HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing - General Plan Amendment 90-8 - GPA 90-8 - Zo �VL
STATE OF CAUFORNIA
County of Orange
I am a Citizen of the United States and a
resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the
age of eighteen years, and not a party to or
interested in the below entitled matter. 1 am a
principal cleric of the HUNTINGTON BEACH
INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published in the City of
Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of PUBLIC NOTICE
LEGAL NOTICE
California, and that attached Notice is a true and ORDINANCE
complete copy as was printed and published in "ANNORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF HUNTING-
the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley TON BEACH AMENDING
THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
issues of said newspaperto writ the issue(s) Of: ORDINANCE CODE SEC-;
TION 9061 THEREOF TO
PROVIDE FOR CHANGE'
OF ZOINING FROM 'RESI-I
DENTIAL AGRICULTURE'
DESIGNATED 'COM-
MUNITY FACILITIES- EDU-
CATION' TO 'MEDIUM-
June 11 , 1992 HIGH DENSITY RESI-
DENTIAL - FLOODPLAIN'
ON REAL PROPERTY GEN-
ERALLY LOCATED ON
10.86 NET ACRES EAST
OF GOLDENWEST STREET
APPROXIMATELY 250
FEET SOUTH OF WARNER
AVENUE (ZONE CHANGE
NO.90.17."
SYNOPSIS:
Ordinance No. 3146
amends the Huntington
Beach Ordinance Code,
Section 9061 to provide for
the redesignation of 11.93
gross acres from Public,
Quasi-Public, Institutional
to Medium-High Density
Residential at the south-
east corner of Goldenwest
Street and Warner Avenue.
THE FULL TEXT OF THE
IS
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the ABLE INETHE AVAIL.THE
ADOPTEDD b
foregoing is true and correct. CLERK'S yE the City
Council of the City of Hun-
tington Beach at a regular
June 11 2 meeting held Monday,
Executed an , 199-L June 1, 1992,by the follow-
ing roll call vote:
at Costa Mesa, California. AYES: Councilmembers:i
Robitaille, Moulton.
Patterson, Winchell, Silva,
MacAllister
NOES: Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Signature Green,Kelly
CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH, Connie Brock-
way,City Clerk
Published Huntington
Beach Independent June
11,1992
062-802
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
REQUE9 f FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date May 4 , 1992
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Developme k5l
Subject: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-8, ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-17,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-3
Consistent with Council Policy? Yes [ ] New Policy or Exceptions 439 0
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE•
Transmitted for your consideration is General Plan Amendment No.
90-8, Zone Change No. 90-17 and Environmental Impact Report No.
90-3 , a request submitted by the Andover Chandler Companies to
redesignate a 11. 93 gross acre area from Public, Quasi-Public,
Institutional to Medium-High Density Residential located at the
,Wintersburg School site (southeast corner of Warner Avenue and
Goldenwest Street) . The requests have been appealed by Mayor Jim
Silva to further discuss issues involving school closure, high
density residential projects, public open space, and mitigation
measures included in the Environmental Impact Report .
RECOMMENDATION•
Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation:
Motion to:
A. Certify as adequate Draft Environmental Impact Report No.
90-3 by adopting Resolution No. 637/ ; and
B. Deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-8; and
C. Deny Zone Change -No. 90-17 with findings . "
ANALYSIS•
Background:
On January 7, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed a
proposal to redesignate 18 . 34 gross acres from Public, Quasi-Public,
Institutional to Medium-High Density (13 .26 gross acres) and General
Commercial (5 . 08 gross acres) at the Wintersburg School Site. In
addition, the Planning Commission reviewed Zone Change No . 90-17 and
Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3 with suggested mitigation
measures .
►1
P10 5/85 j
Following a staff report, public testimony and further discussion,
the Planning Commission continued General Plan Amendment No. 90-8,
Zone Change No. 90-17 and Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3 to
give the applicant the opportunity to meet with staff to further
discuss land use alternatives on the subject property.
On March 17, 1992 the Planning Commission reviewed a modified
proposal to redesignate 11. 93 gross acres from Public, Quasi-Public,
Institutional to Medium-High Density Residential (R3) , with no
commercial component . After a second public hearing and discussion.
on the proposal for market-rate multi-family apartment units, the
Commission recommended denial of the applicant 's request as no
public benefit would result from the loss of land designated Public,
Quasi—Public, Institutional (Community Facilities-Educational
Facilities) .
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON MARCH 17, 1992:
THE MOTION MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECONDED BY NEWMAN, TO APPROVE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 90-3 BY ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 1457, DENY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-8
(RESOLUTION NO. 1458) AND DENY ZONE CHANGE 90-17 CARRIED BY THE
FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: KIRKLAND, NEWMAN, RICHARDSON, BOURGUIGNON, LEIPZIG
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: SHOMAKER, DETTLOFF
ABSENT: NONE
Project Analysis :
After an initial proposal to redesignate 18 .36 gross acre of land
designated Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional to General Commercial
and Medium-High Density Residential, the applicant now requests the
approval of a General Plan Amendment to redesignate 11. 93 gross
acres to Medium-High Density Residential (R3) with no commercial
component (see attachment no. 6) .
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 90-3 was prepared to analyze
potential impacts from the original proposal, as well as five (5)
land use alternatives . The EIR addressed four impacts that could
not be mitigated to levels of insignificance which included Project
Air Quality, Cumulative Air Quality, Project Construction Noise, and .
Cumulative Water Impacts (see attachment no. 8) . However, due to
the removal of the commercial component from the applicant ' s initial
proposal, impacts to air quality, traffic, public services and
utilities would be proportionately reduced to levels of
insignificance. Project construction noise would be the only impact
. that could not be mitigated. to a level of insignificance.
RCA 5/4/92 -2- (3052d)
The Planning Commission and staff discussion revolved around the
loss of an existing public resource. Loss of land designated for
public use is seldom re-acquired. Staff believes that in the event
of the loss of public property, the public should receive some
benefit in exchange, such as affordable housing, day care
facilities, recreational facilities, etc. Although there was
discussion to provide affordable housing, there has not been any
affordable housing component in any of the applicants proposals .
Staff does not support the request as the development would replace
a valuable public resource with private residential units . The
educational and recreational benefits presently available to the
public would be lost indefinitely by redesignating the property to
Medium-High Density Residential . Staff believes the uncertainty in
the City' s demographic projections and future student population are
reasons to preserve the Quasi-Public, Institutional designation on
the property. It is entirely possible that the land use patterns
will change in such a manner as to overburden both our capability
for expanded school facilities as well as recreational
opportunities. Staff believes that the proposed use is not in the
best interest of the community and that any development should
include a public benefit in one form or another.
Staff Alternatives:
Staff has provided two alternatives, both of which include an
affordable housing component (see attachment no. 7) . The first
alternative involves the redesignation of 8 acres to Medium Density
Residential (R2) with a minimum of 20% of the units designated as
affordable. It would allow development of up to 131 multi-family
units on the parcel which the Wintersburg School buildings currently
occupy. This alternative would retain all recreational facilities
on the Oceanview High School site.
The second alternative involves the redesignation of 11. 93 gross
acres to Medium-High Density Residential (R3) with the requirement
that all units constructed over and above 131 units' be designated
affordable. As discussed above, 131 units would be allowed to be
constructed under an R2 zoning. This alternative would require the
developer to designate all units built over 131 as affordable with a
maximum total of 295 units .
Environmental Status:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Draft
Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3 (DEIR No. 90-3) was prepared to
analyze the potential impacts of the project. The request procedure
that followed is outlined below:
September 26, 1990 Staff conducted an initial study and
determined that an EIR would be necessary for
the project.
RCA - 5/4/92 -3- (3052d)
• •
March 12, 1991 A Notice of Preparation was filed with the
State Clearinghouse to notify the public of
the intent to prepare an EIR.
June 25, 1991 Notice of Completion filed with the State
Clearinghouse. The Draft EIR was available
for public review and comments for forty-five
days (comment period: June 26, 1991 to August
9, 1991)
Staff received five (5) letters during the review period which have
been addressed in the EIR.
Prior to any action on General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 and Zone
Change No. 90-17, EIR No. 90-3 must be adopted and certified by the
City Council based on the findings outlined.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not Applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may take one of the following alternative actions:
1. A. "Certify as adequate Draft Environmental Impact Report No.
90-3 by adopting Resolution No. ; and
B. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 (Applicant ' s
Request) by adopting Resolution No. Q>80 with Statement of
Overriding Considerations; and
C. Approve Zone Change No. 90-17 (Applicant ' s Request) by
adopting Ordinance No. I' L with findings . "
2 . A. "Certify as adequate Draft Environmental Impact Report No.
90-3 by adopting Resolution No. /; and
B. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 with modifications;
and
C. Approve Zone Change No. 90-17 with modifications . "
ATTACHMENTS.
1. Vicinity Map
2 . Resolution No. k0j certifying Environmental Impact Report No.
90-3
3 . Resolution No. 4360 to approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-8
with Statement of Overriding Considerations .
4 . Ordinance No. ,qj!�jG, to approve Zone Change 90-17
5 . Proposed General Plan Land Use/Zoning Designation
6 . Staff ' s alternative Land Use Designation
7. EIR No. 90-3
8 . Planning Commission staff report dated March 17, 1992
MTU:MA:WC: lp
RCA - 5/4/92 -4- (3052d)
RI
IR I
II
RI I
R IIm R 3
I R I R 1. - , . I M I
R Ij R I
RIR3�'"R3'
-F- R
MI
R i
•
ml
-7 R 2
R C 2
o C 2 M •I R 3
R —23j" F
SUN3
DR i u I ICG� ` •�.`� i[Le 7-I-
R2
WARNER
Go 4L
R2
•
3 C4 FIR DR
'Al.N AVE
a. Ian
-E
R3
m I
I RI R I CF—R "—f ss Av
......s. '.0p;
RI
(.—fr—
Rl CF-R
D. IWRR: R?
Ri
RI RI of RI I RI CF-E
RI Rj M I
OR RI :, --
Rl� L
DR m 1-m P,
CF-E ml
RI
R I
Rl Ri
R I
Ri :R
RI
P. �!R I R I R; R
F- C
F
RI RI Rl
II R I RI�,-
Rl -R :3-CF
ro
RI RI RI r
RI CD
_4D
"L--J Lo.—J
I mwno OP lt3
RI R I I z
R3
J.
'RI-C Rl-CD
ir3
R I R� j ir3 XF—R IC
Rl
w Rl F-T.
Vicinity Map
[roan
HUNTINGTON REACH
HUNTINGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION
LOW DENSITY 0
(oil
LOW DENSITY
7§ 1 1 ; RESIDENTAL
T"EL LA0 L11-117
I TTT_
RECREATION
P.R E SIDENTAL
`_? OPENSPACE DENSITY] HIGH
DR T A CF R
RES. DENSITY
141 RES.
C—N.EL C5-3 30 C F C_0
HIGH
I HIGH
MEDIUM l o, FMEDIUM
DENSITY-.
0 DENSITY
RES. T
DENSITY i i - -,DENSITY RES.
RES. GEN. COMMERCIAL RES.
; ;, I iLu' I I I
WARNER
GENERAL
HIGH DENSITY ��9'1'NDUSTRIAL
RESIDENTIAL J
CA.
11 itI I MEDIUM
CF-E
DENSITY
t RES.
-en..
F-R
c
MED. PUBLIC,
'(OAR
HIGH I QUASI-PUBLIC, AVE
14 F-
i CF-R DENSITY INSTITUTIONAL
RES. D
C.
SOLI
WASTE
-E
OR • CF
/ I BETTY FACILITY
CF-E
C"'�J�MPA
r-I ,
LOW DENSITY ,
RESIDENTAL CF- C
EPFORD DR
a EDIUM
F j1 j MHIGH
LOW IT—
DENSITY GENERAL DENSITY
ESIDENTIAL r'71 INDUSTRIAL
-T- r ell : RES.
Ti Tl� '
SAY LN
T77_17 iiTin
(Proposed)
General Plan Land Use Designation
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTWGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION
��"Oe CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH f
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
MUNTINI;TON HACH
TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk
FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
DATE: April 24, 1992
SUBJECT: Notice of Public Hearing for Housing Projects
(Council Agenda of May 4, 1992)
I has come to your attention that a mistake was made in one section of the notices for
various housing projects which are being appealed to City Council after a decision of the
Planning Commission. Specifically, the notices stated that challenges in court will be
confined to issues raised at the Planning Commission, whereas the notices should have
stated that judicial challenges will be confined to issues raised at the City Council
hearing.
You have asked whether the numerous public hearings which are affected by this error
should be removed from the agenda and renoticed.
It is my opinion that the mistake may be corrected by correcting the agenda before you
post it and by announcing, at the Council meeting, prior to the public hearings, that
future challenges in court, if any, may be limited to the issues presented before the City
Council.
I will caution you that this is only my opinion and a future court might well disagree with
it. Absolute certainty that the effects of the defective notice will be corrected can only
be attained by renoticing all of the hearings involved. Should you decide not to renotice
and reschedule the hearings in question, the consequences could be that an aggrieved
party who later might sue the City would not be limited to raising just those issues raised
at the public hearing, but could base•the action on any issue legally possible.
