HomeMy WebLinkAboutConditional Use Permit 86-12 - Meadowland, Ltd - 114 Unit Se • 1�
CITY OF HUWIN&j--u0N BEACH
2000 MAM STREET CALIFORNIA 02M
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
May 7, 1986
Meaduwland Ltd.
c/o Alan Degganhart
7862 Warner Ave.
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
The appeal filed by Mayor Mandic relative to the Planning Covnmission's
approval of Conditional Use Permit 86-12 was withdrawn by the Mayor
at the May 5, 1986 City Council meeting.
Please contact the Development Services Department for further informa-
tion.
Alicia M. Wentworth
Cit% Clerk
AMw1:CH: .js
cc : J. Pa'. in - Department of Development Services
f1r'a�wm t1�Ni��
Ir
f
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
9- 1w"MCITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION • • • i
w
TO HONORABLE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS and FMoM M,A.YOR BOB HANDIC
CHhRLES W. THOMPSON , City Administrator
s11e18CT APPEAL TO CUP 8b-1.2 - Agenda Item DATE May 1, 1�6
lot
I o P 86-12 as to the n r♦r,��r�
am withdrawing my appeal t CUP regards
affordable units . After studying the issues, I believe the n ,
of affordable units can be handled between staff and the devel <'
as the final plan is approved.
RPM:bb
xc: City Clerk
Rich Barnard
James Palin
{
,9
44
f
Aw1w� >� ►rwr AA�Mf�111MrN M w r�N s�
twim " DraM Ill of GWWW coat o1 CowNW.
A•1401, dM4 11 Am. 1263
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of (gauge 0%a t memo •.....rI FM
..f..+
1 am a Clttfe of the t.ON160 States and a resided of
the County aforesM, I am over the ape of eighteen
years, and not a party to or Mtorested in the bslo p
entitled matter. 1 am a Prift4M i clerk of th Orange
Coat DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the ,
NEWS•PRESS, a newspaper of prineral ckc uiation,
printed and publiehe0 in the Ctty of Costa Mess,
County of Orange. Slate of California. and that a
Notice of _sodas r iL•_.:a IrWr?
of which copy attached hereto is a true and compute
copy, was printed and published In the Costa Mesa,
Newport goach. Huntington Bosch, Fountain Valley.
Irvine, the South 604"1 comrnunitles and Laguna
Beach issues of said newspaper for t time
consecutive weeks to vM the ie"s) of
•
April 24
Its
I"
dedarn. uncut putty of pa h". that tM
A--aooirtq w is tr wId a wro".
April 25souh an
t 6
0 CAIM Maas Caworrg&
f
. � iagrrrt�r+e t �
CITY OF H UNTINu i %M"' BEACH
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION * * *
TO DEPARTMENT OF DF.VFLOPMENT SERVICES FROM MAYOR BOB MANDIC
SUSJICT MEADOWLAND DEVELOPMENT DATI April 11, 19NG
I wish to appeal the decision of t1le Planning Commission relating to
CUP 86-12 , Mendowland Development. I am appealing the number of
units that are to be made affcdable in the project that was a
condition as approved by the Planning Commission.
RPM:bb
�x V)
I '
a
IT SERVICES +
1qPIZ }
I7 1
LeiA
Huntfn ►Un Etcact CA 92648
.1
REO Eb O R CITY COACPACTION
Dote ,�,,,May, 5 , 19 8 6
&*#totted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
&dwi ttsdby: Charles W. Thompson , City Administrators-f'W `
Pro--;-WQ by: James W. Paling Director , Development Services*fJI-Ir
SNb#W: APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-12
CemkWt with Council Policy? to yes I l New Po11cY im Exoeptior+
Su terwt of low, Recomnmwm ion, Anelysis, Fursding Source, Ahwmdve Actkwo, Atteahrrmttt: j ,
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On April 2, 1986 , the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use
Permit No . 86-12 allowing the construction of a 114 unit senior
citizen apartment complex located on Springdale Street, south of
Edinger Avenue . General Plan Amendment 85-3 and Zone Change No .
85-15 ( R5 Office/Professional to Q-R3-SR ) , adopted by the Planning
Commission on February 18, 1986 , also granted the developer a 50
percent density bonus for the project . The zone change ordinance
2621-B states that
' Prior to any development on the property, the property owner
and the City shall enter into a development mgreenent, approved
by the City Attorney as to form pursuant to Government Code
Section 65865 , et . seq . which shall include prov s ons oorthe
total number of units and continued affordability of units
allowed by density bonuses . `
The 50 percent density bonus that this project received allows for
the construction of an additional 38 units .
Mayor Mandic has appealed the Planning Commission ' s approval of the
conditional use permit for the senior apartment complex with regard
to the number of units which will be made affordable to persons of
lour and moderate income based upon the granting of the 50 percent
density bonus .
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission action on April 1 , 1986 :
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-12 WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
AYES: Rowe, Schumacher , Livengooa , Erskine , Mirjahangir
NOES: Winchtll , porter
ASSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None �--
we om
STArr RECOMMISNDATION t
Staff recommends that the City Council condition the project to
include a total of 38 affordable units (22 of the units stall meet
the criteria for affordability based on Federal requirements for
mortgage revenue bond financing as established after the resolution
of HR 3838 , 16 (38 - 22) of the units shall be affordable to low
income households based upon the county median income figures
prepared by Chapman College.
IIIh,LTSIi: !
Article 932. 5 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code sets forth the
standards for senior residential development . Section 932 .5 .4
states that a development agreement shall be prepared to establish
the maximum number of units that will be permitted on a site and any
other considerations deemed necessary for coordinated development of
the property. Section 932 . 5 . 22 allows for the granting of a density
bonus when the developer agrees to construct a percentage of the
total units of a senior residential development for persons and
families of low and moderate income . I
Section 65915 of the Government Code allows for the granting of a t
density onus or other incentive of equivalent financial value in
the following instances :
(a ) when a developer of housing agrees to construct at least
(1 ) 25 percent of the total units of a housing development for
persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in
Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or ( 2) 10 percent
of the total units of a housing development for lower-income
households, as defined in Section 5C079. 5 of the Health and
Safety Code, or (3) 50 percent of the total dwelling units of a
housing development for qualifying residents , as defined in
Section 51 . 2 of the Civil Code .
This project met requirement number 3 (qualifying residents are
defined as persons over 55 years of age in a senior citizen housing j
development ) .
A density bonus is defined a a density increase of at least 25
percent over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density
under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the
general plan .
i
This project received a 50 percent density bonus ( 38 units ) . in
addition , a special permit was granted to allow for a reduced
setback on the rye edge of the property.
During the public hearing on January 22, 1986 , for the general plan
j amendment and zone change , the planning Commission conceptually
approved the Draft Development Agreerent submitted by the applicant
and recomended that the City Council execute the agreement . A copy
of the Draft Dowelopoemt Agcoom mt is attached to this report . The
I
WA _ 5/5/96 -�� t 4���a�
development agreement established the number of units which were to
be made affordable and the length of time that they must remain
affordable . The agreement was approved in concept by the following
vote:
MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT IN CONCEPT, AS AMENDED, AND RECOMMEND
IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher, Livengood , Erskine, Porter ,
Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
A provision relating to the affordability of units was included in
this draft document:
Prov:oion of Affordable Units
1 . with appropriate City approval , participant *hall be
allowed to provide a maximum of forty four (44 ) affordable
units in addition to the one hundred and six (106) market rite
units. These additional units will be provided in a manner
consistent with affordable payment criteria derived from the
latest estimated. Orange County Median income figure as reported
by the Center for Economic Research at Chapman College.
2. Participant shall establish a means to insure, with City
Council , that said units remain affordable for a specified
period of time established by the time limits set forth in the
proposed financing or when the areas vacancy factor exceeds St.
whichever is sooner .
At the time of the public hearing, the applicant was proposing a 150
unit project . On January 22, 1986, the Planning Commission approved
a 114 unit project . The Draft Development Agreement was then
modified by the Planning Commission to in:lude a total of 38
affordable units and 76 market rate units . The time perioT'for the
continued affordability of the units was also modified, setting
,forth a time period of 30 years for which the units were to be made
affordable .
The issue of what percentage of the 38 affordable units should be
made available to low income and what percentage to moderate income
households was not addressed by the Planning Commission or the Draft
Development Agreement .
