HomeMy WebLinkAboutUse permit 83-16 - Calvary Chapel of Huntington Beach - To p IN THR
Superior Court
OFTHE
8Tis rF,OF CALIFORNIA �t
In w d for the County of Orange � r 1st:V 4
CITY OF HUNTINGTON MACH � � PROOF'OF ELIBLICATION
C ITY CLERK
PUBLIC HEARING
State of Ca.ifurnis )
County of Orange )""•
APRIL L. ELLIOTT
That I= and at all times herein mentioned was it citizen of
the United Stalen,over the age of twenty-one yeah, and that I
am not a perty to nor interested in tha above entitled matter
that I am dw principal clerk or the printer of the
I,4^• !yam,{.
H KTINGT0�1 MAPH I � �i1WI5 '1
r
a newspaper gene circa&lion.pu is eu•n the 1ty of
HUNTINGTON BEACH
County of Orange and which newspaper to published for the _ r.o.�
diseminstion of local news and ir!'zT:,,nce of a general chant
ter. and which newspaper at s'd times herein menticned hay
and still his a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers,
and which n-wspaper has bear, established. printed and pub- y�,!
lishad at regular intervals in the said County of Orange fora r '`
period rxc editig one yeLr that the notice, of which the
annexed is a printed copy, has been puirlished in the regular
and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement `
thereof,on the Nlowing dates,to wit:-
AUG. 21 1983
I oeWfy (or.:.:glare)under penalty of perjury that the furego•
. ing Is true and eorrac6ARZ)EN GROVE
Datedat............................................ ...
.. . day of U 83CaFsn,, +i s ; ..
it
............
�r ftttm No.POP 012M
V
September 6, 1983
C. U. P. No. 83-16 (Appeal)
Page Three
in these buildings that would compliment and provide services for the
rest of the development. Examples of these uses are administratJ.vv,
management, regional or headquarters of.`_ices for industrial uses, offices
devoted to research and analysio, engineering And the use of large-scale
electronic data proces. :ing systems, trade schools for employment in
trdustrial occupations , surveyors, and contractors . The buildings
should be reserved for these types of uses .
The proposed church would span two buildings and the walls along the
common property line would have to be removed to cruate the main sanc-
tuary space. This would in effect create one building Built on two
se3pa=azt: parcels across a lot line. It should also be bated that the
Declaration of Covenants, Ccaditions and Restrictions on file in she
Department of Development Services for the industrial development in
which the proposed church would be locates: T-•ohibits a "resi"lential or
other non-business use" on any of the lots in Tract 10648 .
The &pplicant proposes to use 86 on-site parking spaces and 42 off-site
spaces in order to meet the required parking for the church . The off-
Rite spaces are parking for two existing industrial buildings to the
north of the proposed church. Persons who park in these off-site spaces
will have to walk in private accessways along the side and rear walls of
industrial buildings. There is a grade differential of approximately
three feet and a landscaped planter separating a portion of the off-cite
parking spaces from the proposed church.
The 41*.ty .Council could allow the church to locate at the proposed site on �
a temporary basis . For exam le the City Council could approve Condition-
al P � Y PP
P
al Use Permit No. 83•-16 with a :,sndiLion that the permit shall expire
three yearn, from the date of apdrLval, and that on( year extensicn.s of
time may Lnzi granted by Ehe Planning Commission upon written request of
the applicarit. This would allow the church to occupy the building now
when the demand for industrial space is lower than the current supply
while retaining the City' s option to have the church relocate out of the
industrial corridor in the future.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursaant to environmental regulations in effect ac this time, Conditional
Use Permit No . 8: -15 is categorically exempt (Sections 15101 and 15103
of the California Environmental Quality Act) .
FUNDING�SOURCE:
Not' applieable.
,r.LTERNATXVE ,ACTION:
The City Council may consider overturning the Planning Coitmtisa ,.on e e
denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 83-16 . This would permit . the
• i
September 6, 19A3
C.U .►?. No. 83-16 (Appeal)
Page Four
Calvary Church to locate in an industrial development.
The City Council may consider overtu-ping the Planning Com-
mission' s denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 83-16 and permit
the church to .locate at.: the proposed site on a temporary basis
far a specified period of time.
S:iPFORTING INFORMATION:
1 . Fetter of appeal
2 . Area Map
3 . S.te Plan
4 . Staff Report dated July 19 , 1983
5. Draft Minutes from the July 19 , 1983 Planning Commission Kueting
CWT: JWP:CI : js
1
j
I
1
. j
T
I �
c_
Rev- ;Z V:� ,7 7
July 28 , 1983 =+��4
`,l
CJ
r
•7
-M •7
•
City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach , CA 92648
Re : Application for Conditional Use Permit
Calvary Chapel of Huntington Beach
Gentlemen:
On July 19 , 1983 , the Planning Commission denied our
application for Conditional Use Permit.
We hereby apply for a hearing before the City Council
at the earliest possible date .
Enclosed is the appeal. fee of $ 165 .00 .
Very truly yours ,
i
Calvary Chapel f Iuntington Beach
r
-_too �-
*— By
C Pastor Steve Purdue
Enclosure
r
4 . h." � of Huntin -tori Bic
P.O, Box 866 • Huntington Beach, C Ok 92648 (714) 536-2579
:...
• a i NI R2 C4Iw
:I R3 =1 R2 i C4
�. •.( - ..+-...r _ 1-I t; R2
R2
R21 Rc El!C4 Mlir ; c
T h11 1`01
LR
tom( ..T. I _ !d1-A 402-PD
wo
(0)Rz DRl TJ C 4 .
CF-R
Ml-CD
- M l- A R I'• - ., i r
�.-�----- { M l-CD _ ___`J - RI ► ;�w'--- j
CF-R i R:1f C2 T�
RI
I, M,
M
,�,,_ ftRI .,,,. 1: C 2
RA CD
�_ �—�• I � �� I�R'i Rt `21 z I• I
!- CF—C ;MI !I ';` 7 :•RI �. RI IRI
_.,
f I _ a( I:
MU%Tl%C.VJft IWACH
HUMINGTON BENCH PLANNING DIVISIQM
i
4"ooKSHIRE tA"t HUNTING i ON BEACH
•- _ •'"""•.•... DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
r
-2' s -• JUN 141983
i P. 0. BOX 190
tYly;w _ TT A 7�
- ---�—r : •: ~A-i ' .� ; I ► � _1� l Nurt:r,pion Beach. C �6d•
b�G.
aa�A s A.+ j ....... ............�.............
