Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing - General Plan Amend 97-2 - Zoning Text Amend f, 4 c PROOF OF PUBLICATION I, k I STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. County of Orange ) warranted.This envi- tion is wa PUBLIC NOTICE_ rra 1 am a Citizen of the United States and a ronmental assessment is NOTICE OF on file at the City of'Hun- resident of the County aforesaid; I am PUBLIC HEARING .'tington Beach-Community BEFORE THE CITY Development Department,, over the age of eighteen years, and not a COUNCIL OF THE 2000, Main .Street, and is, CITY OF available for public inspec•' party to or interested in the below .HUNTINGTON BEACH,'tion_and comment by con- t40TICE 'IS . HEREBY tacting.the Community De- entitled matter, f am a principal clerk' of i GIVEN that-on -Monday, velopment Department, or; July 6, 1998, at.7:6(1 PM m by telephoning (714) 536- the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a ( the City Council Chambers, 5211. 2000 Main Street, Hunting-. ON FILE: A copy of the newspaper of general circulation, printed ton Beach,the City Council proposed request is on file ,will hold a Public hearing in the Community De. and published in the City of Huntington on the following item: velopment Department, , GENERAL PLAN AMEND- 2000 Main Street, Hunting- Beach, County of Orange, State of MENT NO. 97.2/ZONE 90648Bfbrhi, California TEXT AMENDMENT NO. the public: A copy of the California and that attached Notice Is a i 97.5/NEGATIVE DECLARA- staff report will be available COASTAL TION N AL 9 PROGRAM R OGRAM LOCAL to interested parties at City r.rue and complete copy as was printedf Hall or-the Main City Li- ; (GREAMENDMEN NO; 97.1 brary (7111' Talbert Av- and published in the Huntington Beach (GREENBRIAR/MONTE- enue)after July 2,1998. CITO):Applicant:PLC Land ALL .INTERESTED PER. and Fountain Valley issues of said Company Req amend the General"ural'est Plan,To SONS are invited to attend said hearing and express Holly Seacliff Specific Plan opinions or submit evi- newspaper to Wit.the issue(s) of: and Local Coastal Program;dence for or against the to: 1) expand the existing'application. .as outlined commercial designation in'above.-If you challenge the Montecito from seven to'11 City Council's action in gross acres and 2) change court, you may be limited the-Medium High Density,to raising only those issues (25 units per acre),Medium you .or someone else Density (15 units per acre) raised at the public hearing June 25 , 1998 and Low Density (seven described.in this notice, or units per acre) residential in -written correspondence areas in Greenbriar and delivered to the City at,.or Montecito to Low Density prior to,the public hearing. (five units per acre). Loca• If..there are any further lion: South side of Garfield questions please call the I declare under penalty of perjury, that Avenue,between Peninsula'Planning Division at 536= r r Lane and .Goldenwest,5271 and refer to the Street, north of Summit above item. Direct.,your the foregoing Is true and correct. Drive Project Planner: Mary written communications to ,Beth Broeren. the-City Clerk. NOTICE :IS HEREBY . Connie Brockway, GIVEN that an initial envw ronmental assessment for City Clerk, City of Hun.. Executed on June 25 , 199 R fthe above item was pro-;tington Beach,.-2000 cessed and completed inMain Street,2nd Floor, at Costa Mesa California. accordance with the Cali-1 Huntington Beach, Cal- fornia'Environmental Oual-'Ifornia .92648, (714) ity Act. It was determined 536.5227 that the. above item, with published Huntington mitigation, would not have onmemtalzetfect;ancLth I Beach-Fountain Valle In- any significant en ai dependent June 25, 1998 ai rTkW Ated:xtegative>;dedI ra•; _ __ _ 064-663 Signature n i� 9 JJ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Melanie S. Fallon, Community Development Director�� �—��2-(117._ VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator. SUBJECT: ITEM D-2, GENERAL PLAN AMENMDENT NO. 97-2 DATE: July 6, 1998 General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 to amend the Greenbriar/Montecito area of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan is scheduled for tonight's City Council meeting. Attached is corrected Resolution No. 98-54 which more accurately reflects the proposed changes to the General Plan as discussed in the Request for Council Action. I� RESOLUTION NO. 9 8-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-2 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-22 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 is a request to amend the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan to incorporate a redesignation of approximately 46 gross acres of property (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") generally located north of Garfield Avenue, south of Summit Drive, east of Goldenwest Street, and west of Peninsula Lane in the City of Huntington Beach, as follows: 42 acres from Medium and Medium High Density Residential to Low Density Residential and 4 acres from Medium Density Residential to Commercial; and Pursuant to the California Government Code,the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 and Negative Declaration No. 97-22 and recommended approval of said entitlements to the City Council; and Pursuant to the California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 and Negative Declaration No. 97-22. The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of the community, and is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan and is consistent with the other elements of the General Plan; and The City Council finds that Negative Declaration No. 97-22 addresses the environmental issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the Subject Property is generally located north of Garfield Avenue, south of Summit Drive, east of Goldenwest Street, and west of Peninsula Lane in the City of Huntington Beach, and is more particularly described in the legal description and sketch attached hereto as 1 4/s:PCD:Resolution:gpa97-2 RLS 98-354 6/24/98 Exhibits"A" and "B," respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. 2. That the General Plan designation of the Subject Property is hereby changed as follows: 42 acres are changed from Medium and Medium High Density Residential to Low Density Residential, and 4 acres are changed from Medium Density Residential to Commercial, as depicted on the Exhibits attached hereto; and 3. That the General Plan Land Use Map in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"C," and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, is hereby amended to implement General Plan amendment No. 97- 2. 4. That the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby approves and adopts General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 and Negative Declaration No. 97-22. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the day of , 1998. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerkyttorne� t �-b-`t REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: Administrator Director of Commu ' y Development Exhibits: A: Legal Description of the Subject Property B: Sketch of the Subject Property C: General Plan Land Use Map 2 4/s:PCD:Resolution:gpa97-2 RLS 98-354 6/24/98 IV-L.0 C!i Y CLEn;l CI rY OF P,U:"I H,'GT0,',' 6Fn;CN, CA IN JUL -(, A I I: -3 F I General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 Zoning Text Amendment 97-5 Local Coastal Program Amendment No . 97- 1 Negative Declaration No . 97-22 (Greenbriar/Montecito) U I 1 PROJECT INCLUDES : *Changes to General Plan and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to: Lower residential density on 47 acres from medium , medium high and low (7 d . u ./ac. ) density to all low (5 d . u ./ac. ) density ■ This would reduced the maximum allowed number of units from 768 to 205; and ■ Expand an existing commercial site from 7 to 11 gross acres. Z Analysis ■ The change in residential density is compatible with existing and planned residential development in the area. ■ Expansion of the commercial site will allow a larger center which can be designed in such a way to minimize impacts to surrounding development. ■ Environmental analysis concluded the request is consistent with the HSSP. I � 3 Recommendation ♦ Planning Commission approved the project on June 9 , 1998 ♦Staff recommends the City Council approve the request pursuant to staff and the Planning Commission recommendation . I � 4 Council/Agency Meeting Held: ']/L. /?R Deferred/Continued to: �� ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ �-Denied -Dep-- City Clerk's Signature -91i S: N 9 -.2;, fir o/a Vc,ar -c� c.Z. 98-5`1 vP -,s- 7- o o Council Mee!i� te: r July 6, 1998 Department ID Number: CD 98-330 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH C= EST FOR COUNCIL ACTION -n M CDr- m'- SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS >T' o SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator c PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-2/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-5/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 97-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-22 (GREEN BRIAR/MONTECITO) OeD A'3 6102 A? Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is a request by PLC Land Company to amend the General Plan and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan for a 58 acre property located at the southwest corner of Garfield and Goldenwest. The applicant received approval of General Plan Amendment No. 97-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1 and Negative Declaration No. 97-22 at the June 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. The project consists of lowering the residential density on 47 acres of land and expanding an existing 7 acre commercial site to 11 acres. No specific developments are proposed in conjunction with the request. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Uphold the Planning Commission's action and approve Negative Declaration No. 97-22 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 4)," and 2. "Uphold the Planning Commission's action and approve General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 by adopting Resolution No. L (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) and approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5 with findings by adopting Ordinance Noj! cz (ATTACHMENT NO. 2) and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1 by approving Resolution No.`?-55(ATTACHMENT NO. 3) with findings (ATTACHMENT NO. 4)." '0 (� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 6, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-30 Planning Commission Action on June 9, 1998: THE MOTIONS MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-22, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-2, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-5 AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 97-1 WITH FINDINGS FOR CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN FOR ALTERNATIVE #2 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: INGLEE, LIVENGOOD, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER, KERINS, BIDDLE, CHAPMAN NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion: 1. "Deny General Plan Amendment No. 97-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1 and Negative Declaration No. 97-22 with findings for denial." r 2. "Continue General Plan Amendment No. 97-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1 and Negative Declaration No. 97-22." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: PLC Land Company, 23 Corporate Plaza, Ste. 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: South side of Garfield Ave., between Peninsula Land and Goldenwest and north of Summit Dr. The applicant had originally submitted two alternatives for consideration. Based upon Planning Commission action and with agreement of the applicant, however, only Alternative #2 is being forwarded to the City Council for final action. Alternative #1 (a higher density plan) is no longer under consideration. CD98-30.DOC -2- 06/12/98 4:53 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 6, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-30 General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 represents a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 3-13) of the Land Use Element as summarized below and presented in Attachment No. 7. Planning Existing Unit General Plan Alternative #2 Greenbriar • III-3 • 11 Ac. Medium Density • 21 Ac. Low Density • III-4 • 10 Ac. Medium High Density Montecito • III-5 • 18 Ac. Medium Density • 26 Ac. Low Density (incl. 5 • III-7 • 12 Ac. Low Density (incl. 4 Ac. Neighborhood Park) Ac. Neighborhood Park) • 11 Ac. Commercial • III-6 • 7 Ac. Commercial Note that the citation for the Land Use Map references the pre-1996 General Plan Update figure. This is because the property is subject to the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement No. 90-1 which precludes the City from applying any subsequent land use regulations to the property unless agreed to by the owner. Because PLC is not in agreement with using the General Plan Update adopted in 1996, the General Plan as amended through General Plan Amendment No. 91-2, April 1992, is the governing document against which the project is evaluated. The main consequence of this is that this report applies the pre-1996 General Plan goals and policies to the project. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5 represents a request to modify the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan (HSSP) to reflect the above noted changes that are proposed for the General Plan pursuant to Section IV.C.6. of the HSSP. This would include modifying Table 1 and Exhibits 3, 6, 8-12 of the HSSP (Attachment No. 8). The unit changes that are proposed for Table 1 of the HSSP are summarized below. Planning Unit Existing Units Allowed' Alternative #2 Units Greenbriar • III-3 • 165 • 86 (total in both III-4 • 250 Planning Units) Subtotal 415 86 Montecito • III-5 • 270 • 119 (total both • III-7 0 83 Planning Units) • III-6 • n/a (Commercial) • n/a (Commercial) Subtotal 353 119 Total 1 768 205 'Pursuant to density transfer approved by Planning Commission 3/15194. CD98-30.DOC -3- 06/12/98 4:53 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 6, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-30 The applicant proposes to use the HSSP RL-3 land use category for the proposed low density residential. This category has a minimum lot size of 3,300 square feet which yields a density of 13 units per acre. The General Plan Low Density designation is seven units per acre. To achieve consistency with the General Plan, the applicant proposes to restrict the maximum number of units to 205 which effectively reduces the density to five units per acre. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1 represents a request to amend the Local Coastal Program to reflect the changes proposed for the HSSP. B. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: Existing Plan The existing HSSP was approved in 1992. It currently allows a combination of residential and commercial land uses on the subject property (Attachment No. 5). The intent was to provide a diverse range of product types so that the Holly Seacliff area could serve various segments of the population. The location of the land use components was intended to accomplish certain objectives. For example, the existing Medium High Density area in Greenbriar was established in its location because of the future school site due north across Garfield. It was believed that this would result in less compatibility issues than if the Medium High Density area were located in Montecito because of concerns of existing residents south of Summit. A second example is the Low Density area along Summit in Montecito. This area was intended as a transition zone for the existing single family homes south of Summit. The Medium Density areas of Greenbriar and Montecito were created to balance the preponderance of single family areas in the vicinity. Finally, a commercial area to serve neighborhood retail and service needs was established at the corner of Garfield and Goldenwest because the intersection of two major streets is where such commercial centers are located in order to be accessible and accommodate traffic flow. Alternative #2 Residential Area This alternative would convert all of the residential areas to Low Density and restrict the unit count to 205 (a decrease of 563 units) (Attachment No. 6). This alternative is compatible with existing and proposed single family homes in the area although it would not achieve as much product diversification intended by the HSSP or discussed in the General Plan. Staff is in support of this request. CD98-30.DOC -4- 06112/98 4:53 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 6, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-30 Commercial Area The increase of the commercial area by approximately four gross acres would allow the applicant to build a larger commercial center. The applicant estimates that the current site could accommodate approximately 65,000 square feet and the larger site would accommodate 95,000 square feet. The increase in commercial area would decrease the residential area of Montecito. When the HSSP was originally being developed, staff had encouraged Seacliff Partners to agree to a larger 11 or 12 acre commercial site in Montecito. Seacliff Partners was not interested in this concept and the Plan was approved in its current form. Staff still supports the concept of a larger site and supports the applicant's request to increase the size of the commercial area from seven to 11 gross acres. This increase would be fiscally beneficial to the City, and it is customary for commercial centers (or nodes) to be located at the intersection of major arterials. Staff believes the center can be designed with adequate buffers for the proposed residential units in Montecito that will directly abut the commercial site. Neither plan has been formally submitted and there is sufficient opportunity to "design- in" buffers based on lessons learned from other areas of the city. The existing homes north of Garfield are separated from the site by that street, the equestrian trail and a landscaped parkway. Staff believes that these elements provide adequate separation and that the shopping center site can be designed in such a way that signage, landscaping and lighting will be sensitive to the existing homes. Concern has been expressed about the need to expand the commercial site given the proposed expansion of Seacliff Village on the east side of Goldenwest. In addition, the applicant has indicated that they expect the major tenant in the center to be a supermarket, similar to the Seacliff Village proposal, and the question has been raised about whether the area could support two major supermarkets. The applicant's market research and response from supermarket chains has indicated that there is market support (Attachment No. 10). The applicant has also been asked if they had contacted specialty or up-scale markets, such as Bristol Farms or Gelson's, to provide product differentiation. The applicant has indicated that none of these operations were interested in locating in the area. Further, these specialty tenants generally occupy smaller buildings than the standard supermarket (30,000 vs. 50,000 square feet) which the applicant believes would be difficult to re-lease to other tenants Circulation The HSSP Circulation Plan (Exhibit 8 in Attachment No. 8) depicts the arterial highway configurations for Holly Seacliff and identifies specific road segments in its legend. It also depicts the extension of Saddleback Lane between Garfield and Summit although the segment is not an arterial highway nor is it listed in the legend. As part of future entitlements for the subject property, the applicant has indicated that they would prefer to not construct C1398-30.130C -5- 06/12/98 4:53 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 6, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-30 the Saddleback extension. In lieu of this, they would construct a pedestrian-only link between Garfield and Summit. Although street configurations are typically the subject of detailed site planning, staff has included this issue in this report because Exhibit 8 of the HSSP depicts the segment and the applicant has requested to amend the HSSP. Thus, if the City Council felt it necessary and were in agreement, they could approve the elimination of the segment from Exhibit 8. The applicant's proposal is supported in concept by the Departments of Public Works and Fire, and traffic studies demonstrate that the Saddleback extension is not necessary to accommodate traffic flow. In addition, the Planning Commission provided general indications at the June 9th meeting that they would also support the elimination of the Saddleback extension. (The applicant is aware that staff will still require a secondary vehicular access point at Garfield Avenue, in addition to the proposed entrances on Summit for residents and emergency vehicles and agrees in concept with this requirement.) Because the subject of Exhibit 8 is arterial highways, however, staff does not believe that the issue of the Saddleback extension warrants an amendment to the Exhibit. In other words, although the extension is shown on the Exhibit it is not central to or necessary for the arterial highway system to function. Staff believes that at the time of detailed site planning, the Saddleback extension could be converted to a pedestrian-only link or modified in some other way and not be in conflict with any adopted plans. Thus, staff recommends the City Council not take action on the issue of the Saddleback extension at this time. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION.- The Planning Commission considered the project on June 9, 1998. During that meeting, 19 individuals (one of which represented the applicant) spoke on the project. The speakers preferred alternative #2 to alternative #1. Some of the speakers spoke in opposition to the expansion of the commercial site and preferred no commercial development. The Planning Commission decided to take straw votes on the project. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to not support alternative #1 and voted unanimously to support the residential plan of alternative #2. The Planning Commission voted to approve the expansion of the commercial area from seven to 11 acres with Commissioner Livengood dissenting. After the straw votes, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the applicant's request for alternative #2. E. SUMMARY The proposed project would change the land use plan for a 58 acre area. Alternative #2 converts the residential area to Low Density and expands the existing commercial area from seven to 11 gross acres. Staff recommends the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 97-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1 and Negative Declaration No. 97-22 for Alternative #2 for the following reasons: CD98-30.DOC -6- 06/12/98 4:53 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 6, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-30 The proposed low density land use designation is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the area. Development of the expanded commercial site can be designed to be compatible with surrounding uses and the expansion will be fiscally beneficial to the city. The potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in Negative Declaration No. 97-22 and mitigation measures will reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. Environmental Status: The subject site is covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 which was certified by the City Council on January 8, 1990. Section 2.5.1 of Development Agreement No. 90-1 for the Holly Seacliff area states: "City agrees that no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required for any development approval unless the anticipated environmental impacts to any proposed project exceeds the level of impact indicated in Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1." Because the applicant requested a general plan amendment and zoning text amendment which would result in potentially different land use patterns and development intensity than that assumed in EIR No. 89-1, staff required the applicant to submit an environmental assessment. Staff reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 97-22 (Attachment No. 11) was prepared with mitigation measures, consistent with those of EIR No. 89-1, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with the following supplemental reports: 1) Alternative #1 - Site Specific Traffic Study, dated 12/9/97 and Amendment dated 2/11/98 2) Alternative #2 - Site Specific Traffic Study, dated 3/27/98 3) School Site Trip Generation Review, dated 4/7/98 4) Site Specific Infrastructure Analysis, dated 11/12/97 Negative Declaration No. 97-22 concludes that neither of the land use alternatives will result in significant impacts beyond those identified in EIR 89-1, all of which could be mitigated. Both alternatives would result in fewer residential units than the existing plan. This equates to less traffic generation and less impacts on city services and facilities, such as parks. The analysis indicates that the expanded commercial area is not incompatible with other land uses in the vicinity, but that subsequent design of the site must be sensitive to existing and proposed residential development. CD98-30.DOC -7- 06/12/98 4:53 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 6, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-30 The Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 97- 22 for twenty (20) days commencing on April 30, 1998 and ending on May 19, 1998. Comments were received from The Okura Family, Huntington Seacliff Homeowners' Association, Gilbert and Bonnie Nixon, Huntington Beach Environmental Board, Lois Havens and Huntington Beach Hamptons Homeowners Association concerning the density changes associated with Alternative #1, traffic generation and circulation, and the proposed park. The Huntington Beach Environmental Board supports the concept of reducing the number of allowed units in the area and indicated that Alternative #2 would be preferred over Alternative #1. A response to the comments has been included with the attached Negative Declaration. Prior to any action on General Plan Amendment No. 97-2/Zoning Text Amendment No. 97- 5/1-ocal Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 97-22. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings and mitigation measures. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number 1. Resolution No.1$- 1111 for General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 2. Ordinance No-31101. for Zone Text Amendment No. 97-5 3. Resolution No.q?-j-5:5 for Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1 4. Findings for Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1 and Negative Declaration No. 97-22 5. Existing Land Use Plan 6. Alternative #2 Land Use Plan dated March, 1998 7. General Plan Land Use Map 8. Legislative Draft— Holly Seacliff Specific Plan 9. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 9, 1998 10. Market Analysis 11. Negative Declaration No. 97-22 CD98-30.DOC -8- 06/12/98 4:53 PM ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 9 8-5 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-2 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-22 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 is a request to amend the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan to incorporate a redesignation of approximately 46 gross acres of property (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property")generally located north of Garfield Avenue, south of Summit Drive, east of Goldenwest Street, and west of Peninsula Lane in the City of Huntington Beach, as follows: 42 acres from Medium and Medium High Density Residential to Low Density Residential and 4 acres from Medium Density Residential to Commercial; and Pursuant to the California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 and Negative Declaration No. 97-22 and recommended approval of said entitlements to the City Council; and Pursuant to the California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 and Negative Declaration No. 97-22. The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of the community, and is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan and is consistent with the other elements of the General Plan; and The City Council finds that Negative Declaration No. 97-22 addresses the environmental issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the Subject Property is generally located north of Garfield Avenue, south of Summit Drive, east of Goldenwest Street, and west of Peninsula Lane in the City of Huntington Beach, and is more particularly described in the legal description and sketch attached hereto as 1 4/s:PCD:Resol ution:gpa97-2 RLS 98-354 6/24/98 i Exhibits "A" and"B," respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. 2. That the General Plan designation of the Subject Property is hereby changed as follows: 42 acres are changed from Medium and Medium High Density Residential to Low Density Residential, and 4 acres are changed from Medium Density Residential to Commercial, as depicted on the Exhibits attached hereto; and 3. That the General Plan Land Use Map in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"C," and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, is hereby amended to implement General Plan amendment No. 97- 2. 4. That the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby approves and adopts General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 and Negative Declaration No. 97-22. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of Jul , 1998. May ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk ty �lttorne EA .Z--1� REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: Administrator Director of Cornmundy Development Exhibits: A: Legal Description of the Subject Property B: Sketch of the Subject Property C: General Plan Land Use Map 2 4/s:PCD:Resol ution:gpa97-2 RLS 98-354 6/24/98 Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ZONING PURPOSES (GREENBRIAR) BEING THAT PORTION OF PARCEL "P", IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 96-1, RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1996 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19960095322 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "P", SAID POINT BEING NORTH 89041'37" WEST, 1319.87 FEET, MEASURED ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "P"; THENCE SOUTH 00016'43" WEST, 55.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF GARFIELD AVENUE, 110.00 FEET WIDE, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT DEED RECORDED NNE 4, ' 1993, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 93- 0377546, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89°41'37" WEST, 1245.81 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "P", SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 34.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 53.43 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE AND CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90001'53" TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1960.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 89°43'30" WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY 107.33 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE AND CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03008'15" TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2040.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 87008'15" EAST; THENCE SOUTHERLY 111.75 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE AND CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03008'19" TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 42.51 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE AND CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12010'38" TO THE BEGINNING OF REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 77°32'48" WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY 42.51 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE AND CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12010'38"; THENCE SOUTH 00016'34" WEST, 217.05 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 28.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 44.13 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE AND CURVE THROUGH VWDEN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION SOCIATES FOR ZONING PURPOSES. (GREENBRIAR) CIVIL ENGINEERS-PLANNERS-LAND SURVEYORS W.O. No. 1072-396-2 Date 6/16/99 18012 COWAN,SUITE 210•IRVINE,CA 92614 Engr. T.A. Chk. D.W. Sheet 1 of 2 714/660-0110 FAX:660-0418 Exhibit A A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90018'26" TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "P"; THENCE NORTH 89058'07" EAST, 724.84 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 831.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 454.27 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31°19'16" TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1000.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID 831.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE BEARS NORTH 31017'24" EAST, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT ON 1000.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE BEARS NORTH 64015'06" WEST; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTHERLY 444.53 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25°28'11"; THENCE NORTH 00°16'43" EAST, 266.60 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING AN AREA OF 17.34 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. I LANp vME sG� za No. 3347 Exp. 6-30-00 lF pf C VWDEN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ZONING PURPOSES. SOCIATES (GREENBRIAR) CIVIL ENGINEERS-PLANNERS-LAND SURVEYORS W.O. No. 1072-396-2 Date 6/16/98 18012 COWAN,SUITE 210•IRVINE,CA 92614 Engf. T.A. Chk. D.W. Sheet 2 of 2 714/660-0110 FAX:660-0418 Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ZONING PURPOSES (MONTECITO) BEING THAT PORTION OF PARCEL "P", IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 96-1, RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1996 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19960095322 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "P", SAID POINT BEING NORTH 89041'37" WEST, 760.00 FEET, MEASURED ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "P"; THENCE SOUTH 00017'21" WEST, 55.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF GARFIELD AVENUE, 110.00 FEET WIDE, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT DEED RECORDED JUNE 4, 1993, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 93- 0377546, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTH 00017'21" WEST, 445.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56048'19" EAST, 381.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89042'39" EAST, 380.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 60.00 FEET WESTERLY OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "P"; THENCE SOUTH 00017'21" WEST, 493.60 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL"P", SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE BEGINNING OF TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 33.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 42.83 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74021'34" TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 823.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 15021'05" WEST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 104.28 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07015'35" TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 777.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 22036'40" WEST; THENCE WESTERLY 855.27 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63004'02 TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 1021.96 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 40027'22" EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 92.37 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05010'44"; THENCE NORTH 44021'54" WEST, 284.53 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 831.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 208.06 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND CURVE VWDEN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION SOCIATES FOR ZONING PURPOSES. (MONTECITO) CIVIL ENGINEERS-PLANNERS-LAND SURVEYORS W.O. No. 1072-396-2 Date 6/16/98 18012 COWAN.SUITE 210•IRVINE,CA 92614 Engr. T.A. Chk. D.W. Sheet 1 of 2 714/660.0110 FAX:660-0418 Exhibit A THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14020'42" TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 1000.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID 831.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE BEARS NORTH 31017'24" EAST, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT ON 1000.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE BEARS NORTH 64°15'06" WEST; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTHERLY 444.53 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25'28'11"; THENCE NORTH 00°16'43" EAST, 266.60 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID GARFIELD AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 89°41'37" EAST, 559.86 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING AN AREA OF 23.79 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. \Q�Kt LANp s o a� 4 No. 3347 Exp. 6-30-00 F tF � C VWDEN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ZONING PURPOSES. SOCIATES (MONTECITO) CIVIL ENGINEERS-PLANNERS-LAND SURVEYORS W.O. No. 1072-396-2 Date 6/16/98 18012 COWAN,SUITE 210-IRVINE,CA 92614 Engr. T.A. Chk. D.W. Sheet 2 of 2 714/660-0110 FAX:660-0418 Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ZONING PURPOSES (COMMERCIAL SITE) BEING THAT PORTION OF PARCEL "P", IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 96-1, RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1996 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19960095322 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "P", SAID POINT BEING NORTH 89041'37" WEST, 760.00 FEET, MEASURED ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "P"; THENCE SOUTH 00017'21" WEST, 55.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF GARFIELD AVENUE, 110.00 FEET WIDE, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT DEED RECORDED JUNE 4, 1993, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 93- 0377546, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTH 00017'21" WEST, 445.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56048'19" EAST, 381.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89042'39" EAST, 380.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 60.00 FEET WESTERLY OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL"P"; THENCE NORTH 00017'21" EAST, 614.86 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 34.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 53.40 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89058'58" TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID GARFIELD AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 89041'37" WEST, 229.81 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE NORTH 88032'52" WEST, 150.03 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE NORTH 89041'37" WEST, 286.20 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING AN AREA OF 9.69 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. DNA -LAND 04`'�O �NVE N9oG� � l � No. 3347 6-30-00 tF �F C JWDEN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION SOCIATES FOR ZONING PURPOSES. (COMMERCIAL SITE) CIVIL ENGINEERS-PLANNERS-LAND SURVEYORS W.O. No. 1072-396-2 Date 6/16/98 18012 COWAN,SUITE 210•IRVINE,CA 92614 Engr. T.A. Chk. D.W. Sheet 1 of 1 714/660-0110 FAX:660-0418 '. 34, T.SS., R. 11W. Exhibit B SEC. 3, T.6S., R. 11W THUS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR C DEPT. PURPC 13 � COUTY THEN ASSESSORS MOR AKES NO GUARA i11 `� ITS ACCURACY NOR ASSUMES AA FOR OTHER USES. NOT TO BE { ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. m COPYRIGHT ORANGE COUNTY A GOL DENWES T S TREE T n a y.w Iowa- x, 3a, ABAND. ST. ` 13 b� 0.352 AC. N .. 1 M 2 CV W W Q NZ ti~ Q � v BFACoV O16 J�C. 51.84 AC. 0. 181 AC. O�1 110-49 ABANDONED )N• SwEr R.S. 3 - 28 159-42 ANE S I V L! bye' TRACT NO. 14 700 COVINGTON* O7 LANE Q•' I O THIS fv� COU-t1 1 1 T TiiE Fic=':..... ITS KC U; j o FOR OT'r,Eti ALL RIGHTS R'L ©COPYRIGHT Q v Ioe•I b• 62' :Q u.s�' ''•s'' 1s B£L AIRED �,m.ss +n.rs 2,r.os a LANE S TREE T TRACT 11Q-43 NOTE — ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 8 ASSESSOR' N0. 15034 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 159 r SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF a O eETAn IRUDEMIEII j I N9� ^ kr � L"•� DIIIIR�RIOtDIMIIALI .r, .T",-. ♦ ..�..___� __—_. �._—__ .._ Elk AtMnM ,' RL-7 low RIIEEID[MT4L! . OUlIXUMDE1tlRYREEIDEMTIAL 'I y O MEDWWH MDERERY RE _ a[youmAL nsw..c �•-- -- RL-2 I O NIXED DEVELOPMENT RM I ELL19-0OLDENWEST �COMMERCUL '� RE SPECIM PAN • AREA �� \ RIDOETRIAL II �\ -� I —•--------- RM jjj E Opt"SPACE - RMH t—•- \ � / , ®roTEwEUL SCHOOL EMS \ os - \ RE RMH RMH Rm -AMID , C . E os b ` t \ RM RM RL-, �"'"��,RL Alternative #2 Jl / MD / I DOUIElARY--� ���•, a +n ♦inw— J rt CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP HOLLV-SEACLOFF AREA SPECOFOCPD e d CIIIIiiI I I I I Res. No. 98-54 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of July, 1998 by the following vote: AYES: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo NOES: None ABSENT: None City Clerk and ex-offici Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California G/resoluti/resbkpg/97-80 RESOLUTION NO. 98-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-2 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97,Z22 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 is a request to amend the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan to incorporate a redesign/ate n of approximately 46 gross acres of property (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Propertty'") generally located north of Garfield Avenue, south of Summit Drive, east of Goldenwest Street, and west of Peninsula Lane in the City of Huntington Beach, as follows: 42 acres from Medium and Medium High Density Residential to Low Density Residential and 4 acres'from Medium Density Residential to Commercial; and I/ Pursuant to the California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given,Z.1d a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 and Negative Declaration No. 97-22 and recommended approval of said entitlements to the City Council; and Pursuant to the California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 and Negative Declaration N1o. 97-22. The City Council finds�t/hat said General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly evelopment of the community, and is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan and is consistent with the other elements of the General Plan; and The City Council/finds that Negative Declaration No. 97-22 addresses the environmental issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows/ 1. That the Subject Property is generally located south of Garfield Avenue, north of Summit Drive, west of Goldenwest Street, and east of Peninsula Lane in the City of Huntington Beach, and is more particularly described in the legal description and sketch attached hereto as 1 4/s:PC D:Resol uti o n:gp a97-2 RLS 98-354 6/24/98 Y Exhibits "A" and "B,"respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. 2. That the General Plan designation of the Subject Property is`hereby changed from Medium and Medium High Density Residential to Commercial. 3. That the General Plan Land Use Map in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, a.copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"C," and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, is hereby amended to implement-General Plan amendment No. 97- 2. /f, 4. That the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby approves and adopts General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 and Negative Declaration No. 97-22. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of July 1998. Mayor s ATTEST: h yj Yl APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED- INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Comm ity Development /1 J Exhibits: t A: Legal Description of the Subject Property B: Sketch of the Subject Property C: General Plan Land Use Map z 2 4/s:PCD:Resol ution:gpa97-2 RLS 98-354 6/24/98 I i ATTACHMENT 2 11 Err r 1. .. ORDINANCE NO. 3402 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-5) WHEREAS, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law, the California Government Code Section 65493 et seq., the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, have held separate public hearings relative to Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5, which will amend the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan to modify the land use and amount of development for Planning Unit III, wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission,and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment to the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan is proper and consistent with the General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: l. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5 is hereby approved, and the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan is hereby amended to incorporate the changes thereto as depicted on the charts and maps collectively attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. 4/s:PCD:Ord:HS-97-5 RLS 98-354 2. 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 20th day of July , 1998. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4<� ,G°q- / City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: 1 City Administra or �,zS.�$ Director of Communi Development Exhibits: A: Charts and maps relating to Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 4/s:PCD:Ord:HS-97-5 RLS 98-354 TABLE 1 HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE TABLE ALTERNATIVE #2 PLANNING PLANNING LAND USE CATEGORY GROSS TOTAL MAXIMUM AVERAGE DEV. AREA UNIT ACRES UNITS GROSS GROSS STANDS. DENSITY DENSITY (PAGE) 1 1-1 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 1 6 15 4 2.5 III 00 1-2 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 1 26 90 4 3.5 III-10 1-3 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 1 16 55 4 3.4 III-10 1-4 OPEN SPACE 16 III-28 SUBTOTAL 64 160 II II-1 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 3 62* 310 7 4.1 111-15 11-2 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 40 415 15 11.0 III-17 II-3 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 34' 390 15 13.0 III-17 II-4 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 9 170 25 16.6 111-20 II-5 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 4 75 25 18.8 I11-20 11-6 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 4 75 25 18.8 III-20 11-7 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 6 100 25 16.6 III-20 II-8 INDUSTRIAL 32 III-28 SUBTOTAL 191 1,535 111 111-1 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 19 285 15 15.0 III-17 I11-2 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 2 105 397 7 3.8 I11-12 111-3 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM LOW DENSITY 11 4-66 4-6 i 6..9 III- 16 86 5 5 III-4 RESIDENTIAL LOW 10 2-50 24 25.0 11128 DENSITY 3 *�` * III-5 RESIDENTIAL-MEDUM LOW DENSITY +8 249 44 i 6.9 III-4-:7-16 3 14 119 5 5 III-6 COMMERCIAL -711 III-27 III-7 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 3 12* 83 -7 f-9 + i2 III-8 OPEN SPACE 16 III-28 SUBTOTAL 198 1,468 887 IV IV-1 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 16 155 15 9.7 III-17 IV-2 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 8 120 15 15.0 III-17 IV-3 INDUSTRIAL 9 III-28 IV-4 MIXED DEVELOPMENT 53 475 25 14.4 III-22 IV-5A INDUSTRIAL 22 III-28 IV-6 COMMERCIAL 4 III-27 SUBTOTAL 112 750 TOTAL 565 @,896 3,332 ' Includes 4 5-acre Neighborhood Park. ** Planning Unit III-4 will be combined with III-3. *** Planning Unit III-7will be combined with III-5. LEGEND a � ► RL,1 towoew>tnREslD[wnAll p ) Ij /IFI ..MK y i GLOW DlNMT11 RESIDENTIAL ' - � �• Rl•7 •IM•c •�jl� 1 • ZIl4 1. __J • lr1 A..nw Rla LOW DrItUTY RESIDENTIAL! �ii � •IMK OYEOIOY OENSIfY REYO[NTIAI ! _ _ a[sb FRL-1 1 _ Y[DNYNIONO,NYiV �' Ewnst M i• 2 YD RL-•' ,L'l , \ st MIXED DEVELOPMENT i __ -11.1 .� A i ED COMMERCIAL _ R�=� ELLIS•OOLDENWEST IItI � �• ' I .,.. SPE FICAREA LAN f --_1.__...._ `� �E' •\. _ f RIDunRut r!, �..�..�...J I I I -- — .,!. I I RM •\ _- ! � os or[Ner�eE RMH n PLANNING RRIR I., • ua _•-� ,I MJ � tP I•t PLANNING UNIT a RL-1 - RMH O 1 N[IONEORNOOD PARKS • /• IM'E it � _..—_, ... _ {� OR b• -[tt0[i�7fJ ii�.11�.iL�'� � li�iii�iKi:.L1 r ..,...K.r.��u�..»�.�....I..�r.rM. •�• •ljR�'��i RM I>t•a uI+ ma I_ RM MH� ! C OS RM I r T RL-2 RL•2 M— I Clow J Mo-- $ �-- AI�•erina�•h v�e.P �Z s 4 COASTAL ZONE �j �� r pA �,.�r�I��f/i v�E•� Vvf�Jr�Y ' rolnrYnr— Irw. I �•0 o�crt5 EXHIBIT 3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN COASTAL zoNE BOUNDARY f 111-8 _ �! r CisCisGcrfield Avenue �' � 16AC 1RM v: IIF3 III 4 IRM \ VJ IIIC6 26 AAou M RM10 � laac lac 240 DU 1 \\2� S` o$0Qo III-7 �\ RL- t�:'' / ••` `,! ���.\ -INCLUDES AC PARK c RL 2 �•• �� =.. . . I ! j sm Du ' ••�'lll : I�I � I L � o J o, 1 N .f 1 o 'P►o..nn;,,c� i,,�►� s -�-3,' -44 l� -5 a.►,.d. T�irTt-7 Worm Id be.., 4,o 9L-- 3 . Woo 1 ji %PC-. 4z-C-q-V-&*a d. b q L.0VIa be. . ,bLI 4 ax . 11 NOTE: 0-c-*44 See Exhibit 10 for Landscape Legend. •GX�^4�� � wr��1Z b�- c�j�.s�t.� EXHIBIT 6 PLANNING AREA III CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT PLAN LEGEND a ` MAALMIE HOMWAY A! OMMN Av~I[.q a ONMnw.O �•• �`• ow. sl I0.0 tfeMA a O.ttt.w) I*e Avoftnlkb101KADMAJ011lglIWAY Ils..•DIn1/.1 GwIMU AY.wb.([.M a p.IatA. WM N O.wnw..0 �v� �,� Oa4n.►N WM Itb>4%*1 O.•R.M) Y�r RL-� PRIMARY NOMYAY ^ IL n -DMN/ [II.Awt"w IWuI a aetwe) f wM WM I RL•2 ��pp s.yewwM V RM i rubttw"Awww '•\ 1 "DI' [o SEgIRDARY NOMWAV ELMODLDENWEST I l•"•'okW" f RL-1 SPEGFICPLAN awrwA..aw(West ae..Few! IS AREA \ I ueawoARr tttattWAr I latW•dYw.1 RM we Awn..I[•q M oawq RMH aatrlwM OS — — � Mont R,� I..i..MkM AFy.n/1.1..tyb1N•wM I MN ..O.bMMM..M.bbq g It. .AI lstw RL-1 RMH ! .bM..b. 00b.►AlttwAm RMH If a.y"N.A""b�(oM M b—W b. +.t.. OS RM j i C oaR.uAY«w I RM RMH C OS/� ' RM RL-2 \ RL•2 IV T V � vv CWr AY.t"w MO Ct1AC1Al jpWE BOUttOA/1Y---• 1I�{_� S WDJ�d• Goo �• � EXHIBIT 8 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CIRCULATION PLAN PrldOLL-M-SCE e CLOFF AME& SPECUFPC PLAInl a�������►� , : •��' CtNIPu.A.� �r L E G E N D y�! L,t I - 1 i,,i� bM✓r•v1 at; 1 Y , t r /'' •• 4•{ .i � � � � CIAff 111.1 IRA. w � 1ri ��;,�i•r�,,• t'.(.��r./ tag'} ����j1I,;tx'� ' �4jl��f��'ki � ..... { ;�x`t';'j' f :l•I '/ LytM,gl"J2_-`{', � 7Y�'y1y'Y!`:�+ •"'1�l %` apg (I CUff n 11[I IM •i�'..�{JI rSS''J�•kr 1.. 'ijV�" 7i_'iK 4;1 �`. , O1 , ••�••.lr.i•I ♦ ..0 J� 1 � ..c. 'J�1 r � � Ib Ar•ew ,� •��� — INS ir.tii►[i ` 1 .�L*7f7'•i..�1_•.il •�•.lfi7—:ll�Ji�'Q.S i•-eu A•• i- J•'(iYj`/J,�li J'—.C�/ toutfulAN IPAn NAl '•j I[CIIAIIOM ARIA LINIAN FAIN! ....... RL•1 f� SCINIC COOIDOI r RL-S {$ +; I J RM I^ IIANfIOlvAllo NRIWM/ ELUS•OOLDENWEST I RL-1 SPECIFIC PLAN I I ! \ 9F1 rAIP Irtt AS alNlono IN AREA + \ IICIfAiION IItMINI RM RMH •l,� OS � ^. MH �►•• :';• RL I RMH '��!►� •• `� RMH •• 1�• ��i•• 11tA47•ti'iR'iill'f=i.• '�Ti lliHJ . 'liT.11 • i gg N .•.. • 1. • � �!'�L'�"`a..L.t��i .'� .; •.• }}� �> .. fftr I I 1 ';: <: �.;' ;�y►r I }IM RMH C II I RM I� RM _ .� •� ff �+ MID COA�STAALU)NE i 44�4' fGQ 'i'Fi'� i�i;'�"+` � •, .iti ar ie r..l• .. ../i t �►tip EXHIBIT 9 r rp•r iS 1 ` R��.•tr lr �, �� ' : tt OPEN SPACE, Cl/TYIIOF` HUNTIINGTONr'BEAnCH n D,n ��� PARKS, AND TRAILS PLAN ��/;:\ q�L����T'l� /;�\W �l°� �U' �'V� ���20� �r�l� A IJV �1�Iltllllll I I I L E G E Na it ! i � - STOW Ox"n F EEE3 Wobft*.WA MOIR. V U&Akmi Apponft fff 6". S.w In Slobon RL-1 ---4 IRL-3 RM I -GOLDERWES III EoRCPLAN :x AREA/' RM RMH os Ij RMH RL-1 I RMH RM" os v . 4ft C. ;v*r RM RM RMH R 'I-C II 1 RM ` OS.JI'�• M RM RL-i RL-2 MD lot S� COASTAL ZONE DOLQOWV� IV EXHIBIT 10 Drainage and Sewer Systems CITY OF HUN INGTON BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEMATIC PLAN I uld On K,L w-6 F--,A C 0-9 F r- fA\R E/A SIP E-CURC PLA I N1 4!111111fll I I "M ^•l L E G E N D A I I �••--- ...��lwp.N/i..aYnlRn.w.l .4�(•,i FEE] swagW I i IggF MKS stitl Yn i MCLUMIDwArER . i El p i aa rxa�• E..lw%woIA".".4,b*..W.lur. I RL RM IIf i ELLIS•OOLOENWEST till C`•, �'�'�' IIfi 1 RL-1 SPECIFIC PLAN _ — AREA RM I• ` RMH IJ� I R LAI �I MH RMH O RL-1 iI {". I RMH _ OS _ -- -_ ---- �_- -- --- Jrsrr. •.r -I 61.N4f A.mr / RM ! I I RM RMH C pwwsubm RM OS.)►� _ .... RM i RL•2 \\ I'4'Y••Awiwi' E.411p / CMrr A". "Subm MD /: S`i II f I EXHIBIT 11 Water Systems CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEMATIC PLAN ��C��nCLoFIFRA" i Ea CPrEiCFOC M ; IM lam L EGEND 11J ' 1 •.� �•,I Y I Q N[dAM I�AMM ' COMMON►TIDFM►TTY W.."t w11•YYtlh V..k-FM/Nw TIN COMM MIYOAT[WA" -•nm«�__ \' 1 Ph-nh CNwMNt•CNw► . I1 NI kIIIW D.N POW.M vw0ft ! RL•1 C.-+41 WMAMNNN.I I. RL 7 HM k f 61— MA�onwnnsu"Ofs n,1 t L—st/� /n•MI<cMwNnNt.COMM hNM Om/Ntv,N nyMM } I F Mgms M Ywt•tN cow I \ \ 11 ttNt<tt.�•wMtM 1-2 ELLIS•OOLOENWEST \� O.w.,d3Y•N ;I •vNa...YmlNue'T RL-1 SPECIFIC PLAN �( /I.MkW AREA '�, •\ I fTMFETSCA►E"TAKET i NM , d ID[NMTT TMFO .... \ •w.•N NMIwF N... \ RMH • na I•E ®NEIONMOMMOOD[NTMI[ R i .M.N.1.•..Fw.l OS I IFe I MM I gYw•YM.w.a.<.F.. 13 I 11 E tl.3 N.gli.utq..MMWkttlM RL-1 RMH Na✓..a e►e �' �� 1Y wH MH sus Slop OS I01 T Ir y Go.%$A-.M RM i RM R M I C H C R/S N•1 IV. RM ( 09„< , ' RM I Y < r N•a S; • rj RL-2 M-2 RL 2 IAtrta«I 114iN AveiuY <WP Avtmr ll III Mo rnAs►u raME $ �� At e0111E1Atly—• _ <.1 T. U..• EXHIBIT 12 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY THEME PLAN INr�C) LIU' Sr,An C 1L-,Ufr F &RL�n SPE.-C H11F IlCc P11 (yl�l e�uunii � i I� Ord. No. 3402 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th dayoy, 1998, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of July, 1998, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None (Sullivan, Garofalo - absent from room) ABSTAIN: None 1,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Independent on 19 • In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officio QArk Connie Brockwav City Clerk of the City Council of the City Deputy Citv Clerk of Huntington Beach, California G/ordinanc/ordbkpg 7/22/98 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 98-55 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT 97-1 (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-5) AND REQUESTING ITS CERTIFICATION BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and Public Resources Code Sections 30503 and 30510, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1, which is a request to amend the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan; and Such amendment was recommended to the City Council for adoption; and The City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by law, held at least one public hearing on the proposed Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1, and the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Certified Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach intends to implement the Local Coastal Program in a manner fully consistent with the California Coastal Act, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1, consisting of Zone Text Amendment No. 97-5, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, is hereby approved. 1 4/s:PCD:Resolution:LCPA97-1 RLS 98-354 6/24/98 2. That the California Coastal Commission is hereby requested to consider, approve and certify Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment 97-1. 3. That pursuant to Section l 3551(b)of the Coastal Commission Regulations, Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1 will take effect automatically upon Coastal Commission approval, as provided in Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513, and 30519. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6t,h day of July , 1998. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: • j7 /- i fy-Iffe"PlYc City Attorney4r REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator 6 Director of Commu ity Development Exhibits: A: Zone Text Amendment No. 97-5 2 4/s:PCD:Reso1ution:LCPA97-1 RLS 98-354 6/24198 U ORDINANCE NO. 3402 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-5) WHEREAS, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law, the California Government Code Section 65493 et seq., the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, have held separate public hearings relative to Zoning Tent Amendment No. 97-5, which will amend the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan to modify the land use and amount of development for Planning Unit III, wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission,and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment to the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan is proper and consistent with the General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: I. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5 is hereby approved, and the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan is hereby amended to incorporate the changes thereto as depicted on the charts and maps collectively attached hereto as Exhibit"A,"and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. r � Gl z. 4/s:PCD:Ord:HS-97-5 RLS 98-354 TABLE 1 HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE TABLE ALTERNATIVE #2 PLANNING PLANNING LAND USE CATEGORY GROSS TOTAL MAXIMUM AVERAGE DEV. AREA UNIT ACRES UNITS GROSS GROSS STANDS. DENSITY DENSITY (PAGE) 1 1-1 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 1 6 15 4 2.5 III-10 1-2 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 1 26 90 4 3.5 III-10 1-3 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 1 16 55 4 3.4 III-10 1-4 OPEN SPACE 16 111-28 SUBTOTAL 64 160 11 II-1 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 3 62* 310 7 4.1 111-15 II-2 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 40 415 15 11.0 111-17 11-3 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 34* 390 15 13.0 111-17 11-4 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 9 170 25 16.6 111-20 11-5 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 4 75 25 18.8 111-20 II-6 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 4 75 25 18.8 111-20 II-7 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 6 100 25 16.6 111-20 11-8 INDUSTRIAL 32 111-28 SUBTOTAL 191 1,535 111 III-1 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 19 285 15 15.0 III-17 111-2 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 2 105 397 7 3.8 III-12 III-3 RESIDENTIAL-AAEDIuM LOW DENSITY 11 4-66 44 4 6.0 III-4, 16 86 5 5 111-4 RESIDENTIAL- LOW 10 2-5G 2-5 26.9 28 DENSITY 3 111-5 RESIDENTIAL-AAEDIUP.4 LOW DENSITY 48 2�9 4-5 i5.0 111-4416 3 14 119 5 5 III-6 COMMERCIAL :;L11 III-27 III-7 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 2. 3 12* 89 4 8-B " III-8 OPEN SPACE 16 III-28 SUBTOTAL 198 A 459 887 IV IV-1 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 16 155 15 9.7 111-17 IV-2 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 8 120 15 15.0 111-17 IV-3 INDUSTRIAL 9 111-28 IV-4 MIXED DEVELOPMENT 53 475 25 14.4 111-22 IV-5A INDUSTRIAL 22 III-28 IV-6 COMMERCIAL 4 111-27 SUBTOTAL 112 750 TOTAL 565 3,896 3,332 * Includes 4 5-acre Neighborhood Park. ** Planning Unit III-4 will be combined with III-3. *** Planning Unit III-7will be combined with III-5. ,L E G EN D LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I I. Gt •.wK J4i ! i lOW DE NYtY a[SNII NIIAI E ^ al•E •.w•c i • r '� ,, t Rl•I LOWDItMIY RESIDENIIAL3 •1�1���:!L•�'n �'!L'l:�l_ne.sa !f / .r.:�f 1 f��wiL.."—Li�iT.4....' .• , I,t '1I�(NI A.A� ry c.wK — —,•I ,� \ 11(I�ZiiS't�7��3 YEDIW OE NSI/Y aILOtN11Al a- Y S=wo"oENs1IY I1 J RL•1 \� atsINIIAAL �' \\ Yo wnootvnowEN/ COYY[RCIAI RL-1 .00LVPLANPLAN E111991 — i SPECIFIC f •`\ I INOYEIRIIIL •.� S AREA _ RM \ - , Of O/lNOAtI s 1 �'-� 1 RMH t L' 1 PLANNING AREA a � „ —— t\ os I n •� V.. � 1 •�I' I'1 /IANNIMO YNIt ���111 a RL-1 N R — RMH I ,•. • ,�, Q E10NEONOOD PARKS why • � m� � R11AH la �.. 4�• .Et�.7{l Ii�.lii7L��'� � JfG:iJ3i7EFFG>,1 A..�.�..�.c�.r�r.uw�...�./..rw�. x .,� ��E 11.11 ,aTl' RM pl•9 ul�� In8 itill _�- rlul'.I ! •/Y ' MNA•w•1 I OS-l.f'A RM RL- ( � ; M°--- ODASIAI?ONE �• ��•`... + ! ( �r�'�ems. ,•- y /E J'• CUSIrA"Y--• W ,'�1� 'ILY��av1 E/�Tt./rr+. /� •� M YAK'IIAY� � �• �S . EXHIBIT 3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN r��c�� 1�� ,.,,L,� ,�; n�� I�i— �� r./, , P h�J(IGSg0C �I� ����1 �,Inllll��� ,�I , COASTAL ZONE • BOUNDARY • ta QS crfietd Avenue 16AC � 19 A ��: IIF3 III-4 ' I IRM I%J IIC m� ssoAou M RMCH 16AC \ ?AC ' S• \�-J ' 1 U 220 f� 240 DU OS os� I `- ' III-7 RL- •�• I ------�""�-- ou �. •• ``�` •INCIUOES• ••�%' �„••�•.r/.` AC PARK `• III 2 RL-2 � '• r; 109 AC . Cfpy pvenu � J 550 OU ' ••�: : I II o 0 N • • R • 'p►a,,nr,;,,c� l v►,+s -jII-3,-,M d4,M-5 a.,.. L Tfr-7 Woo Id tw-, 4o 9L-- yam, v• -ETC • c.o via be. i asc. aL bL., 4&C NOTE: C) aCkt� �7 See Exhibit 10 for landscape Legend. G,r � 1ra0"1v� L X-11t EXHIBIT 6 PLANNING AREA III CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT PLAN LEGEND MAJWI At1INF"L HOMIMAT p O.Aw Aw ([•r W aols.ww Q O dE9 OM.r wr".„PwUMQ f." gas MOMWOMAJ0 WHWAr .Lw ONW.A DrINM ANww 1[.r N N.prM• \v� ` W.rNO.W 1) O.WwwW.1 SYNI It...11l r Oa.1MM) MIMARV MONWAY '�•-- +I( lnL ArNw ryNr NOellwC) RL•9 M.Y Shia RM S..peYitSu.r r.A1Nw1 Anew I ''\ MOOM1[O SECONDARY HONWAY ELLIS-GOLDEN W EST \ .1—-ONMN RL-1 SPECIFIC PLAN �� \ OWMWA... (W.MNS..p.M AREA \ s[eoNDARrIRD.IWAr I _ RM \ E.-M4 SNNI oft AN 10.61 M OrIw1) RMH 00owd/Y.r OS ,� lanl MH SN 1NIW.r AtN..b•Iw.pM�l•w.r RL-1 RMH .M!..A.�.►M ;ter OS RMH RM ! C Oo1S.MA..no. AV RM RMH C OS� I ' RM -� T'6Y�ri�• CNY M.w. r t-�-fir\•¢c� C.�ha..+'vGeS I �.. � MD 3 «w.d. cQ . cnActu SWNOMY'-�• �I/ram J EXHIBIT 8 nCITTYfIOI1F HUUNTINnGTOlf�Nf�13EACf�H f�1f� 1� f�f1 ! CIRCULATION. PLAN IrlIlvlll ,ll,��nl�) 5 °� `�I!-,IIIf"If° i I� °� 2Ir�IS ��IIlf�'�IIC Ii�II�mIK\jI �16IIIII1111 • CINIIAI.AIt :rr, L E G E N D 'Il •� .1 •1, As It{,f 1 tV ••••• "AIII IIII I/AD a 1J }1}� f;�l# :i' • i �•I t�•�'��i.�'t ,1 1,1} �1 W ��1!• �(•;lq_�/.�'!11 .{{(,•} • i�7��,/A�4 �'� � pgb F•• ••1 ClAff"IIRf 1!A" • NN•.u.,cl _ Y ...cnl1 it ,..c i'....A.,. �� � (r.A..nw�i 'a li i,ual `r�3f�ti d!_ t(►.�lJt 11—:•i..�L.T.dtiili«1f�9:13 . i.` 61.4. .. •� k, ..1 V-��.. _a__.._..6% IOYIStaAN IRA4 3: '--� v` vrl .vJ f �•' IICIIAIION ARIA • :..rv:m:...r: J IWIM PAIti .?`: NQI •r`'7'. /S R / i .... RL-1 r� selNte eowom •: , •• �� , RM i IIAN1/O N/ .._. OAII CO611100Itl00% s ELL19-0OLDENWEST 1 j RL-1 1 1 \ '= PAK SRI AS IDIN"nl0 I" 1t SPECIFIC PLAN r' N� + *I "ICI AREA \ !I UtION (t(WNI " / RM RMH M ti 0S •r I A ,f I MH MAN '.'�!!� •. , : I II ��" RMN I I I •w fJ, Jl( •ii�i' .� •Iuwmn;*LIswAs TsF: 44 I=—lp. 3 tJiil:il . i •.N.�«�i 3!!!!! •.�. ....�(•_•L"_!H•�••.•• IF �� �.•' RM I C /f •:iS>::::>•��.«: Sir RM RMHRM •���: ,r� RM it ff Q9 0 1 +%.• I IF r'j .• J f,� tAM 1 i M' .• I+ frf"r I�Ci�,., ►�-. MD t, 4 ��• t' / ei-' COASTAL 10K III;," -''tf:1,i.[t.^tLi �a-� f �• ' BOUNOAIIY�-• ';_ �,IF /r• {rI �. Vr+ Ora—Jlv.n.r. EXHIBIT 9 tea 4��i� OPEN SPACE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKS, AND TRAILS PLAN N116))II 11 V/,� ,,.Ara R_.11��'1 n, n E-�"� S ;' �'� M VC—' FP L ^ �M �1 mu���- t I [elm L EGEND- STOMORAWS saWlIPLOWS SdL a tol slow. // �` / •ru• RL-1 RL-3 RM 'EQI-GOLDENWFST 4 ECIFIC PLAI, AREA RM ........... 05 RL-1 I I II i RMH 05 1�. .......... RM I RM R7MH c RM RM RM RL-2 Mo EXHIBIT 10 Drainage and Sewer Systems CITY OF HUN INGTON BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEMATIC PLAN Nil On 11-0 w^5 FEM C LP FF AA, R F,:,aA 3PE-CURL PL/A\IM ice" EGEND .. �Pop""b..mw RnuwY ;11 I'•t B FOTA�U WATFR a I.Zi I swage ba.a.w w. r RIMAWDIVATIR .,_,..__,_,._._ _...,._.._.. .....,,.... _.,.. C.......... -.._... �rNUM.:. CMF O, a.rrr-- I •�• I'I� {.e t«Ankh oil, Iw ..W.Mr. f RL-1 II ilhl / --- 1 RL•J RM I�e ir ELLIS•OOLDENWEST �, �'\ H AL-1 SPECIFIC PLAN I AREA _- ---- - RM RMH � MH RL-1 flI I RMH I RMH OS j� I ——__— - - — ..,; 1 ---- ----- -- RM II c I PwroSLAM '` \\ iI ..RM RMH l - RM AM RM RL-2 }++ MD //4 #i I 1 � I COASIAI CA EXHIBIT 11 Water Systems CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEMATIC PLAN I. II�i ►111 II V I M((;;II .III 1 /, 1;*,,�I;..;/S V[" ;<< III; '11 1:I'Il ./,,\, RI ,1 1 i 1 L EG EN D O Y[DIAYPlAk19101 Ifi/4:IItlYt1, COYYUMIY IDtM11tY y f _ W..4YIy1M PMYMh T I 11•.k f•w/.h 11•• i) YYt ; •St 'LF �.t. rossanall,e...lew.an c.n.n I- imm��•-I I 1 I I.kM D.b IMll�.t vryMy ' R hall L-1 ChIwn11T INrM11kMM .-t..... Oatl•Ilr•M fYul. I I .qlt n•R RILI.-13 t 1 MILJORINTIMMICTIONS Phsals CM1• •t MYRM Island Deals►Mti,94 v0Y6 •( MyM.h In/r••..•.•rMI 0•wod$MN \ li .M••.k.il•MfM 1.2 ELUS•OOLDENWEST •••Ia—Yna Wy i RL•1 SPECIFIC PLAN ►1am'"• AREA '�, I O am'". iO3 I WINT11Y TDTIS - — --- RMH a-1.•Y«t.. ®wtae�oltlttwoektltn> \ .. •• a .tnM YM.M«4ry. 1� R T r f•.IN IlrwgMw OS 116 11 MM I MOMMt•.M/M.YUP•. 13 1 11-4 D3 INIyMMYM•Y.nIMk.4.w �•�;< RL-1 L RMH /lya.u. i� I101g t) yy MW7 I nnSTOP �.1 � GaYe41 A•:ww• I �� } C r 1 RM m'� RMH C �` �'S IV. rv•1 RM `, RM RM *7 �.. RL4 RL•2 1 fToY/w•.I m•= _... •~•l'�'►-Ai�nIM <IutAwnllf l III Mot—T— � .s COASTµ tONE � BouldTAnr ' r01 Yn Y�nYf EXHIBIT 12 CITY OF HUNTINGTO�N�BEACH COMMUNITY THEME PLAN V,I1(()0-.�� � nP,0-II r'Ir ^ n If'/A\ qPro '- C H I rF I I C P I '' Iyl t]Itlllllilll I I 1� Ord. No. 3402 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-ofcio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a re ular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of July, 1998, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of July, 1998, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None (Sullivan, Garofalo - absent from room) ABSTAIN: None 1,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Independent on 19 • In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officio erk Connie Brockwav City Clerk of the City Council of the City Deputy Citv Clerk of Huntington Beach, California G/ordinanc/ordbkpg 722/98 Res. No. 98-55 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of July, 1998 by the following vote: AYES: Julien, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo NOES: None ABSENT: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California G/resol uti/res bkpg/97-80 i 2. 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 20th day of July , 1998. �&,z,/ 0, ttrzj,�d Mayor/ r ' —— oo,007' ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4�e� ,� City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administra or Director of Community Development Exhibits: A: Charts and maps relating to Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 4/s:PCD:Ord:HS-97-5 RLS 98-354 ATTACHMENT ,. 4 . 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-5/ LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 97-1/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-22 FINDINGS FOR ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-5: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5 to modify the land use designations and amount of allowed development in Planning Area III of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. The proposed changes are consistent with General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 which is being processed concurrently. The changes do not result in greater traffic impacts than were assumed in the Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 for Holly Seacliff certified in 1990 and subsequent amendment. The changes will implement General Policies. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The changes would not add any new land uses to the area and are compatible with uses in the vicinity. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The changes would reduce the number of residential units allowed on the subject property which would reduce demand on community facilities. The expanded commercial area would result in greater sales tax revenue to the city which may be used for infrastructure improvements and community services. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The zoning text amendment will not introduce any new land uses to the area. It will ensure the continued provision of increased living opportunities fore residents close to services. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-22: 1. The Negative Declaration No. 97-22 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20)days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment No. 97-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1, Tentative Parcel Map No.. 97-199 and Affordable Housing Plan Amendment No. 1. (98CL0609-13) 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Mitigation measures address a number of potential impacts, including: construction noise, aesthetics, air quality, transportation, lighting, hazardous materials and public services and facilities when ultimate construction will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-199 will have a significant effect on the environment. (98CL0609-l4) ATTACHMENT 5 COASTALZONE BOUNDARY i • III-8 { `,�/ 6R � MONTyDC ITO f � OS Avenue � 16 AC i 1RM �: III.3 III-4 " RM ,I:J Q AC L. 0• 260 DU RM RMH 18 AC 7 AC �--_.1 285* 140 DU 220 DU j 240 DU OS o�P` I 165* 250* III-7 270* =- -�- 12 A DU %al / •�� ` ' ,;" �.rr.. 8 NCLUDES ,`v �.•� AC PARK • III-2 RL-2 f '•�. 109 AC . `\Cro�yr ue .� SW DU 397* III � 7. m . N ' • O C O I.-Wool Legend: 140 DU = Residential Units per original Holly Seacliff Specific Plan (1992 165* = Residential Units per Density Transfer approved 3/15/94 NOTE: See ExhlDit 10 for Landscape Legend. EXHIBIT 6 PLANNING AREA III CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT PLAN _4pil,n, I i FM%I� ATTACHMENT N0. � ATTACHMENT 0 02 Ct�R�/EGD AvevuE V��" AAF-A '6' ftREq *G' • 5 Q� RL-g COMM15,,QCIAL \�rs.wzour.s�ra.u—a y cS'UMM/T OR/✓B � � �� � �r.l I�r � a �T• \\ \\� I IN, 4 LAND USE SUMMARY �\ -- MAXIMUM MAXIMUM i AREA ACREAGE DENSITY NUMBER OF UNITS —" \ A 172 S DU/AC 86 B 23.8 5 DU/AC 119 �� \ C 9.7 — % —!Hcrs soul! , • '� "" "° TOTAL 50.7 AC 20S DU •Includes 4.0 Acre Parts ALTERNATIVE B / CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN PLANNING UNITS III-3-III-7 WON ._._I HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN �-7�� -� fic PLC Land Company Fl 1R� �7 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA. At -fr AZ New=k' ",Afw1Q9 11\\..JJi� Ne�poA BurA.G41anu 9M60 rn Z Z 0 i ATTACHMENT , LEGEND Q ESTATE lupo[MnAL O IK W OLOW DEMlR1I ANO M11AL 1 .I OI•C LOW DEMSMIIESIDEMMI O IDIRK"dW DIRK"R[SIDEMIISL �� 1 ',v a r.upr•e ALDI YEORDl/SOM O[M9T'f I •�...r.r• 1 RE O 11EE1oEMnAL nrw•re — RL-2 I O MEEDMILOPMEW = RM C�C01MlRCUL ELLIS-OOLOENWEBT RE SPEOM PLAN ` AREA f O wousnEAL 11 —� �..•�• I ------ -----• RM OPEN SPACE RMH �-- ®rolEMruL SCHOOL SRES \� pg RH .✓• RE RMH pg — RMH RM + RL F2L AN C p'f� ----• - �. RM RM RL-, Alternative #2 �rinu / CM/M.nw MD / •'� may---• 1�7 rn O CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP - — -- � I ATTACHMENT 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN VOLUME 1 OF 2 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN 9 ADOPTED APRIL 20, 1992 ORDINANCE NO. 3128 AFTAGHMtNT NO. lo. TABLE 1 HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE TABLE ALTERNATIVE #2 PLANNING PLANNING LAND USE CATEGORY GROSS TOTAL MAXIMUM AVERAGE DEV. AREA UNIT ACRES UNITS GROSS GROSS STANDS. DENSITY DENSITY (PAGE) 1 1-1 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 1 6 15 4 2.5 III-10 1-2 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 1 26 90 4 3.5 III-10 1-3 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 1 16 55 4 3.4 III-10 1-4 OPEN SPACE 16 III-28 SUBTOTAL 64 160 II II-1 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 3 62' 310 7 4.1 III-15 II-2 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 40 415 15 11.0 III-17 II-3 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 34* 390 15 13.0 III-17 11-4 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 9 170 25 16.6 III-20 II-5 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 4 75 25 18.8 III-20 II-6 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 4 75 25 18.8 III-20 II-7 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 6 100 25 16.6 III-20 II-8 INDUSTRIAL 32 III-28 SUBTOTAL 191 1,535 III III-1 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 19 285 15 15.0 111-17 III-2 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 2 105 397 7 3.8 III-12 III-3 RESIDENTIAL-ME911M LOW DENSITY 11 4-" 44 1 6..0 III-44 16 3 86 5 5 III-4 RESIDENTIAL- LOW 10 2b8 2b 25.0 +!! 28 DENSITY 3 III-5 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM LOW DENSITY 4$ 22A 4.5 i 5.0 1114416 3 14 119 5 5 III-6 COMMERCIAL 211 III-27 III-7 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 2 3 12* 84 -7 12 •+r• •rs III-8 OPEN SPACE 16 III-28 SUBTOTAL 198 1,459 887 IV IV-1 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 16 155 15 9.7 III-17 IV-2- RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 8 120 15 15.0 III-17 IV-3 INDUSTRIAL 9 III-28 IV-4 MIXED DEVELOPMENT 53 475 25 14.4 III-22 IV-5A INDUSTRIAL 22 III-28 IV-6 COMMERCIAL 4 III-27 SUBTOTAL 112 750 TOTAL 565 a,895 3,332 ' Includes 4 5-acre Neighborhood Park. ** Planning Unit III-4 will be combined with III-3. *** Planning Unit III-7will be combined with III-5. ATTACHNIIENT NO. 10. 2 r' E G E N D � � � � � 1 � wl towmNunR[uocNrut I e � •/rYK } � r-• w Rl•7 lOW OENMTT a[SIOENf1AL 1 J I4 M,.w• AW IOW O[INYit a[f10LNi4t1 WALLOUZ u, 5 " ,.' /• ,..,.. , •;`. • f� Y[0aw0f ITTRESID[NIUL uromm No"DENSIIT _�•+. RL•1 ��• arsmENlIAt r.Nw.K M. WiEO D[rELowENT RL-a ,� Rd COMMERCIAL i 1•2 ELLIS•OOLDENWEST —I j �• .RL'I., SPECIFIC PLAN .�_ �(• ,\, _ �i'�woDETluAt AREA ( II II RS \ �••---••--• I AM os OP[Nf►AC[ � I IjIj I RMH r I PLANNING AREA 14 �\ OS �[ II• R {I�� 11 PLANNING YNIT R1.4 MH R•7•H I O NEIONEONNOOD PARKS OS . N rra�r:+�auEscAt •.. � '� G -'' RM m7 IN4 Ip8 •� 4MMw• OS W— J — - •gDyA..a,...._.___.__ Mo- ........... �... l � � .� A�-te�rr�a•ti re.. �Z S a 1 .}C;, C7 ODAlTAL1'ONE r ,.�,, `� CDrr`r+ti?itR-r'� o�.rt�. s SOIRKIMIT-' � YF. I / � •1 Orlq Y•AY• -I.a O cTes z j �• CO EXHIBIT 3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN COASTALZONE • BOUNDARY f ul•a �' �,, �j"�V r OS Garfield Avenue E� 16 AC _ III-1 1RM�v: IIE3 - III-4 IRM I I'J I11- 0< 2foou M 10kcRMH IS AC ?AC •—5� -� ' t U 220 Df� 240 Du os` ` !; , os III.7 � y •�•f I --- - �� RL- 2 AC *INCLUDES AC PARK 111-2 . . r� 109 AC i Cfap Avenue -� 550 DU .•�'((( :( III ' o o. N I� • N a 1 • JgJ�/ • • -naafi aaa_.aat_ea� .a aas� ><`p.,f1r 1�nt' l..in►-1S "j'jZ-3��--�}�'�-s a�.c1 �'7 ' wow ►d be... -�o F L— 3 . �.u.�—S� Woo 1 vl %oc.e c e-C--rt&&Q d, to 41 a.c , c� V. �- C.o It l d loe. i�.+�.a`k-�. ,t•, 4 ax NOTE: See Exhibit t0 for Landscape Legend. Co+�1Si 51'�i+^'�' �►'' T"L.L. EXHIBIT 6 PLANNING AREA III CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT PLAN MOO LLV_8fL=En 020FF &mE a egowig 0 0G=00G 0✓n /e FK -mill:I i JAI IAUriPVl6-41- NO. lo.� L EG EN D b ` MAJOR ANJIMAL IAOIIWAY F! [lo...OLUd O.M000v..1[Y.M 12..m N 0.,1M..) IM A..nw MOW110 MAJ"H MMAY [loco.abided OoAl.ld A.nMo(toot N CoyeYd. —I NNW— AW W..1 N do OMoo.•I) N, 0.1doo.00t$#—I fMW11.of OoAMM( ►WM AOY M MWAV M.�...( RL•1 dlMr.fll.ld.d m.Arw.(W..1 a oawdf N z r M. 00 I RL-9 RM 9.0p.w fw•ot I `'•\ MOOOItO ttCOMOARV f[OIIWAY ELUS-0OLDENWEST !lrr.odd" R L-1 SPECIFIC PLAN �J •\ O.dkW Aveow(West of Steps" AREA ltea.oAllr 1[a11WAr I RM d W»•�� ••\ :MMd.skew !!4 A..nw ft•ot N O.Owd) RMH Oolwd[r.« \ ath OS B R !o.i..Mkol Append.for IgMN+or MM ..YOYon.olo.M.UfpMv Non..AN b.ol RL-1 I RMH .4.N..A.w.4MM►"Aw-A.0 T. RMH I d..11w.lod.Uh .Od.A.uY M t.l.oto. OS RM I C O. w.n.WA.. .: RM RMH C OS�,� ! RM RL-2 RL-2 T d� . l..i. ._ \-- ;;roe Cfor Moow IV MO t 4 C,+ L s I cad, CP . � MA�fAIlOME 3 o .,��L a o.o uno. �� Z WOJI tL 0-160 C EXHIBIT 8 O CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CIRCULATION PLAN fA• CIM/Al.A.1r,, L E G E N D < I (+,a+ •b�.�',i I� v} �,t ; 'i I•.N•• CIASS IInI I-AR .t�j ay■•! I i/d•.�@ .t fl� �,� r�I�f~' S 'N`"w,, � I •.�••••• +—.• CIASf 1111I IIAR �u�i�+,. ,c5u '. ...,! --A aCa�rCtil '1 ! � IINA.•nw .<Y... t ti•.? I "".' !!!L.oral R.1 .ti.!WI'N'1 1'N Lam. 1l•ZN• 111�•••�•:.�••'•• • I � � • �r.l\4 4 r IWI1111AN f/A..Po ' Nat IICIIAIh)M MI A INIAS1All 1CIMC C0III001 •::: • ��� I RM IIAN7101IA110N/ ELLIS-OOLDENWEST f> %?{:; RL•1 I % j( x MIr 1111 At IDINIIINO DI �SPECIFIC PLAN AREA N60 Nsl /IC29A110N (((MINI r RM ra• — — — — �' RMH by i OS ► — � R•' Sit • `I 1 t �,' •• '• RL-1 RMH ••� • I r� RMH :►iiTi1 0IUM1,41wroiliTiili !sl I Ali/►• 11R11 • y _ .. _..... I li ••2• �!L•L!t'M••.L•tL 1 .T`• :: �} • �> fim C t �•`i5`.11 RM RMH C f I �� RM I ,'••f� `� ,.�j+�li,I,t+G' .'1ih 1, .�\ �+ RM (,.ai utff K! vie: 9 p. 1•�11• M'Ii`:.�Iriw•• 14 cM A..rw A"x' ME) +i IT COASTAL JIM ' EXHIBIT 9 OPEN SPACE, Ip CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �� nn oJ1ln \\,,�� PARKS, AND TRAILS PLAN c- I1114-1)II II `v�,.,� �I nP11_.��frr-" s, r"1 �.:/,A,, � i� ����I1[i'000 11 L r �N L1q�tllllll I I 14M LECzEN E___3 STOMOSPAS - am cook~ to UUM. RL-3 RM DE EST __RL_1 iocolnLc AREA RM _AMW Os RL-1 05 RM c RM "M Os RM R RL-2 1 RM MD ­s b,4- EXHIBIT 10 Drainage and Sewer Systems CITY OF HUN INGTON BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEMATIC PLAN ii n w n Ir /AN rr n n F=, \ ra-)ri�.:. f rp)r�� n rG,-,n P. ro n IA\z, ri= fA A •^ � EGEN- BrotAMw►rce � ar.o�mr+al.a w du 0 e w[[ttio wnrelt _���•I —— — Nh----— -III,- r==� Mot., I ;aaa�ra� ' •�'• I NatasfnhN�haMa lw Mra,Yw%PS —..�ri�iiaa� I ��• • l •'I .. ICI RL•2 r1 RM IF RL•1 ELUS•OOLDENWEST ! •\� IC SPECIFIC PLAN A AREE A I' RM RMHMli , RL-1 I AM l os _ RM C r % qM RMH I C i ! I RM — oS.i* \ .•. I RM �• RL•2 ' \ CbrMwr �.'aV SIa1w / . 2 CWSt147011� _— I �/77 ' EXHIBIT 11 o •-- -�"� Water Systems p CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEMATIC PLAN l 4pnlllfl1 1kr ( �� M w L EG EN D IC[AytlnYe, �� COMMy1111TWIN11TT M•[Mplw 11Nv11► COMMUMIYOATEWAYS 1 .•••n1[Cw.k•r••C••MT I.1 r M4,•1•.•Iga•rT1•e t [. RL•1 f:•rW1T A1•Na[~ i• :• ! RL-9 , 1 RM 1 /nl YAJOII MIQS[CIIONS } S.I i A t_[r� r1N.a.e..«N.w•ewn i r hNM O.N.r.�a[•r[by • � MI►M•1•Iw••NI[rMl i 1-2 ELLIS-ACLOENWEST \ Oe4adlMr I [[ .a.r..to«reama..11 rMn.Nry RL-1 SPECIFIC PLAN I A+•ter AREA 1 M3 . O10[kmtt�tr{"NEw H \ [M[U•M[Mr r MDa►• RMH :I r.Nlaa«1. ( r� ► — \ n <aM1 s IInON.0A1/000[NIIktl \ A4t M•wT -- 1 1 R i w lr os lie n� t MH I yn►«Mw .[.A..t 1� r 1 RMH e's k[1p0•uMMM[•Wk•1Nw RL-1 •4 w•�• os p H I pus slor -- 4t RMFU M-1 ` - O041YI A;yrW r RM I I C�l 1 C RM RMH II•s A y. I os-,41. f 1 1 me I`,v , I ' HM r+ •t 94 M-2 Md[A•N ^ 1 III Mo D I _ WAS/ALIONE fT1 .OIR[IM11T .a .�AY nut Z i z O _ EXHIBIT 12 O CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY THEME PLAN II II/1f1 II nrp rn ran nrc'2 rAn I—o)I-P, n <`_ nFr:-3 rr\Nnti�3nr� ri:-))n f.\. NI anutoutt t t r ATTACHMENT 9 1-H9ntington BeacWbeparfinent of Community Development 4 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director BY: Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planneric� DATE: June 9, 1998 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-2/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-5/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 97-1/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-199/HOLLY SEACLIFF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-22 (G reenbriar/Montecito) LOCATION: South side of Garfield Ave., between Peninsula Lane and Goldenwest St. and north of Summit Drive STATEMENT OF ISSUE: General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5 represent a request by PLC Land Company to amend the General Plan Land Use Map and the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to change the land uses and maximum number of units on 58 acres. PLC has requested consideration of two alternatives. Both alternatives would expand the existing commercial area from seven to 11 gross acres. Alternative#1 also reduces residential density in the Greenbriar area and increases density in Montecito. Alternative #2 lowers density in both Greenbriar and Montecito. Both Alternatives yield fewer residential units than the existing plan. Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-199 would subdivide the 58 acres into three parcels. The amendment to the Affordable Housing Plan would allow rental units to meet affordable housing goals in addition to for-sale units. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the applicant's request for Alternative#2, the tentative parcel map and the amendment to the affordable housing plan, as modified by staff, for the following reasons: • The proposed low density land use designation is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the area. • Developmenfof the expanded commercial site can be designed to be compatible with surrounding uses and the expansion will be fiscally beneficial to the city. The tentative parcel map conforms with the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Ordinance Code. The allowance of affordable rental housing is consistent with the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and the goals of the General Plan Housing Element. The potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in Negative Declaration No. 97-22 and mitigation measures will reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. e � 1 — — — zDaim t ♦ k�cm�r ♦ 1 rVDMMVN rU 9' r PROJECT "C'"""'°`a a •a�iama r r ••• :•.Y: z t: i� .. °• SUMMIT DR GPA 97-21 ZTA 97-5, LCPA 97-1, TPM 97-199 Holly Seacliff AHPA 1, ND 97-22 NumnNGTCN/UCH HUNT[NGTON BEACH PLANNNG DIVISION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-22 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment No. 13)." B. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 for Alternative#2 with findings and forward Resolution No. to the City Council for adoption' (Attachment No. 8)." C. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No.97-5 for Alternative#2 and Local Coastal Program Amendment with findings (Attachment No. 1) and forward Ordinance No. (Attachment No. 9) to the City Council for adoption." D. "Approved Holly Seacliff Affordable Housing Plan Amendment No. 1 and forward to the City Council for approval (Attachment No. 11)." E. "Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-199 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTIONN: The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny General Plan Amendment No. 97-2/Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5/Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1/Negative Declaration No. 97-22/Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-199/Holly Seacliff Affordable Housing Plan Amendment No. 1 with findings for denial." B. "Continue General Plan Amendment No. 97-2/Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5/Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1/Negative Declaration No. 97-22/Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-199/Holly Seacliff Affordable Housing Plan Amendment No. 1 and direct staff accordingly." GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Bill Holman, PLC Land Company, 23 Corporate Plaza, Ste. 250,Newport Beach, CA 92660 REQUEST: To amend the General Plan and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to accommodate one of two land use alternatives. Both alternatives would expand the existing commercial designation in Montecito from seven to 11 gross acres. Alternative No. 1 would also change the Medium High Density Residential (25 units per acre) area in Greenbriar to Medium Density (15 units per acre) and the Medium and Low(seven units per acre) Density areas in Montecito to Medium High Density. Alternative No. 2 would change all of the residential areas in Montecito and Greenbriar to Low Density (five units per acre). A tentative parcel map is requested to subdivide the property into three parcels. The amendment to the Affordable Housing Plan would allow rental units to meet affordable housing goals. DATE OF COMPLETED APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING TIME: March 17, 1998 Negative Declaration: September 12, 1998 Other Entitlements: December 12, 1999 Staff Report—6/9/98 2 (98sr34) SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject Property: Residential Medium Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Vacant Density, Residential (HSSP)-Medium Density Medium High Residential, Medium High Density, Residential Density Residential, Low Low Density and Density Residential (RL-2) Commercial and Commercial North of Subject Property Residential Low Ellis Goldenwest Specific Single Family Homes (across Garfield Ave.): Density and Public Plan and Future Elementary School Site East of Subject Property Mixed Development HSSP-Mixed Development Vacant and Industrial (across Goldenwest St.): and Industrial and Industrial South of Subject Property Residential Low Low Density Residential and Single Family Homes (across Summit Dr.): Density HSSP-Low Density Residential (RL-2) West of Subject Property Residential Medium HSSP-Medium Density Single Family Homes (across Peninsula Ln.): Density Residential under construction PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested consideration of two land use alternatives for the Greenbriar/Montecito property. Each alternative would amend the General Plan and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan. General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 represents a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 3-13) of the Land Use Element as summarized below and presented in Attachment No. 7. -PlanningUnit Existing General Plan Alternative#1 Alternative#2 g Greenbriar • III-3 • 11 Ac. Medium Density •21 Ac. Medium Density • 21 Ac. Low Density • III-4 • 10 Ac. Medium High Density Montecito • III-5 • 18 Ac. Medium Density •26 Ac. Medium High • 26 Ac. Low Density • III-7 • 12 Ac. Low Density (incl. 4 Density (incl. 4 Ac. (incl. 5 Ac. Ac. Neighborhood Park) Neighborhood Park) Neighborhood Park) • III-6 • 7 Ac. Commercial • 11 Ac. Commercial • 11 Ac. Commercial Note that the citation for the Land Use Map references the pre-1996 General Plan Update figure. This is because the property is subject to the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement No. 90-1 (DA) which precludes the City from applying any subsequent land use regulations to the property unless agreed to by the owner. Because PLC is not in agreement with using the General Plan Update adopted in 1996, the General Plan as amended through General Plan Amendment No. 91-2, April 1992, is the governing document against which the project is evaluated. The main consequence of this is that this report applies the pre-1996 General Plan goals and policies to the project. Staff Report—6/9/98 3 (98sr34) ZoningText Amendment No. 97-5 represents a request to modify the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan HSSP P q Y Y P (HSSP) to reflect the above noted changes that are proposed for the General Plan pursuant to Section IV.C.6. of the HSSP. This would include modifying Table 1 and Exhibits 3, 6, 8-12 of the HSSP (Attachment No. 10). The unit changes that are proposed for Table 1 of the HSSP are summarized below. Planning Unit Existing Units Allowed Alternative#1 Units Alternative#2 Units Greenbriar • III-3 • 165 • 170 (total in both • 86 (total in both • 111-4 9250 Planning Units) Planning Units) Subtotal 415 170 86 Montecito • III-5 • 270 •485 (total in both • 119 (total both Planning • III-7 • 83 Planning Units Units) • III-6 • n/a(Commercial) • n/a(Commercial) • n/a(Commercial) Subtotal 353 485 119 Total 768 655 205 Pursuant to density transfer approved by Planning Commission 3/15/94. The land use categories of the HSSP are generally comparable to the General Plan designations in terms of density and nomenclature. For example, as noted in the General Plan summary table of this report, Alternative #1 would propose a Medium Density General Plan designation for all of Greenbriar, and the HSSP would also denote a Medium Density land use category. The one exception to the similarities is the Low Density category proposed for Greenbriar and Montecito in Alternative#2. The applicant proposes to use the HSSP RL-3 land use category. This category has a minimum lot size of 3,300 square feet which yields a density of 13 units per acre. The General Plan Low Density designation is seven units per acre. To achieve consistency with the General Plan, the applicant proposes to restrict the maximum number of units in Alternative #2 to 205 which effectively reduces the density to five units per acre. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1 represents a request to amend the Local Coastal Program to reflect the changes proposed for the HSSP. Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-199 represents a request to subdivide the subject property into three parcels for financing purposes and to allow for more detailed site planning (Attachment No. 5). The three parcels denote the Greenbriar area, the Montecito Residential area and the Montecito Commercial area. The Tentative Parcel Map is the same for both Alternatives. Parcel information is summarized below. Planning Unit Parcel No. Parcel Size(Acres) Intended Use Greenbriar • Parcel 1 • 18.9 Gross • Residential; To Be Further Subdivided in 17.3 Net Conjunction with Subsequent Entitlement Montecito • Parcel 2 • 25.2 Gross • Residential; To Be Further Subdivided in 23.8 Net Conjunction with Subsequent Entitlement • Parcel 3 • 11.6 Gross • Commercial; No Other Subdivision 9.7 Net Expected Staff Report—6/9/98 4 (98sr34) The applicant had originally requested a parcel map for four parcels; the fourth parcel designating the park site. The applicant has requested to eliminate this parcel from consideration because the final configuration of the park will not be determined until detailed site planning occurs in conjunction with subsequent entitlement. Although there is not a"park parcel" as part of the map, the neighborhood park will remain a requirement as part of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan. Affordable Housiny, Plan Amendment No.1 represents a request to amend the Holly Seacliff Affordable Housing Plan (Attachment No. 11) as follows: • Page 1 - Eliminate the words "for sale" from the second paragraph. • Page 4 - Add the following line to Table 1. Maximum Proposed Acreage Type Estimated Size Estimated Number of Location (Approx.) Sales Price 100 III-5 26 Apts. 500 -1,400 sf N/A Studio, 1,2,3 Bdr. The purpose of the amendment request is to allow rental units to meet affordable housing goals in addition to the currently allowed moderate for-sale units. Note that the change to page 4 is only necessary if Alternative #1 is approved. The applicant initially submitted Alternative #1 for consideration as part of a proposal to develop a large scale apartment community in the Montecito area. Alternative#2 was submitted several months later as a result of two factors: 1) there was a significant amount of community opposition to Alternative #1; and 2) it was clear that there was sufficient depth in buyer demand for more single family housing than the Specific Plan envisioned. The applicant decided not to withdraw Alternative #1 as an option because they believe it is economically viable and there is significant developer interest and demand for rental housing. The applicant requests approval of one of the two alternatives so that they may proceed with detailed development plans for the subject property. The commercial expansion component of both Alternatives is requested in response to current retailing trends and demand for new neighborhood retail space to serve the new housing growth in Holly Seacliff, and the applicant believes that the commercial center will be more viable if the larger area is approved. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment would change the land use designation of the Greenbriar and Montecito areas to accommodate future development and would change the density of the site. These requests are consistent with the following goals, policies and objectives of the City's General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element. (For comparison purposes, a list of relevant goals, policies and objectives from the 1996 General Plan Update is presented in Attachment No. 14.) Policy 2.0: To ensure adequate provision of housing for all economic segments of the community, the City of Huntington Beach shall encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the community, with variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities. Staff Report—6/9/98 5 (98sr34) Policy 3.4.2.5.1: To provide and maintain a quality living environment so that members of all economic, social, and ethnic groups may reside in Huntington Beach by providing a variety of housing types in all areas of the City. Alternative #1 is consistent with these General Plan policies because it provides for a variety of housing densities and, presumably, housing products. It proposes the same land use designations for the property as the existing plan but in different locations and amounts. Alternative #2 is consistent with the General Plan because it would provide slightly smaller single family residential lots than in the immediate area; however, it would not provide as much variety in housing product as the existing plan or Alternative #1. Policy 3.4.2.7: To encourage and maintain a well balanced variety of residential densities and uncrowded living environments by: 1) encouraging rational use of land and other natural resources, 2) encouraging development of neighborhoods that are available and attractive to diverse economic groups, and 3) insuring adequate open space in all residential areas. Both Alternatives are consistent with this policy, however, as noted above Alternative #1 likely provides more opportunity for diverse economic groups. Both Alternatives will ultimately provide a significant amount of open space. Similar to the existing plan, Alternative #1 includes a four acre public neighborhood park. Alternative #2 includes a five acre public neighborhood park. Due to the fault zone which bisects the site from southeast to northwest, there will also be additional open space (which will be designed in conjunction with future entitlements). Policy 3.4.2.8: To ensure commercial development that is economically viable, attractive, well related to other land uses, and satisfies the needs of the City's residents. Both Alternatives propose the expansion of the commercial area in Montecito from seven to 11 gross acres. The applicant believes that this is necessary to achieve a viable center and intends to develop the site with neighborhood serving uses. Zoning Compliance: The project-(Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-199) is located in Planning Area III of the HSSP and complies with the requirements of the HSSP and the HBOC (the underlying zoning document because the property is subject to the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement). Under Alternative #1, the Medium and Medium High Density areas (Parcel Nos. 1 and 2) do not have a minimum lot size and are regulated by density. Under Alternative#2 the Low Density area has a required minimum lot size of 3,300 square feet which Parcel Nos. 1 and 2 comply with. Under both Alternatives these parcels will be the subject of further subdivision. Parcel No. 3 exceeds the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and minimum frontage of 100 feet. The lot is 421,966 square feet and has a minimum frontage of 649 feet along Goldenwest Street. Note that no development is proposed as part of this request and will be the subject of future entitlement. Staff Report—6/9/98 6 (98sr34) Environmental Status: The subject site is covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 which was certified by the City Council on January 8, 1990. Section 2.5.1 of Development Agreement No. 90-1 for the Holly Seacliff area states: "City agrees that no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required for any development approval unless the anticipated environmental impacts to any proposed project exceeds the level of impact indicated in Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1." Because the applicant requested a general plan amendment and zoning text amendment which would result in potentially different land use patterns and development intensity than that assumed in EIR No. 89-1, staff required the applicant to submit an environmental assessment. Staff reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 97-22 (Attachment No. 13) was prepared with mitigation measures, consistent with those of EIR No. 89-1, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) with the following supplemental reports: 1) Alternative #1 - Site Specific Traffic Study, dated 12/9/97 and Amendment dated 2/11/98 2) Alternative #2 - Site Specific Traffic Study, dated 3/27/98 3) School Site Trip Generation Review, dated 4/7/98 4) Site Specific Infrastructure Analysis, dated 11/12/97 Negative Declaration No. 97-22 concludes that neither of the land use alternatives will result in significant impacts beyond those identified in EIR 89-1, all of which could be mitigated. Both alternatives would result in fewer residential units than the existing plan. This equates to less traffic generation and less impacts on city services and facilities, such as parks. The analysis indicates that the expanded commercial area is not incompatible with other land uses in the vicinity, but that subsequent design of the site must be sensitive to existing and proposed residential development. The Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 97-22 for twenty (20) days commencing on April 30, 1998 and ending on May 19, 1998. Comments were received from The Okura Family, Huntington Seacliff Homeowners' Association, Gilbert and Bonnie Nixon, Huntington-Beach Environmental Board, Lois Havens and Huntington Beach Hamptons Homeowners Association concerning the density changes associated with Alternative #1, traffic generation and circulation, and the proposed park. The Huntington Beach Environmental Board supports the concept of reducing the number of allowed units in the area and indicated that Alternative #2 would be preferred over Alternative #1. A response to the comments has been included with the attached Negative Declaration. Prior to any action on General Plan Amendment No. 97-2/Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5/Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1/Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-199/Affordable Housing Plan Amendment No. 1, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 97-22. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings and mitigation measures. Staff Report—6/9/98 7 (98sr34) Coastal Status: Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5 will result in an amendment to the City's certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) because the HSSP is included in the LCP. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1 has been prepared to forward the Zoning Text Amendment to the California Coastal Commission. Because the subject site is not located within the coastal zone, however, the LCP amendment is considered"de minimis" and will be acted on by the California Coastal Commission without a public hearing. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns: The Department of Public Works has recommended conditions for the Tentative Parcel Map which are incorporated into the conditions of approval. The Economic Development Department is generally supportive of the applicant's request but has expressed concern about the viability of the larger commercial site (which is intended for a supermarket) given the Seacliff Shopping Center expansion. The Community Services Department is in support of the neighborhood park, the design of which will be the subject of subsequent entitlement. There were no other concerns from City Departments. Public Notilcation: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on May 28, 1998, and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 300 ft. radius of the subject property, area homeowners associations, individuals who attended prior meetings, applicant, and interested parties. Community Participation: The proposed project has generated a significant amount of interest. As of May 29, 1998, the City had received 74 items of correspondence regarding the subject project. These are provided as a separate attachmertt-to this report. In an attempt to understand community perspectives and encourage as much community input as possible, the City completed the following steps in addition to the State-mandated public hearing notice for the Planning Commission meeting and posting/publication of agendas. • Met with representatives of the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners' Association on November 14, 1997. Attended, but did not participate in, their HOA meeting held November 20, 1997. • Held a Community Meeting on March 31, 1998. Notices were sent to approximately 230 property owners and community organizations. Approximately 70 people attended the meeting. • Notified interested parties of Environmental Assessment Committee (EAC) meeting held April 2, and April 23, 1998. Eight property owners attended the second EAC meeting. • Mailed letter to approximately 240 Community Meeting attendees, homeowners associations and property owners indicating that Negative Declaration was available for comment and of the 20 day time period. • Held a Planning Commission Study Session on May 12, 1998. Staff Report—6/9/98 8 (98sr34) ANALYSIS: The analysis is divided into three primary sections: the general plan amendment and zoning text amendment, the tentative parcel map and the affordable housing plan. General Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment Existing Plan The existing HSSP was approved in 1992. It currently allows a combination of residential and commercial land uses on the subject property (Attachment No. 2). The intent was to provide a diverse range of product types so that the Holly Seacliff area could serve various segments of the population. The location of the land use components was intended to accomplish certain objectives. For example, the existing Medium High Density area in Greenbriar was established in its location because of the future school site due north across Garfield. It was believed that this would result in less compatibility issues than if the Medium High Density area were located in Montecito because of concerns of existing residents south of Summit. A second example is the Low Density area along Summit in Montecito. This area was intended as a transition zone for the existing single family homes south of Summit. The Medium Density areas of Greenbriar and Montecito were created to balance the preponderance of single family areas in the vicinity. Finally, a commercial area to serve neighborhood retail and service needs was established at the corner of Garfield and Goldenwest because it is an intersection of two major streets. Alternative #1 Residential Area Alternative #1 proposes similar land uses as allowed by the existing plan, however, it eliminates the low density component currently designated along Summit. This Alternative shifts density from Greenbriar to Montecito, while reducing overall unit count for the entire property from 768 to 655 units (a decrease of 113 units). The increase in density in Montecito is consistent with land use planning principles because it locates higher density residential uses adjacent to the existing commercial site and Goldenwest Street, a major arterial street. However, staff does not believe that the elimination of the low density buffer along Summit or the extent of intensification in the Montecito area is compatible with the existing single family homes. Staff does not support Alternative #1 as requested by the applicant. Staff recommends that the residential area in Montecito remain as is with the combination of Medium and Low Density areas but is in support of the reduction in density in Greenbriar. Commercial Area The increase of the commercial area by approximately four gross acres would allow the applicant to build a larger commercial center. The applicant estimates that the current site could accommodate approximately 65,000 square feet and the larger site would accommodate 95,000 square feet. The increase in commercial area would decrease the residential area of Montecito. Staff Report—6/9/98 9 (98sr34) When the HSSP was originally being developed, staff had encouraged Seacliff Partners to agree to a larger 11 or 12 acre commercial site in Montecito. Seacliff Partners was not interested in this concept and the Plan was approved in its current form. Staff still supports the concept of a larger site and supports the applicant's request to increase the size of the commercial area from seven to 11 gross acres. This increase would be fiscally beneficial to the City, and it is customary for commercial centers (or nodes) to be located at the intersection of major arterials. Staff believes the center can be designed with adequate buffers for the proposed residential units in Montecito that will directly abut the commercial site. Neither plan has been formally submitted and there is sufficient opportunity to "design-in" buffers based on lessons learned from other areas of the city. The existing homes north of Garfield are separated from the site by that street, the equestrian trail and a landscaped parkway. Staff believes that these elements provide adequate separation and that the shopping center site can be designed in such a way that signage, landscaping and lighting will be sensitive to the existing homes. Concern has been expressed about the need to expand the commercial site given the proposed expansion of Seacliff Village on the east side of Goldenwest. In addition, the applicant has indicated that they expect the major tenant in the center to be a supermarket, similar to the Seacliff Village proposal, and the question has been raised about whether the area could support two major supermarkets. The applicant's market research and response from supermarket chains has indicated that there is market support. The applicant has also been asked if they had contacted specialty or up-scale markets, such as Bristol Farms or Gelson's, to provide product differentiation. The applicant has indicated that none of these operations were interested in locating in the area. Further, these specialty tenants generally occupy smaller buildings than the standard supermarket (30,000 vs. 50,000 square feet) which the applicant believes would be difficult to re-lease to other tenants Alternative #2 This alternative would convert all of the residential areas to Low Density and restrict the unit count to 205 (a decrease of 563 units). This alternative is compatible with existing and proposed single family homes in the area although it would not achieve as much product diversification intended by the HSSP or discussed in the General Plan. Staff is in support of this request. The commercial component of Alternative #2 is identical to that in Alternative#1. Staff supports the increased commercial area for the reasons discussed above. Circulation- The HSSP Circulation Plan (Exhibit 8) depicts the arterial highway configurations for Holly Seacliff and identifies specific road segments in its legend. It also depicts the extension of Saddleback Lane between Garfield and Summit although the segment is not an arterial highway nor is it listed in the legend. As part of future entitlements, the applicant has indicated that they would prefer to not construct the Saddleback extension. In lieu of this, they would construct a pedestrian-only link between Garfield and Summit. Although street configurations are typically the subject of detailed site planning, staff has included this issue in this report because Exhibit 8 of the HSSP depicts the segment and the applicant has requested to amend the HSSP. Thus, if the Planning Commission felt it necessary and were in agreement, they could approve the elimination of the segment from Exhibit 8. The applicant's proposal is supported in concept by the Departments of Public Works and Fire, and traffic studies demonstrate that the Saddleback extension is not necessary to accommodate traffic flow. (The applicant is aware that staff will still require a secondary vehicular access point at Garfield Avenue, in addition to the proposed entrances on Summit for residents and emergency vehicles and agrees in concept with this requirement.) Staff Report—6/9/98 10 (98sr34) Because the subject of Exhibit 8 is arterial highways, however, staff does not believe that the issue of the Saddleback extension warrants an amendment to the Exhibit. In other words, although the extension is shown on the Exhibit it is not central to or necessary for the arterial highway system to function. Staff believes that at the time of detailed site planning, the Saddleback extension could be converted to a pedestrian-only link or modified in some other way and not be in conflict with any adopted plans. Staff also believes that it is advisable for the Planning Commission to not take action on the issue of the extension until such time as detailed site plans are submitted for processing. Tentative Parcel Map The tentative parcel map would create the commercial parcel and two other parcels that would be subject to further subdivision. Staff recommends approval of the map. It would be consistent with the amended HSSP and complies with minimum lot sizes. Its approval will allow the applicant to proceed with more detailed site planning. Affordable Housing Plan The HSSP requires that 15 percent of the units built within the Specific Plan area be restricted to moderate income households earning no more than 120 percent of the County median income for a period of 30 years. The HSSP allows such units to be for-sale or rental. It requires that each developer submit an "affordable housing plan" for City approval. (See Attachment No. 12.) In 1994, the City Council approved an Affordable Housing Plan (AHP) for Seacliff Partners properties which covered almost all of the Holly Seacliff residential area(448 of the total 565 acres in Holly Seacliff) (Attachment No. 11). These properties were acquired by PLC and MS Vickers II, LLC in May 1996. Notwithstanding the allowance of rental units in the HSSP, the AHP specifies that all of its affordable units be for-sale and be located within Holly Seacliff. Based on current County Median income figures, a three bedroom home sold for approximately $300,000 to a four-person household earning no more than $78,960 would meet the affordable income and sales criteria of the AHP. The proposed amendment would make the AHP consistent with the general provisions of the HSSP which allows affordable rental units. The applicant proposes that the rental units be moderate income level, similar td the for-sale units. Under this proposal, a three bedroom unit could rent for approximately $1,900 per month-and qualify as affordable. Staff recommends that a minimum of half of the rental units be restricted to very low (50 percent of County median income) income households and that none of the rental units exceed the low-income category (80 percent of County Median). In this scenario, a low-income three bedroom unit would rent for approximately $1,100 per month, and the very low-income unit would rent for$820 per month. Staff recommends this mix because it furthers the goals of the City's Housing Element and is consistent with City requirements in other parts of the city. Indeed, for non-Holly Seacliff projects affordable housing units are usually provided at the 80 percent or 50 percent level, and moderately priced units are not accepted as affordable. Staff Report—6/9/98 I 1 (98sr34) SUMMARY: The proposed project would change the land use plan for a 58 acre area. Alternative #1 would retain a mix of Medium and Medium High Density residential land uses; Alternative#2 converts the entire area to Low Density. Both Alternatives expand the existing commercial area. Staff recommends approval of Alternative #2. If the Planning Commission were to support Alternative #1, staff recommends that the existing residential designations of Montecito (Medium Density and Low Density) remain but that PLC's request to lower the density in Greenbriar be approved. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the applicant's request for Alternative #2, the tentative parcel map and the amendment to the affordable housing plan, as modified by staff, for the following reasons: The proposed low density land use designation is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the area. Development of the expanded commercial site can be designed to be compatible with surrounding uses and the expansion will be fiscally beneficial to the city. The tentative parcel map conforms with the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Ordinance Code. The allowance of affordable rental housing is consistent with the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and the goals of the General Plan Housing Element. • The potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in Negative Declaration No. 97-22 and mitigation measures will reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings and Conditions of Approval 2. Existing Land Use Plan 3. Alternative #1 Land Use Plan dated October 17, 1997 4. Alternative #2 Land Use Plan dated March ?, 1998 5. Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-199 dated June 1, 1998 6. Narrative 7. General Plan Land Use Map 8. Draft Resolutiod 9. Draft Ordinance 10. Legislative Draft 11. Holly Seacliff Affordable Housing Plan 12. Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Affordable Housing Section 13. Negative Declaration No. 97-22 (Includes Environmental Checklist, Mitigation Measures, Response to Comments, and Comment Letters from The Okura Family, Huntington Seacliff Homeowners' Association, Gilbert and Bonnie Nixon, Huntington Beach Environmental Board, Lois Havens and Huntington Beach Hamptons Homeowners' Association) 14. 1996 General Plan Update Goals, Policies and Objectives Relevant to the Project 15. Letters in Opposition and/or Support (see separate attachment) SH:MBB:kjl Staff Report—6/9/98 12 (98sr34) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-5/ LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 97-1/ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-199/ HOLLY SEACLIFF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-22 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-22: 1. The Negative Declaration No. 97-22 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20)days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment No. 97-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1, Tentative Parcel Map No.. 97-199 and Affordable Housing Plan Amendment No. 1. 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Mitigation measures address a number of potential impacts, including: construction noise, aesthetics, air quality, transportation, lighting, hazardous materials and public services and facilities when ultimate construction will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-199 will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-5: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5 to modify the land use designations and amount of allowed development in Planning Area III of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. The proposed changes are consistent with General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 which is being processed concurrently. The changes do not result in greater traffic impacts than were assumed in the Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 for Holly Seacliff certified in 1990 and subsequent amendment. The changes will implement General Policies. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The changes would not add any new land uses to the area and are compatible with uses in the vicinity. (98sr34)—6/9/98 Attachment 1.1 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The changes would reduce the number of residential units allowed on the subject property which would reduce demand on community facilities. The expanded commercial area would result in greater sales tax revenue to the city which may be used for infrastructure improvements and community services. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The zoning text amendment will not introduce any new land uses to the area., It will ensure the continued provision of increased living opportunities fore residents close to services. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-199: 1. Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-199 for the subdivision of one parcel into three parcels is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designations of Medium, Medium High and Low Density Residential and Commercial on the subject property, or any applicable specific plan, or other applicable provisions of this Code. The proposed subdivision will result in parcels which conform to General Plan policies. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The site is generally flat and was previously analyzed for the proposed land use designations for residential and commercial development. No new land uses are proposed for the area. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no sensitive habitats on the subject site or in the vicinity. The creation of three parcels will not result in any environmental damage. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. No easements exist on the site. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -TENTATIVE MAP NO. 97-199: 1. The tentative map received and dated June 1, 1998 shall be the approved layout. 2. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (PW) a. The following shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach: 1. An easement for storm drain purposes as shown on said map. 2. The storm drain system and appurtenances, within the storm drain easement, as shown on the improvement plans for this map. (98sr34)—6/9/98 Attachment 1.2 b. All vehicular access rights to Summit Drive, Peninsula Lane, Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street shall be released and relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach except at locations subsequently approved by the Planning Commission. c. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. d. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital-graphics file of said map in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. 3. Upon recordation of the map, a mylar and print of the recorded Parcel Map plus digital files per City of Huntington Beach requirements shall be provided to the Public Works Department. (PV) 4. Prior to construction of any permanent residential or commercial structures, a conditional use permit and tentative tract map, if appropriate, shall be approved by the Planning Commission. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS -TENTATIVE MAP NO. 97-199: 1. Tentative Map No. 97-199 shall become null and void unless exercised within two (2) years of the date of final approval. An extension of time may be granted by the Planning Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Division a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 2. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Department of Community Development within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. (98sr34)—6/9/98 Attachment 1.3 v LJ... 1 �IkKf/eco A�vd� AREA 't,' \ /o pu?� CO�t f�Lfe.�z iv- 11YI/ �•t�\ 9.5 Ar—t � ti GO�fM/TOR/✓C W \�\� RMN — 1 �.I � � � ��� �—• \ ec \\ -- LAND USE SUMMARY MAXIMUM MAXIMUM t ¢.oAAIRE AREA ACREAGE DENSITY NUMBER OF UNITS \� A 17.1 10 Di 170 B 19.7 25 Di 485 �� \ C 9.5 — — �� \ D 4.0 _ Ti SCALL P- C-) CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN / i ► I 0 PLANNING UNITS II-3 -- II-7 i;� z HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN p � 4, PLC Land Companya�pi}��- a HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA. f��-�tr�10�s f r'v�.. Z nrnpal arxh.Gldan4 9tL60 Vv i[MAII K PARCEL MAP NO. 97-199 fR f YwfY a pQR®r.tl�p til"/rY iOIROtl QIIUa O/owwq C ii / acM nua tlu u, f("r•O I/1/Ifl flat(<tO1 W R O 4/a•M tl Yp�v Y ltlalm Rfl. Rv//M 1R tl af1.1/M O r/.006N O OR[I/lLaB1 O allp iMt 4/afY I/If/R Ifm•I FOR FI/{NA;RIC AND SALE nVOSCS SCOLMCK LAW �..... � �... o n .m �►..47. �* c+t�-o 1_�r. d -+p0°°r:- - --- ' ` I--.-V 1:,.� w...n. rn.l.. • - 4 ARTTID••. .•'AVORIC •• •. . wl/•r faa 41 _o... 1. •A Ann II it p I 1 I,'r[p -.4!ACM - Komar Ent u Iwo .IF`wA137ams .'' I-. , t .. _aaAm .I nasa� j L�,t�i o1Rm.eR I ' uad , .. ( .� /p `• lr � � t rA )I � � � � /� I�j I Q niuu ma m '` I I� .. � .. \••inlfl w_�/•� \ �' + •It I ../ - •).• �,Y� �"vranau wo •., 11{{�' • � �/"• l "I �•\ /,� 'n \- I) ��- •• : _,Ell rC 'f II� rw/ca.. am �1 11� .1 i •� �� -. ~1\ �,', / ..l .I �. � 1t� �. �Il�� nw.0�flr 111 1 f I au1//oao {f _—SUWaf Dac_sf_y 1- t _ ':�'- � I � � '�;., i• •I, `,I, vIcmlrr r'ar tL r, �W .. I PAIIICQ W-199 R/4M�LLA LAK Gl/K10 AYQ.L r 1 Ij•�, REVISED '6-1-98' m I "�eN "' TENTAT su+el amr cD�/nrnrul earlss0C1ATFS •— PARCEL MAP 97-199 ^': " PW LAND COMPANY I Ia/WWN KAat Cvsaru Q Narrative General Plan Amendment No. 97- Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Amendment No. 97- Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-199 Holly Seacliff Affordable Housing Plan Amendment No. 1 Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 97- PLC is requesting approval of a an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and map and text amendments to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan. The requested amendments affect approximately 58 gross acres of property owned entirely by PLC located in the northeast portion of Planning Unit III of the Specific Plan and bounded by Garfield Avenue, Goldenwest Street, Summit Drive and Peninsula Lane. The requested Specific Plan amendments would amend Exhibits 3 and 6 and Table 1 of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to reflect the following changes: 1. Enlarge commercial Planning Unit III-6 at the southwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street from 7 acres to 11 acres to create a 9.5 net acre neighborhood commercial site. 2. Consolidate Planning Units III-3 and III-4 into a single planning unit designated RM, with a maximum of 170 residential units. 3. Consolidate Planning Units III-5 and III-7 into a single planning unit designated RMH, with a maximum of 485 residential units. This Planning Unit will also include the four-acre public neighborhood park designated in the Specific Plan The Land Use Element amendment involves the redesignation of 10 acres (Planning Unit III-4) from Residential-Medium High Density (RMH) to Residential-Medium Density (RM), the redesignation of 30 acres (Planning Units III-5 and III-7) from Residential-Low Density (RL-1) and Residential-Medium Density (RM) to Residential-Medium High Density (RMH), and four acres from Residential-Medium Density to General Commercial to expand Planning Unit III-6 from 7 acres to 11 gross acres (9.5 net acres). A Conceptual Land Use Plan Exhibit illustrating the above proposed changes to the Specific Plan Exhibit 3, general Development Plan, is attached. Also attached is a Planning Area III Density Transfer Summary showing the existing approved and proposed density allocations by Planning Unit. Approval of the proposed amendment will reduce the maximum permitted number of residential units within Planning Units III-3 through III-7 from 768 to 655, or roughly 15 percent. PLC is requesting the General Plan and Specific Plan amendments to permit more detailed planning for residential and commercial uses in Greenbriar and Montecito areas. We are currently working with a commercial architect to design a neighborhood commercial center of approximately 75,000 to 95,000 square feet with a grocery anchor and ancillary uses. A larger site is needed to accommodate the proposed square footage and required parking and landscaping. 1 ATTACHMENT NO. The Greenbriar site is being studied for a high-end duplex or townhome development and the Montecito area is proposed for a master planned luxury apartment community. A four-acre public neighborhood park is also proposed to be located along the north side of Summit Drive, as required by the Specific Plan. A Conceptual Site Study depicting preliminary site plans for the proposed commercial, townhome and apartment uses and the public neighborhood park is attached for your information and review. The combination of the neighborhood park, fault setback zone and parkway landscaping along the north side of Summit Drive will provide a significant open space buffer between the proposed apartment community and the existing single family homes south of Summit Drive. Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-199 proposes to subdivide the existing 58 gross acre site into four parcels to define each of the above development areas for financing purposes and to permit further detailed development planning. An amendment to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Affordable Housing Plan for Seacliff Partners' Properties, approved by the City Council on February 28, 1994, is also being requested. The requested amendment involves the following changes to the Affordable Housing Plan: Page 1 Eliminate the words"for sale" from the second paragraph on page 1 of the Plan. As you may recall, the term "for sale" was not included in the original Affordable Housing Plan submitted by Seacliff Partners and recommended for approval by Staff and the Planning Commission, but was added as part of the motion approving the Affordable Housing Plan at the City Council. Page 4 Add the following line to Table I: Maximum Proposed Acreage Estimated Estimated Number of Location (Approx.) Type Size Sales Price 100 I11-5 26 Apts. 500-1,400 SF NA Studio,1,2,3 BR The effect of these amendments will be to permit qualifying apartment units to be utilized to meet the Specific Plan requirements and citywide objectives for the adequate provision of affordable housing. No other changes to the Affordable Housing Plan are requested or desired. Because the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan includes some areas within the coastal zone, the requested Specific Plan Amendment will require a minor Local Coastal Program Amendment, although no properties within the coastal zone are affected by the requested amendments. 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 002i005 J%17/98 11:48 '$i 14 729 1214 PLC L 'D COMPII�I +s-. CITE H B T . Pe, March 17, 1998 Ms. Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject: Grecnbriar&Montecito Areas—Alternate Site Plans Dear Mary Beth: Submitted herewith is an alternate site plan for development of the Greenbriar and Montecito planning areas (HSSP Planning Units III-3 ,d=III-7). The alternate plan is summarized below and on Attachment 1, which compares the alternate plan to the existing permitted uses under the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and the October 17, 1997 PLC submittal. The alternate plan for the Greenbriar site proposes up to 80 detached single family homes on minimum typical 4,000 square foot lots, similar to the St. Augustine development west of Peninsula Lane. The alternate plan density on the 17.2 net acre site would be 4.6 units per acre. Primary access to the gated development is proposed off Summit Drive opposite Covington Lane. An emergency access gate is proposed at the northeast corner of the site, which could also include a pedestrian gate for access to the elementary school and commercial center. Over four acres of private common open space is provided onsite. An additional three acres of land in the southeast portion of the site are proposed to be incorporated into the public neighborhood park for a total of seven acres of park land. As with the original submittal, a forty foot-wide public paseo is proposed to extend between the Greenbriar and Montecito sites to provide for a pedestrian access link from Summit Drive to Garfield Aveffue. This paseo would incorporate a meandering ten foot wide pedestrian path and an aggregate of thirty feet of landscaping between the residential projects. The alternate plan for the Montecito site proposes up to 100 detached single family homes on minimum typical 5,000 square foot lots. The alternate plan density on the 19.9 net acre site would be 5.1 units per acre. Primary access to the gated development would be off Summit Drive opposite Beacon Hill Lane. An emergency access gate is proposed at the northwest corner of the site, which could also include a pedestrian gate for access the elementary school and commercial center. PLC Land Company Z3 Corporate Plain,Suite 250 714.721.9777 TelepWe Newport WA Calllomia 22660 714.729. 1214 facsimlle ATTACHMENT NO. PLC LAND COMPANY ---� CITY H B 2003/005 };1 i/98 11:�8 $71-I i 29 1_1=1 _. � _ ^_ - As with the previous submittal, a public neighborhood park is proposed along the north side of Summit Drive, incorporating approximately seven acres and extending from Covington Lane to Beacon Hill Lane. The neighborhood park is proposed as primarily a passive park, however there is sufficient area to incorporate offstreet parking if more active uses are desired by the City. The configuration and site plan for the commercial center at the southwest comer of Garfield and Goldenwest is essentially unchanged from the original submittal. Please consider this alternate plan in your environmental analysis of the original proposal for development of the Greenbriar and Montecito sites. Very truly yours, 4 William D. Holman Planning & Government Relations Attachment A f T ACHMENT NO. ATTACHMENT NO. 14 1996 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES APPLICABLE TO REQUEST Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. Goal L U 6: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. Policy LU 7.1.5: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that maintain the City's fiscal viability and integrity of environmental resources. Goal LU 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic, physical and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Objective LU107.1: Provide for the continuation of existing and the development of a diversity of retail and service commercial uses that are oriented to the needs of local residents, serve the surrounding regions, serve visitors to the City, and capitalize on Huntington Beach's recreational resources. Policy ED 2.4.1: Encourage and assist existing and potential commercial owners to modernize and expand their commercial properties. ,A,-TT-A GH TENT NO. -A- FOR ATTACHMENT NO. 15 SEE SEPARATE ATTACHMENT ATTACHNIENT NO. ---/S i Huntington SeacCi �' Homeowners' Association ff June 8, 1998 To: Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner Department of Community Development, Planning Division �� - ���8 DE PP.RT`!!_Z';T OF From: Huntington Seacliff Homeowners' Association Executive Board CO."'':".1141TY LEVELOPMENT Subject: Executive Board position on Montecito/Greenbriar Development In preparation for the June 9, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting, the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners' Association Board has reviewed General Plan Amendment No. 97-2, Tentative Parcel Map N. 97-199 and the Holly Seacliff Affordable Plan Amendment No.1. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the Board's position regarding our major issues with the Montecito/Greenbriar project. Our Association represents the neighborhood immediately south of Summit Drive and adjacent to the Montecito/Greenbriar development. Our goal is to insure a residential community compatible with the existing neighborhoods. General Plan Amendment No 97-2 Our Association overwhelmingly prefers Alternative #2 to Alternative #1. We are strongly opposed to Alternative #1 or any plan which would increase the residential density of the Montecito development. If given the choice, our residents would prefer only low density residential housing for Montecito/Greenbriar, and no commercial site. Although the Board supports Alternative#2, with conditions on the Paseo, we have concerns about the proposed hours of operation, truck noise, light intrusion, and traffic flow for the commercial center. These issues must be mitigated through the subdivision review process. Paseo vs. Street at Saddleback Our Executive 136ard has voted to support Saddleback as a "Paseo" or pedestrian-only link between Garfield Avenue and Summit Drive even though our residents are divided on this issue. The primary concern with the Paseo is safety. Many parents have expressed concern about their children using the Paseo. Is the City creating "Predator Alley" and a gathering place for undesirable activities which will be difficult to control and police? A secondary concern is proper maintenance of this area. Who will be responsible,the City or the Montecito/Greenbriar HOA's? Given these concerns, we support the Paseo only if the following conditions are met: 1. Increase width of Paseo from 40 to a minimum of 50-60 feet to enhance safety, reduce canyoning effect, and provide a more compatible extension of the adjacent neighborhood park. (This condition is supported by City staff.) r Huntington Se4di f f Homeowners' Assoc—ton 2. Provide full-time vehicular access for both the Greenbriar and Montecito developments via Garfield. In addition to enhancing traffic flow, this action significantly reduces the length of the Paseo corridor. (This condition is supported by City staff.) 3. Relocate Summit entrance for Montecito to the Paseo area. This will increase visual activity of Paseo and eliminate traffic blind spots which exist at the proposed location. (PLC has reviewed this request and has indicated a willingness to pursue this change.) 4. Obtain HB Police Department approval of Paseo concept with respect to community policing requirements. 5. Obtain Community Services approval of Paseo concept and concurrence that their conditions of approval are met for maintenance of Paseo as an extension of the public park. Traffic Planning for Montecito/Greenbriar and Seacliff SO Shopping Center Regardless of what the traffic studies show, the Goldenwest traffic corridor between Garfield and Yorktown will be one of the busiest in this part of the city. Turn lanes and entrances/exits for both sides of Goldenwest need to be carefully planned. Traffic requirements for the Seacliff 50 and Montecito/Greenbriar must be considered as a single system and not viewed independently. In summary, the HSHA Executive Board supports Alternative 42 with the above conditions on the Saddleback Paseo and request continued notification on future meetings regarding this development. Sincerely, Lou Mann e, President 19821 Ocean Bluff Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-960-3727 cc: City Staff Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Director of Community Development Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Planning Commission City Council Ed Kerins Shirley Detloff, Mayor Tom Livengood Ralph Bauer Fred Speaker David Garafalo Haydee Tillotson Peter Green Gerald Chapman Tom Harman Phil Inglee Pam Julien Bob Biddle Dave Sullivan PLC Bill Holman Jun-05-98 O2:45P Turner Construction Co 1 P.O2 Ic June 5, 1998 Tom Livengood, Chairman Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 97-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5, Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 97-1, Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-199, Holly Seacliff Affordable Housing Plan Amendment No. 1, Negative Declaration No. 97-22 (Greenbriar/Montecito) Chairman Livengood and Commissioners: PLC respectfully requests the Planning Commission to approve the above applications as recommended by staff(Alternative #2), with the exception of the staff-recommended changes to the language of the Affordable Housing Plan requiring a 50-50 mix of low and very low income units for rental units. We would prefer that a broader range of rents be considered where rental units are proposed to help meet the City's affordable housing objectives in the Specific Plan area. We would be willing to accept a requirement that rental units be limited to the 100% median income category in lieu of the 120%moderate income limit for"for sale" units. We believe such a requirement would serve to expand the range of potential housing opportunities without exposing the City to financial subsidies, reductions in development fees and/or exactions, or deviations from development standards of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan for low and very low income projects. Thank you for your consideration of this request and the above applications. Very truly yours, �yam D. Holman Planning&Government Relations cc: Melanie Fallon Howard Zelefsky Mary Beth Broeren PLC Land Company 23 Corporate Plaza.Suite 250 714.721.9777 relepftm Newport Beach,California 92660 714 729 1214 facsimile ATTACHMENT 10 GREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES i 1 t 1 I Analysis Of Retail Potential For A Retail Site At Garfield And Goldenwest, In Huntington Beach, CA. June, 1998 iINVESTMENT PROPERTIES MARKETING MARKET PLANNING SITE ANALYSIS RETAIL STRATEGIES 1 43 Corporate Park, Suite 203 Irvine, California 92606-5137 (714) 250-9480 Fax 250-9485 TnL GREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES i i i t Analysis Of Retail Potential For A Retail Site At Garfield And Goldenwest, In Huntington Beach, CA. June, 1998 i Presented To: PLC Land Company Prepared By: Gregory Stoffel & Associates 43 Corporate Park, Suite 203 Irvine, California 92606-5137 (714) 250-9480 Fax 250-9485 Table of Contents OREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES I. Executive Summar y iII. Introduction ' III. Methodology IV. Market Area Observations V. Conclusions VI. Census Tract Grocery Demand Model VII. Local-Serving Tenant Opportunities VIII. Tenant Planning Ratios For Market Area IX. Miscellaneous Information And Findings X. Appendix A. Maps Of Key Tenant Locations 1. Grocery stores 2. Drug stores 3. Retail Locations - All significant shopping centers and retail within the Huntington Beach market area 4. Census Tract Boundaries B. Maps Illustrating Census Tract Model Findings 1. Population density 2. Per capita income 3. Aggregate total income 4. Total grocery expenditure potential 5. Total drug store expenditure potential 6. Distance capture variable 7. Accessibility capture variable 8. Competition capture variable 9. Grocery sales capture share 10. Drug store sales capture share 11. Capturable grocery store sales 12. Capturable drug store sales 13. Population growth, 1995 to 2000 14. Population growth, 1995 to 2020 C. Census Tract Grocery Demand Tables (1995-2000-2005-2010-2015-2020) II. Executive Summary GREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES • Gregory Stoffel and Associates was retained by PLC Land Company to analyze potential for a retail site located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street, in Huntington Beach, California. ' There is a relative undersupply of quality retail locations in the market area surrounding the subject site, defined as south of Warner Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard, north of Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. • With resident sales and inflow potential combined, the area surrounding the subject site(s) 1 will support two neighborhood centers, each with a full-line grocery store and a full-size drug store. One of these centers could also include community or sub-regional tenants that take advantage of the competitive market dynamics that will exist at the time these projects open. The center planned by Shea-Vickers fills this sub-regional demand and opportunity, leaving the opportunity for a neighborhood-serving shopping center at Garfield and Goldenwest. • The defined market area surrounding the subject site will generate approximately $51 million in grocery store sales by 2000. This is adequate for two full-size grocery stores. 1 Though not all grocery sales will stay within the community, or come from within the defined market area. This sales potential will support between 90,000 and 110,000 square feet of grocery store space, depending upon the operators, concepts and sales productivity per square foot. • The defined market area will also generate approximately $11 million in capturable drug store sales by 2000. This sales potential will support between 35,000 and 50,000 square feet 1 of drug store space, depending upon the operators, concepts and sales productivity per square foot. This equates to approximately two stores. ' The current population of the ten closest Census Tracts would support six full-size grocery stores and five drug stores. Based upon the same ratios, this will increase to seven grocery 1 stores and six drug stores. • Clearly, the subject site is supportable now, and in the future, with minimal impact upon existing stores in the greater Huntington Beach market area. Garfield/Goldenwest Study 1 Gregory Stoffel&Associates II. Introduction GREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES This report summarizes recommendations related to the extent of grocery and drug store development supportable within the local market area, and observations regarding these retail categories within the greater Huntington Beach market area. ' This report will attempt to: • Evaluate market potential and recommend optimum sizing for grocery and drug store anchor space within the subject center. • Update grocery and drug store competitive locations within the Huntington Beach market area. • Identify present, interim and ultimate (1995-2020) grocery and drug store square footage 1 demand within the study area. • Identify specific grocery and drug store opportunities within the local market area that will enable local residents to optimize their convenience shopping trips. 1 The conclusions, demand calculations and project recommendations presented in this report are based on the following major assumptions: i PLC Land Company will create a high quality shopping center at the subject site. • The tenant mix of the site will be geared to convenience-oriented customer patronage from throughout the local market area. ' In order to create a high quality retail center, PLC Land Company will need to attract quality retail tenants as suggested in the recommendations of this report. • In order to attract quality retail tenants, PLC Land Company will have to present the site to retail prospects as an "A" location, a site that is judged to offer superior demographics, street access, visibility and parking. Garfield/Goldenwest Study 2 Gregory Stoffel&Associates r ' GREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES III. Methodology For purposes of this report, three different methodologies were utilized. The first is an examination of grocery and drug store operators that are currently operating within the market area immediately surrounding the subject site. This analysis is important in understanding the choices that local-area residents have as grocery and drug store consumers. Consumer choice being what it is, no matter ' which specific grocery store operators are located near the site, if the specific store they want to patronize is not open in a location that is nearby and convenient, customers will drive past other branded stores to patronize the store of their choice. This patronage pattern exists in most every market area within Orange County, including Huntington Beach. The second is a determination of the demand that exists for grocery and drug store anchors located within and near the neighborhood-oriented center being developed by PLC Land Company. Since larger(9-12 acre) local-serving centers are typically not built unless a grocery anchor store is supportable, grocery store demand becomes the chief determinant of overall local-serving support. This demand is calculated for each Census Tract in the market area. A more complete description ' of the methodology is provided in Section V. IDemand calculations are based on a number of"real-world" factors, including: a. Actual sales by merchandise line - Orange County. ' b. Anticipated sales per square foot performance by center and merchandise type C. Estimated inflow and outflow of retail expenditures (using retail category inventory) d. Capture rate by center type and retail category e. Population estimates The output of the model includes both retail sales and square footage demand projections for grocery and drug stores. These demand calculations are only an indication of actual retail demand, and are intended to augment and predict real-world retailer interest. Summary tables of this analysis are provided later in this report. The third method is application of known retail tenant ratios within the southern and coastal Orange County market area. This method is the same retail framework that has been used by GSA in other master-planned and fast-growing communities (Irvine, Rancho Santa Margarita, Summerlin, Valencia, San Clemente, etc.). This method identifies the typical number of retail and service uses present at various population levels, and is useful in understanding the extent of retail-related merchants that are available to residents of areas similar to Huntington Beach. This exercise is both a control to double check the findings in the Census Tract model, and an indicator of the tenant types supportable for planning purposes. ' Garfield/Goldenwest Study 3 Gregory Stoffel&Associates r GREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES IV. Market Area Observations The preparation of this report included field surveys of the competitive retail inventory throughout the Huntington Beach market area. Specific discussion and illustrative maps resulting from this ' field investigation are presented and discussed elsewhere in this report. Several aspects of this competitive trade area are worthy of note here. rHistorical retail development throughout Huntington Beach has concentrated along Beach Boulevard and streets such as Magnolia, Brookhurst, Warner and Edinger. As housing absorption winds down in Huntington Beach, most of the remaining tracts of undeveloped residential land are congregated near the intersection of Garfield and Goldenwest. r The central portion of Huntington Beach is one of the most affluent communities in Orange County. ' Most of the quality comparison shopping trips generated by the affluent coastal communities currently go to either South Coast Plaza, Westminster Mall or Fashion Island. These centers have the highest quality tenant mixes of any regional centers in the market area. All other centers (including Huntington Beach Mall) exist in a lower to moderate range in both price points and quality orientation. Regional shopping center patronage is important to note within the context of overall retail g PP g P g P patronage. Though Goldenwest has very little retail between Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue, it is an important roadway in terms of comparison shopping traffic for central Huntington Beach. The exposure created by this patronage favors both the Shea-Vickers retail site and the subject site. Retailing In Fast-Growing Areas and Communities Retail development and retailing are inherently different in master-planned and fast-growing communities, and consequently, experience different patronage patterns as development and access patterns change. Characteristically, master-planned and fast-growing communities have fewer-than- average shopping centers and retailers than typical suburban communities. This is the case in the ' area surrounding the subject center. There are more centers in other areas of Huntington Beach than the area near the subject site. The demand methodologies utilized in this analysis were developed for various studies of retail development potential within fast-growing and master-planned communities. The demand models herein have been modified and updated in order to reflect current retail patronage patterns, retail trends, and leasing opportunities within the Huntington Beach market area. Garfield/Goldenwest Study 4 Gregory Stoffel&Associates V. Conclusions GREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES • The market area for the subject site analysis is conservatively defined as south of Warner Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard, north of Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. This is an area generally two miles in radius in all directions except east. Beach Boulevard is one mile to the east of Goldenwest. • The defined market area includes ten Census Tracts. In 1995, the population for this area was over 57,000. By 2020, this market area will increase to over 68,000 residents. • The four Census Tracts contiguous or closest to the subject property have a combined 1995 population of over 19,000. By 2020, the population within these four Census Tracts will increase to almost 29,000. This represents a gain of approximately 9,400 residents between 1995 and 2000. These Census Tracts comprise the highest growth area in Huntington Beach. • There is a relative undersupply of quality retail locations in the market area surrounding the subject site. Historical retail development has occurred in other areas of Huntington Beach. By comparison, the subject area is under-supplied. This became evident in the physical audit of competitive centers and planned sites. Additional residential developments will ' cause this undersupply to worsen. • For purposes of this report, we have analyzed the combined grocery and drug store potential for the combined Shea-Vickers site and the subject site being developed by PLC Land Company. Due to the proximity of the two sites, it is difficult to separate demand for one site versus the other. Both sites will draw convenience-oriented customers from roughly the same market area. Customer preference will determine which stores draw how many customers from different areas. • With resident sales and inflow potential combined, the area surrounding the subject site(s) ' will support two neighborhood centers, each with a full-line grocery store and a full-size drug store. One of these centers could also include community or sub-regional tenants that 1 take advantage of the competitive market dynamics that will exist at the time these projects open. The center planned by Shea-Vickers fills this sub-regional demand and opportunity, leaving the opportunity for a neighborhood-serving shopping center at Garfield and Goldenwest. Garfield/Goldenwest Study 5 Gregory Stoffel&Associates V. Conclusions (Cont.) GREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES • The defined market area surrounding the subject site will generate approximately $51 million in grocery store sales by 2000. This is adequate for two full-size grocery stores. Though not all grocery sales will stay within the community, or come from within the defined market area. This sales potential will support between 90,000 and 110,000 square feet of grocery store space, depending upon the operators, concepts and sales productivity per square foot. • According to an extensive annual study conducted by the Orange County Register, the following grocery store companies are patronized by residents as follows within Orange ' County (including most often shopped and also shopped): Lucky 53.4% Ralphs 52.5% Voris 32.6% Albertson's 27.5% Stater Bros. 13.0% Hughes 12.0% Pavilions 6.1% • Consumer choice will dictate that no matter which specific grocery store operators are located in or near the site, if the specific store they prefer to patronize is not open in a location that is nearby and convenient, customers will drive past other branded stores to patronize the store of their choice. This represents real-world market opportunity. • Three grocery store operators (Vons, Hughes and Albertson's) are located at least two miles from the subject site. In terms of typical resident convenience, this distance is greater than what grocery shoppers typically travel in order to patronize a grocery store. This represents a void in the local area supply for residents living close to the subject site. Local area customers are patronizing these stores, and travelling greater-than-average distances in doing so. • The defined market area will also generate approximately $11 million in capturable drug store sales by 2000. This sales potential will support between 35,000 and 50,000 square feet of drug store space, depending upon the operators, concepts and sales productivity per square foot. This equates to approximately two stores. Garfield/Goldenwest Study 6 Gregory Stoffel&Associates ' GREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES V. Conclusions (Cont.) • Three drug store operators (Longs, Drug Emporium and Rite Aid) are located at least two miles from the subject site. Considering that these are major chains sought out by a high rpercentage of residents, these distances are greater than what average customers would typically travel for such goods. Again, this represents a hole in the market in this area. ' Based on ratios that currently exist in Southern and Coastal Orange County, the market area comprised by the four contiguous or closest Census Tracts would support two full-size grocery stores and 1.7 drug stores. Based upon the same ratios, this will increase to three grocery stores and 2.5 drug stores. • The current population of the ten closest Census Tracts would support six full-size grocery ' stores and five drug stores. Based upon the same ratios, this will increase to seven grocery stores and six drug stores. • This area currently has six full-line grocery stores and two specialty grocery stores. Five of the full-line stores are located at the periphery of the market area. As these stores are located on the edge of the market area, we can realistically only attribute a half-store value to each in determining their market presence. This equates to 3.5 existing stores. • This area also has seven drug stores. Six of the drug stores are located at the periphery of the market area. As these stores are located on the edge of the market area, we can ' realistically only attribute a half-store value to each in determining their market presence. This equates to four existing stores. Clearly, the subject site is supportable now, and in the future, with minimal impact upon • Y J pP P P ' existing stores in the greater Huntington Beach market area. ' Garfield/Goldenwest Study 7 Gregory Stoffel&Associates ' VI. Census Tract Grocery/Drug Demand Model �SREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES ( Summary of Results Grocery stores in the subject site's immediate market area have the potential to capture approximately $51 million in grocery store sales by 2000. Drug stores in the same area have the potential to generate approximately $11 million during the same period. This is based upon an effective market area of approximately 28,000 residents. By itself, recent and planned new residential development will support approximately $20 million in additional grocery store ' expenditures. The closest two grocery stores are a Lucky Market and a Ralphs. The competitive environment ' created by this situation creates an opportunity for popular grocery tenants such as Vons, Albertson's and Hughes Market to locate in the market area and attract grocery sales from ' throughout the greater area. Local area resident demand and the addition of competitive inflow creates demand for two full-size grocery stores, two drug stores, and related food, and service ' tenants. Census Tract Methodology The Census Tract methodology employed in the projection of grocery and drug store demand commences with an estimate of the total grocery and drug expenditure for the market area. It is this expenditure which is "allocated" for each tract to the center. The allocation involves multiple capture rates derived from the documentation of both grocery sales and local-serving expenditure estimates. In the projection of demand, the market area was determined based on an area inspection ' conducted by GSA. Both total population, per capita income and aggregate income have been derived for each Census Tract in the market area from the secondary data provided. Access was analyzed based on each tract's proximity to a major arterial accessible to the subject site. Y P Y J J ' It is a well established characteristic of locally-oriented centers that the trade areas are heavily dependant upon street access. ' A competitive element was also factored into the overall capture rate in this analysis. Purchasing power for Census Tracts with intervening competitive opportunities was spread among the ' competitive alternatives based on the size and quality of the center and proximity to the competition. iAggregate capture rates were calculated for each Census Tract to illustrate the results for each center tested. The results are projected in terms of a total estimated sales volume derived from the market area annually. i ' Garfield/Goldenwest Study 8 Gregory Stoffel&Associates 1 ' `ISREC'iORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES VI. Census Tract Grocery Demand Model (Cont.) ' Consumer Expenditures Based on data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, the State Board of Equalization and comparable retail projects in other communities, between three percent and nine percent of a household's total income is expended on grocery store merchandise. ' In Huntington Beach, the average is $1,791 per capita. These expenditure rates are sensitized by income range with the smaller percentage expenditure occurring in the higher income categories. ' This figure represents the total purchasing power pool from which the local-serving centers must compete. Specific inputs for each zip code determine how much of the purchasing power will be allocated among the competitive sites. This is achieved through a series of capture rates as well. Capture Rate Variables Capturable retail market support is a function of six elements -- population, income, percentage of ' income spent in similar facilities, distance, access and competition. Each of these elements has been factored into the capturable sales estimates derived for this site. The capture rates used in this analysis recognize the importance of key variables important to the success of retail projects. The six individual variables are each assigned a capture rating from 20%to 100%, in multiples of 10% ' and 20%. These variables include: 1) Population and income ! 2) Percentage of household income spent in RD&E projects. 3) Proximity of location ' 4) Relative ease of access 5) Vulnerability to competition ' 6) Influence of household income on shopping frequency Description of Capture Rate Variables ' 1) Population and income. Population and income provide the basic purchasing power for all retail goods and services. As has been stated previously, according to the BLS Consumer Expenditure survey, grocery store merchandise can average between 3 and 9 percent of a household budget. This percentage can vary widely given various income intervals. Income sensitivity has been included in the model with the average household income for the metropolitan area being used as the mid-point of the income distribution and the expenditure percentage re-indexed to this mid-point. Garfield/Goldenwest Study 9 Gregory Stoffel&Associates ' VI. Census Tract Grocery Demand Model(Cont.)�REGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES t2) Proximity of location. Distance to the project is a factor in the purchase decision of the consumer. Based on 1 empirical data dating back to the 1930's and studies underlying Reilly's Gravity model, it has been established in classic retail theory that estimation capture of market support includes a requirement to consider the distance to a shopping center or district from the consumer's point of origin. The likelihood of overcoming the distance is further affected by the size in square footage of the shopping center. In this model, the distance variable measures the relative closeness of a proposed project to the trade area, or conversely, the closeness to the proposed project from each zip code in the market area. Though distance to the site is important, it is not always as strong a barrier as access is. 3) Relative ease of access. The issue of access is related to distance but is also related to proximity to convenient transportation routes. Thus, consumers residing close to a key street may be more likely to overcome simple distance than those residing in less accessible locations which may be physically closer to the center site. The issue of access is included in the model using both quantitative measure of time and distance as well as qualitative assessment based on proximity to transportation routes. This ' variable takes into account a number of factors related to access, including closeness of major surface roads, circulation to the project from each direction. ' 4) Vulnerability to competition. ' This variable measures the impact that key competitive projects may have on the choices consumers make with respect to their shopping patterns. In this process, all key competitive facilities are documented, mapped and rated according to their merchandising strength and quality. Each individual zip code is then evaluated according to its proximity and ease of access to these key competitive facilities. It must be cautioned that this analysis does not attempt to quantify exact square footage or sales of competitive retail facilities. Most of these projects are not directly competitive with the type of center(s) analyzed in this report. It is important, however, to quantify and account for the quality level and amount of quality choices that customers have to choose from, and that compete for consumers' share of mind when considering where to go shop. Garfield/Goldenwest Study 10 Gregory Stoffel&Associates � VI. Census Tract Grocery Demand Model(Cont.)GRECiORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES ' 5) Importance of household income on shopping frequency and expenditure potential. Using both national and confidential information, this variable provides one additional capture rate assumption on the likelihood of patronizing a retail center based on household income. Generally, customers with below average incomes visit retail facilities less ' frequently than average. Conversely, those with higher incomes tend to visit these facilities more frequently than average. The same applies to grocery and drug store patronage. Each of these variables are extremely important to the ability of a project to generate sales. If an individual variable is weak, the entire zip code capture rate is reduced by that variable. As an example, if a Census Tract is located farther than three miles from the site, the total capture may be rated less than 5% even though it straddles a major arterial, has no major competitive facility nearby 1 and is very affluent. Or, a zip code may also receive an overall low capture rate if it is situated such that the site is very difficult to access from that Census Tract, even though it may be located within a few miles. Except for Census Tracts with higher than average household incomes, no total capture rate for any 1 Census Tract will be higher than the highest individual variable capture rating. Higher-than-average household incomes may cause an individual Census Tract to achieve an overall capture rate higher ' than 100%. This scenario has been documented in similar projects. Total capture of retail market support can range from less than 1 percent to over 50 percent of available support based on these factors. The high end of the range requires close-in proximity, high income and good access with ' no competition. Market-wide capture ranges from less than one percent to over 50 percent depending on these factors. I Maps illustrating the assumptions and results of the Census Tract model are included in the p g P appendix. For purposes of these maps, the site location is approximate. Tables from the Census Tract model are also included in the appendix for years 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. Garfield/Goldenwest Study 11 Gregory Stoffel&Associates ' VII. Local-Serving Tenant Opportunities �REGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES ' Based on an inventory of retailers conducted in the Huntington Beach market area, the following summarizes specific tactical tenant opportunities for the subject site. Although some grocery and idrug store retailers are located near the site, it is possible that one of these tenants could be interested in a better, more visible and synergistic location. Stores are listed according to distance ' from the subject site. Grocery Stores Vons Two stores in Huntington Beach, located 2.75 and 3.0 miles from site. ' Pavilions (Vons) Op location in Huntington Beach, located 3 0miles from site. Hughes One location in Huntington Beach, located 2.0 miles from site. Albertson's Three stores in Huntington Beach, nearest is located 2.0 miles from site. Ral hs Six locations in Huntington Beach. Closest are located 1.0 and 2.0 P g ' miles from site. Lucky Six stores in Huntington Beach, nearest is in Shea-Vickers site, second closest is 1.0 miles from site. Druiz Stores Long's One store in Huntington Beach, located 3.0 miles from site. Drug Emporium One store in Huntington Beach, 2.5 miles from site. Rite Aid Four stores in Huntington Beach, located 2.25 and 2.5 miles from site. ' Walgreen Two stores in Huntington Beach, located 1.5 and 2.0 miles from site. Savon (Lucky) Eleven locations in Huntington Beach. Nearest is 1.0 mile and 2.0 miles from site. ' Garfield/Goldenwest Study 12 Gregory Stoffel&Associates ' VIII. Tenant Ratios GREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES rAs a result of previous inventories of the southern and coastal areas of Orange County, we have the ability to calculate the average number of retail and service establishments per resident. We have iprovided these ratios in the table below, indexed for the market area surrounding the subject site. Though not completely realistic with respect to uses and numbers of stores, this table does provide an indication of the numbers and types of stores that are available for differing population levels within Southern and Coastal Orange County. As such, it can provide a rough idea of basic tenant mix opportunities surrounding the subject site(s). #Stores For #Stores For #Stores For #Stores For ' Retail Category 4 Closest CT's 4 Closest CT's 10 Closest CT's 10 Closest CT's In 1995: In 2020: In 1995: In 2020: Pop.=19,341 Pop.=28,765 Pop.=57,320 Pop.=68,483 Apparel-W&M 4.4 6.6 13.1 15.7 Apparel-children's 0.5 0.7 1.4 1.7 Apparel-jewelry 1.9 2.8 5.5 6.6 Apparel-shoes 1.4 2.1 4.2 5.0 Apparel-discount 0.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 Auto-gas 2.2 3.2 6.4 7.7 Auto-parts 0.7 1.1 2.1 2.5 Auto-service 2.3 3.5 7.0 8.3 Drug 1.7 2.5 5.0 6.0 Electronics-misc 1.7 2.6 5.1 6.1 Electronics-major 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 Fitness/dance/etc. 2.3 3.5 7.0 8.3 G.M.-Discount 0.8 1.1 2.2 2.7 Grocery 2.0 3.0 6.0 7.2 Grocery-liquor/deli 2.5 3.7 7.3 8.8 Home Furnishings 4.0 6.0 11.9 14.3 Home Improvement 1.2 1.8 3.7 4.4 Home Hardware 0.8 1.1 2.2 2.7 Rest./Food-Asian 3.6 5.4 10.8 12.9 Rest./Food-bakery 3.1 4.5 9.1 10.8 Rest./Food-coffee 1.3 2.0 3.9 4.7 1 Rest./Food-deli/misc. 2.1 3.2 6.3 7.5 Rest./Food- ice cream/yogurt 1.4 2.0 4.1 4.9 Rest./Food-Italian 1.1 1.6 3.3 3.9 Rest./Food-juice 0.6 0.9 1.7 2.0 Rest./Food-Mexican 1.8 2.6 5.2 6.3 Rest./Food-pizza 3.1 4.7 9.3 11.1 ' Garfield/Goldenwest Study 13 Gregory Stoffel&Associates �REGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES ' VIII. Tenant Ratios (Cont.) 1 #Stores For #Stores For #Stores For #Stores For ' Retail Category 4 Closest CT's 4 Closest CT's 10 Closest CT's 10 Closest CT's In 1995: In 2020: In 1995: In 2020: Pop.=19,341 Pop.=28,765 Pop.=57,320 Pop.=68,483 ' Rest./Food-Quick 5.2 7.8 15.5 18.5 Rest./Food-sit down 3.7 5.5 11.0 13.2 I Service-cleaners 4.7 7.0 14.0 16.8 Service-education 1.0 1.4 2.9 3.4 Service- financial 3.9 5.9 11.7 14.0 ' Service-hair/nails 7.7 11.5 22.8 27.3 Service- insurance 1.1 1.6 3.3 3.9 Service-mail 1.6 2.4 4.7 5.6 Service-misc. 1.2 1.7 3.4 4.1 Service-medical/dental 5.7 8.4 16.8 20.1 1 Service-photo 1.7 2.6 5.1 6.1 Service-printing/etc. 1.0 1.5 3.0 3.6 Service-professional 1.0 1.4 2.9 3.4 Service-real estate 1.4 2.1 4.2 5.0 Service-repair 1.6 2.4 4.9 5.8 ' Service-tailor/tux 1.3 1.9 3.8 4.5 Service-tanning 0.6 0.9 1.8 2.2 Service-travel 1.2 1.8 3.7 4.4 Service-video 2.0 3.0 6.0 7.2 Service-weight loss 0.5 0.7 1.4 1.7 Specialty-arts/crafts 0.7 1.1 2.1 2.5 Specialty-beauty 1.4 2.0 4.1 4.9 Specialty-books 0.7 1.0 2.0 2.4 Specialty-childrens 0.6 0.9 1.7 2.0 Specialty- flowers 1.3 2.0 3.9 4.7 Specialty-gifts/cards 4.2 6.2 12.3 14.7 1 Specialty-miscellaneous 0.7 1.1 2.1 2.5 Specialty-music 0.8 1.2 2.4 2.8 Specialty-nutrition 1.0 1.5 3.0 3.6 Specialty-office 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 Specialty-optical 1.1 1.6 3.3 3.9 Specialty-pets 2.3 3.4 6.7 8.0 Specialty-sports 2.6 3.9 7.7 9.2 Total Category Stores In Area 115 171 341 408 Garfield/Goldenwest Study 14 Gregory Stoffel&Associates IX. Miscellaneous Information And Findings 'l3REGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES ' City of Huntington Beach Food (Grocery) and Drug Store Sales Population - 1996 (1/97) 189,800 FOOD STORES ' Food Store Sales - Taxable (1996) $94,204,000 Food Store - Taxable to Total Multiplier 410% Food Store Sales - Total $386,236,400 1 f ales In Full-Line Grocery Est. /° O S Stores 88% Total Sales In Full-Line Stores $339,888,032 DRUG STORES Drug Store Sales - Taxable (1996) $29,697,000 Drug Store - Taxable to/Total Multiplier 200% Drug Store Sales - Total $59,394,000 Est. % Of Sales In Full-Line Stores 95% 1 Total Sales In Full-Line Stores $56,424,300 ' Total Drug Store Sales/Cap. $297 Source: Calif. State Board of Equalization, 1996. 1 Garfield/Goldenwest Study 15 Gregory Stoffel&Associates HUNTINGTON BEACH AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS: 1995-2020 Census Tracts in Study Area Chg. Chg. 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2M 1995 1995 1995 1995 Tract POP PQP PQP PQP PQP ME 1Q M to 2000 to 2020 to 2020 Huntington Beach 992.12 5,053 5,166 5,165 5,174 5,133 5,136 113 2.249/6 83 1.64% Huntington Beach 992.14 3,592 3,685 3,777 3,809 3,788 3,771 93 2.59% 179 4.98% Huntington Beach 992.15 5,533 5,675 5,818 5,874 5,840 5,969 142 2.57% 436 7.88% Huntington Beach 992.16 4,261 4,322 4,374 4,425 4,417 4,409 61 1.43% 148 3.47% Huntington Beach 992.17 2,610 2,650 2,683 2,722 2,722 2,722 40 1.53% 112 4.29% Huntington Beach 992.20 4,949 5,076 6,458 6,521 6,493 6,471 127 2.57% 1,522 30.75% Fountain Valley 992.30 4,316 4,316 4,316 4,316 4,316 4,316 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Fountain Valley 992.31 5,283 5,283 5,283 5,283 5,283 5,283 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Fountain Valley 992.32 5,530 5,530 5,530 5,530 5,530 5,530 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Fountain Valley 992.33 3,165 3,165 3,165 3,165 3,165 3,165 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 Fountain Valley 992.34 2,702 2,702 2,702 2,702 2,702 2,702 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Huntington Beach 992.35 4,841 4,961 5,088 5,139 5,108 5,083 120 2.48% 242 5.00% Huntington Beach 992.37 3,793 3,891 3,988 4,027 4,004 3,986 98 2.58% 193 5.09% Huntington Beach 992.38 4,649 4,717 4,773 4,830 4,818 4,808 68 1.46% 159 3.42% Huntington Beach 992.39 3,876 3,933 3,979 4,024 4,015 4,006 57 1.47% 130 3.35% Huntington Beach 992.40 5,398 5,477 5,535 5,594 5,576 5,558 79 1.46% 160 2.96% Huntington Beach 992.41 1,562 1,593 1,596 1,602 1,596 1,599 31 1.98% 37 2.37% Huntington Beach 992.42 3,677 3,745 3,759 3,772 3,760 3,761 68 1.85% 84 2.28% Huntington Beach 992.43 4,233 4,341 4,449 4,492 4,470 4,446 108 2.55% 213 5.03% Huntington Beach 992.44 4,266 4,330 4,375 4,425 4,413 4,397 64 1.50% 131 3.07% Huntington Beach 992.45 3,347 3,402 3,437 3,486 3,482 3,472 55 1.64% 125 3.73% Huntington Beach 992.46 4,317 4,379 4,435 4,494 4,480 4,478 62 1.44% 161 3.73% Huntington Beach 993.02 8,245 8,454 8,669 8,896 9,017 9,121 209 2.53% 876 10.62% Huntington Beach 993.05 7,443 7,474 7,536 7,595 7,556 7,817 31 0.42% 374 5.02% Huntington Beach 993.06 6,325 6,478 6,528 6,588 6,543 6,505 153 2.42% 180 2.85% Huntington Beach 993.07 2,657 3,025 3,081 3,084 3,035 2,994 368 13.85% 337 12.68% Huntington Beach 993.08 2,793 6,017 6,327 6,640 6,873 7,091 3,224 115.43% 4,298 153.88% Huntington Beach 993.09 3,907 5,474 5,508 5,554 5,507 5,471 1,567 40.11% 1,564 40.03% Huntington Beach 994.02 7,484 7,689 7,786 7,789 7,728 7,702 205 2.74% 218 2.91% Huntington Beach 994.04 5,070 5,210 5,207 5,224 5,191 5,188 140 2.76% 118 2.33% ' Huntington Beach 994.05 4,535 4,616 4,616 4,627 4,601 4,596 81 1.79% 61 1.35% Huntington Beach 994.06 4,644 4,725 4,725 4,737 4,707 4,705 81 1.74% 61 1.31% Huntington Beach 994.07 2,592 2,644 2,645 2,660 2,652 2,654 52 2.01% 62 2.39% Huntington Beach 994.08 3,490 4,967 4,986 4,997 4,967 4,960 1,477 42.32% 1,470 42.12% ' Huntington Beach 994.10 3,937 4,016 4,018 4,030 4,016 4,003 79 2.01% 66 1.68% Huntington Beach 994.11 5,556 5,657 5,654 5,667 5,626 5,614 101 1.82% 58 1.04% Huntington Beach 994.12 5,057 5.079 5,087 5,094 5,028 4,972 22 0.44% -85 -1.68% ' Huntington Beach 994.13 5,198 8,538 8,561 8,577 8,482 8,386 3,340 64.26% 3,188 61.33% Huntington Beach 994.15 5,798 6,263 6,284 6,310 6,266 6,230 465 8.02% 432 7.45% Huntington Beach 994.16 4,490 4,507 4,522 4,538 4,505 4,480 17 0.38% -10 -0.22% Huntington Beach 994.17 4,056 4,184 4,191 4,201 4,170 4,138 128 3.16% 82 2.02% Huntington Beach 995.07 8,154 8,188 8,216 8,240 8,177 8,123 34 0.42% -31 -0.38% Hunfington Beach 995.08 4,589 4,617 4,637 4,662 4,636 4,613 28 0.61% 24 0.52% Huntington Beach 996.02 2,274 2,311 2,304 2,315 2,297 2,292 37 1.63% 18 0.79% Huntington Beach 996.03 3,107 3,163 3,165 3,188 3,172 3,174 56 1.80% 67 2.16% Huntington Beach 996.04 3,980 4,047 4,050 4,068 4,045 4,046 67 1.68% 66 1.66% Huntington Beach 996.05 3,724 3,794 3,795 3,810 3,786 3,787 70 1.88% 63 1.69% Huntington Beach 997.02 402 403 405 410 407 406 1 0.25% 4 1.00% Huntington Beach 997.03 507 508 510 514 513 510 1 0.20% 3 0.59% Total 210,967 224,387 227,698 229,421 228,614 228,646 13,420 6.36% 17,679 8.38% Source: Center for Demographic Research,California State University, Fullerton 1 Hbmod.xls,6/19/98 ' Capturable Grocery Potential-10 Closest Census Tracts Growth Growth CLL 1995 m 2M 2m 2m 2m 25 05 95-20 993.02 $6,848,913 $7,022,525 $7,201,120 $7,389,683 $7,490,194 $7,576,585 $352,206 $727.671 993.05 $3,434,840 $3,449,146 $3,477.758 $3,504,986 $3,486,988 $3,607,436 $42,918 $172,596 993.06 $2,189,174 $2,242,130 $2,259,435 $2,280,202 $2,264,627 $2,251,475 $70,261 $62,301 ' 993.08 $3.625,117 $7,809,641 $8,211,999 $8,618,251 $8,920,668 $9,203,617 $4,586,882 $5,578,500 993.09 $3,380,673 $4,736,577 $4,765,996 $4,805,800 $4,765,131 $4,733,981 $1,385,323 $1,353,308 994.02 $1,165,644 $1,197,573 $1,212,681 $1,213,149 $1,203,648 $1,199,598 $47,037 $33,954 994.04 $1,316,100 $1,352,442 $1,351,664 $1,356,077 $1,347,510 $1,346,731 $35,563 $30,631 994.12 $2,800,482 $2,812,665 $2,817,095 $2,820.972 $2,784,422 $2,753,410 $16,613 -$47,072 994.13 $3,748,131 $6,156,511 $6,173,096 $6,184,633 $6,116,131 $6,046,909 $2,424,965 $2,298,778 1 994.15 $2.408,126 $2,601,258 $2,609,980 $2,620,779 $2,602,504 $2,587,552 $201,854 $179,426 Total - 10 $30,917,201 $39,380,468 $40,080,824 $40,794,531 $40,981,823 $41,307,294 $9,163,623 $10,390,092 4 Closest $14,188,761 $22,151,875 $22,628,849 $23,113,670 $23,288,918 $23,591,943 $8,440,088 $9,403,182 Capturable Drug Potential-10 Closest Census Tracts ' Growth Growth 1995 2444 m 2m 2915 242Q 95-05 95-20 993.02 $1,515,970 $1,554,398 $1,593,929 $1,635.667 $1,657,915 $1,677,037 $77,959 $161,066 993.05 $855,319 $858,8111 $866,006 $872,786 $868,304 $898,298 $10,687 $42,979 993.06 $545,132 $558,319 $562,628 $567,799 $563,921 $560,646 $17,496 $15,514 993.08 $802,400 $1,728,622 $1,817,682 $1,907,604 $1,974,542 $2,037,171 $1,015,282 $1,234,771 993,09 1841,831 11,179,468 11,186,794 11,196,705 11,186,571 11,1711,822 $344,963 1336,991 994.02 $322,511 $331,346 $335,526 $335,655 $333,026 $331,906 $13,014 $9.394 994.04 $364,140 $374,195 $373,979 $375,200 $372,830 $372,615 $9,840 $8,475 994.12 $697,356 $700,389 $701,493 $702,458 $693,357 $6115,634 $4,137 -$11,721 ' 994.13 $871,110 $1,430,846 $1.434.701 $1,437,382 $1,421,462 $1,405,373 $563,591 $534,263 994.15 $599,654 $647,746 $649,918 $652,607 $648,057 $644,333 $50,264 $44,679 Total-10 $7,415,424 $9,364,211 $9,522,657 $9,683,864 $9,719,992 $9,791,835 $2,107,233 $2,376,411 4 Closest $3,370,660 $5,197,818 $5,305,183 $5,414,478 $5,450,887 $5,519,664 $1,934,523 $2,149,004 ' Population Growth-10 Closest Census Tracts Growth Growth C.I. 1995 2= 2005 Z Q 2M 2m 95-05 95-20 993.02 8,245 8,454 8,669 8.896 9,017 9,121 424 876 993.05 7,443 7,474 7.536 7,595 7,556 7,817 93 374 993.06 6,325 6.478 6,528 6,588 6,543 6.505 203 180 993.08 2,793 6,017 6,327 6,640 6,873 7,091 3.534 4,298 993.09 3,907 5,474 5,508 5,554 5,507 5,471 1,601 1,564 994.02 7,484 7,689 7,786 7,789 7.728 7,702 302 218 994.04 5,070 5,210 5,207 5,224 5,191 5,188 137 118 994.12 5,057 5,079 5,087 5,094 5,028 4,972 30 -85 994.13 5,198 8,538 8,561 8,577 8,482 8,386 3,363 3,188 ' 994.15 5,798 6,263 6,284 6,310 6,266 6,230 486 432 Total-10 57,320 66,676 67,493 68,267 68,191 68,483 10,173 11,163 4 Closest 19,341 27,503 27,932 28,366 28,418 28,765 8,591 9,424 10close.xls,6119198 GREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES X. APPENDIX 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Garfield/Goldenwest Study 18 Gregory Stoffei&Associates Appendix A GREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES Trade Area Maps of: 1. Grocery Stores 1 2. Drug Stores 3. Retail Locations - All Significant Shopping Centers and Retail Within Huntington 1 Beach Market Area 4. Census Tract Boundaries 1 i 1 1 1 r i Garfield/Goldenwest Study 19 Gregory Stoffel&Associates kill to 11,Ili W. 911,101, Mt Ih 7` : LN fl.rMOR SA 21 1! -&!OE Ifto g' 114 EEp1 1 - �!. �1 Y ,Irk ��' ���� �rw w''1 per' ��_a � . . I �r �: @ � � •; +-arr�.a __- 1� IiP .' .. � t ilia Imp 0 1 INN �� Uff IN Rd. OMENRUN o _ n�,ytp ii 4" i M iiA� 3 r1 I , ' _ it! ml mom e ,4'Imm v1riII �GfLG�a^�II " ��Ier� � " n�c:r��y�r � � 219W fTQ 3 Q N I� 1 G�aY ��F� ,V .!1�,�. 01 WORD ry+ •�'y= is`, yy:�.y�yy��R !^tea-+t :, b!,.+`L:dil k i 1� ! S�r� +s.lrvp�.±�,,� ""' WIM Wii cmul"ll-,mi WE 1' ' f ~' 6'ti�' Chi � t ' �. �� �li.��� ' 'i 11. � r ��i,u1 r,r 7•t�',� ' ff _ +9 ui MIW 4 Fm OEM WINV 01 MEMO Ri7 Z�eS � � �p� G � ! ■I '.• . r c .. ..'lR., � � .- mt'�2F�'cm' �LhCFi � � � ��Ik➢WWr�ifi� d.;"i - � r; Huntington - , Market Analysis MON Jj LIL it �2,1"b oN Iffilil � i a_ F mayIRA LL�. � 41 ' ii\3' "fit r�, �i �C�l+� , � �L' � � .+, r�,'..;�-•' _ i�; ry. ' ' yF.i. � rr , PI-IF2 ���IIIIII ?, I ciii �— yy , �y,r I aa a1rPs�''���`�'g >1 t7•� ':� lI Nal a"-z"7m �flyi►�L N_ � �� y+'�+�r a J mOwe � •� r r, iil�lO F �M( ROE ■■ � _J511 IB e ITTr�u L''_ ii ,le If�9 FC ■ ■ ^�J�d ',y�.-":F.:.:�.i .NO I MIN ♦ +� ! ipill 01� • 9 b j " rc9 �cis��nl�PI�I 411�F11 MIA No`�I I : 0.3,051.01-EE, � � I ��"� - �;�'F—^I.�.I'F�•- Y}J'-\ 'f mias1 �� �1�'7� anal EIi 'q r > lff�', i 7 I a Y6 o lilmwlir•—rr 4 � fl wkL--,r- I III -hat MP rl , 4 cse � { I � I Jim �_,. . � .- �.