Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZone Change Cases - 1969 - ZC 69-6, Nathan Shapell - ZC 69-1 Affidavit of � titan Cow C" 017 i DEN$ J. r. rtt;quhar, brims duly sworn on oath, wys: That he Is BY COUWIL, eitizen of the United Stata, om the age of twenty-one ran, 04 `iIvit he is the asInter and pubUahsa- of the Huntington beach .,....,,�.... News, at weekly ;wev1spaper of general cim-ulatlon printeA sad p•t Wiwi In Huntington Busch, California a.nd circulatW 'in the:, County of Orange and elsewhere and published for 'he dlnemina of local asad other news of a general character, and baa a bosses tide subscription lust of paying subscribers, and said paper has been established, printed and published In the State of Wf'ornia, acid County of Orange, for at least one year next Mom titoa publicatIon � of the first Insertiun of this notice; and the said newspaper Is not devoted to the intirmt of, or published for the entertalnment of say � } particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or s any number thereof, The Iuntin ton Beach News was adjudicated a legal newspalW J of general circuiation by Judae G. K. Scovel In the Supeiia4r Court , of Orange County, California August 77th, MIT by order No. A-MII. s i ►twat Ilse ___ IRQ210E •Op' PUBLIC HEARING _ ZciNM CASE 6 -6 of which the annexed Is a printed copy, was pubUahed In said news- 0 paper at least n6 I� 'f9rue � � F� commencing from the 8th day of_..._. Maw 69 gth May 18 and s'ndiy on the of ---.�-, f: d+lY lil.69 both days Inclusive, and as often during sWd period and times of publication as sald paper was ratgularly issued, and In the regular and entire Issue of said newspaper proper, and not In a suplIen:ent, and said notloo was published therein on the Wowing dates, to-wit: May 8 �1262 - 1. Yr.• rJYu blisher Subscribed and sw o bdtora me this — day of Notary Public , Orange County, Calitorrd%.,. THOM; S D. WYWE NVAW PUKIC • CALIFORNIA ,r PRINCIPAL one IN Y �.•V wim CNIM :a I GMWJSIIon Expires Sept. 12, 1970 a Huntington Beach Punning Commission F {� .w�r+w�r�`t rr.Y f� ti+.tir•Y -- � P.Ci. BOX 19U CALIFORNIA liZ648 June ` , 1�6� TO : HONORABLL MAYOR AND C:IT.L COUNCII, FROM : Plaanino Commies-i t it SUBJECT: Zone Case No . �9_ 6 ATTN: Doyle Miller , ^,itv* A���ir,;�.7trator Paul Jones . 0j.tT Gentlemen: Transmitted herewitY: is the Planning Commission recommendation for approval of Zone Case No . 69-6. Applicant : Nathan Shape'll. 8859 W. Olympic Blvd. Beverly Hills, California Location: South side of Adams Avenue , 960 .feet Direst of Br ookhurst Street Master Planned : Low Denoity Request : Change of Zone from R-A Residential Agri- cultural. District to R-3 Limited Multiple Family Residence District . Reasonti,Eiven JY�A4 by the applicant ; (In Bri.ef /OY.- To develop a multiple .family complex that will enhance the character of the area. Staff Recommendaticn: ApprovRl for z:n R-2 rather that R-3 as 'reouested. Plannini Commission Action.: Approved for an R-2. Reasons given by the PlannniM Commission for theirs on: 1. It has been accepted practice to permit medium densit�� development along arterial highways when adjacent to a large shopping facility. 2. The added population will not adversely effect the uopu- lation balance within this quarter section becau3e the 14, 5 acre commercial develcpment east of this property was Originally proposed for rea;(.dential developmr.-nt. i , This change w-111 not adversely effetit the Plaster lUan. 4. The addl.tional units will assist in supporting some of the commercial activities in this area. 5. A zoning study of the southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Brool.hu2s t Street resulted in the: property remaining in its G--2 classification. ROLL CALI, VOTE AYES : Slates , Miller, Basil , Bolco.r, Torn NOES : porter, Duke ABSEffT : None THE MOTION CARRIED . Adddi wi,nnal i.iformation: The applicant explained his reasons for the request. Three persons representing the Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association opposed the request. A petition ,signed by 651 property owners opposing the request was submitted. _., representative of the Huntington Beach Elementary School District commented on the effects of R--3 zoning. C01,2MISSIONFRE PORTER AND DUKE gave the following reasons for voting agains-!- the request : 1 ) By no means does 20 dwelling units per acre constitute low densitydevelopment as master lanned. P P 2) Recent actions before city bodies indicate that residents favor abutting commercial use as opposed to multiple dwellings . (Terry Drive and Beach Blvd. ) 3) Additional multiple dwellings in the vicinity of Brookhurs- Sto -reet. and Adams Avenue will result in a disproportionate bunching of apartment units in one area. 1�) The request , if approved, constitutes spot zoning. It is not a true buffer to commercial because it does not wholly divide C-4 a-nd R-1 . 5) Tax acaessments and school population must be an indication for we� ghing coning. 6) Several studies have been performed by the Staff, School Board and public ggroups all using the same input . The results in each stuclT/ have been different; therefor% it-9 may be advisabl.s for the City Council to do an independent study based on population and school enrollment in different zones. Respdctfully bmitted, j,,AReynoldS. rstar y, Planning Commission ,' KR:bd .,r 1 riZqbA, 9 ' A IZ V4 A 61 r. r Loo tioni South side of Adams Avenues 960 fte west of xC 'g Broakhurst Street* �..6-1t� _ J'ul'1e 2 , 1969 Hon. Mayor and McUbers of the City Council of Iiiatit i nK t on Beach Gentlemen ; In order to prevent further disproportionate increases in the copulat.;ion density of the southeastern section of Huntin,o,-ton Beach and the Problems related to high Population de;isity . We present for your consideration in the matter of rezoning the property south of Adamz and west of Brookhurst St . ( Zone Close 69-6 _ , Two hundred Fourteen ( 214) signatures In oppoeition to rezoning from R-1 to R-3 of 11 . 32 acres for the purpose of building apartmentsby the S&S Construction Co. These signatures are from the homeowners of the Shorecrest Tract , west of Brookhurst and south of Indianapolis , which is adjacent to the land owned by the S &q Construction Co. Th k you , r' s James K. Oath Chairman, Shoreerest 'nest Homeowners Grow Affidavit of P "cation . - State ot` autaff" County of oraW as City of Huntington Beach J. S. Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says; That he is a citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. 71wt he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach News. a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and Pub- lished in Huntington Beach, Californta nerd circulated in the said County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide Nubscrlptlon list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been established, printed and published in the State of California, and County of Crangt, for at least one year next before the publication of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertnlnment of any particular class, profession, track, calling, race or denomination, or any number thereof. -- The I1untington Beady News was adJudicaled a legal newspaper t*;cbt;�4.; NWRU bM OWN" tails of general circulation by Judge C. K. Sc(%vel in the Superior Court Mar 91.'AN) � of Orange County, California A,rptcct 77th, 1937 by order No, A-5931. Wick N PM10 ""No 1401Mlt 0 That the NOTICE OF PUAL,IC HEARING ;sW"to 1" ho W* � w iA n ZO;JE CASE NO. 69-11 s�in'__ rstr die of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- ink. paper al least One Twee ��Im r: on tM, NOWNOWcom:-cencing from the 22nd day of Ma Y teo -Mat, 'i e>aAv ftft 4�..rteok �:(#11� ties �.�' 7 19 ._ and endingon the 22r1d day of ?say Al;': *:; ri►+ �nr ; Y atterA I.,MWM' +aM oplsr"a is►a1• M! FwwMweR� 11�p�► 69 and as often during said pee'od and tmo tM Ctdt GWdrk.. "; J 13._.__, both days inclusive, d► ; . times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the Gar 0��NUNTINQT001 at>f'A�" regular and entire issue of Bald newspaper proper, and not in a �;ra�';.1vh Mwl C. Jolces auphlernent, and said notloe was published therein on the following city Cam , dates, to-wit ?ley 22�, _1969 .. �1 / Publisher Subscribed and swo /tn before me this - '? day of Notary Public 67 Or►mp County, California Aft rHOMAS D. W:LL r r''�✓ WTW t� KIC - CALAKINCIPAL oRIM a�a W 00" My 001656" &Piro$ Sept. 12, 1970 Huntington Beach Panning Commission P.O. Box !to CALIFORNIA 22548 Juna 2, 1969 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Zone Case No 69-11 ATTN: Doyle Miller City Administrator Paul Jones , 6ity Clerk Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is the Planning Commission recommendation for approval of Zone Case No . 69-11 . Applicant : Edith M. Anderson 1?36 W. 107th Street Chicago 43 , Illinois Location : North side of Garfield Avenue , 150 feet west of Stewart Street. Master Planned: Light Industrial Ra uest : Change of zone from R-A-O Residential I Agricultural District combined with oil production to M-1 Light Industrial District. Reasons given�the applicant : (In Brief To use the property for equipment storage . Staff Recommendation: Approval. Planning-Commission Action: Approved. Reasons &iven by the Planning; Commission for their,.,approval : 1 . Preliminary results of the economic base study and land use studies indicate that the property is best suited for industrial use . ROLL CALL VOTE : AYES: Bokor, Tom, Bazil , Miller, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Slates Duke THE MOTION CARRfED. Additional information: There was no one to speak in favor or against the change of zone . Respe tfully subgLtted, K. A. Reynolds, .� Secretary-, Planning 0 iesL° , KAR:bd �J W 40. IL 1 � 1 I.--4t .. oat 4QO -IlLat It A. -`ill .►, 11 ; 1 ' , r�'• 4 Z. O. #59-11 Locations Nortb side of Garfield Avenue , 150 feet went of Stewart Street 35-5-11 Affidavit of POfication . r 1 But* of Wltotrnla oou,tty of or+nn •• 7^J: .. l ,,. Cant of Huntwo"n Beach J. S. Fa. uhar, being duly sworn on oath, says; That he is n citizen of tl>e United States, over the age of twenty-one ycan, .