HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal of Tentative Tract 11417 - Mansion Properties, Inc./U PAki'.IAL TRANSCRIPT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUIvE 28, 1982
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 11417
DICK HARLOW, representing appellant, Mansion Properties, Inc., Urban
{lest Communities:
"I was wundering if that motion could also include the fact that the
appeal would be denied, but that the matter -could be referred back
to the Commission to add that, otherwise, it dies and they have to
comrletely refli e a whole new application and it's just the
environmental documentation is dead, so if the motion could be to
deny the appeal and refer it back to the Commission."
I certify that the above partial transcript is a true and correct
copy of a portion of the June 28, 1982 proceedings of the City
Council Meeting.
ALICIA M. WEMORTH
City Clerk .._�_._..
BY: a Z
Connie A. Bruckway,1-4y
I
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date April 19, 1982
Submitted to: HonorLble Mayor and City Council Charles W. Thompson, City AdministraeoSubmitted by. ik• //
?Z J It
Prepared by: James 11. Pali n, Director e: Development Services
APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION►S DENIAL OF CONDITI NAL USE
Subae�t. PERMIT NO. 81-8, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417 1'F. A�I�,,// � � f
PARCEL MAP NO. 82--552 �!�'"q� �{� -� l3 /;7•
r
Statement of Issue. Reeammouktion,Analysis, Funding Source,AkematM Aetioru,Arachrrwnts: t
STATEMENT OOP' ISSUE: WJ2-A�W g A^AO ""
dpc--
Transmitted for the City Councils consideration is an appeal to the
Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No, 81-8,
Tentative Tract No. 11417 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 82.-552. Said
applications are for the development of a 492-unit planned res`acnti.al
development to be located on the south side of Clay Avenue between
Huntington and Main Streets.
R1Eg jbENL1A TjL)N:
The Planning Commission and staff recommends that the City Council
uphold the Planning Commission's dwnia_: of Conditional Ilse Permit
No. 81-8, Tentative Tract No. 11417 and Tentative Parcel I•lap
No. 82-552.
ANALYSIS:
APPLICAN'.: Mansion Properties, Inc./Urban west Communities
3030 S. Mundy Drive
Los Angeles. California 90066
APPELLANT: Same
r.OyC T,jgti: 41.7 acre parcel of land located on the eouth side
of Clay Avenue between Huntington and Main Streets.
R�,EQ„II,,,EST: To permit the construction of a 492-unit planned
residential development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF MARCH 2. 1982:
A MOT?ON WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY SCtIUMACHER THAT CON-
DITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-8, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417 AND TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 82-552 BE DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, AND BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
� 1
Poo vai D
w
REQUES*i FOR CITY COUNC►L AC` ION
Date: April 19, 198,2
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council t
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City AdministraC'o
di'l
'lip
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services
Subject: AF'PEX.L TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITI NAL USE
PERMIT NO. 81-8, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417 A TEN A IVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 82-552 p�, ay yi.-0-p2,-- �f mot'
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,/Attachr*ants: f
STATEMENT OF IS§UE: WA_%Ja � - '/
dve-:-
Tranftmitted for the City Council's consideration is an appeal to the
Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 81-8,
Tentative Tract No. 11417 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 82-552. Said
applications are for the development of a 492-unit planned residential
development to be located on the south side of Clay Avenue between
Huntington and Main Streets.
P.ECO ,iEMTION:
The Planning Commission and staff recommends that the City Council
uphold the Planning Commission's denial of. Conditional Ure Permit
No. 81-8, Tentative Tract No. 11417 and Tentative Parcel Map
No, 82-552,
I.
Ati X IS:
APPLICANT: Mansion Properties, Inc./Urban West Communities
3030 S. Mundy Drive
iII+ Las Angeles, California 90066
I' APPELLANT- Same
LOCATION: 41.7 acre parcel of land located on the south side
of Clay Avenue between Huntington and Main Streets.
REQUEST: To permit the construction of a 492-unit planned
rLsidential development.
PLANL4IRG�;OMMISSION ACTION OF MARCH 2, 1982:
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY SCHIUMACHER THAT CON-
DITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-8, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417 AND TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 82-5 52 BE DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, AND BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
Pp)I!i f
I
CUP 81--8/TT 11417/TPM 82-552
i April 19, 1982
J Page 2
i
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1. Insofar as a special permit must be granted in order for the
Commission to approve Conditional Use Permit 81-8 in conjunction
with Tentative Tract 11417 and Tentative Parcel Map 82-552, the
applicant has failed to demonstrate that the design of the p.ro--
ject has been improved through the use of the special permit.
The 3.2 acres of street right-of-way within the project boundaries
have: not been utilized to improve the site design and layout of
the proposed project, but have been incorporated is increase the
number of units on the site.
2. The applicant has failed to provide a letter or letters from the
oil operators or leasees in accordance with Section 9680.3 of the
Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, which state "failure to submit
and obtain, approval of any plan shall be grounds for disapproval
of a proposed subdivision, division of land, or development".
3. Design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will con-
flict with easements of record on Tract 77 for access through
and use of the property within the proposed subdivision. The
governing body has not found that the alternative easements for
access or use will be provided or that these will be substantially
equivalent to the ones previously acquirod by the public.
AYES% Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher
NOES: Paone, Mahaffey
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DIS,�- Cy USS70N:
The applicant has submitted a letter of appeal, appealing the Plan-
ning Commission's action of March 2, 1982. This letter specifically
discusses the three findings for denial and provides a comment re-
lated to each specific finding. This letter has been attached as
Exhibit 1 for the Council's review.
Also attached for the Council 's review is the Planning Commission's
staff reports of February 2, 1982 and March 2, 1982. The February 2
staff report identified the major issues of concern and provides an
analysis of each one of these concerns in relationship to the pro-
posed 492-unit planned residential development. Items discussed in
the analysis section of the staff report include, but are not
limited to:
1. Compliance of the proposed project and tentative tract with the
City's General Plan,
2. Compliance of the proposed project with Article 936, Planned
t
r. -
CUP 81-8/TT 11417/TPM 82-552
April 19, 1982
Page 3
Residential Development,
3. Traffic impacts generated by the proposed project on the adjacent
streets and within the project itself,
4. Removal and/or relocation of existing trees on the subject pro-
I
perty,
5. Abandonment of the existing recorded streets within the boundary
c' the tract,
G. The Southern Pacific Electric RailroaC. right--of-way. `+
Other isaueu discussed at the February 2, 1982 meeting include buil-
ding height and bulk as viewed from Hunt{ngton Street, treatment
along Main Street and Clay for patio walls, buffering from the Cambro
Manufacturing Company, additional information on the 38% compact
parking request, a letter indicating the future construction on the
not-a-part parcel, the type of treatment at the intersection of the
entrance ways with the bicycle path in order to reduce safety hazards
for bicyclists and pedestrians, dilrcuission an the oil wells and
whether there will be further recovery wells drilled and if it is 1
safe to builO over abandoned wells, and information as to t;ie quan-
tity of cut and fill on the property and a comparison of existing
gravies on the property versus the proposed graoe.Q. As indicated in
the March 2, 1982 Planning Commission staff •_epurt, only the issue
relaL•ing to the bulk of the units and providing landscape buffering
between the project and the Cambro Manufacturing building were re- 1
solved prior to the March 2, 1982 meeting. All other issues remai,ned
unanswered.
After considerable discussion at two Planning Commission meetings, . I
one held on February 2, 1982, and the other on March 2, 1982, the ?
Planning Commission denied the subject a:.;llications with the pre- ( '
viously mentioned findings. Attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 are the i
Planning Commission staff reports from -.-.be two meetings and Planning +
Commission minutes of those meeting.
ENVIRON-MENTAL STATUS:
In conjunction with Conditional Use Permit 81-8, Tentative Tract
11417, and Tentative Parcel Map 82-552, the applicant submitted
Environmental Impact Report No. 78- 4. Two public hearings were
held on this EIR, one on February 2, 1982 and the other on Febru-
ary 9, 1982. After considerable discussion and clarification of
several. points within this EIR, the Planning Comr.,i.ssion made the
following motion:
ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY PORTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RE-
PORT 78-4, INCLUDING ALL SUPPLEMENTS THERETO, WAS FOUND IN CONFORMANCE
WITH CEQA AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: +
I
1
� I
i
CUP 31--8/TT 1141',/TMP 82-552
April 19, 1982
Page 4
AYES: Hannist:2r, Paone, :?:;.nrhull, Porter, Schumacher, ;Mahaffey
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kenefick
ABSTAIN: None
The applicant has not appuale:, ::he Planning Commission's decision
on this Environmental Impact '.: ,)ort, therefore, under the provisions
set forth in the Californi..: F. v ironmental Quality Act, the City
Council need not review Eli• ' :;-4 in conjunction with this appeal.
EV10TNG SOUF{CE:
Non applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. Refer Conditional Use Permit No. 81-8, Tentative Tract No. 11411
and Tentative Parcel Maxi No. 82-552 back to the Planning Com-
misnion in order to allow adequate time for the Planning staff
to work with the Applicant to resolve the major issues of concern
and request that the Planning Commission report back to the
City Council with appropriate actions,
2. Overturn the Plannii., Commission's denial. of Conditional Use
Permit 81-8, Tentative Tract 11417 and Tentative Parcel Map
82-552 and approve said applications with findinga as deemed
appropriate and conditions as outlined in the Flanning Commission
minutes of March 2, 1982.
SUPPQR'TrW INFORMATION:
1. Exhibit 1, Letter from Mansion Properties, Inc. , received and
dated March 12, 1982.
2. Exhibit 20 Planning Commission staff reports dated February 2,
1982 and March 2, 1982.
3. Planning Conunissi.on minutes of February 2, and March 2, 1982.
4. Site plan, elevations and floor plans.
5. Letter from Mansion Properties, Inc., dated March 2, 1982,
I
LWP:SMA:jlm
i
f
I
r
•
�..
M kSION PROPERTIES IMC.
2110 MAIN STREET 1
HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 9264a
1714)536.8917
3r'
2.1 Is
rc
March 11, 1982 :?:
in r�e�nr7i
:K n
RANCH n
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #81-8
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #11417
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 082-552
City Council
City of Huntington Beach
P. O, Box 190 j
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 f
Dear Councilpersons: !`
This letter is to appeal the action of the Huntington Leach Planning
Commission on March 2, 1982, disapproving subject applications. Attached
is a copy of the "Findings for Deniai". The reasons for this appeal arc• as
follows:
Finding For Denial 111 - Reference was made that "tile 3.2 acres of street I
right of way within the site boundary have not been utilized to improve the i.
site design and layout, but have been incorporated to increase the number of
units cn the site:'
Comment - Contrary to this "finding", the special permits requested do
provide direct benefit to the design of the project as is evidenced by the 5.9
extra acres of countable open space provided over and above code
requirement. The 3.2 acres of paper streets requested for vaction have no
affect on the number of units planned for the site. The project proposes 4T2
total units, which is 177 units less than the allowable density.
Furthermore, the City has normally based a decision to vacate paper streets
on whether those streets are needed to provide access to abutting property.
These I,dper streets would serve property entirely Inside the boundaries of
Tract Map 11417 which provides private street access to the affected area.
The private streets shown on our site plan eliminates the need for the paper
streets while concurl-ently reducing the public street maintenance burden.
Finally, the paper streets requested to be vacated are easements from a
1917 Tract Map which, if improved for use, would be substandard by today's
requirements.
r
r0 - — avf r L
Co
R2 VC.
ml � r112
R5
C2 � a
J
1 RA-0 R2 r _sr• ^4'
1 ; s �: R2 } L }
3
II CZ G. ---- :�— i •� ....os,.c.: R2
tt ►_L
'_' » _ ! c• .ir R'2 !f R1 cr,j r
l •.rrr- R2-0-PD PD o f Rz 1
C2-0 tCD .. C2-0 r. ":,, ,f ",
// r
F42 R2
�RT
o .:C2-J-CD R5-(}CO ff.CO R2r
cu
g
I CF— ! 6 Ca
i Cam ;
r CF-E-CD
_ BRA a
fjCF-E-CD • - �'y s •ca-o o R
o 2-Q R2 R2
CF-E L o
i
Uf
`rll►MG1C►r a14CN
HUyTMIOH CEACH PLANNING DIVISION
hi
Finding For Denial #2 - "The Applicant has failed to provide a letter from
oil operators in accordance with... Ordinance Code...".
Comment - Subject letters were provided Planning Staff prior to the March
2ndP!anning Commissiun hearing. Attacacd are copies of the oil operator
letters ihowing the City's receipt stamp for March 2, 1982. The Minutes of
the March 2nd hearing include an acknowledgement by the Chairman of the:
Planning Commission regarding receipt of the subject letters.
Finding; For Denial #3 - "Design of the subdivision will conflict with
casements of record on Tract #77...".
Comment - This finding is unclear. The finding apparently refers to a
conflict between Tentative Tract Map Ili 1417 which was submitted for
review and previous Tract Map 1177 which was recorded in 1917, and is also
in reference to the paper streets discussed in Finding 111 above. if so, this
finding is both invalid and contradictory. At the direction of the Subdivision
Committee, pursuant to the recommendation of the Department of Public
Works, the Applicant requested vacation of the paper streets easements
concurrent with the processing of the Tentative Tract Map #11417 and
Conditional Use Permit #81-8. This finding denies the Tentative Tract Map
and the C.U.P. because the paper street easements are not yet vacated. J
If this finding is in reference to the former A.E. right-of-way, it is equally I
invalid and contradicts the Applicant's title report, the title insurance policy
issued by First American Title Insurance Company, and the written legal
opinion of the City Attorney's office - all of which were provided to the
Planning Commission and all of which certify that the Huntington Beach
Company is fee owner.
In regard to this appeal, the Applicant wishes to waive the requirement for a
review within thirty (30) days, and respectfully requests the matter be
placed on the City Council agenda for hearing at the April 19th City Council
meeting.
Sincerely, �'
M. T. KELLY
Vice President
MTK/e
Attachments
2
i
I
i
Huntington Beach Nanning Commission
P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92640
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417 (C.U.P. 81--8/"12M 82-552) '
A2plicant: Mansion Properties/Urban West Communities
3030 South Bundy Drive
Lcs Angeles, California 90066
I
Request: To permit a one-lot subdivision .for
condominium purloses.
I
Location: Subject property is located on the east
'- side of Main Street between Main and Huntington
Streets and Clay and Yorktown Avenues.
Date of Denial: March 2, 1982.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1. Insofar as a specia, permit must be granted in order for the
Commission to apprcve Conditional Use Permit 81-8 in conjunction
with Tentative Tract 11417 and Tentative Parcel Map 82-552, the
applicant has failed to demonstrate that the design of the project
has been improved through the use of the special permit.. The 3. 2
acres of street right-of-way within the project boundaries have
not bein utilized to .improve the site design and layout of the pro-
posed project but have been incorporated to increase the number of
units on L:ite.
2. The applicant has failed to provide a letter from the oil operators
, 027 leasees in accordance with Section 9630. 3of the Huntington Beach
Ordinance Code, which SLAtes "failure to subm?.t and obtain approval
of any plan shall be grounds ft-r disapproval of a proposed subdivi-
sion, division of land, . or development."
I 3. Design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict
1 with easements of record on Tract 77 for access through and use of
•'�S tho property within the proposed subdivision. The govgrning body
has not found that the alternative easements for access or use will
be provided or that these will be substantially equivalent to the
ones previously acquired by the public.
I hereby certify that Tentative Trac` No. 11.417 was denied by the
Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on
March 2, 1982, upon the foregoing Findings.
Very truly yours,
vp,4��&,4
James W. /Palin /
Secretary
:df
, r
Chevron
-�; Chevron LBA. Inc.
P. 0. Box 605 +.
La Habra, Ca.
90631 .,, •,
March 3, 1982
I
i
RANCH PROJECT
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 111417
CUP 81-8
Mr, James Palin
Director - Department of
Development Services
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach , CA 9264E
Dear Mr. Palin:
Chevron U. S. A. owns and operates wells OB-17, OB-205,
OB-232, OB-218 and OB-134 , located on, or adjacent to,
subject tract. This is to advise that we concur with the oSl
cell treatment plan dated 1/18/82 as it reiatesi to our wells
and subject to conformance with our specification OM-1713.
Yours Very Truly
W. D. EDMAN
Division Manager
S . Calif . Divison
Production Dept.
1 cc: h T. Kelly, Mansion Properties
R. J. Work, Huntington Bcr._h,Company
•
antington Beach Com-'iny
2110 MAIN STREET,HUNTINGTON REACH.CALIFORNIA 97648
(7141 9Ga 4351
March 2 , 1982
OIL WELL PLANS
TRACT #1141.7
WMK-34 , •#MK-41
Mr. Michael T. Kelly
Vice Preside:t
Mansion Properties
2110 Main Strcet
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. Kelly:
This is to advise that the Huntington Beach Company,
owner and operator of the subject oil wells , is in
complete accord with the oil well treatment plans for
the Ranch Project.
Very tr • y yours. ,
G GOODWIN
V e President .
GJG/gb
.-^
elms
huntington beach development services department
-af f
-- REPORT
TO: planning Commission
` FROM: Development Services
DATE: March 2, 1982
I �
sUTJJE,:T: CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT NO. 81-8/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417/
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 82-552
At the February 9, 1982 Planning Conunission meeting, tic Planning
g
Conunission continued the above-referenced applications to allow the
applicant adequate time to make revisions to the plan and to provide
additional information to the Planning Commission regarding the Com-
mission's points of concern. The Planning Commission requested that II
the following items be addressed by the applicant. I�
I
1. Building height and bulk as viewed from Huntington Street,
2. Treatment along 11ain and Clay for patio walls, I
3. Buffering from Cambro, 1
I
4. Letter indicating that future construction on the not.-a-part
parcel will be consistent with existing construction on the � I
rest of the property,
5. Further information on the 30% compact parking and trash lo-
cations,
b. Type of treatment at the intersections of the entranceway with
the bicycle path in order to reduce safety hazards of bicyclists
arl pedestrians,
7. Discussion on ail wells and whether there will be further re-
covery wells drilled and if it is safe to build over abandoned
wells, and
8. Information as t:o the quantity of cut and fill on the property
and a comparison of existing grades on the property versos the
proposed grades.
As of the preparation of this :staff report, the staff has not been
provided with any revised plans for review and analysis. However,
the applicant has met -with the staff and has discussed + „a of
these issues. in relation to the bulk of the units adjacent to
�•F M•235
{
CUP 81-8/TT 11417/TPM 82- 557.
March 2, 1982
Page 2
,luntingtor, Stre, '., the applicant has indicated that the units fronting
on Huntington wi .i be lowered into the grade to reduce the overall
height. Also, to reduce the visual impact of the height from Hunting-
ton Street, the applicant has indicated that the third story portion
of each building that fronts onto Huntington Street will be removed.
This in turn, will provide a two-story element adjacent to Huntington
,Street. This will reduce the number of units in the proposed project,
however, the applicah!. indicated that these units be relocated cnto
some of the interior building:. The applicant has indicated that heavy
landscaping will be provided along Clay Street in the location that
is across from the existing industrial facility on the north side of
Clay. The applicant has indicated that he is preparing a letter for
the Commission's review addressing the list of 19 concerns the staff
presented to the Currunis:;ion at this February 9, 1982 meeting.
Huntington Beach Ordinance Cole requirMs that the applicant of a
subdivision is required to provide a letter to the City from the oil
opera ors having oil wells or pipelines or any other oil-oriented
operation on the subject site, indicating that they have reviewed and
approved the proposed project. As of this date, the applicant has
not submitted such a letter for the Planning Commission 's review and
consideration.
As indicated in the February 2, 1982 Planning Commission staff report,
the applicant is requesting that 3. 288 acres of existing streets be
vacated by the City in order for the proposed project to be constructed
as submitted. Additional analysis of this request has indicated that
the applicant has failed to t•,tiliz:e these 3. 2 acres to improve the
site design of the proposed ;project. The applicant is requesting that
four special permit requests be granted in order to allow deviations
from Article 936 in relationvbip to the proposed project. These four
devlations Include building bilk, side-to-side building separation,
distance between travel lanes of vehicular accessways and garage or
parking structures and the relief in the turnarounds for several of
the fire lanes. The staff feels that the 3.2 acres of street to be
vacated by the City for the benefit of this project should afford the ?
additional square footage to eliminate all of the special permit re-
quests. Based on the allowable density of the subject property, the
3.2 acres of land allows an additional 48 uniLs for the project.
Staff analysis indicates that with proper site design, this 3 .2 acres
of vacated street area shoulJ provide adequate additional acreage to
eliminate the need for any special permits on the proposed project.
It is the staff ' s analysis t:'rat the applicant has failed '.:o address
th•i issues identified in the staff report of February 2, 1982, and
has also failed to address t'.ie majority of the issues expressed by
the Planning Conunission at the February 9, 1982 Planning Commission
meeting. Also, the staff 'pas not been afforded the opportunity to reviej"%
and analyze any revisions made by the applicants of the proposed project
C.U.P. 81-8/TT 11417, M 82-•552
March 2, 1982
Page 3
nor has the staff had adequate time to address any response prepared
by the applicant on the issues of concern.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission Continue Condi-
tional. Use Permit 81 -8 in conjunction with Tentative Tract 1:.417 and
Tentative Parcel Map 82-552 in order to allow the applicant adequate
time to provide the requested information in order to address all of the
concerns raised by the planning Cc,:-unission and the staff and to allow
the staff adequate time to analyze this information.
Alternative course of action is for the Planning Coitnission to deny the
above applications.
Frt3D.TNQS FOR DENIAL:
1 . Insofar as a special permit must he granted in order for the
Commission to approve Conditional Use Permit 81-8 in conjunction
with Tentative Tract 11417 and Tentative Parcel Map 82-.552, the
Qpplicant has failed to demonstrate that the design of the pro-
ject has been improved through the use of the special permit.
The 3.2 acres of abandoned street right-of-way within the project
boundaries nave not been utilized to improve the site design and
layout of the proposed project, but have been incorpo,-ated to
in-crease! the number of units on the site.
2. The applicant has failed to provide all of the information re-
quested by the Commission, in order for the Commission to com-
prehensively analyze• the proposed project.
3. The applicant has -failed to Provide a letter from the oil operators
or leasee±s in accordance with Section 9680. 3 of the Huntington
Beach Ordinance Code, which states "failure to submit: and ob-
tain approval of any plan shall be grounds for disapproval of
a proposed subdivision, division of land, or development.
4 . Design of the subdivision or the type oc improvements will conflict
with casements of record en Tract 77 for access through and use of
the property within the proposed subdivision. The governing body
has not fo+.,nd that the alternative easements for access or use will �
+ be providf -. or that these will be substantially equivalent to the
ones prev.: ,usly acquired by the public.
i
ATT?xilMENTS:
i
( 1 . Plan:. .: '_'ommnission staff report dated February 2, 1982
2. List .A' ;.:;sues presented to Commission February 5, 1982 meeting.
i 3. Issu.:a identified by Commission at February 9, 1982 meeting
i
4• Code Section 9680. 3
JWP:SMS: jIm
i
ISSUES RELATED TO TENTATIVE 'TRACT 11417 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-8 . ,_
1. Compliance of the proposed project and tentative tract with the
City 's General Plan.
2. Compliance of the proposed project with Article 936, Planned
Residential Development.
3. Traffic impacts generated by the proposed project on the adjacent•
streets .
4 . Removal and/or relocation of existing trees on `he subject property. j
5. Abandonment of existing recorded streets.
6. The Southern Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way.
7. Interior vehicular circulation.
8 . Location of proposed entrances along Huntington Street in relation-
ship to existing dwellings. I+
9. Need for fire roads in addition to proposed street
G
system. ,
10. Location of structures in relationship to existing oil wells.
1.1 . Portion of abandoned street adjacent to the west end of the
not-a-part parcel located on Huntington Street. j
12. Request for a special permit:
a. Building separation of side-to-side units.
b. Setback of garage from travel lane.
C. building bulk.
d. T alley configuration versus required turnaround for road- �
ways of 150 feet in length or longer.
13. Interpretation of building heights in respect to the three-story
flat units and need for fire sprinklers.
14 . The perimeter wall treatment adjacent to Main Street and Clay Avenue.
15. Proof of ownership of several parcels within the proposed project.
16. Detail of vehicular connection between Buildings 29 and 30 and 40
and 41.
17. Access to oil wells located on the south not-a-part parcel . �
18 . Location of existing oil lines onsite.
I
19. Annexation of not-a-part parcel located in corner of project.
I
i
Alk eA1
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
f February 9, 1982
Page 7
4 .
Commission discussion ensued concerning drainage, impacts of tha
proposed project on surrounding properties, elevation of units,
• siting of the flats and townhouses on the project, and the ques-
tion of conformance with the General Plan.
ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY PORTER ENVIRONMENTAL IDIPACT
REPORT N0. 78-4 INCLUDING ALL SUPPLEMENTS THERETO WAS FOUND TO
BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH CF.')A AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Bannister, Pnone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey
NOES: None
ABSYNT: Kenefick
P JSTAIN: None
It was the consensus of the Commission that further information
responding to the concerns expressed at this meeting should be
provided. In response to a request for concurrence with a con-
tinuance, Mike Kelly asked that comments regarding the Arenas the
Planning Commission would like addressed be listed.
in subsequent discussion the Commission listed the following areas
on which they would like additional work done and information
submitted: 1) Building height and bulk as viewed from Huntington
Street; 2) Treatment along Drain and Clay for patio .calls. Commis-
sioner Bannister suggest`d that there be walls with no gates at
all or one-way gates allowing exit but no entrance. The proponent
responded that the Fire Department might find this a problem for
emergency access; 3) Buffering from Cambro; 4) A letter indicating
that the future construction on the not-a-part parcel will be con-
sistent with the existing construction on the rest of the property;
5) Further information on the 30 percent compact car parking and
the trash locations; 6) Some treatment so that the interuections
of the entryways with the bicycle path do not pose a safety hazard
to bicyclists or pedestrians; 71) Discussion on the oil wells -
e.g. , whether there cvill be further recovery wells drilled and if
it is safe to build over abandoned wells; 8) Information on the
quantity of cut and fill on the property and a comparison of exist-
sing grades on the property versus the proposed grades; avid 9) The
remaining issues of concern distributed by staff which have either
not been resolved at this meeting or specifically outlined above.
: r�lri staff, the Commission requested more discussion on the dis-
crepancy between the Uniform Building Code and Division 9 in re-
gard to allowable building heights.
After this discussion, Mr. Kelly agreed to a continuance of the
requests.
I� h
ON MOTION BY HAIIArFEY AND SECOND BY BANNISTER CONDITIONAL USE
PE-1101IT NO. 61-8, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO. 82-552 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1982,
WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
1 AYES: 1annister, Vaone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey
NOES: None
A13SENT: Ke?nefick
4 ABSTAIN: None -7- 2-9-82 - P.C.
S. 9680.2 MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICT'S PLANNING_ �
1
S. 9680.2 CREAT1011 04 COMBINED DISTRICTS. Oil districts created by this article may
be combined with other districts established by the provisions of this co•'"_
in which case the requirements set out in the provisions of all districts so combined
shall be applicable. i
(.S. 9680.3 PLAN REQUIRED. All proposed subdivisions, divisions of land or develop-
ments of property located within an oil district or on property on which
oil operations exist, shall include a plan for the disposition or treatment of any
existing or proposed oil wells or oil operations located or to be located thereon.
Such clans shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal
Code.
The subdivider or developer shall send the plan by certified mail to the oil operator
or lessee for review, comnent and approval. Upon receipt of the oil operator's or
lessee'; approval and/or comments, the subdivider or developer shall submit the plan
and the approval and/or comments to the Department of Development Services for review
as to municipal code compliance. If such co►np:iance is found, and if the oil operator,
or lessee has approved the plan, the plan may be approved by the department.
If the oil operator or lessee does not approve-the plan, and if the Director of the I'
Department of Development Services and the Fire Chief find the plan in compliance with
the municipal code, then the plan and any comments of the oil operator or lessee shall
be transmitted by the director for review to the Planning Commission or the Board of
Zoning Adjustments, as specified in this code, accompanied by normal entitlement pro-
ceedin s. The oil operator or lessee shall be notified by certified mail at least
seven ?7) days prior to the review.
Failure to submit and obtain approval of any p►;•.i shall be grounds for d'sapproval of
the proposed subdivision, division of land or development.
S. 9680.4 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN. The Planning Commission or Board of Zoning
Adjustments may approve the plan only if it finds all of the following:
(a) That enough open space has been reserved around the oil operation site to allow
ali existing and future equipment which could reasonably- be expected to be used
on the site, including any setbacks from new development required by the Fire Chief.
(b) That adequate access from a public street or alley to all operation sites is
provided for portable equipment and emergency vehicles.
(c) That reasonable expansion of the existing facilities, if permitted in the oil
district, can be accomplished.
(d) That any proposed development inciudes 'all provisions for soundproofing and fire
protection required by the Fire Chief.
(e) That screening of oil facilities from any new development. are included in the plan.
S. 9681 "0" DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED. There is hereby established the "0" district.
Only the following uses are allowed in an "0" district:
(a) Any use allowed in the base zone; and
(b) Any oil operation, as defined herein, except drilling, or any building not other-
wise permitted in the base zone.
612181
huntington beach development services department
STAf f
REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Development Services
DATE: February 2, 1982
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-8/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. ll417 E V RQdME_NT6L
IMPACT REPORT NO. 70-4/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 82-552
allbICANT: Mansion Properties, Inc./ DATE ACCEPTED:
Urban West Communities January 21, 1982
3030 So. Bundy Dr.
Los Angeles, Ca. 90066 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE:
60 t layhs from cer.tifi--
C.U.P. To permit a 492 unit planned ca ° o EIR 78- 4
E UEGT: residential development ZONE: R2--0-PD-CD
R2-0-CD
T.T. To permit a ore lot subdivision
i0ftflEGUEST: for condominium purposes;.
GENERAL PLAN: Medium
hQCATION: Subject property is located on Density Residential
the east side of Main Street,
at the southeast corner of EXISTING USE: Vacant/
Clay Avenue .and Main Street Oil Production
i
T.P.M.
REQUEST: To create a 1-parcel oil island.
ACREAGE: 44.6 gross acres
11.0 SUrzG.ESTED ACTION:
The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission certify
EIR 78-4 and continue Conditional Use Permit No. 81-8, Tentative
Tract No. 11417 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 82-552 to the February 9,
1982 Study Session.
r
A-FU.236
CUP 61-8/TT 11417/EIR 76-4
February 2, 1982
Page 2
220 GENERAL INFORMATION:
Conditional. Use Permit No. 81-8, in ccrijunction with Tentative Tract
No. 11417, is a request to permit the development of a 492-unit
planned residential development on a 41.7 gross acre site located
on the south side of Clay Avenue between Huntington and Main Streets.
EIR 78-4 is the environmental review, and documentation for the pro-
posed project. Tentative Parcel Map No. 82•. will separate the not
a part parcel located approximately in the center of the project from
the remaining portion of the project. This not a part parcel v ll
continue to be utilized as an oil production area.
3:0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
After review of the proposed project, the staff has identified the 1
following issues:
1. Compliance of the proposed project and tentative tract with the
City's General Plan.
2. Compliance of the proposed project with Article 936, Planned /
Residential Development.
3. Traffic imparts goner.ated by the proposed project on the adjacent
streets.
4. Removal and/or relocation of existing trees on the subject property. '
5. Abandonment of the existing recorded street pattern.
6. The Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
On December 7, 1978, a letter was transmitted to the Development Ser-
vices Department from the applicant requesting that the staff proceed
directly toward the preparation of an environmental impact report for
a proposed 649-unit planned residential development on the site. The
environmental consulting firm of Environmental Resources Group was en-
gaged to prepare this EIR. The original final EIR ;EIR 78-4) was pre-
sented to the Planning Commission at their November 6, 1979 regular
meeting. The EIR was found inadequate by the Planning Commission and
required to be revised incorporating a development alternative which
discusses retention of the existing Pacific Electric Railroad right-
of-way as a possible future transporta�ion corridor. The Commission
also directed staff to analyze the project through use of the City' s
sewer, traffic, drainage and fiscal impact studies. Finally, staff u
directed to provide information regarding the possibility of a connec
tion north/south between Clay and Yorktown Avenues through the project.
� I
I
i
i
n
CUP 81.-8/1'T 11417/EIR 78-4
February 2, 1982
Page 3
In February, 1981, the applicant filed Conditional Use Permit and
Tentative Tract applications for a 692-unit planned residential develop-,
meat on the site. Because of the amount of time which had elapsed
between the last public hearing and submittal of the revised plan
and the major differences between the original plan and the revised
plan, staff recommended to the applicant that a supplement to the
original EIR be prepared pursuant to Section 15067.5 of the State EIR
.Guidelines.
On March 9, 1981, the applicant requested that Development Services ti
staff proceed directly toward preparation of the supplemental EIR.
Environmental Resources Group was engaged to prepare the document.
A draft supplemental EIR was prepared and distributed to other public �
agencies and interested parties for a 45-day public review period
ending November 25, 1981. The draft supplemental EIR updates pertinent
information presented in the original EIR and contains an assessment
of the issue areas identified by the Planning Commission at their �
November 6, 1979 meeting. l
The final supplemental EIR consists of the draft supplemental F,IR,
comments and recommendations received on the draft supplemental EIR,
a list of persons, organizations and public agencies cow.enting on
the draft supplemental EIR, and the City's responses to the significant
environments:_ points raised during the review aijA consultation process.
According to Section 15150 of the State EIR Guidelines, Standards
for Adeauacv: "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree
of analysis to provide the decision makers with information which
enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of
environmental consequences. Au evaluation of the effects of a pro-
posed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is
to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement
among experts does not make: an EIR inadequate. Courts have looked
not for protection, but for adequacy, completeness and a good-faith
effort at full disclosure."
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify EIR No. 78-4
(which includes the original draft and final EIR and draft and final
supplemental EIR) as being adequate and in conformance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and State EIR Guidelines.
