HomeMy WebLinkAboutPPSA 92-1 - MITIGATED ND 92-5 - Allignment of Keelson Lane a STATE OF CAUFORNIA 13:
County of Orange
I am a Citizen of the United States and a
resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the
age of eighteen years, and not a party to or
interested in the below entitled matter. I am a
principal cleric of the HUNTINGTON BEACH
INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published in the City of
Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of
CaGfomia.and that attached Notice is a true and P NOTicE
L EEGALQAL NOTICE
complete copy as was printed and published in ORDINANCE
NO.3153
the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valle ,AN ORDINANCE OF
Y THE CITY OF .HUNTING-
issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) Of: TIE HUNTNGTONN BEACH EBEACH
ORDINANCE CODE -BY
AMENDING DISTRICT MAP
31 .TO-INCLUDE PRECISE
PLAN.OF STREET ALIGN-
MENT NO. 92.1 ALIGNING
KEELSON LANE AND ELM
TREET
July 16, 1992 SSYNOPSIS:
Ordinance No. 3153
amends the Huntington
Beach Ordinance Code-to
Iriclude Precise Pan of
-Street alignment 92-1 align.
ing Keelson Lane and Elm
Street. The Council finds
that Precise Plan of Street
Alignment No. 92-1 is rea-
sonable and necessary to
the orderly and efficient
flow of traffic, for the pies-
7ervation of the health and
.safety of the inhabitants of
the,Clty and for-the orderly
development of the com.
munity.
THE FULL TEXT OF THE
ORDINANCE IS AVAIL.
ABLE' IN THE CITY
CLERK'S OFFICE
I declare, under penalty of perjury, ADOPTED by the City
that the ��pur,al of the city of Hun-
tlhgton Beach;at a regular
foregoing is true and comec- Meeting held Monday July
9 81 1992, by the following
roll call vote:
;AYES:' Councilmembers:
July 16 199 2 R.obitaille, Moulton.
Executed an Patterson, Winchell; Silva,
at Costa Mesa, California NOES:- Co lh�iime Ibers:
None
ABSENT: Councllmembers:
None
CITY OF HUNTINGTON
Signature BEACH, Connie'Brock-
way'City Clerk .
Published Huntington
Beach Independent`- July
16,1092
073.906
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
FILE GUIDE
Please file this document in:
Category: Label :
Established file
New file - see
Other:
0846I
STATE OF CAUFOANIA
County of Orange
d ,
I am a Citizen of the United States and a Pj (0 �►�
resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF
age of eighteen years, and not a party to or PUBLIC HEARING
°
interested in the below entitled matter. lama MITIGATEDNEGATIVE
principal of the HUNTINGTON BEACH DECO 92-
RATION � � 6
INDEPENDENT, a newspaper er of general PRECISE PLAN
p OF STREET,
circulation, printed and published in the City of A IGNM2ENT
Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of (Establish precise
alignment of
California, and that attached Notice is a true and Keelson Lane 6/1
and Elm Street)
complete copy as was printed and published In GIVEN ICEhat t IS he HHEREBY
gton
the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley Beach .City Council will
hold a public hearing in the
issues of said newspaperto wit the issue(s) of: Council Chamber at the
t"'!"' Huntington- Beach Civic
Center, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach; Califor-
nia, on the date and at the
time indicated below to re-
ceive and consider the
statements of all persons
who wish to be heard rela-
May 21 , 1992 tive to the application de-
scribed below.
DATE/TIME: Monday,
June 1,1992,7:00 PM
APPLICATION NUMBER:
Precise Plan of Street
Alignment No. 92-1 Nega-
tive Declaration No.92-5
APPLICANT: City of'Hun-
tington Beach - 'Public ! ,
Works Department
-LOCATION: Keelson Lane
North of Slater Avenue and
Elm Street South of Cy
PZONE Various PUBLIC NOTICES
REQUEST: Establish pre for Inspection by the pub-
cise alignment of Keelsoh jic. A copy of the staff re.
Lane and Elm Street. The port will be available to In.
Pity Council will review two terested parties at City Hall
proposals; 1) a thru-street or the Main City Library
proposal,and 2)cul-de-sac (7111 Talbert Avenue) after
1., proposal at the terminus of May 28,1992.
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the Keelson-`.Lane and Elm ALL INTERESTED PER-
Street:.Either alternative will SONS are invited at attend
foregoing is true and correct. require dedication of pri- said hearing and express
vate property or acquisition opinions or submit evi-
of private property by the dence for or, against the
City for street right-of-way application as outlined
Executed on May 21 use.The Planning Commis-"above. If there are any fur-
sion has recommended ther questions please call
,,
proposal number 2 for a Herb Fauland, Assistant
;at Costa Mesa, Calis ornla, cul-de-sac:. Planner at 536-5271. ";
ENVIRONMENTAL STA. Connie Brockway,
TUS:Covered by Mitigation City Clerk, Huntington
Negative Declaration No. Beach 'City Council,
92-5
COASTAL STATUS: Not 2000 Main Street,Hun.
Signature Applicable ; ,tington Beach, CA
ON FILE: A copy of the 92648(714)536.5227
proposed request is on file Published Huntington
in the Community Develop- Beach Independent May
ment Department, 2000 21,1992
Main Street, Huntington
I Beach Ca 1--is 92648, _ 053-678
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
/-`5
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION--,
Date June 1, 1992
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
--
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
Prepared by: ichael Adams, Director of Community Development
Subject: PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 92-16- "g�--
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-5
Consistent with Council Policy? Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception epd
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE•
Transmitted for your consideration is a request to establish a
precise alignment of Keelson Lane and Elm Street. The City Council
will review two (2) proposals; 1) a through-street proposal, and 2)
a cul-de-sac proposal at the terminus of Keelson Lane and Elm
Street. Either alternative will require dedication of private
property or acquisition of private property by the City for street
right of way use.
On April 21, 1992 the Planning Commission approved the cul-de-sac
proposal by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1469A
approving Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 92-1 and Mitigated
Negative Declaration No. 92-5 with findings and suggested conditions
of approval.
RECOMMENDATION•
-Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation:
Motion to:
"Adopt Ordinance No. 3/53 and approve Precise Plan of Street
Alignment No. 92-1 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 92-5 for
cul-de-sac purposes with findings and suggested conditions of
approval as outlined in Attachment No. 2" .
1
PIO Bias
Planning Commission Action on April 21, 1992:
A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY LEIPZIG TO APPROVE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-5 AND ADOPT PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1469A APPROVING PRECISE PLAN OF STREET
ALIGNMENT NO. 92-1 FOR CUL-DE-SAC PURPOSES AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION
WITH FINDINGS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY
COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Kirkland, Leipzig, Newman, Shomaker, Bourguignon, Dettloff
NOES: None
ABSENT: Richardson (Out of Room)
ABSTAIN: None
ANALYSIS•
Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 92-1 has been initiated by the
City of Huntington Beach to establish a precise right-of-way
alignment at the terminus of Elm Street and Keelson Lane.
Currently, both Elm and Keelson dead end at an abandoned waterwell .
There are not full public improvements such as full width paving,
curbs, gutters and sidewalks . This creates a situation that is
unsightly, and inadequate for proper turn around for cars and
emergency vehicles.
In order to address these problems, the City Council approved
funding to provide public improvements in this area in accordance
with the Huntington Beach General Plan and the Oakview Redevelopment
Plan. The Huntington Beach General Plan states (3 . 1.2 .2[7] ) the
following policy:
- Provide a transportation system that is consistent with efforts
to minimize adverse environmental and aesthetic effects .
Within the Redevelopment Plan, a guideline for the Oakview
neighborhood was formulated in 1986 to provide a more specific
framework for future land uses and circulation patterns . The
Oakview Redevelopment Plan states the following objectives and
policies :
- Eliminating blighting influences, including inadequate public
improvements and improve the overall appearance of streets .