1K',►1ov
or — muse
to
rµ•.p w.w...r .�....•.a....-. ...... 1�
• I
Ur—
;� w.�ti M/iS�w•�`` 'IM __A+n.�...*� _ ____� m'�lt�rY {,Ld4a. G�fAVTi7y
Jul,
71.t11'L
_ �wT
ROTPLA W -•- ,....__...r..�
r.
40huntington beach develop rt t services department
STA f f
�. REP ORS...
T0 : Planning Commission
FROM: Development Services
DATE: July 19 , 1983
CONDITIONAL USE PErU-IIT NO . 8 3-16
APPLICANT: Calvary Chapel of DATE ACCEPTED
Huntington Beach •
c/o Richard A. Va%yerka July 1, 1983
276 Vict,7
Costa t••_ •a, CA S1V`27 MANDATORY PROCESSING
DATE :
REQUEST: To permit a church it
existing buildings . August 30 , 1983
LOCATION: North side of Talbert. ZONE : M1
Avenue, west of Brook-
shire Lane. GENERAL PLAN :
ACREAGE: 1 . 01 acre industrial
EXISTING USE :
Two industrial office
1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION : buildiii,3s .
The staff recommends that the Plannin( Commission deny Conditional Use
Permit No . 81-20 based on the finding-. as outlined in Section 7. 0
of . this report.
y
2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION & HISTORY :
Conditional Use Permit No. 83-16 is a req,,sst to permit the Calvary
Chapel of Huntington Beach to locate its iacilities in two existing
industrial office buildings with an M1 zoning north of Talbert Avenue ,
west of Brookshire bane. Chuches are permi .ted in any zone as an un-
classified use subject to the approval of a conditional use permit +
according to Article 933 of tee City' s zoning ordinance . �
The church is a nondenomiational Christian Fellowship that began in
. 1975 and has a congregration of approximately 400 adults and 150
childrdn froir the greater Huntington Beach area. Services are held
` n sunday mornings and evenings and on Wednesday evenings.
Adkk
t {
W � i
CITY OF HUNTINGTUNI BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFOHNIA 926M
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
September 9, 1983
Calvary Chapel Or Hwitington Beach
P.O. .Box 866
Hur,titigton Beach, CA 92648
Dear Pastor Purdue,
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular
meeting held 'Tuesday, September, 6 , 1983 granted your appeal to
the Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit #83-16.
Please contact the Department of Development Services for conditions
imposed and other information on the matter.
ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, CITY CLERK
BY Connie Bnckway uty
7
AMW-cb
cc: Development Services Department
f
Ilr r•
r ., mINOOD CORPORATION �
F �IPEIINE5 • P,AW PT1?JG a CONDUIT CONSTRUCTION • INTERNAL PIPE CLEAPJItJG
P.O. 90X 4308 • SkOl SO. SORENSEN AVE. • WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA 90607
AREA CODE 213 585-5640-945.141 1 • Cr lhN arnla StSte LICemse No. 105781 A
( TELEX U-704
I
August 26, 1983•.,
City Colinci 1 of Huntington Beach
Reference: Conditional Use Permit No. 83-16 on 2 Office Buildings
Located at 7641 Talbert , Huntington Beach
Owned by Huntington North Limited Partnership
This letter is written to express our disagreement with the July 19 , 1983 Planning
Commission 's denial of the above subject Conditional Use Permit and to state our
reasons for support of that C.U .P.
Hood Corporation becam, the sole owner of the Huntington North Limited Partnership
in February 1983. This was done in order to protect a major financial investment
made by Hood Corporation in September 1980. By February 1983, the project was
in imnin,2nt danger of foreclosure by the lenders .
As a brief background , Hood Corporation has been in business for 60 years in
Southern California as a pipeline contractor. About three years ago, Hood decided
to expand its construction expertise by participating in industrial real estate
developments . The Huntington North project was selected by me ',ecause I had been
a resident of Huntinqton Beach since 1975 and felt that the city possessed the
?
right conditions for a strong industrial base even though our p ro 'ect's location
�
on Talbert had the existing conditions of a junk yard across the street, residential
condominiums on tho east and open storage on the west.
Almost from the start of our project, economic conditions in Orange County in
general and Huntington Beach in particular have made it almost impossible to sell
or lease the bui'�cdinns. Of the nineteen industrial buildings in the park, only
ix were sold in the period September 1980 through February 1983. There has been
absolutely no sales activity (or even potential buyer interest) on the two office
buildings which are the subject of the above referenced C. U.P. The office buildings
now stand vacant as they have for almost two years . We are having an ongoing
problem of vandalism and bread, ins . Many such acts have been reported to the {
r Huntington Beach police but due to the more serious demands on their time, they
,�. have been unable to visit the site . One serious act of vandalism involved winching
a hea4y bag of construction material above an inside door which had someone entered
without investigating would have fallen with possible fatal consequences. It is
!� my .feeling that allowing the Calvary Chap,�l to occupy these buildings now would
E stop all acts of vandalism and the frequent break ins ,
r
r I
1400o CORPORATION
August 26, 1983
Page 2
The Planning Commission cited four- reasons for not giving approval . First, that
the use is not industrial consistent with the City's General Plan. To the contrary,
we under.gtand that the Church occupancy is a permitted use in the M-1 zone unless
specifically prohibited, which in this case it is not. We feel strongly that
church occupancy would not negatively effect any other occupant in the park . In
fact, we are the owner of the two immediately adjoining industrial buildings and
we have given the church a parking easement on that property which the tenant
of those buildin ; has alreidy accepted. I believe this spirit of cooperation
speaks for i tse r .
Secondly, the Planning Cormission felt that an office use would be more appropriate
for our buildings . This may be true, however, there is absolui.ely no demand
for office space in this location at the present time. It now appears these
buildings could remain vacant for two to three years and perhaps much longer,
which will result in major financial loss to us . This would also cause financial
harm to those people who have purchased buildings in the park . The inevitable
decay and vandalism would certainly spread to adjoining property.
