Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Conditional use permit 86-50 - Coastal Development 86-30 - N
03 Hunlington Beach Fountain Valley Board of REALTORSOInce e R E A L f IS, 8101 Slater Aventic • Huntington Bench, CA 9:2647 • 17141 847.".. .1 '7 December 1 , 1986 Members of thr. City Council City of Iluntington Beach 2000 Main Street lluntinRlon Beach, CA 92648 RE: Agenda Item D-let : Conditional Use Permit No. 86-50 Honorable Cokincil Memberr,: As President of the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of REALTORS, 1 am pleased to convey to you our support for the. 161 planned unit development on the ^_ast side of Lake. St . between Atlanta and Pecan a5 proposed by the Summer- hill-Development Company and [tie Huntington Beac`+ Redevelopment Agency. We have had the .opportunity to review the proposed project at several recent meetings and have attended a couple of presentations by the redevelopment staff, and it is our feeling that the new housing provided by this development in our downtown area will assure a community we]l-balanced in commercial, resi- dential and recreational opportunities to meet the needs of current and potential new residents in our City. In addition, it appears that the realigtlnrent of Lake Street will have the second- ary impact of reducing traffic sperd on that street, which will certainly benefit the immediate neighborhood. With regard to the concerns expressed by one resident regarding noise and air quality factors produced by the parking garage, we agrees that the City Council should approve the project rend refer it to the• Planning Commission for further review of the analyses of these issues in an effort to mitigate the: concerns. We urge_ you to .approve Conditioned Use Permit #86-50. Sincerely, R.L. "Kirk" Kirkland Board President RI.K/JAS/km MI- Ca" A.L. "KIRK" KIRKLAND, Pr•tidRnt • LILA NOW€LL. Fiat Vice PresWent JAN SHOMAKEti. Second Vices Pf*GWent/MLS Chairman• BETH BUNCOMBE. Secretary/Treasurer DIAECTON KENT M PIERCE• LARRI/ GAGE • MAGGIS SMAFFEA• JIM 0410HEIMER • FRANK C. HOAZEWSKI WILL WOODS, Executive VWA Presk ent• JUDITH Z3IEVERY,V" Pn»idtnt/Pub11C Aftrs v 86 - 50 JdInes A.Rush 6851 Jardines Drive SEPTEMBER 2 . 1986 fiunti n8lon Bcach,CiaLrornia► 92447 1 /J TO THE CITY COUNCIL r.4u"0i HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING `'. �y,"41 SEPTEMBER 2 , 1986 1=. �'a►/� ;'�� '``' SUBJECT ; HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK SURVEY OF CITIZENS OPINIONS 9-/o r .4*t J41 I REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL CANCEL 'rHE SECOND MOTION REGARDING THE SURVEY MADE BY DON McALLISTER AT THE COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION ON AUGUST i8TH , 1986 THAT WOULD REMOVE FROM THE SURVEY THE PHASE 1 . THE TWO BALL NARKS , PARKING , ETC , THAT WILL COST $990o000 . I REQUEST THAT THE CITY REFRAIN QUES E C E N FROM BUILDING ANY BALL PARKS AT THIS TIME I REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL BE SURE TO INCLUDE ANY AND ALL BALL PARKS PROPOSALS IN THE SURVEY TO BE MAILED WITH OUR WATER BILLS, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE INCLUDED IN THE SURVEY AN ITEM "KEEP THE PARK AS A PASSIVE OR PEACEFUL PARK" . LET THE RESIDENTS OF HUNTINGTON SFACH HAVE A CHOICE IN HOW THEY WANT T14E 'ARK BY REPLYING TO THE SURVEY, SINCERELY, JAWS A. RUSH .4Llr YttarJ T November 14. 1986 Dear Membars of the Huntington Beach City Councils As the rapresentat i ve of the residents living adjacent to the proposed SLImmerh i 1 1 Development Project , we wish to go on record as adamantly opposing the project . We believe there are several significant i ssule% and questions raised by the Planning Commissions actions and respectfully request your consideration of these issues and denial of the project . GENERAL EEAN - The General Plan has been devised by Professional* as L, Master Flan for our comnunl ty. This property is designated for medlum density 115 units per acres . The project prrposes a density of .2 . 