Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZone change 80-7 - Dick Nerio - Northeast corner of Roosevel tN�tts Su erior Court o►•tt t: MTV.OFCALIFORNIA J �. In and for the Co Anty of Orange LID / CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACHn CITY CLERK ' I i:: Hearing 1C 80-T Pilate of Califurnta iss• •��� !T Countyof Orange 1 •- . Rita J. Richter CIO K That l im and at rli times herein rnentloi d w Zen of r� the United Stain,met the age of twenty rm years,ar.d that I # + am not a party to,nor Intemted in the shove entitled matter. pp�� that I no the p,incipat clerk of the printer of the 1 t1d�1' .it Huntington Beach Indeaendert Review `� '"'"�'�.►. ~ �' ' a newspaper n(genend circulation,published in the City of t t 0ate�ti 'ta Huntington Beach Lir County(if Orange and which newspapee It.published for the ' ` .;Kl• d semination or fowl netr:and Intel)-gence of s general charac. ter,and which newspt:per at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subk-iption Iht of paying sut,%cribvii, anAi which newspaper has been established,printed nd pub. Igr lished at regular Intervals in the told County of Ors, ;e for a aa��tt 'A period exceeding one year, that the notice, of w). CIAthe annexed to a printed copy, has been published In the t jiular and entire Issue of said newspeper,and not In any supplement thereof,on the following data,to wiv � V July lA. 1980 ` I certify(or declare)under penalty t•',•+erjury that the forego. , ing it true and correct. Dated at.............. ... ............ _. t"ellrurni is . fhl d r��..�. . . Q..... �(3x�•• r••• .`1il�G�l •.. �PIS- Signature I .i rO►T NO��ti7♦ .ti.t.... .• _... :u,.c'e. ...{_�'Y.+w f✓Y'4.. .,.Mw•......,...,,,..w r;4:'.ykr�:lr'Ii.4 �.M1_, w� .+.;�. .+LuRJJ is;+dot .. t , ' ss oils f' s City of Huntington Beach « P.J. box 192 CALIFORNIA OWN OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 198 19go Mr. 2alph A+cks 5362 Old Pirate Lane Untington Beach, Califora" 9264. The City .owned of the City of Huntington Beach at ite regular meeting bold Monday, August 18, 1980 denied your appeal relative to Zone Use Ho. 00-7. please contact the Depart►aenu of Development Sarvicee i.f you ohould have any questions regarding the matter. Alicia H. Wentvorrh City Clerk i P • Jj City of Huntington Beach F1.0. 130X 190 CAWFORN1A 9294 too OFFI;:E Olt THE CITY CLERK August 19, 1980 Hr. Dick Norio 9340 Balsa Avenue Westcainstr-:, California 92683 The City Council of the City of Huntington BIach at its regular meeting held Monday, August 18, 1980 approved your application for a change of cone (lane Cnae No. 80-7) with conditions. Please contact the Department of Development Services for further information - (536-5271). Alicia H. Hcntvorth City Clerk AKT:jme f 1 r . :i • ,;., .`^.—+...vr�ru!µ,�.-'.i::-w-.....r +�w.rwe.....r....�.r...����.yC';;r:n:i��1r• • • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, _ - - - -- Lim 0•'�19 P.O. BOX 100 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFOANIA 02548 RUILDINO DIVISION I7141 sma241 /L UMINO DIVISION 0141 S3"M TOs honorable Mayor and City Council ATTNs Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM Department of Development Services DATE: August 14 , 1980 5uBJECTs AMENDED ORDINANCE 140. 2448 Attached herewith is i:he amended ordinance pertaining to Zone CSlange 80-7. This amended ordinance has incorpore►ted the Planning Comrlission's original conditions of approval and was inadvertently ovailooked when the zone change was originally transmitted to the City Council.. Under Recommended Acti.on,. Alternative B, it would ba necessary to review and introduce this amended ordinance. The Department Heads and tLa ' Administrator have discussed Item 2 under Recommended Action, Alternative A, and recommend that should the City C•3uncil concur with the most recent Planning Commission report and defer action on Zone Change 80-7, the Council table action on the appeal filed on this zone change and allow . the appellant to amend his appeal at some late_ date when the specific plan is befo-re the Council for action,. uring the course of discussion at the agenda review session, the fiscal ._. a' at information on this zone chang�a request was reviewed, and Mayor Bailey requested clarification on the rate used for the report. Please be advised that, pursuant to,our consultant's original report of Novem- ber 1,. 1979, the City's rhare of the 1 percent assessed market value was set at•., 15.4 percent; however, more recently an error was discovered in the;methodology, which had not included the City employees' retirement. There- . � fore, the consultant has since adjusted the figure to 20.9 percent, which would have the affect of lessening the deficit for the mobileho'ne use'. However, all land useo within the report used the sane figure accord- ingly, and would all change in direct ratio to the increase in tax rate. The Department of Developcmenc services is attempting to have our ronsultantr, Mx.. John Rau, present to respond to any questions the Council may have on the fiscal impact information at your August 18 meeting. ( ; Respectfully subraittt d, amas -W. Pa n, Director .f JWP:df !i ` Attachments: Ordinance No. 2449 (Amended) Excbrppt from Fiscal Impact Report (2-�1) Area Map `�.w..�.w�w.`.....r.—.r--_� w.wr.w ..•..u..1:- .:-.�c......:..:.. .i: L:.M ., :.n.wtilr.rra.v...7h r4r'.:1 A..r'.r ..:�.'.a'�:.. t���'� I . rl • 2.0 REVENUE SOURCE ASSUMPTIONS 2.1 Property Tax Property tax revenue is derived on the bas-'; of the Proposition 13 limitation, namely that 1% of the assessor market value is collected in the farm of general fund property tax revenue and this amount is allowed to increase by no more than 2% per annum. Of this amount, it is estimated that the City receives 20.943%*, which includes 17.36% as the result of AD 8 plus an additional 3.583% which represents $0.14 per $100 assessed valuation for employee retirement. For the fiscal year 1 July 1979 - 30 June 198D the unsecured property tax revenue was $861,837 versus the securea property tax revenue of $8,262,678. This implies a ratio of unsecured property tax revenue to secured property tax revenue equal to .104; hence, on this basis, it is assumed that for future years the unsecured property tax revenue will be equal to 10.4% of the secured property tax revenue, Therefore, the total property tax revenue will be estimated on the basis of 1.104 times the secured property tax revenue. In order to account for the effects of property turnover on future property tax revenues, a survey was conducted by the Planning Department to determine the turnover rate by type of dwelling unit according to geographical area of the City. Unfortunately, the sample sizes were.variad and generally were not large enough for the purpose of establishing statistical significance; hence, an uverall average turnover rate of 6% (i .e. , a house resells ever-j 16.7 years) was det:.`i,nined based on the survey results. This rate is thus assumed to 6e the :esfdential property turnover rate for the 10-year study period. No reliable or readily obtainable data was available regarding commercial and industrial property resales; hence, a conservative position was taken, namely, that there would be _ negligible turnover of commercial and industrial properties. ' i In addition, once a dwelling unit resells, its new market value`for tax assessment purposes is assumed to be its initial selling price compounded at the rate of 10% per year until its time of sale. Thereafter, until . the unit . I sells again, the assessor is assumed to "visualize" its market value increase as only 2% per year. *This does -not include•'the bond overrides which amounts to $.05/$100 r for 'a' park bond and ,+.39/$1Ov for a 1955 water'bond. These were excluded because they are not general fund revenues. t 2-1 /� M.�+.���w'wr'^.M�YS/rwlM.tA..J 1ti�l.w f'•�M:f... ....:..,.�,..::.�n::e:.,4A:n+w.wry:e•qX:;+..:1�fi��iCy::'ii�a.l»„rti�".�,..� REQUESY FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by Janes W. Palir: Department Development Services pats prepared August 13 1900 , DoZkup Material Attached O Yn No Subject ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-7 City Administrator':Comment: Discretionary with r;ouncil. Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Sourco,Alternative Actions: STATEMEIIT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your• consideration is the planning Commission's report on Zone Change No. 80--7, a request fcr change of zone from Rl to MH on the Meadowlark Airport property. This zone change had been :eferred by.the Council back to the Planning Commission in order that it might consider provision for low- and moderate-cost housing and inclusion of facilities fos: families with children within the propoaed mobilehome project. . RECOMME NDATION: ON MOTION BY PORTER AND; SECOND BY BANNISTER THE COMMISSION _RECOWWJDBt) ` THAT •THE• CITY,COUNCIL DEFER ACTION ON ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-7 ;TO., ALLOW 1 THE PLANNING STAFF TO ADDRESS, THE ISSUE OF,A ,SPECIFIC .PLAN FOR THE),— PROPERTY, TO INCLUDE A MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES INCLUDING MOHILE80MES.. 'j . SAID SPECIFIC, .PLAN SHOULD PROVIDE FOR ORIGINAL SALE OF ALL UNIT TYPES WITMIN• THE PROJECT AREA AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN THE CONTEXT, OF CITY POLICY. 140TION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, henefiak, Porter, Greer, Schumacher r; NOES:, Nome y ABSENT: Winchell, Br.uer k� ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION: After much .deliberation'on the major issues 'which had been prepared by staff* for its review, •as well as review cf information which had previously been considered, at was the unaniuous vote -of those,present to rec,.)mend that the Cit!,• 0. %incil defer action on this item, as noted above. . ('y+►s+r/M.L+dNw..+Jvywsw r.{sss...,.....,.•.......—.. .... .. .. . ..`•s -l:u..... .. ,•.:.N..,._,....a....,...,'l'.T. •5..�..... .;1.H ... ,r r"�, r 1 •�1,.r •/t,( rL'.t}i .* }�,� _.riff L Page 2 Vursuant to th3 Council's request that the Planning Commission also considar possible additional conditions of approval, the staff had prepare4 additional suggested conditions should the Planning Commis- sion concur with the approach of low- and moderate-cost housing as well as family-type housing to be provided within the project, It wag the conuensus of the Commission that, al,C..sugh such conditions would go far to implement the Council's request for inclusion of such itemsr the preparation of a apecifia plan for the area could better accomplish these ohieetives. It was felt by the Commission that- the developer and the staff working in concert through the specific plan could in- corporate these issues via the specific plan process, rather than by adding conditions to the Commission's prior action. The major issues which the Commission considered, as well as the additional suggested conditions, are attached for your review. ALTERN•9TIVE ACTIONS i City Council may elect to take action on the Zone Change based upon the Planning Commission's prior recommendation. R pectfully su'onl'"cd, es W. Pal in Secretary, Planning Commission JWP:df Attachments: Additional suggested Conditions of Approval outline of Hai r Issues 1 • E .f _•-r•. +wrrrv'wii�ftMr.+...d+�orwrrw+rr .r.rr�+�..•...�....wmr...rt�Ati . '_I`i•:'•. s. .►1:-.:«.:IL•V►SW�Kti•:•.rwywrty a+:, ��;�.fry=-r7•r.•,n i • (untington beach deveiopmee*l services department STA F f - .EPOR TO: Planning Commission FROtd: Development Services DATE: August 12, 1980 SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONE CHANGE No. 80-7 At the July 21, 1980 City Council meeting, the Council referred Zone Change No. 80-./ back to the Planning Commission for input on several additional conditions of approval. Zone Change No. 80-7 is a request to zone the property presently occupied by the Meadowlark Airport from R1, Low Density to M11, Mobilehome. The staff has met and concurs on the following suggested con- ditionr, of approval , 1. The maximum number of units be restricted to 450 mobile +j home sites for the entire 68 acre site. 2. 25 percent of the entire project shall be made available ` to households, Including families with children, qualifying with incomes of less than 80 percent of the County"s median income. 3. The applicant can enter into a development agreement with the ! City of Huntington Beach allowing a total of 570 units for the entire project, of which 25 percent of these units shall be ! made available to households, Including families with children, f' qualifying with incomes of less than 80 percent of the County' s median income. The staff will be available to discuss these suggested conditions with the Commission. ll M �Mp:gc • A-FM•235 w......�.++�rrw..+...�.+.....�-w+....a.awwa-.fc�s�..t:i...�:1..:::..-••.t�•:v:. .Yi.:.l..ivi�ti:?:�iCi�� �."•.- - isift - Y� �. r T1.an"'(RX�, s 1 - '. - ..•e..�. -. .. - (=�+T-1i.�w�.+..'=Tip= -- CITY OF t-4 UN'TING TON BEACH P.O. Bux 190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA 02648 I BUILDING DIVISION 1714163"241 PLANNING DIVISION(7111696•6271 TO: Planning Coumiaaion FROM Department of Development Servicen DAT4i August 12, 2980 SUDJEM T ORMATION FOR STUDY SESSION ON ZONE CHANGE 80-7 The following to an outline of issues related to the subject zone change: 1. No provision is made for low- and iroderate-income housing. A. A need for housing for families with children has been identified in the Housing Element. B. Although the City has not yet established inclusionary zoning, the Planning 'Commission may elect to address the need for affordable housing by conditioning the zone change to include a percentage nf .affordtible housing. 11. The entire site is to be devoted to one law intensity use. The Comidasion may want to consider more than one housing type on the site. III". Neighbors have expressed concern over buffering, landscaping, and circulasi.on. It1. The fiscal impact of mobilehomes versus other uses indicated such use would be more costly to the City. ' JWC:df 00 ' '. r.., .,-. .'.. .. .,. .'•-....-.-.r...,.w'4.+k'�y..::. '�,../:rf':.:�'.'iT:':.'K::S+..�iirf{-Yss++.tt"cff«J!�:ig" i:w'ws�.� '�.�•Yh�rAiJ:yL+Ti7Mw+L1 . i i t r REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by James W. Palin, Director Department Development Services OAte Prepared July 10 , 10 8 Backup Material Attached [!] Yes No Subject ZONE CHANGE NO, 80-7, A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-1, SZNGLE� FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO ?,H, NOBILSHOME, AND CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FILED AGAINST SAYD CHANGE City Administrator's Comments Continue the zone change request to August 18, 1980 in order to receive additional input from the Planning Commission on potential conditions of approval .. � 4 Open and close hearing, or open and cnntinue herring - discretionary with City Council . Staiernent of issue, Recommendation,Andysls,Fundl.V Source,Alternative Actions: C" STATEMBNT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is Zone Change No. 80-7, a request to rezone approximatciy 69 acres of property from 11-1, Siugle-Faiuily Residential, to DIH, Mobilehome. Also transmitted for your considera- tion in an appeal Filed against said zone change. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff still reconanends 'denial of Zone Change:'No. 80-7 as was recommended to the Planning, Commission at the April 15, 1980 Planning Commi,ssion.,meeting. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and approve Zone Change No. 80-7 by the adoption of the attached Ordinance with the following findings and conditions applied f:o the "Q" Qualified zoning prefix: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed zone change is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The MH zoning designation is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Special attention shall be .paid to the (setbacks and buffering along arterial highways bordering the property. 2. A perimeter landscaped buffer zone of, no less than twenty. (20) feet from any coach to the property line shall be provided' around any boundary of the property adjacent to residential properties. MO ura '"ryn.ri+:t.MWcf LY►gttlO.e...u,ww..rw«i'r....lsa.+v. ,r....-........ri.•..ri.rrtsn..r...... .�.. .r.,. �..s.♦ ...lr L:.....j:'r.'...•. .. �/- .'R,'w.:Y .1.��GwLiIr4L:.'�' ��r, ZC• 80-7 Page 2 r UALYSIS: Appellant: Dick Nerio 9340 Balsa Avenue Westminster, CA 926n3 Appellant: Ralph D. ficke 5362 Old Pirate Lane Huntington ;leach, CA 92647 Location: Northeast corner of Roosevelt Streit and Warner Avenue. Reguests Change of zone from R-10 Single-Family Residential, to _..,..._ _ MH,_-Mobilehrme District. 77 Planning Commission Action on June 17, 1980: ON MOTION BY PROTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-7 WAS APPROVED WITH A "Q" (QUALIFIED) PREFIX WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, t BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Special attention shall be paid to the setbacks and buffering along arterial highways bordeLing the property. 2. A perimeter landscaped buffer zone of no less than twenty (20) feet from any poach toathe property line shall be provided around any boundary of the property adjacent to residential properties. AYES: Kerfick, Porter, Bazil, Greer ' NOES: , Wirchell, Bauer ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION: zone.Change No. 80-7 is a request by the' " rezone approxiaately 64 acres. of property ,located at the northeast corner of Pnosevelt Street and.Warner'Avenue,,from R -1, Single--Family Resi.dential'# to MH, Mobilehome Di`stri'ot. The 'aubject property is presently the site of Meadowlark Airport:,- If the zone change is approved by the City Council, the appli- cant intendg• to clone the airport and submit plans for a 450-space, adult mobilehome park. In analyzing the proposed zone change, the staff identified the followi:� iiisues: -_ _- I.. Soil conditions may not warrant future development of, a mobilehome j park 20 The".City's option for low- and moderate-�inrcme housing may be limited under the MH and R-1 zoning designations. a. Based on, a' fiscal impact analysis report prepared by Ultrasystems, Ind. ,, a financial-deficit is created by the mobilehume park over a ten (10) year period. ,,��'y�{!"'A'� �a/t- �TI�l yM.,.i.K■ 1..a.!•il�.ofiti,.+! ..3t.1�..v�./....s v- > . . ,.:s ,r.'!;t t��.+.,:� i,F. i .,. ,, t' = r � ,,i: ��`,�+G Page In a letter from the sppell.ant dated June 270 1980, the following :anjor poir.ts were mad-s regarding Zane Change No. 00-7: 1. A deficit to the City in the ?mounL e f $995,000 ov-r a ten-Irear period if the mobilehomo park is approved, which may create a tay: burden on the City. 2. According to the appellant, mohilehomes do not represent affordable housing for small families or the elderly. 3. The appellant supports the con--inued use of than property no an air- port as opposed to a mobilehome park, based on. generated revenue from the airport and minimal services required of the City. (Appellant"s letter attached. ) - ENVIRONMENTAL BTATUS: ON MOTION BY KENEFICH AND SECOND BY PORTER, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-17 WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Henefick, Porter, Bazil, Greer NOES: Bauer AHf3ENT: None ABSTAII•t: None FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Council may choose to deny Zone Change No. 90-7 or modify the conditions imposed by tha "0" prefix attached to the MH zoning designa- tion. SUFPOR ING INFORMATION: 1. .;, Stsff, Reports T; 2. F;66+a1: Impact ,Analysis Raport 3. Petitions against said zone change 4. Petitions in support of said zone change 5. Latterof appeal 6. Negative Declaration 80-17 7. Ordinance 8. Letter from Dick Norio dated June 16, 1980 9. Pldt plan _ 10.1 `Minutes from. April• "15 and"June. 17, 1980 Planning Commission meetings Respectfully submitted, J s W alin, ;Director De artrient of Development Services i • p � JWP:SMS:df +^rl. ,f+ v _" xr�>r'r+W1='LN +.:.rifi4.':f/:..:w:)ti-:l�i'i..r.