5_,_0_ _SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN. ZONINGS AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS:
The subject property is located on the south side of Clay between
Huntington and Main Streets and extends to two small locations along
.� Yorktown Avenue. The property is presently designated on the General
Plan as medium density residential. The subject property is zoned
R2-0-PD, medium density residential, planned development, oil pro-
duction and R2-0-PD-CD, medium density residential, planned development,
i
CUP 81-8/TT 11417/EIR 78-4
February 2, 1982
Page 4
oil production, Civic District. The property is mainly vacant of
development at this time, however, there is considerable oil produc-
tion existing on the site at this time.
Properties to the north of the subject site, across Clay Avenue, are
zoned R2, medium density residential and Ml, light manufacturing.
This property is designated on the General Flan as medium density
residential and has been developed as medium density residential con-
dominiums and light industrial Manufacturing on the respective zones.
A portion of this area to the north is also vacant with existing oil
production. Properties located to the east of the subject site are
also designated on the General Plan as medium density residential,
zoned R3 and R1, and are developed with multiple family and single
family residential units. The property adjacent to the south property
line of the subject project is designated on the General Plan as
medium density residential and office professional. These properties
are zoned R2-0-PD-CD and R5-0-CD, office professional, combined with
oil production, Civic District. The R5 property is presently developed
with an office professional park, while the adjacent R2 property is
vacant of development except for the single family home and accessory
building and a small home that is presently being used as an office.
Directly across Yorktown Avenue is the Huntington Beach Civic Center eol%
complex. Properties located to the west of the subject site, across
Main Street, are designated on the General Plan as general commercial,
zoned R2-CD and is presently developed with a commercial center.
6,0 ST&TI5TICAL IVV,'0 2FdA►TTON:
Number of units: 492
Gross acreage: 44.6 j
Net acreage: 41 .7
Density (15 maximum) : 11.03 Units per gross acre
Bedrooms per acre (38 permitted) : 29.0 Bed•:ooms per gross acre
Common open space required: 393, 600 square feet
Common open space provided: 649, 700 square feet
Parking Required: 1, 230 spacer (2.5/unit)
Parking Provided: 1, 555 spaces (3. 16/unit)
Lot Coverage Maximum: 45 percent
Lot Cove.age Provided: 37.5 percent
7.0 suf3DIVISION COMMITTEE:
The Subdivision Committee has met on four separate occasions to re-
view Tentative Tract 11417. Minutes of the March 20, 1981, Aujust 13,
1981, September 18, 1981 and December 8, 1981 Subdivision '.oimnittee
meetings have been attached for the 'Commission's review.
1'\
CUP 81-8/TT 11417/EIR 78-4
February 2, 1982
Page 5
+
$.0 ANALXSIS:
Conditional Use Permit 81--8 in conjunction with Tentative Tract 11417,
is a request to permit the development of a 492-unit planned residen-
tial development. Proposed for the 41.7 acre site is a project com-
prised of two distinct building types. 140 units will be provided in 1
two-story townhomes, each having a two-car detached garage separated i
from the unit by a patio or roof-top deck. These townhomes have been
generally located northwest of the central spine road and southeast
of the central spine road. 352 of the units are design into 16 three-
story structures constructed over semi-subterranean parking. Each
of the buildings contain 22 units. All o" the three-story flats
have been generally located between the central spine road and Hun-
tington Street. � I
The major recreational theme of the project is a large water element
located approximately in the center of the prr.,Ject. Four major re-
creation areas have been disbursed throughrat the entire project. {
These recreational facilities include a clubhouse, pool and whirlpool
spa.
The applicant has requested that a special permit be ,approved in con-
junction with the conditional use permit and tentative tract in order
to allow a deviation from foar requirements of Article 936. These
deviations include the side-to-side building separation, distance be-
tween travel lane on vehicular accessways, and garages or parking
structures, relief in the requirement to lirgvidc; one-third of the
units at one story less in height and to eliminate the turnaround for
several of the fire lanes. The applicant has also requested that 30
percent of the )arking be designers to accommodate compact cars.
+
Section 9362.7 of the Ordinance Code requires that the minimum build-
ing separation between two buildings containing six units each, be
30 feet. The applicant is requesting that the minimum side-to-side
separation be 20 feet. The applicant has indip- - '-ed that the end por-
tion of each building is a one-story element which reduces the impact
of the reduced separation.
Section 9362.E (j) requires that the minimum setback for all garages
from vehicular accesswayn be a minimum of five feet and that 50 per-
cent of the unit have a minimum setback from the garage to the vehicu-
lar accessway of 20 feet. The applicant is proposing that the town-
house units all have a minimum of five foot setback from the garage
to the travel lane and a maximum of seven feet from the garage door
to the travel lane. The justification for this deviation is that
additional guest parking has been provided throughout the areas pro-
viding more guest parking than if 50 percent of the units had the
20 foot setback.
�. T`Je third deviation pertains to Section 9362. 10 (c) which deals with
_...
CUP 81-8/TT 11417/FIR 78-4 ...
February 2, 1982
Page 6
building bulk. This sections requires that one-third of the units be
one story less than the rem.ai.ning two-thirds of the units. The ap-
plicant is requesting that this requirement be deleted in its entirity.
They have justified this deviation by indicating that the design of
the roofs for the townhomes include variation without reducing one-
third of the units by one story. Also, the corner units of the three-
ste• y flats have been reduced by one story.
The last deviation requested by the applicant is Section 9362.15 re-
quiring that turnarounds be provided for any roadway of 150 feet in
length or longer. Several of the fire access roads exceeding the 150 j
feet in length have been provided with a "T" alley configuration to
provide the required turning area for emergency vehicles. The appli-
cant •han ,justified this deviation by indicating the "T" configuration
maximizes the land use for the project.
Under the provisions of the ordinance Code, minimum parking stalls
size is nine feet in width by 19 feet in length. The applicant is
requesting that 30 percent of the unassigned parking be eight feet in
width by 15 feet in length. The applicant's ,justification for this
deviation is that there is a growing trend toward small.-ar cars and
that the u3e of compact spacers will be reflected in additional open
space in landscaping for the entire project.
The Department of Public Works expressed some concern at a number of �--
the Subdivision Committee meetings regarding traffic circulation both
on-site and onto the adjacent surrounding streets. Because of these
concerns, the applicant had a traffic study report prepared to evalu-
ate the traffic impacts of the proposed project. This study was pre-
pared by Lynn Scott, Law and Greenspan* Inc. , and has been included
as Appendix 4 in the supplement to F.IR 78-4. As indicated in the
report, the traffic study indicates that no major problems will. be
created on the adjacent streets as a result of the proposed 49�-unit
project. Also indicated in the report is that the internal circula-
tion and parking is adequate for a project of this nature. The only
mitigating measures identified in the report related to future traf-
fic volumes generated by the proposed project include the full im-
provements along Clay and Huntington Streets and modification of the
painted island which channelizes sough-bouncy left turn and north-
bound right turn movement into east-bound 11 th Street which should
by implemented in conjunction with construction of the southern-most
Huntington Street site driveway.
Also discussed at a number of the Subdivision Committee meetings was
the number of existing trees that will be removed or relocated as a
result of the proposed project. Pursuant to this questioning, the
applicant had prepared by Pod Landscape Architects a tree_ inventory
assessment. This inventory has also beer; included in the supplement
of the Environmental Impact Report. Basically, the study identifies
I�
CUP 81-8 TT 11417/EIR 78-4
February 2, 1982
i Page 7
that 126 substantial trees on the subject property will be removed or
relocated. As a result of the project, 19 trees will be removed and
an additional 73 diseased, dying or damaged trees will be removed.
34 of 126 trees will be relocated. A detailed map has been provided
in supplement to the EIR.
The proposed project incorporates two areas of land. Bc::h areas are
.owned by the same property owner, however, the portion of land adja-
cent to Huntington Street between Clay Avenue and Yorktown Avenue,
was previously subdivided. The remaining portion of the project was
never previously subdivided. Tract 77, which is that portion of the
Property that was previously subdivided, included streets which were
dedicated to the City but were not built or have not been utilized for
access to the property. As a result of the proposed project, the ap-
plicant has requested that these paper streets be vacated since they
will not provide any access to the proposed project. The streets in-
cluded in Tract 77 are Alab5ma Avenue, Oregon Avenue, State Street, and
a portion of 17th Street between the present alignment of Yorktown
Avenue and Huntington Street. 3.288 acres are encomrassed by these
four streets. As indicated by the Director of Public Works, the re-
quested vacation of the subject streets should be accomplished during
the processing of the subject tentative tract. See attached letter
{ from the Director of Public Works dated January 8, 1981.
I
In March, 1978, the City Council adopted, by Resolution 4586, the
Trails Impl.ementation Plan. Identified in this document as the master
plan of bikeways, is a proposed trail from Garfield to Yorktown along
' the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. This segment of the bi»
cycle trail was identified for, the Phase III implementation of the
overall program. The primary purpose of Phase III is to identify long-
range bikeway needs. It also provides an improved circulation pattern
and ties fragmented bikeways together.
The project as proposed identities a bicycle and pedestrian pathway
connecting Clay Avenue to Yo,.;:town Avenue via Huntington Street.
This bicycle/1edestrian-way would intersect the north boundary of
the project approximately at the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-
way then travel easterly along the south side of Clay Avenue to
Huntington Street then sovitherly along Huntington Street to Yorktown
Avenue then westerly along Yorktown to approximately the intersection �
of Lake Street and Yorktown Avenue. This bikeway has been depicted
as being behind the ultimate right-of-way line and has been designed
as a .meandering path. This bike path as designed will transverse three
of the project' s entrances, three fire roads and a 104 foot wide not
a part parcel located on Huntington Street. Based on the problems
identified with the proposed bike path, the staff would prefer to see
a bike path along the abandoned railroad right-of-way.
The Department of Public Works has expressed the following concerns
related to the proposed project. The Department of Public Works feels
that the on-site street circulation and street sections are not ade-
quate to accommodate a project of this size. Ciculation patterns
r
/"ti
CUP 81-8/TT 11417/FIR 78-4
February 2, 1982
Page 8 .^.
should have been designed to preclude the need for additional emergen-
cy or fire access rands. And the street widths provided to the town-
house units should be increased by an additional two feet in order to
allow better maneuverability between opposing units. The Department
of Public Works has also commented on prohibiting of on-site parking
along Clay and Yorktown Avenues and Huntington Street.
The Fire Departments review of the project has led to the following
comments. All units that are located less than 100 feet to an
existing oil well shall be designed with some means of limiting the
noise created by the oil well and with additional fire protection.
The Fire Department has also indicated that all of the three-story
buildings shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler and alarm
systems, not only in the living areas, but also in the parking areas.
It should be pointed out that the provision to allow a reduction from
the requirement of 100 feet between dwellings and oil wells was pri-
marily designed for the Townlot and Oldtowt, areas, not for new sub-
divisl.ons such as this.
i
The project has been designed to take access frc.:., both Yorktown and
Clay Avenues. A spine road will connect the two arterials and provide
access to all of the townhouse units. One of the three-story struc-
tures will also take access from this spine road. The southern-most
portion of this spine roae, intersecting with Yorktown Avenue, will
also provide access to the adjacent business park. Therefore, a re- w
ciprocal easement will. haves tc be entered into between the homeowners
asnociati.on and the owners of the business park in order to allow the
reciprocal access and to provide a reciprocal maintenance agreement
over this portion of the main spine road. The remaining 15 three-
story buildings will take access from Clay Avenue and Huntington Street.
The access located approximately half-way between Yorktown and Clay
Avenue is directly across from several existing dwellings. This lo-
cation will create somewhat of a hardship on the adjacent property
owners along the cast side of Huntington Street. In addition to the
two main access points along Huntington for the project, three addi-
tional curb cuts will be developed in order to provide the three emer-
gency access roads from Huntington Street. Five points of access will
be developed along Huntington Street between Clay and Yorktown Avenues.
The second access point off of Huntington Street has been designed
directly adjacent to an existing apartment which is identified on the
site plan as not �ii part parcel. This entrance will be providing access
to 132 units. A fire road has been designated on the proposed project
to be located along the northerly boundary of the not a part parcel.
I
At several of the Subdivision Committee meeting:, several additional
items were requested to be submitted, however, were not included with
the information submitted to the Commission. These items include a
detailed plan of the perimeter wall along Main Street and Clay Avenue �
adjacc::it to the townhome units located in this area. The applicant
CUP 81-8/TT 11417/EIR 78-4
February 2, 1982
�. Page 9
indicated that the perimeter wall would be a combination of stucco
and wrought iron to provide visual access into the project. Trash re-
ceptacle areas have not been identified on the site plan for the three-
story stacked units. The applicant has indicated that individual
trash collection will be made in each of the townhouse units. Also
not included in the existing site plan is the security system for the
three-story buildings. Both the Fire Department and Department of De-
velonment services would like to review the type and location of all
security gates provided for the three.-story structures. A detailed
plan shall also be provided of the walkway system in relation to the
southern-most townhouse building next to the not a part parcel. Also
special attention should be made to the engineering of the roadway
serving this particular unit. The grading plan identifies a three
percent grade on this roadway when combined with the 25 foot street
width, could provide some difficulty in maneuvering into the garages
accessing off of this roadway.
City records indicate that there are presently two major pipelines
paralleling the existing railroad right-of-way: one eight-inch line
and one four-in-h line both belonging to Standard Oil. The tentative
tract failed to identify an easement adjacent to and paralleling the
railroad right-of-way. There is also some concern regarding the fu-
ture access to four oil. wells located on the not a part parcel south
of the subject tract. At the present time it appears that access to
`�- these wells is over the part of the subject property. However, the
proposed site plan does not depict future access for the servicing of
these wells.
The applicant has not provided. a section depicting the treatment of
the connectors between Building 429 and 030 and }building 040 and 041 .
It is difficult to determine whether this connection wil . take Place- 4
' e elevated
ab a semi-subterranean portion of the parking areas or hil�. b
to natural. grade. Also, there is some concern as to horr pedestrian
wallcways will transverse these connectors.
Tentat ve P reel Man 82-552 Analysis: �
In conjunction with the above applications, the applicant hat filed
Tentative Parcel Map 82-552. This parcel will segregate. a 1.4 acre
parcel located just west of the central spine road and approximately
half way between Clay Avenue and Yorktown Avenue. This parcel is
Presently a productive oil well site and will continue to be utilized
as such. The problem related to segregating this parcel out as an
individual parcel. rrom Tentative Tract 11417 is that it will be dif-
ficult to incorporate this single parcel back into the future develop-
ment of the project. Access to this parcel will be provided via the
main spine road and an easement from Main Street.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission certify Environ-
mental Impact Report No. 78-4 with the supplement as provided, Based
A
;I.V{91`6Y7 nT f• , +� �•9., "f ! "�" i,. ,.. � f^y 7e1r+Cf'lu !f wrtr+ }r .+:' r•; _, r r" t;
�I t I i. f �t�1 E' 4' 4' �• �, w y;, 1
1 , �q� +. 'ti; F S •+ I'! �fa��..:s'i'�I 11,/ "'� •• 1 f'IS }^� 1�`' yy '.:i„�,�,p� �,� .^y'.�! ,�,�k}+,• ,,r ',, ��" ,�.
` rt �.����� .;>':���; �if. G1' 9``,�E;} •'�;•�'{� �'�!�r � `� t. d�" Y,1?'�� �' r'y' f,,';•i'',�!'fr "•� �%� yr. h
�T; `r � �" , '� � � 1 �', y Y '� Y rl l�•v �1'• }f� [, � ��, h:•Y�r!' ik .,e�f y,,. ��n. 'Y
r:;�' �}'�.•�,, .'. fir' F y , 1:, ,� ,.�?';'�` �': '� .i , �• {� '1Rti,,� ��w ',,� �..��, ,��: t>,..w�<• '�,` i�E'�•�. ,�' ti, '°�:,
.''i .f, ,(4Y�'{,t �.� ih 5 'C•��:J �'. .'h�'. E, t 'Y/.�. �i ! �� i• ! 1'' a' y(t '�. r• ,u.]' � � {y� y.4 .xy�,;Y
:fl. 7Y 1r Y"i,,��j,, {�� 'FY' �ryr� •��1�1��.E�, ,ik�m�,�(t��i��i,r��rr,�` i�y �T.�r:f; r�� f� ,M�'7�.')�'i�4F�'��''if3i9 f,��! •r`vr. "''j�1 4;! '�Lti. 4y �f 1�.YR� ;�y5''
.,151 y,.. � .�:k�' :?r'lf �.f.?5;4 �yr .•�,�;.fri.,q+�,�*.1.: 1,4f.1" Y .''�.r'Y�/�. ;.at, f`��:'t r;,A r� � l t 4S` r j��l f''� p0 .,if; k 'ti1, yy,,
' dll,t y9�� Y �'! �Y� µ.�,�� 1 'r,y)"ft� ,y i ! f'yr 1w .�'C'..,7,'�h, �'1,••!.l. f }�.� r � �;Yv r.,,l i „•�� 4=t'b �"if 'a}
1111'''' q��,�i� 4 �1, E � :. ',` L (1 f f f t l il'y y rl'�..'•. .f.1 b y 1 �
`yt� .�� LLYSI.rJ`i 'v 1 �1lIL.J�•ai�•:fu-t:l. l.i.. y.. i��iLA]�:'a.� «il�ar.[..t.i3'a�F�:�•6�.�u9�i�,• '1i�� ilI[.x6t�...H�+ii[l�a..1.�'�if.�ilEiL'�uA..f.r.r_.Ct.��..;,�i.:I� �.Ji.' �f,
r}
w �
CUP 81-8/TT 11417/EiR 78-4
February 2, 1982
Page 10 F^
on the above analysis and the number of outstanding conc.:rns, the
staff is recommending that the Conunission continue Conditional Use
Permit 81-8, Tentative Tract 11417 and Tentative Parcel Map 82-552
to the study session of February 9, 1982. If the Planning Commission
feels that adequate information has been provided to approve the
subject project, the staff will be prepared with appropriate findings
and conditions for the approval of this project.
I �
ATTACHMENTS:
I
1 . Area Map
2. Request for special permit
3. EIR 74-8 (sent out on 1-22-82)
4. Subdivision Committee ifinutes of 3-20-81, 8-13.-81, 9-18-81, and
12-3-81 .
5. Site plane, floor plans, elevations dated January 21, 1982.
6. Tentative Parcel Map 82-552 dated January 29, 1982
!
SM :jlm
M .
it
I
1
i
I
f
Wl CSNNESf ST 11L i
i ` rev RA-0-CD
C') I r
frl = C') 1�0 RA-0 L
k.
S p C7
--------------
MAIN'lid — .. .
1. 1"..
TALML -n - f-w--
r •1
Z , C; ~ ¢�p N
.�y
T l G r a . O N
! Rt-O-CDAl
p $ -o-c Re-ON, ,
Z
na, R2.O-C 2-0 N `
I , '
a
p h
•c0.0: -COO 0 0 rtLY
= P I .
1 N � x N •a� r
i 0 N
� tr
1�
LN
�r•s
-�� iz a
N
,
I BEACH = 9LV0_rl r
Ei
5�5�,• ".�'• n.�."�R'T;f+,..C. +'t•r, :�,:rv.;,^ r:7rf *m`F" S;'•° "1.^,T;"„rr.^•„•T 7 rn w�.f•n 1r+FR+dt,^,,, �'3T T•�.+�7 r 1
.,r .'! I;•.. ,b .,t'�' PS:. J'� s.?nr'r >. ?����� r ,.,rr,y l�"'{.. �1'S3-. 1, ; s 'r'
!� •.i` . '�. r A' .[ Rp�'` '1 a :ti r• 5' , '�'r �;. �"y•• t `
Y$;41,i�, ,'Y'.;'ti "A v. ''�4 \:,�;•'' '> 'A;•,��1 .f. '4 it^� ¢� 4 , i j ,;��.n� r�, :�11in�• i�. ,Iy, � 1. �f 1.7�Y.'i .l 4a�:. 1fr;... � r• M 7
) Y+ } px�-�tl 'i. -y� ,1,., .�\,�. �1}p t��p'�!�'.!itb 4,y,, Y4i1�. •�.:. .id��• A, U arh' �w ``�c� v' l'{ .''�. I! '�I �',.."`6+.'�7�� ,,n:'�•
Ell
l 'I 1�n, � y. r:4`,••5/'.. }.!: I^A ff .,a, A� 1' CC '?� }}�����j r 1 ��i,S �l� ; ,}i�E'.{+I .l •�r l{ r '�'. ",I. w F lay { i
k :)��+i.r. �r�.ti3 }'.7�'l,4� '.i1'�.`Lr,�S�%�•:}�,.y,/• r' ny'yY ,l�T,''�1?''ty t4�; '1'�''�tid w''1� i�tl j"1�';y�'���{�r4'.?5i?�a�'q^•,y4�t'X,"�1�� 'y���•w 5� •�y�rr ',��.,
71t iI tia { ,,U.,1 n l ..1 ! p "t }.}y , ,t; sikiS .. ,d ;�n. ti. 1 �•k .I+�t 1 •. �. i J �
,��'8 ,i. ;5�5 r :� I� ` R ,`��/:�1�'.. W':r' , ;t7,• ,•i I � 1" f,, Vry'r li. �,.H
S'� k�„r�. ..,{,` y � S. 'r�%.�. '�.^.;.'( 1 '1:�• ;•^'� hb/•�'�s'�ai. j l:G'.1. y1�' �i.k„ I': ,`'rf�.�• �' i , �i, �y .ii+ 7 J
, �y�i �, la•, y4r' :.�,.,, a 7 ?r, y } 'r�,�, 1.:c�u, gyr,51. �"�'. 1' �� �• q�5
ir�.,1��.�� �,'bi:t�Sl. 'b�.l,t��i�t,Ul.•.5 a��4�:7V i��l %�,C{ 1•i, y•1'7�i '��}; I','ji'.'Y,r��. .,yiye,�.,�; '�y,a^ � ry�.��i^ �{�• �i,�Na',� ,i'y� „ 11 j�iL'.
4 � .�''. � � �r� `y 1�' l� `�P�' ,�1 ,i,; 1• "! 'f'' � ,i,� V�:s�;y '� f•`� •l 4fy� ,� ' '4 �' �y.$ i� I1y 41,w �4r94 j4 `•p�Jl"'.Y,�n�'a k' r, .� � y ,.
•, `d "f�G{ t lr�,��'�`�+�rIY 4,�,��n; 1 �'. � ry i r 1 ,/• ,�,
� nA. � �! y�'��4 � 1�(��F $,1 t "y,.��! �4I.� i °*�•�, '� .i �t� ��x� D'•Y ' �."r'� � ,'��I��' �'
q �' 'A 1 }}II }• }s�;, M 4�`' I` �" •i;1�y i S 1,5,`H'r'4. , yrr.�'� , ./ 1y�, ��.•' ," � '+'x 'M
k f z' . y� r r t. "� t•` � y.)�fr• . „!4i 'Y i'.,� Y L t � .i .i�`1� 8 y5:�� r.r �,. � y
"'sd •! l,a [, t,i� A,
• b ye7ty T +. 'ti 1, P`'y. ,�na; gyp, f '1' r • 1. S;y,
F�^,�"G 2Jti' �' 'a fi` �' ���M.'� '5�! t•i�+ Y •,, T Ir'i1x '''� 't �rt• ,n�yf ,.. y+i•�y, ti,(
5;�' , 4 .t il.�"lG•+',^i1, ?•}a,3; ri!' S �ll:,y: t: ' •„l',,{ .P. .,'4.. ,d, s y •�,, w'�i� !�I}�: 'V.. L" r'�,'t � r ,i+
+L. 'l+vw T a .�v,�y,li '7r,�.. ':'ri , t,y' •.. a'f' ,itr',t.a +:•,1A ! i:',;,:, .t:y+• '% ! e� y 'f,t•;'r, tr, .tj 11"..,,i } dY + i
( A"A f,,�`v +,'.• '' �'4,0 '4.."�.r,y�;�+J'Sri; •PFy }• 41 xx.. .1., ,fir•. � ;4`��. 'k.'.�i'1�.K'}itk•A ' 4. ,+"` t .,C1.4 ,{ .r�,; , ]t' Y �'S�+{Sv uh4.� tl� ♦a, n';;1f +y '� ",T-},�.'
;.r � v4 'S iF. x :p.1 .3, w(,rh.:�; .>�.�• 4 ,'A R `S` yaM1.. .ry'iL 1 �S f. 7Y iY 4., I It �.. '..!?"• !'.' •,1` i S1'h. i J.i, i
'lp f�' �`� } .y! 3 $a. x.. •yM,•;;[. Y ; � � F � S �yE' •} , a; f';!' r,S i ` i ` ¢• 1�• � 'S j! �., y,Y �" y41.1�' ^•;; y 1"L a'' 1 �' A
Y' '6.'.'� `i'.jt'S'' h !. a, ,• "+`.`.'y 1 'el.Zl�i.+ 1:
�'t t&SY3t7lliSytid y°� , ,�' •�', �'.'•' F:V S�';�•nw « � +1il�.Yfixls:'4�'7�A' t,^1•fa.ri''
RANCII PP.OJEC:T
SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST
j CUP P81-8
TENTATIVE TRACT #11417
1/ 18/82
1. 5.9362.7 BUILDING SEPARATION AND SETBACK
The minimum building; separation or distance between building; and access-
ways shall be as follows:
(d) Between one-story buildings, side to side, ten (10) feet. This
distance shall be increased by two and one-'half (M) feet for each
story of each building in excess of one (1) story or by five (5) feet
for each dwelling unit in excess of two (2) contained in either one of
the structures, whichever distance is greater.
Proposed Modification - Side to side separation of 10' between one story
elements of each end unit in a building and minimum side to side
separation of 20' between end units of two story heights, subject to a
maximum of six dwelling units in either building.
Justification - Planned residential developments are designed to maximize
the use of property with respect to both density of dwelling units provided
and the resultant quality of the living environment which is created. This
project achieves that maximization of use by creation of common areas
oriented to residents' pedestrian use and designed to minimize pedestrian-
vehicular conflicts. The side to side separation area between townhouse
buildings, bounded on each side by one story elements, has been treated as
a transition space and connector for the vehicular and pedestrian use
areas. The living environment emphasis is given to the front of the
dwelling unit and Its relation to entry and passive recreation. The space
i between the ends of the buildings is a landscaped transition area which
will not, by its nature, provide an environment within which one lingers.
The side to side separations are reasonabii close to the required
separations but not quite at the rode distances in all cases.
2. 5.9362.7 (j)
Distance between travel lanes on vehicular access-ways and garages or
parking structures shall not be less than five (5) feet. However, where a
development is constructed with the garages attached and/or adjacent to
the units they are to serve, a minimum of 50 percent of said garages shall
set back not less than twenty (20) feet from the curb line or back of
sidewalk, whichever distance is greater.
Proposed_ Modification:
Delete the requirement for a twenty (20) foot setback from garage to
travel lane on 50% of the units.
�1
1
[[y,. �' -�`M" A' V" �;�'�y;1r"�,'; s,'• ��"�x��f e�l. �.,SF'/yFltI ty'r; tw
"�iti� � �4 rt� f'R ; (. ,..,#•rl"`'. .. p .}♦a,�'.',•,7' �' •�' ••r�1•�,
�� t, b'� t" ti� ��� i„ t �" Vt r". s.,. �. :i'• r,1 , t �t` • s. ;i„ -,u,
a ,�h" + k 'r t ���:�',�l:�.` a�!• `''k� !r � . •� 4t r;`� >`����'` ',, �.�,;�•"• �.r, s4 ,,jj k y�! 4
.'Nei+;�;�::�i:J::1+tG'��•a,%� 4�a,+tlf �'4•`fy�G�Pr q.'rt,`¢l:��:?'�.w]V
i
• RANCH PROJEC"
SPECIAL PERM11 EQUEST
Justification
The design of this project provides for guest parking distributed evenly
throu shout the projec, in a manner which integrates the guest parking with
the Landscape. This design concept eliminates large aggregated areas of
paving while taking advantage of existing travel lanes; brings guest parking
close to more of the units in an equitable manner; and, increases the
amount of landscaped common area.
3. 5,9362.10 (c)
Structures having; dwelling units attached side by side shall have at least
one-third 0/3) of the total number of units within such structures
constructed of one-story units, except, where structures are predominantly
of three (1) stories, one-third (1/3) of the total number of units shall be
within structures of two (2) stories or less in height. (2104-9/76).
Proposed Modification - Delete in its entirety.
Justification i
The townhouses are designed with great variety of form, play of planes on
the facades and variations in roof planes and plate heights. The Garden
Townhomes provide one story living areas on the end units to blend with
the landscape.
k. 5.9362.15 PRIVATE ACCESS WAY WIDTHS
The following standards shall apply to all vehicular access-ways:
(b) An access-way exceeding; one hundred fifty (150) feet in length but
less than three hundred (300) feet in length, shall he provided with a
curbed turn-around having a minimum radius of twenty-two and one-half
(22W feet. For those access-ways exceeding three hundred (300) feet but
less than six hundred (600) feet, there shall be provided a curbed turn-
around having; a minimum radius of forty (40) feet or an intertying loop
circulation system. For those access ways exceeding six hundred (600)
feet, there shall be provided an intertying; loop circulation system.
Proposed Modification
Provide a hammerhead or T-alley configuration to provide required
maneuvering space for various vehicle types.
Justification
I
The particular configuration of living unit with detached, but adjacent,
garage requires roadways not needed with other types. The use of the j
alleyway T-head as a turn-around provides double use of the facility and
:allows maximization of land uses.
2
• I
I
! �+j•�, f l VVi
i. (.W �t+ ut• ,y. ,+i r, g' d; i � �• �,' v..P i'f;�+ •� '•y,,,,..,,f ;.,�P�+; �. ..R�,
.4+. i �: t T yti� v! s�,,,r ssY �„��.�1', 1�s}Ui,�' t#�s,}► ,#S.j '�"ta t �u� a r��� y
.f ��7}.1 f{, .�' 1'[..r��i��i..'�t}�i�a 1�.s1�� yI� ��'1''�'y ?VY��S;'S;' .+r�,'.elP�*s'; �5+`�+ {ill+ ,i��,;, '� t •� �', � ' +
.w +' ' r {4.J, .� 'li ,+� spy 5 •S. s.+7,'' kk .•R7 4 r 1y77,, �'`w' [[�+ q t,d�' + d f r .�. q. ,°�'^'.,y( i
rp. }"r"r'i'ar < r^l'dt 't+w 45.' ti (i h• �; +i t +•(rl 1,•'•''t'9!,;'s {�1�<i;►�+7, k�i�'•i.��i�tl`F+; �Y'" •.�" V;�� '���1.�'1.� � '� 4�'',�'�r,l�, ' +� 1 r,,.+-lT}�f�e:'. S
9%' �' �I'.y"� t ' �dr •� •i t ;�. . '\. '� (�"+ •C�: ��f/y R��',a 17'd +�'f• }Y,(8 4 ,\. .l t T�p +{ 4
77 0'£�1..
+ht;l i�t' ti: 5k Ss i > , }, 1, ;(,}. ++ h 1•'fi�.y i'+ t, tli, '+t1' �,•.r. t., l +. ,�
� d., �,.,�+ rq'L' �'. �:'� t � �'t7'''•
� ���' :.�.: ,i:i;l `A4''` " L'1..::7:1:i►Y'1�:.,1:u..'.t...t::u«.L.'::L` :49..�.:.L�.l:. +,�'.t�t'•""sY�l'" "�' ...Clio
' RANCH PROJECT
- '`• SPECIAL PERMIT REQL,,,.i'F
5. COMPACT CAR PARKING
It is requested that the narking plan be approved to allow u p to thir
ty
percent (30%) of the total number of automobile parking spaces to be
provided onsite to be dimensioned (8'x15') for compact car use.
Justification
In light of the growing trend towards smaller cars and the City's own
recent action in approving compact car parking spaces for commercial
use, it is resonable to assume that .gyp to 30% of the trsutomobiles ultimately
onsite will be capable of making; use of a compact parking space (8'xl5').
The townhouse units' required resident parking spaces will both be
standard size with Guest parking having the pt oposed 30% compact, 70%
standard mix. The flats' parking shall be a minimum of one (1) standard
parking space per dwelling unit with the remaining number of spaces
having the proposed 30% compact, 70% standard mix. The use of compact
spaces will be reflected in additional open space and landscaped area for
the benefit of the community.
a
I
i
3
ti
f
i
`+� � � �, rLLL�,,,Ay`4''* .•,�11 rj�y. t f ,�'.��j,}.+'�' '�'�� � .pi1A�,, ,,��; .'�Y'+ .x',1�,}r�'�. 1 +Yy,il�i'17,r �:.;'�'��� 1 �� ,f `�( +� t
�� 1.�F. p. .�� f.,'.' �1f•���+ � �+ ;h �', + �► `a ,�i S ,s�iLJLv.11.14'1.d.9.�1L..:.a L.iLi..;+�A+.:'y,, 1,:�'L!b[ 'T••YYY t,.,'.. t
.h�
Minutes: Subdivi:;ion Co":11ri tto(:
March 20, 19131
Page. Three
:�. 1. A 15 ft. minimum setback is required from public streets. Appli-
cant lacks this requirement along Algonquin Street.
2. The tennis court: fence is encroachinci into the front yard setback.
I
3. Blue border shall go out to centerline of all streets.
4 . Patio requirement for one bedreom unit is 200 sq. ft. Plan is
i;c:ricient in this requirement.
5. Access into project is to be a minimum of 24 ft, (2 - 12 ft. travel
lanes) .
6. Buildinc3 separation must be reviewed further.
It is recommended that the plan not be set Cor Planning Commission review
until the major deficiencies have been cleared up.
TE14TATIVE TRACT NO. 11417
Applicant: lfansion Proner. tirns Inr_.LUrban West Communities
To permit a one lot subdivision for the construction of a 672 unit
planned residential* development located on the east side of Main
•� street, at the southeast corner. of Clay Avenue and Main Street.
