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 82-1 (Part 2 of 2) - Environmenta
P i lid, z , IN THE Superior Court OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA `J� In and for the County of Orange 1`{l 6 , CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, PROOF OF PUBLIC City Clerk PUBLIC HEARING State of California ) County of Orange )ss. JAN MOORE That lam and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of ��1g6 tt 4 d ��gg -14 Wd' ` the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I Na02.12 am not a party to, nor interested in the above entitled matter; N�CgI.*M be held by thehaty Mic wiU be held by the City that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the bfthe City of Hunthit n Beath, iA,tm Qeuneil•Chember of the Ci%e Cen- HUNT. BEACH IND. REV. ! Mtet,Hcr appawlhteoon Mondq,the loth day of December,'OM a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of for,the d.00ne�derint.Zone Na 84=16 iwd Cade,Amendment_ 'No.. 20 a reshuft'd epptuximetelY HUNTI NGTON BEACH 'a91 Miletl.d.piopeitY loafed north of Warner Avenue between Edgewater end Sceptreon Count.• of Orange and which newspaper is published for the to LnN tuit R03-(rbutir ay l 1, P 0p�p�en�3►�CePto Huatiestoo Harbour Bay disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- Club 8pedfie Plea.A leisl.desrs$rtiou is ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had on Allrde i th steel emirsof the aYClerk r`; All intetbeted petaoaa are imrtted to and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, at ,{iid het*,and e�teee their and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- be lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a ifitc�Non�Clk' K g ,'�tdc: 0141, d the-City CkrR'2000 period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the "',k Huntington Beaeh.�'fw; eg g�7 4)696.6217. annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular `t �A`fl and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement { "SCITY ,dF HUNT[NGTON thereof,on the following dates,to wit: • _ ti•IBdfr` 11 December 9, 1982 I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego- ing is true and correct. Dated at... GARDEN GROVE........................... California,this ... .day of .De ...19 82..... ........................... Signature /Z 4 Z C �L Form No.POP 92C, I ` r IN THE Superior Court, OF THE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and for the County of Orange CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PRQ,QFOFPUBLICATION City Clerk RETRACTION OF NOTICES St:it.e of California County of Orange )ss. Ot�V/Ii1CB�ARpp I$Nffitia6Y GtVgN Wt JAMIE J. MOORE ` e ' It n $JMtA*djW' 1tis2,tMil uMd to That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of the United Statcs,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I Na: !-tabd. w am not a party to, nor interested in the above entitled matter; Ne 023 - . that I nm the principal clerk of the printer of the Zoo+' .t t4 Cc&Atoeed HUNT. BEACH IND. REV. dow1 at a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of a� httWar- : tptlon lbW 1i tibfiJtiidOff Wo at Ibb dr9 Gl -, main HUNTI NGTON BEACH t vss"ie, County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the diseminatimt of local news and intelligence of a general charac- ter, and which newspaper nt. all times herein mentioned hnd and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, P P Y t;• and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement thereof,on the following dates,to wit: Dec. 11+ 169 1982 I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego- ing is true and correct. Dated at.......GARDEN GROVE....................... Dec. 82 Californin,this .17 ...day of ..........19........ (ignature 2 C �L ��•� IN THE Superior Court OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA YK In and for the County of Orange rp V' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY CLERK PROOF OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC HLARING PUBLIC NOTICE State of California )ss NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING County of Orange ) Lt1E 92 1/EDt Y•3 ZONE CA3E311 S&d2.17 CODE AMENDMENT 82-12 A P R I L L. ELLIOTT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City f ouncil of the City of Huntington Beach, That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of in the Council Chamber of the Civic Cen- the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I ter,Huntington Beach,at the hour of 7:30 am not a art to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; on as soon thereafter ea possible on P y Monday the 17th day of January,1983 for that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of HUNT. BEACH I N D. the City a General Pjan(LUF No.82-1), Environmental Impact Report 82-3(EIR 82-3),Zone Cang�82.16 and 8'1-17 and a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of Code Amendment 82-12 as follows: 2.2 Redesignate 26.6 acres located north, of Ellis Avenue and east of Golden- west. Street from open space to H U N T I N G T O N BEACH medium density residential. Count of Orange and which newspaper is published for the 2.4 Redesignate Wa5.rner acres on the north Y gP side of Werner Avenue between disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes from ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had open'space to mired development. and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, tion (Z 139 acres at the same loos- P P Y g lion (ZC 82-18 and CA 82:12)from and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- ROS (Recreation Open Space) to lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a Huntington Harbour Bay Specific Plan.)" period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the 2.5 Redesignate 5.6 acres located west of annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular Gothard Street between Oceanview and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in an supplement High School and the City Mrial to Y PP nance Yard from general industrial to thereof,on the following dates,to wit: medium density residential.Re-zone the same property(ZC#82-17)from Mt(Light Industrial District)to MH (Mobile Home District)or MI-MHP J A N. 69 1983 (Light Industrial District with Mobile Home Park overlay). 2.6 Redesignate 1.2 acres of property located on the southeast comer of Magnolia Street and Banning Avenue immediately north of the Orange County Flood Control Channel#Dl- I from industrial energy production to low density residential. A legal-,description of said property is I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego- on file in the Development Services De- partment. ing is true and correct. The applicant.has filed an appeal to the Dated at...GARDEN GROVE den the Land Use Amendment, Zone 82`1 Commission's 6 end Code Amendment 82- 1 ............................................. Change 12. California,t is 7 t h...da of .�A Nw...19.83.••. All interested persona are invited to y I attend,said hearing and express their opinio. for or against said Land Use e Amendment, Environment Impact Re- . port, Zone Changes and Code Amend- ment and Said Appeals. Further information may be obtained Signature from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,Califor- aia 92648,(714)536.5227. DATED January 4,IW, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .•.• By-Alicia M,Wentworth CityClerk Pub.January 6,198$' Hunt.Beech1%1 Rev.#37251 Form No.POP 92082 J REQUES r FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date January 26, 1983 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato �J' Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services `^►���' 0 Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82 1 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: `?1` Attached is a resolution for City Council adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1. The resolution has been amended to reflect the Council's straw votes on Areas 2. 2, 2.4, 2. 5 and 2. 6 taken at the January 17 and January 24 , 1983 meetings. JWP:CI :dw PIO 4/81 r V REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date December 28, 1982 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council �l N��! Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat //� Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services a "�-b Subject: LAND USE ELEMENT NO. 82-1 and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3 �f'es -0 " at Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: Ob tj STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 includes one administrative item to add provisions for density bonuses to the City' s General Plan and six requests for changes in land use designations. Three of these items (the administrative item and two land use change requests) were forwarded to and acted upon by the City Council at the December 20 , 1982 meeting. The remaining four items (Areas of Concern 2. 2, 2. 4, 2. 5, and 2. 6) are being forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the January 17, 1983 meeting. Concurrent zone change requests for Areas 2. 4 and 2. 5 are also scheduled for public hearings at the January 17th meeting. Zone Change requests on the other two Areas of Concern were denied at the Planning Commission level and not appealed to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission recommended certification of Environmental Im- pact Report No. 82-3 to the City Council by the following vote: ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Planning Commission took separate straw votes on each request item. These votes, along with the findings and/or reasons for each action, are included in the attached draft minutes from the Planning Commission' s December 7, 1982 meeting. The Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 1299 recommending City Council adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 by the follow- ing vote: ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir PIO 4/81 LUE 82-1 December 28, 1982 Page 2 NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: NO RESOLUTION NECESSARY 1. Certify Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 as it pertains to Areas 2. 2, 2. 4, 2. 5, and 2. 6. 2. Take no action regarding the Land Use Element Amendment at this time. (This will retain the existing land use designations on Areas 2.2, 2.4 , 2.5 and 2. 6) . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. �2w2 Staff recommends that the City Council not concur with Planning Commission recommendations on Areas 2. 4 and 2. 6 and adopt by resolution the staff recommended land use designations on these two areas. ANALYSIS: The amendment request Areas 2. 2, 2. 4, 2. 5, and 2. 6 forwarded to the City Council at this time are summarized in Attachment 1. The requests are analyzed in detail in the sections of the Land Use Element Amendment Report No. 82-1 forwarded with this request for Council Action. Draft minutes from the Planning Commission' s public hearings on November 16 and December 7, 1982 on the Land Use Element Amendment are also attached. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental documentation for the amendment requests may be found in the amendment report which also serves as Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3. EIR 82-3 was posted for a 45-day review period ending December 3, 1982. Public comments and staff responses are incorporated in the appendix of the report. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may adopt the requested changes as recommended, modi'y them as desired, or retain the existing designations in the Land Use Element. ATTACHMENTS : 1. Summary of Requests Chart F 2. Resolution for City Council adoption No.5'� (Staff recommendation. ) 3 . Minutes from Planning Commission meetings of 11-16-82 and 12-7-82 4 . Planning Commission Resolution No. 1299 5. Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 (Items 2. 2, 2 .4 . 2.5, and 2 . 6) and Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 CWT:JWP:CZ:dw SUMMARY OF REQUESTS ATTACHMENT 1 REQUEST ITEM/ STAFF PLANNING AREA OF APPLICANT/ RECOMMEN- COMMISSION CONCERN LOCATION ACREAGE REQUEST DATION RECOMMENDATION 2. 2 The Janes Co./ 26. 6 Open Space to Retain the Retain the existing East of Goldenwest Medium Density existing Open Open Space design- Street, north of Residential Space design- ation Ellis Avenue ation (Mushroom Farm Area) 2. 4 Huntington Harbour 5. 7 Open Space to Open Space to Retain the exist j Beach Club/ Mixed Develop- Mixed Develop- Open Space design- north of Warner ment ment ation Avenue between Edge- water and Sceptre Lane 2. 5 Initiated by City Council/ 5. 6 General Indust- Retain the Retain the existing West of Gothard rial to Medium existing General General Industrial Street, north of Density Resi- Industrial Designation the City Mainte- dential designation nance Yard (Beach- view Mobile Home Park Area) 2. 6 Initiated by City staff/ 1. 6 Industrial Industrial Retain the existing Southeast corner Energy Produc- Energy Production Industrial Energ of Banning Avenue tion to Low to Low Density Production desig,. and Magnolia Street Density Resi- Residential ation dential RESOLUTION NO.5�'?' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL O THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING IN PART LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 8 -1 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/ public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 to the General Pl� was held/by the Planning Commission on ovember 16, 1982, andicontin u d to and closed on December 7, 1982 and approved for recommendation to the City Council; and Thereafter, the City Councilwafter giving notice as prescribed by Government Code Section 65355 held at least one public hearing to co\sider Areas,J2 .. 2, 2 . 4, 2 . 5, and 2. 6 of said Land Use Element Amen en No. 8,-2-1; and At said hear i g before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said/a endment were heard; i _ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council —of�--------a the City of Huntin�n6B•eac� pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Arc-le 6 the 'C`i fornia Government Code commencing with Section/65350, that A7enera\llPlan, as 2 and 2 . 6 of Land Use Element Amendm et No. 82-1 to the consisting of following cha es, are hereby adoptel: 1. That 5. 7 acres loc ted north of\arner Avenue between Sceptre/and Edgewa er Lanes be redesignated from open space o mixed dev lopment. 2. That1%1 . 6 acres lockted on the southea t corner of Banning Av n,ue and Magnolia Street be redesign\ ed from industrial energy production to low density residential . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of he City of Huntinton Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of'/` anuary, 1983 . 1 Mayor Resolution )No. Page 2 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: I City Clerk Cit Attor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrato' Director of Development Services ry r -2- APPROVED AS RRECTED ON 12-7-82 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1982 - . 7 :00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins , Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Leigh Miller inquired about some open space that could be converted in- to a trailer space at a mobile home park in the City. Chairman Paone suggested that Mr. Miller get that information from Savoy Bellavia. CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS, THE CONSENT CALENDAR CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2, 1982, AND A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ON TENTATIVE TRACT 10910 AND CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-4 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach This LUE includes a staff-initiated proposal to add density bonus provisions for affordable housing to the General Plan and requests for changes in land use designations in six areas which correspond to the following zone changes : Numbers 82-12, 82-9, 82-18, 82-19, 82-16, 82-17 and 82-10, also Code Amendment No. 82-12. Staff re- commends that public testimony be taken and that these items all be continued to the meeting of December 7, 1982, with the exception of Zone Change No. 82-17, which should be continued to December 21, 1982. Chairman Paone explained the overall procedure to the public. Florence Webb elaborated on the Chairman' s explanation stating that because of the large number of items and the fact that the 45-day review period H.B. Planning .Commiss -,jn November 16, 1982 Page 2 on the EIR will not end until December 3, 1982, a continuance was re- commended. Carol Inge gave a brief presentation on the LUE and the density bonus provisions proposed. Commissioner Porter stated his opinion regarding the procedure. He preferred that the EIR be certified prior to taking testimony on the Land Use Element Amendment. The Chairman opened the public hearing on the density bonus provisions. No one came forward to address this issue; therefore, the public hearing was closed. ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-12 (In conjunction with LUE 82-1; Area of Concern 2. 1 ) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company The original request was to rezone 1.52 acres of property located ap- proximately 500 feet east of Main Street and 600 feet north of Yorktown Avenue from R2-01-PD and R2-O-PD-CD to R5-0-CD. However, the applicant requested that an "Ol" designation be put on the property so that drilling activity can continue. The public hearing was not opened on Zone Change No. 82-12. The public hearing was opened on EIR 82-3 and LUE 82-1. Representing the applicant, Huntington Beach Company, Dave Eadie stated that because of economics, and since the office park has access to the oil islands, he supports the use of continuing Chevron' s operation of drilling on the site, which calls for "R5-01-CD" . He further stated that the anticipated projection for oil operations on the site was at least the next ten to fifteen years. Nancy Schreiner spoke in opposition to the request; she felt it would lower property values in the area. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-12 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-9 (In conjunction with LUE 82-1, Area 2. 2) Applicant: M. D. Janes Company, Incorporated A request to rezone approximately 25 net acres of property located on the east side of Goldenwest Street between Ellis and Talbert Avenue, from RA-O-CD and Ml-CD to R2-0. The existing use is the Mushroom Farm. Staff gave a brief presentation stating that residential alternatives were included in the report. Commissioner Porter felt that, because City Council expressed a desire to explore the possibility of affordable housing in the Central Park area, that this possibility should be examined. -2 11-16-82 - P.C. H.B. Planning Commission November 16 , 1982 Page 3 Commissioner Livengood asked if an appraisal could be done on the property. Acting Secretary Webb explained that staff does not have the authority to hire an appraiser. A straw vote revealed that no other commissioners agreed with Mr. Livengood. However, Ms. Webb said staff would be happy to supply the Commissioners with estimates and comparable prices on the property. The public hearing was opened on .Zone Change No. 82-9, which is Area of Concern 2.2 on the LUE. Georqe Alvarez, speaking on behalf of the applicant, supported the proposed zone change, stating that residential would not necessarily preclude the "open look" of the area. Ron Dryer, also speaking for the proposal, stated that the owner of the property wishes to retire and would appreciate a timely decision. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-9 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-18/ZONE CHANGE .NO. 82-19 (In conjunction with LUE 82-1, Areas 2.3 and 2.4) Owners : Huntington Beach Company & City of Huntington Beach- Zone Change . 82-18 is a request by the Huntington Beach Company to add an oil suffix to the northeast corner of their property located between Cambro' s operation and the City water facility, which is generally located on the west side of Huntington Street between Clay and Gar- field Avenues. Zone Change 82-19 is the City-owned portion of the same area. This request is for Ml (Light Industrial) zoning. Because of the close proximity of the properties, the two zone changes were heard together, along with the LUE, Areas 2.3 and 2.4. The public hearing was opened. The following persons spoke against the proposed zone changes: Robert Trommler, Nancy Schreiner, Jerry Ford, Suzanne Horsburgh, Dean Albright, Mark Price, Donald Pierce, Bob Wilson and Jim Craigens. Most of these resided at the condominium immediately adjacent to the subject site. The main concern was about the noise factor with the existing Cambro plant along with an antici- pated increase in noise with a possible expansion of the operation. Other concerns were raised relative to a transportation corridor along the railroad right-of-way. Dick Hammond, General Manager of Cambro, spoke in favor of the proposed zone changes. He further felt that the company has attenuated the noise level to the minimum. The public hearing was closed on Zone Change Nos. 82-18 and 82-19. Commissioners discussed the Pacific Electric right-of-way and the noise problem. Commissioner Schumacher suggested a qualified zoning -3- 11-16-82 - P.C. H.B. Planning Commiss-,jn November 16, 1982 Page 4 be placed on the property so that conditions could be added addressing the noise problem. There was some discussion about projected oil operations in the area. A motion was made by Schumacher and seconded by Porter to add a "Q" designation to the request and instructing staff to readvertise the zone change (82-18) reflecting this change in the request. This motion was amended to be Ml-A-O-Q and require a conditional use permit appli- cation to be heard by the Planning Commission with additional condition: to be added at staff' s discretion. The final motion was amended as follows : ON MOTION BY: SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY PORTER STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO READVERTISE THE ZONE CHANGES REGARDING THIS AREA, LEAVING THE OIL DESIGNATION WHERE REQUIRED AND REQUIRE A %" DESIGNATION WHERE RE- QUIRED ON THE CAMBRO DEVELOPMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENSOOD ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-18 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-19 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7 , 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone,, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Chairman called for a three-minute recess. ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-16/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-12 (In conjunction with LUE 82-1, Area 2. 4) Applicant: Huntington Harbour Beach Club & Marina Landal Development and Pacific Development Inc. The zone change and code amendment would establish a specific plan on 13. 7 acres of property located on the north side of Warner Avenue be- tween Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes rezoning the property from ROS to Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to permit a mix of open space and recreational uses, commercial uses, residential uses, a public marina, parking and uses incidental to these activities. Claudette Dupuy of staff explained on the LUE portion of the plan only recreational and residential uses would be allowed; that the zoning would be handled by the Specific Plan. Jim Barnes gave a presentation on the zone change and the code amendment. He stated that the Specific Plan was prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the staff establishing -4- 11-16-82 - P.C. H.B. Planning Commission November 16, 1982 Page 5 specific standards for use of the property. One area of the plan would permit the construction of 48 residential units which would be con- sistent with the recommendation of the Land Use Element Amendment. Commissioners had some questions about the density of other comparable condominiums and the possibility of obstructing the view with regard to Coastal Act regulations. Commissioner Schumacher inquired as to the highest the building can be constructed under the Specific Plan. Mr. Barnes said that although the Plan speaks of a 45 foot building, with the measurement calculated at ground level it could be as high as 55 feet above existing grade. In actual stories that would translate to 4 or 5. The public hearing was opened. Dick Harlow gave a presentation in favor of granting the request. He recited a historical account of the Club area, updating that to the recent denial of the City Council of the previously proposed "guest cottages" . The following persons spoke in opposition to the zone change and the code amendment: Lou Cardenas Michael Cavallo Frank Weber John Cronn Luanna Young Pauline Robison Ed Sundberg Chuck Ford Peter Young .Marvin Beitner Lee Whittenberg Morris Stone Mr. Weeland Donald Altig Dean Albright Ken Kirk Bonnie Altig Mrs. Schwartz The following persons spoke in favor of the proposed plan: Sheldon Grossman Jim Sargeant Shell Grossman Chuck Bennett Ken Moody Harold Prouse Donald Watson Dick Kagasoff Doctor Ben Bill Hartge John Silver Doris Ahadpour Neal Wells Peter Shore (owner) On the opposing side, a petition was sub;nitted with over 1, 000 signatures; also, such issues were raised as the tennis club mem- bers being "forced" to lose their membership and join somewhere else,- that the concept of recreation open space presented in the beginning would be changed; that the proposed density would cause traffic prob- lems; that views would be obstructed; and that it would be inconsistent with the Coastal regulations by not providing adequate access to the waterways. Arguments in favor stated that the proposed development would improve the "live aboard" problem that currently exists; that it would benefit the community as a whole; and that it was the best plan that has been proposed so far. It was also pointed out that the peti- tions received against the proposal may have been misleading as most of those signing the petition were opposed to the opening of Edgewater Lane. This was erroneous information. The public hearing was closed on zone Change No. 82-16 and Code Amend- ment No. 82-12 . A straw vote was taken on Commissioner Livengood' s suggestion that staff be directed to prepare alternate findings for denial, with results as follows: OPPOSED TO SUGGESTION: Higgins, Winchell, Paone, Mirjahangir IN FAVOR OF SUGGESTION: Porter, Schumacher, Livengood -5- 11-16-82 - P.C. H.B. Planning Commission November 16 , 1982 Page 6 Commissioner Porter asked staff to explore what impact the additional boat slips in the marina would have on the parking and to investigate just how much of the parking could be attributed to "live aboards" . There was some concern about the liquifaction of the ground, whether the building would "sink" , or the possibility of water getting into the subterranean garages if there was a severe tide change. Commis- sioners wanted to know what the acreage and density was on the Weatherly Bay condominiums. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-16 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-16 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7 , 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-17 (In conjunction with LUE 82-1, Area 2 . 5) initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A request to rezone 5 . 47 acres of property located at 17161 Gothard Street between Ocean View High School and the City Maintenance Yard, from Ml (Light Industrial) to MH (Mobile Home) . The public hearing was opened. Leigh Miller spoke in favor of the proposed zone change, on behalf of the owner of the Beachview Mobile Home Park. The public hearing was closed on Zone Change No. 82-17 . ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-17 UNTIL THE MOBILE HOME ORDINANCE BECOMES EFFECTIVE, VOTE WAS PASSED AS FOLLOWS: AYES : Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY PAONE TO RECONSIDER THE LAST MOTION, WHICH PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-17 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, 1982, DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ORDINANCE BECOMES EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 14 , 1982 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell , Paone, Porter, Mirjahangir -6- 11-16-82 - P.C. H.B. Planning Commission November 16, 1982 Page 7 NOES None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-10 (In conjunction with LUE 82-1, Area 2. 6) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A request to rezone 1.2 acres of property located at the southeast corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street from M1-A to R1 (Low Density Residential) . The public hearing was opened on the zone change. Robert Overby spoke against the proposed zone change. He further stated that at the August 3 Planning Commission meeting when the item was tabled, the Commission said the 43 persons listed on the petition would be notified. The public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL DIRECTING STAFF TO . REVIEW THE AUGUST 3, 1982 TAPE REGARDING SPECIAL NOTIFICATION INSTRUCTIONS. THIS MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-10 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN• None After some discussion took place regarding procedure on the environ- mental document, the Chairman closed the public hearing on the EIR; however, the public hearing on the Land Use Element Amendment remains open. A straw vote was taken to determine if the public hearing on December 7 be limited to only new testimony; resulting as follows : IN FAVOR: Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir OPPOSED: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone Further discussion took place regarding the history of the Huntington Harbour land. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER LAND USE ELEMENT AMEND- MENT NO. 82-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -7- 11-16-82 - P.C. H.B. Planning Commission November 16, 1982 Page 8 AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A straw vote was taken to determine if the zone change and code amend- ment on the beach club property should be readvertised to show a "PD" (planned development) suffix, with the following results : IN FAVOR: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir OPPOSED: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-20 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A request to permit a change of zone on approximately 20 acres of pro- perty located southwesterly of the proposed extension of Palm Avenue and the proposed future alignment of 38th Street, from R4-0 to R4-21-0, High Density Residential District, combined with oil production having a maximum of 21 units per acre. The public hearing was opened. Seeing no one came forward, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY L.IVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-20 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-6 Applicant: Superior Electrical Ad A request to permit an additional freestanding sign within 180 feet of an existing freestanding sign in lieu of a 600 foot separation on property located in the Huntington Shopping Center on Edinger Avenue. Because the hour was late, the applicant agreed to a continuance; there- fore, the public hearing was not opened. Chairman Paone assured the applicant that the special sign permit application would be heard first on the December 7th agenda. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY PORTER SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-6 WAS CONTINUED, WITH CONSENT OF APPLICANT, TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1982 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir -8- 11-16-82 - P.C. APPROVED •AS )RRECTED ON 1-4-83 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7 , 1982 - 7 : 00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir CONSENT CALENDAR: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1982 , AFTER THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION WAS MADE ON PAGE 5 WHICH WILL READ, "ON THE OPPOSING SIDE, A PETITION WAS SUBMITTED WITH OVER 1,000 SIGNATURES . " . IT WAS APPROVED AS CORRECTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None COMMISSION ITEM: ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD STAFF WAS DIRECTED NOT TO ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEMS REQUIRING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNTIL THE MANDATORY REVIEW PERIOD HAS EXPIRED. IF STAFF OR COMMISSION FEEL THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF AN ITEM WARRANT ADDI- TIONAL PUBLIC EXPOSURE, A SEPARATE HEARING MAY BE SCHEDULED DURING THE REVIEW PERIOD, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins, Paone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS : SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-6 (Continued from 11-16-82) Applicant: Superior Electrical Ad. H.B. Planning Con 3sion December 7, 1982 Page 2 A request to permit an additional freestanding sign within 180+ feet of an existing freestanding sign in lieu of a 600 foot separation on property located within the Huntington Shopping Center on Edinger Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Chris Kimball, representing the appli- cant, made a brief presentation on the proposed sign. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER, SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-6 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The existing signage along Edinger Avenue, combined with the pro- posed signage totals less than the maximum allowed square footage; however, the total number of signs complies with the maximum allowed. With the addition of the proposed sign (the total num- ber of 4) , no additional freestanding signs will be allowed on the Edinger frontage. 2. The variation in sign heights and locations affords visibility to all signage. 3. The proposed sign will not be detrimental to the property located in the vicinity. 4. The proposed sign will be located at a controlled intersection which will provide a traffic vision safeguard. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The sign shall be constructed in accordance with the location r and design demonstrated on the sign location plan received an dated October 25, 1982, and the sign elevation received and dated October 4, 1982. 2. There will be no additional freestanding signs along the Edinger frontage. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 'LAND USE ELEMENT AMEND14ENT NO. 82-1/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-3 This Land Use Element Amendment includes a staff-initiated proposal to add density bonus provisions for affordable housing to the General Plan; two City-initiated requests to change land use designations on H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 3 City owned property and four requests from private applicants for changes in land use designations. These six areas of concern also relate to zone change requests. Staff suggested that the Commission handle the EIR and the amendment by separate review of each separate proposal with a straw vote taken on each portion; the EIR and the amendment as a whole (respectively) would then be approved by a formal vote and the adoption of the reso- lution. The Commission concurred with this approach. The Commission was also given the option to ask for executive session at this time " to discuss legalities with representative of the City Attorney' s office. Commission consensus was to proceed without an executive session. Public testimony on the EIR was received on November 16, 1982. EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2. 1 A request by the Huntington Beach Company to change the designation on property located 500 feet east of Main Street and 600 feet north of Yorktown, from medium density residential to office professional. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2 .1 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2.2 (The Mushroom Farm) A request by the Janes Company to change the land use designation on property located east of Goldenwest Street, north of Ellis Avenue, from open space to medium density residential. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.2 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2. 3 A request by the Cambro Manufacturing Company to change the land use designation on property located at the northwest corner of Huntington Street and Clay Avenue (Cambro Manufacturing Plant) , from medium density residential to industrial. H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 4 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.3 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2.4 (Huntington Harbour) A request by the Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina to change the land use designation on property located north of Warner at Edgewater Lane (Huntington Harbour Beach Club) , from open space to mixed development. Staff stated that a number of comments on this portion of the EIR were received. Further, staff felt that the pro- posed change of land use is consistent with the Coastal Element. Commission discussed the possible effects of a denial as it relates to the recent Land Use Plan adopted by the Coastal Commission. Mr. Palin stated that if the Planning Commission chose to deny it, the present land use designation of open space would remain. Commissioner Schumacher noticed that there was no mention in the document of a soils test -and asked Richard Harlow, representing the applicant, to respond. Mr. Harlow stated that things of this nature would be addressed at the time a conditional use permit application is submitted on the actual project. He further stated that there should be no problem as the harbor is man-made. Commissioner Livengood stated he would support the findings made in the EIR, but would oppose the request for a change in designation as submitted. However, if such designation were to be approved, he would oppose the construction of 48 units, feeling that the maximum number of units should be no mare than 32. Commissioner Mirjahangir will abstain from voting on the zone change and code amendment, but will vote on the EIR and the LUE. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY PAONE THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.4 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Mirjahangir NOES : Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2. 5 (Beachview Mobile Home Park) A request by the City to change the land use designation on property located west of Gothard Street, north of the City Yard (Beachview Mobile Home Park) , from industrial to medium density residential. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS .AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.5 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir H.B. Planning Comm Sion December 7, 1982 Page 5 NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None EIR No. 82-3, Area of Concern 2. 6 A request by the City to change the land use designation on property located east of Magnolia Street, between Banning Street and the Orange County Flood Control Channel, from industrial energy production to low density residential. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE AREA 2.6 PORTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR CERTIFICATION, AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None OVERALL CERTIFICATION OF EIR NO. 82-3 Brief discussion took place by the Commission reiterating some points that were previously brought out. Some discussion took place regarding the Talbert redevelopment area. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL, EIR NO. 82-3 WAS CERTI- FIED AS ADEQUATE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Paone announced the resumption of the public hearing on Land Use Element No. 82-1 and reminding the public that only new testimony will be received on each area of concern. LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.1 (near Main and Yorktown) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company Seeing no one wished to address this area of concern, the Chairman closed the public hearing on this portion of the LUE. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT AREA 2.1 OF THE LAND USE AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None H.B. Planning Coma sion December 7 , 1982 Page 6 LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2. 2 (Mushroom Farm, Ellis/Goldenwest) Applicant: The Janes Company Staff stated that pursuant to the Commission's request, a response was made to include discussion on affordable housing in this area of concern. Staff also obtained an estimate of the value of the site with the present zoning, of $6.7 million. The Commission was also aprised of the fact that the City Council continued their discussion on the Planning Mode Study to their December 20, 1982 meeting. Since there was no further testimony, the public hearing was closed on this area. Commissioner Porter disagreed with the statement made on Page 19 as it relates to housing that " . . . the City has no policy except in the Coastal Zone" . He felt that on Page 69 of the General Plan Hous- ing Element that this policy was stated. Commissioner Winchell agreed with Mr. Porter' s comment. Mr. Palin recalled a specific issue that was before the Commission on property located at Adams and Beach. He said that although the Commission recommended affordable housing, the City Council did not adopt the recommendation as "policy" , but he further agreed that the Housing Element does stress that the City encourage affordable housing. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION RECOM- MENDED DENIAL OF AREA 2.2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: The Commission recommends that the existing open space and recreational designation be retained, based on the following findings : 1. Because of the site' s unique location adjacent to the Huntington Central Park and Sully Miller Lake, future development of the site as an additional recreational facility would seem to be the most compatible land use. 2. Open space and recreational land use designation would also be consistent with future expansion plans for Central Park. 3. While low density or estate residential would be compatible with surrounding uses, there could be potential conflicts with the heliport and firing range. 4. Residential development would isolate the two sections of Huntington Central. Park. 5. An office development on this site would be a high intensity use adjacent to open space and would, therefore, be incompatible. 6. The Planning Mode Study showed that currently there is no demand for offices on this site. AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Paone, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : Livengood, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None H.B. Planning Come sion December 7 , 1982 Page 7 LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2 . 3 (Cambro Manufacturing Plant) Applicant: Cambro Manufacturing Company Carol Inge informed the Commission that pursuant to their request, the maps in the LUE were amended in Area 2. 3. The Chairman resumed the hearing on this area, once again asking that only new testimony be given. Juan Lopez , a resident in the area, spoke against the proposed request, stating that problems that now exist (traffic, parking, noise, odors, etc. ) , would be further exacerbated. There being no further testimony, the public hearing on this area of the LUE was closed. Commissioner Porter stated that he supported the LUE, but added that it was a matter of necessity to attach conditions to the zone change to insure some measure of compatibility. Commissioner Winchell brought out the point that the plant has been in existence a long time. Mr. Palin stated that a conceptual site plan has been submitted by the ap- plicant in conjunction with the zone change request. He further stated that Cambro wants to be a good neighbor and he would like to see them remain in Huntington Beach. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT AREA 2.3 BE ADOPTED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF ON PAGE 32, SECTION 2.3.3 OF THE L.U.E. DOCUMENT , BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2.4 (Huntington Harbour Beach Club) Applicant: Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina Chairman Paone announced that now was the time to take any new testi- mony relative to Area of Concern 2.4 . Louis Cardenas, speaking against the requested land use change stated that he agreed with the report by the Public Works Department shown in Attachment 3 on page 38 . How- ever, he felt that traffic problem, being mitigated directly across from the Beach Club property, would now be "pushed upstream" and will not disappear. Richard Harlow, speaking for the applicant, stated that any other details could be addressed in the specific plan document. Since no other new information was presented, the public hearing on Area 2. 4 of the LUE was closed. Mr. Palin stated that although there is no sidewalk on Warner Avenue, that this issue would be addressed at the time of the conditional use permit application; and that the project would also recommend some modification at the end of Edgewater to handle the landscaping of that area. The Commissioners discussed the method that was used to calculate the density. Before the Commission made a motion on this matter, Art Folger advised them that the validity of the ROS zoning was not the matter before them. H.B. Planning Comi sion December 7 , 1982 Page 8 Commissioners also discussed procedures as they relate to land use amendments, that although they were not required to come up with find- ings on an approval or denial, the City Council requested that they express their reasons for the vote. City Attorney' s office agreed with this statement. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER AREA 2 .4 OF LUE 82-1 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed land use designation is inconsistent with the certi- fied Local Coastal Program for Huntington Beach. 2. A mixed development is not compatible with the existing surround- ing development. 3. The existing General Plan land use designation of open space is compatible with the existing development which allows all uses proposed in the mixed use designation, other than residential. AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES : Higgins, Paone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2. 5 (Beachview Mobile Home Park) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach The public hearing resumed on Area 2.5 of the LUE. Seeing no one wished to address this issue, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER AREA 2.5 OF LUE 82-1 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. A change of zoning and land use designation on the subject site would not be in conformance with the City' s stated goal of main- taining the integrity of the Gothard Industrial Corridor. 2. The existing mobile home park can continue to operate in its present zone as a legal nonconforming use under a mobile home park overlay; additionally, even with a residential designation and zoning, the park would also operate as a nonconforming use. 3. The MH zoning requires that park size be 10 acres with a maximum density of 9 units per acre. The subject mobile home park is 5. 6 acres in size and is developed at a density of 14.5 spaces at present. Thus, it is not in conformance with the MH re- quirements. 4. The existing incompatibility between the City' s maintenance yard H.B. Planning Comm_ ,sion December 7 , 1982 Page 9 and the mobile home park would not be alleviated by the proposed residential zoning and, in fact, that incompatibility could be exacerbated by any future residential development. 5. Under the existing industrial zoning, the mobile home park over- lay would require the property owner to present any proposal for change to the City for approval. Likewise, any future development of industrial uses on the property will be brought before the City for consideration of special buffering and analysis of drainage and access problems. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2. 6 (Banning and Magnolia) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach The public hearing resumed on Area 2. 6 of the LUE. Robert Overby spoke against the proposed use. He submitted pictures and an additional petition that included another block of surrounding residents. He stated that there must be some entity (maybe the County of Orange) that is maintaining this "green area" . Madelyn Van Dorton also spoke against the proposed change of land use designation. The public hearing was closed. Secretary Palin informed the Commission that the City had requested staff to analyze all of its holdings; that it can no longer afford to hold on to the land. He further felt that the only possible use of the property was low density. Commissioner Schumacher questioned the location of a curb cut for access to any development on the site. Mr. Palin cited a remnant piece elsewhere in the City where this had been done effectively. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD AREA OF CONCERN 2. 6 OF LUE 82-1 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: FINDING FOR DENIAL: There would be no safe access to any type of development that might be constructed on the site. AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Higgins, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None LUE 82-1, Area of Concern 2. 7 (Density Bonus Provisions) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach H.B. Planning Comi. jsion December 7, 1982 Page 10 Secretary Palin informed the Commission that this was an administrative action before them. He went on to say that the Government Code requires that, if a developer agrees to provide affordable housing, you must grant him an increase in density or some other incentive. Also, by having this policy it would allow the City to grant a density bonus to exceed the General Plan designation on a particular property without going through the amendment process on each project. Commissioner Winchell asked if staff had included the information that was added by the Planning Commission when this was discussed about two years ago. Staff assured the Commission that this was done. Commissioners briefly discussed the ramifications of their decision on an up-coming agenda item, a project request by the Huntington Breakers company. Tom Tincher underscored the need for this vehicle in the redevelopment process. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER, AREA 2.7, DENSITY BONUS PROVISIONS, OF LUE 82-1, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES : Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None OVERALL APPROVAL OF LUE NO. 82-1: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER THAT LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1, 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. 1299. THIS MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-12 (Continued from 11-16-82) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company A request to rezone 1. 52 acres of property from R2-01-PD and R2-0-PD-CD to R5-01-CD (Office Professional combined with oil production, Civic District) . The property is located approximately 500 feet east of Main Street and 600 feet north of Yorktown Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Dave Eadie, representing the appli- cant, made a brief statement in favor of granting the zone change. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-12 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: H.B. Planning Comm-ssion December 7, 1982 Page 11 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed zone change is consistent with existing and proposed development on surrounding properties. 2. The proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed redesigna- tion of the subject property to Office/Professional in the City' s General Plan, being processed concurrently with this zone change. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, " Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-9 (Continued from 11-16-82) Applicant: M.D. Janes Company A request to rezone approximately 25 net acres of property located on the east side of Goldenwest Street between Ellis and Talbert Avenues, from RA-O-CD and Ml-CD to R2-0 (Medium Density Residential District combined with oil production) . The public hearing on this item was opened and closed at the November 17, 1982 meeting. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-9 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDING FOR DENIAL: The proposed zone change is inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation which is open space. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-18 (Continued from 11-16-82) Applicant: Huntington Beach Company A request to rezone property located generally on the west side of Huntington Street between Clay and Garfield Avenues, from R2 to M1-A-O, (Restricted Manufacturing combined with oil production. The public hearing was reopened. Seeing no one came forward to address this issue, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-18 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The Ml-A-O zoning is consistent with the recommended industrial H.B. Planning Conu,. jsion December 7, 1982 Page 12 land use designation in Land Use Element Amendment 82-1. Adding the "O" suffix to the existing R2 zoning would be inconsistent with the recommended land use. 2. The surrounding land uses are predominantly industrial. Rezoning the site to Light Industrial with Oil Production would be consis- tent with the surrounding land uses; i.e. , Cambro Manufacturing Plan and the City water facility. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-19 (Continued from 11-16-82) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A request to rezone 13. 1 net acres of property located generally on the west side of Huntington Street between Clay and Garfield Avenues, from R2 to (Q)M1-A (Qualified Restricted Manufacturing District) . The public hearing was reopened. Dick Hammond, speaking for the Cambro Manufacturing Company, stated that he felt the concerns raised by surrounding residents at the public hearing on November 17th were satisfied. Bill Campbell, owner of Cambro, also addressed the Com- mission. They both favored a Ml zoning on the property. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussed briefly the wording of the qualifying condi- tions. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-19 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1 The (Q)M1-A zoning is consistent with the recommended general industrial land use designation in Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1. 2. Rezoning the site .to (Q)Ml-A would be consistent with the sur- rounding uses; e.g. , Cambro Manufacturing plant and the City water facility. 3. The Ml-A District is a more restrictive zoning than Ml. It re- quires more landscaping, screening of outdoor storage, and pro- hibits certain types of building materials. The Ml-A is designed to provide for limited manufacturing facilities that are compatible with surrounding areas. In this particular case, there are resi- dential developments adjacent to the project site; therefore, an Ml-A zoning would help ensure compatibility of future industrial H.R. Planning Comrtc` ' ion December 7, 1982 Page 13 development with these existing residential areas. The conditions attached to the base district with the (Q) designation, would further ensure compatibility with the adjacent residential. CONDITIONS UNDER THE "Q" SUFFIX: 1. A conditional use permit application shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission for the entire project prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Development on the site shall include measures such as increased setbacks, orientation of buildings away from residential develop- ment, noise abatement, and landscaped buffers to mitigate any adverse impact on adjacent residential development. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES : Paone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-16/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-12 (Continued from 11-16-82) Applicant: Huntington Harbor Beach Club and Marina A request to change the zoning on property located on the north side of Warner between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes, from ROS District to Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan by amending Article 930 of the ordinance code via Code Amendment No. 82-12. The public hearing was opened and closed at the November 16, 1982 meeting. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-16 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-12 WERE DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING, BY THE •FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDING FOR DENIAL: The proposed zone change and code amendment are inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation which is open space. (NOTE: Commissioners Paone and Higgins stated for the record that, in order to comply with the LUE, Area 2.4 denial, they must vote for a denial of the zone change and code amendment, however, they were in favor of granting the LUE request. ) AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-10 (Continued from 11-16-82) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A request to rezone property located at Banning and Magnolia, from M1-A to either R1 (Low Density Residential) or R1-PD (Low Density H.B. Planning Commission December 7, 1982 Page 14 Residential District with Planned Development suffix) . The public hearing was reopened due to the fact that the Rl-PD alternative was re-advertised. Seeing no one wished to address the Commission on this matter, the public hearing was closed. Staff informed the Commission that those persons whose names appeared on the petition submitted earlier in the year when this zone change was tabled, were notified of the public hearing. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-10 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed zone change is not in conformance with the General Plan. 2. Due to the location of the site in a designated flood hazard area, it is felt that residential zoning would be an improper use of the property. AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES : Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None '_��ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-20 (Contin d from 11-16-82) Initiated by City of HuntingtOn Beach A request to permit a chang of zone from R4-0 to R4-29-0 (High Den- sity Residential combined it oil production having 29 units per acre on 10 acres) and R3-17-0 ( edium High Density Residential combined with oil production and having 17 units per acre ) on approximately 9 acres of property located generally at the proposed southwesterly ex- tension of Palm Avenue acid the proposed future alignment of 38th St. The public hearing was opened. Dave Eadie spoke in favor of the pro- posed zone change. The public hearing was closed. t ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOb AND SECOND BY PORTER ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-20 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPRC/7AL: r 1. A change of one from R4-0 to R4-29-0 and R3-17-0 on the subject property is consistent with the General Plan land use designation which is high density residential. 2. The propo4d zone change from R4-0 and R4-29-0 and R3-17-0 will be compatible with surrounding land uses, which include oil pro- duction nd vacant land. AYES: iggins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, pirjahangir RESOLUTION NO. 1299 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND- ING ADOPTION OF LAND USE ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 82-1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Hunting- ton 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 1. 52 acres located approximately 600 feet north of Yorktown Avenue and 500 feet east of Main Street be redesignated from medium density residential to office professional. 2. That 19. 4 acres located on the west side of Huntington Street between Clay Avenue and Garfield Avenue be redes- ignated from medium density residential to general industrial. 3. That under Section 3. 4 . 3. 1, Standards and Criteria, on Page 82 of the Land Use Element the following wording be added: (6) Density Bonus Where a developer has agreed to construct a percentage of the total units of a housing development for persons and families of low and moderate income, the City may grant a density bonus of that same percentage over the otherwise allowable density under the applicable zoning ordinance and General Plan land use designation subject to a development agreement and as long as the following findings are made by the Planning Commission: 1. The capacities of the City and county water, sewer, and storm drain systems are adequate or are made adequate to accommodate the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned land uses in the area. 2. The proposed increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school enrollments, and recrea- tional resources. 3. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted nor the overall intent of the General Plan sacrificed. Resolution N. Page 2 WHEREAS, a public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment to the General Plan No. 82-1 was held by the City Planning Commission on November 16, 1982 , and continued to and closed on December 7, 1982, in accordance with provisions 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 7th day of December, 1982 , by the following roll call vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Ja es W. Pa , Secretary Tim Paone, Chairman • LAW OFFICES OF C. WILLIAM CARLSON, JR. 2130 MAIN STREET AREA CODE 714 SUITE 140 TELEPHONE 960-241I HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92GA8 HAND DELIVERED November 16, 1982 l: 1U' 1982 City of Huntington Beach Development S3rv;,:zs Department of Development Services P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: James W. Palin, Director Development Services Dear Mr. Palin: I represent the Estate of James T. Hudson, the owner of a parcel of real property fronting on Ellis, east of Goldenwest. It is my understanding that a public hearing will be held on Land Use Amendment No. 82-1 on November 16, 1982, at which time it is proposed to re-designate a tract of land, including this parcel, to Medium Density Residential, and likewise to re-zone that tract, including my client' s parcel, to Medium Density Residential combined with Oil Production (R2-0) . My client supports this proposal and urges the Planning Commission to adopt it. Ve trulyyours, C. WILLIAM CARLSON, lk/ CWC:bp cc: Mr. Gordon G. Hudson i �,-e'e O'- �-OI•I 'O:e T�� y I at i so—p— n III -Alit, I UUU ' ,aa.rT 1 1 JT b1I L I ���{•L`. .�M-'•• t _-�'� ..-.7 �_ _�� G� ! o • �,5, I,I 141 Lop Ai L u � U � � •,cam.-•?T•'-�.•-•s -�-•�--- ^;'�1/ - �`1--ti -,-^�------ _ 'A � — --� a.. y � y. � sI w.M.Gw•J.Y.Iw � �; ,t/1•",e (ram � .t,)���(t/� � � t _ �� � • eas • }• -�••',J �l •tl "'�. wr•. r 'ro 1µ'�l'�1��1 -.1r�•t .:�'d� II.Jj„I.tli�l..t•.'! ..•..'�M+ �1 A .�...x�d vbe•w.w.•o' -.Vl.w w..n_w•v,.-...,.„r � .•. b '.. �'I�KKIN(s ►-L'QUIR.EM,aNTS G�J NCO.. ►awv Dw0 I -' bd-T;K--% ..j .,Ow•lJM - U`tbtitblsUND i10 hYJTG`, _ ' mx,%1AUw_A_T -•% SY►cw•".D s-I.6 �r !L-'V LOOM9 i• gwAc64•b,a. D Lwow c.eu~�bll�a.�duw o1 V4P�G''+G �^•�•�^+a`YA.i.N —t L0,t0o^-u••9 ILd 9•9nc ea• 1.9b.s6 CO C % CC`= Ar -,-o M sv�••I"'r-Pl, W •� • Q+„•V�,•.'u!• be Adw U OfVtl- F�f._gp+• '6 wyr.c�•• /twos b��•"•f .t .mot-t.�l'c- ^,._^.� . .. .. ► - 0-. CLu4 40 ft ew1,NM.♦dw•mmMR• Te+hL IRIViDCD yV ., t' �� ��-• �it�w Leaw�aD 3w - - EnC?eE'RTY 6.MM, �xroCUt+ AHACPCk^ aAa C C3�fZ.s�•C x.''-�e•-r M21 M/!J•a,! J. DON HAIRTFELDER ARCHITECT A.I.A. j N sC4lr�/ �/SO �-v,�•- vJ \ ., e� NNA � 525 o O. 914c. _ /5,0' z02 I I- ------------� ec d�O•C/ S/T�"' .oG,4iC/ �?iC/d/0,� �YiCli4G .Ul�4� �f�J�,�O�/��, .�//��•GYit/l' /olool :, N � "IN S/�E oGES /�OT �9f'r�f� ..Sc�".6'�1C.�" O.t' T�-�c' .SE.ss/-.SOBT�•••�.C'-9���`y-s1.�1 .�.' ►fo1� non nol'R nou noai no+S n91>1 00.5 no sr 170S1 I•jJ(.Q n01.4 Y,D-., nor+ I-nd CgOS f7D'II U G 4p OQ j p S yle) _ O re,1._. II, l C. coop IWMAO LN.IL 1 � J ..�-r �Irasss \ ►uc.iw .e cam--ll IT- —J v' ,• I � �`Jf ►o ■n..c.d ..moo ��•i1 �.� � U no eri,,_as_ ea�oNr � « aD cs e+c.u.r //'/1rI M .. Z v p�KKING rLe0UIIZEMP-NTb \ �� Rf�b—'r%6AR6 40►44^..1%.IM 661r6 I�TE r ' `•.l lL�vb 6A�.•6 I• VKN tiF •FM.1� �Vvo�o_. C>L+-�t3MI.T p1�ILlrYic.� .. i•�'gpl"p• GONDOnoI'W'» 111 6.Z'so L.%.40 4.i/6 iTGAA~ v •!._.U�E�Sl�JF7^oFGi.MT�_�r'��oLJw$i M OY•I�N UM IO ar+►ca~ IM~4 r+wr 7 i �i�lJr'1�1c�TIOM c.._r w M•�N p/�%W-sposloo mro�D6 uwa�k+wo �e �•�n Go•..bs Ar N1.+v. 1LaAYYYD aa4 6LI/r 6V� G$�EATY aNNt11 r IeYR'YwD1VauWlr�yN,I.wOrP�,otcA► ' .�wJLM'tNTDrI ppKJi.U. 9=441 �w� �'�~'ao �9l J. DON HAdTFELDER ARCHITECT A.I•A NYNTIM.TYN Y...iN.Nt.111.1.1.1. ?A IT1.1 ......,, -- -- ]rwto 17o17 17o1g 17ot5 17ot7 1705•tl 17061 r7 +9 170.31 nos? 170:ia r7o4" 00'15, 11077 17061 r.o0•! r7ogl O © O AO © _)U P101G C C OP 0 � 1 -iluue.o u•+a - y - P�WiLD _ ILUU I nTm I > L I r �� t I _ .-.�,.,J^e".', ..R,.,., .,.rw.,f• %a/'^,JO"°'''c""�Nd"tl -_�— 1 m R u.F o PNW ( aiucw,a.v- wc+c .. ':'1 C \I'i r j J ( •tea Ao P�+ICKING KCAU12EMGNTS � Z z,yY�ytM1 71 MLt1 Nt z -GC'ra•+MM 1• VKfA� ♦I.w.Nya�wo IZA �X.tHiG�.•.TiG ONLY �•. Sr/•1.G�o,v-,--bvm I1� VAt/• f.�•N LIW� F'lj-.GItC. Fy�.fr�uNCu F7LI.N dY.1�M VM 1� M.G t� 1/tIi• �7 Kn.o\ `�' Tb bL• �uOM1T't"Ep WITH �• G...� !M ofw Lqm Mk%MP-W- 4" C.INgo�i11•iOVa 'W T,yg pT101�L Cq.o0ft ♦7 d.—Py 27 IT' c1�T 10H '7v�/I_1tg1 F•iR'YUO�M .�MADPO�I1l 4MU"fT•IN'rb1`I U. gZ441 J. DON HARTFEIDER ARCHITECT A.I.A. M.N11M.1.Y•...CM,NC.L1r.1:;.., rV M /SO La �k,, 10 Pll611e � a ,9 2.6 Ac. i .00 ow .T/OTE'.� roit7E.�/.S/t��*/S' �ti' �'G!�'.-��"E�.S,..7'1�/�W.�CiC;• esiclr/E'c0'��'. - i1F.� kA I � a14 �iOlE••• �i�r.,•�''.vyiG-ems' �"'o-E' .�li/G.4i.�lG' E.stlliE�G�crS' u�•�i�oi�c F.v�F�o��- � .c%r .���Gr �a - t --' oe:a �nen :-1w� ;��as n�i'1 �ee� noes ne nos, n�,e, n:� ;'te�� no» i9o•,1 noel Oor! noel 0 /01 0 _ s d 1 8 t- ABU[111 77 11 DI y� M1 ?i ar.ems. (n+s)i� 'r //;�� `). J • ' �• c� p v — PP.RKING K�QUI(LEMl=NTS v bo l t-O4. -1 4IKa4•,Y 4,.ir4 tV0.1-6 "tG-rd.aOIM • VKbe PnA 9 aNMe -!R!`/PaO_ �X-r!PJw\TIG GtYI-�( bG.4-l:Y.'Ky'd :w 4/Aca4 %.%.b u�ws WDilsa�w+e 12e Ff+1c�a0E t;M + rM �wr-, tsY••.4►rM .s Y►•ca4 ILN♦ rt o.a.s.a ei -iv PNc,Suet 1CX-teo wrN GON[\7s Urola a•aev9 Y L^Y�G�T�:�CX4 G..-r W 4/M.Ca1 110lt W"'a+'laia4 CA^o04 ti7 0.4�Oa 61 �"G"" •I TAL RQOYryD atN 4t-'•'4 � F4UWyOOUP4 AyA,pPCL^ 7eZ*1RN.MO 'tom .-- �xYfl TUn �x�G.• 94v41 J. DON HA/1TFELDER ARCHITECT • A.1.A. ��::"a�:.:i:o.'."c�iir. i,r•.� _ i uui nr.l•n �r�•i ru.••rr ---_ � N ' a� �� ��`!�/ABLE � �.✓TE,L�,iG�1y � a`� rzx/E� ti Win f✓.r/.9l/moo U•�,v' �r��' ,mac/ ..a.�lo/GP �/.�/.4G isf.ao ry.�s��4G. � � 1 �I f N i 30' i io e..e� T j 44a.44 rrffx- JU I PrT _',• aLaw .1 I'' r— �� 1 �. �, I__ � � �l- i �� j LL t� 11 � U L 4 U^� +# a j 1 �~;,: t: • I '� 1 ... I t � r •11'� I 1. � 1 c_ ,'/_ 1 � J � N 1 F � u1 1 a 1 NA6Ls AYva y,loi 7r •p a t 11'WwML { eY� E",2 E- P#oe-KING "ouiREMGITS w 4 2 N u W- a v t I t V e- - 04LA Leo. v YGL'w.aptly �• VKfA IVIL. % �VvpaO IV-�T E.' L:P'.�o.+.VLYM 1�•� %PV,.44K L.%.-4L C-400% vw.ia.uur+o 126 Q.TY�Mil1" t� MLa4- t/LM AG/MOOf IMMLML/1M 64 'fb t."`JC b.l�l`•IIT�T Ep W�iTMitV r•. G-..6 4+ yT�L1 N►.yM-loped** l.OA00•► A7 OL/.Ca In •o'h-IY auryo •Si♦ k,.y I� IT G.TIQLV i PROPGQTY�1•rll• 14ilrYOloLJt'• .AM.iAL�D�PO�M� rMaML4TW .CA 9=441 TI+.L.L n4Nlcto 9ps J. DON HARTFELDER • ARCHITECT • A.I.A. •iMTI'M•TiM ai Lei M,Mi.L...l.L1.. `- UUI Iil.lill ITHI Hi.Nlf _ � �r no'L rto'1 r70111 11." I.1o11 IToly IIOS•1 i riobl 11051 I-1�.• ;TP49 Itot6 110T1 r10or 11-to rto91 R �J Y 0- 7a QQo `"ter PIeF.:r.v ur-,e 0 iIT r.:•- r � 4.1.. a PAavts CSLo ou rw 44 P ILA •L W �L d OFY.GYA ' low-- •uo .00-GO-0 I ,f� I t. •� _ flyl, �,.L(l.L1"till 11. PhKK1sJ& K-=auir—emeNTS —WAR �" F eYay� a�.s 1+Y .,-ti. I 4Y,.W.wT T9 4.+I:LL♦IDYL 1% wK 1/.b.ES GL�y4•OIM.l, • VKN Mf 4 WM WleaYtpr4lyNo 17G �.7r..DOnyyry7 IOQ MMGIL L.4•�L LI.OIL AT 0....+OL t?i 3H rra•.F3Ki LY ' 4Y`•�MVN '0 YM.L{4 r/LYr GY•NOO�IMCLI.KIYyD 64 L...O W 4~9%0006 W_w"0% NE LTOWDITICte•1V. U6G 7H ' GOyOsf AT O"I.I.pr 11 � Kaol,Lao 344. 4K.NY L1C STY + PriliYl7'o\11V .•J4I+OP�\1� T�•M. ►M1ivroto 9li ' +�i.�WTbev ,f.1. 9II441 I IYI„ ♦11.M4Y1M, ,YIT, . - J. DON HNRTPELDER ARCHITECT A.I.A Y.T+•.,.Y Y..oY, c..r.. ,.... / N . `F�' ti o � 14. ' �f/�9rE'.- a-yE�/s/o.�/''• �,,,r -sda�9-��-.v.S, ,�'r'iiG��!/G'y E..fld�0l�, �' �9C�''E3�' .00/.�/T.s' �'•eE" .yf�-t�✓�f.