partly because of a lack of familiarity with fire prevention and reporting techniques on the part of area residents. A redesignation of the site to medium-high or high density residential would provide incentive for private redevelopment of the site. Either designation would allow a new tract map to be filed to make more efficient use of the site and to develop a greater number of units than the existing apartments. A medium-high density designation would be more consistent with the existing R3 zoning on the site and more compatible with adjacent residential developments than a high density designation. As previously discussed, however, demolition of the existing units on Commodore Circle would displace low and moderate income families and would remove BO affordable units from the City's housing stock. Staff recommends that the designation on Commodore Circle be changed from medium to medium-high density residential with the condition that prior to .approval of a tentative tract map and/or conditional use permit for the site, the developer must submit a plan acceptable to the City addressing the relocation of displaced families. As discussed previously, such a plan could include contracting with the Orange County Housing Authority to provide relocation assistance, relocation payments to tenants, temporary lodging and/or other provisions. Because demolition of the existing units would remove BO affordable units from the City's housing stock, the City may also want to condition any development on the site to provide a certain percentage of units affordable to low and/or moderate income households as defined in the City's Housing Element. 3.2.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the 4.5 acre area located on Commodore Circle between Huntington and Delaware Streets be redesignated from medium to medium-high density residential with the condition that prior to approval of a tentative tract map and/or conditional use permit for the site, the developer must submit a plan acceptable to the City addressing the relocation of displaced families. 50 3.3 NEWMAN-VAN BUREN AREA The third area of concern addressed by Land Use Element Amendment 81-2 is located on the northeast corner of Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street (Figure 3-13). The amendment request was filed by the Hillcrest Missionary Baptist Church. 3.3.1 Background The applicant's request is to redesignate one acre of land on the northeast corner of Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street from medium density residential to office-professional. The land use alternatives considered in this amendment. are medium density residential, medium-high density residential, and office-professional. A high density residential alternative was not considered because of compatibility concerns with! low density residential uses east of the site. The area of concern is zoned R2 and presently contains a church, a single family house and a parking lot. Property to the north and west of the site is designated medium density residential (Figure 3-14). Adjacent land uses include a one-acre, four-plex development with 16 dwelling units fronting on Van Buren Street directly to the north. A duplex and triplex lie on the northwest corner of Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street west of the site. Immediately north of these is a two-acre, fourplex development with 36 units fronting on Van Buren Street. Property to the east of the area of concern is designated low density residential and is developed as single family dwellings. The property south of the area of concern across Newman Avenue is presently vacant; however, it is part of a cemetary and is designated public/quasi-public/institutional. The Huntington Intercommunity Hospital, located on the southeast corner of Newman Avenue and Beach Boulevard, is designated office professional. 3.3.2 Analysis 1. Land Use Redesignating the area of concern to office professional would accommodate the applicant's plans for the site which are to construct a church of approximately 9,600 square feet on a portion of the site and a three-story medical office building of approximately 11,000 square feet on the remainder. The ground floor of the medical building is proposed to be used for specialized cancer treatment involving a linear electron accelerator. The offices would be utilized Monday through Friday with no overnight patients. A reciprocal parking agreement could be arranged between the medical offices and the church since the latter facility would operate on weekends and evenings. The medical offices would accommodate approximately 33 employees. The existing medium density residential designation on the study area is implemented by R2 zoning and could result in a maximum of 15 units on the one-acre site which would generate an estimated population of 42 persons. A medium-high designation would allow 25 units and generate an estimated population of 70 persons. 51 AVE '-" - ----- WARNER R2 3 R5 ",r -" -1 ;I RI RI 1 A. FIR DR. i,]0 ( 4 .( yo a AMSTERDAM DR C 3 RI ? C. R2 . '_ Y f.7 I ISO �" z l J •n �_ -�---� S0• 4 •'iR2 R2 R2 W R2 rv� W A SYCAMORE - I ER2 a.N N �]R2 +'— a� RI W RI a R�2 L DR. RI RI RIREMBRANOT DR O J- - = RI RI r CF—R Rf„ ESS A „ _w= I z Qo J ^ P� 1 - So RI Q MARSEILLE DR of RI r w POLDER CR • �` Rep I C4� m RI K 2y R 2 RI I � VALENCIA 1. DR o----- RI RI CF-E R3 �30T°E ..z, (.":All ViEVI]•7r Cal-)i BRSTIN CR u I FRIESLAND DR MANDRELL DR z „ RI J R3 R3 i R3 0 �J RI ...s. ,I Cr C 4 C4 GUILDERS DR l BAaroN DRR 3 R I j - R3 I •HOLLAND -11 DR CF—E lo K TJz J U Ii-AKF.VIEW::CNC•C:.1 RI RI to RI R3 V � •� � - ro re) rn M M ro M 1- RI-�PD R; X ( car: i `/°]' - N RI RI RI MW ; J O I1.4 136 9.rw n Z R3 S W R3 I Ix R5 s _ oi AEI- —' —tSL ATER - AVE 1 I 319 Z64. MH 2802 2 2 R2 J R2 C OPAL CR Z O Z N.LINE Of TRACT 4682 f0 I W MLM4EL RI DRIVE ROSAKNA OR Z - RI RI 19993 — SPEER A� — IC4 n R2 i 299.66 p R3 �I M p / 64- SY DR l C4 Il Y 1. 6ENJANIN OR •° R I I IRE M I R3 FIT v y�� — R2 NOBLE CR ] R2 C4 rm O W - R I 2 et EL ARROYO OR s R3 4e R5 Z NEWMAN 30000 � 99o!E R2 p 268 C R5 �11 V P_I 390 RONALD OR, y0 R2 N.LINE 9 112 9 1/2 -�-J ]Ef.2]-]-11 260 TO c ' LR2 R3"R3 _ R2-PD-02) R2 C4 °RWS P— I R5m (Q)RA RI L..� AVE TALBERT Area of Concern 3.3 O O o 0 0 0 Figure 3-13 52 • wMDY$GNDS CR_ -- 1 Y w a LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL W cr o - - — — N SLATER AV G E N . - - — - - - -- -� _ MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ; w COM. OPAL CL R _ J w Z - MICHA L wPR\" ROSANNA DR.Q _ t; O -- HIGH W . I 0: I W , DEN. MED DaIS,' DRY LOW DEN , J BENJAMIN DRJ RES. DEN . RES . a RES . NOBLE cR - cr � EL ARROYp � w DR. p E. MEDIUM - DENSITY � RESIDENTIAL MOREWAD DR _ OFFICE J rENif � PROFESSIONAL " ;W F rn INSTITUTIONAL r LOW DEN. RES. t;t 9 1_ GEN. COM. LOW DEN . IRES. TA B E R T 0 W L SCALE IN FEET Area of Concern 3.3 0 0 0 0 o . 0 Figure 3-14 53 Both medium density and medium-high density residential designations on the area of concern would be compatible with adjacent high density land uses. (The four-plex developments to the north and west of the site, while general planned for medium, density, are actually developed at high density.) The medium density designation would be more compatible with the single family development to the east. Either residential designation would be compatible with the cemetary site to the south. An office-professional designation on the area of concern would not be as compatible with adjacent residential uses as a residential designation. However, because the site is relatively small and fronts on Newman Avenue, a church and medical facility such as the one proposed by the applicant would not necessarily pose compatibility problems. This is particularly true with respect to the high density developments to the north and west. Special buffering would be necessary between the site i and the single family homes to the east. An office-professional use would be compatible with the vacant cemetary land to the south. 2. Economic Considerations The Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the three land use alternatives using the computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a ten year period, 1981-1991. The results are detailed in Appendix D. 3. Housing A designation of medium or medium-high density residential would expand the City's potential to provide affordable housing. If the study area retains the medium density designation or is changed to medium-high density residential, approximately 15 units and 25 units, respectively, could be added to the City's housing stock at ultimate development. Adoption of an inclusionary zoning ordinance could potentially require that approximately three units be affordable under medium density (or that in-lieu fees be collected), and that five units be affordable under medium-high density. A designation of office-professional would not help meet the City's housing needs. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The area of concern is served by an eight-inch sewer line in Van Buren Street. This line will be adequate to handle flows generated by any of the three land use alternatives. b. Water Water mains in the vicinity of the study area include an eight-inch line in Newman Avenue and a six-inch line in Van Buren Street. These mains will provide adequate water service to the site under all of three land use designations being considered. 54 C. Storm Drains Street surface drainage in the vicinity of the study area will be adequate to accommodate water runoff under any of the three land use alternatives. No new storm drains would be required. d. Parks There are no parks presently existing or planned in the immediate vicinity.of the study area. The nearest park is Lake View School and Park on the north side of Slater Avenue. Huntington Central Park is located approximately one mile from the study area, but access is limited by the necessity of crossing Beach Boulevard. The 1977 Parks Analysis indicates that park demand in the district in which the study area is located is presently exceeding park supply and will continue to do so in the future. Development of either of the two residential land use alternatives will add to park need, but not significantly. e. Police and Fire Protection Police service for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach, which operates from one central facility located at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The present authorized level of manning is 2.0 officers per 1000 persons. None of the alternatives considered would significantly increase the level of staffing needed to adequately serve the site. Fire protection for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach from the Gothard Station located north of Ellis Avenue on the west side of Gothard Street. The property lies within the five minute response area of the station and can be adequately serviced regardless of the selected alternative. f. Schools The area of concern is served by Crest View Elementary and Middle School and Ocean View High School. Students generated by the alternative land uses considered are estimated as follows: Land Use Alternative Number of Students Crest View Oceanview 'Medium Density Residential 9 4 Medium-High Density Residential 3 2 Office-Professional 0 0 SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981 55 The medium density residential designation would have the greater impact on local schools. Crest View School is currently operating at capacity, but the Oceanview School District indicates that due to declining enrollments it will have no problem accommodating the additional students generated by either alternative. Oceanview High School can also accommodate the additional students g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by the Southern California Gas Company and the Edison Company respectively. Two-inch steel main gas supply lines are located in Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street. A 3/4-inch and a 1/2-inch feeder line extends from these supply lines to the area of concern. Extension of these gas lines will adequately service development under all three land use alternatives. The Gas Company notes, however, that supply may be affected by the overall availability of natural gas and by State and federal regulatory policies. Overhead 12 KV electrical lines run east and west on Newman Avenue and north and south on Van Buren Street. Either of these can supply adequate power to the area of concern. The Edison Company notes that the total electrical system demand is expected to continue to increase annually, and if plans to proceed with future construction of new generating facilities are delayed, Edison's capability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods could become marginal by the mid 19801s. h. 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 alternative land use designations. 5. Traffic and Circulation Access to the area of concern is via Newman Avenue which ends in a cul-de-sac 1,300 feet east of the study area. Newman Avenue intersects Beach Boulevard, a major arterial, 630 feet to the west. Traffic volume on Beach Boulevard at that point averages 50,000 trips daily which is slightly above the nominal capacity of 45,000 trips per day for that arterial. Traffic on Newman ranges from 1870 to 2350 daily trips which is below the 5000 trip capacity. Because there is no traffic signal at the intersection of Newman Avenue and Beach Boulevard, left turn traffic from Newman Avenue must either wait for traffic to clear on Beach Boulevard before crossing, or travel north to the traffic signal at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Slater Avenue to turn south. Any development of the study area would therefore increase traffic volumes on Cameron and Van Buren Streets which both connect Newman Avenue to Slater Avenue. The Department of Public Works has indicated that there are no plans to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Newman Avenue. 56 Using factors contained in the February 1980 Huntington Beach Transportation Demand Model Report, it is estimated that a medium density designation would result in 99 vehicle trips per day while medium-high density would generate 178 trips. The applicant's proposed medical office project under an office-professional designation would generate approximately 288 trips per day. The proposed church would result in additional traffic primarily on Sundays. These traffic volumes could constitute significant additions to Cameron and Van Buren Streets. Slater Avenue with a current daily traffic volume of 10,700 trips may also be impacted by additional left turns involving Cameron and Van Buren Streets. Maximum capacity on Slater Avenue, a designated secondary arterial, is 20,000 daily trips. 6. Environmental Issues a. Noise The area of concern falls within an acceptable noise level of Ldn 60 for residential development and Ldn 75 for office-professional development. Traffic generated by any of the three land use alternatives is not expected to have a significant impact on the noise levels in the surrounding areas. b. Air Pollution All three land use alternatives would adversely affect air quality within the South Coast region; however, the impact would most likely be insignificant. The medium density residential designation would generate less pollutants (.02 tons/day) than the medium-high density designation (.04 tons/day) which in turn would generate fewer pollutants than an office-professional use (.09 tons/day). The following table summarizes the air emissions generated by the three land use alternatives: Emission Tons of Source Emissions/Day Medium Density Residential Mobile .02 Stationary Negl. TOTAL .02 Medium-High Density Residential Mobile .04 Stationary Negl. TOTAL .04 Office-Professional Mobile .04 Stationary Negl. TOTAL .04 SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981. 57 3.3.3 Staff Recommendation The area of concern is surrounded on three sides by residential use. Property to the west and north is designated medium density residential and zoned R2. Property to the east is designated low density residential and zoned Rl. Of the alternatives analyzed, the existing medium density designation on the area of concern is the most compatible with these adjacent land uses particularly with respect to traffic and visual impacts. There is a significant amount of vacant land near the area of concern, closer to Beach Boulevard, which is already designated for office professional uses. Additional medical offices should locate within this established office professional area rather than in a small isolated node at Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street. Staff notes that a church, such as the one proposed by the applicant, can be permitted in a residential district subject to a conditional use permit. Staff recommends that the existing medium density residential designation on the area of concern be retained. 3.3.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the one acre area on the northeast comer of Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street be redesignated from medium density residential to office professional. 3.4 BEACH-ATLANTA AREA The fourth area of concern addressed by Land Use Element Amendment 81-2 is located east of Beach Boulevard and south of Atlanta Avenue (See Figure 3-15). The applicant is Bijan Sassounian. 3.4.1 Background The applicant's request is to redesignate 9.8 acres of vacant land east of Beach Boulevard, 1022 feet south of Atlanta Avenue, from commercial and medium density residential to high density residential. Five land use alternatives are considered in this amendments 1) general commercial on the northern 2.6 acres and medium density residential on the remaining 7.2 acres; 2) medium density residential on the entire site; 3) medium-high density residential on the entire site; 4) high density residential on the entire site; and 5) visitor-serving commercial on the entire site. The area of concern is presently vacant. The northern 2.6 acres are general planned for general commercial and zoned C4, highway commercial. The southern 7.2 acres are general planned for medium density residential and carry R2 zoning (See Figure 3-16). A 90-foot wide frontage road extends halfway into the site from the north. The property to the north of the site is general planned commercial and occupied by a neighborhood commercial center on 12 acres containing a bank, supermarket and several small restaurants and shops. The area of concern is bounded on the east by a 110-foot wide County flood control channel east of which is a medium density condominium development containing 330 units on 32.5 acres. The property immediately south of the area of concern is vacant and is within the City's coastal zone. It has been designated visitor-serving commercial in the City's recently adopted coastal plan; however the State Coastal Commission has not yet approved the City's plan. 58 J ATLANTA STREET ATLANTA lJ I it I I s 1 -- - �aL } R3 '3 3 a R 3 Lit R2 PO �I nwrevp R P". —-. r R3-0 r " R3 Rs II c "Loo e•o,/ jkt!tS �:mi: .. R2-PO R3 i ::::�:a R3 R 7.Q R5 - R. ° VV i lip ,,yet i 4.'..:::_• "°t +w.::ga ..,.TTL� . �Oa .. ;.20 R3 iR3 r _.�wE...- iR2 0 33� - Ira: / kaxr-PDM R2-PD Q C4 ex w _ cREw(Xi. R yyatauR�r __ � sd R 2 JENNY 3 ' R6-0 yiy/ a.}"Orirt=::.51t-., r, R3 j'R3 R3 _zv _ a R2-I!0 R RI R2-PD ' ' ..... i; n .�/ ri,;c vQ09Ydt'-•.. R3 §Ira;:"T]LE0o6o Run«ERs cO.k ]y a: 41f!:--'..91 "' ""•.:M`Bo 3,¢;"R3« JI �� q... T R2 'y'II % R2-PD R2-PDIRI —�•rR0.0 " ^ __ RS R3 R3�s M �,\..iy�iigttP Ca '��-iip iS ''�n:�::::. R2-PD "�0a °► RI i RBQ3R R3 R3 RI i I 3 RI R I J iP R2 " R3 eus bR3 � I rR �— Cam ' « _____ -_-_ `^ R5 R3 rara-X: R3 m. 0�J ".6rRl �l c" i.Egox RI J — �RII g,.• 4L •.��a F� Q` RA q RA-0 MI-A-0 = I 110' U -- I wo --- --—— Q 55 S Q - c3 50 �s MI-A-0 0� l�4 •�J � °o�b. C. F. C. D. \� q� — _ _se]•Iz z1 E i1>823 L-200! A•2'1]'19• RA-0 R•362 5q' q, T• 361 C/\ CO g' J S2J02'•E a Q MH o. f H �n ID00 642.04'03"E 0 - I]I60 ' I IC1LE IM FLET \t'�. o�6•2B'2a" T•5633' \� 0 S B� �•�2 PACIFIC OCEAN �°c CAI- Area of Concern 3.4 0 0 0 0 0 o . Figure 3—15 59 MED . DEN. REST ATLA LOW DENIST7 -RESID_ENT IAL P�1 ATLANTA --... - - > HIGH DENSI-TY --i ' ' ! RESIDENTIAL GENAWA��-------- CR . � -' r•j , MEDIUM COMM -�°0191;-- --- MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL JENNY AS 481ATM 0 5 IN I o DENSITY _ �1 ® t ----- —1 - - - - - REISDENTIALAT 0AR1 --- -------- F H _ LOW DENSITY EABREEZE i GE.N 'COMM `` RESIDENTIAL �goc�Ar1 CR SCONE Oft L4 WWW DRYMEN OR DEN " ��- - - = I I`'`• CK u _ CD RES o - COMMERCIAL° AfT SUPPORT ffl RECREATION. � OASTAL _ZONE BOUNDARY PLANNING RESERVE 1 VISITOR .- 0 00 _ SERVING. ,U a COMMERCIAL -- — - w -VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL' . co SST �-- 1000 0. LT- _ � � C. p. I SCALE IN,FEET MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL— Area . of Concern 3A 0 0 Figure 3-16 60 The study .area is bounded on the west by Beach Boulevard. Across Beach Boulevard, opposite the northern 2.5 acres of the study area, is a medium density condominium development. Across Beach Boulevard, opposite the southern 7.5 acres of the study area is a 57-acre site owned by the City containing a 237 unit-mobile home park surrounding a nine hole golf course. The City-owned property is within the coastal zone and is designated for a combination commercial/recreational use. The City has received evidence that a portion of the area of concern may be a wetland. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is currently determining whether or not a 11404" permit from that agency will have to be obtained before development can occur. If the COE determines that the study area is within its jurisdiction it may require that portions of the site be preserved. 3.4.2 Analysis 1. Land Use Under the existing General Plan (represented by alternative one) the northern 2.6 acres of the site are general commercial. It is unlikely that an area of this small size would be developed as a separate commercial center particularly since it is located immediately south of an existing neighborhood center. It could be developed as an expansion of the existing center and might result in an additional 21,923 square feet of building space which could accommodate approximately 63 employees. The remaining 7.2 acres at medium density residential would normally result in a maximum of 15 units per acre or 108 units which would generate an estimated population of 303 persons. In originally designating this portion of the site for medium density residential (General Plan Amendment 78-1), however, the City Council specified that density calculations would be based on an area of 8.32 gross acres. The additional gross acreage is obtained by extending the site boundary halfway into the Orange County Flood Control Channel immediately to the east. Using this acreage could result in a total of 124 units and a population of 350 people (See Figure 3.17). A medium density residential designation on the entire 9.8 acre site (alternative two) would permit a maximum of 147 units which would generate an estimated population of 414 persons. A medium-high density designation (alternative three) could result in a maximum of 25 units per acre or 245 units and would generate an estimated population of 690 persons. Alternative four, high density residential designation on the entire site, would result in approximately 35 units per acre or 343 units total which would generate an estimated population of 966 persons. Visitor-serving commercial, proposed in alternative five, is a new designation adopted as part of the City's coastal element.8 It can be applied to the area of concern even though the property is not in the 8 A zoning ordinance to implement the visitor-serving commercial category will be developed as part of Phase III of the City's local coastal program. 61 ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS SUMMARY BEACH/ATLANTA AREA 3.4 Development Residential Total Total Alternatives Units Commercial. Population (square ft) 1. General Commercial on 2.6 acres, medium density 124 21,923 348 residential on the remainder 2. Medium Density Residential on entire site 147 414 3. Medium-High Density Residential on entire 245 690 site 4. High Density Residential on entire site 343 966 5. Visitor-Serving Commercial on entire site 97,510 The number of units in Alternative 1 (the existing General Plan designation) is calculated using a gross acreage of 8.32 acres which includes half of the Orange County Flood Control Channel. The acreage was the figure approved by the City Council in adopting land use amendment 78-1. If the channel is not counted, density would be based on 7.2 gross acres for a total of 108 units and an estimted population of 303 persons. SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981 Figure 3-17 62 coastal zone. Principal permitted uses include hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and speciality retail uses. Offices and residential uses above the ground floor may be allowed by special permit. This designation is intended to be applied to locations near visitor drawing attractions such as the beaches, and along major access routes to the coast from inland areas. This amendment analyzes .a development of 97,510 square feet of visitor-serving commercial on the area of concern. Commercial development on the area of concern would be consistent with the neighborhood shopping center to the north and with the proposed visitor-serving commercial uses to the south. The site is adequately buffered from existing residential uses to the east and west by the flood control channel and Beach Boulevard, respectively. A ten-acre residential development at either medium, medium-high or high density would be compatible with existing commerical uses to the north and proposed visitor-serving uses to the south, however, special attention to setbacks and buffers may be necessary. Residential uses would be compatible with the condominiums located east of the site. Beach Boulevard effectively buffers any use of the site from properties to the west. Regardless of which land use alternative is chosen, development should include buffering from any wetland areas ultimately delineated on the site and on the property immediately to the south. Adequate buffers to wetland areas are discussed in the City's Coastal Element and may include setbacks (e.g. 100 feet of open space), barriers that limit physical but not visual access (e.g. hedges, fences), and differences in elevation sufficient to deter access. 2. Economic Considerations The Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the five land use alternatives using the computerized methodology developed for the City. For purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a ten year period, 1981-1991. The results are detailed in Appendix D. A second economic consideration is the amount of market support for commercial uses on the site. In Land Use Element Amendment 78-1, staff conducted a market analysis of properties in the vicinity of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue, including the present area of concern, based on ultimate, development of the General Plan. The General Plan designations in the market area have not changed from those used in the 1978 analysis and the results are still applicable. The analysis indicates that, in general, there is a surplus of commercial uses in the market area. There appears, however, to be sufficient demand to support additional commercial square footage in specified categories including liquor, home improvement and general merchandise. The report concludes that limited expansion of existing neighborhood centers or the development of a small convenience center would be more appropriate based on demand figures than the development of a new community or neighborhood shopping center. 63 With respect to visitor-serving commercial, the report indicates that potential exists for a specialty shopping center of reasonable size in south Central Huntington Beach. This analysis was based on the assumption of 11 25-mile radius primary market area and 1978 population projections. The report notes that specialty commercial uses in the Beach-Atlanta area could draw business away from new specialty uses in the Downtown area. Subsequent to the 1978 analysis, the City has proposed that visitor-serving commercial uses be located on approximately 70 acres directly south of the area of concern and that commercial/recreation uses be located on the 57-acre City-owned property west of Beach Boulevard. If both of these areas develop as currently planned, there may be insufficient support for specialty uses on the area of concern. 3. Housing A designation of medium, medium-high or high density residential development on the area of concern would expand the City's potential to provide affordable housing. If the study area retains the existing medium density residential designation on 7.2 acres, 124 units could be added to the City's housing stock at ultimate development. Adoption of an inclusionary zoning ordinance could potentially require that approximately 24 units be affordable to households with low and moderate incomes. If the entire study area is redesignated medium, medium-high or high density residential approximately 147, 245 and 343 units, respectively, could be added to the City's housing stock at ultimate development. With inclusionary zoning approximately 29, 49 and 68 affordable units could be required, respectively. A visitor-serving commercial designation on the entire site as analyzed in this amendment would not help meet the City's housing needs. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers Sewers in the vicinity of the study area include a County trunkline in Atlanta Avenue and an eight-inch City sewer extending from this trunkline (through the existing shopping center) to the. northern boundary of the study area. These sewers have adequate capacity to accommodate sewage generated by any of the five land use alternatives under consideration. The eight-inch sewer, however, is buried to a depth of only 4.4 feet at the northern boundary of the study area. Depending on the final grade of development it may or may not be feasible to connect to the existing eight-inch line and still provide adequate ground cover (five feet) for sewers on the proposed site. A parallel sewer at a greater depth may be required to connect the study area to the County sewer in Atlanta Avenue. 64 According to information provided by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC), discharges from the area of concern under Alternative five may exceed the master planned discharges for which County sewerage facilities were designed. In the event this alternative is chosen, the City should coordinate with the CSDOC to determine the impact of proposed development on County facilities and require flow reduction devices or other mitigation measures if necessary. b. Water Existing water mains in the vicinity of the area include eight-inch mains in Beach Boulevard and in the commercial center immediately north of the site. Development under any of the five alternatives would require that the existing eight-inch mains be extended and connected to form continuous loops. The high density alternative (number four) would also require that the existing mains be enlarged. C. Storm Drains Construction of an underground storm drain from the study area to the existing 96-inch drain pipe in Atlanta Avenue will be required to serve any of the five alternative land uses under consideration. d. Parks The 1977 Parks Analysis indicates that park demand in the immediate vicinity of the area of concern is met or exceeded by the current supply of recreation facilities. There are, however, no neighborhood parks in the same quarter section as the study area. The nearest neighborhood park site (the three-acre Manning Park) is located approximately one-half mile to the west across Beach Boulevard. The area of concern is a mile and a half from 40-acre Edison -Community Park and less than half a mile away from Huntington City and Huntington State Beaches. A designation of medium, medium-high or high density on the area of concern will add to the need for neighborhood parks in the area. Most of this need can probably be met by the nearby beach areas and by Edison Community Park. e. Police and Fire Protection Police service for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach, which operates from one central facility located at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. Utilizing the national average of 2.0 officers per 1000 population, alternatives under consideration for this area of concern would result in the need for the following additional officers: 65 Land Use Alternative Additional Officers 1) General Commercial/Medium Density Residential ' . 1Officer 2) Medium Density Residential 1 Officer 3) Medium-High Density Residential 1-2 Officers 4) High Density Residential 2 Officers 5) Visitor-serving Commercial No additional SOURCE: Huntington Beach Police Department, 1981. Fire protection for the area of concern is provided by the City of Huntington Beach from the Magnolia Station located west of Magnolia Street north of Hamilton Avenue. The area of concern lies within the five minute response area of the station and can be adequately serviced without additional manning, regardless of the selected alternative. f. Schools The area of concern is served by Kettler Elementary, Dwyer Middle and Edison High Schools. Students generated by the alternative land uses considered are estimated as follows: Land Use Alternative Number of Students Kettler Dwyer Edison 1) General Commercial/ Medium Density Residential 23 32 29 2) Medium Density Residential 28 38 34 3) Medium-High Density Residential 7 2 17 4) High Density Residential 10 3 24 5) Visitor-serving Commercial 0 0 0, SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981. The Huntington Beach Elementary School District indicates that Kettler Elementary School will be able to accommodate the number of students generated by any of the five land use alternatives. Dwyer Middle School, however, is operating at full capacity and additional students could create a problem. The Huntington Beach Union High School District indicates that Edison High School can accommodate the additional students generated by any of the five alternatives. g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by the Southern California Gas Company and the Edison Company respectively. A three-inch gas line extends to the site from the north. Extension of this line will provide adequate gas service to development under any of the five alternatives. The Gas Company notes, however, that gas supply may be affected by the overall availability of natural gas and by State and federal regulatory policies. 66 Adequate electric power supply can be provided froin 12 KV distribution lines in the vicinity of the area of concern. Development under any of the five alternative land uses will require on-site relocation of joint facilities of 66 KV and 12 KV lines which currently traverse the site. Edison notes that the total electrical system demand is expected to continue to increase annually and if plans to proceed with future construction of new generating facilities are delayed, Edison's capability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods could become marginal by the mid 19801s. h. 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 alternative land use designations. 