The current (April 1966 ) Orange County median income an prepared by
Chapman College for the County of Orange is $420600 (this is based
on a family of four ) . Low income households earn 80 percent of the
median income . Moderate income households earn 120 percent of the
RCA - S/5/06 -3- ( 4 761d )
median income . Affordable rents are calculated as 30 percent of the
monthly household income. Therefore , the affordable renter would be
as follows :
Low income households 852 . 00 per month
Moderate income households 11j278 .00 per month
The applicant has also bean granted mortgage revenue bond financing
by the City Council . Mortgage revenue bond financing requires that
a certain percentage of th%s units be made affordable. Presently,
there is a bill before the Senate OIR 3838 ) which would require 10
percent of the units be made affordable to low income households and
10 percent made affordable 1:o very low income households . (Very low
income household earn less than 50 percent of the median income . )
Because the bond financing is a federal program, the medio+n income
figures used are prepared by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development ( HUD) . The pending legislation ( HR 3838 ) would
calculate the low income rental figure based on a average household
size of 4 persnne . However , the very low income figure would be
adjusted for family size .
The latest HUD figure Wanuary 1986 ) for the median income is
$36 , 800. Affordable rents batted on the HUD figures would be as
follows :
Low income households $735 . 00 per month
Very low income households
Family size of 1 322. 00 per month
Family size of 2 367 .00 per month
Family size of 3 413. 00 per month
Family sf ze of 4 1459 . 00 per month
it should be noted that this legislation is pending. No mortgage
revenue bends have been sold this year because there at* no set
standards in place . The developer trust comply with the standards
which are in effect at the time the bonds are actually sold.
Staff rieco�ends that the City Council condition the project to
include a total of 38 affordable units (22 of the units shall meet
the criteria for affordability based on Tederal requirements for
mortgage revenue bond financing as established after the resolution
of Hit 38381 16 (38 - 22) of the units shall be affordable to low
income h►ousa lds based upon, the county median incoate figures
prepared by Chapman College.
Not applicable .
MCA - 5/5/66 -4- (4763d)
Cb
ALTUNATIVE ACTIONS:
1 . Condition the project to include 60 affordable units ( 521 of
the total project ) 38 low income unite from the density bonus ,
based on the county median income as prepared by Chapman
College, 22 affordable unite for the mortgage revenue bond
financing;based upon the criteria established after the
resolution of HR 3838 .
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Draft Development Agreement
2. Planning Commission minutes for April 11 1986
3 . Staff Report dated April 1 , 1986
a . Location Map
JWP :00: kla
RCA -- 5/5/66 ( 6763d )
nF VE:r.uc'HFNT A(',kF;t;MF:NT
This .10 rcomr+n t. is r11 t 1,r•c�(I into I-)r,
lw .ii;d brit-Wcon the Ci tv Counc: i 1 r)r 1110 (• i t 1 Of stunt innt.on Beach, a oulbic
lx�cly, c� �t•jc�ra to lricl politic M rr• i n-i f h: r c a l l o(] the "City" ) , cind ,Moadowl and
Ltd . , a partnership (hereina ter Billed the "Participant" ) . The City and
Participant covenant and agr(,c as fol lows ;
1 . Sub j OCt of Afi rnr!mrnt
A . nur_eose of- ; ,ireement ;
The purpose of this agreem4�nt is to cund i t ion the approval of Tone
Chanute 8-85--15 for the develcpment and use of the project area , . hereinafter
called the "sitrr" , ( see att.lc.hrront No . 1 ) . This agreement is entered
into ror the purposes of dev��l�apm��nt. and not for speculation
in land .
'rhe development of Lhe si to pursuant to this agreement, and the fulfillment �
of the agreement , are in the best interests of the City of Huntington
Reach and the health , safety and welf,irc- of its residents, and is in
accord with the pu1ibe purposes and provisions of applicable Federal ,
State and local laws And requirements under which. the project has been
undertaken .
B. The project area
The project area is located in the City of Huntington Beach, California ,
the exact boundaries of which are snecifically described in City Council
Ordinance No. which instrument is incorporated herein by
reference and that portion encompassing the site as delineated un
attachment No. 1 which is made a part hereof.
C. Parties to the em t
1 . The City of Huntington Beach
ArrACH MEwr
+ i
'rhe City of �Iuntinaton I3e.tr_h is a publ is body, corporate and politic .
exereisinq govern-mental funct. 'c:ris •tn(I rowers, or(janized and e-xistinq
under the laws of the State of Cal i fo>rnia .
'rhe principal Of Fice of the City is at 2000 Main Street , •
lluntington Beach, Ca i fornia 92648 .
2. The participant
The participant is a part nornhip, duly formed under the laws of the
State of CaliFr. rnia .
11 . Responsibilities of Participant
A. Total number of units
With appropriate City approval , participant Shall be l lowft.d to
build a maximum of one hundred fifty ( 150 ) Senior Citizens rental units -
and one ( 1) managers unit .
B . Provision of Affordable units
1 . With dopropr. late City approval , participant shall be allowed to
provide a maximum of forty four ( 44 ) affordable units in addition to the
one nundred and six ( 106) market rate units . These additional units will
be provided in a manner consistent with affordable payment criteria derived
from the latest estimated Orange County 1,1ed iar. income f inure as reported
by the Center for Economic Research at Chapman College .
2. Participant shall establish a means to insure , with City Council ,
that said units remain affordable for a specified period of time established
by the time limits set forth in the proposed financing or when the areas
vacancy factor exceeds 61, whichevar is sooner.
C. fienior Citizens Apartments
Math appropriate City approval , participant shall covenant that units
will rw+ain Senior Citilttns apartments for the economic and physical life
•
00 the project .
D. nue Di l lsience by Participant
►'`ter the execution of this docti-mont by the City , the participant $hall
promptly boain and thereafter di ! i(totitly pursue to completion the
ennstirug:tion of the improvements and development of the Site .
C.
Comnissione. Livengood felt that a continuance was not in orcder . me
felt that enough time had been spent on this item. the alternative
action suggested by staff to grant the a licant a two month
extension of time to comply with applicable conditions and if not
complied with to revoke the permit, would be the best decision.
i
Commissioner Schumacher fools that this is an archaeological site
and sine: no road has been put in that the site is being degraded
and is dete: ioratin , and that 10 all conditions could not be
complied with q
m li th that the permit should be revoked . h e P � She felt that two
weeks would be sufficient time to comply with all conditions .
i
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSRINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO CONTINUE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-21. TO THE APRIL 158 1986 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING, AND TO RECONSIDER REVOCATION AT THAT TIME, BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe , Winchell , Schumacher , Erskine , Porter , Mirjahangir
NOES: Livengood
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
NOTION PASSED
C-6 gONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-12
In February 1986 the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment
and :one Change for this property . Both the Planning Commission and
City Council reviewed a conceptual site plan , floor plans and
building elevations for this Senior cititens apartment project .
The applicant has slightly modified the unit mix of the project .
Ten of the one bedroom plus den units have been converted into two
bedroom units . The applicant notes that market rest
arch arch has shown a
demand for two bedroom senior units for husband/wife or
senior/relative , The parking provided reflects this change in the
plan .
The applicant originally submitted the General Plan Amendment and
?one Change request in September of 1985.
The Conceptual Plans were reviewed by staff according to the
requirements of the Senior Residential Development Standards
( Article 932 . 5 ) . The SR Suffix it added to the bass Boniny
` designation . Developments must comply with the SR standards for all
requirements listed in that section of the code , and , where, silent ,
the underlying base district .
For this particular project the underlying zoning Is &J.
Preliminary plan check of the conceptual plans was based on the
standards of the 51, and, where silent , the 1t3 son*.
ArA-'*MMr
4Z
!C Minutes - d/l/gd
I%* conditional use permit requires a such note in-depth plan
checks under close scrutin , staff determined that this project
needed to comply with the s standards , the 13 standards when the
was ailent , and the Apartment btandards (Article 911) .
The R3 district states that when niAt or more units are proposed for
construction a use kmrmit from the !bard of coning Adjustments be
obtained and the developer must comply with the criteria contained
in the current standards for apartment development .
It is staff '& inttrprot:A Lion that although this project does not
:*quire a use permit fcom the board of zoning Adjustments , the
apartm*nt standard criteria should still be used instead of the R3
standards when the SR code is silent on a particular development
requirement . Staff feels that the intent of using the apartment
standards for nine or more units is strongly related to the also of
the proposed development , not to the requirement of *btaining a use
permit.
In-de th plan check using the Sk, R3 and Apartment Standards
re as ed a Jeficiency in the southern side yard setback . Staff has
addressed this issue in regard to the applicant ' s request for a
special permit .