In attendance to represent the applicant were: Messrs. Walden, Price,
Kelly, Kaufman, and Harlow.
Savoy Bellavia introduced tho application to the Committee and suggested
that each department representative outlin^ their comments and concerns
Department of Public Works Comments:
Messrs. Bruce Gilmer and Don Roble were present to represent the Depart-
ment of Public Works. Following are their comments and concerns re-
garding the application.
A. Streets
1. All private streets within the development should be at least
30 ft. wide.
2. Traffic sLudy is required (E'IR) .
3. Priv itcr sLre vts, with the exception of ocress roads to parking
1 faciliLie.i/lot s, must be crowned roadways.
4. All private sLrcuLs shall be curbed.
f
S. All private roadways to have adequate street lighting.
6. If keyed gates are used at development entrance, then vehicle
turnarounds shall be constructed in front of each entrance.
rM „}.�lA„YJNii41� 1 +1rLi+.iL+:iZ:1t:w+�Y�L'1i.L.�='siLti•'•� "•r• I,''�Ltl1.�a,a�,y+y,,,Y{L1•.YeT1'1:JJ:�J.tis�rrs.:�91s.,4.4�.54y e»' ��'y y; i)..�i�.+Urli4�a�J'«LaSi::,:YuS.1:iL;,:t
Minutes: Stlbdivisioll concnittec:
t;arch 20, 1981
Pace Four
7. Street improvements, per Huntington (leach Public Works Standard",
must be constructed on public streets directly adjacent to
development (i.e. , Huntington St., Clay Ave., Main St. including
the center island median, and Yorktown .'Avenue where applicable. )
8. Tentative tract maj', shall include typical cross-sec#�i.on of
Yorktown Avenue.
9. Vacation of paper streets (i.e., Alabama St„ Oreqon St. , and
State Ave. ) must be addressed.
I3. Drainane:
1. All drainage systems are to be constructed per Public Works
Standards.
2. A detailed hydrology study is required.
3. All natural flows of on--site drainage is to be maintained by
homeowner's association.
I
4. Developer shall eliminate, wherever possible, the utilization
of cross-gutters.
1
C. Seyerage �
1. Per Master Plan of Sewers, development is to sewer to Holly
I Street. (Other possibilities may bu studied) .
2. On site sewer easements are required.
i
3. Sewerage system to be constructed per Public Wrrks Standards.
D. Parking
1. (in-site parking for residents should be within 200 it. of their
unit.
2. Issue of guest parking has not been specifically addressed.
Would like it to be more evenly dispersed.
3. Parking should be permitted in designated spots only---deve.lopar
to install applicablu sinning.
4. Parkinq on adjacent public .streets to be limited per Publ:.c
Wor?cs Traffic Divi s.ion.
L 11,, Fw
G• Wat.er
1 . 14ake. .ystcln and fire hydrants are to be constructed per
Huntington Beach Water Division standards.
•
i
�.. ' { ,'►A'7 9Rft�'fr`iy," �'� f r,fiVl }}�.r5.1 h•��i` " r`r ,�•t: 'e ,4�,,!'( :fir, •,•'�
}yy ,,y, I�•,+/ v 'h ,,7 , st y •( ,11N.g
1 ! ''Llt y'•{� r a"4"�. 4 �+ '4 yP, r' ) R'• + ' Y,ry lh �, i ,� 9� "^l� �'rM1 ('y�{�xA';'s�.. '� il s, ':!.• 7s vY•,'!'Y>��'j 1�� •'" yV^ i�+tq,yp ,,+�,;,, � i 9� '`'� 't !� y y . � "!�I,.rj'�'u�7 •�:, tr`' �M !!•nA f`•"4�:py.�;.y
•� .w ."•�4!•; '1 •u�r. ' �S Iy. �: If}�t�`'•'A s � e'�� �4� t,'�, a },y,1,"'y4,`�i'�1,�' '�+�.r'�;:?.�''Y.h,. 5�, ,.,1 ry n'�•('l k•1 u�ya. ...•A y��A} '.�'f'"+;�'�7�•,�. �• r�•p,�• ),�'�•:i',�+i!,�. .,.{
�.s ,,,l. S. tY l,��yr. .•�- t,n: r y'i.i'•d�l. .aM, �^'.,.�'i' j'y y�,-. ,x yi•:•7,5 i;!..',. ti'V'� t, dt' R. ,:�) 1 � 'v n
r "?..'�• 'a_L?�t w S•:"uA:•. .l:,,,,"y� ir.s'_ _ "y :�S'�i3+•u.L'wit.L?,.s.'�1`. tr. h.�.�.1w �:,•'4
4p
Minutes: Subdivision Cormli ttee
March 20, 19B1
i Page Five
f J
2. Developer/homeowner 's association shall participate in development
of any required water pressure station.
F. Landscaping
1. Slopes, if necessary along Yorktown, shall be contoured.
2. Parkway !Maintenance Agrepment is required for any landscaping
with public right.-of.-way.
3. Are there exterior walls or fences proposed?
G. Easements and Environmental Documents
1. What is status on transportation corridor?
2. 2--3 fact of casement is required for slope transition adjacent
to Yorktown Avenue.
3, Status of Environmental Information Report.
i
If. mincellaneous
1. Will walkways to the public street be constructed?
1 2. Who will maintain 2-3 foot strip between the development and
the not.-a-part parcel.
3. Units 59 and 60 may obstruct visibility along Yorktown Avenue. j
4. Public Works would like to review rough draft of CC S Res. �
Fire Department Cornrnenf-
Bill Cooper was present to represent th�.% Fire Department and outlined �
the following concerns of his department:
1. Circulation clotirn "tM" Street: is poor anti it is U.gested that it tie
into "I" Street. Cody_ requires roadways in excess of 600 feet to
have loop circulation.
I
2. "C" Strect: is 260 feet lone.. F':xis;:inr, coves require that a cul-de--
sac with minimum diawet er of 62 feet be provided.
3 . The "Emergency Access" tying the northern and southern sections of
"A" Street tnust be a full 24 feet approved surface roadway.
4. Any street that has the potential of curbside parking must provide
an additional. 8 feet of width for each side of the road on which
a curb exists.
,' Y{ '.'4 ;.S' ,.y S"vr' '•{;ii.r �,I.t•rl�r5���� '�'rt,!�;'�.1�' ''�f i„��'1%x+✓,} .'1'�,�� r•1. ,'e�r; .S�ti�it' ��:ii 5'h.''•."1.};;".'''f''.;S,I,k. S�^}.�j1 ��';9f�.1"�,; ,,},�i''.:. }'y�1y1. b'
i k' Y��•FR � �{ �I•' f "ti'sk +� 4 f i f!. �� ,.� M' u r 1 � Y� r ,.,,� P�' t' 1�1 r',�•
d i. ! v y I r, w�, f4w`�tii, n"pq�' v �t�f'� .fa44;�`}t'�f r�'}. $ i Skrr���'•,y. � yd' (�
I iA i.y i(' � ;• .ti �H�}, .�/1!y �+:�,,�,, Vp ��1,' t, f .;�\' it .Y v( r�+9 v:�p�' r�!•vi•,� lr'�:,f+r?i �'1"t t t} M' 1>
S•` i,'�'r r ` fit flryyy, � � i,�'�)}•"t � }c,.. +• rp..i" y(Y,. �' �. ,••4',gyp, �'i ri y 1 .'�#;;.., f (I V b 9.(r`'' .y4 /,,�,�(
i� +y •"V4�:r. 'h;';.Q'k �Vj �, �d w` �'•I �+r r. 5• •} t+'InM1N�'�l'•4'�r�t 'r'ik'.C4R r„y.r+.yL;,�i''"4,1i.,.•r�•�,.'�:�r',k�;i, +'�'Ry�• KyA.ik.1�•'erL.'i,^Irl.,.r.;.tir 1 ,r�
1^�.' � L •�(•rr"!v rh�•� ��4�" '�{'y b1�"''& rb. r,t)•rRr{,A' :r�:• 7� I `a I A4 ,;.K � :h,q;+`r "r'''v 4r,�A•7' '.i�„•"1;}(1"f }:fir �.Y^
� 'N L��rNi ,y, ..{. ��e�;;:�, J� y ! %. ,p:,ti '' 17.,r1y�44 r 'y�Aa �.:.�XtS'A �'W 4 t V�.i.r'; � ��' ' ;?,.�', '.��`,' t .1�I r• eaB,n` '�`�d t•, i
i 5; A �� •h r r r 1 � i �rP �I�r rl f l t., '�1 4 r l Z' i h� r-.,,, fr,,. 'r", r 1' rA'r ,rr �, b } *t;.t°; (•'
L a; i M J r 'rl i.,}v '� 1v i � )''• � t ' T1 .irk iS ,;, n'4 b.! ( t �
Minutes: Subdivision Committee
Parch 20, 1981.
Page Six
5. Fire Code requirements provide that all portions of ground level
perimeter on all buildings shall be within 150 foot unobstructed
travel of an improved roadway. Presently, there are numerous
buildings that do not comply.
6. On site hydrant system was not discussed to any degree, but must
meet all existing code requirements.
7. A detailed plan of oil well operations will be required.
8. A plan, including a cross section of the parking structure will be
required for fire department consideration. It is rot standard
practice to fight -,ire from within a structure and therefore, a
policy decision will have to be made.
9. All water oriented buildings must have walkways provided to
facilitate the use of Fire Department ladders.
Environmental Review:
Jim Barnes reviewed the environmental status of the tentative tract map
' stating that an update of-a previous EIR would be required. He stated
that an EIR was filed can the original plan in 1978 and was presented
to the Planning Conunission in November, 1979. At that time, the EIR
was rejected due to its inadequacy. The applicant was directed to ;
f bring the EIR back to the Commission with revisions and alternatives
i showing the transportation corridor, dersity, and unit court. To up.-
date the EIR to the present application, a supplement to the original
EIR is required. Mr.- Barnes further stated that: the same consultant
will. be preparing the supplement: and narrative description. The issue
of the transportation corridor will be addressed in the supplement.
Development Service:, nsartment Comments:
Savoy Bellavia outlined concerns of the Development Services Department.
He stated that the applicant requested 13 special permits for the pro-
posal as follows:
1. Building Separation.
2. ,Setback from vehicular ace essways.
3. Reduction of garage setback from accessway.
4. 10 units side-by-side in lieu of maxiinu.m 6 units.
5. No 4 ft. offset: for each 2 unit,.
6. No variation in roofline. lilt"
7. Reduction in common open space.
i
I
y '4 { t R, •� r
�►. V
• t tt'f `;'� � Yu lµ �,.,N�.-,� y,Y,kS.�, k,, }{� ''� �il� ,�(. d+ y;•. y.•. Y�' .i.�`,'. .
'4} Y .{' ��• '�'. I,�k�y,]{�,i �• ,�5y�}.I y ti. ,, 4 glp/y/TM ," § .'
.1YR'r'��,�4 i' F' � 'l 1;^y��� i �V"�!�'•,.'
. 4t 1' '�'!, ,�} l ' `t 1� ^ tl i(,}hl'�•`,. .0,f •�, ii(l 1•�• /,�l'' � 'y .3'��'. �•;"+{. �1.''MY' MI'C �iS
p is •,�, �•�. � y� ,�," 4 '� ,7'`y' 't 1,,Nr;.F �: t.. t,q�'� �� 'f�l r'r �q,�� �,'.<)A��• �V',,, �, .'�,
'"' i� ?' , T' �, '� � 1�t �' �s S�'��' x :ry��+,as'„ S°�'��`d;' ;' �"'l�';��, r l '��{+:•'�'�;��k, ;�t;:. � to�,��p.R�i�w., is�'y,,�iJ.t� 5,, �,�;', 1�}f�O.is,.sF`�'h ,�,
� `�'' {( r-'� � s ,. +' q ;'�. ?' , 1 sus I,ki!'1 ',1L• s: �. }}t 1 .� 11.0 �, �!, � s, �"r' y ��p k +�t
+' � ; •} �• o�. ,n A "+:i;, , �'� �1".{ i,':.t k� .,, �\., '�, ;;, ;.i','�!>�', t'y 7;i^�.�4� •;�Ta:�.. #'��1, l�4*1,Ufa '1'
:f 1 q� „ .� ,,a�';9• ^' +,' Y'1' ,� • i' ,, t'. 1• '�-,'x.,;�1'' l �,r �:r ,, r„ � 4 r' 1 v. ��' �Y 1. 1�'
��1�ss11 r eyf �,', r" 1 1,,,.. �a � i'' ` •� .YS l•t•,,,. ; ,yt ` t'� :�
!iY y Ll.�.�'.i�'ril+ii:Y{.Y�wL�.li::.'1.r�Lf�1:JLJL+ti+.[ra:J�n ••"t .r.tiw r'7+��'..y'. ,• �r, ': '1 j14.�•� IY�w.S Y•1.V
I
Minutes: Subdivision Committee
!March 20, 1981
Pages Seven
8. Clot one main recreation area is depicted, but only a number of small
i
areas.
i
9. Main recreation area is closer than 20 ft. from buildings.
i
10. Hanunerhead or "T" turnaround,
11. ?-tore than 200 ft. to parking area.
I
12. No street trees - all on site.
13. Trash storage area vs. trash areas.
These special permit requests will be addressed individually and their
�1
effects on the overall project will be evalt:ated fur;:her.
Commissioner Winchell ' , Comments:
Commissioner Winchell's main concern was the, status of the transportation
corridor. Before reviewing the plan further, she is awaiting the outcome
of a hearing to be held by the City Council on April 6, 1981.
Commissioner Schumacher s comments:
Commissioner Schumacher expressed concern regarding the proposed parking
being too far away from residential structures. She also expressed
concern of the lack of a central trash collection area and improper
Fire Department access.
Miscellaneous:
Mr. Richard Harlow outlined the statics of the transportation corridor
as follows:
He stated that a Committee of the City Council and representatives of
the Huntington Belch Company have held several meetings with the
Company's proposal being to dedicate to the City that portzon of the
former railroad right of way south of Yorktown Avenue to Pecan Avenue
and from Clay Avenue north to Garfield Avenue. in addition, the
Huntington Reach Company has agreed to dedicate: additional right of i
way adjacent to Clay Avenue, Huntington Street., and Yorktown Avenue. �
This trail would be for recreational purposes. He: also stated that
the City Council and a representative of the 'Transportation Commission
expressed a desire to maintain an option for some sort of transportation
alternative in the corridor. A meeting was held with representatives
of the Transportation Commission, Department of Public works and Trans-
portation District (OCTD) . It was a consensus that the proposed widening
of Clay Avenue, Yorktown ;.venue, and Huntington Street could accommo-
date the type of vehirler, which may be utilized in this corridor. At
a later meeting, it was determined that a realieinment transportation
option from Garfield Avenue south along Main Street to Yorktown Avenue
then easterly to the former right of way would Provide a more usable
transportation option because of its proximity to the Civic Ccsnterr, :ica-
cliff Village, Seacliff Office Park and this proposed residential
i
^G, � i��•�� �t ,; .,r .:ll''RYrif^7�'! pi�i'�y. i.�„i�,Y Y. ,. ,,. "f„ON,
Y•r;'� a,.,4.try. .� .n F in
1 !,��' py '� E �h�l" Y" �s. ,1��' J�/�,,��•� � �'•>:, � �' t 'ti'•!� �{
P "•M �i.' 1 ,l�j � qy FW�'� ' + r' 1�" 'I�dyf j[d�
�,�r ,�y�,,,^�1• ,t'�Y y i'L1'1 t ^Y'.r''' i�` t!• l,,`,,�d`!, •,r'�." r ,,{: � ;�i'. "i'!.�q� t:•
"'i..• y.�' ,RI`�:'` ��' 4• �i r b l ,'�y"'S!""Y !' 1AAw� 'W.y '�4. y+l:.' uWl t�. !,',,,yy"w���,'! n''!U�'!'y�+7�)Fs tAy����,. � ,51�{`:t,v',".:,�.`"tl'.,i1•q', 'll Z. .
��q`�, �� s4,�•1' i•S '�4 �. '� ,;i.t��,�•��!!��I,SV. Mry h:4'4s j!':'S V,'�t7i:�Y':,,.fit.,�.f,.'Y �� ? .,F�:C "I:r d`S.•���!:.'•A'� , ��``•: t.���,1� 'Y��,9 t�'�<.as. .ti; �,�,, ;�,,,,s, �.�.�r.�i}.
� r �!SC.' 'S•' •y�; i, tA�.'=i.w1:,:i1d .�4 '; yp,•t�s' i .. tirr.'ai:�. a' ,twt.�i.��:?.�di':Slr.']+f:1:1.:±:�SsL�'' sl��+9s". t V lL1.f..Y.y1'" k'bauL'sst:u_Lf.Y \aA:.,_ s.l ''c 1 .► .s....2�..i,
t
Minutes: Subdivision Conunittee
bfarch :_J, 1981
r-..
Page Eight
development. Mr. Harlow further stated that additional committee
meetings arc scheduled and the matter should be resolved before the
tentative tract map is considered by the Planning Commission.
It was the consensus of the Subdivision Committee to reschedule another
Subdivision Committee meeting, at which time the major deficiencies
would be resolved.
1
voy 11 ia, Senior Planner
1
.gc
i
f� +I
1�
i
I
r I
1`� I
tI
!
A
y��.` ��. �' 4� �•. ��, ._ t, q�• '�,,,•• �I;T' 9't�E •/� ;1; �'i•, �I�i'��j'� 4'' q't f �Xpi"F,-wti'��, '•$fly '1��,��i1`.y47. 'F,1 ag+�•f• .� � ..� +�;;��,. ,,
�"', t '� ,1�, r ,� � r�rr k4i}�,+y�a..l1� ,� Q+� �. ,�•�'a i! R� '•°�� ���°e�: � ut,�:� r,�t�' t� '1`��1,9 ,a fi� r.
,, -•+r '� 'y, �7,����.�,., ��p •,.i, "�l,' cy .4 t'• �: ;yl. ''L� }�t ..� 4: 1, ,;Z'.C ,,, •��i�'.l' p,�y�� .<, ��
!' ''}e Y� y�p k �°'tt,; ����� .,� �j } °:1't`F'{�',f:• �M:i4, + �i,W W�' � 'yt �'u' �o+I'' '��',r't�'.��1�'��� L 't'��1'{ 'T'� }%x,�;r�%� 1.5 jf,a�{ ,P'i" j• �:��'C
.a.. :Lsl. 'Y„',2 7�1f.SLL'Et �� �l�,k:`:..tr ' '��L..�'���• �Ji.a �'� yitt j, tY•' t �'i ti�'S [y}r,�, `�li i•� {,'+/'},(f ty1�� �,,s �''1�''��,j
C.ZlJi:.6Ad�.�'t'.'•7:�.;.r,° ..Ll1i'L"..Y:t5:its�':.i�•L�Le'���'y' �• �.L'�".'+�.�.1'L1y
c I NU,11,
.,.,
.. SUf3UIVI.��I(il. COf'.ttIIIL..E
P1L•'f:'1'IPIG
Room B-7 - Civic: Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California
TIfURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1981 -_9: 00 N%1
` cortt'tIs_:IIOtJJ;11S PRESKN'I': Schumacher
CITY STAFF IIESEN_T: Patin, Bellavia, Gilmer , Truppelli,
- y Ccoper, Catalano, frank, 7.elefsky
TENTATIVE TRACT 11417/CONDI T IONA', USL PE111.11T NO. 81-18
P.pplicant.: Mansion Properties, -Inc.
Dick. Harlow, Consultant; Dave Walden, Engineer; harry :;.zlttrian,
Urban I•lest; Stewart Woodward, Architect; and Nike Felly, Project
!`Manager, were present to represent the developers .
Savoy Belltivia: cirsc:rlbecl the project as a 092-unit PRD bordered
by Clay and Yorktown Avenues and by Ifuntincrt:can and Main Streets.
The project- will consist of two unit tykes arranged into a seric s
o: villages within the overall project, with recreation providc d
in each area. The interior of the project will utilize a water-
scape in all areas., with heavy emphasis on landscaped perimcter
treatment: . The units will be of combined wood and stucco, 1:ith
wociden roofs on the townhouses and tiled roofs on the two- ane,
three-story units. The environment of the existincI dwelli:-cl will
he maintained, with vecletation and open s:Jaace remaining very mach
as it present-ly exists an a "not a part" parcel between the
existing dwelling and Yorktown Avenue. Major entry points will be
off Clay and Yorl;t:own, wit,, secondary entrances off Hunt•incIton
Street. A pedestrian system will be provided throught the cjlti.rc
project, with an external ;.yr;:em winding its way about the project.
avd going north from C.l.ay Avenue. Private roads and fire lames
will be providrd in each area opening from the wain entry roads .
Larry Kaltman described the ilfit:l_'C.ts of the I.-roil:Ct which wil )
require inclusion in a spocial perrnit request. as follows:
.1 lie] from additional seLbac:k rc quirew.ents for the .i ncreaseL
building bulk and unit number.
Z, Reduction in setback of habitable partionE o: t,ae building,
[toil, :accessways at some locations where curs back'.ng out of
garac;es will be closer than the allowed 15 feat. This request
i .i.+t' ' r' �S7�i, X{ l.r �. l },� +''di 'i'4 'iY;# �1, 1. a•{'4H' .i, v\ 1 /
f 5� 44 i' q lI is 1 t + j�j, `"+ 4 � 1 ;j.: r �i''• t �,�, i
•.n' t t'}'q.",y � 1 rr•1:f •i tFN '«` r ti' ''�•':. � �` 4• 4"ii}� t ,fi` '1 t
e p y4I¢ :� ,.1,,, .T.' 2{
+ 1,l {•� Pli{ �f+.'} ,R,1��� ,{,.A5r Fk, d' •f �, :. ��t�'`�: • t' "� ,(�{. 44't'Slf�� ��1t,.i"i•'I.�f�y{��i �1 t •'f 1. '�`'� '�' +('d A._• 1..}, 1 > '� y
t •1 i�}, �� +�:` ,T: u1� C.' �LL,,} �.• f� �y} � �1`f v sP' �f � ,.{fir �•. .�4 ! 11 .
` ( 1 �',t" 'y's,,m'} f'+�, •01 �i
�.'� ?' }. R';.` {.1,.t,.v A '�.'i,i. r 1 ,w} ��� � t,�`'i'..;. 4l. }. •'�`,�.
� ">� � �t'�! ;� +�fi y •!'�:• �1�' i ' + :4.� t .t,�it�L,L'1 t#{ `� �.;w,;, na,' , lr,,;+a •ti, ,.. :.+n'+ �'. �"}r �'''��(:�� �:;�� � i�3.'�y.,a.
'•+a'.;�191:Y'.�:s'�1'�.�1�:`� •1 ', a.,�.J�' f;�,�i�'uY:2'i,�J�.+iik.'. � a.:� Y.�i�,«L:a.rl::i.) ti.:ot,',3s,i�vr, ltsM:.rs1.a.' �i�.dYrR..l.3..
would provide for i enclny and lan scapinj t reatl.les,nt and no
opening:; in the affected areal_; to alleviate any possible
adverse impacts from this Lreatment.
3. Relief from the 5-foot required distance of clarac3es from tr:av^t
lanes and elimination of the requirement that 50 percenL of
garages be set back 20 feet from the travel lanes. In rutul'n,
the developer has spread the guest parking throughout the area
of the townhouses (which is the unit type principally affected
by the 20 foot requirement) . In regard to this portion of a
special pnimit request, the developer Also discussed the
Possibility that the City may in the future allo%'r compact
parking in residential. developments to count. as part of the
required parking.
4 . Permission for 3 of the 34 build.i.nUs on the site to have 7
units instead of the code-permitted 6 units.
5. Relief from the requirement that one-third of the total num-
ber of attached units be: one-story and allowing the one-story
to be the end units only. Mr. Kaltman explained that the
natural grade of the property will by necessity result in the
buildings being stepped up and down, diving a great d,.:al of
movement in the plan.
6. Permission for the use of hammerheads and T-Tilley Configura-
tions to be allowed for maneuvering of enier•c3enc'y vehicles.
M Mr. Kaltman also outlined a meeting with the Rainbow Disposal
Company at which they concurred with the following treatment
trash frorn the project: The townhouses will have individual tr•,sh
pickup in the: alleys once a week like R1 projects . The flats will
have trash chutes Built into the buildings, bringing trash down
intro bills under the floor areas will: p;ckup probably twice a Meek .
The Tire Department• will require these chutes to he dampe.red and
will make a determination on whether or not sprinklering will be
required as well .
The followingi areas were reviewed bathe Committee::
Oil Wells, on the site:
.Tim Valin pointed out to those present that the ritzy will. requir.c
letters from cal l oil l esseos presently opei*at i nti can the site con-
curring with the, elcs.iljn and treatment of the project r,s it .a f fu is
their operaLion. Ile tilsn discussed the prob.low of showing fu;•ure
buildings over whale will be abandoned 4;ells in the fut.ure, Stating
that they Division of (ail and Gas is encnurriyiny an alturna;- iVe
treal:me:nt that will illo;c for vapor screens with outside ventirct,
because there have been cases of elms coming up ranrl be:f riq capture' d
in unit walls with resulting explosions . The applicants :;lai(l that
they had shown the units only to at-)pr;'se the Committee of what toor
would be occurrirltj eventually; however, abandonment of the wells
will be in the last phasc of the project, probably 10 or 15 ycars
in the future. 'They raltio notr_d that they have attempted to i
lc,cate the futtv:e Structures Go that they will not be directly !
over an abandoneo bore hole.
-2- 9- 1.3-Fll - 5ubdiviSion
e
�• 'R�•' �r/"t.,�yp '� r r '��7� F � �.��''�y�yr,I l i f ,��i Y{j�Yt y�;•11'J�' i• ,j'�i"
,�. ,.{ /, !" R,. i � '� r;5i�; f'���N'1 rl' ' 'y. fi'yt# :i�'i �k'a r �r'�ti+ 1�Y�tr.,1{� .Ni .R:'+ Fj� :l�,txp•f��;,,f 'i�f'•,�,�p
� i� � yl- .,�� •N'`};S!; ".� f + F5. K�' 4ti'1� '74'� t �. r i �.ry ��•i�Z:,'�,�jkp +'/' ,i )''+ass � �},�C' r lrlk ,•� � t , �,� 5��, �. ar,re 1'` ,�: w. f '1 t p•f 1,r+�¢¢yy;; r, (, r, 55 �]4v iw;
'�. ' d K�'.. �r.��, .���5 i.(, YW t y,,.�Y♦F',(t�I 1�'�. VF, i�* � • 2 r { IMM' �'Y Y�
.. ri� l,Ilr -t Jl, u,� Y.My6 �•' '� T��i "'� � � � irr i u��{ 1V 11d T' !. ..;� � �'+,",V
i' ! :y. t I, s rl� +f,y►rt, yy;, tl y�l ,�, )'.,�. 1M1L ��i `�� °i+'1•�^ tJti 'k� y ,f�t t'�� t r �.�� {
Y•t li i �' ;.� ' 1• ;'.LWC i.i,..}...'t: r.3.•W 2Yx1.aut.i ..:.�c(.�xaf,�ai.:�Yl '�tl a��la/:4L�1"!':�`:�..1..tLL`i1i::C.Y�t
They C'oeuni t tue was also advised by :'lr. I'-i l i n tho t. it: wi l 1 ber ne,.-
�` essilry tf7 sae_, .-I de_`liign of t.fie treatment oil :icce!;s prililts, types of
wall materials, and landscapincl tit. all. the oil operx:tior:s `,:a
-+ remain. The property will have to be rozoned to tht- "0"
suffix and the suffix subsequently replaced on only the actual
operation sites.
Fire Access/Road Treatment/Fire Requirements:
The developer's representatives said that access on Yorktown Ave-
nue will provide joint entry Lo the office park to the west and
the subject residential tract, with a cooperative agreement for the
maintenance of that as a private street. Mr. Palin informed them
that the City mast have documentation for that cross casement.
Bill Cooper of the Fire Department discussed the following aspects :
1 . Although tilt' layout shows a 150 foot required distances to units
from a roadway in most instances, the actual travel distance
is mary times much farther, because a fireman may have to find
a walkway, go through a court to a uni;.. front entry and from
there fight a fire. The actual travel distance is greater
than 150 feet and needs to be addressed.
2. Depending oil flow they will be classed, the parking structures
may need to be provided with a sprinklerincl system and stand-
pipe systems. Fire will work with the developers oil this
aspect.
t
3. The three-story flats over the parking may equate to four-story
structures, triggering different fire requirements. This
problem must he addressed.
4. The widths of fire lanes and accesses, as well as inner circu-
lation, remain a problem which the fire Department and the
developer are still ;,;orkinq on.
5. Road widths. especially at entrances, ne!nd to be dotermint.d .
If parking is doing to be allowed on both sides, then it: wi11,
be necessary to provide a 40-Coot street. The developer and
the. Fire representatives discussed this in sUtfc detail , with
the possibility of "no parking" signs and painted curbs being
one suriqu-stion; howover, Fire personnel feinted out that the
City Attorney has, ruled that they have no Jurisdiction withitl
a private pri fact rrind cannot enforces any na parking regiilat.io,i.
It. has O l so llooli their experience thcit if lipa(,'1.! i :i ava i lrlblo
tti lt.1t t: f1t'tltllo will park. there, blocki 11t1 C"."ii`YgC11C.'f ('<1tlll Pit'lit.
I row txnt.c!t'ltilt.
The Fire Polyart-meat , in this regard, statcti that thoy would like?
do sce roadway;.- comptet oly through tile pro'CeL, post;1bly
securing at ). the publ iC acce sways rather than lc.,aviny the pub-
lic arcossways open and :recu r i ny all the internal f, i rc: 1 ane ;.
They stressed at3ain that they uould prefer free access to the
complex.
--3- 8-13--81 - Subdivision
i
G. fire treatment on of 1 l:,oIls needs to be addressed as to how
rids vri.11 yet in arid out of a site, the proximity of towns to ^`
the building units, etc. The applicants indicated that they
will meet code on these requirements.
• 7 . Any roads in excess of 600 feet in length are required by law
to have a secondary access. One road in this project off
Yorktown falls into this category. This could be mitigated
by sprinklering the units in that area or by providing access
through. however, the latter alternative would not be approved
by Public 11orks, because it trould result in an exit: drive can
the curve in Yorktown Avenue.
The fire Department people also discussed the need for sprinklering
in str.tictures more than three stories in hei,, ''_ and the possibility
that the garages would have to be sprinklered because of a distance
to an exit in excess of 75 feet. UeveloFers ac;ain agreed to meet all
technical requirements in this regard.
Environmental Impact Rer?ort No. 75-4 :
Jim Banres reported that the consultant, IlltrasysLtnr,s, had indicated
that the supplement to the EIR would be available on August 10,
but that it has not yet been received. Ile also said that he is
awaiting a fiscal impact report on the project.
The abandonment of street sections previously precise p1_inned within e"N
the area of the project will. be addressed in the supplemental P111.
Public Workswould like to be able to abandon the streets at the:
same time the map records; However, when informed that the map will.
record in pha.cs, their representative said that the total abandon-
ment procedure would be carried out concurrently with the recordation
of the first phase of Lite development.. In response to questioning
from Mr. Palin as to the conformance of the plan with a prior ac;ree-
rnent with the City entered into when Yorktown Avetiuc was improved,
Mr. Kaltman: replied that the plan has been designed to allow for
implementation of that agreement.
Public Works Comments:
Bruce Gilmer discussed thy' provision and lou'; .ton of blis turnouts
and the private storm drain system. Ile pointed out- area!-, in tno
protect. where parki.nu; would noi. be permitted becau e of the lend backup
distance- , r•equirotl before it car could turn around and bull forward,
f saylnel Lhat par}:life; In Llie4e locations was hazardous paild tin:'cason-
able.
NO di-SCln:i:iCll also Lite'` treatment of th•_' "not. :i part:" its It: porLains
to the bic:ycls.� and pedestrian lanes, a skint; for a layout to stlow
setback, right--of-way Lr.eatment gas it pertains to the drive::, and
how the interface of the pedestrian lane with the drive on hunt--
iligton Street would be accomplished. Grade and landscaping for this /pN
j lane: was reviewed.
Mr. Gilmr-r asked about drainage for the project: and pave Walden
said thaL complete hydrolocly for the area had not yet been worked
-A- S-13-51 - subdivision
4
I,
out, but there will probably be n 39-inch drain extended over to piCk
up the office con;plCx .ind Main Street. ra#, ios or. Nain and Clay will be
dretincci by a parallel drain syste," and dutall into the rain storm
drains. It is also a likelihood that so-xr:- of the garagcs will require
y , . pumping because they will be below street level . The proponents
► �'; were instructed to show how streets will be crowned and how the parki.na
structures will be drained.
Main Street Treatment:
The applicants explained that no perimeter vall will be constructed
along main and Clay Streets, as the patio walls will be used as the
physical separation there. The treatment of this setback was re-
viewed in regard to landscaping and how priVt-icy for the residents mould
be accornl)lished. The nossibility that residt_!ntsc�f thosc particular
tlni.ts would use the artc,ria is its parki nq spots wA.,; also discussed,
since access to the units there could so easily be taken from the
streets.
Pl.annincl Division Concerns :
Savoy Bcllavia said that the Plapning Division' s concerns had to
a large degree been add:es:;ed by the applicant in his ar.alysis of
the special permit rr.,qucst; however, the following points need to
be addressed:
1 . The ler.clth (if the pri.."Ite ci..,cessways �i(?UI; d'X(*0.S:;PVC'; i .C_ . , t:l)erC
is one acc onsway 6DO feet lone and one with nu)r(, than 150 f-!o',
with no turnaround.
2. The location of cjuust parkin{ in the three-scary flats is
underground, zinc] it sc o2ms unlikely that yue:,t: will sock oat
that type of p.arkiny space.
3. The orientation of t:hc buildings off. Mai.ri and Clay 1- i) l encour-
arje Vehicular par.kin(j orl those _streets, as noted ;hove . Itr.