Thirdly, the Planning Cormission felt the church would create a main sanctuary
space spanning two buildings on two separate parcels . In reality, the two buildings
abut each other and the two lots were crew.-i for convenience. There is only one
construction loan on t? e buildings and a re%-er _e lot split could be accomplished
if necessary.
Fourth, the Planning Commission did not like the joint parking with adjacent {
industrial buildings. The aerial photographs clearly show that the parking
log: for the church facility is immediately adjacent to the parking lots under
easement and that there are no physical barriers or hazards to church members
walking from the industrial building parking directly to the proposed church
building.
In conclusion, as owner of the project, we do not feel that the church use is
adverse to our interest or would effect our ability to sell the remaining
industrial buildings , m-r :,hould it pose any impediment to the intended use
of the nineteen industrial buildings as contemplated by the City's General
Plan and zoning requirements . I urge you as strongly as I can to approve
Calvary Chapel 's Conditional Use Permit.
Very truly yours ,
HOOD CORPORATIOM
CSC c. c L
Marc Laulhere
President
It Ib.Y
jA
August 26 , 1983 `
City Council Members
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re : Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit
�83-15
Attention pity Council !Members- Jack Kelly- Mayor Pro-Tem;
Don MacAilisoer- Mayor ; Robert Mandic ; Ruth Finley; Ruth
Bailey; Ron. Pattinson ; and John Thomas ;
We of Calvary Chapel of Hunting 3n, Beach address this
letter of appeal to you the public servants of our community.
On Tuesday , July 19 , 1983 , the Planning Commission , under
the advice of their staff, unanimously denied our request
for Condi�ional Use Per►ait , 83-16. We do not agree With
this decision and thus come to you to express our reasons
for Wanting; the use of the building as described in
Conditional Use Permit #83-16 , and to rest in yourfinF.l
decision , believing that God ' s will will be done ,
Calvary Chapel of Huntington Beach has been in existence
since 1976 , and incorporated sine.- June of 1977 . We a:e
a non--denominational Christian fellowshi - of 431 adults
and 150 children . We serve the greatcr Huntington Beach
area , and most of the rungzeF.ation lives in Huntington �
. Beach itself, with many owning businesses and homes in
this city. Our service to this community stretches 'from
the .old , , with convalescent ministries and transportation ,
to -the . young with -an extremely successful ministry to the
surfing population. Our high school ministry touches
every campus in the Nuntington Beach High School Dlitrict .
„ 'tot
-. Beach
ava
r Cha ' I of Huntin
,s{,r ,RO:Box 866 • Huntington Beoch, G.� 92648 • (714) 536-2579
vith great effect and impact . Our church has a valid part
in reaching every sector of this city with home Bible
studies for adults to "Good News" clubs for caildren . We
are a valid part of this community, and our work and
service have just begun.
We have been meeting Sunday mornings from 8: 00am to 12 : 00pm
in the Dwyer Intermediate School Auditorium for almost six
years . We also own a small 86 person maximum capacity
church building its. Huntington Beach. We use this structure ,
the house behind it , and other rented facilities in the area
for Sunday School , Sunday Night Bible Study from 5 :00pm to
9:00pm , Wednesday Night Bible Study from 6 : 00pm to 10: 00pm
and office space during regular weekly business hours .
Both locations are becoming increasingly inadequate and our
need for one location is a greater priority L.aan ever before .
Using both Dwyer School and the buildings on llth Street on
Sunday mornings causes tremendous traffic and safety prob-
lems , not to mention the inconvi.ence . Although we have been
able to put the llth Street location to good use during the
week , it is too small , has no off-street parking , and with
residential zoning , will not all.o�T for expansion-
We have been searching for more suitable and adequate facil-
ities , or undevela; _..i land , to purchase for over three
years . The building on Talbert Avenue as described in
Conditional Use Permit #83-16 is the only structure we heve �
C found that is suitable for our needs . It is centrally
located in the city, its size and parking are more than
adequate , it does not add another single purpose structure
to our 'city , and t'iiire are good neighbors Chat welcalue ua 1,
to the neighborhood .
(2)
6 1va'ryI of Hun tin tati e �
:,P.O..0
Box-866 • Hunfington Beach, CA .92648 • (714) 536-2579
Calvary Chapel of Huntington Beach is a viable entity in
this community with a dedication to serving Jesus Christ
by serving Huntington Beach . We are not just going to
vanish out of sight- we need a place to meet , a place to
continue the work and ministry to which we have been called.
Would ;you have us go? If you want to limit the Conditional
Use Permit to a ten year period , we could live with that .
The ten year period would give you time to adequately eval-
uate our effect on the surrounding area , wait for the
present economic situation to recover , and would not
jeopoi.dize the industrial sector of our city . Within this
ten year period , we would be building a valuable asset ,
which we must have , it would give us time to grow numeri-
cally , and it would allow for adequate time to look for
another site for relocation , which in ten years we would
have to do in any case .
I urge you to reconsider the denial of the Planning
Commission and reverse their decision.
i
Thank-you ,
Steven 11. Purdue �
Pastor , Calvary Chapel of Huntington Beach
C
SHP/keb
(3)
I f Huntingt on Beach
Ivar Char-te: o
P.O. Box 866 • Huntington Beach, CA 92648 • (714) 536.2579
REOUES r FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date September 6, 1 83
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, C, ty Administra
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services '`
Subject: APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ' S DENIAL OF INDIT30NAL
USE PERMIT NO. 83-16 (A REQUEST TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN AN
EXISTING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TALBERT
_ AVENUE, WEST OF BROOKSHIRE LANE. )
_ Statement of issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: 0-VI
I STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for City Council ' s consideration is an appeal to the
Planning Commission ' s denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 83-16,
a request to lccate the Calvary Baptist Church in two existing industrial
office buildings located on the north side of Talbert Avenue,
west of Brookshire Lane. The appeal was filed by the original
applicant, the Calvary Baptist Church. (See attached letter. )
RECOMMENDATION :
The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council
uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal
on Conditional Use Permit No . 83-16 based on the findings approved
by the Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS:
Applicant: Calvary Chapel of Huntington Beach
c/o Richard A. VaVerka
276 Victor Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Location: North side of Talbert Avenue, west of
Brookshire Lane.
