HomeMy WebLinkAboutDOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - Zoning Case 83-2 - CODE AMENDMENT 8 � I DO\/v//UTO \/\////u
SPECIFIC PLAI\J
ZOME CA5E ( ) 3 - 2
CODE
MEIVI (33 - 4
' 'rCITY OF
}ltJ,111NGTUH BL.' 1�,C:.�`t• a`
5�
° R VTVLMJNCIL ACTION
1� . .
19E3
Date November 9, 1983
-- WTY CLERK,
Submitted to: Honorab
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services 4 p
Subject: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION SETTING A FEE FOR APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS UNDER THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
ZRS -41- -- -3 z. eR
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Resolutions 5309 A, B, and C adopted by City Council on October 10,
1983 provide that a special fee will be charged for approval of
development applications in the Downtown Specific Plan area. The
attached resolution will establish the dollar amount of that fee.
RECOMMENDATION:
Select a fee per acre of $831 from the attached schedule,
adopt the resolution establishing this as the fee to be
charged for approval of development applications in the
Downtown.
ANALYSIS :
When the City Council originally authorized work to begin on develop-
ment of the Downtown Specific Plan, it was agreed that the costs of
Plan development be charged to developers within the Plan area, on a
pro rata basis.
Staff has summarized the attached costs of development of the Down-
town Specific Plan, which fall into two main groups - costs expended
for City staff time and direct operating expenses,and costs for out-
side consulting services. Sharing these costs among those who de-
velop within the area on a per acre basis would result in the fol-
lowing cost breakdown:
1 . Staff cost for drafting plan: $113,368 . 61 or $520 per acre
2. Cost for architectural consultants: $67,800 or $311 per acre
3 . Total costs for staff and consultant: $1.81,168 or $831 per acre
The Council may elect to recover costs for staff work only, for c6,n-
sultant work only, or for both. The proper cost figure and per-act
fee should then be adopted as part of Resolutions No.3737,8
FUNDING SOURCE: /
Not applicable. \
PIO 4/81
ADOPTION OF FEE RESO__--ION UNDER DOWNTOWN SPECIi PLAN
November 10, 1983
Page 2
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The City Council may choose to establish a fee of $520 per
acre
2. Do not adopt the resolution. No fee will then be assessed for
development applications in the Downtown Specific Plan area.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Costs to develop the Downtown Specific Plan
2. Resolution No. 532
CWT:JWP:JAF:df
COSTS TO DEVELOP DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Staff
Salaries (2 assistant planners)
1 associate planner, part time
supervisory . level planner $ 903, 000 . 00
Benefits 20 , 700 . 00
Total Salaries 1105, 700 . 00 F
Operating Expenses -
Printing 1 , 500. 00
Supplies 142 . 96
Miscellaneous 125 . 65
Mailing cost 800 . 00
Publication 100 . 00
Total Operating Expenses 2 , 668 . 61-
Total 113.9368 . 61
Cost per acre :
113, 369 - 218 acres = $S20/acre
Architectural Consultants 67 , 800 . 00
Cost per acre :
67 , 800 — 218 acres = $311/acre
Total cost per acre = $831
TOTAL COST 181,168.61
•
i9
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
1.
Date Oc to b 13, 19 8 3
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Admini/straPrepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Devees 66�d }PSubject: RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS N AND C
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, FundingV_rM_1 Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Resolutions 5390A, B, and C establis a special fee to be charged for approval
of development applications in the wntown Specific Plan area. The resolu-
tions were inadvertently adopted w' hout the dollar amount of the fee being
established.
RECOMMENDATION:
Vote to reconsider Resolution No. 5309A, B, and C and readopt them after
establishing the dollar amou t of the fee to be charged.
ANALYSIS:
When Resolution No. 5309 was originally sent to the City Council, it was
accompanied by the atta ed schedule of costs to develop the Downtown
Specific Plan. Staff equested that the Council select the appropriate
fee from this schedul and adopt the resolution establishing the fee sel-
ected. In the proce or redrafting Resolution No. 5309 into Resolutions
5309A, B, and C, th fee schedule became separated from the resolutions
and was not includ in the packet. Consequently, the resolutions were
adopted with no fe amount actually inserted into the blanks in the resolu-
tion. In order t rectify this omission, the City Attorney' s office advises
that Council vot to reconsider the three resolutions, then readopt them
with the amount of the fee inserted.
The choices f r recouping monies expended on the development of the
Downtown Spe `' fic Plan are as follows:
1. Staff st for drafting plan: $113,368 . 61 or $520 per acre
2. Cost or architectural consultants: $67, 800 or $311 per acre
3. Tota costs for staff and consultant: $181,168 or $831 per acre
The Co cil may elect to recover costs for staff work only, for con-
sulta work only, or for both. The proper cost figure and per-acre
PIO 4/81 /�
Resolutions 5309 A, B, and C
October 13, 1983
Page 2
fee should then be adopted as part of Resolutions No. 5309 A, B, and C.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Do not reconsider Resolutions No. 5309 A, B, and C. No fee will then
be assessed for development applications in the Downtown Specific
Plan area.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Costs to Develop Downtown Specific Plan
2. Resolutions No. 5309 A, B, and C
CWT:JWP:JAF:df
COSTS TO DEVELOP DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Staff
Salaries (2 assistant planners)
1 associate planner, part time
supervisory level planner $ 90 .1000 . 00
Benefits 20 , 700 . 00
Total Salaries 110 , 700 . 00
Operating Expenses
Printing 13, 500. 00
Supplies 142 . 96
Miscellaneous 125 . 65
Mailing cost 800 . 00
Publication 100 . 00
Total Operating Expenses 2 , 668 . 61 -
Total 113 , 368 . 61
Cost per acre :
113, 369 - 218 acres = $S20/acre
Architectural Consultants 67 , 800 . 00
Cost per acre :
67 , 800 — 218 acres = $311/acre
Total cost per acre = $831
TOTAL COST 1817168.61
RESOLUTION No. 5309-A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNT INGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL FEE FOR
APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN THE DOWN-
TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS 1, 7 and 8-A
(COUNCILMAN THOMAS ABSTAINS )
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65453 (a ) autho-
rizes the city to be reimbursed the cost of preparing a specific
plan ; and
The city has prepared and adopted the Downtown Specific Plan
for development of the area bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the
south, and on the inland side by Goldenwest Street , Walnut Avenue ,
Sixth Street, Hartford Avenue , Lake Street, Atlanta Avenue,
Huntington Street, and a line parallel to Atlanta Avenue extending
t from Huntington Street to Beach Boulevard, then south on Beach
Boulevard to the Pacific Ocean ; and
The total cost of preparation of such a plan has been deter-
mined to be $
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach that the total cost of preparation of
such plan shall be apportioned among owners of developable
property in the areas reflected above at a charge of $ per
acre as a special fee at the time of development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the aforementioned special fee
shall be collected from each owner of developable property on
acreage included in his application for development approval .
This resolution shall become operative on the effective date
of Ordinance No. 2646-A.
1.
i
RESOLUTION No. 5309-B
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL FEE FOR
APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN THE DOWN-
TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS 2 AND 6
(COUNCILMEN THOMAS AND MANDIC ABSTAIN )
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65453(a ) autho-
rizes the city to be reimbursed the cost of preparing a specific
plan ; and
The city has prepared and adopted the Downtown Specific Plan
for development of the area bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the
south, and on the inland side by Goldenwest Street, Walnut Avenue,
Sixth Street, Hartford Avenue, Lake Street, Atlanta Avenue,
Huntington Street, and a line parallel to Atlanta Avenue extending
from Huntington Street to Beach Boulevard, then south on Beach
Boulevard to the Pacific Ocean ; and
The total cost of preparation of such a plan has been deter-
mined to be $
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach that the total cost of preparation of
such plan shall be apportioned among owners of developable
property in the areas reflected above at a charge of $ per
acre as a special fee at the time of development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the aforementioned special fee
shall be collected from each owner of developable property on
acreage included in his application for development approval .
This resolution shall become operative on the effective date
of Ordinance No. 2646-B.
• 1 .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the
day of 1983.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Director of Development
Services
f
2.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the
day of 1983.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Director of Development
Services
2. /
RESOLUTION No. 5309-C
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL FEE FOR
APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN THE DOWN-
TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS 3, 4, 5, 8-B, 9, 10 AND
11 (NO ABSTENTIONS )
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65453 (a ) autho-
rizes the city to be reimbursed the cost of preparing a specific
plan ; and
The city has prepared and adopted the Downtown Specific Plan
for development of the area bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the
south, and on the inland side by Goldenwest Street, Walnut Avenue ,
Sixth Street, Hartford Avenue , Lake Street, Atlanta Avenue,
Huntington Street , and a line parallel to Atlanta Avenue extending
from Huntington Street to Beach Boulevard, then south on Beach
Boulevard to the Pacific Ocean ; and
The total cost of preparation of such a plan has been deter-
mined to be $
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach that the total cost of preparation of
such plan shall be apportioned among owners of developable
property in the areas reflected above at a charge of $ per
acre as a special fee at the time of development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the aforementioned special fee
shall be collected from each owner of developable property on
acreage included in his application for development approval.
This resolution shall become operative on the effective date
of Ordinance No. 2646-C.
1 .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the
day of , 1983.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Director of Development
Services
2.
LI a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 10/7/83
Vw"
COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Honorable Mayor and From Charles W. Thompson,
City Council Members City Administrator
Subject ADDITIONAL AGENDA INFORMATION Date October 7, 1983
1) Downtown Specific Plan - Agenda Item D-la - Attached is additional backup information
regarding this agenda item:
a. A response prepared by the Development Services Department addressing Mrs. Seraphine's
concerns;
b. A communication from Development Services illustrating the City Attorney's opinion on
which Council members may vote on portions of the Specific Plan;
c. A communication providing the additional information requested by the City Council at
the meeting of September 26, 1983.
Respectf submitted,
es W. Thompson,
City Administrator
CWT:pj
Attachments
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Charles W. Thompson, From James W. Palin, Director
City Administrator Development Services
Subject RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM Date October 6, 1983
KAY SERAPHINE
The attached letter was received by City Council from Kay Seraphine.
Staff has the following responses to the points outlined by Ms.
Seraphine:
1. Cul-de-Sacs - The City' s departments of Public Works, Fire and
Police, as well as Greer and Company, the traffic consultant for
the City, have reviewed the proposed plan for cul-de-sacing cer-
tain streets as they intersect with P.C.H. and have not voiced
any reservations about it. On the contrary, the traffic consul-
tant and Public Works Department believe cul-de-sacs will improve
traffic flow and safety along P.C.H. ,and will discourage traffic
from using the Townlot streets for cross-town travel. Development
of the area and the loss of free parking on vacant lots will act
to reduce litter.
2. Surfing - Restaurants and viewing points are not intended to pro-
vide the only areas for spectators to the surfing events. There
will still be the entire pier to accommodate the crowds. Restau-
rants and view points would provide additional space for spectators.
3. Ocean View - The Plan does have as one of its goals "to allow
people to see the ocean from as many places as possible. " Two
story buildings on the pier would have pedestrian access around
them. Two story buildings along P.C.H. in District 10 will not
block views any more than one story buildings would. Because all
of District 10 is under City control, the buildings can be sited
and designed to retain maximum view potential for pedestrians.
View potentials will actually be increased for patrons of rest-
aurants and other commercial establishments in District 10.
4. Deviations - The special permit process is one which already exists
in the Planned Development districts. Use of a special permit re-
quires a conditional use permit application to the Planning Com-
mission which will require public notice and hearing and insure
thorough review by the Commission itself. The Planning Commission
is empowered to place conditions on a conditional use permit, and
since the approval is discretionary, the Commission has very
strong leverage over all aspects of the development.
5. District 2 - District 2 is a residential district with a base
density which is approximately equivalent to the present permitted
densities in the Townlot area behind Walnut. Density increases
a
Charles W. Thompson,
City Administrator
Page 2
are permitted in District 2 as the development site gets larger
in order to encourage lot consolidation and better land utiliza-
tion. At maximum consolidation (full block) the permitted density
is 35 units per gross acre which is only slightly higher than is
allowed by the R4 zoning designation which is presently on all the
half blocks between Walnut and the alley parallel to P.C.H. The
effective densities at build out should be less than they would
be under presently allowed R4 zoning. Heights over 35 feet are
set back at least 45 feet from any right of way and 75 feet from
Walnut Avenue, making the taller portions of buildings virtually
invisible to pedestrians in the Townlot area.
6. District 3 - Residential uses have been eliminated from District 3
southeast of Main Street. Residential use is allowed northwest of
Main Street where it is felt to be more compatible with the exist-
ing residential uses, and where it can act as a buffer between
existing residences and commercial uses along P.C.H. and Main
Street.
7 . Setbacks (Upper Story) - This section refers to upper story set-
backs in District 3 which are 15 feet on 5th and 3rd Streets. This
is an additional 10 feet beyond the ground floor setbacks on these
streets. District 3 is designed to be part of the commercial cen-
ter of downtown; therefore, large setbacks are not desirable. The
required 10 foot additional setback on upper stories will place
them out of view to pedestrians on those streets, thereby elimina-
ting the feeling of excessive bulk. The original view corridor
down Main Street is preserved through a 45 foot setback from Main
Street for portions of buildings over twenty-five feet in height
in District 3, and a correspondingly smaller upper story setback
in District 5. The diagram was eliminated because it proved to
be more confusing than illustrative.
The slides shown by Mr. Dawe showed types of development that
could be accommodated under the Specific Plan; in most cases the
necessary full block consolidation to allow heights over 3 stories
is not expected to occur.
The above summarizes staff responses to Ms. Seraphine' s comments. Staff
is available to discuss these points in more detail at any time.
JWP:JAF:sr
Attachment
509 17th Street
Huntington Beach
September 26, 1983 HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICI
OCT 3 W
Huntington Beach City Council
2000 Main Street ). Box 190
Huntington Beach, California
i Beach, CA 92
Dear Councilmembers :
I am writing to express a few of my concerns with the
Proposed Downtown Specific Plan . - = r;
1. Cul-de-sacs I am unalterably opposed to the cul=de-sac-1hg
of Townlot streets at PCH; this would place an unfair:=burden`
of traffic on those streets left open. One reason given, on
ppae► 3e , for this closure is to prevent ac::idents on PCH:
cpused by Pedestrians crossing at nonsignalized intersections ;
As thpsm cul-de-sacs would be oven to foot traffic this
r �►+ki+�ri1 iirf 1 to f�jtil t.y . Ar.ot.he-r re+t+:�on gi vmrr l:; to prevetit.
Pcridents csused by c_ rsturning off PCH onto these numbered
streets ; the planned center median on P-;ri would prevent turns
by cFrs Poinp, south, and cars going north would not be turning
in front of oncoming traffic . Another reason presented for
the cul-de-sacing is to keep traffic out of the Townlot area ;
it could .just as easily work to trap them in the area . These
cul-de-sacs will become traps for litter and debris ; the street
cleaners can' t keep up with the present amount of litter. In
a July 6, 1963 , letter (see page 2 of enclosed letter) the
State Office of Planning and Research questions the impact of
the cul-de-sacing on emergency response .
2. Surfing On page 56 mention is mAe of "restaurants and
viewing points for watching the surfing action and competition. "
Pat Dawe of the Arroyo Group showed a picture of a restaurant
balcony built right- over the water and said it was "to
accomodate People who show up for the surfing action. " For
surfing contests People line up three deep along the pier to
watch and I feel restaurant balconies and viewing_ points
are in�Aequate to accomodate them.
3 . Ocern view On page 23 , under Design Concept it is stated
thpt 1tFe overell form and shape of all development in Downtown
Huntington Beach should allow people to see the ocean from as
mr-n,y p1tces as possible . " Two story buildings on the Pier and
Pbove PCH in District 10 nestate this .
4 . Deviations On page 70, the first paragraph says that
"Deviations ?rom the development regulations of this Specific
Plrn, with the exception of maximum density , parking
reruirements in all Districts , and maximum building heights
in Districts 1 , 2 , and 4 , may be granted at the time of project
approval . " This reads to me as a giant loop-hole that could
allow any heights and set-backs regardless of wh-. t ,you approve
within the Specific Plan.
5. District 2 Page 32 states that "District Two is
intended to develop as a continuation of the type and variety
of residential development which exists in the adjacent
Townlot area . The development regulations should be similar ��
find compatible with those► in the Townlot area , with the
exception that larger projects should be provided with
additional incentives to encourage consolidation. " Since
these incentives are 35 du/acre and 45 feet heights (plus
an additional 10 feet for roofline treatment , or an
additional 14 feet for elevator equipment ) , and since the
paragraph goes on to say that "consolidation is one of the
objectives of the Plan, " I can only conclude that the
actual objectives of the plan are to not be compatible
with the Townlot area .
6. District 3 I question the wisdom of putting
residential use into District 3 . This is to be the intense
visitor-serving area with hotels,thestres , and restaurants. .
This can cause problems with noise as shown at Peter' s
Landing and as any of us who live on 17th Street near the
Rose Western Saloon will be glad to tell you.
7• Setbacks (Upper Story) 4.5.09 This provides that for
lots on 5th and 5r`d streets , the portion above 25 feet
shall be set back 15 feet from the front lot line. For
possibly 6 to 12 story buildings this small setback would
create great bulk on 5th, 3rd , and Walnut . And I notice
thet the angled air sD8Ce requirement on Main Street
buildings that was included in the June 1983 Plan has
been eliminated in the updated version. All of the slides
shown by the Arroyo Group presented light , airy , open space
that most people would like to see . At no time did their
slides show multi-story buildings with their bulk and shadows
that are allowed in the Downtown specific Plan as now written.
As an example of the type of buildings for District 4, the
buffer zone , Mr. Dawe showed one story heights ; District 4
heights are 3 stories which staff wants to raise to four.
For District 2 , Mr. Dawe showed a two story building
develoDment with the comment that this was the density that
Is being called for in this District ; District 2 allows 3 to
4 stories. It makes one wonder if Mr. Dawe has ever read the
details of the Specific Plan. I nave been told that the
slide show provided for the people of Redondo Beach before
their redevelopment was even better than the Arroyo Group' s
and look at the abomination that developed there ! I would
hate to see that happen in Huntington Beach.
Sincerely ,
1 r � 1 L 7 L-C,
Kay Seraphine
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
VOTING ELIGIBILITY
DISTRICTS
1 12 3 4 5 6 7 8A 8B 9 110 Ill
Don Mac Allister, Mayor X X X X X X X X X X X X
Jack Kelly, Mayor Pro Tem X X X X X X X X X X X X
Ruth Bailey X X X X X X X X X x X X
Ruth Finley X X X X X X X X X X X X
Robert Mandic X X X X X X X X X X
Ron Pattinson X X X X X X X X X K X X
John Thomas X X X X X X X
y
Elm CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
,71!�]a INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON RACH
To Charles W. Thompson, From James W. Palin, Director
City Administrator Development Services JJ W
Subject RESPONSES TO CITY COUNCIL Date October 6, 1983
QUESTIONS ON DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC
PLAN
At their meeting on September 26, 1983 the City Council requested ad-
ditional information from staff regarding the Downtown Specific Plan.
Following are the questions asked by Council and staff responses:
1. Have the comments from Cal Trans on Circulation Element Amendment
83-1 regarding the widening of Pacific Coast Highway been addressed?
The Cal Trans comments have been addressed in the Circulation Ele-
ment EIR responses. In addition, staff has investigated the ap-
parent discrepancy between the Cal Trans comments and the Specific
Plan in respect to $950, 000 which Cal Trans stated the City would
be responsible for in the widening project. The attached memo
from Public Works clarifies the cause of this discrepancy.
2. Are the ADT figures on the Greer traffic report' s Figure 4 too
high in some places?
Staff has contacted Greer and they are correcting these figures.
We will provide you with updated information as it becomes avail-
able. You should remember, however, that the Consultant reports
are advisory only and are not part of the Specific Plan itself .
Staff and the Planning Commission have incorporated information
from these reports into the Specific Plan where it was considered
to be appropriate. Not all of the information provided by the
Consultants was used in the Plan, and only what is actually part
of the Plan will become part of the adopted ordinance.
3. There should be a firmer statement about Circulation in order for
the Plan to go to Coastal Commission.
Attached is a copy of Section 65451 of the Government Code which
describes what must be included in a specific plan. The location
and standards for transportation facilities (65451 (b) )specifies
"The location and extent of existing or proposed streets and roads,
their names or numbers, the tentative proposed widths with ref-
erence to prospective standards for their construction and main-
tenance. . . " The Specific Plan complies with these provisions,
therefore staff believes that the circulation component will be
acceptable to the Coastal Commission.
Staff will be prepared at the meeting, should Council desire, to
discuss in more detail the areas identified as needing further
study and evaluation, which relate to and depend upon the._ timing, l
extent and thrust of future development. / t
Charles W. Thompson,
City Administrator
Page 2
4. Clarification of the Mobile Home zoning and how it relates to
the General Plan.
The areas where Mobile Home zoning presently exists are planned
for high density residential, commercial-recreation and visitor-
serving commercial. Each of the Specific Plan districts where
Mobile Home zoning is located show the Mobile Home areas and
state that within these areas the provisions of the Mobile Home
District apply. These areas are also subject to the provisions
of Article 927 regarding removal/rezoning/change of use of mobile
home parks. A copy of Article 927 is attached for your informa-
tion. Note Section 9270 (b) which would make the provisions of
927 applicable to these Mobile Home Districts.
5. Is the adopted EIR still adequate, considering that there have
been changes to proposed District boundaries within the Plan
and some changes in use and intensity.
Staff has checked with the State Clearinghouse and has been in-
formed that an EIR will be considered adequate if changes to the
project fall within the maximum parameters analyzed in the EIR.
The EIR adopted by Council Resolution 5284 on July 18, 1983 was
a "worst case" analysis. The present draft of the Downtown
Specific Plan falls well within the intensities analyzed in the
EIR, as do the staff ' s proposals. The pertinent language from
the Public Resources Code Section 15067 (a) is attached.
6. Develop language which would allow properties to develop to the
same intensity as properties on either side.
Suggested draft language for this purpose will be distributed at
the meeting on October 10, 1983 ; however, the Planning Commission
considered similar provisions which would have allowed properties
on 17th Street and Goldenwest Street to develop to the intensity
of already developed adjacent parcels. The Planning Commission
decided that this provision was not needed, since the intensity
of development which is proposed under the Plan is equivalent,
at a minimum, to permitted intensity in the Townlot area across
Walnut Avenue.
7 . The minutes from the Planning Commission meetings at which the
Specific Plan was discussed are attached (some of these are in
draft form) . Early discussion occured at study sessions for
which no minutes are taken. However, all of the straw votes on
the development standards and circulation sections of the Plan
were included in the minutes. r nNj
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memo from Public Works
2. Government Code Section 65451
3 . Article 927
4 . Public Resources Code Section 15067
5 . Draft minutes - Downtown Specific Plan
JWP;JAF : sr
FE �Ci '`Y OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 10/14/83
`C_OUNCIL` ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Honorable Mayor and \', From Charles W. Thompson,
City Council Members City Administrator
Subject ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS Date October 14, 1983
1) Scheduled Meetings - The next meeting of the City Council will be a Study Session in B-8
Monday evening, October 17th, at 6:30 PM regarding coastal element ordinances. The regular
meeting will begin at 7:30 PM.
2) RC_A Re: Resolutions Nos. 5309 A, B and C - Attached is an RCA prepared by Develop-
ment Services requesting reconsideration of Resolutions 5309 A, B and C relating to the
Downtown Specific Plan due to the dollar amount of the fee not being included. I will
bring this matter up under Administrative Items.
3) Agenda Item_s J-Id and J-le - I will be pulling Agenda Items J-ld (Specific Events) and
J-le Residential Parking Permits). Due to the short amount of time between Council meet-
ings, v& have been unable to make the amendments requested by Council. These items will
appear for adoption on the November 7th Agenda.
4) Revisions to Downtown Specific Plan - At the City Council meeting of October 10, 1983,
Council voted to make several changes to the draft Specific Plan approved by the Planning
Commission. Attached is a copy of the text of these changes for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles W. Thompson, JC-
City Administrator
CWT:pj
Attachments
[LA AMD CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 10/14/83
COUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Honorable Mayor and From Charles W. Thcrrpsor,
City Council Members City Administrator
Subject ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS Date October 14, 1983
3
1) Scheduled Meetings - The next meeting of the City Council will be a Study Session in B-8
Monday evening, October 17th, at 6:30 PM regarding coastal element ordinances. The regular
meeting will begin at 7:30 PM.
2) RCA Re: Resolutions Nos. 5309 A, B and C - Attached is an RCA prepared by Develop-
ment Services requesting reconsideration of Resolutions 5309 A, B and C relating to the
Downtown Specific Plan due to the dollar amount of the fee not being included. I will
bring this matter up under Administrative Items.
3) Agenda Items J-ld and J-le - I will be pulling Agenda Items J-ld (Specific Events) and
J-le((Residential Parking Permits). Due to the short amount of time between Council meet-
ings, we have been unable to make the amendments requested by Council. These items will
appear for adoption on the November 7th Agenda.
4) Revisions to Downtown Specific Plan - At the City Council meeting of October 10, 1983,
Council voted to make several changes to the draft Specific Plan approved by the Planning
Commission. Attached is a copy of the text of these changes for your consideration.
RespecQQ,tffully submitted,6-yLe
Charles W. Thompson, JC-
City Administrator
CWT:pj
Attachments
REVISIONS TO THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
DISTRICT ONE:
4 . 3. 04 Maximum Building Height.
(p. 82)
The maximum building height shall be thirty-five (35) feet
and no more than three (3) stories.
Exception - The maximum building height for full block parcels
�etraee�i-6e�ele�baest-Sheet-a�e�-�6t�-Sheet-{B�st��et-�a-aae�-��}
shall be fifty (50) feet and no more than four (4) stories.
DISTRICT TWO:
4 .4 . 02 Minimum Parcel Size. The minimum parcel size for development
(p. 86) shall be fifty (50) feet of frontage. Het�een-Wa�st�t-ase�-tie
a��epT-a-6aa e -et-tM!s-requivexteat-xiap-ire-gi-ante6-tp-the
B��eete�-few-erne-ar��t-e�i-�es�e��ta�-�a�ee�s-
Exception - The minimum parcel size for development shall be
twenty-five (25) feet of frontage for the area between Walnut
Avenue and the alley between Walnut Avenue and P .C.H.
4 .4 . 03 Maximum Density/Intensity. The maximum allowable number of
(p. 86) residential dwelling units (du) shall increase as the parcel
size increases according to the following:
Lot Size (Frontage) Maximum Allowable Density
25 ' 1 du
50 ' 1 du/1,700 sq. ft. of net lot area
51 ' up to 100 ' 1 du/1 ,400 sq. ft. of net lot area
101 ' up to but less than
a half block 1 du/1 ,150 sq. ft. of net lot area
half block up to but less
than a full block 1 du/ 900 sq. - ft. of net lot area
full block 35 units per gross acre
Exception - Residual parcels with a minimum frontage of fifty
(50) feet shall be allowed a maximum density equal to but not
to exceed the density of existing adjacent developments .
4 .4 . 04 Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height for all
(p. 86) structures in this district shall be thirty-five (35) feet
and no more than three (3) stories.
Exception -
{a}--Yoke-�tax��t�xi-�a��e���g-�e�gkt-tee-t�ae�tp-t��e-{��}-teat-w��e
}�a�ee�s-s�a��-be-tweatp-t��e-{��}-feet-ase�-�e-x�e�e-teas
tbae-{�}-ste��es-
' I
REVISIONS TO THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Page Two
(a) The maximum building height for one full block or
greater parcels shall be forty-five (45) feet and
no more than four (4) stories.
DISTRICT THREE:
4 .5. 01 Permitted Uses.
(P. 90)
(a) . . . . .
(b) . . . . .
(c)
(d) Residential uses shall only be permitted w4:fih4:n
��41-e -A4arz-St��et northwest of Main Street;
however, no residential units shall be located
within one hundred and twenty-five (125) feet of
Main Street.
4. 5. 03 Maximum Density/Intensity. The maximum intensity of
(p.92) development shall be calculated by floor area ratios
(FAR) for this district. The floor area ratio shall
apply to the entire project area. Floor area ratios
shall be calculated on gross acreage, except that the
resulting floor area may not exceed by more than fifteen
(15) percent of the permitted floor area calculated by
net site area. The maximum floor area for developments
in this district shall be calculated with the following
multiples:
Lot Size Maximum FAR
less than half block 2 .0
half block up to but less
than a full block 2. 5
full block 478 3.25
multi-block 3.5
The maximum allowable number of residential dwelling units
(du) shall increase as parcel size increases according to
the following:
Lot Size (Frontage) Maximum Allowable Density
less than 100 ' 1 du/2,000 sq. ft. of net lot area
100 ' up to but less than a
half block 1 du/1, 700 sq. ft. of net lot area
half block up to but less
than a full block 1 du/1, 350 sq. ft. of net lot area
full block �5-tzrst9-}�e�-gees-ae�e
35 units per gross acre
i
REVISIONS TO THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Page Three
NOTE: Residential uses are allowed only in conjunction
with visitor-serving commercial uses in this district.
Up to one-third (1/3) of the floor area of projects on
parcels smaller than a full block may be devoted to
residential uses; projects on full block or larger, up
to one-half (1/2) of the floor area may be devoted to
residential uses.
4 . 5. 04 Maximum Building Height
(p.93)
The maximum building height for this district shall be as
follows :
Lot Size Height
less than half block 3 stories
half block up to but less than a full block 4 stories
full block (northwest of Main St. ) 4-ster4:e5 6 stories
full block (southeast of Main St. ) 6-ster4:es 8 stories
multi-block (northwest of Main St. ) 6-sterj:es 8 stories
multi-block (southeast of Main St. ) 8-ster4:es 12 stories
4 . 5. 07 UPPER STORY SETBACKS (District 3)
(p. 94)
(e) For lots on 6th Street all stories above the fourth shall
be set back an average of one hundred and twenty-five (125)
feet from the ultimate street ROW.
DISTRICT FOUR:
4 . 6 . 04 Maximum Building Height. The maximum building height shall
(p.94) be thirty-five 35) feet and no more than three (3) stories.
Exception - The maximum building height for full block parcels
shall be fifty (50) feet and no more than four (4) stories .
4 . 6 . 09 Setback (Upper Story) .
(p.100)
The covered portion of all stories above the second shall be
set back an average of twenty-five (25) feet from the ultimate
ROW. Up to fifty percent (50%) of the building frontage may
be set back fifteen (15) feet from the ROW, providing that
the average setback on upper stories is no less than twenty-
five (25) feet. That portion of structures which exceed
thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be setback a minimum
of forty-five (45) feet from the exterior property lines.
DISTRICT FIVE:
4 . 7 . 03 Maximum Density/Intensity. The maximum intensity of develop-
(p.105) ment shall be calculated by floor area ratio (FAR) for this
district. The floor area ratio shall apply to the entire
L /
REVISIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Page Four
project area. Floor area ratios shall be calculated on
gross acreage, except that the resulting floor area may
not exceed by more than fifteen (15) percent of the per-
mitted floor area calculated by net site area.
The maximum floor area for developments in this district
shall be calculated with the following multiples :
Lot Size (Frontage) Maximum FAR
less than half block 1. 5
half block up to
but less than a full block 2. 0
full block 2-8 2. 5
The maximum allowable number of residential dwelling units
(du) shall increase as parcel size increases according to
the following:
Lot Size (Frontage) Maximum Allowable Density
less than 100 ' 1 du/2000 sq. ft. of net lot area
100 ' up to but less than a
half block 1 du/1700 sq. ft. of net lot area
half block up to but less
than a full block 1 du/1350 sq. ft. of net lot area
full block 38-ees-�e -e} ese-aee
35 units per gross acre
NOTE: Residential uses are allowed only in conjunction with
visitor-serving commercial uses in this district. Up to one-
third (1/3) of the floor area of projects on parcels smaller
than a full block may be devoted to residential uses; projects
on full block or larger, up to one-half (1/2) of the floor
area may be devoted to residential uses.
4 . 7 . 04 Maximum Building Height. The maximum building height for
(p.105) this height shall be as follows:
Lot Size (Frontage) Height
less than half block 3 stories
half block up to but less
than a full block 3 stories
full block 4-9tei-4:es 6 stories
DISTRICT TEN:
4 .12 . 04 Maximum Height. The maximum building heights shall be
(p.126) twenty-five (25) feet and no more than two (2) stories
above the pier level.
. c
REVISIONS TO THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Page Five
Exception -
(a) The maximum building height on the pier (excluding
the end of the pier cafe) and northwest of the pier
shall be one (1) story.
(b) No maximum building height shall be required for life-
guard towers or other facilities necessary for public
safety.
(c) No parking surface shall exceed the grade level of
PCH.
i
CITY OF HUNIVINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
I� James Palin From Les Evans
Director of Development Services City Engineer
Sub;ect CALTRANS Comments on Draft Date October 4 , 1983
Circulation Element Amendment 83-1
After reviewing CALTRANS' comments on the subject draft , we con-
tacted both Bill Weldele, the CALTRANS design engineer for the
PCH widening project, and Chuck Morton who prepared the CALTRANS
comments.
According to Mr. Weldele, the Project Report which states that
the City will be responsible for at least $950, 000 of the total
cost of the PCH widening project is a CALTRANS in-house document
which has not been circulated outside their organization. There
has been no formal discussion of participation in protect funding
between the City and CALTRANS, although Mr. Weldele explained
that he and the City' s previous Director of Public Works had
discussed the possibility of the City applying for Federal Aid
Urban (FAU) funds for a portion of the project.
The CALTRANS environmental studies referred to on page 2 of the
CALTRANS comments are also not yet available outside the CALTRANS
organization. However, Mr. Morton stated that his comments re-
garding parking issues, wetlands, flood plain riparian habitat
reduction, etc. were intended to suggest that the City reference
the CALTRANS environmental document for the PCH widening. That
document should be available for review and comment in December
(according to Mr. Morton) .
LE: jy
cc: Paul Cook
Jeanine Frank
HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
OCT 5 W
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
x� �
t
.v1-emorandum
►o : Roil, BIASS, Executive Director _
Cffice of Planning Research Date; July b, 190.,0
State Clearinchouse
1400 Tenth Street F►►e : A-o5 REVIEW
Sacramento, CA . 95814
SUSAN BROWN - District 7
From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Cr ;
Svbiect: Project Review Comments �a
SCH NUIeER
83031105 Huntington Beach Draft Circulation Element
"Amendment 83-1
Caltrans appreciates the opportunity to review this draft and has
the following comments .
Points 2..1 to 2.4 do not affect any State facilities and we have
no comments about them. However, point 2.5, Pacific Coast High-
way is a State facility and we have the following, comments .
(1) Just westerly of Main Street, the 1981 average weekday peak
months (June, July, August) ADT is 33,700 with the year 2000 ADT
being 47,200. � y
(2) Just easterly of Main Street, the 1981 average weekday peak
months ADT is 35,200, with the year 2000 ADT being 49,200:
(3) Just easterly of Brookhurst, the 1981 average weekday peak
months ADT is 43,900 with the Year 2000 ADT being 61,500.
(4) Just easterly of Lake, the year 2000 ADT is projected to be
48,2OO.
On page 33, the document alludes to the fact that as "PCH is a
State highway, the money for these improvements- will come from
Caltrans, however, the actual construction will probably be con-
tracted out to the City ." We feel that it is premature to say
that Caltrans will contract with the City for the construction
of these improvements . Funding may involve State, Federal, and
local monies . The Caltrans Project Report for the Pacific Coast
Highway widening, states that the City will be responsible for
at lease $950,000 of the total cost. Caltrans also believes
that the cost projections provided by Huntington Beach may be
too high. The following is a comparison of the costs .
i
j
,X . RON BASS -2- July c, 1983
Hunt . Beach CALTRkNS
Golder, vJest to Beach 1,700,000 1,100,000
Beach to S A R 680 000 3,81c,000
5,3 0, 000 4 ,910-,000
On page 33 of .the document, it is stated that the widening
project will. have minimal impacts .
Ca,ltranZ environmental studies, currently under internal review,
Indicate adverse impact on the wetlands north of Pacific Coast
Highway . Also, in the same paragraph it is stated "Therefore
no significant impact are anticipated ." This statement does not
necessarily follow The proposed restriping project will better
accommodate existing traffic ."
There will be an increase of 25% of the fresh water roadway run-
off into the degraded salt marshes on the north side of Pacific
Coast highway . This impact cannot be overlooked and should be
addressed in the document .
Also on page .33, all the land, with the exception of the Edison
plant property , has been identified by Cal F & G and Caltrans
as wetland and should be addressed as such.
On page 117 of AFFendix I, under 5.b, the "no" answer should be
changed to "maybe ' to account for the impact of the highway
widening on the California least tern, (Sterna albifrous browni )
and the Belding Savannah Sparrow, (Passerculus sandwichensis
beldin�i ) . "'Also the document must address the following impacts:
Food—pain; Wetland/riparian habitat reduction; removal of critical
habitat; public service impacts, i .e. emergency resodhbe routing
changes due to the cul-de-lacing of existing streets; and parking
impacts, especially north of Beach Boulevard.
The environmental contact person is Mr Chuck Morton and his
phone number is (213) 620-3992.
SUSAN BRO101, Acting Chief
Environmental Planning Branch
Transportation District 7
Clearinghouse Coordinator
For information, contact Darrell Wood
(ATSS) 640-2246 or (213) 620-2246
Attachment:
cc : John Van Berkel - HQ DOTP - Mr. Hal Simmons
Assistant Planner
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
t
demonstration county and city, the office shall assure that
consideration is given to meeting existing state requirements
and standards in those areas covered by Section 65302.
(Added by Stats. 1978, Ch. 1123.)
65427. Upon selection of the demonstration sites, the State cooperation
Director of the Office of Planning and Research shall notify
state agencies empowered to plan for the development of
physical facilities of the site locations and boundaries. Each
state agency shall notify the legislative body of the demon-
stration county or city if it plans the acquisition, lease,
rental, or construction of physical facilities within the
jurisdiction of the demonstration county or city during the
demonstration period, and, insofar as possible, shall coordi-
nate its plans with those of the demonstration county or
city.
(Added by Stats. 1978, Ch. 1123.)
65428. To the extent permitted under applicable federal Federal funds
laws, the governing body of a demonstration county or city
may accept any federal grant funds available to the county
or city for a purpose consistent with the purposes of this
article from any federal grant which allows the expenditure
therefrom of amounts sufficient to reimburse the Office of
Planning and Research for costs incurred in the administra-
tion of a demonstration project utilizing the grant funds.
(Added by Stats. 1978, Ch. 1123.)
Article 8. Authority for and Scope of Specific Plans
65450. The planning agency may, or if so directed by Specific plan
the legislative body shall, prepare specific plans based on
the general plan and drafts of such regulations, programs,
and legislation as may in its judgment be required for the
systematic execution of the general plan and the planning
agency may recommend such plans and measures to the
legislative body for adoption.
(Added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1880.)
65450.1. A specific plan need not apply to the entire Area of plan
area covered by the general plan. The legislative body or
the planning agency may designate areas within a city or
a county for which the development of a specific plan will
be necessary or convenient to the implementation of the
general plan. The planning agency may, or if so directed
by the legislative body shall, prepare specific plans for such
areas and recommend such plans to the legislative body for
adoption.
(Added by Stats. 1971, Ch. 1446.)
65451. Such specific plans shall include all detailed Contents of plan
regua ions, conditions, programs and proposed legislation
which shall be necessary or convenient for the systematic
implementation of each element of the general plan listed
in Section 65302, including, but not limited to, regulations,
conditions, programs and proposed legislation in regard to
51
��am 3
the following: /,-*N
Location and regulation (a) The location of housing, business, industry, open space,
of buildings and agriculture, recreation facilities, educational facilities,
land uses churches and related religious facilities, public buildings and
grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, together
with regulations establishing height, bulk and setback limits
for such buildings and facilities, including the location of
areas, such as flood plains or excessively steep or unstable
terrain, where no building will be permitted in the absence
of adequate precautionary measures being taken to reduce
the level of risk to that comparable with adjoining and
surrounding areas.
Location and standards (b) The location and extent of existing or proposed streets
for transportation an roads, their names or numbers, the tentative proposed
facilities wits with reference to prospective standards for their
construction and maintenance, and the location and stan-
dards of construction, maintenance and use of all other
transportation facilities, whether public or private.
Density, water supply (c) Standards for population density and building density,
and waste disposal including lot size, permissible types of construction, and
provisions for water supply, sewage disposal, storm water
drainage and the disposal of solid waste.
Conservation and (d) Standards for the conservation, development, and utili-
development of zation of natural resources, including underground and sur-
natural resources face waters, forests, vegetation and soils, rivers, creeks,
and streams, and fish and wildlife resources. Such standards
shall include, where applicable, procedures for flood control,
for prevention and control of pollution of rivers, strearns,
creeks, and other waters, regulation of land use in stream
channels and other areas which may have a significant
effect on fish, wildlife and other natural resources of the
area, the prevention, control and correction of soil erosion
caused by subdivision roads or any other sources, and the
protection of watershed areas.
Open space (e) The implementation of all applicable provisions of the
open-space element as provided in Article 10.5 (commencing
with Section 65560) of this chapter.
Other measures (f) Such other measures as may be necessary or convenient
to insure the execution of the general plan.
(Repealed and added by Stats. 1971, Ch. 1446.)
Implementation of 65452. Such specific plans may also include all detailed
specific elements regulations, conditions, programs, and proposed legislation
which may be necessary or convenient for the systematic
implementation of any general plan element as provided in
Section 65303.
(Added by Stats. 1971, Ch. 1446.)
Inducements for prepar- 65453. (a) The Legislature hereby declares its intent
ing specific plans to encourage counties and cities to undertake the work and
responsibility for development of specific plans. At the
time a specific plan is presented to the legislative body
for adoption, the city or county shall also prepare and
present a complete cost breakdown, including costs incurred
pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000)
52
PLANNING MOBILEHOME OVERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING/CHANGE OF USE S.9270
ARTICLE 927
MOBILEHOME OVERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING/CHANGE OF USE
Ord 2563 - 12/82
S. 9270 APPLICATION OF ARTICLE.
(a) The mobilehome park residential zone is hereby established as an overlay zone to
permit the application of mobilehome zone to parcels of land developed with
mobilehome parks and zoned with a primary underlying zoning designation. The purpose
of the mobilehome park zone is to establish a means of providing a reasonable and
proper transition from the present mobilehome park use to the uses permitted in the
underlying zoning districts. Wherever reference is made in this section or on any
districting maps to MHP, it shall mean mobilehome park overlay zone.
(b) All findings required for removal of the MHP overla zone shall also be applied
to requests for rezoning existii.� MH districts to i erent zonln istricts,,
and for any change of use as hereinafter defined.
(c) All findings required for removal of she MHP overlay, rezoning from MH or change
in use shall be required for all property upon which a mobilehome park then exists ,
or upon which a mobilehome park existed at any time within the preceding five (5) years.
S. 9270. 1 DEFINITIONS. Words and phrases whenever used in this article shall
be construed as defined herein unless from the context a different
meaning is intended and more particularly directed to the use of such words and
phrases:
`-- (a) Affordable Unit. "Affordable unit" shall mean a "for sale" unit that is sold
to and occupied by a low moderate income household. "Affordable unit" shall
also mean a rental unit for which the monthly payment does not exceed 25 percent of
the household' s income for low income households or 30 percent of the household' s
income for moderate income households.
(b) Applicant. "Applicant" shall mean the person, firm, corporation, partnership,
or other entity having leasehold interest or fee ownership in the operation of a
mobilehome park.
(c) Change of Use. "Change of use" shall mean use of the park for a purpose other
than the rental or the holding out for rent of two or more mobilehome sites to
accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitation, and shall not mean the adoption,
amendment, or repeal of a park rule or regulation. "Change of use" may affect an
entire park or any portion thereof, and such "change of use" shall include, but is
not limited to, a change of a park or any portion thereof to a condominium, stock
cooperative, planned unit development, commercial use, industrial use, or vacant land.
(d) Eligible Owner. "Eligible owner" shall mean any mobilehome owner owning a
mobilehome in a park at the time of issuance of the notice of intent to change
use, but shall not include any mobilehome owner who is renting his unit to another
party at such time.
(e) Market Rate Unit. "Market rate unit" shall mean a residential unit that is
sold on the open market without constraints imposed on the sales price, rental
rate, or buyer qualifications.
(f) Mobilehome. "Mobilehome" is a structure transportable on a street or highway
by authorization or a permit in one or more sections, designed and equipped for
�8 4,
S. M0B1LEH0ME OVERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING/CHANGE OF USE 1)LANN I Ht;
human habitation, to be used with or without a foundation system. Therefore, "mobilehowe"
does not include recreation vehicles, commercial coaches , or factory-built housing rest-
ing upon permanent foundations.
(g) Mobilehome Park. "Mobilehome park" is any area of land used primarily for the
placing, parking or storing of two or more mobilehomes for housekeeping, sleeping
or living quarters.
(h) Mobilehome Space. "Mobilehome space" is any area, tract of land, site, lot, pad
or portion of a mobilehome park designated or used for the occupancy of one mobile-
home.
( i ) Notice of Intent to Change Use. "Notice of Intent to Change Use" shall mean
notification as required by California Civil Code section 798.56(f) (2) .
(j ) Original Purchase Price. "Original purchase price" shall mean the price which
the mobilehome owner, occupying the mobilehome space, originally paid for the
mobilehome and any attached optional equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expando rooms.
In determining the price, the regulation:, for establishing the cost basis , as found
in the United States Code Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, shall be used. Such
purchase price shall be verified by the mobilehome owner through the existence of
sales receipts indicating date of purchase, monetary amount of purchase, identification
or model numbers of all items purchased and the party from whom the items were purchased.
"Original purchase price" shall not include cost of financing.
(k) Senior Citizen Unit. "Senior citizen unit" shall mean a residential unit which
meets the standards for an affordable unit which is situated in a project that
is designed to accommodate senior citizens through special financing programs and/or
modified development standards.
S. 9270.2 CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION OF ZONE. The City Council , in making its M
determination whether to apply the MHP zone to any particular property,
shall consider the following factors as to whether such zone is appropriate:
(a) Existing zoning and general plan designations.
(b) The age and condition fo the mobilehome park.
(c) The relationship of the mobilehome park to surrounding land uses.
(d) Vahicle access to the area under consideration.
(e) Site area.
( f) Site configuration.
S. 9270.3 USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be permitted in an MHP
district:
(a) Mobilehome parks as regulated by the State of California.
(b) Accessory uses and structures incidental to the operation of mobilehome parks
such as recreation facilities and/or community centers of a noncommercial nature,
dither public or private storage facilities for the use of the mobilehome park resi -
dents and any other uses or structures that are incidental to the operation of a
mobilehome park.
(c:) Whenever property is zoned MHP, any use permitted by the underlying zoning of
such property shall not be permitted.
12/82
1
PLANNING MOBILEHOME OVERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING/CHANGE OF USE S. 9270.4
S. 9270.4 REMOVAL OF THE _MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY ZONE, MH ZONE OR CHANGE OF USE.
The City Council shall not approve a zone change for any parcel when
such change would have the effect of removing the MHP or MH designation from that
property, or approve a change of use unless the following findings have been made:
(a) Those findings required by California Government Code section 66427.4.
(b) That the proposed zoning is consistent with the General Plan of the City of
Huntington Beach and all elements thereof.
(c) That the proposed change of land use will not have an adverse effect upon the
goals and policies for provision of adequate housing for all economic segments
of the community, as set forth in the Housing Element of the Huntington Beach General
Plan.
(d) That the property which is the slbject of the zone change would be more
appropriately developed in accordance with uses permitted by the underlying
zoning, or proposed zoning.
(e) That a notice of intent to change the use of a mobilehome park and relocate
mobilehome owners was delivered to such owners and to the Department of Develop-
ment Services at least eighteen (18) months prior to the date the mobilehome owner is
required to vacate the premises.
(f) That an "impact of conversion report" has been submitted by the applicant and
found to be adequate by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Failure
to submit such item within twelve (12) months from the date of the notice shall result
in the nullification of the Notice of Intent to Change Use. The Planning Commission
shall take the following items into consideration when addressing the adequacy of the
report:
(i ) The date of the manufacture and size of each mobilehome in the park.
(ii ) Makeup of existing households, including family size, household income,
length of residence, age of tenants, owner or renter, and primary or seasonal
resident.
(iii ) Replacement space availability, monthly rents and coach acceptance criteria
in mobilehome parks within fifty (50) miles of the city.
The applicant shall make copies of the report available to each resident of the mobile-
home park at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the impact report.
(g) That a relocation assistance plan has been submitted by the applicant and found
to be adequate by the Planning Commission at a public hearing.
S. 9270."5 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN. STANDARDS. The following shall constitute
-- minimum standards for an acceptable relocation assistance plan:
(a) All eligible mobilehome owners shall be entitled to receive the cost of relocation.
Those costs shall be limited to disconnection and breakdown of the mobilehome,
transportation of the mobilehome, all readily movable appurtenances and contents to
another mobilehome park and the cost of all hookups at the new site. All such expenses
shall be identified and paid by the applicant at the time of the move. The park to
which the unit is relocated shall be within fifty (50) miles of the city. If the
mobilehome owner desires relocation beyond fifty (50) miles, the mobilehome owner
12/82
S. 9270. 5(a) MOBILEHOME OVERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING/CHANGE OF USE PLANNING
shall be responsible for the costs associated with relocation beyond the fifty (50) mile
limit established by this article.
(b) If the mobilehome owner cannot be relocated to another park in accordance with the
procedures herein, the applicant shall purchase the mobilehome and any optional
equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expando rooms from the mobilehome owner at an amount
to be determined after establishing the mobilehome owner' s original purchase price, and
the date of original purchase.
Where proof of purchase is not available or verifiable, and the manufacturer's original
list price cannot be ascertaineG, the value of the mobilehome shall be determined by
averaging the sales price of the three (3) most comparable units of similar age, size,
and quality found in the applicant's mobilehome park at the time the mobilehome owner
purchased the site.
When the original price is ascertained, the amount of compensation to be paid by an
applicant to a mobilehome owner shall he determined by using the following method:
Mobilehomes shall be depreciated at a rasa of 4.7 percent per year, beginning with the
date the mobilehome owner originally purchased the mobilehome and/or optional equipment
and continuing until the date set for vacation by the applicant in the Notice of Intent
to Change Use; or, if the mobilehome owner is permitted to remain on site beyond the
date set for vacation, depreciation of the mobilehome shall continue until the actual
date of vacation.
The applicant may grant one (1) six-month extension to the length of time given to the
mobilehome owners in the Notice of Intent to Change Use by notifying the mobilehome
owners of such extension at least four (4) months prior to the date specified in such
notice. The extension shall be granted for no more and no less than six (6) months,
and the amount of compensation adjusted accordingly.
An applicant may, with the consent of the mobilehome owner, transfer a mobilehome unit
to another space in the park. Such transfer shall not constitute permanent relocation,
and the cost of all such moves shall be borne by the applicant.
The mobilehome owner's compensation for any mobilehome that cannot be relocated to any
other park shall be no less than four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500) plus moving
expenses up to five hundred dollars ($500) , an aggregate not to exceed five thousand
dollars ($5,000) .
In order to reduce the impact of relocation to alternative housing further, the appli-
cant shall pay a cost of housing differential of 50 percent of the increase in the cost
of housing for the first year, not to exceed seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) for
each mobilehome owner.
(c) If the mobilehome owner cannot be relocated in accordance with the procedures
contained herein, the applicant has the option of making available suitable alter-
native housing , together with compensation, to such mobilehome owner.
Where alternative housing is proposed, it shall be available in the following categories:
(aa) Senior citizen housing;
(bb) Affordable housing; and
(cc) Market rate housing.
(d) Any applicant and mobilehome owner may mutually agree to modify the standards and
methods contained in this section, and in no case shall an applicant be required to
12182
PLANNING MOBILEHOME OVERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING/CHANGE OF USE S. 9270.5(d)
relocate or purchase a mobilehome prior to the date of the Notice of Intent to Change
Use.
b-- (e) Appeals from the amount of compensation to be given a mobilehome owner shall be
filed with the applicant within thirty (30) days after the mobilehome owner has notice
of the amount he is to receive.
The applicant shall acknowledge any appeal within thirty (30) days, and if an agreement
cannot be reached, the matter shall be referred to a professional arbitrator.
(f) To determine whether compensation accurately reflects the original cost of the
mobilehome, the applicant and/or professional arbitrator shall rely on records
furneshed by the mobilehome owner, or if such records are not available, the mobilehome
shall be subjected to the comparison test set out elsewhere in this section. All
optional equipment and appurtenances shall be valued in the same manner.
(g) That the mobilehome owners have received written guarantee of first-right-of-
refusal to purchase units if the development which replaces the mobilehome park is
to be residential in whole or in part.
(h) That the applicant has complied with all applicable city ordinances and state
regulations in effect at the time the relocation assistance plan was approved.
( i ) That the applicant has complied with the conditions of approval , including the
following items:
(i ) Mobilehome owners will not be forced to relocate prior to the end of their
leases.
(ii ) Mobilehome owners have been given the right to terminate their leases upon
approval of the relocation assistance plan.
( iii ) Demolition or construction will not occur until the relocation assistance
plan is approved and the eighteen (18) month notification period has expired.
S. 9270.6 ACCEPTANCE OF REPORTS. The final form of the impact of conversion
report and relocation assistance plan will be as approved by the Planning
Commission. The reports, if acceptable, shall remain on file with the Department of
Development Services for review by any interested persons. Each of the mobilehome
owners shall be given written notification within ten (10) days of approval of the
relocation assistance plan.
S. 9270. 7 ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION. At the conclusion of its hearing,
noticed as provided in this code, the Planning Commission shall approve,
conditionally approve, or deny said impact of conversion report and relocation assist-
ance plan pursuant to the provisions of this article, and such decision shall be supporesd
by a resolution of the Planning Commission, setting forth its findings .
S. 9270.8 FEES REQUIRED. Each impact report and relocation assistance plan
submitted shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the
City Council .
12/82
and Trustee Agencies reply to the Lead Agency within the required
y time.
(h) When the Notice of Preparation is submitted to the State Clearing-
house, the state identification number issued by the Clearinghouse shall
be the identification number for all subsequent environmental documents
on the project. The identification number should be referenced on all
subsequent correspondence regarding the project, specifically on the
title page of the draft and final EIR and on the Notice of Determination.
- 15067, Subsequent EIR
(a) Where an EIR or Negative Deccaration has been prepared,
additional EIR iWWbe prepared unless:
(1) Sub uent changes are Rrol22sed in the eroject which will
require important revisions of the EIR, due to the involvement of
new significant environmental impacts-not considered in a previous
EIR on The
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances
under whch the project is undertaken, such as a substantial dete-
rioration in the air quality where the project will be located,
which will require important revisions in the EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered
in a previous EIR, or
(3) New information of substantial importance to the project
becomes available, and
(A) The information was not known and could not have been
known at the time the EIR was certified as complete
or the Negative Declaration was adopted, and
(B) The new information shows any of the following:
1. The project will have one or more significant effects
not discussed previously in the EIR,
2. Significant effects previously examined will be sub-
stantially more severe than shown in the EIR,
3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found
not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and
would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project, or
4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which were not
previously considered in the EIR would substantially
}* lessen one or more significant effects on the environ-
ment.
:^ f
(b) If the EIR or Negative Declaration has been completed but the
project has not yet been approved, the Lead Agency shall prepare or
cause to be prepared the subsequent EIR before approving the project.
(c) If the project was approved prior to the occurrence of the condi-
tions described in Subsection (a), the subsequent EIR shall be prepared
rby the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for
the project. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant
an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been completed.
,ya
7'
fi
57
17W t7
Y
t
F
I1 .Is . Planning Commission
June 21, 1983
Page 5
plan for previously approved Use Permit No. 82-26 . Applicant
shall maintain all conditions imposed under this use permit.
AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT : None
ABSTAIN: None
There was further discussion about the possibility of people parking
along the curve interfering with the flow of traffic.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR USE PERMIT NO. 83-34
AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-20 WERE TABLED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Schumacher
ABSTAIN: None
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2/
DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-2
Initiated by City of Huntington Beach
f ? The Specific Plan constitutes the zoning for that portion of the coastal
zone between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard in the City. The
Plan is bounded on the inland side of Walnut, Hartford, Lake and
Atlanta . Secretary Palin concisely delineated the action recommended
by staff to approve the Specific Plan and recommend approval and adop-
tion by the City Council . He further explained ramifications of
Coastal Commission actions. Other staff members went on to explain
in detail the document itself and specifics, and Pat Dawe from the
consultant group (Arroyo) , gave a lengthy slide presentation of some
of the envisioned concepts and design themes suggested for the downtown.
He stated that people have some anxiety and should first be told that
the plan is a "long way from reality" . He explained his role in the
process was to factualize and communicate planning concepts.
His presentation included the suggestion of a
surfing museum and possibly an oil museum. He pointed out that the pier
needed to be equipped with handicap access and that crossing Pacific
Coast Highway was very dangerous . But that, on the other hand, the
City represents youth and vitality and that this should be accented.
His displays were colorful and consisted of mediterranean-type buildings
with recessed third and fourth stories .
Chairman Porter opened the public hearing and reminded those wishing
to address the Commission on this matter to keep their comments to under
five minutes . The following comments were made :
Eileen Murphy asked that the Commission not take away "what we have
- single family homes" .
II . B . Planning Commission
June 21, 1983
Page 6
Roseanne Greenfield agreed that the blufftop park is a good point
of the plan, however, she felt that the presentation made by Mr . ` '
Dawe was not a true representation of what will go in . She felt
that what the City of Huntington Beach would end up with was a look
like the City of Long Beach with many high rises , which she noted
were missing from Mr. Dawe ' s presentation. She also stated that
there were two misleading contentions : that the high price of land
dictated the high rise buildings (this , she said, was false; that
there were acres of beach property along the coast with low density development
and that these other cities valued their open spac ) ; and that if the height of the
buildings were lowerd it would lead to inverse condemnation. She stated
that the Commission should consider what the people o.f Huntington
Beach want and further consider restricting the high rise to Beach
Boulevard and not throughout the downtown area.
Tammy Warner stated that the slide presentation by Mr. Dawe was
excellent, but agreed with the previous speaker, that it was not
a true representation. She said that the height expressed in the
document on page 18 was not a three-story limit, but rather a four-
story limit, she subsequently suggested a 30-35 foot height limit.
She also disagreed with the proposal to make Orange a major arterial .
Dave Hall stated that the public supports low intensity along the
coast. He cited Fashion Island in Newport Beach as being a good
example of the kind of buffering that should occur in the downtown.
He , again, reiterated the statement that he does not want to see
another Long Beach.
Jerry Williams spoke in favor of the Specific Plan. He state(] it
was a good plan and he "happens to like what they did to Downt-evin
Long Beach" .
Ann Carter said many investors do not live in the City. She said,
"We welcome change, but under three stories" . She said the issue
was the height limit and that "whatever is allowed, the maximum will
be built" . She quoted from an article out of the Long Beach Press
Telegram dealing with a glut of office space and said this has
"created a monster" in that town. She went on to say that Long
Beach traffic congestion is tremendous and they have direct freeway
access where Huntington Beach is not freeway accessible .
Spence Sheldon, representing the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in
favor of the Specific Plan, stating that it is trying to capture
the character of the City, "it' s the kind of road map we should
keep in mind" . He said the people living in the area should sub-
merge their own personal interests so that a plan can be developed .
As an Aminoil USA employee, he pointed out his company ' s contribution
and support of the blufftop park and assured the people present at 4
the hearing that as this park shapes up, it will bring new pride
for the City. He felt that the real question was, "do we want the
status quo, or do we want to move along?"
Charlene Stewart said she is for improvement, but "you are asking us
fl . B. Planning Commission
June 21 , 1983
Page 7
to bite off more than we can chew - it ' s too much change all at
once - don ' t put buildings up in front of the beach" .
Stan Cowen stated that the downtown redevelopment is the concern
of all the people of the City of Huntington Beach and was concerned
with the people ' s rights . He stated that every questionnaire that
was sent out showed that people want slow development with limited
height and density; that the people do not want a Downtown Long
Beach or "Miami Beach of the West" . He stated that City Council
members may represent special interest groups, but it is to the
detriment of the people to allow the implementation o�f this Specific
Plan. He requested that the Commissioners deny the plan and then
they "would sleep better tonight" .
DeWitt Easterly stated that although he now resides in Fullerton
that he had planned to build a retirement home in Huntington Beach
and "my plan has been shot down" by the proposed specific plan.
He was concerned with senior housing originally proposed for the
coast and now moved inland and he wondered how long it would take
to implement the plan.
Joe Genevese said he supports low intensity which, he said, goes
along with the people ' s wishes . He stated that the drawings dis-
played by Mr. Dawe were good but not realistic. He supported the
height limit of three stories in the townlot area. When asked
by the Chairman, what type of buffer he would recommend, he stated ,
"how about redwood trees" !
Lance Jacot said that although he supports change and revitalization,
the majority want lower density and lower height limits. He further
stated that earlier reports recognized the problems in the area
and asked that those considerations be included in the proposed
plan.
Verle Cowling said he was "glad to see so many young people present
their statements so well" . He agreed with lower density in the
downtown.
Richard Harlow stated he supported the Specific Plan. He said that
from 6th Street and Goldenwest Street the 50 foot height limit was
reasonable. However, he did suggest that the Commission consider
a 75 foot setback from all public streets , rather than 50 feet, along
with staggering building heights.
Richard Plumber was in favor of low to mid-rise building heights .
tie said he did not like the idea of a 42" wall on PCH, he would
f rather see a 5 foot landscape easement. He voiced his disagreement
with the Plan regarding the issue of price of the land related to
high rise buildings.
Natalie Kotsch read a letter from a resident who was unable to attend
II . B. Planning Commission
,Tune 21, 1983
Page 8
the meeting (George Diry , Downtown Development Committee) who was
in favor of a higher density than what was proposed in the Specific
Plan. She further quoted, "if market value is to be established,
it should be with an eye on the future and a possibility to adjust .
To say a 5-year hence market rather than to accept today ' s deflated
slump market, at a time which is unfavorable to real estate" , this
regarding public acquisition of land. He felt that zoning and
density will attract the quality developers into the area, but plan
needs to be economically feasible .
Tom Conclin favored a 3-story height limit. He was concerned about
the parking situation citing incidences where people -are parking
on the vacant land between Beach and Goldenwest. He said that every-
one is pleased with the blufftop park but fears it too will be used
for parking. He stated that although the Plan has merit in philosophy
he is concerned about the guidelines.
Leonard Wright distributed another letter (in addition to the one
they received in their packet) . He verbalized the essence of these
letters - in favor of improvement as seen in the blufftop park but
concerned about market potential . He agreed that better parking
is needed and suggested a change in front yard setbacks . He said
that the previous plans showed a lower intensity and this is what 04,
he favored.
Ed Zschocke said there would be transportation and parking problems
with implementation of a higher density as proposed in the Plan.
He stated that in order for a plan to work in the downtown, you
have to create a more intimate atmosphere with lower intensity
development. He said that although the slides showed what looked
like low intensity, the plan did not reflect it.
Anita Livingston addressed her concerns to Mr. Tincher and the pro-
posed Main-Pier Plan. She is concerned with the possibility of a
tax increase. She stated that the trees in the City are not main-
tained as it is and expressed her anxiety that "no matter what you
say" it will happen anyway.
.Tim Hemsley expressed his concern that it seemed that the City
Council and city planners are trying "to push these things through" .
Fie felt that it should be obvious that the people do not want
high rise and that the plan should reflect the citizens ' wants .
Lois Freeman was concerned with traffic circulation, especially
the cul-de-sacing of Main Street related to flow on 6th Street.
She stated she would hate to see the pier "turn into a carnival"
atmosphere.
Keith Campbell stated he felt his privacy would be affected by
the proposed plan. He is against the high rise buildings.
Virginia George stated that she "doesn ' t want to move" out of
the City.
II .B . Planning Commission
,tune 21 , 1983
Page 9
04 I .
The public hearing was closed.
Discussion ensued regarding the Specific Plan. Commissioner Livengood
had concern about the square footage with maximum built-out. Jeanine
Frank stated that if the maximum was built with everything consolidated
office space would amount to about 1 million square feet and commercial
to 2 . 5 million square feet. However, she added, a more possible senario
is 60% of maximum consolidation that would bring the figures down con-
siderably. Chairman Porter discussed what seemed to him to be a dis-
cripancy between what the staff was recommending in the Specific Plan
zoning and the figures supplied by the Williams-Kuebelbeck group re-
garding projected market feasibility (especially commercial) . Mr . Dawe
stated that the study was a conservative estimate.
Discussion also took place regarding the traffic and circulation model ,
projection of vehicle trips , proposed street widening, access, phase
redevelopment, fire and police protection as it is written in both the
Specific Plan document and the EIR document. Mr. Dawe made the obser-
vation that with regard to traffic problems in the downtown, the prob-
lems are basically seasonal (beach traffic) and not all together im-
possible to remedy. Commissioner Schumacher was concerned with rede-
velopment costs to parts of the City not affected by project areas.
She was also concerned about the census figures used from a report that
F4' is not current and, therefore , not accurate. She said she would like
to see comparisons of other beach communities. She said what she is
hearing from the public is that a lot of money is being spent and
nothing is getting done. She asked about the impact on the school
district. Staff stated that they have reported a general decline in
enrollment. She stated she could not support the EIR as written.
Secretary Palin explained staff ' s recommendation agreeing that the
study by Williams-Kuebelbeck was a conservative projection when you
look at the long range. He said that in 1976 , the City retained
industrial which has created jobs in the community and improved the
quality of the environment by making it possible for people to work
in the community and not have to commute long distances. Mr. Tincher
added that the Williams-Kuebelbeck study was preliminary in nature ,
that the tasks outlined for the consultants were broad and challenging
and that it ignored the uniqueness of the area. Commissioner Livengood
commented that "emotion has to go" to be able to come up with a workable
plan for the downtown. He said that although he liked some of the ideas
from Mr. Dawe ' s presentation (i.e. surfing hall of fame and oil museum) ,
he did not think it was realistic for the Commission to make a decision
without sufficient traffic and circulation figures. He also questioned
parking on Lake Street, market feasibilities , conversion of residential
streets to major arterials , adequacy of the EIR, cost effectiveness of
a 4-story parking structure at 5th and Main, maintenance and landscaping.
Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that he anticipates traffic and noise
problems if the Specific Plan as written is adopted. His main concern
is with traffic circulation especially inner-circulation with surround-
ing cities . He asked staff if Adams Avenue could be utilized. He
also said that in correspondence with OCTD they say that this city has
I
H .B. Planning Commission
June 21 , 1983
Page 10
how
P%O%d
not "come through" , to date , with comprehensive planning for public tram,;
portation. Commissioner Erskine asked staff to explain the scheduling
and time constraints that City Council was dealing with. Mr. Palin
again asked the Commissioners to consider the suggestion of an adjourned
meeting on June 28 , due to the request of City Council . Mr. Tincher
explained that City Council set the date of July 5 , 1983, to hear the
Main-Pier Redevelopment Plan Amendment of which the EIR for the Down-
town Specific Plan addresses . And, further, another deadline is an-
ticipated regarding funding under community development law, and that
is July 18 , 1983 . This would give the City Council the 5th and possibly
the llth, if necessary, to complete the redevelopment schedule.
Commissioner Livengood commented that Commissioner Mirjahangir had
requested a time line from staff and he 'had not received it. He also
stated that it bothered him that the Specific Plan document was sent
to the Commissioners on Friday and a decision was expected tonight.