EN"yIRONNENTAL STATUS :
An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to address the
environmental impact of the proposed project . This environmental
�., impact report has been approved by the planning Commission and city
Council .
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Dan Neveau , representing the applicant , spoke in support of the
project and all of staff 's findings . He announced that the special
bond fund has been approved for the project .
Dean Albright addressed his concerns with the project . me is
concerned about the gasoline that might have leaked upgrade from the
project and also the problem of asbestos removal from tho existing
buildings on site. He suggested that more stringent rules, e. g. the
wet fibers glove operation set by the Federal government, be used
when removing any asbestos .
Elisabeth Short , resident , spoke in opposition to the project , She
feels that the project is too intense and that there should be no
variances or special permits issued .
.tim Radlo , resident , spoke in o ,"action to theproject ,P� Se feels
that t} i developer is not cam 1 in with all o P Y 9 f the rules and that
there should be at least a 00 loot setback on the west side of the
site . he also feels that large trees should be planted for privacy .
PC Ninutes d/l/Od
Charles Tittle, resident, spoke in opposition to the project . Be
fools that the rents are tote high for seniors and that in oc.der to
satisfy the occupancy rate that non-seniors would move into the
development .
Lance Berry, resident , spoke in opposition to the project . be feels
that the density bonus granted is too hi h and that parkLnq would be
a ma or problem. He handed out a list o� resident 's concerns to the
Commission .
Richard short , resident , spoke in opposition to the project . Re
went over Articles and Regulations with staff on setbacks ,
density, and intensity. Nw feels that the projecfarklago
needs more quest
parking spaces .
Dan Neveau was allowed to address the concerns of the residents . he
stated that the AQMD had determined that the site was safe in
regards to the asbestos , and that upon their inspection, no asbestos
was seen . State approved removal would be used . He explained that
the project originally started with 151 units and it was now a 114
unit project and that he felt that he was Complying with all of the
concerns and issues . He stated that the price of the rentals would
rang* from the mid $400 's to $780 .
There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and
the public hp.aring was closed .
Staff stated that the project is in full with compliance
codes except those for which the s p h all of the �
special permit was requested . .,..,,
Commissioner Erskine stated that he felt the density of the project
was compatible with others in the County .
Some of the concerns discussed by the COMmissioners were guest
parking, trash enclosures and their impact on the surrounding
neighborhood , pest control during destruction , setbacks at south and
of project , a more detailed landscape plan , and the density bonus
and affordable income units . The conditions were addressed and
modified to satisfy most of the concerns .
Commission*; porter felt the project should be continued to make
major revisions to the ,plans in order to comply with retbacks at the
south end of the property .
Commissioner Winchell felt that with a density bonus there should b*
more than 200 a ffordabld 1racome units (100 baring low incoM* ) . She
wanted at least 5Ok (38 units - 490 low, It Medium incon,a ) .
PC NiautRi - 4/1/16 ..8� t� �!►d�
A NCTION WAS NUB Of LIV11MMOt SECOND BY NIRdASANCTR, TO AVPROVt
CONDITION" Ott r1*XIT NOO 86-12 WITS ASVI$tb PINUZ908 AND
CONDIT'Ii1NP of APIMOVALr By TtP 1'OLLOVINU V012:
Ayto: IK*we, Schusachor, Livengood , Erakine, Mi r jahangi r.
ROM Winchell , Porter
A"tNT: None
A STAIR: None
MOTxthl I•�SED
J I1NP I, i ?O$1 %PP OVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 66 -1 Z :
1 . The establishment , maintenance and operation of the use will not
be detrimental to :
a . The general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinityl
b . Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use at
building .
1 . The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington beach .
3 . The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of land
Use .
Wow 4 . The project will consist of 113 senior units and 1 manager ' s unit,
i
for a total of 114 units .
5 . buildings on the site shali not exceed 30 feet in height as
measured from the curb.
FINDINCS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMIT%
1 . The proposed development wall promote better living conditions and
environments by having single story units adjacent to the single
family homes to the south to Increase privacy for the adjacent
residents .
Z . The proposed development utilixes land-planning techniques which
include tasteful types of architecture , landscaping, site layout
and design .
3 . The proposed development will benefit the genera! heelth, welfare,
safety , and convenience of the neighborhood and the City in
general , and will not be a detriment to or degrade property values
in such neighborhood• and the City.
i . A special permit shall be granted for the use of hassnr-head
turnarounds within the project .
PC Junstof 4/l/66
5 . A special permit shall be granted to allow for a fq toot Interiet
side yard setback on the southern property line in lieu of the �g loot setback required in the AP&rtment Standards so that a
Stepping down of the building form can occur . j
6. A special permit shall be granted to allow for the construction pf
an 8 foot high wall along the western and southern property linen
FINDINGS - DENSITY�BONUS:
I . The c"Parities of the C'_ty and County water , sewer and storm drain
systems are adequcte or will be adoquate to accosswdate the
proposed increase in density as well as all other planned land
uses in the area .
1 . The proposed increase in density will not have a significant
adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school
enrollments , and recreational resources .
3. The character of the surrounding a :ea is not adversely impacted
nor the overall intent of the general plan sacrificed.
4 . A SO percent density bonus ( 38 additional units ) Shall be granted
to allow for the development of a total of 114 units .
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1 . The site plan, floor plans , and elevations receivad and dated
March 24, 1986 , shall be the conceptually &Pprived layout subject
to a revised site plan being submitted depicting the modification&
described herein:
a . Eleven handicapped parking spaces shall be provided within the
security gate .
b . The project shall include a total of 114 unit
units and 1 manager ' s +� (113 senior
nager s unit ) . The Design Neviev board shall
recommend which unit shall be removed.
c .
The netback along the southern Interior property line Shall be
increased to 20 feet to provide greater privacy to the
residents of single family homes to the south .
d . Parking spaces along the western boundary of the property
shall be 17 feet in l6ngth . An additional 2 feet of
landscaping shall be added along the western property lino .
e . The floor plan for Emit A shall be revised so that the ninisw■
dimension of the balcony/patio shall be 6 feet .
!C dinuees - 4/Ylgi •ig,. t6!!!i1
C
I
I
�I
2. prior to issuance of building permits, the a0plieent $ball submit
the following plans %
Department of D*vtlo t
r.r • . Landscape and i r r i gation plan to theDepar p�
Services and Public Works for review and ap roval . Ttte
Landscape Plan shall come back to the Plannrng cowaission for
review and approval .
b . Rooftop Mechanical equipment plan. Said plan shall indicate
screening of all rooftop ma chaniwal equipment and shall
delineate the type of material proposed to screen said
equipment .
C . Development Agreement shall be prepared pursuant to the
Government Code and those procedures adopted by the City
Council for such agreements ( Resolution No . 5390) .
The development agreement shall include a program to insure
that adequate provision has been made to insure that each unit
shall be occupied by at least one person sixty Years of age or
older . No persons under the age of forty-five shall be
permitted as full time residents of the project .
d . Rodent eradication plan , approved by the Orange County Vector
Control District .
e . Grading and Drainage Plan to the Department of Public Works
for review and approval (grade not to exceed one-half percent ) .
3 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the
ordinance Code , Building Division, and lire Department.
4 . Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet i271 )
in width and shall be of radius type construction.
5 . An automatic sprinkler system approved by the lire Department
shall be installed throughout the complex .
I6. A wet combination stand pipe systems approved by the Fir*
Department shall be installed in all stairways.
7. An automatic alarm system approved by the Fire Department shall be
installed throughout . The system shall include the following
features:
a . Water flow and valve tamper detection
b . Trouble signal
c . Voice communication
d . Graphic annunciation
e. Manual pubs
PC Iliautei - #/I/&$ �MYllo
.. 00
I. Rlevators must be sired 6 ' •• wide by 4 ' 30 deep to atcomoodat•
the use of an ambulance gurney.
9 . Trash chute locations and systems must be approved by the Fire .W.M
Department .
10 . Fire hydrants (3 ) approved by the Eire Department shall be
installed pursuant to Public Works standards . Each fire hydrant
shall be capable of supplying a minimum of 10500 gallons per
minute and together rust provide an over all fire flow of 1,900
gallons per minute .
11 . Eire lanes are to posted and signed to comply with Fire Departm of
standards.
i
12. All rood* are to be installed prior to the commencement of the
combustible construction with all weather driving surfaces
constructed to the standards and specifications of the Public
Works Department .