4 units per acre which is o 1 16". i ncrerse over- the General Plan a l l oHc4nce. This l i nd of bon,..,s i s Unheard of in Pur, t,ington Peach . "LIN 't,46 - Thi e area was once _c1ned F� but w.--s down;oneca to Old To-vn�Specific: Plan to r educ.e dense t ) eE,. This proposal is, in ef ; ec. t , rezuninq the property to A higher density withr, ot the benefit of a cone change rp��l 1 r. at 1 (111. C-1,Lt, an appl :. c_at i on woLlld r be is.lr-ned ciriwn t,e(- r-vt-c Z-f ) t �i incor,E.i t: tency With the General F I -I-, , DEW517Y - How t►,N project dc:risi tY, _cAl cul -Mete" I `,'=, lini tS at ^►�r', t per rt r E wt)V l d f-E.'qll ) rc3 d t�FT E ) L e of-ea Uf (fiOr E ttli.n 7 e Thl '� prc-.)=•Lt c—ly 4 . c; NET ccres , Thi.- st'.afl r ►--port cr. '. •cc- latcd density c•o, t.cth o gro (And nEat bar1 ^ i'll thOLrgh this is 1t 1Ei The density is reQUO' ed to be b:- _ acs cri NET site area Only . not: GROSS area . E .-Pr- ! t the zoning wr_•rsh cc,r,�.I E tei.t with thF r.er,eral tl)e ,na - 1 mr.r,ri dc-ros 1 ty allowed wc.t' i O be 1 116 orr i t s. We �,t:c,_,,T�e the lost 1r, the dedicat. : orr of Atlanta 1 :'2 gtol r',eJ tE-c4 wi tV. Use v&t =-t ion of Lola Strcet go we hale nc,t drdoc: tet' this fro,Tt LhF NE'T s) te t: alculAtiL-�n . Th•: Density Nc•nvs gx ,.en t ,) this protect it:- 1 16% o-'er- the General v,id 4;': over the : one ng. To gr ont a density banus. the City mint ►' E-Cel v* an equal nttrr,ber of of f ordabl to units. Iion ' t. we al t:ady hare, ranough of f ord.ibl a uni ts• i n tht s oivee7 Al though tt-.ere is rt.Al l y nc compare -scan 1n aesthetics . we feel. there i s a p,,r-fec: t ccJnsp.?i i �.on lr, dt?r,sit ,e to the r ec-ent ' r4eFAI ERS" Project in the :4,4 T,e I.r e'A. CC�r� ATJ SLITY ' ht- sit" r,as- on 1rriygolar. conficlitral. ion ( long and na►- -ow) . p-- f � 4r,tK heohlf:mf- where try ) trcl to acloe�, e tor,F ate 1 b a i : _y M+t t r :irt ) mil. %;r)t pf Lip er't a ►: 1 )►w t.-1n1 coii�,4tlbIF. s:l l. ►(c- t l ..,r) c0rr hirrtiptl t ,. !-h ) ft ir.0 1. l,t- blot Idtnq 0�.0 5-C) 7a: NE-r-ber f thF IA,..r-t ; ii(I tot i ErE h I-i t y, i 1 rage away frain the act jrct nt si ngl a f .Ami ty homes . This cannot be accump11 Dh►iJ . _(:) the pass of the bul1dings is within 25 ft . of Mir rear- Yards, �lnd .41 though the buildings are at an ,.Ingle to our $ �-Its , th►_ ir- ~�.ai �7!� t •�f �J f t . abnl�e a semi -5l.IbterranN.an parking StrUctUre e"- their presence over•beoring . Somewhat l0a living behind thy: "Great Wall of China " ! There simply i sn ' t room enough on this property to create any f i ,-id of b,.if fe, , especially with the pr opr►s_•d density. OPErl SPACE - How was the open space cal cul at-Pd'' Goes it include thH N ~c-:11 _ Frc�pert} - Al so , i f the project i s required to have 96 . sq. f t . of open space with a rt:lnimum dimension of 20 ft . , and the proposal has on y 90. O'C.1(i so . ft . but not wi th the <<t f t . rni n i mum di mensi on, how much area is there which meets the mini mum requirement" Neither we nor this Planning Commission have the ability to deter+ni ne. how much open space has been provided which Rref=ts cod*? . LIT TI. I T I E_ - What is the cost: to the City to relocate the high vol t vge Edison lines which presently exist" In the post the City has r•l?f t-ised to accept any responsibility for such relocation c--stS . Has this policy changed" If so, why' � CONDEMNATION - Is all the property, in fact . available to be includedwinrthe project as proposed? If condemnation of private property is renuired for this project to go forward , we question the true "public benefit " since the public improvements ( i . e. realignment of Lake Street ) can be accompl ; shed without this protect . Also, the project does not conform and we question the validity of condemning a private property for a project that is not in conformance with City codes. In conclusion, we oppose the project for the following reasonst 1 . It is inconsistent with the General Plan. 2. The method of calculating the Project density has been misleading . It should be based on a NET site area of 4. 9 acres. 3. Does the City nerd all the affordable units that would be required of this project? 