A motion was made by Livengood and seconded by Schumacher to continue
the draft EIR, the zone change and the code amendment to the next
regular meeting of July 6 , 1983 . Commissioner Higgins said he did
not think it was an unrealistic request to have an adjourned meeting
on June 28 . The motion and second were withdrawn.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL FINAL DRAFT EIR 82-2 , ZONE
CHANGE NO. 83-2 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2 WERE CONTINUED TO AN i
ADJOURNED MEETING ON JUNE 28 , 1983 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Porter, Erskine , Mirjahangir, Schumacher
NOES: Livengood
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
Redevelopment Plan Amendment for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project
Plan Amendment No. 1
Establishing an amended redevelopment area which will allow the Re-
development Agency to capture tax increment as a means to finance
the costs necessary to remove blighting conditions .
During the discussion on the EIR (82-2) Commissioner Livengood asked
about the legality of public hearing process as it relates to the
redevelopment plans. Mr. Tincher had responded that a public hearing
was not required at the Planning Commission level . Opening discussion
on the Redevelopment Plan dealt with this question. Mr . De La Loza
felt that a public hearing at the Planning Commission was appropriate
since the City Council has appointed this body to make recommendations . "
Chairman Porter also asked legal counsel if the EIR represented an
amendment to an element in the General Plan. Mr. De La Loza responded
that it does represent an amendment to the General Plan and for that
reason should be the subject of appropriate, noticed public hearing
with recommendation from this body to the City Council . Commissioner
APPROVED AS CORRECTED 7-19-83
L_
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Chambers - Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
TUESDAY, JUNE 28 , 1983 - 7 : 00 PM
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins , Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine ,
Schumacher, Mirjahangir
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2/
DRAFT FINAL E .I .R. 82-2
Initiated by City of Huntington Beach
The Specific Plan constitutes the zoning for that portion of the
coastal zone between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard in the City .
The Plan is bounded on the inland side by Walnut, Hartford, Lake and
Atlanta.
Chairman Porter stated that the best approach was to deal with general
topics then go into the plan itself and cover general elements of the
Specific Plan, followed by individual zoning districts . Secretary Palin
further identified the method by which the Planning Commission should
vote, i .e . , first dealing with the EIR. He said that the Commission
received a new diagram on daily traffic volumes and an introduction
and summary of findings from the Williams-Kuebelbeck group. Also dis-
tributed was a .position from Couricilmembers Finley and Bailey.
Claudette Dupuy gave a brief response to questions raised at the last
regular meeting dealing with clarification on time limits and "worst
case" parameters . She also called attention to the Greer traffic study
which was distributed. The Commissioners had some question on service
level explanations . Les Evans stated it was a way to describe how
well traffic is flowing on a scale of A to F. Commissioner Erskine
asked how many days per year we operate on Level F. Mr. Evans replied in
summer months on weekends. Commissioners discussed the impact on
Pacific Coast Highway regarding traffic as a result of the project
If area. Mr. Evans felt that it would "barely cause a ripple" on PCH.
Discussion took place regarding the discrepancies between the staff ' s
figures and the consultant ' s figures . Commissioners wanted additional
�.. information from Greer. Chairman Porter said that in
implementing the plan, an adequate right-of-way should be designated to ac-
commodate potential traffic volumes and that an effort be made to
H .B . Planning Commission
June 28 , 1983
Page 2
Now"
minimize impacts in adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Evans stated that M,
Greer had suggested bringing Atlanta around to Lake and making Lake
a key intersection; Public Works is not convinced that this is the
way to go. Rather to leave that flexibility with -the Atlanta-Orange
option which would move traffic to Goldenwest, Gothard and streets
on the west side. Commissioner Livengood asked if the master plan of
streets and highways would have to be changed based on these proposals .
Mr. Palin stated that the circulation plan has been master planned
sufficiently to accommodate traffic projection. Chairman Porter felt
that the extension of Walnut between Lake and Beach is a
boundary in the specific plan that does exist as an alignment on the
master plan and it seems to be a significant part of
the ability to handle traffic.
Discussion continued on market feasibility. Pat Dawe of the Arroyo
Group stated that Williams-Kuebelbeck was supplied with all of the
available documents to make a recommendation, however, "market studies
come and go" and that the market was not very "cheery" when discussion
started on the specific plan. He further stated that a good study
could cost between $25 , 000 and $45 , 000. He stated that what the Com-
mission set as a goal was ambitious . He felt that the real test of
the plan is its flexibility and is it something that will last a long
time; that this could only commence with specific projects. ,
Discussion ensued on the EIR. Jeanine Frank explained that the EIR
analyzes fiscal possibilities rather than economic . Commissioner
Erskine commented on the maximum square footages set in the specific
plan; he felt that the minimum would take care of itself. He said
that the maximum would be set by traffic and would not necessarily deal
with economics.
Commissioners raised questions regarding floor area ratios , street
widening relating to levels of service and cost versus revenue related
to specific projects. Chairman Porter believed that 60% of maximum
build-out would not realistically occur for about 17 years . Commis-
sioner Higgins commented that if you don' t substan-
tiate the market' s potential , you "cannot come up with a
reasonable plan." Commissioner Schumacher commented that the possibility
of rolling back residential has to be looked at to create revenue for
the City. She said we will not always have oil here; all we have is
that beach. Commissioner Livengood read from a report that was
similar to the proposed Specific Plan, but the report was dated 1967 .
Brief discussion took place on the proposed convention-type facility
written into District 3 . Commissioner Erskine asked for clarification
as to what is written into the City' s plan and what the Coastal Com-
mission has approved in the L.U.P. Jeanine Frank explain
that we will be held to the areas where we have designated visitor-
serving. Commissioner Higgins brought up the fact that a freeway had F
been proposed 19 years ago that was never built, which had been proposeu
in the ERA study. This he said to show that those figures in the 1967
report are not accurate.
H.B. Planning Commission
June 28 , 1983
Page 3
( EIR 82-2:
The following suggested changes were made to the EIR document: In
Section 4 . 1 there was confusion on the figures dealing with lot area,
that the figures on page 5 and page 19 should be the same. Commissioner
Livengood did not agree with the density figures used under "Land Use
and Population" , he felt it was too much office and commercial space.
Ms . Dupuy explained that the law requires that you address the worst pos-
sible case. Commissioner Erskine believed that what was in the staff
report on page 5 under population should be written in the EIR. Com-
missioner Winchell stated that the figure of 5 , 000 residential units
was not accurate since the actual figure was 6 , 308 - she felt it should
be rounded up to 6 , 000 . Commissioner Erskine wanted the "1. 78 persons
per unit" at the top of page 22 changed to reflect the 1980 census .
It was suggested to make the circulation map which was distributed, part
of the document. It was also suggested that references be made wherever
comments relate to a particular section. (Commissioner Schumacher clari-
fied a comment made regarding the Golden Bear Cafe as a historic site. )
Brief discussion took place regarding noise attenuations , which can be
achieved by a combination of berms and walls; and mitigation of bill-
boards along Pacific Coast Highway, which is dealt with in state legis-
lation.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE DRAFT FINAL EIR 82-2 WAS
APPROVED AS AMENDED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Specific Plan Document:
Discussion ensued with the following comments made on the Specific Plan
document for the downtown:
Discussion on the design theme as "Mediterranean" was discussed . Com-
missioner Erskine stated that whatever the theme, the materials should
be long-lasting, mainly stucco as opposed to Cape Cod wood. Upkeep of
the awnings was discussed. Florence Webb stated that she had contacted
a manufacturer about a brand new material that is acrylic but has the
appearance of canvas with a life expectancy of about 8 years. Commis-
sioner Schumacher felt that if it states "ocean-related" theme , this
would be sufficient terminology. Staff responded that the original plan
was to prepare a design guideline booklet looking at design themes and
to bring it back to the Commission to review and adopt after the specific plan
was approved by the Coastal Commission.
A show of hands was counted on Commissioner Livengood' s suggestion to
clearly state "design will be of a Mediterranean theme" .
IN FAVOR: Livengood, Mirjahangir
H .B. Planning Commission
June 28 , 1983
Page 4
A show of hands was requested on Chairman Porter ' s suggestion to includ ::r'
by reference the letter written by the Arroyo Group dealing with design
theme and include the renderings as part of the document in the appendix.
IN FAVOR: Higgins , Winchell , Porter, Erskine, Schumacher
Discussion followed regarding street circulation. Commissioner Livengood
felt that sentences on Page 25 dealing with alignments should be deleted.
Les Evans explained that it was an explanation of a possible senario, not
fact. Chairman Porter stated that most people are concerned with intru-
sion into the residential area to the west. He said he felt that the
character in the area that is going from residential to mixed use would
have more of a chance to change if a plan is adopted. A straw vote
was taken to get a Commission consensus on eliminating the first two
sentences at the top of Page 29 , with the following vote:
IN FAVOR: Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
OPPOSED: Higgins
Les Evans reminded the Commissioners that they should be careful in
"dropping" streets out of the pattern because
it would impact necessary circulation. Chairman Porter re-
sponded that it was a question of whether statements should appear in
the document that increase the intrusion into the residential area and
the Commission consensus is to leave that out. Discussion took place
regarding specific streets in the downtown. Secretary Palin clarified
the fact that Lake is a primary highway; Orange is a secondary highway;
17th was reduced from major to primary, etc. There was a question about
Main Street. Mr. Palin stated that a design was worked out with the
Public Works Department on the traffic model, to filter Main with 17th
Street and the Gothard intersection with Main in the vicinity of Clay
Avenue. He said he could report back to the Commission at the July 6th
meeting on this (Precise Plan of Street Alignment 76-B) .
There was discussion to remove the entire first paragraph on Page 29
which would eliminate reference to Delaware Street. A straw vote was
taken on a motion to leave the sentence as it is , by the following vote :
IN FAVOR: Higgins, Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
OPPOSED: None
Commissioner Winchell suggested removing 6th Street from consideration for po:
sible street vacation, however, she added this would depend on what is
done with the rest of the specific plan. Chairman Porter noticed that
there was no mention of the R.V. parks. He felt that R.V. parks should
be more accessible. Mike Adams mentioned that there was discussion by
the state to include some camping areas, however, they are talking abou
it for only the winter months. Commissioner Livengood favored includin
a sentence from page 222 of the (green cover) earlier drafted specific plan.
At this point Chairman Porter stopped the discussion and continued it
to the regular meeting of July 6 , at 6 : 00 P.M. He also said he would
H.B. Planning Commission
June 28 , 1983
Page 5
t propose to reopen the public hearing on the Downtown Specific Plan .
ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
Redevelopment Plan Amendment for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project
Expansion, Plan Amendment No. 1
At the meeting of ,June 21, 1983 , the Planning Commission, by minute
action, set this item for public hearing on July 6 , 1983. This amend-
ment would establish an amended redevelopment area which will allow
the Redevelopment Agency (City Council) to capture tax increment as a
means to finance the costs necessary to remove blighting conditions .
Distributed for the Commission' s review, was a correspondence from the
City Administrator ' s office explaining the Planning Commission' s role
in the process , an update from Williams-Kuebelbeck and a diagram on
traffic circulation from the joint efforts of the Public Works Depart-
ment and Greer and Company.
Tom Tincher recapped the discussion on public hearing requirements on
redevelopment items . He explained it was not a requirement of the
Planning Commission, but rather that the City Council is soliciting
recommendations from the Commission. He again explained the time con-
straints of other government agencies involved in the process . Commis-
sioner Higgins was of the opinion to work toward a decision and forward
R the document to the City Council acting as the Redevelopment Agency.
Chairman Porter, in light of this suggestion asked legal counsel if there
was a need for a reconsideration motion. Secretary Palin said it would affect the ir.
crement on the Breakers project which is in the expanded boundaries of the amendment.
The City would then lose the tax increment from the Breakers which would have been used
to improve the commercial to the north. Art Folger advised that if it is the decision
of the Planning Commission to recotmiend the Plan Amendment No. 1 to the City Council,
that they take action to rescind their prior action to hold a public
hearing.
Commissioner Winchell stated for the record that she recognized her role
as a commissioner to make recommendations to the City Council, however,
she was not aware of any State law to require "a higher vote" . She said,
"state law thinks that we have something to say about things done in
redevelopment" . "As far as land use designation , the important thine
is whether or not they want the land to go into redevelopment . . . I
say let ' s continue and have our own public hearing. " Commissioner
Livengood asked about what the law states on notices . Mr. Tincher
said the law states the City Council notices must be mailed out 4 weeks
before the public hearing.
Some discussion took place regarding the EIR that was just approved.
Commissioner Schumacher stated that at the time the LCP was approved it
was her idea for the high density for the purpose of encouraging con-
solidation. She understood that people were opposed to the redevelop-
ri ment plan and could not see the benefit to the City. Mr. Tincher re-
sponded that the people ' s main concern seemed to be eminent domain in
residential areas ; that there were other concerns such as oil encum-
brance, construction of the blufftop park and an increased demand in
parking. As far as the fear of eminent domain (as voiced in letters
MINUTES
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Chambers - Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
TUESDAY, JULY 12 , 1983 - 7 : 00 PM - ADJOURNED MEETING
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Winchell
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM:
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2
(EIR 82-2 approved earlier)
Initiated by City of Huntington Beach
The Specific Plan constitutes the zoning for that portion of the coastal
zone between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard in the City. The
' Plan is bounded on the inland side of Walnut, Hartford, Lake and Atlanta.
The secretary began by a recap of straw voting and action taken to date.
Mr. Palin also called attention to the handouts from Larry McKamish,
the Huntington Beach Company and the Surfing Association. Commissioner
Erskine requested staff to bring up these points when they reach each
section in the discussion.
Discussion began by overall comments . Commissioner Higgins stated his
philosophy on the specific plan. He said he did not agree with the amount
of area that can be developed commercially, because it exceeds anything
the market would support. That because of that and restrictions being
imposed on residential, it is possible that nothing would happen in
these areas . His policy would be to delete the restrictions on resi-
dential and let the market dictate what happens.
Commissioner Livengood stated that the concensus from the downtown com-
mittee was to let City Council know who favors the Plan, whether or
not the Plan will be implemented. He said it is too much commercial;
that the high-rise "could come in and be successful , but other property
owners trying to develop anything - they couldn't develop their property" .
Commissioner Erskine stated that he sees a phasing problem at issue. He
said, "I hope we can separate marketability from environmental impacts. "
.Commissioner Schumacher stated that the downtown and coastal area is
the last resource left in the City, that "as it is presently, we are
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12 , 1983
Page 2
getting nothing in return for a very prime stretch of beach" . She felt
that only residential is being built and sold and that as far as com-
mercial is concerned she would like to see free enterprise given a
chance. She said she favors some commercial but not at such a high
density.
Commissioner Mirjahangir said that "you have an existing area you are
trying to develop" , that the impacts deal with traffic and existing
residential and how we should go about mitigating it. He said that
areas adjacent to the central core and areas which may be commercial
in the future are not going to get exposure and therefore, the business
community will see no amenities and other cities in Orange County will
give them a better location. In his opinion, "other than the central
core, the rest should emphasize residential" .
Chairman Porter said his ideas follow along the same lines , that the
proposed commercial at the foot of the pier and the lower end of Main
Street, high-rise in concept, has a tendency to detract from a mall or
village atmosphere. He felt that an increase in heights should occur
conceptually, at the end of District 3 as opposed to uniformly in that
district, this would be where property has allowable setbacks to accom-
modate the heights . He said that the plan should reflect something
more realistic, and "not what we have seen in the market studies" .
Discussion resumed on page 55 , Section 4 . 0 . 03 and . 04 , Organization
and Definitions. Jeanine Frank recommended dropping the paragraph
dealing with affordable housing as it is no longer necessary. She also
recommended a phrase be added to the definition of heights, "vertical
distance above the highest adjacent .street level grade" , etc. Also
remove No. 1 and No. 2 from the height definition. Commissioner
Schumacher also suggested removing the first paragraph in Section 4 . 2 . 09
dealing with definition of heights.
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ABOVE MENTIONED CHANGES
WERE MADE TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Erskine , Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Ms. Frank suggested adding a statement under 4 . 1 . 01 on page 59 that
"projects shall be in conformance with the adopted Design Guidelines
for the area" .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SENTENCE AS STATED ABOVE
WAS ADDED TO SECTION 4 . 1. 01, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12 , 1983
Page 3
ABSTAIN: None
Discussion took place regarding energy conservation implementation.
Commission Schumacher asked if there was a blanket statement covering
solar energy in regards to granting special permits. Commissioner
Erskine stated there was a bill to be signed by the Governor (AB 163)
which addresses• energy requirements. Chairman Porter requested that
if the BIA has a summary of that bill , the Commissioners would be in-
terested in seeing it.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS 4 . 1. 02 , . 03
AND . 04 ON PAGE 60 WERE APPROVED AS DRAFTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW
VOTE:
AYES: Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Schumacher asked if gating and stacking should be addressed
when talking about full block consolidation. Mike Adams suggested
that, rather than address it in the Plan, to deal with that on the
project level. There was some discussion about Fire Department regu-
lations. Mr. Palin stated that if there is alternative treatments within
a development such as stand pipes, sprinkler systems, etc. , they will
alleviate developers from required drives and turn-arounds. Commissioner
Livengood said he supported some wording to adhere to City restrictions
with regard to the possibility of Warner Avenue opening onto PCH.
Mr. Palin stated that the intent is to encourage minimizing access into
developments, that if you have block consolidation the only type of
access is from the alleys, which can be reviewed under the conditional
use permit.
Commissioner Higgins suggested restricting access from PCH in Dis-
tricts 1 , 2 and 3 to alleys or numbered streets. He said that in the
larger Districts (7 and 8) it would not be necessary. He also said
that the applicant would still have the right of review if he had a
plan with "terrific" ingress and egress plans. Chairman Porter agreed
"if we say it is not excluded by special permit" . Mike Adams recom-
mended removing the first sentence in Section "a" , so that the applicant
could have use of the former right-of-way as an accesspoint. Commis-
sioner Schumacher disagreed with including District 1.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY HIGGINS TO EXEMPT DIS-
TRICTS 2 AND 3 FROM CURB CUT RESTRICTIONS , BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE :
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine
NOES : Schumacher, Mirjahangir
ABSENT: Winchell
r_,J ABSTAIN: None
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12 , 1983
Page 4 �..�
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SUBSECTIONS b AND c WERE
APPROVED AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
In Subsection d and f the following changes on page 62 were recommended by staff:
In "d" add: "guest parking" ; in "f" add: "and landscaped on top" .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE PAGE 62 WAS APPROVED WITH
RECOMMENDED CHANGES BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR LAST SENTENCE REGARDING
SURFACE AREA PARKING WAS ELIMINATED FROM 4 . 2 . 05 BY THE FOLLOWING=_STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES : Porter, Schumacher
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Staff recommended that the last sentence in Section 4 . 2 . 06 regarding
landscaped planters, be eliminated.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS LAST SENTENCE IN 4 . 2. 06
WAS ELIMINATED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Staff recommended adding "automatic electric" to irrigation sentence (b) and a
phrase "in conformance with Design Guidelines" to (d) in Section 4.2.07.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS STAFF' S SUGGESTED CHANGE
WAS ADDED TO SECTION 4 . 2. 07 d BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Schumacher recommended deleting the first paragraph in ?
Section 4 . 2 . 09 , Heights, and adding, "Height limits shall be established
within each district" .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THIS CORRECTION WAS APPROVED
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12 , 1983
Page 5
IN SECTION 4 . 2 . 09 , BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Discussion took place regarding the screening of satellite dishes on
roofs . The thrust of the discussion was a question if it was covered
somewhere in the code. Mr. Palin stated it was not exempted in Divi-
sion 9 . Chairman Porter pointed out that although the actual dish may
be a certain number of feet high, it is always at an angle that would
bring the height down. He recommended that a new section (4. 2. 31) be
added to address that issue. The following sentence was added, "All
utility lines shall be undergrounded where possible. "
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CHAIRMAN PORTER'S
SUGGESTION WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
The Chairman called for a 5-minute recess. Commission resumed at 9 PM.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE BALANCE OF PAGE 64
WAS APPROVED (4 . 2. 10 and 4 . 2. 11) BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Discussion took place regarding standard plan of street signs as cited
by Paul Cook' s letter of concern. Chairman Porter suggested including
a statement "consistent with design theme" in Sections 4 . 2. 17 and 4 . 2. 19.
Discussion followed regarding billboards. The Chairman requested the
City Attorney' s office to report back if there was any current ordinance
dealing with that.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS PAGE 65 WAS APPROVED WITH
THE ABOVE CHANGES, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Livengood, Higgins, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Schumacher suggested that common open space be designed to
give relief from building bulk. Staff suggested inserting this state-
ment into Section 4 . 2. 11, Open Space on page 64 as follows, "Common
open space shall be designed so that it enhances the appearance of the
project to passers-by, providing visual relief from building bulk" .
H .B. Planning Commission
July 12 , 1983
Page 6 r„*N
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THIS SENTENCE WAS ADDED TO w.
SECTION 4 . 2. 11 UNDER OPEN SPACE, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: I
AYES : Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Schumacher , Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS 4 . 2. 21 THROUGH
4 . 2. 24 WERE APPROVED AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAAN: None
Discussion took place regarding a letter submitted by the Huntington
Beach Company regarding parking lost from street vacation. Chairman
Porter suggested under Subsection "g-iii" that any parking lost must
be replaced "either on or off site or through in-lieu fees" . Ms . Frank
also suggested striking the first "permitted use" in Section . 27a and
also adding under "g" , the words , "and determined that the vacation will
not be detrimental" . Chairman Porter also commented that with street
vacations , up til this time they were to be consistent with the General
Plan and now they will have to relate to the Specific Plan. Commissione' !
Mirjahangir asked what was the reasoning for excluding District 3 . Ms.
Frank stated it was to encourage better developments in that district.
Mr. Mirjahangir felt that should be uniformly applied.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO APPROVE SEC-
TIONS 4 . 2 . 25 , 4 . 2 . 26 AND 4 . 2. 27 WITH THE ABOVE CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
AND TO DELETE SENTENCE REGARDING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE F .A.R. ' s IN SUBSEC-
TION "b" IN SECTION 4 . 2 . 27 .
Commissioner Schumacher suggested removing "b" from the motion because
other districts may be dealt with.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECONDED BY MIRJAHANGIR TO AMEND
THE MAIN MOTION EXCLUDING SUBSECTION "b" FROM THE MOTION. THIS MOTION
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : Higgins
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
STRAW VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION AS FOLLOWS :
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir Oil
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12, 1983
Page 7
E ;
Chairman Porter called attention to the added sections ( . 28 , . 29 and . 30)
distributed by staff since the first meeting on the subject of the
Specific Plan. Commissioner Schumacher did not favor adding subsec-
tion . 29 "Limitations on Residential Densities" . She stated that a
lot of people would be coming in for exemptions . Mr. Palin also com-
mented that in . 30 , "Oil Suffix Zoning" , the only exception would be
for areas zoned MH (Mobile Home) .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS , . 28 AND . 30 WERE APPROVED
BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Porter stated he agreed with Commissioner Schumacher to not
include the limitation on residential densities so that the Director
would "deal with each one" .
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SUGGESTED ADDITION,
. 29 WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PLAN DOCUMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Under District #1, Commissioner Higgins asked if you change the limita-
tion on residential in that eight block visitor-serving area is that
something that would conflict with the Coastal Commission. Staff re-
sponded that it would not, other than the number of units per square
footage of the site. And further, that the Coastal Commission wanted
all ground floor to be visitor-serving commercial . Commissioner Higgins
wanted some of the Area 1 node to be deleted. Commissioner Livengood
questioned the following permitted uses in District 1: barber and beauty
shops, video stores, museum and health and reducing salons. Commissioner
Erskine felt that District 1 was ideal for health clubs .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE PAGES 69 AND 70 WERE AP-
PROVED AS IS - PAGE 71 , DELETE PERMITTED USES OF BARBER AND BEAUTY
SHOPS AND MUSEUMS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : Higgins
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Under Section 4 . 3 . 02, Jeanine Frank recommended deleting the following
phrases from "a" , "but less than one full block" , " (including not less
than 50% of the street level) " , and "for projects one full block or
greater, either the entire street level, or at least one-third of the
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12 , 1983
Page 8 .--�
floor area must be devoted to visitor-serving commercial uses" . Brief '1�'a`r',
discussion took place regarding bus turnouts .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER STAFF' S RECOMMENDATION
WAS ACCEPTED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
There was brief discussion about expanding subsection "b" to include
service station but this discussion was dropped as it would be covered
by an entitlement. Lengthy discussion took place regarding a reduction
in Area 1 as earlier proposed. Commissioner Mirjahangir felt that with
the density figured in net vs. gross, you end up with more density on
half block as opposed to full block. Staff stated it was more diffi-
cult to figure as you get to smaller lots. Commissioner Schumacher
said that when you use gross , you have to go to the centerline of the
street. She said it was like giving a "bonus on top of a bonus" .
A show of hands revealed that only Chairman Porter and Commissioner
Higgins were in favor of the reduction in size of Area 1. Jeanine Frank
recommended deleting the column entitled, Minimum Visitor Serving Re-
quired and deleting the rest of "c", page 72 after "Retail sales, outdoor".
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE
APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Erskine
NOES : Schumacher, Mirjahangir
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO CHANGE FIGURE
IN SECTION 4 . 3. 04b FROM 50 TO 35 FEET AND APPROVE SECTIONS . 05 AND . 06
AS PRESENTED.
Jeanine Frank recommended changing the second "50 feet" to 45 feet to
correspond to renderings.
THIS MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Livengood , Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES : Higgins, Erskine, Schumacher.
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
1IF
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS . 05 AND . 06
WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12 , 1983
Page 9
-- NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS AND SECONDED BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE SEC-
TION 4 . 3. 04 AS STATED WITH 35 FOOT HEIGHT AND 45 FEET OF PROPERTY LINE.
THIS MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Erskine, Schumacher
NOES : Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
On the previous vote, Commissioner Erskine stated that although he
favored the motion, he agreed with Commissioner Livengood that he did
not want to see tall buildings without massive amounts of landscaping.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS 4 . 3 .07 , .08 ,
. 09 AND INSERTION OF REFERENCE TO BUS TURNOUTS WAS APPROVED BY THE
FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Porter asked if the spread sheet would be included in the
Specific Plan. Mr. Palin said that it would appear in the final docu-
ment. Commissioner Livengood stated that he agreed with Grace
Winchell in concept that Districts 1 and 2 were "windows of the City" .
He favors 3 stories in that area with standards similar to the Townlot.
He said he was not opposed to heights in other areas. Commissioner -
Schumacher stated that by going up to 4 stories you can get better
quality housing. Mr. Palin suggested identifying the two nodes on the
left of the diagram as 1-A's and the one on the right as 1-B.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE TWO AREAS DESIGNATED
"1-A" WILL HAVE A 50 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND THE AREA DESIGNATED "2-B"
WILL HAVE A 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT, IN DISTRICT 1, BY THE FOLLOWING
STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Schumacher asked staff what determines the size of the units.
Ms. Frank responded that there was no requirement for size. Commissioner
Schumacher favored a size criteria. Chairman Porter pointed out that
if there was no size criteria, Uniform Building Code standards would be
r_ J used. Secretary Palin asked the Commission to clarify if they were
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12 , 1983
Page 10
talking about the entire Specific Plan area or just from 6th to 23rd
Street. Commissioner Erskine stated he did not favor such restriction
in an area of high priced land.
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR PORTION FROM SECTION
936 REGARDING MINIMUM FLOOR AREA WAS INSERTED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN
DOCUMENT UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS (4 . 3. 33) , BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW
VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : Livengood, Erskine
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Livengood gave a summary of his opinion on a district-by-
district basis. In District 2 he favored a 35 foot height limit;
District 3 he said he had concerns on the density of commercial; in
District 4 he would recommend 3 stories; in District 5 , 4 stories; in
District 6 , 3 story. He wanted staff to analyze the other districts
and establish height limits.
Commissioner Mirjahangir made a motion to continue the Downtown Spe-
cific Plan to the meeting of August 2 , 1983. This motion failed for
lack of a second.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2
AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2 WERE CONTINUED TO AN ADJOURNED MEETING
OF JULY 26 , 1983 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
DISCUSSION ITEM:
Secretary Palin briefly summarized the actions taken at the July 11 ,
1983 City Council meeting. He said that the City Council discussed
the Main-Pier redevelopment plan and continued that to their meeting
of July 18 , 1983.
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11 : 20 PM to the next regular
meeting of July 19th. That meeting will adjourn to July 26 , 1983.
6;;'es�W. P a I fn, Sec etary Marcus M. Porter, C man
: jlm
H .B. Planning Commission
July 6 , 1983
Page 2
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2
(EIR 82-2 Approved 6-28-83 , Item continued from that meeting)
Initiated by City of Huntington Beach
The Specific Plan constitutes the zoning for that portion of the coastal
zone between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard in the City. The
Specific Plan is bounded on the inland side of Walnut, Hartford, Lake
and Atlanta. Discussion to resume with Section 3. 3. 2 , Parking, and
to end at 7 : 00 PM to resume discussion on the redevelopment item.
Staff advised the Commissioners of the handouts distributed to them.
Mike Adams recommended the addition of a paragraph regarding a
Mediterranean style architecture. Commissioner Schumacher recalled
that, at the last meeting, it was decided to call it "ocean-related"
rather than Mediterranean. Chairman Porter suggested that that change
in wording could be incorporated into that section.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 16
WAS ADDED DEALING WITH ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW
VOTE:
AYES : Livengood, Winchell , Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES : Schumacher
ABSENT: Higgins
ABSTAIN: Erskine
Discussion ensued regarding public transportation. Commissioner
Livengood asked if the Environmental Board had some input regarding
buses travelling through the downtown area. Claudette Dupuy stated that
the Board did review the material at one of their meetings . Commissioner
Livengood was also concerned about possibly losing the bike trail with
proposals in the Plan regarding Lake Street. Mike Adams assured him
that it would be amended.
Commissioner Erskine suggested that some wording be added to the second
paragraph on page 36 under Circulation, regarding pedestrian system
tied in with the parking structure so that commuters , shoppers and
local residents would be encouraged to walk through the retail areas.
He also suggested a separation of these groups from the beach goers .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THESE CHANGES WERE MADE
AS SUGGESTED BY COMMISSIONER ERSKINE , BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Livengood asked staff to address Paul Cook ' s memo from
Public Works , dealing with low fencing in the median on PCH. Staff
responded that the design of the median will be incorporated into the
design guidelines.
H .B . Planning Commission
July 6 , 1983
Page 3
Commissioner Mirjahangir referred to page 37 regarding overpasses , he
asked if staff had considered underpasses . Secretary Palin stated that
it was felt by providing a plaza area, that option would be left open ,
for some date in the future.
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ERSKINE MAIN STREET INTERSECTION
WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR OVERPASS OR UNDERPASS , BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW
VOTE:
AYES : Winchell , Porter, Erskine , Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : Livengood
ABSENT: Higgins
ABSTAIN: None
Discussion went back to the median on PCH to discourage pedestrian mid-
block crossing. Commissioner Schumacher understood that this was under
the jurisdiction of CalTrans. Staff agreed with this statement.
Chairman Porter suggested striking the reference to a low fence on
page 37 and inserting "something permanent and aesthetically pleasing
consistent with the downtown theme. He was also concerned about the
maintenance.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, CHAIRMAN PORTER' S
SUGGESTION REGARDING THE MEDIAN ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY WAS APPROVED
BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE :
AYES : Winchell , Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : Livengood
ABSENT: Higgins
ABSTAIN: None
Discussion took place on street circulation, specifically the extension
of Walnut from Lake to Beach Boulevard. Chairman Porter was concerned
about addressing circulation in the specific plan document, aside from
dealing with it in the Circulation Element Amendment. Commissioner
Livengood shared that concern and added that the "intent was to delete
Sixth Street as a major arterial" . He said that it was deleted on
page 29 and left in on page 23. Discussion also followed on the Greer
traffic study. Les Evans stated that the latest information received
from Greer would probably be the last the City would be receiving.
Commissioner Erskine asked if a design theme in the Main Street plaza
area was incorporated into the document. Mike Adams responded that it
was not, but would be appropriate in the design concept section.
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO IN-
CORPORATE AN OCEAN-RELATED THEME IN THE DESIGN CONCEPT SECTION OF THE
DOCUMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE :
1
AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Livengood, Porter , Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Schumacher
ABSTAIN: None
H.B. Planning Commission
July 6 , 1983
Page 4
Discussion resumed on the median in Pacific Coast Highway with regard
to discouraging pedestrians from crossing in the middle of a block.
Signalizing was discussed.
Commissioner Livengood referenced the correspondence from the Arroyo
Group, dated May 13 , 1983, regarding an arts park, museum and surfing
hall of fame. He favored this being included in the document.
Commissioner Erskine also wanted something of this nature similar to
what Laguna Beach has, however, he went on to discuss financing of
such projects. Referring to page 44 , in every instance where it states
"This type of facility could be either publicly or privately financed"
he suggested that it read public/private to indicate a -definite option.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, THE ABOVE SUGGESTIONS
WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Schumacher
ABSTAIN: None
Discussion followed on the possibility of new sewer lines being installed
Les Evans agreed that this may be necessary. It was suggested that re-
ference to a new trunk line going in beneath Walnut Avenue be changed
to reflect the fact that construction is completed. This change was
noted by staff on pages 47 and 49.
Cominissioner winchell stated Joi. I-lic, i:eco.i.(i LhaL, not being able t-o
solve anything from a market study, she would solve it from response
from the people that reside in the downtown. She said if you pare down
the square footage by 25 or 30 percent it would bring down the height.
She did not favor increased heights in the Townlot area; she felt that
the public was not benefiting from increased heights and densities.
Staff called attention to an item handed out to shown a boundary change
in District 10 to include the parking lot to the project extended to
align with 7th Street.
Commissioner Livengood stated that he favored a 3-story limit in
District 1. Chairman Porter stopped the discussion to resume at the
Adjourned Meeting of July 12, 1983.
REDEVELOPMENT MAIN-PIER PROJECT AREA EXPANSION PUBLIC HEARING - PROJECT
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1
The expansion of- the Main-Pier Redevelopment Area to include approximatma,\
350 acres between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard (Downtown Spe-
cific Plan Area) and 27 . 5 acres at Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue.
The public hearing is the result of minute action taken by the Planningm
Commission.
Tom Tincher gave a presentation with his main points being that the
I
MINUTES
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION --DRAFT
Council Chambers - Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
TUESDAY, JULY 26 , 1983 - 7 :00 PM
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Erskine, Livengood, Porter , Winchell
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Higgins , Schumacher, Mirjahangir
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach
4. 4 DISTRICT #2 : RESIDENTIAL
4 . 4 . 01 Minimum Parcel Size
Staff is recommending that an amendment to this section be made,
beginning with waiver of this requirement maybe granted
by the Director so the last phrase reads " . . between
Walnut and the alley one unit may be allowed on residual parcels
where adjacent parcels are already developed, " explaining that
this wording would allow equitable treatment of certain25 foot
lots which could not be combined with another lot due to prior
building construction.
A resident owning a 50 foot lot on 17th Street north of the alley-
way between Walnut and Pacific Coast Highway addressed to Commis-
sion to protest what he perceived as the downzoning of this
property (presently zoned PA) , pointing out .that it is surrounded
by developed lots and cannot be consolidated. Staff explained
that the Specific Plan would allow a triplex to be built on this
location.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, S . 4 .4 . 01 WAS
APPROVED WITH STAFF'S SUGGESTED AMENDMENT BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 4 . 03 Density
Staff is recommending that on a 50 foot lot one dwelling unit per
1700 square feet be permitted; this density corresponds closely
to the allowed density in the Townlot.
Commissioner Erskine asked if there would be something in this
section to allow waiver of this requirement under certain condi-
tions , such as those mentioned by the resident who just spoke.
The Commission discussed how such aprovision could be established
without applying the upward limit to consolidated lots and with-
out encouraging the filing of many applications for waivers. Secre-
tary Patin explained staff's direction to place medium density on
Minutes, H. B. Planning Commission
July 26 , 1983
Page 2
this area, but that if it is the Commission' s desire to allow four-
plexes on 50 foot lots staff can work with the Attorney' s office to
design provisions to effect that end; such an action, he cautioned,
.might undermine the goal for consolidation of lots under which high
density could be achieved. Commissioner Livengood questioned the
importance of consolidation in District 2 , where most lots are under
individual ownership now and are likely to develop on their own.
Staff responded that development by 50 foot lot will necessitate
the retention of all the existing alleys in the area and the majority
of street sections, thereby reducing the ability to discourage in-
trusion into the area by beach goers.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO REQUEST
THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS A VARIANCE PROCEDURE FOR
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY ON 50 FOOT LOTS WHERE THERE ARE LOGICAL
OR PHYSICAL IMPEDIMENTS TO CONSOLIDATION.
The Commission discussed the areas where this problem might occur
and Chairman Porter suggested that any language the staff may come
up with whould be as specific as possible in terms of its applica-
tion to certain street frontages only. Also, discussed was the
possibility that any variances which might be allowed should be acted
on by the Board of zoning Adjustments at minimum or even perhaps
by the Planning Commission. Mr. Palin suggested that it might be
advisable to create subsections 2-a and 2-b, separating the half
blocks fronting onto arterials so that fourplexes could be allowed
on 50 foot lots adjacent to commercial. Specific standards could then
be developed for those special areas and still leave the rest of the
District as proposed on the Plan.
Commissioners Erskine and Winchell then withdrew their prior motion.
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD S. 4 . 4 . 03 WAS APPROVED
WITH SUB-SECTIONS 2-a and 2-b, WITH WORDING TO ACCOMPLISH THE ABOVE
DISCUSSION TO BE WORKED OUT BY STAFF FOR REVIEW AT A SUBSEQUENT
MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES : None
ABSENT: Higgins , Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 4 . 04 Lot Size Frontage
Jeanine Frank said that, since the Plan no longer allows by right a
building on a 25 foot lot, staff is recommending striking the first
line, the section then beginning with "Up to one full block 35 feet
and no more than 3 stories. " Also suggested is a substitution of
45 feet for the 50 .foot fourth story setback; however, the setback
for a fourth story off Walnut Avenue would remain at 75 feet. She
noted that "Maximum Allowable Height" should be the title of the
section instead of "Lot Size Frontage. "
Commissioner Winchell discussed this section, saying that the intent
of the section is good but in her mind the whole point of obtaining
better development, more open space, and better vistas was lost when
35 units per acre with consolidation was allowed. The open space in
this Plan will not give us the view corridors or preclude solid rows
-2 7-26-83 - P.C.
Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission
July 26, 1983
Page 3
of buildings as intended, nor will it accomplish its stated goal
of providing public open space. She said that consolidation
seems to provide only more units, height, and population but
not any substantial public benefits and that is why she is skep-
tical of increasing the density. Ms. Winchell , noting that
three stories can be put in a 30 foot height and that the 3 foot
allowance for subterranean parking and the extra allowance for
roof architectural features further increase the heights of build-
ings, questioned the 35 foot height in the plan.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL TO DELETE THE FIRST LINE IN
S. 4 .4 .04 AND HAVE THE SECOND LINE READ "26 FEET UP TO FULL BLOCK
30 FOOT HEIGHT AND NO MORE THAN THREE STORIES; FULL BLOCK 40
FEET AND NO MORE THAN FOUR STORIES, ETC. , AND THAT WITHIN 45
FEET OF ANY OTHER RIGHT-OF-WAY NO STRUCTURE SHALL EXCEED 30 FEET.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO APPROVE
S. 4 . 4. 04 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS. . MOTION FAILED
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Winchell, Porter
NOES: Erskine, Livengood
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
In further discussion of height the Commission reviewed the meas-
urement from grade instead of the top of the subterranean park-
ing and roof feature allowance. Commissioner Erskine indicated
that he is not in favor of the four stories at 45 foot setback as
included in Winchell's original motion, and explained his "no"
vote as reflecting his feeling that the full Commission should
be present for discussion of this question.
S. 4 .4.04 WAS DEFFERED TO A SUBSEQUENT MEETING BY CONSENSUS OF
THE COMMISSION.
A property owner .at 421 7th Street addressed the Commission to
inquire if he could build a three story dwelling on his's present
25 foot lot (which is occupied by an existing residence) . When
it was pointed out to him that he could, under the new wording
in S. 4.4 . 01, apply for a waiver in this instance, he inquired if
approval of such a waiver was strictly at the discretion of the
Director or if it would be an appealable decision. After dis-
cussion on the height limit on any such reconstruction, a review
by legal counsel of the effect of deleting the entire first line
of S. 4 . 4 . 01 and a consideration of the number of parcels in
the District which could be affected, Commission determined that
4 . 4 . 01 should be reanalyzed.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE STAFF WAS DIRECTED
TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE IN S. 4 .4 . 01 AND ADD THAT THE DENIAL OF
A WAIVER APPLICATION BY THE DIRECTOR SHALL BE APPEALABLE TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION.
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
-3- 7-26-83 - P.C.
Minutos , II .B . Planning Commission
July 26 , 1983
Page 4
4 . 4 . 05 Front Yard Ground Floor Setbacks
Jeanine Frank recommended that the paragraph on fencing greater
than 42 inches in height and the diagram at the bottof of the page
be deleted from the text, as Commission has indicated that it does
not want fencing of that nature on Pacific Coast Highway.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE S. 4 .4 . 05 WAS APPROVED
WITH THE STAFF' S SUGGESTED DELETIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
S. 4 . 4 . 06 Side Yard Setbacks, Ground Floor
S . 4 . 4 . 07 Rear Yard Setbacks
S. 4 . 4 .08 -Upper Story Setbacks
In the last line of paragraph staff is recommending that "required
front yard, ground floor setback" be changed to read "second story
facade. " Sentence would then read: "The covered portion of .all
stories above the second must be set back an average of an additional
10 feet from the second story facade. " Commissioner Erskine dir-
ected that somewhere in the text there be a definition of "facade. "
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTIONS 4 . 4 . 06 , 4 . 4 . 07 ,
AND 4 . 4 . 08 WERE APPROVED WITH STAFF' S RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO S. . 08 ,
BY THE FOLLOIWNG VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins , Schumacher, Mirjahangir
S. 4 . 4 . 09 Maximum Lot Coverage
Staff pointed out that the maximum lot coverages are reckoned on 50
percent of the net site area after dedication.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE S. 4 .4. 09 WAS APPROVED
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 5 DISTRICT # 3 : VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE ITEM 4 . 5 WAS APPROVED
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
-4- 7-26-83 - P.C.
Minutes, H.B . Planning Commission
July 26, 1983
Page 5
4 . 5. 01 minimum Parcel Size
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE S. 4. 5.01 WAS
APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 5. 02 Permitted Uses
The Commission discussed the possibility of omitting "museums"
from the list of permitted uses and the concept of allowing
laundromats in the district. Also discussed was the Commission' s
prior action in re-doing the allowable floor area in. the commer-
cial nodes, and staff suggested that the wording for this dis-
trict could be "hither the entire street level of one-third of
the development" to be devoted to visitor-serving uses. Commis-
sioner Porter, noting that in his opinion part of the problem
with the entire Specific Plan is that there is residential
allowed in every district at 35 units per acre, said that he was
not in favor of any residential in District 3, even in upper
stories of buildings. The hotels and motels will provide short-
term residential uses, but he said that otherwise this district
should be strictly office/commercial uses.
ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY RESKINE S. 4.5 . 02 WAS APPROVED
WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AMENDMENTS: 1. Strike reference to "residential" in (c) R
2 . Strike "time-sharing residential: in (c) T
3. Permit laundromats in hotels/motels only
4 . Include staff's recommended wording for areas
devoted to visitor-serving uses
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES : None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 5.03 Density
Staff is suggesting deletion of this item.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL S. 4. 5. 03 WAS
DELETED FROM THE TEXT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES - Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES : None
ABSENT: Higgins , Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 5 . 04 Intensity
Jeanine Frank pointed out that there had been some confusion as
to whether lot coverage applied tojust the taller portion of a
development or whether it applied to the whole development. She
clarified this by saying that if you have an eight-story build-
-5- 7-26-83 - P.C.
Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission
July 26 , 1983
Page 6
ing you can only have 40 percent lot coverage on any part of it, not
just on the eight story portion. She suggested adding a note to
this section as follows: "NOTE: Lot coverage for the entire project
shall be governed by the maximum building height. "
Chairman Porter asked for discussion on the possibility of moving
the height of development toward the 2nd/Lake/Pacific Coast Highway
intersection rather than as it is presented now with a large concen-
tration at the Main/Pier area tapering to the sides. It was his
feeling that the higher structures are really more acceptable on the
downcoast side than either at the pier area or upcoast towards 6th
street, and this change would help maintain a certain amount of the
coastal atmosphere at the' pier area. He also noted that at present
one can build over 12 stories as long as a 3.5 FAR is maintained,
asking if that could allow 15 stories.
Commissioner Livengood said that he would perfer to have the entire
area from 6th Street to Lake with the same height requirement, what-
ever that may turn out to be, adding that he is not in favor of un-
limited heights being allowed. Mr. Livengood also expressed the
opinion that the plan is designed for too much commercial space, and
one way to scale this back would be to limit heights; he concluded
by saying that a more realistic cap must be put on what can be built
in the Specific Plan.
Secretary Palin said that the residential use, which has been stricken,
was felt to be an incentive to consolidation and that now that it
has been deleted it is possible that the FAR could be reduced slightly
and still accommodate the desires of the City Council. He pointed
out, however , that the real question is whether the City wants lower
structures with more lot coverage of higher structures with less lot
coverage under multi-block consolidation.
Commissioner Winchell noted that reducing the residential as has been
done is compounding what Commissioner Livengood sees as a problem
with too much commercial space, and staff will need to readjust be-
cause of that. If, as many of us believe, this Plan is a bit too am-
bitious and large for the City, it can be scaled by re-establishing
the proportions, lowering the ultimate built-out square footage of
commercial , and reducing the lot coverage. She- expressed her belief
that a 1. 75 FAR with 70 percent lot coverage is both starting and
ending too high and will result in a tremendous amount of building
bulk, asking if coverage could be brought down to a maximum of 60 per-
cent. Jeanine Frank replied that you could probably do this if you
knew where the intense development would go, but reducing the FAR for
the whole area would make it difficult, for instance, to allow a
reasonably sized hotel to go in. She reminded the Commission that
this district is a Redevelopment Area in which the City can specify
where it desires to site improvements .
Other items discussed by Commission in this section included the pos-
sibility of siting a resort hotel in District 7 rather than crowding
. it into District 3, the relationship of construction permitted in
this district and what is permitted in the surrounding districts, the
-6- 7-26-83 - P.C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
July 26 , 1983
Page 7
possibility of establishing a maximum PAR of 3. 0 in the area,
the question of adjustments in other districts to make up for
the residential being lost in this district, and the possibility
of structuring District 3 block by block.
Mr. Palin informed the Commission that Chairman Porter' s sug-
gestion of breaking the district down into areas can be accom-
plished by providing some general "envelopes" for the specific
parts, but flexibility is still needed to allow review of dev-
elopment as it is proposed. Staff can re-analyze the area and
come back to the Commission with suggestions on limitations in
height, adjustment of the FAR, and a breakdown of the area north
of Main and south of! Main, using a concept of 3-a and 3-b in-
stead of designing by streets. -
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE S. 4 .5 .04 (IN-
TENSITY) WAS APPROVED WITH THE NOTED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED
BY STAFF AND WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS TO STAFF, BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
DIRECTIONS: 1. Review the need for residential
2. Analyze possibility of a maximum FAR of 3. 0
3. Review breaking the district down into sep-
arate areas 3-a and 3-b as discussed
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES : None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 5.05 Front Yard, Ground Floor Setbacks
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, S. 4. 5.05 WAS
APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 5.06 Ground Floor Side Yard. Setbacks
4. 5 . 07 Rear Yard Setbacks
-4-. 5. 08 Upper Story Setbacks
Chairman Porter asked that the reference to "no height limit"
be deleted from the diagram or that reference be made to the
height table.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, SECTIONS 4 . 5. 06 ,
4 . 5. 07 , and 4 . 5. 08 WERE APPROVED WITH THE REFERENCE TO NO HEIGHT
LIMIT STRICKEN FROM THE DIAGRAM IN 4 .5. 08 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
01
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES : None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
-7- 7-26-83 - P.C.
Minutes , H .B. Planning Commission
July 26, 1983
Page 8
4 . 5. 09 Maximum Lot Coverage
The reference to the Intensity section was changed to reflect the
proper section, 4 . 5 . 04 . This section was deferred to a subsequent
meeting by consensus of the Commission.
4 . 5. 10 Minimum Public Open SpaceRequirements
4 . 5 . 11 Public Plazas on Main Street
4 . 5 . 12 Special Permit
The Commission directed that reference to residential uses be de-
leted from . 10 , as well as striking the second sentence of the first
paragraph in . 10 referring to mixed use development.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTIONS 4 . 5. 10 , 4 . 5. 11,
and 4 . 5. 12 WERE APPROVED WITH THE ABOVE CORRECTIONS TO .10, BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES : None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 5 . 13 Pedestrian Overpass
A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECONDED BY ERSKINE TO ADD "/UNDER-
PASS TO THE TITLE OF THIS SECTION, MAKING. THE TITLE READ: "PEDESTRIAN
OVERPASS/UNDERPASS . MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Winchell , Erskine
NOES : Livengood, Porter
ABSENT: Higgins , Schumacher, Mirjahangir
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO
RETURN SECTION 4 . 5 . 13 FOR DISCUSSION AT THE NEXT MEETING, BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES : None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 6 DISTRICT #4 : MIXED USE, OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL/LIMITED COMMERCIAL
The Commission discussed the suitability of the mixed uses on 6th
Street and on portions of the southerly part of District 4 north of
2nd Street; staff explained that this use had been planned as a buffer
between the commercial and residential areas . Chairman Porter agreed
with this concept in the northern section of the district but did not
agree with the necessity for transitional zoning in the southern
portion of the district. He again expressed concern with the aggre-
gate total of development in the entire Specific Plan, and suggested
deleting the two half-blocks north of Lake Street from this district,
as this location seems more conducive to commercial than to resi-
dential .
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD SECTION 4 . 6 WAS APPROVED
WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO STOP THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY AT THE SECOND
LINE OF THE BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
-8- 1-26-83 - P.C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
July 26, 1983
Page 9
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4.6 . 01 Minimum Parcel Size
4 . 6 .02 Permitted Uses
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTIONS 4 .6 .01
AND 4 .6 .02 WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4. 6 . 03 Density
Ms. Frank recommended that this section by amended to allow one
dwelling unit per 1700 square feet on 50 foot lots, as was done
previously in District 2 .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE S . 4.6. 03 WAS
APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT RECOMMENDED ABOVE BY STAFF, BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES : None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4. 6. 04 Intensity
Staff is recommending in this section that the requirements for
lots of 100 fe6t or less be changed to read: Height limited to
3 stories and no more than 35 feet, lot coverage limited to 50
percent, and the Maximum FAR column deleted.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL SECTION 4 . 6 . 04 WAS
APPROVED WITH THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS AS STATED BY 'STAFF
ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: Erskine
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 6 . 05 Front lard, Ground Floor Setback
4. 6. 06 Side Yard Setbacks
4. 6 . 07 Rear Yard Setbacks
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTIONS
4 . 6 . 05, 4 . 6. 06, and 4 . 6. 07 WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
-9- 7-26-83 - P.C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
July 26 , 1983
Page 10
4 . 6 . 08 Upper Story Setbacks
Jeanine Frank reported that the wording should be changed here to
correspond with the wording for setback restrictions for upper stories
as applied in District 2.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTION 4 . 6 . 08 WAS
APPROVED WITH THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine; Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins , Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 7 DISTRICT # 5: MIXED- USE: COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/RESIDENTrAL
Chairman Porter suggested that the area previously deleted from
District 4 now be included in District 5.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTION 4. 7 WAS
APPROVED, WITH A DIRECTION TO STAFF THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT
BE AMENDED TO ENCOMPASS THE AREA PREVIOUSLY DELETED FROM DISTRICT 4 ,
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins , Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 7 . 01 Minimum Parcel Size
4. 7. 02 Permitted Uses
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTIONS 4 .7. 01 and
4 . 7 . 02 WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES : None
ABSENT: Higgins , Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 7 . 03 Densities
Jeanine Frank asked that the first line of this section be elimin-
ated and the second line changed to read: "frontage of 100 feet or
less shall be allowed one unit per 2000 square feet net lot area;
101 feet up to one-half block shall be allowed one unit per 1700 square
feet of net lot area; one-half block to a full block shall be al-
lowed one unit .for 1350 square feet of net lot area; and a full
block shall be allowed 30 units per gross acre. " She explained that
these ratios scale down the former intensity of District 5 .
Commissioner Winchell asked whether or not it would be theoretically
possible for a developer to get the maximum residential units and
still be allowed some commercial space under the restrictions imposed
by lot coverage and building. Staff replied that this would be
possible, but the residential units would have to be very small effi-
ciency units in such an instance.
-10- 7-26-83 - P.C.
t"I_L I I Uf_e� , 11 . L). rLCti I I I L I I(J.
July 26 , 1983
Page 11
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, AND SECOND BY PORTER SECTION 4. 7. 03 WAS
APPROVED WITH THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Winchell
4 . 7 . 04 Standards
4 . 7. 05 Front Yard Ground Floor Setbacks
4 . 7 .06 Side Yard Setbacks
4 . 7. 07 Rear Yard Setbacks
Secretary Patin explained that these have been changed to bring
them into line with the change in District 2, to scale down to
30 units per acre.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDEDBY PORTER TO APPROVE
4 .7 .04 , 4 . 7 .05 , 4 . 7 .06 , and 4 . 7 .08 .
Commissioner Winchell raised the question of the PAR and the
six story height, and Commissioner Porter stated that it might be
appropriate to split this district; showing office-professional/
residential uses to the east and south and leaving the full mix
of uses in the main body of the area.
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER THE MAIN MOTION WAS
AMENDED TO OMIT SECTION 4. 7. 04, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Porter, Winchell
NOES: Livengood
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
Section 4 . 7. 04 was deferred to subsequent meeting.
4 . 7. 08 Upper Story Setbacks
jea_nine Frank stated that this section should be corrected to
read the same as before in District 2: "Covered portion of all
stories above the second shall be set back an average of an addi-
tional 10 feet from the second story facade. " She also inquired
if the same open space standards should be applied to the area
transferred from District 4 to District 5 as those placed on the
rest of District 5. Consensus on the latter change was to go
with staff' s suggestion and apply the same open space standards.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER SECTION 4.7. 08 WAS
APPROVED WITH THE TWO AMENDMENTS ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 7 - 09 Maximum Lot Coverage
4 . 7 . 10 Minimum Public Open Space Requirements
4—.7--11 Plaza Requirements
-11- 7-26-81
Minutes , H .B. Planning Commission
July 26 , 1983
Page 12
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTIONS 4. 7 . 09 , 4 .7 . 10 ,
and 4 . 7 . 11 WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES : None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
At the conclusion of discussion on this particular district, the
Commission asked that staff check carefully to make sure that no im-
portant item has been overlooked in this review and point out any
omissions at the next meeting. Chairman Porter also requested that
if staff finds any changes or improvements necessary in the area trans-
ferred from District 4 east to District 5 those changes be brought
back to the Commission for review.
4 . 8 DISTRICT #6 : MIXED USE, GENERAL COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL
Chairman Porter directed that the "Purpose" section be amended to add
that the district encompasses the area north of the downtown core
and the public library.
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD SECTION 4 . 8 WAS APPROVED
WITH THE ABOVE AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 8 . 01 Minimum Parcel Size:
4 . 8 . 02 Permitted Uses
The Commission discussed existing uses in this district and the loca-
tions of the Coastal Zone and Oldtown boundaries as they pertain to
this area. Chairman Porter expressed the feeling that much of the
undeveloped property abutting this district but not included in the
Specific Plan (particularly below Frankfort Street) should be dealt with
in some other fashion than just leaving it as a residential area, sug-
gesting that any such treatment should be compatible with what is
being planned here for Lake Street. Staff responded that it would be
possible to continue District 5 up to Frankfort and over the Pacific
Electric railroad right-of-way (abandoned) , possibly by creating a
5-a and 5-b designation. He also discussed the possibility of a
transportation terminal within this area. Commissioner Porter added
that any such treatment should make a good transition between Districts
5 and 6.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, SECTIONS 4 . 8. 01. AND
4 . 8 . 02 WERE APPROVED AND STAFF DIRECTED TO PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE
AREA OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT AND THE P.E. RIGHT OF WAY AS DISCUSSED
ABOVE FOR COMMISSION REVIEW AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
-12- 7-26-83 - P.C.
Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission
July 26, 1983
Page 13
4 . 8.03 Density
In response to a question from Commission, staff explained that
the density of 35 units per acre proposed here had been arrived
at through an effort to obtain viable mixed-use development in
the area. Commissioner Winchell said that because the residen-
tial density is being permitted in addition to the allowed com-
mercial she would prefer to see that density more in keeping
with the residential densities surrounding it.
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD SECTION 4 . 8. 03
WAS APPROVED WITH RESIDENTIAL DENSITY REDUCED TO A MAXIMUM OF
25 UNITS PER ACRE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 8 . 04 Intensity
4. 8. 05 Front Yard Ground Floor Setbacks
4. 8. 06 Side YardSetbacks
4. 8 . 07 Rear Yard Setbacks
4 .8 . 08 Upp
er Story Setbacks
_Staff explained that the proposed wording in . 08 would set the
whole building back 25 feet from the right-of-way, and Commis-
sion determined that correction should not be made.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTION 4 . 8 . 04
WAS DEFERRED AND SECTIONS 4. 8. 05, 4 .8 . 06 , 4. 8. 07, AND 4. 8. 08
WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES : None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 9 DISTRICT #7 : VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL
4. 9.01 Minimum Parcel Size
Staff reported that a letter had been received .from the property
owner requesting deletion of the requirement for full block
consolidation. Since the area is in one parcel, staff and the
Commission concurred. Also, under "permitted Uses" Ueanine
Frank requested that the same treatment as previously applied
to visitor-serving be applied here - that the entire street level
or one-third of the floor area be devoted to visitor-serving uses .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTIONS 4 .9 AND
4 .9 . 01, WERE APPROVED AS AMENDED ABOVE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mlrjhangir
-13- 7-26-83 - P.C.
Minutes , H.B . Planning Commission
July 26 , 1983
Page 14
4 . 9 . 02 Permitted Uses
Staff reported that this area allows residential as a conditional
use in this primarily commercial area. They are recommending here
the same wording as in . 01 above governing the area required for
visitor-serving footage.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE
SECTION 4 . 9 . 02 .
Chairman Porter stated that he would be voting against the motion
because, other than the existing residential, he does not believe
that this district should allow additional development of residen-
tial units. He also noted that elimination of the residential would
make the existing mobile home parks non-conforming. Discussion en-
sued as to methods of retaining the mobile home parks presently in
existence without allowinq any further permits for residential . The
list of permitted uses was also reviewed, and the consensus was to
leave Item (a) off this list, so that only visitor-serving commercial
would be allowed.
AS MAKER OF THE MOTION LIVENGOOD AMENDED THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL TO:
1) CHANGE THE TITLE OF THE DISTRICT TO DELETE REFERENCE TO RESIDEN-
TIAL; 2) STRIKE ITEM 4 . 9 . 02 (a) ; AND TO DELETE "RESIDENTIAL USES" IN
(c) . THE SECOND CONCURRED, AND THE AMENDED MOTION PASSED BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES : None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 9 . 03 Density
This section was eliminated from the text by consensus.
4 . 9 . 04 Intensity
4 . 9 . 05 Setbacks
4 . 9 . 06 Maximum Lot Coverage
. 9 . 07 Corridor Dedication
Jeanine Frank informed the Commission the property owner has also sub-
mitted a letter finding the proposed potential requirement to dedi-
cate a portion of the abandoned Pacific Electric railroad right-of-way
between Atlanta and Pacific Coast Highway totally unacceptable. She
added that such a corridor is identified in the General Plan and
the Coastal Land Use Plan as one of the policies to preserve the
right-of-way for future transit use. It is the staff ' s proposal that
the wording be changed to read: "In any development in District 7
dedication of a 40 foot corridor in close proximity to one of the
former Pacific Electric rights-of-way which extended across Atlanta
Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway . . . etc. , etc. "
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO DEFER
SECTION 4 . 9. 04 , APPROVE SECTIONS 4 . 9 . 05 AND 4 . 9 . 06 , AND DEFER 4 . 9 . 07
TO ALLOW STAFF TO ANALYZE WORDING ON THE CORRIDOR AND CONSIDER RE-
QUIRING EQUIVALENT ACREAGE NOT NECESSARILY PARALLELING THE RIGHT OF
WAY.
-14- 7-26-83 - P .C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
July 26 , 1983
Page 15
Chairman Porter then discussed the proposed setbsck in this dis-
trict, saying that for a parcel of this size a 25 foot setback
is too shallow compared to setbacks on other major highways in
the City. Staff and the Commission discussed use of setbacks for
parking and the code-permitted one-for one tradeoff in land-
scaping for intrusion into the 50 foot setback on arterials.
In response to a question from Commissioner Livengood, Secretary
Palin responded that multi-story would be handled here in the
same way as upper story setbacks have been handled tonight in the
other districts .
* MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL TO AMEND THE PRIOR MOTION TO REQUIRE
* 50 FOOT SETBACK ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN THIS DISTRICT,
MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Porter, Winchell
NOES: Livengood
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED, DEFERRING .04 , APPROVING . 05, APPROV-
ING . 06 WITH AN AMENDMENT TO LIMIT LOT COVERAGE TO 50 PERCENT,
AND DEFERRING .07 , PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
4 . 9. 08 Mobile Home Zoning
The Commission requested that the wording in this section be
carefully structured to assure the legality of the existing
mobile home parks without encouraging or allowing new ones to
be developed.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTION 4 .9. 08
WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
At this point in the meeting, .the Commission ended discussion
of the Specific Plan and went on to the regular agenda. Commis-
sioner Livengood asked that staff make sure that the absent
commissioners get copies of the July 26 revised draft and that
they are given an opportunity to listen to the tape of this
meeting.
NOTE: All votes set forth above are straw votes only, pending
final Commission action on the entire Specific Plan.
-15- 7-26-83 - P.C.
mom
From August 2, 1983 Planning Commission Meeting: I-
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2
Initiated by City of Huntington Beach (Continued from 7-26-83)
The Specific Plan constitutes the zone for that portion of the coastal
zone between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard in the City. The
Plan is bounded on the inland side of Walnut, Hartford, Lake and
Atlanta.
District #8
Commissioners began discussion on page 105 , at the beginning of
District 8. A letter from the Huntington Beach Company dated July 12,
I' 1983, was discussed regarding their concerns with District 8 under
' Corridor Dedication and Conservation Overlay. They suggest that
"Section 4.10 .8 should be corrected to read 'a portion caf this district
has been designated with a conservation overlay ' as described in
Section 4. 15 (not 4.12 ) " . Their concern with the Corridor Dedication
was "the proposed potential requirement on Pages 104 and 106 to
dedicate a portion of the abandoned Pacific Electric Railroad
right-of-way between Atlanta and Pacific Coast is totally unacceptable
to the Huntington Beach Company. There is no justification for such a
dedication and the reference to alternative corridors is meaningless
unless such alternative corridors and the purpose of dedication are
identified in the General Plan or Specific Plan" . Regarding mobilehome
zoning the Huntington Beach Company stated that "such zoning would
perpetuate a nonconforming use and will result in the gross under-
utilization of this valuable coastal site" . They requested removal of
Section 4.9 .08 from the Specific Plan. Commissioner Livengood stated
he agreed with staff on that issue.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER ALL ITEMS ON PAGES 105 AND
106 WERE APPROVED DEFERRING SECTION 4.10 . 7 FOR LATER ACTION. SECTION
4.10.9 REMAINS , BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins , Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Schumacher
ABSTAIN: None
District #9
Commissioner Livengood asked staff what was the difference between the
minimum parcel size in this district and District 7? Jeanine Frank
stated that one was the parcel size and one was conceptual . Secretary
Palin said that it is under one ownership and the City has control . He
recommended changing the language in Section 4 .11 .01 to read "No
minimum parcel size shall be required for this district. However ,
prior to approval of any development, a conceptual plan for the entire
parcel shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Development which
is in conformance with the conceptual plan may then be permitted" .
In Section 4.11 .04 Commissioners suggested making the setback on public
streets consistent with the other districts and show that as 50 feet
. from the ultimate right-of-way. Commissioners also agreed to defer
discussion on intensity, Section 4 .11 .03 .
soil
8-2-83
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR PAGES 107 AND 108 WERE
APPROVED DEFERRING SECTION 4. 11.03 WITH OTHER CHANGES AS NOTED ABOVE,
BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Schumacher
ABSTAIN : None
District #10
Staff recommended that the boundary of District 10 be moved north to
7th Street where the co-op apartments begin extending along the beach.
Considerable discussion took place on height limitations .on the pier .
Commissioner Livengood asked if observation decks on top of structures
on the pier would be allowed. Commissioner Erskine stated he did not
like the idea of 2-story restaurants on the pier; he said you would
wind up having separate facilities . Staff stated that the Coastal
Commission agreed on that height limit . Chairman Porter said he agreed
with Commissioner Erskine with the exception of structures such as
lifeguard towers necessary for public safety. Commissioner Erskine
stated he did not even see why those had to be there. Staff said the
intent for higher limits was for vaulted ceilings and roof treatment .
Commission concensus was to specify heights on the pier separate from
heights in the rest of the district . Commissioner Livengood
recommended a 1-story limit for structures on the pier . Commission
consensus was that maximum height in the district shall be 25 feet and
no more than 1 story above the pier level . Brief discussion took place
regarding parking structures related to the possibility of interferring
.with the view.
Commissioner Livengood said that the previous draft specified widths of
public walkways as 6 feet and not less than 4 feet along the outside of
any new development, while the present draft says, "sufficient clear.
width" . Staff said they did not want to put in an actual limit .
Chairman Porter stated the Commission ought to be specific about what
we see as being added or developed on the pier . Secretary Palin said
that the drawings the Arroyo Group submitted showed restaurants back to
the waterline . Commissioner Erskine was concerned about impacting the
surfing spot on the beach. He said he supports keeping all structures
back toward the bluff area with none projecting into the water to
protect the shoreline. Chairman Porter discussed control of types of
restaurants on the pier .
MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD WITH SECOND BY HIGGINS TO APPROVE PAGE 109
WITH THE BOUNDARY FOR THE BASE DISTRICT STOPPING AT SIXTH STREET (THIS
BASE DISTRICT SHALL BE DESIGNATED 10-a) AND AN AREA DESIGNATED AS 10-b
TO EXTEND FROM SIXTH STREET TO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE
NORTH. 10-b SHALL BE RESTRICTED FOR PARKING ONLY. FURTHER INCLUDED IN
THE MOTION IS THE APPROVAL OF SECTION 4 . 12 .01 , PERMITTED USES, WITH
DIRECTION TO STAFF TO INCLUDE WORDING TO CONTROL THE OPERATION OF THE
FAST FOOD TAKEOUT WINDOWS AND PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA FOR CON-
-STRUCTION ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; DEFER SECTION 4. 12 .02, MAXIMUM
HEIGHTS ; AND APPROVE SECTIONS 4 . 12.03 , 4 . 12 .04 AND 4.12.05 ON PAGE
110 . MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
b-L-tS i
AYES : Biggins , Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NODS : None
ABSENT: Schumacher
ABSTAIN: None
District #11
Discussion took place regarding drawing the boundary. of District 11
around the co-op development because District 11 does not include the
kind of uses that that development represents . Staff said they are
legally nonconforming. Commissioner Livengood suggested that the
boundary on thig district should reflect the action taken on the
boundary of District 10 . Chairman Porter asked staff for a definition
of "small scale" beach concession stands. Ms . Frank said it was
similar to the types that presently exist . Commission requested staff
to determine their actual size and state "not to exceed a certain
amount of square footage" . Commissioner. Winchell questioned the height
of the stands . Staff said this was also determined by the height of
the present concession stands. There was some discussion by Commis-
sioner Livengood to specify height of the stands as opposed to the
height in the rest of the district but he amended that suggestion to
leave it as is for reasons of simplicity. Secretary Palin suggested
that it read, "the concessions and comfort stations" .