Request: To permit the Calvary Baptist Church to locate in
two existing office buildingp in an industrial
develdpr,:en t.
Planning Commission Action on 'July '19 , 1983 :
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY I "rRJAHANGIR, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 83-16 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
September 6, 1933
C.U. P. No . 83-16 (Appeal)
Page Two
FINDINGS:
1 . The proposed use is Lot consistent with the intent of the City ' s
General Plan to provide adequate area i4i the City for industrial
use because it would occupy space in existing buildings within
an industrial development .
2 . There are office uses permitted in the M1 zoning district which
would be more appropriate for location than in the two suhjpu,i
buildings and which could compliment and provide services for
the adjacent industrial buildings.
3 . The proposed church would create a main sanctuary space spanning
two buildings on two separate parcels.
4 . The proposed use of joint parking with the adjacent industrial
buildings does not provide convenient parking because pedestrian
access from the parking will be along the side and rear of indus-
trial buildings .
I
AYES: Porter, Erskine, C,-humacher, Mirjahangir
NOES: None
Alt.-MNT: Higgins, Winchell , Livengood
ABSTAIN: None
I
DISCUSSION:
Conditional Uee Permit ho. 83-16 is a request to permit the Calvary Chapel
of . Huntington Beach to locate its facilities in two existing industrial
office buildings with an M1 zoning north of Talbert Avenue, west of Brook-
shire Lane. Churches are permitted in any zone as an unclassifiel use
subject to the approval of a ccnditiona'. use permit according to ..rticle
933 of the City's zoning ordinance.
'The church ls , a nondenominational Christian Fellowship that began in 1975
and has - A congregation of approximately 400 adults and 150 children from
the greater Huntington Beach area. Services are held on Sunday mornings
and evenings and on Wednesday evenings .
The location.,-of a church in an existing industrial development in the
" Gothard industrial. corridor is inatppropriate. The church would take up
building space in an area that the City has allocated for industrial uses
throagh '; its general plan and zonir_g process. The City has a limited
am-O'Uht of land area that is suitable for industrial use that is near to,
t�:ans portation. a►nd other s+eivi.!ea and in separated fron. residential axeas.
h®; City,,miikt keep this space available if it hopes to attract quality
induatrial ,ud$a�
subject buildings are at the main entrance coif a fairly new industrial
de'Velopmerit. . The MI zon.i.ng on the site allows aeveral uses to locate
C. U . P. 83-16 ^
July 19, 1983
Page 2 ,
The prcposed church would occupy two existing industrial office build-
ings that are built side by side along a lot line soparating two parcels
in a 42 lot industrial subdivision (Tract 10648 ) that was recorded in
December , 1980 . A lot line adjustment (LLA 81-3) was approved bet%Teen
the two parcels in 1981. The two industrial office buildings were ap-
proved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments in 1981 (A. R . 81-23 and
A.R. 81-24) . Development of 19 industrial buildings behind the cwo
office buildings was approved in 1980 (A. R. 80-55) . The two office
buildings are both two-story structures containing a total of 18 , 720
square feet.
3. 0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
Major issues of concern regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 83--16 are
as follows :
1. The encroachment of nonindustrial uses into C.-:! City ' s industrial
corridor.
2. Adequacy of parking to serve the proposed use.
4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS :
Pursuant to environmental regulations in ef`ect at this time , Conditional
Use Permit No. 83-16 is catagorically exempt (Sections 3.5101 and 15103'
of the California Envireiimental Quality Act) .
5 . 0 SURROUNDING ZONING, LAND USE AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Sub ect Property :
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : Industrial
ZONING: M1
W? ISTING LAND USE : Industrial ofii^e building
North of Subject Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial
ZONE: M1
EXISTING LAND USE : Industrial/Manufacturing buildings 7
East of Subject Proper:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial
ZONE: M1
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant �
autih 'of Subject Proper►X:
GLNEttA�. PLAID DESIGNATION: Industrial
ZONE t MI-A
LA14D USE: Auto dismantling yard
C. U. P . 83-16
July 191 1983 '
Page 3
West of Subject Property :
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : Industrial
ZONE : Mi
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
6 . 0 ANALYSIS :
The staff feels that the location of a church in the Gothard Industrial
Corridor is inappropriate . The church would take up building space in
an area that the City has allocated for industrial uses through its
general plan and zoning process . The City has a limited amount of land ..
area that is suitable for industrial use that is near to transportation
and other services and is separated from residential areas . The City
must keep this space available if it hopes to attract quality industrial
uses .
The subject buildings are at the main entrance of a fairly riew industrial,
development . The M1 zoning on the site allows several uses to locate
in these buildi,ns that would compliment and provide services for the
rest of the development. Examples of these uses are administrative,
management , regional or headquarters offices for industrial uses , offices
devoted to research and analysis , engineering and the use of large-scale
electronic data processing systems , trade schools for employment in
industrial occu?ations, surveyors , and contractors . The buildings
should be reserved for these types of uses .
The proposed church would span two buildings and the walls along the
common property line would have to be removed to create the main sanc-
tuary space. This would in effect create one building built on two J
separate parcels across a lot line . It should also be noted that the
Declaration of Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions on file in the
Department of Development Services for the industrial development in
which the proposed church would be located prohibits a "residential or
other non-business use" or any of the lots in Tract 10648 .
According to the City ' s 7I-.3ning Ordinance, required parking for a
church is calculated at one parking space for every 35 square feet of
main assembly area wheLe there are no faxed seats . The proposed church
includes a 4 ,470 square font main sanctuary with no fixed seats which creates
a parking requirement for the subject church of 128 spaces . The two office
buildings currently have 86 on-site parking spaces . The applicant pro-
poses joint use of parking with two of the existing industrial buildings
north of the two office buildings . This would provide an additional 42
spaces for a total of 128 spaces whi ch .is what .is required by code
The church operates on Sundays and on Wednesday evenings when the in-
dustrial buildings will not be in use. Persons who park in the off-
site spaces will , however, have to walk in private accessways along the
side and rear walls of industrial buildings . There is a grade differen-
tial. of approximately three feet and a landscaped planter separating a
portion of the offsite parking spaces from the proposed church.