� That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington $eRch News, n weekly newx;ial)er of general circulation printed and puh. lisped in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said Orangei�,�`D County of and elsewhere and published for the diareminatlon �Y of Iocal and other n en news of a geral character, and has a bona tide CD�NC subscription list of paying subscribers, and laid paper has been 7,0 established, printed and published in the State of California, and County of Orange, for at least oue year next before the publication of the first insertion of this notice; and the sald newspaper Is not devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any , •.... particular class, procession, trade, ctl ing, race o: denomination, or �.� any number thereof. The Huntington Beach News was adjudicated a legal newspaper of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931, ltubsNhsd MWrtln�l�Miya"-�p�,, May n' tfal That the T10TICF OF PUBLIC HEARING �-J ZONE CASE 69-12 of which the annexed Is a printed copy, was publIshed In said news- "• I s One Issue e 'paper at least� ' i . p�tsari, sear- . • r ,. •��• ttr commencing from the - 7.2nd A„ of Mgt y ws tl 19 6 gV and ending on the 2 2 n day of May i 19 6g_, both days inclusive, and as often during Wd period and timem of publication as acid paper was regularly issued, and in the «�� ;�► , regular and entire issue of said newspaper proper, and not in a ,ka_qa, supplement, and sald notice was published therein on the following dates, to-wit: 1 C!b► Chris , •< MRY 22, 1.969 Publisher Subscribed ands to before me this i *,Aw �, V day of e j �G�N' a� . Notary Public �-• 1 • �D1M1�1! c,t 71>,' r, )U N THOMAS D. WYLV E -.�.___....... �..._........� — 9 NIRAW PUBLIC • CAlIF6' iA PAiNCItAI•wt�FFIC�E 11 �.......,,•,,,� k4y Cmimission Fsplrm Sept. 121 1970 .rIJ Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 1�� CALIFORNIA �i�6� June 2, 1969 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Commission SUBJECT : Zone Case No. 69-12 ATTN: Doyle Miller, City Administrator. Paul Jones, City Clerk Gentlemen: Transmitted herewiLh is the Planning Commission recommendation for approval. of Zone Case No . 09-12. Applicant: Hatsuma Kitajima 6252 Wintersburg Huntington Beach, California Location: 400 ft. south of Warner Avenue , 660 ft. west of Edwards Street . Master Planned : Low Density. Request: Change of Zone from R-1 Single Family Residence is rict to R-3 Limited Multiple Family Residence District. Reasons by the applicant : (In Brief) This zone change was required by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, as a condition of approval for Tentative Tract Map 6933. Staff Recommendation : Approval . Planning Commission Action: Approved. Reasons given bZ the Planning Commission for their action: 1 . This plan is the result of several different layouts that were worked out by the developer, the staff and the Subdivision Committee in an attempt to : a. Provide a transition between the existing R--3 to the west and the single family development within Tentative Tract Map No. 6933 . b. Align Summerdale St . so as to discourage through traffic and still provide traffic circulation within the area, and, c . Provide sufficient access and street frontage for the park site. ? . A hardship exists or' the property because of its relationship to existing R-1 to the west and R--3 property to the east. The devElopment will be a credit to the City. 3 . This request dogs not constitute spot zoning. _ 4. A condition of approval on Tentative Tract Map No. 6933 required the applicant to submit a petition for rezoning the subject parcel to R-3 prior to the time the final map is submitted to the City Council for acceptance. 5. This request will not significantly e'Lfect the Master Plan. 6. To vote against this request ':.ill result in a poor plan. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Miller , Bazil , Bohor, Tom , Porter NOES: Duke ABSENT: Slates THE MOTION CARRIED . Additional information.: The applicant explained his reasons for the request . Three persons representing the Sol Vista Homeowners Association, Beach-North Homeow:aers Association and Franc..scan Fountains Homeowners Association opposed the request. A petition signed by 410 property owners , opposing the request was submitted. An adjacent property owner objected to the proposed alignment of Stunuierdale Street. It was noted that park fees for the entire apartment complex would be approximately $2q, 000 and $8,000 for the single family area. COM'i'1SSIONER DUILE: Commissioner Duke gavE! the following reasons for voting against the request . 1 . The request, if approved, constitutes spot zoning. 2. Due to a difference between the R-3 dE;pth to the north and the R-3 to the wei3t, there is sufficient depth for. R-1 lots to front on the north side of Summerds:le Street, thereby separating the park from the apartments. 3. The R--3 none is not a true buffer adjacent to a park site,. 4. There is no definite hardship between the relationship of R-1 and R-3. 5. A park site has il►'c highest and best tse when adjacent to single family ho:r.es and not when such site ins adjacent to an adult community. Respectfully a71bmitted, K. A. Reynolds Secretary, Planning Commission KAR :bd + t MACCO CORK)RATUNAPARIMI'M IA NON , October 3 , 1969 Huntington Beach City Hall ILI =' Post Office Box 190 - Huntington Beach., California TU: ._ Subject: R-3 Rezone '�~..-- Warner & Edwards Attn : Paul Jones City 'Clerk Gentlemen: Due to continued s11 page at the subject property, we ;could like � to request that the eating scheduled for Monday October 6, 1969, on the R-3 rezone of a portion of this property be continued for 30 days . If possible, we would like to reschedule the hearing for City Council 's November 3 , 1969, meeting. j At that time we plan to show the Council , with aerial photographs , our establishment of a lower density in the presently R-3 zoneed area. Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated. Sincerely, MACCO CORPORATION Becky 5chworer BJS:ac Of -C, POST OFFICE BOX 2175•881 DOVER DRIVE,NEWP RT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92661•(714) 642.4910 r �y MAC rQ C0RP0RATON ` N'MMENt DIVIYON August 18, 1969 R • Huntin ton Beach City hall i P. 0. Box 190 r Huntington Beach, California Attention: City Clark Subject: R-3 Rezone - Warner and Edwards V;ntlmn: ' We to the slippage caused by the. operating engineers strike, only 50% of the grading has been completed on our Kitafiea Project. Therefore, ww wvuld like to request that the hearing scheduled y for Monday, Auquxt 189 1%9 on the R-3 Rezone of a portion of this property bo continued for a period of 45 days. At that tine sufficion' progress should have been mde, i .e. ,- fQumdation pads, to show our establishment of a lower density in the presently R-3 zoned area. � Your cooperation will be gractly appreciated. Sincerely yours , MRCCO CORPORATION Becky Sdmrer AdeiRistrttive Coordinator /ed � 1 �� POST OFFICE &N 217'-W DOYER WYE, NE*WV BEiN KCALWORW 5266)•(14) 642•49K) i 1 r: 1 _�, i WARNER AV IL ��I.\�11.•ill 1.�.� - LlIL ST PAWL C M F o J /•-V � ' I � J I r lSr_�ov�' DR. -FREEBORN DR FT Fl f m 1 1 1 1 1 _O Tt7 OR t J W - �-8 XCEUEMAa . 'on0ul z hK '; MPA CR cr CL P INS A DR. � -� SANTTA YNEZ � DR I J I "MOP.Ro I&A�' LN o c v c D FEINLEY DR dE _.-._ J IK U1AT14Y DR ZC #E69- 1 x Lccat on: 4.00 f t . souLh of Warner Avenue , 660 f t, Wert c f F.dWArd,a A riA(_ _ --- —_--- 2-7 5-�•11 —_ Aywwavit of blication �r .'i ' of tt.,ellromis , (;t)tunty of Oirrtnse City of Nuntington t.ach J. S. Z'nrquhar, bring duly aworn on onth, says: That he In a r' citizen of the United Stalej. over the Hge of twenty-one ;!eats, Oj .�. hilt he Is the printer and publisher of the Ifuntinllton heat-_ •� �� ; � News, it woekly newspalrrr of general circulntlon p,anted and pub- fished lit Ilunilni;:on Bench, Callfarnin And circulrited In the said .� County of Orange t,r:d ei!,ewhe:U and published for the dissemination � • �'�� of loeml anti other nr.vvt, of it general character, wid has P. bonz fide huburriptlon list of pe.ying subscril)ers, and said paVer has been establlsLed, printed wilt published in the State of CaliMrn'n, and County of Ort,nge, Pre at lust one year next oefore the publication of the first insertlor, of this notice; and the wild newspaper is not, devoted to the Interest of, or published for the entertainment of tu►y particular clefs, pt,ofesRfun, trade, callhig, race or (leiiominHtl,,n, or any number thereof. 7'tte Huntington Reach News teas adjudicated it Jr.-gal newspaper of general elrrulatlon by Judge G. K. Scovel lit the Superior v ourt ' of Orsinge Co4inty, Cnllfornin August 271h, 1037 by order No. A-M11. 7—,'—7.7 ttwi n.e w�tnWt i tfew"#' iilmo Th&t Ib NOTICE nI' PUBLIC_REAR114G ""! 1 ,.: rra�. 1 r, _ 20NF CASE 69-13 fie I attMft wlh lt�. of which the annexed Is a primed ropy, wits published In said news- rnA�<<'Wj :of r M0ML �s� paper at )rase One Issueon fir. I' tow, fsr tLii _ Jun e 12 t h ct.mmencing tram the ._day of. . is M'HldMrs,r 1p C9 12 th J tin e eo n. sack t,. 19 , Hnd ending on the day of_— of M/ay lWvi6.-L straw awtA�pf J►dMMftR. dsrrimj" is an is in, 19 n9 , both uays Inclusive, and ft_w often during., said period and All interetsw porl4ft 4"M" invited a times of publication as said pitper was regularly `issued, and In the attend WO Reins and sop" %haltl regular and entire Issue of Bald newapa!,er prof,er, anti not in a opinion% twr or `ssaintt sold aorta,Coss. au i Clement, and Bald notice w►as published thereftt oa tho foUowing Further into►metton,,May ttw fltbt,tiner 11 Iron, the WHO$ of tti'j C:ty.QWk. dates, to-wit: DATED; June 10, 2W. , COY OF -HUNTINGTAN LL MM June 12s 1969 lri PAVL C. JONrA Publisher Subscribed and sworn o before me LVA day of /lle2rl�a- �, �V Notary Public L Oritage County, California THOMAS D. W'ILL'' NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFOHNIA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN ORMOE CPiUNTt Mp C*Wltsslon ExPIMS Sl-fpf. 12, 1970 6 Hnntingtori Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 1S0 CALIFORNIA 92643 1969 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR; MiD CITY COMICIL FROM: Planning Commi:3sion SUBJECT: Zone Crave No G')-13 P.TTN: Doyle TIL11or , City Administrator. Paul Tonos , City Clerk Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is the Planning, Commission recommendation .for approval of Zone Case No . G9-13. A221icant : James ,and Teress DeGue7le 1615 Alabama Street Huntington Beach, California Location : West of Alabama Street , south of Adams, A-,r:�nue . Master Planned: Medium Density Request : Change of Zone from. R-3-0 Li.mited Multiple Family F',,sidence District combined with oil product:i.on to C--4- Highway Commercial District- with a 50 ft. sc}back from the ultimite right-of-way line . Reasons �Eiyen by the ap;)licant : (In Brief) The property is now and has been for the pa et G years under commercial use . Staff Recommendation: Approval Pj nnirt� Commission Action: Approved . Reasons given by the Planni.np Commission for their action: .........