�.�G�" As•�� W/lG ,6'c�'/ri��9�iZe� �<- I �I I I ' I 91I G ��TE-• ��"„G!E.�/�"io.�/.� f°�O•P Br//LLY.c'/G' E.�/�R'o-c�Es:..9�/� .sr,�.o,PO.t�isfIle r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Charles W. Thompson, D James W. Palin, Director City Administrato Development Services I Subject LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT Date February 1, 1983 82-1 & HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BAY CLUB SPECIFIC PLAN Councilwoman Finley has requested that staff investigate placing a land use designation of mixed use only on the proposed residential portions of the Hur3f< ngton Harbour Bay Club. This would assure that only those areas shown as residential in the Specific Plan would be developed, and the remaining portions of the site could be retained as open space. Staff analyzed this request and would like to offer the following sug- gestions and comments: The mixed use category is designed to allow for different types of development to occur under a single land use designation. The Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan proposes open space, re- creational facilities and residential uses on one site. This would be one example of the kind of project that -could be developed under a land use designation of mixed use. If the Council wishes to place a separate designation on the resi- dential portion of the project, then staff recommends that a resi- dential land use be selected and not mixed use. This would restrict that portion of the Specific Plan area to residential development only. The applicant's request is for approximately 17 units to the acre. This density would fall under the high density residential category in the Coastal Land Use Plan. (The same density would be equivalent to a medium-high density designation in the General Plan, however, this category was not included in the Coastal Plan. ) It should be noted that placing a separate designation on only the resi- dential portion of the site would be "spot general planning" which we do not recommend. Any amendment on the site will require Coastal Commission review. Staff feels that if Council wants to protect certain portions of the site, then the best approach would be to designate the entire site mixed use with conditions. The applicant is submitting several site plan alternatives to the original Specific Plan. When the Council has determined that one of these is appropriate, this alternative can be attached as a condition for future development in Land Use Element Amendment 82-1. By adding this condition, development would have to conform to the precise locations for building pads, parking area, open space, etc. , as specified in the alternative. The recom- mended conditions for approval of Land Use Element Amendment 82-1 %- would then read as follows: ' - 1) Only residential and recreational uses are to be permitted LUEA 82-1 Feb. 1, 1983 Page 2 2) The mixed use designation is to beimplemented by a Specific Plan 3) The maximum number of units permitted is 4) The building and open space areas must conform to the precise locations specified in Attachment A. * This number will be determined by the alternative selected. JWP:FW:jlm �� l CITY CW H#JNTIQN BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMM NICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Charles W. Thompson ��/�� r� D James W. Palin, . Director City Administrato 1A7 ` Development Services Subject HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BAY CLUB Date February 2, 1983 SPECIFIC PLAN Attached for your review are four alternative site plans prepared by the applicant for the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan area. These site plans will be presented to the City Council for their consideration on February 7,,� . 1983. Included along with each of the site plans are the appropriate variations in Exhibits A and B of the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan, changing the building footprints. The differences between the four alternative site plans are the number of condominium units, the placement and footprint of the residential build- ings, the number of parking spaces, and the configuration of the parking lots. Although the, plans contain considerable detail, the applicant in- tends that they be viewed only as conceptual at this time, keeping in mind that the precise details of the ultimate plan chosen can be worked out through a conditional use permit process. Alternative 1 is the original plan submitted to the City Council with three residential buildings containing a total of 48 units. Alternative 2 shows three buildings with 15 units in each building for a total of 45 units. There are two versions of Alternative 2 -, Plan 2a and Plan 2b. The difference between the two• plans is the configuration of the parking lot along Edgewater Lane. Plan 2b contains more landscap- ing in the ,parkjhg lot than Plan 2a. Alternative 2 does not comply with the City Council' s request to consolidate all of the residential units into two buildings. Alternative 3 shows two buildings with 24 units in each building for a total of 48 units. The residential component of Alternative 3 has the same number of units and,°essentially the same parking configuration as the original plan (Alternative 1) . Under this alternative, additional marina parking has been provided on the western portion of the site be- cause of consolidation of units into two buildings. Alternative 4 shows two buildings with 21 units in each building for a total of 42 units. There are two versions of this plan, 4a and 4b. The diffearences.'k�t ►een the 'plans"are the-configuration of the pas lct along Edgewater Lane, locations of entrances ` to" the subterranean""garages under the residential buildings, and the number of open parking spaces. Plan 4a has more open parking spaces within the parking lot along Edge- water Lane (95) than Plan 4b (79) . Both plans provide marina parking on the western portion of the site. Plan 4b has substantially more land- scaping than Plan 4a in the parking lot along Edgewater Lane and in area adjacent to the residential structures. Page 2 t The applicant has assured staff that the specific plan parking ratios for individual uses within the specific plan area as amended by the City Council could be achieved under all of the alternative plans. After careful review of each of the alternative plans, Development Ser- vices`would recommend that Plan 4 be pursued in concept by the City Council; that theprecise location, access to, residential units, and landscaping be approved pursuant to the requirement for a conditional use' permit and ten- tative tract map for the subject development; and that the revised Exhibits A and B, which would implement Plan 4, be included within the specific plan document. Plan 4 contains only 42 units in two buildings, as opposed to the 48 units in three buildings proposed under the original plan. The reduction in number and the consolidation of units into two buildings sat- isfies the major concerns expressed by the City Council. The advantages of Plan 4 over most ofthe other alternative plans submitted by the applicant are an increased amount of landscaping, both in the parking lots and adjacent to residential buildings; provision .of; a wider view corridor to the marina and the addition of marina parking on the western portion of the site. JWP:JRB:df Attachments ;L 1 L I'-ero P- '-OI. I�oLD -.�: �-..�3 •_9'i� �-OIS '-o!••15/ yy I "o+' � '-c..� '-n ar• •'e^e 'ro-- ,-oe' .-M e+ .-ors . 1 � lO �' / .1 �! � it , ul •1 II � � � I ��•� • r \ tit ® 1 I ULU -mril . ' I•, ;,.;,;�_ . III'1 � i r_�� � �#.,� J . s�.���. Q � ��, "' S' ai14 I i jy!. y'.�'}f�y"�" ��! •�I v..•..I...e,•o .t� }'� 1. 1 ..�"'...ld.•1 ��"'� .! •+.rll�l�.+ld�.'l�.d u:...'�wr.::� �fi S-' * --.-. .vim_. _..^_�� . .. _. _ _-_.__ _ +_� -- ' ` ---------- \ ,•.,. ♦� rN o.o' P/.KI�ING KCQU11ZE1`1G`NTS .7uG,�•aG= -= -•---- --------- -- ------ '� ILEMa-K.tO'. dCi•.T SLR ^M1 anee�•.M.Ip W.0% N.'�TG. • ' eiti'..ISU+rT 1 ara.c�1 rat+b-A4bu.w yuicbi.e � 5 e !L-W,0.00--% i► aI4.GK 4Df. %..we.M G. -4Z.&UN.l1tM.iU.R� 01 f� �Rx��A�vJ .♦ f./WI�- f. [v+oo�•vw•a Ite Yr.ces t.�•a6 Ge�wS Go.+peS ..� or-..oa r� i,�„ •• •, _ _ . O•+..y.3'w '6 6/►.c It- � iro. '-Ic ��id�ti a_ �� taus ,•o arl•.e�1 Boa.�e�s.•Lr'IF.M w vT,•.i aeerwao Te+..0 rR.rv�veo yy �' ' ' , QROPERTY c7.YNiR RfRTQo.M NIAOpOUR ��'. .ZIQ1�l 1`�� a -- — 'k'��•�r� s+ta J. DON HMRTFELDER ARCHITECT A.I.A __ � OR1C�11�1�►L . N , �aeF�,�rEe i� � ,✓PEA .0 ti1 ,4.�E4 . I all: M C D. IL_ I ' F _.._..�•-• �`-\ -------J _ L-----fir -. edo dd0.�/ .SiT� ,oGs�C/ ,-a�r/�/o.�' �Y.c%4G .r?•aG tir�,�o`��. .�liiLLY.vG' E-.G/I�CCO.oE" Ga�C� it/OT �4000� Tt� ��T��RC',� GQ— I I ' `v7 �/o��••' ,o��rE.vs�.c%� �,� e�iG,oir� E•vrE .y.� ,'cr�fss �diir/!.S' .4,eQ6 �J,4�.f�O�"/i!!.•9'TG�' .q'.�/� �r/r�� �G�i�/f/�G/cyG.�.� l/itJ�r/ .�/�E •�1�9�t/ .•95��,�p�..��. ,Bl//�,Ol�� E.�/.l�EG0.2� i —_ r>tol• - 170M l GM now nOL7 rlO 4 I70-11 ric D n061 I7oe1 rt7r,7 noM no71 11017 1'bd mas Mo l 10 Coll CM I tlj J .�iaaR•.w..v u..+r. C-, )I , rlPw rf%ffNff 006 � QIl l J•.�w:�CJY�Y ��R� (,I.AI[�p �` � �—J 'NCrt�D �'..L j � a -� rn ` , � � I !�' —CrTr,.. _ .-.,C-•_��_,l_.._�`. .r, _ 11�•i 1. � � A. V1 _ �.�� •�. f io aMCas a.,o .+". R,J 10 ar.; a d <r , b J z PP•KKING K�RU1IZEMGITS --'-- '-- -- _._ _.__._ cm) -- v pw..T 4�/'� 11 V.6M..,�►.KW oulft NOTE.. "fteAL LA"Ir r Ol+.ca•tia,�P4rE4 GG-vf./o1r•r It VKM AW"M1 ♦0.M•0 PAl Oao• �ITb �Y &lfm %4Aq» IN w•►.caa t.1•N fiV►% o Id TTT PR�$RTY JrIA.11R� R�IeyDRR+ N/AC�A . «iwwfTlr•r brl e^rtl.U. 124�1 :~•••• �µ�oao D9l ' I DON HNRTFELDER • ARCHITECT A.I.A. 1701f (y/N017 h019 t7oL•J 11097 "002, 171161 170•.17 17051 '051 1701oll not A no s 00 170e1 190 s no91 _ W, ® w , n b t�AtiY,pa1.! 71 1 To _ ' UWIJUU,ug.r _ I — _yes; I •.-..a.✓^f -.n..n.�... ,,,n..�....a.r.,..v�.ywa.+,;�,.y�:;yf.:;,�cprera =- A— � - — i .w. � Z Avr- • v .w p1•.KKING 1tC�U1fL EMGN T•6 / y-af\` ZL_ RJY Ay..M,• 11 Mti'.4•Aft M• L"ti NOTCH \ Z ate'...ao1►w 1♦ vKlti rr/• •I.nR•M wvp�o... �.. Yht-'I'�90-d a.T00•+4 N'1� Ilt Vhat♦ L•�•M 4WL Av 4-a/WO I70 G'M.1TIG OPILY pY'•�MYM I� MttR1- IILM• A7 OaN+I 71 IOG. Nq fk.r.N 4K+������� 'b Tb iTTP1j WITH T .-...� M MiN Mll/N••t�tttwa TYt�'" OT"IM, l/OC i GOAO►� A�MLI.O� 2D IT C�\'YIOf`I •I'N. /.t Y1M.i0 e91 tali► 7_= ��TY bv/n1�i1� It/R'YOeaJlr AF1A0P0l1*l .w.�dT'IN71x1 6tlaCr1.U. 91641 J. DON HARTFELDER ARCHITECT A.I.A. ::::;..;::�•:::».`�.�I;.'.....low L -- i N ` 1 J �I• r r A O f fn 11AV . _L za et 7/4 ie���c w-r�•c' BUII'�EJD C/.UE ,0 cCEJ"s i(/OTG�•' O/if'�6.C/S�tJif/� O.c eS-e-m-et�c .5�..��/SLY eitrr/EGG'�L��i �9CZ''E�'`r .�J��t/TS �A.L�G'�• ���.�.'9�t'/.�1�.-�>'Lr'' .f.�� /rr�1 .�c�"� /"/.r//s��— /IE,O J . N I \ , n� .riOrE-.• oi.���v.YiGws' �"o-� .�//Cdi�' E.r-CI�EGG7<'c�.S kA �9�i�'.Et�'.ri�.9��" l/�.�/ /�E —.— �•� �17w7 I'IM1 IT11� I-�rj,'7 �eD• fte D• I�o�9 ,'104r Ilo7l :-1� ,�e�1 11e 1p i'ie1� 11011 I'10eD I-1e71 J i@l OM � .� '——, I I', � + .._ r J � /►d .ter —e � ,i .J b .. sl c11.>� fir/ i I I /M � � 1J ��� �� � t,� J ��• � � P�+RKING KCQUI/ZEMCN',5 v tcaaeeP I� I'' hfM.T 6L.'•f -'1 4M1.L14�',.IM 4.w% ry0'rg'. Ica+r,.uarw+ -e 4«.u4 ry.a is i.ex. -GC-Wr-0.1'h VACfh,bl� ♦/.MM Vaali,y.a/Va0 116 G.a•bp^I" U"% sae 41i.i14 1A." fiWf Al-d+LAP4 7+ Tb PlE EI.JP,h1.TTC0 WT+-1 J 4T4 94- II iN i C.INrb4 v�&AOr uV 1� T^qG GOMC�ITIQ'•1/�L U6G iiT 4 4Ph<14 IVIk 4M- -boom LpI.g4 ♦T#. ,p% M T /�lP�-IGITIQ1 v?..� "MuMip l♦f.I 41.-u'M I �fj,'Y+F }2TY CMIM6.l• 1W@RY0Q0.04 .A.HADPC-^ Ti"A._ IRw^DCo «0..R 9Z441 J. DON HASTFELDER - ARCHITECT - A.I.A. q �3 y s45 , a 107 PUB�iC G C /..r.IC. 5601 ,c' �'c'�e-s..f .�,</.--.r .9,E .4,d,�.�,✓if��t� .sc�io �icc dF' tic'Ile l/•mc/ Srr��' .g u/ �.�a/� ��.t/.4G Ty co � s%OG. • ` . � � . r r a . N � t. �.+ I I � � � . � I .. � � �� I � � � , . . l � -- . � - � t � � � � � � � a . . �- / O� �/4- SG+�" �/O- T4- G • , .� ivblE• vd�GsE.c%S/oi�/S �,C ,cTU/�,GC/G'• ��-l/l/cC'�d�F.S .sr-f/p iC�'L"E.S„S' �Q�i�/1S .J,�c� .yO.a.�2���.A!�' �•t/O !r//GC ;Bc� .Bl!/��/rc/l' �.t/l/EfO.n�' ��Qa.� .�l�T�O•�G� Td S�TB.�G�.0 QiG" tf�E' .,fe�f/- S�/,� T�'T_,��it/e'°.r9.f/��.C-�.C/�!/�' �T,E'��'ld.�ua'; i I � I t � lL3.44 8� JIJVV`JI_. ��.►L, 4 � � v - I � �_ � t r ! _ t o J( t � � ( 1�-,/-•,I�-.�IIi-I1I/�1Ir'I1I� �I ,i 'L ertanns', c J ' t a- jr w j rl 4 o ' z P/•.KKING "OUIfLEMCNTs w 4 N b ti v t t t — f" asa.LtO. v 9-1 4L146 14 MiM..%•Im We% ' ► -WkQlLIYnT' 11. M►(a4 NYL 11-N-" r te,-..apM �% VK.A ILIA pip GOI'OOIwV1Y"1� NJ• 40V.6.4 90W% u'r+aa..a.�.'lo I4d OUI .TIG 01V1-Y yY•t.ry4rh li 40.994 1/L~. AT aa.-�a 71 F4CEGIl�p Po\R�C� Pw�I - Z c►wu.u•1na14i..wl A4 9b Ge�oE+�bT�rT r w i ri -� PR0k. AAA�earY arr rla 1 rroRrOauv .w.yAJo�Po�r/1. 1 4era.LM1N bfv -�i,�A 1Qir41 Tr'ed.IVI/roCO 5" 1. DON HAIRTFELDER • ARCHITECT • A.I.A.rYM.It..�.Y•...L..yt.Yl1.'.)... !� flDy r}dl IT01 ITo4b 19oi'1 I'Iob! 11oi•1 I1n40 17olI 11eD'i I7s4E ITo4q Ilo'16 I91o�7 IlOsl f1oC. ITo11 7 I Q 7 UJUUM11, FIT }lam 1 L11L11ll l All I," XL ,� . F i PhKKING KCQUIREMtNTb - _- -—W'�R '��' ' R l.ir ttD. CaY.T 4a�K 1► V•.L14•.M•IN MJ/'L I � � � -iY�1,I.J-.T T1 4�►4•1W.T7r-A�tb O F "GG-v4.O/•"ti I♦ VKfiti 1'II. f LNM► ,�VVOlO__ fVdT-e. GP•OG^'•2UM IOa M1-GN L.ir•4L G�.iVL AV'p•l�u`o I� �_r �Y�� �� II��'-� � G-,.� 40 4M'M•LL1 M/.W••L/4MM 6l."ova% w &-.4•w ooe� ••r s4..ow 11 FROFc�rrY owNan I r�cieroc.�ly ,.rwaoo.�a 4+L '�� 91441 T/'K rf.//IOLD 5l2 ' •uNf W TbN I J. DON HIYRTFELDER ARCHITECT • A.I.A I N N � ^`� � SZJr r TT Z T V� 1 Q - �9ct-'e�3�' �o�.��'.S .q.�E' .yd��-t�.�.�1.�.�^� .f�•c�� Wi!G ,Bc�J�i�v�li�� ' L3��CiV�/��Cw" �i��t�fr//'�TL�� /Y1.C'Ir ��n r w rJI3�L� J77 _t..C1'•.O�.s�A�� �t N 3o �ftiTE' .oE',,�-�E-.vsio,C/..S �"Q•P ,BGt�GGY.c'/G' E.!l/�'2'a�E.3'..�[r�/� E�v��4�G' .00�S .r✓oT 1D -'G�y" .C,� pi"" 7.siE REQUESI FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date January 27, 1983 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council 0001. Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator ',�S`` Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services Subject: APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-12 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-16 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: a01 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for the City Council' s consideration is the revised Hunting- ton Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan, which is the compromise discussed by the Council at its January 17, 1983 meeting. At that time, the Council requested that at least two alternative plans be submitted with 48 or less units being proposed, as well as a revision in the park- ing ratio to . 75 parking spaces per boat slip. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council uphold the Commission ' s action taken on December 7, 1982, and deny Code Amendment No. 82-12 and Zone Change No. 82--16. Development Services Department staff recommended to the Planning Com- mission the approval of Code Amendment No. 82-12 and Zone Change No. 82-16 with findings as outlined in the attached staff report dated Dec- ember 7, 1982. This remains the staff's recommendation for City Council action. DISCUSSION: At the January 17, 1983 City Council meeting, the staff was directed by I Council to revise the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan. Staff was requested to ,incorporate revisions into the Plan requiring the fol- lowing: A development agreement shall be executed with the City estab- lishing phases for development within the Specific Plan area, a parking ratio of . 75 parking spaces per boat slip shall be required in the public marina, and the permitted 48 or less units shall be consolidated into two buildings. The attached proposed amendments to the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan submitted by the applicant would revise and clarify the definition for building height in the Specific Plan, add a section requiring that a development agreement be executed with the City for phasing purposes, and revise the parking requirement for the public marina requiring .75 parking spaces per boat slip. PIO 4/81 ' C.A. 82-12/ZC 82-16 (. Zeal) January 27, 1983 Page 2 The applicant has also submitted four alternative concepts for de- velopment of the site. Each alternative concept has corresponding diagrams which would supplement Exhibits A and B in the Specific Plan document. ATTACHMENTS : 1. Proposed Amendments to the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan. 2. Alternative Plans 3, Ordinance No. 2605 4 . Ordinance No. 2606 5. January 3, 1983 RCA and attachments 6. Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan JWP:JRB: jlm PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BAY CLUB SPECIFIC PLAN Revise III . DEFINITIONS - C. Height of Building - is the vertical distance above the sidewalk adjacent to the bulkhead measured to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, or to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the highest point of a pitched or hipped roof. Add IV. APPLICATION PROCEDURE - G. Development Agreement - A Preliminary Development Agreement shall be filed concurrently with the applications for a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map. Said Development Agreement shall establish phases for development and coordinate major development activities. The public hearings for the Development Agreement shall be held concurrently with the public hearings for the Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map. 2 Revise XIV. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - C. Area C - Public Marina 2. Parking - Parking shall be provided at a ratio of three (3) spaces for each four (4) boat slips (0 . 75 spaces per slip) . The access, dimensions, landscape provisions and turning radii for all parking shall conform to the provisions of Article 979 . Vehicular access from the parking lot to Edgewater Lane shall be prohibited. To assure compliance with this requirement, vehicular access rights to Edgewater Lane shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. REQUES i FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date January 3, 1983 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator C:�1 Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director., _Development Services o .. Subject: APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CO E AMENDMENT NO. 82-12 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-16 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE:' - Transmitted for the City Council' s consideration is an appeal to the Planning Commission' s denial of Code Amendment No. 82-12 and Zone Change No. 82-16, a request to establish a specific plan on 13.71 acres of property located on the north side of Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council uphold the Commission' s action taken on December 7, 1982, and deny Code Amendment No. 82-12 and Zone Change No. 82-16. Development Services Department staff recommended to the Planning Com- mission approval of Code Amendment No. 82-12 and Zone Change No. 82-16 with findings as outlined in the attached staff report dated December 7, 1982, which remains the staff recommendation for City Council action. ANALYSIS: APPELLANT: Ferydoun Adhadpour 4121 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92649 APPLICANT: Same as above LOCATION: Subject property is located on the north side of Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes. REQUEST: Zone Change No. 82-16 would change the zoning on 13.71 acres of property from ROS (Recreational Open Space Dis- trict) to Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan. Code Amendment No. 82-12 would amend Article 930 of the Hun- tington Beach Ordinance Code referencing specific plans to include the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON DECEMBER 7, 1982: ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-12 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-16 WERE DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: PIO 4/81 C �i C.A. 82-12/Z.C. 82-16 (Appeal) January 3, 1983 Page 2 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: The proposed zone change and code amendment are inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation, which is open space. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir DISCUSSION: It is recommended by staff in Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 that the applicant' s request for a mixed development land use designation on the site be granted on condition that only residential and recreational uses are permitted, that a maximum of 48 residential units be permitted, and that the mixed development . designation be implemented by specific plan. Code Amendment No. 82-12 and Zone Change No . 82-16 would adopt the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan. - The Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan contains specific development standards for projects within the specific plan area, limits development within the area to residential and recreational uses only, and permits a maximum of 48 residential units within an area designated for residential use. In summary, the Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan conforms with development criteria recommended by staff through the land use element amendment process. '!'he Department of Development Services and the Planning Commission received several letters of opposition and support of the project, both prior and subsequent to the December 7, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. The letters are attached for the City Council ' s review. There are also two petitions which contain a total of 1, 049 signatures in opposition to the project; these petitions are on file with the Department of Development Services. If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission' s denial of Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 for this area of concern, the proposed specific plan zoning under Code Amendment No. 82-12 and Zone Change No. 82-16 will not be in conformance with the General Plan designation on the site, which is presently open space. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 was prepared assessing the change in land use designation on the site. The analysis in EIR 82-3 sufficiently analyzes the request made under Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 and Zone Change No. 82-16. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. C.A. 82-12/Z .C. 82-16 AAppeal) Januaa:y 3, 1983 Page 3 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may consider overturning the Planning Commission' s denial of Code Amendment No. 82-12 and Zone Change No. 82-16 and approve the proposed Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan, subject to findings and conditions as outlined in the attached staff report dated December 7, 1982. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from applicant (Notice of Appeal) dated December 16, 1982 2. Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan 3 . Planning Commission staff report dated November 16, 1982 4. Planning Commission staff report dated December 7 , 1982 5. Ordinances JWP:JRB: jlm Cif December 16,; Huntington Beach City Council Attention: City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 NOTICE OF APPEAL From a denial by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission on December 7, 1982 of Land Use Amendment No. 82-1 Area 2 4, Code Amendment No. 82-12, and Zone Change No. 82-16. Members of the City Council: Please be advised that the undersigned hereby files with you this Notice of Appeal to the Huntington Beach City Council of the denial of the above referenced Land Use Amendment No. 82-1 Area 2. 4, Code Amendment No. 82-12, and Zone Change No. 82-16. The reasons for filing this appeal are: 1. The Planning; Commission's findings for denial are in fact conclusions that are not supported by the information presented for Commission consideration. 2. The fact that the proposed land use designation is inconsistent with the Local Coastal Program is not a valid reason for denial, since the request for a Land Use Amendment is also a request for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program. 3. The project which is to be implemented through the Mixed Development Land Use designation and the proposed specific plan will be compatible with the surrounding development. In fact, the strongest support for the `project has come from Edgewater Lane property owners, who front on Weatherly Bay and will be most directly affected by the project. 4. Although the present Land Use- designation may permit some of the uses proposed, it does not permit residential uses, which are essential to the economic viability of the overall plan. 2 5. That 5. 9690 designated as "recreational open space district" is an arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious use of governmental powers and is therefore in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions. 6. That the subject, property is not a "recreational open space district" within the meaning of S. 9690 in that S.9697 (a) requires a minimum parcel or building site of five (5) acres. That the subject property, excluding water ways, does not consist of the minimum requirement of five (5) acres or more. 7. That the City of Huntington Beach has waived any rights to apply Article 969 to the subject property, in that part of the property always has been and is now being used for commercial uses. 8. That the proposed three residential structures are compatible with the surrounding residential designs, in that the residential areas across the channel consist of two story homes. Secondly, the adjacent property known as the Weatherly Bay property consists of two story condominiums which do not face the subject property. Huntington Harbour itself consists of a number of water ways which are faced by residential units. The residen- tial units have a view of the channel and across each channel a view of rows of residential units. The only open space view within Huntington Harbour development are the perimeter of residential units, none of which would be materially affected by the foregoing application. 9. That the majority of land owners adjacent to the subject property endorse and approve of the proposed development. We respectfully request that this appeal be set for hearing at the earliest possible date. Respectfully Su itt d, ERYDOUN H UR cgt huntington beach development services department sraf f REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: December 7, 1982 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-16/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-12 (In Conjunc- TION WITH LUE 82-1, AREA 2. 4) Continued from 11-16-82) At the November 16, 1982 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission opened and closed the public hearing and continued Zone Change 82-16 and Code Amendment 82-12 to the December 7, 1982 meeting. The Com- mission also requested that staff conduct analysis of the following concerns: 1. Question: "What is the acreage and density of the adjacent condominium development immediately west of the sub- ject site?" Answer: The 100-unit condominium development is located on 8 . 44 gross acres of land. The density is approxi- mately 11 . 85 units to the acre. 2 . Question: "How will the existing water table affect semi- subterranean parking structures proposed on the site?" Answer: There was a soils report submitted at the time that Tentative Tract No. 4880 was approved, which may pre- cisely identify the depth of the water table at this location. The staff has been unable to locate a copy of the soils report in the tentative tract file and is checking other sources . The existing restaurant on the site has a basement which, according to the applicant, extends below the grade of the proposed parking struc- tures. The applicant claims never to have experienced groundwater seepage into the existing basement. The applicant has also indicated to staff that recent exca- vation work on the site to a depth of approximately 9 feet revealed no groundwater. If a project were ap- proved on the site, a soils test would be required for review by the City prior to issuance of building permits . The Department of Public Works has indicated that based on their knowledge of the area the probability of en- countering groundwater at a depth of 4 feet or above is very unlikely. However, this cannot be verified until the original soils report is located or a new report prepared. If the Planning Commission has concerns regarding the potential impact of groundwater on a semi- ARk A.-I-i F A-FM-23A • � n ZC 82-16/CA 82-12 December 7, 1982 Page 2 subterranean parking structure at this location, an option which is available to the Commission to mitigate the poten- tial impact would be to require within the specific plan that a soils report be submitted along with the conditional use permit application for any development on the site. 3 . Question: "Will the proposed parking ratio for boat slips in the Specific Plan adequately accommodate the number of boats proposed in the marina?" Answer: Staff conducted a survey of parking ratios required for public marinas in the cities of Newport Beach and Long Beach and the County of Orange. All of these jurisdictions use a ratio of . 75 parking spaces required for each boat slip. The Specific Plan prepared by the applicant proposes a parking ratio of one space for each two boat slips in the marina. The applicant has submitted a site plan for preliminary review by the staff. The site plan shows 155 boat slips in the marina. The parking ratio used by the other juris- dictions surveyed by staff (one space per each . 75 slip) would require 116 spaces for the 155 slips. The parking ratio proposed by the applicant in the Specific Plan (one space per each two boat slips) would require 78 parking spaces for the 155 slips. The applicant claims that 48 of the boat slips proposed in the marina will require no public parking, since the condominium owners have parking within their own development. The amount of public parking shown on the preliminary site plan for the marina is 72 spaces. Using the ratio of . 75 spaces per boat. slip minus the 48 slips the applicant claims will be used by condominium owners, the requirement would be 80 parking spaces. Using the applicant' s pro- posed ratio of one space per each two boat slips minus the 48 slips used by the condominium owners, the requirement would be 54 spaces. The applicant has submitted a "parking survey" (attached) which indicates the number of cars parked in the existing marina at the hours of 10 : 00 a.m. and 4 : 00 p.m. during the months of September through November. The data submitted by the applicant appears to indicate that the existing parking lot used for the marina is under-utilized. Based on the above information, staff recommends that the specific plan be revised to require that the parking ratio for the public marina be established through the submission of a parking analysis by a registered traffic engineer as part of the application for a conditional use permit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of Zone Change No. 82-16 and Code Amendment No. 82-12 based on the following findings and conditions: Zone Change 82-16/C.1 '-12 December 7, 1982 Page 3 FINDINGS: 1. The Specific Plan is in conformance with development criteria recom- mended in Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1. 2 . The Specific Plan is in conformance with the Coastal Element of the City' s General Plan. 3. Development on the site in accordance with regulations contained in the Specific Plan will not adversely affect living conditions in the surrounding neighborhood. 4. Development on the site in accordance with regulations contained in the Specific Plan will not excessively increase traffic on surround- ing streets nor substantially increase demand for public services . SUGGESTED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. Section XIV(c) (2) of the Specific Plan shall be revised to read as follows: "If residential development is proposed within the Specific Plan area necessitating a reconfiguration of the existing parking lot, the parking ratio for public marina use shall be es- tablished through the conditional use permit process on the residen- tial project. The applicant shall be required to submit along with the application for conditional use permit for the residential pro- ject a parking analysis prepared by a registered traffic engineering firm acceptable to the Department of Development Services. The parking analysis shall make a recommendation on the appropriate ratio for public marina parking on the site. " ATTACHMENTS: 1 . November 16, 1982 Planning Commission staff report 2. Ordinance 3 . Letters of opposition and support 4 . Parking survey submitted by applicant JWP:JRB:df r huntington beach development services department STA f f _REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: November 16, 1982 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-16/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-12 (in conjunction with LUE 82-1, Area 2.4) APPLICANT: Huntington Harbour Beach DATE ACCEPTED: Club & Marina Landal Asyeu,t 6, 1982 Development & Pacific Development, Inc. MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: 4121 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92649 60 days from certification of Final EIR 82-3 ZC REQUEST: To rezone 13 . 71 acres of pro- ZONE: ROS (Recreational perty from ROS (Recreational Open Space) Open Space) District to Hun- tington Harbour Bay Club GENERAL PLAN: Specific Plan. Mixed development CA REQUEST: Amend Article 930 of the 11.B. Ordinance Code by adding Hun- EXISTING USE: tington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan Bay & Racquet Club LOCATION: North side of Warner Avenue ACREAGE: 13 .71 acres between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing on Zone Change No. 82-16, take public testimony, and continue this item to the December 7, 1982 meeting, at which time action will have been taken on Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1. At that time, staff recommends that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change No. 82-16 and Code Amendment No. 82-12 with findings stated in Section 6 . 0 of this staff report. 2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Zone Change No. 82-16 and Code Amendment No. 82-12 would estab- lish a specific plan on 13 . 7 acres of property located on the MARX An c - 6 A-F M-23A ZC 82-16/CA 82-11, November 16 , 1982 Page 2 north side of Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes. The property is the present site of the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club. The Bay and Racquet Club presently consists of the following facilities: 1) Two tennis courts located along the western property line, 2) an existing private clubhouse/banquet hall used by the members of the club, 3) a private beach with "barefoot bar, " 4) two tennis courts along the southern property line, 5) existing offices, 6) 234 space parking lot to serve the facility, and 5) 140 boat slips. The existing Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club was estab- lished in February of 1963 by Use Variance 505, and additions to the facility were subsequently made under Use Variance 76-61 in October of 1976 . In 1974 zoning on the subject site was changed from R1 to ROS. On November 5, 1979, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 79-20, which allowed the con- struction of five racquetball courts at the southwest corner of the site, a new banquet facility adjacent to the existing club, and 5 guest cottages to be located over the existing men' s locker room. The site plan approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 79-20 was subsequently approved by the California Coastal Commission; however, the applicant allowed the permit to expire prior to making the improvements . In January of 1981 the applicant filed Conditional Use Permit appli- cation No. 81-6, which was a request to expand and modify the existing Bay and Racquet Club. The proposed expansion/modification to the existing facilities included the following: 1) Construction of 42 guest cottages over a semi-subterranean garage with 51 parking spaces, 2) the rearrangement of one finger of boat slips located at the east end of the facility and the addition of 26 slips, 3) addition of a children' s recreational facility, 4) addition of two tennis courts in the southeast corner of the site, 5) addition of a 6 foot high wrought iron fence along the property line on Warner Avenue, Edgewater Lane, and Sceptre Lane, 6) establishment of a pierhead line, 7) elimination of the existing private beach and "barefoot bar, " 8) removal of two tennis courts along the west- erly property line, 9) removal of two tennis courts along the southerly property line, 10) rearrangement of the present parking configuration. On September 1 , 1981, Conditional Use Permit No. 81-6 was denied with findings by the Planning Commission. The decision was sub- sequently appealed to the City Council and the Council upheld the Planning Commission' s action on October 5, 1981. On August 6, 1982, the applicant filed an application to amend the General Plan Land Use Element designation on the property from Open Space to Mixed Development and change the present zoning from Recreational Open Space to Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan. ZC 81-16/CA 82-11 November 16, 1982 Page 3 3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 was prepared assessing the change in land use designation on the site. The analysis in EIR 82-3 sufficiently analyzes the requests made under Land Use Element Amendment 82-1 and Zone Change 82-16 . 4 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING, AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Subject Property: General Plan Designation: Open Space Zoning: ROS (Recreational Open Space) Land Use: Bay and Racquet Club North of Subject Property: General Plan Designation: Open Space (Water) Zoning: CF-R (Community Facilities/Recreation) Land Use: Weatherly Bay South of Subject Property: General Plan Designation: High Density Residential (County of Orange) Zoning: Land Use: Vacant East of Subject Property: General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R1 (Low Density Residential) Land Use: Single Family Residential West of Subject Property: General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Zoning: Rl (Low Density Residential) Land Use: Condominiums 5. 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: In Land Use Element Amendment 82-1 it is recommended that the applicant's request for a mixed development on the site be granted on condition that only residential and recreational uses are permitted; that a maximum of 48 residential units be permitted; and that the designation be implemented by a specific plan. The Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan was prepared by the appli- cant and has been reviewed by Development Services staff. The staff during its review of the specific plan recommended several revisions in the text which were agreed upon and incorporated into the document by the applicant. The stated purpose of the specific plan is "to serve as a general set of conditions and regulations that will promote the orderly development of the property while providing sufficient flexibility__ to permit design creativity. " The proposed specific plan divides the site into four areas as delineated on Exhibit A. Area A on Exhibit A of the specific plan consists of 1 . 5 acres in the westerly r-. ZC 82-16/CZ 82-11 November 16, 1982 Page 4 portion of the site. Area A is presently developed with office/ banquet facilities, a pool, locker rooms, two tennis courts, a "barefoot bar, " and a parking lot. The proposed specific plan would allow recreation and open space uses within Area A. These uses are essentially the same as those which are presently existing within this area. Area B on Exhibit A of the specific plan consists of . 9 acres located immediately east and adjacent to Area A. Area B is presently " developed with a restaurant/clubhouse and parking lot. The proposed specific plan would allow public and/or private restaurants and banquet facilities and related activities within Area B. Area C on Exhibit A of the specific plan consists of 5. 3 acres in- cluding a public marina which presently has 140 boat slips and a parking lot on the extreme easterly portion of the site. The proposed specific plan would allow public marinas, parking, and related facilities within Area C. Area D on Exhibit A of the specific plan consists of 2 . 2 acres loc- ated east of Area B and south of Area C. Development within Area D presently consists of two tennis courts, a real estate office, and a parking lot. The proposed specific plan would allow 48 attached residential units and related recreational facilities within Area D. Exhibit B in the proposed specific plan delineates residen- tial building envelopes within which all buildings in Area D must be constructed. The specific plan requires that all areas not within the building envelopes which are not paved shall be landscaped and maintained as permanent open space. The proposed specific plan also contains development standards for residential units in Area D. The development standards would regulate setbacks, open space, parking, etc. 6. 0 RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission approves Section 2 . 4 of the Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1, staff recommends that the Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change No. 82-16 (Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan) and Code Amendment No. 82-12, subject to the following findings: FINDINGS: 1. The specific plan is in conformance with conditions recommended in Land Use Element Amendment 82-1; those conditions being that only residential and recreational uses are to be permitted, that a maximum of 48 units be permitted on the site, and that the land use designation be implemented by a specific plan. ZC 82-16/CA 82-11 November 16, 1982 Page 5 2 . The specific plan is in conformance with all General Plan and Coastal Act policies . 3 . Regulations and development standards contained within the specific plan will assure that quality housing is built on the site. ATTACHMENTS: w1. Area Map 2. Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan 3 . Ordinances 4 . Letters of opposition and support JWP:JRB:df �F!'? AIHL eJII!>112�'l�lZ eC /(fll� G1� bay C-slQacgyct Club SEPTEMBER 1982 No of cars in parking lots 10 OOA.M. 4 OOP.M. LSt 18 14 2 17 12 3 18 11 4 40 44 5 45 36 6 14 12 7 16 1 o 8 17 12 9 14 13 10 16 1n 11 38 44 12 42 38 13 15 13 14 15 12 15 18 to 16 19 11 17 15 14 18 39 43 19 45 47 20 16 13 21 17 to 22 14 11 23 12 8 24 17 16 25 39 42 26 44 46 27 14 10 28 16 12 29 13 1n 30 17 15 baY(cl Qacquct Club OCTOBER 1982 NO. OF CARS IN PARKING LOTS 10 00 AM 4 .00PM 1st 18 12 2 42 45 3 40 38 4 12 10 5 15 13 6 17 11 7 19 15 8 14 13 9 45 4r 10 42 44 11 15 16 12 14 13 13 18 12 14 16 10 15 15 14 16 38 40 17 44 46 18 18 19 19 14 15 20 17 12 21 18 14 22 12 15 23 36 40 24 44 38 25 18 12 26 16 15 27 20 14 28 13 15 29 15 14 30 45 42 31 42 40 Bay�(S Qacgyct Club NOVEMBER 1982 NO. OF CARS IN PARKING LOTS 16.00AM 4.00 pm 1st 15 10 2 16 13 3 12 11 4 18 12 5 13 15 6 3.G 40 7 32 35 8 1? 12 9 14 In 10 12 10 11 15 12 12 16 18 13 38 42 14 42 46 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 REQUES i FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date January 17 ,s. 1 9 R I Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato P Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services a Subject: ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-17 (Beachview Mobile Home Park, in conjunction with LUE 82-1, Area 2. 5) . © _;(g D3 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments:(!,r S-TATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for the City Council's consideration is Zone-Change No. 82-17, a change of zoning on 5.47 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) to Ml-NIP (Light Industrial with Mobile Home Park overlay) . The City Council's original direction to staff was to initiate a zone change to MH on this site. On December 21, 1982 the Planning Commission recommended that an NiHP overlay be placed on the site rather than the MH zoning. The zone change on the subject site has been advertised for both NH (Mobile Home) and M1-MHP (Light Industrial with Mobile Home Park overlay) to reflect the City Council's original request and the Planning Commission's recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and planning staff recommend that the City Council place an MHP (Mobile Home Park) overlay on the subject site by adopting the attached ordinance after action has been taken on Land Use Element Amendment 82-1. ANALYSIS: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Request: To rezone 5. 47 acres of property from M1 (Light Industrial) to MH (Mobile Home) . Location: West side of Gothard Street between Ocean View High School and the City Maintenence Yard. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON DECEMBER 21, 1982: ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-17 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The MHP overlay retains the base MI District which is consistent with surrounding land uses and maintains the integrity of the Gothard Industrial Corridor. �� y . a PIO 4/81 k/ '� ZC 82-17 January 5, 1983 Page 2 2. The MHP overlay is consistent with the Industrial designation on the subject property in the City' s General Plan. 3. The MHP overlay accurately reflects the existing use of the site as a mobile home park and allows the park to continue as a legal non-conforming use. 4. The existing mobile home park is not in conformance with the standards contained in the MH District and would operate as a legal nonconforming use even if zoned MH. 5. Before any change of use on the subject property, the property owner will have to apply for a zone change to remove the MHP overlay and will have to comply with the notification and re- location assistance requirements of the City' s Mobile Home Park Ordinance. AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Paone, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION: This zone change is being processed concurrently with Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1, Area of Concern 2. 5. The recommended zone change to M1 - MHP is consistent with the existing land use designation of General Industrial, which has been recommended for retention. At its April 19, 1982 meeting, the City Council directed staff to initiate a rezoning of seven mobile home parks in the City to MH (Mobile Home) zoning. The subject property, the Beachview Mobile Home Park, required a redesignation in the General Plan to Low or Medium Density Residential for consistency before MH zoning could be applied. At its December 7, 1982 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to retain the existing General Industrial designation on the subject site in the City' s General Plan. MH zoning is not consistent with this land use designation. At its December 21, 1982 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that an MHP (Mobile Home Park) overlay be placed on the subject site. The resulting Ml-MHP zoning would be consistent with a General Industrial designation on the site. Because the City's MH zoning district requires a minimum park size of ten (10) acres and allows a maximum density of nine units per acre, the subject site does not conform to the MH zoning district: it is only 5. 47 acres in size, and is developed at a density of 14. 5 units per acre. Thus, the park will continue to exist as a legal, non- conforming even if zoned MH. An MHP overlay would leave the underlying Ml zoning intact, but would entirely supersede it. Before any change of use could occur on this site, the property owner would have to apply for a zone change to remove the MHP overlay and comply with the notification and relocation assistance requirements of the City' s Mobile Home Park Ordinance. ZC 82-17 January 5, 1983 Page. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The subject property is included in draft Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3, which is being processed for Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1. Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Environmental Impact Report 82-3 for a 45-day comment and review period which ended December 3, 1982. The EIR was reviewed by the Planning Commission and recommended for certification. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may deny Zone Change No. 82-17, which would retain the existing M1 (Light Industrial) zoning on the subject site. The existing zoning is consistent with the existing General Industrial land use designation of the site. The City Council may also consider placing MH (Mobile Home) zoning on the subject site. This would not be consistent with the existing General Industrial designation on the subject site, which has been recommended by the Planning Commission for retention. Further, the existing mobile home park does not conform to the requirements of the MH zoning district and would continue to be a legal, non-conforming use. SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1. Ml-MHP ordinance and alternative MH ordinance. 2. Planning Commission staff reports of November 16, and December 21, 1982. JWP:HDB:dw r ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE/ CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PR,OVIDE J� FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL , TO MOBILEHOME DISTRICT ON REAL PROPERTY GEN- ERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN OCEAN VIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND THE CITY YARD (ZONE CASE NO. 82-17) -EAS, pursuant to the state Pla ning- and Zoning Law, the Hu tington Beach Planning Commissi n and Huntington Beach City Coun ' 1 have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case No. 82- wherein both bodies ave carefully considered all information prese ed at said hear igs, and after due .6onsideration of the findings and r ommendat�34rt//s of the Planning/Commission and all evidence presented to�/fhe/ City Council, t e City Council finds that such zone change/is P�oper, and con stent with the general plan, // NOW, THEREFORE, t City gouncil of the City of Huntington NOW, THEREFORE, t/C Beach does ordain as 'tollows : ;/ i SECTION 1. Th following describecd real property, generally located between 0 an View Pigh Schoo and the City Yard, is hereby changed om Ml, "Light Indus rial District'" to MH, r "Mobilehome D' trict : " B inning at the northe,,st corner of Tract 4053' shown on a reap retarded in Book 441, pages 16 and 17, Miscellaneous' Maps , Records of Orange County; thence north` 89127125" east 970. 68 feet along the easterly prolongation of the north line of said Tract, 4053 to a point., said point being on the centerline of Gothard Street ; thence south 0044120" ease 255 . 64 feet. along the centerline. of Gothard St re t to a point ; thence south 89028 , 03" west 971. 60 eet along the easterly prolongation of the sout line of said Tract 4053 to a point , / said point eing the southeast corner of said ahb 11/9/82 1. kkl Tract 4053; thence north 0031157" west 255 . 46 feet along the east line of said Tract 4053 to the point of beginning. SECTION 2 . The Development Services Director is hereby di- rected to amend Section 9061, District Map 31 (Se ctio District Map 26-6-11) to reflect Zone Case No. 82-17, des bed in Se c tion 1 hereof. A copy of said district map , Xaamended hereby is available for inspection in the office of City Clerk. SECTION 3 . This ordinance shalzouncil ` effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular mee ng thereof held on the day of 1982 1� s / Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: a s City Clerj City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: ity Adm1`fT1dtraVor i ector of Development Services 2 . huntington beach development services department sraf f REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: December 21, 1982 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE No. 82-17 (Beachview Mobile Home Park, in conjunction with LUE 82-1, Area 2. 5) At its November 16, 1982 meeting, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on Zone Change No. 82-17, took testimony, and continued the public hearing to the December 21, 1982 meeting, at which time the Mobile Home Ordinance establishing the mobile home park overlay would be in effect. The Mobile Home Ordinance is now effective, and staff has readvertised the site for this zone change request. Staff analysis of this site is included in the attached staff report of November 16th. At its December 7, 1982 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to retain the existing General Industrial designation on the subject site in the City' s General Plan. MH zoning would not be consistent with this land use designation. An MHP (Mobile Home Park) overlay on the subject site would be consistent with an industrial design- ation because it would leave the underlying M1 zoning intact, but would entirely supersede it. The park owner would have to request removal of the overlay should he decide to recycle the park to another use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Open and close the public hearing on Zone Change No. 82-17 as readvertised. 2. Recommend to the City Council that an MHP (Mobile Home Park) over- lay be placed on the subject site with the findings outlined in Section 6. 0 of the attached November 16th staff report. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff report from November 16, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Ordinance HDB:dw 7 A-F M-23A huntington beach development services department sraf f _REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: November 16, 1982 ZONE, CHANGE NO. 82-17 (in conjunction with LUE 82-1, Area 2.5) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach DATE ACCEPTED: REQUEST: To rezone 5 . 47 acres of N/A property from Ml (Light MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: Industrial) to MH (Mobile Home) N/A LOCATION: Subject Property is the ZONE: Ml (Light Industrial Beachview Mobile Home Manufacturing) Park located at 17161 Gothard Street between GENERAL PLAN: Ocean View High School Industrial and the City Maintenance Yard EXISTING USE: ACREAGE: 5. 47 acres Mobile home park 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing on Zone Change No. 82-17, take testimony, and continue the public hearing until such time as the Mobile Home Ordinance establishing the mobile home park overlay is in effect. At that time the staff recommends that the Commission recommend that the City Council place a Mobile Home Park (MPH) overlay on the sub- ject property with the findings outlined in Section 6 . 0 of this report instead of rezoning to MH. The zone change will be re- advertised at that time. 2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Zone Change No. 82-17 was initiated by the City to rezone the 5 . 47 acre Beachview Mobile Home Park from M1 (Light Industrial) to MH (Mobile Home) . This zone change is being processed con- currently with a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment (LUE 82-1) to redesignate the subject property from General Industrial to Medium Density Residential. Agib, -e - le, A-F M-23A Zone Change 82-17/h1R 82-3 November 16, 1982 Page 2 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The subject property is addressed in draft Environmental Impact Re- port No. 82-3 which is being processed concurrently with LUE 82-1. Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Environmental Impact Report No. 82-3 for a 45-day review period that will end on December 3, 1982. 4. 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Industrial ZONING: Ml (Light Industrial) LAND USE: Beachview Mobile Home Park North of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Public/Quasi-Public, Institutional ZONING: CF-E (Community Facilities - Educational) LAND USE: Ocean View High School East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Industrial ZONING: M1 (Light Industrial) LAND USE: Mixed Use - residential, light industrial South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Industrial ZONING: CF-C (Community Facilities - Civic) LAND USE: City Maintenance Yard West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING: R1 (Low Density Residential) LAND USE: Single family residential 5. 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: At its April 19, 1982 meeting, the City Council directed staff to initiate a rezoning of seven mobile home parks in the City to MH (Mobile Home) zoning. The subject property, the Beachview Mobile Home Park would require a redesignation in the General Plan to Low Zone Change 82-17 November 16 , 1982 Page 3 or Medium Density Residential for consistency before MH zoning could be applied. A General Plan Amendment on the subject site is being processed concurrently with this zone change. The City' s MH zoning district requires a minimum park size of ten (10) acres and allows a maximum density of nine units per acre. Since the subject property is a 5. 6 acre mobile home park and is developed at a density of 14 . 5 units per acre, it does not conform to the MH zoning district. Thus, the park will continue to exist as a legal, nonconforming use regardless of what land use designation or zoning is placed on the site. If the subject property is redesignated to low or medium density residential in the General Plan, then an MH zoning can be placed on the !.ite. However, staff has recommended in the General Plan Amendment that the existing designation of general industrial be retained on the subject site. Staff feels that this designation is more compatible with surrounding land uses and with development of Gothard Street as an industrial corridor. If the area of concern is retained under the general industrial designation, MH zoning cannot be applied to the site. However, an MHP (Mobile Home Park) overlay could be placed on the subject property. This overlay was established in the Mobile Home Park Ordinance that was adopted by the City Council on October25, 1982 . The ordinance will go into effect 30 days after the second reading, which has not yet occurred at the time of this writing. An MHP overlay would leave the underlying Ml zoning intact but would entirely supersede it. The park owner would have to request removal of the overlay should he decide to re- cycle the park to a new use that would otherwise be allowable under the M1 zoning. 6 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing on Zone .Change No. 82-17, take testimony, and continue the hearing until such time as the Mobile Home Ordinance establishing the mobile home park overlay is in effect. At that time, staff recommends that the Commission recommend to the City Council that, instead of rezoning to MH, an MHP (Mobile Home Park) overlay be placed on the subject site, with the following findings : FINDINGS : 1. The proposed zoning overlay retains the base M1 District which is consistent with surrounding land uses and the existing General Plan designation on the subject property. 2. The proposed zoning overlay accurately reflects the existing land use on the subject property. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Area Map 2. Ordinance JWP:DB:d f�, �? n ORDINANCE NO. Z�O� AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO MOBILEHOME DISTRICT OVERLAY ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN OCEAN VIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND THE CITY YARD ( ZONE CASE NO. 82-17 ) WHEREAS, pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case No . 82-17 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings , and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to the City Council , the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the general plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1 . The following described real property, generally located between Ocean View High School and the City Yard, is hereby changed from Ml, "Light Industrial District" to MHP, :.r. "Mobilehome District Overlay: " Beginning at the northeast corner of Tract 4053, as shown on a map recorded in Book 441, pages 16 and 17, Miscellaneous Maps , Records of Orange County; thence north 89°27125" east 970. 68 feet along the easterly prolongation of the north line of said Tract 11053 to a point , said point being on the centerline of Gothard Street ; thence south 0044120" east 255 . 64 feet along the centerline of Gothard Street to a point ; thence south 89028 ' 03" west 971 . 60 feet along the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Tract 4053 to a point, said point being the southeast corner of said /ahb 11/23/82 1. Tract 4053; thence north 0031 ' 57" west 255 . 46 feet along the east line of said Tract 4053 ,.w to the point of beginning. SECTION 2 . The Development Services Director is hereby di- rected to amend Section 9061 , District Map 31 (Sectional District Map 26-6-11 ) to reflect Zone Case No . 82-17 , described in Sec- tion l hereof. A copy of said district map , as amended hereby is available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1982 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney G _c\ REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: 'N� City Administrator irector of Development Services 2 . PLANNING ZONING DM 31 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 26 - 5 - I CITY ADOPTED ArHIL II,1960 Gl 1 Y 0 1 CITY COUNCIL- ORDINANCE NO. 759 LIEGTEND~• AMENDED ORD.NO. AMENDED 'RD NO f"a_� ar s�oc.rl•- •,.n cln.;�,•i ols++Kr T i ] r 'O uIb 111 Rui r o T7aIpT 7TC C vrgrxry q[Inq.s Rnuc•T ONID15,yr IIUNr1,INGrhON 1B]���GII .,. ] c1,r luousr..� o srn cr l ya-ar r„v REs El.r n'$TP'CT ORANGE COUNTY, (.,AL111U1{�' [ A r: '�_�_7 0 . T I.`ms,PIrIPT1ar �, AMENDED BY ZONE CASE 101 140,172.187.192.202.206.211,212.237.30•s,312.113 30;.326,339."1,34R,556.359,369,371,209,.87.504,505,509,66-766.13,66-14,66-57,PP 66-3 �u-;�. u, _•for 6!•50,ei-I, 67.72.PP 67-5.PP 69-I,PT`691.PP70-1.70-A,PP70-B.71-17,72-:A,72-2R.7A-16,PP7A-2.77.211. •r[ P 7z t, 76-260]7-22,79-9,75 b,B0-19,HI-10, ----- 1,T� I..»r T+n•r WARNER ,�,• �.,1� -- ,r R•u,^Ic Fr1/ AVE f \ca 76 _ MI R2 R5 ~r P C4-MS` r CAIN AVE • I IIIL - • l—_ JJJ �, R 2 R2 r0 _�o '. MI w M! R2�� 3 - '- J . -- - --- m CF-R ♦P4(p AV 4--- -- 1j�j , , Cf I,.N AVER I112 Ml R2 R2 .1r CF-E :� --—•f:-- -T,lo,o�l 1 BETTY 3 OR MI Mf.NI/�fll DR \ 1 M I M I R3 R3 e I j jC4 RI RI V RI RI ,RIjP CF�•C �j. r.v,.�,OR`1 I IR3 I' --- - __ -- L`R- ar ro _ _ Pl;- (P.) _j �— --1 -- _I-- Ri -- —cP r R3 �- l �t7 rr5 M M r7 rn M I RI- CD' — RI-CD _ ..a,«'r IR3 n Ycr RI C RI CD C RI-cD =RI-CD R3 �� _J� JL_ _— '� j + R3 VI R3 R3 R3 R3 1 i U ,.� 4 CD e MI-CD Qr MI MH e 4 M I A-CDo' o l L_E—= —i' Mi M I CS LR3-] I- ; CF-R - R2 c4 R 3 h 1 MI-CD EMI - w Q R3 a;Raj �. ,MI - CD R2 R2 wc4 I MI-CD MI 7nmI F -R3 TAIBERT AVE Publish ,lanuary F 1983 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING uses 8'� -16 4'F,:P 7 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 17th day of January , 19 83. for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan (LUE No. 82-1) , Environmental Impact Report 82-3 (EIR 82-3) , Zone Changes 82-16 and 82-17 and Code Amend- ment 82-12 as follows : 2.2 Redesignate 26. 6 acres located north of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street from open space to medium density residential . 2.4 Redesignate 5. 7 acres on the north side of Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes from open space to mixed development . Re--zone 13. 7 acres at the same location (ZC 82-16 and CA 82-12) from ROS (Recreation Open Space) to Huntington Harbour Bay Specific Plan. * 2.5 Redesignate 5. 6 acres located west of Gothard Street between Ocean- view High School and the City Maintenance Yard from general indust- rial to medium density residential. Re-zone the same property (ZC #82-17) from Ml (Light Industrial District) to MH (Mobile Home District) or Ml-MHP (Light Industrial District with Mobile Home Park overlay) . 2.6 Redesignate 1. 2 acres of property located on the southeast corner of Magnolia Street and Banning Avenue immediately north of the Oranqe County Flood Control Channel #Dl-1 from industrial energy production to low density residential. *The applicant has filed an appeal to the planning Commission's decision to deny the Land Use Amendment, Zone Change 82-16 and Code Amendment 82-12. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Land Use Amendment, Environment Impact_ Report Zone Zone Changes and Code AmendmentA/VD 541b '9pprl`s. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED__Z-_�1:jF3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Publish janiiar), F .198�_ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING vE 8.2—I/`ce-� ��-3�zo�ve-GASPS ff.7 -16 �8a-/7 Cabe 4m m j0a-1A 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 17th day of January , 19 83. for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan (LUE No. 82-1) , Environmental Impact Report 82-3 (EIR 82-3) , Zone Changes 82-16 and 82-17 and Code Amend- ment 82-12 as follows: 2.2 Redesignate 26. 6 acres located north of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street from open space to medium density residential . 2.4 Redesignate 5. 7 acres on the north side of Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes from open space to mixed development . Re--zone 13. 7 acres at the same location (ZC 82-16 and CA 82-12) from ROS (Recreation Open Space) to Huntington Harbour Bay Specific Plan. * 2.5 Redesignate 5. 6 acres located west of Gothard Street between Ocean- view High School and the City Maintenance Yard from general indust- rial to medium density residential. Re-zone the same property (ZC #82-17) from M1 (Light Industrial District) to MH (Mobile Home District) or M1-MHP (Light Industrial District with Mobile Home Park overlay) . . 2.6 Redesignate 1. 2 acres of property located on the southeast corner of Magnolia Street and Banning Avenue immediately north of the Oranqe County Flood Control Channel #Dl-1 from industrial energy production to low density residential. *The applicant has filed an appeal to the planning Commission's decision to deny the Lane: Use Amendment, Zone Change 82-16 and Code Amendment 82-12. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Land Use Amendment, Environment Impact Report, Zone Changes and Code Amendment AND SRjb 19plkl/s. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk , 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Publish .Tanlinry NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Ya-s zdAVe eAse,S ocr.7 -/6 8a-17 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 17th day'of January 19 83. L the purpose of considering a proposed aldment to the Land Use Element the City' s General Plan (LUE No. 82-1) , Environmental Impact port 82-3 (.EIR 82-3) , Zone Changes 82-16 and 82-17 and Code Amend- nt 82-12 as follows: 2.2 Redesignate 26. 6 acres located north of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street from open space to medium density residential. . 2.4,tedesignate 5. 7 acres on the north side of Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes from open space to mixed development . !� R.e- zone- 13. 7 acres at the same location (ZC 82-16 and CA 82-12) from ROS (Recreation Open Space) to Huntington Harbour Bair Specific P 1 a n.N -%t i s 14 N-o-P p.L 4e WO!,1�7�1-f Are"4 j 2.4,toRedesignate 5. 6 acres located west of Gothard Street between Ocean— view High School and the City Maintenance Yard from general indust- rial to medium density residential. Re-zone the s me property_ l y � (ZC #82-17).._..f om L_(L,ight. Industrial Distr�c ) t0 (Mobile Tlonic� District) Qjr 1-MHP) (Light Industrial'District with Mobile Home Park overlay • 2.6 Redesignate 1. 2 acres of property located on the southeast corner of Magnolia Street and Banning Avenue immediately north of the Orancte County Flood Control Channel #Dl-1 from industrial energy production to low density residential. *The applicant has filed an appeal to the planning Commission's decision to deny the TR�nci Use Amendment, Zone Change 82-16 and Code Amendment 82-12. All interetted ,'persons are invited to attend said hearing and express thei►- dpinionS Or, or against said Land Use Amendment, Environment Impact _H_oport , Zone Changes and Code Amendment AND SAID gPPe.71s-. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk , 2000 Pain Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED_ _ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth CA City Clerk l f/ i Publish January 6, 1983 f. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT 82-1/AREA 2.4 ZONE CASE 82-16 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 17 th day of January 19 83. for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan CLUE #82-1) , Environmental Impact Report 82-3 (EIR #82-3) , Zone Change No. 82-16 and Code Amendment No. 82-12 as follows: Redesignate 5. 