Commissioner Winchell referred back to Section 4. 2.09 which states an
additional 10 feet in height will be allowed for roof line treatment .
She said we do not want that here so something should reflect that the
statement made under heights in the general provisions section does not
apply in District 11 . Further discussion took place regarding the
separation between the concession stands and the number of stands . Ms .
Frank stated that much of the area north of the pier is State beach and
that they have their own criteria.
Commissioner Livengood thought that under Section 4.13 .01, Permitted
Uses , that "design review by the City" was too vague. Secretary Palin
said he preferred to leave that as is because a determination had not
yet been made by the City Council whether or not to reconstitute the
design review board. Commissioner Erskine said he would abstain on the
following straw vote.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL PAGE 111 AND 112 WERE
APPROVED WITH REVISION TO THE BOUNDARY TO REFLECT ACTION TAKEN IN
DISTRICT 10. IN SECTION 4.13 .01, PERMITTED USES, THAT BEACH CONCESSION
STANDS BE LIMITED IN SQUARE FOOTAGE AND NUMBER WITH THE INTENT TO
PROTECT THAT AREA (NO COMMERCIAL) DIRECTING STAFF TO COME UP WITH
"TIGHTER" WORDING. ALSO INCLUDE STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONER WINCHELL
REGARDING EXEMPTION OF ADDED HEIGHT FOR ROOFLINE TREATMENT. MOTION
CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE :
AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Schumacher
ABSTAIN: Erskine
8-2-83
Oil Production Overlay
Staff recommended adding a sentence to the last paragraph on page 113
to read, "The entire block will not bear the zoning suffix -01" . This
would follow the first sentence and would rezone that block for
drilling. The July 5th letter from Chevron was also discussed . Staff
said they had a concern about submitting a schedule of abandonment of
. wells , however , the end of that sentence on page 115 states that this
may be amended at the discretion of the Director upon the showing of
good cause by the oil operator. Chairman Porter questioned staff on
Condition #4 listed in the middle of page 116 which says "the company"
but does not refer to a particular company. This was resolved by
striking the words "by the company" which deals with the performance of
screening and landscaping. Commission Erskine brought up the point
that by doing this the responsibility could be construed:to be the
City' s and not the operator so the phrase "by the operator" was
inserted after "shall be screened and landscaped" to clarify the
operator ' s responsbility to provide this screening and landscaping .
Ms . Frank also noted a typing error of section markings on page 116 to
change the second "b" to "ii" . Also, staff noted a sentence was
ihadvertantly omitted from the end of Condition #1 which reads, "the
redrilled well will be produced by other new technology with fewer
visual and environmental impacts than a conventional ball and plunger
pump" .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR PAGES 113 , 114, 115 ,
116 AND 117 WERE APPROVED WITH REVISIONS AS PROPOSED BY STAFF AND
CORRECTION TO CONDITION #4 AS PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER ERSKINE, BY THE
FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE :
AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Schumacher
ABSTAIN: None
Conservation Overlay
Staff stated that they want to narrow the area down so that the overlay
would only cover the wetland and not the entire area which includes a
mobile home park.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR PAGES 119 AND 120 WERE
APPROVED WITH REVISED DRAWING OF THE MAP OF THE WETLANDS BASED ON
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SUGGESTION WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO
ADJUST THE SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT SO THERE ARE NO BLANK PAGES, BY THE
FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Schumacher
ABSTAIN: None
Discussion took place regarding a special meeting on August 9 to
continue working on the Specific Plan. Secretary Palin requested
continuing to the August 16th meeting due to the fact that the con-
sultants at Greer and Associates will need at least that time to
8-2-83
readjust their figures for the traffic circulation report to include
more arterial and road systems and allow staff time to incorporate the
changes to date .
% ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2 AND
ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2 (DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN) WERE CONTINUED TO THE
AUGUST 16, 1983 MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Schumacher
ABSTAIN: None
MINUTES DRA�i�
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
Council Chambers Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
TUESDAY, AUGUST 16 , 1983 - 6 :00 PM
C,QivU,4ISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Porter, Winchell, Livengood,
Mirjahangir
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher
CIRCULATION FOR DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach
Planner Mike Adams presented the base map of the existing arterials
and described a partial history of those streets. He outlined the
three alternatives presented by staff as follows:
Alternative 1: This alternative shows Lake Street meeting Orange
Avenue via 3rd Street, with through traffic required to continue down
6th Street or turn to the left and continue down Lake Street. This
layout is construed as a means to empty the beaches and move the
traffic out as quickly as possible rather than taking the traffic
back into residential neighborhoods along Lake and Main Streets.
Indianapolis is planned to tie into this overall system.
Alternative 2 : This alternative represents pretty closely the adopted
alignment of the Lake/Orange/Atlanta interchange as precise planned.
The decision of a motorist here will be to go on to the east or down
to the coast; it actually represents just the squaring off of the
existing intersection. This alternative also shows Main coming in
and taking 6th Street to the ocean, and brings Main into the "super-
block" area and stopping in that location.
Mr. Adams noted that the staff has received a letter from the
Southern Pacific Land Comp'any indicating that they realize that the
adopted precise plan presents certain constraints to the develop-
ment of their property but they feel they can work within those
constraints. Their concern is that they need to know the parameters
in which the City will expect them to design as early as possible.
Alternative 3-: This alternative ties Indianapolis into the overall
circulation and shows how it can also become a way of getting from
Beach Boulevard to Pacific Coast Highway. It would also go over to
6th Street, but the primary emphasis is from from Beach Boulevard
to the ocean and back to Beach, with a choice of going downtown if
desired. Lake Street as it is existing now would be diverted to
become an extension of Indianapolis.
Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission
August 16 , 1983
Page 2
All alternatives show Delaware as another major means of getting
back and forth to the ocean, and all alignments involve existing
. residential areas to a greater or lesser degree. Also in all the
alternatives the primary consideration is the use of Pacific Coast
Highway, Orange, 6th Street, and Lake as the backbone system for
whatever circulation pattern is developed. Staff is. proposing to
take the designation presently on 5th Street and transfer it over
to 6th Street. All alternatives also show the extension of Wal-
nut Avenue as a means of getting traffic from the downtown corri-
dor to Beach Boulevard.
The Commission discussed the various proposals.
Indianapolis Avenue:
Commissioner Higgins indicated that he was not sure about the con-
figuration of Indianapolis coming down and tying into 6th Street;
however, since Main Street north of Indianapolis really doesn' t go
anywhere (or has the potential not to go anywhere because of what
may happen in the Gothard Corridor) feeding a lot of traffic up the
Main Street route would not seem wise, so perhaps Indianapolis
may be the best choice. He asked staff to consider the merits of
trying to use 17th Street instead.
Commissioner Winchell asked that would happen at the top of 6th
Street if Indianapolis ties in there. Staff responded that land
would have to be acquired and some streets could be abandoned; there
are also some vacant parcels and some commercial properties in-
volved. Sixth Street would actually travel on Main for the part of
the block necessary to make the transition. There are no cost
estimates on acquiring the needed right-of-way for this alternative.
Mike Adams pointed out that the Indianapolis alternative looks at a
longer-range treatment of the traffic problems and staff has placed
emphasis on it even though it would go through residential neigh-
borhoods. Secretary Palin said that even if some traffic would
filter onto Lake that street has for years been a primary developed
out at 90 feet and could carry the additional load.
Commissioner Higgins inquired if there could be any advantage to
extending Indianapolis over to Main to accomplish the objective
in Alternative 3 . Les Evans replied that it could be done but it
would involve a combining of the two alternatives and would still
become 6th Street further down. However, it would require the tak-
ing of homes on already developed property, while the alignment
being proposed would require no taking of any developed property.
Main Street:
Les Evans reported that the Department of Public Works wishes to re-
tain Main as an option, noting that Main and Lake are both very wide
and could carry 15,000 vehicles per day without the residents there
-2- 8-16-83 - P.C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
August 16 , 1983
Page 3
perceiving heavy traffic; and the option needs to be preserved to
use both streets. In response to questioning from Commission,
he said that the Department is advocating that Main preserve its
present configuration to Five Points.
Orange/Lake/Atlanta
Commissioner Livengood indicated that the problem he sees with
this interconnection is that it will result in traffic impacts
on the Townlot area, while more use of Pacific Coast Highway
should not result in a problem on that street. Frank Higgins
noted that Lake Street as in Alternative 1 does seem to be doing
some of the things being advocated as far as keeping the traffic
out of residential areas.
Commissioner Porter in his discussion said that he sees the
downtown circulation as two loops, one that provides traffic
circulation from the east and another one coming from the west
side, which could be as a result of an Orange/Walnut couplet over
to Goldenwest. The ideal circulation pattern would be to allow
those two loops to interconnect; however that would create prob-
lems in the Townlot area. He said that it really seems -that if
Pacific Coast Highway at six lanes has the capacity to handle
the outbound traffic you could get inbound by using the capacity
of Orange Avenue one-way from Goldenwest. He touched on the
possiblility that the circulation could be left pretty much as
it is with the exception of the Walnut Avenue extension, as it
seems inadvisable to depart from it without being sure that an
alternative would be better.
Secretary Palin informed the Commission that it is the consensus
in City departments that the City move ahead with adoption of
one of the alternatives and amend later if necessary. Given the
existing backbone network in the area and the proposed backage
road and even with modifications to one or the other of the alt-
ernatives, the resulting street system should be more than
adequate to accommodate what is being proposed in the Downtown
Specific Plan.
Mike Adams identified the following concepts with which the
Commission should deal: 1) Designate Atlanta Avenue as an east/
west route into the Downtown area; 2) The Commission may wish
to state that Orange Avenue will not be a primary west of 6th
Street; 3) Identify which streets should remain arterials; and
although Indianapolis west of 6th Street is outside the Specific
Plan, it should be mentioned if it is going to be incorporated
in the circulation. Commissioner Winchell emphasized that she
would not wish to see Indianapolis become an inland alternative
to Pacific Coast Highway and suggested wording that would take
it only as far as 6th Street and discourage primary use from there
on. She also asked that the Specific Plan state the intent
-3- 8-16-83 - P.C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
August 16 , 1983
Page 4
the Commission to maintain the Townlot residential areas by not
encouraging Walnut or Orange Avenues to penetrate the area beyond
6th Street.
Public Works Director Paul Cook addressed the Commission to present his
approach to the downtown circulation. He finds acceptable the con-
cept of de-emphasizing Orange west of 6th Street as it is not par-
ticularly important to the success of the Specific Plan; however,
east of 6th it is very important. The Atlanta/Orange connection
should be made as well as interconnection with Lake Street. The
north/south streets in existence should be left as a backbone system
until another, better alternative comes in through the devel-
opment process. The four-way intersection at Lake/Atlanta/Orange is
needed, with the stipulation that Lake be no more than one lane in
each direction and that Orange west of 6th be no more than one lanes
in each direction. Seventeenth should be kept to Main Street and
both streets retained as a connection; it is his opinion that the
projected traffic volumes can be handled with striping. Indianap-
olis and Atlanta should remain as they are, stopping at Lake.
Indianapolis should be put in a holding pattern, as the Specific
Plan does not justify connecting it to Main or 6th Streets . He
closed by saying that these alternatives should be considered for
a future date when development may take place.
The study session was adjourned at 7: 05 p.m. to the regular session
of the Commission.
C-2. DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach
Mike Adams began the discussion of the 10 deferred items as outlined
in the staff report.
1. Maximum Building Height - District 2
Staff is suggesting that heights in District 2 be restricted to 35 feet
and no more than 3 stories for less than a full block and to 45 feet
and no more than 4 stories for a full block.
Commissioner Winchell inquired how the height would be measured and
was assured that it would be from grade of street level, as a
new means of calculating the subterranean parking allowance had been
used.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS 4 . 4 . 04 AND
4 . 4 . 08 WERE APPROVED AS SUGGESTED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: Livengood
ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher
-4- 8-16783 - P.C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
August 16, 1983
Page 5
2. Intensities within District 3
Mike Adams reported that maximum FAR for one-half block would
be 2; for one-half block to a full block, 2.5; for a full
block, 3. 25; and for multi-block development, 3.5. Staff has
made a change in the calculation for FAR; it will now be calcu-
lated on gross acreage except that the resultant floor area may
not exceed by more than 15 percent of what would be allowed if
the net site area were used for calculation. The FAR's will
apply to the entire project area. In conjunction with that, staff
has re-drafted the height restrictions for District 3. In the old
text heights, FAR, and coverage were all handled as one; now
coverage is handled in 4. 5.08 and the maximum for the entire
District 3 will be 50 percent and to offset that structures
taller than 4 stories will have an additional 2.5 p4rcent of
the net lot area in public open space for each story over 4 . The
discussion of the intensity of District 3 covers the intensity but
also heights, upper story setbacks, maximum lot coverage, and min-
imum open space requirements. Staff is also asking the Commission
to reconsider its previous deletion of the "residential" designation
from this district.
Mr. Adams also informed the Commission that heights now proposed
in this district are as follows:
Less than one-half block 3 stories
One-half to full block . . . . 4 stories
Full block n/o Main . . . . . . 6 stories
Full block s/o Main . . . . . . 8 stories
Multi-block n/o Main . . . . . 8 stories
Multi-block s/o Main . . . . . . 12 stories
In the discussion on heights, Commissioner Livengood expressed
the desire to •reduce the full block north of Main to 4 stories,
the full block south of Main to 6 stories, the multi-block
north of Main to 6 , and the multi-block south of Main to 8
stories. Commissioner Winchell concurred with this approach.
Commissioner Mirjahangir also agreed with the reduction in
heights, saying he would like to see Areas 3 and 5 tied together.
He noted that if added heights induce new development in Area 3
it will reduce the chance of development in Area 5. Mike Adams
conceded that the Plan does provide greater incentive for District
3 because it is hoped that higher intensite developments in
District 3 will halp in getting public improvements in conjunc-
tion with the pierhead area. Another node where these incentives
are needed is in District 6 , where the "super-block" is located.
Commissioner Porter indicated that he also would be amenable to
Livengood' s suggestion, noting that he would have personally
been even more restrictive in terms of how the heights are
stepped down from north to south.
-5- 8-16-83 P.C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission '
August 16 , 1983
Page 6
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL SECTION 4. 5 . 04 WAS
APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING
STRAW VOTE:
Less than one-half block - 3 stories
One-half to full block - 4 stories
Full block n/o Main - 4 stories
Full block s/1 Main - 6 stories
Multi-block n/o Main - 6 stories
Multi-block s/o Main - 8 stories
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher
In a brief discussion staff indicated that they are still comfort-
able with the FAR' s for this district even with the reduced heights.
Secretary Palin informed the Commission that S. 4. 5.07 , relating to
setbacks from 6th Street, is no longer necessary given the above
action.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER SECTION 4. 5. 07 WAS
DELETED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher
S. 4 . 5 . 08 - Maximum lot coverage.
S. 4 . 5 . 09 - Minimum public open space requirements.
Mike Adams clarified site coverage by saying that the FAR for a full
block will be reduced to 3. 0. Staff will recalculate all the
others to assure that they are still workable.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS 4. 5. 08 AND
4 . 5 . 09 WERE APPROVED WITH THE AMENDED 3.0 FAR BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher
S. 4. 5. 12 Pedestrian Overpass
This was an item deferred for failure to agree at the last meeting
on the inclusion of "underpass" in the title of the section. Brief
discussion ensued.
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SECTION 4.5. 12 WAS
APPROVED AS TITLED IN THE TEXT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell , Mirjahangir
NOES: Livengood, Porter
ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher
-6- 8-16-83 - P.C.
• Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
August 16, 1983
Page 7
DISTRICT 5
5. 4 . 7. 04
Mike Adams reported that staff is recommending the following:
Less than half-block - 3 stories, 1. 5 FAR
Half-block to full - 3 stories, 2. 0 FAR
Full block - 6 stories, 2.5 FAR
The Commission discussed treatment of the portion of District
4 that had previously been included in District 5, and staff
recommended that this action be reconsidered and the area re-
inserted in 4. After reviewing the nature of the uses allowed
in each district, commissioner Livengood requested that a decision
be made on the maximum number of stories to be permitted in
the district and then the matter of reassigning the half blocks
in question could be decided.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL 5. 4 . 7. 04 WAS
APPROVED WITH THE STORIES FOR A FULL BLOCK REDUCED TO 4 AND THE
MAXIMUM FAR TO BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT; Erskine, Schumacher
Commissioner Livengood discussed the four-story height limit
which has now been placed on District 5 and indicated that
staff' s recommendation seems to provide a buffer zone; he con-
cluded that perhaps the area in question might provide A
better cushion if replaced in District 4.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE STAFF' S
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE RECONFIGURATION OF DISTRICTS 4 AND 5
WERE APPROVED AS OUTLINED, BY THE FOLLOWING ,VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher
Commissioner Livengood asked that the Commission take a straw
vote on the reconsideration of the maximum FAR to be allowed
in District 3 based on the Commission' s action in lowering the
allowable building heights.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL STAFF WAS DIRECTED
TO RE-ASSESS THE MAXIMUM PAR BASED ON THE ADJUSTED HEIGHTS IN
DISTRICT 3, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher
-7- 8-16-83 - P.C.
Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission
August 16 , 1983
Page 8
Item 5 - Intensities for District 6
Mike Adams reported that the following is being recommended by staff :
100 feet or less 2 stories, 1. 25 FAR
101 feet up to half block 3 stories, 1. 5 FAR
One-half to full block 3 stories, 2. 0 FAR
Full Block 4 stories, 2. 25 FAR
He informed the Commission that there is a good potential for con-
solidation and that major developments could occur with the City
working in conjunction with property owners.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE DENSITIES FOR
DISTRICT 6 AS PROPOSED BY STAFF WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher
Item 6 - Intensities for District 7
Staff is recommending here a maximum FAR of 3 . 0; there is no height
limit being proposed, but there is a maximum lot coverage of 50
percent. The Commission was reminded that it had removed the resi-
dential designation from this district. After extensive discussion,
it was the consensus of the Commission that a height limitation
should be placed on this district and that such limit should reason-
ably relate to what is being applied to abutting districts.
ON MOTION BY LIEVNGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION IM-
POSED A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 8 STORIES IN DISTRICT 7 AND DIR-
ECTED STAFF TO RETITLE S. 4 . 9 . 03 TO READ "MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND INTEN-
SITY, " BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood,, Porter, Winchell , Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher
S. 4 . 9. 07
Mike Adams offered wording for the dedication of right-of-way which
had been contested by the Huntington Beach Company, owner of the
subject property, as follows: "The dedication of a 20 foot corri-
dor between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway may be required
for public access between the southern end of the Pacific Electric
right-of-way and Pacific Coast Highway. This requirement may be
waived if an alternative public amenity is provided or if the
corridor is deemed unnecessary by the City. A proposal for an alt-
ernative public amenity must be approved by the Planning Commission. "
Mr. Adams said one of the reasons the corridor is important is that be-
cause of the traffic volume on Lake Street the bike lane is going
to have to be removed and a logical place for that bike lane would
.be on the old right-of-way abandoned by the railroad. Brief discus-
sion took place.
-8- 8-16-83 - P.C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commissiertf
August 16 , 1983
Page 9
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE WORDING
CONCERNING THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AS SUGGESTED ABOVE BY
STAFF WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher
Item 8
Mike Adams asked that the same wording as applied above be
applied to District 8 , directly to the north of District 7.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR STAFF'S
RECOMMENDED ACTION WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher
Item 9 Intensity in District 9
Mike Adams said that a maximum FAR of 4 is being proposed here,
and staff can incorporate upper story setbacks off Beach and
Pacific Coast Highway or the backage road if the Commission de-
sire.
Tome Livengood expressed the feeling that some height limita-
tion should be imposed on this district, as it should not
result in taking the primary focus of the Specific Plan away
from Area 3. Since an 8 story limit was placed on Area 7 , he
felt that some logical step-down in heights should be considered.
Mr. Adams explained that staff feels that this area could prob-
ably handle the highest structures since is is a large area
and could provide substantial setbacks.
Staff and the Commission reviewed the elevation differential
between this district, District 3, and other nearby districts.
It was concluded that because of this differential a higher
structure could be placed within this district than those in
3 and still not visually appear to be higher.
Commissioner Porter said that he agreed with staff that this
parcel has the greatest potential for highrise buildings and
would be the most appropriate place in the Plan for a large
hotel facility, both because of the size of the site and the
available traffic circulation. He suggested that 12 stories
might be an appropriate height allowance.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD TO PUT A HEIGHT LIMITATION ON
DISTRICT 9 OF 10 STORIES. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Further discussion of the area took place, including- the pos-
sibility of reducing both FAR and the building footprint;
however, no conclusion was arrived at and the item deferred
by consensus of the Commission.
-9- 8-16-83 P.C.
Minutes, H .B. Planning Commission
August 16 , 1983
Page 10
Item 10 4 . 12 .02 in District 10
Staff informed the Commission that the Plan reads "Maximum height
shall be 25 feet and 2 stories above the pier level. Heights on
the pier shall be limited to one story, with exceptions for life-
guard towers and other facilities necessary for public safety. "
Several of the commissioners expressed dissatisfaction with the
2 story provision and discussion took place on separating the area
north and south of the pier by placing different regulations on each.
Staff explained that if an overpass is to be provided it will be
necessary to have a second story on the beach side of the highway.
Commissioner Winchell noted that this would block off views of the
ocean and was assured that the construction would not be a continu-
ous line of buildings.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS S. 4. 12. 02 WAS APPROVED
AS AMENDED TO REFLECT THAT 2 STORIES WOULD BE ALLOWED ABOVE PIER
LEVEL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PIER, 1 STORY ON THE PIER, AND 1
STORY ABOVE PIER TEVEI: ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PIER, BY THE FOLLOW-
ING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: Winchell
ABSFNT: Erskine, Schumacher
At this point in the meeting the Commission decided to return to
the regular agenda.
Staff will update and re-do the FAR' s as directed and Commissioner
Higgins requested that staff prepare some graphic depiction of what
the Commission has done on heights on Pacific Coast Highway in
Districts 3 , 7 , and 9.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION CONTINUED
DISCUSSION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO A SPECIAL ADJOURNED MEETING ON
AUGUST 23 , 1983, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher
NOTE: ALL MOTIONS SET FORTH IN THESE MINUTES ARE STRAW VOTES ONLY,
PENDING FINAL APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
-10- 8-16-83 - P.C.
MINUTES DIMFT
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
ADJOURNED MEETING
Council Chambers - Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
TUESDAY, AUGUST 23 , 1983 - 7 : 00 PM
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Erskine, Livengood, Winchell, Higgins,
Schumacher, Mirjahangir
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Porter
In the absence of Chairman Porter Vice-Chairman Livengood con-
ducted the meeting.
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach
The staff presentation will follow as closely as possible the
8-23-83 staff report for clarity. However, Secretary Palin
noted that staff -will- also wish to address the handouts given
to the Commission this evening - the response to the July 12
letter from the Huntington Beach Company, a diagram of Districts
7, 8, and 9 showing the mobine home zoning areas, an outline of
how staff is proposing to organize each district in the Specific
Plan for ease in locating zoning provisions, and the updated
Greer Report on projected downtown traffic and circulation.
Item 1 : S. 4 .11 .03 - Intensity in District 9
Item 2: S. 4 .11 . 04 - Maximum Building Height in District 9
Mike Adams prefaced his presentation on this item by calling
the attention of the Commission to the drawing depicting the
relative heights in districts abutting Pacific Coast Highway,
pointing out that this drawing represents heights and heights
only and not building density or bulk. The grade differentials
between the districts effectively mitigate the visual effects
of the different heights which the Commission has recommended.
(This had been requested by the Commission when it deferred
action on building heights in District 9 . ) Staff is recommend-
ing that if any height restriction is placed on this district
it allow 12 stories.
Mr. Adams compared the heights, lot coverages , and floor area
ratios in Districts 3 , 7, and 9 . Commissioner Mirjahangir
indicated that he would like to see the FAR in this district re-
duced to 3 .5 because he is concerned that heights allowed in
District 9 will provide an inducement for that district to deV-
elop ahead of District 3 . In response to questioning from
Commissioner Schumacher, Secretary Palin concurred that with a
35 percent lot coverage a FAR of 4.0 could result in some tall
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
August 23 , 1983
Page 2
structures. He further indicated that a 3 . 5 FAR with no height
limit would be acceptable to staff in this area . Further discus-
sion took place between staff and the Commission in regard to
uses allowed in the district and height limits.
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS, SECTIONS 4 . 11 . 03
AND 4 . 11.. 04 WERE APPROVED WITH A MAXIMUM FAR OF 3 . 5 , A 35 PERCENT
LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM, AND NO LIMITIATION ON PERMITTED STORIES, BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: Erskine, Livengood
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
Item 3 : S. 4 . 0 . 04 - Definitions
Mike Adams presented the definitions as recommended by staff for
building facade and residual parcels, with which Commission con-
curred. However, the proposal to define north and south as being
relative to the direction of Pacific Coast Highway engendered dis-
cussion. Staff explained that this has been proposed because of
the angle at which the downtown streets are constructed and the re-
sultant confusion in designating directions on the plan. The
Commission discussed the historical custom of using the direction of
Beach Boulevard as north, and determined not to depart from that
usage.
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTION 4 .0 . 04 WAS
APPROVED FOR "FACADE" AND "RESIDUAL PARCELS" AND WITH THE DELETION
OF THE DEFINITIONS PROPOSED FOR "NORTH" AND "SOUTH, " BY THE FOLLOW-
ING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
_Item 4 : S. 4 . 1. 02 - Special Permit
Mike Adams informed the Commission that the Special Permit process
presently in the Specific Plan document says "Special permit shall be
granted with the-exception of maximum density, parking, and building
height. " Staff is now recommending that that wording be changed to
read " . . . with the exceptions of maximum density or parking re-
quirements and maximum heights in Districts 1, 2, and 4 . " This will
allow the Planning Commission separate review of proposed develop-
ment projects in the downtown area that may exceed the building heights
and allow flexibility.
Legal counsel De la Loza, noting that the wording might imply that a
developer could request a special permit for either density or park-
ing but not both, suggested addition of "and/or" in the sentence.
-2- 8-23-83 - P.C.
Minutes, H. B. Planning Commission
August 23, 1983
Page 3
Commissioner Livengood,
nowever, expressed his opinion that the special permit will
open the door for each -individual developer to ask for more
height and building bulk. It will constitute a loophole in
the Specific Plan and the height restrictions should remain
as set forth district by district. other commissioners felt
that the special permit would be a mechanism under which the
Commission could address special circumstances without having
to make adjustments to the Plan itself at a later date.
Commissioner Winchell asked that the wording be changed to
make sure that maximum density or parking requirements could
not come under the special permit in any district. She also
said that, since Districts !-',' 2, and 4 are- directly' adjacent
existing residential, it would definitely not be desirable to
permit any flexibility in heights. in those buffer districts.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER SECTION 4 .1 .02
WAS APPROVED WITH THE AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY LEGAL COUNSEL
DE LA LOZA AND COMMISSIONER WINCHELL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir, Erskine
NOES: Livengood
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
Item 5: 4.1.05 - AZpeals from Director's Decisions
Mike Adams explained that throughout the document the Director's
decisions are the deciding factor for a number of issues, so
the staff is recommending that the wording in all such instances
be changed to the General Provisions to state: "The decision
of the Director of Development Services on non-zoning matters
may be appealed to the City Administrator and his decisions on
all zoning matters may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Ad-
justments. " Secretary Palin further explained that such an
appeal to the BZA Would then follow the regular appeal channels
provided by District 9; i.e. , to the Planning Commisison and
thence to City Council if necessary.
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SECTION 4.1 .05 WAS
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
Item 6: 4. 2. 04 Parking
Mr. Adams informed tfie Commission,
that, due to confusion as to
what constituted "subterranean" and "semi-subterranean" parking,
Planning staff has worked out a- defintion and table of lot
coverage allowance for such uses, as presented in the staff re-
port.
,-3- 8-23-83 - P.C.
Minutes, H. B. Manning Commission
August 23 , 198.3
Page 4
He pointed out that in the document at present anything under 42"
above grade is counted at 50 percent lot coverage , and the new
formula will provide a sliding scale for inches above adjacent
! grade from zero to 42 inches . In response to Commission discus-
sion and questions, staff responded that 42 inches has been the
traditional cut-off mark for anything allowed within a setback
and that anything over that height has always been considered a
structure that. must be sited behind the setback lines, hence the re-
quirement that anything above 42 inches be counted at 100 percent
for lot coverage calculations .
Commissioners Higgins and Mirjahangir questioned whether or not
i the 42 inches might be somewhat low, suggesting that it might be
allowed to go up for four or five feet without requiring. the
structure to be counted at 100 percent of lot coverage. Staff ex-
plained that the height was set because of historical precedent as
noted above and also that anything higher than the 42 inches might
present a box-like appearance from outside a development, while the
lower height will provide more of a feeling of open space.
Commission and legal counsel discussed more accurate wording to
make sure that no ambiguities remain in the height designations;
staff will correct the wording to that effect.
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY HIGGINS S. 4 . 2.04 WAS APPROVED
AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, WITH CHANGES IN MEASUREMENTS AS REQUIRED TO
ELIMINATE AMBIGUITIES AS ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Winchell , Higgins, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
After the vote, staff informed the Commission upon request that the
height would be figured from the highest point on the adjacent
street.
Item 7 : 4 . 2. 27 - Multi-Block Consolidation
Mike Adams reported that under (g) , Street Vacations, in this sec-
tion there are a number of items. Point iv of this title refers
to maintaining the width of the right-of-way when a street is vacated .
Staff is recommending that this reference be taken out of the
General Provisions and put into District 2 where it is desired to
maintain the right-of-way through the Townlot area for pedestrian
access over and across.
Commissioner Schumacher questioned the desirability of allowing
public right-of-way across private property and the matters of
privacy and liability that could arise from such action, citing ex-
perience the City has had in other areas from such a provision. She
also noted that requiring a developer to put an easement in the
middle of his project does not seem to encourage multi-block con-
solidation, which is one of the aims of the Specific Plan.
-4- 8-23-83 - P.C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
August 23, 1983
Page 5
Secretary Palin explained that pedestrian access is a require-
ment of the Coastal Act and the City must comply. However, it
could be established that there be easements for a certain amount
of frontage, possibly one access for every two blocks . Wording
` could be added that would state that where a street vacation
allows a consolidated parcel of more than 600 feet there shall be
a public accessway provided.
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION DIR-
ECTED STAFF TO DELETE SECTION 4 . 2 . 27 AND AMEND SECTION 4 . 4 .10
(IN DISTRICT 2) TO ADD THE WORDING THAT "A PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT
SHALL ONLY BE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT
WHERE CONSOLIDATION WILL CREATE A PARCEL EXCEEDING 600 FEET IN
LENGTH, " BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Winchell, Higgins , Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
Item 8 : 4 . 3 - District Map, District 1
Staff explained that this is a request that in this non-contiguous
district a letter be attached to identify the separate sections
of the district. In the northwest portion of the map the desig-
nation of 1-a will be attached, the area around 17th Street will
be 1-b, and the area down between 8th and 9th Streets will be 1-c .
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE DISTRICT MAP FOR
DISTRICT ONE WAS AMENDED TO REFLECT THE ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
Item 9: 4 . 4 . 03 - Density- District 2 (Lot Size,Frontage)
Mike Adams said that this item is to permit 50 foot lots or 17th
Street or Goldenwest to have a maximum of four units, in lieu
of the present three permitted units in the Specific Plan docu-
ment. He stated that this will give owners parity with previously
developed lots in the same areas.
The Commission discussed what it felt had been the intent to
allow fourplexes on residual parcels only where development on
either side would preclude consolidation; staff responded by
saying that this amendment would take all lots on 17th and Gold-
enwest and treat them equally without consideration of whether
or not they were residual. These streets had been selected
because they are arterials .
-5- 8-23-83 - P.C.
Minutes , 11. 13. Planning Commission
August 23 , 1983
Page 6
Secretary Palin reviewed the history of the Townlot Specific Plan ,
informing the Commission that* it has been many years since a four-
. plex had been granted there. The triplexes presently allowed in the
District will be the same density as allowed in the Townlot, al-
though it is a downzoning from the R4 on some of the properties out-
side the Townlot.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE STAFF 'S RECOMMENDATION FOR
FOURPLEXES ON 50- FOOT LOTS. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECONDED BY HIGGINS TO LEAVE
SECTION 4 . 4 . 03 AS IT IS IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND MAKE NO CHANGES.
Commissioner Erskine stated that he will be voting against the motion
because he feels that it does not establish equity for the parcels
which are presently R4 upon which a fourplex could be built under the
present zoning.
Commissioner Livengood commented that his vote in favor of the mo-
tion will be based on the fact that standards have been established
in the Specific Plan and any owner of R4 property should be able to
construct units under those standards which will provide a return on
his investment.
MOTION TO MAKE NO CHANGE PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : Erskine
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
Item 10 : S . 4 . 4 . 10 Street Vacation - District 2
Staff noted that this item has been approved by a prior' action on
Item 7 , page 4 of these minutes.
Item 11: S. 4 . 5 . 01 - Minimum Parcel Size, District 3
Mr. Adams said that in reviewing the minimum parcel size staff had
determined that a half block was not the most realistic number for
small consolidations and is now recommending that the minimum parcel
size be 100 feet of frontage and 10,000 square feet in area, and that
a waiver of this requirement may be granted by the Director for
residual parcels where the adjacent parcels are already developed.
The original recommendation was found to possibly be discouraging
existing property owners from achieving significant developments on
the smaller parcels, with the waiver allowing flexibility in
special instances .
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR S. 4 .5.01 WAS APPROVED
AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher
ABSTAIN: None
-6- 8-23-83 - P.C.
• Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
August 23 , 1983
Page 7
Item 12: S. 4 . 5 .02 - Permitted Uses, District 3
Staff is asking for minor changes: just shifting auditoriums and
motels from uses permitted with a conditional use permit to uses
permitted by a use permit, and adding theaters under uses per-
mitted by a use permit.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE S . 4-.5 .02 WAS APPROVED
AS RECOMMENDED ABOVE BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher
ABSTAIN: None
Item 13: S. 4. 5. 02 . - Permitted Uses, District 3
In this section staff is also recommending that the Commission
reconsider its prior deletion of residential uses from this
district and re-insert residential uses and time-sharing resi-
dential in (C) of this section. It is staff 's feeling that the
residential potential may be a deciding 'factor in whether or
not the City will have developers interested in the downtown
area and may be a very crucial element for mixed-use develop-
ments.
The prior action was reviewed for Commissioner Schumacher, who
had been absent from the meeting when the residential was
deleted. After extensive discussion of its reasons for removing
the residential uses, Commissioner Schumacher said that her
basic concern had been the development of a viable economic
center for the City and if removing residential from District 3
encourages the other districts to develop their residential
uses first that should enhance the need for commercial in 3 .
Given the Commission's establishment of height restrictions,
she can support the preservation of the area for commercial .
Commissioner Winchell suggested that perhaps residential could
be allowed on one side of Main and not the other, since the
higher buildings had been moved over to the east, and asked if
the district could, be divided by an (a) and (b) designation.
Mike Adams indicated that would not be necessary because the
text could simply carry an asterisk next to the residential
uses with a footnote stating that they would be allowed in speci-
fied areas only.
Commissioner Higgins reminded the Commission to keep in mind
that the residential had never been intended to occupy an entire
building and the lowered heights would proportionally lower
the residential units which could be built.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL SECTION 4,,. 5.02 WAS
AMENDED TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL AND TIME SHARING RESIDENTIAL USES
IN DISTRICT 3 ONLY IN THE AREA NORTHWEST OF MAIN STREET, BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: Schumacher
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN; None -7- 8-23-83 - P.C.
Minutes, II. B. Planning Commission
August 23 , 1983
Page 8
Item 14 : 4 . 5 . 03 - Densities , District 3
These are the densities proposed originally when residential was
allowed in the entire district. Staff is now recommending that
these same provisions for density be incorporated into the area
northwest of Main Street where Commission has just allowed resi-
dential to go back in.
Chairman Winchell asked for calculations, using worst case possi-
bilities, to see if the allowed maximum density of 30 units per
gross acre for a full block could be attained. Staff 's calcula-
tions indicated that it could come out to 33 units/acre, and Ms.
Winchell said in that case she would recommend that the section
be amended to allow a lowering of the maximum units possible.
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER SECTION 4 . 5 .03
WAS APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF EXCEPT THAT THE MAXIMUM ALLOW-
ABLE DENSITY FOR A FULL BLOCK IN THE AREA NORTHWEST OF MAIN STREET
BE LOWERED To 25 UNITS PER GROSS ACRE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Livengood, Winchell, Mirjahangir, Schumacher
NOES : Erskine
ABSENT: Porter, Higgins
ABSTAIN: None
Item 15: S. 4 . 8 .03 - Density, District 6
Again, staff is recommending that the Commission reconsider its
prior action to place a maximum density of 25 units per gross acre
in this district and go to 30 units maximum. Staff explained that
the original recommendation for this "super-block" area had been
35 units; the Commission lowered that to 25 and staff is now ask-
ing for a compromise figure of 30.
In response to Commissioner Livengood' s inquiry for the purpose of
the proposed compromise, staff responded that the property owners
in the area have been working with a developer and a conceptual
design has been proposed; staff would like to have the flexibility
in the numbers to make negotiations easier. Mr. Livengood then
indicated support for the staff ' s proposal .
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION
DETERMINED TO MAKE NO CHANGE TO S . 4 .8 . 03 AND LEAVE THE MAXIMUM
DENSITY AT 25 UNITS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Winchell, Higgins, Schumacher , Mirjahangir
NOES : Erskine, Livengood
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
Item 16: 4 . 0 - District Map, District 8
This is a recommendation to split District 8 into (a) and (b)
sections to allow easier reference to both large parcels. She in-
, formed the Commission that each parcel is under separate ownership.
-8- 8-23-83 - P.C .
Minutes , II.B. Planning Commission
August 23, 1983
Page 9
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL DISTRICT MAP FOR
DISTRICT 8 WAS REVISED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOW-
ING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Winchall, Higgins, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
Item 17 : S. 4 .13 . 01 - Permitted Uses District 11
Staff reviewed its research and reported its recommendation
that beach concession stands should be limited to a' size of
2500 square feet. No limit has been proposed as to number of
stands to be allowed.
Commission discussion centered on a definition of the concession
stands and the question of whether or not something like this
inside another structure would also be required to comply with
a size limitation. Also reviewed was a means for limiting the
number of concessions. -
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SECTION 4 .13 . 01
WAS APPROVED WITH THE SIZE LIMITATION FOR FREESTANDING BEACH
CONCESSION STANDS SET AT 2500 SQUARE FEET WITH A DISTANCE OF
NOT LESS THAN 1,000 FEET BETWEEN SUCH STANDS, BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES : Livengood, Winchell , Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: Erskine
SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDED FORMAT OUTLINE
Mike Adams reviewed some changes in the recommended format to
make it simpler to interpret the Specific Plan document when it
is adopted. Commissioner Livengood asked that, for ease in
tracking the changes which have been made and the actions that
have been taken, there be a cross-reference in numbers in the
new document referring back to the numbers of the same section
in the original document' After discussion it was the consen-
sus of the Commission not to do this, as it could make the
approved document difficult to follow.
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE NEW PROPOSED
FORMAT OUTLINE WAS ADOPTED AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOW-
ING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell , Schumacher
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
-9- 8-23-83 - P.C.
Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission
August 23 , 1983
Page 10
Mr. Livengood then requested that staff use the existing index and
indicate on it where each item is under the new format. Staff
. will provide that as a handout.
MOBILE HOME ZONING MAP
Staff is recommending that the zoning map be inserted into the
Specific Plan document for clarification of where the existing mob-
ile home parks are located; this map will take the place of the
mobile home map on page 87 of the present report. It also shows
MH as an additional permitted use in Districts 7 , 8-b, and 9 .
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSON APPROVED
THE INSERTION INTO THE SPECIFIC PLAN THE MH ZONING MAP AND ADDITION OF
THE MOBILE HOME USE IN DISTRICTS 7 , 8-b, AND 9 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE•
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Sechumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
RESOURCE PRODUCTION OVERLAY - ATTACHMENT 2
Wording has been rearranged but the intent remains the same; the
changes are so that the overlay areas a, b, c format is consistent
within each district . The overlay now more accurately represents
the actual areas in which resource production can take place. The
new overlay also corrects some discrepancies between where the "0"
(which allows only existing operations to continue) and the "O-l"
(which allows new drilling to take place) . Each area is now accur-
ately depicted.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ATTACHMENT No. 2 WAS
APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
CONSERVATION OVERLAY - ATTACHMENT 3
This revision adds a description of the boundary developed by the
State Department of Fish and Game and includes a better map showing
where that boundary occurs .
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ATTACHMENT NO. 3 WAS
APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
.AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN : None -10- 8-23-83 - P.C .
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
August 23 , 1983
Page 11
APPENDIX ON COASTAL PERMITTING PROCESS - ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Staff explained that the Specific Plan had not carried a CZ
zoning suffix; this has been changed and it will , in fact, now
carry that suffix. This has been incorporated into the text .
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE ATTACHMENT NO. 4
WAS APPROVED AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins , Winchell , Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
CIRCULATION IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA
Mike Adams made a brief presentation on the Commission's prior
review. For the benefit of those who had not been present he
said that the Commission had talked about Alternatives A, B, and
C and discussed options on the original proposal recommended by
the consultant. This recommended Alternative A comes into the
downtown area by way of Lake, Lake into orange, and Orange div-
erting to an intersection with Atlanta and Lake. The adopted
City alignment is somewhat similar with Lake remaining pretty
much in its present configuration. The difference between those
two is that the consultant's recommendation looks at the prob-
lem from a traffic efficiency approach and the City has looked
at it from the angle of creating (or maintaining) a developable
parcel. Alternative C takes a compromise approach, looking more
or less at Alternative A and channeling traffic through the core
area and possibly using Indianapolis as a means of getting down-
town. All alternatives incorporate Delaware coming into a
point beyond the walnut extension at the present intersection of
Huntington and Pacific Coast Highway to become another north/
south access to the beach.
He summarized the Commission's discussion by saying that it had
concurred that staff is looking at the proper streets in the
downtown; that 5th Street should have its arterial status trans-
ferred over to 6th Street (with a possibility for vacation of
5th as well) ; Orange Avenue should not carry an arterial desig-
nation beyond 6th, with something designed in that intersection
to discourage through traffic flow; and Main Street should be
vacated or diverted out of the "super-block" area.
Commissioner Schumacher discussed the amount of land that would
have to be acquired to use Indianapolis as a major means of
getting downtown from Beach, and expressed the opinion that
this would be very costly. Secretary Palin said that staff is
trying to find a configuration that could get the street over
without being too detrimental to the people who live there. He
-11- 8-23-83 - P.C.
� 1 h
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
August 23 , 1983
Page 12
informed the Commission that this area will be the subject of a
study which has been promised to the City Council within the
next six months.
The three alternatives were extensively discussed among Commis-
sion and staff, taking into consideration the capacity of exist-
ing streets, the future effects on existing neighborhoods from
the possible new street configurations, the types of traffic con-
trols that might have to be applied at peak traffic hours, and
the effect of the deletion of parking because of the State' s
proposed improvements to Pacific Coast Highway. Secretary Palin
said that Alternative A was the original recommendation of the
Planning staff but Alternative B is being recommended ip the
aocument as a compromise approach among City departments . In
response to questioning from Commissioner Higgins, who noted
that "A" seemed to him to be the most effective in channeling the
projected traffic in the downtown area, Les Evans of the Depart-
ment of Public Works indicated that there should be no problem
with Alternative A if the three areas identified for immediate
study are resolved.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE COMMISSION REC-
COMMENDED ALTERNATIVE A FOR TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN THE DOWNTOWN
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WITH FURTHER STUDY OF THE INTERSECTION OF LAKE
AND ATLANTA AND THE INDIANAPOLIS/SIXTH STREET/MAIN STREET CON-
NECTOR, AND WITH DIRECTION FOR ORANGE AND SIXTH STREET, BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell , Mirjahangir
NOES: Schumacher
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
S. 3. 3 Circulation
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTION 3 . 3 WAS APPROVED
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir
NOES: Schumacher
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
S . 3 . 3 . 1 Automobile Circulation
After_ discussion, Vice Chairman Livengood directed staff to make the
following corrections : 1) any changes that are necessary to reflect
the above recommendation for Alternative A ; 2) change number and/or
delete diagrams as necessary; 3) try to separate paragraphs so that
each individual street is discussed in 'its own paragraph for ease of
reference; 4) make sure that wording is included in the text to re-
flect the Commission' s determination at 6th and Orange; and 5) in-
-12- 8-23-83 - P.C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
August 23 , 1983
Page 13
elude a statement saying that Indianapolis is a secondary
arterial at 80 foot width. After this general discussion
the Commission reviewed this section page-by-page as fol-
lows:
Page 19b - Page 19c: Chairman Mirjahangir said that in the
4th paragraph regarding the east/west route of Atlanta to tie into
Lake and Orange there may have to be a deletion of orange and
a rewording of the entire paragraph since there will not be any
arterial traffic west of Sixth on Orange. Mr. Livengood also
requested a change in that paragraph that would indicate the limits
of Lake to 6th, a statement that 6th Street is planned as a sec-
ondary arterial to Pacific Coast Highway tying into. Main near
Acacia, replacing 5th Street which is presently designated as a
secondary connecting with Indianapolis. Also a new paragraph
must be added making the statement that Indianapolis is an arter-
ial based on the General Plan.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR PAGES 19b AND 19c
WERE APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir
NOES: Schumacher
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
Page 19d: Direction was given to delete the last paragraph in-
dicating which figure is to be corrected to correspond to the
approved Specific Plan.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR PAGE 19d WAS
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir
NOES: Schumacher
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
Page 19e: Brief discussion regarding elimination of the under-
pass . Staff responded that one section is stating the intent
and the other is implementing that intent; he feels that the
discussion in the text in both areas is appropriate.
ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY ERSKINE PAGE 19e WAS
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir
NOES : Schumacher
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Schumacher directed that the record show that her
Otnoll votes on the circulation sections of the Plan reflect
her feeling that the consideration given to the residents on
-13- 8-23-83 - F.C.
Minutes, H. B. Planning Commission
August 23 , 1983
Page 14
Orange Avenue through the deletion of its arterial status west
of 6th Street had not been extended to people living on
Main, Lake, and Indianapolis Streets
NOTE: UP TO THIS POINT IN ITS ACTIONS , ALL VOTES TAKEN BY THE
COMMISSION WERE STRAW VOTES ONLY.
RESOLUTION NO. 1306 - DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY HIGGINS RESOLUTION NO. 1306,
APPROVING THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND RECOMMENDING IT TO THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2
AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2 WERE APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES : Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
ATTACHMENT NO. 9 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING FEES
Staff explained that the fee will be prorated among developers of
property in the Plan area to defray the City's costs for prepar-
ing the Plan. It is staff ' s understanding that assessment of the
fee will be triggered by the actual proposal for development and
will be paid by the developers of the property and will not be
used as a tax encumbrance against property owners . The amount of
the fee, listed as $500/acre in the attachment in the staff re-
port, may be raised depending upon what additional costs are incurred
by further processing of the Specific Plan. The Commission' s
action on this item will not be specifying the exact dollar amount
of the fee per acre.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ATTACHMENT NO. 9 WAS
APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: Erskine
-14- 8-23-83 - P.C.
Minutes, 11-B. Planning Commission
August 23, 1983
Page 15
FINDINGS FOR ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION
APPROVED THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS FOR ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2:
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed zone change from the existing zoning to the
Downtown Specific Plan is consistent with the City ' s
General •Plan.
2. The area within the boundaries of the Specific Plan has
experienced extensive physical and economic deterioration
and blight over the past years, and a number of buildings
have been declared seismically unsafe . The proposed new
zoning will provide an incentive to encourage revitaliza-
tion of the area.
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
Vice Chairman discussed the method by which this approved
Specific Plan will be presented to the City Council . He sug-
gested that, since there are still a few areas where staff ' s
recommendations differ from those of the Commission, Chairman
Porter and the Commission be allowed to review the staff report,
with Mr. Porter presenting the Commission's points of view to
the Council. He .also requested that the Council hearing on the
Specific Plan be scheduled so that the public would have a
minimum of two weeks to review the final document. In the sub-
sequent discussion the possibility of a joint study session
was suggested and rejected by the Commission. Mr. Livengood
again said that he feels the Commission should be given the
opportunity to present its own views in a written format to the
City Council in the form of a consensus report. Projected timing
of the Council 's hearing was reviewed.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS IT WAS DIRECTED
THAT THE STAFF REPORT ON THE SPECIFIC PLAN INCLUDE A RATIONALE
FOR THE COMMISSION'S DECISIONS, THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION HANDLE THE REPORT, AND THAT THE SPECIFIC
PLAN DOCUMENT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC A MINIMUM OF TWO
WEEKS PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING, BY THE FOLLOW-
ING VOTE:
AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
-15- 8-23-83 - P.C.
Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission
August 23 , 1983
Page 16
Mr. Livengood requested that this document when prepared in the-
final form be distributed to the branch libraries with possibly of
. a copy in the fire stations for ease of public access . He con-
cluded the hearing on the Specific Plan by congratulating staff
for its excellent work in preparing the Plan.
End of hearing on Downtown Specific Plan.
-16- 8-23-83 - P.C .
A
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Department Heads From James W. Palin, Director 1
Development Services
Subject DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Date December 6 , 1983
Attached is a copy of the recently adopted Downtown Specific
Plan for your information.
We will be reprinting it shortly in order to meet the expected
demand. If you have any corrections , please notify Jeanine
Frank or Mike Adams in Development Services .
JWP:JAF:sar
Attachment
• ]Illlllllllilillllllll �� -s--
• � 11111111111111111111111.. .__ uiu,i i,� _ •.
do
11111 11111
IIIIII = NwNIN NMNNN NNIIIN NIIINN �' ■ i
• • IIIIII - NMNNN NIIIIIIII NNNNN NIIMINI �� � '`\ „�,,,,,,
NNNNN NIINAM NNMNN NNNNN :_ __ E _ -
1111111 v INNINII "mill NNNNw NNMNN NIIII NHIM
� � Nlwll NNNMN NIIIMI_M NNMNN INMINM :NNNN :IINI III�1 IINIAI :NW
��.. � 1NNNN NI11NN 1NNON INNNA MINA :NNN NNNNA NNIfNI ANIINN .�*
NMMN NNNNN IINNNN MNNNN IMINNN Nl NINIIN NIIINNI NNrAIN INNNI MNINMI Nlr__ ,,,_
.. � _I• NN11lI NNININ 1NNNN NIANIN IIIIN NNANI NIINIIN MIININ NAN�N NNANI��NNI NIIIIII .
�` NII�jNNNNN NNINNI�,� NNMNN NNNNN INAMN NNMNN,NNNINL INNNNI IIIINI'� � �,; iI111N_NINN MINI
• MNININNN-!!I�,_.!�INNNNNNAWNNN NIINNINNNMIA IININN NNNNNINAIN IN 'FINUNN ININNMNNI.,NNNNNINIMNNMNII•
fl!!Ilifllll!!f�litii!lfiifiiflf�ililililli!lfillliilfll� i`�.' � �i�I �.+�� �
s'ANI`MN1NNi s� �,'�� IIINININNM NIIIh �IUI MN NII/ ��f '���� �
I�NI � 4� IrIININNNh NNINII6 N'NNN �ij�.,, !
,NNN NN R � '"" irlr�� ,Nm �► ww,
ON
., • • gggry*►qq�gyyq�+ ' gqqqf `qf`'�/�Q�� ` •
f
5F�
x _
i s P
a n
- "- EVE
-X
�P. _
' �w�. � I D m
1
SDI Drm
DF-R L _ . -
�/ - -
' R CF-R -
,.�
-i _ IT
�
El- Ell D �_� _3�_ ; I
d D
OEM
oEOoDD
doe D�
DDD I ®�
I N
R'uMTA STREET i I
I
The
„ 1
Downtown
S p e c i f i c Plan
for the implementation of the 9DDD�
Huntington Beach Coastal ElementFj I
HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA
PLANNING DIVISION SEPTEMBER 1983
J
REQUEST F ���o� , G ACTION
Dat July 1, 1983
Submitted to: Honorable Mayo y ou�> 1cLExx
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, Citv Administrator
Prepared by: .Tames W. Palin, Director of Development Service �
r
Subject: Resolution No. 5284 Adopting Draft Final EIR 82- for
the Downtown Specific Plan
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Draft final EIR 82-2 analyzes the maximum impacts that could occur under
the draft Downtown Specific Plan at full build-out. This EIR, when
adopted, will also serve as the basis of the environmental documentation
for Amendment No. 1 to the Main-Pier Redevelopment Pro3ect Area. Because
all the impacts are analyzed in EIR 82-2, the Main-Pier Redevelopment
Pro3ect Amendment can receive a negative declaration.
RFC OMME*TDAT IOrT:
Adopt Resolution No. 5284 adopting draft final EIR No. 82-2 for the
Downtown Ppecific Plan
ANALVSIS:
Planning Commission Action on June 28, 1983
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE DRAFT FINAL EIR 82-2 WAS
APPROVED AS AMENDED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION
BY 'T'HF FOLLOWING VOTE:
Aves: Porter, Higgins, Livengood, etc.
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
Draft final EIR 82-2 analyzes the maximum impacts that could occur under
the draft Downtown Specific Plan. The development of the draft Down-
town Specific Plan was authorized by the City Council on March 16, 1981
and is intended to be the implementing zoning of the Coastal Land Use
Plan for that portion of the Coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan
was adopted by the City Council as the Coastal Element of the Hunting-
ton Beach General Plan on January 19, 1981 and certified by the Coastal
Commission in November of 1982.
Draft Downtown Specific Plan
The Downtown Specific Plan would change the zoning on approximately 336
acres on both side of Pacific Coast Hiqhway between Goldenwest Street
P10 4/81
Resolution No. 5284 Adopting Draft Final EIR 82-2 for the Downtown
Specific Plan
July 1, 1983
Page 2
and Beach Boulevard. The present zoning includes high density residen-
tial (R4) , general business (C3) , office professional (R5) , residential
agricultural (RA) , Mobile Home (MH) ,shoreline district (Sl) , neighbor-
hood commercial (Cl) , Oldtown Specific Plan District One, and Old Civic
Center Specific Plan. Some of the zoning designations are combined
with oil suffixes which allow new or continued drilling and oil produc-
tion activities. The proposed Specific Plan would allow for a number
of mixed use districts which combine commercial uses with residential
uses and/or office. Special districts along the beach and on the pier
would protect access and views and would limit developments to those
appropriate for public beachfront or pier recreation.
Public Hearing and Comments on draft EIR No. 82-2
Draft EIR No. 82-2 was disseminated for public review and comment on
January 14 , 1983. A public hearing was held before the Planning Com-
mission to take public comments on February 15, 1983. The 45 day
public review and comment period ended on February 28, 1983. All com-
ments received in writing or during the public hearing were responded
to in the errata which is part of the bound draft final EIR No. 82-2.
The modifications suggested by the Planning Commission during their
consideration of the resolution recommending adoption of the draft
final EIR have been incorporated into the document.
Resolution No. 5284
Resolution No. 5284, which is attached, certifies that EIR 82-2 has
been completed in compliance with CEOA and that the information it
contains has been reviewed and considered by the Council together with
all significant effects and measures proposed to mitigate such effects.
The resolution also contains a finding of overriding consideration,
which states that some effects are generated by forces outside the
3urisdication of the City, and that the economic and social benefits
of the plan to the City override these effects. iSuch a finding is re-
quired by law when an EIR cites impacts which cannot be completely
mitigated. The resolution further accepts and adopts EIR No. 82-2 .
FUNDING SOURCE: None needed.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Do not adopt Resolution No. 5284 adopting EIR 82-2. If the EIR
for the Downtown Specific Plan is not adopted, a negative declara-
tion cannot be used for Amendment No. 1 to the Main-Pier Redevelop-
ment ProDect Area, since the negative declaration was granted based
on the information in the EIR.
JTVP:JF:sr
Attachment
RESOLUTION NO. 5284
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 82-2 FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the Downtown Specific Plan and Environmental
Impact Report No. 82-2 have been prepared; and
The Planning Commission has held a public hearing to con-
sider such Specific Plan and its accompanying EIR; and
All persons and agencies wishing to respond to notice duly
given, have been heard by the Planning Commission and such re-
sponses and comments as were made duly noted for incorporation
in Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2; and
The Planning Commission recommends approval of Environmental
Impact Report No. 82-2 by the City Council,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach as follows :
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby certifies that Environ-
mental Impact Report No. 82-2 has been completed in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and all
state and local guidelines therefor, and that the information
contained in such environmental impact report has been reviewed
and considered by this Council.
SECTION 2. The City Council has recognized and considered
all significant effects detailed in the environmental impact re-
port, together with existing and proposed measures to mitigate
such significant effects .
SECTION 3. The City Council further finds that notwith-
standing measures proposed to eliminate or substantially lessen
the aforementioned significant effects , the forces which generate
such effects are outside the jurisdiction of the City of
ahb
2/16/83
7/11/83 1.
Huntington Beach.
SECTION 4. The City Council finds that the benefits ac-
cruing to the city, both economically and socially, by virtue
of the Downtown Specific Plan override the significant effects
detailed in Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2, and this
Council does hereby accept and adopt Environmental Impact
Report No. 82-2.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed
to file with the County Clerk of the County of Orange a Notice
of Determination for Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2, as
required by Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 7, section 51085(h) of
the California Administrative Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held do the 18th
day of Ji,ly 1983air
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City/Attorne
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator irector of Development
Services
2.
Res. No. 5284
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day
of July , 19 83 , by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Bailey
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT: Councilmen-
Pattinson, Thomas (out of room), Mandic (out of room)
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
IN THE Wy
Superior Court
OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA /G
In and for the County of Orange GZ
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY CLERK PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC=
DO
State of California ) AMFJID fOSPFXIM PL N
County of Orange )ss NOTICE IS HEREBY GiVEN that a
ppuubbc hearing will be held by the City
fouiwl of the City of Huntington Beach,
in the Couneaf Chamber of the Civic Cen-
A PR I L L. E L L I O TT ter,Huntington Beach,at the hour of 130
P M.,or as Boon thereafter as pomble on
That i am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of Monday the I th day of June.1984 for
the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I the of`bDB'de1i°g°A�°d10eOt
to the Dowatoin 9pecdk Plan to archde
am not a party to,nor interested m the above entitled matter, wording adopted by the Califorrua
that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Coaatal Commission as sugFested mod''
.r Citations to bring the Huntington Beach
Coastal Lend Use Pin zoning=*ink&
HUNTINGTON BEACH I ND. REV. ration into conformance with the Coastal
Act
a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of Do copy
py gof proposed Amendment to
Office of Development Seriiace.
HUNTINGTON BEACH AD interested persons ere invited to
rttend said hearing and ezprew their
opinions for or egermt cud amendment.
County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the Further information may be obuined
disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- tom the Office of the City Clerk, 20M
at all times herein mentioned had Main Street Huntington Beach CeWor
ter, and which newspaper
nia.92648 (714)636-5227
and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, DATED May 31,1984
and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
BY Alicia M Wenttworth
fished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a City Clerk
period exceeding one year that the notice, of which the Pub June 7.19M
annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular Hunt Beath Ind.Rav #36180
and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement
thereof,on the following dates,to wit
JUNE 7f1984
I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego-
ing is true and correct
Dated at GARDEN GROVE
California,this 8t h day of JUNE 19 84
April L. Elliott ( C�
Signature
Form No POP 22984
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date June 4, 1984
Submitted to. Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by Charles W. Thompson, City Administra 4117
to
Prepared by James W. Pa11n, Director, Development Services v
Subject- A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
� 53 8?
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATE MENT OF ISSUE:
The resolution would add to the Downtown Specific Plan wording
which was adopted by the California Coastal Commission as
suggested modifications to bring the Huntington Beach Coastal Land
Use Plan zoning implementation into conformance with the Coastal
Act. The Coastal Commission adopted the suggested modifications
at their hearing in Los Angeles on April 11, 1984. If the
suggested modifications are incorporated into the zoning, the
Coastal Commission staff could administratively deem the
Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program certified, and the City
would receive its coastal permitting authority.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution amending the Downtown Specific Plan.
ANALYSIS :
Planning Commission Action:
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR RESOLUTION NO. 1321
WAS ADOPTED RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION
AMENDMENT THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Porter
ABSTAIN: None
The resolution would make the following changes to the Downtown
Specific Plan:
1. Require compliance with sections of Article 969. 9 (Coastal
Zone Suffix) regarding hazards ; buffers; diking, dredging
and filling ; energy; and signs.
PIO 4/81
2. Limit terraced parking decks and walls on the ocean side of
PCH to 12 inches below the top of the bluff.
3. Add the definition of wetland.
4. Require compliance with Article 989 . 5 (Coastal Development
Permit) .
5. Specify which standards can be relaxed for a special
permit. Standards which cannot be relaxed are building
heights in Districts 1 , 2 , 4 , 10 and 11, maximum densities,
parking requirements, and requirement of the conservation
overlay.
6. Require one for one replacement of any ocean side or
onstreet parking which is removed.
7. Allow paddleboard courts and parking lots as permitted uses
in District 11.
8 . Requiring coastal development permits for developments in
the Downtown Specific Plan area.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS :
On July 18, 1983 , the City Council certified Environmental Impact
Report No. 82-2 for the area included in the Downtown Specific
Plan. These modifications would not change that project
substantially.
Section 15067 of the CEQA Guidelines states "where an EIR . . .
has been prepared, no additional EIR need be prepared unless: 1)
subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require
important revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous
EIR on the project, 2) substantial changes occur with respect to
the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, 3) new
information of substantial importance to the project becomes
available."
Staff has reviewed the findings stated above and determined that
a subsequent EIR on the revised plan is not necessary.
FUNDING SOURCE :
1. Do not adopt the resolution. In this case, the California
Coastal Commission will not be able to certify the City' s
zoning implementation for the Coastal Land Use Plan.
2. Adopt alternative language amending the Downtown Specific
Plan. In this case, the zoning implementation for the
Coastal Land Use Plan will be considered for certification
by the California Coastal Commission at a new public hearing.
-2- 6-4-84 - RCA
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission staff report of June 5, 1984
2. Resolution No.
3. Revisions to the Downtown Specific Plan
CWT:JWP:JAF :jlm
0759d
-3- 6-4-84 - RCA
srAf f huntington beach developtnt services department
�REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Development Services
DATE : June 5 , 1984
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO . 1321 , amending the Downtown Specific Plan
1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
After a public hearing , adopt Resolution No. 1321.
2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION :
Resolution No. 1321 would add to the Downtown Specific Plan wording
which was adopted by the California Coastal Commission as suggested
modifications to bring the Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan
zoning implementation into conformance with the Coastal Act. The
Coastal Commission adopted the suggested modifications at their
hearing in Los Angeles on April 11, 1984 . If the suggested
modifications are incorporated into the zoning , the Coastal Commission
staff could administratively deem the Huntington Beach Local Coastal
Program certified, and the City would receive its coastal permitting
authority.
3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
On July 18, 1983 , the City Council certified Environmental Impact
Report No. 82-2 for the area included in the Downtown Specific Plan.
These modifications would not change that project substantially.
Section 15067 of the CEQA Guidelines states "where an EIR . . . has
been prepared, no additional EIR need be prepared unless: 1)
subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require
important revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR on
the project, 2) substantial changes occur with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken, 3) new
information of substantial importance to the project becomes
available."
Staff has reviewed the findings stated above and determined that a
subsequent EIR on the revised plan is not necessary.
A FM 238
4 .0 ANALYSIS:
The resolution would make the following changes to the Downtown
Specific Plan :
1. Require compliance with sections of Article 969. 9 (Coastal Zone
Suffix) regarding hazards; buffers ; diking , dredging and
filling ; energy; and signs.
2. Limit terraced parking decks and walls on the ocean side of PCH
to 18 inches below the top of the bluff.
3. Add the definition of wetland.
4. Require compliance with Article 989 .5 (Coastal Development
Permit) .
5. Specify which standards can be relaxed for a special permit.
Standards which cannot be relaxed are building heights in
Districts 1, 2, 4 , 10 and 11, maximum densities, parking
requirements, and requirement of the conservation overlay.
6 . Require one for one replacement of any ocean side or onstreet
parking which is removed.
5 .0 RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No.
1321 and recommend that the City Council adopt a similar resolution.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Staff Report of May 15, 1984
2. Draft Changes
3. Resolution No. 1321
JAF :j lm
0654d/l
Publish June 7, 1984
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AMENDMENT TO DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,
Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as
possible on Monday the 18th day of June , 1984 .
for the purpose of considering an amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan to
include wording adopted by the California Coastal Commission as suggested
modifications to bring the Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan zoning
implementation into conformance with the Coastal Act.
A copy of proposed Amendment to Downtown Specific Plan is on file in the Office
of Development Services.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their
opinions for or against said amendment
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227
DATED Ma AL -31, 1984 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By- Alicia M. Wentworth
Li ty Clerk
V
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY G t a a public hearing will be held
by the City of the City of Huntington Beach,
California�_ for the purpose of considering
amend yyr:�erg� tthe Downtown Specific Plan to include wording adopted by
the California Coastal Commission as suggested modifications to
bring the Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan zoning implementation
into conformance with the Coastal Act .
Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7 3o P.M. , on
June , 1984 , in the Council Chambers Building of the
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and
express their opinions for or against the proposed
Resolution No . —LIZ.L
Further information may be obtained from the City Planning
Department.
Telephone No. (714) 536-5271
DATED this .2�� day of jLal��
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
By ,
NOTICE TO CLERKTO SCH
E
D
U
LE PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM 4aA&e��� -)�k --
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: QA9,
FROM
PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE
1 AY OF �_, 19
V
AP's are attached
AP's will follow
er
No AP's
Initiated by:
Planning Commission
Planning Department
Petition
* Appeal
Other
Adoption of Environmental Status (x) !/
YES NO
Refer to Planning Department - Extension
for itional information.
* If appeal, please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal.
Y
RESOLUTION NO. 5392
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission has suggested
modifications to the Downtown Specific Plan to conform the
zoning of the Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan to the
California Coastal Act ; and
After notice duly given pursuant to Government Code sec-
tion 65500, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington
Beach held a public hearing on June 5, 1984 to consider the
proposed amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan, and such
amendment was recommended to the City Council; and
The City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by
law, held at least one public hearing on the proposed amend-
ment to the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Council finds
the proposed modifications to such specific plan necessary
in order to conform zoning in the Huntington Beach Coastal
Land Use Plan to the requirements of the California Coastal
Act ,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach that the Downtown Specific Plan, a
copy of which is on file in the Department of Development
Services and the office of the City Clerk, as modified .in
Attachment 1, attached hereto and by this reference incor-
porated herein, is hereby adopted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on thel6th
day of June , 1984 .