�.r...... ..._...�......�-. ....-_.-.... ice.:.._. 1 . 'There is a commercial building on the premises which has been is existence .for the past G years . 2. The subject property has bee;a uaod as commercial for many years. 3. The highest and best use for this property is commercial . • 0 I ROLL CALL VOTE: AXES : Bazil , $okor, Miller, Duke , Tom , Porter NOES : None ABSENT : Slates THE MOTION CARRI l0. Additional information : The applicant e;{pi wined his .reasons for the request. No one spoke in opposition. Respectfully sUllmitted, K. A. Reynolds , SecretRry, Planning; Commission KAR/b d i 1 i' (QUINCY) ADAMS f'•' .. I I 11 I I I I 1 � ' roil L A t &Z LOMA , -AVE~ - _i THIRTEENTH y OSWEGO AVE - -• NASHVILLE ---- � � AlE MPH IS +M •�` ELEVENTH AVE _� • ; � ' � � _ . " N ,_ UlI 'T ♦- 1 1 1 i -� I � 11 4L ,14CO N r7• .'• TEN H ' 1 ' - __ .... 1 I I 1 i i' fill KNOXVILLE li' l ' � I I I I , j .77 1 • 62~ INOIANAp LIS f �• 7-1 04. \ �• \ HARTro_7 Ill RO 62 77 1 I I 1 .•+ '- ..... -ram ZC #69-13 ,cl�t,�t Wirt of Alab� Street , South of Ad&&$ AVSUUQ. j aV1 of ikaflon / Pao 'Marto 01 caufomist � er Count'► of drtur tr CfTY City of Hmodr; %Beach w �, cps J. S. Farquhar, bring duly sworn on oath, rays: That he is a �`•.` �., �,,� NCtt citlzrn of the United States, over the ege of tiventy-one years, Ti+at he is the printer and publLRber of the Huntingtrm Beach News, is weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub. �•- 119hed In Huntington Beach, California and circulated In the said Own(), of Oranl;c and elsewhere and published for the dissemination ��a�4• .` of ltxnl anti other news of a general charucter, and has a bona fide stuhvcriptlon tint of payini, t►ubscribers, and maid paper has been r established, printed and published In the State of California, and Y County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication of tite (list Insertion tit th!s notice; acid the said newspaper Is not devoted to the Interest of, or published for the entertainment o: any particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denominatl,.n, or any number thereof. The iltntington Beach Newt was adjudicated to legal newspaper JamWubll 11 Muntinwlcn tPtst+aM' of genet-at circulation by Judge G. K. Seovel in the Superior Court Norma 1W of Orange ':aunty, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. NOTICE OF UB I���RIN ;UsNo „s Wim IN That the Couneil of tW V N APPEAL TO DENIAL L' _.. �, tit.%WxN+ro, tr,M Q ZQNL � wmal �A�'� NO 69 a VIA of which the annexed Is a printed copy, was published in nald news- MOON, � jW%4,M. NO. 4h* � 114 t �ttt , paper at least one.. 106+ 4_.. rran _ u ^ commenring from the th _day ot_ Tu10 1fttl t+siMr ,a ultinw4r l ;' `1. 19 fa-, and ending on the 5th _day of Juno 1� L ba�'• �' All lh*o W lit i9_, both clnys inclusive, and as often during said period and et" ;Awe'.a� tlmett of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and In the e apd **'Or �+� ON regular and entire issue of said newspaper proper, and not in a Fu'".' woo to r t�ttt tths M11tn e! �M11c. suppleownt, and snarl notice was published therein on the following twtac elates, to-wit: CITv ,It�AOM June 1969 -A:ct!r CWk Publisher Nuhserilleci and mworn to before me this zh' day o: I earu 1.sal Nosey Public Orange County, California TH©MAS D. WYLUS MINCIPAL OFFICt IN -T �1 J Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. DOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92548 June 16, 19r.9 "0: HONORABLE MAYOR VD ;'TTY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Zone Casc No. 69-14 ATTN: Doyle Miller, City Acbninistrator I'mil, ,1 ones ; City Clark Gentlemen : Transmitted Herewith io the Pltmning Commis^ion recommendation for approval of a portion of Tone Ca:-c No . 69-1Lt. ARpla :pint : William Bray 1?01 Pnrk Street Huntington Boach , Calif. Location : Between Adams Avenue. and I-ortland Street , approx-,Anntely 125 ft ; o t of Huntington Avenue. r1aster Planned : Medium Density Request : Change of zone from R-3-0 Limited Multiple Family Residence District cernbined with oil production to C-4 Highway Commercial District with n 90 ft. setback from the ultimate right-cif-way lin.-� . Reasons ai-� en bar the_ o�t�licant . (In Brief) r.r r.rrir r+i+� r � - To tlievulop the south 1/2 hrilf of those two lot:, with approximately 13 , 000 sq. ft. of block or tilt up constru-- t;ion fc--,� businesses similar to the one fronting on Adair : Avenue . Staff Recommendation: Approval for a C-4 zone on the north 1/2 of Lot 13 and denial of that portion of the request for. n C-11• zone oxt the south 1/2 of Lot 13 and 14. PlanninE Commission action: ra..rr..^.r._..Tarr �. ...._._.. Approved as amended. Reasons given by the Plann:inE Cominio io-n - for,+their action. 1. . By zoning the south 1./2 of the proporty 0-41 access would be taken from a local street . 2 . This will cause further encroachment of cominoi,c'ital ssoning into an R-3 area. 00 3. There is a commercial building in existence on the north 112 of Lot 13 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES : Razil , llokor, Miller, Torn , nuke , Porter DOES: None ABSENT: S 1 ELt e s THE MOTION CARRIED. Additional information: The applicant explained his reason, for the requen-t. No brie was present to speak in opponiti.on. Respectfully , bmi t:ted, K. A. Reynolds Secretary , Planning Commission _4 `. (ou,r`k ADAMS G Z-&4-i �� . . '� l`\,_1 lJ i. �i_._._J l_._-__.11 .. _.l l_-- -IL.._._J L_--_1 L.__J �.. ►.. �.__•___._.�. F1 AA CA? r ''� ....AvgLil WE \ �' •Y\ � / 1 l _ ', P f Vi r `� .. —, � .,...•_.—.—.�•rry•ram 17-7 ��� � � � Iwo �..._ .-.�•�__ _.� 1 ..._- '._:-+...+��. ..-._.. .i - - 7UJI • J' Ir ,\ � / ✓�" }+5r �� ���it.... y .:I�1+,'�'"•� _ 1{t♦111 I-t1F�t' � ` IN, .J 1 1 I f 1 — A' ZC #69-14 Luc:ekt ion : North of por,tlla.r d ,St•x•j!at , npproxIv; Lely 125 1*9 we'at: of HkAY.Iy'.111s't{ll-I lool e77— df ev- >ero, et, 71_ O-V Zt/ LALI Affidavit of Pwcation lyta a ai t�alffloRala Coln of 0"inve sas �U 1• CSty of Huntington Beach J. S. Farquhar, being di:4, sworn on oath, says: That he Is 1 citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. That he Is the printer and publisher of the Huntington •� News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and put,- lisped In Huntington Beach, California end circulated In the said County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination of loco, and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide •�`';1 subscription Upt of paying. subscribers, and said parer has been g ,•� . establtshed, printed rind published in the State of California, and County of Orange, for 91 least one year next befoul.• tho publication of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper Is not devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of &ny particular clam, profeesion, trade, calling, race or denomination, or any number thereof, I . The Huntington 1Ly4ch News was adJudicateadjudicateda legal newspaper tr�afoliiit+w Nan 10111110101 he"VAy U. 1911isl „ , of general circulation by Judge C. K. Scovel In the Superior Court "OT16F 11V P"K MRAIi1tY�' ' of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No, A-5931. Nor1O mk tilat� , M•1lt . I ' 1,� pvbllcl WWI% w ?hat the . N OTT C F. OF FUALTC KEART council.afl 1"1 C1 In tfro 1 •' _ lay ZONE CASE 9 r.� a P. ., !" rA: N 0 t5 —1,+'i 7 xt r'.a�, IR as , mt � • Kids.,�i t�r�a+� ttfs IN of which the annexed Is a printed copy, was published In said mews- 31N, for tft1 fwfpaw._0 .fit P1 : 4k petition *w m, : I�+rs' RA lte M0114atl p�loge: t. raper at least One Issue tltteerlae. at' Pro"" '411 t Oef•!N; of Ooa6sn ww s"K MwM AM A 1�1 ria�arlpli" Is tall ill f4 commencing from the 2211a day of rtH y Plann=n* NNrtmflrab,, An i rti+lr�pw 19_6�, and endingon the 22n' day oL MAY aplrlo»fa ��11ws. Further bdit abbWad from, "M twice offt toms L`ATE�,Sllt/w. 18 69 , both days inclusive, and as often during said period and Vtr_o1'',.Rulli "toN 99AG t times or pubileatlon as said paper was regularly issued, and In the PW C. corm regular and entire issue of said newspaper proper, lord not in a Clb Clork supplement, and sold notice was published therein on the following dates, to-wit: MnY 22i-- 1c)69-- Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Notary PubUc C1ranue Cbunty, C.allfornia roTHOMAS D. WYLLIE wTuY PUBLIC • miroitw MINCIPatl. OFFICE IN IDIOM COUNTY �► i �a Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX M CAI-Ir'!ORNIA 97848 June TO : HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM : Planning Corunicslon SUBJECT : Zone Case No . 69-15 ATTN : Doyle [Tiller , City Administrator Paul Jones , Cl y Cl -irk Gontleme..n : Transmitted herewith :is the Planning Commi:>sion z-ccommendation for approval of Zone Care No . C-0-15. ALplicant : Wm . Lyon Development Co . P. O. Box 14.50 Huntington Beach, C,-ilif .. Location: Northwest cornor of Goldcn West Street and Slntcr Avenue . Master Planned : Low and mediiun density. Request : Change of ^one from k-A Residential- Agricultural District to R-1 Single Family Residence District. Reasons men by the applicant (in Brief) Tract No . 6528 being developed as single family residential . Staff Recommendation: Approval . Planning COmmiEoion Action: Approved. Reasons given by the Planning Commission for their action: 1 . A condition of approval of Tentative Tract Mai, No . 6528 required the applicant to submit a zone change application to rezone the property R-1 . ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES : Porter, Duke , Miller , Bazil , Tom, Bo?tor NOES: Zion e ABSENT : Slates THE MOTION CARRIED. Additional. information: There was no onc. p�. esent to apaak in �.. r.-- .__.._.__......... frvor or against the proposal . Respe^tfua ly submitted, K. A. Reynolds Secretary, Plaru—UnE; Corual--lion KAR:bd R,- j 1 1 i r 1 r. i 110 I I IT J 3 � F Nwl�lc I - FS f .kwnv MAKERDRmat NAWATTAN DR OR PICXARID OR MY LN ' I ' CRI-TA RAItiA I10 1 DR Y i LOS M IM7 jR 5- ', � ,, pCCA lt . _1.. + ._ � � �._., . 7a1: _ i. �1IcC s L� ok I CR VIA ANG[LINA OR -� ' wa��ra. r IY YA CJI _ VISTA DEL 5� O l GR r—` f vIA 1 CARONA OR 4 _ a — I T ? .MROINE.+ OR. _K q INE S 0 iil I T / . � YILLA S/EVA 93K - _ °" �s ram.. M r _ ,� ♦ _ _ _ u���4_�_� �,y�..�� si /5.r1 d.r� .�1.raM *�+�IY� .iA/� 1�*ram._ Al auvirt �f Pf6fication • 6 ""---- ' late aR wttn" J. a. rirquhar, bring duly aviorn on oath, wyd: That he Is u citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. u.gG11L 71aat he Is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Besse% Y GO News, it weekly ne -opaper of general circulation printed and pub. �,�( �,►1 ltshed In Huntltytton Beach, California and circulated In the , ;ct` ►'►� �� County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dlueml Igoi'► ► r,r of local asap other nowa of a general character, and has a bona tide �.••' subsct•iption 11vt of paying subscribers, and said paper has n ''" ,... -••" established, printed and published In the State of California, d - ;�'; �'t•'a'�� County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publlcat of the firat Insertion of title notice: and the Bald newspaNe is n devoted to the Interest of, or published for the entertainment of any1 particular claw, professlon, trade, calling, race or denomination, any number therheof, The Huntington Beach News was adjudicate( s legal newspapor .-.,••�--r,•r- ----; of general circulation by Judge G, K. Scovel In the Superior Court of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. 1 � Tttac the . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOT" ' " wilt ZONE USE NO. 62--16 I INK tt,e Ctwte ' Hunts, HUMW4W of which the annexed Is n printer! c .,,~ was published In said news- Nt the how of 7130 P.M., or � tholar w- 04 yNMf04, sA 'WI 21s1 Coy,of JoIg'.1Ml, ter oft paper at least 9130 1e8lie conr,idwcc'Ina a NtltJvn Io, e r.*e IPWR NA Ii1 Air V 61strlat W Ca won! �aftwetiMlt�drt Yrlat, with a ib'. IrMrMl;' ttM 1N1� c:ornrnercinK from the O t!1 day ot_ Jul�r c„ Is NOW40 4 uok•ve I lo• c:otwi on trw W*% rills M. r 5trwk IMMItr+ 46F Olt' 19-2—, and ending on the _ZOth day of Ju_—lY__ iw Avow, h �4 1 ��+�ratrMan h aN file in 1AA,MlrnralMt ti. as.Irrwrwtaxi .I+sor+s &J1 ,MV ter to 19 b9_, both clays Inclusive, and as often during, said period and ,sttwwl stets, and awPr w- M* opinianii x, or at sole FAA4 tow, times of publication as Bald paper was regularly issued, and In the F IZ,1VftM t�ah '+ W 4 OhNSIM40 regular and entire issue of said newspaper ptaper, and not in a i tram Im or%* IN ON VV CWk. supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following I OATC& SOY 2. dates, to-wit: CITY of MUttTINGTM ttdl " syl r�ity twitAJL July 10 , 2969 Publisher Subscribed :and swota to before me this f f ► 10 of notary Mile i Orastge C�avnty, CbUtosrita THOMAS D. WYLLIE NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA Lf PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN ORNIGE COUN! My C#Inff11s1ion Expires ,Sept. I2r 1910 l 7 1 Huntington Beach Planning Commission i P.O. Box Ito CALIFORNIA 926" July 21 , 1969 TO,. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Commission SUBJECT : Zone Case No. 69- 16 ATTN: Doyle Miller, City Administrator Paul Jones, City Clerk Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is the Planning Commission recommendation for approval of Zone Case No . 69- 16 . A2plicant: National Acceptance Co. of California Alpha Beta Acme Market 777 So . Harbor Blvd . La Habra , Calif. Location: West side of Springdale Street , 660 feet south of Edinger Avenue . Master Planned : Low Density Residential keguest : Change of Zone From R-A Residential Agricultural District to C-4 Highway Commercial District with a 50 ft . set- back from the ultimate right-of-way tine . Commission Action : Approved Reasons Riven by the Planning Commission for their action: 1 . The proposed zone change is compatible with existing zoning patterns in the area. 2 . The proposed use is adjacent to commercial property and does not create strip zoning. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Slates , Porter , Bokor, Bazil , Miller , Tom NOES: Dike ABSENT: Nome THE MOTION CARRIED. Additional Information: A representative for the applicant explained his reasons for the reque -it. No one was present to speak in opposition. Respectfully , mitxed, 1 C K. A. Reynolds Secretary, Planning Commission KAR:dr r ! W. S'°t 314 r ;� rc - � � T�Asu F Oc�lv¢QY% � �I t D•,o"a� �� yxi �� 'Q Ew ri � i`J SoFTwIho ogivo ri • • t 1 �! ,. J— TOTAL- l5JLt,01NG5 3,� 50 ;,oGO►'tLCN ; ,M TA OWK56 NLT109 L !.ce-=rumce moo. aF ckw peV:C I y t4LLLe,* D1YID�� 3�. r'r�LGb•RL'r : L LPG Sa-M A e.A° MktZKSTs 777 5- rrb► 9-bad swo. • Affidavit of lication T ,;;�� $ao.of CIL Pury 11 man beach J, B. nmuhar, belm duly sworn on oath, says: 7bat he Is a 0: `.. citisett of the United States, over the age of twenty-one yvirs. That he Is the pilnter mW publisher of ths' Huntington Aead.t News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub• Ilafwd In Huntington Hach, California and clrv:ulated in the sad County of Orange and elsewhere any] published for the dissemination of kmW and oUwr newa of a general character, and hasa a b{xia fide tJ subscription list of pnying subscribers, and said paper has been established, printed and published in the State of Callforn* arnd County of Orange, for at least one year rwxt before the publlcatlolt (ft1A(*oqd' *AgJWf% It Mew' of the first Iruertion of this notice; and the said newspaper L not "IV - devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any � MRAR "s.+ particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or any number thereof. i tetyTlCc ni It y, 7?w Huntington Beach News was adjudicated a legal newspaper Na i4'' K. Scovel In the Superior Court �� 1�I general circulation by Judge C�, iN ' L of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order Na. A-5231, !the ?4 OW a tee �+M+r r tnswatt�r s7 RoMeM14 '�1i That the NOTICE OF PUS�xC HEI1R]�N( ust dey of wly$ Pw co"dwino,NW ; (a)A ehsnaa. . _ ZONE CABF 62-2 2 1W M , +r of which the annexed Is a printed copy, wan published in e•-id news- o n�tbesM go"", + a �x ter, alai 1Aa corn, oy IN&& AW ImWr at least gne issue w _ dsN the" MwRiAighlttl''s , � commencing from the 19 h __day of 41111y n�at�w 'ss�jMs1~ z�� aM Mf# ' °:ec nr ' 19...�� and ending on the ..day of Ju�.�' a<ssit.. i1�w r•a�ytlwMw 19_ 2_, both days Inclusive, and as often during said period and 1c) times of publication an said paper was regularly issued, and in the Ing regular and entire Issue of said newspaper proper, and not in a Mtn supplement, and said notice was pubUshed therein on the followingall dates, to-wit: • - . July 10 , 1969 vivo halt of t" (�� /� seMiild � �• epinNlnr thee Vol- rMiM usher t�wlhaar Subscribed and sworn to befora me this day of ' aATOD o las— Orange County, California ; L i COUNCIL THOMAS 0. WYLLIE WMf MLIC - CAtlftNtNIA 'ro: ...........��..� ..� PRI11CIPAL OFFICE IN . . OMNtI€ COUNTY . I1614M Eu Its 2 r My Csa p p� 1 � I�'�0 Huntington Beech Planning Commission P.O. Box 190 CALIFORNIA 926" August 18, 1969 f�,1 !J TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COU?�TCIT, `!, �•y' �, FROM: Planning Commission StMJECT : Zone Case No . 69-17 (R3 Portion) ATTN: Doyle Miller City Administrator Paul Jonas , 6ity Clerk Gentlemen: �. According to your request, tho Planning Commission at their August 5 , 1969 , meeting reconsidered their decision to deny that portion of Zone Case 69-17 to change the pone on property located on ;,he north side of Edinger Avenue , west of the Marina High School Site , from NlA to R3 and specifically to rezone Phase #1 to R3. By majority vote , -the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning of Phase #1 to R3 , because the highest and best use of the property is industrial tuid that if Phase #1 alone is rezoned it will eliminate any possibility of developing the balance of the property for industrial use . ROLL CALL VOTE : AYES: Doke , Porter, Slates , Bnkor , Bazil NOES: Miller ABSENT: Tom THE NOTION CARRIED. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION: Commissioner Duke felt that the R3 request should be denied, because the highest and best use of the property is industrial. Commissioner Fazi.l stated that the best use is industrial, but if the Courcil chooses to proceed with an apartment complex, then Phase 2 or 5 should be considered rather than Phase 1, because eifiYlPr phuWM or 5 will allow development of the remaining property for industrial , if the project is not successful. Commissioner Miller statel that he feels the proposed R3 willbe a good development. J r Idditional Comments ; 1 . Thia planning Commission action will fulfill the legal require- ments and allow the City Council to take whatever action they Zee fit, as intends t 2. The plannin Commission inten o meet m t with members of the Ocean View School District to discuss planning matters and establish a closer working relationship. Respectfully submitted, K. A. Reynolds Secretary, Planning Commission $AR:bd �� Q . 