7 acres on the north side of Warner Avenue between Edgewater_ and Sceptre Lanes from open space to mixed development. Re-zone 13. 7 acres at the same location (ZC #82-16 and CA #82-12) from ROS (Recreation Open Space District) to Huntington Harbour Bay Specific Plan. A legal description is on file in the Office of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said LUE 82-1, EIR 82-3, ZC 82-16 and CA 82-12 . Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk K RI a_ _ ..... I 1 1 Pl F,l R2' " R2 jll1 l RI sr RI : CE R I Y -R RI RI R3 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 R I R I "1 I a CF-R R I R I •�, C --- - --- MILO ST. R3 = I u RI F-R � � _ 41 RI T RI_ _ R 3 �-,- -_-� = R3 R3 R3 R3 R3 0 I C2 CFR RI RI DPL RI RI R 9 RI Ri -- — a` RI 3 RI RI �® R3 R3 R3 ., a� R I R3 C4� RI R R2 R3-19 -- RI RI ...,.. C2' ROm" .T MEATHMY MY RI. R3 RI RI RI CF-R >R I RI R RI 8 waR AVE. RI RI R R2-PD-14� 4 t RI z ,\ RI ' �\ I I G \ / S c dT o °cFq� Existing Zoning Area of Concern 2 .4 •o qMp o 35 Figure 2-10 The compatibility a mixed use designation with the surrounding areas will ultimately depe on the type of land uses developed. As previously mentioned, the mixed se designation allows a wide variety of land uses in addition to recreation and residential. Some of these uses, particularly industrial and commercial could have significant adverse impacts on the surrounding development_ and would be inappropriate on this site. Should the site be redesignated to mixed use it is important that only those land uses compatible with adjaCV ' nt properties be allowed. One way to do this would be to condition thl General Plan Amendment to allow only recreational and residential Wes on this property. The applicant has also agreed to rezone the site through a specific plan process. This plan will indicate the size and location of all facilities, parking and landscaping to be permitted on the site. It should be noted that a mixed u� designation could result in the existing recreational facilities recycling too a new use. These facilities were originally designed to serve the Huntington Harbour residents. Should the City wish to retain some recreatio\alamenities on this site, they may want to condition the General Planndment to require that a certain portion of the site remain in recreaal uses. Another approach would be to require that a Specific Plan prs be used to implement the mixed use designation. The Specific Plan then set a maximum residential density and require that a certaircentage of the site remain in commercial recreation. The third land use considered for th�, subject area is low density residential. Should the existing facilities recycle, this designation could result in 39 units at full development. A low density use would be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods,,,however, access and parking for the existing public marine would need' to be preserved in the new development. This designation could also re It in a loss of recreational facilities currently enjoyed by Huntington Har our residents. The project site is located within the City's astal Zone boundary. At this time because the City's local coastal progr m has not been certified, all projects within this zone must be review d and approved by the California State Coastal Commission. When re ewing the City's coastal plan, the Coastal Commission has been concerne with preserving access to Wetherly Bay, and preserving existing views om Warner Avenue to the Bay. Any future development on the area of concern should be sensitive to these issues. 2. Economic Considerations The planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasyste s, Inc. conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the three land use alt rnatives 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, 1982-1992. The la use assumptions used in the model for each alternative are outlined in ppendix A. The results of the analysis are summarized in the following to les: 36 r' 178-284-14 Area of Concern 2.4 178-291-21 Rosario R Scrofani Novel 2, 1982 UH) Sheldon Grossman 17206 Courtney Lane 17131 Edgewater Lane Huntington beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 178-284-15 178-291-05 178-291-22 Allen J Shafran Paul L Sullivan William M rands ale 17214 Courtney Lane 17027 Edgewater Lane 17141 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-284-16 178-291-14 178-291-23 Joseph C Scheitzach et al Thelma W Perkins Huntington Harbour Corp 17220 Courtney Lane 17077 Edgewater Lane 4241 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 4 t 178-284-17 178-291-15 Huntington Harbour Beach Clt Wil.l.iam Ruskin Wood James V Andrews and Marina 17226 Courtney Lane 17081 Edgewater Lane 4121 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 926,' 92649 92649 178-291-24 178-284-18 178-291-16 John W Cronn Willard L Sprague 17232 Courtney Lane 17085 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif StS4 92649 92649 178-291-01 178-291-17 Jay S Snelson Teneo Huntington Harbour Inc Donald L Watson 17132 Edgewater Lane c/o Roger Beitler 17091 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif 16880 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1800 Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 Los Angeles, Calif 90024 92649 178-292-02 178-291-02 178-291-18 178-292-01 William H Thompson Moir Berg-Shoshan Ann C Woodard 17017 Edgewater bane 17099 Edgewater Lane 17124 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-291-03 178-291-19 178-292-03 Deland E Sprik Neal Wells Jr Mari L Webster 17019 Edgewater Lane 17109 Edgewater Lane 17140 Ecgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-291-04 Henry E Hartge 178-292-04 Donald W Altig 17121 Edgewater Lane Clifford G Raab 17023 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif 17148 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 Huntingbon .Beach, Calif 92649 178-291-20 92649 /,R at ,V � 178-292-05 178-323-20 Edgard A Devlin Area of Ooneern 2.4 Michael Ferro li 17156 Edgewater Laze Huntington Harbour 17003 Edgewater Lane Huntington. Beach, Calif Noviember 2, 1982 (JH) Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 178-292-06 178- 292-14 178-323-21 Stephen Baumeister et al Joseph A Faloon James P Thompson 17164 Edgewater Lane 17155 Roundhill Drive 17007 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-292-07 178-292-15 178-323-22 B Joan Buttram Gail Goldbertl Stanford G Goulding 17172 Edgewater Lane 17147 Roundhill Drive P.O. Box 634 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Seal Beach, Calif 92649 92649 90740 178-292-08 178-292-16 Ernest R Williams Jack C Smiley Rie dent P.O. Box 5031 17139 Roundhill Drive 40 1 Warner Avenue Hacienda Heights, Calif Hen Beach, Calif n Beach, Calif 91745 92649 926 9 178-292-09 178-292-17 Resi t / Joseph L Schwartz Jr Thom Dotson 4041 Avenue 17188 Edgewater Lane 17131 Roundhill Drive Hun Beagfi, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-292-10 178-292-18 Richard E Willsie Zfieodore C Patten Resident 1440 Skokie Rd 89F 17127 Roundhill Drive 4051 W Avenue Seal Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Hu n t i49 Beach. Calif 90740 92649 926 178-292-U 188r292-19 Kent D Wilson Leonard C Wood Residen 17179 Roundhill Drive 17123 Roundhill Drive 4071 Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Hunti ch, Calif 92649 92649 92649 '178-292-12 178--323-18 Peter B Shores Vincent Govorchin 17171 Roundhill Drive 16989 Edgwater Lane HUftting'tcm Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 0264r 92649 170-292-13 178-323-19 C*rge'N Garrett 3rd Jim McGee ident 17163 Roundhill Drive 16995 Edgewater Lane 4081 Warner Aver �un, torn Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 17&-291-06 178-323-08 Melvin F W 17552 Gold�est Street Areaof Concern 2.4 16947 ter lam Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Harbour Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 Nov. 2, 1982 UH) 92649 178-291-07 178--323-02 178-323-09 Lyle H Cain Jr William A Craig Edward H VasNunes 17039 Edgewater Lane 16911 Edgewater Lane 16951 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-291-08 178-323-03 178-323-10 Charles Foulger Phyllis E Clifford M D Waterfront Inc 17045 Edgewater Lane 16915 Edgewater Lane 1731 Santa Ana Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Costa Mesa, Calif 92649 92649 92627 178-291-09 178--323-04 178-323-11 Ackel Developnent Corp James O Steven Ellen M Wenger P.O. Box 821 16923 Edgewater Lane 16959 Edgewater Lane Sunset Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 90742 92649 92649 178-291-10 178-323-05 178-323-12 Peter H Young Jr NXEM Zhmras J Fipp 17057 Edgewater Lane 16963 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 178 291-11 178-323--13 Dick Kagasoff Edward M Robison et al 1.7065 Edgewater Lane 16967 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 178-291-12 178-323-05 178-323-14 Grace H'Eye Fashion Inc M E S T A Michael Moulton 2999 Westminster Avenue 328 S Atlantic B1v d 16971 Edgewater Lane Suite 200 Suite 203A Huntington Beach, Calif Seal Beach, Calif 90740 Monterey Park, Calif 91754 92649 `,`]Y7291-13 178-323-06 178-323-15 Theodore R Johnson John A Magliana Alexander Googooian 17073 Edgewater Lane 4085 Aladdin Drive 16975 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-323-07 178-323-16 Continental Conveyance Corp Victor J Bueeola q/oRick Annigoni 16979 Edgewater Lane 8907 Warner Ave., #105 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 92649 178-323-17 178-322-30 Russell J Maiorana Joseph E Ribal 16985 Edgewater Lane Area of Concern 2.4 16908 Fk&pewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 178-322-15 178-322-22 178-322-31 Rudolph Vedder R B Moorehead Jr Jack L Osteen 17028 Edgewater lane 16972 Edgewater Lane 16902 Edgwater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-322-16 178-322-23 178-336-08 Stephen A Cirillo Richard D Ritchie Frederick Gates 17020 Edgewater Lane 16964 Edgewater Lane 17076 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-322-17 178-322-24 178-336-09 Char&es W Ford James R Evans Addison C Bowers 17012 Edgewater Lane P.O. Boat 345 17084 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Lewiston, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 96052 92649 178-322-18 178-322-25 178-336-10 Ross A de la Haye Randall G Cox Fred W Harris 17004 Edgewater Lane 16948 Edgewater Lane 10792 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-322-19 178-322-26 178-336-11 Mary Maybc}c Alan M Petersen Robert W Sherry 16996 Edgewater Lana 16940 Edgewater Lane 17100 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-322-20 178-322-27 178-336-12 Steven D Atkinson Bu Y Lee 16932 Edgewater Lane 17108 Edgewater Lane Huntingtoni Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 V -322-20 178-322-28 178-336-13 Albert R Pierce , Betty J Hansen Jo Ann Cohen 16988 Edgewater Lane P.O. Box 1091 17116 Edgwater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif `92649 92647 92649 118-•322-21 178-322-29 178-337-06 Louis C Rabutri -Thanas H Welch C George Lippincott Jr 16980 Edgwater Lane 16916 Edgewater Lane 17036 Edgwater Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-337-07 930-820-12 Area of Concern 2.4 Jane M Gingig 3985 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 178-337-07 930-820-05 930-820-13 Luis A Cardenas NonTen R Stanger Sandra J Karses 17044 Edgwater Lane 3957 AUddin Drive 3989 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-337-08 930-820-06 930-820-14 Rcbert M Kaitz Clifford G Raab Albert B Herbold 3681 Seasoape Drive 3961 Aladdin Drive 3993 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-337-09 930-820-07 930-820-15 Frank Weber Gloria Quintana Emil P Fleschner 17060 Edgewater Lane 3965 Aladdin Drive 3997 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 178-337-10 930-820-08 930-820-16 Harold A Voigt John S Broomfield et al 17068 Edgwater Lane all 4001 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 930-820-01 930-820-08 930-820-17 Philip J Lawry Robert D ZWaddell Ben Hansen 3941 Aladdin Drive 3969 Aladdin Drive 4005 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 930-820-02 930-820-09 930-820-18 Le Ray C Moser _ John R Penner Charles A Busceni 233 E Pomona Blvd. 3974 Aladdin Dive 4009 Aladdin Drive M3nterey Park, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 93754 92649 92649 930-820-03 930-820-10 930-820-19 James H Cohen Clifford G Raab Bertram W Nielsen P.O. Box 10101 3977 Aladdin Dive 16791 Coral Coy Lane Santa Ana, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92711 92649 92649 930-820-04 930-820-11 930-820-20 Lewis Solwlow Thomas C Heine Lloyd G Gagnon 144 S Glendale Avenue 31U Belair Dr #8-D 4021 Aladdin Drive Glendale, Calif Las Vegas, Nevada Huntington Beach, Calif 91205 89109 92649 930-820-47 930-820-63 Frank G Comstock et al Area of Concern 2.4 Stanley J Pavlick c b Union Bank 4038 Aladdin Drive 7R #3022380', Huntington Beach, Calif P.O. Box 2193 Term Annex 92649 Los Angeles, Calif 930-820-55 930-820-64 90051 Donald E Anderson Elmer R Erdnann 4002 Aladdin Drive 4042 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 930-820-48 930-820-56 930-820-65 John A Carabillo Richard W Zbbin Dam Andeeton c/o Don Byrnes 4006 Aladdin Drive 4046 Aladdin Dive 3970 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 QQaA S� 930-820-49 930-820-57 930-820-66 Dale O Berkihiser John T Rutherford O Allen Alpay 3978 Aladdin Drive 4010 Aladdin Drive 4050 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 930-820-50 930-820-58 930-820-67 Edward D King Edward Givins Patricia Adams 3982 Aladdin Drive 4014 Aladdin Drive 4058 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 930-820-51 930-820-59 930-820�-68 Lary R Smith Charles E DeCola Dept of Vets Affairs of 17046 Marina Bay Drive 4018 Aladdin Drive State of Calif Huntington Beach, 'Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Donald N Miller 92649 92649 4062 Aladdin Drive 930-820-52 930-820-60 Huntington Beach, Calif Marl' E Keg Rodney Morison 4 Morin Drive 92649 3990 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 930-824--53 930-820-61 930-820-69 Don DeSilva James M Warren Lloyd H Swanson 5010 E Broadway 4030 Aladdin Drive 4066 Aladdin Drive LmV Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 90803 92649 92649 936-820-54 930-820-62 930-820-70 Nielsen Citrus Products Co.,Ir_c Henry J Primanti Franklin Klein c 6 B W Nielsen 10947 S Valley Hare Avenue 4070 Aladdin Drive 16791 Coral Cay Lane Whittier, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 90603 92640 930-820-71 930-820-87 cc Area of Concern 2.4 Louise Wickman 4013 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 930-820-71 930-820-79 930-820-88 Edwin Parker M J Aubernan Robert C Knutson 4013 Aladdin Drive 5464-B Paseo Del Lago E 4017 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Lagena Hills, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92653 92649 930-820-72 930-820-80 930-820-89 Scott T MacDonald Donald J Everitts J Gary Jasco 3949 Warner Avenue 3985 Warner Avenue 1935 Greenview Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif La Verne, Calif 92649 92649 91750 930-820-73 930-820-81 930-820-90 Gertrude E Hries Miriam Litman Donald A Darling 3953 Warner Avenue 3989 Warner Avenue c/o Sunset Aquatic Marina Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif P.O. Box 538 92649 92649 Sunset Beach, Calif 90742 930-820-74 930-820-82 930-820-91 Ray Levine Alice L Bult Joseph W Redd Jr 3957 Warner Avenue 3993 Warner Avenue 4033 Warner Avenue Hunt r,gtm Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 930-820-75 930-82-83 93082092 Donald K Creghton Daniel M. Culnane Jack L Sullivan 3961 Warner Avenue 3887 Warner Avenue #83 4037 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 930-820-76 930-820-84 930-820-93 Janea'A White Joan Kr»M Stanley L Chandler 3989 W®tW hwx* 4001 Warr*r Avtmm 4041 Ww"r Averw Hur&jxigtcn 9each, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 930-82�47 930-820-85 930-820-94 Earl 0 Granger Olivier E Hadley Morris Stone jM 9 ,63 er Avenue 4005 Warner Avenue Robert A Villa n Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 4045 Warmer Avenue 9 92649 Hmtingten Beach, Calif 92& 03 820-78 930-820-86 930-820-95 Dqu-JAl P Steen Gayle R Holman Lloyds Calif Bank 3977 4arrier AwxAw 17461 Lido Lane Trust #6492-86737-00 ,nhgton Beach, Calif Huntington on Beach, Calif P.O. Box 54136 Term Annex 92649 92647 Los Angeles, Calif 90054 930-820-96 Fred E Rhyme Area of Omx er 2.4 4057 Warner Avenue Huntington Beac i,. Ca I i f 92649 930-820-97 Philip H Gabel 4061 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 930-820-98 Le Ray c Riehl 4065 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 930-820-99 Richard H Donnelly 4069 Wainer Avenue Hunt mgton Beach, Calif 92649 930-820-100 Ada`G Lafey 4073„Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 Orange County Grand Jury 700 Civic Center Dr. West Santa Ana, Calif. 92701 Attn: Lauren W. Leonard C.C. Bennett D164 Courtney Lane Huntington Beach, California 92649 la.. 'i P It-�oGrDe wr' 930-820-21 1• 930-820-38 Frank V Hoffman ___ Kenneth H Kirk 4025 Aladdin Drive 4093 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 930-820-22 930-820-30 930-820-39 Mary C Michelis et al Donald B Robertson Mary R Slawson 1420 Crestview Avenue 4061 Aladdin Drive 4097 Aladdin Drive Seal Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 90740 92649 92649 930-820-23 930-820--31 930-820-40 Henry F White Frank R. Bush Frank R. Bush 4033 Aladdin Drive 4065 Aladdin Drive 4101 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 930-820-24 930-820-32 930-820-43 Rayrnond S Carl Willis C George Dept of Vets Affairs of 4037 Aladdin Drive 4069 Aladdin Drive State of Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif David E Milton 926U 92649 3950 Aladdin Drive 930-820-25 930-820-33 Huntington Beach, Calif William E Nelson Ralph T Thompson 92649 4041 Aladdin Drive 16762 Baruna Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 930� 820-26 930-820-34 930-820-44 G Stanley Mary E Moffatt Eleanor S Dillabough 4045 Aladdin Drive 502 Whiting Woods Rd 3954 Aladdin Driv e Huntington Beach, Calif Glendale, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 91288 92649 930-820-27 930-820-35 930-820-45 David R. Bemis Milton W Thorn Siegfried H Hamann 4049 Aladdin Drive 4081 Aladdin Drive 7881 Rosina Street Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Long Beach, Calif 92649 92649 90808 930-820-28 930-820-36 930-820-46 `JWres P Nielsen Norman Y Smith Charlotte E ScIvartz 4053 Aladdin Drive 4085 Aladdin Drive 3962 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntingbonn Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 930-820-29 930-820-37 or ra ,�4 rdd C Hubbard Jr Elda M B� 7 v'4TI r r wst 57 Aladdin Drive 4089 Aladdin D ri.v+e � � n 9 0 ngbon Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calift rd 49 �-''9 92649 Ito/ -Z r1 .Qa-*-r� Publish January 6, 1983 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT 82-1 / AREA 2.2 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 ? : 3p P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 17 th , day of January , 19 83. for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan (LUE #82-1) and Environmental Impact Report 82-3 (EIR #82-3) as follows: Redesignate 26. 6 acres located north of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street from open space to medium density residential. A legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said LUE 82—1, EIR 82—3 Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED January 4, 1983 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk '� 1=glllllll NOW IIIIIIIIIIII .► II �� � IIIIIIIIIIII -- � :11� uiiuullu _ ��' : �►� IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII °IIIIIIIIIIII`IIIIIIIIII� — riiilaum 'IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIII'I'� :===-,: I � �•� riiiiluuual— Il�ill�llil Illllllu~IIIIII—ilillii SAM �, nnllllllll.nnnuuu nnuunu.nnnnui l I � �! — luullluu iu'iium II DUSTRI VIA IIIIISIIII� �1�111111 TALBERT �L 0 `'' MI-CD 11R s RI RI CF-R CF-R MI-CD (HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PAPK( � MI-CD RA-0-CD MI MI RI RA-O-CD RI O-CD CF-C MI U-0-CD LU LU-0-CD -C L O-C W3 R RI LU-0-CD 0-CD z MI—CD MI O -O-CDl0D-C LU-0-C LU-0-CD U-0-co MI5 MI-O-CD 'EMI-oI R2 RA-CD LU-o*cD RA-O-CD M' -CD Lu o RA-0-CD �� RA-a-CD $ M� RA-CD 3 Mo A-0 M 1-.0 RA-0 PA-0RA-O- MI-0 W LU-0-CD RA-0-CD "i MI-0 CO 33 a URA-a N-CDA-CD MI-o MI-0 M2-01.d RA-01 RA-0-CD �' R5 f r R5- e " RA-O-CD � °°°f � � FR 5: I RA-0 R 5?i - — -- 7 /TT — AV E. GA RFIELD Existing Zoning Area of Concern 2 .2 U 0 0 16 Figure 2-5 110-170-15 111-102-13 City of Huntington Beach Area of Concern 2.2 C G Blair October 29, 1982 (JH) Carl E Blair 3166 Parkview Springfield, Mo. 65804 110-180-02 Ul-072-18 A C Marion Hun M.D. Janes Co., Inc P.O. Box n Tax �i�Beach Qmpany 2950 Airway Ave., Suite D9 Huntington Beach, Calif 225 Bush Street Costa Mesa, Calif 92626 92648 San Francisco, Calif 94120 110-210-01 111-101-02 William Landis Angelina M Giacalone 1180 S Beverly Drive 248 N Patton Avenue Los angeles, Calif San Pedro, Calif 90035 90732 111-071-05 111-101-05 Ocean View Mushroom Growers Inc Cleora Hotchkiss 18196 Goldenwest Street 2300 Canyon Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Hollywood, Calif 92648 90068 111-071-25 111-101-07 Mabel H Bradley Alpha V Counts P.O. Box 270 Doltle C Gilbert Huntington Beach, Calif 20112 Imperial Cove Lame 92648 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 111-071-26 111-101-20 Richard J Pariseau Margaret E Westover et al 5622 Brighton Dive 504 E Washington Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Orange, Calif 92649 92666 111-071-27 111-101-26 James T Hudson Jean M Hethcock 818 14th Strebt 312 N Mansfield Huntington Beach, Calif Los Angeles, Calif 92648 90036 111-071-28 Ul-101-29 Vic ora Corp Christian F Biery Ocean View Mushroom Alan H Biery 18196 Golderniest Street 2435 Carroll Lane Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 Escondido, Calif 92025 111-072-12 111-101-31 Mola Developrent Corp Ernest L Dalany 808 Adams Avenue c/o Michael Dalany Huntington Beach, Calif 631 E Orangegrove Avenue 92648 Sierra Madre, Calif 91024 AGE, �4 l Publish January 6, 1983 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT 82-1/AREA 2.5 ZONE CASE 82-17 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 17 th day of January 19 83. for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan (LUE #82-1) , Environmental Impact Report (EIR #82-3) and Zone Change No. 82-17 (ZC #82-17) as follows : Redesignate 5. 6 acres located west of Gothard Street between Ocean- view High School and the City Maintenance Yard from general industrial to medium density residential. Re-zone the same property (ZC #82-17) from M1 (Light Industrial District) to MH (Mobile Home District) or Ml-MHP (Light Industrial District with Mobile Home Park overlay) . . A legal description is on file in the Office of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said LUE 82— 1 , EIR 82-3, ZC 82-17 Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED January 4, 1983 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk � Y M I MI RI ;4--- -- R3 R3 R3 R3 - CF-E 1 ¢ (" (PARK VIEW SCHOOL) M I O Rwn DII u M I CF-R R3 R3 R2 casuK e• �` s (Muast cr•�M:la�-rPAsrl R3 R3. - C4,•, O. C. F. G D C6-I 3 6.e C2 R3 2 dc J R3 R"" R2 o C2 R3 R 54 MI N -� R3LLK c R2C23 e J � WARNER M I 1:7 ; w flRR2DR R 5 N CAIM WE R2 " so C4-MS so CF-E N N (HIGH SCHOOL) M i M i i I R 2" R 2 W J I - I - R2 CF-R w w CEDAR AV! Lj R2 I 2 0 MI ; R2� R 2 I CF-ERI RI R3 ------ seo rA E arrr I M I ' M I I (;IaK VIEW SCHOOL)� � K CR RI R3 R3 u C 4 RI RI RI RI RI CF-C URM 3 I r-'Irr YARD - R3 ronD LI 3 I In RI •sr.a TO�L � nRl-CD � RI-CD RA �■ � � � � � � a � RI-CD RI-CD Po-CD I R3 R3 R3 R3 R3 'fJ -R :Ij MI-CD °• MH C r R •o RA-CD r - DEER �Y - Q✓ n ���€ R2 a M.1 � .o CF-R - M I tR3 R2 ~C4 I:;i:!1 f:N!i'fi1N i:E:PI7P.A:,ib`.Iil:) ..4LO' '� •i sMl Existing Zoning ; , Area of Concern 2 .5 o . 0 44 Figure 2-12 Property west of the area of concern is designated low density residential and developed with single family homes. A cul-de-s c within this residential development abuts the west end of the subject site: 2.5.2 Analysis 1. Land Use Beachview Mobile Home Park can con inue to operate on the area of concern as a legal, non-conforming usunder any of the three land use alternatives. The park contains 81 coaches and has a current population of 117 persons with one vacant coach. Should the mobile home park recy a to a new use, the existing general industrial designation could result ' approximately 92,411 square feet of light manufacturing uses. Given t,'e size and configuration of the subject site, it is likely that the develop {ent would consist of small-scale tenants (i.e., 8,000 square feet per tent or less) such as light manufacturing, wholesale, machine and auto repair shops. These types of uses would generate approximately 100/Ifd .loyees. A change of use under a loensity residential designation on the site could result in a maximuvelopment of 39 residential units. This would generate an estimapopulation of 110. A medium density residential designation woallow a maximum of 84 units and an estimated population of 236 Land Use Compatibility The existing mobile home par on the subject site is compatible with the low density residential developm t to the west. To the north, the Ocean View High School parking lot abu s a portion of the area of concern, and playing fields are adjacent to the re of it. Some problems due to the close proximity of the school baseball dia and have been experienced by mobile home park residents. A greater pots ntial for incompatibility exists with the City Maintenance Yard south of� he subject site. Complaints from mobile home park residents have been receiv d by the City about noise from the activities of an industrial nature that occu in the City Yard. The mobile home park could also be adversely impacted whie the existing older homes and mixed uses east of the subject site across Gothard Street recycle to industrial. Given the age of existing development in this area, it is likely that recycling could begin to occur in the forseeable future. The existing general din ustrial designation on the subject site could allow recycling to light indus rial development. This would be consistent with the City's stated goals of're�taining industrial zoning on properties so classified and developing Gothard tr�eet as an industrial corridor. Industrial use on the subject site would be compatible with the City Yard to the north and with the area east of Gob and Street when it recycles to industrial uses. 5 43 -)5-2],2-16 •:y T Peterson }CQGGi t/l�iLlJ 1321 Canna Circle ant.ington Beach, Calif 2647 _1-101-01 165-=,08 lntington Beach Uiion High Trudy J Garland :pool District General Plan - Area of concern 17332 Canna Circle -U2 17th Street 2.5 Huntington Beach, Calif ,ntington Beach, Calif 92648 92647 .1-101-33 165-211-03 165-212-09 ,gan A Boggs Diercksmeier, Charles F Jr. G S Bradley ,7 E Green Street Suite 207 17471 Beach Blvd 17322 Cama .Circle .sadena, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 Hunt ington .lUl Beach, Calif 92647 _1-010-70 165-211-04 165-212-10 w Rarx3all Lois P Butters Mon Son Hsu Rue Du Parc 6643 Dolores Drive 18215 Alive Lane wort Beach, Calif Paradise, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif _660 95969 92647 '-1-010-71 165-211-05 169-212-ll - °o Inc Roberta J Duke James M Kury 60 Wilshire Blvd. 7121 Betty Drive 17292 Canna Circle ;s Angeles, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington 'U1U 92647 92647 Beach. Calif `1-023-15 165-212-01 165-212-12 C Williams Jeffrey A Beltz Kenneth R Livingston 112 Cedar 7172 Betty Drive 17282 Canna Circle jntuxJton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 't)47 92647 92647 -1-023-17 165-212-02 165-212-13 Lland Investment Vincente M Nafarrette Stanley J Cohen Mies One Limited 3571 Teaberny Circle 17291 Canna Circle .o. Box 1841 Seal Beach, Calif -ange, Calif 92666 90740 92647 on Beach, Calif 92647 i1-032-35 165-212-03 165-212-14 _ty of Huntingbon8each Annie Wolfinger Dept of Vets Affairs of 7142 Betty Drive California Huntington Beach, Calif Terry S Leach 92647 17291 Canna Circle �5-211-01 165-212-04 Huntington Beach, Calif .somas McAda _71 Betty Dige 77132rBett L Higbee 92647 sntirxlton Beach, Calif HuntingtonBeach, Cali£ -'647 92647 ,35-211-02 165-212-05 165-212-15 ital F Szylvian Scott W Goedike John Schaedel ,L61 Betty Dive 7122 Betty Drive 17311 Canna Circle mtington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif �'647 92647 92647Huntington Beach. Calif 42 Publish January 6 . 1983 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT 82-1 AREA 2.6 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 17 th day of January 1983 for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan (LUE #82-1) and Environmental Impact Report 82-3 (EIR 82-3) as follows: Redesignate 1. 2 acres of property located on the southeast corner of Magnolia Street and Banning Avenue immediately north of the Orange County Flood Control Channel #Dl-1 from industrial energy production to low density residential. A legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said LUE 82— , EIR 82—3. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED January 4, 1983 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk ` RI RI I CF-R = RI I. i RI • - IRllz Isl 3I y B E �V _ __ 'ir•c RI: RI RI 11 I �. -- — ----- s ) _RI RI RA a RA-0 RI RI yL H.wl(TON R I CR I RI RI _ Gfr lc yrl(''� DII R I = RI j J R I ea.• • /� I C4. •W II DN l � M 1-A-0 RI RI RI RI RI R. RI RI RI ? R I x ': RI ept E I ` RI ` RI RI AI . P 14 Q. ; II - •.w � Lt u . we I,-•,I ft I � R I I M2-0 RI j IRl s9X "I XAMULUI OR Z CF-E RI (l At+k•t se.'H[i:;.l r•.w a w. \ M2-0 0 MA"LO a r` RI LL Z RI L.11.Kuu � NI K.V.. cq RI RI \ • oH• ne r CF-Rr RI ' BANNING — A vc� R MI-A C. ss �y✓ram h MZ—o �o -A _ • : RI RI m RI YC, RI. RI RI a o 3 RI Iwr f RI RI Al C� •3<. '71i c 0 RI RI (LUD)LIMTED USE Ro cn , u DISTRICT RI RI RI ell �r�rF LUD)LI►ATED USE RI R I 3 RI DISTRICT c `ra RI _ o L•1Li�uo o• i • c'c��Q ""r (LUD)LIMITED USE DISTRICT RI ' t .• o r I OC CA- �/� •i..j1V ',CAA rJf .M1 �C ti Existing Zoning - Area of Concern 2 .6 @2 o o . 54 Figure 2-14 High 114-481-14 Frank J Szekula Area off Concern 2.6 22011 HUla Circle f Novent)er 2, 1982 (JH) Huntington Beach, Calif *Igh 92646 114.150-36 114-481-07 114-481 15 So. Calif Edison Co. Ernest D Reason rnxxms I Lenihan 19171 Magnolia Street 22091 Susan Lane 22021 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 114-160-68 114-481-08 114-48.1-16 Daisy E H Thorpe Robert White John An3or Philip Piccirel* 22072 Hula Circle 9591 Onset Circle P.O. BOx 4187 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Mesa, Arizona 85201 92646 92646 114-481-01 114-481-09 114.481-17 Betty E Hyatt Raymond F JOnes Robert G Overtly 22001 Susan.Lane 22052 Hula Circle 22051 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 114-481-02 114-481-10 114-481--18 Harry D Howell Gerald D Riley Evelyn B Wilcox 1815 Tyon Lane 22042 Hula Circle 22071 Hula Circle Newport Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92660 92646 92646 114-481-03 114-481-11 114-2481-19 Jackson L Reynolds Kathleen A Mooney Franklin B Goodenough 22031 Susan Lane 22022 Hula Circle 9002 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 114-481-04 114-481-20 Reta Carol Cagle Don Brunk 22041'Susan Lane 9012 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 11+4-481-05 114-481-12 114-481-21 Gerald Clover Michael G. Hunter Sally A Vincenti 22061 Susan Lane 21691 Hilaria Circle 7 Land Fall Cr Huntington Beach, Calif HUntington Beach, Calif Newport Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92663 114-481-06 114-481-13 114-481-22 Christopher Valsamakis Marcel F Lourtbe Richard B Weis 22081 Susan Lane 22001 Hula Circle 9032 Christine Drive thtitington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 22646 11 -07 �- -- - -/ `/ mac, 4 aZ- �, anon. '._ . 114-481-33 Area of 0onaern 2.6 City .of Huntington Beach Nov. 2, 1982 (JH) Orange county Flood Control 149-024-01 District Gerard A Peters P.O. Box 1078. 21932 Kiowa Lane Santa Ana, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92702 ; 92646 149-023-�08 Bette M Boyd 21911 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 149-023-09 Paul S Howard 21931 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 149-023-10 David E Smith 21941 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 149-023-11 Donald J Mckinney 21961 Kiowa Lame Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 149-023--12 Julius Paldi 2M32 Windsong Circle Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 149-023-13 MMr81 Urzua 9042 Aloha Drive' H&tington Beach, Calif 92646 1d9-023-14 Ralph L Osterkamp 9052 Aloha Drive -Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 C � Christine A Padesky of Concern 2.6 Ron Smith 22022 Hula Circle WH) 22092 Susan Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 JudyCarl Hamer Resident 2202 �u'� 22052 Susan Lane 9042 Christine Drive 22021 Hula BeaCrich, Huntington Beach, Calif Huntingtonon Beach, Calif HU�ti t Death, Calif 92646 92646 92646 Resident Resident Resident 22011 Hula Circle 22011 Hula Circle 22051 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 Kathleen A Moore Ellen S White Michael A Ladd 22022 Hula Circle 22072 Hula Circle 22012 HUla Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 Resident Resident Resident 22071 Hula Circle 9012 Christine Drive 22041 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Hun 92646 92646 926t3ngt� Beach, Calif 46 Resident Resident Resident 22071 Hula Circle 9042 Christine Drive 22071 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 Resident Resident Resident 22091 Susan Lane 9052 Christine Drive 9012 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Hunt ington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 Rebecca Clover Resident Resident 22061 Susan Lane 9061 Chiistine Drive 9092 Christine Drive Arstingtm Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 Louis Malakoff Sharon Smith Resident 22032 Susan Lane 22092 Susan Lane 9102 Chiistine Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Hunk Beach, Calif 92646 92646 92646 i -m„OLA•Qe.� Resident 9092 Christine Drive Area of Concern 2.6 Huntington Beach, Calif OH) 92696 Resident 9102 Christine Drive Huntinom Beach, Calif 92646 K. E. Wysocki 9072 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 Resident 9071 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 Michael Weir 9032 Christine Drive Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 f� /�/►A (A� P��1 1 f 2 �/1 941 dj��>> Oil ; "kitg.. . � �gaVIA, A s AR JR �y s"Im b�•§ r ss a� g.y�� �y� y I oil till 3Ux 4Q 41 am 'M -nil fill I rJ fill ,. ���•� ����.•+.4 .. < ^J k y FF i -. as g Y ! Ile .e- t. � 4 a� < r tv .. � Ell I � -al • - Ov Al _4 9 elf, 1 !� a r 1 Ivuj an ill, � Ill lip :a r Alllde e a ni �jj lag day , , ! a E, ►.; a �n < o< agog c 1z �� o DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 82-1 Environmental Impact Report 82-3 � huntington beach department of development services ocrob.. test (Revised 10/26 (WISED 12/9/82) PLANNING Land Use Categories PLAG AMEN CITY COUNCIL GATE RESOLUTION.DATE RESOLUTION II-6-76 1187 12-6-76 4368 RESIDENTIAL 6-7-77 1196 8-1-77 4464 9.29-77 1202 II-7-77 4551 10 Estate <2 un/gaC 12-6-77 1206 12-19-77 4572 ✓ Estate 54 un/gaC 9-1-76 1236 8-21-78 4660 ` SLOW Density <_7un/gaC 10-21-78 1239 11-6-78 4708 `h 11 6-79 1242 12-18-78 4728 O 3E-79 1261 7-79 47ze ,mow, - " ®Medium Density <_15 un/gac 318-80 1261 4-7-80 4865 �CrO 10-21_80 1268 12-IS-60 4936 i�, �\. Sµ Medium High Density<_25un/gaC 5-19-81 1273 6-IS-81 5005 11-3-81 1278 I2-7-81 5053 `(yvf' _High Density>25 u1/gaC 11-17-81 1279 12-21-81 5060 COMMERCIAL / \ ®General Office Professional ' ®Mixed Development INDUSTRLAL General H.0_4era :::::::::::::::::.:c:;:;::::::::s;::s ;'. ::" ®:.:. ,..; PUBLIC USE Public,Quasi-Public,lnstitutional open Space . .......::::�:::::::: � PLANNING UNITS ............ =Planning Reserve i Planned Community \ ' OTHER USES R esource Production 5 rr,s �f x a� s m.cwna Zone see�aa cogs al wag /' { -2 .. N �C HIG r 1 q For Bann u,e a,IrK C..... See Loce coaa,ei Man. l I OCEAN d_.. PACIFIC ---'-�--_z��"- :'�%t� - PACIFIC iOCEAN �- �� Ad1h HUNTINGTON BE CH, C9LIFORNIA GENERAL PLAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT LAND USE DIAGRAM Adopted December 1976 Revised DEC.1981 Land Use Categories RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL =Estate s2un/gac M General ®Estate <4uNgac =Resource Production I]Low Density<_7urVgac OPEN SPACE OMediumDensity<_15unktac Water =High Density>15un/gac =Conservation COMMERCIAL U73 Recreation ®General OTHER USES MM Visitor-Serving Public,Quasi-Public,lnstitutional ®Mixed Development Ej Planned Community MIXED USES =Planning Reserve ®Office/Residential f__.'�Tndustriai . IM Commercial/Support Recreation Energy Production ----COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY hY •.,I i —_ .ecmc cosr r xwr - oc.e NOTE'General Plan designation immediately ... �apc y. L,sr ��_x:�ti-' outside the coastal zone boundary are shown rea11c j ocr.H 3- --. =.'.: fiti <...... „:..w r.-..._ - for reference purposes. layHUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA Local Coastal Program PLANNING DIVISION Land Use Plan Figure 10.10 �1 ' • x TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Methodology 1 2.0 AREAS OF CONCERN AND ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 5 2.1 Yorktown-Main Area 5 2.2 Mushroom Farm Area 13 2.3 Cambro Manufacturing Plant Area 25 2.4 Huntington Harbour Beach Club Area 33 2.5 Beachview Mobile Home Area 41 2.6 Magnolia-Banning Area 51 2.7 Density Bonus Provisions for Affordable Housing 59 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 61 3.1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 61 3.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes 62 3.3 Growth Inducing Impacts 62 APPENDICES Appendix A Fiscal Impact Land Use Assumptions Appendix B Initial Study Appendix C Air Quality Calculations Appendix D Letters of Comment Appendix E Letter from State Department of Health Services 1 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report analyzes Amendment 82-1 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 eighteenth amendment to the element. Existing general plan land uses throughout the City are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagrams. 1.1 Methodology This amendment to the Land Use Element considers requests to change the land use designations in six areas of the City (Figure 1-1). Three of the requests were from private property owners and three were initiated by the City. The first site is located northeast of the Seacliff Office Park near Yorktown Avenue and Main Street; the second site is the Mushroom Farm area north of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street; the third site is the Cambro Manufacturing Plant area north of Clay Avenue and west of Huntington Street; the fourth site is the Huntington Harbour Beach Club off of Warner Avenue; the fifth site is the Beachview Mobile Home Park located immediately north of the City Maintenance Yard on Gothard Street; the sixth site is a City-owned property near the intersection of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street. The amendment request on the six sites are 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 r 2A 2. .2 .� 2 • 3 wr,cw .6 Areas of Concern 0 O � huntington beach planning division 2 Figure 1-1 Environmental Assessment 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 82-1. An initial study addressing all six areas of concern was prepared pursuant to Section 15080 of the State Government Code to identify potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed land use designations. The E.I.R. focuses on those impacts that were determined to be significant. The environmental setting and significant impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial study are addressed under each area of concern (Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.39 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6). Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures to minimize significant effects are also discussed in these sections. Section 3.0 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 r 2 • o 2.0 AREAS OF CONCERN 2.1 YORKTOWN/MAIN STREET AREA The first area of concern addressed by Land Use Element Amendment 82-1 is a 1.52 acre parcel owned by The Huntington Beach Company, located approximately 500 feet east of Main Street and 600 feet north of Yorktown Avenue behind the existing Seacliff Office Park. (See Figure 1-1.) 2.1.1 Background The applicant, The Huntington Beach Company, has requested redesignation of the subject property from medium density residential to office professional (see Figure 2-1). This amendment analyzes both the existing and the requested designation. The area of concern is presently an 'oil island" containing five oil pumping units and is zoned R2-01-PD (medium density residential with an oil suffix and a planned development suffix) (see Figure 2-2). The -01 suffix allows drilling of new wells to occur on this parcel. Surrounding parcels have an -0 suffix which allows continued operation and the redrilling of existing wells but no new drilling. The expected life of the wells on the property in question is estimated by the property owner to be ten years. Due to the size of the subject site and the number of oil wells located on it, the site will, in all likelihood, continue to exist as an oil island until such time as the oil operations cease. The City recently approved a conditional use permit submitted by the Huntington Beach Company for construction of a parking lot to serve Seacliff Office Park. This parking lot includes a small portion of the southwest corner of the subject site. 5 .r r ;-r - i _.. ... --- _ t ll MEDIUM DENSITY , J RESIDENTIAL GLL. FLAND AVE. GENERAL i COMMERCIAL TATE OFFICE - ��� PROFESSIONAL ���� a 2 zz - d z m YORKTOWN a j PUBLIC 'USE N -- WICHITA AVE. - - - r11 -- Existing General Plan Area of Concern 2 . 1 O � O Figure 2-1 6 Property to the southwest of the subject site is designated general commercial, zoned R5-0-CD and is part of the Seacliff Office Park development. The remaining surrounding parcels are designated medium density residential and zoned R2-0-PD. These residential parcels are undeveloped except for a house owned by the Huntington Beach Company. A medium density condominium project referred to as "The Ranch" is proposed for 48 acres of this residentially zoned area. 2.1.2 Analysis 1. Land Use Under the existing general plan designation of medium density residential, a maximum of 22 units could be developed on the subject site. This would result in an estimated population of 62 persons. The requested redesignation to office professional could result in the development of approximately 17,793 square feet of office space which would generate about 29 employees. The existing medium density residential designation is compatible with the surrounding parcels similarly designated to the north, east, and southeast. If this designation is retained on the subject site, development could possibly be integrated into the proposed "Ranch" residential project. Again, however, development on the subject site will probably not occur for approximately ten years until the oil uses are phased out. By that time, the adjacent residential project will probably be completed, making integration of the subject site more difficult. Residential development on the area of concern, however, would pose no significant compatibility problem with the office development to the southwest. Development on the area of concern would be buffered by the existing parking lot that serves the office park. A redesignation of the site to office professional would be compatible with the existing Seacliff Office Park development to the southwest. Office development on the subject site could probably be easily integrated into the existing office park. Any potential impacts to surrounding residential uses from office development on the subject. site could likely be mitigated by design and/or buffering (i.e., screening, setbacks, etc.). 2. Economic Considerations Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the two 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, 1982-1992. The land use assumptions are detailed in Appendix A. The results are summarized in the table below: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Cash Flow Basis Medium Density Residential Office Professional Revenue (1) 177.23 37.36 Cost (1) 136.33 104.08 Revenue minus cost (1) 40.90 -66.72 Revenue/cost 1.30 .36 (1) in $1,000 7 I J IGARFIELD I I I �_ i AVE.I 30 1 r R2 530�, - RA-0 CI MI F R 5AO se Mi R2s a C2 ` R2 R 2 ri o RA-0 — .- O - 'R!l N LINE BLM 3003 Al001 R Q RA-0 9 G — E 5 .a-- R2 C4, R2 R 2 - r W R2 _ R - �gJ R2 :,4 Mi R2 3o R oLr mWr -PEct 2 - J _PLAN(DISTRICT L) 300.12 Zeal CLAY sa•«n' - AVE. C2-O_ n.n/ 35d pp 25 r- •.,:-H. I ; R3 " D o R3 cz . y� e o R 2 b. /R2—,O—PD ` O PC Q �IIO R-2p R2 R4 N LINE TR 3950 N R2 A« IR2.0 PD Q Q , —OWEA--_ AVE. C2-0-CD �!° E R Is RNA IR R2 Dz. C2-0 50� :o Rz oEPp 3 R I $ T�__-5• " 66 ; MILL IANS AVE-OIC0n251uj e z 93d R2 R2 R2 - R5-0-CD R2-0-r1)-CD c� .12�_C2-0 CD Ncr Q OW � r ez � C4eo� TORaTOWN ..r•Y;s'[ — _ AVE. 3•,.9e T e — -- 1N C21 pR R1-d-ro l Y jC4 .ANksra" R2-0 2 0 �- CF-E-CD R2-0-CD 5°1 A C cN�TA - VE R 2 sCF-E-CD ` N -cD o� R2-0 R2 R2 I 1 U - � O O -CD-O CF-E oG cD o I VENAL -CD 0O Q �� PR4330--_-CD-OUTICA0 VE. e CD 01� R2 0 R2 0 � $ RI d p � � - DO CF-R RI RI RI RI RI R2 -CD-0 ! 0l..ISTO o 0 CD 0 41 IoF d RN�i oa No!O-O 'O An SA iERI-0 CO SPRINGFIELD IC �o -R a I R2 rC4 �- L� Q �O z RI RI RI RI RIR2 -o o RI-0 RD R AVE ��III aLL I O I-0 0I i-0 10 0 0 0 •.?o', y oy '� �L u JUT J�a� � R O R3-0 a � R2 yL - - RFO RI ADAMS i t AVE I Existing Zoning Area of Concern 2 . 1 o � o Figure 2-2. E r� t I � 4 As the table shows, over a ten year period the residential alternative would generate a surplus to the City of approximately $40,900 and the office professional would generate a deficit of approximately $66,720. 3. Housing A designation of office professional on the area of concern would remove 1.52 acres from the City's stock of potential areas for residential development. This would not have a significant impact on the City's capability to provide medium density housing. Retaining the existing medium density residential designation would retain 1.52 acres of the City's stock of potential areas for residential development. This may enhance the City's potential to provide for affordable housing units. However, because of the small number of units involved, the impact on affordable housing would not be significant. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. An eight inch City sewer line exists south of the area of concern. This line presently serves the Seacliff Office Park. The City's Public Works Department has indicated that adequate capacity in this line exists to accommodate development on the subject site under either alternative analyzed. In addition, an eight inch sewer line extends north of Yorktown Avenue east of Main Street. Again, adequate capacity exists to serve development on the subject site if it ties into this line. b. Storm Drains A drainage retention basin exists west of the area of concern. Currently, this is used to accommodate drainage from Seacliff Office Park. The drainage basin empties into a storm drain in Yorktown Avenue. According to the City's Public Works Department, adequate capacity exists in both facilities to serve development on the subject site under either alternative. C. Water Existing water mains in the vicinity of the subject site include 12 inch lines along Yorktown and Main Streets, as well as 12, 15, and 42 inch lines north of the subject site along Clay Avenue. The City's Water Division has indicated that existing water mains are expected to be adequate for either of the two alternatives analyzed. d. Parks The Community Services Department has indicated that the area of concern will be adequately served by existing or planned community parks. There are currently no neighborhood parks in the immediate vicinity. However, if the site remains medium density residential it will likely be served by the open space provided in the "Ranch" project. In addition, community parks will be developed in the near 9 future at the intersection of Main Street and Utica Avenue and between Huntington and Delaware Streets just north of Yorktown Avenue. These parks will serve the subject area also. e. Police and Fire Protection The City's Police and Fire Departments have indicated that the alternatives analyzed for the area of concern will not create any problems with police or fire protection, or require a significant change in personnel. f. Schools The Huntington Beach City School District has indicated that the residential alternative analyzed for the subject site would not generate a significant number of students. The Huntington Beach High School District has adequate capacity to accommodate students generated by the residential alternative. g. Gas and Electrical Utilities, Phone Service The Southern California Gas Company, the Edison Company, and General Telephone have responded that provision of services to the area of concern poses no problem under either land use alternative. h. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City. No local service constraints are expected under either of the alternative uses analyzed. 5. Traffic and Circulation The area of concern is located near the northeast corner of Yorktown Avenue and Main Street. Present traffic count on Yorktown Avenue is 5,000 vehicles per day. The current traffic load on Main Street is 13,300 vehicles per day. Maximum capacity of both Main Street and Yorktown Avenue is 40,000 vehicles per day. Projected future traffic volumes from the area of concern are as follows: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation .medium density residential 147 trips/day office professional 438 trips/day Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982. Traffic generated by the area of concern under either development alternative would not significantly affect Main Street or Yorktown Avenue or the Main/Yorktown intersection presently or in the forseeable future. 10 f � 4 The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) has indicated that existing bus routes can adequately serve the area of concern under either land use alternative. 6. Environmental Issues a. Noise The area of concern is exposed to an exterior noise level of 60, which is within the normally acceptable range for residential uses. This should pose no constraint to either residential or office professional development. Noise generated from the site is not expected to be significant. 2.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the site be redesignated office professional as the applicant has requested. The subject site can likely be more easily integrated into the existing office park development than into a residential area. Redesignation to office professional will create no significant compatibility problems with surrounding uses, nor will it adversely impact existing streets or community facilities. 2.1.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the site be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to Office Professional. 11 *1 2. 2 MUSHROOM FARM AREA (Pages 13--23). THIS SECTION WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION IN JANUARY, 1983. f • � 2.3 CAMBRO MANUFACTURING PLANT AREA The third area of concern addressed by Land Use Amendment B2-1 is a 19.4 acre site located north of Clay Avenue between the Pacific Electric right-of-way and Huntington Street south of Garfield Avenue (see Figure 1-1). 2.3.1 Background The applicant, Cambro Manufacturing Company, requested a redesignation of their property from medium density residential to general industrial. City staff expanded the amendment area to include all property north of the Cambro plant to Garfield Avenue. The expanded site includes vacant property owned by the Huntington Beach Company and the City's water facility, bringing the total site to approximately 19.4 gross acres. (See figure 2-6.) The existing (residential) and requested (industrial) land use designations are both being considered in this analysis. At the present time, Cambro Manufacturing Company occupies the southern portion of the property area. North of Cambro is a vacant parcel of land with some oil production owned by the Huntington Beach Company. The remaining property north to Garfield is occupied by the City's water facility and includes a reservoir, office building and equipment yard. The entire project area is currently designated medium density residential in the City's General Plan (Figure 2-7). Zoning on the site is Light Industrial (M-1) on the Cambro property with the remainder of the amendment area zoned Medium Density Residential (R-2) (Figure 2-8). If an industrial general plan designation is selected, it should be accompanied by a zone change to industrial for that portion of the site currently zoned R-2. The area north of the study site is designated office professional. Properties to the east, west and south of the amendment area are designated medium density residential. A planned residential development ("The Ranch") has been proposed by the Huntington Beach Company for the property south of Clay Avenue between Main and Huntington Streets. This project has not yet been approved but proposes development of residential units at a medium density with private ,recreation centers and common open space. The property east of the project includes a mobile home park (Huntington Mobile Estates), some apartment buildings and single family residential units. Immediately west of the project area is the Pacific Electric right-of-way, and adjacent to that is the Pier Pointe condominium development which includes 159 units. 25 PLANNING ZONING D1i t 5 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 2-6- 11 IN- - - FEET . :Calf ADOPTED MARCH 7,1960 NOTE: ` CITY 0 F A5 DINEN90NS aRE .N:Eft aY CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 754 Y ZONE ADJOINING a OF w AMENDED ORD.N0. AMENDED OIRD NO, IUF INrE I R TO EA AAX TO cENrev sucH Ic"r of 6-20-60 773 2-2I-66 1186 LEGEND: 7-I8-ED 781 10-3-66 1256 � SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH 798 2-. 6' 1527 R2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 2-20-61 817 2 17-69 1474 Fes- COMMUNITY FACILITIES(EDUCATIONAL)DISTRICT lo-G E-5-61 844 Io_I9 69 1606 RS RESIDOFFIC-NTJAL SIONALAGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 6-19-61 847 10-19-70 I606 AMENDED �NQ 9-18-61 868 3-15-71 I639 -M RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA '->s 2D63 I I_6_6I 676 2-2D-71 691 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 6-21-76 207I 5-7-62 900 12-6-71 1687 M2 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AMENDED ORD NO 7-19-76 2-4 5-21-62 903 7-17-72 1760 C2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: R40-7B 2328 8.16-76 2107 6-4-62 907 7-17-72 1762 © H—WAY COMMERCIAL 8-20-]9 2391 921-76 2126 10-15-62 932 9-$-72 1775 R3 LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT b8,123,138,147,176,177,178, '-I6-el 2477 1-3-77 2153 12_3-62 938 12=17-73 1889 © NE—BORNOOD COMMERCIAL 179,I80,143,200,206,212,237, -6-BI 24'. 12-61 2135 1-7-63 947 10-1$-73 1876 ® MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 244.248.269,2132,288,302,331, 4-lea? 2171 2-4-63 950 8-4-75 1999 COMMUNITY FACILITIES(CIVIC)DISTRICT 333,379,473,505.545.66-40, --- sETeacF LINE 6-20-7T 2202 6-2-63 9768 978 8-4-75 2000 66-I8,68-52,69-23,70-10,70-26, 1I-(sac ''-29 1-6-64 1026 8-4-75 2002 = COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION ' 71.-18,71.`.:32,72-16(F),72-16(L),72-23,73-22,73-20,75-3A,75-3B,75-30,75-3E,PPA.75-2,76-4,76-07,76-12,7,-15,76-I13,l?-77 ii°a 10-5-64 1090 8-4-75 2003 -01 ®—OSE PLAN CF STREET ALIGN - 7178-168 6B,PPA 75-8,76-22,76-24,PPA-76-4,77-1,77-B,PPA-76-8,PPA-76-6D,77.3A;78-2,77-13,77-14,78-13,PPA 79-3,80-16, 9i3-]r 7 4-5-65 1132 9-23-75 2004 CO CIVIC DISTRICT ��—OLDTOwN SPEC6IC PLAN q.q_7j 7,7, 4-19-76 2054 [_� ' `t�72� 6-7-76 062 IGARFIELD I 1 1 / a-7-76 2063 6-7-76 o7o E_ 1 I AV .1 L ---- — 07. Da nRA 0�S c1 CITY R°5 F + 2 n R2' S ::b ,D, r-- -- WATER FACILITY R5 NeLeti a oA , 74 D o Mi R2 R --as..... -. C2 o RA-0 R2 .:.. I ED :: yy o -- `R2 ''.,::." I �T N UINE BLR 3003 83004 - \ ram.. E_S.V-TR. 2 RA- VACA T STAFF I CLUB ON R2 S°' C4! R2 R2 R2 c^M�sRo ORIGI AL A e R2 " mg, a z OLC T�MN^ CFI o 2 $ PLAN(DISTRICT I.) R2 3oo lz zeDlz CLAY >•L«-,s5'-.I -- -- C2-0- a3�'" J4 AVE. ' ^'C2-LIf^ R-P 425 +v.. ) R3 224- D o R2 - R3 C2 —s---- ; Cl ter la R2 R4 2 R 2 • R2-0-PD O 130 �_20 NLINE TR 3950 r� ° R�OPD o o I 290 -OWEN-- AVE. C2-0-CD 4 e a RI RI s '�'O C2-0 --z+Ef= � N (VI cLEYEl ano R IAIA cR C2 3 9i:o" r C RI R 2 a 5 so R2(N FDryo H Esc'— R1 3 WILLIAM5 AVE. to C2-OICR IL _I _ ^Tw V. E TR 3950 I .254 i'f Z -�sy:"-- ... ' R2 R__2f i ILLeo RZ - R5-0-CD R2-0-s� D o R2 33o 9C20 N 3 S R2C 4 Di YORKTOWN 230 _— AVE. 34>.9e "9RroI6cD o C2 W2-O Calow. CF—C 3,oCF E CD R2-o-cD 50 GNIrA---- R2 C 2,,: f oCF-E-CD R2-0 R2 R2 aY GR. CF-E o� o o cICL i O . 1 -CD-0 VENICL -CD-o I Q� a CD-0 A I Y _. — ___ U11C4FT- '�� _lC�D-01�Q f�II--^�II� f RI 001J R2-0 15 vE. ,�"�V - - I -CID Ol �-�I^'V I-� i i v'Ds —V+ CF R RI RI RI RI RI R2 CD-0 I -�HU�_7o---" _ ! o o I :,I N o . cD-o- 0 D 1II -- - 1 (IIII SPRINGFILLD IF R2 -C4 q... / o o D o allo N _� .. -J ' �I�o -o o _ l ,,onvnNlu I R1 .�'r: V4\d~0":L P`o d � I..--_-�l_ _IL� D• (1: .._I i z RI RI RI RI RI R2 -o ROCHfSTEH All •R1-° '...`4/t„`4~4. SOQy^ w mL_O JI o A,II: RI-o _ off. o)��LL0�1 -O ED ' r a _ '_— R3-I --- ,T. 1 . . ]RI'O RI AV —� F 26 Area of Concern Three Figure 2-6 /1 OFFICE PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL z WJ � O GARFIELD bo MEDIU ENSITY RESIDENTIAL O � � 1 ['71 71 N GLEUl4tv0 AVE Existing General Plan Area of 'Concern 2 . 3 O �o C� o 0 o - Figure 2-7 27 4'a. RI) R2 /. -Rao-- no o R3 $ y \ COW2000RE CR M2-0 R3 -6804 - S28M TO IW _ MI-0 0 R R3" R2 j (DISTRICT J�-0 Two) f{ a N.LN.LM i m TN i• o NO RA-0 MI-0 W 2" (DISTRICT ~ ONE) /�AVE MI a R5 '�� j C4 . N MI-0-CD ACIFICA NITY PLAN .. (DI ICT ONE) R3 MI-0 MI-0 M2-0I . T = -A-CD � 'a R5 J � + 1 A_ Rs J R5= R2 J Jao e R R2 R2 R2 �`�. o s R3 " p R2 LL V RA O_ GARFIELD_ R5 R2 $ ' R2 N Mi R2 R5 : :RN;,�9�NA>:., C2 o RA-0 __ R2 R2 I m u R2 N-E BlN 3003 9b04 149 Ai1Sf A 1 Q , RA-O .. E S.V TA.-_..__. \2 f... R2 C* y o • i M1� R If R,� R2 2 BJ R2 0LC" ^wn SPECIFIC 2 PLAN(0)STRICT i.) CLAY •o'rt-ue'- J0012 C2-0- w pP q _S 425 AVE. - ( Fv t. - aRR2OR2 ,X R2 � c2�� R3 R4 R 2 "w L✓ R2 O'PD p 7' o 0 o N L NE T0.39J0 .. ;R20'PD I a I RI zs° C2-0-CD C2-� RI 9 �-3o n�)n��� It C r�r nwo r .wwA CR 3 � 0 R 2 so to e�x aNT_se 3s ae'r La -R2aPo RI e~ Z - TRRI385o MILIIAN'5 AVES , 44o-?T 2J4- znS wr5aseww Iesa.,,« V p Q Jew R2 R2 R2 J�i DIN C2-0-CDR5-O-CD R2-0-,rVCD N N a"�� R2 3 E _ $goi °C Cr R3 a Rz C4ao j YORMTOWN r_•c - - AV C2 �R2� 9a7PAC9 C F—C R2-O L.-_l.0 -:aT CF E CD R2-0-CD — � 1aITA—�-�AVE R A R2 C 2 ;CF-E-cD Existing Zoning R2 R2 �R Area of Concern 2.3 Lo.� •o 0 o 28 Figure 2-8 Analysis 1. Land Use Under the existing medium density residential designation, 291 units could be developed on the site if it were totally vacant. Such a development could add 517 people and would be compatible with the surrounding land uses as they are predominately medium to high density residential. However, as previously mentioned, Cambro Manufacturing Company and the City's water yard currently occupy portions of this site. These uses have effectively committed the majority of the site to light industrial uses for the foreseeable future. Additionally, the project applicant, Cambro Manufacturing Company, would like to expand its existing operation and is negotiating with the Huntington Beach Company for the purchase of the property adjacent to the existing plant for this expansion. Since it is unlikely that either of these uses will recycle, the only area remaining for residential development is that portion of the site between Cambro and the City water yard. This vacant site could accommodate approximately 97 units if developed at medium density. However, this particular site would not be an optimal location for residential use as there could be compatibility problems from noise and odor. The second alternative is to designate the entire site industrial. Approximately 125,000 square feet of building space could be constructed in the area that is now vacant. From a land use perspective, an industrial designation would not be the most compatible use adjacent to residential. However, in this case because industrial facilities already exist, a redesignation to industrial would make the existing uses consistent with the General Plan. Historically, neither the City's water facility nor the Cambro operation have presented severe compatibility problems in terms of traffic, noise or odor, and to date the City has received no complaints from neighboring residents. The site is buffered on three sides by streets and on the fourth by the Pacific Electric right-of-way. Should an expansion of existing facilities or development of new industrial occur, maximum screening and noise attenuation measures should be incorporated into the design to insure compatibility. This is especially critical on the west side where only the Pacific Electric easement separates Cambro's operation from the Pier Ponte condominiums. 2. Economic Considerations The Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the two 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, 1982-1992. The land use assumptions are detailed in Appendix A. The results are summarized in the table below: 29 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Cash Flow Basis Medium Density Residential General Industrial Revenue (1) 1,292.25 656.94 Cost (1) 1,073.25 585.47 Revenue minus cost (1) 219,00 714.7 Revenue/cost 1.20 1.12 (1) in $1,000 As the above table shows over a ten year period the residential alternative would generate a surplus to the City of approximately $219,000 and the general industrial would generate a surplus of approximately $714,700. 3. Housing A designation of medium density residential could provide an additional 291 housing units to the City's housing stock if the site totally recycled, or 97 units if only the vacant portion of the site developed. The City's Housing Element of the General Plan includes policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes. A medium density designation could expand the City's potential to provide affordable housing. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The study area is served by a 24 inch sewer located in Garfield Avenue as well as 8 inch sewers in Clay and Huntington Streets. The Public Works Department does not anticipate any difficulty in serving the project area. b. Water The area is served by a 21 inch water main in Huntington Street and a 6 inch water main in Garfield Avenue. In addition, there are two 12 inch water mains and one 42 inch water main in Clay Avenue that also provide service to the site. The Public Works Department does not anticipate any difficulty in serving the project area. C. Drainage The project site is served by a 24 inch storm drain in Garfield Avenue. The City's Department of Public Works does not anticipate that any improvements will be needed to this system. d. Parks The area of concern is served by Perry Park which is a two acre neighborhood park located approximately one mile east of the project site. A 1977 parks analysis study shows that there is a shortage of park facilities in this area. Should residential development occur, additional demand would be placed on the existing park system, however, the Community Services Department has indicated that this would not result in any serious impacts under either of the land use alternatives. �0 e. Police and Fire Protection The Huntington Beach Police Department has indicated that full development of the site under either an industrial or residential alternative would require the addition of two police officers to the existing staff. The City's Fire Department has indicated that they would not have any problem serving the project area. f. Schools The Huntington Beach City School District has indicated that the number of students generated from this site would be insignificant in terms of the District's future planning. The site would also be served by the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The High School District has experienced a decrease in students in recent years and will have no problem accommodating additional students. g. Gas and Electrical Utilities and Telephone Service The subject site is currently served by Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company and General Telephone. These companies have indicated that there will be no difficulty serving future development under any of the three alternatives. h. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company has indicated that it can provide adequate service to the property under any of the land use alternatives. 5. Traffic and Circulation The area of concern is bounded by Garfield Avenue, Huntington Street and Clay Avenue. Access to the project site can be taken from any of these streets. Garfield Avenue is presently a four lane undivided road with an estimated future capacity of 30,000 daily trips. Currently, traffic on Garfield is 4,800 trips per day. Clay Avenue and Huntington Streets have an estimated capacity of 5,000 daily trips when fully improved. No existing traffic counts were available for either of these streets. Estimated future traffic volumes from the study area are as follows: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation Medium Density Residential 1,920 Trips Per Day (291 dwelling units) General Industrial 3,116 Trips Per Day (588 employees) Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982 31 a � The Public Works Department reviewed both the residential and the industrial alternatives and have indicated that neither would generate significant amounts of traffic. They did recommend however, that, if possible, access be taken from Clay Avenue and Garfield Street, and in addition at the time full development occurs, Clay and Huntington Streets be widened to their full capacity with curbs and gutters installed. The need to widen these streets will ultimately be predicated on the development of "The Ranch" south of the amendment site. When the Ranch develops, the intersection of Clay Avenue and Main Street may also have to be improved. The Orange County Transit District has indicated that development under either land use alternative could result in the need for a bus stop and shelter on Garfield Avenue. 6. Environmental Issues An initial study was prepared for the area of concern pursuant to Article 7, Section 15080 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. This initial study is included as Appendix B. No significant environmental impacts were identified for either of the two land use alternatives other than those already discussed in this analysis. 2.3.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the site be redesignated to industrial use. With Cambro Manufacturing and the City water yard already present on site, the land has realistically been committed to industrial uses for the foreseeable future. Additionally, should residential development occur on the vacant property located between the two industrial uses, potential conflicts could arise from noise or odor. An industrial designation would make the land use and General Plan consistent, and would assure compatible development on the remaining vacant property. 2.3.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the subject site be redesignated from medium density residential to general industrial. 32 2. 4 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB (Pages 33--40) THIS SECTION WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION IN JANUARY, 1983 2 . 5 BEACHVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK (Pages 41-50) THIS SECTION WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION IN JANUARY, 1983. e 2. 6 MAGNOLIA-BANNING AREA (Pages 51-58) THIS SECTION WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION IN JANUARY, 1983. 