ATTEST:
jx����
City Clerk
?CS:ahb
-/6/84
1.
i
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Administrato City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
rector of Deve opment
Services
2,
4 .0 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
4.0. 01 Intent and Purpose
The purpose of this article is to guide the orderly development
and improvement within the Downtown Specific Plan. The Plan is
established to guide the development of the area which is
characterized by unique location, geographic features, land
uses and ownership patterns, and should not be regulated by
zoning District standards applicable City-wide. This Specific
Plan will replace the existing zoning with policies,
development standards and descriptive maps specifically
designed for the Downtown area. The Specific Plan provides for
creativity at the individual project level and, at the same
time, ensures that developments will ultimately combine to
create a cohesive community.
The Downtown Specific Plan area is divided into eleven
Districts ( see Figure 4.0) . This section of the Plan contains
development standards intended to govern individual projects
within each District.
4.0 .02 Downtown Specific Plan Boundary
The property described herein is included in the Downtown
Specific Plan and shall be subject to policies and development
standards set forth in this article. Precisely, the Downtown
Specific Plan includes the real property described as follows:
Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 22, Block 122 of
the Huntington Beach Seventeenth Street Section Tract, as
recorded in Book 4 , page 10 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of
Orange County, State of California; thence northerly 50 feet
approximately to a point, said point being the intersection of
the centerlines of Goldenwest Street and Walnut Avenue; said
point also being the true point of beginning ; thence
southwesterly along the centerline of Goldenwest Street and its
prolongation to a point on the high tide line of the Pacific
Ocean; thence southeasterly along said high tide line to a line
parallel with and 72.50 feet northwesterly, measured at right
angles, from the southwesterly along said high tide line to a
line parallel with and 72.50 feet northwesterly, measured at
right angles, from the southwesterly prolongation of the
centerline of Main Street; thence southwesterly along said line
1, 470 feet approximately to a line parallel with heretofore
said high tide line; thence southeasterly along said line 145
feet approximately to a line parallel with and 72. 50 feet
southeasterly, measured at right angles, from said
southwesterly prolongation of the centerline of Main Street;
thence northeasterly along said line to the heretofore said
high tide line to the prolongated survey centerline of Beach
Boulevard; thence northerly along said survey centerline of
Beach Boulevard 2800 feet approximately to the south line of
Tract 9580, as shown on a map recorded in Book 444 , page 31,
records of Orange County, State of California; thence westerly
along said line 1995 feet approximately to the centerline of
Huntington Street; thence northerly along said centerline 1320
feet approximately to the centerline of Atlanta Avenue; thence
westerly along said centerline 857 feet approximately to the
centerline of Lake Street; thence northerly along said
centerline 2352 feet approximately to the centerline of Palm
Avenue; thence westerly along said centerline 332 feet
approximately to the centerline of Sixth Street; thence
southwesterly to the centerline of Walnut Avenue; thence
northwesterly along said centerline 5547 feet approximately to
the true point of beginning.
4.0 .03 Organization
This section details the development standards for pro3ects in
the Specific Plan area. The section includes 1) regulations
affecting administration and permitting , 2) general
requirements for all pr03ects of a certain size or type, 3)
particular requirements for pr03ects within the different
Districts and 4) overlays which permit special uses in select
areas.
4.0 .04 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply to the Downtown Specific
Plan. Terms not described under this section shall be sub3ect
to the definitions contained in the Huntington Beach Ordinance
Code.
Bolsa Chica State Beach: The area seaward of Pacific Coast
Highway extending from the Huntington Beach City Pier northwest
to Warner Avenue. The portion of this beach from the pier to
Goldenwest Street is within the boundary of the Downtown
Specific Plan.
Build-to-line: A dimension which specifies where the structure
must begin. For example, "build-to-5 "' , where the structure
must extend to five feet of the lot line.
Director : The Director of the Department of Development
Services.
Facade: The main face of front of a building.
Feasible: Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, social and technological factors.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) : A number which indicates how many
square feet of structure can be built on a site, expressed as a
multiple of the gross building site area. For example, if a
site is 5, 000 square feet in area and the FAR is 2.0 , the
square footage of a building cannot exceed 10, 000 gross square
feet (2 X 5 , 000) .
Fronting : Any lot or portion of a lot which abuts an arterial
shall be considered to front on that arterial and shall comply
with the required front yard setbacks, whether or not the
development on that lot actually takes access from the arterial.
Full block: A parcel of property bounded on all sides by
public streets.
Half block: A parcel of property bounded on all sides by
public streets and/or alleys containing at least one-half (1/2)
the net area of the full block.
Height : The vertical distance above the highest adjacent
street level measured to the highest point of the coping of a
flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or the average
height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof.
Public open space : Public open space may include one of the
following : open air commercial (open to the street on the
first floor, or on at least one side , above the first floor, or
open to the sky) , patios , plazas, balconies, gardens or view
areas accessible to the public. The open space requirement can
be met anywhere in the development ; however , open space
provided above the second floor will receive only fifty (50)
percent credit toward this requirement. This requirement
cannot be met by open areas which are physically inaccessible
to the public.
Residual parcel: A legal lot which does not meet the
requirements for a building site within the District in which
it is located, and where the abutting sites are already
developed.
Right-of-way (ROW) : That portion of property which is
dedicate or over which an easement is granted for public
streets or alleys.
Semi-subterranean parking : Parking structure which is
partially recessed into the development site, and which may or
may not support additional structures above (e.g. dwelling
units, tennis courts, or parking structures) .
Setback: A stipulated area adjacent to the lot lines which
must be kept free of structures over forty-two (42) inches high.
Street level: The elevation measured at the centerline of the
public street adjacent to the front setback at a point midway
between the two side property lines.
Townlot: The area and parcels bounded by Pacific Coast Highway
on the southwest, Goldenwest Street on the northwest, Palm
Avenue on the north and northeast, and Sixth Street on the east
and southeast.
[Wetland: means lands within the coastal zone which may be
covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and
include saltwater marshes, freewater marshes, open or closed
brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens.]
Ultimate right-of-way: The most lateral edge of the area
dedicated for street or alley purposes.
4. 1 ADMINISTRATION
4. 1.01 Approvals Required
All developments within the Downtown Specific Plan shall be
subject to one or more of the following , as identified in each
district: A Use Permit , a Conditional Use Permit , a Site Plan
Review , or the Design Review provisions of the Huntington Beach
Ordinance Code. In addition, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
shall be required for any condominium or stock cooperative , any
subdivision, mixed-use development, development on a site larger
than one ( 1) net acre in size, or any project which requires a
special permit (Section 4 .1. 02) . The Design Review process,
Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) , Planning Commission or the
City Council shall also consider the following before approving
a project:
(a) Projects shall be in conformance with the adopted Design
Guidelines for the area.
(b) Architectural features and general appearance of the
proposed development shall enhance the orderly and
harmonious development of the area or the community as a
whole.
(c) Architectural features and complimentary colors shall be
incorporated into the design of all exterior surfaces of
the buildings in order to create an aesthetically pleasing
Project.
(d) Particular attention shall be given to incorporating signs,
including their colors, into the overall design of the
entire development in order to achieve uniformity.
(e) Vehicular accessways shall be designed with landscaping and
building variation to eliminate an alley-like appearance.
4. 1.02 Special Permit
The Downtown Specific Plan development standards are designed to
encourage developments creating an aesthetically pleasing
appearance, enhancing the living environment, and facilitating
innovative architectural design and adaptation of the
development to the unique surrounding environment.
Deviations from the development regulations of this Specific
Plan, [may be granted at the time of
project approval for unique architectural siting or features,
including but not limited to parcel size, building height, site
coverage, setbacks, open space and landscaping. A Special
Permit may not be granted for deviations from] maximum density,
[or) parking requirements
[or deviation for] building heights in Districts 1 , 2 and
4 , [10 and 11 or from requirements of the Conservation
Overlay]
Such deviations shall only be allowed when, in the opinion of
the Planning Commission, significantly greater benefits from the
project can be provided than would occur if all the minimum
requirements were met. Some additional benefits which may make
a project eligible for exemptions include: greater open space,
greater setbacks, unique or innovative designs, public parking ,
public open space, and the use of energy conservation or solar
technology. The developer may request a Special Permit at the
same time as the filing of an application for a Conditional Use
Permit and shall be heard concurrently. The Planning Commission
may approve the Special Permit in whole or in part upon a
finding that the proposed development, in addition to providing
greater benefits as required above, will also:
(a) Promote better living environments;
(b) Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of
aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping ,
site layout and design;
(c) Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety
and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor
detrimental or injurious to the value of property or
improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general ;
and
(d) Be consistent with objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan
in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and
compatible with the surrounding environment.
[ (e) Be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of
the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act.]
4. 1.03 Coastal Permit
Developments within the Downtown Specific Plan area will ytf6y-
be subject to the requirements pertaining to Coastal Development
Permits (CDP) , in addition to the other provisions of the
Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
4. 1.04 Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
of this title, or any future amendments or additions hereto, is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
title, or any future amendments or additions hereto. The
Council hereby declares that it would have adopted these titles
and each sentence, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion or any future amendments or additions thereto,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, clauses, phrases, portions or any future amendments
or additions thereto may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
that portion of the development designated as a
visitor-serving District.
(b) Commercial uses must be provided on the ground floor along
Main Street.
4. 2. 12 Parking . All developments will be required to meet the minimum
off-street parking standards of the Huntington Beach Ordinance
Code. In addition to the parking provisions in the Huntington
Beach Ordinance Code, the following shall apply:
(a) Parking for residential developments shall be provided at
the following ratio :
• Dwelling units not exceeding one (1) bedroom shall be
provided with one and one-half (1 1/2) on-site parking
spaces one of which shall be covered and enclosed.
• Dwelling units with two (2) or more bedrooms shall be
provided with two (2) on-site parking spaces one of
which shall be covered and enclosed.
• Guest parking shall be provided at a ratio of one half
(1/2) space for each unit. Such parking may be
unenclosed and uncovered.
• All required parking except guest parking shall be
located within two hundred (200) feet of the dwelling
unit it is designed to serve.
(b) All required uncovered parking spaces or areas within a
development shall be screened on a horizontal plane. Said
screening shall be at least five (5) feet high as measured
from the adjacent parking surface. Screening shall consist
of landscaping or landscaping combined with opaque
materials, and must be approved by the Director.
(c) Subterranean or semi-subterranean parking above the
adjacent grade which include a public open space or
landscaped area on top shall be considered site coverage at
the following rate for that portion:
Inches above the adjacent grade Site coverage %
0" - 18" 0%
1811+ - 24" 15%
2411+ - 36" 20%
36"+ - 42" 25%
42" and above 100%
(d) Parking within the setbacks shall be prohibited except for
setbacks along PCH in Districts 1 and 2 and along Lake
Street in District 6 , individual residential driveways will
also be exempt.
(e) Parking requirements for nonconforming uses or structures
may be met by payment of an "in-lieu" fee for providing
parking in a parking facility . Saiu fee may be paid in two
installments. The first installment in an amount
established by City Council Resolution for each parking
space shall be paid prior to the issuance of building
permits or of a certificate of occupancy, whichever comes
first. The second installment in an amount established by
City Council Resolution for each parking space shall be
paid at the time City and/or a parking authority or
District constructs a parking structure in the Downtown
area . A surety in a sum equal to the second installment
shall be filed with the City at the time the first
installment is paid.
[ (f) If any existing oceanside or onstreet parking is removed,
it shall be replaced on a one for one basis in an area that
would not result in the loss of any sandy beach area and
within walking distance of the existing site. Replacement
parking shall be assured prior to the issuance of the
coastal development permit. ]
4. 2. 13 Landscaping . In addition to City standard landscape plans and
specifications, the following shall apply:
(a) All setback areas fronting on or visible from an adjacent
public street, and all recreation, leisure and open space
areas shall be landscaped and permanently maintained in an
attractive manner.
(b) Permanent automatic electric irrigation facilities shall be
provided in all landscaped areas.
(c) On-site trees shall be provided in all developments as
follows: one (1) thirty (30) inch box tree for each
residential unit or for each 1, 500 square feet of net
commercial or office space. Alternatively, the following
equivalent of thirty (30) inch box trees may be provided :
Seventy-five (75) percent of the total requirement shall be
thirty (30) inch box trees and the remaining twenty-five
(25) percent of such requirement may be provided at a ratio
of one (1) inch for one (1) inch through the use of twenty
(20) or twenty-four (24) inch box trees.
Additional trees and shrubs shall also be planted to
provide a well-balanced landscape environment.
Exception: Structures fronting on Main Street, Fifth
Street and Third Street, with a required five ( 5) foot
setback shall be exempt from this requirement.
(d) A landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with the
adopted Design Guidelines shall be subject to approval by
the Director prior to the issuance of building permits.
4. 2. 25 Homeowners' or Community Association. All multiple unit
subdivision developments shall be approved subject to submission
of a legal instrument or instruments setting forth a plan or
manner of permanent care and maintenance of open spaces,
recreational areas, and communal facilities. No such instrument
shall be acceptable until approved by the City Attorney as to
legal form and effect, and by the Department of Development
Services as to suitability for the proposed use of the open areas.
If the common open spaces are to be conveyed to the homeowners'
association, the developer shall file a declaration of covenants,
to be submitted with the application for approval , that will
govern the association. The provisions shall include, but not be
limited to, the following :
(a) The homeowners' association shall be established prior to
the initial sale of the last dwelling units.
(b) Membership shall be mandatory for each buyer and any
successive buyer.
(c) The open space restrictions shall be permanent.
[4.2. 26 Compliance with certain requirements of the Coastal Zone (CZ)
Suffix:
Projects shall comply with the following sections of the
Coastal Zone Suffix: 969 .9.4 (E) , Hazards, 969.9.4 (F) , diking,
dredging and filling, 969.4 (G) , Buffer Requirements,
969.9.4 (H) , Energy and 969 .9.8 , Signs.)
s
4. 5 DISTRICT #3 : VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL
Purpose. This District is limited to the five blocks fronting on
Pacific Coast Highway across from the City pier.
The visitor-serving category is broad enough to include many
commercial activities which will also serve the needs of the
surrounding community , providing an off-season clientele for the
District.
The plan also allows residential and office uses in this District
so long as the required visitor-serving commercial is provided.
Large amounts of ground level open space are encouraged in this
District to further promote the feeling of openness and to
provide additional view opportunities.
Boundaries. District #3 includes the area between PCH and
Walnut, from 6th to Lake Streets.
4 .5. 01 Permitted Uses.
(a) The following principal uses and structures shall be
permitted in District #3 sub3ect to approval of a Use
Permit for initial construction:
A. Antique stores
Art gallery
Auditoriums
B. Bakeries (no more than seven (7) employees)
Banks and savings and loans branch offices (no drive-up
windows; not to exceed five thousand (5, 000) square feet)
Barber , beauty, manicure shops
Beach, swimming and surfing equipment
Bicycle sales, rental and repair
Boat and marine supplies
Bookstores
C. Clothing stores
Coin, stamp and art dealers
Confectioners
Curio shops
D. Delicatessens
Drug stores
F. Florists
Fruit and vegetable stores
G . Game Stores
Gifts and party shops
H. Health and sports clubs
Hotels and motels
I . Ice cream parlors
J. Jewelry stores
L . Laundromats within hotels or motels
Liquor stores
M. Marine insurance
Museums
N. Newspaper and magazine stores
N ewstands
Novelties
P . Photographic studios
Photographic equipment sales
Photographic processing (no more than one (1) developing
machine)
R. Reducing salon
Restaurants
S. Shoe stores
Sporting goods
T. Theaters
Tourist related public and semi-public buildings, services
and facilities
Travel agency
Y. Yacht brokers (no storage)
(b) The following uses may be permitted in District #3 sub3ect to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit :
A. Arcades
C . Cabarets
Convention facilities*
D. Dance halls and discos
Dancing and/or live entertainment as a primary or accessory
use
Drug stores
0. Offices*
P. Parking lots and garages*
R. Residential uses*
Retail sales , outdoor
T . Taverns
Time-sharing residential*
*Note : This use is prohibited on the ground floor or street
level fronting on Main Street.
Note : The ground floor or street level of all buildings in this
District shall be devoted to visitor-serving commercial
activities. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of the street level
facades fronting Main Street shall be constructed of transparent
materials.
(c) Visitor-serving commercial uses must be a part of all
development proposed in this District, with a minimum
requirement that the entire street level , or at least
one-third (1/3) of the total floor area be devoted to
visitor-serving commercial uses.
(d) Residential uses shall only be permitted northwest of Main
Street, however, no residential units shall be located
within one hundred and twenty-five (125) feet of Main
Street.
Note : Residential uses are allowed only in conjunction with
visitor-serving commercial uses. Up to one-third (1/3) of the
floor area of projects on parcels smaller than a full block may
be devoted to residential uses; pro3ects on full block or larger
parcels, up to one-half (1/2) of the floor area may be devoted
to residential uses.
[ (e) Residential uses are allowed only in conjunction with
visitor-serving commercial uses. The required
visitor-serving commercial portion of any initial
construction shall be provided prior to or at the same time
as any residential portion. No residential unit shall be
occupied until the required commercial portion is
completed.]
4. 5 .02 Minimum Parcel Size . The minimum parcel size for development
shall be ten thousand (10 ,000) square feet of net site area and
one hundred (100) feet of frontage.
4 .5. 03 Maximum Density/Intensity. The maximum intensity of development
shall be calculated by floor area ratios (FAR) for this
District. The floor area ratio shall apply to the entire project
area. Floor area ratios shall be calculated on gross acreage,
except that the resulting floor area may not exceed by more than
fifteen (15) percent, the permitted floor area calculated by net
site area.
(a) The maximum floor area for developments in this District
shall be calculated with the following multiples :
4. 12 DISTRICT #10: PIER-RELATED COMMERCIAL
Purpose. This District is intended to provide for commercial
uses on and alongside the pier which will enhance and expand the
public' s use and enjoyment of this area. Uses are encouraged
which capitalize on the views available from the pier and the
unique recreational or educational opportunities it affords. At
the same time, care must be exercised to insure that the major
portion of the pier will remain accessible to the public at no
charge, for strolling, fishing or observation.
Boundaries. District #10 includes the pier itself and an area
extending sixty (60) feet on the northwest side and one hundred
and twenty-five (125) feet on the southeast side of the existing
pier. Also included in the District is a strip of land from PCH
to the sand, extending southeast of the pier to Lake Street and
northwest of the pier to Seventh Street.
4. 12.01 Permitted Uses. The following uses may be permitted in District
#10 subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
A. Aquariums
B. Bait and tackle shops
Beach rentals
C. Commercial uses or public recreation facilities
(beach-related)
M. Museums
P. Parking lots [that will not result
in the loss of recreational sand area. Tiered parking
is permitted within the Downtown Specific Plan area on
existing lots seaward of Pacific Coast Highway
provided the parking is designed so that the top of
the structures including walls, etc. , are located a
minimum of one foot below the maximum height of the
ad3acent bluff.]
R. Restaurants (including fast food with take out windows)
Retail sales (beach-related)
Note : Only parking uses are permitted in this District
northwest of Sixth Street.
4. 12.02 Minimum Parcel Size . No minimum parcel size shall be required
in this District.
4. 12.03 Maximum Density/Intensity. No maximum density or intensity
requirement shall be applied in this District.
4. 12.04 Maximum Height . The maximum building heights shall be
4 .13 DISTRICT #11: BEACH OPEN SPACE
Purpose. This District is intended to preserve and protect the
sandy beach area within the Downtown Specific Plan boundaries
while allowing parking and auxilliary beach-related commercial
and convenience uses. Approximately half of the beach frontage
in the District is City beach; the remainder is owned by the
State of California.
Boundaries. District #11 is bounded by PCH on one side and the
Pacific Ocean on the other. The District extends from
Goldenwest Street to Beach Boulevard , except for the area which
is part of District #10 .
4. 13.01 Permitted Uses. The following principal uses and structures
shall be permitted in District #11 sub3ect to approval of the
City' s Design Review process.
A. Access facilities
B. Basketball Courts
Beach concession stands*
Bicycle trails and support facilities
F. Fire rings
L. Lifeguard towers and other structures necessary for
health or safety
P. Paddleboard courts
Parking lots (that will not result
in the loss of recreational sand area. Tiered parking
is permitted within the Downtown Specific Plan area on
existing lots seaward of Pacific Coast Highway
provided the parking is designed so that the top of
the structures including walls, etc. , are located a
minimum of one foot below the maximum height of the
ad)acent bluff.]
Park offices + playground equipment
Public restrooms
Public transit facilities and associated structures,
dressing rooms or showers**
S. Shoreline construction that may alter natural
shoreline process, such as groins, cliff retaining
walls, pipelines , outfalls that are designed to
eliminate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand
supply
T. Trails (bicycle or 3ogging) and support facilities
V. Volleyball net supports
*Note : Beach concession stands shall be limited to twenty-five
hundred (2500) square feet and spaced at intervals no closer
than one thousand (1, 000) feet.
**Note: Public transit facilities may only be constructed
within the existing paved parking areas or in areas which are
not part of the beach.
4. 13.02 Minimum Parcel Size. No minimum parcel size shall be required .
4 .13. 03 Maximum Density/Intensity. No maximum density or intensity
requirement shall be applied in this District.
4.13. 04 Maximum Building Height. The maximum building heights shall be
limited to twenty (20) feet.
Exceptions: No maximum building height shall be required for
lifeguard towers or other facilities necessary for public
safety. No parking surface or structure shall exceed the
adjacent elevation of PCH.
4. 13. 05 Maximum Site Coverage. No maximum site coverage shall be
required.
4. 13.06 Setback (Front Yard) . No minimum front yard setback shall be
required.
4. 13.07 Setback (Side Yard) . No minimum side yard setback shall be
required.
4. 13.08 Setback (Rear Yard) . No minimum rear yard setback shall be
required .
4. 13. 09 Setback (Upper Story) . No minimum upper story setback shall be
required.
4. 13. 10 Open Space. Public open space and pedestrian access shall be
major considerations of development in this District.
4. 13. 11 Parking . No additional parking shall be required for new
development in this District. Construction which proposes the
removal of existing parking, shall provide for the replacement
of that parking on a one-for-one basis within the District.
4. 13. 12 Resource Production Overlay. A portion of District #11 is
designated with an Oil Suffix (0,01) . Within this area, all the
requirements of the Resource Production Overlay shall apply (see
Section 4 .14) .
r
4. 15 CONSERVATION OVERLAY
Purpose. The conservation overlay is intended to regulate those
areas which have been preliminarily identified as wetlands.
Upon determination by the California Department of Fish and Game
that an area is classified as a wetland the conditions of this
overlay shall apply
Boundary.. The State Department of Fish and Game has identified
an area within District 8B as containing .8 acres of existing
wetland and 1. 4 acres of restorable wetland. The 2. 2 acre area
is immediately adjacent to Beach Boulevard (see Figure 4. 14) .
Regulations. Development shall be permitted only pursuant to an
overall development plan for the entire overlay area and subject
to the following : as a condition of any development on this
parcel, topographic, vegetation, and soils information
identifying the extent of any existing wetlands shall be
submitted to the Director. The information shall be prepared by
a qualified professional , and shall be subject to review by the
California Department of Fish and Game. If any wetland is
determined by the Department of Fish and Game to be severely
degraded pursuant to Sections 30233 and 30411 of the California
Coastal Act, or if it is less than one (1) acre in size, other
restoration options may be undertaken, pursuant to the Coastal
Commission' s "Statewide Interpretive Guidelines for Wetlands and
other Wet Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas."
Conservation easements , dedications or other similar mechanisms
shall be required over all wetland areas as a condition of
development, to assure permanent protection. Public vehicular
traffic shall be prohibited in wetland areas governed by a
conservation easement. Specific drainage and erosion control
requirements shall be incorporated into the project design to
ensure that wetland areas are not adversely affected. No
further subdivision of any parcel shall be permitted which would
have the effect of dividing off environmentally sensitive
habitat from other portions of such parcels for which urban uses
are permitted in the City' s Coastal Element until such time as
the permanent protection of any wetland is assured. [Within
areas identified as wetlands in the coastal zone, the uses of
the Coastal Conservation District shall supercede the uses of
the FPl and FP2 district. ]
0664d
s. No. 5392
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven,
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day
of June 19 84 by the following vote-
AYES: Councilmen-
MacAllister, Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mandic
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT: Councilmen:
Pattinson (out of room)
NOT VOTING: Thomas
r1z�- -
` City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
The foregoi.19 instrument is a correct
copy of the original on file in this office.
Attest 19—
City Cl^.rk �d Ex officio Clerk of the ^Ity
C 3'icfl f th° C►ty of Huntington Beach,
�r CaktM
By Deputy
IN THE
Superior Court
OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In and for the County of Orange
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY CLERK PROOF OF PUBLICATION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
_�.. LEGAL NOTICE---
State of California ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
County of Orange )ss DOWNTOWN SPECMC PLAN/
ZONE CASE 83 2/
CODE AMENDMENT 83-2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a
APRIL L. ELLIOTT public hearing will be held by the City
Couned of the City of Huntington Beach,
in the Council Chamber of the Civic Cen
That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of ter,Huntington Beach at the hour of 7 30 1
the United States,w,er the age of twenty-one years,and that I P M,or as soon thereafter as possible on
am not a party to,nor interested in the the 19th day of September the above entitled matter, 1983,for the purpose of considering the
treat I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Downtown Specific Plan Zone Case No
81 2 and Code Amendment No 83 2 The
SpeHUNTINGTON BEACH I NB. REVIEW that portion
Plan constitutes new zoning for
that of the coastal zone between
Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard
a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of ut the City of Huntington Beach The
Specific Plan is bounded on the inland
side by Walnut Avenue, Sixth Street
HUNTINGTON BEACH Hartford Avneue Lake Street and
Atlanta Avenue
A copy of said Spccific Plan is on file
County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the in the Department of Deielopment Sery
disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- ices
ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had All interested persons are invited to
attend Said hearing and express their
and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, opinions fo• or against said Downtown
and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- Specific Plait^` Zone Case and Code i
lished at regrilar intervals in the said County of Orange for a Amendment
g Further information may be obtained'
period exceeding one year, that the notice, of which the from the Office of the City Clerk 20M1
anne,ed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular Main Street Huntington Beach,Califor
nia 92W (714)53b 5227
and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement DATED September 2 1983
thereof,on the follow ing dates,to wit Pub Sept 8,1983
Hunt Beach Ind Rev #34555
SEPTEMBER 8y 1983 -
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury khat the forego-
ing is true and correct
Dated at GARDEN GROVE
California,this 9t h day of SEP. 19 83
April L. Elliott ("y �=�Gs
,g;iature
�_tp
' Form No POP 92082
%- eCITY OF H UNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION • • • •
HUNTINGTON BEACH
TO Honorable Mayor and City Countil FROM Jack Ke1 y
Mayor Pro ore
SUBJECT SCATTERED PROBLEM LOTS/ DATE September 26 , 1983
SPECIFIC PLAN
Our attention was requested by Ms. June Economakos in her recent
letter of September 23, 1983 regarding owners ' preogatives on
some certain few scattered properties located within the area
covered by the Specific Plan.
The Economakos' property is located at 112-17th Street and borders
on an alley which separates a commercial Node to be developed on
PCH. On the residential side her, lot is completely surrounded by
4-plex to multiplex development. This virtually precludes any
opportunity for the Economakos to take advantage of lot consolida-
tion opportunities with contiguous landowners.
I respectfully suggest that Council consider incorporating adequate
language in the final Specific Plan document to protect property
owners whose holdings in Huntington Beach are marginal, unique,
challenging and will most likely encounter "down-zoning" if meaning-
ful land use flexibility is not provided.
JK:gl
r
�1�
Richard A. Harlow 1 rid Associates
planning and governmental relations
October 10, 1983
City Council a 0.
City of Huntington Beach ,
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Request to Permit
Single Family Homes
on 25 foot Lots
Within Area #2
Members of the City Council:
The Downtown Specific Plan does not permit construction of
single family homes on 25 foot wide lots within Area #2 as is
permitted in the Townlot Specific Plan. The plan establishes
a 50 foot minimum lot size and only permits construction of a
single family home on a 25 foot lot if it is a residual parcel.
Since development standards for a 50 foot lot permit
construction of a duplex, it does not appear reasonable to
prohibit construction of single family homes on each of the 25
foot lots comprising the 50 foot minimum lot size. The same
level of intensity occurs in either case. The primary difference
is the form of ownership. A duplex unit is a rental unit,
whereas a single family home promotes home ownership; something
that has been encouraged in the townlot area.
The advantage of permitting this alternative is the
compatibility with the area north of Walnut Avenue, while still
permitting the incentives for lot consolidation.
There are many examples in the townlot area to indicate that
development of a single family home on a 25 foot lot results in
a more attractive pro3ect having a high value than found with
apartment development.
I respectfully request that you give favorable consideration
to permitting development of single family homes on 25 foot lots
at least in the area between the alley and Walnut Avenue. Thank
you for considering this request.
Zy t y , our
,
2CHARD A. HARLOW
cgt
-9U �
333 West Yorktown Avenue• Huntington Beach,California 92648•(714)536-6464
1
i
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER DEPARTMENT COMMU ATION
HU%TINGTON BEACH
To Charles W. Thompson ro O James W. Palin, Director
City Administrator O Development Services
Subject STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON Date September 23, 1983
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
The Downtown Specific Plan will be considered by the City Council at a
special meeting on September 26, 1983. The Planning Commission care-
fully reviewed the draft plan before recommending it to the City Council
in its present form. In the course of their deliberations, the Commis-
sion recommended reducing the density, intensity and height limitations
in several districts from the standards proposed by staff in the June,
1980 draft plan.
While the staff strongly supports the Planning Commission action on
most of the Specific Plan, there are a few areas where we would recom-
mend that the City Council consider restoring the specifications con-
tained in the June, 1980 draft. These areas, and the rationale for
the recommended changes, are as follows:
District #1 - The Planning Commission reduced the maximum height for a
full-block consolidation between 8th and 9th streets to 35 feet and no
more than 3 stories. Since a full block consolidation of District #1
would include the half-block between the alley and Walnut which is part
of District #2, and the maximum height in District #2 is 45 feet and no
more than 4 stories, staff recommends restoring the height limit to 50
feet and no more than 4 stories. This would make all of District #1
consistent, and would allow a full-block development more flexibility
in design while still buffering the residential area of the Townlot by
the lower height limit in District #2 .
District #3 - The Planning Commission reduced the residential density
to 25 units per gross acre from 35 units per gross acre; reduced the
FAR for a full-block to 3. 0 from 3 . 25; and reduced the height limits
for full and multi-block consolidations to 4 and 6 stories respectively
from 6 and 8 stories northwest of Main Street and to 6 and 8 stories
from 8 and 12 stories southeast of Main Street. Staff feels that the
increased residential density, which would amount to only 30 units on
a full-block, is necessary to provide sufficient economic incentive
for consolidating the extra block and recycling the existing buildings
as opposed to rehabilitating them. Our computer model shows that suf-
ficient residential units are needed to overcome the cost disincentives
of providing adequate parking and reserving 50 percent of the floor
area for commercial or office uses. Staff also recommends a return to
the 3. 25 floor area ratio for a full-block to permit flexibility in the
size of residential units, and to accommodate some parking within the
structure above the ground floor. Similarly, the staff recommends re-
storing the greater height limits so that there is room for some flex-
ibility in designinq the structure, and, if necessary, for allowing
Charles W. Thompson
City Administrator
one or more levels of parking within it, since parking levels above
ground would count as both FAR and a story in height. It should be
noted that a setback of 125 feet from Sixth Street on all stories
above 4 would adequately buffer the Townlot residential area, and
that increased public open space would be required for each story over
4. This would mean that an 8 story building would have to provide the
equivalent of 20 percent of the lot in public open space. A 12 story
building would provide 30 percent of the lot in public open space.
(Asphalt parking and driving areas are not considered public open space. )
District #4 - The Planning Commission reduced heights to 3 stories from
4 stories. Staff believes that the 4 story height limit should be re-
stored in order to permit the flexibility to include parking at or above
grade. Four stories would be consistent with the heights in Districts
#1 and #2 which also border the Townlot residential area.
District #5 - The Planning Commission reduced residential density to
30 units per gross acre from 35, reduced FAR to 2 . 0 from 2 . 5 and re-
duced maximum height to 4 stories from 6 stories. Staff recommends re-
turning to the original recommendations for the same reasons outlined
in District #3: economic incentive, needed flexibility, provision of
parking and required public open space.
District #6 - The Planning Commission reduced the residential density to
25 units per gross acre from 35 units per gross acre. Staff ' s contacts
with developers indicate that desirable consolidated projects will not
be economically feasible at 25 units per acre. For this reason, staff
recommends that the density in District #6 be increased to 30 units per
gross acre, which should be enough to make a project work.
District #10 - The Planning Commission recommends a height limit of one
story on the pier. Staff would like to see 2 stories and a maximum of
25 feet above pier level permitted, so that restaurants could have
second levels for meeting rooms and lounges. This would allow the build-
ing footprint to remain compact, but give additional usable area. Staff
is preparing a perspective drawing to show the impact of the 2 story
height on the pier on the view from Main Street for review on Sept. 26 .
The above recommendations refer only to development on full block con-
solidations. Any full block developments will be subject to Planning
Commission scrutiny and control under a Conditional Use Permit. Staff
believes that these proposed changes would increase the flexibility of
the Specific Plan and would attract a higher quality of projects to
the Downtown.
JWP:JAF: sr
AMENDMENTS
rODMWS" '*0�.:ii'
--
I —
\ I �
I
\\ `s
_ ♦ r
s I
V� T F
\� r
/
ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL e
RESOLUTION NO 4368-DEC 12.1976
LEGEND
FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY \ /
MAJOR 45000 L
PRIMARY 30000 \ 71-
SECONDARY 20.000
NOTE -----
SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY ��q\ �✓
NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATL RIGHT OF WAY
DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO
RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS ---
�\
Q INTERSFCTI(1NS NFFDING iUTURF GTUhti
` �I
Proposed Circulation Plan Of
Highways
HUNTINGTON BEACH CAIIFoRNIA Arterial Streets and
PLANNING DIVISION
FIGURE 3.3-3
40
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN ERRATUM SHEET
PAGE 4
1. 2 Should the legislative body wish to change a proposed Specific
Plan recommended by the Planning Commission, the change must
first be referred back to the Commission for consideration
if not previously considered (Government Code Section 65504 ) .
If the Commission fails to act on the proposed change within
40 days, it is deemed approved. The same procedure applies
to subsequent amendments to the plan.
PAGE 5
1. 4 The Downtown Specific Plan is divided into four sequential sec-
tions. The first section describes the purpose and intent of
the Downtown Specific Plan along with a brief explanation of
Specific Plan procedure and authorization.
PAGE 9
2. 1 The Downtown Specific Plan includes the seventeen blocks on the
ocean side of Walnut Avenue between Goldenwest and Sixth Streets,
a central area between Sixth and Lake Streets extending up to
Hartford Avenue, and properties generally south of Atlanta Ave-
nue between Lake Street and Beach Boulevard (see Figure 2. 1) .
The Specific Plan area also encompasses the beach between Gold-
enwest Street and Beach Boulevard, including the municipal pier .
The Specific Plan area includes approximately 336 total acres.
PAGE 28
3. 1 District Five is the primary commercial core area serving as a
commercial link between the pier-head area and District Six (the
top of Main Street) . District Five includes approximately 20
gross acres with an emphasis on commercial activities, however,
an option for office, residential or additional commercial act-
tivities above the first floor is provided. This multi-use as-
pect is intended to create a lively place to be day or night for
both visitors and residents. Main Street should maintain a ped-
estrian-oriented shopping street character . Commercial uses should
be required on the ground floor with building fronts close to the
sidewalk to establish a more intimate scale . In order to afford
the visual, climatic and recreation amenities of this unique area
to a greater number of people, higher residential densities should
be provided. Offices should be encouraged to locate in this
district in order to help establish the desired Downtown atmosphere .
The commercial emphasis of this district can be achieved with
varying intensities, providing the commercial link between Orange
Avenue and the pier along Main Street is not broken at the pedest-
rian level. This district should encourage rehabilitation as well
(PAGE 28 - Con't. )
as new development. The larger scale new development (one full
block or greater) should not detract from the potential develop-
ment in District Six or District Three (the pier-head) . This
District is intended to connect the two major nodes with an
interest element which can best be achieved with a continuation
of the pedestrian-oriented commercial District; rehabilitation
and new developed should be scaled and designed with this intent.
The plan anticipates that this district can accommodate approx-
imately 150, 000 square feet of commercial uses with approximately
75, 000 square feet of office and 200 new residential units .
PAGE 31
3. 2. 3 District Seven is a consolidated parcel under one ownership and is
approximately 13 gross acres. District Seven should be master
planned as a primarily visitor-serving commercial project, which
could be implemented over a number of phases. Hotel, motel, rest-
aurant and specialty commercial would be appropriate uses. Develop-
ment in this district is not intended to compete with the Downtown
commercial core, therefore, major incentives for development would
not be necessary. The commercial uses in this district would be
of a more seasonal variety with the district serving as a connect-
ing link between the Downtown area and District Nine . The Plan
anticipates visitor-serving commercial can be accommodated with a
200-400 room hotel.
PAGE 56
3. 5 Museum - A museum might be the type of amenity which would augment
the visitor-serving atmosphere of the Main Street-Pier axis. This
type of facility could be either publicly or privately financed .
The area provides an appropriate setting for several ocean-related
museum themes such as oceangraphy, archaeology, natural history,
local history, like the oil industry operations and surfing. The
historic aspect of the oil-producing facilities in the region as
it relates to the ocean' s edge - an oil-rich environment could be
part of the museum theme. As a point of interest to visitors,
the oil industry could be recognized through strategic location
of oil-producing machinery, such as a large rocker arm pump,
treated as environmental sculpture and public art. An oil industry
museum could be a draw, but in itself a relatively lesser one .
A museum could be best located in the pier District 10 which could
serve as an anchor point for the Main Street-Pier axis.
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date September 19, 1983
Submitted to. Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by Charles w. Thompson, City Administrator
Prepared by James W. Palin, Director of Development Services
Subject DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
6 ✓J '& ?6W, LP PS S-3"'� � s q
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The Downtown Specific Plan was developed over the past two years to provide the
zoning implementation of the City's certified Land Use Plan for a portion of the
coastal zone between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard. The Land Use Plan is
the Coastal Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. It was adopted by the
City in January, 1981, and was certified by the California Coastal Commission in
November, 1982, and constitutes the first half of the City's Local Coastal Program.
The second half of the Local Coastal Program consists of implementing zoning regu-
lations, among which is the Downtown Specific Plan. When the complete package of
implementing zoning regulations is approved by the Coastal Commission, permit
authority will be returned to the City for those areas within the coastal zone
for which zoning has been certified.
RECOMMENDATION:
After a public hearing, approve the Downtown Specific Plan and adopt the
following:
1. Resolution 5'30Yadopting the Downtown Specific Plan
2. Ordinance)A amending District Maps 10, 12 and 16 to incorporate the
Downtown Specific Plan (Zone Case No. 83-2) .
3. Ordinance tl,°L/7amending the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to reference the
Downtown Specific Plan (Code Amendment No. 83-2).
4. Resolutionuc'3®q establishing a special fee for approval of developments in
the Downtown Specific Plan area.
ANALYSIS:
Planning Commission Action:
ON MOTION BY ERS KINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CASE 83-2 AND CODE AMENDMENT 83-2
WERE APPROVED AS REVISED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT- Porter �,�,
ABSTAIN: None
RCA- Downtown Spec-,tic Plan
September 19, 1983
Page 2
Purpose of the Specific Plan:
The Downtown Specific Plan would change the zoning on approximately 336 acres on
both sides of Pacific Coast Highway between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard.
The present zoning includes High Density Residential (R4) , General Business (0),
Office Professional (R5), Residential Agricultural (RA) , Mobile Home (MH) , Shoreline
District (Sl) , Neighborhood Commercial (CI), Oldtown Specific Plan District One, Old
Civic Center Specific Plan, and Oil (-0,-01) suffixes which allow new or continued
drilling and oil production activities. The proposed Specific Plan would allow for
a number of mixed use districts which combine commercial uses with residential uses
and/or offices. Special districts along the beach and on the pier would protect
access and views and would limit developments to those appropriate for public beach-
front or pier recreation.
Public Input•
There has been opportunity for public comment during the development of the Specific
Plan. On Saturday, June 5, 1982, a public meeting was held in City Hall to introduce
the Downtown Specific Plan to the public. About 30 people attended. Staff presented
a slide show, which was followed by a discussion period. Participants were also
asked to write down their ideas and concerns.
On May 24 and July 19, 1982, joint study sessions were held with the Planning
Commission and City Council during which various aspects of the Plan were dis-
cussed including: residential densities; possible size of residential units
which could be built; heights; floor area to lot area ratios (FAR's) ; lot cover-
age; and possible encroachment of beach parking in residential areas.
A public comment period was provided on February 15, 1983, on the draft EIR for
the Downtown Specific Plan. Several comments were presented at this hearing.
Response to these comments, as well as responses to other comments received
during the 45-day draft EIR review period were taken into consideration during
later revisions to the Plan.
A public hearing on the Downtown Specific Plan was held by the Planning Commission
on June 21, 1983. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed
and discussed the Plan at length at meetings on June 28, July 6, July 12, July 26,
August 2, August 16, and August 23, 1983. Any written comments received on the
Plan were considered by the Planning Commission at these meetings. On August 23,
1983, the Commission approved the Plan by adopting Resolution No. 1306, and
recommended it to the City Council for adoption.
A public hearing on the Specific Plan has been advertised for tonight's meeting.
Urban Design Study:
In February, 1983, the City entered into a contract with a consortium of con-
sultants for urban design and architectural services within the Downtown Specific
Plan area. This work proceeded concurrently with the Planning Commission's
review of the draft Specific Plan, and was intended to illustrate the types of
development which could occur under the proposed regulations. The guidelines
derived from this study will form the basis for a design review handbook for
eventual design review of developments under the Plan.
RCA - Downtown Specific Plan
September 19, 1983
Page 3
The consultants reviewed and commented on the draft Specific Plan, and
their input was incorporated into the present draft. In addition, the
consultants held a number of meetings with interested citizens and the
Planning Commission and City Council to obtain comments. The results
of these meetings have also been taken into consideration in this draft
of the Specific Plan.
The architectural consultants (Arroyo Group) will have visual displays
and sketches depicting possible development under the Plan for the
Council ' s information at tonight' s meeting. Their representative will
also be available to answer any questions and provide additional guidance.
Changes to the Draft Specific Plan:
The Downtown Specific Plan has gone through several changes since the
first draft (May, 1982 blue cover) . The changes to the document have
been due to many factors, with the primary emphasis being to produce a
document which can reflect the ma3ority of concerns expressed over this
long planning process. The Planning Commission listened to many hours
of public testimony and heard numerous comments and, in many instances,
conflicting desires from concerned citizens. The Planning Commission
thoroughly analyzed every issue and attempted to weigh all concerns.
The Specific Plan was reviewed on a page by page basis, in order to
assure that all recommended changes were consistently applied.
The draft Downtown Specific Plan is being recommended to the City Council
by the Planning Commission for adoption because they feel that after many
meetings and discussions this document truly reflects a workable and im-
plementable plan which accommodates the ma3ority of concerns expressed
over the past two years. These include:
- Design theme
- Increased buffering for the existing residential areas, to protect
the integrity and privacy of the neighborhoods
- Circulation modifications to keep through traffic off neighborhood
streets
- Larger setbacks on PCH and Beach Boulevard
- Limitation of heights on a portion of the beach side of PCH
- Strict control of uses on the beach
The staff concurs that the Planning Commission did an outstanding Sob
in fine tuning the Specific Plan into a document which is more stream-
lined and understandable and detailed to the extent necessary for each
district. For the most part, 90 to 95 percent, the staff agrees with
the recommendation of the Planning Commission on the modifications in-
corporated into the Specific Plan.
IG1
r r r r r r I r r r r r r r r r t r t
TABLE 1
TRIP GENERATION RATES
Downtown Hunt►ngton Beach C►rculat►on Plan
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Land Uses Units Daly In Out In Out
Commerc►aI
General per 1,000 sq. ft. 79.0 1 .80 1 . 10 2.40 2.70
Reta► l Nodes per 1,000 sq. ft. 115.8 1 .90 1 .60 7.20 7.20
Restaurants per 1,000 sq. ft. 56.3 0.85 0.45 2.75 1 .70
P►er & Beach per 1,000 sq. ft. 115.8 1 .90 1 .60 7.20 7.20
Spec►alty per 1,000 sq. ft. 79.0 1 . 10 2.40 2.40 2.70
Residential
14 d.u./acre per d.u. 8.0 0.20 0.60 0.60 0.30
35 d.u./acre per d.u. 6. 1 0. 15 0.45 0.45 0.25
Off ice per 1 ,000 sq. ft. 12.3 1 .85 0.35 0.25 1 .35
Hotel per 1,000 sq. ft. 10.5 0.60 0.30 0.40 0.40
Recreat►onal per acre 6.0 0. 15 0. 10 0.20 0.30
Museum per 1,000 sq. ft. 5.5 0.20 0. 10 0.25 0.40
Source: "Tr►p Generation, " Inst►tute of Transportat►on Engineers, Wash►ngton, D.C., Second
Ed►t►on, 1979; and Greer & Co., Engineers and Planners.
r t r r r t r t r t t
TABLE 2
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Downtown Huntington Beach Circulation Plan
Trip Generation
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Land Use Size Daily In Out In Out
Commercial
General 130,000 sq. ft. 10,270 235 145 310 350
Retail Nodes 60,000 sq. ft. 61950 115 95 430 430
Restaurants
(6 @ 81000 sq. f t. ) 48,000 sq. f t. 2,700 40 20 130 80
Specialty 150,000 sq. f t. 111850 165 360 360 405
Pier & Beach 20,000 sq. ft. 2,320 40 30 145 145
Residential
co 14 d.u./acre 78 d.u. 630 15 45 45 25
35 d.u./acre 2,955 d.u. 18,030 445 1,330 11330 740
Office 300,000 sq. ft. 31690 555 105 75 405
Hotel (4 @ 400 rooms) 1,600 rooms 16,800 960 480 640 640
Recreational 18 acres 110 5 5 5 5
Museum 100,000 sq. ft. 550 20 10 25 40
TOTAL 73, 900 2)595 21625 31495 3, 265
Source: Greer & Co., Engineers and Planners.
RCA - Downtown Specific Plan
September 19, 1983
Page 4
Although the Planning Commission was very sincere in their efforts to
develop a comprehensive plan, staff feels that some of the recommen-
dations may compromise the flexibility of the document.
Staff differs with the Planning Commission in their recommendation to
reduce densities, intensity and height in some areas: Staff' s concern
that these reductions may preclude the possibility of parcel consoli-
dation for new developments by reducing the economic return on a pro-
3ect. In many cases, it is the residential component of a mixed devel-
opment that promises to make the project feasible. Until a nucleus of
new commercial development is established in the downtown, the resi-
dential portion of any development may be the mayor incentive to builders.
The staff and the Arroyo Group feel that the Plan will be economically
viable, if it is flexible enough to accommodate a variety of desirable
developments.
The intensity of the present draft Specific Plan is well below the
intensities approved by the City Council and certified by the Coastal
Commission in the Land Use Plan. For this reason, staff would recom-
mend that the City Council reconsider the following:
RCA - Downtown Specific Plan
SepteMber 19, 1983
Page 5
- District 1 Planning Commission Recommendation: Between 8th and 9th Streets,
Toot height limit and no more than 3 stories on a full block.
Staff Recommendation: Allow 50 feet and no more than 4 stories to
e consistent wit t e remainder of District 1, and to be compatible
with District 2 directly north on the back half of the block.
- District 3 Planning Commission Recommendation: Limit residential density to
units per gross acre in developments northwest of Main St, and
do not allow residential uses southeast of Main St.
Staff Recommendation: Allow 35 units per gross acre northwest of
Malin__St.
Plann4& Commission Recommendation: Limit FAR to 3.0 on full block
consolidations.
Staff Recommendation: Allow a FAR of 3.25 on full block consoli-
dations,
Planning Commission Recommendation: Maximum permissible heights
northwest of Main St. would be 4 stories on a full block consoli-
dation and 6 stories on a multi-block consolidation; southeast of
Main St. heights would be limited to 6 stories on a full block and
8 stories on a multi-block consolidation.
Staff Recommendation: Allow maximum heights of 6 and 8 stories for
full and multi-EURT consolidations northwest of Main St. with 125
foot setback from ultimate ROW on 6th St. for all stories over 4;
allow maximum heights of 8 and 12 stories for full and multi-block
consolidations southeast of Main St.
- District 4 Planning Commission Recommendation: Limit heights to 35 feet and
no more than 3 stories.
Staff Recommendation: Allow heights of 50 feet and no more than 4
stories on full block consolidations,
- District 5 Plannin Commission Recommendation: No more than 30 units per gross
acre, FAR of 2.0 and height limit of 4 stories on full block con-
solidations.
Staff Recommendation: Residential density of 35 units per acre,
FAR of 2.5 and heIg—Ft limit of 6 stories on full block consolidations,
- District 6 PlanniE Commission Recommendation: Limit residential density to
2-5 units per acre.
Staff Recommendation: Allow maximm residential density of 30 units
per acre.
11
RCA- Downtown Specific Plan
September 19, 1983
Page 6
- District 10 Planning Commission Recommendation: Limit heights on the pier
and northwest of Main St. to one story above the level of the
pier.
Staff Recommendation: Permit heights to be two stories above the
level of the pier on the pier and southeast of Main Street; one
story northwest of Main Street,
The changes proposed above may increase the liklihood of attractive new projects
being developed in the downtown in the near future, while keeping the intensity
limits well below those adopted by the City Council and approved by the Coastal
Commission in the City's Land Use Plan.
Planning Commission Communication:
A communication from the Planning Commission which outlines their concerns and
rationales is attached for your information.
Environmental Status:
Draft final EIR No. 82-2 on the Downtown Specific Plan was approved by the City
Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 5284 on July 18, 1983.
FUNDING SOURCE:
The preparation of the Downtown Specific Plan was originally funded by an appro-
priation from the general fund, with the intent that the expenditure would be
recovered over the period of development by charging the costs of preparation back
to developers at the time of project approval, in accordance with the State enabling
legislation. For that purpose, staff has prepared the attached resolution estab-
lishing a special fee for developments in the Downtown Specific Plan area, which
the Council may adopt.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Do not adopt the Downtown Specific Plan. In this case, alternative zoning
would have to be developed in order to bring the zoning into conformance with
the adopted Land Use Plan.
2. Direct staff to develop other zoning which would bring the area's zoning into
conformance with the adopted Land Use Plan.
ATTACFMENTS:
1. Ordinance No.gWW amending District Maps 10, 12 and 16 to incorporate the
Downtown Specific Plan.
2. Ordinance No.M9 amending the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to reference
the Downtown Specific Plan.
3. Resolution No.530g adopting the Downtown Specific Plan.
Resolution No.57301 establishing a special fee for approval of developments in
the Downtown Specific Plan area.
\J
RCA- Downtown Specific Plan
September 19, 1983
Page 7
S. Communication from the Planning Commission.
6. Williams Kubelbeck Economic Report.
7. Greer & Co. Traffic Study.
JAF
. �q
DECEMBER, 1982 AUGUST, 1983
DISTRICT DENSITY F.A.R. HEIGHT DENSITY F.A.R. HEIGHT
1 23 2 . 0 50 '
effective 4 stories 30 50 '
4 storieE
2 35 2. 0 50 '
effective 4 stories 35 45 '
4 storj ,-,-
3 35 3.5 over 12 25 N. 3. 50 8 storiE
effective stories of Main multi- multi-
block block
4 35 2. 25 4 stories 35 1.5 35 '
effective 3 storic
5 35 2. 5 over 6 30 2. 0 4 stories
stories
6 No resi- 2. 25 4 stories 25 2. 25 4 stories.
dential
7 35 3. 0 ---- No resi- 3. 0 8 stories
dential
8 35 --- 35 ' 35 --- 50 ' - 501
lot cover
age
9 No resi- 4.0 ---- No resi- 3 .5 ----
dential dential
,/ #&
I re Huntington Beach Planning Commission
P O BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
TO: MAYOR MacALLISTER, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MARCUS M. PORTER, PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14 , 1983
The Downtown Specific Plan that will be before you September 19,
1983 , is based on 3 1/2 hours of public testimony, over 25 hours of
Planning Commission and Staff study sessions, and nearly 100 votes
by the Commission. Each page and numbered item of the Specific Plan
was reviewed by the Commission.
The Planning Staff worked very closely with individuals and groups
(such as the Downtown Committee, Chamber of Commerce, the Citizens
Group for Village Atmosphere) to accept input and keep these groups
and individuals informed on the progress of the Specific Plan.
The Plan that you will review was made available to the public on
September 9, 1983. Two hundred copies were made available at City
Hall, the City's public libraries and fire stations .
Out of 96 straw votes , three-quarters were unanimous. There were
some concerns expressed by individuals on the Commission on certain
items.
One of the major decisions was development intensity or the amount
of commercial, office and dwelling units permitted. Comparing the
Specific Plan submitted by Staff in December and the Plan adopted by
the Commission in August, reduced density, heights and development
are reflected in the latter .
The majority of the Planning Commission strongly feels that the
density recommended by the Commission is the maximum the Council
should consider. This recommendation is based on the following
assumptions:
1. The Arroyo Group Analysis does not guarantee on the
open market that the Plan can be built out to maximum.
But it does show if there is an increase made in that
maximum, especially office, it would take years and
probably never be built out.
2. The potential impact on existing residential areas is
the restricting element that should limit the amount of
traffic allowed in the downtown areas. Regarding
traffic circulation, it is recognized that the Arroyo
Greer Study and Staff ' s input indicates the streets are
capable of handling more traffic than what the project
will generate.
Further , because of the potential impact, the traffic
circulation is designed to handle two types of traffic ;
Local and Visitor .
Local would be: (1 ) Orange, from 6th to Goldenwest;
( 2) Lake, from Atlanta to Yorktown; ( 3) 6th from Orange
to Main (with Super Block traffic) ; (4) Indianapolis
from Lake to Beach; (5 ) Main from Palm to 14th. These
streets are designated to handle increased traffic for
residential, commercial and office. It is the
Commission ' s intent that use of these streets be
controlled so that impact of visitor traffic on
established residential areas is minimized.
Visitor traffic would be handled on the following
streets : (1 ) P.C.H. , (2) Beach Boulevard, (3)
Goldenwest, (4) Walnut from 6th to Beach Boulevard, (5 )
Lake to Atlanta, Orange from 2nd or 3rd to 6th, ( 7) 6th
from P.C.H. to Orange, (8) Atlanta, Lake to Beach.
The use of all streets would be controlled by several
means such as signing, no turn lanes, cul-de-sacs,
speed limits which would control the use of the street
(Visitor or Local ) . Selective vacations of rights-of
way would be used to increase developable area and
channel traffic as well.
3 . Public Input - Based on verbal and written testimony,
public input was an important factor in reducing
density.
The Commission would like to take this opportunity to thank the
Planning Staff team that worked on this project and commend them for
the outstanding job they did. Also thanks are in order for the
individuals, residents, business owners, and concerned citizens for
the hours spent on committees and for preparing testimony. Their
input has been invaluable.
Marcus M. Porter , Chair
cc: Jim Palin
Planning Commission *As revised by the Planning Commission
Charles Thompson at their 9-13-83 meeting. '�
� DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN ERRATUP, SHEET
PAGE 4
1. 2 Should the legislative body wish to change a proposed Specific
Plan recommended by the Planning Commission, the change must
first be referred back to the Commission for consideration
if not previously considered (Government Code Section 65504) .
If the Commission fails to act on the proposed change within
40 days, it is deemed approved. The same procedure applies
to subsequent amendments to the plan.
PAGE 5
1.4 The Downtown Specific Plan is divided into four sequential sec-
tions. The first section describes the purpose and intent of
the Downtown Specific Plan along with a brief explanation of
Specific Plan procedure and authorization.
PAGE 9
2. 1 The Downtown Specific Plan includes the seventeen blocks on the
ocean side of Walnut Avenue between Goldenwest and Sixth Streets,
a central area between Sixth and Lake Streets extending up to
Hartford Avenue, and properties generally south of Atlanta Ave-
nue between Lake Street and Beach Boulevard (see Figure 2. 1) .
The Specific Plan area also encompasses the beach between Gold-
enwest Street and Beach Boulevard, including the municipal pier.
The Specific Plan area includes approximately 336 total acres.
PAGE 28
3.1 District Five is the primary commercial core area serving as a
commercial link between the pier-head area and District Six (the
top of Main Street) . District Five includes approximately 20
gross acres with an emphasis on commercial activities, however,
an option for office, residential or additional commercial act-
tivities above the first floor is provided. This multi-use as-
pect is intended to create a lively place to be day or night for
both visitors and residents. Main Street should maintain a ped-
estrian-oriented shopping street character. Commercial uses should
be required on the ground floor with building fronts close to the
sidewalk to establish a more intimate scale. In order to afford
the visual, climatic and recreation amenities of this unique area
to a greater number of people, higher residential densities should
be provided. Offices should be encouraged to locate in this
district in order to help establish the desired Downtown atmosphere.
The commercial emphasis of this district can be achieved with
�-y varying intensities, providing the commercial link between Orange
Avenue and the pier along Main Street is not broken at the pedest-
rian level. This district should encourage rehabilitation as well
(PAGE 28 - Con't. )
as new development. The larger scale new development (one full
block or greater) should not detract from the potential develop-
ment in District Six or District Three (the pier-head) . This
District is intended to connect the two ma3or nodes with an
interest element which can best be achieved with a continuation
of the pedestrian-oriented commercial District; rehabilitation
and new developed should be scaled and designed with this intent.
The plan anticipates that this district can accommodate approx-
imately 150, 000 square feet of commercial uses with approximately
75, 000 square feet of office and 200 new residential units .
PAGE 31
3. 2. 3 District Seven is a consolidated parcel under one ownership and is
approximately 13 gross acres. District Seven should be master
planned as a primarily visitor-serving commercial pro3ect, which
could be implemented over a number of phases. Hotel, motel, rest-
aurant and specialty commercial would be appropriate uses. Develop-
ment in this district is not intended to compete with the Downtown
commercial core, therefore, ma3or incentives for development would
not be necessary. The commercial uses in this district would be
of a more seasonal variety with the district serving as a connect-
ing link between the Downtown area and District Nine. The Plan
anticipates visitor-serving commercial can be accommodated with a
200-400 room hotel .
PAGE 56
3. 5 Museum - A museum might be the type of amenity which would augment
the visitor-serving atmosphere of the Main Street-Pier axis. This
type of facility could be either publicly or privately financed.
The area provides an appropriate setting for several ocean-related
museum themes such as oceangraphy, archaeology, natural history,
local history, like the oil industry operations and surfing. The
historic aspect of the oil-producing facilities in the region as
it relates to the ocean' s edge - an oil-rich environment could be
part of the museum theme. As a point of interest to visitors,
the oil industry could be recognized through strategic location
of oil-producing machinery, such as a large rocker arm pump,
treated as environmental sculpture and public art. An oil industry
museum could be a draw, but in itself a relatively lesser one.
A museum could be best located in the pier District 10 which could
serve as an anchor point for the Main Street-Pier axis.
r
"r
AMENDMENTS
Pin:INO CITY \\
mw..sstor+ C—CIL
I �
F, I /�
ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO 4368-DEC 12 1976 \
LEGEND
FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY /
MAJOR 45000 \
PRIMARY 30000 -t�-
SECONDARY 20000
NOTE \ -----
SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY
DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO \�°o
RIGHT OF WAY E%ISTS —�—— ---
P�
O INTERSECTIONS NEEDING FUTURE `,TUD%AM)k
Proposed Circulation Plan Of
HUNTINGTON BEACH C41-IFORNIA Arterial Streets and Highways
lap PLANNING DIVISION
FIGURE 3.3-3
4 0 �'
,� 'Pv6!►s�^ Q'p�Y s
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DUMTOW SPECIFIC PLAN/ZONE CASE 83-2/00DE NU ID 4T 83-2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City
Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic
Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as
possible on Monday, the 19th day of September, 1983, for the purpose of
considering the Downtown Specific Plan, Zone Case No. 83-2 and Code Amendment
No. 83-2. The Specific Plan constitutes new zoning for that portion of the
coastal zone between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard in the City of
Huntington Beach. The Specific Plan is bounded on the inland side by Walnut
Avenue, Sixth Street, Hartford Avenue, Lake Street and Atlanta Avenue.
A copy of said Specific Plan is on file in the Department of Development
Services.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their
opinions for or against said Downtown Specific Plan, Zone Case and Code
Amendment.
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000
Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92W - (714) 536-5227.
DATED: 9/2/83
�l
b2jo CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
17-laINTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HONORABLE MAYOR DON MACALLISTER From GAIL HUTTON
To AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL City Attorney
Subject
AGENDA ITEM D-2a; DOWNTOWN Date 19 September 1983
SPECIFIC PLAN
In an effort to provide the greatest amount of council participa-
tion that the law permits in decisions concerning the Downtown
Specific Plan resolutions and ordinances, the ordinances and
resolutions have been broken down into various groupings as follows:
ORDINANCE 2646
Ordinance 2646-A; (Thomas only abstains)
Covers areas 1 - 7 - SA
Ordinance 2646-B; (Thomas and Mandic abstain)
Covers areas 2 and 6 [Thus, Thomas has conflicts on 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 , 8A]
Ordinance 2646-C; (NO Abstentions)
Covers areas 3, 4, 5, 8B, 9 , 10, and 11
RESOLUTION 5308
Resolution 5308-A; (Thomas only abstains)
Covers areas 1 - 7 - 8A
Resolution 5308-B; (Thomas and Mandic abstain)
Covers areas 2 and 6 [Thus, Thomas has conflicts on 1, 2 , 6 , 7, 8A]
Resolution 5308-C; (NO abstentions)
Covers areas 3, 4 , 5 , 8B, 9 , 10 and 11
ORDINANCE 2647
Ordinances 2647 - A, B, and C, adding subsections (c-1, 2 , and 3 to
H.B. Ordinance Code §9300 . Abstention follows previous analysis
for A, B, and C.
RESOLUTION 5309
Resolution 5309 - A, B, and C provide fees for approval of development
applications in Downtown Specific Plan. Abstentions follow previous
analysis for A, B, and C.
GAIL HUTTON cc: Charles Thompson -va
City Attorney James Palin �, 1Q�
Tom Tincher
H.B. Planning Con _ssion
June 21, 1983
Page 5
plan for previously approved Use Permit No . 82-26. Applicant
shall maintain all conditions imposed under this use permit.
AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher,
Mir]ahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
There was further discussion about the possibility of people parking
along the curve interfering with the flow of traffic.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR USE PERMIT NO. 83-34
AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-20 WERE TABLED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mir3ahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Schumacher
ABSTAIN: None
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2/
DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-2
Initiated by City of Huntington Beach
The Specific Plan constitutes the zoning for that portion of the coastal
zone between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard in the City. The
Plan is bounded on the inland side of Walnut, Hartford, Lake and
Atlanta. Secretary Palin concisely delineated the action recommended
by staff to approve the Specific Plan and recommend approval and adop-
tion by the City Council . He further explained ramifications of
Coastal Commission actions. Other staff members went on to explain
in detail the document itself and specifics, and Pat Dawe from the
consultant group (Arroyo) , gave a lengthy slide presentation of some
of the envisioned concepts and design themes suggested for the downtown.
He stated that people have some anxiety and should first be told that
the plan is a "long way from reality" . He explained his role in the
process was to factualize and communicate planning concepts.
His presentation included the suggestion of a
surfing museum and possibly an oil museum. He pointed out that the pier
needed to be equipped with handicap access and that crossing Pacific
Coast Highway was very dangerous . But that, on the other hand, the
City represents youth and vitality and that this should be accented.
His displays were colorful and consisted of mediterranean-type buildings
with recessed third and fourth stories.
Chairman Porter opened the public hearing and reminded those wishing
to address the Commission on this matter to keep their comments to under
Five minutes. The following comments were made:
r Eileen Murphy asked that the Commission not take away "what we have
single family homes" .
,n f�.
H.B. Planning Commission
June 21, 1983
Page 5
plan for previously approved Use Permit No. 82-26. Applicant
shall maintain all conditions imposed under this use permit.
AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher,
Mir3ahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
There was further discussion about the possibility of people parking
along the curve interfering with the flow of traffic.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR USE PERMIT NO. 83-34
AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-20 WERE TABLED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mir3ahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Schumacher
ABSTAIN: None
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2/
DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-2
Initiated by City of Huntington Beach
The Specific Plan constitutes the zoning for that portion of the coastal
zone between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard in the City. The
Plan is bounded on the inland side of Walnut, Hartford, Lake and
Atlanta. Secretary Palin concisely delineated the action recommended
by staff to approve the Specific Plan and recommend approval and adop-
tion by the City Council . He further explained ramifications of
Coastal Commission actions. Other staff members went on to explain
in detail the document itself and specifics, and Pat Dawe from the
consultant group (Arroyo) , gave a lengthy slide presentation of some
of the envisioned concepts and design themes suggested for the downtown.
He stated that people have some anxiety and should first be told that
the plan is a "long way from reality" . He explained his role in the
process was to factualize and communicate planning concepts.
His presentation included the suggestion of a
surfing museum and possibly an oil museum. He pointed out that the pier
needed to be equipped with handicap access and that crossing Pacific
Coast Highway was very dangerous . But that, on the other hand, the
City represents youth and vitality and that this should be accented.
His displays were colorful and consisted of mediterranean-type buildings
with recessed third and fourth stories.
Chairman Porter opened the public hearing and reminded those wishing
to address the Commission on this matter to keep their comments to under
five minutes. The following comments were made:
x Eileen Murphy asked that the Commission not take away "what we have
- single family homes" .
{
H.B . Planning Commission
June 21, 1983
Page 6
? Roseanne Greenfield agreed that the blufftop park is a good point
of the plan, however, she felt that the presentation made by Mr. VV
Dawe was not a true representation of what will go in. She felt
that what the City of Huntington Beach would end up with was a look
like the City of Long Beach with many high rises , which she noted
were missing from Mr. Dawe ' s presentation. She also stated that
there were two misleading contentions : that the high price of land
dictated the high rise buildings (this , she said, was false; that
there were acres of beach property along the coast with low density development
and that these other cities valued their open space); and that if the height of the
buildings were lowerd it would lead to inverse condemnation. She stated
zi that the Commission should consider what the people of Huntington
Beach want and further consider restricting the high rise to Beach
Boulevard and not throughout the downtown area.
Tammy Warner stated that the slide presentation by Mr. Dawe was
excellent , but agreed with the previous speaker, that it was not
a true representation. She said that the height expressed in the
document on page 18 was not a three-story limit, but rather a four-
story limit, she subsequently suggested a 30-35 foot height limit.
She also disagreed with the proposal to make Orange a ma3or arterial .
Dave Hall stated that the public supports low intensity along the
' coast. He cited Fashion Island in Newport Beach as being a good
example of the kind of buffering that should occur in the downtown.
He, again, reiterated the statement that he does not want to see
another Long Beach.
8
Jerry Williams spoke in favor of the Specific Plan. He stated it
f
was a good plan and he "happens to like what they did to Downtown
Long Beach" .