On balance, I feel that the risk to the City is not as substantial as would be the expense
and inconvenience to the public which renoticing would entail. It is your decision as to
how you wish to proceed.
Thank you.
GAIL HUTTON
City Attorney
GCH:SL:k
ORDINANCE NO. 3146
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE
BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE
FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE"
DESIGNATED "COMMUNITY FACILITIES - EDUCATION" TO
"MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-FLOODPLAIN" ON REAL
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 10 .86 NET ACRES
EAST OF GOLDENWEST STREET APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET
SOUTH OF WARNER AVENUE (ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-17)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law,
the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach
City Council have held separate public hearings relative to
Zone Change No. 90-17 wherein both bodies have carefully
considered all information presented at said hearings, and
After due consideration of the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence
presented to the City Council, the City Council finds that such
zone change is proper, and consistent with the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows :
SECTION 1. The following described real property,
generally located east of Goldenwest Street approximately 250
feet south of Warner Avenue, is hereby changed from RA
(Residential Agriculture) designated CF-E (Community
Facilities-Education) to R3-FP2 (Medium-High Density
Residential-Floodplain) :
1
THAT PORTION OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, PARTLY IN THE
RANCHO LA BOLSA CHICA AND PARTLY IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, IN
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINES OF WARNER
AVENUE AND GOLDEN WEST STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE
OF GOLDEN WEST STREET SOUTH 0044 ' 30" EAST 1320 . 61 FEET TO THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE
NORTH 89026 ' 51" EAST 50.00 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
GOLDEN WEST STREET SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH
89026 ' 51" EAST 511. 56 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF NORMA LANE
AS SHOWN ON MAP OF TRACT NO. 4053 RECORDED IN BOOK 141, PAGES
16 AND 17 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
THENCE NORTH 0033 ' 09" WEST 925. 53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
89-26 ' 51" WEST 511, 56 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
GOLDEN WEST STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE SOUTH
0044 ' 30" EAST 925 . 53 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING AN AREA OF 10.86 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
SECTION 2 . The Director of Community Development is hereby
directed to amend Section 9061, District Map 31 (Sectional District
Map 26-5-11) to reflect Zone Change No. 90-17 described in Section 1
hereof . Copies of said district maps, as amended hereby, are
available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk.
2
SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days
after adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on
the 1st day of June 1992.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
AA Z rawer.
City Clerk ,.- City Attorney y_ I��jv
y 2,
REVIEWED AND APPROVED, INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Director of Community
Development
3
•
(� No. 3146
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number
of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular
meeting therof held on the 18th day of May
19 92 , and was again read to said City Council at a regular
meeting therof held on the 1st day of June 19 92 , and
was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of
all the members of said City Council .
AYES: Councilmembers:
Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Silva, MacAllister
NOES: Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Green, Kelly
City Clerk and ex-officio Verk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date May 18, 1992
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator`s
Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Develop t
Subject: FINAL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-8
AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-17 (WINTERSBURG SCHOOL SITE)
Consistent with Council Policy? K Yes [ ] f4w Policy or Exception # 31y4
L�+aG
1 9?
Statement of Issue, Recommend ion, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: aej
STATEMENT OF ISSUE•
Final action on General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 and Zone Change No.
90-17 for the redesignation of 11. 93 gross acres from Public,
Quasi-Public, Institutional to Medium-High Density Residential at
the southeast corner of Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue are
transmitted for your consideration. Resolution No. 6380 and
Ordinance No. 3146 have been revised to reflect the action taken by
the City Council on May 4 , 1992 .
RECOMMENDATION•
Motion to:
1 . A. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 by adopting
Resolution No. 6380; and
B. Approve Zone Change No. 90-17 by adopting Ordinance No. 3146
with findings . "
ANALYSIS•
On May 4 , 1992, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment No.
90-8, Zone Change 90-17 and Environmental Impact Report 90-3 for the
redesignation of 11. 93 gross acres from Public, Quasi-Public,
Institutional to Medium-High Density Residential . The Resolution
and Ordinance have been revised to reflect the action taken by the
City Council which included a minimum 15% affordable housing
requirement, and a condition that any development proposal comply
with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable.
PIO 5185
i
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 and
Zone Change No. 90-17 with modifications .
ATTACHMENTS.
1. Vicinity Map
2 . Resolution No. 6380 to Approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-8
3 . Ordinance No. 3146 to Approve Zone Change No. 90-17
4 . RCA dated May 4, 1992
MTU:MA:WC: lp
RCA 5/18/92 -2- (3302d)
4 R I IVI ,'4 �R4 R I I R I
DIk
NF
:'-E
IiRI I �i� RI � RI RI I� RI •! I F} I I' I iLrRI J L.RI_ ICI R I F- R, �, F3..,R 3; .. r �I:,
on b
i
I I71 a /
MI '
fL
RI C
ml
R2
3 R 3 M I R 3
R <
I ^I ` f INI ram_—_.•
swb on 1Cq.
L—_ R 3 - — - — I a
WARNER c •
R2
3 q R3 I C4 r------- / -I MI I I_
I 'IR OR
ti'A :• .t0( t0 M_ I n;,.IM PVC
R3 j :. I p
I MI I�•MI
tRI RI � LS RI -.-OPr I s l CF-R
r`_� r.. —�1x2
I RI CF-RJ�—n
RI � RI
RI— RII RI ,i RI I I RI i. 1'sr �J �� - I y' CF - E
.� I�_l I:<. �I is �a_ I ill. .'( RI —RI — —i
RI - CF-E 1:�1 --= - K'� .—.-�•_7_ M1_M MI M I r �-
R I j ;
RI RI
}y�I�RI
.�.. C/'� -
...,e.o—c.J .»a. . n R1 i i RI RI nj j :j I,• 4F C
RI j R�� S�
R1 ..• •�rA I I R3I I I M rn
R I j RI RI RI ---"- IRI' I R'.CO__—... RICO ._. R31cr Cr
n RI I YI • ��'I ?I - - -I?I i I jC --
_4- VIRI CO -co I;'RI-Cc 3,
o I RI—� i -RI-�)5L RI R3 ;I R
Vicinity p Ma �� 0
HUNTINCTON BEACH
�` HUNTFNGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
J-1 L R1ICI RI
R1 0/-
IF, DD J!
LD ��WILLA DR lu LY01A D.
R1 ]RI R1 R1 I mi
RI R1 R
C F
DR R I
R1 m-5 R 3
-R1 •
C-11EL Co-3 I I r J C, c G c
MI
CCl R2
R uo C2 QRI c�
FR
3 R 3suN C 2 m I R3
R2
6 DR C;4
R3 4
R3
WARNER
R2
3 C4 FIR DR R3 F—
! : •
..o I CAIN AVE
roo
c�j
CF-E
R2 rr
R3 mi 'mi
R1 ------ CF-R L-j
R I l
CYPRE.S$A
I RI op D. R2
R I -F-
R
Rj
R1
R1 R1
'RI R1 RI
R1 Ri— CF-E
R, '!
DR I.
m I m
cp DR
R1
-E
R1 3 m I
CF
RI
R1 R1
t I R1 R1 d R1 R I R ir!l( RI RR'_
c, R1 R1 R1 c) zi
I
Li
Li H111
RI 1 IRI D.
R11 RI CD
—ILIR 3
RI
R3
R I Ri RI RI RI- CD
R
3
C= j!L—j' C�, C,:�,- 3,
fR I-�C -- .6 X,co
R111
—.1 RI R K3]WER
J,
RI
(Proposed)
Zoning Map LIE)
Lo"
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION
LRRjRI jR I RI _ ., ..,. o F —, OR LYOiP ORRl o RI RI uva� R i R1R1 a R1 _JR3
"p =- - 1RI ' RI CF-f\ ylR31
INI--
DR I .. �c-..�
R3 A A
R3
RI RI ..�L_—._
cw.NNcL co-o .. r ;� I o c r c
R3 mi
I I II :oRA3�:! o+ ro R 2
3 i R 3 R3I C 2 °° _ i C 2 I' R3 R s M I I RR R 3
xs_c` R3 j � Q N I - -..!-
SUNG OR 4 frC4 N !. a'iIj
C—_ R3 --- -_- --- I ` R3`p }� 4 " 8,{ 2u
d WARNER L�
Y R2 •
3 $ R 3 � 4, C 4 M I � FIR OR.
:A .60 CAIN N AVEx:o f ,
lI I
N
CF-
N
C
° E
DO-C-111 Rz .i R3 i
MI W MI
o c
RI RI s.oa I < CF-R AV
I V RI rmc.r�uA o° R2
Sf�( CEDAR AVE
RI CF-R�? J RI(wma RI ' l� M I
or _
: RI RI RI RI RI +L °v.' " � — CF-E
J DR nm cR ' _ RI °~ RI - RI I`. °�
RI 9ETTY OR M I-M h::Ati vtEW
a
CF-E °A°! °° W M I M I
Ix RI ,� �— 3 RI
ER
RI RIRI I -,RII�IRI RI J RI RI i RI I` F-C r_
M.E. y RI RI I RI _ xa
RI lg R II I.C FORO DR 3
ow I V � n RI o: ICF-9 ° R3 V In M
�` I RI CD
R I �lq RI I� RI RI I I � RII -- RI CD R3 ;III R I U� R I F �wwROD a+ "" . •
OR RI w.�°°_ _ RI C RI CO o I'� r °I-CD ;RI-CD 3
RI L^1.�=C RIB J � I R3 I n
al l RI RI - .. _RI - -? I
kSTAFF ALTERNATIVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION
i
RESOLUTION NO. 6371
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AND CERTIFYING
AS ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-3
WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No . 90-3 has been
prepared in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 90-8
and Zone Change No. 90-17; and
The City of Huntington Beach was the lead agency in the
preparation of the Environmental Impact Report; and
All persons and agencies wishing to respond to notice duly
given have been heard by the Planning commission either through
written notice or during public hearings on January 7, 1992 and
March 17, 1992;
NOW, THEREFORE,. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach makes the following findings and does
hereby resolve as follows :
SECTION 1: Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3 has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and all State and local guidelines .
SECTION 2 : The City Council has considered all significant
effects detailed in Environmental Impact Report No . 90-3 ,
together with proposed mitigation measures to mitigate such
effects (see Exhibit A) .
SECTION 3 : Through the implementation of the
aforementioned mitigation measures the potentially adverse
1
impacts associated with the project can be eliminated or
reduced to a level of insignificance.
SECTION 4 : The City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach does hereby adopt and certify as adequate Environmental
Impact Report No. 90-3 .
SECTION 5: The Planning Director is hereby authorized and
directed to file with the Office of the County Clerk and the
State Office of Planning and Research a notice of determination
for Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3, as required by
Section 15094 of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th
day of May 1992.
Mayor
ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City At rney REVIEWED AND AND APP OV INITIA D AN APPROVED:
//;,� .re-44�11� e-1-
City Administrator Direc o Community
-5evEUopment
2
6371
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MEASURES
1. To mitigate impacts on water consumption, the following
measures shall be complied with prior to occupancy:
a. Drought tolerant plant species shall be incorporated
in a water conserving landscape design.
b. The project shall develop and implement a water
conservation plan as required by the City.
2 . To mitigate impacts on wastewater and sewers, the Slater
Pump Station shall be upgraded to have adequate capacity to
service the project' s development, prior to issuance of
building permits .
6371
Res. No. 6371
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I , CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4TH day
of MAY 19 92 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
Moulton-P i-tPrson, Winchell, Silva, Green, MacAllister
NOES: Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Robitaille (out of room) Kelly (absent)
47u� 94�2
Lity ClerFand ex-officIVUlerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
RESOLUTION NO. 6380
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 9 0-8
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,
California desires to update and refine the General Plan in
keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and
Public hearings on adoption of General Plan Amendment No .
90-8 were held by the Planning Commission on January 7, 1992
and March 17, 1992; and
Thereafter the City Council, after giving notice as
prescribed by Government Code Section 65355, held at least one
public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No . 90-8; and
At said hearing before the City Council all persons
desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of Title 7,
Chapter 3 , Article 6 of _California Government Code commencing
with Section 65350, that General Plan Amendment No. 90-8
consisting of the following change is hereby adopted as an
amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element thereof :
That 11. 93 gross acres of land located approximately 250
feet south of Warner Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street
as depicted in Exhibit 1 as Site A attached hereto, be
redesignated from Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional to
Medium-High Density Residential .
Further, any development resulting from the approval of
GPA No . 90-8 and ZC No-17 will comply with all provisions
of the H.B.O.C. and other applicable City codes .
General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 implements the goals and
policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan by
providing a minimum 15% affordable housing component for
moderate income families .
The real property affected by this change of use is
described and depicted on Exhibit 1, attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
- 1 -
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th
day of May 1992 .
Mayor
ATTEST,A APPROVED AS TO FORM:
'A
City Clerk S-U gity Attorney S1( 9
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED A D APPROVED:
City Administrator - Director, Community Development
- 2 -
i XHICJ IT
uW to-cu---r U-M m3z"-DON
r
_ _ a� M rv_x�Dtf ( ?LQ.73t 1Ti71GL ��� p
o - 0: ex-roe[ - - - teSDAe 4~
�j
ME rb
� J
J
I
x
3 : sn.sll' l
q O O
LUT NET ACRES
r
• of tQHiNErACRES
l 1-9?GROSS ACRES o
u
v
Y �
0
o
L " .