2.7 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM - DENSITY BONUS PROVISIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING A "Density Bonus" is an increase in the total number of units that a developer is allowed to build on a project site over the otherwise allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance. Local governments can use their authority to grant density bonuses as a way to promote construction of housing units for low and moderate income families. For example, Section 65915 of the California Government Code requires that when a developer agrees to build 25 percent of a residential project as units for low and moderate income households the City must grant either a density bonus or two other bonus incentives to that developer. The City of Huntington Beach may in the near future want to grant density bonuses to promote affordable housing in this community. Once a density bonus is granted, however, the proposed project will in many instances exceed the density allowed under the General Plan land use designation on the project site. In order to maintain "consistency" or conformance between the proposed project and the General Plan, the City would have to initiate a General Plan Amendment on the project site. In order to eliminate the potential need for the City to process general plan amendments every time it wants to grant a density bonus, staff is recommending that the City add language to the General Plan enabling it to exceed the applicable land use designation for projects providing affordable housing. 2.7.1 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that in Section 3.4.3.1, Standards and Criteria on Page 82 of the Land Use Element, the following wording be added: .(6) Density Bonus: Where a developer has agreed to construct a percentage of the total units of a housing development for persons and families of low and moderate income, the City may grant a density bonus of that same percentage over the otherwise allowable density under the applicable zoning ordinance and General Plan land use designation subject to a development agreement and as long as the following findings are made by the Planning Commission: 1. The capacities of the City and County water, sewer, and storm drain systems are adequate or are made adequate to accommodate the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned land uses in the area. 59 s 2. The proposed increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school enrollments, and recreational resources. 3. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted nor the overall intent of the General Plan sacrificed. 2.7.2 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that Section 3.4.3.1, Standards and Criteria of the Land Use Element be amended as recommended by staff. 60 3.0 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 2.0. 3.1 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Amendment 82-1 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 82-1 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. 61 3.2 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. 3.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The proposed amendment may have growth inducing effects within the areas of concern. An estimated population of 1208 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 2,394 persons could be generated. This would be an increase of 1,186 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 (duality 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. 62 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. 8. 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. 63 APPENDIX A LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS FOR FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS In cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., the computerized fiscal impact methodology was used to analyze the proposed land uses presented in Land Use Element Amendment 82-1. The fiscal impact evaluation encompassed the land use alternatives considered for areas of concern 2.1 through 2.6. Area 2.1 - YORKTOWN/MAIN Two land use alternatives were evaluated for the 1.52 acre area located approximately 500 feet north of Yorktown Avenue and 600 feet east of Main Street: 1. Office/Professional - 17,793 square feet of office space with an estimated value of $900,000 per acre. 2. Medium Density Residential - 22 medium density units with an average sale price of $125,000 per unit. Area 2.2 - MUSHROOM FARM Five land use alternatives were evaluated for the 26.6 acre area located east of Goldenwest Street and north of Ellis Avenue: 1. Recreational Vehicle Park - 580 R.V. spaces with 6,444 square feet of accessory building space, all on City-owned property. 2. Medium Density Residential - 399 medium density condominium units with an average selling price of $130,000. 3. Low Density Residential a. Low Density Residential - 186 low density condominium units with an average selling price of $150,000. b. Estate Residential - 106 low density detached single family homes with an average selling price of $350,000. 4. Office/Professional - 324,174 square feet of office space with an estimated value of $900,000 per acre. Area 2.3 - CAMBRO MANUFACTURING PLANT AREA Two land use alternatives were evaluated for the 19.4 acre site located north of Clay Avenue between the Pacific Electric right-of-way and Huntington Street south of Garfield Avenue. It should be pointed out that 4.9 acres of the subject site presently occupied by the City's water facility were excluded from the fiscal impact analysis 1. Industrial/Medium Density Residential - 132 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $120,000; and the existing 21,228 square feet of industrial. 2. Industrial - 14,204 square feet of light manufacturing with an estimated value of $800,000 per acre; and the existing 21,228 square feet of industrial. Area 2.4 - HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB Three land use alternatives were evaluated for the 5.7 acre site located on Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes: 1. Open Space - 5.7 acres of recreational open space with 4,607 square feet of accessory building (existing) valued at $351,071. 2. Open Space/Medium Density Residential - 2.6 acres of recreational open space with 4,607 square feet of accessory buildings (existing) valued at $351,071; and 48 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $250,000. 3. Medium Density Residential - 39 medium density condominiums with an average selling price of $350,000. Area 2.5 - BEACHVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK Four land use alternatives for the 5.6 acre area located on Gothard Street between Ocean View High School and the City Yard: 1. Mobile Home Park - The existing 81 unit mobile home park with a full assessed value of $289,771. 2. Low Density Residential - 39 low density condominium units with an average selling price of 139,000. 3. Medium Density Residential - 84 medium density condominium units with an average selling price of $120,000. 4. Light Manufacturin - 92,411 square feet of office space with an estimated value of 800,000 per acre. Area 2.6 - MAGNOLIA/BANNING Five land use alternatives were evaluated for the 1.6 acre site located at the southeast corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street: 1. Industrial Resource Production - 26,400 square feet of industrial space with an estimated value of 800,000 per acre. 2. Low Density Residential - 8 low density units with an estimated selling price of $150,000. 3. Open Space - a 1.6 acrew City-owned neighborhood park. 4. General Commercial - 11,360 square feet of light manufacturing space with an estimated value of $800,000 per acre. APPENDIX B INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. E;ackgrourA I. Narne of Proponent City of Huntington Beach 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent P.O. Box 190 , Huntington Beach,CA. (714) 536-5251 92648 3. Date of Checklist Submitted September 2 ,1982 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable rPnPral Plan Amendment 82-1 11. Environmental Impocts (Explanations of ail "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes May No I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering. of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface X relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification X of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or ony bay, inlet or lake? X area of concern 4 115 Ya M e NO g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, X mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration AREAS of ambient nir quality? 1--6 See Appendix C b. The creation of objectionable odors? X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, X either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: G. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood X waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, AREAS dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 2-4 f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water re- AREA loted hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 5 116 Yes Maybe No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, gross, crops, and aquatic p lant s)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into on area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural AREA crop? _ 2 S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? - X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: AREA a. Increases in existing noise levels? 3,-5-4 6 b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X B. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned AREA land use of an area? 1-6 9. . Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X 117 Yes No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an occident or upset conditions? X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X ll. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rote of the AREA human population of an area? 1&6 AREA 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 1&6 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional X vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? �^ X. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: X 0. f ire protection? X h. Police protfx-tion? X C. Schools? X 118 Yes Maybe No AREA AREA d. Parks or other recreational facilities? 2 4 e. Maintenorw_-e of public facilities, including mods? X f. Other governmental services? X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? _ X b. Communications systems? X C. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? AREA 2&4 AREA e. Storm water drainage? 5 _ f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential X health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health AREA hazards? 2 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of on aesthetically offensive site open AREA to public view? 6&4 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing AREA recreational opportunities? 2&4 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or ARIA historic archaeological site? 119 Yes Maybe No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or X historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality cf the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- toining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? _ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may in-pact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) ! d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Ill. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. ff-)eterminotion (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 120 On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet hove been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ��� FOCUSED EIR* Date Signature For (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) * The EIR is focused on various issues for different project areas. The EIR will be prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment analysis. 121 II . Explanations of "yes and maybe" answers. lf . Area of Concern 4 is located immediately adjacent to Weatherly Bay. In light of this, grading to accommodate new developments may alter drainage patterns resulting in potential impacts to the Bay. 2a. In all study areas increased traffic as a result of new develop- ment would increase the amount of emissions. At this time, it 14 is not known if these,will be significant or will affect exist- ing ambient air quality levels. 3e. See explanation lf. for Area of Concern 4 . Additionally, Area of Concern 2 is located approximately 100 feet from Sully-Miller Lake. This lake was created as the result of former use of the site as a gravel quarry. Grading for new projects could affect run-off and siltation into the lake. 3i. Area of Concern 5 is currently being used as a mobile home park. Due to its location at the base of a swale, the site is subject to flooding during the rainy season. 4d. The majority of Area of Concern 2 is presently used for a mush- room farm. New development would preclude continued use of this land for agricultural purposes. 6a. Areas 3, 5 and 6 could develop as industrial uses which may re- sult in increased noise levels. At the General Plan Amendment level it is difficult to assess the impact as no specific pro- ject has been proposed. 8. The proposed projects are a General Plan Amendment thereby con- stituting changes in land use. 11. Residential alternatives could result in an increase in popula- tion. 12. Additional housing opportunities would be provided by new resi- dential developments. 13a. All proposed projects could result in increased traffic, how- ever, at this time it is not known if this increase will be significant. 14d. Area of Concern 2 is being considered for inclusion into Huntington Central Park. If included this would increase the amount of public recreational opportunities in the City. Area of Concern 4 is presently occupied by the Huntington Harbour Beach Club. Part of the requested General Plan Amendment is to upgrade the existing facilities which would have a benefi- cial impact on recreational opportunities. 16d. Area of Concern 2 is undeveloped at this time and may not be sewered. � r 17b. An abandoned dump site is located within 1, 000 feet of this project area. The dump was used primarily for oil related wastes. 18. An energy producing facility could be developed in Area of Concern 6 that may not be aesthetically pleasing. Development in Area of Concern 4 may block some existing views of Weatherly Bay. 19. See 14d. 20. An archaeological site has been recorded in the vicinity of Project Area 5. 21. Because the General Plan Amendment encompasses six areas, the cummulative impacts will need to be considered. s APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS a The General Plan Amendments will not have any immediate impact on existing air quality; however future development as a result of the amendments, may create an increase in mobile and stationary source emissions. The following table illustrates a "worst case" or complete builtout scenario of each amendment area. The figures used represent 1982 emissions for average vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin as developed by the South Coast Air Quality Managment District. These emissions are not considered to be significant to the regional air basin. Additionally, it should be noted that when development occurs, the actual amount of pollutants may be less due to advanced exhaust control technology and more stringent air pollution legislation. PROJECTED DAILY EMISSIONS Area 1 - HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY Medium Density Residential Mobile Emissions .0013 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0003 tons/day TOTAL .0016,tons/day Office Professional Mobile Emissions .062 tons/day Stationary Emissions negligible TOTAL .062 tons/day Area 2 - M.D. JANES COMPANY Open Space Mobile Emissions .0199 tons/day Stationary Emissions negligible TOTAL .0199 tons/day Medium Denssty Mobile Emissions .0195 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0058 tons/day TOTAL .0253 tons/day Low Density Mobile Emissions .0358 tons/day Stationary Emissions .028 tons/day TOTAL .063 tons/day Estate Residential Mobile Emissions .02 tons/day Stationary Emissions .015 tons/day TOTAL .035 tons/day Office Professional Mobile Emissions 1.08 tons/day Stationary Emissions 1.94 tons/day TOTAL 3.02 tons/day Area 3 - CAMBRO MANUFACTURING COMPANY Medium Density Residential Mobile Emissions .37 tons/day Stationary Emissions .03 tons/day TOTAL .4 tons/day General Industrial Mobile Emissions .4 tons/day Stationary Emissions .005 tons/day TOTAL .405 tons/day Area 4 - HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB Open Space Mobile Emissions .12 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00007 tons/day TOTAL .1207 tons/day Mixed Development Mobile Emissions .05 tons/day Stationary Emissions .005 tons/day TOTAL .055 tons/day Low Density Mobile.Emissions .007 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0058 tons/ day TOTAL .0128 tons/day Area 5 - BEACHVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK General Industrial Mobile Emissions .079 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0002 tons/day TOTAL .0792 tons/day Medium Density Residential Mobile Emissions .1130 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00123 tons/day .11423 tons/day Low-Density Residential Mobile Emissions .1089 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00079 tons/day TOTAL .10969 tons/day Area 6 . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Industrial Energy Production Mobile Emissions .015 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00004 tons/day TOTAL .0154 tons/day Low Density Residential Mobile Emissions .02 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0019 tons/day TOTAL .0219 tons/day Open Space Mobile Emissions negligible Stationary Emissions negligible General Commercial Mobile Emissions .08 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0018 tons/day TOTAL .08018 APPENDIX D LETTERS OF COMMENT LETTERS OF COMMENT: D--1) Huntington Beach Department of Public Works D-2) Huntington Beach Police Department D-3) Huntington Beach Communtiy Services Department D-4) Southern California Gas Company D-5) Southern California Edison Company D-6) General Telephone Company D-7) County Sanitiation Districts, Orange County D-8) Huntington Beach City School District D-9) Ocean View School District D-10) Ocean View School District D-11) Huntington Beach Union High School District D-12). Orange County Transit District D-13) California Coastal Commission D-14) Alexander Googooian D-15) Huntington Beach Enviromental Board r:JJ' M CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH yy TM` To Claudette Dupuy From J.Ps Evens Assistarni: Illaimor- City Engineer. Subject General.. Plan AmendTrnnt No. 82-1 Date Sept. 9, 1982 Attached are maps showing'location and size of storm drain and sewer systems in in each area of concern. The existing watbr system in each area has been plotted on the exhibit maps which are also attached. The problems associated with the land uses proposed for each area of concern have been reviewed briefly by this department due to the short response period. Conn- ments are as follows: Area of Concern No. 1 No particular concerns were noted for either proposed use. `T_'he. access and circu- lation plan should be reviewed carefully to insure comatibility with the proposed transit corridor along railroad right-of-way and with the existing office uses at the northeast corner of. Main and Yorktown. Area of Concern No. 2 1. Estate residential or open space would be most compatible with the park, Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan and the proposed nearby recreational uses from a traffic standpoint. 2. Access onto Goldenwest should be limited to one opening; and access onto Ellis should also be limited to one opening compatible with proposed street openings on the south side of Ellis. 3. Arterial streets need full improvements. 4, The Goldenwest sewer will need to be paralleled. 5. Drainage to Sully-Miller Lake must be carefully controlled and cleaned up. Area of Concern No. 3 320,139 square feet of industrial use may create access problems. Most desirable access points are .from Clay (one opening) and Gothard (one.openinq) . Lack of good adeauite access may make the site unsuitable for industrial use. Area of Concern No. . 4 `Ibis area has had severe sewage problems due to its lav elevation. Back-flow safe- guards will have to be considered along with the upgrading to Pump Station "D" to handle additional flaw. Area of Concern No. 5 1. Access problems again. There should be no access from Betty Drive to Gothard. 92,411 square feet of industrial on a cul-de-sac street with only one opening onto Gothard may be undesirable. D- 1 Memo to Claudette Dupuy General Plan Amendment No. 82-1 September 9, 1982 Page 2 2. 'Phis area is also prone to flooding and has poor soils. Careful consideration must be given to drainage and foundation design. Area of Concern No. 6 1. Access will be limited to one opening on Magnolia (right turn in and out only) . 2. The site drains to the northeast and will have to be redesigned for drainage. LE:jy Attach. D-1 J.J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH u �C E I v E p OEINTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH 1,0 � To CI.AUD1;TI'E DUPIN From CARL KARN Assistant Planner Administrative Aide Subject GENL'RAL PLAN Ah11:NDMLiNT NO. 82-1 Date SLPTIMBER 7, 1982 I was assigned by Chief Robitaille to compile the necessary data in regard to your memo (General Plan Amendment No. 82-1) . The estimated additional police officers needed to effectively enforce the proposed developments are provided in the following information. These figures were obtained on the basis of one. call for service per 1000 sq. feet for commercial structures and one call for service per 1.26 dwellings for residential structures. Recreational facilities were based on an estimated .0075 officers per acre. The average response time for priority calls are as follows: Priority 1 4.46 minutes Priority 2 11.75 minutes Priority 3 24.62 minutes The proposed developmental areas do not impose any immediate problems with law enforcement nor does it require a significant change in personnel. Additional Officers Needed Area of Concern #1 Alternative 1 - no significant impact Alternative 2 - no significant impact Area of Concern#2 - Alternative 1 - no significant impact Alternative 2 - 2 additional officers Alternative 3 - 1 additional officer Alternative 4 2 additional officers Alternative 5 - 1 additional officer b Area of Concern #3 - Alternative 1 - 2 additional officers Alternative 2 - 2 additional officers Area of Concern #4 - Alternative 1 - no significant impact Alternative 2 - no significant impact Alternative 3 - no significant impact Area of_Concern #5 - Alternative 1 1 additional officer Alternative 2 - 1 additional officer Alternative 3 - no significant impact Area oL= Conc_ei•n It-6 - Alternative 1 - no significant impact Alternative 2 - no significant impact Alternative 3 - no significant impact D 2 CK/se ' �A NEB' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i � INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICWnt HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 � To Claudette Dupuy From V , Moorhouse Development Services Director, Community Services Subject General Plan Amendment 82-1 Date August 31 , 1982 Tn response to your memo of August 25 , 1982 , please be advised that the proposed amendments will have little or no impact on the ability of Community Services to provide library or recre- ational services to those sites . VGM: cs RECEIVED SEP 1 1910? Dow rr. n' Sc ; D3 • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gas COMPANY ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION - P. O. BOX 3334, ANAHEIM, CALIF. 92803 September 1, 1982 City. of Huntington Beach RECEIVED . P.O. Box 190 SEP 2 1982 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Development Services Attn: Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 82-1 This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time 'contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, 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. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance.with revised conditions. Residential (System Area Average) Yearly Single Family 1095 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 4 or less units 640 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or more units 580 Therms/year/dwelling unit These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's new insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial-Industrial Market Services Staff by calling 213-689-2041 or 213-689-2062. D-4 We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire fur1:1101' information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact Hii_s office for assistance. Sincerely, D.M. Glover Technical Supervisor ES/pjg Enclosure Southern California Edison Company P.O. BOX 2069 7333 BOLSA AVE. WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 92683-1,269 September 23, 1982 TELEPHONE v ~ (714)973.5491 SEP 2 719V Deveiopment Services City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Attention : Claudette Dupuy Planning Dept. Subject : E. I . R. - General Plan Amendment No. 82-1 Gentlemen : This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company and that the electric loads of the project are within parameters of projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area. Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds our estimates , and provided that there are no unexpected out- ages to major sources of electrical supply , we expect to meet our electrical requirements for the next several years . Our total system demand is expected to continue to increase annually ; however , excluding any unforeseen problems , our plans for new generation resources indicate that our ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods will be adequate during the decade of the 180s . Current conservation efforts on the part of Edison ' s customers have resulted in energy savings . Optimization of conservation measures in this project will contribute to the overall energy savings goal . Very truly yours , R. L. Coolidge�j Service Planne`i�'� RLC :da D-5 DISTRICT OFFICE SERVING: CORONA DEL MAR •COSTA MESA .FOUNTAIN VALLEY •HUNTINGTON BEACH MIDWAY CITY •NEWPORT BEACH -ROSSMOOR •SEAL BEACH •SUNSET BEACH •WESTMINSTER C1 t0i RECEIVED SEP 13 1982 General Telephone Company of California Development Services 6774 Westminster Blvd. Westminster, California 92683-3788 213 594-4526 714 891-5321 In Reply Refer To September 10, 1982 3774 A13.10 City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services Planning Division Attention Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Dupuy In response to your letter of August 31, 1982 regarding the proposed amendent (82-1) to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, General Telephone will not have any problems serving the project sites regardless of the land use selected. The location and size of all existing facilities and all improvements needed to serve the project sites have not been shown as the telephone conversation with your office on September 9, determined this informa- tion was not required. However, when additional telephone facilities are required they will be provided by General Telephone Company in a timely manner to serve the development of any and all of these project sites. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at (714) 891-5321. Very truly.yours GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA W. R. DUVALL Resident Engineer D-6 n I)m1 r,l (wrwfal I(�Icplwfwu h I I(II(Atunics COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS �C`' TELEPHONER: 6 AREA CODE 7/4 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 6 96 2-291 96 -2411 P. 0. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 EL.LIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) September 9, 1982 SEP 2 01982 City of Huntington Beach 1)evelepmeo P.O. Box 190 Service Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Claudette Dupuy Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 82-1 This is in response to your August 25, 1982 letter requesting a review of General Plan Amendment No. 82-1. Your exhibits have been marked to show Districts' existing trunk sewers in the vicinity of the .proposed land use changes. Generally the alternatives suggest higher land uses than anticipated on the Districts' 1975 Ultimate Land Use Plan. However, this office believes that the existing trunk sewer and treatment facilities will be able to accommodate the higher flows. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the undersigned. Thomas M. Dawes Deputy Chief Engineer TMD: hc Enclosure D_7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Craimer Lane a P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)964-8888 O BOARD Of TRUSTEES September 20, 1982 3 r iary Nelson, D.D.S. Brian Garland p,, Clerk pment Seriii.S Ms. Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner Sherry Barlow City of Huntington Beach Member Dept. of Development Svs. , Bldg. Div. Pat Cohen Post Office BOX 190 Member Huntington Beach, California 92648 Norma Vander Molen Member Dear Ms. Dupuy: Per our conversation several days ago, I have reviewed the General Plan Amendment No. 82-1 and wish to report the following: ADMINISTRATION Area of Concern #1 - Insignificant, no concern. Lawrence Kemper, ed.D. Area of Concern #2 - This is not in our district. District Superintendent Ronald Brown Area of Concern #3 - This is in our district and it effects the. Perry Assistant School. Assuming that a "medium density" repre- Superintendent sented here would primarily consist of condomin- Personnel iums, current statistics would indicate that they Robert Hawthorne would yield only 21 pupils which would be insig- Assistant. nificant in our educational planning. Superintendent Business Services Area of Concern #4 - This is not in our district. James M. Macon Director of Educational Services Area of Concern #5 - This is not in our district. Duane Dishno Area of Concern #6 - Is in our district but is insignificant. Director of Special Services I hope that this information is helpful to you. Sincerely yours, R. W1K0RNE Assistant Superintendent Business Services RMH/mat D-8 September 17, 1982 "IN QUEST OF EXCELLENCE" Ms Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner ... -`D R Ci-ty of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services SEP 2 0 P. 0. Box 190 10 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dwek*mmnt $micas Dear Claudette: Following are the potential numbers of K-8 students that could be generated by the alternatives in the areas of concern in the Ocean View School District: Area of Concern #2 Alternative #2 . . . . . . 80 students Alternative #3 . . . . . . . . 40 students Area of Concern #4 Alternative #2 . . . . . . . . . . 10 students Alternative #3 . . . . . 8 students Area of Concern #5 Alternative #2 . . . . . . . . . 17 students Alternative #3 . . . . . . . . . . . 8 students The District anticipates no problem in accommodating the above number of students Sincerely, Milton R. Berg Director .of Busi ness Support Services MRB:am D-9 CCEAN V1 SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF TR USTEES Dale Coogan Maxwell Sudskow,President SC HK30L DMICT ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS Shelia Marcus,Clerk Marion-no Blank Monte McMurray Charles Osterlund James Jones Janet Garrick 1000 B STREET Joseph Condon HUNONGiTON 1EACH,CALIFORNIA M47 we An An Equal oppoduelty EaWMW 714/Ni�2561 The District does not dtscdminate on the bee/a 01W gender,or ha",W. RECEIVED SEP 7 1982 Development Services September 2, 1982 "IN QUEST OF EXCELLENCE" Ms Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Claudette: Either alternative being analyzed for the .5.6 acres mentioned in your recent letter would not create a problem for Ocean View School District. We estimate the number of children generated would not exceed fifteen K-8 students and the District would have no problem accommodating that number. Yours truly, Milton R. BeVness Director of Support Services MRB:am D-10 OCEM VIEW SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES Dale Coogan Maxwell Sudakow,President a Marcus, S C H C.)fN L D ISTRICT ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS Shell Marianne Bltank Monte McMurray Charles Osterlund James Jones Janet Garrick 1690 B STREET Joseph Condon HUNTINQTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA SM7 we Are An Equal opportunity Eatptoyer 71 NI7•5S1 The District does not discriminate on the basis of ape,gender,or handicp. Huntington Beach Union High School District 10251 Yorktown Avenue,Huntington Beach,California 92646 (714) 964-3339 ti Frank,J.Abbott,Ed.D. Board of Trustees h :CNQ ;k poriNot Not nt of Schools Won W.Lake Resident Stephen H.Smith 6 Vice Resident Ron E.Marcus OCTw 1982 (' Cleli� Development Services Sherry L.Baum Ms. Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner Helen E.Ditte City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: General Plan Amendment 82-1 Dear Ms. Dupuy: Per your request of September 14, our staff has reviewed the potential student generation of the alternatives outlined in your six areas of concern. Find enclosed your summary sheet annotated with the numbers of potential students (at our current yield ratio) that would enter our schools should this development occur. The particular high school impacted by that development has also been noted on the page. As you may be well aware, our district has been in a three-year steady decline ranging from 3% to 6% of our student population. Our high schools, therefore, are no longer overcrowded as in previous years. Thus, the modest student yields, even in the highest instance (area of • concern #2), would not prove to be a burden for .that particular school in our district. If you need any further information in this area, please feel free to contact Glen Dysinger here in our office. Sincerely, Fr J. b Superinte nt FJA/mnp Enclosure D--11 Huntington Beach Westminster Marino Fountain Valley Edison ocean View Evening High School Adult School Guidance Center Wintersburg Education Center SEP 2 21982 Development Services ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT ` September 20, 1982 j Ms. Claudette Dupuy Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Dupuy: SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-1 We have reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment, and have several comments on potential impacts on transit services. We have indicated the existing transit routes at these sites on the enclosed maps. In general, we recommend that transit facilities, such as bus stops, turnouts, and shelters, be accommodated at all developments likely to generate moderate-to-high transit ridership. Specific comments by area of concern are: Area of Concern 1: This site has transit access nearby on three routes. It is unlikely that the proposed amendment would result in any significant transit impacts due to the size of the site, the location., and potential land uses. Area of Concern 2: This site is currently served by Route 25 (Golden West). Alternative land uses 1-4 could result in need for a bus turnout and shelter on Golden West. f Area of Concern 3: This site has transit access nearby on two routes, and may have direct service on Garfield in the future. I Both alternatives could result in the need for a bus stop and shelter at this location. Area of Concern 4: This site is currently served by two routes. Depending on future levels of development here and in Bolsa Chica, traffic volumes on Warner may warrant a bus turnout and shelter. Area of Concern 5: This site is currently served by one route and may warrant a bus stop depending on the land use and trip demand. i i j f 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY ,* P.O. BOX 3005•GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92642 • PHONE.(714)971-6200 D-12 4 Ms. Dupuy September 20, 1982 Page Two Area of Concern 6: This site is currently served by two routes. There are not likely to be any impacts on transit service as a result of any of the proposed land uses. While it appears that the proposed GPA will not generate significant impacts that require modifications to existing bus service, we would appreciate your consideration of transit facility needs in future planning and design of the development areas 2 through 5. We will be glad to provide you further assistance, as the EIR's on or specific plans for these sites are being prepared. If you need any further information, please call me or Christine Huard-Spencer at (714) 971-6412. Sincerely, Dick Hsu Environmental Coordinator Enclosure DH:B St,q,p.if("ilitntrila, Eclrnund G', Brown Jr, (a;ven;,:,r Califl'`lni'l coclstal Con)(russion 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 543-8555 November 2.4,1982 Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse •uv 2 � ' 82 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 0eveloPment Serv1 �s . ATTN:Terry RE: SCII# 82091702 Draft EIR for GP Amendment 82-1(EIR 82-3)City of Huntington Beach. Gentlemen: The staff of the Coastal Commission has reviewed the referonc.ed UR sand offers the following comments for consideration, 'Iwo areas being considered for land use designation changes are in the coastal zone(areas 2.4 and 2.6) . Regarding the Huntington Harbour Beach Club Area, Area 2.4,the City' s Local Coastal Plan designates this site as Open Space Recreation. As certified in part by the Commission on November 17 ,1982 this land use designation does not allow residential uses.Therefore the EIR should indi- cate that any land use designation change would require an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Plan,and such amendment must be consistent with the poli- cies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Section 30222 of the Act provides that the use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential , general industrial or general commercial but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry. The LIR fails to evaluate how the proposed amendment to establish residential uses with recreation uses would address these priorities. Further, Sections 30210-3021Z of the Act ensure the provision of public access in new development. The EIR (p.36) notes that concern should be given to pre- serving access and views to the area.Yet, the EIR notes on page 38(d) that the existing recreational amenities including a private beach would serve the development.The maintenance of a private recreational. facility may not be consistent with the provisions of the Act.The EIR tails to discuss how public access would be assured consistent with the public access policies of the Coastal Act. The EIR also notes on page 37(4a) -that the sewage pump station facilities are nearing capacity.Section 30254 provides in part that " . . .Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only alimited amount of new development services to coastal dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries. . .public recreation , commercial recreation and visitor serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development. "The EIR fails to evaluate whether commitment to mixed residential use would preclude higher priority a ;E14; under the Cearta l Act. Regarding the Plagnolia-113Unninq Area (Area 2.6) the Ell tails to evaluate they project in l.ight of the provir,ions of the energy policies of the Coastal Act. The EIR should evaluate the potential of th^ site to accommodate energY expansion or coastal dependent rnorgy or industrial facilities in conformance with . SectionS 30?60-30264 of tho Act. shank you for- the opportunit;, to comment on this EIR Sincerely, A�;� W. Eliz eth A. Fuchs Coastal Analyst cc.,:Djvid L.00mi, , South Cot -rst. Claudel;te Dupuy, Ci tv of Huntington Beach Alexander Googooian •RECE►v��,• Attorney at f tL NU-V ris�.jppe�yr r or ' November !3 p 8gNZALip. 2� � 17 Py�81 City of Huntington. Beach �.u'v w `- 1982 Department of Development Services P .0. Box 190 Developr ent Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Attn: Claudette Dupuy, City Planner Subject : Environmental Impact Report 82-3 Land Use Amendment 82-1, Area 2. 4 Gentlemen: Upon review of the EIR for the above-referenced project , there are several inadequacies that I feel need to be discussed in greater detail before the EIR is certified. The first comment I would have is that the discussion of the environmental impacts of retaining the existing Recreation Open Space designation on the site is superficially discussed. There is no indication of additional types of recreation uses that could be developed on the site and what the. environmental impacts of those other uses might be. Also, the anticipated traffic generation for Open Space Recreation (64 end trips) seems to be substantially understated. By actual count on Saturday, November 13, 1982 , there were 61 vehicles observed on 'the subject property at . 11 : 00 a.m. That day was a cloudy, overcast day. On the following day at noon, there were 139 vehicles on the lot . During the peak sailing and cruising times of the year , many more vehicles would be utilizing the property, particularly if the restaurant and meeting rooms provide the type of quality dining and recreation environment that the residents of this area can support . I would suggest that approximately 200 to 250 vehicle end trips per day could be generated just by the recreation uses . There is no specific discussion in the EIR regarding the consistency of this proposed Land Use Amendment with the Coastal Element , Seismic Safety Element , or Housing Element of the City' s General Plan. A brief review of the Coastal Element finds that the proposal under consideration may be inconsistent with the following policies of the Coastal Element : 15933 South Clark Avenue •Suite B•Bellflower, California 90706.(213) 925-5563 c � City of Huntington Beach November 23 , 1932 Page Two -Policy 4g, Page 139 -Policy 6a, Page 140 -Policy 15f, Page 151 There is no specific discussion regarding the cumulative impacts of this project with anticipated future developments that could occur on the south side of Warner Avenue . More attention should be given to the discussion of the coordinated phasing of the . realignment of Warner Avenue with future residential construction in the Bolsa Chica Bluff area. Finally, it would seem that the only reason for recommending approval of this Land Use Amendment is that it is what the applicant is requesting and that it is profitable to the City. If future revenue to the City is the major basis for approving Land Use Amendments , then Open Space and Recreation areas will soon disappear. Hopefully, the City can balance its goals for . new housing with other goals such as preservation of Open Space, accessibility to shoreline areas , and view retention of shorelines and harbor areas . The City has previously reviewed this site for the construction of 42 guest cottages , and the request was denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council . The two most pertinent Findings of Fact adopted by both the Commission and Council were : "l. The intent of the ROS Zone as established did not include uses of this type; i.e. , residential development , whether temporary or not. 2 . Zoning prior to ROS was R1. If the zoning was as it had been, the use would not be permitted. The proposed use does not conform to the use of surrounding properties . " Finally, there was an amendment made to the EIR by an Errata Sheet which was inserted to the report at the hearing on November 16 , 1932 , and which had to do with access . Since we are not privy to this change, we can only speculate as to what it purports to provide . I would seriously urge that more detailed analysis be included in the EIR in those areas which has been discussed above. t , City of Huntington Beach November 23, 1982 Page Three In conclusion may I point out that three items were considered simultaneously at the hearing of November 16 , 1982 . They were 1) the LIR 82-3,; 2) Land Use Amendment 82-1; and 3) Huntington Harbor Bay Specific Plan. To limit interested property owners , as I was and am, to three minutes as to all these items , and to prohibit us from accumulating time (3 minutes) amongst each other, which had been promised prior to the hearing, effectively denied me and others to our right to a fair hearing. The conduct just referred to denied me of my constitutionally protected right to due process and a fair and impartial hearing. Ver truly your A DER GO AN 26 75 Edgewate ane Huntington Beach, 92649 A D D E N D U M The following persons join in and concur with the comments made by Alexander Googooian. 164 /L L. �����, Environmental Board s 5• 'l. CITY OF HUNIINGTON BEACH I It IN I INC ION lit U It Psis! Office Box 190 Huntirirlor) Bemli, Calitor»ia 92648 TO: Planning Commission DATE: December 1, 1982 FROM: Environmental Board SUBJECT: DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 The Huntington Beach Environmental Board has reviewed Draft Land Use Element Amendment 82-1, and submits the following comments re- garding the six areas covered in this land use amendment. Area of Concern 2.1 - Yorktown/Main Street Area The Land Use Amendment indicates that a 1.52 acre parcel located approximately 50.0 feet east of Main Street and 600 feet north of Yorktown Avenue would be redesignated from medium density residential to office professional. The Environmental Board feels that this zone change is premature at this point in time in that such piece- meal changes without overall recognition of the cumulative impact have a tendency to destroy the overall intent of the Huntington Beach Land Use Plan. Further, it is pointed out that this change would likely result in an additional 438 vehicle trips per day originating from any development on this parcel. Although this number of trips is minimal, no attempt has been made to address the cumulative effect of additional traffic on surrounding streets. Area of Concern 2.2 - Mushroom Farm Area The Land Use Amendment proposes to redesignate 20.1 acres of land from open space to medium density residential. -The staff recommen- dation is to keep the zoning as open space, and the Environmental Board wishes to add their support to the staff recommendation. Any residential development in this area would have significant problems with storm drainage, water supply, and sewage. Another major objection by the staff and again supported by the En- vironmental Board, is that this area is currently surrounded by Huntington Central Park, and is proposed for eventual inclusion in Central Park. A zone change to medium density .residential is incom- patible with the proposed incorporation into the park. The -Environ- mental Board concurs with the staff recommendation, and opposes this zone redesignation. Area of Concern 2.3 - Cambro Manufacturing Plant Area The Land Use Amendment proposes to redesignate a 19.4 acre site from medium density residential to general industrial. Although not op- posed to this redesignation, the Environmental Board notes with great alarm that city planning maps showing the subject area have LUE 82-1 Dec. 1, 1982 Page 2 removed (hopefully inadvertently) the old Pacific Electric right-of- way. These planning maps have been distributed at recent Planning Commission meetings. We object to this misinformation, as the right- of-way remains in existence and as you well know, represents a po- tential transportation corridor for future mass transit from Hunting- ton Beach. The Environmental Board urgently requests that the planning maps be corrected to reflect existence of the right-of-way. Area of Concern 2.4 - Huntington Harbor Beach Club The Land Use Amendment proposes to redesignate 5.7 gross acres from open space to mixed development. The Land Use Amendment goes on to state that it is the intent of the applicant to construct residential condominiums on this property after its redesignation. The Environ- mental Board opposes the mixed development zoning, even in conjunc- tion with the proposed specific plan, as not providing sufficient control as to the type of development which would eventually be im- plemented. If residential is the intent of the applicant, then the zoning change should be to residential, rather than mixed development which allows a variety of uses from retail shops to recreational facilities. In addition, the applicant has indicated that the proposed residential condominiums would be five stories in height. This exceeds the three.- story height restriction for areas outside of high rise nodes, and is completely incompatible with the existing developments around the Huntington Harbor Beach Club. The Environmental Board is opposed to any zone redesignation which would result in such high-rise construc- tion, and which would severely impact the visual and aesthetic values of the site. Area of Concern 2.5 - Beach View Mobile Home Park The Land Use Element proposed to redesignate a 5. 6 acre parcel lo- cated west of Gothard Street just north of the City Yard. The area is presently zoned as general industrial, which is inconsistent with the current mobile home use. However, if rezoned as a mobile home district, this park would not conform to the City's mobile home zoning requirements due to the fact that existing density is 14A dwelling units per acre, versus a maximum mobile home zoning density of 9 units per acre. Further, as this park is less than the minimum 10 acres specified in the mobile home zoning requirements, it would not be in conformance with this requirement. Nevertheless, low cost housing is needed in Huntington Beach, and since this park was built in 1961, the zoning should be changed to reflect its current land use as a mobile home park. The Environmental Board recommends that this area be rezoned for mobile homes, but continue to be allowed to be in non-conformance with the structural requirements of the mobi _e home designation. Area of Concern 2.6 - Magnolia/Banning Area The Land Use Amendment proposes to redesignate the 1.6 acre site *�� •f LUE 82-1 Dec. 1, 1982 Page 3 located at the southeast corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street from industrial resource production to low density residential. The Environmental Board concurs with the staff recommendation that the most appropriate land use designation is low density residential: . Access appears to be the only area of significant questions. Access out of site should be by right turn onto Magnolia only. Access into site should require modification of the Magnolia/ Banning intersection. . The residential development should attempt to incorporate conser- vation measures listed on Pages 60 and 61 of the EIR. To the extent possible, areas should be preserved within the residential structures for containers to be used in the separation of recyclable materials - approximately 2 ft. by 2 ft. of floor space in a closet or pantry is suggested. A central area within the project should be preserved for a small recycle center - approximately 8 ft. by 8 ft. Consideration should also be given to leaving provisions available for installation of solar water heating units - i.e. , plumbing and structural amendments that might be necessary. Water conserving measures should be required. The Environmental Board urges the Planning Commission to implement the Land Use Amendment changes in conformance with the recommenda- tions listed above. HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Irwin Haydock Chairman IH:MFK:ic:jlm A fM '♦ a RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL- IMPACT REPORT 82-3 A. Letter from Orange County Transit District RESPONSE: Comments from O:CTD, regarding potential improvements to the existing bus system will be incorporated into the appropriate sections of the Land Use Amendment 82-1. B. Letter. from California Coastal Commission RESPONSE: Area of Concern 2.4 -Regarding the comment that the E.I .R. should indicate that any land use designation change would require an amendment to the City' s Local Coastal Plan and should be consistent with the California Coastal Act. - This comment will be added to page 36, Section 2.4. 2. 1 of the LUE Amendment document. -Regarding the comment about consistency with Section 30222 of the California Coastal Act. - The mixed-use designation would allow both recreation and residential uses on the subject site. It does not preclude recreational uses. The Specific Plan being processed concurrently with LUE 82-1 proposed to improve and expand existing recreation facilities on the site. Regarding the comment about Sections 30210 - 30212 of the Coastal Act. - Neither' a mixed use or residential land use designation on this site in the General Plan will preclude public access to the Huntington Harbour Waterways. The provision of such .access will have to be ensured at the project level. The Specific Plan being processed concurrently with LUE 82-1 proposes a ten- foot wide public walking along the entire bulkhead which would provide public access to the waterway. -Regarding the comment on the sewage pump station - Pump Station "D" has the capacity to accommodate future developments, how- ever, improvements to the outfall lines will be required prior to significant development. In terms of pump station capacity, the additional residential units would not preclude future development of this area for "high priority uses" as defined by the Coastal Act. Area of Concern 2. 6 Regarding the comment that the EIR should evaluate the potential of the site to accommodate coastal dependent energy or industrial. facilities - The LUE Amendment document states on page 53 Section 2. 6. 2.1 that due to the small size and irregular shape of the site it is unlikely that any significant industrial development would occur under the existing land use designation. Page 2 ,• . C. Letter from Alexander Googooian RESPONSE: -Regarding the comment that the Recreation Open Space de- signation is superficially discussed - The E.I .R. on page 33 through 39 discusses the most likely impacts of such a design- ation on land use compatibility, housing opportunities, traffic, schools, parks, utilities, public works facilities, and City services. The exisiting recreational development was used in the analysis since this is a typical use likely to occur under the open space designation. Regarding the traffic comment - the trip generation rates used to calculate traffic for the mixed use development represent average daily trips. This average takes into account both peak periods and low use periods. The generation rates used are based on rates developed by the Institute of Transporation Engineers. -Regarding consistency with Policy 4g of the City' s Coastal Element - Public access to the Huntington Harbour waterways can be provided under an open space, a mixed used, and a residential land use designation in the General Plan. None of the alternatives analyzed for the site in LUE 82-1 would preclude such access. How such access will be provided is more appropriate at the project review level. The Specific Plan being processed concernently with LUE 82-1 proposes a ten-foot wide public walkway along the entire length of the bulkhead. -Regarding consistency with Policy 6a of the City's Coastal Element - Views to and from the Huntington Harbour waterways are currently limited on this site by the existing real estate office and tennis courts. Development of the site under an open space, mixed use or residential designation will not necessarily have a significant environment impact on views to and from the site. The project proposed in the Specific Plan being processed concurrently with LUE 82-1 would preserve views through the existing club facilities and provide a view corridor between this club and the new development. -Regarding discussion of cumulative impacts resulting from de- velopment south of Warner (i.e. Bolsa Chica) . Since the writing of the General Plan Amendment, the County' s plan for development of the Bolsa Chica has been withdrawn. . Therefore, at this time, there are no "active" plans for development or circulation in this area. The reallignment of Warner Avenue was included in the County' s development plan, however, specific discussion such as phasing of the Warner allignment would have been addressed at a later time in the County' s Specific Plan. -Regarding discussion of the Housing Element - the Housing Element is addressed under "Housing" on Page 37 of the Land Use Amendment. -Regarding consistency with Policy 15f of the City's Coastal Y ' $age 3 Element - AnX residential development on the subject site will have to comply with this policy. -Regarding comments on the seismic safety element - the following discussion will be added to the Land Use Amendment: "The pro- ject site along with a major portion of Huntington Harbour is located in the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zone. This zone identifies areas of high seismic risk. Geologic studies are required by State law prior to building in this. area and will be required as conditions for approval. -Regarding the comment about the Errata sheet distributed to the Planning Commission - The Errata sheet clarified (1) that access to and from the subject property would be taken from Warner Avenue only and (2) that any residential development on the site would have to comply with the City' s affordable housing policy in the coastal zone. These issues arose during the public testimony. r APPENDIX E LETTER FROM DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES STATE 8Z CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Cot, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 1-07 SOUTH•ROADWAY,ROOM VW 7128 LOS ANGELES.CA 90012 (213) 620-2380 June a, 1982 juii b `„1Z Mr. James R. Barnes Associate Planner Department of Development Services City of Huntington Beach P. 0.. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: This letter is in response to your Mr. Charles W. Thompson's April 15, 1982 letter to Mr. John Hinton of this office, regarding the Bruce Bros. Pit being considered a "potential hazardous waste disposal site." Our abandoned site people did not have enough information to consider the Bruce Bros. Pit a potential hazardous waste site. This office's regular staff on March 10,, 1980 inspected and sampled the soil in an area in which drilling muds were disposed.of. The investigation was at the request of the City of Huntington Beach after the area had been cleaned-up. All samples upon analysis were determined to be non-hazardous. Additionally we have reviewed the Abondoned Site Groups file and found nothing in it to indicate that the Bruce Bros. Pit is a "potential hazardous waste disposal site." Therefore, based upon the information available to this office, we do not consider the Bruce Bros. Pit a 'potenjiE osal site." and noemenection Hazardous Waste Management Branch JAH:mw -119- 17091 Edgewater Lane ��vo,z Huntington Beach, CA Facing the Water t4untington Beach City Councit DecembeA 21 , 1982 v < Huntington Beach,. CA Dean Counci t Members: � I .live on Edgewater Lane dinectey across Srom the Huntington HarbowN Bay Ct ub. I am wkit ng .fin support o6 the ptopos ed deveeopment pta.n Son this pro peAt y. Ic In .the past 1 have been opposed to vaA.ious pea.ns that were proposed Son this property because they wooed have had a negative impact on satiety, pottu ti.on and wateA rcecAeation. The present owneA has made a good Jaith essont to work with ake groups in .the community to pnov.ide a Sac t ty that wowed be an asset to att. He has had meetings to heat the A concerns and has mod:i.s.ied the pean as appnopAi.ate. Those .leading the eJ6ont to stop the proposed change have put South a batAage o6 vocat and wti.tte.n changes designed to appeae to emotion rather than reason. F-iAAst the slogan os "Save Out Space" is used as a banner. Catchy -but ha4&y tnuthsue. This space is not public .space but ratheA a pAi.vate ceub. The "proposed" changes to the zoning and use o6 thi-s propeA,ty make more o6 it access.ibte and usable by the genenae pub.ei.c inceuding wa.ekways, park-titre Zandscap.ing and a pubt c xestauAant. Next the argument is put Jonah that the condowA' imu wilt obstruct theit view. We have some candidates Son the "Thaw, Inctedibte" show Sor they can see ce.eaA Sham Humbotdt Ista.nd or through the two story houses Jor most of those voicing this conceAn do not ti.ve on the water and do not have a direct view. 1 do ti.ve on the water and diAectey view this "open space". This open space is composed o6 a teat estate o 6 s.ice, anotheA commeAcid e binding which houses toilets and s howeu, .two s eedom used tennis counts and a packing .tot. The tennis courts ate seedom used because they Sace the wrong dihection and do obstruct any view that might be possibte. The eouncit has been toed that oveA 1000 peopee have signed a petition to stop any change and that the council wowed be wet advised to vote pxopeAty or eese. These petitions were eitaueated by peopte who were probabty weU intentioned but were moneou,6ty insonmed on how trass.ie wou.ed 6tow through the adjacent streets causing a sale ty hazard Sor out ehi ednen. I know this reason was put South because they came to my door and toed me that. IS that were the truth, I wooed not be .in Savor o6 ,the pro J eet eitheA. It .is not the truth but .it certainty gathered a tot o6 ,stg►natuAes Snom uninsonmed oA m.is- .insormed peopee- a Z 1 have heard how so many people made saenaJiees to ti,ve here and .the ptesenee os .the ceub was the main reason they moved here. In truth., the cZub has not been supported Sot years, f-ong besote the present owneu took possession, and any pupehty owneA who has been here Sot just a Sew years has had his 11saera6 ice" nenaa&ded by his property value going up S.ive on six times. I am not sure khat the motivation oS the opposition .is n this matter. Is it the .doss o S two matginae tennis counts? Is .it the Sac t that the genuat pubti.c wiU now have some access to what was a pooAty supported private cZub? Is .it just ptejudiee against a "Sote.ignen" who has Zi.ved here Son 15 years with. his Amen.ica.n wise? Ot, iz it because a group who wou.ed t ike to eeo nomicatt y Sotce this z inner out so they can advance some scheme Son the use o6 this ptopeAty? A SinanciaeCy v.i,abZe ce.ub is important to aU os us. It wit t provide a cZub that is an asset and not a white e ephant. Jobs wi.P.,t be Created in tunning the c,tub; the tax base Son the community wig be incAeas ed by the new concominiums; jobs w.i.Pt be created Sot the consttuction .industry in building the new Saeitities; the waterways wit be ptesetved Sot boating and teereationae use; new Sae.%e e,6 w,itt be ptovtded Sot the membetus with a hea.P_th c cub and sauna; and the pubtie wiU have access to a quatity testautant and watkways along the water. and open ta.ndseaped areas. I don't see this as a hand tide-oss to make, but 1 do undeu.ta.nd that it wiU take persont courage on your part to do the night thing and approve this project. In ceosing, .bet me be c tcan on one add i t i,o nat item. I am writing this beaeuse I beZi,eve .it is a good use os this ptopeAty. I do not have any economic, invoZvement in the cZub now of in any woxk proposed ,Sot it. I am not even a ceub member. I do be.ei.eve it is time we get this "devisive" -issue behind us. Sineenety yours, OJGG!�:rC 1)onatd L. t arson 77091 EdgewateA Lane Huntington Beach, CA January 10, 1983 City Council of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, CA Dear Council members: Evidently those screaming the loudest wanting their community club back, are not aware that the CC&R's for the club expire in 1983, and the owner has no obligation to maintain a club for the benefit of the area residents. Some are unknowingly fighting against the very thing they want -- a club. Hopefully, the petitions and speeches presented at the hearings will not succeed in preventing the Ahadpours from proceeding with this worthwhile plan. Petitions bearing possibly 1,000 signatures may carry some wieght; however, many of the petitions had discrepancies such as duplicated names and being signed by people living out of the area. We would like to invite you to observe firsthand from our home, the area in question. You will then see the only open space we see is the water, an unused parking area, a commercial real estate building (which we were told would be temporary) , another unused commercial building, two poorly designed an6 seldom used tennis courts, and boats in slips. This can hardly be called attractive. Next to club property is a real high density condo complex (Alladdin) with none of the landscaped areas proposed in the Club plan; a definite difference, especially with their streets filled with cars; no subterranean parking there! It would be beneficial for you to also be able to observe from on-water Edgewater viewpoints, that there will be no visual change for those further down the street from us, as they already are looking at the Club, barefoot bar, beach, and/or boat slips; and always have, since the day they moved in. It was our understanding when the new owners closed the club, and all members in good standing were properly notified by letter on April 30, 1982 that the memberships were "temporarily suspended", due to low active member- ship and limited facilities due to construction. The letter went on to explain their hopes for rebuilding the club and expanding new amenities, etc. No one has been "forced" to lose their membership. It is clear that this plan does provide public access to the waterway. The owner is dedicating a public walkway along the bulkhead and will establish a pierhead line once and for all. I would also like to bring to your attention the letters written to you and the club owners by residents who previously signed the petition, but have since become informed of the true facts, and have admitted being misled, and are now stating they are in favor of the proposed plan. Sine r y, d 1 081 E gewater Lane u tington Beach, CA 92649 cing the Project) January 7, 1983 Huntington Beach City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 17171 Roundhill Dr . Huntington Beach Dear Council Members : I have lived at this address since 1977 and have been an active member of the Huntington Harbour Beach Club (now known as the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club) for the past six years . It takes me approximately five minutes to walk to the club house from my front door. During the past six years I have watched as the club has been passed from one owner to the next , and each time the price went up and each new owner would strip, skim, and bleed the club until practically nothing really usable was left . Perhaps this was necessary to recoupe some of their losses due in part to lack of support by the Harbour families who purchased their homes in this area because of the club facilities available; at least some would like you to believe this . When I first met the present owners it was during the Iranian crisis and they were met with some opposition. This is understandable considering the intellect and reasoning of some of i11y Harbour neighbors . Since the new owners have moved in they have demonstrated a willingness to cooperate with the residents and have taken on a tremendous financial burden restoring the club facilities literally from the ground up . The type of remodeling and total dedication to this project convinces me that they will carry this style and ' class ' over to the proposed condiminium units . I therefore urge you to approve this project and allow them to improve this property so that it may continue to be a credit to the community and enhance all of our surrounding properties . Respectfully, ' Peter B. Shores TED JOHNSON PROPANE �w 5140 NORTH ELTON STREET • BALDWIN PARK,CALIFORNIA 91706 PHONE(213)337-1222 5, 1983 n Beach Gowzc-U and 7' conmzd-dcioa P.O. T3oz 19 &n.tLVton Bzach, " 92648 Dea& MendeAz: As a haiou& Ae a.id"z.t j0a, ova& 10 yeuu, x4ted .in t1w- �-=A t Gerd, GanexA L.eQgtGe, /ALtiaAmnic, /Erin ng�oa .rn, A,t t A 6wc i,a t i o and .e Wt y abut ec t&i a wz6 t1Le L3a /�acqu e t Geu� maaina on we ate fs euonat4f veV " aw-66P2 with the P&; the Mad!'oun s have .slzot�rt. uz and wino 4V4 that thP.,i�t kdeU le a wa4 ed .i xpwvo"nt Z,z. oue =Muutr t*. Age t some co fAL" o l et t e .acrL%i t:ted .to the c i.J council and f'e&wna4Y+ .to f3eo :u� o'��'i'On .to the vPaient a, J Aal :it .Ls my .to c�w�u:i.o� and f,oaitive n��g� Aoa the ���• CWe aite moire QjAzcterl .the .changes. J mention&m. ¢.cau aef Ni:C .i.a oun view ouz m. The emv�,r e fstcrr t o� .the term s court ta, tuo AuV dings and a =med pac lungs -&t twit a tAac t`.u.?e condos and 4 i c e .t.s maae axzi than the czUing. We .the o feZna s.s .the ouneAz have zAow►t. - not ono .to u s - Au t .the a e a t o/ the ca z+•un.i4 .in. a6AZV /opt fd-&c a ymva4 We have neuea Leer. contacted At av o2 asked .to jam Save Oua Space. Many peop& .these fAw teats .ewe o -water and c ann a.t� .the d we-o fr meet an ywa�t. and O fzen. S zam to " a .P,�.r g .t.swe t kiz gvcoup. Tn .t.c � .the � has no on .the .tw#.r c wt U& t lw- ka4& . The on erg wad to ,seduce .2!4z on Warn e<t, the majo,c aat¢rtr� .to f`�X, wotLed Be .to aresfend a& gwu&th in awa. At the c04u on and WaAneli a zvzg& 4a4i.denzce has .teen .to rn dcu rr, and QQ tng 2 a cony flex 4 48 units. Whate were th.e ae die hands uAzq .this dev� was a.P.Pol jed.? Wye theme noade and Paeans a wed.? ffozv a Bou t on A ego, qu4ju? These .to dlm "eaa . x0t �cau�t.CsViand .