Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-09-15MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1981 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter (7:30), Schumacher, Mahaffey COMMISSIONERS -ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY BANNISTER THE CONSENT CAL- ENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1981, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Noting that the Commission had previously determined that the code amendment concerning the condominium conversion ordinance would be the first item on whatever agenda it was scheduled to be heard, Chairman Winchell pulled Agenda Item C-7 out of order to be heard as the first item of business at this meeting. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-9 (Continued from September 1, 1981) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach An amendment of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to permit and regulate the conversion of rental properties into condominium ownership units. Mike Adams reviewed the changes which staff has made to the draft ordinance in response to the Commission's comments at its August 18, 1981 meeting. Briefly, these changes were as follows: Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 2 Definitions Section: Separate listing for "stock cooperative" was deleted, because the State Department of Real Estate treats these in the same process as it treats condominiums as of January 1, 1980; affordable unit definition changed to be as determined by the Orange County Information Housing Development Office; and a conversion per- mit definition added to allow for special code compliance inspection. Development Standards Section: This section was amended to apply the five-year time constraint on conversion only to those apartment units constructed subsequent to the effective date of the conversion ordin- ance, upon the Attorney's advice. Appearance Standards: The Commission had questioned whether or not a one-year warranty as outlined in this section was sufficient; upon advice from the Attorney's office this warranty has been retained. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Statement Section: Reference to stock cooperatives has been deleted from this section. Effect of Proposed Conversion on City's Housing Supply Section: Cer- tain references to the impact of displacement of tenants have been deleted upon the Attorney's advice that such reference would be ex- tremely difficult to interpret and apply. Findings Section: The reference in the draft ordinance to displace- ment of tenants has also been deleted from this section. The public hearing was opened. James Logan, President of the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors, addressed the Commission. Mr. Logan expressed his position in favor of a condominium conversion ordinance, but noted that the ordinance under consideration seems to be so stringent that it will make it almost impossible for most projects to comply. He requested a delay of four weeks in order to allow time for the Board to review and make concrete suggestions in regard to the ordinance provisions and submitted a letter of intent to the Commission. Chair- man Winchell pointed out that the Condominium Conversion Committee had been established by City Council directive in March of 1980 and has been meeting on this matter for the last year and a half; she suggested that perhaps the Board should have followed this program more closely and addressed the issues as they came up. Mr. Logan conceded that one of the Board members had been a member of that com- mittee but had not been able to attend all -the meetings and provide the Board with adequate input on the matter. Elmer Baxter, 5052 Dunbar Street, informed the Board that he was at the meeting to represent ten owners of new four -unit buildings on Dunbar Street who had bought their properties largely because they had been specifically designed to meet existing condominium standards. These owners are now faced with a proposed restriction to no less than five units for condominium conversion, and believe that restriction to be arbitrary and discriminatory. -2- 9-15-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 3 Mary Lee Mathias, past president of the Board of Realtors, spoke to the Commission on the issue of the affordability of housing, suggesting the substitution of "entry level," "moder- ately priced," or "retirement housing" instead. She noted that the marketplace provides the incentive for construction of higher density housing and pointed out that excessive.regu- lation in housing has never proved a successful approach. Kathryn Thompson, representing the BIA, said that the proposed ordinance represents many compromises but in the main is one which her organization can live with. The only areas with which she expressed concern were Items 39, 40, and 41, concern- ing effects of conversions on the housing supply, considera- tion of additional factors by the Planning Commission, and the necessary findings for approval, which she indicated would create ambiguities. With the exception of those items she recommended adoption of the ordinance. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the code amendment, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bannister discussed the Board of Realtors offer to provide input into the proposed ordinance. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY TO SUS- PEND CONSIDERATION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-9 FOR A MAXIMUM PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS TO ALLOW THE BOARD OF REALTORS TO PRESENT AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN OR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE EXIST- ING PLAN. The proposed continuance was discussed by the Commission. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Mahaffey NOES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Commission discussed the proposed ordinance in depth, with consideration given to the limiting of conversion to projects of five or more units, the time constraint of five years, and the desirability of retaining at least some of the rental stock in the City. Legal counsel Folger explained that a five-year limitation on existing apartments would in effect be the enact- ment of an ex post facto law, whereas any builder constructing apartments after the ordinance goes into effect would know up front that he would have to maintain those units as rentals for the five-year period. Chairman Winchell pointed out that the projects of five or more units would be.closer to the condo- minium -type amenities than would the fourplexes, and that the expectations of those who have bought units intending to convert are not a matter the Commission should be addressing. -3- 9-15-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 4 . Commissioner Paone agreed with Ms. Thompson that Items 39 and 40 are vague and would place far too much philosophical discretion in the hands of this and future Planning Commissions as well as opening up the ordinance to all types of legal challenges. He felt -it to be essential that those sections be deleted from the ordinance, a position with which Commissioner Kenefick concurred. However, Com- missioner Porter pointed out that these items contain the reasons that this ordinance was being considered - to satisfy the worth- while goal of providing low and moderate housing within an ownership position. Commissioner Schumacher spoke in favor of retaining the apartment rentals as they are, and Commissioner Mahaffey spoke against the proposed ordinance as over -reaching and over -reacting, saying that the City should instead establish pro -housing and anti -regulatory policies. Chairman Winchell indicated her intention to vote against the ordin- ance because in her opinion it would have the opposite effect from its intent - that it would trigger an automatic price increase -for all housing rather than attaining the objective of increasing the City's supply of moderate cost housing. Art Folger called to the Commission's attention the fact that, based on the Government Code sections covering conversions, the proposed legislation should be viewed as limiting, not enabling, legislation; i.e., a city may add restrictions to any conversion activity. The City has at present the PRD ordinances available as a tool for pro- cessing conversions. A MOTION WAS MADE -BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-9 TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1981. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY KENEFICK TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-9 WITH THE DELETION OF SECTIONS 9300.39 AND 9300.40. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone NOES: Bannister, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL TO DENY CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-9. MO- TION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. -4- 9-15-81 - P.C. 1 11 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 5 A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY TO TABLE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-9, THE CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY TO CON- TINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-9 TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 1981. A point of order was raised by Commissioner Porter on the con- sideration of the same motion for a second time, and the maker and second amended the motion for a continuance to the meeting of November 3, 1981. THE AMENDED MOTION TO CONTINUE FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Mahaffey NOES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF CODE AMEND- MENT NO. 81-9. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, NOES: Bannister, ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Kenefick Schumacher, Mahaffey Paone, Porter Commissioner Kenefick pointed out that the Council had directed the Commission to prepare and present a condominium conversion ordinance and to deny this will only mean that the Commission will still be working on such an ordinance for another year. Further discussion took place among legal counsel, staff, and the Commission on the proper procedure to be followed. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO DENY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: Bannister, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Paone directed that the minutes reflect his reason for the motion to reconsider as being an attempt to forward the matter to the City Council, as there seemed to be no hope of attaining an affirmative vote from the Commission. -5- 9-15-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 6 UPON RECONSIDERATION, THE ORIGINAL MOTION BY WINCHELL SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-9 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Paone, Winchell, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONTINUATION OF AGENDA ITEMS: The Commission reviewed the length of the agenda and determined to continue a portion of the scheduled items to another meeting. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE CONTINUED TO A SPECIAL MEETING TO BE SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11474/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-11/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-12 2. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-10 3. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-11 4. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-12 AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: Paone ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: Paone (Abstention on TT 11474/C.U.P. 81-12 only) REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-15/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11498 (Cont. from Applicant: Robert D. Mickelson 9-1-81) To permit a one -lot subdivision for the purpose of permitting the conversion of a 120-unit apartment complex located on the east side of Magnolia Street approximately 520 feet south of Garfield Avenue to condominiums. Commissioner Mahaffey informed the Commission that although he had been absent at the prior discussion of this project he has listened to the tape of the meeting and will participate in the discussion and vote on the project. Savoy Bellavia reported that the staff has prepared findings and suggested conditions of approval as previously directed, and the ap- plicant has submitted additional information relating to the price range and affordability of the units and a tenant assistance plan. Chairman Winchell noted that the public hearing had been closed at the prior meeting. No one was present to speak on the matter ex- cept the applicant, and he will be permitted to answer questions. -6- 9-15-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 7 Commissioner Kenefick requested that the applicant discuss the fund- ing which the Commission had talked about at the prior meeting. Mr. Mickelson outlined his understanding of the reason for the continuance as having been to answer the questions of what finan- cing and sales program could be presented to assure continued affordability of the units and what can be done to assure senior citizens that they will not be displaced without adequate pro- tection. He presented a sample schedule based on the latest County median income studies and a 16 percent interest rate which he said would enable a qualifying buyer to start out with a monthly payment of about 30 percent of income, going down in four years to about 22 percent.of income. He stressed that this is only a sample, because there are an infinite number of variables which could affect the figures. He replied to the question on the senior citizens by saying that six of the units in the project are occupied at present by persons 65 years of age or older. There will be a mechanism to allow these persons to purchase their units at a lower price than the others, based on their ability to qualify, or an option which will guarantee that the owners will hold those six units as ren- tals with an extended rental agreement for up to five years, or until the present tenants choose to terminate that agreement. Commissioner Bannister discussed provision of housing for the elderly as recently_ required by Los Angeles and Mr. Mickelson was asked if it would be feasible for him to agree to hold 25 per- cent of the units specifically for elderly people. He replied that it could be done but he would need an "escape clause" to specify a definite :period of time for which the units would have to be held, in the event buyers did not materialize. Commissioner Paone inquired if the developers would be agreeable to a financing package on the two-thirds of the units that are to be somewhat affordable so that the monthly payment, including taxes and association dues, would be no greater than $740 per month for a period of three years. Mr. Mickelson replied that he cannot agree_to-that approach because they would very quickly end up with no project and would be better off selling the project outright. He added that another consideration is that the $740 or whatever number is proposed would be arbitrary and based on a theoretical person who makes precisely 120 percent of the median income; buyers can qualify for various ranges and prices, and that is why the average price was offered, based somewhat on a buyer's ability to qualify. Commissioner Porter, noting that this project would be unable to comply with the just -denied condominium conversion ordinance, stated that it is important to consider that by providing two- thirds of the units in an affordable price range this conversion meets a worthwhile housing goal and for that reason is worthy of consideration for the conversion effort. -7- 9-15-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 8 A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY KANEFICK TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-15 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 11498 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. In the discussion following the motion, the Commission consid- ered provision of lighting in the parking lot and the mechanism by which structural and pest control reports could be obtained. Porter and Kenefick agreed to amend their motion to include the standard lighting condition and to incorporate into the motion the requirements for structural and pest control reports contained in the proposed condominium ordinance. The motion was also amended by its makers to include the sale price program chart and the assistance to seniors plan submitted by the applicant as a part of the conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY PAONE TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO ADD THAT 25 PERCENT OF THE UNITS BE RESTRICTED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR TO PURCHASE BY THE ELDERLY. Mr. Mickelson questioned whether the provision would be for 25 per- cent of the 80 affordable units or for the total project, and Com- missioner Bannister said his motion was intended to be for the total project, not just the 80 units. His intention would be that these 30 units would be reserved for puchase by anyone 55,years or older on a first -come, first -served basis. He agreed that the six units which are at present occupied by senior citizens would count toward this total if purchased by their tenants, as would purchase by an elderly person of any other unit in the project, not just the "afford- able" units. Mr. Mickelson accepted this condition as reasonable, but asked that he be allowed to return with a new conditional use permit in the event this restriction should be found to be totally unworkable be- cause of market conditions. Commissioner Porter indicated that a new