Kaltman polnt(.'d cl,..t that the alternative is to back the units
up to I-lain and Clay crentincl either a walled , t.tuation Or all
alley, which are not: desirable' visually frow I1ain oi- Clay.
j R . The parking ratio fox- tho entire project is deficient.
5. A desicjn i:; noeded i'or the location of the bike trail. in the i
case of crc!: s i tiq over two major access points into the
pro jrc,t, as well as how it will cross over the "not a hart:"
()'t rc e I .
(�. 'Mr. 11,11 ill nol od .1t h.It ;It. various location!;i<)n:; t hrr(� appeaus to 110
.I VVVY c':{C'i•:;:; iVO .ltwitlnt.. Of cut. and fi i 1 dopictod ()it tilt, i,Iall.
'I'll(, Comm l t.C(' w► I I recl►► 1re sect ions t:hrousih ('1') t )cil.l I0C'.lt i011.1;
t(1 show hot] tLl1 kwii`':., :it:rect_S, i c• ,(` hilliks,1 l l Ictcat ic)tt of crlti t•:;
ill reklLioll t(1 th,)s(` :i1 (�11(' banks, access, r.lnil�r, stairways, 13t,(' .
` will relate to Lite tolu)(jraphy of the site and the clveral. l
Project.
i
-5- L-1.3-81 - Subdivision
i
I
Sections should also indicate- the flcor pad elevcti.ons in
relation to the grade elevati ns. it was sti(pjesLed that: these -�
sections should also correlate more closely the site plan with
the tentative tract map.
7. Parking assignments for the units should be shown, to ascertain
that no unit: is more than 200 feet horizontal distance from
its assigned parking space.
9. The blue border of the map must go to the centerline of the
adjacent streets.
It was Llle consensus that a further SUbdiVi Sion COMMi LLec tnt2eting
wold be required . Mr. Bel lavia informed the developers that: if
the required revisions were submitted in time another meeting could
be scheduled in September.
'I'[a1`IATIVE' TRACT 17474;CONDITIOI'AI. IJSt; I'EW-1I1, 81-11
T+ppl.icon t: ltol a Jevel oilmen t Coi: era t :on
Present. to represent the applicant were Jerry Simon, Dick Harlow,
and Dave Austin.
.Savoy Bell.avia reviewed the new plan submi tt.ed for this 40-unit
PRO. the previous plan had included a triancjular piece of property
and a portion of Old Warner Avenue which was proposed to be aban- AION
doped. Ilowever, the applicant now is just usin(; the three adjacent
l ats, and Old Warner will rcma i n. Public Works is developing
concepts on how to treat Old warner -• anticipat:iny if at: all possible
inciudinq access to the easterly development: onto the Old Warner
frontage.
Bruce Gilmer discussed the dilemma of providing access to the sull-
ject project: Whilr_• still maintaining Access to the problem Marcel
behind it . lie noted that while access to this project wil s be. taken
from Algonclui.n the developer will be required to provide. half.-st:roet
improvement:, on Ole :'Darner. lie cllso note(] that ilti l 1 ties vxi st in
that r. is;hL-of-w�ty at: present which would roduiru continued (Ten
spaces above them. Dick Marlow and Mr. Gi lrw'n- eneJor,Jed in a lenclthy
idiscussion oil t:htit approach •~ight bast I)c 11sr"d tq solve that prcabloirl
of. Access. 1e11-. Gi Im(ar informed the appl iCailt.s Lhat ifs t.hc1• still
want to loot; at. abandoning the street: they should propos,(.d what
they plan to Flo with the! abandoned acreaycr, as; Lhe City should not:
be burdened with thcr responsibility of niziinlenance of that area .
11e infol-111,:d the Cnnullit:L(-e LIlat t:11v City will not c.hanijo its position
r:nee �1 t that J oc�l L i 011 ern the curve r, f LhO
cats the mt_`el i rin ill lti'rlt'tlui' +�� � �
street . I'ubl is t.orks Flat] no other ma jor problems., only cnutiOn1n�I
ghat the siclht distance must be preserved :so thaL an exiting johicle,
coul cl secs south oil 11J(;onqu i n.
Hill Cooper discussed fire sprinklerincl recluirements wiLh the appl.i- /*IN
cants. Ile indicated that: the_ Fire Depar"ment would like tc� s<<e Old
Warner 1lvenite retained, a., it would make their access to the project
much cosier .
--G- H-13-H1 - Sub.�ivi lion
•
r pN
M I NUTE:S
SUBDiVIS1011 COMMITTEE MEETING
Planning Division Conference: Room
2P'',O Main Street
ttuatington Peach, California
FRIDAY, SLPTEMBER 18, 1981 - f': ;9 At•I
COt1.c•iISSIONERS VRL•'SENT: Mone
CITY STAFF PEtI;SLtdT: Bellavia, Karnes, Noble, Gilm,r,
Patin, Parker
TMJTT:*:TVI; TRACT 11417/C11iICII'rIml, USE PERMIT t,1-18' "THE RANCH"
�pp.l.icant: I.4[ansion Properties, Inc.
The followin(1 vrere present to represent the developers: Mi; �
Kelly, Project Manager; Dave Walden, Engiocer; Dick Harlow,
Consultant; Stewart Woodward, Architect; Jerre Goodwin, 11.11.
Company; and Larry Kaltman, urban West.
Ivarry Kal tmarl described the revisions made to the Flan subsequenc
to the most recent subdivision conulittee meeting as follows:
t 1 . The southernmost portion of the project adjacent•. to Y��r,'• t��t�n
has 11('^n se[:aratCrl intoa "not a part" parcel and L,ie t;rojo;ed
132 units on that site will be left: for future t;entativc tract
map and subdivision .action at the time the walls in Ois loca-
tion are no longer under active protraction.
le. The 1)arkinrl r�ativs have been changed. '1'h:� project. now :ln�� a
3. 2/1 ratio for the townhouses; after denlin►i with thy! rrruirc"cl
2/1 ratio this leaves 1 . 2/1 for guest parl:in'l which Is loc:c-11:ed
evenly tilroll(Il1RUt tllc_ site for use by tenants or yll st.;. if
ccinpact [:arkinq .is permitted this ratio can be increasm-3 over;
further r, altP,o igh Mr. Woodward indicated that if this h[Zppoms
hr_ t,.ould l i}te to see the space vained gain(, into land_capin'3
to enharlcc the` motor courts with more space rat:%er than
I into additioral hard surface parking.
3 . `I'h(� front: pitios and fences on interior buildinc-,[a hav:
eliminaLvd, to apen till common areas to gro.,Ler common use.
I'hi., .,Litt leaver, thnsc units with i'cal• an.1 t.ile f"rc,nt
patios have becil retained on the unit:' frontim., onto st:ri'L`Ls .
4 . The, cui-de-•sac has boon extended so that all of the townhcuv:os
now coma out onto i Claj Avenue. The entrance off Yorktown,
Which is intended mainly for use by the office and he
f '
flltllrl' I'CS2Cle:It5 of the "not a [)art:" pa''CC1 , is .-low tied to
the rul-de--sac by .1 much shorter fire roz-,d.
i
5 . Plider fire access of 2.1 feet: has now been shown.
G . Th. :'(! unit!7 have :seen taken cut of the plan, leavi.nt3 76 town- ,
1...a original 79 provided houses instead of the (sr ai 'Ih1:� has 1 rovidc.ci more
s lace along the edge of the t ( ect h Main Street an(i moved
r.. E g (3 p " •J y
the road off Clay Avenue over in order to create a better entry
and a wider edge condition from buildings to stre(:t.
7. All roads are designated as 40-foot ri(lhts-of-way.
Fir. Kaltman also pointod out that on the first floor or each of
the buildings between units there is an emergeric, access, :JiVill(1
three ac�ess pointy to vach building so that these is always direct
r:.re access to any unit. In his opinion, that vould makti them
accessible within the Fire Department' s 150--foot. li.mt bot': inside
and outside the courts.
Fire Department Comments:
Steve Parker presented the following lire Dep.irtmc nt critique of
the project: as proposed:
i
1 . There are several locations where the streets do not meet I'irt?
Department width requireatent•s: a) at the Clay Avenue entrancC'
the street in that configuration must be 3:' fcet in width . ':1:
Kaltman indicated that a request for varl:lnco would be :;a mitted
for that street, rshile Mr. Waldr.-n :,ajd it. could bo -idjustod to 10'",
conform. il) Thy street widthsin the center of t ae project
must be- an unobstructed 2.1 feet in widt.il, and c) thu div.i,:or
in the entrance off Yorktown Avenuo might yet in the wax of turn-
ing radius for emergency vehicles.
2 . Streets of over 600 feet in length roqui re cc;wplet.e circulation.
The Fire Department's comments point d out that with t•ho con-
figuration of the Man several. units are isolated and they would
like to stye full circulation through t:lt,_ complex.
3 . The southern f i ro road mllst 1.c i•r_pl 11CWI 'v,i th ,i fttl 1-!3Urfac eiI
street. to allow se(:arl(1i1ry circulation into the (ievelop.ment . F:r .
1% :1 tman said it would b^ possible Lo t.}r_> that. if the City lieu 1 d
be willing to accept that street for dedication.
4 . VirC.' !irlrinklvrS and itlaJ:m s1i+,:C.'ttls are r'('(luirt-;: in the t11rCe_•-
:-' ,r}' C'1115t.('1' bill l(llrpl!i and palrkln(3 ilrl'.1.`; 1)('L' r't.'t;tJlat r(7n!; in
1-(?(Jana to the gros'; sgtrclre footacle of t'.ht' till 1('.ln(Is iinl acC'(:s!; .
Mr•. V;l;*kOI_ at1d tllc' al)l)l icilnt:; disc:uS,(_'(1 t111!, r('(1ui1( ri,' 11t. anti he
I'Ointr(i OlIt .argil!; whys(', Lhc project: do,.._,. rl()t rr.(':t: t ht, ! _(0-foot: I
After 1 t,vi ew 1 t A'il! (1�'C('r'11;7 rlr'(l this t
tlli.-; problOtil lti(1tlld bc` 'lt!;CUSSC(.l fill"th('.l' in a meeting
:hl? (N-vel(?[ ort, alntl tho Fire (il?l)t3rtnl(!nt..
I'll'(' Ul:l),1J't.t"tint ilt'('('.r;:; llleinned alorl.l 010 ill terlatl!: ell:r!:t be flA4�
fully vt PAV, and dA inoated as such. ',I t<'rnat.ivc25 wt!r(? c(L:-
cllssc'd whlr.h ('0111d allow fire access while st; 11 wa intalninc;
the Privacy of the proje%t; thin :natter will also be clarifie:l
through further discussion.
-7.- 01-18-81 - Subdivision
I
i
I
G. The fire road will havr: to be .a full 24 feet wide, built to
standard City specifications for a street, with no grass or
landscaping of any sort to obstruct that 24 foot width.
Each end of the road will be required to be provided with
5� some type of security slate with no cccess other than emergency
vehicles or pedestrians.
7. Th<: Fire Department would like the ultimate plan to show the
number of units in each building.
S. flammerhead configurations on the roads will be req•.lired to
conform with City specifications. Mr. Pal:ker indicated areas
of nor—conformity on the plan.
9. The Fire Department exprOssed concern wi t•li certain areas where
there are three-foot setbacks f)701e garage to roadway; their
minimum standard is five feet and ii this is not provided the
areas must be signed "No Parking" and a r.Cs,luirement included
in the CC&R' s to prohibit parking at those locations.
1.0. The plan shall delinea'e any oil walls which will be capped
off.
There was extensive discussion of the Fire Department comments,
and the problems addressed therein will be the subject of a future
meeting to revolve the .-ipparent deficienci,,s .
Public Works Comments:
Bruce Gilmer noted that the plan he had received did not answer
prior questions about grades and elevations. Mr. Pali.n also ex-
pressed continuing concern over the grading and the amount of
cut and fill and retaining walls which will take place c:un the prop-
erty.
IThe main concern of the Department of Public Work:, was the addi-
t'onal. 23 units which would now take n,ccess from Clay 1lventle.
it was feared that the 220 -.hits which take access there will cloq
up that intersection and create a traffic problem; also, they
have a concern about impacting the streets into other projects on
the opposite aide of Clay. It was suggested that the entrances
to properties on the north be indicated can the subject: Man. The
duvvlopers said that they did not feel. the 23 un.: ts would make a
clreat. difference in the traffic and that no objection had boon put
forward on the Clay Avenue entrance before; in r•espornse 61:. Gilmer
said that on prier maps Lhe large number of 90o parking spaces
al.oncl that. Strcet had not: been sho%%n anti cars mancuvurinq in and
out of those spaces wotild compound the problem.
Mr. Gilmer rl.'quosti!t1 that the sect`.ons as ask-od for tat the l�asL
meeting to show grad: differentials be provided.
"Not; a Part" Parcel:
Mr. Kaltman indicated that Chia a--ea will remain assenti.all.y as it
is cat present. The wells will be shielded and screened from the
-3- 9-18-81 - Subdivision
A
c
1
project itself and provided with whatever the code requires for
�-y screening from Yorktown Avenue. There is enough room in this area ^
to bring the bicycle path around all the way as planned, and the
applicants said they are still proposing to do this . It was noted
that taking this parcel out of the borders of the snap has affected
' the open space on the total project, but JAL :.s still in excess of
cede requirements.
Par
The architect for the project inquired about the possibility of
being allowed tc use some proportion of compact parking in the
project. After dis;ussion, it was concluded that a recicrest for 20
or 25 pL.--cent compact might be included in a special permit request
and applicants will formulate a proposal .
EIR 78-4 :
Jim Barnes informed the Committee that the draft supplement hits
been received and copies distributed to staff for coiwnents. As
soon as these are received the EIR will be finalized and sent out
for the 45-day review as required by CEQA. It vas estimated that
this staff ceview and finalization process will require about
three weeks. Mr. Barnes Discussed the rejection of the ETR by the
Commission at a prior hearing, saying that it had focused on two
issues: the fact that it did not deal adequately with the transit
staticn in terms of addressing OCTD concerns and because of the r
treatment of the vegetation on the knoll area.
Mr. Kaltman explained that the current OCTD proposal is for the
transit corridor- to come down Main Street in the median to Yorktown,
down Yorktown to the old railroad right--of-way, south ;:hrough the
railroad corridor to the beach. The recreation trail would come out
the same railroad corridor on Lake Street, reach Yorktown and go to
the east around The Ranch property, back to the west on Clay Avenue,
and back up Main Street in the median corridor. The Committee
questioned implemen;:ation of the trail on the "not a part-" parcel
and Dick :l.arlow replied that the curbs are alr.aciy in at that
?octation and there is sufficient room behind the curb to put in
the trail . Bruce Gilmer noted that the parcel boundary can be
changed to allow roam if necessary. Mr. Kaltman said that there
is no p rblem for the developer _ri committing to that: along with
the other- bike trails -.ai thin the development.
Jim Barnes informed the applicants that at this point not enough
information has been received on the erees and vr_cietation on the
property alld tics ha's re(Jur st:ed a tree survey• sci their_ it could b'
u.'P,d as an overlay oil one of the scale draw iricts to show locat inns
ol• nil trecs. Mike. Krlly said that this overLiy will. be providod;
he also indicated that he has found numerous errors in the draft
i:rit and will submit a lint o.° corrections of stat: islical errors, and
mi.sst.atemcnts to the staff (or review.
- A- 5-18-81 - Subdivision
•
t •�
Jim Pali.n suggested that a staff meeting amonrl all contributing
City departments be held prior to the devel.oper' s submitting
hardline drawings, so that all comments can be put in".o a composite
set of recommendations. Followinq that, the recommendations will.
be submitted to the developer and the project set for Planning
Commission review some time in the middle of December. This prior
meeting will be coordinated by the Department of Development
Services and should be accom?Ii.shed in sufficient time to allow an
adequate response period for the proponents.
Meeting adjourned.
S voy bi I avia, Secretary
:df
MIN
I
i
i
1
. .t
Subdivision
•
Minutes, H.B. Planning . jsmission
December 8, 1981
Page 3
between the plan submitted and the description in the text) ; lots
on 38th Street must be shown setting beck a sufficient distance to
provide the prior conditioned scenic area; the question of how ease-
ments for the drainage system will be handled should be worked out
with Public. Works; and details on treatment of they oil island must
be shown. These should include wall treatment and landscaping, a
letter of agreement from the oil operator, and indication of how
funding for future treatment after abandonment of the oil operation
will be handled.
(7t-rmissioner Bannister arrived at the meeting at this point.
TENTATIVr TRACT 11417 (The Ranch)
a,2plicant: Mansion ?r 2erties Inc.
Dave Walden, Mike Kelly, Dick Harlow, harry Kaufman, Stuart Woodward,
Stave Gunther, Scott Barker, Carl Nilson, and Bill Schulz were pre-
sent to represent the applicants.
Savoy Bellavia outlined the project for the benefit of the Committee,
noting that the original 672 units proposed for the property have
been reduced to 492 units and some acreage taken out of the original
map.
Stuart Woodward, architect for the project, made a presentatiJn on the
modifications which have been made to the plan since the last hearing
by the Committee. The plan has tried to develop an environment which
minimizes streets and emphasizes pedestrian orientation and greer.•belt
systems through the project while still satisfying the needs of vehicu-
lar traffic.. The density has been reduced, a central lake added as a.
major conc+?pt, and one major access or "spine" mead provided into the
development with the various separate areas of development taking
access off this central street. Three basic configurations of units
have been prov°ded.
In the townhouse portion in the northwest quadrant of the property -:here
will be private road systems running into entry courts to serve the
units. Each unit will. ha•je two-car garages, attached, with private
pat ..os through which an owner can enter his unit. (Some townhouses do
not have patios to the rear of the units so that the plan could )getter
respond to the existing grades on the property. ) Guest parking will be
provided in the front and guests will enter from the front. There will
be a meandering walk system on Main Street and Clay Avenue:, but entran-
ces into the project from this wall: have been modified in response to
prior staff concern that direct access to these units from the street
would encourage street parking on Main and Clay. Pcdositrian access, Points have
been reduced to three off Frain Street, provided with wrought iron gates
or other means of discouraging public access. Mike Kelly said he would
like permission to narrow the walk width on Main Street to allow better
berming and landscaping treatment. This was discussed, and the con-
sensus was that he should work with the Department- of Public Works both �
for the design of such a walk and formulation of possible maintenance �
agreements for the landscaping.
-3- 12-8-81 - P.C./Subdivision
I
1 Minutes, II.B. planning Commission
December 8, 1981
Page 4 ^,
The hillside portion of the property will consist of two- and three-
t story flat units with semisubterranean parking. The existing mansion *+�,
site has been excluded ;:rom the project as a "not a part" parcel and
its environment protected by substantial. setbacks. This portion of
the project emphasizes close proximity to the main recreational areas
(the central recreation complex and the lake) . There will be a "prom-
enade" road along the north side of the lake which will also serve as
the fire road for the center section; the south side of the lake will
be a "soft" treatment which will continue through the area. The end
units on these buildings will be stepped or cascaded down to soften
their appearance, and the roofs so constructed as to avoid having a
continuous ridge line for further visual variation. private patios will
be provided in different dimensions, setbacks, and wall heights for
added acathetic effect along the lake area.
The flat projects will be two- and three-story, with two stories pro-
vided at; the points in the project which can be seen from the streets
or the recreation areas. The buildings will be bermed up two or three
feet against; the sides of the parking structures to minimize impact,
and trellis systems installed to give architectural detail.
Mr. I-loodward also presented drawings to show the relationship of the
townhouse and flat developments to each other and to the open space
areas provided in the project.
The following items were discussed by the Committee:
Exterior Walkwa _Treatment: Commissioner Porter noted that in terms
of contouring, setback, and landscaping the walk seems squared off
against the periw_-ter bike trail. fie suggested some kind of treat-
ment that would allow the walks and possibly the trail to move about a
little within thi right:-of-way and provide variation while still main-
taining some acceptable deg;ree of separation From the adjacent struc-
tures. It was agreed that this would be an effective treaUnent, but;
again it was a question of future maintenance which would have to be
worked out. tdike Kelly said he had a cross section of hoi; the path
would look which might be helpful to the Commission.
In regard to this subject, George Tindall indicated that the bicycle
trail should be carried out all the way down to Lake Street, to
which the proponents agreed. fie also asked that the exterior side-
walk be extended to this point. This was discussed, as it would be:
constructed on the excluded "not a part" parcel on the hill. Jim
Patin noted that since the project was taking access across this "not
a [)art" parcel the extension of the walk was not an unreasonaLle re-
quirement to plaice on the dcvelopmcnt, and l-like Kelly agreed that the
sidewalk would be extended across the not a part parcel on Yorktr:.n
Avenue. The applicants were directed to provide a t;►p,ical cross sec-
tion on Ycrktown to identify the bicycle trail construction,. Commissioner},
Porter asked that. information on the treatment proposed on Huntington
Street also be sttlbmitted.
-4- 12-8-81 - P.C./subdivision
A
I
Minutes , H.B. P__,ining Commission
December 8, 1981
Page 5
i
Gradin Prior concerns with retaining walls and excessive grade
differentials were reviewed, and the applicants indicated that
` these had been minimized as much as possible. Complete informa-
tion on the total cut and fill quantities will be submitted to
the Commission, as well as a description of how the land looks at
present and will look when grading is completed. A contour map will
be provided for Commission review, and staff suggested that in
addition to the scale shown on the map it also be dimensioned
for heights for the benefit of those not experienced in reading
grading sections.
Mr. Woodward presentee] drawings showing the grading through vari-
ous sections of the property and how the units had been sited in
relationship to those grades.
Jim Palin asked that a section be shown through the drives on
the flat units to show how vehicular and pedestrian access can be
handled through the areas between the three-story structures and
how drainage which will be blocked by these drives will be re-
rcuted in vome other fashion.
Graiing of the subterranean parking structures was reviewed.
Mr VIoodward said that typically these would be half above and
half below grade, but some would be built on grade and bermed up
to three and one-half feet. He was directed to show this on the
plan and show sections for these different situations.
Open Space: Mike Kelly informed the Committee that the open space
prove ei d-is 6.8 acres in excess of code requirements, with the lake
itself constituting 6. 23 acres of that count. The ratio overall is
roughly 39 percent in open space, with some uncountable open space
provided which increases the percentage even though it cannot be
included in the calculation. The drawings previously shown by
Mr. Woodward will be the general treatment of the space between
projects and around the lake.
The question was asked by Mr. Kelly if the bicycle/pedestrian paths
can be counted as part of the open space requirement. Extensive
discussion toot, place on this subject, considering whether- or. not
-it was within or outside the boundaries of a project and what the
'I effect might be on some future project where the open space was
more critical than it is in this particular project. Mr. Kelly
indicated that it is the desire: of the applicant that the public
bike path wi.. l he dedicated to the City rind inquired if something
could be worked out on the maintenance: of certain areas which are
going to get public usage.
At the conclusion of tho discussion, Mr. Kelly said they were taking
the hike path out of their open space calculations.
` : �
Larkin TFIc.� ,-�F,E,licartts indicated that the townhouses have 3 . 2
spaces-'Pcr unit and the nodules of flats approximately 3 spaces
-5- 11-8 -81 - P.C./Subdivision
r
r
Page 6
per unit. In connection with the parking, a discussion took place
or the guest parking provisions and the lack of the 20-foot drive ...�
dprons which are intended to provide additional parking in planned �y
developments. The plan now provides for 5-foot setback of garages
from drives instead of the 3 feet originally shown. it is still,
however, the contention of the: proponents that the 3-foot setback
would better serve to discourage anyone from trying to park within
the setback and possibly blocking the street.
Bruce Gilmer asked how visitor parking will be handled for the mul-
tiple underground structures. Mr. Iloodward replied that they could
be assigned spaces or controlled or gated: it has not been decided
yet, but than information will be available at the Planning Commis-
sion meeting.
George Tindall addressed the potential problem of overload parking
around the recreation areas when special events or occasions with
extraordinarily large numbers. of guests take place. This matter will be
handled in the CC&R' s for the project, according to mr. Kelly.
Mr. Tindall reminded the applicants of the "no parking" provision
for all peripheral streets except where parking is marked on York-
town Avenue.
Oil Wells: Mr. Woodward reported that some 10 existing oil wells
lk thin t site area will be removed. Two in the north taking access
off Clay Avenue will remain, and there will be special attent•i.on paid
to the treatment of these for visual impact. An oil island will be '
located isear the center lake area, also to receive aesthetic considera-
tion. George Truppelli indicated that problems have: been occurring in
regard to the noises relating to the operation and servicing of oil
wells near residential complexes, and the Fire Department will review
the wells carefully and address each one that is going to be within
100 feet of a structure to assure: compliance with regulations. The
applicants were instructed to present a letter from all oil operators
concurring with the plans as they relate to their operation, as well
as presenting some method of funding for conversion of the locations
after oil operations are terminated.
Lake: slater in the lake will have a recirculating system. The pu;nZ.,
facilities for this system will be located underground in open
areas, not clo:.-e to residential units.
"Not a Fart" Parcels: Jim Palin discussed the "not a part" parcels
shown on t to plan. Mr-. Kelly informed the Committee that the parcel
where the oil island is located is riot landlocked as it might appear i
from the map lout actually goes out to the street and access will be 1
provided. tie was instructed to incorporate the parcel into the 1
tentative tract map or set it aside by the filing of a tentative liar--
col map, as it has never been mapped. The other "not a part-" parcels
exceed five acres and will be residual . The Committed discussed
the requested vacation of the paper streets existing on the site, and
::he applicants were informed that all such areas inside the blue
border can be vacdted by the re-subdivision, but anything outside the
(",blue border will require separate action and should be done concur-
-6- 12-8-81 - P.C./Serb(? :vision
e
Minutes, Ii.B. P1 aping Commission
December 8, 1981
Page 7
= rently.
.J
George Tindall again reminded the applicants of the three- or
four-foot "no nian's land" between their map and the existing
parcel on Huntington Avenue occupied by an apartment project
and requested that some treatment for it be shown.
Trees: Bill Schul. reported that the redesign has allowed 7 of
the 19 trees originally slated to be removed to be saved, includ-
ing all of the big pines on. the site. The tree study will be re-
produced in the EIR.
Fire Department: George Truppelli reported that they have worked
with the developers on the plan and are satisfied with the results.
All structures are now well within the 150 foot travel distance
except to-,7 a few minor areas which will have to be modified . Por-
tions of buildings will require automatic fire protection baled
upon the building bulk, height, etc. , and automatic fire alarm
systems will be required throughout the flat projects. Vehicular
circulation is adequate, and roofs and fire walls will be con-
structed according to Fire Codas,
Public Works: George Tindall discussed drainage, water, and sew-
erage. fie also commented that in his opinion the streets within
the project were too narrows and might present access and turning "1
problems for emergency equipment.
fir. Tindall asked that a draft of the proposed CC&R'S he sub-
mitted for review. Ar. Woodward said these were not yet prepared
but a copy of sample CC&R s from similar developments could be
provided. fie also reminded the applicants that various scale
errors on the maps should be corrected.
Trash Collection: Commissioner Schumacher asked if the required
spr.inklering hacf solved the problems of storage of trash in the
basements and was assured by Fire Department representatives
that it had.
Location of ; rash pickup points and the arrangements worked out
with Rainbow for trash collection were discussed, and the respon-
sibility for seeing that the trash would be put out for collection
without impeding traffic flow was reviewed. The applicants indi-
cated that it is hoped to have all of this type of thing included
in the contract. with the landscape maintenance people who will
care for the site. Mr. Kaufman said that exact locations for
trash pickup have not yet been established , but they will be off
to the side of a road and not in the traffic lanes. Precise
locations will be shown on the map when it is presented to the
Commission for review.
Commis s.i one r Schumacher indicated that in tier opinion this filing
is premature and should not be considered until the matter of
the railroad corridor is settled. She pointed out that it i,
shown on the general Plan and without some resol.ut.ion taking place
-7- 12-0-81 -- P.C.;Subdivisiote
Minutes, H.B. Plann�j Commission
December 8, 1981
Page 8
any approval of the proposed project would not be in conformance
with that Plan. Dick Barlow discussed the history of City and s:...+
County deliberations on this matter. •.�
The project will be scheduled for the January 19, 1982 Planning
Commission meeting. ,Tim Palin indicated that it might involve a
future meeting between staff and the developers; Planning Commissioners
were invited to attend such a meeting if they should so desire.
The muting was adjourned.
Savoy fit: llavxa Grace tlinctie11 , Chairman
Sec:.etarx
:cif
Cal
--B- 12--B-81 - P.C./Subdivision
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
February 9, 1982
Page 3
CODE AMENDMENT - REVISIONS TO ARTICLE 936, PRD
Initiated by Development Services
By consensus action, the Commission continued the study session
on this item to the scheduled study session to be held on March
9, 1982.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-8/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417/EIR 78-4/
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 82-552 (Cont. from February 2, 1982)
t7pplicants: :Sansion Properties, Inc./Urban West Communities
To permit a 492 unit planned residential development on a one-
parcel subdivision for condominium purposes on property .located
on the east side of Main Street at the southeast corner of Clay
Avenue and Main Street, bounded on the east and south by Hunting-
ton Street and Yorktown Avenue, respectively. The tentative par-
cel map is to create a one-parcel oil island within the subject
project.
Jim Barnes reviewed the history of the EIR on this project and
introduced Jim Rabe, of Environmental Resources Grovp. This con-
sulting firm had prepared both the original EIR and the supplemen-
tal information on the revised project.
Mr. Rabe discussed the changes to the project since the original
proposal, which consist of a reduction in units from 692 to 492,
a reduction of acreage from 49.7 to 42 net acres, a second access
road off Clay Avenue into the project, the revision of the internal
street system, and the deletion of the tree stands to the south
of the existing ranch dwelling from the plan. Fie reviewed the pro-
posed bicycle trail as well as two alternative layouts for the
bike trail presented in the EIR supplement and discussed the advan-
tages and disadvantages for each layout. lie also reviewed the
question of a possible future transportation corridor, thp. noise
impacts to the project, and possible traffic impacts which could j
result from both alternative transportation corridor configura-
tions and from the three alternative bike trail routes. Internal
privacy and security of the project was also reviewed by Mr. Rabe.
Savoy Bellavia presented a list of unresolved issues identified
by staff, and the Commission discussed them one by one as follows:
j
1. Compliance of the proposed project with the City's General
Flan and with A,:ticle 936, Planned Residential Development.
0 Staff pointed out that the Trails and Implementation Plan in-
dicates that a bicycle trail was slated for the abandoned
railroad right-os.-way through the property and that has not
been identified on the plan. There are several areas of non-
compliance with Article 936, some of which have been addressed
in a request for special permits.
-3- 2-9-02 - P.C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
February 9, 1982
Page 4
2. Traffic impacts have been addressed in a traffic study prepare
and included in the BIB.
3. Removal and/or relocation of trees existing on the subject prop-
erty have been addressed in the EIR. Commissioner Winchell said
that it appeared from the study that no trees would remain - they
would either be relocated or removed. Jim Barnes explained that
the only trees addressed were the ones that would be moved or taken
out, but that there were a number of trees that will remain as they
are, and these were not identified. However, the staff now has a
fcolored map showing the number of trees in all categories.
4. Existing recorded streets.
Savoy Bellavia reported that the streets have been dedicated but
not improved. They were a part of Tract 77 and as part of the
present m,:p would have to be vacated.
5. Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
Art Fjlger, legal counsel representing the office of the City I
Attorney, informed the Commission that this item concerns a pos-
sible cloud on a title and should not be considered by the Plan-
ning Commission but resolved in a court of law. He also stated
that the Government: Code does not require proof of ownership until
a final map is filed. After discussion on whether or not the Com-
mission might be remiss in approving a project which might be in
part constructed over public domain, I4r. Folger requested that the
Commission go into executive session to discuss potential litiga-
tion matters. By voice vote the Commission agreed and at 8:45
went into executive. session, reconvening at 9:00 p.m.
6. Interior vehicular circulation, proposed entrances along Hunting-
ton Street in relationship to existing dwellings, and the provision
of additional fire roads; wer. all reviewed by staff and the
Commission.
7. Treatment of abandoned streets.
Staff pointed out concerns about how street sections would be hand-
led adjacent to not-a-part parcels on this map; for instance, one-
half of a street se^tion adjacent to the existing apartments on
Huntington Street will be left with no access and no responsibility
for its improvement.
S. Requerts for special permit.
I
These include building separation, setback of garage from travel
lane, building bulk, and alley configuration, and Savoy Bellavia
pointer] out the discussion of these matters in the staff report. ..+,
9. Building heights of "flats. "
Staff indicated some areas where the three-story flat units are
actually constructed on-grade and not sunk into the earth. This
might lead to interpretation as four stories and require sprinkler-
ing. Also, there are some places where these buildings will be
-4- 2-9-82 - P.C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
February 9, 1982
Page 5.
in excess of 50 feet from finished street grade; however,
because of the berming up of earth around the structures
they do comply with the height definition in the Uniform
Building Code.
10. Perimeter Walls on Main Street.
Staff expressed the concern that openings in the wall along
Main Street might encourage persons to park on Main and enter
their units from the street rather than from the interior of
the project. Detail on these walls was requested.
I
11. Access to oil wells.
No access is shown from the map into the not-a-part parcel
where oil wells are located, and staff expressed concern
that access not be taken from Yorktown Avenue, noting that
the curve of the street at that location would make a very
dangerous situation if such access were to be allowed. Some
means of taking access to this parcel from the interior of
the project should be shown.
12. Existing oil lines.
Staff would like the status and treatment of these lines to 1 .
be spelled out by the applicants.
13. Not-a-Part Parcel.
Although it is not part of tF.e project, it would be desirable
to see how the parcel will be integrated into the development
at the time the oil operations are phased out, so that the
City can. be assured that the development on the parcel will be
incorporated into the homeowners association.
These and other issues of concern were submitted to the appli-
cants and Mr. Bellavia indicated that a letter has been received
commenting on a number of the issues.
The Commission discussed the issues raised by staff, with particu-
lar emphasis on the question of compliance with the General Plan
and the transportation and bicycle corridors.