&0 co�� Open S- A&. rsa save is attitudes �aa��.i,ahne sa and 8 igu°fitg. With tAe- Ahacl�oue'.s .i,ryvcovements most¢. wi ze a�e.�.to rrzz��..00 oue �, .ay?f�o tt oaez .Locae gov�uv►rent (t vo irtg, ertue, etc. wi.thotat .the cl� "- id¢nt6 .eo sing an} O fen. S�acz oe the .t4a#--i ce. PAaae give thiz .a"iou s coffin �4am a ee views and vote YES. Sinc.�r�-P , Tit ;7n4naon 4'illiam P. Uniack 3332 Bounty Circle Huntington Beach, California 92649 January 5, 1983 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Sirs: Recently I sioned a petition against the development of the Huntington Harbour Bay znd Racquet Club. Due to the fact that at the time I signed the petition the facts of the matter were misstated. I would like to change my signature and vote for the development as I now feel it would be an asset to the community and city. Sincerely, William P. Uniack 1 Aff sw Awftoaic TWWU4a&l("lW REMANUFACTURING • QUALITY WATER PUMPS 6 DISTRIBUTORS FOREIGN - DOMESTIC - COMMERCIAL November 30, 1982 City Counc it S Ptanning COmmi,6,6ion City o6 Hunting to n Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92641 Dea,t Counc.i,L' 6 Commission Members: I ti,ve on Edgcwata lane acAoss Srom the Huntington Harbour Bay C&b. Sevetat days besore the Ptanning Commizzion heating on the redevelopment pean o6 the Cteub, a Lady came to nay doors "king me to sign a petition opposing the C.eub's ptan6. She stated, at the time, that the Ptan caUed Son opening Edgewater Lane to trass.i-c. In tight os this, I became very concerned. However, aster the heating it became apparent that opening os the Edgeuxrter Lane "xu not a pant o6 the CZu.b's pean, but merety a jabnication on the pant o6 those who had organized the petition d Li.ve. The beat inteheet o6 the community td bung sacn%S.cced by a smatt voeat group with peanz o6 thew own. They have gone too San. I urge you to approve the Ctub's new plan. S.incerety, 01 Dick Kaga6os6 11065 Edgewater Lane - -- ----- Au. P.J 60-11A ee7f19 171M O72.12" 17081 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 December 21, 1982 (Waterfront Property) Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach, CA Dear Council Member: After a long period of waiting to bring the issue of the Beach Club redevelopment plan before the Planning Commission we were very surprised and dissappointed that, in spite of overwhelming support, the Commission failed to approve the plan. This plan was largely designed and approved by neighbors directly on the water across from the proposed development. Consequently, we feel this was not a just decision on the part of the Commission. if there are individuals who intend to purchase the Club, or want to discredit the club plan, or have personal accounts to settle with the owner, these are certainly not relevant to the issue at hand. it is obvious the opposition group is misrepresenting the issue to the public. A case in point was the false assumption that Edge- water Lane was going to open up to Warner Avenue. I would like to extend an invitation to the Council to my home directly across from the proposed project so you can personally evaluate some of the questions raised before making your decision. C_ The issue on Open Space, for example, is meaningless. Does Open Space mean Warner Avenue and its thousands of.cars daily? Or is Open Space an ugly parking lot? Or two delapidated buildings with shower and bathroom facilities? Or two derelict tennis courts that have been unplayable and an evesore since their inception? It seems ludicrous to me that so very few are trying to stop, fairly or otherwise, this project that will be a deficite enhancement to our Community and be a great benefit to us all. Furthermore, if we were intending to obtain signatures on false pretences without limiting ourselves to our immediate vicinity, we could obtain thousands of signatures. Sincerely y rs, r r THE LANSDALE COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 27, SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90740 ' (213) 498-3349 December 2, 1982 City of Huntington Beach City Council City Attorney - Gail Hutton Planning Commission Planning Director James Palin Re: Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club Redevelopment Plan Dear Council Members: This letter serves to notify you that, William M. Lansdale is the owner of the residence located at �- 17141 Edgewater Lane, the south boundary of which is adjacent to the north boundary of the parking lot located on the east end of the Bay Club. It is our intent to give our full approval to the new plan proposed by the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club. • We feel that such a facility would be a tremendous improvement to the area as well as an asset to the community. I know that special interest groups are fighting this plan for progress. They do not realize that the new plan will NOT open Edgewater to Warner. Also, the "save our space" campaign is ridiculous. The new plan will significantly improve property values of our homes and enhance the community. Therefore, we would urge the Planning Commission to f THE LANSDALE COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 27, SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90740 ' (213) 498-3349 Huntington Beach City Council Re: Redevelopment Plan December 2, 1982 Page Two approve the new proposal submitted by the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club. Huntington Beach needs a prestigious facility of the type planned by Mr. Ahadpour. Thank you for your consideration of this request. r� Sincerely, ` r William M. Lansdale cc: Mr. Ahadpour Daily Pilot Harbour Sun Registor Independent Press-Telegram To Whom It May Concern: We consider the Proposed Condominums and Tennis Court relocation on the Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club property on Warner Avenue an excellent plan for this Deteriorating Property. We are practically the closest Home to the Units (Actually the Second House) facing them. These Deluxe Condominums would enhance the area and would contribute towards increasing Property Values in our area as well as the entire Harbour. Additionally they would screen Traffic Noise from Warner Avenue. We and all our neighbors on the water front endorse this plan. Since y, ltJ Sheldon Grossman Shell W. Grossman 17131 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 1' • -� x4& ° tzz MEIR BEN-SHOSHAK M. D. SURGEON 17732 BEACH BLVD., SUITE C HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 82647 TCLKPHON[ (714) 848-081 1 October 7, 1982 Members of City Council and Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 We live directly across the water from the proposed plan of re- development of the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racket Club and are in support of the plan. We now have a plan for the ailing club that we can live with. The new structures and the landscaping proposed will enhance our neighborhood more than a parking lot. Sincerely, Ariela and Meir Ben-Shoshan 17099 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 t gvt- so."o✓qN t 70-7 7 EV6£w q Tt a f.r►.,E `ro.) gt q - ----- _ - -- - oct cG isaz. RLAVAN> COMPm6swr-y GrTy cdL-✓ctz_ Ct rY o as N vwnJJGT a✓ gE A G� i:. Gt Ty o'F HF.WrlOV 6TOrV 6CAC-0 t•1 n�(dovh /✓Ry 1Q/I aQ�E 1vd � 6E�I•�MLI� /`►•D fADtE3 "• 1� (�A�trJs t.av1:.D Au1oSs zWE 8A>' FrliH �»f bay yr 2gc�u5?' C#A"B F02 14 yc m c3 � ��, N�wt .596AI A ivUMr66,e Ole Pj.AAlF p:62 Fu,c-TN62 DE✓Ct-a+°MS+vT as Th►6 P&.o(T/l)ry1. ALt, )419LE HAD 1)6�0j/ 59.4-rOW FLAWS f AW NOME BEcW Hl6HLy cpi%MTtorJARXof Tv /'+F A l2fppEl,77 AA-.P N6t611$#,C. Rerecrv�tr,+s -MAT 'TNE 0012,0691'/ Q�,QiAae3 F-wVrNtT2 .D&AFFl6ofj6j5&,r 't7� � FciA,b"jln-&jy VI0961-£ k*L IV OWAot< � � N�vG 2-yr6C-9 :Wr 10�2aiFN7 (h.tar✓S PVT P-t� �;•» gy - F E cr14w-r ow�vc- NvL A"r, A H AD o►fou2, FfIAO TN E o- et-o ms TD 66 wlt oz y S/tTifGAClI�►L� •Tb K� AS !4 NEtGNBIA: . ,�' �� F�gOfiPtv23 F�A�'b PaovtDt< A �'jER56,Jr10j„f /aPr°�A� -, To INn/La✓t.Jg TNT PlLvP�tTy wNa.£ t?.ETA/�iaG `i•�!E Fi�gvt� � A i aZA- 1xCp , 6yMm4 45ajww comnubally, T mPFCA- 'rh 7 We 01.~ �.: 1L.E�'/LEST,tJ'f' A r2E�vc 4fivcF/T 7D ►�Cyvinv6�d�' R£AGfi' �� 4'Sot.✓�r►r6 A 6E¢tor.6 Pr�ht�y ,.v iNC Ntwri�+sld.� Hr9arL6oL2 i9ae:'y J ldvu U26E arti A/'P Y �o►/A 6 /!ND St�Po2 i Oy= Th'E /fit h✓ Pam,f�✓lF;� :, I$y Th't ANRD�ioovrZ.S �rNcal��j n � ORANGE COUNTY-9 LARGEST RE-MANUrACTUREIRO Or OUALITY Presto-Matic Co. GENERATORS - STARTERS -ALTERNATORS Domestic • Foreign a Marine a Commercial & Industrial Voltage Regulators - Solenoids - Parallel Switches - Magnetos 3621 W. BOLSA, SANTA ANA, CALIF. FACTORY - SANTA ANA WAREHOUSE - LOS ANGELES 531.7180 AN 9.5747 December 1,..1982 Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Huntington Harbour Bay Club Redevelopment Plan Dear Members of the Council & Commission: I am a property owner and a resident of Huntington Harbour. I live on Edgewater Lane facing the Club. I have been a,C1ub member for nine years, and I am extremely concerned about the Club's future. As a neighbor, I have been unable to use the 'Club for the past several months. Each time the owner ex- plained that he is*in the process of remodeling and improving the Club. Mr. Ahadpour has been most receptive to our ideas regarding his plans for the Club. I have attendee' at least three meetings at the Club where many of the suggestions presented by our neighborhood group were incorporated in the final plan. I know of at least three individuals - B"ark Ruben, Louis Cardenas, and Jack Ford - whose residences are not located across the Bay, who have none on record as opposing the Club plans. They have accused the owner of payoffs to plan supporters and have created tension in the community. Mr. Cardenas has gone so far as declaring during a Council meeting that he had a seven million dollar cashier's check to buy the Club. It seems that this group is intent on preventing the approval of the plan, thus enabling them to force out the Ahadpours. I urge you to put an end to this ever recurring neighborhood tension by approving the plans as submitted. Mr. Ahadpour has done an outstanding job. I will have to live with the project and look at it for years to come. it is much more attractive than the parking lot and a couple of old buildings. In addition, the plan resolves the Weatherly Bay-front resident's number one concern: the establishment of a permanent pierhead line through the dedication of the waterway to the City, so that in the future no one can extend the boat slips into my backyard. Again, I urge approval. Sincerely yours, 1Caiuko Kagasoff 17049 Edgwelu Lane �aww�wy�.• d1�C, �'A. 9 .�t yF 7� -1544,oc .,ac .t-Xt4-_ c.`u,L o lu-• � La.�..� f&,-- O.�,C G: •,Z Z�ui arv,�c�.v, ►� Jcep u��ys.,t � d•-c ,[a.,..c .ct..... f, J En2ineering Inc . r ,� Automol,41 esearcn Center 15442 Chemical Lane Huntington Beach Calitornia Olson t On Zip Cooe 92649 Telephone 171 4)591 4821.Telex 685 599 November 24 , 1982 Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commiession P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach , California 92648 Re : Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club Redevelopment Plan Dear Council Members : I am a property owner and resident of Huntington Harbour (since 19b'9) and a past active member of the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club . I am very familiar with the past problems of Club ownership and operation and I have personally reviewed the currently C proposed plan of redevelopment offered by Mr . Farydoun Ahadpour. I urge your commission to accept and endorse this plan. Mr . Ahadpour should be complimented and rewarded for his efforts and community concern. Implementation of his plan will enhance the community and significantly improve property values of our homes in Huntington Harbour. Mr. Ahadpour has already expended considerable monies without assurance of profitable return in the true tradition of American entrepreneurship. He and our community deserve the right to complete this development . I know that special interest groups are fighting this plan for progress . Their "save our space" contention is ludicrous . Their smear campaign is laced with prejudice , innuendos , half-truths and outright lies . Please believe me when I tell you that implementation of this plan is best for our community. I also sincerely believe that the project will allow Mr. Ahadpour to realize a fair and equitable profit --- a necessary factor for any business to succeed. IWSd+OFFIGE 300,VAPWTV DWVE ANN APOOA 11,011IC►rGAN 4F;04 1131 973 0310 TELEX 230176 r l Huntington Beach City Council Re: Redevelopment Plan November 24, 1982 Page Two As president and owner of a major engineering company in Huntington Beach, I have used the Beach Club many times for company events and I want to be able to do so in the future. Huntington Beach needs a prestigious facility of the type planned by Mr. Ahadpour . Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sin erely, Donel R, Olson President C DRO: cyc CC: Mr. Farydoun Ahadpour January 3, 1982 Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach, California Subject: Specific Plan for the Bay and Raquet Club Dear Councilmembers: We ask that you approve the subject plan at your meeting of January 17, 1983. From the standpoint of "us residents" across the water from the project the plan has major benefits such as: 1. The establishment for a satisfactory pierhead line. 2. The preservation of recreation open space. Another benefit will be a new restaurant which will be an asset to the area. In addition, the condominiums will be better neighbors than the bare parking lot. - Last but not least will be a conclusion to the succession of new owners who have had grandiose plans for development but no funds to perform and who then present plans for an unacceptable project. Please place proper priority to the view points of the residents of the harbour. Should not the position of immediate neighbors who view the site on a daily basis be given more weight than of residents who live blocks and even miles away who are emotional because of differences with prior owners regarding the operation of the club? Bill and a Hartge 17121 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, California !qco%gz Xay, 10350 Waaco cStzeeE, SoutA EL Aontz, da.Litoulia 91733 Jn-Aio=: 443-7121 r January 5, 1983 City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Dear Council Members: As a property owner and resident of Huntington Harbour since 1968, and a past active member of the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club, I would like to express my support for the redevelopment of the Club. I am familiar with the history of the Club ownership and operation and also with the currently proposed plan for redevelopment offered by Mr. Ferydoun Ahadpour. Mr. Ahadpour's plan will enhance the community from a standpoint of service, aesthetics and economics, and improve property values in Huntington Harbour. I therefore urge the Council to endorse this plan. Sincere , /George Kay , i December 21 , 1982 Huntington Beach City Council P .O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA Re : Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club Redevelopment Dear Council Members : As a waterfront homeowner and boat owner in our closely knit community of Huntington Harbour , I feel a need to express my personal opinion regarding the proposed re- development of the existing Beach Club on Warner Avenue. To digress for a moment , the past ownerships , as I under- stand thtm, have been a loosing proposition, at best ' If our community expects to get any reasonable use of the land and the clubhouse, we must change the past. Those operational procedures , i. e. the idea of owning a clubhouse for just a few, has proven it cannot support those activities and thusly has resulted in great financial loss for all of the past owners and the surrounding community. Because of the past record of the clubhouse , I urge your unanimous support and complete approval of the well-thoughtout site plan. The architect and the owner have proposed a development that fits the Harbour in design of site and elevations consistant with the city' s general plan. I wholeheartedly request your swift approval so myself as well as other Huntington Beach residents may avail ourselves of the services the club will have to offer. Sincerely c e t tzi r 3771 Seascape Drive Huntington Beach, CA. 92649 Richard K. Ashby 3751 Nimble Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 r January 5, 1983 Members of City Council and Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Gentlemen: I have lived in Huntington Harbour for the last 20 years and have watched the Huntington Harbour Beach and Racquet Club go downhill progressively. I feel there is finally a worthwhile building and landscaping proposal that is acceptable relating to the Club and I fully support the acceptance of this project. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Rickard K. Ashby RKA:jd r r January %, 1983 City Council City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, CA Dear Councilman: I have lived in the Harbour ror 14 years. The club has always been an eyesore as it was. I have seen the new plans and feel that it will enhance the community. We have a lot of out-of-town guests and would be very proud to take them to the new facility. The %hadpours have gone to great lengths to satisfy the neighbors and community. Sincerely, January 3 , 1S33 Ci iy Council Prembers: I feel that the proposal of improvements on the proper-y known, a�. the Huntington Harbour Bay 3: Racquet Club is corr— pletely reasonable and will be a ;treat asset to the .:unt,in=-con Harbour community. ?nis has been professionally planned by arcritecis wpo desi.Yned the improvements for the greatest asthetic and economic values possible. It can do not:-:ing but enhance the area. I hope the council . ill be in agreement with my approval of this develo-oment. P Sincerely, 'Harold` W: Prou e y 17045 Marina Bay Drive Huntington Beach , Ca. �2649 January 10, 1983 Huntington Beach City Council Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Huntington Harbour Ray & Racquet Club Development Plan Dear Council Members: I am a resident of Huntington Harbour and I am writing to you to express my full approval of the development plan now before you, for the Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club. I believe that this plan will be an asset to the community and obviously would be an improvement to the conditions that now exist. I urge you to approve this development, both for the good of our community and the effect it will have oii our city, due to the additional taxes it will generate. Sincerely, a�/d Lady 16741 CAFI.OLTSEL LANE I3T-TW=WG'rON BEACH.CALIF. 92849 KENNETH J. BOURGUIGNON DOROTHY J. BOURGUIGNON 3692 ESCAPADE CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92649 January 5, 1983 RE: The project planned at the Huntington Harbour Beach Club To Whom It May Concern As a resident builder in Huntington Harbour, who has been trying to upgrade the Harbour, I feel that this is a step in the right direction. The Club area has been torn up now for years; it has changed hands many times because it was financially not feasible. I even, at one time, considered buying it, but walked away because of all the social problems. Mr. and Mrs. Hadapour have worked two years to solve all the problems and we think it is time to support a good plan and we now have one. This project, when finished, will be an asset to the community and will provide needed taxes to the City. It is always easy to be negative but I hope we can look positively at this community development. Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Bou uign Dotken Engineering, Inc. 1' H t-\TI\GTON HARBOUR 4 January 1983 Huntington Beach City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Bob Mandic, Mayor Don MacAllister, Mayor Pro-tem Ruth Bailey, Councilwoman Ruth Finley, Councilwoman John Thomas , Councilman Jack Kelly, Councilman Ron Pattinson, Councilman Dear Council Member: I am writing in-support of the proposed development plan for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club. I have been employed by The Christiana Companies, Inc. since 1963 and have been an Officer and Director of Huntington Harbour Corporation since 1973. I have been a resident of Huntington Harbour/Huntington Beach since 1967. In the early years, the Huntington Harbour Beach Club was used as a marketing tool and the operating deficits were underwritten by Huntington Harbour Corporation. These deficits continued as long as the Club was owned by Huntington Harbour Corporation. It was intended that as the population of Huntington Harbour grew, and thus as membership and utilization increased, the Huntington Harbour Beach Club would become a self-sustaining profitable entity. In 1973, the Beach Club was sold to a group of investors. These investors were unable to service the debt and Huntington Harbour Corporation foreclosed on the property in 1975. In 1978, Huntington Harbour Corporation sold the Beach Club to another investor. This investor eventually sold the property to the current owner. It is apparent that the property needs extensive revisions to make economic sense. I have reviewed the plans that have been submitted to you for approval . I recommend acceptance of these plans. Sin rely, Ra nd F. Logan President RFL/lb /2 IMo kI)\\ \). "TII FLOOR SA\ DIEGO. CALIFO RN IA 92101 bcc F. Ahadpour� n_ HartfPldPr i Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc. P. O. BOX "I SUNSET BEACH, CALI"NIA January 5, 1983 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Subject: Specific Plan for the Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club Dear Mayor and City Council: The Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association had a general member- ship meeting the evening of Oct. 21, 1982. One item on the agenda was the presentation of the current plan of -the condominium units for the Bay & Racquet Club. A model of the proposed development was at the meeting. There were qpproximately 100 members at the meeting. After the presentation and a question and .answer period, a straw vote was taken. Only three (3) members in the .�audience indicated opposi- tion to the plan. Sincerely ours, Yi I� Anne Woodard, Secretary, H.H.P.O.A. Board of Directors _ �; `^a>>,:~f= `:3 ':-j.. `-=`�• ,�.,+?;:=-=`•fir., i Euritington Harbour Property Froperty Owaers Associati=, Inc. P. O. SOX 791 SUNSET BEACH, CAU"NIA January 5, 1983 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Subject: Specific Plan for the Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club Dear Mayor- and City Council : At the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association, Thursday, Nov. 11, 1982 , it was voted to support the Specific Plan for the Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club. Reasons for the support are that this owner has presented a plan which will finally resolve several potential problems in that location, such as: 1. The establishment of a pierheadline along the line of the existing docks and boats moored in the marina. 2. The preser-7ation of the. recreation and open space. 3. A restaurant and banquet -facility'-Go accomodate not only the residents of the Harbour, but also other residents of the area. , r. A satisfactory plan,for the construct��on of condominiums including extensive landscaping inn -e portion of the parking lot. ' F The Huntington Harbour .Property Owners Asscciaton is an organization comprised of 700 activ.e �members representing over 3200 households on the islands and mainland areas of Huntington Harbour. Very truly -yours, . Anne Woodard, Secretary, H.H.P.O.A;► Bo82`d of biLr8irtprs "" - ..J.'•.;'. :tea-= iY.,: ' _ ��•'^�w,'s •'a': ., ter. .r3 F:� .o f.•, ...c�_.. �T...S:'.; a.fv.�� 4•a''. ,^'.:p. __ _...,. ...•d,.:a.�,n�-.. -. .. -_.�.�'>a,Ga•�aa!Sa:.rarsrtMfi+'�.:x«T4��a.�:ro�i :..Z-..•;�^---•., ' �///�%J//�1�7 C C."G L� L�r`L< �C� .. Lj�� ,� C �^ � L -L���J` 7 ��� � l i��'�!� .. C� ��Z� � �,�/ / �r C'�" � ���r� l�C �� � �� ���� �/y `�� i 6 �n��� �/ f• January 7, 1983 Dear Council Member: I am a physician in Huntington Beach for ten years and a resident of Huntington Harbour. I have seen the plans for the redevelopment of the club and I approve of them 100%. I can see no problem with them. I also enjoy using the club facilities for medical meetings and I am anxious for it to reopen. Please vote yes on the proposed plan. Sincerely, Cam^ vv.v January 5, 1983 Huntington Beach City Council P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club Development Plan Dear Council Members: I am a resident of Huntington Harbour and I am writing to you to express my full approval of the development plan now before you for the Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club. I believe that this plan will be an asset to the community and obviously would be an improvement to the conditions that now exist. I urge you to approve this development, both for the good of our community and the effect it will have on our city due to the additional taxes it will generate. Sincerely, Mrs. Charles Carletto 3906 Humboldt Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 JDH/cls T ryiiivliwcToiv %ercf Girt Go...,.u- - i� /2�&z 44,1_41 40d, VL,�A i� i� : �i �i - 1 � - 2 November 30, 1982 Councilman Jack Kelly P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Re: Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club Dear Councilman Kelly: I have reviewed the present buildings and grounds and have given a lot of thought to the best use for the above referenced property to benefit the people of Huntington Beach and more particularly the Harbour area. I am a local builder and resident of the Huntington Harbour area and have bought, sold and developed over 100 units :nd parcels of land in that area. In my opinion, water orientated condominiums would be the best use for that particular property and the plans submitted by the present owner would be best suited for that use. Very truly yours, 00 46 1 Los Patos Huntington Beach, California 92649 1' 7 % ` -. .� -- �s 6 � s _. �. -- ✓-T - - - ^�� �jD ----�" - --- Syr -- --- ---- -� �- -� -- - �....._ .-_ -�_- r... _._. _ 'To 1 Aot 4TI HzIl To" CAI GITJ� G0L-**+4 CAL �.tlrtr•�ct��• Gr�Mr�I Sstol-t ���c--�•. �.�v�;t,o��T �u Fri- t�uer�a�c�tbN �9� Rrav '�Art.�ut�Tc�u� P►s A c.ot�c�P..#a� �>t��T c�G �4ur�Tit�t[�-'t�N N�►C����- , V.P*4 Fort. � T1•t t�. N .� . �� � • Gtt.�� A5 'Gz-�'� �dl'L �iaN1 t1'['A L TN Tom- CjL4-C41. _t Cori OV4 -V1At,�p K t t4 j r AVFI,du*- OF Tt W-- i 0-140� Tl-tc MA , A.4?!,r,,tylTrE . ►?o°7 7 v trF-*--TFe;foT M . Nv►.1Tt��'�N ��c.�. � . 1 A/Z gr &Ok 0,0,� 0,0 aaetiq Qat e ��� a.� OIAL h L-C � 9 fia '� �,. d h72'.6 'V �'� -�l h3/9Jq � �- � �- b ' �.. � �� -z� '`� �� ���jmay../ '�7 � �( , �/` / . G��� 9� ` �'��-�` ��� � r-� P t �-d�—� c^�1'� C � 4 _ � I r � � � � u� 1. Orange County Word Processing, Inc. ORANGE COUNTY WORD PROCESSING, INC, Raftst VIM 491 1 Warw An, Sah*215 Nrmtlgin I=k CA 92649 p141 $46-5534 December 1 , 1982 Dear City Council : I have reviewed the plans for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club and fully support the plans submitted. I feel as a business owner and resident of the Harbour that this project will be an asset to Huntington Beach. The Ahadpour's are doing a good job for the community. Sincerely, .SSL". Sheila Gregory Vice President � � it l c j� Nov 4, 1982 Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Re: The Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club redevelopment . Having reviewed the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club' s redevelopment plans , I want to say that I approve of them in their entirety. This will be a most welcome charge that should benefit the Huntington Harbour Community and a pleasure to the,- -d-Dub' s members . Gene Simone 17003 Roundhill Dr. Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 (714) 840 6772 17003 Roundhil/Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 i J' SANDS INVESTMENTS x - �� 5 Industrial/Office Brokers 320 Hazel . Corona del Mar,California 92625 (714) 759-9070 January 3, 1983 Dear City Council Members , As a resident of Huntington Harbour, I hope the plans submitted to ,you by the Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club will be approved. Not only are they beautiful but also thev will make it economically possible for the ovners to make the club a successful operation . Thus the H =rbour, after many years, will have an active , permanent club. Yours trulyy Betty F. Prouse • 17045 Marina bay' Drive Auntinpton Harbour, Ca. ;264G C Dorothy Johnson 17073 Edgewater Ln. R;7-t7rgton Beach, Calif. 92649 V -Z G. swc - a� ya � e r f ar 1 fj� -r.,¢uzj r/Ynin�a�ero�tn(,��{2CcG.. 0 � 77 n � eezcct�� �w✓��� 0 �c� aS- �s81 � � � w � �� � � - � �� �� �, � � � �� ��� �� �� ��� �c�,- , cv ti�6v9 f P .t r� V Q co Novembe,t. 11, 1982 Huntington 6each City Counc U 6 Ptanrung Comm,izzion Huntington Beach City IfaZZ 2000 Main Stit.eet Huntington beach, Cai i.6oAn a 92648 Deat S.irc6: I have given the ptean Son tedeve eopmen t o6 the Huntington Hanbon Bay and Racquet CZub, cona.cdeaab.te atudy. A,6 a nea.i,dent o6 Huntington Hanbon, I beet ea.i.d tedevet-opment wttt£ be o6 bene6.tt to me, my 6amity and my neighbon6. Ven.y tau ty you", d i,tr,i tyc = 16611 Na.Zu Ci c ee Huntington Beach, Cat i.6onn.ia 92648 Bd:MM:gm December 8, 1982 Mr. Don Hartf elder 3906 Humboldt Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dear Don: In regards to the Beach Club, as you already know I'd like to see community ownership of the Club House and Barefoot Bar area. It was built for the community and we all share an interest in what happens to the facility, as for the Tennis Courts and the proposed condos along Warner, I feel that they would be compatible with the area and when the other side of Warner is subdivided we will certainly see more of this type of development. The Ahad Pours have made some great improve- ments to the Club House and they will do a first class job on the proposed condos if given the opportunity. Very truly yours, Gar Matthews GM:jt G i r(f r�/ r=C,K -(� cl �f A'"�� PE=F~f� rcr.f CL / •Pi/ P .Ile e- IL r - -i^ram ZGS2• :J L Y�L� ti,� i. �CC = ILL •Lt� ` IraL�� �� Lti-[-i••-• " •C.�c.� � LPL � �� C Lt!� / t Gt�Grj •G2t-� ���L-�'E���-ts-t-c� i To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning CommLission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conpnission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Addz ess: 1 i Date: % To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Conanissio7n`' Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Addzess: btd �E//`j-• Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: 0/ AddZess: — Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sunittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. e As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. ,f Thank you. Name: -Qtrzo Address: 7 Hate:To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Hazbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conanission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Addz ess: 1�. .5-1 Da tr: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Conaaission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for surrittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conaafssion. e As a resident of Huntington Beach withirg close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. } Name: 1 / � Addzess: `T ��' —�'�ciC�rj� t4 � • E ��4 1' To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Hur,tington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conanission. As a resident of Huntington Beach withir, close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: r�/ L m Addzess: Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Hur,tir,gton Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conanission. c As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Addzess: 2 ZU Da t r: �( ��' To: Huntington Beach City Council and Plamning Coanission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I tave personally revie6ed the plan of redevelopment for the H:jbtington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumlttal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conanfssion. As a resident of Huntington Beach vithir, close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Add 1 Datr: / J e To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Conanission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Con=ission. As a resident of Huntington Beach Within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Addzess: 1' Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Coaaa2ssion Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Cononission. e As a resident of Hurit.ington Beacl, within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: _ Addz ess c _ 3 Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Cormaission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conarission. P As a resident of Huntington Beach withirt close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Addzess: _/� �� 5'C_A //V /7_Z G/VZ&i�' 1AJ_ Act 92 G y9 1' i Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. e As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Addz ess: l �/, J' _ r 1' Date: / y/T,L_—_ To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Address: L Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. iyame: Addless. �r Date: /D To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. i Thank you. Name: Addzess: _ CLJ1C Date: /l To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Addzess: _ � _ e" e�' c L _ Date: _� Z► Fz _ i To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Cotmais lion Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the .Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Qao� Addze s• 6 J' Date: Z � O To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Conanission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conaaission. e As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Address: _ Z �-- �-�-�- 1' 1' Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conurdssion. P As a resident of Huntington Beach within, close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Addzess: _ /ts3fl� A ffO I-er Cl�. E Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Jii Addzess: J, Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. P As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. i Name: Address: E�S To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. P As a resident of Huntington Beach vithir, close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Add:ess: e p— J' Datr: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conwd ssion. P As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. � . Thank you. A Name: 1�'' Addz ess: 1 Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Cotmnission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conpnission. As a resident of Huntington Beach vithir, close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: .` Addzess: _ �- �: ;� J 1" �3 C. �1�`F•_ i Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. 1 i Name: Address: l Date: 04 7- To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: / ? Addz ess: _/6 Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sums ttal to the Huptington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident. of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Address: 3 To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within. close :Icinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. 'tame:— Addzess: Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Address: Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and .Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: �? Addr ss• t Datr: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conedssion. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: '� +T e �l. �� t Addzess: _ Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conmission. P As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: c_ Addz ess: "7 C ` / 2 a.4 t Z '' r Date: _ ,Z --- To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planniing Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Cowdssion. O As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. r Thank you. Name: Addzess: Date: 1QL-8a-2 -- To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Co=Ission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Hazbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. O As ; resident of Huntington Bead, within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. (' Thank you. Name: .,�,_ Mark L. Prouse Addzess: 16711 coma R-glnrra Lane _ Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Date: C_- To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Connission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conmiission. a As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I -approve of the Redevelopment Plan. f Thank you. too Addzess: _ L70 0 r Data: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conmission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Tha ou. Name: Addz ess: 44- ` O'I i Da tr: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Coara.ission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Buntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conaafssion. As a resident of Huntington Beach vithir, close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. !Name: Ad d z ess: i 1 Date: r z/ /_2i_ J -7' To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conanission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: Addzess: i Datr: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Caaanission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Hazbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. O As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: �e-eo, Address: - �� Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: CC ., j tJ L\� Address: L40 ae�- -x C A '-A, 'C1, CA R2(,a 4 5 l Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. CThank you. Name: Addzess: ZZ-= Date. To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Commission. As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: \ Y. � �- l V 1Y � •l i Address: `--- To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Hazbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviek*d the plan of redevelopment for the � .. Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conenission. As a resident of Huntington Beach withirs close vicinity to the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you. Name: L / .r Nil f CAL Addz ess: _ 31-0Z �C./ VI /� l cy Date: To: Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Coz=ission Reference: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club I have personally reviewed the plan of redevelopment for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club as prepared for sumittal to the Huntington Beach Council and Planning Conanission. a As a resident of Huntington Beach within close vicinity to - the Club, I approve of the Redevelopment Plan. �^ Thank you. Name: Address: _.1 7/ 7/ c•ry� icc _. DRAFT LAND USE. ELEMENT AMENDMENT 82m=l Environmental impactRepo`rt 82-3 AREAS OF CONCERN 2. 2, 2 . 4, 2 . 5, 2. 6 huntington beach department of development services October r (::� ecember 28 , 1982) ,5 � Land Use Categories RESIDENTIAL =Estate <_2un/gac =Estate <_4 un/gac =Low Density<_7un/gac SO Medium Density<_15un/gac High Density>15 un/gac COMMERCIAL ®General go Visitor-Serving =Mixed Development MIXED USES i=Office/Residential ME Commercial/Support Recreation INDUSTRIAL General =Resource Production OPEN SPACE I Water Conservation =Recreation OTHER USES °�Fr Public,Quasi-Public,lnstitutional IPlanned Community yob a' =Planning Reserve Qlz Dlndustrial Energy Production o a ._ -•Coastal Zone Boundary o ll MIN TNT- a • PACIFIC COAS, OCEAN - •.1 - - - PACIFIC OCEAN HUNTINGT G D L BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING Coastal Program PLANNING DIVISION Land Use Plan i AMENDMENTS - PLANNING COMM.ION DATE COUNCIL Land Use Categories DATE RESOLUTION RESOLUTION II-6-76 IIW 12-6-76 436e RESIDENTIAL 6-7-77 1196 8-1-77 4551 Estate 2un/gac 9-29-77 1202 11-7-77 4551 - < 12 6-77 1206 1219-77 4572 8-I 78 1232 8 21-78 4660 ® Estate <_4 un/gac 1017-78 1239 11 1 78 4696 708 LOW Density <_7 un ac II 21-78 1242 12-19-7 4708 O0, ' `f - y /g 3 6-79 1242 3-19-79 4728 3 16-80 1261 4-7 80 4865 yµ aecu Pua ® Medium Density <_t5 un/gac 10 21-80 1268 12 15-80 4936 J�, •^ 5 19 81 1273 6 is 81 5005 a4. ® , Medium High Density<25un/gac II 3-81 I2 7 12 21 81 5053f' High Density>25 un/gac 11-17-81 1279 12 21 BI 5060 COMMERCIAL General Office P rof sional ?- ®Mixed Development r. INDUSTR GIAL eneral _ ......e::::::::::s::: :::. Q � PUBLIC USE. z:::::::ra:::at ............ Public,Quasi u Institutional :........... 61 P Tv P Open Space - � C PLANNING UNITS Planning Reserve Planned Community OTHER USES 1 \ Resource Production \V Yr9 4 Fm Paz use n�n�coasia tore s:ur,coesla pen. / { - \ COAST HIGHWAY � ;.tPACIFIC F �a u e i�coa> zo:see L-W costal Piae. Cam— r "� e a. ze ' 1 J Ad1h HUNTINGTON BEACH, I34-IFORNIA GENERAL PLAN PONNING DEPARTMENT LAND USE DIAGRAM Adopted December 1976 Revised DEC.1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Methodology 1 2.0 AREAS OF CONCERN AND ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 5 2.1 Yorktown-Main Area 5 2.2 Mushroom Farm Area 13 2.3 Cambro Manufacturing Plant Area 25 2.4 Huntington Harbour Beach Club Area 33. 2.5 Beachview Mobile Home Area 41 2.6 Magnolia-Banning Area 51 2.7 Density Bonus Provisions for Affordable Housing 59 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES 61 3.1 Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity 61 3.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes 62 3.3 Growth Inducing Impacts 62 APPENDICES Appendix A Fiscal Impact Land Use Assumptions Appendix B Initial Study Appendix C Air Quality Calculations Appendix D Letters of Comment Appendix E Letter from State Department of Health Services t . S 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report analyzes Amendment 82-1 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 eighteenth amendment to the element. Existing general plan land uses throughout the City are depicted in the attached Land Use Diagrams. 1.1 Methodology This amendment to the Land Use Element considers requests to change the land use designations in six areas of the City (Figure 1-1). Three of the requests were from private property owners and three were initiated by the City. The first site is located northeast of the Seacliff Office Park near Yorktown Avenue and Main Street; the second site is the Mushroom Farm area north of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street; the third site is the Cambro Manufacturing Plant area north of Clay Avenue and west of Huntington Street; the fourth site is the Huntington Harbour Beach Club off of Warner Avenue; the fifth site is the Beachview Mobile Home Park located immediately north of the City Maintenance Yard on Gothard Street; the sixth site is a City-owned property near the intersection of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street. The amendment request on the six sites are 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. t Y i 20 2. .z / N1NIM IYYl10M .6 Areas of Concern o � O huntington beach planning division 2 Figure 1-1 t Environmental Assessment 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 82-1. An initial study addressing all six areas of concern was prepared pursuant to Section 15080 of the State Government Code to identify potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed land use designations. The E.I.R. focuses on those impacts that were determined to be significant. The environmental setting and significant impacts associated with the issue areas identified in the initial study are addressed under each area of concern (Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6). Alternative land use designations and feasible mitigation measures to minimize significant effects are also discussed in these sections. Section 3.0 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..1 YORKTOWN/MAIN STREET AREA (Page 5.11) THIS SECTION WAS TRANSMITTED TO AND ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR DECEMBER 20f 1982 MEETING. 2.2 MUSHROOM FARM AREA The second area of concern addressed by Land Use Amendment 82-1 is a 26.6 acre property owned primarily by Ocean View Mushroom Growers, located north of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street (Figure 1-1). 2.2.1 Background The applicant, The Janes Company, has requested a redesignation of approximately 20.1 acres of land from open space to medium density residential. This acreage is currently owned by the Ocean View Mushroom Growers and occupied by a mushroom farm. The owner has authorized the Janes Company to seek a redesignation of the property to medium density residential. The City has expanded the applicant's request to include all property south of the mushroom farm to Ellis Avenue (see Figure 2-3). This coincides with the area proposed for inclusion into Huntington Central Park and the subject of the recently completed "Planning Mode Study".1 The expanded study area including the mushroom farm is approximately 26.6 gross acres. The land uses considered in this amendment are: 1) open space; 2) medium density residential; 3) low density residential; 4) estate residential and 5) office professional. The area of concern is currently divided into 76 lots. The majority of the property (approximately 20 acres) is owned by Ocean View Mushroom Growers Inc. The remaining acreage is divided among twelve property owners, the largest of which include: Mabel Bradley (1.89 acres), James Hudson (1.03 acres), and Richard Pariseau (.16 acres). The majority of the subject property is zoned Residential Agriculture with oil and civic district.suffixes (RA-0-CD), with a small area in the southwest corner currently zoned Light Industrial with a Civic District suffix (M1-CD), see figure 2-5. The RA-O-CD zoning is consistent with the open space designation, however, the M1-CD is not. 1 City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Special Report: Planning Mode Study, September 1982. 13 I CF - R ORIGINAL AMENDMENT REQUEST 3 ' PROPOSED STAFF z . :. w INCLUSIOM . 0 c� E LS i E 1 1 I t I i j Area of Concern Two l 14 Figure 2-3 i TALBERT � __j LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL tj C F_R - -- (HLN'T149fUY CENTRAL.PARK) C F-R iiRA!iu(: ?:G!:+N .!.'J i1,A1 BARK) R 0 EN SP M � C FTM CF-C W PROPOSED HELIPORT g 1111 GENERA FACILITY COM . P _ _ESTATE,,MaIDENTIAL _ 2UN GAC INDUSTRI i ESTATE RESIDENTIAL 4UN GAC N OFFICE g F . RESOURCE PRODUCTION AVE' GARFIELD MED . DE.N. RESiIDENTIAL Existing General Plan Area of Concern 2 .2 02 C3 o . Figure 2-4 15 s ° TAL_9=RT MI-CD s s RI RI RI RI CF R MI-CD MI-CD z6=== RA-0-CD MI MI RI RA-O-CD - ' RI 0-CD R CF-C �M,W CR U O-CD LU-O-CD U-O-CD LU-O-CD rn W MOU TJO 3 >.. MI-CD RI RI LU-O-CD LU-O-CD LU-O-CD LU-O-CO z W MI p J z LU-O-CDELU-0-C:D LU 0-CD LU 0 CD I-CD B ppp Ee RI u-o-CD W MI '` f RA-CD _ MI-O-CD LU-O-CD y , 1650— MI-ol R 2 RA-O-CD - M' k LOT, LU-O-CD RA-0-CD U-O-CD swe 660 RA-O-CD RaacD o M2 330 660E j RA-CD ---^4 ' Q a Q RA-0 MI-0 RA-01 J 140 RA-0 RA-O-C MI-0 FLU-O-CD RA-0-CD ERNEST AVE Mi 330 MI-0-CDL 0 F F 3s 639 93' y yp MI-CD� °` 1 MI-A-CD MI-0 MI-0 RA-01 �RA-01 RA O-CD �' R5 - w 3 t`- F�' FR f RS -- }- -- RA-0-CD 3304 p 5 pf wRA-0_ R5?: AV E. GARFIELD Existing Zoning Area of Concern 2 .2 o � o � D O 16 Figure 2-5 ti Property to the north and east of the study area is designated as open space and is occupied by Huntington Central Park. Sully Miller Lake is located in the park immediately adjacent to the site. Property to the west on the opposite side of Goldenwest includes additional Central Park property, and a 10.1 acre parcel recently redesignated to allow for park-oriented commercial use. The property south of the study area across Ellis Avenue is vacant and is part of a larger area designated for estate residential development at 0-2 and 0-4 dwelling units per acre. Planning staff is currently in the process of preparing a specific plan to implement this designation. Planning Mode Study The project area was recently the subject of a special "Planning Mode Study". This report, prepared at the direction of the City Council, addressed four possible land uses for the site: 1) garden offices with an adjoining restaurant; 2) residential; 3) recreational vehicle camp and 4) commercial nursery/tree farm. The report recommended that the property be acquired by the City as part of Huntington Central Park and that a recreational vehicle (RV) facility be located on the site using a phased development approach. Staff proposed that 200-230 spaces be developed initially, using only a portion of the site. In this way the City can monitor the project's revenue generating potential and assess whether an expanded RV facility would be cost effective in the long term. If the project does not generate revenue over a period of time, an alternative land use can be recommended for the site. At the time of the writing of this report, the City Council had not taken any formal action on this recommendation. 2.2.2 Analysis 1. Land Use The current land use designation on the site is open space, which allows community recreational facilities, agricultural or other general open space uses on the site (Figure 2-4). Under this designation, the site could be developed privately for commercial recreation or other open space uses. If the property is acquired by the City, the open space designation would accommodate the proposal to include the acreage into Huntington Central Park. A redesignation of the site to medium density residential (Alternative Two) would result in a maximum of 399 units and an accompanying population of 1,121 persons. In comparison, Alternative Three, low density residential would allow a maximum of 186 units with a resulting population of approximately 522 persons. Alternative Four, estate residential, would permit no more than 106 units with an estimated population of 297 persons. A redesignation to office professional (Alternative Five) could result in approximately 324,174 square feet of office space. This would generate approximately 507 employees. For comparative purposes, this is approximately equivalent to the square footage in "One Pacific Plaza" which proposes 396,000 square feet of development. It should be noted, however, that One Pacific Plaza is being developed on a smaller site and has a multi-story suffix. 17 A garden office complex could also be developed under the office professional designation. This would result in a lower intensity use that would be more compatible with surrounding areas. The Planning Mode Study analyzed a garden office development on this site and concluded that there would be very little demand for any offices on this site. At the present time thirteen office developments are under construction in the City with four more major developments in the planning stages. The latter will more than double the City's current supply of office space. In addition,the City is encouraging new office development to locate in the old downtown core as part of an overall revitalization effort. Promoting new office development on the amendment site may deter prospective tenants from locating in the downtown area. The significant amount of new construction mentioned above has contributed to a high vacancy rate in the City. This rate combined with the fact that the site is not easily accessible from the freeway indicates that an office use designation would not be a viable use on this site. Land Use Compatibility Retaining the existing open space designation would assure that future development of the site would be compatible with the surrounding recreational areas. As previously mentioned, this designation would also accommodate the acquisition of the site by the City for inclusion into Central Park for an RV use or other park uses. Adding the area to Central Park would create a more uniform boundary for the park and would allow increased access and development possibilities for the adjacent Sully Miller Lake. The area of concern is generally surrounded by existing or proposed recreational areas with the exception of the area to the south which is anticipated to be designated at estate residential. A low density or estate residential designation on the area of concern would be compatible with the existing and proposed recreational areas adjacent to the site and would provide a logical extension of the equestrian estate development proposed to the south. A medium density residential would be less compatible with the area to the south than a lower density use because of the greater concentration of units and population. Such development would require adequate buffering and screening to protect the area's open space atmosphere. Residential development on site would largely isolate Sully Miller Lake from the rest of Central Park and may preclude renovation of the lake into a useable recreation area. In analyzing any residential use it should be noted that the police heliport facility may be relocated immediately southeast of Central Park in the near future. The project proposes to move the police 18 c hangar and all maintenance activities from their current location at the John Wayne Airport to this site. There is also some interest in someday expanding this operation to include commercial shuttle service from Huntington Beach to Orange County Airport. Future homes on the amendment site would be located immediately under the proposed flight path which could create severe noise conflicts for future residents. In addition, the Policeman's Association Firing Range is located northeast of the project site and new homes might also be in conflict with this facility. An office professional designation on the site could allow a very large office development to be located in an area that generally has an open and rural atmosphere. This would not be compatible with the surrounding recreational uses in light of the potential traffic and intensity of development. The Planning Mode Study analyzed locating a garden office complex on this site. Such development would result in a lower intensity development and would probably be more aesthetically compatible with the surrounding area. However, in light of the surrounding Central Park property, even garden offices would require significant buffering and would not be the most appropriate use of the site, as they could potentially isolate portions of Central Park. Also as previously mentioned, there is very little demand for additional office space in this area. 2. Economic Considerations The Planning staff, in cooperation with Ultrasystems, Incorporated, 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, 1982-1992. The land use assumptions used in the model for each alternative are outlined in Appendix A. The results of the analysis are outlined in the following table. Alt. 2 Medium Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 1 Density Low Density Office Estate Cash Flow Basis Open Space(2) Residential Residential Professional Residential Revenue (1) 17,898.51 3,276.11 1,657.68 653.71 1,608.51 Cost (1) 4,103.50 2,464.70 1,263.13 1,873.18 873.05 Reven minus cost ell 13,795.01 811.41 388.55 -1,219.47 735.46 Revenue/cost 4.36 1.33 1.31 .35 1.84 (1) in $1,000 (2) Assumes a City-owned and operated Recreational Vehicle Park. Does not include cost of land acquisition. As the above table shows over a ten year period all of the alternatives, except office professional, generate a surplus to the City ranging from $13,795,010 for Open Space (recreational vehicle park) to $388,550 for low density residential. The Office Professional alternative would produce approximately a $1,219,470 deficit to the City over ten years. l9 F 3. Housing Retaining the open space designation or redesignating the site for office professional use would have little impact on the City's housing stock since it would not remove any acreage currently designated for residential in the City's General Plan. The current RA zoning on the majority of the site only allows one dwelling unit on a one-acre building site and no further subdivision of existing parcels. A redesignation to any residential use (medium, low or estate) could result in an expansion of the City's housing stock. As mentioned in Section 2.2.2.1, a maximum of 106 dwelling units could be developed under an estate residential designation, 186 under a low density designation, and 399 under a medium density designation. Residential units developed at an estate or low density would most likely not be affordable to families of low or moderate income. A medium density designation would provide the most opportunity for a development containing affordable units. The City has no policy for requiring affordable housing in new developments, except in the coastal zone, so the type and selling price of dwelling units on the subject site would depend upon the specific project proposal. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The site is presently served by an existing 8" sewer line in Goldenwest Street. The City's Public Works Department has indicated that some of the proposed alternatives resulting in higher intensity use on the site may require the construction of additional sewer line. The need for additional sewers is predicated on the capacity of the existing sewer at the time of development. If necessary, a new line would be constructed parallel to the existing one in Goldenwest. b. Water The site is served by 14" and 12" water mains in Goldenwest Street and a 12" water main in Talbert. The existing water main along Goldenwest Street is one of the oldest in the City and is in need of upgrading as it has serious pressure problems. Extension of a 12" water main along Ellis Avenue from Gothard Street would be required prior to the development of this property. The cost for extending this water main would be the responsibility of the project's developer. 20 C. Drainage There are no storm drains located on the project site. The existing storm drain in the area is a 36 inch reinforced concrete pipe which runs south from Huntington Central Park, draining into Sully Miller Lake to the east of the project site. Depending on the final development and grading plans, the northern section of the property could tie into the existing 36" storm drain serving Huntington Central Park. The southern portion of the property could tie into the existing library storm drain or could be piped through a desiltation basin adjacent to Sully Miller Lake. The City's Public Works Department has requested that any future development on site be designed to carefully control drainage to help clean up Sully Miller Lake. d. Park As previously mentioned, the project area is surrounded by Central Park on three sides. Community Services Department has analyzed purchasing the property for an addition to Central Park. It is estimated that the acquisition cost would be approximately five to six million dollars. This cost would require a major financial committment for the City and may cause a reprioritization of park development. Again, it is important to stress that whether the City purchases the property or it remains in private ownership, future development should be carefully monitored to minimize potential incompatibilities with Central Park. e. Police and Fire Protection The City's Fire Department has indicated that adequate service could be provided to the area under any of the five alternatives. The Police Department has indicated that Alternatives Two and Five (Medium Density Residential and Office Professional) would require two additional officers and Alternatives Three and Four (Low Density Residential and Estate Residential) would require one additional officer. f. Schools The Ocean View Elementary School and Huntington Beach Union High School Districts have indicated that their existing schools could accommodate the students generated by any of the three residential land use alternatives. 5. Gas and Electrical Utilities and Telephone Service The Southern California Gas Company, the Edison Company and the General Telephone Company have indicated that adequate service could be provided for the area of concern under any of the five land use alternatives. 21 6. Solid Waste Disposal Service to the project area is provided by Rainbow Disposal Company; they do not anticipate any difficulties in serving the project area. 7. Traffic and Circulation Access to the area of concern would be from Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue. Goldenwest has an estimated future capacity of 25,000 - 30,000 trips per day, and Ellis has an estimated capacity of 25,000 trips per day. Current traffic on Goldenwest is approximately 23,000 trips. There are no current counts available on Ellis at this time. Projected future traffic volumes from the study area are estimated as follows: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation Alternative 1 218-440 trip ends* Open Space Alternative 2 2,673 trip ends Medium Density Alternative 3 2,585 trip ends Low Density Residential Alternative 4 1,473 trip ends Estate Residential Alternative 5 7,981 trip ends Office Professional *Traffic volumes will depend on type of use. SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982. Public Works Department has recommended that when significant development occurs, full improvements will need to be made to all arterial streets and that the intersections of Ellis and Goldenwest and Talbert and Goldenwest will need to be increased to provide a greater turning radius. Public Works has also recommended when development occurs access be limited to one opening on Goldenwest and one opening compatible with proposed street openings on the south side of Ellis. Goldenwest in the area close to the freeway currently experiences severe traffic during the commuter rush hours. While this project will result in additional traffic on Goldenwest, Public Works anticipates improving other freeway access streets such as Bolsa Chica to prevent this situation from worsening. The County's 1995 projections do not show significant problems on Goldenwest due to these other access improvements. 22 a The Orange County Transit District has indicated that development under alternatives one, two, three or four could result in the need for a bus turnout and shelter on Goldenwest Street. B. Environmental Issues a. Human Health During March of 1982, the State Health Department conducted a statewide survey to locate inactive or abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites that were used between 1945 and 1972. A potential site was identified in the area between Goldenwest and Gothard Streets on Talbert Avenue, which would be adjacent to the General Plan Amendment study area. However, after completing further inspections and soil samples, the State determined the site to be nonhazardous. A letter from the State Department of Health Services documenting this has been included as Appendix E. b. Plant Life The project area is currently being used by the Ocean View Mushroom Growers as a productive mushroom farm. The open space designation (existing land use designation) would be the only one of the five alternatives being considered that would permit continued agricultural uses. Any other development on this site would preclude the continued use of this site for agricultural purposes. 2.2.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the existing open space designation be retained on the project site. Because of the site's unique location adjacent to Huntington Central Park and Sully Miller Lake, future development of the site as an additional recreational facility would seem to be the most compatible land use. This designation would also be consistent with future expansion plans for Central Park. While low density or estate residential would be compatible with surrounding uses, there could be potential conflicts with the heliport and firing range. In addition, residential development would isolate the two sections of Huntington Central Park. An office development on this site would be a high intensity use adjacent to open space and would therefore be incompatible. Additionally, the Planning Mode Study showed that currently there is no demand for offices on this site. 2.2.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the existing open space designation be retained on the subject site with the same findings as discusser) in the staff recommendation above. 23 r 2. 3 CAMBRO MANUFACTURING PLANT AREA (Page 25-32) THIS SECTION WAS TRANSMITTED TO AND ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR DECEMBER 20, 1982 MEETING. 2.4 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB The fourth area of concern addressed by Land Use Element 82-1 is a 5.7 acre site located on Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes (see Figure 1-1). The amendment request was filed by the property owner, the Huntington Harbour Beach Club and Marina, in conjunction with Landal Development Incorporated and Pacific Development Incorporated. 2.4.1 Background The applicant's request is to redesignate 5.7 gross acres from open space to mixed development (Figure 2-9). The three land use alternatives considered in this amendment are open space, mixed development and low density residential. The area of concern is currently zoned Recreation Open Space(ROS) (Figure 2-10) and is developed as the Huntington Harbour Beach Club which includes a clubhouse, private beach, tennis courts and other recreational amenities. The subject property is generally bounded by Wetherly Bay Marina to the north, medium density residential to the west, low density residential to the east and Warner Avenue to the south. The existing residential development to the east of the site and across Wetherly Bay is part of the Huntington Harbour development and consists of single family water oriented homes. The property on the opposite side of Warner Avenue is within Orange County's Coastal Zone and is included in the County's Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan area. While specific development plans have not yet been adopted by the State Coastal Commission, the County has proposed that medium to high density residential uses will be located along this section of Warner. 2.4.2 Analysis 1. Land Use Under the existing open space general plan designation and ROS zoning, recreational uses such as those currently occupying the site are appropriate. A redesignation to mixed development could allow a variety of uses including: retail and specialty commercial, office professional, hotels and motels, residential, public facilities, light industrial uses, open space and recreational facilities. The applicant has requested a redesignation to mixed development in order to accommodate a development plan for commercial recreation combined with residential. Specifically, the proposal includes upgrading the existing beach club and recreational facilities and constructing 48 residential condominiums along Warner Avenue. 33 t . r N U 2 rn 9 v W Z 0 4Q. m WESTPORT J _ ILL b ,� T � w LOW DENSITY 7UN/G C EDGEWATER - CF—R 0RION WEATHERLY BAY — OPEN SPACE �- LADaN OK WATER _ MEDIUM Cfc � W DENSITY ---+- -��. RESIDENTIAL " a-WARNER) - r Existing General Plan Area of Concern 2.4 o o - 34 Figure 2-9 I r rc� R I - ". ��Sl J'°Uml !J R2� �r R2._-`---J R I y }i ,_ ST RI oa. my 107 RI CF-R 0"EF DR. ` , R I 33 RI R2 R2 FR2 R2 R2 R2 R3 M RI RI to R I Ci4 CF-R R I MI 5. MILO ST R3 300' U 1 W$W R I R 1 F-R a I c M. Ito: R3 a �RPoRT 2 Rl z R3 R3 R3 = R3 C2 I RI u r : R I CF-R RI RI g ; WNDSOR oR R I R I R I R I J W RI S I RI q R I = JlO iYC M..