- Implement the construction or reconstruction of adequate
streets, curbs, gutters, street lights, storm drains and other
public improvements .
- Public rights-of-ways and streets may be widened, altered,
abandoned, vacated, or closed by the City and Redevelopment
Agency as necessary for proper development.
RCA 6/l/92 -2- (3329d)
The proposed alignments as depicted in the attached drawings will
require the dedication of private property or acquisition of private
property by the City of Huntington Beach for right-of-way use.
Transportation Commission
On January 14, 1992, the Transportation Commission reviewed the two
(2) proposals (Attachment No. 5) . Public Works, Fire, Police and
Planning all expressed their comments and concerns regarding both
proposed street alignments. After taking public testimony, the
Transporation Commission made a motion to approve the cul-de-sac
alignment with a landscaped median by a four (4) to two (2) vote.
Through-Street Proposal
In reviewing a through-street alignment for Elm Street and Keelson
Lane, the Planning staff considered circulation, impacts on existing
land uses and the safety of the neighborhood. The current situation
for both streets is that they both dead end. This situation has
been in existence approximately 25 years . A new through-street
alignment would increase the traffic on this street . This traffic
would consist of both commercial uses (Guardian Center) and cut
through traffic from Slater Avenue from the south and Warner Avenue
from the north. This "new" alignment would have the potential to
increase both vehicular and pedestrian safety concerns along the
right-of-way. This alignment would require the least amount of
private property to be acquired by the City for right-of-way
purposes and therefore, would have the least impacts on the front
and side yard setbacks for the existing multiple family residential
units . Planning staff does not support this through-street
alignment based upon the impacts on circulation and
pedestrian/vehicular safety.
Cul-de-sac Proposal
In reviewing the cul-de-sac proposal for Elm Street and Keelson
Lane, the Planning staff ' s review considered circulation, impacts on
existing land uses and the safety of the neighborhood. As noted,
the existing streets dead end at the terminus of both streets . This
situation has existed for approximately 25 years . A cul-de-sac
proposal would improve an existing situation. This proposal would
eliminate the concerns regarding an increase in traffic from the
commercial uses (Guardian Center) and also the cut-through traffic
concern. A concern regarding the proper turn around area for
emergency vehicles has been mitigated through design. The
cul-de-sacs must be designed and approved by the Fire and Police
Departments for proper emergency vehicle access prior to
construction. The Fire and Police Departments have already given
preliminary approval of the cul-de-sacs. The cul-de-sac proposal
would require additional private property to be acquired by the City
and also have a greater impact on the front and side yard setbacks
of the existing multiple family residential units. Planning Staff
RCA 6/l/92 -3- (3329d)
supports the cul-de-sac alignment based upon the improvement of an
existing dead end situation, the recommendation of the Traffic
Commission and the proper design for emergency vehicle access and
turnaround.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Oakview Redevelopment Project Area - Street Improvement Capital
Program Funds as approved in FY 91-92 Budget.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may overturn the Planning Commission' s action on
April 21, 1992 by denying Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 92-5
and Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 9.2-1 for cul-de-sac
purposes with findings .
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Area Map
2 . Findings and Conditions of Approval
3 . Ordinance No.
4 . Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 92-1 to 1) cul-de-sac Elm
Street and Keelson Lane; and 2) through street Elm Street and
Keelson Lane dated April 7, 1992
5 . Transportation Minutes dated January 14, 1992
6. Negative Declaration No. 92-5
7. Alternative Action for Denial
MTU:MA:H : lp
RCA 6/1/92 -4- (3329d)
WARNER
R2 3 OP - r 3 ER RI �JDR
aT.
M I °' N I ao b I E AMSTERDAM
FIR DR. _ i
l
N CAtN AVE II R2 1--°� ao, `4 ;R2 R2 R2 R2
N N �; Ix � R2, R2 ° RI R
MI W MI "' R
J it R Z °J I OR. RI RI RI REMeRANDT DR
C - 1_-_ °
a �.F-R �.Ex __ - - —:K._ RI J Q R1 j
ESS AV r-_J_. j =n R2 -i90 w RIa MARSE�LLE DR o RI a POLDER CR <
CED4R AVE. - _ m
R 2° R 2 I R2 RI
a o RI
MI ----- Ia 1 I u VALENCIA OR
CF—E I
RI RI
R3 °T°c IJ„°
P:an:ic'a S:: i:i:U .rtsrm cn. I FRIESLAND DR.
MANDRELL DR
M I I M I R3 R3 f R I R lao„
>o
C 4, ic
4 R 3 GALDERS DR
eARroN DR 3 i z
- F3 IROLLANO R1 CF—E °
DR.
rr 3 I I ¢ �: tiE:w�th_:s.� RI RI
II R3� o o � I i RI
s � in II P RI-�PD _
- _ - — R3 z [C ¢ I t6aA - R 1 R 1 R
w W U_-C JD_ y IC4 J69• a W W Q \
t R3 R3 Y R3
47
MI - MH '° I I& I' �aECRNF�2 R2 o R2
o- .
� M I I I R2 R L.,E —T .A9i
I RI
O m
O o RI v
O 0 SPEER �- C4 RJ CK' 2996b RI i999a
O
aEYR0.D5 CR ST DR
n■ , ¢ M 1 R2 C4'
R I R2 g MI M I U R3LIBERI
9^ R2 NOBLE CR y
-� W . ,
• 8 R3 R2 C 1 1 " IOP2 OP RI C, a�
9ELVw w. ....
NEKMwN wvE-r'— f�l
L �
PPSA 92- 1/EA 92-5 ''
NUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
ATTACHMENT #2
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO, 92-1:
1. The proposed precise plan of street alignment to cul-de-sac Elm
Street and Keelson Lane is consistent with the goals and
policies of the City' s General Plan because it contributes to a
circulation system that minimizes adverse aesthetic and
environmental effects.
2 . The proposed precise plan of street alignment will improve
traffic and circulation by prohibiting commercial traffic on Elm
Street from impacting the residential uses on Keelson lane, and
by providing a safe, effective turnaround area for vehicles .
3 . The proposed precise plan of street alignment to cul-de-sac Elm
Street and Keelson Lane is consistent with the objections of the
Oakview Redevelopment Plan because it provides a precise plan of
adequate public improvements and improves the overall appearance
of the streets .
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT N0, 92-1:
1. The site plan which depicts the cul-de-sacs for Elm Street and
Keelson Lane dated April 7, 1992 shall be the conceptually
approved layout.
2 . Prior to issuance of grading plans for the construction of the
cul-de-sacs for Elm Street and Keelson Lane the following shall
be completed:
a. The plans shall incorporate emergency access via fire gates,
pavers, or other means acceptable to the Fire and Police
Departments .
b. The Department of Public Works shall contact utility
purveyors to notify them of proposed construction activities
and to insure that no utility service will be disturbed.
c. The Department of Public works shall contact all affected
property owners regarding the dedication of and/or
acquisition of private property for the street right-of-way
use.
3 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and
other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an
off-site facility equipped to handle them.
4 . During cleaning, grading, earth moving or excavation, the
applicant shall:
a. Control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving
construction roads, or other dust preventive measures .
b. Maintain equipment engines in proper tune.
5 . During construction, the applicant shall :
a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where
vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving
the site.
b. wet down areas in the late morning and after work is
completed for the day.
c. Phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high
ozone days (first stage smog alerts) .
d. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts .
6 . Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7: 00 AM to
8 : 00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal
holidays .
7. Prior to initiation of construction, Police and Fire Departments
shall be notified and the departments shall be kept informed
about duration and extent of construction throughout the process .
(3329d)
i L , - � O. 5 SF.