2U6Rp8cwl JOS ''e S. 8an14 00*u W Ave., Whittier, UaL VOL 043-0171 August 18, 1969 Huntington Beach Planning Department City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: In reviewing your August 4th report , which was in response to Councilman Coen's request , we have come up with additional tax revenue information as it affects the Oceanview School District . Since the industrial and the R-3 are proposed to be developed simultan- eously in a "phasing program" (one will not be developed without the other) , we have projected approximately $599, 000 in tax revenue to the School District alone . To clarify , this only considers that land which is south of McFadden and in the Oceanview Elementary School District area . For the purpose of illustration , only 5500,000 has been used in the follow- Ing examples to better demonstrate the soundness of our entire zoninq proposal . Example #1 : Based on the local tax collection of $301 .54 per student this would give them a cost of$ 113 ,989 .68. This would give the School District a cash surplus of $386 ,010.32. That is 91/ of $4,200,000. Example #2: Now let 's review the total cost of each student to the School District which is $579.56 , but let 's take this figure and round it off to $600.00. That cost to the School District would be $226,800 giving the School District a cash surplus of $273 ,200 or 9*4 of $3 ,000,000. We feel that these examples answer this one remaining concern as to the feasibility of our overall zoning pldn. Very truly yours , JO LIJSK ry S William D. Lusk President WDL/cih --� 1 i AJ � Huntington Beech Planning Commission P.O. box 190 CALIFORNIA 02648 July 21 , 1969 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Zone Case No . 69- 17 ATTN: Doyle Miller-, City Administrator Paul Jones, City Clerk Gentlemen : Transmitted herewith is the Planning Commission' s recommenda- tion for approval of a portion of Zone CaSe No . 69•• 17 and for denial of the balance . This transmittal also pertains to that portion of said zone change which was reccimmendEd for denial and appealed by the applicant . Applicant : John D. Lusk and Son P. O. Box 1217, Perry Annex Whittier, California Location: South of Bolsa Avenue , west �- of Springdale Street , Master Planned : Light industrial � Request : Change of zone! from Ml -A Limited Manufacturing District to 100-M1- A-20,000, 1.00•-M1-A- 15 , 000, R.3 Limited Multiple Family Residence District and (;;4 Highway Commercial District with a 50 ft . setback from ultimate right-of-way ling . Reasons given by the applicant : ( In Brief) (a.) Reason for 15 ,000 and 20, 01►0 sq , f t . lotEl I.Y. Y�ii-M.• Ire our marketing research one :fact is paramount in the planning of a subdivision. This is, lot flexi- bility. By having a 20, 000 sq . ft . average with a 15, 000 sq . ft , minimum, we can make sites available for a rele.tively small manufacl:urer an well as in- dustry requiring larger sites . (b) Reason for R-3 In doing our Marketing research for the Huntington Beach Industrial Park, we find a definite present and futuro need faL garden- type apartments. By developinj; this industrial park, a large new demand for apartments will not only be created but their convenient availability will also be a consideration of some of the new industrial concerns . (c) Reason for Commercial There exists in a large industrial development, the need for industrially oriented commercial activities such as banks , hotels, automotive services, restau- rants, etc . The services are not only for convenience but will substantially reduce traffic through the nearby neighborhoods . PlanninzCommission Acton: See attached Exhibits A and B whicFi—delineate t e applicant ' s request and Planning Com- mission ' s recommendation. ROLL CALL VOTE: Approval for change of zone from MI-A Limited Manufacturing District to C4 Highway Commercial District , 100- MI-A- 20 , 000 and 100-M1-A- 15 , 000 . AYES : Bazil , Bokor, Slates , Tom, Porter, Miller, Duke NOES : None ABSENT: Norse TUE MOTION CARRIED . That portion of the request for an R3 zone was recom- mended for denial by the Planning Commission at their June 3 , 1969 , meeting . This decision has been appealed to the City Council . Staff Recommendation Pertaining to the R3 : There is an adequate supply of mu t p .77amily zoning m e area . Reasons for Planning Commission Denial of the R3 : 1 . There is sufficient R3 in the area to serve the industrial developmem. 2 . The requested R3 will. reduce the prime industrial acreage by 21%. IkOLL CALL VOTE: Denial. of the R3 AYES: Bokor, Porter, Miller, Bazil , Slates NOES: None ABSENT: Duke , Tom THE MOTION CARRIED. Additional Information: Nine property owners opposed the change of zone to R3 A petition signed by 80 homeowners in the Bolsa Tract was submitted opposing the request to R3. One property owner was in favor of the request . Concern was also ex- pressed that the property develop in a manner compatible with surrounding property. Several meetings were held between the developer, staff members and Planning Commission members in an attempt to develop a plan to the advantage of the City, nearby residents and developer , _2_ Except for the R3 zone , there iG agreement on the Planning Comatission' s recommendation. A zoning prefix and suffix has been park: of the zon- ing ordinance for some time , but was not use: . The prof n designates minimum lot frontage ( 100 ft ► ) and the suffix de-, signates lot area ( 15 ,000 and 20, 000 sqj ft . ) . The minimum lot size for Ml-A in one ( 1) acre . Respectfully a . tted , K. A. Reynolds Secretary, Planning Commi98iOrl KAR:dr i i �3- 1. • w f -E.Xwmrr 09%4%WAIM R1141"tir E' SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP I6-5-II (M OF o" Owl" mfdw� N TV* wwM+N HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA *7. Aw. Nwr A PAtoT i Ml-A- 2a,4a" VI -A m 11 or f N to 41oko AL wo MAILIMA 14 9A* t � Ni d� A PAau r out AAA `��b R41rao � I�r• �111�A �- irs�rr .� � Ate � ��f111w``� R. SAO` � ... ..��. ..�.. .• �� Ft., ' aw PLANWAIG I SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP moms a.r 1%00Qrff OF 0" � � ftfft � • i�R HUNTINGTON BEACH ' + ORANGE COUNTY., CALIFORNIA -+ 13!IU& �air 'Aar M I ••A M I-A ' Ub C11 W&IE C 1 AtRi� 1 bpi• na''2& 'dbd I RI .a wl MImA RI MAMMA MA.Ta oil ,r.r b7. 2 AS Arc. • • • • s a a • rill.wl _ Fa XnW 12 a Sip AG. Ali IRS -td11-A M 1�• rR� �' i�.`f� � 105N P. 1ata G*tnWm Ave., Wh fttvr, CaL 9'es. 94"171 June 13 , 1969 City Council RECEIVED' City of Huntington Beach CITY CLERK P . 0 . Box 190 c:n Y OF Huntington Beach , Ca 1 i forsr i a NUHTINGInN BEACH,CALI ' Re : Huntington Beach industrial Park „ ,, Zone Appeal 1959 Jul is P11 3 . 2 2 Gentlemen: On June 3 , the Huntington Beach Planning Commission denied our request for R-3 zoning as shown on the attached plot plan and we wish to respect- fully appeal that decision . Our decision to request the R-3 in this area is based on the following: ( 1 ) The property we are requesting R-3 zoning on is ng� pr me Industria � l �erty because of its adjacency o t hoar,-s , pub 4 t c park, and library , We feel we wi l l have a definite reslstence on the part of the Industrial user to locate in this area. (2) While there is a large amount of low-cost rental in the Huntington mach area, there are not fine garden apartments of the character we intend to buiid for the engineers and other higher paid specialists in the aerospace industry. We feel that the development of the garden apartments , paced alone with our industrial development , wiit give us the opportunity to provide housing for executives and personnel of the plants moving into the area. This capability is important as plants do not generally move unless there is housing for their employees . (3) We feel the main objections to our zoning were from the ,3chool !superintendent who, in spite of the fact that our development would add $ 1 ,570,000 in tax funds for the district , does not want one more child In the local school . (4) in tax revenue to the City of Huntington Beach, the garden apartments wi 1 I produce, on a cost basis , $8,400 per acre versus the industrial one-acre that now exists which will produce $5 ,995 per acre . We believe we can Justify these figures to your satisfaction. City Council CitY of Huntington Beach Page 2 June 13 , 1969 (5) The competition for the Industrial user is terribly intense. Newport Beach is building garden apartments; in fact, they' are building . 1 ,800 on one complex of 44 acres . Mission� Viejo and the Segerstrom interests are also competing heavily for the industrial user . We must have a ,flexibility of zoning and - land use to develop the greatest potential of this property. Our prime motives are those listed above: (1 ) The fact that the tak revenue will be greater. (2) The fact we can provide up-graded garden apartment housing for the executives of the plants being moved to the, area. (3) We feel the school objection Is hardly valid in view of the tax consequences to the school district . (4) The property we are requesting the zoning on is not prime industrial property but our very poorest property facing Edinger , homes , a library and a public school . These factors will be detriments to industrial users in this area and we feel the best use for this property is the zoning we are requesting -- R-3 . The garden apartments will be entirely screen through line-of-sight plan- ning that will not permit windows to look into the backyards of the e idences The traffic pattern is entirely isolated from the adjacent r s residential area . Your consideration of this appeal Is sincerely appreciated and has a great concern to us in going ahead with this project . S I ncere ly Yours , JOH Qti LUS William D. Lusk President WDL/cih I . = I �t ' HUNTTl GUM WQI CHAMR OF COMl '.W582 teach Boule'dard Huntington Beach, California 1. Jul; 21, 1969 Honorable Mayor and Flembers of the City Council City of Huntington Beach California Gentlemen: With i;saPect to .Zone Case No, 69- 17 , bi;ought by John D, Lusk & Son concerning theft proposed industris'1, cotamercial and residential. complex on -the Pook Property in our City, the Chamber of Commerce respectfully request your most ' serious consideration to the concerns and request being made by the Luak firm in this matter. Top quality industrial development is sorely needed in Huntington Beach and requires a heavy investment and commitment on the part of anyone undertaking such a, 'project. All espec'te of inch a project are vitally interrelated with one another, leading, we all hope , to a successful. 