0
tE -
n
I
� D
s»
►c t[2eSW E ter�St' d
I �o
- --- ---- -- it at)4 %'ORTR RAI..STFAP .STPF£T I
• I •
•
Res No. 6380
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day
Of may 19 92 , by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
gnhitAille. Moulton-Patterson. Silva, Green, MacAllister
NOES: Councilmembers:
Winchell
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Kelly
1 y Clerk and ex-otticiolelerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
•
RESOLUTION NO. C.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 9 0-8
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,
California desires to update and refine the General Plan in
keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and
Public hearings on adoption of General Plan Amendment No.
90-8 were held by the Planning Commission on January 7, 1992
and March 17, 1992; and
Thereafter the City Council, after giving notice as
prescribed by Government Code Section 65355, held at least one
public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No . 90-8; and
At said hearing before the City Council all persons
desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of Title 7,
Chapter 3 , Article 6 of California Government Code commencing
with Section 65350, that General Plan Amendment No. 90-8
consisting of the following change is hereby adopted as an
amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element thereof :
That 11. 93 gross acres of land located approximately 250
feet south of Warner Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street
as depicted in Exhibit 1 as Site A attached hereto, be
redesignated from Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional to
Medium-High Density residential .
The real property affected by this change of use is
described and depicted on Exhibit 1, attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the
day of 1992.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVE AS TO FORM:
City Clerk �% 92City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Director, Community Development
. 1
E XHIB IT
W 10 ACC'DI '""r uc.%�. DCT71r DDN I
w GSz'oN L ISSDJ�
17s M, -� 111L�0'
i e- sD•I�d 1 �
x ,
z
g 511. c
inIt
4 S '
I .
aV NET ACRES
I
VIQtd NET ACRES •
I MOO MOM ACRES
O
V _
O •
I 41' 4
SD'�DS9'
use s5
u u
krn- L lar�sl'
o _
— — _ J --- — I'I1��i .�� J. T w
L�1�Gl1IL.C1�C11i Ir 11vt,. I
T�-T. r.�E .n . �•..n r n �,�] c•rp,t� c r�fi F r
.J
ORDINANCE NO. v 7 l�
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE
BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE
FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM "RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE"
DESIGNATED "COMMUNITY FACILITIES - EDUCATION" TO
"MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-FLOODPLAIN" ON REAL
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 10 . 86 NET ACRES
EAST OF GOLDENWEST STREET APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET
SOUTH OF WARNER AVENUE (ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-17)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law,
the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach
City Council have held separate public hearings relative to
Zone Change No. 90-17 wherein both bodies have carefully
considered all information presented at said hearings, and
After due consideration of the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence
presented to the City Council, the City Council finds that such
zone change is proper, and consistent with the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows :
SECTION 1. The following described real property,
generally located east of Goldenwest Street approximately 250
feet south of Warner Avenue, is hereby changed from RA
(Residential Agriculture) designated CF-E (Community
Facilities-Education) to R3-FP2 (Medium-High Density
Residential-Floodplain) :
1 -i1
Y
THAT PORTION OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, PARTLY IN THE
RANCHO LA BOLSA CHICA AND PARTLY IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, IN
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINES OF WARNER
AVENUE AND GOLDEN WEST STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE
OF GOLDEN WEST STREET SOUTH 0°44 ' 30" EAST 1320 . 61 FEET TO THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE
NORTH 89026 ' 51" EAST 50 . 00 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
GOLDEN WEST STREET SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH
89026 ' 51" EAST 511. 56 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF NORMA LANE
AS SHOWN ON MAP OF TRACT NO. 4053 RECORDED IN BOOK 141, PAGES
16 AND 17 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
THENCE NORTH 0°33 ' 09" WEST 925 . 53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
89'26 ' 51" WEST 511, 56 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
GOLDEN WEST STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE SOUTH
0044 ' 30" EAST 925 . 53 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING AN AREA OF 10 .86 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
SECTION 2 . The Director of Community Development is hereby
directed to amend Section 9061, District Map 31 (Sectional District
Map 26-5-11) to reflect Zone Change No. 90-17 described in Section 1
hereof . Copies of said district maps, as amended hereby, are
available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk.
.�v 2
i
1 5
' • •
SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days
after adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on
the day of , 1992.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk P o: City Attorney y, � -�;"c'-
y-z�-hZ
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Director of Communit
y
Development
3 , � �
LOW DENSITY `0`
t-1 I j ; LOW DENSITY ;1 ' I RESIDENTAL -
' ORJ FA 14c1L• 00 _ �•�i• J41 RECREATION _
o _ RESIDENTAL OPENSPACE MEDIUM _ t •`
CF-R DENSITY _ ` ,. HIGH
-^ 1. RES. DENSITY
Tt i I =G_ ; � I., II RES.
C.A.-EL CS-J W 0 C ! C 0
3
�. _L.a _ o �: HIGH MEDIUM HIGH
MEDIUM �' F r — -DENSITY
` _ DENSITY DENSITY
DENSITY
.,-.... }.. i :: RES. _ RES.
RES. GEN. COMMERCIALRES.
- � - WARNER � •
---i�-��-;--- -- —� ------ __ ------ �.i�i.� GENERAL
HIGH DENSITY _ '_ .� CA. vINDUSTRIAL
RESIDENTIAL ; I MEDIUM
C F-E - - DENSITY
RES.
MFD. cy
PUBLIC, - I cFe� �
HIGH I QUASI-PUBLIC, LaA a� cy
i_.
CF-R - ;= I DENSITY INSTITUTIONAL I `
rill,
RES. ' SOLID
WASTE
CF-E
°
I I
FACILITY I„S'r„•.'. -:I: :I
CF ° -
_ LOW DENSITY _ s
RESIDENTAL- _ CF- C
"I
MEDIUM
D IIU M -
KSLA
I:F LOW ..II.. a - I' - - i HIGH -
GENERAL DENSITYDENSITY Ia aRESIDENTIAL ' - > v� : �1 ; INDUSTRIAL RES.111-!it t I , i r r-T \ t J111
RAI LII
rr7 I I I I I I I ! I I ...... f —� I I I ! I l n I I
(Proposed) TIM
General Plan Land Use Designation
le k _�J
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
_� Adak
- - - -
I• R I RI L_�
R I LR1 4 — I I I
'kELLA DR
RI ^oLL
FRI", RI II Nau��RI : RI RI�o- RI —� RS I , MI
t----
` �_— RI I CF-p I�\R3--�RS XlR3l aaC
o c c
r T-->n;�r----� R3� MI
R3 1 C2 "° "I C2 ,(-'= MI N
c R3
w oa C4N 2
�a•4 a R Yev
- WARNER
u.( R2
3 y R 3 0 C^ MN AVE
M I ru oe •
I
R2 �I CF-E
:I R3 R3 /I:... MI „MI
_ o
RI RI Z.013
RIe I i CF-R .
I —_1 . .v( R2
)�.( 3g•~ C(v.4
tl ttl CF-R�S
RI RI I IyMI
„ 1 laaaal ' I I .I
RI RI RI RI RI I' — D —��;, •I
II I�� • RI ,—� CF-E
rl
RI ..� - ; SETT. s M I F CF-E < w....<.o• RI RIRI
1�I I 'I I I l� t _C•RII RI RI RI RI R: ,[�,,�J ..,i RIRI i RI I 10 : /I l
I5 s I I I LJ" I 3
I .
I>•I I 1 •���< I R
RI I, RI RI — — \RI
R I — I tl RI CD RI CO ..--- R3
a I I cw•n. <w• _07 ?I �i..coa. — =•1 I JRI-C RI-CD .S, I /1' I-CO +J RI-CO
_ 1
� 5 __ .-1 ^I 11 s R3 aC
11 RI
(Proposed)
ZoningMap
p
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION
"Z'.
RI JRI)-,-R
u u
R I
0
WRI S RI _.m__JRl T RI W- RI M I
RI R R03 R3 Ll
R CF
I DR RI _JF_�3 m I
LL 11
PRI" OR i
C....E 0 c
em
R3
""It I—- R 2
R C 2 R3 R3 L. :9 !s
F, R 3
c 2 El mi
3 R 3 9 - :pKa
S4
'*I R3 " / R2
JR 3_
WARNER
R2 •
3 3 g R3YI C4nalFtR DR
so CA'" AME
-E (IJ
R2 ------- CF
R3 MI Wml
I V RI RI Rl op CF-R
R2
AJI. LA
RI CF-R
RI Rl ml
RI RI L_ R 1, RSIRIII�"c.«.
_1 m _9v
- I I • -E
DR R Rl RI CF
RI BETTY OR
m I m
RI CF-E
ml m I
RI
I RI
R I z
R
RI
RI SRI RI RI RI R! F-C
Rl RI VRI
RI L
(A
L RI CORD F,F R3
1 Rl
I'A.
cr
Rl RI I RI IRI RI- CD R3
RI
RI--
RI-CO 3 3
RK Rl_cD 1-co
RI RI R3 ER
c-
_�R I RI R
STAFF ALM. TERNATIVEJ.
HUNTIWTON BEACH
HUNUNGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION
sTA F f Huntington beach department f community development
REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MARCH 17, 1992
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 90-8/
ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-17/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-3
(CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 4 , 1992
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
General Plan Amendment No. 90-8, Zone Change No. 90-17 and
Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3 were continued from the
February 4 , 1992 Planning Commission meeting to give the applicant
the opportunity to meet with Planning staff to further discuss land
use alternatives on the subject property.
Since the meeting, the applicant has submitted a modified request to
redesignate 11. 93 gross acres for Medium-High Density Residential
(R3) purposes . The revised request excludes the entire commercial
component and reduces the residential area from 13 .26 gross acres to
11. 93 gross acres . Although the modified request would reduce
several of the environmental impacts addressed in Environmental
Impact Report No. 90-3, due to the deletion of the commercial
component, staff remains concerned over the loss of property
designated Public, Quasi-Public Institutional . As discussed and
analyzed in the Planning Commission staff report dated January 7,
1992, staff does not support the removal of public uses for purposes
of market rate apartment units .
AIRk
A-F M-23C
rnA RI IVI lol �RI R I R I _3 C., _J I_— u u o- I
I
OR INC_.n JR. f 1 .YO�n OR _•wC_•_'c���
;RI 0 RI I RI `—JRI i RI m RI RI Q RI i� _ R3 �; UR3
MI �I I ,a� CF RR3k —
00. ; i
RI R3
cl-i Ks
ml
n
C 2 R 2
R3 - ^1 C 2 .- R 3 f R3 M I xA w ' R 3
3 R 3 lc�st.INg R3 -O,R < N�
R3 ti I a3 �"}Q o R2 ¢
WARNER •
3 o R 2 ,
g ��R _ C 4 I M I FIR orc
� >+o f i •w I _ � �C41N AVE I f
f Rz R3 �.._ Cj
ACF-.E- . Ir w
I,::::ea:,,;: MI W MI
RI
RI Jo' CF-R
I RI
..�.nt °, �, w
R2
RI - �• J t
CCO+R nvE.CF-R ,F /
J (FARM I� RI
Iw,• a /'o D '�
RI RI RI ;I RI RI I CF-E
RI RI RI M I`
oR. RI ,�d c. -E 1- eErry oR M t A�r_.v
RI CF �•.,1° W M I M I
o,.a.w RI RI 3 RI
R I I 3 z MIR
RI 'RIJIRIRI R. F-C
o.V RI R I R I I o C /ICJ,
J ( R I R I . FORD OR /
_ s.0a,x °� RI ,a:.r to IEF� I I R3 V to to
RI 1 t I RI RI RI S —� RI RI- CD RI-CD R3 _ C •
R I y MMR00 pl,
RI g ., -- -- --
R co,. ;� I-Co 'RI-CD°� ?,I 4 ,,,o �� RI-C RI CD ¢ ��
I RI RI S RI , 3 i R3 R
_PI
Vicinity Map e
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: March 17, 1992
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-8/ZONE CHANGE NO.
90-17/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-3
(CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 4, 1992 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING)
APPLICANT: Andover/Chandler Companies, P.O. Box 2009, Burbank,
CA 91507
PROPERTY
OWNER: Huntington Beach Union High School District, 10251
Yorktown Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92646
REOUEST: To redesignate 11. 93 gross acres of property from
Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional to Medium-High
Density Residential and rezone it from Residential
Agriculture designated Community Facilities-
Education to R3-FP2 (Medium-High Density
Residential-Floodplain) .
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Warner Avenue and Goldenwest
Street (Wintersburg School Site)
DATE
ACCEPTED: August 21, 1990
ZONE: Residential Agriculture designated Community
Facilities- Education
GENERAL PLAN: Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional
EXISTING USE: Wintersburg School Site/Oceanview High School
Athletic Fields
ACREAGE: 11. 93 gross
1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Motion to :
A. "Approve as adequate Draft Environmental Impact Report No . 90-3
by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1457 and forward
to the City Council for their adoption and certification; and"
B. "Deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 by adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1458 with recommendation for denial
and forward it to the City Council with a recommendation of
denial; " and
C. "Deny Zone Change No. 90-17 with findings . "
• •
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
General Plan Amendment No. 90-8, Zone Change No. 90-17 and
Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3 were continued by the Planning
Commission on February 4, 1992, to give the applicant the
opportunity to meet with planning staff to discuss land use
alternatives on the subject property. The applicant has submitted a
modified proposal deleting the commercial component and reducing the
Medium-High Density request to 11.93 gross acres .