LLI
-—- • _--______—_ _—. —�.__cx — _.--'-----_ �i I_ T--- ---1',,�i.SF- .�
�L �N:
! G5- Pr VCC �---- !
I I �+� � I i� � i ,';C•O>'!. .-liJ.... -___-_ I?�w,;C^IERGSNGY, �� I � O
r I w•:'GP GO I I! �GGCSS
4�
5 5F I WCL 50i1-1 51DE5.IWICrn GciC
i PN 165-2244; PN :G5-224- (1[
_c- <%< 5F! s_ 9.<�j, 5F
L•--I• - i ! _ I —JP,. 74 SF! v. 8.44! 5F
I I
i
—ter�-ram—t
PRECISE PLAN OF ALIGNMENT
wrrt>..<.arc-,>..wc.-., \I.:l F:. l - _ a..•.„i>o.a
Ra�•• - SSOCIA'rEs KEELSON LANE / ELM STREET
n,
CUL—DE—SAC, ALTERNATIVE
i
•>x>ao-a..,cn.a.�
.W LU�N!
,
.744 5 F
I—a 2
744 5F 73, 8i�'5�
q .1 Ir. 2 i65
U r
CMAN ER
L
220 5 0. q
A. 0.518 5 '.O.0.SF
157
0
lrl�l i 5 TR Ek T 4 -
70 2
0
J 1 L u,' 4
t�f EL L
sr
A
0 MN 5-)2 -� 2,' APN !G5-2-5 -!2;
W
u
CART- JMENEZ
LLJ
.21 'SF 5f-
-23G cF +1AN �,5-224-.;
PN 165-224-
4NN rRU i
i -UA
.474 1:4 5F
II
uma
PRECISE PLAN OF ALIGNMENT
WWSOCIATES KEEL SON LANE /. ELM STREET 9A
THRU STREET ALTERNATIVE
MINUTES
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
JANUARY 14, 1992
Commissioners Present: Hardy, Hicks, Lo Verde, Roth, Rowe, Ward
Commissioners Absent: McConnell
Secretary: Jim Otterson, Traffic Engineer
Others Present: Sergeant Lloyd Edwards, HBPD; Ward Kinsman, HBPD; Hal
Simmons, Senior Planner; Tony Folaron, Civil Engineering
Associate; Dave Bacon, Walden Associates; Dave Walden, Walden
Associates; Bob Hidusky, "Traffic Engineering Technician
Approval of Minutes for November Meetint,.
OLD BUSINESS:
Public Hearing For Keelson Lane/Elm Street Roadway Modifications: Commissioner Roth
presented an introduction to this issue and then opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Roth requested that each city representative present their respective department's
view on this issue.
Tony Folaron reviewed the proposals to cul-de-sac both Keelson Lane and Elm Street and to
connect the two roadways to make a through street.
Sergeant Edwards expressed the Police Department's concerns regarding Keelson Lane and Elm
Street being constructed as a through street. The anticipated increase in traffic volumes and
speeding vehicles will contribute to an increase in traffic accidents and complaints from the
residents. The Police Department feels that drug traffic and gang related activities would
increase if this currently blocked off roadway is converted into a through street.
Ward Kinsman expressed the Fire Department's concerns regarding Keelson Lane and Elm
Street being constructed with two cul-de-sacs. The Fire Department is concerned with any street
that exceeds 600 feet in length that does not have more than one ingress/egress point. Their
concerns also include sub-standard cul-de-sac radii for emergency vehicle turn around, fire
vehicles backing out of a street when there is insufficient turn around room, and the maintenance
of the proposed emergency gate and illegally parked vehicles blocking the gate when access is
required.
1
Hal Simmons expressed the Planning Department's views on this issue. Typically the Planning
Department does not have an objection to either proposal. They would review any proposal for
consistency with the General Plan and the possibility of vacating property to complete either
proposal.
Jim Otterson explained that Traffic Engineering can see that connecting the two streets could be
a minor convenience but would increase the possibility of cut-through traffic in this residential
neighborhood.
The Commissioners were concerned with the turning radius of a fire truck and were informed
that it is typically 40 feet. The Commissioners were curious to know if the Fire Department has
had any concerns with this area since the residential neighborhood has existed for approximately
25 years and that these streets have never been connected. They were informed that emergency
vehicle access has not been required up to this date. The Commissioners requested information
on vacating property in this area and were informed that right-of-way is dedicated but no
improvements have been made, the property between the two streets must be vacated, and that
the City does not own the land where the cul-de-sacs will be constructed. The Fire Department
was asked if Kristen Circle could be used as a turn around area and were informed that it is
possible but not desirable. The Commissioners were also informed that Traffic Engineering
would post "NO PARKING ANY TIME" signs and would paint the entire cul-de-sac red.
Commissioner Roth then asked for public comment.
Citizens requesting a through street stated that they did not think a wall would stop pedestrian
traffic, that a through street wottid provide emergency vehicle access as well as improved
neighborhood traffic circulation and that the cul-de-sacs would create separate neighborhoods.
Citizens requesting a cul-de-sac stated that cut through pedestrian traffic trespasses on private
property and is responsible for vandalism and burglaries in the neighborhood. They are
requesting that the roadways be cttl-de-sacced and that the 8 to 10 foot wall be constructed
between the neighborhoods.
Commissioner Roth closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Roth explained to the audience that speed bumps are not installed in the public
right-of-way due to the legal ramifications. The Commission discussed the above information
and a motion was made to recommend to the City Council that Keelson Lane and Elm Street be
cul-de-sacced with a landscaped median and without installing a wall or gate. Commissioner
Lo Verde felt that the wall and/or the gate are not a Transportation Commission item and should
not be part of the motion. The motion passed 4 - 2 with Commissioners Ward and Hardy voting
against.
2
NEW BUSINESS:
Warner Avenue and Edwards Street: The Orange County Transportation Authority has
requested to relocate the eastbound Warner Avenue bus stop from the eastbound approach side
of Edwards Street to the eastbound departure side of Edwards Street. Traffic Engineering agrees
with the OCTA that this is a desirable change of location. A motion was made to implement
the above suggestion. The Commission voted 5 - 0 in favor of this motion.
Informational Items: The Commission was-presented information oil the City of Huntington
Beach General Plan Advisory Committee for their review. They were also presented with
information concerning the February 1992 OCTA service route change.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
No public comments.
STAFF ITEMS:
Beach Boulevard at Terry Drive and Newman Avenue: The Commission was informed that the
contract should be awarded approximately mid-February and that the signals should be
operational around the end of May.
Pacific Coast Highway Traffic Lanes: The Commission was informed that OCTA has expressed
their concern regarding three traffic lanes in each direction on Pacific Coast Highway. The City
Council will be reviewing this issue within the next few weeks.
COMMISSION ITEMS:
No Commission items.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:50 P.M.
The next meeting of the Transportation Commission is scheduled for February 11, 1992.
Ken Roth, Chairman Jim Otterson, Secretary
FAKTCMINIAN.92
i
3
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
TO : File
FROM: Julie ugi
Assist t Planner
SUBJECT : RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR DRAFT MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-5
DATE : March 5 , 1992
In accordance with Section 15073 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines the City of Huntington Beach
established an official twenty-one (21) day public review period for
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No . 92-5 . It began on
Thursday, February 13 , 1992 and ended on Wednesday, March 4 , 1992 .
Notice of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in
the Huntington Beach Independent on February 13 , 1992 . Copies of
the document were distributed to interested agencies , groups ,
organizations and individuals upon request .
No written or verbal comments were received on the Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration .
JO: lp
(2573d)
J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To File From Juli sugi
Assi ant Planner
Subject ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Date February 6 , 1992
FORM NO. 92-5
Applicant : City of Huntington Beach
Request : Precise Plan of Street Alignment to select between
two alignments of Elm Street and Keelson Lane .