\• ' dLSi"�'! ���_; �y� �ii:�i�_F����4. Y pil �Ci . . l� w, gin li iy. WE li S CAM � IF plr�� � < 1 yr �' t nd' ��" ' bNN 11� — — -.. i ' � �,'a! ti �j -. .� • � ��3�,a a u*"!' ter ih'�„""^��'1—. ,I Y:i�R'� � � .�t' .�: �.. �E '� .illy `.Irl� _�• Mc IEFJ E � m�-;V�� vT t Y . af�J PIG �■ �1.. t �'«� �� f ^I Y ��ItlA .R! 4t � ' f�J��1��f�� ��'� ,u �Y4�r�E'jjj. A � 14�•C 4 r _ _ Rlm .It , im � Lf Al v �=Ffl MID �Rl�l: w ITT 1WVWle�3�i ��`'Yp ' Appendix B GREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES ' Maps Illustrating Census Tract Model Findings: 1. Population density 2. Per capita income 3. Aggregate total income ' 4. Total grocery expenditure potential 5. Total drug store expenditure potential 6. Distance capture variable ' 7. Accessibility capture variable 8. Competition capture variable 9. Grocery sales capture share t10. Drug store sales capture share 11. Capturable grocery store sales ' 12. Capturable drug store sales 13. Population growth, 1995 to 2000 14. Population growth, 1995 to 2020 1 1 1 1 1 ' Garfield/Goldenwest Study 20 Gregory Stoffel&Associates Huntington Beach Market Area Legend 90 Census tracts Pop 2000 Density per Sq.Mi(thous.) 0.531 -5.00(9) 5.00-7.00(12) 7.00-9.00(13) .......... 9.00-11.00(9) U,!, 11.00+(6) 5 ............... .......... .............. OlfF� ....................... lilt CIA`x 4! 5, ................ M n, ......................... 2.4 k""� "1 41111, ..................................... ,w ............. E M" N 7 V ...................................... .................. .......... R ........... A ........ .... -AX ie ........................................M711.1-1-1- , 7. "s, B W5"� T F-4—P w ................... 0' i�' 3K2 R V;V E fie, - ......... 0 �4f "U, W, .. R. '14 "np"n ,.. .......... ............................................ ..... ..:.:............................ .............. ............................ W , 2��s . Vi4' " . ........... .......... IP a "S "A"IK "511,11 ''m- Zdk "M p "- ''I W-"" ........................ .............. N ............. ..... .......................... .............. ............... 'w -M WN .V-: 'Y' ................... .................... Xnk'- Cb "R "0 w�- T", 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 "A D- cl ".P Cl) OR2 1 1.47 C/) 06/17/98 Population density(per square mile),by Census Tract,2000. rr rr rr rr rr rr rr rr rr rr �r rr rr rr rr ® r� rn r Huntington Beach Market Area Legend - 90 Census tracts _ Per Ca - - �— 4 ; (thous.) "�•""'���� 0.000 20.00 6) !I 20.00-25.00(15) ............... iii'sfiiil€..€ 3 25.00-30 ............................. ....................... " 30.00-35.00 6 ;... .................pp............... ................................................. .............. 3"..,E•„ .. ...........................:...... ............... ............. j �/ .................................................... ........... W� 35.00+(a) ... 33 iiEEiiSEiiiiiiii. ! l3�iiiiiiiiii ............................. ................................E r ...............3.: 333333: l- ............ ............ ,-j' z Ekk 7 z a EEEEEEti':ci i ii i ...............i ...................................... ........................ ......................::::::::::::::: IS f, 'u y ....................::::: ......................... 3 ........................ ................ ................................................................... .............. :::: .::::::3:i::::3i3i333i333333iiii3ii::: :::::::::: J__ ...._.... .. ................................................ m ................ .....:.........................._............... j .:..:.......... ..........................................................7 e ........_............... , q i, a� X 3 1417 a 3 E 1 ' d l f 2 iN __. _. _......._-_ ..b ... --- 1 rijCL 21, � a B y a Es * i ✓ Q. 0.5 1 1.5 2 Scale 1.47 miles u < ON 1 = tin s ....r; �,,� .`. ��� f ` � � �" � :/' �� �✓ - - 06/17/98 Per capita income,by Census Tract. Huntington Beach Market Area -- �. - --- - Legend 0 Census tracts Aq Q.Inc. -.......... 0.0-75.0(8) ............... ................ ............... .............. ............... ................ 75.0-100.0(11) ................................ ............... ................ ................................. .............................. I 100.0-125.0(13) 125.0 150.0 7) ................................................. ................................................. ................................................. ................................................. ................................................. ....................................... :::::�................:::::::::. 150.0+(10) Z G } �I J.............................. ................................ s I li �Po +41 II 1 c e y .............. III - .._ .............. ................. R -- ............::: { wa p 5 ' -— Q x HN:: Y ? a a `Da I \ � x 0 0.5 1, 1.5 2 y 7 i J / Scale:1"=1.47 miles /N� � 06/17/98 Aggregate total income,by Census Tract(in millions of$). Huntington Beach Market Area Legend 90 Census tracts Potential ............... 8.00-9.00(7) U9.00+(15) ............... ------------ .............. ................ ... ....... ................ j �4 V V a 44 'I""'I""',.........Vie::haN ��!A 9� Q ................ i e v- ............. RK!. Gi, J N ............... ................ .......... , sm Q-41 AR 1 ff V: 4 '0" III 4 . S u3m x—r.ail %. a R .F " .... .. V I i AR t V !,Z R� g"'mP'n, 1.171%,11 11 1,— �ii`z,=�.;Rv,_-,liz V, Vkt-P'R --J"N'T gigq 4�, NO NOU V; �Ai ME, E, O"ki W., i 1,�—� -, ............... tttnt 50!, 5 3F PZ R 11 N:0 2 A "M NO R 06 F ................ 2 "1, ,M CL ................ 3 A �;,e p� N 5 a Ni, f, C� . �,E M X, g-t ................ �A`R Or.R, M CA. tE 2 M gt 0 0.5 1 1.5 co Scale:1"=1.47 miles -Z- 06/1 7/98 Total grocery expenditure potential(in 'millions of by Census Tract. rr rr r rr rr rr rr rr ® rr rr ® r ar rr rr rr rr �r Huntington Beach Market Area . ( T- ---- Legend i 90 Census tracts i I E3 Drug Excend. 0.000-0.750(5) 0.750- 1.000(6) 1_ I 1.000-1.250(11) 1.250-.1.500(12) ................. 1.500+(15) ................ 3� 3 'ax. 3 ::I Al i�/ ............... ........... ................................i ........�: ::�:: / ....._....... � } - t. ya a D .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .................................. ................................. ............................... yOU ................................. i .............................. j ` '�s .............................. � _ E t .: �f \ a 6 I r A f 3 U r-a r � � 2 % \ 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 s `-F A Scale:1"=1.47 miles 1; � N 06/17/98 Total drug store expenditure potential(in millions of$)by Census Tract. Huntington Beach Market Area _ - Legend i 90 Census tracts j I f q Distance -I-._. __- 0.4-0.6(24) ll' % 0.6-0.8(13) 0.8 10(9) ® 1.0+(3) r ........ l ................ g�M : „ ............. z. r.r ....... ........... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............... ... ..............i:::::::;::::::: [ti I.................. ....................... ........................ ........................ .S of R ey' ........................ I I ........................ C $ '. ........................f .................... ......................... .......... 9 s .......... ......................... ......................... ........................ ......................... ........................ ........................ u; R . ........................ .......................HS IIA ............ .....:. i e .a ............................................. ............................................... ................................................ ..............._:......................:..:::::: ......................... ................................................ . ....................... ....................:::: ....................... „rr's `P '�'•. y' X.r'*t'`x r; x �?;,' s .. ........................ .............. x ::.:?sC -y Kaz�, .................................k II -ke a. fS .n a q ........................ f ...................... ...........::............... .... ................................................. ........... . _..._. .: ... .:....... .._.... .. ',:.... ..ti`i, ................... s. :: f ..�,�`\ �' ............... ....:........... \ U ......... VIIM k R _�,.. FJ� 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 a _ � scale:1"=1.47 miles 06/17/98 Distance capture variable used in Census Tract demand model. �r �r r ■r r ® r r r rr r� �r r rr �r rr ® ■r �r Huntington Beach Market Area Legend C cts 90 ensus tra Access 0.4-0.6(28) r [ 0.6-0.8(15) _ I c .m 1.0+(4) ........................... ............ ........... ........... f .............................. TT - I i "21-` K. I r '. .............. €';i isiiii ii'sii€iiiii isi`.ii€': €? . ................................................................... .... .......... .......... _..............................._T - ....... — a .... €` ............. .................. p, P ............. :3........... /7............ ............................... f ........... � � I A ............ E _:33:3:::333333:: .......................................................... .......... ..... .............. 3:::::.::::::::::::::::::.: - .. .......................................................... ...................................................:::::::::::::: ... ................... ti -.,i 4Ei�i ......................................-EEEEEEEE3i3iiiiiEEEEiE'rii .,./ ................ �: :::::::::::........................................... .......................................... F::::::•::::::a:":i3iiE3EE::::::::::::.:::::::: ................................................................ ................. — ............... .' :;�. ..a� ,,.., ..:.' ............................ ...............x:::::::::'E..i3i::..:::':EEE::3E:i:33i:EEiEEEEii0 � ....... ......................... ...............«.............................................._ ............... ............... .......... ...................... is ..................................... ......................................... . i t 33Ei3i3Ei3EEEiiiii3iY3Eii3i3 ............. ............. �:�333i ..............3EEEEEf ii 3i Ei...................................... t ...................... ............... 3• .................... ........... .............................. :: ............................................................... __ ............... Z '� ............... .. ............... i 1 v, s .................i _ �_.__._. 1 .............. . ST i ::::::::::::::::: ............. . .......... .......... t l ....:............ FIX -— a -- � r C a PT � 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 i �� v Scale 1 -1 47 miles . s \ N� - SL r _ s / �-`� \✓-- - -- - — -- --_—to 06/17/98 Accessibility capture variable used in Census Tract demand model. ar �r rw r rr r� wr rr rr rr r� rr rr rr rr r r rr rr Huntington Beach Market Area r Legend � ...................................::::::::::::::. 90 Census tracts ..................................:................ � fig ...................... ............ — ............ Comp. Groc. €€€€'€€i€€?ii' €IfEEiEiiiiifiiiiEEEiiEiEiEi3 I // 0.1 -0.2(15) ............................... ;€t: 0.3-0.4(3) `-z I � 0.4-0.5 6 ................................ ................................. _.:r ::::::::::: 0.5 (3) . i li ---- + ............... ............ e ................................................................... ......mom............ �'. iiiiiiiiiiiEEEEifiiii?iiiEEEEiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii::a::—......ii3iiiiTiiiiii:: ............ ...... .iiiiFFiFttffiifiiiiiFi:. 'iiiEEEEiiii3iiiiiiiEEiiiEEiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiEEEiiiiiiiiiiiiifiEEffiiE...:........................:. , ............................... ,,. ................................_................................................................... ................:::::::::::::::: �a {.. %a" ................................ .............................. ... ...............................z............:::::....::::::^:::: ................................ ........... ....... ............:::::............. ............ � `FE ............ 3. ............ ............ ............... g .. r................................. tr e .................................. ....................................... ....................................... ` s -gyp iiiii£€€c€€€i€iii€E€F€€"€€i dYri Olt f - � +e f... i ` --................................ 4 b .,. i 1 ................. F_ z ......;.. ` ............... ............. .............. .............. .............. ;< —-- ....................... a a 1 ...........................f.E.�........ .:.::. .:..:.:.. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ..............3 . ...... 6 ............... .......... .......... .......... �e , 3 F rI 1 I 1- ................................ ..................... '""""••••'• "••::iiiiiiii3 .......... .......... .............. I� , I -, �'",¢F _watt'§, ar ......:........................... --__ ,r r..................:............. ................................ > ................................ �.��'cr ,.�,g,.�` '•r'� .�,,�'�' �.�r ,.r. .................`.CiiiiEii..EEEiiiiiiiEiiEiE�EEEEiiEii \ U + R 4 •c� di' %:. a� .ar'7(z .. t'`Y" ,„r yk.'7sJarv.,� , ?'r rEEEEEE:EEiiiiiiE[E AP a ar —�.....— r :::::.. / CL iA ........ _..- i 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 grl" LN�Scale:t"=1.47 miles °?C' ',,,,-, a. ?�;,.r., ..?'�iu;e,, % '.Hx ,'}��,-- �� fis f ,,;<„�� a f =�.as.s .�'%rxz5,- a \\,\./—_✓_/ _—_— -- ._ Cl)ff 06/17/98 Competition capture variable used in Census Tract demand model. �r ® rr rr r� rr r rr ® rr - r� ■r r r rr r� �r rr Huntington Beach Market Area Legend__........ � __. I 90 Census tracts �— - _ q Groc.Share _. �___. ___,� ❑0.000-0,050(30) --- I f !_ 0.050-0.100(8) — -- �� 0.100-0.200(4) 0.200-0.300(2) 0.300,(5) ;,3 r ............................. .............................. ................................. ................................. �, ................. ................................ 3 .... l �x i )f�/ ................................. ............ ................................. ................ ................................. ............ ................................ ............ a ................. __.... I l r ...................................... :...................................... ....................................... ....................................... ....................................... ...................................... L--. .. ......................................: I —i_ /l................ . ............ I ................. ................. ................. L Y ................. ................. AA :::::::::::::::... ................ x b3 I ............... ............... Xis K — v Y U. M 4 _ �� lip \ - # — 0.5 1 1.5 2 d 9 Scale:1"=1.47 miles j .....:_ 06/17/98 Grocery sales capture share,by Census Tract. Based on two grocery anchored centers(Shea and subject site). Huntington Beach Market Area .... ......... Legend 90 Census tracts [3 Drug Share E]0.000-0.050(12) 0,050-0.100(18) 0.200-0.300(4) =ate ......................... ......... ............. .............jj I. ::::::::::: i 00.300+(7) ................... ................................ ......... ... ....... .............. ....................... ............. ................... .......... ................ ................. ................................. ............ ....................................... ................. ..................... ................ ....................... .......... ..................... .. ........... 4 ............. ................. K, 12 ........... O!M a ............. i,� ------------ te A!..................... .... ..................... . -K� ........... ...... ............. A, .......................... Q, .. N"I"11,4, ........... ..... ............ ::............I.- ........................... .......... ................ 1,,v ................. ....................... ...............T ................................ ................................................................................... ............... OFN . .. ........ .................. ... ....... g, .... ................ ...... . '4 ... CD IE CL 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ............. Scale:1"=1.47 miles Nr I 06/17/98 Drug stores sales capture share,by Census Tract. Based on two grocery anchored centers(Shea and subject site). Huntington Beach Market Area Legend 90 Censu s tracts Groc.Sales N 0.000-0.250(21) 0.250-0.500(12) 0.500-1.000(5) ................... .................... .......... 1.000-2.000(3) N ........................... P� 2.000+(8) .................... .. ................ . ................ iiii� ............ ......................................... ............ ........................... -q�-q h ................. ... ........... A ...................... ............... ................ %w ............ ............... a, ..... ..... ?0z dIN ......................... .............. lllillliii�llm /V MR ..................�:: K�"N 'A. ................. ........... .......... ............. 4� ........... ........ ....... Ln .. .............................. .. .......................... ......... I 0 QL "'a CD R rL N K 77 2 co --7-- .......... Scale:1 1.47 miles 06/17/98 Capturable grocery store sales,by Census Tract. Based on two grocery anchored centers(Shea and subject site). Huntington Beach Market Area Legend I us tracts 90 Census t cts ......_........ DrugSales �� .... lJ / 0.000-0.125(27) 0.125 0.250(11) CJ ti\ 0.250-0.500(3) l ................................ M. ✓jam `` c5 E :: 1 NO �.3,. Lv ji ..... ............... ............... ............... / .............. /, ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ............... — ... �— !' ........................................ 20 ........................ ` ....................................... -- -- ki I l" _ x i e ............. .....:....... ............ ::::.... ....€' - — hy f ......... 3 ............... ................ r i l.. ............... .............. .............. �R €€i :::.. aM .. ................... .. " :iiiii::ii:iiiiii i:i::::i .. * :I:s::::as: E r--- a CD 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 k a — - to y Scale:1"=1.47 miles w z 06/17/98 Capturable drug store sales,by Census Tract. Based on two grocery anchored centers(Shea and subject site). Huntington Beach Market Area Legend 90 Census tracts ................ Fj 95-00 j I 0.000-0.062(43) GPI 0.062-0.125(1) -- - ' 0.125-0.250(1) 0.250-0.500(2) 0.500+(2) AHNN ............... .................. ..... MIMM ............ R ........... u- U` ............................ .............................. i............ ............ .................................... .................................... :: i .. ........ ......................... . . .. .............................. . .............. A M 52, .......... E 4 .7, -'0 .... .. ... J/ g- �S a a:! F�- L i ill Al, �ym R' "I F, . ............................ PI 5�, pe HR A -4, g, ...... jg 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 NV cafe:i =1.47 miles 7/98 Population growth, 1995 to 2000,by Census Tract. 06/1 1 Huntington Beach Market Area I ` Legend i I C ( ZI 90 Census tracts k . . . . . . . / 95-20% I ..: . 0 017-0:062(40) - 0.062 0.125(3). . . ..— _._._T j., I I I 0.125 0.250(1) r — 0.250-0.500(3) -- — -- _...__ l:. ,.,.. I „x.� I .,_ o l �_ . w . . -- ....-, - — i szz S`iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii"r:•:•:'.' '! (a .................. ; s..r. a ..,.ON".., ................................................ .... ....................................................... W s': ................................................... 4 .. .............. ................................... _- -y go 05311, a y a M.: ...... nyy�R. f ,.. R" ..................... 0' a a Jim ' CX z. R-r„ `gar14. s � 'RNIMP r a r kx a r a 7NS SA Pr cale: Q 1"=1.47 miles = 06/17/98 Population growth, 1995 to 2020,by Census Tract. Appendix C GREGORY STOFFEL & ASSOCIATES Census Tract Grocery Demand Tables (1995-2000-2005-2010-2015-2020) II 1 Garfield/Goldenwest Study 21 Gregory Stoffel&Associates 1 Huntington Beach Market Area $1,803 Grocery and Drug Store Demand 1996 Per Cap. Grocery 1995 Grocery Expenditure Traci trip[ POP HE HH Size $Per Cap AggJpg.Avg HH Inc mod. Potential 992.12 HB 5,053 1,720 2094 $20,640 $104.29 $62,169 $1,803 $9,108,940 992.14 HB 3,592 1,343 2.67 $21,000 $75.43 $56,248 $1,803 $6,475,225 992.15 HB 5,533 1,835 3.02 $19,899 $110010 $60,082 $1,803 $9,974,226 992.16 HB 4,261 1,395 3.05 $20,689 $88.16 $63,265 $1,803 $7,681,218 992.17 HB 2,610 916 2.85 $44,817 $116.97 $127,639 $1,803 $4,704,994 992.20 HB 4,949 2,146 2.31 $26,278 $130.05 $60,616 $1,803 $8,921,461 992.30 FV 4,316 1,433 3.01 $25,425 $109074 $76,573 $1,803 $7,780,365 992.31 FV 5,283 1,568 3.37 $28,183 $148.89 $94,956 $1,803 $9,523,556 992.32 FV 5,530 1,898 2.91 $28,262 $156.29 $82,424 $1,803 $9,968,818 992.33 FV 3,165 955 3.31 $22,718 $71.90 $75,288 $1,803 $5,705,481 992.34 FV 2,702 842 3.21 $23,037 $62.24 $74,035 $1,803 $4,870,840 992.35 HB 4,841 1,839 2063 $23,831 $115.37 $62,924 $1,803 $8,726,772 992.37 HB 3,793 1,284 2.96 $28,141 $106.74 $83,403 $1,803 $6,837,564 992.38 HB 4,649 1,425 3.26 $30,130 $140007 $98,325 $1,803 $8,380,658 992.39 HB 3,876 1,285 3.02 $32,947 $127070 $99,368 $1,803 $6,987,186 992.40 HB 5,398 2,071 2061 $30,008 $161.98 $78,433 $1,803 $9,730,865 992.41 HB 1,562 464 3.37 $23,108 $36.09 $77,873 $1,803 $2,815,786 992.42 HB 3,677 1,123 3.27 $21,343 $78.48 $70,284 $1,803 $6,628,453 992.43 HB 4,233 1,728 2045 $32,174 $136.19 $79,256 $1,803 $7,630,743 1 992.44 HB 4,266 1,863 2029 $27,522 $117041 $63,095 $1,803 $7,690,231 992.45 HB 3,347 1,124 2098 $36,175 $121.08 $107,718 $1,803 $6,033,569 992.46 HB 4,317 1,283 3.37 $27,062 $116.83 $91,072 $1,803 $7,782,168 993.02 HB 8,245 3,805 2.17 $31,312 $258.17 $67,867 $1,803 $14,863,093 ' 993.05 HB 7,443 2,805 2065 $21,701 $161052 $57,649 $1,803 $13,417,344 993.06 HB 6,325 2,773 2028 $28,455 $179098 $64,903 $1,803 $11,401,949 993.07 HB 2,657 1,400 1.90 $36,508 $97.00 $69,283 $1,803 $4,789,720 ' 993.08 HB 2,793 1,032 2071 $61,823 $172067 $167,352 $1,803 $5,034,884 993.09 HB 3,907 1,754 2023 $35,646 $139027 $79,487 $1,803 $7,043,069 994.02 HB 7,484 1,978 3.78 $10,587 $79.23 $40,551 $1,803 $13,491,254 994.04 HB 5,070 1,730 2.93 $29,330 $148.70 $85,933 $1,803 $9,139,586 994.05 HB 4,535 1,609 2082 $21,507 $97.54 $60,623 $1,803 $8,175,152 994.06 HB 4,644 1,677 2.77 $27,212 $126.37 $75.356 $1,803 $8,371,644 994.07 HB 2,592 985 2063 $24,515 $63.54 $64,500 $1,803 $4,672,546 994.08 HB 3,490 1,329 2.63 $24,906 $86.92 $65,413 $1,803 $6,291,352 994.10 HB 3,937 1,566 2.51 $22,536 $88.72 $56,675 $1,803 $7,097,150 994.11 HB 5,556 1,992 2079 $18,725 $104.03 $52,229 $1,803 $10,015,688 994.12 HB 5,057 1,895 2067 $30,983 $156.68 $82,675 $1,803 $9,116,151 994.13 HB 5,198 2,384 2.18 $24,824 $129.04 $56,055 $1,803 $9,370,329 994.15 HB 5,798 1,839 3.15 $36,216 $209.98 $114,167 $1,803 $10,451,936 1 994.16 HB 4,490 2,181 2.06 $27,312 $122.63 $56,229 $1,803 $8,094,032 994.17 HB 4,056 1,823 2.23 $40,137 $162079 $89,310 $1,803 $7,311,669 995.07 HB 8,154 3,328 2.45 $70,164 $572012 $171,990 $1,803 $14,699,050 995.08 HB 4,589 2,078 2021 $26,793 $122.95 $59,158 $1,803 $8,272,497 ' 996.02 HB 2,274 910 2050 $0 $0.00 $0 $1,803 $4,099,293 996.03 HB 3,107 1,243 2.50 $0 $0.00 $0 $1,803 $5,600,926 996.04 HB 3,980 1,243 3.20 $23,160 $92.18 $74,252 $1,803 $7,174,665 ' 996.05 HB 3,724 1,284 2090 $28,193 $104.99 $81,736 $1,803 $6,713,179 997.02 HB 402 124 3.23 $18,975 $7.63 $61,073 $1,803 $724,677 997.03 HB 507 174 2092 $25,970 $13.17 $75,897 $1,803 $913,959 Total 210,967 78,477 2.69 $28,411 $5,929.84 $76,375 $380,305,912 1 Hunting $299 Grocery 1995 Per Cap. Drug Capture Capture Number Compet. Number Compet. Expend. Expenditure HH Variable Variable of Comp. Rating of Comp. Drug Tract Q= Drug Expend, Income Distance Access Groc Stores Comp. Groc. Drug Stores Come Drug. 992.12 $299 $1,512,161 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.14 $299 $1,074,942 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.15 $299 $1,655,806 60% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.16 $299 $1,275,147 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.17 $299 $781,069 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.20 $299 $1,481,038 100% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 992.30 $299 $1,291,607 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.31 $299 $1,580,991 100% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.32 $299 $1,654,909 100% 40% 60% 7 10% 7 30% ' 992,33 $299 $947,158 80% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.34 $299 $808,601 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.35 $299 $1,448,718 80% 80% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.37 $299 $1,135,094 100% 60% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.38 $299 $1,391,260 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.39 $299 $1,159,932 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.40 $299 $1,615,406 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.41 $299 $467,444 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.42 $299 $1,100,379 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.43 $299 $1,266,768 120% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.44 $299 $1,276,644 100% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.45 $299 $1,001,624 120% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% 992.46 $299 $1,291,906 100% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 993.02 $299 $2,467,400 120% 80% 80% 2 60% 2 80% ' 993.05 $299 $2,227,393 80% 80% 100% 4 40% 4 60% 993.06 $299 $1,892,820 100% 80% 60% 4 40% 4 60% 993.07 $299 $795,134 120% 60% 60% 4 40% 4 60% ' 993.08 $299 $835,834 120% 100% 100% 2 60% 2 80% 993.09 $299 $1,169,209 120% 100% 100% 4 40% 4 60% 994.02 $299 $2,239,663 60% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% ' 994.04 $299 $1,517,249 100% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% 994.05 $299 $1,357,145 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 994.06 $299 $1,389,764 100% 40% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 994.07 $299 $775,682 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 994.08 $299 $1,044,418 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 994.10 $299 $1,178,187 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 994.11 $299 $1,662,689 60% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 994.12 $299 $1,513,358 120% 80% 80% 4 40% 4 60% 994.13 $299 $1,555,554 80% 100% 100% 3 50% 3 70% 994.15 $299 $1,735,110 120% 80% 60% 4 40% 4 60% 994.16 $299 $1,343,678 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 994.17 $299 $1,213,799 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 995.07 $299 $2,440,167 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 995.08 $299 $1,373,305 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 1 996.02 $299 $680,518 0% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 996.03 $299 $929,801 0% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 996.04 $299 $1,191,055 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% ' 996.05 $299 $1,114,445 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 997.02 $299 $120,303 60% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 997.03 $299 $151,725 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% Total $63,134,012 Hunting Grocery 1995 Grocery Drug Grocery Drug Capture Capture Capture Capture Tract Groc.Share Drug Share Groc. Sales Wig ales 992.12 5.76% 11.52% $524,675 $174,201 992.14 5.76% 11.52% $372,973 $123,833 992.15 2.88% 5.76% $287,258 $95,374 992.16 1.28% 3.84% $98,320 $48,966 992.17 1.92% 5.76% $90,336 $44,990 992.20 4.80% 9.60% $428,230 $142,180 I 992.30 1.60% 4.80% $124,486 $61,997 992.31 7.20% 14.40% $685,696 $227,663 992.32 2.40% 7.20% $239,252 $119,153 992.33 3,84% 7.68% $219,090 $72,742 992.34 2.56% 5.12% $124,694 $41,400 992.35 7.68% 15.36% $670,216 $222,523 992.37 2.40% 7.20% $164,102 $81,727 992.38 3.84% 7.68% $321,817 $106,849 992.39 3.84% 7.68% $268,308 $89,083 992.40 3.84% 7.68% $373,665 $124,063 992.41 1.28% 3.84% $36,042 $17,950 992.42 2.56% 5.12% $169,688 $56,339 992.43 5.76% 11.52% $439,531 $145,932 992,44 4.80% 9.60% $369,131 $122,558 992.45 17.28% 28.80% $1,042,601 $288,468 992.46 7.20% 14.40% $560,316 $186,034 993.02 46.08% 61.44% $6,848,913 $1,515,970 1 993.05 25.60% 38.40% $3,434,840 $855,319 993.06 19.20% 28.80% $2,189,174 $545,132 993.07 17.28% 25.92% $827,664 $206,099 ' 993.08 72.00% 96.00% $3,625,117 $802,400 993.09 48.00% 72.00% $3,380,673 $841,831 994.02 8.64% 14.40% $1,165,644 $322,511 1 994.04 14.40% 24.00% $1,316,100 $364,140 994.05 5.76% 11.52% $470,889 $156,343 994.06 4.80% 9.60% $401,839 $133,417 994.07 2.56% 5.12% $119,617 $39,715 ' 994.08 2.56% 5.12% $161,059 $53,474 994.10 1.28% 3.84% $90,844 $45,242 994.11 4.32% 8.64% $432,678 $143,656 1 994.12 30.72% 46.08% $2,800,482 $697,356 994.13 40.00% 56.00% $3,748,131 $871,110 994.15 23.04% 34.56% $2,408,126 $599,654 ' 994.16 1.60% 4.80% $129,505 $64,497 994.17 1.92% 5.76% $140,384 $69,915 995.07 1.92% 5.76% $282,222 $140,554 995.08 1.60% 4.80% $132,360 $65,919 ' 996.02 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 996.03 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 996.04 1.28% 3.84% $91,836 $45,737 996.05 1.60% 4.80% $107,411 $53,493 997.02 0.96% 2.88% $6,957 $3,465 997.03 1.28% 3.84% $11,699 $5,826 Total $41,934,588 $11,236,800 Huntington Beach Market Area $1,803 Grocery and Drug Store Demand 2000 Per Cap. Grocery 2000 Grocery Expenditure Tract f& EQe Hh HH S1Z8 $Per Cap Aua.lnc. Avg HH Inc mod, Potential 992.12 HB 5,166 1,758 2.94 $20,640 $106.63 $62,169 $1,803 $9,312,643 992.14 HB 3,685 1,378 2.67 $21,000 $77.38 $56,248 $1,803 $6,642,874 992.15 HB 5,675 1,882 3.02 $19,899 $112.93 $60,082 $1,803 $10,230,207 ' 992.16 HB 4,322 1,415 3.05 $20,689 $89.42 $63,265 $1,803 $7,791,181 992.17 HB 2,650 930 2.85 $44,817 $118076 $127,639 $1,803 $4,777,101 992.20 HB 5,076 2,201 2.31 $26,278 $133039 $60,616 $1,803 $9,150,402 ' 992.30 FV 4,316 1,433 3.01 $25,425 $109.74 $76,573 $1,803 $7,780,365 992.31 FV 5,283 1,568 3.37 $28,183 $148.89 $94,956 $1,803 $9,523,556 992.32 FV 5,530 1,898 2091 $28,262 $156029 $82,424 $1,803 $9,968,818 992.33 FV 3,165 955 3.31 $22,718 $71.90 $75,288 $1,803 $5,705,481 ' 992.34 FV 2,702 842 3.21 $23,037 $62.24 $74,035 $1,803 $4,870,840 992.35 HB 4,961 1,884 2.63 $23,831 $118.23 $62,924 $1,803 $8,943,094 992.37 HB 3,891 1,317 2.96 $28,141 $109.50 $83,403 $1,803 $7,014,226 992.38 HB 4,717 1,446 3.26 $30,130 $142.12 $98,325 $1,803 $8,503,240 992.39 HB 3,933 1,304 3.02 $32,947 $129.58 $99,368 $1,803 $7,089,939 992.40 HB 5,477 2,101 2.61 $30,008 $164.35 $78,433 $1,803 $9,873,276 ' 992.41 HB 1,593 473 3.37 $23,108 $36.81 $77,873 $1,803 $2,871,669 992.42 HB 3,745 1,144 3.27 $21,343 $79.93 $70,284 $1,803 $6,751,035 992.43 HB 4,341 1,772 2.45 $32,174 $139067 $79,256 $1,803 $7,825,432 992.44 HB 4,330 1,890 2.29 $27,522 $119.17 $63,095 $1,803 $7,805,603 992.45 HB 3,402 1,142 2098 $36,175 $123.07 $107,718 $1,803 $6,132,716 992.46 HB 4,379 1,301 3.37 $27,062 $118051 $91,072 $1,803 $7,893,934 993.02 HB 8,454 3,901 2.17 $31,312 $264.71 $67,867 $1,803 $15,239,854 993.05 HB 7,474 2,817 2.65 $21,701 $162019 $57,649 $1,803 $13,473,227 993.06 HB 6,478 2,840 2028 $28,455 $184033 $64,903 $1,803 $11,677,759 993.07 HB 3,025 1,594 1.90 $36,508 $110044 $69,283 $1,803 $5,453,106 ' 993.08 HB 6,017 2,223 2.71 $61,823 $371.99 $167,352 $1,803 $10,846,723 993.09 HB 5,474 2,457 2023 $35,646 $195013 $79,487 $1,803 $9,867,868 994.02 HB 7,689 2,032 3.78 $10,587 $81.40 $40,551 $1,803 $13,860,804 994.04 HB 5,210 1,778 2.93 $29,330 $152.81 $85,933 $1,803 $9,391,961 994.05 HB 4,616 1,638 2082 $21,507 $99.28 $60,623 $1,803 $8,321,169 994.06 HB 4,725 1,706 2.77 $27,212 $128.58 $75,356 $1,803 $8,517,661 994.07 HB 2,644 1,005 2.63 $24,515 $64.82 $64,500 $1,803 $4,766,285 ' 994.08 HB 4,967 1,891 2.63 $24,906 $123071 $65,413 $1,803 $8,953,910 994.10 HB 4,016 1,597 2.51 $22,536 $90.50 $56,675 $1,803 $7,239,561 994.11 HB 5,657 2,028 2.79 $18,725 $105.93 $52,229 $1,803 $10,197,759 994.12 HB 5,079 1,903 2.67 $30,983 $157.36 $82,675 $1,803 $9,155,810 994.13 HB 8,538 3,916 2018 $24,824 $211.95 $56,055 $1,803 $15,391,279 994.15 HB 6,263 1,987 3.15 $36,216 $226082 $114,167 $1,803 $11,290,182 ' 994.16 HB 4,507 2,189 2.06 $27,312 $123.10 $56,229 $1,803 $8,124,677 994.17 HB 4,184 1,880 2023 $40,137 $167.93 $89,310 $1,803 $7,542,412 995.07 HB 8,188 3,342 2045 $70,164 $574.50 $171,990 $1,803 $14,760,341 995.08 HB 4,617 2,091 2021 $26,793 $123070 $59,158 $1,803 $8,322,972 ' 996.02 HB 2,311 924 2.50 $0 $0.00 $0 $1,803 $4,165,993 996.03 HB 3,163 1,265 2050 $0 $0.00 $0 $1,803 $5,701,876 996.04 HB 4,047 1,264 3.20 $23,160 $93.73 $74,252 $1,803 $7,295,444 996.05 HB 3,794 1,309 2.90 $28,193 $106.96 $81,736 $1,803 $6,839,366 997.02 HB 403 125 3.23 $18,975 $7.65 $61,073 $1,803 $726,480 997.03 HB 508 174 2092 $25,970 $13.19 $75,897 $1,803 $915,761 Total 224,387 78,477 2.69 $28,411 $6,411.21 $76,375 $404,497,872 Hunting $299 Grocery 2000 Per Cap Drug Expend. Number Compet. Number Compet. Expend. Expenditure HH Variable Variable of Comp. Rating of Comp. Drug Tract D= Drug Expend, Inane Distance Access Groc Stores Comp.Groc. (Zg Stores Come Drug. 992.12 $299 $1,545,978 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.14 $299 $1,102,774 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.15 $299 $1,698,301 60% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 1 992.16 $299 $1,293,402 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.17 $299 $793,039 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.20 $299 $1,519,044 100% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.30 $299 $1,291,607 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.31 $299 $1,580,991 100% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.32 $299 $1,654,909 100% 40% 60% 7 10% 7 30% ' 992.33 $299 $947,158 80% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.34 $299 $808,601 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.35 $299 $1,484,630 80% 80% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.37 $299 $1,164,421 100% 60% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 1 992.38 $299 $1,411,610 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.39 $299 $1,176,990 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.40 $299 $1,639,048 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 992.41 $299 $476,721 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.42 $299 $1,120,729 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.43 $299 $1,299,088 120% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 1 992.44 $299 $1,295,796 100% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.45 $299 $1,018,083 120% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% 992.46 $299 $1,310,460 100% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 993.02 $299 $2,529,945 120% 80% 80% 2 60% 2 80% 993.05 $299 $2,236,670 80% 80% 100% 4 40% 4 60% 993.06 $299 $1,938,607 100% 80% 60% 4 40% 4 60% 993.07 $299 $905,262 120% 60% 60% 4 40% 4 60% 993.08 $299 $1,800,648 120% 100% 100% 2 60% 2 80% 993.09 $299 $1,638,150 120% 100% 100% 4 40% 4 60% 994.02 $299 $2,301,011 60% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% 1 994.04 $299 $1,559,145 100% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% 994.05 $299 $1,381,385 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 994.06 $299 $1,414,004 100% 40% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 994.07 $299 $791,244 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 994.08 $299 $1,486,425 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 994.10 $299 $1,201,829 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 994.11 $299 $1,692,915 60% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 994.12 $299 $1,519,942 120% 80% 80% 4 40% 4 60% 994.13 $299 $2,555,083 80% 100% 100% 3 50% 3 70% 994.15 $299 $1,874,266 120% 80% 60% 4 40% 4 60% ' 994.16 $299 $1,348,765 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 994.17 $299 $1,252,104 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 995.07 $299 $2,450,342 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 995.08 $299 $1,381,684 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% ' 996.02 $299 $691,590 0% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 996.03 $299 $946,560 0% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 996.04 $299 $1,211,106 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 996.05 $299 $1,135,393 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 997.02 $299 $120,602 60% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 997.03 $299 $152,024 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% Total $67,150,083 Hunting Grocery 2000 Capture Capture Capture. Capture Tract Groc.Share Drug Share Groc.Sales Drug Sales 992.12 5.76% 11.52% $536,408 $178,097 992.14 5.76% 11.52% $382,630 $127,040 992.15 2.88% 5.76% $294,630 $97,822 992.16 1.28% 3.84% $99,727 $49,667 992.17 1.92% 5.76% $91,720 $45,679 992.20 4.80% 9.60% $439,219 $145,828 992.30 1.60% 4.80% $124,486 $61,997 992.31 7.20% 14.40% $685,696 $227,663 992.32 2.40% 7.20% $239,252 $119,153 ' 992,33 3,84% 7.68% $219,090 $72,742 992.34 2.56% 5.12% $124,694 $41,400 992.35 7.68% 15.36% $686,830 $228,039 992.37 2.40% 7.20% $168,341 $83,838 992.38 3.84% 7.68% $326,524 $108,412 992.39 3.84% 7.68% $272,254 $90,393 992.40 3.84% 7.68% $379,134 $125,879 ' 992.41 1.28% 3.84% $36,757 $18,306 992.42 2.56% 5.12% $172,827 $57,381 992.43 5.76% 11.52% $450,745 $149,655 992.44 4,80% 9,60% $374,669 $124,396 992.45 17.28% 28.80% $1,059,733 $293,208 992.46 7.20% 14.40% $568,363 $188,706 993.02 46.08% 61.44% $7,022,525 $1,554,398 ' 993.05 25.60% 38.40% $3,449,146 $858,881 993.06 19.20% 28.80% $2,242,130 $558,319 993.07 17.28% 25.92% $942,297 $234,644 ' 993.08 72.00% 96.00% $7,809,641 $1,728,622 993.09 48.00% 72.00% $4,736,577 $1,179,468 994.02 8.64% 14.40% $1,197,573 $331,346 994.04 14.40% 24.00% $1,352,442 $374,195 994.05 5.76% 11.52% $479,299 $159,136 994.06 4.80% 9.60% $408,848 $135,744 994.07 2.56% 5.12% $122,017 $40,512 994.08 2.56% 5.12% $229,220 $76,105 994.10 1.28% 3.84% $92,666 $46,150 994.11 4.32% 8.64% $440,543 $146,268 994.12 30.72% 46.08% $2,812,665 $700,389 994.13 40.00% 56.00% $6,156,511 $1,430,846 994.15 23.04% 34.56% $2,601,258 $647,746 ' 994,16 1,60% 4,80% $129,995 $64,741 994.17 1.92% 5.76% $144,814 $72,121 995.07 1.92% 5.76% $283,399 $141,140 995.08 1.60% 4.80% $133,168 $66,321 996.02 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 996.03 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 996.04 1.28% 3.84% $93,382 $46,506 996.05 1.60% 4.80% $109,430 $54,499 997.02 0.96% 2.88% $6,974 $3,473 997.03 1.28% 3.84% $11,722 $5,838 Total $50,741,970 $13,292,710 Huntington Beach Market Area $1,803 Grocery and Drug Store Demand 2005 Per Cap. Grocery 2005 Grocery Expenditure ' Iract FQE }ih HH Size $ Per Can Aqp, Inc. Avg HH Inc Expend. potential 992.12 HB 5,165 1,758 2.94 $20,640 $106.61 $62,169 $1,803 $9,310,840 992.14 HB 3,777 1,412 2067 $21,000 $79.32 $56,248 $1,803 $6,808,721 992.15 HB 5,818 1,929 3.02 $19,899 $115078 $60,082 $1,803 $10,487,990 ' 992.16 HB 4,374 1,432 3.05 $20,689 $90.49 $63,265 $1,803 $7,884,921 992.17 HB 2,683 942 2.85 $44,817 $120024 $127,639 $1,803 $4,836,589 992.20 HB 6,458 2,800 2.31 $26,278 $169070 $60,616 $1,803 $11,641,705 ' 992.30 FV 4,316 1,433 3.01 $25,425 $109074 $76,573 $1,803 $7,780,365 992.31 FV 5,283 1,568 3.37 $28,183 $148089 $94,956 $1,803 $9,523,556 992.32 FV 5,530 1,898 2091 $28,262 $156.29 $82,424 $1,803 $9,968,818 ' 992,33 FV 3,165 955 3.31 $22,718 $71.90 $75,288 $1,803 $5,705,481 992.34 FV 2,702 842 3.21 $23,037 $62.24 $74,035 $1,803 $4,870,840 992.35 HB 5,088 1,933 2063 $23,831 $121.25 $62,924 $1,803 $9,172,034 992.37 HB 3,988 1,349 2096 $28,141 $112.23 $83,403 $1,803 $7,189,086 ' 992.38 HB 4,773 1,463 3.26 $30,130 $143.81 $98,325 $1,803 $8,604,190 992.39 HB 3,979 1,319 3.02 $32,947 $131.10 $99,368 $1,803 $7,172,862 992.40 HB 5,535 2,123 2061 $30,008 $166009 $78,433 $1,803 $9,977,832 992.41 HB 1,596 474 3.37 $23,108 $36.88 $77,873 $1,803 $2,877,077 992.42 HB 3,759 1,148 3.27 $21,343 $80.23 $70,284 $1,803 $6,776,273 992.43 HB 4,449 1,816 2045 $32,174 $143014 $79,256 $1,803 $8,020,122 ' 992,44 HB 4,375 1,910 2.29 $27,522 $120.41 $63,095 $1,803 $7,886,723 992.45 HB 3,437 1,154 2.98 $36,175 $124.33 $107,718 $1,803 $6,195,810 992.46 HB 4,435 1,318 3.37 $27,062 $120002 $91,072 $1,803 $7,994,884 993.02 HB 8,669 4,001 2017 $31,312 $271044 $67,867 $1,803 $15,627,430 ' 993.05 HB 7,536 2,840 2.65 $21,701 $163053 $57,649 $1,803 $13,584,994 993.06 HB 6,528 2,862 2028 $28,455 $185.76 $64,903 $1,803 $11,767,893 993.07 HB 3,081 1,623 1.90 $36,508 $112.48 $69,283 $1,803 $5,554,056 993.08 HB 6,327 2,337 2.71 $61,823 $391015 $167,352 $1,803 $11,405,554 993.09 HB 5,508 2,472 2.23 $35,646 $196.34 $79,487 $1,803 $9,929,159 994.02 HB 7,786 2,058 3.78 $10,587 $82.43 $40,551 $1,803 $14,035,664 ' 994,04 HB 5,207 1,777 2093 $29,330 $152.72 $85,933 $1,803 $9,386,553 994.05 HB 4,616 1,638 2.82 $21,507 $99.28 $60,623 $1,803 $8,321,169 994.06 HB 4,725 1,706 2.77 $27,212 $128.58 $75,356 $1,803 $8,517,661 994.07 HB 2,645 1,005 2063 $24,515 $64.84 $64,500 $1,803 $4,768,088 994.08 HB 4,986 1,898 2.63 $24,906 $124018 $65,413 $1,803 $8,988,161 994.10 HB 4,018 1,598 2051 $22,536 $90.55 $56,675 $1,803 $7,243,167 994.11 HB 5,654 2,027 2.79 $18,725 $105087 $52,229 $1,803 $10,192,351 ' 994.12 HB 5,087 1,906 2067 $30,983 $157.61 $82,675 $1,803 $9,170,231 994.13 HB 8,561 3,926 2.18 $24,824 $212052 $56,055 $1,803 $15,432,740 994.15 HB 6,284 1,993 3.15 $36,216 $227.58 $114,167 $1,803 $11,328,039 994,16 HB 4,522 2,196 2.06 $27,312 $123051 $56,229 $1,803 $8,151.717 994.17 HB 4,191 1,883 2.23 $40,137 $168.21 $89,310 $1,803 $7,555,030 995.07 HB 8,216 3,353 2045 $70,164 $576.47 $171,990 $1,803 $14,810,816 995.08 HB 4,637 2,100 2.21 $26,793 $124.24 $59,158 $1,803 $8,359,025 996.02 HB 2,304 922 2.50 $0 $0.00 $0 $1,803 $4,153,374 996.03 HB 3,165 1,266 2.50 $0 $0.00 $0 $1,803 $5,705,481 996.04 HB 4,050 1,265 3.20 $23,160 $93.80 $74,252 $1,803 $7,300,852 996.05 HB 3,795 1,309 2.90 $28,193 $106.99 $81,736 $1,803 $6,841,169 997.02 HB 405 125 3.23 $18,975 $7.68 $61,073 $1,803 $730,085 997.03 HB 510 175 2.92 $25,970 $13024. $75,897 $1,803 $919,367 Total 227,698 78,477 2.69 $28,411 $6,511071 $76,375 $410,466,545 Hunting $299 Grocery ' 2005 Per Cap. Drug Capture Capture Number Compet. Number Compet. Expend. Expenditure HH Variable Variable of Comp. Rating of Comp. Drug Tract Q= Drup Expend, fame Distance Ass Groc Stores Comp Groc, Drug Stores Comp. Drug, ' 992.12 $299 $1,545,679 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.14 $299 $1,130,306 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.15 $299 $1,741,095 60% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 992.16 $299 $1,308,964 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.17 $299 $802,915 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.20 $299 $1,932,622 100% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.30 $299 $1,291,607 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.31 $299 $1,580,991 100% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.32 $299 $1,654,909 100% 40% 60% 7 10% 7 30% 992.33 $299 $947,158 80% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 992.34 $299 $808,601 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.35 $299 $1,522,636 80% 80% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.37 $299 $1,193,449 100% 60% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.38 $299 $1,428,369 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.39 $299 $1,190,756 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.40 $299 $1,656,405 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.41 $299 $477,619 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.42 $299 $1,124,919 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.43 $299 $1,331,408 120% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.44 $299 $1,309,263 100% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 992.45 $299 $1,028,557 120% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% 992.46 $299 $1,327,219 100% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 993.02 $299 $2,594,286 120% 80% 80% 2 60% 2 80% 993.05 $299 $2,255,224 80% 80% 100% 4 40% 4 60% 993.06 $299 $1,953,570 100% 80% 60% 4 40% 4 60% 993.07 $299 $922,020 120% 60% 60% 4 40% 4 60% ' 993.08 $299 $1,893,419 120% 100% 100% 2 60% 2 80% 993.09 $299 $1,648,325 120% 100% 100% 4 40% 4 60% 994.02 $299 $2,330,039 60% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% ' 994.04 $299 $1,558,247 100% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% 994.05 $299 $1,381,385 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 994.06 $299 $1,414,004 100% 40% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 994.07 $299 $791,543 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 994.08 $299 $1,492,111 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 994.10 $299 $1,202,427 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 994.11 $299 $1,692,017 60% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 994.12 $299 $1,522,336 120% 80% 80% 4 40% 4 60% 994.13 $299 $2,561,966 80% 100% 100% 3 50% 3 70% 994.15 $299 $1,880,551 120% 80% 60% 4 40% 4 60% ' 994,16 $299 $1,353,254 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 994.17 $299 $1,254,199 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 995.07 $299 $2,458,721 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 995.08 $299 $1,387,669 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 996.02 $299 $689,495 0% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 996.03 $299 $947,158 0% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 996.04 $299 $1,212,004 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 996.05 $299 $1,135,692 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 997.02 $299 $121,200 60% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 997.03 $299 $152,623 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% Total $68,140,933 Hunting Grocery ' 2005 Grocery Drug Grocery Drug Capture Capture Capture Capture Tract Groc,Share Drug Share Groc, Sales Drug Sales ' 992.12 5.76% 11.52% $536,304 $178,062 992.14 5.76% 11.52% $392,182 $130,211 992.15 2.88% 5.76% $302,054 $100,287 ' 992.16 1.28% 3.84% $100,927 $50,264 992.17 1.92% 5.76% $92,863 $46,248 992.20 4.80% 9.60% $558,802 $185,532 ' 992.30 1.60% 4.80% $124,486 $61,997 992.31 7.20% 14.40% $685,696 $227,663 992.32 2.40% 7.20% $239,252 $119,153 992.33 3.84% 7,68% $219,090 $72,742 ' 992.34 2.56% 5.12% $124,694 $41,400 992.35 7.68% 15.36% $704,412 $233,877 992.37 2.40% 7.20% $172,538 $85,928 ' 992.38 3.84% 7.68% $330,401 $109,699 992.39 3.84% 7.68% $275,438 $91,450 992.40 3.84% 7.68% $383,149 $127,212 ' 992.41 1.28% 3.84% $36,827 $18,341 992.42 2.56% 5.12% $173,473 $57,596 992.43 5.76% 11.52% $461,959 $153,378 992,44 4.80% 9,60% $378,563 $125,689 ' 992.45 17.28% 28.80% $1,070,636 $296,224 992.46 7.20% 14.40% $575,632 $191,119 993.02 46.08% 61.44% $7,201,120 $1,593,929 993.05 25.60% 38.40% $3,477,758 $866,006 993.06 19.20% 28.80% $2,259,435 $562,628 993.07 17.28% 25.92% $959,741 $238,988 ' 993.08 72.00% 96.00% $8,211,999 $1,817,682 993.09 48.00% 72.00% $4,765,996 $1,186,794 994.02 8.64% 14.40% $1,212,681 $335,526 ' 994.04 14.40% 24.00% $1,351,664 $373,979 994.05 5.76% 11.52% $479,299 $159,136 994.06 4.80% 9.60% $408,848 $135,744 994.07 2.56% 5.12% $122,063 $40,527 ' 994.08 2.56% 5.12% $230,097 $76,396 994.10 1.28% 3.84% $92,713 $46,173 994.11 4.32% 8.64% $440,310 $146,190 ' 994.12 30.72% 46.08% $2,817,095 $701,493 994.13 40.00% 56.00% $6,173,096 $1,434,701 994.15 23.04% 34.56% $2,609,980 $649,918 ' 994,16 1.60% 4,80% $130,427 $64,956 994.17 1.92% 5.76% $145,057 $72,242 995.07 1.92% 5.76% $284,368 $141,622 995.08 1.60% 4.80% $133,744 $66,608 ' 996.02 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 996.03 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 996.04 1.28% 3.84% $93,451 $46,541 ' 996.05 1.60% 4.80% $109,459 $54,513 997.02 0.96% 2.88% $7,009 $3,491 997.03 1.28% 3.84% $11,768 $5,861 Total $51,668,553 $13,525,718 1 1 Huntington Beach Market Area $1,803 ' Grocery and Drug Store Demand 2010 Per Cap. Grocery 2010 Grocery Expenditure Tract QUY POP HH HHSoze $Per Cap Aaa. Inc. Ava HH Inc Expend Potential ' 992.12 HB 5,174 1,761 2.94 $20,640 $106.79 $62,169 $1,803 $9,327,064 992.14 HB 3,809 1,424 2.67 $21,000 $79.99 $56,248 $1,803 $6,866,407 992.15 HB 5,874 1,948 3.02 $19,899 $116089 $60,082 $1,803 $10,588,940 ' 992.16 HB 4,425 1,449 3.05 $20,689 $91.55 $63,265 $1,803 $7,976,857 992.17 HB 2,722 956 2.85 $44,817 $121.99 $127,639 $1,803 $4,906,894 992.20 HB 6,521 2,827 2.31 $26,278 $171036 $60,616 $1,803 $11,755,274 ' 992.30 FV 4,316 1,433 3.01 $25,425 $109074 $76,573 $1,803 $7,780,365 992.31 FV 5,283 1,568 3.37 $28,183 $148089 $94,956 $1,803 $9,523,556 992.32 FV 5,530 1,898 2.91 $28,262 $156029 $82,424 $1,803 $9,968,818 ' 992,33 FV 3,165 955 3.31 $22,718 $71.90 $75,288 $1,803 $5.705,481 992.34 FV 2,702 842 3.21 $23,037 $62.24 $74,035 $1,803 $4,870,840 992.35 HB 5,139 1,952 2.63 $23,831 $122.47 $62,924 $1,803 $9,263,971 992.37 HB 4,027 1,363 2096 $28,141 $113.32 $83,403 $1,803 $7,259,391 992.38 HB 4,830 1,480 3.26 $30,130 $145.53 $98,325 $1,803 $8,706,943 992.39 HB 4,024 1,334 3.02 $32,947 $132058 $99,368 $1,803 $7,253,983 992.40 HB 5,594 2,146 2.61 $30,008 $167.86 $78,433 $1,803 $10,084,190 992.41 HB 1,602 475 3.37 $23,108 $37.02 $77,873 $1,803 $2,887,893 992.42 HB 3,772 1,152 3.27 $21,343 $80.50 $70,284 $1,803 $6,799,708 992.43 HB 4,492 1,834 2045 $32,174 $144.53 $79,256 $1,803 $8,097,637 ' 992.44 HB 4,425 1,932 2029 $27,522 $121.78 $63,095 $1,803 $7,976,857 992.45 HB 3,486 1,171 2.98 $36,175 $126.10 $107,718 $1,803 $6,284,141 992.46 HB 4,494 1,335 3.37 $27,062 $121.62 $91,072 $1,803 $8,101,242 993.02 HB 8,896 4,105 2017 $31,312 $278.55 $67,867 $1,803 $16,036,638 ' 993.05 HB 7,595 2,862 2.65 $21,701 $164.82 $57,649 $1,803 $13,691,352 993.06 HB 6,588 2,888 2028 $28,455 $187.46 $64,903 $1,803 $11,876,053 993.07 HB 3,084 1,625 1.90 $36,508 $112.59 $69,283 $1,803 $5,559,464 993.08 HB 6,640 2,453 2.71 $61,823 $410050 $167,352 $1,803 $11,969,793 993.09 HB 5,554 2,493 2.23 $35,646 $197.98 $79,487 $1,803 $10,012,083 994.02 HB 7,789 2,059 3.78 $10,587 $82.46 $40,551 $1,803 $14,041,072 ' 994.04 HB 5,224 1,783 2093 $29,330 $153022 $85,933 $1,803 $9,417,198 994.05 HB 4,627 1,641 2082 $21,507 $99.51 $60,623 $1,803 $8,340,999 994.06 HB 4,737 1,711 2.77 $27,212 $128.91 $75,356 $1,803 $8,539,293 994.07 HB 2,660 1,011 2.63 $24,515 $65.21 $64,500 $1,803 $4,795,128 ' 994.08 HB 4,997 1,902 2063 $24,906 $124046 $65,413 $1,803 $9,007,990 994.10 HB 4,030 1,603 2051 $22,536 $90.82 $56,675 $1,803 $7,264,799 994.11 HB 5,667 2,032 2.79 $18,725 $106.11 $52,229 $1,803 $10,215,785 994.12 HB 5,094 1,909 2.67 $30,983 $157083 $82,675 $1,803 $9,182,850 994.13 HB 8,577 3,934 2.18 $24,824 $212.92 $56,055 $1,803 $15,461,583 994.15 HB 6,310 2,002 3.15 $36,216 $228.52 $114,167 $1,803 $11,374,908 ' 994.16 HB 4,538 2,204 2006 $27,312 $123.94 $56,229 $1,803 $8,180,560 994.17 HB 4,201 1,888 2023 $40,137 $168.61 $89,310 $1,803 $7,573,057 995.07 HB 8,240 3,363 2045 $70,164 $578.15 $171,990 $1,803 $14,854,080 995.08 HB 4,662 2,111 2.21 $26,793 $124.91 $59,158 $1,803 $8,404,092 ' 996.02 HB 2,315 926 2.50 $0 $0.00 $0 $1,803 $4,173,203 996.03 HB 3,188 1,275 2.50 $0 $0.00 $0 $1,803 $5,746,943 996.04 HB 4,068 1,271 3.20 $23,160 $94.22 $74,252 $1,803 $7,333,301 ' 996.05 HB 3,810 1,314 2.90 $28,193 $107.41 $81,736 $1,803 $6,868,209 997.02 HB 410 127 3.23 $18,975 $7.78 $61,073 $1,803 $739,099 997.03 HB 514 176 2092 $25,970 $13.35 $75,897 $1,803 $926,577 Total 229,421 78,477 2.69 $28,411 $6,571.20 $76,375 $413,572,562 1 Hunting $299 ' Grocery 2010 Per Cap. Drug Capture Capture Number Compet. Number Compet. Expend. Expenditure HH Variable Variable of Comp. Rating of Comp. Drug ' Tract Q= Drug Expend. Income Distance Access Groc Stores Cep Groc, Drug Stores Comp. Drug. 992.12 $299 $1,548,372 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.14 $299 $1,139,882 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.15 $299 $1,757,854 60% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 992.16 $299 $1,324,226 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.17 $299 $814,586 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.20 $299 $1,951,475 100% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 1 992.30 $299 $1,291,607 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.31 $299 $1,580,991 100% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.32 $299 $1,654,909 100% 40% 60% 7 10% 7 30% ' 992.33 $299 $947,158 80% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.34 $299 $808,601 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.35 $299 $1,537,898 80% 80% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.37 $299 $1,205,121 100% 60% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.38 $299 $1,445,426 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.39 $299 $1,204,223 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.40 $299 $1,674,061 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.41 $299 $479,415 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.42 $299 $1,128,809 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.43 $299 $1,344,277 120% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.44 $299 $1,324,226 100% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.45 $299 $1,043,221 120% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% 992.46 $299 $1,344,875 100% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 993.02 $299 $2,662,218 120% 80% 80% 2 60% 2 80% ' 993.05 $299 $2,272,881 80% 80% 100% 4 40% 4 60% 993.06 $299 $1,971,526 100% 80% 60% 4 40% 4 60% 993.07 $299 $922,918 120% 60% 60% 4 40% 4 60% 993.08 $299 $1,987,087 120% 100% 100% 2 60% 2 80% 993.09 $299 $1,662,091 120% 100% 100% 4 40% 4 60% 994.02 $299 $2,330,937 60% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% ' 994.04 $299 $1,563,335 100% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% 994.05 $299 $1,384,677 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 994.06 $299 $1,417,595 100% 40% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 994.07 $299 $796,032 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 994.08 $299 $1,495,403 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 994.10 $299 $1,206,018 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 994.11 $299 $1,695,907 60% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% ' 994.12 $299 $1,524,431 120% 80% 80% 4 40% 4 60% 994.13 $299 $2,566,754 80% 100% 100% 3 50% 3 70% 994.15 $299 $1,888,331 120% 80% 60% 4 40% 4 60% ' 994.16 $299 $1,358,042 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 994.17 $299 $1,257,192 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 995.07 $299 $2,465,903 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 995.08 $299 $1,395,151 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 996.02 $299 $692,787 0% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 996.03 $299 $954,041 0% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 996.04 $299 $1,217,390 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% ' 996.05 $299 $1,140,181 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 997.02 $299 $122,697 60% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 997.03 $299 $153,820 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% ' Total $68,656,558 Hunting Grocery . 2010 Grocery Drug Grocery Drug Capture Capture Capture Capture ' Tract Groc. Share Drug Share Groc,Sales Drug, ales 992.12 5.76% 11.52% $537,239 $178,372 992.14 5.76% 11.52% $395,505 $131,314 992.15 2.88% 5.76% $304,961 $101,252 ' 992.16 1.28% 3.84% $102,104 $50,850 992.17 1.92% 5.76% $94,212 $46,920 992.20 4.80% 9.60% $564,253 $187,342 1 992.30 1.60% 4.80% $124,486 $61,997 992.31 7.20% 14.40% $685,696 $227,663 992.32 2.40% 7.20% $239,252 $119,153 ' 992.33 3.84% 7,68% $219,090 $72,742 992.34 2.56% 5.12% $124,694 $41,400 992.35 7.68% 15.36% $711,473 $236,221 992.37 2.40% 7.20% $174,225 $86,769 ' 992.38 3.84% 7.68% $334,347 $111,009 992.39 3.84% 7.68% $278,553 $92,484 992.40 3.84% 7.68% $387,233 $128,568 ' 992.41 1.28% 3.84% $36,965 $18,410 992.42 2.56% 5.12% $174.073 $57,795 992.43 5.76% 11.52% $466,424 $154,861 992.44 4.80% 9.60% $382,889 $127,126 ' 992.45 17.28% 28.80% $1,085,900 $300,448 992.46 7.20% 14.40% $583,289 $193,662 993.02 46.08% 61.44% $7,389,683 $1,635,667 ' 993.05 25.60% 38.40% $3,504,986 $872,786 993.06 19.20% 28.80% $2,280,202 $567,799 993.07 17.28% 25.92% $960,675 $239,220 ' 993.08 72.00% 96.00% $8,618,251 $1,907,604 993.09 48.00% 72.00% $4,805,800 $1,196,705 994.02 8.64% 14.40% $1,213,149 $335,655 ' 994.04 14,40% 24.00% $1,356,077 $375,200 994.05 5.76% 11.52% $480,442 $159,515 994.06 4.80% 9.60% $409,886 $136,089 994.07 2.56% 5.12% $122,755 $40,757 ' 994.08 2.56% 5.12% $230,605 $76,565 994.10 1.28% 3.84% $92,989 $46,311 994.11 4.32% 8.64% $441,322 $146,526 994.12 30.72% 46.08% $2,820,972 $702,458 994.13 40.00% 56.00% $6,184,633 $1,437,382 994.15 23.04% 34.56% $2,620,779 $652,607 ' 994.16 1.60% 4.80% $130,889 $65,186 994.17 1.92% 5.76% $145,403 $72,414 995.07 1.92% 5.76% $285,198 $142,036 995.08 1.60% 4.80% $134,465 $66,967 ' 996.02 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 996.03 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 996.04 1.28% 3.84% $93,866 $46,748 996.05 1.60% 4.80% $109,891 $54,729 997.02 0.96% 2.88% $7,095 $3,534 997.03 1.28% 3.84% $11,860 $5,907 ' Total $52,458,736 $13,712,726 Huntington Beach Market Area $1,803 ' Grocery and Drug Store Demand 2015 Per Cap. Grocery 2015 Grocery Expenditure 1 Tract e_QE HH HH Size $ Per Cap Ago, Inc. Avva HH Inc . Potential992.12 HB 5,133 1,747 2.94 $20,640 $105.95 $62,169 $1,803 $9,253,154 992.14 HB 3,788 1,416 2.67 $21,000 $79.55 $56,248 $1,803 $6,828,550 992.15 HB 5,840 1,937 3.02 $19,899 $116.21 $60,082 $1,803 $10,527,649 ' 992.16 HB 4,417 1,446 3.05 $20,689 $91.38 $63,265 $1,803 $7,962,436 992.17 HB 2,722 956 2.85 $44,817 $121.99 $127,639 $1,803 $4,906,894 992.20 HB 6,493 2,815 2.31 $26,278 $170.62 $60,616 $1,803 $11,704,799 ' 992.30 FV 4,316 1,433 3.01 $25,425 $109.74 $76,573 $1,803 $7,780,365 992.31 FV 5,283 1,568 3.37 $28,183 $148.89 $94,956 $1,803 $9,523,556 992.32 FV 5,530 1,898 2.91 $28,262 $156.29 $82,424 $1,803 $9,968,818 ' 992.33 FV 3,165 955 3.31 $22,718 $71.90 $75,288 $1,803 $5,705,481 992.34 FV 2,702 842 3.21 $23,037 $62.24 $74,035 $1,803 $4,870,840 992.35 HB 5,108 1,940 2.63 $23,831 $121.73 $62,924 $1,803 $9,208,088 992.37 HB 4,004 1,355 2.96 $28,141 $112.68 $83,403 $1,803 $7,217,929 ' 992.38 HB 4,818 1,477 3.26 $30,130 $145.17 $98,325 $1,803 $8,685,310 992.39 HB 4,015 1,331 3.02 $32,947 $132.28 $99,368 $1,803 $7,237,759 992.40 HB 5,576 2,139 2.61 $30,008 $167.32 $78,433 $1,803 $10,051,742 ' 992.41 HB 1,596 474 3.37 $23,108 $36.88 $77,873 $1,803 $2,877,077 992.42 HB 3,760 1,148 3.27 $21,343 $80.25 $70,284 $1,803 $6,778,075 992.43 HB 4,470 1,825 2.45 $32,174 $143.82 $79,256 $1,803 $8,057,978 992,44 HB 4,413 1,927 2.29 $27,522 $121.45 $63,095 $1,803 $7,955,225 992.45 HB 3,482 1,169 2.98 $36,175 $125.96 $107,718 $1,803 $6,276,930 992.46 HB 4,480 1,331 3.37 $27,062 $121.24 $91,072 $1,803 $8,076,005 993.02 HB 9,017 4,161 2.17 $31,312 $282.34 $67,867 $1,803 $16,254,762 ' 993.05 HB 7,556 2,848 2.65 $21,701 $163.97 $57,649 $1,803 $13,621,047 993.06 HB 6,543 2,868 2.28 $28,455 $186.18 $64,903 $1,803 $11,794,933 993.07 HB 3,035 1,599 1.90 $36,508 $110.80 $69,283 $1,803 $5,471,133 993.08 HB 6,873 2,539 2.71 $61,823 $424.91 $167,352 $1,803 $12,389,817 993.09 HB 5,507 2,472 2.23 $35,646 $196.31 $79,487 $1,803 $9,927,357 994.02 HB 7,728 2,043 3.78 $10,587 $81.81 $40,551 $1,803 $13,931,108 ' 994.04 HB 5,191 1,772 2.93 $29,330 $152.25 $85,933 $1,803 $9,357,710 994.05 HB 4,601 1,632 2.82 $21,507 $98.96 $60,623 $1,803 $8,294,129 994.06 HB 4,707 1,700 2.77 $27,212 $128.09 $75,356 $1,803 $8,485,213 994.07 HB 2,652 1,008 2.63 $24,515 $65.01 $64,500 $1,803 $4,780,706 994.08 HB 4,967 1,891 2.63 $24,906 $123.71 $65,413 $1,803 $8,953,910 994.10 HB 4,016 1,597 2.51 $22,536 $90.50 $56,675 $1,803 $7,239,561 994.11 HB 5,626 2,017 2.79 $18,725 $105.35 $52,229 $1,803 $10,141,876 ' 994.12 HB 5,028 1,884 2.67 $30,983 $155.78 $82,675 $1,803 $9,063,873 994.13 HB 8,482 3,890 2.18 $24,824 $210.56 $56,055 $1,803 $15,290,329 994.15 HB 6,266 1,988 3.15 $36,216 $226.93 $114,167 $1,803 $11,295,591 ' 994,16 HB 4,505 2,188 2.06 $27,312 $123.04 $56,229 $1,803 $8,121,072 994.17 HB 4,170 1,874 2.23 $40,137 $167.37 $89,310 $1,803 $7,517,174 995.07 HB 8,177 3,338 2.45 $70,164 $573.73 $171,990 $1,803 $14,740,511 995.08 HB 4,636 2,099 2.21 $26,793 $124.21 $59,158 $1,803 $8,357,223 ' 996.02 HB 2,297 919 2.50 $0 $0.00 $0 $1,803 $4,140,755 996.03 HB 3,172 1,269 2.50 $0 $0.00 $0 $1,803 $5,718,100 996.04 HB 4,045 1,264 3.20 $23,160 $93.68 $74,252 $1,803 $7,291,839 ' 996.05 HB 3,786 1,306 2.90 $28,193 $106.74 $81,736 $1,803 $6,824,945 997.02 HB 407 126 3.23 $18,975 $7.72 $61,073 $1,803 $733,691 997.03 HB 513 176 2.92 $25,970 $13.32 $75,897 $1,803 $924,775 ' Total 228,614 78,477 2.69 $28,411 $6,556.82 $76,375 $412,117,799 1 Hunting $299 Grocery 2015 Per Cap. Drug Capture Capture Number Compet. Number Compet. Expend. Expenditure HH Variable Variable of Comp. Rating of Comp. Drug Tract D Q rug Expend. Income Distance Access Groc Stores �p.Groc, jig Stores Comp Drug. ' 992.12 $299 $1,536,102 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.14 $299 $1,133,597 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.15 $299 $1,747,679 60% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 992.16 $299 $1,321,832 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.17 $299 $814,586 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.20 $299 $1,943,096 100% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 992.30 $299 $1,291.607 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.31 $299 $1,580,991 100% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.32 $299 $1,654,909 100% 40% 60% 7 10% 7 30% 992,33 $299 $947,158 80% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 992.34 $299 $808,601 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.35 $299 $1,528,621 80% 80% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.37 $299 $1,198,238 100% 60% 40% 7 10% 7 30% ' 992.38 $299 $1,441,835 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.39 $299 $1,201,529 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.40 $299 $1,668,674 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 992.41 $299 $477,619 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.42 $299 $1,125,218 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.43 $299 $1,337,693 120% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.44 $299 $1,320,635 100% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.45 $299 $1,042,024 120% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% 992.46 $299 $1,340,685 100% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 993.02 $299 $2,698,429 120% 80% 80% 2 60% 2 80% ' 993.05 $299 $2,261,210 80% 80% 100% 4 40% 4 60% 993.06 $299 $1,958,059 100% 80% 60% 4 40% 4 60% 993.07 $299 $908,254 120% 60% 60% 4 40% 4 60% ' 993.08 $299 $2,056,815 120% 100% 100% 2 60% 2 80% 993.09 $299 $1,648,026 120% 100% 100% 4 40% 4 60% 994.02 $299 $2,312,682 60% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% 994.04 $299 $1,553,459 100% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% 994.05 $299 $1,376,896 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 994.06 $299 $1,408,617 100% 40% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 994.07 $299 $793,638 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 994.08 $299 $1,486,425 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 994.10 $299 $1,201,829 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 994.11 $299 $1,683,637 60% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% ' 994.12 $299 $1,504,680 120% 80% 80% 4 40% 4 60% 994.13 $299 $2,538,324 80% 100% 100% 3 50% 3 70% 994.15 $299 $1,875,164 120% 80% 60% 4 40% 4 60% ' 994,16 $299 $1,348,167 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 994.17 $299 $1,247,915 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 995.07 $299 $2,447,050 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 995.08 $299 $1,387,370 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% ' 996.02 $299 $687,401 0% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 996.03 $299 $949,253 0% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 996.04 $299 $1,210,507 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% ' 996.05 $299 $1,132,999 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 997.02 $299 $121,799 60% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 997.03 $299 $153,520 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% Total $68,415,055 1 Hunting Grocery 2015 Grocery Drug Grocery Drug Capture Capture Capture Capture Tract Groc, Share Drug Share Groc,Sales Drug Sales 992.12 5.76% 11.52% $532,982 $176,959 992.14 5.76% 11.52% $393,325 $130,590 992.15 2.88% 5.76% $303,196 $100,666 ' 992.16 1.28% 3.84% $101,919 $50,758 992.17 1.92% 5.76% $94,212 $46,920 992.20 4.80% 9.60% $561,830 $186,537 ' 992.30 1.60% 4.80% $124,486 $61,997 992.31 7.20% 14.40% $685,696 $227,663 992.32 2.40% 7.20% $239,252 $119,153 992,33 3.84% 7,68% $219,090 $72,742 ' 992.34 2.56% 5.12% $124,694 $41,400 992.35 7.68% 15.36% $707,181 $234,796 992.37 2.40% 7.20% $173,230 $86,273 992.38 3.84% 7.68% $333,516 $110,733 992.39 3.84% 7.68% $277,930 $92,277 992.40 3.84% 7.68% $385,987 $128,154 ' 992.41 1.28% 3.84% $36,827 $18,341 992.42 2.56% 5.12% $173,519 $57,611 992.43 5.76% 11.52% $464,140 $154,102 992.44 4.80% 9.60% $381,851 $126,781 992.45 17.28% 28.80% $1,084,654 $300,103 992.46 7.20% 14.40% $581,472 $193,059 993.02 46.08% 61.44% $7,490,194 $1,657,915 ' 993.05 25.60% 38.40% $3,486,988 $868,304 993.06 19.20% 28.80% $2,264,627 $563,921 993.07 17.28% 25.92% $945,412 $235,420 ' 993.08 72.00% 96.00% $8,920,668 $1,974,542 993.09 48.00% 72.00% $4,765,131 $1,186,578 994.02 8.64% 14.40% $1,203,648 $333,026 ' 994.04 14.40% 24.00% $1,347,510 $372,830 994.05 5.76% 11.52% $477,742 $158,618 994.06 4.80% 9.60% $407,290 $135,227 994.07 2.56% 5.12% $122,386 $40,634 994.08 2.56% 5.12% $229,220 $76,105 994.10 1.28% 3.84% $92,666 $46,150 994.11 4.32% 8.64% $438,129 $145,466 ' 994.12 30.72% 46.08% $2,784,422 $693,357 994.13 40.00% 56.00% $6,116,131 $1,421,462 994.15 23.04% 34.56% $2,602,504 $648,057 ' 994.16 1.60% 4,80% $129,937 $64,712 994.17 1.92% 5.76% $144,330 $71,880 995.07 1.92% 5.76% $283,018 $140,950 995.08 1.60% 4.80% $133,716 $66,594 ' 996.02 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 996.03 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 996.04 1.28% 3.84% $93,336 $46,483 ' 996.05 1.60% 4.80% $109,199 $54,384 997.02 0.96% 2.88% $7,043 $3,508 997.03 1.28% 3.84% $11,837 $5,895 ' Total $52,588,073 $13,729,636 Huntington Beach Market Area $1,803 Grocery and Drug Store Demand 2020 Per Cap. Grocery 2020 Grocery Expenditure Tract PQE HE HH Soze $Per Cap Ago. Inc.Avg HH Inc mod. Potential i 992.12 HB 5,136 1,748 2.94 $20,640 $106.01 $62,169 $1,803 $9,258,563 992.14 HB 3,771 1,410 2.67 $21,000 $79.19 $56,248 $1,803 $6,797,905 992.15 HB 5,969 1,980 3.02 $19,899 $118.78 $60,082 $1,803 $10,760,195 ' 992.16 HB 4,409 1,443 3.05 $20,689 $91.22 $63,265 $1,803 $7,948,014 992.17 HB 2,722 956 2.85 $44,817 $121099 $127,639 $1,803 $4,906,894 992.20 HB 6,471 2,805 2.31 $26,278 $170005 $60,616 $1,803 $11,665,140 i 992.30 FV 4,316 1,433 3.01 $25,425 $109074 $76,573 $1,803 $7,780,365 992.31 FV 5,283 1,568 3.37 $28,183 $148.89 $94,956 $1,803 $9,523,556 992.32 FV 5,530 1,898 2.91 $28,262 $156.29 $82,424 $1,803 $9,968,818 ' 992.33 FV 3,165 955 3.31 $22,718 $71.90 $75,288 $1,803 $5.705,481 992.34 FV 2,702 842 3.21 $23,037 $62.24 $74,035 $1,803 $4,870,840 992.35 HB 5,083 1,931 2063 $23,831 $121.13 $62,924 $1,803 $9,163,021 992.37 HB 3,986 1,349 2.96 $28,141 $112017 $83,403 $1,803 $7,185,481 ' 992.38 HB 4,808 1,474 3.26 $30,130 $144.86 $98,325 $1,803 $8,667,284 992.39 HB 4,006 1,328 3.02 $32,947 $131099 $99,368 $1,803 $7,221,535 992.40 HB 5,558 2,132 2.61 $30,008 $166.78 $78,433 $1,803 $10,019,293 992.41 HB 1,599 474 3.37 $23,108 $36.95 $77,873 $1,803 $2,882,485 992.42 HB 3,761 1,149 3.27 $21,343 $80.27 $70,284 $1,803 $6,779,878 992.43 HB 4,446 1,815 2045 $32,174 $143.05 $79,256 $1,803 $8,014,714 992.44 HB 4,397 1,920 2.29 $27,522 $121.01 $63,095 $1,803 $7,926,382 992.45 HB 3,472 1,166 2098 $36,175 $125060 $107,718 $1,803 $6,258,904 992.46 HB 4,478 1,331 3.37 $27,062 $121019 $91,072 $1,803 $8,072,399 993.02 HB 9,121 4,209 2017 $31,312 $285.60 $67,867 $1,803 $16,442,241 ' 993.05 HB 7,817 2,946 2065 $21,701 $169063 $57,649 $1,803 $14,091,547 993.06 HB 6,505 2,852 2028 $28,455 $185010 $64,903 $1,803 $11,726,431 993.07 HB 2,994 1,578 1.90 $36,508 $109.31 $69,283 $1,803 $5,397,223 ' 993.08 HB 7,091 2,619 2.71 $61,823 $438038 $167,352 $1,803 $12,782,801 993.09 HB 5,471 2,456 2023 $35,646 $195.02 $79,487 $1,803 $9,862,460 994.02 HB 7,702 2,036 3.78 $10,587 $81.54 $40,551 $1,803 $13,884,238 i 994.04 HB 5,188 1,771 2.93 $29,330 $152.16 $85,933 $1,803 $9,352,302 994.05 HB 4,596 1,630 2.82 $21,507 $98.85 $60,623 $1,803 $8,285,116 994.06 HB 4,705 1,699 2.77 $27,212 $128003 $75,356 $1,803 $8,481,608 994.07 HB 2,654 1,009 2063 $24,515 $65.06 $64,500 $1,803 $4,784,312 994.08 HB 4,960 1,888 2063 $24,906 $123.53 $65,413 $1,803 $8,941,291 994.10 HB 4,003 1,592 2.51 $22,536 $90.21 $56,675 $1,803 $7,216,127 994.11 HB 5,614 2,013 2.79 $18,725 $105.12 $52,229 $1,803 $10,120,243 i 994.12 HB 4,972 1,863 2067 $30,983 $154005 $82,675 $1,803 $8,962,923 994.13 FIB 8,386 3,846 2018 $24,824 $208018 $56,055 $1,803 $15,117,271 994.15 HB 6,230 1,976 3.15 $36,216 $225.62 $114,167 $1,803 $11,230,694 ' 994.16 HB 4,480 2,176 2006 $27,312 $122036 $56,229 $1,803 $8,076,005 994.17 HB 4,138 1,859 2023 $40,137 $166.09 $89,310 $1,803 $7,459,488 995.07 HB 8,123 3,316 2.45 $70,164 $569094 $171,990 $1,803 $14,643,167 995.08 HB 4,613 2,089 2.21 $26,793 $123.59 $59,158 $1,803 $8,315,761 i 996.02 HB 2,292 917 2.50 $0 $0.00 $0 $1,803 $4,131,742 996.03 HB 3,174 1,270 2.50 $0 $0.00 $0 $1,803 $5,721,705 996.04 HB 4,046 1,264 3.20 $23,160 $93.71 $74,252 $1,803 $7,293,642 i 996.05 FIB 3,787 1,306 2.90 $28,193 $106.77 $81,736 $1,803 $6,826,748 997.02 HB 406 126 3.23 $18,975 $7.70 $61,073 $1,803 $731,888 997.03 HB 510 175 2.92 $25,970 $13.24 $75,897 $1,803 $919,367 ' Total 228,646 78,477 2.69 $28,411 $6,560010 $76,375 $412,175,485 i Hunting $299 ' Grocery 2020 Per Cap. Drug Capture Capture Number Compet. Number Compet. Expend. Expenditure HH Variable Variable of Comp. Rating of Comp. Drug Tract DCLiQ Drug Expend, Income Dug Access Groc Stores Comp,Grog. Drug Stores Comp Drug. ' 992.12 $299 $1,537,000 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.14 $299 $1,128,510 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.15 $299 $1,786,284 60% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 992.16 $299 $1,319,438 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.17 $299 $814,586 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.20 $299 $1,936,512 100% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 992.30 $299 $1,291,607 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.31 $299 $1,580,991 100% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.32 $299 $1,654,909 100% 40% 60% 7 10% 7 30% 992.33 $299 $947,158 80% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 992.34 $299 $808,601 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.35 $299 $1,521,139 80% 80% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 992.37 $299 $1,192,851 100% 60% 40% 7 10% 7 30% I 992.38 $299 $1,438,843 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.39 $299 $1,198,836 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.40 $299 $1,663,288 120% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 992.41 $299 $478,517 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 992.42 $299 $1,125,517 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.43 $299 $1,330,511 120% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 992.44 $299 $1,315,847 100% 60% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 992.45 $299 $1,039,031 120% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% 992.46 $299 $1,340,087 100% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 993.02 $299 $2,729,552 120% 80% 80% 2 60% 2 80% ' 993.05 $299 $2,339,316 80% 80% 100% 4 40% 4 60% 993.06 $299 $1,946,687 100% 80% 60% 4 40% 4 60% 993.07 $299 $895,985 120% 60% 60% 4 40% 4 60% ' 993.08 $299 $2,122,054 120% 100% 100% 2 60% 2 80% 993.09 $299 $1,637,252 120% 100% 100% 4 40% 4 60% 994.02 $299 $2,304,902 60% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% ' 994.04 $299 $1,552,562 100% 80% 60% 5 30% 5 50% 994.05 $299 $1,375,400 80% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 994.06 $299 $1,408,019 100% 40% 60% 6 20% 6 40% 994.07 $299 $794,236 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% ' 994.08 $299 $1,484,330 80% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 994.10 $299 $1,197,938 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 994.11 $299 $1,680,046 60% 60% 60% 6 20% 6 40% ' 994.12 $299 $1,487,921 120% 80% 80% 4 40% 4 60% 994.13 $299 $2,509,595 80% 100% 100% 3 50% 3 70% 994.15 $299 $1,864,391 120% 80% 60% 4 40% 4 60% ' 994.16 $299 $1,340,685 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 994.17 $299 $1,238,338 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 995.07 $299 $2,430,890 120% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 995.08 $299 $1,380,487 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% ' 996.02 $299 $685,904 0% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 996.03 $299 $949,852 0% 40% 40% 6 20% 6 40% 996.04 $299 $1,210,806 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 996.05 $299 $1,133,298 100% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 997.02 $299 $121,500 60% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% 997.03 $299 $152,623 80% 40% 40% 7 10% 7 30% ' Total $68,424,632 Hunting Grocery 2020 Grocery Drug Grocery Drug Capture Capture Capture Capture Tract Groc.Share Drug Share Groc.Sales Drug Sales ' 992.12 5.76% 11.52% $533,293 $177,062 992.14 5.76% 11.52% $391,559 $130,004 992.15 2.88% 5.76% $309,894 $102,890 ' 992.16 1.28% 3.84% $101,735 $50,666 992.17 1.92% 5.76% $94,212 $46,920 992.20 4.80% 9.60% $559,927 $185,905 992.30 1.60% 4.80% $124,486 $61,997 992.31 7.20% 14.40% $685,696 $227,663 992.32 2.40% 7.20% $239,252 $119,153 ' 992,33 3.84% 7.68% $219,090 $72,742 992.34 2.56% 5.12% $124,694 $41,400 992.35 7.68% 15.36% $703,720 $233,647 992.37 2.40% 7.20% $172,452 $85,885 ' 992.38 3.84% 7.68% $332,824 $110,503 992.39 3.84% 7.68% $277,307 $92,071 992.40 3.84% 7.68% $384,741 $127,741 992.41 1.28% 3.84% $36,896 $18,375 992.42 2.56% 5.12% $173,565 $57,626 992.43 5.76% 11.52% $461,648 $153,275 992.44 4.80% 9,60% $380,466 $126,321 992.45 17.28% 28.80% $1,081,539 $299,241 992.46 7.20% 14.40% $581,213 $192,973 993.02 46.08% 61.44% $7,576,585 $1,677,037 993.05 25.60% 38.40% $3,607,436 $898,298 993.06 19.20% 28.80% $2,251,475 $560,646 993.07 17.28% 25.92% $932,640 $232,239 993.08 72.00% 96.00% $9,203,617 $2,037,171 993.09 48.00% 72.00% $4,733,981 $1,178,822 994.02 8.64% 14.40% $1,199,598 $331,906 994.04 14.40% 24,00% $1,346,731 $372,615 994.05 5.76% 11.52% $477,223 $158,446 994.06 4.80% 9.60% $407,117 $135,170 994.07 2.56% 5.12% $122,478 $40.665 ' 994.08 2.56% 5.12% $228,897 $75,998 994.10 1.28% 3.84% $92,366 $46,001 994.11 4.32% 8.64% $437,195 $145,156 ' 994.12 30.72% 46.08% $2,753,410 $685,634 994.13 40.00% 56.00% $6,046,909 $1,405,373 994.15 23.04% 34.56% $2,587,552 $644,333 ' 994,16 1.60% 4.80% $129,216 $64,353 994.17 1.92% 5.76% $143,222 $71,328 995.07 1.92% 5.76% $281,149 $140,019 995.08 1.60% 4.80% $133,052 $66,263 ' 996.02 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 996.03 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 996.04 1.28% 3.84% $93,359 $46,495 996.05 1.60% 4.80% $109,228 $54,398 997.02 0.96% 2.88% $7,026 $3,499 997.03 1.28% 3.84% $11,768 $5,861 Total $52,883,435 $13,791,788 ATTACHMENT I I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLINT FORM CITY, OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 97-22 1. PROJECT TITLE: HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT- G REENBRIAR/MONTECITO. Concurrent Entitlements: General Plan Amendment No. 97-2 Zone Text Amendment No. 97-5 Tentative Parcel Map No.97-199 Holly Seacliff Affordable Housing Plan Amendment No. 1 Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Contact: Mary Beth Broeren,Senior Planner Catherine O'Hara,Contract Planner Phone: (714)536-5271 3. PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located at the south side of Garfield Avenue,between Peninsula Lane and Goldenwest Street,north of Summit Drive. (See Attachment 1,Vicinity Map.) 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: PLC Land Company 23 Corporate Plaza Suite 250 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Contact: Bill Holman Phone: (714)721-9777 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CN-Commercial Neighborhood,RL-Residential Low Density, RM-Residential Medium Density and RMIJ-Residential Medium High Density. 6. ZONING: Holly Seacliff Specific Plan(HSSP) 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The property owner,PLC,has requested that staff analyze two alternative land use proposals for the Greenbriar and Montecito Planning areas within the HSSP. Both alternatives include increasing the acreage of the vacant neighborhood commercial site(HSSP area III-6)located at the southwest corner of Goldenwest and Garfield. The alternative proposals are summarized below,along with the maximum development currently permitted on the sites. Schematics of the alternative land use plans are provided in Attachment 2 of this document. Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 1 of 17 AT T AtiHMENT NO. 13,1 Area/Planning Unit Currently Permitted by PLC Alternative#1 PLC Alternative#2 HSSP/Max. No. Units Proposed No.of Units& Proposed No.of Units& (Proposed Density Change) (Proposed Density Change) Greenbriar III-3 165 Consolidate(remain RM) 43 (RMH to RL-3) III4 250 Consolidate(RMH to RM) 43 (RMH to RL-3) Subtotal 415 170 86 Montecito III-6 7 gross acres I l gross acres 11 gross acres III-5 270 consolidate(RM to RMH) 99(RM to RL-3) III-7 83 consolidate(RL-2 to RMH) 20(RL-2 to RL-3) 4 acre park 4 acre public park 4 acre public park 5 acre public park Subtotal 353 485 119 TOTAL 768 units 655 units 205 units 7 gross acres commercial 11 gross acres commercial 11 gross acres commercial 4 acre public park 4 acre public park 5 acre public park In order to execute either of the alternatives,amendments to the City's General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Map,Local Coastal Program and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan (HSSP)would be required to increase the commercial area and change the allowable densities within the planning areas. A tentative parcel map is requested to allow the property to be subdivided into four parcels for financing purposes and to allow for more detailed site planning. In addition,the property owner has requested an amendment to the Holly Seacliff Affordable Housing Plan to allow for rental properties in addition to for sale housing to meet the affordable housing goals. Proposed textual amendments to Holly Seacliff Affordable Housing Plan: • Page 1 -Eliminate the words"for sale"from the second paragraph. • Page 4 -Add the following line to Table 1. Maximum Proposed Acreage Type Estimated Size Estimated Number of Location (Approx.) Sales Price 100 III-5 26 Apts. 500 -1,400 sf Studio, N/A 1,2,3 Bdr. The project does not include construction of any structures or infrastructure. Applications for development of the site will submitted and analyzed subsequent to action on the land use proposal. 8. RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION:Environmental Impact Report No.89-1,including EIR 89-1 Amendment adopted per City Council 6334,was prepared and certified for the HSSP,including the proposed area of development. Both of the alternatives would result in a decrease in the maximum allowable number of residential units that would currently be permitted,and an increase in the maximum allowable amount of commercial development that may be developed. As shown in the proposed alternative land use plans(Attachment 2),both alternatives would result in changes to the previously approved comprehensive land use plan and internal circulation system. Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 focuses on the proposed land use alternatives,how they differ from the assumptions studied in EIR 89-1,and what their potential impacts,cumulative or otherwise,might be on the environment.This EA document identifies previously adopted,applicable mitigation measures and conditions of approval to ensure that all potential impacts from the proposed land use amendments are reduced to a level less than significant. This EA document does not analyze precise site plans. Additional entitlement review and environmental assessment will be required prior to precise site plan approval and actual development of the site. 9. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): N/A Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 2 of 17 AT TACDNMENT NO. i 3.a ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS P( NTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"or is"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use&Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services ❑ Population& Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities& Service Systems ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy&Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Water ❑ Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 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 p have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but that at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"potentially significant impact"or is"potentially significant unless ❑ mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature �^�" Date Catherine O'Hara Planner Printed Name Title Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 3 of 17 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMEI\ _L IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant,or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6. References to information sources for potential impacts(e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances)have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVII. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix I of Chapter 3,Title 14,California Code of Regulations,but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements. (Note: Standard Conditions of Approval-The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project,some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However,because they are considered part of the project,they have not been identified as mitigation measures. For the readers' information, a list of applicable standard conditions identified in the discussions has been provided as Attachment No. 5. SAMPLE QUESTION: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides or Mudflows? (Sources: 1, 6) O O /7 Discussion: The attached source list explains that 1 is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 4 of 17 Al �ryv�":I�IIL�� � 1tl tential ly Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Sources: ❑ ❑ p ❑ 1,2,4,6) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies ❑ ❑ ❑ p adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Sources:4,6) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ❑ p (Sources:2,4) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations(e.g.,impacts to ❑ ❑ ❑ p soils or farmlands,or impacts from incompatible uses)? (Sources: 1,2,4) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established ❑ ❑ ❑ p community(including a low-income or minority community)? (Sources: 1,2,4) Discussion: The project site is located within the HSSP area at the southwest corner of Garfield and Goldenwest. The 58 acre site is undeveloped. Per the HSSP, it is approved for a mixture of residential uses, including single family homes, medium density homes and medium high density homes,a four acre neighborhood park,and a seven acre neighborhood commercial site at the southwest corner of Garfield and Goldenwest. Existing and proposed surrounding land uses include single family residential and an elementary school to the north(across Garfield Avenue),single family residential to the south (across Summit Drive),vacant industrial and mixed development to the east(across Goldenwest Avenue)and single family residential to the west,across Peninsula Lane. The mix of the proposed land uses and their potential impacts on the environment were previously analyzed in EIR 89-1. However,the relocation of residential densities and increase in commercial density were not specifically addressed. This environmental assessment analyzes the specific changes proposed to the land use plan and HSSP and is intended to supplement EIR 89-1. Alternative#1 would result in changes to the existing approved land use plan for the Montecito and Greenbriar planning areas. The proposed changes are summarized in Section 7,Project Description of this Environmental Assessment. The proposed land use plan is shown in Attachment 2. The proposed changes would result in an overall decrease in the number of units currently approved for the combined Greenbriar and Montectio sites by 113 dwelling units. To achieve this,the Greenbriar site(Areas III-3 and III-4)would have its maximum densities reduced to accommodate 170 townhouse type residential units instead of the currently permitted 415 units. Area III-4 would be redesignated from RMH(Medium High density)to RM(Medium Density);Area III-3 woud retain its current RM designation. The Montecito site would accommodate an increase in residential densities from the current maximum allowable of 353 units to 485 units. In this area,the previously approved low density area(Area III-7) located along Summit Drive would be consolidated with the medium density area(III-5). Both areas would be redesignated as RMH. The applicant proposes to develop apartments within this area,with a four acre public park along a portion of Summit Drive. The existing seven acre commercial site in Area III-6 would be expanded to 11 gross acres. Locating a commercial center at this location was analyzed in GPA 91-2 and amendment to EIR 89-1 adopted by City Council Resolution No.6334. The land use plan calls for an access point to the proposed apartments off of Summit Drive,across from the existing access point at Beacon Hill to the south. In addition,the extension of Saddleback Lane to the south,between Garfield and Summit, is proposed to be eliminated for vehicular access. Instead, it is designed as a linear park/pedestrian"Paseo". Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 5 of 17 AT i A-;-� r1CNT NO. 3:5 centially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact The reduction in density on the Greenbriar site represents a decrease in potential land use and density impacts. The proposed increase in density on the Montecitio site may impose land use and compatibility impacts on the existing single family homes to the south. The currently approved low density single family homes in Area III-7 were intended to act as a land use buffer between the new development and the existing single family homes(Huntington Seacliff)to the south. These homes will now be replaced with higher density apartments. The proposed ingress/egress point on Summit further decreases the previously incorporated land use buffers. The proposed increase in commercial acreage is consistent with the surrounding existing and planned uses. Proper site planning and buffering techniques will be necessary to mitigate that future land use conflicts between the commercial site and proposed residential uses. Alternative#2 would result in changes to the existing approved land use plan for the Montecito and Greenbriar planning areas. The proposed densities are summarized in Section 7,Project Description of this Environmental Assessment. Planning areas III-3, III—4,III-5 and III-7 would not be developed to their maximum allowable densities resulting in significantly fewer residential units than currently allowed(205 total units versus 768). To achieve this all of the residential planning areas would be changed to RL-3,a low density designation. The proposed land use plan is shown in Attachment 2. Both the Greenbriar and Montecito sites are proposed to be developed with detached,single family homes. The commercial area would be expanded as proposed in Alternative#1. Ingress/egress for the Montecito site is proposed to be taken from Summit Drive,opposite the existing ingress/egress point for the residential neighborhood site to the south. In addition,the extension of Saddleback Lane to the south,between Garfield and Summit will be eliminated for vehicular access. Instead, it is designed as a linear park/pedestrian"Paseo". No new land uses are proposed. The impacts from the residential portion of this alternative would be less than previously assumed in EIR 89-1 due to the significant decrease in planned residential units in all planning areas. Alternative#2 proposes a residential density of five units per acre. The Huntington Seacliff area south of Summit is seven units per acre. The Hamptons to the north is designated for three units per acre. Thus,the proposed Alternative 92 densities are consistent with other residential development in the vicinity. The increased commercial area may impose additional impacts. The existing residential uses to the south,across Summit will be buffered from the commercial area with a 5 acre park and the proposed single family homes. Residential units to the north are separated from the commercial area by Garfield Ave. Potential land use conflicts between the commercial site and adjacent planned residential uses can be mitigated through site design and the use of buffering techniques. The potential land use impacts of Alternative#2 are anticipated to be less than those of Alternative#1. However,neither Alternative#1,nor Alternative#2 is anticipated to impose significant land use and planning impacts. With the proposed conditions of approval listed in Attachment 5 (Condition of Approval#4)and EIR 89-1 mitigation measures listed in Attachment 4(Mitigation Measure Ws L.U. 1-8), no significant,adverse land use impacts are anticipated to be generated by the proposed project. Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 6 of 17 ATTA'%'j'HN11ENIT NO- entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population ❑ ❑ ❑ p projections? (Sources: 2,4) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or ❑ ❑ p ❑ indirectly(e.g.,through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Sources:4) c) Displace existing housing,especially affordable housing? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x (Sources: 1,2,4 6) Discussion: Implementation of either alternative would result in a reduction of the maximum allowable number of residential units that may be built in the planning area. Consequently,the maximum potential population that may be generated by the development will be reduced as well. The maximum potential growth inducing impacts of the proposed development will be less than that anticipated for the project site in EIR 89-1 as well as in the EIR for the General Plan Update adopted in 1996. No existing housing will be displaced by the proposed development,affordable or otherwise. The proposed affordable housing plan amendment is intended to permit qualifying apartment units to be utilized to meet the Specific Plan requirements and citywide objectives for the adequate provision of affordable housing. Presently,the Holly Seacliff Affordable Housing Plan provides for"for sale"housing to meet affordable housing goals within the HSSP area. The proposed language would not reduce the number of affordable units,but would allow for a wider variety of housing types(e.g.,rental and for sale)to meet the City's affordable housing goals.No significant adverse population and/or housing impacts are anticipated to be generated by the proposed project. III.GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?(Sources:4,6,14) ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ b) Seismic ground shaking?(Sources:4,6,14) ❑ ❑ p ❑ c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Sources: ❑ ❑ O ❑ 4,6,14) d) Seiche,tsunami,or volcanic hazard? (Sources:4,6,14) ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 e) Landslides or Mudflows? (Sources:4,6,14) ❑ ❑ ❑ p fj Erosion,changes in topography or unstable soil conditions ❑ ❑ p ❑ from excavation,grading,or fill? (Sources:4,6,14) g) Subsidence of the land? (Sources:4,6,14) ❑ ❑ p ❑ h) Expansive soils? (Sources:4,6,14) ❑ ❑ p ❑ i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Sources:4,6,14) ❑ ❑ ❑ p Discussion: The project site has been rough graded for future development and has undergone remedial grading to remove Environmental Assessment No.97-22 7 of 17 I�. 13_=--- entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact contaminated soils from past oil activities. No significant topographical features exist. Further grading of the site will take place,subject to precise grading plan and permit. The site is located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone and the Methane Overlay District. EIR 89-1 included a thorough discussion of geologic and soils issues for the area. The assumptions considered in EIR 89-1 have not changed,nor are the proposed alternatives a significant departure from the development analyzed in EIR 89-1. The adopted mitigation monitoring plan for EIR 89-1 and results of requisite studies will be applied to this project as appropriate,including the identification and implementation of a fault set back zone for future development and specific seismic safety measures for buildings. This will occur during futher entitlement review prior to development of the site.(See attachment 4 Status of Compliance with EIR 89-1 Mitigation Measures.) With the mitigation measures listed in Attachment 4(AE 1-7,ER 1-8,HY 1-5),no significant adverse geologic impacts are anticipated. IV.WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and ❑ ❑ p ❑ amount of surface runoff? (Sources:2,6) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x as flooding? (Sources:2,7) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface ❑ ❑ ❑ p water quality(e.g.,temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Sources: 2,6) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ❑ ❑ ❑ p (Sources: 2,6) e) Changes in currents,or the course or direction of water ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x movement? (Sources:2) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct ❑ ❑ ❑ additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (Sources:2,4,6) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Sources: ❑ ❑ ❑ 2,4,6).. h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Sources:4) ❑ ❑ ❑ p i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise ❑ ❑ ❑ p available for public water supplies? (Sources:4) Discussion: Both alternatives would result in a significant increase in impervious surface for the area as the site is presently vacant and unimproved. The site is located in Flood Zone X,an area identified as being'prone to only minimal flooding. EIR 89-1 included a thorough discussion of water runoff and water quality including groundwater issues for the area. EIR 89-1 assumed that the site would be developed with a significant increase in impervious surfaces. The assumptions considered in EIR 89-1 have not changed. The proposed alternatives would result in fewer residential units,but more commercial square footage. It is assumed that the water useage for the proposed alternatives is the same or less than that previously anticipated. The adopted mitigation monitoring plan for EIR 89-1 and results of requisite studies will be applied Environmental Assessment No.97-22 8 of 17 Al i AUH MitNT N�. � 3 `� centially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact to this project as appropriate. (See attachment 4 Status of Compliance with EIR 89-1 Mitigation Measures.). With the mitigation measures listed in Attachment 4,no significant adverse water impacts are anticipated. v. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x projected air quality violation? (Sources:4,6,8) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Sources:4,6,8) ❑ ❑ p ❑ c) Alter air movement,moisture,or temperature? (Sources:4,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ p d) Create objectionable odors? (Sources:2,4,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ p Discussion: Short-Term Impacts-Construction equipment emissions and fugitive dust generation associated with earth moving activities during grading and construction may impose short-term deterioration of local ambient air quality. EIR 89- 1 included a thorough discussion of short-term air quality impacts from build out of the HSSP. Further entitlements will be required to analyze detailed development proposals,prior to development. Mitigation measures and appropriate conditions of approval will be applied at that time. Long-Term Impacts-According to traffic analyses conducted for the proposed amendments, less traffic will be generated by the ultimate buildout of either of the the proposed alternatives than that amount assumed by EIR 89-1. Consequently,the potential long term air quality impacts from the proposed amendments will be less than those previously anticipated by EIR 89-1. With the mitigation measures listed in Attachment 4(ER 1,4,8 and HY 1-5),no significant adverse short or long term air quality impacts are anticipated. VI.TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Sources: ❑ ❑ p ❑ 2,9,12) b) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g.,sharp curves or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? (Sources:2) c) Inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby ❑ ❑ ® ❑ uses? (Sources:2) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Sources:2) ❑ ❑ ❑ D e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Sources: ❑ ❑ p ❑ 2,4) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ❑ p transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Sources: 2,4) Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 9 of 17 AI AU tyiLNT N0. �3 .centially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Sources:2,4) ❑ ❑ ❑ p Discussion: Trip Generation-Traffic Studies were prepared by LSA, Inc. for both land use alternatives. Complete copies of the studies are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach. (See Section XVII—Earlier Analysis.) In summary,Alternative#1 would result in approximately 1,760 fewer maximum daily vehicular trips than that assumed by EIR 89-1. Alternative#2 would result in approximately 4,136 fewer maximum daily vehicular trips than assumed by EIR 89-1. It should also be noted that the HSSP area in general is being developed at densities less than the maximum allowed. As a result,the amount of traffic generated by actual buildout of the HSSP will be significantly less than planned for. School Related Traffic: Trip Rate—The trip generation analysis for the proposed elementary school at Saddleback Lane,north of Garfield Avenue utilizes a standard trip rate of 1.09 trips per student,as recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Trip Generation Manual,5'Edition, 1991. A trip generation study conducted last year for Harbor View School in Huntington Beach determined that a rate of 2.63 vehicles per student would be more appropriate for this school due to the fact that most parents drive their students to Harbor View school. Applying the Harbor View generation rate to the proposed elementary school on Saddleback Avenue would result in a 4 1%increase in assumed trips over the ITE rate. However,even with this increase in assumed trips,the traffic impacts from the proposed elementary school are anticipated to be minor based on the traffic analyses. The Saddleback Lane extension south of Garfield Avenue would not be necessary. The existing circulation system could accommodate the increase in traffic. Saddleback Extension-Per the currently approved HSSP,the Greenbriar/Montecito Development would include an extension of Saddleback Lane between Garfield Avenue and Summit Drive. The proposed amendments do not include this extension. Analyses were conducted to determine the impacts of not providing an extension of Saddleback lane. The studies concluded that the Saddleback Lane extension is not required or necessary for school access from surrounding residential properties,or access into and out of the Greenbriar/Montecito developments due to low volume usage. Under both alternatives,the intersection would operate at a level of service(LOS)A. Notwithstanding this, building the extension could provide such benefits as reducing traffic at the intersection of Goldenwest Street at Garfield Avenue;providing an alternative route to the proposed Seacliff Shopping Center and area at Yorktown Avenue and Goldenwest Street for residents who live north of Garfield Avenue;providing access to the proposed Greenbriar and Montecito developments off of a collector instead of Garfield or Summit,and facilitating access to the future elementary school. In conclusion,the City's circulation system could adequately accommodate the proposed alternatives' traffic, with or without the Saddleback extension. Should the project include the Saddleback extension,the roadway would be required to be constructed consistent with City standards. The minimum length of storage necessary for this access is 100 feet of vehicular storage. The access should be 40 feet curb to curb(two 20 foot lanes),with no other channelization necessary. It is recommended that Saddleback extension, if constructed,be aligned with the existing Saddleback Lane,north of Garfield Avenue. An offset intersection is not desirable at this location. The adopted mitigation monitoring plan for EIR 89-1 and results of requisite studies will be applied to this project as appropriate. (See attachment 4 Status of Compliance with EIR 89-1 Mitigation Measures.) With the mitigation measures listed in Attachment 4(TR 1-8), no significant adverse circulation/transportation impacts are anticipated. VII.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered,threatened or rare species or their habitats ❑ ❑ ❑ IN (including but not limited to: plants, fish, insects,animals,and birds)? (Sources: 2,4,6) Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 10 of 17 A t �i�hVIENT NO. 13 ►( tentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Locally designated species(e.g.,heritage trees)? (Sources: ❑ ❑ ❑ p 2,4,6) c) Locally designated natural communities(e.g.,oak forest, ❑ ❑ ❑ p coastal habitat,etc.)? (Sources: 2,4,6) d) Wetland habitat(e.g.,marsh,riparian and vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ ❑ p (Sources:2,4,6) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Sources:2,4,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ p Discussion: The proposed alternatives are not located in the vicinity of sensitive plant or animal resources and do not include areas used for cultivation of an agricultural crop. The proposed project is located in a mass graded area that is predominantly developed and,therefore,will not result in a change in the diversity of,or provide a barrier to,any plant or animal species. No impacts to wetland habitat or wildlife are anticipated. With the mitigation measures from EIR 89-1 listed in Attachment 4,no significant adverse impacts to biological resources are anticipated. VIII.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Source: ❑ ❑ ❑ p 4,6) b) Use non-renewable resource in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Sources:4,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ p c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of ❑ ❑ ❑ p the State? (Sources: 1,4,6) Discussion: The project is not located in an area with known mineral resources with regional value and will not cause any increases in the rate of use of non-renewable energy/fuel resources. The project is not in conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans. No significant,adverse impacts to natural resources are anticipated. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ p ❑ substances(including,but not limited to:oil,pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (Sources:2,4,6) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ p emergency evacuation plan? (Sources:2,4,6) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential hazards? ❑ ❑ ❑ l7 (Sources:2,4,6) d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,grass,or ❑ ❑ ❑ p trees? (Sources: 2,4,6) Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 11 of 17 AT TAChIV1ENT N0. l3 I11 Aentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The proposed alternatives and their ultimate buildout will not involve the use of any hazardous materials. The site is located in a Methane Overlay Zone. EIR 89-1 included a thorough discussion of hazards and identifies measures to adequately mitigate identified hazards. The proposed amendments are consistent with the assumptions considered in EIR 89-1. The adopted mitigation monitoring plan for EIR 89-1 and results of requisite studies will be applied to this project as appropriate, including oil abandonment measures,methane gas monitoring and mitigation,soils remediation and safety measures. (See attachment 4 Status of Compliance with EIR 89-1 Mitigation Measures.). With the mitigation measures listed in Attachment 4(OF 2-6,HH 1-10)no significant adverse impacts associated with hazards are anticipated. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Sources:2,4,6,10) ❑ ❑ p ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Sources: ❑ ❑ p ❑ 2,4,6,10) Discussion: EIR 89-1 included a thorough discussion of noise impacts,both cumulative and short term. No significant noise impacts are anticipated from either alternative on existing surrounding land uses. Adequate set backs,sensitive site design of both the commercial and residential uses and the use of walls and plant materials as buffers will be included in either alternative at the time of site plan review. The proposed alternatives are consistent with the assumptions considered in EIR 89-1. The adopted mitigation monitoring plan for EIR 89-1 and results of requisite studies will be applied to this project as appropriate(NO 1-14). No significant adverse noise impacts are anticipated. XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (Sources:4,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ p b) Police Protection? (Sources:4,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ O c) Schools? (Sources:4,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ p d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Sources: 4,6) - ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ e) Other governmental services? (Sources:4,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 Discussion: EIR 89-1 included a thorough discussion of potential impacts to public services from the ultimate buildout of the HSSP. Because both alternatives propose fewer residential units than previously assumed, it is anticipated that the ultimate population generated by either alternative will be less than that anticipated by EIR 89-1. Consequently,the impacts on public facilities and services will be less than previously anticipated. The increase in commercial square footage is not anticipated to create any additional demands on public services such as police and fire. The proposed amendments are within the scope of the assumptions considered in EIR 89-1. The adopted mitigation monitoring plan for EIR 89-1 and results of requisite studies will be applied to this project as appropriate. (See attachment 4 Status of Compliance with EIR 89-1 Mitigation Measures. No significant adverse impacts to public services are anticipated. Environmental Assessment No.97-22 12 of 17 Al iACHIMIENT NO. i3 L ..,tentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (Sources: 2,4,6,13) ❑ ❑ ❑ p b) Communication systems? (Source:2,4,6,13) ❑ ❑ ❑ p c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities: ❑ ❑ ❑ O (Sources 2,4,6,13) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources:2,4,6,13) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x e) Storm water drainage? (Sources:2,4,6,13) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x f) Solid waste disposal? (Sources:2,4,6,13) ❑ ❑ ❑ p g) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources:2,4,6,13) ❑ ❑ ❑ p Discussion: EIR 89-1 included a thorough discussion of potential impacts to utilities and service systems. The assumptions considered in EIR 89-1 have not changed,nor are the proposed amendments a significant departure from the development analyzed in EIR 89-1. The number of residential units will be less in both alternatives than previously anticipated. This will offset the increase in demand for utilities from the expanded commercial site. A site specific infrastructure assessment was conducted for water,sewer and drainage needs that may result from development of the proposed project. The assessment concluded that existing and planned systems would accommodate the proposed development. The adopted mitigation monitoring plan for EIR 89-1 and results of requisite studies will be applied to this project as appropriate. (See attachment 4 Status of Compliance with EIR 89-1 Mitigation Measures.). With the mitigation measures listed in Attachment 4(NR 1-2,WF 1-15,SF 1-8), no significant adverse utility and service system impacts are anticipated. XIII.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect.a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Sources: 2,4,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (Sources: ❑ ❑ ❑ p 2,4,6) c) Create light or glare? (Sources:2,4,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 Discussion: The proposed development will occur adjacent to Goldenwest Street. This street is designated as a Primary Path/Image Corridor in the Urban Design Element of the General Plan. The proposed improvements will not obstruct or impact any significant view opportunities or create a permanently visually offensive site. However,temporary visual impacts from construction activity such as grading and open trenches will occur.These impacts will be mitigated through future entitlement processing. The apartment portion of Alternative#1 is anticipated to have a greater visual impact than the single family homes proposed for the same site in Altemative#2.The entire project area of either alternative will be landscaped and designed in accordance with the landscape and design guidelines adopted with the HSSP. No significant aesthetic impacts are anticipated. Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 13 of 17 ATTACHMENT NO. J. ►= _itentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIV.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Sources:4,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ p b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Sources:4,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 c) Affect historical resources? (Sources:4,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ p d) Have the potential to cause a physical change,which would ❑ ❑ ❑ p affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Sources:4,6) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 impact area? (Sources:4,6) Discussion: EIR 89-1 includes a thorough analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources. The project site is not located in an area identified as culturally significant(including paleontological,archeological,historical or religious). With the mitigation measures adopted with EIR 89-1 (Attachment 4),no significant cultural resource impacts are anticipated. XV.RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or ❑ ❑ ❑ 17 other recreational facilities? (Sources:2,4,6) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Sources:2,4,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ 17 Discussion: EIR 89-1 included a thorough discussion of potential recreation impacts from HSSP area development, including the proposed project site. With either alternative,ultimate development of the site will yield a smaller population than that anticipated in EIR 89-1. Consequently,the demands for recreational facilities will be the same,or slightly less. The proposed land use plan includes a public neighborhood park, as previously planned. This park will be developed in accordance with the HSSP guidelines and City standards. No significant adverse impacts to recreational facilities are anticipated. Environmental Assessment No.97-22 14 of 17 ATTACHMENT NO. .)tentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources:2,4,6) Discussion: The project is not located in an area where significant wildlife or biological resources exist. The proposed project will not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. No significant,adverse environmental impacts are anticipated from the proposed project. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to ❑ ❑ ❑ p the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (Sources:2,4,6) Discussion: The proposed project will require minor amendments to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan. With the proposed amendments,the potential impacts of the proposed development are the same,or slightly less than(less traffic and lower population)those anticipated, studied and mitigated by EIR 89-1. The project will not achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-tern environmental goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) (Sources:2,4,6,12,13,14) Discussion: No. See discussion of items no. I-XV above. d) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or ❑ ❑ p ❑ indirectly? (Sources:2,4,6) Discussion: No. See discussion of items no. I-XV above. Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 15 of 17 Al ,A,; -iiv1ENT NO. i3 XVII.EARLIER ANALYSIS Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis Reference# Document Title Available for Review at: 1 Project Vicinity Map Attachment No. 1 2 Land Use Plan Attachment No.2 B. Currently Approved Land Use Plan A. Alternative No. 1 -Proposed Land Use Plan C. Alternative No.2-Proposed Land Use Plan 3 Tentative Parcel Map No.97-199 Attachment No. 3 4 City of Huntington Beach General Plan,Environmental Impact City of Huntington Beach Community Report for General Plan Update and Technical Appendices. Development Dept.,Planning/Zoning Information Counter,3'Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 5 City of Huntington Beach Ordinance Code " 6 Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan EIR " 89-1, including amendment as approved by CC Res.No. 6334. 7 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map(November 3, 1993) " 8 Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality Management " District 9 Trip Generation,5th Edition " Institute of Transportation Engineers 10 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code City of Huntington Beach City Clerk Office,2nd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 11 City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Community CEQA Procedures Handbook Development Dept.,Planning/Zoning Information Counter,3`d Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 12 Alternative#1 -Site Specific Traffic Study " Prepared by LSA, 12/9/97 Amendment prepared by LSA 2/11/98 Alternative 92—Traffic Study Prepared by LSA,dated 3/27/98 Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 16 of 17 Al i t;�>>fvitNT NO. 13, P School Site Trip Generation Review—4/7/98 13 Site Specific Infrastructure Analysis Prepared by Walden& " Associates,dated November 12, 1997 Staff Comments on study,dated January 2, 1998 Attachment No.4 14 Greenbriar/Montecito Status of Compliance With EIR 89-1 Mitigation Measures Attachment No. 5 15 Suggested Conditions of Approval:Tentative Parcel Map No.97- 199 Environmental Assessment No.97-22 17 of 17 A T TACH"tNT NO. 13,��1 l Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 ATTACHMENT 1 VICINITY MAP Ai TAD'HNNIENT NO. ILK 9� W s �uj dw C SLATER AVENUE O CL toLa y 3 TALBFRT AVENUE CiENTPLAL W T.q� W PARK 0 £tUS AVENUE ='''`•' GARitEtD AVENUE YORKTOWN AVENUE F11GH Cmc �s SCHOOL CENTER AV UE SFACUFF ADAMS AVENUE COUNTRY CLUB ra m cow ..I y O Z Y au 2 p fD p� O y�c -�y EXHIBI' VICINITY M) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH K)F mmly- °C0FF ° o ATTAC-of N0. 13��� Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 ATTACHMENT 2 LAND USE PLANS A. Existing HSSP B. Alternative No. 1 C. Alternative No. 2 ATTACHMMENT N0. 13.1c COASTALZONE BOUNDARY • QCiv �'1Ut�[�Gl 6P, Aft) G.M.CIS d Avenue t� 16AC RM - M-3 111-4 - 111-5 111-6 zso C �- 1RM RMR RM 7Ac 3 -- - 140oU 22000 ; 240DU C oS o` I IU5 2so7K y • ------ RL- / �..� 1 ------ --�,,\ 1 cAou $3'INC-LUDES / • � AC PARK. • RL 2 �• � • 109 AC i �ey—'due ssa ou • II1 I a. �I N C y yyy J &A,4 pe.r ot'ittroJ 4--) -4c, P1 � NOTE. See Exhibit 10 for Landscape Legend EXHIBIT 6 PLANNING AREA III CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT THCHMEENT NO- AB I I L-J I 4T� 6Agf'*IOW AvW/116' a_. wA#p AREA 9.5 AGr % = k AMA'p" (.3 LO�fM/T,OR/✓� xAfR — �—�-� .\ \\ Ili — o AROAn- LAND USE SUMMARY �— ^ - ¢oo AC MAXIMUM MAXIMUM AREA ACREAGE DENSITY NUMBER OF UNITS \� A 17.1 10 DU/AC 170 B 19.7 25 DU/AC 485 C 9.3 — — \ D 4.0 / —r> "sanr 0.3 AC� sira.�ex:. C� CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN I I I I I I I T: n K; PLANNING UNITS II-3 -- II-7 �j� 1'• 9 51SIR'97 HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN IN i PLC Land Company I ' Z HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA. ncwPlf*Pws.smuno O Wwwl BuN.Gwalra vm 14"', �- -� �._. JL / i 1-1- Cf,49fl W Avevue .1 �.. N. N. �_. i A/2EA AIMA C' -• � ��, 5 R�� F nUlae- COMMERC/,4G 2 �\ 23.9 AC-'/_CIE AGr �C rr;"rrow srraKr� � r\ ul IN,\ 4 LAND USE SUMMARY \ "` MAXIMUM MAX[MUM i AREA ACREAGE DENSff NUMBER OF UNITS \ \\ A 172 5 DU/AC 86 B 23.8 5 DU/AC 119 C 9.7 sera cw< TOTAL 50.7 AC 205 DU •Includes 4.0 Acre Park ALTERNATIVE B , •-ter 1 CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN PLANNING UNITS III-3-III-7 r HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN if'ic PLC Land Company HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA. nwnaruwrr.swrno fORNI\ rl. l w w Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 ATTACHMENT 3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-199 1 l/1Vt-lrtiLL1`1 1 1\J• r0RAIK PARCEL MAP NO. 97-199 rf�.amraes•ra•.ufvara.r,tarLpfllan uuAu[r bwwesy I v,r.pl.,.m.v.n m•v !p LLIAY/O1.OI b11 p YR(.W n p Lw IAr•L Lf fwr•Oa rY IW Yp fbQ1 , �_,wwW wnwi[ry LO w wwY1. Rvtl Y Ir{b wpYYf O wfmaan Y flat fbD,O[nlAt bYl.V I VY nw11 per.,, tar ruuncwc arm s,uc nxPosrs • ;,;� .r[•.n. ., .'�a .`\►-'t--.�rpa a' _ _ ,l ,1 .r •sl°u�t°n 1"` r— —t-�—•- _ I•. _:T!7-4-r7 .., - r' ...r-�• - ._� „'•il .r i �.^ , - _._._- , +.T'= =� _ - + 14Y r www [em.f ' GRRl0 •'AVI" .. _ .:�'' � .• -�-• - '• __ - �_ �T ___ -� - .+ Hf1 Input fml J. •,1 .. •- _..-....`+,.---- �---a_-----_ --�--_--__•- _ ..` .r_•--••_•__•__-1 •SM. - .. . • _.� • .-�r_i ._._ rV. f ._ .�Y'- L:l� Y.Iun.w4L'wuWbL: '- • dlwal {{yY nuns[wY p u \ I.I L,a..v...wr n. ,•. w lmu In LLAlAt IR MUnucn A 71 u Yr r,LprYn nu...I,b • •. ,� I /. A ADK3 N �.. I. ncu Am ma c1,a Aoo G170 Ium Am cow • � � •• • ,4fll MY L \✓ ��` ``,`,• .. 1 ;1 OMIT Vu u,NpM •�I •. r• A .. . ; YOY CMp IO lb LL Ym �yl(( .•� -�•.. 411 h •� ljFlown.4 e b I Ammo .1'� rA=47-199 \ i .� cnmf, i burn —I AM MA IVsS0C1A1E PARCELEN 97-199 �;;, —Y• r i i ����1,�.""L»....Y GRFfHa un/WNrFCno PLC LAND CMANY a —�— 1AIIIIIf10V WXl c4Lfmm c n � ArHe vick+v)e IMAM PARCEL MAP NO. 97-199 . .r«af n..Ye F•Yr rs A IIwAY r r rra r.a rrAo a,r ww 4fr,•0,•m[�r tl•pnw r•1-1 •,f!/II p,•r,f.1p r•4.lo•n p IYfl,•4a p r�rmr a rvr O,[,CL,[r rlmtA I t WY rrr y K W p pIN r1ON tl tlrCr iOtll.i.,A•e• ' IUR/a"99 AHD-"kf fwo5E5 . .-:•I• .\.\�.1..�.1,,,..,-. c7. _.; , .pRY "�•'_�'""_ r:�-�..a�-r 1Cti`.•}�'tY,� �•-T----^1-- J-�:...1, --.I._...1 '«t— •E----t— \` —•'r.�-= . ,.ac•..In Yu. .•. , Lu 4"'uw-�` .r..�_rs� '- ...ram !c- --.:� z •r_7_]..• - ...�.."'�`~' { _ " • ,000•rr rm..4wsr . _ -_ � ur I•rasm _+�•, +• . _ - _ -.--_-_ ` - -�' •�S 1Ar•., _ ua" - - jZ- - - �� W YM•r Yii WY•Ir -77 ! Ars•e.s l..rr miw,r Aagm /. .. - ,• '• .. �� ,. `; ' 11 ro•oo rw rarra sr s 4va, �� ., .. � � - - _.. .J �r •• ... ... f •. r, ' •/'•I•I •us or'lu:r:oi Y•ui—p.' •` _ Ir _• •`. _ i •uwsr•ra • .. .��. _. '.. I .. nla1 1!7• .,..0 naawp•r nr•++vm •• •• �. am AW IO rNl r•4t u r•o . •. I - .. •♦.� L •.. /� 1 F1.177 CKS am 11374 Accra La7D �OMI�m•m ..I I,.. .. .. \'�r.J•. .. �`-•• �• .�' .: ... .., .. � r.." ow ni•ronrnu vuo am -.•\ -• •. '. •I 1D '• I '�• , ro44Yr r•rm ulm a I �' mt.0 eW . __ _ .� .. Q•' �I Pw Yooro I "--__.^,` .-{ SUIYf DRO��_;.v-. .�J.•. �yea.-- �" � .. .. .. .. •. •. ., - i_I _ I iocl .•m ACW 19T I t• 1 :A1= lei ":'` •� �'`• " �;/ 1 VIUHITY IT 'r r.w I M/AMSIU LAK fJMKID AK/l[ m ,;, REVISED '11-10-97' r— I I I I 16MM, F%12 ALDEN &es �• IENTATW Y.. . .r— PARCEL MAP 97-199 ON 1:M . Y[Mw • r=���� • o,n..:.,..' ru r«,. CREENRRNR/UONIEpl0 nA[r O �..� ,«« «. PLC LAW COUPANY I WON YACAL L:II O" • Ntffi 1 w /�14-e,r n �"r r�� `� L Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 ATTACHMENT 4 EIR 89-1 MITIGATION MEASURES ;TTA,/WI NIENT NO. ILL L_ GREENBPIAR/MONTECITO STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH EIR 89.1 MITIGATION MEASURES . . City of Huntington Beach October 17.1997 SECTION MONITORING N• COM. Page NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS LU•I parrruta for individual tracts,the nor to T 1 1 All on-site wells have been abandoned,no lurther access is rsquued. applicant should demonstrate that service vehicle access to an Issuance of remsinng operating all wells on-sits is monitored through the Building the existing at proposed residential tracts. Pertmlts potence yen and renters at on-site residences for to us will notify buywalre—mac-1-04 required nsms vat disclosures notified of the effects resulting from on•alta and off-site oil Final and/or CC&R's required per future City Imposed conditions on appropriate production activities.The notification should state the frequency Inspection tract map. and locations of maintenance and service operations. The sotifkation should Indicate that nojas levels from oil activities may also algnifkantly,burease during these times. City Should adlopt a rWev oPment an other strategy to Prior to NIA JCity responsibility. assemble encyclopedia lots and other nonbuildable parcels of land Development in Planning Areas 9.C 3 E. Approvals prior to the approval of tentative tracts adjacent to use Seat:611 Prior to NIA Not applicable to subject tract. Country Club and golf course,preliminary landscape plans Tentative and developmentlopen space edge treatments should be submitted Tract Map for City approval. The"plans should Provide for the review of Approval planting compatibility along the relevant south edge of the development. n order to retain the existing swats character,future peat uPrior to XX 4192of applicable to subject tract. Plans should incorporate policies which specify the grade of Specific slope.pamlittd amount of art end fill,improvements lot storm Plan drsinage and include a schematic design for recreational and open Approval space treatment within drainage$wales. My t 9rdmg activities or development shoo owed NIA Not applicable to subject tract. within areas encompassing natural swalse on-she. This should be Issuance of tirtrtd to changes required to install access rods,utility and Grading storm drainage lines and lendscaPirlg to enhance the natural Permits conditions of the sw•Ie areas. Detailed grading plans for all development on-site should be Pnorto xx The site has been mass graded in accordance with plans approved in submitted to end approved by the Planning Department prior to the twence of August,1994. Rough grading Plans and/or final/precise grading plans bsuance of grading parents. Such plans should show ad natural Grading will be submitted prior to the Issuance of additional grading parents. on-she and the areas to be graded. Permits for to the issuance of grading permits.the Department of e nor to NIA Not applicable to sat ject us=. srtd Game should be notified of grading activities on-site that are Issuance of scheduled to con mane In the$wales.In order to preclude the Grading possible elimination of wetland woes under the Jurisdiction of Permits the Department of Fish and Game.as further specified in tie Bldogieah Resources section of this EIR. .J> Zo rl I L O W N SECTJ Off--- MONITORING ON- COM* Page NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS Tp—ec'17,777ni—srolua incorporate policies wNich specify maximum Prior to XX 4/92of app rca le to subject tract. grade of slope,permitted amount of cut and fill,improvements Specific for storm drainage and a schematic design for recreational and Plan open space treatment within the ravines. Approval topograp Y o the natural ravines and their associate nor to of applicable to subject tract. drainage courses should be preserved in accordance with standards Spec.Plan adopted with approval of future Specific Plans. Approval s required in the Public Services and Utilities section of this Prior to XX XX Developer will incorporate unclargrounding of required utilities on EIR,new utility lines including,but not limited to,electric Final street improvement plans and will contact all affected utilities within laxcludes SCE 66KV transmission lineal,telephone,street lighting Inspection the tract area prior to grading and construction. and cabs television should be placed underground. The applicant should be responsible for complying with this requirement old should make the necessary arrangements with the utility companies for the installation of such facilities. Landscaping of future projects should e designed to minimize Prior to XX tonceptuallandscape plans for parkways and open space areas will e visual impacts on adjacent parcels. Special consideration should Issuance of submitted with future development plans. Landscape construction be given to orientation of the project's residences li.a.windows Building drawings will be submitted for approval prior to issuance of building permits. and decking)so as to respect the privacy of adjacent and nearby Permits homes. A - henaver easy e,oil production facilities on-site should be nor to All on-site oil production and storage facilities within the tract area eliminated or consolidated to reduce their number. Facilities Final have been abandoned. All remaining transmission pipelines will be remaining on-site should be painted,camouflaged or otherwise Inspection located underground in streets or landscape easements. screened by perimeter wells,plantings or like treatments to reduce their unsightliness to future residents. Wherever feasible,windrows should be preserved within park sites Prior to /A Not applicable to subject tract. or replaced to maintain the aesthetic benefits they contribute TM or CUP to the community. Further studies should be completed to assess Approval the health of these trees. As future development occurs.the designatedrailroad transportation rier to / of app rca a to subject tract. corridor should be preserved for future use as trails or Spec.Plan transit. Approval Subdrains should a installed whore necessary. Location and size rror toRequirements for sir rains in future developments will addressed in of subdrsins,if any are required,should be determined attar Issuance of geotechnical reports submitted prior to the issuance of grading permits. preliminary geotechnical tL grading information is made available. Grading Permit e design o structures should comply with the requirements o rror to XX Structuraldrawings and calculations for all structures wrl a sir milted auring the City of Huntington Beach code and the standard practices of Issuance of building plan check as required by the Community Development Department. the Structural Engineers Association of California. Building Permit atai a geo ogrc au t investigation should be undertaken to rror to detailed au t investigation was prepared for-this site byStoney- delineate any additional active trace of the Newport/Inglewood Issuance of 2/91 Millar Consultants,Inc.,dated April 27,1990.and supplemented by fault. A setback zone should be established to prevent the Building reports dated February 1,1991. These reports establish setbacks for construction of habitable structures within 50 feet on either Permits future development and have been submitted to the Public Works side of any active fault trace. Therefore,as is the use in the Department and California Division of Mines and Geology. western portion of the property,where the fault zone as exposed in the sand borrow ph Is 80 foot wide,the ultimate setback zone should have a total width of 1B0 feet. �1 C'n m Iz ' z 0 n SECTJON MONITORING OW COM' age NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS ER 4 nor to uture eve opment,additional mformation on particle prior to XX 3/92Addressed in Mass Graaing Plan Noview prepared by Leighton site,density,and ground water levels should be obtained to Tentative and Associates and dated July 20,1994. Liquefaction potential accurately assess the potential for liquefaction due to seismic Tract Map determined to be low. shaking in the alluvial areas. Approval s future development occurs,continued subsidence rate monitoring ngorng The City Council has appointed a subsidence committee to study subsidence for the region of the subject site Is necessary to determine and determine appropriate monitoring techniques. The Fire Department is if subsidence rates are declining with current water-injection currently investigating feasible monitoring programs. methods being used at operating oil production facilities. e use of post-tensioned slabs should considered rote Prior to XX The use of post-tensioned slabs will a addressed in a geotac nice foundation design in order to eliminate distress to structures Issuance of Investigation prepared by the builders. and slabs from minor regional subsidence. Although this measure Building will provide for a more rigid slab,it will by no means eliminate Permits distress to foundations resulting from the rapid subsidence of the land from continued oil and gas withdrawal. t the time of future development.habitable structures will a Prior to NIA Not applicable to subject tract. located outside of the tsunami risk zone. Tent.Tract Map Appv'I During and after project construction,adequate surface drainage ngorng uture development wr I be designed to drain to existing storm drains in should be maintained by the applicant,in order to eliminate Saddleback Lane and Goldenwest Street. bluff erosion. Surface water should be carried quickly away from the top of the bluff and not allowed to pond or run down the slope fete. Prior to approve o uturs pen rc Plans or grading permits,a nor to / e require o contro y ro ogy y race rc study was completed detailed araewide flood control/hydrology/hydroutic study should Specific and incorporated as part of the adopted Holly Seacliff Specific Plan be prepared by a licensed civil engineer as required by the City Plan Technical Appendix. The design of future drainage improvements will be and completed by the applicant(per the current County of Orange Approval consistent with the approved ereawide drainage concept. Hydrology Requirements)to further quantify and detail the combined drainage impacts of development within the watershed area. These detailed studies may be used to adjust the suggested conduit Was proposed for the EIR and shown on Exhibit 14. A separate detailed study should be completed for each tribuiary area. These studies shall be completed prior to the approval of ' future Specific Plans or at the time of grading permit. future discretionary permits should consistent in preserving Prior to XX Grading plans and drainage concepts for the site are areawde natural drainage patterns along with preserving and Tentative consistent with the areawde drainage concept. No portion of the enhancing the goals,objectives and policies of the General Plan Tract Map project is within the 100•year flood zone. Open Space and Conservation Element. Ttw permits should ensure Approval that development provide for facilities needed to accommodate runoff from a 100-year storm. �C7 • t-" f'f'1 7 rc> MONITORING age NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS ndiv ua prolecis s6ould be required to construct or upgrade nor toXX XX Required on-site and off-site drainage improvements are identified in on-site and oil-site drainage facilities needed to drain the site Issuance the adopted Holly Seadiff Speafic Plan Technical Appendix. These according to City requirements. This should include:limited of improvements wig be constructed as a condition of approval of a improvements to existing earth swales so as to convey nuisance Grading grading permit or tentative tract map as determined by the Department flows as well as floodwater;required storm drain conduits;storm Permits of Public Works. drain crossings under GoWenwest Street,Ellis Avenue and other Proposed streets;and any other facilities determined as needed in the more detailed hydrology studies. Wn­­aJ3Mvo_n_&T_c7as_ed conduit system will be;squired in Garfield Prior to XX 9197 Not applicable to subject tract. Avenue from Crystal Street easterly to the connection with the Issuance existing storm drain line in Delaware Street. This system will of be required to accommodate flows generated by development within Building study area. Permits e City should be responsible for the construction a upgra a nor toCity responsibility. Not applicable to sir lect tract. swales,closed conduits and a desilting basin to transport the Issuance of drainage runoff collected from the northwest portion of the Building project site,from north of Ellis Ave to Huntington Central Park. Permits e applicant should strive to develop a variety of housing Prior to XX XX 4192Approval of the proposed amendment tote February.1994 Affordable Housmg types and sizes at a range of prices in order to comply with the Specific Plan will expand the range of affordable housing opportunities in the Specific General Plan Housing Element policies for affordable housing as Plan Plan area. well as the needs Identified in the RHNA. Approval The City should adopt a plan for acquisition and development OF- nor toCity responsibility. land within the Central Park expansion area north of Ellis Dev.Win Avenue. that area e ny s el enter into an agreement with major landowners to Prior to eve opment Agreement No. contains a schedule of par dedicate designated parklands prior to or concurrent with development Further Dev. dedications. Parkland to serve the proposed project has been dedicated to in each Planning Area. Approvals and accepted by the City. Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map will create a four-acre site far the Peninsula Neighborhood Park. The City should create a special assessmentdistrict(s) or t nor to s u rc er s Department investigated the feasibility o development and maintenance of public trails and parklands within Dev.of Said creating one or more landscape maintenance districts within the project area. the project area. Trails& The City determined that formation of such a district was not warranted. Perks A> C7 m Z Z 0 SECTIOR__ Page NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETEO GATE COMMENTS 1 Artarw rn s wrl N the project study at 11 be improved to Prior to XX XX 10/ er Development Agreement 1,15eveloper is requited to improve all thou ultimate width,consistent with the proposed Circulation Issuance arterials within the Holly Seacliff area to ultimate capacity in accordance Element for the General Plan Amendment request. A listing of the of with the plans contained within the adopted Holly Seadiff Specific Plan ultimate arterial widths within the project study area are is Building Technical Appendix and a schedule approved by the Department of Public presented below: Permits Works. Improvements to Garfield Avenue,Seapoint Street and Edwards Ellis Ave.:Edwards St.to Gothard St.-primary 4 Ions divided Street in the vicinity of the proposed tentative tract map have been arterial.Gothard St.to project east boundary-secondary 4 lane completed. Goldenwest Street is scheduled to be widened in 1998. undivided arterial. Garfield Ave.:Sespoint St.to Mein St.-major 6 lane divided artenal. Yorktown Ave.:Goidenwest St.to Main St.-primary 4 lane divided arterial. t Edwards St.:Ellis Ave.to Garfield Ave.-secondary 4 lane undivided arterial. Goldenwast St.:Yorktown Ave.to Ellis Ave.-major 6 lane divided arterial. Gothard St.:Ellis Ave.to Main St.-secondary 4 lane undivided arterial. Main St.:Huntington St.to Yorktown Ave.-primary 4 lane divided arterial. These improvements should include all necessary curbs,gutters and median requirements per the City of Huntington's standard plans. In addition,all residential collectors,industrial collectors and residential streets should be improved to their ultimate width consistent with the proposed Circulation Element for the General Plan Amendment project. Intersections within the study area should a constructed to rflor to XX Per Development Agreement eve oper is require to improve all the Lana geometrics identified in Table 18. Issuance of intersections in accordance with plans contained within the adopted Holly Building Permits Seadiff Specific Plan Technical Appendix and approved phasing plan. Prior to the first specific Plan or Tract Map approval,a fair 1rr or to Developer a responsibility for the cross-gap connector is defined in share funding program for the construction of the cross-gap Specific Development Agreement 90-1. Developer's responsibility lot Sespoint connector from Edwards to Balsa Chico as a modified secondary Plan or Street is defined in the conditions of approval for Tentative Tract arterial and the Seapoint Ave.extension from Garfield to Coast Tentative 14134. Developer is working with the City to establish a fair share funding Hwy.should be determined. In the determination of this fair Tract Map program for individual projects within the Holly-Sescliff Area. share funding program,a credit should be given for the segment of Approval the cross-gap connector and Sespoint Ave.constructed within the project boundary. s arterial and intersection improvements required to occur Prior to at Development Agreement Developer is requited to improve all commensurate with Planning Area development are as folfows: Issuance arterials and intersections In accordance with plans contained within the Ifs details per Planning Area see Mitigation Measures In EIRI. of Holly Seadiff Specific Plan Technical Appendix and a schedule approved by Building the Public Works Department. Pam*$ � i ..r ,.mot mot. r51+1 r O W W n 1 MONITORINGSECTJON age NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS At t a tune o pecd¢Plan or Tract Map approval for a given Prior to XX A tfallic study is bmng prepare to analyze;;pacts of t a propose spec is p an Planning Area or portion thereof,a traffic study shell be completed Tentative amendment and may include recommendations for conditions of approval for to determine whether the incremental increase in traffic Tract Map future development. from the Specific Plan or Tract Map area causes any of the intersections Approval under investigation to result in unacceptable levels of service. If unacceptable levels of service result,this traffic analysis shall determine the portion of the ultimate intersection improvements which are required,the phasing of the improvement and the funding source. If the project requires intersection improvements which are greeter than the project's fair share,a reimbursable agreement shall be required of those subsequent developments which contribute to the need for said improvement. Prior to Tract Map approval,a signal warrant analysis shad e Prior to XX A signal warrant analysis will be included as part of the above tra is stu y. conducted for any project access points to the major arterial TTM or CUP street system. Approval s part of any subsequent Specific Plan or Tract Voptsai requires for to n operations ana ysts wt a tnc u e as part of the above tra is stu y. access along Garfield Avenue,an operational analysis of Tentative said access shall be conducted and submitted for review and approval Tract Map \ of the City Traffic Engineer. The access on Garfield Avenue or shall be limited to right turn in and out,except one location, CUP mid-block between Edwards St.and Godenwaat St. A signalized Approval full movement intersection shall be permitted at this location. The access design shag be limited on Garfield Ave.and spread to other parallel arterials,such as Ellis Avenue,Clay Avenue end Yorktown Avenue. Prior to any Specific-Plan or Tract Map approval,the Orange Prior to X stop locations are identified on Exhibit 12 of the Holly County Transit District shad be consulted lot the need to Specific Sesdifl Specific Plan. Developer forwarded the proposed conceptual site plan construct bus stops,turnouts and shelters. Plan to OCTA for review of bus stop locations. Approval e currant out ern acr tc t roe easement shall nor to of applicable to subject tract. preserved as a transportation corridor for future use for mass Spec.Pion transit and trails. Approval o minimize dust generation during grading operations, nor to The Public Works Department conditions all grading plans rule 403 should be adhered to which will require watering during Grading and permits to comply with this measure. earth moving operations. To further reduce the emissions. Permits grading should not occur when wind speeds exceed 20 mph. �j ti.} f.� M. a w w kk) age NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS era shoM So support and comp once with the AOMP for the Prior to XX XX Bike lanes will a provided thioughout the oily eacli pee is Plan basin to achieve regional air quality. The AOMP improvement of Issuance area. All street improvement plans incorporate energy efficient street mass transit facilities and implementation of vehicular usage of lighting and signal interconnect wiring is being Installed to permit reduction programs. Energy conservation measures are also Inciuded. Building future synchronization. Specific measures which may be appropriate for the proposed Permits project include: Encourage the use of alternate transportation models by promoting public transit usage Including the designation of the transportation corridor and providing secure bicycling facilities. Provide public transit accommodations:such as bus turnout lanes,park and ride areas,and bus shelters. Provide energy conserving street lighting. I Provide traffic signal synchronization where feasible. Because R only takes a small amount of material to generate Ongoing XX Oilwell operations,abandonment and site cleanup activities have been odors,it is important to maintain a very clean operation. Therefore, conducted in compliance with the Division of Oil and Gas and Fire any oil spilled on the ground should be quickly cleaned up. Department specifications and permit requirements. Well sumps should be pumped out altar pulling a wait,and periodically in the interim. Maintenance of seals and gaskets on pumps and piping should be performed whenever leaks are evident. General clean up of the site should result in significant improvements in the level of odor found In the area. ppropnate y designed,vapor recovery systems w ull the gas Ongoing XX All on-site walls have been abandoned. No remaining on-site storage off the well casing should be employed,as well as vapor recovery facilities are planned. systems for oil transport trucks. A similar system could be employed for any remaining storage facilities on-ails. Enforcement o the City o Huntington a one Ordinance ngomg Compliance wit City oise Ordinance s a e impose as a con mom should be implemented which limits the hours of construction to of approval on all projects. normal weekday working hours. Measures should be designed to satisfy the requirement that rwr to XX Builders will submit noise studies demonstrating compliance with CNEL not be exceeded In residential outside living areas. Where Issuance state and local standards prior to issuance of building permits. residential buildings are to be located within these 65 CNEL contours, of mitigation measures should be undertaken to reduce noise Building levels. Mitigation through the design and construction of s Permits noise barrier(wall,berm or combination wallfbarm)is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The affect of a noise barrier Is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the'line of sight'between the source and receiver is penetrated by the barrier. A barrier which does not break the line of sight is not an effective barrier,while one which just Interrupts the line of sight achieves a 5 dB reduction in noise. The greater the penetration the greater the noise reduction, increasing building setbacks should also be used to attenuate noiss down to acceptable levels. J C it r L L C (.1a1 Page NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS My of Huntington SO sGuM require t al the houZng Prior to X Builders will submit noise studies demonstrating compliance with Portion of this project comply with the State of Calif.Noise Issuance state and local standards prior to Issuance of building permits. Insulation standards. The code requires that'Interior community of noise levels ICNEU with window Nosed,attributable to exterior Building sources shall not exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable Permits room.' Any measures,such as window upgrades,can be specified at the time of building permit application. t the time of Ming permit application.the design should Prior to XX Builerg wr sir t noise studies demonstrating compliance with pan be reviewed to ensure that sound mitigation Is included Issuance of state and local standards prior to issuance of building permits. in the design. Building Permit Noise levels generated by the oil operations should a mitigate nor to XX The adopted ofly Sescliff Specific Plan permits oil consolidation to levels consistent with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance, CUP projects only within Industrial Planning Units II-8 and IV-5, by locating consolidation arealsl at least 300 It.from the nearest Approval subject to the approval of a conditional use permit and the requirements residential or other sensitive land uses(locating consolidation for of Article 968 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code,the City Noise areas within industrial use areas would be the most desirable Consolidated Ordinance,City Fire Codes,and compliance with environmental mitigation from a noise standpoint). The oil wells could be located Well Site measures. Developer does not propose any consolidation projects. closer to sensitive land uses if a perimeter wall with a minimum height of 8.0 ft.was utilized around the consolidation arealsl. The lollowing mitigation measures assume a 100 ft.distance to receptor and the mitigation effects of an 8.0 It.sound wall. Additional analysis at the consolidation arealsl will be necessary when phasing plans become available. results show that in order for the drilling operations to Prior to XX Section III.C.I.o of the adopted Holly Seacliff Specific Plan requires satisfy the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance outdoor standards. Specific all oil operations to comply with applicable City regulations and electric motors with acoustic blankets must be used.Diesel Plan mitigation measures contained in Final EIR 89-1. This mitigation motors even when shielded by acoustic blankets will not meet the Approval measure is listed on page VI-2. Developer does not propose any nighttime Noise Ordinance standards at the on-site and off-site consolidation projects. residences,and will not meet the daytime Noise Ordinance standards at the on-site residences.If there are plans to conduct the drilling operations during the nighttime hours,then according to the Oil Code,the operations must be soundproofed. Acoustic blankets as well as an 8.0 it.high masonry wall along the site perimeter will likely reduce the noise levels to below the Noise Ordinance standards. e well pumps used in the consolidation area should a Prior to XX Section III.C.I.s of the adopted Holly Seacliff Specific Plan requires submerged.If other types of well pumps such as ground level Issuance all oil operations to comply with applicable City regulations and electric or diesel pumps may be necessary.Specific mitigation of mitigation measures contained in Final EIR 89-1. This mitigation should be presented in an additional noise study. Grading measure is listed on page VI-2. Developer does not propose any Permits consolidation projects. Well putting and drilling operations are confined to daytime ngamg Section .e of this adopted o y Saacliff Specific Plan requires hours 17AM to IOPM)by the Oil Code.Any redrilling performed at all oil operations to comply with applicable City regulations and night must provide soundproofing to comply with the Noise mitigation measures contained In Final EIR 89-1. This mitigation Ordinance.The Oil Code prohibits the pulling of wells during the measure Is listed on page VI-2. nighttime hours 00PM to 7AM). Wall maintenance activities -. should also be conducted between the hours of 7AM and I OPM only. '. Although high levels of noise may be generated by routine well maintenance operations,these activities would occur inside the noise barrier surrounding the consolidation area. J. t.7 „r ra I 4 Z O W SECTION MO ITORING OW COM- Page NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS ervica drilling for this project wit con3uclea during the Ongoing Section 11I.C.1.8 of the adopted Aolly Seacliff 3peclic Plan requves daytime hours only.Data an service drilling operations indicate all oil operations to comply with applicable City regulations and that with a diesel powered service rig and an 8 ft.high noise mitigation measures contained in Foul EIR 89-1. This mitigation barrlar,the noise level At 100 It.will likely be 55 dBA which measure is listed on page VI-3. corresponds to the City's daytime Noise Ordinance standard.All servicing of the wells must comply with the noise standards contained in the Huntington Beach code. - Truck operations Should be limited to daytime hours only Ongoing xx junless specifically exempted.all projects shall be conditioned 17AM to IOPMI. to limit truck operations to the hours of 7:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m. Residential development within the helicopter(light corridor nor to of applicable to su sect tract. should generally be discouraged. Tent.Map 415772—All residential ui dings to be constructs wd n the helicopter nor to of applicable to subject tract. activity corridor should be designed to achieve a 25 dBA outdoor Issuance of to indoor noise reduction. Building Permit Helicopter noise impacts should e addressed in the acoustical Prior to N/A Not applicable to subject tract. assessments for residential uses within the helicopter flight TM or CUP corridor. Any mitigation requirements necessary to reduce helicopter noise impacts should be included in the assessment. notice land statement of acknowledgment to prospective omeowners nor to xx Builders will noti y prospective homeowners of helicopter activity via is required stating that the property is subject to overflight. Final disclosures and/or CC&R's required per conditions of approval on sight and sound of helicopters associated with the police facility. Inspection appropriate tract maps. A phased landscaping program should Ee developed in conjunction rior to __Y� -41-W Generallandscaping requirements are detailed in Section II.G of the with all future Specific Plans to ensure landscaping commensurate Specific adopted Holly Sescliff Specific Plan,Community Theme Guidelines,on with residential and nonresidential occupancy to adequately Plan page II-12.and in Section III.C.4 on page III-4. Additional screen on-site light and glare impacts. Approval landscaping requirements are included as part of the development standards for each district. Arterial parkway and median landscaping will be installed concurrently with phased street improvements in accordance with Development Agreement 90-1. Individual project landscaping will be Installed prior to occupancy of each phase. outdoor lighting should be consistent with the standards Prior to xx Alloutdoor lighting shall comply with the standards contained in established by future Specific Plans to minimize off-site light Spec.Plan Section III.C.6 on page III-5 of the adopted Holly Seaclilf Specific intrusion. Approval Plan. L All outdoor lig trng should a hooded and directed downwatT—to ---Prior to Alt outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards contained in minimize direct light and glare impacts on public rights of way Final Section III.C.6 on page III-5 of the adopted Holly Seacliff Specific and surrounding properties. Inspection Plan. Appropriate types and Neights of street fights should be consistently rior to street lights shall comply with ection II.G.3 on page 11 16 - established in future Specific Plans. Street lighting Spec.Plan of the adopted Holly Seecliff Specific Plan. should be standardized throughout the project area. Approval ig tine associated with recreational uses,where applicable. Nor to —T TFS'..'t door fighting a comply with the standards containedin should be designed to minimize light Intrusion onto surrounding TM or CUP on III.C.6 on page III-5 of the adopted Holly Seacliff Specific piopeny and right of ways surrounding such uses. Approval -1 rn z O W I SECTION MONITORING age 10 NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETEO DATE COMMENTS - - Nonresidential building materials s9ould So consistent wit rier to Not applicable to subject tract. arcfutectural standards incorporated into future Specific Plans. Future Dev. Thane standards should address the minknizatlon of glare. Approval t is suggestea t at the research design be prepare y t nor to The research design and fieldwork prepared and conducted y Scientific _ Principal Investigator selected to perform the work and that It Issuance of Resource Surveys,Inc.(SIRS)were reviewed and accepted by William J. be reviewed by a second consulting archaeologist.This step will Grading Wallace,Ph.D.,Professor(emeritus)of Anthropology,California State help insure the completeness and viability of the research design Permits University,Long Beach. prior to its implementation. The Involvement of a second professional is viewed as an inexpensive means of insuring that no . major elements are overlooked. The archaeological deposits within the Holly Seacliff study area Prior to XX should be subjected to a program of excavation designed to recover Issuance of sufficient data to fully describe the sites. The following I Grading program is recommended: Permits A.Analysis of the collections made by the Pacific Coast Archaeological XX 2192 A. Completed as part of Phase I and documented In'An Archaeological Society,Long Beach St.Univ.and any community college Assessment of Edwards Street Widening Project,Huntington Beach, which has such material. If the collections are properly provenianced California'by Scientific Resource Surveys,Inc.dated February 19,1992. and are accompanied by adequate documentation,they should be brought together during this phase and complete analysis performed. Of particular importance during this phase is the recovery of survey data to be used to determine the exact locations of previous excavation efforts. B.Prior to the beginning of any excavation effort,a burial XX 1/91 B. Reburial Plan and Agreement executed January 29,1991,and included strategy should be developed by the archaeologist retained to in report dated February 19,1992. accomplish the excavation,members of the Native American community and appropriate City staff. The strategy should address details of the handling and processing of human remains encountered during excavation,as well as the ultimata disposition of such remains. C.Completion of test excavations should be made at each of the XX 4/91 C. Test excavations and data recovery have been completed in an areas archaeological deposits.The Information gained from the test 2/92 and documented in the following reports: excavation will guide the following data recovery excavation. - 11/94 Shoo and Lithic scatters-sae report dated April 24,1991. The excavations should have two primary goals: 1)Definition •Edwards Street end Garfield Avenue widening(sites ORA 82.88 and 3651 of site boundaries and depth.and 2)determination of the -see report dated February 19,1992. significance of the site and its degree of preservation. •Final data recovery phase compfeted for sites ORA 88 and 365;sea report dated November,1994. 0.A statistically valid sample of site material should be excavated. XX 2192 D. Sae reports dated April 24,1991.February 19,1992 and November, The data recovery excavation should be conducted under 1994 the provisions of a carefully developed research design.The research questions presented earlier in this report should be incorporated into the research design,other important research questions should be developed from the test excavation data included,and a statement of methodology to be observed must be included. 5^i (C_v 11+� W SECTION MO I age 11 NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS qualified observer appointed by Memr=incipajInvestigator/ XX E. Scientific Resource Surveys.Inc.is notr ied prior to and monitors CONT'D Archaeologist should monitor grading of the archaeological sites all grading activity near archaeologically sensitive areas. to recover important material which might appear.The monitor will be assigned by the Principal Investigator.This activity may require some minor delay or redirecting of grading while material is being recovered.The observer should be prepared to recover material as raWl as is consistent with good archaeological - practice.Monitoring should be on a full time basis when grading is taking place on or near an archaeological deposit.However, `. the grading should terminate when the cultural deposit has been entirely removed and clearly sterile deposits exposed. F.All excavation and ground disturbing observation project XX 9/92 F. A Native American observer was present during all test excavations should include a Native American Observer.Burials are known to and monitored all activities. exist at some of the sites,a circumstance which is extremely important to the Native American community. G.A detailed professional report should be prepared which fully XX XX 11/9 G. Reports completed for shell and lithic scatters,Edwards and Garfield describes the site and its place in prehistory.Reports should widening;and sites 88 and 365.and submitted to City,County and UCLA. receive sufficient distribution which includes the City,the County,and the UCLA repository for archaeology to insure their availability to future researchers. H.Arrangements should be made for proper curation of the XX XX 2192 H.Complete.Skeletal remains and sawed objects given to Native collections.It is expected that large quantities of material American representative.Artifacts have been offered to City Community will be collected during the excavation.Curation should be at an - Services Department. Shell and other salvage material offered to and institution which has the proper facilities for storage,display taken by Pacific Coast Archaeological Society. and use by interested scholars and the general public. The shell and lithic scatters should e subjected to test Prior t N/A Not applicable to subject tract. excavation to determine if they are or are not In situ archaeological Issuance deposits. If any of the scatters prove to be In alai archaeological of - material,a site record should be prepared and submitted Grading to the Archaeological Survey,University of California.Los Permits Angeles,and the site should be treated as In mitigation number one.If the sites are shown to be not archaeological In nature or - not in situ,then no further action should be taken. Ground disturbing activity within the study area should be Ongoing XX 3197 No tustorical materials have been recovered. monitored by a qualified observer assigned by the Principle Investigator/Archaeologist to determine if significant historic - deposits le.g.foundations,trash deposits,privy pits and similar features)have been exposed. The monitoring should be on a full time basis but can be terminated when clearly undisturbed geologic formations are exposed.If such exposures occur, appropriate collections should be made,followed by analysis and report preparation.Historic material may be encountered anywhere within the Holly Seadiff property.but the area around the old Holly Sugar Refinery is probably more sensitive than the balance of the project area. Historical material recovered at the archaeological sites should be treated with those deposits. plaque commamorating o we Huntington - oar a nor to p aqua as been placed in storage pending future eve opment o preserved.As development In the area continues,it may be Final the neighborhood park planned for Planning Unit 111.7. desirable to upgrade this feature. Inspection C7 f ill --I w �J SECTION M NITORING Page 12 NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS qualified paleontologist should be retained to periodically Prior to XX 8/97Grading has been monitored on an ongoing basis by Scientific Resources monitor the site during grading or extensive trenching activities Issuance of Surveys,Inc.ISRS) No fossils have been encountered. that cut into the San Pedro Sand or the Quaternary marine terrace Grading units. Permits n areas where fossils are abundant.full-time monitoring and ngoing / Grading has been monitored on an ongoing basis by SRS. No loss,s salvage efforts will be necessary(8 hours/day during grading or have been encountered. trenching activities).In areas where no fossils are being uncovered,the monitoring time can be lass than eight hours per- day. e pa eonto ogist s ou d e a owe to temporarl Ivan or ngoing / re ing as een monitored on an ongoing eels y o ossr a direct grading operations to facilitate assessment and salvaging have been encountered. of exposed fossils. a sawn processing of matrix samples through fine scr ens ngoing Grading has been monitored on an ongoing basis by SRS. No fossils will be necessary to salvage any microvertebrate remains.If a have been encountered. deposit of miaovertebrates Is discovered,matrix material can be moved off to one side of the grading area for further screening without delaying the developmental work. All fossils and that(contextual stratlgraphlc data should go to Prior to XX 8/97Grading has been monitored an an ongoing basis by SRS. No ossr s an institution with a research interest in the materials,such as Final have been encountered. the Orange County Natural History Foundation. Inspection e setting aside of 92 acres of parks and other open space will nor to --W——Rx— 12/9 To data.42.3 acres of parkland edication have been accepted by partially mitigate the loss of the existing open space and Specific the City per Development Agreement No.90.1. Additional public and private open provide soma wildlife habitat. Plan space will be provided onsits as illustrated on the conceptual site study. Approval e Specific Plan should address revegetahon on all graded areas nor 10 77ff Ravegetation of graded areas Is require ro per Ing u-Ma Ines on where structures or other improvements are not built.In public Specific Page II-4 through 11-6 of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan. The use open space areas,consideration should be given to the use of Plan of naturalized species within open space areas is recommended in the native or naturalized species which require little irrigation and Approval landscaping requirements on page II-12 of the Holly Seacliff Specific provide wildlife habitat,with a gradual transition to more Plan. Landscape Concept Plans will be submitted for the tract to ornamental species along the development edge. show the proposed location of low water use and ornamental species. 0 owing construction of necessary infrastructure in the main Prior to XX 3/97of applicable to su fect tract. drainage swells,i.e.utility knee,sewer$,ate.,this swale - Specific should remain as open space.Mitigation for the loss of cattail Plan marsh habitat(0.5 ac)and willow habitat 10.5 ac)which are Approval depicted on Exh.28.will take place such that a minimum of 1.0 - acts of nparisn vegetation Is established in this drainage Swale.The plants utilized in the revegetated area will be chosen from the recommended plant palette Indicated In Appendix H. Through adoption of future Specific Plans large trees suitable Prior to Not applicable to subject tract. for use by raptors such as the red•shouldared hawk,Mould be Issuance of preserved or replaced in accordance with the tree species Identified Building in the plant palette contained in Appendix H. Permits ,1 �I l/v SECTION MONITORING age 13 NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS Any grading or d mg n the brackish wetlands in the western prior to NIA not applicable to subject tract. portion of the project sit@ will be mitigated by restoration of Issuance of an equal area of coastal wetland at a nearby location in the open Grading space area. Permits Effects upon on-site wetlands within the jurisdiction of the Prior to of applicable to subject tract. California Dept.of Fish and Game will require mitigation Issuance of defined by 1603 permits. Grading eve opment use of the linear park(open space areas along the Prior to of applicable to subject tract. northern and northwest project boundaries)will be limited to Development passive recreation such as riding and hiking trade.Fencing and of vegetative buffers shall be designed to exclude humans and pets Linear Park from the Balsa Chica Wetlands areas.The bluffs and other upland areas in the linear park shall be revegetatod with native plant which are adapted to coastal environments. effects of night lighting can be mitigated by the following ljnor to NIA Not applicable to subject tract. measures:1)use of low intensity street lamps at the development Development edge,2)use of low elevation fighting poles,and 31 shielding by of internal silvering of the globe or internal opaque(effectors. Linear Park The degree to which these measures are utilized should be dependent upon the distance of the light source to the urban edge.Use of private sources of illumination around homes should also be restricted to prohibit area lighting on lots adjacent to open space areas. u Ong construction should comply with the Energy Conservation Prior to xx All building plans submitted or plan check will be accompanied y Standards set forth in Title 24 of the Calif.Administrative Tentative reports demonstrating compliance with Title 24 requirements. Code.Energy conservation features should Include: Map A.Installation of thermal insulation In wags end ceilings which Approval meet or exceed State of Calif.,Title 24 requirements. B.Insulation of hot water pipes and duct systems. C.Use of natural ventilation where possible. D.Use of natural gas for space heating and cooking.- E.Installation of attic fans or other ventilation devices.F.Orientation to sunlight and use of overhangs. G.Landscaping with deciduous trees,to provide shade in the summer months and egow sunlight through In the winter months. t is recommended that the developer consult with of the Prior to xx Future development plans willbe forwarded tote utility-companies for their Southern Calif.Gas Co.and Southern Calif.Edison during the Issuance of review. budding design phase for further energy conservation measures. Building Permit A.Installation of thermal insulation in walls and ceilings which meet or exceed State of Calif.,Title 24 requirements. Future Specific Plants)should include an area or areas for the rror to -41-u The approved Specific Plan designates industrial Planning Units consolidation of oil well facilities. Specific and IV-5 as areas in which consolidation projects may be permitted Plan Isse Section III.C.I.s on page III-2 and Section III.O.B.b on Approval I I I 1page III-231. Developer does not propose any consolidation projects. J C f C- C� SECTION MONITORING ON-- COM_ Page IT -- NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETEO DATE COMMENTS -All new development proposals snow a accompanied by: Prior to XX All wets within the subject tentative tract have been abandoned in A plan which addresses the requirements lot abandoned wells. Issuance of compliance with City and State requirements. Builders will submit The abandoned plant far existing wags. Building required abandoned well reports and site assessments as required by the These plans must satisfy the requirements of the City of Huntington Permits Fire Code pnor to Issuance of building permits. Basch and Division of Oil and Gas. criteria for the approval of development plans within oil Ali wells within the ate ire Gen a an one tn comp once with ity districts should include: Tentative and State requirements. No future oil operations are planned. A.That enough open space has been reserved around the oil operation Tract Map site to allow existing and future equipment which could ? or reasonably be expected to be used on the site,including any CUP setbacks from new development required by the Fire Chief. Approval B.That adequate access to all operation sites is provided for portable equipment and emergency vehicles. C.That reasonable expansion of the existing facilities,if permitted in the oil district,can be accomplished. D.That any proposed development includes all provisions for soundproofing and fire protection required by the Fire Chief. E.That screening of oil facilities from any new development is included in the plan ISec.9680.4.Art.968 OIL DISTRICTS.City of Huntington Basch Municipal Code). s future development occurs,cont subsidence rats monitoring Ongoing XX The City Council has appointed a subsidence commntee to atu y for the region of the subject site is necessary to determine subsidence and determine appropriate monitoring techniques. The Fire it subsidence rates are declining with current water injection Department is currently investigating feasible monitoring programs. methods being used at operating oil production facilities. e use-of post-tensioned slabs should considered in the nor to Builder will use post-tensioned slab oun ations where specifically foundation design in order to eliminate distress to structures Issuance recommended by the project soils engineer. and slabs from minor regional subsidence.Although this measure of will provide lot a more rigid slab,it will by no means eliminate Building distress to foundations resulting from the rapid subsidence of the Permits land from continued oil and gas withdrawal. OF All of er mitigation measures pertaining to oil contamination, Prior to Refer to comments or through , methane gas accumulation and other hazards are contained in - TTM or CUP and HH-1 through HH-10. other sections of this EIR,as previously noted. Approval r'7 n� z z . r SECTION MONITORING OW COM Page 15 NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS rror to grading and development,a site reconnaissance should nor to / hase I Environmentalits Xssessment was competed for the project performed including a phased Environmental Site Assessment to Issuance area in September,1989(Report No.HB-6001). Phase ll Site Assessments evaluate areas where contamination of the surficial soils may of were prepared in August,1991(Report No.HB-6005.1),October,1991 have taken place.The environmental assessment should evaluate Grading lReport No.HB-6005.31,November,1992(Report No.HB-6005.4)and existing available Information pertinent to the site and also Permits February,1995(Report No.HB-6005.4.11. The Fire Department wig undertake a limited investigation of possible on-site contamination. review these Assessments prior to the issuance of final grading permits. Phase I should Include: A.Review of available documents pertinent to the subject she to, evaluate current and previous uses. B.Site reconnaissance to evaluate areas where contamination o/ surficial soils may have taken place. C.Excavation and testing of oil samples to determine presence of near surface contamination of soil. ) D.Subsurface exploration to determine presence of sumps on-sits. Testing of possible drilling fluids for heavy metals. E.Completion of soil gas vapor detection excavations located adjacent to the existing on-site wens. F.Testing of air samples for gas vapors,methane gas and sulfur compounds. e actual site characterization and remedial action plan would be Prior to XX 8191ass 11 Site Assessments were prepared in August.1991 developed as part of a later phase. Upon completion of the Environmental Issuance 10/91(Report No.HB-6005.11.October,19911Report No.HB-6005.31. Assessment,a Remedial Action Plan can be developed. of 11/92 November,1992(Report No.HB-6005.4)and February,1995 This plan should address the following Items: Grading 2/95 (Repon No.HB-6005.4.11. The Fire Department will A.Treatment of possible crude oil contaminated soils.A possible Permits review these Assessments prior to the Issuance of final grading permits. solution to this condition would be aeration of the contaminated sods to release the volatile gases and then incorporation of the treated soils into the roadway fills Isubgrads). ' B.Treatment of possible drilling sumps by either oh-site disposal of noncontaminated drilling fluids or off-sits disposal of contaminated fluids. C.Treatment of the possibility of the accumulation of methane - gas. Prior to development.a thorough site study for the presence of Prior to XX A methane investigation was conducted in October. . surface and shallow subsurface methane gas should be performed. Issuance No abnormal levels of methane were detected. Vapor membranes and Any abnormal bindings would require a Remedial Action Plan and of wan vents will be Installed within the project in accordance with further studies to assure sufficient mitigation of the hazardous Grading Fire Department specifications. areas prior to building construction.All structures should have a Permits a gas and vapor barrier Installed underneath the slabs and foundations.Gas collection and ventilation systems should be installed over abandoned wage which are underneath or within 10 ft.of any structure,and over wells which show evidence of surface emissions of methane gas. Additionally,following construction of structures,an organic vapor analysis should be conducted and the results evaluated to assure that acceptable air quality is maintained within buildings and residences. rra'y f /ate Q J c� SECTION MONITORING ON- COM Page 16 NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS e presence of methane gas on-site should bete subject o nor to XX A methane investigation was conducted in Uctober. 