13 . Eire extinguishers shall be installed to comply with Huntington
Beach Eire Coen standards .
14 . The curb on the west aide of Springdale# north and south of the
entrance to the project (to Meadowlark ) , shall be raintvd red to
restrict any vehicular parking to insure adequate ntersection
visibility as per Public Works recommendations .
15 . Dire hydrants installed on site shall be dedicated to the City. r••+
16 . installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall
be completed within twelve (12 ) months frnm issuance of buiadin
9
rmit .
17 . All signs shall comply with Articles 948 and 976 of the Huntington
Beach ordinance Code. All free-standing signs shall be
low-profile , monument-type signs.
18 . Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking
facilities , water heaters , and central heating units.
19 . prior to and during the demolition of the existing metal sheds on
the site the applicant shall meet all Rule 10N requirements and
other State and Health standards for asbestos removal as set forth
by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and Federal
Regulations .
20. An eight foot high Masonry wall shall be constructed of uniform
design and material along the western and southern edge of the
property. The applicant shall work with adjacent howeownere to
replace or repair any dilapidated rear yard 944118.
fl . L*w-volume heads shall bt used on all spa-Sots and water lanoe:ta.
PC ou"tes - 4/1 f i6
22 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, and
other sum lus or unusable material shall be disposelips#
of at an
oft-site laoility equipped to handle them.
23o she structures on the subject property whether attached of
detached , shall be constructed in compliance with the State
acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60
CNSL contours of the property . Evidence of compliance shall
consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report , prepared
under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of
acoustical engineering, with the application for building
perait (s ) .
24 . If lighting is included in the parking lot , high-pressure sodium
vapor lamps shall be used for energy savingys . All outside
lighting shall be directed to prevent •spillage' onto adjacent
properties .
25 . A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils
Engineer . This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and
laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed
recommendations regarding grading , chemical and fill proportion,
foundations, retaining walls , streets , and utilities .
26 . if foil-type insulation is to be used , s firer retardant type shall
be installed as approved by the Building Division.
27 . The Planning Commission reserver the right to revoke this
Conditional use Permit if any violation of these conditions or of
the Huntington beach Ordinance Code occurs .
28 . The security gate system must open a minimum of 24 feet . The
gates installation must comply with Fire Department Standard 803 .
29 . The turning radius from the central parking area to the parking
area leading to the north and south areas must be a 17 foot by 45
foot turning radius .
30 . Should any underground tanks be discovered on site, the tanks
shall be removed to comply with the Orange County Environmental
Health Standards .
C-5 ZONS CHANCE NO. 66-2/CONDITIONAL USE PEhMIT No. ^8i 2
Zone Change No . 86-2 is a request to change the zone from (a W-FD,
Qualified Radius Density Residential-Planned Development , to R2-SM on a
portion of the development (Radius Density residential - Senior ) *
Conditional use Permit No . 86-2 is a request to build 66 senior
residential condominiums on property Boned R4-51 and that portion being
rezoned to (p )R2-SR.
PC Minutes - 4/1/46 -13- MO" )
Tentative Tract No . AIM Was a 10 lot subdivision that was approved by
the Planning Commission on Muni T 1913 . This map has not completed
recordation requiremenl:s j only 3 sots have been recorded, therefore it
has expired . A revised map consisting of 7 lots has been filed to
reinstate the subdivision . .�
INVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the
Department of Development Services ported draft Negative Declaration
No. 66-2 for tin days , and no comments, either verbal or written were
received . The staff , in its initial study of the pro ect, has
recommended that a negative declaration be issued prior to any action
on Son* Change No . 86-2 and Conditional Use Permit No . 86-2, it is
necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative
Declaration No . 86-2.
Staff recommend& continuance of this item to allow the applicant time
to redesign the site layout . The applicant also requested a
continuance to the May 6 , 1986 Planning Commission meeting .
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
i
Tom McKnight , homeowner from adjacent neighborhood, was Cy
esent to
speak on the project but stated that he would return on Sr 19860 to
address the Commission .
There were no other persons to speak for or against the project ,
however the public hearing was left open .
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE ZONE
CHANGE NO. 86-2/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-2 TO THE MAY 6 , 1986
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, by THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, porter ,
Mirjahangir
MOSS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
C-6 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86- 5 NEGATIVE DECLAMATION NO -
tone Change No . 86-5 is a re
ft + ) of property located onts he north t to rside eof �N�ewman a
16 not cres (7113. 6 21 �
pproximately 2li
ft , east of Cameron Avenue, from RS (Office Professional ) to R3 (Nedim
High Density Residential ) .
PC MSautof - 4/1/48 1
hunt beech development sorvicos rrto"
SrAf f
POR
TO: Planning Comnission
FROM: Development ServiceA
DATE : April 1 , 1986
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-12
APPLICANT: Neadowland Ltd. DATE ACCEPTED:
_._...-
16561 Balsa Chica , Ste 108 March 18, 1586
Huntington Beach , CA 92649
MANDATORY PROCESSING bA'PE;
REQUEST: To allow for the con- May , '6 '�
struction of a 114 unit
senior apartment complex ZONE: (Q)R3-SR (Medium
TrgT Density Senior
Residential Qualified
LOCATION: West side of Springdale GENERAL PLAN: Senior
Street , approximately Residential
760 feet south of Edinger
Avenue EXISTING USE: Vacant ,
Industrial Sheds
ACREAGE: 3 . 09 acres
1 .0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-12 based on the findings and
conditions of approval outlined in this report .
2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
In February i986 the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change for this property . Both the Planning Commission and
City Council reviewed a conceptual site plan , floor plans and
building elevations for this senior citizens apartment project .
The applicant has slightly modified the unit mix of the project .
Ten of the one bedroom plus den units have been converted into two
bedroom units . The applicant notes that market research has shown a
dcoand for two bedroom senior units for husband/v: fe or
sontor/relative . The parking pcavided reflects this change in the
plan.
The applicant originally submitted the G+nerai plan Amendment and
done Change request in Srptedk+er of 1986. AfFALOHE
The C*nceptual Plans wet* reviewed by staff according to the
requirements of the Senior Residential D*volopment Standards
(Article 932 . 5 ) . The SA suffix is added to the base toning
designation . Developments must comply with the SR standards for all
requiromtnts listed in that rection of the code , and , where silent ,
the underlying base district .
I for this particular project the underlying zoning is R3.
Prcliminary plan check of the conceptual plans was based on the
stisndards of the SR , and, where silent , the R3 zone .
The conditional use permit requires a touch more in--depth plan
check , tinder close scrutiny , staff determined that this project
needed to comply with the SR standards , the R3 standards when the SR
was oi .lent, and the Apartnent Standards (Article 932 ) .
The R3 district states that when nine or more units are proposed for
construction a use permit from the Board of Zoning Adjustments be
obtained and the developer must comply with the criteria contained
in the current standards for apartment development .
It is staff 's interpretation that although this project. does not
require a use permit from the Board of Zoning Adjustments , the
apartment standard criteria should still be used instead of the R3
standards when the SR code is silent on a particular development
requirement . Staff feels that the intent of using the apartment
standards for nine or more units is strongly related to the size of
the proposed development , not to the requirement of obtaining a use
9 'I
permit .
In-depth plan check using the SR, R3 and Apartment Standards
revealed a deficiency in the southern side yard setback . Staff has
addressed this issue in Section 9 . 0 in regards to the applicant 's
request for a special permit .
3 .0 SURROUNDING LAND UGe ZONING AND GENERAL PLAY DESIGNATroNS:
Subject Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Senior Residential
ZONE : (Q) R3-SR
LAND USE: Vacant , Industrial Sheds
North of subject Property:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : General Commercial
ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial District )
LAND USE: Commercial , Restaurant
cost, south and West of Subject co_pa., rty:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONE: R1 (Single Family Residential District )
LAND USE: Single family Hones
Staff Report - 4/l/14 (4930d)
#.D_ SMVZJCMMMNTAI, OTATUS: y
1mvirenswntai impact Report has been prepared to address the
Onvireamental impact of the proposed project . This envi rensontal
impact report has been approved by the anning CoMmi*sion and City
Council .
5,._0 COASTAL STATUS: �
Not applicable .
91Q IZ09VELOPHUNT STATUS :
Not applicable.
7 J SPECIFIC PLAN:
`ram..,__..__.,. .._..._.....
Not applicable.
8 . 0 §UBDIVISION COMMITTEE:
Not applicable .