Alternative 1 consists of cul-de-sacing Elm Street
and Keelson Lane at their current southerly and
northerly termination points , respectively.
Alternative 2 consists of connecting the two streets
to provide through access .
Location : Southerly terminus of Elm Street and northerly
terminus of Keelson Lane
Background
Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment form noted above and
has determined that a negative declaration may be filed for the
project . In view of this , a draft negative declaration was prepared
and was published in the Huntington Beach Independent for a
Twenty-one (21) day public review period commencing Thursday,
February 13 , 1992 and ending Wednesday, March 4 , 1992 . If any
comments regarding the draft negative declaration are received , you
will be notified immediately.
Recommendation
The Environmental Assessment Committee recommends that the Planning
Commission approve Negative Declaration No . 92-5 finding that the
proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the
. environment .
Mitigation Measures
X The attached mitigating measures will reduce potential
environmental effects resulting from the project and are recommended
as conditions of approval . .
JO: lp
(2268d)
i .
LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Notice is hereby given by the Department of Community Development ,
Planning Division of the City of Huntington Beach that the following
Draft Negative Declaration request has been prepared and will be
subm.itted to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission for
their consideration . The Draft Negative Declaration will be
available for public review and comment for twenty-one ( 21) days
commencing Thursday , February 13 , 1992 .
Draft Negative Declaration No . 92-5 in conjunction with Precise Plan
of Street Alignment No . 92-1 is a request to select between two
alternative alignments of Elm Street and Keelson Lane . Precise Plan
of Street Alignment to select between two alignments of Elm Street
and Keelson Lane . Alternative 1 consists of cul-de-sacing Elm
Street and Keelson Lane at their current southerly and northerly
termination points , respectively. Alternative 2 consists of
connecting the two streets to provide through access . The alignment
is located at the southerly terminus of Elm Street and northerly
terminus of Keelson Lane
A copy of the request is on file with the Department of Community
Development , City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street , Huntington
Beach, California . Any person wishing to comment on the request may
do so in writing within twenty-one (21) days of this notice by
providing written comments to the Department of Community
Development , Planning Division, P.O. Box 190 , Huntington Beach, CA
92648 .
(2250d)
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
PLANNING DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 92-5
1 . Name of Proponent: City of Huntington Beach
Address: 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Phone Number: (714) 536-5431
2. Date Checklist Submitted for Review: February 5, 1992
3. Concurrent Entitlement(s) : Precise Plan of Street Alignment 92-1
4. Proiect Location: Southerly terminus of Elm Street and northerly
terminus of Keelson Lane
5. Proiect Description: Precise Plan of Street Alignment to select
between two alignments of Elm Street and Keelson Lane. Alternative
1 consists of cul-de-sacing Elm Street and Keelson Lane at their
current southerly and northerly termination points, respectively.
Alternative 2 consists of connecting the two streets to provide
through access.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of answers are included after each subsection. )
Yes Maybe No
1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ _ X
Discussion: The project does not propose any activities which will result in any unstable earth conditions
or geologic substructures.
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X
Discussion: Installation of Cul-de-sac improvements or a through street connection will result in some
additional displacement, compaction and overcovering of soils. Grading and paving activities are not
substantial . Furthermore, pursuant to standard condition of approval , any surplus soils removed from the
site will be disposed of at a facility adequately designed to accommodate them. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
Yes Maybe No
C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ _ X
Discussion: The project site is developed and is primarily flat. The proposed project does not involve any
substantial changes in topography.
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ _ X
Discussion: The project site does no contain any unique geological or physical features.
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ X
Discussion: Improvement construction may result in some short—term wind and water erosion impacts due to
soils excavation activities. However, soils excavation is not anticipated to be substantial . Wind and
water erosion impacts will be minimized through implementation of standard conditions of approval requiring
utilization of dust control and desilting plans.
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay, inlet or lake? _ X _
Discussion: The subject property is not located in the vicinity of any fresh or marine waters and does not
drain directly into any natural bodies of water.
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ _ X
Discussion: The project does not involve any activities which will expose people/property to geologic
hazards.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ X _
Discussion: Construction activities will result in short—term increases in dust and construction equipment
emissions. However, due to the small scale of the project, with implementation of standard conditions of
approval requiring use of dust control measures, no significant adverse impact is anticipated.
b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ _ X
Discussion: The proposed cul—de—sating will not result in any objectionable odors.
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally? X
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or
fresh waters? X
Discussion: The subject property is not located in the vicinity of any fresh or marine waters and does not
drain directly into any natural bodies of water.
Environmental Checklist —2— (2154d)
Yes Maybe No
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X
Discussion: The surrounding area is developed. Construction of the cul-de-sacs or the street connection
will encroach into existing landscaped areas and will increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the
area. However, the increase in runoff generated by the paving is anticipated to be negligible. No
significant drainage impacts are anticipated.
C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X
Discussion: The subject property is not located in the vicinity of the floodplain.
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ _ X_
Discussion: See 3a.
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including
but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
Discussion: See 3a.
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ _ X
Discussion: The project does not involve any activities which will impact groundwaters.
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ _ X
Discussion: See 3f.
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water
supplies? _ _ X
Discussion: The project is the cul-de-sacing or connection of the two streets and will not effect water
usage in the area.
i . Exposure of .people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _ _ X
Discussion: See 3c.
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of, plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _ _ X
Discussion: The proposed project site is occupied by landscape materials and paving. Construction of the
cul-de-sacs or street connection will result in the removal off some grass and shrubs. No rare, unique,
endangered plant species or mature trees- will be effected.
b. Reduction of the numbers of any mature, unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ _ X
Discussion: See 4a.
Environmental Checklist -3- (2154d)
Yes Maybe No
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? _ _ X
Discussion: See 4a.
d. Reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop? _ _ X
Discussion: See 4a. _
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? _ _ X
Discussion: The project site is occupied by paving and landscaping and does not support any wildlife.
Cul-de-lacing of the streets will not create a barrier to any animal migration, introduce new species into
the area, or deteriorate any animal habitate.
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ _ X
Discussion: See 5a.
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals? _ _ X
Discussion: See 5a.
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ X
Discussion: See 5a.
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X
Discussion: The proposed cul-de-sacing or street connection will result in short-term noise impacts during
the construction phase; however construction activities will be required to comply with the City of
Huntington Beach noise ordinance. No significant noise impacts are anticipated.
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
Discussion: See 6a.
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ _ X
Discussion: The project may require the relocation of existing street lighting or installation of new
lighting. Installation of new lighting equipment will be minor and will have a negligible impact on area
light and glare.
Environmental Checklist -4- (2154d)
Yes Maybe No
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial- alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area? X
Discussion: The proposed cul-de-sacs' or street connetion will encroach onto existing landscaping along
existing multi-family residential structures and the removal of an existing water well . However, the
project will allow for full street improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalks) and will facilitate removal of an
unsightly situation. The project will establish safe/adequate turn around area for cars and emergency
vehicles or provide through access depending on the alternative selected.
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ _ X
Discussion: The project will not result in any situation which will increase the rate of use of any natural
or energy resources.
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable -natural resource? _ _ X
Discussion: See 9a.
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to oil , pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? _ _ X
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? _ _ X
Discussion: The proposed cul-de-sacing alternative will not adversely interfere with existing emergency
access or evacuation in the area as the through access between the streets is presently blocked by a
waterwell . However, the proposed cul-de-sac alternative will eliminate future opportunities to provide
emergency through access between the two streets. The City has discussed the possibility of installing an
8' high block wall with an emergency access gate between the two cul--de-sacs. The through street
alternative will allow for through access for emergency and regular traffic. With implementation of the
mitigation measure identified below, no significant emergency access impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation:
1 . Prior to approval of the cul-de-sac street alignment, the plans shall incorporate emergency access via
fire gates, pavers, or other means acceptable to the Fire and Police Departments.