4. The property had already been downzoned when it waft toned Old Town Specific Plan. This is an attempt to rezone the property without due process. i � ll: 1 � 'I+I�rHr �, : f t.F+•- 1•l+.rr►t � nr.7+_� H"cc_h 1. t ty t_r:l+r•+r l : �. The r'r i.ject does sat meet the com+Tion c�p��n 51�ac:e re��e+� r-emenf s . 6. We on the? necec_s i t y and benei i t (of the re-i 1 i gnmen t of 1f Labe Street , 1 7. The Ci tv wi 1 1 1n►.:u► trd ordinary costs to relocate tht Edi scar+ I i nes . S . Condemnation of private property is being suggested as- s.1 way to accomplish this project . .. The c o n f i gurat i on of the property and i t;; pro>: i mi t y to ai ngl a f ami 1 y homes dale us ocit SLIP;)or-t the proposed dens i t i es, and the i -�pact of the project wi I 1 be detrimental to adjacent proper ti es, t1c:+_h : stab 1 1 shed and r ecent 1 y developed. lr:►. 'rhe scinpe , scale. dense ty and nature of the project are incompatible with the adjacent single fami l y homes. We also feel that the Administration , in its zeal to develop the Area. has no t proporI y eVA1Uated t h i s project , recent adjacent development , and the future effect on the neighborhood and total Community , -and has rushed approval of the project . We feel there is an equitable solution of alternative development that the City, developers and residents can live with , while still benefiting the Community as well as not creating the tremendous strain on City services required by this Project. We feel that this Project does not, provide the aforementioned 'equitable' solution. Realistically, Southern California is one of the most desirable places to live in the World and along with that Orange County Is the most desirable place to live in Southern California. Hence, th e s property is one of the last prime developable areas in the World. Is this apartment project really appropriate for this property? I We feel that our concerns are representative of the ma;ority of residents and property owners in the downtown area. In light of the numerous questioner raised by the project we must ask, as the bottom 1 ins, what benefits are realistically projected for thin City of Huntington Breach and its most important asset, its Citizens? We thiripf cw a request your denial of this project. , Respectfully submitted, S4&9,VV#-t_ Mr. and Mrs. Donald Sl aven 225 Alabama Streat Huntington Beach, California 92646 Representing the following property owners To; P1ember i. Hi.int 1 ngton E►e.Ach City Council Patty Gl amu_ i na, 1 .:►14 Alabama Street Mrs. Jos►_ph E. Ha.l : y. 1 1 % ► l abama Streeet Mrs . and Mrs. ►.enr,eth Sl:ol yan. 121 Al nb:irna Street Mr . and Mrs;. J . h i l 1 i an , 261 Alabama Street Dr . and Mrs. Martin Erlich , '02t►7. Al abasra Street Mrs. Carul Jacobs, 20 4 Alabama Street Mr . and Mrs. John Pratto, A'-►:►9 Alabama Street Mr . and Mr-% . Don Goode , 7-15. ^11 1 ;2 and �19 r-11abama Street Mr . and Mrs . Howard Nylander . Jeff Nylander , Mr . ?. Mrs. Jahn Nylander . 1-27 Alabam,, Street ?i 112. 114 Chicago Mel HecVmian . Alabama Street Mr. X. Mrs. Horace Stovall , 44:01 and 40. Al eb-Ama Street Mr . Ronald Op-een , 114 Alabama Street Mr , Mrs . Thomas Conlon . :r:►26 Baltimore Mrs . John Pisano, Alabama Street Mrs . Fhete. Gi 1 letto-a -f-'►:+: Alabama Street Tarry Guinan , 210 Al t btlma Street r r) CITY OF HUNTINLa i ON BEACH 2M MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92OU OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 3, 1986 Donald Slaven 225 Alabama Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, December 1 , 1986 denied your appeal to the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit 86-50. The City Council approved Conditional Use Permit 86-50 with conditions. Please contact the Development Services Department if you have any questions - 536-5271 . Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt CC: Sumnerhill Dev. Co. 1122 E. Lincoln Ave. Building 4, Suite 11. 3 Orange, CA 92665 ?eve (T o"*Gomm C, Grout Cowl of 0, inge Unly. .