1.41. future studies that include the following tasks: Issuance of No abnormal levels of methane were detected. A.Drdkng of test weds to monitor for subsurface methane Building deposits and confirm or deny the presanca of biogenic methans Permits bearing stets now the surface In the development ass. B.Shallow excavation and sampling In peas either known at assumed to be potential drilling mud sumps. C.Vapor monitoring of shallow vapor probes placed at strategic locations on the site and collection of sod vapor samples. D.Vapor survey areas adjacent to known abandoned oil weds. E.Laboratory analysis of selected soil samples for metals and sail vapor samples for gases. weTFs­s­c_h_e_di1sd for abandonment u e completed n nor to X Builders will submit an Abandoned OilWall Disposition eport sl for accordance with the standards and specifications of the City of Issuance of the tentative tract prior to issuance of building permits. Huntington Beach and the Calif.Division of Oil and Gas.Wells Building which have previously been abandoned must be reabandoned to the Permits most current requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and the Division of Od and Gas. Existing oil production lines are located throughout the site. nor to XX All oil pipelines will e abandoned,removed or relocated concurrent Treatment of these lines will depend on proposed lend use and Issuance of with project grading and construction of street and infrastructure development.Utility lines should be relocated and/or removed Grading improvements. with the trench being filled with compacted fig. Permits n inventory of all hazardous materials used and stored by industries Ongoing XX Not applicable to subject tract. The Fire Uapwtmant maintains located within the project area should be maintained and records on all industries using or storing hazardous materials in the recorded for use by the City Fire Dept.This inventory should area. include the location at which each hazardous material is used. e use,storage and disposalof hazardous materials should a ngocng The disposal of any hazardous materials encountered during grading and enforced by the City of Huntington Beach to provide the greatest construction will be performed in compliance with applicable City possible protection to the public from accidental occurrences. and State laws. Active wsus remaining on-site should a secured and screened P1701,to Not applicable to subject tract. There are no active wells remaining _ as requited by the City of Huntington Beach. Issuance of on-sits. Building Permit Prior to deve pment,a review of available public health records Prior to X9_--3M— 8/96 An Environmental Disclosure Report identifying potential hazardous sites should be performed to evaluate possible health risk sites in the Tent.Map within one mile of the project site has been prepared by Vista vicinity of the subject site. Approval Information Solutions and submitted to the Fire Dept. - Access roads to ad production areas should provided w re nor to of applicable to subject tract. No access roads are planned since appropriate and kept unobstructed to prevent adverse Impacts on Grad.Prmts/ no ongoing oil production is occurring. fire protection due to ongoing oil production. Ongoing Measures to eliminate or reduce tire and safety risks from existing Mar to ear to comments through . and abandoned ail production facilities and disposal areas Issuance of tie discussed In the Human Health and Safety section of this EIR. Building Permit Huntington Beach Fire Department should review all daveGFR;;n­tS nor to ire Department will review future development and will make within the area for adequate emergency vehicle access and Issuance of recommendations to maintain adequate emergency response. water pressure. Building Permit - u mot• i --i C� fLA) SEC71ON MOI age 17 NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS PS-4 The City should Budget for 0ditioN allicers to correspond with ngoing rty response i rty. phasing of development in the project area. City should enter into an agreement with major landowners to Prior to Development Agreement No. between the City and PLC dedicate designated parklands prior to or concurrent with development Spec.Plan 12/95 contains a schedule for dedication of park lands. All parkland serving the in each Planning Area. Approval proposed develo pment has been dedicated and accepted by the City. City should opt a plan for acquisition and development o 'of toCity responsibility. Not applicable to subject tract. land within the Central Park expansion area north of Ellis Ave. Davel,w!n that area e City should create a special assessment istric[s for the e nor t0 XX s ub k Works Department has determined that the intent of the development and maintenance of public trails and parklands within Devel.w/m mitigation measure is substantially met through applicant's required the project area. that area development of parkland and trails,and the maintenance of some of those 1 facilities by the developer or an HOA;therefore,creating a special district is not appropriate. With future development,the community enrichment fee should e nor to Builders will a required to pay the community enrichment fee at the paid to help fund the library expansion program. Issuance of time of issuance of building permits. Building Permit The GPA designates a ads for a new elementary school to serve Pilot to XX 1/90n elementary school site has been designated in the General Plan and students generated by residential development within the project GPA 9/92 reserved in approved Tentative Tract 14009.located north of the areas. Approval proposed development. The school district and major landowners should enter into an ngoing / The Huntington Beach City School District entered into a School agreement for acquisition or lease of the site as part of Facilities and Impact Mitigation Agreement dated February 1992 - implamentation of this GPA. that provides for site acquisition and construction of an elementary school. Developers should pay school impact fees to finance construction nor to Builders will pay school impact fees at the time of issuance o of necessary school facilities. Issuance of building permits In accordance with the mitigation agreements with HBCSD Building Permits and HBUHSD. Huntington Beach Linion High SchoolDistrict should coordinate Ongoing Builders will pay school impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits its expansion plans with phasing of development within the in accordance with the terms of the School Facilities Mitigation Agreement project areas and surrounding area. dated May 19,1997. o re uce t e proposed projects impacts on waste disposal facilities, nor to Buildefs will comply with ity- opts integrated Waste Management project designs should develop a means of reducing the Issuance of Plan for development projects. amount of waste generated both during construction and when the Building project is in use.Potential ways of reducing project waste loads Permits include implementation of recycling programs,and utilization of low water use landscaping. s developer should contact the solid waste disposal Firm during Prior to Developer forwarded project plans to Rainbow Disposal In October.1997. the design stage to ensurs the most efficient and economical Tent.Map Rainbow has a centralized recycling program In lieu of individual means for rubbish removal.The design should include rubbish or CUP (curbside)recycling. enclosures,projected travel areas,and turnabouts where necessary. Approval Provisions for recycling should be Included in future project designs. .:t C r) wt. 1 �y i3. SECTION MONITORING ON- COM Page 1 NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS - - g constructions ou d comply with the Energy tonsarva,tion nor toXX XX The builder will submit calculations as required by the City prior to Standards sat forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Issuance of the issuance of building permits. Code. Building Permit t is strongly recommended that developers consult with t nor to / Developer forwarded project plans to SCG and SCE in October. . Southern Calif.Gas Co.and the Southern Calif.Edison Co.for TM or CUP further energy conservation measures. Approval eve pens should submit to SCG and SCE panning divisions all Pilor to xx 167911 b—eve7ioper Forwarded project plans to SCG and SCE in October, 1997. tract maps and improvement plans for the project to that proper• TM or CUP planning,phasing and sizing of needed mains and service fines Approval can be designed. g construction should comply with the standards and nor to eve per forwarded project plans to GTE and Time Warner(Cable)in specifications of the General Telephone Co.and Time Warner Issuance of October,1997. Communications. t Building Permit Developers should submt to GTE and Rogers Cable TV Co.all tract Prior to XX 10197Developer forwarded project plans to GTE and Time Warner(Cablel(Cable in maps and improvement plans for the project so that proper TM or CUP October,1997. plarviang•phasing,sizing and material ordering for service lines Approval can be nude. Development of t e proposed project should occur concurrent nor to XX Devellper is obligated to construct certain water system improvements with development of the City's water system improvements to allow Tent.Map and is coordinating with the Public Works Department to implement for adequate water service to the site. or CUP Development Agreement No.90-1. Approval All proposed development should comply with the phasing a nor to XX XX Developer will construct required water lines as identified in the o y design of water facilities as shown on the water facilities map Tent.Map Seadiff Specific Plan Technical Appendix In accordance with the so as to provide adequate looped systems to service the adjoining or CUP schedule contained In the Development Agreement No.90-1. properties. Approval s future va opment occurs prior tote issuance of Use an rior to XX XX Developer will construct required water lines as anti ied in the Roily Occupancy permits,developers should construct the necessary Final Seadiff Specific Plan Technical Appendix in accordance with the water service fines to Individual residences and lots. Inspection schedule contained in the Development Agreement No.90-1. s future development occurs,no permits for Usea ccupancy rior to The new booster station was completed and is operational. shotdd be issued until the Reservoir Hill booster pump station Issuance of Per Development Agreement No.90-1,the City is required to and the 4toeass in storage capacity are complete and operating Building issue building permits whether or not these facilities have to the satisfaction of the City Water Division so as to provide Permits been completed. adequate water service to each development. e following water conservation measures shall be unp anent y Prior to XX Builders will comply with those measures as required by the City. developers as required by state law and by the City Water Issuance of . Division. Building A.Low flush toilets. Permits B.Low flow showers and faucets. C.Insulation of hot water fines In water recirculating systems. D.Comphanea with water conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code. 1-: f C. —c- (I� 4 i t �J SECTION I age 19 NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETEO DATE COMMENTS - - Irrigation systems which minMed water waste should be used to Prior to XX XX Developer an bui ers will comply wng these measures as require the greatest extent possible.Such measures should Involve such Issuance of by the City. features as the following: Building A.Raised planters and berming In conjunction with closely spaced Permits low volume law angle(22.1/2 degrees)sprinkler heads. B.Drip irrigation. C.Irrigation systems controlled automatically to ensure watering during early morning or evening hours to reduce evaporation losses. Developers and the City should provide information to occupants Prior to XX Builders will compTy­with these measures as required by the City. regarding benefits of low water use landscaping and sources of Final additional assistance for domestic and irrigation water conservation Inspection procedures. I scaping should use only low water demand Wrought to erant nor to Measures to a incorporate into project landscaping plans. species)and irrigation Systems designed to minimize water waste. Issuance of The use of mulch extensively In an landscaped areas 1s strongly Building recommended. Permits Minimize use of lawns and utilize water season,drought Prior to XX Measure to be incorporated into project landscaping plans. tolerant grasses. Issuance of Building Permit Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface nor to easure to be incorporated into project landscaping plans. water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. Issuance of 9uiiding Permit Control slopes and grades to discourage water waste t roug nor to easure to be�tncorpofatad into project grading plans. runoff. Grading Permits s future development occurs,no permits tor se and Occupancy Prior to XX Refel to comments Ior a . should be issued until additional water supplies aVdetailed in Issuance of the 1988 Water Master Plan are implemented by the City Water Building Division so as to provide adequate water supplies to each dev't. Permits Developers should consult the City Water Division during design nor to Landscape plans for the proposed tract will reviewed by the Water Division. and construction phases for further water conservation measures TTM or CUP to review Irrigation designs and drought tolerant plant use. Approval development occurs,Odor to approval of future building Prior to XX The Water Division will review landscaping plans prior tot the issuance permits,complete landscape and irrigation plans should be Issuance of of building permits. submitted to and approved by the Water Division. Building Permit o connect to[ s Orange Co.Water nstnct•T78anAcres' nor to XX As(squired by Development Agreement Developer will construct system of reclaimed water las described and detailed in the 1988 TTM or CUP 'Green Aires'distribution and service lines along with arterial road City of Huntington Beach Water System Master Plan),the project Approval improvements,per design criteria in the approved Specific Plan developer should at this time construct and utilize a reclaimed Tachrical Appendix. Portions of the proposed development will utilize - water system for on-sits Irrigated areas and equestrian tra9s. reclaimed water as determined by the Water Division. �i awn m O 's: 5ECT104 MONITORING ON- COM- Page 20 NUMBER MITIGATION MEASURE MILESTONE FUTURE GOING PLETED DATE COMMENTS et a sewer studies should M ,.p.,.d by a licensed civil engineer nor to XX 4192he required studies have been completed and are included in the as required by the City so as to precisely calculate the Specific approved Holly Sestdifl Specific Plan Technical Appendix.Section IV. required sewer main sizes. These calculations may be used to adjust Plan The general locations of ad major"wet Improvements are Illustrated the suggested pipe Idles proposed for the EIR and should be Approval on Exhibit Be. The major"ww fine In S"point Street serving the completed for each tributary area prior to the approval of proposed development has been completed. Specific Plans. ve a a I et "warfacilities sn a en a opt as pert o t •Hollypropose w s a the design of"war facilities as shown on the sewer facilities Imams SeaciUf Specific Plan Technical Appendix. The major"war line In map.This would provide adequats connections to service adjoining of Garfield Avenue serving the proposed development has been completed. and upstream properties.A9 required easements lot"wet Building facilities should be In Place prior to the Is"ancs of a building Permits permit of the subject property. Now development phased corresponding tote tuna, nt nor to XX Abandonmant of Chevron USA production facilities in 1991 has(toad up of waste water dischsrga from existing oil productions as Issuance of significant pipe and treatment capacity In the area. squired for adequate Pipe capacity flows. Building Permit evs pmenl o t areas tributary tot the Sister Avenue p Prior to of applicable to subject tract. Station should be postponed until the Dump station Improvements Issuance of are completed or until other Interim methods we approved. Building Permit industrial a con_ rcial users should take on-site measures ngomg Future development plans will be reviewed for sewer discharges and conditioned to reduce the load strength of their sewerage discharge. - accordingly. Developers should pay the required connection fees to either Prior to XX Developw wig pay appropriate connection fees prior to final map approval or OCSO No.3 or OCSO No.11.whichever is higher at the time of issuance of sewer connections. connection to County Trunk lines. Building Permit Each we pment should be responsible or the construction of Troor to Developer is required to install sewer facilities as part of Development "war facilities within their Project and/a off-site facilities Issuance of Agreement 90-1. Developer will seek a reimbursement agreement with necessary to serve the development.If it Is required to oversize Building the City to be reimbursed for oversize facilities from other developers or these facilities"ae to serve other future projects;the Permits will be reimbursed directly by other builders. developer can enter into a relmbursement agreement with the City to that future developers pay their fait share when they develop. This raknburs•ment procedure Is per the City Ordinance Code. 51-15 tsuationary,permits should not be approved for development of Prior to X J Develops(will submit sewer improvement plans for review and approve an was until adequate"war service alignments and capacities Issuance of by Public Works Department prior to Issuance of building permits. are demonstrated. Building Perrrtlt t� -r_ O Environmental Assessment No. 97-22 ATTACHMENT 5 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AT 1'r V1 INIEN T NO. �,� SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-199: 1. The tentative map received and dated , shall be the approved layout. 2. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (PV ) a. The following shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach: 1. An easement for storm drain purposes as shown on said map. 2. The storm drain system and appurtenances, within the storm drain easement, as shown on the improvement plans for this tract. b. All vehicular access rights to Summit Drive, Peninsula Lane, Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street shall be released and relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach except at locations approved by the Planning Commission. c. Hydrology and hydraulic studies for the entire site shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. The developer shall design and construct the drainage system required to serve the development. On-site drainage shall not be directed to adjacent properties, but shall be handled by a Public Works approved method. d. A sewer study for the entire site shall be submitted for Public Works approval. e. All "Development Agreement No. 90-1" improvements shall be constructed on Goldenwest Street between Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue. f. All new and existing utilities, adjacent to the site, shall be undergrounded. g. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. h. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital-graphics file of said map in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. 3. Upon recordation of the map, a mylar and print of the recorded Parcel Map plus digital files per City of Huntington Beach requirements shall be provided to the Public Works Department. (PV) 4. Prior to construction of any structures, a conditional use permit and tentative tract map, if appropriate, shall be approved by the Planning Commission. n �,�NTNO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS -TENTATIVE MAP NO. 97-199: 1. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to map recordation. (PW) 2. Tentative Map No. 97-199 shall become null and void unless exercised within two (2) years of the date of final approval. An extension of time may be granted by the Planning Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Division a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption/Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Department of Community Development within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. A ,.�, t;v��'i�i NO. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.97-22 SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Negative Declaration No. 97-22. This document contains all information available in the public record related to the Negative Declaration as of Tuesday, May 19, 1998,and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines. This document contains five sections. In addition to this Introduction,these sections are Public Participation and Review,Comments, Responses to Comments and Appendix. The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to provide public review and solicit input on the Negative Declaration. The Comments section contains those written comments received from agencies,groups,organizations,and individuals as of Tuesday, May 19, 1998. The Response to Comments section contains individual responses to each comment. It is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to include this document in the official public record related to the Negative Declaration. Based on the information contained in the public record,the decision makers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all information related to the environmental consequences of the project. SECTION 2- PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested groups, organizations,and individuals that a Negative Declaration had been prepared for the proposed project. The City also used several methods to solicit input during the review period for the preparation of the Negative Declaration. The following is a list of actions taken during the preparation,distribution,and review of the Negative Declaration. 1. An official twenty(20)day public review period for the Negative Declaration was established by the City. It began on Thursday,April 30, 1998 and ended on Tuesday,May 19, 1998. Public comment letters were accepted by the City of Huntington Beach through Tuesday, May 19, 1998. 2. Notice of the Negative Declaration was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on Thursday,April 30, 1998. Upon request,copies of the document and related information were distributed to agencies,groups,organizations,and individuals. 3._ A letter regarding the availability and review and comment period for the Draft Negative Declaration was sent to 235 property owners in the area, interested individuals and organizations. A copy of the letter and the distribution list is available for review and inspection at the City of Huntington Beach,Planning Department,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California 92648. SECTION 3-RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Negative Declaration No.97-22 was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations,and individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of twenty days. The public review period for the Negative Declaration established by the City commenced on April 30, 1998. Copies of all documents received as of May 19, 1998 are contained in appendix A of this report. Comments have been numbered with responses correspondingly numbered. Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue. Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the Negative Declaration,do not raise significant environmental issues,or request additional information. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Such comments are responded to with a"comment acknowledged"reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration. Letter of Comment No. 1 Letter of Comment from The Okuras,dated April 5, 1998. The following responses pertain to those comments directed at Draft Negative Declaration No. 97-22. A complete copy of the letter is attached hereto and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision making bodies for consideration prior to taking final action on the proposed amendments. OKURA-1: Comment: My wife and I and our family are homeowners in the Central Park Estates development. We truly enjoy the beauty of the area and moved here primarily because of the low density surrounding us. It is disturbing to hear that the City is considering a plan to allow 655 residential units in area that is presently so well planned. It is our opinion that the City should use a low density plan such as in Alternative 92 ... Response: The maximum number of residential units currently permitted by the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and the City's General Plan is 768. Proposed Alternative#1 calls for a maximum of 655 units. Proposed Alternative#2 calls for a maximum of 205 units. Either alternative would result in fewer dwelling units than currently permitted. Your comments regarding residential densities are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. Letter of Comment No.2 Letter of Comment from Karen Jackie on behalf of the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association,dated May 7, 1998. The following responses pertain to those comments directed at Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22. A complete copy of the letter is attached hereto and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision making bodies for consideration prior to taking final action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-1 Comment: The Huntington Seacliff Homewoners Association prefers Alternative#2 to Alternative#1. As stated in our previous letter regarding MontecitoGreenbriar which was attached to the negative declaration for Seacliff 50 Shopping Center but should really refer to this proposal. We oppose: • An entrance to the property from Summit at Beacon Hill opposite our open entrance to our neighborhood,which is not controlled by guard gates. Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22 Response to Comments Page No.2 hi iM~i� v i I i'r I ENT NO. _�y • A change in density as shown in Alternative 91 for the Montecito site. We do not support a consolidation of the densities for both residential sites as proposed. Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-2 Comment: The proposed use in both alternatives conflicts with land use and planning in that the size of the commercial portion has been increased substantially. This increases traffic impacts and alters ingress and egress to the commercial section. The close proximity to the elementary school results in increased impact on this area from any increase in commercial use as there will be considerable foot traffic and there will be concentrations of traffic to and from the school at start and end of school day. There will also be additional need to direct pedestrian,bicycle and auto traffic safely near the school. Response: Traffic analyses were conducted for both proposed alternatives, including land use and trip generation comparison of proposed alternatives versus existing approved land uses;signal progression and sight distance analysis, and level of service analysis. .(See Section XVII.-Earlier Analysis, item 12 of Draft Negative Declaration No. 97-22.) The maximum number of vehicular trips anticipated to be generated by either alternative is substantially less than that amount previously anticipated in Certified Holly Seacliff EIR 89-1 and subsequent amendments. The studies concluded that the proposed increase in commercial development,combined with the proposed decrease in residential density,would not impose any new or additional impacts on the City's circulation system beyond those that were previously anticipated and planned for in EIR 89-I. With or without the Saddleback Lane extension,traffic flow and intersection capacities will function at Level of Service C or better with buildout of either alternative. It is anticipated that pedestrian and bicycle traffic will be adequately and safely accommodated at project buildout as well. HSHA-3 Comment: The residential proposals offer access opposite Beacon Hill on Summit. This will create a significant impact on the Huntington Seacliff neighborhood,encouraging southbound pass through traffic to avoid the controlled intersections on Goldenwest. The typical traffic flow generated from the residential in Montecito will be to travel east and north so access should be directed toward Garfield instead of from an entrance opposite Beacon Hill. There will be a detrimental effect on property values in Huntington Seacliff if neighborhood access for Montecito is directed opposite Beacon Hill. Response: Traffic analyses conducted for the proposed alternatives, including the Beacon Hill ingress/egress pattern, do not indicate that traffic flows will increase in the Huntington Seacliff neighborhood. (See Section XVII. - Earlier Analysis, item 12 of Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22.) HSHA-4 Comment: The area already has significant commercially zoned land on the east side of Goldenwest between Garfield and Yorktown and this side of Goldenwest is planned for more residential use,therefore, any increase in the commercial site size from the HSSP would be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity as there are established residential tracts both to the north and the south of subject site and condominiums are planned directly east of the subject on the opposite side of Goldenwest. Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22 Response to Comments Page No. 3 Response: No significant negative land use or compatibility impacts are anticipated from the proposed commercial acreage expansion. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to taking action orf the proposed amendments. HSHA-5 Comment: Page 5,Paragraph IV. Alternative#1 —The elimination of vehicular access on Saddleback between Summit and Garfield will cut off safe use of this street,which is proposed to be a"paseo",and it will also prevent direct vehicular access to the Seacliff Elementary School for the neighborhoods south of Summit Dr. This effectively disrupts and divides Seacliff. Residents have concerns about the safety of a pedestrian walkway at this location. This"paseo", is by no means appropriately described as a"linear park". What elements are found in a linear park and where else in Huntington Beach can a similar land use be found? Response: Traffic analyses concluded that levels of service and traffic flow in the area will function at Level of Service A,with or without the Saddleback Lane extension. Design,maintenance and safety issues regarding the proposed paseo will be addressed in future entitlement review(Conditional Use Permit)prior to issuance of permits for development. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-6 Comment: Page 6, Paragraph#1 —Alternative#1 increase in density on the Montecito site is INCOMPATIBLE with the HSSP and the existing residential land use to the south. An entrance to Montecito at Beacon Hill does not provide a buffer from the higher density use for the existing neighborhood. The proposed increase in commercial acreage is NOT consistent with surrounding existing and planned uses in that there is sufficient commercial land nearby and a larger shopping center will overimprove this area if the Seacliff 50 site is redeveloped as planned. Ingress and egress to a larger site will create traffic problems on Goldenwest if the access is moved southward from the current boundary of the seven acre site. The left turn in location on Goldenwest may create a hazard as the current speed limit is 50 mph and the traffic studies were based on a 40 mph on Goldenwest. Response: See response to HSHA-2. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-7 Comment: Alternative#2 See comments noted in Alternative#1 regarding paseo,entrance to Montecito and ingress and egress to commercial. Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-8 Comment: Alternative#2 Paragraph II: Although the 5 units per acre density may be compatible,the ingress/egress for the Montecito site is incompatible as it breaches a buffer from existing residential which is not guard gated and will increase southbound traffic through an existing neighborhood not bound for that neighborhood. Draft Negative Declaration No. 97-22 Response to Comments Page No.4 NO L I 4i/i1� 1 The Montecito neighborhood as designed will be on the same grade level as the shopping center and will be impacted by the truck traffic for loading and unloading at the shopping center. There is only an emergency access provided to Garfield from via Saddleback for both Montecito and Greenbriar. It would be more appropriate to provide full access to Garfield from Saddleback since this is the logical direction traffic will travel. Response: Issues such as truck loading bay location and specific site design will be addressed through future entitlement and environmental review for the proposed development,prior to construction. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-9 Comment: b. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Directing traffic onto Summit Dr. instead of onto Saddleback or Garfield for entrance to the residential tracts will impact the road infrastructure of this area. The controlled intersection at Summit and Garfield is currently a bottleneck for traffic and the design of both the residential and commercial development as shown in Alternatives#1 and#2 will increase this problem. Ingress and egress to the commercial will result in U-turns at Summit Dr.from Garfield in order for trucks and other traffic to travel northbound from the commercial site. Response: The road infrastructure on Summit and surrounding roadways has been designed to accommodate the anticipated traffic from the proposed project,as well as at buildout of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated. In accordance with the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan,General Plan and Master Plan of Arterial Highways,Goldenwest will ultimately be improved to an eight lane major arterial highway in its entirety. Portions of Goldenwest are slated for improvement in 1999, including the section between Garfield and Summit. It is anticipated that the improvements will be in place prior to construction of the Greenbriar/Montecito proposal. With the improvements,the intersection of Summit and Goldenwest will accommodate left and U-tums and is projected to function at Level of Service A at buildout of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan area, including the proposed Greenbriar/Montecito development and Seacliff Center improvements. HSHA-10 Comment: a.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Providing an entrance to Montecito from Summit at Beacon Hill will result in placement of a guard gate on a fault zone. If this guard gate were manned,mitigation measures would be necessary. Response: Detailed site design issues are not a part of this entitlement review and environmental analysis. Such issues will be appropriately addressed through requisite future entitlement review and accompanying environmental analysis. HSHA-11 Comment: e.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. There is a natural wetlands on Seacliff golfcourse at the northerly end. When homes were built on Quiet Sands one home ended up with a permanent bubbling of water from underground. There is now algae growing along the west side of Quiet Sands as a result of this constant water flow. The land directly north of Summit opposite Quiet Sands has been heavily graded however,the underlying water table is higher than Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22 Response to Comments Page No. 5 �tiiENT NO t� anticipated in this area and the site should be examined closely,which is difficult to do during the rainy season. Response: As a condition of approval,prior to recordation of the final tract map,hydrology and hydraulic studies for the entire site shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. See Attachment 5,suggested Condition of Approval No.2.c. HSHA-12 Comment: The controlled intersection at Goldenwest and Summit is heavily impacted by the design of this development in addition to the design of the Seacliff 50 Shopping Center. This signal will be a major bottleneck for local east-west traffic and for Goldenwest, a major arterial as a result of these two developments. Serious consideration must be given to how to mitigate the impact of all this traffic at one point plus the need for U-turns to travel northbound from the shopping center. The traffic is directed southward from the northbound from the shopping center. The traffic is directed southward from the residential instead of northward,the natural direction of traffic flow from this area. This increases the impact of the traffic as it cannot travel directly from the tract plus the existing residential traffic from the south must travel around this development instead of using Saddleback to shorten the trips northward to Garfield as there is no direct access from the north. Increasing the size of the commercial site will increase traffic at Goldenwest and Garfield. Response: See response No. HSHA-2. HSHA-13 Comment: b. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The curves on Summit Dr. are dangerous for traffic as it travels on this street now. Although there is a 40 mph speed limit,the through traffic from Peninsula does not have any stops so it increases to over 60 mph. Traveling eastbound to Saddleback,there should be a stop sign to slow the traffic as it enters a curve which makes ingress and egress from Beacon Hill hazardous as you cannot see light colored cars traveling eastbound exceeding the speed limit. Traffic traveling westbound from Goldenwest to Beacon Hill is blocked from visibility by the curves in the street on the north side. Placing an entrance to Montecito at this location is hazardous due to the reduced visibility. Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-14 Comment: c. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT INULESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The access from Montecito and Greenbriar to northerly and easterly(school and shopping center) located uses is impacted by the lack of an entrance to the developments from Saddleback or from Garfield. Although emergency access is indicated,this access should be increased to full entrances for these developments. Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. Draft Negative Declaration No. 97-22 Response to Comments Page No. 6 :Vii V`tl l HSHA-15 Comment: d. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The park use will generate the need for parking. There is not parking on Summit. Park users must be directed through mitigation to not choose to park in the existing neighborhood to the south of Summit. Response: Site specific and design issues such as parking location,allocation and orientation will be appropriately addressed through requisite future entitlement review and environmental analysis, prior to construction. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-16 Comment: The issue of traffic control on Summit is not addressed by inclusion or elimination of the Saddleback extension. Whether Saddleback is open for vehicles or not,a signal is at this location is needed for traffic control and should be incorporated into the mitigation for this development. Response: In depth traffic analyses do not indicate that such a signal is warranted. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-17 Comment: XI Public Services. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The road infrastructure is overly impacted by the design of this development in that traffic is directed southward to Summit Dr. instead of northward to Garfield, and if the paseo at Saddleback is approved,traffic will need to travel around the development from neighborhoods south of Summit to access nearby uses and additional monitoring of the paseo will be required to prevent graffiti control at public expense. Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-18 Comment: XIII Aesthetics. b. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Unless compatible neighborhood monuments and landscaping are provided through mitigation measures by this development, Summit Dr.will have incompatible"Seacliff'signs on the north and south sides of the street at Goldenwest. Response: Site specific design and signage issues will be appropriately addressed through requisite future entitlement review and environmental analysis,prior to construction. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. Draft Negative Declaration No. 97-22 Response to Comments Page No. 7 � :I 1}��✓�i�iC� IV HSHA-19 Comment: XVI Mandatory Findings of Significance. b.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Increasing the size of the commercial will over saturate the area with large centers. This is a MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON MEACH GENERAL PLAN AND THE HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN. Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-20 Comment: Placing an entrance to Montecito opposite Huntington Seacliff entrance at Beacon Hill will create a major impact on traffic through an existing neighborhood and providing a four acre park without directing the parking for local users will also create a major impact on Huntington Seacliff. Past projects, i.e. infill building in Huntington Seacliff was directed to not make cuts in Summit Dr. at Quiet Sands yet the Montecito development is proposing such a cut when Saddleback was designed in the HSSP to provide access to the residential element. Response: See response HSHA-3 and HSHA-15. HSHA-21 Comment: c. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The combined impact of this development and Seacliff 50 on Goldenwest and Summit Dr. is cumulatively considerable and diminishes the ability of existing neighborhoods to ingress and egress on Summit Dr. Response: The traffic analyses prepared to analyze the land use amendment proposals took into consideration cumulative impacts, including planned and proposed development. Also see response HSHA-2. HSHA-22 Comment: THE NEGATIVE DEC DOES NOT ADDRES HOW THE PASEO WILL BE POLICED AND MAINTAINED, WHETHER IT WILL BE A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PASEO AND BEFORE IT IS APPROVED AS A PASEO,THE ADVANTAGES AND DESADVANTAGES SHOULD BE WEIGHED AS UNLESS THIS IS A PUBLIC STREET,THERE IS NO MODEL FOR HOW IT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AND POLICED. Response: Site specific design and maintenance issues will be appropriately addressed through requisite future entitlement review and environmental analysis,prior to construction. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-23 Comment: As a resident of Huntington Seacliff, my concern for our community is that this development,as designed requires additional studies to offset the negative impacts on traffic circulation within our Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22 Response to Comments Page No. 8 Ai­i, r1�'�cNTNO. city and by just stating the impacts do not exceed what was shown in the HSSP,the individual negative points are underplayed. Response: Potential traffic circulation impacts of the proposed alternatives have been identified through completed studies,and recommended mitigation measures have been included in the conditions of approval as appropriate. (See Attachment 5,Condition of Approval.) Also see response HSHA-2. HSHA-24 Comment: MITIGATION MEASURES. TR-1 When was Garfield upgraded to a major arterial between Seapoint and Goldenwest? It is a major arterial east of Goldenwest. This section should be amended to reflect the facts. Response: Garfield Avenue between Seapoint and Goldenwest was originally constructed as a Major Arterial Highway in accordance with the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan(adopted in 1992). No amendments to the EIR 89-1 Mitigation Monitoring Plan are required. HSHA-25 Comment: WHY IS SUMMIT DR NOT MENTIONED IN THE MITIGATION MEASURES AS IT IS AN ADJOINING THROUGH ROAD REFERRED TO AS A"PARALLEL ARTERIAL"TO GARFIELD IN MITIGATION MEASURE TR-7? Response: Mitigation Measure TR-7 requires that an operational analysis be conducted for projects requiring access along Garfield Avenue. It further states that access be limited along Garfield but that a signalized intersection "shall be permitted"at what is now identified as the Saddleback/Garfield intersection. Mitigation measure TR-7 does not require a signalized intersection,but provides that one may be permitted at this location. In accordance with TR-7,the requisite traffic studies were prepared for this entitlement request. A signalized intersection is neither required nor proposed. HSHA-26 Comment: TR 2 The following mitigation measures should be included A stop sign should be added to be installed at Summit and Saddleback. An additional speed limit sign should be installed between Saddleback and Beacon Hill on the southbound side of Summit to ease speeding traffic eastbound on Summit. Response: See response HSHA-2. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-27 Comment: Parking for the park should be identified as a mitigating measure. Response: Site specific and design issues will be appropriately addressed through requisite future entitlement review and environmental analysis,prior to construction. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. Draft Negative Declaration No. 97-22 Response to Comments Page No. 9 ,,.,AT ",SENT N0. 13� -. . .i� :. 4 HSHA-28 Comment: TR-5 THE NEG DEC SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED UNTIL THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS COMPLETED AND THE IMPACTS ARE FACTORED INTO THE MITIGATING MEASURES FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE TRAFFIC STUDY ALSO MUST TAKE THE SEACLIFF 50 SHOPPING CENTER INTO CONSIDERATION. Response: The requisite traffic studies have been completed. See response HSHA-2. HSHA-29 Comment: NO-10 Due to the adjoining residential neighborhoods. Construction should be limited to commence no earlier than lam Monday-Friday and 8 am on Saturday with no construction on Sunday. Construction hours should be limited to end by no later than 6 pm Monday-Friday and 5 pm on Saturday. Response: Hours of future construction activities in general and ongoing operational and truck delivery hours for the commercial site will be governed by the City Municipal Code,Noise Ordinance. Such conditions of approval will be appropriately attached to future required entitlements for development and specific uses through conditions of approval and prior to construction and occupancy. HSHA-30 Comment: SIGNS SHOULD BE PLACED AT ALL ENTRANCES TO CONSTRUCTION AREAS REFLECTING THE HOURS PERMITTED FOR CONSTRUCTION AND AT NO TIME SHOULD TRUCKS BE ALLOWED TO WAIT AND IDLE AWAITING OPENING OF CONSTRUCTION GATES ALONG SUMMIT DR. Response: Site specific issues will be appropriately addressed through requisite future entitlement review and environmental analysis,prior to construction. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-31 Comment: LG-1 Compatible entry monuments and landscaping are required at Goldenwest and Summit. Response: Site specific and design issues will be appropriately addressed through requisite future entitlement review and environmental analysis,prior to construction. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-32 Comment: HH-1 The environmental assessments are dated and should be updated prior to tentative map approval to insure infrastructure needs are met. Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22 Response to Comments Page No. 10 -iIV r-NT NO. 11(mac Response: Mitigation Measure HH-1 refers to remediation of contaminated soils within the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan area. The requisite studies have been completed and are updated on a site-specific basis,as required by the City, prior to issuance of development permits. HSHA-33 Comment: PS-4 The impact of needs to police a paseo should be determined prior to tentative map approval to insure infrastructure needs are met. Response: It is not anticipated that the proposed paseo will impart significant negative impacts on the City's services or infrastructure. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision- makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HSHA-34 Comment: Suggested condition of approval: 2d The sewer study should be completed prior to approval of the tentative map. Response: A sewer study is required to be submitted to the City for review and approval,prior to the recordation of the final tract map, for the entire site. At that time,approval of a particular alternative(#1 versus#2)will have been decided and accurate studies of the preferred alternative may be undertaken. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. Letter of Comment No.3 Letter of Comment from Gilbert and Bonnie Nixon,dated May 8. The following responses pertain to those comments directed at Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22. A complete copy of the letter is attached hereto and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision making bodies for consideration prior to taking final action on the proposed amendments. NIXON-1 Comment: - We take issue with Alternative#1... Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. NIXON-2 Comment: Additionally,use of Alternative#I would destroy the low-density buffer zone that was promised to upper Seacliff residents ... Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22 Response to Comments Page No. I 1 Al I, k,-1;��ENT NO. NIXON-3 Comment: Our Seacliff neighbors and residents of the Hamptons development have also expressed concerns regarding a low-rental complex in the area. We have yet to encounter any local resident who favors Alternative 1. _Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. NIXON-4 Comment: We question the expansion of the commercial area in Montecito,and also the wisdom of providing a strip mall in Seacliff at all,even though it is part of the HSSP... Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. NIXON-5 Comment: The planned Montecito access as specified by the Conceptual Land Use Plan in Reference 1 would use a northerly extension of Beacon Hill Lane(upper Seacliffs access). This approach is another feature that destroys the HSSP's promised buffering of Montecito from upper Seaclif. We feel this approach also creates a dangerous four-way intersection because eastbound Summit drive traffic approaches that intersection at an obtuse angle from a curve in Summit,which hampers visibility from Beacon Hill lane. This Montecito access should either be moved west on Summit drive to maintain upper Seacliff buffering and/or be combined with Montecito access from Saddleback or Garfield. Response: Traffic analyses were conducted for both proposed alternatives, including land use and trip generation comparison of proposed alternatives versus existing approved land uses;signal progression and sight distance analysis,and level of service analysis. .(See Section XVII.-Earlier Analysis, item 12 of Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22.) The maximum number of vehicular trips anticipated to be generated by either alternative is substantially less than that amount previously anticipated in Certified Holly Seacliff EIR 89-1 and subsequent amendments. The studies concluded that the proposed increase in commercial development,combined with the proposed decrease in residential density,would not impose any new or additional impacts on the City's circulation system beyond those that were previously anticipated and planned for in EIR 89-1. With or without the Saddleback Lane extension,traffic flow and intersection capacities will function at Level of Service C or better with buildout of either alternative. It is anticipated that pedestrian and bicycle traffic will be adequately and safely accommodated at project buildout as well. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. NIXON-6A throup-h 6D Comment: We feel that provision of a 4 or 5 acre park with a soccer practice field along the interface of Summit drive and upper Seacliff presents several problems: ..... Draft Negative Declaration No. 97-22 Response to Comments Page No. 12 Response: Per the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan,the property owner is required to provide a four acre public park site to be dedicated to the City as a part of the development plan for the subject area. The future park site is included in the City's General Plan and is intended to help meet the community's park and recreational facility needs. Site specific issues such as park design, landscaping,dedicated uses, amenities and ongoing maintenance for the future public park site will be appropriately addressed through requisite future entitlement review, including public hearings and environmental analysis,prior to construction. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. NIXON-7 Comment: We recommend: Use of Alternative 2 ... Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. NIXON-8 Comment: We recommend: Change the park area over the fault line to a greenbelt to eliminate a potentially serious safety problem and maintain the promised buffering for upper Seacliff. An open park with a soccer practice field is not a buffer,and Seacliff needs some open area. Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. NIXON-9 Comment: We recommend: Eliminate the Montecito access at Beacon Hill lane and use Saddleback for both Greenbriar and Montecito accesses. Use of Beacon Hill Lane would break the HSSP promised buffering for Seacliff,and creates a dangerous intersection. Response: See response to Nixon-5. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. Letter of Comment No.4 Letter from City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board,dated May 15, 1998. The following responses pertain to those comments directed at Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22. A complete copy of the letter is attached hereto and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision making bodies for consideration prior to taking final action on the proposed amendments. ERB-1 Comment: The Environmental Board supports the proposal to reduce the density of residential units in the Greenbriar and Montecito areas as the environmental impacts will be less than the type of development allowed in the current HSSP. The Board believes that of the two proposed alternatives,the second alternative described Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22 Response to Comments Page No. 13 Ni ,,r-.k_,r V;ENT NO. _13_`� above would be preferable as it would generate less traffic and increase park acreage. As such,the Board recommends that the second alternative replace the existing allowable land uses in the HSSP for the Greenbriar and Montecito areas. Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. Letter of Comment No. 5 Letter from Lois K. Havens,dated May 12, 1998. The following responses pertain to those comments directed at Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22. A complete copy of the letter is attached hereto and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision making bodies for consideration prior to taking final action on the proposed amendments. HAVENS-1 Comment: Thank you for sending me a copy of the Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration No. 97-22... Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HAVENS-2 Comment: I noticed that the Alternative Plans do not discuss the continuation of Saddleback Street from Garfield to Summit... It was suggested at the March 31 meeting that this walkway be made into a street(continuation of Saddleback)and the entrance/exits for Montecito and Greenbriar be on this street,so they can turn north to Garfield or south to Summit,thereby dividing the amount of traffic between Garfield and Summit. Most people are going to go north to Garfield because of the location of freeways, so it makes sense to get the cars to Garfield rather than exiting on Summit and then turning north to get to Garfield. Response: Traffic analyses were conducted for both proposed alternatives, including land use and trip generation comparison of proposed alternatives versus existing approved land uses;signal progression and sight distance analysis,and level of service analysis. The studies looked at site specific impacts, as well as cumulative,system wide impacts. (See Section XVII.-Earlier Analysis, item 12 of Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22.) The maximum number of vehicular trips anticipated to be generated by either alternative is substantially less than that amount that would be generated by the existing approved land uses and previously anticipated in Certified Holly Seacliff EIR 89-1 and subsequent amendments. The traffic studies concluded that the proposed increase in commercial development,combined with the proposed decrease in residential density,would not impose any new or additional impacts on the City's circulation system beyond those that were previously anticipated and planned for in EIR 89-1. With or without the Saddleback Lane extension,traffic flow and intersection capacities in the area will function at Level of Service C or better with buildout of either alternative. It is anticipated that pedestrian and bicycle traffic will be adequately and safely accommodated at project buildout as well. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22 Response to Comments Page No. 14 A77: 01HI11ENT NO. HAVENS-3 Comment: I am also concerned about the flow of traffic and congestion at Garfield and Goldenwest with commercial units on both sides of Goldenwest. With a new,expanded shopping center at Seacliff,we certainly don't need another grocery store and we certainly don't need a strip mall. There are plenty of stores in Huntington Beach to shop: ... Response; See response to HAVENS-2. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. Letter of Comment No.6 Letter from Huntington Beach Hamptons Homeowners Association The following responses pertain to those comments directed at Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22. A complete copy of the letter is attached hereto and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision making bodies for consideration prior to taking final action on the proposed amendments. HBHHA-1 Comment: One of our concerns falls under Land Use and Planning. We do not feel that Garfield Avenue,as stated on page 6 of the report, is an adequate buffer to the commercial development. Signs, lights,deliveries,noise, and litter will directly impact the Hampton homeowners. The use of buffering techniques as described in this document does not really address this issue. With the large regional center planned at the Seacliff Village site,we wonder about the need for this commercial development at all. To increase the size to 11 acres will only add to the homeowner impact. This quarter section is a residential quarter section. A large commercial corner is not in line with the interests of the residents. Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HBHHA-2 Comment: At some point we must stop and take count of the increased traffic and congestion. To add to an already congested area does not appear prudent. It does not seem that we are at a loss for large markets or for strip malls in the City of Huntington Beach. With the divided main streets of Goldenwest and Garfield,we do not see how easy access to and from the commercial center can even be achieved. Response: Traffic analyses were conducted for both proposed alternatives, including land use and trip generation comparison of proposed alternatives versus existing approved land uses;signal progression and sight distance analysis,and level of service analysis. The studies looked at site specific impacts, as well as cumulative,system wide impacts. (See Section XVII.-Earlier Analysis, item 12 of Draft Negative Declaration No. 97-22.) The maximum number of vehicular trips anticipated to be generated by either alternative is substantially less than that amount that would be generated by the existing approved land uses and previously anticipated in Certified Holly Seacliff EIR 89-1 and subsequent amendments. The traffic studies concluded that the proposed increase in commercial development,combined with the proposed decrease in residential density,would not impose any new or additional impacts on the City's circulation system beyond those that were previously anticipated and planned for in EIR 89-1. With or without the Saddleback Lane extension,traffic flow and intersection capacities in the area will function at Level of Service C or better with buildout of either alternative. It is anticipated that pedestrian and bicycle traffic Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22 Response to Comments Page No. 15 will be adequately and safely accommodated at project buildout as well. Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HBHHA-3 Comment: When presented with the original plan and alternative 1 and alternative 2,our choice universally,would be alternative 2,but with limited commercial. New developments should complement and conform in some respect to the existing developments. With old Seacliff at 7 units per acre and the Hamptons at 3 units per acre, it only seems reasonable that the new development would somehow fall within these limits. Alternative#2,with 5 units per acre,does that. Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. HBHHA-4 Comment: Under Item VI,Transportation/Circulation,we feel the increased vehicle trips and or congestion would be significantly increased with any plan other than Alternative#2. Remembering that a soon-to-be built school will add traffic to the area,we need to take steps to mitigate any further increase. This is a residential area;many housing developments comprise the area. We,the homeowners, feel we should have a voice,an even louder voice than the developers. What we do now is with us for lifetimes to come. Response: See response HBHHA-2. HBHHA-5 Comment: The Hampton Homeowner Association represents a community of over 100 homes. We are united in our desire to keep new development complementary to that which is already present. Goldenwest is already congested and development on this Greenbriar/Montecito property has not taken place and Seacliff has not been expanded. During the summer months Goldenwest is used as a main thoroughfare to the beach which further compounds the traffic problem for the residents. Please consider this before approving increased density and larger commercial sites. Response: Your comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed amendments. SECTION 4—COMMENTS Copies of all written comments regarding Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22 received as of Tuesday, May 19, 1998 are contained in appendix A of this document. All comments have been numbered and are listed on the following pages. All comments from letters pertaining to the Negative Declaration have been retyped verbatim in a comment-response format for clarity. Responses to Comments for each comment which raised an environmental issue are contained in this document. Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22 Response to Comments Page No. 16 :; tc'1Vtli'r'��IVT O. JI APPENDIX A LETTERS OF COMMENT Draft Negative Declaration No.97-22 Response to Comments Page No. 17 ATTACHMENT NO. April 5, 1998 Ms Catherine O'Hara, Planner MAy U "19 City of Huntington Beach 9g Planning Division uN�T Ci ��,'op Department of Community Development �`cp'NENT P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach Calif 92648 RE: PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-22 GREENBRIAR AND MONTECITO Thank you for sending out the April 28, 1998 Notice regarding the 2 Alternative plans for the Proposed Greenbriar and Montecito developments. My wife and I and our family are homeowners in the Central Park Estates development. We truly enjoy the beauty of the area and moved here primarily because of the low density surrounding us. It is disturbing to hear that the City is considering a plan to allow 655 residential units in an area that is presently so well planned. d KO PA -I It is our opinion that the City should use a low density plan such as in Alternative#2 to further the development of a truly planned community rather than mixing and matching high and low density housing in the same area. Huntington Beach has the ability to keep this"Seacliff' area"the most livable"beach community in the State of California by planning to keep the density low! Thank,you for listening to us. The Okuras 6842 Hitchingpost Circle Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 7 nH;,�NT N4. 3- k� KARENJACKLE RECEIVED 6702 LAWN HAVEN DR HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 (714)536-6177 MAY 0 71998 05/07/98 DEPARTMENT OF Mary Beth Broeren. Senior Planner COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Catherine O'Hara, Contract Planner City of Huntington Beach RE: Environmental Assessment No 97-22 The Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association prefers Alternative#2 to Alternative#1. As stated in our previous letter regarding MontecitoGreenbriar which was attached to the negative declaration for Seacliff 50 Shopping Center but should really refer to this proposal. We oppose: • An entrance to the property from Summit at Beacon Hill opposite our open entrance to our neighborhood,which is not controlled by guard gates. • A change in density as shown in Alternative#1 for the Montecito site/We do not support a consolidation of the densities for both residential sites as proposed. Following are comments related to the specific sections of the EA No. 97-22 1.Land Use and Planning a. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICAN IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED The proposed use in both alternatives conflicts with land use and planning in that the size of the commercial portion has been increased substantially.This increases traffic impacts and alters ingress and Z egress to the commercial section.The close proximity to the elementary school results in increeased impact on this area from any increase in commercial use as there will be considerable foot traffic and there will be concentrations of traffic to and from the school at start and end of school day.There will also be additional need to direct pedestrian,bicycle and auto traffic safely near the school. The residential proposals offer access opposite Beacon Hill on Summit.This will create a significant impact on the Huntington Seacliff neighborhood,encouraging southbound pass through traffic to avoid r♦Sr�R -� the controlled intersections on Goldenwest The typical traffic flow generated from the residential in Montecito will be to travel east and north so access should be directed toward Garfield instead of from an entrance opposite Beacon Hill.There will be a detrimental effect on property values in Huntington Seacliff if neighborhood access for Montecito is directed opposite Beacon Hill. c.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICAN IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED The area already has significant commercially zoned land on the east side of Goldenwest between Garfield and Yorktown and this side of Goldenwest is planned for more residential use,therefore,any increase in AzAA 4 the commercial site size from the HSSP would be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity as there are established residential tracts both to the north and the south of subject site and condominiums are planned directly east of the subject on the opposite side of Goldenwest. e. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICAN IMPACT UNLESS NUTIGATION INCORPORATED Page 5,PARAGRAPH IV W(2R _ Alternative#1The elimination of vehicular access on Saddleback between Summit and Garfield will cut off safe use of this street, which is proposed to be a"paseo,"and it will also prevent direct vehicular access EA 97-22 1 5/7/98 ATTAC"HN'llE IF %0 3.(-4 to the Seacliff Elementary School for the neighborhoods south of Summit Dr. This effectively disrupts and divides Seacliff. Residents have concerns about the safety of a pedestrian walkway at this location. This ..paseo," is by no means appropriately described as a"linear park." What elements are found in a linear park and where else in Huntington Beach can a similar land use be found? ISSUES PAGE 6,PARAGRAPH I Alternative#1 increase in density on the Montecito site is INCOMPATIBLE with the HSSP and the existing residential land use to the south.An entrance to Aontecito at Beacon Hill does not provide a buffer from the higher density use for the existing neighborhood. 1 �1 LA The proposed increase in commercial acreage is NOT consistent with surrounding existing and planned uses in that there is sufficient commercial land nearby and a larger shopping center will overimprove this area if the Seacliff SO site is redeveloped as planned. Ingress and egress to a larger site will create traffic problems on Goldenwest if the access is moved southward from the current boundary of the seven acre site. The left turn in location on Goldenwest may create a hazard as the current speed limit is SO mph and the traffic studies were based on a 40 mph on Goldenwest. Alternative#2 See comments noted in Alternative#1 regarding paseo,entrance to Montecito and ingress N A —7 and egress to commercial. Alternative#2 Paragraph II: Although the 5 units per acre density may be compatible,the ingresslegress for the Montecito site is incompatible as it breaches a buffer from existing residential which is not guard gated and will increase southbound traffic through an existing neighborhood not bound for that neighborhood The Montecito neighborhood as designed will be on the same grade level as the shopping rf center and will be impacted by the truck traffic for loading and unloading at the shopping center.There is only an emergency access provided to Garfield from via Saddleback for both Montecito and Greenbriar. It would be more appropriate to provide full access to Garfield from Saddleback since this is the logical direction traffic will travel. H POPULATION AND HOUSING b. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED Directing traffic onto Summit Dr. instead of onto Saddleback or Garfield for entrance to the residential �,L Q tracts will impact the road infrastructure of this area. The controlled intersection at Summit and Garfield is currently a bottleneck for traffic and the design of both the residential and commercial development as shown in Alternatives#1 &#2 will increase this problem. Ingress and egress to the commercial will result in u-turns at Summit Dr.from Garfield in order for trucks and other traffic to travel northbound from the commercial site. III GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS a. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED Providing an entrance to Montecito from Summit at Beacon Hill will result in placement of a guard gate on a fault zone. If this guard gate is manned,mitigation measures would be necessary. IV WATER e. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED There is a natural wetlands on Seacliff golfcourse at the northerly end. When homes were built on Quiet Sands one home ended up with a permanent bubbling of water from underground. There is now algae growning along the west side of Quiet Sands as a result of thsi constant water flow. The land directly EA 97-22 2 5/7/99 ATTA,CH1►-AENT NO. 13 �� north of Summit opposite Quiet Sands has been heavily graded however.the underlying water table is higher than anticipated in this area and the site should be examined closely, which is difficult to do during the rainy seasion. VI TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT MIPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED The controlled intersection at Goldenwest and Summit is heavily impacted by the design of this development in addition to the design of the Seacliff 50 Shopping Center. This signal will be a major bottleneck for local east-west tragic and for Goldenwest, a major arterial as a result of these two developments. Serious consideration must be given to how to mitigate the impact of all this traffic at one point plus the need for u-turns to travel northbound from the shopping center. The traffic is directed southward from the residential instead of northward. the natural direction of traffic flow form this area. This increases the impact of the traffic as it cannot travel directly from the tract plus the existing residential traffic from the south must travel around this development instead of using Saddleback to shorten the trips northward to Garfield as there is no direct access from the north. Increasing the size of the commercial site will increase tragic at Goldenwest and Garfield. b. . POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED The curves on Summit Dr.are dangerous for traffic as it travels on this street now. Although there is a 40mph speed limit,the through traffic from Peninsula does not have any stops so it increases to over 60mph.Traveling eastbound to Saddleback,there should be a stop sign to slow the traffic as it enters a curve which makes ingress and egress from Beacon Hill hazardous as you cannot see light colored cars traveling eastbound exceeding the speed limit. f[ Traffic traveling westbound from Goldenwest to Beacon Hill is blocked from vzsability by the curves in the street on the north side. Placing an entrance to Montecito at this location is hazardous due to the reduced visability. c. . POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT R"ACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED The access from Montecito and Greenbriar to northerly and easterly (school and shopping center)located uses is impacted by the lack of an entrance to the developments from Saddleback or from Garfield 11 ►�- `� Although emergency access is indicated,this access should be increased to full entrances for these developments. d. .POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED The park use will generate the need for parking. There is not parking on Summit. Park users must be fl l directed through mitigation to not choose to park in the existing neighborhood to the south of Summit. Discussion_ The issue of traffic control on Summit is not addressed by inclusion or elimination of the Saddleback extension. Whether Saddleback is open for vehicles or not,a signal is needed at this location for traffic control and should be incorporated into the mitigation for this development. The residents of Huntington Seacliff were appeased while the homes were constructed on the infill lots by t'1 stating that it is good planning to not provide cuts to through streets for access to these new streets and Saddleback was designed to provide entry access to the residential sites in the HSSP. It is still better planning to not cut up Summit Dr. with major entrances to the residential. XI Public Services d. .POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED The road infrastructure is overly impacted by the design of this developement in that traffic is directed southward to Summit Dr. instead of northward to Garfield and if the paseo at Saddleback is approved, EA 97-22 3 517/99 traffic will need to travel around the development from neighborhoods south of Summit to access nearby uses and additional monitoring of the paseo will be required to prevent graffitti control at public expense. XIII Aesthetics b. .POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED Unless compatible neighborhood monuments and landscaping are provided through mitigation measures by this development, Summit Dr. will have incompatible"Seacliff' signs on the north and south sides of the street at Goldemvest. XVI Mandatory Findings of Significance b. .POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED Increasing the size of the commercial will oversaturate the area with large centers.This is a MAJOR }►,Ti rl - AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN AND THE HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN. Placing an entrance to Montecito opposite Huntington Seacliff entrance at Beacon Hill will create a major impact on traffic through an existing neighborhood and providing a four acre park without directing the parking for local users will also create a major impact on Huntington Seacliff.Past projects, i.e. infill WAR - Z 0 building in Huntington Seacliff was directed to not make cuts in Summit Dr. at Quiet Sands vet the Montecito development is proposing such a cut when Saddleback was designed in the HSSP to provide access to the residential element. c. .POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT RVIPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED The combined impact of this development and Seacliff 50 on Goldenwest and Summit Dr. is cumulatively Z� considerable and diminishes the ability of existing neighborhoods to ingress and egress on Summit Dr. THE NEGATIVE DEC DOES NOT ADDRESS HOW THE PASEO WILL BE POLICED AND MAINTAINED, WHETHER IT WILL BE A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PASEO AND BEFORE IT IS 1� APPROVED AS A PASEO,THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES SHOULD BE WEIGHED rt 7 - Z Z AS UNLESS THIS IS A PUBLIC STREET,THERE IS NO MODEL FOR HOW IT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AND POLICED. As a resident of Huntington Seacliff,my concern for our community is that this development,as designed requires additional studies to offset the negative impacts on traffic circulation within our 412RA _Z3 city and by just stating the impacts do not exceed what was shown in the HSSP,the individual negative points are underplayed. MITIGATION MEASURES TR-1 When was Garfield upgraded to a major arterial between Seapoint and Goldenwest?It is a major WAR-I-q arterial east of Goldenwest. This section should be amended to reflect the facts. WHY IS SUMMIT DR NOT MENTIONED IN THE MITIGATION MEASURES AS IT IS AN ADJOINING THROUGH ROAD REFERRED TO AS A"PARALLEL ARTERIAL"TO rlrlt�A✓ZS GARFIELD IN MITIGATION MEASURE TR-7? TR 2 The following mitigation measures should be included A stop sign should be added to be installed at Summit and Saddleback. I� A- An additional speed limit sign should be installed between Saddleback and Beacon Hill on the southbound side of Summit to ease speeding traffic eastbound on Summit. }A6t1A -Z7 I Parking for the park should be identified as a mitigating measure. TR-5 THE NEG DEC SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED UNTIL THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS �A-Z COMPLETED AND THE IMPACTS ARE FACTORED INTO THE MITIGATING MEASURES EA 97-22 4 5n198 FOR THIS DEVELOPEMENT. THE TRAFFIC STUDY ALSO MUST TAKE THE SEACLIFF 50 SHOPPING CENTER INTO CONSIDERATION. NO-10 DUE TO THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO COMMENCE NO EARLIER THAN 7AM MONDAY-FRIDAY AND 8AM ON SATURDAY WITH NO CONSTRUCTION ON SUNDRY_ CONSTRUCTION HOURS SHOULD BE Ci LIMITED TO END BY NO LATER THAN 6PM MONDAY-FRIDAY AND 5PM ON SATURDAY. SIGNS SHOULD BE PLACED AT ALL ENTRANCES TO CONSTRUCTION AREAS REFLECTING THE HOURS PERMITTED FOR CONSTRUCTION AND AT NO TIME SHOULD TRUCKS BE ALOWED TO WAIT AND IDLE AWAITING.OPENING OF CONSTRUCTION GATES ALONG Cl SUM IIT DR. LG-1 Compatible entry monuments and landscaping are required at Goldenwest and Summit. HH-1 The environmental assessments are dated and should be updated prior to tentative map approval to j -3 L insure infrastructure needs are met. l PS-4 The impact of needs to police a paseo should be determined prior to tentative map approval if a W2AA _37) paseo rather than a street is approved for Saddleback. Suggested Conditions for Approval: W,o ( l 2d The sewer study should be completed prior to approval of the tentative map. Please provide a written response to this letter to KARENJACKLE 6702 LAWN HAVEN DR. HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.92648 EA 97-22 5 5/7/98 I-kT iAC N,IrEN T N0. 13.- R E C L J V E MAY 0 81998 DEPARTMENT OF May 8, 1998 COrJ UNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Planning Commission'/ Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Project Planner, From: Gilbert and Bonnie Nixon , 6861 Lawn Haven Drive, H. B. 92648, Ph 714-536-5068 Subject: Proposed Development Plans for Greenbriar/Montecito Reference: 1. HSSP Amendment - Greenbriar/Montecito Environmental Assessment Report No. 97-22, April 30, 1998 2. Appeal of Tentative Tract No. 1553/Conditional Use Permit No. 97-65/Variance No. 97-22 (Cape Ann) February 17, 1998 My wife and I are 25-year residents of upper Seacliff. We have reviewed the Reference 1 document and material from the city sponsored Greenbriar/Montecito community development meeting. We submit the following comments for your consideration. • PLC's Alternative No. 1 versus Alternative No. 2 We take issue with Alternative No. 1 which provides a low-rent, high density apartment complex in Montecito. The single family dwelling approach has established Seacliff as the premier family oriented community in Huntington Beach. Provision of low-rent units in Seacliff serves to benefit a pseudo transient element of our population at the expense of NlwN —I the family owned environment, which makes Seacliff what it is. With regard to providing affordable housing, please consider that the Cape Ann development described in Reference 2 and approved by the city council on February 17, 1998 provides 146 affordable housing condominium units on 11 gross acres less than 1/2 mile from the Montecito development. Additionally, use of Alternative 1 would destroy the low density buffer zone that was promised to upper Seacliff residents (Reference 1,Area III-7 zoned RL-2 by HSSP). Please recall this upper Seacliff buffering approach was an important feature of the HSSP, which served to support the plan's acceptance and ultimate approval. Our Seacliff neighbors and residents of the Hamptons development have also expressed NIN _3 concerns regarding a low-rental complex in the area. We have yet to encounter any local resident who favors Alternative 1. •Commercial Area We question the expansion of the commercial area in Montecito, and also the wisdom of providing a strip mall in Seacliff at all, even though it is part of the HSSP. It appears that the Lucky market a t the Seacliff Shopping Center; Ralph's at Beach and Garfield,and another at Goldenwest and Warner;and the Lucky market at Beach and Yorktown are '1 sufficient to serve the area.The commercial site at Garfield and Goldenwest seems to N I��IV have little if any benefit for the community. WHY CLUTTER SEACLIFF WITH STRIP MALLS? Further, residents in the Hamptons development are apprehensive regarding operation of a 24-hour market with regard to increased noise levels and anticipated 24- hour noise from large delivery trucks, etc. ATT�:nHIM'N T NO. 13.TJ • Montecito Access The planned Montecito access as specified by the Conceptual Land Use Plan in Reference 1 would use a northerly extension of Beacon Hill lane(upper Seacliff's access). This approach is another feature that destroys the HSSP's promised buffering of Montecito from upper Seacliff. We feel this approach also creates a dangerous four-way intersection because eastbound Summit drive traffic approaches that intersection at an obtuse angle from a curve in Summit, which hampers visibility from Beacon Hill lane. This Montecito access should either be moved west on Summit drive to maintain upper Seacliff buffering and/or be combined with Montecito access from Saddleback or Garfield. • Park We feel that provision of a 4 or 5 acre park with a soccer practice field along the interface NiY.oN -_(P of Summit drive and upper Seacliff presents several problems: • From a safety standpoint, we question the wisdom of providing an open park which is contiguous to an arterial road (Summit)which from Reference 1 will N 1` ON -(0 experience in excess of 12K trips per day using Alternative 2 and 14K trips per day using Alternative 1. • We are also concerned again with the effects on upper Seacliff buffering with a contiguous open park and soccer practice field. Upper Seacliff serenity has already been seriously eroded by Edwards traffic that uses newly constructed Summit drive to bypass parts of Goldenwest and Garfield. See the Conceptual Land Use Plan diagram of Reference 1 for details. - Because Summit drive permits no parking, it is essentially a foregone conclusion that park related parking will overflow into upper Seacliff neighborhood streets. Historically this type of situation has created problems NMN _(C C within the affected area of the community and ultimately results in expenditures of both citizen's and the city's resources, i.e. time and money., to resolve the problem . It would seem that the park related safety, buffering and parking issues that have been cited are sufficient to warrant further consideration of the designated park area as a green belt. The green belt approach offers solution of the noted issues, NIXoN _� and perhaps is a more appropriate usage of a fault area , and offers the city the advantage of reduced maintenance costs. Further, all open space in upper Seacliff has been consumed by recent developments, and a green belt would serve as a remnant of an open space for the area. • Summary In summary, we request and recommend the following: -Use of Alternative 2 (see Reference 1) with single family dwellings.The developer should be strongly urged to provide a mix of single and two-story WON - 7 houses as noted in Attachment 4 of Reference 1, Section PH-1 of the Mitigation Measures table. ATTACH�IMEN 1 NO. ��� •Change the park area over the fault line to a greenbelt to eliminate a potentially �rr r� serious safety problem and maintain the promised buffering for upper Seacliff. N�fluIV J a An open park with a soccer practice field is not a buffer., and Seacliff needs some open area. • Eliminate the Montecito access at Beacon Hill lane and use Saddleback for both Greenbriar and Montecito accesses. Use of Beacon Hill lane would break the XrIV I HSSP promised buffering for Seacliff, and creates a dangerous intersection. We are hopeful that our comments will be helpful and we thank you for your time and consideration. Gilbert Nixon Bonnie Nixon cc: 'Planning Commission: Bob Biddle Gerald Chapman Phil Inglee Ed Kerins Tom Livengood Fred Speaker Haydee Tillotson City Council Members: Shirley Dettloff, Mayor Ralhph Bauer David Garafalo Peter Green Tom Harman Pam Julien Dave Sullivan Ray Silver,City Administrator: Melanie Fallon, Community Development Jim Engle Community Services Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Karen Jackle, Seacliff Homeowners Association NTTACHIV" N► t,'n l � May 18 98 OG: 31p PlanninC Division 714 374-1540 p, 1 TO: Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner RE C E I V E City of Huntington Beach FROM: John Scandura, Board Mem r MAY 1 51998 City of Huntington Beach En 'r ntal Board DEPAFM,IE-4 OF COM�I-M NiTY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS ENT NO. 97-22 DATE: May 14, 1998 The Environmental Board has reviewed the subject assessment and respectfully submits its comments and recommendations. The Environmental Assessment was conducted to analyze impacts associated with a proposal by PLC Land Company to allow one of two new land use alternatives for the Greenbriar and Montecito areas within the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan (HSSP). The current Plan allows for 768 residential units, a seven-acre commercial site, and a public park. The first alternative would reduce the number of allowable residential units to 655 and increase the commercial property size to 11 acres. The second alternative would reduce the number of allowable residential units to 205, designate all residential areas for low density development, and increase the amount of park and commercial property to five and seven acres respectively. The Environmental Board supports the proposal to reduce the density of residential units in the IGreenbriar and Montecito areas as the environmental impacts will be less than the type of development allowed in the current HSSP. The Board believes that of the two proposed alternatives, the second alternative described above would be preferable as it would generate less traffic and increase park acreage. As such,the Board recommends that the second alternative replace the existing allowable land uses in the HSSP for the Greenbriar and Montecito areas. ATTACHMENT NO. ti)� May 18 98 06: 26P Planning Division 714 374-1540 P• 1 RECEIVr MAY 1 1998 5/12/98 CQfAf0UNiTY 6E1/EL0PMENT Catherine O'Hara Planner, City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Ms.O'Hara: Thank you for sending me a copy of the Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration No. 97-22 (Greenbriar/Montecito). I attended the community meeting on March 31 at the Central Library and everyone who spoke was in favor of single family homes for this development, as J' well as everyone I spoke to after the meeting. Single family homes certainly continue the expectation of the lifestyle we anticipated } when we purchased in this area. I can't tell you how much this neighborhood was disappointed 11�: in the city planners when we heard there were to be apartments north of Summit and west of Goldenwest The Seacliff Area will be much better served if single family homes are built west of Garfield. I noticed that the Alternative Plans do not discuss the continuation of Saddleback Street from Garfield to Summit. I think the city is making a grave mistake if this is allowed to be a "walkway" between the Greenbriar and Montecito developments. We are concerned about the safety of our children who will have to use the walkway to get to school. I can envision a place where bums will congregate and where perverts can wait to accost the children who will be using this walkway. It will become a place for trash and a dungheap for the many people who walk their dogs and never pick up the dog droppings. This will be a horrible place for the children to have to walk It was suggested at the March 31 meeting that this walkway be made into a street > (continuation of Saddleback)and the entrance/exits for Montecito and Greenbriar be on this street,so they c,3n turn north to Garfield or south to Summit, thereby dividing the amount of traffic between Garfield and Summit Most people are going to go north to Garfield because of the location of freeways, so it makes sense to get the cars to Garfield rather then exiting on Summit and then turning north to get to Garfield. M I am also concerned about the flow of traffic and congestion at Garfield and Goldenwest with commercial units on both sides of Goldenwest With a new,expanded shopping center at -Z Seacliff,we certainly don't need another grocery store and we certainly don't need a strip mall. There are plenty of stores in Huntington Beach to shop: Five Points, the stores along Beach, and Huntington Center, not to mention the many stores on every major intersection. The developers �415 II�11S •;• •;• T,"=^ VENT NO. May 18 98 06: 26p Planning Division 714 374-1540 p. 2 should build the corner into houses,just like the NW corner of Garfield and Goldenwest and the SW corner of Summit and Goldenwest: Thank you again for adding me to the mailing list. We are all very concerned about the future of Seacliff and the quality of life we enjoy here. We want very much to realize our goals that we made when purchasing in Seacliff. Sincerely, Lois K. Havens 19291 Surfdale Lane Huntington Beach CA 92648 c: City Council Members City Staff. Ray Silver and Melanie Fallon Planning Commission Lou Mannone,Seacliff Homeowners Association .;. t 4e, 9i I nvf vIE-iiN F NO. May le 98 05: 33p Planning Division 714 374-1540 p• 3 Huntington Beach Hamptons Homeowners -Association May 15, 1998 VIE C M PTV 18199a Dear Catherine O'Hara: ,ELU1'b4EN� I am writing this letter as a Hampton Homeowner Board Member to express the concerns voiced at our recent homeowners meeting and to respond to the recently prepared Negative Declaration Report for the planned Greenbriar/Montecito Development. We have voiced our concerns many times to the Community Development Department and to PLC contact. Bill Holman. One of our concerns falls under Land Use and Planning. We do not feel that Garfield Avenue, as stated on page 6 of the report, is an adequate buffer to the commercial development. Signs, lights, deliveries, noise, and litter will directly impact the Hampton homeowners. The use of buffering techniques as described in this document does not really address this issue. With the large regional center planned at the Seacliff Village site. we wonder about the need for this commercial development at all. To increase the size to 11 acres will only add to the homeowner impact. This quarter section is a residential quarter section. A large commercial corner is not in line with the interests of the residents. At some point we must stop and take count of the increased traffic and congestion. To add to an already congested area does not appear prudent. It does not seem that we are at a loss for large markets or for strip malls in the City of Huntington Beach. With the divided main streets of Goldenwest and Garfield, we do not see how easy access to and from the commercial center can even be achieved_ When presented with the original plan and alternative i and alternative 2, our choice, universally, would be alternative 2, but with limited commercial. u New developments should complement and conform in some respect to the existing developments. With old Seacliff at 7 units per acre and the Hamptons at 3 units per acre, it only seems reasonable that the new development would somehow fall within these limits. Alternative #2, with 5 units per acre, does that. 13 . :t May 18 98 O5:34p Planning Division 714 374-1540 — p. 4 Under Item VI, Transportation/Circulation, we feel the increased vehicle trips and or congestion would be significantly increased with any plan other than Alternative #2. Remembering that a soon-to-be built school will add traffic to the area, we need to take steps to mitigate any further increase. This is a qT1 residential area: many housing developments comprise the area. We, the homeowners, feel we should have a voice, an even louder voice than developers. What we do now is with us for lifetimes to come. The Hampton Homeowner Association represents a community of over 100 homes. We are united in our desire to keep new development complementary to that which is already present. GoldenWest is already congested and development on this Grecnbriar/Montecito property has not taken place and Seacliff has not been expanded. During the summer months GoldenWest is used as a main thoroughfare to the beach which further compounds the traffic problem for the residents. Please consider this before approving increased density and larger commercial sites. Sincerely. Colleen Wilson, Hampton Homeowner Association 18941 Silverbit lane Huntington Beach. CA 92648 ATTACH VMcNT NO. 1 Ic EI\(,;E EU0 c.L of�iitr7 4 R`C CIV CLERK N C1T`( 0 FiU11T 111GT Oi, 3E f',CN.CA igg8 JllL 22 P S. 0� July 21, 1998 Ms. Melanie Fallon, Director Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Holly Seacliff Development Agreement No. 90-1 Acceptance of Amended Land Use Regulations Dear Melanie: Pursuant to Section 2.4.1 of Development Agreement No. 90-1, PLC hereby agrees to amend the Existing Land Use Regulations .applicable to PLC's properties covered by the Agreement to incorporate the following changes to the Huntington Beach General Plan, Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, and Local Coastal Program: 1. Resolution No. 98-54, adopted July 6, 1998 (General Plan Amendment No. 97-2) 2. Resolution No. 98-55, adopted July 6, 1998 (Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1) 3. Ordinance No. 3402, adopted July 20, 1998 (Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-1) I would like to thank you and your staff, in particular, Mary Beth Broeren, for your assistance in the approval of the above amendments. Very truly yours, William D. Holman Planning& Government Relations cc: Ray Silver, City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner Connie Brockway, City Clerk PLC Land Company 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250 714.721.9777 Telephone Newport Beach,Califomia 92660 714.729. 