request would not be necessary and the applicant could just return to the Commission and request amendment to the conditions, as is done on other projects when a problem of implementation arises. Mr. Mickelson clarified the State law on conversions which gives existing tenants the right to buy their units within a 90-day period. He said that presumably this requirement would preempt all other condi- tion of sale and would have to be honored first, after which he would comply with the Commission's requirements. THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Mahaffey indicated that his "no" vote was based on an aversion to segregating any group of citizens for separate treat- ment. -8- 9--15-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 9 THE AMENDED MOTION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-15 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11498 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AND THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PERMIT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: SPECIAL PERMIT A Special Permit was granted by the Planning Commission to cover the following items: 1) An approximately 9 percent increase in allowable density; 2) A reduction in both common and private open space square footage; 3) A waiver of the requirement for one- third reduction in building height for side -by -side units; 4)A waiver of the,required setback of carports from travel lanes; 5) A deficiency at some locations in building separation; 6) Fail- ure to provide the main entrance with two 12-foot travel lanes penetrating the project fora minimum distance of 100 feet; and 7) A deficiency in front yard setbacks. The Planning Commission may approve a special permit application in whole or in part upon the finding that the proposed development will: 1. Not benetrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of the neighborhood or the City in general, not be detrimental or injurious to the values of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. This existing project has been existing in the City since the 1960's and has not created any problems in relation to the general health, safety, and welfard of the neighborhood or the City in general. 2. Be consistent with the objectives of the Planned Unit Develop- ment'standards in achieving a development adapted to the ter- rain and compatible with the surrounding environment. This project is designed and constructed with materials similar to surrounding projects in the general area. 3. Promote better land planning techniques with the maximum use of easthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design, of which this plan has incorporated architecture that has created interesting shapes, planes, and areas and which has incorporated landscaping in order to soften and enhance the hardscape design of the buildings. FINDINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-15: 1. The existing project, consisting of 120 units on 4.35 gross acres of land, is developed at 27.2 units per gross acre. The General Plan designation for this parcel of land is High Density, allowing more than 25 units per gross acre. There- -9- 1 9-15-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 10 fore, the existing development is consistent with the designa- tion on the City's General Plan. 2. The lot size, depth, frontage, street widths and, through the. use of a special permit, all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be construc- ted in compliance with the standard plans and specifications on file with the City, as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplementary City subdivision ordinance. CONDITONS OF APPROVAL: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-15 1. The site plan received and dated April 10, 1981 shall be the approved layout. 2. All approved drives shall be considered required fire lanes and shall be signed as to the approval of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 3. All provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code, including the requirements for smoke detectors and -fire alarm systems, shall be installM subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal. 4. The front entry gates shall be relocated to provide more stack- ing area from Magnolia Street. This redesign shall be approved by the Director of Development Services and by the Fire Depart- ment. 5. Landscaping for the project shall conform with all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 6. All converted units shall meet the noise insulation standards contained in Title 25 of the California Administrative Code. 7. Covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be approved as to form and content by the City Attorney's office. 8. A structural element report shall be submitted prior to the approval of a final map. Said report shall detail the condition and shall estimate the remaining useful life of each element of the project proposed for conversion: Roofs, foundations, exterior pavingi paved surfaces, mechanical systems, electrical systems, plumbing systems including sewage systems, swimming pools or sprinkler systems for landscaping, utility delivery systems, cen- tral or community heating and air-conditioning systems, fire pro- tection systems including automatic sprinkler systems, alarm sys- tems, or standpipe systems, and structural elements. Such report shall be prepared by a licensed contractor or architect or by a registered civil or structural engineer other than the applicant. A replacement cost estimate shall be provided for any element in such condition that its usefulness or capability to function does not exceed five (5) years. -10- 9-15-81 - P.C. 11 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 11 9. A structural pest control report, prepared by a licensed structural pest control operator pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 8516 shall be submitted prior to the approval of a final map. 10. A tenant assistance plan as approved by the Planning Com- mission shall be implemented as part of the conversion process. This assistance plan shall be predicated upon the sale price program chart and the assistance to seniors plan submitted by the applicant and hereby made a part of these conditions of approval. 