►i+rry,a . . , -. a ,; '4 JJ10J :9 5WbrnW 1961 and a'rj ! ' . 1 963 Oro STATE OF CAL1f,DAP41A Q County of Charge 040-6 «.grew C. oft* '1 M, w r pang 8"0% 1O pit a 9Vo.~ W11" t wn a Citizen of the United States And a resident of the County dforesald. I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested In the below entitled mallet I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT Nllh which 1s combincd the NEWS-PRESS, a ne%spaper of gereral circulation, printed and published In the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California. and that a Notice of PUBLIC HEARING , _ of which copy vlached Nereto 1s a true and complete Copy was arinleCl and put)hSheO In the Costa Mesa, Newport Seam Hunt+ngt^m Beach. Fountain Valley. +�rM Irvine. the Soutl' Ccast ccrnmunitles and Laguna Bea:.n s,,.t saic -evogo-G-+per for 1�75>eC):.41q!hYF!3:�;t0 o'1t Ire Issuersl Of 196 { 198 — 198 I declare, urc,2r ocnafty Cf perjury, that the r fCregolnq Is ;rue - nd :cr-c::2. Executed on `_`:'"`.:.r `'_ t 9 S _ al-C to 11A sa, CZ11110 tla. ? G ,azure 001) 40 �� PROOF OF PUrUCAT1OM CITY CW HVNTIM I'SI'M CtACH V"T INTER•DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION1M8.0 6 m w/c. AW r To Charles W. Thompson From James W. Palin , Director. City Administrator Development Service #w Subject SUMMERHILL APPEAL Date November 25 , 1986 OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50 Today we received a copy of the Noise and Air Quality Assessment report prepared by Fred Greve, P. E. Mestre Greve Asn-3ciates , wherein they have assessed both the potential noise and air quality impacts associated with the parking structure for the Summerhill project . o Noise Mitigations - With mitigations including providing a 6 ' wall along the property line of the adjacent residences , reduction of the rear opening of the parking garage from 4 . 5 ' to 2 ' , providing sound absorbing material on the walls of the garage and using textured flooring, the consultant concludes that the noise level emanating from the garage would be below the maximum allowable noise levels contained in the City' s noise ordinance. o Air Qual ;tY - The parking a will increase carbon F� 9 garage 9 monoxide levels at the existing residences by up to 91 . The projected levels will remain below the state ambient air quality standard of 20 PPM and the federal of 35 PPM. The consultant states that single level , open parking garages seldom result in significant air quality deterioration and in fact , enclosed facilities which have mechanical ventilation usually present a much greater impact to the surrounding area . We have concerns with the Noise Level Analysis and would suggest that this report be reviewed by a neutral noise consultant hired by the City. The Planning Commission, in its approval required that the Noise and Ai: Quality Assessment Report submitted be reviewed and approved during a public hearing and that all abutting property owners be notified of this hearing. Presuming the City Council approves the project , we recommend that the report be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review and approval subsequent to review by the City' s noise consultant . JWP:GKG : jr cc: pat Spencer !' ( 6766d ) low/ Summerhill Development Company i ca z z rn 11:2 Eat Lincoln A, November November 24 , 1986 r 0 �'" Building 4 Suuc 113 d tJ OranKe California 92661 ==w , 14 O"A 919. -�c James W. Palin r` r • • Director of Development Services s City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA 92648 RE: Appeal of C .U .P. No . 