7. 0 RECOMMENDATIONS :
Staff recommends denial of Conditional Use permit No. 83-16 based on ' the
following findings:
C .U . P . 83-16
J 1ply 1` 9 , 1983
Page 4
E 1. The proposed use is not consistent with the intent of the City ' s
General Plan to provide adequate area in the City for industrial
use because it would occupy spa ::e in existing buildings within an
industrial development.
f 2 . There are office uses permitted in the M1 zoning district which
would be more appropriate for location in the two subject buildings
f and which could compliment and provide services for the adjacent
industrial buildings .
3 . The proposed church would create a main sanctuary space spanning
two buildings on two separate parcels .
4 . The proposed use of joint parking with the adjacent industrial
buildings does not provide convenient parking because pedestrian
access from, the parking will be along the side and rear of indus-
trial buildings .
ATTAC1.14ENTS :
1 . Area Map
2 . Sita Plan
3 . Letter from applicant dated July 12 , 1983 .
4 . Letter from firing-Dine dated July 11 , 1983 .
i
i
i
CI :dw
1
s-
ti
i •
c l'i.'Y ll l III)iIT l 1 :1 ;'D I.' I..i►l:!i
!.!_ ; t,.`,1.J1�1:'i l;t;�►t'l':1.. ill" liL;i1:TI1 lc TOi! f'1 -"AC,i
�1t,li i;c1,;11:ttt :�t� �l ,July 12. 1 V'i:S
r:l. i ,Iinrltc� the I•:asc-l-wilt l,oc `) (Tract
( I,iciIdills' A-S) Mid r(,6;L1r Chc_ q.-I11are fou f 01C. Church S
113ill ,:sselably OSE111ctilo ry) by 21 O `i(IU Ire f vot by 1-tlsta I 1 ltm,
c Los ed oraver rOC1t,lS 111 two of tht C:O)^ners t)f !:ht-. satictuary
C I.V!1J�'i:II,1E'i:1, of lilill'1' I �af'1'�)►! 1,1�,��(;►f
i
I
�I
i
VVELUF'(v EW .. .
JUL 121983
I
1
i
_t
F I R
INDOOR SHOOTING RANGES HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
July 119 1983
JUL 13 03
Mr James W Pal in
City Planning Department
2000 (lain Street P.O. Cox lg0
Ilunti ngton Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Sub,j : Letter of Concern re CUP 83•-16 , 'Calvary Chapel of N. D. '
Dear Mr Palin,
In yesterday's mail I received the 'llotice of Public Hearing ' for CUP 83-•16.
Today I contacted Ms Carol Inge of your office, 14r Richard VaVerka, attorney
for the applicant, and [Ir Mark Laulhere and fir Dick Burr of Flood Corporation,
present owners of the property.
As I am the owner of both the industrial building (A-5) located in the industrial
complex mentioned as the proposed site for the applicant, and of the Firing-Line
Indoor Shooting Ranges , a commercial sport shooting range operating at the some
address under a CUP granted by the City of Huntington peach, I have several areas
of concern which I believe need to be examined:
FIRST, I am concerned about this being a compatible use of toe property , since the �
complex was clearly designed and zoned for Light 1•tanufacturing. Generally, the
purpose of such 1•1-1 zoning is to entice business into the city and provide them
the area specific to their needs and in conformance with the city's requirements.
Such zoning was not designed to be home to ventures which are more appropriately
located in other, less restrictive areas.
SEC0UD, I am concerned aboui a philosophical conflict between the church and my
business which has operated successfully and totally without complaint by any
individual , group, or governmental agency for over a year now.
I am clearly aware that the nature of my business creates emotional responses in
people, positive or negative. The existence of a shooting range so near to a church
may become the basis for conflict and controversy that is unwarranted and totally
unnecessary.
The Firing-Line, which has maintained a low visibility by intent in order to gain
quiet acceptance within the conrnunity, may present an 'attractive nuisance ' of sorts
to the children of the congregation hefore and after church services. We never allow
minors under age 18 to be in our range without a responsible adult present; and
to-date, .this has been no problem as our location within an industrial complex does
not attract young people as they have no reason to wander into the businoss park,
This may well change, as church parking will need to spread well beyond their
property lines, creating for us an unwanted and unintentional higher visibility.
NUS 6"StMO Naifwldh;r,C llfcxnla 91324 213/349-1420
l l ,lai► town Ltw F�unttnpton Beach. Collfarnlc 92b4T 714/841-2100
r
1
O
FIRIN G_
INDOOR SHOOTING RANGES
THIRD, I am concerned about the parking situation, and the attendant pedestrian
and vehicular traffic flow concentrated into a very few hours of operation weekly
in a complex with only one entry street, one emergency fire lane, and no sidewalks !
Although the hours of church operation would seem to be after most businesses in
the complex, were closed, Firing-Line is open 7 nights a week until 10PM. . .and we
open at IOA14 on both Saturday and Sunday mornings . This places us in conflict
with the church hours of Sunday morning from 8A14 - Noon, Sunday evening from 6PM -
;; 1OPM, and l-lednesday night from 6PM - IOPM, as the evenings and weekends are our
busiest times .
Difficulty of entry and exit from the complex , an unusual and suddenly appearing
concentration of vehicles and pedestrians walking from their cars to the church
via the streets , and the psychological impact of church proximity could well do
irreparable damage to our business !
FOURTH, it seems that some form of agreement would have to be reached with the
owners of buildings A-1 , A-4 , and A-5 to allow church parking on our lots in order
for the church to qualify under the city's parking criteria.
It has been reported to me that statanents have been riade to the effect that such
agreements have already been reached . . .THIS IS TOTALLY UNTRUE 1•IIT11 RESPECT TO MY
PROPERTY!
Until yesterday, I was not even aware of the church or its CUP application. lJobody
has the right to hypothecate or pledge my property without my approval . . .to-date,
nobody has even approached me, much less received my approval !
Although it may appear that I am totally against approval of this CUP, this is -not
necessarily the case so long as each of the issues I 've raised have been confronted
and discussed and mutual agreements reached .
Si cer ly
o � 1
Michael J. De ofsky
Owner
,'lam EC*Street, Northddpr,Collfomla 91324 213/349.1420
IM1 Jormf+a+ "Long Huntington Seorh,Cdlhxnlo 92647 714/841.2100
�rck4,+
H . B. Planning Commission
July 19 , 1983
Page 12
5. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said
parcels are developed.