- 330 3( 110• W �\ RI RI =,f a R3y R3 «11 ~R R3 R 3 R3 R3 -. C 4: R I R R 2 R2" R3-19 RI RI eC2 19 CF—R p� GRgN .. WEAumy e", R RI . �� RI R I CF—R �� R IALAWN Co. R I R i RI ROS RI 3 RI14c WARNER AVE. gas R2-PD-14 {Cf � IVREXNEN RC u PRCI \ •�3, j j \ I t A C. p\ S' 0 °c�9ti :4 Existing Zoning Area of Concern 2 .4 ' o o 0 o � 35 Figure 2-10 The compatibility of a mixed use designation with the surrounding areas I will ultimately depend on the type of land uses developed. As previously mentioned, the mixed use designation allows a wide variety of land uses in addition to recreation and residential. Some of these uses, particularly industrial and commercial could have significant adverse impacts on the surrounding developments and would be inappropriate on this site. Should the site be redesignated to mixed use it is important that only those land uses compatible with adjacent properties be allowed. One way to do this would be to condition the General Plan Amendment to allow only recreational and residential uses on this property. The applicant has also agreed to rezone the site through a specific plan process. This plan will indicate the size and location of all facilities, parking and landscaping to be permitted on the site. It should be noted that a mixed use designation could result in the existing recreational facilities recycling to a new use. These facilities were originally designed to serve the Huntington Harbour residents. Should the City wish to retain some recreational amenities on this site, they may want to condition the General Plan Amendment to require that a certain portion of the site remain in recreational uses. Another approach would be to require that a Specific Plan process be used to implement the mixed use designation. The Specific Plan can then set a maximum residential density and require that a certain percentage of the site remain in commercial recreation. The third land use considered for the subject area is low density residential. Should the existing facilities recycle, this designation could result in 39 units at full development. A low density use would be compatible with surrounding. neighborhoods, however, access and parking for the existing public marina would need to be preserved in the new development. This designation could also result in a loss of recreational facilities currently enjoyed by Huntington Harbour residents. Coastal Considerations The project site is located within the City's Coastal Zone boundary. At this time, because the City's local coastal program has not been certified, all projects within this zone must be reviewed and approved by the California Coastal Commission. The City's Land Use Plan designates this site as open space recreation. Should this designation be changed, the City would be required to amend the Coastal Land Use Plan, and such amendment would need to be consistent with the policies contained in Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. When reviewing the City's coastal plan, the Coastal Commission has been concerned with preserving access to Weatherly Bay and preserving existing views from Warner Avenue to the bay. Any future development on the area of concern should be sensitive to these issues. 7,6 c . s Three policies in the City's adopted Coastal LUP relate to Area of Concern 2.4. Policy 4g states "Preserve and where possible provide additional access to Huntington Harbour waterways." Public access to Huntington Harbour waterways can be provided under an open space, a mixed use, and a residential land use designation. None of the alternatives analyzed for the subject site would preclude the provision of such access. The exact location of such access should be determined at the project level. Policy 6a states among other things that new development should preserve public views to the shoreline and ocean.. Views to and from Huntington Harbour waterways on the subject site are currently limited by the existing real estate office and tennis courts. Depending on the specific project design, development on the site under any of the land use alternatives analyzed could preserve and enhance much of the view currently available from the site. Policy 15f requires, with some exceptions, that 20 percent of new residential projects be affordable. As discussed in Section 2.4.2.3 of this report, this policy would apply to residential development on the area of concern. 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, 1982-1992. The land use assumptions used in the model for each alternative are outlined in Appendix A. The results of the analysis are summarized in the following tables: Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 Mixed Low Density Cash Flow Basis Open Space Development Residential Revenue (1) 76.15 607.62 591.81 Cost (1) 138.54 358.89 265.34 Revenue minus cost (1) -62.39 248.73 325.97 Revenue/cost .55 1.69 2.23 (1) in $1,000 As shown in the above table, the mixed development and low density residential alternatives would generate a surplus to the City over a ten year period of approximately $248,730 and $325,970 respectively. The Open Space alternative would generate a deficit to the City of approximately $62,390. 37 3. Housing A designation of low density residential or mixed development with residential included, could result in approximately 39-48 additional housing units being added to the City's existing housing stock. The City's Housing Element of the General Plan includes policies aimed at increasing housing opportunities for households with low and moderate incomes. Considering the location of this particular site, it is improbable that any affordable units would be constructed in this area. However, pursuant to the housing policy contained in the City's Coastal Element, all new residential projects of 20 or more for-sale units in the coastal zone must provide for 20 percent of the project as affordable units either on-site or elsewhere within the City. A 48-unit condominium project on this site could result in the addition of ten affordable units to the City's housing stock either on-site or elsewhere within the City. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The study area is served by a 15" sewer located in Edgewater Lane and a 15" sewer located in Warner Avenue. The City's Public Works Department indicates that due to its low elevation, the area has traditionally experienced severe sewage problems. All sewage from Huntington Harbour is pumped uphill by Pump Station "D" before it can connect into a gravity flow system. This pump station is currently nearing capacity. Should significant development occur in the Huntington Harbour area, improvements to the station may be needed. Costs for improvements will be shared proportionately by developers. b. Water The area is served by a 14" water main located in Warner Avenue along with a six inch water main in Sceptre Lane and an eight inch water main in Edgewater Lane. At this time the Public Works Department does not anticipate any difficulty in servicing the project area under any of the three land use designations. C. Drainage The project site is served by a 24" storm drain in Warner Avenue and a 15" storm drain originating in the center of the project site. The storm water from these pipes drains into the Bolsa Chica immediately across Warner from the subject site. The City's Public Works Department does not anticipate any modifications will be required to serve the site under any of the three land use designations. 38 d. Parks New residential construction developed in conjunction with the existing recreational facilities would be adequately served by recreational amenities on the project site. These include: tennis courts, a swimming pool and a private beach. Should the existing recreational amenities recycle to allow for residential development there would be a reduction of facilities in this neighborhood. However, the project site could still be served by a number of mini parks located throughout the Huntington Harbour area as well as by Bolsa Chica State Beach located less than a quarter of a mile away. e. Police and Fire Protection The City's Police and Fire Departments have indicated that adequate service could be provided to the area of concern under any of the three land use alternatives. f. Schools The project site is located within the Ocean View Elementary School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The Districts do not anticipate that there will be any problem accommodating the students generated by either a residential or mixed use land use. g. Gas and Electrical Utilities.and Telephone Service The subject site is currently served by Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company and General Telephone. These companies have indicated that there will be no difficulty serving future development under any of the three alternatives. h. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company has indicated that it can provide adequate service to the property under any of the land use alternatives. 5. Traffic and Circulation Primary access to the project will be from Warner Avenue. Warner currently has a capacity of 25,000 - 30,000 trips per day. Ultimate capacity of Warner Avenue is projected to be 40,000 trips per day. Existing traffic volume is approximately 20,000 trips per day. The Public Works Department does not anticipate any problem in accommodating future traffic from the three alternatives as the actual counts are considered to be insignificant. The following table provides projected future traffic volumes: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation Open Space Recreation 64 Trip ends Mixed Development 385 Trip ends* Low Density Residential 542 Trip ends This number is based on the conceptual plan submitted by the applicant. 39 It should be noted that the County's plan for future development of the Bolsa Chica could generate significant traffic along Warner Avenue. The County proposes to mitigate this problem by re-aligning Warner and re-designing it to accommodate any additional traffic. It is anticipated that by 1995 Warner will be carrying between 35,000 and 39,000 trips per day. The Orange County Transit District has indicated that a bus turnout and shelter may be required on Warner Avenue depending on future levels of development on the subject site or in the Bolsa Chica. 6. Environmental issues a. Hydrology The Huntington Harbour area has traditionally experienced water duality problems due to lack of proper tidal flushing. Because of the site's ioc Lion adjacent to the Bay, any grading to accommodate future dt veiops-nent must be carefully monitored for alterations in runoff patten-d;; or potential impacts to water quality. b. Seismic. Safety The proposed site, along with a major portion of Huntington Harbour is located in the AlIquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zone. This zone identifies areas of seismic risk. Geologic studies are required by State law prior to building this area and will be required as conditions `or approval. 2.4.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the applicant's request for. a mixed development designation be grans ed with the conditions that only residential and recreational i.Sses are to be pernnitteo, that a maximum of 48 units be permitted on the site, and that the designati1-, be implemented by specific plan. Of the land uses allowed 'under mixed development, staff feels that a residential use combined with the existing co€ imercial recreational facilities would be the most appropriate. This aii.ows the existing recreational facilities to be preserved and allows additional residential development which would be compatible with the surrounding homes. The applicant proposes using a specific plan process to provide zoning for the site. At the time the specific plan is filed careful consideration should be given to see that adequate buffering is provided between new residential units and the existing homes. Additionally, future development should not prohibit access to the public marina. 2.4.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission.recommends that the existing open space designation on the subject property be retained. In making this recommendation, the Planning Commission finds that (1) the proposed mixed development designation is inconsistent with the certified Coastal Land Use Plan for Huntington Beach, (2) a mixed development is not compatible with the existing surrounding development, and (3) the existing open space designation is compatible with the existing development and allows all uses proposed in the mixed use designation other than residential. 40 2.5 BEACHVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK The fifth area of concern addressed by Land Use Element 82-1 is a 5.6 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Gothard Street just north of the City Yard (see Figure 1-1). 2.5.1 Background The area of concern is a privately owned site that is occupied by the Beachview Mobile Home Park, an 81 unit mobile home park which has been in existence since 1961. The mobile home park has a density of 14.4 dwelling units per acre. The present use is inconsistent with both the existing general plan designation of general industrial and the MI (light manufacturing) zoning on the site (see Figure 2-11 and 2-12). At its April 19, 1982 meeting, the City Council directed staff to initiate a rezoning of seven mobile home parks in the City to MH, Mobile Home zoning. The area of concern, Beachview Mobile Home Park, requires a redesignation in the General Plan for consistency before MH zoning can be applied. A medium density residential designation would be consistent with an MH zoning and with the existing density of Beachview Mobile Home Park. A low density residential designation would not accurately reflect the existing density of the park, but it would be consistent with an MH zoning district. (It should be noted that the existing Beachview Mobile Home Park would not conform to the City's MH zoning district with respect to density since this district allows a maximum of nine units per acre.) This analysis considers three land use designations: general industrial, medium density residential, and low density residential. Ocean View High School is located immediately north of the area of concern. It is designated for public, quasi-public, or institutional uses, and is zoned CF-E, (Community Facilities Educational). Property to the south of the area of concern is designated general industrial, zoned CF-C (Community Facilities - Civic), and occupied by the City Maintenance Yard. The area east of the subject site across Gothard Street is designated general industrial, zoned M1, and developed with a mixture of uses including older single family homes, light industrial and a private horse corral. 41 r CAIN AVE- CF - E - - . PUBLIC USE CEDAR AVE -- - 1 J z iGENERU BETTY DR INDUSTRIAL i FORD DR LOW DENSITY ----------- RESIDENTIAL -- SUNLREEZE ? DR Cr W V 2 O - J r V) tL YCr Q Vl ATER GEN . COMM :GENERAL W - at�.,:,._...,.. .:. �,.,.. INDUSTRIAL - _ OPEN SPACE Existing General Plan Area of Concern 2.5 0 0 0 42 Figure 2-11 a Property west of the area of concern is designated low density residential and developed with single family homes. A cul-de-sac within this residential development abuts the west end of the subject site. 2.5.2 Analysis 1. Land Use Beachview Mobile Home Park can continue to operate on the area of concern as a legal, non-conforming use under any of the three land use alternatives. The park contains 81 coaches and has a current population of 117 persons with one vacant coach. Should the mobile home park recycle to a new use, the existing general industrial designation could result in approximately 92,411 square feet of light manufacturing uses. Given the size and configuration of the subject site, it is likely that the development would consist of small-scale tenants (i.e., 8,000 square feet per tenant or less) such as light manufacturing, wholesale, machine and auto repair shops. These types of uses would generate approximately 100 employees. A change of use under a low density residential designation on the site could result in a maximum development of 39 residential units. This would generate an estimated population of 110. A medium density residential designation would allow a maximum of 84 units and an estimated population of 236. Land Use Compatibility The existing mobile home park on the subject site is compatible with the low density residential development to the west. To the north, the Ocean View High School parking lot abuts a portion of the area of concern, and playing fields are adjacent to the rest of it. Some problems due to the close proximity of the school baseball diamond have been experienced by mobile home park residents. A greater potential for incompatibility exists with the City Maintenance Yard south of the subject site. Complaints from mobile home park residents have been received by the City about noise from the activities of an industrial nature that occur in the City Yard. The mobile home park could also be adversely impacted when the existing older homes and mixed uses east of the subject site across Gothard Street recycle to industrial. Given the age of existing development in this area, it is likely that recycling could begin to occur in the forseeable future. The existing general industrial designation on the subject site could allow recycling to light industrial development. This would be consistent with the City's stated goals of retaining industrial zoning on properties so classified and developing Gothard Street as an industrial corridor. Industrial use on the subject site would be compatible with the City Yard to the north and with the area east of Gothard Street when it recycles to industrial uses. 43 -RES.izB. MI ----- RI 'Pv iw C F—E i� R3 �R3 R3 R3 a �� C2 0 LI- I RHINE q pT. uxE w i2 sE va sw v< O TERRr s0000 F OR SEC.2;-3-II / J � LA MANCNA CR R2 R3 M I % MoorvsR2 CF R R3 R3mR3 / " R3 o R2 FA.R-I CORS�CAN OR ✓fl: V_ R3 R3 f — DAMASK DRIVE C. i C. D. O C. E C�1O D C6—I 000 R3 BOI ry I. C2 TOULOUS- DR. R2 150'. r R3 JR3 R = M1 N� w R E h R3 R2 1sD o C2 R3 „, 4 ELR w. r w', C4 j o J goo i--1 �C2 R3 xC4 8 R220 - - - WARNERm�l R2 j R 5 „�__ - — - re _ FIR DR so l'r5o C4-MS N CAIN AVE R2 ,..,:L50 CF_E -- -„- N _ N cr N f-,. I Mi WMi 0LR 2° R2J a 'LJ g i CF-R YrREU AV � � 'ao, CEDAR AVE. '-- _ R2 190 „° '°`€MI R 2 R 2 Rz I� JI RI A RI ,AVim CF E R3 330 TO E' BETTY RI DR 1 L11 III L1 1 J DR ERsnry cR. MANDRELL R3 R3cr M I C 4! RI RI V RI u Rl aRI W J BARTON DR R3 z CF--C R3 PoeD RI CD DR RI CD -- j 3 RI ,-Tc ° CIF - — R3 s I X cc I I C RI-CD o RI-CD =RI CD„ R3 o w JR3 w w R3 R3 x R3 W R3 <° AT —�I --L Ao C14 cD M l—CDMH i1 6E o✓ RA-CD of o --- �- o SPEE0.LO qy a M I R2 C4 s° C F—R M 1 la(— R3 39- _ Y R3 7R2 �C4 30000 NtNMAN __ AlF�� 50 Existing Zoning Area of Concern 2 . 5 C� o 0 o C 44 Figure 2-12 t Special buffering, however, would be necessary to protect the residential development to the west. Few, if any, impacts to Ocean View High School would be created by light industrial uses on the subject site because it is adjacent to school playing, fields rather than classrooms. It should be noted that the subject site is adjacent to parts of Gothard corridor which is included in a redevelopment survey area. A low or medium density residential designation on the subject site would be compatible with the existing low density residential development to the west and could be compatible with Ocean View High School to the north. Special buffering, however, would be needed to mitigate adverse impacts to residential development on the subject site from the activities carried on in the City Yard. Residential development on the area of concern could also be adversely impacted when the existing older homes and mixed uses on the east side of Gothard Street recycle to industrial uses. As previously mentioned, given the nature of the existing development in this area, it is likely that recycling could begin to occur in the foreseeable future. MH Zoning and the Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance The City's MH zoning district requires a minimum park size of ten acres and allows a maximum density of nine units per acre. Since Beachview Mobile Home Park is a 5.6 acre park and is developed at a density of 14.5 dwelling units per acre, it does not conform to the MH zoning district. Thus, the park will continue to exist as a legal, non-conforming use regardless of what land use designation or zoning is placed on the site. It is important to note that the mobile home park can continue to operate as a legal non-conforming use under either an industrial or a residential land use designation. As a non-conforming use, however, the magnitude of new improvements or additions that can be performed on existing facilities (excluding coaches) is limited. Also, in the event it is destroyed by fire or natural disaster it would have to be replaced by a use that conforms to the current zoning. The City is considering a mobile home conversion ordinance that would require notification and relocation of mobile home park tenants prior to closing or recycling a park to a new use. A redesignation of the Beachview Mobile Home Park to low or medium density residential would enable the City to put an MH zoning on the site. The park owner would then have to apply for a zone change should he decide to recycle the park to a new use. Before granting such a zone change, the City could require the park owner to meet the provisions of any adopted mobile home park conversion ordinance. If the area of concern is retained under the general industrial designation, an MH zoning cannot be applied to the site. However, the City could place an MH overlay on top of the existing M1 zoning on the park site. An overlay would leave the underlying M1 zoning intact but would entirely supercede that zoning. The park owner would have to request that the overlay be removed should he or she decide to recycle the park to a new use which would otherwise be allowable under the M1 or other zoning. Before removing the overlay, the City could require the park owner to meet the provisions of any adopted mobile home park conversion ordinance. 45 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, 1982-1992. The land use assumptions are detailed in Appendix A; the results are summarized in the table below: Existing Medium Mobile Home Low Density Density General Cash Flow Basis Park Residential Residential Industrial Revenue (1) 260.48 331.58 663.67 313.98 Cost (1 272.68 265.03 518.88 223.14 Revenue minus cost (1) -12.20 66.55 144.79 90.84 Revenue/Cost .96 1.25 1.28 1.41 (1) In $1,000 'As the table shows, over a ten-year period all of the alternatives generate a surplus to the City ranging from $66,550 for the low density residential alternative to $144,790 for the medium density residential alternative. The existing mobile home park would create a deficit of approximately $12,200. 3. Housing The existing mobile home park on the subject site provides affordable housing. A recent survey of mobile home parks in the City conducted by the Department of Development Services indicated that the average monthly rent of a space in the Beachview Mobile Home Park is $150. Regardless of the land use designation placed on the subject site, the existing mobile home park can continue to exist as a legal, non-conforming use, thereby preserving this source of affordable housng at least until recycling occurs. A low or medium density residential designation will provide for continued use of the subject site for housing after recycling occurs. Even if it were not implemented with MH zoning, designating the subject site low or medium density residential would retain 5.6 acres of the City's stock of potential areas for residential development.. A maximum of 39 low density units or 84 medium density units could be developed on the subject site. The existing general industrial designation on the subject site will not affect the life of the mobile home park presently located there. Under this designation, however, when recycling does occur it will not preserve the potential for housing development on the subject site. 46 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers The area of concern is serviced by an eight inch City sewer through Betty Drive that feeds into a 15 inch City sewer line on Goldenwest Street. The Goldenwest line feeds into the Slater Avenue trunk line. According to information provided by both the City Public Works Department and the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC), discharges from the area of concern under any of the three land use alternatives can be safely accommodated by existing sewer lines. b. Water Existing water mains in the vicinity of the subject site include a six inch line through Betty Drive and along the southern boundary of the area of concern, as well as 12 inch mains along both Gothard and Goldenwest Streets. The City's Public Works Department has indicated that existing water mains are expected to be adequate for any of the three alternative uses on the subject site. C. Storm Drains and Drainage The area of concern is served by a 36 inch storm drain along its northern boundary. This drain feeds into a 54 inch drain pipe that extends south to the Slater Avenue flood control channel. No capacity problems are anticipated from development of the subject site under any of the alternatives analyzed. The area of concern is, however, prone to flooding. In the past, problems have been encountered due to sheet flow off the adjacent high school parking lot. Thus, particular attention should be given to drainage design for any new development that is constructed on the site. d. Parks The Community Services Department has indicated that the area of concern is adequately served by existing parks. Murdy Park to the north is less than one mile away from the subject site, as is Central Park to the south. e. Police and Fire Protection The . Police and Fire Departments have indicated that the alternatives analyzed for the area of concern will not create any immediate problems with Police or Fire protection or require any significant change in personnel. f. Schools The Ocean View School District indicates that it would have no trouble accommodating the students generated under the residential land use alternatives. The Huntington Beach Union High School District has adequate capacity to accommodate students generated by the residential alternatives analyzed. 47 g. Gas and Electrical Utilities, Telephone Service Provision of service to the subject site by the Southern California Gas Company, the Edison Company and General Telephone poses no problem under any of the land use alternatives. h. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City. No local service constraints are expected under any of the alternative land use designations. 5. Traffic and Circulation The area of concern fronts on Gothard Street, an arterial with an average daily traffic volume of 6,200. The present capacity of Gothard Street south of Warner Avenue is 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day. Gothard Street has been improved to a capacity of 20,000 to 25,000 vehicles per day north of Warner Avenue. The Public Works Department anticipates similar improvements to Gothard Street south of Warner Avenue. After improvement, the ultimate capacity of Gothard Street is estimated to be 33,000 to 36,000 vehicles per day. 1995 traffic volumes on Gothard Street are estimated at 30,000 vehicles per day. Projected traffic volumes from the area of concern are as follows: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation General Industrial 553 Trips/Day Low Density Residential 542 Trips/Day Medium Density Residential 563 Trips/Day Mobile Home Park 510 Trips/Day Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982. These projected traffic volumes will have no significant impact on Gothard Street or on the Warner/Gothard and Slater/Gothard intersections. The projected amount of traffic contributed to Gothard by the subject site will not be significant in terms of overall traffic volumes. Access to the subject site from Gothard Street is of concern, particularly if industrial development eventually occurs on the subject site and generates traffic by trucks and heavy vehicles. No left turn pocket to the site exists from the northbound lane of Gothard Street and truck traffic generated by industrial development may increase the problem of traffic backing up behind vehicles waiting to make left turns into the subject site. Potential access problems could be partially alleviated by the creation of a left turn pocket on Gothard Street, although the Public Works Department presently has no plans for one at this location. The Public Works Department recommends that there be no access from Betty Drive (the residential cul-de-sac west of the subject site) to Gothard Street under any of the alternatives. 48 , The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) has indicated that higher density alternatives will tend to have a positive effect on transit ridership. The City should consider on-street bus facilities and amenities to improve transit accessibility when reviewing development proposals for the area of concern. 6. Environmental Issues a. Noise The area of concern is exposed to an exterior noise level of Ldn 60, which is within the normally acceptable range for residential uses. However, in the past, complaints have been received from mobile home park residents when temporarily noisy operations have occurred in the City Yard. If the subject site recycles to low or medium density residential development, mitigation measures could be incorporated into the project to minimize noise impacts. Special mitigation measures may be required to protect the residential area to the west if the subject site is developed with industrial uses. These measures could include greater setbacks, higher fences or walls, or limitations on the types of industrial activities that could occur in the west end of the subject site. Traffic generated by new development on the site is not expected to signifcantly add to the noise level of surrounding areas. b. Soils Although there have been no reported problems with the existing mobile home park, the area of concern does contain peat and subsidence-prone soils. This problem can be mitigated if careful consideration to foundation design is given in any new development proposed for the site. C. Archeological Resources In 1973, the City hired a consultant to inventory archeological sites within the City. Two archeological sites are in the vicinity of the area of concern. However, it is uncertain whether the subject site actually overlies any part of these two sites. Site No. 185 is identified as being on the northwest corner of Gothard and Slater, south of the area of concern. The bulk of this site was evidently destroyed during construction of the City Yard. Site No. 367 mainly underlies Ocean View High School, and is therefore north of the area of concern. Further investigation may be warranted to determine if archeological artifacts do exist under the subject site. However, present information suggests that, in all liklihood, development on the site will not affect archeological resources. 49 2.5.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the existing general industrial designation on the area of concern be retained. Not only is the subject site located in the Gothard industrial corridor, but light industrial uses on the site will be compatible with existing land uses to the north and south and with uses to the east when that area recycles to industrial use. Should the City Council adopt a mobile home park conversion ordinance, a mobile home overlay could be placed on the site to indicate that the Beachview Mobile Home Park has to comply with the provisions of any such ordinance before closing or recycling to a new use. Staff further recommends that adequate mitigation measures be taken to buffer the residential area to the west if the subject site recycles to industrial use and that drainage and access problems be carefully analyzed before new development occurs. 2.5.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the existing general industrial designation on the area of concern be retained. In making this recommendation, the Planning Commission finds that: 1. A change of zoning and land use designation on the subject site would not be in conformance with the City's stated goal of maintaining the integrity of the Gothard Industrial Corridor. 2. The existing mobile home park can continue to operate in its present zone as a legal nonconforming use under a mobile home park overlay; additionally, even with a residential designation and zoning, the park would also operate as a nonconforming use. 3. The MH zoning requires that park size be 10 acres with a maximum density of 9 units per acre. The subject mobile home park is 5.6 acres in size and is developed at a density of 14.5 spaces at present. Thus, it is not in conformance with the MH requirements. 4. The existing incompatibility between the City's maintenance yard and the mobile home park would not be alleviated by the proposed residential zoning and, in fact, that incompatibility could be exacerbated by any future residential development. 5. Under the existing industrial zoning, the mobile.home park overlay would require the property owner to present any proposal for change to the City for approval. Likewise, any future development of industrial uses on the property will be brought before the City for consideration of special buffering and analysis of drainage and access problems. 50 2.6 MAGNOLIA-BANNING AREA The sixth area of concern addressed by Land Use Element Amendment 82-1 is a 1.6 acre (1.2 net acres) vacant property owned by the City of Huntington Beach located at the southeast corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street (see figure 1-1). 2.6.1 Background The area of concern was originally part of a four acre City-owned property zoned for industrial use. When Magnolia Street was extended to intersect with Pacific Coast Highway, the alignment split the four acre site leaving two vacant remnant pieces of property on the east and west side of the arterial. The area of concern in this analysis is the remnant piece on the east side of Magnolia Street. In August, 1982, City staff initiated a change of zoning on the area of concern from M1-A (Restricted Manufacturing District) to R1 (Low Density Residential). At its August 3, 1982 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the zone change request and directed staff to initiate a land use amendment on the property from industrial energy production to low density residential. This amendment analyzes four possible land use designations for the site: 1) Industrial Resource Production, 2) Low Density Residential, 3) Open Space, and 4) General Commercial. Area of Concern 2.6 is located within the City's coastal zone and is designated for industrial energy production in the Coastal Element Land Use Plan (see Figure 2-13). This designation was developed for use on areas identified as potential wetland areas by the California Department of Fish and Game and is intended to protect a unique environmentally sensitive area without precluding expansion options for energy production. Area of Concern 2.6, however, is not a wetland area and was not identified in the survey of potential wetland areas by the Department of Fish and Game. Property to the north and east of the subject area is general planned, zoned and developed as low density residential. The eastern boundary of the site backs directly onto the backyards of existing single family homes (see Figure 2-14). The subject area is bounded to the south by an Orange County flood control channel. The property south of the channel is designated industrial energy production and zoned LU, Limited Use. 51 PUBLIC , QUASI-PUBLIC , I- --1-JAL-1--�W�� , 6 )DESJ INSTITUTIONAL R A DR.kE Q \ KAHUWI DR. I \ � \ MAHA 0 • /" LOW DENSITY � INDUSTRIAL �-+_mot. RESIDENTIAL � \ ENERGY KAPAA DR. w Z PRODUCTION - � Y � A OHA g a — - - :; --\--- — _ BANNING C' CO Ce PLAYA DR. — co Q J J S � - 41 Q � — �i C � y C Q yQ \ v O y S �2 R ' r Existing General Plan Area of Concern 2 .6 . o � O - 52 Figure 2-13 The property to the- west of-the subject property is general planned Industrial, zoned M1-A (Restricted Manufacturing) and developed with fuel storage .facilities related to the Southern California Edison generating plant. 2.6.2 Analysis 1. Land Use The existing general plan designation and zoning on the site could result in the development of approximately 27,000 square feet of industrial and light manufacturing uses which would generate approximately 22 employees. The likelihood of such industrial development occurring on the site, however, is small due to the isolated location of the site in relation to other industrial and commercial uses, the small size of the site, and its irregular shape. A general commercial designation on the site could result in the development of approximately 11,000 square feet of convenience commercial use such as a quick food pickup store and several small shops. A redesignation of the site to low density residential could result in a division of the site into four or five single family lots or the development of approximately eight homes within a planned residential development. These developments would result in a population of approximately 13-17 persons.. A redesignation of the site to open space would accommodate development of a small park or other recreation facility. The site, however, is not particularly appropriate for a neighborhood park use. It is approximately one-third the size of a typical neighborhood park and is located outside of the developed residential tracts, adjacent to an arterial. The site is not included in the City's master plan of parks and funds have not been earmarked for landscaping and maintenance. Land Use Impacts An industrial use on the subject property could adversely impact the adjacent single family homes particularly those immediately to the east. Manufacturing machine shops and other similar uses permitted under the M1-A zoning typically generate noise from daily operations and truck traffic in excess of what is characteristic for a residential neighborhood. There is also the potential for outside storage of materials, glare from parking lot lighting, dust and odors, that could adversely impact neighboring homes if an industrial use is permitted on the property. A commercial use of the site,. like an industrial use, could have adverse impacts on the adjacent single family homes. Truck deliveries and customer traffic could create noise in excess of what is characteristic for a residential neighborhood. Evening noise levels from potential uses such as a restaurant or bar could be particularly disruptive. 53 A RI RL. I RI I RI C F R I LRI �RI�� I�� I �, �..� i•D,.,. _._ -- L mRi — —�� '1 F-c,, RI W R I - RI�rR! RIm p RA o F RA-0 viEFf`I s RI ;_.. ---111 HAMILTON I =Rl R I RI RI DATE F LANI gACCR RI �HAITI DR DRI J J RI RI RI:AE L RRI RI RI a7oN a - I [R.z a MALAHINE DR. ANICR RI RI a RI RHODESIA DR _I MOKIHANA Oft. EiNE 5 i.2 Sf i/4 SEC i3-E-ii R K BERMUDA Il DR HUDSON RDR. I G UL M 2-0 _ RI KAHULUI DR CF-E 4m K � L RI M 2_O J — MAHALO UR fz31 �T.A •-_. z R I e: I I: \\ KAPAA DR w m RI ' I - o Ill__ R! - u� DAY.JNA CR ALOHA cR ��� � RI RI CF-R �I _ BANNING' L. a D. � MIA R z 7,' ��C M 2-O �C 'Q °j J PLAYA DR. Tm 6• RI RI m RI g ` {y3 o I.A z RI RI ° RlnesJ_I J 2 _ RI E R I MOLOKAI Z Oft �/ C a �/�� i�•<� + 4 q r1 R I RI f (LUD)LIMITED USE NF o Ft1 LA JCLLA CR ,TIKI CR c DISTRICT / $ RI RI R I If' ' a TAHITI CR. LANAI CR �P I (LUD)LIMITED USE 9� RI R I DISTRICT o°F DR _ LEILANI DR SKEAD DR c��iQ "w, (LUD)LIMITED USE DISTRICT RI j r•, ~s a / RI / cF Cy'IV Existing Zoning Area of Concern 2 .6 54 Figure 2-14 A low density residential development on the subject property would be compatible with the residential development to the north and east of the site. Such development on the area of concern would be adequately buffered from existing and potential industrial uses to the west and south by Magnolia Street and the Orange County flood control channel, respectively. An open space or park use on the site would have no significant impacts and would be compatible with surrounding land uses. 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, 1982-1992. The land use assumptions used in the model for each alternative are outlined in Appendix A. The results of the analysis are outlined in the following table: Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 General Low-Density Alt. 4 Cash Flow Basis Industrial Commercial Residential Open Space RevenL�e (1) 89.71 175.82 71.04 N/A Cost �1) 63.75 86.16 57.99 Revenue minus cost (1) 25.96 89.66 13.05 Revenue/Cost 1.41 2.04 1.23 (1) In $1,000 (2) Neighborhood Park As shown in the above table, all the alternatives except Open Space would be expected to generate a surplus to the City over a ten year period. A neighborhood park developed under the Open Space designation would not be expected to generate any revenue and would require a maintenance expenditure of approximately $3,360 per year. 3. Housing Retaining the industrial designation or redesignating the site to open space or general commercial would have no significant impact on the City's housing stock. A redesignation to low density residential could result in an expansion of the City's housing stock, however, the addition would not be significant because of the small size of the area. 4. Public Services and Utilities a. Sewers Sewage generated from the area of concern will have to be conveyed to the 78-inch County sewer trunk line in Banning Street at the northernmost corner of the subject property. The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County have indicated that this facility would be able to accommodate the sewage generated under any of the land use alternatives. 55 b. Water The area of concern is served by 12-inch water mains in Magnolia Street and Banning Avenue. The City's Department of Public Works has indicated that these facilities would be adequate to serve development on the site under any of the four land use alternatives. C. Drainage The subject area is located immediately north of a County flood control channel. However, runoff from the site could not be drained into the channel unless pumping facilities are utilized because of the elevation of the site relative to the water level in the channel during a storm. Drainage under any of the four alternatives would most likely be accomplished by grading the site so that runoff ultimately flows onto Magnolia Avenue or Banning Street. d. Parks The area of concern is adequately served by nearby park facilities. Eader School neighborhood park is located approximately one quarter mile east of the subject area on Banning Street. Edison Community Park is located approximately one-half mile north of the site. Huntington State Beach is also within one quarter mile of the area of concern. The Community Services Department has indicated that there would be no adverse impacts on the City's park facilities under any of the land use alternatives. e. Police and Fire Protection The City's police and fire departments have indicated that adequate service could be provided to the area of concern under any of the four land use alternatives. f. Schools The Huntington Beach Elementary School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District have indicated that existing schools could adequately accommodate the students generated by the residential land use alternative. g. Gas, Electric and Telephone Utilities The Southern California Gas Company, the Edison Company, and General Telephone have indicated that adequate service could be provided for the area of concern under any of the four land use alternatives. h. Solid Waste Disposal The Rainbow Disposal Company has indicated that it can provide adequate service to the property under any of the land use alternatives. 56 y 5. Traffic and Circulation Access to the area of concern would be off of Magnolia Street. Magnolia Street is a primary arterial with a capacity of 30,000 trips per day. Existing traffic volumes are approximately 6,300 daily trips south of Banning Avenue and 8,200 daily trips north of Banning Avenue. Magnolia Street is expected to carry roughly 12,000 daily trips at ultimate development in the year 1995. Projected future traffic volumes from the study area are estimated as follows: Land Use Alternative Traffic Generation Industrial Energy Production 116 trips/day General Commercial 660 trips/day Low Density Residential 111 trips/day Open Space 7 trips/day Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982 The City's Public Works Department has indicated that Magnolia Street is adequate to accommodate traffic volumes from any of the four alternatives. The Public Works Department has also indicated that access from the site shoud be limited to one point on Magnolia Street. Access out of the site should be restricted to right turns only because of the proximity of the site to the intersection of Magnolia Street and Banning Avenue and because of the poor visibility caused by the bridge structure on Magnolia Street south of the area. Left turns off of Magnolia Street into the area of concern may also pose safety problems and may require modification of the Magnolia/Banning intersection to create a left turn pocket. The limited access out of the site might pose problems for a commercial or industrial use on. the site because of the relatively large number of daily trips generated by these uses and the possibility of truck traffic. 6. Environmental Issues An initial study was prepared for the area of concern pursuant to Article 7, Section 15080 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. This initial study is included in Appendix B. No significant environmental impacts were identified for any of the three land use alternatives other than those already discussed in this analysis. 2.6.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the site be redesignated from industrial energy production to low density residential. A low density residential designation reflects the highest and best use of the site that is compatible with surrounding properties. 57 Industrial or commercial uses on the site could result in significant adverse noise impacts particularly to the single family homes that back directly onto the eastern boundary of the site. The large number of daily trips generated by a commercial use and potential truck traffic from an industrial use could create safety and traffic flow impacts on Magnolia Street. The site is not suitable for a park use because of its location and size. Development and maintenance of a park would use up funds already earmarked for other park facilities proposed in the City's Master Plan of Parks. 2.6.4 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the existing industrial energy production designation on the subject site be retained. In making this recommendation, the Planning Commission finds that there would be no safe access to any type of development that might be constructed on the site. 58 2. 7 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM - DENSITY BONUS PROVISIONS (Pages 59-60) THIS SECTION WAS TRANSMITTED TO AND ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR DECEMBER 20, 1982 MEETING. f 3.0 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 2.0. 3.1 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Amendment 82-1 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 82-1 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. 61 3.2 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. 3.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The proposed amendment may have growth inducing effects within the areas of concern. An estimated population of 1208 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 2,394 persons could be generated. This would be an increase of 1,186 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. 62 s 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. B. 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. 63 APPENDIX A LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS FOR FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS In cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., the computerized fiscal impact methodology was used to analyze the proposed land uses presented in Land Use Element Amendment 82-1. The fiscal impact evaluation encompassed the land use alternatives considered for areas of concern 2.1 through 2.6. Area 2.1 - YORKTOWN/MAIN Two land use alternatives were evaluated for the 1.52 acre area located approximately 500 feet north of Yorktown Avenue and 600 feet east of Main Street: 1. Office/Professional - 17,793 square feet of office space with an estimated value of $900,000 per acre. 2. Medium Density Residential - 22 medium density units with an average sale price of $125,000 per unit. Area 2.2 - MUSHROOM FARM Five land use alternatives were evaluated for the 26.6 acre area located east of Goldenwest Street and north of Ellis Avenue: 1. Recreational Vehicle Park - 580 R.V. spaces with 6,444 square feet of accessory building space, all on City-owned property. 2. Medium Density Residential - 399 medium density condominium units with an average selling price of $130,000. 3. Low Density Residential a. Low Density Residential - 186 low density condominium units with an average selling price of $150,000. b. Estate Residential - 106 low density detached single family homes with an average selling price of $350,000. 4. Office/Professional - 324,174 square feet of office space with an estimated value of $900,000 per acre. Area 2.3 - CAMBRO MANUFACTURING PLANT AREA Two land use alternatives were evaluated for the 19.4 acre site located north of Clay Avenue between the Pacific Electric right-of-way and Huntington Street south of Garfield Avenue. It should be pointed out that 4.9 acres of the subject site presently occupied by the City's water facility were excluded from the fiscal impact analysis 1. Industrial/Medium Density Residential - 132 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $120,000; and the existing 21,228 square feet of industrial. 2. Industrial - 14,204 square feet of light manufacturing with an estimated value of $800,000 per acre; and the existing 21,228 square feet of industrial. Area 2.4 - HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB Three land use alternatives were evaluated for the 5.7 acre site located on Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes: 1. Open Space - 5.7 acres of recreational open space with 4,607 square feet of accessory building (existing) valued at $351,071. 2. Open Space/Medium Density Residential - 2.6 acres of recreational open space with 4,607 square feet of accessory buildings (existing) valued at $351,071; and 48 medium density condominiums with an average sale price of $250,000. 3. Medium Density Residential 39 medium density condominiums with an average selling price of $350,000. Area 2.5 - BEACHVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK Four land use alternatives for the 5.6 acre area located on Gothard Street between Ocean View High School and the City Yard: 1. Mobile Home Park - The existing 81 unit mobile home park with a full assessed value of $289,771. .2. Low Density Residential - 39 low density condominium units with an average selling price of $139,000. 3. Medium Density Residential - 84 medium density condominium units with I- an average selling price of_T120,000. 4. Light Manufacturing - 92,411 square feet of office space with an estimated value of $800,000 per acre. Area 2.6 - MAGNOLIA/BANNING Five land use alternatives were evaluated for. the 1.6 acre site located at the southeast corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street: 1. Industrial Resource Production 26,400 square feet of industrial space with an estimated value of $800,000 per acre. 2. Low Density Residential - 8 low density units with an estimated selling price of 150,000. 3. Open Space - a 1.6 acrew City-owned neighborhood park. 4.. General Commercial - 11,360 square feet of light manufacturing space with an estimated value of $800,000 per acre. APPENDIX B INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. fiac:kgrcxKxi I. Name of Proponent City of Huntington Beach 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent P.O. Box 190 , Huntington Beach,CA. (714) 536-5251 92648 3. Date of Checklist Submitted September 2 , 1982 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable General Plan Amendment 82-1 11. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No I . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X C. Change in topography or ground surface X relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification X of any unique geologic or physical features? ' e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, in let or lake? X area of concern 4 115 Yes Me No g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, X mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration AREAS* of ambient rzir quality? 1--( See Append=.: C b. The creation of objectionable odors? X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, X either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pot- terns, or the rate and omount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood X waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, AREAS dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 2-4 f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X q. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water re- AREA lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 5_ �! 116 Yes Maybe No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, gross, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural AREA crop? 2 _ S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X__ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of an ima Is? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: A RE a. Increases in existing noise levels? A3T-RE6 b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned AREA land use of an area? 1-6 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X 117 Yes Maybe No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involves a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X II. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of .the AREA human population of an area? 1&6 AREA 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing. 1&6 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional X vehicular movernent? b. Fffects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- X tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: X a. Fire protection? X h. Policcr protection? X C. Schools? X 118 t Yes Maybe No AREA AREA d. Parks or other recreational facilities? 2 4 1% Maintenarx-e of public facilities, including roods? X f. Other governmental services? X_ I.S. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X C. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? AREA 2&4 AREA e. Storm water drainage? 5 _ f. Solid waste and disposal? _ 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: o. Creation of any health hazard or potential X health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health AREA hazards? 2 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open AREA to public view? 6&4 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an import upon the quality or quantity of existing AREA recreational opportunities? 2&4 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or ARIZA historic archaeological site? 9 119 Yes Maybe No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the prof.-nsal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality cF the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) _ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X_ 111. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by tf-e Lead Agency) 120 1 On the basis of this initial evaluations I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect {{ on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect ` on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case IM� because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. {�� FOCUSED EIR* Date Signature For (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studiesa * The EIR is focused on various issues for different project areas. The EIR will be prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment analysis. 121 II. Explanations. of "yes and maybe" answers. If. Area of Concern 4 is located immediately adjacent to Weatherly Bay. In light of this, grading to accommodate new developments may alter drainage patterns resulting in potential impacts to the Bay. 2a. In all study areas increased traffic as a result of new develop- ment would increases they amount of . emissions. At this time, it is not known if these;will be significant or will affect exist- ing ambient air quality. levels. 3e. See explanation. lf. for Area of Concern 4 . Additionally, Area of Concern 2 is located approximately 100 feet from Sully-Miller Lake. This lake was created as the result of former use of the site as a gravel quarry. Grading for new projects could affect run-off and siltation into the lake. 3i. Area of Concern 5 is currently being used as a mobile home park. Due to its location at the base of a swale, the site is subject to flooding during the rainy season. 4d. The majority of Area of Concern 2 is presently used for a mush- room farrl. New development would preclude continued use of this land for agricultural purposes. 6a. Areas 3, 5 and 6 could develop as industrial uses which may re- sult in increased noise levels. At the General Plan Amendment level it is difficult to assess the impact as no specific pro- ject has been proposed. 8 . The proposed projects are a General Plan Amendment thereby con- stituting changes in land use. 11. Residential alternatives could result in an increase in popula- tion. 12. Additional housing opportunities would be provided by new resi- dential developments. 13a. All proposed projects could result in increased traffic, how- ever, at this time it is not known if this increase will be significant. 14d. Area of Concern 2 is being considered for inclusion into Huntington Central Park. If included this would increase the amount of public recreational opportunities in the City. Area of Concern 4 is presently occupied by the Huntington Harbour Beach Club. Part of the requested General Plan Amendment is to upgrade the existing facilities which would have a benefi- cial impact on recreational opportunities. 16d. Area of Concern 2 is undeveloped at this time and may not be sewered. L e 17b. An abandoned dump site is located within 1, 000 feet of this project area. The dump was used primarily for oil related wastes. 18. An energy producing facility could be developed in Area of Concern 6 that may not be aesthetically pleasing. Development in Area of Concern 4 may block some existing views of Weatherly Bay. 19. See 14d. 20. An archaeological site has been recorded in the vicinity of Project Area 5. 21. Because the General Plan Amendment encompasses six areas, the cummulative impacts will need to be considered. APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS The General Plan Amendments will not have any immediate impact on existing air quality; however future development as a result of the amendments, may create an increase in mobile and stationary source emissions. The following table illustrates a "worst case" or complete builtout scenario of each amendment area. The figures used represent 1982 emissions for average vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin as developed by the South Coast Air Quality Managment District. These emissions are not considered to be significant to the regional air basin. Additionally, it should be noted that when development occurs, the actual amount of pollutants may be less due to advanced exhaust control technology and more stringent air pollution legislation. PROJECTED DAILY EMISSIONS Area 1 - HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY Medium Density Residential Mobile Emissions .0013 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0003 tons/day TOTAL .0016 tons/day Office Professional Mobile Emissions .062 tons/day Stationary Emissions negligible TOTAL .062 tons/day Area 2 - M.D. JANES COMPANY Open Space Mobile Emissions .0199 tons/day Stationary Emissions negligible TOTAL .0199 tons/day Medium Denisty Mobile Emissions .0195 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0058 tons/day TOTAL .0253 tons/day Low Density Mobile Emissions .0358 tons/day Stationary Emissions .028 tons/day TOTAL .063 tons/day Estate Residential Mobile Emissions .02 tons/day Stationary Emissions .015 tons/day TOTAL .035 tons/day Office Professional Mobile Emissions 1.08 tons/day Stationary Emissions 1.94 tons/day TOTAL 3.02 tons/day Area 3 - CAMBRO MANUFACTURING COMPANY Medium Density Residential Mobile Emissions .37 tons/day Stationary Emissions .03 tons/day TOTAL .4 tons/day General Industrial Mobile Emissions .4 tons/day Stationary Emissions .005 tons/day TOTAL .405 tons/day Area 4 - HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BEACH CLUB Open Space Mobile Emissions .12 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00007 tons/day TOTAL .1207 tons/day Mixed Development .Mobile Emissions .05 tons/day Stationary Emissions .005 tons/day TOTAL .055 tons/day Low Density Mobile Emissions .007 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0058 tons/ day TOTAL .0128 tons/day Area 5 - BEACHVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK General Industrial Mobile Emissions .079 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0002 tons/day TOTAL .0792 tons/day Medium Density Residential Mobile Emissions .1130 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00123 tons/day .11423 tons/day Low Density Residential Mobile Emissions .1089 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00079 tons/day TOTAL .10969 tons/day Area 6 - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Industrial Energy Production Mobile Emissions .015 tons/day Stationary Emissions .00004 tons/day TOTAL .0154 tons/day Low Density Residential Mobile Emissions .02 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0019 tons/day TOTAL .0219 tons/day Open Space Mobile Emissions negligible Stationary Emissions negligible General Commercial Mobile Emissions .08 tons/day Stationary Emissions .0018 tons/day TOTAL .08018 APPENDIX D LETTERS OF COMMENT LETTERS OF COMMENT: D--1) Huntington Beach Department of Public Works D-2) Huntington Beach Police Department D-3) Huntington Beach Communtiy Services Department D-4) Southern California Gas Company D-5) Southern California Edison Company D-6) General Telephone Company D-7) County Sanitiation Districts, Orange County D-8) Huntington Beach City School District D79) Ocean View School District D-10) Ocean View School District D-11) Huntington Beach Union High School District D-12). Orange County Transit District D-13) California Coastal Ccmmission D-14) Alexander Googooian D-15) Huntington Beach Enviromvntal Board CITY OF HUNTIHGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH - yy To Claudette Duptiy From Les Evans Assistant Planner City Engineer Subject General. Plan Amenrlmrmt No. 82-1. Date Sept. 9, 1982 Attached are maps showing location and size of storm drain and sewer systems in in each area of concern. The existing water system in each area has been plotted on the exhibit maps which are also attached. The problems associated with the land uses proposed for each area of concern have been reviewed briefly by this department due to. the short response period. Com- ments are as follows: . Area of Concern No. l No particular concerns were noted for either proposed use. '-he access and circu- lation plan should be reviewed carefully to insure compatibility with the proposed transit corridor along railroad right-of-way and with the existing office uses at the northeast corner of. Main and Yorktown. Area of Concern No. 2_ 1. Estate residential_ or open space would be most compatible with the park, Fllis- Goldenwest Specific: Plan and the proposed nearby recreational uses from a traffic standpoint. 2. Access onto Goldenwest should be limited to one opening; and access onto Ellis should also be limited to one opening compatible with proposed street openings on the south side of Ellis. 3. Arterial streets need full improvements. 4. The Goldenwest sewer will need to be paralleled. 5. Drainage to Sully-Miller Lake must be carefully controlled and cleaned up. Area of Concern No. 3 320,139 square feet of industrial use may create access problems. Most desirable access fxTints are from Clay (one opening) and Gothard (one openinq) . Lack of good adeeau::te access may make the site unsuitable for industrial use. Area of Cone;::,. No. 4 This area has had severe sewage problems due to its low elevation. Backf.low safe- guards will have to be considered along with the upgrading to Punp Station "h" to handle additional flow. Area of Concern No. 5 1. Access problems again. There should be no access from Betty Drive to Gothard. 92,411 squar_e. feet of industrial on a cul-de-sac street with only one opening onto Gothard iikiv be tuldesi..rable. D- 1 Memo to Claudette Dupuy General Plan Amendment No. 82-1 September 9, 1982 Page 2 2. This area is also prone to flooding and has poor soils. Careful consideratLxa must be given to drainage and foundation design. Area of Concern No. 6 1. Access will be limited to one opening on Magnolia (right turn in and out only)- 2. The site drains to the northeast and will have to be redesigned for drainage. LE:jy Attach. D--1 s e CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P r C E I v E p - a INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH - - _ �' ?`'82 10 To CLAUDET11 DUPUY From CARL KARN Assistant }Tanner Administrative Aide Subject GENERAL PLAN AMENIMiNT NO. 82-1 Date SI PTDIBER 7, 1982 I was ass-i-gned by Chief Rob:i.taille to compile the necessary data in regard to your memo (General Plan Amendment No. 82-1) . The estimated additional police officers needed to effectively enforce the proposed developments are provided in the following information. These figures were obtained on the basis of one call for service per 1000 sq. feet for commercial structures and one call for service per 1.26 dwellings for residential structures. Recreational facilities were based on an estimated .0075 officers per acre. The average response time for priority calls are as follows: Priority 1 4.46 minutes Priority 2 1.1.75 minutes Priority 3 24.62 minutes The proposed developmental areas do not impose any immediate problems with law enforcement nor does it require a significant change in personnel. Additional Officers Needed Area of Concern #1 - Alternative 1 - no significant impact Alternative 2 - no significant impact Area of Concern #2 - Alternative 1 - no significant impact Alternative 2 - 2 additional officers Alternative 3 - 1 additional officer Alternative 4 - 2 additional officers Alternative 5 - 1 additional officer Area of Concern #3 - Alternative 1 - 2 additional officers Alternative 2 - 2 additional officers Area of Concern #4 - Alternative 1 - no significant impact Alternative 2 - no significant impact Alternative 3 - no significant impact Area of' Concern 115 - Alternative I - I additional officer AItc rim tive 2 - 1 additional ofl-icei- Alternat.ive 3 - no sign:if:tcant impact Area of Concern #6 - Alternati-ve 1 - no significant impact Alternative 2 - no significant impact Alternative 3 - no significant impact D-2 CK/sc i i ' CITY OF HUHTINGTON BEACH�: INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIO HUNTINGTON BEACH To C7 gmirti cI Dupuy From V r c, I ; . MO Ph0U50 Development, ",,ery i_ce:; Dirr.ctoi,, Commun.i.t,y Servi ce.i Subject General f'lrin Amr.ndmont 82-1 Date August 31 , 1982 Tri response to your memo of August 25 , 1982 , please be advised that the proposed amendments will have little or no impact on the ability of Community Services to provide library or recre- ational services to those sites . VGM: cs R _�CVIVFI S F P l 1°?> D-•3 We have developed several program: which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, D.M. Glover Technical Supervisor ES/pjg Enclosure SO'UTIHE RN CALIFORNIA gas COMPANY ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P. O. BOX 3334. ANAHEIM, CALIF. 92803 September 1, 1982 City of Huntington Beach RECEIVED P.O. Box 190 S EP 2 1982 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Development Services Attn: Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment 82-1 This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, 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. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Residential (System Area Average) Yearly Single Family 1095 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 4 or less units 640 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or more units 580 Therms/year/dwelling unit These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's new insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial-Industrial Market Services Staff by calling 213-689-2041 or 213-689-2062. D-4 k Southern California Edison Company P.O. BOX 2069 7333 BOLSA AVE. WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 926833-1269 September 23 , 1982 � ' TELEPHONE -., J (714)973-5491 SEP 2 71982 Development Services City of Huntington Beach P .O . Box 190 Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Attention : Claudette Dupuy Planning Dept. Subject : E . I . R. General Plan Amendment No . 