1214 Facsimile ATTACHMENT NO. 15 LETTERS IN OPPOSITON OR SUPPORT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-2/ZONING TEXT AMENDMNT NO. 97-5/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT N. 97-1/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97- 199/HOLLY SEACLIFF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-22 The attached correspondence has been received over approximately the last seven months, since the applicant's original submittal for Alternative #1 in October 1997. Much of the correspondence speaks to this Alternative and was sent to the City prior to the applicant's submittal of Alternative#2 in March 1998. Additional correspondence was received after Alternative #2. The correspondence includes: form letters, individual correspondence, petitions and mail-in slips from a homeowners' association newsletter. I AT I Ar'HIVIENT NO. 1-5. u�t�ngion i3each February 4, 1998 City of Gounc�i o ice City City of Huntington Beach City Hall P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Proposed Project (Garfield/Goldenwest) Dear City Council Members: I have been informed that the proposed project just south of Garfield and west of Goldenwest will allow building at a higher density than what was proposed in the original general Development Plan. There are several concerns I would like to be known and taken under consideration prior to any variances granted. It is not in the best interest of our area to raise the density per acre from 15 .units per acre to 25 per acre in the Montecito Area. Traffic will increase due to higher density. Higher traffic will impact the newly planned school. A large commercial site will not be needed in this residential area since there will be a new one just on the other side of Goldenwest in the new SeaCliff Shopping Center. Commercial site necessitates late night deliveries which would only create noise, trash, etc. Please understand and consider not granting the variance for this proposed project. This project is not in the best interest of the community. Sincerely, 17 David Basok Corinne Myre 6925 Livingston Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 May 16, 1998 Ms. Catherine O'Hara Department of Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. C ID � Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1 8 Subject:Greenbriar/Montecito Development MAID 1998 CC",,MUNITY K i OF ME Dear Ms. O'Hara, ►ur As homeowners in the community adjacent to the Greenbriar/Montecito Development, we would like to voice our dissatisfaction with all three alternatives. If we must choose one, we prefer alternative # 2, due to the lower density per acre. This plan fits our community better, as the Hamptons are at 3 homes per acre, alternative #2 homes are at 5 homes per acre, and the homes off Summit are at 7 homes per acre. We do not like alternative#2 due to the commercial site. We feel that a commercial area is not necessary due to the New Seacliff Shopping Center across the street. There is no need for two supermarkets/shopping centers so close together. Thank you for your consideration. David Basok 3 Corinne Myre _ cc: Tom Livingood, Chairman, Planning Commision and fellow commissioners Melanie Fallon, Community Development Dept. ANT NO ��,-' �' `.. . Bey•, R&j Properties ' P.Q Box 802 • Huntington Beach,CA 92648-0802 • 714/536-8705 • Fax:' / -028 _ Robert and June Be[iko U ((wvinvE 61 /99'? JAN 09 1998 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1��� ADUNIMATIVE OFFICE Q� � eel 9 - Y �� November 21 . 1997 r-ir. Pay Silver, City Planning Huntington Reach, CA Dear Mr. S i lver, . At true Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, several disturbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement were exposed. l-lany were startling changes from the first and second presentations. Th?v are as follows. Ia) Opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, b; elerronating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk way , 2) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public parking, ;) increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single fay^illy n�_mes to 485 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to Tclwnhomes, 4) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of Garfield and Golden West. S) Shea to develope single family homes north of Seacliff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now Zoned for industrial. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: I a-_DONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-way intersection i b- Open Saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier Rational: Back-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would in;pact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's Surfdale as a* through street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the children that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill ?- Create off street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven 3- High density useage of Montecito and Greebrier property is not acceptable_ , BUT if it is to go through, switch the plans., i.e. Greenbrier to Montecito , Montecito-to Greenbrier - - °c�uestlon Why was this adopted from the original plans from single _r family homes? Consider the increased tax base for single family homes vs ,- - the impact on pub]ic-services of 485 apartments t 4 Return t77 o the original:acreage for commercial zoning Rational lt should be:a convience tenter not*-a major sho in tenter. i �Ywfth�l:only half_rriile away and another 2 a mile away Pag6i -j •s.. g C.^� -,dY •yay. .- _•-i�T'�"D ji'j' .Z FY ..s�.�- - ILI _ ,e,���Y'M.�i_���i.:QYU,�"~St�i� i;i��'� cy.t"r��.�.e�`���µ x"�'•--~7. -��_ �.�t�.�- '�"�i���'M,4- _ '�. 31 l [7. ✓r k3 ..7 \ - 'hL f Yl1NM J`. F., �aX —L" J1 0 f tT�._. x•�� - _ -r...�orEl-.vc—i :%cJ:�� t:._ ..•;a: -r._-> _ _1.✓'i.._...;'..arY'•,, �xs?��t ;ov, rtei��-=Rt2:.ia�.v_Y�'. �.-,.:.s�^•;1:�i�:tA-.t-'�-`.����2N _.,t. >=�.•�r�J.r. 2y��.�;..: .•�Y+•1�: :=�:•�ti�%S3'A��.9.'�='iC+. �4,t��ceci^ •�74'�-��'-) .-t;y�,.4•.er f-t ^y J�F.3�A`^ ,,��_y��.:_�,-ss-z �l.{�,•-1 `d�'1���,�ti."'- }':z`_-�.y �,"_ �=!'�^-�rTccL-=,•�-.C'_'`�'.3:`t;;f:,ic�"' �• _ _ i,` Ls�s_ ?-fie-r 7=•' tip+. _ x-+• �' �. �" a{ "'y--lM�+l�+e-£�3 �i,.`:3+=. rYs isfi:'- A:.. F q` �t :�..�•, �:v+' -v Z t -cam �► ��^ �c ^.-- r { `w<ir- 3 _ x -': -r •a"rr �::- .� ^s 'rs� — Z�f-=;'--e+'��n-a '='cy � T'•� � - ? �� �.t -• i .,:: H�T'r'"�t \ "'�- 5- She should have the z`one_change on the-4 acres zoned for_industrial.ao_ - build single family dwell' *gs.on the north parcel of Me Seacliff Shopping _ Center Rational: Better homes than apartments and more commercial.' -_ Please accept these recommendations for the continued quality of living we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sincerly, �v l�''30oZ �- • - �� U cc David Sul 1 ivan Page 2 T11�1i w 111 � �� � �� � O C 0��0 1�,;►� �► n r� tr '� r t J� 7 �'1 �1 .� 0-0 • "�.�tti`',,ti�• (11(}l•��I�p■t'uit : s ;n�O 0 f. y �O (1 O O d' t• ;1 �r � , � y i u , !;`,� � 11 �1 (1 f 11 � �O 1/T l• M�Tt�`I � .� �' � + , l' 1 ■ �' �' �' 1 y 1 � fl l 1� 1) � , 1 C• � � , � �, •t „r, '�l,U / � I 1 � i1 �1 ,it o � � ,r •i` it � � t s 11 ,, f i � ■ III • � �7U•. . �� �� �� , w�� �� - � i )'+�' � � � �� ,� 1, ,1�1 Ot1Y � � , '> ` �. Ill/ � 1 U !•1 1 I li I!� 1f •il , l 1 l 1���,p , // �► 11 ► ; ^ d l �/� • (a ° el t'i1 Tiff �` . . . ,'.�.� 11~�� �r/', li. ��j,'• � � „ � '1 ply �.�.drr' 't7 � •'t'•� i) 1!• , � c'rl a e' `� it 1 r� � / ' e�` �e�j,�{ram,, ���\•+� •tij� ! fq Mi , eE.� Y �. Y♦n{L�rj { p 1 C N .11 .1•\ ' {1 C,n.m, e Summit �.----- E Restaurant , !� ►;.''�:y �, .._._._._-'`-�`'-�-�:r: " "'': Sentor!Care JLI �.:j� 0. .u..LL Home '� Improvemen OfTiess J"• pp .1.�1.... a � �rt cc onorrice '•' •d jrc :. \\ 04 1 SupPN Supermarket ,, Pharmacy ~`• o:j: a : fly fl ov. 1 \ Shop J. Shops rn rO I Plaza �� �• '•� ,�� PS7 r D7 Pn C(p dcp Oit O'v~ �•„ ' 1� Books -r i� ��A :.7.0j'cta� yn: a Q :� �� LO10. gip. :�:".�. 6p , ''d}• :,. '°��i�i; o�. �� c;- ;«'�? 14 i. 1 Existing �• �,� , ' rilo aIitS &J. C b Gas StationUAj Fast Food Yorktown Proposed Seadiff Shoonina Center 11/20/97 J RON and NANCY BERGER CITY 0 UNTINGTON BEACH ADMIN 7RATIVE OFFICE 6792 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2122 (7 )536-090 9 November 29, 1997 D W. er, City Planning CITY OF HUNTINGTON SEA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Holly Seacliff Specific Plan - Planning Units 11-3 11-7 Dear Sir: We have been residents of Huntington Seacliff since 1973. 1 was the Superintendent for Lusk Homes, I built portions of lower Seacliff as well as most of upper Seacliff. I am also a Registered Architect in the State of California and being both knowledgeable in construction as well as design - I have four points I wish to call to your attention: 1. Planning 400+ apartments within the Seacliff area seems counter to all good reason. Everything built here is "for sale" type housing. Apartments and renters just aren't conducive to the make up of this area. Townhomes or condominiums would be more in keeping with this area. I believe townhomes were the "original" plan. Seacliff is the premier location in Huntington Beach. You can not mix apartments in this arrangement and expect it to remain so. 2. Having the main entrance to this project from Summit Drive is also a bad idea. Summit is a one lane street in each direction and is in the middle of a residential area. Garfield/Saddleback should be the main entrance. Garfield Avenue has three lanes in each direction as well as left turn lanes and a traffic light. It might cause the plan to be changed some what, since the "leasing office"would need to be placed_in that area to accommodate the traffic. You just don't "dump" the majority of your traffic on a small secondary street and expect everything to go smoothly. If this was to remain, another traffic light would have to be installed at Summit Drive and Beacon Hill. This would really cause a traffic problem since our light at Summit and Goldenwest is so close and can't be timed to allow larger numbers of vehicles to pass at a time. 3. About 7 - 8 years ago, the City of Huntington Beach was all fired up to put a water pumping station on the Northwest comer of Clay (now Summit) and Goldenwest. The design for the station was completely different than the surrounding area and at the hearing, concessions were made to try and duplicate the entrance style as observed on the Southwest side. I realize that better looking designs could be achieved than the one that exists on the Southwest side, but to put something that ( a doesn't compliment it will further detract from it. This intersection will be one of the most viewed areas in the entire city. Being the highest point in the city calls for careful planning and not a slip-shod effort just to appease the developer. 4. Increasing the proposed park will necessitate providing proper parking. You cannot park along a curved single lane road with small children in tot lots and others at a soccer field and not have problems. I feel the additional space is great, but not to import children to a soccer field in a residential area. Maybe the park is primarily for the "apartments"?? If that was the case, you will have more problems than the city wishes. Why isn't more of the "fault area" open to the public? It could tie into the linear park along Seagate. That would allow for parking as well as walking access to many areas. This would be much better use of the land and many more could enjoy it. In summary, if these plans are allowed to proceed, not only will the residents suffer, but the entire city will pay dearly for these mistakes. Bad planning continues to cost everyone and now you have a chance to make something nice - even nicer. Thank you for reading my letter and if you have any questions, please call me. I would be happy to lend you my thoughts and experience of over 37 years in the business. Sincerely, Ronald G. Berger Nancy .. Berger AJCity of HB Itr.doc n► �� ,��W SIT ��• �_--- t Mark and Gini Billes 6796 Turf Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Tel: 714-847-9839 Fax: 714-375-5905 DECEIVED MAY- 1 51998 May 14, 1998 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To Planning Dept. and City Council: I was very encouraged and excited to read about the plans for the new Seacliff Shopping Center recently in the"Wave". In the article, Melanie Fallon of our Community Development Department was quoted as saying"Strip malls are a thing of the past in Huntington Beach". The article explained that in their place we are going to have a lovely new community shopping complex similar to those in Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. What a nice addition to our neighborhood - I thought. Then to my dismay I learned a few days later that PLC plans to locate a strip mall almost directly across the street from the new Seacliff Village on the corner of Goldenwest and Garfield. What happened to"Strip Malls are a thing of the past in Huntington Beach"? Can you explain to me why we need another outdated strip mall directly across from our lovely new shopping complex? I was under the impression that the whole idea was to create a beautiful new shopping center in Huntington Beach that would accomodate most of the community's shopping needs and at the same time be an aestheically enhancing focus of activity in our area. If you feel that the center will not be large enough to accomodate all the shops necessary, why not rezone some of the residential area surrounding the center to commercial space and enlarge the center, rather than put in an ugly strip mall across the street ?? I hope you will all give serious consideration to eliminating the plans to build yet another strip mall in our city. If the corner of Goldenwest and Garfield must be commercialized why not put in a great restaurant or farmers-market type store? These are services our community is sorely lacking and certainly has the economic base to support. In conclusion, I must tell you of a comment my father- in-law made while visiting us in December. As we were driving around Huntington Beach one day he remarked"Boy, they sure like strip malls in this city. There's one on every comer!! " I don't think this remark was meant as an compliment. Sincerely, ATTACHNIENT NO. (S, 6901 Turf Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92648 14 May 1998 Catherine O'Hara,Planner Tom Livingood,Chairman,Planning Commission Melanie Fallon,Community Development Dept. - c VE City of Huntington Beach c j 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 MAY 2 p 1998 Gentlemen and Gentlewomen: C0P4VNIT�r'�rt =iv I'i jr Y DEVE I would like to comment on the plans for the Greenbriar/Montecito Development. LOPMENT In keeping with at least some of the surrounding communities,I believe that home density in the region of I I units/acre should be maximum and no rental units should be allowed.Also,I believe that higher density will lead to more traffic problems and accidents at exits to major streets(Garfield and Golden West). The shopping center on the comer of this property is of even more concern..The increased traffic dumping out onto Garfield and Golden West will be trying to enter what amounts to high-speed traffic-an accident waiting to happen.Traffic backups at turn-ins,unless turn-in lanes are provided,can also be very dangerous and accidents can be expected to happen.The new shopping center on the other side of Golden West is apparently scheduled to be completed earlier and appears to duplicate many of the capabilities of the shopping center planned for the Greenbriar/Montecito Development.Two close shopping centers are not considered necessary. Yours truly,, Marvin Blaski �V 11J59. IV November 29, 1997 Ms. Shirley Dettloff,Mayor Pro Tem City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Ms.Dettloff. On November 20, 1997,I attended the Seacliff Homeowner's Association meeting which addressed the Holly Seacliff development. Much to my dismay the current zoning of Greenbrier and Montecito acreage from low density,single family homes,to high density,three story rental apartments has been proposed. This zoning change shows a total disregard for the safety of the neighborhood,quality of living,and current and future property values of our existing neighborhood. We are now beginning to experience an increase in traffic turning off Summit to Beacon Hill proceeding through our neighborhood exiting onto Goldewest.Many of the homes in Seacliff sit very close to the street with little or no driveways. Sidewalks have no medium between them and the street. These two situations force our children to play in the streets at times,ie:skateboarding,ball playing,and other activities. Any increase in traffic will only heighten the danger our children already face. We are not a gated comunity like so many of the new developments which is why we are opposed to any entry into the new development adjacent to Beacon Hill. It is my belief that the kigpin for this rezoning proposal for the Montecito&Greenbrier projects stem from the increase in the original acreage of the commercial parcel.. Given the choice the only thing one could build backing up to a grocery store with 24 hour stadium lights and trucks deliverying around the clock would be rental property. Please be advised that the surounding communities of Seacliff and the Hampton would request that you hold this devlopment to its original plan for the commercial development with no increase in acreage and to keep the area zoned for only single family homes. It would be our recommendation based on the speeds cars are now traveling down Summit that a traffic light be placed at the comer of Summit and Saddleback It is further suggested that Saddleback be opened to through traffic between Summit and Garfield acessing a straight entrance to the new school. This new traffic light wall also slow the speed of cars around the blind curve on Summit headed towards the new shopping center. - Sincerely; ` Robert&Carol Brassel 6822 Lawn Have Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 GEC 03 1997 I 14 ROBERT ANTHONY CASARES, AGENT Lic#0731391 Auto-Life-Health-Home and Business 9907 PARAMOUNT BLVD. , STE. B DOWNEY, CA 90240 PHONE 562) 927-2297 FAX 562)927-0557 January 22, 1998 City Of Huntington Beach City Hall P.Q. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 C/O Ralph Bauer, Dear Mr. Bauer, I wish to ex ress my concerns regarding the development proposal by PLC for the Montecito area, specifically the increased density per acre from 15-1 to 25-1 and the expansion of the retail center. The very reason that I moved into the Hampton neighborhood was to live in a quiet and peaceful residential neighborhood. The original proposal called for nice luxury type condominmiums, apartments and homes that are consistent with the makeup of the surrounding neighborhoods. The new proposal will severely alter the area by bringing increased traffic, noise, theft and trash. The image of the Seacliff and Edwards Hill area as an upscale and beautiful beach community will be gone. Frankly, I feel that the retail center on the Southwest corner of Garfield and Goldenwest is very poor planning. The new renovation and expansion of the Lucky Center was definitely needed and this project will easily meet the needs of the new community; therefore, we do not need more retail. Please understand that I am not anti-development; but it seems that we are taking the narrow and short term view on this project. We must continue to look at the long term needs of Huntington Beach and create a city that we are proud to be part of. I strongly urge you to review this proposal carefully and listen to the residents that will have to live with the consequences of your decision for many years. I welcome your thoughts and I would be glad to meet with you personally if possible. Sin Robert Casares 6852 Turf Drive Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 CC: Mary Beth Broeren CVO. � S•��� t r .UR1+ + Steven C. Chan, D.D.S. -�4-r-� Fountain Valley Medical Park•11160 Warner Ave., Suite 205•Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 9571044 Fax (714) 957 1050 J A N © C 1998 CCA';ti,Ui•11'fY DcVE?Cam: Dec. 18, 1997 Ray Silver J AN C 5 1998 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE This letter is in response to the planning changes proposed by PLC Land Co. for the Montecito and Greenbriar developments . We are firmly against any changes from low density single family homes to high density apartment rentals. The site plan should remain as originally proposed as it fits in with the overall character of the sorounding comunnity. The proposed Pedestian Paseo is a poorly thought out feature . As discouraging as it may seem the reality is that a secluded walkway used primarily for children to walk to and from school only invites child molesters and deviants to prey on innocent lives . There would be no automobile traffic along the walkway which would further isolate the children using the paseo. If there is to be a path across the development then it should be a well lighted street that allows pedestrian and automobile use. The proposed four acre park is also poorly designed due to the lack of any parking area. We live on Quietsands Circle which is. right behind Summit Dr. , so we use Summit Dr. everyday. If the developers are expecting people to park on Summit- Dr. ; we would invite them to stand on the curb now, and see how fast the traffic races through there . This, before the Peninsula_ development is even 10% occupied. As people move into the Peninsula area Summit will be the main street used to get to and from city hall, Dwyer Middle School, Huntington Beach High, and the downtown area. There. has to be some provision for safe entry and exit to the park by children and parents . Requiring people to park on the two lane street that is heavily used is reckless and negligent . We have lived in Huntington Beach for over twenty years and in Seacliff for the last three years . We have witnessed. f Steven C. Chan, D.D.S. ,Fountain Valley Medical Park•11160 Warner Ave., Suite 205•Fountain Valley, CA S270B (7141 S571044 Fax [7141 S57 1050 the changes brought on "by developers . Some have been welcome additions to the community and others have sought to take advantage of the city. As residents of North Seacliff and ' a family .which will be directly effected by all the proposed changes, 2 ask that you not allow the PLC Land Co. to use bait and switch tactics to maximize their profit margins. The original Site Plan was, well thought out and approved by the planning commission and should remain as is . Sincerely Yours, Steven C. Chan, D.D.S. Jody L. Chan f11 tit/i 11Vii�1 I�i _�_�. February 1, 1998 F E B o 31998 CO;v;5UMITY C)6jaLOP�';:�:: To: Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner, City of Huntington Beach From: Jessie Chiang, HB Hampton homeowner Re: Increased density at Garfield and Goldenwest As a long time resident of Fountain Valley/Huntington Beach, my husband and I have observed the growth around the Edwards Hill area. Scuttlebutt had it that the area would become the Beverly Hills of Huntington Beach. Through the years it proved itself to be so. Oversized homes on oversized lots, casual horse trails surrounding, and soon, a neighborhood elementary school within walking distance. All things the City of Huntington Beach carefully took into consideration when planning out this alluring area. Now that we live here, we couldn't think of living anywhere else. Yes, the property taxes are a bit elevated, but worth every penny. Please don't allow developers to change their plan midway and sell off their property to buyers who will increase the density and traffic. The reason we moved to this location was to escape the hustle and bustle. What if property values go down because of density increase? That would mean we would pay lower property taxes. We want to pay high property taxes! Thank you for your time. Sincerely, J ssie Chiang 6915 Turf Drive Huntington Beach CA 92648 04/03/1996 12:26 71484128421 CHIAt 13HOME PAS 01 April 3, 1998 To: Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner, City of Huntington Beach From: Jessie Chiang, HB Hampton homeowner Re: proposed Greenbriar/Montecito Development I'd like to take this time to thank you for holding the voluntary meeting with PLC and concerned neighbors of future development. It not only gave us a chance to speak our feelings regarding the proposed projects, but it was interesting to get a feel for the total impact by hearing from other surrounding neighbors not in our immediate area. Although I personally did not get up and speak (it is a personal goal to be able to do so), please know my stand is with my fellow Hampton neighbors. We are all hoping our views made a difference in redirecting the increased density for both residential and commercial developments. Again, thank you. , Jes a hung 691 Turf Drive HB 92648 t'11 I�lfi7iYi��V � �`d�. Iy RECEIVED JAN 07 1998 ngion beNavember 21 . 1997 City of Hunti r�;ir. Ray Silver, City Planning City Council Off' ra Huntington Beach, CA Dear Mr. Silver, At the Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, s-�vttral disturbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement were exposed Nanv were startling changes from the first and second presentations. Tnev are as follows. la) Opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, i c") elerrjinating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk way , 2) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public parking, 3) increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single farroly nomes to 485 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to Townhomes, A) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of Garfield and Golden West. S) Shea to develope single family homes north of Seacliff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now _oned for industrial. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: I a- DONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-way intersection 1 b- Open Saddl eback to Summ i t for access to Monteci to and Greenbri er Rationai: Fuck-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would jrnpact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's Surf dal e as a through street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the children that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill , — 2- Create off street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven 3- High density useage of Montecito and Greebrier property is not acceptable, BUT if it is to go through, switch the plans , i.e. Greenbrier to riontecito Montecito to Greenbrier - uPstion:Why was this adopted from the or plans from single t family homes . .Consider the•increased tax base for single family domes vs _.. the_ impact-on public services of 485 apartments 4= Return to the original acreage commercial'zoning Y - Rational I t should be a convience..center no ma jot shopping center ►:^? w.tth'Von y_half mile away and another.2 a mile away _� Pp i '` Sz ;'cZ^"".�l,'`'l3_`.�a ,t�r��� � .:d+i�-T� _? --ti-�"a` Tom_ �'-'_Y-:Y.�`• - � s .-J +T,�.��4:?�� -" -s. .:r.s��_�;��,"`a y-.,K`."m;_Ky�7 �����' =~ ���� �`.�����'.r�rw"ter��r'•'.o�+�?��cr's v ' •+.• rt-- SAY';�3a."';.fir ;�=�-1L��•�'��-�3''tt`����+`='i'�-,`_-: - .ysc_ yc� -4.i4 sue,�r-.n.=''- ± —. _s^ ,�' P y .�• eh -, 4.w w= -� '^"r, -+ 7 ..t•'L'.'-��F�..�c— la'•-r�f���-'•�`�� r .C;� " ~'`�'�M`-�y��* <.'4.�� a: -•s _ _ "` � �%c� '�+� �P-rZy _; tom, .' ' _ "x�Y.>-fi-,e3-1s�'�".v-.'�1�'.'� eWr.`aC��..�cs.r:�'� �- '_T���_ .fY.� �y'�.-•kr+lf.ii-�--.�1'}.•%.... _ -.__.._ _ - . r_ce_ ., ;, _�'-.�t..i:.....:L..�..�.a- _ri_� -�,. �-..+�__t:.: r,+=.. OEM M:a.;-4-ft n ag ML z To Shea should -zoned for-Industriail- 5� u have the zone change on the 4 acres build single family dwel.11nas.-on.the north parcel of the Seacliff Shopping Center 77 Rational: Better homes than apartments and more commercial_. ' Please accept these recommendations for the continued quality of living we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and In the Seacliff Communities. Sincerly, cc David Sullivan 7;;7\ C S� C4 Page 2 ri James and Janet Christiano 18752 Jockey Circle Huntington Beach Califomia 92648 February 01, 1998 Mary Beth Broeren © 15199a City of Huntington BeachCity Hall P.O. BOX 190 pc°R`pE,trl Huntington Beach 92648 Go��;�;J t Dear Ms.Broeren We do not think it is in the best interests of our community to increase the density in the Monticito Area.across Garfield. We have been watching the growth of this community for the past ten years.As the area has grown the supporting roads have become more and more dangerous.There is too much traffic on Edwards,Ellis and Goldenwest.These roads have not seen the improvements necessary to support the growth up until this point.To increase density would only compound the problem. We are also concemed about the impact this proposal would have on the newly planned school. Not of the bus stops are unsafe now do to poorly marked roadways.The intersection of Goldenwest and Ellis is a perfect exampleAt is so poorly marked,that an accident is inevitable.We also feel that at the present time we have all the commercial developement we really need.There is already a new center planned on the other side of Goldenwest in the new Seacliff shopping center. The problem of overdevelopement aready exists in the Central Park area,we must draw the line somewhere.We are overloading the original plan,and the community will suffer for it. Sincerely, =etL;n no U AT ►r1 i z '�i ► I -- MR AND MRS THOMAS CSENAR 6842 LAWN HAVEN DP"'E HUNTINGTON BEACH. .A 92648 p � DECEMBER 4, 1997 / MR SILVER CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH v DEC 5 1997 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA 9264 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DEAR MR SILVER RE: PROPOSED MONTECITO AND GREENBRIAR ENTRIES OFF SUMMIT DRIVE AND THE POSSIBLY REOPENING SADDLEBACK STREET(SUMMIU DRIVE THROUGH TO GARFIELD) WE LIVE IN THE ORIGINAL SEACLIFF TRACT OFF SUMMIT DRIVE.RIGHT AT THE END OF BEACON HILL. WE ARE GREATLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED ENTRIES TO THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS. (MONTECITO AND GREENBRIAR)OFF SUMMIT. OUR CONCERNS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) IS SUMMIT LARGE ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE TRAFFIC'. 2) WILL THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC JEOPARDIZE THE SAFETY OF RESIDENTS AND CHILDREN IN OUR EXISTING TRACT? 3) HOW WILL THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC NOISE AND LIGHTS DIRECTLY EFFECT OUR FAMILY AND OUR NEIGHBORS? SUMMIT DRIVE WILL OFTEN BE USED AS THE STREET LEADING DIRECTLY TO THE NEW PROPOSED SEACLIFF SHOPPING CENTER IN ORDER TO SHORT CUT THE LIGHTED INTERSECTIONS THE TRAFFIC FROM THE PENNINSULA DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS TRAFFIC FROM EDWARDS STREET WILL BE USING SUMMIT RATHER THAN OFF GARFIELD AND GOLDENWEST. D ADDITION TO THE CARS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BIKERS WILL BE USING THE STREET TO GET TO BIKE PATHS ON BOTH GOLDENWEST AND SEAPOINT ON THEIR WAY TO THE BEACH. THE PROPOSED PARK ON SUMMIT WITH IT'S STREET PARKING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN ADDING TWO MORE ENTRIES TO SUMMIT MORE CARS(AVERAGE 2 PER FAMELY)IS QUITE AN INCREASE TO ANY STREET. SINCE SUMMIT DRIVE HAS BEEN OPEN TO SEAPOINT WITH AN INTERSECTION AT PENINSULA AND EDWARD.THE RESIDENTS HAVE NOTICED A STEADY INCREASE OF TRAFFIC CUTTING THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS TRAFFIC IS CUTTING THROUGH TO GET TO GOLDENWEST AND AVOIDING TWO LIGHTS(SUMM[TIGOLDENWEST AND YORKTOWNIGOLDEN%VEST). THIS PROBLEM WILL ONLY INCREASE WITH EACH NEW ENTRY ALLOWED ON SUMMIT. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS,ESPECIALLY OUR CHILDREN AND OTHERS. WE HAVE ALSO LOOKED INTO GATING THE ENTRANCE TO OUR TRACT TO PREVENT THIS PROBLEM BUT WERE TOLD BY THE CITY TRAFFIC DMSION THAT THIS WAS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE SINCE OUR STREETS WERE NOT SET UP TO HANDLE DELIVERY TURN-ABOUNDS. OUR HOME IS LOCATED IN A VERY SENSITIVE LOCATION,FACING SUMMIT DRIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE PROPOSED ENTRY TO MONTECIETO. BEACON HILL IS ONLY A SHORT STREET,THE WIDTH OF A HOUSE LOT(SEE ATTACHED MAP ON PAGE 3). FROM THE PROPOSED ENTRY WE WILL GET EVERY CAR LIGHT COMING OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SHTNIr,v DIRECTLY INTO OUR LIVING ROOM,BVNUS ROOM AND THROUGH OUR UPSTAIRS ENTRY WINDOW INTO OUR BEDROOM. NOT ONLY WILL WE HAVE EVERY LIGHT SHINING INTO THE WINDOWS OF OUR HOME BUT WE WILL ALSO HAVE TO HEAR EVERY CAR COMING IN AND OUT OF THAT ENTRY. THE FACT THAT THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING SUCH A DENSE DEVELOPMENT AS APARTMENTS IS EVEN MORE ALARMING. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS CURRENTLY A TRAFFIC STUDY BEING CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE IF THE OPENING OF SADDLEBACK COULD HELP OUR TRAFFIC FLOW. I DON'T THINK OPENING SADDLEBACK WILL EASE OUR PROBLEMS BUT POSSIBLE INCREASE IT. WE DON'T NEED SADDLEBACK OPEN,LEAVE IT CLOSED. IT MAY LOOK LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THIS STREET OPEN FOR OUR KIDS TO GET TO THE NEW SCHOOL BUT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY WILL BE IN THE BOUNDARIES TO ATTEND. WE ARE CURRENTLY DRIVING OR WALKING AROUND BEACHWALK TO GET TO SMITH AND DWYER SCHOOLS, WHY SHOULD THIS BE DIFFERENT? WE WOULD LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER NOT OPENING SADDLEBACK STREET TO SUMMIT AND TO MOVE THE MAIN ENTRANCES OF MONTECIETO AND GREENBRIAR TO GARFIELD STREET. GARFIELD IS A LARGER STREET THAT CAN HANDLE THE TRAFFIC,THERE ARE ALSO NO OTHER DEVELOPMENT ENTRIES ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET NOW. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE THEM TO CONSIDER PUTTING THE BACK EXITS AND OR ENTRIES TO THE MONTECIETO DEVELOPMENT OFF GOLDENWEST NOT SUMMIT. WE HAVE INCLUDED MAPS TO HELP YOU BETTER UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS WE HAVE ADDRESSED. PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO THINK THROUGH THIS THOROUGHLY BEFORE YOU MAKE A CHOICE WITH THE SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND SENSITIVITY IN THIS MATTER aelc� ca�_a THOMAS AND CAROL CSENAR CC: MR RALPH BAUER,MAYOR MS. SHIRLEY DETTLOFF,MAYOR PRO TEM MR PETER GREEN H.B. CITY COUNCILMEMBER MR TOM HARMAN,H.B. CITY COUNCILMEMBER DAVE GAROFALO,H.B. CITY COUNCILMEMBER MR DAVE SULLIVAN,H.B. CITY COUNCILMEMBER DR HERALD CHAPIN,H.B. CITY COUNCILMEMBER MS. PAM JULIEN,H.B. CITY COUNCILMEMBER MR BOB BIDDLE,H.B.PLANNING COMMISSIONER MR TOM LIVENGOOD,H.B.PLANNING COMMISSIONER MR FRED SPEAKER,H B.PLANNING COMMISSIONER MR PHILIP INGLEE,H.B.PLANNING COMMISSIONER MR ED.KERANS,H.B.PLANNING COMMISSIONER MS.HAYDEE TILLOTSON,H.B.PLANNING COMMISSIONER MR LOU MANNONE,PRESIDENT,RB. SEACLIFF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION i'Vl�-sec► e�-d N 19161 19162 19171 19172 19182 19201 I9202 1 b _� 2 b b 9221 1922 6701 = to b J L q K,N 6702 h n 191j b p'y pVE ^� 6)li e e ty 1 ^tiy4V b0 •rye~ •. „� n a ! 161 1 F,y �o b .a a '' ,� a v o 6701 ^ n 191) b b�� A~ Q e m o 1= 6691 e e 1 '� pr OR. a 669 ARB YC 19161 m y ry ry o a e i � ^ 19302 a• q,�p~ '$ a ;`,+`o � � $ a � e e e ���� "� 670 0 � ry 19J11 I9'!jj U 19�t rrr 1~591 v e b I9J,f ti 19.111 mr �' ,7�)1 19)Ol CHURCH CR. o 6681 OUNTRY CR. ti 49 4911, 19)11 ! o 666681 p .ryi 9J•f1 Q. 1DJ11 19)1 U 19]11 19J71 e � e e v f�•o f Lei A)TE 19J67 19)SI GARS N SCR. 6981 a' 19)81 19371 3z' 19)91 19)BI 19791 19191 194 1 19101 PEBBLE CA o . j a r`o b^b~ �C/f' �JQ' O R. ` 191 t 19411 a m a ry Q ^� b� GOLF COURSE b�bb^1 ` id e ^ m 194 1 19111 ~ D kl �b o ,o l l a 1-9/11 19122 _. � b� 7089 19111 19//1 19 ill b 6772, s 60�~'y 191 94. 51 Lai -,- 1 Q 19r,1=1s1 `7 b yti �Q bb wti /Q 19161 1 19161 19461 berry~ b� �q- 1911? 1 y-81 19111 • b� S1 1g /v 1 1 l JJ A; 950 Upper Seacliff M a p U ,9JJ J,, - A ,1 ° 66s 1 b Q°fit Abby bgpl O9 b�b� be9,9beb0 bIl ' -15- • , ily AI , 6 r 1 rC•r = �M�j ri S�,�,�ti! l�t.A ft�.1}kit,�=+'•L:.,:..1, I r'C' ec� 17111.,a �ri:'I>;�rd�"wnYr!?�•�ikii :�<,rr,le7:,. LU '� n t 1 - r /iNGb AV6NlAt t .���,f'�•S1r��il,••'iSVw�1v..W:•'Ai,i a•!. 1 }' ,, � �..,• u .u f r U it ' '��' �'Y� �„ ' i�' .•. •�}�,�y a ''r, s ��� c ' 5�.� �'� 1�'ISi1,t4�L�1�(tti�rjt�l '' ' ��� 1J p2 :,., { ry�Kr \r'� '���� r , ti, J: ;i r•:. ,., �r r / t k�1yfX 71y,>I1t, :�7y �' �r!i;hr ���FRn 3 1• �•' +' '• 'r'd rr ���nuvnwrarr�eq' �7�, �• I '4J IdJ��� ,•f�'' �,1 ( .!Y y'.:�R„"�"" �1,\ I .�`'=1"!������ '��4, N�' ����3`�1 I .�., S{nr,'..r��' �14 ..': tljt�j v �� ' '�4J'k'1 1'�.�: •,e� �.�� :, t. ti �P`T[lAL SMI 51'UDY �,�; ` NC`UNITS 114�-II? a�+ k, y,;t.� �C n/ "•i,��c1P .,' F cii� ��_��r V , F' I�TLY'SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN liUNttNOTomnual,CA. juy�:�i��l} "1 W n• E�(f�i11r �"ir:,:s ,, �(�� , �, < �•w },J�t}j•'i,+ 1•�t•,fi,t�� ••� ��,.y'a� q;v l ts,t f�!._1�Pq ,•� �f i A 1. ��!C • �`r� / r'r t♦ , " , n T v�:y�y < Tin ( i"(• �'' ''!y t111 ,11 r��yi' rl {?. f � 1' i,�,jjJf l,M,a•f ri/,,.. t �d�7 ./r 7�' , �„�'y�ta ra �iduJ� '' :., �, , 1',,I�,V,� t./ =t, tt1` `r�¢° t+!,��a• ,, ` r.'; j14 �. t��;,fJ �'��Il"�f '�����!• � 1.7 t.r ti I:!''• � ` �It; •S t...,•,9• ,, I'r���{;.) R ' April 4, 1998 C qp Mary Beth Broeren R 0 ,61998 Community Development COM Dq 998 City of Huntington Beach MUNEP�T1RpF�lli)-CP 2000 Main St. ELQPMENT Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 RE: Montecito/Greenbriar Development Dear Mary Beth, As a resident of Seacliff I wanted to let you know as many other residents have that I am in favor of Alternative#2 over Alternative#1 but would really like to see a Alternative#3. There were many good suggestions at the informational meeting on March 3 V that I hope Bill Holman will consider. The ideas and concerns of the residents voiced at the meeting are not new but continual. I have outlined below my concerns and how I would like to see them changed Montecito/Greenbriar Entrances The residents who move into these developments are going to be traveling northbound the majority of the time to get to jobs and freeways. We don't need anymore entrances off of Summit Drive,this collector street is hooking up with the shopping center entrance and a proposed development at Summit Drive and Goldenwest. Summit Drive is a curvy street with many blind spots, it would be dangerous to put any entrances along Summit between Goldenwest and the Peninsula on the north side. Please consider moving these entrances to Saddleback off Garfield with an inlet to a culdasac with entries off it There is a light there already to handle traffic flow at Saddleback and Garfield A secondary entrance could then be put on Summit if necessary,but again let these development share that secondary entrance/exit also. There could be a three way stop signs installed to slow down the traffic along Summit and to also help cars onto Summit from the secondary access. This secondary access could be at the end of the paseo where it meets the park as shown on the conceptual map. Paseo The paseo in both alternatives is a matter of public safety. It is an unsafe passage for pedestrians, especially for children who might take that route to school. I am concerned because this is an unlit neighborhood park that it might attract unwanted activities along the paseo by undesirables. I was glad to hear that the police would be involved in accessing the paseo for safety recommendations,our committee will also be talking to the police and keep updated It would be for the best interest of all residents if there were no paseo,put the secondary access street there. Residents in Seacliff have gotten used to driving around Beachwalk to get our children to Smith and Dwyer, if we had to drive around or the children had to walk around Monecito and Greenbriar it would be no different. Parks The greatest issue with the park is if adequate parking is going to be provided by the city . As a resident who is at the end of Beacon Hill on Lawn Haven Drive I am concerned about people using the park using our tract for their parking needs. Most of our homes have no driveways, it is dangerous to back in and out of our garages and the few parking spaces that are in front of our houses are used by us. I am aware that this problem is currently being discussed and I hope can be resolved by putting an adequate parking lot in the park,and also possibly restricted parking signs can be installed in our tract. When a parking lot is added please do not put it at the current location shown on the conceptual plan or where the Montecito entrance is shown because both of these locations are at a blind spot on Summit. I would also like to see the practice soccer field under some type of regulation so we can be assured this field will remain unlit and a practice field in the future. If the entrance to Montecito is moved to a different location I would like to see the public park extended over where it is currently shown on the conceptual map. Landscaping compatibility At the meeting on March 31" the corners of Goldenwest and Summit were briefly discussed. I would like to see both of these corners matching. The corner of Goldenwest and Summit and all along Summit on the south side is dated. We need our side of the street compatible with our surrounding developments. We not only need a sign identifying us as Seacliff at the corner of Goldenwest and Summit but also at Beacon Hill and Summit. When the landscaping is done to make the corner of Goldenwest and Summit match it would be a good time to up-date the landscaping on the south side of the street along Summit. Commercial site I would like to see the Commercial property stay at the 7 acres as on the general plan and not increased I do not think the neighborhood needs another major grocery store at the corner of Garfield and Goldenwest. I would like to see Bill Holman continue to pursue Ranch Market, Gelsons and look into Trader Joes,or Luccis as possible tenants. A small specialty type market,deli and bakery is what would really service the community on that property. The community does not need or want a large commercial mall with 24 hour service or deliveries. I don't think the community wants the extra traffic congestion a large grocery store and drug store will generate. I like the idea of a neighborhood bagel shop and a coffee house,but am very against the possible fast food restaurant. Maybe you could consider another little post office/gift shop like the one we are loosing at Seacliff Village,and a travel agency. Sincerely, OAtM3a4,uO� Carol Csenar 6842 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 cc: Rav Silver City Council Members Melanie Fallon,Community Development Planning Commissioners ATT-CH' ANT NO. �/ RECE , VCD JA N 0 7 1998 City of Huntington Beach City Council Wvember 21 . 1997 Mr. Gay Silver, City Planning Huntington Beach, CA near Mr. Silver, At the Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, several r_isturbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement were exposed. Nanv were startling changes from the first and second presentations. Tney are as follows. ] a) Opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, 10) eleminating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk way , 2) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public parking, >) increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single family nomes to 485 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to T.-,wnhomes, a) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of 1?arfield and Golden West. 5) Shea to develope single family homes north of Seacliff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now zoned for industrial. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: a- DONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-wav intersection l r- Open Saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier Rational: Back-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would impact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's Surfdale as a. through street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the children that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill 2- Create off street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven ` 3- High density useage of Montecito and Greebrier property is not acceptable, BUT if It is to go through, switch the plans , i.e. Greenbrier to rlontecito,:Montecito to.Greenbrier �tQuestjon 1Nh was this adopted from the original plans from.Single f mily.homes? Consid&.the-..increased.tax base:for single TamilY homes vs -7 the impact on public 'seNfces of 485 apartments _ •� `, Y4`fReturn tb the:.orJgIhaFacreage.:for commercial_zoning t Rational tt should be a convience. center nova ma jo Tshopping center � � wfth�'1 only"Cialf mile:away and another 2 a mile away Pa9e1 _.��' r-`..7.. �r- g+..sk_ T�S'� .}i+'� `."'f - 1 �i--t f--Y+=�'•F- _ pj.-"`.�.�.+�^t-':T.,,d 7�i� q.-.�'�'��,?-r�"?r -fir, "...-i .,�.. tQ��.f�?''• TiGx:''it -,`.2�r �w�.-�'�..'=?° i^.� � . 5p� �,'f�? ff i.�rii-- =•aTs .-- a<YY-�i _ ' Se_�r . .___... .. 7-s.__. -e:.�;n_ 5•:-�ic�'�F � t_ `.' ��.ar.'-'. h �Eift --_.-__._•c �r;':,.`r3?:;K;�:;�'-',r',:.;ti: �' >:•:�Si' �•t -' ri.•[;=2,:�::?�� �; �';i"+2'+ ��_:3-.e:..` a �, �'' S<.:Y:_:ice. __'�`�y... .Y.<>�,''�: ^- .� �a�,�x 2,�' _ _� _ - Y+S� 'y ��}}�• •y- _ I Nam. _ py�L•Y• Yt 3_3rr�„rI`'✓.nl" - �'�"�3 -�;."�.�vy'_'r-r � ��- �.._'��}���� '�J�"r dam. .y�•y� _ _�" tZ ``^".:'-_.L'; S� -�� a =:•'fir � r-ST- _ rJ. �•:.�=��'"w�_' `"__ ,�j..6. _ _ _`v,,� -t�'`�"c `- =,," ;1���`—F-sr�-�_'�G"-.C_'.: ?f - c - _� y =``.r� - il�• - -z «a.L.'�'r •.i -?.'~C J �` _}Wi:`'��' S- Shea should have the zone change on the 4 acres zoned for industrial to build single family_ dwellings-on the north parcel, of the Seacliff Shopping' Center - Rational: Better homes than apartments and more commercial.:, .----;_-..: -{ Please accept these recommendations for the continued quality.of living, we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sincerly, cc David Sullivan 0111_��Z__� Page 2 .rT��.nt is ..,s•�t 7 �.�;./. ' .J.Z -1 f! Jessica S. Dorman Davis 6562 Silverspur Lane FEB Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Co�t•��r' February 6, 1998 Ray Silver,Acting City Administrator City Hall P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Proposed Expansion of Residential and Commercial Areas Located South of Garfield and West of Goldenwest Dear Mr. Silver. As a resident of the Edwards Hill area, I am concerned about the project proposed by PLC that will increase the density of the building approved in the original General Development Plan and expand a commercial shopping area beyond its original approved acreage. The proposed project which I am concerned about is the proposed expansion of residential and commercial areas located south of Garfield and west of Goldenwest. Approval of these proposed projects will cause substantial increases in traffic along Garfield, Goldenwest and Edwards. This increase will be particularly negative because of the new elementary school planned off of Garfield and the additional children who will be subject to such traffic. In addition, a large commercial site is not needed in this residential area since there will be new commercial site the other side of Goldenwest in the new SeaCliff Shopping Center. Commercial sites by their nature necessitate late night deliveries, noise, trash, and congestion. There is no need to have txm such commercial sites in such short distance of one another. After careful review of the proposed projects, I am confident that you will agree that increased density in the residential development from 15 units per acre to 25 units per acre in the Montecito Area and expansion of the commercial acreage are ill advised, and should be avoided. DE CK V IE very truly your , F ES 7 1998 Jes ica S. Dorman Davis CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 6,30 PECE ED April, 1998 31998 M AY- 1 Mary Beth Broeren DEPARTN IENT OF Community Development COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 RE: Concerns of Estates Series,SeaCliff on the Greens Residents- Proposed Montecito/Greenbriar We. the undersigned residents of the Estates Series, SeaCliff on the Greens, are in support of the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners' Association and its position on PLC's Alternative 2 for their Montecito/Greenbriar development at the corner of GoldenWest and Garfield. cc: City Council Members Planning Commission Ralph Bauer, Mayor Ed Kerins Shirley Dettloff, Mayor Pro Tern Tom Livengood David Garafalo Fred Speaker Peter Green Haydee Tillotson Tom Harman Gerald Chapman Pam Julien Phil Inglee Dave Sullivan Bob Biddles City Staff Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Community Development Reside is Signature Address !S 2,6' NIT NO. ��.� 1 April, 1998 Mary Beth Broeren Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 RE: Concerns of Estates Series,SeaCliff on the Greens Residents- Proposed Montecito/Green briar We, the undersigned residents of the Estates Series, SeaCliff on the Greens, are in support of the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners' Association and its position on PLC's Alternative 2 for their Montecito/Greenbrier development at the corner of GoldenWest and Garfield. cc: City Council Members Planning Commission Ralph Bauer, Mayor Ed Kerins Shirley Dettloff, Mayor Pro Tern Tom Livengood David Garafalo Fred Speaker Peter Green Haydee Tillotson Tom Harman Gerald Chapman Pam Julien Phil Inglee Dave Sullivan Bob Biddles City Staff Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Community Development Resi. nt's Signature. Address 6 z C) C..R C (, C3� k'it 1 ( rt RTC ICE �S D/Q iC Yv0 �L Cal / �� L3. Z�la_ Z-Z�e t r� April, 1998 Mare Beth Broeren Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 RE: Concerns of Estates Series,SeaCliff on the Greens Residents-Proposed Montecito/Greenbriar We, the undersigned residents of the Estates Series, SeaCliff on the Greens, are in support of the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners' Association and its position on PLC's Alternative 2 for their Montecito/Greenbriar development at the corner of GoldenWest and Garfield. cc: City Council Members Planning Commission Ralph Bauer, Mayor Ed Kerins Shirley Dettloff, Mayor Pro Tern Tom Livengood David Garafalo Fred Speaker Peter Green Haydee Tillotson Tom Harman Gerald Chapman Pam Julien Phil Inglee Dave Sullivan Bob Biddies City Staff Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Community Development Resident's Signature Address \ �C7Je{/Q hLl 2 w`%G{�� S ( fly--z T� April, 1998 Mary Beth Broeren Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 RE: Concerns of Estates Series,SeaCliff on the Greens Residents-Proposed Montecito/Greenbriar We, the undersigned residents of the Estates Series, SeaCliff on the Greens, are in support of the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners' Association and its position on PLC's Alternative 2 for their Montecito/Greenbriar development at the corner of GoldenWest and Garfield. cc: City Council Members Planning Commission Ralph Bauer, Mayor Ed Kerins Shirley Dettloff, Mayor Pro Tern Tom Livengood David Garafalo Fred Speaker Peter Green Haydee Tillotson Tom Harman Gerald Chapman Pam Julien Phil Inglee Dave Sullivan Bob Biddies City Staff Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Community Development Resident's Signature Address , �� CA- April. 1998 Mary Beth Broeren Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 RE: Concerns of Estates Series,SeaCliff on the Greens Residents-Proposed Montecito/Greenbriar We, the undersigned residents of the Estates Series, SeaCliff on the Greens, are in support of the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners' Association and its position on PLC's Alternative 2 for their Montecito/Greenbriar development at the corner of GoldenWest and Garfield. cc: City Council Members Planning Commission Ralph Bauer, Mayor Ed Kerins Shirley Dettloff, Mayor Pro Tern Tom Livengood David Garafalo Fred Speaker Peter Green Haydee Tillotson Tom Harman Gerald Chapman Pam Julien Phil Inglee Dave Sullivan Bob Biddles City Staff Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Community Development ;Resi is Signa a Address 0,41 ATTAR Cl HENT NO April, 1998 Mary Beth Broeren Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 RE: Concerns of Estates Series,SeaCliff on the Greens Residents-Proposed Montecito/Greenbriar We. the undersigned residents of the Estates Series, SeaCliff on the Greens, are in support of the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners' Association and its position on PLC's Alternative 2 for their Montecito/Greenbriar development at the corner of GoldenWest and Garfield. cc: City Council Members Planning Commission Ralph Bauer, Mayor Ed Kerins Shirley Dettloff, Mayor Pro Tern Tom Livengood David Garafalo Fred Speaker Peter Green Haydee Tillotson Tom Harman Gerald Chapman Pam Julien Phil Inglee Dave Sullivan Bob Biddles City Staff Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Community Development R sident's Signature Address tv 2 Li/rsa C .2o L� jR q 31-7�L, Cd.'A mrli-lj N 4--q,3-0 w � April, 1998 Mary Beth Broeren Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 RE: Concerns of Estates Series,SeaCliff on the Greens Residents-Proposed Montecito/Greenbriar We. the undersigned residents of the Estates Series, SeaCliff on the Greens, are in support of the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners' Association and its position on PLC's Alternative 2 for their Montecito/Greenbriar development at the comer of GoldenWest and Garfield. cc: City Council Members Planning Commission Ralph Bauer, Mayor Ed Kerins Shirley Dettloff, Mayor Pro Tern Tom Livengood David Garafalo Fred Speaker Peter Green Haydee Tillotson Tom Harman Gerald Chapman Pam Julien Phil Inglee Dave Sullivan Bob Biddles City Staff Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Community Development Resident's gn turd/ Address / C�(! c,� 72- 4zn�- S— t 91 �� .� /�d v )vl 6Y Ire ,�� DEC 08 1997 m6 (5 X�e uT -ZA Fi�;^O7.F.ENT. CIO. 15: 4 -Pi a-/ Z9, AT -RE °- EIiIED MAR 0 3 1998 City of HuntiriTton Beach February 16, 1998 City Council Office City of Huntington Beach. . City Hall P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Proposed Project (Garr-;d/Goldenx,Q0 Dear City Council Members: I have been informed that the proposed project just south of Garfield and w of Goldenwest will allow building at a higher density than what was proposed in the rigirW general Development Plan. There are several concerns I would like to be known and taken under consid 'on prior:to.any variances granted. It is not.in the best interest of our area to raise the density r acre from 15 units per acre to 25 per acre in the Montecito Area. Traffic will increase due t higher density. Higher traffic will impact the newly planned school. A large commercial site w not be needed in this residential area since there will be a new one just on the other side of G ldenwest in the new SeaCliff Shopping Center. Commercial site necessitates late night delive es which would only create noise, trash, etc. Please understand and consider not granting the variance for this proposed prof t. This project is not in.the best.interest of the community. Sincerely, A-NT-N0. 15� 6 moo. s It e4c; m p 11V�e, 1 Y1 A: COMM." tt . vl�"aXUOW 44,-A �01 to �a,�entr� -tp ,�2pple iwho c[nv;�4m,y�bi� ��-1- -� pe,l' r-ehde�< nb � eo rr�rn�u n i" ? We, lae� ple.r)4 .. 1 S �o beck-Fc.vt i vA UUA am M cc.K Was o�l-� �-Y3 C�� �-n L-kes tD � _n� aAvl a' ,6�) 4-o °( xouc8 5 � ` 7 ,�au,r�q 6ea0lVYLM doers _ U . . �0 � o ' kTTr'�CisiP� ;��1TN0. C 2/12/98 E C E I V E D Mary Beth Broeren,Senior Planner F E B 18 1998 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street DER4RTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVEL OF?' Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Ms.Broeren: As a resident of the upper Seacliff area,I'm concerned about the proposed changes by PLC Land Company for the Montecito/Greenbrier developments. I'm concerned because the quality of life of the residents of Seachff is being threatened by these new proposals. Under the new proposal,PLC Land Company wants to put a walkway instead of a street between the Greenbriar and Montecito developments. This would be a tragedy for the school children as well as the people who live in these new developments. It would be a walkway for the accumulation of trash,dog droppings, and bums;and would not be safe for the children to use,let alone anyone else. All the children in Seacliff as well as the new resident children would have to walk through this to get to school and it simply is not acceptable. Therefore,Saddleback should remain as it is in the General Plan-a street which continues through Montecito and Greenbriar to Summit. I'm also concerned about another change in the new proposal-having the entrances of the Montecito and Greenbriar developments on Summit rather than Garfield,Goldenwest,or Saddleback. The entrances for Montecito and Greenbriar should be on Saddleback so that the traffic can disperse to either Garfield or Summit, �06 II�S •�• •�• ATT,C',"ENT N't S �t� decreasing the traffic by half on either street. Summit is already becoming busy with cars from Edwards who cut through here to avoid the intersection at Garfield and Goldenwest. The entrances to the park and soccer field would much better serve the people of this area if they are on Saddleback.There should be adequate parking at the park for the use of its facilities and for soccer events;it would be safer and more efficient to contain the cars on the side of the street where the activity is. Therefore,the city should require adequate parking at the park for those activities. If this is not required,those of us who live near Summit and Lawnhaven would be inundated in cars and people whenever there are functions at the public park and/or soccer field. I would like to think that the members of the Planning Commission,City Council,and City Staff will consider the adverse impact these new proposals will have on the quiet enjoyment and quality of life of the residents who are now living here. Let's not take away what is already here but preserve it for the new residents as well by simply staying with the General Plan-with no new proposals. Sincerely, Lois K Havens 19291 Surfdale Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714/9604YM cc: City Council Members,members of Planning Commission,Ray Silver,Acting City Administrator and Melanie Fallon,Community Development AUTOMATED SOLUTIONS _ P. 02 nG�1,'�V Craig and Carol Hunneyman 6821 Lawn Flaven Drive Huntington Beach.CA 92643 February 6, 1998 The City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject; Proposed development North of Suntntit Dr.,South of Garfield Ave.,West of Goldentvcst,East of Peninsula Ln. My wife and I,as concerned homeowners of Upper Seacliff,propose the following modifications to PLC's proposal for development of the area between Stunmit Drive and Garfield Avenue as conveyed in the November 20, 1997 Homeowners Association meeting held at City Hall. Our proposal steins to reflect the general wishes of those in attendance that evening arxt are summarized here. 1) Extend Saddleback from Gufield to Summit to be used as a North entrance into the proposed community and NO continuation of Beacon Hill Northward across Summit. 2) Build low-density housing and NO apartments in the proposed community. 3) Create a Greenbelt to buffer Summit from the proposed community and NO soccer field anywhere. 4) Plant trees on the Summit-side of the Greenbelt to allow for a more desitable view from the existing homes on the Southside of Summit. Regards. Craig and Carol Hunneyma Hotacownets of Upper Seac Copies to: All members of City Counodd All members of Planning Commission r , {{ I i Huntington SeacCi f f Homeowners' Association March 28, 1998 Mary Beth Broeren Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach,Ca.92648 RE: Concerns of Seacliff Residents-Proposed Montecito/Greenbrier Dear Mary Beth: In preparation for the March 31, 1998 community meeting regarding this project,we wish to summarize our concerns and questions as residents of Huntington Seacliff,the neighborhood adjacent and south of this project.We are pleased to see Alternative#2 has been created with a different residential mix. Park The five-acre area park requires parking onsite.How is the amount of parking determined?If the park is utilized for soccer practice,we will see overflow parking on Lawn Haven that will impact our existing,ungated public streets. We would like to see the private open space become part of the public park,and the entrance to Montecito moved to Saddleback or the location on Summit where the tot lot is now shown on PLC's Alternative#2. The parking shown on the drawing accessed from Summit is at the inside curve of the street between Saddleback and Beacon Hill.This currently is a traffic"blind spot"for cars turning left and right from Beacon Hill onto Summit and left from Summit onto Beacon Hill. Light-colored cars seem to disappear in sections of the street due to the curve and if they are exceeding the speed limit,there is increased danger. If the parking lot were at that location, would it elevate this problem with visibility and increase danger? Montecito Entrance Summit is a curving,connecting street between Goldenwest and Seapoint. When the inf ill homes were added to our tract,we were told that Summit was an arterial road,not a collector street;that Saddleback was the street off which the new residential tract to the north would be accessed so there would be less cuts to Summit. Quietsands was accessed from Lawn Haven, instead of Summit,for this reason.The entrance to Montecito should be moved to Saddleback,not only because of better traffic flow,but also because the curve of Summit makes a gated entrance on the inside curve of the road difficult due to poor visibility. We would like to see a secondary gated entrance for Montecito/Greenbrier off Garfield, as it is shown on PLC's original plan. This would take traffic off Summit and eliminate the two emergency access walkways. We are seeing an increase in traffic through upper Seacliff from Beacon Hill to Lawn Haven south on Surfdale to bypass the signals on Goldenwest. Putting an entrance to Montecito opposite our entrance on Beacon Hill will increase this problem,as southbound traffic from Montecito will go straight through our tract instead of using Summit.The Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment showed us having an isolated buffer from the new development.An entrance opposite Beacon Hill breaches this buffer. Saddleback Paseo We are concerned about the safety of the children using a heavily landscaped public walkway to get to school,and also have concerns about how it will be maintained and monitored(especially at night). Does the city know of other cities with similar walkways in place? 1 ATTA,O� c �T NO. /_ . Huntington Seac(i f f) ^_ Homeowners' Association If Saddleback becomes a private easement as shown,is 10'required or 10' easement on each side of the 10"wide pipe?The proposed Paseo width is 40' wide including 30' of landscaping and a 10' sidewalk. Is the minimum acceptable width for making Saddleback a street 82' including the sidewalks? Access to Seacliff School would be safer for the children walking to school if Saddleback were extended to Summit. Bisecting the public park with a street is not an issue;both parks on Main St. near downtown work well. We would like to see a stop sign on Summit at Saddleback for traffic control due to the curve of the road and speed of traffic on Summit. Ingress and egress to commercial center from Goldenwest The traffic study projects 40 mph for Goldenwest.Traffic is faster and speed limit is 50 mph now.The proposed left turn-in will be hazardous for northbound traffic into the commercial center. We recommend a right turn only lane into the commercial center from southbound Goldenwest Street,as trucks will impede traffic flow when they make their turn into the commercial center. We recommend a right turn only onto Goldenwest from the commercial center. We would also like to see right turn only lane for southbound traffic onto Summit. THE CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR SEACLIFF 50(Figure 2,Goldenwest Street Access Plan 10/31/97 as referenced on Page 10 of 51 in trip generation analysis dated March 12, 1998 of Environmental Assessment No.97- 16)INCLUDE ACCESS FROM GOLDENWEST,WHICH WE OPPOSE.TRAFFIC ON GOLDENWEST TRAVELS TOO FAST FOR TWO CUTS AT SEPARATE SPOTS BETWEEN SUMMIT AND GARFIELD.The entry to the commercial center at Garfield and Goldenwest must be considered and coordinated with the traffic plan for the other side of Goldenwest and Garfield to Summit. Concerns regarding 11 acre commercial center Our neighborhood would prefer a smaller specialty-type market instead of a 55,000 square foot market chain.A Gelson's,Trader Joe's,or Irvine Ranch Market would be a welcome addition to our community.These would not be 24-hour markets and there would be less truck unloading and less congestion. We prefer no 24-hour operation tenants(drugstore or fast food). We also have concerns about a fast food drive-thru adjacent to the Goldenwest Entrance,and diesel and refrigeration trucks unloading all night directly behind homes.We want local neighborhood shops,and want to see enough smaller spaces to accommodate the shops. Truck circulation onsite and accessing the site is a potential problem. Elimination of the second driveway on Garfield would make it necessary for some trucks to U-turn to leave the site on Goldenwest after unloading.With no left turn onto Goldenwest,would they end up turning around on Summit to head north? A briefer outline of our concerns is enclosed as well as a copy of the map referenced for the proposed residential on the other side of Goldenwest.Thank you in advance for taking the time to provide the community meeting on March 31 st, 1998. Sincerely, Seacliff Homeowners Association Karen Jackle Chair,Montecito/Greenbriar Committee 6702 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92648 cc: Ray Silver,City Administrator Melanie Fallon,Community Development City Council Members Planning Commissioners 2 C4 Huntington Homeowners' Association Seac[i f f MONTECITO/GREENBRIAR CONCERNS OF SEACLIFF RESIDENTS 3/29/98 I. Park A. Amount of onsite parking required by city? B. Safe location of onsite parking. C. Eliminate private open space in Montecito,making it all part of the public park. D. Insure clear visibility from Summit where private open space in Montecito is shown. II. Montecito Entrance A. Summit is an arterial street,not a connector;do not cut it up. Move entrance to Saddleback;or,as an alternative,have the entrance off Summit where the tot lot is now shown on Alternative#2. B. The curve of Summit reduces visibility and makes gated entry difficult. C. Entrance opposite Beacon Hill increases the problem of southbound traffic cutting through our tract to Goldenwest to avoid the signals. D. The park strip provides a buffer that is breached by an entry opposite Beacon Hill. III Saddleback Paseo A. Would the minimum width for a public street at Saddleback be 82' including sidewalks? B. A narrow fire entry is proposed for each tract.Could a larger,wider cul-de-sac be put on Garfield with a secondary gated entry to each tract as shown on PLC's original plan? This would eliminate a lot of the traffic on Summit. C. We have a great concern about the safety of children using the paseo to walk to school and concerns about how it will be monitored and maintained.A public street would be safer. D. Bisecting the public park with Saddleback is not an issue. E. A stop sign is needed on Summit at Saddleback due to the reduced visibility of the curving eastbound Summit Drive between Saddleback and Goldenwest. IV Ingress and Egress to commercial center from Goldenwest A. The traffic study is based on 40 mph but the speed limit is 50 mph and traffic goes even faster. The proposed left turn-in to the commercial center off Goldenwest will be hazardous for northbound traffic. B. We recommend a right turn only lane into the commercial center for southbound traffic. C. We recommend a right turn only onto Goldenwest. D. We would like a right turn only lane for southbound traffic from Goldenwest to Summit. -E. The dntry to the commercial center at Garfield and Goldenwest must be considered and coordinated with the traffic plan for the future developments on the east side of Goldenwest. V Concerns regarding 11 acre commercial center A. Our neighborhood prefers a smaller specialty type market to a 55,000 square foot chain market. B. We do not want a 24-hour market or drugstore. Diesel and refrigeration trucks unloading all night will be a noise and air pollution problem. C. We have concerns about a fast food restaurant adjacent to the Goldenwest entrance to the commercial center. D. We want enough small spaces to allow for neighborhood shop uses. E. Truck access and circulation onsite is a problem;especially if the Garfield truck exit is eliminated,and trucks can only exit south on Goldenwest. 3 ATTI C'"'% 'ENT Na /5 eVi}liah°._: i ` ,r- mil•,ti:'i ;..C?�,.Y':��a'�I••� t;•;,,r^I rw. 4. , _ „ t `��,4,�.. +•'i.r = � i,, •I. '�%i��`\'k%� •I�°i i•rl t�c�• a��'1' • w •l �• / I �ta�onn •'. ( / /- ".\.�,' 'i'= [di` - /''^ _ I/ t'�rA' /"' :'�•... .. t�♦ F. .•:✓� ,,� �i�'lv �'wR., fll i �.��lir� •_•-�'. !�1 i i /,1 1."'� tf•• ni :1 __ •�.1 1-. i i °�JW+.t,. w�ti 'Y,' = Sf�lO,�,i�t j �, :I � ' i I,.y` .C•"I.1, ',.},A �1�' 1 ,�:^ _ - 1'i"iL'~ _ !Yy♦♦. <7� "'\_ ._. R ylk14 ' , 4' 'J`+r�alii,• f, - �.-_ i _ / r' _r•_ ' � I• / �na�_ 1 t t iT STRL ET'—�-- — - - :ilt,I 1 �� r -' r �� t l�l n ty >J• u• I ,� _ � I � � I r, r, ° I y,.,/ / v,•I. - � t 1 •:�'. 'ri ' ,'_'1 ,-.' 'e�'j,• ! t •1 F+�IQ• r / t .I - l �, ' ! - 'i i' rl.. :..7 ii` - r 1, ♦ :.g't• '�\\♦\ `. r , 1I / / ;IyyaG !/,r,'W1•�Il,.iti.--•-d-1��, T• •� •-• - " ./ -_--_.-,-.... _. •—_ r' j� ♦ I .�,• ,` i�� WN i ,'• /.. � J i ,-!Y' i i �' � _ •,.� i , �•!• i. �r+'���R �. ,, /� I1{�} iJ,,t: r,911: d} ,; :1 n.(.• ,1 -r .-1C: - .I•, �=T - _r-11 .. .y�i , t it ` ,/ 1, ,III 1 y_ - - - ��/� � / ,• _ .� 1. - / ^i�r •,•_ rI. '/' � t l; IV `�,!'••.. .''I•I jf�.lil• ;.1�.` � `/ '� �_� � C_ !� ':�'� ;.-�t�,.9 i�1'.' i y �� I/- _ '-1. - r♦ i1• 4 t �'• �I. �r'E' _ 'r pl ,:-, ��f,. , I 1 i•ri . ,+'•. /�+, \ .: t J j1,� , _ ` ''� I: i,,al ;�\ ;ti r'dl "r_" t , . '��� 'I�',:,%-'^ ,f .•.i�/t � / .�"f �'S!Ir.,'� L. I -.lit►r (ri; /1, T ' 1�ifi�t t n i , / F, tw 1i:.�. :.Y••/ / I r j J ,ii,t'••` ' ' ` �]>rl - _ r5rr . ,_ . ' } fI.�� �9Tl�iTC1i I•. I -J '• 1/ M. ;�+ l T� y' - '- -� -� ,, t t 1 '� , /3=C/( ! •/'i ' t t _.. � t � yu� ' � r rp, ' n' ! 1 J ; - i 1 I 1 / / I.L --�- _ •��'�-i, �// i.:. + ��' th\� •% I ,- 1 '.�( j■ I ,. _ u ,..a, �r,f.1r `1 tU,i + j�•i '� I�1 .. 1� f :•i ' : I (�i, r� •_.. �� -`�-'"'Li �Il, , _ i i L`: - e I i i fi~t.' '=7 ,•I i � I , �, I, _ �,. ;.l,t,,�, �.i i I.:. wr• ')`-:;�J %""'jio^Tr7• `,n ti• r _, i ( �' ' t 1 'I j !- ? 1 1 ..ti, 1 ( 0 ;r- ` ��\„� _ r; _ i,, / ;� •Y �' �� A.�/ I 1`�t.��l•, ! 1— I I I I � 0 1 •1./ ! r � ;t ;•;j �, t 1 'a '•r i• C�`�/k, :+,•i !t ' � I 1. ;; 1 /+ ♦• T.�,J:, ��1'� R�•{ �it� //.771 l;•� i •r ��� .. n 1(('1 r{ y• .f ,i � / ti 4�.i' a♦• ,, � il' r•' .,y,,; L 11. �'• r 1 (.. _ I I = IL,4 � t ,,t!�1'1 ,��t L� �r+. / ' !/1,i4'i. ! / _ i. _ ��, r'� �• 1:�'.. \i l ' ._"'`� ��.I�ld��.���/ _ ! l_..1 �I. ♦� ') �` t�;l�l, ,ri 1' • rr1 •�I iB� �� ',%__ '';,'♦ 1, '1I: i ' �:��''a�l�• .. ,/r/;: i ! •l 1 %i i;y�r: i i• t, '� �t,.. � �..'� �l? •I,.Y�' =i �' _ . yit. - _ .A , ? .•, �l••.. . r ` '> L S�'1»M _ ',//� M , ..... `. —�`',r_ halN' ♦ L�Vp�.,,i 1,., -_ '`•� . ,;�,.�" .,.1,...=.. .\--\.-i`-�% \'lam ,�� '_ •,p .�..ti_..� '� �'`"r._�.;r���.=�,j�.=P��1-$�:i'S•�'.'S!Y"'��._�-..+_.i��`. ���... ; - CST,STREET 7 tiourcc Wnldcn h Associnlcs. Figure 2 10131/97csui1732) GN Seacliff 50 Karen-Jackie 6702 Lawn Haven Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 R = C - I V (714)536-6177 Karjac�aapc.net `t November 16, 1997 N 0 V 1 71997 DE'=U%IEh:T OF City of Huntington Beach DEVm OPMENI T Attn.: Maribeth/Planner 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The original signed request by the residents of"upper"Huntington Seacliff to keep Saddleback as a through street from Summit to Garfield follows. Since this process was completed yesterday and today, not everyone was home.Every resident who saw this information agreed with it. As a result, it is safe to say that all of Lawn Haven,our northerly street which parallels Summit,and a majority of the residents in upper Seacliff would be against the plans for the property to north of Summit as currently presented with Saddleback no longer a through street. We have made a copy of our petition for the developer as well. When the oil islands in upper Seacliff were developed with homes,no new outlets to Summit or to Goldenwest were created as it was not good planning to have so many cuts which impede traffic as it was explained to us. We were told by the planner that Summit is not wide enough to accommodate more cuts. The attractive curves in Summit as it is designed impede visibility for those who turn onto the street from Beacon Hill and the configuration of the planned outlet to Summit opposite Beacon Hill on the north would appear to have even greater danger of blocking visibility for those turning onto this narrow street due to the curve between there and Goldenwest.. A feeder street between Garfield and Summit at Saddleback would help to reduce the danger from speeding motorists on Summit as they enter the curves headed eastward from Peninsula and increase their speed A speed limit sign would also be helpful.The relatively light traffic while homes are still under construction in"The Peninsula" area currently helps to lower the danger.There should be no outlet onto Summit except at Saddleback- Owners of homes on the newer streets, upon seeing the map,remarked the concept differs greatly from what was represented to them as the plan for where Montecito and Greenbriar are now planned. We do appreciate that the developer is willing to attend our homeowners meeting to answer our questions and at this point we have many questions and concerns. We await the meeting on November 20, 1997 to hear from the developer. Sincerely, KARENJACKLE cc,Bill Holman �atc�;'GZ ATTP kEEP SADDIXIBACKAS THROUGH-STREET KEEP ACCESS TO MONTECITO & GREENBRIAR FROM SADDLEBACK We the homeowners of Huntington Seacliff on Lawn Haven and adjacent streets urge the City of Huntington Beach to retain Saddleback as a through street from Garfield to Summit and to eliminate entry to Montecito and Greenbriarfrom Summit Dr., which is not designed for additional direct traffic except at Saddleback. Please stand firm like you did with us to not allow residential traffic to directly flow from new development onto Summit, Goldenwest and Palm. ADDRESS PHONE LAWN HAVEN 6701 /AWso�� C7�Y� 6702 Pa �C ��� 6/7 6712 67224 - c IJ 673l2! - ' 67�Jf 67,Q1lf f1G / - Z 6771 6772 6781 6782 M91 g 679r- 6792 � � G 6801 6802 " 6812 v 6822 6842 6852 6861 6872 6881 6882 6891 :EP SADDLEBACK AS THROUGh jTREET KEEP ACCESS TO MONTECITO & GREENBRIAR FROM SADDLEBACK We the homeowners of Huntington Seacliff on Lawn Haven and adjacent streets urge file City of Huntington Beach to retain Saddleback as a through street from Garfield to Summit and to eliminate entry to Montecito and Greenbriar from Summit Dr., which is not designed for additional direct traffic except at Saddleback. Please stand firm like you did with us to not allow residential traffic to directly flow from new development onto Summit, Goldenwest and Palm. LAWN HAVEN ADDRESS PHONE 6901 6902 lze /CJ 6921 ]Les /Lt 692 6931 6932 6942-1 � c (a Gr - a U 7 6951 6961 6962 T 3 D 6971 6972 hh 67A - G -7 � 6 U 460,3 s� l 4- 73 l F'7 �,2 EEP SADDLEBACK AS TIiROUG— STREET KEEP ACCESS TO MONTECITO & GREENBRIAR FROM SADDLEBACK We the homeowners of Huntington Seacliff on Lawn Haven and adjacent streets urge the City of Huntington Beach to retain Saddleback as a through street from Garfield to Summit and to eliminate entry to Montecito and Greenbrier from Summit Dr., which is not designed for additional direct traffic except at Saddleback. Please stand firm like you did with us to not allow residential traffic to directly flow from new&n elopment onto Summit, Goldemvest and Palm. ADDRESS PHONE LAWN HAVEN 6701 6702 6712 6722 6732 6751 6761 6771 6772 6781 6782 6791 6792 6801 6802 6812 6822 _ 68-E2 o C 1 3 a 6852 (� 6861 6872 6881 6882 6891 ATTAC: Z. z .. ! EP SADDLEBACK AS TNROLIGH aTREET KEEP ACCESS TO MONTECITO & GREENBRLAR FROM SADDLEBACK We the homeowners of Huntington .S'eacliff on Lawn Haven and adjacent streets urge the City of Huntington Beach to retain Saddleback as a through street from Garfield to Summit and to eliminate entry to Montecito and Greenbrier from Summit Dr., which is not designed fir additional direct traffic except at.Saddleback. Please stand firm like you did with us to not allow residential traffic to directly f low from new development onto Summit, Goldernvest and Palm. ADDRESS PHONE L�SaS�' EA0 sirl7WseqA1 /4 y .S' 4 L r OLA `v:l� e c ` o a Lei s-2 L':�['A 1 l C 536-0675 16 nez &W/ �101'n T C7% C(I 17 w 7 ZZx 96 a - /X3.5— �12, (II/M- 9bb -S' l� n v- 3� Kr;EP SADDLEBACK AS THROUGH STREET KEEP ACCESS TO MONTECITO &G.REF.NRRTAR FROM SADDLEBACK We the homeowners of Huntington Seacliff on Lawn Haven and adjacent streets urge the City of Huntington Beach to retain Saddleback as a through street from Garfield to Summit and to eliminate entry to Montecito and Greenbriar from Summit Dr., which is not designed for additional direct traffic except at Saddleback. Please stand firm like you did with us to not allow residential traffic to directly flow from new development onto Summit, Goldenwest and Palm. LAWN HAVEN ADDRESS- PHONE 6901 6902 6921 6922 6931 6932 6942 6951 6961 6962 6971 6972 - z41 LZ , � KL.:P SADDLEBACK AS THROUGH STREET KEEP ACCESS TO*MONTECITO & GREENBRIAR FROM SADDLEBACK We the homeowners of Huntington Seacliff on Lawn Haven and adjacent streets urge the City of Huntington Beach to retain Saddleback as u through street from Garfield to Summit and to eliminate entry to Montecito and Greenbrier from Summit Dr., which is not designed fur additional direct traffic except at Saddleback. Please stand firm like you did with us to not allow residential traffic to directly flow from new development onto Summit, Goldenwest and Palm. ADDRESS PRONE _ 5 6- 109 8 b-/- &Z-z'j 57 3 P, II � (, o/ v � N. II t�, . Wd-72V7 • - Kl P SADDLEBACK AS THROUGH S.REET KEEP ACCESS TO*MONTECITO & GREENBRIAR FROM SADDLEBACK We the homeowners of Huntington Seacliff on Lawn Haven and adjacent streets urge the City of Huntington Beach to retain Saddleback as a through street from Garfield to Summit and to eliminate entry to Montecito and Greenbriar from Summit Dr., which is not designed fur additional direct traffic except at Saddleback. Please stand firm like you did with us to not allow residential traffic to directly flow from new development onto Summit, Goldenwest and Palm. ADDRESS N A M PHONE 9' z 1-6- L - �/ - Gf 2I w ( q 3 I i q1-1�y I IG �R' I Ct ly 2.I I9y32 �cj / NT 1" * November 21 . 19 �� C V IV F D mr. Ray Silver, City Planning UZ 19s% Huntington Beach, CA JA 01 Hunttinpn beach E lear Mr. Silver, Ccity Go Una Ofiic ,4r Vie Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, s•eVeral disturbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement wprc- F;X.posed. Vlany were startling changes from the first and second pr?gantations. Tn?v are as follows. ] a) Opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, 1 c.! eleminating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk way , 21) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public park.in;, S:1 increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single f?rr-lly nomes to 485 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to T;:wnhornes, &1 increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of Garf leld and Golden West. 5)- Shea to devel-ope single family homes north of Seacliff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now :one.j for industrial.. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: ' a- DONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-wav intersection It— Open Saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier rational: Back-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would mnoac: traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's Surfdale �s a tnrough street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and York-.own( wnich is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the croulren that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill ?- Create off street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven 3- Hioh density u-seage of Montecito and Greebrier property is not acceptable, BUT if it is to go through, switch the plans , i.e. Greenbrier to Montecito , Montecito to Greenbrier Question: Why was this adopted from the original plans from single - f.amiIy.homes? Consider the- increased tax base for single family homes vs .the impact on public services of 485 apartments. _ ..4-:Return to.the original acreage for commercial zoning. - - Rational: It should be-a convience center not a maior� sho��jn4,c�it 11 .r_-.: - •LLi�..��i. M - - _ - ..o.t ..r. - 3�.. 5- Shea should have the zone charige"on the 4 acres zoned for-industrlal.to-= build single family dwellings on._fhe north parcel_ of the.Seacliff.Shopping= ; Center _ r Rational: Better homes than apartments and more commer_clal.` Please accept these recommendations for the continued quality of living we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sincrrly, _ �T NO. ��� " "-�rr�a���y�.v=']< .• �!� yip. ... S J - -- .�T .xA;';- -;':.T;ems-;•.-`.�: .;7^_ _ _ _ 'Y?.i;-•�+ cT.. .•u`�'T.'` �'R:.o -:�- y "'�`:i"•`� 1 S '.'Ly-'�~ �i�� is - - � .we�;�,�` _ ]:•� '7'��`��a` : r.:,; �,� �- .�� w ra ����.7¢_�?.��.�=_. _ L 75•. f "ti if �. r- .r.CSC _.e-��.r k'_'r• ^.A'-:w'��' kv .tr..a• :f a 1' tea.. ' �1+�Yrfi F - ' •e. eM1a-ac' �* �' w.Ft _-..T��SC'F_ � t_�,n•�"}, - i>r�+2`T Y�.-'J_f r- :i- S`n r -t- -J.�tY�it _1�;3-:i=�•i=:•�.^'1' ram'- _�2`- ci xt^" - ti.^-fir-7•'� y_ 'r�L'7_' j; �{ 5- Shea should have the zone change on the 4 acres zoned for industrial to= y build single family dwellings*on the north parcel. of the.Seacliff Shopping =enter = r = Rational: Better homes than apartments and more commercial - _ Please accept these recommendations for the continued quality ofliving we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities'. Sincerly, tic David Sullivan r .a/ � �. 1 k7 Page 2 • I Mr. & Mrs. yohn 0. 7enkins 6692 Country Circle R E C E I , E Huntington Beach, C.q 92648 D EC 0 91997 DEPAR T W:NIT Cr COM'.1.aUINIT`l DEX,'ELOP,/ Ztre, , vLc. OwL, /-Z , Cj I 61 . < s I- Howard and Nancy Kaufman 6756 Sicily Circle Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 8 December 1997 Dear Patty Forgarty, As residents of Huntington Beach for the last 14 years, and current residents of lower Seacliff we are vehemently opposed to the rezoning of the Montecito and Greenbriar developments from low density single family homes to high density apartment rentals. This is not at all appropriate for our residential area. We also strongly oppose any increase in the commercial area (T-9.5 AC) on the corner of Goldenwest and Garfield. These planning changes will destroy the quality of our Seacliff neighborhood. Sincerely, Howard and Nancy Kaufman CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE I 3 -- i'WARD-KAUFm^N D.D.S -.PRACTICElIMITED TO PERfODONTICS -Jos Altos Medical Center 1777 Bellflower Blvd.,Ste:108:= Long Beach;CA,9o8f 5 ' = ". (310).597_570( t r.. t +f N 4V 2 6199� II pEPAR DEVEI-pPµENT COM � 1j6 - l ryyLL93" Y.�r►�''` 2�29 jg512 ATT: T N;0. JAN 07 1998 City of Huntin Ci y Como °n B�a�h November 21 . 1997 !-jr. Gay Silver, City Planning Huntington Beach, CA Je,ar Mr. Silver, ac the Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, several (!isttirbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement wire exposed Nano were startling changes from the first and second presentations. T nev are as follows. la) Opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, i o) eleminating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk way , 21 creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public parking, ,) increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single ;rally names to A85 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to Townhomes, 4) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of i;arfield and Golden West. 5) Shea to develope single family homes north of Sracllff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now %oned for industrial. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: l a- DONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-way intersection l0- Open Saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier Pational: Back-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would impact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's Surfdale as a tnrough street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the children that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill 2- Create off street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven 3- High density useage of Montecito and Greebrier property is not acceptable, BUT if it is to go through, switch the plans , i.e. Greenbrier to - rlonteci_to., Montecito.to.Greenbrier :question: Why was this adopted from the plans from single famalyrhomes? Consider:th'e increased tax base for.single family homes vs "the Impact on public. services of 485 apartments - - - 4 Return to the.original acreage for commercial.=zoning _ i Y Rational It should be a convience center not a ma jor.shopping center ��. �' with onTy�half mile away and another 2 a mile away r, Pagel T �,' ^"'.�'t''6.,-�,-'»^• `fib'�''`-3->''Y.a. +�.��. 1'� �'_ ,�;- e ..-� - ''"_ : -� �.; r`,,..,i'�.. "a' _�a.i�'"�..^y - -••v,• 1 .y `. _>,--'3S�t . .,LJ,�. Ty....L.....- C '�^•.+.r �jr` - '.J` - -T�' . �a_ -_ _ 'f.' � Mtn�C Y"C..0 Y "iL_ .� c_�=—._ i :;� -4?._ya�w ♦s."�,� s- - - _ s.. _ rL- ��t� "-iaY + -.r r ems►.-R'_ —.y�uY^T•.��-. .�•...�:� �� 'S.i��.r. 4'` FaT..w-w. i-" a "xr �. � �� -a— i ^c:.. ����."'��---:i-'' �".� .F' �~`_. - - .'���,•a.. ,.y �'_,r14��. .mow-�_ ++1".�a.' 4 �. r �r��.._+:wY�'-- - :�. ,.3 j��•��y���i�F��� •-.c . ..• -'!i'-'� '� ��`���'s •. Y����Y a.- %y- T�.Lvf'}.i w r y'7r_�.w.*�-ir- f,ti.—«��`ZA ,,,,�'r•-.V.,T `._ 4 - .r . �.,.--+- _ TL�L-'-icy .�;" 1�*r+t����`.,r �s- - 'f:�-� �,`'='"'`'rp� ': '�- -=•`_+{+'��:?s'^ ',`:`s�:. , �: �•;s; ,�n,.,tF _ .�i, - .•�+(? ••i.C,�:::. r:Y:-a rl.:�y t _ :J:"�' '�T x 1.._...-Ki".'-+',r^^••c_%�;b.�i_�- �. .i� �=�--�`e7.^.�{:.�•c- �`. '•�� �i:'r>>-• .•`• _�.,�j,.e�'C=t:�:��,.'�-"�P,:._�.c^r'".�'�1c:'-�a"•:C.•xC'r.�.- _7'-���i�,+.�y?._�i�LR �` -r- •1 _ �r�'•s_.t c "S"- :=•� 'Y,2�L—T -y � -:}f-__ -t�2-..�Y`>".��...� Q'.^"fy �•y'�o� � _ya2_� �.-f1T'A-7-�'� !j.��-in Y Y - '��° -fir��� -S� -)„7 �. •�..4 - r 1 w• r '.��� ���'i-`,'3iti:#-`1_.^-.�t'•- -4' � � ++�c ♦-ll��r �..�.Z%- _ _ �w i-•_ �*=�3r.-, ._ � � ,� •a = J--' �=rs +`-s�'45t-�•Tr�,r-+: �cY� ~`��'�.� S- .zrs�'�''-.• �.[ -'r�^Y = 1 �_ - ^.�- ii= � .t �f �`� �.'``,y.�'r4•S�"-d ��.�",.�z_L..¢��:-�or.��r��„c�- _�'�'4. 1� _ otr�-' .��x'y' yyr �• �7 - ..'�- �,-• '� L>�� Y titi '"''iT� �-"'•+`c-''z-•_.� -z. K T�7 5- Shea should have the zone. change on the 4 acres zoned for industrial to build single family dwellings on the north parcel, of the.'Seacliff Sping ... Center Rational: Better homes than apartments and.more commercial. '...--. Please accept these recommendations for the continued quality of living we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sincerly, cc Davia Sulliva Page 2 RECEIVEC J A N O NovMber 2 l . 