+..i..�y � -,. �.. . " i 9:.t .r r • th j ✓t t1�f ,rr�t,.,,� N �X - .ii':1� x .T v:.w,Jt..^ T ,r' t f• .r : � f y'� ;. C f'�' �R r�i�.'/��`• . It 1, + }}�� r , r r .r A. r� 1 Ralph D, Rieke REcEfvcD53F= 01d V rate Lana ' ctIr ct' • F1u,rtrHc tr pF�"yRuntington beach, CA 92649 i City Clex;: &W 27 3 2,*Py '00 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Hialn St. Huntington Beach, CA 92640 By buhmtttal of this letter, I wish to appeal tho City rllanning Commission's apprival of Zone Urarge 80-7. For the following reasons it is suhmttted tha-L a zone change from R-1 to MH is neithe beneficial nor justiflables 1 . 71„scal Impaatt The staff report indicates that ' the daticii to the city of Huntington Beach of a mobile hamv park will be $993,000. over the next ten years with an increasing rate of deficit thereafter. This placed t, tax burden on the city and its residents ,while tenefi•cting only the property ownox. Ir. contrasT, the ` present zoning of R-1 , if used, would resalt in a m.jc:, lasser deficit. R--1 use is therefore lePn burdensomd to the cit y and would increaaa the market values of the surrounding propertied and homes---hick again bonefita the oity"tax base. Furhhermore. ME coning ellowa nine coaches per ,acra while the fiscal impact is based on omly seven coaches pPr gross acre, If tho proposed park were ,developed to the all_wable density, the .fiscal ' impact would be at least 29 per cent worse than calculated. ` • b, the y Planning Commission staff. I Aii active co st-benEfit analysis shows that a tone change to ME cannot be justified. �r.��M•.IM+ w.w� rMM�J..1.11. YrrY 1• ( / •1 -. 1. .' -, - 1. Page 2 Zane Change 80-7 Appeal Ralph H. Ricks 2. Affordable Housings The staff report Indicates that the greatest housing reed is for small fardlies . The present programs are meeting 50% of the need of the elderly while meeting only 4.7% of the small family need. The small family need would be fulfilled more closely with the present R-1 zoning. Mobile hones do not represent affordable housing as evidenced by recent sales in Irvine with an average cost of $100, 000 not including space rent. If the proposed park were to remain Adults only, --a questionable at3tus in view of recent trends-- the city of Huntinb-ton Beach has not made any impost on the greatest need, affordable housing for the small family. If the+ prop Red par); were to allow families with children, then it still fail.a to be affordable hout:ing. Additionally:, the adverso imracL can the city through the crowding of schools and shufflirg of schools becomes greater. A mobile home typically costs $50,000. This requires $10,000 down w.t•bh payments of $570 per month Arid +n this arothor $;NCO or more for space rent, and the cash flow becomes comparable to that for a $100,000 R-1 residance that appruciates in value. D10BIIE HOMES ARE NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 3. k'rougpt Usos Meadowlark Airport generates a tax surplus for the city of approximately $20,000 per year. This does; not include fuel cri� taxes. On the other hand, services required by the airport are minimal. In point of fact, -the existing airport is of greater benefit to the city through tax revenue, open spac3, recreation, wnd transportation, than any other type of zoning. The tax surplus from the airport is growing and could total $400,000.00 ove- the coming ten years. Fage 3 Zone Change 80.7 Appeal Ralph D. Bioko 4. Summa i The issue is not whether Meadowlark Airport Is to remain open or be closed. The issue is the proposed use of the land, the present zoning, and what use wbuld be most advantageous to the residents of the city of Huntington Beaoh. The staff report indicates the least beneficial use of thelland in question is ea a mobile home park. Thet fact, based on thorough reeearch, figures, and impact cannot be ignored. The zoning mast remain R-1, whethor present use as an airport: continues or not. i. S{ncerelys Ralph D. Ricks THE FOLLOti'IING RFSZOINTS H.XYE SUPPORTED THIS APPEAL FZNANC1ALLY r Charley X. and Wendy L. Tinkler, 5415 Old Pirate Lane Roy A. Graser, 5431 Old Pirate Lane Byron C. and Eleanor G. Barnea, 5441 Old Pirate Lane J=css P. and Marion J. biinear, 1005 Graham os nb tt M.D. 16 0 Grahm Stanley R o la , , 7 7 Jovita Rosenblatt, M.D. . 16707 Graham Barbara G. Youngblood, Esq. , 5404 Old Pirate Lane Robert D. and Gwendolyn M. Runyard, 5451 Old Pirate Lane Nancy N. Hufetetler, 5391 Old Pirate Lane Linda 1. tdlnear, 16705 Graham =r- • Rn Ape*Af June 25, 1980 - --Fatit4on- A change of zoning of Meadowlark Airport land to MH status is detrimental to residents of the area. The proposed new zoning allowing establishment of a trailer park is contrary to our environmental welfare. Such concerns au evidenced by recent federal grants awarded to Huntington Beach residents specifically to upgrade the character and beauty of the neighborhood and by new laws for structures promulgated by the coactul commission indicate that both residents and authorities are deeply committed tc maintaining the best possible environment for now and in the future. In the course of building my owp home, not 100 feet from Mr. Nerio' s Land the building department demanded architeck,urnl and structural standards which would not be met by trailers. It amounts to capricious reasoning to dictate high standards of quality to one builder and allow wholly inferior structures to be parked less than 100 feet away. Those of us whose financial basis is for the greater part reflected in our vome and property value will suffer a significant de- valuation of fortunes. Retent!on of the current Rl zoning will maintain the wholesome character of the neighborhood and the quality of our environment as well as maintain anticipated property values. Therefore, we respectfully request of the council and Mr. Nerin that eliminations of the airport -will not resul• in the establishment of a trailer park and that the current Rl zoning be maintained. .7 Dr. A. C. Hausen, J . 5401 Old Pirate Lae Huntington Beach, Calif. c ya Orange COURIg pilols osseduotion ~ ?A1J a1114M STRICT NgWroa7 I$ACM. CALIFORNIA NibO July 21, 1960 • MEMO TO; Members of the City Council of Huntington Beach SUBJECT ; Zone Change for Meadowlark Airport The Board of Directortt of the Orange County Pilots Association requests your consider.%tion of the following factors concerning the question of rezoning Meadowlark Airport. 1. We like and rospect the Ne:io family and are moat appre- ciative because they have provided Huntington Bench with a vitally i needed airport for ove.r 25 years. In most citieg across the nation, the citizens recognize the need for transportation facilities and take it upon themselves to I build and maintain highways and atrects, harbors and airports. Its the case of Huntington Beach, we have halt to rely on the Norio family to provide us with an airport. ` 2. In 197Z, the City of Huntington Beach had a-I opportunity to meet its responaibility to its citizens and the aviation community by purchaoing Meadowlark Airport and combining it with Meadowlark golf course. A plan to accomplish this wan prepared by the County Airport Division. Becai •a of anti-airport Wan, the City Council passed tap this-opportunity, leaving it to the Norio family to maintain the City's airport. 3. The Nero family has endured not only financial loss as a result of operating the airport, but also the cruelest kind of abuse from airport oponents. Thin abuse peaked in 1977 when a concerted effort was made by the anti airport faction to close the airport. The resulting crisis led to snany public hearings. After a thorough study of the issue, the Cjty Council concluded that the airport was in fact a vital transportation resource. The Council then voted unanimously to support the Norio family in keeping the airport open. 4. Since that time, despite some tax relief resulting from Proposition 13, the Norio family hao been unable t•.# realize a fair return from their property in comparison with othar uses. Huntington ' Beach has enjoyed an airport---but at the Nerio's expense. Huntington Beach, one of the most affluent cities in,the world, has been free loading at the expense of the Norio family. n 1 • S. The time has come for the City to nw-asure up to its reaponsibilitios to provide and maintain an airport. There are at i least two ways that this can be da.je; • a. The City can negotiate ea. long term lease with the i Neric family and operate the airp•.rt with the help of Airport Develop- ment Aid funds from the state and federal governments. Our Aseocia- tion has researched this approach and -..a are convinced it it feasible, b. The City can support then Net • :-mily in obtaining federal iundn under the IQew Airport and Airwaya Development Act which v,111 provide tax subsidies to privately-owned public-u•jo airports such as Meadowlark. This approach is also feasible, howov' er, the bill iin question is still before Congraan and w�inet become law before October. 6. 1 have mentioned two alternatives, and there may be others such as County aponsorehip of the airport. The point is thin---it should be possible to meest the Nerioee objectives and at the same time retain the airport. However, we all need more time to investigate the vatAous alternatives. ?. Based on our conversations with the Nerio family, we believe they would consider withdrawing their request for a none change under certain conditions---the conditions being continued ownership of the land with a fair rate of return from the property. Wa need time for I, research and to develop a formal presentation of a plan which would moot these conditions. iAn a conoequence of the foregoing factors, we respectfully request ! that the zone change -n declaion be continued for six months-• or denied without prejudice-..-andthat the itasue be referred to the planniirg start for a stud • of was and means of renervin the City airport. ll Y P g Y P i Y The Orange County Pilots Associsution pledges the support of its ' 600 members and the enthusiastic backing of oetioral thousand "Friends of Meadowlark Airport" who are residents of our fair City. I �i�Ulr • , dAMES A. EVANS President, Orange County Pilots Aaaarlation s r ' '1•; CONNIT19904 t....•.4 HLA&TH •. RULt1 T fly 7�y+y� R CDUCATION ►f�t_ ,• /r /4� A���� /URCONNITTR[/r EOUCATIOH RpDrM /// �,�r MENTAL H[A N LTH AO fACfAN[NTO ADOBES& �� r, DtV[LO►M LNTAL OI tLM11.iT1[0 /TATt CAFITOL ❑ 9/ •��r a -e re ASSCNDLY CONNITt[R ON AOINO SACRAMENTO.CA IJO10 `/ will/!f•/O" /! hIITt11LT 01/ltf C] lot TI 89ACN/OVL[Y/IO SUITS RIl NVNTINOTON/IACN.r.1 IRIIT 110)/1/•lose DENNISp MANGERS AOBtl19LYMAN, /CV[NTY•THIRD DISTRICT J HUNTINOTON■LACN.COOT&NLfA.FOUNTAIN VALLRr. ACAL f[ACN,h0II1100111,11UNf11T'/EACH AND 6~2109 July 239 1980 j The Non. Ruth Bailey, Mayor f,ity of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Bailey: I have been informed that the City of Huntington Beach will be considering the rezoning of Meadowlark Airport. I vrould like to take this opportunity to inform the Council members of my latest involvement with this issue. Representatives of the Orange County Pilots Association recently met with me to discuss the future of the Nerio property. In the course of our dis- cussion, I made the following points: 1 II 1) I will not become involved in any manner with the issue of rezoning the property. This is stri6tlX a local matter to be decided by the Huntington Beach City Council and the Nerios. ( 2) In the event that the City and the owners of the property were to agree upon a lease or some other arrangement to maintain the property in its current function as an airport, I would be willing to assist to obtain Federal and State monies to maintain the facility. I want to emphasize that my involvement in this matre:• would only take place after such an agreement has been reached and my assistance is requested. Sincerely, DEhNIS MAIVCERS Assemblymember 73rd District DM:swk 1 �ti.1.lPij .n.1'v,,e�t.+r.w —=h+ •'.fc..-....r ... 1 h.t. .. ,j .,... + ...•-i. ., ♦) -.T 1 i'' �I ,4! + �L��'' � 1IUNTIIidTOH BEACH C��7r. �"`Z AN '8Q JR 17 8 51 PINO R. C. LeDesma 5121 Stallion Circle Huntington Beach, CA. 92649 July 15, 1980 Members of the City Council P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Bear Members of the City Council : I am a homeowner living within 300 feet of the Meadowlark Airport. The largest single financial investment, like most homeowners, is my house. Moving to this area represented a commitment for myself and mar family and our aspirations were, and still are, that our community would improve with time and become a quality city and neighborhood r.%flecting the work of an enlightened planning Commission and City Council . On June 17, 1980, the Planning Commission voted in favor of the proposed zone change (No. 80-7) completely disregarding the recommendation of its own staff, as outlined in the April 15, 1980 report, Item 1.0: "The staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Negative Declaration No.', 80-17 and deny zone change No. 80-7 based on the findings as outlined in Section 7.0 of this report. The staff also recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff. to investigate a i mixture of alternative zoning designations and/or de- velop a specific plan for the subject site." The 'June 17, 1980 addendum to this report purportly convinced the . { Planning Commission that the ,tax base of tha mobile homes was no' longer a problem, however, the validity of the comparisons provided by Ultrasystems I. ! dated May 2, 1980, hinged on the assumption that these mobile homeowners were, out of the goodness of their hearts, going to remove the undercarriage o;• wheels from their trailers so that they could pay a.higher tax. This_ is unrealistic. Most peuple that buy and live in.mobile'homes are attempting . ( to get by as cheaply as possible. There is nothing binding the owners of these mobile homes to place themselves in a position to be taxed at a higher rate. I contend, therefore, that the comparison is invalid, since this is f an option of the mobile homeowners (per AB887 S81004) and the initidl recommendation of the staff to deny the zone changes should be followed. I am not an attorney, .but have been doing some reading and have discovered that the City Council (local government) get its right to zone and plan via the state's constitutional police powers. Members of tha City Council July 15, 1A0 Page Two Furthermore, I discovered that: 1) Since the Meadowlark Airport is a "non-conforming" use because it is presently zoned R-19 removing the Airport is wail within the power of the City Council. All it has to do is specify a reasonable time period (1 year) for the owner to discontinue the "non-conforming" use. "h city can establish a time limit in which all non-conforming uses must be discontinued." Cfi ty of L.A. vs. Gage, 127 Cal App., 2d 538,274 P. 204. 2) The city can today desigi!atc the subject land for a public future use, restrict its use, and not have to compensate the property owner for the period of restriction. "A city can restrict the use of land from one to three years while the city decides whether to purchase the land for use as a recreational facility or park." Lomarch Corp. Vs. Mayor and Common Council of City of En 1Q ew LDR, upper Ct'of t . . IIJ. 109, . 3) Since the land as an R»1 property at ppresent is economically dead j and its existence and condition is a blight,on the community, it can be condemned by the city to develop is it sees fit. "A city can constitutionally condemn predominantly vacant land for the purpose of.redevelopment if the land is economically j dead so that its existence and canditiail impairs the sound i growth of the cch=unity." Cannata vs. Cit of New York. Ct. j of Appeals of P. Y. 1962 11 N.Y. 2d. 210, 182 N.E. 395. 4) Whatever the eventual use of the 64 acres, the city can require that a park be provided for the community. "States and Local' Governments can validly require subdividers to dedicate land or. pay Lees in lieu of such dedication to be used for park or recreational purposes." Associated Rome Build ers of the'Greater�East Ba , Inc. �vs. Cit of alnut Creek rup Ct. of CA—.T9-TT—Cal Rptr. 630, 484 P. 2d 6C6, 4a. 3d, 633. I . j l • Members of the City Council July 15, 1980 Page Three and "A city via a statute pan restrict the issuance of building permits for areas in which the city has planned certain improvements, such as streets or parks is valid even though the city has not yet acquired the property." State ex. Rol Miller vs. Manders Supr Ct. of Wisc, 1957, s. 2d9 365, . , Zd W7. and lastly, 5) The interest of the adjacent homeowners must be considered and given more weight by the Council since they stand to be most adversely affected by such rezoning. Thus far 398 adJacent homeowners have filed a petition to deny the zone change since it is in spirit replacing one "non- conforming" use with another, i .e. 0 an airport with glorified trailers. There is no compollinj reason for the zone change. There is only a need for the City Council to require Mr. Niero to abide by the existing zoning regulation. He has not even made an attempt to utilize it as a true profit bearing R-1 property. I "A variance from an established Zoning plan (i.e., rezoning) may be made only upon the showing of a substantial , compel- 1•ing and serious need where no other solution exists. ' Otherwise the adjacent property owners have a legitimate complaint and entitled to legal remedies resulting from the proposed use." Application *of Devereux Foundations Inc. Sup. Ct. of Penn.; ('1945) l and, i "The court, in lieu of granting a mandatory injunction, may award damanes to, the adjoining owners for a depreciation in value of their property resulting from the ordinance variance." Frankland vs. .City of Lake Oswego, 267 Or. 452, 517 P. 2d i 0 9 I s 3 t • ,E i f• Members of the City Council July 15, 1980 Page Four It is the property owners and the local government which in effect define the quality of a comnunity,(by hors they maintain their uwn property or what condition of repair or disrepair they allow of their rental property). When an elected local government is unresponsive to its people, they can incorporate into their city charter that land use changes be required to be ratified by referendum. Eastlake vs. Forest City Enterprises-, 426 U.S. 668, 96 S. Ct. 2358 (19 . The City Planning Commission made a big deal about the "Q" addition to the zone change request. "Q", P, J or F, these are irrelevant. They are like crumbs of appeasement offered to the adjacent property owners. The Commission missed the whole issue. Sixty-four acres, not 5 or 10 but 641 are being converted to a mobile home park. This is equivalent to the area covered by the width of an average street 4 blocks long) How can we as rational men and women allow such nonsense to be per- petuated on a land site less than 112 mile from the ocean and Huntington Harbor? In conclusion, I appeal to you to embrace the findings and recommendations of the Commission's staff. of April 15, 1980, and deny. the zone change. Let the mobile home developers an6 Mr. Niero take their glorified trailers to Barstow, Riverside where they are in keeping with character of those cities and demand quality and Independence from state control for our city. I urge your to exercise your vote to move with vision and imagination towards a creative utilization of 64 acres of prime land. 4, { Yours truly, j Raymond C. LeDesma I ii i I` I' I I July 219 1980 Huntington Beach City Council City Hall 2000 main Street Huntington Beach , CA 92648 I Dear members ► As a long time resident of Orange County and having �. lived in Huntington Beach for six years, I feel a a costs and meedowlark Airport should remain at 11 n that the mobile home park should not be allowed. Many areas can be fund for mobile home parke, but where can an airport be built? more general aircraft j are being built everyday, where are we to house them? Thank you for your consideration. I Respectfully, r Donal James Bu or 21052 Shepherd Lane erd L n Huntington Beach, CA 92646 +�..wr w.sw.A. .. .Wri...:.