3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
North of Subiect Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial
ZONE: C2 (Community Business District)
LAND USE: Retail Commercial Center
East of Subject Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional
ZONE: RA (Residential Agriculture/Community
Facilities-Education)
LAND USE: Oceanview High School
South of Subject Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONE: R1-FP2 (Low Density
Residential-Floodplain)
LAND USE: Single Family Residences
West of Subject Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial/High Density
Residential
ZONE: C4-FP2 (Highway Commercial-Floodplain)
R3-FP2 (Medium-High Density
Residential-Floodplain)
LAND USE: Retail Commercial Center/Apartment
Complex
4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Draft
Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3 (DEIR No. 90-3) was prepared to
analyze the potential impacts of the project. The request procedure
that followed is outlined below:
September 26, 1990 Staff conducted an initial study and
determined that an EIR would be necessary for
the project.
Staff Report 3/17/92 -2- (2570d)
March 12, 1991 A Notice of Preparation was filed with the
State Clearinghouse to notify the public of
the intent to prepare an EIR.
June 25, 1991 Notice of Completion filed with the State
Clearinghouse. The Draft EIR was available
for public review and comments for forty-five
days (comment period: June 26, 1991 to. August
9, 1991)
In addition to the proposed project, DEIR No. 90-3 analyzed five (5)
alternative land use designations for the site. These alternatives
consist of the following:
1. A "no project" alternative, as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act, which considers the project site in
its existing state (school offices and athletic facilities) .
2. Development at a lesser intensity (Medium-High Density
Residential) - 260 multi-family units, 22,000 square feet of
retail space, 20, 000 square foot school district office.
3 . Development of single family patio homes (R2-PD) ; 240 units at
15 units per net acre.
4 . Development of General Commercial on the entire site - 140, 000
square feet of retail uses .
5 . Development at an alternate location (Meadowlark Specific
Plan) . At the time the project was submitted, there were a
series of court cases pending which would have required
alternate location analysis . These cases have since been
overturned by the California Supreme Court .
Staff received five (5) letters during the review period which have
been addressed in the EIR.
Prior to any action on General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 and Zone
Change No. 90-17, EIR No. 90-3 must be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission based on the findings outlined.
5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable.
6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable.
7. 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable.
8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable.
9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
Following the action taken by the Planning Commission on January 7,
1992, staff scheduled a meeting with the applicant to discuss
possible alternatives for the project site. On January 14 , 1992,
representatives from the Andover/Chandler Co. , Huntington Beach
Unified High School District Board of Trustees and District staff
Staff Report 3/17/92 -3- (2570d)
met with three Planning Commissioners and Planning staff to review
potential land uses for the project site.
APPLICANT' S MODIFIED REOUEST:
Since the January 14, 1992 meeting, the applicant has submitted a
modified proposal to redesignate 11. 93 gross acres (10 . 86 net) to
Medium-High Density Residential (R3) with no affordable housing or
commercial component. Approval of the applicant ' s request would
allow construction of up to 296 apartment units or 291 condominium
units on the property while retaining the football field and track
at the corner of Goldenwest and Warner (see Attachment No. 2) . The
proposal to construct the school district office and commercial node
has also been withdrawn from the request.
However, staff does not support the loss of public open space for
the purpose of developing market-rate apartment units . The issues
identified and discussed in the Planning Commission staff report
dated January 7, 1992 (Attachment No. 4) remain a concern to staff .
These include the loss of a public resource, loss of open space and
recreational facilities, the inability to expand or establish school
facilities, and incompatibility with the single family residential
development to the south.
Staff does not support the request as the devlopment would replace a
valuable public resource with private residential units . The
educational and recreational benefits presently available to the
public would be lost indefinitely by rezoning the property. Staff
believes the uncertainty in the City' s demographic projections and
future student population are reasons to preserve the Quasi-Public,
Institutional designation on the property. Once public land is
lost, it is seldom re-aquired. It is entirely possible that the
land use patterns will change in such a manner as to overburden both
our capability for expanded school facilities as well as
recreational opportunities . Staff believes that the proposed use is
not in the best interest of the community and that any development
should include a public benefit in one form or another.
Both the City staff and the environmental impact report consultant
concur that the environmental impacts addressed and analyzed in
Environmental Impact Report no. 90-3 will proportionately be reduced
with the development of the applicant ' s modified proposal . Traffic,
air quality, public services and utilities would all have reduced
impacts to levels of insignificance. Based upon the revised project
and clarification by the City of Huntington Beach Water Department,
the three (3) impacts identified below are no longer considered
unavoidable significant impacts .
Cumulative and Project Air Quality Impacts
Deletion of the commercial component of the original project will
result in a 60-70 percent reduction in projected emissions and will
reduce the project ' s emissions below SCAQMD air pollutant threshold
criteria. The amended project will also reduce the projects '
contribution to cumulative air quality impacts to a level which can
be mitigated to a level of insignificance by measures identified in
Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3 .
Staff Report 3/17/92 -4- (2570d)
Project Water Impacts
Based upon information provided by the City of Huntington Beach
Water Operations Manager at the November 5, 1991 Planning Commission
Study Session, it was determined that the original projects '
contribution to water impacts could be mitigated by payment of
fairshare fees toward water system improvements identified in the
City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan.
The revised project will result in a 7-8 percent reduction in
projected water usage as compared to the original project. Water
impacts resulting from the revised project can also be mitigated
through payment of fairshare fees .
Project Construction Noise Impacts will be reduced by the lower
intensity development proposed by the revised project but will
remain an unavoidable significant adverse impact as identified in
Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3 .
Staff Alternatives
Staff has provided two alternatives, both of which include an
affordable housing component (see Section 12 .0 Alternative Action) .
One alternative involves the redesignation of 8 acres to Medium
Density Residential (R2) with a minimum of 20% of the units as
affordable. It would allow development of up to 131 multi-family
units on the parcel which the Wintersburg School buildings currently
exist . This alternative would retain all recreational facilities on
the Oceanview High School site.
The second alternative involves the redesignation of 11. 93 gross
acres to Medium-High Density Residential (R3) with the requirement
that all units constructed over and above 131 units be designated
affordable. As discussed above, 131 units would be allowed to be
constructed under an R2 zoning. This alternative would require the
developer to designate all units built over 131 as affordable with a
maximum total of 295 units .
10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following
actions :
A. Adopt and certify as adequate Environmental Impact Report No.
90-3 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1457 and
forward it to the City Council for their adoption and
certification;
B. Deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 by adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1458 and forward it to the City
Council with a recommendation of denial; and
C. Deny Zone Change No. 90-17 with findings .
Staff Report 3/17/92 -5- (2570d)
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONE CHANGE NO, 90-17:
1. The Planning Commission finds that Zone Change No. 90-17 is
inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use, Open
Space/Conservation and Recreation Element of the General Plan,
and thus limits the area ' s ability to meet future demands for
school expansion and recreational open space.
2 . The Planning Commission finds that a change in zoning from
Residential Agriculture to Medium-High Density Residential will
prohibit future expansion of the recreational facilities,
eliminate recreational open space and eliminate an existing view
corridor due to the future development of residential
buildings . The proposed zone change will also limit the future
expansion of the existing school facility or construction of a
new school.
3 . The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation and
zoning of Medium-High Density Residential is too intense for the
project site and is not compatible with the low density
residential located to the south.
4 . The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation and
zoning of Medium-High Density Residential will increase traffic
during peak traffic hours in the project vicinity which would
adversely affect the general welfare of the surrounding
community.
5 . The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation and
zoning of Medium-High Density Residential will negatively impact
existing sewer capacities in the project vicinity until such
time that the Slater Pump Station is expanded.
12 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Planning Commission may take one of the following alternative
actions :
Alternative Action No. 1:
A. Recommend that the City Council adopt and certify as adequate
EIR No . 90-3 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1457;
B. Recommend to the City Council approval of GPA No. 90-8 for
Medium Density Residential (15 units per gross acre) on 8 acres
with a 20% affordable component; and
C. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change No. 90-17
for Medium Density Residential (R2) zoning with findings .
Alternative Action No . 2 (Applicant ' s Request) :
A. Recommend that the City Council adopt and certify as adequate
EIR No. 90-3 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1457;
Staff Report 3/17/92 -6- (2570d)
B. Recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment
No . 90-8 for Medium-High Density Residential (25 units per gross
acre) on 11. 93 gross acres by adopting Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1459 with Statement of Overriding Considerations;
and
C. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change No. 90-17
with findings .
Alternative Action No. 3 :
A. Recommend that the City Council adopt and certify as adequate
EIR No. 90-3 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1457;
B. Recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment
No. 90-8 for Medium-High Density Residential (25 units per gross
acre) on 11.93 gross acres with a minimum affordable unit
requirement being the difference between the number of approved
units with 131 units.
C. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change No. 90-17
with findings .
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Vicinity Map
2 . Proposed Land Use Designation Map (Applicant ' s Modified Request)
3 . Proposed Zoning Map
4 . Planning Commission staff report dated January 7, 1992
HS:WC: ss
Staff Report 3/17/92 -7- (2570d)
0
L RI
F<�ILL.A OR
"R lj'
RI R I
F LR�ljl
OR 'VELLA OR 0.
Rl L, a-FR 11
;RI Rl �11 �RI <I'
I
OR -R CF
-.1.- . m I
Rl ---- OR ----
R} i,R3
RI
C. 3
0 C r C
R 2
R3 - -P'. !!
R C2
R3SUH C
C 2 �R3, M I ----------- R3
s - 4, I
1.3� R3 R3 4 I aI R2
WARNE R
R2 •R 3 C4 I M 11 FIR OR
AIN AVE
CF-E
(r it
R2
R 3 MI Iml
RI LF L3 RI' CF-R AVRl ....... op� r. R2
J5
RI CF-R RI
(MRK) R11 !
I 1 .7
FC F
RI RI RI RI
F-1
RI RI CF-E
DR Rl
RI "LJ t L2 BET',
DR m I-m
Rl CF-E c-, 113: Rl m I m I
RI
iz
Rl
RI
R I R I 1"R UIR I R, _ �R' -,- QF-CC. 7- ,, .I RI 0Rl RIIDCF-R( R31jRl Al 1 6�
Lis RI
RI CD
R I RI- CD
RI �.IR Nlmw)o OR A
R 11 RI 0:
3
R
RI-C RI-CD 9[R3�L�
R I J i ___Rl i R3 X=R
RI RI RI
Vicinity Map e
HUNTINCTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION
—.—ems;--I i�l _ - LOW DENSITY
J*7
F4 f ! LOW DENSITY i ! rDE
RESIDENTAL
�MELLA DD , ':olADa' RECREATION
RESIDENTAL - =1n ! ! OPENSPACEIUM °CF-R SITY =c�`�� HIGH
DR
RES. DENSITY
777
_J, RES.
CHANNEL C°-J W D C f C.D
3
Z I i
I HIGH
MEDIUM J o ' '� _::::: :::: HIGH MEDIUM
DENSITY DENSITY
DENSITY �'` RES. DENSITY
__-T,�.... RES.
RES. GEN. COMMERCIAL = - RES.
! !! I ! ! i
._..... ._.. .. ...... J WARNER
i IT ! I JI •
_I GENERAL F(R DR
_HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL i CAN INDUSTRIAL
! ` j MEDIUM -
C F-E — - -= DENSITY
RES.
r" HIGH
i PUBLIC I JCF-
(PJLR�
`°`"""° _ "°°" ! °" HIGH I QUASI-PUBLIC CEDAR AVE -
DENSITY _ 1�= CF-R ! RES. INSTITUTIONAL - I SOLID
F �,"" <,
„4.,
r-
5 °n
• _ ! o o - - — --
IWASTE
! I OR. BETTY DR� � �
PAL F
LOW DENSITY
IULLLL� RESIDENTAL ,l _ CF- C
—.i. _
FORD Da 3
I I MEDIUM
y LOW u.uTTA" •DENSITY J ! ' rt !-T 1- -_� HIGH
- _ - sR(� ,"° GENERAL DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL g
°R 'S a g - ^° & of; �1= 7 INDUSTRIAL
I ! ,�` r7 -I _ :.Is ! -- (rFr RES.
'BAY LN V�L.lL
SLA
(Proposed)
General Plan Land Use Designation
g �
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION
0/�
R 1
R I R t
ELLA DR
DR Jlr _` l 54 ',�V
4YDIA
R R I
.1 R I
Rl RI
113 DR R 1__ CF-R R3 ;IR3
Rl - ml
jRl k [R 17
FD.
0 C I—C
-R I l ,j
ml
F c I -
C 2 L R3 R2
FRII
R
R3 R,3 R3
R3 d .00
SUN
C 2
DR " A
i ,., I C4� I iL li,-.