'prolect of mutual benefit to the investors as well' as the City . With these thoughts in mind, we request your fullest consideration and cooperation with this long awaited development by John D. Lusk b Son. Very truly yours, C.. E WOODS, President Huntington Beach 'Chaimber of Commerce, CEW/m saw.' 1060 S. Soft Oo*vM AV&j WMt*rl Od 210L 04"171 June 13 , 1969 �l City Council City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach , California Re: Tentative Map. No. 6948 Gentlemen: We have in process a tentative map aiong with 'our zoning case and zoning appeal . As a practical matter , aE the time our zoning case and zoning appeal are heard , we would appreciate our tentative map also being scheduled. Thank you. Sincerely ours , AHM-'0^ LUS N f William D . Lusk President WD L/c i h iM Huntington Beach plopping Commission P.O. sox 190 CALiroRmm as" OPP August: 4, 1969 —--------- MEMO DEFERRED To: City Council ©Y COUNCI* From: Planning Department • ,, ........ 'o t Subject : Zone Case No. 69-17 TO: Applicant : John D. Lusk & Son • •----•• ~••~• "�'�"�'"' Note : Councilman Coen asked the Planning Department to &repare the fallowing data at your July 14 , 196 , meeting. Attn: Doyle Miller, City Administrator In determining the comparative revenues in R3 verscis industrial zoning, samples of assessed value per acre were taken as clo3e to the subject area as possible . * The results for undeveloped and developed acreage were as follows : Assessed Value Per Acre Undeveloped R3 $6 , 175 Industrial $4, 674 Developed R3 Lard $8, 529 per acre Ird . Dev. Land - $26 , 310 plus $1 , 945 per unit In the undeveloped category, R3 produces more (32%) revenue than does industrialland. When projecting revenue and expenditures for developed areas the situation becomes more complex. In order to determine a pro ected assessed value figure for the subject propertythe above ligures were used, with the following results : R3 Land = $8 , 529 x 44. 5 = $ 3790541 Improvements=44. 5 ac.. x 25 un/ac x $1945/un = 2 , 163, $13 Total assessed value: $295430354 Industrial Developed land = $26 , 310' x 44. 5 - Total assessed value $lvl70p795 The Ocean View Elementary School Uiatrict was them contacted to determine the cost per student per year to the school district. Their total cost was $579 . 56 per student:, of which $301. 54 is received from local taxes at a total rate of .$3 . 71 per $100 of *industrial sam les were taken primarily from the Murdy Industrial Park assessed value. The present city tax rate is $1 .45 per $100 assessed value. Using the above figures the revenue for the school district and the city were then projected. City School District Ind .- 1 .45 x 1 170 795-$16, 976 Ind. -3 . 71 x 1 170 795-$43 , 436 LUU IOU - - R3 - 1 .45 x 2 543 354 $36, 879 R3 3 . 71 x 2 543 354 $94, 358 LUU IOU The above table shows a projection of $19, 903 or 117% more per dyear in revenue to the city in an R3 development versus an in- ust'rial development . On the other hard, the school district would not fare so well with an R3 development. Even though the revenue from an R3 development is almost: $51,000 more per year - the cost of educatin children that could be generated by a multiple family comp ex must be considered. If it- is assumed that this apartment complex would generate the city-wide average amount of K- 8 students of . 34* per unit in multiple family areas, this development would mean the following to the Ocean View School District . 44. 5 ac. x 25 un/ac x . 34 students/unit . 378 students 378 x $301 . 54/student - $113 , 982 Total school expenditure Revenue 94, 358 Expenditures M3, 982 Difference. $ 19, 624 per year SUMMARY j If the land is to remain vacant for any length of time it is an advantage for both the City and Ocean View School District for the land to be zoned R3, because of the 32% more revenue genera- ted and no expenditures for additional school children. If the land is developed R3 rather than industrial , it helps the City ($19 , 903 more per year) about as much as it hurts the school dis- trict ($19 , 624 less per year) . * This figure should be considered more of a maximum figure since garden-type apartments generally have a lower num- ber of children p er unit when comp ared to a subdivision type of multiplefamily, or quite often' are restricted to adults on' .. 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER of COMMERCE 0 lea BBACH EOULEVARD, iUf1L� IN, MWINGTON BEACH. CAMP?" P. 0. Box nt 1714 %24"1 HWTOCION KUN zoomable V yer &A City Ceumil August 49 1969 city of ■s►tington beach The rastLaltou Swwh Cho6or of Conoww eo haviag exariwod and analysed a plan four sa Iedsatrial lawk proposed b7 the Leak Company, submits the following reaolsties to year zMorable body. The ChoWww of Commerce strmSly mos■roo►d• that approval to proceed be granted by taw City Council to the Lurk Corpsay for the davelopme t of an Isidastrial perk is the pity of Wmtirgtoo beach in that area bounded by goloa, gptingdale dad tdinger Aveaaues. la general taro, the Look indsstrial Fork Flan is to irc lade a coaaerc ial area, Ml and We Iodestnial Cowlexes, awl an Apartant K[ tsiag park. The above r e*mP&"rtiota is bared upon consideration of significant key foetew resulting from ao a ,slysia cmdocted by the CksaaWr of Cowwarre lecami: Developusat Cowittess far evaluating the Lwk Floor of the way lac.. __ d, !ion key area are as Teflon. • a. Tait Bass- Ivtn the rust conservative estimten iodicato a rather a- bandeat enhanceont to the City's tax brae by the develop- Mat of the couplax as set fortb in the Lm+k tree. The Asterestuq wrrtspr of Cqw�rcial , IDWIStriel OW lasiden- OW apartments' into this Plan can provide the City with one of the not progressive and unique developwats is the City. This thew mast that our potential cash flog for tax, poMose• nbosld be erahatteed by wore tbm $3*7 wUlidar from the in- dwtrial property tax alms; does mot ear a added tan svoews from sales tare, tax" derived treat ases oraial property nor added reoidmtial buying parar. b. Missed Oppost aluselp fwdm r delay Lr 610 "Must, U"d for edditionsl studies rind/ of d as as to tin pleas OW proposed, VI II only tmd to hnbett delay this Wooded lsdestrial ammlepw at:,"This will tbom lent to foloor mimed oppestMmigloo for growth within the City es spatiogtr Mashe it omld appear that we may barn already lens a aososticIve Dips to tba owns its 80sritios, L.e. , sets the groins tndsatrial Co wlex am Mastaisiater industrial Park (borderin;l ■sntLagtan beach) Mich are xoviag ahead in as abgtressive INUMer. C. Nei Dsuaad- it is quite obvLfes is a review of the Tarioua statistics cosceraa- tbi gtrenth of tiraap Cow ,W/I that there' is a Tool seed for Nader& isfestrLal patrks cad that the demand will, far somas ye8911 to ear , be for in *earns of available prime sites. As a city we can, capitarlLat as this tread. d. Lask UMATeship- tt will be di!!ficult. to usMeeveyr asotber fits with the represents- ties aged loadalrehip dowcastmated by Wmi Lusk Company. 14kere an less thaa';a bamdful of firm it Cafiiforale eombiaiwb' as w4esotanditg and responsive attitude ii.eward city plrssiag cad residential dlivelopme+at in the plaass*l'; for and develo"eat of an acceptable, esthetic industrial path;. The I^ek people wederstawd th,s how owner's anxisties deed distress; it should be sated that their plan calls for an Lastallation that irill add to, rather thaws detract from, the llocal trasidmtial ,ta*lex- their plan defLaitely recepisee the pirivaay of the �resi,deats � adjaceat to the park. Leak has offered the City a plaas 'au a basis that it will be fisasoial viable', flow the developfir's pellet of vL4mi, which then "suns tba :11sity of a fin"ciAlly fasitble developrst 0 rather than a Wits tlephatto in, his &Wtoaob to #;be psojoet be has had to isolude areas, bo1.b casauarcial awl apartment, that provides. arasittes , hesce over- Go id" the pi►teatial lost profit erg!►e dwe to requirements for wiil4r sttreet O g setbacka, MA larpr letse rraviding that sound saalag ptrineliplis are adhered to, it its evident that Lsrk's exper• teiko offer is sosad fLsascial plaa. e. Killing Coeest;wrction Costs- De bey of @TmI six Noethe is sow beeoai,eg s ignif leant and as noted is the iagin,sering awry Keend indox, the trend 3s upward is total project cost which aiais aids to the 11iffiesity at a later period of bias is attracting the tight six of Lm4"try to our five city. %gas then are the cease sigsifteast of may e1e01rnts considered bl- the Chamber of Cersrarce is suppart of the recommidatiou to ptroaood as the We% DA%Atrial gash filar. qkAFPI"*� ILrJ r r r Lo L42, !� . 'ri�•l���/��r',,,?• /v1.�, lam' .��•�.����,.�• �.����.�•���'i` /k- � T� ��C•��- �/��.�:-•t�l Pis fy ;ve-K ve jv �r 'rZ�/f 1.�.���,�i1��'f.•�'L\� r '/ ` ` _ -•� ` � � � �•r i•�•e!•;�.T�!•Gt' �' ;��►•f=��'ts"1 ,,� ��G.� ��� f'(/1,?•�'�'$r�rh�{C�y�t.r1.c' �i'�•J /�`r'•(♦�l�j' � //,✓+e�i•e���r�.���.� ,-�•?•+�i..;�'•' ��'';���'/�/JA� ��� �'.; . d 'a �� � ,� a'', �'�•� ���r•U�`�r���jam`' , 41 '1 • �.� ~'ram � r �i��:'��'r• .,��sr� ��� �J' ICY,• c�::� r,;��•;,��' ���;r� p f, c7 , � r�J/J/�/.,1��,,,�' ���• I L,;. •:� / r•�• / r� •�•'yj�'fii.f.•,�'.•�♦ (.+�(/rj-1'''� •i J ,,r'r./ rl1/ � t...�'� f�� J .�/ �1 fj� •i"i,•I!'•"�:.p /' � /i'/-�� {•( rf/' �w•r�i.r' I /� �•��t•�r/ •�•�rtj/•I,� ���f�lr1 �/•�,.�j�/„ �{'./,��j�i/' �.�„ �•J,�'!..�.!/'f�� �r� .��'1'S;'��� . ,�•w ���J`,r�'� ► �r�t�l--c'',���..•i�,;!,:�:,-,j�sr�•t',�.,�;���;. r'�i��r-�-��;�..(�-- ���.;�..��-•r..,r r.�.ar i. ���! �'�t !�/��f�/l � r�'1^ •h� �/ J•��'�� r+i't r ��'el J i^+�.•+• f/��►T.,r'Mjp��� ♦'� �`•!�� A Al ,� •yJ. I • , f I! l ir', I tUt•: iY n . r l+t+:l!'r1t+ 'l;' •I�l1:l'rt •'lp vr,cl;: Ile t:Uri ti flip,to I ;'f�\a0,It LM:tI•,Ilc' ;� •�:): !Jttl r�;�',f:�':� �;► !� f��,n !►:!r1, t ^;3i1 t• i:1 11 1•113f1 (',Ilj`11:)11•: 17 ':'.1 (tj��l+illt;f sl;il..� `1L:;1. j'f'^•1,711�'li)3.1.1,1t�� t:El2':)li(rli ti: ��j•'=:'•ntj illy r1G� I.vf' T�il1' ; j '''l.();3ist:) I1rC)Vl�l'fl- ' ^�' • 1 1 '.i"S+l;i i.;1 'it1!►i1:Vf' �. 1:?i oitl'rt jne' Clt'. . � Ilt' l.wn��ll(! \J:,t 1. :; � f: - , ti►�irl''I'� :Z��1•vi4t� :tltt� ;:t: ttr; '� 1: 1 l.t•n ';{ir- i•:, of I., l.is'rit �•tl st11r '1�1�1' y j , n :• •;� it\• r•{1!Z 1. .•j��+�. i 1' .• . ,; !•,It!'!��n j• of �i.lr��1i�i t.�ti� �J ' '(t: t„� f'? s� a.;) r••• t.hlL l;.�;cl+:.s , �'"?:.t cs n t �►:�i.. . ;�, ic. J • •� t i,. • t,C' t' i 11C;! ' 1C)il;.li ,. ,.;'' ' .;> : rt:!'\T� it.�l� U1, ^1 .� .. • a.11:.t j 1 1 o� ' t 1 l Il '.t,'i Il ti{t,�. i{ /►'1 I.`� ut.f't: rt:la � 1tl i-► t,� .•Illll. . t 1,• � tr• 1 Lr:t' Il:,+ i!il Ill►:! C)i� ti(1:l�ik�!11^1 Si:i!'Irl:;i.:i •i• jt'ti ,.^(1! 11.11�:3t;,Illi•iV . � - , i o ff, t'f l� iX `;Cho:A � tnit:l'!.0 t,:{ !, fill 111!'l`p11ml : 1ir:7r'ilf(1� ,1.:)!1 (;:i �'itn is t :i ,. 