-.:..l,.N.J...1.; .... ,. .,...,..' -... ' . aJ... ... .. .....,.. ... .� l.w..... .. ...r r.. ..... ..i. •• - r huntington beach development services department STAf f REPORT •.+�.��7ru....�..�.r�r.�n our..a _.._r�..�. TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services/Planning Commission DATE: April 15, 1980 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-7/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 00-17 APPLICANT: pick Norio DATE APPLICATIO14 ACCEPTED: 9340 Bolan Aveniin, hfarch 12, 19A(1 aestminstor, Calif. 92693 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: REQUEST: Change of zone from May 9, 1980 R-1 to Dili LOCATION: Northeast corner of ZONING: R-I (Low Density Roosevelt St and Warne s 1 a r Residential) Ave. ACREAGE: 64 Acres GENERAL FLAN DESIGNATION: Low .Density Residential EXISTING USE: Airport 1.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: , I The Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Negative Declaration No. 80-17 and deny Zone Change No. 80--7 based on the Findings as outlined in Section 7.0 of this report. The Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission direct Staff to investigate a mixture of alternative zoning designations and/or 'develop a specific plan for the subject site. t A•FM-17 i � , Staff Report ZC; No. GO-7/ND No, ..1)-17 April 15, 1980 Page 2 2.0 GENERAL INFOIDWIONs Zone Change No. 80-7 is a request by the applicant to rezone approximately 64 acres of property located at the northeast corner of Roosevelt Street and darner Avenue from R-1, Single Family Residential to fiN, Dobilehome. The subject property is the site of Meadowlark Airport. If the zone change is a0proved by the Planning Commission and City Council# the applicant intends to elnse Meadowlark Airport and submit plane for a 450 apace, adult mobilehome park. 3.0 SUWIAkY OF ISSUES: 1. Soil conditions may not warrant future development of a mobile- home park. 2. The City' s option for aow And moderate income housing may l be limited under the Mil and R-1 Zoning designations. 3. A .financial deficit is created by the mobilehome park over a ten (10) year period. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this times, the Department of DevelopmenL- Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 80-17 for ten (10) days and. no comments, either verbal or written, were received. The Staff in its initial study of the project has recommended a Negative Declaration be issued subject to mitigation. I measures whicli are attached. Prior to action on Zone Change No. 80-7, it is necessary for the Planning C,)mmission to review and adopt Ner.at.iv3 Declaration No. 79-75. 5. 0 PRESENT LAND USE, ZWtNG AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The subject property is zoned R�-1, Single Family Residential and, is designated on tho General Plan as Low Density Residential which allows 7 units per gross acre. The property is currently used primarily as a smull craft airport for recreational fliers and commuter>,. Incidental uses on the airport site include a flight school, cafe., and aircraft service and repair facility. The property located north Qf the subject site is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and is developed with single family dwellings. The General Plan designation is categorized as Low Density Residential. Staff Repor%. ZC too. CO-7/ND No. April 15, 19PO Paste 3 Proparty located to the east of the subject site is zoned R-1, Single Family Residentia. and is designated on the General Pinn as Low Density Residentia:. . Eight hundred (800) feet South of Hail Avenue, And want; of Graham ;kenue is a park site which is zoned Cr-R, Community Facility, Recreatiou and is designated on the General Plangas Low Density Residential . The northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Graham Street is zoned R-41 High Density residential and is developed with condominiums. The properties located west of the subject site are zoned and des;Lgnated on the General Plan as follows: 1. Mil, Mobilehome, General Plan Designation) Low Density Residential. 2. R-1, Single Family Residential, General Plan Designation; Lu: Density Residenttal. 3, I1-2, Medium Density Residential, General Plan Designation; Medium Dansi.ty Residential . i 4. R-5, office Professional, General Plan Designation; General ; Commercial. 6.0 ANALYSIS; Section 9242. 2 (b) Criteria for Approval of the Ilunting&.n Beach Ordinance Code requires that soil conditions on t.ie site be 'in- adequate to support other types of conventional residential develop- rent prior to approving a change of zone to MH, Mobilehome. . The Department of Agriculture soils map for the subject site indicates the soil type to be "Chino Silty Clay, " free of any, muck or peat which would preclude the area to be approved for conventional housing. Tho intent of Section 9242.2 is to prohibit development of Mobile- ` home parks on p.roparty capable of supporting conventional houniny and which meet.; zoning and General Plan requirements. Historically, the majority of mobilehoma parks have baen approved on sites which ; contained significant amounts of peat or other types of organic material, making these sites unsuitable for conventional housing types. Staff is also concerned with' the possibility of reducing the tango of opportunities for low and moderate income housing in this .area. of the City. The appli^ant has indicated that the future mobilehome, pans may be for "adults only. " Even without aueh a rest:riation, the mobilehome parR would still xobably attract a very high concentration of elderly adults. The City Pjusing Element has assessed housing needs addressed by present programs. This analysis indicates that the City has made significant progress in meeting elderly housing needa. By the end of 1980, a projected total of 553 elderly households will be assisted, which constitutes about 51.4 percent of the estimated 1980 , Staff Report ,-- ZC No. 80-7/ND Na. 7 April 15, 1900 j Page 4 e Inc t need far that group. contrast, however., 1960 programs will have met only 6.5 percent of the large family need and 4. 7 percent of the small family need. Families, es,�ecially small familes, thus appear to have the greatest need for hcusi►�g assistance at this time. Staff j concludes that a mobilehome park on tLe entire 64 acres would not contribute to a diversification of housing types to meet a broad ; range of needs in thn City. I , The fiscal impact of a mobilehome park on the City was not known at the time the zone change application was submitted for review, therefore, the computerized fiscal impact methodology was used to evaluate the zone change request from R-11 Single Family Residential to M11, Mobilehoma on the 64 acre site. In addition to mobile homes, Staff analyzed three development scenarios within the R-1 and 11-2 zoning classification. These developments include single family detached, low density condominiums and medium density condominiums. For analysis purposes, a 10-year period from :July 1, 1980 through Tune 30, 1990 wes selected. The information obtained through the fiscal impact model indicates that all four alternative land uses _ have a 'deficit ranging from $995, OOO -for a mobilehome park to $192.700 for a low density condominium project on a cash flow basis. The data also indicated that only the low density condominium scenario produces a net surplus of approximately $33, 000 over the 10-year period. Based on the Fiscal Impact Analysis, it appears that a mobilehome park pould create the largest deficit for the City and wou.W not contribute financietlly towai-� additional services generated as a result of U Mobilehome park. Attached is a copy of the Fiscal Impact Analysis Report. As stated in Section 5.0 of this report, the zoning for the subject . o designated on the Residential, and is desi na . csid nt e is R-1 single e Family R � 9 site , g y General. Plan as Low Density Residential. The maximum allowable density under the R-1 Single family Residential zoning is seven (7) units per gross acre, whereas the maximum allowable density i nine g units er ross acre. fore MH zoning s t. ) P 9 7 0 RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommends that the Planning' Commission adopt t Negative � Declaration No. 80-17 and deny Zone Change No. 80--7, based on the Findings as outlined in Section 7. 0 of this report. The Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission direct Staff to inveutigaie a mixture of alternative zone designations and/or develop aspecific plan for the site. Findings for Denial: 1. A mobilehome park on the entire 64 acre v to reduces the range of opportunities for low and moderate income housing. :, Based on the Fiscal impact Analysis of the future mobilehome park, A.-he project would produce a significant financial deficit to the City. stiff Report 'LC No. OO-7 f ND No. ^: �7 r April 15; 1980 Page 5 3. it has not been demonstrated to Staff that soil conditions on the sit•.a warrant a change of zone to M11, Mobilehome. Attachments: 1. Area Map 2. Negative Declaration 3. Ordinanc;. A. Fiscal Impact Analysis Report � sMs/dam • ' FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS IWADOWLARK AIRPORT ZONE CHNIGE In cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., the computerized fiscal impact methodology was used to evaluate a zone change request Fran R1 (Low Density Residential District) to MH (Mobile Home District) on the 64 acre Meadowlark Airport site. In addition to mobile homes, staff analyzed three development scenarios within the 111 and R2 (Medium Density Residential District) zonisig classification: single family detached, low density condominiums, and medium density condominiums. The specific features of the zoning/development alternatives and the assumed schedule of construction can be sumnarized as follows: 1. Mobile llonie I411 - 450 mobile homes with an average sale price of $40,000,wlth .9. —ersons per dwelling unit; 225 units built in FY81, and 225 units built in FY82. 2. Single Family Detached (R11 - 288 single family homes with an average sale price, o $1/5,-000 with 3.2 persons per dwelling unit; 144 units built in FY81, and 144 units built in' FY82. 3. I.ow D6n,;ity Condominiums (R1) - 41.6 condominiums with an average sale price ,of TIW,000 with 2.05 persons per dwelling unit; 208 units built in FY81, and '209 units built in FY82. 4. Medium Densit , Condominiums JR21 - 640 condrnniniums with an average sale price 5TT05,06 with . pis per dwelling unit; 320 units built in F161 and 3?0 units built in FY82. For analysis purposes, the 10-,year period from July 19 1980 through June 30, 1990 was selected, .representing fiscal years 1981 ,through 1990. Table 1 shows that, over the 10-year period chosen, all four alternatives have a deficit ranging Fran S995,000 for the mobile home alternative- to $192,700 for the low density con'dominum alternative on a cash flow basis. On the basis of today's doflurs,z only the low density condominium scenario produces a net surplus ($339000). The other three alternatives generate deficits over the 10-,year period,, ranging ieom $489,300 for mobile homes to $71,000 for medium density condominiums. It should be noted that the basic reason for surplus revenues for the low density condominiurn altnrn.ative in today's dollars and a relatively small deficit in cash flow terms can be attributed to the initial development Fees collected, in articular, without development fe6s, the lam► density p P Y condominiums would have, experienced a $102,500 deficit. Indeed, for all four alternatives, development fees provided only short 'corm benefits as is readily observed from Tables 2-5. After FY82 or FY83, each alternative experiences an annual deficit which increases each year thereafter. This suggests that using a longer study period than '10 years would probably lead to the conclusion that none of the four alternatives I ' pays its own way. , 1 t Cash flow refers to valuing costs and revenues by accounting for inflationary changes o�.:,. time. 2 Today's doll,ir indicates the present value of future costs and revenues discounting inflationary changes over time. As indicated in Table 1 , a mobile hone park would produce the highest deficit in both cash flow terms and coday's dollars. Service costs required For mobile homes compare favorably with the other land use alternatives, 'but revenues are substantially lower. The low revemjes can be attributed to changes in the types of revenue collected on mobile homes after July 1, 1980. After this date, new mobile home units will no longer pay vehicle license fees and will be placed on the property tax rolls. The initial trailer coach license fees could be reduced from 3233:per unit to zero; whereas, the initial property tax revenue would be $52 on a $40,000'mobile home. The net effect would be an an.lual revenue reduction of $171 per unit in the short term. This impact could gradually reverse over the long term since trailer coach 11cense fees depreciate while property taxes increase over time. There are a numbar of qualifications regarding the deficit results .of the analysis which should be noted. first, the study analyzed only direct fiscal impacts on general .fund revenues and expenditures. There was no attempt to predict the continuing impact of State bail-out funds, other revenue transfers, and the development of new revenue sources. Secondly, the effects of the Gann Initiative were applied to, projected expenditures based upon consumer price index increases. A third consideration is that the fiscal impact model is less successful at predicting secondary fiscal impacts from the growth which could be 6i�:'ated'hy the proposed project. It should be pointed out that all other knrHn fiscal. Impact methodologies have ,the same problem. Finally, future increases in the assumA,:; housing values could dramatically alter these projections. 1 a 4 i TABLE I 10-YEAR SU14-IARY COMPARISON OF THE ZO3I4G/0EVEL0P1%1E=1T ALTERNATIVES FOR THE MEADOWLARK AIRPORT SITE j Zonin /Develoniicnt Alternatives Mob i le i ng e- a-n' y Low Density Medium Density }} Cash Flow Basis Hcme!Mffl Detached,-(Rl) Condo(RI) Condo (R21 1 Revenue (l)-(2) 1,313.8 2,017.3 2,059.0 2,782.7 Cost (1) 2,303.8 2,617.5 2,251.7 3,136.3 Revenue-Cost {1} - 995.0 - 600.2 192.7 - 353.5 Revenue/Cost 0.56 0.77 0.91 0.38 1 . 1 - In Todav's Dollars (3) Revenue (1)-(2) 770.7 1,215.3 1,261 .3 1,641.1 Cost (l) 1,260.0 1,441.4 1,2Z3.8 1,712.1 Revenue-Cost �l} - 4893 - 226.1 33.0 - 71.0 t Revenue/Cost 0.61 0.84 1.02 0.95 t t In S1,000 2 Includes permit and processing fees plus' library fees, but excludes parks,: sewer'and drainage fees 3 Current year dollars discounted at-10; - TABLE 2 ANNUAL REVENUE AND COST COtdPARISOtI FOR THE MOBILE NOS... (M:-i) ALTE�t�1ATTVE ~ j 1 CASH FLOW TODAY'S DOLLARS ** Revenue Revenue- Revenue Revenue- Minus. To-Cost Minus To-Cost Fiscal Year Revenue* Cost* Cost* Ratio Revenue* Cost* Cost* Ratio 1980-1981 112.4 37.2 75.2 3.02 107.0 33.3 73.2 3.15 1991-1992 62.4 123.3 -50.9 0.50 51.5 101.9 -50.3 0.50 1982-1983 - 119.1 131.9 -62.8 0.65 89.5 136.7 -47.2 0.65 1983-1984 124.7 201.4 -75.7 0.61 85.? 137.5 -52.3 0.51 1984-1985 130.7 223.1 -92.4 0.58 81.2 138.5 -57.3 0.53 i 1985-1985 137.3 247.4 -110.1 0.55 77.5 139.7 -62.2 0.55 1985-1987 144.4 274.5 -130.1 0.52 74.1 140.9 -66.8 O.S'_ 1937-1988 152.2 304.8 -152.6 0.49 71.0 142.2 -71.2 0.49 i 1988-1989 160.7 333.7 -178.0 0.47 68.1 143.6 •-75.5 0.47 1939-1990 169.9 376.5 -206.6 0.45 65.5 145.2 -79.7 0.45 i !� TOTAL 1,313.8 2,308.8 -995.0 0.56 ;70.7 1.260.0 -439.3 0.61 . J t . *In S1,300 ** Current year dollars discounted at 10% AN _ _ _ - TABLE 3 ANNUA' REVENUE AND COST COMPARISON FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED (RI) ALTERNATIVE CASH'FLOW TODAY`S.DOLLARS. ** i Revenue Revenue- Revenue Revenue- Minus To-Cost Minus To-Cos _ Fiscal Year% Revenue*: Cost* Cost* Ratio- Revenue* Cost* Cost* Ratio 1980-1931 233.9 58.8 175.1 3.97 222.2 53.4 163.8 4.16 '�81-1982 106.9 148.4 -41.6 0.71 88.3 122.7 -34.4 0.71 19E2-1983 180.6 209.6 -29.0 0.85 135.7 157.5 -21.8 0.85 1983-1984 197.7 230.3 -42.6 0.81 128.2 157.3 -29.1 0.31 f 1984-1985 195.3 253.4 -58.11 0.77 121.3 157.3 -36.0 0.77 1985-1986 203.5 279.1 -75.6 0.72 114.9 157.6 -42.7 0.72 1986-1987 212.3 307.8 -95.5 0.68 109.0 157.9 -43.9 0.69 1937-1988 221.9 339.7 -117.8 0.65 103.5 158.S -55.0 0.65 4'` ! 1988-1989 232.1 375.3 -143.2 0.61 99.4 159.2 -50.8 0.61 t 1989-19?0 243.2 415.1 -171.9 0.58 93.8 160.0 -66.1 0.53 TOTAL 2,017.3 2,617.5 -600.2 0.77 1,215.3• 1,441.4 -226.1 0.84 i j - t *In S1,000 ** Current year dollars discounted at 10% y t ' 4.6IL.17 rn t, a � v 3 i 330.�9' o; N. PQ tj U S 0 1� ' 1EC-oP.0E1D 0WAJF'IQCA, MIER/O / fJ:�.�/Gr?/�r�• �� �� 'll 0 1,nSO BUILDING DEPT. . �. �10 t. i TALE 4 AMIUAL REVENUE`AND COST COMPARISO�i,FO4 THE LOW'LF?,SITY COt�OQ�dI�iILN {R1} ALTERN IVE CASH FLOW TODAY'S DOLLARS ** Revenue Revenue- Revenue Revenue- Minus To-Cost Minus To-C3st Fiscal Year Revenue* Cost*- Cost* Ratio Revenue*. Cost* Cost* Ratio 1980-1981 2r?