HomeMy WebLinkAboutConditional Use Permit 75-23 - LEONARD O. LINDBORG - Tennis 1 6) P
A+ , cityof Hufifin' gton Be- ach
* P.O. box 190 CALIFORNIA OUM
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
May 10, 1976
t
Honorable Mayor
a,:d City Council
City of &'Ptntington Beach
Subject: Council Meriting Minutes of 2/2/76
Conditional Use Permit 75--23
Dear Ctyuncil Members:
We are forwarding a com.•nunication from the Planning Director
requesting that the Council meeting minutes of February 2, 1976
be corrected to include findings which h-ve been transcribed
froii the tape of the meeting and that c.- .itions of approval
also be included in the minutes.
Attach&l are the Findings and Conditions of Approval as well as
a copy of the February 2, 1-976 Council meeting minutes.
Sincerely yours,
Z K
Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
AMW:cb
enc.
If.
CONDITIONAL USE PE T NO. 75--23 - APPEAL
.Page Two
square foot clubhouse, and 86 off-street parking spaces on an
approximately 4-1/2 acre site.
The proposed- site plan is in substantial conformance with the develop-
ment standards of the M1 Industrial District and conforms with the
policy requirements for off-street parking for this type of use. The
staff report discussed the various non-technical planning issues related
to a recreational use in an industrial area, the most basic of which
involved compatibility of the proposed use with existing and potential
surrounding uses, and a discussion as to whether industrial property
within the City can and sholild be used for non--industrial recreational
uses.
Attached as a part of the original staff" report is a detailed discussion
of the surrounding uses and some information obtained from a preliminary
industrial land survey for those parcels located within the "Gothard
Industrial Corridor" . This information is the basis of the findings
contained in the staff report and was intended to provide a background
for a, policy determination by the Planning Commission on this type of
use.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
During the public hearing on the matter before the Planning Commission,
Gordon Mountjoy, owner of the subject property addressed the ConLnission
and spoke in favor of the proposal . Mr . David Dahl , legal counsel
for the applicant, Mr. Leonard Lindborg, also spoke in favor of the i
project.
Mr. Gordon Offstein, Mr. John Thomas , Mr. Frank Standard, and a resident 1
of Carnaby Lane (the adjacent residential area) spoke in opposition. i
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The Environmental Review Board at its meeting of January 61 1976 granted
Negative Declaration No. 75-83, having found that the proposed project
will not have a significant advexse effect upon the physical environment.
T:-.;. Board reconunends approval by the City Council.
Respectfully submitt ,
R chard A. Harlow
Secretary
Supporting information submitted herewith:
1. Staff Report
2. Area Map
3 . better of Appeal
4 . Revenue Analysis From applicant
5 . Letter of Opposition from C. William Carlson Jr , , Atty.
RAH:JMC: ja
It
leport.-
TM, PLANNING COMMISSION
P'RdlK: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: January 6 , 1976
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 75-23 ZONE: MI-CD
APPLICANT: Leonard O. Lindborq FILING DATE: 12/15/75
112 18th Street
Huntington Beach, Calif . ,
LOCATION: East side of Gothard 1100 ft .
south of Talbert
REQUEST: To permit the construction of a
tennis club facility on approx. ;
4 . 5 acres of land .
c`•� r-
r
1 . 0 GENES i. INFOiu+9ATI0PJ :
Conditional Use Permit- No. 75-23 is a request for the develupment
of a private tennis club complex. The facilities proposed include
sixteen (16) tennis courts , four (4 ) racquetball courts , a 9400
square foot clubhouse, and 86 off-street parking spaces on an
approximately 4--1,/2 acre site.
2 . 0 PRESENT LAND USE, ZONING, AND GENERAL PLAN INFORMATICN:
The subject property is presently vacant and zoned ril-CD (Light
Industrial) . The General Plan land use designation is Light Industrial.
Properties to the north , south, east and west are both zoned M1--CD
and MI--A and designated on the General Plan as Light Industrial . The
property to the north is developed with an automobile and general
salvage yard operation . Directly west of the site is the Orange
County Refuse Transter Station, and to the east is a recently developed
wholesale lumber yard operation. Properties to the south are unde-
veloped but have been approved for industrial sites by Tentative Tract
No. 9788"X" .
i 1 _
8.
S
Page Two
CUP 7:. •2 "'
3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS :
The Environmental Review Board has reviewed and posted Negative
Declaration No. 75-83 at its meeting of December 23 , 1975 . Final
action by the Board is anticipated at its muting of January 6, 1976.
The staff will discuss the Environmental Review Board action on the
project with the Planning Commission at the January 6 meeting.
4 . 0 ANALYSIS :
The site plan is in full compliance with the yard setback requirements ,
height restrictions , and development standards for otf-street parking
facilities . However , the plan indicates 86 spaces which would be
deficient to the policy requirements of the Planning Department for
this type of use based on th- following calculations (16 tennis courts
@ 2 per court = 32 ; 4 handball courts @ 2 per court = B ; 9 , 384 square
Feet of clubhouses L. 200 = 47 ; for a total of 87 spaces) . The plan
does however exceed landscaping requirements of the M1 district.
This project , as have similar projects recently processed by the City ,
raises numerous non -technical planning issues . The most basic of which
involves a detezmination that industrial. property within the City of
Huntington Beach caii and should be used for non-industrial recreational
uses, and compatibility of this type of use with surrounding uses.
The property is located in an area of the City commonly referred to
as the Gothard Industrial Corridor . This area is the second largest
industrially zoned area in the City and was included as a part of
a recently completed industrial land use study. This study provided
a land use ral-A ng for all vacant industrial parcels within the entire
quarter section surrounding subject property. This rating indicated
that the subject parcel is one of the most highly viable and developable
industrial parcels within this portion of the Gothard Industrial Corridor.
This conclusion is based on the foll.owina data information :
I . Physical Characteristics :
1 . Transportation :
a . The parcel is bordered by a secondary arterial .
b. The parcel borders existing rail service.
C. The parcel borders an established truck route.
2 . Fire Protection :
a . The parcel has a good fire rating of 3-4 .
3 . Adjacent Land Uses :
a. Existinj - Parcel is surrounded by industrial uses 'or
vacant property.
b. PP ro�osed -- Parcel is surrounder 1)y industrially designate
propel :y.
CUP 75-23
Page Three
I
4 b ' iti s t Utilities:
Accessi �.1 e o
3: Water - Property fronts existing water mains sized to
accommodate industrial uses.
b. Sewer -- Property fronts existing sewer main sized to
accommnodate industrial uses.
c. Electricity - Site considered fully serviceable.
5. Physical Features
a. Soils -- Parcel rated good.
f b. Topography - Parcel rated with a 5 -- 6$ slope:
relatively flat is 0 -- 4% slope .
c. Drainage - Fair: temporary drainage problem.
e.. Size : good: highly usable size parcel.
e, Street Frontage - good: in excess of 300 feet.
I.
6. Site Wc,rk Required :
a . Grading. - moderate grading required
b. Removal of Structures good : no structures to be removed.
Based on the above analysis, the subject site received a numerical
jrating of 72 out of a possible 73 , making it one of the second
highest rated parcels within the quarter section directly south
of Talbert Avenue. It should also be noted that as a result of the
Land Use Element Amendment adopted by the City Council in March of
1975, a reduction of approximately 40 acres of industrial property
within the Gothard Corridor was accomplished , the theory being that the
remaining undeveloped ac-reage was viable industrial property.
The issue of compatibility with surrounding uses must also be dis-
cussed. The City Council at its meeting of November 3 , 1975
denied a request for a pt:ivate tennis club in an area designated
Planning Reserve based on a finding that such a use would not be
compatible with the existing and anticipated industrial uses. The
. use to the north of the proposed facility is a large salvage yard
operation which necessitates trucking operations and can be the source
of considerable noise emissions. The industrial use to the west is
the Grange County Refuse Transfer Station which is a heavy trucking
operation also resulting in noise emissions. The use to the east
is a Barge wholesale lumber operation, with trucking and heavy evuioment
operations. This lumber yard also utilizes railroad service which
abuts the subject parcel on the east, In June of 1975 , the City
Council sustained the Planning Commission ' s decision of denial on a
requests to rezone approximately 20 acres of property in the Gothard
Industrial Corridor to residential. The reasonsfor such a denial
were the value of the property for industrial uses and encroachment
- of non industrial uses into ,the indus.f ria.l corridor.
CUP 75-23
Page Four
The applicant has indicated that the proposed use could serve as a
stimulus. for further industrial development in the area. A similar
tennis facility was approved on property adjacent to the Central
Park and Recreational Open Space areas and is approximately one (1)
mile from this .proposed facility. The Seacliff Tennis Club is .less
than three (3) miles from the proposed site. Therefore, the industrial
development. stimulus can be realized while preserving industrial
properties for such purposes.
Finally, the proposal when analyzed in a literal comparison to the
Goals and Objectives of the Policy Plan, may be found to be in Conflict
with such stated policies. That is, the stated objectives pertaining
to industrial development are:
"Encourage industrial development: that would:
1. Help provide a diversified economic base by
I
a. Creating morn income for the City
b. Creating employment
2. Be located in dispersed industrial parks.
3. Be conveniynt to existing transportation.
I
4 . Be compatible with surrounding land uses.
5. Be aesthetically attractive.
6 . Pe of a non-polluting nature.