The public hearing was opened. j
Mike Helly, project manager, addressed the Commission. lie ,tate.d �
that it is the developer 's desire that the City accept dedication
of the bicycle trail at the location it is shown on the plan and
that the City assume responsibility for maintenance and liability,
in that it does not seem equitable to expect a relatively small
homeowners association to provide those services for the general
public which will be using the trail. Mr. Kelly also informed the
Commission that there are 231 existing trees on the site, including
the not--a-part parcel on Yorktown, and that 146 of those will
remain. Other trees are damaged and will be removed; others will
be transplanted to other locations within the project.
--5- 7-9-82 - P.C.
i
fI 1rr
!1 r
I
Minutes, II.B. Planning Commission
February 9, 1982
Page 6
-Mr. Kelly also addressed the abandoned street section next to the
apartment house, over which the staff had expressed concern. The
portion of the street which reverts to the Huntington Beach Company
has been treated within the map, and the other half-street section
will revert to the adjacent property owner. Mr. Kelly concluded by
noting that the architect and engineer for the project are present to
respond to any questions the Commission may have.
Stuart Woodard, architect, addressed the Commission to discuss the
project density and layout, orientation of units, parking problem on
Main Street discussed by staff, and the treatment of the Huntington
Street side of the project.
Dick Harlow, consultant for the developers, addressed the question of
conformance with the General Plan, stating that the plan does not
specify the precise location of recreational trails and that the lay-
out proposed provides an alignment approximately in conformance with
that delineated in the Recreation Trails Element. fie also discussed
at length the siting of any future transportation corridor in the
area, saying that both the Orange County Transit District and the
Transportation Commission have concurred that the proposal down Main
Street whic.•h his clients have presented satisfies their needs. He �
also indicated that the width of the right-of-way adjacent to resi-
dential uses would effectively preclude its use for any future rapid
transit purposes. Commissioner Porter inquired if there was not a ! i
likelihood that the OCTD and the Transportation Commission might take
a different approach if their position had been taken on the premise
that the right-of-way might be in the public domain. Mr. Harlow re-
plied that all of his comments on the matter were based on the fact
that the right-of-way i"s considered as private property belonging to
the applicants.
Dick Iiarrmond, manager of Cambro, addressed the Commission to request
that any approval of this project take into consideration some method
of buffering it from his adjacent industrial use. fie pointed out the
adverse effect on his operation if parking on Clay Avenue were pro-
hibited an suggested by the Department of Public works.
Rosalie Cr.able, 2620 Huntington Street, spoke in opposition to the
plans as presented, citing the adverse impacts the project would have
on the Rl properties across Huntington. She cited specific areas of
concern in regard to density of units, height and bulk of buildings,
drainage and grading, traffic and parking problems, earthquake safety,
provisions for play areas for children, possible rezoning of adjacent
property after this project is built, environmental impacts from
noise, smog, etc. , and increased crime and wrong doing in her neigh-
borhood which might result from construction of the project.. She
concluded by stating that the adjacent neighborhood expects to be
notified of all meetings pertaining to this project and requested that
such meetings be held when the neighbors can attend.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the pro-
posals, and the public hearing was closed.
-6- 2-9-82 - P.C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Comma.ssi.on
February 9, 1982
Page 7
' = Commission discussion ensued concerning drainage, impacts of the
,;:„} proposed project on surrounding properties, elevation of units,
siting of the flats and townhouses on the project, and the ques-
tion of conformance with the General Plan.
ON 140TION BY PAONF AND SECOND BY PORTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 78-4 INCLUDING ALL SUPPLEMENTS THERETO WAS FOUND TO
BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH CEQA AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Bannister, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kenefick
ABSTAIN: None
It was the consensus of the Commission that further information
responding to the concerns expressed at this meeting should be
provided. In response to a request for concurrence with a con-
tinuance, Mike Kelly asked that comments regarding the areas the
Planning Commission would like addressed be listed.
In subsequent discussion the Commission listed the following areas
on which they would like additional work done and information
submitted: 1) Building height and bulk as viewed from Huntington
Street; 2) Treatment along Main and Clay for patio walls. Commis-
sioner Bannister suggested that there be walls with no gates at
all or one-way gates allowing exit but no entrance. The proponent
responded that the Fire Department might find this a problem for
emergency access; 3) Buffering from Cambro; 4) A letter indicating
that the future construction on the not-a-part parcel will be con-
sistent with the existing construction on the rest of the property;
5) Further information on the 30 percent compact car parking and
the trash locations; 6) Some treatment so that the intersections
of the entryways with the bicycle path do not pose .a safety hazard
to bicyclists or pedestrians; 7) Discussion on the oil wells -
e.g. , whether there will be further recovery wells drilled and if
it is safe to build over abandoned wells; 8) Information on the
quantity of cut and fill on the property and a comparison of exist-
ing grades on the property versus the proposed grades; and 9) The
remaining issues of concern distributed by staff which have either
not been resolved at this meeting or specifically outlined above.
From stuff, the Commission requested more discussion on the dis-
crepancy between the Uniform Building Code and Division 9 in re-
gard to allowable building heights.
After this discussion, Mr. Kelly agreed to a continuance of the
requests.
ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY BANNISTER CONDITIONAL USE
PER14IT NO. 81-8, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11.117, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO. 82-552 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1982,
WITH THE CONCURRENC13 OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
i
AYES: A
I
Bannister, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, PSahaifey
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kenefick
ABSTAIN: None -7-- 2-9-82 - Q.C.
MINUTES
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
Counci'. Chambers - Civic Center
2000 tads Street
Huntington Beach, California
TUESDAY, MARCH 21 1982 - 7:00 PA1
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell,
Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
CONSENT AGENDAS
ON MOTION BY KENEFI.CK AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE CONSENT AGENDA,
CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 1982,
AND A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9388,
WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: lannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher,
Mahaffey
r NOES: none
ABSENT: None �I
ABSTAIN: None 4
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
I� None
REGULAR AGENDA:
U E PE T N 81-8 TNT IV T N 1 4 T N A- i CONDITIONAL S PERMIT 0. / E AT E TRACT O. �. lI/ E T
TIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 82•-552
A,pplicantst Mansion Proz:erties, Inc.ZUrban West Communities
To permit a 492-unit planned residential development on a once-lot
subdivision and to allow creation of a one-parcel oil island on
property located on the east side of Main Street at the southeast
corner of Clay Avenue and Main Street.
Savoy Bellavia noted that additional information has been presented
by the applicant. fie also clarified the time of distribution of �
come o. the other documents previously supplied to the Commission.
Staff r-eaconmended that the public hearing, which had been opened
and closed at the prior hearing on these requests, be reopened to
allow the applicants the opportunity to review their revised treat- f
ment with the Commission. �
i,
l
Minutes, H.H. Planning C'omniss'on
March 2, 1982
Page 2
The public hearing was reopened.
Mike Kelly, Project Manager for the proponents, addressed the Commis-
sion to discuss areas of concern which had been pointed out in prior
meetings. He discussed the efforts to mitigate the building bulk as
observed from the residential lots across Huntington Street; the earth
movement proposed for the project; the concerns with parking on Main
and Clay which might be encouraged by pedestrian access into the tract
from thone streets; the request for compact car parking; treatment of
the not-a-part parcel for producing wells; trash collection and pickup;
.the bicycle path; fire protection provisions; and maintenance of land-
scaping and the bicycle trail.
Dave Walden, engineer for the project, also revieved the degrees of
grade and the effect on building elevations caused by the need for pro-
viding access, drainage, and sewering facilities.
Paul Wilkinson of Linscott, Law 6 Greenspan, traffic consultants for I
the project, addressed the street configuration and parking provisions.
i
Stewart Woodard, architect, spoke to the Commission in regard to the
design of the project.
Mr. Kelly also informed the Commission that the vacation of one of
the paper streets within the project would leave a half-street section
belonging to the owner of the apartment "not-a-part" parcel on Hunting-
ton Street. He indicated that if the owner of that strip does not
wish to acwept and maintain it the developer of the subject property
would incorporate that strip into the project la,idscaping.
Steve Parker of the Huntington Beach Fire Department noted that the
department's stand at this time is that all the flats buildings will
require total sprinklering, although they are willing to meet with the
developers to study possible alternative methods of providing the re-
quired fire protection design.
Linda Moon, representing Equestrian Trails, Inc. , Corral 100, spoke �I
to the Commission to report that concern over the title to the aband-
oned right-or-way had led her group to investigate the title, with
the possibility of retaining the right-of-way for a future equestrian/
bicycle trail. Ambiguities in the title report seeia to indicate that
this strip may be in the public domain and it is their feeling that
the City should pursue the matter. In response to a question as to why
her own group did not file a legal. action based on the material they
had uncovered, his.Moon ,,eplied that they lacked funds to undertbhe
such a project. She stressed the possibility that any favorable action
on the subject proposal might cause a court to weigh such an approval
heavily in favor of the Huntington Beach Company in any future legal
action, because a court might feel that any interested party should
have challenged the approval at the time it was being given.
Legal counsel Art Folger informed the Commission that the City would
have no standing to clear the title, but that a challenge would have to
--2- 3-2-82 - P.C.
ti
4
Minutes, H.B. planning Commission
March 2, 1982
Page 3
f�
be filed by either the heirs of Colonel Northam (mentioned by
Ms. Moon in her review of the title report) or by the County
to which easements along section lines had been dedicated in
1918. He further informed the Commission that legal title did
not require proof in the filing and approval of a tentative
tract map, but only upon approval of a final map; he added,
however, that if the Commission were concerned a condition of
approval could be imposed upon any approval making it contin-
gent upon proof of title.
Extensive discussion took place between legal counsel, the Com-
mission, and the speaker on this matter.
Irwin Haydock, representing the Enviranmenta]. Committee, also
spoke to the matter of title, saying that a precedent for re-
taining the corridor had been set in the approval of other
residential tracts on bake Street. fie stated that in his opin-
ion the question of the right-of-way is a very important matter
for the Commission to consider at this time.
There wure no other. persons to speak for or against the proposal,
and the public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Bannister and seconded by Paone to approve
Tentative Tract No. 11417 subject to :Findings. Discussion en-
sued on the conditions of approval which might be applied to an-
approval of the tract map and the conditional use permit request.
I Staff indicated that rough conditions of approval have been
worked out but are not complete because all of the information
had not been received prior to this date. The maker and second
both withdrew their motion and staff was directed to finalize
suggested conditions of approval. Procedure was discussed.
A motion was made by Mahaffey and seconded by Bannister to
accept Tentative Tract 11417 and Conditional Use Permit No. 81--8
1 and request staff to put together conditions of approval so that
action can be taken can these matters at this meeting. Commis-
sioner Paone refused to support such a motion and suggested in-
stead that the matter be continued until later in the agenda so
that staff could finalize conditions and present them prior to
a vote. Both the maker and second agreed to so amend the
` motion.
THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TO LATER IN THE AGENDA WAS PASSED BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Bannister, Paone, Porter, Mahaffey
NOES: Kenefick, Winchell, Schtunacher
! ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:50.
-3- 3-2-82 - P.C.
i
i
I
I
�1
Minutes, H.D. Planning Commission
March 2, 1992
Page 4
(The following action took place at the conclusion of the public
hearing section of the Commission agenda, but is placed here in
the minutes as a matter of convenience in the record on TT 11417
and C.U.P. 81-6. )
Savoy Bellavi.a distributed preliminary conditions of approval for
The Ranch project. Secretary Palin suggested that the Commission
touch on items which they would need to see reflected in conditions,
and the following list was presented:
1. The "not-a-part" parcel covered by the tentative parcel map:
Standard conditions requiring that the map received and dated
on a certain date shall be the approved map; that the applicant
shall participate in drainage assessment district requirements
and fees; that reciprocal easements over and across the tenta-
tive parcel map and the tentative tract map shall be provided
as a condition on each application.
2. If the Commission concurs with the addition of units in the cen-
ter of the project to make up for the loss of units along the
Huntington Street frontage, Buildings 31, 32, and 35 shall be
spelled out as containing "x" number of units.
3. If the Commission concurs with the treatment along Huntington
Street, a condition should be required to accept that treatment
for Buildings 28, 33, and 36 as submitted at this March 2 meeting.
4. A condition accepting the elevations on Huntington Street as de-
picted on the plans received and dated on a specific date and
filed for review before the Commission at this meeting.
5. A condition on the additional treatment along Main and Clay should
be that 'which was submitted for review and approval at this
meeting.
6. A condition will be required for the construction of the sidewalk
along Yorktown Avenue on the "not-a-part" parcel as depicted on
the tract map, connecting the entrance driveway to the easterly
portion.
7. A condition will be required for the construction of the Type 3
off-road bicycle trail along the periphery of the tract and that
it will be designed and constructed as shown on the plans sub-
mitted for review and approval at this meeting.
8. A condition on security systems for each one of the buildings,
Which will require that some type of security apparatus shall be ' I
constructed at the entries to the parking structures of the flats �
units. Otherwise, the code would require that these areas be
divided into individual garage modules within the subterranean
parking.
-•4- 3-2-82 - P.C. Jf
I
I
I
1
Minutes, H.B. :�►nning Commission '
�. March 2, 1982
Page 5
i 9. A condition should be imposed to assure that the "not-a-
part" parcel within the development when constructed can
1 stand on its own entirely. It would be desirable for the
City to initiate a zone change to apply Planned Development
zoning to this parcel so that in 25 years or so a com-
patible project to the surrounding one can be built on that
parcel.
10. The off-island oil wells that will remain in the project
must be conditioned to be screened and landscaped in com-
pliance with the plans submitted to the Commission for
review.
11. A condition should be imposed for sufficient monies to be
deposited in an interest-bearing account so that in the
future those off-island oil well locations can be landscaped
as permanent open space once the oil facilities have ceased
operation.
12. A condition should be imposed in regard to the half-street
section along the "not-a-part" apartment parcel on Hunting-
ton Street to state that it shall be graded to prevent pond-
ing of water. This condition should also ensure that the
developer of the subject project shall be responsible foz
curing that problem along with his construction.
13. The finished garage floor elevations as shown on the plans
and on a preliminary grading plan shall be the approved eleva-
tions for cut and fill for the project, as indicated on informa-
tion received and dated February 26, 1982.
14.. Street widths in the interior of the project shall be
increased to 28 feet, with rolled curb (measured from curb
face to curb face) .
15. Applicant shall agrees to provide proof of clear title prior
to recordation on the final map.
16. The 3.2 acres of dedicated streets within the project shall
be vacated.
17. A stipulation shall be added that the conditions; shall also
include, besides the standard conditions normally imposed
on tracts, the points agreed to by the applicants in their
letter of March 2, 1982.
18. Building height shall be computed according to the standards
net forth in the Uniform Building Code.
19. The required turning island in 17th Street shall be installed
by the developer. Mr. Kelly also indicated that the other
street improvements on 17th as recommended by the traffic
consultant were acceptable.
-5- 3-2-82 - P.C.
Minutes, K.B. Planning Commission
March 2, 1982
Page 6
Commissioner Paone inquired of the developers if the proposed condi-
tions were acceptable to them. Mike Kelly replied that all condi-
tions mentioned with the exception of the requirement for 28-foot
interior street widths were acceptable, noting that to impose: such a
condition at this time would require complete redesign of the pro-
ject. Commission, after considering the number of times this project
had been reviewed both by the Subdivision Committee and the full
Commission without this having been pointed out as a requirement,
agreed to delete this requirement from the conditions of approval.
Brief further discussion took place.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY PAONE TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-81 TENTATIVE TRACT 11417, AND TENTA-
TIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 82-522 WITH FINDINGS AND WITH THE CONDITIONS AS
SUBMITTED BY STAFF AND AS OUTLINED ABOVE. MOTION FAILED BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE: j
AYES: Bannister, Paone:, Mahaffey ►
NOES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher
ABSENT: gone
ABSTAIN: None
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY PORTER THAT CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 81-8, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO. 82-522 BE DENIED WITH FINDINGS.
Commissioner Porter asked that the motion include a statement that
the design of the project, with the distribution of the highest inter
sity of development towards the easterly side of the property across
. from R1 properties, and the compatibility of the project with the sur-
rounding uses had been important considerations in the Commission's
denial of the proposed project. The maker of the motion declined �
to include the above statement, and Coinmis3sioner Porter withdrew his
second. The motion was then seconded by Schumacher.
THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO DENY WAS CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: j
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: {
1. Insofar as a special permit must be granted in order for the Com-
mission to approve Conditional Use Permit 81-8 in conjunction with
Tentative Tract 11417 and Tentative Parcel Map 82-522, the appli-
cant has failed to demonstrate that the design of the project has
been improved through the use of the special permit. The 3.2
acres of street right-of-way within the project boundaries have not
been utilized to .improve the site design and layout of the proposed
project but have been ,incorporated to increase the number of units:
on the site.
2. The applicant has failed to provide a letter from the oil opera-
tors or ieanees in accordance with Section 9680.3 of the Huntington
-6- 3-2-82 - P.C.
Minutes, H.H. Planning Commission
March 2, 1992
Page 7
Beach Ordinance Code, which states "Failure to submit and ob-
tain approval of any plan shall be grounds for disapproval of
a proposed subdivision, division of land, or development."
3. Design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
conflict with easements of record on Tract 77 for access
through and use of the property within the proposed subdivi-
sion. The governing body has not found that the alterantive
easements for access or use will be provided or that these
will be substantially equivalent to the ones previously ac-
quired by the public.
AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher
NOES: Paone, Mahaffey
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Legal counsel asked the Commission to clarify that the rights-
of- day referred to in the above as "easements of record" applied
to the dedicated streets within the project and not to the
railroad right-of-way, with which the Commission concurred.
I �
TENATATIVE TRACT NO. 11716/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-33
Applicant: The Robert P. Warmington Company
permit the development of a 51-unit planned resident'al dev-
nt on 5.152 acres of property located at the s rn
to s of Countess Drive.
Commies r Paone announced that he would ab from the con-
' siderati this item because of conflic nterest. fie
left the c r during discussion of th m.
Savoy Hellavia ected the staff to inform the Commis-
sion that it wil be necessar stated to abandon a por-
tion of the cul-de- on Count rive, as it has never been
dedicated. - Relocatio th n will be all that is required.
Also, portions of the p that had not been included in the
parking lot have been in ated into the blue border, adding
about one additional a project.
Commissioner Kenef' pointed o at the staff report addressed
affordable unit d suggested th the Commission asks for
this it shout clear that it is a cy decision on the
City's part no longer a requirement t can be imposed by
the Coast ommission.
The. p c hearing was opened.
R t H_ Odle of Warmington Company addrenned the i.usion
�- � explain the project and to concur with the suggest ndings
nd conditions, with the exception of the additional wa
-7- 3-2-02 - P.C.
Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission
March 2, 1982
Page 8
i
and vista point and the requirement to provide 10 afford
Ale units
onsite. Mr. Odle apked instead if an alternative coup be imposed
for the affordable"units such as in-lieu fees or offayte construction
of a more realistic number of units in the City. t
.Steve Parker indicated that the Fire Department ha mct with the appli-
cants and their requirements have been complied w th.
There were no other persons present to speak iryfregard to the pro••
posed project', and the public hearing was clo d.
The Commission discussed the question of pr vision of public access
and the liability which might accrue to t City. Art Folger informed
them that if the Association continues t maintain ownership of the
docks upon which it is proposed to prow de the public access the City
is technically not liable. After in epth {Iiscussion of the prob-
lem, it was th consensus of the Co ssion that the public park on
one side and th public parking lot on the other constituted adequate
public access t the area and fur er provision was not necessary.
The affordable ho sing question as also reviewed. Discussed as well
were parking lot a. stallation d maintenance, pierhead locations, and
actual bedroom cou t within t project.
A motion was made b Kenefi and seconded by Bannister to approv Ile
project. In the ens ng d cussion, Mr. Odle suggested that th .i.�-
catiou o Lots A and in he parking lot could possibly be u s a
!I tradeoff inst the a f dable housing requirement, saying t-;ii:s
particular pe.rty is ry expensive and deserves "'O'ne c eration.
He also Indic 4that ie homeowners' association migh reluctant
to assume permanaqt man nance of the landscaping wi the parking
lot. Secretary Pa l• to ed that staff might need eview prior
commitments entered :�c ,b tween the City and the istiana Corpora-
tion in regard to *h sic. 1, and recommended ntinuance. Commis-
sioner Bannister th n with w his second. "
I- or
The applicant's r x+ '3entativ Caen reque that the Commission pro-
ceed with action n ti+' vrojec •'�,�,�ply s he conditions of approval
as suggested, wh h he I d. ac pt,.. VEhen evaluate to determine if
they would be a eptable his ;,��.' i Tie stated for the record that
the applicant. w uld be uil. tce.-.. `t,�er`�4nto a negotiated agreement
for the mainte ante of the fi: -sp in t'h<'parking lot with Public
Works assuming responsibility ma tenanda.,of the hardscape.
Secretary Pa n discus�sed`�the tr.eat,. long th6:;�dolsa Chica channel
with the con ulting eniriec�r for the `�^t, Pat TSB Mr. Kapp and
ei11 Patapof fram�,t�ie City's Departmei. public Wr in
that
the area at thakpoint is susceptible to in and th developer
will submit a ;Xdn to prevent undermining �. %rall an ' e develop-
ment in that a'al ea. This will be worked out %rl -,>>] is War
ON M0TTPX Y KENCFICK AND SECOND BY BANNISTER TENTi,_ TRACT 1 6 .�. '
WAS 9OVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIOJ.. THE F
LOi�TI VOTE:
-t3- 3--2-82 - P.C.
I
I
r,
A.
i
tit
t•+ �{` w,+p b, ,y-; 1rlRG'.'•( .,}e><:!R••.-1•r ',,t^•.f t,"lt.•rr� + r.t;A�.' ' 'lA�t 7_.K7Y�
�„{ u w, x¢. r rr•„r - .r�,-�• --tea sr ; ,a{ " F..r.11 ,l.F�,'t. I i t,ly + 1 y 'y"t 1 rr �V�P,'
,???r�,a n. •}+'R'r Y�pilJ;�,t 'at r• 1A �� •;t�.t�,',�•{a w,k'. '�„' ;t:,.,: ,,y[,� l'4' ..till� Y. 1,, ,.r{; tr`••• ryt�i \I"'t ti7'.41'
>, ri �,� I, .r. v.r+ •,1.. , ,r"' '�\ .'u :I5'V. ',r .l ,Wri r f,5,1 �, Y� t �. '41 X.,1,:\•j+
!,r a S .,.c, 'i+ r y 1' ',_.r� t 4 �� el f.,^� 4+,u`IA^nr • ;'
, ;�.,u�S:' I fir^ + �' p4IM�"•�V.0 ' •, •rl':•^ � � '�t� �!� l^. .i�li. :• iJ{7 '',�'�tiy;'� ♦".
q I+ .•)it, 4h +4 ;i4:t4.•.1,+ i 1 1{4q •t n ,' / xti. 1,'r,` d'Kr,F}, �" r "+ :4'( p4!k+ .� /' t ! {`,es.,,
I t ��'i.oS•�� ���� � .`'l !',I�:q!' ;.� �.;}� .+ li�%Y>���� L t'+�,41V .i�'rf 1.'�,�'V d r Yn yq��"` � .�I�� 'y�.'.f�4i �!A'1 ��A�%,.11'r'I
�'�, t t �5!°.�h �"4 .I,^.�5�.o-, )r {'�4+,r a i,.i r .i t , �.�+�'p Y '1' :'1 t i�t �ts 'P,u�{�r,•S` tr' 9 ,� r t
4r'l .� 1fx" "'4+ •l' 'p�l ;�+�.,i` 4,k :� aH 't''• r'"q ,f.+. �+K'�•��6 C ir'•+�� t'r VI+�,r 1y_t9 y `,r � +. `�4.�t.5 �� `fir r� 5 t. t
'+; r t �.,' �r i'4 v � ° tiri r1'"1 y, ti+�y:+1+ r + a,+� rb"'.'+t 1 n�'t• „+ LS�. •r c.{i pr' K ,dt4 1�,,i,,�•� !l "r '
,14 '�'+ i y 1�, +P, .r'�r �t�' �.• .,'�`•l,,i,. ,,,;,+.;r, A +.�1 w' �+ ':i r' F� ,`F ,'`i w 3 .��1'
1 1'. .v��'4 .+, �,. ,C..t•,",• .�,fi,'�} a. S'A.,p.4,'1;,�•„a ^,M•,� r 4ly�ti.a +%+ .i `' zr ,4
' +��^pr'.�ewr �!'• •+�M �';•�� ti'vi"�`�, {';'.i T�i Y?�4,� •.
� .1 1 t 1, :"Kk•6�.,,k", �t F� � 1 Y. " �, Vr+ k I ',, la�:'h-0 .:,� •1
' �'�j,?r..V,�.3 }I '.p`. � r f p'�S. "� :A��' .i4..>n....vfi.:' �ii'��`.��./�i'1'�t't�'ty,, ."Il I$.�('.{: � ��t{�Y•i'� �: �y'":q;r'{� � 1�,,w�i' .e: 1'
,��•' .}{'.p, ,+. �•,% .1 ' �,,,.�, x l�ai t �St:"+ „r, +: +:I,.:t•\f�. �,F .�;• ,,pg ')F�"tI,yy �±,, r1�-,� }(( �, '�It �.•r:>.;:'>
I, '�SY'y.; 9 d+ .i,r,�'3�< A �i:, S":ri Sr�,.,.,�.`;�, r.Y'�'�' ,".dd„ �ti..V`.'�,,.• iY.tl.,5r' i1,;r•!'{i',1 �a, {,• x�4 r�i•x�r �S6t,r ,�y h'�iY t:'r��.' ,I;t•�t�•'!'F�i;r.t;Yr:tad'.
f ., +.;14"!;' i"N".ho- u ,:'�7t�b,b .i.:arn. r}+•,.,5,' '4� p�,'4RaVv4c: j; ,y ,.lr 1..• {1n, h,.? ,� .'apo:d','.,.+ .'r' y' b't..r.N<i�t.t +'.x..a
R1V �. ��. "M4, f '�. ,b�:f1?�':d.,�4't:�1�1,�1�1'!x'•.,t M• '4j'4 1, _F •� ar.:.t%YY 'kl ly�''ti'*;��'+ :s!w'�• k.,:,. .j�S'.�i. �'„p� ,,�r.'lr,,y a/+.;7-,:6}
e r rrr k� x r. 'v t•.t. 1 I d i S ''j ,� y'('+! �'�(`.r;^ t "i t t A��1 gr�,•,�•: .r � r � '
,tix( , +� t{. +� +'• 1{t•�� t�• •a.�i14o- {.f" 'd 4i ej1 "� ,N7'�r I� "T� '�_•�la5f.y,��i.' .�4��"Gt �'�.,�y .li, ,r .,�!'p+'yt;c y`•)�•. � �,:•�'#µ .'1' ti�iliy? ':
66�vg t,, 11 �jr i>' Y n >, w\\1 •ld5 +•p fit' •� L r• �4 +1 i5
V,hs .gip. Rt 1ti ti1�.,s, nE., .P>< .a t� OrJ,i,•Cro� �4;: ..�{I._
j MANSION, PRQPERTiL . 1C.
2110 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 SEA Eh�;-S
(714)536.8917 '
PEPT.
March 2, 19810.
r
n�M. it
RANCH PR0.1ECT
1 CUP #81-8
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #11417 I
TENTATIVE PARCEL. MAP 1182-552
STAFF REPORT DATED 3/2/82
Planning Co mission
City of Hu tington Beach
2000 M;�' Street
Huntin on Beach, CA 92648 `
De Commissioners:
We feel it is important that you be provided all the information possible for a fair and
considered judgment as to the merits of the proposed project. Upon revieµring subject ,
i Staff Report, we find a significant amount of imput we provided prior to last Friday's
printing date has not been included.
Attached are copies of our letters of February 1, 1982 and February 26, 1982 dealing
with the issues not discussed at the hearing February 9th. it is particularly '
unfortunate that Staff has never included our February 1, 1982 letter in the reports to
you on this project, since it deals with many of the questions and issues raised at the
last hearing. To set the record straight, we will re-state the information, and the date
and method it was transmatei to Staff. -
A. ITEMS TO M ADDRESSED (FIRST PAGE; OF 3/2/82 STAFF REPORT) 1
1. "BLIMing Height and Bulk as viewed from Huntington Street"
'Ye felt that this was one of your primary concerns at the last hearing. As
shown on the site plans dated 1/19/82 which have been submitted for your
review, the flats buildings fronting Huntington Street are already set back
a great deal further than would be the case if 35' high single-family units
were construct-d pursuant to old Tract Map 77 cited in Staff's report. As
the pointed out at the hearing, additional physical and visual buffering is
provided by the, proposed public bike and pedestrian path, the intervening
berms and the heavy landscaping proposed for that area.
To further mitigate the situation, we met with Staff on February 23 and
reviewed plans to eliminate the 3rd story elements of all the flats building:,
within 160' of the single-family lion - and the rental apartment building
on the East side of Huntingto;t. 1t'e : ,o proposed lowering these struc'ture
as deeply into grade as physically p:. iblo_•. last Friday, February 26, we
delivered the revised Tract Map _•iowing the: lowered graund flour
1 elevations and 3 cross sections illustra'inl, the revised grade relationships
to Huntington Street. To quote our 2/26;"2 cover letter: Mc are proposing
dropping the flats along Huntington into grade as deep as ramp slopes c:nd
other factors will allow.
I i rl� i ' A '! .•6
i
' r
t
t
t t
r
WNW
'r.777,'—,....._
1. �':M;°r •, ;1�r 1. ,i;: ,4 t.,,r•I',i�;t t. ,1 �^ ''
r { 1�' � C r•, ,r;r;� rt ; t +; r 1Jl�lM,.•,¢f y.t�� {�! r� '{z !r� r, 1 14' l'�.t4^�"�: 1� M1t1 a •���'�q y�"`�V ,!Yi�` t'!
M art r ! � {'l! r. .'%. .Y '1ki��"`I,1o+ t •� )w W,i, `q • '` t .�. fYry �• �1 ' t� � 1;'
i.y .�4• 1 rr 1 '� '�, i•i{SI t! !,' � 'r1 !, Y i 5 tt�r •r" "� ' k�'� � i 'A:'><ra1 r �.6'4Yn'•f ¢ �+, � a. r y 4},t�•.
,r, '¢,: ry u!1.z .4?' .,1 }t� ,�r1k•.+ :�r.'4'!':1'rY;'VtG,G'y D. 1"`}.t,•p" tY.r `'''r ,� �`!t b.h 1 �¢ ,�'f, yin R;•t', 'nF�. t! ;d'•"i•'"•' I`��V'� (itfi r?;U,'�1„{. '1 4'.•,' 't't •.6
y�l,•,t;t 77dR,,�1:� `'L:�;i ,zf1•' ,r. Ft;�':�:'d.>'¢'!,y �M.7V'a �.4 ,ira. ,k, ¢• y4T�S�;i�,lw,i,�i,;,�,.,.. '"1��' �`•1 �1F1 r t2•�1�w :,t.. 6 4::.�"F� .t'�.. :t,',
t t:4'l.-r.l`+t. •��; ..}l,'� h.. • ;F;t +'il` 1V. .V, „a t�'�} ,^''y,�y� � a1 'S! .Yz'Ird���r:Y,•. ''A?.,�, 1i {J''1` 41t '•�r\�t�.,(,•1',Jr'S..t•rr,'rVUY?,, zl',�.:.t`,r. •^4 ter,;!{
� ,r,. a� „�;k t^,•,,.,11 �:�r..1}.�y .t� �.., +� rz .�'��';.. !1. l�, 16t��k: _ •;Y.Y,•� t�+l n � .h t 1,t. 1 S t +' '.V t z.f,
z:•{•`t r+ '.I 1tlrr y���t,.}.,� J4 �•�.t,1 r '� t r(4 �a l.• t t•'• 1 }. •F't, .5. ti4, ,, r. '• t' Y.r.•y ` z t. !ti,� f,. Jd• 'fh I• 6 rt" +. t: ., r; r•.¢� �, '7
Y ����' 7! �+ Yp�i 'r'r r''rcJ ;�'1 :,��•'{(•,�` t;'{ l ;; t. 't
io",t� 'w ^�•Wrtzli,�!•,�rrt+, �� d .n,';�' �r�(�)�i';� �v' `.��• � � ��'l.,y�W i1 1 ,+t r+" .t�•'• C• •tf,<<.,• ,,�r, " t 'i,T
.'t•, � Real. � M 't u, •' ''Jb.,'7 ' / '.•+ .
r "ti' it'd'' '�'' nt}�'�rr ,¢ ti a 'nl", ti e!',ru�.?4,, �. •+f..fr r.. °'igitl�r `•A t'< �11 .�i
,¢ y Ear "�� R\ l,�Sr'."rt � 1Y 1nl t �� F, rY ib 1.•. ° � t�, t ` ••Y.
�F '� t r•'+.tl r ' 'r, 4tr. 11 .x, ,a�j `Y.,'',.e,.„y: 'A.•hG, '.r.,lr 9 ` 'zt•',a�•,4l„"bdl5l zip �.1 S.",.,
..z '•l Y� {,^'•} `l';'�,`',' ,;kIR.n,4�r', "=AfiV"flit kti olr'y .,iir `4' i..` '1, fnd'Y �•t�,ti;, 'qr•.,7, '11f
1; �r 1., ' •(!},V,, f .s r1:,t;9t�'P• Y z.11 y,z, R.r..$;. :r t. ,,: n '•+;' L :/`S:!,'s'u�.�l .�rt...l t.:'t..t._ ..'..:.
`` r c{,
• • r 1r•§.4a.1:_r.SS.•.I.,.LM1 .. ,1 '.�St.7'r.�,+S.,� . .eu.rMi.•�.4��Y/f.r....h.l.t..rai•ir'.,IL'! •a�9.ut$I�Y:+,..!'r 'd.l�•.• ___ _ _ -
In addition, we propose eliminating the 3-story elements on the cast
(Huntington Street) sides of buildings #28, #33 and #36. To regain the 4
units lost, we propose to redesign the 3rd story ends of Buildings #31, #32
and #35. The redesign will mean splitting end penthouse units (B Plan) into
two new 2-bedroom floor plans (similar to the "B" and "C" units) which
eliminate the corner patios. The revised unit count for these buildings will
be:
Builuing Units
#28 21 U.