-.8 36.3 256.5 m5 278.5 33.0 245._ 8.43 ( 1981-1982 105.9 120.2 -14.3 0.88 87.5 99.4 -11.9 0.83 t 1982-1983 178.8 177.4 1.4 1.00 134.3 133.2 1.1 1.00 ' 1983-1984 185.8 196.4 -10.6 0.94 12F-9 134.1 -7.2 0.94 1984-1985 193.4 217.6 -24.2 0.88 120.1 135.1 -15.0 0.80 1985-1986 201.5 241.3 -39.9 0.83 113.7 136.2 -22.5 0.83 ' 1986-1987 210.3 267.7 -57.4 0.78 107.9 137.4 19.5 0.78 t 1987-1988 219.7 297.3 -77.6 0.73 102.5 138.7 -36.2 0.73 1983-1989 229.9 320.3 -100.4 0.69 • 97.5 140.1 -42.6 0.69 f 1939-1990 240.9 367.1 -126.3 0.65 92.9 141.5 -43.7 0.65 TOTAL 2,059.0 2,251.7 -192.7 0.91 1,261.8 1,228.8 33.0 1.02 ` *In S11,000 ** Current year' dollars discounted at 10: TABLE 5' AN!iUA:. REVENUE' AND COST COMPARISOii`FOR, THt ASEDIUtd DENSITY CON00�iINI1J�"�l (R2) ALTERNATIVE 40 CA3H'FL01.4 TODAY'S DOLLARS ** r z Revenue Revenue- Revenue Revenue- Kinus To-Cost Minus To-Cost Fiscal Year Revenue* Cost* Cost* Ratio Revenue* Cost* Cost* Ratio 1980-1981 235.6 50.6 185.0 4.55 223.5 46.0 177.5 4.35 1931-1982 151.6 167.9 -16.3 0.90 125.3 133.3 -13.5 0.90 j 1992-1983 257.5 247.6 9.9 1.03 193.5 185.0 7.5 1.04 ' 1933-1984 257,8 274.0 -6.2 0.97 182.9 187.1 -4.2 0.97 1984-1995 278.8 303.4 -24.6 0.91 173.1 1e8.4 -15.3 0.91 1985-15d6 - 290:7 335.3 -45."0 0.85 164.1 189.8 -25.7 0.86 1986-1987 303.4 372.9 -69.5 0.81 155.7 191.4 -35.7 0.81 1987-1938 317.2 413.8 -96.6 0.75 148.0 193.0 -45.0 • 0.76 s _ : 1983-1989 332.0 459.4 -127.4 0.72 140.8 194.8 -54.0 0.72 t 1989-1990 348.1 510.4 -152.3 0.63 134.2 196.8 -62.6 0.68 t TOTAL -2,782.7 3,136.3 -353.6 0.89 1,641.1 1,712.1 -71.0 0.95 j *In S1,000 -- 4 ** Current year dollars discounted at 100al i g " 6 SrAEE huntington beach development services department RE ORIE 1 Y�ffY�i.UY.I I Y�YYrM� II TOs Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Service:. DATE: June 17, 1900 5UBJEC70- MEADOWLARK AIRPORT ZONE CHANG[:- FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS At the April 29, 1960 study session on the Meadowlark Airport zone change request, the Planning Commission directed staff to: 1) research recent legislative changes thnt affect property taxes derived from mobile homes; and 2) analyze the fiscal effects of mobile home and alternative residential developments an local school districts. The information concerning mobile home legislation is contained In an attached letter from Ultrasystems, Inc., which also addresses a number-of fiscal impact issues raised at the April 29 study session. In onalyzing,the fiscal impacts of development on local scheol districts, it Is important to understand the current State financirxi system, which has provided a growing share `of funds since the Serrano vs. Priest -decision. The State now has a guaranteed annual i 'foundation support progrurn which manFdtes the amount to be spent an each schoolchild j in California and at the same time limits expenditure to that amount. A combination of o basic State grant per student and local properly tax levies finances this foundation 1 program. An addition, there Is a program of equalization that provides State general funding to local school districts whose tax base is Inadequate. l ;To Illustrate how this mechanism works in practice, staff .'contacted the Ocean View School District and Huntington Beach Union High School District. For Ocean View, the district receives approximately $1,390 per averse daily attending student. The.school dlstrlct`thus is limited to a total expenditure of $�17,036,984 for the current fiscal year. An 'expenditure limit - Is actually a total revenue limit, since as the scheol district revenues Increase, State aid decreases, keeping school child "revenue" constant. The State provides $12,110,838 (or 71 percent) of this amount with the remainder coming from local secured and unsecured property taxes. The impact of a new development on the district's fiscal position Is that the total revenue limit would Increase by $1,390 per each additional student coming from the new development. The Increased assessed value from the development would be incorporated , • by the County Auditor Into a calculation of the local eonfribution'to the total amount to be spent by She school district. The same process applies to the Huntington Beach Union High School District. In this case, the present cost per overoge daily attending student is $2,088, while the total budget Is approximately $50,000,000 (71 percent of which Is j provided by the State). next page, please . . . . . . . . . . A•FM•23A Is q�-, 13 FA �f 1 MEADOWLARK AIRPORT ZONE CHANGE- FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS June 17, 1980 Page Two In analyzing the fiscal impact of the Meadowlark development alternatives, it 'is important to consider the number of students, total property tax generated and the effect of these factors on the States.contribution to the district's funding limitation. On an annual ,basis, total school district revenues and experrJitures generated by the four development alternatives can be derived as follows: I. Single-Family Detached (R 1) Revenue from local property taxes 311 two Expendlture to support 255 additional students 398 000 - $ 87,009 State aid revenue contribution $ 87,000 NET IMPACT 0 2. Low Density Condo (R I) ' Revenue from local property taxes M9,000 5,000 Expenditure to support 220 additional students - - $ 34, 000 State aid revenue contribution 34,000 ' NET I MPACT 0 3. Medium Density Condo 112) Revenue from local property taxes 415,000 Expenditure to. 349 additional students 507 000 } / _ , 000 State aid revenue contribution 92,000 NET IMPACT (J 1. 4. Mobile Horne (MH) Revenue from local property taxes $I I I" f Cb6 Expenditure to support 7 additional students 4 13000 t 989000 State aid revenue contribution - 98 000 j NET IMPACT 0 next page, please . . . . . . . . . . :��—...-...._._.. _w. �_ .._... __.. .�...__.......____.._..� ...+..ssia..r:dlw�3e.i'ncL•s:.. :i,w»w..,f:�StiTe:i:lr�+r��3Y i MEADOWLARK AIRPORT ZONE CHANGE - FISCAL IMPAcr ANALYSIS June 17, 1980 Page Three For, the single-family and condominium alternatives, the State revenue contribution would require increases above the local property taxes generated b finance the increased student enrollment. Since it generates few students, the mobile home alternative would produce property tax revenue In e--ess of cost and the State old contribution would ttr.,eby decrease. CC:sh Attachment: Letter from 1.111rasystems, Inc. f • i - f } f, i F • f ... ;. was • It 1!'asj�s►'� is SYSTEMS A i(rs[A11C11 2 May 1980 DIVISiON Air. Charles Clark Assistant Planner Department of Planning and Environmental Resources ' P.U. Box 190 Huntington Reach, CA 926+18 Dear Mr. Clark: . r In regard to 'the current study of land uses for Meadowlark Airport and the recent ilanning Camiission meetings on this subject there are several } issues that need to be addressed regarding mobile home park uses, namely: (1) changes in the legisla4ion affecting trailer coach license fees (2) comparative revenues and costs for mobile homes versus other residential land uses (3) assumptions employed in the fiscal impart analyses (4) public service demands fnr mobile homes versus other residential land uses. First, the recent legislative changes that affect mobile I;omes can be summarized as follows: ; (1) A0887 Assemblyman Cage - flaps) Under this bill , a mobile home opener, dealer or manufacturer is allovied to remove the unit's running gear and place it on a permanent foundation, whereupon it will be taxed as real property and placed vn 'the yid valorem tax rolls. In addition, property transfer tax would be collected on the sale of a mobile home _installed on a foundation: system. The state vehicle license fee tax, ` imposed at the rate of 2% of the market value of the vehicle, would be eliminated for mobile hoar-s installed on a permanent found'ition. (2) S01004 (Senator Presley - Riversideti Under this bill, any mobile home sold on or after July 1, 1980, which is installed for occupancy as a residence,, is placed on the secured property roll i and is subject to local property Taxation. In addition, upon initial sale of the mobile home by the retailer, 601, of the sale price of the mobile home, is � deemed to be the gross receipts for the purposes of determining the sales tax (NOTE: the previous basis was 40%). UUMASYSI-EMS, IN(:, 110 max 196110. 2400 MICNELSi}N UMVE 111VINC, CALI MINIA 97/ih IELEX 107AS6 is �.��—�_» .+r�.� ,..... �..w... r.w ..( a4L � � ... .. •�1• .il_r. Y fir. ' :,�j`\Z. r yr.:,noi, .+;.(•p^`I 1. \v es• >e.L,. '.. ,, 1 .. .. ..,• I n . .,,r ,,.,H�wr•'�M t. f�4iY •t 1 1 l ♦ .it�T fir.: Charles Clark , Page Two 2 Play 1980 (3) Sa1140 Senator Beverly - Redondo Beach) This bill specifically,;author.izes financial ins loans u "to 75% of appraised t `i value p6fathe..land '•. mobile,home ark construction p for a term of not more than 3 years, and to make amortized. loans for.-improved parks up to 80% of the 'appraised value and fora term not to exceed 31 years. p Ve,1 the fis61 im act model- Second, results ;for the four r proposedAandus .'alternati es .`it;is iseportant to, recagnize' that, itere,'are,< basic differences 'in terms of the 'number',of dwelling.units,,constructed•arid the carrespondiWpopulation generated'. ►herefore, `it'would be of:jhterost"ta compare these ,alternatives on either,a per capita or per dwelling 'unit' basis. ` Referring to the caiputer results, this comparison is as 'foilrnis� , a Motiiln Stngle Low �14ediW Home Family Oensity Density Park Detached Condos Condon ;; Cash' Flown Oasis =t ,? Tptal .10 YOar $1,481 $2,188 $2,391 ' $2,23D �,'4 Revenue per Capita . s Total•'10-Year 2,920 7.005 41,950 4,348' t Revenue per DU Total ,lO-Yea r ' :r r 2,G03 2,839' 2,615 2,513 Cost per; Capita Total '10•dear 50130 91089 5 413 4',900 Cost per*DU f 3 Basis , .. 1 :► 1 :of: Today's Dollars ,flr°i 1� To t :r Total '104ear 859. L,318 -19466 1,315 ROve6ue'per Capita Total 10-Year, 1',712 4,220 3,033 2564 ' 4 ' Revenue per DU K� s Total' 10-Year.': 19421 10363 1,427 1,372j Co A bier Capi to ,. Total 104ear 2 800 5,U05 2,�354 2P. 675 '. Cost per DU ' These results show that'ryobile' hone parks generally sh'ow,' even though t sc.oewfiat'c ampar6le to ma-dium density condominium developments,, bvier: revenues,,,,, ; and costs on both a per Capita and per dwelling unit basis, as Would.-be expected. f! ^'�•••.•.."••R.IaI,RY'lIOb4.fN:i1.MwNn�w.+aF,+wrwt•ml taxi/3;'rr C/.tile�S••f I•i .+�i i�,�.tiq�1 S.:Y frl.�!{�!'��:FI iZn 4f r tat h"�1�11•�✓11•�•����.�i{JaL1niS.1Y•rP'NI� I v: ' r fir. 'Charles Clark Page Three ' 2 May 19&0 Mobile Single low Medium Home Family Density Density Park Detached. Condos Condos Cash`Flow Oasis Total, 10-Year Police $19558 $ ,531 $1,637 $1,550 Cost per DU Total 0-Year Five 901 1,463 947 89r' Cost per DU f Basis of Taday', .DaIiars , Total 104ear Police 851 1,383 895 847 Cost per DU Total 10-Year Fire 494 803 519 492 i Cost per OU Generally ;sp'eeki�ig, pi�lice'and fire protection-costs on a;per dwelling unit; r basis_,for;mobi,le home parks are comparable to medium density cond;>rninium developments and.are I)oth lower than the corresponding costs for the other residential land"uses, Third; witVr,6gard to the assamot ions.`employed -in the fiscal impact analyses, the basic differences ran be summarized as follows: (1) the:'maldle home,p'�rk. development.,was assumed to have a nd"m;irket Va,lUdi 6f $1�,790,000 plus-.$986,150. i la n improvement s -representing a recreation: facility (2) all streets-,. n.,t he'mobile;fhome park,and the two '.:, . „ condominium developiii6rits;arere; assumed to',be .pri•vate, and thus' he City does� � ;r• not:incur..st`reE�t inaintenttnce ,r cgs is, hr -ever.; for„the single family detached ,�' 2;7t4 f�:et development;alternative it vas assumed that' , of ul�l is streets were constructed ... ed dire�i ous {3 becau,e of the legislation discuss ly, it was,; 3 assumed that: the mobile hones were placed on the secured property tax' roll. Fourth,, ;�n exams nation of. police departinent and ,f ir`e4depa`rZmenti ca l l -,activitas�sharn 'in"Tables'-3r1 and'.3:`a, respectively inFinalRe nrt 'oii`'the Develo�mentan'd`npi�liyati ono . a L�ind':11se:.fiscal Im act.ttetlo v ogy : ur tic C t ' ; fi= Beach 1 rnls that,* e l er t 1hi ts, . ; ; o un t na ton eac�, u PWi t io 0 o Deve o men t, s assumption u �53 single amj Ty tie ing unfts and 3,265 mobile 'nnme units in the City: r - (1) thepoiice call 'rate per sIngle.famiiy dYieiliigi unitf is 440 versus 6081 per mobile.home urii t - thus showi'rig; that.` mobile;horses. place a lesser demand for 'police services ,titan do ,angle family detached units :y 716 ij .wlr� V• Y'-•��LXYwJw.L. uF�.�. w..r..o.rry. a•Yrt.r �r'••.+�� r / fl f Mr. Charles Clark Page Fouts 2 May 0110 } (2) tfje; 'rate of fire incident calls is ,007;per,single family dwelling unit versus .003 per mobile Bone j 3 the`rato of.emer• enc nedical`Assista Ire �.� O � rJ Y/ nce c��lls�.is •; .047�per single, family dwelling unit versus •.050 per f mobile home'unit r (q� .the..total rate of:fire department "cal l activity .is 'r ;. .067 per single "family dwelling unit versus 059 per mobile home unit. f'tho `co user errerated pal'ic Those results are 'consistent Y1it�% mp ge .; ' a and fire cost results discussed above', which `showed considerably higher police-tnd All fire costs for single.family-detached units. .� ` I; ho a the ��eceding.discussidn clarifies the issues brou.ht u 'b �p . p 7 p Y , the Planning Comnisston and:the applicant in the previous'hearings on the :land use'°alternatives for Meadowlark Airport. ' t If,you'hawe any .'giiestions or if vie can he of 'fdkKir assistance, 4• . please do not hesitate to contact us at your cbn enieni ce. Very truly yours, ;•.; a John G:` (tau f Di rector.;-Enej�gy,Systergs', c •Economics & `Environmental Engi neeri ng 'Department JGRJ n ► , r .......--..--._.-...�.,. �...�._._._........--.-�..r.:..:.ar:�w,:,..aww.:. ,►aus.�;Abe.::gel;:+wrC+ie.'iI!.v1.Sn.' �tt*r�- •hunlington beech development services department STA f f EPOR .TO'1 Planning Conanission FROM: Department of Development Services/Planning Division DATES June 17, 1980 SUBJECT: PETITIONS RECEIVED REGARDING ZONE NO. 80-7 The following petitions were received by the Department of Develop- ment Services regarding Zone Change No. 80•-7s PETITION NO. OF SIGNATURE'S STATEMENT ,OF PETITION — 1 91 We 'the undersigned are residents of Hunting ton'Beach._'-We' are opposed to th6 ortctoVarn•, of Meadowlark Air p i mobile-- home park. 2 27 We 'the undnraigned. live within 300 feet of Meadowlark Airport,"property: We are opposed to' converoion of that proporty to a mobile home park. 3 2 Wetha undersigned live within 1/2 mile of Meadowlark Airport. We :are opposed to conversion'"of, the prop- erty to a mobile home park. 4 10 : 5 26 n 6 it We. the undersigned are residents; of,• Huntington;;Beach. , ,.We 'are. opposed to the conversion; of..Meadowlark Airport to a mobile home park. 7 13 We the undersigned live within Mille, of Neadowlark,Airport. 'We are opposed 'to conversion of `the prop- - ' erty to a mobile home park. 8 4 We the undersigned ;absolutelyfi ab'- 3eat to' a request'"by .Art;'Niero 'to port, from esidential` to mobble a' zone chapr a of MeadQwl'ark, Air home park. We the. undersigned ire', quest an R-1 Zoning of the Airport area. . A•FM43A i .- �-•+�•+�-.• •......•.,.� wwsw ay lA!»i-Lni a.,..: iw u..u.o�+wxw4«0.114 7•. r Staff Report/Petit! -au June 17, 1980 Page 2 PETITION NO. OF SIGNATURES STATEMENT OF' PETITION 9 26 We the undei.ii.gned absolutely object to a request-by Art ,Niero to it zone change`of'Meadawlark Airport,'. from ' residential to mobile :some park. We the. undersigned request •an R-1 zoning of the airport area. 10 24 " 1l' 26 " 12 109 We 'the "undersigned aru' reside'ntn .of. Iiuntin6t6n'Beach. We are opposed"'to• the- conversion of Meadowlark Airport to a mobile home park. . 13 6 " 14 4 We�, the. undersigned live with 1/2 ,mile of Meadowlark-_Airport. . We ate. opposed ..to conversion of the property 'to,a mob..+.le home park. 15 25 We, Ithe widerr;ignea live within 300 feet of Meadowlark Airport :property. .-We ,are opposed to conversion of that property ;^ to a mobile home park. nult on- file Deint •of.Developnt er ices , n av b ngon ure 17, 1980adwilbeailableatthapulichar ",. /dC • .F S , >� � .ww"<<f:.rest.1 �.«wr+..war-.....�..�rr.�r.+ FLfL:Cd1i7S.':r.tiilL/flit4'CaFiJtlilFift'.i7iW!r'�'."" ,, ;r1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON ' •%. 1p DEVELOPMENT SERVICI AnirMENT P,O.Box 100 ' Nunlington[leads,CA.02648 11 N11M.111%W V$# Tel: 17141536.5271 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM a Poo .1;75. 00 in FOR ! cos LI �i?�aQ 'i -,,Dick Nerio Date 11nn1 cant Aukhot zed Agent Rene v U Project , 246 *491-1 lumber:--•� Q- 7 Mailing93l+0' Dols�l Avenue, Westminst0'r, Ca]if. Q2G1#3 oepaztmg of origins Address rtjl �l!t->�Ic.---c• - r (714 E393-6521 ,' Other ApplicAtions or Te ep one Permit ,Niumbers: i •same , ' Aroperty llwncr =: ' Mail ng AddFoss/Telephone ']..0 i�ro• ect:`Irifarmatiion (please attach Plot Plan and submit photographs o subject property) l ;ete 'doRcri Lion o' the ro osad I.1 Natur�.� of Pro`"ect.f, ,Give comp. p, i �� 1� P ro ect:�consEruat 'a 450 space'mcblenometh: a .,y01)0 Fquare �... oot; re'crentioii buildi-ng ilicluding a,; 100 .square foot`11 rlana�ers. unit. ' There,, wi11'. be :a stfluming' pool, Thera utiool, plus •the `neceaary ,p pp dmmen ties that goes with an all adult Inc.obilehome park. " All of this situatod in about a 90,000 square foot recreation area. c�aa ;r _: . 1. 2 . 1locati'on- of Vroiect: ress, nearest street intorsectiosts) 5]Is l S'larner Avenue h'.h. corner of Warner Avenue and Roosevelt Street 1:3 Assessor' s Parcel Number: 146=211N1 ' 14 -241-23,24,25, & 2t5 - ''r _``� -�---�w^'�`�'�w�w...aM,t.L.{':L.wur�-r.eetitnrr•..�...�_.�. .._.s_� ��- _._�� , ' - _. _ ......--«�. ..yy+R"rrKTi�.[4✓I�1Y'iCiYll4Aw+wrY!`Ma „ i i , , 14, ' 1.4 What is tho pr000stt zoning on the property? R-1 1. 5 what is the surrounding land use: to the: North Mobilehomne park and residential _ South office build and residential Gast rhurcr� and resjde�} i ;nest pnobil ehome park and residential c P jo i• R : 9ivea com. plet ar;, e 1. 6 If, the , s:o ect s commercial or industrial dos �ription ,of activities and other pertinent information: . S-, I including but not. limited to estimsited, employment per shift r.n�t T. Potential hazardous materials which may be used, eta.';' ' r 1.? If 'the project;'ii; resi'dentiair irsdicat:a `nuinbei, types and r size of•units andassociated ;:' :. Tq, cons`truct-''a k50: space adult only'mobiliihome park with a , •, -quare-`foot» ;r'ecreation' building: including-a ;'1000;faquare ;foot.;;' u 9000; s managers, unit, There;will;be :a swimmi'h�' oal,; t:heraputice' ' oll�;`*:plug ~' all:the neaesary amsneniti,es•'that o' x. g .park. . 'A11 this situated .ink about. 905000ts3quareafaot:�recreaton�l�arc.. . g thQ-pro3eGt is institutional,. �.ndicate the major=function,; ,_ r•: estimated-employment per shift and maxcimum occupancy. ' 10, NIA ;4 K 7~� 19 Proiact land -area (acres) b3 Number of. parking , . 1 k spaces 33 Square feet of building area 9000 Number of 'floor is ' .111 Height oF' tallest structure invrlved 'in -the projectIn ,. 2,. 0 Crivirnni an "tal Setti n`q 2: 1 liicainag� �tnd flood Co iitrnl T ' a) Plelse 'describe hoti,� on-site drainage will be accommodated. - -' Surface-.street drainage 'te previously built drainage systetns, � r2_ ;. - Y�,7Mfair,V r..�.��.....w� .wow..++w.`/w�I•.., �.�. t - ... ''" hf7t�•1-!{Lfw:`LtJ10•{1WY.I'l•{'i��ti►�.61'• , . r i : 2 2 Land 'Vortn n a) Is the site presently graded? no b) ' Indicate the gross cubic ,yards of grading proposed not knoYr1,11OW , the acres of land to pe graded , t-Fa amount: earth to be transported on the sita nut-1="_ DR', and the amount of earth to be transported off the site not know•now c) What will be the maximum ,height and grade of cut or fill' After trading i ngnp et adt? this time 2. 3 Soils a) Type of soils on the subject site? (Submit soils report if available) . Ramona Loam 2.4 Vegetati'on a) Attach� a mau indicating the location, type and size ,of trees located on the site. Indicate below the number, type and size of trees to be ramoved as a result 'of the project. , none 2.5 l•later Quality a) , Does an ortion of ,the project abut' or.,,encroach ion beaches, estuaries, bays,n xidelands , or inland water areas? b) Describe how the , project will effect any body of water. n/a 2.6 Air nuality a) Iollution,,sources and uant�t land t es ofutr is industrial,, ascribe and list;air,', I' P 9 Y yp poll" ants emitted' as a result of the project. n/a 2.7 'Noisy a) Describe,',dny adjacent off-site noise sources (i.e. , air- ; ports, Industry, freeways) . none b) Wh;aP noise will be produced by the project? Ir available, P q . , , � measurement and typical lease 'ivc noise levels in decible measur time distribution when naise will be roduced. Short term during`construction of t ..,. • YPicai construction , equi"pment operation. ._. -3_ + •�M��M••�►M.