1997 1-1r. Rav Silver, City Planning City of Huntin&n Beach Huntington Beach, CA City Council O{fio- Dear Mr. Silver, At me Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, sc,veral disturbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement were exposed. Nanv were startling changes from the first and second presentations. Tney are as fol lows. 1 a) Opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, 1 C-) eleminating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk way , 2) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public parking, 5) increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single tly nomes to 485 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to Ownhomes, 4) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of ,-arf?eld and Golden West. 5) Shea to develope single family homes north Seac11ff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now Zoned for industrial. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: 1 a-_DONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-way intersection 1 b- Open Saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier national: Back-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would impact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's Surfdale as a through street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the children that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill 2- Create off street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven 3- High density useage of Mritecito and Greebrier property is not acceptable, BUT if_It is to go through, switch the plans , i.e. Greenbrier to rlontecito Montecito_to_'Greenbrier 0uestfon Why.was:this adopted from the original plans from single �' z family homes? Consider the-increased.tax base for single-family homes-vs - r the impact'ori_:publis services of 485 apartments -� t 4' Wturrt to the original acreage: for commercial zoning =fir;Rational 1t'Shoultbe a.convience'ce_ nter not a major shopping center. with only pelf mile away and another 2 a mile away - - Paye1 met -�`i_�Y s...r v� _ .[ _ , --___ • _-:. t _ ff " 1._�.-a[ . - .i� -`. _ _c _ ''ss.. - ....� .�'. --' - ""c--..-.✓- ' - - t _y '-` .�L�Y���'.Y•�'�,t `y.'� �'' +.X .ac=�` ^�' :� .-,t.►���7�.^^ a-+.r �YY v� 1c�r:e. �.r,lZ'�- -e*�,7_ ^t'T s "' -Ge►:�1�.3", �-r..$ c 'S�� •,+,�+.� �.':��`ri�ar^` �- .:!_�.='1 h-��',..J�;0.�,+' _ )., '.�L,� tifr�+.:;>,�;a ra-_ 71ssa''i� •• _,..-'L��••T•.;,,a K '�..2'v - �C v+�''.;�r-ty.�-c " �:.�.'-_=r tr.'����.�'tyya�•x...�-1t'' .a s `�tiS'q��:.saT.« a,,,`t�:,y�r{ � ids �C � i.� - ,-� � +.nS�V..�"� `S:t+T�� .S _ ,,•r"z , ,--e'+�=,,mac--�4y, ' i.. -, -_ }i; »�'• � _�'sj: ':i:y ^t'4• ':Q.;2:•i: -y �»• r7: �• �,:i-'{�'c :!•ii i: i::� .�i.; '{t-}:'sf' - +.:•i���=.j:{_ �-•c. ..F3:=-` .� :,-1:� :::o:� 3.4�..?ti{ '��\. +.r. <e.•'::, .e>a' tw`%' • .�•r C: � }��y��...4c•..is j�t.,--.. ��'• .. ?r.�•�X+: �1-s.. �� ?.r^• - ri i. _ -i`�5....�• _^1��� �i'� i-ot. 'i..y:' _�•'•-.�x�^a?.'.a:rT.►4 .-��� s..�. fir... `'��::i+\.�_ ?' _n.se �,' •_ i C�'�:ti.;�•�1�� - �:3J'['� :i�=s,���i�y-W'_'.:5��rr��r `�c�i--stir'L•r�"s�`.z.-'��=:��1_ r.- �.� Bitt•.fi' T -.r4.._ `v .}�'a �..,?� �.f•- �' : s _ .- 'a'r`�y,`-.t .J� '...afr :.. arb'i .,'-�"`t'- Y•+r_ r....� . r� ... ���s 1�--.x�•�- .,��•�1 .� �-ni;�•.e�'.r..�Z?f_"2^ � �L� 3- a1 i� cX:'- •! "��• -•!':'� 4s'1 .l '-1.�. T�h ` --�� } v..s 'iL� Y�L%-- YI x •� �� -•'��''r Nr��_.--.5 ;t.�.c,�k��:�:'�• ,��-4 - �_- Z ���.A_.::••»r.'L� '•z'"�.4 .���3.+^'1-'N�9�5!..J�• -_:"-__ ` --z�-c�>-•— '�-�'- -t-�^� t� ]�"";�- _ r w -•. t "��15•.;`C`-us.::=��Y�'2:'�-e, s.. -'�-� - _' - - •.t � •�!�ti ate.:- Y- -..f _ 4 _ '�- ��-. _ r` r-1-� •' w'.'a»�<L-^..4:i��_t•_: a:;,: r 2;- - f- C 5- Shea should'_have the zone change on the 4 acres zoned.for� industrial -to _ build single family_dwellings'on the north parcel_ of the Seacliff.Shopping Center r Rational: Better homes than apartments and more commercial. Please accept these recommendations for 'the continued quality of living we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sinr_erly, /� r-c Gav d Sul cc�� 7 Page 2 Trung Le and Family F�� 6701 Country Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 November 29, 1997 Mr. Ed Kerins, R E C E I V t Mr. Tom Livingood, D EC 0 91997 Mr. Fred Speaker, Ms. Haydee Tillotson, DEPARTMENT OF Mr. Gerald Chapman, CON'."1UNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Phil Inglee, Mr. Bob Biddle Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Lady and Gentlemen, Several disturbing items to us were presented in the Seacliff Homeowner Association meeting on November 20, 1997.We are vigorously OBJECTING to the following items: Item 1. Open of Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection. Item 2. There is no off-street public parking for the park off Summit. Item 3. Increase density in the Montecito and Greenbier development from single family_ homes to apartment units or town homes.. The reasons for our objections are: Item 1. Open Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection will greatly increase traffic through the Beacon Hill-Lawn Haven-Surfdale area.This area is very hilly,mostly downhill and extremely dangerous with increased traffic.These streets have many children. Local Smith Elementary buses stop several times a day at the comer of Church and Surfdale. A very large number of school children waits and plays at the bus stop in the morning. The homes along this path are typically owned by large family but they do have short driveways. Thus the potential for accidents is significantly higher. Even an occasional increase traffic is dangerous for all of these reasons. There are dead-end streets or hilly streets with sharp turns.With increased traffic, the dangerous paths are from Surfdale to Silver Beach, out to Summer Breeze then to Little Harbor. But we believe the increased traffic will put the residents on both Surfdale and Evening Drive in significant jeopardy,and potentially may cause several accidents in the area. Trung Le and Family 6701 Country Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Page 2 of 2 Item 2. No off-street public parking for the park off Summit This is going to force local residents and soccer field teams to park on the street to access the park. Without any off-street parking,the residents using the park will be parking off Beacon Hill and Lawn Haven and clogging these streets. Beacon Hill is just too narrow for any street parking. Item 3. High-density usage of Montecito or Greenbrier is simply not acceptable.The original plan called for single family homes.Why was this changed?What is the impact of 485 units? What are the requirements on public services?Our local school system is already choked and jammed with the recent increase of school children in the area, what is the long-term impact of high-density usage?The apartments will damage the value of existing homes not only along Summit but also north of Garfield and east of Goldenwest. We understand this is unacceptable for the residents in those areas also. The Seacliff Homeowner Association has been very constructive in working to continue the quality of life in the area. We support their following recommendations.The key items we recommended are: A. DO NOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-way intersection. B. Open Saddleback to Summit for better access by Montecito and Greenbrier. C. Create off-street parking for soccer field off Summit D. High-density usage of Montecito or Greenbrier is simply NOT acceptable. There is a benefit of an increase in tax base for single family homes versus the public services burden of 485 apartments. Better homes than apartments! We believe this will greatly damage the value of homes in the area.This change from the original plan will upset the families that have purchased the new homes around Montecito. PLEASE accept these recommendations. We believe they are constructive and considerate. They will help us support you in maintaining the quality of living that we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sincerely yours, Trung Le and Family l.ii1�7-�� 1�lO. 1 Stephen B. Bernstein,M.D., F.A.C.C. Mark J.Castellanet,M.D., F.A.C.C. James R. Licht,M.D., F.A.C.C. Adrian H.Shandling,M.D., F.A.C.C. Diplomates,American Board of Internal Medicine RE CARDIOVASCULAR CAM, INC Diplomates.Suhspecialty Board of Cardiovascular Disease A M E D I C A L C O R P O R A T I O N 3801 Karelia Ave.,Suite 401, Los Alamitos,CA 90720 2840 Long Beach Blvd.,Suite 330,Long Beach,CA 90806 (562) 598-3200 FAX(562) 799-3646 C� 7 MA�1819 COU oFpq 9g May 11, 1998 MUN�JyRp�VF`�P '4Fr Catherine O'Hara Planner Department of Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: GREENBRIAR/MONTECITO DEVELOPMENT Dear Ms. O'Hara: I am writing about the Greenbriar/Montecito development. As I understand it, there are currently three plans under consideration for the development of this property. The plan that would seem to be to be the most expedite and prudent would be the low-density housing plan with a five house per acre ratio. I understand that this is the alternative II plan. Furthermore, with the big Seacliff shopping are coming into being in the next year or two, it would seem appropriate that a smaller commercial area be utilized in the Greenbriar/Montecito development. The address where I can be reached is at 3801 Katella Ave, Suit 401, Los Alamitos, CA, 90720. Sincerely, (�A&�W James R. Licht, M.D. JRL:dt WN MUNIURVIbm Bid%ca 9No February 4, 1998 Shirley Dettloff,Mayor ProTem City of Huntington Beach City Hall P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Ms. Dettloff: My name is Chi-Shuang Liu,and I am a residence of the Hamptons at Huntington Beach. I am writing to you to express my objection to PLC's proposal plan to expand the commercial area on the Garfield, GoldenWest comer from 7 to 9.5 acres. Since this area Is mostly made up of residential homes,PLC's plan to increase the density per acre In the Montecito will substantially increase traffic along Garfield, GoldenWest and Edwards. This could mean heavy traffic flows and higher accident rates. it will also have a big impact on the traffic around the newly planned school at the comer of Garfield and Saddleback. I truly feel a large commensal site is not needed in residential area because it will cause a greater inconvenience for the residence rather than bringing benefit. For example, commercial site necessitates late deliveries, noise and trash. My other main concern is that the crime rate in our area might rise due to the commercial activities.This might cause a drop In our home value since it is not a quiet and safe neighborhood anymore. Please reconsider your decisions because the approval of this plan will greatly affect the living standards of our area. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, ZI-11- emu`'*1� Chi-Shuang Liu l RE °% EIVE ® FEB 09 1998 City of Huntington Beach City Council Office NO. Alls� Hui Wig Lki 6831 Turf Drive Wart wjbon Beach,Ca 92M .January 19, 1998 Mary Beth Broeren,Senior Planner R EC E I V E City of Huntington Beach City Hall P.O.Box190 JAN 2 21998 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DEPARTMENT Cr Dear Ms. Broeren: CC)NI MUNITY[)EVE!QP%I:--` My name is Hui Ming Liu,and I am a residence of the Hamptons at Huntington Beach. I am writing to you to express my objection to PLC's proposal plan to expand the commercial area on the Garfield, GoldenWest comer from 7 to 9.5 acres. Since this area is mostly made up of residential homes, PLC's plan to increase the density per acre in the Montecito will substantially increase traffic along Garfield, GoldenWest and Edwards. This could mean heavy traffic flows and higher accident rates. tt will also have a big impact on the traffic around the newly planned school at the comer of Garfield and Saddleback. I truly feel a large commercial site is not needed in residential area because it will cause a greater inconvenience for the residence rather than bringing benefit. For example, commercial site necessitates late deliveries, noise and trash. My other main concern is that the crime rate in our area might rise due to the commercial activities.This might cause a drop in our home value since it is not a quiet and safe neighborhood anymore. Please reconsider your decisions because the approval of this plan will greatly affect the living standards of our area. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, 1 Hui Ming Liu ,l � � C�/ V� Jq N 07 1998 November 41,�p�%,YC r-jr. .G.av Silver, City Planning o-Un M/7,0 Qch Huntington Reach, CA Dear Mr. Silver, ar trie Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, ��'►�erai disturbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement were exposed. [Zany were startling changes from the first and second presentations. Tnev are as follows. 1 a) opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, ! o) eleminating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk way , 2) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public par!� ing, 7) increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single far. I homes to 485 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to Townhomes, A) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of Garfield and Golden West. 5) Shea to develope single family homes north of Seacllf f shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now %oned for industrial. These arP recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: I a- DONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-way intersection ta- Open Saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier ►rational: Rack-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would impact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's Surfdale as a- through street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the children that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill 2- Create off-street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven 3- High density useage of Montecito and Greebrier property is not _ acceptable BUT if it is to go through, switch the plans , i.e. Greenbrier to - rlontec i to --Hontec i to-to Greenbrier - - queston Why was this adopted from the original plans from single r �fM y homes-?}Consider the increased tax base for single family homes vs the,impact'on public services of 485 apartments Return to the�original acreage for commercial zoning - R� .j 1 - Rational It should be a convaence center not a ma or sho in center_ 2. 661 half.mile _away and another2 a mile away Pages �x W�� j3 �k. tiL aT`� +`G ,�.,?� ,s X•'.y-2. . C'�''.'✓ %'� .�, - -; -•�.s .,- 7v �.`. 5�'•-• s FrG.������'+.�' 7 i�'= ,tea-�tF'�� �.'w �-r-� r .:.s"'''+���.`� �-•r•,•t'�Cy �3 - � -� �i-�L'� 1 _ ''�,-,_ •sr- ---�-r[ w...yi K.T`��,, '-," - �-"✓ _ ": w `7f- :}�.. .A 'n.. }.r.;,.o a� ''..J3E4T! mac- _ �,�,_' ��, .ari��-,,,�.�'.'"• �•? -s..'.,;1-_�S''S1�yT�='%"�-'j- .�'F �Y µ � � �;'vt"�r"s� �',� a.ti. ..� � � _ � ^� � •_`:_ ��� ,s �� . _1 t"—"�y.: 'mot .E :fie S ai/7.�. •F�_ •,f�;�- - -. KK�'.prrr•.-..�-'�� �•'.5��3:����+�iq.����'?'a�'�7�`��'1 •--- '- i --^-�`}��Tim' �eiN�t �`�+� �.'`�r�Y'-.'a�'�. �.���'�i�-�_rt ��'Y •'.La,`^?•z__.,._ �=.,_•1nrR;.:T��FJ�•-= f.5=� '•'''..f`--���•- r�=�._ W -WO ,VCR piza ............. -7T 5— Shezi should have-th6 tone change on the 4 acres zoned for industrial build single fim' ' ily.dwellihgs on the north parcel of the.Seacliff,Shop"i ng Center - Rational: Better homes than apartments and more commercial. Please accept these-recommendations for the continued quality of living we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sincerly, cc David Sullivan Page 2 RE :% EIVED MAR 23 1998 Date:3119198 City of Hunting�4n Beach City Council Office To: The Honorable Ralph Bauer, City Councilman From: Paul McLeod, 17081 Newquist Lane, Hunt. Bch, Ca. 92649 Re: Shea Homes proposed development of former MWD Land (aka "The Bean Field"; Graham/Slater) Dear Ralph: You know me as an honorable and concerned citizen, co-founder of Save Our Kids,the youth sports advocacy group, and one who has lived in the same home adjacent to The Bean Field for 19 years. I am a citizen who is deeply concerned and committed to preserving and improving the overall quality of life in our city. I see no viable value for a project this size in our part of the city. Coupled with the massive development plans on the former Meadlowlark Airport site, this project will increase both automobile and foot traffic. The proposed street outlet onto Graham St. with a street light will be a another hazard on an already busy street for hundreds of school children who walk to Marine View School each day, or walk to elementary school bus stops at Marine View. The outlet will clog traffic lines all the way back to Warner southbound during rush hours and well beyond the current two stop signs on the southern side of Graham toward Slater. This will increase noise and air pollution in nearby residential neighborhoods and will contribute to increased road rage (aka passing on the right at speeds of 60 miles an hour),which is already a problem in this area. The city's possible solution will be to make Graham a four-lane street,but this will further worsen noise pollution and make it even more or a hazard for kids to get to school safely. Because larger,upscale homes are slated for this project, chimney smoke, air, soil and water pollution in this area will increase. Additionally,the builder proposes to bring in five to 10 feet of fill dirt and build on top of it, thereby constructing-these homes high above existing neighborhoods. This will increase runoff into existing areas, block current views and ocean breezes. The project has the potential to add several hundred additional children to Marine View Middle School, which, according to the principal,has already reached its max enrollment. A portion of this parcel actually juts INTO THE BOLSA CHICA,where a large number of homes are slated to be built. Sure, it's not officially recognized as part of the Bolsa Chica, but if this project goes forward, large homes will, in fact, be built right down into sensative wetland areas and they will have the appearance of being placed in the Bolsa Chica and be highly visable from Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue. Ralph. For years, Save Our Kids has made you well aware of the shortage of Playing sites in this neighborhood. Currently, there are NO CITY PARKS with playing fields within walking distance of the neighborhoods that will be most impacted by this new development. Marine View School, which is deteriorating at a rapid pace do to max enrollment and poor advance development planning by the school district when it converted to middle schools, and a small attached kiddie park are the only open field space available. On any day in my neighborhood you can see dozens of boys and girls of all ages playing catch in the streets, setting up roller hockey competition with nets in the streets, placing basketball hoops on curbings and shooting around in the streets, flying kites in the streets or kicking a ball around in the streets BECAUSE THERE IS NOWHERE ELSE TO GO! Recently, I had a chance to review a copy of a letter from your city council colleague Dave Garofalo in regards to the above mentioned proposal. It was obvious after reading Mr. Garofalo's letter in support of this project that he once again has jumped on a bandwagon before doing his homework. A copy of the letter is attached. Items A, 1-3,B, C,D, E of Mr. Garofalo's letter appears to be stretching for an excuse to write said letter. These items deal with sewer improvement THAT HAVE NO DIRECT BEARING ON WHETHER THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE APPROVED. All of these things could be done without building a single home in the field. Infact, they DONT NEED to be completed AT ALL. Item F deals with improved public access to the flood control channel. Public access for whom?Locals? On any given Sunday the westerly curb along Graham St. south of Slater are filled with cars with their owners walking along the flood control channel. The channel is a popular biking and hiking spot for locals already. It does not need to be changed. Item G. It is my understanding that the "dedicated parksite"will be nothing more than a green belt built to buffer current block wall fences of homes that abutt the bean field. A small parcel of land at the northwest corner below the current line of trees on the hill is to have a single backstop, but no other developments. softbaInThis project should include enough viable acreage to include lighted playing field big enough to encompass-a minimum of two regulation size soccer fields, six basketball and/or volleyball courts and four fully developed baseball fields, including backstops. Please consider these factors when you vote on this project. Thank you for your ' e. L_NT NO. 1 .1 S cc: SOK;Neighbors q-f'V 1 Martin and Denise Menichiello 6591 Horseshoe Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE °q E I V E D January 29, 1998 FEB 05 1998 Ralph Bauer Mayor City of Huntington Beach City Council Member City Council Office City of Huntington Beach P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Ralph, The recent PLC proposal to allow building at a higher density than originally approved at Garfield and Goldenwest was just brought to our attention. The increase from 15 units per acre to 23 units per acre is a huge differenceT We have a serious concern over the traffic problems ahead of us with the current plans for this area. The proposal to increase the amount of residents in the area appears to be one we just should not consider. The growth in this area has been done with good taste and thoughtful planning. We believe this is apparent by the beautiful new communities around Seacliff and Edwards Hill. Please do not lower your standards now. We can already see a tremendous traffic increase in our area, not only on the major streets, but also in our residential areas. Please,let's not compound the problem. Thank you, Martin and Denise Menichiello 714-841-4272 -;r ,CIAMENT NO. P�:�1 JAN 07 1998 City of Huntington Bea ral ovember 21 . 1997 mr. Pay Silver, City Planning City Council Offir' Huntington Beach, CA Dear Mr. Silver, 4.t the Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, c-.4veral disturbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement were exposea Manv were startling changes from the first and second presentations. Tney are as follows. la) Opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, It)) eleminating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk way , 2) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public parking, 3) increased densitv in the Montecito develpoment from single arnliv homes to 485 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to Townhomes, 4) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of i-arfiFld and Golden West. 5) Shea to develope single family homes north of Seacliff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now %onea for industrial. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: i a- OONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-way intersection lb- Open Saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier ►rational: Back-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would impact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's Surf dal e as a through street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus ,jepardizing the children that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill 2- Create ofi:. street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven 3- High density useage of Montecito and Greebrier property is not acceotable,_.BUT if it is to go through, switch the plans i.e. Greenbrier to -Montecito-,'_Montecito to Greenbrier question Why.was- this adopted from the original plans from single family homes? Consider.the.increased tax base for single famly homes vs -� :the im _act-onpublicservices of-485 apartments _ - x`�° 4� Return to the original acreage for commerctai _zoning r Rational lt-should be.a convience center, not:a major shopping centers -.' - i_Qnly_half._mile away and anotherY2 il a me away - .- Paget 'c` h '� 1' z- -a..i� ',iL�'s •c_ ,.vL ..1tiy- - ..r-sT_-e= '.'. qT" - -r -� v�-�^� _ '�.1- v.> .� ys' Q -s y /6'X .t. • .1'-.Fr 'r"�3 Y j-• -�.-�. �Y 7' 7-..13�- } t �JT+b+. . '''>-t 't;u_-.!-_Y=y: id^y ��-1 • �1. '� _• ' nLR y`--tip.�.^sP- ` �,J�'�R��. -^�'• 1 4=x�y. F r-M�S.'9F ',+t. �ff�fe _.•''�-��, sj-tit 6�ti xl' ^Lz '^. '�JTi� _ ft ' �i+_ s,5y � ^tar- ' ',cr..ts� Q z < _ 'a°.S�``'�3-.f*�i �'�,. _c+ d - { ,�4c.- •-T,� ':.�_r'.aC"'' -''v iti'„ `7�'x ,._ J#. � •- �z. '� � r�l.. � v c���'�.lr•1.�� -i 3-rt x _ - .i�,.1 !_.:_.y..�r>�1 �-s�j' '�',.,.. yu y Z..L��y-•- • t'+ly' i..l-it •�. �til�'i-� " ra ,-�.F f'c'�.s:*�,..�•�-'4��_ Ti�'�� `F � •f.C�j19..-'i�i.+r�..q•r'-�-'�-'' .�2%S=—' =�� �'�ti_�yr��. .� - - .. f� ._'�?� �'.�F .J'T.. f j,'��.��-P+n,«.r �rf'�=cC y'�:_rg'a_�'•" f.� k'S7S,l= r=� .1' ! J.'r-. 4n ... .:L....a .. Y.=tc.'ssti 3:-�'.r`aL•Lafi ..� f... !Y.,,='c`<,: ,+.tir<;: -" 1.•t {�,_L�•'+�>i�.cr2� .y�''�--K���'� ' ->:,y...i_=a"�� y. .mot _ _ _. .e•. � tfy� "1..� 1 t' - -.''_ �.�j.{`�e�,.�-�'�> _ _' '!.•=^_l.rf ,.,,�"t.r �s�_2 � 4s'TF-sue--' �e j:!_�'.^"s.�" wv.t'- 'r .t - ��.�-x� .�•lt,; �I .S"^s',. �. ] _iy. �.1.. °x VT —2-� .,..•��� '1 ems, x. ^+�� r-Zr.k a- .camas- •w_=1's.t t+.�y'��`?�`.-�-:.^'- �--C..�Si„'. ,. �s.�`�.".s��'�aL�.�� _ ��. {. ur`S� .• r. - � �'t x� j s:x � n �`a ^,-T `,f v Y... -,F •�,!�ti== i=z=� rtL� '^'9'•- _ -�_:r�?.�•�t� � �.,,_ ��•t�•j""`�'1' ,v.�-`-iil._....,. IF— J 'r' - s r t- � -..5���� .i� - '.: 3 'T'aS ��i��'S!i 1-•ti.rj u�:_ �.—t- ,r .Y � - 3- :.tom �_,..`,✓ �.a X"'+aly�. �,y��� _ -7 '�.L'-�^��- y '� • 5- Shea should have the zone`change on the4 acres zoned for industrial to""'-- - build sin le .famil &e' llin• s'on' the north arcel,�of the Seacliff_Sho in- 1 z} 9 Y 9 P PP 9 Center: _ _ Rational: Better homes than -apartments and more commercial.' Please accept these recommendations for the continued quality of living -. we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sincerly, rc David Sullivan Page 2 ANT NO. f4 �` 1 f%` �� --- \; �� 1 '� , � tyltii!/Slvl��t� �•• '°"iv:t�V f.,"%'f . • �1"yam' � �, � •, �•; c`i , ►�' lN '�,r '�,� N!4�� �,�' �� N! �N Mai ��• ��$ .i ' ,�a �'' �• ` �sw•oti s.o .�� n e r,,l o�V .,► e q�,►rn►.. u� rr,, r ..�. ..� , , �b.iy;.,y r�ti�•�31� ■. � �{I � a'Z t' `.1 ���4 1,' � �•.i�.....fir, � ,rl •.1 i� i• �- �:• l �1,,,, �� �� p. ��71t 6• � I}?� � .'. n 0 1.'1—..; ,ti '� ��. r, cl •I i r �5 r �i� !• � r f;► •�• ��SS.��t�Yrk;w 1F� 'iu �./�� y/�1�1.� C ' t, , ,;� � ��,i .. :, ;� r1► `, ,; i f1i • swings GRIINBRIAR TOWNHOMIS ,� 1 � '► ,r • •, 'fir' MLWAqAf • �J�141°�'1j ,j �Z� •11 ,mad; •' •°ffi,,`,�'' ! ! �i���� J' .:.,.° -' ilk :.i1�',,,a I ,,,;•� i i RECEiVEC JAN 07 1998 City of Huntinpn Beach November 21 . 1 cpty Council Office it �;:��: �:ivrr• i_itV Planning hi r,rit r,r i Rrarh i_A r i r i v;r r hr,rtlenwn?r AsSa_lation meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, reveiarinr,s regarninQ the Hollv Seacliff developement -�� 4-*.r:c-se,' -lari„ were startling changes from, the first and second ;n;,\: ,;,e az fojlovus. la) Openlnq Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, I �ierninnrinq puns for Sandleback t0 be a through Street but a Walk rraatino a park on the quake fault area without off street public r:a, ` tn� :nrreas?o r!ensl.ty In the Montecito develpoment from single ►-,r,r;,ir.s rr, -185 urotS and Greenbrier from single family homes to mcreasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of lo anp; Golden West. 5) Shea to develope single family homes north shopping ranter, of ;which four (4) of those acres are now rr?M Trir industrial. r,ese Bra recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: .- OONOT tiS hr-aron Hill as a 4-way intersection toen iieoack to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier uattcn �l: E,ack-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would tr;�r it nr Summit_ inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's rfdale ;.rtrounn Street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and rt,r•K rown( wr)i n 1s a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the -:n0or-en that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill %- r_rrate off-street parking for soccor field and park activities Pat,nnal: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a r,-1�,a to park. on Lawn Haven ;- High density useage of Montecito and Greebrier property is not acceptaole, BUT if it is to go through, switch the plans , i.e. Greenbrier to 11cintecito , Montecito to Greenbrier Ouestion: Why was this adopted from the original plans from single family homes? Consider the increased tax base for single family homes vs Me impact on public services of 485 apartments. 4- Return to the original acreage for commercial zoning. Rational: it should be a convience center not a major shopping center with 1 only half mile away and another 2 a mile away. Paget ;•i1 Y'ti:'• �.-• ��• 'i':'?i:'4 'y.i'.�5 :i;. - = :T�\=`- :et4♦:•:v:<^ - _ ;:S(:; :yi•ji:T j�l. .!•... -.�r,.�-�:ICC�..5:E"1.•:. ♦ h•- •>` \�.. 4 .' _ :;;;;�:_.^'- `. rSi:='%-ri�i3-=•�.�.�t J --.�-J.!>__r`c.1_••->-•.YX•�'�_ ''=•�c�>:<:t.y Ji>>-ti�C,a.�'+�.•.>�s,cyy t'NJZ,.�d... .t`i�r��`,Y_'c_" •1y "� I.Aml 4 'r_ S.'�r c �.L.•%+ '' *:= a -i.t=i i. ���.�.•�+-. r:-��...w�d �'--- '`�C--:�.� �� j �.�'; �i�'.�4�i';X_•'__'�t'-ter--�t� �^=�s4-�^j; :�.��� ,vtJ _-rL.!:r.'�-?�:'�♦'.r^'�s:l=, vim:'a�-�."�;, x` ..e:-_TJ`��-�._.r.k.�.._�=.f -� _-�`'frt. er�..l ,...+c..� �":i� t.. P�, ;'.'.sR' _ r -n-�'`3'3".a''��,�.'t'�""tst - - •-- i =`may.-i- _ _ .-_s .�`.,. _i ::.: v•� -:y`r+ iT'La.. cc� .� .f`.1•���Y ^--,�='=G.Y � _'�,>c- -.�+` _ " �...T �-�w:y�.�, _�-L -����!'xC�,�Tr-...y � �....:a_._ . ��1,�,.. _+��^^•-- f .-,4'` "�i�_ r - �-`•r�i�=.•_.- - �`•':r.-s' z-+c T-.._..�.;y..._���-..t,C` �_��T-z-,a.:.M_ Z'}�r'i_ _�����. '�- `� t~ ♦`,t. ?' v. .,4 .. .—ti. "�' 57 Shea should have the zone chan a on the 4 acres zoned for industrial to _ build single family dwellings on the north parcel, of the Seacliff.Snopping center Rational: Betterhomes than apartments and more commercial - Please accept these recommendations for the continued quality of living we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sincerly, cc David Sul l ivan J �j✓,7��/L1 '147 S I i� -51 i7o/V EAJ 9a 72- 2��✓.w9 � Q✓_ 1:417 Page 2 November 30, 1997 Mr.Ray Silver City Planning Huntington Beach, California Dear Mr. Silver: Over the past week my neighbors have brought several issues to my attention that concern the development of the area immediately north of our homes in the old Lusk Sea Cliff development: I have summarized my main concerns as follows: 1. Beacon Hill/Summit intersection The proposed site map shows this as a 4 way intersection. I strongly oppose this. The Summit/Yorktown intersection is already very dangerous because of sight limitations. Placing high density developments in the Montecito and Greenbrier communities and having them exit/enter from Beacon Hill invites use of the Sea Cliff Lusk development as a bypass of several traffic lights. It also places far too much traffic on Summit,a street designed only as a cross connector. Please consider having these new high density developments enter/exit at Saddleback near Garfield. 2. Park/Soccer Field without off-street parking Users from outside Greenbrier/Montecito have no choice but to park in the Sea Cliff Lusk development. This is absolutely not acceptable. Off street parking should be provided for the type of park proposed. 3. High density Greenbrier/lVlontecito development/Commercial Usage This usage is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods...commercial usage at the SW corner of Garfield/Goldenwest seems particularly inappropriate with the large expansion of the Sea Cliff shopping Center complex. Please consider alternatives! Summary Comment/Suggested Alternative Several of the concerns raised above could be mitigated if the developers of Greenbrier/ Montecito would defer the expense of placing guard gates at the 2 entrances to the Lusk upper Sea Cliff development. My neighbors are all concerned about the substantial negative impact of high density development at our boundaries,including traffic&parking. Developers seem to have gotten their way throughout Huntington Beach in spite of the good intentions of our Planning Commission and Council. We have all been proud of our neighborhood in Sea Cliff and hope that your will act to preserve its integrity. Ales cot.Katfhy Morris 19272 Evening Hill Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 536-4486 cc: Dave Sullivan MARCH 30, 1998 To: Mary Beth Broern, Senior Planner, City of Huntington Beach From: Gilbert and Bonnie Nixon, 6861 Lawn Haven Drive, Huntington Beach, CA, 92648-2134 Subject: PLC Land Company - Revised Planned Changes to Greenbriar and Montecito My wife and I are residents of upper Seacliff . we have reviewed the latest PLC plan for Greenbriar/Montecito (3/25/98 ) and submit the following comments and concerns for your consideration: we view the planned gated entry to Montecito from Summit drive as a serious compromise of the promised buffering of upper Seacliff as specified in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan (HSSP) . Please recall that this buffering was an important sales feature of the HSSP. This planned entry which is in effect an extension of Beacon Hill lane (upper Seacliff' s main entry) into Montecito presents several problems : 1 . It promises traffic congestion with its attendant safety issues in an area that is supposed to be isolated/buffered from the new Montecito development . 2 . It provides an invitation for residents entering and leaving Montecito to use internal upper Seacliff streets to bypass traffic signals on Goldenwest . Upper Seacliff residents have reported this is indeed already happening from Summit drive traffic. 3 . This planned gated entry/intersection would suffer from restricted traffic visibility due to the curving nature of Summit drive, and compounds the intersection congestion and safety situation. NT ['0. l�J This situation may be remedied by providing a gated entry at Saddleback and/or Garfield, combined perhaps with relocation of the Montecito entry on Summit drive to the west . This westward relocation, it seems, would serve to mitigate the previously noted problem areas. We thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Gilbert and Bonnie Nixon 6861 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2134 CC: City Council Members: Ralph Bauer, Shirley Dettloff, Mayor David Garafalo Peter Green Tom Harman Pam Julien Dave Sullivan Planning Commission: Bob Biddle Gerald Chapman Phil Inglee Ed Kerins Tom Livengood Fred Speaker Hay_dee Tillotson Ray Silver, City Administrator: Melanie Fallon, Community Development Jim Engle Community Services ATT,4;C4.M21 NT �10, 1 . �'d s � February 5, 1998 To: Mary Beth Broern, Senior Planner, City of Huntington Beach From: Gilbert and Bonnie Nixon, 6861 Lawn Haven Drive, Huntington Beach, CA, 92648-2134 Subject: PLC Land Company - Planned Changes to Greenbriar and Montecito My wife and I have lived in upper Seacliff for 25 years. Recently, the PLC Land company made known its plans to seek changes in the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan affecting the developments known as Greenbriar and Montecito. The present, approved master plan specifies low density housing for Montecito along Summit drive where Montecito interfaces with upper Seacliff. The plan also specifies access to Greenbriar and Montecito via Garfield avenue, Goldenwest street and Saddleback lane. Montecito's low density housing along Summit and the access to Greenbriar/Montecito via Garfield, Goldenwest and Saddleback were established to serve as a buffer between Montecito and upper Seacliff. This Seacliff buffering approach was an important feature of the original plan, which served to support the plan's acceptance and ultimate approval. PLC's planned changes to Greenbriar/Montecito would discard this low density housing buffer and replace it with a 450 unit apartment complex! Further, PLC is proposing to extend Beacon Hill lane, the primary access to upper Seacliff, into Montecito for use as Montecito's primary access. We view these proposed changes by PLC as serious breach of promise and trust, and as a threat to upper Seacliff "neighborhood" environment. It bears repeating that the low density housing buffer along Summit drive and the Garfield/Saddleback access to Montecito were important features in the approval process for Holly-Seacliff Mater Plan. PLC should be denied in its attempts to renege on this agreement. Specifically, we urge and request the following: * Keep Montecito zoned at low density per the existing plan and maintain the buffering features for upper Seacliff * Keep Saddleback as the only Greenbriar/.Montecito through-street to Summit drive. * Deny extension of Beacon Hill lane into Montecito; keep access to Greenbriar/Montecito housing via Garfield and Saddleback. We thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Gilbert and Bonnie Nixon 6861 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2134 714-53&5068 cc:City Council Members: Ralph Bauer, Mayor Shirley Dettloff,Mayor Pro Tem David Garafalo Peter Green Tom Hannan Pam Julien Dave Sullivan Planning Commission: Bob Biddle Gerald Chapman Phil Inglee Ed Kerins Tom Livengood Fred Speaker Haydee Tillotson City Staff Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator: Melanie Fallon,Community Development February 3, 1998 Mr. Ralph Bauer,Mayor City of Huntington Beach L; s City Hall P.O. Box 190 F E B 1 21598. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Qc APT,ac�'.T C-I': My wife and I have just relocated our faml�y�ii_in_ n%R6n`Beach area in September of 1997. We specifically purchased a home near the intersection of Garfield and Goldenwest because of the low density of the housing and the quiet neighborhood. We are surprised and upset to hear that PLC is proposing a high density development in the"Montecito"Area near our new home changing the original development plan from 15 units per acre to 25 per acre. We moved from a high density area to this area primarily to get away from the conjestion and the crime that seems to be associated with high density! We see the City of Huntington Beach as a city of quality developments and this proposal would only hurt the City in its efforts to establish a reputation as a beautiful and safe place to visit and reside. The City has done a good job of planning to attract residents, businesses, and tourism but we do not believe that it is in the best interests of the City to mix and match high density and low density developments, particularly in one of the most beautiful and well designed"one of a kind"residential areas in Orange County. This is our sincere request City of Huntington Beach DO NOT APPROVE the request to increase the density from 15 units to 25 units per acre in this area! Sincerely, Gary and Frances Okura 6842 Hitchingpost Circle Huntington Beach, Ca. 93648 COPY TO: City Council Members Planning commission Shirley Dettloff,Mayor Pro-Tem Ed Kerins David Garafalo Tom Livengood Poeter Green Fred Speaker Tom Harman Haydee Tillotson Pam Julien Gerald Chapman Dave ullivan Phil Inglee Bob Biddle Beth Broeren, Senior Planner Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Community Development A►�i►�,CH Vi"ENT NO. "Y`� Pj Zeel *fee omel)4 2u s asfoclaa Tom Livingood, Melanie Fallon May 17, 1998 City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Tom, Melaine and Other Planning Commissioners: I am writing this letter as President of the Huntington Beach Hamptons Homeowners Association. This letter summarizes the concerns of over 100 homeowners that were raised at our monthly homeowners meetings. We are pleased to see that both new proposals [Alternative #1 and #21 have lower density housing than the original or current plan. We are concerned with the commercial site and the request to increase it from 7 gross acres to 11 gross acres, in both PLC Alternative #1 and #2. The larger commercial site will allow PLC to rent to a larger market that Would be open 24 hours a day. If this happens, there would be additional noise during the day and all night with traffic and trucks delivering product to the market. Larger trucks are diesel powered and make considerable more noise than gas powered trucks. If there were a market additional light would be generated for any neighbors across the street on Garfield and Goldenwest. The barriers mentioned in the report would not be sufficient to stop light and loud noise at night. Our expensive homes would now have additional noise and light to keep us awake at night. ATAUmil' NT NO. . is 3, C) The larger commercial site will increase the traffic congestion on Garfield and Goldenwest. We disagree that there would be less than significant impact with increased vehicle tips at the commercial site. Currently at night the traffic slows and the noise is reduced after working hours. With the larger site and a market the traffic will not subside after work. The traffic will continue into the night with vehicles going into the market at all hours. We disagree with the report that the noise levels would have less than significant impact on the homes adjacent to Garfield and Goldenwest. Will the delivery trucks be restricted to delivering product to the market during working hours only? What about weekend noise and traffic? The commercial site is not conducive to the residential area surrounding the proposed project. Why is a commercial site needed at all? The Seacliff Shopping Center Project is moving forward and a large market is going into that new project. We do see the need for an additional market across the street. There are more than enough super markets in the area. We would like to see the contiguous areas remain residential and not commercial. The aesthetics in the area will change from a neighborhood of homes, to a large 24 hour commercial site with shopping carts and noise. Please reconsider and accept proposal #1 or#2 but eliminate the commercial site entirely. We want the entire area and all its contiguous parts of the neighborhood to look alike, like a family neighborhood. Thank You for the consideration. ,4tzlv, /,z Andrew Pieter President, Huntington Beach Hamptons Homeowners Association 6916 Turf Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ATTACHMENT N''0. .5:9L i - 1 JAN 07 1998 Gityof Huntington Beach 6702 Country Circle URy Council Office Huntington Beach, CA 92648 December 8, 1997 of Hr-rr►t!ngton Beach 1`Iiin `treer D.G. Box 1 90 F-: r,r -,Qt.?n Beach i:a, 97648 ;r -%irs ana Madams. i :art, �'-riciclsinq a copy of a letter 1 generated after the November 20, 1997 or me ::eacl !ff Horne Owners Association. Also available is the "Xir� frrim tn;-, nomec:wners 1f you wish a copy. ,_C,mmi.;nity is very concerneri about the Impact the Issues ,listed in tarter. will have 1n the near and distant future. We are already seeing an in re=.used traffic on Surfdale by drivers avoiding the two lights at curt mit and Yorktown on Golden West. One issue not addressed in the jerrar. 1s the concern for chll(iren's safety at the school bus stop at 511rtdaie ana Church. This came to my attention as I spoke to the nieghbors passing out the letter for thier signatures. .: cornr'miniry is not an immediate creation. It survives, long past our nave witnessed this in Downey , where I lived and was -:-,mr•r,�-rr,,r�, 1nvc:l�ied for ii, vFars some 20 years age and have lived to see, �,Fa► s later now poor and snort sighted decisions can ruin a city. There is rot., 1_ijrp . Nc.lw Huni mgt-on Beam t)as a unique opportunity to learn from the of the past ana not repeat them. Let future generations praise our aec rs!ons not curse them. �+im. ;' :anr; uatr1r13 vi1ette _1_.. r-Iernr_ers of City Council Asst. City Administrator i-lemoers a-' Planninn_ Commission 1-1ty oministratory . � S I 1 �, '+ _ � ,� �.w .� �� �O � o .� tt O d o�V P 9 '•► e n 11.. �, i ► ..o ' NI c , `�,.L�,�/, i` i1�P/t'�IVI $s• �n G O { Q QR(1 d O �� t. : �'� G 11 1�1 .i•, �, c �' �' ' a ► � � .1 ? — � .p :NCI � .t d 1 `` ''r�.tir � ►'tf��� .a I d ,; t► I� '.1 1 1 \ �� � � I/ I� r '1� :� �I it rl ' •• 1 f � � • /* Ulr • f• I �a� � t��t� � ��� r A /■{o• � t� ;� 1 Z � L �1j� � it ri 1 ( r► (i I I t�� N I � r _ S � 11 / � �d' � . .. �: ..•�°��°ovs.reea1eQG��..:�..... • ;r ��a �� b� �'� I Ilp 1 1, � � ' �a��i�� '� Apr �•'F �{ •�!, � S I �� >tt��� �,�b,�! vj a"7!r .a�u �; .+ �' ir ., �e �� I �,ov^ ,,,;., 'j •��;, fit, � of �.��. . 1kv�+a ��ii( f�/'q�' �I • 1 16 ♦ .�` I���• t.Jir.. � { rl _ �_ I / � �` ��/. - _� November 21 . 1997 .-ir R v titivPr-• City Nlarining Hur!Nrincon Beacn. C-A. yr tns:. S,z-acliff homeowner's .Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, � verai (yisri!rr)ing revelarlons regarding the Holly Seacliff developement Were �:x.posea r,•lanv were startling changes from the first and second rrr?;entat{ _,ns. Tr,r-v .ire as fcdlows. la , Dpeninq Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, o1 elerninalung pirvis for Saradleback to be a through street but a walk w ak, , 1, 1 rreatinq _3 park on the quake fault area without off street public i-,arL: mr_. : :r increaser) Iensiry in the Montecito develpoment from single rnrry nomeS d85 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to ,)wnnornes, zi) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of rf1eld ana Golden West. 5) Shea to develope single family homes north 5eac!iff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now -.f,r„?,l ror inrikistrial. Tr,asF are recommenoations for changes in these afore mentioned items: ' ;3- UONOT use r.N;.�rnn H111 .35 a 4-way intersection n- r:roen 5aadieoack to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier watiOn- F:.- Ck:-rjp Zit traf fir signal at Summit and GoldenWest would tr;3r fir nn jijrriRlsr lr;viting rrafftC r0 useUpper Seacllff's Surfdale -,_ .; r,rouon srraar -,, :avoid the: 2 traffic signals at Golden West and ri,t'*krown( Wnirn lti a very dangerous left turn area), Thus jepardizing the tnat irve on Surfaale at the intersection of Evening Hill _- 1•,-.ate riff street parking for succor fie!d and park activities .�tinn�l. There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a to park. on !_4Wn Haven - Hiran density useacl? of Montecito and Greebrier property is not ,.�r*Arer oIe, nU-; if it is to go through, switch the plans i.e. Greenbrier to -tr,nrartt.re i-ionrecitn rn i reenbrier 11ie_ri("n: .WI)v was reds adopted from the original plans from single r.,mt iu homes? Consider the increased tax base for single family homes vs -era rrnpat.r on piiblir sr?rvices of 485 apartments. -�- Keturn to the original acreage for commercial zoning. Garionai: it snou!d be a r_onvience center not a major shopping center wirr, i only haif mile awav and another 2 a mile away. Page ttii tt�v '1�e�Cl•a ( i�v. ��` - tir, a should have the _one change on the 4 acres zoned for industrial to ouild single famiiv dwellings on the north parcel of the Seacliff Shopping +��ntar Rationai: Better homes than apartments and more commercial. .ase accept these recommendations for the continued quality of living wp ali Pnjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. i racer lv, C)avia ~ul l Ivan Page 2 H� TTA1,t.io)iYLfCl d: . ENT NO. Ls Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner City Hall P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 March 17,1998 Dear Ms. Broeren, As homeowners of the Huntington Sea cliff Hampton development,we would like to address the proposed PLC Land Company development plans. The proposed PLC Development of the track between Edwards and Goldenwest on Garfield is both a surprise and disappointment to us. Their plans include°high density' housing, multi- level apartments, attached condos, and a commercial area consisting of a large supermarket, drug store and smaller stores. Through investigation ,we have found these plans are in some conflict with the original specific plan for the area usage that called for lower density and a smaller commercial area. We are aware that a large commercial area is being planned for the old Seacliff Shopping center. This does seem redundant, and over saturation to build another larger shopping area less then 3 blocks away from each center with Beach Boulevard four blocks to the East? Certainly it seems to us as an oversight from your departmentl It will detract from the area and create more traffic that w ill be a potential danger to the children attending the new school across the street at Garfield and Saddleback. PLC does not have to put low cost high density multi level housing, or large commercial shopping area in this track. The City quota"for low income property does not have to be met in this area to the property value of its neighbors. Apparently,the reason for the request for variance, is purely profits margin. The more units higher density that equals more profit. We thought this area would be created with the neighborhood in mind. However, it seems to have succumbed to the highest bidder. Respectfully, )&14 AW. CJI - � Mr. & Mrs. Charies Plhak 6786 Turf Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-847-7223- E Mail CFPJR@AOL RECEIVED JAN 07 1998 City of Huntington Beach City Council OfldBember 21 . 1997 !-jr Gav Salver, City Planning Huntington Reach, CA Dear Mr. S i lver, Ar the Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, si-veral (jjisri!rtong revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement wire exposea Manv were startling changes from the first and second presentati„ns. Tnev are as follows. la) Opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, ! ) eleminating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk wav , 2) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public parking, S) increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single farroly homes to 4$5 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to T ownhomes, a) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of Garf field and Golden .West. 5) Shea to develope single family homes north or 5eacliff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now %ones for-industriai. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: i a- DONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-way intersection 1 b- Open Saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier Rational: Back-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would impact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's Surfdale as a- through street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the children that live on Surfdjle at the intersection of Evening Hill 2- Create off•street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven 3- High density useage of.Montecito and Greebrier property is not acceptable, BUT if it is to go through, switch the plans , i.e. Greenbrier to .::I' ohtecito-,.Montecito to Greenbrier - .. _Question: Why was this adopted from the original plans from single family_homes? Consider.the: increased tax base for single family homes vs the impact on public services of 485 apartments. 4 Return to the original acreage for. commercial i Rkional:.lt should bea convience center not a major shopping center swath ]�onlYhalf mile away and another 2 a mile away pe9eI _•r��y''-'z l"--•�� =�=ya.�:..=a c�°'�,3�i.�,'::_r v _ r-/__'—•�r�_.• c` � '-S t �-.-• � - _f � s y y.-• .a-r._I.:..,..J,1'L� ..,= .ray( T s' i �� :�"f• ty F..n r. ..?"--L � �'�'Y__ `r.,t Y' ? -•J..•{ -- Y'i -7-._r r -. = ' �`. ++..ti+r'.^..; .r._3 i _ :. ( r � .�x.,, +#. xr . •-.tx.�e;-:�..,m s°,., ' ";�" 7 v_ ...}n - _ 'rs't�•7,; ��c� fu '`,i`+.... : _�•% { -iy -['-_ 4'.T .ri'� .. 7'.^J'.'.5• _�•' t TZ.-t` _Jy,� .•••�s/'iy- ---���`` -�-' `�.,r- .�„__r_- ii�"r.�- "'��� •✓+�•' `•-'�`Crs"'t _x'�: 't' �d..'�c{-�`� `"-{ 1 +� ea.y�, _ i-+•{c.{ f4'�'��JY��-:h 7� -. ti��- ..T:'3' :-t S 1 -.:v��-''�sv�� . _-srX�•y`i:,f-.:o��c�-t..� �_ ti - .,� r• .� ' •- -j%�¢ <-.rS'1.c�=�.�'.:.& .`4`tY. `i _ry��.:._,£ n Ql„`- .�r�r t`-w - N.L=r•:,Jr_'-vF,'�i�y f.G•a Yi''•r'�a �%c•- ..r. '"Y:L:i.. •l�a_U- T _'1: .Slc__�/.C=.= w-'r`��:. �- i •. -. K-4i_ ?. �1- Jc.__ .:KF2.._^�i �-.�vYt�. �S.':-"'�T +.,���•� {���:< ai - - - mac- c: - - ♦ •ate >' ��:�"'�Ca: 1�1 Y J w i ' L '�+cN w ,� -�=Y w - ,�T`��: � ,'t• i y~�"y.�-d- �_ �: - Sg..Q+�'i -_e. �-r. - 7�.--�.� ....'fir- � f a. ..r -��s.-��a,�f< �i_f -• .•'.�7�'� ...7� (Y f � t�' X� � k )t. y "��i .• � ���; 'L�! -.T F S`.,�yC� .lYv. _r Y —t{.J+' - ��-�i. .s£�.•*z- ��... 'tiss.,� - F` a• 4�.'�•-�f- '-ci��•��,'�-._ :.- tt�+ — -(,. r F J���,��"r,s. =--v � ycn: ?:�>�, �...- -�,r. y_ '."L. � Lt �,:�t_ - r.•- -a•� .` -� .�'- .'-'.'s'�.a�SLro _ ..-aim. � �:1i *-ate.- Z.y<. r�sy -i j S i T - ,� ..f� •� a.y Cis' "5':I.^`-.�i �r :"^�"* '. �� 5- Shea should have the zone change on.the 4 acres zoned for industrial to r build single family dwellings.on the north parcel-of the Seacliff Shopping , Center - Rational: Better homes than apartments.and more.commercial -, Please 'accept these recommendations for the continued quality of living we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sincerly, cc David Sullivan Page 2 RECEIVED JAN 07 1998 City of Huntington Beach Cc Council Office November 21. 199 1-1r Ray Sliver, City Planning Huntington Beach, CA Dear I-1r. Silver, .At the Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, �.everal c+isturbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement ,�erF exposea i-lanv were startling changes from the first and second presentations. Trey are as follows. ]a) Opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, 1 b) eleminating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk way , 2) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public parking, Ni increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single farroly homes to L55 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to Townhomes., a) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of rfield and Golden West. 5) Shea to develope single family homes north of Seacliff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now %oned for industrial. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: I a- DONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-way intersection i 0- Open Saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier Rational: Back-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would impact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's Surfdale as a- through street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the Children that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill 2- Create off street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven 3- High density useage of Montecito and Greebrier property is not . acceptable, BUT if. it is to'go through, switch the plans , i.e. Greenbrier to rlontecito�., -Montecito to Greenbrier Question. Why was this adopted from the original plans from single - .- -. :famIly__homes!? Consider-the• increased tax base for single family homes vs R the impact on public services of 485 apartments :. af�j �.t° Return to the:original acreage ford commercial zoning .. Per Rationa_1 !t should be a convience center not.a major shopping center _ ` _'vlt3thl:only �ialfJmile�away and another 2 am Ie away t- sPa9e� "-- 7., Ate. �C r 4- 'f -. '���•1• J - J. ip - o'.X.. '.:y� "'�3 t:c"x.. �i.�i_��st5�c.•i �-. - --r- :•-' - G. '-._'_-�i �_ - to ��r-r fi -.,,�a..� ,r -a-=��'�- � " �T�- 3`l~� ��.�':k��.a - a.Yi T'J♦ T� r-r• �,'. `� �r� a _ _ -4•♦. Y _`.k`-1 fit,, - '7 s r.�jl T 7. id a} ti.k. -:v .`.i.'i- �•i I. a+.g,. �.-�." .ram �.��Y. - z^s - _ Z-3 �. :s",y r3 "L. '7.P wT� }'�v ). t RAF.-a --C�'SY _ mva' •�- -" _e _� — r tT'.Cr.•x-�..�'� ��•T>�s.�^ `�.. �^ _ �� +����als��sca�'�"s �7�',? ♦ ')r.r�3' �'.. ..,-i^'+t�-rsl��F+`.-4' ``r-'��' +?��..�1� �-- '`t...5:T�l.`�L*-�'ea'.t_ 1 C2'�i:-='w rL`t�„�Z_'1'�- - -r_--ri `_�v-,-•=�r-..s��si'+s-r�.s.. _=��..`>.3i::-:GL��^__ =.l:rli�-'r.r1�-s_Y:Y.:. .:T' ^' Si'�.r:;(•, •-�•,�t:<�_%::��C.:?�.� r;{�:a.:vS��f'- -T'YS,•�• S`Cf,•P7>�•L�'�;J7= 'i -.t�-:.Fp-'S"V. :3._ /., :.s.:i=�.._ ,'2"' -.4.•...:n�3+. �'.`^�.> >'' ..:,rrs3. K _ems{ � _ - ...:.�.+.c?�.�y -: ...�.'"::..�-4_u.._ �'_• .,+►.... -• �i a'� < �� , W -:, v >." -' y_rJS.•� %tz:_=r.' g -.�.:i. "-`�ia.�f ..+:rt -•3rr .`� 'ai 'ri.fS F'' c -Sx�.3' :'�: ��-tip ice } z- -7.�'.t�". :?!yY'x `i„tyw•�,' a.v. �i'^� 's-^ ti �,, '� _i ...S :�.7�_r'� t ���s-"i'--+��i�� aiT• •„�;�r'� }:� -�i�._,.i t-%_'.x. _'`�?w"+��+f�F'?�: �;(: ''�•-�: :ZtiS=r q -":`:?-�.�:.L - iF -"'ks..`. --�"1'1:•.�..::t �•�ai1.,� r- ''y�+..: ��F-,�,�Gr.��� •i-4 -=.i _ a„�'V'T ��r•Y�`Jt�,a;: =y`. �r., r`- 4 -.t-t+•,a-. -wa_'_' 1jr.-,.`S"'�X _.c +• r'?,'-�.a. �r.:.._'.i• ` ' ice-'-�o.� 't,y ".. ".-R -7. .,.�.� 'i 't c• -.c'. ,_.:r. _rwr� .cF�id�' �.. -Yam,=='=- =F.�-.• ,.5+�. -�':,:' �•:�.z,tM'�^=i�:r.-=- -iY Dsc'.-?�.��f'- l: r•�:^nth: •a-c a �S_ h ,� •_r ¢�..a^•-•�-.�` -`_rs, .. .c� r..��¢ _ ZZZ� ,� .K � ♦ i°• a'i ?�-<"Y ��.�.,ct-,.t.T- �_f _� / :: 2 3 L �.Y'C:` 'z��.`T+- xi - � '� at-• _ .. - .- - .- ... - is-_ .• -'^.-- - � .--_ - .- _ 5- Shea should 4 acres zoned for industrial�to have" he zone change on the build single family:dwell.-ngs on the north parcel of the.Seacliff Shopping. - - -- Center Rational: Better homes than apartments and more commercial = Please accept these recommendations for the continued quality of living _ we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sincerly, cc David Sullivan Page 2 RECEIVED JAN 07 1998 City of Huntingion ember 21. 1997 rir. Pay Silver, City Planning City Council 0��1 Huntington Reach, CA Dear Mr. 511ver, Ar rho. Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, several n►sturbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement we!,e et.nosea r-lanv were startling changes from the first and second presentations. Trey are as follows. 1 a) Opening Beacon Hilt to a 4-way intersection, ! b) eleminating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk way , 2) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public parking, 3) increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single farroly homes to A85 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to Townhomes, a) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of G irfleld and Golden West. 5) Shea to develope single family homes north of Seacliff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now. zoned for industrial. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: ! a-_DONOT use Beacon Hi I! as a 4-way intersection 1 b- Open Saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier Rational: Back-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would impact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's Surfdale as a through street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the children that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill 2- Create off street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is.no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven 3- High density useage of Montecito and Greebrier property is not acceptable, BUT if it is to go through, switch the plans i.e. Greenbrier to Montecito-_, Montecito to Greenbrier _ 'Question: Why was this adopted from the original plans from single family_homes? Consider the= increased tax base for single family homes vs y the impact:on public services of 485 apartments - - -' 4, ReturrY to the:original acreage for.commercialhoning • '�, t�,� _n� (� Rational l should be a convience center not=a major shopping center wlth"t:onlyihalf..milea_way and another 2 a mile p$9e� ~'r .�•„1•.'- 7y.�Ja'J' �... - s;�'77�",� .5 .-r. .•�+T.'`t.�- N- - _ - w_ 1=�j1►^1"- tt,.., s v- .. " `. z"-0,�n --!t' e ��������� ntr.�r •�� �-._�l '��--�: ':r'w - - •� .i' �.Si.; � ''I'.� _r'y j1 �ti- � - 4L•.�i'.]'.-•c.S. _.�$e��`� � ��r t�.x_ -Q•�-x-"''e'g-. .-•-'�f -Y F.-' '�.x'�• :r--�? ;•z�'.�.:�:r.:'=_: L.�r ��.�..'"'-,-'r r`; ''!''' - +-=is•t;.�. - Y3" ._ _; � t X . ri �T. ; '. •":ya'l AM. r CIfA�"wT `y,�a, _ vI �h Y7+. _ -..l /'•Cv� ..'ii. -T• `u * �`�"' ?'' ..� r a�� - '•.• _ _ 1 o -F. � .y- ° �•� �...�,, �^.+. 'a�[t�t +r N -��-...+.Ia -t• - Y2•ewaar. -�� k_ 'x'- u__.�«i.—•�-� n 1`�.a i-� y�yc .a.''+-- t 3"' ~``�'-r+�-��-� r� •ry:.Ys-'~'+r- :ors••• M a�. _ -_- •�'=—�SZ+s�_-.+.�_.�+•sdlr-ea;P-:.. _-5E..yTv i,'..�:a.�.-�—fir.+=..��a r '+^.•�-- +E?a. e..G:_'�.'•+.r1-�.G•..'_-`.�i::�, :•'•?i jvS�i'.,1.S:�iyi^�i�.ti!l%'��{ Y�^^C.� �{w^i'l��v?ti.;za��Y.:�'`�"�"'u���''r�..T»�iS _ { y � .w �'�y?C�i'*���•\s_:��.•'4��fii �`r"� �! 4. a Y •r, Z4 _r. ''�r•'�`. ��o`_`�',,._ T`_i r 1�.25_.-�� y=T '-F. 'J.r�'.. `:C:; .•.s t�• Re3.r-i��.. r sY�" .t►i �-�' '•-• � r. L - - � -r!� r elf. M - - ._'"cT•s�—i-?i't"Y'�d'- -- W i��`.l ,�- �f: 1T' _.+.� -- 4 _ ::s�._� _ r �`z.• _ 5= Shea should have the zone change on the 4 acres-zoned for Industrial to build single family dwellings on the'north parcel of the Seacliff Shopping Center Rational:.Better homes-.than_apartments and more commercial Please accept'"these recommendations for the continued quality of living we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities[ Sincerly, cc David Sullivan Page 2 I Al 4VIENT NO. : . FY November 24,1997 � City of Huntington Beach �`BS jec-Traffic Flow Planning Commission 2000 Main Street DEC 011997 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 DEPARTti1EN•T OF Gentlemen: COMMDNITY DEVELOPMENT I have been a resident in Huntington Beach since 1972 when I purchased a home from the Lusk Company on Surfdale Lane. I am very concerned regarding a growing hazardous traffic problem in our neighborhood. The various recently accomplished housing developments now nearing completion in our. immediate area plus the additional proposed project for the acreage at the intersection of Garfield and Golden West has a disastrous potential for the Upper Seacliff neighborhood. Summit Drive, previously Clay Avenue,runs East and West along the Northern border of the Upper Seacliff neighborhood;it has been designated as a main thorough-fare capable of handling thousand of cars on a daily basis. Since it's recent opening, Summit Drive has already become a race track. From Edwards Street driving East on Summit Drive there are no side streets until Beacon Hill which is 4/10ths of a mile and motorists are driving very fast. It now demands considerable caution to exit our neighborhood via Beacon Hill due to fast moving traffic that is increasing daily. In an effort to avoid traffic signals at the intersection of Summit Drive and Golden West and an additional traffic signal at Yorktown and Golden West,motorists are turning South off Summit onto Beacon Hill,Left on Lawn Haven Drive,West on Surfdale Lane, Left on Silver Beach,racing through our neighborhood and exiting the project via Little Harbor. The new proposed project to be built at Garfield and Golden West has presented a plan with an extension of Beacon Hill as one of only two exits from their project, such a plan would only lead to additional traffic flow through our neighborhood to take advantage of this route described in the proceeding paragraph. I don't feel we should have to suffer these potential effects when other solutions to their plans could be developed prior to construction. When this neighborhood was planned there were only two exits from the project,one at Beacon Hill, which is a rather narrow exit,and the other is at Little Harbor which exits on to Golden West. It was never intended that these same streets,with limited access would be subject to the potential level of traffic that the surrounding developments are bringing. If this traffic flow potential is not controlled there probably will be some very.serious accidents.There are many school children in this neighborhood,daily boarding and departing busses along Surfdale Lane.The intersection of Summit Drive and Beacon Hill has become very dangerous; let's pray that no one is killed before preventative action is taken.The garages in our neighborhood along this route all require backing out into the streets, imagine the magnitude of this should this mushrooming traffic problem be allowed to develop further. Those of us who live here are proud of our neighborhood, our properties are well cared for and the homes are retaining their value,excessive traffic will detract from the desirability and lessen the value of our homes. Surely a solution must be found in these incipient stages to avoid similar problems such as occurred in 1990 with homeowners who lived on Shasta NT NO. �/ Z Lane,see copy of the enclosed article from the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent dated September 27,1997. Very truly yours, f? RECEIVE ® Ri and R. Ruess 19431 Surfdale Lane DEC 0 1 .1997 Huntington Beach,CA. 92648 Phone(714) 969-0677 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The following neighborhood residents endorse this letter. 1 ---�il1�----- -- -- ----------__---------------- 3 `' 7 -�-�_a- u1 f_ S Cr►�---� 60rt -4Wa/e- 4-17 :--tA --- 4 --��_`_4El_SIIR.E� - 5 - _ v 8 10 __ I �� 12 ---- - - — ,----- -- — �3�oZ--`C—�OP,F ���_ .!v1 ffB 9Z6 13 -�j 14 15 "-A ----- ------- -- -''`�----------------------- -1if----- -- ----- --- ------ 16 17 18 19 20 ---- ---�"�--- ' ------G 4k�N__ ^.f_Ir �r CSIV � r, G wssl N:.ti��F �� TbE �APc iduals endorse the letter by Richard R. Ruess dated November 24,1W7 GO ssed to the Plannin Commis ' of Huntington Beach 21 J -----�-�� ---�-- - 1� 22 23 ` 24---- - - - - - -------- A�r_'�__-- -��� --Y—2-f G �� 25 (r -- 26 27 28 29 ----45- 30 31 ---- ------ ------ Q 33 cl Y� 35 L / ` f ��� L37 2'. -- 39 72. "•�41 ' -� •. it, L. � G��. � U 91 �Q• 7�1`� _ 4 --��----------------�-'- , -=-�� z-- ------------- � � �g 43 45 - -- �g- --_C�_ -_lll__—.Id.►3_���� 46/ Ai "Huntington Beach/Fountafri Valley INDEPENDF_M' THURSDAY,September, 1990 _.._ .,. _. ., +Kid.).b ,! <•i ,1• r ,!�•�i w:i{�y w::r-1r• L. !ry ? �1:,.�• ^ ..r: ii ,�+p ,<� �,r.. :.<•' ''yyrr� 7i �' ..�. '1V, d'. �{,- �.'-.1.J •'� fi .oak. '� ^�`i'r' 6 iir...,.y at''d;?.! °, .* e,'l M'• l '.rr _ai S + . ' 'r•) t�'•p;- '�'.t;;n `;}:•) i` fnntrn ton beach:,rosedents fedsU0. with ..��of feeppobl en� Bappacade solution worse.than shortcut,L _ ppohlem to homeowners on Shasta Lane I By Robert Barker laughed," she said. "They said it Lane to their right. He described Stan writer was the most ridiculous thing the configuration as"undesirable." r• .7 :1 they've seen." Wood said she believes the engi- .� Huntington Beach residents on Traffic Engineer James Otterson neers could to the trick by putting f Shasta Lane say they're ice cold to said Thursday that residents nave a up stop signs on Sugar Street,which eflons to slow down motorists le itimatc concern about motorists feeds the neighborhood from r" '"" s' ;" s ting through their neigh- cutting through the neighborhood McFadden Avenue and on Cascade r i od for a shortcut to the Hunt- to adjoining Cascade Lane, lane,and keeping the stop sign on Y�° t h�►y � t4r �` A Shasta. ''7rr in ton Center,the San Diego Free- w>'!; A; tt"^'t. • `;�, B B Oucrson said, though, that there ) r �F•,. r * { way or Golden West College. Bernadette Pendleton, another • ! ,.. �,r,t;. are design plans to connect Gothard ✓ + , i f c„• ,�, .,), City traffic engineers put up a , neighbor,thinks the city should put + u -- / + • A„ r,rj�' �? e Street with Hoover Street in �1 est- j stop sign about three weeks a¢o but minstcr. The hookup would a big ditch across Sugar Street to that didn't help at all,according to slow down cars encroaching on provide a parallel route that should their neighborhood from Bolsa and rr .,'k t I Robin Wood ease conditions in the area,he said. X �+ j '"< i• tl.b r >Fi 4 f< /b !T T• d) !r r l+r`l< 7 Then, Wednesdayeight, Wood McFadden avenues The project, however, may be two Pendleton said a couple of �� fi ' `''� I �'1• ,+t r' i1ta r rwjr�t t, said city engineers really goofed to three years from completion. months ago a drunken driver com- "•'�`` t" t"^ ; things up by installing a"hideoui' B t in around the curve drove into a41.31°r" '�' r .• , barricade at the end of their street Also, Otterson said traffic engi- B ! Ijr•,,'<r �r� �,t+pt r y,r;'�,t 1 } " Lri and where her children had been4: neers are considering putting a gate Y {: t , ; Id+�q? :' Ayr.•, 3� Yyr� �'��•••,t f ' t +�a f A)'t "It hasn't solv"This is aed ast problem, across Cascade lane near the cod said. ity pPolice said d theyust couldn'tcouldn't do any-oments earlier. n�.try#w•,r• 'Lf'f"e>'�'M - c;t' '�' ♦` `' 'r' '"r'+ ?' D limit line that would cork up r r, „, t +. it worse. The cars go faster than through traffic. Access by police thing because there was no damage j before. They don't have to stop. cars and fire trucks would have to and nobody was hurt." a. , f + •r t! "We stand out in our yards and be a consideration, he noted. The residents also said a motorist S ran into two parked can recently. Roben Barker/orange coast Daily Pilot yell at the driven to slow down. Otterson said the barricade was Commuters drive from 40 to 60 They're going so fast they don't put up so drivers exiting Shasta mph during the morning rush hour Worried about traffic even hear us. Lane would have a better view of and in evenings when they return Bernadette Pendleton, Sandra Tllzer, Robin are just a few of Shasta Lane residents worried "We had the police out and they oncoming traffic from Cascade home. Wood and Stephanie Erickson and their children about traffic. VCV p�� 011991 ;r Dip)\F;;ht4��`;�•:,.:.'• co�ti��l�,�'f�•• t Or/FRIDAY,DECEMBMt A 1990 =��°B$-e�xa'`` - :14 DEC 9101.rel i t DEPAATMEN O OPMENT/ is COMMUNITY DEV ANAHEIM p ; •Mehehn rrsi Humps Reportedly r Yo W UWa Smooth Out Traffic After battling the city for nearly two years, residents of Glenview Avenue and Holbrook Street are finally enjoying .c f what they fought for: 11 new speed humps across their busy streets, and long-awaited peace from noisy and dangerous speeders. And alter a month of living with the new humps In place,residents say it was Worth every hour they spent gathering petitions,and every Tuesday night they passed at City Council meetings arguing with city traffic engineers and council members. 'There-are allU those people who don't go as slow as we'd Like them to, but we don't have any more of those people who go from zero to 60 m•p•h.- from start to finish;'said Marcia Clarke, a Glenview Avenue resident who helped organize the neighborhood.- - 'the neighborhood has been plagued In recent years by the large number of motorists who use Anaheim Hills resi- dential streets as a shortcut between busy Kellogg Drive and Orangethorpe Avenue.- Residents brought petitions of sup- port and plans for the humps to the council but were met with opposition from the city Traffic Department,which. - was.concerned that the humps would not deter traffic but cause speeders to., become airborne,°and would'create a ; hazard for children using them as jump. . ramps. ' Bumps, as opposed to speed bumps often found in Commercial shopping centers,are low and wide,forcing cars to slowly cruise over them.In all,the 11 , humps cost about $24,000 to install. Four other cities in the county have them. • Eventually the council agreed to give the residents'Idea a try.The neighbor- hood is undergoing a six-month trial, after which the humps'effect on traffic will be studied. U the humps have ► - -��:,.:, . 'helped reduce .- P speed and trafliq they •,. , : Will remain: if not. they will be re- that:' said Phillp Dominguez;'a'HoCYj moved brook Street residenOwho'hblped'bt+% Residents say they already notice a ganize neighbors oh ills street:;- ?;� ; . difference. They say the humps have ,Clarke added that hhlldierirA abl;ae td worked to deter cars that usually use* • cross'the hdlghborhood'•moi'e:eafetY►; :the street as a shortcut,and force those now that fewer cars and even:fewet•ht: that still use It to drive slower-They say speeders come thrcugh'the.streetw-"It•". the humps have brought none of the ill used to be a joke to try.to ross`the T j effects that officials anticipated. street at5o'clock."she aafd "I haven't seen any kids out there on "The main thing is,the tiny tried to? them at all—especially after Christmas, tell us we couldn't change�aitything,and ._ when they all got new bikes and we have,and rm pleased skateboards—I haven't seen any of —IJSA MASCARO, . Al t�4, RECEIVE © JAN 07 1998 City of Huntington Beach November 21 . founcil Office Ray Silver, City Planning Huntington Beach, CA Dear Mr. Silver, 4. the Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, sevc-ral distt!rbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement wAre exposed. f,lanv were startling changes from the first and second presentations. Tnev are as follows. ta) Opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, I n) eleminating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk wav , 2) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public parking, 3) increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single family nomes to 485 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to T ownhomes, a) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of 1arf1Pl(j and Golden West. 5) Shea to develope single family homes north of Seacliff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now _oned for industrial. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: I a- DONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-way intersection 1 b- Open Saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier Rational: Back-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would jrnpact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper SeacIiff's Surf dale as a through street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the Children that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill 2- Create off street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven 3- High density useage of Montecito and Greebrier property is not acceptable, BUT if it is to go through, switch the plans , i.e. Greenbrier to -Irlontecito ,.Montecito to Greenbrier - Question:-Why was this adopted from the original plans from single . famity homes?.Consider-.the increased tax base single family homes vs Y the impact"on public servijces of 485 apartments _ Return.to the oci inal a&e' a for commercial.=zonir�' . .� �� ��T N - � Rational It should be:a convience center not'.a major shopping center- -!^ ? t� � --1 -only,half iinil_ e--aw y and and_t_ her-2_-a mile away _ -Pagel_- .1„y�i+:'' t{..>„ � `�^��y,x-r- -�'b,�,`•V`S_. 't�•4 ayr<+., - -� �. - -Y_ -_ �-'.�•.:s -'` y?{'_.y.-.•p 3.. :c _.�•.'\. C71c it _ �'i7',/�,"-may. 7� �.ar�+ ,,.-, -. ...,.- -r,�^c�rF+a _ � -:r -y'' .$�'.' .''-f•* ,y v�� i•.x"s•7 moo ` .� i h-••, .(r x 3=.r^-�`•• ..••-e 4'a •:-- .(-i1 - �fiT�^mot r.:• -.r.- a _ rJ'Y !.'rl:.•YC-'1 -•� 9Y -C1^.� `r i:r _ it ten^r - ?d•_ Sa � 3r.` �A .�'{ ,.-.:''•�r'�'.:-...�.*C !1* -_• .,r,�� t �'1,.� -•. =.•s-y,,.a_—.,,�� .Y"� t.�rurL---•+rz-.rr„� -y t+ -a - s •a`"., _ — •y��Ty' .Iv,�FLT��4�i�"T. w _�✓r_.�� �]-- � - /�C-1- �-�y.;Y��r'�� '7k4t .+a ¢1'{aA �� ic-'CrQ�r.�"`a�+s -.•x •r `.!'� Y. : •-----L`'>'E+` 1W'�'.3,..her 5ci.. Ya��i sd-►t' } +r,,. rz••--=c„�' - 1 °-- �'s+`-� i4�e-�4n'al:f;+�.-�4.. -� ...J_"i c.. - 3t�� <_.�.:.•.0/•?`._r..cs:..•5�.,;i;,�? ....�•. �� ��•.`:-.::�L:.._.� i3''`.Z '`S�:�Tc: ��St ?,S>' -ys;n`.�?c;;^�:;':r_'',2::• -- !• _�:y' _.<�+� _ < '�:rl ,.S+'�..- ::�+.-� +t i.n�;:== =rti �ti;�:<•:iyY_ _�Y,CChX�Z •..r_r: �3 zz s.�-ti - __A - 1-."..�3.t�5=art - �••• Ss�- Y; n -r�i. T` -�'�`�c'+y �.. '� :Y.a�'�.LJ ,:�'a Cam^5..."jYY ate• �le -CYA r„`MV rn s _�rr+� r�ra _ _ 1'y�-rr yw:'Y:f:i -�xtik �r t �: _r--`t�-.�r7 - .,T��.r..'�:�=rSst rn �-`n �-.r'',',' '•Y3 �- -3�CF -...i.���:����• 7'3^r-_ ".-.- as; r;r r +•r .'•rz: =` _:.' "S� .:i++'::�'%�t'z)s `�' .sr Z-A ri. 4. - s.- r- •i _ - � -,r '-ai .L-. } . -� - _ y -• apt _ _ � __ _ 5- Shea should have. the zone change-on the 4 acres zoned for industrial to. build single'family dwellings onthe north parcelof the.Seacliff_Shopping • - - Center = _ - Rational: Better homes than apartments and more commercial.` Tease accept these recommendations for the continued quality of living we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seaciiff Communities. Sincerly, cc David Sullivan V i Page 2 Ott110. IS.I�� Beed.Ain �. RECE1VIE r - A P R 2 8 1998 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Community Development Dept. 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 April 25, 1998 Gentlemen: Subject: Greenbriar/Montecito Development Altenative two is a very good alternative if it also had access from Garfield which is a 4 lane Street instead of moving all traffic to Summit which is a 2 lane street and already handling traffic of six Developments, (Turnberry, Port Ivy, Riviera, Westport, San Augustine and Old Sea Cliff) . Sincer ly, Borg Rasmusson 19233 Beckonridge Ln. Huntington- Beach Ca 92648 T,, aH�1 r NT N0. r I c . r �O ••, `Y6,"-lb�i�'r � �� �(tj{, 'r ��� n a •• ' eoo `o.a`'w.M w QS,c�. nm* �+� • aiJ•v11s_••e • • v • •i • •In c +• • i' a. '1 - — ate—r — .i _ 'A /' _ - • ���, . p■)� ;,q �ti ''��►!'%' �:d�� e� ;` '�a � 1 .• :� .� ' to .�� ji .,`��•.w .w+ ,1.A.li,i:*���•i�yl�r � ���1 ��•�.i�.��• � • � ■ `!7 �: �IC�1,: ' . ��. 1. �4mR�..M+•:d�,, •��� <<a1����I q�F`�j1 ! � �b �. �; r . . ,art: •' . ..• ...-: ` ..�y yA v . • o • o o i�lq'['f �Vl . 7 •. ti 7y a • ' ,. ' V JAN 01 1998 City of Huntington Beach City Council Offices November 21 . 1997 i-lr. Rav Silver, City Planning Huntington Beach, CA Dear Mr. Silver, gar the Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of November 20, 1997, sa-verai disturbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement wrrP exposea- Nanv were startling changes from the first and second pr?sentations. Tnev are as fol lows. 1 a) Opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, of eleminating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk wav , 2) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public parking, ;) increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single ;'arroly homes to 485 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to cwnhomes, a) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of i-a�fiFld and Golden West. 5) Shea to develope single family homes north of 'Sracliff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now %ones for industrial. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: i a- DONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-wav intersection 1 b- Open Saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier ►rational: Back-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would impact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's Surfdale as a through street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the children that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill 2- Create off-street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven 3- High density useage of Montecito and Greebrier property is not acceptable, BUT if.it is to go through, switch the plans , i.e. Greenbrier to riontee Montecito,to Greenbrier question Vilhy_was this adopted from the original plans from single family homes Consider the-increased tax base Ls for single family homes vs.:. .. th"e Impact on public services of .485 apartments - 1 . �} ra Return to the original acreage for commercial. zoning i,4>✓ =� Rational Itshould be a convience center not a major shopping center _ w_ i 1 only half mile-away and -another 2'a m away Pagel r., - ile x �-`�i�, .r sf��' --[-� - '7�- r...s-c zr=--'i r �•y�`� ^Z ., y au cv �1 Y �-_rlJa-�= Z y 6 yc tix.-..y•�_ '_"" �'� i S - f •1- - f- } �t �' T"y V i- � � +.S_ �, iC�-�a1 _ewe .z' .!a-' T�:..- =a..•. -��F.i?y. _�-<� -} + fi ,3`w.E- rt +..�'�s�r�s{"-"' --r r �="'Y� :.: -r��-ix`'�•Y,�;} '�`? a f'� •r' �.'_-� --.--'F . .... -. . c t�rr�r s �y,�..c,� _.,rx i ate• c'/..A r•'- t,�+'�+��j���!-�t�..r.��_ �{ -� -.. ..+ F _ J Cc�"'i7�'`Se..'1 �_ -'� A t 3 e ♦•^T.{,ta ��j' �� ..it .:rci+s.%1'•y"�..�%:•T`._^=`�v` ,e. s 1 ��rry- .cam- e.__ �"'• "'r-� `":�:`5'a.••�'�'•_` -..r_i.�`'_:" ,���a'�isYet 4Lela ;%ja ZZ,:.'r z .: ./•e'• .�,y' o�:��c:,' -3t ;. 1'.r3t�.; ;':�%�;�.'' K... w2•.: :+•. �+ �� �G:� :< �c�: -fiJf3-c'1.z:�.—;Ali;��-'rti���,`�'_Tis.-x"._Y•`�—. , `='���.� ':f,:'�"-��:r '_.". r_ 'x�.•�• f^ t�`•'z• � mot''. �':.._ - +y Y _•CL"z'v - _Y - �.��..':�t .�< - F •6_.-- •'= �•r _ v«i: i•;= - E��3.- f s�2-,- �ti.-'•',� 7� 'S.+?. .+ ,�r j '.', - -zi,'•yti '��^� r �•2t~mow'. �. ,a•:���k^ii' "Y' ci r - 1K•.t��ta � -•3- shC o. - - - y- - � ^fr"X' r �fT••'i•�a'�$ •t__-:Lw , �L�+,-sue `- •✓ -1 may"A :F�•� - ��� t-. -�^�.. `_t2'=�i- ._,.i '-`ait� Y]� �E'- �M..s ..:. �.- � � '} _ ^a.� *.��- .y�==,`ty C �--;`. . s}L.' .7'' '"- �`�. -Y' "-_ '�`" .•-�. ,. T•`� -.Y�i -�-- E "i r 'SsK : R Y- 5- Shea should have the zone change on the 4 acres zoned for industrial to' t.: Wild single family.dwellings on_the north parcel, of the Seacliff.Shopping Center - Rational:. Better homes than apartments and more commercial. Please accept these recommendations for the continued,quality of living we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sincerly, cc David Sullivan • ��. � ����� ..ems`L, ..����''y`� t y�; %�ca s0"- 116 ga�yY Page 2 RECEIVEL -c AN 0? 1998 iy or Huntingy,,,baac fir v Council Offi ac, November 21 . 1997 !,Ir Rav Silver, City Planning Huntington Beach, CA )ear Mr. 5 i lver, At t;,e Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, several disturbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement werIe e:x.posed i-lanv were startling changes from the first and second presentations. Tney are as follows. 1 a) Opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, eleminating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk way , 2) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public park.ing, j) increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single fa�r�tly nomes to 455 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to Townhomes, 4) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of G@rfiel(i and Golden West. 5) Shea to develope single family homes north of Seacliff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now %oned for industrial. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: a- DONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-wav intersection 1 b- Open saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier Rational: Back-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would impact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacl1ff's Surf dal e as a tnrough street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the children that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill 2- Create off street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on lawn Haven S- High density useage of Montecito and Greebrier property is not acceptable, BUT if it is to go through, switch the plans , i.e. Greenbrier to = Montecito.; Montecito to Greenbrier Question: Why was this adopted from the original plans from single family.,nonies?. Consider, increased tax base ,*for single family.homes vs ' - the. impact:on public services of .485 apartments a . Return-to.the-ori inal acreage.for.commercial zonin ,;; . = r�- -� r - -- - - 9 Rational:�"It should be°a convience.center.not`'a main is o`' i center= . "• -s.+�- " .` =ogly,half mile away and another 2 a mile away ',.Page� 4Y rr; , — =f;:a }.s;-- - y,--••r+ - �. 'tf4o J r '" S_ �_,.S _ ,= �� y ? � #L_ -. •� _o-i �--+a-��� -�.=-} �-n�4- y` i__ ,��i..-�• �- . Y-c _. ..�.'sl�ir'?^z�� � ���ti �-- -'-'� ���r mr- � �..�,.��+ �r � �' Y:..tiff'a1c 7��.. - -G -M� �i`-�'� �-r-�^-�"'f• .a'E�..i.. - '� �.�v::_ '� �'�v '? .'- -?•. '�`�--��J�d•i'��"-c�is�� ►t v.`ti:-�ii '-- II -a � -f��,3 �ii�i ..��+�'a-ti- Y � ;�t�Tjr ��M��i,- �i�+�j ��` -: = o=ikY-��„r��-��:c�`.z`i�r:.`t.- `-�:.�. _—. .=t,r.t; -c:?':{:��,�....._'-�x�4 .r.���.��-n^a..�•�.-'f_.'"i_'_,�Tres4t��C. �-.iw"� .xj••�'iti� Z#�_a_:.•iUs ;�.. �y - ��. �: % _ _"`= _ <�-`��JsjS•��.-��b••�•.�-'-.c. �.•ld:�'4'�,u'►.RZaC a:r..1• - . - �:.•: __l;•' c ^.;?i!-:-mot i-!.�_•�•""i�`{ '5..���c _r^.'`t-zs"�,.'.'� T7�5�'' � fa•��_ � �yt�`5 i a- z y����K�r-- a,��`'� �7. �e� •a��..�-s.' r�i3E"�-��'-.;;:�'s`r N •jua� '}"- - ••. L Tr'..5 ...Y•�1a. i'j �.+.,•,r`_ .,KJ�j'.ttt..�1LL.e- ^ Y :K?��ryt���:• - "3' :t_� - '' - •t- t - i t e tiT` �r`.c.7� _�' _ •'T �`- =-{'�'•�:}r�'•+.r�'_�rM ✓..%"'+'�� . -- — _ 4•Z t ^t .may Y�- _ iY'•1 �. �T'> l- Y Z 5= Shea should have the zone change'6n the.4 acres zoned`for ndustrial:to _ build single family dwellings on the north parcel. of the Seacliff Shopping Center Rational: Better homes than.apartments and more commercial.' _- Please accept these recommendations for the continued quality of living we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sincerly, (:qu6 cc Davio Sul 1 ivan c a Page 2 Rr CCF IV ED J A N 07 1998 City of Huntinpn Beach City Council Offica November 21. 1997 Mr. Ray Sliver, City Planning Huntington Beach, CA rear Mr. Silver, tic the Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, several risturbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement were exposed. Many were startling changes from the first and second presentations. They are as follows. la) Opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, 10 eleminating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk way , 2) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public parking, 3) increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single i arni1v homes to 485 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to T ownhomes. 4) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of 1'arfield and Golden West. 5) Shea to develope single family homes north of Seacliff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now %oned for industrial. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: ia- DONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-way intersection 1 b- Open Saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier !=rational: Back-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would impact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's Surfdale as a- through street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the children that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill 2- Create off street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven 3- High density useage of Montecito and Gree' brier property is not acceptable, BUT if lt .is td go through, switch the plans , i.e. Greenbrier to 4_1ontecita-__,­ Question:.Montecito to Greenbrier .� : :z Why was this adopted from the original plans from single - " '< famiV-1hbmes?Consider the:increased tax base* for. single`family homes vs the impact on public services of.485 apartments..._ >4t Return to,*he original -acreage:for commercial zonIhgj�+ �-,. a LL Rational Lt shouldjbe a convience center not a.ma jor£shopping center-..-:.-. .,,.,'-, � %vith t onty.hal f m to away and another 2 a`mileps9e -•: �„^_ r,�';r.w .�s- ; s. r-i - �._ ;y_ :_-_. , •�c".r- 2� ,[, ..s s3•� :` .�3s�6,s�il•Y � =,,,r. .ya��- .yrr -"�--J . _ l i --.7't P --- - J.- ••.*V 7C'y�.�i." "�S Y 4� } �`^-�?� _ r`r]-=,• r ter.. - C-G - F. - .� -y,, - J` .fc.�- L M.. "Y=_ w3) � a ra.r/-}$5i�iw sL�,_. S' '�'-Fi+^-tom*_h•l"3ca`a=n i•.-�' Y-•.rq=f.�� � i �'*�.��y^� - L •O�T�i'�.TJ 1' {- 1 _ -1 F.l.fn. j. , �.Y, -�., �F FIFA �'�- -�..�' �_ «�s�,3% '1F '� o '" �..."� -s: •�n,'K:c*; � M s '£"Xt� _^�-ti: K:jFT�'�. -Y^=Z'•t�..;�0s' Gw,ybv7a. vE:•it�. :� -;r .Y�w ?�Y 7T '- `'3z.,">t�ii.:.Yrt�Tr_•t''%wz�?r.. r`' -rwTS�r.-t- � .aSy,?1 �5: �� • _ - •�G�. . �:' � -��'j�•a 'Ti4:Y.l=n`� F."'cam--r�"Tx'{?.L�s—.mac_=_ &i a-z t;U -T P Q h S,_ .4L ni io 5- Shea should have thezone change on the 4 acres zoned for induty strial build single family .dwe.ilings on the north parcel• of the-Seacliff Shopping '.--'- Center Rational: Better homes than apartments and more commercial. _,.-., Please accept these recommendations for the continued quality of living we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sincerix, C�c� �- OY- CA cc David Sullivan Page 2 TI-A rHMENT NO. 6 )) Stephen B.Bernstein,M.D.,FAC.0 Mark J.Castellanet,M.D.,FA-C.C. James IL Licht,M.D.,FAC.C. Adrian H.Shandling,M.D.,FAC.0 Diplomates.American Board of Internal Medicine CARDIOVASCULAR CAPE, INC C Diplomates,Subspecialty Board of Cardiovascular Disease A M E D I C A L CO RPO RATION 3801 Katella Ave.,Suite 401,Los Alamitos,CA 90720 2840 Long Beach Blvd.,Suite 330,Long Bach,CA 90806 (562) 598-3200 FAX(562)799-3646 18800 Delaware Street.Suite 900,Huntington Bach,CA 92648 FEB J � '7�8 (714) 596-8330 FAX(562)799-3646 February 6, 1998 DE:Aa pa�PJ? City of Huntington Beach City Hall P.O. 