The staff has discussed with the applicant for this request a need
for information on possible revenues generated from this type of
facility, as well as information on the stimulus this type of
facility has on the future development of industrial properties.
The applicant stated that information on revenues and the desirability
of having athletic facilities of this type within industrial develop-
ments would be submitted for Planning Commission review.
5: CONCLUSIONS ,ANC FT*?DINGS :
The Planning Staff based on the above analysis has compiled the
following conclusions: �
1. The proposed plan is in substantial conformance with the
development standards of. tha M1 district, however# the
parking is at an absolute minimum.
2. ' The proposed site is a highly viable and - developa'►ale industrial
parcel.
CUP 7 5-2 3
Page Five
3. Development of the parcel as a recreational use would result in
the use being surrounded by heavy industrial uses.
4 . The Planning Commission and City Council reaffirmed the policy
to maintain remaining industrial properties for such uses and.
have indicated that such a recreational use may not be compatible
with heavy industrial uses.
5 . While such a service use could serve as a stimulus for further
industrial development, there is an existing tennis facility
less than 3 miles frorr. the site and construction is anticipated
to commence shortly on an additional facility which is less
than a mile from the subject site .
i
6. The proposed iacil.ity is within the general vicinity of Central
Park and will enhance the visual appearance of Gothard Street
within the M1-CD District surrounding the park.
6 . 0 RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommen:ls, after much discussion , that Planning Commission
action on this proposal is one which must follow a policy decision
i . rendered. on the location and compatibility of these recreational
uses within industrial areas. After review of the information contained
in this report, as well as supplemental informat•.ion to be submitted by
the applicant on revenues and the stimulus that this type of use may
create within industrial developments, the staff feels it is essential
that the Planning Commission must find that uses of this nature comply
with the stated policies of the Policy Plan for industrial development.
Therefore , the staff recommends that. the Planning Commission reach a
policy decision on the desirability of these facilities within industrial
parks, as this is not the only tennis club and athletic facility
pending before the Cite for approval action. Should the applicant
not submit the necessary supplementary information for review, the
Planning Commission may wish to continue action until sufficient
information has L,:.,en submitted to compare this facility with those
normal industrial uses which are being constructed in the City.
The staff will. be prepared to discuss appropriate conditions for the
use should the Planning Commission approve this proposal.
JMC:gc
f 'fit r.r :a� ' r .i �. � y • f r:':
11
H ,INFER,DEPARTMENT rCOMMUNICATION
t f�tAr'iMi6MY KACH
a Alici'a:.-.Wd ntworth From . -
:City; Clerk' ;
Richard `A. Harlo
:: : .Subject CONDITIONAL USE PBRMIT Date May 1, 1975
r- N0: .7B-23: Council Minutes
of February 2 , 1975
zt ha+s been.,br tight to the attention of the Planning �!epartment that the
C6nditions .1of. Approval an'd appropriate findings for approval of ..the above
referenced item are not :included in the official City Council Minutes
Research by the, Planning Staff has indicated that the attached Conditions
o; Approval should be incorporated into the Minutes as well. as the follow�-
ing findings which have. been tranwcribed from thz tape of the meeting:
'FINDINGSr
1. The proposed plan is in substantial conformance with the development
standards of the. M1 district.
2. The proposed .facility is within the general vicinity of Central Park
and will enhance the visual appearance of Gothard Street within the
M1-CD District surrounding the park.
3. The proposal would encourage industrial development than would:
a. Help, provide a diversified economic base by creating more -income
and employment opportunities for the City.
b. Be located in dispersed industrial parks.
C. Be convenient to existing transportation.
`c. . Be compatible with surrounding land uses. CV
e. • Be aesthetically '��"
.
f. Be of. a non--polluting nature. ,
,The Council finds that thi.s�<s-e would he the best and most . appropriate
:..use .for the` property ana�ontemplated by the Master .Plan - of hand Uge
'and that such use will not be detrimental -to the :value of. property
or, improvements or to the general health, safety and convenience of .
the '.eighborhood or City as. a whole.
Due, to the pending development processing. of the project through the
various City;Departments and 'the �a�st complexities of the . la'nd use entitle
meat procedure, '1 would .like* to request .an• zmendment of the February Z
1976 Council,Minutes as expedit..iously. as.''.possible. ; 'Thank you for your
pis- 1st ance in. this utter.
RAH:JMC j a
TO: . PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 6 , 1976
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 75--23
CONOS'.:IONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The conceptual plot plan received December 15 , 1975 , shall
be the approved layout.
In its approval action the Planning Commission considered the
Following issues relatioq to the conceptual plan :
. Traffic circulation and drives
• Parking layout
• Lot area, width, and depth
. Type of use and its relation to property and improvements
in the immediate vicinity .
The conceptual plan is reviewed as a basic request for entitlement~
of the use anplied for in relation to the vicinity in which it is
proposed. The conceptual plan should not be construed as a precise
j plan reflecting confor.itance to all ordinance code requirements .
2 . Sail Reports as required by the Department of Buildinq and
Community Development and the Department of Public Works shall
be submitted to such departments prior to the issuance of
building permits.
3 . Prior to final inspection for the use , a lan1scape plan depict-
ing plant type , size , location , plan for irrigation , and method
of screening for the parkina area shall be submitted to the
Planninq Department for approval .
4 . The water, sewer, and fire hydrant system shall be approved by
the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department.
I�
5. No structure other than those shown on the pproved plot plan
shall. be cons-ructed.
6 . On-site lighting for the tennis courts shall be subject to
approval by the Department of Buildirg and Community Development.
Said lighting shall be reviewed for effects on traffic safety ,
and possible Public Utilities Commission restrictions on out-
door lighting facilities . There shall be no night lighting of
thi tennis courts past 11 : 00 p.m.
7. U6e of the cocktail lounge facilities shall be restricted to
members of the tenrs.is club.
B. Gothard Street and the proposed Street "A" shell be dedicated
and fully improved as required by thy; Dai)ar. tment: of Public Works .
i
Planning Commiss� n - C.U.P . 75w13
January b , 1976
Page 2
- 9. The developer shall participate in tho local drainage assess-
ment district.
10. The developer shall participate in the orange County Sanita-
tion District. #3 Sewer Annex District .
11. Special uses of the complex which are open t r.he general
public shall require approval of a Special Event permit by the
Board of Zoninq Adjustments , to insure sufficient off-street
parking for the events .
12 . The use shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission
in two years from the date of approval for oossible impact
on adjacent rises.
i
i
i
I1'1;(e 16 -Council Minutes 2/2/76
There being no one further present to speak on the matter and there being no further
J�'ratests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor.
A tnotLon was made by Councilman Coen to overrule the Planning Commission and sustain the
appeal can the conditions as set forth by the Board of Zoning Adjvitments in their Minutes,
dstad November 129 19759 Pages 3,4,5 and 6, and as agreed to by the applicant this
eveiAng and any other conditions deemed by th± staff as being reasonable 440 necessary
to protect the integrity of the cmre.rtial development proposed and also rc. protect
the residential area abutting the undeveloped portion; further adopted Negative
Declaration Nc. 73-66.
Councilman nuke gave reasons Why he: opposed the motion.
The t.:otior, made by Councilman Coen passed by the following vote:
AYES: Br.rtlett, Wieder, Coen, Shipley, Gibbs
NO&S: Duke
ARSM: Matney
PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO DENIAL 01? CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 75-23 APPEAL GEED
Mayor Cibbs announced that this was the day and hour set for a public Nearing on an
appeal filed by Leonard 0. Lindborg, to the denial by the Planning Commission of
Conditional Use Permit No. 75-23, a request for the construction of a
private tennis club and related facilities. The complex will include four (4) t
handball courts, sixteen (16) tennis courts, an approximate 90384 square foot clubhouse,
an:i eighty-six (86) off-street parking spaces. The subject property is locsted on
the yeast side of GotharC Street, approximately 660 feet south of Talbert Avenue in
an M1 Light tndutitrial District.
,rite Clerk informed Council that all legal requirements for publication, notification
and posting had been met and that other than the letter of appeal she had received
communications from the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce and Mr. Leon Jones in
favor of the proposal and a coarnunization from C. William Carlson, Jr. in opposition
to the proposed project.
The Manning Director presented a resume' of tht Planning Com.Assion's reasons for
recoomanding denial of said conditional use permit and the Director of Public Works
alas reported on the tauter.
Mr. David Dahl, representing the applicant, addressed Council and presented roasonr
why he believed the appeal should be approved.
Mr. Darrell Ward, representing the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce, addressed
Council and stated that their organization was in favor of tl•e proposed project.
Mr. John Gilmore, hooKnaner abutting the proposed project, addressed Council in favor
of the conditional us# permit.
Mr. Gordon Offstein, city tsside:tt, addressed Council in opposition to the proposed
use Atating that ho believ*4 it ,eras situated too near the refvse transfer stat:-.1n and
that ha bellevod there should be an envira mteatal inp&ct report an the matter.
A nearby resident addressed Counc:ll An favor of the proposed project.
Thera bting no rise further present to speak ott the matter send there bain.g no further
l►ljgets filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor.
Discussion was �*41d between the Council and Mr. Gordov Moantjoy, applicant.
r
r Page #7 - Council Minutes - 2/1/76
A motion was made by Councilwomen Wieder to overrule the decision of the Planning
Commission and grant Conditional Use Permit No. 75-23 based on the findings of fact
on Page 4 of the. Planing Department Staff Report as follows;
1. help provide a diversified acoiomic base by creating more income for the city;
creating employment.
2. Be located in dispersed industrial parks.
3. Be convenient to existing transportation.
4. U compatible with surrounding land uses.
5. Be aesthetically attractive.
6• Be of a non-polluting nature.
7. The proposed plan is it :substantial confov=ce with the development standards for
this type of use.
8. The proposed facility is within the general vicinity of Central park and Will enhance
the visual appearance of Gothard Street within the Hl-CD District surrounding
the park.
Adopted Negative Declaration No. 75-83
Following discussion the motion Was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Bartlett, Wieder, Shipley, Duke, Gibbs
NOES: Coen
ARSENT: Matney
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CASE NO 75-10 - APPROVED - ZONE CASE NO 2038 - FIRST READING
' I
Mayo: Gibbs announced that this teas the day and hour set for a public hearing on a
petition for a change of zone from RZ (Mledium Density Residential District) to C4
(highway Commercial District) on property located approximately 118 feet west of Beach
Boulevard, on the north side of Ronald Road.
The Clerk informed Council that sill legal requirements for notification, publication and
posting had been met and tha: she had received no communications or written protests to
the matter.
The Planning Director preben.ed u resirre of the Planning CommissioA reasons for
recommending approval of said zone csse.
Mayor Gibbs declared the hea-cirig open.
There being; no one present to speak on the matter and there being no protests filed,
either written or oral , the hearing was closed by the Mayor.
on motion by Bartlett, Council adopted Negative Declaration No. 75-79, by the following
vote:
AYF,S; Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Shipley, Duke, Gibbs
NOES; None
ABSENT; Hatney
11;+e Clark was directed to give GTdinance No. 2038 a first reading by title - "AN
(*DINANCL OF THE CITY C F Efl1N'TINM. 10N BEACH AMl1NDING THE HUNTINGM REACH ORDINAKE CODE
BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 7HELEOF TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING ON MAL PROPERTY
LOCATED VEST OF BEACH BOULEVARD CAN NMTH SIDE OF RONALD ROAD."
. .' Affidavit of Pu4ption
State of CRUfarnia
County of Oimnge ss
City of Huntington Beach
George Farquhar, tieing duly sworn on oath, says- That he Is a
citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years, y?G-
That he Is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach r
News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub-
lished In Huntington Beach, California and circulated In the said
Count-, of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination _ J
of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide 1 publirlied Huntingtoli Beach Nuvs.. bar..
subscription list of braying subscribers, and said paper has been 27, 1976.
established, printed and publishel in the State of California, and ftayleE GE !•tltfafC Mt:Afttfl4
County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication Appeal to Mal 6f
of the first Insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper k not t'gndittonrtt use a•srrrlit No- 1s-21
devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any NOTICE I$ HVIEQY GIVEN ttiaf a Pug.
particular class, profession, trade, Galling, race or denomination, or lice h"drig will be.held by the' City
any number thereof. eounoll'of the Clty•af l4vat9ngten Seach,
In. alit 'council ChembW of 'tt* "Civic
The Huntington '3eacli New was adjudicated a let,•al newspaper Center, Huntington vi.dh, at•the hour
of general circulation by Judge G. K. Sco%vl In the Superior Court of y:oo P,M.; 6r act' coon there=fter. as
of Orangre County, California August 27th. 1937 by order No, A-5931. ob"lim, on Mandan,'the 'gild day of
February,*1976, for the pur~ of can=
sidering an appeal to the denial by the
771at the APPEAL TO DEIl1AL OF QQ_Nn1TI0M Piennind Corninisakn of Conditional Use �
Permit.fia. MtX.a,mvsst for toe con•
stnXtion of a private' tennis Club Wed
USE PERMIT NO, 75--23 related faellitles.. the VV"WX «rail in-
of which the annexed is a tinted copy,, Nvus ubilshed in said news- Guile tour (ti handball courts,,sixteen
P p P (161 tenons courts, wad apgra�dawts 9,314
sQuafa foat'alUbh*Uft'atld e10ty-iix•(K)j
oft-(str"V parking spaces. -
paper at least nt: i$a ue �. _ _ the tirrb)ett ptoyerh''
_� rrs $*.-Mod bn the
east side• ct Gothard -Brest, epprQ4-
mately:6w that south-0.7811*rVAvenue
?_2nU Januar _ In to Mt Light InUustrtal District.
Commencing from the day of y --- - - A legal-.desctiption and•mpy. pf the
! drWosed plan Is an fipt In the pluming
1 t 36 and y ending on the 22nd cia • of Jgnu&r�'__ _ rtrrent.Otftci
b All inttrestad_persons.we.hw;led' to
' attand geld..flierlr>g .and..exprasa.lfsA
opinions for.,or a,. .,oat said.Appeal.. �
19 4 0- both days inclusive, anA as often during said period and Fwthw information they be obtained:
tunes of publication as said paper was regularly Issued, and in the from the Office of tS1e;C%y ,:iark-
regular and entire Issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a CATIM. Janus" IV..197L '
supplement, ana said notice was published therein on the following CITY OF HUNTINGIOh•131Et,Ctt:
dates, to-wit: N, Alicia M- Montreal f
City Clerk.
Jan. 22 19_7_tL_ _
Publisher
Sub ucifted nail sworn to before me this 23 rd _ day of
January 197�
z ;, •�,._ �_ l.:r f_ �. Notary Public
Or n. County, Ca.liforWa
THOMAS D, WYLLIE
Notary Publit•Ca111,1re;e �
,� `�+• Orange cow Ov 1
•• My c.mrni6line ELPIrri �
i'L•• SeplaTbysr 11;, 19)1 1
----------------------_-------t
f
Me
0 T�
LOh.1.yC 1iOh CO
Tot )byw aaA City Counsel. '
City of HW1tin49tob Beach
Rot Conditional. Use Permit No. 75-23
This letter is an appeal of the Planning Cotmaission decision of Jamutry
b, 1976, disapproving of the conditional use peradt for constitution &W
operation of a Recreation Club featuring Tennis, Racketball, and separate
fly facilities for son and town.
i
The reasons for denial centered around concern that the use would Change
the character of the area, impeding industrial growth, and reduce the amount
{ of peist industrial land available for development. There was also concern
over the concept of a recreation use in an industrial complex.
We feel that the development of the requested facility !rM improve the
chances of quality development at an earlier date. It will not impede my
future iaftstrial uses as the area is and Trill remain zoned industrias.ly.
The property owner has indicated that there has been greater interest in
industrial uses since our proposal refs made known.
Wo believe that there Pre sufficient reasons to distinguish this area
from other areas in which recreation uses were denied in industrial areas.
1. Ths proposed development is within a larger planned eampl.exs
assuring a hider degree of compatibility than prior proposals
which involved development in an area of established industrial
used and differing omsrships.
2. The proximity to the central park Crakes the proposed location
de '-sable, for a recreational use.
?hunts or your d+tratioa,
• r
I17 I" jMria! PRth, 021detris It210 (714) 516--isle (213) $22-3010
��
I�unt{�n t Beach PiInninom�aisi+ n
;t 1.
'Poo. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92646
Honor b e Ma `or : and Ci Council T� a 1 t C ncil
. .. n
Y
. Y
FROM:: Plaiina.ng Commission
DATE .. February 21 1976
ATTENTION: David D. Rowlands
RE: CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT NO. 75-23
APPEAL TO DENIAL
APPELLANT: Leonard 0. Lindborg
112 18th Street
Huntington Beach, California
APPLICANT: Leonard 0. Lindborg
112 18th Street
Huntington Beach, California
LOCATION: East side of Gothard 1100 feet south of Talbert
REQUEST: Tr permit the construction of a tennis club facility
on approximately 4. 5 acres of land.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
ON MOTJ,ON BY KERINS AND SECOND BY PARKINSON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 75-23 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
1. The proposed use would impede future industrial development in
the area that is zoned Ml.
2. The approval of such a use would probably lead to request for
rezoning in the area.
3. The proposed use would likely break up the industrial corridor.
AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Boyle, Kerins
NOES: Shea, Slates, Bazil
ABSENT: None
NNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit
No. 75-•23.
' SUMAARY OF STAFF REPORT:
Conditional Use Permit No. 75-23 is a request for the development
of a private tennis club complex. The facilities proposed include
sixteen (?6) tennis courts, . four racgi netball courts, a 9400
HUNT I NGTON CENTRAL PARK
CF—
�► cup 65-211-C
iil-A
ail—CD TT 8788 X
REVISED
TRY�r1R
I �=CD ti PUT
t ONTAR10
r
— C 9
F mi WIMN
, art .+per ----------
7ITATIVE TRACT 3708, C314DITIOIAL USE PERMIT 75-23 i, �►
ZONE ml-CD, MI
W•ts■G QA[M
0
EnAROME L REYIEW BOARD
CITY OF HU N1`W7014 BEACH•CALIFCRNIA
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Environmental Review Board
DATE: January 6 , 1976
SUBJECT: Negative Declaration No. 75-83 (C .U.P . 75-23 & TT 8788"X")
APPLICANT: Gordon Mountjoy and Leonard 0. L;ndborg
PROJECT: Request for the development of a private tennis club
complex with appurtenant facilities (property to the
south has been approved for industrial sites by
Tentative Tract No . 8788"X" ) .
LOCATION: The subject property is located on 4 . 64 acres on the
east side of Gothard Street between Ellis and Talbert
Avenues .
The Environmental Review Board , at its meeting of January 6 , 1976 ,
granted the above negative declaration, having found that the pro-
rosed project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the
physical environment.
No environmental ,impact report has been prepared for this project.
Findinas are based upon the information contained in the negative
declaration request form, discusp,ion by this Board, and the follow-
recommendations for any stru -cures to be constructed upon the
project site :
1. if the deveioaer proposes to provide air conditioning, the in-
sulation in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a minimum of
R-19 and R-11 , respectively, If no air c'niditioning is to ba
provided, the insulation in ceilings and exterior walls shall
be a minimum of R-13 and R-71 respectively.
2 . All building spoils. such as unusable lumber, wire , pipe , and
other surplus or unusable material , shall be disposed of at an
offsite facility equipped to handle them.
3 . An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a xeport
indicating the ground surface accoleration from earth movement
for the project property.
4 . All structures proposed for construction within this subdivi-
sion shall be constructed in compliance with the g-Factors as
indicated by the geologist' s report.
Planning Commission
Negative Declaration 75-63
January 6 , 1976
� . Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand
anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for
review.
6 . Use of energy-saving types of lighting fixtures should be
considered for the project.
7. Crime prevention techniques should be applied to the design
aspects of the project (e.g. , single-cylinder locks, etc. ) .
I '
Melvin A - Tooker, Acting ecretary
Environmental. Review Board
i
:df
MAMA{%M[N1. 2AL9! ♦ ♦QMIMA
COMPARATIVE TAX REVEM ANALYSIS
Property Sales
Valuation, Revenue Revenue
Present Revenue t2,158
Proposed Recreation Faiility $650,000.00 16041 2,158
Possible Industrial Use 8089000.0O 21,262
j
Basis of Computations
Tax Hate 10.5257
Industrial Use Estimation of Valuation
$10.00 per square foot X 40% lot coverage X Lot size (202,200 sq. ft.)
Lift Ovation provided by Mr. Monty, Senior Appraiser, Coxwercial-
Industrial Department, Orange County Tax Assessor's (office.
The auove ectinate does not include personal property Ar inventory.
ilk lath .61reRi Asut11"Ofott tat#, Callfarnix OZO40 (714) 336-ZS79 (213) 3112•SVID
Law OrrICCS
or
C. W1LL1AM CAPLL30N,,jP,.
10090 OCACH aOULCYAAD %Fir^ cdoc 7i4.
SUITE L TCL[PMONC tf.{7•rp7+I
HUN11NCTON REACH,6ALIFORN1A 92645
January 28, 1976
City Council
City of Fiuritington Beach
P. O. Box: 190.
4untincit.ohBeach, California 92648
Re: -: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 75-r23
` Dear Members of 'the Council:
I respectfully urge that the City Council sustain the.
Planning Commission' s`_denial of Conditional . Use Permit
NP. 75-�-23 . Purportedly, ;this applicatian 'is . a request for
the construction, of 'a private tennis club and related recre-
ational.. facilities within industrial zoned property on the
East'.side. o,f Gothakd St+reet', . South of. Talbert. Such a
recreational complox "is , in effect, a non--industrial use
w4trhin industrial zoned property, and would be ane more
encroachment on the diminishing industrial base of the
City.,
Undoubtedly, if this recreational facility is . permit:ted
to exist in this area, there will be additional ..requests
for use' s, incompatible with industrial zoning . This can
only lead to the detriment of the city tax base and 'the
present. industrial u.sers in the area , certain of whom I
represent. 1, therefore, again urge you to sustain the
Planning Co:mmission' s denial .
Your consideration in the above is most appreciated.
very truly yours,
C. WILLIAM CARLSON, Jr. ;
CWC: jd
blish 1l22/76
1111174 7d Poi toarch s 2
WICK OF FMIC HDAING
Appeal to Denial of Conditional. Use Permit No. 75-23 � Zi
tIGTICE IS HERESY GxVW( that a public hearigw, will be held by the .
Cis C 'l o t o t y ovac f kt�e City f Nuntin� on Mach, in the Council
Chamber of the Civic Canter, Nuntiniton Beach, at the hour of
,__7,:00 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on Monday,
the 2nd day. of Pebruary , 19 76 for the Me of
cons Idering an appeal to the denial by the Planning Co=ission of Conditional
Use Permit No. 75-23, a request for the construction of a private tennis club and
related facilities. The complex will include four (4) handball courts, sixteen (16)
tennis courts, an Approximate 9,384 square foot clubhouse, and eighty-six (86) off-
' strecr parking spaces.
The subject property is located on the east side of Gothard SG:oeet, approximately 660
feet south of Talbert Avenue in an MI Light Industrial, District.
A legal description and copy of the proposed plan ie on filo in the Planning Deoartment
Office.
4 All A nterest*0 rrsom are inv,,ted to attenid said hearing and
express their opinioue for or spat=t said Appeal
•
Further inforeiatian My be obtaimid from the offibe of the .City
Clark .
11I �snua l9 1916 +CXTY 11 MIS 200 ILWH
BY: ¢ .iei,a fit, t��warth
t; Clock
. � V
4
Palo
0 -4/4
CON.TAJI'VInN CO • S
To: Mayor and City Council
City of Huntington Beach
Be: Conditional Use Permit No. 75-•23
This letter is an appeal of the Planting Commission decision of January !
6, 1976, disapproving of the conditional use permit for constitution and
I
operation of a Recreation Club featuring Tennis, Racketball, and separate
Gym facilities for men and when.
The reasons for denial centered around concern that the use would change
the character of the area, impeding industrial growth, and reduce the arount
of prime induestrUl land available for development. There was also concern
! over the concept of a recreation use in an industrial complex.
We feel that the development of the requested facility will improve the
chances of quality development at an earlier date. Yt will not impede any
I: future industrial uses as the area is and will rftain zoned industrially.
The property owner has indicated that there has been greater interest in
industrial uses since our proposal wa:9 made known.
We believe that there ere sufficient reascus to distinguish this area
from other areas in which recreation uses were denied in industrial areas.
1. The proposed development is within a larger planned complex,
aseurirg a high6r degree of compatibility than prior proposals
which involyed development in an area of established industrial
used and differing ownerships.
2. The proximity to the central park makes the proposed location
desireab3 a for a recreationta►l. use.
?haakm or 7ymr deration,
112 161h Airrtl Xantirrgtan ?Aura. Calilomis 0264P (714) 536-2579 (213) 562•5010
Number of Excerpts "C�
Publish Once
I�
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 75-23 .
j NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held
by the City Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach , •
jCalifornia , for the purpose of considering Conditional Use Permit
No. 75-23 , a request for the construction of a private tennis
club and related facilities. The conplex will include four (4)
handball courts, sixteen (16) tennis courts, an approximate
9, 384 square foot clubhouse, and eighty-six (86) off -street
parking spaces..
The subject property is located on the east side of Gothard Street,
approximately 660 feet south of Talbert Avenue in an M1 Light-
Industrial district.
, s
A legal description and copy of the proposed plun is on file in
! the Planning department Office.
i
Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7 : 00 P .M. , on
January 6, 1975 in the Council Chamber Building of
the Civic Center , 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California .
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and
express their opinions for or against the proposed
Conditional Use Permit_ 1r . 75--23
Further information may be obtained from the City Planning
Department .
Telephone No . (714 ) S36-5271
DATED this day of
i
C'ATY PLANNING COMMISSION
t
i
By
7
Richard A. Harlow
r
Secretary
r
c
CHIP 475-23
AP' o typed by Jana H.
t
u. onard O. LindWrg Carl 2 . Steverson 159-061�-68
12 18th Street Steverson Bros. Cp. ) onald 0 Spears
untingtor. Beach, Calif P.O. Box 335 7542 ) antor, Circle;
Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, r
92648 92648 t
r 111-260--54 159--061-69 .
'P.O.
A Jones
�,' Jerry P Vinland �
+: P.O. %ox 101
�• 7562 ) anton Circle sunset, Beach, Calif Huntington, Beach, lif
,
` 90742 92648
.k
�'flll--26G-51 '#
'tc rdon L. Mount joy t,, l 159-p61-70
r9G W. Grace E. Holtz Eldean H Ihle
Foothill Bl:d. �,
tr ' ^Ab anial G. Higman 7572 ) anton CLrclac;
nrouiar Calif P.O. tax 545
1016 Huntington Beach, kalif
;;. 1 osem4Ad, (alif 91770 92548
11-071-43 159-062-07 159--061-71
chard L. Mount j oy Benigno Y Y,opex Frederick C. Clemvs s
96 W. Foothill 7571 Ontario ) r 7582 Danton Circler,
nravia, Calif ', Huntington Heae Huntington Beach, dalif
! rr 1016 92648 92648 '
E•�X f
r 11-071-44 159--062-1 159-061�-72
Harvey.. t
.' Howard Straebuu h Inc �' Le Dennis L Graff
400 Airport Way 9 7572 •Tay].rti ue 7571 Danton Circle`s
ng Beach, Calif Hunti Calif Huntington Beach, 4alif
+l 0806 9264 92648
.1 11--071-•40 159- -12 159-061-73
nold L Christensen M62
la wens Jeffrey A Wells
J 8241 Gothard Street ay or Avenue 7561 Danton Circle
�$untington Beach, Calif Hunt n ton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, kalif
2640 9264 92648
11-071,--41 62-08
�•. 159-061•-74
sao Fujita , JohrR11 asmussen Terry L Faircloth
,1,646 E. Bolsa Avenue .7561 Ontariot) rive 7541 Danton Circle
Hidway City, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
112655 92648 92648
6iti of Huntington Beach 151---062-11 159-061--75
,` .0. 190 obert L Schultz Thomas J Gealy
i
un' .. on k)each, calif 7542 Taylor Naiiue 16322 Carnaby Lanettn . �Wmini ntration Huntington Beach, Cbl Lt: Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 02648
;;11-071�-12 1�9-�OF'�-10 159�-061-'76
ally-Miller C,vntrlcting Cb. John !4 Fordham Robert S McNamara
000 South Street 18282 (Arnaby Lane 18312 Carnaby Lane
tag Beach, Gilif Huntington Beach, Cali: Huntington Beach, Calif
0805 92648 92648
;ill-071--24 159--062-09 159-061-77
.
,Iorris D Pendleton Glenn W Burkett Floyd J Lauterborn
833 Leonia Blvd. 1'292 Carnaby Lane P.O. Box 2423
uite 309 ftunt:i.ngton Saaczh, Calif Huntington Boach, Calif
Vernon , Calif 90058 92648 926117
• 159•-061-78
:Yoihiharu Hakashina ' 159-063-26
t 7572 OntarioDriveJohn W Gi1wre Jr
,,.,Huntington Beach, Calif 18301 Carnaby Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif
640
92M
159-063-17 159-063-27
Howard T Kobayashi � 'rhoatas J Lasa:r
ft 18411 Carnaby Lane
. 18291 Carnaby
mane
Huntington Beach, Calif
92648 Huntington Beach, Ccli4f
92648
lf►9w063-18
159--003-28
r $ t A Apodaca Jonnis L Swann
C-5
Carnaby Lane 18281 Carnaby Land
Hngton n8®ach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
63-19 159--063-29
John H Patterson Gar L Moll
1 C:a*•h �' Lane ab n y
H ngton Beach, Calif 18361 Carnaby Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif
9 92648
1 63-20
Pa r Katsixu�etis 159-46��-30
Peter A Cincotta
• 18371 Carnaby Lane 18251 'Carnaby Lana
H ngton Reach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif
9 92648
i l -063--21 Dept. of transportation
1 61 Bowman
Lane 120 So. Spring Strae
Huntington Beach, Calif Los Angeles, Calif 90052
6 Attn: Staff Assistant
Design D
1 063-22 H.B. Union High School.
i Ro rt F Hockenberry 1902 17t1� Street
; 18 1 Carnaby Lane Huntington Beach, Calif
Hu ington Beach, Calif
92648 Attn: District Supt.
i
.
Dag-063-23 Ocean View School, District
7972 Warner Ixenue
;ti18331 Carnaby Lane Huntington Beach, Calif
Huntington Bear:h, Calif Attn: District Su t.
92 5:d p
� 159-063-24
Darryl W Watanabe
, 18321 Carnaby Lane
Huntington Beach, Calif
92648
159-063-25
Joseph V Beaver
18311 Carnaby Lane
Huntington Beach# Calif
92648
PIING , ADMINISTRAT7.ON S . 9840
ARTICLE, 484
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
(1563, 184 - 6173)
S. 9840 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. INTENT AND PURPOSE. Conditional use permits,
revor.ahle, conditional, or valid for a time period, may be issued for
any use or purpose for which a plan is required or permitted under the provisions of
Divisicn 9 of tho Punlington Beach Ordinance Code.
The procedure contained in this .article ;s directed toward tnaur.ing the best and most
E appropriate u;3e c2F Property, as contemplated by the tipster Plan of Land Use. Such
uses shall not be detrimental to the value of property or improvements, or to the
general health, welfare, safety and convenience of a neighborhood or the city as a
whole. (1563, 1847 - 6/73) '
S. 9841 APPLICATIONS. The Planning Commission shall prescribe the form and
scope of applications and necessary accompanying data.
S. 9843 .1 FILIW,. Applicetions for approval of a conditional. use permit shall
be filed with the Planning Department by the owner of the property or
the property owner's authorized agent. If applicant is not the propart_y owner, a
letter from the property ..-., er authorizing the agent to act In his behalf shall
accompany such application. (1563, 1847 - 6/73)
S. 9841.2 FILING FEE, At the time the application is filed the applicant shell
pay a fee of two Hundred noliairs ($200) dollars. (1932 8/74)
S. 9�841.33 PUB RTNG. After notice is given, pursuant to provisions contained
in Article 987, public hearing shall be held by the Plainnin.q Cormissio►i
prior to taking action on any conditional use permit application. (1563,1847 - 6/73)
i
S. 9841.4 DENIAL BY PTANNIM CMfISSION. The Planning Commission may deny any
applicatIocs i.f it finds any one of the following:
(a) That the proposed use haf4 a detrimental Effect upon the general. health, welfare,
safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, or
is detrimental to the value of property and improvements in the neighborhood; or
(b) The proposed use is not contemplated under the Master Plan of Land Use; or
(c) The proposed use to not compatible with existing or other Proposed uses in the
neighborhood; or
(if) The location, site lcyout, and design of the proposed use does nat properly
adapt the proposed :structures to streets, erivewa+ys, and other adjacent structures
and uses in ai harmonious =nner; or
(e) The combination and relAtionship of one proposed use to another on a site are not
properly intdgrated; or
l' The accesa to ani parking for the •o o 'd u
C ) p g pi p se use creates an undue traffic problem;
or
r
4
S. 9841.-4(g) ADMINISTRATION PLANNING
(g) In the case of a conditional use permit application for a planned residential
development, the development does not conform to the provisions contained in
Article 911 . (1567, 1847-6/73)
(h) That the proposed use will cause substantial environmental damage after all
reasonable mitigating measures have been considered to minimize the adverse {
environmental impact of, such proposed project:, unless such substantial environmental
damage together with all mitigating measures is outweighed by substantial benefits
to the community. (1890-1/74)
S. 9841.5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL. The Planning Commission may approve
an application for conditional use permit when it finds that the plan
wilt substantially comply with the requirements of this article, the Master Plan of
Lane Use, and the development standards for the particular use. The Commission
may also conditionally approve such applicatton for a conditional use permit and
attach such conditions as it may deem necessary to secure compliance with the provisions
of Division 9 and this article. A guarantee and evidence may he required that such
conditions are being or will be met. (1563, 1847-6/73)
S. 9841.6 HEARING DATE CONTINUANCE. The Planning Commission may continue the
hearing from time to time, provided, however, the public hearing or
hearings shall be conducted within sixty (60) days after the first public hearing.
S. 9841.7 FINDING OF FACT AND DECISION. In granting, modifying, or denying a
conditional use permit Application, the Planning Commission shall
specify the facts relied upon in rend%.-ring a decision. Said decision shall be made
within sixty (60) days after the publt.c hearing. (1563, 1847-6/73)
S. 9841.8 FAILURE TO ACT. Failure of the Planning Commission to take final
action on any conditional use permit: application within sixty (60)
days after final environmental evaluation has been completed by the Environmental
RLview Hoard, shall be &emed a recommendation by the Planning Commission that
such application he denied unless a continuance is agreed to by the applicant or
j his authorized agent. (1536, 1847 - G/73, 1022 - 8/74)
i
S. 9841.9 NOTICE OF DECISION. Notice of the decision of the Planning Commission
shall be mailed to the applicant within five (5) working days,
excluding weekends and holidays, after such decision is rendered.
S. 9841.1C EFFECTIVE DATE: OF APPROVAL. Conditional use perinits shall not become
effective for ten (10) days after being granted, and in the event an
appeal is filed , or a challenge 1s issued by the City Council, said permit shall
not become effective until a decision is made on such appeal. (1563, 1847-6/73)
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION S.. 9842
S , 9842 APPEAL TO OR CHALLENGE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. The applicant
or any gggfle-vea party may appeal a ec son or require-
ment of the Planning Commission to the City Council, and the City
Council or any member thereof may request in writing a hearing before
the City Council to consider any decision, determination or requirement
of the Planning Commission ,
S , 9842 . 1 T Ume Limit . All appeals or challenges shall be made within
f_H ( ) Uays following the decision of the Planning
Commission .
S . 9842 . 2 Form and Content . Any appeal or challenge shall be in
wr ting, and ll specify, in detail, any grievance, error
of decision, or requirement of the Planning Commission,
S . 98112 . 3 Report . The City Clerk shall report the filing of such
notice of appeal or challenge to the Punning Commission .
S . 284o.14 Filing Fee. Accompanying any appeal shall be a filing
i ee c'T venty-Five Dollars ($75 .00) .
I '
t)842, .� Notice of Time of Hearing . Any decision or requirement j
0 t e ann g Commissron that is appealed to or challenged
by the City Council or any member therof, shall be set for public heax••-
ing before the City Council by the City Clerk. Said hearing shall be
held at the earliest possible regular City Council meeting, with public
notifl.•:.af.ion pursuant to Article 987 of this code .
2842 . 1- .' Hearing Date Continuance . The City Council may continue
the hearing from Elme to time, and the City Council may
refer the matter back to th . Planning staff of the city for further
report , ropy of wh1ct-, shall be made available without delay to the l.and-
mner or hiz representative , provided , however, the public hearing or
;:c:arinc;a shall be concluded within sixty (60) days after the first publ ".c
:iearing .
_ o8lf? .6 Action by City Council . The City Council may, after public
hearing, ai rm, r.- Terse or modify the decision of the
Planning C,immLssion . Furthenmo. e , the City Council may make any addi--
t tonal determination requirement it shad consider appropriate within
the limitations imposed by thi•i article and the Master Plan of Land Use ,
Tho decision of the City Council shall be final .
9842 .6 . 1 F indir., of Fact a,,d Decision . In granting, modifying or
3eny iF an s.pp•aa or cis lenge, the City Council shall
opecify the facts rolled upon in rendering a decision . Said decision
shad. be -made within vi ty ((0) days after the public hearing.
S . 08b2.6 . :7 Notice: t,,f Cit• Lou,• cii DeciMi::n . Notice of the decision
or Me t' ,,yZc 4,171 s .al . Fie mailed to the applicant within
ive ( 11 work-'-,:,
day.i , exclud ' -..g weekends and holidays, after such
decision Is r• ?ndere,., ,
4b
S t 9643 ADMINISTPATION
S. 9843 Time Limit. Each conditional use permit autborixed under the provisions
of this article shall become null and void unless actual construction
has commenced within one (1) year from the date of final approval. (1563, 1847 - 6/73)
S',_ 9843. 1 Revocation ion for Delay by, Cf ty Counci t. The City Council may revoke
any conditional use permit, except conditional use permits for planned
residential developments, when actual construction has not commenced within a period .
of six (6) months from the date of granting if changes have taken place which make
the proposed use or building conflict with the surrounding uses, the Provisions of
this article, or the provisions governing the district in which such use or building
is proposed. (1563, 1847 - 6/73)
S. 9843.2 Actual Construction Defined. For the purpose of Sections 9843 and
9843.1 , actual construction :weans that construction has started and
is proceedin;, without delay and with due diligence. Preparation of plans, securing
financial arrangements, issuance of building permits, letting of contracts, or
stockpiling of materials on the site, shall not constitute actual construction.
S. 9843.3 Discontinued Use of Land, Building or Premises. When any use of land,
building or premises, established under the provisions of this article,
has been discontinued for a period of six (6) months, it shall be unlawful to use
such land, building or premises again for such discontinued use until a new condi-
tionzl use permit application has been approved. (1563, 1847 - 6/73)
S. 9843:4 Extension of Time Limits. Upon written request by the applicant or
property owner, the Planning Cr=nission may grant extensions of time
under Sections 9843, 9843. 1, 9£43.2 and 9843.3, not to exceed one (1) year.
S.9844 Unlawful Use. Any building or structure set up, erected, built,
moved or, maintained and/or any use of property contrary to the
provisions of this article, and/or any conditions attached to the granting of any
conditional use permit pursuant thereto shall be and the sac.* is hereby declared to
be unlawful and a public nuisance, and the duly constituted authorities of the City of
Huntington Beach shall, upon order of the. City Council, immediately comrsence action
or actions, proceeding or proceedings, for the abatement, removal and enjoinment
thereof in the manner provided by law, and shall apply to such courts as may have
juri.sdic-Ion to grant such relief as will abate and remove such building, structure
or use and to restrain and enjoin any person, firm or corporation from setting up,
erecting, building, moving or maintaining any building or structure or using any
property contrary to the provisions of this article or the conditions attached to
said cond'-tional use permit. All remedies provided for herein shall be ctnnul.ative
and not exclusive . (1563 , 1847 - 5., 73)
5S9845 failure to Comply. Cnr..ifirate of Occ"2aney Withheld. Failure to
abide by and to comply faithfully with any and all conditions attached i
to the granting of any conditional use permit pursuant to the provisions of this i
article shall constitute grounds for revocation of such permit by the City Council. 1
(1563, 1847 - 6/73)
S. 9846 HvArin. The City Council shall hold a hearing on any proposed
revocation after giving written notice to the permittee at leant
ten (14) days prior to the hearing.
' PLl1�iNli'rG ADMYNISTRATION S . 9847
-S. 9847 Application after Denial,. When a conditional use permit has been
denied, no further application covering the name or a similar use or
plan shall be filed or considered within the period of one (1) year from the date
of denial. (1563, 1847 - 6/73)
I
S 9848 Certificate of Occupancy and Final Building Inspection Withhela.
No building permit shall issue in any case where a conditional
use permit, required by the terms of this code, has been granted . No certificate of
occupancy shall issue nor shall final building inspection be wade until all
terms and conditions attached to such conditional use permit are met. (1563,
1847 - 6/73)
I
I
.I
6/8/73
J
' PH. (714) 893-7211
1. J ENGINEMNG, ''INC.
15081 MORAN STREET STMIN%TER. CALIF. 92663
CZ
January 21, 1976 3
Mayor Norma Gibbs
Members of the Huntington Beach City Council
I have purchased one of the lots in tentative Tract 8783 which
Is facing the proposed Tennis Club , I am sorry I will be out of
town can business and unable to attend the Huntington Beach City
Council meeting when the requested zoning variance for the Tennis
Club comes up. I hope my letter will suffice in letting you know
my feelings regarding the presence of the Tennis Club in this
Industrial Area .
I
I am very excited about having; the club there and hope you will
E look upon it with favor also. It will be great to be able to quit
j work and play tennis for an hour before going home .
I think the Tennis Club will be a real asset to the Industrial �
Area there, allowing a convenient means of exercise during our
sedentary existance .
Pincerely,
..1j� ra►c�,........—
Leon Jones, President
L. J . Engineering, Inc .
Lu/bh
�f.
�"' •_.
" . HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER of COMMERCE
i ...p 16582 BEACH BOULEVARD,SUITE 224 HUNTINGI'ON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92645
t I TELEPHONE(714)962.6"1
1
HUNTINGTON BEACH February 2 , 1976
OFFICERS
• PreAidcnt •
90 5U1.LtVAN
Automobile Club of So.Calif.
First Vice Prerfdent
DAVID r. GjA"OPw a City Council
Union Carbide Corporation
Second Vice Prcsll>cnt City of Huntington Beach
JACK r>rEMAN 2000 Main Street
Southern Califomia Gas Company Huntington Beach CA 92648
TrrasurcJ-
ARNOLD SU"OAL►
tkcurity Pacific National Bank:
i7I'tt-=ORS
GILL VAC14 Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Fitt City of 11untington Bach
JrROMC M.GAME The Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Board of
Attorlcy at Law
irAH aOTCLMa Directors at its regular meeting today,, voted unanimously to
General Telcpkaone Company g g y
WILLIAM COMPTON
5outhemC WorniaEdisoncompany favor your approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 75-23 .
JAMES OE GUELLC
De cuem d,Sons Glace Company
[DALE 1..OUIIN It is our opinion that this tennis club complex will be
Iluetiirwn Ilarlwor Corporation
v"LL1AM rOSTCR
Huntington Beach Company Compatible to the particular area within which it is located
JAMES Iroxx
FaxxDeYclopmcntCorporation and will provide recreational facilities to operators and employees
JACK "PC LC
United Caiifomia hank
JC?HN MILE of industrial facilities suiTounding .
Kabv AFtna
TCVC 14CLOCN Very truly yours , t
South Shores Insurance Afcncy
ALLEN KLINGCOIBf,t TH
Attotn:y at �.aw
JAMBS LJ►NKIN
Red carpet lzraiwr, Darrell Ward, President
LnoLtaniLimi e ,,laic. FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
wiLL1AM PCTERSON
Bank of America
1'JA S&VASHCY ROGER7S
Coast Dev;lbitstacnt Corivration DW/hg
10*f C ROLUNGL
Western Mutual Escrow Corporation
I
l�wMNc scNrtnr+IL
. - . .. . . u'rJmcn t()ivisicn P;csf�lcnt
JERRY SHCA
tiaatbV*n PeAcll Company
p1,laitrMT TRI/R1P
Terry fluick
4Aft RJLL WA00
Smith s KlormAry
"SILL- WOODS
• llttr40A A(fps comiury
AL►M c KINC1%
: , fir Ala 1�x ► r na6et i �
Q�
Tot Maio' s d MY Council
City of Ntwlri aom Duch
B,et CatxditiyoLal pas Permit No. 75-23
This letter is an appeal of the Platud ag Cosfa<ission decision of ,TaMU7
b, 19769 di"Wosing of the conditional use permit for conxtitutioU Arab
opsratioa of a N,sarastlon Club featuring Taanis, Racketball, and DOparats
facilities liar am aid Wcam.
'xb@ roasces. for denial caAered around concern that the use would chaps
the character of the area, is )edixt industrial growth, and reduce than as ont.
of prime iahAr3AL1 load xTail.able for development. There was also ooaacwrn
over the oowAp+t of a rfcreatioaa uric in an industrial complel.
We f+r i that the development of the requested facility will i.asparOTt the
chances of gawlty drrelops t at an earlier data. It rri.11 not iNVO& aAY
future jak,atrial sat , as the area its and wil1 remain zoned ivftAriallx.
The property order hoe indicated that there loan been g roater interest in
Jndurtrisl sang riaace our proposal was slue known.
�. we bsll.eTs that there are sufficient reasons to distia vdah this area
from otbor areas in tbich recreation usee were denied is im4extrial areas.
I" 1. The proposed develo iv within a larger planned complOst
assur'�R 9 higher dogm of emp'atibili+may than prior p�ctiopos�als
Which jmclved development in an area of establ.iahed ixhwLrial.
used sad differing ownsrships.
2. The proximity to the caotral park o*ss, the prop000d l0tnllti.4ta
d*aRireabl.e for a recreational use.
I
Thanks fcr your dersti.aa,
...........
v
i
It: calf! 91tei! ?lRunti�ylon ,�►r►th. csfilMthi� iittilk t 71+►} Sag-xSr! t 21 i} 3�y-SG�O
i
'JA Huntington Beach PlAnetng COMmissiga !
•••• CALIFORNIA l:6"
P.O. OrJX 1�0
T0: flonorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning Commission,
DATE: February 2 , 1976
ATTENTION: David D. Rowlands
I
RE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 75--23
APPEAL TO DENIM,
APPELLANT: Leonard 0. Lindborg
112 18th Street
Huntington Beach, California
APPLICANT: Leonard O. Lindborg
112 16th Street
Huntington Beach, California
LOCATION: East side of Gothard 1100 .feet south of Talbert
i
REQUEST: To permit the construction of a tennis club facility
on ,approximately 4 . 5 acres of land.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION .
ON MOTION BY KERINS AND SECOND BY PARKINSON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 75-23 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REAaONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
1 . The proposed use would impede future industrial, development in
the area that is zoned MI.
2. The approval rJ such a use would probably lead to request for
rezoning in the area.
3. The proposed use would likely break up the industrial corridor.
AYES : Parkinson, Finley , Boyle, Kerins i
NOES : Shea, Slates, Bazil
ABSENT: None:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION :
The Planning Commission recLvaends denial of Conditional Use Permit
No. 75-23 .
SUMMARY OF STAFF liBPORT:
Conditional Use Permit No. 75-23 is a request: for the d�v ►logment
of a . private tennis club C.C"Plax.. ' The fncilities proposed include
sixteen (16) tennis courts. four (4) racquotbalx courte, a 9400
CONDITIONA1,, USE PERMIT NO. 75-23 - APPEAL
Page Two
square foot clubhouse , and 86 off--street parking spaces on an
approximately 4-1/2 acne site.
The proposed site plan is in substantial conformance with the develop-
ment standards of the M1 Industrial Dlstri.ct and conforms with the
policy requirements for off-street parking for this type of use. The
staff report discussed the various non-technical planning issues related
to a recreational use in an industrial area, the most basic of which
involved compatibility of the proposed use with existing and potential
surrounding uses, and a discussion as to whether industrial property
within the City can and should be used for non-.industrial. recreational
uses.
Attached as a part of the original staff report is a detailed discussion
of the surrounding uses and some information o: tained fran a preliminary
industrial land survey for those parcels locatea within the "Gothard
Industrial Corridor" . This information is the basis of the findings
contained in the staff report and was intended to provide a background
for a policy determination by the Planning Convnission on this type of
use.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
During the public hearing on the matter before the Planning Commission,
Gordon Mountjoy , owner of the subject property addressed the Commission
and spoke in favor of the proposal . Mr . David Dahl , legal counsel
for the applicant , Mr . Leonard Lindborg, also spoke in favor of the
project.
` Mr. Gordon Offstein , Mr. John Thomas, Mr . Frank Standard, and a resident
of Carnaby bane (the adjacent residential area) spoke in opposition.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The Environmental. Review Board at its meeting of January 6, 1976 granted
Negative Declaration No. 75--83, having found that the proposed project
will not have a significant: adverse effect upon the physical environment.
The Board recommends approval by the City Council.
Respectfully submitt ,
R card A. Harlow
Secretary
Supporting information submitted herewith:
1. Staff Report
: . Area Map
3. Letter of Appeal
4 . Revenue Analysis from applicant
5. Letter of Opposition from C. William Carlson Jr . , Atty.
RAH :JMC: ja
r
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE : January 6, 1976
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 75-23 ZONE : Ml-CD
APPLICANT; Leonard 0. Lindborg FILING DATE: 12/15/75
112 18th Street
Huntington Beach, Calif . ,
LOCATION : East side of Gothard 1100 ft.
south of Talbert
REQUEST: To permit the construction of a 'r
tennis club facility on approx.
4 . 5 acres of land.
IL
• �", r~
1 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
Conditional Use. Permit No. 75--23 is a request- for the development
of a private tennis club comp' cx . The facilities proposed include
sixteen ( 16) tennis courts , four (4) .racquetball courts, a 9400
square foot clubhouse , and 86 off-street parking spaces on an
approximately 4-1/2 acre site .
2 . 0�PRESENT LAND USE, ZONING, AND GENERAL PLAN INFORMATION :
The subject property is presently vacant and zoned Ml-CD (Light
Industrial ) . The General Plan land use designation is Light Industrial.
Properties to the north, south, east and vest are both zoned Ml-CD
and M1-A and designated on the General. Plan as Light Industrial . The
property to the north is developed with an automobile and general
salvage yard operation . Directly west of the site is the orange
i
County Refuse Transrer Station, and to the east is a recently developed
wholesale lumber yard operation. Properties to the south are unde-
veloped but have been approved for industrial sites by Tentative Tract
No . 8788"X" .
I •
Page Two j
CUP 7 . • ::
�3 .0 ENVIRON14ENTAL STATUS :
e Environmental Review Board has reviewed and posted Negative
• The Final
Declaration No. 75-83 at its meeting of December 23 , 1.975.
action by the Board is anticipated at its meeting of January 6, 1976.
The staff will discuss the knvironmentol Review Board action on the
i
project with the Planning commission at the January 6 meeting.
4 . 0 ANALYSIS :
The site plan is in full compliance with the yard setback requirements,
h0 ght restrictions , and development standards for off--street parking
facilities. However , the plan indicates 86 spaces which would be
deficient to the policy requirements of the Planning Department for
this type of use based on the following calculations (16 tennis courts
@ 2 per court - 32; 4 handball courts @ 2 per court - 8; ) , 384 square
2Q = 47 • for a total of 87 spaces) . The plan
feet of clubhouse s Q p
does h( wever exceed landscaping requirements of the M1 district.
This project , as have similar projects recently processed by the City,
raises numerous non-technical planning issues. The most basic of which
involves a determination that industrial property within the City of
Huntington Beach can and should be used for non-industrial recreational
j rises, and compatibility of this type of use with surrounding uses.
The property is located in an area of the City commonly referred to
as the Gothard Industrial Corridor . This area is the second largest
industrially zoned area in the City and was included as a part of
a recently completed industrial land use study. This study provided
a land use rating for all vacant industrial parcelo within the en•ti.re
quarter section surrounding subject property. This rating indicated
that the subject parcel is one of the most highly viable and developable
industrial parcels within this portion of the Gothard Industrial Corridor .
This conclusion is based on the following data information :
1 . Physical Characteristics :
1 . Transportation :
a. The parcel is bordered by a secondary arterial.
b . The parcel borders existing rail service.
c. The parcel borders an established truck route.
i 2 . Fire, Protection:
a. The parcel has a good fire rating of 3-4 .
3 . Adjacent Land Uses:
a . Existing - Parcel is surrounded by industrial uses or
vacant property.
b. Proposed - Parcel is surrounded by industrially designate"
property .
4b
CUP 75--23
Page Three
4 . Accessibilities to Utilities:
a. Water -- Property fronts existing water mains sized to
accommodate industrial uses.
b. Sewer, - Property fronts existing sewer. main sized to
accommodate industrial uses.
c. Electricity - Site considered fully serviceable.
5 . Physical Features
a . Soils - Parcel rated good.
b. To o ra�h� - Parcel rated with n 5 - 8$ slope:
re ativeTy flat is 0 - 4% slope.
c. Drainage - fair: temporary drainage problem.
d. Size : good: highly usable size parcel .
e. Street Frontage - good : in excess of 300 feet .
6. Site Work Re4uired:
a . Gradinc - moderate grading required
i
' b. Removal of Structures - good ; no structures to be removed.
Based on the above analysis, the subject site received a numerical
72 t f possible 73 mains i one f ti
rating of out o a p 1 g t o o he second
highest rated parcels within the quarter section directly south
of Talbert Avenue. rt should also be noted that as a result of the
Land Use Element Amendment adopted by the City Council in March of
1975 , a reduction of approximately 40 acres of industrial property
within the Gothard Corridor was accomplished , the theory being that the
remaining undeveloped acrea•le was viable industrial property.
The issue of compatibility with surrounding uses must also be dis-
cussed. The City Council at its meeting of November 3 , 1975
denied a .request for a private tennis club in an area designated
Planning Reserve based on a finding that such a use would not be
compatible with the existing and anticipated industrial uses . The
use to the north of the proposed facility is a large salvage yard
operation which necessitates trucking operations and can be the sours(
-of considerable noise emissions. The .industrial use to the west is
the Orange County Refuse Transfer Station which is a heavy trucking
operation also resulting in noiace emissions. The use to the east
is a . large wholesale lumber operation, with truckinq and heavy equipment
operations. This lumber yard also utilises railroad service which
abuts the subject parcel on the east. In June of, 1975, the City
Council sustat ed the Planning Comm: ssion' ti decision of denied on a
request to rezone approximately 20 acres of property in the Gotha►rd
Industrial Corridor to residential. The -reasonsfor such a denial
were the value of the property for industrial uses and encroachment
t of non industrial uses into the industrial corridor.
.IV
I
I '
• CUP 75 '23
Page Four
The applicant has indicated that the proposed use could serve as a
stimulus for further industrial development in the area. A similar
tennis facility was approvea on property adjacent to the Central
Park and Recreational Open Space areas and is approximately one (l;
mile from this proposed facility. The Seacliff Tennis Club is less
than three (3) miles from the proposed site. Therefore , the industrial
development stimulus can be realized while preserving industrial
properties for such purposes .
Finally, the proposal when analyzed in a literal comparison to the
Goals and Objectives of the Policy Plan, may be found to be in conflict
with such stated policies. That is, the stated objectives pertaining
to industrial development are :
"Encpur-ate i dustrial development
Help provide a diversified economic base b
a. Creating more income for the City
b. Creating employment
2 . Be located in dispersed industrial parks .
Be convenient to existing transportation.
Be compatible with surrounding ?.anti uses.
��5. Be aesthetically attractive .
b . Be of a non-pol lut inq._,aature.,__ �•y'`r..---- -�
The-<C" f f has -discussed with the applicant for .thin . r."qu€:rt_ a need��
for information on possible revenues generated from this type of
facility, as well as information on the stimulus this type of
facility has on the future development of industrial properties.
The applicant stated that information on revenues and the desirability
of having athletic facilities of this type within industrial develop-
ments would be submitted. for Planning Commission review.
5. 0 CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS :
The Planning Staff based o,u the above analysis has compiled the
fo.l-lowing. conclusions:--,*--'-'----------------,.-.,-.---_.__.___
1 . The proposed plan is in substantial conformance
development standards of the MI district., however, the
k ins is at an absolute minimum.
2 . The proposed site f.s a highly viable and developable industri
parcel .
CUP 75-23
Page Five
3 . Development of the parcel as a recreational use would result in
the use being surrounded by heavy industrial uses.
4 . The Planning Commission and City Council reaffirmed the policy
to maintain remaining industrial properties for such uses and
have indicated that such a recreational use may not be compatible
with heavy industrial. uses.
5. While such a service Use could serve as a stimulus for further
industrial development , there is an existing tennis; facility
less than 3 miles from the site and cunstruction is anticipated
to commence shortly on an additional facility which is less
(5. The proposed facility is within the general vicinity of Central'```
Park and will enhance the visual appearance of Gothara Street
wii� t...h..,,in the Ml.-cD District surrounding the park.
b . 0
The staff reconunends, after much discussion, that Planning Commxasa.on
action on this proposal is one which must follow a policy decision
rendered on the .Location and compatibility of these recreational
uses within industrial areas. After review of the information contained
{ in this report, as well as supplemental information to be submitted by
the applicant on revenues and the stimulus that this type of use may
create within industrial developments , the staff feels it is essential
that the Planning Con-viission must find that uses of this nature comply
with the stated policies of the Policy Plan for industrial development.
Therefore , the staff recommendu that the Planning Commission reach a
policy decision on the desirability of these facilities within industrial
parks , as this is not the only tennis club and athletic facility
pending before the City for approval action . Should the applicant
not submit the necessary supplementary inforriAtion for review, the
Planninq Commission may wish to continue action until sufficient
information has been submitted to compare this facility with those
normal industrial uses which are being constructed in the City.
The staff will be prepared to discuss appropriate conditions for the
use should the Planning Commission approve this proposal .
JMIC :gc
v
r �
IL
HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK
CF-R
i — ! Cep 15-)3
Ml-A i
i
Ml-CD TT 8788 X
REViSE3 ,
-- -__ mi ,
LD
T,ill00
s CF_C
• � mePUT
TENTATIVE TRACT S7 083, CO14'DITl0'.'-lA . USE PERMIT 75-23
LONE ill-LD, Ml
sR T>cvc"rucx
60" PAPli1'M
enyiRMYM REVIEW BOARD
cnv W� HLWT14GTON KACH•CAUFORKHA
•�, P.O. SOX 1" 9260
,II
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Environmental Review Board
DATE : January 6 . 1976
SUBJECT: Negative Declaration No. 75--83 (C .U .P . 75--23 & TT 8788"X" )
APPLICANT: Gordon Mountjoy and Leonard O. Lindborg
PROJECT: Request for the development of a private tennis club
complex with appurtenant facilities (property ro the
P PP
south has been approved for industrial, sites by
Tentative Tract No. 8788"X" ) ,
LOCATION: The subject property is located can 4 . 64 acres on the
east side of Gothard Street between Ellis and Talbert
Avenues .
The Environmental Review Board, at its meeting of January 6 , 1976 ,
granted the above negative declaration, hawing found that the pro-
posed project will not have a significant adverse effect urpotl the
physical environment.
No environmental impact report has been prepared for this project .
Findings are based upon the information contained in the negative
declaration request form, discussion by this Boar', and the follow-
recommendations for any structures to be constructed upon the
project site :
l . If the developer proposes to provide air conditio inq , the in-
sulation in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a minimum of
R-19 and R-11 , respectively. If no air conditioning is to be
provided , the insulation in ceilings and exterior walls shall
be a minimum of R-13 and R--? , respectively.
2 . All building spoils, such as unusable: lumber, wire, pipe , and
other surplus or unusable material , shall be disposed of at an
offsite facility equipped to handle them.
3 . An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report
indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement
for the project property.
4 . All structures proposed for construction within this subdivi-
sion shall. be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as
:. indicated by the geologist ' s report,
Planning Commission
Negative Declaration 75-83
January 6 , 1976
5 . Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand
anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for
review.
5. Use of energy-saving types of lighting fixtures should be
considered for the project .
7 . Crime prevention techniques should be applied to the design
aspects of the project (e.g . , single-cylinder locks, etc . ) .
I
Melvin A. Tooker, Acting . ecretaxy
Environmental Review Hoard
:df
r
Yi N�I�Yl1.1. �A.,1 • 1«i�4•
0DWARATIY3 TAX RRVMM MALYSIS
Property 5alee
Valuation Revenue Revenue
Present Ravenus t 15S
Proposed Recreation Facility $6501000.00 169641 2t158
Possible Industrial Use 80$r000.00 21,,262
u3is of Goeputstlona
10. 2
Tax Rate � 57
Industrial Use $stitation of Valuation
S10.00 per square root X 40% lot coverage I Lot size (202,200 sq. it, . )
Inforaation provided by Mr. Qiboneyt Senior Appraiser, Cott>taorcial-
Industrial Departmea t Orange County Tax Asseano:rs Office.
The above estimate does not include personal Frcperty or inventory.
C
112 I�ti� �trrtt �lla�tir�3nnprstit, Ghlorniit 02640 (714) SJS-2579 (2W SOZ-5010
L&W or ricts
• or
C. WILLIAM CARLSON, JR.
46090 •tACN NOULLVANb wn�w COD[ f�.:
*tLt01N1)Nr e•r Z•j/«
suet �
HUNTINGTON TEACH,CALIFOKNIA 02W
January 28, 1976
City Council
City of Huntington Beach
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach , California 92648
i
Re: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 75-23
Rear Members of the Council :
I respectfully urge that the City Council sustain the
Planning Commission ' s denial of Conditional Use Permit
No. 75-23 . Purportedly, this application is a request for
the construction of a privat:e tennis club and related recre-
ational facilities within industrial zoned property on the
fa East side of Goth and Street , South of Talbert . Such a
recreational complex is , in effect, a nonindustrial use
within industrial zoned property , and would be one more
encroachment on ;:he diminishing industrial base of the
City.
Undoubtedly, if this recreational facility is permitted
to exist in this area, there will be additional requests
for uses incompatible with industrial zoning . This can
only lead to the detriment of the city tax base and the
present industrial users in tn, area , certain of whom I
represent. I , therefore, again urge you to sustain the
Planning Commission ' s denial .
Your consideration in the above is most appreciated.
Ver truly yours,
C. WILLIAM CARLSON , Jr.
CWC: ad
,1�
' PH. (7141 091-7211
L. J. ENGINEERING, INC.
15081 MOftAN STREET i WESTMINSTER, CALIF. 92683
F+.
TO
January 21, 1976
a
Mayor Norma Gibbs
Members of the Huntington Beach City Council
I have purchased one of the lots in tentative Tract 8788 which
is facing the proposed Tennis Club . I am sorry I will be out of
town on business and u.iable to attend the Huntington Beach City
Council meeting when the requested zoning variance for the Tennis
Club comes up . I hope my letter will suffice in Letting you know
my feelings regarding; the presence of the Tennis Club in this
Industrial Area .
I am very excited about having the club there and hope you will
look upon it wi )i favor also. It will be great to be able to quit
work and play tennis for an hour before going home .
I think the Tennis Club will be a real asset to the Industrial
Area there , allowing a convenient means of exercise during, our
sedentary existence .
Sincerely,
Leon Jone , President
L. J . Engineering, Inc .
LJ/bh
i
c
1, The Council finds that this use would be the best and most
appropriate use for the property and eontOMPlat&I lay the
Master Plan of Land Use and that. $uCii ase w-t 1 not tie
detrimental to the value of property or i.mprovements or to
the general health, sixety and convenience of tht:! neighborhood
or City as a whole.
I
This was taken off the tape Bonfa ' s addition to findings .
I �
R
t.
4