�.�.•YWwsr.y,r..�•yMA4xJR1�e Mi'•,.,. - , c. ltaw wL11 nurse produced by the project compare with existing noise levels? Lens noise since it will be replacing an airport, 2, 8 Traffic Approximately how much traffic will be generated by the project: (chock one) 0-�50 vehicular trips per day 50 - 250 vehicular trips por day 250 - 560 vehicular trips per day over 500 vehicular trips per day5.2 trips, ►.ar , "it 3.0 Public Services and Facilities 3.1 Water a) Will the project •re7A&a installation or.replacement of ; new water lines? Yes to complete circulating system. b) Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to ` serve the project. 157 gal per coach per day by 450 spaces 70,650 gallons 3.2 Sewer ;. - a) S9i11 the project requir e installation or ep lacement of new sewer lines? no b) Please indicate the approximate amount of sewage generated from the project. 120 gal per coach per day by 450 spaces MAN gallons 3.3 ,Solid Waste � I /a') amount proj is ect YP industrial , describe the t • • e and of solid waste generated by the- project. 4. 0 Sccial Cl P6• ulation Displacement a) Will any residential occupantE be displaced by the project , activities? 7 . ' ' b) Describe briefly .the type of buildings or improvements to be, demolished by the project. 2'single family residence and airport hanges and facilities, —4— ir.-..... ��-.. ..+.�...,......-�.,,�.....+•:.w:u y1 F••.J isri»Yvri+iyM»+1"� .i. u �.0 Pli^_fct:�titt�l f'lanat'as '- 5. 1 lira_ thr-re pmaitttros ii,cluded In the project which may conserve nonrenewable ru"ources (e.g. clactric:ity, 9-is, iratar) ? Please doscribe. Mobilehomes are factory 'built energy efficiency with full insulation. 5.2 Ara there men' included in, the project which would protect oc Qtihanca flara and fauna? Please describe. Providing mor floral on site in tho open apace and on each individual residences. 5.3 Arc tharo measures. proposed in the design of 'the project to reduca noise pollution? Plenze describe. nee 5. 4 Are there•-mensures proposed In the design of the ,project (c,q. iiilrchi.tectural troatmcnt, and landsca in ) which have b{een�n ,coordinated 'with design of the" existing community 'to t ' mite ;vi` ital e nhe >: l ffect? P1caRu describe. ;, . There will be ' a block walence all ar and the development'. :; There•. will be landscaping outsider of the block wall fence along all streets. 5.5 , Are. there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce water pollution? Please describe. There will be ' dareeni.ng device to keep debry out s• � of•drainage system- . , : :• p ,- � .• a ui menu re' ui,red.n3• 5. G Are there measures ro osed which would- reduce air' pollutio List and Air Pollution Control District q p q n/a a.7 Are 'thaxe., moas'uras or facilities; designed into, the project to facilitate resource recovery and;or energf,.',corservation (e.g. ,solar hc,it! ' special insulation, etc. ) ? Please JF describe: , All the `units are :designed to' comply with all stater - standards G, O Alternatives' 5. 1. /',re there ' alternatives_ to the project which may��l suit aro' lesser, adVaise envizonmeittal effect? Please e. I a�n a11 ,Pccc . 3 rilternat'iva':: can .,ti .attncled sheet. All alternative uses are #' T '?tcrc { less offensivethaan present airport. h � ,ccrtif � that the information herein is true' to 1 } . -. c and accurate ,. the best• of my 1:now' foil►o' . Signature Oates filed _5_ r r , : , STANDARD yITIGATING MEASURES 1. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in' at' the to%ation of clothes dryers. 2. Natural gus shall be stubbed in at ,the locations•,of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. to 3. Low volume heads shall be used on all 4. Al 14.Y ..n9 p '#. '� , , wire,' pipe I �[ • 1 buildi soils such as unusable:. lumber ire i e and other shrplus or unusable material, .shall be disposed of at An offsite facility equipped to handle them, 5. The`;structur'es x on the ,s ib ject 'property,? whether attaohed';:or detached, s1tall',be constructed in compliance>with, the; atiate acoustical ;standards set:forfh for. uniis ..that lie within' the !, , 6VCNEL contours,�of';th©ypropertye Evidence' of compliance.: shill':cohifist of.' submittal of''an acoustical ,analy$is-.report, prepared;;under,-;th'e supervision of d person experienced� in the ; field ot• acouetical engineering, with the applicataan for building, permi.t W . All measures,- recommended to mitigate noise I to ;acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of' the project. + 6. If lighting,'is included in';thia parking lot,`,-energy efficient lamps.'shall be used. (e.q • high, pressure :sodium, vapor,, metal halide) . All outside lighting shall be directed''to prevent "Spillage" onto adjacent properties. ,fir ,; ` '.i rh� r t!'•c; r ' 'y ;w .. r•M��Sr+rti \ y- .'' +' �: it ,;i .. 7. A,detailed soils 'analysis `shall be''prepaied;• by`t:a.4egistared soil`s:;engineer.; ;' THisf analysis shall:,inelude on iifihte 'ste'aoil recommendationsbregardingegradingE; chemical'and provipr petailed; ' al and fill"; ro ernes, foundations, 'retaining 'walls, ` streets, and utilliiesId :. oil-t a insulation' is ' .T .. ...yp 8. If f yP to be used, ,a Fire retardant t e 4� shall 'be installed as approved by the Building Department.. '�•.' k :a'•t .1,:•: :M� l�rr�l'.N t• , i�l�.r;�, �1't`j.:t' F � •l ' +:"' •.. }_ it , : ;°g , ing ;geol'ogis�t"�sha•11_be:,engaged to submit ,a;;report ;• ... '-I 9. An en inegr. •. ro ! ,.,.._, 4 f .,, . J,,,' for �tliesub�ectgpropertyrfaAll$ctruct:uresnwithinethis ,develop- ement +' meat shall .be can:3tructed din •compliance wiith .the -factors as :indicated';by the geologist a report:- Calculations'<for footings. ana struct�iiVm' embers to wiihstaiid anticipated kl r � 1 g-factors shall be submitted .to the City for review' p to iors the issuance of Building permits. --)Llo. A plan for silt control for, all storm runoff from th_ e;property �I during 'construction 'and during initial operation of the 'pro�ect shall, be, gubmi tied' to the California Regional Water; Quility. Control Board stiiff for their 'review prior to the issuance of grading permits. ; • q pent or facilities :which may Information on. a ui m ' A genexate `r�ir pollutants-srall be submitt:ea-`to' the South' Coast; 'Ai.r.:Quality Management District:' staff for their.`reView prior, 'to .the.' issuance of a certificate of Occupan,y for any use within the building. .___...^• ... ....•+.+v..a.......•,�..,_,-sn....n. •w...w,-.-.-...+..�+.•�r+.rrifiblliawri:,NF+.r•�.w;L«{�iMM.uw•.,+�"'•'.'' 10 Minutes, H,H. PIL-sing Commission April 15, 1980 Page 3 80-�/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-17 Z014E CHANGE NO. Annlinnnf� _RSI%k mar SA_ To permit a` change of zone fiom R1 (how Density Residential) to MH ("6bilehome) on .property located at the northeast corner of Roosevelt Street and Warner Avenue, Staff planner Savoy 8ellavia informedd' th Comm ission that a request has been received from •the a licant for a;,60-da con tinuance of' thie zone, change request ;';. lie ;also stated that the staff has received petitions coniaining .approximately, 250 sig natures of neaMby residents in opposition to the change of zone. The public hearing. was opened. Dick Nerio addressed the meeting`to explain that his request for a aontinuance ,ie,'to permit him further time to study the fiscal analysis which was conducted For the project. one Collins,. , 6271 Newbury, Drive, spoke in, favor of. tho, zone ;J r: change, saying that' the.:mobilehome use proposed will be a safe and attractive use of the property, as opposed to .the present airport occupying the land. H. .F. Bori$man, 16262 Hirdie-Lane; ''spako in favor of: the zone i Chang©, sayiilg:`that the. contribution the. project 'would make to- l ward '611eviating the housing-'shortage' should outweigh a4y * r yossible negative effect on City revenues, Harney Cohen, i021 Roosevelt Lane'",, spoke against the zone changer favoring retention' of the present Rl zoning on the ,site. ` Harbara Foote; :X6871' Canyon -Lane, opposed the MH zoning.". ,and r ked that any change,.`in the use not diminish the quality of as life for residents already 'in the 'area. Eu eve Carruthers 5091 Pearce Drive, submitted-anot containin almos - �., 9 y. � her petition r g, t`' l0U naives in opposition to the' request and x asking that the Rl -zoning be retained. j Bob -McMullan ex resident, 6uggested, .that`anoth'er way to dev, �f pappli c teydevelopbnpropertyahold,� therebypermitrting .the anto his ' satisfy. the objections' of. other residentsp and also add to the housing' stook in the ` city Roberta Smith, 16826 Barracuda .Lane; spoke, in ;favor. of ratain- is of: landmark value; to, the property at the airport e" existin use of' 'the.' communitysaying • thand urging careful con sideration of its disposition. Frank MrT.a, , landowner` in the vicinity, spoke in;favor of" the s j�. rezone to a, mobilehome designation, 'noting that with proper -3- 4-15-80 - P. C. Minutes, H.D. Plaisning Commission April 15, 1980 Page 5 Chairman eaxil directed staff to readvertise this proposed . - zone change, even though it has been continued to a date certain, to assure. that all interested parties will be aware of this rescheduled hearing date. The commission established the date of April 29, 19801 fora r . study session to be''held on the zone change. The meeting will begin at 7s00 p.m. in one of the meeting rooms. The Commission recessed at 8:35 and reconvened at 6:55 p.m. .;t TENTATIVE TRACT.NO. 10910/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 'NO. 80-4/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-11 ..Applicant-: Prisco N.V.--(Orin G. Berge, Agent) �To permit a two-parcel division of land for the,purpose of con- structing 113 condominium dwelling. units': and appurtenant , amani- ties on :property+ located on the south side of Garfield 'Avanue approximately . 300 fs:et east of Beach Boulevard. Savo Bellavia.:informed the.Cominiss3ion that, the'.a5 1;cant; ' y, r pP Pets. reviabd hi's plan to dine.,up;.,-the entryway directly,�across;'fkom i Va11ey��Circle• acros3s, Garfield;' under .this new ,layout,'-;the':plan '' LS,.now,only one percent :3hoirt_ in common open° gpace. Seiitions� have also been prepared ani &`are on.'display ahowi ng 35»foot 'sett backs from the-south ind ;east:'property lines and 'a drainage swale'next to the exis tinq .'block wall,. , r Mr.;:Hell.avia --also;noted-that- three~:new conditions' ars ,,reeonnended Requirement that a''des3r f he fen } fo _ along ,Garfiald Avenue sha11`be ,submitgn ted,, includi y, ng celevation and materials j ' '2) ' Waterproofing,'shall..be . provided on',`the'.-wal1 _ ! along ;the�.south and 'east property,* ines, ,to prevent seepage, into adjacent ltl properties; and 3) The private drives eha11 te , identified and signed as fire lanes per Fire Department ,require- mentz. :f The, pubblis h eaaring was opened. Ed 'Davis, representing the applicanti, addresaed the Commis9aion in support of:-his project and:indicated concurrence .with%"the- t suggested ;conditions: of approval and the amendments submitted � by staff. l I19101 Colchester, spoke in opposition, t"'O th+e project, citing lntruaion into the privacy of existing homed. ; Larry Currant . 8131 Wadebridge Circle, oppoeed" the' project be cause of 16is of privacy, effect on drainage, and:impaata on ' property .values and traffic volume on Garfield Avenue. -�5- 4-15-80 - P.C. t; �...._.._.—�_�.---•�—W —«r.,Mom:.-r u,..,.. .,.._...-..�....... ...obcw'iJ.isi:'Ys,...1+}4r�{,r..n.....r, .ri-..�`'t�t,i;;hn:^�ti•'i`r,. .. . ... .. . .,.- ,..,.. ....�.�..••.►a,+. r• .t` . ., .;ri •r't!' ft.,- .,. ',wry�..a. . . a.. •.� MINUTES HUNTINGTON\'DEACH PLANVI�.G COMMISSION Cmacil. Chambers - civic Canter 1000 44ain Street Huntington Beach, California TUE�, JUNE 17, 1980 7:00 "PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Winch ell, ' Kenefick;• Porter, Baxil, Green, Bhuer.• (7:30) COMMISSIgNERS ABSENT: None CONSENT'AGENDAs . ON'MOTION BY,WINCHELI, ,AND`SECOND BYE- KENUFICK' TH8a:CONSENT CONSISTING;Op.,:,.THE :MINUTES. OF THE,REGULAR'MEETING �OP `JUNE' 3,,- 198 0, AND'CONFORMAr10E WITH GENERAL PLAN NO. 80-9, WAS APPROVED BY THE -FOLLOWING ",VOTES > AYE6. -Winchelly". Kenefick, Porter, Bazil, Greer ''NOES:., Nane ABSENT: Bauer .. AASTAIN z None ORAL' COMMUNI(' TIONS• is None ' REGULAR AGENDA •STF::MSt ZONE CHF.NGE NO.-.'80-7/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-Z7 '(Corit.' from 4 45-8Q) Asaplicant i nick' 'Nerio To.'parmLt; a.,change'; of zone .from Rl `(Low Density; Residential.) to " ` MH :,(Mobilehome) -District on;:E4 ,acres of. property; located on `thm . north east:•corner of Paosevalt Street and Warner AVenu2. r Staff briefly reviewed the'requested ' zone change. i ,The public hearing was 'reopened. Dick~jNerio� submitted a 'let'ter `to the Commission describing: t}ie +histor J ofhthe propertyraPd the economic'change hich haver.' ' .affected , e, exi.stn •° ir ort on the site. , Mr. Nerto :'outlined the benefits;::which he: feels would accrue to :the ;City, �Lf 'tii,r�', zo change ;is ;implemented and questioned' the `negative fiscal: impact as outlined in the report'"submitted to the Conmission-. _:y ....,,.. ,,rX:.,..•Sci. ...�. ,�„s...�..iwr,.'r.ww...�....►+Y.«oW:VM..w4.lT.LILYtYL:( r`TSa 1 r M -nutes, He Planninc'-.'-.3mmissiort June 17, 1980 Page 2 Tito following other persons also addressed the Commission in support of the change of zonings Pat James, representing Goldenwest Mobile-- home,Manufacturing; Jean Cowan, nearby resident; Norman Bush, ownei of other rao'bilehome parks; Elvin Randall; Art Nerio; Ed Chadowski, representing Hur.tington-by--the--Sea Homeowners' A- sociation; Lillian Myketf,k, mobilehome resident; Tom'' Livengood; Edna Mier; Charles Dirks- mier; :Betty. Imamena; and Mike Rodgers, representing senior citizens. The speakers addressed the desirability of providing low- and moderate- cost housing _in the, Cifiy, the, provision of jobs and additional tax . base;'`and .the possxble ' impac;t of the projected mobilehome park`oi n.'sur- rounding area's, which they felt would not result in any lowering. of adjacent property values. The accuracy of the fiscal impact report was ,'al£o brought into question, and Chuck Clark of the City staff ex- plained how the figures containEd in. that report in regard to school financing, police and fire protection, and City rovenues had been arrived at. Torn Mr. . Dick Neric and Livenga Mr. ' Dick � od also submitted lists of signatures of residents in support r.,- the proposed zone change. tni.3sion is . ,. Chris -Leo' nard" 230 Elmira Street, Huntington Beach, spoke- to the Com favor of retainingMeadowlark Airport on the property. There beingno other persons to address the Commission, the public hearing war closed. Commi"ssion discusrion .ensued. Commissioner Porter reviewe3 with ' the s applicant;what the, improved value ,of the•developed 'site wouid be, noting',that it 'i:; necessary to determine within a =easanable,_range', what;'the .=, provei,ents will cost in order to determine the - financihi effe' r. upon the Ci.ty revenue/expenditure figures. After discussion 'J among" staff', applicant, and the Commission, Chuck Clark agreed; that , he staff's estimate-.is probably on the low sia.- tµt that the differential between staff s figures and Mr. NerloIs are not significartt,in terms of property taxes which can be expected to be generated from the project. 1 Commissioner Kenefick indicated her feeling that th3 s mai7: be the'' City's 1' fast opportunity to obtain such a large block of affordable hour;ng; she also noted; however, that she did not tupporh the "adults only" aspect.of:'the proposal. ,I Commissioner;_Bauer su ested that there were: er h cps, other al'• ... .. , , gg ,. � p, ternatives for 'affordable: housing which would be consistent with the:;existing, : ! g g P ng housing } R1'.zonin He' also discussed the desirability of •rocridi for other, segments of the community besides the elderly, 'the f;seal impacts of the project, and soil conditions on the site. r Bazil cited revious Cit Counci'1 direc Commi'ssione p y lion .for seeking to, sdd mobilehome spaces to the City's housing inventory:: He also objected the the adult designation, and suggested that perhaps a por- tion of any park could be designated for family occupy .ton. Commissioner Winchell pointed out that approval would effect+.ively isolate' an already developed Rl area, and that she could not Favor, .� approval of the entire 64 acres for MH zoning. ff' -2- 6-17-80 - P.C. ..+r�.+.r+..�.�-�--.... �__..... ... .-.� .._ ,.. ...-. . __.._....,....mow,,,..�.......-. �...�.-..�...w�,,a.,r..hw..rw .«rrwYiR:7i6.4:7�.�5'/M7. ��'�{�y��i►1+ Miziutes, 11.9. PILS ing Commission ' June 17, 1900 Page 3 Extensive discussion between staff and the project applicant followed, taking into consideration new legislation affecting operation of mobilehome parks and Mr. Nerio's specific intentions for the operation of his project. Commissioner Porter expressed the opinion that if the zoning is granted it should be desig- nated as Qualified AUi, to allow requirements for setbacks, , landscaping, and buffering to be imposed. A motibia" was made by Commissioner Bauer that staff be directed �- to' return 'to the Commission at an early date with a.proposal incorporating- features of mobi.lehome zoning in: the 64 acres as f. well' as any, other. z,,lternatives which may be consistent with t; good planning 'practice, and that Zone Change Vo. 80--7 be -contin- ued to allow the above action to be taken. �s norunission• was informed by stuff and, legal counsel that it would z ' eed the` concur.: ence of the applicant 'for any continuance because ' of the mandatory 'pro cussing date of the application. A recess , was called 'at 8%55 p.m. to permit Mr. Nerio to make a decision on a continuance'. Thmeeting 'was .reconvened at 9 s 10 p.m. Mr. Dick Nerio informed . the 'Commission that he would-request a decision of some sort from the Commission' at this meeting. t' r The motion to continue was declared out of order by the Chairman. t , PossiblF re uiremen" q to to be included in any "(�" zoning designs-,-. tior► and, the parliamentary methods of imposing suc}� a de' ' were 'reviewed. ! •fir ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PORTER NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO,`' 60-17 WAS ADOPTED BY THE. FOLLOWING VOTE: •' ':g} AYL•St P,inehell Kenefick Porter Ha ! , zil, Greer NOBS:• Bauer . c 7P.BSCNT. , None , i ' "'ABSTAIN: 'None tit"•�: ON 140TION,3Y ;PORTER AND- S C ' 5 ND:BY KENEFICK ZONE .CHANGE No.,.80-7 WAS. APPROVED WITH• A Q TI•I(QUALIFIEb) PREFIX WI , TIDE FOLLOWING r CONDITIONS; BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: ; COtJDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR "Q" ((2UALIFIED)MH ZONING: .1 Special attention shall . be paid 'to the 'setbacks and buffering 1 along arterial highways bordering tti property. S r 1.. r • 2. fe erimemeanlacoact� to thefsolive shall •'/ p p than twenty (20) ' et fro y property be 'provided. t . around any boundary of the property adjacent to residential properties. AYES: Kenefick, Porter, Bazil, Greer t' f NOES:" Winchell, Bauer ABSENTS None - L ABSTAIN: None -3- 6-17-80 P.C. ---�.«...........r ........r...�..,..�......�...w+......�+a.x.i.aa��..a,......... 