11. Twenty-five (25) percent of the total number of converted units shall be retained to be available for purchase by the elderly (persons over 55 years of age) for a period of one year after recordation of a final map. The six units presently occupied by senior citizens shall count as a part of this percentage, as will purchase by the elderly of any other converted unit within the complex, whether classified as "affordable" hous- ing or not. 12. Lighting in the parking lot and/or recreation area shall be energy efficient lighting (e.g., high-pressure sodium vapor/metal halide lamps) and shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent property. FINDINGS: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11498 1. The existing project, consisting of 120 units on 4.35 gross acres of land, is developed at 27.2 units per gross acre. The General Plan designation for this parcel of land is High Density, allowing more than 25 units per gross acre. There- fore, the existing development is consistent with the desig- nation on the City's General Plan. 2. The lot size, depth, frontage, street widths and, through the use of a special permit, all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be con- structed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplementary City subdivision ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11498 1. The tentative tract map received and dated April 9, 1981 shall be the approved tract map. 2. All water systems shall be through the City of Huntington Beach water system. -11- 9-15-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 12 3. Sewer, water, and fire hydrant systems shall be designed and installed to the City's standards. 4. The property shall participate in local drainage easement district requirements and fees. 5. All access rights along Magnolia Street, except for the intersec- tion of the private drive, shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Staff was directed to make sure that the'discussion taking place on these items was reflected in detail in the minute action, to insure against future misunderstanding of the Commission's action. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-20/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11593 Applicant: Robert J. Zinngrabe To permit a one -lot subdivision for the construction of a 53-unit retirement condominium project on property located on the east side of Delaware Street approximately 450 feet north of Garfield Avenue. Mike Strange distributed an addendum to the parking layout for the project and described a change to the site plan. This change shows a two-way drive for Fire Department access and to alleviate problems Public Works had with the layout; the applicant has concurred with this change. Mr. Strange also suggested an additional condition of approval regarding painting curbs on that drive. The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Mr. Zinngrage, addressed the Commission to indicate his agreement with the suggested conditions of approval. Mike Rodgers, representing the Iuntington Beach Senior Citizens Org- anization, spoke in favor of the proposed development. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the re- quest, and the public hearing was closed. Commission review included discussion of site lighting, provision of a second trash enclosure area, and the proposed selling price of the units. Mr. Zinngrabe replied that assuming no sudden changes he is looking at the low to middle forty thousand dollar range. -12- 9-15-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 13 ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY PAONE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-20 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11593 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: C.U.P. 81-15 AND TT 11593 I. The General Plan sets forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of housing. 2. The proposed project was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use was designated and the Pacifica Community Plan zoning designation was placed on the property. 3. The lot size, depth, frontage, street width, and all other de- sign and implementation features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compli- ance with the State Map Act and supplementary City subdivision ordinances. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-15 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated September 15, 1981 shall be the approved conceptual layout, subject to modification to show a second location for a trash enclosure to be located somewhere to the rear of the property. 2. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the locations of clothes dryers. 3. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 4. Low -volume heads shall be used on all showers. 5. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 6. The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the state acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the California insula- tion standards of 45 dba CNEL. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permits. All measures recommended to mitigate noise to ac- ceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of the project. -13- 9-15-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 14 7. Lighting in the parking lot and/or recreation area shall employ energy efficient lamps (e.g., high-pressure sodium vapor, metal halide). All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 8. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report in- dicating ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factor as indicated by -the geologist's report. Calculations for footing and structural members to withstand.anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. 9. A chemical analysis, as well as tests for physical properties of the soil on subject property, shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's) shall con- tain a provision that will prohibit storage of boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles on the site unless an area specifically designated for such storage which is in compliance with the pro- visions of Article 936 is provided for in the project. 11. If an entrance gate system is provided, the applicant shall sub- mit a plan with exact location of such gate system for review and approval by the Director,of_Development Services. Such gate system shall be in compliance with all requirements of the Hunt- ington Beach Ordinance Code. 12. The development shall comply with all requirements set forth by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 13. The two-way drive curbs shall be painted red to prohibit any parking along that driveway. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE -TRACT NO. 11593 1. The tentative map received and dated September 2, 1981 shall, be the approved layout. 2. The water system shall be through the City of Huntington Beach water system. 3. The sewer, water, and fire hydrant systems shall be designed to City standards. 4. The property shall participate in the local drainage assessment district requirements and fees. -14- 9-15-81 - P.C.. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 15 5. Drainage for the subject subdivision shall be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the recordation of a final map. This.system shall be designed to provide for erosion and siltation control both during and after construction of the proposed project. AYES: Bannister, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-8 Applicant: Philip and Linda Oliver To permit a change of zone from R2 (Medium Density Residential) to C2 (General Commercial) on property located on the west side of "A" Street approximately 50 feet south of Warner Avenue. Staff explained the prior history of this application and outlined the change of zone presently under consideration. The future widening of,.Warner Avenue was considered, as well as the C4 status of the majority of the adjacent properties along Warner. The public hearing was opened. Philip Oliver was present to speak in favor of his request and object to the setback previously imposed, which he contended would make his property unbuildable. In a discussion with staff, Mr. Oliver was informed that he could use the setback footage for parking for his use. Michael McMahon addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed zone change, saying that a prior change of zone to R2 had improved the area tremendously and any commercial would encroach into the residential neighborhood. - Jim Wertha, partner of Mr. Oliver, also spoke in favor of the proposed zone change. Gordon Lane, architect for the applicant, said that the site had been laid out so that the traffic circulation would be away from the corner as much as possible, something that would not be possible with the previously imposed setback. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Extensive Commission review followed. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY BANNISTER ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-8 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -15- 9-15-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 16 REASON: The Commission has previously approved a "Q" C4 zoning for this property, conditioned with the appropriate setback and development requirements deemed consistent with the zoning and setbacks in the area. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. A change of zone from R2, Medium Density Residential, to C2, Community Business District, is not consistent with surrounding commercial properties which are zoned C4, Highway Commercial District. 2. Without the 110-foot setback from the sectional district line the zone change as requested is not consistent with current policy of requiring additional setback on all commercial properties loc- ated on arterial streets. AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Paone, Mahaffey ABSENT: Kenefick ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-25 Applicant: C.V. Hicks To permit conversion of an existing service station to a convenience food store combined with gasoline sales on property located on the northeast corner of Huntington Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Mike Strange reviewed this first application for a use of this nature under the recently approved code amendment. He suggested the elimina- tion of the southerly driveway on Huntington Street because of the traffic hazard inherent in a drive that close to Pacific Coast Highway, noting that another drive remains on the northerly end of the property to provide access to Huntington. He also discussed signing on the site. The public hearing was opened. Sam Blick, representing the applicant, agreed with all the suggested conditions of approval with the exception of the proposed closing of the southerly drive. He reported that the applicant is planning to install a monument sign. There were no other persons to speak in regard to the project, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission reviewed the request, considering particularly the proposal to close the southerly drive. -16- 9-15-81 - P.C. 1 Minutes,H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 17 ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY BANNISTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-25 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use is generally compatible with surrounding land uses because the property is zoned C4, Highway Commer- cial District, and is shown on the General Plan as Commercial/ Support Recreation. 