9. 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS :
Section Isssuee Required Pf oLms d
I
S . 932 . 5 . 1 Application SR -suffix to be used SR, R3 and Apart-
MR ) of Article in conjunction with ment Standards ueed.
the base zoning . R3
requirements used
when SR is silent .
R3 code refers to
Apartment Standards
( Article 932 ) for
projects with 9 units
or more .
5 . 912 . 5. 6 occupancy Assurance of age of part of the develop-
( SR ) pequirement one occupant of each rent agreement
unit to be a minirnutn required prior to the
of 60 years of age . issuance at building
permit .
S. 932. 5. 7 Handicapped e'en percent of the Applicant indicates
(SR) Access total number of units that all units in the
Requirement (11 total ) . project tan
accoswada to
handicapped persome
10 parking spaces
within the security
gat* have b@ro
designated
brrrwlt ir. tf
re %big be
R''` dtof f nspett - i/Y/t i
r- 00
t on Issue Re uired Proposed
5.933. 5 . 10 Site Fifty percent of 40#919 square feet
(am) Coverage gross acreage minus proposed (34% )
street . 54, 550 sq . ft .
allowed .
5.932 . 5 . 12 building 15 foot minimum 94 foot separation
(SR) Separation separation proposed
3. 932 . 5 . 15 Off-Street 1 , 0 studio, 1 bed- 125 provided of which
(SR ) Parking room; 1 . 5, 2 bedroom; 10 are designated for
121 required handicapped; 6 guedt
spaces outside of
security gate
S . 932 . 5 . 18 Parking Each unit assigned Parking management
Assignr,ent space within 200 feet plan has been pre-
walking distance . paged by applicant
designating the
assigned parking
spaces within 200
feet of each unit .
i
S .932 . 5 . 19 Recreation Bachelor and one bed- 64 , 62, 63 square foot
(SR ) and Leisure room 60 sq . ft . min- balconies for studio
Areas imum patio or balcony ; and one bedrooms .
2 bedroon units 120 120 sq . ft . balcony
sq . f t . minimum for 2 bedroom units
patio or balcony .
Minimum dimension
6 feet .
Enclosed clubhouse 1800 sq . ft . clubhouse
with minimum of and 600 sq. ft . card
7 sq. ft . per unit room proposed
( 805 sq . ft . )
! 5 . 932 . 5 . 22 Density 501 Density Bonus 76 units allowed
(SR ) Bonus for the provision of under R3 zoning
units affordable to 501 density bonus
k low and moderate ( 36 units ) totals
income families . 114 units . Applicant
proposes 114 senior
units and 1
manager 's unit Staff
recommends 113
senior units and 1
manager's unit foc a
total of 114 units .
staff Report - 4/1/86 ..4- 44530d )
tion Issue Reguired Pro_ sed
9.0202 . 6 Maximum 30 Feet Maximum Applicant ha* •ub=
(93) Building witted building
Height elevations and a
conceptual grading
j plan to verify that
buildingq height , as
measured from the
sidewalk , will not
exceed 30 feet .
9320. 7 Setback from Not less than 10 ft $ Special Permit re-
( Apt . ) Interior One foot additional quested for south-
property setback for each ern interior set-
line adjacent 2-1/2 feet of back .
to residen- building length
tial parallel with the
property line of
single family
residential dev-
eloprrirnt .
South = 50 ft .
West 28 ft . West (rear ) setback
69 feet proposed .
9170 . 7Setback from 10 feet 10 feet
( Apt . ) Interior
property line
adjacent to non-
residential
9320 . 6 Setback from Average 20 ft . Varies - 20 to 24
(Apt . ) Public Street Not less than 15 feet
(Q) Zoning Design Project be reviewed ORB to meet April 21 ,
Suffix Review by DRB prior to 1986 . Recommendations
approval of CUP of DRB will be avail-
able prior to the
public hearing .
I
S . 932 . 5 . 21 Special To grant alternative Interior side yard .
( SR ) Permit proposals to the Alternative design
requirements of the of turn &rounds at
Senior Residential north and south ends
Standards . of parking lot .
A number of revisions to the site plan are being recommended by staff ,
dy providing an additional handicapped parking space, enlarging the
width dissension of the balcony of the studio unit, and reducing the
height of the perimeter fencing to 6 feet, the project will meet the
requirements of the Nuntington Beach Ordinance Code. `
h
staff report 4/1/i r -S- t432os1
f
1 ,
00
Staff recommends that the paved length of the packing stalls along the
vegtern edge at the property be re�eet� trhe7vehicles and
will ovtchaag the
landscape strip be increased by
landscape areal the shortened paved length of the Stall will not impmct
the width of the drive aisle behind the parking spaces .substantial additional
width of the landscape area will allow for a sn
ng
of vegetation . The curb at the top of the parking stall will act as M
wheel stop . The additional landscape area will insure that vehiCles
will not accidently hit the masonry wall .
SPECIAL. PERMITS:
The Senior Residential aevelopmevt Standards allow special persrits to
be granted for alternative propo���entl the
withRthe standards.
applicationSpecial
a
permits shall be considered cone Y
conditional use permit . The Planning Commission shall grant a special
permit if it finds that the proposed development will :
( a ) promote better living conditions and environments ;
( b ) Utilize land-planning technsique layout swhich icludtasteful types of
architectures landscaping , and design;
( c ) Will benefit the general health , welfare , safety and convenience
of the neighborhood and the eery in @inleuch and
neighborhood and
detriment to or degrade property values
the City .
The applicant is requesting a special pendiciftheaparkingilotdand9fa►rf
the turnarounds at the north and south
the interior yard setback at the southern end of the property.
The Fire Department has reviewed the proposed ''hammer-head' turnarounds
in the parking lot and has no objections to the design . The Fire
Department has previously allowed for this style of turnaround in
apartment developments .
A riperial permit is also rfgthisestaff report ,d for the tstaffsnowainterprrets
e An
mentioned in Section 2 .0 0
the SK code to include the standard� contained
distciCt the
maydcef�ce�cease
district and other districts which the
The Rl district refers to the Apartment Standards for developments of
nine or more units . The Apartment standards ( Article 933 ) require that
the minimum setback from an interior property line for buildings 30
feet or less in height shall not be less
�1/2 feet .
feetone
of building
a additional setback shall be provided for each 2
length parallel with the property line on len single-familyth . The residential
nt
development for buildings over 25 feet i g
�. standards cats for a minimum setback olgelOp�eetan additional 40 i
feet (total �Q feet ) . The apple proposes
Staff recommends that this be increased to fifteen feet to allow fat
additional landscape and buffering. Staff cecoe nda that a apeCial
permit be granted for this is foot setback for the following reasons
Staff "Vogt
00
t
The building frontage along the southern property line consists of
stall* story units, 12 feet in height with the exception of the unit
adjacent to Springdale Street, ( If this unit were to be single stor
the building elevation along Springdale Streit would be architecturally
unbalanced. ) The units behind the tow of single story step up to two
levels and later up to three levels as tine moves from north to south.
The staff fools that stepping back of units in a large development is
extremely desirable , It architecturally softens the mass and bulk of
buildings and insures adjacent residents of greater privacy (no
balconies overlooking adjacent homes ) . The stepping of building
requires an encroachment into the side yards . The alternative is to
respect the side yard setback , yet create a massive three story
structure in the center of the lot .
10. 0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the planning Commission approve Conditional time Permit
No. 86-12 with the site plan revisions proposed by staff based on the
following findings and conditions of approval .
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-12 :
1 . The establishment , maintenance and operation of the use will not
be detrimental to :
a . The general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity;
b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or
building .
2 . The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach .
3 . The proposal is consistent with the City' s General Plan of Land
Use .
i
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - FPECIAL PERMIT:
1 . The proposed development will promote better living conditions and
environments by having single story unite adjacent to the single
family homes to the south to increase privacy for the adjacent
residents .
2 . The proposed development utilizes land-planning techniques which
include tasteful types of architecture , landscaping, site layout
and design.
3 . The proposed development will benefit the general health, welfare,
safety, and convenience of the neighborhood and the City in
general, and will not be a detriment to or degrade ptopexty values
In such neighbocnoods and the City.
&Aft Sepect - 4/l/44 -yi MIN 1
p.. NR MGd - 02H I Tit BONUS :.
1 . The capacities of the City and cous:ty water, sewer and stoto dcaltt
systems are adequate or will be adequate to accommodate the
proposed increase in density as wily as all other planned land
uses in the area .