'i»,t3'w�iiilX��'µ�0"".. t.. • r t 'Y OM Bona Aymms W$STMINSM& CALIKORNIA A Now Emnoanrte REAITOR'r Pr- Coat (714) 893-0M1 i June 16, 1980 } 1 The Planning Cosetiasion Robert D.7 Bazill ChAdMaa The City Hall 2000 Main Street, a Runtington Beach, l'.aliiornis 92649 Dear Plaoaiag Comoaission: You: vi.11 find attached our response to the material presented inI M2 public hearing of April 15, 1950 and the study session of.ApriV 29 y report csrna,of the 1980.. 2n. the enclosed r ort we haws addressed the con laanin aLi f and tba public as they have been � rear. xp ed publicly. . P S f D F 'wa want' everyone to know that we intend to keep the proparty,,- We like this proper and have no lane except p posal o *property p p the cisrrent ro r ' contLi usd operation as an airport. Should the currant requested 'r in e;ong be granted. the Board"of Zoning Adju'stwnt will be charged frith the responsibility of author= a use pezmit. We will na)ie every effort to cooperate with the requiimesits of that process. ^i Cordially yours, E' For the Nerio Family DYN: rr Dick Y. Nerio f • . ALMM ARK_REZOWM(;-PF291 O.TION The background and historical.guneais of 2S8adowlarkAirport.is an important . cowideration. is the current proceadinge. Tha.Nario_.fami1y Itas Ov"d this property vines. 1952. U.•lue not always bean ptafitabla-in-its present use as au ainart. There* Nava•-bean -tin" -that at have,had our_doubts as to our social obati _af wintalaing.a,n.airport. . We cantiau�sd. to open;` it ligon through food and bad Ziuws. Tow it is tine.fon.a:chw4e«. .Wa 1wa rejected cash.o ffam fraw high quality developers. We did. this.bowma.va:,like fria property sad axe sincerely interested iu stain:.-to: it that it is develope& in.a socially raap"Sibla WAY.that will also make.sound.econoaic.memo. Na.imm of no better property to invest: ia. . It va didr wa.would accept one aE tha.open offers to`purchase out property, aod.go on to .the nest situation. ` In assessing the potentiaL.use. for our ].aa3_wa have carefully inveetiRatei the alternatives. During tha.course.of. this iuveatigation, the.Mobila BMW-- Park bicama'tha foremost_of.all ,constwative. ideas is our. considerations. Ia { fact, we have.&heady_ daveloped.one.aaA. am oparating iC. ' We have operated t it for threw ears.and would. ha son he to show !t to an . !nter"ced a;, y PPY y party, . It: 'in located at 9350 Bolsa.Avanus in Wastnim ter. . Parbsps.numbers of"the Cossiacion would be.interested_in.seeing out: oparati 'a. l� We are very pleased.that.car. concem for:.the residents of bolsa.Varda.Park ! has resulted in only one increase.in. space.rent--and. that was wo and one-half years after the Park was openid. It was a alai al .increase, ton Paz-Ant oaly under current inflation pressure: ....__.._w ....,....._....,.:..,•�... .».,:..:.... w+l:',:..-:..�..n..•..:�.:rw.�z:c�.,�. -s-r:�:l_,,,:o;,;; ..•�':rl/.:3++su+�n -r....,........,.�.......,.._. :.may... .ti,., ..L. �ril.r.`.r+ 2 - n Oui Psrk•is c1ean,..vs1]._1andarapa4 AUd-A maar 110=1isfi^t,ary..development to the City of Weatminecar+ It.ia..aa•allarnativa.hauaing.developmant that is one aaewr. to.the.curiant.h+ousiagr erisiA.... In, cwr..Bolsa..Qarda Park we are able.-toa.aait> 1n jm ay*ra8eL:apsd r mt At.•$225 par south, Although the city w rvey-shova:that five~-year-cl&p-zka.hsva-apaca.ranta.-from $250-$280 per, »aZLth,.va.and aot:.expa tenriag.t.2ita.au aelvaa. The.Meedoalaric'Park rill create a Population.deaatty..of.11ALperaons: par-acre* ba,;an.saargy-efficiaat land use amd_arsam. a• lsht .-draia.0n~.aity sarvicss. the- CritalM or AiRrov . al of I� �,.�..�.� . Pad .� zou , t Our proposed.development. rcta:t.:h. q yvar I 4-The foi awing :omaq..ot.critaria.•po ata-thLa.our in details A. RSLATXWSRIP:'OF ZROPOSBD_M.-PA YL W-..M-SUWUIDM LArb US ES •`` 1 Ott SQL •M / t-!.a_*d�aea��a_an�ndatia8 IiH Park. 2) Oa'.the.8/L aide-yroi7' W is.`ad,acent-u. s.mrdiuec done ty, con-•* dostsii�s,.develogmsat. ' _ 3) on-the. N/E.914a.•Al;-centti to ,a_cl-d=k parking`lot•. R. + 4), Ktch.iara.front_faaraga.3a dav�ted_ta.thsaa y -raaa than•tha' balsam- hir .3a..S L dawlopsent „� B. SOIL C+al1DI?14115 ThisPlitarisr haa:hiatori.ea14 b,aa incur as s►. it is rrovea that eraa.mrbi��t horns; _ . ring' : shQvld be.iitstlatad:ca. o bus' ebart has a rapacity:that:ww toterata.a�-b"W.aCad.... No'davaingrsat rabou].d bs t .done 'oa. a flood.:plaia;: .0ut.davalo*wt Az..ait iat,,L on Rasoni Loan which ia.`.i.recagaisati7.y. atdila joi1. .`Theza`.ia m.£leod daagar at M y the airport. sits.' Thr•.noil. 'is .goad fo>r.�Lev�7�opinetst; ' •. ., ,. . .' ^'. ......r..+..'o1�fy��./..wa. •:ll: Ni..�iL.t.1:r�FAQ!'••�' ../lf`�:•A4tMw.l►:Ljdyt'�#Q►�;`►�'M7w7hUfP �. - • C. ACC+38B •TQ..THE.AREA-TO BE ZONED meadowlark Aizpart Am_lacata&ea.sad has_ access.ta.darner Avenue) a maJor.arteriaL;.in..additiou,..there.L accsaa.an.Aeil. Avenue, another arterial street, ` � t 1 D. M ll= SIZE - The critaria_ia.& tan..(10) acre *�+._.mmum aisa.devel'ipat. Our sixty- four_acras_.net ,useable.is.in.ezcsss. of. tha •t!rtommw.br a substantial' .~ fifty-four_tM) acres. :.: . , ':;. •.SOCIAL.BP.4PONS�ILITY - • , ',. Vw,Mobil L.Rmaa ZarX l&battezfor tha•City. of Euntingtr Bleach thaw the airport. The-Ilml ead n mabar.Alf rasidaats, a"m •ed.b the airport is negligible_Asa.coop, ad,to. thi_nu%be=.of citizuu to be served by ,tba.Kabile Bow Park. 'Thd' cons tructiom:oE:the Park:4UL.craata:'�obs',.booting sal.a o! g roc. •r sale&.tax_aad.=' st.cartataly.�id_ia:helptnr^the c3t� six t th re airauata. the. tat >>ousing_eleoe ti_ Most Ho ilai• Rome q Park..•reaifleats-Uve-bighar.tban-avira iarrntioaazq_ iaooii. Thin is proven to gonerati` a..highan.aahsa_taic'in becaaas a hi re . discratioaa=y_ = ea.mora to spend. . xhe fiacal�3spaat bq..Rsmtingtany:ah�w�cb.'v .e�: ceosity be voice,,,, t fatox ble. rhan..hea_beaa.'idvancad ia..lhs. Study,-..!..The Stwdy 'usid. - `r as 'e+tre valueao f . 1. Land Value $1;7W O00 20' haprovemmaL 946 1.50 ` 3. •Total-Value,. $2 p 736,150 ��._�.,_r,,.,,,,.a:,►�'�Ir`r--i:.✓-i:-:isL1a:�Iu+•� N.L.-:t.:Asl:.n..•r.r+.+r+.w.r.3��.SAtOK:�+���i:+ia'r:K.��/a �, 1 • - 4 - t, Out co=anattva.eat1mafa• •of costa..for-tha.davalopment of the Moblia Rom Park.aza_46,000,00(L.axe1ua4va aL land.. There is a rather strihi:a _differanca.4m-patina a.mf.. valua:and real world f �Pute Amthaz. "m af.vary_aipeifiraat.lwp&xa. Ikka-Usul, picture Is the sales_tax.iacoae.frooLths, a"aL-tha ari gins L coach ei. If only•6 _��.,•,.t,r.� {„ atl" ton-Baach.the.salles.tax rev am to Ir 1 7 the cU7_Mau1&-br_$25L'g100• In sost.pasU_thara.IAL an rnaual turn- •iI . over of. ten40). percent. In.the:park. ' Tha nzat city:saXee_ for_the:initimL yaazaod.sucaeadin� 'y�iaan i� pine .. rau7 d_total $758,700, 1 ' Chia s+�� Eras.the_pso�atead.a�eeu�stlaCed•'].ois o# $995,000. theu�rrnLd'.ba_a.•ahi�:xs followrs . . L�i� I, "Cal- efLeit. :$ 995 000' xOaYeaz.Ci�...Pm acted. Lass ecc•�•,� .3a].oa Rsveaus::;.�: 758,700, Nevi rieficit. ... 236 {� Annwlissd_ r lro7eE s IIa eooatdaratio�baa bees siaderor AE 8 funds_ fl ; nhtch.whit. W4 ti•crsata •,:� in�ssa:.to tha` attT. M•' r ' �.lt1DLAL �'Q�i'1►I��Yi'II�A(.T ANAL?$I8 the. FiecaL_I:pact�AaaLyaL_,iad£cata.tfiait HuriCir►gtoa Bea will aasuen a "no Sscrntlt"'.poettste daei t 'lo a s 4 axLuais',a itna sd s rs,this what ust3fi- thr ..fr: y .dei2opmmL. O .a cony-W -bass re 'is acitioai surplus •of.: ` c�ins�ia]�.zaatsigt'.-faduatzie.L_Zion isig ala a ahosta8e of-housing }_. i-•�r.r...!. ......n.+rsw0:nxwL'44:;,;i,gj:i�-:...:•«.,I.Ital ::iMutti Kskits�� Su:wt-tS:4iZzwi+`S 11�'3y�1�s'yf.•w[ �d+' oT+ �. • 1 i Si n .. 5 .. toning.. (Cobar_Associatas 5"tudy-r.Januazyt_1980; Huntiogtam-Reach Elemeut 3.1.7.5)• Specific CMnta t 1. The_"total" revenues_should_noL:je co*ared_vith"totall' coat■. Some rswmusa era.clearly.dayslopmrnt..fesm,_ar.iapact:o�d.conauticn charges, 71taae should.lel. or .0thar.reva=ea..XQ%S., pxoparty...tal Yalu tsup alusar—abacges)-should-ba..eviluated-agai.net:tha .am%wJL_cnt of pre- '. vidiug services. S 2. There are-soea.aactara.ua3gw_.ta,this--eyps, uf.davalop wi t Nbich will i affect aavenua. estimatal For axample, •Sa1ae TaY-Beveaue � - tfobila..$oaas_. .,Astume,t:. 1.5 Paxgotsa/�� .� Panuly Iacoma.r . $ 8,0001Yr Single. Family;.. 2.75'Persona/, Q� } Paa►1].yc lstcov e_M $15,000/Yr In this.case.:p, ,r salas_aas..r venua IrouLtha.mobila hoar Is $1445; Odle, .the sama;. vaute.I=-tht_jcLn*l lL1 .twit $ . the aaut:aad papulaation.pac"dvalliag;�sn1t.wens.absnaed to,xt o and `four Fargo",.respactivelp,.the.revenues.wind.chmge.aa $10 8ki sod �946 (87x) ! �• ;td .41-r6lrr -'rtl•rl r_x off y--tal.the.�xRflei1 bWA'jha"ta For 17�� �= lel . ' mow...... rn..... .• ' i - •,t Mobile Emu Assmat:.: _ 450-Ufallnit ..� 081° Sate/Unit 73 O81,16i ii -alice',Calls" 779L-11AtW.af R"Idential Acres $8.99W,Rolice Cost -simile Fgmilyt 288 Unite .444'Cal+ Rate/Unit. .. �..rw....a...�.•..n........,.w.a..�...wwa.�tl►r. rW:�:.'.....n=,:,,'1.,.:J'..:r.•..'«:i.A.1a`.�.�"u.Zn �f:.i:K'k:C•:'.Y:siC\t{I.i %1iti lTlC��tJ:?li'i�OII •1 " r r - 6 - n TharefoTat Tolica.Protaction, Kobila Hama +� 450 z .081 it 730085 x .778 t $8.99M ■ ¢ 36498.74 Tolica Protact:ioa, Single racily ■ 288 x .44 ;r 730085 s .778 x $8.99M $12,128.85 (347X) This roaparaa -vith cost .for,police..protactiom of.$U9342 for the sobiLe hoes altRrAativa aad..$Z1,791 (1042) for-tie miss7le-las►i1y alterwive_vhaa only per..capita: coots.axe.,oou' sidersd. . Gw+ari�t Y xo• s , 1. Tttit f1m �talystl-&4&no t appear.,ta..3no]Iwo.JAB:8,:di itributi.Wa of, • property tax*. (It is Uncl aY.) 2, The"cost of.:adainistratiom_* 1ud4d ,1a•1cJ *V-AW�:soalr ie'tauds to discount Y■st{. able-a o�omies. of:acalc.aruLthua. J.ates the coat of aaa�"davalop�►ent; " R$SPONS.- TO CONCERNS PRMQUSLY. E UvSSBD { �1�.....��.......�.�1�..�....`�.........M.rlt•Y. <' is the men �-ei ht aara_-OL.out owmar ty 8 Y chip♦: ifte have., vatched_a. rather eisad` a ; we patt4iui develop.. Prom.say-ptaoasag._,viAq Urn dia..pmpo 14. use `lie 3 ct_with_thm ,. 33=• MM landuaa..pettss,of .tha."Jozity of ` affactad !, r0 rhea Zh ia..p Pa isSaB. �satsakas=.concrete:. IC:awst: be..#lii'able to aacariodata the use .of &'comimml tm. .Tht .SanaraL plan.dasipataa.lost density iiiilw , , dratiaZ fot�Chis.p�operty. ti.le,home have vVizLearmad.a.metaaric.:riae_in:gw�Lt t sisd.aaaep tsnca. Iia loo8ar is:the. motiiliheaar�.Cia-roofed.eyesarn..-It.boa .convantianA roof { s7etems with non-raf1v_tiva..aurfsca .awd_i&-plenasnt.Co the' aye.. The mobile { hme, b"-cow 'into its 'own.ma..a.truly_ 4-1 .viable.hausiisg:.alter:sativi; �r.:t-• e 1:y hh / ��s..w"••. ,f ., 1r��v+f (�: L ,r4:.nje'r+.'.�rlrrt .! l .rMIL�JN�all` iSi - r , •_ r r r �7- What adverse affect will..tha Mobile Soma P4ri_bays.nn:ju=w,mdias properties? Thera will.ba.lass poLluti.m from fussaa,_aoisa g and traffic than in:its present;.usa. The question as -to affect•on.neigh1wrsng-walls and septic tanks is shoot becamm.:ths:drainage. wad athar_.cowidaratIox that Mould aflact thew will be open space consideratiew,. ttu task.side-yard-satback-is- qis'&: In =bile-boas parks that in in curve" V-L standandso tm- addi elan-vs.pzxapoaa:to:•have the sweat back yard.sstbuk.aatbacka wherw.the par; Abl! {—?a fakiy_zastdaaeaa. 'As f • tt,.� teas ., : . • to the aatcatn. base.asptssasd.'abMt.tha US= td a.ad�aeent ptrop- :: apnea,:aa.would.3 4ka to-suiggast_tbat -w.wm&:this.wI-U-JAAL diicretionary applitaCion.these.==a=&-eaa.he-daaltsdth aud.Addxassad..through the-uss. parait. psocases effort vill..ba.spareci_tn.davaLop:a_park that..will.tohance-the, city. 7.'ha• Igo effo ' I need_for..housiag_in_I3untavgton_. "ch is crItical Thar& IS_no-truly low-cost` , f� bowing In-t hhe.:city.. ?hit_soniaprchange-WILL acaowdatei._people by waking_ some af.fordabl&housing available. .As .to appreelAttoa.ixt_uows hov6s; in .t comparable.'pa.Tka..thaF: are.•appreelatL4 sti.s:Mka .rats x tlh conv ant ioaal housing. In.aces ssitanrsa:..a$raairar..zats. Tha depraaiatiat of mobile hoses! is'act. taking.place Iu.-va1L• locat-ed.p�r�s a=�t, a_ttsie trill be. r Oitr. dewiara:.ta...davelnn...tha.ohile.Bade..Pent=sK=_=sult_ia.creating more than �. 460"am:taiita_af.housing.. Thssa_•uaite vc11 be-occupied.by._people who ltin- ' torically.gaaetate-mare_sal w ta:.ravznue_for_`.the.city;wino.create• lass fire and polica:problems than_the.-avaraga:.convead6nal..devalopmant:;--'a davelopmaac that Will'.aawrata'fro- incomfin.tha, fo.mo£ park_feas.'($291,000.00)''that'r-iti , •f ba uya�d.but-:spariuglp. bp.the occupants. , { City naming ordinances emi I _for-a..rarxeatiaa .and- open. area.of 200 square I £ant' par'space. Thin -racreation.area.wilL.includa.e. swimming pool, a ----.-........•.M,.....,...,•wr......:tir>M....► J hL:..�..,.. 1., .µri....... ....n..:. :.•..••{(ii.w':Yd'a,y ...W'.K•I' ty� ,„ ~ �i. i l •, it 'i•n �yr:yd,��� .i► therapeutic pool, sma.nssaa,.taania_.at..bi11-Coll rts.plus_fsmatioaal Sam sad Tee ceatioael..rooms. :The.tataL area.davo ta&to. .tld& facility k-L1Z be over Mi squgr&feet).. 'Thin.Park.rill•.and the quality of life for aaay._olt 2 aa.hy_seaavi .a curreat.I ARM cbmt_is-.coaaidsred to' bAva d ae;et3sn►aapaat.:ml.tlu�µtalit�► of We, y , r, :3 , •.fit; '..rw'� "_r +1.r1iaA'/w.IrRreM.w..r.sA1J.Tb .-.. i ! ,,.., �., ��,.•,7 t+' / �.-I f E'^„^y 11 JFk:i f" 4lFr�bLJ4/:,i :, ..ltitiu.nb.ib.u.),•{.cA �t+ii+ �4ii'i Nufy�.�ftsaad/M` �; . - '�a /^41•' � r t., • • , J 1 City of Huntington Beach P.O. SOX Ito CALIFORNIA IMN OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 4, 1980 Mr. R�ilph*D. Ricks 5362.'O1d Pirate Lane. Huntingtan Beach,' CA 92647 7he,Clty Council of the City of Huitington Beach 'et its July 21 , 1980 *sting continutdJ the public hearing on.your appeal 'relative to Zone Case 80-7 to the August 18, 1980 Council meeting. If you have any questions' please contact this office, Al V M.'' Wentworth City Clerk AMi:cd i .. ... •asaw t:.1'As i r�..�.:y:.i+--"'.t..v+►.atw.�•'.wa..r.+. ....+.r-+.c Ly,2'F+."'�4i�+ :'��rn.t^71iM t •V:t City' of Huntington Beach P.O. SOX i9c CAUIG A UM �1 4` 0,i14�., OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK - August .4, 1980 Mr. 'Dick Norio 9340 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 The.City'Council of thP'City,;'of Huntington Beach at its regWar. Mi eeting held July 21, 19B0 continued-the public hearing relative to Zone Case 80-7 to the August 18, 1980 Council meeting. If you +have Any questions please contact this office. Al i ci+m,,M.' Wentworth City Clerk AMW.cd R ......r...•w•,.+vnw►...fr.nr]Mw«,.w.r'-.V....w..f1 ....�rw�G�"1.'r�.:isw•V+iJl.aJra.+f..•..Mt.Y-:.rl.'dJLt4..7r lY.ew!...iYM/ .J�1�wY?7�'��J•� i i ' MOT Of dN M!I NOTICE —sC 10•7— smuo IRPf1" Af-EAL O AUOW tRPOHT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public laming will be AteM NOTICE I3 HEREBY Of VEN 001 a public hearing will be 14W by the City tbunall of the City of Huntington Beach,In the by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,in the Council Chambw of the Civir.Cartier,Huntington Seteh,at the n Council Chamber of the Civic Cantor,Huntirgton Beech,at the t hones d 7t33O p.nn.,or as won thersfter as possible on Wroft inur of 7:30 pin"or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday � the Z1s1 day of July,Ia90 for tbu purpose of c naldrIn f tfM the Z let day at July,14.^.O for flee purpose of considering the i action of the,Planning Commission an Juno 17,1960 appratrkill adlen of the Planning Commission an June 17,1990 opprovfns Zones Caw No.O0.7,a nguest to rezone approxhnately 94 aurae Zone Case No.804,a request:w rasone apprae(mately E4 acres of property Iowtad an the north,eide of WrnerAvs.,appretti• � of property loceto•1 an the north side of Warner Avn„approtti• + xrtely 1000 ft.fast of the osrrterlbte of Was Cbia Street hem mainly 1000 ft.east at the ccntrl"art of Balsa Chits Street f rorn R•1 Row Dmeity Residential to MH(Mobile Home District). i R•1 f Low Density Residential to..H Wakilo Harms Dioulet). Tha ldOnlnp Commission recomrntttded that a"0"Ous lifisd The 111anni g Commission tecommended that a"t]"Qualilied ots"lostfan&NIX to attached to MH Zone. Ctisafiation Suffix be attached to MH Zone. The City Council will alert be considering an appeal of the Miss The City Council will also be considering an appal of the action taken by the►lenning Commission on Jute 17.1080 rmardin taken by tho Planning Commission an June 17,19t50 rogerdift f Zone Coe Ho.1W7. Zone Case No.80 7.- The Costncll grill also be considering NegeUvs Dodaratbn 9*17 M The Count l will alto be oonslder(rq Negative Declarationt10./7 M , conjunction with acid Zone Cant and Appeal. conjunction with Maid Zone Casa and Appeal. A level description If an file in it*0opartn!ent of Owtioptseat A legal dtsarlirdon Is on file In the Oepartr+wnt of Devetopmertt Alf 4strosted`persons are invited to attend said hearing All ce 9Nt(aw.':x rp and arrprA/i, All Interested persons an Ignited to attend aW hearing sea erpreas 1 their opinions fat or against said Zone Case and Appeal thsrlsei. l their opinions for or against raid Zone Casa one Ppaal thersa. Further bsfarmutbn m y be obtained from the Office of the City Further Informstbn nosy be obtained from the Otflen a/the city Clerk.1000 Akin Street,Wintiamon Beath.California 6334/ Clark,20DO Main Sukat,Huntington Beach.California 0264t 17141 63"227. 1714)6.118.6227. R>•ted: July7,10tl0' Dated: Julv7.1980 ` t ;^ + CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY OR HUNTINGTON BEACH + By:ALICIA M.WLNTINGRTH Byt ALICIA M.WENTWORTH is City Clerk City Clark Pub.Juh;:A,19B0 Pub.JUIy 10,1980 Hum.Beath Ind. Hunt.Bich Ind. ..NOTICE OF PUBLIC HAIIINO," NOTICE OFPLtBLIC • z xr. � HEAI11N0 �... +"t3sfr:.,?� .;. � � •. ••`'A•� n`, '•,,� APPEAL ZC 80.7—MEADOWLAiiK AIiIPORT'r. yAy,PPEAL ,—tZy�C SO 7 -MEAbOWLARKAiRPORT :. �iJ ~n4.Y ' � 5 ^' '�R�. ..,"�'y�. `'• . �F'1'N'tSt�R'}"ft�ii���,, e J '��T 'k M ^'t .. NOTiCE IS HEREBY GIVEN IMte a pubic hearing w111 be held NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that's puhi;i lrartrq wii lea hell ' by thii City.Council of the City Huntington Bach,in the by tho City Ciiiwf of the City Huillingtcn t3naah In the u ndl,Chin*irol the'04c:Cenl4i Huntington Baaoh,et the Cowseil Chaiithecot the Weis dntr,Huntington Beaoh,`at Nre hour of Co the 21 t Jul rr'rt s"Wthusifter is possible on 1N.rnday hoar of 7:30 p.A �r its wan thersafIwas poseiblit on.9ondey act on of ih+u Y• P i 'silion o/,the;Planning Commissionp f •. r+ttd a lha la•+n.O st diY 1980 for the arpmiee of.tansidarl the t tits 21it tiaY of Ju! 11180 tar the to lore o!co Plannin0 Cammleaion on June 17.1980 appraring np on Juts 17,1>i80 s orksg Zone tasf N6.907,ataquast its mmnerpproximately6lacres Iona Gee No.dO7.a rapunA to nzotteappaximately54soft of fr�opesty loaataf on the-north side al Wamer Ave.,approxf• M proiY,lorsrtad en Ilse north ede of Warner Ave;;spprnit+� mitely 100011.east of lbo'conterline of Boise Chip Sheet from ! rentely 10001t wit of the co nterlinmi ct Bolts Chits Street from R-1(i.cv+i Dauhy Roiddsntisl to MH(Mabtb Home District). R-1,f Low Dining Rosidenttsl to MH(Mobilo Home District). ' The Ptanntni Gtmnttssion rocoadnstided that a"0"Owllfled The F16Mr4 Commission recomoxatded that a"C"Ouallr'ed Classification Suffix ba attachad to MH Zone. CI&WfIcition Suffiti be asached to MH Zone. ' Tie City Council will also bit eonsklatino an appeal of the action The C(iY Cb+undl will also be considering au appal of the action takes bji tha Planning Commission on June 17,199t1 ragarding taken by the Planning Commission on June 17.1980 regarding Zon3 Case No:00.7. 