6 . A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Depart-
ment of Development Services.
I
AYES : Porter, Erskine,,,/Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None
ABSENT: Higgins , Winchell , Livengood M
ABSTAIN : None ;'
i
ON MOTION BY SC11UMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO
PREPARE A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONSOLIDATION
OF PROPERTIES ON ASH/ SYCAMORE AND ELM STREETS FOR COORDINATION INTO
THE OAKVIEW REDEVEL;i4IENT PROJECT AREA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : Porter; /Erskine , Schumacher
NOES : None
ABSENT: liiggir�s , Winchell , Livengood
ABSTAIN = Mirj Is ,
Commissioner chumacher requested that a time frame of July 26th be
placed on t . request and amended the above motion to include that
date .
Cha rman Ailed for a five minute recess .
ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO . 83-16
Applicant: Calvary Chapel of Huntington Beach
A request to permit a church in an existing building on property located
on the north side of Talbert west of Brookshire Lane . Staff gave a
brief presentation .
The Chairman opened the public hearing. Steve Purdue , representing the
church, stated that many homeowners are members of the church and that
the church is needed in the community and wishes to establish a per-
manent residence . The present situation is a rented building with the
children' s Sunday school classes at a separate location . This , he said,
was not an ideal situation. Commissioner Schumacher asked if the plan
was to purchase the building. Mr. Purdue answered yes . Dick VaVer'.a,
the applicant, stated he did not agree with the staff ' s reason for
recommending denial , that it was for purposes of preserving industrial
uses . He pointed out that the market continues to be "bad" and that,
in his opinion it was better to have occupied buildings rather than
vacant ones . His understanding of the code was that a church is a
permissible use in an industrial zone or a commercial zone . He did
not agree with one argument that the church was "invading" the tax base.
he felt that parking was adequate, however, if necessary, restriping
cbuid add even more. Michael DeCoski said he was occupying Building A-5
w
,
r
H. B. Planning Commission
July 19 , 1983
Page 13
which is near the subject site. lie submitted a letter opposed to the
granting of the application and he went on to enumerate the items in
his letter. His business is a private shooL-ing ran.ge and club and he
felt that the church group would not be condusive to his operation and
his clientelle . He said the hours of his business and the planned
church services do conflict. He further stated that his business did
add to the tag: base in the City. The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Porter pointed out that the project was originally approved
for office use . Commissioner. Schumacher stated that she would be in
favor of the application if it was a new building site , however , she
agreed that it would be an intruding use to the present occupants in
the surrounding industrial buildings and would go along with staff ' s
recommendation for denial. Commissioner Erskine was concerned about
the neighboring gun business and agreed with denial .
ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 83-16 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1 . The proposed use is not consistent with the intent of the City ' s
General Plan to provide adequate area in the City for industrial
use because it would occupy space in existing buildings within an
industrial development.
2. There are office uses permitted in the M1 zoning district which
woulC. be more appropriate for location than .in the two subject
buildings and which could compliment and provide services for the
adjacent industrial buildings.
;
3. The proposed church would create a main sanctuary space spanning
two buildings on two sepc.rate parcels.
4. The proposed use of joint parking with the adjacent industrial
buildings does not provide convenient parking because pedestrian
access from the parking will be along the side and rear of indus-
trial buildings .
AYES: Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir
NOES : None 9
ABSENT: Higgins , Winchell , Livengood
ABSTAIN: None
NDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-33 PERMIT NO. 83-42
A licant: Huntington Brea �Mi ted
A request to permit a construction of a 342--unit apartment complex
and to allow a r ction in the front yard setback; 25% compact park
ingj a reduct in minimum square footage of the one-bedroom units;
September 2 , 1983
E .
4 ' Mr . Michael J . Dekofsky
Mr. Christopher Vrakelos
Firing--Line
17921 Jamestcwn Lane
I Huntington Beach , CA 92647
Mr. Dekofsky and Mr . Vrakelos :
After our telephone conversation on Thursday, August 25 ,
I feel it necessary to contact you by letter and answer
your concerns regarding Conditional Use Permit- #83-16
for Calvary Chanel of Huntington beach . In my one and
a half hour conversation with Mr . Dekofsky on Tuesday,
July 19 , I answered the four concerns he voiced by
letter to Mr . Palin . In this letter 1 will once again
answer your concerns about compatible use , philosoph-
ical conflict , and the parking situation and agreements
with affected owners .
I . Compatible Use : The city of Iuntington Beach has
no specific zoning for churches . Wherever we relocate ,
a conditional use pern.iit must be obtained . The city
has set guidelines for churches by telling them in
what zones they will issue a conditional use permit
the M-1 zone is one of those zones . Since we Would be
using an existing structure and not adding another
single-purpose building to the city , we are for all
intents and purposes protecting the M-1 zone . I find
the building under. question and our application for
conditional use completely compatible with the M--1
zone .
C
II . Philosophical Conflict : In this area of question ,
I can speak only for myself, the Board of Directors and
the leadership of our church . We do not have philo-
sophical differences with your business . The church
has philosophical differences with murderers , thieves ,
rapists and others who abuse the privilege of owning
lM
edvary C hap%.>.II of H untin ton BeQ, %.h a:
box $a MuntNton Bewh. CA (714) 2579
V" ,
�,}.'`A 4,,., ` '1F ova •; +',F y
fu9./L Mayl11 4.J rS „i,.. A—i_.
f
a weapon . We have no such differences with those who
use their firearms for sport , recreation and/or self-
defense .
You also voiced concern about children of the church
wandering through the complex and possibly causing
problems for you and your business . All of our child-
ren under the age of 18 are well supervised and con-
trolled while attending church functions and services .
They will not be permitted to wander or become nuisances .
Even if our parking requirement was to extend beyond
our boundaries , causing some to pass by your business ,
the children would never be without adult supervision .
i
The Word of God teaches that , "If it be possible , as
much as lies in you , live peaceably with all men . "
Romans 12 : 18 . We live by His Word and I am certain that
because of this you will find us to be excellent neigh-
bors .
III . Parking Situation and Agreements : Our parking
situation is not as rand a problem as you have visual-
ized it to be . Initially we will not be using any of
the off-site parking that we have requested . When we
do , it would constitute only approximately 15% of our
parking requirements , with the other 85% being the
existing on-site parking .
Vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow will cause no
problems for your clients as our arrival and depart-
ure times do not coincide with your busiest hours . We
will be an hour into our Sunday service by the time you
open your doors for business , and we will be leaving
after your "rush hour" . Our weeknight meetings are
not attEnded by as many a, are our Sunday morning serv-
ices , and our arrival time is well after the hours you
stated to me as being your busiest .
Having a church in close proximity should have very
little af. .2ct on your clientele . I am quite certain
that Lich one of them passes by at least one church
while driving to the Firing-Line ; if these churches do ;
not cause "psychological impact" , then whyshould ours '
(2)
C"Ivary Chapel of Huntington Beach' f
4 P,�. c 856 h,
6 lVim.1 a CA,92bd5 •_(714) SX-2579 .
. . . .. ... Hunt.
w
4
r •
r
As for the parking agreements .with owners of ' A-1 and
A--4 , we have secured written agreements from both the
owner , the good Corporation , and the present lessor.
We do nit want to cause you problems or damage . We are
willing to work with ;you to overcome an hoproblems and
immediately reconcile any differences suld they arise .
You stated in your letter that you are against the
• pproval of 'Conditional Use Permit #83_16 if each issue
1,ou raise was confronted , discussed and if mutual
agreement was reached . This letter and our two previous
conversations have confronted and discussed your con .
cerns . I believe we should now be able to reach mutual
agreement .
Sincerely ,
�,... '
Steven fl . Purdue
Pastor , Calvary Chapel of Huntington Beach
r
SIiP/keb
cc : Mr. Palin
Huntington Beach City Council Members
(3) f"
Iva
y f Huntino-ton Bead
arChar%ala
n
�.
&A $66tir� �Beoch, CA 92648 �-257'9
� Huntort � ��) 536
# Health
Resour%.es
Group
Lvle
CA TC»8
46 .1
,47 �
Cit) Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Reach, CA. 92648
Attn: City Clerk
Re: Conditional Use Permit Number 83-16
Dear Council Members :
We have reviewed the request for Conditional Use Permit
submitted by the Calvary Chapel of Huntington Beach and
have no objections . Their use of the office building
adjacent to our two facilities will be compatible with
the operation of our business .
We look forward to having Calvary Chapel as a neighbor.
S �cerely
Gregory Welton
President
GW: ch
4'
JI
J 1,i,' •
d
c �a
ozr
Pub] ish
August 25, .1983
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL TO PC DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83- 16
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will hc! held by the Lity Council
of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,
Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7 : 30- P.M. , or as soon thereafter as
passible on Tuesday the 6th day of 5eptPmber 19 83
for the purpose of considering an appeal to the Planning Commission ' s
denial of Conditional Use Permit No . 83-16 which is a request to locate
a church in an exiscing industrial dcveloprnent zoned for MI (Light:
Manufacturing District) use pur:;uant to Article 933 of the Huntington
Beach ordinance Code. The subject property is located on the north side of
Talbert Avenue, west of Hroo!cshire Lane. A legal description is on file
in the office of the City Clerk .
_All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their
iopnions for or against said Conditional Use Permit No. 83—I6
Further informtion may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main
st"ot, Huntington Beach, California . 92648 - (714 ) 536-5227
r.. OTED August 19, 1983 � C1'TY OF HUHTINGTUN ShACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
,r Gity Clerk
'
•,��,wn�-,yak , } . / �,
NA'C1CF 'ro CLi.RK 'ru SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING
AP
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE UA'I'E: G�LG.•L` Qom• `�
FROM• � ,C.;� .�.c:2�L..J
PLU.SE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING TIM A' FACIU,11 LEGAL NOTICE FOR 'rill;
�Luy of �' .'• , l'4�.`�, 1 91M.
AP' s are aCtached�
AP' s will follow
No AP's
Initiatea by:
Planning Commission
Plrtnning Department
Petition
* Appeal
Other
Adoption of Environmental Status (x)
Refer to Af.,Vw G '�- � Planning Department - Extension # ram_,
for addtttonal information. I
•
please transmit exact wording to he required in the legifl . .,�
VACI�y �ErC O
`<t fire if is Coast Hwy CUP 083-16
° l 11R.ACN, CA
r Y Calvary Chajwl of tlutitincjton
7621-1UMM AVZ Beach, c/o Prichard A. VaVerka
ABACO, CA 92648 27e Victoria Street
159491-03 Costa Mesa, Calif
92627
ZNf>1A$ Hood Corporation
•76f�t ?AZ MItT AVE Attn: Marc L,aulhere, President
8201
IMIa'rON OEr►CR, CA 92648 .So. .�or�nsen Avc.nu�.�
`A50-3Q1.Ol Whittier, Calif 90607
BILVER, SUM i HIGGIN
MWLil1 PIBUGLASS INC
18062 MOM CIRCLE
'Huntington Beach, ca 92648
STATR OR CALIFORNIA
DEPT OP OWERAL SERVICES
REAL ISTA'TE DIVISION
NO MAILING ADDRESS
169-251.1$
ftAMMIN 1WCCELI A
3541 CMTSIDE CICLE
'HUtI'II.Iia'TOW DBACH, CA
165-252-06 '
BMINIMM NORTH
mmstwEES PARRS INC.
160' N CLAAA ST&M
z BA*A :AMA, CA
16.1 252479 16. +253+�0j,09, 10
. !1'!a"K D6 dim
1ti, . ,:1?`��I J �►OMN LA1�
+ ,w 'f11om MMACM, CA w
r
CA 92648
!
Publish August 25 , 1983
NUTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL TO PC DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83- 16
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach , in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,
Huietington Beach, at the hour of 7s 30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as
possible on Tuesday the 6th day of September � 1983 .
for the purpose of considering an appeal to the Manning Commission' s
denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 83- 16 which is a request to locate
a church in an existing industrial development zoned for 141 (Light
Manufacturing District) use pursuant to Article 933 of the Huntington
Beach Ordinance Code . The subject property is le :aced on the north side of
Talbert Avenue, west of Brookshire Lane . A legal description is on file
in the office of the City Clerk.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their
r: opinions for or against said Conditional Use Permit Vo. 8 3- 26
1 further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Mairf
,F
Streit, Nuntington beech, California. 92648 - (714 ) 536-5227
ti 'DATED August 19, 1983 CITY OF HUPITINGTUN BkACH
{ t By: Al icia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
! a.