2 . The proposed increase in density will not have a significant
adverse Impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school
enrollments, and recreational resources . �
i• The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted
not the overall intent of the general plan sacrificed .
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1 . The site plan , floor plane , and elevations received and dated
March 24, 1986, shall be the conceptually approved layout subject
to a revised site plan being submitted depicting the modifications
described herein:
a . Eleven handicapped parking spaces shall be provided within the
security gate .
b. The project shall include a total of 114 unite (113 senior
units and 1 manager ' s unit ) . The Design Review Board shall
recommend which unit shall be removed .
c . The setback along the southern interior property lint shall be
increased to 15 feet to provide greater privacy to the
residents of single family homes to the south .
d . Parking spaces along the western boundary of the property
shall be 17 feet in length . An additional 2 feet of
landscaping shall be added along the western property line .
e . The floor plan for Unit A shall be revised so that the minimum
dimension of the balcony/patio shall be 6 feet .
f . The proposed 8 foot concrete block wall shall be reduced to 6
feet in height .
2 . Prior to issuance of building permits# the applicant shall submit
the following plans:
a . Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development
Services and Public works for review and approval .
b. RooftopMechanical Equipment plan. Said plan shall indicate r
screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and •hell
delineate the type of watetial proposed to section said
equipment .
,
a
00
3. !be developreent shall comply with all applicable provisions of the
�. Ordinance Code, building Division, and Fire Department .
4. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-*even feet t 37 ' )
in width and shall be of radius type construction.
St An automatic sprinkler system approved by the Fire Department
shall be installed throughout the complex .
S . B wet combination stand pipe system approved by the Fire
Department shall be installed in all stairways .
7. An automatic alarm system approved by the Fir* Department shall bt
installed throughout . The system shall include the following
features ;
a . Water flow and valve tamper detection
b . Trouble signal
c . Voice communication
d . Graphic annunciation
e . Manual pulls
S . Elevators must be sized 6 ' 80 wide by 4 ' 3' deep to accommodate
the use of an ambulance gurney .
9 . Trash chute locations and systems must be approved by the Fire
Department .
10 . Fire hydrants ( 3 ) approved by the Fire Department shall be
installed pursuant to Public Works standards . Each fire hydrant
shall be capable of supplying a minimum of 10500 gallons par
minute and together must provide an over all fire flow of 30500
gallons per minute .
11 . Fire lanes are to posted and rigned to comply with Fire Department
standards .
12 . All roads are to be installed prior to the commencement of the
combustible construction with all weather driving surfaces
constructed to the standards and specifications of the public
Works Department .
13. Fite extinguishers shall be installed to comply with Huntington
Beach Fire Code standards.
14. Tb* curb on the vest side of Springdale, north and south of the
entrance to the project, shall be painted red to restrict any
vehiculat parking to insure adequate intersection visibility so
pet Public Works recommendations.
Usti 4part - 4/1/64
00
i
li# fire hydrants installed on site shall be dedicated to the CitYe
li, Installation of required landscaping and irrigation Systemo ,shall
be completed within twelve ( 12 ) months .
17 . All signs shall comply with Articles 966 and $76 of the tuntingtoe
beseb Ordinance Cade . All free-standing signs shall be
low-profile# monument-type signs .
11. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking
facilities , water heatars , and central heating units .
19. Prior to the demolition of the existing metal sheds on the site
the applicant shall meet all Rule 10M requirement# as sit forth by 1
the South Coast PAr Quality Management District,
20. A six foot high masonry wall shall be constructed of uniform
design and material along the western and southern edge of the
property . The applicant shall work with adjacent homeowners to
the west to replace or repair any dilapidated rear yard walls .
21 . Low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets .
22 . All building spoils , such as unusable lumber , wire, pipe , and
other surplus or unusable material shall be disposed of at an
off-site facility equipped to handle then.
21 . The structures on the subject property, whether attached or
detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State
acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60
CNEL contours of thr property. Evidence of compliance shall
consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report , prepared
under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of
acouotical engineering , with the application for building
pernit (s ) .
24 . If lighting is included in the parking lot , high-pressure sodium
vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings . All outside
1 .1
11ghting shall be directed to prevent 'spillage• onto adjacent
properties.
25. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils
Engineer . This analysis shall Include ors-site soil sampling and
laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed
recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties,
foundations , retaining walls , streets, and utilities .
26 . if foil-type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall
be installed as approved by the, Building Division,
27 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this
Conditional use Permit if any violation of the** conditions of the
f suntington reach Ordinance Code occurs. ?
$% off Neport 6/1/66 -li- tlslOd)
+F Ni
r br
ALAO dLT INTID XC ION:
DbmY Conditional Use Permit No . 16-12 based on the following findinjo:
1 . The proposed senior citizen apartments increasee the density and
will not be compatible to the intensity of existing residential
deVelopmonts in the vicinity.
f. The establishment , maintenance and operation of the use will be
d4trimental to the general welfare of persons rtridLng in the
vicinity .
ATTACORRMTS:
1 . Site Plan and tlevations dated March 21 , 1966
2, Ordinance N. 2821B
JWP:CO: kla
i
h
1
ftelt Ne"et - 4/1/06
-d*A WWWO
C 1
op HWM
To PLANNING CONNISSION Janes M. PeYibe "rector
Devel0VMMt Services
Ifte CONDITIONAL USE PERNI'T 66-12 � April t, 1lii=
i
DESIGN REVIL'ii bOAND
The Design Review board MRS) reviewed the proposed elevations for
the 114 unit senior citizen apartment complex on April 1 , 1906. The
DRd conceptually approved the elevations submitted, Howevelr, prior
to the issuance of building permits the DRr must review more precise
plans for all building elevations .
Purther recommendations to be added to Section 10. 0 of the staff
report .
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-12:
4 . The project will consist of 113 senior units and 1 manager ' s
unit , for a total of 114 units .
5. buildings on the site shall not exceed 30 feet in height as
measured from the curb.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMIT:
4 . A special permit shall be granted for the use of hammer-head
turnarounds within the project.
5. A special permit shall be granted to allow for a 15 foot
interior side yard setback on the southern property line in
lieu of the 50 foot setback required in the Apartment Standards
so that a stepping down of the building form can occur .
6. A special permit shall be granted to allow fat the construction
of an 0 foot high wall along the western and southern property
limes.
FINDINGS - DENSITY BONUS
4 . A 50 percent density bonus shall be granted to allow for the
development of a total of 114 units .
1'+
i
NRNOr CONDITIONAL 992 PUNIT 86-12
i
S2S9fJtD CONEIT12PS 2F APa�:
� .l . delete
2.c. developtaent Agreement shall be prepared pursuant. to the
Covernm*nt Code and those procedures adopted by the City
Council for such agreements (Resolution No . 5350 ) .
The development agreement shall include a program to insutts
that adequate provision has been made to insure that each unit
shall be occupied by at least one person sixty years of a" at
older . No persons under the age of forty-five shall be
permitted as full time residents of the project .
2.d. Rodent eradication plan, approved by the Orange County
Abatement District .
2. e. Grading and Drainage Plan to the Department of Public Works
for review and approval .
19. Prior to the demolition of the existing metal sheds on the
site the applicant shall meet all Rule 10H requkrements for
asbestos removal as set forth by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District .
20 . An eight foot high masonry wall shawl be constructed of
uniform design and material along the western and southern
edge of the property . The applicant shall work with adjacent
j homeowners to replace or repair any dilapidated rear yard
walls .
( 4574d )
(,^
JLW
IN T144W Il1ORMT COMM MICAT1OM
r
le 043hen
} To mm Tom Pew
Any wsr Plw F Deputy liars Map"
IWoo CLIP W 12 Dow A ail 1, IM
I p +'
The Fire Ddpettrr" has reviewed the most recant revision of the site plan dotod
March 20 , 1"6 for the senior housing project on Springdale Street south of EdIWL In
o ddition to the previously submitted condition from the March 40 1906 site plan the Fire
Depwtment will require the fallowing:
1. The security gate system must open a minimum of 26 feet, Thin gets@
Installation must comply with F ire Department Standard 603.
Z. The turning radius from the central parklm, area to the parking area laeding to
the north and south areas must be a 17 foot by 45 foot turning radius.
3. Should any underground tanks be discovered on sites the tanks shall be ramoved
to comply with the Orange County Environmental Health Standards.