80.7 pee4reti�n ti0-1l T'hi Coundt w0l also be canskleri N ettre laaeleratian SO.171n l 7h�Coundllwlll alto lea coneidrdrse Negative 7 In A IMI diowiption is on Ida in he Department of bevebpineat A legal etaiptbrtaIs n life fn the Dope, tnent of Dovdop J y ! M Appeal. All(ntnrestsd parse '.- -., . •:' : . .•� }r m sit tnvhrid to attend wed hearing and express Ali interartzl pennons are invited to attend sold ISearinf and express their opinions for or against said Zone Case and Appeal thersto. their opinlons for or against sr'd Zone C+w and Appal therate. Further information may be obta(nsd from the Office of the City Pttr/her information guy if abalew fra:r the Office of the City y Clark,2000 Mein Street,Huntington Beach,California 92648 Clark,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California 0260 1714)636.11M (7141 630.6227. Oatodt AlIV 7,1980 Oalsdi July 7.1980 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGT7N BEACH ' By:ALICIA I.1.WENTWORTH By:ALICIA M.WENi WORTH City Clerk City Clerk "4 Pub.July 10,1B8U Pub..uly 10,1990 Hunt.Beach Ind. Hurst.Beach Ind. u h . r , �Y �H����„'�f. , tr' ;,.��-, Ai., �,t;. ' r:�Jr�M..� ..,' �..► �,.ry.:M i;•n�, .. .- ✓f .7j Y, .Y S ~1'jt 3J j��' � l .J� 'VMn� �, I4 r ��i� r "� ,( ! P ?' t � 'ir~� � AA l d1 >v+ 5 r7� k i KY' � ! ti .eL• r �."�'h,�t�wyr��,l'� G.4rI'•'� �9, l��i: �•'ca�'�� iC.� ��'�t .i., �, •—,'Sl�� 5�� � �� # i •[ �('} •1KF , `''fit !Y Publish _ July 10, 19M NOTICE OF PUGLIC HEARING ARFEAL - N W--7 LARK AIRPORT NOTICE IS HEREIN GIVEN that a public hearing will be hold 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 l�ndav_ the 21 st _ day of July . 19 Sol "i for the purpose of considering the action of the Planning Coamission on June 17,, 15.00 a approving Zone Case No. 80-7, a request to rezone approximately 64 acres of proporty located on the north side of Warner Ave., approximately 1000 ft. east of the centerline ' of Bolsa Chica Street frea R-1 (Low Density Residential to MH (liobile Nome Distrilit). lba Planning Cooaaission recommended that a ",Q" Qualified Classification Suffix � be attached to MH zone. The City Council will also he considerine an appeal of the action taken by the Planning Coamission on June 17, 19SO regarding Zone Casa No. 80-7. The Council will also be considering Negative Declaration 80-17 in conjunction with said Zone Case and Appeal . A legal description is on file in the Department of Dev0opaaent Services All interested persons are invited :o attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Zone Case and &RC-a1 tharldto Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. 20M Main Street, Huntington beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 { " DATED July T, 1980 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia N. Wentwerth City Clerk 146-233-67 146-241-19 id llim p Rauc wn L Carl Wieland j U-12 GaWAng Cirale SC 110-7 5074 Foaroe Street ! lunti:xitm Head%, teaw Numb 17, 1980 W Wto tlat:•bvtcn be►1ch, Calif 92C49 92649 14(r -m 8 1�8+'��ttez 1Qtsllal-20 K FWJAW JJ j 5162 �m A sl eet,�e 9t,11 0b�a]um cirala St>.S4 x"nw Stet � 5162 G'slx]ilagC,'iz�;tlm 1&mti1*-1%U Beads, oalif 9ting-tan Le'xb' C014 M2649 Ungto 1 Brach, Call i 92649 i j 146-233-60 146•241-41 Ibnald E fts imn*Lta cbmuity hbtcz' (b. 5152 Calding CizvIn Bcilm Chkat mtor cD. 2062 Dwdnew ( tuber Drives 1AMdzgbm &ulah, Cauf p•.W Mum 103 4105 92649 tl Mft Beach, Calif 907412 mmin e, Cali! 92715 �DudamtA Hod M n Y 5142 Gald Circle .9340 M3 sa Avwm Sol i+MG,• AVt* M tluitingtaa ice, Calif p todut�r, (W 4 9 v 7 °° La=h, Cali! 92649 ! 146-23/3�-71 1,86-211-1+4 146-241-•46 51Vid a rce fC 3 6831 kDooie wit Id 16451` Bmrwt&W a Weld 5191 Fat�ne �tre . lxmttn#m Bash, Calif 92�it� l� Bl Uh, Calif 92b4mton, . CM14 92649 i j 146=233-72 Ie6-241-15 : .146-241-47 i 7tx" G Bi•lva umtingl= Associates Mmigae G OmM 16892 Gram Stract V.O. BOX 609S 16992 Ootutaey lam ! L�tingtan tlaact4 mUf fsvve Jy Hill Calif MmUndut Beach, Cet2i! 92649 92649 146-231-73 146-M-16 146-241-48 John Gotafean Ridbud V Osim wwey A &isaley l 5161'Pearce Street 2200 Vedc .. 1491 1A55 rises Avrcxm 11m ea 92649�� Butch" G� 92ti60 �, Cti..1i-i 9Palvi 2262��o CaEi! 146-233-74 U6-M-17 Art M flame 1CM9 M 11ortm Wit: ! 9341,Ba?.tia AVaCm 3Q231 ( restvitm imam 16882 Cbadt Lvw ! wiib wt mr, caw Uutitybon Pe rah, Calif Huntington Deadh, Calif 92683 A2646 92649 146-233-76" '� 3i-241-18 Ottt: Raymond C IsDeais Aunt 0 9kller IMB Mach LAae 5121''tstatllioa Cixo1L ,90E1 Peosys ®trust �s'xt3s�gtan 8�ewch, Calif + tluntinom ouch, mut �' � (au! 92649 92649 92W ' �i Ww. �•. ....,, .�. ...-." ..f..r.r...fl'i1..MN-..•..In..w...w..4'...• .. .w M.w.•w�+w�.w� o=upmt 16842 I�cae 3C 060-7 53611 Om1wd Drive t#mtI"jbm awfic Cal I Much 174, 138D (JJ) !like Hdsid=jLw Botch, Calif 92649 92649 16695� Mach M Law563;i Drive 5351 t land DciVa HuatitPgb� siolecb, CaufHn-.r IL" Atwch, Calif 9Hmtiretors Bead, .AMI 92649 2649 5471 rNwI i�d Drive owusug ' iluntingbon 8aerch, L'all.�:• �Maud Drive 5341 ovarycad tbriw 92649 boo k�aab, Cali! 9Z64llmtir� gaan Kam, �lif 5465 Ouoact hmd Drive 54 OwO=Vma Laid Drive 5 AGGt lmd ]eve umti.nljbm as -he Ca1.if 12 UROM �, Cali! ---iragton Doodho Calm 92649 I� t Dt O=Tmt J 5461 Overland L�d'Yea 5431:Caadrland larivre $321 O�+eor]�M Drive ntingbm Beach, Ealif A�tlirgb�aKi , Calif 8u6tingtan Boad�, Calif � 92649 9?.649 92649 5455 nt 54 Ovedrlamd Drive 5M bland Drive 5455 nubm ZA d4 Calif t �iagtm Beacbo Calf � Caif li 9ZG49 � 92649 92649 i O..,� i 54�51 overland iodnd Drive5391 O�r� Drive sm 0claod Drive am� ��' � 94UmIggiru-I 8w�ob� �xli � aeaah4 Cal 3! { 92649 i ' S381 amclfpd Drive 5305 Owarlard Ltlw 5445 ovewl3td iarivid m tiagtm Domchp Call D"C h', Cal i! rmtitgban Bumcbe, Calif 92649 92649 92649 5371 Ovaorlavd Drive 5301 Ouadrlaodl Drive , 5441 Oo m D& *,, Clamt Ca]i! ixm . � it9ci Heac#�, Caslif 92649 92649 a,(.' d al h o ......�__..-._._. +..+•f«ty...R4R.-��M+r..�._/MrrY.W+l y�t�w+•�•...-._... .. .. w.—.��...-" - � w..w _.. .. . . .v.nrr.+•r.�...wwt»w:u:,'.i4�MtiJ.ta_:YRi1rjA{iir}uti►'C.�?, 16851 Canyon Land 180•-7 =tm-nyon IAW 2649 HmUn#m Heath, Calif luz+ch 17, L900 (JH) Mike 92649 gtan Breath, if 92649 9 Lam 1bQ 95�Cusynn av�8 1 16��'W� m° BlNch, l i I f � Beach Calif jAm Dosch, call Ca �� 92(49 92649 92649 t O=UPsnt 16865 Canyon Lmr0=31 L6931 LaurA 16942 Cec n law lb-%stinclttn Dow%. C:ala'if H ;fiLngtcn Hasch, Calif 9�:JS 9Q�4l1 92649 1168711CCmm Land , L6991 Ow400 Lane IL6932 CmWm I" Nu7tl rxjbm 009ah, M I i a'J mmti xr bcn :, Cal 1 92649 9Q648 92649 U=Want O=Wmt 16875 (wom Lane Lae x6912 Canym Line tiuintir gtm Dowh, C:ulif Wntl:4b n PAWCho Calig RaaUngton Bukah, Calif 92649 92649 .92649 { : 1ed81 ca%m Lane 16 CMUM Lmae .16942 cmlym Zme 1�, 1bmtbxjtcn Beach, Cdif 8utitmoxjw-m doh, Calif I4tiintjs�ao BrAcho Calif , `. 92649 92649 92649 i" 168�91­CarVm Lams IJIM C' %M Latta 16669 Mt Lime lhntitrfi= Beach, Call! joutioutm Beaeb, Calif Mon B"cho.Cal i 92649 92649 92649 ' ant. L Ovarr "t 16901;CwWm Lana . 1". 81 cm3tm Law 16302 Cmaw Lane lkmtf ig booth, Calif Wittit�lugtan Belem, Calif lkin� 1Bmmcho CaW 92640 92649 92649 , Octv,�ant: OOD t: owu pant 16911'Cow Ions 16972 Cwjm Lwo 16062 Carom Lame i Itim . oocii BoacbI. OL f Hs"itit~•Beath, Cali B� Health, Cbli, y2b+l9 92649 92649 . ram.ow -.-- -....._..�__. �... . .. ., _, ... .....�......ewe-•�_`....._---•...�...�.a.�..►,K�:ewi..hkwOiKiGLhf:'L:rrCCsR�',F:%. .r'S?:+•�1+• 1 1 Lbaupan 5322 Oveell) rland DKiv© SC #80-7 545511 DDCnt = native ►funtim1ton Duch, Calif March 17, 1980 PH) Hike Hunt.irgtm Dewh, Calif 92649 92649 5392 Dorumm Drive 53U swam Derive 5461 Bcnanza Dative 11 ntingt m bawh, Calif ° Beach, Cr Lit amtirgtm B-Adi, Calif 96249 92649 92649 f 2wt 81 a Drive 546 8okz Driven za o 0111 .h CA1iltr,'Angbp1 8eadbo C414 amtu tn Bead , C alif 42649 9 92649 2649 t 5362 Lumnzt Drive 5391 Bo JM= Derive 5862 Bohm= Drive lkUIU ng m B5Kh, Calif Mmtingbaa bmah, Calif amt bigtm Beech, M14 92649 92649 92649 5352 Bonanza Drive 539L B=a= Drive 5442 Bo m= Derive lhmtingtoii Dwd4 Ccuf- • lmstiaytoc Beach, Calif mrtu*m Bmch, Ct w 92649 92649 92649 I 5342 Bonin -Arive SM am== Drive 543Z Bbnmm Drive ; 'lea U ngtctl march, Calif Anrh, Cal ii lkmtlangt m Beach, Calif 92649 92649 92649 ti00c4mt Ooannt ' , 5332 Bonatva Drive 5421 eta Wve 5422 Bcmmma Wive lkmtingto n rvx*u cm]I Moti�tu fah, Calif Hitriti bon Beach, Calif Y 92649 ., 92649 .92(A9 l' 5331:JmattazDrive - 54U D . t mmxa Drive 5412 BCnenza'strive IlunW)gt in Deakch, r.1ii IJ=tin#m Dmh, Calif "t3- om aftc z, Cali! 1' 92649 92649 92649 1 ,` t .. 5341-BwrAnza'Drivw 5441.t aiu=&' Dirive 50 I D1arand Uadve Uunti.ngton,Beach., cif mmungt�an Besch,Calif Btaothiragtxan Beady, Calif ► t` 92649 92649 926'9 �Cl nt s4 1 Dia M wive aC NO-716942 Aadm* CL-cle Huntington Beach, Calif !lazr9� 17, Y980 (J11) Mika Iluntington Calif 92649 92649 5441 DIwxxvl Drive liQi1, Ato CitcLe 16 Aedto* Circla Ilunti:xjtcn Beech, Cali! >;ilraiSBgt,o I Bich, Cali! Mptingtan 8errtchI Calif 92649 92i49 92649 54451 Diamad DCLVG �qra� 16922 Iiadtudc Circle ihmtingtan Aeacki, Cali! Ilun".. ngt m Park, CO].i,! 92649 92649 wcuuaat 5461 DL&nxd Drive .24 Agate cjxdw 1692111. FadxtK* CLrale 1IM Bands, all , .tiatlgban Huatir�gbca He+agtt, Calif Htattitx2trCat Hooch 92649 92649 92649 1690o�,Wnt aicnfi4nt t Agate Cin" 169U Aedwrk Circle Agate Cir�Le 1b931- 92649 gbm ,, Calif 92��� # �f 9Z��ban BrAwh, Calif , Oocupant !' OOw> wt 16542-Agate Cirul+a 16941 Aactcocic Linde r` lion ep bg Calif 9264 � Be � Haaatz, cbll! 92649 Owupant 16952 Agate c3raLe 16972 IadL=* Circle 16 519 Citacla , !ha><tingt,an . tlabif w B ech" Cali! Hursting�n Beach Calif 92649 92649 92649 Oxu�xs<ut Oaa>Qent t 16rd2 Agate Cimhe . 1696Z Ardtiod� Ciz+ale 1 hadrWA Cirau' l6intingban eescb, Calif NuDtingtrm Haeah, Calif Rmtingt on Dot+rrch, Cal 4 92649 92649 92649 -16972 t t A Aft Cirri 16952 Ardredk Ciro?.a 16971 Aedro* Circle ; 1k ntangtron Bmcb, CLUf Autins"= Bich, all Hwtingt on Beerc�, C81if 92649 92649 92649 i M4,at, aof qpt� .e o ; < < t ' f 163-p4'�-23 163-121-08 :''xd)`; (:Jt N0. 80-7 rfturp 17 �ti �10 413 lb3d Arch 17, 1900 ";vie f ihMUngbon Taeach, CA. 92647 f:WIAIr1y hills, CA, 90210 �)a 163-042-44 263-121-10 1 r3-041-01 ToM Subhax wl Seta. Cruikcahm*j Jr:. Vr„rn sport" 17042 Greentxwe Lum 9383 Wilshire Blvd. I M42 NaWquist Law tAIntingtm nowh, Oat. 92649 Since 1040 .IIzntingbo i lisech p Ch. 92649 aw terly 1111.1s, CA. QD211 163-042-25 163-121-11 lS3-047-04 ado Waring Haxvay cSmtmm awim C 30t rw 17032 arawAm Lane 6050 Wanur Memo 170U Nowqudet: Fa f3xitiogbo" Eaech, Ca. 92649 Matingbon I%ech, CA. 92647 flundngbon Bomb,. CA. 92649 163-042-05 163-042-26 163-121-,U 112rlan Robe MUMS HMLAZ . Jehn 716hank 17031 Nm gdst: Luxss 170P Gmm ova Lana ,. P.a. Boat 1657 iluntiatgtx�e Ssade, Ch. 42649 �d B�, CA. 92649 thntirY/baa tied, CA. 92647 163-121-23 1 2-0 163--046-01 t>eaBeach,1 5 III".Qts 600 m ri Drive 70 1 > iea L 520 "thaw A Seal Boodh, CA.. 90740 Niu,tingttn , Cm. 92549 Heect�, Ch. 92649 l 263-042-15 163 d6-�02 { David Ooak Albert, Ab dao i' 163-1.21-2i 5331"1v1 Ccmrr+do tb'iVe 17041 Groontoo o Lake '< Yb3osBo it»ta liva H�c#e, Ch. 92649 huattogtCo Boaght Ch. 92647 � 512; Dm"r Avernus !, umitingtaon Beach, CA. 92649 163-046-03 163r-l21-24 nw'ic Arnsld Beglund _ BG mS.D :; . 5311 far.... Bm5ti�B"chl Ch. 92647 Sweet Beach,, Ch. 90742 fit �, cA. W49 j 163-042-16. 163-121-05 ; 163-121-41 y r tlarig.i3oorvt l rods WAtangit� at al �roLd. dAh ;.aS321•.P.1 DoraBa St. 627 N. 29th St2mot 5143 W nar Aviiim tlur tf,7gbon Bosch,, CA. 92649 Mmtobrlla, CA. 90640 ii�ntirxlton smacho Cif. 92649 i 163-042-17 163-121-07 163-LU-47. tnvid t vve;er S1 'r 1, rx corn. Sae�ior-81itfla D o]opar�nt 5311 El Dccreks,) pdvs 5092 Narn�uc`Avrneo 2120 > miu fat 1' lfundngtnn Bmac#i; *Ca. 92649 Mm Bwofi, CA. 92649 Stdto'270 Hunusigttm Bosch, Ca. 92648 01po /V%A� CLOV:it ar4o:e 10 ..,W,,.,�r, .,..... .... _ ........•........:..,.�:...;:...��--•-- ..._...�..�.�+Zaa.�u.A'..:tra.rn....:...�.MYtt..s,.. I,bCU�k3lll: 16972 Dili CS.rde 2C i0o-7 OwItington li o di, CaW Nuvh 17, 1900 010 Mike 92640 16962 tUhi CLrdo 169U Rubi C Tale t�Aut4tbxjtm , Cetlit tingtoet Bvwhf Cali! cant 9 92649 00 U952 Iubi Casale 1fj9i1 Rkbi Circle l itm nom Beech, Celit DAUDOM Hesch, Ca' 92649 9a9 j ' l 16942 14 bpi Circle 16971 Rtdbi Cirale `� IttntiMton Bmob,, Cali! . MmU gton flub, Call.!' 92649 92649 ! 16993 kbi imla OWmti if fU=ti%ftm aerrh, Calif 16922 ough Tama !! U649 Btsitiegt m Beech, Calif 92649 16922 A& Uccle X6 h Ise l u ltingtm caiit Eeec�, �2GO' 9m4ttrqbon > , 16921' Rubi. Ci=ln:. 1690Z Ooaah low ihxntington BAerh, Cv.i! 92649 Zahtion Haech, Cali.! 92619 . Oti , T69Cq31=; Mt1bL Ci:r..lo 1.6$9Z Ccr�i'Irnr ax*ln# � Ba ah, Cali! w` ' y'1649 �ti�gtaon i4wwch, Caaaf , 92649 , 16941'Ruth,Circle 1�untirybo�� Haaah, Calif ' . 92649 ' •• -� Kl.r.►....tea:v •.•:v�:.1..a...'ioa:uu►W arW4./c�tiVCLfi:iY�i.�JG.+'•L"N-t 14 7,cm climm w. 60-7 tuck 17, 1980 'Imm 2 153-121-48 •i3rc amt St. onp 7.4001 muirlanda Blvd. .qmm 3G3 1di 'It=l CAo 92630 153-122-01 ^outhasn Region 16551 eXOOMVAft 'buntain Va2Ly, CA. 92708 ' 163-122-02 !"7 oo¢parrstica . 16551 biwadowt 8t. rbtmtaln vauoy, Ch. 927" 163-122-04 ' 17062 PA t er Hl&fs C rc2s Il mtinytm Be-At, M. 92649 'iG3-122=05 • ��_d ffetb •9 7 G 8 llvwnida l�so t`rtu�raat CR. 90630 153-422=06 17rj 06 Uw.Us Lim Ilundru tsai fovdh, CA. 92649 163-i z-07 rranla.in Huoasl7a ' .i9ti6 1���5 few cbsta Mesa, CA. 92626 4 r � � .r is 14 6-233-35 146-233-59 Own-tf K ay.'da Afars Hcmdating 16672 Ek= Clrcic t�at�c� 177 1980 iJty) M13c0 5152 Stallion Circle l MnW7jtm Beadle Calif .92649 t ingtan Ds.ac hp Calif 146-233-38 146-233-46 146-233-60 Sur "m Prgwactias Oo. Louis A M=t mn Mr Dept of Vets Affairs of 16691 ltawrwlt XMIS S"L Fewco et"at Qtate of Ca13Adrnl a 1&z*Jxsgtoa Uwho Calif awti gtm DraM, Calif PMY K Rrrts 92649 926t9 5142 5tall,icn tax cle Jaa3� �ice!yell s264� Do�ocf, Cat"Boa ! u c ram 5TSI ;t iaa s:rert 1668A Rt Una co ovox �,Bomb, calif � 1lunti."om Duch, 061U 92649 9uo 1 146-233-40 1i6-233-53 146-233-61 D9V14 L Pickett j1 it Gamt Timt)y 5 Dealt i 16691 FaoMIveit L IS . 21372 ALqutta Circle 5141 GaIding Circle lkatingtzam Ilor ,' Cali! lk-d >sOWh, Wf Hx*lrgboa Dcadi, Calif 92649 l28i6 92649 146-233-41 14.6-233-54 146-233-62 '(2wwber J aralm JAb s Amdtr J008FtdVG esrbol4 1670L Peoaa m t Um U71 1 tA W029 P.O. BOX 1561 wt�gbm pis, WA �� tncs amen, Mlif mmting� m roach, Calllf 92649 146T233-42 146-233-5.5 146-233-63 !mot Q a Maw DIMM Richad I L Mob= 16721 Rveovelt L+M 30793 9mset Drive 526109304ng Cizu1a I)mttm;;m Dash, calif Fadlank, cal Wntingtm 90116h, Ca11f 91ti#9 92373 92649 146-233-43 146-233-56 146-233-64 E*em A Cat:rOthe 0 Pk=Xit A Gim H ,art J Parkins r Wa lie rw str6 t 5182 Btall&n Circle 5171 09 (Ircle w6tingtcm Haach, O014 Mmido#,ioQ. 8aacrh, Cr I �n Bards, Ca W 92649 92649 •92649 146433-44 - 146-233-57 146-23345 ' t*imr'w Putbw 7iiY J 8pusawt i4MIM D Derim?I j 5091 Pwwm street 5272 9tallim Circle 5101 Grading circle � 11 nitirmgtan , ad4 MKItIngtm Dra*, call "tivjb D Bradt, C WUf ' 92649 9649 92649 146-233-45, 146-233-58 144--233-66 1: Mtn' xpGO Cbmrlos L 13+ csfoond I11134* 9' Eowar$ t7t06aL==Wncluf 52.6s'etaLlian C cLIm reldi1luitixig Assam Beach, Ca1ii IImtin0='Bradt, Calif i 92649 92649 92649 r . . .Yw.�;'!.".1.:�.[:'^�„_..!�............n.:�..•I.►• . ..JP• �""'r`_. �'�'.+'^"`.�M+•�.o..raa.l.W/h�.i�+ U17i�'.� 10-'u-17 L46-221--08 IbM Malvin A Say 5402 Old piraabe Iaaa tC 98Cr-7 3261 Dni'd Taro lltntbx t w 13e -97, Calif' MLsah 170 198n, (.711) Savoy Loe Almitos, C.nlif 92649 90720 146-201-18 146-211-M 146-221-09 Raymond Piairdi Hods N „ c RiCIVuld M Doom 1blvin A Jay /952 CMriss� t� ' � 9'.�f4 1Rila�t Y•auu�a 11mtingtm eawh, Cali! uh s"rAusts rl call 5200 bail Avoc w 92649 ; Hunt3�s�ban Tis+ach, Calif 9.1649 146-201-20 145-221-20 Fred ya►xw--- d Jr p4 tts Psvaidinq aWop DdjLt B Ala 5404 Cdd Pirate Xiae at 00 Cbxdb of Jean 0=lot; P.O. tM 5986 9k1�14h.�lg= E%Wb, CALit ON:S_ - Dal*. 926 7 C f ,; 146-201 21 *" 'IA)**MY lit v l�rar�n Dept of Vetm Affe►�ira oL' H UtahOtl 1713Y-A Had= Bluff Circle i of .Cal iturnia � �dt, LbW.C hwtyn 926495372 Md Pirat e Um 146-221-37 ' �►. lam, C,>Kllt 34i-7J1-03 lot' 14 Was 92649 of uralmw 7008 Islead Village ari-10 rcng 5�+ F� awxu�e 03� •� =if N* 406 14 6-201--22- qd� } gi# CJ 14rIl a 38 1ra,Lpt� D Ridua 92b2b t�ril �t�l.l 5362 Old Pirate Lane7291.�31o�a� Wive• ,"�- jhmtbvtan Beach, Calif Calif ; 92649 92647 �. 146 z01-Z3 146-2]1-04 146-233-28 J8TA98 P l�isiaalC Raminl C flu* ; 16705 Gralm St wt 1022 Clmhm 88tx+aerb 26691 Gras c1=1e : r 1Amfiingbot� A"Cb" ftw Ho*jngbw Btamck wif i,hgbwl Beach, Calif 1 92646 92649 92649 ; 145-201-27 146-2X1-+0 1467233729 Jdm F, Haldon Jr •hart sta].]r�cht , id it is'Jat 7,l.ivail 16521'tiakkz 5tnot U602 GCMj) 6troet 16692 dsaa Circle lltuitlDgbcxi Fach, C .if HtxtisaghOs 8wcb, Calif 92649 92649 92646 Cal I 14b�-lUl�-43 146211-11 145=233»30 t1,F Qoadei C m� Vic.B: eibe�C Gbxald D Floyd 17931 hla h Blvd.SLdbe G 17471"etch Blvd 1G682'c Girds Cal I Ilunticxytoa awab, (lalif 'JWaUrgbcci DaK ts, Cali h' 92647 92647 02646 • 6� /yt�E, GEC pc ot u4a �.... '__•�:.,__'_..._._ .�-�__,.. ......�. ...�w.+.......•.•....�� ----- ' yia�...n'..rsas rr N(.4'i'::M C11wL"G.IZ1»1lti�yw{,.�;ti'sPC'i�lY.. .146-055-12 146-201.04 Mary L Miles CAUW a btu r 5361 Bail, Avenue 7C IW7 16701 Czah= Street lk=tingtM Dea►cho Calif Hwch 17, ..990 (JIQ Savvy 92614t9�bm 3, Calif 92649 I*&dfifixM 146r-056-01 146-062-71 146-201-06 Lloyd A Braw )AWA fl Qatar Hibextt.. D Apyard 5282 Calients Crive 5392 cauanbc Drive 5451 oW Pirate Lim MmUngton Dosch, Cali t muLquin fk+3c.JI, cal., Bmtirwjtun acac i, Calif 92649 92649 92649 46-056-02 U6-062022 146-201-07 WVitl We 000stmM C kbetear D C Darren 5272 Calianta Drive 5382 p'l.irote Drive old Pirate IAne ffunitirrytat= fiewhj Calif Ibmt*tm Bw*h, Caw M"Ifugum Duch, Cali! 92649 9Q649 92649 J.95-056-03 U6-%2-23 146-?01-Qt� Mold H H rghb*M p4bwt B Rubola � �� 5252 Caltaat�s Drive 5381 mil AVUM ti U 014 P Beach, Calif y2 law ut fim �dh, Wit � Htach. Cali 9?.549 146-056-04 14f-062-24 146-201-09 1by 0 lhbetta ;U"MM G Iftu Owl= H Tinkler 5251 fish Avas ae 5391 hef t. AVMM 5415 OW Piratim lane+ ' HmtJxq = Bamch, C 91lrf r"Aing on Dom, Wif Ha*IngtM Daac tj Call 92649 92649 14"56-05 146-42-25 146-?Ol-lU Dt'3M ti st w= AUwt P Opindlur Arth= C Musen Jr J-471 Hail Munn 5401 MU AVMAO 5401,Bld Pirate In=. timr3ngtan 9eash, Cali. Calif Hmtirvtm % h, Ca1U 92649 92649 92649 146-056--N 146-062 26 146-20L-IL Vanc;� T Ewtt fX7 d AioChure Y ftutafetl+esz 541-hi Mail Avww Mu toil Avww 5391 Cl]d Pirate Ima IwRtLrytcm BMch, Cali.# mmanoa Fiuwhr cmar- ffU*jftgtM . caeu 92649 9.3649 92649 146-062-19• 146-201-14 Dart D SAtaw Gi 7 of 0antingt= Beach MAW A Grahae 5412 C l i m" Drr„ve foaar3 C PJOU4 1Ajnt: xjtoq Desch, cou 5452 Old Pir to Lane 92649 fl►ntizv3ton nmuh$ Call t 92649 Martin L Wffmn Arl H1U-02 :s4 y 1 Att I�1N ,402 iCal cu 0 Streat 19mti� tm BeacthCalf 1 amwMM�� Hmtirgtca BaNche Calif y1649 92649 92649 .._..__..�...._.�.....� _._..__..... ._._—..-�.w.......,r.....�».r«�..�.__...-��..�...«.a.�++.....rti.�sw.r.vtw.:w::.t.T;..alu+�.war.w.+r."+.'