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Sir/Madam: I am an Edwards-Hill homeowner. I understand that there is a project being contemplated just south of Garfield and west of Goldenwest . This involves higher density than was once contemplated. It is patently not in the best interest of our area to raise the density per acre from 15 units to 25 units . There will be consequent traffic increases, a higher density of traffic juxtaposed to the newly planned school, and the attendant noise, trash problems, etc . , etc. I request your rapid and effective intercession to prevent this potential poor planning move to occur. Sincerely, Adrian H Shandling, M.D. , F.A. AHS :dt CC : City Council Members : Ralph Bauer Shirley Dettloff David Garafalo Peter Green Tom Harman Pam Julien Dave Sullivan Stephen B.Bernstein,M.D., F.A.C.C. Mark J.Castellanet,M.D., F.A.C.C. James R.Licht,M.D., F.A.C.C. Adrian H.Shandling,M.D.,F.A.C.C. Diplomates,American Board of Internal Medicine RE CARDIOVASCULAR CAM, INC Diplomates,Subspecialty Board of Cardiovascular Disease A M E D I C A L C O R P O R A T 1 O N 3801 Karelia Ave.,Suite 401, Los Alamitos,CA 90720 2840 Long Beach Blvd.,Suite 330,Long Beach,CA 90806 (562) 598-3200 FAX(562)799-3646 MAY 2 U 1998 COMJIlI DEAgRT„SEIJT OF May 11, 1998 UNITY DEVELOPMENT Catherine O'Hara Planner Department of Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: GREENBRIAR/MONTECITO DEVELOPMENT Dear Ms . O'Hara: I am writing about the Greenbriar/Montecito development . As I understand it, there are currently three plans under consideration for the development of this property. The plan that would seem to be to be the most expedite and prudent would be the low-density housing plan with a five house per acre ratio. I understand that this is the alternative II plan. Furthermore, with the big Seacliff shopping are coming into being in the next year or two, it would seem appropriate that a smaller commercial area be utilized in the Greenbriar/Montecito development . My home address is 18852 Rockinghorse Lane, Huntington Beach, CA, 92648 . Sincerely, Adrian H. Shandling, M.D. F.A.C.C. AHS :dt R E C E 1 V E D March 16, 1998 MAR 27 1998 City of Huntimr-on baach Shirley Dettloff C::tv Council Office Mayor, City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Honorable Mayor Dettloff: The purpose of this letter is for the Country View Estates Homeowner's Association (Edwards bill area) to express our strong objection to the PLC proposed variance for increasing home density from 15/acre to 25/acre in the Montecito Area of the Garfield/Goldenwest development. We are also opposed to a building a strip mall at Garfield and Goldenwest. Since our area is bounded on one side by the sea and on the other by the Bolsa Chica wetlands, the roads into and out of our area are heavily used. Any increased densities will significantly increase traffic on already congested streets associated with the development of our Edwards hill area. With the addition of a grade school at Garfield and Edwards the situation will be exacerbated. We urge the City NOT to approve the proposed 67% increase in density, even if there appears to be a quid-pro-quo with the developer. Experience shows that once the precedence is set for increasing density in an area, the practice spreads and densities continue to increase over time. The infrastructure of the "hill" is not in place to handle higher density plus property values of this unique community (and associated property taxes) will definitely decline. Thank you for your consideration in this important matter. Sincerely, Board of Directors, Country View Estates Homeowner's Association Gordon M. Watson Debbie Bear ee President Vice Pre nt Secretary Barbara acchiolo Don dtak c Gt,L� RECEIVE BA N 0 7 1998 November 216�} ��tncilofeach !-Ir. Ray Silver, City Planning "�� Huntington Beach, CA riper Mr. Silver, At the Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, several disturbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement were Exposed [ lany were startling changes from the first and second presentations. T nev are as fol lows. 1 a) Opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, ! b. eleminating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk way , 2) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public parking: ;) increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single fnrrjily nomes to 485 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to Tr,wnhomeS, a) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of I;arflela and Golden West. 5) Shea to develope single family homes north Of Seacliff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now %oned for industrial. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: I a- DONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-wav intersection lb- Open Saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier Rational: Back-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would impact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's Surfdale as a• through street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the children that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill 2- Create off street parking for soccor field and park activities Ratid'nal: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven 37 High density useage of Montecito and Greebrier property is not .acceptable, BUT if, it is to go through, switch the plans , i.e. Greenbrier to ..rlontecito ; Montecito to Greenbrier - __. .._ } ..Question: Why was this adopted from the original plans from single family homes? Consider the• increased tax base for single family homes v§ t the impact on public services-of 485 apartments �� 4. Return to the original acreage for commercial_zoning f - 3 Rational It should be_-,a convience center nota ma jof-shopping centeri. } == ;withal only_T1alf mile away and another.2 a mileaWay eP il- _ ..�- y - - --y=Ec• ..''_,,,,-, -^F 'a+ '':Se 3� '_ 'sf' - il!s=�•--+�s-a�a�i;<tr3: �. C o'er-+• r - -•� �y_ tro^�'' t ^� -F�^ tc' � �r♦�'� s si�il-� -�':[--'� •G,y�c i �".MxJ.w'#3"'�' fYf`' Y' '`.' _ .-�,�. - + , - y �5 `•L'-`�:•v=i-: �"' �`" -•'�... •`ram-"E,T r"'cj-+ A9•,2}••Sr.'s +`:=`,rV.-ci3 i� k'7�s��—.}'� r;• _ _-�-�y;r f y ��•f .'-,ss:-_ �•�s-..^'�x-`..�g`��-'+'T^ �a'�Y �t-~r,,�.�:.. •!^� ,�r-.�•---'-v ••.yy.pp� -.����'^'x=--'� f.�_e^s _ .<s�-c�^ ,-,tea-'•'a•�^'iri er'aT."-.-y'� •'?'��'.''>-..�='s �z -_ _v,.•_•+=��isLL`-lc - _1'�,f7.`�. �f r'Y•- `- _ •.'3r.: :'-5'=i. �.�s t f.ti•3.. } -5�' +µL♦•'Or � %S .Z,•*. _ -e-,-,�:- mil'.-V-' ..s•ir _. 3.. _ -'�..7� ^_ �.. Z� f.r 'li�]�„�,`�t-ti -+y-`.7.' "'T.� `-� b�x�.,•� �+y. �y,��:s��...-.. J •ram �1 i-`� ,,,•r,�yt":-�• ♦.:.. -'`.'�,>t-'.�-�-=L_"�'•`"''�?�•`_' r��� �%'�'������ ram{ ^•'c•...�� �`ci-:;V.`.s'-r'TY ��p-+y�y..-?.'r�4��� S_ ChF '�,.�St ; y'�,.i'�. ,..r-r�G._ .cy� "r �... k��,G17t3'c�#v�S'fiF�..?�i'�.^...a.:T,:-�s3g?:0'-1%-t''�.t.-r�'�+-.'+�t-. `: ..-. •:T 4 lla��'.-�-►-r':;�.�.�i�7z-�-Z-1`.'��-`--•i`ri=�`".Y•tc'i^..-..��:rS:�O-ct•�.s :�--�.'�.:r':�:..,:.ia� 'tea :�ti" 'K: - •� - :�::,• �e •:<t%v:- ='.�i��-•..._�•,•¢.a�'�..� �:.: 'F':a-�`?�`5.�33' :•;i:c;c : '<- vc.:?•t$�'=a'�j ,h-:�.�' ..�yr � .j <_ '��^.r'"�v.o�??••..�;::^2��«^.�•.-�. .>t..t:�S.�..•D.._ _°-�•.?.�' - --•..,.i\ . .•c�i..•. .-Y•}� y.w r_�' - wed d►CLSa�.� -.a Fe�`E,-w,..:"m--z-rr.r'": r .•s a...-'Y.w•�'e= .- -.r�c�--Yw,._ .r��„+c��_ :��•` ",� _':.'u. ...-fir �f's.'��.-.�`•'�"L.�1s�"i• ^s '� "" -��i'-�, -JF�,,,y� -T# t}'� is ��""' -_+?�'�'?�t;?�'!;��G_ eT -- �Y� .•.c.��i.7'�.1"3-"`+-may- l -+72 - ti *"---M�..^'�... ="�9•r.v �••�' 'ss_ `--r- _ - - vc� T- r'.z. .�T�.�r� �� -r l r? "+�Sr�.¢�, fit-+ '�'f{ r - 3'A 'c v....arrG ' '._ ;-••s-",.�rf•� '.�yZ<t-34 s:s _ Y= .mac "� 4 ti•-x _y.'�c�+•. _�iG.� S - _ �- -.a.s+� ;'?:ri �L-M�- +. �_ •�N'.<.'(' -•�._.M fi--�fSes���GFo���_ =V -Y• d_r.� i7-�♦%- -.p �L 7 .0-.ate-•4ti.�.JYJ [ _ lB�iy._+•-"'�. YL•Lt-�'*��`'r,' ...,.<e ':�.=1'•-�1� �s cr_ _ +,s =�•.--�}.r.�E ?`.� y•_ -..... •s rw 'key .•i .i =".rr tc:.:` -.•z-•:'�c.S�:. a.i_r y.,_a��T_+. r.=x zPL, r'• '•-c '- .,�..ti]rL_y1. tic-iC �r59 L:_•--"- Tw -4 z9`" �•+r- +r t l i-=' -� p _ - Tr-4 - t _ --3.0. -;•-_._...e,FCa�'-":: _t> 4'- - �' e a T ti• .• �: � r '1� 4 . _..' -: _ '. .. - _ > - .• _. - -:.. 7-__:, _-- r - _ - -- _� :.x -••ram 5= Shea should have the zone change on the 4 acres zoned for industrial to c build single family dwellings on the north parcel_of the.Seacliff;Shopping, _.. Center _ Rational: Better homes-.than apartments and more`commercial. _ Please accept these recommendations for the continued quality of living we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sincerly, cc David Sullivan 07 Page 2 TT AC i-N,!A ENT NO. )4,)2_) Huntington Beacb HamptonsHomeowners Association January 30, 1998 -YL V Dear Mary Beth: F E B 0 21998 .1Et:T . Thank you for your time the othe i p�paRT? �� fie;-��t hay Rfielied the petition signatures (a copy) and have sent a copy to City Council and the Planning Commission. These people oppose the increase in density and the enlargement of the commercial area at the PLC site. More signatures will be coming. We have not had enough time to cover all neighborhoods. The entire quarter section is united on this issue. We sincerely appreciate your keeping us informed. The seven homeowner organizations in our quarter section are as follows: Monique Bent Colleen Wilson (Heritage Homeowners) (Hamptons) 6652 Churchill 18941 Silverbit Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Don Jankowiak Bob Machado (Countryview) (Ellis Central Park) 6711 Shetland 6812 Hitching Post Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Jerry Pabbruwee Linda Dilday (Central Park 9) (HB Estates) 18702 Jockey Circle 18612 Quarterhorse Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Joanne Chivers (Edwards Central Park) 6582 Polo Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Sinc ely, Colleen Wilson 830-1280 work 848-8055 home PE January 16, 1998 FEB 0 21998 T. the undersigned Ham tons ldgpi ^Dr �_ a e higher densitye un ?ort th�; ot s residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at Garfield and GoldenWest. I further wish the City of Huntington Beach to reconsider any commercial building in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. Name Address VA ga,PZ& 1 & 22 1,,A A Z)Ltlkc— ±�`:-- +'HMENT NO �� ' January 16, 1998 I, the undersigned Hamptons Iiomcowner, do not. support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at Garfield and GolcicnWest. I further wish the City of Huntington Beach to reconsider any commercial building in this area. The expansion of the SeaclifT Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. Name Address ✓6�n n 6�62 �e-✓�� ��� 2 u raj Ir l C t�� V V�p / - - -- ►�► :vitd=G January 16, 1998 1, the undersigned Hamptons Homeowner, do not. support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at Garfield and GoldenWest. I further wish the City of Huntington Beach to reconsider any commercial building in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. Name Address v-tz�- 5'lvrx6f-- Lv. lOxI Z/ ✓�V 0�✓�� January 16, 1998 I, the undersigned I iamptons Homeowner, do not support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at Garfield and GoldenWest. I further wish the City of Huntington Beach to reconsider any commercial building in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. Name Address � t Je 7 ,0 y� Y I EMT NO. Is January 16. 1998 I, the undersigned Hamptons Homeowner, do not. sul2nort the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at Garfield and GoldenWcst. I further wish the City of Huntington Beach to reconsider any commercial building in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. Name Address CA ([i,Llt) Uq(1 -(1rp Dr Ord qz&q g iMVYd 1 �a?Lj a i TA"HVIENT NO, %S a--I RECEIVED JAN 07 1998 City of Huntington Beach City Council Off ic-ANovember 21 . 1997 l'1r. Rav elver, City Planning Huntington Beach, CA Clear Mr. Silver, 4t ;rie Seacliff homeowner's Association meeting of Novemvber 20, 1997, sev=-ral (1,1sturbing revelations regarding the Holly Seacliff developement were ex.posea. many were startling changes from the first and second presentations. Thev are as follows. ta) Opening Beacon Hill to a 4-way intersection, i b) eleminating plans for Saddleback to be a through street but a walk way , 2) creating a park on the quake fault area without off street public parking, 3) increased density in the Montecito develpoment from single family homes to 485 units and Greenbrier from single family homes to . ownhomes, a) increasing acreage for shopping center at the corner of Garfield and Golden West. 5) Shea to deveiope single family homes north of Seacliff shopping center, of which four (4) of those acres are now Toned for industrial. These are recommendations for changes in these afore mentioned items: la- DONOT use Beacon Hill as a 4-way intersection 1 b- Open Saddleback to Summit for access to Montecito and Greenbrier Rational: Back-up at traffic signal at Summit and GoldenWest would impact traffic on Summit, inviting traffic to use Upper Seacliff's Surfdale as a through street, to avoid the 2 traffic signals at Golden West and Yorktown( which is a very dangerous left turn area), thus jepardizing the Children that live on Surfdale at the intersection of Evening Hill 2- Create off street parking for soccor field and park activities Rational: There is no safe space to park on Summit thus creating a need to park on Lawn Haven 3- High density•useage of Montecito and Greebrier property is not - acceptable, BUT if it is to'go through, switch_ the plans , i.e. Greenbrier to rlontecito , Montecito to Greenbrier Ouestion: Whywa'sthis adopted from the original plans from single ,;..family homes? Considecahe increased tax base for single family homes vs the:lmpact on public services of 485 apartments . Return to the_`ort anal acrea a for commercial zonin �" ` ' `��lENT NOO =--- _9 9 9 ,-� F r�cu ��.- ._ Rational ._lt should be'a convience`center not a major-shopping center ,withS41:only-half_imile away and another 2 a mile away fi pa9e1 - STM . � + .� �h R�"'XY• -L+21e. .-: +er••^� - 3 .,> <_ .� r y;.-���- 4 •L.i ys�- -zee i v'r .t_'ti:f.:: --.rz_]L--$- . v `''2. .ti -1.�:_��1.� �j-• 7 a ,t ,•.��i...y *..r ""�' 4^_'�i' �• 4 �.,p �.,Z.. y ia3...r<!st••` �,,_ _ � '4..;Z 1[+C 4`ti` F f'- `_ .!!i,.tR. 'i'y 4.`3-Ld1.'ss�-' .' a-"`'•.. Y t �' X:f'w r-'''a•n`r..i5_..i�_ r fti$ "'� 3- ---s w. _ .�> .,"r xa �'cl•t- �_ s-- y • "pie Sx +s 7 �,s_� j ^5`' -= Ya -�+^ '�: i �r�a�1 .-- �v n w• _�c � a..� :'.. •+^ tic - �� s2t.e�a�+-" c �-^N -• . � �•�+nr —rf''•`.,".��.t,..n ii*`'T' -t- <-'r.- - `�' � "'' �:�i•+r=.. ���•�t--�x'r r"''�r�`'Y:- �� � c-� f._ �.R � � �". %�+y��V-�'y�.�Y}�:ft•-.j"; ":.s:cf� c+rsS`...`�•►� 5.�.�L�ya•ice":Y��.xY;�T+_- -�-`Ft,+ - �'CS83rii �; •U..iG.•eG•1!w 1..y. _. ._ _ 3 .•et. t{{�__ 1.1�{ .�, _ - = - — i n x �_ 1 r ? j.e. ;Y^ trk3t ��yj ....�'o'—a, z.r a •7' •� �s'�''$� �`• -`'Y• r A:p - _:--1'� � _.Ti• 'Cr �:z� e, 'SS .a„'�rnr- _�'.5* f s?'��'l. _ ter. - -2 - ` `` i.�'�"-.:� 3'- �:_• �`a—•Lr a c ?^s� S^� •� 'z yl•-u z^;,,,,� ✓ Ji cT Y; ✓ L°+- ��-_ � i`.r i.s z ,,rye`'+' � ti, L`-*- .t. ti� a �. - -a•r• 1 ..8- j, -i�.r-'s,.:l��.i'i"'tD,.�� -,._ ' -..I �+?�� 9 '�. -•�.-•Y •�. -�- y+ �47�� r': - '�•``.-may� Sa. _�,yi, =�.h� ;'.j�'C. ti_a r "_ -t 1 -i £ - '�•' T i y., � _to:.T :::�_ ` i_—z�a a 5- Shea'should have the zone change on the acres zoned for industrial to > build single family dwellings:on the north parcel, of the Seacliff Shopping- s --enter _ Rational: Better homes than apartments and more commercial.: .,* Please accept these recommendations for the continued quality of living we all enjoy in Huntington Beach and in the Seacliff Communities. Sincerly, cc Pavia Sullivan TO Page 2 • c7 TO: City of HB, Community ;velopment Dept., 2000 Main St., HB _ .i48 Attn: Mary Beth Broeren, Sr. Planner Date: 'g-01;L-981' I,the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner, DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W comer of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. Name Signature Address: 7/ea -sEhl TO: City of HB, Community Development Dept., 2000 Main St.,HB 92648 Attn: M Beth Broeren, Sr. Planner Date: -- ge I, the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner,DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W comer of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should 'sh the need for this additional commercial site. 6anjer VelzeC Name �+ / Sign e / Address: 7 ar'!`L �� 1 (QQ, (01q 67 TO: City of HB, Community Development Dept., 2000 Main St., HB 92648 Attn: Mary Be Broeren, Sr. Planner Date: y�2 Z /gi I,the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner, DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W comer of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. Name / Signature Address: TO: City of HB, Community Development Dept., 2000 Main St., HB 92648 Attn: Mary���o�erert, Sr. Planner Date: I,the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner,DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W comer of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. 7-7 - AI J Name Signature // D V Address: 4O 7�� /�L�/y1/ 7'XS t4lAee oC TO: City of HB, Community Development Dept.,2000 Main St.,HB 92648 Attn: Mary Beth Broere , Sr. Planner Date: ��.�7 f,5p I,the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner,DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W comer of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. Name Signature Address: TO: City of HB, Community Development Dept., 2000 Main St., HB 92648 Attn: Mary B�Br n, ��lanner Date: I, the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner, DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W corner of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. Name �/11 Signature (� Address: 6�Cy PO ID C./`�-C j/L u H�` ?� -C A �� J' TO: City of HB, Community Development Dept.,2000 Main St.,HB 92648 Attn: Maly Beth_ Broeren, Sr. Planner Date: I, the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner, DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W comer of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should 'sh the need for this additional commercial site. Pn i _ M�C-1 k' rh 1 P U C) - Name S i ature :address: �1� TO: City of HB,Community Development Dept.,2000 Main St., HB 92648 Attn: Mari+ Beth Broeren, Sr. Planner Date: �f -/7• (?8, 1, the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner, DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W comer of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. Name , ! i�nature Address: TO: City of HB, Community Development Dept.,2000 Main St.,HB 92648 Attn: Mary Beth Broeren, Sr. Planner Date: L4- 1'-1-C1 9 I, the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner,DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W comer of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. inna Name jcrakeA Address: 7501 ,�, _ TO: City of HB, Community nevelopment Dept., 2000 Main St., HB -�1648 Attn: Mary Beth Broeren Sr. I .finer Date: ,( I, the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner,DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W corner of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. J _ /YQhe //J//,j Name Signature Address: , ' dS (�5/ i� C A/A7IC/ )�� y TO: City of HB, Community Development Dept.,2000 Main St., HB 92648 Attn: Mary Beth Broeren, Sr. Planner Date: -.t1-9� I,the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner, DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W comer of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. lt�`-tom-f' J03 Z�J J'�' ►�3e Name 0 Signature Address: 661 Vz"y Gem- `�� ok qz4vis TO: City of HB, Community Development Dept.,2000 Main St.,HB 92648 Attn: Mary Beth Broeren, Sr. Planner Date: — 'o - 1,the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner, DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W corner of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. Name Signature Address: ZAA�� `T�S TO: City of HB, Community Development Dept., 2000 Main St., HB 92648 Attn: Mary B th roeren, Sr. Planner Date: I, the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner,DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W corner of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center sho 'sh the need for this additional commercial site. r a(. �U Name / (2062 /S Signa Address: TO: City of HB, Community Development Dept.,2000 Main St., HB 92648 Attn: Mary Beth Broeren, Sr. Planner Date: I, the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner, DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W comer of Garfield and Goldenwest. I fiirther wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. Name Signature Address: � I �'T �Y'.�� S �o �l, 1:1, 13 TO: City of HB}Community Development Dept.,2000 Main St., HB 92648 Attn: Mary Beth Broer n, Sr. Planner Date: I, the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner, DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W comer of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. Name Signature Address: Jt- 7 1 ' C� K-8 TO: City of HB, Community ^''velopment Dept., 2000 Main St., HB. '548 Attn: Mr Beol Broeren, Sr. Pi .finer Date: i I,the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner,DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W comer of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. ff /k6aw-t'- " �OQAce Name I /� _ Signature Address: ` +a C " - ���& TO: City of HB, Community Development Dept., 2000 Main St., hIB 92648 Attn: Mary Beth Broeren, Sr. Planner Date: 4-a5-4e I, the undersigned Huntington Beach Homeowner, DO NOT support the higher density residential changes or the expansion in the commercial area as requested by PLC Property Development for the property at the S/W comer of Garfield and Goldenwest. I further wish the City of HB to reconsider any commercial build- ing in this area. The expansion of the Seacliff Shopping Center should diminish the need for this additional commercial site. r Name Gail and Andy Pieter Signature 6916 T rf Drive Address: Hmzdagton Beach,CA 92648 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT: SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 97-2/ Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-5/ Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-1/ Negative Declaration No. 97-22 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 6, 1998 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWAYPED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use I D. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone wishing to speak on an OPEN public hearing is requested to complete the attached pink form and give it to the Sergeant-at-Arms is located near the Speakers Podium. D-1. (City Council) Public Hearing -Appeal by Robert and Eleanor Lee of Planning Commission's Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 97-4/Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-2/Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-4/Conditional Use Permit No. 97-56/Negative Declaration No. 97-16 (Seacliff Village) (440.50) Communication from the Community Development Director *Communication to Council from Councilmember Harman dated June 9, 1998 submitting suggested modification to Conditions of Approval *Communication from City Administrator Silver dated June 9, 1998 presenting recommended Alternative Action for adoption by the City Council Public hearing to consider the following: Appellant: Robert and Eleanor Lee z �. : c Applicant: Jim Yoder, Shea Vickers Development m a (6) o=;-< � xo co x w c� 00 D =J (7) 06/15/98 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 7 Request: To construct a new 259,000 square foot shopping center and to master plan the remainder of the site for future residential and mixed development. A General Plan `1 Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment are requested to modify the General Plan and Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan to accommodate the proposed project and to change the designation of approximately four (4) acres of land from Industrial to Mixed Use. Location: 2124 Main Street (north of Yorktown Avenue between Goldenwest and Main Streets) Environmental Status: This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department and available for public inspection and comme0t by contacting the Community Development Departme�nt.r • Recommended Action: ,hq, C os £c rs,fo Can7L,n veD (,� A. Planning \theanning ion Recommendation; Motion to: 1. Uphold Commission's action and approve Negative Declaration No. 97ndings and mitigation measures (Attachment No. 4 to Request for Councated June 15\ommission's 1998), and 2. Uphold the Plannin's action and approve General Plan Amendment No. 97-4 to redes acres of industrial property to medium density residential with finpt Resolution No. 98-49A (Attachment No. 1 to Request for Cound June 15, 1998), and 3. Uphold the Planni ' action and approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-2 by adopting Ordinance . 3400A (Attachment No. 2 to Request for Council Action dated June 15, 1998) nd Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-4 by adopting Resolution No. %andra chment No. 3 to Request for Council Action dated June 15, 1998) it (Attachment No. 4 to Request for Council Action dated June 15, 1998), a 4. Uphold the Planning Commission's actioove Conditional Use Permit No. 97-56 with findings and conditions o4 to Request for Council Action dated June 15, 1998). OR I B. Staff Recommendation: Motion to: 1. Uphold the Planning Commission's action and appclaration No. 97-16 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment No. 8 Request for Council Action dated June 15, 1998), and 2. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 97-4 to redesignate the four acres industrial property to mixed use horizontal with findings and adopt Resolutio No. 98-49B (Attachment No. 5 to Request for Council Action dated June 15, 1998), and (7) Page 8 - Council/Agency Agenda - 06/15/98 (8) -� 3. Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-2 by adopting Ordinance No. 3400B (Attachment No. 6 to Request for Council Action dated June 15, 1998) and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 97-4 by adopting Resolution No. 98-50B (Attachment No. 7 to Request for Council Action dated June 15, 1998) with findings (Attachment No. 8 to Request for Council Action dated June 15, 1998), and 4. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 97-56 with findings and conditions of approval that limit the number of drive-thru establishments to one per street frontage, require one additional bus pad on Goldenwest and reduce processing requirements for permanent location of Patti's Preschool to the Zoning Administrator level (Attachment No. 8 to Request for Council Action dated June 15, 1998). �i*a/j��/�v� bws•o;,•. fo ad atmnedmte� 6�a9/y� D-2. (City Council) Public Hearing -Adopt Resolution No. 98-52 - MSI (Management Services Institute) Revisions To Comprehensive Fee Schedules Of Police Department_ (False Alarm Fees and Fines) And City Treasurer's Office (Returned Check Fee And Increase Business License Fees For Address Changes And Duplicate Business Licenses) (340.20) Communication from the Deputy City Administrator-Administrative Services Director, Police Chief, and City Treasurer Public hearing to consider the following: The Police Department is revising false alarm fees and fines. The City Treasurer is increasing the returned check(NSF) fee as allowed by California law (AB 2643) and increasing business license fees for address changes and duplicate business licenses. Recommended Action: Following the public hearing and any discussion held by the City Council, adopt Resolution No. 98-52 - 'A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Resolution No. 5159 Entitled 'A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Establishing A Fee Schedule'as to Services Offered by the City(Supplemental Fee Resolution No. 67). �P / f- Coh'�11?vE OPT N 7—6 -V x ..0 2 c �� I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City _` '�n--<M of Huntington Beach,in the office and Cr -<c7 rn that I posted this Agenda on the B etin Board in the outside post- M�m< • D >-�:Z70 ing board at the Civic Center on` at 5- m. p.m. x n c Z Daie Signature �„� D CO �.1 (8) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, July 6, 1998, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item: ❑ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-2/ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97- 5/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-22/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 97-1 (GREENBRIAR/MONTECITO): Applicant: PLC Land Company Request: To amend the General Plan, Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program to: 1) expand the existing commercial designation in Montecito from seven to 11 gross acres and 2) change the Medium High Density (25 units per acre), Medium Density (15 units per acre) and Low Density (seven units per acre) residential areas in Greenbriar and Montecito to Low Density (five units per acre). Location: South side of Garfield Avenue, between Peninsula Lane and Goldenwest Street, north of Summit Drive Project Planner: Mary Beth Broeren NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that the above item, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effect and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after July 2, 1998. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 z � � G „� `� ���� J �cJ� ��j..s�,^-.c�'. D o D 0i4 MEETING DATE: July 6, 1998 DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REQUESTING: Community Development GPA 97-1, ZTA 97-5, Neg. Dec. 97-22, LCPA 97-1 (Greenbriar/Montecito), PLC Multi-Family TODAY'S DATE June 22, 1998 VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: APPROVED BY: Q c�,•�°i,�l Ray Silver City Administrator 6/22/98 2:57 PM CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: - X-�) Sj DEPARTMENT: t7x-_ --be,&r& A&t1oftAMt MEETING DATE:CONTACT:. J PHONE: N/A YES NO ( ) �A) ( .) Is the notice attached? Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) ( ) Are the date,day and time of the public hearing correct? �(�►) ( ) ( ) If an appeal, is the appeicant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? ( ) \(,.j) ( ) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? Is a map attached for publication? Is a larger ad required? Size Is the verification statement attach indicating the source and accuracy of the , mailing list? t>� �""r�' '' e d � �5 �°`' ' d es�- Qsv,5Sm s anti- ( ) ( ) ( ) Are the applicant's name and address of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit, is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit,are the Resident labels attached? Is the33343 report attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) Please complete the following: 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date U 2. Number of times to be published 1 3. Number of days between publications N NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, July 6, 1998, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-2/ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97- 5/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-22/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 97-1 (GREENBRIAR/MONTECITO): Applicant: PLC Land Company Request: To amend the General Plan and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to: 1) expand the existing commercial designation in Montecito from seven to 11 gross acres and 2) change the Medium High Density (25 units per acre), Medium Density (15 units per acre) and Low Density (seven units per acre) residential areas in Greenbriar and Montecito to Low Density (five units per acre). Location: South side of Garfield Avenue, between Peninsula Lane and Goldenwest Street, north of Summit Drive Project Planner: Mary Beth Broeren NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that the above item, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effect and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after July 2, 1998. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, July 6, 1998, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-2/ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97- 5/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-22/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 97-1 (GREENBRIAR/MONTECITO): Applicant: PLC Land Company Request: To amend the General Plan and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to: 1) expand the existing commercial designation in Montecito from seven to 11 gross acres and 2) change the Medium High Density (25 units per acre), Medium Density (15 units per acre) and Low Density (seven units per acre) residential areas in Greenbriar and Montecito to Low Density (five units per acre). Location: South side of Garfield Avenue, between Peninsula Lane and Goldenwest Street, north of Summit Drive Proiect Planner: Mary Beth Broeren NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that the above item, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effect and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after July 2, 1998. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or , prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 PLC Land Company The Peninsula Homeowner's Alom 23 Corporate P , uite 250 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250 c/o Merit Property Managems 25910 Acero Street, Second Newport Beach, CA 926 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mission Viejo, CA 92691-277] tons Huntington Beach HOA APN: 023-010-25 10 AP -010-26 c/o Keysto cific Prop. Mgmt. Shea Vickers Shea Vickers 4100 Newport Plac , ' e 350 655 Brea Canyon Road 655 Brea Canyon Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Walnut, CA 91788-0487 Walnut, CA 91788-0487 APN: 023-251-01 APN: 023-251-02 APN: 023-251-03 It Gilbert Nixon Nicholas Thomas Margaret Rieber 6861 Lawn Haven Drive 6881 Lawn Haven Drive 6891 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 APN: 023-251-04 z APN: 023-251-05 IZ APN: 023-251-06 2 Charles Jackson Stephen Trella Ronald Moore 6901 Lawn Haven Drive 6921 Lawn Haven Drive 6931 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 APN: 023-251-07 3 APN: 023-251-08 13 APN: 023-251-09 Z Reuben Ortega Jae Choi Michael Springman 6951 Lawn Haven Drive 6961 Lawn Haven Drive 6971 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 APN: 023-251-10 APN: 023-251-11 14 APN: 023-251-12 Z Edward Hoover Rip Sanders Steven Camps 6972 Lawn Haven Drive 6962 Lawn Haven Drive 6942 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 APN: 023-251-13 S APN: 023-251-14 is APN: 023-251-15 Alberto Bascope Ellen Russell Le Roy Kriley 6932 Lawn Haven Drive 6922 Lawn Haven Drive 6902 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Hunting on Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-252-01 023-252-02 IV 023-252-03 Thomas Donald Joseph eIla _ 6842 Lawn-Haven �' 6852 Lawn Hav 6 6872 Lawn Hav e Huntington Beach', CA 9 8 Huntington Beach, CA 8 Huntington Beach, CA 48 N: 023-252-04 —1 APN: 023-261-01 ri APN: 023-261-02 z Trll SloU Craig Hunneyman Robert Madsen 6382 Lawn Hav e• 6821 Lawn Haven Drive 6801 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, CA 8 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 APN: 023-261-03 t6 APN: 023-261-04 APN: 023-261-05 Shigeyoshi Ota William Perkins Reinald Heise 6791 Lawn Haven Drive 6781 Lawn Haven Drive 6771 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 --PN: 159-421-04 41 APN: 159-421-05 SS APN: 159-421-06 C Emani Dorr Erick Zellmer Bradley Smith 19171 Quietsands Circle 19161 Quietsands Circle 19162 Quietsands Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 APN: 159-421-07 4g APN: 159-421-08 S(o APN: 159-421-09 Daniel Hazard Miryekta Trust David Marin 19172 Quietsands Circle 19182 Quietsands Circle 19202 Quietsands Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 9264$ APN: 159-421-10 4'1 APN- 159-431-04 to 07 APN: 159-451-21 Jeffrey Engle PLC C Ngo 19222 Quietsands Circle 23 Corporate Plaza, ' e 250 18956 Silver ' ane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Huntington Beach, 648 APN: 159-451-22 So APN: 159-451-23 .51 N: 159-451-24 E Famworth Ste er James kett 6992 T 6982 Turf 6966 Turf Huntington Beach, 2648 Huntin, Beach, 648 Huntington Beach, C 648 APN: 159-451-25 51 APN: 159-451-26 S$ N: 159-451-27 (4 Dead' o Gendler Andre 'eter 6952 Turf 6932 Turf 6916 Turf Huntington Beach, C 648 Huntington Beach, 2648 Huntington Beach, C 64 APN: 159-451-28 57- 159-451-29 S1 N: 159-451-30 n Digiovanni Keane m' e L cDonald 6902 T e 6882 Turf Drive 6866 TurfDr Huntington Beach, 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 48 Huntington Beach, 9264 N: 159-451-31 S-3 APN: 159-451-32 159-451-33 Robert a Michae Caa Ngoc u 6852 Turf Drive 6832 Turf 6816 Turf Driv Huntington Beach, CA 9264 Huntington Beach, 2648 Huntington Beach, 264F APN: 159-451-34 Sy AP 9-451-35 to 37,66 to 68,71 N: 159-462-10 to 15, 22 Mark Billes . Huntington Hampton 61 Hun each Hampton 6796 Turf Drive 333 S. Hope St.,38 oor 333 �S. Hop t., 38 rHuntington Beach, CA 92648 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Los es, C 0071 t \ q►SZ �e ''11USZ3 �slnb �'a' FC..1I1�-i�Ot'1 �Gl -:3-181-73 023-251-16 023-251-17 National Golf Operating Pat Shigeo Morikawa Paul R. Sandberg 1918 15th St . No. 200 6911 Church Cir 6921 Church Cir Santa Monica CA 90404 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 )::3-251-20 023-251-21 023-251-22 Eileen Anne Druiff Jack R. Distaso George R. Hill 6461 Church Cir 6971 Church Cir 6982 Church Cir Runtington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 02.3-251-23 023-251-24 023-251-25 -Viomas E. Mc Cown Paul H. Colonna Michael L. Taylor 6972 Church Cir 6952 Church Cir 6942 Church Cir gantington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 23-251-26 023-251-27 023-251-28 Stephen D. Cheney Dulcie Ann Wong Hugh Thomas Mangham 6932 Church Cir 6922 Church Cir 6902 Church Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 926Q 023-251-29 023-251-30 023-251-31 John A. Kloos Robert B. Evans Joseph L. Barilla 6901 Garden Cir 6921 Garden Cir 6931 Garden Cir 4untington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 23-251-32 023-251-33 023-251-34 Lee E. Denton Robert A. Ingram Glen V. Hesprich 6941 Garden Cir 6951 Garden Cir 6971 Garden Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 23-251-35 023-251-36 023-251-37 Edward J. Lieber John F. Roe Frederick E. Luhman (,981 Garden Cir 19382 Surfdale Lane 19392 Surfdale Lane Runtington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 23-251-38 023-251-40 023-251-42 'William Michad' Bowermaster James Chiu Dan J. Moss 13402 Surfdale Lane 1519 Caddington Dr. 6931 Church Cir N .intington Beach CA 92648 Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90 Huntington Beach CA 92648 23-251-43 023-251-44 023-251-45 PP ter D. Doyle C. & L. L. 1997 Tr ChaireZ- Robert J. Krakower (gyp 41 Church Cir 19420 Sandpebble Cir 19424 Sandpebble Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92648 23-251-46 023-251-47 023-251-48 Scott L. Thompson Hassan Alkhouli Robert R. Land 11430 Sandpebble Cir 19429 Sandpebble Cir 19425 Sandpebble Cir MUntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 oa3as1-4 .1 Co..r to S GLut,i re� S�. 6e to j 023-251-49 023-251-50 023-251-51 David L. Mc Connell Morton Markowitz James J. Meehan 19419 Sandpebble Cir 19415 Sandpebble Cir 19411 Sandpebble Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-251-52 023-251-53 023-251-54 Garey L. Cooper Nathan Ilanit Susan M. Brauch 19401 Sandpebble Cir 19391 Sandpebble Cir 19381 Sandpebble Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-251-56 023-252-01 023-252-02 Paul Dennis Wachob CSENAR Thomas L Donald Watt 19412 Surfdale Lane 6842 Lawn Haven Dr. 6852 Lawn Haven Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-252-03 023-252-04 023-252-05 Joseph F. Ciccarella Jill A. Sloan Lois K. Havens 6872 Lawn Haven Dr. 6882 Lawn Haven Dr. 19291 Surfdale Lane Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-252-06 023-252-07 023-252-08 Jane S. Miller Ronald A. Jacobson Sharon L. Klecker 19301 Surftide Dr. 19321 Surfdale Lane 19331 Surfdale Lane Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-252-09 023-252-10 023-252-11 George W. Pascoe Frank Rossi Etsuko Baker 19341 Surfdale Lane 19351 Surfdale Lane 19371 Surfdale Lane Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-252-12 023-252-13 023-252-14 Robert J. Shofer Donald E. Marshall Craig W. Wright 19381 Surfdale Lane 6891 Evening Hill Dr. 6881 Evening Hill Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-252-15 023-252-16 023-252-17 Spencer C. Sheldon - Paul W. Kaluzny Bobby G. Lamb 6871 Evening Hill -Dr. 6851 Evening Hill Dr. 30205 White Wake Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Sun City CA 92587 023-252-18 023-252-19 023-252-20 Ann M. Gibson Jo Kay R. Draper Carl R. Carpenter 19382 Shady Harbor Cir 19362 Shady Harbor Cir 19352 Shady Harbor Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-252-21 023-252-22 023-252-23 Hossein Mohamadi Ed H. Kimball George F. Taylor 19342 Shady Harbor Cir 12 Rue De Vouille Paris 13437 Leffingwell Rd. Huntington Beach CA 92648 France V:�O15 Whittier CA 90605 023-253-01 023-253-02 023-253-03 Richard R. Ruess Leonard R. Espinosa Michael Maines 19431 Surfdale Lane 6882 Evening Hill Dr. 6872 Evening Hill Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-253-04 023-253-05 023-262-09 Vladimir Konovalov Shirley A. Rosik Charles W. Morris 6862 Evening Hill Dr. 6852 Evening Hill Dr. 19272 Evening Hill Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-262-10 023-262-11 023-262-12 Frank H. Tostado Robert James Belikoff Stanley W. Sawyer 19282 Evening Hill Dr. 19302 Evening Hill Dr. 19312 Evening Hill Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-262-13 023-262-14 023-262-15 Robert G. Brock Richard A. Cabe Naife E . Kraus t9322 Evening Hill Dr. 19332 Evening Hill Dr. 19361 Manor Point Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-262-16 023-262-17 023-262-18 William T. Scroggins Dale D. Dickey Robert E. Stinson 19351 Manor Point Cir 19341 Manor Point Cir 19331 Manor Point Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-262-19 023-262-20 023-262-21 John A. Delmont Gracelynn C. Klein Mark Gottlieb 19321 Manor Point Cir 19311 Manor Point Cir 19301 Manor Point Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-262-22 023-262-23 023-262-24 Gregory William Dewolf Kenneth Dale Mattocks George D. Toy L9312 Manor Point Cir 19322 Manor Point Cir 19332 Manor Point Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 )23-262-25 023-262-26 023-262-27 Robert S . Mueller - William R. Boehlert Anthony J. Siani 1-9342 Manor Point -Cir 19352 Manor Point Cir 6761 Evening Hill Dr. kuntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 23-262-28 023-262-29 023-262-30 Richard E. Peters Jack E. Hinsche Joe L. Costa 4o771 Evening Hill Dr. 6781 Evening Hill Dr. 6372 Turnberry Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 -31 o►�,P 023-262-32 023-262-33 J--ffrey el Gregory B. Hardy Thomas G. Reardon 0391 Shady Harb Cir 19381 Shady Harbor Cir 19351 Shady Harbor Cir fHuntington Beach CA 9 8 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 P305303 023-262-34 023-262-35 023-262-36 Gene J. Farrell Thomas W. Cunningham Jackson Schutz 19341 Shady Harbor Cir 19331 Shady Harbor Cir 19321 Shady Harbor Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-263-01 023-263-02 023-263-03 Emmanuel E . Ladsous Paul H. Jackle Robert P. Heckrotte 6701 Lawn Haven Dr. 18652 Florida St . No. 300 6132 Eaglecrest Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-263-04 023-263-05 023-263-06 John C. Hiserodt Barbara Kruly Dennis A. David 6722 Lawn Haven Dr. 6732 Lawn Haven Dr. 6731 Harbor Key Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-263-07 023-263-08 023-263-09 Patrick Shield Michael J. Mokler Robert D. Dawson 6721 Harbor Key Cir 6701 Harbor Key Cir 6691 Harbor Key Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-263-10 023-263-11 023-263-12 Schley Trust Pauline Marie Huggins Michael P. Hughes 1120 Pacific Coast HWY P.O. Box 723 6712 Harbor Key Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 )23-263-13 023-263-14 023-263-15 Teffrey I . Golden Robert D. Finer Mark D. Aguilar 6722 Harbor Key Cir 6721 Country Cir 6711 Country Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 23-263-16 023-263-17 023-263-18 `firung Q. Le Eugene J. Chlebicki William J. Makrdichian 6701 Country Cir 6691 Country Cir 6681 Country Cir Puntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 23-263-19 023-263-20 023-263-21 Daniel V. Mc Carthy- John O. Jenkins Palmer Pilette 6082 Country Cir - 6692 Country Cir 6702 Country Cir I+Untington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 OZ3-263-22 023-263-23 023-263-24 Flex David Johnston Theodore Noel Ross Fred Nikitin 6'712 Country Cir 6722 Country Cir 6731 Gate Hill Cir uuntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 M,3-263-32 023-263-33 0 63-34 Kemble L. Provorse Marjorie P. Hankey City o untington Beach (P732 Gate Hill Cir 6742 Gate Hill Cir 200 Main Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bead A 92640 2)3 -.;L(,3 off Z)GNl,.A Le �12co�-i S 023-263-35 110-0 4 110-232-04 David V. Mostoufi Plc Plc co/ C,h.r,b'bw�e {01V-Q S 6742 Evening Hill Dr. 23 Corporate za Dr. No 3991 MacArthur Blvd. No.A45 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 660 Newport Beach CA 92660 -01 110-421-0 110-421-0 Lennar Hom alifornia IrY Lennar Ho es California I Lennar Ho es California 27432 Calle Arro qZ�o� 27432 Cal e Arroyo 27432 Cal e Arroyo San Juan Capistrano San Juan apistrano CA 92 San Juan apistrano CA 9 110-421ja 110-421-0 110-421-06 Lennar es California In Lennar Ho s California I Lennar Hom s California 27432 Ce Arroyo 27432 Call Arroyo 27432 Call Arroyo San Juaapistrano CA 926 San Juan C pistrano CA 92 San Juan C pistrano CA 9 110-421 110-421-08 110-421-09 Lennar es California In Lennar Hom s California I Lennar Hom s California 27432 CeArroyo 27432 Call Arroyo 27432 Call Arroyo San Juaapistrano CA 926 San Juan C pistrano CA 92 San Juan C pistrano CA 9 110-421-10 110-421-11 110-421-12 Lennar Fomes California In Lennar Homes California I Lennar HOMES California 27432 Calle Arroyo 27432 Call Arroyo 27432 CallE Arroyo San Juan Capistrano CA 926 San Juan Ca istrano CA 92 San Juan Capistrano CA 9 110-421- 3 110-421-14 110-421-15 Lennar H mes California In Lennar Home California I Lennar Homes California 27432 Ca le Arroyo 27432 Calle Arroyo 27432 Call Arroyo San Juan Capistrano CA 926 San Juan Ca istrano CA 92 San Juan Capistrano CA 9 110-421- 6 110-421-17 110-421-18 ..ennar H es California In Hamaoui 1988 Trust Lennar Homes California -7432 Cal e Arroyo 6363 Royal Grove Dr. 27432 Calle Arroyo -an Juan apistrano CA 926 Huntington Beach CA 92648 San Juan Capistrano CA 9 !0-421-1 110-421-20 110-421-21 =nnar Ho es California In Lennar Hom s California I Lennar Hom s California .432 Cal e Arroyo 27432 Call Arroyo 27432 Call Arroyo :n Juan apistrano CA 926 San Juan apistrano CA 92 San Juan Capistrano CA 9 110-421--22 110-421-2 110-421-24 Ralph W. Sirek Lennar Houes California I Lee M. Gross &380 Royal Grove Dr. 27432 Calle Arroyo 6364 Royal Grove Dr. gugtington Beach CA 92648 San Juan Capistrano CA 92 Huntington Beach CA 92648 11)-421-25 110-421-26 110-421-• 7 Toseph A. Cote Lennar Ho es California I Lennar H mes California 1o356 Royal Grove Dr. 27432 Cal e Arroyo 27432 Ca le Arroyo i.Wntington Beach CA 92648 San Juan apistrano CA 92 San Juan Capistrano CA 9 421-28 1 0-4r2 29 110-421-30 inn Homes California In Le nar Homes California I Gary S . Bauhard 1432 le Arroyo 274 Calle Arroyo 6331 Forester Dr. .:,n Juan istrano CA 926 San n Capistrano CA 92 Huntington Beach CA 9264a :, 0-421-31 110-421-32 0-421-33 .ennar Homes Cali nia In Lennar Homes California I Le ar Homes California 432 Calle Arroyo 27432 Calle A oyo 2743 Calle Arroyo Juan Capistrano C 926 San Juan Capist no CA 92 San Ju Capistrano CA 9 1.10-421-34 110-421-35 110-421-36 Paul R. Hoffmann Lennar Homes Califor ' a I Lennar Homes Ca ' fornia b363 Forester Dr. 27432 Calle Arroyo 27432 Calle Arro Huntington Beach CA 92648 San Juan Capistrano CA 2 San Juan Capistrano CA 9 421-37 110-421-38 110-421-39 ,.-nnar California In Roy P. Covert Tim T. Chen 432 Calle Ar 6396 Forester Dr. 6388 Forester Dr. �j Juan Capistrano 926 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 9264E 11.0-421-40 110-421-41 110-421-42 Michael B. Ochsner Baskin Trust Alvin D. Layton W80 Forester Dr. 6372 Forester Dr. 6364 Forester Dr. NL.tntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 I `)-421-43 110-421-44 110-421-45 .` nar Homes California In Kevina Hubbard Steve J. Bellino 2 Calle Arroyo 6348 Forester Dr. 6340 Forester Dr. :. k uan Capistrano CA 926 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 -421 46 1 0-421-47 1 0-421-48 inar mes California In Le ar Homes California I Le ar Homes California -.'32 Ca e Arroyo 2743 Calle Arroyo 2743 Calle Arroyo Juan apistrano CA 926 San J an Capistrano CA 92 San J n Capistrano CA 9 ' -421-49 110-421- 110-421-51 •nar Homes alifornia In Lennar Ho s California I Lennar Home California 2 Calle A oyo 27432 Calle Arroyo 27432 Calle A oyo Juan Capis ano CA 926 San Juan Ca ' strano CA 92 San Juan Capist ano CA 9 421-52 110-421-53 110-421-54 .;-ar Homes Cali rnia In Lennar Homes Ca ' fornia I Lennar Homes Califor is Calle Arroyo 27432 Calle Arro 27432 Calle Arroyo Juan Capistrano CA 926 San Juan Capistran CA 92 San Juan Capistrano CA 9 421-55 110-421-56 110-431-01 �,,ar Homes California In Lennar Homes California Gerald A. Gray - 2 Calle Arroyo 27432 Calle Arroyo P.O. Box 1070 Juan Capistrano CA 9 San Juan Capistrano CA 92 Los Alamitos CA 90720 110-431-02 11 -431-03 110-431-04 Ronald N. Lennon Le__ Homes California I Jack B . McQuaid 6403 Royal Grove Dr. 27432 le Arroyo 19182 Foxglen Lane Huntington Beach CA 92648 San Juan istrano CA 92 Huntington Beach CA 9264� 110-431-05 110-431-06 \Calirnia 110-431-07 Kenneth A. Ball Lennar Homes I John P. McLaughlin 19190 Foxglen Lane 27432 Calle 19206 Foxglen Lane Huntington Beach CA 92648 San Juan Cap92 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110-431-08 110-431-09 110-431-10 Ronald T. Wootton Peter D. Donnellan Farid Laghaei 6471 Braddock Cir 6481 Braddock Cir 6485 Braddock Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110-431-11 110-431-12 1 0-431-13 Le ar Homes California In James J. Taglieri L nnar Homes California 274 2 Calle Arroyo 6492 Braddock Cir 2 432 Calle Arroyo San uan Capistrano CA 926 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Sa Juan Capistrano CA 9 110-43 -14 1 0-431-15 110 431-16 Lennar omes California In Le nar Homes California I Lenn r Homes California 27432 Ca le Arroyo 274 2 Calle Arroyo 2743 Calle Arroyo San Juan Capistrano CA 926 San Juan Capistrano CA 92 San an Capistrano CA 9 110-431-17 110-4 1-18 110-43 -19 Lennar Home California In Lennar Homes California I Lennar omes California 27432 Calle royo 27432 lle Arroyo 27432 C lle Arroyo Tan Juan Capistrano CA 926 San Jua Capistrano CA 92 San Juan Capistrano CA 9 _10-431-20 110-431-2 110-431-2 %ennar Homes C lifornia In Lennar Ho s California I Lennar Ho s California '.7432 Calle Ar yo 27432 Call Arroyo 27432 Call Arroyo .an Juan Capist ano CA 926 San Juan Ca istrano CA 92 San Juan C istrano CA 9 .10-431-23 110-431-24 110-431-25 -annar Homes -Cali or-nia In Lennar Homes C lifornia I Lennar Homes California 7432 Calle Arroy 27432 Calle Ar yo 27432 Calle A royo in Juan Capistran CA 926 San Juan Capist no CA 92 San Juan Capi trano CA 9 0-431-26 110-431-27 110-431-28 nnar Homes Califo is In Lennar Homes Califo nia I Lennar Homes Ca ifornia 432 Calle Arroyo 27432 Calle Arroyo 27432 Calle Arr o n Juan Capistrano 926 San Juan Capistrano A 92 San Juan Capistr no CA 9 0-431-29 110-431-30 110-431-31 nnar Homes Californi In Lennar Homes Californi I Lennar Homes Calif rnia 432 Calle Arroyo 27432 Calle Arroyo 27432 Calle Arroyo a Juan Capistrano CA 6 San Juan Capistrano CA 2 San Juan Capistrano CA 9 110-4 2 11 31-33 110-431-34 Lennar Home alifornia In Lennar s California I David W. Thomas 27432 Calle Arro 27432 Calle o 19225 Foxglen Lane San Juan Capistrano 926 San Juan Capistra CA 92 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110-431-35 110-431-36 110-431-37 Mark D. Newton Mark A. Frank Paul D. Kang 19217 Foxglen Lane 19209 Foxglen Lane 19201 Foxglen Lane Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110-431-38 10-431-39 11,0-431-40 Frank C. Pearce Le ar Homes California I Len ar Homes California 6396 Royal Grove Dr. 2743 Calle Arroyo 2743 Calle Arroyo Huntington Beach CA 92648 San Ju Capistrano CA 92 San Ju Capistrano CA 9 1 -431-41 110-431-42 110-431-43 Lenna es California In Lennar Homes Ca ' fornia I Lennar Homes C ifornia 27432 Calle oyo 27432 Calle Arroy 27432 Calle Arro 0 San Juan Capistra CA 926 San Juan Capistrano A 92 San Juan Capistran CA 9 110-431-44 -rVrnU xr 110-481-01 0-481-02 Huntington Beach Llc Ta for Woodrow Homes Inc T ylor Woodrow Homes Inc 15707 Rockfield Blvd. No. 220 Dupont Dr. No. 420 22 1 Dupont Dr. No. 420 Irvine CA 92618 305 Iry e CA 92612 Ir ' ne CA 92612 !10-481-03 110-4 1-04 110-4 1-05 -Taylor Woodrow Homes Inc Taylo Woodrow Homes Inc Taylo Woodrow Homes Inc 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 D pont Dr. No. 420 2201 D pont Dr. No. 420 Irvine CA 92612 Irvine A 92612 Irvine CA 92612 V�0-481-06 110-481-1 110-481- 4 a for Woodrow Homes Inc Taylor Wo row Homes Inc Taylor Wo drow Homes Inc 20 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupon Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupo t Dr. No. 420 =-vi e CA 92612 Irvine CA 9 612 Irvine CA 2612 1-0-481 15 110-481-16 110-481-17 _ylor W odrow" Homes Inc Taylor Woodrow omes Inc Taylor Woodro Homes Inc 01 Dupo t Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupont D . No. 420 -vine CA 612 Irvine CA 92612 Irvine CA 9261 .0-481-18 110-481-19 110-481-20 ylor Woodrow omes Inc Taylor Woodrow Home Inc Taylor Woodrow mes Inc 01 Dupont Dr. o. 420 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 20 2201 Dupont Dr. o. 420 vine CA 92612 Irvine CA 92612 Irvine CA 92612 J-481-21 110-481-22 110-481-23 ylor Woodrow Homes Inc Taylor Woodrow Homes I c Taylor Woodrow Home Inc 01 Dupont Dr. No. 4 0 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 20 urine CA 92612 Irvine CA 92612 Irvine CA 92612 t+� its, CA e�?-tpt 3 110- 1-01 110-491-02 110 91-03 Taylor Woodrow Homes Inc Guy L. Muranaka Taylo Woodrow Homes Inc 2201 Du ont Dr. No. 420 6537 Ashbury Cir 2201 Du ont Dr. No. 420 Irvine C 92612 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Irvine CA 92612 110-491-04 110-491-05 110-491-06 Taylor Woodr Homes Inc T for Woodrow Homes Inc Taylor Woodrow mes Inc 2201 Dupont D No. 420 220 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupont Dr. N 420 Irvine CA 9261 Irvin CA 92612 Irvine CA 92612 110-491-07 110-491-08 110-491-09 Taylor Woodrow Hom s Inc Taylor Woodro Homes Inc Anthony Bordas 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupont Dr. o. 420 6601 Ashbury Cir Irvine CA 92612 Irvine CA 92612 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110-491-10 110-491-11 110-491-12 Anthony E. Armand William F. Martin E. T. Dean 6605 Ashbury Cir 6609 Ashbury Cir 19245 Beckonridge Lane Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 110-491-13 1 91-14 1 0-491-15 Theodore R. Rutkowski Taylor odrow Homes Inc Ta for Woodrow Homes Inc 19239 Beckonridge Lane 2201 Dupon r. No. 420 22 1 Dupont Dr. No. 420 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Irvine CA 926 Irvine CA 92612 110-4 1-16 110-491-17 110-4 1-18 Taylor drow Homes Inc Bruce A. Higginson Taylo Woodrow Homes Inc 2201 Dupont r. No. 420 19182 Beckonridge Lane 2201 D pont Dr. No. 420 Irvine CA 926 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Irvine A 92612 110-491-19 10-491-20 110-491- Gary L. Tempia T for Woodrow Homes Inc Taylor Wo drow Homes Inc 19214 Beckonridge Lane 22 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupon Dr. No. 420 NUntington Beach CA 92648 Irvi e CA 92612 Irvine CA 9 612 110-491-22 110-491- 3 110-491-24 Gerald I . Waters - Taylor Wo row Homes Inc Taylor Woodro Homes Inc 19232 Beckonridge Zane 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupont Dr No. 420 4uptington Beach CA 92648 Irvine CA 92 2 Irvine CA 9261 .' -491-25 110-491-26 110-491-27 1y1 Woodrow Homes Inc Taylor Woodrow Ho s Inc Taylor Woodrow Ho es Inc 1.01 D ont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupont Dr. No 420 ►ine 92612 Irvine CA 92612 Irvine CA 92612 .0-491-28 110-491-29 110-491-30 :ylor WoodrowX s Inc Gil R. Mosard Taylor Woodrow Homes nc '01 Dupont Dr420 19274 Beckonridge Lane 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 4 0 Tine CA 9261 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Irvine CA 92612 110-491-31 110-491-3 110-491 3 Tayl r Woodrow Homes Inc Taylor Wo drow Homes Inc Taylor W- odrow Homes Inc 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupo t Dr. No. 420 2201 Dup t Dr. No. 420 Irvi e CA 92612 Irvine CA 92612 Irvine C 92612 110-49 -34 110-491-3 110-491-3 Taylor Woodrow Homes Inc Taylor Woo row Homes Inc Taylor Wo drow Homes Inc 2201 D ont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupon Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 Irvine A 92612 Irvine CA 2612 Irvine CA 92612 110-491- 7 110-491-38 110-491-3 Taylor Wo drow Homes Inc Taylor Woo row Homes Inc Taylor Wo drow Homes Inc 2201 Dupo t Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupon Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 Irvine CA 92612 Irvine CA 2612 Irvine CA 92612 110-491-40 110-491-41 110-491-4 Taylor Woo ow Homes Inc Taylor Woo row Homes Inc Taylor Woodrow Homes Inc 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupon Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 =rvine CA 9 612 Irvine CA 12612 Irvine CA 92612 _10-491-43 110-491-44 110-491-4 ,'aylor Woodro Homes Inc Taylor Woo row Homes Inc Taylor Woodrow Homes Inc 2201 Dupont D . No. 420 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 rrvine CA 926 Irvine CA S2612 Irvine CA 92612 _10-491-46 110-491-47 110-491-4 aylor Woodrow omes Inc Taylor Wood ow Homes Inc Taylor Wo drow Homes Inc 201 Dupont Dr. o. 420 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupo t Dr. No. 420 rvine CA 92612 Irvine CA 9 612 Irvine CA 2612 '10-491-49 110-491-50 110-491-51 iylor Woodrow Ho es Inc Taylor Wood ow Homes Inc Taylor Woo row Homes Inc .01 Dupont Dr. N 420 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupon Dr. No. 420 .vine CA 92612 Irvine CA 9, 612 Irvine CA 2612 110-491-52 110-491-53 110-491-54 eve Terry Taylor Wood ow Homes Inc Taylor Woo row Homes Inc USt3 Ashbury Cir - 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupon Dr. No. 420 Avntington Beach CA 92648 Irvine CA 9 612 Irvine CA S2612 110-491-55 110-491-56 110-491-57 Rninsula Homeowners Assn Peninsula Homeowners Assn Taylor Woo row Homes Inc .94461 Ridge Route Dr. 24461 Ridge oute Dr. 2201 Dupont, Dr. No. 420 Duna Hills CA 92653 Laguna Hill CA 92653 Irvine CA 1,2612 91-58 110-491-59 110-491-60 for row Homes Inc Taylor Wood ow Homes Inc Taylor Woo row Homes Inc 7. Dupont No. 420 2201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 2201 Dupo Dr. No. 420 �.ne CA 92612 Irvine CA 9 612 Irvine CA 92612 110 JS20-02 11 -220-03 110-220- 9-ana.(d I . Brindle Ro ld I . Brindle Ronald I . Brindle 1�51 Goldenwest St . 188 1 Goldenwest St . 18851 Gol enwest St . A unh'ngton Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntingto Beach CA 9264 20-05 110-22 -01 110-221-0 d I . Brindle Ronald . Brindle Ronald I . Brindle oldenwest St . 18851 G ldenwest St . 18851 Gol enwest St . ng n Beach CA 92648 Huntingt n Beach CA 92648 Huntingto Beach CA 9264 21-03 110-221-04 110-221-05 d I . Brindl Ronald I . rindle City of Hu tington Beach Goldenwest S 18851 Golde west St . 2000 Main t . ngton Beach CA 2648 Huntington each CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 9264 1-06 110-221-07 110-221-08 d I . Brindle Ronald I . Sri le Dorothy J. walker oldenwest St . 18851 Goldenwe t St . 18851 Goldenwest St . n on Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bea CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 9264 21- 9 110-221-10 110-221-11 d I . Brindle Ronald I . Brindle Ronald I . Irindle Gol enwest St . 18851 Goldenwest t . 18851 Goldenwest St . ngto Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington Beach CA 9264 21-12 110-221-13 110-221-14 d I . B indle Dorothy J. Walker Ronald I . 11rindle Golde est St . 18851 Goldenwest St . 18851 Goldenwest St . ngton B ch CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 2648 Huntington Beach CA 9264 21-15 110-221-16 110-221-17 d I . Brind e City of Huntington Bea h City of Hu tington Beach Goldenwest St . P.O. Box 190 2000 Main It . ngton Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92 8 Huntington Beach CA 9264 21-18 110-221-19 110-221-20 d I . Brindle - Margaret J. Pettitt Ronald I . rindle Goldenwest St . 18851 Goldenwest St . 18851 Gold nwest St . ngton Beach CA 2648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 9264 21-21 110-221-22 110-221-23 d I . Brindle Emma F. Scouller Ronald I . rindle Goldenwest St . 8302 Indianapolis Ave. 18851 Gold nwest St . ngton Beach CA 9264 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 9264 14•_21-24 1 21-25 110-221-26 shy J. Walker City o tington Beach Ronald I . rindle led$51 Goldenwest St . 2000 Main St . 18851 Gold nwest St . Non+; ngton Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington Beach CA 9264 110-22 -01 110- -02 11 222-03 Ronald Brindle Ronald rindle City f Huntington Beach 18851 Go denwest St . 18851 Golde st St . P.O. Bo 190 Funtingt Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beac CA 92648 Huntingt Beach CA 9264 110-222-04 110-222-05 110-222-06 Ronald I . B indle Kenneth Harrald Hubbs Ronald I . Brin e 18851 Golden est St . 10651 Knott Ave . 18851 Goldenwest St . Huntington B ach CA 92648 Cypress CA 90630 Huntington Beach A 9264 110-222-07 110-222-08 110- 2-09 Ronald I . Brin le Yousef Ghodooshim Yousef dooshim 18851 Goldenwes St . 320 Crown Dr. 320 Crown Huntington Beac CA 92648 Los Angeles CA 90049 Los Angele bv s C 0049 110-222-10 10-222-11 110-222-13 Ronald I . Brindle Ro ld I . Brindle Harold C. Morton 18851 Goldenwest t . 18851 oldenwest St . P.O. Box 1097 Huntington Beach C 92648 Hunting Beach CA 92648 Carlsbad CA 92018 110-222-14 110-222-15 110 22-16 Ronald I . Brindle City of Huntingt Beach Ronald Brindle 18851 Goldenwest St . P.O. Box 190 18851 Gold est St . Huntington Beach CA 648 Huntington Beach CA 2648 Huntington Bea CA 9264 110-222-17 110-222-18 110-222-19 City of Huntington Bea h Nellie A. Townley Raymond P. Smith ?.O. Box 190 R 1 Box 23 22775 Carancho Rd. Huntington Beach CA 926 8 Montague CA 96064 Temecula CA 92590 110-222-20 1 0-222-21 1 -222-22 James C. J. Tsai Ron d I . Brindle Rona Brindle P.O. Box 9947 18851 oldenwest St . 18851 Golde t St . fountain Valley CA 92728 Hunting Beach Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach 264 LO -23 110-222-24 1 0-222-26 )nald I . 'ndle - Ronald I . Brindle Rona Borghetti ;851 Goldenwe St . 18851 Goldenwest St 10208 Disne r .ntington Beach 48 Huntington Beach CA 648 Huntington Beach 9264 C 26 1 -2 7 110-222-28 110-222-29 ftozald P. hetti Ronald P. Borghetti Daniel F. Sailer 10208 Disney Ci 10208 Disney Cir P.O. Box 2224 14LvItington Beach CA 46 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Oceanside CA 92051 11)-222-30 110-229-01 11 1-61 Daniel F. Sailer Gladys C. Bealo Peninsu omeowners Ass ROD. Box 2224 475 N. Midway Dr. No. 142 24461 Ridge to Dr. OGaanside CA 92051 Escondido CA 92027 Laguna Hills CA 53 1 15�1-403 L, 159-403-01 159-403-02 159-403-03 Joe Ovaknine Robert P. Pappoff John Skratt 6721 Alamitos Cir 6711 Alamitos Cir 6701 Alamitos Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 926,Z 159-403-04 159-403-05 159-403-06 Jim Vickers David Bernal Horace P. Jen 6691 Alamitos Cir 6321 Bright Ave . A Psc 472 Box 2 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Whittier CA 90601 Fpo AP 96348 159-403-07 159-403-08 159-403-09 James A. Bent William Kunio Ito Naga Hamamoto 6652 Churchill Dr. 6661 Alamitos Cir 6662 Alamitos Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159-403-10 159-403-11 159-403-12 Ranjit Sing Ahluwalia Chikau Rick Fujii Laurence O. Karsh 6672 Alamitos Cir 6692 Alamitos Cir 6702 Alamitos Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159-403-13 159-403-14 159-403-15 Pacita Pinero John A. Hatherley Paul C. Byrne 6712 Alamitos Cir 6722 Alamitos Cir 6732 Alamitos Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159-403-16 159-403-17 59-403-18 Michael L. Amaro Leslie J. Racey Hunt n Shores Commun 6742 Alamitos Cir 6752 Alamitos Cir 18011 Sky Circle No Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Irvine CA 92614 1-59-403-19 59-403-20 1 03-21 KUntington Shores Communi"I Hun i Shores Communi Huntin Shores Commun 13011 Sky Park Circle No.L 18011 Sky Pa rcle No. 18011 Sky�PCiiircile No Irvine CA 92614 Irvine CA 92614 Irvine CA 1 3-22 159-421-01 15 - 1-11 qunting Shores Communit Steven C. Chan Nationa olf Operating ?011 Sky Pa Circle No. 19221 Quietsands Cir 1448 15th No. 200 vine CA 92614 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Santa Monica C 0404 1-12 15 -421-13 1 - - 4 Iona f Operating Pa Nationa f Operating P Huntington City Sck. . 18 15th St . 200 1448 15th St . 200 20451 Craimer Lan :eta Monica CA 9 4 Santa Monica CA 9 Huntington Beach CA 9 154-431-05 - 31-06 159-431-07 4lvntington Beach City Scher Hunting Beach City Sch Michael W. Blasgen a0951 Craimer Lane 20451 Craime e 17418 Paseo Carmelo HL"tington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach 646 Los Gatos CA 95030 1 rpl Lwjo H 1 '►Lt03o5 1W1o30 3 U 101 M1 -YV^ M6 CA✓, 6ecwh, LA a12i# -V� wv-,-k;t -ovn 6e PL Gfk a12�,414 -�7 i,LA .L59-451-01 159-4 2 159-451-03 i.seach Hamptons Huntington Beac s Huntington Adair Trust h Hamp 333 S . Hope St . Fl 38 333 S. Hope St . 1 38 6785 Livingston Dr. T,os Angeles CA 90071 Los Angeles CA 90 Huntington Beach CA 9264a 159-451-04 159-451-05 159- -06 Saddek R. Girgis Frank R. Lewis Beach Hamp s Huntingto 6805 Livingston Dr. 6821 Livingston Dr. 333 S. Hope St . 1 38 :'untington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Los Angeles CA 90 _59-451-07 159-451-08 159- -09 Chih-Sheng Liu Tam M. Nguyen Beach Ha ons Homeowner 6855 Livingston Dr. 6871 Livingston Dr. 333 S . Hope F1 38 Runtington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Los Angeles CA 9 95171 _59-451-10 159-451-11 159-451-12 crank Daniel Andruss David A. Basok Myung H. Cho 6915 Livingston Dr. 6925 Livingston Dr. 6945 Livingston Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159-451-13 159-451-14 159-451-15 John Rimlinger Alfred J. Wiseman William H. Wolford 6961 Livingston Dr. 6971 Livingston Dr. 6981 Livingston Dr. Wintington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 139-451-16 159-451-17 159-451-18 Scan A. Escobar Dean C. Gilbert John L. Hammonds 6991 Livingston Dr. 18916 Silverbit Lane 18926 Silverbit Lane J-:intington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159-451-19 159-451-20 159-451-21 Miller 1997 Trust Darryl D. Black Christine K. C. Ngo W82 Turf Dr. 18946 Silverbit Lane 18956 Silverbit Lane 14-antington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159-451-22 159-451-23 159-451-24 C3win Farnwort-h Miller 1997 Trust James T. Haskett b992 Turf Dr. - 6982 Turf Dr. 6966 Turf Dr. 4intington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 139-451-25 159-451-26 159-451-27 7r, Dean Zitko Vladimir Gendler Andrew M. Pieter 6352 Turf Dr. 6932 Turf Dr. 6916 Turf Dr. I+jntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 139-451-28 159-451-29 159-451-30 Anthony F. Digiovanni Kenneth W. White Thomas J. Mac donald fo302 Turf Dr. 6882 Turf Dr. 6866 Turf Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 C 10 �x -• ,,.�es� 00,y k s r\ . 1-)V--ri C� M A u.h o 5,6 45Z0 &0(,,.. IcW 1<60► 1t0 50yub►v Lr1 . \So�3(0 5' Ln - SN,r�•1-v- rAO-Y - co-) C& �L1vl 1�.,n�-. wr, �e c- j, &A- 012ULtj 1�.,n�,�k�Y1 �c�LL� Ok, 0\-L( t 159-451-31 159-451-32 159-451-33 Robert A. Casares McCarley C G & M Trust My T. Huynh Ngoc 6852 Turf Dr. 18951 York Lane 6816 Turf Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159-451-34 159-451-35 159-451-36 Chi-Shuang Liu Charles F. Plhak Charleston G. Mc Carley 6866 Livingston Dr. 6786 Turf Dr. 18951 York Lane Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159-451-37 159-451-38 159-451-39 Stephen E. Doe Lawrence N. Distler Clayton E. Lewis 18945 York Lane 18935 York Lane 18925 York Lane Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 9264E 159-451-40 159-451-41 159-451-42 Yolanda Salsberg William C. Cole Jeannie Chan 18915 York Lane 6796 Livingston Dr. 6816 Livingston Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159-451-43 5 - 51-44 159-451-45 Jerry A. Klett Beach tons Huntington BeaZctt�d tons Huntingto e . 6832 Livingston Dr. 333 S. Hope F1 38 333 S . Hop Fl 38 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Los Angeles CA 90 Los Angeles CA 9111 1 -46 159-451-47 159-451-48 '3each Ham s Huntington Dennis R. Loren Daniel J. Stange 333 S . Hope St . 1 38 6902 Livingston Dr. 6916 Livingston Dr. 1,os Angeles CA 90 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 9264e 159-451-49 159-451-50 159-451-51 Warner Younis Yoong Pyo Kim Jonathan O. Harris 6932 Livingston Dr. 6952 Livingston Dr. 18921 Silverbit Lane Runtington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 1-59-451-52 159-451-53 159-451-54 Sohn L. Maurer. - Colleen M. Wilson John A. Thomas 18925 Silverbit Lane 18941 Silverbit Lane 6951 Turf Dr. Nvntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92643 159-451-55 159-451-56 159-451-57 -6+--ven C. Draeger John M. Chiang Marvin Frank Blaski IP931 Turf Dr. 6915 Turf Dr. 6901 Turf Dr. FlOntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159-451-58 159-451-59 159-451-60 Do-vid P. Wheeler HSU Chien W Thomas M. Tryban 1681 Turf Dr. 6865 Turf Dr. 6851 Turf Dr. gantington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 1 511 451 3Z 1S°1�-151�+'1 1''1��)rau� ►'1c.C.,c�o... '�1�rJmas p'Psl�'e�n�3J. �Iu.+rn,5c-�r�, LA32- Day (po1OZ L-vV V�vnA-,/,O� v.c-l"�C1� o►Z(�ti`� Nvn k� -, P c�c�,,LlkQZco�i�� - 159-451-61 159-451-62 159-451-63 Richard J. Liu Randy L. Rummel Jonathan Tran 6831 Turf Dr. 6815 Turf Dr. 6795 Turf Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92643 15 - 51-64 159-451-65 1 -451-66 HB Hamp omeowners Ass Hamptons Homeowners As HB mptons Homeowners A 333 S . Hope St . 38th 3 S . Hope St . No. 38th 333 Hope St . No. 38th Los Angeles CA 9007 Lo Angeles CA 90071 Los An les CA 90071 1 -67 159-45 -68 159-451-69 HB Hampto omeowners Ass HB Hampt ns Homeowners As HB Hamptons Ho eowners A 333 S. Hope St . o. 38th 333 S . Ho e St . No. 38th 333 S . Hope St . o. 38th cos Angeles CA 900 Los Angele CA 90071 Los Angeles CA 90 71 15 1-70 159-451-71 159-451-72 4B Hampt Homeowners Ass HB Hamptons Hom owners As Beach Hamptons Homeowne". 233 S . Hope S �90o38th 333 S . Hope St . o. 38th 4100Newportpl No. 350 -jos Angeles CALos Angeles CA 90 71 Newport Beach CA 92660 159-451-73 159-451-74 159-461-05 3each tons Homeowners Beach Hamptons Homeown rs John M. Gregg 333 S . Hope t . Fl 38 333 S. Hope St . Fl 38 6545 Churchill Dr. _,os Angeles CA 071 Los Angeles CA 90071 Huntington Beach CA 92648 L59-461-08 159-461-09 159-461-10 fElizabeth J. Mc Shane Basanta K. Mahato Carlos E. Santizo 18816 Academy Cir 18826 Academy Cir 18836 Academy Cir Runtington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 - -461-11 159-461-12 159-461-13 2ach tons Huntington Stephen T. O'Neill Larry R. Koppes ?3 S . Hope F1 38 18845 Rockinghorse Lane 18831 Rockinghorse Lane is Angeles CA 9 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159-462-01 159-462-02 159-462-03 Phillip B. Mc -Elroy - Timothy K. Ross Rolf M. Esche N3806 Rockinghorse- Lane 18822 Rockinghorse Lane 18836 Rockinghorse Lane N\->ntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 9264$ 159-462-04 159-462-05 159-462-06 Adrian H. Shandling Richard J. Fosmire Bryan D. Rice 1$852 Rockinghorse Lane 18866 Rockinghorse Lane 18906 Caddington Cir Nvntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 159-462-07 159-462-08 159-462-09 q(aan T. Truong Van Y. Ting Lewerenz Trust W1916 Caddington Cir 18926 Caddington Cir 18936 Caddington Cir +luntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 - 220-06 11 - 0-07 111-1 -08 L *ndo, omas Linda L. omas Linda Tho (�7u1 Pimlico 6741 Pimlico 6741 Pimlico 1lvr►�iragton Bea�C648 Huntington Beach 2648 Huntington Beach 9264 111-1 20-0-9 -120-11 -120-12 c�-- _ as Do K. Lingle Dolo K. Lingle lo�yI Pimlico Ci 4250 Pace Ave . 4250 Pac�- c . E}..�,�-; ngton Beach CA 48 Long Beach CA 807 Long Bea07 -13 111-120-14 11 20-15 �. omas J . Thomas John A. homas Pimlic r 6741 Pi o Cir 6741 Pimli�BeaQA ngton Beach 92648 Huntington B h CA 92648 Huntington 9264 111- 120-16 111-120-17 1 -120-18 �hn Thomas Joh Thomas John Thomas 0Q Box 640 6741 Pi co Cir 6741 Piml Cir 14w� ngton Beach CA 92648 Huntington ch CA 92648 Huntington Be h CA 9264 20-19 1 -120-20 11 -120-22 Thomas John Thomas Linda Thomas Pimli Cir 6741 Pimli Cir 6741 Pim Cir ngton Bea CA 92648 Huntington Bea CA 92648 Huntington Be CA 9264 -23 11 0-24 1-120-25 L. omas John A. omas John Thomas {J Pimlico ' r 6741 Pimlico it 6741 Pi ' co Cir ngton Beac A 92648 Huntington Beac A 92648 Huntington ach CA 9264 I �O- 7 111-130-01 11 -130-02 Tio. Mitchell Weir Oil Co Inc Weir Co 35S(gristo No. A 401 20Th St . 401 20Th S o. Mesa CA 92 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington �B�eacCA9264 111-130-05 111-130-06 -130-07 f?+<-fnArd K. Ashby _ Helen V. Petersen Dolore Lingle '707zGarfield Ave .- 8755 Kings Hill Dr. 4250 Paci Ave. NvMl ngton Beach CA 92648 Salt Lake City UT 84121 Long Beach CA 07 11l-130-08 111-130-09 111-130-10 bob des K. Lingle Bobbie G. Williams MS Vickers II li� Pacific Ave . 2676 Orange Ave. 1999 Avenue of The Stars Lon4 Beach CA 90807 Signal Hill CA 90806 Los Angeles CA 90067 5 17OJ 0-11 1 - 30-12 111-130-14 o tington Beach City o ntington Beach Bo G. Williams Main St . 2006 Main S 2676 Or e Ave . ngton Beach 92648 Huntington Beac 92648 Signal Hill 90806 111-130-15 11 -130-16 1 30-17 Wilvian J. Renner MS Vi s II Shea ers Development 807 Frankfort Ave . 1999 Avenu f The Stars 655 Brea on Rd. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Los Angeles CA 067 Walnut CA 917 111-130-18 111-130-19 -130-20 Shea Vickers Development L S Vickers Development Shea cers Development 655 Brea Canyon Rd. 655 Bre�anyon . 655 Brea a n Rd. Walnut CA 91789 Walnut Walnut CA 91789 11 30-21 -130-22 111- -23 Shea VI s Development L Shea kers Development MS Vicker I Llc 655 Brea Can Rd. 655 Brea on Rd. 1999 Avenue o The Stars Walnut CA 91789 Walnut CA 9178 Los Angeles CA 9 7 -130-24 111-130-25 -130-26 Weir o Inc Donald A. Weir Weir Co 401 20Th St . 40120Thst No. A 401 20Th Huntington Beach 2648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Be CA 9264 -130-27 11 -130-28 1 40-06 Weir Co Inc City untington Beach &. & Mo eaver 401 20Th City Hall 19061 Crysta Huntington Beac 92648 Huntingtn Bch 2648 Huntington Beach 9264 & co r►'(cl i� 1_ -140-07 111-140- C�v�Q 111- 9 Dolor K. Lingle �,:A � Mola9Wea Linda Unive ty Loma 4250 Paci Ave. 19061 Crystal St . oFoundation Adm Long Beach CA 0807 Huntington Beach CA 8 Loma Linda Calif C 2350 1 1-140-10 ill- -14 111-140-15 Cit Huntington Beach John A. omas Albert Wilma M Trust City Hal- 6741 Pimlic Cir 23943 Fair Weather Dr. Huntingtn Bc 92648 Huntington Bea CA 92648 Canyon Lake CA 92587 111-140-16 111-14 8 111-1 9 Walter Nichols-Dabney MS Vicker I Llc MS Vickers Llc 19731 Coastline Lane 1999 Avenue o The Stars 1999 Avenue o he Stars Huntington Beach CA 92648 Los Angeles CA 9 67 Los Angeles CA 9 7 11 - 40-30 ill-140- ill- 0-32 MS Vic II Llc MS Vickers Llc MS Vick II Llc 1999 Avenue The Stars 1999 Ave of The ars No. 1999 Avenue The Stars Los Angeles CA 9 7 Los Angeles CA 90067 Los Angeles CA 067 111-140-33 MS Vic I Llc 1999 Avenue o e Stars No. 2000 Los Angeles CA .900 159-462-10 159-462-11,13,20,21,22 159-462-12 HB HAMPTONS PARTNERS HI3 HAPTONS PARTNERS HB HAPTONS PARTNERS PUISITYS, JOSEPH F %NEW URBAN WEST INC GHATTY, EHAB H 18946 CADDINGTON CR. 520 BROADWAY# 100 18962 CADDINGTON HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 SANTA MONICA,CA 90401 HUNTNGTON BEACH, CA 92648 159-462-14 159-462-15 159-462-16 HB HAMPTONS PARTNERS HB HAMPTONS PARTNERS HB HAMPTONS PARTNERS CORCORAN, JOHN C TRAN,THE LISA LE, KHA DANGO- KIM-ANH BUI 18955 CADDINTON CR 18945 CADDINGTON 18935 CADDINGTON DR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 159-462-17 111-120-06 111-120-09 HB HAMPTONS PARTNERS LINDA L. THOMAS JOHN A. THOMAS DOA, MICHAEL 6741 PIMLICO CR. 6741 PIMLICO CR. 18925 CADDINGTON CR. HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 111-120-27 111-130-05 1 30-08 TRAVIS B. MITCHELL RICHARD K. ASHBY DOBRE GLE 355 BRISTOL ST. #A 7072 GARFIELD AVE. 4250 PACIFIC AV . COSTA MESA, CA 92626 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA LONG BEACH, CA 9080 926478 111-140-08 111-140-09 110-431-01 MOLA& WEAVER LINDA UNIVERSITY LOMA LENNAR HOMES CA 19061 CRYSTAL ST. % FOUNDATION ADM JONATHAN M.JAFFE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 LOMA LINDA,CA 92350 27432 CALLE ARROYO SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CA 92675 023-262-05 BRANDENBURG, EDWARD 6732 LAWN HAVEN DR. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 159-462-19 John H. Satterfield 18905 Caddington Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 GXIM:FORMS:LBLFORM 159-462-18 18915 Caddington CirV Huntington Beach CA 9264$ Arlene and Fred Luhman Borg Rasmusson Jay Kreitz 19392 Surfdale 19233 Beckonridge Lane Toyo USA Inc. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 18141 Beach Boulevard, Ste. 370 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mr. & Mrs. Anthony Beard Kevin McGuiness Hussein El-Issawi 6761 Pimlico Circle 19462 Surfdale Lane 6852 Silver Beach Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 02326106 Mr. and Mrs. Brassel Andy Pasqua John Fitzpatrick 6822 Lawn Haven Drive 6882 Silver Beach 6761 Lawn Haven Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C�326107 1 31-01 LZ"A a r kloww-s (X Mr. and Mrs. Joe Romero Chris Kiralla -bka-t ha IN Nt 1a� 6891 Lawn Haven Drive 6751 Lawn Haven Dr. 6 v y �a cap I Huntington Beach, CA 92648 G7 A rY Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 14u tinntnn Beach, CA far 3 aa�, �' 'Ostlav,b 02326202 Janet B. Krom Anne Lockhart Robert Shenklin 19441 Surfdale Lane 19442 Surfdale Lane 6812 Lawn Haven Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 9264Z5 02326203 William Dermody Earlene and Robert Blurton Timothy Mincarelli 6841 Silver Beach Circle 6882 Little Harbor Drive 6802 Lawn Haven Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 b2326204 Marshall Harman Janelle Kelly Ronald Berger _ 19572 Summer Breeze Lane 19582 Summer Breeze Lane 6792 Lawn Haven Dr. - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 0?326205 Charles Adair Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert Ranney Edward Brandenburg 6785 Livingston Drive 6682 Gate Hill Circle 6782 Lawn Haven Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Z2326206 Occupant Mr. and Mrs. Larry Schley Gene Omicioli 6866 Livingston Drive 6692 Harbor Key Circle 6772 Lawn Haven Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,.CA 92648 I to y 61 01 g:labels:mb01c.doc 0'k'CL 2326207 Paulette Wilhelmy & Keven Conlisk Regina Zadik Wilbur Hiebert 6531 Silverspur 6601 Horseshoe Lane 19242 Evening Hill Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Caron Roccanova Velma& Jerry Stillman Felicia& Joseph Young 6571 Horseshoe Lane 6852 Hitchingpost Circle 6861 Derby Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 2326208 John& Jan Mackey Gunter Wetzel Gary Yearsley 6712 Shire Circle 6671 Carriage Circle 19262 Evening Hill Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 2326205 - ��� O'L*czra Mr. Paul McLeod Mr. Gorden Watson, President Barbara 17081 Newquist Lane Country View Estates HOA 6732 Lawn Haven Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 6732 Shore Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 15942102 15942103 Ken & Ann Anderson James Milner Jerry Leininger 6622 Polo Cir. 19202 Quietsands Cir. 19181 Quiet Sands Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Craig Towers David Aguilar James R. Licht, M.D. 6601 Polo Cir. 19215 Beckonridge Ln. 3801 Katella Ave., Ste. 401 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Alamitos, CA 90720 Don Jankowiak Jerry Pabbruwee Linda Dilday Countryview HOA Central Park 9 HOA HB Estates HOA 6711 Shetland 18702 Jockey Cir. 18612 Quaterhorse Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Joanne Chivers Monique Bent Bob Machado Edwards Central Park HOA Heritage Homeowners Assoc. Ellis Central Park HOA 6582 Polo Cir. 6652 Churchill 6812 Hitching Post Cir. Huntington Beach,-CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 g:labels:mb0l c.doc Mel and Jane Carpenter D. Neufield a3.ae3 a3 Occupant 6722 Gate Hill 6722 Country Circle 18936 Silverbit Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Jan and Leroy Smithson Mr. Steven C. Chan Marie Foltz 19472 Surfdale Lane 11160 Warner Avenue 6822 Lawn Haven Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Suite #205 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Ms. Karen Jackle James and Janet Christiano � Plhak 6702 Lawn Haven Drive 18752 Jockey Circle 6786 Turf r , Huntington.Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, C 648 Mr. and Mrs. Bruce West Ms. Lois K. Havens Tony Nguyen 6742 Gate Hill Circle 19291 Surfdale Lane 6871 Livingston Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 H. Thangriani John and Laura Edwards Mr. and Ms. Kaufman 6962 Derby Circle 6712 Lawn Haven 6756 Sicily Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Lorraine Keelan Occupant Chi-Shuang Liu 19512 Summer Breeze Lane 6702 Gate Hill 6866 Livingston Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Richard R. Ruess Naomi Creager Martin and Denise Menichiello 19431 Surfdale Lane 6862 Silver Beach Circle 6591 Horseshoe Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Debra and Richard Butzek Diane Starbuck Gary and Frances Okura 19451 Surfdale Lane 19502 Surfdale Lane 6842 Hitchingpost Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Helen M. Kudenov Werner Puttner 19432 Surfdale Lane 6902 Little Harbor Drive 6672 Gate Hill Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 g:Iabels:mb01 c.doc PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST"B" MAILING LABELS -June 17, 1998 President 1 FANS 16 H.B. Chamber of Commerce Carol Ann Wall 2210 Main Street, Suite 200 Chambers Newsletter Publishers Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P.O. Box 5458 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Judy Legan 2 William D.Holman 11 Sue Johnson 16 Orange County Assoc. of Realtors PLC 19671 Quiet Bay Lane 25552 La Paz Road 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 California Coastal Commission 24 Mr. Tom Zanic 12 Edna Littlebury 17 Theresa Henry New Urban West Gldn St. Mob. Hm. Owners Leag. South Coast Area Office 520 Broadway Ste. 100 11021 Magnolia Blvd. 200 Oceangate, loth Floor Santa Monica, CA 90401 Garden Grove, CA 92642 Long Beach, CA 92802-4302 California Coastal Commission 24 Pres.,H.B.Hist. Society 13 HB Hamptons HOA 37 South Coast Area Office C/O Newland House Museum Keystone Pacific Prop.Mangmt.Inc. 200 Oceangate, loth Floor 19820 Beach Blvd. 4100 Newport Place,Suite 350 Long Beach, CA 92802-4302 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, Ca 92660 President 5 Chairperson 14 County of Orange/EMA 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Historical Resources Bd. Michael M.Ruane,Dir. PO Box 865 Comm.Services Dept. P.O.Box 4048 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 2000 Main St. Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Julie Vandermost 6 Country View Estates HOA 37 County of Orange/EMA 19 BIA-OC Gerald Chapman Thomas Mathews 9 Executive Circle##100 6742 Shire Circle P. O.Box 4048 Irvine Ca 92714-6734 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Richard Spicer 7 Jeff Metzel 16 Planning Department 19 SCAG - Seacliff HOA Orange County EMA 818 West 7th, 12th Floor 19391 Shady Harbor Circle P. O. Box 4048 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 E.T.I.Corral 100 8 J oe 16 County of Orange/EMA 19 Mary Bell Seacliff I Tim Miller 20292 Eastwood Cir. 19382 Surfdale Lan P.O. Box 4048 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 8 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Mark Tomko 9 Lou Mannone 16 Country View Estates HOA 37 Environmental Board Chairman Seacliff HOA Carrie Thomas 16501 Los Verdes Lane 19821 Ocean Bluff Circle 6642 Trotter Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 g:1abe1s\phn1b1s t., PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST"B" MAILING LABELS -June 17, 1998 Robert Joseph h 25 Dr. Duane Dishno 29 Patricia Koch 32 Caltrans District 12 HB City Elementary School Dist. HB Union High School Disrict 2501 Pullman St. PO Box 71 10251 Yorktown Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 Huntington Beach, CA 92626 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Director 26 Jerry Buchanan 29 CSA 33 Local Solid Waste Enf. Agy. HB City Elementary School Dist. 730 El Camino Way#200 O.C.Health Care Agency 20451 Craimer Lane Tustin, CA 92680 P.O. Box 355 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 92702 New Growth Coordinator 27 James Jones 30 Goldenwest College 34 Huntington Beach Post Office Ocean View Elementary Attn: Fred Owens 6771 Warner Ave. School district 15744 Goldenwest St. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 17200 Pinehurst Lane Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Marc Ecker 28 Ron Frazier 31 Fountain Valley Westminster School District Elementary School District 14121 Cedarwood Avenue 17210 Oak Street Westminster CA 92683 Fountain Valley CA 92708 g:labels\phnlbls Connie Brockway, City Ci Clerk _ City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk - P.O. Box 190 - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 eA '_59-403-19 � R ntington Shores Communi IIJJ /� � 1IN6rpf, 13 011 Sky Park Circle No-L I!�`vine CA 92614 `J i'C44.11 RN T U RN NTIY S tnFR � �( AL C BLIC HEARING I!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111II1101 if III111 It If I Ill 1111 It It Connie Brockway, City Clerk c: City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 -•. - _ _ f ;_.;f- U 1'-:O1 L103o'.4 �-1�Il�o�• To�r�e�r © � �cq 1 vr 40-5 �jIN6Tp l.o \ a or.- — y TARV691 926483008 1397 18 06/29/98 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND ' S TARVER 23011 SE 41ST CT ISSAQUAH WA 98029-7234 �NTV LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach r ', ' ' Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Pi-11 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 0-481-03 Woodrow Homes Inc `Caylor � TINC TQ,r 1201 Dupont Dr. No. 420 B Irvine CA 92612 r FRETURN `rGat-NEE- PUBLIC HEARING --._._ . _ _ -. - ._ � ���'�=`•" ���,`��`-' II,I,,,,I,I,II,,,I„II„(,If,,,,,,III,I„II,,,i,l„Ii,,,,,I:II Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 7 -1j, e�r023-262-05 BRANDENBURG, EDWARD 6732 LAWN HAVEN DR. INS HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 NW4 RETURNS U P,,i � NTI SEN u n f: DER4� L ALIVUIGE7JPPLICHARINGf / : "it MIA11114111 Jim Ii 111111illi III IIIII III Connie Brockway, City Clerk = ;r City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box190t _ - - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 `- = .•r.-. t i .— r i s �1► TIN6TQ�/' Ikv�.k�r c�k�n 3eo-c�h,LPG otZcoN$ iv i� �.rrw..,,� B�► Aft o s E LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING G RJR`' ;`•:"i�; s3 6 C ,= 1t�t� ZIq 11.11IfIII IIIII III 1,11„11111tilI IIIfIlfillIfIfillIIIII„I,I1 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 � ...... ...� - "_ ,• 1t-.,•_,-.. _•, ,��'' _L`_;,` . , . _- Huntington Beach CA 92648 T U f + ' �r• _l E� s ational Golf Operating Pa rG b 1 s- 15 t � 1IN6jQ', Sallta Monica CA 90404 NTr � LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING �vaeac mac n�1'��� 1„11111illi„till 1111111111 fill 1111111111111 Connie Brockway, City Clerk v - City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 : :';j:It.-/'�-r::r y_ .,� :� _1;t!_ •. ._ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant � (►/ 19432 Surfdale Lane k!)11 A M Huntington Beach, CA 92648 INsrp'' . [/ This is a Multi-Unit Address _ We Are Unable to Verify Individuals RR E TURN G�-- Commercial Mail Receiving Agency 0 T n S F N n F R F�N1/1VT1 LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING _ ]] , �JL�Q _,;, .N.�`��'L��•� il!!!!!?t?I?i It?!?t??li!?I?i�??!!.!lit! r Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach �J. Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 b #'-Q-- � rr. t7 i�•-:��i 1 � 11N6tpr� LpQV-1I Ur, y NGUY671 926483008 1498 18 06/29/98 z--= - RETURN TO SENDER NGUYEN MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS � �1 UNABLE TO FORWARD NTr RETURN TO SENDER LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING !!1!1111!lil!!111!11!!11(lift 11111!!!1!11!!111!I!11!11111'!'!! 1 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk ,J P.O. Box 190 pJ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 A!' 111-130-09 Bobbie G. Williams ne��der 2676� Orange A � SIN6tp ve . Signal nal ,Hill CA 9 J 0806 LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk us City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I. P 023-263-09 INR Robert D. Dawson MAP, 6691 Harbor Key Cir lam,/� Huntington Beach CA 92648 :&.f1w 0 S EN; LEGAL NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING fit lot 11 111111111 Iff fill 11111 if 11110411 1l1 • �,._.. CA Brockway,City Clerk �-, ��. `.. u.s. �� • ••- - i City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk r y - RO. Box 190 .y ' ._;.• -uo :~�_; Huntington Beach, CA 92648 23-251-44 & L. L. 1997 Tr ChaireZ- � TINSTQ 19420 Sandpebble Cir Fountain Valley CA 92708 H 8 9 a b qg I �QUNTI LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING ,3z-voa Iitillilll � ll� l��ll Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 - u Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Marie Foltz 6822 Lawn Haven Dr. � jINS Huntington Beach, CA 92648 'r' �.. . 'i E T U��ii rJI LE A 17 ING II III -�� �$51e`�i�r� `Connie Brockway, City Clerk • n r.�i ��� u; Floe . City of Huntington Beach ! Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-263-09 TIN6 Robert D. Dawson 6691 Harbor Key Cir _._�• �.�� Huntington Beach CA 92648 tA ,gyp r1l - J E;S,F;;F:D.E LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING Connie&ay, City Clerk , ^` • City of Huntington Beach a-• +G Office of the City Clerk /•' =--.� R P.O. Box 190 ; Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-252-17 Bobby G. Lamb 5 White Wake Dr. IM6 3020Tpp, Sun City CA 92587 —r s D N g� - a �36 � s �pNNTY � LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk Box 190 P.O. - . Huntington Beach, CA 92648 59-403-19 J� Kuntington Shores Communit , VV ZINSTQ , 13 011 Sky Park Circle No.L -T-vine CA 92614 r �QUNtY r5,�� `�1 �EnT BLIC HEARING ,kway, City Clerk Vington Beach the City Clerk - Box 190 teach, CA 92648iVO T AS pFU x.z. t�7ir�3i� #5414 'JIVA&4ppRFS RgBtR 9 _ TC FORv,no 023-252-17 Bobby G. Lamb 16tQQ'� 30205 ',&dte Wake Drive ,,,,• / _!•` ��� Canyon Lake, CA 92587 - 2136 Atl� s LE