5. Traffic and Circulation The area of concern fronts on Beach Boulevard, a major arterial with an average daily traffic volume of 24,700. The capacity of Beach Boulevard is 45,000 vehicles per day. Projected future traffic generated by the proposed land use alternatives are as follows: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation 1) General Commercial/Medium Density Residential 1,491 trips/day 2) Medium Density Residential 970 trips/day 3) Medium-High Density Residential 1,739 trips/day 4) High Density Residential 2,435 trips/day 5) Visitor-serving Commercial 2,984 trips/day SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981 In general, Beach Boulevard can accommodate the daily traffic volumes generated by any of the five land use alternatives. During much of the summer months, however, particularly on weekends, Beach Boulevard is overcrowded with recreational traffic. Commercial development on the site, particularly visitor-serving commercial may benefit from the high traffic volumes passing the area. Impaired access to and from residential uses, on the other hand, would be a drawback to this type of development. The City's Public Works Department may require that a signal be installed on Beach Boulevard at a point 1,320 feet south of Atlanta Avenue. This will provide signalized access into the area of concern. Additional curb cuts from the study area on to Beach Boulevard would adversely impact traffic flow on this arterial particularly during the summer months. The Public Works and Development Services Departments propose that any development on the area of concern be served by a frontage road as conceptually aligned in Figure 3-18. As shown on Figure 3-18 the proposed frontage road is 45 feet wide and aligned closer to Beach 67 ,g7LANTA AVENUE 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 � 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' , 1 , 1 1 ' 1 ' m ; 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 ° v m o a 1 ° 1 ° 1 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 1 , 1 , � 1 , B 1 1 1 , A#wA or- ooucean! µ ................ ..:............. ............... :::::: t• Goncep#va� A(19nmen4 of� •.> ?::::>::::::.««><�< > > euJ front o ..............: lJ aye R a • [[t•:^�i:;:}<4}i}iiiiii:iG?i:CC4fi:•a 4d, `,l�RFH o F Cv�J GE F2n/ 3.°} SOVTHE/2� 80UNDARY CONCEPTUAL REALIGNMENT AND EXTENSION OF EXISTING BEACH BOULEVARD FRONTAGE ROAD Figure 3—18 68 ti Boulevard than the existing frontage road on the site. (The proposed frontage road could eventually continue south of the study area to an extension of Hamilton Avenue or to Pacific Coast Highway to provide an alternative route for local traffic along Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard.) The Orange County Transit District indicated that the higher density alternatives would tend to have a positive effect on transit ridership on existing routes and may create demand for new transit services. The City should consider on-street bus facilities and amenities to improve transit accessibility when reviewing development proposals for the site. 6. Environmental Issues a. Noise The area of concern is exposed to exterior noise levels of Ldn 65 and Ldn 70. These noise levels are within the normally acceptable level (Ldn 80) for commercial development. Residential developments on the site would be subjected to noise levels in excess of the normally acceptable level for residential areas. Typical exterior treatments .such as walls and berms may not be adequate to reduce the Ldn's of 65 and 70 to the City standard of Ldn 60 for exterior and Ldn 45 for interior noise levels. In this case, special mitigation measures such as extra setbacks, more insulation and prohibition of windows facing the street would be required to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. Traffic generated by new development under any of the five alternatives is not expected to significantly impact the noise levels in surrounding areas. b. Air Pollution All five land use alternatives would adversely impact air quality within the South Coast region. The primary air emissions generated include carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, particulates and sulfur oxides from mobile and stationary sources. Automobile and truck traffic produce most of the pollutants with a small portion attributable to local heating. The following table summarizes the air emissions generated by the five land use alternatives:. 69 Emission Source Tons of Emissions/Day 1) General Commercial/Residential Mobile •25 Stationary Negl. TOTAL .25 2) Medium Density Residential Mobile .20 Stationary Negl. . TOTAL .20 3) Medium-High Density Residential Mobile .35 Stationary Negl. TOTAL .35 4) High Density Residential Mobile .50 Stationary Negl. TOTAL .50 5) Visitor-Serving Commercial Mobile .43 Stationary Negl. TOTAL .43 SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981 C. Wetlands As discussed in Section 3.4.1, a portion of the area of concern may be wetland. Such wetland may provide habitat for plant species such as Pickleweed, Glasswort, Saltgrass, and Jaumea and for Belding's savannah sparrow as well as other waterfowl and shorebirds. Development of the study area under any of the five land use alternatives may adversely impact the area's wetland resources, if any. Mitigation measures include preserving and/or enhancing that portion of the site depicted as wetland and buffering this portion from the remainder of development on the site. As discussed in Section 3.4.1, the area of concern is immediately adjacent to a portion of the City's coastal zone which has also been identified as wetland by staff of the California Department of Fish and Game. If this portion of the coastal zone is ultimately preserved as wetland, development of the area of concern could adversely impact this adjacent use. Mitigation. measures would include some type of buffer (e.g. setback, wall, change in elevation) to help protect the adjacent wetlands. 70 d. Seismic Hazards A segment of the South Branch Fault passes through the area of concern. This fault is a potential cause of serious structural damage due primarily to ground shaking. Actual surface rupture has not historically occurred along this fault in Huntington Beach and the probability is relatively low that it will within the next 100 years, even though one or more moderate-sized earthquakes may occur. Appropriate structural requirements would be imposed by the City on any development project on the area of concern. In addition, an engineering geologist analysis may be required. e. Flood Hazard The area of concern is within a flood hazard area. Preliminary flood insurance rate maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 1980 indicate that the area of concern could be inundated by approximately ten feet of water from overflow of the Santa Ana River during a 100-year storm. Within approximately one year, the City will have to adopt flood plain development criteria for new construction in flood hazard areas to help avoid future flood damage. According to these criteria, new residential development will be required to have first habitable floors that are elevated above the level of a 100-year frequency flood as determined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Units may be built over garages, basements or other non-living areas or they may be raised on fill to meet this criteria. 3.4.3 Staff Recommendation As. noted in section 3.4.2, there may be insufficient market support for commercial uses on the site if adjacent areas develop with commercial uses as planned. A 1978 market analysis indicated limited potential for additional general commercial uses. The City has proposed that visitor-serving commercial uses be located on approximately 70 acres directly south of the area of concern and that commercial/recreation uses be located on the 57-acre City-owned property northwest of Beach Boulevard. Portions of the City's Downtown are also designated for visitor-serving commercial uses. Development of specialty commercial uses on the area .of concern would compete with these areas and might oversaturate the area with commercial uses. The area of concern is an excellent site for high quality housing because of its proximity to the ocean. The site is buffered to the east and west by a flood control channel and by Beach Boulevard, respectively. Commercial uses exist to the north and are proposed for location to the south. Under these circumstances, medium, medium-high or high density residential uses would all be compatible at this location. Of these alternatives, a high density residential development would bring the largest number of residents to the coast providing a year round market for the visitor-serving commercial areas proposed at Beach 71 ' Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway and in the Downtown. A high density residential designation would also provide the greatest potential for provision of affordable housing if an inclusionary zoning ordinance is adopted in the future. Staff recommends that the entire site be redesignated to high density residential (Alternative four). Staff further recommends that any development plan for the site provide for a frontage road parallel to Beach Boulevard if this is determined to be necessary by the Departments of Development Services and Public Works. Beach Boulevard is a heavily travelled major arterial which experiences traffic congestion particularly during the summer months. It is important that access to this arterial be limited so as not to create undue safety hazards and disruption of traffic flow. The city is determining the appropriate location for signalized access into the area of concern and is investigating the use of a frontage road system to carry local traffic. It is important that development of the study area not preclude the use of such a frontage road system. 3.4.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that 9.8 acres located east of Beach Boulevard, 1,022 feet south of Atlanta Avenue be redesignated from General Commercial and Medium Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and that in the project application for development of this property special consideration be given to controlling the number and types of access points onto Beach Boulevard including consideration of a frontage road. 72 y \I 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, an environmental assessment is required to address short-term and long-term effects, irreversible environmental changes, and growth inducing impacts of the total project or plan. This section analyzes these concerns in context of the recommended land use changes in Section 3.0. 4.1 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Amendment 81-2 does not in and of itself create long term impacts. Rather, it makes changes in the general types of land uses that may be allowed on a particular area at the time of development. Amendment 81-2 seeks to identify short-range issues within a context of long-range goals, policies, and environmental planning programs. The amendment itself acts as a mitigation measure designed to minimize any adverse effects on long-term productivity resulting from short-term uses. One 'of the steps required to implement the amendment is an analysis of the zone changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. The zoning changes that would result would have significant short-term effects, such as creating non-conforming uses, reducing or increasing intensity of development permitted, and providing stimulus for development. 73 4.2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The Amendment will mitigate most adverse effects. However, irreversible environmental change of a secondary' nature can be expected from development under the proposed amendment. Loss of open space will occur as vacant land is converted to other uses. Although the option to recycle the land. to open space after development is available, it is probably not economically feasible. Alteration of topography will be an irreversible change. Although mitigating measures can be imposed as part of the development process, the natural topography will experience a negligible degree of modification. Construction materials of mineral origin will also be needed for development to occur, and fossil fuels will be committed for long periods to satisfy local energy demand. However, such development would be consistent with. existing land use designations. 4.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The proposed amendment may have growth inducing effects within the areas of concern. An estimated population of 3855 persons could be generated in the areas of concern under the existing General Plan land use designations. If the higher density alternatives are chosen in each of the areas of concern, an estimated population of 5021 persons could be generated. This would be an increase of 1166 persons over the City's existing General Plan. Any increase in population would increase demand on public services and utilities and incrementally affecting air quality, water quality, traffic, and noise levels. However, the proposed uses in accord with General Plan policies and programs should mitigate many of the adverse effects generated by the expected growth. An Air Quality Management Plan for the south coast area has been developed based on population projections which reflect the existing general plans of this City and other jurisdictions. If the alternatives chosen in this General Plan Amendment result in a net gain in population over and above that predicted by the existing General Plan, then the amendment may be inconsistent with the region's Air Quality Management Plan. Mitigation measures would include any actions at the project level or Citywide to reduce increases in automobile traffic and increase the use of mass transit facilities. The demand for water and energy will likely increase as a result of the proposed land uses in this amendment. Conservation measures can be implemented City- and County-wide to reduce these impacts such as: (1) Reduce evaporation from reservoirs by encouraging underground storage or coating water surfaces with evaporation hindering films or substances. (2) Encourage tertiary treatment of and reuse of the return flow of public water supplies wherever such use is acceptable and safe. (3) Waterspread where appropriate to recharge the underground water supply. (4) Meter water and encourage repair of leaky connections to stimulate more economical use. 74 ti (5). Reduce consumption of toilets and showers by requiring appropriate modifications to these appliances. (6) Prohibit the use of open gas lighting in public or private buildings. (7) Strategically place electric lights to maximize their efficiency. Their size and power consumption should be minimized as much as possible. (S) Discourage electrical heating in public and private structures. Encourage solar-assisted heating systems. (9) Encourage the use of reflecting and/or insulating glass in structures where windows are not shaded by exterior architectural projections or natural plants. 75 APPENDIX A. REPRINT OF SECTION 4 .1 FROM THE i CITY' S GENERAL .PLAN I , i 4. 1 Zoning Consistency with the Elements of the General Plan I In . practice, consistency between a zoning proposal and the General Plan will be determined by considering all of the policies and pro- grams of each element of the General Plan and their relationship to the proposed zoning. The Land Use Element policies can be translated into a form suit- able for relatively easy analysis of consistency questions. Ref- erence may be made to the Zoning and Land Use Element Matrix (Figure 4-1) to determine which zoning classifications are clearly consistent with which land use designations. If a zone is not shown as clearly consistent with a particular land use designation, reference may be made to the size criteria for determining land use designations (Figure 3-15) .� If the size criteria therein do not disallow the possibility of a finding of consistency, then a finding of consistency between the zone and the Land Use Element may be made by reference to the locational criteria contained in the Land Use Element. Unlike the Land Use Element policies, the policies of the other elements of the General Plan are not easily organizable into matrix form.. Consequently determination of consistency must be made through 'a policy by policy analysis of each element. APPENDIX B GARFIELD—GOLDENWEST STUDY AREA REPRINT FROM LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 80-1 2.0 AREA OF CONCERN This section addresses each request area designated in Figure 2-I. 2.I Garfield - Goldenwest Area In June, 1977, the Department of Development Services received an application for a General Plan amendment from several property owners within a 97 acre area located south of Garfield Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street. The group of nine owners requested a land use redesignation from medium density residential to industrial. The Planning Commission considered the amendment request on July 17, 1979. Staff recommended that the item be postponed until completion of the Fiscal Impact Model and the Housing Element. The Commission directed staff to further analyze the request and return with land use alternatives for additional review at the July 24, 1979 study session. At this meeting, the Planning Commission discussed a range of land use alternatives, including industrial, residential and a mix of the two. The Commission decided to continue the request to the next General Plan Amendment. 2. 1.1 Background The area of concern encompases approximately 97.4 acres bounded by Garfield Avenue on the north, Huntington Street on the east, Clay Avenue on the south and Goldenwest Street on the west. Three north-south streets (Stewart, Crystal, and Holly) and the Pacific Electric right-of-way divide the study area into five 19.5 acre blocks. Main Street traverses the two blocks between Crystal Street and the railroad right-of-way. Existing land uses within the area are shown in Figure 2-2. While oil extraction activity and related services are dominant, the area also supports a diverse mixture of ind I equestrian, commercial and residential uses. AILERA B -I *Ot%A XK -F 2.1 r \ /I \\ / Yr.wq Figure 2-1 Areas Of Concern huntington beach planning division J IGARFIELD-GOLDENWEST AREA J L I GA R F I E L D APPROVED - AVE. •i: .:..:.......: �\1 'r 1' .I N f X ,r TIAL X DER AV' XW me C STRUCTION Q J Z of::»»:7>s::s ........... <:::»»>::::: ::: ::> =:<::>: Z W K Y� X J'i:•i:4}i{: 7i ;.....?}i}: is}:>::�:}`> i >::C;?:4:>} O N Q r• ;; r ::: r- OXX O z Z N r X X Air .r , .......... . CLAY AVE. OIL WELL ® COMMERCIAL or OFFICE n INDUSTRIAL HORSE STABLE or RECREATION - Figure 2-4 INDUSTRIAL-OIL RELATED APARTMENTS Q PUBLIC USE .-r W Oil wells connected to localized tanks cover much of the area; there are 50 active wells and 89 oil storage tanks occupying 30 acres. Oil production is concentrated primarily on the three blocks west of Holly Street. A number of industrial businesses are located throughout the Garfield-Goldenwest area, occupying approximately 15 acres. The businesses are typically located along Stewart and Crystal Streets and include small oil field equipment supply outlets and maintenance and storage services. Other uses include a recreation vehicle storage facility, a welding shop, and several auto repair shops. The most substantial industry in the area is the Cambro plant which covers almost six acres at Huntington Street and Clay Avenue, and employs 250 persons. A City water reservoir and warehouse, a quasi-industrial use, occupies eight acres at the northerly end of this block. Commercial uses are relatively insignificant in the area (occupying about three acres of land), and consist of a real estate office, restaurant, and several equestrian stables. Two high density apartment developments with a total of 62 units are located at Holly Street and Garfield Avenue. Although these uses cover only three acres, a 158 unit condominium project on II acres is now under construction east of Holly Street and south of Main. Excluding this large parcel, most of the remaining vacant land (28 acres) is dispersed in small f rogments throughout the amendment area. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the entire Garfield-Goldenwest area as' medium density residential. The study area is essentially transitional between designated industrial/resource production uses to the north and west, and commercial/residential uses to the south and east. Existing General Plan land use designations for the site and the surrounding area are depicted in Figure 2-3. Zoning within the area of concern is shown in Figure 2-4 and summarized be l ow: ZONING DISTRICT ACRES R2 Two Family Residential District 44.6 RA-0 Residential Agricultural District 32.1 combined with oil production RA-0-CD Residential Agricultural District 10.1 combined with oil production and civic district MI Light Industrial District 9.7 Cl Neighborhood Commercial District .9 The foregoing indicates that a significant portion of the property has not yet been brought into consistency with the medium density residential General Plan designation. The transitional and mixed use nature of the study area makes the establishment of a uniform land use category difficult. J � O O0000000 O U00 , �000�0°O°O°O°OOGOO°O°000°O 000°000°00000°O°OQ ■■■•■■••■■•■s 0000000000000 0000000000 ■ ■ ■ ■ m •� 000000000000 OOOOOOOUO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,•i �000000000000 00000000G ■•■■•■■■■■■■■ lam,• 0000000000000 0000000000 •■•■•■■■■■■■■ �_oc>oc00000000 000000000 u000000000000 00000Jo°o ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ !_ 000 00 ■ • ■ . d ■ ■ ..•..::t EX O O O O O O O O Op O O O • ■ ■ • • • ■ ■ ■ • • �;••� ;••� •.;•`• 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ e ■ . ■ ■ e ■ �:� .�: h Y O O O O • • • ■ ■ ■ ■ • • m ■ ■ • ■ • ■ ■ ■ •,• ,.�..,•,� •,.•.•rV.rrr• O O ODC O ••■1 GARFIELD■•■■■'•■■■ % •..:';.;..:t}..: / / :::::................................ ...................:..........:..... ............... / r ' r r. / / / i / N / %r r W r/ r r / r i, / r / r / / r / r .iiiiii'..�ii'.i� r r Z 'i ::::22:: / /r ..2.i Y C C L A O c� z ......•.... iiiii •,-; •r• .:c .• .• :iii•.iiiii•.iiiiiiiiiiiii�•.ii'.iiiiii•.iS•.::•.i7i:::t•.::2i:•.::::::2: .�..r. 1- 1 1 i r � 1. \- RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL PUBUC USE ESTATE 5 Z un/9ac ® GENERAL PUBLIC.WAS I•PUBLK.IASTITUTI OU ESTATE 4un/gac :=;= • OFFICE PROFESSIONAL t" OPEN SPACE MI LOW DENSITY SL-n�ac INDUSTRIAL OTHER USES MEDIUM DENSITY ■ ■ GENERAL ° ' RESOURCE PRODUCTION Figure 2-3 00 GENERAL PLAN �, GARFIELD - GOLDENWEST AREA huntington beach planning division B -5 - IR l � ,\ wrw000RE ca M2-0 R3 8604__ 90 399T5 TO E Igo RA-0 M I-0 R3 R2 N LN LOT) 300 r wi.. w0 RA-0-C MI-0 W R2 i �zo . ERNEST AVE uI m R5 S. / 33o a m MI-0-CD , mf PACIFICA C 1 c,. _ (DI R 500 W MI-0 M2'0I 9 ; MI-A-CD R5 . Mi-o R5 R 2 J f RS 3oi To 3 5z j1.0 f p A R2 R2 F oA ^ R5 R5 R2 RZ _ 99 RA-0_ _ GARFIELD RA-0 8 CI x F n R2 Mi ,� ,� R5 e M R2 P � °R2 R 2 O Q RA-0 t� N W E 9LR 3003 f13o04 G RA 0§ R2 J R2 N T R. R2 MI R 2 9 R2 M I o i i PLAN(DISTRICT 1.) L Y Ci2-0- R3 (RESEWMIR) �ay� ~ - a _ �e � R2-O-PD �.PD o 0 0 ,o R2 r 1 RI C2-0-CD r C2-0 Ct " c OLL El— no•5rL -orvo i Az o-rD RI S_cz oNzR fi 'L� R2-0-PD CD O ,�Yne r N W r (J 4 R C2-0-CD R5-0-CD R2-O-FMD I � 9 0. R2 to Figure 2-4 GARFIELD/GOLDENWEST AREA Zoning huntington beach planning division A-� Much of the area being considered has at one time or another been designated for industrial use. Four factors influenced the industrial designation: 1) alignment of the proposed Route I and 39 freeways in proximity to the area; 2) proximity and relationship to the Central Industrial Corridor; 3) existing industrial and oil-related uses and; 4) availability of vacant land suitable for industrial development. In 1972 and 1974, the State deleted the Route I and 39 freeways respectively from its Master Plan, considerably lessening the area's desirability as a location for new industrial development. Since then, the concept of a north-south freeway between the San Diego Freeway and the coast has been indicated on the 1978 Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways, although the precise alignment has not been resolved. The area was addressed in the first Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element in March, 1975. At that time, the site was placed in planning reserve in order.to allow for more comprehensive planning. When apartment projects were approved on several parcels at Crystal and Garfield, adjacent to oil operations, the Planning Department requested an amendment to change the planning reserve designation. In October, 1976, General Plan Amendment 76-2 redesignated the entire area to medium density residential. This redesignation was based on the findings presented in the Industrial Land Use Study in June, 1976. The study concluded that the southern corridor contained an excess of vacant industrial property which was either unsuitable for industrial park development or attractive only to marginal uses. The study further concluded that the City could not maximize fiscal benefits from such uses. Staff recommended a program of industrial land reduction unless the City was willing to commit public expenditures toward improvements attractive to industry. Since. 1976, the Planning Comm ission has considered various approaches to implementing the General Plan's residential designation. The zoning is now fragmented among RA-0, R2, Cl and MI designations. Uniform residential zoning would create non-conforming industrial uses, while industrial zoning could not guarantee an orderly residential transition. As a result, the Planning Commission directed staff to undertake a comprehensive study of the area in 1978, and recommend specific zoning and development policies .for the Commission's consideration. Since completion of the Garfield-Goldenwest Study, the Commission has debated the issues and tabled action pending further study. In the meantime, various owners within the area of concern have made the present request for a General Plan amendment to change the residential designation to industrial. The nine individuals requesting the General Plan amendment own industrial or oil property covering approximately 19 acres, or 20 percent, of the total 97 acre study area. The Huntington Beach Company is the largest single owner within the area, with 30 percent of the total property. The Mola Development Company owns another I I percent. The City of Huntington Beach and the Cambro Company are third and fourth with eight percent and six percent, respectively. The remainder is divided among 44 small owners. B •7 2.1.2 Analysis The group of property owners have requested that the entire 97 acre study area be redesignated industrial. The analysis addresses three land use alternatives. The first option is retention of the medium density residential designation. The second alternative is a change to industrial. The third alternative provides for a mix of medium density residential and industrial categories in order to minimize the creation of non-conforming uses. The three alternatives are depicted in Figure 2-5. I. Land Use The area of concern occupies a key location in the City-at the Main Street entrance to the Civic Center area and the Downtown business district. Goldenwest Street abuts the study area and connects the beaches with Central Park and the City's interior. Although now general planned medium density residential, the area is essentially transitional between the Central Industrial Corridor to the north and designated residential areas to the south. This is manifested in the diversity of uses occupying the site. Oil extraction, industrial services and manufacture, and apartment developments characterize the area. The establishment of the southern boundary of the Central Industrial Corridor has been an issue for several years. Both Garfield Avenue and Clay Avenue have served this purpose, and numerous arguments exist to support either alternative. If the existing Garfield boundary is maintained (Alternative 1), a residential designation of the subject property is justified by the following considerations: a. The Southern Pacific Railroad terminates at Garfield Avenue; the area to the south derives no direct benefits from the railroad operations. While the importance of rail access has declined with the advent of a comprehensive network of freeways and arterial highways, the railroad still constitutes a desirable feature for locating industrial uses. The abandonment of the railroad through the study area reinforces the logic of maintaining Garfield as the southern terminus of the industrial corridor. b. The attractiveness of industrial property diminishes with, increasing distance from freeway and highway systems. The deletion of the Route I and 39 freeways from the State Master Plan has significantly reduced the desirability of potential industrial sites in the southern reaches of the Central Industrial Corridor. The future realignment of Gothard Street to connect with Crystal Street will improve truck access to the distant San Diego Freeway; but until this project is constructed (estimated at two to five years by the Department of Public Works), highway and freeway access will 3-8 ` p9�� Q • GARFIELD Alternative I J l IL T. ti ti ti.•.,�� ,.} •,•tir:;�' r.:; •�,,fir � . . .� {•�:;. i •fir ,ti°•' r :;. CLAY PR C7 Alternative 6 GARFIELD Alternative 2 JII ' I ■ eB • • • ° • gyp° •sm °e•e�■ � . di e • ■ •e • e •• eeee • ea ■ ° • m• :• Ba ■ : a °• • oo °:e'ei� •••■ ••■ • ■ ■ • ••• e ■ • ■ •B : • ■ :es ..a. • •• + • ee • ■ see■•■ •� °: °•i••i W °::a :see °■i•• • • Z `• a •e • e •e•ee• • • • • • ° ■• • • • • °ei•i :e:: 0 CL Y _ -7 F1,-FF71 FT C7 Alternative Q GARFIELD Alternative 3 e T •• a e e� • ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ : •i i i •i ■ • • • •o• •• • •■• ° ■• •■ ••e ■•• •• :• •• • •i :::o•v ::: •i•i e • :•: °•a• r °:00 s:::e ■ ••• ••e • ° • ■••■• ■ ■' ••• ■ o•• •• •••e •• • ■ •i •i•::a•: ■• • e a • • ■••■ •■ e °: i• •:■i°■N . . . . ... .. .. . . . . . a• . •°:• : �i ••� • i ••i :i •v e _ �e • •■ • •• •e e a •i :e :::: o CLAY 8 IITI� LEGEND Medium Density Residential Industrial Figure 2-5 Garfield/Goldenwest Area Land Use Alternatives huntington beach planning division B.-9 remain poor. Property in the study area will likely be attractive only to miscellaneous service industries or warehousing until more desirable sites are depleted elsewhere in the City and County. C. Main Street traverses a portion of the study area diagonally, creating small irregular shaped parcels which are more conducive to residential development. Main Street south of Garfield also serves as the "gateway" to the Civic Center and Downtown areas. Unless zoned restrictively through MI-A and CD designations, industrial uses and the traffic they create would detract significantly from this function. However, more restrictive zoning on the lots fronting Main Street would increase the difficulty of compliance with development code requirements. d. The parcels fronting Garfield Avenue between Goldenwest Street and the railroad right-of-way are smaller than the minimum standard required for industrial development, and ownerships are fragmented. Some consolidation will be necessary if buildable sites are to be created. The existence of many small lots along Garfield also implies numerous curb cuts and hazardous arterial access. To reduce the number of access points off Garfield Avenue would require changing the City easements paralleling the south side of the lots to 15 foot alleyways. With numerous small developments, however, even a 15 foot alley would be inadequate to mitigate truck congestion. Although not presently existing, the lots fronting Garfield would be more conducive to residential development with rear alley access. e. Approximately one half of the area south of Garfield Avenue is zoned for medium density residential uses and a large number of residential units have already been developed or is under construction (Figure 2-4). If the southern boundary of the Central Industrial Corridor is extended to Clay Avenue (Alternative 2), an industrial designation is supported by the following factors: a. Approximately 450 acres, or 21 percent of the City's vacant land, is designated industrial by the General Plan. As of January, 1979, 925 acres have developed as industrial uses at an annual rate of S -oo approximately 40 acres. If this trend continues, all remaining vacant industrial land would develop by 1990. The addition of the study site increases the industrial area available for development by approxiamte ly 58 acres, or 13 percent of the current vacant industrial land. The remaining 39 acres are now encumbered by residential, industrial, commercial and public uses. b. Much of the vacant land within the area of concern is now devoted to oil production, while the leading developed use is industrial. As long as these uses continue to operate, industrial development would be more compatible than residential development. Adverse impacts would include noise, motor emissions, and odors generated by oil recompletion equipment and industrial trucking; congestion caused by the mix of residential traffic and industrial trucking; and general safety hazards from oil pumps and machinery. If the area develops piecemeal, street improvements would be constructed incrementally. The interim use of residential streets by trucking and heavy equipment would adversely impact the new improvements and result in costly maintenance. C. Residential uses south of Garfield Avenue would isolate one of the City's. most substantial industries, the Cambro Manufacturing Company, from the Central Industrial Corridor and would compound the compatibility problems that presently exist. Likewise, the resource production area south of Garfield Avenue and west of Goldenwest Street would also be isolated from the industrial corridor. d. The.proposed alignment of Gothard Street with Crystal Street will provide access to the area which does not presently exist for truck traffic. This improvement as well as the depletion of prime industrial sites elsewhere will increase the attractiveness of the study area to quality light manufacturing and mixed commercial/industrial uses over the long-term. The two foregoing scenarios assume that the entire area of concern either retains the medium density residential land use designation or is changed to industrial. Alternative 3 divides the area among residential and industrial uses primarily along the lines of existing development. a. Almost 60 percent of the area is still vacant or in oil production which is expected to phase out over the next 10 to 15 years. Industrial .and residential uses occupy most of the remaining area. These divisions imply that the study area need not be entirely committed to any single use. Residential and industrial developments are reasonably concentrated, which minimizes non-conforming uses. The City Council recently adopted an B�!I ordinance to allow the establishment of non-conforming industrial uses in RA districts which do not have permanent zoning. However, such use must result from displacement through governmental acquisition of the parcel upon which the use was originally located. Related to Alternative 3, most existing industrial and/or oil uses occur west from the lots fronting Crystal Street to Goldenwest Street and east of the railroad right-of-way, while residential development is concentrated in the middle of the site and along Main Street. This provides for continuity of the westerly industrial area with the Central Industrial Corridor to the north while retaining compatibility with resource production west of Goldenwest Street. The inclusion of industrial on the lots fronting Crystal Street on the east side would accommodate existing uses and minimize adverse traffic impacts, but would result in close proximity of residential and industrial uses. The block east of the railroad right-of-way is dominated by industrial uses; namely, the Cambro factory and City water facility. An industrial land use designation on the property would accommodate these uses but the area would be physically isolated from the Central Industrial Corridor. 