Ann Carter said many investors do not live in the City. She said,
"We welcome change , but under three stories" . She said the issue
was the height limit and that "whatever is allowed, the maximum will
be built" . She quoted from an article out of the Long Beach Press
Telegram dealing with a glut of office space and said this has
"created a monster" in that town. She went on to say that Long
Beach traffic congestion is tremendous and they have direct freeway
access where Huntington Beach is not freeway accessible.
Spence Sheldon, representing the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in
favor of the Specific Plan, stating that it is trying to capture
the character of the City, "it' s the kind of road map we should
keep in mind" . He said the people living in the area should sub-
merge their own personal interests so that a plan can be developed .
As an Aminoil USA employee, he pointed out his company' s contribution
and support of the blufftop park and assured the people present at
the hearing that as this park shapes up, it will bring new pride
for the City. He felt that the real question was, "do we want the
status quo, or do we want to move along?"
Charlene Stewart said she is for improvement, but "you are asking us
11.11. Planning Commission
June 21, 1983
Page 7
to bite off more than we can chew - it' s too much change all at
once - don' t put buildings up in front of the beach" .
Stan Cowen stated that the downtown redevelopment is the concern
of all the people of the City of Huntington Beach and was concerned
with the people ' s rights . He stated that every questionnaire that
was sent out showed that people want slow development with limited
height and density; that the people do not want a Downtown Long
Beach or "Miami Beach of the West" . He stated that City Council
members may represent special interest groups, but it is to the
detriment of the people to allow the implementation of this Specific
Plan. He requested that the Commissioners deny the plan and then
they "would sleep better tonight" .
DeWitt Easterly stated that although he now resides in Fullerton
that he had planned to build a retirement home in Huntington Beach
and "my plan has been shot down" by the proposed specific plan.
He was concerned with senior housing originally proposed for the
coast and now moved inland and he wondered how long it would take
to implement the plan.
Joe Genevese said he supports low intensity which, he said, goes
along with the people ' s wishes . He stated that the drawings dis-
played by Mr. Dawe were good but not realistic. He supported the
height limit of three stories in the townlot area . When asked
by the Chairman, what type of buffer he would recofnmend, he stated,
"how about redwood trees" !
Lance Jacot said that although he supports change and revitalization,
the majority want lower density and lower height limits. He further
stated that earlier reports recognized the problems in the area
and asked that those considerations be included in the proposed
plan.
Verle Cowling said he was "glad to see so many young people present
their statements so well" . He agreed with lower density in the
downtown.
Richard Harlow stated he supported the Specific Plan. He said that
from 6th Street and Goldenwest Street the 50 foot height limit was
reasonable. However, he did suggest that the Commission consider
a 75 foot setback from all public streets , rather than 50 feet, along
with staggering building heights .
Richard Plumber was in favor of low to mid-rise building heights.
He said he did not like the idea of a 42" wall on PCH, he would
rather see a 5 foot landscape easement. He voiced his disagreement
with the Plan regarding the issue of price of the land related to
high rise buildings.
Natalie Kotsch read a letter from a resident who was unable to attend
I1 .B. Planning Commission
June 21, 1983
Page 7
to bite off more than we can chew - it' s too much change all at
once - don' t put buildings up in front of the beach" .
Stan Cowen stated that the downtown redevelopment is the concern
of all the people of the City of Huntington Beach and was concerned
with the people ' s rights . He stated that every questionnaire that
was sent out showed that people want slow development with limited
height and density; that the people do not want a Downtown Long
Beach or "Miami Beach of the West" . He stated that City Council
members may represent special interest groups, but it is to the
detriment of the people to allow the implementation of this Specific
Plan. He requested that the Commissioners deny the plan and then
they "would sleep better tonight" .
DeWitt Easterly stated that although he now resides in Fullerton
that he had planned to build a retirement home in Huntington Beach
and "my plan has been shot down" by the proposed specific plan.
He was concerned with senior housing originally proposed for the
coast and now moved inland and he wondered how long it would take
to implement the plan.
Joe Genevese said he supports low intensity which, he said, goes
along with the people ' s wishes . He stated that the drawings dis-
played by Mr. Dawe were good but not realistic. He supported the
height limit of three stories in the townlot area. When asked
by the Chairman, what type of buffer he would recommend, he stated,
"how about redwood trees" !
Lance Jacot said that although he supports change and revitalization,
the majority want lower density and lower height limits. He further
stated that earlier reports recognized the problems in the area
and asked that those considerations be included in the proposed
plan.
Verle Cowling said he was "glad to see so many young people present
their statements so well" . He agreed with lower density in the
downtown.
Richard Harlow stated he supported the Specific Plan. He said that
from 6th Street and Goldenwest Street the 50 foot height limit was
reasonable. However, he did suggest that the Commission consider
a 75 foot setback from all public streets , rather than 50 feet, along
with staggering building heights.
Richard Plumber was in favor of low to mid-rise building heights.
He said he did not like the idea of a 42" wall on PCH, he would
rather see a 5 foot landscape easement. He voiced his disagreement
with the Plan regarding the issue of price of the land related to
high rise buildings.
Natalie Kotsch read a letter from a resident who was unable to attend
H.B. Planning Commission
June 21, 1983
Page 8
I"1
� I
r•r
the meeting (George Diry, Downtown Development Committee) who was
in favor of a higher density than what was proposed in the Specific
Plan. She further quoted, "if market value is to be established,
it should be with an eye on the future and a possibility to ad3ust.
To say a 5-year hence market rather than to accept today' s deflated
slump market, at a time which is unfavorable to real estate" , this
regarding public acquisition of land. He felt that zoning and
density will attract the quality developers into the area, but plan
needs to be economically feasible.
Tom Conclin favored a 3-story height limit. He was concerned about
the parking situation citing incidences where people are parking
on the vacant land between Beach and Goldenwest. He said that every-
one is pleased with the blufftop park but fears it too will be used
for parking. He stated that although the Plan has merit in philosophy
he is concerned about the guidelines.
Leonard Wright distributed another letter (in addition to the one
they received in their packet) . He verbalized the essence of these
letters - in favor of improvement as seen in the blufftop park but
concerned about market potential . He agreed that better parking
is needed and suggested a change in front yard setbacks . He said
that the previous plans showed a lower intensity and this is what
he favored.
Ed Zschocke said there would be transportation and parking problems
with implementation of a higher density as proposed in the Plan.
He stated that in order for a plan to work in the downtown, you
have to create a more intimate atmosphere with lower intensity
development. He said that although the slides showed what looked
like low intensity, the plan did not reflect it.
Anita Livingston addressed her concerns to Mr. Tincher and the pro-
posed Main-Pier Plan. She is concerned with the possibility of a
tax increase. She stated that the trees in the City are not main-
tained as it is and expressed her anxiety that "no matter what you
say" it will happen anyway.
Jim Hemsley expressed his concern that it seemed that the City
Council and city planners are trying "to push these things through" .
He felt that it should be obvious that the people do not want
high rise and that the plan should reflect the citizens ' wants.
Lois Freeman was concerned with traffic circulation, especially
the cul-de-sacing of Main Street related to flow on 6th Street.
She stated she would hate to see the pier "turn into a carnival"
atmosphere.
Keith Campbell stated he felt his privacy would be affected by
the proposed plan. He is against the high rise buildings.
Virginia George stated that she "doesn' t want to move" out of
the City.
1 f
H.B. Planning Commission
June 21, 1983
Page 9
The public hearing was closed.
Discussion ensued regarding the Specific Plan. Commissioner Livengood
had concern about the square footage with maximum built-out. Jeanine
Frank stated that if the maximum was built with everything consolidated
office space would amount to about 1 million square feet and commercial
to 2. 5 million square feet. However, she added, a more possible senario
is 60% of maximum consolidation that would bring the figures down con-
siderably. Chairman Porter discussed what seemed to him to be a dis-
crepancy between what the staff was recommending in the Specific Plan
zoning and the figures supplied by the Williams-Kuebelbeck group re-
garding pro3ected market feasibility (especially commercial) . Mr. Dawe
stated that the study was a conservative estimate.
Discussion also took place regarding the traffic and circulation model,
protection of vehicle trips , proposed street widening, access, phase
redevelopment, fire and police protection as it is written in both the
Specific Plan document and the EIR document. Mr. Dawe made the obser-
vation that with regard to traffic problems in the downtown, the prob-
lems are basically seasonal (beach traffic) and not all together im-
possible to remedy. Commissioner Schumacher was concerned with rede-
velopment costs to parts of the City not affected by pro3ect areas.
She was also concerned about the census figures used from a report that
is not current and, therefore, not accurate. She said she would like
to see comparisons of other beach communities. She said what she is
hearing from the public is that a lot of money is being spent and
nothing is getting done. She asked about the impact on the school
district. Staff stated that they have reported a general decline in
enrollment. She stated she could not support the EIR as written.
Secretary Palin explained staff' s recommendation agreeing that the
study by Williams-Kuebelbeck was a conservative protection when you
look at the long range. He said that in 1976 , the City retained
industrial which has created Sobs in the community and improved the
quality of the environment by making it possible for people to work
in the community and not have to commute long distances. Mr. Tincher
added that the Williams-Kuebelbeck study was preliminary in nature,
that the tasks outlined for the consultants were broad and challenging
and that it ignored the uniqueness of the area. Commissioner Livengood
commented that "emotion has to go" to be able to come up with a workable
plan for the downtown. He said that although he liked some of the ideas
from Mr. Dawe ' s presentation (i.e. surfing hall of fame and oil museum) ,
he did not think it was realistic for the Commission to make a decision
without sufficient traffic and circulation figures. He also questioned
parking on Lake Street, market feasibilities, conversion of residential
streets to ma3or arterials , adequacy of the EIR, cost effectiveness of
a 4-story parking structure at 5th and Main, maintenance and landscaping.
Commissioner Mir3ahangir stated that he anticipates traffic and noise
problems if the Specific Plan as written is adopted. His main concern
is with traffic circulation especially inner-circulation with surround-
ing cities. He asked staff if Adams Avenue could be utilized. He
also said that in correspondence with OCTD they say that this city has
H.B. Planning Commission
June 21, 1983
Page 10
r..
not "come through" , to date, with comprehensive planning for public tram
portation. Commissioner Erskine asked staff to explain the scheduling
and time constraints that City Council was dealing with. Mr. Palin
again asked the Commissioners to consider the suggestion of an adjourned
meeting on June 28 , due to the request of City Council . Mr. Tincher
explained that City Council set the date of July 5 , 1983 , to hear the
Main-Pier Redevelopment Plan Amendment of which the EIR for the Down-
town Specific Plan addresses. And, further, another deadline is an-
ticipated regarding funding under community development law, and that
is July 18, 1983. This would give the City Council the 5th and possibly
the llth, if necessary, to complete the redevelopment schedule.
Commissioner Livengood commented that Commissioner Mir3ahangir had
requested a time line from staff and he had not received it. He also
stated that it bothered him that the Specific Plan document was sent
to the Commissioners on Friday and a decision was expected tonight.
A motion was made by Livengood and seconded by Schumacher to continue
the draft EIR, the zone change and the code amendment to the next
regular meeting of July 6 , 1983 . Commissioner Higgins said he did
not think it was an unrealistic request to have an adjourned meeting
on June 28. The motion and second were withdrawn.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL FINAL DRAFT EIR 82-2 , ZONE
CHANGE NO. 83-2 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2 WERE CONTINUED TO AN
ADJOURNED MEETING ON JUNE 28 , 1983, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Winchell , Porter, Erskine, Mir3ahangir, Schumacher
NOES: Livengood
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
Redevelopment Plan Amendment for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project
Plan Amendment No. 1
Establishing an amended redevelopment area which will allow the Re-
development Agency to capture tax increment as a means to finance
the costs necessary to remove blighting conditions .
During the discussion on the EIR (82-2) Commissioner Livengood asked
about the legality of public hearing process as it relates to the
redevelopment plans. Mr. Tincher had responded that a public hearing
was not required at the Planning Commission level . Opening discussion
on the Redevelopment Plan dealt with this question. Mr. De La Loza
felt that a public hearing at the Planning Commission was appropriate
since the City Council has appointed this body to make recommendations.
Chairman Porter also asked legal counsel if the EIR represented an
amendment to an element in the General Plan. Mr. De La Loza responded
that it does represent an amendment to the General Plan and for that
reason should be the subject of appropriate , noticed public hearing
with recommendation from this body to the City Council. Commissioner
r -,
APPROVED AS CORRECTED 7-19-83
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Chambers - Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
TUESDAY, JUNE 28 , 1983 - 7 : 00 PM
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins , Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine,
Schumacher, Mirjahangir
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2/
DRAFT FINAL E .I .R. 82-2
Initiated by City of Huntington Beach
The Specific Plan constitutes the zoning for that portion of the
coastal zone between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard in the City.
The Plan is' bounded on the inland side by Walnut, Hartford, Lake and
Atlanta.
Chairman Porter stated that the best approach was to deal with general
topics then go into the plan itself and cover general elements of the
Specific Plan, followed by individual zoning districts . Secretary Palin
further identified the method by which the Planning Commission should
vote, i.e. , first dealing with the EIR. He said that the Commission
received a new diagram on daily traffic volumes and an introduction
and summary of findings from the Williams-Kuebelbeck group. Also dis-
tributed was a position from Councilmembers Finley and Bailey.
Claudette Dupuy gave a brief response to questions raised at the last
regular meeting dealing with clarification on time limits and "worst
case" parameters. She also called attention to the Greer traffic study
which was distributed. The Commissioners had some question on service
level explanations . Les Evans stated it was a way to describe how
well traffic is flowing on a scale of A to F. Commissioner Erskine
asked how many days per year we operate on Level F. Mr. Evans replied in
summer months on weekends . Commissioners discussed the impact on
Pacific Coast Highway regarding traffic as, a result of the project
t area. Mr. Evans felt that it would "barely cause a ripple" on PCH.
Discussion took place regarding the discrepancies between the staff ' s
figures and the consultant' s figures . Commissioners wanted additional
information from Greer. Chairman Porter said that in
implementing the plan, an adequate right-of-way should be designated to ac-
commodate potential traffic volumes and that an effort be made to
H.B. Planning C� .nission
June 28, 1983
Page 2
minimize impacts in adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Evans stated that
Greer had suggested bringing Atlanta around to Lake and making Lake
a key intersection; Public Works is not convinced that this is the
way to go. Rather to leave that flexibility with- the Atlanta-Orange
option which would move traffic to Goldenwest, Gothard and streets
on the west side. Commissioner Livengood asked if the master plan of
streets and highways would have to be changed based on these proposals.
Mr. Palin stated that the circulation plan has been master planned
sufficiently to accommodate traffic projection. Chairman Porter felt
that the extension of Walnut between Lake and Beach is a
boundary in the specific plan that does exist as an alignment on the
master plan and it seems to be a significant part of
the ability to handle traffic.
Discussion continued on market feasibility. Pat Dawe of the Arroyo
Group stated that Williams-Kuebelbeck was supplied with all of the
available documents to make a recommendation, however, "market studies
come and go" and that the market was not very "cheery" when discussion
started on the specific plan. He further stated that a good study
could cost between $25 , 000 and $45 , 000. He stated that what the Com-
mission set as a goal was ambitious . He felt that the real test of
the plan is its flexibility and is it something that will last a long
time; that this could only commence with specific projects.
Discussion ensued on the EIR. Jeanine Frank explained that the EIR
analyzes fiscal possibilities rather than economic. Commissioner
Erskine commented on the maximum square footages set in the specific
plan; he felt that the minimum would take care of itself. He said
that the maximum would be set by traffic and would not necessarily deal
with economics.
Commissioners raised questions regarding floor area ratios, street
widening relating to levels of service and cost versus revenue related
to specific projects . Chairman Porter believed that 60% of maximum
build-out would not realistically occur for about 17 years. Commis-
sioner Higgins commented that if you don ' t substan-
tiate the market' s potential, you "cannot come up with a
reasonable plan." Commissioner Schumacher commented that the possibility
of rolling back residential has to be looked at to create revenue for
the City. She said we will not always have oil here; all we have is
that beach. Commissioner Livengood read from a report that was
similar to the proposed Specific Plan, but the report was dated 1967 .
Brief discussion took place on the proposed convention-type facility
written into District 3 . Commissioner Erskine asked for clarification
as to what is written into the City' s plan and what the Coastal Com-
mission has approved in the L.U.P. Jeanine Frank explain.
that we will be held to the areas where we have designated visitor
serving. Commissioner Higgins brought up the fact that a freeway had
been proposed 19 years ago that was never built, which had been proposer
in the EPA study. This he said to show that those figures in the 1967
report are not accurate.
H.B. Planning Commission
June 28, 1983
Page 3
EIR 82-2:
The following suggested changes were made to the EIR document: In
Section 4 . 1 there was confusion on the figures dealing with lot area,
that the figures on page 5 and page 19 should be the same. Commissioner
Livengood did not agree with the density figures used under "Land Use
and Population" , he felt it was too much office and commercial space.
Ms. Dupuy explained that the law requires that you address the worst pos-
sible case. Commissioner Erskine believed that what was in the staff
report on page 5 under population should be written in the EIR. Com-
missioner Winchell stated that the figure of 5 , 000 residential units
was not accurate since the actual figure was 6 , 308 - she felt it should
be rounded up to 6 , 000 . Commissioner Erskine wanted the "1. 78 persons
per unit" at the top of page 22 changed to reflect the 1980 census .
It was suggested to make the circulation map which was distributed, part
of the document. It was also suggested that references be made wherever
comments relate to a particular section. (Commissioner Schumacher clari-
fied a comment made regarding the Golden Bear Cafe as a historic site. )
Brief discussion took place regarding noise attenuations, which can be
achieved by a combination of berms and walls; and mitigation of bill-
boards along Pacific Coast Highway, which is dealt with in state legis-
lation.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE DRAFT FINAL EIR 82-2 WAS
APPROVED AS AMENDED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Specific Plan Document:
Discussion ensued with the following comments made on the Specific Plan
document for the downtown:
Discussion on the design theme as "Mediterranean" was discussed. Com-
missioner Erskine stated that whatever the theme, the materials should
be long-lasting, mainly stucco as opposed to Cape Cod wood. Upkeep of
the awnings was discussed. Florence Webb stated that she had contacted
a manufacturer about a brand new material that is acrylic but has the
appearance of canvas with a life expectancy of about 8 years. Commis-
sioner Schumacher felt that if it states "ocean-related" theme, this
would be sufficient terminology. Staff responded that the original plan
was to prepare a design guideline booklet looking at design themes and
to bring it back to the Commission to review and adopt after the specific plan
was approved by the Coastal Commission.
A show of hands was counted on Commissioner Livengood' s suggestion to
clearly state "design will be of a Mediterranean theme" .
IN FAVOR: Livengood, Mirjahangir
H.B. Planning Commission
June 28 , 1983
Page 4
NEW
A show of hands was requested on Chairman Porter' s suggestion to includrr.
by reference the letter written by the Arroyo Group dealing with design
theme and include the renderings as part of the document in the appendix.
IN FAVOR: Higgins, Winchell , Porter, Erskine, Schumacher
Discussion followed regarding street circulation. Commissioner Livengood
felt that sentences on Page 25 dealing with alignments should• be deleted.
Les Evans explained that it was an explanation of a possible senario, not
fact. Chairman Porter stated that most people are concerned with intru-
sion into the residential area to the west. He said he felt that the
character in the area that is going from residential to mixed use would
have more of a chance to change if a plan is adopted. A straw vote
was taken to get a Commission concensus on eliminating the first two
sentences at the top of Page 29 , with the following vote:
IN FAVOR: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
OPPOSED: Higgins
Les Evans reminded the Commissioners that they should be careful in
"dropping" streets out of the Pattern because
it would impact necessary circulation. Chairman Porter re-
sponded that it was a question of whether statements should appear in
the document that increase the intrusion into the residential area and t
the Commission consensus is to leave that out. Discussion took place
regarding specific streets in the downtown. Secretary Palin clarified
the fact that Lake is a primary highway; Orange is a secondary highway;
17th was reduced from major to primary, etc. There was a question aboi.it
Main Street. Mr. Palin stated that a design was worked out with the
Public Works Department on the traffic model, to filter Main with 17th
Street and the Gothard intersection with Main in the vicinity of Clay
Avenue. He said he could report back to the Commission at the July 6th
meeting on this (Precise Plan of Street Alignment 76-B) .
There was discussion to remove the entire first paragraph on Page 29
which would eliminate reference to Delaware Street. A straw vote was
taken on a motion to leave the sentence as it is, by the following vote:
IN FAVOR: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
OPPOSED: None
Commissioner Winchell suggested removing 6th Street from consideration for po:
sible street vacation, however, she added this would depend on what is
done with the rest of the specific plan. Chairman Porter noticed that
there was no mention of the R.V. parks. He felt that R.V. parks should
be more accessible. Mike Adams mentioned that there was discussion by
the state to include some camping areas, however, they are talking abou
it for only the winter months. Commissioner Livengood favored includin
a sentence from page 222 of the • (green cover) earlier drafted specific plan.
At this point Chairman Porter stopped the discussion and continued it
to the regular meeting of July 6, at 6 :00 P.M. He also said he would
H.B. Planning Commission
July 6 , 1983
Page 3
i
Commissioner Mirjahangir referred to page 37 regarding overpasses, he
asked if staff had considered underpasses . Secretary Palin stated that
it was felt by providing a plaza area, that option would be left open,
for some date in the future.
ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ERSKINE MAIN STREET INTERSECTION
WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR OVERPASS OR UNDERPASS , BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW
VOTE:
AYES : Winchell , Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : Livengood
ABSENT: Higgins
ABSTAIN: None
Discussion went back to the median on PCH to discourage pedestrian mid-
block crossing. Commissioner Schumacher understood that this was under
the jurisdiction of CalTrans. Staff agreed with this statement.
Chairman Porter suggested striking the reference to a low fence on
page 37 and inserting "something permanent and aesthetically pleasing
consistent with the downtown theme." He was also concerned about the
maintenance.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, CHAIRMAN PORTER'S
SUGGESTION REGARDING THE MEDIAN ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY WAS APPROVED
BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE :
AYES : Winchell , Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: Livengood
ABSENT: Higgins
ABSTAIN: None
Discussion took place on street circulation, specifically the extension
of Walnut from Lake to Beach Boulevard. Chairman Porter was concerned
about addressing circulation in the specific plan document, aside from
dealing with it in the Circulation Element Amendment. Commissioner
Livengood shared that concern and added that the "intent was to delete
Sixth Street as a major arterial" . He said that it was deleted on
page 29 and left in on page 23. Discussion also followed on the Greer
traffic study. Les Evans stated that the latest information received
from Greer would probably be the last the City would be receiving.
Commissioner Erskine asked if a design theme in the Main Street plaza
area was incorporated into the document. Mike Adams responded that it
was not, but would be appropriate in the design concept section.
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO IN-
CORPORATE AN OCEAN-RELATED THEME IN THE DESIGN CONCEPT SECTION OF THE
DOCUMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Schumacher
ABSTAIN: None
E �
H.B. Planning Commission
July 6 , 1983
Page 4 r--,
Discussion resumed on the median in Pacific Coast Highway with regard
to discouraging pedestrians from crossing in the middle of a block.
Signalizing was discussed.
Commissioner Livengood referenced the correspondence from the Arroyo
Group, dated May 13, 1983, regarding an arts park, museum and surfing
hall of fame. He favored this being included in the document.
Commissioner Erskine also wanted something of this nature similar to
what Laguna Beach has, however, he went on to discuss financing of
such projects. Referring to page 44 , in every instance where it states
"This type of facility could be either publicly or privately financed"
he suggested that it read public/private to indicate a definite option.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, THE ABOVE SUGGESTIONS
WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Schumacher
ABSTAIN: None
Discussion followed on the possibility of new sewer lines being installed.
Les Evans agreed that this may be necessary. It was suggested that re-
ference to a new trunk line going in beneath Walnut Avenue be changed
to reflect the fact that construction is completed. This change was
noted by staff on pages 47 and 49 .
Commissioner Winehell stated .t c» 1.11C leCUld tliat, not being able to
solve anything from a .market study, she would solve it from response
from the people that reside in the downtown. She said if you pare down
the square footage by 25 or 30 percent it would bring down the height.
She did not favor increased heights in the Townlot area; she felt that
the public was not benefiting from increased heights and densities.
Staff called attention to an item handed out to shown a boundary change
in District 10 to include the parking lot to the project extended to
align with 7th Street.
Commissioner Livengood stated that he favored a 3-story limit in
District 1. Chairman Porter stopped the discussion to resume at the
Adjourned Meeting of July 12, 1983.
REDEVELOPMENT MAIN-PIER PROJECT AREA EXPANSION PUBLIC HEARING - PROJECT
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1
The expansion of. the Main-Pier Redevelopment Area to include approximat
350 acres between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard (Downtown Spe-
cific Plan Area) and 27 . 5 acres at Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue.
The public hearing is the result of minute action taken by the Planning.
Commission.
Tom Tincher gave a presentation with his main points being that the
H.B. Planning Commission
July 6 , 1983
Page 5
F411
Planning Commission needs to determine if redevelopment should be used
as a tool and a resource for improvement. That redevelopment gives
potential investors a guarantee and the City has property to bring about
implementation. He stated that eminent domain is -a "black eye" and
the City is not trying to do that. He also brought up the advantages
of redevelopment such as stricter relocation benefits to displaced
residents. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked who would be financing re-
location, the City or the developer. Mr. Tincher stated that was an
agency responsibility, however, he said as we work with developers they
may pick up the obligation. Commissioner Schumacher asked if the City
is building a public faciilty, do you have to go out for public bid
or can you choose a developer to do the work. Mr. Tincher said it
would depend on how the facility was constructed. If it was separate
and not tied to an agreement then yes, we would go out to bid, but if
it is part of an agreement the City would not have to go out to bid.
She was particularly concerned about a parking lot on the beach. He
said in this case they would go out to bid.
Other concerns by the Commissioners included a suggestion by Commissioner
Winchell to put off the amendment for one year, a concern by Chairman
Porter of placement of funds and a request for amount of acreage that
the City owns . The Chairman opened the public hearing. The following
persons addressed the Planning Commission:
Dean Albright commented on rolling back residential , planting rose
bushes in the median in PCH to discourage mid-block crossing and
informed the Commission that a committee was being formed to deal
with air pollution and noise impacts.
Richard Harlow spoke on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce stating
that they support the redevelopment plan amendment as submitted.
Commissioner Erskine asked if Mr. Harlow believed the plan will pro-
tect existing businesses. Mr. Harlow stated that nothing can be
100% , that any property owner has the right to do with his building
as he sees fit and that this philosophy has to carry over.
Judith Severy of the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of
Realtors stated that they have adopted a resolution in support of
revitalization of the City of Huntington Beach.
Verle Cowlig stated that he does not understand how anyone could
make a decision without enough information given to them. He said
that 60% of the property owners "is probably controlled by the same
organization" . He felt the City is "putting the squeeze on the
small people" . His other concern dealt with traffic circulation and
his feeling that the City is forcing people to do what they do not
want to do.
Jim LeGuy spoke in favor of the plan. He said "do something with
the business community. "
Joanne Kessell said she is for development but against redevelopment.
H.B. Planning Corssion
July 6 , 1983
Page 6
r-1
I
She did not agree that redevelopment was necessary, that once the
zoning was in place there would be no problem with development. She
said "if 60% can force 40% to sell out, how can property rights be
preserved" .
Gloria Hemsley stated she was against the 60% figure. She also in-
formed the Commissioners that Leonard Wright was unable to attend
the meeting due to hospitalization.
Ann Carter stated she was against redevelopment but not development.
She did not believe there was enough "thought behind this" .
Doug Langevin said he was not in favor of redevelopment that it would
create traffic problems. He said as far as blight was concerns he
has never seen a street cleaner in the area of the old civic center
site.
Keith Campbell was concerned about the proposed widening of Lake
Street. He said "people will be shocked by redevelopment taking
place in their area" .
Lois Freeman said you will encourage traffic to go down "my street"
and "I may have to move but who would buy my house" .
The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood asked for clari-'
fication on the proposed action. Mr. Tincher said that the Planning
Commission is being asked to find if the plan is consistent with the
General Plan and, if so, to adopt the amendment. He further emphasized
that the plan itself does not establish land use policies, that is
accomplished by the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY MIRJAHANGIR TO INCLUDE
REFERENCE TO THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN ON PAGE 14 UNDER LIMITATION OF
BUILDING DENSITY (3RD PARAGRAPH) AND TO STRIKE THE LAST SENTENCE UNDER
LIMITATION ON TYPE, SIZE AND HIEGHT OF BUILDINGS (4TH PARAGRAPH) ON
PAGE 14 . MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins , Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Winchell asked why the document itself was written in such
a manner. She favored a format similar to ordinance changes where any
new material is underlined. She went on to state for the record that
she acknowledged that a lot of people believe that without this "packagoR,
we are doing nothing, "but with the adoption of the (initial) redevelop
ment area, we are doing something and we do have a start" . She said
she would like to see how Huntington Beach handles redevelopment and
wait at least one year for this outcome. She stated she would vote
against expanding the area.
H.B. Planning Commission
July 6 , 1983
Fill Page 7
�� Commissioner Erskine asked why the area between 6th Street and Golden-
west was included, besides the reason of a tax base. Mr. Tincher
responded that it was due to oil still in the area that the plan is
to work with the oil companies and find ways to consolidate the pro-
perties and redevelopment is the vehicle to accomplish this. He further
stated that it would provide a resource that could lead to completion
of the blufftop park and address the issue of widening of PCH and pro-
viding public parking. Commissioner Livengood requested a copy of
the transmittal to City Council if the amended plan is approved. The
Chairman recommended that this be part of a motion dealing with Area 2.
Discussion ensued regarding the 60% figure. Mr. Palin suggested that
a different percentage could be considered. Commissioner Schumacher
recalled that the LCP encouraged block consolidation "letting private
enterprise do it on its own" . She felt that by including both sides
of Pacific Coast Highway it is "pushing too hard" . She felt rather
that the downtown corridor should be expanded. She suggested that just
the beach side of PCH be incorporated into Area 2 . Discussion then
followed on where tax monies would and could be spent. Tom Tincher
recommended that eminent domain be removed from all residential areas ,
but retain it in the oil property area.
Commissioner Erskine recommended leaving Area 2 out of redevelopment
plan area. Chairman Porter was concerned that this might make a dif-
ference in the 2/3 voting requirement if the portion was amended.
Art De La Losa stated that if the Planning Commission recommended
against the amendment it would require a 2/3 vote to override that
recommendation. However, after conferring with Tom Clark (attorney
to Redevelopment Agency) the language in the resolution could be changed
to read "proposed plan as submitted to the Planning Commission conforms
to the General Plan of the City as it may be amended from time to time" .
Chairman Porter also felt that it needs to conform not only to the
General Plan but also to the Master Plan and Streets and Highways.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE AREA 5 WAS ADOPTED AS
PRESENTED IN THE PLAN AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : Winchell
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR AREA 6 WAS ADOPTED AS
PRESENTED IN THE PLAN AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : Winchell
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE AREA 3 WAS ADOPTED AS PRE-
SENTED IN THE PLAN AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
H.B. Planning Commission
July 6 , 1983
Page 8
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine
NOES : Winchell , Schumacher, Mirjahangir
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS AND SECONDED BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE AREA
4 AS PRESENTED. DISCUSSION ENSUED.
Commissioner Livengood asked how the plan would affect the mobile home
parks within that area boundary. Mr. Tincher stated that the recommen-
dation to City Council is that a committee be established and a study
made of relocation, that supplementary assistance be provided - that
this would provide additional assistance under the mobile home ordi-
nance . The second on the motion, Commissioner Erskine, recommended
amending the motion to include the Planning Commission' s support of
such a recommendation to the City Council to establish a committee.
The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment. Commissioner Livengood
thought it might be a better idea to exclude the mobile home parks
from Area 4 . Mr. Tincher pointed out that Mr. Ingrams ' involvement
as a mobile home tenant, found redevelopment to be an added resource
to help solve the problem and not a means to expedite that displacement.
THE MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES: Winchell, Schumacher
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER AREA 7 WAS ADOPTED AS
PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: . None
A motion was made by Higgins to include Area 2. This motion failed
for lack of a second.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECONDED BY MIRJAHANGIR TO DELETE
AREA 2 FROM THE PLAN AMENDMENT. DISCUSSION ENSUED.
Chairman Porter stated he was against the motion to delete Area 2 as
it would impede whatever increments could be captured for the blufftop
park area. Commissioner Livengood made a motion to amend the main
motion to draw a line between 6th and 7th Streets to reduce Area 2.
This motion failed for lack of a second. 1
THE MAIN MOTION TO DELETE AREA 2 FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
H.B. Planning Commission
July 6, 1983
Page 9
AYES: Winchell, Mirjahangir
NOES: Higgins, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Livengood
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD TO CHANGE
THE BOUNDARY LINE IN SUBAREA 2 AS FOLLOWS:
On the alley between 6th and 7th from Walnut to PCH, up PCH
to Goldenwest, beach-side of PCH down to the boundary between
Area 2 and Area 1; everything on the inland side of PCH is
excluded from Area 2 except a half-block, one block deep between
6th and 7th Streets .
MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : Winchell, Erskine
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Two comments from the Commissioners were incorporated as changes in
the Negative Declaration document, 1) Commissioner Livengood felt that
Question #3 and #4 should read "maybe" because of traffic circulation
impacts and, 2) Commissioner Schumacher felt that the impression was
given that a certain project was completed at Beach and Atlanta when
in fact it has not been constructed. The following paragraph was added
to make that correction:
"A portion of the area at Beach and Atlanta is approved to be de-
veloped as an apartment complex. The proposed apartment complex
received a Negative Declaration (No. 82-41) last year. There is
also an existing commercial area on the site. This area was de-
veloped prior to the adoption of CEQA, therefore, no environmental
documentation was prepared for this site. "
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NO. 83-15 WAS APPROVED WITH THE ABOVE NOTED CHANGES, BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Winchell , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Porter reminded staff to rework the actual document for the
sake of clarity and to include this recommendation in the motion for
approval.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECONDED BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION NO. 1309 APPROVING THE. MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMEND-
MENT NO. 1 WITH ADDITION IN FINDING 1-a THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN CONFORMS
u
H.B. Planning Commission
July 6 , 1983
Page 10 .--,
TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, AS IT MAY BE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. FURTHER,
STAFF DIRECTED TO CLARIFY THE DOCUMENT FOR CONTINUITY, AND RECOMMEND
ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : Winchell
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
USE PERMIT NO. 83-25 (APPEAL)
Appellant: Councilman Ron Pattinson
Applicant: Enterprise Rent-A-Car
An appeal by Councilman Ron Pattinson to a condition of approval per-
taining to irrevocable offer to dedicate property for ultimate right-
of-way. The original request for a use permit was to construct an 863
square foot building in conjunction with a car rental agency. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the BZA' s condition - of
approval.
The public hearing was opened. Dick Sass , one of the property owners ,
stated that there were 12 lots involved; that a certain number of feet
were dedicated to the City but the Edison Company was in the way so
they could not get "20 feet off the end" . Now they will take it out
of the south side of Warner. His contention was that if the drive is
gone you would completely screen off the business. Dave Willie, repre-
senting Enterprise Rent-A-Car stated that it would cause property to
. be looked at as two parcels. He stated, "if we were to buy the property
none of this would come up because it would be two property owners, the
fact that he (Mr. Sass) owns both parcels" we are being penalized. The
public hearing was closed.
Mr. Palin stated that these are not legal lots they are remnant pieces .
That all of these small lots constitute a building site which is legal
however, they have never been consolidated which is now a requirement
for the applicant before building. Commissioner Higgins asked if this
requirement was for creation of two parcels. He said that was correct.
Commissioner Higgins asked what reason the City would have for not
accepting the dedication on Warner. Mr. Palin stated that it would
come at some time in the future when the City is ready for additional
improvements. He . referred to Public Works. Mr. Evans stated some time
within the next three years.
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE -APPEAL OF A CONDITION �
OF APPROVAL ON USE PERMIT NO. 83-25 WAS DENIED - BZA DECISION UPHELD, t
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: M
CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1 . Approval of conditions on the use permit has been upheld by the
Planning Commission. Applicant shall maintain all conditions of
MINUTES
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Chambers - Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1983 - 7 : 00 PM ,- ADJOURNED MEETING
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins , Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher,
Mirjahangir
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Winchell
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM:
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2
(EIR 82-2 approved earlier)
Initiated by City of Huntington Beach
The Specific Plan constitutes the zoning for that portion of the coastal
zone between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard in the City. The
Plan is bounded on the inland side of Walnut, Hartford, Lake and Atlanta.
The secretary began by a recap of straw voting and action taken to date.
Mr. Palin also called attention to the handouts from Larry McKamish,
the Huntington Beach Company and the Surfing Association. Commissioner
Erskine requested staff to bring up these points when they reach each
section in the discussion.
Discussion began by overall comments. Commissioner Higgins stated his
philosophy on the specific plan. He said he did not agree with the amount
of area that can be developed commercially, because it exceeds anything
the market would support. That because of that and restrictions being
imposed on residential, it is possible that .nothing would happen in
these areas. His policy would be to delete the restrictions on resi-
dential and let the market dictate what happens.
Commissioner Livengood stated that the concensus from the downtown com-
mittee was to let City Council know who favors the Plan, whether or
not the Plan will be implemented. He said it is too much commercial;
that the high-rise "could come in and be successful, but other property
owners trying to develop anything - they couldn't develop their property" .
Commissioner Erskine stated that he sees a phasing problem at issue. He
said, "I hope we can separate marketability from environmental impacts. "
Commissioner Schumacher stated that the downtown and coastal area is
the last resource left in the City, that "as it is presently, we are
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12 , 1983
Page 2
getting nothing in return for a very prime stretch of beach" . She felt
that only residential is being built and sold and that as far as com-
mercial is concerned she would like to see free enterprise given a
chance. She said she favors some commercial but not at such a high
density.
Commissioner Mirjahangir said that "you have an existing area you are
trying to develop" , that the impacts deal with traffic and existing
residential and how we should go about mitigating it. He said that
areas adjacent to the central core and areas which may be commercial
in the future are not going to get exposure and therefore, the business
community will see no amenities and other cities in Orange County will
give them a better location. In his opinion, "other than the central
core, the rest should emphasize residential" .
Chairman Porter said his ideas follow along the same lines, that the
proposed commercial at the foot of the pier and the lower end of Main
Street, high-rise in concept, has a tendency to detract from a mall or
village atmosphere. He felt that an increase in heights should occur
conceptually, at the end of District 3 as opposed to uniformly in that
district, this would be where property has allowable setbacks to accom-
modate the heights . He said that the plan should reflect something
more realistic, and "not what we have seen in the market studies" .
Discussion resumed on page 55, Section 4 . 0 . 03 and . 04 , Organization
and Definitions. Jeanine Frank recommended dropping the paragraph
dealing with affordable housing as it is no longer necessary. She also
recommended a phrase be added to the definition of heights, "vertical
distance above the highest adjacent street level grade" , etc. Also
remove No. 1 and No. 2 from the height definition. Commissioner
Schumacher also suggested removing the first paragraph in Section 4 . 2 . 09
dealing with definition of heights.
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ABOVE MENTIONED CHANGES
WERE MADE TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins , Livengood, .Porter, Erskine., Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Ms. Frank suggested adding a statement under 4 . 1. 01 on page 59 that
"projects shall be in conformance with the adopted Design Guidelines
for the area" .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SENTENCE AS STATED ABOVE
WAS ADDED TO SECTION 4 . 1. 01, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
. r
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12 , 1983
Page 3
ABSTAIN: None
Discussion took place regarding energy conservation implementation.
Commission Schumacher asked if there was a blanket statement covering
solar energy in regards to granting special permits. Commissioner
Erskine stated there was a bill to be signed by the Governor (AB 163)
which addresses energy requirements . Chairman Porter requested that
if the BIA has a summary of that bill , the Commissioners would be in-
terested in seeing it.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS 4. 1. 02, . 03
AND .04 ON PAGE 60 WERE APPROVED AS DRAFTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW
VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Schumacher asked if gating and stacking should be addressed
when talking about full block consolidation. Mike Adams suggested
that, rather than address it in the Plan, to deal with that on the
project level. There was some discussion about Fire Department regu-
lations. Mr. Palin stated that if there is alternative treatments within
a development such as stand pipes, sprinkler systems, etc. , they will
alleviate developers from required drives and turn-arounds. Commissioner
Livengood said he supported some wording to adhere to City restrictions
with regard to the possibility of Warner Avenue opening onto PCH.
Mr. Palin stated that the intent is to encourage minimizing access into
developments, that if you have block consolidation the only type of
access is from the alleys, which can be reviewed under the conditional
use permit.
Commissioner Higgins suggested restricting access from PCH in Dis-
tricts 1, 2 and 3 to alleys or numbered streets. He said that in the
larger Districts (7 and 8) it would not be necessary. He also said
that the applicant would still have the right of review if he had a
plan with "terrific" ingress and egress plans. Chairman Porter agreed
"if we say it is not excluded by special permit" . Mike Adams recom-
mended removing the first sentence in Section "a" , so that the applicant
could have use of the former right-of-way as an accesspoint. Commis-
sioner Schumacher disagreed with including District 1.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY HIGGINS TO EXEMPT DIS-
TRICTS 2 AND 3 FROM CURB CUT RESTRICTIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine
NOES: Schumacher, Mirjahangir
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
1 �
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12 , 1983
Page 4
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SUBSECTIONS b AND c .WERE
APPROVED AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
.ABSTAIN: None
In Subsection d and f the following changes on page 62 were recommended by, staff:
In "d" add: "guest parking" ; in "f" add: "and landscaped on top" .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE PAGE 62 WAS APPROVED WITH
RECOMMENDED CHANGES BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR LAST SENTENCE REGARDING
SURFACE AREA PARKING WAS ELIMINATED FROM 4 .2 . 05 BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir
NOES : Porter, Schumacher
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Staff recommended that the last sentence in Section 4 . 2. 06 regarding
landscaped planters, be eliminated.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS LAST SENTENCE IN 4 . 2. 06
WAS ELIMINATED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Staff recommended adding "automatic electric" to irrigation sentence (b) and a
phrase "in conformance with Design Guidelines" to (d) in Section 4.2.07.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS STAFF'S SUGGESTED CHANGE
WAS ADDED TO SECTION 4 . 2. 07 d BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Schumacher recommended deleting the first paragraph in
Section 4 . 2. 09, Heights, and adding, "Height limits shall be established
within each district" .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THIS CORRECTION WAS APPROVED
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12, 1983
Page 5
IN SECTION 4 . 2 .09, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Discussion took place regarding the screening of satellite dishes on
roofs. The thrust of the discussion was a question if it was covered
somewhere in the code. Mr. Palin stated it was not exempted in Divi-
sion 9. Chairman Porter pointed out that although the actual dish may
be a certain number of feet high, it is always at an angle that would
bring the height down. He recommended that a new section (4. 2. 31) be
added to address that issue. The following sentence was added, "All
utility lines shall be undergrounded where possible. "
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CHAIRMAN PORTER'S
SUGGESTION WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
The Chairman called for a 5-minute recess. Commission resumed at 9 PM.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE BALANCE OF PAGE 64
WAS APPROVED (4. 2. 10 and 4 .2. 11) BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Discussion took place regarding standard plan of street signs as cited
by Paul Cook' s letter of concern. Chairman Porter suggested including
a statement "consistent with design theme" in Sections 4 .2. 17 and 4 . 2. 19.
Discussion followed regarding billboards. The Chairman requested the
City Attorney' s office to report back if there was any current ordinance
dealing with that.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS PAGE 65 WAS APPROVED WITH
THE ABOVE CHANGES, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Livengood, Higgins, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
dM ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Schumacher suggested that common open space be designed to
,give relief from building bulk. Staff suggested inserting this state-
ment into Section 4 . 2. 11, Open Space on page 64 as follows, "Common
open space shall be designed so that it enhances the appearance of the
project to passers-by, providing visual relief from building bulk" .
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12, 1983
Page b
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THIS SENTENCE WAS ADDED TO Y"
SECTION 4 . 2.11 UNDER OPEN SPACE, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS 4 . 2. 21 THROUGH
4. 2. 24 WERE APPROVED AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAAN: None
Discussion took place regarding a letter submitted by the Huntington
Beach Company regarding parking lost from street vacation. Chairman
Porter suggested under Subsection "g-iii" that any parking lost must
be replaced "either on or off site or through in-lieu fees" . Ms. Frank
also suggested striking the first "permitted use" in Section .27a and
also adding under "g" , the words, "and determined that the vacation will
not be detrimental" . Chairman Porter also commented that with street
vacations , up til this time they were to be consistent with the General
Plan and now they will have to relate to the Specific Plan. Commissionef, #
Mirjahangir asked what was the reasoning for excluding District 3. Ms.
Frank stated it was to encourage better developments in that district.
Mr. Mirjahangir felt that should be uniformly applied.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO APPROVE SEC-
TIONS 4. 2. 25 , 4 . 2. 26 AND 4 . 2. 27 WITH THE ABOVE CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
AND TO DELETE SENTENCE REGARDING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE F.A.R. ' s IN SUBSEC-
TION "b" IN SECTION 4 .2.27 .
Commissioner Schumacher suggested removing "b" from the motion because
other districts may be dealt with.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECONDED BY MIRJAHANGIR TO AMEND
THE MAIN MOTION EXCLUDING SUBSECTION "b" FROM THE MOTION. THIS MOTION
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : Higgins
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
STRAW VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION AS FOLLOWS :
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir et
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
•ABSTAIN: None
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12, 1983
Page 7
Chairman Porter called attention to the added sections ( .28 , . 29 and . 30)
distributed by staff since the first meeting on the subject of the
Specific Plan. Commissioner Schumacher did not favor adding subsec-
tion .29 "Limitations on Residential Densities" . 5he stated that a
lot of people would be coming in for exemptions. Mr. Palin also com-
mented that in . 30 , "Oil Suffix Zoning" , the only exception would be
for areas zoned MH (Mobile Home) .
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS , . 28 AND . 30 WERE APPROVED
BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Porter stated he agreed with Commissioner Schumacher to not
include the limitation on residential densities so that the Director
would "deal with each one" .
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SUGGESTED ADDITION,
. 29 WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PLAN DOCUMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Under District #1, Commissioner Higgins asked if you change the limita-
tion on residential in that eight block visitor-serving area is that
something that would conflict with the Coastal Commission. Staff re-
sponded that it would not, other than the number of units per square
footage of the site. And further, that the Coastal Commission wanted
all ground floor to be visitor-serving commercial. Commissioner Higgins
wanted some of. the Area 1 node to be deleted. Commissioner Livengood
questioned the following permitted uses in District 1: barber and beauty
shops, video stores, museum and health and reducing salons. Commissioner
Erskine felt that District 1 was ideal for health clubs.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE PAGES 69 AND 70 WERE AP-
PROVED AS IS - PAGE 71, DELETE PERMITTED USES OF BARBER AND BEAUTY
SHOPS AND MUSEUMS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: Higgins
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Under Section 4. 3. 02, Jeanine Frank recommended deleting the following
phrases from "a" , "but less than one full block" , " (including not less
than 50% of the street level) " , and "for projects one full block or
greater, either the entire street level, or at least one-third of the
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12, 1983
Page 8
I..r
floor area must be devoted to visitor-serving commercial uses" . Brief
discussion took place regarding bus turnouts.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION
WAS ACCEPTED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
There was brief discussion about expanding subsection "b" to include
service station but ' this discussion was dropped as it would be covered
by an entitlement. Lengthy discussion took place regarding a reduction
in Area 1 as earlier proposed. Commissioner Mirjahangir felt that with
the density figured in net vs. gross, you end up with more density on
half block as opposed to full block. Staff stated it was more diffi-
cult to figure as you get to smaller lots. Commissioner Schumacher
said that when you use gross, you have to go to the centerline of the
street. She said it was like giving a "bonus on top of a bonus" .
A show of hands revealed that only Chairman Porter and Commissioner
Higgins were in favor of the reduction in size of Area 1. Jeanine Frank
recommended deleting the column entitled, Minimum Visitor Serving Re-
quired and deleting the rest of "c", page 72 after "Retail sales, outdoor".
i
ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE
APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine
NOES : Schumacher, Mirjahangir
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO CHANGE FIGURE
IN SECTION 4. 3.04b FROM 50 TO 35 FEET AND APPROVE SECTIONS . 05 AND .06
AS PRESENTED.
Jeanine Frank recommended changing the second "50 feet" to 45 feet to
correspond to renderings.
THIS MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
NOES: Higgins, Erskine, Schumacher,
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS . 05 AND .06 m
WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12 , 1983
Page 9
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS AND SECONDED BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE SEC-
TION 4 . 3. 04 AS STATED WITH 35 FOOT HEIGHT AND 45 FEET OF PROPERTY LINE.
THIS MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Erskine, Schumacher
NOES: Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
On the previous vote, Commissioner Erskine stated that although he
favored the motion, he agreed with Commissioner Livengood that he did
not want to see tall buildings without massive amounts of landscaping.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS 4 . 3. 07 , .08 ,
. 09 AND INSERTION OF REFERENCE TO BUS TURNOUTS WAS APPROVED BY THE
FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Porter asked if the spread sheet would be included in the
Specific Plan. Mr. Palin said that it would appear in the final docu-
ment. Commissioner Livengood stated that he agreed with Grace
Winchell in concept that Districts 1 and 2 were "windows of the City" .
He favors 3 stories in that area with standards similar to the Townlot.
He said he was not opposed to heights in other areas. Commissioner
Schumacher stated that by going up to 4 stories you can get better
quality housing. Mr. Palin suggested identifying the two nodes on the
left of the diagram as 1-A' s and the one on the right as 1-B.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE TWO AREAS DESIGNATED
"l-A" WILL HAVE A 50 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND THE AREA DESIGNATED 112-B"
WILL HAVE A 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT, IN DISTRICT 1, BY THE FOLLOWING
STRAW VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Schumacher asked staff what determines the size of the units.
Ms. Frank responded that there was no requirement for size. Commissioner
Schumacher favored a size criteria. Chairman Porter pointed out that
if there was no size criteria, Uniform Building Code standards would be
used. Secretary Palin asked the Commission to clarify if they were
y `�
H.B. Planning Commission
July 12, 1983
Page 10 ^
talking about the entire Specific Plan area or just from 6th to 23rd
Street. Commissioner Erskine stated he did not favor such restriction
in an area of high priced land.
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR PORTION FROM SECTION
936 REGARDING MINIMUM FLOOR AREA WAS INSERTED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN
DOCUMENT UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS (4 . 3. 33) , BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW
VOTE:
AYES : Higgins, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : Livengood, Erskine
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Livengood gave a summary of his opinion on a district-by-
district basis. In District 2 he favored a 35 foot height limit;
District 3 he said he had concerns on the density of commercial ; in
District 4 he would recommend 3 stories; in District 5, 4 stories; in
District 6 , 3 story. He wanted staff to analyze the other districts
and establish height limits.
Commissioner Mirjahangir made a motion to continue the Downtown Spe-
cific Plan to the meeting of August 2 , 1983. This motion failed for
lack of a second.
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2
AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2 WERE CONTINUED TO AN ADJOURNED MEETING
OF JULY 26 , 1983, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Winchell
ABSTAIN: None
DISCUSSION ITEM:
Secretary Palin briefly summarized the actions taken at the July 11,
1983 City Council meeting. He said that the City Council discussed
the Main-Pier redevelopment plan and continued that to their meeting
of July 18, 1983.
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11: 20 PM to the next regular
meeting of July 19th. That meeting will adjourn to July 26 , 1983.
a
Paln, Sec etary Marcus M. Porter, C man
614�e�sW.
m
COSTS TO DEVELOP DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Staff
Salaries (2 assistant planners)
1 associate planner, part time
supervisory level planner $ 90, 000 .00
Benefits 20, 700. 00
Total Salaries 110, 700. 00
Operating Expenses
Printing 1 , 500. 00
Supplies 142 .96
Miscellaneous 125. 65
Mailing cost 800. 00
Publication 100 .00
Total Operating Expenses 2 ,668 . 61
Total 113,368 . 61
Cost per acre:
113, 369 - 218 acres = $520/acre
Architectural Consultants 67 , 800. 00
Cost per acre :
67, 800 — 218 acres = $311/acre
Total cost per acre = $831
TOTAL COST 181,168.61
F0-
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
3
TO: MAYOR MacALLISTER, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MARCUS M. PORTER, PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
DATE: SEPTEMBER 7 , 1983 .
The Downtown Specific Plan that will be before you September 19,
1983 , is based on 3 1/2 hours of public testimony, over 25 hours of
Planning Commission and Staff study sessions, and nearly 100 votes
by the Commission. Each page and numbered item of the Specific Plan
was reviewed by the Commission.
The Planning Staff worked very closely with individuals and groups
(such as the Downtown Committee, Chamber of Commerce, the Citizens
Group for Village Atmosphere) to accept input and keep these groups
and individuals informed on the progress of the Specific Plan.
The Plan that you will review was made available to the public on
September 9, 1983. Two hundred copies were made available at City
Hall, the City' s public libraries and fire stations .
Out of 96 straw votes, three-quarters were unanimous. There were
some concerns expressed by individuals on the Commission on certain
items.
One of the major decisions was development intensity or the amount
of commercial , office and dwelling units permitted. Comparing the
Specific Plan submitted by Staff in December and the Plan adopted by
the Commission in August, reduced density, heights and development
are reflected in the latter .
The Planning Commission strongly feels the density recommended by
the Commission is the maximum the Council should consider, and if
any action is taken, the Council should further reduce density.
This recommendation is based on the following assumptions:
1 . The Arroyo Market Study does not guarantee on the open
market that the Plan can be built out to maximum. But
it does show if there is an increase made in that
maximum, especially office, it would take years and
probably never be built out .
2. Traffic circulation - The Arroyo Greer Study and
Staff ' s input indicates the streets are capable of
handling more traffic than what the project will
generate. The potential impact on existing residential
areas is the restricting element that should limit the
amount of traffic allowed in the downtown areas .
The traffic circulation is designed to handle two types
of traffic, Local and Visitor .
Local would be: (1 ) Orange, from 6th to Goldenwest ;
(2) Lake, from Atlanta to Yorktown; ( 3) 6th from Orange
to Main (with Super Block traffic) ; (4) Indianapolis `
from Lake to Beach; ( 5 ) Main from Palm to 14th. These -
streets are designated to handle increased traffic for
residential, commercial and office. It is the
Commission' s intent that use of these streets be
controlled so that impact of visitor traffic on
established residential areas is minimized.
Visitor traffic would be handled on the following
streets : ( 1) P.C.H. , (2) Beach Boulevard, ( 3)
Goldenwest, (4) Walnut from 6th to Beach Boulevard, ( 5)
Lake to Atlanta, Orange from 2nd or 3rd to 6th, ( 7 ) 6th
from P.C.H. to Orange, (8) Atlanta, Lake to Beach.
The use of all streets would be controlled by several
means such as signing, no turn lanes, cul-de-sacs,
speed limits which would control the use of the street
(Visitor or Local) . Selective vacations of rights-of
way would be used to increase developable area and
channel traffic as well .
3 . Public Input - Based on verbal and written testimony,
public input was an important factor in reducing
density.
The Commission would like to take this opportunity to thank the
Planning Staff team that worked on this project and commend them for
the outstanding job they did. Also thanks are in order for the
individuals, residents , business owners , and concerned citizens for
the hours spent on committees and for preparing testimony. Their
input has been invaluable.
Marcus M. Porter , Chairm
cc: Jim Palin
Planning Commission
Charles Thompson
DECEMBER, 1982 AUGUST, 1983
ISTRICT DENSITY F.A.R. HEIGHT DENSITY F.A.R. HEIGHT
1 23 2.0 50'
effective 4 stories 30 50 ,
4 stories
2 35 2.0 50 '
effective 4 stories 35 45'
4 stories
3 35 3.5 over 12 25 N. 3.50 8 stories
effective stories of Main multi- multi-
block block
4 35 2. 25 4 stories 35 1.5 35'
effective 3 stories
5 35 2. 5 over 6 30 2 .0 4 stories
stories
6 No resi- 2. 25 4 stories 25 2.25 4 stories
dential
7 35 3.0 ---- No resi- 3.0 8 stories
dential
8 35 --- 35 ' 35 --- 50 ' - 50%
lot cover.
age
9 No resi- 4 .0 ---- No resi- 3.5 ----
dential dential
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Charles W. Thompson James W. Palin, Director
City Administrator a4, Development Services
Subject Downtown Specific Plan Date September 26, 1983
Attached are errata sheets for the Downtown Specific Plan and
some perspective views of the pier which depict two story
development. You may want to distribute these to the City
' Council members for their meeting tonight.
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN ERRATA
PAGE 4
1. 2 Should the legislative body wish to change a proposed Specific
Plan recommended by the Planning Commission, the change must
first be referred back to the Commission for consideration
if not -previously considered (Government Code .Section 65504) .
If the Commission fails to act on the proposed change within
40 days, it is deemed approved. The same procedure applies
to subsequent amendments to the plan.
PAGE 5
1.4 The Downtown Specific Plan is divided into four sequential sec-
tions . The first section describes the purpose and intent of
the Downtown Specific Plan along with a brief explanation of
Specific -Plan procedure and authorization.
PAGE 9
2. 1 The Downtown Specific Plan includes the seventeen blocks on the
ocean side of Walnut Avenue between Goldenwest and Sixth Streets,
a central area between Sixth and Lake Streets extending up to
Hartford Avenue, and properties generally south of Atlanta Ave-
nue between Lake Street and Beach Boulevard (see Figure 2. 1) .
The Specific Plan area also encompasses the beach between Gold-
enwest Street and Beach Boulevard, including the municipal pier.
The Specific Plan area includes approximately 336 total acres.
PAGE 28
3. 1 District Five is the primary commercial core area serving as a
commercial link between the pier-head area and District Six (the
top of Main Street) . District Five includes approximately 20
gross acres with an emphasis on commercial activities, however,
an option for office, residential or additional commercial act-
tivities above the first floor is provided. This multi-use as-
pect is intended to create a lively place to be day or night for
both visitors and residents. Main Street should maintain a ped-
estrian-oriented shopping street character. Commercial uses should
be required on the ground floor with building fronts close to the
sidewalk to establish a more intimate scale. In order to afford
the visual, climatic and recreation amenities of this unique area
to a greater number of people, higher residential densities should
be provided. Offices should be encouraged to locate in this
district in order to help establish the desired Downtown atmosphere.
The commercial emphasis of this district can be achieved with
varying intensities, providing the commercial link between Orange
Avenue and the pier along Main Street is not broken at the pedest-
rian level . This district should encourage rehabilitation as well
1 •
(PAGE 28 - Con't. )
as new development. The larger scale new development (one full
block or greater) should not detract from the potential develop-
ment in District Six or District Three (the pier-head) . This
District is intended to connect the two major nodes with an
interest element which can best be achieved with a continuation
of the pedestrian-oriented commercial District; rehabilitation
and new developed should be scaled and designed with this intent.
The plan anticipates that this district can accommodate approx-
imately 150, 000 square feet of commercial uses with approximately
75, 000 square feet of office and 200 new residential units .
PAGE 31
3.2.3 District Seven is a consolidated parcel under one ownership and is
approximately 13 gross acres. District Seven should be master
planned as a primarily visitor-serving commercial project, which
could be implemented over a number of phases. Hotel, motel, rest-
aurant and specialty commercial would be appropriate uses. - Develop-
ment . in this district is not intended to compete with the Downtown
commercial core, therefore, major incentives for development would
not be necessary. The commercial uses in this district would be
of a more seasonal variety with the district serving as a connect-
ing link between the Downtown area and District Nine. The Plan
anticipates visitor-serving commercial can be accommodated with a
200-400 room hotel .
PAGE 56
3. 5 Museum - A museum might be the type of amenity which would augment
the visitor-serving atmosphere of the Main Street-Pier axis. This
type of facility could be either publicly or privately financed.
The area provides an appropriate setting for several ocean-related
museum themes such as oceangraphy, archaeology, natural history,
local history, like the oil industry operations and surfing. The
historic aspect of the oil-producing facilities in the region as
it relates to the ocean' s edge - an oil-rich environment could be
part of the museum theme. As a point of interest to visitors,
the oil industry could be recognized through strategic location
of oil-producing machinery, such as a large rocker arm pump,
treated as environmental sculpture and public art. An oil industry
museum could be a draw, but in itself a relatively lesser one.
A museum could be best located in the pier District 10 which could
serve as an anchor point for the Main Street-Pier axis .
.3
�Cr
PAGE 88
4.4. 10 STREET VACATION
In addition to the general provisions for street vacation
the following shall apply to this district :
(iv) Streets intersecting PCH, a view corridor not less than the
width of the former street shall be provided between Walnut
Avenue and PCH. No structures greater than five (5) feet
above street level grade or the top of semi-subterranean
parking structures shall be allowed within such view corridor.
A pedestrian easement ten (10) feet wide shall only be re-
quired to be provided through the development where a con-
solidated parcel is greater than 600 feet. Such pedestrian
easement shall be generally parallel to the vacated street .
AMENDMENTS
CO~NM C—I&
71
Vill,
71
T
ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO 4368-DEC 12.1976
LEGEND:
FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY --— --- _-- — /
MAJOR 45,000
PRIMARY 30,DO0
SECONDARY 20,000
NOTE.
SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY ��,9\ C yM
NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY
DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO
RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS
0 INTERSECTinNS NrEDINC FUTURF STUDY
Proposed Circulation Plan Of
HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIK Arterial Streets and Highways
PLANNING DIVISION
FIGURE 3.3-3
i
�1
,
30
Zv
2S'
Zo`
t5�
t2
a QQ
od 0
o
Od
D
��
-i E- E3
00.
v w�
o (�
o .
N
VIOL.
.rrIA
nnnn
o
0
I n- z
a o ° �o
r �
R
-
i..
,�' CITY 4F HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMU ATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To' Charles W. Thompson ro D James W. Palin, Director
City Administrator 0 Development Services
Subject STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON Date September 23, 1983
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
The Downtown Specific Plan will be considered by the City Council at a
special meeting on September 26, 1983. The .Planning Commission care-
fully reviewed the draft plan before recommending it to the City Council
in its present form. In the course of their deliberations, the Commis-
sion recommended reducing the density, -intensity and height limitations
in several districts from the standards proposed by staff in the June,
1980 draft plan.
While the staff strongly supports the Planning Commission action on
most of the Specific Plan, there are a few .areas where we would recom-
mend that the City Council consider restoring the specifications con-
tained in the June, 1980 draft. These areas, and the r4tionale:_for
the recommended changes, are as follows:
District #1 - The Planning; Commission reduced the maximum height for a
full-block consolidation between 8th and 9th streets to 35 feet and no
more than 3 stories. Since a full block consolidation of District .#1
would include the half-block between the alley and Walnut which is part
of District #2, and the maximum height in District #2 is 45 feet and no
more than 4 stories, staff recommends restoring the height limit to 50
feet and no more than 4 stories. This would make all of District #1
consistent, and would allow a full-block development more flexibility
in design while still buffering the residential area of the Towniot by
the lower height limit in District #2.
District #3 - The Planning, Commission reduced the residential density
to 25 units per gross acre from 35 units per gross acre; reduced the
FAR for a full-block to 3. 0 from 3.25; and reduced the height limits
for full and multi-block consel.idatio s to 4 and 6 stories respectively
from 6 and 8 stories northwest of Mair Street and. to 6 and 8 stories
from 8 and 12 stories southeast of Ma'n Street. Staff feels that the
increased residential density, which uld amount to only 30 units on
a full-block, is necessary . to provide sufficient� ecorsomic incentive
for consolidating the extra block and recycling the existing buildings
as opposed to rehabilitating them. Our, computer .model shows that suf-
ficient residential units are needed to overcome the cost disincentives
of providing adequate parking and reserving 50 percent of the floor
area for commercial or office uses. Staff also recommends a return to
the 3. 25 floor area ratio for a full-block to permit flexibility in the
sJ,,ze of residential unitsr and to accommodate some parking within the
structure above the ground floor. Similarly, the staff recommends re-
storing the greater height limits so that there is room for some flex-
ibility in designing the structure, and, if' necessary, for allowing t
n
Charles W. Thompson
City Administrator
one or more levels of parking within it, since parking levels above
ground would count as both FAR and a story in height. It should be
noted that a setback of 125 feet from Sixth Street on all stories
above 4 would adequately buffer the Townlot residential area, and
that increased public open space would be required for each story over
4. This would mean that an 8 story building would have to provide the
equivalent of 20 percent of the lot in public open space. A 12 story
building would provide 30 percent of the lot in public open space.
(Asphalt parking and driving areas are not considered public open space. )
District #4 - The Planning Commission reduced heights to 3 stories from
4 stories. Staff believes that the 4 story height limit should be re-
stored in order to permit the flexibility to include parking at or above
grade. Four stories would be consistent with the heights in Districts
#1 and #2 which also border the Townlot residential area.
District #5 - The Planning Commission reduced residential density to
30 units per gross acre from 35, reduced FAR to 2. 0 from 2. 5 and re-
duced maximum height to 4 stories from 6 stories. Staff recommends re-
turning to the original recommendations for the same reasons outlined
in District #3: economic incentive, needed flexibility, provision of
parking and required public open space.
District #6 - The Planning Commission reduced the residential density to
25 units per gross acre from 35 units per gross acre. Staff' s contacts
with developers indicate that desirable consolidated projects will not
be economically feasible at 25 units per acre. For this reason, staff
recommends that the density in District #6 be increased to 30 units per
gross acre, which should be enough to make a project work.
District #10 - The Planning Commission recommends a height limit of one
story on the pier. Staff would like to see 2 stories and a maximum of
25 feet above pier level permitted, so that restaurants could have
second levels for meeting rooms and lounges. This would allow the build-
ing footprint to remain compact, but give additional usable area. Staff
is preparing a perspective drawing to show the Impact of the 2 story
height on the pier on the view from Main Street for review on Sept. 26 ,
The above recommendations refer only to development on full block con-
solidations. Any full block developments will be subject to Planning
Commission scrutiny and control under a Conditional Use Permit. Staff
believes that these proposed changes would increase the flexibility of
the Specific Plan and would attract a higher quality of projects to
the Downtown.
JWP:JAF: sr
D �
1983
NGI O;N v,E�^C1i
CITY OF HUPd i CiL OFFICE
Mr. Frank M. Cracchiolo
CITY COON 19712 Quiet Bay Ln.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
September 26, 1983
Honorable Mayor MacAllister
and
City Council Members
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
My name is Frank M. Cracchiolo, I live at 19712 Quiet Bay
Lane, Huntington Beach. I own a business in Huntington Beach
and I also own property in the downtown area of Huntington
Bach.
I am in favor of the Staff' s recommendations except for two
(2) items;
(1) I feel the heighth limit on the north side of the
pier should be the same as the heighth limit on
south side of the pier.
(2) The shops on the beach side of Pacific Coast Highway
as shown on the map will obstruct the view of all
shops and restaurants built across the street on the
first floor of any buildings built between 6th Street
and Lake Street.
This condition would make it very difficult to
rent or lease any shop or restaurant facing the
ocean.
I feel in order to attract investors and developers willing to
spend 10 ' s of millions of dollars in our city we need to have
a plan that will allow them to make a profit on their investments.
No one is going to invest in the downtown area if the project
does not pencil out.
I urge the city council to approve the Staff ' s recommendations
except for these two (2) items.
Sincerely yours,
Frank M. Cracchiolo
FMC:vl
I r
509 17th ,reet
Huntington-Beach
September 26, 1983
Huntington Beach City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
Dear Councilmembers :
4
I am writing to express a few of my concerns with the
proposed Downto;;wn Specific Plan.