TP/sr
4047f
, �. 00
*Also
ORDINANCE 90. 2A21-R
AN ORDINANC3 OF THE CITY OF HUd?INGTOM SUCK ANIMIXG
TUC HUVT ISCTON NiACH ORDINANCZ CODZ By MINDING
ING
SECTION 9061 THCROOr TO PRONIVA FOR CHA1102 Of ZONI.40
FROM OFFICE PROMSSIOVAL DISTRICT TO QUALIFIED
MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTo COMdIUZD MIT!
SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON R AL PROPiRTY
GENERALLY t.00ATtD WEST OF SPRINGDALE S1`RCET,
SO11TH OF EDINGER AVE.,IUE ( ZONE CASE NO. 85-15 )
WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the
Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council
have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case No. 85-15
wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information
presentaJ xt said 'Hearings , and attar due consideration of the
findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all
evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that
such zone change is proper , and consistent with the general plan ,
NOW, THFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach does ordain as follows :
SECTION 1 . The following described real property, generally
located worst of Springdale Street approximately 760 feet south of
Edinger Avenue is hereby changed from R5, "Office Professional
District" to (Q) R3-SR, "Qualified Medium-High Density Residential.
District combined with Senior Residential Dtvelopeent" s
The East 4. 00 acres of the South half of the Northeast
quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 71 , Township 5
South. Rang• 11 hest , in the Rancho La Soli& Chica, the
City of Huntington Reach, County of Orange, State of
California, as per map recorded in book 51, Page 13 of
Miscellaneous Naps , in the office of the County Recorder of
said County .
EXCEPTING THZRZFROM the North 150. 00 feet thereof. Subject
to the following conditions :
(a) Any future project approved for this pascal of lard
Mall be subject to review by the City of Huntington Beach Design
Review beard prior to issuance of permits .
fib) The iriiiui number of dwelling units peralneible to be
*ens tr nc teed on the nit* after the granting of a density bmas shalt
be 114.
StMOM 2 . Prioc to any development on the property, the
property ow at and the city shall enter into a developer agreement#
approved by the City Attorney as to form pursuant to Govocnment Cgde
165865, at . seq. which shall include provisions for the total number
of units and continued affordability of units allowed by density
bonuses .
SECTION 2 . The Development Services Director shall be
hereby directed to amend Section 9061, District !dap 26 ( Sectional
District Map 21-5-11 ) to reflect Zone Case No . 85-15, described Ln
Section 1 hereof . A copy of said district sap, as anended hereby,
is available for inspection in the office of the City Clerko .
SECTION 4 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days
after its adoption .
i
PASSED A.VD ADOPTED by the City Council of :he City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3r_..=.._....
day oR Marc!i
woe
mayor
A'1TESTs APPROVED AS TO !' lMs
aaozz7m4cepa am
City Clerk CIty Attorney
j/3 Pr
iitL.11EWED AND APPIOYEDt YNITIAM AND APPROWDs
.�
, 7,'�
City ■ n sisafor f�• r c of WWr1]L4*;HE
Services
WAn or 9"VIOM )
COY a % ) et
CM ar EMIM lOM IRACM )
t. ALICtA M. WERWI t the duty olosted, "lMad City
Clark of the City of Nuatin►gton Beach and es-officle Clock of the
City Council of the said City, dohereby costify that the Woole unbeir
of awaWre of the City Comcil of the City of BuntieStom Deaah is se"wi
that the toiregotal ordinance was read to said City Ommil at a re"IM
meeting thereof held an the 1..8th dgy of lrrbmrY
19_ 86 , and was again read to said City Council at a replas
meeting thereof held on the }r__�d day of Berg , if R6 _� and
vas passed and adopted by the affirmtive vote of more thaw a majority of
all the mesbers of said City Council .
AYES: CouncilMn:
Kelly. MacAllister. F inlev. Mandic. BA O.ev, Gre"
WES: Councilmen:
None
AISM, : Councilmen:
Thomas 1
I,
dFW-
City Clark mad ex-offielo Clerk
of the city CaunCil of the City 1
of buntta4ton leach, California
WW*W b Cm CLOW e1 on cur 40
MwNn/IOA 6660 WW sngwA is OW% a/ All OW
CawsSA, is "GINOP GWOV so a 0000 4100
Noarree ISM Mw �'w M1 Aar Ills
/.3- i V (1p
goao IM Car 00-Air i1 M" Cam.
WT
-CW OWN5
I
J
4 --
•
SOCTIONAL DISTRICT MAP
CM 0 F
HUNTINGTON BEACH
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
USE OF pOWRTY MAP
+-...r-�..�.� C F- - • ... .-. .« 1, •ter.. -.• .-.. .
t;F-EAND"IOL
fir.
AN
1
r___.. ,r--�—fir—•
1 -- -1
5=
r-� r
� 1 .
wo
1NbusM APP11 24 1
Mon NMAL
t 1
HMO n mot !Y GIVU that the beetlagtss seaab City Catmcll will hid a
paibile baerlog is the mil Clraabor at the Msatisetoa awb Civic
COater, 2W Halt Street. lkstiestca Seasbe Call eralag as the date mA
at tM tLae indicated balm to receive sad coaaldgr the statements of all
poeso" wbo *Lek to be heard raxatiw to the dmsartW below.
i
= Monday, May 5, 1986
T M-# 7:30 P.M.
APPLirgioN Won: Appeal to planning Commission's approval of CUP 86-12
L0wzou: west side of Springdale, 760 feet south of Edinger Avenue.
nopoM: Appeal filed by Mayor Mandic to the Planning Commission' s approval of
the CUP for 114-unit senior apartment codex with regard to the number
of units which will be made affordable to persons of low and moderate
income based upon the granting of a density bonus.
i
1
ENT-11 S'! TM: Covered by EIa 85-2 previously adopted by the City Council.
ell tl1.t: A copy of the appeal is on file in the Department of Development Services.
ALL, nfTELE$tED PERSONS ate invited to attend said hearing and express
opinions or submit avideace for or against the application as outlined
above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are
on file with the office of the City Clerk, 2000 Maio Street, lbstiogton
1o+acb. Califoraia, for inaptctiara by the public.
MM ING70N U"H CITY CWKIL
bye Alicia M. Weotuorth
City Cl"*k
tbos a (714) 336-540 3
Dated: 1%SL 21 , 1986
hbueb
ru
V t-a- '
NOTUX IS MXXY GITM that the ftatieatom bomb City Carmen wLU held a
pgblic hearing is the Couaeil Cbarhes at the Nuatiogtoo lamb Civic
Caster, 2004 ?lain Streit# IkvAiogtar raaeb. Califotais, on the data and
at the time iadicwtrd below to receive and caesider the itatowats of OU
pereow who with to be bend relative to the application devesibed Wave
TEO
: '7 ' 30
APPUCATION WMM: APPEAL- -Tt) 1:'�N (W(v 60MM lt'�ION
11
APPRO\4AL, OF <::�Up
tXATI== wEyr t>1 DF,- Or- 6T7RJW-7 -7(,a r. rN
OF 4-L.(W&jE9 AVE,
LT
MOMS": APMALA9 7�it F-615 APROVAL Cf 7HP. C,
AW
(14 -L)m rr 5EN\6K AAA tF.,.M-r 66h WITH R RD
M T14M �40W59 Cf& VNIre.-> WHICH UITU.-% MAMAFMPP---�
)WtE -M FFK6 tr t6W AMP MOM902ZM NeOH F,
r4'Y'Et') UTi)N 7NIF- CRAW)N&� bF A Dft+ 17Y
Mrnc STAM:
IIrA mzSTED PERSONS ate iavitec to attend said heari*4 and e:preas
apiniaaa at submit evidence for or a*aisat the applicatiaa as outlined
above. All applicatiaasl exhibits, sod descripcions of this propooal are
os file with the Office of the City C1trk, ZOOO Maas Street, Huatle6tou
beach, Califoraia, for iaapectios by the public.
fy= Alicia M. Ventwogrtb
City Clerk
Pbone (714) Sib-M s
i
t *E. TO CLERK TO E MIC HEARING
I TEN .+AEM& 1. ' J�,,..,OF P 66 -rz.,
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE:
FRO: # �tit t[��► 7'."
PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC NEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE
DIY OF 198
,&AP's are attached
AP' s will follow
No AP's
f Initiated by:
Planning Commission
Planning Department
Petition
' AppealT
Other r,
Adoption of Env i ronmenta 1 Status (x) i�
Has City Attorney' s Office been YES NO
informed of forthcoming public
hearing?