R3 0
R3 0
-.4
WARNER
1620-4L
3 R 3 mil R2
l FIR opt
4
++•Jt= r=pf� .i0 n 1 CAIN AVE
CF-E
III
R2 cr a
c"
R3 ml ml
R3
RI UL-S RI C F—ARAV
R R2
rD'. AVE
RI ml
RI(l RI
RIRI CF-R�o
RI RI 11 1 IR-11 F, [P?2
DR RI Rl CF-E
RI uJ aETTY f=�Dl m I-m R
F-E m I
�nN.x
R 11 j.. RI Rl 10
�sg
Rl
z
Rl RI R I RI RI RI Rl R!:-*
j R I Rl Rl 0
El
�Rl RI R 1 11
RI RI
10 OR 3
t JR1 Rl CF R3
LIR 3 A
RI. CD RI CO R3
RI RI R,
RI —Rm ..... ..... ......%—
R I RI-C Rl-CD 0 CD 4'l-CD 3 A
J! 3 8
R
X=R R 33 j [ f _ K
A-I�7--
R I RI R-—I —
(Proposed)
Zoning Map
HUNTINGTON REACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
sTA f f Huntington beach departmen•f community development
'
REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: January 7, 1992
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-8/ZONE CHANGE
NO. 90-17/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-3
APPLICANT: Andover/Chandler Companies, P.O. Box 2009, Burbank,
CA 91507
PROPERTY
OWNER: Huntington Beach Union High School District, 10251
Yorktown Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92646
REQUEST: To redesignate 18 .34 gross acres of property from
Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional to Medium-High
Density Residential (13 .26 gross acres) and General
Commercial (5.08 gross acres) and rezone from
Residential Agriculture/Community
Facilities-Education to R3-FP2 (Medium-High Density
Residential-Floodplain) and C2-FP2 (Community
Business-Floodplain) .
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Warner Avenue and Goldenwest
Street (Wintersburg School Site)
DATE
ACCEPTED: August 21, 1990
ZONE: Residential Agriculture designated Community
Facilities- Education
GENERAL PLAN: Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional
EXISTING USE: Wintersburg School Site/Oceanview High School
Athletic Fields
ACREAGE: 18 .34 gross/15.85 net
1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Motion to:
A. "Approve as adequate Draft Environmental Impact Report No.
90-3 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1457 and
forward it to the City Council for their adoption and
certification; "
Al2tk sow
A-F M-23C
• •
B. "Deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 by adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1458 with recommedation for denial
and forward it to the City Council with a recommendation of
denial; " and
C. "Deny Zone Change No. 90-17 with findings . "
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 is a request to redesignate an 18.34
gross acre site, located south of Warner Avenue, east of Goldenwest
Street, from a General Plan land use designation of Public,
Quasi-Public, Institutional to Medium-High Density Residential on
13 .26 gross acres, and to General Commercial on the remaining 5. 08
gross acres .
Zone Change No. 90-17 is a concurrent request to rezone 15 . 85 net
acres from RA (Residential Agriculture) to R3-FP2 (Medium-High
Density Residential-Floodplain) on 12 . 10 net acres, and C2-FP2
(Community Business-Floodplain) on 3 . 75 net acres .
Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3 (DEIR No. 90-3) prepared
by Cotton Beland and Associates, consultant to the City of
Huntington Beach discusses potential impacts of the general plan
amendment and zone change. These impacts include light and glare,
land use compatibility, transportation/circulation, public service
and utilities, air quality, noise, growth management and
archeological resources .
The EIR has indicated that most of the adverse impacts resulting
from the project could be adequately mitigated to levels of
insignificance. The EIR identifies air quality as an adverse impact
that cannot be mitigated.
These entitlements are submitted for review by the Planning
Commission for a recommendation which then will be forwarded to the
City Council for final action.
Although the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change do not
constitute any new development, it will allow for residential and
commercial development of the site. If approved, the amendment
request will allow for development of a maximum 333 apartment units
or 325 condominium units on the residential portion of the site and
development of 3 . 75 acres of commercial . No development plans have
been submitted at this time; however, the applicant has submitted
conceptual plans depicting 260 apartment units, a 20, 000 square foot
school district office and 22,000 square feet of retail commercial .
This report is designed to investigate the concerns associated with
the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan
and to identify whether such an action is compatible with
surrounding land uses and in conformance with the goals and policies
of the General Plan.
Staff Report - 12/3/91 -2- (1538d)
i
3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
North of Subiect Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial
ZONE: C2 (Community Business District)
LAND USE: Retail Commercial Center
East of Subiect Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional
ZONE: RA (Residential Agriculture/Community
Facilities-Education)
LAND USE: Oceanview High School
South of Subject Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONE: R1-FP2 (Low Density
Residential-Floodplain)
LAND USE: Single Family Residences
West of Subject Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial/High Density
Residential
ZONE: C4-FP2 (Highway Commercial-Floodplain)
R3-FP2 (Medium-High Density
Residential-Floodplain)
LAND USE: Retail Commercial Center/Apartment
Complex
4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Draft
Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3 (DEIR No. 90-3) was prepared to
analyze the potential impacts of the project. The requesite
procedure that followed is outlined below:
September 26, 1990 Staff conducted an initial study and
determined that an EIR would be necessary for
the project.
March 12, 1991 A Notice of Preparation was filed with the
State Clearinghouse to notify the public of
the intent to prepare an EIR.
June 25, 1991 Notice of Completion filed with the State
Clearinghouse. The Draft EIR was available
for public review and comments for forty-five
days (comment period: June 26, 1991 to August
9, 1991)
Staff Report - 12/3/91 -3- (1538d)
In addition to the proposed project, DEIR No. 90-3 analyzed five (5)
alternative land use designations for the site. These alternatives
consist of the following:
1. A "no project" alternative, as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act, which considers the project site in
its existing state (school offices and athletic facilities) .
2 . Development at a lesser intensity (Medium-High Density
Residential) - 260 multi-family units, 22, 000 square feet of
retail space, 20, 000 square foot school district office.
3 . Development of single family patio homes (R2-PD) ; 240 units at
15 units per net acre.
4 . Development of General Commercial on the entire site - 140,000
square feet of retail uses .
5 . Development at an alternate location (Meadowlark Specific
Plan) .At the time the project was submitted, there were a
series of court cases pending which would have required
alternate location analysis . These cases have since been
overturned by the California Supreme Court.
Staff received five (5) letters during the review period which have
been addressed in the EIR.
Prior to any action on General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 and Zone
Change No. 90-17, EIR No. 90-3 must be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission based on the findings outlined.
5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable.
6. 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable.
7. 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable.
8 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Not applicable.
9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
The proposed project includes development on approximately 16 .0
acres of property designated for Community Educational Facilities .
Existing uses include the Wintersburg High School and portable
trailers with related parking on approximately 7 acres adjacent to
Goldenwest Street . The remaining 9 acres near the intersection of
Goldenwest and Warner are occupied by the Ocean View High School
athletic fields.
Staff Report - 12/3/91 -4- (1538d)
The primary issue raised by this project is how the City should plan
for the recycling or development of its land designated as public
space. All other issues are subordinate to this basic question.
Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional land is an extremely important
asset to the community, and should be analyzed from a City-wide
perspective. The decision which the Planning Commission should
consider is whether or not public uses are of greater value to the
City on the site in the longer term than residential or commercial.
It may also be that there are other uses of the property from which
the entire public can benefit if the property is developed. This
possibility will be explored in Section 10 . 0 Alternatives .
When analyzing general plan amendments, it is the staff ' s
responsibility to address issues relative to long term impacts (more
than 20 years) . There is not much emperical data available today
that allows for logical extrapolition so far into the future. We do
know, however, that Holly-Seacliff, Bolsa-Chica, Meadowlark, NESI,
Waterfront and Downtown Development will generate about 14, 000 new
units. What we do not know is the demographics of how property will
recycle. Because of this uncertainty, staff has the added concern
as to educational demands which will be placed on the City' s school
system. It is entirely possible that the demographics, and land use
patterns will change in such a manner as to overburden both our
capability for expanded school facilities as well as recreation
opportunities in the next 20 years .
It is ap
parent that the site has been a very significant and
substantial public resource for the past 20 years . It is centrally
located in the community and is comparable in size and function to a
community park. In fact, the City in planning the size, location
and uses of its park facilities has historically taken into account
the recreation resources provided by school sites . Currently, the
facility is used extensively by a number of groups for soccer, track
and field, basketball, softball and baseball .
The school district has found that it is feasible to relocate all
athletic functions into the remainder of its property, closer to the
Ocean View High School. A new configuration of athletic fields
allows all fields to be placed within a smaller area. Such
reconfiguration while continuing to allow the same uses, will cause
a compaction of those uses and a reduction of open area.
The proposed compaction of uses could be detrimental to those
individuals and groups who use the field space for active and
passive recreation. Adult education classes and guidance counseling
will also be relocated to Edison High School . Ultimately,
elimination of public land will place a burden on the City' s other
facilities .
The recycling of school facilities for development is a recent trend
in the City which needs a great deal more attention. The Department
of Community Services has become increasingly concerned with the
incremental elimination of recreation opportunities . There are
Staff Report - 12/3/91 -5- (1538d)
numerous school sites throughout the City which are currently
closed. Some of these schools along with their recreation
facilities are being proposed for development in the immediate
future. Public land once lost can seldom be re-acquired. The
escalation of land costs in the City during the 1980s has made it
financially prohibitive to re-create a public amenity of this size.
There are two additional land related concerns raised by this
proposal . The first involves the over saturation of retail space at
the Goldenwest/Warner Avenue intersection. There are currently
several major vacancies on the northwest corner of this
intersection. The proposal presented offers what appears to be
marginal retail space. The second concern is the compability
problem created by placing Medium-High Density Residential directly
adjacent to single family homes. As currently anticipated, the
apartments would be within 45 feet of the single family homes, with
driveways approximately 220 feet apart.
KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
Traffic/Circulation
EIR No. 90-3 has indicated that intersections in the project
vicinity are operating at Levels of Service (LOS) A-D, and can
adequately accommodate the additional trips generated by the
proposed development, with the exception of the intersection of
Beach and Warner. The analysis identified three (3) intersections
that will experience changes in levels of service during AM or PM
peak hours . These intersections include:
Level of Service
Existing Existing + Project
AM PM AM PM
Beach/Warner (C) (D) (D) (E)
Goldenwest/Warner (B) (D) (C) (D)
Gothard/Warner (C) (D) (D) (D)
The project will impact all three intersections during the AM peak
hour to the point that levels of services will change. In addition,
the project will also impact the intersection of Beach Boulevard and
Warner Avenue during the PM peak hour reducing the level of service
(D to E) . This change is considered to be a significant impact.
EIR No. 90-3 identifies the inclusion of the Superstreet
improvements as a migitation measure to reduce the impact to levels
of insignificance. In addition to the demand on the major
intersections, the EIR discussed vehicle trips generated by the
proposed project. The project will generate approximately 8,221
additional trips on an average weekday, most of which will be
oriented to/from either Beach Boulevard or the San Diego Freeway
(I-405) . EIR No. 90-3 identifies several mitigation measures,
including the additional lanes provided by the Superstreet project
that will reduce the traffic/circulation to a level of
insignificance.
Staff Report - 12/3/91 -6- (1538d)
Noise
Noise in the vicinity is caused primarily by traffic on Goldenwest
Street and Warner Avenue. The General Plan indicates that noise
levels in the vicinity are currently at a level of 65 dB CNEL. The
project would allow for development of residential units within a 65
CNEL contour.
Apart from the noise generated by traffic, the project' s residences
will also be affected by noise from the proposed commercial uses and
from the athletic fields of the Ocean View High School. Noise from
customers and employee vehicles, delivery trucks, and normal
business operations of the project shops and restaurants will have
an adverse effect on the residences.
Air Quality
Based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
threshold criteria, development of the project will result in two
major types of air quality impacts . These include vehicle emissions
for heavy equipment and airborne dust resulting from building
activities during construction, and vehicle emissions resulting from
vehicles travelling to and from the project site upon completion of
the proposed project. The project will generate additional
emissions exceeding the threshold criteria for carbon monoxide,
reactive organic gases, and oxides of nitrogen. Therefore the
project results in an impact that cannot be mitigated.
Public Services
Water
The project site currently consumes approximately 9,300 gallons of
water per day in operating the school facilities and maintaining the
athletic fields . Approximately 70% of the water consumed by the
City is pumped from the City' s own wells and 30% of the water is
purchased from the Metropolitan Water District.
The Water Division has indicated that further residential
development in the project vicinity may result in peak hour
deficiencies . The City is actively searching for additional
long-term water supplies and is currently negotiating with the
County for low-cost financing for construction of three new wells.
The Water Division estimates that it will take approximately three
years for the wells to become operational . While the wells will
help alleviate the existing water shortage, additional new water
sources will be needed to adequately support new development.
The proposed project is expected to consume approximately 73,000
gallons of water daily (based on daily factors of 223 gallons per
multi-family unit, and 100 gallons per 1,000 square feet of
commercial uses) , which will result in the consumption of an
additional 64, 000 gallons of water.
Staff Report - 12/3/91 -7- (1538d)
Wastewater and Sewage
Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3 identifies the proposed project
as having an adverse impact upon the sewer capacities of the area.
Collection and treatment of wastewater for the project is handled by
Orange County Sanitation Treatment Plan No. 2, located at Brookhurst
Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The plant is currently operating
near capacity and treats about 140 million gallons of wastewater
daily. OCSD has plans to increase secondary treatment capacity Elt
Plant No. 2 in the future.