1. Cul-de-sacs I -am unalterably opposed to the
of Townlot streets at PCH; this would place an unfaijF,2bu-'rd8rT
of traffic on those streets left open. One reason 'give4.1 on
Page 38, for this closure is to prevent accidents on,." Iii,
caused by pedestrians crossing at nonsignalized intersections ;
as these cul-de-sacs would be open to foot traffic this
reasoning is faulty. Another reason given is to prevent
accidents caused by carsturning off PCH onto these numbered
streets ; the planned center median on P�H would prevent turns
by cars going south, and cars going north would not be turning
in front of oncoming traffic . Another reason presented for
the cul-de-secing is to keep traffic out of the Townlot area ;
it could just as easily work to trap them in the area. These
cul-de-sacs will become traps for litter and debris ; the street
cleaners can' t keep up with the present amount of litter. In
a July 6, 1983 , letter (see page 2 of enclosed letter) the
State Office of Planning and Research questions the impact of
the cul-de-sating on emergency response .
2. Surfing On Page 56 mention is made of "restaurants and
viewIng points for watching the surfingaction and competition. "
Pat Dawe of the Arroyo Group showed a picture of a restaurant
belcony . built right over the water and said it was "to
accomodate people who show up for the surfing action. " For
surfing contests people lihe up three deep along the pierto
watch and I feel restaurant balconies and viewing points
are inadequate to accomodate them.
3 . Ocean View On page 23 , under Design Concept it is stated
that 7l'tom heoverall form and shape of all development in Downtown
Huntington Beach should allow people to see the ocean from as
many places as possible. " Two story buildings on the pier and
above PCH in District 10 negate this .
4. Deviations On page 70, the first paragraph says that
"Deviations ?Trom the development regulations of this Specific
Plan, with the exc4ption of maximum density, parking
reauirements in all Districts , and maximum building heights
in Districts 1 , 2, and 4, may be granted at the time of project
approval. " This reads to me as a giant loop-hole that could
allow any heights and set-backs regardless of what you approve
within the Specific' Plan.
5. District 2 Page 32 , states that "District Two is
intended to develop as a continuation of the type and variety
of residential development which exists in the adjacent
Townlot area . The development regulations should be similar
and compatible with those in the Townlot area , with the
exception that larger projects should be provided with
additional incentives to encourage consolidation. " Since
these incentives are 35 du/acre and 45 feet heights (plus
an additional 10 feet for roofline treatment , or an
additional 14 feet for elevator equipment ) , and since the
paragraph goes on to say th-at "consolidation is one of the
objectives of the Plan, " I can only conclude that the
actual objectives of the plan are to not be compatible
with theTownlot area.
.6. District 3,. 1 question the wisdom of putting
residential use into District 3 . This is to be the intense
visitor-serving area with hotels,theatres , and restaurants.
This can cause problems with noise as shown at Peter' s
Landing and as any of us who live on 17th Street near the
Rose Western Saloon will be glad to tell you.
7. Setbacks (Upper Story) 4.5-09 This provides that for
lots on 5th an 3rd streets , the portion above 25 feet
shall be set back 15 feet from the front lot line. For
possibly 6 to 12 story buildings this small setback would
create great bulk on 5th, 3rd , and Walnut . And I notice
that the angled air space requirement on Main Street
buildings that was included in the June 1983 Plan has
been eliminated-, in the updated version. All of the slides
shown by the Arroyo Group presented light , airy , open space
that most people would like to see . At no time did their
slides show multi-story buildings with their bulk and shadows
that are allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan as now written.
As an example of the type of buildings for District 4, the
buffer zone , Mr. Dawe showed one story heights ; District 4
heights are 3 stories which staff wants to raise to four.
For District 2 , Mir. Davie showed a two story building
development with the comment that this was the density that
is being called for in this District ; District 2 allows 3 to
4 stories. It makes one wonder if Mr. Dawe has ever read the
details of the Specific Plan. I have been told that the
slide show provided for the people of Redondo Beach before
their redevelopment was even better than the Arroyo Group ' s
and look at the abomination that developed there ! I would
hate to see that happen in Huntington Beach.
Sincerely,
Kay Seraphine
a��'r'or Cainurnia $ussness and 1► 5, viWirori Ageoct
Mamor and um
To : PION Blfiss, Executive Director
Office of Planning & Research Date: July b, 19'B3
State Clearin--house o5 File : A- REVIEW
1100 Tenth Street -
Sacramento, CA. 95814
SUSAN BROt1N - District 7 --'
{ rnrn
From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION r C'
Subject:
Project Review Comments =
SCH NUMBER
83031105 Huntington Beach Draft Circulation Element
'Amendment 83-1
Caltrans appreciates the opportunity to review this draft and has
the following comments .
Points 2.1 to 2 .4 do not affect any State facilities and we have
no comments about them. However, point 2.5, Pacific Coast High-
way is a State facility and we have the following comments .
(1) Just westerly of ,Main Street, the 1981 average weekday peak
months (June, July, August) ADT is 33,700 with the year 2000 ADT
being 47:200.
(2) Just easterly of Main Street, the 1981 average weekday peak
months ADT is 35,200, with the year 2000 ADT being 49,200:
(3) Just easterly of Brookhurst, the 1981 average weekday peak
months ADT is 43,900 with the Year 2000 ADT being 61,500.
(4) Just easterly of Lake, the year 2000 ADT is projected to be
48,200.
On page 33, the document alludes to the fact that as "PCH is a
State highway, the money for these improvements will come from
Caltrans, however, the actual construction will probably be con-
tracted out to the City ." We feel that it is premature to say
that Caltrans will contract with the City for the construction
of these improvements . Funding may involve State, Federal, and
local monies . The Caltrans Project Report for the Pacific Coast
Highway widening, states that the City will be- responsible for
at lease $950,000 of the total cost. Caltrans also believes
that the cost projections provided by Huntington Beach may be
too high. The following is a comparison of the costs .
r
n0\ BASS -2- July 6, 1983
Hunt . Beach CALTRhNS
Golden "vilest to Beach 1,700,000 1,100,000
Beach to S A R 3,680,000 81C 000
5�3bO,000 4,910,000
On page 33 of the document, it is stated that the widening
pro, ect will have minimal impacts .
Caltrane environmental studies, currently under internal review,
indicate adverse impact on the wetlands north of Pacific Coast
Hjgh�w,ay , Also, in the same paragraph it is stated "Therefore
no significant impact are anticipated." This statement does not-
necessarily follow "The proposed restriping project will better
accommodate existing -traffic ."
There will be an increase of 25% of the fresh water roadway run-
off into the degraded salt marshes on the north side of Pacific
Coast Highway, This impact cannot be overlooked and should be
addressed in the document.
Also on page .33, all the land, with the exception of the Edison
plant property, has been identified by Cal F & G and Caltrans
as wetland and should be addressed as such.
On page 117 of. ApFendix I, under 5.b, the "no" answer should be
changed to "maybe ' to account for the impact of the highway
widening on the California least tern, (Sterna albifrous browni)
and the Belding Savannah Sparrow, (Passerculus sandwiehensis
beldnE ) . Also the document must address the following impacts:
Flood__pllain; Wetland/riparian habitat reduction; removal of critical
habitat; public service impacts, i .e. emergency response routing
changes due to the cul-de-sacing of existing streets; and parking
impe.cts, especially north of Beach Boulevard.
The environmental contact person is Mr Chuck Morton and his
phone number is (213) 620-3992.
SUSAN BRO«, Acting Chief
Environmental Planning Branch
Transportation District 7
Clearinghouse Coordinator
For information, contact Darrell Wood
(ATSS) 640-2246 or (213) 620-2246
Attachment:
cc : John Van Berkel - HQ DOTP - Mr. Hal Simmons
Assistant Planner
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
i
1983
CITyIOF HUNTINGTp
C N BEACq ",2 I 5>3
CIL OF CE
/x s alaae
0-14 -led
b4� d
17
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF MARKET POTENTIALS
DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH
June, 1983
Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
D -ice
x
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF MST POTENTIALS
DOWNTOWN HUNINGTON BEACH
' Prepared for
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
June 1983
' WILLIAMS-KUEBELBECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
330 Washington Street, Suite 710
Marina del Rey, California 90291
' Telephone (213) 822-0114
HUNG M NT
pEVEL SERVICES
'
J U N 2 U IC,33
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction and Summary of Findings
' A. Introduction I-1
B. Summary of Findings 1-2
' II. Market Potential for Residential Development
A. Market Area Delineation II-1
B. Historic Population and Housing Trends II-1
C. Projected Housing Demand II-4
' III. Market Potential for Commercial Development
A. Specialty Retail III-1
' B. Restaurant III-9
' C. Office III-11
D. Hotel III-15
r
r
r
1
1
r
r
I . INTRODUCTION AND SUMWRY OF FINDINGS
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
r
A. Introduction
This report represents a preliminary investigation of market feasibility
_ for several land uses contained within the Huntington Beach Downtown
Specific Plan (see Figure I-1) . Land uses evaluated include residential,
specialty retail, restaurant, office and hotel.
1
The market projections provided in this preliminary report represent
a "baseline" condition of the future potentials in the downtown which
are achievable without the City undertaking major redevelopment activi-
ties in the area. The reason for preparing such projections -- which
represent, for the most part, a continuation of historic growth patterns
r in the area -- is that at the time of the preparation of this market
review the many possible actions by the City to encourage greater
' development activity had yet to be specified.
During the course of the specific plan study, a number of potential
public actions have been identified which would tend to significantly
enhance the potential for new development within the Huntington Beach
CBD. These include the following:
• Regional and local circulation improvements, particularly
to enhance access into the downtown from the north and east;
• Urban beautification and infrastructure improvements within
the CBD;
r
• Creation of housing policies which favor increasing residential
rdensities on sites in and near the downtown area;
r • Creation of a nationally-recognized attraction such as a
museum or some other major cultural or recreation facility
near the downtown; and
1
T-1
• Implementation of policies which encouraged growth of
commercial activities in the CBD and limited competitive
developments within the CBD's primary market area.
Given the full consideration of these and other policies, future
G
iterations of market projections should show considerably enhanced
development potentials within the Huntington Beach CBD.
B. Summary of Findings
1. Residential
Future housing demand within the city of Huntington Beach is projected
at 1,070 units annually for the years 1980 to 1990, and 1,130 units
per year from 1990 to 2000. It is expected that the majority of
housing developed will be multiple-family in nature such that, on
average, approximately 300 single-family and 800 multiple-family
units will be developed annually between 1980 and the year 2000.
' The downtown project area is likely to experience strong demand for
residentail construction. The rate of annual housing starts in the
area is projected to be constrained more by supply factors, such as
land availability and suitability, than consumer demand. The develop-
ment of housing in and around the project area is seen as a major
ingredient to the success of the retail and office uses suggested
in the Specific Plan.
2. Specialty Retail
P Y
Based on the downtown market area's projected increase in population
and income, as well as observed patterns of expenditure related to
specialty retail goods, total market area demand for specialty
retail space is projected as follows: 1980 to 1990 -- 322,000
square feet; 1990 to 2000 -- 364,000 square feet. Based on these
projections it is felt that downtown Huntington Beach could capture
40,000 to 50,000 square feet of specialty retail space between 1983
and 1990, and 50,000 to 60,000 square feet of space between 1990 and
2000. These capture rates by time period are contingent upon appro-
priate downtown improvements and marketing efforts.
I-2
' EGA r r r
1-VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL.WITH RESIDENTIAL
2-RESIDENTIAL(HIGH DENSITY FOR CONSOLIDATION)
3-VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL
4-TRANSITIONAL DISTRICTS:RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE/COMMERCIAL
4m-RESIDENTIAL/GARDEN OFFICE-STUDIO
b-MIXED USE:COMMERCIAL
6-GENERAL COMMERCIAL
7-VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
t-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
0-COMMERCIAL/RECREATION l
10-PIER COMMERCIAL
11-BEACH OPEN SPACE a
11-9
ID 00 ou ul[0
Em uEnuaw' ' MEN,]pl-,T�ffff
1E 10 10 E0 lfl lfl[E[0[D[d[41[0[11 9!
- � . . �..
l CSC � iL)WIT,[DIM110,100�C����IC�E���. ����
•.r - �� ' •.•••
2 -70t ::,,
-Ei: a.LT
-„""�'. .. - err••-�.
1 K�
10
HUNTINGTON BEACH GUORNIA Spmif1C Plan Zoning Wrists
flPLANNING DIVISION
Figure i -1
' 3. Restaurant
Based on the downtown market area's projected increase in population
' and income, as well as an analysis of state-wide expenditures at
dinner restaurants, total market demand for new dinner restaurants
between 1980 and the year 2000 is expected to exceed SO establishments.
This demand is projected by time period as follows: 1980 to 1990 --
24 establishments; 1990 to 2000 -- 27 establishments. Based on these
projections it is felt that downtown Huntington Beach could support
1 to 2 dinner restaurants between 1980 and 1990, and 2 to 3 dining
' establishments from 1990 to the year 2000. The extent of restaurant
development in the downtown will be partially dependent upon the degree
' to which the area's housing supply can be increased.
' 4. Office
Presently the City of Huntington Beach contains approximately 24
' office buildings totaling 753,175 square feet. Of this total
square footage, only 400,180 square feet or 53 percent is occupied.
Consequently, the City currently has an office vacancy rate of
47 percent.
' Between 1983 and 1990, the City's annual absorption of office space
is projected to average 70,000 square feet, an increase of over 20
' percent from its present level. As a result, almost 500,000 square
feet of office space is projected to be absorbed in the City during
' the next 7 years. However, the presence of 279,000 square feet of
office oversupply will keep the demand for new office space quite
"soft" for the next 4 years. The long-term potential for office
space in the downtown is very good, with up to 150,000 square feet
projected to be supportable between 1988 and 1992.
' I-4
5. Hotel
' Presently, two hotels greater than 12 rooms in size operate in
Huntington Beach, the Best Western Huntington Beach and the Huntington
Shore Motor Inn. Both of these facilities rely significantly upon
tourist patronage. The Huntington Beach Inn offers guests a pool and
a 9-hole golf course and has 4 meeting rooms for businesses or
banquets. The Huntington Shore Motor Inn has a pool.
1 It is felt that excellent opportunities for one or more hotels could
exist along the Huntington Beach waterfront, if the following improve-
ments were implemented:
• Per the City's Specific Plan, improvements to the Pacific Coast
Highway and the Pier area;
• The "unitization" of existing oil wells;
' • Improved parking, circulation, and landscaping within the
' project area; and
• Parcels of sufficient acreage were assembled to allow for
construction of a 150- to 200-room hotel with several amenities
such as a pool, jacuzzi, tennis courts, and meeting rooms.
In addition, although not a prerequisite to hotel development,
improved access from the project area to and from the Orange County/
John Wayne Airport would greatly increase the marketability of any
hotel sites assembled by providing a better opportunity for operators
to capture business patronage.
I-S
II. MARKET POTENTIAL FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
r
II . MARKET POTENTIAL FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1
The following sections assess the market potential for residential development
within the downtown project area of Huntington Beach. A discussion of the
downtown's market area is followed by an analysis of population and housing
rtrends and projections of future housing demand.
A. Market Area Delineation
The market area for housing developed within the downtown encompasses
the City of Huntington Beach. The City has grown rapidly in the last
ten to fifteen years due mainly to its proximity to major employment
centers, both in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. A prospective
home buyer seeking the locational advantages offered by the City would
view the downtown area as one possible location out of several within
the City's boundaries.
' B. Historic Population and Housing Trends
1. Population
The City of Huntington Beach has increased in population from
r115,960 persons in 1970 to 173,205 persons in 1980, or almost 50
percent during this ten-year period. As shown in Table II-1,
Huntington Beach accounted for slightly more than 10 percent of
Orange County's 1970 to 1980 population growth and, moreover,
experienced annual growth rates slightly higher than the county
as a whole. Presently the City's population is estimated at 175,000
persons.
2. Housing
rAs shown in Table II-2, Huntington Beach experienced a significant
shift in the composition of its housing stock during the 1970s.
In 1970 there existed 35,971 housing units within the City. Of
this total, 26,606 or 74 percent were single-family; 7,263 or 20
percent were multiple-family; and 2,102 or 6 percent were mobile
homes. By the end of 1978, 26,085 homes had been added to the City's
housing stock, over 70 percent of which were multiple-family in
Il 'i
TABLE II-1
HISTORIC POPULATION TRENDS
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND ORANGE COUNTY
1970 - 1980
Net Average Annual
Increase Growth Rates
AREA 1970 1975 1980 19 910 80 0-11975-1980
Huntington Beach 11S,960 1S2,300 173,20S S7,24S 5.60 2.60
Orange County 1,421,233 1,73S,S00 1,962,174 540,941 4.1 2.5
N
Source: Population Estimates for California Cities and Counties 1970-1978, and updated fact sheets,
California Department of Finance; Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
■r rr r r r �r re r rr r tr rs rr rr r ar rr rs rr
TABLE II-2
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
1970 - 1978
Net Change
1970 1975 1978 1970-1978
Housing Type Num er Percent Num r Percent Num r ercent Number Percent
Single Family 26,606 74.0o 32,747 62.60 33,079 53.3% 6,473 24.8%
Multiple Family 7,263 20.2 16,646 31.8 25,905 41.7 18,642 71.5
Mobile Home 2,102 S.8 2,903 5.6 3,072 5.0 970 3.7
TOTAL 35,971 100.0a 52,296 100.0% 62,056 100.0% 26,085 100.0%
H
H
W
NOTE: 1975 and 1978 data is listed as 1-1-76 and 1-1-79.respectively in Housing Units by T
1970 and 1975 through 1979. ype for Califroia Cities and Counties,
Source: Housing Units by Type for California Cities and Counties, 1970 and 1975 through 1979, California Department of Finance;
Williams-We el ecc and Associates, Inc.
nature. Thus, by the beginning of 1979, the composition of housing
had shifted from a predominance of single-family units to an almost
even distribution between single-family and multiple-family
dwellings.
The observed increase in.multiple-family construction within the
City during the decade of the 1970s is reflective of the increased
' urbanization of Orange County generally. The county's success in
attracting major employers to the area has led to increased land
values within communities such as Huntington Beach. A consequence
of high land values is higher density residential construction.
In addition, Huntington Beach, as reflected in its total 1970
housing stock of almost 36,000 units, established itself as a
residential community well before the decade of the 1970s. The
City's own natural urbanization process, as well as its proximity
to the ocean, have undoubtedly contributed to increasing residential
land values, and therefore, higher density construction.
C. Projected Housing Demand
Future housing demand in a community is dependent upon several factors,
including land availability, population increases, and the rate at
which individuals come together to form new households. Based on
population projections made by the Southern California Association of
rGovernments (SCAG)Y, as well as information regarding household
population and occupied dwelling units within the City from the Cali-
fornia Department of Finance2/, Table III-3 projects future housing
demand within Huntington Beach from 1980 to the year 2000.
As shown in Table II-3, the total housing requirement for the City is
projected at 1,070 units annually for the years 1980 to 1990, and 1,130
units per year from 1990 to 2000. It is expected that the majority of
housing developed will continue to be multiple-family in nature such
that, on average, approximately 300 single-family and 800 multiple-family
units will be developed annually between 1980 and the year 2000.
1 SCAG 182 Growth Forecast Policy, Southern California Association of
Governments.
?� "Controlled County Population Estimates; Summary Sheets", California
Department of Finance.
II-4
r �r r r r err r �r Mr ■r rr r r r r r rr �r r
TABLE II-3
PROJECTED HOUSING DEMAND BY TYPE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Annual Housing Requirement
19801/ 1990 2000 -3980-1 3990-2000
Total Population2/ 173,205 198,675 228,300
Household Population3/ 172,686 196,690 226,020
Housing Demand (occupied units)4/ 62,356 72,850 83,710
Plus: Allowance for Vacancy/ 2,688 2,915 3,350
Total Housing Requirement6/ 65,044 75,765 87,060 1,070 1,130
H
H
Single Family 33,820 36,500 39,325 270 285
Ln
Multiple Family/ 31,224 39,265 479735 800 845
1 Actual, except for single family/multiple breakdown of housing requirement which is estimated from Table 1. 2.
Assumes that Huntington Beach shall increase its present share of population (54.2 percent) within RSA #38
to 57 percent in 1990 and 60 percent by the year 2000.
3/ Assumed to continue at 99 percent of total population.
4/ Assumes actual 1980 population per household figure of 2.8 persons will decline slightly to an average 2.7
persons.
S/ Assumed to continue at 4 percent.
6/ Projected housing requirement by type assumes a 2S/75 single family to multiple family construction ratio
as indicated in recent trends displayed in Table II-2.
Includes mobile homes.
Source: Table II-2; Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
Based on the City's projected housing requirements, as well as
' the proximity of the downtown project area to the ocean and its
beaches, the project area is likely to experience strong demand
for residential construction. The rate of annual housing starts
in the area is therefore projected to be constrained more by
' supply factors such as land availability and suitability, i.e. ,
the removal of oil wells and related land uses, than consumer
demand. Given the high land costs likely to be incurred by
' developers, most residential construction in the area is projected
to be multiple-family in nature.
' II-6
III. Wd4TT POTENTIAL FOR CaWRCIAL DEVELOPMENT
r
III . MARKET POTENTIAL FOR C04IERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
' The following sections assess the market potential for commercial development
within the downtown project area. Land uses evaluated include specialty
retail, restaurant, office, and hotel.
A. Specialty Retail
' Specialty retail, as a division of general retail, includes goods such
as jewelry, books, stationary, cameras, gifts and souvenirs, and luggage.
' Often such retail establishments "specializing" in one product line are
located along commercial strips or in regional malls where several other
stores offering a diversity of goods help attract customers. In these
instances the specialty stores are not the primary tenants within
the shopping complex but,. rather, depend upon a department store or
food store to draw customers to the shopping area.
Occasionally, however, a specialty center is developed which depends
not on traditional lead tenants such as department stores for customer
' attraction, but on the aggregation of many specialty stores which,
together, offer the consumer a series of unique and diverse products.
In order to further enhance the shopping experience for the customer,
a unifying theme for the center is often created through architectural
design. If successful, the shopping is often more interesting than that
' of the typical retail center. Local examples of specialty centers
include Peter's Landing in Huntington Harbour, Ports O'Call in San Pedro,
and Fisherman's Village in Marina del Rey.
' The City of Huntington.Beach's project area Specific Plan has devoted
a significant amount of acreage of "visitor.-serving commercial" uses.
' Such commercial land use would be highlighted by the development of a
specialty retail center providing a regional attraction for Orange and
Los Angeles County residents, as well as Southern California tourists.
This section is devoted to analyzing the future demand for specialty
retail goods within the downtown project area.
III-1
1. Market Area Delineation
' Based on previous retail analyses performed, some involving license
plate surveys discerning shopper travel patterns,!/ the downtown's
' primary market area for specialty retail is defined as the population
residing within a 10-mile radius of the area (see Figure III-1) .
This distance roughly corresponds to a driving time of 20 minutes,
and represents approximately 60 percent of the prospective demand
' for specialty retail goods in the downtown.
2. Projected Demand for Specialty Retail
The demand for retail goods within a specific market depends upon
several factors relating to suppliers as well as customers. From a
supply perspective, it is important that a business be in an access-
ible and visible location and, at the same time, provide quality
products and service. Retail demand within a given market depends
upon the area's population, their incomes, and how much of total
' income is typically spent on retail items.
' a. Projected Population. Assuming that Los Angeles and Orange
County residents presently have enough specialty retail stores
' to satisfy their demand, this analysis begins with a projection
of population within the downtown's primary market area as
' defined. Consequently, all space requirements projected will
relate to future, non-competitive specialty retail establishments
supportable by added population in the market.
As shown in Table III-1, the downtown's primary market area had
a total population of 929,450 persons in 1980. The Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) 1982 forecast
' projects an increase within the market area to 1,033,070 persons
by 1990 and 1,151,000 persons by the year 2000. The resulting
1980 to 2000 population increase within the market is therefore
projected at 221,550 persons.
1
In particular, Analysis of Potential for Commercial Development At Peter's
' Landing, Huntington Harbour, California; Williams-Kuebelbeck and
Associates, Inc. November 1977.
' III-2
rr rr rr rr rr rr �r rr ri � � rr rr rr ■r rs r r r
HUNTINGTON BEACH PRIMARY MARKET AREA
SPECIALTY RETAIL GOODS
also
9
1
•ntr.ga
10
e
6 ,..........,
2 • «a.»au
"�4 30
• 14 M
F A I . I U I R I
12 w \ 1
3 13 24
7 ut»u • 23 ceva.• 27 t: 29«ww
26 - 29
�Rr+uRRRa��
13 •,w 16 17 0AK. 26 •«,,.w
A • • �.. _ 45
2L •wvgq
WOOD ��A 5o
Frf
Is 22
1�-
46 •comma 44- R ! R R
nut
19 • 3� 3 owP"poem
v •iaawa •aw ncwr
47 48
REGIONAL STATISTICAL. AREAS w .», 2 44
dwftMr CfAir r A MMM 1w i1MirlwR •38 R R 1 4 Rtaim"Wom mom
County ..tar WIN IL
IL43 31 53
Regional Statistical Area .wrar mile 49
11.uc»
oRAN(�E Cotlm — NEWRSA'S
5 - •
10- mMe 40 "T
w MOM •
RAN PIRG•
TABLE III-1
POPULATION FORECAST FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH
PRIMARY MARKET AREAV
1980 - 2000
Regional
Statistical Net Change
Area 1980 1990 2000 1980-1990 1990-2000
382_1 319,300 348,550 38031500 29,250 31,950
353/ 77,800 82,955 88,450 5,155 5,495
37Y 168,400 182,230 197,200 13,830 14,970
� I
395/ 112,600 140,815 176,100 28,215 3S,28S
426/ 187,600 21011210 235,5SO 22,610 25,340
20?/ 63,750 68,310 73,200 4,560 4,890
TOTAL 929,450 13,033,070 1,151,000 103,620 117,930
1-Represents communities within a ten-mile radius of Huntington Beach Pier.
Includes Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, and Costa Mesa. The boundaries of RSA #38 represent a
5 to 7 mile raduis from the City's Pier area.
3� Cypress area; SO percent of total RSA within market area.
4� Garden Grove, Westminster areas; 50 percent of total RSA within market area.
5� Newport Beach, Irvine areas; 66 percent in market area.
6� Santa Ana area; 50 percent in market area.
Y Long Beach area; IS percent in market area.
Source: SCAG ' 82 Growth Forecast Policy, January 1982; Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
b. Market Area Income. Total income within the primary market area
is calculated in Table III-2. The total number of households
in the market is multiplied by median household income in order
to derive total household income. This figure, $8,597 million,
is divided through by household population, yielding a per
capita income figure of $9,735. Household income is translated
into per capita income in order to project future market area
income based on increases in population.
c. Demand for Specialty Retail Goods. Based on the market area's
projected increase in population and income, as well as observed
patterns of expenditure related to specialty retail goods,
total specialty retail expenditure within the market is projected
to increase by $27.4 million between 1980 and 1990, and by $31.2
million from 1990 to the year 2000. Dividing these projected
expenditures through by a standard sales requirement of $120
per square foot results in a projected market support of almost
500,000 square feet of specialty retail between 1980 and the year
2000. This total demand breaks down by time period as follows:
1980 to 1990 -- 230,000 square feet; 1990 to 2000 -- 260,000
square feet. These projections are shown in Table III-3.
As noted, the primary market area is expected to account for
60 percent of total specialty retail demand within the downtown.
The remaining 40 percent of demand is expected to be derived
from households located greater than 10 miles from the project area
and tourists. Consequently, the aforementioned number of square feet
demanded by time period may be increased by 40 percent, resulting
in the following total primary and secondary market support:
1980 to 1990 -- 322,000 square feet; 1990 to 2000 -- 364,000
square feet. Based on these projections of total market demand
it is felt that downtown Huntington Beach could capture 100,000
square feet of specialty retail space between 1980 and the year
2000. This 15 percent capture of total demand by the downtown
is based on the following observations and assumptions:
III-5
TABLE III-2
PER CAPITA INCQ4E
HUNTINGTON BEACH PRIMARY MARKET AREA
' 1980
t Total 10-mile market area
1980 populatiord/ 929,450
Less: Estimated Number of Persons
in Group Quarters?/ (46,470)
' Population in Households 882,980
Number of Persons per Household3/ ; 2.62
Number of Households in Market Area 337,01S
X Median Household Income±/ X $25,510
' Total Household Income $8,597,2S2,6S0
Population in Households 882,980
Per Capita Income $9,735
' 1 From Table III-1.
Estimated at 5 percent of total population.
3� Laguna Canyon Golf Village Market Analysis,
Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
County-wide figure.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census; Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
i
III-6
' TABLE III-3
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR SPECIALTY RETAIL GOODS
' HUNTINGTON BEACH PRIMARY MARKET AREA
1980 - 2000
' 1980 - 1990 1990 - 2000
' Projected Population Increasel/ 103,620 117,930
' X 1980 Per Capita Income2/ X $9,735 X $9,735
Total Personal Income $1,008,740,700 $1,148,048,550
X Percent Spent on Specialty Retail3/ X .0272 X .0272
Total Potential Specialty
Retail Expenditures $ 27,437,750 $ 31,226,920
Support Requirement in Sales
Volume per Square Foot of Space _ $120 - $120
Total Demand for Specialty Retail
Goods (in Square Feet) 230,000 260,000
' 1
From Table III-1.
?� From Table III-2.
3� Based on 8.0 percent of total retail expenditures allocated to specialty
goods. Total retail expenditures as a percent of income estimated at
34.0 percent.
Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
III-7
' • Inevitably, a great deal of specialty retail demand is
satisfied by establishments located within community and
regional shopping centers where customers may purchase
' many different items without having to drive to several
destination points. Specialty centers require above-
average marketing efforts and continual assessments of
tenant mix in order to attract and maintain a satisfactory
level of patrons.
' • City officials will promote the development of housing in
and around the downtown area in order to achieve a greater
base of year-round retail demand.
• Presently the downtown has only fair access to and from
Interstate 405, and poor access to and from major, nearby
population centers such as Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Long
' Beach. The improvement of access to the downtown area will
be a major factor in the eventual success of both the
retail and office uses discussed in the City's Specific Plan.
Finally, it is recommended that the development of specialty
' retail space in downtown Huntington Beach be phased in over
time in accordance with projected population increases within
the market. Accordingly, it is felt that during the time period
1983 to 1990, 40,000 to 50,000 square feet of space could be
' supported and, subsequently, between 1990 and the year 2000,
50,000 to 60,000 square feet could achieve market acceptance.
Ports O'Call Village in nearby San Pedro, a specialty center
with waterfront orientation, contains 87,000 square feet of retail
space, 27,000 square feet of which is devoted to restaurants.
III-8
' B. Restaurant
Restaurants, particularly those developed as "sit-down" eating and
' drinking establishments, are an excellent complementary land use to
other commercial developments such as retail, office, and hotel.
tFor example, a good eating and drinking establishment can serve as
an evening activity generator providing retailers with enough customers
' to warrant expanded business hours. The subsequent observation of
"night-life" in a particular area helps to further create an atmosphere
' of success and vitality which can benefit hotels as well as other
restaurants. Consequently, this section analyzes the potential demand
for dinner restaurants in downtown Huntington Beach and addresses the
' role they play in the area's overall revitalization.
1. Market Area Delineation
Unlike specialty retail centers, dinner restaurants cannot be
' expected to achieve a significant amount of retail support from
households greater than 10 miles away. Residents outside a 10-mile
' radius, perhaps attracted to the downtown as a waterfront experience
during the day, would have several dinner restaurants closer to
' their homes than those in Huntington Beach. Therefore, a good
dinner restaurant in the downtown would be expected to rely on local
resident patronage, defined as those households within a 10-mile
or 20-minute drive from downtown Huntington Beach.
' 2. Projected Demand for Dinner Restaurants
The projected demand for dinner restaurants within the downtown
market area is outlined in Table III-4. As shown, based on the
market area's projected increase in population and income, as well
' as an analysis of state-wide expenditures at dinner restaurants1/,
total dinner restaurant expenditure within the market is projected
to increase by $20.9 million between 1980 and 1990, and by $23.8
million from 1990 to the year 2000. Dividing these expenditures
through by a standard sales requirement of $175 per square foot,
' as well as an assumed average facility size of 5,000 square feet,
results in a demand for over 50 new dinner restaurants between
/1
-- Analysis performed on taxable retail sales as recorded in "Taxable
' Retail Sales in California", State Board of Equalization, 1981.
III-9
TABLE III-4
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR DINNER RESTAURANTS
' HUNTINGTON BEACH MARKET AREA
1980 - 2000
1980 - 1990 1990 - 2000
Projected Population Increase— 103,620 117,930
' X 1980 Per Capita Income?/ X $9,735 X $9,735
Total Personal Income $1,008,740,700 $1,148,048,550
' X Percent Spent at Dinner Restaurants3/ X .0207 X .0207
' Total Potential Dinner Restaurant
Expenditures $ 20,880,930 $ 23,764,605
' Support Requirement in Sales
Volume per Square Foot of Space $17S $175
Demand for Dinner Restaurants
in Square Feet 120,000 135,800
Average Size of Facility (sq. ft. ) i 3,000 : 5,000
' Number of Dinner Restaurants Supportable 24 27
' 1
From Table III-1.
z/From Table III-2.
3/Based on 6.1 percent of total retail expenditures allocated to dinner restaurants.
Total retail expenditures as a percent of income estimated at 34.0 percent.
Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
III-10
1980 2000. This total demand by t period breaks down as
follows: 1980 to 1990 -- 24 establishments; 1990 to 2000 -- 27
' establishments.
' Based on these market projections by time period it is felt that
downtown Huntington Beach could support 1 to 2 dinner restaurants
between 1983 and 1990, and 2 to 3 dining establishments between
1990 and the year 2000. Thus, over the next seventeen years, 3 to 5
dinner restaurants are projected to be supported downtown.
As with specialty retail the extent of restaurant development in
P Y � p
the downtown will be partially dependent upon the degree to which
the area's housing supply can be increased. As noted, a restaurant
developed to serve local residents would complement and support
prosepctive specialty retail establishments as well. Therefore,
residential, specialty retail, and restaurant land uses should be
viewed as mutually reinforcing land uses within the downtown.
C. Office
As shown in Table III-5, the City of Huntington Beach presently contains
approximately 24 office buildings totaling 753,175 square feet. Of this
total square footage, only 400,180 square feet or 53 percent is occupied.
Consequently, the City currently has an office vacancy rate of 47
percent. Insofar as a 10 percent vacancy rate is considered normal
in order to allow for movement among businesses within a given area,
37 percent of the City's office inventory represents an over-
supply of space. This oversupply translates into approximately 279,000
square feet. However, the City's office market is relatively young,
and its annual absorption rate of office space, i.e. , amount of new
space occupied every year, is on the increase.
All of the office space inventoried in Table III-S has been developed
between 1974 and 1983. Moreover, as shown in Table III-6, the amount
of new office space occupied between 1978 and 1982 was slightly more
than twice of the amount of new space occupied between 1974 and 1977.
As a result, the City's average absorption of office space increased
from 28,000 square feet per year from 1974 to 1977 to 57,625 square feet
annually from 1978 to 1982.
' III-11
r� rr rr rr r ar r rr rr ar rr rr rr rr rr �r r� r� r
TABLE III - 5
INVENTORY OF EXISTING OFFICE SPACE
CITY OF HUNPINGTON BEACH
Development Total Square Occupied Space Vacant Space Typical Monthly Lease
Building Name/Address Date Footage (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) Rate (per Sq. Ft.)
1. Huntington Beach Executive Park; 1974 105,000 89,400 15,600 $1.25
Beach Boulevard
2. 18600 Florida 1978 17,000 15,450 1,550 0.90
3. Sand Dollar Financial Center; 1978 15,000 12,000 3,000 1.15
16371 Beach Boulevard
4. Slater; Beach Boulevard 1979 19,000 12,350 6,650 0.90
S. One Pacific Plaza; Center Drive 1981 98,000 78,000 20,000 1.55
H
H
6. Beach Pointe; Beach Pointe and 1981 12,000 9,250 2,750 0.65 lst year
N Beach Boulevard 1.25 2nd year
7. Seacliff Office Park; 1981/1974 90,600 63,700 26,900 1.05
2130 Main Street
8. Sea Port Square; Beach 1981 14,5001/ 8,830 5,670 0.70 NNN
Boulevard south of Graziadio
9. Garfield Bank; 1981 22,000 7,000 15,000 1.00
Garfield and Magnolia
10. Florida Professional Building; 1981 13,880 12,880 1,000 1.05
Main and Florida
11. 16541 Gothard at Heil 1981 35,000 34,100 900 0.95
12. Beachstone Plaza; Beach 1982 1S,34S1/ -0- 15,345 1.10
Boulevard and Graziadio
13. SBE Corporate Headquarters; 1982 55,300 11,300 44,000 1.20 NNN
Beach and Adams
continued....
w� w ww �w w �w rw� iw w w� ■■� w■r
TABLE II1-5 (cont.)
INVENTORY OF EXISTING OFFICE SPACE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Development Total Square Occupied Space Vacant Space Typical Monthly Lease
Building Name/Address Date Footage (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) Rate (per Sq. Ft.)
14. Park Place; Warner and Leslie 1982 19,000 9,000 10,000 $1.25 NNN
15. Harbour Landing; Warner and Green 1982 13,5001/ 9,400 4,100 1.05 NN
16. Warner/Bolsa (pica; 1982 31,500 3,500 28,000 1.25
16872 Bolsa Chica
17. Huntington National Bank Bldg; 1982 9,000 4,500 4,500 1.25
Bolsa Chica and Heil
18. Landmark Building; 19901 Beach 1982 10,000 -0- 10,000 1.00 NNN
H
H 19. Ires Building; 20422 Beach 1982 34,100 -0- 34,100 1.40
N
w
20. Huntington Pacifica; 18377 Beach 1982 42,000 2,000 40,000 0.70 1st year
1.00 2nd year
21. College Country Center; 19822/ 19,000 8,000 11,000 0.90 NNN
7400 Center Drive
22. 14340 Bolsa Chica 19822/ 25,000 -0- 25,000 0.80 NNN
23. Kacor Building; Bolsa Chica • 1983 27,000 -0- 27,000 1.30
and Springfield
24. Tobin Professional Building; N.A. 10,450 9,520 930 0.90
5142 Warner
TOTAL 753,175 400,180 352,995
1 Represents office portion of mixed-use building.
2/ Office space conversion from prior use.
Source: Matlow-Kennedy Corporation; Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
TABLE III-6
HISTORIC ABSORPTION AND PROJECTED SUPPLY OF OFFICE SPACE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Occupied Average Annual
Development Period Square Footage Absorption (Sq. Ft.)
' 1974-1977 112,OSO 28,000
' 1978-1982 288,130 57,62S
iTOTAL, 1974-1982 400,180 44,46S
Current Oversupply 1 Square Footage: 279,000
q g
i - Projected Annual Absorption
(Sq. Ft.) : 70,000
= Number of Years of Supply: 4 years
i
Source: Table III-5 ; Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
i
' III-14
Given this tr�, of increased absorption, refl,-tive of the City's
increasing urbanization, between 1983 and 1990 the annual absorption
' of office space is projected to average 70,000 square feet. Therefore,
almost 500,000 square feet of office space is projected to be absorbed
' in the City during the next 7 years. At the same time, however, the
presence of 279,000 square feet of oversupply in the market indicates
' that the City already has enough office space to satisfy 4 years of
demand. Thus, while the downtown may offer ocean views to prospective
office tenants and thereby partially circumvent current market conditions,
' the demand for new office space in Huntington Beach is projected to be
quite "soft" between 1983 and 1987. The longer term potential for
' office development in the downtown, however, is more encouraging.
Specifically, between 1988 and 1992, it is expected that up to 150,000
' square feet of office space could be supported in the downtown, provided
that significant office construction does not occur outside the project
' area in the meantime. This amount of space could be even greater,
and occur somewhat earlier, if new specialty retail shops begin operating
' successfully in the downtown by the mid-1980s.
' D. Hotel
The survey results of selected hotel facilities in the Huntington Beach
' area are shown in Table III-7. Given the proposed location(s) of one
or more hotels in the City's Specific Plan -- i.e. , along the waterfront --
a particular market area delination for the prospective hotel(s) is not
extremely useful. It is clear that any hotel facilities constructed
along the City's waterfront would be in competition for tourist patron-
age with other ocean-oriented hotels in Orange County primarily, and
Los Angeles and San Diego Counties secondarily. With respect to
' business and convention patronage, any facility in the project area
will compete directly with other Orange County hotels -- particularly
' those in Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Newport Beach. Consequently, Table III-6
represents a survey of facilities from various locations within Orange
' County, some of which are ocean-oriented and others which are located
near major employment centers. The locations of the hotels surveyed
are shown in Figure III-2.
III-15
r rr r r� r r r r r r r r r r r r r �r rr
TABLE III-7
SURVEY OF SELECTED HOTEL FACILITIES
11WINGCON BEACH AREA
Amenities
Map Key Number Year Room Rates Sources of Patronage AnnualPool/ Tennis Meeting
Number of Rooms Built Single Double Business Tourist Convention Occupansy Jacuzzi Courts Rooms Other
1 Best Western 143 1963 $47 $57 SO% 50% 0% 66% P -0- 4 9-hole Golf Course
Hungtinton Beach Inn
2 Huntington Shore SO 1959 $42 $52 30 70 -0- 62 P -0- -0-
Motor Inn
3 Westin - South Coast 403 1975 $95 $I10 50 30 20 80 P 4 12
Plaza
4 La Quinta Inn 138 1980 $39 $45 -0- -0-
5 Costa Mesa Inn 130 1970 $48 $56 98 2 -0- 85 P -0- 1
6 Vagabond Motor Inn 50 1968 $39 $48 75 - - - 25 - - - - 80 P -0- -0-
7 Ambassador Inn 233 1973 -0- -0-
H 8 Rodeway Inn 124 1968 $44 $52 Primarily N.A. Some Very High P -0- -0-
H
1
9 Irvine Host Motor Inn i50 N.A. $46 $55 Primarily N.A. N.A. N.A. P -0- -0-
10 The Airporter Inn 215 1970 $65 $73 90 10 N.A. 85 P/Spa -0- 8
11 The Registry 296 1976 $100 $I10 Primarily Some Some 80 P/J 2 9 7500 sq. ft.
ballroom
12 Sheraton Newport Inn 349 1975-1979 $90 $100 Primarily Some Some 75 P 2 10
13 Marriott-Newport Center 377 1975 $95 $105 50 30 20 85 P/Spa 10 13 Club Access
14 Newporter Inn 313 1962-1972 $90 $100 20 40 40 95 2P 16 13 Club Access
17 Surf N' Sand ISO 1970 $90 $105 30 70 N.A. 85 P -0- 2
TOTAL 3,121
Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc. Surveys 1980 and 1983.
N.A. - Not available.
�� III-17
Presently, ti, hotels greater than 12 rooms ii� size operate in Huntington
Beach, the Best Western Huntington Beach Inn and the Huntington Shore
Motor Inn. Both of these facilities rely significantly upon tourist
patronage, and this is reflected somewhat in their estimated annual
occupancy rates of 66 percent and 62 percent respectively. The
Huntington Beach Inn offers guests a pool and a 9-hole golf course and
has 4 meeting rooms for businesses or banquets. The Huntington Shore
Motor Inn has a pool.
In reviewing the sources of patronage for other facilities listed in
Table III-7 it is significant to note that only one other facility
besides those in Huntington Beach relies heavily on tourists patronage --
the Surf N' Sand in Laguna Beach. In contrast to the 60 percent
occupancies of the Huntington Beach facilities, the Surf N' Sand estimates
its annual occupancy at 85 percent, even though it charges almost twice
as much per night for a room. At the same time, the Laguna Beach
facility does not offer any greater amenities then the Huntington
Beach Hotels. This indicates that, at least as far as the Surf N'
Sand is concerned, Laguna Beach is perceived within the market as a
more desirable tourist location than Huntington Beach. Given the
presence of the oils wells and their related facilities along the
city's waterfront this conclusion is not surprising. .
Nonetheless, excellent opportunities for one or more hotels could exist
along the Huntington Beach waterfront, if the following improvements
were implemented:
0 Per the City's Specific Plan, improvements to the Pacific Coast
Highway and the Pier area;
• The "unitization" of existing oil wells;
• Improved parking, circulation, and landscaping within the project
area; and
• Parcels of sufficient acreage were assembled to allow for
construction of a 150 to 200 room hotel with several amenities
such as a pool, jacuzzi, tennis courts, and meeting rooms.
' III-18
In addition, although not a prerequisite to hotel development,
improved access from the project area to and from the Orange County/
John Wayne Airport would greatly increase the marketability of any
hotel sites assembled by providing a better opportunity for operators
to capture business patronage.
Finally, the successful recruitment of a major tourist attraction
such as a museum or aquarium could also help improve and promote
downtown Huntington Beach and increase the attractiveness of the
area to potential hotel developers and operators. The concept of a
major hotel/conference center development in conjunction with a
marine-related museum and research center has been discussed in
earnest. In this regard, a list of resort/conference hotel facilities
planned for development within Orange County has been provided in
Table III- 8. Five projects are listed, three of which will have
ocean orientation.
III-19
TABLE III- 8
PROPOSED RESORT/CONFERENCE HOTEL FACILITIES
HUNTINGTON BEACH/ORANGE COUNTY AREA
Facilities
Number of Ball Mtq. Rest./ Pool/ Tennis Golf Development
Facility/Developer Location -Roams Orientation Room Rooms Lounge Jacuzzi Courts Course Time Press Comeente
Airport Area
1) Marriott/same Von Kamm. S03 Business 1 2 2R P/J/Spa 1 Open July 1987 Kxpect 70 percent group business.
Irvine
primarily corporate business.
2) Newport Beach Meridian hotel/ MacArthur Blvd.. 4/0 Business and 1 1-4 2R/1L P/Spa Yes Fall 1984 A world class hotel with high end
Koll Company Newport Beach Tourist orientation. Business patronage
unknown. Operator has Suropean
marketing base. Geared to upper
management and corporate groups.
3) Irvine Coast/Irvine Company Pacific Coast Highway 1.750 Tourist Unknown at present 1965-1992 Four hotels at two sites totalling
110 acres. All tourist oriented but
one will provide a conference center
and one will be world class, will
provide usual hotel amenities and
�-� facilities but depend on ocean and
H
high quality for major draw.
N Laguna Niguel •
O
0) Salt Creek Inn/Johnson Pacific Coast Highway 400 Resort, tour- 1-12,000 to 2R/1L P 4 Yes Open May 1984 Proposed luxury resort hotel on
Properties ist primarily 1/,000 Sr coastal bluff with 18-hole golf course
across PCH. 2 restaurants, small-
scale business and meting room
facilities. All necessary coastal
development permits have been issued.
Property recently puchosed from AVCO
Community Developers. Anticipated
to be a high-end resort-oriented
facility within limited business
conference trade during the winter
months.
5) Salt Creek Conference Center/AVCO Pacific Coast Highway 200-100 Businessi 35,000 to 2R7 P/Spa 8-15 Yes Unknown Proposed conference center in con-
Conference 40.000 Sr ceptual stages only would be full
conference center. would link with
coastal bluff hotel and share
facilities. Once approved may be
TOTAL 3,293-3,393 sold.
Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
PROPOSED CIRCULATION
SYSTEM CONC EPT PL AN
Downtown Huntington Beach
HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Ir
AUG Z 1983
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Prepared for:
Y
The City of Huntington Beach
and
The Arroyo. Group
Prepared by: .
too
` ENGINEERS i PLANNERS
AUGUST 1983
�P- ice.
Agft
ion
.. 4095 East La Palma Avenue, Suite L
Anaheim, California 92807 O
(714) 630-9230
4510 ENGINEERS & PLANNERS
August 19, 1983
Mr. Pat Dawe
The Arroyo Group
40 East Colorado Boulevard
.. Pasadena, CA 91105
RE: Traffic Impact Analysis of Proposed Circulation Plan
for Downtown Huntington Beach
Dear Mr. Dawe:
We are pleased to submit this report pertaining to our analysis of the
circulation and parking aspects of the proposed plan to redevelop the
downtown area of the City of Huntington Beach.
As set forth in our report, we obtained data pertaining to existing
travel and parking conditions in the study area, developed estimates
` of traffic which would be generated by various proposed new or
increased land uses, assigned the anticipated project traffic to the
existing street system, and analyzed the results to identify possible
circulation system deficiencies.
v
Our analysis indicated that the basic existing street system and
presently planned improvements, such as the proposed revisions along
the Pacific Coast Highway and the extension of Walnut Street to a con-
nection with Beach Boulevard, should be adequate for the foreseeable
future. Travel difficulties at major access points to specific projects,
or at adjacent intersections, may occur as the redevelopment of the
downtown area progresses. They should be correctable through
standard traffic engineering practices, however, and no major street
widenings or revisions other than those already planned should be
necessary to support the plan.
w
`r
bw
Mr. Pat Dawe, 1.,G
Huntington Beach Downtown
Circulation Plan
.. August 19, 1983 - Page 2
We wish to thank you for the opportunity to assist with this project.
If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact us.
Respectfu I I y submitted,
r.
GREER & CO.
1
Ja L. Ray, .E.
Director of Transportation Services
rr
JLR:vp
cc: Mr. M. Adams,
Assistant Planner
Mr. P. Cook,
Director of Public Works
Mr. L. Evans,
` City Engineer
r
i
1
Ir.
i
r
r TABLE OF CONTENTS
r Page
EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAVEL CONDITIONS 1
Introduction 1
Present Traffic Volumes 4
Summer Beach Traffic 4
Estimated Project Traffic 6
Anticipated Operating Conditions 11
PROPOSED CIRCULATION SYSTEM AND CONCEPT PLAN 13
Proposed Concept Plan 13
Proposed Bus Circulation 15
Proposed Bike Routes 17
Beach Boulevard Corridor Study 17
Parking Strategy 29
SUMMARY 21
APPENDIX
r
LIST OF FIGURES
_ Figure 1 - Specific Plan Area 2
Figure 2 - Proposed Street System 3
Figure 3 - Existing Traffic Volumes - 1983 ADT (winter conditions) 5
Figure 4 - Project Traffic - ADT 9
Figure 5 - Existing Plus Project Traffic - ADT 10
Figure 6 - Proposed Street Extension 14
Figure 7 - Bike Routes 18
LIST OF TABLES
r
Table 1 - Trip Generation Rates 7
Table 2 - Project Trip Generation 8
W '
r.
W
W
EXISTING AND
.. FUTURE TRAVEL CONDITIONS
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the traffic analysis for the proposed
circulation system concept plan prepared for the Specific Plan for the
downtown area of the City of Huntington Beach. The specific plan
area, as shown on Figure 1 , includes the City's present downtown and
extends along Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard on the
south and Golden West Street on the north. The proposed development
` plan for downtown includes the development of approximately 410,000
square feet of new commercial facilities; 300,000 square feet of office
space; 3,000 residential dwelling units; four hotels with approximately
r- 1,600 rooms; and related restaurants and recreational facilities.
It is anticipated that these future new, or expanded, land uses will
generate approximately 74,000 vehicular trips on an average day. It
is important, therefore, that an adequate street system, together with
suitable parking and other related circulation elements, be provided.
This analysis has been directed toward this aspect of the specific plan.
The study area street system is shown in Figure 2.
W
Yr
— 1
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r t
LEGEND
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
J Q ,
M.M.M.M.11-Hu"]uml ED UJ.U].DD.0
ul 10,
ED ED DO 11 ED 7LUID ED ED""nl Uld
...........
[In CD 11 EE 0 M ED ED ED 00 ED 10 Ell M ED
: ... .
: : .
EE� �,�
i I
i
I i .........:....:.::.....::.
:< .
i
...
-L i
a
Figure
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
City of Huntington Bea
ch
1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F-11 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F]F1
JLLL F--.E.LL I JLL LLL
101EIMEHL Em® [HIM ®o ,
INTERSECTION DESIGN STUDY
LEGEND - REOUIRED IN FUTURE
MAJOR STREET
••••• PRIMARY STREET
•■■•■■-SECONDARY STREET
Lasso STREET ABANDONED
ooe0oo PEDESTRIANS ONLY
Figure
PROPOSED STREET , SYSTEM 2
«. PRESENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Records of existing traffic volumes were reviewed and City staff made
additional counts on the major streets in the downtown redevelopment
area. These new counts were for 24-hour periods on typical weekdays
and records were made of the volumes of vehicles moving every 15
minutes in each direction of travel . Since the counts were made during
May and June they represent winter conditions and do not include
typical summer beach traffic.
Existing average daily traffic volumes on various streets in the study
area are shown on Figure 3. As indicated, the heaviest volumes are
along Pacific Coast Highway where more than 30,000 vehicles a day
travel over most of the street sections. Volumes along Beach Boulevard
also are heavy and range from 25,000 to 28,000 vehicles. Some sections
of Main Street and Golden West Street have volumes in excess of 10,000
but most of the other streets in the downtown area carry relatively
light traffic flows.
Yr.
SUMMER BEACH TRAFFIC
.. Recent counts, taken on Sunday, July 3, and Thursday, July 7, 1983,
show that approximately 3,200 vehicles use the City 's beach parking
lots on a typical weekday, and approximately 3,900 use them on week-
end days. These vehicles, of course, travel the major street network
in order to move to and from the beach parking areas. In addition,
other beach users drive the City streets to reach parking spaces near
,... the beach but not in the actual City beach parking lots. The number
of drivers who operate in this manner are not precisely known, but
may be several thousand on sunny weekends. Fortunately, the hours
of peak beach use do not typically coincide with regular business com-
muting hours, and beach users normally add relatively small numbers
of trips to the weekday peak period flows.
-- City records show that annual beach parking lot use increased from
229,078 vehicles in 1973 to 329,919 vehicles in 1982, a 44 percent
increase. Although the use in 1982 was slightly less than the use in
1981 , future volumes are expected to grow as the population of Orange
County increases. Since approximately 85 percent of the City's beach
use is by residents of other cities, much of the beach related travel
is made by non-residents who normally move via the major streets and
highways rather than local routes. This results in most beach move-
ments being made via Beach Boulevard, Golden West Street, Main Street,
and 17th Street. Other minor or parallel streets, of course, also are
�-- used to some extent by beach users. Recent counts taken along Main
Street and Golden West Street indicate that typical summer volumes are
approximately 2,000 vehicles per day higher than those that occur in
the winter. Volumes along Beach Boulevard, the main access to the
City's beaches, typically increase about 7,000 vehicles daily during
4
the peak summer month of travel . As traffic congestion develops along
the main routes to the beach in the future, it may become necessary
to devote special study toward its alleviation through added parking
restrictions or perhaps by the development of additional major arterial
routes.
i
ESTIMATED PROJECT TRAFFIC
The proposed redeveloped downtown area wi I I be comprised of a mixture
of commercial facilities of various types, residential units, office
buildings, hotels and recreational facilities. Trip generation rates for
each of the proposed uses were developed from available research data;
and the individual rates, shown on Table 1 , were applied to the
anticipated development segments so that estimates could be made of
future project trips. These estimates were generated for both inbound
•- and outbound movements and for daily as well as morning and evening
periods of peak flow. The actual estimated vehicle trips are shown
in Table 2.
The estimated daily flows to and from various portions of the project
were analyzed and assigned to logical routes over the street network.
The individual assignments were summarized and are shown for various
street segments on Figure 4. As indicated, two-way volumes on Pacific
Coast Highway can be expected to increase as much as 10,000 trips
immediately north of Golden West and south of Beach Boulevard.
Anticipated increases on other street segments vary depending upon
their proximity to specific proposed development projects and the avail-
ability of major routes in the street system. The combined total of
r„ existing and project generated traffic is presented in Figure 5. Analy-
sis of these combined traffic volumes does not indicate any need for
major increases in the overall capacity of the City's existing street
system to adequately handle typical wintertime traffic movements which
wi I I be generated by the proposed redevelopment projects. Some
changes in operating conditions along sections of certain streets may
become necessary as development of the area occurs, but major widen-
- ings should not be necessary. Mitigation of circulation problems at
major project access points or at adjacent intersections should be
possible through the application of normal traffic engineering pro-
cedures and design applications during project development.
r.
6
i t r t t t 1 t t
COUNTS TAKEN IN 19819198291983
. F
W W
Y
W J
W
m
7
s300
r
cn 0241v0Q 3s000 O
O
M O
O
'O
COLIvL, N
r
0 49900 ATLANTA
Pia WA
Lmur O
r'D00 M co M O
O
. 31 s4 0 O ti
w
5, 00 N 2' N
a
400 369000 PC" 369000
a
a
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES- 1988 ADT Figure
(WINTER CONDITIONS) x
r r r r r r t r r r r r r r r r r
a
W
W
= Y
W <
J
O V <
W
O O
O /A
N
S
y O PALM 1'$Q4OO
O I Q
w N
O
40
O
to Oil Allot4$0 toO N
w
Oil O
0
4.96$0
8$ 4
0
O O Ow lfy 6,400 ATLANTA
h 9$Q M
40
,�N to "'ALNur O 7$0 N
�0,2$p 9,3Q0 '� 4,0$ ',800 N 4 V"
wto
veso 6,100 0
1,900 tt �co�
d. 69550 N PCH
b �
a ' 9,750
a.uuu..u.au
Figure
PROJECT TRAFFIC - ADT 4
r r t r r r r r r r t t r i r t r r r
W
W
Z Y
W <
G J
J
o
o
W
m
*•,/
M
18
'
PA�V 3800
n 0
w
O O
CRANQE IA �
0 3s4s0 04 ti
11 300CIO
oche
119300 ATLANTA
w
PCk 4 WALNVr O
0,300 co - 3,200
3S,4S0
3g,Os0 6,100 0 a
N
29'300 429550 tz
N PCH
a .
' 4.79750-
Figure
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC - -AT 51
r.
ANTICIPATED OPERATING CONDITIONS
The existing streets serving the downtown area provide an essentially
r. grid pattern with most of the east-west streets having 48-foot, and the
north-south streets having 38-foot, curb-to-curb widths. Parking is
normally permitted along both sides and single centerline striping is
used to designate one travel lane in each direction. The operating
` capacity of these roadways with Level of Service (LOS) "D" 1) is approxi-
mately 12,500 vehicles per day. As indicated on Figure 5, the antici-
pated future "existing plus project" traffic volumes on most of the
•' present two-lane streets in the study area are less than 12, 500, and
operating conditions are expected to be satisfactory.
Anticipated volumes on Pacific Coast Highway, Beach Boulevard and
Golden West Street are larger than 12,500 but these roadways have more
than one travel lane in each direction and, consequently, their carry-
r
ing capacities are much greater.
Main Street Conditions
Main Street is expected to serve as a major means of movement between
the redevelopment area and locations to the east, and traffic volumes
.. immediately east of the downtown area are expected to be approximately
19,000 vehicles per day. This magnitude of traffic will require two
lanes of travel in each direction, at least during the periods of peak
flow.
rr
Main Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Palm Street presently
has a 50-foot curb-to-curb width, and between Palm Street and 14th
r. Street this width reduces to 44 feet. Operation in each of these sec-
tions is with one lane of traffic in each direction and with parking
permitted on both sides of the street. East of 14th Street the roadway
widens to 94 feet and travel lanes in each direction plus a median and
left-turn lanes are provided.
It is anticipated that the section of Main Street west of 6th Street will
be reconstructed as part of the redevelopment project. Other provisions
must be made, however, to increase the capacity of the roadway
between 6th and 14th Streets. This can be accomplished by physically
`- widening the roadway or by making a series of operational changes
as traffic volumes increase and capacity becomes critical . A first
stage operational change can be the prohibition of parking during peak
.. hours of travel . This can be followed by the elimination of curb
parking during the remaining hours of the day, and eventually during
the night. Further increases in capacity also can be obtained by such
steps as the prohibition of left turns and the installation of tow-away
areas. With four travel lanes provided east of 6th Street, it is antici-
pated that a LOS better than "D" wi I I be obtained.
(1)Definitions of conditions with different levels of service are given in
the Appendix.
11
... ,owl
-- Walnut Street Extension
One travel lane in each direction should be adequate to carry traffic
on the planned exension of Walnut Street between Beach Boulevard and
Lake Street. Two lanes in each direction, however, may be required
on Walnut immediately north of Lake Street. Since the future volumes
of traffic on these two roadway segments wi I I depend to some extent
on the specific projects which are constructed along them and the
design of their access points, it is recommended that consideration be
given to providing at least four wide travel lanes together with ade-
quate medians and turn lanes between Main Street on the north and
Beach Boulevard on the south.
Sixth Street
Sixth Street wi I I form the northern boundary of the redeveloped down-
town area. Although a two-lane roadway should be adequate to handle
currently anticipated volumes along it, we recommend that considera-
tion be given to providing four travel lanes plus left-turn lanes to
facilitate movements into and out of the downtown area.
Y�I
b..
12
PROPOSED
CIRCULATION SYSTEM CONCEPT PLAN
PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN
Several revisions in the operation of the street system are contemplated
as part of the Downtown Specific Plan. These changes include signal
system revisions, increasing the number of travel lanes on Pacific
Coast Highway, the closure of certain streets, and the construction of
some street extensions. It also may become advisable to make changes
in the alignment of minor sections of other streets as a means of
enhancing development possibilities.
Traffic Signal Improvements
As development takes place throughout the area, continuing study
should be given to the City's traffic signal system which provides a
major means of traffic control . The signals located along Pacific Coast
._ Highway, in particular, should be periodically reviewed to be sure that
they are functioning at peak efficiency. Various signal revisions also
may be required at other locations in and around the downtown area
as development takes place, traffic volumes increase, and flow patterns
change. The proper design of these revisions naturally will depend
upon future development factors which are unforeseeable at this time.
In regard to the traffic signal located at the intersection of Main
Street and Pacific Coast Highway, it is planned that vehicles will be
prohibited from Main Street between PCH and Walnut Avenue and that
r. this section of roadway will be limited to pedestrian use. The Main
13
Street/PCH signal, therefore, will become a pedestrian-actuated means
of creating periodic gaps in vehicular traffic on PCH so the crossing
to and from the pier and beach can be made safely. All the signals
along PCH should be interconnected and adequate control features pro-
vided to limit both the duration and the timing of the pedestrian green
phases so that reasonable progression can be maintained by vehicles
traveling along PCH.
The crossing of PCH at-grade by large numbers of pedestrians moving
between the downtown area and the pier/beach would create an undesir-
able traffic condition. It is recommended, therefore, that considera-
tion be given to the construction of a suitable pedestrian under or
overpass during the early stages of the downtown redevelopment project.
Pacific Coast Highway Improvement
•- The Pacific Coast Highway in the study area currently operates with
two lanes of traffic in each direction and with parking permitted on
both sides of the street. In the near future, it is planned to prohibit
parking so that three travel lanes will be provided in each direction.
As a part of this street improvement, we recommend that the median
island in PCH be constructed in such a manner as to preclude future
pedestrian crossings of PCH except at selected intersections, preferably
at those where traffic is controlled with traffic signals.
Consideration has been given to the closure of various streets at their
�- junction with Pacific Ccast Highway by the construction of cul-de-sacs.
This action has been recommended as a means of improving the develop-
ment opportunities for the properties located along PCH. It also would
offer the advantage of concentrating both pedestrian crossings of PCH,
and the locations where vehicles could enter or leave this major traffic
flow, at specific points where proper controls and safeguards could be
provided. It, further, would tend to alleviate to some extent the con-
flicts which presently occur between property owners and those beach
users who park along the residential streets on the eastern side of PCH
rather than in the City's public beach parking lots.
Consideration also has been given to limiting the movements at certain
additional PCH intersections by not providing breaks in the median
along PCH and, thereby, restricting movements to only right turns into
and out of the side streets. This action would have essentially the
same effect as the construction of side street cul-de-sacs but would
permit some movement of vehicles into and out of the planned develop-
ment areas along PCH.
The proper selection of locations for either cul-de-sacs or median clo-
sures wi I I depend to some extent on future project developments and
will require specific engineering and design studies.
r.
r
14
Street Closures
Several streets in the downtown section are to be closed to facilitate
redevelopment of the area. These closures include Walnut Avenue
between Lake Street and 2nd Street, Main Street between PCH and
Walnut Avenue and from Orange Avenue to Acacia Avenue, 5th Street
between Orange Avenue and Lake Street, and Pecan Avenue between 6th
Street and Lake Street. A section of Huntington Avenue south of
Atlanta Avenue also may be closed as a means of improving the devel-
opment possibilities for the large section of land situated between Lake
Street and Beach Boulevard.
Street Extensions
It has been proposed that Hamilton Avenue be constructed between
Beach Boulevard and .its present western terminus at Newland Street and
v that Walnut Avenue be extended from the downtown area to the proposed
intersection of Beach and Hamilton. As shown on Figure 6, this would
provide an improved means of travel between downtown Huntington
60 Beach and Costa Mesa, both the Newport and the San Diego Freeways,
and points beyond. Movement could be via either Hamilton Avenue/
Victoria Street or, eventually, Banning Avenue/19th Street.
` Consideration also has been given to extending Delaware Street from
Atlanta Avenue to a new junction with PCH. If this action is taken,
we recommend that the junction with PCH be located at the present
�- intersection of Huntington Avenue and PCH since this intersection is now
signalized and is directly opposite the entrance to a major beach
parking area.
v
Street Realignments
Minor revisions in the alignments of some streets may become advisable
to improve traffic flows and enhance development opportunities. Selec-
t i ve abandonment of some street sections or changes in alignments also
.. could be used to create more suitable development parcels and/or to
better direct traffic flows. Proper decisions regarding actions of this
nature, however, require in-depth design studies and analyses of
r. specific project alternatives.
PROPOSED BUS CIRCULATION
At the present time bus routes enter the downtown area via Atlanta
.. Avenue, Lake Street, Main Street and Orange Avenue, and move through
the study area on either Olive or Walnut Avenue. Additional bus
service which does not actually enter the downtown area is provided
along PCH.
�r
15
` f:. r,
VI � W N
GARFIELD AVE SAN
i
Ln
In
BAKER AVE '' uppim C,(1AM �
U7OMOi1V f
.I MUSESIM/� ,f
IOHN W, 4
O ADAMS AVE AIR►6RT /
�( 6 ORANGE CO.
HUNTINGTON �/
N HUNTINGTON 9,' MfTEIAN
1 ORANGE COUNTY ,p rp ` Of THE A R S
CITY BEACH
1p�� BEACH
W rfA1RGROUNDS � 1
o _
F P /
ATLANTA AVE COSTA�, Om ¢ 9
MESAvEay,�
SUNSET V1.7A O HAMILTON AVE VICTORIA ST (r• :r r t)NI
T IIIIIIIIIIIz j 22�0 ,\,.rl,,,u•f � 1
Hal
m BANNING Q Sr �� 4Y °R /
HUNTINGTON O 1111.4 1 19T ST mP t
W NEWPORT -m STATE BEACH a )r
BEACHa
PT ORD R 1L„rrnn /
yP� OD .i
SANTA ANA RIVER Q _
COUNTY BEACH _ p
�9c 4�'��c 'P I
O dp
NEWIORI DUNES
NEWIORT BEACH 1 AQUATIC PARK
C S P
Z S ores — - -i °A
(/� �• New/iorf AVE
\` _.BoJJy\,� Corona
Z NEWPORT BEACH BALBOA --�- del Mar Pelican Hill
IAVIt10N 1 Et. 716
L^) Balboa LITiIE Hwy
41*OC OY A
V♦ CORONA DEL MAR (EACH
STATE BEACH '
\ Arch Rock
... m
` • ~
� Pelican PI.
owl e
TO SAN_DIEGO
For the future, it is recommended that all buses, except those now
travelling only along PCH, circulate around the downtown core area
using 6th Street, PCH, Lake Street and Orange Avenue. This action
will provide service to both the downtown and the beach areas. If
the proposed transportation terminal is developed at the intersection
of Lake Street and PCH, all downtown buses would pass the location
and transfers would be facilitated.
w.