82-1 Gentlemen : This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company and that the electric loads of the project are within parameters of projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area. Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds our estimates , and provided that there are no unexpected out- ages to major sources of electrical supply , we expect to meet our electrical requirements for the next several years . Our total system demand is expected to continue to increase annually ;, however , excluding any unforeseen problems , our plans for new generation resources indicate that our ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods will be adequate during the decade of the ' 80s . Current conservation efforts on the part of 'Edison ' s customers have resulted in energy savings . Optimization of conservation measures in this project will contribute to the overall energy savings goal . Very truly yours , R. L. Coolidge Service Planne� RLC :da D-5 DISTRICT OFFICE SERVING: CORONA DEL MAR COSTA MESA FOUNTAIN.VALLEY HUNTINGTON BEACH MIDWAY CITY •NEWPORT BEACH • ROSSMOOR •SEAL BEACH •SUNSET BEACH WESTMINSTER RECEIVED SEP 13 1982 General Telephone Company of California Development Services 6774 Westminster Blvd. Westminster, California 92683-3788 21 3 594-4526 714 891-5321 In Hut;iy R�rfr;l 1 r� September 10, 1982 3774 A13. 10 City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services Planning Division Attention Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Dupuy In response to your letter of August 31, 1982 regarding the proposed amendent (82-1) to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, General Telephone will not have any problems serving the project sites regardless of the land use selected. The location and size of all existing facilities and all improvements needed to serve the project sites have not been shown as the telephone conversation with your office on September 9, determined this informa- tion was not required. However, when additional telephone facilities are required they will be provided by General Telephone Company in a timely manner to serve the development of any and all of these project sites. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at (714) 891-5321. Very truly yours GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA Lam//ltGs.l,C�_ C J W. R. DUVALL Resident Engineer D-6 A prirt <,f Goneril I eltrplio ne ,'4 Clectronics COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ®r"em TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 2-2 41 1 P. O. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 9270E 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) I September 9, 1982 SEP 2 41982 City of Huntington Beach I)evetoprnent P.O. Box 190 Services Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Claudette Dupuy Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 82-1 This is in response to your August 25, 1982 letter requesting a review of General Plan Amendment No. 82-1. Your exhibits have been marked to show Districts' existing trunk sewers in the vicinity of the proposed land use changes. Generally the alternatives suggest higher land uses than anticipated on the Districts' 1975 Ultimate Land Use Plan. However , this office believes that the existing trunk sewer and treatment facilities will be able to accommodate the higher flows. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the undersigned. t Thomas M. Dawes Deputy Chief Engineer TMD: hc Enclosure D-7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Craimer Lane • P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)964-8888 O "v:Yitr,a..r BOARD OF TRUSTEES _--- ---- Se t,err)ber r'O, 198� .uy N'.l' i , at,r� NVOlo m k Ms. Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner ent Services Sherry ba,lovv City of Huntington Beach M`...t-, Dept. of Development Svs. , Bldg. Div. Pat Cohen Post Office Box 190 Member Huntington Beach, California 92648 . Norma Vander Molen Member Dear Ms. Dupuy: Per our conversation several days ago, I have reviewed the General Plan Amendment No. 82-1 and wish to report the following: ADMINISTRATION Area of Concern #1 - Insignificant, no concern. l —w...cv Keinpet, f d_D. Area of Concern #2 - This is not in our district. Ureu na Superintendent Honaid [crown Area of Concern #3 - This is in our district and it effects the Perry Assistant School. Assuming that a "medium density" repre- S""e'i"'e sented here would primarily consist of condomin- F'et sonnet iums, current statistics would indicate that they Hobert Hawthorne would yield only 21 pupils which would be insig- Assistant nificant in our educational planning. Superintendent B(,swess Services Area of Concern #4 - This is not in our district. James M. Macon Director of E ducational Services Area of Concern #5 - This is not in our district. Doane Dishno Area of Concern #6 - Is in our district but is insignificant. Director of Special Services I hope that this information is helpful to you. Sincerely yours, R.��IAWTIORNE Assistant Superintendent Business Services RMH/mat D-8 t - r September 17, 1982 "IN QUEST OF EXCELLENCE Ms Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services $E p 2 0 1982 P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Development Services Dear Claudette: Following are the potential numbers of K-8 students that could be generated by the alternatives in the areas of concern in the Ocean View School District: Area of Concern #2 Alternative #2 . . . . . . . . 80 students Alternative #3 . . . . . . . . . . 40 students Area of Concern #4 Alternative #2 . . . . . . . . . . . 10 students Alternative #3 . . . . . . . . . . . 8 students Area of Concern #5 Alternative #2 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 students Alternative #3 . . . . . . . . . . . 8 students The District anticipates no problem in accommodating the above number of students. Sincerely, Milton R. Berg Director of Business Support Services MRB:am D-9 OCEAN- VI SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES SCH("If"L DISTRICT Dale Coogan Maxwell Sudakow,Ma President Sheila Marcus,Clerk ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS Marianne Blank Monte McMurray Charles Osterlund James Jones Janet Garrick 16940 B STREET Joseph Condon HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92647 we Are An Equal opportunity Empioyor 7141847.2551 The District does not discriminate on the basis of age.gender,or handicap. RECEIVED SEP 7 1982 Development Service' September 2, 1982 "IN QUEST OF EXCELLENCE" Ms- Claudette. Dupuy, Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Claudette: Either alternative being analyzed for the 5.6 acres mentioned in your recent letter would not create a problem for Ocean View School District. We estimate the number of children generated would not exceed fifteen K-8 students and the District would have no problem accommodating that number. Yours truly, C-G� Milton R. Berg 1 Director of 61�s�ness Support Services MRB:am D-10 OCEAN VIEW SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES SCH%r.N,pOf-%L DISTRIC Dale Coogan Maxwell Sud President Sheilala Marcus,Clerk ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS Marianne Blank Monte McMurray Charles Osterlund James Jones Janet Garrick 16940 B STREET Joseph Condon HUNTINQTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92647 we Are An Equal opportunity Employer 7141847.2551 The District does not discriminate on the basis of age,gender,or handicap. 010 C I- Huntington Beach Union High School District Z p 10251 Yorktown Avenue,Huntington Beach,California 92646 (714)964-3339 s �M y N O Frank J.Abbott,Ed. D. Board of Trustees Scil >ui leriniendent of Schools Brian W.Lake President Stephen H.Smith a Vice President �! i982 Ron E.Marcus V V.� Clerk Development Services Sherry L.Bourn Ms. Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner Helen E.Dltte City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: General Plan Amendment 82-1 Dear Ms. Dupuy: Per your request of September 14, our staff has reviewed the potential student generation of the alternatives outlined in your six areas of concern. Find enclosed your summary sheet annotated with the numbers of potential students (at our current yield ratio) that would enter our schools should this development occur. The particular high school impacted by that development has also been noted on the page. As you may be well aware, our district has been in a three-year steady decline ranging from 3% to 6% of our student population. Our high schools, therefore, are no longer overcrowded as in previous years. Thus, the modest student yields, even in the highest instance (area of concern #2), would not prove to be a burden for that particular school in our district. If you need any further information in this area, please feel free to contact Glen Dysinger here in our office. Sincerely, Fr J. b Superinte nt .FJA/mnp Enclosure D-11 Iiuntington Beach Westminster Marina Fountain Valley Edison Ocean View Evening High School Adult School Guidance Center Wintersburg Education Center t s O�iTa SEP 2 21982 Development Services ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT i September 20, 1982 Ms. Claudette Dupuy Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Dupuy: SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-1 We have reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment, and have several comments on potential impacts on transit services. We have indicated the existing transit routes at these sites on the enclosed maps. In general, we recommend that transit facilities, such as bus stops, turnouts, and shelters, be accommodated at all developments likely to generate moderate-to-high transit ridership. i Specific comments by area of concern are: Area of Concern 1: This site has transit access nearby on three routes. It is unlikely that the proposed amendment would result in any significant transit impacts due to the size of the site, the location, and potential land uses. Area of Concern 2: This site is currently served by Route 25 (Golden West). Alternative land uses 1-4 could result in need for a bus turnout and shelter on Golden West. Area of Concern 3: This site has transit access nearby on two routes, and may have direct service on Garfield in the future. Both alternatives could result in the need for a bus stop and shelter at this location. 4 Area of Concern 4: This site is currently served by two routes. Depending on future levels of development here and in Bolsa Chica, traffic volumes on Warner may warrant a bus turnout and shelter. Area of Concern 5: This site is currently served by one route and may warrant a bus stop depending an the land use and trip demand. i I 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY P 0 IiOX 'M') • (!AIMI N G11CM, CAI If ORNIA 92642 • III10NE_ (714)9716200 D-12 l l Ms. Dupuy September 20, 1982 Page Two Area of Concern 6: This site is currently served by two routes. There are not likely to be any impacts on transit service as a result of any of the proposed land uses. While it appears that the proposed GPA will not generate significant impacts that require modifications to existing bus service, we would appreciate your consideration of transit facility needs in future planning and design of the development areas 2 through 5. We will be glad to provide you further assistance, as the EIR's on or specific plans for these sites are being prepared. If you need any further information, please call me or Christine Huard-Spencer at (714) 971-6412. Sincerely, Dick Hsu Environmental. Coordinator Enclosure DH:B statf' of C j(itornlJ, VdIm lnd C'� Brown 4, c v wcir-i S California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, Californij�94105 141 S) 543-8555 November 24,19R2 Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse v ti 1982 1400 Tenth Street, Room 12.1 DeveloPment es Sacramento, CA 95814 serve ATTM:Terry RE: SMY 82091702 Draft FIR. for GI' Amendment: 82-1(EIR 82.-3)City of Filrntingt,rn Beach. Gentlomon: The staff of the Coastal Commission has revic-aed the rvfertt nc:red UR +nd offorc,, the •fol lowing, comments for consideration, 'Iwo areas being considered for land use designation changes are in the coastal zone(areas 2.4 and 2.6) . - Regarding the Huntington Harbour Beach Club Area, Area 2.4,the City's Local Coastal Plan designates this site as Open Space Recreation. As certififed -in part by the Commission on November 17,1982 this land use designation does not allow residential tiscs.Therefore the FIR should irldi- cate that any land use designation change would require an amendment to the City's Local Coastal i'lan ,and such amendment rrtlst be consistent with the poli- cies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Section 30222 of the Act provides that the use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving facilitiA-,> designed to enhance public: opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential , general ind:.istrial or general commerciai but not over, agriculture or coastal-dependent indtlstry. The EIR fails to evaluate how the proposed amendment to establish residential uses with recreation uses would address these priorities. Further, Sections 30210-30212 of the Act ensure the provision of public access in new development. The EIR (p.36) notes 'that concern should be given to pr�- serving access and views to the area.Yet, the EIR notes on page 38(d) that the existing recreational amenities inrludinq a private beach would serve the development•The maintenance of a private recreational facility may not be. consistent with the provisions of the Act.The EIR tails to discuss how public access would be assured consistent with the public -access policies of the Coastal Act. The EIR also notes on page 37(4a) that the sewage pump station facilities are nearing capacity.Section 30254 provides in part that ". . .Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development services to coastal dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries—public recreation, commercial recreation; and visitor, serving land uses shall not be precluded by ot.hc!r development."The EIR fails to evaluate whether commitment to nfixed residential use would preclude higher priority u%es under the Coax tal Act. Regarding the Magnolia-Banninq Area (Area 2.6) the EIR fails to evaluate the project i►i light of the provisions of the energy policies of the Coastal Act. The FIR should evaluatF the potential of thn site to accommodate enery:; .expansion or coastal dependent energy or industrial facilities in conformance with Sections 30760-30264 of thr, Art. (hank you for the opportunity to comment on this EIR Sincerely, Eliz eth A. Furhs Coastal Analyst cc:David l.nordi;, South Covet. Claiidette Dupuy, City of Huntington Beach o Alexander Googooion Fp- Attorney at W�ECEHr�OFgg, HUNTJ'W# Nove er Z�, �D��Attf, �ov 2� � 17 City of Huntington Beach i.irw w �� I�cSz Department of Development Services P. O. Box 190 Development Ser•r'.es Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Attn: Claudette Dupuy, City Planner Subject : Environmental Impact Report 82-3 Land Use Amendment 82-1 , Area 2 . 4 Gentlemen: Upon review of the EIR for the above-referenced project, there are several inadequacies that I feel need to be discussed in greater detail before the EIR is certified. The first comment I would have is that the discussion of the environmental impacts of retaining the existing Recreation Open Space designation on the site is superficially discussed. There is no indication of additional types of recreation uses that could be developed on the site and what the environmental impacts of those other uses might be . Also, the anticipated traffic generation for Open Space Recreation (64 end trips) seems to be substantially understated. By actual count on Saturday, November 13 , 1982 , there were 61 vehicles observed on the subject property at 11 : 00 a.m. That day was a cloudy, overcast day. On the following day at noon, there were 139 vehicles on the lot . During the peak sailing and cruising times of the year , many more vehicles would- be utilizing the property, particularly if the restaurant and meeting rooms provide the type of quality dining and recreation environment that the residents of this area can support. I would suggest that approximately 200 to 250 vehicle end trips per day could be generated just by the recreation uses . There is no specific discussion in the EIR regarding the consistency of this proposed Land Use Amendment with the Coastal , Element , Seismic Safety Element , or Housing Element of the City' s General Plan. A brief review of the Coastal Element finds that the proposal under consideration may be inconsistent with the following policies of the Coastal Element : 15933 South Clark Avenue •Suite 8• Bellflower, Colifornio 90706•(213) 925-5563 S City of Huntington Beach November 23 , 1982 Page Two -Policy 4g , Page 13.9 -Policy 6a, Page 140 -Policy 15f, Page 151 There is no specific discussion . regarding the cumulative impacts of this project with anticipated future developments that could occur on the south side of Warner Avenue. More attention should be given to the discussion of the coordinated phasing of the realignment of Warner Avenue with future residential construction in the Bolsa Chica Bluff area. Finally, it would seem that the only reason for recommending approval of this Land Use Amendment is that it is what the applicant is requesting and that it is profitable to the City. If future revenue to the City is the major basis for approving Land Use Amendments then Open Space and Recreation areas will soon disappear. Hopefully, the City can balance its goals for new housing with other goals such as preservation of Open Space , accessibility to shoreline areas , and view retention of shorelines and harbor areas . The City has previously reviewed this site for the construction of 42 guest . cottages , and the request was denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council . The two most pertinent Findings. of Fact adopted by both the Commission and Council were : "l. The intent of the ROS Zone as established did not include uses of this type; i. e. , residential development , whether temporary or not . 2 . Zoning prior to ROS was Rl. If the zoning was as it had been, the use would not be permitted. The proposed use does not conform to the use of surrounding. properties . " Finally, there was an amendment made to the EIR by an Errata Sheet which was inserted to the report at the hearing on November 16 , 1902 , and which had to do with access . Since we are not privy to this change , we can only speculate as to what it purports to provide . I would seriously urge that more detailed analysis be included in the EIR in those areas which has been discussed above . City of Huntington Beach November 23, 1982 Page Three In conclusion may I point out that three items were considered simultaneously at the hearing of November 16 , 1982. They were 1) the LIR 82-3; 2) Land Use Amendment 82-1; and 3) Huntington Harbor Bay Specific Plan. To limit interested property owners , as I was and am, to three minutes as to all these items , and to prohibit us from accumulating time (3 minutes) amongst each other , which had been promised prior to the hearing, effectively denied me and others to our right to a fair hearing . The conduct just referred to denied me of my constitutionally protected right to due process and a fair and impartial hearing. Ver truly you17AM AL DER GO 26975 Edgewate ane Huntington Beach, 92649 r r A D D E N D U M The following persons join in and concur with the comments made by Alexander Googooian. )61 10 4a- (-�-6 0%&.&t CL, R 'I S FCk C�t_WZAA- DEC Environmental Board 44� s CI _Y OF HUNTINGTON BFACH �4W% IIIINUV(JON[if l(II F'i)Sf 011wc h()x 190 . Huntin��i��n hf��u�h, (:Aiirirmci 9,1648 TO: Planning Commission DATE: December 1, 1982 FROM: Environmental Board SUBJECT: DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 The Huntington Beach Environmental Board has reviewed Draft Land Use Element Amendment 82-1, and submits the following comments re- garding the six areas covered in this land use amendment. Area of Concern 2.1 - Yorktown/Main Street Area The Land Use Amendment indicates that a 1.52 acre parcel located approximately 500 feet east of Main Street and 600 feet north of Yorktown Avenue would be redesignated from medium density residential to office. professional. The Environmental Board feels that this zone change is premature at this point in time in that such piece- meal changes without overall recognition of the cumulative impact have a tendency to destroy the overall intent of the Huntington Beach Land Use Plan. Further, it is pointed out that this change would likely result in an additional 438 vehicle trips per day originating from any development .on this parcel. Although this number of trips is minimal, no attempt has been made to address the cumulative effect of additional traffic on surrounding streets. Area of. Concern 2.2 - Mushroom Farm Area The Land Use Amendment proposes to redesignate 20. 1 acres of land from open space to medium density residential. The staff recommen- dation is to keep the zoning as open space, and the Environmental Board wishes to add their support to the staff recommendation. Any residential development in this area would have significant problems with storm drainage, water supply, and sewage. Another major objection by the staff and again supported by the En- vironmental Board, is that this area is currently surrounded by Huntington Central Park, and is proposed for eventual inclusion in Central Park. A zone change to medium density residential is incom- patible with the proposed incorporation into the park. The Environ- mental Board concurs with the staff recommendation, and opposes this zone redesignation. Area of Concern 2. 3 - Cambro Manufacturing Plant Area The Land Use Amendment proposes to redesignate a 19.4 acre site from medium density residential to general industrial. Although not op- posed to this redesignation, the Environmental Board notes with great alarm that city planning maps showing the subject area have LUE 82-1 Dec. 1, 1982 Page 2 removed (hopefully inadvertently) the old Pacific Electric right-of- way. These planning maps have been distributed at recent Planning Commission meetings. We object to this misinformation, as the right- of-way remains in existence and as you well know, represents a po- tential transportation corridor for future mass transit from Hunting- ton Beach. The Environmental Board urgently requests that the planning maps be corrected to reflect existence of the right-of-way. Area of Concern 2.4 - Huntington Harbor Beach Club The Land Use Amendment proposes to redesignate 5.7 gross acres from open space to mixed development. The Land Use Amendment goes on to state that it is the intent of the applicant to construct residential condominiums on this property after its redesignation. The Environ- mental Board opposes the mixed development zoning, even in conjunc- tion with the proposed specific plan, as not providing sufficient control as to the type of development which would eventually be im- plemented. If residential is the intent of the applicant, then the zoning change should be to residential, rather than mixed development which allows a variety of uses from retail shops to recreational facilities. In addition, the applicant has indicated that the proposed residentia."L condominiums would be five stories in height. This exceeds the three- story height restriction for areas outside of high rise nodes, and is completely incompatible with the existing developments around the Huntington Harbor Beach Club. The Environmental Board is opposed to any zone redesignation which would result in such high-rise construc- tion, and which would severely impact the visual and aesthetic values of the site. Area of Concern 2.5 - Beach View Mobile Home Park The Land Use .Element `proposed to redesignate a 5. 6 acre. parcel lo- cated west of Gothard Street just north of the City Yard. The area is presently zoned as general industrial, which is inconsistent with the current mobile home use. However, if rezoned as a mobile home district, this park would not conform to the City' s mobile home zoning requirements due to the fact that existing density is 14 .4 dwelling units per acre, versus a maximum mobile home zoning density of 9 units per acre. Further, as this park is less than the minimum 10 acres specified in the mobile home zoning requirements, it would not be in conformance with this requirement. Nevertheless, low cost housing is needed in Huntington Beach, and since this park was built in 1961, the zoning should be changed to reflect its current land use as a mobile home park. The Environmental Board recommends that this area be rezoned for mobile homes, but continue to be allowed to be in non-conformance with the structural requirements of the mobile home designation. Area of Concern 2. 6 - Magnolia/Banning Area The Land Use Amendment proposes to redesignate the 1. 6 acre site LUE 82-1 ` Dec. 1, 1982 Page 3 located at the southeast corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street from industrial resource production to low density residential. The Environmental Board concurs with the staff recommendation that the most appropriate land use designation is low density residential: Access appears to be the only area of significant questions. Access out of site should be by right turn onto Magnolia only. Access into site should require modification of the Magnolia/ Banning intersection. . The residential development should attempt to incorporate conser- vation measures listed on Pages 60 and 61 of the EIR. To the extent possible, areas should be preserved within the residential structures for containers to be used in the separation of recyclable materials - approximately 2 ft. by 2 ft. of floor space in a closet or pantry is suggested. A central area within the project should be preserved for a small recycle center - approximately 8 ft. by 8 ft. Consideration should also be given to leaving provisions available for installation of solar water heating units - i.e. , plumbing and structural amendments that might be necessary. Water conserving measures should be required. The Environmental Board urges the Planning Commission to implement the Land Use Amendment changes in conformance with the recommenda- tions listed above. HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Irwin Hay—dock- - - Chairman IH:MFK:ic: jlm RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-3 A. Letter from Orange County Transit District RESPONSE: -Comments from O:CTD regarding potential improvements to the existing bus system will be incorporated into the appropriate sections of the Land Use Amendment 82-1. B. Letter from California Coastal Commission RESPONSE: Area of Concern 2.4 -Regarding the comment that the E.I .R. should indicate that any land use designation change would require an amendment to the City' s Local Coastal Plan and should be consistent with the California Coastal Act. - This comment will be added to page 36, Section 2. 4 . 2. 1 of the LUE Amendment document. -Regarding the comment about consistency with Section 30222 of the California Coastal Act. - The mixed-use designation would allow both recreation and residential uses on the subject site. It does not preclude recreational uses. The Specific Plan being processed concurrently with LUE 82-1 proposed to improve and expand existing recreation facilities on the site. -Regarding the comment about Sections 30210 - 30212 of the Coastal Act. - Neither a mixed use or residential land use designation on this site in the General Plan will preclude public access to the Huntington Harbour Waterways. The provision of such access will have to be ensured at the project level. The Specific: Plan being processed concurrently with LUE 82-1 proposes a ten- foot wide public walking along the entire bulkhead which would provide public access to the waterway. -Regarding the comment on the sewage pump station - Pump Station "D" has the capacity to accommodate future developments, how- ever, improvements to the outfall lines will be required prior to significant development. In terms of pump station capacity, the additional residential units would not preclude future development of this area for "high priority uses" as defined by the Coastal Act. Area of Concern 2 . 6 Regarding the comment that the EIR should evaluate the potential of the site to accommodate coastal dependent energy or industrial facilities - The LUE Amendment document states on page 53 Section 2. 6. 2. 1 that due to the small size and irregular shape of the site it is unlikely that any significant industrial development would occur under the existing land use designation. • Page 2 C. Letter from Alexander Googooian RESPONSE: Regarding the comment that the Recreation Open Space de- signation is superficially discussed - The E. I .R. on page 33 through 39 discusses the most likely impacts of such a design- ation on land use compatibility, housing opportunities, traffic, schools, parks, utilities, public works facilities, and City services. The exisiting recreational development was used in the analysis since this is a typical use likely to occur under the open space designation. -Regarding the traffic comment - the trip generation rates used to calculate traffic for the mixed use development represent average daily trips. This average takes into account both peak periods and low use periods. The generation rates used are based on rates developed by the Institute of Transporation Engineers. -Regarding consistency with Policy 4g of the City' s Coastal Element - Public access to the Huntington Harbour waterways can be provided under an open space, a mixed used, and a residential land use designation in the General Plan. None of the alternatives analyzed for the site in LUE 82-1 would preclude such access. How such access will be provided is more appropriate at the project review level. The Specific Plan being processed concernently with LUE 82-1 proposes a ten-foot wide public walkway along the entire length of the bulkhead. -Regarding consistency with Policy 6a of the City' s Coastal Element - Views to and from the Huntington Harbour waterways are currently limited on .this site by the existing real estate office and tennis courts. Development of the site under an open space, mixed use or residential designation will not necessarily have a significant environment impact on views to and from the site. The project proposed in the Specific Plan being processed concurrently with LUE 82-1 would preserve views through the existing club facilities and provide a view corridor between this club and the new development. -Regarding discussion of cumulative impacts resulting from de- velopment south of Warner (i.e. Bolsa Chica) . Since the writing of the General Plan Amendment, the County' s plan for development of the Bolsa Chica has been withdrawn. Therefore, at this time, there are no "active" plans for development or circulation in this area. The reallignment of Warner Avenue was included in the County' s development plan,. however, specific discussion such as phasing of the Warner allignment would have been addressed at a later time in the County' s Specific Plan. -Regarding discussion of the. Housing Element - the Housing Element is addressed under "Housing" on Page 37 of the Land Use Amendment. -Regarding consistency with Policy 15f of the City' s Coastal Page 3 . ` Element - Any residential development on the subject site will have to comply with this policy. -Regarding comments on the seismic safety element - the following discussion will be added to the Land Use Amendment: "The pro- ject site along with a major portion of Huntington Harbour is located in the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zone. This zone identifies areas of high seismic risk. Geologic studies are required by State law prior to building in this area and will be required as conditions for approval. -Regarding the comment about the Errata sheet distributed to the Planning Commission - The Errata sheet clarified (1) that access to and from the subject property would be taken from Warner Avenue only and (2) that any residential development on the site would have to comply with the City' s affordable housing policy in the coastal zone. These issues arose during the public testimony. 4 APPENDIX E LETTER FROM DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 4IATE�pF CAIIfORNIA--MEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Go,i, t DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 107 SOUTH BROAOWAV,ROOM$*v 7128 LOS ANGELES.CA 90012 (213) 620-2380 June a, 1982 h l r i Mr. James R. Barnes Associate Planner Department of Development Services City of Huntington Beach P. 0.. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. BarndA: This letter is in response to your. Mr. Charles W. Thompson's April 15, 1982 letter to Mr. John Hinton of this office, regarding the Bruce Bros. Pit being considered a "potential hazardous waste disposal site." Our abandoned site people did not have enough information to consider the Bruce* Bros. Pit a potential hazardous waste site. This office's regular staff on March 10, 1980 inspected and sampled the soil in an area in which drilling muds were disposed.of. The investigation was at the request of the City of Huntington Beach after the area had been cleaned-up. All samples upon analysis were determined to be non-hazardous. Additionally we have reviewed the Abondoned Site Groups file and found nothing in it to indicate that the Bruce Bros. Pit is a "potential hazardous waste disposal site." Therefore, based upon the information available to this office, we do not consider the Bruce Bros. Pita 'potential hazardous to d posal site." y Jo n A. H , P.E. rmits, Surveillance and Enforcement Section Hazardous Waste Management Branch JAH:mw -119- 7" IN THE Superior Court OF THE To. ...... STATE OF CALIFORNIA ............. In and for the County of Orange CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PRQS2E OF PUBLIQATIOIS 06� • CITY CLERK p,C, PUBLIC HEARING State of California County of Orange gww UREZZ TO,A AP L. ELLIOTT M, That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of ui 64 the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I A am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; Codr2,12.ow )M that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the ,the OWMI'dAra ci t al"H U-bu"6,'- "I'll',',, 11 0 it i,4,7, Sdt �d I �1%4, HUNTINGTON BEACH IND. REV. `718 f "to" im'� JH" ubaql� a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of V� 1kWUA0"*1"Ub7&r,- icluNa"W u4vkKi4tAkidi,,i Mt 0,W �,b � ��,CW0 wow ot"-" `� Z HUNTINGTON BEACH Tr - VP� � Uiirw � 40 I "t 4, A` 1 41" County of Orange And which newspaper is published for the CeslfoM 1000WE' We PJAD", A UUN disem ination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had -Age 460Y'QvArikp'4d , and still has a bons fide subscription list of paying subscribers, U4,9646t-A 'd and which newspaper has been estshlighed, printed And pub- lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a kn Pe period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the mtvhad '�-4*0. - annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular ri�MI ,t 0_19�r#�WAW i and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement IZ.1,1is+51*m W"H th''' thereof,on the following dates,to wit: A "m FJI -'c S1 JUNE 7v 1984 I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego- ing is true and correct. GARDE GROVE Dated at....... ....California,this ..8t.h. day of �U,Nq_104..... April L. Elliott at e Sign s i wv 0 f 47 �l.A� ON /Ili S3 Rk. PETITION'Fj9ej 0 11. Wett_.,the undersigned residents and hom owners of H (j �y(,�1dR, are AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BEACH CLUB PROPERTY *MR, OTHER THAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION. . r i �S 2. �t�9i+=i±ty,_concurrence the family and community type Beach Club 9 J �� w9I� and iS an integrai part of the master planned development offi thi-At{►nbour area. The club was designed to provide unique recreatigAal and social amenities to the residents. It was the inducement and the key to the completion of the development in its existing form. '3. We have collectively invested a great deal in the club concept. The proposed changes could only detract from this investment and the quality of living. The club was not intended to generate a high rate of income or to become a quick source of wealth by development for other uses. NAME AQDRESS Aj 3 4 �6 r l yC��'2 DC4�li_ �nf 6 d' 2*0 e4/ 3 11 a `- 0 _ 1KY 9 I10Q4 1 E��5,k w ter LA-). 10 11 o"G, 12 13 tm'l , ;�. 16 O :� 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 29 30 53 A '83 i .� gee A 9 \� EDGEWATER LANE PETITION O (`P 93 '�ts of Edgewater Lane, from Davenport to Warner, who are the most Y ected by any change of status are AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BEACH ERTY FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION. 2,ZIJ J., 4 5 91�'_r12K 7 0 UqzLwa_� Rj-*.eA 6 rli / 'tom• '� kC� ,' 8 c10 i 7cw 7 �" ji 10 .Z ,/ �R,•t wiz E" 12 13 C - -lam : !�. 7���s, 4 l 7 C 7 L� /c w t L� •J� T 18 ;4, Z. 7 v _ 0 e 21 l. ; ' JS 22 23 24 25 _ _._ _ _ ------- �� � (�� � . �� � b � �� ► • j'V/�i� 1I•/ JG.I./"'''. tee... .,__ . Alexander Googooian � Attorney at low Novemb etEC49D_ 1982 .CITY CLERK' CITY OF ' HUNTrrYCt04 BEACH,CALIF, Nov 17 PN '81 City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services P .O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Attn: Claudette Dupuy, City Planner Subject : Environmental Impact Report 82-3 Land Use Amendment 82-1, Area 2. 4 Gentlemen: Upon review of the EIR for the above-referenced project , there are several inadequacies that I feel need to be discussed in greater detail before the EIR is certified. The first comment I would have is that the discussion of the environmental impacts of retaining the existing Recreation Open Space designation on the site is superficially discussed. There is no indication of additional types of recreation uses that could be developed on the site and what the environmental impacts of those other uses might be. Also , the anticipated traffic generation for Open Space Recreation (64 end trips) seems to be substantially understated. By actual count on Saturday, November 13 , 1982 , there were 61 vehicles observed on the subject property at 11: 00 a.m. That day was a cloudy, overcast day. On the following day at noon, there were 139 vehicles on the lot . During the peak sailing and cruising times of the year , many more vehicles would be utilizing the property , particularly if the restaurant and meeting rooms provide the type of quality dining and recreation environment that the residents of this area can support. I would suggest that approximately 200 to 250 vehicle end trips per day could be generated just by, the recreation uses. There is no specific discussion in the EIR regarding the consistency of this proposed Land Use Amendment with the Coastal Element, Seismic Safety Element , or Housing Element of the City ' s General Plan. A brief review of the Coastal Element finds that the proposal under consideration may be inconsistent with the following policies of the Coastal Element : 15933 South Clark Avenue •Suite B Bellflower, Colifornio 90706•(Q 13) 925-5563 City of Huntington Beach November 23 , 1982 Page Two -Policy 4g, Page 139 Policy 6a, Page 140 -Policy 15f, Page 151 There is no specific discussion regarding the cumulative impacts of this project with anticipated future developments that could occur on the south side of Warner Avenue. More attention should be given to the discussion of the coordinated phasing of the realignment of Warner Avenue with future residential construction in the Bolsa Chica Bluff area. Finally, it would seem that the only reason for recommending; approval of this Land Use Amendment is that it is what the applicant is requesting and that it is profitable to the City. If future revenue to the City is the major basis for approving Land Use Amendments , then Open Space and Recreation --areas will soon disappear. Hopefully, the City can balance its goals for new housing with other goals such as preservation of Open Space , accessibility to shoreline areas , and view retention of shoreline"' and harbor areas . The City has previously reviewed .this :_site for the . construction of '42 guest cottages , and the request was denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council . The two most pertinent Findings of Fact adopted by both the .Commission and Council were : "1. The intent of the ROS Zone as established did not inclucle uses of this type; i.e. , residential development , whetk-ler temporary or not. 2. Zoning prior to ROS was R1. If the zoning was as it had been, the use would not be permitted. The proposed use does not conform to the use of surrounding properties . " Finally, there was an amendment made to the EIR by an Errata Sheet which was inserted to the report at the hearing on November . 16 , 1982 , and which had to do with access . Since we are not privy to this change , we can only speculate as to what it purports to provide I would seriously urge that more detailed analysis be included in ----• the -EIR in those areas which has "been-discussed above:. City of Huntington Beach November 23 , 1982 Page- Three In conclusion may I point out that three items were considered simultaneously at the hearing of November 16 , 1982 . They were 1) the LIR 82-3 ; 2) Land Use Amendment 82-1 ; and 3) Huntington Harbor Bay Specific Plan. To limit interested property owners , as I was and am, to three minutes as to all these items , and to prohibit us from accumulating time (3 minutes) amongst each other, which had been promised prior to the hearing, effectively denied me and others to our right to a fair hearing. The conduct just referred to denied me of my constitutionally protected right to due process and a fair and impartial hearing. Ver truly your AL DER G00 AN 26975 Edgewate ane Huntington Beach , 92649 A D D E N D U M The following persons join in and concur with the comments A made by Alexander Googooian. 16967 r cf t4e �l Z.6 9' CIY C0�_„ November 4, 1982 The Planning Commission c/o Mr. James Palin P'.0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Dear Planning Commission Members: The Huntington Harbour Beach Club request to redesignate 5.7 gross acres from open space to *mixed development should be denied. My wife and I strongly urge you to do all in your power to retain this area as Recreation Open Space. At the time my wife and I moved to Huntington Harbour this Beaqh club was part ofthe master planned development for the Harbour area. The request to rezone and allow as many as 48 resi dential condominiums along Warner Ave, which would generate more traffic, would, in our opinion, be a tragic mistake. It would set a bad precedent. What is next? Is the Seacliff Country Club to be rezoned from Recreation open space to mixed t development too? We urge you to deny the 4ke Huntington Harbour Beach Club Application. To do otherwise would be to approve the deterioration of the quality of life in the Huntington Harbour area. sincerely, Kaye & James G. Karis 3536 Bravata Dr. Huntington Beach, Calif. 92649 j Development serw o's j e l InZ �tL!,L tee° �'�"_• c zL C i �.�4`;�c."weave^ar�.Sr:�+�",,�,*"�s-%:i+�.r�a.. "''",` +C`'.': .x�,�, r7":."' �r,,pT.,,,c..•'n,'t•'vyY-�,.!+--•'--, --'rR.-p.a..r_.t_+.�-"` ,;`•n•. 5 .- r .._ �x�,� i.,,.�.c^ roS3��"'' -_ / e .f�C`y.%!"�-�fi`�/C.'_� BIZ-C��=C 't j A:'f'-T'i� � Cif 3�•�'�•-C.��,;s �'' i _�� � �'_t ��C=-. -, ,, ) ;4, (l xle Iz �C� r`,�'�•t� ''.�-cam_ — ��' /�--� �fCC-•L�:?.��.� �c�_ ���,-,c \ _ - November 15 , 1982 Development Services TO: Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission FROM: William R. and Carol Wood SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT OF THE HH BEACH CLUB FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN ROS ZONING Do we want mini-freeways in our residential areas? OF COURSE NOT! ! Do we want more untenable traffic hazards on our main arteries? NO! Do we want our kids lives endangered in this residential area? NO WAY! Do we want excessive road repair bills? OF COURSE NOT! Do we want Huntington Beach to become a concrete jungle? OF COURSE NOT! Do we want recreational open spaces paved over? OF COURSE NOT! ! Yet , the proposed condo development by the HB Bay $ Racquet Club will do all these things . Our traffic dept . wants to route all the proposed traffic into our residential area . . . . . 2500 families will use a short cut through the condo area the first chance they get . The condo and Beach Club added traffic will endanger even more lives in the hi-speed traffic on Warner. A possibility of side effects from hi-tide hydraulic action (subterranian garages) being pressured out under Warner could possibly heave Warner forever until our city fathers are weak from paying road repairs . And, would this impact our struggle for clean water in any way?? ARE WE TO LET OUTSIDE INTERESTS PAVE OVER OUR OPEN SPACES, THEN LEAVE US A CONCRETE JUNGLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS? I say NO! Let ' s leave the few open spaces we have left so HB citizens can enjoy looking at water- - not cement. Water belongs to everyone , so why close it in with stucco? Developers can go elsewhere for profits ! If the Beach Club developers can' t make money as a Club , why should the people of HB lose? This area is being surrounded by hi-density housing . . . . leave us some space ! ! ! Are we to lose our last precious jewels of land among us? I think not . Let ' s examine all the facts before we rush into actions detrimental to sanctions embraced and protected by the Coastal Commission. Your actions on this issue are important in the lives of Huntington Beach citizens- -not just for today, but for the future , as well . If the Harbour residents had wanted a Balboa-type environment (hi-density, transient) , that would have been our choice. It ' s not our choice ! We will continue to be involved until this has finally been resolved. Respectfully, Lo 0_4 /t cc: Mayor Robert Mandic Members of the City Council November 6, ' 82 Planning Commissioners +i -) C/O James Palin P 0 Box 190 Htg Bch ; CA 92648 D8V8104(118i1t j81v��e5 ATT: Claudette Dupuy Jim Barnes I am a 17 year resident of the Huntington Harbour area directly affected �y -the land. use amendment 82-1 currently under study by the planning department with regards to the expansion of the beach club . The change in question regards the traffic pattern change of only allor;ini access to the proposed development from surface side streets- of Courtney and edgewater. There is no way this will work without endangering the lives of all residents on these streets. I have witnessed the freeway condition of Warner for 15 years and' will vigorously fight a planning commission change of this nature . All ingress and egress for these units must be' achieved off Warner for the development to be a viable one. You will have to put in stop lights and widen Warner to accomodate a parallel-running access road unless you want an increase in fatal fatlities on a freeway condition' surface artery (50 to 60 MPH normal speeds -on this stretch, blind curve condition) if condos , public restaurant , and marina usage is to be allowed. Consider all the consequences of your actions . Thank you. Respectfully, W1'Cyl - William R. Wood 17226 Courtney Lane Huntington Beach 92649 MARY E"-EN HOUSEAL ATTORNEY AT LAW 16952 Baruna Lane Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 December 3, 1982 Department of Development Services Planning Division City of Huntington Beach - � Attention: Claudette Dupuy Development Services Environmental Impact Report 82-3 Huntington Harbour Beach Club Compatibility of mixed use designation The impact on the surrounding neighborhood is devasting. You are taking away recreation and open space and replacing it with three fifty five feet tall buildings ( there will be a berm ten feet high with forty five foot buildings on top of the berm) . You will have to search for buildings of comparable height in Huntington Beach. The Weatherly Bay Condominiums are nineteen feet high. The propsed development would be almost three times as high. The prospective homeowners of Huntington Harbour were shown the Beach Club and Marina facilities by the oringinal developer and told it was to remain as a recreational area. Coastal Land The LCP Committee of Huntington Beach made of residents from all parts of the city spent years meeting and drawing the plans for our Local Coastal Plan. This Committee counted on the acreage around the Beach Club as open space and visitor serving. The policy of the Coastal Commission as determined by the Coastal Act is to encourage open space and visitor serving uses in the Coastal area. A private high rise, heavy density residential use will result in an overall loss of visitor serving facilities. The public wants and needs recreational opportunities in the Coastal Zone. Propsition 20 was passed to pre- serve the coast for the public where possible. Many citizens have been working diligently to save and implement coastal recreational opportunities ever since. Why recycle the area to a new use? The ROS designation is the use which was on the property when the present owner acquired the land, and it is the use which best serves the City of Huntington Beach and the surrounding areas. The present use provides for a public marina and a public walk way surrounding the marina. The view from Warner Avenue is of the marina and water. The view and part of the public marina (48 slips) will be lost under this proposal. The recyling would benefit only the landowner. He would be allowed to use his land in a way which would bring great monetary profit to him. However, the neighbors and other residents of Huntington Beach will lose irreplacable recreation and open space in the coastal area. The City's LCP would have to be amended to change the use. Economic There is a very small cost to the city of $6,239 per year in retain- ing the open space. The low density residential alternative would generate $7,724 per year more revenue than the mixed use. Why • if revenue is an issue would mixed use be recommended? Low density is the best revenue producer. Open space can be enjoyed by all for a very small price. Our city must consider the needs of` its citizens not gust how to raise revenue. Huntington Beach should be a good place to live and raise your family. Traffic The traffic would be a problem for those in Huntington Harbour since the plan is to re-route the public marina traffic through existing side streets in Huntington Harbour. At the public hearing before the Planning Commission, this plan was withdrawn and a traffic signal on Warner Avenue was proposed. A traffic signal on Warner to serve forty eight new units3 That signal would slow the flow along Warner and back up on PCH. The public would not be served by this signal , only impeded by a signal to serve such a small number of people when there are 20,000 trips per day on Warner at the present with projections to 40,000 trips per day in the future. CConclu ion For the above reasons I disagree with the staff recommendation. The present zoning ROS should remain. All of the people will benefit. Sincerely, ?7ZII!� -Mary Ellen Houseal J. P. SWEENY, M.D., F.A.C.S. 701 E.28"IN STREET 4301 LONG BEACH,CALIFORNIA 90808 DIPLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD OF SURGERY November 30, 1982 ' GEUJ Development Services Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 North Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Sirs: As an interested, tax-paying, long-time citizen of Huntington Beach I wish to protest in the strongest terms, the conversion of the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club into a commercial condominium, marina facility. Although one suspects that individuals with vested interests have coopted the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association hierarchy to support this venture, it is obvious that the only justification for the plan is the financial profit of the investors. An authentic environmental impact study should show that such a conversion would be detrimental to the ecology of the area and the interests of ordinary citizens who have no financial interest in the venture. I trust that you will deal with this matter with the general welfare of the community uppermost in your mind. Sincerely, J.P. Sweeny, JPS/mm 2 STANLEY D. FIELDS 17035 ROUNDHILL DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92649 November 15, 1982 _ ;�E i r 77 D t*G'V 1 G 1982 Dear Mr. Palin: Development Services On Tuesday. November 16, 1982 a hearing is scheduled in City Hall on the application for a zoning change and a permit to build and operate residential and commercial structures and businesses in variance to the present' ROS zoning. According to the information I have, there is to be, or could be, access and egress through contiguous streets other than Warner Avenue. This would be a disaster for neighboring residents and probably a disservice to the applicant. If rezoning should be granted, such access must be prohibited in perpet- uity. The 3-story condominiums, jamne4 into an inadequate space, the inevitable development of a "members" club into a regional club or a public bar and restaurant facility, certainly violates the original plan for this area under which most Huntington Harbour people purchased their homes. I. with a large segment of Huntington Beach citizens object to a change from ROS', especially on the basis of the nebulous proposal, with no future limitations on subsequent variances. Yours truly, S. D. Fields Al The Planning Commission c/o James Palin P. 0. Box Dftekpmeq Services Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 As a resident homeowner of Huntington Beach, I am opposed to the further development of the Harbour Beach Club property. The reasons are numerous: Access ftom Sceptre Lane in Weatherly Bay would create extreme traffic hazards and congestion. The volume of projected traffic through our neighborhood would overwhelm our high density situation. The Beach Club property is too small and irregular in shape, parcel of land, for responsible, further develop- ment, other than what exists today. Present and past owners of the Club, should have paid a reasonable price for the land based upon the boat moor - age fee income and nothing else. Historically, this open recreational space, promised us by the developers and their resale offices in the past, and the City of Huntington Beach, should be recognized in- to perpetuity. I am looking to you for responsible leadership. Xe�� ;6�a Ann Kirk 4093 Aladdin Drive Huntington Beach, Calif. 92649 ' I 4033 Humboldt Drive Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 November 13, 1982 Mr. James Palin Huntington Beach Planning Commission oevelopmeot Se�� P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Palin: I am writing to you to urge you not to vote in favor of the Bay and Racquet' s request for a zoning change so that they can turn the club into condominiums. There is very little open space left in our area, and if a commercial development such as this is allowed to proceed, our area will be totally swallowed up. There will be much more density and heavy traffic in the Warner area. When I first moved to the Harbor, the beach club was a charming place for tennis players, beach goers , and just anyone who wanted a pleasant dinner in lovely surroundings . Since the present owner has taken over, he has closed down the tennis facilities, beach facilities and all other club facilities , causing almost 100 percent of the members to go else where for recreational activities . It seems that his only motivation in buying the club was originally to turn it into a business cond6minium development in order to make an extremely large profit on his investment. I strongly urge you not to allow him to make a windfall profit at the expense of the Harbor residents and destroy the ecological balance of our community. Yours truly, r Karyn tone November 12, 1982 The Planning Commission P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Commissioner: I am writing this letter to inform you that I am against the zone change at the Harbour Beach Club from Recreational Open Space to Mixed Development. As a long time resident here (16 years) I have seen the traffic problems increase every year. It is almost impossible for the people . living in Weatherly Bay to get onto Warner Avenue, and with the additional traffic generated by this high-density development I feel that it would be very hazardous. Your consideration of this matter when it comes before the Planning Commission and a vote against it will be greatly appreciated by this community. Very truly yours, Charlotte E. Schwartz 3962 Aladdin Huntington Beach, California 92649 D CITY0= -Df: 3!AC'H CITY COUi�.:•' OF�lC� eIAF'AR L SUNDF3FRG ' 16452 MALOEN CIRC. F- HUNTINGTON HARE30UA, C,, ;PP649 � �► �. G 1982 Zove,•,}>Cr 11, 1987 Development Servic3s j Dear Commissioners r' I am against the development of the Huntington ry ' Harbour Beach Club property for purposes other than Open Space and Recreation. The present ovmer, Mr. Ahadpour purchased the i. property over two years ago and at that time closed the ,:, n. dining room, bar, pool and many of the tennis and i social activities to the members of 600 families. These members paid monthly dues until May 1, 1982 for little or no services while-Ahadpour continued to construct a s' public restaurant and applied, for zoning changes for the building of condos for private profit. I believe Mr. Ahadpour has a moral obligation to the original 600 club members he inherited when he F� ,Y�`• purchased the Club and it's membership fees deposits. - r j When I joined the Club I expected a, lifetime membership in a Tennis Club as it then existed and have since joined another Club as others have had to do. I did not quit Mr. Ahadpour's Club but in my heart t' believe Ahadpour quit on me and 600 other members by 1, shutling down and closing it's facilitiep to profit from x building Condos and restoring the dining room and kitchen for use as a public restaurant. Under date of June 9, 1982 I requested the . . r.,. return of my $500.00 membership fee from Abadpour. His reply was that the fees were non-refundable. Therefore - under date of september 7th, 1982 I secured a judgement - from the West Orar(le Judicial District Court (Case ;r158501) - requtirincr Ferydoun ?ffiadpour to refund my initiation fee plus all court costs as a result of his closing and quit- ting on my membership a:3 he has on hundreds of other club members. Your nc crative vote to cYq zonin g of this property would be appreciated. Frank Weber 17060 Edgewater In. Huntinton Beach , Ca. 92649 Mr. James W,Palin: Director Developement Servicds Box 190 City Of Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Mr. Palin: I am strongly opposed to "Land Use Amendeut 82-1" . Nineteen years ago my family and I paid a premium to live within the proximity of the amenities of the Huntington Harbour Beach Club and the open space aroudd Weatherly Bay. We were attracted by the unconjested, quiet streets that allowed safe access to the area. Now, that is in jepordy because, someone outside the community sees an opportunity to profit. I pray that you do not become a party to this scheme. There obviously is no great need for 48 condos in this legal open space. It would turn Edgewater and Courtney Lanes into hazardous, traffic conjeste "Back alleys. We did not pay a premium for our properties to live in a back alley. Please consider the present community and the rights of Huntington Beach voters before you act on this inequitable amendment. Respectful/ley,, Frank Weer aa�D tius 15 M Development Services A tr• 17010 (sigewater o£G a g untington Mach,l:ali�orn 92649 � t.U•V � V t��L. z ,e(� � Development 'er, ss 7y n ���a, °G .�� • .����'�- � GY� ��.�,�-.: .'off. I i; 4. 1 �.[«�1'aYr '1t1`°`t��1•�'M.'.�'�-�:�.��1w�a��i+�w+r,�.4.►rty�..rbr'•S+.`8+."ywv'!�` "� dii�,�4-��+,.����+.�.,.�itt�.."..'�wc,�,p��. S� r r November 12, 1982 3. The Planning Commission P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Commissioners This letter is to inform you that I am against ' the zone change at the Harbour Bay and Racquet Club. This isf.the second time the owner, Mr. Adaphour, has tried to put high-density buildings on this property. This area is completely un- suitable for this kind of development. The residents in Weatherly Bay are directly effected by the increased traffic, noise, pollution and the people that these 48 units would bring to already crowded streets. Will you please vote against this zone change when it comes before the Planning Commission? Your support in this matter will be appreciated. Sincerely yours, Miriam Litman 3989 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92649 Dul r CITY OF I-;Ut,j,,• CITY COUNCIL OFF'C-= Huntington Beach Planning- ComtAi.ssion James Palin P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Nov. 12, 1982 As a resident homeowner of Huntington Beach, I am opposed to the further development of the Harbour Beach Club property. The reasons are numeroues Access from Sceptre Lane in Weatherly Bay would create extreme traffic hazards and congestion. The volume of projected traffic through our neighborhood would overwhelm our high density situation. The Beach Club property is too small and irregular in shape, parcel of land, for responsible, further develop- ment, other than what -exists today. Present and past owners of the Club, should have paid a reasonable price for the land based upon the boat moor - age fee income and nothing else. Historically, this open recreational space, promised us by the developers and their resale offices in the past, and the City of Huntington Beach, should be recognized in- to perpetuity. I am looking to you for responsible leadership. ennet rk 4093 Aladdin Drive NU 15199 Huntington Beach, DrieWpfwnt Se(weS California 92649 1982 Development Services ' "e4 4 t radl� . �? 1 1-11 . .0- • �� 2S� t r (� ' ... - ''ix+2+` _ _ 'r'��L.J.f. i..�'11�'".lyJl`R.�'1"' +�.' _•�.��`.�{„j'f'e�r`!?°*a`"+,<'�e;.'°`,-;'t'-"'t't:X'�;'+�'i`r'a.'�. w h November 1? , 1982 r ' James Patin E Planning Dept. ' �► -, ar, '�►° City of Huntington Beach ' ` f ` ••� P.O. Box 190 - Huntington Beach, Ca. Dear Mr. Palm,: I urge strong opposition by the Planning Department to the development of 48 dwellings on Warner Avenue as proposed w �k� ^ by the owners of the Huntin@�ton Harbour Bay and Raouet Club. This plan, with all its bad side effects' is not compatible with the area. Yours truly, tj if DevelopRie;,. �4.. '�''f4''":.,::A6,L�0".y """�7.✓- .:.-'f.?�+p.—ti_���d7�-+rnr-..=t._,r=+,.:•.�.— .> .t;-in=�R.rI..'.;�...s,�:;/f"�`�,•.�y�:e•�..`+s'..A.',r:'"�•�+'c°1'LY..� +�'it4....lnr.':i`'".� 1' November 12, 1082 Dear ,r. Palen, The new specif c plan being; presented to the Huntington Beach City Planning Commission meeting Tuesday evening• for Condos at the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club does not l_-ive my support. Sincerely, !�4~ Mildred Anderson Huntington Harbour resident 1 y/�.�,c�+!�►.WIiRr'y-� 't.• ..F': ..�RY^�r�Y!.h:tii..c...y�T.+rf•:�y�l .'J'w�•,:-•i-tildli►�•..,,..!�-�...?J�,.�+^4L'Q�+►.w+•.�� k�re.�.r�s•�Y)7k•'.�Se''r� - h `fit•- (t•f }+ ' i w + .�._�y__i .. . Ps. /a.. zv,, , ,,, C&AAA,4x dizz" r'##-F krt A A- d:j.J r �Vtd 5 oc a At L I< wrR c-Tr TWA ISIS, ON 4r rfQ�15 1982 November 10, 1982 0P"'171 Ser„.14 Dear Mr. James Palin, Please be advised that I, my family, and many of my neighbors, contrary to what has been published in the local paper, are strongly opposed to the current planned develop- ment of the "Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club. " We have been a member of the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club and a boat slip leasee since 1971. Our family has supported and enjoyed its facilities until two years ago, at which time it was closed. We still supported it for one and a half years by paying our monthly dues without any ben- efits or privileges. Our main reason for selling our last residence in Hunt- ington Beach and building our existing residence in Hunting- ton Harbour was the concept of the beach club and marina for family recreation. The proposed development would not only hinder this concept, but would drastically increase the traffic hazards on Courtney Lane and Edgewater Lane, let alone Warner Avenue, which has already been the scene of many accid- ents and fatalities. We have three children that walk to school and we are devastated that you could consider filter- ing that much traffic through our residential streets. The eighty, approximately, parking spaces will not nearly be enough to handle the 108 remaining boat slips, let alone the guests for the 48 condos. The overflow will naturally be extended to Edgewater, Courtney and neighboring streets. This parking problem appears to us to become another Balboa Island concept. We are strongly opposed to the high density development. It will not add anything to our community, but instead it will detract from the natural beauty of the harbour. We strongly urge you to reject this specific plan! Th you John W and Pamela F. Cronn 17232 Courtney Lane Huntington Harbour, Cal. 92649 Guck�:ord 17012 Qeewater Lane k untington 9eack, Ca l i f orn ia,92649 November 10 , 1982 •.. Dear Planning Commissioner: I used` to be a member of the silent majority as an 18 year resident of *Huntington Harbour. With the proposed high density project on a Recreation & Open Space area, I can no longer remain silent . The owner has carefully cleverly designed and pre-sold his plan to many key people. So for foreign money has talked - very well in fact . Belatedly, however we--the silent majority are learning of on eveht which the owner and some city officials have known for many mohths. Some of my strongest concerns are as follows: 1 . I bought my home here because it 'offered a well-planned community - "Beach Club Community Homes" , a good mix of tingle family, condos, and recreation/open space. It is still a good plan and a good place to live. , 2. It becomes more obvious daily that the current owners of the Beach Club property never really intended to follow the Master Flan. They are non-residents whose interest is, economic, not in the best interest of the community. 3. Hi0h density condos built on Warner years ago met with little disagreement--they are part of the Master Plan and with Recreation and Open Space adjacent . Any change is a breech of trust by the City to the residents. --- 4. The traffic report in the EIR " is probably a valid one for safety and other reasons. However the heavy traffic- commercial and residential - through existing neighborhood streets is unrea- sonable and should never be given serious attention. Now that the development plan is becoming known by the maj- ority of us who are affected, a ground-swell - of opposition * is building and will become much greater - I guarantee it . y All elected, norninated and paid personnel of our City would •�""~' �'- do well to understand that . Thank you for your attention. Development Services Nov. 10, 1982 Members of Planning Commission Z City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 `oL�tgetv�e Attn: Mr. James Palin, Director of Development Services Subject: Huntington Harbour Bay & Racket Club Specific Plan Dear Jim, I am the spokesman for the twelve (12) property owners located on Edgewater Lane at the end of Weatherly Bay who bitterly opposed action by the City' Council approving the Bay & Racket Club plan by the pre- vious owner. Regarding the current proposed Specific Plan for the Bay & Racket Club our group met a number of times with Mr. Ahadpour and his Architect which resulted in Some modifications to the plan. Our group is in full support of the plan. The plan which we have seen shows vehicular access from Warner Avenue and not from Edgewater Lane. We concur with that plan. However, there have been statements repor- tedly made that the City would allow vehicular access from Edgewater Lane and that Edgewater Lane could be opened to Warner Avenue for right turn out only. Our group, as well as many other of our neighbors, would be vicarously opposed to any plan which would allow either of these variations from the Architects plan. Very t7ujy your,(- Sheldon Grossman r a s • 16967 E-'duewLL ter Lane Huntington Beach, Ca. gz"S ?,`oven, ber 10, 1982 xi 1 • 1 The Plannin-, Commission c/o James Palin U•r• 1 1382 huntington ,Parh, Ca. �'4 � �•�1 Developmeo;T Se-; -s Near air: a j As residents of rd,geT,•ate.