#33 20 U.
;'36 21 U.
#31 23 U.
#32 23 U.
u 35 24 U. 4
The net result will he even in total unit count; however, we will lose 6 of
the largest (3 BR + Den) floor plan units.
We are also requ::sting that this project be conditioned to meet height code
r:quirernents based on the definition of building height provided in the
Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition, Section /f409, Page 42."
2. "Treatment along plain and CIS for Patio Walls"
The "Pedestrian Circulation Plan" we submitted last month shows a cross ,
section of the jllaln and Clay path system and the location of the stucco
and wrought iron fence along the top of the term. We also addressed that
element three weeks ago in our letter of February 1, 1982: "We have
Provided both "lairds-eye" and cross-section plans of the Main-Clay
sidewalk/fence/berm/private pathway system on the submitted January 18,
1982 Pedestrian Circulation System Plan. In addition, we F-rovlded a street
level view on the rendering showing the "View From Main Street"." .
As we stated February 9th, the wrought iron gates at the pathways
connecting the internal path system with the public sidewalk on the street i
side of the fence will be locked to non-residents.
3. "Buffering fiom Cambro"
i
This Item was also discussed at the February 23 meeting with Statf• In
addition to the bike/pedestrian path/berm and heavy landscaping planned
for the area between Building #28 and Clay Strict, we proposed to specify
noise insulation construction for the northern walls and windows of this
building to whatevet standards required by the Department of Public
Works.
2
i
On Thursday, February 25, 1982 we met with Public Works and discussed
this and many other items and issues relative to CUP U81-8.
Unfortunately, Planning Staff chose not to attend. As regards Cambro,
Public: Works ine.icated concurrence with our proposal that only our sides of
Huntington and Clay Streets be red-curbed against parking.
\� 4. "Letter Regarding the Not-A-Part Parcel"
There are three N.A.F. parcels contiguous to Tentative Tract #11417: Oil
Island "U", the Huntington Street apartment and the area along Yotktown.
The applicant has no rights, title or interest in any of the three. We
understand the two areas involved in resource production will be so
encumbered for another 23 years, or longer. It is reasonable to assume
that the zoning, and the Planning Commission, will prescribe r-hat is to be
built there when it finally is d:veloped. As far as we are concerned, the
future development will absolutely be consistent with the Ranch Project.
5. "Compact Parking"
We are requesting 3.4`x compact parking overall. The number, percentage
by area and locations are all shown en the submitted plans. To repeat our
February 1, 1982 letter, "The "up to 30% compact" request was for up to
3096 of the 'fowrti;vuse guest park and fer the flats "up to 30%11 of the
ba;ar:ce (guest and resident of the parking - below and above grade - after
assigning 1 standard space per resident in the flits' garages."
N The total of compact spaces presertly shown on our 1/18/82 parking plans
Is 53 spaces, which is 3.4% of the 1,555 total project spaces, and 15% of
the 403 total project guest spaces. Approval of this variance as requested
will do two things: IT-allow our present plan to work, and 2) offer the
opportunity to redesign tip± semi-subterranean flats parking for increased
efficiency."
We feel 53 out of 1,555 spaces is hardly out of order in view of current
Department of Motor Vehicle statistics: 1142+% of registered cars and 38+%
of new car sales in California ano compacts."
Trash Locations
This subject has been much discussed at the Subdivision Meetings. As noted
in our 112/1/82 letter: " Flat's trash receptacle areas are depicted un the
submitted colored site plan. The Flat's dumpsters will be pulled out from
the U.G. parking garage to temporary storage areas provided near the
garage access ramps on pick-up morning. We presently intend to use the
closest guest parking space for that purpose. The one exception would oe
flats building f132, where we will provide a temporary storage area '
adjacent to the Spine Road access ramp." The Townhomes will have
j garbage cans stored in their garages as at Beachwalk and other similar
developments in the City.
I 3
I�
7
J{�
5
City of Huntington Beach
P.O. 13OX 190 CAUFORNIA 92648
I
f
June 18, 1982
c
�4
Mr. G. J. Goodwin, President
Mansion Properties Inc.
2110 Main Street
: Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Mr. Goodwin:
This is to reply and further clarify your letter addressed wn ra
dated June 16th concerning the former P.E. right-of-way, areas
adjacent to City Hall, and the Mansion properties north of York-
town.
The following comments will follet4 tha same outline ae per the
above referenced letter and are intended to insure that we have
a complete understanding of the program to resolve the various
issues now being considered.
A, OBLIGATION OF MANSION PROPERTIES
h 1. This p ;ragraph is understandable xnd there are no clarifi-
cations needed.
2. In the revision cf the current development plan for the Ranch
proPerty, it is indicated that Mansion Properties will pre-
serve a 40 foot wide area approximating the present location
of the old P.E. right-of--way between Clay and Yorktown Avenues.
It• is understood that this 40 foot strip, on which there would
be no permanent structures, would be either essentially on a
straight alignment or would not exceed a 2-30 curvature within
the project area. It is further understood that on the white
paper there would be public disclosure of the fact that the
City is the owner of the corridor area both to the north and
south of the project area, that is south of Yorktown and north
of Clay Avenues.
3. In this paragraph, it is understood that in the development of j
the Mansion pioperti.es adjacent to the City Hall, that an access +I
T ,r i
r hj�irnrtr 1T, 13J ,rib-.r..11_ f
,r.
r
f
Mr. G. J. Goodwin -2- June 18, 19d2
through such developmen:: will be provided so that iztgress and
egress can be achieved to the City property either from Utica
or from Lake Street. It ;_s also understood that upon realign-
ment, Mansion would have a pazrel equal in acreage or in excess
of its current acreage based upon the addition of portions of
the vacat.sd right-of-way of Pine Street and 17th Street. In
order to further clarify this matter, it is understood that a
portion of 17th Street would be vacated from Main Street to a
point approximately at a line extending from the eastern right-
of-way line of Park Street where such extension would intersect
.17th. The City would acquire, by appropriate deeds from Mansion
Properties, all o." the property located between Utica and 17th
from Main to a point approximately 15 feet east of an extension
of the eastern boundary of Park Street. Seventeenth Street
would also be vacated at a point approximately at the inter-
section of 17th and Pine Street, and all of such property now
included within said street would become a part of the Mansion
property including portions of presently owned City properties
north and west of the cul-de-sac at the end of 17th excluding
the area of the City's oil well. All of Pine Street. would be
vacated and all of such property would become the )roperty of
Mansion Properties. The properties deeded to the City would
be deeded in lieu of park fees as required in the devalopment
of the Manson property north of Yorktown.
B. CITY OBLIGATIONS
1. It should he clarified to indicate that the City understands
that the Huntington Beach Company possesses a deed from the
Southern Pacific Railroad Company for a portion of the corridor
area primarily between Elmira and Utica, and that a copy of
said deed will be provided to the City for the City's infor-
mation and file. In addition, it is understood that the Hunt-
ington Beach Company or Mansion Properties will provide noE
less than $30,000 to the City for the City Acquisition and j
Development Fund or to the City Blufftop Park project.
t
2. This paragraph is understood.
3. Wris paragraph is understood.
4. This item is understood.
It is understood that the descriptions of the street vacations outlined
under Section A above are difficult to follow, and I believe it .could
be more practical to indicate that the new property alignments would
be in accordance with a map or drawing which has been utilized between
I
i
Mr. G. J. Goodwin -3- June 18, 1982
the undersigned and Mr. Work so that there is a better understanding
of the new property boundaries as they would be constituted following
the street vacations and property 0xchanges.
If these items are in accordance with your understanding, please advise
at the earliest possible time,
Sincerely;
Charles U. Thofdpsorfj
City Administrator
CWT:pi
Mom.
,J
j
MANSION PROPERTIES, INC.
2190 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON UACH,CALIFORNIA 92048
t71+1!571i�ti17
I 1982
i
Mr. C. M. Thompson
City Administrator
City of Huntington leach
2000 Main Street
Huntington beach, CA 9264S
Dear Mr. Thompz nt :
i hit, letter is an attempt to summarize the dlst ussions between Mansion Properties
("Mansion") and the City of Huntington beach (**City") regarding the former P.E.
of Way"). if the following points reflect our understwWin
right of way ("Right 6 pa Y g
aril meet with the approval of the City Council, a written agreement could be
entered Into between Mansion Properties and the City of Huntington Beach, subject
to the approval of the Board of 7lrectors of Mansion and the City Council.
A. OBLIGATION OF MANSION PROPERTIES
1. Mandan Properties would acquire all of the right, title arx Interest of
Huntington Beach Company in a portion of the Right ni May and would
quitclaim all of its right, title and Interest to the City. The location of
the portion of the Right of May to be quIU-6aimed is generally located
between Garfield and Clay and between Yorktown and Pecan Avenue.
2. Mansion would revise the current site plan for the so-called "Ranch"
property to preserve a 40-foot-wide area ("the Strip") approximating the
present location of the Right of Way ;xtween Clay and Yorktown
Avenues. No permanent buildings would be plzcc I on the Strip; but +
streets, parking areas, landscaping, security walls, and scrc*iing fences '
Could be constructed on it. The area so reserved would be included in
calculating common open space requirements for the Ranch. The ;
developer could place permanent structures to the boundary lines of the
Strip and no setback from the lines would be required. The Strip would be
privately owned and maintained and would not be open to public use.
I. Mansion would cooperate with the City In a vacation of Pine and 17th
Streets between Utica and Yorktown Avenues. Concurrently, Mansion
would realign the boundaries of the property located between Lake and
17th Streets and between Yorktown and Utica Avenue. Upon rep;tgnment,
Mansion would own property equal in acreage to its current acreage
ownership. Also, it would recAve additional acreage come-ising one-half
of Pine Street between Utica and 17th Street and one-halt of 17th street
between Utica and Yorktown.
1)
I
4
B. CITY OBLIGATIONS
1. The City would accept the goiltclalm of the portion of the Right of way
referred to In Paragraph A.I. in full satisfaction of the park and
recreational acreage and fee requirements of Mansion or its assignees in
coix .tlm with the Jevelopment of the entire "Ranch Property"
i (approximately 30 acres).
i 2. The City would quitclaim and vacate its right, titre and Interest, If any, in
the Right of Way between Clay Avenue and Yorktown Avenue and would
vacate all street easements located within the boundaries of the Ranch
Property, Including Alabamt, Oregon, State, old 17th Street and old
Yorktown Averwe.
3. The City Council would refer Tract Map 011417, CUP 021-6 and Parcel
Map 062.352 to the Planning Commission for consideration of revisions to
the current site plan which are to be made by Mansion Properties.
4. The City would cooperate with Mansion In vacating tine streets required to
accomplish the propem realignment referred to in A.3 above.
ti Concurrently, with said property transaction, the City would initiate a
rezoning of the property to R-2 to conform to the General Plan.
i This letter Is not Intended to be an agreement. It Is only an expression of the b.,sis
on which we would consider entering into an agreement.
If the above Is not consistent with recent discussions, please do not hesitate to
contact me as sodas as possible so that this matter can be reported to the City
Council at Its June 21, 1922 rmeting.
Very truly so
r/
OODWIN
sident
GJG/e
1
2
ir
i
I
r
6. "Treatment of Bicycle Path and Entrance-way Intersections"
As noted in our February 1, 1982 letter, the public bike path/pedestrian
trail will be of Class I design. Crossings will be signed and designed to City
standards, and will be equal to, or better than, existing facilities. Cross-
sections and overviews of thi trail system have been submitted. The
system will transit into the existing right-of-way where it crosses the
N.A.P. apartments and along Yorktown where it fronts the Yorktown
N.A.P. parcel. Attached is a copy of our letter of February 2, 1982,
regarding the Trail, which unfortunately was nut included in Staff's report.
1
7. "Discussion on Oil Wells"
It is possible the current oil operators could decide to drill additional wells.
Any drilling is subject to strict regulation by the City and State
Department of Oil and Gas. There is room for expansion of facilities in
both resource production areas of Island "U" and the Yorktown "N.A.P.".
These are the only areas in proximity to the proposed development from
which new wells could be drilled.
Any abandonment of former wells has been accomplished in conformance
with governmental regulations and Certification. As to this proje-1, three y
abandoned wells are under or near proposed buildings. Properly abandoned, j1
these wells do not pose :any hazard. Ifs
As is shown on our Tract Map, three abandoned wells near proposed i
structures are:
i
A. Abandondd Well N13-7A located just outside the wall at the west end
of Townhome Building #6.
Be Abandoned Well p13-14 located under a garage of Townhome Building
#8.
C. Abandcned Well "Pierce No. 1" is under the underground parking
garage and first floor atrium of flats Building #39.
8. "Cut and Fill Information. Gradin "
The cut-and-fill information was given to Mr. Bellavia 4 weeks ago
(January 7%'), 1982) and re-iterated last Tuesday. We will be moving 80,000
cubic- yard of dirt. There will be no impert or export of material. The
grades are shown on the Tract Map submitted 1/18/82 and the revised map
relative to the Huntington Street flats submitted 2/26/82. Final grading
plans will be submitted concurrent with the final Tract Maps.
4
i
a
I
B. M15CELLANEOU5ITEMS
1. Oil Operators' Letter
Page 2, 2nd paragraph of Staf f's 3/2/82 report. it s'iould be noted that only
3 operating oil wells are in the boundaries of the site. All the othe,-s have
already been abandoned, or are off-site in the N.A.P. parcels. Attached is
a letter for two of the three off-island wells. The letter for the third,
Chevron's /l13-17, has been delayed for administrative reasons, but should
arrive March 21 1982.
2. Streets Vacation
We find Staff's statements on the requested vacation of Street casements
to be Icsr. than factual.
a) First, City code allows ,inzlusion of the area measured to public
street centerlines in density calculation, i.e., because the property
sorrounds the streets proposed fnr vacation, the property would get
the same density benefit regardless.
s
b) Staff ignores the fact that we have 5.0 acres of private streets acid
roadways which serve the purpose of the Tract #77 road easemente, i
i.e., to provide access to the property interior. The 5.0 acres serve
an area over twice as large as was served by the old paper streets. �
Nor does Staff note that these "replacement" roads are private;
therefore, privately built and privately maintained. We do not �
understand how this can be anything but a public benefit.
c) A review of the statistical information in Staffs February 2 report
belies the statement that "the applicant has failed to utilize these 3.2
acres to improve the site design", unless one subscribes to the theory
that "maximum density and minimum open space is better". The
proposed project is for 492 units total, 177 units less than code i
maximum. We are providing 5.9 acres of open space over code
requirements, not including 0.8 acres devoted to the public bike--
pedestrian path system.
Neither is it correct to tie the special permit requests to the Tract
#77 street easement area. The twe.. "T" street ends requested are
designed to existing fire department specifications, have been
reviewed and approved by the Fire department, and use• up almost
exactly the came square footage as would a circular turn-around.
One "T" is at the end of the S.E. Fire Road and will be used only by
emergency vehicles. The other is at the end of Read "G" and allows
maximum utilization of that area's geography and prox►mity to the
lake.
i
5
_Joe: ..
I
C. LISTt_V 19 ISSUES
1. The project complies with the General Plan.
2. The project complies with Article 936 P.R.D., in scope and purpose.
Granting the variances requested will clear up the minor technical
differences.
3. Traffic Impacts have been adequately addressed in the E.I.R. Traffic Study.
4. Trees have been adequately addressed in the E.I.R. Tree Study.
5. Street Vacations - Discussed above.
6. Former S.P.R.R. Right-of-Way - This was discussed at length February 9 by
the City Attorney's office.
7. Interior Circulation - This was dealt with in the Traffic Study: "Provisions
for Internal circulation are considered adequate."
8. Huntington Street Entrances - The "D" Street entrance is aligned almost
on top of old Tract 77's State Street entrance and was also addressed in our
2/1/82 letter. The "E" Street entrance does not face on single-family
dwellings and is described as "a best fit design" in Linscott, taw and
Greenspan's traffic study.
9. Additional Fire Roads - The Fire Department has told us the are satisfied
P Y
with the number and design of the Fire Roads shown on our Plan.
I 10. location of Structures and Oil Wells - All of!-island wells will be converted
to electric operation -%-d walled in as well. We will take whatever other
structure design steps the Fire Department feels necessary for dwellings
within 100' of existing wells. The distance relationships are shown on the
submitted Oil Well Plan dated 1/19/82:
Off-island Oil Wells Closest Structure
B-17 50'- Flats Bldg. #27
MK-34 90' - Flats Bldg. #30
! MK-41 100' - Flats Bldg. #34
Yorktown N.A.P.
No. 9 68' - Flats Bldg. #42
"U" 131and N.A.P.
B-205 60' - Townhome Bldg. f11
B-219 84' to Garage of Townhorne Bldg. #16
but over 104' to the inside patio
6
i .
i
11. Apartment N.A.P. Portion of Proposed Cregon Street Vacation - Our plan
assumes the apartment owner would accept that land. If they don't, we
could take it and landscape it.
12. Special Permits_Request - These have been discussed at length and we are
prepared to discuss them further with you at the meeting. Per our letter
of 2/26/82:
"S-9362.7-3: Travel lane To Garage Set-back:
As to our requests for special permits, attached is a study prepared by
linscott, law and Greenspan which graphically portrays the tremendous
benefits to the guest parking situation under our proposed site plan when
compared to Section 9362.7(j). Our proposal increases the amount,
dispersement and usability of guest parking in the Townhouse quadrants.
i
S-9362.7: Townhouse Buildings Separation:
We have 26 i,)wnhouse buildings and 12 areas where buildings are "end-to- f
end" pursuant to Section 5.9362.7. There are only 6 where building
separations are "under" code requirement, The Townhouse building
separations requiring the special permit are recapped below:
i
Bld .No. NO.Bld .Units Separation Distance No.of inst.
#3 6U 20' 2 {
A4 61 1 22' 2 !
#7 22' 1
N2 6U 25' 1
6
As noted, the special permit would apply in ;; instances. In the retraining 6
instances, we meet code (2 times) or exceed code by five feet (4 times).
S-9362.10(c) Single Story End Townhouse Units:
In regard to the special permit request for 5-9362.10, over 50% of the roof
area of the end units is at one story height. Depending upon interpretation,
the one-stogy elements of the end units of the Townhouse buildings may, in
fact, meet the code requirements. Please advise your interpretation in this
regard.
5-9362.15 Roadway Turnarounds:
The paragraph on page 7 re the roadway turn-arounds/"T" ailey issue
appears incorrect. We have only one fi-e road with a "T" (off Yorktown)
and one "T" at the end of a private road (Southcentral Townhouse
Quadrant). Both these "T's" are designed to Fire Depar;ment
specifications.
7
Compact Parking:
requested is for compact car parking.. M
The last variance req p g y concern is that
we have overstated what is needed for this project. The "up to 30%
compact" request was for up to 30% of the Townhouse guest parking and
for the flats "up to 30%" of the balance west and resident_ of the parking
-below and above grade - after assigning 1 standard space per resident in
the flats' garages.
The total of compact spaces presently shown on our 1/18/82 parking plans
is 53 spaces, which is 4% of the 1,555 total project spaces, and 15% of the
403 total project uest spaces. Approval of this variance as requested will
do two things: IT—allow our present plan to work, and 2) offer the
opportunity to redesign the semi-subterranean flats parking for increased
efficiency."
!3. Building Height - In that there seems to be different Interpretations of the
height code as it applies to the flats, we are requesting that this project be
conditioned to meet the height requirements of the Uniform Building Code,
1979 Edition, Section #409, Page #42. (Letter to J. Palin 2/26182).
14. Perimeter Wall Treatment - We have provided both "Birds-eye" and cross-
section plans of the Alain-Clay sidewalk/fence/berm/private pathway
system on the submitted January 18, 1982 Pedestrian Circulation System
Plan. in addition, we provided a street level view on the rendering showing
the "View From Main Street".
15. Proof of Ownership - We are agreeable to a condition requiring title proof
be provided prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map(s), as is customat y.
16. Vehicular Connections for Buildings #29, ii30 and f140, 41 - Flats building
garage connectors will be at garage floor level, will incorporate stairs In
the side walls for pedestrian access and are shown on the cross-sections and
perspectives delivered to Mr. Bellavia.
17. Access to Yorktown N.A.P. Oil Wells
Tract Map #11417 doesn't affect access to the wells in the N.A.P.
bordering Yorktown. Those operators will use the same access they have
always used, via the curb cut drivew-)s the City provided in reconstructing
Yorktc .,-n Revenue last year.
18. Existing Oil Lines - All existing lines will be relocated after Tentative
Tract Map approval.
19. "U" Island Annexation - Existing resource production facilities completely
encumber this N.A.P. parcel. That ,ituation is not expected to change for
25-50 years, making annexation now unfeasible.
g
i
I
1
I
f
1
We believe all of the identified issues have been adequately addressed, and that there
are three areas to be further discussed Tuesday night, March 2,1982.
i
f1. The mitigation measures we have proposed along Huntington Street.
l
2. The maintenance of the public bike trail sy:t-:m.
3. The special permit requests.
We are prepared to discuss the above and any other questions you may have on our
proposal.
Sincerely,
r.
M. T. KELLY
Jive Presiden
MTK/e
Attachments
cc: Mr. I Palin
Mr. S. Bellavia
i
� I
I
i
1
1
9
•
MANSION PROPERTIES, INC.
2110 MAIN STREET ��!••i T ItiGTO."I BEACH"•, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 97648 f'IANNING DEPT.
(714)53G-a917
February 1, 1992 FEB 5 1992
RANCH PROJECT P. 0. Box 190
TRACT MAP f/1141����•�n S..ach, CA .q
2rAH
CUP #81-8
2/2/82 STAPF REPORT
i
Mr. Jina palin
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �
Attention: Mr. Savoy Bellavia
Dear Mr. Palin:
In reviewing the Staff Report for the 2/2/82 Planning Commission hearing, I
would like to clarify some matters of our mutual understanding relative to I
the proposed development.
.j
1. E.I.R. l
\ � i
As to the E.I.R., we believe all three elements of the November 6, j
1979 directive`• have been satisfied. The E.I.R. supplement addresses
the former P.E.. right-of-way issue and the traffic, fiscal impact,
sewer and drainage considerations. We have re-designed the entire
project to provide the north/south Clay-Yorktown connection.
lt. SPECIAL PERMIT PRO-ES5
S-9362.7-J: Travel Lane To Garage Set-back:
As to our requests for special permits, attached is a study prepared
by Linscott, Law and Greenspan which graphically portrays the
tremendous benefits to the guest parking situation under our proposed
site plan when compared to Section 9362.7(j). Our proposal increases
the amount, dispersement and usability of guest parking in the
Townhouse quadrants.
5-9362.7: Towmhouse Buildings Separation:
We have 26 Townhouse buildings and 12 at^as where buildings are
"end-to-end" pursuant to Section 5.9362.7. There are only 6 where
building separations arc t+under",-ode!; ?he Townhouse building
separations requiring the special permit are recapped below:
•'� BId .No. No.B1d .Units Separation Distance No.of Inst.
03 6U 20' 2
114&06 6U 22+ 2
07 5U 229 1
#2 6U 251 11
O -
I
As noted, the special permit would apply in 6 instances. In the
remaining 6 instances, we meet code (2 times) or exceed code by five
feet 0 times).
5-9362.10(c; Single S'•..,y End Townhouse Units::
In regard to the special permit request for 5-9362.10, over 50% of the
roof area of the end units is at one story height. Depending upon
interpretation, the one-story elements of the end units of the
Townhouse buildings may, in fact, meet the code requirements.
Please advise your interpretation in this regar6.
5-9362.15 Roadway Turnarounds:
The paragraph on page 6 re the roadway turn-arounds/17" alley issue
appears incorrect. We have only one fire road with a "T" (off
i Yorktown) and one "T" at the end of a private road (Southcentral
Townhouse Quadrant). Both these "T's" are designed to Fire
Department specifications.
Compact Parkin:
The last variance requested is for compact car parking. My concern
is that we have overstated what is needed for this project. The "up
to 30% compact" request was for tip to 30% of the Townhouse guest
arking, and for the flats "up to 30%" of the balance (guest and
resident) of the parking - below and above grade - after assigning 1
standard space- per resident in the flats' garages.
The total of compact spaces presently shown on our 1/18/E2 parking '
plans is 53 spaces, which is 4% of the 1,553 total project spaces, and
15% of the 403 total project guest !;paces. Approval of this variance
as requested will do two things: 1) allow our present plan to works.
and 2) offer the opportunity to redoiign the semi-subterranean flats
parking for increased efficiency.
III. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
A. Tree Study 131
The reference to the Tree !study on page /l71Joi the Staff Report
overlooks one important item. There areA^ trees in total
including those in the N..A.P. areas and the east side of the
Seacliff Office Park Complex. The 73 total diseased, dying trees
is for the entire property. Our project encompasses only 26 of
those Iree1 and tha[ would be the maximum removed for Tracz
Map #11417. Of the balance of the 73 total, 20 are in the
Seacliff Office Park and 27 diseased trees are in the "Nat-A-
Pert" area along `.'orktown.
o
r - '
I
B. Public. Works
1
We are quite disappointed in Public Works' comments which
apparently ignore theLinscott, Law and Greenspan's traffic study
findings relative to circulation and street widths. As to
Townhouse street widths, Section S.9362.13 provides for a 24'
minimum; we're at 25'. _
C. Fire Department
I. Oil wells
Regarding oil well noise attenuation, we have completed
converting all off-site and "U" Island wells to electric motor
except MK-41, which we will convert. By the way, off-island
well f/8-14 - "To Be Abandoned" - is being abandoned row. That
abandonment should be completed next week. All the on-site
wells will be walled in and screened with landscaping. We are in
agreement with the Fire Department's 100 foot design condition.
E•� 2. Fire Sprinklers
As you know, we have long been committed to providing fire
sprinklers in the Flats parking garages. in that we completely
redesigned the Flats area of the project this fall to accomodate
the 150' access requirement of the Fire Department, we feel
that sprinkling the 'units in the three story Flats as well is
unnecessary.
IV. PUBLIC BIKE/PEDESTRIAN PATIO SYSTEM '
Our comments on this issue are reflected in my letter of 2/2/82. .�'
(Copy attached).
'I V. . MISCELLANEOUS I?i,MS
We have provided both "Birds-eye" and cross-section plan;, of the
Main-Clay side w:.lk/fence/berm/private pathway system on the
submitted 1. 18, 1922 Pedestrian Circulation System Plan. In
addition, we a street level view on the rendering showing
the "View Pre!., plain Street".
Flat's trash receptacle areas are depicted on ts.- .submitted colored
site plan. The Flat's dumpsters will be pulled out from the U.G.
parking garage to temporary storage areas provided near the garage
access ramps on pick-up morning. We presently intend to use the
closest guest parking space for that purpose. The one exception '
would be flats building #32, where we will provide a temporary
•
storage. area adjacent to the Spine Road access ramp.
Flats security will be prodded thru a locked pedestrian gate with
intercom at the main entry to the Flats' building atrium area. Access
to the garage elevator will also require an entrance key. The two
exit ways at opposit, ends of the Flats atrium will also be key locked,
with interior "panic" bars. At present, we plan no garage bates for
the semi-subterranean parking. All U.G. parking will be assignee for
residents' use at two spaces per unit minimum.
The spine road will be gated off (card key type) north of the Seacliff
Office Park driveway. The fire roads off public streets will be gated,
those off the private road system will have hinged bollards. We will
use Knox locks at all fire road entrances.
As to the South Central Quadrant Townhouse pathways, detailed
plans for the Townhouses - and final grading plans - will be provided
'i after approval of the tentative tract map. Our engineer advises that
i all planned pathways can be accommodated.
There are no recorded casements for the oil lines mentioned. We will
move all our lines to new locations based on a complete oil
j
modification plan after approval of the tract map. Access to the
wells In the Yorktown N.A.P. will continue as it has always been, i.e.,
' off of Yorktown Avenue.
! Flats garage connectors between 91dgs. #29 and 1130 and Bldgs. #40-
#41 will be at garage floor level and will incorporate stairs for
pedestrian access in the side .vall(s).
trust the above information•will be helpful.
Sincerely,
r�n r
ti 0.. ;. K 1-Y
Vice President
8 Copies watt.
MTK/e
cc: ' Mr. L. Kaltman
Mr. D. Walden
Mr. R. Harlow
Mr. S. Woodard '
Mr. G. Goodwin
' � r
LINSCOTT, LAW R GF;CENSPAN, INC., ENGINEERS
TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC,PARKING,CIVIL CNGINECRING
r' 150 C PAU LAB IND. SUIT E 120,COSTA h1E SA,CALIFORNIA 97626 (7141 CG41.1^87
January 29, 1982
Mr. M. T. Keily, Vice PrusicunL
Mansion Properties, Inc.
2110 Main Street
Ountington beach, CA 92648
Subject: Parking Investigation
Townhouse Clusters
The Ranch, Huntington Beach
I
Uear .Mr. Kelly:
I
Pursuant to your request, we have investigated the
parking provisions of the townhome portion of The Ranch project
nin Huntington Beach with respect to the requirements of the
City's Code.
Based un a project development density in excess of
eight units per acre, it is our understanding that Article 936
(Me6ium High Density Planned Residential, Condominium, Community
Apartment, or Stock Cooperative Developments) would apply.. The
provisions of that article, as applied to this project, include
a two-b ace per dwelling unit requirement, one of which must be
covered, plus one-half space per dwelling available for guests,,
(S.9362.16) . 'There is also a requirement that 50 percent of the,
units be provided with a 20-foot setback from the accesJsway to
t:1e face of the garage, and one parking space in 50 percent of
these setUt :,ks can be counted towards fulfilling the code
requirement (S.9362.I6) .
Exhibits A and B are attached to illustrate the re-
quiruments of "code'° versus the current parking design for The
Ranch townhome project:. For comparison purposes, the two
exhibits reflect a 12-dwelling unit illustrative cluster, identi-
fying the covered, uncovered resident, reserved guest and open
guest parking provided in each. Reserved guest spaces are those
which a►e provided within the driveway servicing an individual
residence's garage. It should be noted that the Code does not
differentiate between reserved guest and non-reserved guest in
the one--half space per unit requirement. A parking requirement
and provision summary are included beneath the illustration in
both E-Ahibits A and B.
1199 EAST WA( NU I ST lit F T. PASADMA. CA1.IFORNIA 91106 1213) 796.7322
•
Linscott, Law & Grecrispan, Inc., Engineers
• • ktriefly, the code would require 24 resident spaces (of
• which 12 are covered) and 6 visit-or spaces for the illustrative
cluster (30 spacas total) . As shown in Exhibit A, applying the
• other setback and space counting requirements of the code
results in an actual provision of 36 spaces. Further, a strict
application of Code produces a parking design which positions
all guest spaces in driveways servicing individual resident
garages. To preclude blocking of those spaces by guests of
other units, they would essentially be reserved for guests of
the individual unit served, unless some other operational
strategy were developed. The success of such a strategy, based
on our experience, would be hijhly unlikely. 'Six additional
spaces would be included in the driveway setbacks, but would not
be counted towards "code" and, again, would only be available
to a specific resident or his guest. Thus the plan provides no
open guest parking and the apron townhome units would be at a
particular disadvantage in that regard.
In contrast, the proposed development plan (Exhibit W
would provide two covered spaces per unit and an additional 1.5
spaces per unit in guest parking. It sloes not typically include
a driveway setback and therefore varies f.^:)m the code in that
respect; however, end units in a six--unit structure have one of
the two garage spaces set back 19 feet from the accessway. The �
proposed plan results in a total supply of 42 spaces in the '
Illustrative cluster versus the 36 provided in Exhibit A. The
design limits the number of driveway spaces , which are
essentially reserved for the residence whose gara-q it serves, '
and provides 14 spaces available to any visitor.
It is apparent from a review of the two exhibits that
the proposed plan (Exhibit a) results not only. in a greater .
• guest parking supply, but one which is flexible in meeting the -
individual and varying guest parking needs of specific dwelling
units. The "code" plan (Exhibit A) provides equivalent covered_.
resident parking, but provides no open guest parking and defeats•
the intent of the ordinance to incorporate adequate parking for
guests into the overall design.
We welcome the opportunity to provide this evaluation
and stand ready to provide further consultation as may be
requirdd.- Please contact me directly' if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
LINSCOrr, I.AW k GKE;ENS!'AN, INC.
W.
Paul W. Wilkinson, P.
Vice. President
YF�W:j
0-384
cc: I. Lawrence Raltman
i
I
APRON
TOKNHaUSE' r
1 2 3 4 S 6 7. 6 9 10 .1.1 IT UNITS
P .i _ AT7ACtiF�
1 R R R R D R !1 R � 2-CAR GARAGE
i
- � APROR
ACCESS WAY `
DR►v,rAr .
i
DRIVEWAY
• � � •R R � � R A R (R' f R /C''.7t�Kr1E
J111S
L3 14 15 16 11 15 1 19 70 21 22 23 24
KEY
•_ GARAGE OR DRIVEWAY SPACE
• COUNTED TOWARDS CODE RFOUIRf-M((Y
DRIVEWAY SPACE PROVIDED BUT NOT
• COUNTABLE TOWARDS CODE REOUIREAE.NT
(R RESIDENT, G » GUEST)
PARKING SUWARY
30 SPACES REQUIRED 61 Cik'tE (12 COVERED RESIDENT, 12 COVERED OR UNCOVERED RESIDFNT. 6 GUEST) ,•"
OVERALL RATIO IS 2.S SPACES PER UNIT. THERE IS NO CODE PROVISION FOR UNRESERVED GUEST PARKING
. 2 COVERED SPACES PROVIDED PER UNIT (24 SPACES) 4.'