2. Economic Considerations The Planning staff in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc. conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the three land use alternatives using the computerized methodology developed for the City. For the purposes of analysis, the revenues and expenditures of each alternative were projected over a 10 year period,; 1980-1990. The results are detailed in Appendix A. 3. Housing The City recently adopted a state mandated revision to the Housing Element of the General Plan, which includes policy aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes. The revised element includes provisions for consideration of an inclusionary zoning ordinance that could require a certain percentage of new residential developments to be affordable to lower income households. Areas designated medium and high density offer the best opportunities to provide such housing, especially if density bonuses are to be utilized. However, most areas designated medium or high density in the City are developed. Developable land within the area of concern represents 58 acres or approximately 16 percent of the total (356 acres) remaining vacant medium density land in the City. B -tZ r _ The proposed amendment of the Garfield - Goldenwest Area to industrial would further limit the City's options in the provision of affordable housing by reducing the already small amount of medium density area remaining in the City. If the medium density residential designation is retained on the subject property, approximately 900 dwelling units could be added to the City's housing stock at ultimate development. Adoption of an inclusionary zoning i ordinance could potentially require that between 90 and 225 units be available for these households. However, fragmented land ownership and the phase=out of oil operations will likely generate piecemeal development (even with PD zoning) and reduce the potential for inclusionary lower cost housing. Alternative 3 _ provides for mixed residential and industrial use designations. Lower income housing potential would be extremely limited .under this scenario because most of the residential area between Crystal and the railroad right-of-way is developed or under construction, and the remaining vacant land is highly fragmented in ownership. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The study area is presently serviced by a 24-inch County sewer trunkline that extends south in Crystal Street above Garfield and then east in Garfield Avenue. A 12-inch interceptor ties into the trunkline along Garfield Avenue west of Crystal Street. Eight-inch sewer lines in Crystal Street and Holly Street north of Main Street direct flows from existing developments to the County trunkline. An eight-inch sewer, in the alley between Crystal and Holly serves developments fronting Garfield Avenue. Sewer facilities are depicted in Appendix B. Additional sewers will be required to service the study area at ultimate residential .or industrial development. The eight-inch alley sewer will be extended west to Crystal Street as each lot develops. The remainder of the parcels along Garfield west of Crystal Street will lateral directly to the 12-inch interceptor. Additional eight-inch lines are planned in Stewart and Goldenwest Streets to tie into the 12-inch interceptor at Garfield Avenue. A final eight-inch sewer will conduct future flows along Clay Avenue to Main Street and then into the existing Holly Street line. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the impacts associated with the three proposed alternatives in relation to the findings of the final Sewer Master Plan prepared by Lowry and Associates. The study indicates that there are no deficiencies expected within the general area. The existing and proposed sewer system can accommodate flows generated by either medium density residential or industrial developments. ACIKk �-t3 LQCVV r a b. Water Water is available to the area via a 42-inch trunkline which extends along Goldenwest Street and then east along Clay Avenue. Six- and eight-inch lines in all local streets and Main Street tie into the trunk line at C lay. The Department of Public Works indicates that the area west of Crystal Street is located within Water Pressure Zone No. 2. Normal line water pressures in the zone are presently inadequate to provide a suitable level of service, and must be increased by means of a booster station. The existing booster station is incapable of serving the subject area whether developed medium density residential or industrial. In addition, the existing six-inch lines are undersized and will require upgrading to eight-inch lines to serve most types of industrial users or residential developments. A change from medium density residential to industrial would also require increased flow to supply water and meet fire flow standards. To meet these demands, a 12-inch looped water main system in Garfield Avenue would be required for industrial uses versus an eight- or ten-inch system for medium density residential developments. Water:facilities are shown in Appendix C. i C. Storm Drains With the exception of the apartments at Garfield and Holly, and several industrial businesses along Crystal Street, local streets and arterials lack curbs and gutters. There also are no drainage lines presently serving the, area. This results in intermittent ponding during periods of heavy rainfall. Most runoff is directed by gravity flow to the intersections of Garfield and the local streets where it ponds. Ponding also occurs at Holly and Main. The study area is located within the benefit area of the Old Town drainage project which the City has so far constructed at a cost of approximately $2,251;000 (Appendix D). Approximately $1,000,000 for the project has been funded with Housing and Community Development monies. The main Delaware trunkline from Adams to Garfield is complete. One branch of the project is proposed to extend west from Delaware Street into the area of concern: a 36-inch line will extend to the intersection of Garfield and Main; a 33-inch line will then continue westward along Garfield Avenue for about 400 feet while a 24-inch line branches south along Main Street for a similar distance. The segments of the Old Town project within the study area will not be phased in until development pressures increase. The Department of Public Works has indicated that a change in land 'use designation from medium density residential to industrial would increase storm runoff approximately five percent. B �I� 1 This increase would not have a significant effect on the capability of the drainage facility proposed to serve the area. d. Parks The area of concern is located approximately one-half mile from the planned Huntington Community Park and three-fourths of a mile from Huntington Central Park. No neighborhood parks are currently planned for the immediate area, but these two facilities could be considered adequate to serve recreation and park needs generated by residential development within the area of concern. However, there is presently no adopted City policy which credits regional and community parks as serving neighborhood park needs. Until such a change in City policy officially occurs, the study area would be deficient in neighborhood park facilities by approximately 11 acres under the medium density residential and by five acres under the mixed industrial-residential alternatives.) e. Police and Fire Protection The Police Department operates from one police facility located at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The present authorized level of police manning is approximately 1.17 officers per 1,000 persons. In order to maintain the current level of service, police levels would have to be increased by three officers for the medium density residential alternative, and by one officer for the industrial proposal. Due to the close proximity of the site to the police station, a constant patrol of the area results from police units leaving and returning to the facility, thereby reducing the need for additional patrols. This is an important consideration since no new officers are expected to be hired because of Proposition 13 - related cutbacks. On-site security protection could minimize the increased demand on the Police Department. Of prime importance to the adequacy of fire protection coverage is response time, which is basically a function of the distance from the fire station to the incident location and the average speed of travel by fire engines. Fire stations should be located to provide an average response time of five minutes or less in 90 percent of the incidents. The study area is located entirely within this response limit and can be adequately serviced. A comparison of land use alternatives indicates no difference in response time is expected. As the area of concern develops, higher levels of manning will be necessary if the Fire Department is to maintain the level of service .required. 1 Huntington Beach Planning Department, Parks Analysis, 1977, pp. 6-9. $ -15 f. Schools The study area is served by Smith Elementary, Dwyer Intermediate, and Huntington Beach High School. Smith and Dwyer schools have remaining capacities of approximately 275 and 125 students, respectively. However, the additional students generated by already approved or pending developments (such as Seacliff IV and the "Ranch" townhouse development) will overburden these schools. If the area of concern is developed at the projected intensities, an increase of 199 elementary and 66 middle school students would result under the medium density residential alternative. The mixed industrial-residential alternative would increase elementary school enrollment by 56 students and intermediate school enrollment by 19 students. Expansion of existing school facilities or redistricting may be necessary. In general, the Huntington Beach Elementary School District is experiencing reduced enrollment and does have excess capacity in many of its schools. It should therefore be able to accommodate the projected enrollment generated by this and other projects in the area. The additional high school students generated, approximately 69 under the medium density residential alternative and 19 under the mixed industrial residential option, will further impact the already overcrowded conditions at Huntington Beach High School. The declining enrollment in the elementary and intermediate schools should result in a long-term decline in high school requirements. However, already approved or pending developments will further adversely impact'existing conditions in the near term. g. Gas and Electrical Utilities Natural gas service and electrical .service are provided by the Southern California Gas Company and, the Edison Company, respectively. A 12 inch gas supply line runs along Goldenwest Street. A four inch service line exists in Garfield Avenue east of Stewart Street with two inch lines serving apartment complexes on Holly Street and industrial uses on Crystal Street. Overhead 66 KV and 12 KV electrical lines run along Garfield Avenue while 12 KV lines are located along the local streets. Gas service is generally provided as a normal extension of existing facilities. However, the availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Federal L MW va J 134 regulatory agencies can also affect gas supply. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided according to the revised conditions. The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that electrical load requirements can be met through 1979 provided that electrical demand does not exceed estimates and there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply. The total electrical system demand is expected to continue to increase annually; and, if plans to proceed with future construction of new generating facilities are - delayed, Edison's capability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods could become m arg i na 1 by 1984. h. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City of Huntington Beach. No local service constraints are expected under the industrial and medium density residential land use designations. Orange County Refuse Disposal indicates that the refuse transfer station . in Huntington Beach will operate indefinitely. The Coyote Canyon landfill site is projected to reach capacity during 1981, but several replacement sites will begin operation at that time in accordance with the Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan. 5. Traffic Circulation The Garfield-Goldenwest Area is served by a number of arterials and local streets. Goldenwest Street, Garfield Avenue, and Main Street provide primary access to the study area. Goldenwest Street (a designated major arterial) has a daily traffic volume of 14,200 vehicles, while Garfield Avenue (a designated primary arterial) carries a volume of 2,600 vehicles per day. Main Street has a daily traffic volume of 15,000 vehicles. Clay Avenue and Huntington Street provide perimeter access on the south and east, respectively. Local streets and alleys serve the area's interior: Stewart, Crystal, and Holly Streets function as local streets, while an east-west easement funtions as an alley. The local streets are unimproved for the most part, and are used mainly as access roads to the oil field and various industrial businesses. The alley provides access to the lots fronting Garfield Avenue. It is estimated that the traffic generated by the potential land uses for the area will range between 7,080 and 12,450 vehicle trips per day. The medium density residential designation would result in an average 11,080 tiB•r� 1 daily vehicle trips. The industrial alternative would produce 9,070 trips per day, while the mixed industrial and residential option generates approximately 9,740 daily trips. When the projected traffic volumes are compared with street capacities, all of the streets will have volumes considerably less than their design capacity. The study area has been a focus of many unresolved traffic issues. A Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways adopted in 1976 was designed to accommodate projected traffic volume, improve circulation to residential and industrial developments in the immediate area with minimum traffic mix, and improve access to the Downtown and beach areas of the City. The major changes adopted in the Plan were: 1) the extension of Lake Street as a primary arterial north from Yorktown Avenue to Garfield Avenue along the railroad right-of-way (Lake Street to join Main Street at Garfield); 2) the vacation of Main from Garfield Avenue to Holly Street, and from Clay Avenue to the proposed Gothard-Crystal Street alignment (Main Street to be reduced to a 60-foot local street between Clay Avenue and Holly Street), and 3) the realignment of Gothard Street to connect with Crystal Street. The Gothard-Crystal alignment south of Garfield was designated as a primary arterial, having a width of 100 feet. As .a result of Planning Commission and City Council deliberation on the circulation issues within the general area, certain modifications have been or are now being made to the original plan. In March, 1979, the City Council deleted Lake Street between Yorktown and Garfield from the Circulation Plan. This decision necessitates that Main Street be redesignated as a primary arterial along its present alignment. The Main Street designation is proposed for addition to the Plan in Circulation Element Amendment 80-I.. The Gothard-Crystal realignment is to be retained as a primary arterial, and will improve industrial access to regional . highway and freeway systems. It will also reduce potential conflicts between industrial and residential traffic in the local area. 6. Environmental Issues This section identifies the significant environmental impacts associated with the land uses evaluated. a. Geotechnical The study area lies immediately north of the North Branch Fault within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. The fault is reflected on the surface by a series of hills and depressions. Reservoir Hill directly south of Clay Avenue is the most prominent feature in the S A 9 belt with the topography generally sloping north and east through the area of concern. The portion of the study area is within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, but is not within a designated earthquake hazard areal . Any development, however, whether industrial or residential, may be subject to seismic activity by virtue of its location within the Newport-Inglewood Zone. Appropriate structural requirements would be imposed by the City on all such projects. In addition, an engineering geologist analysis may also be required. b. No ise Regardless of the land use designation implemented, a mix of industrial and residential uses will characterize the area of concern in the future: Mixed industrial truck and residential traffic will create high noise levels in some areas. Any new residential development adjacent to Goldenwest Street will be subjected to noise levels in excess of the normally acceptable levels for residential areas. Typical exterior treatments such as walls and berms may not be feasible to. reduce the Ldn 70 level to the City standard of Ldn 60 for exterior and Ldn 45 for interior noise levels. In this case, special mitigation measures such as unit modifications, building placement, and barrier construction, would be required to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. Areas adjacent to Garfield Avenue, Crystal Street and Main Street would also be subject to noise levels that are in excess of City standards. Residential developments will also be subject to noise levels in excess of Ldn 60 from oil pumps and engines as production phases out in the study area. These impacts can be mitigated through barriers, oil equipment mufflers, and building placement. C. Air Quality Development under industrial and medium density land uses will effect air quality within the South Coast region. An industrial land use designation would generate less pollutants than medium density residential use - approximately 2.05 tons of emissions per day and 2.31 tons per day respectively. The primary air emissions generated include carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and sulfur oxides from stationary and mobile sources. Automobile and truck traffic produce most of the pollutants with a small portion attributable to local heating and oil activities. I Based upon the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Geologic hazard Zone Act J criteria of the State Mining and Geology Board. � -rq ® I t 1 Figure 2-6 summarizes the air emissions generated by the three land use alternatves. The estimated tonnage of pollutants may be reduced as newer motor vehicles replace older models, new advances in engine design are implemented, or public transportation is expanded. 2.1 .3 Staff Recommendation Ultimate development of the area as medium density residential will preserve compatibility with the Seacliff Planned Community to the west, and other medium density areas to the east and south. The subject property also occupies a key location in the City, between Central Park and the Civic Center/Downtown areas. A medium density designation enhances the "gateway" function of Main Street (and possibly Goldenwest Street) which serves these areas. Another consideration is that a large number of residential units have been developed or are under construction. While non-conforming uses would occur under either industrial or residential designations the environmental effects (air, traffic, and noise) associated with industrial development could be expected to be more severe in impact on surrounding uses than those associated with residential development. An argument could be made to support an industrial designation on at least the block east of the railroad right-of-way since it is dominated by the Cambro plant and City water facility. An industrial land use designation on the property would accommodate these uses but the area would be physically isolated from the Central Industrial Corridor to the north. A final consideration is that a medium density residential land use designation would enhance the City's options in the provision of affordable housing to low and moderate income households. The medium density would offer an opportunity to provide such housing under an inclusionary zoning ordinance with the utilization of density bonuses. Staff, therefore, recommends that the Garfield-Goldenwest area retain the existing medium density residential land use designation on the entire site. In order to guide new development and encourage compatibility with oil operations and industrial uses as they phase out, the Planning Commission should consider implementation of the policy recommendations on pages 17-21 in the Garfield-Goldenwest Study. 2.1.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the Garfield-Goldenwest area be continued to Land Use Element Amendment 80-2. The Commission directed staff to investigate the feasibilityand legal ramifications of placing a resource production overlay on the existing medium density residential designation to protect oil uses from premature residential development. 8-Zo FIGURE 2-6 PROJECTED DAILY EMISSIONS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE I Emission Source Tons of Emissions/Day Mobile 1.70 . Stationary .61 TOTAL 2.31 INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE 2 Emission Source Tons of Emissions/Day Mobile 1.86 Stationary .19 TOTAL 2.05 MIXED INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE 3 Emission Source Tons of Emissions/Day Mobile 1.85 Stationary .30 TOTAL 2.15 l Developed from EPA AP-42 for .the average vehicle and stationary source in the South Coast Air Basin. 'APPENDIX C. MEMO FROM CITY ATTORNEY RE: RESPONSE PRODUCTION OVERLAY 6 ...', , . .� .GTE Ui�.n.�Sf► �• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC ►Jl. r►rd►r�.a DEPT. c! INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH P. 0. ih.x i 9U To JAMES PALIN From GAIL HUTTON Director , Development Services City Attorney Subject Request for Legal Opinion Date October 5 , 1981 Land Use Element Amendment 81-2 You have asked whether a "resource production overlay" may be placed in the city' s general plan to prohibit new uses except oil uses in the Goldenwest/Garfield area. The area is currently general planned medium-density residential. The principal problem is , of course , inverse condemnation. The Supreme Court has still not ruled on the question of whether a landowner is entitled to damages when his property is allegedly "taken" by a regulatory ordinance claimed to violate the " just compensation" clause of the Fifth Amendment . However , four of the nine justices are on record as viewing the Fifth Amendment as requiring compensation when a governmental regulation denies an owner economically viable use of his land , even if the regu- latory "taking" is temporary. See dissent to. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego (1981) 67 L. Ed. 2d 551 , 563. Historical precedent appears to support this view. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) 260 U. S. 393 (if a regulation goes too far , it will be recognized as a taking. ) In Agins v. Tiburon (1980) 447 U. S. 255 , the court did not reach the issue of whether an owner could recover damages for inverse condemnation if zoning ordinances constituted a taking , because it held that there was no taking (appellants could still build as many as five houses under a development plan) . In view of this state of the law_, we deem it dangerous to enact land use regulations which have the effect of precluding econo- mically viable use of land. While it is a question. of fact whether your proposal would constitute a taking, it is arguable that the overlay would preclude economi- cally viable use of land where oil use is not feasible or where a landowner has only surface rights . With this background, we take your questions in order: 1 . Can this overlay be applied for an indefinite period of time? If a definite time period must be specified, how many years is reasonable? Answer: The length of time for any general plan designation is determined by long-range planning considerations and is usually indefinite . If the use limitation is valid, it probably should be indefinite; at least until the oil is extracted. G71 2 . Would it be reasonable to apply the overlay until such time as a specific plan .for the area can be prepared? Answer: If you are seeking to limit development until specific plans are prepared, perhaps you should consider a partial zoning moratorium. (Gov' t Code §65858 . ) 3 . Would the overlay, as proposed, prohibit the develop- ment of residential uses that do not require a tract/ parcel map nor a zone change (e . g. apartments on a parcel that currently has R2 zoning) ? Answer : A general plan is a "constitution" for all future development , and it has the force and effect of law. Zoning must be consistent with the general plan, and if the plan is amended, the zoning must be made consistent within a reasonable time . (Gov' t Code §65860 . ) Thus , development must be consistent with the general plan. The . city may not approve a subdivision map unless it finds consistency with the general plan and compliance with environmental laws . (Youngblood v_. Board of Supervisors (1978 ) 22 C . 3d 644 , 150 C .R. 242 . ) As a result, it is improper to issue a building permit for a development that is inconsistent with the general plan. See Save El Toro Assn v. Days (1977 ) 74 C .A. 3d 643 141 C .R. 2 2 , and Igna v. City of Baldwin Park (1970) 9 C .A. 3d 909 , 88 C .R. 581, 5FT. — In summary, it is our view that the proposal runs a risk of inverse condemnation. If you find the current general plan .designation incompatible with the uses in the area, perhaps you should consider amending the plan to change that designated use. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney RCS :pp cc : Art Folger, Esq. APPENDIX D FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 81-2 In cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., the computerized fiscal impact methodology was used to analyze the proposed land uses presented in Land Use Element Amendment 81-2. The fiscal impact evaluation encompassed the land use alternatives considered for areas of concern 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. Area 3.1 (Meadowlark Airport Area) Five land use alternatives were evaluated for the 64.0 acre area located on the existing Meadowlark Airport site north of Warner Avenue and east of Bolsa Chica Street: 1) Low Density Residential a) Mobile Home Park - 450 mobile homes with an average value of $65,000 per unit including the value of park improvements. b) Low Density Residential - 416 low, density condominiums with an average sale price of $135,000. 2) Commercial/Low Density Residential - 343 mobile homes with an average value of $65,000 per unit including the value of park improvements; and 149,285 square feet of retail commercial space with an estimated value of $12,316,050. 3) Commercial/Medium Density Residential - 735 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $115,000 per unit; and 149,285 square feet of retail commercial space with an estimated value of $12,316,050. 4) High Density/Medium Density Residential - 735 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $115,000 per unit; and 525 high density condominiums with an average sale price of $95,000 per unit. 5) Mixed Development/Med iu m Density Residential - 850 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $115,000 per unit; and 55,000 square feet of mixed office and retail commercial space with an estimated value of $5,426,078. Table 1 shows that over the t6n-year period chosen, all of the alternatives generate a surplus ranging from $130,100 for the mobile home park only alternative to $2,596,400 for the commercial/medium density residential alternative. Area 3.2 (Commodore Circle Area) Three land .use alternatives were evaluated for the 4.5 acre area located on Commodore Circle between Huntington and Delaware Streets: 1) Medium Density Residential 80 existing apartments with an average assessed value of $39,742 per unit. D-1 2) Medium-High Density Residential - 113 medium-high density condominiums with an average sale price of $95,000 per unit. 3) High Density Residential - 158 high density condominiums with an average sale price of . 75,000 per unit. Table 2 shows that over the ten-year period chosen, the medium-high and high density condominium alternatives generate similar surpluses of approximately $158,000 each on a cash flow basis. The existing land use (80 apartments) produces a deficit of $153,500 on a cash flow basis. Area 3.3 (Newman-Van Buren Area) Three land use alternatives were evaluated for the 1.0 acre area located on the northeast corner of Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street: 1) Medium Density Residential - 15 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $105,000 per unit. 2) Medium-High Density Residential - 25 medium-high density condominiums with an average sale price of $95,000 per unit. 3) Office Professional - 11,000 square feet of office space with an estimated value of 423,100; and a tax exempt 9,600 square foot church building. Table 3 indicates that the medium density residential alternative will generate a $24,500 surplus over 10 years while the medium-high density alternative will generate $34,700. The office professional alternative will produce an $18,900 deficit over ten years on a cash flow basis. Area 3.4 (Beach-Atlanta Area) Five land use alternatives were evaluated for the 9.8 acre area located east of Beach Boulevard and south of Atlanta Avenue: 1) General Commercial/Medium Density Residential - 123 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $150,000 per unit; and 21,923 square feet of retail commercial space with an estimated value of $1,522,425. 2) Medium Density Residential - 147 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $150,000 per unit. 3) Medium-High Density Residential - 245 medium-high density condominiums with an average sale price of 120,000 per unit. 4) High Density Residential - 343 high density condominiums with an average sale price of . 90,000 per unit. 5) Visitor-Serving Commercial - 97,510 square feet of mixed office and retail commercial space with an estimated value of $8,046,486. Table 4 indicates that over the ten-year period chosen, every alternative will generate a surplus on a cash flow basis. The smallest surplus of $162,700 is generated by the visitor-serving commercial alternative, while the medium-high density residential alternative generates the largest surplus at $466,100. D-2 Cumulative Fiscal Impact of LUE 81-2 In addition to evaluating each area of concern separately, the cumulative fiscal implications of Land Use ' Element Amendment 81-2 should be considered by decision-makers. As shown in Tables 1-4, the total fiscal impact of the amendment is optimized if the commercial/medium density residential alternative is selected for Area 3.1, the medium-high density residential alternatives are selected for Areas 3.2 and 3.4, and the medium density residential alternative is selected for Area 3.3. This scenario would generate a maximum surplus of $3,255,800 over the next ten years. The least favorable combination of land uses from a fiscal standpoint occurs if: the low density residential (mobile home park) alternative is selected for Area 3.1; the existing medium density residential alternative is selected for Area 3.2; the office professional alternative is selected for Area 3.3; and, the visitor-serving commercial alternative is selected for Area 3.4. However, this scenario still results in a net surplus of $120,400. The significance of these results is that any combination of land uses selected will generate a positive fiscal impact on the City. D-3 TABLE 1: Ten-Year Summary Comparison of the Proposed Alternatives for the Meadowlark Airport Area (Area 3.1) Alt. lA Alt. 1B Alt. 2 Cash Flow Basis Mobile Home Park Low Density Commercial/Low Density Revenue (1) 2019.4 2524.9 3668.2 Cost (1) 1889.3 1615.3 2263.2 Revenue-Cost (1) 130.1 909.6 1405.0 Revenue/Cost 1.07 1.56 1.62 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Cash Flow Basis Comm/Medium Density High/Med. Density Mixed Dev./Med. Density Revenue (1) 5948.1 6477.1 4948.6 Cost (1) 3351.7 4493.3 3284.0 Revenue-Cost (1) 2596.4 1983.8 1664.6 Revenue/Cost 1.77 1.44 1.51 (1) in $1,000 D-4 TABLE 2: Ten-Year Summary Comparison of the Proposed Alternatives for the Commodore Circle Area (Area 3.2) Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Cash Flow Basis Existing Med. Den. Med.-High Den. High Density Revenue (1) 445.6 613.2 775.6 Cost (1) 599.1 454.6 617.6 Revenue-Cost (1) -153.5 158.6 158.0 Revenue/Cost .74 1.35 1.26 (1) in $1,000 r D-5 TABLE 3: Ten-Year Summary Comparison of the Proposed Alternatives for the Newman-Van Buren Area (Area 3.3) Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Cash Flow Basis Medium Density Med-High Density Office Professional Revenue (1) 81.6 131.0 7.3 Cost (1) 57.1 96.3 26.2 Revenue-Cost (1) 24.5 34.7 -18.9 Revenue/Cost 1.43 1.36 .28 (1) in $1,000 D-6 TABLE 4: Ten-Year Summary Comparison of the Proposed Alternatives for the Beach-Atlanta Area (Area 3.4) Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Cash Flow Basis Comm./Med. Den. Medium Density Med.-High Density Revenue (1) 932.6 878.2 1331.8 Cost (1) 525.7 482.8 865.7 Revenue-Cost (1) 406.9 395.4 466.1 Revenue/Cost 1.77 1.82 1.53 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Cash Flow Basis High Density Visitor-Serving Commercial Revenue (1) 1645.0 675.6 Cost (1) 1191.3 512.9 Revenue-Cost (1) 453.7 162.7 Revenue/Cost 1.38 1.32 (1) in $1,000 D-7 APPENDIX E.. Information on Commodore Circle f;i`1TWGTr'i BEACH PI ANNl 4 Ji 9' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEA �� S OCT 1 `' � - INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION �y (' [ 6' HlN GTON'BFACH ` ' `ECEIVED 1-fund n Beach, G,' `'264£3 ` 1 �'C T - $ 1 v �. OFFICE To Earle W. Robitaille From Jim\Mo e; p;c CHIEF ] (via Chain of Command) C,�'ime Analyst P. D. / Subject POLICE CALLS TO COI*1ODORE CIRCLE Date October 8, 1981 1. Since January 1, 1981, there have been 29 crime reports filed involving the apartments on Commodore Circle. 2. 483• reports have originated from this reporting district (412) since January 1, 1981. However, this figure should not be used in computing a percentage rate due to the unusually high number of reports generated by Five Points Shopping Center, Pacifica Hospital, and the public streets and highways. By excluding the reports from these locations, 104 reports were filed. Therefore, Commodore Circle represents 28% of the crime reports filed in the residential areas of this reporting district. Incidently, in a city-wide comparison of all reporting districts, the total calls for service for reporting district 412 was the 8th-highest. y 3. By computing the number of reports filed from apartment complexes throughout the city by street, Commodore Circle ranked third highest without regard to size or number of complexes. There were a total of 1151 reports written from apartments during the first 8 months of _1981. These apartments where reports were taken are located on 230 different streets, city-wide. The rankings are as follows: Street No. of reports % of total reports 1. Warner 70 6.1% 2. Florida and Heil 38 each 3.3% each 3. Commodore and Viewpoint 29 each 2.5%, each The balance of 947 reports were distributed among the remaining 225 streets.. Based upon this comparison, the average number of reports on Commodore Circle is greater than the majority. of other areas. , cc: Captain Jenkins Captain Ekstrom. Mr. Palin (Per your request of 9/24/81) E1 APPENDIX E. - Information on Commodore Circle J• fm COY �� i-iU�iTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION r HUNTINGTON 81ACl1 To Walt Lipps From Bob Kirby Chief Land Use Technician Land Use Technician Subject Commador Apartment Date July 23, 1979 Projects (Violation) On July 20, 1979, an inspection conducted on the subject property revealed the accumulation of miscellaneous debris throughout the alley and carport areas. There has been some miscellaneous damage to the wall abutting the Hunt- ington Creek condominium development (some missing blocks , grafety, • etc. ) The general condition of the Commador apartment project is one of total disrepair. The carports appear to be badly damaged and possibly structurally unsound in areas . BK: jh i i i 1 i I , E2 APPENDIX F. E. I .R. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT i September 11, 1981 i HUNTINGT�'N BEACH i Mr. James Barnes PLANNING DEPT. Associate Planner � City of Huntington Beach 5...,!� !. P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P. U. Dear Mr. Barnes:, f SUBJECT: DEIR 81-4 for GPA 81-2 IThank you for forwarding us a copy of DEIR 81-4 for GPA 81-2 for review and comment. We would first like to say that we support the proposal to increase density allowances in the medium high density category. Increased densities along transit-served corridors could encourage transit ridership. The proposed general plan amendment suggests a number of changes in policy and land use for the City' s General Plan. The potential impacts of these changes on most public services and utilities, except public transit, were properly addressed. We believe that public transit should be given equal attention and discussion in the report. Among the four specific areas proposed for land use changes, we feel that the Meadowlark and Beach/Atlanta proposals could represent significant impacts on transit. Higher densities, in general, tend to have a positive effect on transit ridership on existing routes. In the long run, dependent on the ultimate development plans, these proposals may create demand for new transit services and/or increases in bus frequency. Therefore, we would suggest consideration of on- street bus facilities and amenities to encourage transit usage and to ensure safe and convenient transit accessibility. I i i 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 3005 • GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92642 • PHONE(714)971.6200 Mr. James Barnes . '. September 11, 1981 ; Page Two Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR. If there are any questions relative to our comments, please contact me or Mike Haack at 971-6405. Sincerely, i /a i Dick Hsu Environmental Coordinator i DH:MHK i 1 i i I i i I RESPONSE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT 1. MEADOWLARK AIRPORT AREA (3. 1) Comments incorporated into Section 3. 1. 2 (5) of the text of this report. 2. COMMODORE CIRCLE AREA (3 . 2) No specific comment, no response. 3. NEWMAN - VAN BUREN AREA (3. 3) No specific comment, no response. 4 . BEACH - ATLANTA AREA (3 . 4) Comments incorporated into Section 3. 4 . 2 (5) of the text of this report. etLT+ur . COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS $� `�� AREA CODE TEL E PH ON 7 4 540-291 O OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 2-2 4 1 1 P. 0. BOX 6127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY) October 12, 1981 U CT City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 i t �, {: ,;, BC)a", Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: James R. Barnes, Associate Planner Subject: EIR 81-4 The Districts are in receipt of subject EIR. Master plans flow coefficients have been assigned to various types of development within those areas of the Sanitation Districts as follows: 1. Meadowlark Airport Area - Low Density Residential - Flow Coefficient 1550 gallons per day per acre. 2. Commodore Circle Area - Commercial - Flow Coefficent 3230 gallons per day per acre. 3. Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street - Medium Density Residential - 3880 gallons per day per acre. 4 . Beach Boulevard, south of Atlanta Avenue - Medium Density Residential - 3880 gallons per day per acre. As long as the discharges from the proposed developments do not exceed the master planned flows, no mitigation measures will be required. If the discharges exceed the master plan, flow reduc tion. devices should be incorporated. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call . Hilary J. Baker Sr. Engineering Aide HJB: he RESPONSE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY 1. MEADOWLARK AIRPORT AREA (3.1) See comments incorporated into Section 3. 1. 2 (4) of the text of this document. 2. COMMODORE CIRCLE AREA (3. 2) See comments incorporated into Section 3 . 2 . 2 (4) of the text of this document. 3. NEWMAN - VAN BUREN AREA (3. 3) Predicted flows under any of the three Land Use alternatives under consideration would not exceed CSDOC master planned flows. 4 . BEACH - ATLANTA AREA (3. 4) See comments incorporated . into Section 3. 3. 2 (4) of the text of this document. ♦ C South Coast AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS, 9150 E. FLAIR DR., EL MONTE, CA 91731 I1(•'� ANAHEIM OFFICE, 1610 E. BALL RD., ANAHEIM, CA 92805 , (714) 991-7200 CARSON OFFICE, 950 DOVLEN PL., SPACE E, CARSON', CA 90746 . (213) 532-4102 1). 0. f COLTON OFFICE, 22850 COOLEY DR., COLTON. CA 92324 . (714) 624-2660 October 14, 1981 James R. Barnes Associate Planner Department of Developmental Services City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 198 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: DEIR AMENDMENT 81-2 LAND USE ELEMENT AQMD 0109045 Please discuss the .consistency of this project with the Air Quality Management Plan. The AQMP has been coordinated with the SCAG 208 Plan and the SCAG 78 forecasts. If the proposed population of this project exceeds the population forecast of SCAG 78, then the project is inconsistent with the AQMP and miti- gations must be provided. Thank you for the opportunity to review DEIR Amendment 81-2. If you have any questions please call Mike Blackmon at 213/572-6426. Sincerely, Brian Farris Head, Energy/Environment/ Economic Evaluation Section Planning Division Headquarters BF:js RESPONSE South Coast Air Quality Management District See comments incorporated into section 4.4 of the text of this report. FS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH a -:,- INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION I UNI1NMON HIM11 11 To Jim Barnes From Don Noble '01 Associate Planner Engineering Planner Subject Land Use Element Date Oct. 20, 1981 Amendment 81-2 $ EIR 81-4 The Public Works Department has the following comments and concerns regard- ing Land Use Element Amendment 81-2 and E.I.R. 81-4: 1.. Frontage road concept should be included within area of concern-3.4.. (Carol Inge has details.) 2. A traffic signal at. the intersection 1320± feet S/o Atlanta may be required. Developers on both side of Beach Blvd. should be required to participate in cost of installing this signalized intersection. (The Public Works Department does not have plans for a signal at this intersection, as stated in draft report) . DN:jy BEACH DEPT. OCT 21 1991 P. 0. Box 190 Hua;Ogton Beach, CA 92648 RESPONSE City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department No response necessary. IN THE Superior Curt OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and for the County of Orange City of Huntington Beach City Clerk PROOF OF PUBLICATION Public Hearings 81-2 and EIR 81-4 81-2 Appeal 81-2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING State of California ) GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO.81-2 AND EHt 81.1 Count of Orange )ss' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Y g Council of the City of Huntington Beach,in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, f Huntington Beech at the hour of 7:30 P.M.,or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 7th day of December,1981,for the purpaee of conaidering a proposed Rita J. Richter amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan(CPA 81-2)and a Environmental Impact Report(EIR 814)including s:the following item That I 8m and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of 2.1.Add a Medium-High Density Resident' Category(15 to 25 units per t acre)to the existing land use categories. the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I 2 2.Clarify the criteria used to determine General Plan consistency within' am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; the City's coastal zone. 2.3.Modify the Planning Commisaion's ability to delete request items from a ' that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the General Plan Amendment 14.Add a resource production overlay to the 97-acre arm bounded by' Garfield Avenue,Huntington Street,Clap Avenue and Goldenwest Ave•_ HUntington BEach Ind. Review acre. 3.1.( ed) a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of 3.2 Redesignate 4.5 acres located.on Commodore Circle from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density ResidentiaL Huntington Beach &I Redesignate one(1.01 acre lomted at.the northeast corner of Newman Avenue and Van Buren'Street from Medium Density Residential tci, Office�aProdfessional, County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the p legallp1edescription is on file in the Development Services Ocoee. disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- Copies of the Proposed General Plan Laud Use Element Amendment and Envi ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had ronmental Impact Report are available for review in the City Clerk's Office. ." and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, All interested Pelson are invited to attend add hearing and a ress their' P P Y g o inions for or against said General Plan Lend Use Element Amer=enttTo.81-2& and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- 21 81-4. lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 eriod exceedin that the notice, of which the Main Street,Huntington Beach,California 92648;714/536-5227. f P g one year; DATED:November 19,1981. annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement By.ALICIA M.WENTWORTH thereof,on the following dates,to wit: City Clerk 'NOTICE OF PUBLIC BF.ARDVG • APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COM3643IO"DENIAL OF LAND USE ELEMENT 81.2 November 269 1981 MEADOWLARH AIRPORT AREA OF CONCERN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, HuntingYgton Beach,at the hour of�7:30 P.M.,or as soon thereafter as possible on Monda decisio othe 7th f the P of December.1981.for the purpose of quest 3aip�al filed lanamg Commiesion to deny request for land Use Element Amendment 81-2 to the General Plan,the request to redesignate 64.0 acres located north of Warner Avenue approximately 700 feet east of Bol"Chia Street(Meadowlark Airport)from Low Demity Residential to General Commercial and Medium Density Residential. I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego- A legal description is on file in the Development Services Office. r ing is true and correct. Envirorm ental impact Report 81-4 will be heard in conjunction with zsaW appeal and is available in the City Clerk's Office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and e4reae`theo Dated at..................G a r.d en..G r.o v e.......... opinions for or against said appeal Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Cleric,20M 1 Main Street,Huntington Beach.California 92648;714/536.5227. _- - 4Calirnia,thi .2.7.th day fN om. ..�:19. 1 ... DATED:November 19,1981. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By:ALICIA M.WENTWORTH' . .. .. ... ......... City Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Signature APPEAL TO PLANNING COMiIlMON S DENIAL OF LAND USE ELEMENT-81.2 BEACH-ATLANTA AREA OF CONCERN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beech,in the Council Chamber of the Civic Cantor, Huntington Beach,at the hour of 7:30 P.M„or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 7th desy of Deoember,1981,for the purpose of conaidering an appeal filed to the decision of the Planing Commission to deny the request for Area 3.4 in'Land Use Element Amendment 81-2 to the General Plan;the request was to redesignate 9.8 acres located east of Beach Boulevard, 1,022 feet south pf.Atlants Avenue from General Commercial and Medium Density Residential to High Denisty Residential A legal description is on file in the Development Services Office. Environmental Impact Report 814 will be heard in conjunction with said appeal and is available in the City Clerk's Office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and ogees their opinions for or against said appeal Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 .CAF-81380 Main Street HunW tin Beach,California 9264&,714/536-5227. DATED:November 19.1981. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, By.ALICIA M.WENTWORTH City Clerk n Pub.Nov.26,1981 Hunt.Beach Ind.Rec.#11800 � t v � -�• City of Huntington, Beach P.O. BOX 180 CALIFOANIA 82648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 10, 1981 Dick Nerio 9340 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, CA. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its .regular.meeting held Monday, December. 7, 1981 approved your request to. withdraw your appeal to the Planning Commission's denial relative to Area of Concern 3.1 of Land Use Element Amendment 81-2. Please contact the Development Services Department, if you have any questions. A.licia: M. Wentworth City.`C1 erk AMW:CB:bt CC: Jim Palin, Development Services Director City of Huntington' Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 82648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 10; 1981 The Robert.P. Warmingtori Company 3090 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA.' 92626 Attn: Robert H. Odle -The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday., December 7, .1981. c6nditionally granted .your appeal relative to the Planning Commission denial of Area of Concern 3.4 - Land Use Element Amendment 81-2.' . Please contact the Development Services Department for further information. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:CB:bt CC: Jim Palin, Development Services Director REQUES i FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date December 7 , 1981 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles .W. Thompson,, City Administrator i r Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director Development Services Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 81-2 v 3 Imo" Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-2 constitutes the second amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan for 1981. The amendment includes four (4) City and staff initiated proposals and four (4) areas of concern initiated by private applicants for changes in General Plan land use designations. The Planning Commission denied the request on area of concern 3, 1. The request was to redesignate 64. 0 acres of land north of Warner-Avenue, approximately 700 feet east of Bolsa Chica Street (Meadowlark Airport) , from Low Density Residential to General Commercial and Medium Density Residential. This area has been appealed to the City Council for reconsideration. The Planning Commission also denied the request on area of concern 3. 4 . The request was to redesignate 9.8 acres of land east of Beach Boulevard, 1, 022 feet south of Atlanta Avenue, from General Commercial (2. 6 acres) and Medium Density Residential 9. 2 acres) to High Density Residential. The Planning Commission has recommended a redesignation of the 2. 6. acres of General Commercial -to Medium Density Residential. This area has been appealed to the City Council for reconsideration. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission approved Environmental Impact Report No. 81-4 and recommended City Council approval by the following vote: MOTION BY KENEFICK, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER: AYES; Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 10,09 z PIO 4/81 Page 2 The Planning Commission took separate straw votes on each. amendment request item. These votes are included in the attached draft minutes from the Planning Commission' s November .3, 1981. public hearing. The Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 1278 (as amended by the straw votes) recommending City Council adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-2 by the following vote: MOTION BY: Winchell, second by Kenefick AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Bannister, Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Porter PLANNING_ COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: 1. Overturn the appeals on Areas of Concern 3.1 and 3.4 and approve the Planning Commission land use recommendations as indicated in Attachment 1, Summary of Requests. 2 . Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 81-4 . 3. Approve the recommendations of the Planning Commission and adopt by resolution Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-2. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Development' Services staff ' s recommendations are shown in Attachment 1, Summary of Requests. ANALYSIS: The amendment requests, including the appealed items addressed in Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-2 are summarized in Attachment 1 . All request items and areas of concern are analyzed in detail in the amendment report forwarded with this Request for Council Action. Draft minutes from the Planning Commission' s public hearing on Land Use Element .Amendment No. 81-2 are contained in Attachment 4 . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental documentation for the amendment requests may be found in the amendment report which also serves as Environmental Impact Re- port No. 81-4. EIR 81-4 was posted for a 45-day period ending October 17, 1981. Public comments and staff responses constitute the Final EIR and are incorporated in the appendix of the report. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may adopt the requested changes as recommended, modify . them as desired, or retain the existing designations in the Land Use Element. Page 3 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Summary of .Requests Chart 2. Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-2 3. Planning .Commission Resolution 4 . Draft Minutes from public hearing before the Planning Commission on Land Use Element Amendment No. . 81-2. 5. Letter of Appeal on. Area of Concern 3. 1. 6. Letter of Appeal on Area of Concern 3. 4 . 7 . Resolution for City Council to adopt. JWP:CI: js SUMMARY OF REQUESTS ATTACHMENT 1 REQUEST ITEM/ STAFF PLANNING AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMEN- COMMISSION CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE APPLICANT REQUEST, INFORMATION DATION RECOMMENDATION . l -- -- Staff Add a medium - -- Add a medium - Add a medium - high density high density high density residential residential residential category category category ( !2 5 du/ac) to ( !�: 2 5 du/ac to ( L 2 5 du/ac to the General the General the General Plan. Plan. Plan. 2. 2 -- -- Staff Make no reference -- Make no refer- Make no refer- to size criteria ence to size ence to size when making a criteria when criteria when finding of con- making a find- making a find- sistency in the ing of consis- ing of consis- City' s coastal tency in the tency in the zone. City' s coastal City' s coastal zone. zone. 2. 3 -- -- City Forward all request -- Forward all re- Forward all re- Council items in a Land Use quest items in quest items in Amendment to City a Land Use a Land Use Council. Amendment 'to Amendment to City City Council. Council; in the resolution to council, plainly set apart those items recommended for approval from those recommended for denial. REQUEST ITEM/ STAFF PLANNING AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMEN- COMMISSION CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE APPLICANT REQUEST INFORMATION DATION RECOMMENDATION 2. 4 South of Gar- 97 . 0 Planning Analyze a -- Retain exist- Retain exist- field Ave. , Commission resource ing designa- ing designation east of Gold- production tion and direct and direct staff enwest Street overlay. staff to pre- to prepare a pare a specific specific plan. plan. *' 1 North of War- 64. 0 Dick Nerio Low Density EIR 81-4 Low Density Low Density ner approxi- Residential Residential Residential. mately 700 feet to General to Mixed east of Bolsa Commercial Development Chica Street and Medium and Medium (Meadowlark Density Residen- Density Airport) tial. Residential. 3. 2 Commodore 4 . 5 Charles Medium Density EIR 81-4 Medium Density Medium Density Circle MacGregor Residential to Residential to Residential to and Scott Medium-High Den- Medium-High Medium-High Strohbehn sity Residential. Density Res" Density Res- idential. idential. 3 . 3 Northeast 1. 0 James Nye Medium Density EIR 81-4 Retain Medium Medium Density corner of Residential to Density Residential to Newman Ave. Office Pro- Residential Office Pro- and Van fessional. fessional. Buren St. y, *3. 4 East of Beach 9. 8 Bijan General Commer- EIR 81-4 6')General Commer=JGeneral Commercia Boulevard Sassounian cial and Medium cial and Medium to Medium Density 1, 022 feet Density Residential Density Res- Residential; south of to High Density , idential. to ...Retain existing Atlanta Residential. Hig.h .Dens.ity Medium Density Avenue Residential . Residential *APPEALED ITEMS December 3, 1981 Hoorable Mayor Ruth Finley . City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Hungtington Beach, CA. 92648 Subject: Meadowlark Airport I am requesting a withdrawal of that portion of the.General Plan Amendment Land Use 81-2 (Subarea 3.1) . This withdraw is requested to allow us time to address the concerns expressed at the Planning Commission meeting by the public and meinbers of the Planning Commission.. They include: excess of commercial zoning in the area, traffic and possible impacts on adjacent properties. . Thanking you for your consideration of this request. Respectfully submitted. Dick Y. lerio ` R December 1, 1981 Honorable Mayor Ruth Finley City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Meadowlark Airport I am requesting a continuance of that portion of General Plan Amendment Land Use 81-2 (Subarea 3. 1) . This continuance is requested to allow us time to address the concerns expressed at the Planning Commission meeting by the public and members of the Planning Commission. They include: excess of commercial zoning in the area, traffic,1 and possible impacts on adjacent properties . I recognize that any continuance will carry this request over into 1982 ; therefore, I request that our application be reheard by the City Council along with the first General Plan Amendment in 1982 . Thank you for your consideration of this request. . Respectfully submitted, DICK /ERO 670 O �'C 0 'Me t®n G. another generation of caring... November 13 , 1981 Zc +alp . ��' ,�•H:"C Cif Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street "0, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 r Re: General Plan Amendment LUE 81-2 Area of Concern 3 . 4 Dear Mayor and Council Members : The purpose of this letter is to formally appeal the decision of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on the referenced amendment to the Land Use Element. The particular property is located south of Atlanta Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard. The Robert P. Warmington Co. is now representing Mr. Bijon Sassounian. Our request was to redesignate 9 .8 acres of vacant land from medium density residential and general commercial to high density residential. The staff' s recommendation was 'for high density residential . The Planning Commission' s recommendation was for medium density residential. The basis for this appeal is as follows : 1. The subject property is ideally located amongst General Commercial , Visitor Servicing and Commercial Support Recreation designated areas , for a high density residential land use. 2 . A high density residential project on this property would provide , a larger population base in very close proximity to patronize these commercial facilities . 3 . A high density residential project on this property would provide an opportunity for a larger number of individuals to reside within walking distance to the beach. 3090 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 966-1333 Mayor and City Council November 13 , 1981 Page 2 4 . A high density residential project on this property could provide twice as many additional housing units to the City' s housing inventory as a medium density residen- tial project. 5 . A high density residential project would have a better opportunity of providing housing at obtainable prices than a medium density residential project on this property. 6. The constraints imposed upon this property significantly reduces the available buildable land. To name two of. these constraints : the potential wetlands ; the new front- age road. 7. According to the staff report , approximately 343 units could be approved for the subject property if the high density residential land use designation were to be applied. It is our intention to propose approximately 250 to 290 dwelling units . In addition to the ..formal_ appeal,we would also like to request the City Council delete any reference to the condition that was placed on the subject property concerning the realignment and extension of the existing Beach Boulevard frontage road. It is our feeling that this type of condition should be more appropriately addressed in the developmental plan process . We respectfully request that the City Council grant this appeal and find that a land use designation of high density residential is more appropriate for the subject property and is consistant with the housing goals of the City of Huntington Beach. Thank you for your consideration of this request . Sincerely yours , THE ROBERT P . WARMINGTON CO. 'zu A-OD-4, Robert H. Odle RHO:bw 1,1 v- ee V CY to -48,4 /6-lam b a -PlN y 9340 BoLSA AwNuE WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA A NFmo EN=PRISE REACTOR® PH. CODE (714) 893-6521 November 12, 1981 Mayor Ruth Finley City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California Re: Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-2 . Honorable Mayor Finley: This is to appeal the Planning Commission action of November 3, 1981 , denying the change of land use element No. 81-2 , to the City Council for consideration. I felt that the Planning Commission didnot consider all the merits of the change. Very truly yours , Dick Y./Nerio TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBJECT: General Plan Ammendment for Commodore Circle We the' undersigned home owners of Village Court, an adjacent neighborhood to Commodore Circle, wish to voice our support in restoring a Medium High Lensity Zoning to Commodore Circle. NAMr: ADMizSS ! . L S lop / y7/ 9 i C t 1 VILLAGE COURT PETITION PAGE 2 AlDDRzSS .�`i J-1 d &W 49 , 7 2- VY lid 7 7 L) VILLAGx, COLUI PETITION PAGE 3 NAME ADDRESS -Ale 2 RESOLUTION NO. 1278 A. RESOLUTION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF LAND USE ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 81-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Land Use Element are necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the following amendments to the Land Use Element: 1 . That a medium-high density residential category per- mitting up to 25 dwelling units per gross acre be added to the Land Use Element as worded in Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-2. . 2. That reference to the size criteria in Figure 3-15 of the General Plan not be made when making a find- ing of consistency in the City' s coastal zone. 3 . That all request items in a Land Use Element Amend- ment be forwarded to City Council after review by the Planning Commission, and that the resolution for- warded to City Council by the Planning Commission plainly set apart those request items recommended for approval from those recommended for denial. 4. That the existing Medium Density Residential desig- nation on the 97 . 0 acre area bounded by Goldenwest Street, Garfield Avenue, Huntington Street and Clay Avenue be retained and that staff be directed to prepare a specific plan for said area . 5. That 4 .5 acres located on Commodore Circle between Huntington and Delaware Streets be redesignated from Medium to Medium-High Density Residential with the condition that prior to approval of a tentative tract map and/or conditional use permit for the site, the developer must submit a plan acceptable to the City addressing the relocation of displaced families. 6. That one acre on the northeast corner of Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to Office Professional . i a 7 . That 9 . 8 acres located east of Beach Boulevard 1022 feet south of Atlanta Avenue be redesignated from General Commercial and Medium Density Resi- dential to Medium Density Residential; that in the project application for development of this property special consideration be given to control the number and types of access points onto Beach Boulevard, in- cluding consideration of a frontage .road;. that for subsequent development applications on the property an environmental analysis be done sufficient to deal with the wetlands determination; and that if the determination is made that the area is a wetland .this fact shall be considered in the project design. WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment to the General Plan No. 81-2 was held by the City Planning Commission on November 3, 1981, in accordance with pro- visions of the State Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE. IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, hereby approves said amendment to the General Plan of the City-'�of Huntington Beach. . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California. ` • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 3rd. day of November, 1981, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Paone, Schumacher NOES : Bannister, Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Porter ATTEST: C7J les W. Pal: n, Secretary Grace H. Winchell, Chairman Minutes, H.B. Planni.n, . ommi,ssion November 3, 1981 Page 2 addition residential lots at this location (which is the intent of the ad ' ining property owner if the street right=o way is . vac- . ated) citin traffic, access, and noise problems the .site. She r". .also expresse the opinion that the existing z ng on the adjacent "',^�i} empty lots shou be changed to open space preclude development , of residential use on those lots as wel After review, the staff and the Commission c curred that fur r information was necessary in order to make a dete ination on is matter. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND S 0 BY MAHAFFEY CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL ' PLAN NO. 81-12 WAS CONTINUE THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 1981, g, .. BY . THE FOLLOWING .VOTE: . AYES: - Bannister enefick, Paone Winchell., Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Port ,ABSTAIN: N e ORAL OMMUNICATIONS None -'` REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 81-2 . . Land Use Element. amendment which includes a staff-initiated proposal to add a medium- high density residential category to the General Plan, a staff-initiated proposal to clarify the criteria used to. determine General Plan conformance in the coastal zone; a Council-initiated request to add clarifying Janguage to the amendment process description, and a Planning Commission request- to analyze a resource production overlay in the .Gatfield/Goldenwest area. Four requests from private applicants for changes in General Plan land use designations are also under consideration in the amendment request. Ms. Catalano suggested that the Commission handle the amendment by separate review of .each separate proposal with a straw vote taken r' on each portion; the. amendment as a whole would then be approved by a formal vote on the adoption of the resolution. The Commission con- curred with this approach. 2 .1 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION Carol Inge outlined the proposal, noting that this amendment would provide consistency between the zoning and the General Plan in approxi- mately 44 areas in the City where medium density designation is im- plemented by R3 zoning. Later on ,staff will point out other areas where the medium high density.�kedesignation of other -properties would be appropriate. The public hearing on area 2 .1 was opened, and closed when no one was ,1� ' present to address the matter. -2- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B.. P1, .aing Commission November 3, 1981 1 Page 3 The Commission discussed the proposal. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE COMMISSION RECOM- ":i `: MENDED THAT AREA 2. 1 OF THE. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. BE ADOPTED, BY THE .FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Kene f ick,. Paone, Winchell, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None - 2. 2 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY IN THE .COASTAL ZONE Chuck Clark explained that, because of the very specific nature - ` of the Land Use Plan and the Coastal Plan, staff feels that is is not necessary or desirable to permit any consideration . of size criteria within the coastal zone and recommends that the following paragraph be added to Section 4 . 1 of the General Plan: i "Reference to the size , criteria in Figure 3-15 will not be made when making a finding of consistency . in the City' s coastal zone. " The public hearing on Area 2. 2 was opened and closed. Brief Commission discussion ensued.. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY THE COMMISSION RECOM- MENDED THAT AREA 2 . 2 OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED, ' BY. THE .FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher,, Mahaffey . " NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Porter n ABSTAIN: None 2 . 3 MODIFICATIONS OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS Mr. Clark explained that the proposed modification would require that all items heard by the Planning Commission in a General Plan Amendment request would automatically be forwarded to the City .Council, with the resolution going to Council plainly deline- ating which items were recommended for approval and which for denial. June Catalano further informed the Commission that this proposal is the result of a direct request from the City Council . The public hearing was opened, and closed when no one was pre- sent to speak for or against the matter. Commissioner Schumacher pointed out that State zoning laws seem to refer only to items recommended by the Commission., with no reference made to items not recommended for approval or denied. Commissioner Paone noted that the Commission is only acting in an advisory capacity, not as the final decision maker, and the -3- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B: Planning Commission November 3, 1981 Page 4 public as well as the applicants should know that all matters will go to the Council without the necessity for filing an appeal. ' ON MOTION BY KENEFICK -AND SECOND BY PAONE THE COMMISSION RECOM- 'w._""''° MENDED .THAT AREA 2. 3 OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BE :ADOPTED, ` -BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Mahaffey. NOES: Scumacher ABSENT: . Porter ABSTAIN: None 2. 