1)1'Ei wr:t,t?ri t„) tv.-ont•ir Leil(,ilo rl IJC.;Il!r°il,;)11 rt:lrit� 1 . 'L •1• '1, `• 'C!.1:1 •) t�{ �{ n 1 it' w . 1 �; •^ I, .)1 t L .r .Cli.,t.l ., I't..11)liftl lc: t31 ^ * 't'1:1'1 E}/li,).1P'i1,� 1} r r ;lt? :; a `.? , � :� glitz! 1VL:ill^:l ►JI' U �i{(:iII:Y' tt'Vt.' 1 ,!i' . .\'.0 i tn.r a1. C11tS ill flu si:ti .14 : ,; t'r i Q t trll{ •►• t , .L .�, ' �.�r C711Ct: ,'l.('l� \lbv 7C:v ' '{1.�11'� �} l:. ll�(\. f1�,L 1 J( Ctt!'��: ( , 't, u 1 j { f r }11\��/�t�lttil 1 .1r�:t �ll vl.l, `►M't'!tl !l '1tr..�t� i. 1/\� L l.l,j,i l.i' C4 IJ til�l,�.)t� 0A i7`'► :1';:it'��,r)t�ri vntu'l� i:►l7. ,;r' Uecat ;.'; t; �Ulll �l:j`ViC:t?.� ulit'.l'2 • • ,tl'1t ,)1'r: � C�;ll l)� t;^r1L:...t.IC)r1 •1Cu Zl: t .�U. no v .'l''Ct3114 , ll';Ct'�' hi/:�. ' ii]'1; ::'i tsl'i l'il�C' ]. 11 ,f'. :Cl':t'. 11�'Cflll�: � I.It? !: •+I+t'r wj:!!'; nlltlti � �t;f' J•�llLia prCovl.att c Sh,')rt. t:CI'ft Ilt'r�i.Jt3j. �s•aV c':rr11 11 ,} - .. 'u., , 1 v 1 { t,1 !1 ; rr 1.11Ea 1ll•;(',C:r:1 �. 1.'t Oi for tl !1L�1 • ,I.11P lt. C it•1o11 11t l 1ri: , Llr'jt; 1)a n e oUr l`,!'.r1Ce'?'I1 f':':t l'll�" l; 1lf.lr;1)'�1 l,ii9' ,.:'''tll,l. l`. -in r•'• ?' r nc! �1 ._`; Lj aL • ! S • .. TT . t �t v1jS' L:7ill:�'1'11 t•' tl,;.•1=. , t 'rli;�, t:ho I' ll' 11'+:: •l!111t,; !11"t,:)11 :j(+i(.Il !.l.t} �+- ,1• ) +i (• .-I � i 1 ;'1lt:Il C (! 11,'� ;�Ch''1:)1 :)i�; ri e t • ::;lrralty tt),. 1 ric. �� (dud k—)n!,lI rl`:'�ri4r':= S:j')'• al.s:} tt+'r+I'1��;:? :1t; IIn:till ai:i Li`:Ii w t}Ur;l` • 1 a h: ti+tip-.••P.hJ1''` `ill)�l�Jr't�. '1`:11r` j''tllltlt�i v t:�L'ii; ,;!' Y'j,0',l G:7il�l.�i,.:?('1'C t.�,:� '1 �}Zf? ! r �,t11'' y��1t ' 1.t'I')(llit.. :7 , ti'+:rir'�i:. 1ir' t� i11`.r't�. 1,Z. t:"• rlt. r'./j'1.;.1 ��1� 0 }, .. 1 ,. bl•r11l� :1i}(,' l:Y' i•�t-' i'10 J+ �.i� '1'.! 1.. :'t�':r.!,.,t't.G�:.7 • .',t� 1.f � CILIn11Jl'\, '�lt'1 1 :)'' 1 4,`1/l11• �1•• . ,•I,r'II •��}:1 T't',l.�l"'t.� l:��l'•� t.r'.\ �� �•��• �r•�.1i . ' that r .e• • ••7I1 t. .1 `�}• ;) ' ,:I—(•i 1'.' n (� •1�:'i yin 1�i 11'' � �1 .:, 1. .1' 1 J r A. k." 11_ '. '� 11 't. t r )t (.`1 ,�• l;t• :: , I',►�I• j' (:�11. !T�• '�.)+.t�' il`,l st � I. t'04- � :'!1 (1hZrf'� 'I!►i1i~!lt• ; n cr�+:1 or /',a'l`:! L.�'l' �.rl°1 .^.1. flt ( r :e t:l1 � I111 it't1)rl.l.tili�l; :itii.ty,l j J• �� i l^.i.1:111t. 'l.:J ! !1 illy r.t111 :il_•li�);1 �- il'' 't� .<\:i '.� i:�►'.1 :l�'t: l L, .11Jtl ,C t' 1 !11� (j�+r)Jl"tr!1:'•� l,'� till rll't ~•:�t�, ;)tli 'J.1,\'; .� • � .i':: • +-l�.�l li)! �i.l'is,111-r I tY. YY :::�) i. ill"1•.)1} .-1i•!(�r.�i'1 1r� '� 'll(: 6'j •+:.)l :l li trot v 0 •'li �ill:jl�l :lili) •','i tll:a is 1:l1i VC)1 w .1 1i tC'G ' F 17oCry` EC0NOMIC t3 MLOKARNT lJ IPAWMINT A'.1 I I NTINGYCaN aE1�Cl�i CHAMBER of C0�1M�1ERC E -il.,l�,s. 10532 BEACH DOULEYARD, SUITE 224. HUNTINGTON EEACH, CALIFORNIA 42bO P. 0. BOX 272 TELEPHONE I7141 V62."61 HU61TINGTON BEACH August 18, 1969 lionorabl a Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach The Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce reaffirms that resolution submitted to the Mayor and City Council , August 4, 1969 , concerning the OW Industrial Park proposed by the Lusk Company. In addition to that Resolution of August 4 , 1969 (citing five key factors -- Tax Base, Missed Opportunities, heed Demand , Lusk Leadership, and Rising Construction Costs) , the, Chamber of Commerce is concerned that the Industrial Parks economic benefits to the' City have been ignored.. Therefore, an additional statement to the August 4, 1969 letter is submitted for your consideration. STATEMENT Consideration of Economic Aspert _, namely Cash Flow, in the operation of the C t of Huntington Beach. —' Cash Flow to- , support the City of Huntington Deach. is based upon certain receipts (Local , County, State, and Federal ) which are b'ud ked annual,)y against �la ednn � or;,anticipated expenditures. Expenditures include administrative, fire departmerit, poi ;}e, recreation, schooling, utilities , maintenance and others. The cash:.flow probl;im of a City is comparable to that of runnin4f,a business , wherein dollar shrinking vs spiraling costs of operation is encountered, The City of Huntington Beach has income potential due to retail sales , tourism, conventions, recreation, parking meters , residQntial taxation, and last but not least (although underplayed until to date) , a sound industrial base. Emphasis' on an si p - ngl a budget item and s ec i fi c -Goi l ars fo'r that i tart,, i .e. , apartments vs ycnool taxation, will te:�d to ''skew",;,the picture on the total flow of funds. Under a system of local finance, tax policies may .tAnd to orient planning-policies toward fiscal objectives vs tax..polipies to. suppart planning programs. The City sh6uld crnsider the overall effect, of ro ram►nin and bud et- in„M its funds to meet cost of operations rather than t e problem of a spec cT" parochial problem or, group. It would appesr to gate that the City,; Clamber, citizens', etc. , have concentrated thely, energies and,'.dfforts on retail businness , recreation (and hoavily so in' this areal , residential and apartment construction, but have tended to neglect the city,' s fine industrialotential . EXAMPLE: - Other than the McDonnell Douglas Jore Astronautics Company, are actually only 1 ,991 people employed or engaged in industrial pursuits within the City. Of the 1 ,991 , 800 are connected with oil pro- ducing or utilities industry. Thus our industrial potential is meager and under- developed. 1 Honorable Mayor and City Council PAge 2 Except for the acreage knovin as the Peck Estate, 425 acres , there is no other block of land under one ormer in a single usable entity for a major industrial parK of more than 26 acres. There is one +tract, of about 38 acres but owned by 56 different parties., For the first time in over nine y%ars, we have: a developer who is willing to take the risk of investing front 1,noney o;" more than $12 million, to develop the prime industrial site in this, City. Th'e 'chart attached will show what we have al ready lost i n tax revenue over the: pre' vi ous years (discounted ` ear to... . year at a fair value of 3%) ; and what we are to lose (escalated at 3x1 in the future if Lusk and Company pull out at this time, assuming nine years will be required to attract another developer. In summary then, we are concerned with a City economic problem; namely, Cash flow. 1 . 'de have an economic problem on our hands - cash flow for the City. -2. 'An industrial base that has been treated like a stepchild. 3. A potential prUducing capability that could provide a minimum of $2.7 million per year. 40. This $2.7 million - almost equal to one-half of the funds needed for the Park da.velopment at Golden West and Talbert (which will be neither income-producing nor feasible if the bonds caalt be sold) . S. A potential to measurably improve the budget base of the City vs a reported $36,000' a year loss to the Ocean View Tax Base, 6. An opportunity to ensure sound Industrial Development with the teaming of Lusk Development, the City, the Chamber, and the citizens . 7. An opportunity to round out our cash flow with a Strong industrial base. Richard Bell yea i.heirman Industrial Committee Economic Developmrnt,'Department Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Attachments 1 . Remarks on Lusk Cash Flow 2. Summary of Information on the $2.7 million Revenue to Huntington Beach 3. Retail Jobs of 1969 4. August 4, 1969, letter Attachment /1 i • CASH FLOW JOHN LUSK S COMPA14Y (Opinions by R. Belye?,) It should be recogn;zed that in a society of free enterprise, an individual is entitled to a fair return on his investment. If conditions exist wherein this is not possible, it is safe to expect that ventures and investment will not take plane. A firm (John Lusk) about to venture on a risk investment of more than $12 million, with interest "rates at 8% and short term at 12%. would be foolish to enter an agreement- on sheer benevolence. It would appear that as statede unless his cash flow.' can be strengthened, it is doubtful as to his partici- pation, in this venture. Again referring to the losses intumbered 'if he does not participate, the city to date over nine year of no industrial development, has already lost`$22. 5 million in taxes. If this trend is to continue, the loss will be a:iminimum 'of $31 . 5 million in addition to the $22, 5 over ten j years , and an c,ndisclosed loss of retail sales. I Attachment #2 From: R. Belyea Attached is ai suamary of information which will give you a r0gn estimate of the revenue to the City .of Huntington Beach that can be expected from an industrial complex. For your convenience, it is broken down into: Real Property► Revenue, Improve- ment property Revenue and Personal Property Revenue. TOTAL REVENUE 2,768,390.16 SCHCOL REVENUE %520,352.06 CITY, REVENUE 4209595.73 COUOYY REVENUE 4879310.91 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL REVENUE 779244.56 HARBOR REVENUE 23,263.28 MOSgUITO ABATEMENT REVENUE 3,306.73 MrTROPOLITAN WATER REVENUE 55*112.53 SANITATION DISTRICT REVENUE 131 ,893.00 ORANGE WATER DISTRICT REVENUE . 23,205.26 COUNTY WATER REVENUE (RESERVE) 26,105.92 2,768,389.98 Correction for Rounding .18 2,7689390.16* ROUNDED REVENUE TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ; 2,700,000.00 *Correction figo re takes into consideration rounding and expected personal property revenue based on plant inventories. Rttachrnt 03 0 EXPECTED RETAIL AND OTHER SALES RETURN FOR 1969 It is reasonable to assume that the Huntington Beach population will increase by at least 10 thousand persons during 1969, as '!t did in i968. [In 1968, permits were issued for 1918 single family units ; 834 apartment units] , If the rate of new families entering the city holds close to 1968, it is ex- pected that local business and local sale activity will look like this : In the first quarter of 1969, local sales were $29,716,000, as apposed to $22,035,000, first quarter of 1968 -- a gain of $7,681 .000, or $76,810 returned to City. Using the s„me rate as 1968, the dollar gain from the first to second quarter, from the second to third quarter, and from third to fourth quarter, sales were expected to be increased by some $22,501 ,006 over 1968. Using this conservative extension, it is expected that 1969 sales will total $138,902,000, or a total return of $1 ,389,020, to the City of Huntington Beach, D% of total sales], thus with ten thousand people corning into the City this year, we will generate an increase of local sales amounting to $22,501 ,000, or their purchasing poorer amount, i .e. , ten thousand people would contribute $225,010 to the`City, Here's a recap of the projection based on 1968 growth: Gain lst quarter 1969 over 1st quarter Of 1968 79681 ;000 Gain 1st to 2nd quarter of 1968 51509,1000 Gain 2nd to 3rd quarter 1968 2,423,000 Gain 3rd to 4th quarter of 1968 618889000 TOTAL EXPECTED GAIN OVER 1968 FIGURES 22,5011000 • 1his is without an Industrial Base - think what can develop with a balanced Industrial Structure. • Attachment 14 pr rly KC0I30r:11C 0WI LOpRlyEN1 flPARTMINT ilk ,� .. HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER of COMMERCE �� --- 19582 USACH IOULEYARD, SUITE 224. HUNTIN-TON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 9244 P.O. BOX 212 TELEPHONE (7141 962."61 M HUNTING BEACH Ronorable Mayor and City Council Amps 4, 1969 City of Huatin,gton Beach The Huntington Dosch Cbamber of Cosy o rce barring examined and analyasd a plan for an Industrial park proposed by the Luck Company, oubeLts the folloving resolution to your Rcmorabls Body. RIS,SOL D: The Chamber of Commerce strongly recoumnds that approval to proceed be granted by the City Cornell to the Lusk Company for the dtvelopmeat of an ladustvial Park In the City of Huntingtoa Beach in that area bounded by Bolea, Springdale and Bdin6.eir Avenues. In general terms, the. Lusk luductrial Park Plan is tq include a cormeraial •area, HI and Hla %nduatrial Complexes , and an Apartmen¢ Housing Park, The above recommondation is bas6d upon uonside7ratLon of significant key factors rasulting from an analysis conducted by the Chamber of Couv)erce Economic Development Committee. In evaluatiag the Gmak Plao, of the many factors eousidered, five key items Ave as follows: a. Tax bass- Ivan the mat consorvatLve estimates Indicate n rather a- bundant enhancoment to the City's tax bass by the develop* mat of the' aoWlex as set forth In the Lusk plan. The intoresting n orridso of C, maraial. Yndwtrial and Resideno • tiat apartments into this Plan can praV'ide for CLty vttb oat of- tb4 moat prvgnssive *ad unL4ae devalopio nts in the City. This then means Zbat our potential asab flaw for tex, purposes •boald be aubanced by more than $f.7 aillift from the law dustrIal property tax Alone; Bois not count added tax revenues from sales text taxes derived from commorcial property nor added residential buying pover. b. I,313ccd bppe1 ,,vai clan- ' Furthar d*lay in this pro jaat, need for additional studies and/ . ear diaagrcr..auta nn to Lba elan now propoacd, vill only tend to furthor dolay tLIa raadcd %adustrial Dovalonc:!at. ibis will thad lard to furthor =taocd oppott:uaitios for erawt:h wLthin the City of Mintinatoa Doach. It would appsar that va may have already lost a coz-votitivo edge to t,ho surt►oundiug eo=unitioe„ I.e., note the VvLao 10�uotriai Corplex and Nostministor Industrial Park (bordaxing ftixtingtou Beach) which are moving shesd in an Aggradoiva manner, a. fted nti=nd- it is quite obvia3s in a review of the vavloari statioties concern- the gr+vatb of. Orango Cmmty, that there In a real head for modern. industrial F arks and that the da=nd will, for sores years to coma , be far in oxcess of nvoilabla priva sites, An a city we can capitalize om this trend. d. Luak Uadroship It: will be difficult to tnacover another finer with the representa- tion and loadorship demoaat=ted by the Lusk Companjr. 'there aim leas than a handful of firxe in California combining ,an undaratanding and xaapoanive xttitude� toward city planning and residential da701oPMAt: in t.ho planning for and davelopment of an eecaptable, eathatic induot vial park. The tusk people understand the hors owner's anxieties and distrass; it should be noted that their plan calla for an installation that will add to, rather thaa detract from, the local residential complex. Thai► plan defi.nitoly recognises tke privacy of the residents adjacent to the park. Luck has offered t:he.City a plan cm a banis that it will be financial viable from the developer's point of view, which then aaauras the city of a financially ienoible doraloprrant, rather then a Oita glepbant. In his approach to the project be has had to include areas , both co=rcial and apartront , that provide am pities, hence over- coming the potential lost profit margin due to requirements for vider streets, setbacks , and lsrger lets. Providing that sound zvnLag principles are adharad to; It is evident that Lusk's expe" Lance offer a sound finan*Lsl plan, e. doing Caretructton Costs- Delay of, evea six worths is now becontaS significant and as noted in the Engineering Nevs Record indow, the trend is upward in total project Coot: which again odds to the difficulty at a later period of time in attracting the right Prix of irdestxy to our fine city. Theme then are the most sipifieant of %any eletunt:s considered by the Chamber of Conmarce in support of the recosaeaudation to proosed on the Lusk Industrial Park Plana. 1' �.+.« •...i— _ •._� •._.. �w 1-1 ./_•_ A. � 1. i..1 .• /. �_+..-.—.—.__«_�_.-..+-_.- • .. . . • 1 . . •. .. .... : � .'._•« •_. 1.. .t. /.-•• 1••-•�-- . r._.T j_ -1�I-- yJ�-.• 1~�. .••.•. . ♦.•..A. 1 . •...t-.. �. •. •...,—:. 1 1- • 1 -•_ _.._� ..r. d _ . _. , - ._ .. ,. •7.4 � .. .. .y,_ .... . . .. -• .. .. ._ • _. .. . .. ..� _ •. .. - .. -T._t_Y.r,.t • . ..-{ ._/ ..rly._ - _I-+••_ _,-1 ., I .�..) -•1 ♦ -: .L .. ._ _ _..�-..•_I- -h. .+- ! ••1 _. •«• •._ �• "• - ..-«_... . +. . . _. .., - 3V : _... .. . ... 1 � •— - ._ .. ... .. _. .. _. ++ ..I / 1_r.-.� _ .1.., .- - .,_T..L_ � .r._:...f-- -.. .Ir._ 1_ ..J_.._t . ..._._. .«._..... T •� _. . .. ._.. ._...�.». _. .....: 1- '-� -_. �' Ili rya . 1 ...I • • .. • _._ . mks 1. •�. I_-,_•_1 _♦._ _ _ �... ri-/. •. .._.1-. -. K .•- ._ :. .. _ ..�...:..•..)- ..•.~ .. .- . .. I ••- ..;.• 1_ •. ., ... t ,._. .• ♦ .4-_�.• ♦_! .+..}'_,. _1_J...i»• -1 - �_l�l--�..;- _•r�_ _ - � L_• .l I .... _• . .r .1_ •...,_•. .. •-._���+�� .�..y..j _._ I •. ��( . ..w _ ._ . i•�. . .-:.-•� . ... _/ ...L_-1._1._. .'-r-t-T'•• -•-tom-~-1_ •a....-..-�_..,.. - ._.,.r .» �_.._!../ .....,_. . ......_.. ...�-. •_r:.. ... 1 +.... ....I .. _.+._. ir IL*4 _ i r • •1 ti - :� /• + Y ► .� : 'i " +� � i t 41 + J3 � c C r � c a ','I � >~ ft; :a ! ?1 ` •� -w ' n T, � � _ � 1 f ••] • 1 • ti ,' D 'l -1 ► + 7 Y •1 A 4 + J . J • • ;1 • ^ ' •; ' • ' • In �'� 4'ti. �o `" ' S �j 1�0 11�.�as ( t� loco6rA 1 b � ! '• �°�' _.._ - �.. _ .. X Lack196o ' IRGqrarer • ,r mllalotj f• I ti . I . 1! _I.-.. . .... ... .. . .. . • - ..1 l- 1 1 t t -., � ._-1. . .. 1 - 1•. 1. i• _ .. . I .•__ •� •_j _L.. • 1• ..__� _ -..w.._.,_i, _.... '. ..� .• ._. , '.. : _1 ... .._.- :..._. . ._.... .- i ,_ _,. ., �. t.. , 1. t i� ._i ' i .�.?. .. i •• 1- '1{' � ._...•f .:_...... _... . ._/..f_ . :_i_1 � _.. ...:_-i..- _t..l_1- .� �� ._.. 1-_. ._ .�_•1 .. . -4•- ... . .__.,. ! ._ ._,_w-..1_. _1..� - ' .. ... _ .. _ . . ,J�--1. � H _! _:«Z-,.1�1.ri- ---1_._. 1_I�_ _. ♦._1 _'�1_•-r. �.. � �_ •- i-.«t-+�,- ...__• .. ...1 t ._y j , . - �...�. ,.. ..__• _ _�V _mot,- _.«.1�~ �a--.r,-.{ _�. ��� ..-r--1-_ _.- T. .--1,_ _,-. _.._ :.,+.__�. IY - . • _•._rr-..+.� r._. _r ,�-. .}�.-j- 1 -i _M-.1--1 -i 3 _1 . . •. _.� •.. t_ ♦--.� �,. � -f.�.� - ._._l.. ,_-. -- � �� C~ — _�,. . _ �,_.i._I _ _./. l .}_ -1--«i _tY:_ - ----t-�_. .._:-•_,. T. 1. ... _.. ; _.. _�t_L- :74 �rl :- t 30 , , oil Lo 1 >d � _t..j.-�«J_ _ � L. -1___.._: _.�.►..:-J�_ -r.,.L._�._•�- �_ _�..�_�.. _l._ _._�... _• - - _;.�_ _• 1 J r,_ _l•--t.. �•.-�- .- ._t_•__.... _.. 1._ .1 ...J.... ._...-L � - _._._ -..� - _1_.. _1_.. .a... ._ _...�: •. ' � _• 1. :�+�-j .�.♦ _.� '�f.-._ -, ��~ -i_�._}. � ..--.-�...•."' 1'. ' , -'1 - oM a c1 _ _ _ T I ' j �' •' _� '� :)�- al♦ _ 1 ! - .� �- �a �' �, l4 u! __._ rf .1 \. _ �. _ \ i� ♦l 1. - '.' v ~ _1 _ T �• J_ ✓ u n 11 a J 4 ' t ` ,`, \� •'• C Y V Il �• �' t _ a •a - .I , 11 / :� ,`j •y -) a • I -� 7 •S '1 •' t J , J •. a .l - (^ V K w t"I - •- n u it L O C �J.._� •, :..� •: 1 C. Z .{+� .') [:.I '( .�. M •t N - G _: .� - a •C _- __• .i ,_._ _._...- _ �.... . _.,......_.. _.. l'(�: R li 1:�._7.Le F A A We of bfication 11 r Sam of CaUlbndn - •• r J. S. Farquhar, bring duly s:vorn oit oath, says: That he is a citiaen or the United Statues, over the age of twenty-one yeah. That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach News, a +weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub• lished in Huntington Beach, Califomia and cimulatara W the said County of rlmrige and elsewhere and publMed for the diamnnination of local anti other nswo of a igat*ral chuacter, and has a bona fide subscription list of puying subscribers, and said paper has been established, printed and published In the State of t;allfornia, twd , County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication of the first Insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not deviated to the Intemest of, or published for the entertainment of any particular claw, pmfesslon, trade, caUing, race or denomination, or any number thereof, •;. a� The Huntinatoa Beach News was adjudicated a legal newspaper of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior ;3ourt of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-59GI. That the NQTIC-E GE KgiLIC HEARING ZONE CASE fi —18 _ I i er `: ,s• of which the omnexed Is a printed copy, was published lit said news- Imi*r at least One Issue 4.in 2y commencing from the 19 t h day of June e I 19-62-, and ending on the 1 g t fl day of June `�I r l . 19 9 bout days Inclusive, Rnd as often during said period and times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the t+ttibl� Mr . regular and entire isome of said iewspaper proper, and not to a saw estiy supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following dates, to-wit: fro"� r A ' SA1'iei, .� �. J�z PublMer Subscribed and isworn to before me this XQ dad• of Notary Public Ormp County, CaUtornin THOMAS D. WIYLLIE NOTARY PUBLIC • MWORNIA •,r.• PAIN CIpAI OFFICE IN OMME COUNTY My cemntililbn fxplres Sept. 111 1970