- i-ane vre hereby 1 vehementi,� 'he latest plans of >. The ;iunt?,. ;tom '=each Bay taquet Club t, <<.—truct 4 condiminiu-nc on T,jh ,.t i ^ ---- r1(D1•T zoned 3.0.U AWN .� E- feel t',.i -- in direct violation of t�— or; - -r,�l C]7-£:n^ for this a7 ea -gin:' r;oi,l_�; a r�or,ulation explosi r)-t -,P11 a ,~ " trarfic hazard , due to 'I'ie r 'he )lar.s from the traffi(: :1er)_Irtment to defer the traffic fro n . -trner tivenue and spill over to the sidestreets (of which id„eTratPr is ------- nearest one concerned) vaould t;ause us deep concern. y - We need. your he.l-o in refusin- this request. .� `Tours truly, v '91 tA C. i-ej �l C' ,cam '• • ' M + 7 i,,r. and v rs. Edv. .Lobison w . 3 • W. A. &Lucille Sosnowski 17198 Courtney Lane Huntington Beach, Ca . 92649 November 10, 1982 The Planning Commission c/o James Palin P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Mr. Pa.l in : We as residents and home owners of Huntington Harbour, ate AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT OF rHE BEACH CLUB PROPERTY (THREE- CT =NRIT N PURPOSES AND lRECREATION. of on y are we against the condos ; ut we are also concerned about the traffic. We feel very strongly about the traffic that these condos will generate , not to mention the traffic off of Warner, which people will use as a short cut to get in or out of the Harbour, if an access is opened at the corner of Courtney Lane and Edgewater. We also do not feel that the designated parking spaces will be adequate to handle the residents and their visitors , and will therefore spill over to the 2 streets adjacent the condos , which are Courtney Lane and Edgewater. We hope you will support us by rejecting this development. We want to Live, as we do now, on a street where our children are safe and we have a little peace of mind. Sincerel W. A. Sosnowski �2ucille Sosnowski " 1982 Developmc:q ;ars�.es 1 17180 .Edgewater Lane 2 Huntington Beach 92649 J 4 November 10 , 1982 5 The Planning Commission c/o James Palin 6 P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 7 8 Application of Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club 9 Gentlemen: 10 I live at the north end of the Club property .11 on Edgewater Lane. Several weeks ago I wrote a letter which generally was in favor of the condominium project 12 but now must modify that approval in two respects . 13 I understand that there is a possibility that the Club property may be opened onto Edgewater Lane for the 14 purpose of draining off of some of the cars on the property so that the traffic will not have to go onto Warner. I 15 am opposed to that because of the number of children in the neighborhood and the now quiet residential nature of the 16 street. 17 Since writing the letter I have become aware that the Club property may be rezoned to mixed development . I 18 would be totally opposed to any more development of the property other than the present condominium plans . If 19 a mixed development designation were allowed by the City , leaving open the possibility that in the future the present 20 Club owners or some future owners could petition the City for further development of the property, I would have to 21 take a position of opposition to any present or future development of the property . 22 ours trilly ., r W'r 1 1382 Russell Williams Development servi 95 nON 01REIGI3TON j-V .u+ J i982 Development Services „PF � � R • GA CC 4)�i �3 .9 camw o�c•t t16 - � tw*04 ee" 1;&A . 9 V4" iris • �'`'`'y 1982 De ve/OPMent Services � c ? I VC4 Ile 4 • �C�1ll�f'j< 1�. r kANNAYOUNG i.��� 1 i98Z• . 17 O 5 7 .Edgev�ater Huntington Beach,'Celifornia.92649 . ,��_�.-1� Development Services ; K.•J o-,LL-tom /�f.2 �r .. fc'.•�: � ..�. E.. oll J ��•/ .c• 1 .7j •.t� fit,r �•a, zx . v r �_ ::..�• l -;. mac.. Aer Ab ��''... � lf.'��� GL4G••G:��•-G`? _.•f�.,(%/ G�'C... �cL•c�J/i-�.���C , <Ale-L�Ju(_..� `•/L'i•-': �'G.l.,• /_l1L�C.... -(.�./�•C.'9,:C.'.�•.J' .;�<1/ Gf.' /LE'.� ...ti. ' '/f G� �/f ';�1 �,' ���- t.'{' �i'✓' t�� lid:._. ��41-f-{:.�G`,C�!YY4••:l� CiL.�i L �-•!..{ -L,..- GL - , /�;�'1 CC'.!�iclGt+.�`*f •L -�-G-i.c-c.. �.,< +,: ► � f�l. �y ;(;�1...s,�..�e�, t �/s 4C f G�•Z.�.[..t,;�:.ir� ?/j�'�-C :i �'{ .i j1•�i�. • t 1--e y'!�(.t:..�k-1..�- l- c:.�c_.i �(i'-•L-f.•f�..� ....(-' 1 L.d-.'�'..�z G`L.(',,...�i�t[.i at 2/7 el �; 1 � � - � � . . r/ _ � ��'�l/ -��1`3�✓G�-i.�`-c� .{�.�c'..t��.i,� (,Z..� .,!•Zcc � l:'3?.cS- �•�c.-C,i. . -,�<1..G�9�O�t:-� CPI: Lr�•L� CGI*����--/C��. -�Gcv „�I'i-i-°,-�...t9'G�G!►6'�� �� � i :�►a .'�R'(' . ;, .. • N, • ,' .. �' . .. �.� � • y,. .. � � � • �. . . �� � i� .. • � � h. «• � � , '. . . � � ,.. .,. � .. _ ,.. ,;. Marvin St. Be nine r, Ph.D. Grove u harbor Medical Cienter 12892 Palm Street,Snite F-18 Garden Grove,California 92640 (714)534-3715 Psy�ltology December 2, 1982 1982 Commissioner James Palin P. 0. Box 190 Development Services Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Huntington Harbor Bay and Racquet Club Dear Mr. Palin: I wish to express my strong opposition to the construction of any condominiums , dwellings , hotels or other non-recrea- tional facilities on the above named property. I have been a resident of Huntington Harbor and a member of the Huntington Harbor Bay and Racquet Club since 1964 . I live on Humboldt Island. My willingness to pay a pre- mium price for an off-water home on a small lot was based upon the recreational facilities provided by the above mentioned club. It was the recreational and open space designation of this property which made my investment worthwhile. The value of this facility included the fol- lowing features. Tennis Facilities Men' s Doubles : Saturday and Sunday Mornings Two Women' s Weekday Leagues : Hill and Harbor League Hill and Dale League 0 page 2 RE: Huntington Harbor Bay and Racquet Club. Junior Tennis League Professional Instruction for Junior Tennis Team Private Professional Instruction for Adults Social Mixed Doubles Tennis Parties Private Beach Facilities These include a beautiful sandy beach in a protected bay permitting safe water play for small children without dangerous surf. It also included a float with a diving board and slide in the bay, as well as a volley ball court on the beach and a heated swimming pool. Professional swimming instruction was available. The Club facilities included a restaurant , bar and enter- tainment as well as an informal "barefoot bar" situated at the water' s edge. All of these facilities , located in a safe, uncongested, easily accessible family setting were the inducements which led many Huntington Harbor residents to pay an inflated price for a home which would be modestly priced elsewhere in Huntington Beach. It is the responsibility of our local government to resist all pressures and maneuvers by any developer to deprive the local residents of this recreational and open space facility. My objections to the proposed development are as follows. (1) Any construction of non-recreational facilities on this recreational open space is a betrayal of the trust of the residents of the harbor. It diminishes the value of all of our homes page 3 RE: Huntington Harbor Bay and Racquet Club and provides a single developer with a profit at our direct expense. (2) By eliminating two of the four tennis courts , the Huntington Harbor Bay and Racquet Club is effectively destroyed as a tennis club. Four tennis courts are an absolute minimum for the use of a community of this size, and the women' s and junior' s tennis teams simply cannot be in- cluded on a league schedul with less than four courts available for play. (3) The sight lines of the bay from Warner Avenue would be destroyed by 40 to 50 foot structures , not only for the residents of the harbor, but for all passers-by on Warner Avenue. (4) The increased congestion due to these units would overcrowd and overload the remaining beach, tennis and marina facilities , thereby undermining their value. (5) The problem of increasing congestion has already been indicated by the following actions: (A) The owner' s removal of the end fences of two tennis courts , thereby permitting parking on the tennis courts . In other words, even with the club facilities closed to the general membership, the parking requirements for the private party facilities combined with parking requirements for the marina has created an overloaded parking problem requiring additional spaces . page 4 RE: Huntington Harbor Bay and Racquet Club (B) A traffic signal has been proposed in a dangerous position just to the ocean side of the blind curve on Warner Avenue. Both the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and the Hun- tington Beach City Council acted wisely and responsibly one year ago in denying the applicant' s request to build non- recreational facilities on this recreational and open space zoned property. I urge you to maintain this correct and proper position and to continue to safeguard this irreplace- able recreational facility for the residents of this com- munity. I urge you to resist all pressures to change your position for the financial benefit of a single developer. Si cerely yours , xv Marvin S. Beitner, Ph.D. MSB:pgh 3979 Humboldt Drive Huntington Beach, California s n Alexander Googoo i an Attorney at Law NovembdtLrCJ&" 1982 t1TY C4Lmp H1IWTJIf0T N g ACH,CALIF.'' Nov 24 f rr City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Attn: Claudette Dupuy, City Planner Subject: Environmental Impact Report 82-3 Land Use Amendment 82-1, Area 2. 4 Gentlemen: Upon review of the EIR for the above-referenced project, there are several inadequacies that I feel need to be discussed in greater detail before the EIR is certified. The first comment I would have is that the discussion of the environmental impacts of retaining the existing Recreation Open Space designation on the site is superficially discussed. There is no indication of additional types of recreationi uses that could be developed on the site and what the environmental impacts of those other uses might be._ Also, the anticipated traffic generation for Open Space Recreation (64 end trips) seems to be substantially understated. By actual count on Saturday, November 13, 1982 , there were 61 vehicles observed on the subject property at 11:00 a.m. That day was a cloudy, overcast day. On the following day at noon, there were 139 vehicles on the lot. During the peak sailing and cruising times of the year, many more vehicles would be utilizing the property, particularly if ! the restaurant and meeting rooms provide the type of quality dining and recreation environment that the residents of this area can support. I would suggest that approximately 200 to 250 vehicle end trips per day could be generated just by the recreation uses . There is no specific discussion in the EIR -regarding the consistency of this proposed Land Use Amendment with �the Coastal Element , Seismic Safety Element , or Housing Element of the City's General Plan. A brief review of the Coastal Element finds that the proposal under consideration may be inconsistent with the following policies of the Coastal Element : i I 15933 South Clark Avenue•Suite B•Bellflower, California 90706.(213) 925-5563 �" City of Huntington Beach November 23, 1982 Page Two -Policy 4g, Page 139 -Policy 6a, Page 140 -Policy 15f, Page 151 There is no specific discussion regarding the cumulative impacts of this project with anticipated future developments that could occur on the south side of Warner Avenue. --More attention should be given to the discussion of the coordinated phasing of the realignment of Warner Avenue with future residential construction in the Bolsa Chica Bluff area. Finally, it would seem that the only reason for recommending approval of this Land Use Amendment is that ' it is what the applicant is requesting and that it is profitable to the City. If future revenue to the City is the major basis for approving Land Use Amendments, then Open Space and -Recreation =areas will soon disappear. Hopefully, the Citycan balance its goals for new housing with other goals such as preservation of Open Space, accessibility to shoreline areas ,-and view retention :af shorelines and harbor areas . The City has previously reviewed ._this_._site_.for ..the :.construction of 42 guest cottages , and the request was denied by- both the Planning Commission and the City Council . The two most pertinent Findings of Fact adopted by both the Commission and Council were : "l. The intent of the ROS Zone-as established did not include uses of this type; i.e. , residential development, whether temporary or not. 2. Zoning prior to ROS was Rl. If the zoning was as it had been, the use would not be permitted. The proposed use does not conform- to the �mse .of -surr-ounding,.p-roperties . Finally, there was an amendment-made-to the EIR by an Errata Sheet which was inserted to the report at the hearing on November_ 16 , 1982, and which had to do with access . Since we are not privy to this change, we can only speculate as to what it purports to provide. I would seriously urge that more detailed analysis be included in the -EIR in those areas which has -beend .:scussed -above L City of Huntington Beach November 23, 1982 Page- Three - In conclusion may I point out that three items were considered simultaneously at the hearing of November 16, 1982. They were 1) the EIR 82-3; 2) Land Use Amendment 82-1; and 3) Huntington Harbor Bay Specific Plan. To limit interested property_. owners , as I was and am, to three minutes as to all these items , and to prohibit us from accumulating time (3 minutes) amongst each other, which had been promised prior to the hearing, effectively denied me and others to our right to a fair hearing. The conduct just referred to denied me of my constitutionally protected right to due process and a_fair and impa5:DER aring. ly you r G OAN 26975 Edgewate ane Huntington Beach, 92649 r s' A D D E N D U M The following persons join in and concur with the comments made by Alexander Googooian. �'•�ti � ��� HUNTINUTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Cdllfornid .JAI+! 14 10 ' Box 190 _ 14 January 1983 ��' A ry Huntington Beach City Council Huntington �aC1, CA 926 $Marine City of Huntington Beach `m 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ref: LUE 82-1, Zone Case 82-16 Parks and Dear Council Members: The California Marine Parks and Harbors Association is an organization chartered by the State of California with the purpose of encouraging and supporting the development of boating Hdrbors and marine recreation facilities throughout the state. Some nearby governmental entities which are members of the organization include the County of Orange, the County of Los Angeles, and the cities of Long Beach, Newport Beach, and Costa Mesa. Assn.,Inc. We have become cognizant of LUE 82-1, Zone Case 82-16 having to do with refurbishing and improving the marina and marine recreation facilities known as the Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club. A review of the Specific Plan as submitted to the City of Huntington Beach and recommended by your city planning staff indicates the improvements contained in the plan will do much to improve the quality and usefulness of this family and community oriented facility. If adopted, the Specific Plan would restore to the boating public and residents of the community the unique social amenities of marine recreation and the small craft harbor as originally intended by the developer. We are especially impressed with the provision of sanitary waste disposal facilities in the marina and with the preservation of the much needed turning-basin made possible by clarification of the marina pier-head line. The improved and expanded marine recreation facilities of the Club and restaurant will provide much needed visitor serving amenities. Adoption of the Specific Plan will improve the quality of life in the community, and enhance the marine environment in the area. Respectfully Submitted, C.C. Bennett, President 408 Forum Building, Sacramento, California 95814 �/ �a% HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JAN 14 03 �y�� Ka1 an, V.2., DIPLOMATS AMERICAN BOARD OF DERMATGYj/�}�{��^�j 17822 BEACH BOULEVARD. SUITE 225 P.O. Box 190 ,"X " HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 82847 ,.^' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 — TELEPHONE (714) 847-1277 January 10. 1983 9, Members of City Council and Planning Comission City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Members, I am a physician and I live in Huntington Har- bor on the water. I am familiar with the Hunt- ington Harbor Bay and Racquet Club although I am neither a member or part owner of the club. Within the past several years this club has been deteriorating. Recently I visited the club dur- ing a medical meeting and I noticed quite an improvement which has been done in the club. I Noticed new z tructures and landscaping proposed for the club which I feel will really enhance the appearance of our neighborhood. I feel that if somebody is trying to improve the situation" of the club it needs assistance from the members of the City Council and Planning Commission, and I'm sure the city would like to see an improve- ment in an ailing club. Sincerely, N yI,✓' L' Syrus and Elly Rayhan 3612 Venture Drive , Huntington Beach, CA 92649 SR/glk b �.a ,v %MLLIAN B. MMSON i wancc Consultant 17121 COURTNEY LANE•HU NTMTON BEACH,CALWOMA g" pq W22M v e 4r-t 412 f-"� t 110 OA- f s Z • 1 ff / 0 e,007 t�Fa�•l e�y h9 clu,661 /W,0*7 Zv. e000? _ �E�;lic/1 �lOjOdS✓il� �E /'r�1Q/'Dc/�•�r°�9yss /'�7 lJl�. '00Y Pm. .d r Fro a d/ EE / drxi✓ �i�� �'� a'�a�o Jlb,� �� y i��cr� C '�ttrJ�c� �•r Richard K. Ashby 3751 Nimble Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 t .January 5, 1983 HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Members of City Council and JAN 101983 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach P.Q. BOX 190 P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Gentlemen: h I have lived in Huntington Harbour for the last 20 years and have watched the Huntington Harbour Beach and Racquet Club go downhill progressively. I feel there is finally a worthwhile building and landscaping proposal that is acceptable relating to the Club and I fully support the acceptance of this project. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Richard K. Ashby RKA:jd r HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES KENNETH J. BOURGUIGHON A,r4 10 1983 ©OROTHY J. BOURGUIGNON 3692 ESCAPADE CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92649 P.0 ��'� !90 Hsi-rtinn�^'1 Saxh, C4 92648 It January 5, 1983 .. RE: The pjiact pl med-at.the Mmtington Harboar Beach Club To.Whom It May. Concern • -A& a- resi.deft-Awti d er. im, Iinntingt=•#larbamr, w1w I --been tryi ng to upgrade the fiarbour,.:•I7feel-that-this is -a -step in the right direction. The Club area-has been tsra-.up--n 1br years; it has changed hands-many_tiaes Aecaarse-2-wat-ftieft aily-rot feasible. I even, at em t iw.,-=ens deved-lAiyf eg- i#, .but vMked-aiway because of all-the soci a]- problems. Mr. -and•-Mrs., fiadapour have worked two years to solve alt-the problems and we think it is time to support a good plan and we now have one. This project, when finisbed., will be an.asset-to-the community and will. provide needed .taaes to the City. It-i s always easy to be negati Yee.but-1 trope we sea 1w*-posi ti vel y at this comwntty, development. tor. and Mrs.- Kenneth J.. bou ui gnbd Dotken Engineering, Inc. January 3, 1982 HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Huntington Beach City Council 3A N 101983 Huntington Beach, California P.O. Box 190 Subject: Specific Plan for the Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Bay and Raquet Club Dear Councilmembers: We ask that you approve the subject plan at your meeting of January 17, 1983. From the standpoint of "us residents" across the water from the project the plan has major benefits such as: 1. The ebtablishment for a satisfactory pierhead line. 2. The preservation of recreation open space. Another benefit will be a new restaurant which will be an asset to the area. In addition, the condominiums will be better neighbors than the bare parking lot. Last but not least will be a conclusion to the succession of new owners who have had grandiose plans for development but no funds to perform and who then present plans for an unacceptable project. Please place proper priority to the view points of the residents of the harbour. Should not the position of immediate neighbors who view the site on a daily basis be given more weight than of residents who live blocks and even miles away who are emotional because of differences with prior owners regarding the operation of the club? -vo,, Bill and a Hartge 17121 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, !California January 5, 1983 Huntington Beach City Council P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club Development Plan Dear Council Members: 1 am a resident of Huntington Harbour and I am writing to you to express my full approval of the development plan now before you for the Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club. I believe that this plan will be an asset to the community and obviously would be an improvement to the conditions that now exist. 0 I urge you to approve this development, both for the good of our community and the effect it will have on our city due to the additional taxes it will generate. Sincerely, HUNTINGTON BEACH Mrs. Charles Carl etto DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 3906 Humboldt Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 -JAM 101W3 JDH/cl s P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 December 2, 1982 City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attn: James W. Palin, Director Re: Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan Land Use Amendment 82-1 Dear Commissioners; Per the enclosed card, you can see that at one time 1 too sat on a similiar commission and can appreciate your position and time, but after being present at your November 16th hearing and then re- ceiving numerous phone calls, I am compelled to be "heard" also. Firstly, 1 do live on water at 17081 Edgewater, directly facing the existing commercial real estate structure. We have been res- idents of Huntington Harbour since our youngest son started first gtade, some 15 years now. Some of the speakers at the hearing stated that they lived directly across from the club, when in fact they live off water and across the street from two story homes that are across from the club. I am appalled at the misinformation being presented by misinformed petitioners that they really do believe . . "Edgewater will be opened to Warner" ; "Edgewater will be re-opened onto the club property" . Even more alarming was the statement that the planned condos would become a motel and yet another . . "zoning change will permit the owners to build anything they want". These people are acquiring signatures under false pretenses and I feel they should not carry any weight in your decision. I cannot help but be curious of the motives of those very few who are trying to undermine a project that will be beneficial to so many. Regarding the visual impact upon the property owners, the only real visual change will be for those of us on Edgewater facing the old commercial buildings and two tennis courts, the majority ofus have already indicated our approval of the Ahadapours plan, after hav- ing been allowed some imput during the re-planning stage. Residences further up on Edgewater will not experience any real visual change since the present club structure, small beach, bare-foot bar etc. remains as is. I don' t believe the parking can be considered an issue since subterranean parking for condo residences and guest would include boat slip parking in some cases and has been adequately provided. My family is urging a speedy approval and thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, 1982 � "" Development Services DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ,LAN 5 1983 17081 odgewater Lane Huntington Beach, CA ?49 P.O. Box 190 g Huntington Beach, CA 926ftcember 21, 1982 (Waterfront Property) Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach, CA Dear Council Member: After a long period of waiting to bring the issue of the Beach Club redevelopment plan before the Planning Commission we were very surprised and dissappointed that, in spite of overwhelming support, the Commission failed to approve the plan. This plan was largely designed and approved by neighbors directly on the water across from the proposed development. Consequently, we feel this was not a just decision on the part of the Commission. If there are individuals who intend to purchase the Club, or want to discredit the club plan, or have personal accounts to settle with the owner, these are certainly not relevant to the issue at hand. It is obirious the opposition group is misrepresenting the issue to the publib. A case in point was the false assumption that Edge- water Lane was going to open up to Warner Avenue. I would like to extend an invitation to the Council to my home directly across from the proposed project so you can persona?1y evaluate some of the questions raised before making your decision. The issue on Open Space, for example, is meaningless. Does Open Space mean Warner Avenue and its thousands of cars daily? Or is Open Space an ugly parking lot? Or two delapidated buildings with shower and bathroom facilities? Or two derelict tennis courts that have been unplayable and an evesore since their inception? It seems ludicrous to me that so very few are trying to stop, fairly or otherwise, this project that will be a deficite enhancement to our Community and be a great benefit to us all. Furthermore, if we were intending to obtain signatures on false pretences without limiting ourselves to our immediate vicinity, we could obtain thousands of signatures. Sincerely y rs, i r THE LANSDALE COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 27, SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90740 ' (213) 498-3349 December 2, 1982 HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES City of Huntington Beach OEC 3 9 City Council City Attorney - Gail Hutton P.O. BOX 190 Planning Commission Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Planning Director James Palin Re: Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club Redevelopment Plan Dear Council Members: This letter serves to notify you that, William M. Lansdale is the owner of the residence located at 17141 Edgewater Lane, the south boundary of which is adjacent to the north boundary of the parking lot located on the east end of the Bay Club. It is our intent to give our full approval to the new plan proposed by the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club. We feel that such a facility would be a tremendous improvement to the area as well as an asset to the community. I know that special interest groups are fighting this plan for progress. They do not realize that the new plan will NOT open Edgewater to Warner. Also, the "save our space" campaign is ridiculous. The new plan will significantly improve property values of our homes and enhance the community. Therefore, we would urge the Planning Commission to THE LANSDALE COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 27, SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90740 ' (213) 498-3349 Huntington Beach City Council Re: Redevelopment Plan December 2, 1982 Page Two approve the new proposal submitted by the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club. Huntington Beach needs a prestigious facility of the type planned by Mr. Ahadpour. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, William M. Lansdale cc: Mr. Ahadpour Daily Pilot Harbour Sun Registor Independent Press-Telegram OL .3 - �. fez HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JAN 5 1983 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH _ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JAN 6 S83 P.Q. Box 190 January 3 , 1983 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City Council Members: I feel that the proposal of improvements on the property known ac the Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club is com- pletely reasonable and will be a great asset to the Huntington Harbour. community. This has been professionally planned by architects who designed the improvements for the greatest asthetic and economic values possible. It can do nothing but enhance the area. I hope the council will be in agreement with my approval of this development. Sincerely,. liarol ~P ouse 17045 Marina Bair Drive Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 J' ORANGE COUNTY'S LARGEST RE-MANUFACTURERS OF QUALITY Presto-Mlatic Co. GENERATORS - STARTERS -ALTERNATORS Domestic • Foreign • Marine • Commercial & Industrial Voltage Regulators - Solenoids - Parallel Switches - Magnetos 3621 W. BOLSA, SANTA ANA, CALIF. FACTORY- SANTA A.NA WAREHOUSE - Los ANGELES 531-7180 AN 9-5747 December 1, 1982 Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Huntington Harbour Bay Club Redevelopment Plan Dear Members of the Council & Commission: I am a property owner and a resident of Huntington Harbour. I live on Edgewater Lane facing the Club. I have been a Club member for nine years, and I am extremely concerned about the Club's future. As a neighbor, I have been unable to use the Club for the past several months. Each time the owner ex- plained that he is in the process of remodeling and improving the Club. Mr. Ahadpour has been most receptive to our ideas regarding his plans for the Club. I have attended at least three meetings at the Club where many of the suggestions presented by our neighborhood group were incorporated in the final plan. I know of at least three individuals - hark Ruben, Louis Cardenas, and Jack Ford - whose residences are not located across the Bay, who have gone on record as opposing the Club plans. They have accused the owner of payoffs to plan supporters and have created tension in the community. Mr. Cardenas has gone so far as declaring during a Council meeting that he had a seven million dollar cashier's check to buy the Club. It seems that this group is intent on preventing the approval of the plan, thus enabling them to force out the Ahadpours. I urge you to put an end to this ever recurring neighborhood tension by approving the plans as submitted. Mr. Ahadpour has done an outstanding job. I will have to live with the project and look at it for years to come. it is much more attractive than the parking lot and a couple of old buildings. in addition, the plan resolves the Weatherly Bay-front resident's number one concern: the establishment of a permanent pierhead line through the dedication of the waterway to the City, so that in the future no one can extend the boat slips into my backyard. Again, I urge approval. Sincerely yours, 41 DEC 3 1882 Development Services Ka uko Kagasoff 17069 Edgewater Lane Facing the Club Ad SW AWPtotive � REMANUFACTURING - QUALITY WATER PUMPS & DISTRIBUTORS FOREIGN - DOMESTIC - COMMERCIAL November 30, 1982 1982 City Counc ie. 9 Ptanning Commizz ion City of Huntington Beach Development Services 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Councit 8 Commizz ion MembeAA r I ti.ve on Edgewater Lane ae)ross 6rom the Huntington Harbour Bay Ctub. Seve,%ae days before the Ptea.nning Comm-uss-ion heaxing on the redevetopment ptan o� the Ctub, a .lady came to my door a6 ii,ng me to sign a petition opposing the Ctub'd pta.ns. She Mated, at the time, that the Ptan caned Jots opening l dgewateA Lane to tha6j ic. In tight of thin, I became veAy concerned. However., ajteA the heating it became apparent that opening o j the Bdg ewatec Lane ways not a paAt o6 the Ctub's pta.n, but mer.e2y a jabtr ieatio n on the patrt o6 those who had organized the petition drive. The be.6t .interest o6 the community .ins being bacr i j iced by a dmatt voeat. group with pears o6 thew own.. They have gone too Jar. I uAge you to approve the Ctub'b new plan. S.incere2y, A �Y Dick Kaga6o66 17065 Edgewater Lane 1420 WEST FIFTH STREET • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92703 • (714) 972-1266 HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES '7091 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, CA Facing the WateA Huntington Beach City Couneit JAN 5 03December 21, L982 Huntington Beach, CA P.01! Box 190 Dean Counei t MembeAs: Huntington''Beach, CA 92648 I tive on Edgewateuc Lane diAectey acAoss Sum the Huntington HaAbour Bay Ctub. I am wwiting 4'x buppokt o6 the proposed development pean 6or this ltope&ty• In the past I have been oppobed to vani.ous peans that were proposed 6or this propeAty because they would have had a negative .impact on satiety, pottution and water %ecAeation. The present owner has made a good im th. e66ont to work with att groups in the community to provide a 6acitay that woued be an asset to ate. He has had meetings to hear thew eonceAns and has modified the pean as appropn.i.ate. Those teading the e6jont to atop the proposed change have put 6onth a banAage o6 vocat and written changes deb.igned to appeal to emotion ratheA than reason. FiAAt the 6togan o6 "Save OuA Space" is med as a banner. Catchy -but ha &y truth 'ue. This space .cis not public space but natheA a pki,vate club. The "proposed" changes to the zoning and use o6 thib propehty make mane vD it aeee6zibee and usabte by the genest public inducing watkways, park-tike tands cap i.ng and a pubt ie %utwma.nt. Next the argument i-6 put 6oh th that the condoncmiums witt obstruct their view. We have some candidates 6or the "Thats IncAedibte" show 6or they can see eeean 6rom Humbotdt 1.6tand or through the two story hocu6e4 60r mast os those voicing this concern do not ti.ve on the water and do not have a d Aect view. 1 do ti:ve on the water and cUAeetey view this "open space" This open space is composed o6 a react estate o 6 6ice, another eommeAciat bui eding which houses toilets and shoviers, two seldom used- tennis courts and a parking .cot. The tennis eouAts are seldom used because they 6aee the wrong d.i.Aection and do obstruct any v.iao that might be poss.ibte. The councie has been toad that oven 1000 peopee have signed a petition to stop any change and that the eouneit woued be weft advised to vote propeAty or ease. These petitions were ci,%cueated by peopee who were probabt y we t intentioned but were e4Aoneou,6ty .in6ormed on how tra6jic woued Jtow through the adjacent streets causing a satiety ha.zaAd 6or ouA ehitdnen. I know this reason was put 6orth because they came to my door and toed me that. IS that were the truth, I would not be in Javor o6 the pro1eet eitheA. It Z6 not the truth but it eenta i.nf2y gathered a tot o6 6ignataAe6 6rom un.in6ormed or m.us- in6o4med peopee. 111 f ' 1 have heaAd how ao many peopte made aac,abdc.ea live hence and the .' pu.Aexce os .the ctub was the main xeaaon they moved here. In truth, the ctub has not been aupponted San yeau, tong besoxe the pxeaent owners .took poaaeea.%.on, and any pnopenty owner who has been here Son jubt a Sew yeaAa has had h a "aacnas.iee" xewanded by his pnopenty vatue going up. S.ive on .6ix times. 1 am not aurae what the motivation o6 the oppozition iA .,n th,i..a matteh. to it the toga o6 two mang.inat tennis counts? Ia .it the Sact that the geneAat pubtic w,itt now have come aeceas to what was a pooxty auppoxted private ctub? Ia it just pxejudiee against a "Soneignen" who has Lived here Son 15 years with his American wi6e? Ox, i6 .it becau,de a group who woutd t.ike to eeonomicaetb Soxee this amneA out so they can advance come scheme box the ua e o6 th.ia pro pent y? A S.inancc.atty v.c abte club i,6 important to att o6 ua. It wi tt pn.ovi.de a club .that .i s an asset and not a white etephant. Jobs wilt be cheated .in xunn i.ng the ctub; the tax base Sox the community wit be .ineheaa ed by the new eoncom.in,iuma; jobs watt be created Sox the condthuction .induatAy .in buitding the new bacititi.es; the watenwa.ys witt be preserved Son boating and xecAeati.onat use; new bac fitiea wi et be pxovtded Son the membe&a with a health ctub and sauna; and the pubt.ie wilt have access to a quat.i ty neatawrant and watkways along the water. and open tandaeaped aAeaa. I don't see th.i.a as a hated trade-obs to make, but I do undeutand that it w.ett take peraonat eouxage on youA pant to do the night thing and approve this pro jest. In ctoa•ing, tet me be cteaA on one additional item. I am waiting this beaeuae I believe it -i,6 a good use os thiA pxopenty. I do not have any economic invotvement .in the club now on in any work pxopoaed box it. I am not even a ctub member. I do believe it .ia time we get th•i,6 "dev.c,a.ive" issue behind ua. S.ineeh.eey young, G�GQ��C 17o natd L. f at4 o n 17091 BdgewateA Lane Huntington Beach, CA 1' T � Richard A. Harlow arcwsociates planning and governmental relations December 1, 1982 Cy 19 The Planning Commission Development Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE : General Plan Amendment #82-1 Area 2. 4 Huntington Harbour Bay Club Members of the Planning Commission: At the November 16 , 1982 public hearing concerning General Plan Amendment No. 82-1, Area 2. 4 , several issues were discussed and questions raised that should be covered in more detail. These issues pertain to : CONFORMANCE WITH THE COASTAL ELEMENT ROS ZONING SOIL CONDITIONS PRESERVING THE CLUB AND CLUB MANAGEMENT The following comments are offered regarding these issues. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COASTAL ELEMENT The comment was made that the plan was not in conformance with policies 4g, 6a, and 15f of the Coastal Element. Policy 4 - "Provide public access to coastal resources when possible. " Policy 4g - "Preserve and where possible, provide additional public access to the Huntington Harbour waterways. 333 West Yorktown Avenue•Huntington Beach,California 92648•(714)536-6464 City of Huntington Beach Page 2 December 1, 1982 Comment: The existing development does not provide on-site public access to the waterway. The proposed plan incorporates a 10-foot wide public walkway along the entire bulkhead, thereby providing public access to the waterway. Policy 6 - "Preserve and enhance visual resources within the coastal zone. " Policy 6a - "Ensure new development within the coastal zone includes the features listed below and establish review procedures for implementation. - Preservation of public views to and from the bluffs, to the shoreline and ocean, and to wetlands. - Conservation of energy and facilitation of public transit through design and siting. - Adequate landscaping and vegetation. - Evaluation of project design regarding visual impact. " Comment: The public view that presently exists is screened by a parking lot, a wind screen for a tennis court, and two commercial buildings. Although the new plan includes three residential buildings, the remainder of the frontage provides an unobstructed view of the water, including a 234-foot wide park- like landscaped area. Policy 15 - "Promote adequate housing opportunities within the coastal zone for all income groups. " Policy 15f - "Require 20 percent of all new housing units to be affordable. " Comment: The owner is aware of this policy and will comply with the City' s requirement for affordable housing at an off-site location within the City. City of Huntington Beach Page 3 December 1, 1982 ROS ZONING Statements were made regarding the status of the ROS zone, and that the owners should have realized the zoning limitations when they purchased the property. Comment: As pointed out at the public hearing, the ROS zone was initiated by the City in 1973. The property owner did not support the zone change. Reasons given by the City for the change were essentially that the change was consistent with the then use of the property, and it conformed to the General Plan. In their deliberations, the City did not consider future development options which were agreed to when Final Tract No. 4880 was approved, and when Use Variance No. 505 was granted. The property owner had every reason to rely on the contractual arrangement that exists between the owner of the property and the City, which specifically states the uses that are permitted. These uses are also specified in the owner 's title report for this property. Public statements were made that a General Plan change could violate state law. Please note that Section 65560 of the California Government Code defines "open space land" as land or water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open space use. The definition relates open space uses to unimproved areas that are natural resources, not man-made facilities. Since Weatherly Bay is a man-made marina, this definition is not applicable. SOIL CONDITIONS The question has been raised regarding the feasibility of constructing a semi-subterranean parking structure in this area. Comment: As previously noted, the marina is man-made and the soil is silty clay. Also, the basement for the restaurant is five feet below grade which is lower than the proposed parking structure. City of Huntington Beach Page 4 December 1, 1982 PRESERVING THE CLUB AND CLUB MANAGEMENT Several persons addressing the Planning Commission expressed concern that they were promised a club when they purchased their home, and approval of this proposal would result in elimination of the club. Comments were also made concerning management practices and the owner temporarily closing the club. Comment: The owner does not wish to close the club, which is why they have spent a considerable sum of money to upgrade the restaurant and why they have requested permission to upgrade and expand the club facilities. The only change other than upgrading the recreational facilities, will be elimination of a portion of the parking lot to allow for construction of residential units. As to management practices, it must be recognized that the poor condition of the club facilities and lack of membership support has led to a situation that must be changed. The owner is seeking this change by attempting to upgrade the facility and reestablish an active membership. It is important for the owner to maintain a good relationship with the community if the new club is to survive. It is also important to recognize that many people in the area support the owner's effort to upgrade the facility, and have therefore supported this application. The strongest support has come from Edgewater Lane property owners who front on Weatherly Bay and will be most directly affected by the new development. I hope this letter will be of assistance in your deliberations. Please feel free to contact us if additional information is needed. Vecf lly submitC%A. HARLOW cgt November 29, 1982 City Council & Planning Commission _ City of Huntington Beach i,�', 1982 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Development Services Dear Council & Commission Members: It disturbs me to burden you with a lengthy letter, but I feel that the situations that we have been through for the past two years cannot be related to you on one page. Still, I will try to be as brief as possible. I am sure you are aware of the long history of problems my husband and I inherited when we purchased the Huntington Harbour Bay Club. When the property was originally developed by the Christiana Corporation, it primarily served as a sales tool. They never promised that the club would remain indefinitely. This is indicated by two sources. One, the CC&R's held that the property should remain as a club only until 1983; and secondly the contract which every member signed upon becoming a member, gives the owner complete discretion in club management and the right to terminate at any time without notice and without cause. I have enclosed a copy of the contract for your information. You can see that termination of the facilities is at the owner's discretion. In essence, the Club could be terminated in 1983, but this is not our intent. We plan to return the Club to the original concept of a social and water oriented beach club. (It was originally known as the Huntington Harbour Beach Club.) Over the years several owners have tried to make the club financially viable. The previous owners made a real effort to make the club go as Mr. Cardenas explained in his long winded speech before the City Planning Commission. The reason the prior owners pulled out was not because their plans were rejected, but because they did not receive enough support from the Club members to make the Club financially viable. In our plans for expansion of the Club, we want to add more amenities to attract a wider range of Harbour residents. In order to finance the expansion and remodeling and to repay the debt already accumulated in remodeling, we believe we have a plan that is acceptable to the community. This plan was not prepared haphazardly. We have tried to involve the surrounding community in the planning process, so that this will be something in which everyone will be proud. It should be noted that the majority of residents who live directly across Weatherly Bay and are most impacted by the plan, are in whole-hearted support. We have made personal contact with everyone that signed the plan or wrote a letter of approval. We answered all their questions so they would be well informed. The same cannot be said for most of those in the Harbour who were asked to sign a petition. They were told that Edgewater Lane would be opened into Warner Avenue, or that highrise apartments were going to be constructed. Neither statement is true. Edgewater Lane will not open onto 0 2 Warner Avenue, and the condominium units are three stories and will be no higher than the restaurant. The height measurement we gave is to the top of the roof, measured from the present finished grade. We feel that we are not detracting from the recreational aspect of the area, as we will be expanding the Club facilities. The new residential buildings will be well designed and landscaped, making the present unattractive parking lot an attractive area. The parking lot includes tennis courts which were seldom used because they are facing the wrong direction, and two commercial buildings. There have been a few strong opponents to our plan who have tried relentlessly to thwart any improvements on our part, objecting to even the smallest of remodeling applications, such as the interior remodeling of the restaurant and the relocation of offices. Mr. Cardenas, contrary to what he would have you believe, does not live across from the club. He stated in his speech before the City Planning Commission, November 16, 1982, "We all remember the all too recent wave of ebullient, speculative real estate investment which was at a peak in 1980, when the owners acquired the property at a publicized price in excess of four million dollars, which left the Club members and many others incredulous. How in a special category could the Master Plan ROS property possibly have such an inflated value, even in those frenzy days?" If this is true, how does Mr. Cardenas justify his public offer of seven million dollars, over one and a half times that price? Would he and his backers not have to come up with an even more incredulous plan to justify the investment? He made his position very clear in stating, "They should salvage what they can in a quick pull out." It is evident by Mr. Cardenas' actions and now his statements that his main objective is to have us sell the property. I can only ask why? There are many other allegations brought out at the Planning Commission hearing that I could address, but I will not burden you with those issues at this time. How many years does this property have to keep coming before the City Council? You now have a chance to put this problem to rest forever with a plan that is compatible with the neighborhood, and one that the nearby neighbors are happy with. This plan would define the future use of the property, establish the pierhead line, and eliminate the prior rights for development, as outlined on Final Tract Map No. 4880 and Use Variance No. 505. Very truly yours, DORIS AHADPOUR November 11, I Q82 1 G Development Services Huntington Beach. City Council 6 Ptanning .Commi;64ion Huntington Beach, C.%ty Hatt 2000 Main StAeet Huntington Beach, CaP.t:6auta, 42648 Dean S itca I have given the plan. 6o,%.. %e,deveZopment a j the Huntington Hanbon Bay and Racquet Ctub con ideAabte Atady'. A.4 a koident Qj Huntington Hanbotc, I beet 4aid nedevetopment uoUt be of bene6 t to me, my bamiZy and my ne,ighbone. VeAy tvAy yours, ,�11�i? &"�' Bitt BAa.un 16611 NaZu C.vccte Huntington Beach, Cati 6ou a. 42648 BB:MM.gm � .CH LH Ba 6� Qaoquct Club November 12, 1982 The Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Members of the Planning Commission: As the owners of the Huntington Harbour Bay Club, we have held numerous meetings with the surrounding residents to prepare a plan that addresses our needs and that is sensitive to their concerns. The attached letters of support have been submitted to us for presenta- tion to you along with our plans for development. In addition to these letters, more than 150 persons have signed our plan as an expression of their support. In preparing our plans for development , we have preserved and upgraded the recreation/open space uses -and activities, and have upgraded the restaurant. Parking for these facilities will be in close proximity to these activities for improved utilization. The public marina will remain, and a. pierhead line will be established to preserve the navigable waterway and turning basin. Placement of the residential buildings was done with the interests of the residents across Weatherly Bay in mind, since they will be most affected by the visual aspects of our proposal . Access to the project will be limited to two points on Warner Avenue only. No access will be taken from the adjacent local streets. We will be in attendance at the November 17, 1982 Planning Commission meetings to explain our proposal in more detail and to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully Submitted, 1Z��� FERYDOUPJ AHADPOUR President cgt 4121 W44~4 4v&nem, 4&n&wy" Vea,4, V 92649 (7-14) 946-7766 Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc. P. O. BOX 791 SUNSET BEACH, CALIFORNIA Nov. 12, 1982. Members of Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach ��82 2000 Main Street 2 1 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Development Ser_ts Attn: Mr. James Palin, Director of Developmental Services Dear Jim, At the meeting bf the Board of Directors of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association Thursday Nov. 11, 1982 it was voted to support the Specific Plan for the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racket Club. Reasons for the support are that this owner has presented a plan which will finally resolve several potential problems in that location such as: 1: The establishment of a pierhead line along the line of the existing docks and boats moored in the marina. 2. The preservation of the recreation open space. 3. A restaurant and banquet facilities to accomadate not only the residents of the Harbour, but also other residents of the area. 4. A satisfactory plan for- the construction of, condominiums including extensive landscaping in a portion of the parking lot. The Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association is an organization comprised of 700 active, members representing all islands and mainland areas of Huntington Harbour. Very truly yours, H.E. "Bill" Hartge President H.H.P: O.'A. Board o£ DirectoraS Huntington I1arbour Property Owners ,A.ssociatkn Inc. P. O. BOX 791 SUNSET BEACH, CALIFORNIA Nov. 1, 1982 Members of Planning Commission City-of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 i�� # - Q 1982 Attn: Mr. James Palin, Director of Developmental Services Development Ser,,; s Dear Jim, ' The H.H.P. O.A. had a .general membership meeting the even?.ng of Oct. 21, 1982. One item on the agenda was the presentation of the current plan of"the condominium units for the Bay and Racket Club. A model of the proposed development was at the meeting. There were approximately 100 members at the meeting. After the presentation and a question and answer period a straw vote was taken. Only three (3) members in the audience indicated opposi- tion to the plan. Sincerely, H.E. "Bill" Hartge President H.H.P.O.A. Board of Directors a e47 HUNTINGTON BEACH �QG' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JAN 7 03 � ��� -�f-7 P.Q. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 a 1 HU DE 1YTlNGr VELOPME SER CC ES JA N 7 1983 SANDS INVESTMENTS P.O. Box ox 190 each CA 92648 oz 00,11 Industrial/Office Brokers 320 Hazel Corona del Mar,California 92625 1714) 7S9-9070 a - January 3, 1983 Dear City Council Members , As a resident of Huntington Harbour, 1 hope the plans submitted to you by the Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club will be approved. Not only are they beautiful but also they will make it economically possible for the owners to make the club a successful operation . Thue the Harbour, after many ,years, will have an active , permanent club. Yours truly HUNTINGTON BEACH BettytyF. Prouse ,,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 17045 Marina Bay Drive BAN 7 �83 Huntington Harbour, Ca. c 4C P.Q. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 t a HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JAN6 03 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92W December 8, 1982 Mr. Don Hartfelder 3906 Humboldt Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dear Don: In regards to the Beach Club, as you already know I'd like to see community ownership of the Club House and Barefoot Bar area. It was built for the community and we all share an interest in what happens to the facility, as for the Tennis Courts and the proposed condos along Warner, I feel that they would be compatible with the area and when the other side of Warner is subdivided we will certainly see more of this type of development. The Ahad Pours have made some great improve- ments to the Club House and they will do a first class job on the proposed condos if given the opportunity. Very truly yours, --------------------- ( /Gar Matthews GM:j t .- T y' 7 41 s L T"rE Tv 1' .5' s Engineering Inc. Automotive Research Center Olson 15442 Chemical Lane,Huntington Beach,California Zip Code 92649,Telephone(714)891.4821,Telex 685-599 November 24, 1982 " 2 � u� 1982 Huntington Beach City Council Demopate,,, Services and Planning Commisssion P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club Redevelopment Plan Dear Council Members : I am a property owner and resident of Huntington Harbour (since 1969) and a past active member of the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club. I am very familiar with the past problems of Club ownership and operation and I have personally reviewed the currently proposed plan of redevelopment offered by Mr. Farydoun Ahadpour. I urge your commission to accept and endorse this plan. Mr. Ahadpour should be complimented and rewarded for his efforts and community concern. Implementation of his plan will enhance the community and significantly improve property values of our homes in Huntington Harbour. Mr. Ahadpour has already expended considerable monies without assurance of profitable return in the true tradition of American entrepreneurship . He and our community deserve the right to complete this development. I know that special interest groups are fighting this plan for progress . Their "save our space" contention is ludicrous . Their smear campaign is laced with prejudice, innuendos , half-truths and outright lies . Please believe me when I tell you that implementation of this plan is best for our community. I also sincerely believe that the project will allow Mr. Ahadpour to realize a fair and equitable profit --- a necessary factor for any business to succeed. LIAISON OFFICE • 3901 VARSITY DRIVE • ANN ARBOR,MICHIGAN 48104 • �313)973-0310 TELEX 230-176 r Huntington Beach City Council Re: Redevelopment Plan November 24, 1982 Page Two As president and owner of a major engineering company in Huntington Beach, I have used the Beach Club many times for company events and I want to be able to do so in the future. Huntington Beach needs a prestigious facility of the type planned by Mr. Ahadpour. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sin e're'l'y, e. Donel R. Olson President DRO: cyc CC: Mr. Farydoun Ahadpour W- w HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JAN 1103 ' January 7, 1983 �-�0�r P.O. Box 190 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Council Member: I am a physician in Huntington Beach for ten years and a resident of. Huntington Harbour. I have seen the plans for the redevelopment of the club and I approve of them 100%. I can see no problem with them. I also enjoy using the club facilities for medical meetings h and I am anxious for it to reopen. Please vote yes on the proposed plan. Sincerely, 3z8 � QE' vow cR . Z 6 `!� F+wo n !9".e Xay, 10350 (Vaaao S-fust, -S&A 9L 7Ronfe, eahlotnfa 91733 Jam-Fiona: 443-7121 7 HUNTINGi<W BEACH 0EVEWPMEI4T SERVICES JAN 1 11983 P.Q. Box 190 z c, Huntington Senh,CA 9260 January 5;'19 ,% City Council City of Hunti.ngton Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Dear Council Members: As a property owner and resident of Huntington Harbour since 1968, and a past active member of the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club, I would like to express my support for the redevelopment of the Club. I am familiar with the history of the Club ownership and operation and also with the currently proposed plan for redevelopment offered by Mr. Ferydoun Ahadpour. Mr. Ahadpour's plan will enhance the community from a standpoint of service, aesthetics and economics, and improve property values in Huntington Harbour. I therefore urge the Council to endorse this plan. Sincere , Geo a Kay D ,1AN 101983 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL OFFICE TED JOHNSON PROPANE 6140 NORTH ELTON STREET • BALDNIN PARK,CALIFORNIA 91706 PHONE(213)337.1222 HUNTINGTON BERG Hj�am�,, 5, 1983 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES = , r ca yin Cauen�it ,JAN 1 103 � Qnd CoAJAt4&6� on , P.O. Box 19D P.O. Box 190 lGdt,z,Vton Lie 4 W. 92648 Muntington Beach, GA 92648 f Du rlem": A4 a fl m4&urt At/,ident 2 ove2 10 years s, .enwAled 4A tthe �cuht C&4 Canom I ea9ue, AiLAQ/lAtOniz .in��, At /466oGL!kl etC., erred ecuin j a!i�:er t acao as t1�ehZ�a c�h,'acyorce t Gftc�t sratiin IF an uz and fie�tsona. At deny � e utle tlee� flee 4 .a have .a4mm u a w� edeo leleeazt¢dlif � tha t Z eirr cant ie a ma4kAd bymovamen t 144 oua GolAwuLLty.. Aj,tetAwxdZw some fu ea a .f¢,tt.¢aa 4u&itted to .flee ci ty c ww u arrd to sn� on to .the veneeAt d, 3 /.eel :it .cs °�} du�"y .to c4vr4inci.Co1 aW t'°.�si . 1oa. .tJee . We acre amoae at&^ L�. .the changes. 3 ment ion xecauzi-� mm view ocre m. The 0 .the .tennis counts, tho and a Lott pa&44A9 uu.Ue conchs mad dice twee scafsing .�s m4Re than the extdwy. We 4awAAetif .the openna sa .flee oes vtz Aave .shoe n — not =4, 2v u s — .der tt .the .refit o� tAe wmu�U4 -!AIOffAOIZOW4 We Aam n zw-& Aeen .contacted #,% onV oz a seed .to jD.& Save 044 SBaez. MWW peo T a wteat� .l�e ue�ff-ua and cavv:ot aee .the devalo fr 'uu .� rbd fur? S .seem ,to A& a 149 i4we wcth .tlu.s 94oup. T1.i.c .the c tuA Aas no :u= on A& .taaAU2 witAin tAp- lta4io" TAe ;:xr4 erxr9 to a ecticce on WaAnz , the X 4 a4t.&V t D PQp A,3W .ere .to .suaf:end att 9aauu .in 1&4Aoru aaea. At .the coarsea, a weal en WaAn a .44v&, ite4idence has .Aeon .ton down and .wing 2 a e4m f-Ax a,/ 48 uraifs. Where eveae these die AaAds uAen th.iz devetohllD exzs veloreed.? Waage these made and A ved.? �ad4ect o� A�? ThAeV y .to � .tot_, .twuLZ4 and t�ao f�►a:i c elea4�lxue , 7�244towed the�aet t vaoeents Beane .tocast 9ove�eneeent (�iao ting, y er e•itAmd the -f� wi OjwA Sf=ee as .cnc4eQa4V the fi(avLA4un. .twiee.. P.t"se gum this z" o" ' n 1ADA att v,i.el as and vote YES. S�ncene[y., Teal ;ohnson o-``" �ro�9e�ay, 10350 (Vaaco S- f%zzf, -oufgs EL Aonte, doll.f oznta 91733 !PAone: 443-7121 HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JA N 1 21983 P.O. Box 190 x-,h Huntington Beach, CA 92648 _ 5 January 5, 1983 City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Dear Council Members: As a property owner and resident of Huntington Harbour since 1968, and a past active member of the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club, I would like to express my support for the redevelopment of the Club. I am familiar with the history of the Club ownership and operation and also with the currently proposed plan for redevelopment offered by Mr. Ferydoun Ahadpour. 0 Mr. Ahadpour's plan will enhance the community from a standpoint of service, aesthetics and economics, and improve property values in Huntington Harbour. I therefore urge the Council to endorse this plan. Sincere , Geo e' Kay . j i d Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc. HUNTINGT CALIFMNIA P. o. eox 791 DEVELOPMEN ' January 5, 1983 JAN 1 a 03 Honorable Mayor and City Council P.O. Box190 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington BrCh, 92648 Huntington -Beach, California 92648 Subject: Specific Plan for the Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club Dear Mayor and City Council: At the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association, Thursday,` Nov. 11, 1982, it was voted to support the Specific Plan for the..Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club. Reasons for the support are that this owner has presented a plan which will finally resolve several potential problems in that location, such as: 1. The establishment of a: pierhead line along the line of the existing docks and-"boats mooked in the marina. 2. The preservation of the recreation and open space. 3. A restaurant and banquet -facility t,o accomodate not only the residents of the Harbour,, but also other residents of the area. r. A satisfactory plan''�for the construction of condominiums including extensive landscaping in"-a. portion of the parking lot. The Huntington. Harbour ,Propearty Owners Association is an organization comprised of 700 active --members represeAaing' over 3200 households on the islands. and Mal land .areas of Huntington: Harbaur. Very truly-: yours., r � Anne Woodard, Secretary, H H P.0.k4, Board of .D ertors Zvi F c $p fe a'iK 4;xz xc v`a 1 I Huntington Barbour Property Owners Association, Inc. � p F. O. box 791 SUNSET (EACH, CALIFORNIA HUNTINGTON BEACH January 5, 1983 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES r JAN 131M Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Huntington SeaCh. CA 926" Subject: Specific Plan for the Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club Dear Mayor and City Council: The Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association had a general member- ship meeting the evening of Oct. 21, _-.1982. One item on the agenda was the presentation -of the current plan of .the condominium units for the Bay & Racquet Club. A model of the :proposed development was at the meeting. There were pproximately 100 members at the meeting. After the presentation and a question and ,answer period, a straw vote was taken. Only three (3) members in the -eudience indicated opposi- tion to the plan. Sincerely ours, Anne Woodard, Secretary, H.HP.O.A. Board ofDirectors M- .. y .jy,�ry,�Soy -• i:.c { i �4-s` ... _..... ;vnoP: r.. ,_. .,:+t*!,ras:?�mr',•e.C:•.1['?.S7�a.`/�`�++�s Sr.ZXR%,.'"c:... :,...•^ ___._ ., HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JAN 13 93 P.O. Box 190 January 7, 1983 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City Council City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, CA Dear Councilman: I have lived in the Harbour for 14 years. The club has always been an eyesore as it was. I have seen the new plans and feel that it will enhance the community. We have a lot of out-of-town guests and would be very proud to take them to the new facility. The Ahadpours have gone to great lengths to satisfy the neighbors and community. Sincerely, 1' i HUNTINGTON BEACH January 10, 1983 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JAN 13 03 P.Q. Box 190 Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach, CA 92W Post office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Huntington Harbour Ray & Racquet Club Development Plan Dear Council Members: I am a resident of Huntington Harbour and I am writing to you to express my full approval of the development plan now before you, for the Huntington Harbour Bay & Racquet Club. I believe that this plan will be an asset to the community and obviously would, be an improvement to the conditions that now exist. I urge you to approve this development, both for the good of our community and the effect it will have on our city, due to the additional taxes it will generate. Sincerely, r, L "af`"d Lady r s i 1E 741 CA1R-0TT93E1- LANE fiT.7'NTING1r0W BEACH.CALIR 93649 HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES January 7, 1983 JAN 13 S83 Huntington Beach City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 17171 Roundhill Dr . Huntington Beach r Dear Council Members : I have lived at this address since 1977 and have been an active member of the Huntington Harbour Beach Club (now known as the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club) for the past six years . It takes me approximately five minutes to walk to the club house from my front door. During the past six years I have watched as the club has been passed from one owner to the next , and each time the price went up and each new owner would strip, skim, and bleed the club until practically nothing really usable was left . Perhaps this was necessary to recoupe some of their losses due in part to lack of support by the Harbour families who purchased their homes in this area because of the club facilities available; at least some would like you to believe this . When I first met the present owners it was during the Iranian crisis and they were met with some opposition. This is understandable considering the intellect and reasoning of some of my Harbour neighbors . Since the new owners have moved in they have demonstrated a willingness to cooperate with the residents and have taken on a tremendous financial burden restoring the club facilities literally from the ground up. The type of remodeling and total dedication to this project convinces me that they will carry this style and ' class ' over to the proposed condiminium units . I therefore urge you to approve this project and allow them to improve this property so that it may continue to be a credit to the community and enhance all of our surrounding properties . Respectfully, Peter B. Shores r ID Guck Pord � N SEADI,CALIF. 17012 Qgewater Lane Jet 28 PH 103 P u nti ngton eeaA, California 92649 Monday, January 12, 1983 Honorable Mayor Mandic A Members of the City Council : As an 18 year resident of Huntington Harbour, I am opposed to high density development in our one and only remaining Recreation and Open Space zoned area. A grass roots group called Save Our Space (SOS) was born Sat- urday, November 6, with a meeting in one of our homes . Starting then with several "door knockers , " it grew to over 64 volunteers in several days . How gratifying to me to know the silent major- ity will('do their civic duty, with no economic incentives , when aware of a serious community issue. The result was that 1062 signed our SOS petitions in less than 1 week. Frankly we never guessed the response to be that great in that period of time. There is little doubt in our mind we could get double that number of petitions, but feel the point is already made. The owner says that everyone in the immediate neighborhood has participated and wants the development - particularly Edgewater Lane. Our intuition told us that the statement was untrue. We checked. Four housewives checked the 2 block area on Edgewater closest to the Club - 80 houses . Results - occupants of 53 of those houses signed against the project. Again, this was done in less than a week and most of the remaining 27 were not at home. Some who have economic interests in the project were intentionally not contacted, such as the Hartges. 82 signed our petitions, 4 declined. Your appointees , the Planning Commissioners voted against the project 4-2. Their support was appreciated and will be remembered. They apparently saw through the well organized presentation by the paid articulators. The bottom line' is that a narrow strip of land along Warner Avenue is not the place for high rise (51evels) and high density (48) condos . It 's a good plan for a non-resident speculator to "get rich quick" - a bad plan for the community and citizens. Most of you turned down a much less ambitious project a year ago. We trust you will turn down this newer proposal as well. The silent majority hope so. Respectfully submitted,