The project site presently generates approximately 5,000 gallons of
wastewater daily. It is serviced by the Slater Pump Station which
is presently operating at Capacity. The proposed project will
generate approximately 55, 000 gallons of wastewater daily (based on
daily factors of 165 gallons per multi-family unit, and 95 gallons
per 1, 000 square feet of commercial uses) . The project impact on
the Slater Pump Station is considered significant because the
station does not have the capacity to receive higher flows than
those which will be generated by existing land use plans . The
County plans to construct a substation to increase capacity and
accommodate new development. No development would be permitted prior
to the expansion of the Slater Pump Station.
Aesthetics
The project site is surrounded by single-family homes, apartment
buildings and shopping centers occupying three corners at the
intersection of Goldenwest and Warner. The surrounding structures
are one to two stories tall and have large surface parking areas .
There are no ocean or mountain view corridors obstructed by the
proposed project. However, the proposed project will replace
approximately 9 acres of open space located on the corner of the
site with buildings of 1-2 stories. The development will obstruct
the view of green space presently enjoyed by vehicle and pedestrian
traffic passing by the site. Retention of the open space will avoid
the intensification of land uses on this corner and continue to
serve the recreational and open space needs of the community.
The five (5) alternatives addressed in the DEIR identify different
impacts on surrounding land uses. The following is a brief
comparison of impacts resulting from the development of the
alternatives and the proposed project:
Alternative No 1 - No Project Alternative
The "no project" alternative would result in retaining the
Wintersburg School and existing athletic fields . No additional
environmental impacts are expected to occur.
Staff Report - 12/3/91 -8- (1538d)
Alternative No 2 - Development at a Lesser Intensity (260 apartment
units. 20. 000 square feet school district office, 22. 000 square feet
of retail
The development of Alternative No. 2 (less intense project) would
proportionately reduce the environmental impacts . Traffic, air
quality, noise, public services and utilities would all have reduced
impacts.
Alternative No. 3 - Development of an Alternative Location in
Meadowlark Specific Plan
The environmental impacts resulting from the development of the
project at an alternate location (Meadowlark) would eliminate all
impacts from the project site. In effect, impacts would be
relocated to the immediate area adjacent to Meadowlark.
Alternative No. 4 - Development of Single Family Patio Homes (R2-15
units per acre)
Development of 240 Single Family Patio Homes (Alternative No. 4)
would generate approximately 653 persons. Population based
environmental impacts, including air quality, traffic, utilities and
public services would, therefore, be lesser than the proposed
project. Development of Alternative No. 4 would be compatible with
the existing single family houses located south of the project site.
Alternative No. 5 - Development of General Commercial on Entire Site
(approximately 140, 000 square feet of retail space)
The development of a commercial center on the entire site would
generate greater environmental impacts than the project on air
quality and traffic, and lesser impacts on population, utilities and
public services (Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3) . Development
of Alternative No. 5 would eliminate the provision of affordable
housing, and possibly create land use conflicts among the shopping
center, Ocean View High School and single family residence south of
the site.
Summary:
The staff has identified several negative impacts by redisgnating
the property from Public, Quasi-Public Institutional to Medium High
Residential and Commercial . These impacts include; permanent loss
of public space, loss of view corridor, reduction and completion of
recreation facilities, increased traffic and unmitigatable air
quality impacts . The development of approximately nine (9) acres of
open space will eliminate any future opportunity to develop
additional recreational or school facilities . This inability to
expand or establish a new school, or provide additional recreational
facilities will adversely affect the surrounding community in the
event of an influx of school-aged children, or sports organizations .
Staff Report - 12/3/91 -9- (1538d)
As observed in the 1990 census, there are many uncertainties in
population projections . However, the Orange County Demographics
Unit projects an increase in population to over 230,000 in the year
2020 . Over a period of 15-25 years, there may be a high demand for
school property or recreational space to serve the increase in
population.
The development of multi-family residential units will also impact
the existing single family residences to the south. The development
of the proposed project adjacent to low density residential
development would result in non-compatible uses due to the density
and intensity of the project. Furthermore, the approval of the
commercial component would further saturate the retail uses on the
corner of Goldenwest and Warner.
In addition, the existing view corridor will be replaced with,
tennis courts, two story structures and surface parking lots.
Currently, this visual relief is enjoyed by many motorists and
pedestrians traveling on Goldenwest and Warner.
10 . 0 ALTERNATIVES:
The basic concern discussed in this report centers around the loss
of public space to a use which does not necessarily benefit the
public. The staff would consider supporting a project which had a
quantitive public benefit. One example might be a residential
project which was 100% affordable to families of low and moderate
income for the life of the project. This would go a long way toward
meeting the City' s housing goals for producing a diversity of
housing types . It is also a trade off of one public benefit for
another public benefit.
A second alternative the Planning Commission may wish to consider
would allow for the change in the general plan land use designation
to a Medium Density Residential for a part of the site that is
currently housing temporary classroom facilities . This could
address four areas of concern raised by the staff :
A) It would allow the school district to maintain a majority of
the property for public recreational use.
B) A lower density would reduce the impact to the adjacent single
family.
C) Provide some additional affordable housing units to the
community.
D) Developing that portion of the site which already houses
classrooms would maintain the view corridor that exists on the
southeast corner of Goldenwest and Warner.
Staff Report - 12/3/91 -10- (1538d)
• •
i
11. 0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following
actions :
A. Adopt and certify as adequate Environmental Impact Report No.
90-3 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1457 and
forward it to the City Council for their adoption and
certification;
B. Deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 by adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1458 and forward it to the City
Council with a recommendation of denial; and
C. Deny Zone Change No. 90-17 with findings .
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONE CHANGE NO, 90-17:
1. The Planning Commission finds that Zone Change No. 90-17 is
inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use, Open
Space/Conservation and Recreation Element of the General Plan,
and thus limits the area ' s ability to meet future demands for
school expansion and recreational open space.
2. The Planning Commission finds that a change in zoning from
Residential Agriculture to Medium-High Density Residential and
General Commercial will prohibit future expansion of the
recreational facilities, eliminate recreational open space and
eliminate an existing view corridor due to the future
development of residential and commercial buildings . The
proposed zone change will also limit the future expansion of the
existing school facility or construction of a new school .
3 . The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation and
zoning of Medium-High Density Residential is too intense for the
project site and is not compatible with the low density
residential located to the south.
4 . The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation and
zoning of Medium-High Density Residential and General Commercial
will increase traffic during peak traffic hours in the project
vicinity which would adversely affect the general welfare of the
surrounding community.
5 . The Planning Commission finds that the land use designation and
zoning of Medium-High Density Residential will negatively impact
existing sewer capacities in the project vicinity until such
time that the Slater Pump Station is expanded.
12 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Planning Commission may take one of the following alternative
actions :
Staff Report - 12/3/91 -11- (1538d)
i
Alternative Action 1:
A. Recommend that the City Council adopt and certify as adequate
EIR No. 90-3 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1457;
B. Recommend to the City Council approval of GPA No. 90-8 for
Medium Density Residential (15 units per gross acre) on 7 acres;
and
C. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change No. 90-17
for Medium Density Residential (R2) zoning with findings.
Alternative Action 2 (Applicant' s Request) :
A. Recommend that the City Council adopt and certify as adequate
EIR No. 90-3 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1457;
B. Recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment
No. 90-8 for Medium-High Density Residential (25 units per gross
acre) on 13 .26 acres and General Commercial on 5 . 08 acres by
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1459 with Statement
of Overriding Considerations; and
C. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change No. 90-17
with findings.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Vicinity Map
2. Existing General Plan Land Use Map
3 . Proposed General Plan Land Use Map
4 . Existing Zoning Map
5 . Proposed Zoning Map
6 . Draft EIR No. 90-3 (previously distributed to Planning
Commission)
7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1457 recommending
certification of EIR No. 90-3 .
8 . Planning Commission Resolution No. 1458 recommending denial of
GPA No. 90-8 .
9 . Planning Commission Resolution No. 1459 recommending approval
of GPA No. 90-8 with Statement of Overriding Considerations .
10 . Draft Ordinance No.
HS:WC: ss
Staff Report - 12/3/91 -12- (1538d)
•, � FA �RI � RI RI
OR. '�WELLA DR, U4�
LYDIA DR ! 6
;RI o RI RI �RI : RlRI Q RI R3 MI I iDL o
RI 's x CF_R R3 R3�R3 - J
D0. M I
I. RI Da ,:.I.wf.: ,>::.•,au..,.:...`. .,.,:� cans..
RI R3 R3
- CHANNEL CS-] O C. F. C•
i.3
nTo-� R3 MI
v 10U.005 D. A
R3 oD C 2 R 3 J R3 M I ..i„~s K : R 3
3 I R 3 R 3 Y /R < a ,
I UN� 4� crJ
II1 s 10
R 3 a 0 3; R2 p
— -- -----: _.. P_ _ - --- - -r - -------.WARNER --- - - Y-- - -._...------... .. . —.
izo c _ •
3 � I—_C 4 _. .— M I .
R2
g R 3 1 DR
w J CAIN AVE
I e
R2 CF—E N �
RJa:;1,.Aar, MI WMI I�
D n20'
tR RI I !OP CF—R A[:-7
�.Rcwri,D on Aooi 0, R2
39-TT( i VH CED.R AVE.
RI CF-R�o
o, wARa RI _ RIMI
RI RI 5 RI RIB CF—E
-DR. RI RI RI _ RI
ad CP. f-' BETTY DR ES M I: M I I OAK V;EW SCNJOL) I
RI CF—E <,.S,D. ol
oRJ RI RI
� 3 = /
i
RI I w
RI R
R
gg I RI RI RI _C
S i W RI RI RI CD -rre .ARl9
u �
A RI S Rt Y ��•� FORD V DR
4 I sit•r,0 4 M M
a_ 5M'l,. ...T,u s�g RI cv D R3 V
R I RI RI RIRI RI- CD RI CD R3 : •i
FDA DR. 1 s
R coR, oB RI S.x.Ru oA RI C Rl CD 6 0 /� I-C i RI-CO 11 ¢ 3
I RI j RI J O
RI
S R3 SCR
al l RI RI _ RI I fr- r B 1
•
Vicinity Map J'
� r
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION
DENSITY- RECREATION
OPENSPACE
MEDIUM HIGH
I _ _ � N
i
nii�i� � Ilul
�. _�----__—__ -_- •
M. _
■■n.■■ii■■■■■��►���.■■■■■■n■■■■
�:: � �eiuee :� ■■e�Iee eenae �_� -- = — 111
elfe • IIe1I/I �. .. .. .� e111 �■uu• ..• -
11.e . Ileeer� .� nueeeuei��1
■ IIe1I� =�IIe11 Iee1e1
�I�I�I, • . . , . ■
(Existing)
General
i-� ■ � • �� �C �Ieelll Ielele-i `�O.,, Ilea®/����uiiiiiii►� � ,
� � � ■ ■■ �� �IeeIIIDIDI/ � �.���:Qelle'��. eeeC ii � � �
v� S IIID �I e1111 �IeO1�� ��:�■Iel':� �11� ��� � ;� _ 1
Plan Land UseDesignation :Q?
HUNTINGTON
HUNTWGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
._ LOW DENSITY
LOW DENSITY Ii_._.....,: ..,. .�. I. -_i I —
FAR•ELL�A •D I-- �l ' _� ; RECREATION RESIDENTAL
RESIDENTAL _' ' =-jnf. .l;l IW; OPENSPACE MEDIUM
�I j CF-R DENSITY HIGH
)'�J��_�i�_I�_` w. .. { RES. DENSITY
RES.
W D L E C D.
' CNANNLL C!-J
MEDIUM - k - HIGH MEDIUM HIGH
:: DENSITY DENSITY DENSITY
DENSITY �— — � RES. RES.
...... RES.
RES. ; GEN. COMMERCIAL `' ' '
- _y_..._
.._.__..._.. ._...... ..- - WARNER
•
Li GEN. COMM. GENERAL FIR DR
_HIGH DENSITY INDUSTRIAL
II RESIDENTIAL ! �—' CAN
-
MEDIUM
-E DENSITY
53. RES.
PUBLIC QUASI-PUBLIC — --'- cF-R
I MED. -- ` — WAR.KI LYRRE�A
HIGH INSTITUTIONAL _
j I I7: I I I " .. LDAR AVE
CF R DENSITY
(." l RES.. SOLID
I�I I i ~ r - �-t - WASTE
DR .� n - — FACILITY TT C F-E BEY
C F-E
a LOW DENSITY g
s RESIDENTAL CF- C f
e ! ItLj
I 'CF- MEDIUM
• ,—I LOW
+ i 117� I rll � I HIGH' I , I GENERAL
DENSITY
oR RESIDENTIAL I a s �. .� I ` _s INDUSTRIAL RES.