SETBACK OF 20 FEET PROVIDED 00 50 PERCENT OF UNITS 1
1 UNCOVERED CODE SPACE COUNTED IN 50 PERCENT OF GARAGE SETBACKS (6 SPACES)
NO ADDITIONAL UNCOVERED SPA.E; ARE REWIRED TO TECHNICALLY COMPLETE CODE REQUIFE"T. AS LONG
AS 6 DRIVEWAY SPACES ARE DESIGNATED 109 GUESTS
. . 6 PRE UMCOVERED SPACES ARE PROVIDED IN IHE DRIVEWAY SETBACKS, 11UT ARE NOT CM,47ED 1G'NNRDS
WILLING TINE COME REQUIRED PARKING ;
OVERALL PROVISMM IS 36 SPACES (24 COVERED. 12 UNCOVERED DRIVEWAY SPACES)
i
RESULTING PARKING RATIO IS 3.0 SPACES PER UNIT
'. THIS PLAN W'.x1LD REQUIRE HIGHLY IMPROBABLE LEVEL OF RESIDENT COOPERATION TO ACCOtMO&TE ALL
GUEST PARKING WITHIN AVA/(,ABLE RESIDENT DRIVEWAYS
"CODE" PARKING REQUIREMENT$
i MEDIUM/HIGH DFNS I TY � r t i nnfr•-1 nn,lr•-I1,Fr.
I
i
I
b �_�.
• .. ��__-_,�UNIT a
12 A1141 NO
R � 3 4 S 6 1 t 9 10 11 R
7-CA1 ,ARAGE
6 G 1
OPEU GUEST PARKIM6 OPEX GUEST PAUI►G
• (4 SPACES) AL:ESS �rAr Af'4'.Jl( . c4 SPACIS)
j A%�
"' I
OF" GUEST PARKING _
13 14 15 16 11 (6 SPACES) R 20 21 22 Z3 24
Lip—
WAGE Oil DR:vEWAV SPACE J
COUNTED TNA4DS CODE REOUiRr_CNT I
t DRIVVEWAT SPACE PROYIDED BUT NOT
r-i C" A3LE I'VAILDS CODE RE9UIR:1[MT �)
KI ADDITIO+LAL GUEST SPACES vKw;DEO
. ill EXCESS OF CODE -
Q RESIL07+ 6 GUESTI
PARKING SLWART
30 SPACES REQUIRED BY CODE (12 COVERED RESIDENT. 12 COVERED OR UNCOVERED RESIDENT. 6 f,UEST),,,'
OVERALL RATIO IS 2.5 SPACES PER UNIT
2 COVERED SPACES PROVIDED PER UNIT (24 SPACES) '
VAR144CE MiR 20 FOOT SETBACK, 5 FOOT DEEP APRON TYPICAL. END UNITS NAVE OFF-SET GARAGE 10H
19 FOOT SETBACK 04 1 COVERED SPACE
1 UNCOVERED•COOE SPACE COUNTED IN 50 PERCENT OF GARAGE. SETBAC[S (2 SPACES)
A CD+Oi UNCOVERED SPACES ARE REQUIRED TO COKPLETE 6 GUEST SPACE CODE REQUIRE!'sENT,
14 ARE PROVIDED
? -RESERVED AND UNCOVERED SPACES ARE FROVIDID IN 1NF. DRIYEVAT SETEA.M. BUT ARE NOT COtAt1EO
)OWARDS FULFILLING ME CODE REQUIRED PARKING
OVERALL PROVISION IS A2 SPACES (24 COVERED. A UNCOVERED DRIVEWAY SPACES AND 14 OPEN GUEST SPACES)
RESULTING PARKING RATIO IS 3.5 SPACES PER LAIT. BASED OM 1-18-8? SITE FLAX
- - EQUIVALENT PARKING PROVISIONS-__
THE RANCH TOWNHOUSE UNITS
Linsco". Lxw & Grmn%Nn• Inc.. Fnn;n"rs 1 l_!-USTRAT I VE 12 DWEI-LING UNIT CLUSTER
i
i
I
ire :lrv .arvlV 1' KtJt' L' IE 1 IL" j' IIIN (..: ,
. _.. _ . 2110 NfnIN STMET
• E .TINGTON E:GACN, r.AClroarJtA 97G•..,
(714) 53C 8017 .
February 2, 1982
luntington Beach Plarining Commission
City of Huntington Beach
P. O. Box I90
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attention: Mr. 3arnes W. Patin, Secretary
Subject: Recreational Trail Within The Ranch Planned Development
Tentative Tract 11417, Conditianal Use 1'errnit 91-9
I
Dear Cot nrnissioners:
Over the past few months, representatives of Mansion Properties, Inc. have
mpt several times with the Subdivision Cornrnittec .and City staff to work
out details concerning the proposed Ranch planned development. Among the
` issues that have been discussed is the location and design of a
recreational/bicycle trail, as identified in the City's Trails Implementation
f Plan. This letter is intended to clarify Mansion's position with regard to the
f proposed trail.
The trail in question is identified as Route 51, the Gothar•d Street Traii, on
the Master Plan of Bikeways, which is figure 2-7 of the afore Inentiened
. - Trails Implementation Plana This Plan was adopted in March, 1978 to
replace the Recreational Trails Element of the City's General_Plan, Page 2 .,
of the Plan indicates' that recreational trails were removed from the _.
General Plan with the intent of providing greater flexibility in planning and
developing the City's trails system. '
The trail in question is 'identified as a r lase III trail, to' be Constructed ,
"along City streets that need to be built to their ultimate right-of-ways'
widths, but ae a not scheduled for construction for a period greater than rive
years.....ihc5e bikeways are recommended for development concurrently
with planned street improvements" (p.29).
Both fhe identification and classification of the proposed trail indicate thM
the trail was to be constructed concurrently with the planned extension of
Lake Street frorn Yorktown north to Garfield, which was shown on the
Circulation Element between December, 1976 and March, 1979, and riot
along the former railroad right-of-way as indicated by staff. 'fl•ic deletien
of the proposed Lake Street extension from the Circulation Element in 1979
warrants a reconsideration of the function, location .and design of the
i proposed bike trail.
• •_ • • CO
As part of the Raor.11 development, Mansion proposes to provide n 15'451
wide easernr:nt along; Clay Avenue, iluntington Street, and Yorktown Avenue
for the purpose of constructing; a meander?ng, landscaped recreational trail
corridor extending around the eastern periphery of the project. This concept
was discussed and generally agreed upon at the December 8, 1981
Subdivision Cornrnittee meeting. Mansion feels this trail aligynrnent is
superior to City staff's recommendation for the following reasons:
1. The trail will be located along established transportation routes which -
are currently used for access to liuntington Beach High School, the
Civic Center, and the beach, instead of being totally enc.los2d within a
private residential 'development. This is consistent with the Trails ,
Implementation flan policy to "provide bicycle fines along; arterial
. . streets for transportation and recreational purposes that provide
direct access to activity centers".
2. Tlic trail will be of Class 1 design providing; a completely separated
right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of . cyclists and
pedestrians. This is consistent with the policy to "provide bicycle
trails that are separated from roadways where possible".
3. The trail will provide a continuous route linking Clay Avenue,
liuntington Street, Seventer.nth Street, 'Yorktown Avenue, and LaUe
Street, providing connections to three City bike trails and one County
bike trail. The "not a part" parcel along Yorktown Avenue precludes
any ti ail connE•ction between Clay and Yorktown along; the former
railroad right-of-way until such.-Urne as o1 operations cease and the
"not a part" area is developed. : .. .
4. The increased sbtback area along; the project's periphery will-sofieon
the edge of the project as well as reduce residents' exposure to noise.
S. The location of the trail adjacent to the streets that border the
proposed development-on three•sides complies with- the Subdivision
Map •Act as it perta,ns to dedications and reservations for publie'- . • -
casements, and will ultimately provide much greater public benefit-
than the alignment suggested by staff. �• , ' j
I
In lig;lit of the above discussion, we respectfully request four approval of the
trail concept as proposed along the eastern periphery of the project.
Sincerely, _
Al. T. KELLY '
Yicc-President
tviTK f
cc: Mr. Savoy Bcllav;a ,
• tic: GJG,RJW,DJE,WDH O RAH 2
L.KaIWan
' I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I I
� I
i
'r MA f'1; ION PROPERTIES,�'*K.
2110 MAIN STREET
HIINTiNGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648
1714)i#36 0917
February 26, 1982
CUP 81-8
TENTATIVE TRACT #11417
RANCH PROJECT
Mr. Jim Patin
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Jim:
This is in reference to our meeting Tuesday, February 23, rcgardinb the "19
issues" and other concerns expressed at the February 9 hearing. Many of
these items have .already been discussed in my letter of 2/1/82 (copy
attached). 1
Attached are 12 copies of a revised Tract Map And crr.ss sections from
Huntington Street. The revised Tract Maps include onr .:olored master copy 1
showing cut (pink) and fill (blue) areas. We still balance and estimate moving
80,000 c.y. of earth. As shown on the "A", "B" and "C" cross-sections, more
than 152' (50 yards) separate the R-I homes and the cla;est flats bijildinf;s.
Also included are Sections #1 through #7 through the entire site with the
vertical scale exaggi -ated 4 tunes.
As noted, we are proposing dropping the flats along Huntington into grade %s
deep as ramp slopes and other factors will allow. in addition, we propose
eliminating the 3-story elements on the (cast) Huntington ',trect side of r
Buildings #28, 1133 and #36. To regain the 4 units lost, we propose to 1
redesign the 3rd story ends of Buildings 1131, #32 ani #35. The redesign will !
mean splitting end penthouse units (E Plan) into two new 2-bedroom floor
plans (sirnilar to the "B" and "C" units) which eliminate the corner patios.
The revised unit count for these buildings will be:
• Buildin K Units
#28 21 U.
1133 20 U.
#36 21 U.
#31 23 U.
#32 23 U.
#35 2.4 U.
The net result will be even in total unit count; however, we will lose 6 of the
largest (3 BR + Den) floor plan units.
We are also requesting that this project be conditioned to rneet height code
requirements based on the definition of building height provide in the
Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition, Section #409, Page 42.
f
II
I
I
r }
r
Pursuant to your reyiest Tuesday, we will provide autos.-ath. gates at flats
gars a entrances in addition to the security ineasure.rs discussed in my letter
of 2f1/82.
The list of 19 issues (copy attached) has been much discussed. The only
additional comments we have at this time ire listed below.
Issue 8 - The "D" Street intersection relationship is shown on the Tract Map.
Please note the "D" Street egress is centered on the area between the two
R-1 dwellings approximately 92' cast.
Issue 9 - We understand the Fire Department is satisfied with the number
and width of fire roads.
Issue 11 - The 20' wide portion would go to the apartment house owner. If
they don't want it, we'll take it and landscape the area.
Issue 2, 12 and 13 - In that there seems to bL different interpretations of the
height code as it applies to the flats, we are requesting that this project be
conditioned to meet the height requirements of the Uniform Building Code,
1979 Edition, Section 1/409, Babe 1/42.
Issue 15 - We are agreeable to a condition requiring title proof be provided
prior to recordation of the final Tract Map(s), as is customary.
Issue 16 - This is addressed in my letter of 211182. Sections and r
perspectives are shown on the Flats Concept plans given Mr. Bellavia last
•••^ek. The detail shown between Buildings 1129 and #30 is typical for 1140
and #41 as well.
Issue 17 - Tract Map #11417 doesn't affect access to the wells in the N.A.P.
bordering Yorktown. Those operators will use the same access they have
always used, via the curb cut driveway the City provided :n reconstructing
t Yorktown Avenue last year.
I �
Sincerely
M. T. KCL Y
C/ Project Manager
I
MTK/e
Attachwents
cc: Mr. S. Bellavia ,
Mr. P. Couk/D. Noble
Mr. G. J. Goodwin
A.'s. L. Kaltman
Mr. S. Woodard
Mr. D. Walden '
Mr. R. Harlow
2
•
� i-7Hs7
MANSION PROPERTIES/INC.
2110 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648
;714)536.8917
n ,
March 11, 1982 ^
info
RANCH
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #81-8
' TENTATIVE TRACT MAP U 11417
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #82-552
City Council
City of Huntington Beach
P. O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Ccuncilpersons:
This letter Is to appeal the action of the Huntington Beach Planning
Commission on March 2, 1982, disapproving subject applications. Attached
is a copy of the "Findings for Denial". The reasons for this appeal are as
follows:
Finding For Denial #1 - Reference was made that "the 3.2 acres of street
right of way within the site boundary have not been utilized to improve the
site design and layout, but have been incorporated to increase the number of
units on the site."
Comment - Contrary to this "finding", th-: special permits requested do
provide direct benefit to the design of th.e project as is evidenced by the 3.9
extra acres of countable open spact: provided over and above code
requirement. The 3.2 acres of paper streets requested for vaction have no
aff-ct on the number of units planned for the site. The project proposes 492
total units, which Is 177 units less than the allowable density.
Furthermore, the City has normally based a decision to vacate paper streets
on whether those streets are needed to provide access to abutting property.
These paper streets would serve property entirely inside the boundaries of
Tract Map 11417 which p-ovides private street access to the affected area.
The private streets shown on our site plan eliminates the need for the paper
streets while concurrently reducing the public street maintenance burden.
Finally, the paper streets requested to be vacated are easements from a
1917 Tract Map which, If improved for use, would be substandard by today's
requirements.
J
•
Finding For Denial #2 - 'The Applicant has failed to provide a letter from
oil operators in accordance with... Ordinance Code..:'.
Comment - Subject letters were provided Planning, Staff prior to the March
2nd Planning Commission hearing. Attached are copies of the oil operator
letters s cowing the City's receipt stamp fo- March 2, 1982. The Minutes of
the March 2nd hearing include an acknowledgement by the Chairman of the
Plann?ng Commission regarding receipt of the subject letters.
Finding For Denial 1/3 - "Design of the subdivision will conflict with
easements of record on Tract #77...It.
Comment - This finding is unclear. The finding apparently refers to a
conflict between Tentative Tract Map 1111417 which was submitted for
review and previous Tract Map 1177 which was recorded In 1917, and is aiso
In reference to the paper streets discussed in Finding 01 above. If so, this
finding is both invalid and contradictory. At the direction of the Subdivision
Committee, pursuant to the recommendation of the Department of Public
Works, the Applicant requested vacation of the paper streets easements
concurrent with the processing of the Tentative Tract Map N 11417 and
Conditional Use Permit #81-8. This finding denies the Tentative Tract Map
and the C.U.P. because the paper street easements are not yet vacated.
If this finding is In reference to the former P.E. right-oAl•-ray, it Is equally
Invalid and contradicts the Applicant's title report, the title insurance policy
Issued by First American Title Insurance Company, and the written legal
opinion of the City Attorney's office - all of which were provided to the
Planning Commission anc all of which certify that the Huntington Beach
Company Is fee owner.
In regard to this appeal, *he Applicant wishes to waive the requirement for a
review within thirty (30) days, and respectfully requests the matter be
placed on the City Council agenda for hearing at the April 19th City Council
meeting.
Sincerely,
M. T. KEL1.Y
Vice President
MTK/e
Att achmerts
2
w
i
,4 0
IN7':.'S 1 rrtti (�
Superior Court
arrlir,
I;TATF ON CALIFORNIA
In t.•id fur the County of Oranre �+�Q
� I
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACHr �RggEflrpt►1tI,ICArlola
CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
State of('alifornia 1
County of Orange I` (!'l �.
Jeannie L. Thomas �, M�a
MWib
!} That I am and at all times l:errin mentioned w•ns a citiren of �M� ar W `
the Unifed States,over the age of twen!y•une years,and that I res dd*%d d7M
j am not a petty to,ner interested in the altirve entitled matter. P ypp�q�r, "two'.
that!am the principal clerk of the printer..)the tb 01 W.MM W a M- .
j Huntington Beach Ind. Review �l�! t � '"`�TWt
rh.Fn..! IRt lei arrtrrlr+.
a neinpaivr of general cirnrlation,published in the City 44 to a is"id to p"M few
14 s M!gait Ntrltnra ttt+tdt�titl
Huntington Beach •. �:.ca�+ Tt.M.cswsl�r
fl�tw�i1 W�tsstsssrlt llssw
County of Orange and which newspapxt is published for the 0 b
diseminstion of 1tMal news and intelligence of a general chnrac 110rs414101000llf ,
ter,and which neR-spoper at all times herein mentioned had MA B d Z r
i and still halt a lxrnA fide sulviciiption lift of pAving aubsrrihers• opvb"AWwapiw ow
` and which ttesspaper has lien established,printed and pule-
lislied at rrxular inten•eia in the said County nr Orange for n �� ��
period eitteling an• year, that the notice. .-f which flip �Itnffl�m
!E: 9S 'annexed Is a printed miry,has been puhliehrd in the regularand entire issue of►aid llm"paper,and not in eny supplement
thereof,on the fully,ring dA",to wit: cityCW
f F,ahrtivtlMlJ
April St 1982 aas t3 iss►11.'.a'+1t�1 '� f
I certify for declare)under rx nalty of Ieryury that the foregi--
ing is title and correct.
Dated at....0 it r.d.c n.Ara Y.e.......................
Cilifornia,this 91ld...day of l P.rl J..19..�..�...
Sirnaturr
loft.
t'yj..' w I
I..444'!% 1, ;ihW •• 1 ys+ r{' y•+ 'Y,• M 1' ki'il�lh�l;•:r,;•�.�i..{Uy�,•,.,w
71 ''L�,I ;,`,,^� 1,� r��yrl 1' �' ry',��•s(�� �" y '�6y;M •7
fr r r,��{7}•�,pL� 1 ',' •t y �'' ' '((��,'i'i�' �rrq 1.f "{'J'S' �',V. {•' 'K"'" "y��y�,f I fy�'y7
1�.',•Y.•r, p 'y �f �µl�� X ll.,r{ r 5 .• r 1 I � � 1 ��•9 4r w �( '`'Y `}1 4 I:b��. �>4^ `s'':'t { f { �• ri r' y 0 hi}� I'�`� � �. 41
�•fS h .�•.nl�L ��,��'•`. Ll,. ',�A, •:X4 ti,�rl' S�.t��.1.,f r'44,J•,1'�: Y7t/. '} � .1 7';. .`p. i'1'.f Y .�l�f,.+{f.l ;{x7��V.Y�• rvy,i ��' ��j� '�•,,
Y ., a JJJJJ..0 y. F f,•,.`;4.;fd1��:�' 's ,t gyp, 1:r +aY3t/ L �`,�r ••:,,'r)ial' y{ ,.�'.S 11a.'�,�•'t'' rr ,t.4. 4,h,. ".7'•. IIJ r: ,'' �1. '�f.l •r,
it�Kyy t �S� .�.v� •� .Y,Fr;' ) .•,1'f`)i 1•i,i'.�.7,i i,',.ry,•,��p,f'1 r-,'�+7•`., +,r L�i.:t�� ���, ,'1" � 4r'1:
1 "�;O'l �`� '+ i'�•,` ."S•�Fy' „�}r,r , 1,', �� T •s'fl b siF�n '` lyY�� J' i'.L,A i�tMyF;y�V ! .7•'sf rf,gV 1�'�! Iw j ,!�a if`�
�{'.Lf ♦' 4''�: ` i•.,. ``���'!.S I';'+, :,KJ�1j .(,1�•�"N'�•T t,}}. X7,•4 •,'F�r; '�i� �� 1� 7�J��1,, .If rY �•ft' i 1 � rr
P ,f 1 st� r;� •�+ �A '/'�1•�'r''( '�y`''r�.Y i;�'� "yl,r;,.rj,I}r!1,.'':,y rc'�•. `," !y.�,�>.. rr 6.' .1'.i r,. �� ���L.i'i'. }t Y 'r, to !qd i 2 ,k,r 1
-I' � .�. Y. V�'f �,y'iY'�. 'YF, :, •l ty+, V � •h '"4'+' 1' �\, .�i'1 t kt;t .�' ��t�.t i'�' 1:"' ��1' \�r'e' 'll""i� r t7�
.r� a•� •. y� 3P," ,,1. ,.fi.''v �x'.'il r L1c •1� �r..� r�,l• � !� 1%k .v i �. � s. y,yy'
;!� ' lgW1S v, r1+� 1ti :r'.$ .'r:,7;, h 1 M:•1 1. }� •�, ,:.M;��}:' IP' , .•.•r•. � u�l .t �. ,�,} d' w.� t
'! �•Y '•'P'Yi sl;! .r' ;'85 �r�q.�y^l y. 'Shs+•),7`�•y�,� ..'1•'.�.,a.�y r:rh e,+yy �,� '„11� tr�Y'� i. a.,���t1 'e.h� .Mi •/ iy�. .sn,n,. rS ,t
�d 'R i L`)•�F� e�1J ;VZ'?la,.� 7.., t` 7^fr°+• " >.,.y,s�,• '��' 41 , 'F .t:�•JI'(;ly ,i4 rf II;"'� `hl,}q..r•..,Yt.�.7 r ts�. J, h
�;�►•,� t�" #, '�;.`L eI,1 a;4S �,•yk;.' +•�",,:' �w; •',�t,.f:`e`a;"� ,S,�,u �•ti''��ru'1r' '" „ 9 '�•..b•.n�•,.. �+I" fir, J,r:+:i�3C" ah,.w {i�{f(�C J�}
�q�{�I 11 ,1 r sy` h r•J s.!.i{� �j,It ,L.rybi,! �l{'„a ,. � 1„'•.•J}:'S{ .,.Y':a, •.,,} rr ,{, ¢�Y��r�f" A,Ftits.���:���t ,,.il'y;i 5,��.�� Vi����? •�". \� •L.f�.¢'•+ ' h�1 '�"P'M "i'• ILIe�.Ir
}�'tY� �. \ .P�f F.#.'�9't f,1 'd;,N"•y�• •Tf:7..'{�fr �X�.1:,�t�i'L�;•.,f}'.�r•.,�� .,.�.• .r':.I r.'.:,..ti;� ,1 C :rl� i�' 1�i �,tiM'If� ,y Y.�,�t :t1 ,J R`,. �, '�.' �' y`, h h�� +� 1,�y, r !� T
i r�ro;�.l ��.�+'dulall...r.t}'�+...'i.�.'h �c..i 1�i0a�.� i'�• 1,.t.,f.�k'1,/J•..•4 "�y7���7°�; 'V}�r'�(IH��. 1� "fi}.,•'V'.t,F:}'i``'.4fp�'i,r:�'�rR.,,ip.'r•�,`��4�}7'�y 1'}'�yy iF,�,�. ,nr,.7'1:"1•'.�y'�•,�".i.�.S:i`:
��� � _,. _..i_., l n ti 1 a t�:1.Y:.:�i:.:s.afla.it�:.':�.:i4'..CS.:�•�1 wa�T".'1`:'1'X'[J�.ILuM1.�i.2.i+.Su� .S !�•'
III t' '-, � ..-- L 1/'i-?�./'r •t,.:t 1 /'(..
a / � � .! • .fir ..+
L.r 4
Publish April 8, 1982
NUTJVE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL TO 1'HE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-8
TENTATIVE TRACT 11417/TENTATIVE PAP.CEL MAP 82-552
I
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by she City Council
Of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,
Huntington Reach, at the hour of 7:30
P.M. , or as soon thereafter as
possible on Monday the 19th day of April y 19 62.
for the purpose of considering an appeal to the Planning Commission's denial
on March 2, 1982 of Conditional Use Permit 81-8, Tentative Tract 11417 and Tentative
Parcel Map 82-552. Said applications are a request to permit the develo me� p nt of a
492 unit Planned Residential Development.
j The subject property is located on the south side o Clay Avenue between� f Huntington
Street and Main Street.
A 1-
t legal description is on file in the Development Services Office.
I
I
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their
opinions for or against said appeal
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 535-5227 j
-�-------- CITY OF HUNTINGTOti BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
1
i A
r fiAq
1 ,i y; .i.;r"��,,�.; 1�C;'�' '' tPJ 4 +4•'Y' ' pl + iP hr � •��,�. '{!��}•.,.�',
C• fir,, 'k, ;�' S�. ,F
� � { ;.. �• 1�y'�pp�� ,�. �t,},ff>'�'� + ���y'd^' � �. 'a4t irl`�7t�}1 P �1 '1�'A tii 1'1'';."+. �(
•M J •d i din 1t� s, Yµ'"���r 1' �4',:�5' ,7 r��,`yr.rr A.�.;,',{, .°''+• +� ,)i'' x�r1'.t1. "' �rl } �' ��•�' tl �', 1, �
S .� � Y•'4rv'•� l 7 �'', t "!•, S _A. 't. ''�,'•. 1:•Aaa/�.. 41.^.:.rt If�:�•�'��ir'�•r �r}�.''• ,�4 ,'� •.t '�,} ;\ 1' �'
} "!"� �,F a "�3 i�"�;ft;r~;S�rd,' ';5v'��,y�'% Y it 1�� .'{ti' ;�` �1 i{`"' !�• :.}g•„
1 �!. i�f{ A';•� i M!q��Q S'�. .����V '1 i 4�t '°'" '�!}:t.�.r�,x j r �,{,p� a 1�t. ,{, f y',•.
�'= � y : ��ryy�rr� i `'�C"i�' •+{ '1�� q�'II'..'1'' {y �.74 , !1, 1�{ ••Itit. � � Y�..T' •�'• ���i��• h
1 f � �1� 4' ',� •,t A.l; ;'('4 fury�Y 1 P �,f.�* "i Y' Y,, a �1•�I ;f e� �a'{� ^F�'. 1 7.� 1 �L�3 �� 1 +i' ,k ��( ���.�} 9��t...! a'1 t p
9'`r $il+,M� L..�'1�.��.�� �.'t ,j `� 1r''�1 � r,y ,.....y,7. AA �t,•.drl � p+ �,�i1�{t.x:r` �"V,iti �.
4d 4�'.1,�i� .,5.• 1,'+�C,Pe..�,lt�a' ..Aifr' :`r4+�.' .,+t r;+.�'''i.Lt..p � 1.�.C� T"�;'�,y•,T Yo, r{ � ,'��;!{�, .�}•r•�.�,,
1✓�•...' r. .. J f } a r',. 1q y
Y '' ik'� � :yP'y '.'fl'Yji�; °�' :,'�, 5 �,`r } UP.,:,�, ,,Ik, •,..., ;,•� j !")',:�""''t-'-�i.u.,.,t,�';', t r'.� T(�, 1. �^ S' L1G
Ilk.:•,..1
!;4 i"'� �1 '(,$,1�Lwk+r �ss7..I:c�..�.eJ::.vJ.,y� 'Lr:..t.J...:.ti.7:. IA'C'.Ja.Y.aJ. ..:5. 57..'...�' •
f
•,i �+• r w1 , `
NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM_,,,7.+:a:�c7.<i=J .c�..���1! , r �'/Cti�
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE:
FR04: � , `�' ��i Q► 'T
PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARINC USING THE ATTACHED LEc+AL NOTICE PO;t THE
I;AY OF . 194
'x AP's are atteched
AP's will follow
No We
1
Initiated by:
Planning C07"ission
...........
Planning Department
. I
Petition
* Appeal ,._..,
Otter
' � f
Adoption of Environmental Status (x) !
1
}
I
Refer to Ian Planning D p%rtment - Zxteaston # 52 7
for additional information.
* If apEeal, please transmit exact wording to be requited in the legal.
�t1i (1itLfiG.l to Pj(;1L#,4v cr., #?&UJI 2t 1qy,
7.4,trt $°1�17 a*d ',74de-,,&L,i�Lttt
dial 51
a
I
rltlt li�;;�71�)�j, t�,trri I)j'!�a�� � +� �.t>i,..( r }•r i„�y.. 1
�����1�1'I,I'I• .V�'.,(��� '1i�l�i �y'it} l ii.�1,`�!"�V'�'iA I .l•,�`tt�, ri �I���+,L��tt �fr�� �
`r`{I1f 'I i �'i,`I , � r,i,' �' lb., tt"� f',�li :,`.l ,�. 1'.�. � -f ,�.Y Y�'\'�i��'�L 1i.''•`'l' .'�'1' � �'i y�
,i,i r}:I I •il•II, .'i' ., .,�rb�}s ��t'1'1�`,`\1�ty t`4�t\`��'.1, �'�s�` �y 'y1 '�t`1'•;�r�}`;����lry�
�l, �: •i' 'I 'il .14', r '�" i i�ii ,�y� �i�b '4i.W4c;'`�`l'8� -s t;! `4'f. 1 •�1 vt 4 w;
.�' I 'r:-1, •�.+'T �l\ `�L� ''i'„ , J,4"� •'J�''. .. ., +1 1� it�\� �I •. ,J' �• ;,
�:
'� 'I , r1� ,�ti�tl + A { a:i'•, �t� '� !� ! •rtJ•,,�. t, 'b'rR h �,; ,',w
t^ i• ;•i.�t`�:a• Iy�.}' \ 1\i ,y., ��t�.w I. '.�.,•:�4��".•��', t 5r•'�.ty r r•e. t�, i�1,;t ,t,i�1 �;i�, yet. err ,s.�1s r �;'� J !�
t t.'1� " ,d t��d.'�i'.l'•1`'��'1.1� s,iiF, S 'Yj l••` �,','n6:li�.'y�•rlr'�..1�,.�'y(„�i,5;��✓rr•y.��iJMb:•�� 'r"'�,r�'� }:.rR�{ tF.i•?; '•N ti � » I. I ,
t\, \t.• +' '1 t� i,i, '•`11}; .tr,..r: ++'.1•i ? 1 1 T t F,x y l", Y 1 ` x` '1 'r I ]
,',•i. ; s�• 'v+ ..t'1'1•,.",tt. ., ,�'. '.a p.`'il`,:` .tip ��rJ•r,i,�C 1�y yry7+'iV�k:J'li�frs.�1�, },Y.r.�ti.,'w :re''r tid•'\!' I(� 'r 1° 'MJ4 1• '1
�°.T ��;��1;{��,) .�.y.��,i� ;,i�i+"rr` .�,i s rf>:�,`�.'� 'SV�. 6� 1 ,r'IK�YLi�,i n0,i"Y,'.Ar rv��Nl��+�'I,ti.'a'y`/r�..� •Ir Y,�.- �'„'t.'t} '1;r }'• ��f` ' ,.,+r �,' i h,
MIT,
•„� '1y �J�e r,l I t f�. �•+•"�•�. .��.i' f{ , 1, ,�'!
�F•,Iy •R,414' . ,�';} it...l t 7 .. J�• �, sl, I.rir' rt,j •,�{ }
1\,:i t I r rw\4
.I ,.1'�y• ��tt�r, ti�, t4.t l,,r is ld�,„,•In y. ic4l ii.r4'11��,y,,� rxf f� r.i,h;:'f c'�.,,, ,t rt'�,� �' :�;� .rl ,'�'?.":'Y� .r �.
' '1 '\' r .i �� , ...1 raS:'V 1''��' 1�} '`� Y r i.r',5, �•" 4.{rYcf, t %."Y4 7 ;�
..� 'r� �' i,J�, ,� � t , � .r. Y �?.� t`r � ,�p P „r. ,i�l�lly•� 'V•'�4 i,. y,.�r,,t1 '�' Hr'� `S .��1'• ,br � �,• '.� °•7', Fl
•t S, ` 1 C t4,r r "}:, >1 n t I f h ,C• r.rt
�f` '`1 .i •�+ �'Fi ! � ` �•.1' b;t;+rl.t .,:.+f.Y,"1�;� r, ve.:; .�i'�;rd'';;`1ri•t�;5 }�. i, ,ljr.•�?fi3.'7 .• „I„Id4.�'•i��b��: ',rr�,
r;1' °t; ,'V. '1 t' .�Y+lT�a .�d'�t'� (�y ;i; � ,f', r. "+� �:. Iii r. .l � 1•.' i F � A" ` � � +�.��."��
cC t K."i, y1� .I o•. tt`1 s 't 1, "• i t v �i;y rr� t„ Ir' in7,� �i+ t RtiP �,�+'. F �` ''1) ( r +
1 I'., `77„ ? 1 �,! �.7�.'•i � �' , •'sl I V'• Iw y, �!�' , 1 �Yr n
' 1 , � � ;1'wa ,;' h•' t :a.$'.�.r� ,� •c,..,,i�•t; to r "�1e.ab:.,�t.:.11.t.•.,.t..r..�':.)� x.�!:�.L;:ir..tEc�i+a.��•
-4'o �
I
j",, F •1
aAe CLAsfkuj i4p
tole
ILf ''`�'• _ v
It
r .
, I1 111
}
i
t
I
i
i
i
• j
'. . . __ .. •... ;. .... . � :� ... err -:.-e.
•
i
gal(✓f 1F;:f/�tT,'r�4` '� t .,.M`, 4 :,�ti y�i.• ?". �, i1 r
sY�� f•..+1 ix. e } 1
,; .4h •:t ,' $",JJ'af) �.,1i. AG;�X{,F7�1 v"i Ty .1.' 1 , 1st��r iTt t:'1�mil,� Y`'s}W
'¢t, ��°t � ��� f•ise.
• .tr.. a, r i �a. ,,�T r'�2.f.i �� r +r X
+ t5 t. r N .,t.,Y ,t .,�i', 1$s,+. 1.F' ll ....•...1..�4''� ' dt r +, + fir't a i'i, ,•v!' �t. tt r'h$
yS �:r•p ,
,..,j•,;L. ';t.�:;tiT'�'•ciJfGs .,t,yatl•}�il�+�^tC. t t.:'+��,.4r'� a,.if4��'�4'i�4,.�7!{r,: a �.V�4 •���w � 'n1t •s`;•,
+ 1+:'• � �! 1 A�\ r �.^ Z..� i.• �. +4,r.:4 <�'�� ,a, i 'h. (1!� •+ S` /' �j,• J •,d`` 1{... s�, i�,•��'f i t i Y,�i1'.,,.•:.� i.n rr a,aSti�
ii�.;`"'X's.l't: t +tsl`31f,t'` ,t +;`,+l'. iJ,SS .�t} '1` �'t,`'$ �!• f+�r$��t t y, r
+ tv '� it '( ,y:^1 a 4 k•,� w i t[i •hr. ,,. 4�, :'{ ;; i !f 7, ls11•+ E`rr`•" p, +�!: }. 'I,, � Mni.