4 GARFIELD-GOLDENWEST AREA Chuck Clark described the history of the area and the proposal that a resource production overlay be implemented on the properties; he noted, however, that the Attorney' s office has some concern that such an overlay might result in precluding development of any new uses except those related to oil production. Mr. Clark outlined the various alternatives suggested in the staff review of the General Plan Amendment proposal, concluding by stating the staff' s recommenda- tion that a specific plan . be prepared for the total -area and that a resource .production overlay not be adopted. The public hearing was opened and closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY SCHUMACHER THAT A SPECIFIC PLAN BE PREPARED FOR THE GARFIELD-GOLDENWEST AREA, WITH SAID SPECIFIC PLAN BEING COMPATIBLE WITH AND CONDUCIVE TO THE KINDS DEVELOPMENT THAT COMMISSION HAS DIRECTED TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE ADJOINING AREA. In the ensuing extensive discussion, the Commission discussed whether or not .the existing medium density- General Plan designation that now exists on the properties would .be retained; the effect of a specific plan on the existing Ml .uses .in the area (e.g. , the Cambro plant) ; the possibility of splitting the area between the industrial uses to the west and the residential to the east as a means of protecting the interests of existing industrial facilities; . a proposed method of spreading .the cost of preparation of a specific plan among the ` area landowners as properties develop, as allowed by State law; and the possibility of combining a specific plan with a Planned Community concept or designation. The last proposal was discussed in detail as being an approach which would .provide the highest degree of flexibility and leave the most options open to developers; however, it was pointed out by staff that it would be very difficult to implement, considering the fragmenta- tion of ownerships and the requirement of 50 acres of consolidated ' area for the planned community designation. It was also pointed out that the densities in a planned community would not be specifically set and such a designation could result in a higher density devel- opment than anticipated. -4- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission November 3, 1981 Page .5 THE MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: . Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Bannister, Paone,, Mahaffey ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None The Commission, staff, and legal counsel discussed alternative procedure and the scheduling. of GPA„ 81-3. Commissioner Paone, who had been the principal advocate .of the planned development concept in the prior discussion, conceded that there seemed to be insufficient support for that designation on the Commission and the specific plan recommended by staff was a good alterna- tive. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY. KENEFICK THE COMMISSION DE- TERMINED TO RECONSIDER ITS PRIOR STRAW VOTE ON THE SPECIFIC PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: . Porter - . ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE . COMMISSION RECOM- MENDED THAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN APPROACH BE RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: . Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None AREA OF CONCERN 3. 1 Applicant: Dick Nerio To permit a change ,of land use designation from .low density resi- dential to general commercial and medium density residential on 64 acres of land located on the north side of Warner Avenue approxi- mately 700 feet east of Bolsa Chica Street. Chuck Clark described .the history of past action on the site, and noted that 15 acres fronting on Warner are requested to be designated' as commercial with the remaining 49 acres to be medium a ' density residential. Staff is recommending that the 15 acre parcel be designated to mixed use, as it is felt that the commercial demand is not sufficient to justify so much commercial area. The public hearing was opened. . ;. : Dick Nerio, applicant, addressed the Commission to speak in favor ' of his request, saying that it would be compatible with the sur- -5- 11-3-81 - P.C. 4. i Minutes., H.B. Planning Commi.ssj,on y November 3, 1981 Page 6 ' rounding properties and an asset to the community. He concurred with staff' s recommendation for mixed use on the 15 acre commer- cial portion of .his request, and .informed the Commission that the { ,� -`r'. entire property ,will remain under his family.= s ownership. Chairman Winchell directed that the record show that..the .Commission has received petitions in opposition to this area of the General Plan Amendment. The following persons spoke against the granting .of the request: Dean Allbright 17301 Breda Lane, . H.B. Stratton Matenas . . . . 17081 Greentree Lane, 'H.B. Carl Nelson . . . . . 5381 Overland Drive, H.B. w William Stegemann 16951 Agate Circle, H.B. Susan Foote . . . . . 16871 Canyon Lane, H.B. x Ralph Ricks . . . . . 5362 Old Pirate Lane, H.B. .4 The speakers all opposed any commercial designation on the site, saying that the area has already too much commercial for the demand, ,..-% that it would create . traffic, noise, crime and security problems for the surrounding residential communities . Some speakers also objected to the close proximity to their homes .-of , the proposed commercial buildings, citing loss of privacy and the deterioration , . of the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. The speakers opposed the establishment of the medium density residential designation as well, asking that the airport. property be left at its present R1 designation. , .Yw -: Bob McMullan, 17172 Sandra Lane, H.B. , spoke in favor of the re- "?`in quest, saying that the high vacancy factor in the existing commer- ." i1` 5` . cial could be blamed on the state of the economy rather than an :over-supply of commercial zoning and that the medium density resi- dential would be in accord with the type of development presently being built on other properties in that section of Huntington Beach. There were no other persons present wishing to address the Commis- Sion either for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. } e= ,A MOTION WAS MADE. BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL THAT THE COMMIS— RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PORTION OF THE SUBJECT ,t.; ; - PROPERTY FRONTING ON WARNER AVENUE AND THE MOST NORTHERLY PORTION BE REDESIGNATED TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THAT. THE CENTER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BE LEFT AT ITS PRESENT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DE- SIGNATION. In the ensuing discussion, the Commission considered the possibility of placing a Planned Development designation with some maximum den- on the .property, or with some requirement for averaging the ' density so that the more highly intense use would be on the outer perimeters of the site and the lower density in the center of the project; the possibility of .applying the Planned Development designa- tion at the zoning level; the question of whether or not it would be -6- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H. B. Planning Commission November 3, 1981 Page 7 desirable to have the property develop essentially as three separate parcels , as the motion would indicate; and how or if existing -streets could be extended to connect with streets inside an Rl project on the property. In response to the last consideration, Bruce .Gilmer of Public .Works informed the Com- mission that only Pearce Street could be connected without going through existing lots in other developments. THE MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: p. AYES: Paone, Winchell NOES: Bannister, Kenefick, Schumacher, Mahaffey ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None A motion was made by Kenefick that the Meadowlark Airport be redesignated as; a Planned..Development community with a maximum density of nine (9) units per acre. Motion failed for lack of a second. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER 'AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE EXISTING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BE RETAINED, . BY THE .FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Paone, Mahaffey ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None The Commission meeting recessed at 9: 00 p.m. and reconvened at 9: 10 p.m. AREA OF CONCERN 3 . 2 - COMMODORE CIRCLE Applicant: Charles MacGregor and Scott Strohbehn To permit a change of General Plan designation from medium density residential to medium-High density residential on. 4 . 5 acres of land located on the 'west side of Delaware Street north of Main Street., Chuck Clark reviewed the proposed redesignation, noting that in staff ' s opinion it would be more consistent with the current R3 zoning on the property, would allow a new tract map to be filed to make more efficient use of the property, and would pro- vide an incentive for redevelopment of the parcel. The public hearing was opened. Scott Strohbehn spoke to the Commission in support of his re- quest and to agree with the condition for cooperation in the relocation of displaced residents as suggested by staff. -7- 11-3-81 - P.C. - Minutes, H.B. Plannin^ :ommi,ssiQn November 3, 1981 Page 8 There were no other. persons present to speak regarding this area :. of concern; and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter arrived at the meeting at this point. Chairman Winchell noted that this is the first instance facing the Commission .in which it must determine if it wishes to bring, the General Plan into conformance with the zoning or vice versa, and in her opinion the character of the surrounding neighborhood is such .that she would prefer not to place the R3 designation, which would ?:_ allow up to 25 units per acre, on the parcel. Commissioner Bannister discussed the existing problems in the project and indicated that .,. increasing the density did not seem conducive to solving those prob- -'. s':. lems . In. response, Mr. Strohbehn pointed out that the overcrowded . '6. situation and resulting difficulties .are. caused by the number of people living in the project, not by the number of units, and accord- ing to staff calculations the redesignation would result in only a a very minor increase in the population of the area. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE DESIGNATION ON AREA OF CONCERN 3. 2 BE CHANGED TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE THE APPLICANT SUBMIT A PLAN ACCEPTABLE TO THE 'CITY ADDRESSING THE RELOCATION OF DISPLACED FAMILIES, BY THE . FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Porter Mahaffey NOES: Bannister, Winchell, Schumacher }: ABSENT: None ` ,"), ABSTAIN: None AREA OF CONCERN 3. 3 - NEWMAN/VAN BUREN Applicant: James Nye ' To permit the redesignation of one acre of land located at the north- east corner of Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street from medium density residential to office professional. Chuck Clark described the location and explained the .staff' s recom- s mendation that the area not be redesignated because of -the availability of office space in the immediate vicinity and the surrounding resi- dential uses. The public hearing was opened. James Nye, applicant, spoke in favor of his request, saying that the property will be shared with a cancer treatment facility subject .to Planning Commission approval of the application. Larry Nye, speaking as vice president of the Missionary Baptist Church, owner of the property, described how the proposed buildings on the site will be located and used. He said that the church building -8- 11-3-81 - P.C. Mi.nutea, H..B. P1 ling Commission November 3, 1981 Page 9 will. act as a buffer between residences and the office build- ' ing, and described the grade differential in .the area which, will further serve to separate the uses. There were no other persons, to address the proposal, and the ;: •� . public hearing. was closed. The Commission discussed the compatibility of the proposal, . k: the fact that redesignating such a small portion of land could be construed as spot zoning, and the fact that no actual pro- ject is before the Commission on which 'to base its action.. ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY , PORTER THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT AREA OF CON- ` "_ CERN 3 . 3 BE REDESIGNATED TO OFFICE PROFESSIONAL, BY THE FOLLOW- ING. STRAW VOTE: s; AYES: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: Bannister, . Kenefick ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None AREA OF CONCERN 3 . 4 - BEACH/ATLANTA AREA Applicant: Bijan Sassounian To permit redesignation of 9 . 8 acres of land located east of Beach Boulevard approximately 1000 feet south of Atlanta Avenue from general commercial and ,medium .density residential to high density residential. ' Commissioner Paone announced that he would abstain from. consid- 4.y eration o,f this matter because of a potential conflict of interest. , Chuck Clark reviewed the proposal and staff ' s recommendation for high density residential on the whole site saying that it g Y Y g is an excellent location for high quality housing and that it could provide the demand for the commercial uses anticipated in the area. He added that staff is currently investigating sig- nalled access to the area as well as a frontage road system; in fact a condition .of approval would be suggested to •�;.w. , PP g require that g a frontage road parallel to Beach Boulevard be provided. The public hearing was opened. ' . Bijan Sassounian spoke to concur with the recommendations of the staff. ;aryl ,. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. �.'. . : A motion was made by Mahaffey to approve the staff' s recommenda- tion for high density residential for Area 3. 4 . Motion failed for .lack of a -second. -9- 11-3-81 - P.C. 4 Minutes, H,.B. Plannii Commission November 3 Page 10 s` The Commission discussed how access to the site and the general ". :. area would be taken and whether or not the question of a frontage road might not more appropriately be addressed in the Circulation Element or—the—Arterial Streets and Highways. Carol Inge of ,the ° {. ''� y` Planning staff agreed that the issue would be more appropriately identified at the project level but that .staff had wanted the need .' . for the frontage road indicated at the time the applicant came into the department for entitlement. Bruce Gilmer said that the intent is to minimize the access points from Beach Boulevard. The wetlands question and the method of obtaining environmental documentation "• ;h>, on the site .were .reviewed. Y' ' ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY BANNISTER THE COMMISSION DETER- ' MINED TO' RECOMMEND THAT THE ENTIRE AREA BE REDESIGNATED TO MEDIUM DENSI'TY RESIDENTIAL WITH THE STIPULATION THAT IN THE PROJECT APPLI- CATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY SPECIAL CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO CONTROL OF THE NUMBER AND TYPES OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO BEACH BOULEVARD INCLUDING CONSIDERATION . OF A FRONTAGE ROAD, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: . 1—Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES:. Mahaffey ABSENT: None =. ABSTAIN: Paone ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE COMMISSION IMPOSED ` THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. UPON SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT. APPLICATIONS ON THE PROPERTY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: a:. . An environmental analysis shall be . done sufficient to deal with Y ' the wetlands determination. 2 . If the determination is made that the area is a wetland, that fact shall be considered in the project design. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT.: None ABSTAIN: Paone A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL THAT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 81-2, AS ACTED UPON BY THE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS PRIOR STRAW VOTES, BE APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, : BY THE APPROVAL OF AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 1278 . Commissioner Porter indicated that he would abstain from voting because he had not been present to participate in discussion on every area of concern. Staff pointed out that it would be necessary to adopt the EIR pre- pared for the amendment. -10- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. P1 ning Commi,Slion November 3, 1981 Page 11 ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1278 WAS TABLED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 81-4 WAS CERTIFIED AS BEING COMPLETE AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Y. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY WINCHELL. AND SECOND BY BANNISTER THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TAKEN OFF THE TABLE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Bannister, Mahaffey . ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None - THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 81-2 BY THE ADOPTION OF AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 1278 WAS .CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher. NOES: Bannister, Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Porter C NDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-58_ (Appeal) Cont. from 10-20- ) Apt' cant• Roger Cole To allow windscreen to be constructed at a ten ) foot ; .� height in eu of the code-permitted eight (8) et, on prop- erty located Ragtime Circle approximatel 00 feet south of Sundancer Lane. Savoy Be llavia noted tha he info ation requested by the Com- . mission has been supplied: plicant has submitted informa- tion on the number and types f ilar windscreens in the area, and staff research has d rmihed th no conditional exceptions for those uses were g ted by the City, nor were any building . permits issued whi specified like dimens ' ns or construction. The permits sta did locate were specificall for windscreens only and not or glass or plastic covered solari s or rooms,' which the equested construction basically is. The blic hearing was opened-and closed on October 20, 81. -11- 11-3-81 - P.C. Fa4a Rea4 9340 BOLSA AVENUE WESTMINST.ER, CALIFORNIA A Mmio ENTfaIPHISE REALTOR® I'm Com (714) 893-6521 November 12, 1981 Mayor Ruth Finley City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California Re : Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-2 : Honorable Mayor Finley: This is to appeal the Planning Commission action of November 3, 1981 , denying the change of land use element No. 81-2 , to the City Council for consideration. I fell that the Planning Commission didnot consider all the merits of the change. Very truly yours , All Dick Y. Nerio 1 V�NNING UCPT. NOV 12 19$1 P. 0. Dox 190 Hurtington Beach, CA :j264.8 0 , r. O WzvminptonGo Robert . --- -- --- aher generation of caring..0 November 13 , 1981 = c x CAJ x A A Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 r Re: General Plan Amendment LUE 81=2 Area of Concern 3 . 4 Dear Mayor and Council Members : The purpose of this letter is to formally appeal the decision of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on the referenced amendment to the Land Use Element. The particular property is located ,south of Atlanta Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard. The Robert P. Warmington Co. is now representing Mr. Bijon Sassounian. Our request was .to redesignate 9 .8 acres of vacant land from medium density residential and general commercial to high density residential . The staff ' s recommendation was for high density residential . The Planning Commission's recommendation was for medium density residential. The basis for this appeal is as follows : 1 . The subject property is ideally located amongst General Commercial , Visitor Servicing and Commercial Support Recreation designated areas , for a high density residential land use. 2. A high density residential project on this property would provide , a larger population base in very close proximity to patronize these commercial facilities . 3 . A high density residential project on this property would provide an opportunity for a larger number of individuals to reside within walking distance to the beach. 3090 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 966-1333 "JY Mayor and City Council November 13 , . 1981 Page 2 4 . A high density residential project' on this property could provide twice as many additional housing units to the City' s housing inventory as a medium density residen- tial project. 5. A high density residential project would have a better opportunity of providing housing at obtainable prices than a medium density residential project on this property. 6. The constraints imposed upon this property significantly reduces the available buildable land. To name two of these constraints: the potential wetlands ; the new front- age road. 7. According to the, staff report , approximately 343 units could be approved for the subject property if the high density residentialiland use designation were to be applied. It is our intention to propose approximately 250 to 290 dwelling units . In addition to the formal appeal,we would also like to request the City Council delete. any reference to the condition that was placed on the subject property concerning the realignment and extension of the existing Beach Boulevard frontage toad. It is our feeling that this type of condition should be more appropriately addressed in the developmental plan process . We respectfully request that the City Council grant this appeal and find that a land use .designation .of high density residential is more appropriate for the subject property and is consistant with the housing goals of the City of Huntington Beach. . Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely yours , THE ROBERT P. WARMINGTON CO. Robert H. Odle RHO:bw Publish '1-26-81 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 81-2 AND EIR 81-4 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 7th day of December 19 81. for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (GPA 81-2) and a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 81-4) including the following items: 2.1. Add a Medium=High Density Residential Category (15 to 25 units per acre) to the existing land use categories. 2.2. Clarify the criteria used to determine General Plan consistency within the City's coastal zone. 2.3 Modify the Planning Commission's ability to delete request items from a General Plan Amendment. 2.4 Add,a resource production overlay to. the 97-acre area bounded by Garfield Avenue, Huntington Street, Clay Avenue and Goldenwest Street. 3.1. (Appealed) 3.2. Redesignate 4.5 acres located on Commodore Circle from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential. 3.3. Redesignate one (1.0) acre located at the northeast corner of Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street from Medium Density 'Residential to Office Professional. 3.4. (Appealed) A legal description is on file in the Development Services Office. Copies of the proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment and Environmental Impact Report are available for review in the City Clerk's Office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said General Plan Land Use Element Amendment No 81-2 & EIR 81-4. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED 11-19-81 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk l A a. -t LEGAL NOTICE f � nNOTI�CE. OFUBLIC,Oj �, �ARI '�,, N 0, qp/— o� NOTICE IS H FB �GV `Vhat a public hearing will be held by the City of the City of Huntington Beach, California, for the, purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (GPA 81-2) and a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 81-4) including the following items: 1. 1 . Add a Medium-High Density Residential Category (15 to 25 units per acre) to the existing land use cat4egories a, 2 . Clarify the criteria used to determine General Plan consistency within the City' s. coastal zone. 9 • 2. 3 Modify the Planning Commission's ability to ® delete request items from a General Plan Amendment. ,1. 4 Add a resource production overlay to the 0-acre area bounded by Garfield Avenue, Huntington Street, Clay Avenue and Goldenwest Street. 1T tt ; ppY'oxim"a y"7(1°U`' ee ; e of 1.5►.wA. .ee= aY rvarc °4 :Jf 'acr s of tom,:. gam- m ium dens Z ion dentia1. . .. Redesignate 4. 5 acres located on Commodore .Circle .from medium density residential. to medium high } density residential. 3, 3 Redesignate one (1. 0) acre located at the northeast. corner of Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street from medium density residential to office professional.. netts--4 r e e 5t `cif' p mi'mately- Y 82'a-feed seettr tZ .i ta.�AVe � :-b �5"^dt-Offora•T"comrie cia and 7 : 2 acres ' of iD�d.k _ Pay way trirsity l ; l„rt{�• .. ,. ,. . ... „ . • ..rryY:�!m.-,r:•w.u3.��,.f,rrzn.,.•�r..y,•.yae•wxoi•$:an.-::-�b.;.;•.�.. -r.<i.,.a.....<n'rs»..:'z".'`.r•^°,s<r- %�•�^�"-•- 1•e<: r Sayd g e held t hour of , o in the Counc ' Chamb rs B ild ni g-",o he �;v' , 20 Street,. gton each, C riif- 0 All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against the propos�c ,a''� General Plan and and yse Element Amendment. o r nevi rw i�i sit. Cf �" . Further information may be obtained from the P J . /Y1 Telephone No. 7..1 DATED this - day of . $ION S�►e�' �`i n By ' 1 • r r t I ' 11I i �fl SS1! •N'yyylu ti .. :,i.,.. .w:t +r:r ..verorY.rrmm y` .;•1 f;i'.�.y'r'S.'ici:.nr.'ti.'!'G,.r."�4�+t:. µ •13 a — -- w W c LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL w t —�— . w rGN , MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -r--- - -- z M, --- -- -- I ;")PAL c---� i _----- a . > i 1 LLI w - ` _HILL RUSAN.HA UH Z - - -iMICHAEL.- Lj DR. a - - -- 0 i�i------ I I w - ��- HIGH-^ -- - - - - - i�-- U - DEN DARS'. DR i - MED. - N ? BENJAMiN DR \ ' ' LOW .IJERES, — z-- DEN . - - z w__ _ RES . - Q - - .- ---...__ cc cc RES — NOEI.E CR c F .._. EL ARROYp DR � E X --. -. �u - - MEDIUM _ _ j - NEWMAN i DENSITY RESIDENTIAL i — OFFICE reu arwl� 4 1 PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTIONAL fp` lit; >. �J, �h L UN LOW DEN , RES , i GENE COMA TA BERT LOW DEN . RES. • 0 1000 SCALE IN FEET Area ®f Concern- 3.3 o • o Figure { 1 I I t{ t 1 1 -- ------ -- - - - -- 1 - - - - - -- - - -- - --- - - -- -- -1-- -- -- - - - -- - - - -. 167--482'-17 - T ' 1 167-4d3-26 w Laand U� MD. 81-2 1 Chris S t>> Teal. , 3 2%22 Vim Plaza Drive .3 W�q i 85U amaucywood Drive ftuth %•. Calif i ' Buena Park, Calif 92677 , i 9%21 - ^ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -�- - -•- - - - - - - - - - - - ._ .. 167-48~A:LO 167-482-07 ; 167-483-27 $ datltdc C Savage Forgot Iodu®triee 1 Jams A Tt m►as Jr 17606 van Burn Street t ,tRate+gta�eent Inc � 6556 Walt StxeiaL Bench, CM►lif 3112 a SanllAn Nay 1 Wwtminater, Calif 92647 ; Albany+•, Or*.. 97321 i_ 92683 - ---- -- - - - - --- - --- -----r - - - -------- -- -.-- -- - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - . .._ _.. . 167-45?-28 ; 167-482--08 1 167-483-28 LAIXY !f Kltaeppinq t Healert L fin. Viryil H Gramm 13651 tlniveraity Street 8251 Noble .Ciscle i 17701 Van Buren St Apt A Isai �0ilif e t . .Hunt iigbon Beach. Calif ItxitbVtm deacdi, Calif 02683 92647: t 92647 - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - -r - - -.- - - - - - - - = - 167-481-29 I 167-d82-09 ;. 167-483-30 Jt S fdmeiber 1lmmae 'M Bennett1 Mi,cl'inal D Ferry 16682 Alycnquin Street t: e1241 Noble Circle � 8171,,Ne ►we�u�e �E3ngtaon Hemch. Calif Huntinyt m Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92049 t 92647 92647 - -- - --------- - - - ----- --- - -- - --_-- - - 167-4816A2 , 167-482-10 ' 167-483-31 Gacirge J Mitchell 1 John Alvin Hun Dotald Lyons 9572 eied0y Circle ' ' t9252 Noble Circle 1 8161 Natoan Street iA Mmtin3bon' Beach, Gal.if t Nuntingtson riche Calif ; Hun urboon beach, Calif 92b46 i 92647 I 92647 - - --- - - -----,--------- ^------ ------------ -- - - - -- -- -- - -- - -- - - - 167-482-03 1 167-482-11 ; 167-483-32 Marvin L Gay ; Ro mvmid P kolly 1 Gregory S wood 8Z61 Oetttiy Qriune 1 .8261 Noble Circle ; %i Hobblra Nilsson 9Lt Beach, Calif i lllnt1mjton Si pch, OAltt t 707 Milshixe Blvd #4750 92b47 i 92647 Inc Nxisies, Calif 90017 ------------------- ---- i�----- --- ----- - --- ---- -- - - - - - ----- -- - _ -._ : .. 167-492-04 ; 167-482-12 1 167-601-14 Martha F Nielsen 1 Ivan C Rund1ord Humana Inc d241 Darcy.Derive ; 8261 1NmMmn Avwjue 1 Huntington inter Oominity .Beach, Calif t Huntington Bich, Calif Il itel 92647 92647 t P.O.. Boot 1438 ----- ---------- -1- 167-682•-05 1 167-482-13 ; Louisville, KY t"iald L McCracken Pandoara Isypeatnteats Inc 1 40201 82M DlaxW Drive 1 17471 Beech Blvd Mmtiapm Beach, Calif %wtington. Beech, Calif 92647 t 92647 ' - - -- -- - - - - - 167-482-06 . ; 167-482-14 1 167-601-08 Donald W Maynard 1 Alfredo Jimenez ; Pam nd Cathcl.ic LAW ttV of 8262 Darcy Drive ; 8241 Ndwmn Avenue 1 Crange Huntington iieach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif ; 440 S Batavia Street 92647 1 92647 i Orange, Calif 92666 -- -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - i -- -- -- - -- - - - - - - - -- -- - - - 1- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 I' Arm 3.3 i I ; ,kwes C. Nye � -• - - - •- -- -• - -- - - - - - -I . -- - - - _ _. _ _. _ _. ._ _ _ _. _. Hi 11 cres t Missionary ' LW)tist Chug ' ! I 8191 Newman Avenue I + k tk.wit.in ton Beach, Calif 92647 ' � I I , , ! I j I + 1 I + t + + i I � 1 I ( I � I I � I I 1 I I ' - - - - - - . ... 1.- -- - - - - - I + I + I ' I + I + I + 1 I I 1 + I + i I I , I I , I I , I I I I , I I � I I 1 I i I i , I , I . I - I I + + I I I I � I ; 1 I I I I + 1 I I CAN Uji CR._ - _. --UUEBEC DR� HIGH - -__-- - V L LOW DENSITY _ _ 1 ALBERTA O DEN a I - R �o RESIDENTIAL z 2 4 a — RES , - ----- Q to w � -.. z Q RANKUN Df� GEN , J - cQ F YUKON DR i Z -_ 4 J COMM. a — ��cir M ED ; W A� y DEN, AVE. n MEDIUM C3 DENS_ I TY f c GENERAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL ; -- t.; : - - - -GEN . ol INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PROFESSIONAL — GEN . PROF COMM, U LLJ PQ cr LLJ SMA FER CR O T'l t 3 _ MEDIUM DENSITY —T—_ = w RESIDENTIAL i U q 1 - SLAT F w FEET krea of Concern 3. 2 0 o . 42 -rigore 3-11 i i i i 159-131-U6 159-131-23 ' bw" TZry Le 1oeric , rimocial Ewharve Inc d Marl�w�n 109 7 Aviation elW ' 1xviale; .Call ' kbetmoaa bm.mcn, Calf 90254 92714. 159-131-07 159-131-25 600381. am Rictard. L Bartlett ' Via Dal Mxd e 1862 Placentia AvwAm Palos Va nks Estates, Calif Oasts me", Calif . 90274 '92627 159-131-08 159-131-26 Ciarlas R Bart Jr ' dual V Garcia 16683 Qm� Lane i 10361 Kean A come ' Pacific Paliss�jes, calif Garden Omm, Calif 90272 ; '92643 _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 159-131-12 Steve Robinson 1400 Quail Street ' Suite 135 I**4rort Beach, Calif 92660 7 1- 159-131-12 148-021-04 ' Samm l D .Giamletti Wharf Pzaperties 1r-c. i.862 Pla 'Ontia Av+e we c/o Dennis G. Harkavy C�ista Mesa., Calif T!»rpe et al 92627 ; 1900 Avenue of the Stars 159-131-13 Suite 2200 � Dili, Aarikh Los Angele$, California. ' 4191 Call m Drive 90067 AMUixiton Bach Calif 92649 ' -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -t - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - _ _ _ _ _ .._ .. .- ... . 159-131-16 ' Martin Dmaglas Settlm 33tl Violet Lane Oarange, Calif 92669 - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - 159-131-17 Jerry K aldl.eey C/o G S pealty 1862 Placentia Avenue Cbsta Mega, Calif 92627 ' 159-131-21 T _ .. .. .. -. . smaiel Clan 536 Via Del Monte Fa►los Verties Wtatee, Calif 90274 ' i i i LUE 81-2, Area. 3. 2 df I _ .. . _ - - - - - - T - - - ' ' 159-163-45 159-263-26 159-263-36 John Wood.lock i ,Tay Stern Diana T, Tsu 18702 Racquet Lane ; 18737 Racquet Lane 7718 Saqewood Dr . Nunttngton Beach, CA 92648 1I1untington Beach, CA 92648 , . Huntington Beach, CA 9260 - - - - - - = - - - - - = = - L -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 159-263-27 ; 159-263-37 159--263-4,6 .Larry Severson , Joseph H. Da Pena � John M. Fratto .L 18706 Racquet Lane 118733 Racquet Lane 16S81 Ensign Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ; HUntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington teach, CA �lG4 159-263-28 1159-263-38 159-263-4i ''. Brett Morehead Ir.vf ng C. Gault � Kimberly Pic Dona1d 8931' Bedel Drive ' F.O. f1OX 931 , 1149 Daniels Dr. Lancaster CA 93534 Huntington Beach, CA 926461Los Angeles; CA 90035 , i `1.59-263-30 1159-263-39 15y-16j-48 Les A. HaWank ; Judie E. Fate Wallace c. Stromlund 18722 Racquet Lane 118725 Racquet Lane 770.E Sagewood Dr . Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ; Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' Huntington Beach, CA 916,4 - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - -- r - - -..- - - - - --- - - - - - - -. - - � - - - - 159-263-31 1159-263-40 159-263-49 i Karen. O. Smith :Don H. Monday ; Raymond 11. weaver •18726. Racquet Lane ; 1872i Racquet Lane 1778? Sageupod [)r, Huntington "Beach, CA 92648 ' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ; Huntington Beach, CA 92t:l'± _. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - j -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - 159-26.3-32 1159-263-41 159-263-S0 Richard L. Washakaugh ;Huntington Townhouse Part-- ' Eugene J. Grant 18730' Racquet Lane netrship ; 7694 SAgewood Drive Huntington beach, CA 92648 ;17932. Sky Park" Boulevaod I Huntington F3(!ach, CA 92(A ii - - - -- - - - lrviie; -e**- - 93}1# - -:- - - - - �.- - - - - - - 159-263-33 1159-263-42 159-263-51 Jeffrey P. Irvin Opal C. Taylor ' .Teanne Welsh Moore '187.34 Racquet Lane 118713 Racquet Lane 7690 9dgewgaQ "Dr. Huntington Beach; CA 92648 'Huntington Reach, 'CA 92648 " ; Huntinyt.on Beach, CA 92t:�1 159-263-34 ;159-263-43 � 1�9-lG3-Sz , Wilma H. Rasmussen ,Fdward A. Johnson ' R611in A. Colbert 5220 Marina Pacifica Drive 118709 Racquet Lane ; 7t.86 Sagownod Dr. Long beach, CA 90803 ;Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' 13u"ntinciton Beach, CA 159-263-35 '159-263-44 Steve D. Evangelatos ;Dona K. Van Buren ; Walter M. Siegel 926 Misty Isle Dr 17722 Sagewood Dr. 17f.82 Sartewood ter. Glendale, ON 91207 liiuntington Beach, CA 92643 ; }iunatingLon Beach, CA 4 s , LG1: 81-2, Area. 3 . 2 df ' 10-14-81 Page 3 of 159-263-54 - - - - 111=242-06 , 07, 08 Gloria Mae Wheeler 1 Gerald L. Chapman � 7678 Sag�c3 Dr. ' 17891 Bolton Cir. Huntington. 'Beach, CA 92648 , ttuntington .Beach, CA 92648 I 159-263-55 111-242-09 I Ray Dakin Albert S. Rspitia 7674 Saqewood Dr. i8761 Huntington St. Euntington Reach, CA 92648 ; Huntington Beach, ' CA 92648 I 159-263-56 111-241l-10 Charles S. Loeb Joe Bruno ' i8704 club Lams ; 18965 Jurupa Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 926481 Bloomington, CA 92316 - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - 159-263-57 ; 111-242-23 -� funtington Townhouse Part- : W. Jackson Bransford nership I c/o Classic Development 17932 icy Park Blvd ; 17682 -N'. Mitchell , Irvine' , - CA 92714 �. Irvine, CA 9.2.714 159-263-5$ ' John Dixon ! 18716 Club Lane Charles MacGregor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i Soott St'ohbehn , 10172 Adam Avenue - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- Bewh,_Calif 1597263-59 ; 92648 Damian Lee Woods , i8720 Club Lane ' .Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ; 159-263-60 John P. Sarandon ,2801 S. Robertson Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90034 111-242-0t Standard oil Co. of Calif. ; Peopetty Tax Division � 225 Bush Street San Fearcisco, CA 94220 � 111-242='04 � ttuntington Beach Co. 2.110 Main Street funtington Beach, CA 92648. 1 I V 1 f i I I I I � I ' I Occupant IAND U 81-2 Orxugaant 18551 B&jebtxxk I.mne -Arm 3.2 (32i) 7681 4iitew ester Drive Beach ch, Calif i Huntingbm) bowh, Calif. 92b48 Oooqpan t ; a Oocvrrt 18557 B&je6xook Lane I 18597 rAgd cook Lame ! 7671 vkateoat;er thrive .Huntirwiton beach'. Calif ' tiun I tinytoti Beach, Calif tiuntirwpcxi Berscti, Uri i f 92648 , 92648 '92648 . . Occupant Oocupant Occupant 18561 FAgebrook Lane 18601 Bdgob,&oak Lena I 7667 W.hitmater Drive Hunti ton Beach, Calif beach, Calif ' Huntin4bmi beach, Cal if .92648 92648 92648 - - . . - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - it OiDC:t]pmi1t i CJC=*ant "571 hook Lane 77U WKi.te minter Derive � 7661 Wtii t,tmater Drive tiuntir,gton Beach, Calif Huntin7ton Beach, Calif Hunti%.ton 'Beacti, Calif. 92648 , I 9264d 92648 I � t 184o5c��nn C)acupnnt ' oczvt,:arat Bdge6rooc Lane ; 7707 uhitewater Lame i 7657 Whitewater Drive Huntingt m Beach, Calif I Hunti x4t on Bench, Calif ' H=tir ,ft Dr, WWII Calif 92648 92648 5,2648 I � oom4m nt I oompant Ioocupant 18681 B&JahrOQk Lame 7701 *dtomilb r Odivie 7651 WWtEwater Drive Huntirgbmo eea�ch, Calif Eiunt:ir� Bach, Calif Head,, C,a►lif 926" 92648 92648 0vc44aant oocuPWIt cxx-ulaant 18587 Edgetrook Lane ; '7697 Whit inter DerOm 7647 *dtmettx Drive Huntingbnn beach, Calif I Huntington Bench, Calif Huntinitm Beach, Calif 92648 92648 , 92648 • - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - i I Ovr4,ant ; Oocwiant 0=4A3nt 1d591 E kjeUM0: LAM I 7b81- Wutamter Drive ; 7645 4dt4walter Drive Hurd ytron Beach, Calif ' Hunting-bon Beach., Calif I ttuntiNWi) tie h, C,11ii 92648 92648 92649 Occupant ; Occupant , 0 4xu l t 18595 FAgeLmok Lane , 7687 Whitewtrer Drive 18602 C,7c.