^ . u Oic3. torW Ok, 9C #80-7 LxtVid rR 1 ack 9340 00184 Avmm Hmch 14, L480 (OH) Samoy 5342 Calied te LrIw WaoWnstcr, (nilf MnLington Beach , Calif 92683 92649 14tr-043-30 146-043-38 146-055-04 1 dwal L Maroon in Day P Wax Dept of Vets Affairs cf ,,142 Catienta Ucive tpsrb=wvw aml Estate State of Calif fluntiMbm Wadi, OmUf 7973. TAIbezt A%%%= Jana N AgaLeoff 92649 fjx*4n%bm Owrch, Cali! 92647 5332 Caliento Drive i46-ft43-31 145-Or13•-39 bled x L& M XWer Rb"xd W" Hmtingwn Beach, Calif !i192 WJante 1] L70- 5311 HdI AVwm 9264a ImItIngt-n Demofi, Cali A Mach, Call -----r-- y2�{9 mug M fi-MrM 146-043-40 146•055-05 harry A NidW1 p ,ben R Arthm Ties � D 5202 LYO 5211-Vall'At OM 5= Calient+e Drive Iluntington b achi Call f 8 ire BAwch, Cellif Basch, (Alit 92619 pug 92649 146-M3-33 L16r$43 146-055-M Rirhattd E MmLio , Viatcc Ni11a Lola L Wlywri U515 Inure, Most Drive 52U Hai Aver 5302 C Uemhe urine GbxUn city, Cali axtk-9b a Bomb, Cgli.f MmUngtan Barth, Calif 91604 92649 92649 146-043-34 M-M-42 146-055-0'l Charlm "Lhq I'.a verb 3222'CWU== Orivo 5191 Hsu .AVacreo Iluntbom Dowh, Calif UmtljVbm Bwchl 8'IMUz L lakes di 92649 9:64g 4872 09m Wes ., 146-043•-35 46-043-�43 92649 ���' Pooch" c� � e � B John D �zvin 5232 Caliante give UU;HdI Ammm 246-055-08 jluntix*m Bvacb, Coolif motloIi m amch, Cal f iftm W NMaud= I 92649 92W9 53U Bail AV=* Fl titOots sle�ac , C" 146-043-36 146-055-01 92649 ; Etits H Odawlrq 5242 Oa �w 5362.CmU4ft6 Od?b 146-055-09 Mmthyjtaa Bukah, Ckil t asibin tea ftoch, Cml.i g .Betty J 0al3aa t 92649 92649 53U HbJ1 Avmjo ' 146-043-37 146-055-02 92649 � caw :3t%Avm G A*wm mm" D Austin j 6241' Heil. Amijo5352 Cis 146-055-10 lfanti*gtoci hr&Ld, a014F 3 • Cal £ Al but N maw 92649 92649 53U. Bail Avwsw ' tluntir n aamch,mCwf Joel P:, OviAtt 92b49 4612"fia:rmmTsai'Mi6le Hwtingbm Beach, Calif 92649 .,I ;a.war..r,�rr.�.►.- s,...� ►.M�;,.Wr . ... ,. � ..-.�_w..�r...._�.-...... �_ .....�.......r...�. ....i.,{ . ,�.... ..,...r�.... �,... +..�.,r......,,..-wa4nvw.rwrr�e rayy�..•-y?�K'ri'.13. twl'IICi' To 1n.= TO SCIt Myt PUBLIC HP.AW NG JT TO: CrrU C11' iG' Myra DAM t 5J , "_.." I 1 ,'!• ,, ,. •(. tlf•,y,r�•*fir>, '�` ;r► ` 1 APS >EL4 �%MG , �►rrActteD LEGALNtRICE p0@, CIi ,"�•�• i7� �' :f,is�'! '; 41 • t•i 1 r� 1 Iti ' i�M' } .'Itifdf++�vt1ft'oi xur,ixorimentei 8tetus' fix) r Refer to 'Al"' PIdnning Aepartmune - Extension 0 for sdditia&I itticreCioa. ; If awPpe 1a00 ;1:00+s�lk' c Wording; hn be �oquired in thn legal , _ ! `;..it:11.�':..S�SrrTf.i-tv+ar.rw...+r..-. ....w......r..«�.•�..�..�...... .v.. ... ......•......-..�� ... _---� ,.. �."..._- �'."-- `...�f• �i -- 4 Number of Excerpts______, __ Publish Once LEGAL NOTICE NU:ICE Or PUBLIC HEARING NaricE IS unsay GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by tha City Couixeil of the City of Huntington Beach, California, fur the purpose of considering the action of the ►, Planning Commniaoion on June 17, 1980 approving Zone Change No. 80--7, a request to raEono approxImat©ly 64 acres of property ! located on the nortr. aide of Warner Ave., approximately 1.000 ft. oaat of the centerline of Bolsa Chice Street frcx. R-.1 (Lots Density 1 Residential to MH (Mobilehomo District) . The Planning Caadrsion Esc 1C'O0 mrs-xW that a "0" Oialified Classification Suffix be attadwd to lei* zone. legal description is on file In the Department of Development Services. rho City Council will also bo considoeing an appeal of the action taken by the Plan?tng ra mmission on June 17, 196:o regarding Zone Change No. 80.-7. -p& e4WC I b %V W" 01450 ff C'a9':4;=A1JC7 A'&,,. -7 '! Said hearing will be held %t the hour nf 7130 on July 21, 1980 , 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 opinicns for or .against. the proposed Further information may be obtained from the City Planning Department. Telephone No. (714) 536-5271 • BATED this day r*-g CITY PLANNING COMMISSION I i By I I .r, r CITY 4F HUNTINGTON BEACH WbI„ City Auoraep REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES Pi k'y Ci,y AAm„ISInict • goldenrod Departoneatal NWTV+I:IOM MA01 DKe flfiqurotad Me By peportmont '1C!tiCi) .'1 �,'lill' �ii!, lt". il� ':.� 1(: � e,''f'�U!-•,'1t-111' :itrl'•�fiC'i'"���+ INMUCTIONS: File request In the City f ttorney's Office as soon as possible. Print or type facts necessary for City Attomw Out, Ihie briefly reasons for the roquet.t.Attach all Information and exhibits pertinent to the subleet. TyAl of Leda)Sestice Requested: t [}� Ordinance I 1 insuraace I l Other [ 1 Resolution J J Bolus [ ] Contract/Apreemont I I Opinion All exhibits mutt be attached,or this request will be retuned to you. r j Exhibits Attached l"egitt'!st t.c}' I', .'.Gilt'. t:}1% `.1one.-al ly lac. :rl! !,lo •t1l of A:'um!e. C111", 'I anr,t•ux.ir!�7tt�J.v �;;i1 ft . c�it-t: uf- '•h�, c�'��ti� c•rlir,t. n•.: �?')1 �: t:'hica �'t:L'c:e!: rmn :i-.I 1iiF,t:!•i( tL) . ",c,114 i . 15��(� I'l.arin±n!r C'r�rT •••irf:�lc)n ::!!r;�i.i)•� . �. ilCt':i; It for Council Anton. Ir not for Council action,dcslrad completion date Signature. AowWa doadlin>a Council rnev Ing ' PIO 12/70 a w CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 80-18 • COUNCIL • ADMINISTRATOA COMMUNICATION ra�rrwcrvN��� To HONORABLE MAYOR AND From FLOYD G. BELSITO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS City Administrator Subject ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-7 Date JULY 171 1980 (MEADOWLARK AIRPORT) The following summarizes my recommendation for Zone Change No. 80-7 and as to the nature of the public testimony which may be taken at the hearing on July 21 , 1980. Recommendation 1 . Zone Change No. 80-7 - Continue the zone change request to a meeting on August 18 or later to receive additional input from the Planning Commission on potential conditions relating to low and moderate cost housing and availability of spaces for families with children. 2. Public Hearing Continuance - (Discretionary with City Council ) Open and close the public hearing on the meeting of .July 21 , or open and continue the public hearing to coincide with receipt of additional conditions from the Planning Commission regarding low and moderate cost housing and availability of spaces for ~' families with children. 3. Public Testimony - Public input at the hearing on the proposed zone change should be limited to the sole issue of whether the area should remain R1 or be changed to M.H . Meadowlark Airport is a pre-existing, non-conforming use , and is not at issue in the proposed zone change. (City Attorney' s 7pinion attached) . 4. Appeal Filed - Separate and compatible actions must be taken on SPaCrxz Zone Change No . 80-7 and the appeal . If the zone change is Noxr continued, so should be the appeal . If either is sustained , the other must be denied. Analysis As the City Council is aware , the Planning Commission has recommended approval of Zone Change �.a i. 80 7 with conditions . However,, . Development Services has raised' a nur .)er of i.;sues , one of which in particular has not been adequately addressed by the Planning Commission action. The following three issues have been raised by Development Services. An analysis of each is included . I . Solis conditions may not warrant future development of a mobile home park. Section 9242.2 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code was intended to reflect past policy of the City to only approve mobile home , b HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MFMBERS DULY 1 :, 1980 PAGE 2 CA 80-18 - Zone Change No. 80-7 (Meadowlark Airport) parks an properties wish poor soil conditions which would be unfit for other residential uses . However, because of the non-committal language used in Section 9242.2 and the lack of corroborative policies in the General Plan, such an Interpretation of Section 9242.2 is unsupportable. 2. The City ' s option for low and moderatL- income housing may be limited under a mobile home zoning designation. The Departwent of Development Servicds has noted, " . . .the possibility of reducing the range of opportunities for low and moderate income housing in this area of the City. The applicant has indicated that the futilre mobile home park may be for adults only. . . . the City has made significant progress in meeting elderly housing needs . . . .about 61 .4 percent of the estimated 1980 need for that group. In contrast$ however, 1980 programs will have met only 6. 5 percent of the large family need and 4.7 percent of the small family need. Staff concludes that a mobile home park on the entire 64 acres would not contribute to a diversification of housing types to meet a broad range of needs in the City. " The City Council adopted a revised Housirn Element on November 5, 1979. By so doing, the City Council has committed the City to implementing the policies and programs contained in the revised Housing' Element. There are a number of policies and programs in the Housing Element which have relevance to Zone Change No. 80-" . They are; 1f': A. Policies 1 ) Encourage the provision of adequate numbers of housing units to meet the needs of families of all sizes . 2) Undertake economically feasible programs to provide for housing throughout the community to meet the needs of low and moderate income households . 3) Continue and expand utilization of Federal and State housing assistance programs . a ) Encourage the retention of existing numbers of mobile homes and ,nvestigate areas for potential new mobile home zoning. D. Programs 11 Investigate the feasibility of utilizing =inclusionary zoning (including a mechanism for offering density bonuses) to provide for construction and continued availability of low and moderate income housing. a HONORABLE MAYOR ANDS r1 JULY 1 ; 1980 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PAGE 3 GA 80-18 - Zone Change No. 80-7 (Meadowlark Airport) 2) Expand the existing contract with the Orange Count Nousing Authority to include Section 8 Existing y Funds to subsidize mobile home space reitals when funds become available, Tua City has not yet developed the implementation p•,­9rams which Identify conditions which might be expected to be applied to Zone Change No. 80-7 or to the resultant project. However. there is an intent to provide a variety of low ane moderate oust housing opportunity as expressed in the policies anO programs of the Housing Element. A number of factors make it incumbent upon the City to address the issue of low and moderate cost housing even in the absence of specific implementing programs : A. The project is significant in size , (64 acres). 8. The clear intent of the Housing Element is to provide a variety of low and moderate cost housing . C. The Housi!ig Element is a part of the General Plan and , the General Plan provides the basic guiding tenets for development. D. A zone change proposal must be consistent with all elements of the General Plan. It is reasonably question- �! able whether Zone Change 80-7 is consistent with the General Plan ' (specifically the Housing Element) in the absence of addressing the issue of low and moderate cost housing either in the findings or in the conditions for the proposed zone change. E. Only thrugh coincidental timing is this proposal coming ? ; to he City. in the interim period between the adoption of s guiding policies and the resultant development of implementing programs , F. Even thou h specific implementation programs have yet to be established to deal with a proposal such as this , there ' are nonetheless mechanisms available to the City which make it ,possible to address the issue for the need to f provide., a variety of low and moderate cost housing opportunities . In view of the many factors which dictate the need to address a variety of housing opportunity and low and moderate cost housing for- the proposed zone change, additional consideration { of conditions is in order. Conditions relative to the provision of housing opportunity may be added to the zunirjg� designation itself or added._ to entitlements for the ensuin roject. If it is the desire of S the City Council to tie conditions to the zoning, designation, then the matter should be returned to the Planning Commission for further review ,and .recommendation. However, the City Council may require a conditional use permit (CUP) .for the t ensuing project as a condition on the zoning .designation. The 4 conditions in the CUP could then address the issues of variety of t . 1 . s..w HONORABLE MAYOR AND JULY 17 1980 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PAGE 4 CA 80-18 - Zone Change No. 80-7 (Meadowlark Airport) • hotising .opportunity and low and moderate cost housing . By conditioning the lone change with the requirement to apply for a CUP, the City Council may adopt Zone Change 80-7 without further Planning Commission review. The conditions, whether tied to the zone change or a CUP , should accomplish the following two objectives; A. Establish the right of families with children to locate In the proposed mobile home park. B. Guarantee that the tenants muy participate in Section 8 housing programs as applicable if they so desire ano are eligible. 3 . A financial deficit is created by the mobile home park over a ten year period. The newly acquired fiscal impact model projects a financial deficit for all residential types tested in a comparative analysis of a mobile home park versus single-family detached, and low and medium density condos . Over a ten. year period, low density condos had a positive financial impact due to development fees , but were anticipated to move to a net deficit eventually. There are a significant number of difficulties in projecting utilizing izin he future b i en ears in t f 9 d ex e�id i tures t Y i revenue an Y historic trend datamodified with a few assumptions about future behavior , of certain variables . The fiscal analysis report points out some of these as p problems such changes in the mix of revenue sources, difficulty of predicting secondary fiscal impacts which ultimately impact revenue and expenditures , and that unpredictable increases in revenue from existing sources can dramatically alter projections. -There are other significant uncertainties , not the least of which is the political environment. Xn the last several tumul'tul)us years financing of City services ,has been alter3d radically due to a number of voter appproves. -initiatives. Also , 'even inputs for which we should have good data. can be in errur. Presently property taxis being, under estimated and expenditures do not adequately address the need for equipment; replacement. Generally the mix of inputs lead to projections of deficits which in fact would . not occur due to real world accommodations in revenues and expenditures. Rather than linkdol at the model as a projection of deficits or surplusesdollars , it would be more useful for the City Council to view the results as a measurement of relative fiscal impact. r I+ Based on the results of the fiscal impact model and accepting all assumptions as to variables used, it appears as though a I .._ ...�.......�_�.�.�._..�.. :. .... ..--...,........�.............+«�..4. r r• ..... ��...__..._....�4A.W,...w...,•rr ���+...r NTr^� ... �"_Yrh.'M\�'A!�... IHONORABLE MAYOR AtI JULY 17, 1980 • I CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PAGE 5 CA 80-18 - Zone Change No. 80-7 (Meadowlark Airport) mobile home park is fiscally the least beneficial conforming f •' land use under the current General Plan Land Use designation j of low density residential . Therefore, if on balance the desirability of all potential conforming land uses were otherwise equal , a mobile home park would be the least desirable. Whether the desirability of all conforming land uses are in fact otherwise equal is a decision which must be made in the context uf the policies of the General Plan, development ossibilities and constraints and other pp criteria . The Planning Cemmission by its action to recommend approval of Zone Change No. 80-7 has determined that the desirability of various conforming land uses are not other desir y . wise equal , and that on balance, a mobile home park is most desirable. '!! FGB:sd C CIVi. CITV OF HUJA TIN GTON BEACH lea IWER•DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION MEMORANDUM OPINION TO City Administrator From City Attorney Subject Zone Change 80-7 R-1 to Igi Dat© July 27, 1980 Zone Case 80-7 public hearing portion should be limited to the sole issue of whether Meadowlark Airport property should retain the R-1 zone or be rezoned to bpi. Meadowlark Air ort is a p pre-existing, nonconforming use, and no :testimony at the public hearing need be taken an whether the air- port should continue as a use. There is a vested right to continue the use as an airport. The public hearing inptit should be limited to the criteria for ap- proval of a mobile home 0111) zone. Such criteria for approval'ill set forth In the Huntington Beach Municipal Code §92112.2: (a) The relationship of the proposed mobile home pork to the surrounding land use. (b) Soil conditions. (For example, a house may sink in past noes, but a mobile home may not), (c) Access to the area under consideration. (It 'is preferred that such area abut an arterial highway from which the primary means of access should be obtained) . Another issue which may be discussed is whether the proposed zone change may have a negative fiscal impact. Of course, public input to deny the zone thane and keep the he R�1 zon- ing is a proper consideration: P The City Council is, required -to hold a public hearing on zone'' changes. Government Code 565856. . . GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney .• By BARY *tgty&tor;zey GHzW3As (JG�:bc �.._._.Y .. __, �... .. --____. __._.. ._.-�_-�._.. ..�.....,...,, .,......w..,.....��..-.-r..-.�... .......wrw..-�..•.rra.aaLe. '.r.«r...:r.:..,. ."'"�.'r.�,.,�or-rw..ii ... do .. 0 c�tr Air NUNTINOTON HACHo JUL 17 8 Si A4 '80 R. C. l.eDesma 5121 Stallion Circle Huntinggtan Beach, CA. 92649 July 15, 1980 Hembers of the Ci+,y Council P. 0. Box 190 f Huntingtnn Beach, CA. 92648 , Dear Members the City Council: / I am a homeowner living within 300 feet of the Head ark Airport., The largest single financial investment, like most .homeatiners, is aW house. Moving to this area represented a commitment for mygelf and my. family and our aspirations\,rn, and still are, that r,ur Zomwnity Mould improve with time and become a quality city and nei ghrorhpod reflecting the wcrk of an enlightened Planning Commission and City 74in uncil. On June 17, 1980, the Plan�ng Commission vote favor of the proposed zone change (No. 80-7) completgly disregard In,j�the recommendation of its own staff, as outlined in the April 15, 1/din eport, Item 1.0: "The staff recommends that the Plannommission adopt Negativn Declaration Ila. 80-171nd done change 11Q. 80-7 based on the findings as outl n Section 7.0 of this report. The staff also rec ' ends that the Planning Commission direct staff to fh estigate a mixture of alternative zoning desfgnatibo s and/or de- velop a specfffc plan for the 7eport bject sits " The June 17 1930 addendum .to this purport convinced the ti Planning Coamission that the tax se of the mobile omes was no longer a problem, however, the validity bf the comparisons pi vided by Ultrasystems dated Flay 2, 1980, hinged on th�assumption that these bile homec»m;mers were, out of the goodness oft it hearts, going to rera the undercarriage or wheels from their trailers Ao that they could pay a high tax. This is unrealistic. Most people phat buy and live in mobile h are attempting to get by as cheaply as passiIle. There is nothing binding th owners. of: these mobile homes to place themselvesin a position to be taxed t a higher rate., f contend, therefor , tba the comparison is invalid, since his is an option of the mobile h owners (per ABS87 SB1004) and the initia recommendation of the sta f to deny the zone changes should be followe I am not an attornej, bu have been doing same reading and have discovered that the City Council (1 cal government) get its right to zone and plan � . via the State's consti utional police powers. --`--.r...-vts..=.,,sr...w .. ..... w',.:,r- Jam;, sty. •r.I, f t` t