11 . Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of
the human population of an area? X
Discussion: The project is the cul-de-sacing or connection of .streets in an already developed area and will
not effect population growth in the area.
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ _ X
Discussion: The project area is already developed. Cul-de-sacing or connection of the streets will not
effect existing housing opportunities or create demand for additional housing.
Environmental Checklist -5- (2154d)
Yes Maybe N2
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X
Discussion: The project will not generate any additional vehicular traffic and will not eliminate any
existing circulation routes. It will , however, improve existing circulation conditions by either providing
safe and adequate turn around area for cars and emergency vehicles, or through access.
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or d*emand for new off—site parking? X
Discussion: The proposed project will either widen the existing street terminuses or provide through access
and will not eliminate existing on street parking opportunities.
C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ _ X
Discussion: See 13a.
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? — X
Discussion: See 13a.
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? — _ X
Discussion: The project does not involve any activities which will impact waterborne, rail or air traffic.
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ _ X
Discussion: The proposed project will allow for the installation of street improvements which will result
in motor vehicle, and minor bicycle and pedestrian safety benefits.
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? _ X
Discussion: The project may have an adverse effect on long—term emergency access impacts to the area
depending on the alternative selected. For discussion on the emergency access impacts, please refer to the
discussion under item 10b on page 5. However, the project will not require any additional manpower of
facilities to serve the area. No significant fire protection impacts are anticipated.
b. Police protection? _ X
Discussion: The project may result in emergency access impacts to the area depending on the alternative
selected. For discussion on the emergency access impacts, please refer to the discussion under item 10b on
page S. However, the project will not result in the need for any additional police manpower or facilities
to serve the surrounding area.
C. Schools? X
Discussion: The project will not effect school services in the area.
Environmental Checklist —6— (2154d)
Yes Maybe No
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
Discussion: The project will not require any recreational facilities.
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ X
Discussion: The cul—de—sacs or connection will be installed and maintained by the City. However, no new
manpower or facilities will be required as a result of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated.
f. Other governmental services? _ _ X
Discussion: No other governmental services will be required.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ _ X
Discussion: See 9a.
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing source of energy, or require the
development of sources of energy? _ _ X
Discussion: See 9a.
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations
to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? _ _ X
Discussion: See 16f.
b. Communication systems? _ _ X
Discussion: See 16f.
C. Water? X
Discussion: See 16f.
d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ _ X
Discussion: See 16f.
e. Storm water drainage? _ _ X
Discussion: See 16f.
f. Solid waste and disposal? X
Discussion: The proposed project will not result in the need for any additional utility systems or
facilities. However, installation of street improvements may encounter some existing utility lines. With
implementation of the mitigation measure identified below, no disruptions to existing utility service is
anticipated.
Environmental Checklist —7— (2154d)
Yes Maybe N2
Mitigation:
1 . Prior to initiation of street improvement construction, the Department of Public Works shall contact
utility purveyors to notify them of proposed construction activities and to insure that no utility
service will be disturbed.
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ _ X
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ _ X
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? _ X
Discussion: The project will allow for installation of complete street improvements (including sidewalk,
curb, gutter and paving) and is anticipated to improve the existing unsightly conditions.
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? _ _ X
Discussion: The proposed project will not impact any existing or proposed recreational facilities.
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? _ _ X
Discussion: See 20d.
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric
or historic building, structure, or object? _ _ X
Discussion: See 20d.
C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? _ _ X
Discussion: See 20d.
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area? _ _ X
Discussion (a—d) : The project site is presently developed and is not in the vicinity of any known
archaeological , historical or other cultural resources. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
Environmental Checklist —8— (2154d)
Yes Maybe No
21 . Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, sub-
stantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? _ _ X
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.) _ X
C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively consid-
erable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts
on the environment is significant.) _ _ X
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ _ X
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there _X�
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL
BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL _
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date Si(nature v
Revised: March, 1990 For: City of Huntington Beach
Community Development Department
Environmental Checklist -9- (2154d)
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 92-5
1 . Impact:
Installation of improvements may encounter existing
utility lines and could potentially result in utility
service disruptions.
Mitigation:
1 . Prior to initiation of street improvement construction,
the Department of Public Works shall contact utility purveyors
to notify them of proposed construction activities and to insure
that no utility service will be disturbed.
2. Impact:
Selection of the cul-de-sac alignment will eliminate future opportunities to provide emergency through
access.
Mitigation:
1 . Prior to approval of the cul-de-sac street alignment, the plans shall incorporate emergency access via
fire gates, pavers, or other means acceptable to the Fire and Police Departments.
Environmental Checklist -10- (2154d)
a �
V t W p
v
2
4 l? Q
u ? o
0 1600 3100 O
BOSSA
r.
ARGOSY < ,
Sr-
z
u
8 .fn[ N
i
ED- (a
— wA I.rf e
WARNER ,
\ SLATER
AIBIPI
f1t15 b _
r- a
GAP I.ct:
O�
3 � /
S i rOvr,lpwr.
O,' I
9f U�
.D...s
1 irID�A•.APUIIi
AILAIIIA
HA/A IIIpN
I
/BAr.raNG
VICINITY MAP
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
-----------
OR
CGIN - AVE
----
C.- R--- '
i - '�J L�I �- - AVE
CEDAR AVE
- -1 N �-
I NuNDR
�--
- - 10i _ --
SL---rci?- AvE
Environmental 7fl,,r
Assessment No . 9z -5
HUN'TI.NCTON BEACH
HUNTFNGTON 6EACH PANNING DIVISION
ATTACHMENT NO, 7
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO 92-1:
1. The proposed precise plan of street alignment to cul-de-sac Elm
Street and Keelson Lane is not consistent with the goals and
policies of the City' s General Plan because it contributes to a
circulation system that does not minimizes adverse aesthetic and
environmental effects .
2 . The proposed precise plan of street alignment will not improve
traffic and circulation by prohibiting commercial traffic on Elm
Street from impacting the residential uses on Keelson lane, and
by not providing a safe, effective turnaround area for vehicles .
3 . The proposed precise plan of street alignment to cul-de-sac Elm
Street and Keelson Lane is not consistent with the objectives of
the Oakview Redevelopment Plan because it does not provide a
precise plan of adequate public improvements and does not
improve the overall appearance of the streets .
(3329d)
�C,�►.- ,�,-ct-At,���ut,Eir.�T ?
=SMCKway, bury 1_ierK
f Huntington Beach - -
of the City Clerk - '~
P.O. BOX 190 i� �i;,' I (j�-� . : u
ton Beach, CA 92648 )
�.►
N =
G7 n c?70
X 4
l w r.e_
1 fr om
a -'22? e�:l BAc:h B'.vd
�pNTINGTpy ,bye �fq Hun•L•:i.n n Lj gtoeacli i;� - ,�
47--
`MOOR POR47F �� ��. y W '1'1
o
`B Iz Noce... p
'oUNTY cP` LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING {
111111-IIMIlll III it i3 i11 dil J J41I'llfi3-IllJ miIII
Clerk •----- ^��.-� � _._. _---__-�;- ------ -9�------�.-`-__;-ti-� r � •. _
rockway,City
Huntington Beach b ► �� ' s _ - x
_ h: \ -
City of thety Clerk �k y
_ - e'
O.BOX 190 _...�
on Beach,CA 92646
5 m 01
� � 5
-r
A
�u`►UFA
rer7,11 h K cl QFr —EM9p3
eo Lie c� r
SF. c
NO
IN G TpN� NPEB 710
U�'e
\M..0PPOR4?1'
z
�oo Y cam - RING
ull�liil,,li,li111i1;?111tii►lliiil 14I,i,lllil; 1111
N T LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEA
office of the City Clerk - -'___
s
P.O. Box 190 —
itington Beach, CA 92648
- W noun
S
�/►�4'n t1 T W of T V
ro ° 0CCL1F'ANT
tp 791:1.- Slater Ave
vp�c`r�NjINGTpy VACAIVr •I►.u-7ti.ngton Pe~ac:h CA 9tt '
9'yF
�oUNTY CP`
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING li,I,,,1111111111111III11�,11llilllllll111,1i1111111
rk
Connie Brockway,City Cle r•E G�` a
"' /
City of Huntington Beach �• - � - '�-. `` .� ' `` I1/l•(21 012 - � 1 '�, •�1 "'
R
office of the City Clerk 1
L
P.O.Box 190 ��(F1w' .�t12 •,cnl �� "_ 1 i-•• � `�z - ,
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ,1 3 N1 ' '� '•
I�H1
E11'�1`I .1.Ct)cl_..i'�3.:)_...1.f.) r t•• ac•• .1.1.1(- -
J1 :1..:>E:..>
:a:l r�n14� 1•Ir�c1i( 4a1. I':ntr I' r •.�
F'.Cl. ktr_ix Oil . 1
ZS .