• ', r,'•..cVr�t:YT .n` ; 9�',`: r, r i,+1;.1 '�thr{y* `•`eh+�S',, ,' ,i��^ �• i"1 'r. '.t ,.1, 'fely . {• e'� E 1 y`�1� T lnrr$ t }.5.. +^i,:
t' .'k.1 a ^y{ ' Y �y f a � k'$rjht, ( :t�{�,�, •h .�(�,�{{.F,,' 1
r( + • a i '�`+r'�, P•'y' 1:;.•�' i! lv r rJs'r� !T`'r;�rr���''..1.r+.�aL
y4'��t'�1� .y ,�A• �',laj �.,'9 t r. d ry •r "`9�`��r i'1• t, a'.sh ,t,t'`n ' w ri '(':`4. •t' r�'� r, 15 �• .:1 1 9�•i
rts..'L+,1�ir.`sYn:iJ.�lY�4Y.��:.:..'1F.:!/�iii��ali�s�,ri...i+.Tr.i�.:,a�.ii: ^.,<' r......:.J:.�+a..'4' LtSfi3x,.L��'L'�'�FL�✓Y.�Ltl.l:,::11',d�f t•r,.n l,Yls.k��..� 5++,
! r
r !
r ,
——_ —————————————— _— — — —$ —— —————————— ————- .— —— —— —,— —— — —— —_ ————— _— —— — —— —
r ,
' ! 25-061-1S
w0don pavex-ties, Ira./ r
&ban mwt anpm mines CUP i8L-8 , 'Ili23 l t HStre t
3030 8a. Bundy Drive r JB AWY 20, 1982 (JH) 2523 17th Stx t
Lam Apolo , Calif 90066 ' Huntirsiton DOW-h, Calif
r ! 92!F48
. --- ----------------- --r----_- ----------___ -_ - - _!- - -- --- -- ----- - - - - - - -
r
titer DeschOMP&Ily , 2'.jrrM-05 25-061-22
lUbotf treet Calif U lwftlAnd Dive ; P.Q. B= S�4 4
92648 ; ax*Arxitm adif ! IhmUlx,ton Damil, 0OAf
- - - -- - _-_ _ -.-_ - - ___ r '_- _ __ _ _ _ _ -- _ ., __ _ _ _ - _ L _926'46 - - - - - - - -
. _ _ .. -r_ _ r - _ _ _ . _
23-010'-1p i 25~tMSI-p6 ' 25-061. 23
1lurtUsxom Reach Co Le x*W J Ma'let- JrTAX Vivision ► Arxtrero Yea`�:rr r.
121 C'rleveLrd D f v r 302 C'lervr.J.h; . _.s=i.i e
225 Bush Street i 1 AN* ngt On BOSC3t, i l if Hunt#nI bm t'a3.i f
_5W-IpX§ U=-A _'� Q _ i_. ._92648 -- -------- ---- - -- - r - 2648
-- ---- --. .t
23-03643 r 25-061-07 i 2'S'-061-24
a NOXIVU&trot i ;` G '!'MA r Aot�rt w aM'hir. CI. -
ZU0 Min 320 Clarwsland Drive ; 2702 IIwtitqiayn Stx--.
WnUt'qton I3eftc% Calif r ymtinq= bm ch, calif r Iite:trfNt un Owx-h, Cal.::
92648 i 92648 f 92648
.------------------.�_ - -------- - --___ - - I------ - -- ----- - - -- -- -
25r- N -03 i 25-061-06 25--061-75
Witt ig: :irdLm r Melaclm C awdaars it r ,7bt�! M Xioepit
Lt80 fi ly Drive i 314 C1eeMul" Drive 2620 ItmU rgton Str—.+
Led An"yw, Qelif r famtirgbm Beech, Wif Mint.inywn leech, Calif
r _., 648
_ _ __ _. _ _.. . __ __ . _ _
23-010-05 r 2'S-Ofil•OS i 25-061-26
pft MM & Chi i Drina D[61W Jeffrey E Tipf me
C/o h4h wdm r 309 C1evvIad Drive r 2614 Huntitxjon Street
P.O. MK 2376 Huntirq' m Basch, Calif r Huntiry tin fiowh, Calif
_.1� As4CJ.'►�.� 9�irr47 92648______ _______ i 92648
2"23.20 25-06.1-16 26-061-27
MIA Pecificae ASM Steven H rzidmo Gar., I" rids
Seem Oast YOM own Boar ; 2611 17th 6ttarwt r 2608 MintirRWn Street
610 14ptwt Center Drive f lkmtisgwn Bwch' Wif ; Nt2itilo3bM WACh, t" lif
_ SUAW Id04_ - ____ _--__.. __ _ -
, --- �26{s
- _____-- --- .-_-__ r
r
Nmb!lmt: 8rtilr..h, Calif r 25-06I.-17 r 25-61-26
92660 ; Evelyn L G mere Tolbert TI f fAM
r 2615 l7th Street r 1607 E 17th Street
r
i..Mtityp= 8w-h, Calif r Hmtixt�jnun twwh, Calif
r 29640 ; M4B
---- -------------------—1--- --------- ------------ -!.. _ _ _ .------------ --- - -
25-061-(H i 25'--bl-18 25-061-29
Rld -d A AdU11 e r ViI1CMt P loWmaif r Damy D Davit
10061 HOyrn [rive 2619 17th Street 1346 S ClAuslln!a Street
t mUngtor, Beach, calif i tbmtittigtm "ad), Calif r Ymaw4m, Calif
_ 92646 r 92640 r 92805
____. ___- _. _____-- _ ___ _________ ____ . r. __-- _- - - - _- - _ - -- - - -- -
r r
r r
{
! r
r
f
rl: 1 y(,11i�/�I.,Ir�//��',I'�r a ti���,.Ilt�fl + •`4.1.{�'�,� �,.��,����.
`` r 1:.'� �'' •'�';� s: t �,1� I"I��, ,�w.. 4:. ' ;`, r,E^'I�l'.A�, �t` y'y�r s
41,,i�.• .,rr,+ l�'1/r 1�'}.�:, �� �.'•./,� � r(�'A, � ��,7'H I,'1•p. 1, 1� �
k'r' !'J'• '�/' •�i�1f� f', ��(k-'�„i,'y,,ti,.• \'a'' +. ;r,�r:{' fy"g�r�q,'�`,�'�wr�,`�w'� .y y,t,,.r�! r'Sk:.•t''•yr,I t 'y ''a Y. AI "t•, .�r1. .,' ., �! ,.,:t1 •�r'-, .�rs.�,..i�. t1 '/1�� f't..�i .N9,•,Ap���\�,, ,t4„d:tl} '��A;'� „�' �:w •{' '� 't ��'';+ltlD+�.�L �r+
.d�(f•;✓'•jF '�''f'•.r 4 k A�t'y;"It..�;.? k;.,r ;:y".. . .,F.aaw�. rt'._?t:a ,,s r
1..,'.1���t'r• I,A r. 5 .1,-`••d,,.l. 'f $� 4• 4 1+..�� .A .�!�` 'R, C a
• a, ;,.: ..11' r �`� I {1'. ,'t t. 9:�J �'ti..0 ���:., 'i'I. l••1;,. y,, .� !'v",�+;��i �Id• �, !•..•.•14� 4�i„�, •�
, 't.•• .'�'. ',y.?i,'t.Y`{{;k. ,�•7 .'s 'Y�',S.l.�al�i,?x ,x,",S t�11'('; `3'.1; ,'n�',�a•�r' 'iV�aa"i�;. 9 :'�• 1 i,'�i r ,.I,r. T Ll •r :%�, � �� II ``!. ty: .,,�. ;r. }' F•'`1'1+l' {,�,f� •r A'ds,. i°w' .r(; � r<'�, III. I'••�'^ :,.
,4, ( ,i 1' t •.h L{'.l 1,+ti-7;M'..�' A• .�;f•A. ''+1' ;it'iy),F '' i" A, '�,� �',1., a ). A'.7 } yL
..Y. �. ••/' 'y Ci 5,i. I},I:.',-.T. �.is .. �,.� j` .+ 1.;9t1 i, P�'u' If 41� +i 1 �'!•,.1�� �r' fpc,,.
t , ,i '{ ,,,�,y,,t• .ti•;-. ,r�,.x rr 44 ,It,+ �'. ,I �! '� t:', . .`�c. �
,,f .S h /• .,I. ,h.ils.,y.. ,,��, :.i"` r: ....... 'N,.1 -.l:Ary•A,; .!'� .'n�'ar.�' +.�.A•1+/�` ,�6, -, �yj�;,;:1::� 1�,i,C �• ,"1
,17.r''•�Mi. ,',' �tFly I.M � •�� I�t•�, �,•t�1� ..i ,iir1.ri`(��, tn+. ,,, .`�i tt'r�' ,�a It ',fl,•,','� L,*�''7';�,;Y) ,�� �y"S $ 'Y'7 �'�������;R,�
r llf• `/ � A l I 1f, ����� S , fi , ��'1 •i ]4 r �, 1:• Yc ' ° ti �'Y ,41..7,' +t�iir, }� f 'r' ,71�, j ,
r+3.k7} �.. ,Y .1�l�a:Y... �' 1. 2•.U.L`.s1.il,'tl.'».I.a(,'+J,..}.i..:1� ..1.�....fta«.5.:.�i:L,:i![i;:�+2.r:,'A;ly 1
1 I
„A A
r 1
1
i 1
, 1 I
I
- - - - -.__- -.-._ _ - .- _ -_ --_-r- _- _.-___. - __- - -_-__---_ _- -
I �
I (,;�•- 1 1J1-1-%-39
CUP 91.4 � Wair Oil 00., Iraq
ihn,jry 20, 1902 (gyp 401 20t1i Street
ikatinvbm Beach, Cal-i,f
-- -- ---- - ---------- --L ----------- . - --------�--. 9261Et_ __--- - --- --_
I I I
2r()62-2d 1-d1-170-18
r 1i41r►rst K Qxx rt ktlllim P Coklmil
' 69 32 Qa=db C1=181 A 7601 Clay F wom
li;antixgtm bmt, aa-if j ftAitx bm wach, Calif
I92646 _ _926If�
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - r - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- _ - - - _
2`i-Q11-19 i 111-170-22
1 Lymrnrttle Ft Giflud I Cmmbm Duml.opme+nt 00
P.O. box 157 ; WILLiam P Cwftm l
' r'rda, 12 P.Q. WX 2000
6730 ' tkintimba� Damch, Calif 926r17
- - - - - - - - -- - --- -- -- -�__._--_ -------- --- - - - J- - - • - .
)5"�IA2-11 ' 25--��)l-20 111-190-20
�J1A 6uluity berm Im ; VbT irtwn A4*rb"nt6 ! *Wv K Hwy den
l %Wn G klckat" !em Deg►. O P 7655 Clay Avemn
ri5 1crktown Avmw , 305 17th SUmet }ilsntin)tnn beach, Calif
,kmtirgWn lv w-h, Calif 92648 1 litmtirgton Bewi4 Calif^92648 - i 924i8__ _ _-_ - - -
-�- -r
25,062--12 i 75-071-21 i 111-190-21
'new L itilckatrun I ru" art Cccp Cax`ola W&pmr
20522 Salt Air Ci=1e ; 15052 S>pcSs*W4 Street ! c/o Inveat ki"t N nt OD.
Amtinpm umsch, Calif StAitw C P.O. WK 30460
92646 92649
_ _ _ - __ _ ____ _ _ _ ___ tUnt'in'-tom Beech, Call.f M_�_its butua, Calif 93105 - _
i
25-062-14 ; 111-150-23 Ul-190"'22
0-0 TNT
16�79 1C�At7►nst om Latin � 166% Antitim May jor :
Awodrwtw, Calf A Mewrq=t Bawk, Calif
92683-- - - --- -- - -- -- ---- _ .
' 9 _..-- -.. _ ___ _-_-_-- _ ' --- -- - - -- - - -_ _ . _ _ ._ _ _ _ ,
A- r
25-062-15 Ul--190-22
Terry J win) ; Willie N F111ott CatalinaMly3ara
Goal Los Ao�igc Circle 1%11 Warebastre Jana I P.O. Ww 135
ri�anlL�gccn Lilcm�da, c'olit ' lAmtim mn bwt, OLuf Hwtingtaon C�.f
92W fAmumpm
'_4�6�6--_---- - - i 9Z543
_ -, -__ -_ -_- - ---
25-062-21 ; Ul-150-25 ; 111-190-23
j >a p Club of tiur.tirgtun Lwwh � muy B Undley I MMinIten Vista Irwestments
P.O. aox Aa ; 2024 victoria Drive ' c/o Huntlxgbm lz%%etmmts
319 1bxkbow'n Atlnuu i Seta Ana, Calif i 7306 Canter Aver w
I liunt1jx3Wr. lkwch, Ca.W 9264b 4270G ---- - * EbttttirK�tr�n Hamch, Calif 92147
----_ --- -- --- - ----- - -�- ---------- - ___ - - -- - - -
1 I
25-'062x-25 ' 111-150-38 � 111-19C1-31
i Nil AM a Morn ; Puar 1 N worutr ' E T A Nwwwaent Inc
1 9 Glwiar !---Y 11002 Rivieca Street c/o liunt.initun Invwtrmts
i engv rs, Washiro 1w:. 'I Santa kur ('" 7306 Center AvecM.*
98006 92705 t6,mt:imitan beach, Calif 92647
- _ _ - - - - - - - - ---- � -__----- - -------------
- - -
1 �
r
I i
i
,{•�" '' n pp r ••' •1. t' 'k t` ..I i P t�iY '�t1r
'"'t��` ``•`.���P4 '.A d• �'� •1�' 'i�}f'.y,'t �' rrt tt, •: ,1 d� v, 1j �, ��•
1,. '. '�' �y ••r-r,n �. i r r ,'� 7 ':"'n -1s,',}"" a,:11' :.`�, 4, ,,•`f �+Y�� r r� ''r . '�' I v}x !,"' �-,{i, JL1�1.,i. j 1'�.S li,•1
,.#r:y', 7.(i!'.'1' -•<\.I` d. �' ' 'n it , r <•rt't nY ..a � t, w'P y7 t, d}'tti r��'��. i,•!',�,i', v�tY.� 1k'•, t�Y t tJl„'�.: `t.,� }.� `�w��:�.•(0 t ..�"..r .^;..k• ;x�1'I1, `� �r� �,. 'Jf � f r� �.: i r t�, .� /",� Ii'.e'r"1�
'i .'k)S '� �•r` .;4' � � '�' /,e ,i•.�. 1 l t�' +;'n••1, I r ', t p�vr �'•' v f ��-�'r t%,.;'� br,• ,F
ti�. ,�;.! .+p 7'�"Y',Y; ,\ ..� �.p,r � a r t:., x ��.,h +:': t � {.. �. j! '.1 f1,";N, (.t,i� 1� f,yS'�.h,..�rt;�rF,r ! ,1, '! �� rllt.lr�.��; ,t•+ F�
t` y'1,'�1`• ;, r. .\::\�`�.5, t" ;.'��4, Ij:i 'gat Y.,N4" ++ \� fi '.`!!' rl. r l}� •'�,'^r,•1 ;.. 1rt r'1,1 v. .},''r 1 '+, r{
,a •A. 'y� ,r 'yp� :x i ,x�- .�,'•,•i` I'7. � .(d y�_x+..•� ,►1•!, 1 � � ,:Y,, r ' •` 1 `?� t,' .r.��rt.:
\'''1�..•y ••! �k�:;,4 i, ., T.•4 ,y., r'�,�'I�l.• y�;'`,'�:,�. "5,�h M��' •yx ?? i`.A'. r.1�1 9`"':.�71' � ,.rny ��Dsr .,+, .�.�•'•,i,l�.+ �l t(�•'rW'Nr�'.'1..: :9A�� h v'pl �•'y
•�+ y �.t��1�� � 1 ;J• ,1 '•4 'v. 1 �^1 ,.:,�,..�� !' , j�`4r`1�'•.�r�fr ,�r,�,� + 11:'r 1�.•:. r5, 5:��`.,'h' .�:
I'0',,'1 `a.'+''r.,\i:"''�s'.t `' fir' ^�''3i!' 3 •1: P�t !�" r'yrS 'a 1 ��I��i� t:,� l,r�y\�+' tiF`r '�;'`, E.,. ..J�t +',I �4,'n'',�4`ti" �� Ii� ",f
,'\.,.t ,;�.,L�,,A,fil'6yy'!,,{`d`•;r\\�'•.ttr-5l Tp �.r•, 7 1 yp��'51,� 6�ti*'}�y/iryr Y 1 .t,;.� i t, 1 > 4t; �``�r�,;
.,1„I,y�Ltt6 �n'..- \' r��'y`.LLi�..L4����ii1L.C��•••�• '�,4.iAiM3Yi+:Ji:w�Y.7.1�1.+:l.b.a...�+:.`i::t .tL iL..�i.L.•adi: .LI.���f.t'.Y�liL.djs. .:t..
� 1 I
I 1 I
1 I
- - - _ -- - -- - - -- ! . - - - -- - --- - ------ -------I------------ - -- -- - --- -
MaLt• l5�-t132--a5 I
alot � 1 am gel-& I
dOa Ava jamusy 201 1902 WM) ,
tf�bm ram, Ca l
I
Wiilim J Scott
2979 Oxxitxy slut, Drive 1 ;
ow" Now, QI►li.f 1
92626 - - -- - -- - - - - - - - ' - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -'- - -- - - - - --- - - - - - - - - -
159-262-12 I I
tkultilqtca Loch
C/o chum n USA Inc ,
Pmp" 'fax Dept '
P.O. 8c]x 7611 __-__--_--_h__-_ _--___------ ------
San rrawi mio, Calif 1
94102 , I
f
i I I
� I I
' - ---_-----__-----7-------------------- ---- ---------- ------- -------
19192 Galin e 1
H�ntiagtan Mwch, CQ
i
---- - r----_---__,, -- ---------- --.. .._----_-_.-- ---
I
flMa dDt 1
19195 ffix difr
HLk*Anibm Mumck QaIJt
-------- - __-.- __--- ' -______________________a--------____-__-__ -_ __-
� 1
ROMidll�rft: ' '
1
19215 Shoreline �
l mum taon anc!`t. W i.f
926" I ,
I ,
_.. __-.----------_-,__._-1 _-- -- • - - -- . ----------- .1
1 I -
19222 Stlolrslim ; I
1 kmtr{•.[gton Be4ch, Wi f 1 1
92648 1
- ------- -------------- ------------------------ _----____- _ - -___
�i!lR.ic'iucet 1 '
192''' 2=61im I
H{ntin4t on bI►,ch, "if ' I
926" ; f
i
it I __ - --- -- --- i _-------- --------------4•---•----.-- ------•- -- --
1
I ' 1
I I
' I
iiI 1
i
�I
r.
y
.p
11•f'`4 ly'�f Y {• R� ., .x,1°Y"y Y•A .;i� , '�Ij Nf Al !L ,L �! ��� \
yu"� , `^ ;�'� �ti�f� ��1' !kR��';iSS,T n.Y` �1�r•hv ry1� Y, L� ! k 'w .I ` ;�' d ^kr}+`
� ! . k � f a n 3,•41 � ygSS. {� yi �,$1Y. I,Y +,F'„1 ' l�I {d,r' e. � � f�•m•hl R
.1 �.�; .y r. vy,t rl ..,.1 -L h'.r� .It'd r � v�.j, t.'Y', i•N .i, i �t "�" ., ,vR}J;ai '+•��i� ,�. �e,.,'y. K k•"7.a,, !
/: • � ��'�'�.Y.ul1::i:hl :'S •�+�-1�•�-+� kki..:s fiie:,i_.LL.��•„na.'u'Ixii.':�1+�1uS+ui.�.a'�..i....Y.\ 45' i �at.a v. ti.�}.�
I'll A.
Publish April 8, 1982
NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING
APPEAL. TO THE PLANNING COM11ISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-8
TENTATIVE TRACT 11417/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 82-552
NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,
Huntington Beach, at the hour of 1:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as
possible on Monday the 19th day of April , 19 82
for the purpose of considering an appeal to the Planning Commission's denial
on March 2, 1982 of Conditional Use Permit 81-8, Tentative Tract 11417 and Tentative
Parcel Map 82-552. Said applications are a request to permit the development of a
492 unit Planned Residential Development.
The subject property is located on the south side of Clay Avenue between Huntington
Street and Main Street.
A legal description is on file in the Development Services Office.
II ,
All interested persons are invited to attend :;aid hearing and express their
opinions for or against said appeal
Further information may be obtained from the Cf' lce of the City Clerk, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227
DATED_ Anri1_a,_1982` CITY OF HUNTINGTOiN BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
i
I '
II
7f'4 d C�h,,r
'�i!� ,1 r :.�i" .y..:., ; Vim" �! � hY` ' p'�'f t�s .'li`!i "r `� f!•5�:.,�t� . „1'��,� ,}. 7. � J• ti,� ;
•,� 7 '!'" 2 ;�;, ! '�;'Ni,rySYY � � �y�., ,v���• b 1�} �� .'4'Y�y Y ��. �`tf,"�J, 'm � i •t
S � �',�"1•�y�. 's'�, L �% .��.,rps;lirr. Y �'„�� � 1t 'S`lS�,��•ti��'1'�''++'; )';74•li� 1�. '�4c1� �1.! o- �
'f.. �, s: �',,.. ,. " t' ,'!� �7. ',k "� ',4! Y�• /Y': �Y�• 9 y4 }h4+t.t' ';(f l �• ,:� { o- '4. `, �
�j '� �� 1, w, '1 ,, =�,�„.' r '��ti'y v{ Yir`! �i7 i ,1�,y '�y ', •! ,f. �'r !.,`, 1'''�: t y, •f S`i•,+'•' yy ` '%7' '� �,. ' ,), }}_'' ** /Y YF fir,'' � i` �%�(,. ";.:,,•.,r^1..r��. ��
,} 1 y ,'!{ 195f�" ',k r 1' 11; � 4 k'�Yy'�' , `>f. V 1 4 1,,' r,^' !''�.'Vy� SY,... �V'i:a:'.•.4.:;u s 4 1 �,6 .at•:.l,a.+•.+sbi1 r .. . , e a t�:L'ti�' ..a:.:.. a •i.': a 1
1
..� ,f I `+
,� .••L=-- u Nuntington Beach Planning Commission
R.O. BOX 190CALIFORNIA f126�3E)_
Date: March 3, 1982
NOTICE Or ACTION
TENTATIVE 'TRACT
Applicant: Mansion Properties, Inc./Urban West' Communities
Subject: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417 (C.U.P. 81-8 & 'rPM 82-552)
Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach Planning
Commission on March 2, 1982 and your request was:
WITHDRAWN _
APPROVED
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS (See attached)
CONTINUED UNTIL
DISAPPROVED X (0ee attached) ;
Under the provisions, of the. Iuntington Beach Ordinance Code,, the .action
taken by the Planning Commission is final unless an appeal,,1 s filed to'.. ' '
the City Council. Said appeal must by in writina'.and ,must;*set forth in
detail the action and grounds by and upon .w' hich' the applicant ;deem's rhim
self aggrieved. Said appeal must be' accompanied by 'a filir►g• fee 'of
one hundred sixty-five '($165) dollars and submitted to the 'office of
the City Clerk within fifteen' (15) days of the date• of the Commission's
action.
In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing
fee is _ Idarch 17. 1962
Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code prov?de that approval
of this tentative trace shall expire on
A request for extension of time must be filed with the Department of V
Development Services at least thirty (30) days prior to the above ex-
piration date.
'ery truly yours,
ames W. Pa in
Secretary
i J
-T
w.e,�;t �,i" ^F*. r , � �' �, p. �M1! t'�" .�4 ^'y� ,{•y+.�'tk�' r..,"�i�5 f4
'R ti'��i` '"+!'T;')M1i5'" �.. t'riyfM1 �,{'' 644:�'' L i R') { 'd',' yt}#'(t;^y.i,w ��/:�'�',f1�yr•.)����ii '+ tik•• }. d ^ (v �,�'�l,iy ��"
i�,•er < t'fti „ij4, , `;. ,.', ,�1•,+ ',. .4�41�4^',�.' ^,�M1 � T•" �R! f1
V t LM'? +• i• .r. '.:4' 't. .�' +'.s f ( } ;li t,'!
. '.ij;yy;�j;,yti�
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92649
Date: W. rch 3, 1982
NOTICE OF ACTION
TENTATIVE' PARCEL..tlAi�
Applicant- Mansion Properties, Urban West Conununities
Subject: Tentative Parcel Map 62-552 (TT 11417/C.U.Y. 81--8)
Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach Planning
Commission on �areh 2 , 1982 and your request was:
WITHDRAWN
APPROVED
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS (See attached)
CONTINUED UNTIL
DISAPPROVED X (See attached
Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action 1
taken by the Planning Commission is final unless an appeal is filed to 1
the City Council. Said appeal. must be in writing and must set forth in
det•? il the action and grounds by and upon which the applicant deems him
self aggrieved. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of ;
cne hundred sixty-five ($165) dollars and submitted to the office of ,
the City Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the date of the Commission's, .
action.
In our case the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing
Y . Y 9 PP P Y� g 9
fee is March.1Z. 1.902 +
I Provisions of the Huntington Brach Ordinance Code provide that approval' •
of this tentative tract. shall expire on % • .
A request for extension of time must be filed with the Department of
Development Services at least thirty (30) days prior to the above ex-
piration date. 't
ery truly yours,
am es W. Pa in
Secretary
I
• m
-2i
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
'} . +,. .�' P.A. BOX 19D
CALIFORNIA 92640
�3 s
Date: t•tarch 3, 1982
NOTICE OF ACTION
Applicant: Mansion Properties Inc./Urban West Communities.
Subject: Conditional Use Permit 81-8 (TT 11417/TPht 82-552)
Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach Planning Commis
lion on March 2, 1982 and your request was:
Withdrawn
Approved
Approved with Conditions (See Attached)
Disapproved y x
Continued until
Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action
taken by the Planning. Commission is final unless an appeal. is filed , to
the City Council by you or an .interested 'party. , Said appeal must be in
writing and must. set, forth in detail the action and grounds by and upon
which the applicant 'or interested party deems himself aggrieved. Said
appeal must be "accompanied by a filing fee of are hundred sixty--five
(5165) dollars and be submitted to the City Clesk's office within ten
(10) days of the date of the Commission's action.
In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and payinc, wile filing
fee is March 12, 1982
Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that any 'appl.i--
cation becomes null and void one (1) year after
fter final approval, unless
actual construction has started. I
Very truly ,yours,
James k'. palin
Secretary
1
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
orFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
I ,
I
ij
May 4, 1982
Mansion Properties
2110 Main Street
! Huntington Reach, CA 92648
i
Attn: M. T. Kelly, Vice President
The City Council of the City of Huntington !leach at its regular meeting
held Monday, May 3, 1982 continued the public hearing on your appeal to
the Planning Commission's denial of CUP #81-8, TT 11417 and TPM 82-552
to the June 7, 1982 Council meeting.
f Alicia M. Wentworth
1
City Clerk
AM!r:C9:cd
I
cc: Jim Palin, Director
Development Services
I Tdoptwn s:714-53R-5717 1
,
1
CITY or- HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMN,jNICATION
Honorable Wes Dannieter, Mayor From City
Hutton
To and Members of the City Council City Attorney
ansion H�.11 V. July 24, 1989
Subject Date
Pursuant to the authority of the Council, we have lately settled
the Mansion Hill case. Attached hereto is a copy of the executed
settlement agreement which was approved by the Council in closed
session on May 23, 1989; it has now been executed by all parties
and their counsel.
The agreement settles the case by granting Mansion Hill a credit
in the sum of $219,000 toward future park fees. The settlement
was achieved after a number of mandatory settlement conferences
and substantial negotiation between the parties. Because of the
large amount of money involved in this case and the uncertainties
in the facts, we believe this is a highly favorable settlement to
the city. In the event a court determined that the park fees were
overpaid, the city would he obliged to repay them in cash in the
approximate amount of $501,000, plus interest thereon at the rate
of ten percent per .year from the various dates of payment, in
1984, 1985 and 1986 .
This settlement was earlier approved by the Council on June 27, iI
1988, but at that time the plaintiff was unwilling to agree with
It. We are not exactly sure why the plaintiff decided to accept !
the settlement at this juncture, although we find it generally is
easier to settle cases on the eve of. trial. The figure of
$219,000 basically spits the difference between the parties in
tha contested amount of park fees, and also waives interest,
costs, and attorney f3es.
I
We are transmitting herewith a copy of the agreement to the
departments of Community Development, Administrative Services, and
Treasurer, so that they can implement its provisions as
appropriate.
i
Gail Hutton
City Attorney
GH:sg
Attachment
cc: Community Development, Administrative Service;, Treasurer,
I
C=.ty Clerk, and City Administrator j
:12744/SCS328 n
5/17/89 F�
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This settlement agreement (the "Agreement") is made at
Huntington Beach, California, as of May 17, 1989, by and between
MANSXON HILL, on the one hand, and the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
("City") , on the other hand, with reference to the following
facts.
I
A. Mansion Hill filed an application fcr a subdivision
crap for tentative tract 11417 with the City to subdivide land
owned by Huntington Beach Company in Huntington Beach, Cali-
fornia. The City accepted the application on January 21, 1982.
H. On January 2.1, 1982, the City had an ordinance,
which had been in effect for more than 30 .lays, which required
that a developer wishing to have a subdivision map approved
dedicate lard for park purposes, or pay in lieu fees of specified
amounts.
C. In August, 1982, the City changed the standards for
calculating in lieu park fees, essentially doubling the amount of
the fees.
D. In April, 1983, the City Planning Commission
approved tentative tract map 11417, as revised.
E. On June 24, 1965, Mansion Hill commenced an action
entitled Mansion Hill v. The City of Huntington Beach, O.C.S.C.
Case No. 461950 ( the ' Lawsuit` ) , which contended that the in lieu
park fees are to be calculated based on the standards in effect
in January, 1982.
F. On September 8, 1986, the City filed its answer
which denied the allegations contained in the complaint in the
Lawsuit.
G. Without admitting the validity of any of the
contentions which have, or might have, been made in the Lawsuit, r.
the parties to this Agreement desire to settl•, -.:he matter pres-
ently in dispute between them.
H. Civil Code § 1542 provide;: :
I
"A general release does not extend to
claims which the creditor does not know
or suspect to exist in his favor at the j
time of executing the release, which if II
known by him must: have materially
affected his settlement with the debtor. "
h
I
This Agreement contains the entire agreement and
understanding concerning the subject matter among the parties to
this Agreement and supersedes and replaces all prior negotiations
i and proposed agreements, written and oral. Each of the parties
hereto acknowledges that no other party, nor the agents nor
attorneys of any other party, has made any promise, representa-
tion, or warranty whatsoever, express or implied, not contained
herein to induce the execution of this Agreement, and acknowl-
edges that this Agreement has not been executed in reliance upon
any promise, representation, or warranty not contained herein.
This Agreement may not be amended except in writing and signed by
all parties hereto.
J. All of the parties to this Agreement hereby
acknowledge that they have been represented by independent
counsel of their own choice throughout all negotiations which
preceded the execution of this Agreement and that they have
executed this Agreement with the consent of, and upon the advice
of, their own counsel.
IN LIGHT Or THE FOREGOING FACTS, IT I5 MUTUALLY AGREED TBAT:
i
1. The City hereby grants to Mansion Hill, or its
f designee, a credit in the sum of $219,000 ( "Credit" ) . The Credit
shall be applied, as directed by Mansion Hill, or its designee,
! against in lieu park fees which the City may charge Mansion Hill,
i or its designee, on projects within the City. In lieu park fees
for any final map for Tentative Tract Map 11417, not yet
recorded, shall be calculated pursuant to the in lieu par!, fee
ordinance in effect as of the date Mansion Hill filed its
I. application for Tentative Tract Map 11417 , January, 3.982.
2. Any portion of the Credit not used within 10 years
of the date of this Agreement shall be forfeited by Mansion
j Hill . No interest shall accrue on the Credit.
a
I� 3. Upon receipt of this Agreement sia-.ied by both
parties, Mansion hill .shall dismiss its complaint in the Lawsuit
with prejudice and shall provide counsel fo;: the City with a
conformed copy of the request for dismissal as filed.
4. Each party to this Agreement shall bear its own
attorneys ' fees and costs incurred in the Lawsuit.
5. Except as provided in this Agreement, Mansion Hill
and the City release each other and their ageriLs and attorneys
from any and all claims, demands and/or causes of action which
may exist against them, whether known, unknown, or suspected
Z-
1
1
1 .
which arise out of, or are related to, the Lawsuit or the events
giving rise to the Lawsuit, and hereby waive the provisions of
Civil Code 1 1542 set forth in Recital H abLve.
G. This Agreement is entered into solely for the
benefit of the parties hereto, their successors, transferees and
assigns.
7. If it becomes necessary to enforce any of the terms
of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
reasonable attorneys ' fees and other coats of litigation in
addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled.
8. This Agreement and all rights and obligations
arising out of it shall be construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of California.
9. Any litigation arising out of this Agreement shall
be conducted only in Orange County, California.
10. This ,agreement may be signed in one or more coun-
terparts and, when all parties have signed the original or
counterpart, such counterparts together shall constitute one
original document. /
� MAN S_;OS HILL
6Y 1 l cr
Dated: 1l9 By:
` is:
THE CIT OF I I)T TON BEACH
Dated: _ 11aY 22, 1999 Bu: i �'
i
! Its: Dep ty City Adm1 3trator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON
Dated; _ By:
SANDRA C. STEWART -'
Attorneys for MANSION HILL
[Signatures continued on page. 41
-3-
1
i
I
[Signatures continued From page 31
GALE HUTTON, City Attorney
Dared: t�� By: !/
ROBERT SANGSTEFril
Deputy City Attorney
Attorneys for THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH
i
i
i
-4-