Let At
August 31, 1983
donorable Mayor,
Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
Sub3; Letter of Concern & Objection to CUP 83-16, 'Calvary Chapel of H.B. '
Honorable Mayor and City Council ,
We, the undersigned property owners in the Huntington North Busines Park, are
extremely concerned and upset by the proposed location of a church in our planned
business/industrial development; and we strongly urge you to uphold the Planning
Commission denial of a CUP for this purpose!
The issues of major concern to us stesi from 1) . Guarantees made to us by seller as
to the nature and integrity of the park as borne out by the CC&R's , 2). The inadequacy
of parking facilities for a congregation now-numbering over 400 adults and 150
children, with no means within the park for handling future grovith, 3). The long-
range negative impact on our already deflated property values due to the drastically
lowered sales price on the proposed property and the lack of future sales interest
due to destroying the integrity of the business park, and 4) . The immediate negative
impact on existing business ' due to parking problems.
All of us as oviner-users , chose Huntington North as it was represented to be "a first
class 'garden type ' business-industrial park" (Para 1.3) ; that "any industrial or
business operation or use shall be permitted. . .that does not cause or produce a
nuisance to any adjacent parcel " ("ara 2. 1.1) ; and that "no residential or other
non-business use. . .shall be permitted" (Para 2. 1.2) .
It is abundantly clear from the language of the CC&R's that this was intended to
be a 'business park' . . .and so it should remain! A church is not a business or
Industrial use.
The existing business ventures in the park are there because 14-1 zoning is mandated.
It is our understanding that a church is not restricted as to the zoning areas in
which it may operate. . . if this is true, why does the church pursue only this location
when it can really go anywhere in the city and we can't?
According to the City's Zoning Ordinance, parking require-ments for a church are based
! on a formula of one spare per 35 square feet of main assembly area if no fixed seats.
` This results in a need for 128 spaces , available o� through easements on two
fr adjacent lots in a park which has only one entrance and one exit and no sidewalks!
y=.
It
And vihile the formula may call for only 128 spaces, where are 550 people re„lli {
o
ingg to park, since this assumes an unrealistic average of over 4 people per cartd 1f there is no attempt to restrict the grovith of the congregation, where will
f ` those additional numbers of people park?
;It is' our understanding that on at least one previous occasion, the Planning. Ccapisxl�+r;
'{ denied an application for a medical group to operate in this proposed property on the'
�t basis 'of imdequate parking. Is
i al believe that the
00
M ,of doctors would even begin to hatofachurchset v patient ice? ' Yet they a "1
turned daM1 .
1 y
t^" 4
ti Ltr of objection to CUP 43-16 (cont'd)
J Although we thoroughly agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendations for
denial based on a proposed use inconsistent with the City's General Plan, their
r analysis contains a major error: Para 6.0 states "The church o erates on Sundays
,
and Wednesday evenings when the industrial buildings will not a in use. " One
current business operates 7 days a week until late evening , while another operates
a 24-hour emergency medical supply service.
` It seems highly unlikely that the church, able and willing to spend on excess of
1h million dollars , not counting interior improvements, and with a very sizeable
cash downpayment, would only use the facility on Sunday and Wednesday night!
Either there is to be a much higher utilization than has been represented, or
perhaps this is simply a very good real estate investment! But at whose expense:?
We have: heard that the seller is in financial trouble on this project, and that
foreclosure action has been mentioned. Each action on the seller's pars: from
drastically reducing prices , to dropping the option on Phase 2 leaving us with a
dry brush, fire-hazard vacant lot next door, to violating the CC&R's by attempting
to sell to a non-business use has had the impact of lowering the value of our
property, as those of us who have attempted to refinance have discovered.
We existing property owners have a great deal of time and money invested here in
Huntington Beach, and everything we own is on the line. We provide jobs, products ,
and services to the community. We draw people from throughout the county, generating
sales tax revenues in the process, and paying our fair share of property and income
taxes .
We who invested here first have rights which must be protected! And in our view,
allowing a church to locate in our business part: violates our rights and protections
under the CC&R's . . .it would have an additional material negative impact on the value
of our property. . .and a potentially disastrous effect on our daily business!
000,
05
LIA
/
.�' s�u�t_.._ ,. .... . ._ _ . .. a�a���_ der _l •.r• ;
.� �,��. •� '��� �'�r i ;f yJN T •�r,lr ;�.Sar i :�'rJn,.l�y..w �' ".
r •+, r• ���j ,} �I r•
r A
/ •r
I N G •A. � � 1 '�•t JW",r •�{' , .t .Y _.al t �a1
�r{ w r �, -'J ��/) '� ^L �' 1' < f ' 1 '•�w�,1` .�� y� ir�xir,`�';r
DF
It A
J
. ' �1'Iar1 � •`;,l'•f"q�11'��r� �'u/'� f '..'..w�AL ,1� ,', 1 l •���' ' �� ..'! M� .�'�.��� ��. •� ,l/ I�t -�,r�r ��5 rr1
t �L
• �' ��1! •.II• ..� f•I� l�i% •+'L,; l ."ll ti•Yf '► 1'd•h � L+1 1•�A+.R'' 4' t,��4 r.r. �y:i
•Lj� • 1 ��,�A [If�J,y`Pr •� r '.. �/�•Tr RI �! tyi.. �+' f� f '� 1 +Y.
1 '
t t r t <
' tit . ���",� r�t ti'1 �����..�E►••� �1� ,��� ,r.
��, • •' ��
-n ,C-1
T,J.
i�4T
t
or
�'`�_!'-'l� ► `
• 1 ILidl��
•• 4 YJ �• �� * ��s 1 fir.
' 1'.. f . • 1 � _. i � N... , ,.1.' tr•/ ' �• 1 ." f•.�•j�f- + J C.L �7 . ..}y.
..:!.. ���r � �1��•1•II F.: � Y.-.?• .'�� '. •r.. `S�i��n-S::".'W 1� .��. �•'�t_ 'y' c •r��..�•l�r 1,:Tt t���� '+��r.•'S i