TINGT 1= Ld(..('llt .l.Li � E7"OR PORA
r►,1.,,
�.rON OHS
NOT DUIVERABLE AS AUDRB-v:A
cF��UNTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC.-HEARING
•, f1� �111 i111- iQ;t'{111�Iv1:M '1 11i(Iiff�
Connie Brockway,City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk a 6
=
P.O.Box 0 s M 21 92
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 '`ST a.
92
1) 'T' Ita. .x hestak.tr,(--es .Lnc
�pNTINGtp 6438 E� �nG}�byri7 :l
o�_\NCORPOR47F� " - ar) br-iel. i.•t'ILT 1.f 7
RE
Q= TO4W�A
SEWER `F,E rJHHN
r7 1409. \� OO IDING � A�r.
ppUNTY cp` '� p FOP► ARDINU
L - RING y 0PE��XPT-,ECG
NOTICE_ OF PUBLIC HEARING
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-5
PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 92-1
(Establish precise alignment of Keelson Lane and Elm Street)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will
hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the
date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the
statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the
application described below.
DATE/TIME: Monday, June 1, 1992, 7:00 PM
APPLICATION NUMBER: Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 92-1
Negative Declaration No. 92-5
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach - Public Works Department
LOCATION: Keelson Lane North of Slater Avenue and Elm Street
South of Cypress Avenue
ZONE: Various
REOUEST: Establish precise alignment of Keelson Lane and Elm
Street . The City Council will review two proposals;
1) a thru-street proposal, and 2) a cul-de-sac
proposal at the terminus of Keelson Lane and Elm
Street. Either alternative will require dedication of
private property or acquisition of private property by
the City for street right-of-way use. The Planning
Commission has recommended proposal number 2 for a
cul-de-sac.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Mitigated Negative Declaration
No. 92-5
COASTAL STATUS: Not Applicable
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 May 28, 1992 .
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and
express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application
as outlined above. If there are any further questions. please call
Herb Fauland, Assistant Planner at 536-5271.
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
Huntington Beach City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227
(3313d)
9-5-11 10-5-U
DM 9 I
f PROJECT
�- LOCATION
16-r-11 ' 15- -11 �14
OM 17 D.tt IS
...w_ \�
24-5� t9 5 I' �¢': 5 I 21- -11 22-5 I I 2 1-5-11 4 1
DM 26-\ DM 2. -U1�23 DM24 DM 25 y i DM!27
.•� y t I
30-5-11 , ! 1
25-5-I. ti- `�:)I 27-b-11 2y- I 25- -II
DM 35��\` DM 34 ��DM 33 DM32 -- - -CIM 31DM 30 -
\ Il
- - - ---
�% l \� \�
�n32 5`II 33 5 II y` -11 '5-5-11 36 -11
\ \
' OM 36 DM 37 � 38 39' DM 40
p
/ --
5-6-II - / 3-6-11 2 -II I-6 11 6-6-q -10
OM 4 OM 3 2 D I DM 6 pM
f � r
I
9-6-11 -6-11 I -il 12 6-11 7-6-10 B-6-10
OM 10 DM t2 DM13 DM 7 'DM8
--13-6-11 18-6-10 . /17�i-10
,
CITY OF -VIP 14 D�120 7 DM19
-
HUNTINGTON _BEACH
ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA I
�o. -I0 /I
,Q DM.9 -22
rarrm era�.w
wr.w m.srp.owyren
an awrcR•aor.+a ■o w �
1 1
� CITY ®F t�t,.J�1'"t�lC��"Oi�ll BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET P. 0. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
Louis F. Sandoval Public Works Department
Director (714) 536-5431
L T DF OF TRA,'13�GML
Tu: EAU Ld 42 Date:
' 0✓t 6-4 J 14UY�1= �1 � L� Project: CC jj\
Gentlemen:
We are sending
�harewith ❑ under separate cover ❑ by mail
[/per yn"T request ❑ per the request of
❑ street iEprvvewnt plans ❑ correspondence
❑ parcel W ❑ estimates
❑ record mp ❑ legal descriptions
❑ contract tents ❑ grading plan
�atn�P_� I.,Q.�S �2t•1�c-E�1� ��. i�r��`�>�`R�c�.�1 -rtTt.�
Coy
For:
❑ corrections ❑ your file
❑ approval [lyou; use
❑distribution ❑ your information
i2ormarks
By: rox 55z4
CC :
POR. 5//2, SE.//4, NE. //4, SEC.26, T.5S,R.//W
165-23
22
u
eLLEr >.—�y ALc£r TRACT j 9 � ALLEY
:Js— 0.J c-
.s.r 1.5
_ 21 ^O f 20 , O ° I Q O137tiACT =:E.-£F Q �S E7-26 " i v !6
to
22 1 O 14 s /0
I r y.J I
23 0 j
W17
o -
17
I o
s. 1 �•O 19. c
Is 5 ` :� 23� Ij
Io
14 6 '
I i IC O iR. .4 2'S CC.
O I I IS 16 5
i
r 15 5 -
I
_ O i 7 14 -:C) =
14 � '� PAR� �
1 t5
I e
t3 s
O .cG .± 0
zo +�� �IS
ALLEr ALLEY O
>s" /7 bJ.!J/B / 2 :L¢. J PM.143-43 2s2 59
r
n PLP. I C
O• � r � V
z9 _ so Q Q - ,lo Iz o _ to a Iz s 17 r O O e
4�NO.c a30/ ;F NO. c 4153 NO 5057> G�
S'_-'.TER F —5 _ AVENUE
a
2 32
4
C
MARCH 1576 J::CCT NO 4153 M.M. 174-12,/3 NOTE-ASSESSOR'S 9LOCK a ASSESSOR'S .u.[.=
r:.oacT NO 430/ M.M. 177-11.12 PARCEL NUMBERS ROOK 167 PAG__3
7:q---.'T NO 5057 M.M. 182-6,7 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF OIL':,=_
PL-7CEL MAP P.M. 123-22,143-43
1 -
165— 2 8
THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ORANGE
COUNTY ASSESSOR DEPT.PURPOSES ONLY
THE ASSESSOR MAKES NO GUARPNTEE AS TO
ITS ACCURACY NOR ASSUMES ANY LIABILITY
FOR OTHER USES.NOT TO BE REPRODUCED.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
3E @COPYRIGHT ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR INI
I ,CYPRESS
AVENUE
_`i
f - � r•] v N:'- Imo+ 0 .. •,
J
4
i O LCT ? ,. Lc ?
O
NO. 01OZ85 L a
eo• s/m' .tl x e].
TRACT p
so' N
BLK. 282 E.0 a 0 ELK. 283 F 00,
_ M
I LO% J
`a
BLK. D
2 :< l ?