It is anticipated that the existing PCH bus service will be maintained
and a proposed beachside layover area adjacent to the pier wi I I be
developed. Approximately 12 to 14 layover bus bays should be pro-
vided southeastbound on PCH near Main Street with a bus stop/bay
provided northwestbound at Main Street.
Various bus stops may be required for buses circling the downtown
area. The proper locations of these stops will vary as development
projects are completed, and they should be reviewed periodically. We
•- believe the stop along PCH at the pier, however, will continue to be
a major point of concentration for bus users.
PROPOSED BIKE ROUTES
Class I bike routes may be defined very generally as routes completely
separated from conflicts with other vehicular traffic, while Class 11
routes are those located on streets and highways where some traffic
.. conflicts may occur since only paint lines separate bicyclists from other
vehicles. As shown in Figure 7, the City's current Bike Route Plan
includes both Class I and Class II routes.
The planned downtown redevelopment wi l I require a change in the pro-
posed Class 11 bike route along 5th Street. Study should be given to
an appropriate relocation of this facility.
BEACH BOULEVARD CORRIDOR STUDY
The Orange County Transportation Commission is currently studying
r
alternative transportation procedures which could be used to improve
travel flows in a Beach Boulevard corridor which extends from the
ocean on the south to La Habra on the north, and lies between Valley
View Avenue on the west and Euclid Street on the east. The alterna-
tives being studied include Transportation System Management (TSM)
procedures, some "flyovers" on Beach Boulevard and less capital-
intensive improvements on other arterials, major highway improvements
at critical locations, a freeway which would generally follow Beach
Boulevard, bus improvements, high-occupancy vehicle/bus lanes, and
light rail transit. Preliminary data from the study, including such
factors as cost and affected residential/commercial structures and
properties, are now being analyzed in an effort to determine which
alternatives should be given further detailed study and evaluation.
17
D
=1 Ll ffn�
nnn 1FEnnnnnnnn�J
o
LJLJLL[�LJLLJLLLJLJLLJLJm
®®[D®M®®mm®mm®m[ME m mm .
o �,
��EL,_J�•-L..k�L.__J'�®=l.Jk
LEGEND
CLASS I
�•••• EXISTING
ammo PROPOSED
CLASS II
••••••EXISTING
—o—oPROPOSED
Q
a■.■�u�Hawn
Figure
BIKE ROUTES 7
The conclusions of this project and future action which the Orange
County Transportation Commission (OCTC) may undertake to improve
traffic conditions in the corridor are unknown at this time. We recom-
mend, therefore, that continuing consideration be given to OCTC's
findings and actions to assure that the development area is helped
rather than hindered by subsequent transportation policies and develop-
ments in the corridor.
PARKING STRATEGY
The provision of adequate parking is vital to the successful operation
of any commercial area. Since individual drivers, businessmen and
government officials each have different definitions of the word ade-
quate when it pertains to parking, the procedures used to develop and
control parking spaces in typical urban areas vary appreciably and
at times become rather complex. In regard to parking strategies for
the City's redevelopment area, normal residential and commercial
requirements are complicated further by the proximity of the beach and
the different types of parking needs of beach users.
While no formal parking strategy has been prepared by the City, con-
sideration has been given to various procedures which could be used
., to identify and satisfy the parking needs of different types of parkers.
This analysis has included study of the following categories of parking
patrons who must be accommodated in or around the redevelopment area:
Downtown shoppers and employees. Parking spaces for shoppers and
employees are planned at a limited number of curb spaces, in off-street
parking lots and in parking structures to be located within or immedi-
ately adjacent to the downtown redevelopment area. Parking controls,
such as time limits and parking rates, will be adjusted to maintain
the desired use of these spaces by shoppers and employees.
Specific project users. As specific projects are developed, such as the
planned hotels, commercial nodes, office and/or residential complexes,
their individual parking needs will be identified and satisfied through
the construction of specific and related parking facilities. We assume
that these parking spaces will be controlled to varying degrees and
not open to general public use.
Restaurant/pier patrons. Several restaurants are planned for the beach
side of PCH on or adjacent to the pier. It is anticipated that these
facilities will be constructed on top of a decked parking structure
which would be open to the public and would provide parking for a
variety of patrons of the pier facilities, the restaurants, the commer-
cial establishments along Main Street, and to some extent by beach
users. Since the periods of peak parking demand for these different
types of users vary to some extent, the utilization of the parking
structure will be improved and parking revenues from it will be
increased.
w
19
AM-
r
Beach users. Although a large number of parking spaces are now pro-
vided for beach users, there is a shortage during periods of peak
patronage and drivers attempt to find open, and free, curb parking
.. spaces in residential and other areas east of PCH. Consideration has
been given to the use of remote parking areas and jitneys or other
means of direct transportation to and from the beach. While this pro-
cedure is not considered to be viable at this time, continuing efforts
should be made to develop this type of service.
The replacement of beach parking lots with parking structures provides
._ a means of increasing capacity without sacrificing additional valuable
beach space. This action is expensive, however, and is not felt to
be economically justifiable at this time since additional beach parking
is presently required only during peak weekend or holiday periods.
Much of the presently vacant land in the Townlot area, however, is
now used for parking purposes by beach users, and this land wi I I be
absorbed into development projects. When that occurs, future beach
users will be required to find other parking spaces. We recommend
that analysis of future beach parking demand be continued and that
consideration be given to the possible development of joint use parking
,,. structures adjacent to the beach area.
Residence parking. The owners of residences and their guests fre-
quently encounter problems due to the intrusion of beach users into
residential areas in search of parking spaces. While the closing of
various streets between Walnut Avenue and PCH would alleviate this
condition to some extent, it would not completely alleviate it.
w
20
r.
w
r.
w
SUMMARY
Our analysis of the existing street system and projected traffic volumes
` which wi I I be generated by redevelopment of the downtown and beach-
front areas of the City does not indicate a need for major new high-
ways or require presently unplanned major revisions to the existing
•- street system. The anticipated improvement of Pacific Coast Highway
to provide six lanes of travel, however, is considered vital to the
success of the redevelopment plan.
w
Some isolated travel difficulties at specific intersections or access
points to major redevelopment projects can be anticipated as develop-
ment occurs. Correction of these problem areas, however, should be
possible through standard traffic engineering procedures and design
applications. ,
w Various traffic signal modifications, and some new signal installations,
may be required as projects are completed and traffic volumes increase.
In addition, revisions in the locations of signals along Pacific Coast
Highway may become advisable as a means of improving traffic flow
and safety along this important travel route. Proper decisions regard-
ing future signal designs and operations will require detailed engineer-
ing studies.
Continuing study should be given toward minor changes in street align-
ments, and possibly toward abandonment of some street segments, as
+� a means of improving traffic flows and/or creating enhanced develop-
ment parcels. The closure of various street segments leading into the
21
AW
Pacific Coast Highway also may be advisable as a means of concen-
trating both vehicular and pedestrian traffic at signalized intersections
to improve travel safety and efficiency and enhance development oppor-
tunities.
In regard to pedestrian crossings of the Pacific Coast Highway, it is
recommended that continuing study be given to the development of suit-
able overpasses to eliminate pedestrian/vehicular conflicts.
Adequate parking is vital to the success of the redevelopment of the
downtown. It is anticipated, therefore, that continuing study will be
given to the changing needs for space by different types of parkers.
This should include consideration of the possible development of park-
ing structures either devoted basically to beach users, or preferably,
for joint use by both beach patrons and visitors to the redevelopment
complex.
Continuing study also should be given to transit service, bike routes
and other means of non-automotive travel .
r.
Ilr
_ 22
APPENDIX
ROADWAY CAPACITY VALUES*
Freeways/Transportation Corridors
Freeway Sizes At Level of Service D
4 lanes 65,000
6 lanes 1 15, 000
8 lanes 145,000
10 lanes 175,000
Arterial Highways
Level of Service
Type of Arterial A B C D E F
' 6 lanes divided 36,000 40, 400 45,000 49, 500 54, 000
4 lanes divided 24,000 27,000 30, 000 33,000 36,000
4 lanes (undivided) 16,000 18,000 20, 000 22,000 24, 000
2 lanes (undivided) 5, 000 7, 500 10,000 12, 500 15,000
`Maximum average daily traffic (ADT)
These roadway capacities are "rule of thumb" figures only, to be used
at the General Plan level . They are affected by such factors as inter-
sections (numbers and configuration), degree of access control, roadway
grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards) ,
_ sight distance, level of truck and bus traffic, and level of pedestrian
and bicycle traffic.
� -n sa „ Ze
- --- �v -
-�
���� � �
� '
� �� � _
� � �,a ���
fir, �ja��p- �� "� �
Al
,
---..-.._- yr.
_ k ��aa,, yy d'�•
es
C�Akx
� i f` - f --- ---- - --- - - - - - -
n,
i
I
f
I
i
i
I '
i
I i u
2.5 Pacific Coast Highway
2.5.1 Background
The proposed amendment is to upgrade the status of Pacific Coast Highway f
from a primary to a major arterial in the area between the Santa Ana River and
Goldenwest Street (Figure 2-M If approved, this would bring the City's
Master Plan of Circulation into conformance with Caltrans proposed
improvement program for Pacific Coast Highway and the Orange County
Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. Caltrans project is to improve
PCH from four lanes to six in the area between Route 55 in Newport Beach and
Goldenwest Street in Huntington Beach. The estimated date for completion of
this project is the summer of 1986.
The Pacific Coast Highway widening project will be completed in conjunction
with several other State and municipal projects. These include: State Parks
and Recreation District's Improvement Plan for Huntington State Beach, the
Army Corps of Engineers Santa Ana River Bridge widening project, the City's
Blufftop Landscape Plan for the area between Goldenwest and Ninth Streets
and the proposed connection of the Beach bike trail with the Santa Ana River
bike trail. Cal Trans has also coordinated the project with the Orange County
Transit District to accommodate public transit needs. All of the projects
mentioned above will be discussed in greater detail in Land Use, Section 2.7.2. ff
4
2.5.2 Analysis
i
The following analysis will examine the effect of the proposed change on (1)
circulation patterns in the area, (2) existing and projected traffic volumes, (3)
land use issues, (4) fiscal impact, and (5) environmental effects.
d
-30-
Fiscal Impact
The ,City', Public Works Department prepared the following coat analyses. In
considering these estimates, It Is important to note that lane widths, parking
requirements, bus turnouts and landscaping are sII items that would
greatly
affect construction and/or right-of=way acquisition costs! The follow
-of-way coats or the widening of the Santa Ana
estimates do not include right
River bridge.
The Pacific Coast Highway project was estimated as two separate areas.
first estimate addresses the area from Goldenwest. Street to Beach Boulevard
as the improvements in this area will be completed within the existing
right-of-way. The second area is from Beach Boulevard to the -Santa Ana River,
where additional right-of-way will be acquired.
In the area between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard, improvements
would cost 1.2 million dollars, traffic signals $200,000, drainage structures l '
$200,000 and street lighting $100,000 dollars. In the area between Beach
Boulevard and the Santa. Ana River, highway improvements would run 3.4
million dollars with an additional $100,000 for traffic signals and $180,000 for i
street lighting. The total cost for PCH improvements between Goldenwest
Street and the Santa Ana River are 5.381 million dollars.
Because Pacific Coast Highway is a State Highway, the money for these ,.
improvements will come from Caltrans, however, the actual construction will
probably be contracted out to the City.
I't:
6,-
rro•t�or (=a{�tior�ia Business and Trans +satwn Agency
' M,emer and um
Y
To , RON ur,SS, Executive Director
Office of Planning & Research Dori. July 6, 1983
State Clearinghouse Fik ; A- REVIEW
1400 Tenth Street 95
Sacramento, CA. 95814
SUSAN BROWN - District 7
From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Subject: Project Review Comments
SCH NUIOER
83031105 Huntington Beach Draft Circulation Element
`Amendment 83-1
Caltrans appreciates the opportunity to review this draft and has
the following comments .
Points 2.1 to 2.4 do not affect any State facilities and we have
no comments about them. However, point 2.5, Pacific Coast High-
way is a State facility and we have the following comments .
(1) Just westerly of .Main Street, the 1981 .average weekday peak
months (June, July, August) ADT is 33,700 with the year 2000 ADT
being 47,200.
(2) Just easterly of Main Street, the 1981 average weekday peak
months ADT is 35,200, with the year 2000 ADT being 49,200.
(3) Just easterly of Brookhurst, the 1981 average weekday peak
months ADT is 43,900 with the Year 2000 ADT being 61,500.
(4) Just easterly of Lake, the year 2000 ADT is projected to be
480200.
On page 33, the document alludes to the fact that as "PCH is a
State highway, the money for these improvements will come from
Caltrans, however, the actual construction will probably be con-
tracted out to the City." We feel that it is premature to say
that Caltrans will contract with the City for the construction
of these improvements. Funding may involve State, Federal, and
local monies . The Caltrans Project Report for the Pacific Coast
Highway widening, states that the City will be responsible for
at lease $950,000 of the total cost. Caltrans also believes %
that the cost projections provided by Huntington Beach may be
too high. The following is a comparison of the costs .
September 14, 1983
Huntington Beach City Council ,.;
City of Huntington Beach, CA
I Dear Council Members:
After reading the newest "Downtown Specific Plan" we,_are very unhappy
about the prospect of creating parking bays as referred to on page
38. The idea of creating cul-de-sacs at the ends of 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10,
13, 159 16, 18, 19, 21st and 22nd streets will cause confu,--sion for
local residents as will as people visiting. This plan will give us
a boxed-in feeling instead of the free-flowing traffic pattern that
now exists. This new maze will make residents.go out of the way to
travel on our streets.
Another negative. impact will be the increased traffic on 6, 9,` ��, 17
and 20 streets. We are trying to maintain a neighborhood
environment for children and increasing the traffic on our
streets does not help.
We recommend keeping the traffic and street pattern ;. .-- as it exists
now.
Thank you for considering our thoughts.
Sincerely,
I a
$. P. Hch6cock Carol Hancock
503 17th Street
Huntington Beach, CA
RON BASS -2- July 6, 1933
Hunt. Beach CALTRkNS
Golden West to Beach 14700,000 1,100,000
Beach to S A R 3,680,000 3,81C,000
5s360,000 4 ,910,000
On page 33 of .the document, it is stated that the widening
project will have minimal impacts .
CaltranS environmental studies, currently under internal review,
indicate adverse impact on the wetlands north of Pacific Coast
Highway . Also, in the same paragraph it is stated "Therefore
no significant impact are anticipated." This statement does not-
necessarily follow "The proposed restriping project will better
accommodate existing traffic."
There will be an increase of 25% of the fresh water roadway run-
off into the degraded salt marshes on the north side of Pacific
Coast Highway, This impact cannot be overlooked and should be
addressed in the document.
Also on page•33, all the land, with the exception of the Edison
plant property, has been identified by Cal F & G and Caltrans
as wetland and should be addressed as such.
On page 117 of. Appendix I. under 5.b, the "no" answer should be
changed to "maybe ' to account for the impact of the highway
widening on the California least tern, (Sterna albifrous browni)
and the Belding Savannah Sparrow, (Passerculus sandwichensis
beldingi) . Also the document must address the following impacts:
oo�dp ain; Wetland/riparian habitat reduction; removal of critical
habitat; public service impacts, i.e. emergency response routing
changes due to the cul-de-sacing of existing streets; and parking
impacts, especially north of Beach Boulevard.
The environmental contact person is Mr Chuck Dorton and his
phone number is (213) 620-3992.
SUSAN BROWN, Acting Chief
Environmental Planning Branch
Transportation District 7
Clearinghouse Coordinator
For information, contact Darrell Wood
(ATSS) 640-2246 or (213) 620-2246
Attachment:
cc : John Van Berkel - HQ DOTP - Mr. Hal Simmons
Assistant Planner
City of Huntington Beach
2000 I-lain Street
Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
i
9/19/83
COMMERCIAL COh1PARI SON
SQUARE FOOTAGE PARKING ACRES LOCATION
A. 1�093,000 6,200 93
B. 2,000,000 9,400 96
C. 2,521,000 NA 110
D. ? NA 110
E . 410,000 NA 110
F. 860,000 3,900 NA
COMMERCIAL COMPARISON 9/19/83
SQUARE FOOTAGE PARKING ACRES LOCATION
A. 1,093,000 6,200 93 WESTMINSTER MALL
B. 2,000,000 9,400 96 SOUTH COAST PLAZA
C . 2,521,000 (WORST CASE) NA 110 H .B. ENVIRONMENTAL
1,300,000 (MODERATE IMPACT REPORT
D. * NA 110 CITY OF H .B.
SPECIFIC PLAN
E . 410,000 NA 110 ARROYO GROUP
H.B. SPECIFIC PLAN
F . 860,000 3,900 NA HUNTINGTON BEACH CENTER
*STAFF HAS NOT PROVIDED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PLAN BEFORE COUNCIL.
ALSO AN ESTIMATE OF PARKING HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED.
NOTE: WHEN COMPARING ACRES YOU ALSO NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH IS IS INCLUDING OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL IN
THE ACRES LISTED.
� �II�
Chevron
Chevron U.SA. Inc.
P.O. Box 606, La Habra, CA 90631 • Phone (213) 694-7655
Hilman P. Walker September 19, 1983
District Land Supervisor
Southern California District
Land Department,Western Region
Comments On
Oil Production Overlay
Downtown Specific Plan, September 1983
Huntington Beach, California
Huntington Beach City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
Chevron would like you to consider the following modifications/comments to Section
4.14, "Oil Production Overlay" to the subject plan:
1. Delete Sections 4.14.01(b) and 4.14.02(b).
These deletions should be made because the requirement for submitting an
abandonment schedule cannot be practically met. Given the continuing
improvement in oil production technology there is no method for making a
reasonable prediction as to when production can be expected to cease.
At a time when the nation's oil reserves are shrinking and we are making efforts
to become less dependent on foreign sources, public policy as embodied in
government sponsored plans such as the Downtown Specific Plan should
encourage, not limit oil production. This is particularly true when aesthetic
goals can be met throughout the application of new production technology.
2. Defining "Zoning Matters" under Section 4.1.05.
The Downtown Specific Plan Resource Production Overlay contains numerous
provisions granting considerable discretion to the Director of Development
Services. Under Section 4.1.05, his/her decisions are appealable, but the
appellate process varies depending on whether or not it is a zoning matter. Since
undoubtedly this will create future controversy, I feel it only appropriate that
greater clarification be given to what constitutes "Zoning Matters." Since the
Downtown Specific Plan is a "Zoning" document, an alternative to Section 4.1.05
would be to make all decisions rendered by the Director of Development Services
appealable to the Board of Zoning Adjustments, then to the Planning Commission
and finally to the City Council.
Chevron would greatly appreciate your review of these comments and urges you to
amend the plan as suggested above.
Very truly yours,
Hilman P. Walker
HPW/LOM:ez
�J
September 14, 1983
Huntington Beach City Council
City of Huntington Beach, CA
Dear Council Members:
After reading the newest "Downtown Specific Flan" we are very unhappy
about the prospect of creating parking bays as referred to on page
38. The idea of creating; cul-de-sacs at the ends of 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10,
13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21st and 22nd streets will cause confu sion for
local residents as will as people visiting. This plan will give us
a boxed-in feeling instead of the free-flowing traffic pattern that
now exists. This new maze will make residents go out of the way to
travel on our streets.
Another negative impact will be the increased traffic on 6, 9, 11, 17
and 20 streets. We are trying to maintain a neighborhood
environment for children and increasing the traffic on our
streets does not help.
We recommend keeping the traffic and street pattern as it exists
now.
Thank you for considering our thoughts.
Sincerely, '
.B. P. Hhaicock Carol Hancock
503 17th Street
Huntington Beach, CA
September 18, 1983
Sections 4.4.02 and 4.4.04
Downtown Specific Plan, September 1983
Huntington Beach City Council
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
I would like to take this opportunity to again reiterate my concern with Sections 4.4.02
and 4.4.04 of the September 1983 Downtown Specific Plan.
My family and I own a modest home at 121 7th Street (District #2), situated on a 25-
foot lot which is presently zoned R-4. It is my understanding that we presently have
the right to build a 30-foot high single family dwelling. Because our home is less than
800 square feet in size, we have always envisioned tearing down the existing structure
and building a home with enough space to accommodate our growing family.
Unlike previous drafts of the Downtown Specific Plan (see May and December, 1982),
the document before you prohibits any development on our 25-foot lot unless the
Director of Development Services sees fit to grant us a waiver (see Section 4.4.02).
Even if a waiver is granted, Section 4.4.04 (a) limits building height on the few 25-foot
lots in District #2 to 25-foot. I submit that this is an unfair and unjustifiable
downgrading of the present zoning and should be given careful consideration prior to
approval. Separately or together, these sections create an inequality of treatment
with similarly situated property owners east of Walnut Avenue.
Though I understand that these sections have been included in the plan in order to
dissuade the building of rows of three-story homes on vacant 25-foot lots and encourage
consolidation of the many acres of prime vacant property within District #2, it is
unjust and unnecessary to penalize existing homeowners with 25-foot lots in District
#2 who have come to Huntington Beach and purchased a small home such as ours (less
than 800 square feet) with the idea of expanding or completely rebuilding in the same
fashion as numerous other similarly situated property owners east of Walnut Avenue in
order for the City to achieve its objective. If approved, the presently proposed
development standards would place a cloud over already developed properties such as
ours, and strip us of almost any hope or incentive to make our house an even finer
home. These sections are unnecessarily restrictive since there is a vast amount of
prime vacant land within the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan to which a
developer will naturally gravitate, leaving a block such as ours a very low candidate
for a workable consolidation. Furthermore, because of neighboring income producing
apartment complexes (some being relatively new construction), I sincerely doubt that
consolidation of our block will be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. It should be
noted that if these sections are left unchanged, it is possible that our existing single
story home could be completely surrounded by 35-foot structures since our property is
the only parcel with less than 50-foot of frontage on the block.
l�
Huntington Beach City Council
September 18, 1983
Page 2
Thus, as previously pointed out to both the Director of Development Services and the
Planning Commission, provisions are being proposed that even in the best of market
conditions unrealistically envisions full redevelopment of District #2, and as part of
this plan unfair and unnecessary restrictive development standards are being proposed
which appear primarily aimed at discouraging and frustrating any future plans of existing
District #2 homeowners from improving living conditions for their families and
consequently the appearance of the City's downtown area. As a simple solution, I
propose that the few owner/occupied single family homes existing on 25-foot lots within
District #2 be allowed to improve upon, or rebuild their homes to a maximum of 30
foot in height, creating equality of treatment with property owners east of Walnut
Avenue and providing for greater architectural flexibility in achieving sufficient living
space without the need to resort to construction of a two-story "shoe box" home. This
can easily be accomplished by simply deteting subparagraph (a) from Section 4.4.04.
Finally, should the Council decide to include Section 4.4.02 as presently written, I feel
it only fair and appropriate that Section 4.1.05 - dealing with appeals from decisions
rendered by the Director of Development Services -clearly define what is meant by
"zoning matters" in order to avoid any confusion, misunderstandings or vagueness in
interpreting the method of appealing various decisions delegated pursuant to the plan.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Very truly yours,,
X��r��
47rrO. McCamish
121 7th Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
C
0 Y
Jug 2, 1983
Fromm Oscar G. Taylor - P.O. Box 725 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648
Tot City of Huntington each - City Hall 17th at 3ain St. 11. B.
Atten; Honorable Mayor Plw-Lning Division et al . . .
City Council Building & Safety
City Manager Tom Tincher
City Attorney Jim Palin
Raft My Letters to the City of Huntington Beach - 1982 / 1983:
June 23, 19S2, July 7, 1982, August 18, 1982, Sept. 7, 1982
October 22, 1982. November 11, 1982 (also letter to Coastal
Commission dated November 11, 1982), January 6, 1983, �: rch
16, 1983, and 4,;ay 31, 1933.
11y Letters to the City of Huntington Beach over the last 20 years.
C3 Zoning as per Huntington Beach Zoning in 1964 when our prop-
erty was purchased. ( Less than two pages ) Allowing for un-
limited heigth limit, combined commercial and residential use
and reasonable parking requirements etc.
Copy of Proposed 55 year loup, term land leaw.; preliminary draft.
Vial Tom Tincher - Deparu*nt of Development Services, Plannig Division
I have some rather grave reservations concerning what has been and is being
proposed for tI'w downtown area in the way of planning and redevelopment etc. I
also have noted that there are meetings called for many different ni8hts and
also days. As you know I have pitched in and have attended quite as few of the
meetings and I a went on the major field trip to Long Deach. Santa Monica and
Loa Angeles. I have written all of the above letters during the last year (and
have written many letters over the last twenty years expressing my opinions
concerning property rights and giving suggestions concerning the downtown area
and they have all been ignored. In my opinion, if the C-3 zoning had been left
alone to 1964 (before you came into the picture) we would not have had all the
problems we have had during the last 19 years. Economics would have dictated
ead we probably mould have had some nice development take place. I know for
sure that I made several proposals to develop and for one reason or other the
City of Huntington Beach would not allow it (even though it met all the condi-
tions of the Planning and Building Codes) and recommended that the Coastal
Commission deny use of our property. This is all post history. However I feel
that 1 must go on record (again) and give my point of view. I do not want it
said Umt I did not show interest and did not come to meetings etc. Therefore
I iu-ii enclosing copies of all the letters I have written during the last year.
and am refering you to all of the other letters I have written to the city
during the past 19 years concerning the zoning of the downtown area. I am also
enclosing a copy of a 55 year land lease. This is not perfected but is far e--
nou&h along for preliminary negotiations.
1
I want to emphasize that under NO circumstances will we (Myself and my family)
enter into any arrangement where we will have to be partners with others. We
have had some very unhappy experiences concerning this type of arrangement and
never againl We have had a. building, burned by an arsonist who was toad at an-
other property owner in the area (alledged). In ,any event we could never bring
ourselves to be partners with other property owners in the area. tie do not
want to sell and will fight any condemnation. We knot of otter property owners
that would not agree to sell and we know of others that have had their proper-
ty taken away from them by the City and I am sure they will come bade into the
picture. None of us were treated fairly in the past and we all have suffered
from Inverse Condonation on the part of the City of Huntington each. Frankly
I do not think the City has me& it clear about what: the the value of the var-
ious properties is or should be, I am still upset about having one of your
former City Managers inform us that the City felt that the property we paid
$96,OOU.00 for was worth only $108,000.00 after owning it fifteen or so years.
(having; had the right to pay the taxes on it an accept low income because of
they City'ss Inverse condemnation plan). I just do not completely trust the City
to come up with a fair values for our properties. A statement was made in the
last meeting as to how the income would have a bearing on t:he value. This is
an exwVle of a real lack of understanding, We all have had to accept real low
rents and have had to accept whatever we can get because of all the threats of
the city and having condemnation staring us in the face all the time. The City
even tried to keep our buildings empty in order to keep the valuea down. This
is pretty well established and I have in mom' filers proof of several ceases of
the city doing vhateve they could to keep our buildings empty. Also records of
all kinds of :actions (City of H. H. ) to give the property owner as bad time.
Wes have had the residential use taken away and yet the City has allowed the
Now World out near Edinger and Beach to combine residential and commercial use
in the game building. The City has allowed highriae in other parts of the city
and at the same time told us that we can have only three stories on property
that was zoned for unlimited heigth limit when we bought. it.
I am still auspicious of the proposed Sixty Percent (60%) of the owners ap-
proving a deavelopwnt. With the City owning such as large portion of the Prop-
arty in the downtown area I feel that it could present as problem. I know that
this has been sort of "explained" to moo but I am not convinced. In any event
it should be GS 0 if anything. Again, we will not enter into a partnership of
aa1P.y kind, so where does this leave us? I made many proposals and have written
many letters but all but one have gone unanswered (Gail Mutton and Jim Palin
did respond to the one letter). Over and over and over I have msug3eaateod that
the we and the City got aat positive negotiation startedd regarding trading of
properties or whatever. I have suggested the lease idea. No positive respon,au
or negotiations Ideas from the Cityl Actually, we ,just feel that the City is
just going through the motions of trying to convince us that we are 'being in-
fortnesd when, actually, we are just being given time end results of what the
City intends to do. I have been Informed of most of than meetings +elt peer ,just
before they are to take place or by word of mouth from other property owners.
I,ly two daughters, one of whom lives out of time state, do not feel that they
know what is going; on. Even though I am on ,some sort of committee I do not
feel that I am well enough informed to make intelligent decisions. I also .feel
very uneasy beings practically the only property owner on one of the committees
involved in making recommendations. I had to abstain from voting because I
just felt uneasy about being; in that position. In all honesty I really wonder
about tenants halving such ;a atroni voice concerning the redevelopment of the
2
Downtown Huntington Beach area. It would seem that the property owners should
have the C-3 zoming as it was in 1964 and then let them build out as per that
Zoning and Uniform Building Code. 8CONOMICS would dictate GOOD development and
for a Wf 1MS money than has been spent on so callad planning during the last
"0 years. I know for one thing, I am getting real tired of paying out as heavty
payment every month and real estate taxes on property we cannot use ( we area
on the five year delinquent plan now ). I am sure that you must be getting the
picture of our feelings. I am sending this letter in behalf of myself, Margie
Taylor and Cynthia Taylor, my two daughters, and Orange C"st Specialties be-
Cause We want to go on recori of, again, voicing our opinion, so that it can-
not be said that we did not care and did not come to meetings etc. Also, inas-
much as I was told at the last ivieting I attended... .that I should present my
ideas in writing ( as if I haven't in the post.. .see enclosures ) I am doing
so again, herein. I would appreciate it very much if you would make sure that
all of the above persons and divisions get a copy of this letter and the en-
closed documents. I want this entered into the minutes of the city council and
any Other committee minutes concerning the downtown redevelopment.
In conclusion: We are willing to enter into serious negotiations concerning
leasing our properties as per the enclosed 55 year lease (preliminary copy).
We will agree to lease to the City and for the City to transfer the lease to
another entity later. I urge the city to consider this seriously because we
are not going to sell and we are not going to go into partners with anyonel .
The enclosed lease is for the 10 lots we have between 9th and Kith Street on
the Coast 'Highway. We will lease all of the other properties on the same basis
but will determine the value as followss we will uent the smie increase in
value for our downtown properties (that have suffered with the City's inverse
condemnation program) as t1rue other residential (11,--2. R-3, R-4 and R-5) lots
have Increased in value (lots between 'w'alnut and Palm and, say, Seventh Street
to Goldenwest) and in addition taking into consideration hov much more they
mould have increased in valor if the City had not tempered with the zoning of
those properties in 1964 (both the G-3 and the 'R. zoning).
�' also, would set dowi and purticipate in serious negotiations of trading
our properties in the downtown area with City owned properties. I havo sugges-
ted this =4Y times in the past but have had NO positive reaction or response
from the City of Huntington Deachl
I am getting just too old and I hurt too much this day and age to got out to
meaningless meetings where my suggestions and opinions do not hold any water.
I was born in Huntington Beach in 1921 and grew up there. I loved the town or
I would not have purchased property in the downtown area. I could aee the po-
tentional way back in the late 195U's and early 1960's. I never dreamed that
the zoning would be changed and that the City of Huntington Aeach would actu-
ally try to keep the buildings empty and practice inverse condemnation. This
has really hurt we and caused ute as lot of grief and has talmn away about twen-
ty years of any life whereby I could have enjoyed being involved; instead of
constantly havin�, the City on my back and suffering threats of condemnation
and all of the other harrassment.
We are the point of having to do something about what has taken place. The
best thing would be to make some immediate (fair this time around) agreement
with the City and do it 104 or just resort to contacting our attorney to take
over in order to be treated properly and fairly this next go around. We just
cannot of fort to wait and be presented with some appraisal or proposal that is
3
not in our beet interest again. We hope that the City of Huntington Beach and
all the persons and divisions, as indicated above, can comprehend our position
regarding what is going on, We just feel uneasy and we feel rightfully so. We
need to find a way for the City or some entity to I1,2:DIATELY lease our
properties oR TRATE us out of them or whatever. I, personally, gust cannot go
through another 20 years, or even another month or so, of the suffering that I
have had to endure concerning the treatment the City of atuntington Bch has
dished out to see during the lest twenty years.
Will, come to a, halt so I can attend the meeting that has been called of this
evening. Will present this latter along with the enclosed documents. Will as-
sume that the City of Huntington Beach will get back to me in the imediate
future:
Lastly, I am not dead set against whet has been proposed. Perhaps it might be
a good tieing. Something needs to be initialized, 11owever I gust cannot wait
any lotagert I / we gust cannot become involved in any partnerships or whatever
and will nott We do not waist to sell and will fight condematioal We all
lease and will tonsider trades, I / we have just had it up to the mars with
all the zone changes and Coastal Commissions etc. We feel that we should have
been cable* to make 'proper use of our properties and we feel that we (especially
OscarTaylor) has suffered just too much mentally, physically and financially
due the actions on they part of the City of Huntington iew .and the Coastal.
Commission during all these past years.
Sincerely,
Oscar G. Taylor
P.O. Boas; 725
Huntington Bch, California 92648
(714) 7 -17d4
Copieass Jeff Walsworth, Attorney at Law
John H. Rohm, CPA
Margie ,l« Taylor
Cynthia G. Taylor
Orange Coast Specialties File
4
0 Y
P Y
January 6, 1983
Newport Beach, California
Gail Hutton
City Attorney
City of 11witir)gton Beach
City Hall - Main at 17th St.
Huntington Beach, California 92643
Dear Ns. Hutton,
I am enclosing a copy of a letter that I wrote to on November 11, 1982. 1 per-
sonally hand delivered it to your office and gave it to your secretary. She
mentioned that you were out of town at the time. There are several possible
reasons that you have not answered my letter; It may have been misplaced, you
may have found it too long to read or may just have not wanted to take the
time to answer it. In any event I do wish you would take the time to read it,
even if you have to resort to speed reading.
I do represent- a considerable amount of property in the downtown area. I feel
that some of my concerns are justified. Also I feel that some of the proposals
I made make good sense. I truly want to do what I can to upgrade the downtown
area. I especially would like for you to give consideration to the idea of the
City leasing the property from us owners with the idea of giving a private
firm the lease later. I just know that some real sticky things will come about
if an effort is made to deal with all the property owners in any other way.
I will not go into any further detail or length because I feel that one of the
reasons that Pay orignial letter of November 11, 1982 was not aswered was be-
cause of the length.
I would greatly appreciate a resonse from you regarding my proposals.
Sincerely,
Oscar G. Taylor
P.O. Box 725
Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 (714) 673-1784
& T
C P it
March 16, 1983 ECI
Huntington Beach, California
Gail Hutton Copies to: Tom Tincher
City Attorney Walter Lipps
City of Huntington Beach
P.O. Box 190 Ref: Video Machines
2000 Main Street 118 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California Huntington Beach, Ca.
Dear Ms. Hutton,
We are writing, again, regarding the property at 118 Main, Street Huntington
Beach, California. I received your letter of January 13, 1983 in answer to our
previous letter. You mentioned that you had forwarded a copy of our letter to
the land use division of Development Services. We are writing this letter to
let you know that as of this date we have not received any response from the
two persons that you made reference to in your letter ( Tom Tincher and / or
Walter Lipps ).
As mentioned in our letter, we do not approve of the video machine / pin ball
type of operations in the downtown area. We have written letters to the City
Council indicating that we do not approve of them, and even protested giving
permission to have them in the building that is located at 118 Main Street in
the downtown area. Just a few weeks ago we observed thirty-six (36) machines
in the place. We were told that the city had approved fifteen (15). However we
just do not seem to get a straight answer from anyone. In the lease for 118
Main Street it spells out that only the back 10% of the floor area can be used
for video / pin ball machines (and permission for this was given reluctantly).
The lessee is over fifty percent (50%) in floor area coverage with video ma-
chines as far as we can observe.
You may wonder why we are concerned about this matter? We feel that the down
town area will never amount to anything if it is allowed to become a video
machine haven. Apparently the "bar" across the street' from 118 Main Street is
now out of business so maybe there could be some hope if the video game parlor
type of operation could be done away with. We might remind you again, that it
cost us about $6,000.00 to get rid of one of the former tenants and we're sure
you know of whom we write about; just by checking your records and the records
of the Huntington Beach police department you will know for sure.
In any event we would like to know just how and when a permit was issued (if
any) for a video game parlor without getting the permission of the owner? We
are especially concerned due the fact that we actually wrote letters of pro-
test regarding the matter. Specifically. . .is there a license for thirty-six
(36) video machines at the 118 Main Street location? Or for any video games?
We are doing all we can to upgrade the downtown area; this is, of course, the
reason for this letter! We, also, would like to upgrade the building by doing
some remodeling and repairs. However we never seem to know just how we stand
with the city regarding ownership of buildings in the downtown area.
Sincerely, Oscar Taylor - for Margie Taylor
1
a
C 0 P Y
November 11, 1982
Newport ,Beach, California
Gale Mutton
City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
City Hall - Klein at 17th St.
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Bear INIs. Hutton,
My name is Oscar Taylor. I represent myself, my daughters and a
Limited Partnership called grange Coast Specialties Project No. 2,
a Limited Partnership (which is a family owned partnership). The
reason for this letter is to touch base with the city and see if
there is not a way to work out certain problems for the benefit of
both the city and ourselves. I will try to not dwell on past his-
tory (which has been a traumatic experience the Last 20 years
trying to holdd on to property in the downtown area of Huntington
Beach). As for the present I would like to ask about the permits
concerning pin ball, video machines etc. Some time back we became
aware of someone asking to put in video machines and I wrote a
letter protesting. I indicated that I even would like to protest
having them in our own building. I am not sure what happened but I
did not get any response to my request that the permit not be
approved. In any event we have a building at 118 Fain Street. We
had leased it to Pat Utt and Steve Green and family for an Ice
Cream Parlor. I do not know how they got a permit for video maach-
iaes without the owner of the building, requesting same or at
least getting the owner's approval. However Pat put in ony a few
machines and I had restricted her to the back 10% of the building
inasmuch as we just really did not think it best for downtown HB
to have as lot of video machines. Well as time went on Pat dial not
seem to do too well and she wanted to sell out. I agreed to talk
to her new proposed lessee, which I did. I told him when he first
called and before he could say anything that I would not lease to
anyone that wanted to put in a pin bald., video machine arcade. He
knew this and to make a long story short he did take over her
lease (I did agree to the back 20% area for video machines). How-
ever I have been checking periodically and he is using much over
50% of the area for video machines. It has turned into a noisy
arcade and is not a credit to the downtown area. I realize that
you and your office cannot become involved with my problems with
a tenant concerning the lease. However I do feel tht you should
make some investigation as to how the original permit was obtain-
ed and if there was one, how many machines were allowed and as to
space allowed for machines, noise etc. I just cannot believed that
the city has allowed 34 machines and over the 20% of the area for
the machines. I was told by a Susan fierce of the city that their
permit allowed for only 250 or so square feet for machines. I may
not even be sane to compaain about the video machiness in my own
building because for the first time in a long time I am getting
the rent on time and I can use it without chasing around trying
1
-2- Hutton - HB
to collect rent. Perhaps I shouln't be concerned about the down-
2on t e tau et et�r ople an gt0 runoarcahes n indither
types of business that I best not mention in this letter. I do
not know if you know or not but it cost me about $6,000.00 to get
rid of a fellow that used to rent the place as a so called Pizza
Parlor. I am sure that your records will indicate that you had
dealings with a Doug Jobson. Well. . it really cost me to get rid
of him for the benefit of all concerned. I have even been threat-
ened by certain elements from "out of town" because I put up re-
sistance to them because they tried to "Mussle" into the building
(same building . .118 Main). Perhaps I should ,just give up trying
and perhaps there is nothing you can do concerning the matter.
Perhaps I should just accept the rent and forget it. I will. await
to hear from you. You might be happy to hear that we re,:ently
rented our building at 110 Coast Highway (Next to the Jack In The
Box) for an Ice Cream Business. I guess he has something unique.
The lessee has a very nice family and I have met his wife and
children. They live in Huntington Beach and I am sure that the
business will be a credit to the City of Huntington Beach.. You
might be interested to know that I turned down $1250.00 per month
from a person "from out of town" because he wanted to put in a
video arcade; I rented it to Richard Azdel for the Ice Cream bus-
iness for $850.00 per month instead. We have a building coming up
for lease at 116 Main St. and are trying to be selective concern-
ing this one. I have already turned down several people that want
it for a business that falls in the catagory as mentioned above.
So much for the Video bit. Any suggestions or help would be ap-
preciated. We truly want to do what we can to help upgrade the
Downtown area of Huntington Beach.
I wanted to also make some suggestions as to the "Redevelopment"
of Downtown Huntington Beach. I have been hearing about this for
so many years that I mould not dare hold my breath waiting for it
to happen. At long last I think the City Council and most every-
one in the city government are earnest in their thoughts and ac-
tions concerning what to do with the area. Personally I think
there are going to be many problems crop up that the city has not
even thought of as we get deeper into trying to bring it about. I
personally feel that the city should make an effort to just lease
the property from the property owners and then do what they want
to do with the property. They could be given the right to assign
the master lease to a large private firm later. I know of proper-
ty owners that just will not sell out (and we ,just might not a-
gree to sell.. . and maybe just cannot sell for tax reasons). Also
the idea of going into partnership with adjacent property owners.
Would you like to go into partnership with someone that was res-
ponsible for an arsonist burning up your uninsured building? I am
afraid nott Some of the old timers just will not agree to sell.
The City would be in very bad light after all the inverse condem-
nation that went on in the past. I, for one, would insist on the
same percentage of increase of value for the property on Main St.
1
-3- Hutton HB
as compared to the increase in value of the residde�ntial, lots, say
ftgp W nuhu�j t r i 1Wut g fisoju�fihirSi greet ccoin+ not n as Ii
property in the "Downtown Area" since, say, 1964. If you are in-
terested I could give you some real history as to the happenings
concerning the Downtown area since 1964 (when they changed the
requirements of the C-3 Zone). Space and time just will not allow
we to do this in this letter. But I could site case after case as
to some of the things the city did in the time frame of 1964 to
about 1978. I don't know if your hair is curly or not or how much
you know about the past history and what went on but I assure you
it would give you a rude awakening. In any event the city will
have to be extremely careful about each move. They will be invol-
ved in suit after suit as this "Downtown Redevelopment" thing is
put together. Just for instance. We have a 10 lot parcel of land
on the Coast Highway between 9th and 10th Street. We purchased it
in 1963 and have had it almost 20 years. It was zoned C-3 with an
unlimited hight limit and allowed for a combined use of commerc-
ial and residential. The parking requirements were not stringent.
It was changed to where it could not be used for residential and
now I have recently heared that it will be limited in height to
about three stories. Plus a lot of other uses taken away from it.
Would you not wonder how this could be when the city allows New
World to have a combined residential use along with commercial?
Would you not gander about the other buildings in areas other
than "downtown" being allowed highrise and yet the land you
bought for highrise is about to have its use taken away? We have
had to pay payments varying from $1500 to $500 per month for the
last 20 years; have had to pay taxes (now on the 5 year delin-
quent plan). The taxes have averaged about $4,000 per year. We
have been refused permits to build when the plans met all the
conditions of the zone in force at the time. . . . . Well I will not
go on. . . . . but I assure you that I have just described the tip of
the ice Berge. . . . and the City of Huntington Beach just might be
the "Titanic". I do not contemplate any legal action against the
City because of ghat they have done to me in the past. However I
probably have more of a case against the city than anyone could
possibly immagine. All I want it to be treated fair in the future
and the reason for this letter is see what can be done to help
rather than cause friction. However there are many others that
were treated terribly in the past and I foresee some problems. I
will be upset if our lots on Coast Highway do not allow for high-
rise as we just cannot afford to take the loss for someone that
thinks that we, as property owners, should protect their view. We
would be willing to lease them the land for 55 years (as per Ir-
vine type lease) and then they can make it into a park and dedi-
cate it for public use or whatever for the next 55 yearn. Our
price is $2,000,000.00 and we would naturally expect to earn at
least 15o per annum (compounded) on the investment. This would be
a net of $300,000.00 per year or $25,000.00 per month. Ask them
if they would like to invest their savings (this is our savings)
at less than 15% per annum? Perhaps the city would like to make a
deal with us? We will insist that the high rise use remaial
1
-4- Hutton HB
I just wish to point out that it is time for the City of Hunting-
ton Beach to be fair with the property owners. I really do not
9 l yPg� i��eb9os t12Ju.y AP pfi '5MtoWjjsftotT
cannot sell for various reasons. They will feel that some big
company will come in and take over and make all the profit. Some,
like myself, Just would not go into a partnership with anyone un-
der any circumstances. This includes the city. I especially would
not become involved in any way with a certain group of property
owners in the Downtown area. I truly feel that the Lease plan is
about the only way to go. I would suggest the following:
A simple agreement whereby the City would agree to lease the
properties from the individual owners at current value. Let the
present Lessees stay; keep the buildings in operation for the
time being. The owners would naturally receive at least the in-
come that they are getting now. However they would get a net a-
mount. It would be agreed that the city could then go about lin-
ing up a master Lessee to take over from the City. The city would
be in it ,just long enough to get control so it the land could be
delivered as a whole to the potential "private enterprise" Lessee
It would be agreed that the property would be re-appraised just
prior to starting the final development and again after comple-
tion and then again in five years and then perhaps every five or
ten years after that. The lease to be patterned after the Irvine
type lease for 55 years. During the transition period of from the
present land owner and the present business lessee there could be
given consideration for moving and severance etc. The present
plan for redevelopment has some pretty good ideas concerning dis-
placement of both Lessee and Landowners. Actually I am 61 and
will be 62 in February (I was born in HB in 1921 and grew up in
downtown HB and went to HB high) and am weary of it all. I would
like to bail out but will put up a fight if the city or anyone
else tries to buy us out or get our property through inverse con-
demnation (as they did back in the 60s and 70s. I really feel
that the city should give consideration to this proposed idea of
leasing the property rather than going through the complicated
process of trying to get property owners together as per the
proposal that was presented just recently by the city. For in-
stance just the fact that the city owns a great deal of the land
in the downtown area could present a conflict of interest and the
city could be in for legal hastles regarding this. There is the
Tim Talbert deal. . .have you read the full history of what the
city did to him? I have in my own files enough amunition to en-
able Tim to get his property back. Also the heirs of Mrs. Thomas
(on CHW between 2nd and 3rd) have a very strong case. You see I
have files that go back way into the 50s that would make your
hair curl; if it is not already curly (I mentioned earlier that I
did not know if your hair is curly).. .there is the land they took
away from Mr. Wells also. . .Gee, do I wish we had had you for the
City Attorney back in those days! . We sure could have used an
honest City Attorney that would have looked out for the rights of
the property owners. Believe me we were really "had".
1
-5- Hutton Hb
I really did not mean to get into a five page letter to you. You
probably have fallen asleep already and will not even be reading
this page. However, just in case you are, let me make another
suggestion concerning the "Redevelopment" of Downtown Huntington
Beach... . We have title to the ten Fats on Coast Highway between
9th and loth Street. Legal: Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 of Block
109 Huntington Beach Tract. These lots are 150 feet deep (some of
the deepest on the CHW) we have two corners; they are located on
the highest area of the Huntington Beach plateau. We thought they
were choice lots when we bought them. There is about 37500 square
feet of area. Take the lots the City has between 2nd and 3rd on
the CHW. There are 10 lots but they are only about 105 feet deep
I think. This is about 26,250 square feet. Also tyke the small
sort of unusable triangle located at the intersection of Walnut
and Lake street (across the alley from the Jack In The Box). How-
ever it as located fairly close to the property we own next to
the Jack In The Box on CHW, The City owns two 25 ft. lots on main
Street behind a building we have on 5th St. I am not suggesting
that we trade properties but this is food for thought. Actually
the property that we have on the CHW between 9th and loth is a
real choice parcel but we do not want to have the hastle of pro-
testing to the Coastal Commission & to the City concerning taking
away our highrise use and getting into a law suit (we will not
accept a three story limit and not being able to have a combined
commercial-residential use & would have to sue for our rights if
the property should be zoned in such a way as to prevent us from
deriving the full gust use for development) it just might be bet-
ter to try to work something out with the city concerning trading
of various properties. We really want to work with the city and.
cooperate: By the same token, we just CANNOT sit back and have
our property rights and USE of our property taken awayl lie are
receptive to suggestions from the city. I know that the city has
other land such as industrial property behind the Edison Plant as
well as other properties. If you do not feel that you would Like
to trade around with me then you might consider trading with
others that have property in the downtown area. This is one way
of getting larger parcels together. The only reason we would be
interested in the lots on Main, the ones between 2nd & 3rd on CHW
and Triangle at Lake & Walnut is because we have property near by
and we could use them for parking or a larger development.
Actually, all in all, I am weary of it all. I really would like
to see the city go for the Lease plan. I have had to have my left
hip taken out and replaced with steel and plastic three times in
the last three years. I seem to keep getting failures. It has
failed again and I am looking at another major operation but have
already been told that I would not have a fourth chance. So. .. I
am ready to walk away from the hastle (but not without a fight!).
I am going to be out of circulation between Nov. 18 and Dec. 5.
If you wash, give me a call me before Nov. 18 or after Dec. 5. I
would like to have a response to my letter. Please drop me a line
Sincerely, Oscar Taylor 673-1784
1
October 22, 1982 C 0 P
Huntington Beach, California
John Vogelsang
Building and Safety Dept.
City of Huntington Beach
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear John,
I am writing regarding the building at 116 / 118 Main Street in
Downtown Huntington Beach. This is the building that the arson-
istes set fire to in December of 1979. As you know, we removed
the upper level and covered the former second floor area with one
half inch exterior grade plywood to provvi.de for good horizontal
shear. I am sure your realize that we made a real attempt to
bring the building up to the earthquake standards. However there
are other things to be done as we both know. However we have done
more than most of the the others that have buildings in the down-
town area. With the talk of redevelopment and all it has not been
easy to make decisions about what to do and how much to do con-
cerning the earthquake requirements. I have a few suggestions and
also problems concerning the property and would like to put some
of them in writing in this letter and then perhaps meet with you
sometime next week and see what can be worked out and what sug-
gestions you might have.
We have the building at 116 Main Street coming up vacant on Dec-
ember lst and already have quite a few persons wanting to lease
it. We cannot afford to leave it empty so will go ahead and lease
it. However I wonder if we could go in install a completely new
wood frame wall with all the required bracing and ties into the
roof before the new tenant moves in. I am writing about the wall
that is closest to the Ocean. This wall is a party wall and also
might be a lot line well. I could not tear it down without the a-
jacent property owners permission. Also his building would coll-
apse if we tried to disturb it at this time. At least the new
wood frame wall would relieve the weight from the existing con-
crete block wall and then it would be supported on the new wood
wall. Secondly, we would like to just brick in the rear windows
that are not used anyhow at the rear wall. At the same time do
what we can to fiat all the cracks. We would be willing to gunite
the exterior part of the rear wall. We would not be doing much
with the interior walls. I also have a clause in the lease with
the lessee that is leasing the Ice Cream parlor at 118 Main
Street to do the same with his side of the building. In other
words to frame up a wood frame wall adjacent to the existing
block wall to provide for support of the goof and to meet the re-
quirements of the earthquake cedes. He said he would do this but
then he wanted to get open for the summer and he said ho would do
it later when required. I am not really overjoyed with the atti--
1
-2-- Vogelsang
tude of the person leasing the Ice Cream Parlor inasmuch as he
does not seem to follow through on whet he has agreed to do and
also he used more than the rear 25% of the store area for Video
machines and I had restricted him to the rear area. Also lie is
calling the business an arcade in violation of the lease. I am
quito sure I sent you a copy of the letter of protest I wrote to
the city regarding pin ban and video arcades. I even protested
our building being use for such. We just do not feel that they do
any good for downtown Hungtington Beach. In fact I am curious as
to how they got permission to have the Arcade. I know the city
never did contact me about an arcade at that address. (118 Hain).
I mention this because I want to do what I can to improve the
downtown area, not make it worse. In fact I turned down $1,200
per month from a person from L.A. that wanted to put in an Arcade
and rented it to another person for $850 instead.
Jolm, VTbat I am asking is got permission to do what is economic-
ally feasible to bring the building at 116 / 118 ;fain Street up
to earthquake code. You and I both know that it just is not poss-
ible concerning economics to bring it up to 1982 requirements. We
have done quite a bit to bring the building up to code since the
fire in 1979 and are willing to do more. But with all the uncer-
tain projections for Downtown I.A. we just are not certain either
as to what should be done. Actually we would just like to
determine a 1982 value for tho property and lease both the land
and buildings to the City of H.B. and lot the city have ti-va in-
come from the buidings and pay us a set amount each month with
the agreement that after all the redeveloprmat is ready to go
that we have a reappraisal on the property so we could realize a
fair return on the investment. I really think this is the only
solution to the downtown problems. You might pass this idea on to
the Administration and City Council. But for now our family just
has to have income from the properties we have in downtown 11.B.
I have had to have my my hip replaced with steel and plastic for
the third time in the last three years. I had to have it done all
over again in March of this year. And I got the bad news that it
has Bone bad for the fourth time just this last week. I really do
not Itnow what can be done now as I was told I did not have a
fourth chance after Uie third operation. I have used -up all of my
sick leave and am not able to teach and not on any kind of a sal-
ary at present and not on a pension.. .so.. . we need the income
from tAw buildings. We really need to work out a program of im-
proving the buildings that would somewhat meet the earthquake
codes and also allow for the use of the buildings for and extend-
ed period of time. We are open to suggestions. Also would like to
suggest that the City of H.B. be more, concerned with some of the
fire hazards in Downtown H.B. (upper levels of those block
buildings) as I think there is more of hazard there than t1w pos-
sibility of an earthquake.
Concerning the building at 120 Asia Street. It is wood from in
the front and prestmts no problem. The rear storage area is of
• -3-- Vogelsang
really good concrete block that meets the latest codes. However
It sloes not have the horizontal ties to the roof joists and does
not have plywood roof sheathing. We plan to install the regire3d
ties and also plywood sheathing when we put on a new roof next
year. This will bring this building up to code. tie do not see any
problem concerning, this building at 120 3ain Street. I will want
to talk to you about the possibility of installing sores steel
cross / horizontal braces for horizontal shear (with turn buckles
etc.) instead of having to remove the roof etc.
I will be out of town until Wednesday inasmuch as I am going over
to Phoenix to see my slaughter 'Margie (Taylor) Scott. The property
is actually in her name. I will ,o over this matter with her. We
have agreed that I can rely on income from the property while I
am still around and am in need of tho income.
I will call you Wednesday when I return and see if I cannot got
together with you sometime Wednesday afternoon. If y(xi can could
you make a notes of it and perhaps give me some time Wednesday?
Yours very truly,
Oscar Taylor
P.O. Box 725
Huntington Beach, California 92648
673--1784
1
! September 7, 1982 Oscar G. Taylor
Huntington Beach, California P.O. Box 725
Huntington Beach, Ca
City of Huntington Beach
Attentions Mayor, City Council & Planning Dept.
City Hall - 17th & Main St. C 0
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Your Honor, Dear Sirs,
I am writing regarding the proposals being considered regarding
the downtown area of Huntington Beach. As you may or may not know
about a month ago I was asked to serve on a committee regarding
the proposed redevelopment plan for the area between Lake Street
to 6th Street and back to Walnut Avenue. Even though I had been
completely out of "touch" regarding the proposed plans I agreed
to serve and do what I could. I did attend the meetings and tried
to catch up on all that has transpired since 1964 when the City
of Huntington Beach made all the changes in the C 3 Zone. Frankly
I just gave up in 1964 because of these changes! Taking away the
residential use of the C3 and the unreasonable parking require-
ments was one of the major causes of the deterioration of the
downtown areal However this is all past history so I agreed to do
what I can in one last effort concerning Downtown Huntington
Beach. I also attended the field trip last Friday to take a look
at the redevelopment of Downtown areas of Long Beach, Redondo
Beach and Los Angeles. I have not had the time and energy, with
such short notice to digest all the written information and pro-
posals concerning the Downtown area. I have talked to some of the
owners of property but have not been in contact with enough of
them to feel that I can adequately represent their viewpoints. I
do know however that some have upgraded their buildings according
to the earthquake requirments and probably wonder what goes? Can
they use their buildings without being "Hassled" or will some
other plan come into play? Also of five members I found myself
to be about the only member that owned property. There was
another property owner but he did not attend after the first
meeting. The other three were not property owners (operators of
businesses and a tenant living in an apartment). I am interested,
in development but feel very uneasy about trying to represent all
the property owners in the area. Luckily two other property
owners, not on the committee, showed up for one of the meetings.
I have mixed feelings about everything concerning this proposal.
I still feel that the property should have been left as the orig-
inal C-3 zone (am enclosing a copy of this C3 zone as it was as
of 1964). It is hard for me to understand how the city could give
the Old World development the zoning to have a combined Commerc-
ial - Residential use and have taken it away from the property
owners in the downtown area? Also the city has allowed highrise
in other areas yet seem determined to take it away from the down-
town property owners (we own a parcel on C.H.W. between 9th and
10th Streets and we have heared that it will be zoned for only
four stories and only for 40 living units). After buying this
property in 1963 and making payments ranging from $700 to $1,500
1
-2-
per month for the last 19 1/2 yearns and paying $4,000 to $5,000
per year tams a person can become somewhat t discouraged. Easpac--
ially when snow years ago we presented plans for ast 14 Story
building that asset all the codes and the City of Huntington Beach
and the Coastal Commission turned it down (on recommendation by
the City). It would have left all kinds of open space and would
not have even cost a shadow on other perason's property and would
not have cut off any ones views (ewes though I have never man ,mammy
thing in the constitution whereby ,a property owner Is obligated
to make assures that another property owner's (or tenant's) view is
not blocked. They are welcome to buy our property at full market
volume to protect their views if they wish. They can buy it and do-
nato it for sa park or whatever as far as I am concerned. I will
outline and justify my asking prim below In this letter. I mast
really discouraged about holding this property all se
and then to find out that I have, or am about to, lose all the
use of the property as per the C--3 zone as it was in in 1963 (the
year we obligated ourselves to buy and make payments and dray
tracers on this particular place of property. It should not tame
too synch Immaginstion to understand why I (we) am discouraged as
to trying to hold on to this particular property any longer. Our
decision as of now is to just sell riff the lots inidividually be-
cause what use has been proposed .for these 10 lots . We just
cannot corm out with only 40 living units after holding it all
those years. Wo have held on to a complete block of frontage and
two corners (+250' X 150) with the assurance of the City that to
have a group of 10 lots together would allow for high rise and a
higher density. In any event I point out this because it to ad ja -
coat to the proposed downtown redevelopment , but not includ-
ed... I do not understand why it was not included in the proposed
plan? I would also like to let you know that I have build now
buildings in the downtown area. I (we) own sow of the oldest
buildings (both brick and wood construction). We ova the best re--
1 building in the downtown area. We have had arsonist burn up
a building ( a much more serious problem than earthq ass). In
other words I have bow Involved in most every type of problem in
regards to trying to awn, property in what I consider a socialis-
tic type of society. It just has not been easy to try to hold
rental property and 4spead on It for income with all the beetle
the City of HB trying to kip the buildings empty and give you a
bard time so they could buy theta cheap by the means of inverse
,condemnationg as has been the cam in the past. I have not been
in s"toucV and have not bran kept informed by the City so I don't
he" any fixed viewpoints as to pro or con regarding the propos-
ed downtown redevelopment plasm. Also I have been told sera► many
things and hseared so many rumors that I do not know what to
believe. I would like to present some historic background and
then some suggestions concerning the downtown areat
I was born in the downtown area of Huntington Beach in 1921.
I bought in the downtoann area in 1961--1963 time frame be-
cause I believed in the future of the area. I thought with
the (including ng ident -- Commercial use combin-
ation and with the unlimited bight limit) that it would be a
1
+ -3-
good investment. No one taught me about inverse condemnation
when I attended Huntington Beach High School (1935-1939). My
father was the town marshal in 1921. My mother was born near
Edinger and Beach and is almost ready to become 94 years old
(young). I saw all the farm Land turned into "walled ie hous-
ing tracts. I (we) have have had our properties depreciated be-
cause of inverse condemnation on the part of the City of HB &
have even been offered really ridiculous prices by the City of
HB after trying to keep the buildings empty. In other words we
were not treated very fairly in the past. We have seen some
strange things happen politically concerning zoning and use of
Mack of use oaf) our property in the past. With this background
I feel that I have a little more right to speak out for my view
point than, say, some of the .Sohn or Jane come lately types. I
feel that if some of these people oppose the highest and best
use of our properties then they should get together and came up
with the money to buy them from us (at the true full value as
determined by comparing the increase in value of the property
located, say, two to three blocks in from the CHW since 1961-
1964 and giving us in the first blocks the same increse in val-
ue) Let them buy it and donate it to the appropriate govern-
mental agency for whatever use they feel it should be put to.
I am sure they would not want to donate their homes (If they
own one) or to donate their car or whatever personal belongings
without just compensation. However some of them may have never
strived to own anything and might resent someone working for 50
years from a poverty beginning to try to be self sufficient. In
any event I do not see how they feel it is just to not be able
to use property for what you bought it for; after making pay-
ments on it for almost 20 years. It should be noted that when
purchased as C-3 it allowed for both Residential & Commercial
use and the code stated that the height was UNLIMITED. I would
suggest that these types of persons stop driving their cars and
stop living in their houses. They should agree to lock them up
but to continue to make the payments and pay the taxes etc. if
they do not feel that others should be able to make use of the
property they own according to use when they purchased it. In
other words .. they should either put up or shut up!
Will try to bring this to a haltl Here are my suggestions: Do
not try to drive the property values down through inverst con-
demnation as has been done in the past. Property owners are
naturally suspicious of the City of HB because of the treatment
they have received in the past and ridiculous offer made by the
City to the property owners in the past. I suggest a lease type
of arrangement whereby the the City could be the master lessee
:From the property owners, and then become the lessor to a large
develpment firm later. Give the owners a fair return based on the
present market place, then with a reappraisal in say three years,
then in five years and then, say ten years. You will never get
all the owners to agree to sell. I for one do not want to sell
and I do not want go in with any other group. I am looking for
steady income without being a landlord. I will agree to lease if
the value is based on the same percentage of increase in value
1
-4-
as has taken place in adjacent town lots between Walnut back to,
say, Orange and between Lake and 23rd Streets. In other words an
agreement to this would somewhat offset the inverse condemnation
that has taken place in the downtown area. Of course there is
the value of the building and the present income to be taken in-
to consideration. Also the cost of moving some of the things I
have stored and setting up in another locattion. In other words
an "Irvine" type 55 year lease would be agreeable to me. I will,
naturally get some legal advice and this offer would be subject
to this but I feel that this idea of leasing has merit and might
be the only way you will ever get the owners of property to a-
gree on a way of getting together with the City of HB. In any
event let the City come to us with a fair and just proposal. I
am sure you will not be able to get a good number of the owners
to agree to sell. Another proposal would be to take some of the
surplus property that the city has on hand and make some proposed
exchanges. I might be receptive to this idea. I read about the
surplus fire station. I might be interested if I could use it and
not be threatened with condemnation and could use it for an M--1
or C-2 use. Just a thought. I might be interested in the M-2
property located behind the Edison plant if I could use it for
dismantaling use. In any event I want to see something happen.
I do not know if any of the ideas I have presented in this para-
graph are worth while or worth considering but I am presenting
them to you at this time. These are my own thoughts and not of
any other owner. As stated I gust do not feel that I can repre-
sent other property owners because of such short notice about be-
ing on the committee. I am willing to sit down any time and do
what I can to try to work with the city of HB. I am sure that,
from what I hear, that the City of HB has a much different atti-
tude than it did back in the 60s. I assume the City will be fairt
I am not getting any younger and I have had to have my hip taken
apart and replaced with steel and plastic three times during the
last three years. I am not in the mood to hold in there much
longer. I would like to spend the income now without worrying a-
bout trying to collect rent and having the City of HB hasltle me
all the time. I cannot afford to sell out and pay all the tames.
I am in the mood to lease the property on a fair and equitable
basis. I just do not feel like waiting another 20 years. I will
long gone by then at the rate things are going. Lets take steps
to do something! .Just think if I had been able to build the 14
story building about 10 years ago it would have been what H. B.
needed to get things goingt And the City would not go along with
this plan even though it met the existing codes and planning re-
quirements) It would have cost we about about one-third as much
to build then. Now with higher costs and less density and with
the high rise about to be done away with it becomes a loser.
Last but not least, it is not out of spite but because of neces-
sity that we have decided to sell off the ten lots one at a time
instead of trying to hold them together any longer. If there is
any chance that a higher density and that the high rise can be
retained let me know right away as I do not feel that I can hold
them together any longer. End of Page.
Yours truly, Oscar Taylor
June 23, 1982
Newport Beach, California
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Development Services
Planning Division Attention: Tom Tincher
City Full
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Mr. Tincher,
I want to thank you for getting in touch with me concerning the
downtown Huntington Beach development. Also thank your for
vending me the Downtown Specific Plan. Janet hand delivered it to
me yesterday. It was so nice to see her again. I am sure that I
do not have to tell you what a wonderfull person she is. I did
not realize that it had been so long ago that she first worked for
me as a student at Orange Coast College. We had a nice visit and
she went out to dinner with us.
I will try to write you a longer letter later and will see I
can't get in to talk to you about the property on Coast Highway
between 9th and 10th streets in Huntington Beach. The last time
we inquired about the use of the property we got the impression
that we would be allowed at least 40 units and perhaps more due
to the fact that we had a complete block of frontage and had kept
the 10 lots all together under one ownership. It just will not
pencil out with less units. A brief history of our ownership of
the property: We bought in the early part of 1963. This was over
19 years ago. We have had to make payments of as high as $1,500
per month and finally got them down to $7500 per month and now at
$500 per month. We still owe over $55,000 on the property. In
addition we are five years delinquent on the taxes. We have to
pay by the 30th of this month (June 30, 1982) or we are dead
ducks. We have not been able to make any use of the property
because of the Coastal Commission and also because of certain ac-
tions on the part of the City of Huntington Beach over the years.
First of all it seems rather unfair to have to pay taxes on prop-
erty that cannot be used. Our back taxes are approximately
$30,000. All this, of course, is probably of no concern to the
city or you. In any event we do think it unfair to have been put
in this position.
In additon to the above, when we purchased the property it was
zoned C-3 and this zoning included all the uses allowed in the R-
3, R--4 & R-5 as well as the commercial use. It specifically
stated "unlimited hight limit". No stringent parking
requirements were required. I have a copy of the C-3 zoning
requirements that I will enclose if I can find a copy. It was
only one and one-half pages long. I could go into much more
detail but we really have not been treated very fairly over the
years concerning this property. Of course this was long before
your time of being involved with city plannig for H.B. But we
have noticed that out at the New World development near Beacgh
and Edinger that the city allowed commercial and residential com-
1
s
i lined. We also have noted that some highrise has been allowed in
Huntington Beach. We really do not think we should have lost all
our zoning that went with the property when we purchased in 1963
and at the same time to have given other property owners what was
taken away from us.
I have been in and out of hospitals during the last three years
and have had to have my hip taken apart and replaced with steel
and plastic three different times. It has gone bad again for the
fourth time so I have just not been up to trying to keep in touch
with what has been going on concerning planning and zoning in
downtown I{untington Beach. Over the years I have asked about when
we could make use of the property and have always been told maybe
in another six months or something like that. But that time never
seems to come. We have just had to keep paying payments and
paying taxes. We have gotten down to the wire now. We have to
really scramble now to at least coupe up with enough money to keep
from losing the property by June 30, 1982.