*+I Lci w Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Bmch, Calif Huht.injt;In Kemch, Calif I� 92648 ; 92648 I i I I I I 1 I ! I ' I ' I ' I ' Occupant 18 985 Creek c I I j' t 81-2 7696 Rapids Drive Arela 3.2 WH) Huntisgtm beach, Calif I I Huntirgton Foaph, Cali f 92648 926*48 I . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i OCY--A=t I, O4c t 185% Creek. 14ne � 7652 Rapids Derive � 7698' W)ids Drive Mmtinyton Beach, Calif I Huntingtt�n Beach, Calif tiuntirgtan Heacfi, Calif 92648 92648- I 96648 �-'4pant ' t 1 18592 Creek La 7658 Rapids Drive � Htmt ink Beach, Calif 1 h-uhtinyton Reach, Cali�f 1 92648 i 92648 - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - OOcupant i occupant I Ooc.-Uwt .7632 Rapids Drive 7672 Rapids Drina 7702 Rapdo- Drive IAmtingWn beach, Calif tinytr n beach, Calif I Eluntinytrui Calif. 92648 I 92648 92648 Occupant 1 occup Tt I 0o"T.'nt. 7636 Rapids Drive 7678 P*Ads Drive I 7704 Rai-ids Derive Huntingdon Beach, Calif I Huntinyton Beach, Calif I t6,mtirgtoo i Beech, Calif 92648 92648 92648 . I I occupantI OC7*.Aarlt 1638 R%aids Drive ! 7682, RipAds Drive 7706 Ra4,ids Drive . Huntim tun.,beach, Calif HuntingWn Beach, Calif Huntirgbon Wtach, Calif 92648 I 29648 92648 - - - - -- -- - - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - - - I Doc.-u4aaint 0o4ant 7642 Rak1ds Drive_ , 768t3 maids Drive 1 7708 Rapids urive HmtirWm Beach, Calif + Huntington Beach, Calif Mmtiriytoln Etch, Calif 92648 92648 92648 I 1 1 0oc4=* Occupant ' 7646 Rapids Derive ' 7692 Rapids Drive ' hunti 9ton Mach, Calif Iluntinclbon I*ach, Calif 92648 92648 ' I C�cx'u�x3nt �. 7648 Rae ids Drive 00c%4 ant 7694 Ria�ids Drive I HuntirgWn }rich, Calif I 11witinyton Beach, Calif ' 92648 ' 92648 I , I I 1 ' I I ' , I i 1 1 I � LUE 81-2, Area 3. 2 �, M 10-14-81 Page 1 ofJ 159-131-01 -� 159-263-09 159-263-18 William F. Lloyd 1 John Warren c.o Iren Rafferty Lloyd 7724 Saclewood Dr. 10101 Slater, Suite 102 i Huntington Reach, CA 921', ; Fnuntaiin_�-alley, CA. _. _.92.708- 1159-091-03,04 , 05 ; 159-263-10 159-203-19 Sher Western Enterprises ; Shaen K. IMillbern ; R. J . Wacyner 200 llwth Ave. NE #213 7691 Sagewood Dr. + 7733 :,agewo d Dr. Bellevue, WA ' 98004 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ± Iiuntington. Beach, CA - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - _. .,. .. 159.-263-01 159-263-11 1 1597263--20 Fr4nces J. Elward Jessica S. Dorman Marilyn G. Dahl 1871-9 Club Lane ; 7695 Sagewood, Dr. 7737 17,agew1:iod Dr. Huntington beach, CA 926481 tiuntingt6n Beach, CA 92648 , Huntington Beach, (.A 92t.A 159-263-02 ; 159-263' 12 159-263-21 . 1 ( Christine Robinson , Yoshio Yasuca ; Rayminnd G. Wilson . .18715' Club Lane 7699 Sagewood Dr. 19839 Fi mans Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 , Huntington Beach, CA 92648 : Fountain Valley, CA " . 159-263-03 1 159-263-13 1159-2G3-29 1 William G. Windle 1 Barry Bussiere ' Mel ir.da A. Olea 18109. Club Lane ; 7703 Sagewood Dr. 18716 'Racgtiet Lane Huntington Beach, CA 926481 Hunttngton . Beach, CA 92648 itiuntinaton Beach, CA 9`C)4�t . 1 1 - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - 159-263-04 ; 159-263-14 : 159-263-23 Claudia J. Dobson ; Richard G. Dunham Terrance A. Fletcher 18.703 ,Mib Lane : 7707 Sagewood Dr: + 18690 Racquet bane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 : Huntington Reach, CA ^ +..1 _ _ - - - - - -- - -- - -- - - - -- - =- -- - L - -' - - - 159-263-05 - 1159-263-15 ! 159-263-22 1 I . Walter M. -Behn : Keith J. Blair 1John R. Rates 18697 Club Lane ; 7711 Sagetiood Dr. :1868G Racgp6t. Lane tiuntingt6n Peach, CA 92f48 1 Huntington Beach, CA 926.�48 iiiuntington 1` ear:h, CA 1 1 . i59-.263-06 - - - - - -- - - - 159-263-16 : 159-263-24 Anna Marie Thames ; Rdnald J. "Slick ;Judy M. Uychara 18691 .C1ub Lane 1 7721 Saqewood Dr. 110694 Rac-,;,,!yet Lane 8untington Beach, CA 92648 : liuntington Beach, CA 92648 1I1uuntinoton CA 159-263-07, JEi 11�159-263-17- - - - - - - - 1159-26 3-2 :, Donald Z . Troy : Ted T. Kanekuni :Dept. of gets. P.f faj. r'e; 5272 Allsone Dr. ; 7725 Sagewood Dr. 18698 Itacyllt't L.arie Huntington Beach, CA 112t,49 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 41unitn:iton Beach, C'', 1 � : 1 1 1 ! 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 I I_ j . 1 � I I i I OCK.-L,AMnt LAnd Ube Elesamt 81-2 00CLaant 18731 Club Lane , Area 3.2 (.Hi) ' WA*I >�n Beach, Calif 1 18773 Raguet Large NuntirxjtOn Bee, «li.i %248 92648 i I , c � � Ckxa�ant 18737 Club Lane 7741 8777 Ra Sac :Drive ' 1oc,-uet L flan Be�3c.h, Calif I 111134� Wit, Calif ; lhmtinvinn Fielach,. Calif 92648 ' 92648 98648 i ,... - _.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _' _ OC7CLQdnt i Oocupant i Oocupant 18743 Club. Lane I 18714 Raoquet Lapp I 18766 Club iAm lu*ingbon Desch, Calif ; Huntingtngn , Calif Hu�ttii�►ltc4 Desch, Calif 92. 648, I 92648 , `,,264'es - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I Ooc- pant ax�nt 18749 Club Lane ; 18741 P�oquet large 18772 C1tt-) Lane lAmUnyton Beach, Calif HuntU%jt a ' Calif I tfturti.nytun Em", Calif 92648. I 92648 92648 - = - - -- = - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - � - - - - .. . - OoC4tln It , Oocu*ant to tt 18755.Club Lane I 18745 Raoqu t Lane 1 18774 Club rAv e ikon liewc:h, Calif I Htmtiny on Beach, Calif tituttimjtco� Beach, Calif 92648 I 92648 I 92648 71 I I I 0=4)ant 1 Oupant I OOLI. ult 18761 Club Lane ; cc 18757 ,Raoc�uet L 1ii784 Club tAu�e Hunt"W . Beach, Calif 1 .�unti,ny� Beach, Calif 1. Huntirxltun fX ch, Calif 92648. ; ,92648 92648 -- - - - - - --- - - - occupant I OOc%k nt oc3Cup nt 7675 Sayew000 Urive 1 18761 Racquet LAM 1 18738 Club "ve liunt3ngpon Beach, Calif ' Huntington lh, Calif � Huntington bach, Calif. 92648 1 92648 1 92648 I I I c ant ' Occupant 1 Ckacu� r,t 1 7679 Sayewood Drive , 18765 Rao4uet Lane ; 18744 club Lam 1uuntijVton beach, Calif ' Huntinyton beach, Calif I "Until, ton Beach, Calif 92648 ; 92648 ' 92648 1 I Oaci$fant i OccnVant , OmM pant 7683 Sagewxxi Drive � 18769 Haapiet Lane ltl750 Club roi-w Uuntirxlbcn Bich, calif I Huntingtm Beach, Calif ; Huntinjhxi Beach, c..al.if 92648 ' 92648 92648 I � . I I I I . I I I ' I I 1 I Uou-4mint I i Ckx alit 18746 Rac(Fylt Lame ' 13818 R L%4Wt t.artia ' Land Use t 81-2 taurtl,r�tcxi iiearcl�, Calif I I Ilt.altinitorl tot[.'h," Calif 92648 Asea 3.2 WH) ' 0648 I I occurw* 1 0=43ant I t 18750 a6ape+t Lane I 187" Raoquet Lam ' 18822 rtxcqulet Laure Iiuntinjton Be h, Calif Huntin,'" Beach, Calif , Huntington Bah.., Calif 91648 192648 192648 I I I 0kX.4mlt I (aOm4-,ant Ommpant 18.754 Raupuet Lame 18790 Raoquet Lane , 18824 RL"jwt LAm Ifunlungton k�ach, Calif I ll�Gntingt�on h, CalifI Ht ntinjtoh Deach, Calif `` 92648 92648 ; 92648 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _�•• _ _. -. Occupant ���Cl�JslTlt fyvn a*141t ... .. _ ' 18758 RaoVet Lane I 18794 Rao4uet Lane � `187"77 dub Lane Huntington Beach, Calif IfuntirujWn Beach, Calif i Huntington ikwA:h, Calif 92648 I 92648 192648 I OoCu�aent zg>ant Cm-%4x-Unt 1.8762 Racquet Lane ; 0o 18798 Raoquet Lane 118783 Club Larx: IitmtitybDn Beach, Calif I Huntirxgtori Leech, Calif I Huntixigbm Roach, Calif 9a648 12649 ; 92648 I I I 0oc43Srlt I 00ct4,ant 18766 Racquet Lane 18806 Raogwt Lane 18789 Club Utue huntinibmi Beach, Calif Wntin+,jton B c1t, Calif I I3untirlytun Isoactz, Cali F 92648 I 92648 . 92648 . I I I - -- - - --- -- - - --- - -- - - -- �- --- - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - + - - _ ._ .. _ 18778 Raogmt Lam I 18795 Club Ix'ue f*tirvgtm 13eacti, Calif I ' Ihmt.lnijWn bcti,ch, Cal iI- 92648 i 92648 I I � I � o0cupant I OCK.-q.ant I occtjt:�ant 18782 .fit Lane I 16810 Ra�t Lame ; 18801 ClLA) Ulm, Huntington Heacit, calif Ihm irn7tDn b ah, Calif I thuttin ffor, boach, Calif 91648 92648 ' 9264d - I I want cac2z%4-)ant Orxzlu>t 18786 Rarjuet Lane , 18814 Itakxpet. Lime I 18309 CluL I.�ur. j tiurit.iNtm, calif Iluntlrx3ton Deach, Calif iiwztington Llx3.►:.L, Calif 9;.640 92648 1 92640 I . � I I ' I ' I I f � � Occupant Land Use Elament 81-2 18756 Club Lane Area 3.2 (J* , Huntingtan BeiacJi, CA.Lif 92648 , Occupant 00cv4Ant 18704 Club Large 18713. Rat Lam Huntington Bwch, Calif i Huntington Boesch, Calif 92648 ! 92648 UCK- gA&nt i t CL�xitlt 18710 Club Lane 18717 gqo4uet La►r�? Huntington c-h, Wif HuntinVton Reach; Calif 92648 92648 float Pant 0=4 Ant 18716 Club LAm 18721 Raoquet Lw e HuntUVtm Bea-;h, Calif ifuntiNton bwch, Calif ' 92648 ' 92648 Occupant i want 18720 Club Large , 18725 Racquet bane Hutztitx3bar► Eia�aaL::h, Calif ' lluntinaton near h, Calif 92640 ; 92648 I 1 Oct�gaant oa-want , ` 19722_Club Lane 18729 Aacquet Lane U mt ingt= t swl� , Calif , Huntington Bich, Calif � 92.648 92648 f � , Occupant , 7710 Sasyew Drive , Huntington Beach, -Calif i ' 91648 OocukAnt 7714 Sage rood Drive , lwritiroyton 1�maiac i, Calif 92648 i Occupant 187.09 Racquet Lame 11untinyton Beach, Calif 92648 , �. GO.C,"ri0000 000U o0U ■ ■ ■ i • • 0000uoo°o • ■ ■ e • • ■ ,o.C> C} UUU'00000 0000000000 ■ e • e ■ .�(rl)i�pOo0o0p0°G^°O°O O°O°O°O°O°O°n°0r'O°O • • • • ■ •B■ r o� oc0000 00000000° a a ■ ■ ■ iU�000000��0000 0000000000 • • ■ ■ • ■■■ �= 000�0°000�0 O O o ■ ■ ■ ■ . • ; •; ■ ■ • • ■ a ■ .�.•. c n UC 00 �O O O O O Q ■ O • ■ a ■ • • ■ • e �•,. ®■■■■o■�■■■aia■a a • • a iii �,L:: �!: �:•. O O • ■ a • ■ • • a■■aaaa■a •° ,�.1•:�'�:L:.i"j r •�r O� o )0 'c) )° O O Op o ) U ■ m e • ■a■aaa a a ■ ■ .'�� .� . . . .•. aa■saaaa■ a • •■■aa■■• :'� �� ;: :�:�:1.. . U p p ° O O ° O O a a a sas ® ■ ■ ■ aaaaa■■ • a ■ / •:ti;t. :1Q:�:�:ri:� i� °o �° O ° o ° ■ • a a a ■ ■ ■ • a ■ . .• . .C.. o 0 0 o a . e a • a ■ ■ a a ■ ,, .a': �J c. U•O ;)O° OO' oO a a a a a a a a a'C O ° ° a a a a a a • a e ■ O • a a a a ..�.•,. i.V.:'/••:I•, U O O c O ° •,�:•''�:•�';�.i'��• •''..•.'`',';..•,i. .!aaaa U ) O v o 0 o.i O Op c O ®■®�. b .s rasa' �C<.:•�;:.��'.:C}:�. GARFIELD a's a / // / / / r '/ // / r / ms r �. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / r / ?si�ee.i::.:"i'°°'"'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:ii: Z iiisei3 ' 's .... iiie i:ii3 CLAY ;:�':'• ice a®B® ®i:: .................. . iii :iii: iiiii iiiii (� iiiiiiii:'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�i • Z ::s::s.i :: •••= •.•, iiiii •f. iiiii � . ;:•l:.•.;.;• iii'siiiiiiii :eii . iiiiiiiiiiE:iiiiiii . ...... �. / -ice . �_ i� � � � "N. = , ............ ..... RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL PUBUC USE ESTATE 2 un/yap GENERAL PUBLIC.QUASI-PUBIK.IPIST(TLli�il MD ESTATE 4 un/gac OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ),f OPEN SPACE LOW DENSITY 6'7uy'l/Sac INDUSTRIAL OTHER USES , MEDIUM DENSITY GENERAL J RESOURCE PRODUCTION � AR coo A 2, GENERAL PLAN GARFIEL® - GOLDEN WEST AREA Z huntington beach planning division 9 I j , , I � I Dick Norio i , 111-130-10. 9340 ; tlntitn�trn Beach ,CX� t4 , Calif Tau Division 92583. ' I 225 Bush Street San Francisgo; Calif 94120 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J - - - - - - - ' ' 111-130-01 Hun timiean Beach ConVaM A N Pedersen 2110 Main Street I ' 610 Main Street I Hunt.im on Beach, Calif iWntinoon Beach. Calif 92648 92648 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - coarlm MacGregor 111-130-02 ; 111�130-11. Scott Strohm i Ctaarles G Mt�c I Stanf ell F Mills 10172 Maw A einue , 417 Harutm al Drive 804 N Cle. r Circle Huntingtion 9each, 'Calif 'Monrovia, Calif , Fvllerwn, Cail.if 92647. , 91060 ' 92632. - - -- r Jame C. ; 111-130-03 I 111-130--12 t 41=00t i+ti.ssiQrAry BaE,tist Evpeu E (la+atsch t ! 1206 Park strut 8191 Newman Aver � �� Calif �vre ' t,4untiM ton Hearch, Calif 92647 ' 92648 ' 148-021-06 ; 111-130-04 ; 111-130-15 Depart meAt of tior.I Donald A Fair I Wilvian J Renner 12i3 So. Spiry Street ; 401 -20th Street 807 F ra ikfo¢t Street Ia Amjeles, Calif 90052 'Hmt incl cn Beach, Cal Hpnt.in if i gtioln Beach, Calif Attu: Staff Assigtartt-b i. 91648 _- 92648 - - - 148-021-04 ' 111-130-05 111-140-01 I iwf Properties Inc: George W Aahby ; James L Telford C.VoDwnie G. Markevy ' 16222 Wxrtoey Lane I 3105 ► dtis Sullivan T ie et al ; ttwti%t�oa Heach, •Calif Austin, TexAs 800 Wilshire bled r 92647 I 18705 ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -� - - - - - - - - -= - -- - - - - - - - - - - -i- - - -'- - -- - - - - - 4th Flow I 111-130-06 ; 111-14U-02 Ins Ao4eloes, Calif ! Helen Vick Petersen I CharLca N 6t Mart-.in et al 90014 i 2220 East 4800 South Rex Oil OD -- ---- ' Apt. 25 i 5225 Wilshire Blvd.Suito 61d Salt Lake City, Utah 84117 Los Arvw, ,ds, Calif 90036 14"21-08 111-130-07 111=140-05 City of limtin ton Beach I benaard A Leckie ; Rex Oil CcegEaany 1616 Lira In Lain 5225 Wilshire Blvd N&4xut Mach, Calif ' Suite 618 ' 92660 I UM Angeles, Calif 9003h 14d-u21-lu 1111-130-09 ; 111-14U-U9 Develvinm* 0c)• Fc"rt Jeffrey I Kama Linda Ur-dvversi ty 11932 Valley Vier 8tre+et , Pat U MwAiao Risk !Uraytu"nt Dept. Garden Grove, CiLI.LE 32146 Sailview Lary I IAMU L.Wla, Calif 92645 , Westlake Village, Calif 91361 1 92354 - - -- - - I I ` ' I I i I , I ' 1 � � I , I 111-150-39 1 .159-282-11 aijan Sassounian War Oil OD., Inc William J Scott ; 400 W. Wiisi-im Blvd 401 20th Street I 2978 Oountty Club Drive ! suite 4tYj HuntisVttxi Beach, Calif ' ODgta MMat, CAI-if ; Ivs A{jelss, Calif `.,►UU17 92648 i 92626 , 111-150-45 ; 159-282-12 Lee A Carnahan I Huntinyt m Beach M. C/o S G Inc c/o .CWvran LEA Inc P.O. 0voc. 1609 , wqty Tax Dept HMti.nytr3n Beach, Calif 92649 P.O. boot 7611 _ _ _ -_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - 111-150-46 San Francism, calif � - Ezeldel �h ; 04102 16242 TyjAxxxi Lane hunUp4tan beach, Calif ' 9.2649 - - -- - - - - - - - - - Ul-150-48 ; 111-170-18 + Yong Chur Slain William P CmFtell ' 1132 Drive ; 7601 Clay Avemie AUwbra, Calif I Huntinybun Beach, Calif 91803 - 02648 ;. 159-281-03 ! 111-170-21 ' Jaw D: Bradleam ; Atiyyle Campbell , Glc*jB`B M=wy 7601 Clay Avenue ' 121 Via Mentiane �. tl= in4tbn beach, Calif HWpoo:t Beach, Calif 92663 r 92648 159-282-06 , 111-170-22 1 lets Dwplopwnt Ourp iCaubm Development OD. ' SW Adam Avenue ; William P Caq bell Huntington 5ewlt, Calif 1 P.O. BOX 2000 92648 hunti.mjT Beach, Calif 92647 ' 1 159-2t12-4JU - - - PiEsr Point Nome Urin�ers Asolc. 1 + Ra43i Fi Cnmauer Jr. et al co Ooast I � Aquities ' 1123 Maybtcx* [hive , 6272-C E Pacific coa t Hiy!•asy I. IAx q Beach, Calif 1 Bcaverly Hills, calif + , 90210' 90802 , - - - - - - ---- -- - - - - --- - - - - -'- 159-282-09 I ' 1flIIltington Si final oil Ca 3913 N L"*3 w." Blvd. I . L"vg teach,. Calif ' I 9u607 ; 1 - Aarry F Coadar4 + ' 24141 Fortane Drive Li 'Mro, calif + 92630 I + t I I 1 I + 111-140-15 + 111-150-01 ; ill-150-:1 Milos M Albert ; '-Ae ciel Joseph Marion Burl.in�= i 27520 Ehicry Strut + 16242 TyFhopn Lww !237 N Blvd Sun City, Calif Huntirust i 1i, Calif San GdLriel,. C:alif 422381 92649 9177E . . . . . .. . . . . - . - - - - _. ... . _ 111-140-16 ; 111-150-02 111-150-22 I Ila K Day ' Am ald D Ellis et al Mich,-k.l J t-a jor 8081 Garfield Avenue ; James Patterson et al 16W 1\ntic� Way lUntinytm !seat:", Calif 7332 Garfi6ld Avenue Newl�urt fse,-wh, Calif 92b46 Huntington leach, Calif 92648 + 92660 111-140-18 111-150-03 111-150-24 W Melvin Killirx3aworth ; James s Hri d4enan + Willis, M F1livtt 422L Linden Avenue + P.O. Box 1757 ; 19411 warclmeter Dane Ia[yy Reach, Calit ; HUntiryt+on Beacii, Calif ltuntinjt6n Uc%:ich, Calif 90807. 92647 92b" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 111-140-19 ; 111-150-04 ' 111-15U-1S Jon A Gustaf am William J *Baird. Mary A Limlle}'. 7514 Garfield Avenue ; 21381 Seafarth Lam + 2024, Victoria Drive t"*-"bun bloc;,' Calif + Hmt rsjtc n 1*kwl . Calif ; Santa Ana, Calif 92648 92646 92706 111-�140-20 111-150-05 + Properties " 111-15v-3U Tom. Pro " Marty Stacy " Pb-RZ Invrstnient Cxoto 2525 Lenin Avenue + 2120 Main Street %Sylvia 1dcht -r LON aesd�, Calif ; bulbs 250 i 752 Via Lido L.)W 90806 + Hun ton Beach, Calif 92648 Newportise x ► Calif 9166.1 111-140-23 + 111-150-06 W-150-33 Maribelle Denslaw et al " see K yes ; Carl VkAver• + 324 N Auburn , 6791 Lcy+ola Drive ' 19061 Cr u r•st,il street ng Sierra Madre, Calif + Huntiton Beach, Calif ; ll1g,tim tall ik:iAd1, •calif 91024 ; 92647 92648 - - - - - -- - -= - - - --- -- - -- -- - - -- --- - - --- - - -- - - -- - - - - '- - - - 111-140-24 111-150-13 , 111-150-34- FJ=a. ' K Ooetnh + Famrt L Amle3rem Melvin F Ks l leis 1015 Florida Street " 19082 Crystal Street , 4534 :fitIlewiit Blvd. liuntirlgbon BWdl, Calif ; Huntington• Reach, Calif t l+artlarxi, Clre<�C�il 92648 + 92648 97221 111-140-25 + 111-150-17 111-150--46. Leslie H Miller ' William J Scott + Janes M brkmi 19061 Crystal Street i 2978 Country Clutj Drive + 221 Mic lt'f i.( ld [)rive ►imtinytun bem, Calif + Cbsta Mesa, Calif ; San F'rancitxu, Calif 02648 ; 92626 + 94132 - - - - - - - - - 111-140-26 Ul-150-19 - 111-LSU-�cs Lbrothy L Otto Ferrol M 'Piston Pearl N worts r- 2217 W. 29th. Place ' P.U. box 149 , 1.002 Rivim'a iA)s Arsjeles, Calif , Sams, Calif + Santa Ace, wli t 90018 93666 ; 92706 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... ... 1 .. - - - - - + I I I I I I I I Ill-190-07 I 23--251-0.9 James R Talley . IAnd U€39 Elmt 81-2 James L Waatrwxmn ld642 E Auburn Aveawe Oct. 14, 1981 (Jfi) 6971 Lawn Haven Drive Santa Arira, Calif Huontin9tvn DeaUm, Calif 92705 1 92648 111-190-20 25--061-22 23-251-10 y� E Hayden I Jack N Vinson ' f rld A HpDver 7655 Cl#y Avenue F.O. B= 5914 6972 Lawn Httvm Drive Huntington beach,. Calif , Huntingion beach, Calif I lluntington Heaum,• Calif 9264,b 1 92646 92648 - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ._ � .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ ..... . 111-190-22 I 25-010--01 ' 23-251-11 Cd��e i Huntington beach Oo. , A*ert R Marlin E:O: Boot 135 , 225 fAi;sh Street 64f 2•Lawn Haven Drive tfuatin" Deajch, Calif San Francism, Calif ; Huntirritvn JAvm,_h, Calif 92648 94120 I 92648 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. - . a i 111-19Y-67 25-010-02 23-251..12 Huntington Harimm Irvestm. I Huntinytan Bow--h Co. ' Daniel A Kubiak c/0 tiuntin0m Investments Tax Division , b942 Lawn ilavtIi Urive 7306 Center icbae Aven , 225 Bush Street Huntir>ytr�n isc�ac�tl, calif Huritinytxxi beach, Calif 9264? I San Franc isoo, Calif 94120 92648 111-190-28 . 23-251-04 � 23-151-13 fhantin gtUn ViO"int Investia Milton L Barnard I Alberto H k a-gau'+e c✓v Huntirtigtioh Znvlestinnents. I 6901 Lawn Haven Doriye 69.32 Lawn Wiveh Drive 7306 Centex Avehue ' Huntimjtun Beach., Calif Death, CaUit fdmtu.ytnn.Beach, Calif 92647 i 92648 92648 I Ill-190-31 ; 23-251-05 I 159-191-04 i E T A [�9�mgmE ent Inc I Stephen W $chs ' Htmunco n Investments 6921 Lawn Hwrm Drive � 7306 Center Avenue I Huntington beach, Calif 1 i Huet.ihYtyon such, Calif 92647 : 92648 -- - - - - --- - -- -- - -- - 111-19�}=32 23-251-06 i 159-19.1•-04 j lhmtin3tm Seascape Investm. Flonald A Nbore I HuntixxltKXI Sic x11 Oil CX:. fiuntingt n bwestments 1 6931 lawn fHmv+en Drive 3913 I;ony Heath avd. 7306 8enter Avmu,L- ' Huntington. Beach, Calif 1 Ibtq Beach, Calif Huntington beach, Calif. 92647 ; 92648 I 90807. - �- - - - -- 61- - - - - - �- - - - - - - - ----- - --- - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - 25-029 ; 23-251-07 1 159-192-04 Dewey D Uavide Reuben A Ortega ' P ulip fi Siluan 1 13" S Clauiina Street ' 6921 Law- Havers Drive � 3812 W S%wlvaia Blvd. 124:, Anaheim, Calif Huntington beech, Calif I lbrrar>x.:e, i ali.t 92.jos 92648 ; 9050.5 25-%1-04 23-251-08 ; 159-192-25 Richard A Aua tis Dmv i.s F D Ambra I Davin L GD:t.in 10061' Wye Drive I 6961 Lawn Haven Drive 1628 t`.addi.nitcm Drive: Huntiuyton 0each, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif I San Pedtr>, Calif 92646 I 92648 ' 90132 : I I I I 1 , I I 1 I ' I • � i 1 I I ' I I I Ul-120-11 I 1111-110-OS 1 L&W Use glaum t 81-2 Harradk �d A' Jackie ' Oct. 14, 1981 WH) � Alvin R a" 1201 Dvvaa Street Suite 600 1304 S Spalding Urive NewpUM Heoch, Calif I Beverly Hills; Calif 92660 , ' 90212 - - - - - - - -. _. .. _ - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -' - - I 111-120-13 ; 111-110-10 111-110-24 Jdm A s I Carl G cube ; City of Huntirgbm Bawh 19782 So6nic Bay Lsrte 5225 'Wilshira Blvd Suite 618 i --------- ---__ If uatinyUon beach, Calif I Lois ArVeles, 'Calif � 90636 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 111-120-16 ' 111-110-11 ; ill-180-08 Cbllein�.Azmcstsrxay P40bert J Dunn Margaret E lleast un i Jahn A Thomas ! 800 E. Faim6unt Ad ' .P.O. txox 215 19782 Soinic Bay Lane Burbank, Calif i Eiuiatir>'3tivn leerd Calif iAMtirt*itran Bow-- a,Calif 92648 91501 92648 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - _ - 111-120-let '- Ill-110-14 1111-18t?-10 Charles R Johnson I Willidnt Lwxiis Margaret E i1#-,,a.sb x, 8061 Taylor Avenue i 1180 S b6v4irly Drive 1 William A Wctc*e "tiny" beach, Calif 1 Los An4el es, Calif 4034_Cd ll.e Ar iana 9:4t,4o San C;-lati ale, Calif 92672 - - - - -- - - -- - --- - - - - - - -- - -- -- •- - - - - - - - --- - -- t - - - . -- - - Ul-120-19 i 111-110-15 ; 111-18U-11 Franklin D Jones Jerry J Galich Kenneth A Lester ! Darrell A Lightner I 939 loth Street Maze J Pan renter 237 Canal' Street ; Huntinyt?on Bseach, Calif 1 808 Terraine Avenue Newlloact Beach,. Calif 92663. !' 9264d Dray fie►�h, Calif 90804 - - - - - - - - -'- - - ti - - - - - -:- - - - ► - =:- - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - -- 111-120-09 1 111-180-04 I American Oil Service Inc ' 111-110-16 ; Rolbert. l-ti 18906 QnLde est Street ; 1801 P rkoourt Place #102 Mmiti ngUi a Beach, Calif ; Santa Ana, Calif 92648 92701 111-110-07 Ul-110-16 , 111-19U-tit Christ Hansen ! ' Louis Del Crcxgk le kwx Oil Co. ' ; i9232- Hunt.inyton Start 5225 Wilshire Blvd ; I .Huntington f .:h, 'Calif' Los An, e , Calit 90036 I ; 92648 IU-110-08 I 111-110-16 1 111--190-04 Jack D Waide ' CaliziDL ucsub Inc ; E T. A Win-.r;erent Inc t 1007 Florida Street ; Calif Production Serv.Inc 7306' omt:er. Drive ! litsatiny t m w ac:h, Calif I 19431 S Santa Fe Avant ; liurttirr•�tc�rl f kac t t,Cali.t: 9264b P.O. Lox 4489 i 92647 111-110-09 0=pban, Calif. 111-19(�U6 Owl" U Bollrnan , 90224 ' ti[Jntittyt:.at Ijurizuxi Investii, 308 10th Street ' ----- -------_ 7::06 Center tu-ive Ifuntirn3trun IJe&:h, Calif ; I 11untirtjUxi beaxtr,, Calil. 92b4d . 91647 _ ._ .. _- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - _ .. __ _ _. ._. ._ _. I i I I i I I I I i + r 159-192-06 James L F'baoc Land Use Fleumt 81-2 � 15052 sprimidale Street r Oct. 14, 1981 (JH) Suite C ' fl=tinqtM Beach, Calif 92649 159-19210 159-281-03 [i►mtirgton Apart imts ' James D won c,/o Vistar Finw-cial Inc ' � 13456 hF► + Gloria a Mocmey ' 121 Via Menem Marina Del Bey, -Calif 90291 Nagjwt tleac;h, Calif 92663 � 159-197--11 ! Manor Apar blwnts � c% Vistar Financial r 13456 Wukisgtun ll% marina Del Rey, Calif 90291 r ' 159-192-12 Tlult� Apartments c/n VistA r Finarx:ial Inc 1.i4S6 idrishinybon Blvri r ' 1.6rirs Dal Rey, Calif 90291 ' r ' 159-2d2-05 ; Mold Development Cirp �. + 808 Main Street r ifuntinclton Beach, Calif ' 92648 159-282-08 i Hall►h b dr uaau+er Jr et al 1123 Maytaook Drive ' r � lwverl ,Hills, .Calif 90210 159-282-10 Mary F Goridani 24141 Fortune Drive r El 7xgp, Calif � r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - '- 159-282-11 ' William J Scott ' 2978 Country Club Drive c xxita Mesa, Calif y:td:Cb 159-282-12 ' + huntington Beach Oo i c/o Chevron LISA Inc i'r gjerty Tax Dq-t. 11.0. Box 7611,San Framdsw CI-I r ' r r • ' r r N NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM6e1P. &j 7(aV1 L pA ()eje, ER&Af-Af "f/1t'A'j V-2r TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: IGo�S FROM: y►� S ��� PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE _ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE 7 A DAY OF 1?eCC0& 1 SO). AP' s are attached AP's will follow No AP's Initiated by: Planning Commission Planning Department Petition * Appeal Other Adoption of Environmental Status (x) YES NO Refer to MA e, Planning Department - Extension # for additional information. * If appeal, please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal. �6 Publish 11-26-81 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF LAND USE ELEMENT 81-2 BEACH-ATLANTA AREA OF CONCERN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday. the 7th day of December 1981 . for .the purpose of considering an appeal filed to the decision 'of the Planning Commission to deny the request for Area 3.4 in Land Use Element Amendment 81-2 to the General Plan; the request was to redesignate 9.8 acres located east of Beach Boulevard, 1 ,022 feet south of Atlanta Avenue from General Commercial and Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential . 'A legal description is on file in the Development Services Office. Environmental Impact Report 81-4 will be heard in conjunction with said appeal and is available in the City Clerk's Office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said appeal Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED 11-19-81 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk 64� W4d J�b At C) 7 a t2v¢� in�r� �u�reex.� 4�p n't �r-,4� w tee 7'u Ue�(4-- vo NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMr1 v, Pit ���SS/d �UEBl-Z �aG�i- fax coy of Coat�l+�irv�R TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: F ROM: ��/j►'N t I�G�l 0'1 PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE DAY OF �Qrr� bQ� 199/. AP's are attached AP's will follow No AP's Initiated by: Planning Commission Planning Department Petition * .Appeal Other Adoption of Environmental Status (x) YES NO Refer to Planning Department - Extension # :7 2 7 for additional information. * If appeal, please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal. MED . DEN , RES. A .AN LOW DENISTY 'ESIDENTIAL ATLANTL, 1.7 > ( HIGH Dco ENSITY - -� RESIDENTIAL j . MEDIUM I COMM - .._ --- MEDIUM .DENSITY RESIDENTIAL _ . JENNY. LK DENSITY ( ` • ••-•• -f RESSDENTIAL; 1 LOVE DENSITY y RESIDENTIAL . wkll _Q cold, OR MED K DEN RES. COMMERCIAL L ►..7 SUPPORT • _- -� "..-----� RECREATION , I COASTAL ZONE PLANNING RESERVE j BOUNDARY VISITOR , TANK 0 n _ SERVING U a COMMERCIAL 10 VISITOR-SERVING ' 10 ,\ COMMERCIAL cl, L--J .-1 T _ -- tihy IOoo. 0p SCAM IN FEET MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL t•. area ®f Cc'nce, rri 3A o 0 Figure 3-16 i C ` W* Robert R Wam"on G. � erat�of cari . Robert H. Odle 3090 Pullman St Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 (714)966-1333 �I i i I I T � a , I , I ' 1 — — _— .— — — - — — — — — - - - - - -�—( -1 _ _ .-. — - - - - - - -- — — — — — — — — - —1 —� 1 -02 I` I 11 HLUM y��,�AMMA . .y A OD. ! 81®®� ., , 8216 R. Drive CMro1 G Wpm ( 1°i, 417 S Hill St 9M 9249216* Calif.tan Mack -Leon _CAI I; 9Wu 148-021�12 930.UC-03 930-540-12 Vtme Y O . I : 8a01 rAxAndd � 1 J. 1R�l1e ►, ®t al Dries c/o Pc P.O. eoc 3338 Tom Anrmr Cta11f. ; 10221Lai th ! AW, Calif i' 92646 1Mv&in#m Bisack CFk 92646 - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - �- - -1- � � 934-540� - � �- 934-513 14l►-021-14 M41j i F.limbeth o. h ! Ao�t A. Nbism M.Medial �I 8205 1ti Dries ; 8206 Wil+ d Drivp U530 S ka�"r' Blvid. . - 988cft Calif. Calif. Mimi.'an Gardwo, Calif I � g ' 92646, � , _ M7U- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1�18-V21-15 i 930-54045 U 930-540-14 JdM iced C2<1f Eotnia BarkL. ' Nay A- Brown C/a.�Yfty Carpi P. O. am5369 � 8202 tiilt�000d Circle P.O. boat 92333 i S � " C� Kint ingt m Bch. Caali f. - - _ I 926* 92646 — 1 — — — — — —— ——— — — ——— r 930-540-ft 1 930-540-15 148-+>11'1�18 r 14rry R. nth ' Lynaa J. tCWCks Arthkw,H Ap3o 17046 Nu-I a �7 Drive ; 8196 t Ibeaod Drives AUFNUL M r etas J ng> bo 'Cal I . Ei4s>,tlrvtcn .aaacts, Calif. Beach. Calif I 92W � 91" _ 9416b0- - - -- -- - ' ! 930-540.-16 14",U-19 , 93O-S40-47 r Gsvfd Paradias John R. CiiUss ! 13calft ' 4th 8192 *Idw q/o Oaaet Hquitilar 2429 I ood Drive ton Beach, Calif. 62720C Arcadia, CL11l: i 92646 _. - - - , Ix" ft&CN Calif I 93O-S40- ' 930-540-17 i I Rath E. , B.94803 3328 ®1v j 8191 ivtrifi Califo I 8+eech, C�li�d( 91206. +: 92646 _ __ - - - - - -,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- -- - -I---== - - - - - - 9,30-S40-01 V 930-540-09 i 930-540-18 Mary L. Ries B&Cty Fly Dialer 9. Serndess 8191 ltildeiaod Drive 9191 Rllaoeth Drive I 8146 Drive �f • Calif. i Mors Beads. Calif. H�cAn . Bps, Calif. 92646 92646 , 92646 930-540-10 ; 030-540-19 Alan K. Fair Mary Taylor ► Frank sathaf O 8195 Mildwbod Drive i 8222 W11dwoOd Drive 8201 Peminyton DriveftMtIqMQ p lam. Calif. i 9ft DOWN C LW. IkMItirQt M Beech, Calif926" . R - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -I- - - - - - - - - - 92646 1 i I � 1 1 , I , 1 I I I 1 • , I , I 1 I - -L - - - - - - - - - ' 930-540-20 V 930-540-29 ' 930-540-37 Janet R. Rqmayn Roger C. Maloney ; Willimn A. Cre" 8205 Pon dngton Drive I 8382 Dory Derive 6195 Wooltur, Drive H Hach, Calif. ; 1*Mtim#m Beach, Calif. tington EDunt iri�tGa� Ba®cPi, Qdl i f. 92646 ; 92646 92646 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _. _.. .- i , 930.-540-30 ,/ 1 930-540-38 Jahn L. Bowers Henry' L. Paradis ' T?crnas A. Ratcliffe 1432 Parkway Ds. Apt. ngGor�68 8206 Pemii Drive 9112 Annik Drive ID;u PaIlleo, F.lc rida Elan incFtAn Beach, Calif.Ca11f EMtincitar, Beech, Calif. 32935 I 92646 . ; 92646 - - - - - - - - = - a - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - -, - - - = - - :. 930-540►-22 I 930_540-31 i 930-540-39, Maivin M. Ragan ; Robert A. De Carlo , Robert Kaubnan 9371 C1iffNood Drive , 8202 Drive ' 8205 Wcx,IWm Drive Huntington Beach, Calif. Mmtington Heacch, Calif. ; Font ingtpn Beach., Ca 1 i f. 92646 ; I 92646 I 91646 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - 930.540-23 930.-540_32 930=540-40 Arnold O. Hr-em I Katherina Tarniay ' Marian F. Dietrich 8855 .,R515 Sutter Circle 8196 Pennington Drive ; 3211 Woolburn Drive Ekmtington Beach, Calif. I Eiuntingtlon Beabch, Calif. [Juntinrjt.on Beam, Calif. 92646 . 92646 ' 92646 i - - - - - - - - - - - = -i- -- - - - -- -- - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.30-S40-24 { I 930-540-33 ' 930-540-41 Geraldine S. Tray ! j Mary M. MU-cus i Doan T im enian Geral4ine S. rAVM 1 6741 Russelia•C7ourt 1231-,A Fiji Way 1001 W. .Umbert. Fad. Sp. 129 ; Carlsbad, ' Calif. ; Marina Del Ray,. Calif. La Hatce, CA 90631 i i 92008 I 90291 - - - -- +- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - 930-540-25 i 930-540-34 v 930-540-42 Michael R, illontaya ! I Justin Nina milowrazich ' William H. QX ad 13402 Clinton St. I I 21086 Sufft olod Lame i 8221 Wooltur'n Drive Gulden arove, Calif. i HuntingtonCalif. H�tinItn. Deogh, Calif. 92643 I 92646 ; 92646 _ _- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- r --.- - --- -- - - - - --- - -- - - - - - - +- - -- - --- - - 930-540-26 930-540-35. i 930-540-43 Glen A. Lenz � I Jesse AmbuUx 8226 Pecsiingtcn Drive i 2100 8225 Idccx,lburn hive Beach; Calif. , Hunt i*j on Beiach, CF1 i f. 92646 - - iI I 92646 - - - L -• - - - - - - -- - ' ' ' r --.- - - - - - 930..540-27 - - 30-540-35 I 930-540-44 JWmes N. Howell I Myra M. Katz ' Thmns E. I ris 2225 Highland Vista ' 21092 Surfwood Lane i 8231 W-olburn Dde Artedia, Calif. i - - - IEut � Calif Mmtngton N®ach, Calif. 9100b 92� 92646 930..540-28 � � 930-540-36 i 93C-540_45 James P. Gordon Elizabeth D. Story I Jan 0. Wi,_k_,n 8216 Pennington Drive II Elizabeth D. Calderon ' 17 Clay Rait,ingaon Beach, Oalif.. 8642 Larthorn Drive ; Irvine, Calif. 92646 iI fluntinuton Beach, CA 92646 i 92714 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - I 0 1 I I 1 I � ' I i , I i ' 1 i I . , 1 s , I 930 0-46 -/ 934•540-54 ✓ i 930-540-62 zOmaqp Oddo ' Doris n 8186 � 21115 L , 6201 f alif. L�i� c 92646 i 9Zd46.. caw. Mintington F3eeoh.' Calif. _ . , 92 - - - - - - - - - - - 30-5406- 9Sl�r J7 930-540-55 ✓ � 9�.540-63 819 6bolbu�a Drive .' De�2Q N. I Elul G. Offenstein 21121 PtmWc :a 1Air 8195 Eastport iyrilve Beech, G f, I ngtm h, 4lif. 926 EBa:t ngt�oil Desch.; calif. I 92646 92686 - - - - - - - -- - -- 930-540-48 ' 934.540-56 930-540-64. IONI tt o L. Flym 3bes�ee F. Tag ar Lester,p w Keyes G 8196 woolbim Drive 21125 Pt eeport'Lens I 8191 Eaatpock Drive" 92 MxMingbon each, tallif, ; 264 Cal Mm ngbon eeec'h. Calif. 92646 - - I- 930.540-65 934-54JWM R0�4Hulse�t� 930-540-57 I - -. _. Sebastian c7onsma ee Glen Ze Cirter• (et al) 8202 WbolLbte=n.Dive Joh moon Aimeaue ' 8185 88rtpoct Drive Beech, calif. AecitiM Calif 92646 ca 94044 92 �9lbon Bonch, Calif. -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -4 - - - - - -- - -- -- - --- -- - _. _. .. - - - - 930�-540►�0 930-540-58 1 930-540-66 John Meta Jame, Seitz ; Rita J. Raskin 3910 IMW Yard Jlvenue 1 21135 Freeport Iene Rita J. gysblka relit. h. Calif. ' 8181. 91214 i 92646tpoct Drive IAX*Angt+on BOWh, C� 92646 930-540-S1 - - - - -- - -- - - -- - T - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - ... - - - - - - - - 1 9 930-544-67 8212 Moolbu n Drive Oee� J. 9warts Laers�aine K. 0311 i ee E. , 8215 Eastport Dive 8232' Be®cl�, t7dtliE. ' Huntirpban anch Calif. i drive 92646 ' ; 92646 92646e4Gon Beach, Calif. - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --- 1 - - - --- - - - - - -- -- - -- - - - - - 93a.S40-52 ( 930�..'g40-60 -�/ 9304`0-" -Y 8�2r16�1bo1bern Drive ! , 82 A. 1AZdIO '� Drive ;Tammemidd Daiel G. O-Brian 6476 Little Palls Roved E�tir MI. Hach. Calif. ; HtsLUngton Beerch calif 92646• 92646 , Arlington, .�►1► 22213 - - - - -` i 9�- - - - --- - - - - - - ---- --- 1 -- -- - - -- 93tl..S44:l�T • M � 930-540•.69 1 "mt1w N. Lmmn, Jr. { , 8222 Eastport Drive 9gtan Beech, Calif. i 11 d is N. .Gfllbet" ` 1 930-54041 930-540-70 21111 heqpoet Later ; Bee M ulckerson ; C mdllo B. Zippi Bftdl, Calif. 8205 Eastpoe t Drive 8216 Eastport Drive 92646 , Mxn ingtm Beach,. Calif. HVIti92646ngbon Bmch, Calif. 92646 i 1 ' I 1 I � I , I 93044-71 9 Vamm I L. ft"Wan_ I . �. wintorm `at al) 21 2 1 1d ; 2MI Bch KVd. 02237 ::, 4u6ngtm _ .. _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - r -'-'.- - - - - - - - - L - - M-540-72 Ii77 Elrr�d A. Ern 7 1/ 8206Mantmet Alive I I . of Vou Affairs of mwtlrqtm Beach .011W. 92646 i M. Porter � - - - = - - - - � 8215 ilmtfimld.Ltiriw I 93081 � ' `` B&)W Ila ftrtiatt Cblif. 16. PL. 96 r mwfl6 ]Drive 92646 I ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 936.5406-74 - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -i- - - - - - t tlsutsT taslfin i Du� �C,laCe1 '/ : 930.-40-88 .._ .. p 46" Vlls�lto Drive 7he1ns k. Silty Drfad vTortia � Maif ilut? , 823a nw fie a D ftve. ' o 92686 � d 'H�L Ch11f. ' Mkmt 92646 irr2lx� Beach, Chlif. -- - - -- I i 92646 930.5406-75 -- - -- - - - �- - - - - - -- --/ - - - - - - -.- - - - - - Jeiaeoum ®. Perot�e I i 930-540-89 211E1 Shm tee,', , ' pobest y, Morse (at. al) 1 1 20382 P"sle'Y tmi'!0 92b46' 1 ' Mmtingbon ftmch wit. _ I - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - 92646- 930-S40-7b ; 93 � - ... . .. Aobw . Rooic TIMOV S' 1Ao0alo i E. O#Wl 11146 51t'fraood T I 8a05 timwfi M tre Oil ' 8216.Doerf ie m Chive 92646 9o4-att. h. Calif. Peon Beach. Colif. _ _ _ _ I 9, - - --- -- - - -- - - - I ---= - - - - - - pl�e R. 930•�S40tr.84 I 9.X. 41151 e�slMraod Lane Mau n1kta"m 8211 Ddeaflold ti�ide Be.c-rh Calif. I � 9Y12 � 92646 , 8e! cau• 92646 I i RGb�'t C�BacdMlll , 930�S4a-85 930-544-91 - - - - - 289 S. 1 JOIsfh PL � I lAwbw mistw - 92807 Calif Vita 18215 Dowfield Drive 8212 Dowfileld D�riv�e 92646 92646 Beach Calif altir. , M a Beach, Calif. 92646 JoW Idd eel E&11 U 930-54046 930-540.92 11162 awfw cd Law Paul J. ftin Lena ; Wen G. Dwmis tat al) J�Ot�on Baecil. Ca11 18351 f. � H Calif. ; 8206 Deerfield Alive 92'646 92646 ' 92646 Bee , Chlif. ' 1 I I I 1 I I i � I I r 930�A- 0 - - - - - - 930-Ml-07 930S40�-93 e/ D K. Carlom 'Tof&VT L, I C. Ama ine 6201 Deocfisld Drive I 8205ti ' 8216 at Drive lire Beach, Calif. IB�e h, Cal if. 926" 92646 I 930`.541-4)8 9 ' Jeffrey L. P Mon (et sal) I P' 11.ia A. Rhymn itaeYra�l 82M.Powbacloot. Drive ' 18442 C,1na lei Hm Fta.fi, Cal.it. E4 nUrg" amk*, Calif. 9264!6. 