BAY LN
SLA
I I
(Proposed) LJJ
General Plan Land Use Designation A
tek-J-
HUNTINCTON BEACH
HUNTWGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
-7
u u I—
R I
R I o
ul �04•
ca
DR NELLA DR LYDIA DR
4 RI
R I R I Rl RI RI RI R m I
R 1 31 qR31
R3
DR CF—R
ml
RI F Rl 1:6
��_--�cu�\ 4 ^5 p��t
R —------ "A
DR�Rl 2
C-11EL c5-3 o c D o c c
000
R'3
:o L DR
Fi C2 R3 R2
R R 2 SR3 R c� m I R 3
R 3 �Ng c I R3 4
C4 o
R3 R 4 =R2 f
WARNER
3 R2
4 3C4 FIR DR
CAIN AVE
L
Ec4
R 2 c I LC CC
CF
R 3 GvJ MI v MI
'LJ RI LF u—(—�3 RI CF—R cypRm v
DR -6. Uxl o.OP 9
w 11 EDA. AVE R2
Pon.
R I CF-R
fRARXI S RI RI
ml
RI
R I
n I R
R I J�)
;Rll CF—E
DR c. BETTY J S- m I"m P,
RH U7AK 6EW
I m I CF—E
R 17
RI ID
RI
R I
F-C
RI 1
RI o' I j
RI IL
1 RI i RI RI ;RI RI RI
RI i�rt
3
D. • RI jCF fi� R3
J! I-E 167 1?To , - — I I
RI Rl- CD Rl-CD.
RI - R3 z •
Rl 6m. DR.
I - IT
Rl o
DR J., IT
R I
R I R I
_R
DR co. RI c Rl-CD 3
i
ALA EF
RI RI
(Existing)
Zoning Map
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION
u o_
R I lul ': �IRI R I I R I I
o ---
AAINELLA DR I ¢ LYDIA DR �.
SRI RI RI ��RI4 RI RI .o RI _ i _R3 Ir1 i Mj I Ntoc'
a RI - a R3 �;R3!�R3� �' o
RI DA MI
�,R3
C„ANNEL C!-J I - •� E D o C C C
M
0�40�. oA R 2
�� C 2 C 2 R' �SR3 3 i R 3 R3 00-I M I xR R 3
S c� R3 IN �—�
suN Da --.. v .. C4 cA Ij SI 2�3h
L a R3 R 3 }a a C) _Lj {L—rR
WARNER
ItzoE '— R2 =
g R3 C 4
5o CAIN AVE C2 M I j FIR DR •
4 +1 N
ezo� I
I
II C —E I F N N
R2 vo-- Ir OC
R3 R3 MI 4 MI
RI -- p�- RI - - CF-R • A
I RI pop A R2
MC4f:E '91 oA Ao(,M 04 CCDwA AVE
A -,
3 u«,
RI CF-R
o. (PAW RI '_ RI MI
RI RILRI. RI RI IA _DR. j RI RI ' CF E
RI. iU: BETTY DR M I M (.'.\'ilN�RI<ACF—EL uoA 3 — — M I M I
Cz i R I oo. o
-a..... A.K I,A RI RI
RI RI RI s �/��( J Iw
R� I RI �RI J� RI RI a R!,A, VRI RI RI :a
V 3
Ig R I R R L
FDAO I Y — O
�J I F
C R R3 V
W
W Il
s•c4L 4 0. � I .,.,.w..u, v:�„,�,
q RI RI tl RI —� RI CO RI-CD
R IR3
a •x RI RI RI RI �NwRao OR
a
RI-C . I-CD ;RI-CD R3 a
<oR. oA an<vAo a ; RI-CO �$
i RI �' RI �RI " f R3C
RI I RI PLRI _ RI __ .le.
(Proposed)
Zoning p Ma
� .
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON REACH PLANNING DIVISION
T ;
A
it
Final Environmental Impact Report • I
General r
n Amendment No. 90-31
Zone Change •
City of Huntington Beach
?iit�d
WO%-
CottonlBelandlAssociates,
RESOLUTION NO. 1457
A RESOLUTION OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING AND CERTIFYING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-3 :
(WINTERSBURG SCHOOL SITE)
WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3 and related
entitlements have been prepared; and
The City of Huntington Beach was the lead agency in the
preparation of the environmental impact report; and
All persons and agencies wishing to respond to notice duly
given have been heard by the Planning Commission, either through
written notice or during a public hearing held on
and such comments were duly noted and responded to.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of
the City of Huntington Beach as follows :
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission does hereby find that
Final Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3 was prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and all
State and local guidelines.
SECTION 2: The Planning Commission has considered all
significiant effects detailed in Environmental Impact Report No.
90-3 , together with proposed mitigation measures to mitigate such
effects (See Exhibit A) .
SECTION 3 : The Planning Commission finds that through the
implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, that some
of the potentially adverse impact associated with the proposed
project can be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance.
I
SECTION 4 : The Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council adoption
of Environmental Impact Report No. 90-3 .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day
of ,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mike Adams, Secretary Planning Commission Chairperson
(1542d)
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MEASURES
1. To mitigate impacts on traffic, additional northbound and
southbound travel lanes shall be provided prior to issuance of
building permits at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and
Warner Avenue through the approved Superstreet Project. The
Superstreet Project is fully funded by the County.
2 . To mitigate impacts on water consumption, the following measures
shall be complied with prior to occupancy:
a. Drought tolerant plant species shall be incorporated in a
water conserving landscape design.
b. The project shall develop and implement a water conservation
plan as required by the City.
3 . To mitigate impacts on wastewater and sewers, the Slater Pump
Station shall be upgraded to have adequate capacity to service
the project ' s development, prior to issuance of building permits .
(1542d)
RESOLUTION NO. 1458
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-8
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington
Beach, California reviewed a proposed amendment to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan; and
The amendment to the Land Use Element is to redesignate
11 . 93 gross acres of land located on the southeast corner of
Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue as depicted in Exhibit A
(attached) from Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional Residential to
Medium-High Density Residential; and
A public hearing on adoption of General Plan Amendment 90-8
was held by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission
on in accordance with provisions of the State
Government code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Huntington Beach as follows :
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds that the land use
designation of Medium-High Density Residential will reduce the
Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional land use inventory in the area,
and thus limit the area ' s ability to meet future Institutional
demands .
SECTION 2 : The Planning Commission finds that the land use
designation of Medium-High Density Residential is too intense for
the project site and that reduction in recreational open space does
not conform with the goals and policies contained within the
Recreation Element of the General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said amendment to the General
Plan of the City of Huntington beach is recommended for denial by
the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the day
of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mike Adams, Secretary Planning Commission Chairwoman
(1542d)
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 1459
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-8
(WINTERSBURG SCHOOL SITE)
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 has been prepared
and analyzed in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 17,
1992; and
General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 proposes to amend the Land
Use Element of the General Plan by redesignating a 11. 93 gross acre
area of land from Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional to Medium-High
Density Residential; and
Such 11. 93 gross acre area is generally located on the
southeast corner of Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street as depicted
in Exhibit A attached hereto; and
The Planning Commission held a public hearing pursuant to
Government Code Section 65353 on to consider said
General Plan Amendment; and
The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation
to the City Council on the amendment to the General Plan pursuant to
Government Code Section 65354 .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Huntington Beach as follows:
SECTION 1 : The Planning Commission desires to update and
refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and
objectives .
SECTION 2 : General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 is necessary to
accomplish refinement of the General Plan and is consistent with the
other elements of the General Plan.
SECTION 3 : The Planning Commission finds that through the
implementation of the mitigation measures addressed in EIR No. 90-3,
that some of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the
proposed project can be eliminated or reduced to a level of
insignificance and has made appropriate findings (see Exhibit B) .
SECTION 4 : The Planning Commission further finds that the
benefits accruing to the City by virture of implementing the General
Plan, override the unmitigable effects outlined in EIR No. 90-3, as
detailed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (see
Exhibit C) .
SECTION 5 : The Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach hereby adopts said amendment to the General Plan of
the City of Huntington Beach.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said amendment to the General
Plan of the City of Huntington Beach is recommended for adoption by
the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the day
of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mike Adams, Secretary Planning Commission Chairperson
(1542d)
i
o
f
DR 4qIHELIi DR. \l I .Y Oi.. Ju .t...• 1 I I •'\/ t
;RI o RI RI }— ,00•.��RI < RIT
RI 'QI RI ! R3 i M� II ,.c9
�� RI - I; R I CF-R •R3 'IR3j R31rI /
DR wt M T— ` _ �J �. ,-_ - K MI J I
I RI ---- 1 R-5 r R3 I
R2 \ I
R3 R3
)DRC 2 r. C 2 I'— 3 �43 v MI R3
.. ---- —
I 4
R2
WARNER
7 R2
S R3 C4 MIFIR OR
R A CF-E '
R2 R3 -- - MI MI'
RI RI I IaI i CF-R c AV
Jr,
uaU R2
R RI
RI ICI ^ RI / i�MI
RI �. .. I RI lV RI RI lo� RI ^`1.F.R',
. . o � .__._ I I 41 CF—E
Joa. I , Rle RI 1- '..,�wcRI o e � 'U' �- M IMIjRI ICFE o _.._ 13 r:i:- - -
K.w RI RI R'
J
R I I «r � �.,• Isi
5 RI S I w I - 4
RI R 'I !RIBl P.I j�RI V RI RI �R' F- C
R I R I R I I I?• �jt K:a
z
RI 13 -- RI Yi I �j J7 ;IDRI `IL g
_ ..�w•, o, I ;�J�� "�_ 'I RI _„ „. ca'i . R3 V in rn
R I x j p RI ' ' RI V111r: RI e�'I I RI CD RI-CD i - R3
RI
•
I1 RI � IRI —
a �.� co,, o. ?I s.�.u.c r—.—1�� RI-C RI-CD w� .:/o RI-CD '-RI-M j d 3`
RIIi RI _LRRI = J�5 /` i=�- I I i L1641=R
Vicinity Maploin
�-
HUNTING,TON BEACH
HUNTNGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
UNDER PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
SECTION 15091
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-8
ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-17
In accordance with the provisions of California Code of Regulations
Section 15091, the following findings are made:
1 . The following individual project effects were found to be less
than significant after analysis in the Final Environmental
Impact Report No. 90-3 .
Earth, Drainage, Plant and Animal Life, Noise, Light and Glare,
Energy, Public Services, Solid Waste, Recreation and Air Quality.
2 . With regard to cumulatibe effects on air quality, changes have
been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid
or substantially lessen significant environmental effects as
identified in the Final EIR. These changes include: (1) City' s
compliance with growth objectives and policies of regional air
quality plans; (2) Development and implementation of City
Transportation Depand Management (TDM) program to reduce
vehicular trips for private projects; (3) Compliance of
individual projects with the South Coast Air Quality Management
District ' s Rule XV, Mandatory Ride Sharing Program and (4)
locating banking, postal and eating facilities within large
commercial and residential developments to reduce number and
length of vehicular trips .
Other changes are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the
Environmental Protection Agency. These changes include a
variety of programs and policies to reduce the cumulative
effects of growth in the region on air quality, and have been
adopted by these agencies and include: (1) steadily improving
vehicle emissions requirements; (2) emissions controls on
stationary air pollution sources; and (3) development of
alternate fuels and transportation technologies .
3 . With regard to project short-term construction noise, the
significant environmental impact will not be mitigated to a less
than significant level . Even with implementation of mitigation
measures listed below, noise generated by construction equipment
will frequently exceed 65 decibels, affecting single-family
homes to the south, apartments to the north and, possibly, Ocean
View High School to the east of the site. Construction
equipment may generate noise levels ranging from 70 to 105
decibels . The changes incorporated into the project to reduce
impacts to the extent feasible include: (1) limiting
construction to Monday through Saturday, from 7: 00 a.m. to 8 : 00
p.m. and prohibiting construction on federal holidays . The City
of Huntington Beach has determined that this negative impact is
acceptable due to overriding concerns detailed in the Statement
of Overiding Considerations.
4 . With regard to cumulative effects on utilities, changes have
been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid,
or substantially lessen significant environmental effects as
identified in the Final EIR. These changes include: (1)
compliance with regional wastewater and solid waste management
programs and policies, including the Integrated Waste Management
Act; (2) participation in a Citywide recycling program, and (3)
implementation of water conservation programs; and measures
which also reduce generation of wastewater.
5 . With regard to cumulative effects on public services, changes
have been required in, or incorporated into the project which
avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects
as identified in the Final EIR. These changes include: (1)
systematic reviews by the City and adjustment of development
fees to support new development, and (2) creation of assessment
districts as appropriate.
6 . With regard to effects of dust generated during the project
construction, changes have been required in, or incorporated
into the project which avoid or substantially lessen significant
environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. These
changes include: (1) implementation of dust control measures
during construction, including regular watering.
7 . With regard to project effects on drainage, changes have been
required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen significant environmental effects as
identified in the Final EIR. These changes include: (1)
preparation of a hydrology study and incorporation of all
mitigation measures identified by the study to ensure that flood
proofing or elevation of the site will comply with federal flood
program requirements, and that all necessary improvements to the
existing drainage system are implemented.
8 . With regard to daily project noise, changes have been required
in, or incorporated into the project which avoid, or
substantially lessen significant environmental effects as
identified in the Final EIR. These changes include: (1)
preparation of acoustical report and implementation of measures
identified in the report reducing interior noise in the project
residences to 45 CNEL, through construction of a solid wall
around the project residences and/or insulation of affected
units, or other measures .