It seems a shame that after all these last 19 years of trying to
hold on to the property in one block that we have run out of time
and cannot hold any longer. We felt that it was for the benefit
of all, the city and others as well as for ourselves to hold the
property in one block. We have had many opportunities to sell off
one or two lots at a time. Now I wish we had. It will not because
of spite that we will probably sell the lots off one at a time or
to whomever might want to buy a single lot; we now have no other
choice. I aim getting older every day and it is apparent that in
my lifetime I will never be able to do much with the property.
I just cannot go another six months concerning this property. Al-
so 35.26 units is just not enough density to come out regarding
the use of the property. We have 150x250 - 375W sq. ft. and this
is 86Z of an acre so this would be 86% of 41 units therefore only
35.26 units. At one time we drew up plans and had a project ready
to go for 14 stories and about 60 units with all the parking
etc.The plans met all the requirements of the zoning and planning
at the time but we were unable to build because of disapproval
by the city without just reason. But this is past history. In any
event it should not take too much immagination to understand our
position regarding this piece of property. It is really a shame
that we have run out of time as it is a beautifull site and is
the highest elevation of the Huntington Beach coastal area. It is
also much deeper than most of the losts (150 ft. deep vs 107 in
some of the other blocks.
I could go on and on concerning this property. Remind me someday
to give you a copy of a letter I wrote to a former city manager by
the name of Rowlands (sp). Sort of a history concerning trying to
hold on to this property. We had troubles making payments and
taxes way back then. Will come to a halt as this was going to be
a short note only. If you have any suggestions concerning this
property let me know as we just are not in a position to keep
holding it any longer and making payments and paying taxes with
out being able to make justified good use of it.
Yours very truly, Oscar Taylor P.O. Box 725 H.B. 673 1784
1
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTIC IVEN that a public hearing will be held
by the City GF.- of the City of Huntington Beach,
California, for the purpose of considering
xw
S3 o
Said hearing will be held at the hour of P.M. , on
g 3 , in the Council Chambers Building of the
Ci is Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and
express their opinions for or against the proposed ��.�L
/�
F ther /information may be obtained from the City Planning
Department.
Telephone No. (714) 536-5271
DATED this day of
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
By
NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING
-- c
ITEM
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: O 3
FROM:
PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE
—DAY OF I9Z3
AP's are attached v
AP' s will follow
No AP's
Initiated by:
Planning Commission
Planning Department
Petition
* Appeal
Other
Adoption of Environmental Status (x)
YES NO
Refer to Planning Department - Extension
for additional information.
* If appeal, please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal.
E�i-ilh- tl 24-111-F/
Rrr,n L rc,s Hoyt Mary Beul-h Wilson
IUt h:a�rwt "01 #,t I -t
hIntington Beach, Calif Hunting. leach, Calif f
92648 926498
24-116-04 24-132-06
John Albert Burger Marcia Charlotte Warner Taffy
220 10th Street 406 7th Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
24-117-07 24-132-07
Joan Williams C L Iverson
12171 Arkley Drive 402 7th Street
Garden Grove, Calif HuntingtonBeach, Calif
92640 92648
24-117-13 24-132-13
William G Susman Loretta Wolfex
3035 Country Club Drive 325 W Linden Avenue
Costa Mesa, Calif Burbank, Calif
92626 91506
24-117-15 24-133-01
Grace A Dowdy James Edminston
209 8th Street 416 5th Street
Huntington Beach,Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
24-118-09tg�jSg$�
Theodore E Clements §L§h*ijh bob#
206 8th Street
lluntington Beech, Calif
92648
24-123-09 Jon Augustine
Larry R vasterling 19410 Welby Way Y -
30459 Ganado Drive I Reseda, Calif
Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif 91335 '.`
90274 '
24-123-13 Mrs. Arlene Schafer -- ----- � '
Nancy J Moore 7802 Seabreeze Drive
P.O. Box 257 Huntington Beach, Calif '
Huntington Beach, Calif 92648
92648
24-123-14 $
Merle Anderson Mohler
74-870 Reins Rd m4H�bjtr3�j
Thousand Palms, Calif � �80j� �jk
92276
24-131-15 James M Briggs
Lewie P Derigo
807 Main Street 14312 Willow Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Tustin, calif
92648 I 92680
24-131-16
Angelo RinaldijTrjk3
P.O. Box 8342
Huntington Beach, Calif
92647
1 ;
937-150-01 937-150-10 937-150-24
Alan H Beyer John G Hartwell Robert W Peters
7825 Sailboat Circle 3857 Birch Street Suite 163 535 W 172nd Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Newport Beach, Calif Gardena, Calif
92648 92660 90247
937-150-02 937-150-11 937-150-25
James B Casselle Professional bending Corp. Frank R Mastroly Jr
7821 Sailboat Circle P.O. Box 2700 7831 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92647 92648
937-150-03 937-150-12 937-150-26
Robert K Stratford Alan M Gaudenti Edward J O'Donnell
7815 Sailboat Circle 2215 N Gaffey Street 7825 seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif San Pedro, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 90731 92648
937-150-04 937-150-13 937-150-28
Jonie Ann Mays Carmine F Esposito Rocky W Chenelle
7811 Sailboat Circle 7786 Sailboat Circle 7815 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92648
_..
937-150-05 937-150-14 937-150-29
Patrick E Morgan W & B Builders Ronald W Grandstaff
7805 Sailboat Circle 1666 9th street 7805 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Santa Monica, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 90404 92648
937-150-06 937-150-16 937-150-31
;gtghjH4k g Jk kjkj8gkjLi Martin Bauer
P912h b4bah 4B$ 7795 Seabreeze Dave
J2jRJkWkjQj*MkjB4icftjB¢k�kj §16thjhgWh Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
937-150-06 937-150-16 ; 937-150-32
Zelda Barton Vasant L Joshi 1)ed T Kuniyuki
7791 Seabreeze Drive
.' c% Professional Lease 7802 Sailboat Circle
"" Funding Inc Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
12233 W. Olympic Blvd 92648 92648
1 Suite 380 937-150-17 937-150-33
7! Los Angeles, Calif Alan M Gaudenti Isadore Smith
�- 90064 2215 N Gaffey Street 7785 Seabreeze Drive
$, `---------------__—_-- San Pedro, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
?� 90731 92648
937-150-07 937-150-18 937-150-34
Elaine P Rodi Ahmed M Na our Russell L Osborn
7752 Sailboat Circle 13425 Droxford Street P.O. Box 71285
Huntington Beach, Calif Cerritos, Calif Los Angeles, Calif
92648 90701 90071
937-150-08 937-150-19 937-150-35
Abdallah Aish Esmond Lester Dominick 3rd Marvin H McCabe
7756 Sailboat Circle 7822 Sailboat Circle 7640 Gloria Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Van Nuys, Calif
92648 92648 91406
937-150-09 937-150-20 937-150-36
Charles J Henberger Patricia A Cole Philip M Arcicro Jr
7762 Sailboat Circle 7826 Sailboat Circle 7765 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif I Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92648
937-150-37 937-150-47 937-150-59
Joseph C Giordano Alex P Andrews
6861 Sunview Drive 7856 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
937-150-38 937-150.47 937-150-60
Beverly Schwartz Morton Nash Seacoast Village
833 Rijn Crest Circle 16202 Culpepper Circle Investors - #60 Ltd
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
c/o Russell Morrissey
92648 92648 8672 Franciscan Circle
937-150-39 937-150-51 Huntington Beach, Calif
Milton Dee Paul Schafer 92646
7745 Seabreeze Drive 7802 Seabreeze Drive -----------------------------
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
937-150-40 937-150-52 937-150-61
William Schlachter Jr John A Gustafson Mel L Powers
7741 Seabreeze Drive 7806 Seabreeze Drive c/o J L Burnitt & Co
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif P.O. Box 42812 Suite 303
92648 92648 Houston, Texas 77042
937-150-41 937-150-53 937-150-62
James L Hendrickson Nicholas S GrTrK)Iyes Brent A Byrd
7742 Seabreeze Drive 7816 Seabreeze Drive I 7872 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif I Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92648
937-150-42 937-150-54 937-150-63
John Gustafson b4edhat M Amw Stanley K Gordon
7746 Seabreeze Drive 1101 Newcastle Lane 7876 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Fullerton, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92633 92648
937-150-43 937-150-55 937-150-64
Charles F Cartier Robert V Ray Roy L:k-yard Farmer
7752 Seabreeze Drive 7826 Seabreeze Drive 7882 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92648
937-150-44 937-150-56 937-150-65
George W Beyer ThoiTes M Noonan
1130 Somera Rd 7896 Seabreeze Drive
West Los Angeles, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
90024 92648
937-150-44 937-150-57 937-150-67
Douglas V Ray Seacoast Village Investors Murray L Gordon Jr
7756 Seabreeze Drive #57 Lts 7906 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif c/o Russell Morrissey Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 8672 Franciscan Circle 92648
937-150-45 Huntington Beach, Calif 937-150-68
92646
Franklin M Chu --------------- - Phillip E Gormley
7762 Seabreeze Drive
7912 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
937-150-46 937-150-58 937-150-69
Tony Valcarcel DDnald J Warren Richard Flask
7766 Seabreeze Drive 7842 Seabreeze Drive 7916 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92648
u)r;
1 Y
937-150-70 937-150-90
Ray C Eamon Claude Yacoel
7922 Seabreeze Drive 7865 Seabreeze Drive
=' Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
937-150-71
937-150-98
Roy Edward Farner
7882 Seabreeze Drive Parrela Georgia Dow
y„ 7892 Moorinist Circle
Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
937-150-72
' Norris & Associates Inc
4570 Carpus Drive Unit 9
Newport Beach, Calif
92660
---937-150-73 ---- --------- - -----
,.';,;, Sam stern
7971 Oceangrove Circle
Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
937-150-77
Brenda Paris
+� r 7941 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
937-150-80 -
-;3 Anthony J Corbo
7925 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
937-150-82 --- - --
Martin J Kasko
7915 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
937-150-83 --
Leonard Yaffesaki
8432 Burchnark Avenue
Pico Rivera, Calif
90660
937-150-84
Kenji Sayam
8432 Birchbark Avenue
Pico Rivera, Calif
90660
q#. 937-150-85` --- -- - -
Paul Cimarusti
7891 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
937-150-87
Scott B Redsun
7881 Seabreeze Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif
a
92648
,;�. 1
�4-1t1-17 24-144-12 23-132-18
CI-K rise S Rosssandhoff Adolf A Ohikinn William B Murphy
Bhikhy G Patel 303 3r reet 1413 Ethel Street
,c/o Randi Fjaeran Huntii Beach, Calif Glendale, Calif
P.O. Box 5255 92648 91207
?—JFuT a rs ai 23-132-24
92012 24-145-08 ,
__________________________ William J Hillis Charles Hermansen
10101 Slater Avenue #211 4952 Warner Aveue Suite 318
Fountain Valley, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
'_- - 92708 92649
24-122-01 24-145-16 24-033-15t'e.,;
Ben A Trainer Huntington Mariner Investments Donald 0 Wichner
200 Orange Avenue 7368 Center Avenue 217 - A 12th Street ''
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Hun$ngton Beach, Calif `
92648 92647
24-122-04 24-145-18 24-034-02
Edward J supernowic2 Michael R Bird Ralph H Bauer
114 loth Street James E Osterman 16511 Cotuit Circle ?;
Huntington Beach, Calif 736 W. Galaxy Heights Drive Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 La Canada, Calif 91011 29649s�
24-123-04 24-145-26 24-035-06 ;
Don C Norris Robert D Gourley Yorba Oil ompany Ltd
123 8th Street 216 7th Street 650 Sierra Madre Villa
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Suite 302
92648 92648 Pasadena, Calif 91107 '
24-123-08 23-131-1 24-036-01
Sylvia W Augustine Huntington Beach Company John T Sherman
23542 1,idriIlo I'dx I)ivi:;uxi 8109 Decosta Street
Woodldnd Hills, Calif 225 Bush Street Downey, Calif
91367 i San Francisco, Calif 94120 90240
24-141-11 I 23-131-05 24-036-06
Peter O Youngsma Adam Royalty Co. Thomas E Huntley
313 6th Street 7535 Southwest Laurel Street 4901 Maui Circle
Huntington Beach, Calif Portland, Oregon Huntington Beach, Calif
29648 97225 92649
24-141-18 23-131-06 24-038-01 {`f
Thomas Arnold First Interstate Bank of Mola Develop ent Corp
207 6th Street California 808 Adams Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif John R Daniell Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 P.O. Box 8165 92648
24-142-09 Newport Beach, Calif 24-036-09
Nemow Inc j 92660 Huntington Beach Company •"fir
200 Electric Avenue ________................... 2110 Main Street
seal Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
90740 92648
24-143-11 23-131-09 24-115-15
William T Mitchell Lon V Smith William S Parks
307 Main Street Richard W Pendleton 3441 E Turqu se Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif 1059 Granville Drive Phoenix, Arizona ".
92648 Newport Beach, Calif 92660 85028 w
24-144-11 23-132-16 24-115-16 '
Leon Dubov Valencia Bank Patricia M Rasich
20222 Deervale Tarn 1820 E 1st Street 1295 W Crest Way
Huntington Beach, Calif Santa Ana, Calif Monterey Park, Calif
91754
92646 92705 ,
v=°
24
" Ui 1, Tahiasi..rl United Stdt(2s Steel Corp Lorna L Mitschler
1264 E Sorxxria Drive c/o oil V ' Division Lorna L Etter
Altadena. 'Calif 120 Mont y Street 2917 Zenkner Way
191001 San Franc---,o, Calif 94106 Centralia, WA 92648
24-151-02 23-162-15 24-082-27
Seair One Properties Ayyad R Ghobrial et al
19852 Deep Harbor Drive Army N Dimyan
Huntington Beach, Calif 10382 Monitor Drive
92748 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646
24-151-03 23-162-16
24-082-27
John F Klinchuch John B Hama international church of the
2744 Ashwood Street 30522 Abington CT Four Square Gospel
Orange, Calif Laguna Niguel, Calif 715 Lake Street
92665 92677 Huntington Beach, Calif 92648
24-151-05 tig 23-162-20 24-082-28
AshoRa Investments Brian Adams George J Galkin Dev. Inc
c/o Y R Realty Freda E Adam 618 17th Street
129 6th Street 711 S Harbor Blvd. Huntington Beach, Calif
Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 Anaheim, Calif 92805
92648
24-151-07 23-162-22
24-094-02
'Itansare-rica Financial Serve. Joseph Rebhun Donald D Galitzen
17782 E 17th Street 1481 Lafayette Rd 9770 Janes River Circle
Suite 208 Claremont, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif
Tustin, Calif 92680 91711 92708
------- ---
24-151-25 24-032-06 24-094-06
Elohn Bogosian Alvin M Coen Howard Milton Warner
119 E Calaveras 5792 Meadowbrook Drive 610 8tb Street
Altadena, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
91001 92649 92648
24-152-02 kb&k9xk% 24-032-10 24-094-14
William T Westmoreland Paul B Mount 2nd
Elnora A Hagen
7350 Whiskey Creek Road 213 13th Street 7942 15th Street
Tillamook, Or. Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
97141 92648 92648
24-145-31 j 24-032-11 24-172-03
John L Peters 209 Thirteenth Street Inc W-Beath
Jams T
322 7th Street c/o G. L. Parkin 19522 Westwinds Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif 695 Town Center Drive Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 Costa Mesa, Calif 92626
92646
24-147-05 23-032-24 24-118-16
William G Gallegos Marshall B Stamper Howard Boulter
7195 Little Harbor Drive j c/o Leona Williams
16302 Magellan Street
Huntington Beach, Calif 214 14th St Apt C
92648 Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 Huntington Beach, Calif
92647
24-147-30 23-033-04
24-118-18
William G Gallegos Robert W Van Landingham Roger Lee Warren
7195 Little Harbor Drive Frances B Anderson
17171 Elm Street #F
Huntington Beach, Calif 2065 Cherry Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 Long Beach, Calif 90806 Y-
92647
23-161-22 24-082-21 24-118-19
Sun Valley Properties Ruthe Gorman
Andrew St in
c/oPaula Johnson 915 Lake Street 1722 Park Street
11259 Knott Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
Cypress, Calif 90630 92648 92648
23-167-05
2 3-1 3,3-36
Tttoi,Eis T.'Loughlin Robert I-e Corona Britalta Venezoland Ltd
228 Oth Street C/o ( i construction c/o Wilshire Oil Co of
Huntington Beach, Calif 7308 . -er Avenue 200 N Harvey Avenue
92448 Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 Suite 717
23-164-01 23-133-37 Oklahoma
Donn R Parsch Barnaby Adam Allison Oklahoma 2
617 15th Street 225 20th Street ---------------
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
23-164-11 24-133-10 24-161-06
David W. Wahnsley Fdwards, John D Lackie Palladino
213 15th Street 232 Pomona Avenue McCarthy & West.ad
Huntington Beach, Calif Long Beach, Calif Sharon Lackie
92648 90803 7301 Angela Avenue
23-164-15 24-134-12 lBakersfield, Calif
218 Sixteenth Street Inc Charles Sarrabere 193308
218 16th Street c/o Huntington Cleaners
Huntington Beach, Calif 122 Main Street
92648 Huntington Beach, Calif 92648
23-132-27 24-141-08 24-161-13
Janes T. Rea Donald D Galitzen Robert Gary Palladino
222 22nd Street 9770 Janes River Circle Garry R Westad
Huntington Beach, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif
25241 Hartog Street
92648 92708 Laguna Hills, Calif 92653
23-133-07 24-141-11 24-162-05
Richard T. Makirmto Peter 0 Youngsna Lawrence Robert Preston
5781 Crestview Circle 313 bth Street Rachael E Kemp
La Patna, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif P.O. Box 2144
90623 92648 Hesperia, Calif 92345
23-133-13 24-186-05 24-162-08
Owo--Rung Chin Harold F Morr Charles E Cather
Robert M Carey 719 Alabama Street 2292 Long Beach Blvd
1812 W. 244th Street Huntington Beach, Calif Long Beach, Calif
Lomita, Calif 90717 92648
90806
23-133-16 23-165-07
24-162-09
Janes Christopher Sanpson Aodmil USA Inc Otillia M Van Leuven
10093 La Quinta Circle Tax Departffent P.O.Box 94193 Box 236
Fountain Valley, Calif Houston, Texas Bryn Mawr, Calif
92708 77292
92318
23-133-30 1 23-166-01 24-162-25
Charles J. Morrow John De Leonardi
Ray H Hunnicutt
212 21st Street 13332 Anawood Way 4400 Romero Drive
Huntington Beach, calif Westminster, Calif Tarzana, Calif
92646 92683 91356
23-133-31 23-166-05 24-163-10
Robert F. Gstrein Robert P Mandic Tr Ernestine H Gardner
2222 Blueridge Court 1119,11ain Street 32 Hillcrest Rd
Fullerton, Calif Huntington Beach, Cal%f Berkeley, Calif
92631 92648 94705 'Y".,
23-131-34 23-166-07 24-148-07
Foxx Developtnent Corp Leonard C, Lindtorg Robert J Koury
15052 Springdale Street 17220 NewInpe Street 4134 Palmero Drive
Huntirxjton Heach, Calif Suite 127 Los Angeles, Calif
92649 I Fountain Valley, Calif 92708 90065
}
23-134-13 24-204-12 24-206-21
Raymond G. Durda jh*_$� j Louis A Borren
^a, 6661 Morningside Drive P.O. BOx 1345
cad Huntington Beach, calif
92649 Huntington Beach, Calif
92647
23-135-03 24-204-12
Russell B Watkins James Louie 24-165-23
Jack L. Gum P.O. Box 5022 Dewey Davide
P.O. Box 249 Huntington Beach, Calif P.O. Box 342
Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
23-137-10 24-204-18 24-261-12
Michael J. Bruning et al John A Bohn
11811 Lampson Avenue 218 Baltimore Avenue Ruth L. Simon
Garden Grove Calif 143-A 13th Street
`. . Huntington Beach, Calif
92640 Seal Beach, Calif
92648 90740
-
23-138-01 24-187-16
Merle Arxk?rson Mehler Jerrold W. Kreps 24-261-15
74-870 Reins Road 232 S Trevor Street Eugene J. Duchene et al
" Thousand Palms Calif 3682 Aquarius Street
92276 g06�� Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
__ 92649
24-152-06 24-187-17 -- _ - ---
Stuart W. Amhundro Timothy D. McMahon 24-261-19
8070 Cangdon Avenue #106 Vincent P. Alvin Henry T Stayner
Van Nuys, Calif 17901 Bluegate Lane c/o Forrest P. Lewis
91406 Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 112 Huntington Street
Huntington Beach, Calif 92648
24-152-10 24-205-02 24-261-22 -
Frank M Cracchiolo Angelo B. Mollica Frank W. Hankins
19712 Quiet Bay Lane 409 Alabama Street 1604 Acacia Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif H-ntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92648
24-153-01 24-205-06 23-162-24
Robert C. 'Terry Jeanne Delgado Russell W. McDaniel
122 5th Street 311 Alabama Street 567 S. Forestdale
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Covina, Calif
92648 92648 91724
24-153-09 24-205-08 23-163-05
Ahmad Hamed Abdelmuti Melvin R. Heckman
101 Main Street 1029 Park Street George Cantor
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif c% Bank of America #8220
TR 48410/SCC-52614
92648 92648 P.O. Box 60564
24-153-18 24-205-09 Los Angeles, Calif
Louise M. Wilson Donald D. Galitzen 90051
9672 Harle Avenue 9770 James River Circle
----------------------------
Anaheim, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif
92804 92708
24-154-11 24-206-06 23-163-08
Foxx Development Corp Joseph E Lewis Jr Russell F Iiams
c/o Manke Nelson Bullis 15291 Seine Circle 129-C 10th Street
206 S. Division Street Irvine, Calif 92714 Seal Beach, Calif
Carson City, Nevada 89701 90740
24-187-09 24-206-09 23-163-15
Fidelity National Trust Co. Chauncey H. Killian Robert S. Thomas
2701 E. Chapman, Suite 112 201 Alabama Strett ( Kenneth W. Johnstone
Fullerton, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 8921 Crescent Drive
92631 92648 ( Huntington Beach, Calif 92646
1
24-133-06 24-134-19
Chester E Critton Downtown Specific Plan Thomas L Wickstrom
310 Huntington Street January 28, 1983 (JH)
20522 Salt Air Circle
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92646
24-133-07 24-134-03 24-134-20
`Loran Kac Charles D Robinson Eddie L Ogden
420 5th Street 402 17th Street 1832 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92648
24-133-08 24-134-04 24-141-01
Elizabeth c3ollins Robert P Mandic Milne W Gerry
257 S Westlale Avenue 12689 Ianakila Lane 4817 Hayter Avenue
Los Angeles, Calif Garden Grove, Calif Lakewood, Calif
90057 92641 90712
24-133-09 24-134-06 24-141-02
Manfred Lengsfield Branko Ovid Randolph Kaul
c% Sierra Mgnt Co. 410 Main Street 11821 an Lane
P.O. Box 2404 Huntington Beach, Calif Morgan
Grow,Garden Grv , Calif
Costa Mesa, Calif 92626 92640
24-133-10 24-134-09 24-141-03
Jo D Edwards B M Jurkovich
154 Vermont 241 Argonne Avenue Michael L Swaim
Garde Calif Long Beach, Calif 320 7th Street
gong Huntington Beach, Calif
90247 92648
24-133-11 24-134-12
Urban Reconstruction Corp les 6 24-141-04
011ie S Feemster
22204 Hawthorne Blvd. c8 n Cleaners P.O. Box 2724
Torrance, Calif 122 t
905U5 ington h, Calif 92648 ' Calif
92804
24-133-12 24-134-13 24-141-05
Robert J Koury Merle Cade Etheline R Woodington
P.O. Box 65176 215 loth Street
Los Angeles, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Street
92648 Huntington
ton Beach, Calif
90065 92648
24-134-01 24-134-14
-07
James Riley Fbx Fene R Webb et al 24-141
� JMcCay
11783 Eton Drive Leonard Rosow Nancy h Street
Grand Terrace,. Calif 934 llth Street 7t Street
92324 Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 Huntington
tington Beach, Calif
92648
24-134-02 24-134-16 IC 24-141-08
James W McG Andrew L Oren Dona Ore
�' Dona D litzen
1700 Miramar Drive 512 Oreq n Street
Newport Beach, Calif E1 Segundo, Calif 321 1 t Street
90245 Hun � Beach, Calif
92661 926
24-172-09 24-186-06
Gun Eun Downtown Specific Plan Ignacio F Estrada
526 Main Street Feb. 1, 1983 (JH) 715 Alabama Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
24-172-10 24-185-04 24-186-0-7
Hattie Elizabeth Henn
Demetro Ortega Merle E Cade
16392 E Heim Avenue 805 Alabama Avenue 8331 Bolsa Avenue
Orange, Calif Humtington Beach, Calif Midway City, Calif
92665 92648 92655
24-172-11 24-185-05 24-186-08
Hertha L Backlund Antonin Oplatka John C Lockhart et al
27,051 Hidden Trail Rd 18132 Wharton Street 21521 Brookhurst Street
Laguna Hillsm Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92653 92646 92646
24-173-02 24-185-01 24-186-09
Delbert G. Higgins Norma F Meakin
505 Lake Street 8877 Tulare Drive #3100
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92646
24-173-04 24-186-01 24-186-10
Marina Federal Savings & Otillia M Varieuven Andrew T Torml
Loan Association Box 236 11063 Tilton Circle
22200 Hawthorne Blvd. Bryn Mawr, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif
Torrance, Calif 90505 92318 92708
24-173-05 24-186-02 24-186-11
John Vozeni.lek Leslie Cushing William F Faulkner
2271 Pacific Street 1811 California Street 25091 Nellie Gail Rd
Costa Mesa, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Laguna Hills, Calif
92627 92648 92653
24-185-01 24-186-03 24-186-12
Clinton F Lawson Theoda Marsh Alfred W Stoneman
815 Alabama Street 915 Florida Street 4132 Maple Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Oakland, Calif
92648 92648 94602
24-185-02 24-186-04 24-186-13
Earnest Threlfall Bertha E Warren
20722 Spindrift Lane 6373 W 78th Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Los Angeles, Calif
92646 R2fi 90045
24-185-03 241 86-05 `, 24-187-01
Eldon Bagstad Hard rr Richard J Catterall
901 Catalina Avenue 7581 Avenue 607 Alabama Street
Seal Beach, Calif H on ch, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
90740 8 92648
Downtown ?Specific Plan
January 26, 1983 (JH)
23-165-03 23-167-02 23-168-04
Burmah Oil & Gas Oo Peter W Eeonomakos Lucy B Freeman
Aminoil USA Inc 17031 Malta Circle April A Freeman
Attn: H.J. Wherley Huntington Beach, Calif 1107 Brent Avenue
P.O.•Box 94193 92649 So. Pasadena, Calif 91030
Houston, Texas 23-167-03 33-168-06
77018 Chris Bovy Title Insurance & Trust Cc
526 18th Street 160 Pine Street
Huntington Beach, Calif San Francisco, Calif
92648 94111
" 23-165-07 23-167-04 23-168-08
AMINOI US"
,Inc Charles E Cather Title Insurance & Trust Co.
2120 Ma Street 2292 Long Beach Blvd. P.O. Box 1150
Suite
Long Beach, Calif San Diego, Calif
ng . ch, Calif 92648 90806 92112
23-165-10 167-05 23-168-09
Chevron USA Inc Bri to zolano Ltd Robert D Bolesn
Attn: Property Tax Dept. Wils it Cb of texas 1818 Pine Street
P.O. Box 7611 25 k ue Huntington Beach, Calif
San Francisco, Calif 9412 rk, N.Y. 10017 92648
T 23-166-01 23-167-08 23-168-10
John William Landis Huntington Signal Oil Co.
21521 st Street 1180 S Beverly Drive 3913 Long Beach Blvd
Hunts Beach, Calif Los Angeles, Calif Long Beach, Calif
92646 90035 90807
23-166-04 23-167-10 23-168-11
Louis C Farran Gene French Lowell Ronberg
123 17th Sty Apt A 20242 Adrian Circle 17082 Greentree Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92649
- 23--166-05 23-168-01 23-170-08
Ro P N{ntldi c Jr Warren W Cowden
119 17 treet 124 16th Street
Hunti n ch, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
926 92648
I 23-166-06 23-168-02 23-170-08
Archie Kessell Richard N Salmonson State of California
115 17th Street P.O. Box 1314 Deparl-ment of General Servic
Huntington Beach, Calif Newport Beach, Calif Sacramento, Calif
9ARA 92b48 92663 95814
23-166-07 23-168-03 24-031-01
Loer718th
Avanti Enterprises Thomas Baron
112 t 24651 Doria Avenue 15402 Cherbourg /Avenue
Hun arch, Mission Viejo, Calif Irvine, Calif
92648 92681 92714
24-163-12 24-165-06
Allen L Nelson Downtown Specific Plan Russell B Watkins
114 Ocean Avenue Apt 3 Feb. 1, 1983 (JH) 1090 Buckingham Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Newport Beach, Calif
92648 92660
24-163-13 24-164-08 24-165-07
Allen L Nelson Joseph A Mauri Joyce M Derigo
Noma S Nelson 3017 Calle Juarez 211 Olive Avenue
P.O. Box 836 San Clemente, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92672 92648
24-163-14 24-164-09 24-165-08
Harvey D Pease Thanas W Berry Robert R Allen
Jack-In-The-Box Inc 322 3rd Street 224 3rd Street
P.O. Box 783 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
San Diego, Calif 92112 92648 92648
24-164-01 24-164-10 24-165-09
Hayward C Johnson Jr Cannel Ling Charles A Derigo
730 14th Street 5401 S Mesagrove Avenue 222 3rd Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Whittier, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 90601 92648
24-164-02 24-164-11 24-165-10
Edward F Bray Gwen H Zeller Richard J Susaeta
P.O. Box 209 444 Lincoln Blvd. 160 Eseverri Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Suite 314 La Habra, Calif
92648 Venice, Calif 90291 90631
24-164-03 24-164-13 24-165-12
George Deundian Cynthia G Taylor Anne S Hockaday
317 2nd Street 220 Via San Remy P.O. Box 1842
Huntington Beach, Calif Newport Beach, Calif Santa Ana, Calif
92648 92663 92702
24-164-04 24-164-14 24-165-13
Donadd M Perry Bernard Mason
313 2nd Street 825 12th Street
Huntington Beach, Calif MOM Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
24-164005 24-164-15 24-165-15
Hugh G White Orange Coast Specialties Steven Paul Gesiriech
309 2nd Street Project #2 216 Walnut Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif 636 E Chapman Avenue Suntington Beach, Calif
92648 Orange, Calif 92666 92648
24-164-06 24-165-03 24-165-18
Fern T Hodge Julio Felli Dewey D Davide
305 2nd Stet 215 2nd Street P.O. Box 342
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92648
24-160-03 24-162-23
Michael W Nicole Downtown Specific Plan John Parnakian
400 3rd Street Feb 1, 1983 (JH) 205 bake Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
24-161-01 24-162-05 24-162-24
Rita M Palladino Alvin . 1 Charles Vanian
400 S Mariposa Apt 24 Rachael Kemp 201 Lake Street
Los Angeles, Calif P.O. x 144 Huntington Beach, Calif
90020 Hes ria, if 92345 92648
f. 24-161-06 Y 24-162-08 x 24-162-25
Lacki,e Palladino RXu,
is Barbera J rey
estad 2ive 4924 ugh Way
25241 Street Lalif heel, lif
=11"
Hills, Calif 92653 8 9 08
24-161-07 24-162-09 24-163-02
Fletcher H Dart Gwendol I lace Thomas Holwerda
310 2nd Street 502 Cal' a Street 6736 Hillpark Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Hun n ch, Calif Los Angeles, Calif
92648 9 8 90068
24-161-11 24-162-16 24-163-03
Dorothy E Parnakian Carolyn S Resendez Norma A Nelson
320 2nd Street 222 2nd Street 114 Ocean Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif P.O. Box 167 Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92648
r
24-161-12 24-162-17 24-163-08
George Deundian Harry B Ling Orange Coast Specialties
317 2nd Street 5401 S Mesagrove Avenue Project No. 2
Huntington Beach, Calif Whittier, Calif P.O. Box 725
92648 90601 Huntington Beach, Calif 926,
24-161-14 24-162-19 24-163-09
Alfred J Palladino Jr Cordon DeLapp Norma S Nelson
10E Huntington Drive 320 Joliet Street P.O. Box 836
Arcadia, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
91006 92648 92648
24-162-01 24-162-20 4-163-10
Elsie M Bakre James J Redman ti
Elsie M Smith 43846 N Cedar 32 -st Rd
23571 E1 Cerrito Lancaster, Calif Be e 'f
Laguna Hills, Calif 92653 93534 5
24-162-02 24-162-21 24-163-11
Harold E Tornkins Paul E Palmer Richmrd Edward Gardner
231 Lake Street 14325 E Flamer Drive 250 Laurel Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Whittier, Calif San Francisco, Calif
92648 90603 94118
24-147-34 24-151-09
E]myra I Terry Downtown Specific Plan Francis B Sexton Jr et al
Robert C Terry January 31, 1983 WH) 6716 Foster Bride Blvd.
122 5th Street Bell Gardens, Calif
Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 90201
24-147-35 24-148-20 24-151-19
Oscar G Taylor Frances D Hine Sav-Nor Oil Co
P.O. Box 725 1123 loth Street 5150 Wilshire Blvd.
Huntington Beach, Calif Santa Monica, Calif Suite 100
92648 90403 Los Angeles, Calif 90036
24-147-36 24-151-01 24-151-20
Orange coast Specialties Robert L T Smith Johnny Kitabjian
Project #2 2015 E Ocean Blvd. 2108 Puerto Del Mundo
636 E Chapman Avenue Balboa, Calif Fallbrook, Calif
Orange, Calif 92666 92661 92028
24-148-02 24-151-02 24-151-25
Robert J Koury Seair P rties Ma un an
P.O. Box 65176 1120 Pac c Coast Highway 2475 berry Rd
Los Angeles, Calif Eiunti nac}i, Calif Pa lif
90065 9 91104
2 48-07 �� 24-151-03 24-151-26
Robe J Koury Co
R d Jr Arden Horemian
4134 Drive 16904 eglass 413 Woodbury Rd
LO geles;—Calif Tus lif Altadena, Calif
65 9 80 91001
24-148-10 l 24-151-05 24-151-27
Jane ka In John Chin-Tin Yen
Robert ury c% lty 18486 Mt. Stewart Circle
4134 Drive 7092 Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif
I,o eles, lif 90065 ngton Be Calif 92647 92708
24-148-11 25-151-06 24-152-01
Pacific Southwest Realty Co Robert L Burdick Norman L Worthy
Corp Tax H20-12 #109 Timothy N Stegelvik 801 13th Street
P.O. Box 2097 Term Annex 8831 Cliffside Drive Huntington Beach, Calif
Los Angeles, Calif 90051 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92648
24-148-12 'K 24-151-07 X 24-152-02
Dennis A Niccole s M,harder Clyde Westmorland
400 3rd Street 119 Street 2249 Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Hun n Beach, Calif Los Calif
92648 92646 02
24-148-16 24-151-08 24-152-03
R uedli Choong H Rheee Energy Development Corp
Step Tahmisian 16861 Stonehaven Circle 400 S Beverly Dr Sure 315
1264 Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Beverly Hills, Calif
Alta Calif 91001 92649 90212
24-145-29 24-147-15
Ronald D Ellis Downtown Specific Plan Thanas R Wurzl
2120 Main Street #250 January 31, 1983 (JH) 215 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach,Calif
92648 92648
24-145-31 24-146-12 24-147-23
Rosaltsy Kliment. John A Teberg Pauline M Cooper
Samih S tib et al P.O. Box 270 213 Main Street
222 7th tnee� Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92648 92648
24-146-01 24-147-01 24-147-24
Barbara D Beal Caroline L Burnes Calvin L Furman
2100 Old Quarry Rd 9200 Westminster Ave #90 19021 Beach Blvd., Suite C
Riverside, Calif Westminster, Calif
92506 92683 Huntington Beach, Calif 926�
24-146-02 24-147-03 24-147-25
Edith M Dickerson David Burris John A Teberg
220 6th Street 220 5th Street 211 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
24-146-03 24-147-5 ✓
24-147-26
William J Tager L lins Thmw A Caverl
10062 Merrimac Drive 8821 P Street y
Huntington Beach, Calif 553 Temple Hills Drive
92646 Hunt on ch, Calif Laguna Beach, Calif
92 8 92651
24-146-05 24-147-08
24-147-28
Artalee G Miller Oscar G Taylor
1660 Linda Sure Lane
P.O. Box B
P.O. Box 725 Marjorie T Decker
1907
Encinitas, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Beach,
92024 92648 Newport Beeach, Calif
92663
24-146-06 24-147-10 24-14729
Jam Orangeange County Specialty
es M Briggs Sylvia Shandrick r -
14156 Via Pasada 228'2 Main Street o
Tustin, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Project. . Box 725
#3
P.O. Bo
92680
92648 Huntington Beach, Calif 926
24-146-07 24-147-11
Jerry C Williams Assistance League of 147-
211-B 5th Street Huntington Beach Mullins
Huntington Beach, Calif 301 Walnut Avenue 18 treet
92648 Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 48ngton h, Calif
2b48
24-146-09 24-147-14 24-147-32
Blanche A Wood Douglas M S Langevin et al Ben A Trainer
201 5th Street 8196 Pawtucket Drive 6772 Presidente Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92646 � Beach, Calif
92648
23-138-06 23-162-13
Ma,jid Harb Downtown Specific Plan Dennis A Rosene
327 llth street January 26, 1983 (JH) 463 Serra Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Corona Del Mar, Calif
92648 92625
23-138-09 23-161-21 23-162-14
George E Lew Shute-Brown Partners Richard V Seward
118 20th Street 209 18th Street 20912 Spindrift Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92646
23-138-10 �. 23-161-22 X 23-162-15
Thanas P Flynn De h Toler !841
d R rial
14244 Whiterock Drive 211 1 Street Drive
La Mirada, Calif Hunti Beach, Calif t' -.Beach, Calif
90638 92648 9264t
23-161-02 23- 1- 23-162-16
James R Norton Jo B
P.O. Box 702 213 t' t 3052 gtDn Ct
Huntington Beach, Calif Hun ngton Calif k, Calif
92648 92,648 92
23-161-04 t7306
1 25 23-162-17
Lester R Peterson tin Coas Investments Susan Tancredi
8191 Guilders Drive Eric E shman 185 The Masters Circle
Huntington Beach, Calif Dr Costa Mesa, Calif
92647 ngton Beach, Calif 92647 92626
23-161-06 23-161-28 23-162-18
Herbert V Swanigan Richard A Harp Bruce Adams
17132-A 225 18th Street Freda E Adams
Harbor Bluffs Circle Huntington Beach, Calif 711 S Harbor Blvd.
Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92648 Anaheim, Calif 92805
23-161-07 23-161-29 23-162-19
Donald L Withem James R Morton Kathy Cannon
219 18th Street 227 18th Street Freda E Adams
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 711 S Harbor Blvd.
92648 92648 Anaheim, Calif 92805
23-161-08 23-162-07 23-162-21
Gary Lawson Frederick C Baier
Dvonwnod Circle Boyd Cooper 'IR et al
18180 e8180 Valley, Calif 1151 Glenaire Drive 7080 Hollywood Blvd.
Fount Santa Ana, Calif Suite 1118
92708 92705 Hollywood, Calif 9002.8
23-161-17 �( 23-162-12 �C 23-162-22
John T Chiu
2128 Mesa Drive Unix to 1 Corp
Newport Beach, Calif c,/o Oil Division 7Hun
treet
92660 120 Street Beach, Calif
lif 94106Francisco,
24-031-02 `C 24-032-11
Edith C Byrnes et al Downtown Specific Plan parkin
826 S Sierra Bonita Avenue January 26, 1983 (JH) 4910 h Street
Los Angeles, Calif
90036 S ' 20 .
rt Beac , Calif 92660
24-031-03 24-031-18 24-032-23
J Allen Carmen
525 N Maple Drive Caryl W Harrison
Beverly Hills, Calif P.O. Box 2700
B 210 Huntington Beach, Calif
92647
24-031-04 24-031-18 24-032-24
Edward T Conlon Timothy Patrick O'Cain shall B S
227 9th Street 223 14th Street
Huntington Beach, Calif % lliams
92648 Huntington Beach, Calif 214 ton t Apt C
92648 nglif 9264
At 24-031-06 24-032--01 24-032-25
George W Kipper Pacifica Properties
110 W. Tontr� Lane Andrew Kosick
2 110 ix, Arizona Alvin Coen 219 13th Street
85o27 5792 Meadowbrook Drive Huntington Beach, Calif
Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 92648
24-031-07 24-032-02 24-032-26
Richard B Wann Joe E Huskins Gerald S Ellenson
P.O. Box 6291 19811 Shorecliff Lane 217 13th Street
Orange, Calif
92667 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
24-031-09 24-032-03 24-033-01
Merle E Cade Elbert E Landes Simon Goban
8331 Bolsa Avenue 1766 E Belmont Avenue 1215 Olive Avenue
Midway City, Calif
92655 Anaheim, Calif �mtington Beach, Calif
92805 92648
24-031-14 24-032-06
Joseph G Nicosta 24-033-02
�� Jack E Dotson Tustin Avenue #170
Santa Ana, Calif P.O. x724 19701 Quiet Bay Lary
92705 i.n Heach, Calif Huntingdon Beach, Calif
9264 92648
24-031-15 24-032-07
Chris Bovy 24-033-03
526 18th St uet Clive R H Cooper Merle E Cade
Huntirgtun Beach, Calif 1206 E Fern Drive 8331 Bolsa Avenue
92648 Fullerton, Calif Midway City, Calif
92631 92655
24-031-17 24-0 -10
Carol Fontaine 2ober 4
c% Charles F Parsons Robert V ngham
17142 Autumn Circle 213 13 Street E
ces B derson
Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 Hun Beach, Calif 32
9 8 s, 57006
24-072-14 24-082-29
William B Whitaker Downtown Specific Plan leo W Farwell
719 Main Street January 31, 1983 QH) 714 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
24-072-15 24-082-22 24-094-01
Paul W Goddard Graydon R Zwilling Leslie M Dreis Jr
717 Main Street 2632 N Flower Street 25241 Orellano Way
Huntington Beach, Calif Santa ana, Calif Laguna Hills, Calif
92648 92706 92653
24-072-16 24-082-23 x 24-094-02
William C King Eva L Critton ';321
a D Gal'
31821 Isle Royal Drive 718 Main Street 13 t
So6uth Laguna, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif48 Beach, Calif
77 92648
24-072-17 24-082-25 24-094-03
Richard T Robertson Doyle E McKie Douglas Michael Matthews
711 Main Street 634 Brigham Young Drive 913 Huntington Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Claremont, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 91711 92648
24-072-18 24-082-26 24-094-04
Charles O (xuber t I,o LrnB=each,
er Lee M Hernandez
707 Main Street 1733 t 8282 Gumwood Circle
Huntington Beach, Calif Hun Calif Westminster, Calif
92648 9 48 92683
24-082-08 24-082-27 24-094-05
Lillian E Davide InternationgleChurch of the Fabien H Cornet
P.O. Box 342 Four Gospel 614 8th Street
Huntington Beach, Calif % obinson Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 20 Rav 92648
34-082-09 Huntington Beach, Calif 24-094-06
Sewn Kasparoff 92646 P
212 N Taylor Avenue er
Montebello, Calif Mti
eet
90640 Beach, Calif 9284`
24-082-12 24-082-28 24-094-07
Huntington Beach Masonic ZxgKtkipm David C Austin
Building Association 714 Adams Avenue #203
601 Palm Street Huntington Beach, Calif
Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92648
24-082-21 24-082-28 24-094-08
Ray Dol ge r J - inDavid G Worxiell
726 Street De Inc 602 8th Street
Hun Beach, Calif 618 � Huntington Beach, Calif
92 8 h, Calif 92648 92648
24-094-09 24-170-08
Roy K Smith Downtown Specific Plan Leo D Marchand
627 7th Street February 1, 1983 (JH) 700 5th Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
24-094-10 24-095-02 24-171-07
William E Kettler Ronald G Neal A M Pedersen
623 7th Street 602 7th Street 610 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Caiff Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92648
24-094-11 24-095-0A 24-171-16
Michael D McMahon Newport Memorial Park Elmer E Goetsch
413 loth Street 3500 Pacific View Drive 610 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Corona Del Mar, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92625 92648
24-094-13 24-095-05 24-172-01
Leo D Richardson Beach Cities Financial Fred G Nikitin
613 7th Street 619 Main Street 1722 Park Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92648
h
24-095-06 24-172-02
Karen L Ahrens James Travis McBeath
reet 1731 Park Street 19522 Westwinds Lane
each, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92646
24-094-16 24-095-07 P�3
03
Van Buren Swearingen Jr Joseph E DeSues �'. ham
601 7th Street 609 Main Street treet
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif ch, Calif
92648 92648 9
24-094-17 24-095-08 24-172-04
David R. Bartlett Zola E Burry Stanley P Stolaski
307 9th Street 607 Main Street 1545 W Elm Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Anaheim, Calif
92648 92648 90802
24-094-19 24-095-09 24-172-05
James W Hall Robert R. Allen Virgil E Brewster
605 7th Street 224 3rd Street P.O. Box 185
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Hun
92648 92648 Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
24-095-01 24-095-10 24-172-07
capitola H Seltzer Victoria J Lane Philip Zisakis
7580 Reche Cyn Rd 637 Frankfort Avenue 16351 Tufts Lane
Colton, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92324 92648 92647
1(24-118-16 24-122-09
1 11 Boul� Jr Downtown Specific Plan Raymond G Coleman
16302 ne an La January 26, 1983 (JH) 119 9th Street
7911�' ch, calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
24-118-17 `�. 24-121-.k6 24-122-09
Walter J Barnes TR Kurt
s R ff
202 7th Street Bhi tel
Huntington Beach, Calif 4 s
92648 ne, Ca 'f 92714
�24-118-18 .� 24-122-01 24-122-M8
I�aqer - arren >jCAve
Elizabeth H rSegli
171 Street #F nue Elizabeth B Megli
ch, Calif ch, Calif 907 Walnut Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif 926
.24-118-19 24-122-02 24-123-01
R L tson velopers Inc Thomas P Gomez Evelyn M Cbchran-
812 13t t 122� loth Street 225 llth Street
Hun Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
48 92648 92648
24-121-02 24-122-03 24-123-03
William M Roeschlaub Zoomas G. Canpbell Andrew J Valoff
1.115 Huntington Street 116 loth Street 12523 E Adler Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Whittier, Calif
92648 92648 90606
24-121-06 24-122-04 �( 24-121-04
Howard O Brien Mika,,R C ossey
1442 La Colima Drive 114 jIg treet5?�
tTustin, Calif ngto Beach, Calif Beach, Calif
92680 S- 64
24-121-07 24-122-06 24-123-05
Mary J Gardiner William R Paxson Alta L Fbltz
4729 North 7th Avenue 115 9th Street 15235 Cerise Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona Huntington Beach, Calif Gardena, Calif
85013 92648 90249
24-121-08 24-122-08 24-123-07
Monyer S Kiralla Wilma B Mossteller
1010 Ocean Avenue 115 8th Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
24-121-09 24-122-08 24-123-08
Joseph W Davis Orange toast Specialties Jon A ne
309 S Glenroy Avenue Project #2 % 11 #263
Los Angeles, Calif 636 E Chapman Avenue 34 MacArthur Blvd.
90049 Orange, Calif 92666 to Ana, Calif 92704
24-141-09 24-142-17
Robert J Runk Downtown Specific Plan George L Diry
305 5th Street
Irvine, Calif January 281983 (��)
92814 Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
24-141-10 24-142-01 24-142-18
Robert A Pedersen Larry Bailey Henry R Torres
38726 Carolside Avenue 232 Crest Avenue 15425 E Tetiey Street
Palmdale, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Hacienda Heights, Calif
93550 92648 91745
24-141-11 24-142-02 24-142-19
Merle E Cade Tony M Guenther
313 6 S t 8331 Bolsa Avenue 308 6th Street
Hunti on Beach, Calif Midway City, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
9 92655 92648
24-141-12 24-142-05 24-142-20
Dennis Niceole Marry Fahrenkrug Douglas Michael Matthews
400 3rd Street Bessie Fahnenkruc3 308 6th Street
Huntington Beach, Calif 29 Countryside Box 471 Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 Treynor, IA 51575 92648
24-141-14 24-142-06 24-143-01
Majid Harb Ronald H Wood Sylvia Shandrick
327 llth Street 19681 Quiet Bay Lane 228' Main Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
24-141-15 24-142-08 24-183-09
Buck Perkins Richard J Battaglia et al Belle James
308 7th Street 21062 Brockhurst Street #208 2251 Chelan Place
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
Los Angeles, Calif
92648 92648 90068
24-141-17 24-142-09 24-143-10
Stephen F Perkins / John V Morrow.- Thcmas R Wurzl
310 7th Street P.O. 4 William T Mitchell
Huntington Beach, Calif Seal ch, Calif 307 Main Street
92648 40
Huntington Beach, Calif 926
�24-141-18 ,.. 24-142-12 4-143-11
5Xtorn �Beach,
y Erg William J Tater ( Will R
ircle 10062 Merrimac Drive 8221 fisher Drive
Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Hun n Beach, Calif
92646 46
24-141-19 24-142-16 24-143-12
Robert R Allen Craig Etchegoyen Crocker National Bank
224 3rd Street 218 5th Street Tax Department
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 79 New Montomery Street
92648 29648 San Francisco, Calif 94105
24-143-19 24-145-19
Clarence A Holland Walter J Barnes 'IR
12434 Henrie Place Downtown Specific Plan 202 7th Street
Granada Hills, Calif January 31, 1983 (JH) Huntington Beach, Calif
91344 92648
24-143-20 24-145-08 24-145-20
Michael H Newton Wil iam J Vls Jordan M Van Thiel
Jmaes E Koller 1010 Avenue #211 9850 Garfield Avenue Space f
16001 Ballantine Lane Fo i lley, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 08 92646
24-144-01 24-145-1)0 24-145-21 _
Valantine Parnakian et al David P Larson Ronald D Ellis
312 Chicago Avenue 8461 Poe Drive % Counselor Realty
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 2120 Main Street #250
92648 92646 Huntington Beach, Calif 926,
24-144-02 24-145-11 24-145-22
Everett M Hicks Alfred Vernon Vincenzo M Vullo
P.O. Box 310 `Ihcwas W King 208 7th Street
Huntington Beach, Calif 4165 Candleberry Avenue Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 Seal Beach, Calif 90704 92648
9fiq9ts,
24-144-04 24-145-12 24-145-23
United States of America Merle E Cade John Price McRoberts Jr
Post Office Bldg. 8331 Bolsa Avenue 206 7th Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Midway City, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
82647 92655 92648
124-144-11 24-145-13 24-145-24
Leon Dubo Neil L King Robert M Kadan
305 Avenue Suite A 536 S Olive Way 11 Fairdawn
Beach, Calif Denver, Colorado Irvine, Calif
648 80224 92714
� 24-144-12 24-145-14 24-145-25
R if Weis C D Howe Ruben Dario Martin
996 Circle 4238 Locust Avenue 210 7th Street
2I n Beach, Calif Long Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
646 90807 92648
24-144-13145-16 � / 24-145-26
Marcus M McC:allen F.ri sman �C Earry D Workman
Virginia Sebbo 6851 ft Drive 216 7b4 S
22812 Costa Bella 1knoington B%rh, Calif Hun n Beach, Calif
El Tbro, Calif 92630 9,2647
24-144-14 24-145-18 24-145-28
John A 'Iceberg Michael R Bird r- Mathias E Dahl
26133 Hatmar Drive Osyenhn,�,ie Q E P.O. Box 1016
Calabasa, Calif 736 E Xaxy Heights Drive Thmpeon Falls,Mr
91302 La Calif 91011 59873
24-131-01 23-132-12
lamtington Beach Carpany Downtown Specific Plan Ursula A Coffin
21- ieet January 26, 1983 (JH) 3471 Mt. Vernon Drive
HuntjAJ<Q Beach, Calif Los Angeles, Calif
9 90008
23-131-02 23-132-01 23-132-15
Homer C Humphrey Victory Oil Company AA Capital Corp.
c,/o Energy Development of 3381 Myrtle Avenue 1500 Fidelity Union Tower
California Inc. Long Beach, Calif Dallas, Texas
400 S Beverly Drive #315 90807 75201
Beverly Hills, Calif 23-132-02 �( 132-16
90212 Robert Lee Corona J Sa s
_--_---__ 226 22nd Street C/o n Realty Inc
Huntington Beach, Calif 51 Avenue
92648 tiggton ch, Calif 926
23-131-04 23-132-05 23-132-17
Richard T Makijwto Wayne Saar G P Building Enterprises In(
5781 Crestview Circle 212 22nd Street 7266 Edinger Avenue Suite E3
La Palma, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
90623 92648 92647
` 23-131-05 23-132-06 23-132-18
A a Gaines,WMildred Pearson Schwab / Wil 'am B Murphy
Adam lty Co 23976 Calle Alonso 'q
c,/ c 1 R Gaines Mission Viejo, Ca1ff � f-
35 SW La 1 Street 92692
Portland, Oregon 23-132-09 23-132-19
97225 Richrow Corporation H. E. Tbbin
------------------- --- Signal Oil & Gas Co. 5142 Warner Avenue
c% H. J. Wherley Huntington Beach, Calif
P.O. Box 94193 92649
23-131-06 Houston, Texas 3-132-24
(United California Bank 77018 es L tmansen
John R Daniell -------------—------------ 615 1 treet
P.O. Box 8163 Hun h, Calif
Newport Beach, Calif 92660 9 8
23-131-08 23-132-10 23-132-25
Signal Companies Inc et al Flo Flo E Roche Michael J Major
Attn: H. J. Wherley 3203 S. Greenville Street 1606 Antigua Way
P.O. Box 94193 Santa Ana, Calif Newport Beach, Calif
Houston, Texas 77018 92704 92660
�23-131-09 23-132-11 23-132-26
Lon V Smith James B Cash Glen G Christensen
Richard W. Pendleton 1530 Gates 224 22nd Street
b01 -9C Lido Park Dr. Eureka, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
Newport Beach, Calif 92660 95501 92648
24-033-05 24-034-08
Lawrence A Gibson Downtown Specific Plan Vivian E Long
11931 Emerald Street Jhauary 26, 1982 (JH) 219 llth Street
Garden Grove, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92645 92648
24-033-06 24-033-15 24-034-13
Lester Harris Do ld O ichner Alexander F Lowe
208 13th Street 217- Street 4508 Guava Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif Hun n Beach, Calif Seal Beach, Calif
92648 926 90740
24-033-07 24-033-16 24-034-14
Glenda 4eterson John A Galkin Robert E Bliss
1218 Walnut Avenue 101 Huntington Street 27051 Presley Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Sun City, Calif
92648 92648 92381
24-033-08 24-034-01 24-034-15
Margaret K Cate Lorraine Lowe Robert D Bohanan
227 12th Street 4508 Guava Avenue 217 llth Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Seal Beach, Calif Huntin
gton Beach, Calif
92648 90740 92648
t�Z
24-033-10 1, 24-034 ,;. 24-034-17
John E Grim Ri 8 )*sselink Alfred E Berkman TR et al
6211 Royalist Drive 3 442 ide Circle 384 N San Vicente Blvd.
Huntington Beach, Calif Hun ch, Calif Los Angeles, Calif
92647 92 90048
24-033-11 24-034-04 24-034-18
James P Eich Helene Goodman Collin Chan
1820 W. Grand Avenue 6932 Church Circle 1920 E Alto Lane
Alhambra, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Fullerton, Calif
91801 92648 92631
24-033-12 24-034-05 24-034-19
Samuel W Miller V A Arjun Marty Stacy
205 12th Street 25442 Wagon Wheel Circle
c/o Counselor Realty
Huntington Beach, Calif Laguna Hills; Calif 2120 Main Street #250
92648
92653 Huntington Beach, Calif 926-
24-033-13 24-034-06 24-034-20
Duane Carpenter & Assoc. Evelyn M Cochran Martin H Whalley
1210 Walnut Avenue 225 llth Street 211 llth Street
Huntington Leach, Calif Huntington Beach, cluri Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92648
24-033-14 24-034-07 24-034-21
Arthur H Frietsch Richard S Ettelt Timothy J Abbott
201 12th Street 221 llth Street 404 Fullerton Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Newport Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92663
24-034-22 24-038-02
Alfred T Stevens Downtown Specific Plan John A Galkin
9292 Hightide Drive January 26, 1983 (JH) 101
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Street
Huntington Beach, Calif
92646 92648
24-034-23 24-036-03 24-038-04
Ronald I Whitcomb Braille Institute Robert J Winton
20161 Inperial Cove Lane 741 N Vermont Avenue 7641 Anita Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Los Angeles, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92646 90029 92647
24-035-01 24-036-05 24-038-06
Ann M Leung Don Yasuda Bawrence D Schley et al
20318 Annie Avenue Joan R Koyanagi 1120 Pacific Coast Highway
Torrance, Calif 9831 Shorebreeze Drive Huntington Beach, Calif
90503 Huntington Beach, Calif 92646 92648
24-035-02 24-036-06 ! 24-038-07
Elinore Austin gnas tley Howard Andrews
5745 E Burns 490 Circle 1118 Pacific Coast Highway
Tuscon, Arizona Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
85711 649 92648
24-035-05 24-036-07 24-038-09
Lon V Smith Nancy Crosby Craig H Lewis
Beach Supply Co. 1107 Oak Avenue P.O. Box 383
2863 Walnut Avenue Davis, Calif Coalinga, Calif
Long Beach, Calif 90806 95616 93210
24-035-06 24-036-08 24-038-10
Yorb4,Oil Ltd Michael J Major Barbara L Simnett
1201 tingtcn Drive 1606 Antigua Way 1392 SE Gwen Avenue
Suite 2 , Newport Beach, Calif Santa Ana, Calif
Arcadi , Calif 91006 92660 92705
24-035-10 24-036-10 24-038-11
Diversified Royalties Ltd Helen E Park William C Goodman
Arthur EPugh Jr 123 Diamond Avenue 6932 Church Circle
714 W Olympic Blvd., #401 Balboa Island, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
Los Angeles, Calif 90015 92662 92648
24-035-11 24-037-01 24-115-01
Wendell D Van Atta Mitchell Land & Inprovement Co Arthur N Rupe
292 Villanova Rd 2919 Mardena Avenue 8300 Santa Monica Blvd.
Costa Mesa, Calif Signal Hill, Calif Los Angeles, Calif
92626 90806 90069
14-036-01 x 24-038-01 24-116-02
T r► an Mola Deve nt Co Rupe Realty Co.
8109 to Street 8 88 venue Summit Releasing Organizatit
Y f Hun Beach, Calif 8300 Santa Monica Blvd.
240 926 8 Los Angeles, Calif 90069
24-115-08 24-116-06
Jon A Baker Downtown Specific Plan Robert J Rustan
378 S Euclid Avenue January 26, 1983 (JH) 210 loth Street
Upland, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
91786 92648
24-115-09 24-115-19 24-116-08
Martin Klein James T Hudson Charles W Sharpe
1771 W. Ronmeya Drive 818 14th Street
Suite F 1Aj Huntington Beach, Calif 208 Huntington
Beach, Calif
Street
Anaheim, Calif 92801 L�, 0tj 92648
82648
24-155-11 ��pR 24-115-20
Edward A Andrews off' p'3 ►S` Merle E Cade 24-116-09
Suzanne Lindsey �A 215 10th Street ton Beach U47Robert
t D Vigue
Street
173 Bay Snore Avenue Hunting , Calif
Long Beach, Calif 90803 hp� �+ 92648 9Manh3tben Beach, Calif
S 0266
tj
24-115-13 b� 24-115-21 24-116-10
Elsa Green qA Merle E Cade EcIfard T Conlon
218 llth Street 8331 Balsa Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif Midwy ��a Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
Street
92648 92655
92648
24-115-14 24-116-01
Vladimir K,arovalov 24-117-01
6862 l Evening Hill Drive Al mold Anthony V De Leonardis
P.O.
Huntington Beach, Calif 370 P.O. Box 2079
92648 Pre Calif La Jolla, Calif
90630,1 92038
24-115-15 24-116-02 x 24-117-02
W11 iam S Parks et al Robert G Felton DonaldD litzen
216 th Street 5020 River Avenue 321 13 t
Hun Beach, Calif Newpott Beach, Calif Hunti Beach, Calif
92648 92660 92648
( 24-115-16 24-116-03 24-117-03
icia ich Brian J Hoyt Maryann McRoberts
12 t Way 228 loth Street Mary Matakovich
?4"
ark, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 220 9th Street
92648 Huntington Beach, Calif 926
24-155-17 24-116-04 24-117-04
Richard D Jones Jr Ric G S,FI John E Adels
20581 Troon Lane 5212 uth Avenue 7292 Waterside Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif
92646 9 s , Calif Hun4tington Beach, Calif
916
24-155-18 24-116-05 24-117-05
Stella Marie Vandemburgh Nick De Vito Inc. et al Robert W Brown Jr
210 llth Street UO2 y Euclid Avenue 507 Clubhouse Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif Ontario, Calif
't Beach, Calif
92648 91762 92
24-117-07 24-118-07
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Matt loski January 26, 1983 (JH) John E McGee Jr
10220 Nbnterey Avenue colonial Real Ettate
.Fountain alley, Calif c/o D Beaulieu
927.®t 15881 Goldenwest Street
24-117-08 24-117-17 Huntington Beach, Calif
Pauline M Cooper John W Penfield 92647
P.O. Box 723 808 Walnut Avenue -------- --- -r-------
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648
24-117-09 24-117-21 24-118-m8
Richard Doyle Robert W Brown Florence E Shear
206 9th Street 507 Clubhouse Avenue 212 8th Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Newport Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92663 92648
24-117-10 24-118-01 24-118-09
Helen W Cowling Robert D Harden Dewey y1de
1828 Park street 6392 Fallingwater Drive P.O. BoxX42
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif HuntirrIlron ch, Calif
92648 92647 9264
24-117-11 24-118-02 24-118-10
William N Houle August Reisen Michael R Fbsco
227 8th Street 717 Olive Avenue 714 Walnut Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92648
24-117-13 24-118-03 24-118-11
'-iill Busman Larry Alan Ehrlich Patrick Chiang
3035 tr Club Drive 715 Olive Avenue 9332 Lcrm Street
CosY Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Villa Park, Calif
926 92648 92667
24-117-14 24-118-04 24-118-12
Ethel L Harrell Thomas M Ellis Marjorie L Thayer
215 8th Street P.O. Box 102 1312 Sheppard Drive
Huntington BE:ach, Calif Sunset Beach, Calif Fullerton, Calif
92646 90742 92631
240117-15 24-118-05 24-118-14
y PTac#fic Bank Charles A Graser Jr Rachel Bermudez
Natio 1 t 1150 N 2nd Street 215 7th Street
Grace A dy Colton, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
209 8t t 92324 92648
Hun rx�ton ch, Calif 24-118-06 24-118-15
9 48 Leroy A Graser Carl B Anderson
--------- --------- 5431 Old Pirate Lane 9519 Victoria Avenue
Huntington Beach, Calif 92649 South Gate, Calif
90280
-124-123-09 24-130-01
DM McCa en Downtown Specific Plan City of Huntington Beach
Virgi a M, bbo January 28, 1983 (JH)
22818 Bella
El Calif 92630
24-123-10 24-124-07 24-131--04
Janet T Mood Larry O McCamish Richard R Hand
4141 Los Palos Drive 121 7th Street 516 7th Street
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington
92649 92648 92648Beach, Calif
24-123-13 24-124-08 24-131-05
NaNW fT Moore yin Chang Yiu Harold S Cure
P.O. x 25423 2025 Long Hill Drive 515 9th Street
Los eles, Calif Monterey Park, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
9002 91754 92648
4,24-123-14 24-124-09 24-131-06
Mer son Mehler TR Helen T Hosp Eddie Phillips
P.O. 869 4628 Alta Canyada 510 7th Street
Hunts Beach, Calif La Canada, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 91011 92648
John M Zson 24-124-10 24-131-07
6922 Church Circle William A Baca Frank D Patterson
Huntington Beach, Calif 16482 Grimaud Lane 508 7th Street
92648 Huntington Beach, Calif Hunt
ington Beach, Calif
92649 92648
24-124-01 24-124-13 24-131-08
Anthony R Ursino Johannes C Boelhouwer Harry A Treadwell
10211 Cowan Heights Drive 4508 W Balboa Blvd 506 7th Street
Santa Ana, Calif Newport Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92705 92663 92648
24-124-02 24-124-16 24-131-09
James W Mosich Mary J Gardiner Thanes A Shaw
28615 Coveridge Drive 4729 North 7th Avenue 504 7th Street
Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif _ __ . Phoenix, Arizona Huntington Beach, Calif
90274 85013 92648
24-124-03 24-124-18 24-131-10
Joe E Bloodworth C Margaret Cookerley Lois K Brown
112 8th Street 1030 Main Street 19291 Surfdale Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92648 92648
24-124-04 24-124-19 24-131-12
Evelyn M Cochran Nazmi, Ali Oscar J Rosales
225 llth Street P.O. Box 756 7846 Connie Drive
Huntington Beach, Calif La Mirada, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 90638 9264
tt 24-131-15 24-132-12
Lewiye P tigo Downtown Specific Plan Lois Freeman
807 Street January 28, 1983 (JH) 415 6th Street
Hun n Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
9 48 92648
24-131-16 24-132-04 x 24-132-13
D vide Irene C Lockett Willi N Cr rd
P.O. 342 417 6th Street Loretta 1
Hunti n Beach, Calif Huntin bon Beach, Calif 325 W Aveenue
9264 92648 Bur Cal 91506
24-131-208 240132--05 24-132-14
V Wi1_son Pearl A Cramer Betty L Patchen
501 Street 410 7th Street 409' 6th Street
Hunt' n Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
926 92648 92648
24-131-18 24-132-06 24-132-15
Hattie Elizabeth Heim Mar 'a Char Warner Taffy Henry SterrpAak
16392 E Heim Avenue 406 7 t 1583 W Tonia Lane
Orange, California Hunti Beach, Calif Anaheim, Calif
92665 92648 92802
24-131-19 24-1 07 24-132-19
Sally D Rains C L Ive n
27 Linda Avenue 402 7 S eet Canrnmity Bible Church
of Huntington Beach
Newport Beach, Calif ngton ch, Calif P.O. Box 69
92660 48 Huntington Beach, Calif 9264
24-131-21 24-132-08 X 24-133-01
E Lynn Robbins C L Iverson Jtr�ae Ed<ni n
69 University Street 402 7th Street 416 5 t
Salt Lake City Utah Huntington Beech, Calif
84102 92648 Hunti Beach, Calif
926
24-132-01 24-132-09 24-133-02
John C McCormick et al Virginia R George Douglas J Merlin
8132 Sterling Avenue 423 6th Street 20121 Viva Circle
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92646 92648 92646
24-132-02 24-132-10 24-133-03
Mary J 'lfiarp Rebecca G Easterly Anthony C Tovatt Jr et al
422 7th Street 305 N Sweet Avenue 19555 Starfish Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif Fullerton, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 92633 92648
24-132-03 24-132-11 24-133-04
Richard Delmar Irene C Whitfield Patrick C Love
8579 Trinity River Circle Irene C Lockett c/o Merle E Cade
Fountain Valley, Calif 417 6th Street 8331 Bolsa Avenue
92708 Huntington Beach, Calif 92648
Midway City, Calif 92655