O 0 s l4 -O O LC-- < O
.ettt' 2' `
1 ell tt!' 30 :]' 2
0 .•. \ -]]
O _Ors - r y 0 LOr` 0 w
a O Lcr s -1 g s s m
4, 0 N0. 436
ALLEY n.l
!I
bF
22 THfs .A= =-_-- FOP OPA.v,E
C✓uvT r - - n V PL'Rpost S C:v1 r .
THE ASSE•_-- -c VO G A..-ANTEE AS
r
ITS ACCL; - =SS✓YES ANY L:-A?N/ir
FOR
- TO BE R£PirO9:/CEO
ALL
C.Pr.Pr�,T O=A.'�'SE C':' 'Tr ASSESSC-*
MARCH 1979 TRACT NO. 436 ALAI. 25-28 NOTE - ASSESSO.4'S E:GCK S ASSESSOP'S PIAP
TRACT NO. 10485 M.M. 449-34,35,36 PAPCEL NLA L.KS EOOK 165 r�i•E 28 CI 1
' PARCEL MAP P.M. 00-35 SHO RN w C,`.4CLE5 COUNTY OF ORANGE
POR N. 112,SE 114,NE 11-4, SEC 26,T55,R 11 W
28
1) SE COR NE V4., /,SE,
:4 ?-E 114,SEC 26-5-
1414V
JO
18 19 20 0ZZLEr
'o
1 TRACT 10
TRACT 7
-cl 11 t Z4 s",
Iq ;.
(3 t 02 0(2 -DI
:t . (D 200
03 #.,RlsrIN CIRCLE Q
INANDRELL ORIVE
ss
j
"o
(D
0 , 06 -
(44
225
8 9 'a,
271 16 25 oa:
i6 Atulr co
Z8 29 30
2204
0 .02
0 BARrON DR.-VEj
13 169-*c
4114
2 -3
2 3 C,3
z
VE I
4114]
(D '
4301/V0.
35 J4 J-yw
ALLEY tLer
23
MARCH 1976 77ACT NO. 4301 MW 171- -li,12 NOTE-ASSESSOR'S BLOCK a ASSESSOR'S MAP
T=ACT NO. 8916 Af,W. 369-23,24 PARCEL NUMBERS SOOKi65 PAGE 22
- SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORA-%---E
APN: 165-282-20 AF'N: 165-283-17 AF'N: 165-283-16
Elias Rordcosh Robert Duarte Sigma Medical Enterprises Inc
900 W. 17th St. No. E 17190 Elm St. P.O. Box 1119
Santa Ana CA92706 Huntington Beach CA92647 Placentia CA9267O
APN: 165-283-14 APN: 165-�OJ'1J APN: 165--283-01
Mario G. Valenzuela Mario Valenzuela Victor Roland
15964 Springdale St. 17621 Flintstone Lane 809 S_ Bundy Dr_
Huntington Beach CA92647 Huntington Beach CA92647 Los Angeles CA90049
APN: 165-283-06 APN: 165-283-07 APN: 165-282-19
Ruben Z Alvarez Darak:a D. Giauque Charter Elms Investors LTD
1418 N. Main St. 17172 Elm St. 900 S. Garfield Ave.
Santa Ana CA92701 Huntington Beach CA92647-5940 Alhambra CA91801
APN: 165-283-18 APN: 165-28.E-15 APN: 165-283-19
Audelia L. Duarte Kowa International Corp Kuliit S. Hara
17190 Elm St. 3890 Se Norton Ave. 7971 Birchwood Circle
Huntington Reach CA92647-5940 Los Angeles CA90008 La Palma CA90623
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17192 Ash Street 17171 Beach Blvd 17211 Beach Blvd
Huntington Beach CA 92647-5891 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5965 Huntington Reach CA 92647-5908
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17221 Beach Blvd 17231 Reach Blvd 7922 Cypress
Huntington Beach CA 92647-5908 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5908 Huntington Reach CA 92647-5914
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17162 Elm Street 17172 Elm Street 17181 Elm Street
Huntington Beach CA 92647-5940 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5940 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5900
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17190 Elm Street 17192 Elm Street 17230 Elm Street
Huntington Beach CA 92647-5940 Huntington Berth CA 92647-5963 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5911