9 . With regard to project effects on land use, changes have been
required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid, or
substantially lessen significant environmental effects as
identified in the Final EIR. These changes include: (1)
determination that the project site is a "surplus" site based on
studies conducted by the Huntington Beach High School District;
(2) relocating all Wintersburg School ' s programs to other
locations within the district; (3) retention of all athletic
fields in reconfigured smaller area; (4) development of the
site in conformance with zoning requirements; (5) provision of
a landscaped buffer along south side of residential portion to
provide a visual barrier from the adjacent single family homes;
(6) prohibition of second-story south-facing balconies within 50
feet of south boundary of the site; (7) City review of
development design, and (8) construction of walls along zone
boundaries .
10 . With regard to project effects on traffic, changes have been
required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen significant environmental effects as
identified in the Final EIR. These changes include: (1)
addition of north and southbound lanes at Beach Boulevard and
Warner Avenue intersection provided by the Superstreet project,
and (2) The project will be required to pay the standard traffic
impact fee which is customarily charged to all new developments
in the City of Huntington Beach.
11. With regard to the project ' s individual and City' s cumulative
effect on water resources, changes have been required in, or
incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially
lessen significant environmental effects as identified in the
Final EIR including: (1) ultra-low flow toilets; (2)
water-conserving landscaping; (3) development and
implementation of a water conservation plan; and (4) the project
will be required to pay the standard water fee which is
customarily charged to all new developments in the City of
Huntington Beach.
12 . With regard to project effects on wastewater, changes have been
required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen significant environmental effects as
identified in the Final EIR. These changes include: (1)
payment of impact fee; (2) implementation of water conserving
measures to reduce generation of wastewater; and (3) no issuance
of building permits for new development until the Slater Pump
Station is upgraded and has adequate capacity to service that
development.
13 . With regard to project effects on recreation, changes have been
required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen significant environmental effects as
identified in the Final EIR. These changes include: (1)
relocation of all athletic fields to a smaller area closer to
the Ocean View High School .
14 . Pursuant to Section 711.4(c) of the Fish and Game Code, the City
has found no evidence that the proposed project will have an
adverse effect on wildlife resources, as identified in the Final
EIR. The project is therefore exempt from the fees otherwise
payable under Section 711.4 .
(1542d)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-3
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Final Environmental Impact Report No . 90-3 for the proposed
General Plan Amendment redesignating 11. 93 acres from Public,
Quasi-Public, Institutional to Medium-High Density Residential
identifies certain unavoidable significant adverse environmental
effects . CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires the decision-maker
to balance the benefits of a proposed project against unavoidable
environmental risks in determining whether the project should be
approved. If the decision-maker concludes that the benefits of the
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the
effects may be considered acceptable. In making this determination,
the following factors and public benefits were considered:
1 . The project provides needed housing for residents of Huntington
Beach. The project will provide up to 295 multi-family housing
units, or nearly 5 percent of the 6, 228 housing units identified
as the City' s share of regional housing needs for the 1989-1994
period by the SCAG' s Regional Housing Needs Assessment .
The final environmental impact report identifies four (4)
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts (see Section S-6 in the
environmental impact report -Unavoidable Significant Adverse
Impacts) three of which will be reduced to levels of insignificance
with the modified proposal . These are:
a . Cumulative adverse impacts on air quality in the region that
does not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
carbon monoxide, ozone and particular matter .
b. Air pollutants exceeding the South Coast Air Quality
Management Districts threshold criteria for carbon monoxide,
reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen.
c. Cumulative water impacts on the project .
The impact that would remain significant would be the short-term
construction noise affecting surrounding residences and school
facilities . Some of the effects are lessened by the Standard City
Policies and Requirements, and mitigation measures suggested in the
environmental impact report. These measures will be required and
incorporated into the project . The reasons the City has determined
that the remaining effects of each impact are acceptable, given
offsetting project benefits, are discussed below:
1 . NOISE IMPACTS
Noise affecting residences will be generated by construction
vehicles and machines during development, customers and delivery
vehicles to the commercial site, and daily traffic. Mitigation
measures identified in EIR No. 90-3 include restricting
construction to Monday-Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 8 : 00 p.m. excluding
Sundays and Holidays and complying with State Acoustical
Standards .
Project alternatives, including No Project Alternative, and
development at an alternate location would eliminate any
additional noise from the existing development while development
at a lesser intensity or with single family patio homes would
proportionately reduce the amount of noise impacts on the
residents . In contrast, Development of Commercial uses would
increase the amount of noise on the existing development.
Although some project alternatives would reduce or eliminate
noise impacts, they would not as effectively implement important
goals of the General Plan. These include providing a variety of
housing types, increasing the City' s tax base, and locating
residential uses in proximity to commercial centers .
Given the many public benefits of the project as referenced
above, the City finds that the noise impacts associated with the
project are acceptable.
(1542d)
Connie Brockway,City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190 �.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 •:. ,
rr J
y!
���tJTINGTpy 165-20 ,-08
0 ._`MCOp YOR
l� Stephen V Bar•tsar•a Hughes
7032 Betty Dr. 92647
s Huntington Beach, CA
0
ppNNTY cad
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
Connie Brockway,City Clerk
C Broc Y, . -•
City of Huntington Beach - 1
Office of the City Clerk \
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ?�C f,•.
r Yi
165-•201-02
Ann F Atk.ins
7101 Betty Dr' 92647
( INGTpN�/. Huntington Beach, CA
O\ 9MOPYOR !/ !'
_ _ Q
190''p�UNTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ��, ,,,,►,�,��,,,�„��,,,►,�,►„t„�,�
•
•
5._n
Brian t: Day es
172$1 Mill Cir•
Huntin3tan E+each, CA 9u���47
aAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
1
Donnie Brockway. City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk • _ •
P.O- Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92W
�X\NTIN6Tp
\i0�`pCOR�Oq•,�yB�9 111-024-06
Constr•uctionco Beachfr•ont
210 E Adams Ste A
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �.
<_ <,
COON T Y �a`\y� c�104 .
t;
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
t-Ity u, nunurtytu„cCacn
- _ fl,l,,,,l�ltll „I11„1 „ III t+l::1f,:I,,:If,,III
1:i1,:,
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190
Huntington
Beach, CA 92648 -
V :1
RETI-14. �rir��rO _1I
�-- '40 � Q ORCIEF 0 ALE �.
FC9 RETr rRta TO
yp ••.f
f4 JOst• h
F Orteg
o - __ ORTE20 S2�sF'�q '1�2�- 1�t
i. 7 IRE i�RN TO =E}.i Ej;.
NO FORf:jtrF'Ci r'__Cf.,a_!4h
C'�r ? 909'O = Ji-ELr TL7Lti �} GTLE
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190 -
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - -
i �t
��NTINGTp
t
142-221-16 - OIL M'R`Qa.- �
C.2 =- y?� Warner. O1 '
1689c^ Y01F�lc Associates
c -� Gotharj St
y _ � , Huntington Leach, CA
'rZ
COON T Y f, 92647
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
1L1,...1.1.11 i u , . 1.1._ij ► t i , t
• Connie Brockway,City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach •, /��� C +' I'" '''
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach,CA 92
'- ILA—
I•i<il I"(;f i:l 1''(�?'�: l:t I"<:l l'1(:I(:?1" ���1�111�•1
` ^ ,�i�OF>1. fln'�I:;e:•1"a�:i.c:l':. l..<�n(:?
IINGM
7 u.i_ i...,a lh il_ii i:3 lt•1 i]!r;:•;.i�,l..:��;u
v y ►� tJO F•0F.Wl:41"%M C1RDER ON FILE
UNABLE LE TO f=0^nhli-*4f-1
9 i RETURN' TO SENDER
OQ
,c ISO Ott
��UNTI CP LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
Connie Brockway,City Clerk • •
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk 4 _
P.O. Box 190 r i� �. �I
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 /`. y ` i
r
��'ANTINGM,, 142-221-02
Warner 01YMPic Associates
O =MOORYORR/,O /� 16892 Oothard St
- - " ' y Huntington Beach, CA 9264:
9 Z
.y — ,. OQ
ppNNTY cP`
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING II,i,.,,IPIPII„PI,PItPPPIIIPIPPIPPIIP„IP,IIP,PIIPI
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 "` " `
o���NT I NGTpy
6 16c '0`'-��� � �c
1—L Lam• .�d
`MOORPORR/! i
A •
_ _. F9�, Brian I': B oy e s �H��,��. ---;1
�, - .s �t ► 172a1 Mil 1 Cir•
' Vic.
" � Huntington Beach, CA 92647
9 _ (OQ >"
2(/ `tQ 11 1909�� ��fi�
F�p'NTY ���� LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARMnkrO ,PI.PIIPPPtPIIPPPPIPtP,PIIII,PPP,IIPI
IIPiPPPPIPil11P
�-. .1..IItPPlyton beach
Office of the City Clerk - _
P.O. Box 190
Huntin - - _ _
gton Beach, CA 92648 -• " n -- � — _ --
o���HT INGTpy 16 5-201-
CORYORII,O 4�1 Ann 0�
____ 9 P Atkins
- - i 7101 Pretty Ur
c ac,, Huntington
9 _ ,`,�, Q _ Neach, CA
�ppNTY CP`\ LEG ���''Ap0
AL NOTICE - PUBLIC HE4
Connie Brockway,City Clerk • •
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk ` ►\ t;
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92W )\\\
16 -203-08
Stephen V S Bar-bar Hughes
r,A p y� 7032 Betty Dr,O "`° �°""� F Huntington Beach, CA 92647
sr
,;,
9rVL `fie 17, 1999-�� \\O�V �1TV -
(' �pUNTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
Connie Brockway,City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach _
Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 \ _
���NTINGjpy 142-221-16
FA Warner Olympic Associates
_ 16892 GOth,ard $t
- - y HuntingtonBeach, CA 9264
QA
cpUN T Y tvP`,,Gy
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
Con a Brockway,City Clerk
Huntington Beach
of the City Clerk
• P.O.Box 190
Huntington Beach,CA 112648 '• tii n / - ••
i7tt91 rrt �o��,
`1�3J�7e2 r'I�
IBroadmoor Huntin' _ TEA *Comm...
TINGIQ,I, IrvJne CA 9271A -`
O� ,..�+•.,,• 6F I,1 78-a a 3-1 0
INSurrr.•;civT
- - y ADDRESS
9
�QuRTY cp LEGAL NOTICE-PUBLIC HEARING
IlrlrrrrlrllurLrrllrLJlrrrll
Connie Brockway,City Clerk -
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk
P.O.Box190 CI-ASJ N{{rrl t`
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 -
I'
/L1,l1P n.t
uHTINGIp nar i A. Conrad
O`Ca,.•..•.��*0 16600 Orange Ave. 170, 78-.. -__--_-
i y Far amokmt CA
- i 17?-sta-01 C13NRb00 907233007 1491 04/27!92
t•uRWARDING 11ME EXPIRED
CONRAD/NARIE
PO BOX 453
ycF �„ \�OQ SUNSET BREETTURNATO SENNDER53
�QUNTY gyp`
LEGAL NOTICE-PUBLIC HEARING it r
Connie Brockway.City Clerk _r-� �•q•, -
City of Huntington Beech
Office of the City Clerk 4 77r i{L J
P.O.Box190 _� i i:1S1 C�^.0 n 1` In21 _ _` 4"
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 i�3 J Io11111 \ ^
ORDER EXPIRED
A"t"t libJ/l12
`-T I
Y�NI1NGIpp l; s r Properties 111C
Ot B� 15510 Rockfield Dr. c-1
_ yy Irvine CA 9271R
936-29-031
9 � t
LEGAL NOTICE-PUBLIC HEARING
urlrr„trnrrrlr,rm„Irr,lrnr,rlr.,nrrlrl,rrm
I
Connie Brockway,City Clerk _..
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk
P.O.
Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ` • /
IINGth
d 11 1-024-06
` `wCOR P09���0 F9
Constr•uctionco Beachfr•ont
210 E Adams Ste A
c Q Huntington Beach, CA 92648
OQ
cOUNtV ��� LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
ie Brockway, City Clerk
of Huntington Beach
fice of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 190 . . .,
-igton Beach. CA 92648 0A. 9`►
`- .J, RrTllKP1. T 1
0 SENDE
y REFUSED BY ,W.ILIN6
FIRM RcT!r''Rq TC SrNE
D '. ..
it c, ..
�NTING <-< 4
� jpy 14 :.<-1
Jeanne M Bu r•at
Hu0 Box' 27 Suite 661
Z tingt Beach CA
72647
COU„999' \�o R1rF�$ED
ltL�3�0 j�i1J � cTC.
NTY
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 7j�A5ti .�
11 1111, 1. I1 ��'„lt„Ijl�Illlll
4.2
3rockway, City Clerk
Huntington Beach6L';
of the City Clerk
'.O. Box 190
con Beach, CA 92648 `''��`�
3 '
p%': RN TO SEht�En
n REFUSEo By i►�4iEti�G
40 / FIRM
14., -
<-<.,<-1,4
ti Jr F� %:Y nne /227SU�
r.
NCDRPOB„gyp 0 BoY,un t i n gachCID
i, •,
oUarAl» iBU9 Ca�\�oAwO ER p' - 'p5
N T Y i AS1 pt��EpCr,
LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING III I 1 �; ,I II II�R �9;�J'u�ll I III I