92646 430f-ai _ _ _ _ ✓ I 930-541E-09 Sleu+on K. , Jdm T. cirum 8211 Drive 8206 Pe&udmt Drive 1nqPasch, Cali f. liWtirgtm Imsc#a, Calif. 92646 92646 . ' � I -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 930440.94 Ltd l fteth AOuieoeal.l G. Bruin i 4453 Van 81a}�e. Blvd. 2255 Aaenift Scaa&d Shut+ Cam, CaLif. vullirtmu Calif I 92633 _ 930. v 930-S41-10. 930-SO-95 Lelatzd M. Maidere , Jum P. Ocxw= 'rode! i. 9p&ae r ✓ 12105 E. Posc h000d Laos 1231 W. Dc9 miman A%wm 8186 DasrfieaLd Drive ; Ssnla Ara. C2ilit. ; 14mtt C ovi.ne, Calif. 960 H Beach, C aUf. 192701 917" - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - - i 930-541�.M �/ i 930-541-11 930,%40�.96 ' c hwiab J. mm b uv er Jbmt m B. Mccpan i 31+it�e ; 8166 Deerfield Derive 1316 D+oe+ot?cy Drivesmth ' Hotingl m 'h. Calif. BauLder city. try ;Hutc� OIt11f. , - - - - - - - - - - - - - v -;43334I. - - - v ' 930-Ul-12 930.540-97 Patricia Som tromw Jboelyn R. Armlor oan Ewim'N. Mabee 18226 Pee�ot Drive ! 8206 Ridgefield Drive 8.191 Peacbadiet Drive i E4artingtan Reach. C81if. Huvtttli,gtort Beach, Calif. t inotm Beach, Calif. 192646 192646 92646 ' - - - - - - - - - �'93Q-Yiir••�d - - -- - - - - - - - - -�/ i 930-541-13 930•S406-96 ;Rebeo= Peres Andrea Drake Ridbard A. Kirm 48222 Pawtucket Drive , 8201 Ridgefield Drive 8195 Pawtucket Drive 'HaetImbon Beach Cali Hts:tirigtm Bach, Calif. Beet)-, 0214 . 92646 , 92646 926" 1 - , 930-540-" , ✓ k'`M C1eor+p L. Pis 14sllaos H. Osbrirnk ' 21462 Pacific 8201 Pawtucket Drive ; Calif. fi IIittetlns,►ben Beach, Calif.. 192648 Beach, Coal f f. 926" i 1 I � ' I I � ' I I � . . - 930�.Ul-15 IN/ I 934 -g41.-23 v ; 930,541-32 Coal L. � Jew F. : I Rtae� C. e 8211 RL 8215 leld Drive , 100 Fbact�ll Drive Best Beach, Calif 9264 . 94501 9�646 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - J 930-54W6 i 930-Ul-24 . ✓ 930-541--33 ✓ Ridu d J. lrswup gay B1 . PtW* R. Bra OWlo 8215 Rtwield Drivae I � 9631 worth circle , 21346 Bar �t C�clo . _ 8eec9A, Ca l fff. , Hkntinybon Beach,: Calif. 92645 , Ht�tinQb�n Calif.C. l.if 92646 92646 930-4%1 17 - - - 930.5�1-,ZS U ; 930-541-34 v willun L. L1naey u ' I Hwy I. Booms' Edith A. aza Ridwiew Drives 8205 Fb ell Orin i. G: & Beech, Calif. ! 8222 RidgMdield Drive n9ton Beach, .,Cali t. 92646 HUnti�rvton Heich, C h 926�6 92646 9 i 930-541-,26• 930-Ul-35 V Steven E.Clyde ""plar ' 8201 Pbodhal l .Drive k� Hstlatxesh Calif. Vally ,. Cal I 92708 , 926" _. _ __ ]•18 - I ' 930-541-36 JdM St dnos Gary T. Si Lean 3910 "M'Ycck Averne gD934 t ; 1810 Alm*w Dens La alwoor", Gali.f. ; yartae "Oft, Calif. i 9H� Beach. Calif. 91014• , 92686 - - - - - - - - -- - - - - --�- 930-S41-19 i 93 '� 930-541-37 lam' lbcyeer 9aneren : Arthw r. SaUd o E. Skives 1S0 Los i renwes I 12203 L kw Amm Road ' 8232 FbOdall Drive San Clevmnte, Calif. ' El ift Caul* i f ngtcn.Beacbu. Calif. 92672 i 917.32 i 92646 - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - � - I 930-541-.20 934-541-29 930-Ull-38 ' Patricia M. whrTmw Vernon S. I l�ledalyn B. Hurls 0 � 6531 E. 21462 Aec if l c Chest Hwy►. � >Eiesec RI Greco ° I 8226.!b>!+d>ID�II ik'!ve 0120 , A�anhedsa, C 11!`. I Hk8* rA;tK 6.Bec+lci�, Calif. ftIOU,ngbon .Beealti CA 92646 ' 9M i 926" 930-541-30 93QS41--39 v WilliamC1 lAthmn ' William J, Kind kw � i� WeyerR 8206 C. ield Drive 8225 FbxhLU Drive 8222 Ftaeshe l Drive Calif Hlaertiragbcxi Beech. Calif. . Huntington Beech, Calif. gN� I .92646 , 92646 '• - - - - - - - - - - •• - - - - - - - - - - - - -`-r- - - - - - . - . . - . . . _ - 930-Ul-.22 ✓ 930-541-31 930-541-40 I Nail B. � t ecO ' Ourleen E. Allen Jocelyn R. Anderson ' 624 E. Dorothy Lame 6216 Fbod�e11 Drive 8206 Ridgefield Drive 9� BeWbh, Calif. I. Fullerton, Calif. N1an21ngbon Beach, Calif. 92632 92646 - r - - - - ._. .. _. ... .. � I I F ? t' - - � 1 1 a � � 1 930-541-41 v 930-841ooO ; 930-541-54 Fsedeeridc G. Mylius i 1 William w. Ttwh 8212 radiall Drive 21245 c�estscfield I.am t M ttirgt n B!!Bt•'k Calif. ! 1 Htntl- 92646 .. ' r gtcn Beach, W i f. f 1 92646 1 934-5410-42 930-.541-48 930-541-55 Nora M. O'( ltilllx i A. CX�rttad (et al) may U ; Elsie Kesler ' 21315 Attleboro Circle 21241 C2testerf ield IAw* r 8206 Fbodenll Drive 1 kintingtm Bach- Cal • fk4*ArKjt= Beech, Calif. 92646 ; Hunti et<1trn Beach, CBLi f. 92646 * 49 930-54.1-43 V ! 92646 i 930-541-56 l/M I Frank R. Br0000lo 1 William K' ThMMMM � ' Rdbert M. Doman j 9$31 -apwo[th Circle 21311 Attleboro Circle ; 18 Via Ve La Rein& H MMUra ton Bwch. Cal"- � 9 ' Calif. 1 San Lui Rey Down, C3il i f. 92646 .. 92068 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -;.- - 930-541-44 / ; 930-541-50 ' 930-541-57 ✓ a 1 Keith R. Sr&idw / ; Joe R -. era. Jots 8: Kartt�z�acak P. O. ecoc 8312 8.181 C]r�eer nocx Drives 8196 Fb ochnll 'brive 1 Hmtle�gt�on Beach, Calif. 1 92708 in Valley, Calif. HkMt.ingt5on Beech, calif: 92646 92708 92646 - -- --- - - - 1/ 930.-541-51 ' s 930-Ul-45 � � 930-541-58 'I 1Patricia M. J 1 I Betty.Marquette ; � .lbtt�s C. Nalv�erson + 1 t.erf ield hens. 21331 Attlebot�o Circle 21261 Chw ; 8175 dre&1mow Drivetkv*ingtcn i j Hattingtan Beach. Calif. i .Hasc1� Calif. 1 Fiurttingtm. Beach' Calif. , 92646 , 92646 92646 -- -- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -. � .- --- - -- - - - - -- - - - • _ .... _. _. .. . 93GZ4 \ 9)06.64t 2 - - - - - 9,30-541-59 •) f i s , Alfonwo S. Morvw • . Zl 9$72 Vicksburg Drive Rmtington Beacp, Calif. '92646 — — — —— — —— — — —— — — — —— — 930-541-46 - - -- - ✓' 930-541-W ; 930-541-60 L/ Ashley L. Swie&tt , Rogue' A. William / � VbrM E. .Ttt imas 21325 Attleboro Circle 21255 (�tee3lerf ie1,d lane V , 17649 Los1ardines West 1 9� Beach, Calif. 9� Calif. i FFb�attain Valley. Calif. 1 - - - - - - --- - L -- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -- - - i 930-541►47 1 930-Ul-53 v ' 930-541-61 Bet Arced ; Barbara A. Hall l Hal L. tbutz � tam t 21321 Attleboro Circle ; 21251 Ch.wterf ielld Lute 21242 rkw l ington Lane Htutkirtgtxxt Beech, Calif. ' Mmtingbon Beach. Calif• , IIMtirrjton Arch, Cal i f. f 92646 92646 - - 1 92645- 1 ! - -- - 14b�A21-A4� 148-021-48 ii i 930-541-62 j ' Wharf Properties 1 i c. Department of transport. Albert G. Ceccarelli c/oDermis G. Harkav; 120 So. Spring Street , 21246 Burlington Leas Sullivan Tborl)e et al WS Angeles, !alif 90052 ; Htaetitr ion Calif 1900 Avenue of the Stars Attri: Staff Assistant - B 1 92646 suite2200- -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - ; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ws Angeles, Calif 90067 1 1 1 1 ' 1 I I i 1 I ' ' I I 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - 93�•543�•!53 ; 930-541..70 9306-541-76 � cum In Owrim Vfttty FrISM, 21252 9wUngtm 1 ' 8172 Busbdck Drive i 21332 Astbxtm CUvl* Be ct 4, Cf. i E6aaR�ir> MILL ' its t, Calif. 9" 1 92646 ; 92;646 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I 93O-S4L-64 1930,,%1-71 930-541 77. V PsVnk J. AAeyt ' �*u P- SIVIgnsca/ I David W. 5601 ealOwin Aar i 8166 Bush.dck Drive 8146 PboftU Drive FINNIPIO Ci ty, Ckali#. ' Hiaat-atIgt Basick Clil. I mUnUtIII BeactU Calif. 91790 92W ' 92646. _ .. .. . . .. _ - - - - - - 93" ; 9 , 1-72 1930-541-78. ✓_ Ni ,Q! State Yhms N. Allm 3 ! ' ` 18142 .?Wftll Drive 1 ' Mintingbon Beech, Calif. I 92646 - 1 93O-MU-65 93 6lt ; 930-54.1-79 Nil1L� R. Inman /�: I 4brrt2an B. Naryan 3333 0alle I& � 1 ' 1516 Do"*hy Drive S@n,C2=wft. Callf. ' ; Bcclutldlmc City, l�ieyada 92672 ' i � 89005 - - - - --- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - 930441,4W ; 930-MI-72 � 930.541-60 John S+udn®s a I Dept. of %%ft 1�ffairs of State ; CIS C. LwarWm 3910 New hark Am mm of CalifacnLa I 8132 Pt�all Drive La crenooeettt�. Calif. I Widh nl D. VICari 00) ' Hmtlrlgtim Beec% Calif. 91214 21312 AsHmarto p Circle ; 926" - - - - - - - - 930k•341-.6 _ _ sitirptm Beach,-Call - ; 930-Ul-81 92646' I Joseph Jarcinavich 8126 Pboihall Drive i i ft=Un4r= Bch, Calif. i 1 92646 i - - - -- - -- - - - -- -.- ---- - - - - -- - 930-UI,67 ; 930-Ul-73 - - - -- -- - 1930-541-82 � kerie S. Cb1e Mhlter J. Iargan / 9CsidAYI J. Hetrick (et al) oot P. O. S 19651 $141 Taylor Avmue 1 8122 Pbod ll Drive WIC111t7a. Kos 1 On M ntingt n Belch, Calif Huntingt, . Calif.. 67128 1 92648 192646 930-541-68 I 93a 541-74 ; 930-54"3 Jamie K. Hay bead IL Staph n � 1 pent M. Fierce 8182 On trick Drive 1 Kim HailW Sell Pry Circle tuft ngton Be d-4 Calif. 1217 awl and Street Beach, Calif. 92646 , Huntirgbm Beadb CA 92648 926" 930-Ul-69 ; 930.-41.-75 93D.. 41--84 Marvin R. Beadford I Qolin Pilkingbon. ; Ralph tit., Ourdxwg 8176 bm*wiek Drive 8211 Dawfield Drive 1 8112 Pbkhall Drive F*zft qb. Beach► Calif. I Eiuntirgtan BeactL Calif. Beach, Calif. 92646 92646 I 92646 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - _ J .- - - - - - - - - - .. . I I I I I � , 17M Nomm oaouTwm *;TTWO '40a8 buo'I OATJQ PTa'TPbM SETS ; OMMW xw3jvJ ZOSE GAT-la TTUVgid TZT8 eat *W Jam •K mooa =MaiDd •V tFtTCPAN p0'_'ZbS''O£6 - - - - - - - - - TtS- - - -' - - - - - - 06-iK"'QE6 ZTZ06 ' 9W6 ; 9t9Z6 '3TTWO 'aTTTH ATE ; •3Ttwo Npwe an&jrwli vow w Q.►TjG ATE 'S StE OAT-M 9ZT8 ; "M TTUWd SZT8 24TA04mld 4 ooivwi 6vLnQ •o Pwad�mo Dim •r TTOOPM EO''t►S'-O£6 - - - - - -- - - -- - - ---- --O£6-,-- - - - - - - - --- "O --- 9t9Z6 ; ' - �►Kl .� �ZARL •,L aBzt? � � r i _ ZO�fS'0£6 �- -- -- ----- -- --- - -MMIM96 - - -- - -- -- --- --- - - - - - E6- . ' 9W,6 9t9Z6 •3TTWO 'tip aDQ&n-wm NPM .mObsr4uEI ! "m pnpom ZZT6 ; O►TU TTUVAd TET8 ' NTH •'I PTA tT�A •K 3, wu 96_TK-O,E6 -'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - t'S'0£6 9"Z6 i 9t9Z6 ' OAWa PTaT;aaTH ZtTB ZLZTZ OO"Z►S`"0£6 n - _ - -S6-TWOE6- s''TtS'OE6 - - -.- - -- - - - - - - -- - - r - - -- - -- - - -- -- - --- - - - - 9t9Z6 'XTTM b4m 'd .fir OMWOd. 'd Ajw /ti t6"TtS'O£6 L9-TtS"OE6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OE9L6 90M , 'I qwm 8L9tZ wnmw s! t OOTTT OO"ZtS'O£6 - _ - E6-T'K-0£6 98"T►S"OE6 _ - - -- - -- -- - - - - - -- 6 ! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3T[�J .' uc4auT'ixa�fi � QUWI WN9AZ TZ �TTTTM •ef � . . Z6-T►5'OE6 ; 98"itS`'OE6 6 i 9t9$6 9t9iL6 OAT-T vmpa t 9£T9 i MM TTUPW SiTs ' m •Q 66"TK-0E6 16'°"Tt"Eb Se°'[tS''OE6 i 9306-542 4E6 i 930-542-11 930-542-17 C. "aSteV= D. joargotte.C. DMO 8131 Ridpefleld:`Drive i 8116 Poobaclot Drive ; Albact D. 4.. ' Utm NCalif. ' 1601 6�. Blvd. 92646 82C. _ - - - -"= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9Clsth> `in j 930-54112/ , Am, Calif. 92?04 8125 Riwiew Drive A C LUf. - - - - - - _ -- 930dS42 M 93t1-%2,.12 934-543-18 William a. . Jr. ' N. 2225 Highland Vim Axz* R. Can , Arpoodi" 812, Ridgefi®]d Drive i 8122 �A�dlif. � Calif. H tingti n Back Calif. , 92646 92646 91066 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 ; 930-U2-13 930-542-19 �( ' &nm M. SU S. Kim / 8128 Pmftwkot Drive 3M River Avetwe Calif.HUntitVton Beach, , Nftq=t Bch, Calif. 92646 92663 - - - - - - - - 1 - 9306U3-08 ; 9 ¢ 9310-542-20 8friaaic Q. ; f 'R. ftvcaoo�lo 20321 i 9631 Adtlae Circle orth titcle g q�ig , H4otir ton Beach, Calif. 92646 ' , 92646 930_.542-09 _ _ _ _ _•- _ _ ._ _ _- _' 930-.51W4 934..542--21 Jboet F. Fisher " eoeQQ i Fioxrt W. Gregory 8111 Ridgefield Drive ✓ � ; 5637 Cbinirig Avesue ech CWe E ting4�aca Be . a.li.f. 91103 . Calif. 92�646 � , - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- ---- -- -,- - - - - - - - - --- - - -- -- - - _ _ _�- --- _ -- - - - _ .. 930-542-10 i 930►oU2r14 93OZ42-22 � ' 7toAn K. Ng (ot +I) ` w alias 972 Linda Vlzft 8131 Drive ' Calif. tiu ungtm Calif. ' 91103 ' 92646 - - -- - - - -- - - - - - � 930-U2_10- - - - - - - -- - - _ , 930-542-15 ✓ , 930-U2-23 Wobeact L. Van Zandt i Melvin D. CA*w Malam C. O'Neal 1512 Ben L mnd Drive ' P. O. Boot 597 ; 13005 beland St. Glendale, Calif. MontaDello, Calif. Vbn Marys, Calif. 91202' 90640 91401 �t 930-542-16 • ! 19J30-54 24 At i flranic V � 8321 Pee�+tucl�Drive 8142 Pawtucket Drives ' ftz*Ingtm Bosch. Calif. ' 9 � uc Bah, Calif. 926" _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - -; - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - -'= - - - - - - - - • f i i 1 � 1 930-542,-25 / ' 93 34 ;1 ; 930-542-41 d ' ! Mi M. Drell V f Jiro L. , lr y 9115 Fawtwj et Drive ' 8145 Da�rfi®ld Driv+a 1 BA*Angtdn Beach, C LIff• I Eeattlragt Beech, Calif. 92646 ! ' 92646 930-%2•-26 93O.U2.34 ' 934-542-42 Milliaa C. HaaaM � ' Jo�a E. P1yM , William R. Grieve 8232 Ftia�c ket Drive ; 8152 Deerfield Drive b141 Di rfield C ivre 92646" 92646 g Beach, Gblif. M x*ingtM Beach, Calif. i 9 "Beach, Calif. 92646 930-542-27 " 93Q•.54Z-35 , 930-542-43 RieeelI K. I1s�rt ✓ ! Dewi,d Neyeacd ✓ h* Omrtney 8116 Deerfield Drive 6552 Orissa Palm Drive 1302 Maz-luttaa Beach, Blvd. Eliotitigbon Beech, Chlif.. ; MmUrigton Beach, Calif. t4sr�nttan, Beach,. Calif. 92646 92646 9026b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, - - -- 934-542-28 i 930..SA2 36 930-547,44 V MA)Wt E. Scfir+oeter V Ptbert A. Haerach , men an r. johrom 8601 Lorraine Dative 301 arOG&MY 1665 Carriage Naate Road Hus i=gban Beecch, Calif. �. ODete Mom, tleliW. , Calif. 92646 ; 92627 ! 91107 . . - - - - ---- - - - - --- - -= - - - - - - -,- --- - - - - --- - - - -- ---- - - - - - -� i 930-542-29 i 9�2-3,,�1 i 930�-542-45 v John T. BuVellos�a ✓ C:'h3aC , Elwcod V. Chwdlee, Jr. er 8126 Defield Drive 8125 Deerfield Drive EintingEon Beech; Calif. f. thw ink Swch, Calif. 92646 i 92W _. _ - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - -1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 930-M2-30 . i 93O-.542-37 i 930-542-46 Betty.M. Do Mhr ' "Ote mw ✓ ShsicM M. Tay1ar f � C21e�tles J. i 8132 Deerfield Drive 1 6166 Deerfield Drive ,. 21166 Cheetaitrroc* Lame 9 Beach, Calif. 14uc�tlt�Qtron Beech Clslil. HM*ingCon Beech, Calif. 92646 92646 - - -- - - - - - --- - - -- --- -- - 1._ - --- - - 930-543-31 930-542-36 ' 934-542-47 ✓ l q'0646 s E. Danielson J ! Paulette N. Gramm ace 1. Cronlc 8136 Deedleld Drive4645 Le Paz Levee 21162 CIxmterbrodc Lea HMU wit",n Beech, Calif. , Rivlersi,de, Calif. Hxlurjgtm F9each, CMlif. 92646 ' 92501 , 92646 L - - - -- -- - - - -- - - -- -- - , - - - 93OmU2-32 " 1 930-542-39 1 930-.542-48 Jemw N. Miles Rams K. Hgoshco J E. reddeceen 8142 Deerfield Drive 1 8155 Deerfield Drive ; 4744 Hukell Averse 9HwtingborA Beech, Calif, i t6r�gCcm Beach, Calif. Calif. 91316 i - 930-542-33 ; 930-542-40 ,Bobert M. !B>dan Bmrraby A. Allison 94 Wilds+ood 8151 Deerfield Drive ✓ Irvine, Calif. t1wtington Haac1. Calif. 92714 ' 92646 , I ' 1 . � 1 . , I - I a I � 930-542.49 930-U2-58 , Ronald P. "Peary / I Cella ftdards i/ I 930-542-67 . / 21152 c� ne sterbc.pok La v ' 8156 Eastport Drive Cry E Utmaxee V Huntinc�toci Beach,. Calif. EiuntitxltGn Bch, Calif. 8141 Eaet4jo rt'Urivae 92646 ' 92646 Huntint► 1 ►, Calif - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,- � -T2 930.-542-50 I Willis T. Wright , 930-542L59 / 930-542—b.d 21 i 46 C h esterbrook Lane Margaret 128 ✓ I Mi,c hatA U rare ✓ Huntingt aip Beach, Calif.. � � . Banc �`� � d135-Eastj.brt Drive Huntf nytrn Beach, Cal i f 92646 Htuitinyt,_4an Baac:17, -Calif 92646 92646 930-54.2-51 ' 930-542-60 930-542-69 Patricia A. De®rrinc,�r � • 21142 .Chea k Lair / ' Curtis J kettlinq V Fk)nald D Davis I 21136 Surfed Lane Mmtington Beach, ailif. , , 8441 Clarkc6le Drive 92646 11=4n Eton Beach, Calif Hunt init on f ew-h, Cali f 92646 92646 930-542-52 ; �- George F. Erb y30-542-61 930-542-70 / 8405 Dory Drive ✓ YAffrertti AKeyes ✓ , Marylene C Eckfe.ld Huntington Beach, Calif. , 21132 Surf'�ioo�d Lane d125 East+art Chive Hun tn' Beach. Calif 92646 �� , Hntin,3tcm teac:h, Calif - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -i- _92o46 - -- - = - -- - - - -- - - - - 92646 930-542-53 i - - - - - - - - Rotiw't G. S moers ✓ i pi 54L-62 930-542-•71 ./ y I Steven R Wadies 8132 't Drive , c% Diane L Lariny '� HuntitY3bon Beach, C81if.. , I 9121 Eastpojrt- [.wive 92646 18722 Paeeo Cortez Htimtln,jWp k x:1i, Calif Irvine. Calif - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - T -- - - - I 2 i 930-842,54 -63 Patrick G. Msrphy (et al) ,� I ; 930-542-72 8136 tistport Drive Arval L Triplett I LVa M _Flentilt3 amtimton Beach, Calif. I 21122 SLltfMiOgd Lau�e ' $115 EaStfjOrL DY-ivc: 92646 ' Hunti%ton Beach, Calif , I Huntinytrm fact►, Calif - - -. _. .. .. - - - -- - -- - -- -- - - - 1 _ 92646- - - - -- - - -- --- -- - -- - 930-542-55 Diana F. Stuart 930-542-64 �. 930-542-73 / 20611 Elizabeth Lane v � Lauri S T ele � Janes J Salafia c/o Allen Moser V tLir rt Drive Aintinom' Beach, Calif. ' 10221 NE 58th Street i Bill.Ears 92646 , I lLuntin4tim Dead-1 Calif Kizicland, WW 98033 92646 934-542-56 I Dale E. San3ers / 930-542-65 ; 930-542-74 8i46 Eastport Drive Frances S Fow ✓ I ClArk C Bentley V Ca Huntingtan Beach, Calif. I 21112 Surfwoad Lame ' 117 S t-keciows HunUi ytion Beach, Calif 92646 ' 92646 � Mar�tt.,n t3eac;h, Cali r 90266 930-542 -57 ' 930-542-66 Paul M. Robinson i Neilson E Swan � 930-542-75 � 81 Beach, l.if.. ; 8145 kastpurt Derive I 64d9 Cacuin-) Del. Path 92646 } Beach, Calif926646 Carlsbad, Calif 92008 1 , I 1 I 1 ' I I 1 , I 930-542-76 ; 930--542-85 - - - - - ~ - 930-542-^4 'x Jarstt E Hol*!IIs , ' �1 I Glen C A�xl€�try Darrel J 3r+c� 8122 Wilburn Derive , 184 S Lim Street 8126 F'=Ursj Mr. .kahan ton, 1h:ivF! Sierra hire, Calif "-itinyt� beach, Calif I llwltircjtUrl t ii::i, Calif- 9 �i4b I 91024 92646 " . - - - - - - - - - - � - - - ' - - 93u-542-77 ' 930-=541-86 V i 830-542-95 MarWet L Boese ✓ i taoee :3aruior Paul J Nil z 8126. woolburn Drive 8141 Woolburn Drive 1 18351 Lisa Street IAmtin t= be&h, CaUf , Huntingtx�n beatrh, Calif Hunt irto"i otac:h, Calif 42646 i 92b46 , 92646, 930-542-76 pQr�tt,2-67Rnth � ; 93U-s42-aG Ni+ct�olas C Riviera I Y Walter !Z ixuccx c/o 6eirtha M" Lacayo ✓ I 043. San Mws U610 Avenue � 81,36 PeivdiNtun Drive U8 Maujer St Al*t 1283 San Marini, , tiuntira-fton boaurh, Cal iL 81108 wooklyn; N.Y. 111.2u6 92646 . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - - 1 930-542- 88 - - - - - - - - -- - T - - - - - -- - - - __ ... .. . ... 930-542-79 1 930-542-'.+7 Wayne Lae iloyers / Marion S Mi11ay I Gail �!,Gi112�iraath V I 8131 Wooltx�t'n Drive , dl�ll 1�erusira tr�n 1)i:iv 8136 Woolburn Drive , ! kIuniiinyt M "li�rh, Calif I Hunti;xlt�on beach, Calif Hwltirr,tun balch,CaI iI 92646 92646 ; 42646 _. ' - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - J - - - - - - - - ._ 930-542-dO I 930-542-89 930-5�32-yd ' "L Lib I Fiore xac: e M Ut , Lh . 52dl L 4th Street ; 8125 Wo&lbu n Drive - 8146 Petuiinjtx7n ar'iv+e Lmn Beach, Calif Hunt.inytm BOtl, Calif I lluriti Nun iu. cl►,. C:ilif 90814 I 92646 � 92646 . . . . -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'- - --- - -- -- - -- - --- - - - -- -- - -I- -- - — — 930"542-81 i 930-542-90 I 930-542999 Aitlota E 'Cadwallader f I Piealey S Grantham ; Lillian P.wi_l'son d136 Deerfield tarivle 8121 Woolburn Drive 8141 Peminytoll uriw, Hunt Vton bwrch, d# Calif I ltunti6gthn Beach, Calif Hunt.irkittAi ,1k�,acli, Calif 92646 i 92646 I 92646 - - - - - - - - - - -- - --= -I -- - -- -- ---- --- - - - - - - - - - - - -- ... - "- - - -- - - -. ... ._ _. I 9-*-S42-82 930-542-91 ` ✓ . , 930-543-00 liazial ommpbell i , James F Dmne et a1 I t4a=yaret cburt,xsy d161 Wboltusn Drive V I 4115 Woolburn Drive � � 1302 1-twha ttan b&wh bl%a.l. 1ItucitinyWn beach; calif ; Huntinyton Beach, Calif I Mwitiat& en ii( c Ah, Calif 92646 i 92646 90266 - - _ _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - 930-542-83 I 930-542-92 ' 930-543-01 J:uaes J wit wex et al / I Siror N Al-Mwathalani , James 'A McL.1 rta) 6155 WoaltAurn Drive V ; 1i116 FVadryjton Drive I 8131 Pesm jkjtiun Drive iiant.ityton beach, Calif I huntinLjtun Reach, Calif ; Hunti tjwn i3oac:h, C;dii 92646 92646 92646 - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - -- 930-542-d4 ' 930-542-93 I 930-543--u ', tlirrar H H el Paul J Nola I Jay C EVeri tt (ii:x, nkxAlirurn Drive 6122 Ian W-&jtLm Drive ; n125 Ptlauurytxw Drive i=tirb jt on I.lcuch, Calif , Huntiryton Beach, Calif Hunt.injU)n Lk-zc h, U114 92646 1 92646 92646 I � I I I I � I 1 . I I •.. _ s+a'msus+en:.i*i.r..t�w,i...�..,.+:..a•v:•.:.....,;:.:_...s.,ti�•:.1.,:{7t''. '•7-^xtaay.•.-.s+< ( I ' , I I - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •- I !#-J-D-�54�3-03 ✓ ' I 930-5430.20 MOM" J Barry fir\ I L ��� I Area alit 9eesai vt on Diva I 3es I 0155 whitestime. Drive 01 Calif ! 1 IBeech, 02f146 I 92646 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- ._ - - .. _ M-543-04 930-543-12 ✓ 930-5►®3-21 Velma A Bolin I Jacki e M f ' owinis Brac* n fil1S PamUngbon Drive d111 Wil4+oad Circle 8161 Mdbooton a Derive n beach, Calif i I 8#asti�tOM B*MCh, ChLif I I6nttit�t i Beach' , Calif 92646 92646 I ?95�6 - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -� - - - - - - - - 930-543--05 930-543-13 / ; 930-%3-22 V/ Gail Helen T OwwU I Pony S Tunotdne ll 8111 Pwkir�gton Drive � � 8115 Wilms Circle. ; 8165 thitosboDrive L&ARtiegton Beady, Calif ' Azn ingtoe Beach* Calif I Hw*ingt]Dn Beach, Calif . 22646 ► 92646 ' 92646 - - - - --- - - - - - - - - 930=543-06 930-543-14 I 930-543-23. 01it. ® Easttcan ' Mildred G Melts V Charlotte %Affino b116 td IdwMI: Circle ; 6121 wildwood Drive I 8171 hhitestaone Drive tmti *IM Beach, .Calif Isuntington Bwahoh, (hlI t�x*4ngton"Beach, Ca 92b46 92646 I 29646 - - --� - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - ;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 930-543-07 I 930-543-15 ' : i 930-543-25 ItAxat C Alson ; Mauch Pbophigiem i Anne Marie Mchers 8122 Wilob000d Circle 8125 Wi>,l dwood Drive ; 8401 Kingfisher Drive > tiiiy�on eeelct4 Calif n Beach, Calf I Huntsrigtaoc► Beach, Calif 92646 I 92646 gl"6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -{- - -+- - - = - -- - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - -.-- -- - _ -- - - _ . _. .. 930-543-08 f ; 93D-513-16 ' 930-543-26 Carolyn L. Sapp ! I Aabort E bboard P' Neville d126 Milderood Circle ; 8131 Wildwood Oirclee 8172 Vhiteebone Drive tiuntirec 0 Beech, Calif I MB*Anytan Beech, Calif ybon Beach, Calif 92646 ; 29646 I 92646 f- ---- - - ------ - -•- - - -- - - - - --- ---- - - -- - - --- - - -- - -- --�-- - - - - -- _ -- --- 930-543-09 930-543-17 4,S 930-543=27 Lee T Carleton ` ; Paul _N41ta �f Dpelt of Veto Af fairs of VMS* 8132 WikbxjW, Ci=lb ! 18351 Lisa-Street , Stage of Calif tlunti ceytran 8etac:h, C3lif Hunt it�yfion Beach, Calif ' Jume M Crahe 92646 - - I 92646. 8166 Stdteetx� Dive - - - - - - - - --- - - --- - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 930-543-10 i 930-543-18 MnUn7t on , Calif 930-543-10 Hale W Amer v I 92646 Grace Whi8ler ; 9619 Adam Averaw 2104 Vista Dorado Huntington Beach, Calif Nomport !mach, Calif 92660 ; 92646 I 4- - - - - - - - - 930-543-11 - - - - - - - - � 930-543-19 . _ - -I 930-543-28 Axwphine Tyree I Jackie M Aethy / ' Vir%mt R Panw l 8142 Wi.lciwwd Circle ' 8111 Wil&a d Circle V 8162 hhitesbone Drive kwntiati Beach, Calif ; Huntington Beech, Calif ' Huntington Beach, Calif 9A46 92W , 92646 I ' I ' d. , I I I � I � I I 1 I I 93y-543-29 y ' Kevin t�9ow11. f � I.arad Use Element 81-2 � 8156 Whi.testane Drive ' Area 3.4 ' Huntington Beach, Calif92646 � 930=543-30 John R Gilles 2426 9th Avenue A rMadia, Calif I I I I 930-543-.31 I 1 ' I I i 1 , . ' I ' 1 • ' I I I , . ' I -' - -• _ _ _. _. -- - - - - - - --- -- ---_ i - - - - -'- - - - - - - - •- -- - - - .. _ _ ... _ .1 _ ._. _. ... . 1 I ' I I I ' I ' I - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - 1 I I I I I 1. I ' I I i ' I - - - - - -- - - - --- - -- - - - - - - - -�- i ' I I I I I I i I I I , 1 I , I , I I I ' I i I ' I I , ! I I I I I � 1 � I I � I ,1 1 I I 1 (o Z a I I ! i I I i S I Iaintl Use F:ltxtl�it 1- ' UOt'11;-311t i ocbal,er 15, 1 (ill) , 794. 1-Wivid-A Circle V . , I itw�ti.t>hltut� Fit�x:it, C.alit 1 92b4b' , I I Oc7cxkAnt Ummkiant I OCt: 'tt 7915 .Goa mueze Drive ✓ , 7886 Mai d.-.t Circle V � 7946 AWzuist CiL -Je � bwitixgyb i*�actl, Qdif HwItin won Beam, Lai i , awltii>quon F.wch, Calif 92ii4ti ; 92646 9[646 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - l - - - - - - -- -. .- _. ._ . WA4,ant I Cxx:u�ant ucx-u;,ant 7971. 5eablreew- Drive ' 7892 Mwrutist Circle � 1 7952 11"n,ust Circle, fi tAtinit� iwc h, calif � ; ilunti 4tun lack, Calif ' ituntinitin ijoiuii, Calif 92646 ! 92646 ; 92646 . _ . . .. —. _ — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Ouc,upant I ucca :.WIt 1 Opcupant / 79d.5 Seabreeze Drivu , 79U6 M==i•st Circle 795# AA)ranist Circle V l3utttil�Gc�[i E3taacl t, c:alii J ' liuntii>.;tnal beach , Calif Fund n3 txui ic:tt, Cal i1 92646 i '92646 ' 9264(, I I -- - - - - - — - — - - -I = -- —— — — —— —- — - - — — — — — — — —'_ — ' I OOCt�aHii'1t I (JUt:tJl.dJlt � Ocx�xli t 7931 Seraka-eexe lAive J 7912 A)un dst Circle I 79b1 :,kxytx(- st Circle huntington :h, Calif I FNntinitm beach, Calif 13"adc:ll, caiii 92646 92646 , 92646 I , • _. _ . - - - - - - - - - - - -- I --- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - - - t)oc. .acit Opt,-want I 0=4jaunt 7935 :yeacareezt: iuive J I 7916 HLxx Aist Circle 79" Axxmist Circle Hunting.Wn Roach, Calif stunting toi n Beach, Calif I ►$unti%-tDn 16adi, Cali f 4;464b I 926.46 92646 • I I ..--- - - - - - ---- - --- - - -- -- --- -- - -- - ----- - - - - --- ------ -- - ---- --- - -- - - _ - - 148-021-07 oocZ99.1,ant ze Drive .J 7omk ant aenmist Circle i Qrarx)ee (iDmty. Flwd ContruV ittutti%bun i*mch, Calif I ltuntirIytcan ye ti, Calif i District 91646 92646 P.O. *VC 107S Santa Attic, Calif 91702 — — — — — — — — — - — — — l Ocx�ant �yt ant i lac-611-U1 7901 Seabreeze DriveI 7926 tAxxinist Circle I Dirt.. of trau-ts;[xI t,ttion i FluttLinjton Feick, Calif 1 1lU a). :tj rirx� �trtset ' Ftuntirk tan Mich, Calif I 92646 92b46 I IA- a►nyeles, C'u.if 90012 UCC%4 ant J 7905 5eagbireeze DrivE ? 7932 Aourraist Circle b unt i n j tun t tmu t, .:a.iu I I Junti njtun Beach, Cal i f � 926�(b.dc•►-'a'•.r 92646 t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --1 - - - - - - - - - - -. .. .. I I I I ' I I I i , 1 , I I ' • I I I I Law .cue -2Oact 780 2 Drive - v I Oct. 14, r. '(Q"MW" ; 7912 SeWavess Drive Hood%, Colif I a6aret9ng 8 ►, ()silif 926i6. 92646 I . . - - -- - - -• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I Oaa�snt aoc�e�t o=VM t 7806 Sombroo.ft Driv+e J ; 7062 Sw*reom Drive 7916 seebreem Drive arbI Igb 7 n. beach, Calif auTt ingtan Beach, .Calif ; H481ctington 86®c3a, CAlif 92646 ; 9A" I 92646 _ _. _ . . .- . . _ .. - - - - - - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - - - - I ., V I t 7816 Sedweem Drive 7866 SomIzose Drive ; 7922 Seabreeece 0rive ticmtingt�oea Beach, Calif ; Huntington Bach, Calif Huntin4tm Beech, CA I 926" I 92646 92646 • I - - - - - - . --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - ocovc oocxIPmc v , OocW&nt UM soma'el m give ,� , 7872 Sombrooae ]Drive 79U Ociam%j ove Circle lowtin3tcn Beeiclu Calif ! I&ntington'Hepch, Calif Umtb*m beach, .Ca,lit 926" 92646 92646• I I - -- - - - - - - - - -- -.- - - - - - - -,- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - i 6 Drive J 78 See Drive ; 795 Oomrgrow Circle an ingban Beech, Ca13t mmtingCon Beach, Colif H�tingbon 'Beerc'!�, thl f 92646. 92f46 ; 92646 T __ _ _. _ O=LW@at Ooo4 pnt l/ ; 0=4=t ✓ 7832 Sadzeme Derive 7882 Se. xee w Drive ' 7961 ObewVrow® Circle t:n*lzvgt m boacho Ca" tkz*J gtan &"Ciu Coll ; *xA Beech, cal ig 926" ; 92646 ' 92646 - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - ' - -- -- -- - -- - - - - - -- -.a. - t Iopoupoutowwmt 7836 SeaLcumse Derive ,� � Derive i 7971 OcaangzXM Circle � lMMIngt on Beach. Calif , 1AN101nyton DOWN Cali! ' WaiJivgton Bey, Coif 92646 92646 , 92646: 7842 S*Wzw oe Derive 7902 Sepbcsesee Drive ' 7975 ooavQrme Circle ✓ ilwtington Beach, Cali ►, *I i f , Hmtlzgtion Beach, Calf f 92646 ; 92646 92646 , I Oaou cct i OoC%xmu* Occ4pw*- 7656 Sepbreese Drive , 7906 Seabreese Drive I 7m oompg awve Curl® Kart ington Beach, Calif , Hu ntiMx Beach, Cali tmt.imtori Beach, Calif 926" 926" ; 92646 i I � 1 ' � I I ' ' I � r , r t I t I 1 I I ' x.)�utar�t Land Use F 82-1 , t 76 25 SeaL,rwze 1xive. OC AMW 1981 WH) I 77 Drive Iwltira4tm ► s. :11 Calif Huntingtm Beach, Calif af,46 I 92646 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- I 0=4ant 1 co t 'ItI31 Sembreeze Drive " I 7805 Seabreeze Drive ; 7752 Saelbare®B [rive V dunt.iragton beach, Calif ! Huntb-qt ai Beach, Calif mmtirgbon Seed, Calif rJ1b46 I 92646 92646 - - -- - - - - - - - 1 I I r 1• :;vc.,,usi nt ✓ 1 Oo up t W5 seaLreeze Drive ; 7141 So ibmem Drive J 7756 Ssibreeze Drive ihmt-iii�tjun beKJi, Calif i Itunwo m Beach, Calif , Huntington Beach, Cal.I •)2b46 ' 92646 92646 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I • I I 1 1 '7 4 Saz.6 abree Drive 7745 Seatbreeze Drive ✓ t ►nutt.irt,s� rJn Beach. Calif � H� � 7762 Smkareaae Drivetingtcn Beach, Calif Htmtin7ton Beach, Calif 92W6 I 92646 ; 92646 • I ' / 1 cixtttanl V � Orcu�ant. V , Ooc-t�,ant / 788.1 seabreeze [kive 7751 Sea�e Drive 7766 Selabreeae Drive i twitinyt ul Ixu l h, Calif I Huntirbit n Beach, Calif , Hamti.nyt= Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 - I I 1 r,uoant .. o V/ 22 7785.Seaiwtteze Drive I 7761 S6Abrtege Drive 7772 Seatireeze Live c�r'► .t�OLUAtiAvit :h, Calif ; lbmt:.inyton beach, Calif jjim il3ytr 1 B�ti, Calif 92646 I 92646 ; 92646 i I I I I . f.p.r1 3rit ' OocapalYt I Ck)cvpant / 7191 SeabroiE ze Drive � ; 7765 Ssabre fte Drive � � 0 7776 Seaabreeze Drive NmLimpJtui beach, Calif Huntirx� Beach, Calif , itmtirayton Beach, Calif 2646 92646 I 92646 � I I :x x.1�.ant �/ I (�oci�xint � UoC�kuit f � i;9s Sneeze Drive 7771 Seabteeze Drive I 7786 Seabreee® Drive 4 h.intimftm beach, Calif r Huntinytan Beach, Calif Hunt� Beach, Calif , 9-,U-46 1 92646 , 92646 I I ' 1 } �i�x ui�►nt Occupant / I Lumpant / 7861 Seabreeze Drive / I 7742 Sembrioze Drive d ' 7792 She Drive 11e.'nt.ira4t on Bax,I, Calif y fAmti.rbjton Hebrh, Calif Huntimfbon _Beach, Calif 92646 , 92646 92646 I ' I ' i f I I 1 ' I - I ' l _1 a.` t` - - - - - -- - - - - - - - i-- -- - ----------------- i - -- ---- -- ----- ------ - - - 7 01 Sailb aat Circle Occupant WntirEyton Beach, Calif �Y i Oct.Law 14eQ, 1 ) 2 78012 Sailboat CircleI/ •)2646 j 78 t Beach. Calif [ ; 92646 i� i t ; Oomqm* i OoKA4aant '78U5 sailboat Circle `' , 7766 Sailboat Circle 7812 Sailboat Circle r/ uuntington Beach, Calif V mmursgton 8aich, Calif i mmtinAm Beach, Cali¢ 92646 , 92646 92646 - - - - - -- - -- - --- --- --►------------ -- ------ ----'-- --------- ------------= 7, 1 ai.lboat Circle / 776�2 Sailboat Circle Y 78816SaSailboat Circle ✓ '3ab9�Wn Beach, Calif v i � Beach,ybon B , Calif ; Huntimton Beaer:h, Calif 92646 , 92646. _ .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- i-XX.-UjAint t Occupant 7815 4a i 1 txvi i i t circle / � 7766 sailboat Circle � ; 7822 ,SailYzaat Circle. iluntiiytion Beach, Calif V Huntitxitan, Beach, CAI ✓ , Huntiogtdn H61kch, Calit 91b�o 92646 i 42646 -- - - --- - ---- ----- - ---- {-- -- - -- ----------- ------ ------- ------------------ I Occupant ; 0=4=t 7821 SaiiWat Circle 7772 Sailboat Circle V 7826 Sailboat Circle �tundmgton Bewh, Calif Huntbivftm Beach, Calif i H►in tinqbosi Beach. Calif 9.4646 92646 ; 92646 i r - -- - - - - -- -- - ---- ---- ------- --------------- -4------------------------ 3-xxA4>ant ; Occupant i Ooc�ap�nt 7dZS :;ailio lat cirt:is J 7776 Sailboat Circle ; 7832 Sailboat Circle r� .4 t.injtcn Baach, Calif Huntirvton Bead, Calif i Huntin4ton Beach, Calif 92646 ; 92646 92646 __ - - - - -------------�--- -- -- - - ---- -- -- '---- - - -------------- - ----- - LX)Ln 4 pant i Owupant i Oompant.' 7752 Sailboat Circle ✓ 7786 Saiilbot Circle ` 7836 Sailboat Circle i iwitirigt on Bead:, t:.ali f , Huntizi#o l Beach, Calif V ; Hwtljx4t on eewh, Cal I 92.64b 92646 , 92646 i r _ - - - - , --- ------------- - ---- ----------- - -- --- --- ___ OoG xgnt v t TV; Sdil,tcsat Cimle 7792 Sailboat Circle ' �� ; 7815 Seal.+ eeze Drive 11witin4toon h, Calif ttimtimlto Beach, Wit i Himtinitian bead,, Calif Jltr3o i 92646 ; 92646 " < xx;q—xnt ' Oocupant i 't T762 Sai.lb aat Circle ; 1796 Sailboat Circle i 7821 SeaLreeze drive 1 ttia�tirMlt �k3ac:Y1, (;alit ✓ i HuntirVton kleach, Calif ; eimtirytrn. Beach, Calif 92646 92646 i 92646 _ _ - - - - - - - ----- -- - --+- - --- -- - - - - - -- - --- - - - - - - --- - -- _ 1 --- - Publish 11-26-81 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF LAND USE ELEMENT 81-2 MEADOWLARK AIRPORT AREA OF CONCERN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the. Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of . 7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 7th day of December 1981 for the purpose of considering an appeal filed to the decision of the Planning Commission to_ deny the request for 'Area 3.1 in Land Use Element Amendment 81-2 to. the 'General Plan, .the request was .to redesignate 64.0 acres located north of Warner Avenue approximately 700 feet east of Bolsa Chica Street (Meadowlark Airport) from Low Density Residential to General Commercial and Medium Density Residential . A legal . description is on file in the Development Services Office. Environmental Impact Report 81-4 will be heard in conjunction with said appeal and is available in the City Clerk's Office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said appeal Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED_ 11-19/81 . CITY OF HUNTI-NGTON .BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Aso tod L4-cs�u�c� Olin. �c� ILL wao fo 700 U 0 o19 �Jd-c�, �etf 8/- '� GiJ2QQ .,P�.z. di.�a•� t,A. a,xc� ceTl.QaQ �� Cc Jcie�Q�e.�1-ee U;,. `I cl� NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ,gyp ITEM ISS/ S �CGLCQ,� �'T 0AA01 TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: FROM: 32 e&hkt. PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE DAY OF VC L J[ mly r 1901 �P's are attached AP's. will follow No AP's Initiated by: Planning Commission Planning Department Petition * Appeal V Other , Adoption of Environmental Status (x) YES NO Refer to Planning Department - Extension # 52 7 for additional information. * If appeal; please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal. v+� DENSITY MED I UM IDENTIAL LI LOW DENSITY DENSITY _ j VCNT RESIDENTIAL-; o - RESIDENTIAL F a ( I_. 09 -. MED.{ i C . W : { i ► Y . DEN , �. CAL It yl RES , L „ 1 , � . . [ NFJL GENERAL a MED. MED + i DEN . 1 COMMERCIAL . . DEN. ; REST- �: I I. CF R LOW�DENS I i i J i O it RES IDENTI�ALy:; � ��� ` >`�� >����. ST I �- A MEDIUM OPE N N i PAC DE N S E DENSITY I Y RESIDENT —IAL o -.we 04 n « l a I c a T ED GENER AL IUM•'� I —�. DENSITY t — COMMERCIAL RESI DENTIAL IAL b 1y . I WARNER -•1---1 - - fiHIGHa i s I, T'T T'l'T-TT7 DEN . — MEDIUM - J LOW DENSITY a .[ RES . DENSITY _ = RESIDENTIAL i ! an 2 - ,RESIDENTIAL p• OY ►or TTIITTTZTI� H HIGH DEN . RES , Area Of Concern 3.0 . o 0 3_3 a . 1 I LUE 81-2, Area 3. 1 df 1 10-14-81 Page 1 of ' 163-121-01 : 163-121-21, 25 :163-121-31 I Douglas Stations Inc. : John D. Tokaruk Jean M. Anderson c/o Conoco Tax Dept. P.O. Box 1657 '17062 Salsa Chica 555 17th Street ' Huntington Beach, CA 92647 :Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Denver, CO 90202 _. .- 163-121-02 , ,163-121-22 :163-121-41 Lester W-. Kuehne � Rodolfo Espinoza 1950 St. Andrews Ltd. 1703.2 Bolsa Chica 15121 Dunbar Avenue Ic/o George Hekey Huntington Beach, CA 92649 : Huntington' Beach, CA 92649 :P.O. Boz 492 ' iEncino, CA 91,426 163-121-03 1163-121-23 1163-421-48 ' I Richard M. Dean .: Bryan ARlis Oliver iMlargaret k. . St. 'Onge ►=. 'S. Zadroga ; 7025 Seal Circle '24001 Muirlands Blvd . 5042 Warner Avenue ' Huntington Beech, CA 92648 (Space 303 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ; 'El Toro, CA 92630 - - - • - - - - _ - - - - - - - - � _. - - - - - - - - 163-121-04 - - r - - - - - - - - - - _ . , 163-121-24 :163-121-49 Richard R. Rule iStephen F. Downs ;Tommy T. Nakachi . 17191 Sims St. 116341 S. ` Pacific Ave. I17901 Shamle,y Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 : sunset Beach, CA 9.0742 :HuntingWn BeAckj , CA 9264 '', 163-121-05, 06 - - - - 1 163-222-26 '16 3-121 50 Roxie Katangian, et al : Ching Chung Weng iFranklin Buccella 647 North 19th Street 117242 Blue .Fox. Circle 1,3541 Courtside circle Montebello, CA. 9064.0 ! Huntington Beach, CA 926,47 (Huntington Beach, CA ! 163-121-0li 1163-121-27 !163-122-01,00, 03 St.cphen F. Downs John L. Gardner Southern Reyion- 5092 Warner Ave. 17129 N. Marina Pacifica' Dr . 116551 Brook.hurst St. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ; Long Beach, 'CA 90803 Fountain Valley, CA - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- -= - i- - - - 163-I21-08,09 1163-121-28 - - - - - - -- - - 1163-1-2_2--04 I Bolsa Chica Property Ltd. Janet T. Moody Daniel H. .Uriy 2855' Mitchell Drive 14641 Los Patos Ave. 11115-1/2 West Bay Ave Suite 130: Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Alewport Beach, CA 92(,61 walnut Creek, CA 94598 , ——— —I— — —— —— — — — - — — 167) 1If 10---- - --- --- 1163-121-29� 1163-122-05 Hsie Ming Liao iRalph G. Tourino �ii jid -fs. Harb 2025 Lonyhill Drive '14321 Baker Street 198713 Avenida' Mateo Monterey nark, CA 91754 ;Westminster, CA 92683 Cypress, CA 906,30 lb3=121-11 - - - - - - - - r160-1f1-30- - 6:3-122-06 I Harvey E. Gomberg 'Barbara E. Baker Byron L. Ryl erq 18600 Main St. Suite 150 . 17042 Bolsa Chica 1706-1 Lpslie lane Huntington Reach; CA 92648 'Huntington Beach, CA 92(,49 �Iuntinyton hexch, CA I! -)( .! ' I 1 ! I ' I I , , LUf: 81-2, Area 3.1 dP 10-14-81 Pa9e 2. of 1 163-122-09 : 163-042-16 1146-201-07 i ' ' B. C. Barnett William H. Wilson Hans. M. Borutaki 5441 Old Pirate Lane 16961 ' Bolero Land 5321 E1 Dorado. St. : Huntington Beach, CA 92691> Huntington Beach, CA 92649 , Huntington Beach, CA 92649 , 163-122-10 - - - - - - - - 163-042-17 : 146-201-GH William A. Wood David B. Grover , Leroy A. Graser ' 543.1 Old Pirate Lane 17092 harbor Bluff Cir. i 5311 E1 Dorado Dr. Huntington beach, CA ri2c,4y Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 9264� ' 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' 163-046-01 i 163-042-23 i 146-20j--0.9_ ti.isa Ota Robert C. Coutts Chara6s M. '1 inkler 5242 warner Avenue ' 17052 Greentree Lane � 541 , old i=irate Lane ' : Huntington, fjeach, CA 92(A Huntington' Beach; CA 92649 , Huntington Beach, . CA 92649 , _ r - - - - - - . _ - - - - 163-046-02 163-042-24 ; 146-201-10 Gordon L.Kelly Bodh R. Subherwal ;Arthur C'. Hausen 17041 Greentree Lane 17042 'r;reentree Lane . 15401 Old Pirate Lane Huntington Be3ach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 i H,untinytor: 13each; CA - - - - - - - 163-.046-03 163-a42-26' i146-201 -11 , , . Ronald A. Berglund :Rob BongNancy l�uf.stetler i , 5391 Old P.irato ' Lane iHun 17051 Greentree Lane � I7032 Greentree Lane tbngAon Beach, CA 92CV" Huntington Beach, CA 92649 , Uuntington Beach, CA 92649 , 163-042-04 - - 1163-024-26 , 146-201-14 Charles 1t. Castrop ' Wellman E. Branstrom ;Cloud A. tr, M.m 171011 Ne�uist Lane : 17012 Greentree Lane �clo Miner, . Huniin ton Beach, CA 92649 ; Huntington Beach, CA 92649 , 16.705 c'.raham Street. g g i dung i n(iton Bach, CA 92f,4'; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - 163-042-05 : 163-041-01 1146-201-16 Harlan H. Rabe : Rene Sportes Stanley Itosen]Jla t t. , 1 17031 N6707 . ratsar, St . ewquisf Lane . 1 17042 Newquist Laney �N6707 . Gton 33ear.h, CA ?.'.E 4. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 11untington Beach, CA 92649 , - __ _ 163-042-06 : 163-041-02 ; 146-201-17 Robert K. I.ingenfelter :John W. O'Brien :}tarry L)erderian 17051 Ne uist Lane : 17052 Ne 15402 Old Pirate Lam.!r+r2 wclu i s t Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 IFluntington Beach, CA 92649 111untinc tors !'-each, CA 163-042-15 - - - - - - - � -; 146-2G1-OG 1.46-20.1 - 13 , David T. Cook 'Raymond I•ic rd Robert D. Runyard 5331 E1 Dorado Drive -' 5451 Old Pirate Lane :5452 of l Pirate Liinl, Hunitnq'ton Reach, CA 92649 , Huntington Reach, CA 92649 :Huntington ttiesc h, i I 1 •' I 1 1 ' LUE 81-2, frea 3. 1 di � , 16-14-81 age 3 of . . . . . . .. . . _. . - - - .. . - F - - - - : - -f- - - - - - - L _. _. . - 146-201-20 : : 146-201-32 ;146-201-81 Barbara G. Youngblood . ' Marion Gene Neff Xldis Dailacis 5404 'Old Pirate Lane ' ' 5421 .Meadow Cir. 5462 Mendciw Cir. .Huntington Beach, CA - 92649 ' Huntington Beach, CA 92649 :Huntington Beach, CA 92649 146-201-�21 ; 146-201-33 146=20.1-42 Roger C. Martin ; tfarry Bronson .Harold- 1-4ton P.O: -Box 2543 ' '5411 Meadow Cir. ' S492 Meadow Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ' Huntington Beach, CA 9264' - -- -- - - ._._. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... - - - - - - - - - - - - 146-201-22 1 146-201-34 ; 146-201-43 . . Ralph D. Ricks : William B. White , Frank W. Gaiennie ' 062 Old Pirate Lane ; 5401 Meadow Cir. 1 16832 Stonehaven.' Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ' Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ; Huntington beach; CA 126-201-23, 24 ; 146-201-35 146-201-44 James P. Minear : Paul E. Davis James T.. r1lis 16705. Graham Street ' 5462 Meadow Cir. 16812 Stonehaven Cir Huntington Beach, CA . 92649 ; Huntington`.Beach, CA 92649 ' Huntington [bench, CA 92r. � 146-2017241 ' 1,46-201-36 ; 146-201-45 Mary M. Ciddio ' Thomas Kardos i Victor U. ;watsek 5491 Meadow Circle ' '. , P.O. Box 127 26812 Stonehaven Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ' Sunset Beach, CA 90742 ; Huntington Mach, CA `+ f 4 , 146;-20t-28 ; 146-201-37 146-201-46 Douglas U. McCracken ; Magdi R. Hanna ' Ronald R. Patterson' 5471 Aeadow .Cir. � .5422 Meadow.. eadow Cir. ; 16802 Stonehaven' C.ir . Huntington beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ' Huntington Beach, CA 9264,• -- - - 1- -- - - 146-201-29 1146-201-38 146-201- 47 Ken i Mi ai i ' j. y John Crowhurst ' Jams C. Walker 5462' Meadow Cir. ; 5432 Meadow Cir. 16801 Stonehaven Cir. . liun.tington Beach, CA 92649 1 Huntington .Beach, CA 92649 i Huntington -Beach, CA92f,a 1 , 14b-l01-3U 1146-201739 146-201-49 David L. . tlofines : Jerry A. Rich ' Michael A . Buthha 5451 Meadow Cir. . 15452 Meadow Cir. , 16821 Stunehaven Cir . '-jluntington Beach, CIA .92649 *ntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, .('A `,-,'i ? . 146-201-31 1146-201-80 14o.,-201 • 48 Steven A. Kormondy ' Sadettin Kuzu Wi I I iam �!. (,,t l l ahF0 r 5431' Meadow Cir. , 5462 Meadow Cir. Kuntington beach, CA 92649 ' Huntington Beach, CA 92649 , luntington I.cach , 1 1 ' i LUE 81-2, Area 3.1 df 1.0-14-81 PagO 4 of - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 146-201-50 : 146-043-3.0 J46-043-39 -Robert N. Webb Michael L. Marcoux :Edward Burke 1b331 Stonehaven Cir. : 5142 CalienteDDr. 1S221 Heil Ave. Hgnting0on Beach, CA ,92649 : Huntington Beach, .CA 92649 :Huntington Reach, CA 92649 146-201-51 : 146-043-31 1146-043-40 Walter Schluender ; ®aye Tobin 'Stephen R. Braddon lbA41 Stonehaven Cir. 16,8.75 Algonquin St. ; 5211 Heil AvC. ' hunUmgtdn- Beach, CA 92649 ;.Huntington Beach, CA 92649. � 1 ntington Reach, CA 92649 _ - - - - - - - _ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ .._ _. _ ... ... ... .. .. _ .._� _ _ .: ... _ _ .. .. .. i 14i,-201-52 i146-043-32 ;146-043-41 Paul Osa= : Jorge Z. Gonzalez ,Victor L. Mills 1C `8.1 Stonehaven Cir. : 5202 Caliente Dr. 15201 lleil Ave. Huntington Beacp, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 iH.untington Acac CA 92649 14.6-20.1-53 ; 146-043-33 146-043-42 Choon H. Rhee 9„ i, Phyllis Pfiffner Anthony G. Heaverlta 16861 Stonehaven Cir. 16521 Peggy Cir. 15191 Heil Ave. E untington Beach, CA 92649 ; Huntington Beach, CA 92649 :iluntincTton 1sEach, CA q2649 - - - - -- --- - - - - - .-1 - -- - - - - T - - - - 1-46-201-54 � 146-043-34 :146-043,-43 Donald C. Stevenson : Charles Schilling :Fred Hicks-Reach 1f;8,71 Stonehaven Cir. 15222 Caliente Dr. '5181 Heil Ave. Huntington' Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Baach, CA 92649 111untington ' beach, CA !2t>4's 146-201-55 , 146-043-35 11146-043-44 Dennis_ R: Gumm iJohn .D. Tarvin :James T. Ho.ustun 16d81 Stonehaven Cir. 152.32 Caliente Dr. 5161 Heil Ave . 11u,n.tingt.on Beach, CA 92649 : Huntington Beach, CA 92649 'Huntington ficach, CA 92t,11..'1 - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - !- - -= -- - -- --- - --=- - ___ - -� - - - - 146-043-27 1146-043-36 :146-043-45 Michael Marcoux : Fritz i1. Dehlerking Try J. Austin `-.142 Caliente Dr. : 5242 Caliente Dr. '5151 Heil Ave. Huntington Beach, Cn. 92649 f+untington Beach, CA 92649 :Huntington Beach, CA 92641 146-043-28 ;.14�i-043-37 :146-043-46 .Sichael F. Cunningham : Stephen G. Ambrose :Richard W. Drake '; 152 'Cal.iente Dr. ' 5241 Heil Ave. Xlm St . R('. . 3 Eox 31) 1e Huntincitcon Beach, CA 92649 ; Huntington Beach, CA 92649 '13er.vick, PA 16((: 3 lib-043-29 - ' 146-043-38 :146-055-01 ifford S. Woodward ;Leroy F. Offer ,Harold J. `.".rith 1 Ei2 Caliente Dr. 116437 San Jacinto St. f53f 2 Cal ier�tr.� t'-r. !'.untington Beach, CA 92649 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 ,Huntington 17 , I ' I ' I � I I ' LUE 81-2 Area 3.1 df' 10-14-81 Page 5 of 146-055-02 146-055-11 1146-062-16 Jams D. Austin : Anton J. Kaufman 5352 Caliente Or. / ; 5452 Caliente Dr. Huntington Reach, CA 926491 ' Huntington Beach, CA 92641. .. _. - - _ _ _ - - - - - _ __ 146-05.5-0.3 146-055-12 : 146-062-17 David R.. Black Mary L. Miles iCharles W. Faulkner 5342 Caliente Dr. ; 5361 Heil Ave. 15432 Caliente Dr . ' Huntington Beach, .CA 92649 i Huntington .Beech, CA 92649Huntington Beach, CA 92F4' � . " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ � - - -- - - - - - 146-055--04 ; 146.-056-01 ' 146-062-18 . James N. Agalsoff ; Lloyd A. Braun : Wallace If. De Mers 5332 Caliente Dr. . ' 5282 Caliente Dr. , 5422 Caliente Or. ' Huntington--each, CA 92649 ; Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ' Huntington Beach, CA 9-(14 ' 1461-055-05 1 146=056-02 i146-062-19 Arthur Tice ' Kelvin Cox iDenis .B. Bracher 531.2- Caliente Dr. ; 5272 Caliente Dr. ' 5412 "Caliente Dr.. . Huntington" Beach, CA 92649 , Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ; Huntington Beach, CA 91"'%4 '� 1" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- 1 i46-055--06 ; 1166-056-03 : 1,46-062-20 Lola L. Hllywa Donald M. Minchinton ; btartin L.Hoff.man 5302 Caliente Dr. ' 5252 Caliente Dr. 15402 Caliente Ur. Huntington »each, CA 02649 ,' Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ' Huntington Beach, CA 2264,� Be - - - - - - --- -- - - -- - - - - 1-. ; - - - - ---"-- - - - - - - - - - ,146-0.55-0.7 ' 146-056=04 ; 146-062-21 Florian L. Lekavich" Roy H. Tebbetts IMable "M. 'Webater 4872 Oahu Dr. , 5251 1iei1 Ave. ' 5392 Caliente Dr. Huntington beach, CA 926491 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ; Huntington Reach, CA 92f.411 . . . . . . - - - - - - --- - - - - --- - -'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ` 146-055-Ob ; 146-056-05 1146-062-22 Dean 'W. Nonamaker Brian H. Steeves ' ConstanceC. Foster 5311 Heil Ave. ' 5271 Heil ' 15382 Crliente . Dr. .Huntington Beach, CA 92649 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ' Huntington Beach, CAA 9"IiA 146-055-09 1 146-0.56-06 ; 146-062-23 Betty J. Collura ' Vandy T. Scott : Robert B. Nichols 5331 Heil AOe. i 5281 Heil Ave. 15381 Heil Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 926491 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ; iiuntingtciri Beach , RAS 9."f-2 I 146-055-10 11 , ?A��-062-15 114c-062-24 Albert H. Ward William W. Wilson Thurman G. Wade 5341 Heil Ave. 5462 Caliente Dr. I5191 Heil Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington 11cach, C^. ,.'�.•: I I I ' I , . I I i ' LUC 81-2, Area 3.1 df 10=14-81 Page 6 of i - - = - - - - - i 146-211-03 ' 146-21-17.15 146-062-25 � , Kathleee V. Pyhrie Engin N. Uralman of i S�l lrecht•, 5401 Heil Ave . , Richard Rrek�yer 1652I graham St. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 555 Paularino Ave. IP106 Nantington. "ach, CA Costa Mesa, CA 92626 , 146-062-26 ; 146-211-04 14E-211-15 Donald G. McClure ; Gary S. Makase i Robert S.tellrecht 5411 Heil Ave. 16521 .Graham Street ' 16521 rraharn Street Huntington' Beach, CA 92649 ; Huntington Beach, AtA 9264;9 Huntington Beach, CA 9"r, 146-062-27 146-211-06 146-221-08 Jon H. Fults David Ichinaga Melvin A. Jay 3914 Mistral Dr. ; 16551 Graham St. i 3261 Druid Lane Hunting4k6n aeach, CA 926491 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Los Alamitos, CA 90720 — — - — — — — - - — — — — — — - 1 146-062-28 146-211-07 i 146-221-09 Robert D. Price ; Mabel L. Reno Richard M. Deam 5431 Heil Ave. 1-023 E. First St. Apt. 16 ' Melvin. A.Jay Huntington, Beach, CA 92649. : Lonq Beach, CA. 90802 i 5200 IteilIAve. i Huntington 'beach, CA. 9': 146-062-29 i 1.46-211-10 146-233-52 E.L. Workman William J. 'Sullivan ' i Roby F. MQCill 5451 Heil. Ave. 16601 - Graham Street ' 5151 Stallion St. Huntington Beach, CA 92649, Iiuntington. .Boach, CA 92649 i Huntington Reach, CA 9 1 14,6-062-30 146-211-11 -233-53 i Behrend H. Ihnen Richard P. Kelter i John R. Cuest 5471 Heil Ave. i 17�161 Goldenwmmt St. 1A ' 21372 Augusta Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 9264� I;iunt.ington Beach, CA n.;;: 146-201-03 i 146-211-13 - 1116-Z3.3=54 , Earl H. Thompson Robert P. Scheinblum ' John F. Heady 16671 Graham St'. 16581 Graham St'. i 5171 Stallion Cir . Nuntington .Beach, CA 92649i Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Hunatington Heac.h, CA 9 ,'• i 146-201--04- - - - - - - - -- ' ' -� , - 146-211-14 _ - _ _ - - - i 146--233 55 - -- - - - - i Clarence Walter ; Robert L. 'Stellrec-ht Ronald G. Denner 16701 Graham St . 1 16591 Graham St. ' 30793 Sunstt Dr . Huntington Beach, CA 926491 Huntington Beach, CA 92644 Redlands , CA 92371 146-211-02 14G-2f1 1�_. ._ _ 146- 233--56 C osp of the Presidilx3 Iiishcp o� William Sullivan, et al Francis A. Gr ima ` Real Eetate Department , Robert Scheinblum 5182 Stallion Cr . 0 South Main 16581 Graham St. ' Iuntington FWach, ('"A tr,I i alt Lake City, Utah 84101; Huntington Beach, CA 92644 • i i c ' i � I I I LUE 81-2, Area 3. 1 df I 10-14-81 Page 7 o__f_ - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - r = _.._ - - - - - - - - - 146-233-57 146-.233-66. - i 146-233-76 Robert. H. .Bauman Ralph F. Bowers Raymond C. Le Desma 517.2 ,Staillion Cr. 15182 Gelding Cr. 5121 Stallion Cr. atington 8eacii, CA 926491 Huntington . Heach, CA 9?E�9� Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ; Hun -146-233-38 - - - - - - 146-233-=67 146-233-7.7 Charles, L. Hawksford : "William D. Daraall ; Oa"s H. Trotter 5162 Stallion: Cr. 5172 Gelding Cr. . 15141 Stallion Cr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ' Huntington Beach, CA 92649 146-233-59 - 146-233-68 1146-241-03,04 1 ' William A. Slater ( Jack F. Wheelhouse Alan HcKeating s ,. 5152 Stallion Cr. 1 5162 c,ehdinq Cr. R.L. Curry HunatingtAn Beach, CA 92645� Huntington Beach, CA 92649 5032 Pearce St . Huntington Reach, CA 92.(.4 `; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - � - - - -- - - - - - -- - - � -� . ' 146-3-31-60 146-233-69 1146-241-05, 06 Ronald E. Roys ; Jewell Nation Bony K. t�ot>erta, 5152 Gelding Cr. ' 4802 Curtis 5142 Stallion Cr. ' Cr. ,Huntin ton Beach, CA 92649 ' tlunatfngton Beach, CA 92.6.49� 9 , Hunt in��.ton .E�each, C:� U Z f,A ' I -- - - - -- - _ - _ _ =� - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - 146-233-61 i 146-233-70 1146-241-68 -. Timothy S. Denison i Sharon L. Duckworth ; Masao Nerio 5141 Gelding Cr. ' 5142 Gelding Cr. 19340 ©olsa Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ; Hunatington Bch, . CA 92649; westminster, c,r 926a3 ea 1 - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - a - - - - - _ f 246-233=62 146-233-71 i146-241-14 Gary W. MacFarlane : David C. Clark Jan Law 5151 Gelding Cr. 1 5141 Pearce Dr. 116811 Ilossevelt. Rd . Hu ntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Reach, CA 92649 :Huntington flvarh, CA '2: . , . I - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - 146-233-63 i146-233-72 1146-241-15 ' . Rirchard L. Graham iNathan N. Yacono ' 7oel P. Oviatt 5161 Gelding Cr. ' 14812 fiermanson Cr. 9746 Prichard St. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 i Bellflower, CA 90706 'Huntington .Be:ach, CA 921. -V J 146-233-64 146-233-73 1-16 Hobert J. Perkins ; John Geatafson ( Richard V. Quine 5171 Gelding Cr. 5161 Pearce Dr. 12200 Par). iJciw,p(.-)rt a .yO1 Huntini stun Beach, CA 92649 iluntirsgton Beach, CA 92649 Neitgort Beach, C`, 9.) 146-233-65 i 146-233-74, 75 1146--241-17 JameslL. Nauman et al I Art Nerio Irene M. Horton 14628 Charlemagne Ave. : 9340 Bolsa Ave. 120821 Crestview Iu" ne Bellflower, CA 90706 1 Westminster, CA 92683 'Huntington boac h, . 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I , i i I ' i 14$-r9.?-40 T ' 146-493-05 GgOXW L MattlZis Land use kj eent 81-2 r'rarx L Clime 16922 Ruby Circle, i Oct. 15, 1981 (JH) 541.2 k ,anaaa M i ve beach, Calif , fhuitinyton 6e . I., calif 9 92649 2649 � - - - - -- � - - -• -- - - - - - -- - -- - .. - ._ �- 146-492-48... ._. 146-493--06 146-492-41 , Ftrabcr't L Beckstxnan , Wint an T Whrzjer Vq)t of vets Affairs o 16912 Mxb Circle 16951 %;by Ci.r�c1A Mate of Calif MNtfnom Beach, Calif ; kkmtiixjon Bpi, Calif F'razik E. Hitcretan 92649 92649 5422 tkmanza Drive, 146-492-42 - - - - ; 146--492-49 tlurIt .X#jt..0II t*+cti, Gilif John H Dorratx�e .Will im' D Hicks 92649 16942 M4 Circle ; 16941 &*jy Circle i-AmtiN� beach, Calif t3untinyton Beach, Calif ! 92649 92649 . 146-482-43 - - - - - - - - + '- - 1 146-492-50 146-41*?3--07. Newboun C La F�t'ver kv*149 C Sha nWtAer ! tVal tax" A t'lz� 16952 16931 Ruby Circle 5432 Wl anza Drive Ruby Cxr'cle Ht� Beach, Calif , ttunti;v tm Heach, Calif ' trni.t 1Ja.,tntr ti x:t�, Calif i 92649 92649 92649 - - - - 146-492-48 , 146-492-51 146-4j3-.Od ' r Rugs M Gordan I C2)arles k. Cary futhm Mille ; 16962 Ruby Cldac:le ; 16921 Ruby Circle 5442 Ltim.uiz a Drive H►mt icyybm tieac:t1, Calif liuntirnj� Beach, Calif ali.f ttuntinjtim ijoAdi, Calif' ' 92649 92649 9264y 14fi-492-45 146-493-01 146-493-09 Dept 6f Vets Affairs Stqphm A Derkm &rbara J Winslow of State oz C;alit 520 N brodd urst St, Suite 104 4236 O-iat3win Aver,k.� Ralph C Frtaley ; Anaheim, Cali L akeef�xx1, Calif 16972 Ruby Cicae 92d01 90713 Ihantirx Lun L c:h, Calif - 146-49:3-02_ ._ ._. .- 146-493--10 42649 Lloyd F Gray I Lucille M biorlein 5362 Bcxtianaa Drive 5462 Ncna lJa iv�� i Huntij-&- l Beach, Calif I tiantinyWri beach, C;a131 92649 ! 92649 146--492-4 146-493-03 ! 146--493-1 J Gear3e L Michky , Earl C .3cr" , OuArle sit.a 13 hrr-%m 16971 Ruby Cit'cle 5372 Flananza Drive 5461 azmwii..i Drive. HuntingWn Reach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif NN'tc:t 1, 9,,049 I 92649 r-t,49 14"92-47 146-493-04 - 146-493--12 Jot in R l hwds H B Sparlerier Tyler W f4to.111rx1 16%1 IBaby C�ir le ; 5392 Bonanza Drive 54.51 Lkx-an ra Or i vex ItUntir*j ban Beaac21, CA l l f t i=tiny ton Bead i, Calf !.i<.9,acl), 92449 92649 49 i , i LUE 81-2, Area 3. 1 df Q-14�81 _ �ay0_it _0f- =3 - - - - 1 _ - - - - - - 146-4y�-05 146-241-18, 20 146-241-47. luruld Yount' Hong-Yen Ha® ' Enrique G. Chab� 5315 Overland Drive 12020-8 Centralia Ave. i 3922 Sirius Dr. Huntir�3ton h' Calif Hawaiian .Gardens, CA 90716: Eiuntingtgh Beach, CA 92649 91649. - - _. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - -• - ._ .. . 146-492-U6 .146-241-19 ; 146-241-48,49 Maryut U ASlen HBnry Kumagai : Orange City Bank 5311 Overlarxi Driwe 19021 E. Canyon Dr. 1 2730 Fast Chai moan Ave. t ` ''ton ('`vif Orange, CA' 92667 : Orange, CA 9.2669 92649 , 146-492-07. 146-.-241-21 , 146-241-50,51 , Taw S Clare Carl Wieland ; Stainder Saaroop ; 53U5 Overlau" Ulr*ve 5674 Pesarce, St. 15 Rue Chatea 'te u Roggl I AmtingtD6 ch, CAIit Huntington Beach, CA 92649 i Newport Beacht CA . 92660 ; 92649 146-241, 0 1146-241-52 NewbDn C La Fever Ven i� 1 I 'Grage-Wi11son 16952 Fupy Circle 2062 Busine8a 'Center Dr. ; Hunwbytou l3eactI Calif !•Suite 105 92649 -- -- - -- - -- - - - , 146-492-09 14 6-2 41-3 8 ' Art M Nerlo ' Virginia V Pwje - ' 9340 Dol we sa Ava ' Breuer-Ha rri son Inc. , 12630 Acidic Street westininstat, Calif wroth iic ll N&)od,CaIif C.J. Brauer 926d3 1750 Ladera Vista Dr. , 91607 Full®rton-,_ C.A_ _.9,.�b31 __ _ ._. ... � .- - - - - - - -- - - __ , i4fs 49xOr 146-492-10 14 6-2 41-3 9, 4 0 Charles A Kiri.Llm Jr Lloyd j Sidney A. Crossley l e ; 5351 nci Ovarla Drive ' 16861 Canyon Lane Y Huaitinybon H .h, Calif ' F6mtiyy� i�cai, c;a.l i f 1055 Rose Ave. 92649 i 92649. Palm Springs, CA 92262 - _ - - - - - -1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- -- d�- - I492-02 ? 146-492-11 L 4 6-2 41-4 3 ' Charles J Gordon H Harris Cain Firgie M. ' Tackaberry i 16921 Wby Circle i 16d65. Canyon Lane i061 'Wainer AvC. ; 1A=t xv4ton beach, Cali ' Unt�tinytW Heauh, Calif luntington beach, CA 92649 92649 92649 146=-492-12 4 6-241-4 5 , Marjorie L Wing , Shan W Fbot l lack E. Wheelhouse 5331 Overland Drive 16871 Cariyan Lu* 032 Pearce ;t. tQmuivfton bewuh, Calif ; itw►tinjtcx, bowl" c;alii. ,untington eaach, CA 92649 1 92649 9t649 T46-492-04 146-431-13 4 6-2 41-4 6 ' prank J Krikava ' Nisi C Lao ichard F. German 5321 Overland Drive ; lb875 Qun -jn Lim abrie1 Raphael et a1 ; HwWybon Beach, Calif ' ftuntingtan Lwach, Calit 138 16 th St . i i 92649 ; 12649 anta Monica, CA 90403 ' - - - i 146-4.92-14 Lid Use El=wnt 81-2 ; 146-492-31 Ridard 16 (�i I Payne ' Oct. 15. 1981. WH) ra e,C Delvin Canyon ' ' 16902 C UWm Lane tAstfinytxxa beach, Cali EitsatingtOn Beach, Calif 92649... 14t-492-15 146-492-23 i 146-492-32 RU&p ay Lighthulder ; t11en P Davis ' GeacW 8 Houck i 16891 Canyon Larne 16400 Saybrook L 16892 Ctw4m Drip t4zitinybon b®ac;h, Calif Huntingt)b i Beach, calif + kkmt1n.3tu n Heath, Calif 92649, " 92649 92649 . - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - = -- -.- - -- -. - - - - - - - _ ._ . .. _ - i 146-492-16 ; 146-492-24 14(-492-.i3 Harlan C Hanson Dabty J 8earb.01" Dorris A Burke 16901 Canyon.Lane Maybel Qook ' 1"82* Cdnyra, Lane Huntirybon wach, Calif 16981 curyon Lk ne bunt irytxm Leach, Cali f 92649 ' IU* ngtaon Beech, Calif 92649 92ti49 - - - --- - - - - - -- - - 146-492-17 ' 146--492-25 146-492-34 J 43RrYy Price ; Ruthe E Teeter A U Dzikin, 16911 canyon Lane 16972 Canyon Lam 1 2601 E Oceantsl.vd. 140`, Huntir4ton 60ach, Calif Hunt�iryytnn -ban Calif Lohy Beach, Calif 92(49 92649 _ - _ L - 90803_ _ _. _. _ ... .. .. _ _. _ .. _ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -r - - - - --- - - - - -- -- - 146-492-ld ; 146-492-26 ; 146-492-35 Fr'ands R De C Lvamis Martin R Greenhalyh &kher D Hart 16921 Canyon lAne ; 16962 Canyon Lars 5322 �erlauxl give NtntUnum- breech, Calif lluntinton Beath, Calif tfimtinlbm iixkach, Calif 92649 ' 92649 ' 92649 - - - - - - - - - -- - - --- - - - - - _ - -. _. --- - - - - - - _ _ _ - - - .. ._ 146-492-19 146-492-27 146-492-36 f tin mu U F Chonnicle ; James C Marshall Jerry C Nelsun 16931 Canyon Laum 16832 O*jewaster Lane " Maxine B Nelson tmtiry i beach,' Calif tDuattinclCon 8emeh, Calif ' 4501 W&trier AVejuAe 9b4y 92649 _ tafitiJytun. tinac:h, Calif 9264.1 r - - - --- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - -= - ---- - -- - - --- - - - 22b= 146-492-20 ; 146-492-28 ; 14d-492-31 t I en P Davis (uville w Nelson t�ranLim J Kussn�an 16400 Sayi�ti�oic Lane ; 16942 Canyon Lntra Narrianlu)e C1atr.-y LAmtingtun Beach, Calif Hun Reach, Calif 5331 tcmnza Drive 92649 ' 92649 �txn� fx +ch,. Calif 112t4' 146-492-21 ' 146-492-29 146-492-ib Mas oret A 'Hei Berson fdaard W Fierce ; Max F 41,ti.tli 16951 Canyon Lane 16932 Caton. Large 5332 timu,ra Dive HuntLVton beach, Calif Huntington Reach, Calif � tturitiUjtX)r, lkaact;, Calif 92649 92649 92649 146-492-21 146-492-30 , 146-492--39 Rachel B Nielsui " P+etrnnella F Arnold Francis A i.►vertx:,l tz Ha..,Jv1 is Her t"istein 16912 Canyon lane ; 5 34 2 lxmanza Or i ve 601 W J=4,er Avenue mmury4tm Beach, Calif C,i.f.i i Santa AI)i, C:alii 9,e707 92649 ... ._92649 - . I � I 146-493-13 ; - - - 146-493-29 Jack E Poll Lam Use- 81-2 � John C Hayes 5441 � �y,D���riive� ��j F � Oct. 15, 1981 GTti) ; 5/.433♦5.overr�.larxii� /Drive ms 41, '92649 92649 - - - - - - - - - - - -L I 146--493-14 ; 146-493-21 ' 146-493-30 [lq7t of Vets Affairs of I Doris C NDrdyk e ; Rem J KukAX411. State of Calif ; 5361 oyerlA l Drive ' 5441 (anerlarYi Drive James E Barker i Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington D3caach, Calif. 5431 txxvanza Drive 92649 I .92649 11un"ton llBE I, Calif ' 146-493-22 , 146-493-31 92649 ; Lynn Cray Marvin J ALonza 1 5371 Overl>ind Drive 6772 Capst.� Drive. I ituntington Reed, Calif I flurtti.nytm beach Calif 92649 92647 t- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J - 146-493-15 ; 146--493-23 146-493-32 143bert M 'Leyhe C:arlyne H Nelson I Qwl-es R floe 5411 bolunza Drive ; 5381 Overland Drive I .5451 Overland I1riv>e auntin4tm Beach, Calif i Huntington Beach, Calif HuntiajU)n Beaech, Calif i . I 92649 92649 92649 146-493-16 ! 146-493-24 - - - -- ; 146-493-33 Philip A Carey ; Martin.Gt1Qh ' Myrna R WuW 5411 Bonanza Drive ' 855 Hillcrest Street ; 5455 Overland Drive llutitirWm Beech, kalif El SeyiadD, Calif ' lhmUnItrui Hm-a h, Cal.ii 92649 I 90245 ; 92649. . - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - --- - - -- - - - - - - r - - - -- - 146-493-17 i 146-493-25 ' 146-493-34 Helen D Dunn ' David E Albin ; Marjorie V Neave 5391 9onanza Drive ; 5401 Oveiland Drive ' 5461 Overland Drive Htntiniton Beach, Calif I Huntington Beach, Calif ; Htmtirx)on awdi. Calit 92649. 92649 ' 92649 146-493-18 ' 146-493-26 i 146--493735 Hazel Luna i Martin Gt eenhalyh Marjorie rt aherwocxi 5381 Bonanza Drive 5411 Overland'Drive I 5465 Overland drive H4ntirytai beach, Calif � thmtinyt on'beach, Calif ' Huntin.3trm iftw'11, Calif 92649 I 92649 92649 146-493-20 i 146-493-27 146-493-36 Aorye E Bata Gloria L Ahonmo i Detyt of Vets Affairs of 5351. Bonanza Drive , Martin R Greeekolgh ' State of Calif ,ttmtinytcn React►, Calif 16962 Canyon Lane ; Barry D rka-df 92649 ; DDunt.isyt m beach, Calif 92649 5471 .Overlanu Drive I 146-493-19 ' 146--493-2d IIunttLx, RA 1�, Gtlif Clinton R Hutchison i e;ta J El 3t� Elliott 92649 5361 Lkwonza [Five 5431 OverLanl Drive t ton beach Calii ltmtin3 tiurtGinyttxz Beac21, Calif ' 92649 92649 t I ' I I ' I I I ' 1 r ' • I 1 1 1 , ' I � I 1 146►-493.37 1 146-494-12 I�t7l.+s M Me,�aes�h ; Land Use Element 81-2 16J I Circle 1"52 Coach I.�ye Oct. 15, 19 81 (Jfi) I Multiry.1tvrri beach, Calif tiuntingboc► bead, .Calif 92649 92649 ( 146-493-3d ; 146-494-04 ' 146-4.94-13 James A• Rowland Palbara M Wintmrs , William F Stmei rf i,eld 16db2 Coach Lane '16941 Red res* Circle 16931 Agate Circle f>irptinyt on Bich, .Calif 1 flunt ingt , Calif ; HuntiiNton tact,, Calif 92649 ' 92649 92649 _ 146-493739 •- - -- - - - - - - - - - - -� 14fi-494-05 • ._ -- _. - - - -- y - _ - i 146-494-14 iiayiu, R Wood ; Tina T Lang ' William G Stf3cje W1p 1602 Chi Lane 1 16931 Red Ruch Circle ; 1695- 1 /��ite Circle lluntin��. bead I, Calif � Huntinyt on Beech, Calif 1 Hunt:i n�ri)XI Beact I, Cal i f 92649 92649 9A49 .146-493--40 !>fi 146-494-06 14b-494--15 William.J Maran 1 Jack L Taufer WiS N L We 16dd1 C30ah Laws ; 4 3ti6 OuWlesbone Lane 169101 Njat.e Circle h1unt:irgtm beach, Calif I La Canada, Calif Calif 92649 9101.1 92649 146-493-41 ' 146--494-07 I 146-494-•16 Allan P Pin)a►a ; Ayetrellae H Uook llirley T ft)ssnan 16t392- t Lane 16922 Red -Pock Circle 1 16972 X}ate Circle liuntingtaon beach, Calif t mtilx ton BmGi, Calif I tartirbibon SeL ti, Calif 92649 92649 92649 - - - - - - - - - - - - - = -- - -- 14b-493-42- 146-494-08 146-494-17 CA)Drye H, Ingraham ' Winifred E Brimley et al I Salvatvre Serrantino 16902 Coach Lame ; 16932 Red AcxA'Circle ' 1134 Cbldwter CYN drive tiuntiNton beach, Calif Huntington ! Calif ; Beverly bills, Calif. . 92649 96649 90210 ---------- - - --- - - 146-494-01 ' 146-494-09 146-494-19 Dale C Ma inkLe yew , California Hank � Jahn I .kxies 16971 Rtaur k Circle � Canadian Trust 1 16952 Ariat:e Cim le lluntirgtjn b adi, Calif 700 So. Flower Street 11Mti1NtLM1 bea -l►, Calif 92649 1 Las ANeles, Calif 90017 ; 92649 146-494-01 , 146-494-10 146-494-Wd► 19 Harriet A Draper flizakxetn A 5tane 1 r't.uJc J ldc:ptjrL, ic,%l Aw Rock Circle ; 1t,952 Rau 14LXA Circle 16942 XjatE: Circle lfantia bLli ebac11, Calif 1 Hunt rv,ton Hvach, Calif , fluntirkjujn N)ac:rl, C itl i f y�b49. 92649 ylby9 146-494-UJ ! 146-494-11 146-494-20 kxxtrt• N Mahanj George M Rioe tLuvv• W Uwrar 16951 kd Rxk Circle ' 16962 Red Rx* Circle 1 169J2 Agate Circle hunti.niton beach., Calif ; buntimjU)n Beech, Calif 1iunt1jijtLr, llewli, Calif 9::t,49 92649 , 92649 II ' � 1 � I 1 1 � 1 t : 1 1 1 I LanU Use Elaumt 81-2 ' Oct. i5, 1981 (Jll 146-494-21 1 I Joseph D Fields Jr ' Stratton Matinas ' 5421-Dl�mnl' Derive 17081 Greentree Lane 1 tnt"ttm beak:li, Calif ' Hunt i_n.j ton Beach, Calif 1 92649 92649 14e-494-22 R M Calkins I , 5431 Dims xO Dative kkmtinwn BOW11, Calif + I 92649 1 146-494-24 Doram P Rice I , 5441 DiaOo ai Drive i Wntiung0on Mach, Calif 92649 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - . 146-494-24 ChArles l; Fitts 17141 Sims Street I , fkmtJ mjWn beach, Calif 1 , 92649 ' 146-494-25 ' Merrill G :;wtt ' 1 , 5461 D1,a=-#j Drive , tknt xvyt on 8oach, Calif 92649 - 4- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - � 146-494-26 ' Douglas Cates Linda Cates 16912 Oaach Lm e 1 Huntinitan Etch, Calif 92049 ! 146-494-17 ' Delmar l; Potts 16922 Wac i Lase Huntirq'Wn bcaach, Calif %249 - - - - Dick Nerio ' ! I , 9340 Holsa Avenue I , Westminster, Calif ' 92683 , 1 I 1 I t I } I i 1 , I , I 1 , ' SCRIPT LAND USE ELEMENT NO. 81-2 MAYOR: THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 81-2 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 81-4 . THIS IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE LAND .USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR 1981, AND INCLUDES FOUR CITY AND STAFF INITIATED PROPOSALS AND FOUR LAND USE AMENDMENT REQUESTS FROM PRIVATE APPLICANTS . TWO OF THE REQUESTS FROM PRIVATE APPLICANTS WERE DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HAVE BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR RECONSIDERATION. DOES STAFF HAVE ANY INFORMATION FOR PRESENTATION AT THIS TIME? PALIN : (STAFF PRESENTATION) MAYOR: ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AT THIS TIME? (COUNCIL COMMENTS IF ANY) . I WILL NOW DECLARE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 81-2 OPEN . TO FACILITATE THE TAKING OF TESTIMONY, I WILL CALL FOR INPUT ON EACH AREA SEPARATELY, COUNCIL WILL FIRST HEAR TESTIMONY ON CITY AND STAFF INITIATED PRO— POSALS, ITEMS 2 .1, 2 .2, 2 .3 AND 2 .4 AND THEN ON THE AREAS OF CONCERN 3.2 AND 3.3. COUNCIL WILL THEN HEAR TESTIMONY ON THE APPEALED ITEMS--AREAS 3.1 AN 3.4. AS WE WILL DISCUSS LATER IN THE AGENDAo I HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE APPLI— CANT ON AREA 3.1 (MEADOWLARK AIRPORT) ASKING THAT THE APPEAL ON THIS AREA BE WITHDRAWN . 21 THE FIRST ITEM FOR PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE ITEM 2.1 WH-ICH 1. - .. i IS A REQUEST TO ADD A MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATE- GORY ALLOWING UP T0 .25 UNITS PER ACRE TO THE GENERAL PLAN . THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE ADDITION OF THE NEW L CATEGORY, DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM 2 .1? (PUBLIC INPUT) ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL?. (COUNCIL COMMENTS) A MOTION IS IN ORDER REGARDING ITEM 2.1. (COUNCIL MOTION) ITEM 2.2 IS A REQUEST TO NOT REFER TO THE SIZE CRITERIA IN FIGURE 3-15 OF THE GENERAL PLAN WHEN MAKING FINDINGS OF CON- SISTENCY IN THE CITY�S COASTAL ZONE. THE PLANNING. COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST. DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM 2.2? (PUBLIC INPUT) ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? (COUNCIL COMMENTS) . A MOTION IS IN ORDER REGARDING ITEM 2.2. (COUNCIL MOTION) 2 .3 ITEM 2.3 IS A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS ABILITY TO DELETE ITEMS FROM A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT ALL ITEMS IN AN AMEND- MENT BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THAT THE RESOLU- 2. 7 TION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO COUNCIL CLEARLY SEPARATE THOSE ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL FROM THOSE RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL. DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM 2.3? (PUBLICINPUT) . ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? (COUNCIL COMMENTS) A MOTION IS IN ORDER REGARDING ITEM 2 .3 . (COUNCIL MOTION) ITEM 2.4 IS A REQUEST TO ANALYZE A RESOURCE PRODUCTION OVERLAY FOR THE 97-ACRE AREA LOCATED SOUTH OF GARFIELD AVENUE AND EAST OF GOLDENWEST STREET. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION ON THIS AREA BE RETAINED AND THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED TO PREPARE A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE AREA. DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM 2.4? (PUBLIC INPUT) ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? (COUNCIL COMMENTS) A MOTION IS IN ORDER REGARDING ITEM 2 .4. (COUNCIL MOTION) 3.2 AREA 3.2 IS LOCATED ON COMMODORE CIRCLE BETWEEN HUNTINGTON AND DELAWARE STREETS. THE REQUEST IS TO REDESIGNATE 4.5 3, 1 ACRES FROM MEDIUM TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS . THE REDESIGNATION REQUEST WITH THE CONDITION THAT PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND/OR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR THE SITE, THE APPLICANT SUBMIT A RELOCATION PLAN FOR DISPLACED TENANTS THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE -CITY. DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON AREA 3.2? (PUBLIC INPUT) ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? / O U (COUNCIL COMMENTS) d A MOTION IS IN ORDER REGARDING AREA 3.2. (COUNCIL MOTION) 3.3 AREA 3.3 IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NEWMAN AVENUE AND VAN BUREN STREET. THE REQUEST IS TO REDESIGNATE ONE ACRE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE PROFES- SIONAL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE REDESIGNATION REQUEST. DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON AREA 3.3? (PUBLIC INPUT) ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? (COUNCIL COMMENTS) A MOTION IS IN ORDER REGARDING AREA 3.3. " (COUNCIL MOTION) 3.1. (MEADOWLARK AIRPORT) ._WE WILL -NnW TIIRN Tn _.THF .APPFAI_Fn _ITEMS.. 4 . a • • r THE FIRST APPEAL ITEM IS AREA 311, THE MEADOWLARK AIRPORT SITE LOCATED NORTH OF WARNER AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET EAST OF BOLSA CHICA STREET, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, I HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER DATED DECEMBER 3, 1981, FROM THE APPLICANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ASKING THAT HIS APPEAL BE WITHDRAWN . ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL. (COUNCIL COMMENTS) A MOTION IS IN ORDER REGARDING AREA 3 . 1. (COUNCIL MOTION) 3.4 I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPEAL FILED TO THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE REQUEST ON AREA 3 .4. AREA 3.4 IS LOCATED EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD, 1,022 FEET SOUTH OF ATLANTA AVENUE. THE REQUEST IS TO REDESIGNATE 9.8 ACRES FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESI- DENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT 2 . G• ACRES OF THE SITE BE REDESIGNATED FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FURTHER RECOMMENDS THAT: 1. IN THE PROJECT APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA, 5. ItA CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO CONTROL OF THE ACCESS ONTO BEACH BOULEVARD INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF A FRONTAGE ROAD; AND 2. THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BE DONE AT- THE PROJECT STAGE SUFFICIENT TO DEAL WITH THE WETLAND DETERMINATION AND THAT IF THE DETERMINATION IS MADE THAT THE AREA IS A WETLAND THIS FACT BE CONSIDERED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON AREA 3.4? }� G (PUBLIC INPUT) ?I�V � A ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL. )' (COUNCIL COMMENTS) V a � A MOTION IS IN ORDER REGARDING AREA 3.4. C (COUNCIL MOTION) V� MAYOR: IF THERE IS NO- ONE FURTHER WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT, I DECLARE THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. , IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL? (COUNCIL COMMENTS) A MOTION TO APPROVE EIR 81-4' is IN ORDER. (COUNCIL MOTION) A MOTION IS IN ORDER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 5053 ADOPTING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 81-2. (COUNCIL, MOTION) THIS CONCLUDES REQUIRED ACTIONS ON THE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT.