Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Conditional Use Permit 75-58 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIF
w�q qq I t f . . . fidavit Of P4kfication it j State of CaMparnla County of Orange sn 'Pualnnal"MOntiritlon 9aacf, Nowt, Jan. City of Huf�tn,"ton Reach f +& 191111. Gorge *f rquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: Thnt he is a ! NGTICK Of tM0KI0-ijL4AtNti �' r Appesi to APiuovnl of dtlxe., of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. . That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Bench Condtional uaa Wndit 5g P P Appeal In Conditions of Appn,val Cf , News, a weekly newspaper of genera! circulation printed and pub- covdiUonal ate Permit g:754w llshed In Huntington Beach, California and circulated In the said renTICE WHEREBY GIVEN ►hat a out). County of Ordngc and elsewhere anti published for the dissemincstlon c ttdsrang will be hold by the,City of local and other news of a general character, anti has a tx)nn fide 'cvt cil of tho City of Hunlinrton eesch, subscription list of paying subscribers, and ti.1;1 paper has been tl Via CCWCII chamber. of. the Civic• established, printed and published in the State of Californ!n, and . 11 '7:0r0 M.,or aspMn thereaftte►ac County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication ;oWtile, on Monday the 191h ,day of of the first Insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper Is not Ianuzry, 1976, for the purpose of con. devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any stc>ertna apptsts to the Planning t:orrh• rticular class, profession, trade, calling;, race or denomination. or lhisilurl'a-approval of Use, Pw nit No. pa 7S58 which PWM;b d"Vloprnrnt of f any number thereof. is traatrrlent plant parawN►t'to brdipn The Huntington Beach ,New u:ts adjudicated a legal n(.cwspctper roc of the Huntiniten Be+fctr Ordl6brue' of general circulation by Judge G. 1{. Scovel In the Superior Court Cade. Tree Cihr .Council will be con. of Orange County, Gzlifornla August 27th. 1937 b order N, o. A-5931. I,t; r two Col istia appeal royvesis. Y tote l:rtt acpeal is a request to mrt!r• nw the approval for the deverloprnoni r�+� of t'te ear, treatment ptanL The second 'That rile APPEAL AP iQYA"F._Q_4I1DIT1Qy_- rp;.ct) way filed by a reprozenteuve for the spplicant and requests pliminalign of Conditions 9,anq 10 of 3lis Planning _ AL USE PER2dIT ��Q4 _. womnistiun's Conditional approval. of which the annexed is a printed copy, wets published in said news- Tht" condlUoni wo as Idtowa a 'the applicant shall comply wlth the greed to comm;tntnt aftmitted to paper at Itwt one deacliff and Sombwslit prowty own• era, diNd'Nwerno-sr 17, 1975. ic+. 7ti+ •at>tittgttit;•.c4n>riclsiaWn on lye commencing trwn the _31h.__ day of __�T9 l3 T`y'_-- pro.mbd f�cil;Wshall bs In compti. once wILh thi »commendations of it* amign R*wWo. OoW, and te*. tanks stoN Cleo sitrrat` shall be 192.6. and ending on the -dlt____ (illy of painted In coet,dnetlon watt thin pia.. 'Pow sxrar;sim 415 19Zh , both days inclusive. and as often during; said period and sth oft proprrtr` it boated 4" ., of south d tiarttaid'At•fnua and �4'i 1Wst times of publication as said japer ums regularly issued, and In the wefts of Gofdenweat,Wool. In tha'KA-41. tt roper and not in a CO tKasitistehual, AtrlCuttutal,: aontotned regular and cadre issue of said pe •spaper proper. with ors ptodu�trxi Ili the Clvlc UktrirD: supplement, and said notice uus published therein on the tollouing A lafta: Ceutittion_';R,ori ills In'ida dates, to-wit: Ptennint D"rIrrstnt Ctflcs. Mil lntoreste d- pertwns om .Melted bR Jan.- attend aald haarfnd:"d a¢Irtels.'flhaif: opinions too or , yeinst aaid.ltpl►sxL } rwttwr inforr ition msy.be sbtatnsd; from the Olftee of tba City rj" 3 DATED. January 5,'19M CITY OF HUNTINaTtM 111 CM! •I, 1—ft l (�. ,, sir. lilicla M. WallhForm ---r+- r-- - - ' City Cltvk ! �ubllshcr ' r Subscribed and sxmrn to before me this day of Januar 1 'ra a F't bhc ► t Orange County, California t� ,� ++'`1`_ , .,.�'t: �. `v �►.``,.1+-`•� " t;•,�.Q...R. e`��.�it h..r......` \, ( ' 1 {,StJ . Welch F Yea K '6951 Lawnhaven :,Drikra t: Ct�C ��Y n�, ��: Hunt:in�ton Beach', Ca. 92648 yNiIHGTCN ?FtC}j,cAt (714) 536-4318 0 75 November 5 , 1975 3oa"rd of Coning Adjustments City of. Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 150 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Board Members : As a long time resident and property owner in the City of Huntington Beach , I would .like to go on record in opposition to Use Permit Number 75-58 , which was submitted to your Board by the Standard Oil Company of California for the development of a gas treatment plant. I fully understand that this facility is being constructed in an area designated and zoned for oil production, but feel that all of the planning options available to the Standard Oil Company on their existing oil lease in the Huntington Beach field were not fully considered. I presently own property within a very close proximity of the proposed facility and do not welcome thy. increased activity related to the gas treatment facility ne�^t; to my family home. As you are aware , the property in question (the entire forty acres) is extremely unkempt with various unpainted oil storage tanks , oil sumps , and miscellaneous rusted oil equipment. It had been hoped by nearby residents that the Standard Oil Company would be willing to improve this site in a mutally agreeable manner (economically and environmentally) as they did the Huntington Seacliff and Beachw•alk nevelopments . Your careful consideration for a no vote on their proposed project (Use Permit Nirnber 75-58) will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours , TH01HAS W. WELCH cc : Huntington Beach City Clerk Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Vt a t RiCEIVED r �l CLERK. tit (IF HUM11kQTi# ell..CALIF; �q75 WV .l It PA : 4 5 6861 , LA in Haven Drive Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5068 November 6, 1975 City Clerk P.: 0. Box 190 Aiuntington Beach, California 92E48 Dear Sir; This letter transmits the enclosure which is a copy of a petition which was generated in response and opposition to the intent by Standard Gil Company of California to build a gas treatment plant as described in the Board of Zoning Adjustments Corrected Notice of Public Nearing, dated October 29, 1975. This petition was presented to the Board during the hearing on November 5, 1975. Your cooperation in placing this matter on the City Council 's Business Agenda will be deeply appreciated, � i Yours truly, Gilbert A. Nixon cc: Honerable Mayor of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Planning Commission Huntington Beach City Council R 'EIVEI ARK •F NllMitkCi y •.r�Ctt.C�►llf. .Q7r, qv j t At4 8 : 4 5 6861 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-SO68 t{ovember 6, 1975 City Clerk P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, W ifornia 92648 j Uear Sir; This letter transmits the enclosure which is a copy of a petition which was generated in response and opposition to the intent by Standard Oil Company of California to build a gas treatment plant as described in the Board of Zoning Ad,justmrents Corrected Notice of Public Hearing, dated October 29, 1975. This petition was presented to the Board during the hearing on November 5, 1975. Your cooperation in placing this matter on the City Counci] s Business Agenda will be deeply appreciated. Yours truly, Gilbert A. Nixon cc: Honorable Mayor of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Planning Commission Huntington leach City Council r�� 1J gwdo r:f 3 TL=RK � 1 L• TV ., ' FtUtiii!r;'..ti :t"!Ct1.C.st�t', 4 TO: 1-4.d of 'lot-ilia Ad just-._nts '17= 1 , Rh a : 4'5 Ciry of puntir..!tcn ?�earh s a t,ie and s !_-,nL d in res;once to the corrected notice of public hearinu ;ec.:rri r.: Use i ermit 75-5$ do hereby petition the Board c.f lonfn � iL�t.� ::;r.s , City of Huncincton Seach , California to ` . dany th.: is5unnce of �,n ld l'se Perxi t to Standard oil Company of Cal i`_'ornta f-Or ccw: tr-:,,tion of r, ,-is trant=ent plant in the general ;area south of Avenue and west of. Coldenwast Street , - , t ! This pe!: :ti•N, is auti.iittecq on t: 7.. basis of `he afore.Y.entioned , • :a:era '. are '•eit, , :.;.- ��ii �_zly st6i0cent to a major resicienL• ial 1.-.L! try to major r.esi.d_ntiat area, .•i r or. .0 le; rh :aik rrsr•ectiveZy, the predict" ~.•`NIe Cetri� ental affert 3 on F:a ily livinv and property _•c i r, r;,,. t; �i ic'e!�t i�� l ;I�• .;; a11( t..•e �- vi i labia ity of other - f- • = :,": nC'!'.w c)r.sr :,ict inn .:hirn are r:r. ote from resi.dent- :i: _•1a , , t •1Cc.r.: S S Z,/, f,'C-lv Poe q v Z) A/43'e P01 -71 LA WAD 40101 �allif, �7 fi qtv Vol. ! j 77 - '.({'�,f1n�r. .v", �rS t P{�:i'?�:"`r!3'.�: •��}•m fit:-.r t '� .. TY ; T4 f0k BEACH I 1MI�14 'ON 0.HALL ; DATE - � i s.. .. �'• w C,r Wit•s 't.!•^r•'r' ��+�f::�l .l,• •'c'i'', 1,•. i � �I �}+%.tC�°: .��.,.r�.»......�"i�wr�.�...�:..+.•�.r�+•...w. .'.-d;�"'F11.'sTl"�J'_'F.l.' f _` 'c vao .711 A.e•A.r #CW1VEQ sir - - •1:.f' ACCOUIWT AMOUNT yv, TOTAL l ��f�. 4�• y,•�M...wau.ww M••r• M•ryar.•w.+.W� •. +�UNfnlliir►w,ate...,-•�"`'—._ �9` 5 DEC 26 ton � Huntington Beach , California . December 26, 1975 VP Huntington Beach City Council P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92448 • Re . Use Permit 75 58. Honorable Mayor and Council Members, We the undersigned do hereby appeal the decision of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission regarding the appeal. g B submitCed by G.A. Nixon, et.al. in opposition to issuance of the noted use permit. it is significant to note this current appeal is sponsored and sanctioned by the Seacliff Homeowners' Association and appeUant action is therefore no Longer isolated to the four individual homeowners who appealed to the Flanning Commission. Our appeal is based on the following facts , ohservatioxis and occurrences . 1 . We feel the proposed installation in reality involves some 75 acres which are zoned X2-02 . The proposed installation is interpreted as a first ane precedent establishing step in the consolidation of scattered processing facilities into the areas in question for purposes of e.{pansion of the Seacliff livi.nq area. This intc:rpretati.on if fact would appear to statebe not only in direct conflict with implied and direct -ments made to numerous buyers of Seacliff re.,i.dences at the time of original purchase concern inr oil re lilted activities , but will also force obvious detrimental chances upon the family environment of the existing Seacliff area in order to acco=,lodate Seacliff expansion. It is i;iconceivab'.e to t.�s that the imminent or even potential growth of a ma.,or Indust- rial area which is adjacent to one m;i jor residential area (Seacliff) and in close proxymity to a second (Beachwalk) could ever be compatible with the Ci t y' s general plan. 2, The proposed installation is pla.-ned for use to process not only gas which is retrieved from the imixediate production area, but also fr071 the Rolsa, P. S. , ant: Shoreline leases . These Leases are remote to the areas in question. The planned usage n process ass fron. re.itote leases may be it violation of the City' s oil code and intended usage of land zoned 02 . E� e Affidavit Publication t, State of Cwifomla County of Orange City of Huntington Beach George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, nays: That he is a tt•., aA eitirn4ln Cat ftaiidr Non, 6"• citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one yeEws, That he is the printer and publl>zher o,' the Huntington Bench � LKAt trf0 ` • ` News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- 4 up RtlMUc NIttIM' llshed in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said -"a flue-0. tf-" - •�'� County of ©range and elsewhere and published fnr the dissemination Neat: ii tl civil' Matt S PW of local and other news of a general character, and has n bona title k � e rWR '61f�ttOW bf► 04, Ct subscription list of pVWS >subscrilvers, and said palrcr has been Manning ,.„M,svon d t" ��of rtuntinn tB#adl Call gto (�'�ti, establ shed, printed and published In the State of California, and :urpoca or tamAttlt+#(¢n°,app�af �' County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication the Dwo ,a > I 11riisumn4 Io- of the first inse:tlon of this notice; and the said newspaper is not rovil of tl,v fie 75711 which devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any s a 441itet acr. % trtrbt s of particular class, professlan, trade, calling, race or denomination, or t tw tm*wnt „lLA ot1k Al t $No- I tin Ilia d, It- o r *with any number thereof. 3rd►name, txdf. t►,e rrla.0wrils- titon wIU M'07nti1�, .ti+el stltt The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a lek*rtl ntw-spxtpx r ,pp" Mesta. Zhe fiat pKtwMM tl a of gs•netal circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel In the Superior Court evuett .} *vltt, mea<otrst !a► of Orange County, California August ry(th, 1913 by order No. A-5931. ha'drmlo r.•ins p: ttairtillant IanL The pnd�30W w.)%-10Ms b* raplwanta4liati fun tfdf' altu.:crrk am, •� a1 , F I�' I1(�, '1 , ? t1F�r;Alw remain ,*100nattai+ of c(,.,dittori i, t us.d to of the PVWCs cal Prtstwai. rlete conemic-.a on-as foh.rp31 `" of whit; the cntterrd is a printed copy, was ,.,,blished in :said news- f 1. A noW& ccasuttant the soMtettan 1 :f vrttiaR avail !se me" by t.-ts N'Omt. rental Raylrw avert', stw i; M ton ; ♦• paper at lent one � d s tie __.. _ »_ _ ratted with by Startr4li G I 'Cclri tr, or a r'sptpatttssi rva Hato analYt�oft, el xt on ob• *U4 uon 'l i ff conrntencing from the 111h_ day of . _ :. _._.. ..-.. _ ping tM is• dove W." ai watt" sMaif'tA�t- tldeho to ad 11 MrfiM 19_7_5 ,. and eruUng on the day of r own to no rtryayrt �.i-V i ,lien compiy•wihl' t, a sn' re ' and 9. The applicant � Itiftlt tl,a 1 .�.. both clays incl�,stve, and as often during t�l 1 rlrxl Isr"Cl-to watnitwom f t 4 is *a Ytne: of publication as t;ald Paper was regularly issued, and in ttv` ,lift and •aa6ftlmlk'`fxw►tey• Nrnfra. regub r and entire issu-- of said pewspaper proper, and not In a aat4d Novrn4r 17, IM - ;:t • . supplement, and said notice was publWiM therein on the following 10. Via aeWmAle uanitd•irtt W4q awlttrte dates, to-wit: )ropo4 fagility awl !e , In I,d49wi0e' ritn the 'M tutu Ctsldn Review 8orr0,-arto tKe tar,�!'��C��zar t%t' _+7 strtat sa+tti �* '�"- '- -15oN11•ctlan The buttlial yT la taratarli M '.art south a rtleld AvwAW wid ab feet **at d Gaiden+eftt OtraN In t'sa RA42-GO (Rarrirfntltl AWICA111149DI oar• Aud�mw In tt f Civic• nl�e4 with ptl AsUld)• A lo"I'deac4pbin Is on Nit Publisher ,n the Ptsnn'rr>r.tipltt nuts, 4100,s . Subxcribed and sworn to before me this .1 ?.t dny Of Saki heating W91 1'+ Itid► 41k.J4 parr x 7" P.►'1, Cal oftom or $A 71ri. la due cowrc:l t:)nartrW •atfelsyt at the ye i P,qi'' 'r _rtY( ' �iric Cersfa�, aq�p Nlailt btNtit, bunt• into" Beach, CariK*AW All Intereata0 pasasnt am IfA*4 go notary Public ).,it" twa D"rifw sxt al WW* their Ornnge~Coultt California 'Finkns too w Wlr4 Milt 'peiQolad Y, Us@ PermK No. 7!14W I urthtr Ir**m4N4rl away ft"lfMQ ,rorn true City rte»ning ~rtea& _ Telephone N& (7td) S24-f+ 7L ------- -- }{ ^s D. -------"IN DATED this Ath daft of December. 1211. t 1'dttary 1';j6)ie-C.Utornie i By tiichwo A. .)Wk* y'r Oranry• Cown►r i $Actuary. --- r , c y.,, 1►l�► Co}nrtislion F.pirr� r r --- . . .. 12: ...... 1 Nbliirh 1/8/7fi Postcards 102 WTICE Of POLIC NNARINC Appeal to Approval of Conditional Use Permit #71-58 Appeal to Cbc'-ditioris of Approval. of Conditional Use Permit #75-58 ?MICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the . City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Hunt ag on Beach, at t:ht hour of I 7 P, M. , or " soon thereafter as possible , on Monday, j the 19th day of Jununry 19 76 for the purpose of considering appeals to the Planning Commission' s approval of Use Permit No. 75-58 which permits development of a gas treatment plan pursuant to Section 9386 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The City Council will be considering two separate appeal requesta. The first nppcal is a request to overrule the approval for the develop- ment of the gas treatment plant. Vie second appeal was filed by a representative for the applicant and requests elimination of Conditions 9 and 10 of the Planning Commission's conditional approval. These conditions are as follows : 9. The applicant shall comply with the agreed to commitment submitted to Seacliff and Beschwalk property owners, dated November 17, 1975. 10. The aesthetic consideration on the proposed facility shall be in compliance with the recommendations of the Design Review Board, and the tanks along Clay Street shall be painted in conjunction with this proposed expansion. Subject property is located 415 feet south of Garfield Avenue and 495 feet west of Goldenwest Street in the RA-02-CD (Residential, Agricultural combined with Oil pro- duction in the Civic District) . A legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office. All interested persona are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said gueal Further inforeation may be obtelood from the Office of the City Clerk . DA?XD: ."anuary 5, 1976 CITY OF- i1Vlf'i'Il1�.`�.1N BLACH i..Y�411■Aid.• ■ BY* Aiici& Me Wentworth City Clerk UPS 9 7S -i8 Appeal. typed by Jana He 23M010_9. A 23-231-09 �3zjljM20 fwno*tft 8sach Cmpany Kilian J Turner N49e1 t 2110 Nei: 4t*est 6971 Lawn Haven Drive 6961 Church circle XtwtLn ta& b"ah, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif JjUgt j"ton Brach, Cqtj.ji ' 926t6 92648 9 K� Bt ►lord"*Ail Co. 23-251-10 P.tT. Box" Edward. A Hoover Jack R Di s taro YatHabrie, 4 1i 6972 Lawn Haven DrAve 6971 dhurch Ci 90631 Huntington Beach, Calif HwitiH#ton Beacia, Calif 92648 92648 2'J= OIL'. 23-�251--11 23-� 51-42 Qi � x obert R. Markin Karl A Sues&nyi 686 l av�w4aven► Drive 6962 Lawn Haven Drive 6931 Church Circle . Hun gtoa�. Heach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington teach, Calif 926 92648 92648 ij 23-251-02, 23-251--1.2 23-251-43 Rail awr Harold A Swarthout Kent M Mc Clish 688 rnt, Uaven Drive 6942 Lawn Haven Drive 6941 Church Circle Hun ton lk*ah, Calif Huntington Beach , Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 926 92648 92648 t 23- 3 23-251--13 23-252-01 Arthur C. Juhl Alberto H Baecope �� L Schlossberg } 689 wsi Haven Drive 6932 Lawn Haven Drive Hun ton. Berlth, Calif Huntington beach , Calif 6842 Lawn Haven Drive 926 92648 Huntington Beach, Calif i 92648 23- 1-04 23-251-14 02 Oil. n L Barnard Thomaa L Henderson Jr 23-252•• 6901 Lawn Haven Drive 6922 Lawn Haven Drive Donald Watt flan tan Beach, Calif Huntington Beach , Calif 6g52 Lawn Haven Drive 926 92648 Huntingdon Beach, Calif 92649 23-2 05 23--251-15 23-252-03 Step n K.� Zc�hm�aacher Glen Be Frazier We Kenneth Peasley 6921. wn Hav a Drive 6902 Lawn Haven Drive 6872 Lawn Raven Drive Uuntingtan Beach, Calif Huntington Beach , Calif Huntington �l+araoh, Calif 9264• 92648 92648 23-251-06 23-351-16 23-252-04 Michael L Sorg Shigeo Morikawa H Stephen Sloan 6931 Lawn Haven Drive 6911 Church Circle 6882 Lawn Haven Drive Huatington .Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Reach, Cali 92648 92648 92648 23-251-014 23-251--17 23 05 Thmas M -Welch RxxIxxxxBAdx3t Frank �t 69li1 La�: Haven Drive Frank L Whipple Huntington S+eaah, Calif 19291 8urtdale Lane H 6f Huntington Beach , Calif 92648 23--251-00 23-251-17 23-252-06 Dennis T D Ambra Paul R. Sandberg Charles Elmer Millar 5961 Larne Haven Drive 6921 Church Circle 19301 SuRa51"a Lance Huntington Awash , Calif guntington Seach , Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92641 92648 92648 r 110--200-20 . ��� •�,2p-14 ' Helan F. aenderson Arthur W. Kirk'-. `' Circle 1660 La Roina May Apt 2B :aason zust Syr , • . �6�R1 : ►srs + t iorrr► �re►oh, Calif Palm Springs, Calif 491 W6 H 'ghland` . 92442 Sierra ?gadr*:# CA : 911144 2j ,3., p 110-200--21 lY .= �O15 Schley Al ce 0 Mc Kenna Arthur Mf. Kirk � \� S +i 1,Xry Circle SHY M. aLASOEN Je Trust '! .i SO roh, Calif i'3,#11 Fairfield Apt 591 481 W. fti hlnind �►iiri . lSes.l. Beach, Calif Sirrrk Madre, CA 41q 4 � k $ 40740 J III-200--22 111-120-16 �0; 1. Grace M Barnes Colleen Armstrong. � 7J i K Neill Stan Rt 2 Brix 1325 c ' RearCh, Calif 169 W. 1900 N Sunset Yucca Valley,; C.� 0 84 . . ,;'• Clearfield, Utah 84615 13~ .... 3- 111-120-07 111-1?0--17 ;' Hughes Linda L. Thomas willisa E. xacLean d 6 :.U40or K y Circle 19782 Scenic Bay Ln. 14342 Chestnut Street beach, Calif Runtington Beach, CA 92648 Westminster, CA '9Z683 9 2 »13 111-120-08 111--120-21 Ri D. Bothw&11 J K Painting Contractorm Joe Minis . 6?82 .S_ r6or Xey Circle 17371 Irvine Blvd. 19251 Nevland Street R taw seaah , Calif Tustin, CA 92680 Huntington Beach, .CA 9264! 9 111-120-09 111-�130--06 American Oil. Service, Inc. Heim Vick Petersen 18906 Goldenwest St. 2220 East- 4800 South C . Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Apt 4 Salt 'se City, Utah 8411, 1 200"13 111-120-10 111--130--07 'IVY Wit,J. Dillinqno City of Huntington Beach Bernard A. Leckie 9 California Avenue City Hall One Wilshire DlVd. siaoh; Calif Huntington Beach, CA 9264E Suite 2323 yp�Os Att: City Administrator Los Angles, CA90017 = 2I0j20C�=14 111-120-11 1?1-130-08 - btMA 06c''Sunderldnd Bernard A. Leckie Bernard A. Leckie One Wilshire Blvd. One Wilshire Blvd. Vr11116y" MAter, Calif Suite 2323 suite 2323 �lg0a2 Los Angeles, CA 90017 x.as �llagelas, CA 900�,7 11*-200115 111-120-12 111-130-09 Akira I*Lbaohi Bernard A. Leckie Robert Jeffrey . 23909 S. ixlvania Ave One Wilshire Blvd. pat D. Mackinga '1bmm", `Calif Suite 232. 32146 9ailvi.iew Ln. 41�#41 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Westlake Villuger CA 9136C 110-200w19 111-120-1.3 � Faille J Walker Ruth Fairfiel d 430 W, Main • street 2848 Cherry Avenue ftobvill+e, Indiana Long Beach, CA 90806 23-262•-03 /� 23-�292.22 !� Jercm J Shea Jr Daryll 11 Broad�•.�Gf.�bal], �• 191, 2.. UAA& Vaurbor Circle 6802 LaWn Haven Drive 19312 Manor' Point ington Beach, Calif Ci�"�'��' Hunt t Rath, Calif Hunt8 i#tihtifngton beach, c7hilt 2648 92641 23-253- � 23-262-04 23-262-36 Gwrge<-F.Taylor, Ronald G Berger Join P garene 19322o.9Mdy Xarhor Circle $792 Lawn Haven Drive 19:)2i Shady Harbor .' Cir. l rotin.q it wh, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Hunt jBgs on Beach, 'Cal.lf +226+�'id 92648 92640 rt, Madwen 23-262-05 23-263-61 666 4Fawn Maven Drive w rd E Brandengur Michael B Scaler k jimt ngUa.-Beach, Calif 8 Lawn Haven Drive 6701 Lawn Haven Dr Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington lif � 986�18 • ; .��$3-.2i1.-OZ 92148 Beach, 92649 ZU212 23-.261-03 23-262-06 23-263--02 Sal ,!Pel.1s+, Gene J omicioli Paul Ii Jaekle 67f1 Zafa►,114ven Drive 6772 Lawn Haven Drive 6702 Lawn Haven Cir. I tizaq-tw :Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Ca f #8 92648 92648 f :261-04 23-262-07 23-263-03 Tui;lia L, ,Nuvoiarone Wilbur J Hiebert Dorothy a Iiackrott •6781 Lavu Maven Drive 19242 Evening Hill Dr. 6712 Lawn Haven Drive uuntiagtcm Brach, Calif Huntington Beach , Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92648 92648 23�2i - iS• 23-262-08 23--263-04 Reinand C. Heise Robert D. Wright Thomas R Lindsey J 6771 Lawn Raven DriveWRn5Y8Ri§9a9A11CRjj?e 6722 Lawh Haven Dr Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 Huntington Beach , Calif 96�i8 92648 L'n p_261--06 23-262-09 23-263-�05 E J,Qhu ritxpatri.ck Hiroshi Nagaya Donald Eruly 6761 Lawn Naven Drive 10272 Evening Bill Dr 6732 Lawn• Haven Driv Voistington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach , Calif HHuntington Beach , f l28 92648 92648 23-»261�Q7 23-262 -10 23-263-06 Piq"rd D. Salawida Frank H Tostado Richard C. reeae 67.51 :�,"ws,-Haven Drives Patraia A Reese 19282 Evening Bill Dr. puntingtoa Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 6731 Harbor Key Circ le 92446 92648 . g 92648 23-262-01 23-262--20 23-263--07 dobn H Vaight Fussell S Klein Richard Heinjcz 6l32 barn Haven Drive 19311 Manor Circle 6721 Harbor Key Circle Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Reach, Calif 92448 92648 92648 23-262-02 23a262--21 23-263 -09 Sohn J V Rqustines William Gott:tor Francis E. Doyle 6l12 Lawn Haven Drive 19301 Hatior Point Circle 6701 tlnrhor Key Circle Huntington Beach# Calif Hur�:.ington Beach, Calif Huntington :teach , Calif l2648 92648 92648 ff �: lllwl34 i1 •: 111-130-24 Mary, 9'#; Mille Donald! A. Heir 433 Smite, Av+ hue 9692 Blanche Avenue Pas nay, CA 91107 Garden Grove, CA 92641 111 13Q--12 111-130-25 Mixk 7 Mills Eduard V Ldmondso li .433 a k Donald. A. Weir Soa�.t venue pasakna, CA 91107 9692 Blanche Avenue Carden Grove, CA 92641 ll -13d�I3 H. B. Elementary School C of:. Suntington Beach 770 - 17t1i Street + C stall Huntington Beach, Calif ` H ting'ton Beach, CA 92646 Attn : District Supt . a AA. City Aftinistrator 111-130-14 TI.B. Union High School Harry Cohen 1902 -- 17th Street 5 plyott Street Huntington Beach, Calif qat CA 91042 Attn : District Supt. Dept.t. of transportation slily ,an J. Renner 120 So Spring Street 1%07 Prankfort Los Angeles , Calif 90052 H ngton Beach, CA 92648 Attn : Staff Assistant Design B 1 -130-16 Linda University corporation LoRA Linda, CA 92354 11 130-17 is B. Graner 6. tigo Ln Ho ing Hills Estates, CA 90274 lll-330-20 W* ,R. Dorton 5251 El Roble Long Beach, C.h 90815 111-130-21 Jesse B. Granor 6 La'tigo Lane Rolling Hi 11i Estates; CA 90274 111 -130-23 Loan Linde university The Corporation Loma Linda. CA 92354 I 4 Notice •is hereby given that a 'public hearing will be held by the City Council 'of the City untington Beach, California for the purpose of considering � ap ealSto the Planning Commission ' s�� approval. of Use Permit No. -58 which development of a gas treatment plant pursuant to Section 9686 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . The City Council will be considering two separate appeal requests.'Ihe first appeal is a request to overrule the approval for the development of the gas treatment plant. The second appeal was filed by a representative for the applicant and requests elimination of Conditions 9 and 10 of the Planning Commission ' s conditional approval. These conditions are as follows: 9 . The applicant shall comply with the agreed to commitment submitted to Seacliff and Beachwalk property owners , dated November 17 , 1975 . 10. The aesthetic consideration on the proposed facility shall be in compliance with the recommendations of the Design Review Board, and the tanks along Clay Street shall be painted in conjunction with this proposed expansion. Subject property is located 415 feet south of rfield Avenue and 495 feet west of Goldenwest Street in the P-N- CD (Residential , Agricultural combined with Oil Production in tPI Civic District) . A legal description is on rile in the 94 t- I 5 office. Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7 : 00 p.m. on r P - 1 . (ITS7.,y1i zoninG AWUST'w BoARD . '' JA CITY OF HUNTIN�GTON MACH-CALIFORNIA P.. D.�max Ply-996" NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING DATE : Oot !?pJ w�YI��Yr APPLICANT : Stand asks oil Ca me r of c±aiu=nis, APPLICATION NUXBZR: Use ftrait No. 75- 59 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Publ:�c Hearin will. be held b I � � y the board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Huntington Beach in the basesent of the Civic Center , Room B-8 , 2000 Main Street , City of Runtington Beach, California , at the hour of 1 : 15 P .M . an on Wednesday, Noveimber S, 1975 for the purpose of considering a petition for n _ Use Pmait . General Re.queat : To pormLt the construction of a gas treatwent plant pursuant to Section 9606 of the Mwtington Beach Ordinance Code. General Location : The subject property is located 415 feat south of Garfield Avenue and 495 feet west of Goldonwest Street, in an Rh.--02-M. Residdotial-Agricultural cembl ned with oil production District. A legal description it on file with the Planning Department . All interested persona are invited to attend s&Ad hearing and express their opinions for or against the proposed petition . Further inforeation may be obtained from the office of the Secretary to the Board of Zoning Adjustments , in the Planning Dtpertnent , Civic Center , Huntington Desch , California ; tele- phone nuaber : (714 ) 536-5271 . Very truly yours James We polin'r 59cstetaxy 20exd of lasing Ad just ants sdf 3. Seacliff residents have been exposed to obnoxious gases which are apparently emanating from existing oil processing equip- ment. This concition not only creates an imconvenleiice to the affected residents , but also has the potential of a health hazard. More directly, as related to the proposed installation, It confirms the apparent lack of an oil code which is both effective and appropriate for the oil/residential complex that currently exists in our City. Pursuant to the previous discussion , we. request the Citv Council to accomplish the foliowine re,-ed ial steps . I . Provide the necessary action and/or direction to the Planning Department which will result in the initiation of ,activity to accomplish rezoning of the noted ( and approximate) 75 acres from M2-02 to 02 . This api roach permits continued oil operations In the subject areas , but prevents the introduction and growth of heavy industry. The spectre of this introduction is a major concern to Seacliff residents and becomes more ominous in light of the potential for ref. ir.in�.7 or processing of oil from off shore leases . 2 . Prohibit expansion of production facilities in the subject areas until the matter of rezoning is totally resolved , an environmental impact report has been filed and the sources and types of gases in the Seacliff re:si.dentia 1 area have: been sampled, identified and correct ive/probibir ives measures have been implemented . 3 . Provide the necessary action t:) e:xpe:c;ite formulation of a modernized city oil code witl com -letion no later than the sixth month of 1976 . We feel these measures are necessary to hermit continued harmonious coexistence of the oil producing and residential factions of our City and are therefore rirected to not only the interests of the Seacliff community but to the best interests of the total Huntington Bench cootwunity as well. Yours tru 1 ►,, M.L. Barnard I. . kaups 6901 Lawn Haven Drive 6, �: 1 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach , Ca . 92648 Huntington Reach Ca. 92648 Telephone , 536w1979 Telephone , 536-5461 '� f� • it G.J. Omici.oli G.A. Nixon 6772 Lawn Haven Drive 6861 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington 3each , Ca. 92648 Huntington Beach, tea . 92648 Telephone, 536- 1120 Telephone, 536-50613 L T.w. welch 6951 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Preach, Ca. 92648 Telephone , 535-4318 cc: Fresident , lqeacliff Homeowners Avsocintion Vice President Fublic Affairs, Standard Oil Company of California I I I StMWW 01 Cep of Comemie, fW. 0 Wat" OPINUM, In' P.O. Sox 606, La Mrs, CA 90631 Fhone(213) 691.2251 December 26, 1975 Appeal, of Conditions Moo. 9 and 10 On Use Permit 75-56 and the Decision of the Huntington Beach Plannir4 Commission Chi c�t�e�,Y"''�'" • � �r4ta�` M , , « �► Huntic Dsach City Council Huntington Beach Mahn Street Huntington Beach, CA 92W Gentlemen: It is stated at the 7utset that in view of the fact that ttandard has an initial IXe Permit on the 40 + acre parcel on which the proposed facility is to be situated, we do not believt that Use Permit 75-58 is required under the Huntington Beach Code. garewer, under duress, we are trilling to continue this application in the appeal process it the City Attorney's office does not concur with our 6elitf. This •-Teal is directed to those conditions (9 and 10) that are specifically referred to in this document andshould not be intended to be an eppeal of the Use Permit itself or any of the cther conditions. Therefore the appeal ahould be limited to those s�ecified ressoas for appeal of the aforementioned conditions as set out in section 9815.1.2 of the Huntington Beach Code, By the Board of Zoning ,Adjustments ' own admianion (Finding No. 6) it has been demon- sstrated that t:te facility, for which this Use Permit was obtained, will not have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of people residing within the area. 9idce it ban been shorn that there win be no detrimental effect on the environment or persona residing within this area, it is reasonably and !*sally unclear as to why the Hoard of Zoning Adjustments has attached conditions 9 tnd 10 to tblo Use Permit, The only rationale that the Board of Zoning Adjw tzente states fc: attaching these conditions to Vals Use Permit is that it "affords the City more leverage over improvement of existing conditions than it would otherwise have." (Finding No. 5). Standard waintains that the Board of Zoning AdJuatmente has gone beyond Section 9821.2 and hoc attached these conditions for the purpose of "Ievwrape" rather than the criteria set out in that section of the Cods. What is at issue here is not existing conditions in the oil field as a whole, but rather any changed conditions that would come about due to the installation of this facility. Thorefore, each of the coMiti•ons that could be attached to this Use Permit should reasonAbly relate to that use. Each of the conditions to be sMaltd shall be addressed specifically. Condition No. 9 makes reference to an agreed-to co mitment with the horaemmrs and Standard Gil Coarpo vy. In po,.nt of fact, there is no such oigreed-to cowitmattt. Runtinston Death City council -2- December 26, 1975 Standard submitted to the homeowners jn(.;:zra1s that if aacepted,would constitute an agrNra sent betw"n the homowners errs Standard. However,, our proposals were nevar accepted by the homeowners. Therefore, Standard does not feel obligated to comply with the "aid-to commitment" when there has not been an acceptance of this 'commitment by tha hooreownnrs themselves. Condition No. 10 stipulates that the tanks along Clay Street shall be painted in conjunction with this proposel expansion. Starxard fails to realise haw the painting of 'tanks along Clay Street reasonably relates to the use and operation of this low topparature seperation unit. Standarrd does not feel that by making application for a use permit we should be required to subject our whole oil field operations to reviewer by the Board of Zoning Ad ustmaat. This seams to be an unreasonable extenzion t;" edminiatrative discretion. Very truly yours, [ 2wdri�erd`B. 66 t I i EM:bhw y �r� .J J Huntington Beach Planning Commis5ian y� P.O. Box 190 CALIFORNIA 82648 T0: Honorable Mayor and C'..i.ty Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: January 19, 1976 ATTENTION: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator RE: USE PERMIT NO. 75-58 : Appeals to Approval APPLICANT: Standard Oil Company of California P. 0. Box 606 La Habra, California 90631 APPELLANTS : G. A. Nixon , Seacliff Homeowners Association, et al 6861 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, California 92648 I ,Appeal to the approval of Use Permit No. 75-58 by the , Huntington Beach Planning Commission. Standard Oil Company of California Western Operations , Inc. P. 0. Box 606 La Habra , California 90631 Appeal to Condition, Nos. 9 and 10 of the Planning Commission' s Conditional. Approval. These conditions are as follows: Condition No. 9 - The applicant shall comply with the agreed to commitment submitted to Seacliff and Beachwalk property owners, dated Novemrer 17 , 1975. Condition No. 10 - The aesthetic cons3.derati.ons on the proposed facility shall be in compliance with the recommendations of the Design Review Board, and the tanks along Clay Street shall be painted in conjunction with the proposed expansion. LOCATION: Generally located 415 feet sou,h of Garfield Avenue and 495 feet west of Goldenwest Street. REQUEST: To permit the development of a gas treatment plant. USE PERMIT NO. 75-58 Page :Z PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ON MOTION BY. BOYLE AND SECOND BY BAZIL THE APPEAL FILED BY G.A. NIXON, SEACLIFF H014BONWERS ASSOCIATION , ET AL, ON USE PERMIT NO. 75-58 WAS DENIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Bazil , Finley, Slates , Boyle , Kerins NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shea ON MOTION BY FINLEY AND SECOND BY :30YLE STANDARD OIL COMPANY 'S APPEAL 'TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOS . 11 91 AND 10 FOR USE PERMIT NO . 75-58 k'AS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Condition No. 1 - It is necessary to establish existing noise conditions along the property lines to determine at some later date whether the gas processing plant would have a detrimental effect upon this noise level . Condition No. , 9 - T:iis condition does respond to concerns of homeowners and the potential impact of the oil resource use on the adjoining residential area. Condition No. 10 - This condition also responds to homeowners ' concerns on the impact on the residential area. AYES: Parkinson, Bazi.l , Finley, Slates , Boyle, Kerins NOES:. None ABSTAIN: Shea ABSENT: None PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the appeal to the approval be denied, and that the appeal to Conditions 9 and 10 be denied. SUMMARY OF STAFF REPORT: Use Permit NO. 75-58 is a request to permit the construction of a gas treatment plant on an approximate one acre plot of land within an exist- ing oil field located at the southwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street. The subject property is presently zoned RA-02-CDI which permits such an oil operation facility, and is partially occupied With a wholesale nursery operation. , After several meetings 'O4-L een the applicant, staff , and adjacent homeowners, the noar6 of Zoning Adjustments conditionally approved the proposal at its November 19 , 1975 , meeting . (See attached conditions . ) This approval action was subsequently appealed by both the applicant and Adjadent homeowners. The .Planning Commission at its' meeting of December 16, 1975, reviewed and considered both appeals. 7t was the 'USE PEP.MIT NO. 75-58 Page 3 Commission' s findings that the basis of the Sea:liff Homeowners ' appeal was not of sufficient substance to overrule the Board' s approval action and thus the Commission denied their appeal. It was also the Commission' s findings that the conditions imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments were necessary to safeguard against possible impacts on the surrounding residential areas. Therefore, this appeal was also denied. It should be noted that the applicant, Standard Oil Company, has not appealed Condition No. 1 to the Council because of a clarification that was re-- solved before the Planning Commission. A detailed explanation of this condition wa's provided at the Planning Commission meeting, with both the applicant and the Commission concurring on its clarified intent. In order to avoid any potential confusion on the content of the condition, the Planning Staff recommends that the following amended wording be incorporated into the Council' s action should they concur with the Planning Commission' s recommendation. 1. A noise consultant, the selection of which shall be made by the Environmental 'Review Board, shall be contracted with by Standard Oil Company for a comprehensive noise level report which will establish the noise levels emanating from the existing on site oil operation facilities . If after development of the project the noise level on the site has been increased above the level established by the report, then the necessary noise mitigation measures shall I . be provided to comply with such established level. I ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The Planning Commission, as requested by the appellant homeowners, con- curred on the request for a review and evaluation of the existing industrial zoning on the oil operation area, and thus directed the Plan- ning Staff to perform such a study. The applicant has submitted for the Council' s information additional legal opinions on the homeowners ' appeal and. Standard Oil Company ' s appeal, some technical information on the possibility of odor emissions from the area, a correspondence 'I directed to the Seacliff Homeowners ' Association, and a conceptual elevation of the proposed facility. This information is attached herewith. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The Environmental Review Board at its meeting of November 4 , 1975, granted Negative Declaration No. 75-72, havinq found that the proposed project will not have a detrimental effect on the physical environment. i SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1. Staff Report 2. Area Map 3. Letters of Appeal 4 . Standard Oil Company ' s information packet dated January 13 , 1976 Z O. Harlow t m ted, iar ' Secretary RAH:JMC: j;, •1'CI r WIN ng c�p�rt1Tl�i'!t h�unti �n TO: PLANNING C0101ISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: December 16 , 1975 USE PERMIT NO. 75-58 - APPEAL TO APPROVAL APPLICANT: Standard Oil Company of. California P.O. Box 606 La Habra , Calif. 90631 APPELLANTS: Standard oil Co. of Calif. Date of Appeal : Western Operations , Inc. Nov. 26 , 1975 j P.O. Box 606 La Habra , Ca. 90631 G. A. Nixon, et al Date of Appeal : 6861 Lawn Haven Dr. 147ov. 26 , 1975 Huntington Beach , Ca. 92648 i LOCATION: Generally located 415 feet south of Garfield Ave. and 495 feet west of Goldenwest St. REQUEST: To permit the development of a gas treatment plant. 1. 0 APPEAL: There have been two separate appeals filed on the Board of Zoning Adjustments decision to approve Use Permit No. 75-58 - one by a number of property owners within the Seacliff Residential Area and the second by Standard Oil on specific conditions of approval as _required by the Board of Zoninq Adjustments. ' . letters and objections are too lengthy to outline at 'this paint; please__wafer—to..the...letters. received and dated November 26 ? ..1,97.5.. and $_ection, 3 .,0 of the report for more detailed informat.i.o.ti., filed ..fey.. each. aopel.lant on this matter. 2 . 0 ORIGINAL REQUEST: Use Permit No. 75--58 filed on October 21. 0 1975 was a request . to permit the construction of a gas treatment .plant on an approximate one acre plot of land within an existing oil field Located at the south- AgSbi . rb Page Two 00west corner of Garfield and Goldenwest Street. The facility is proposed to be located approximately 415 ft . south of Garfield Avenue and approximately 495 ft west of Goldenwest Street. 2 . 1 GENERAL, INFORMATION : In December of 1970 , the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Use Permit 70-46 for the overall oil operations un this M2-02 and RA-02 parcel of land at the southwest intersection of Garfield and Goldenwest for oil operations . However , as the approved plot plan did not delineate this proposed gas treatment plant at the location now proposed, it was ne^essary that an amendment be made to facilitate the construction of this facility; therefore , Use Permit No. 75-58 was filed for approval of the facility within the overall oil operation site. f It should also be noted that this original Use Permit No. 70--46 was filed only on approximately 49 acres of this oil field and did not mover the total field .located on the south side of Garfield, between Coldenwest and the southerly projecCi.on of Edwards Street . Subsequent to the Board of Zoning Adjustments actions -on Use Permit No. 70-46 , Standard Oil Co.. filed a letter with the Planning Commission re- questing substitute fence material for the property used by surh__ol - opera-ions. The Commission approved the request with the following conditions : I . Requirement for said wall shall be waived for a three year period . 2 . The easterly 200 ft. on Garfield Avenue shhall be landscaped to provide screening on the oil operation site from Goldenwest Street. This action was taken by the Planning Commission at their January 12 , 1971 meeting. On January 28 , 19711 , the Huntington Beach Company filed with the City a letter stating that if within the next five years the City wants- to widen Goldenwest on the westerly side , south of Garfield Avenue it would be willing to dedicate the land necessary for said street improvements . This letter was filed pursuant to the Planning Cotanission ' s action on Conditional Exce►.tion No. 70-63 which had been filed for •:ai.ver of the necessary dedication and improvements on Garfield Avenue 1 noldenwest Street in conjunction with a new well which was being ;-)2. _ -:osed by St,•ndard nil at that time . 2 . 2 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject property upon which the facility is proposed is presently zoned RA-02-M and partially o4cupied with the wholesale nursery at thiF time. This zoning designation was placed on this property on : February 20 , '1973 . However , it ' should be noted that this property .µ . Page Three was previously zoned M2-02 for a number of years to facilitate oil operations . This .RA-02-CD was placed on the property subsequent to the denial by the City of Conditional Exception No. 72-8 which had been filed to permit a wholesale nursery on approximate III 8 . 2 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street. 2 . 3 GENERAL PLAN: The Land Use Element of the General Plan, was amended on March 10 , 1975 to designate the property for Resource Production.. Therefore, Use Permit No. 75-58 and the proposed gas treatment plant is in compliance with the Land Use designation existing on the property. '! 2 . 4 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : On November 4 , 1975 , the Environmental Review Board granted Negative Declaration No. 75-7.1 having found that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse affect upon the physical environment. The .Environmental Review Board ' s recommendations are attached herewith in its transmittal . 2 . 5 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS REVIEW AND ACTION: Use Permit No. 75--58 was originally scheduled to be reviewed by the Board at the November 5 , 1975 meeting. however, because of the con- cern expressed by numerous property owners within the area , the Board continued action to the November 12 , 1975 meeting to allow the applicant time to meet with the property owners and to allow the B'-)ard to request a report from the Oilfield Superintendent on the existing oil conditions upon subject property . On November 10 , 1975 Standard Oil submitted a letter to the Board requesting an additional continuance on the matter to the November 19 , 1975 Hoard meeting to allow additional time to meet with the property owners within the area. The Board of Zoning Adjustments granted this additional continuance at their November 12 , 1975 meeting. At the November 19 , 1975 meeting, Standard Oil Representative read into the record a letter submitted stating that: they did not feel there was a need for this use permit; however , under duress , they were willing to continue with the application . After much discussion and review of the proposed facility and the precautions necessary to protect the health , safety, and welfare of the residents within the area, the Board of. Zoning Adjustments approved Use Permit No. 75-58 subject to numerous conditions of approval. . For additional information on the Board of zoning Adjustments meetings and conditions of approval , please refer to the attached minutes of the Board of Zoning Adjustments as well as conditions of approval , and the chronological list that has put together for Use Permit 75-58. • 00 00 Page Four 3. 0 STAFF x,.vALYS I S: Following is a summary of the general concerns of the appeal filed by the Seacliff Homeowners : 3 . 1 The proposed gas plant should fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Staff Comments : The Board of Zoning Adjustments has always been authorized to act on use permits relating to oil operations as well as numerous other uses within the City. However, if the Planning Commission concurs , the ordinance code would have to be amended to bring the oil operations under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. 3..?... _ . .. The homeowners state that the 75 acre industrial zoned property has been incompatible with the .Seacliff and Beachwalk residential areas and that. the present zoning should be reevaluated. Staff Co-Anmer.ts: .7 . should be noted that: the 75 acre existing oilfield on the south side c ' Garxxeld between Goldenwest and the projection of Edwards Street is not presently all zoned industrial . In 1973 , a portion or approximately " acres was zoned RA end a portion of the property on the south side of Garfield is zoned Cl ; however, after the recent amendment to the Land Use Element for the property, it may be advisable for the Planning Commission to take this recommendation under consideration as the oil operations will exist for a number of vears and rezoning of the property would not affect the existing operations as the 02 designation could roma.in on the property. 3 . 3 The homeowners raised an issue that there had not been an environmental impact report Filed on the full 75 acre parcel. Staff Comments : It should be noted that no discretionary act has been filed to date on the full 75 acres; however, the Environmental Review Board did evaluate the proposed gas facility and offered mitigating measures for the operation. Also, that when Use Permit No. 70-46 was originally approved for the M2-02 portion of this oilfield , the California Environmental Quality Act was not in effect. 3 . 4 They also indicate in their letter of appeal that the existing Oil `y Code is obsolete and ineffectual concerning code violation . ip Staff Comments : The staff has been pursuing a rewrite of the Oil Code for sometime, and it: is hoped th.at a store precise document can be adop�ed by the City for ol1 rapfrations in 1976 . Page, Five 3 . 5 The letter points out problems with odors created by oil operations at this ' lucation. Staff Comments: The Board of Zoning Adjustments discussed this item with proponents for the project; however, it should be pointed out that the odors are created by the existing conditions and the proposed facility would have no effect upon these odors. The facility as proposed is a totally enclosed pressurized system to separate the liquids from the *natural gases for shipment out of the City and there would be no venting whatsoever to the atmosphere under normal conditions from this facility. APPEAL FILED: (Standard Oil Company) Appeal to conditions 1 , 9 , and 10 of Use Permit No. 75-58 3. 6 Standard oil Company has appealed Condition No. l requiring the noise study to be conducted on the entire approximately 40-acre. parcel of land upon which Mhis oil operation site %:xists. They also state that they feel the noise requirement should pertain only to the proposed gas processing plant itself. Staff Comments: After much deliberation , it was the consensus of the Board of Zoning Adjustments that each new piece of equipment placed within this area would affect the ambient noise level generated from the overall oilfield. Therefore, the Board felt it was necessary to establish existing noise conditions along the property lines to determine at some later date whether the gas processing plant would have a detr.im`ntal effect upon this noise level . 3.7 They have appealed the Condition No. 9 which the Board had Conditioned referencing the agreement commitments submitted by Standard oil Co. to the ,Seacliff Homeowners within the area. Staff Comments: The Board of zoning Adjustments, at the November 19, 1975 meeting, asked the representative for Standard Oil Co. if the letter and commitment had been withdrawn, and the board was informea that in fact the commitment was still in effect; therefore, the Board of Zoning Adjustments felt that it was proper to condition that Standard Ofl Co. comply wit'Zi their letter and commitment to the property owners in the area . For more detnil and information on this letter, please refer to the November 171 1975 Standard Oil letter attached herewith. 3. 8 The remaining issue raised by Standard in. their letter of appeal is tv the Condition No. 10 requiring painting of the storage tanks along Clay 'venue. 1 Page Six 'Staff C, ommen•ts: The City has been pursuing general cleanup of oil operations throughout the City .and as this is a major• entry into the Seacliff development and residential area at this location, it was felt by the Board of Zoning Adjustments and the Design Review, Board that the painting cA' these tanks could improve this vista immensely. 4 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above information, as well as the documents attached herewith, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission sustain the Board of Zot►i.ng Adjustments and deny the appeal filed by Standard Oil Company. However, in regard to the appeal filed by the Seacliff Homeowners, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission take under advisement the possible rezoning of that portion of this property presently zoned M2 because the types of uses presently allowed in the M2 district and the incompatibility of these uses with the residential area as it is currently being developed . JWP :gc i i i f Ml- 02 -3r RA-0-CD D11 GARF I E LD t j i f subje t sit r RJ L4�h = O R3S-3 fib r � O C:).VRC i-MT- R WAU USE PEP,, _ PE ,_I ;10 . 7'-53 -CDjZONES 0- N2D 13 _ � RI, Rl l.4 ��-s , -U, C j• ' NONTOCTOM KACk MJ N1M DEPT. ttinbrd Oil: Company, of California, Weit m' rations, Inc. P.D. Box 606, La Habra, CA 90631 Phone (2 3) 691.225E -IF, January 139 1976 J pit Heeexxigon Use Permit- 72 ,58 Huntington Beach City Council .City of Huntington Beach 2000 Blain Street Huntington Hea,ch: CA 90648 Honorable: Mayor and City Council Members: This is a formal request by Standard Oil Company of California that the appeal of the Planning Caa=ission's decision to grant Use Permit 75-58 be summarily denied. The basis for this request is that the fiery rationale stated. for this appeal trews no reasonable ar legal relationship to the specific use permitted. Not onay is this appeal neither logically nor legally based, but it is procedurally improper for the City Council to hear matters until the appeD ntss have exhausted the administrative procedures made available to them by the Mxntington Beach Code. We refer to those i.ezues that pertain to rezoning and the effectiveness of the Oil Code. This contention is supported by in-house legal opinion as well as the enclosed opinion by our outside counsel,. I The said legal opinions also substantiate Standard's position espoused in our appeal. of Condi.tinns 9 and 10 that are attached to Use Permit 75-58. Standard did not appeal Condition ?lumber 1 because of the Pleuning Commission's clarifi- cation as to the manner in which the noise tests are to be conducted. An initial noise analysis :is to bar conducted to establish a base ambient noise level.. After inatall.ation of this low temperature separation (IIxS) Unit is completed, further tests shall be conducted to determine if trere has been a Change in the base ambient level. If such a change has occurred and it can be traced to the LTS Unit, then mitigating measures will be talma to return to the base a bieat level. Standard therefore requests that only Conditions 9 and. 10 be stricken from Use Permit 75-58. It is Standard's position that these requests are legally founded and should therefat-e be grantod by the City Council. Very tru3,Y Yours �r EBS:�h Edward B. Scott ,:nclosure3 MA4CUS W41TSON LAW orriCC5 or � OlGAM L.A.ILCM 4C[a".traW ItaYtMr r.M4Lt04Y /4ss•IOEs 4.r,ourcAvo.J4. J.OtCHAnG N04N1ssr r (rALW 1.E R, r E L I X fti HALL 11L+lkC4T 1:tatLcor r.JOAN N tHAN P&X rL►'m YICI#A4D O DI►uCC JAMA ".9444tTT 14rr•1044 1AOMa5 t WOOK"LN,J4. CAAlm C.AOLt4 (505 WEST OLYMPIC [iOULEVARC) LCO J.r14C1+C4 JONN/4.0LIrNANf JOMti N.IIAt. JaN»6.V,16a0at At►1NtTN..N466001490 LOS ANGELES,CALIIrORNIA 900M 09fe-10173 CIIAIKCS L 160OCAS 4ICMA4D C.INAL 4rMNCTM OL"1116wf JAI4t*t.DUR9IN Or COUMSCL ".NCAL WCLLS uI CMA4LCS 6.114PLOCO TEL.12131 412O-0000 eltr.►1TOth L.NCTZLCII "CRISA rArt1/01DOT MN.\.IOLAIN00404N,J", 11ICMANa L.rNtJ1N,JY 61901,49N L.TNO�AS 1 CI.CX 874360 AMYNONIt N.V003O WALLA, S.04Vls CAIILC.AODRLSS ONVILLC O.O11N.JR. 0111LLJr 6.N1CNo1.s January 9 , 1976 '03I.AW" wrLLIA+1 4.VIAL C04344•.ANDC411PN COW%" IV.OUNCAN st11NA40 C.t.ISACf *?tPm44 T.SWAN101/ DAVID t.L117C11 TrI.CCO?ICA: V ILLIAM R.►LOU4At,J4. I8131 E21•40" ti Mr. R. M. Rasmussen District Land Supervisor Standard Oil Company of California Western Operations , Inc. P. 0. Box 606 La {abra, Ca. 90631. Attention : Mr. Edward B. Scott Re: City of Huntington Beach Use Permit No. 75-58 , Low Tem ez:ature Serration Unit Dear Mr. Rasmussen: Per your request we have reviewed the letter dated IL December 26 , 1975 addressed to the Huntington Beach City Council by five home oikners which we understand constitutes their appeal to the City Council from the decision of the Huntington Beach Planning Camauissi.on affirming the above Use Permit that was granted by the Board of Zoning Adjustment . he offer the following comments : 1 . The first stated basis for the appeal character- izes the requested use as a precedent establishing step towards growth of a major industrial area and suggests that because of I its close proximity to a major residential area it must be in- consistent with the City ' s general plan. in essence , this argument ignores the .fact that: in the previous proceedings it :ins been established that the LTS Plant will not have an adverse effrct can the surrounding residential i-:raas, and contends that J Mr. R. M. Rasmussen January 9, 1976 Page 2 because it is a use normally allowed in and associated with industrially zoned property it is ipso facto detrimental to the neighboring residential areas. 1 have not reviewed the City ' s general plan, but the proposed use is certainly con- sistent with the present zoning and if that zoning is consis- int with the City ' s general plan there would be no incompat-- ik, lity. Furthermore, the argument seems to be not against the effect of, the proposed LTS Plant on the surrounding residential area, but the pa4ential effect of some imaginary .Future uses of the oil producing property on the residential areas. Tt would not be logical for the City Council to deny this Use Permit merely because some other uses that may , or may not, be proposed i:. the future might not be as benign in effect upon nearby residential areas. 2. The second suggested basis for the appeal argues that the proposed LTS Plant will be used to process gas pro- duced not only from the immediate production area, but from other production areas as and suggests that this may be in violation of the City' s Oil Code and the intent of the 1102" combining oil. district: zoning. I can find nothing in those regulations which suggests that to be the case . On the contrary it would appear from the statement of the intent and purpose of the combining oil district ' s zoning (Section 9680) that a con- , aol dat ion of surface facilities used to service production from several dif terenr areas, rather than ,x proliferation of such Mr. R. M. Rasmussen January 9, 1976 Page 3 facilities, is to be enccuraged. 3. The third basis for the appeal asserts that existing operations on the site are generating obnoxious gases which are an inconvenience to nearby residents, concluding therefrom that the present oil code is ineffective, inappropriate and in need of revision. I do not know whether or not the factual assertion about the obnoxious gases is correct, but assuming it were that fact would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the oil code needs reform. Furthermore, just as in the case of the imagined future operations discussed above, the effect of present operations on nearby residential areas should rot be a reason for denying the proposed Use Per- mit when it h4s been established that the effect of the pro- posed ITS Plant on those residential areas will be benign. Denying the proposed Ilse Permit would not have any remedial effect upon the: alleged obnoxious gases. Consequently, it would hardly seem logical to suggest that as a remedy to the alleged inconvenient condition. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours , William. K. Dial. WKD:paw . zU ODORS EMANATING FROM THE MWIVGTON BEACH OIL FIELD Standard has been conducting oil field operations end Standard employees have been living in the Huntington Beach oil fields since the early 19201s. During that time, there have been very few complaints of petroleum odors and there has been no adverse effect on the health of persona working or living in the area. The odor associated with the Huntington Beach oil field cones from the oil itself and some sulfide compounds produced with the retroleum. petroleum gars has no odor but an artificial odorant is added to the gas for the public's protecticr-. In early 1975, Standard received notice from the residents in the housing area youth of Lawn Haven Street that they Were being affected by certain odors emanating #Toro the oil field. Standard at that time took measures to try and establish the possible contributory points of the odor and then crake a determination as to ghat method could be adopted to reduce the odor level. Certain alternatives were considered: 1. Masking odor was investigated and the idea was discarded because of information obtained from Baruah Oil Company and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. (CrA*4QCB) . It was determined that in most caaeS the masking odor was more noticeable and hod a pore pungent smell. 2. Deodorant systems were also investigated and this idea was discarded because the chemicals used in such a system are reactive and would cause changes in the waste water duality that is under strict regulation by the CI,IQCB. The chemical rates srould tilso be difficult to regulate end the deodorants themselves would cause as much or more of an unpleasant odor. 3. prior to the summer months of 1975, some mechanical changes were rude on ;;he field gathering system north of Lawn Haven Street. These mechanical changes had some degree of, success, juilging frow information gathered from residents in the area. Standard felt that they had performed a satisfactory service since the operations in the area indicated no problems and there had not been c y complaints issued by the residents. The next time we were put on notice of our -Aar disturbance was in discussions with residents concerning the Low Temperature Separation Unit. 4. In September of 1975, Standard haA commenced a project of cleaning and making repairs on the 51000 lb. wash tanks. This ttorh was completed about mid-December. During this operation it. Was decided to make some changes in the gas recovery system at the tank setting. parts were put on order in early November with a delivery date of February 1976. The changes will be completed Veen the parts on order arrive and it is hoped that this will help reduce the odor lev-el in the area. Standard is aware of the faint odor level in the area. This has been a' condition that has existed for some forty or more years and numerous steps have been taken and are being taken to further reduce this level. However, Standard hoc never felt that the odors have coursed c problem from the standpoint; of health or the deprivation of the enjoyr.-nt of one*- property. r- Concerning the conditions attached to Use Fermit ?5-58 (9 and 10), it is a general rule that such conditions must, bear some reasonable relationship to the purposes espoused by Whe ordinance in order to be valid. In this case, the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code provision establishing combining oil districts specifies 'that the intent and purpose is to make simmItenneous compatible develop- ment of land for oil production uses and normal ca=ercial, residential, institu- tional and industrial surface uses. Under Section 98a.1.2 of that Code, the Board is empowered to grant Use Permits provided that the proposed use will not be detrimental to: 1. The general welfare of persona residing or working in the vicir.i'iyj 2. injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity; or 3. Will not adversely affect the master plan of the City. r conditions attached to Use Permd.t must. be In view o� this we thins an Y reasonably related to the effect of the construction and operation of the Law TeaTerfatttre Separation Unit on person: and property in the vicinity. Fran our review of the ten conditions, we believe Conditions nine and ten may not meet that standard. i Condition No. 9 attempts to incorporate by reference an alleged private agreement between the applicant and certain property owners. Not only was there no such agreement by virtue of the lroperty owners' renisal to agree thereto, but some of the provisions of the proposed agreement pertain to existing; operations which are aot related to the Low Temperature Separation Unit. Consequently, even if such an agreement had been reached, it would except; the scope of a permissible condition and should riot have been adopted as such by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. The Deputy City Attorney in his opinion dated December lea, 1974, stated "that if the agreement would afford protection to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, it may be proper." Certain provisions of the proposed agreement do not provide protection to the residents in the area from the use applied. It has been clearly stated by the Board that "this use will not have a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of people residing within the area." Those certain provisions extend to other existint3 oil field operations and conditions. "here- fore, it is improper for the Bonxd to ccndition 'Use permit 75-58 With such a restriction that does not reasou�.bly relate to the use for which it is applied. The loth Condition requires certain existing tank; along Clay Street to be painted. Regardless of whet'Wer or not the painting of those tanks would constitute an aesthetic i.rprovement, there can be no relationship between that and the installation of the Low Temperature Separation Unit, since the tanks will exist and will impose their visunl impact upon the vicinity regartiless of whether or not the Low Temperature Separation Unit is inshaLled. Connequently, the painting of the tanks cannot be said to be reasonably related to the Affect of the Lcre Temperature Separation Unit upon the people and property in the vicinity. The Deputy City Attorney concurs with this point and points out that it Would appear that the proper means to effectuate this condition is through the enforcement of Oil. Code provisions. Chevm 4 �r Standard nil Company of California, Western Operations; Inc. P.O. Box 606, Lij Raba, CA 9063; • PO-;iie (213) 691-2251 January 13, l)iG !,tr. ',.itl it zz< J. Dyrr.e President o'. Association oC")9_ Gate Hill Ci^cle F,,.mtin Sion Beac.i., Ca i r )_,ni.: Dear Mx. By--*ni.: .in a recen` to Cil- Cit,• Council. of Huntington Beach o' Us--! Permit 75-58 _ Y + t.y e, 1. 4.= � ♦ - c• r 1]�!• certain in �;ViC.L18j, t. r._ r'JnCT:i, it S il.i S4_tC 3 t,Ii3t. t,..0 ar.U.al W? , a',:j,AOf'tcli b. ttiC 5:.a...l,_ . . !'1'a•:.�.� +ric._ ,. 11.�..+7c �.ui4:2. ia. 1.1g.1.. of .,lie ire Iioaa kos..,.ian `aken by he s i';' - ,, + is •n r s o Standard. lit jr. i9�i Crt � t :� ur1:?7 1!�::t?:Il• 'ice SYL,, o_• �: it u Stl j�rl.ae V ','i' '?C�tl �� '?i tt '�:• ^:;' 1�;1.C)ti fr`_' 011� '.'I1C1:':'St'1:1r1:n'; of the present position 1c .uL _l a co ri:1 c E: P +�,i a• Ii .':., t::i ,�='_ • t,1n11 !�:` :1 C1�..Yl...t tl„ n. n San t-emb2z- Linn 1iovQt:ib,?2- .`.tilt` 3�:acli ''., �a:�:+''U'rlIiElT'S iiss.:ciant.�an field nurlE"_om; it � _ . in to ). t, Ct p 1:�lti )n 1::)!iCC':f:l..l,:, t1he .a, ,ulli.ills..e of Us P;�:-r4it Represen at.iv_s i rDm StanJa rd attend d several al of these nee i,inE;s to 2 r1:J«11 } c: _•C_. : ' L F ' .__ , 1 t. y r � ►-t M } 1. C:; 3'+ f:if):'1 :tom �(? j,I'Op�.:._,i r.'Jtr 1e..,pL•ic� u e S':�,,r;ratian Unit for whi c:Ii U:;,_, 1-n.`ralt is requested. r? group tras appointed b5 the Sr:ac 3 ; f Homeowners As,rat,;_ition to me-..!t >; th SAURnda rd in order to gain a bet:te: amir.•r:t,^nd4 n 5 ci,' t:ir: t.r�,lc . t t=n:i discuss various complaints p.irtaining LD aener u>, oil field Cp"-ra t'ion;. Ito ,;ms tli,� conse'nsur. of nost members on the appointed :hot t�iis Le � Unit Woulc- not ;: ;,�•iir:nntr:?1.;� c�z';`cyLt L'rz�it •t:s lcr��nccr; and therefore en appeal of the Board of Ar1ju.3ti: :ics (1�',i'.R) D-icisi+_)n to grant tM Us:! pe:mi4 ;.tar, not necessary. tit the ne::u Homer)L-.71t'ra As- ion in late llovi.rrber a vote 'ias ta?i.en on the is::ue Df whethv?r ov not: app(,al prior 3ZA action. B,.!,,..Ause a tie vote ensued, -ho Association riid. not app:-:)l or v,)ice slipport of an appeal by four { niividu.il ;i,.r,mecwner;s . It is our understanding t:iat- the Seecliff flomeoimerr :.ssociation at their December me,.-tin- hant;(:d thoi, i ��sitic�n. How vcr, it it important to have a ^luar undo stand rig of the runner in %,hictr I.-his meetirr; was conducted ill arder I to ,tare `trot the Homem• ncrs Acu.)c:iation ''suppo,tot:" tidy proposition. An Ind.i.vidunl :0Z1g1iest;c•d frn.m ;hc: flc)or that the S:°acxif" 11ameovinera Association su.-pport thei. , oi)pml o: Ugi.: Permit 75-58. 'finis issue :�a:z not on the agenda to b'�, vated on 7r even dir.cus ed at this meeting and ttinre vas no discussion Q°.ther prn or con c:oncerni.n; the matter. Only approximately tu*enty husbancs ,mi .,i-✓cr. �ttcndcd the meet.i.n-, :rhich up as little as {ivo per;:ent :.f t'r'a in acJc1i _•i- it formal Vote was not 't',riken tut there Wau ey M:. W11iia:l January 13, 1976 iiE':C!]3 a gene-rill atr,:t3sph-2-re o► support of this Irit,lon frorm the `Ioc):• Question th►, validity of th►a statr•;,ent "that the Sep-cliffII��n°3�7nners +issOciat"on suppJrtc the wppf� ,, )f Us^ Fermi.t 7?��s .t' Under" the circumstances of that December lic-eti m? it ::oil -: be (i LfI'ic.ilt to a;site that even the five yer4en L QI the cup lden is 41. t were in e f:ten'ienCG' I',_'4a.'»f SUCi7'JZ't£'d the proposition. 14e Would vrpreci.ate hea=ins; from yo': in "your reprc--entat,,ve capacity as President of uhe 5eacliff ii=eoi ncrs Associat on. .7 f riBS i hw Y i •''1 !` f IV ;tka '►' � � I * 11 24 4_ ,mot r_�_^-�7CaL>_:..i[_=++��' ��r_�utr.,, r�e�s:►tpv!O � •- • __�l7r'IC'^,Ct►f„ __.._ - fl+C 0lTt� _ � —j w ~i S� a � J l r rx``7 k 34 3$ i T 6SIR I I W. • + . � ♦..�:! R. i SOD _ _` : •iM r• �7f • t! •23 I • • '•.rG �t • 1 ' f�f • • s + rIR Illfff�"..' • 1 • i r, r-+ctztin slas +►. uf• �w f+0 It f •'° HUNT M N GT �A-Rt ►NO'Y " LEAtE: Ar cs C• S lntJllO'�'' .t G• t � �.� .t ►a I�r t-!st w 1 t* ~ Y-�- �_t � :l,►{.>a� �- n 1.a may^ /// + R Oro • • • a `�}�/t r'i�- = t) f:1� 96-vf' fa T,a1l7 t //% V at' 1+ � _�_ UaIfRCM Clf.Cisr f= Iry ti !t, 1•25 if 1 !1 f+l w sc ! a• +s I { ter✓ �, a U r (j { 14 44 IP cfofm Its AV 0 040 ' • . �' a1 M y ' • • �? `1 ••.76 r �.� of!at •. _ `� ° � Y � ., N.E tia SEC. 3 T B M, FL 11 W CURANCE CCcINTr • !"•.'TOO• AIW flaw }fsi ' 'H'UN1 tltaTAM£�a •� t9`i�a SEC 26 Pti 3 �,1, .• s :• Huntington Beach, California Dece,,, cr 2.6 , 1975 VP Huntington Beach City Counc ;1. ,yam" P .O. Box 190 71.� Huntington Beach , California 92648 Re : Use Permit 75-58 . Honorable Mayor and Council mernbers , Sa'e the uncersigned do hereby aj.peal. the decision of the Huntington Beach F1a:ining r_.omxission regarding the appeal submittcd by k; .A . Nixon , et . al . in opposition to issuance of the noted itse permit. It is significant to note this current al:peal is sponsored and sanctioned by the Seacli.ff Homeowners' Association and appellbni action is therefore no longer isol«t.ed to the four individual homeocrners who api'ealed to th, e Flanning Corr-n1 s s ion. Our appeal is based on the following facts , observations , and occurrences . le We feel the propose.d installation in reality involves some 75 acres which are zoned ):2-02 . The proposed installation is interpreted as a first and precedent establishing step .in thh., consolidation of scatterer processing; facilities into the areas in question for purposes of e:fpnnsion of the Sencli.ff living area . This interpretvtion if fact would appear to be not: only in direct conflict with impli,cr+ and direct state- men t.; made to nu::.erous buyers of Senc, liff residences at the time of original purr-nase concerning oil x dated activities , but will also force obvi.oci; •?etriment:al chanr_es upon thk- fami.l.y environatent of the exi.sti.ng Seacliff area in or6er to accommodate Seacl.i.f.f. expansion. It is inconceivable to us that the i:.:minent or evert poL. .4.(1. 1 growth of a trajor indust- rial area which is ad,lacent to one n,cjor residentirl urea (Seaeliff) anc' in close r.170}:i.1Lrit:y to n second ( ',AeachwaU,) could ever be compatible' with the City' s general plan. 2 . The proposed installation is pla.•.ned for use to process not only gas which is retrieves from the itrfTiediate production area, but also fro:i, the lolsa , P. C. , anc' Shoreline leases. These leases are rerr:ote to the areas in question. The platirec, usage to process Fps from; rexote lea:es may be in violation of the City' s oil code and intended usage of land zoned 02 . 3 . Seaciiff res-idents have been exposed to ohnoxi.ous uses which ore apparently emanating fron; existing oil processing equip- ment . This condition not only creates an inconvenience to the affected residents , butalso hos the potential of a health hazard . More 01rectly, as related to the proposed Installation, it confirms the apr-arent lace of an cil code which is both effect;.vn anc: appropriate for the oil /residerk iai comf.icx that currently exists in our City. Pursuant to the previcus eiscuss ior. , we request t,'ie City Council to acco:ip l ish Cho fol lowin�7 rE-e:: ic31 s r.eps . 1 . Frovide the necessary action aneVor direction to ' he Flar.ning Depart'-tent which will result Ln the initizi.tion o. ictivity to c.ccar,F li,h •-c:zotIin , of the noted (anti approximate) 75 acres from `t2-.02 to This ap! roac'.t peri:i.ts continued oil operations in the subject creas , but prevents the introduction and growth of heavy industry. The spectre of this introduct l.on is a rr1a jor conec.rn to Seac 1 if f res ident: s and becomes more ominous in light of the potential for re f in ins cr processing of oil fro-; off shore leases . 2 . Prohibit extinns ion of production facilities in thu rub ject areas until the matter of rez.nZrtg is totally resolved , an envi.ron;oent•a l impact report has been filed ant' the sources and types of t.;ases in tile ,r ec,cl;.f f rc.5iaenti�: ! arcs., have, been sami:led , idantifiec: am corrective/pt•chibitive measures have been i,T,pl.ementec . 3 . Provide the nececssary action to expedLte fortttulot• Lon of a -Noeernizcd city oil cede witt-, comr-Jet :.ati ri<:, later than the s Lxt�- month of 1976 . We feel tInc:so measures nre necessary to permit continued harmonious coer istettce of tho oil nrodur irrt, and residential factions of our City acid are therefore c irec ter,; to rot on l., tile into ests of t;tic: Sencliif cor.-xunity but to the hest interc,sts of the t:ota i. Huntington Beach co;,�mun; ty as well. Yours tru ty,. �i.L. Barnard }; . Xal.tps 6901 Lawn }inven Drive 6 E'I L n w n Haven Lr ive Huntington Beech , Ca . 92548 11untington Beach, Co . 92648 Telephone, `1-6- 1979 Telephone , F 36-5861 G . J. Omiciali C .A. Nixon 6772 Lawn Haven Drive 6861 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, Ca. 92643 Huntington Beach, Ca . 92648 Telephone , 536- 1120 Telephone, 535-5068 ELJ "i T.W. 'Welch 6951 Lntgn Haven Drive Huntington Reach , Ca . 92648 Telephone , 536-4318 ! ►. 11 cc . President , Sesclxff .,or;,eow-n+_rs ASsorintion Vice President Fublic Affairs , Standard Oil Company of California I 1 Standard Oil Company of Califo►,-nia, !� Western operations, Inc. P.O. 6nx 606, La Habra, CA 90631 • Phnnf: (213) 691.2251 December 26, 1975 i i Appeal of Conditions Nos . 9 and 10 On Use Permit 75-58 and the Decision of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission Hunt io Beach City Council Ctlar SFHuntington Beech �� Main Street �o,15 cuntington Beach, CA 92648 Gentlemen: It is stated at the outset that in view of the fact that Standard ha-3 an initial Use Permit on the 40 + acre parcel on which the proposed facility is to be situated, P P P ,I we do not believe that Use Permit 75-58 is required under the Huntington Beach Code. However, under duress, we are willing to continue this application in the appeal process if the City Attorney's office does not concur with our belief. This appeal is directed to those conditions (9 and 10) that &re specifically referred to in this document and should not be intended to be an appeal of the Use Permit itself or any of the other conditions. Therefore the appeal should be limited to those specified reasons for appeal of the aforementioned conditions as set out in Section 9815.1.2 oi' the Huntington Beach Code. By the Board of Zoning Adjustments ' own admission (Finding No. 6) it has beEn demon- strated that the facility, for which this Use Permit was obtained, will not have a detrimental effect an the health, safety, and welfare of people residing within the area. Since it has been ahem that there will be no detrimental effect on the environment or persons residing within this area, it is reasonably and legally unclear as to why the Board of 'Zoning Adjustments has attached Conditions 9 and 10 to this Use Permit. The only rationale that the Board of Zoning Adjustments states for attaching these conditions to this Use Permit is that it "affords the City more leverage over improvement of existing conditions than it would otherwise beve." (Finding No. 5). Standnrd maintains that the Board of Zoning Adjustments has gone boyond Section 9611.2 and has attached these conditions for the purpose of "leverage" rather then the criteria set out in that section of the Code. What is at issua here in not existing conditions in the oil field as a whole, but rather any changed conditions that would come about due to the i.natell+ation of this facility. Therefore, each of the conditions that would be attached to this Use Permit should reasonably relate 'to that use. Each of the conditions to be appealed shall be addressed upecifically. Condition No. 9 makes reference to an agreed-to commitment with the homebowners and Strndsrd Oil Company. In point of fact, there is no such agreed-to commitment. Huntington Peach City Council -2- December 26, 1975 Standard submitted to the homeowners proposals that ,if eccepted,would constitute an agreement between the homeatmers and Standard. Rdwever, our proposals were never accepted by the homeowners. Therefore, standard does not feel obligated to comply with the "agreed-to commitment" when there hen not been an acceptance of this commitment by the homeowners themselves. Condition No. 10 stipulates that the tanks along Clay Street shall be painted in conjunction with this propoied expansion. Standard fails to realize how the painting of tanks along Clay Street reasonably relates to the use and operation of this lour temperature separation unit. Standard does not feel that by rrsking application for a use permit we should be required to subject our whole oil field operations to review by the Board of Zoning adjustment. This seems to be an unreasonable extension of administrative discretion. Very truly yours, B. Scdtt EBS:bhw ' Standard Oil Company of California, �" L'!r Western Operations, Inc. P.O. Box 606, La Habra, CA 90631 Phone (213) 691.2251 � January 13, 197 �• .��,, i 3 rr, :. S S � Hearing on Use Permit ?5-58 Huntington Beach City Ca=cil City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members; This is a formal request by Standard Oil Company of California that the appeal, of the Planning Commission's decision to grant Use Permit 75-58 be summarily denied. The basis for this request is that the very rationale stated for this appeal bears no reasonable or legal relations;hip to the specific use permitted. Not only is this appeal neither logically nor legally based, but it is procedurally improper for the City Council to hear matters until the appellants have exhausted the administrative procedures made available to them by the Huntington Beach Code. We refer to those issues that pertain to rezoning and the effectiveness of the Oil Code. This contention is supported by in-house legal opinion as well as the enclosed opinion by our outside counsel. The said legal opinions also substantiate Standard's position espoused in our appeal. of Conditions 9 and 10 that are attached to Use Permit 75-58. Standard did not appeal. Condition Number 1 because of the Planning Commi.snion's clarifi- cation as to the manner in which the noise tests are to be conducted. An initial noise analysis is to be conducted to establish a base ambient noise level. After installation of the lox temperature separation (LTS) Unit is completed, further tests shall be conducted to determine if there has been a change in the base ambient level. If such a ctusnge has occurred and it can be traced to the LTS Unit, then mitigating measures will be taken to return to the be.se ambient level. Standard therefore requests that only Conditions 9 and 10 be stricken from Use Permit 75-58. It is Strandard'a position that these requests are legally founded and should therefore be granted by the City Council. Year truly yours :,/ -74 EBB:jh Edward B. Scott Kioeures MAACl/yieA;790N LAW OFf ICES or 03CAN LAP-&" Rt[D•.1 afoul RONLRT F.MALLORf lsoe•I+lee R r.OUTCAJL1,J4. J.MICHAMO MORRIi4C► ROAtRT MCN16 soN i.JOHN /1 LAY' L E R, F E L!X & HALL. ►IAf1►tLlr RICHARD O DILLICC Ji.Nt N.6A1►R X" 1622•12a4 T NOMAS t.I►ORAMAN,JR. COWIN C.ADLtA ObJ WC3S- OLYMPIC 00OUVAAnD LCOJ.►1ACNtR JOHNN.OLII1NANf JOHNM.NALL JONN O.WIOMORC RCNfItTN L.WAGGONCR LOS ANOCLCS,CALIP(3RNIA 00015 IVIr•1607 CNARLt•L.ROOCAS RICNARO C.NCAL RCNVCTN D.WRIONT JAMCS C.GUR/IN OF COUNSCL M.Nr AL WCL Ls HI CMARLt'J C..CHRLIC►, TEL IZ131 520.00-50 nRu.roN L.NCT2LCI4 ALMS A.IA►ChROAt RIM,A,►OLNINONORN,JR, MCWARD L.►RUIN,in. ;Tt•NtN L.T640"14% TCLCrt 074300 ANTHONIX M.VODOO WILLIAM a.DAVIS n� '{ ORVILLCO.OIIR,J11. •HILLIP4.NICHOLS January9 1976 C:AO0 AD01tC9'J WILLIAM A.VIAL CDGAR U.ANOCRSON i ��OSLA N/ COWIN W.OVNCAh DCRNANO C.toSAOr TtLtCOW[P: %T1IM0tP4 T.TWAVSON DAVID 9.tIST04 WILLIAM A.►LOURDt,JA. JR131 62t•ACIM r Mr. R. M. Rasmussen District Land Supervisor Standard Cif. Company of California Western Operations, Inc. P. Q. Box 606 La Habra, Ca. 90631 Attention : Mr. Edward B. Scott Re: City of Huntington Beach Use Permit tlo. 75--58 , Low Temperature Separation Unit f Dear Mr. Rasmussen: Per your request we have reviewed the letter dated December 26, 1975 ,,dressed to the Huntington Beach City Council by five home owners Which we understand constitutes their appeal to the City Council from the decision of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission affirming the above Use Permit that was granted by the Board of Zoning Adjustment . We offer the following comments : 1. The first stated basis for the appe l character- izes the requested use as a precedent establishing step towards growth of a major industrial area and suggests that because of its close proximity to a major residential area it must be in- consistent with the City' s general plan. In essence, this argument ignores the fact that in the previous proceedings it has been established that the LTS Plant will not have an adverse effect on the surrounding residential areas, and contends that r � Mr. R. M. Rasmussen January 9, 1976 Page 2 because it is a use normally allowed in and associated with r industrially zoned property it is ipso facto detrimental to the neighboring residential areas. I have not reviewed the City' s general plan, but the proposed use is certainly con- sistent with the present zoning and if that zoning is consis- tent with the City' s general plan there would be no incompat- ibility. Furthermore, the argument seems to be not against the I effect of the proposers LTS Plant on the surrounding residential area, but the potent.:ial effect of some imaginary future uses of the oil producing property on the residential areas. It would not be logical for the City Council to deny this Use i Permit merely because some other uses that may, or may not, be proposed in the future might not be as benign in effect upon nearby residential areas. 2. The second suggested basis for the appeal argues that the proposed LTS Plant will be used to process gas pro- duced not only from the immediate production area, but from other producticn areas as well, and suggests that this may be in violation of the City' s Oil Code and the intent of the " 02" combining oil district zoning. I .can find nothing in those regulations which suggests that to be the case. On the contrary it would appear from the statement of the intent and purpose of the combining oil district' s zoning (Section 9690) that a con- solidation of surface facilities used to service production from several different areas, rather than a proliferation of such Mr. R. M. Rasmussen Janti a y 9, 1976 Page 3 facilities, is to be encouraged. 3 . The third basis for the appeal asserts that existing operations on the site are generating obnoxious gases i which are an inconvenience to nearby residents, concluding therefrom that the present oil code is ineffective, inappropriate and in need of revision. I do not know whether or not the I factual assertion about the obnoxious gases is correct, but ! assuming it were that fact would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the oil code needs reform. Furthermore, just as in the case of the imagined future operations discussed above, the effect of present operations on nearby residential areas should not be a reason for denying the proposed Use Per- mit when it has been established that the effect of the pro- posed LTS Plant on those residential areas will be benign. Denying the proposed Use Permit would not have any remedial effect upon the alleged obnoxious gases . Consequently, it would hardly seem logical- to suggest that as a remedy to the alleged inconvenient condition. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to cal] . Very truly yours , William 1.. dial VIKD: paw Concerning the conditions attached to Use Permit 75-58 (9 and 10), it is a general rule that such conditions must bear some reasonable relationship to the purposes espoused by -the ordinance in order to be valid. In this cane, the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code provision establishing combining oil districts specifies that the intent and purpose is to make simultaneous compatible develop- went of land for oil production uses and normal commercial, residential, institu- tional and industrial surface uses. Under Section 9811.2 of that Code, the Board is empowered to grant Use Permits provided that the proposed use will not be detrimental to: 1. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; 2. Injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity; or 3. Will not adversely affect the master plan of the City. In view of this, we think any conditions attached to Use Permit crust be reasonably related to the effect of the construction and operation of the Low Temperature Separation Unit on persons and property in the vicinity. From our review of the ten conditions, we believe Conditions vino and ten may not meet that standard. Condition No. 9 attempts to incorporate by reference an alleged private agreement between the applicant and certain property owners. Not only was there no such agreement by virtue of the property owners' refusal to agree thereto, but some of the provisions of the proposed agreement pertain to existing operations which are not related to the Low Temperature Separation Unit. Consequently, even if such an agreement had been reached, it would exceed the scope of a permissible condition and should not have been adopted as such by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. The Deputy City Attorney in his opinion dated December 1 , 1974, stated "that if the agreement would afford protection to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, it may be proper." Certain provisions of the proposed agreement do not provide protection to the residents in the area from the use applied. It has been clearly stated by the Board that "this use will not have a detrimental effect on the health;, safety and welfare of people residing within the area." Those certain provisions extend to other existing oil field operations and conditions. There- fore, it is improper for the Board to condition Use Permit 75-58 with such a restriction that: does not reasonably relate to the use for which it is applied. rue loth Condition requires certain existing twAz along Clay Street to be painted. Regardless of whether or nit: the painting of those tanks would constitute an aesthetic improvement, the.,:e ca.n Le no relationship between that and the installation of the Low Tamperattire Separation Unit, since the tanks will exist and will impose their visual Inrpact upon the vicinity regardless of whether or not the Low Temperature Sepm-ation Unit is installed. Consequently, the painting of the ta,nkn cannot be said to be reasonably related to the effect of the Low Temperature Separation Unit upon the people and property in the vicinity. The 7)oputy City Attorney concurs with thin point and points out that it would appear thkt the proper means to effectue;.e this condition is through the enforcement of Oil Code provisions. hEVTq ,, • Standard Oil Company of California, tit f Western Operations, Inc. P.Q. Box 606, La Habra, CA 90631 . Phone (213) 691-2251 January 13, 1976 Mr. I-iilliam J. Byrne President of Seacliff Home Owners Association 6692 Gate Hill Circle Huntington Beach, Cralifa_nia (,3 648 Dear Mr. Byrne: In a recent anneal to the City council of Huntington Beach of Ure Permit 75-58 by certain individual hop-_•o.,rners, it was stated that tlne tappual was supported by the Seacliff Ifo eownery Association. In light of the previous position taken by the Association this xannoanct.:m-nt ,,)as o7 L;rea` suri,rise to Standard. i;u request either a confirmzation or our �.aiderstandin ; of th,.� isres{ant position adopted by the Seaclii'f :Io:a:7.titaLrs Association o-• a :1ariaicution. In Septeraber andIlovernber the Semcli±:' Homeowners Association held numerous meetings in order to adopt a po:;iti-an concerninu the issuance of Uac Petxait 75-58. Representatives froa Standard. attended several of these meetings to Inform the: residents o= the nature of operation of tile proposcd Lori Temperature Separation Unit for which the Use Permit is requested. A group was appointed by the Seacliff Homeowners Association to rieut with Standard in order to gain a better understanding of the projer.t and discuss various cor,;plaints pertaining to general oil field op^rations. It was the consencut; of most members on the appointed ccraii.ttee that this Loan Temperature Separation Unit would not, det:imental1y effect their res.iaences and therefore an appeal of the Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) Deci:iun to grant the Use iermait was not necessary. At the next Homeowners Association meeting in late November a vote was taken on the issue of whether or not to appeal prior BZA action. B32cause a. tia. vote ensued, the Association did not fappE!al or voice support of on appea1 by four individual horneowners. It is our understandinS that the Seacliff 1loraro.mer:; tit their December mectin- changed their position. Haw^ver, it is important to taa•re u cl�,ar understanding of the r„.inner in v aic:h this meetin,,, wan co•n�lucted in ul-&'r to stale that the Ziomeo.tine�r s Aaraciatiata ":;up_ortu l" this proposition. An individual ri quested from the floor that. th,: 13enc_liff iforr.-!owners Association support their appeal of Use Fernit 75-58. :his ins-ae ..a s not on the agenda to be voted on or evon dincussed at this rneeting and thl !ra ATras no discussion either pro or con c:oncc;rnin, the matter. Only approx-ir:intely tY.ent h1.;bElnd;; an;l .rivets attended they in int,, .ihich na),vs up as little.: as five 1,ercent o 1,1122 o- aJ. in .'),e 'cli A t•onizl vote: was not tii:i,nt1 but th,�re wuc Mr. William J. Byrne January 13, 1976 merely a general atmosphere of support of this moticn from the floor. We question the validity of the statement "that the Seacliff Homeowners Association supports the appeal of Use Permit 75-58." Under the circumstances of that DeceT�ber meeting it would be difficult to state that even the five percent-of the -residents the.t were in attendance really su P�ported the i P proposition. lie would appreciate hearinE; from you in your representative capacity as President of the Seacliff Homeowners Association. Very truly yours, EBS:bw 9•a.4 LMOILIAIV •r • 46 is k' Y� • •,,; ��;-.... :.,. - _- --____--_ _ --- --- ------_ ,ten -:r- --- --- _.� --_--_ _-- � - - ,�., • 1 s 1: RE CEWED 0 T. W. a J . Welch Ct' ., CLERK 6951 Lawnhaven Drive "r Huntington Beach , Ca. 92648 (714) 536-4318 MS NOV 0 November 5 , 1975 "Rr�C tj Board of Zoning Adjustments City of Huntington Beach l J S P. U. Box l9Cl pf1 Huntington Beach , California 926!48 Dear Board Members : As a long, time resident and property ocmer in the City of Huntington Beach , I would like to go on record in opposition to Use Permit Number 75-58 , which was submitted to your Board by the Standard Oil. Company of California for the development of a gas treatment plant. I fully understand that this facility is being constructed in an area designated and zonod for oil production , but feel that all of the planning, options available to the Standard Oil Company an their existing; oil lease in the Huntington Beach fiel(.i were not fully considered. I. presently own f property within a very close proximity of the proposed facility and do not welcome the increased activity related to the gas treat-ment facility text: to my family home. As you are awnare , the property :in quost-Jon (the entire forty acres) is extremely unkempt wi-th vnrious unpainted oil storage tanks , oil sumps , and mi.sccllaneous rusted oil, equipment: . Its had been hoped by nearby residents that the Standard Oil Company would be willing to improve this site in a mutaliy agreeable manner (economically and environmentally) as they did the Huntingtor-i Seaclif. f and Beachwalk Developments . Your caref►il consideration for a no vote on their proposed project (Usti Permit Number 75-58) will be greatly appreciated. Very rruly yours , TIIO)C`AS id. W1-',LC11 cc * 11unt-i ngton )Ieach City Clark 11olini•,tMe 1.1,rl or and City Council. Mc m e-os