-. AF'h!: 165-234--17 OCCUPANT
Elizabeth Dispalatro 7911 Slater Ave
6371 Athena Dr. Huntington Beach CA 9<647-673'l P S
HUntington Beach CA92547
3
APN: 165-224-13 APN: 165-233-21 APN: 165-234-01
Donald Phillip YUst Ramalinga Reddy Chirra Young Iran Kim
461 S. Glassell 9194 E1 AZU1 Circle 110 Monticello
Orange CA92666 Fountain Valley CA92708 Irvine CA92720
APN: 165-233-20 APN: 165-234-02 APN: 165-233-19
Ninh Van Tu Franz Gerum Fred Joseph Abiad
21.51 W. Cerritos Ave. 13342 Del Monte Dr. 5-F 7201 Heil Ave.
Anaheim CA92804 Seal Reach CA90740 Huntington Beach CA92647
APN: 165-234-03 APN: 165-233-18 APN: 165-234-04
Jerome J. Goldfein Fred Joseph Abiad Genevieve C. Denault
5402 Barwood Dr. 7201 Heil Ave. 8241 Zitola Terrace
Huntington Beach CA92649 Huntington Beach CA92647 Playa Del Rey CA90291
APN: 165-233-1.7 APN: 165-233-16 APN: 165-2234-19 _
Lu Thanh Tran Gregory Kuo-Kuang Lin Keelson LTD
629 S. Jackson St. _ 5 Silver Fir 17072 Sandra Lee Lane `
Santa Ana CA92704 Irvine CA92714 Huntington Beach CA92649
APN: 165-233-15 APN: 165-234-16 APN: 165-233-14
Young Ran Kim Raj P. Shah Mahendra Desai
11.0 Monticello 884 N. Snow Goose St. 1150 E. Orangethorpe No. 112
Irvine CA92720 Orange CA92669 Placentia CA
APN: 165-234-15 APN: 165-233-13 APN: 165-234-14
Anna Capocciama Richard Maytorena Anna Capocciama
6371 Athena Dr. 34002 Amber Lantern 6371 Athena Dr.
Huntington Beach CA92647 Dana Point CA92629 Huntington Beach CA92647
APN: 165-224-18 APN: 165-224-17 APN: 165-224-19
EUn Ho Shin William J. Kornbluth Harold V. Casanova
5848 Whitewood Ave. 518 Dahlia Ave. 10742 Knott Ave.
Lakewood CA90712 Corona Del Mar CA92625 Stanton CA90630
APN: 165-224-16 APN: 165-233-11 APN: 165-233-12
Rosa Chavez Lin J. Ju Lin J. Ju
21.631 Zamora Lane 9801 Oceancrest Dr. 9801 Oceancrest Dr.
Huntington Beach CA92646 Huntington Beach CA92646 Huntington Beach CA92646
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17301 Keelson Lane 17361 Keelson Lane 17362 Keelson Lane
Huntington Reach CA 92647-5920 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5959 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5951
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17371 Keelson Lane 17372 Keelson Lane 17381 Keelson Lane
Huntington Reach CA 92647-59$8 Huntington Reach CA 92647-5952 Huntington Reach CA 92647-5990
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17382 Keelson Lane 17391 Keelson Lane 17392 Keelson Lane
Huntington Reach CA 92647-5953 Huntington Beach CA 92647-7403 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5954
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17401 Keelson Lane 17411 Keelson Lane 17412 Keelson Lane
Huntington Beach CA 92647-5922 Huntington Reach CA 92647-7405 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5977
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17421 Keelson Lane 17422 Keelson Lane 17431 Keelson Lane
Huntington Reach CA 92647-7406 Huntington Reach CA 92647-5955 Huntington Reach CA 92647-7407
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17432 Keelson Lane 17441 Keelson Lane 17442 Keelson Lane
Huntington Reach CA 92647-5902 Huntington Beach CA 92647-7408 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5903
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7851 Kristin Circle 7852 Kristin Circle 7861 Kristin Circle
Huntington Beach CA 92647-7410 Huntington Reach CA 92647-7411 Huntington Beach CA 92647-7409
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7862 Kristin Circle 7861 Slater Ave 7871 Slater Ave
Huntington Reach CA 92647-7412 Huntington Beach CA 92647-7712 Huntington Beach CA 92647-771-L
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17216 Ash Street 17232 Ash Street
Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5832 Huntington Reach CA 92647-5632
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17242 Ash Street 17252 Ash Street 17262 Ash Street
Huntington Beach CA 92647-5840 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5839 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5838
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17282 Ash Street 17251 Beach Blvd 17281 Beach Blvd
Huntington Beach CA 92647-5836 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5908 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5969
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17301 Beach Blvd 17151 Elm Street 17171 Elm Street
Huntington Beach CA 92647-5910 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5939 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5957
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17201 S Elm Street - 17213 Elm Street 17221 Elm Street ` -
Huntington Beach CA 92647-5918 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5918 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5918
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17242 Elm Street 17231 Keelson Lane 17241 Keelson Lane
Huntington Beach CA 92647-5912 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5981 Huntington Beach. CA 92647-5984
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17252 Keelson Lane 17271 Keelson Lane 17272 Keelson Lane
Huntington Beach CA 92647-5975 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5985 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5971
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
17281 Keelson Lane 17282 Keelson Lane 17300 Keelson Lane
Huntington Beach CA 92647-5986 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5961 Huntington Beach CA 92647-5921
k
AF'L�I: 165-282-14 APN: 1b5-282-ib APN: 16`�-282-15
Moore Mutual Water Co George D. I'lourani Joan M. Resk.
17201 Ash St. -" 16391 Gentry Lane 1704 Shipley Lane
Huntington Beach CA92647 Huntingin Bch CA92647 Huntington Beach CA92648
APN: 165-224-01 APN: 165-224-02 APN: 165-224-03
Robin C. Mc Clinton Robin C. Mc Clinton Tai Yuen Kwok
3020 Chapel Hill Rd. 3020 Chapel Hill Rd. 3902 Kitten Circle
Orange CA92667 Orange CA92667 Huntington Beach CA92649
APN: 165-224-04 APN: 165-225-10 APN: 165-225-09 -
Frank M. Fukuhara D T Ritz Resources Inc William G. Susman
5912 Carbeck Dr. 6438 N. San Gabriel 3035 Country Club Dr.
Huntington Beach CA92648 San Gabriel CA91775 Costa Mesa CA92626
APN: 165-225-08 APN: 165-282-08 APN: 165-282-09
Jae Yul Yang Mildred A. Orris Charter Elms Investors LTD
3461 Sagamore Dr. 17151 Elm St. 900 S. Garfield Ave.
Huntington Beach CA92649 Huntington Beach CA92647-5939 Alhambra CA91801
APN: 165-282-11 APN: 165-282-12 APN: 165-282-13
James O. Gerry Charles Carter Thomas Jimenez
17201 S. Elm St. 17213 Elm St. 17221 Elm St.
Huntington Beach CA92647-5918 Huntington Beach CA92647-5918 Huntington Beach CA92647-5918
APN: 165-225-01 APN: 165-224-21 APN: 165-224-20
Ferol Ballenger Stefan Heitzmann Rosario Cilia
1.7242 Elm St. 17391 Jepsen Circle 14075 Montgomery Dr.
Huntington Beach CA92647-5912 Huntington Beach CA92647 Westminster CA92683
APN: 165-225-02 APN: 165-224-15 APN: 165-225-03
Frank O. Chandler Eric Lauterer Frank O. Chandler
5731 Grimsby Dr. F.O. Box 9157 5731 Grimsby Dr.
Huntington Beach CA92649 Marina Del Rey CA90295 Huntington Beach CA92649
APN: 165-224-14 APN: 165-225-04 APN: 165-225-05
Donald Phillip Yust Michael C. Lee Donald Phillip Yust
-'461 S. Glassell 9051 Belcaro Dr. 461 S. Glassell
Orange CA92666 Huntington Beach CA92646 Orange CA92666
PUBPC NOTICES PUBL11RAOTIM S I PUBLIC NOTICE4 I PUBLIC NOTICES I.PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES
(CORRECTED)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ZONE CHANGE -NOS. 90-8, 90-9 , 90=11, 90-12, 90-13', 90-15 AND 90-16
(REZONE SEVEN (7) . PARCELS FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/
COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will
hold a public hearing, in the Council Chamber at the Huntington 'Beach .
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the
date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the
statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the
application described below.
DATE/TIME: Monday, June 15, 1992, 7:00 P.M:',
APPLICATION NUMBER: Zone Change Nos . 90-8, 90-9 , 90-11, 90-121 .
90-13 , 9.0-15 and 90-16
APPLICANT: Pacific Coast Homes _
LOCATION: Various locations in the Seacli.ff/Beachwalk. area (see
attached map)
ZONE: Various (See Attached)
REQUEST: Rezone seven (7) •parcels from High Density
Residential-Commercial to Low Density Residential
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This project is covered . by Negative
Declaration No. 90-28 which was approved by
the City Council :on May 16, 1991.
COASTAL STATUS: Zone Change No. 90-12 will result in an
amendment, to the City' s Certified Local
Coastal Program
ON •FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the
Community Development Department, 2000- Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the
public.
ALL INTERESTED , PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and
express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application
as outlined above . If you challen a the CitY Councils action in
court-,- You may be limited to raw sing -only those issues you, or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this noticeA -
or in wr tten correspondence del vered to the City at, or prior to,
the public hearing . If there are any- further questions please call
Robert Franklin, Associate Planner at 536-5271.
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
Huntington Beach ,City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-522.7
'',r�,•%1.�� ZC 90 16 ZC 90-15
�`'w�� '`�'�'•
.,,
ZC 90 9
zC 90-13
-._..1 :1 k•
J '
ZC 90-0
ZC 90-8,4C 90-9,ZC 90-11,ZC ,90-12
ZC 9071394C 90-15,ZC 90-16
UNIINGION Nuu+ -
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
STATE OF CAUFORNIA
County of Orange
1 am a Citizen of the United States and a
resident of the County aforesaid; 1 am over the
age of eighteen years, and not a party to or
interested in the below entitled matter. 1 am a
principals clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH
INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published in the City of
Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of
Califomia,and that attached Notice is a true and
complete copy as was printed and published in
the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley
issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of:
May 28, 1992
1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 28 , 199—L
at Costa Mesa, California
Signature
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
DAILY PILOT
PUBLISH DATE
LEGAL NOTICE
vl
ORDINANCE NO. 3153
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE
BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 31 TO INCLUDE PRECISE PLAN
OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 92-1 ALIGNING KEELSON LANE
AND ELM STREET"
SYNOPSIS:
Ordinance No. 3153 amends the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to include
c
Pricise P1'an of Street Alignment 92-1 aligning Keelson Lane and Elm Street.
The Council finds that Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 92-1 is reasonable
and necessary to the orderly and efficient flow of traffic, for the
preservation of the health and safety of- the inhabitants of the City, and for
the orderly development of the communi-ty.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE v
r
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular
meeting_ held Monday, July 6, ice, by the following- ro-l-1 call vote: a'
tw-�� W►�v
AYES: Councilmembers: /
NOES: Councilmembers: /�/a•J-�
ABSENT: Councilmembers: l/oN 2
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Connie Brockway
City Clerk