Refer to 1,,WLL - Planning Department - Extension
for additional infonation.
+ if i , please transmit exact wording to be required i n the 1 egal .
iA
�fOW
M'. PW ON. � {
M911 CA $#$ al■M CA 02"t
ft� ,I�ar1 Mr so NMI
x4m Sava ; •Asa hbtir
Dr. 1961 Par Mr.
MuwkisqUn Mo*ko CA 92649 Nuntington iaach, CA 92640
IAot' p N. Km&ki•
$932 ma&wlark or.
Nmtihqton Much , CA 92649
Richard Rrwne
$942 Neadowlark or.
Huntington Beach, to 92649
Ronald D. Stowers
10011 T reebark Ci r.
Weetw.initer, CA 92683
Patricia L. Powell
423 Laurel Ad. y
Yoadon, Pa 19050
a
Joseph Nrova t
16302 Magellan Ln
Huntington Beach , CA 92647
Richard L. Bottorff
5911 Par Ci r.
Huntington Burch, CA 92649
Paul C. bridg"n
5921 Par Ci r.
Huntington, Beach , CA 92649
Juhw C. Paro"y t
5941 per I ! /
1/untingtngt vn Mach, t!1 92649 � t�
17
.,, • . # l�6i.� i3�12 t 1s! M4� ' 4i'.026 i�` ;14�•�
Mo
,7241
�. Cr L� 1.f:T� rt.k' Lt1 E366 1�1.�. '* A �P '+ jf �.
l.• fiaxf)v CA: lsVl+�` %itro
* 4AO
At to. 14 C-2163 .11 t.� I G-�( -I f.t-. �c i 1�6-►�►C 3-Ib
ittlT hJ1 Cif'L •A -a k h t :.� ; , t•C 1.t71.1 t t,�' t�'�C,J4S' C
L..1 �•
RiA !: t�'CU! .fLrVp1CLC 11:C i . C . :t�� : tE �: f1 :Fi�l.i►
i• Lrl-E .ir.L FL t1�:. .r • . - � , .r ♦f. •'ram � �• l
w ,
A?- N . 14C-262-It 1 F a c . �! 1 —. . ' : i t.0 . .•; r —:'t'�- •1
....... ♦
SAVIIAi:L• Lf IV J�,wc.F._ . .;.r l f (.i.i :• .L;, l.'aC:.:.t :. �
16162 T1.11:61►Y Lt•
ELACLe to,
14 C-2G5-G2 f.i ► : . i s : -. :
A P XXCES i A055UCll T LL f LC: :' ,. .
......... . . .
•
1"Cii Ll' i1 F : "Ai.: i
tt jr'
14c-4 1—ct
t.t'i. ► 3 :\,.. v:� ECl' . CI L
k
1 4E-4d- : 4t -; : :
10666•... . • , .
r1!:LL Y GL' T; LC 1. ULiC!, l:Ll:l 1' L: ..
161 C I 1.vGLLF Lt: 16171 1•,1.6I,L F' Lt,
1'111.71 !.GICllt GCH CAL Ett1NT1hC;lC•h ElP.CV , C,. i.L:.: :..: :�r
MO O 92647 9st•47
AZ• no . 146-501-02 AP No . 146-5C1-03 1.P l.c . 14 C-t'C•;- 4 �
hAIrJk.W.1.A CLF- C CHJ�hFC11% C'Gt:L1.L 1 Ch17 CI. : Ff
16201 16211 J`•1\yLLF Ll%
f i?Il:C. hL`NT II:G:Crt• £L/:Cl: CA 1:t.6 1 VC.:c l::',• =
536< < 52647 sec. 7
At t:o. 146-5CI-05 /1P No . 146-501-06 AR ho . 146-5G;-t, 7
now
'yl y' • .
tLL
Al
I M49 .• � +4�J +.'j4 ��i
` wrcabuix DIP IC277 C1:i LPL F. Lip ' 16 52 Cll#IiKTc ail. •l�,r
Yk-WU .+l acC CAL 1 ' i, Cb Cl! fivETihGlt'.R KAM
�92f4; : • Et +�
,
I� le• 2 C "_� . .1 �!. i '. : '. i ' . . « . ;t : .. i ,�:. '. S i'LL LF
!7 Lti (i l • ii i .. l ,
I1� �.,(: • l� f ••• ��� �' � t f � • . `• 1 . i l.. � �. • �" l�ia. :.- 4 � i
Ll
rot*•f.....
iI ► • . 4t -1 � _ -GG Sr • + . r _ ♦ . .hl.
*g...• `
•
rl� w+ t• j • • 1 •. + \ �� � ( 1 , +. l • ♦.\ • _ • r . • .
1-1 C'i f�:•! 1 I:1.;\ I :.: 1. I•i.''i !' CI C.♦•CF.
.•�7�� lE ♦� i. ... • i .�..UL �: . : ►/hl Lis � l 1 , a 11. : i 1�. • .r•
IiUNT-T;:; .Ctl bLF--t: CAI i.Ll:1IS:G:(�:. Lt. � ::1: , C��t. t '• : :' �'. � : +i : � 1 :.
9L4�
Ap 146-1 :a-12 le" 11.
IILII :. : t : i _ C CLt"i C.r 1'L^. b ltiFth; } 5 C'F F1:.: ItY l � :.�i :
6&'!C'7 i. � « .'s Tlt,lvl.LY , I C,Uil J
LL II CI • SE71 L-`:t•kC Lk.
9C2C1 1;C �:It.GIL ZL;-CL, LXL '� 2fr4 :
Al- l:c . 146-20-09 F? t:o . 14C-263-10
• E1
i'�t+ '� r Y 6 6 I.
; . Yu ` ' •v. ��', d .�'. � �o•. � +� 7�A��: 'y ��y 'Y �V�1.• ♦«� y.�L
OM
0 lid'
w.. !•;. .t.• !. S i.a. : f W.
�.•C Prt. C 021 ;:� fi►1i.C. .. i. 6C 31. E • Y. ' , ► .
L1► :•t�:��:. + CtL t1 CT Of. :.t•hCr, o C"ilk t• I:Lt:.��i
..: : ,.�:.0 ti
TF-ACY UIIPA L \. �♦ • • � f � • . L 1.J � .. .. ... .l .. • . •. •Z.1 1.`� � a1.wi••r:
6031 PALL MILL Li i r .. v 4 :_r L •• r(�. • . 1• �.V �` •
w . i / 1'
t�JW3Ii.s".Gt: Fs i'.CF , Ci: t ; : : . _ . �: �f = : : ► :_1 :. ' L i► i t 4�.t.
52647
At, t'C% • R M' � �".•IL f Y ..�. • J1 � �C � � �� • C .•v • 14 `'��1 ♦�ii
i r•iii•�•1
I
I
r, .cYlY•...•• .
• � b
lr:b .t April He lift
amn- Qia
APB T2 M.I W M15 IOW§ APPOM
of
M[Tlgff WPEEN T, 13
0=2 ii XWJW CIVO that the *Artlnta. beach C3t7 CamLl wiU b&d 4
prWe busing in the CamecAl Cbm wre at the ftntiagtee Nowh Ovic
CORta', 2W Main Street. 1b atiogton baeeb, C811forelas *a the late and
at the tiro Indicated WOW to receive WA eoosid" th* stateftnt• of all
pa~ wbo viab to be bessd raletiwr to the applieation described bolas.
un t Mondays May 59 1986
?=: 7:30 P.M.
dppUCdTj= xvwn.- Appeal to Planning Commission' s approva 1 of CUP 86-12
Law1m: west side of Springdale, 760 fret south of Edinger Avenue.
mo quL: Appeal filed by Mayor Mandic tn the Planning Commission's approval of
the CUP for 114-unit senior apartment Complex with regard to the number
of units which will be made affordable to persons of low and moderate
income based upon the granting of a density bonus.
WVTr1gtWflML $51=; Covered by EIR 85-2 previously adopted by the City Council .
M rILg: A copy of the appeal is on file in the Department of Development Services.
A1.L D f tRWED PMUMS are lovittd to at tend said hearing and s:ptoes
opiaime or subelt evideoes fat or against the application as ortlirod
above. all applications$ exhibits, and descriptions of this propo"I are
to file with the Office of the City Clarks 2000 Main Streets asatlagtoo
reach. Wiforalas for inspection by the public.
WWrMION RACM CITY COUNCIL
ry: Alicia M. Meotratth
City Cleft
e2lPbaee (714) 536-5405Dated: 9 f