2. The proposed convenience market substantially complies with the provisions outlined in Article 943 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated September 10, 1981 shall be the approved layout. 2. All signing for the convenience market/gasoline station shall comply with provisions outlined in Articles 943 and 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 3. The southerly driveway located on Huntington Avenue shall be removed and new curb, gutter, and sidewalk installed as per the Department of Public Works requirements. 4. Additional landscaping shall be provided along Huntington Avenue between the corner and the existing planter. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind the con- ditional use permit approval in the event of any violation of the applicable zoning laws or these conditions of approval. Any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing and shall be based upon specific findings. AYES: Bannister, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-12 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach To permit a change of zone from LUD and CF-R (Limited Use District/ Community Facilities -Recreational) to LUD-Fpl and CF-R-FP1 (Limited Use District -Flood Plain 1 and Community Facilities/Recreational- Flood Plain 1) on property located on the west side of the Santa Ana River mouth south of the Talbert Flood Control Channel. -17- 9-15-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 18 Chuck Clark explained the purpose of the proposed zone change, which is to establish the appropriate flood plain zoning at the boundary of the Santa Ana River Project to meet the requirements of the State of California's Cobey-Alquist Act for reimbursement. The public hearing was opened. A property owner in the area questioned the boundaries and purpose of the proposal, saying that if her land is located within the affected area it will render it impossible to build anything on it. Mr. Clark explained to her that the project is a Federal Government proposal to realign the Talbert Flood Control Channel through the project area and that property must be acquired by the local flood control agency, not the City. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY BANNISTER ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-12 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: -W 1. The proposed zone change for the subject property is consistent with the General Plan designations of Visitor -Serving Commercial and Recreational Open Space. 2. The proposed zone change is compatible with existing open space uses on the subject property. AYES: Bannister, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Kenefick ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Savoy Bellavia announced the Subdivision Committee meeting scheduled for Friday, September 18th. COMMISSION ITEDIS: The Commission discussed the League of Cities meeting to be held in San Francisco in October. Staff was directed to investigate the possibility of sending the Commission Chairman to that meeting and report back on September 22. The Commission discussed at length the matter of the duration of Planning Commission meetings and the scheduling of items for those -18- 9-15-81 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 15, 1981 Page 19 meetings. The possibility of scheduling a regular third meeting was reviewed. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO ADJOURN FUTURE COMMISSION MEETINGS AT 10:30 PM EXCEPT IN INSTANCES WHERE A PUBLIC HEARING IS ALREADY IN PRO- GRESS, IN WHICH CASE A MEETING WILL ADJOURN AT THE END OF THAT PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: Paone, Winchell ABSENT: Kenefick ABSTAIN: None Scheduling of a study session on the upcoming General Plan Amendment No. 81-2 was discussed. ITEMS DISTRIBUTED FOR INFORMATION: CODE AMENDMENTS 81-5 AND 81-6 Staff informed the Commission that these items had been presented for information of the Commission in their final form. The Commission reviewed and accepted both amendments as presented. ADJOURNMENT: ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON THE GENERAL PLAN TO BE HELD AT 7:00 PM TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1981, WITH A REGULAR MEETING TO FOLLOW AT 8:00 PM TO CONSIDER THE CONTINUED ITEMS FROM THE PRESENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick ABSTAIN: None Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. a es W. P lin, Secretary :df Grace M. Winchell, Chairman -19- 9-15-81 - P.C. MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME $29,880/YR. $ 2,490/Mo. 30% _ $747/Mo. w N z W% O U z �.• a M } J z 00 d N u- Z _d tD N A W It N O F- z CV W N U a' 22.4% `- �� 20,2% N YEARS 0 1 2 3 4 MEDIAN $29,880/YR. $32,-868/YR. $36,155/YR. $39,770/YR. $43,747/YR, FAMILY INCOME $ 2,490/Mo. $ 2,739/Mo. $ 3,013/Mo. $ 3,314/Mo. $ 3,646/Mo, NOTE: PROJECTION OF MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME OVER 4 YEARS ASSUMES A 10% INCREASE PER YEAR. LOAN AMOUNT P & I ASSOC. TOTAL a 10% DOWN @16% & TAXES PAYMENT PROGRAM A 1 BR a$57,000 $51,300 $690 + $125 = $815 10% DOWN 2 BR a$71,000 $63,900 $859 + $125 = $984 LOAN AMOUNT P & I ASSOC, TOTAL a 20% DOWN a 16% & TAXES PAYMENT PROGRAM B 1 BR a$57,000 $45,600 $613 + $125 = $738 20% DOWN 2 BR a$71,000 $56,800 $764 + $125 = $889 PROPOSED SALES PRICE OF AFFORDABLE UNITS 40 1 BR - 2 BA (725 SQ. FT.) AVERAGE PRICE = $57.000* 40 2 BR - 2 BA (1000 SQ. FT.) AVERAGE.PRICE = $71,000* *PLUS THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI) CALCULATED MONTHLY ASSISTANCE TO SENIORS (OVER 65 YEARS OLD) 6 UNITS OF THE 80 AFFORDABLE UNITS 1. REDUCE DOWN PAYMENT AS LOW AS 5% REDUCE PRICE AS LOW AS $52,000 (BASED UPON ABILITY TO QUALIFY) 5 2. PROVIDE EXTENDED RENTAL AGREEMENT UP TO 5 YEARS OR UNTIL TERMINATION OF TENANCY (MARKET RATE RENTS), (OPTION OF CURRENT SENIOR TENANT/S) a