86-50 Dear Jim, Enclosed is a copy of Noise 6 Air Quality Assessment Report, prepared by Mestre Greve Association for our Huntington Beach project . Fred Greve will be avalible at the December lst City Council hearing for Public. or City Council Question. I will call your office Wednesday morning if you wish to discuss report . Thank you for your assistance . <;64�4- %4-4j� Robert Wells Director of Project Mana?ement RW/rm cc : Susan Pierce - Associate Planner Florence Webb - Senior Planner Marlene A. Fox t NOISE AND AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE PARMG STRUCTURE FOR THE SUMIMERHILL RESIDEiV EYAL DEVELOPMFINrr, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Prepared for SUNih'fERHII1 DEVELOPMM CO. W2 East Lincoln Avenue- Orange, CA 92665 i Prepared By Fred Greve,P2. NW.SME GREVE ASSOCIATE'S 230 Newport Center Drive Suite 230 Newport Pesch,CA 92660 (714) 760.0891 November 12, 1986 1 i i NOISE A,ND AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE PARMG STRUCTURE FOR THE StNINMER1IILL RESIDENTIAL DEYELOPME+N'T9 f:Tl'Y OF HUN NGTON BEACH 1.0 MRODUCrION The proposed residential project (Conditional Use Permit 86-50) includes a parking structure. This structure will be separated from existing residential lots with a 23 foot buffer. The structure will be one level with the floor of the structure approximately 4.5 feet below grade leaving an additional 4.5 feet above grade.Vic portion above grade is currently planned to be open. This report addresses the you ntial for noise and adverse air quality Ievels impacting the adjacent residences. The City of Huntington Beach ha required as a condition on the project (Condition lh.) that the structure be, Fully mechanically-ventilated, subterranean garage with maximum projection at midpoint of 18 inches above grade; QL + Submit a plan prepared by a mechanical enoincer and air quality umsulta nt which would mitigate potential noi:M and air quality conc.rns of the adjacent residential area. This plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission. A public hearing shall be set and abutting property owners shall be notified of such hearing. This report has been prepared to satisfy the second option of the above condition. Measures are proposed which will result in acceptable noise levels in the adjacent residential area and Avoiding any significant air quality impacts. Measures recommended include constructing a 6 foot high sound wall at the property line,installing fiberglass sound absorption board insice the garage area, u :lizing a rough garage flooring, and reducing the opening along the rear side of the parking structure from the currently planned 4.5 feet to 2 feet. The resultant noise levels due to the parking structure will be below that curmndy experienced due to traffic on Lake Street, and below ill City noise standards. 7»0 NOISE ASSES.S�IENT 2.1 Community rise Saks Community noise levels ace measured in terms of the "A-weighted decibel," abbtaviawd dBA. A-weighting is a frequency correction that emmlates overall sound pressum Irmis with the frequency response of the human ear. Exhibit I provides examples of various anises and their typical A•weighted noise keel. SOUND LRVEO AND LOUJDNSSS OF ILLUSTRATWR NOISdS IN INDOOR AND OUTDOOA ANVIROlr W"rS (A-Stela 11'ai/k�a�Ss�++��lt�ya4) bVF11.AL1.LLVRL LOLT"&fA dn(A) tA'vi COMMINM 1I0M9onMDUMT d�MM A�p.ns.6,Mq Nk►n1►e� ��) L,iwb Mi1i+rF Jet AimvIl Ti4OR Nio r Mebmrwm a�,e.rt (Itt) I20�(A)ri T1raw.Lta.6 130 '.MCONITIMMBLY I4tan Aiw&A Cnrw 0 30 R(130 120 LOUD Twb -FisAinxM toTAnONPo*w 1t}wfia6Mtidittt(1101 110 •iwR. ("I )taett•Fi•t1.ur.+(loaIt t10ittl(A;t6Tiwse#twii Jet F1yorw 0 1000 R(IM) ba iNI TOT. DC•10 6010 M 100M(A)I IU=r L W 100 VIRY Odom La"s6(106) Bell 1.3A Nt6ito�tera t00PL f101f1 LOUD PMW Move(4a) t wile 177.002 0 ear P. Hr„g.p.bm*M 00MA)4lum r LOW "we •LM&"u "f+a► Cw wwh is 20K(f1) Pod>!d Airp•t+Flyesm 0 1000 PL(56) Mom 7jaw"(a) todf(A)tIT1w rLesd Died Tnsdl. 60 MM/so R(16) Gab@V a+rvW(pl NoelTnie.AS Wit 0 IMPL (11) Mah Udws Am biari lewd(10) Usia6>> lrieeie(7q M000ATELY P 1w Gr.6s WK to 2S R(7� now �0 t,pUp ti�ns•rq f 70 PLPI'vnhn�+er TV.Avft Vt OwW j !"dM.IM00AM(76.4w• 6) CAA Itrlow p t0 R(0-701 A.Cm AtieWag Wit 4102 tR(40) D uwiftu YP"Rw 0 to FL w 16 R(601 0 AKA)W60 si W Caeaeeaila(10► .40 aL'T Time Tnrfw wrre f 101 Ft M X A(A){M a Lad 40 ow Gi( 4 AN(A)11■Ltd w Li A lom U" 66M Swt■d(40) j JUST Apdt)Ll (dO(A)Sane trnrrd) Ti0tiE3iIOlJJ 10 Or 1W RPO Ji 30L=Agent eel bwm Mr+4r G Ti"M ad L Deb itw«6.Ar11i0L aDr 1w+w b tte Gr,./Lw A.0Mn.16'a0l'.2. MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exn1t)lR I CONSUMNO IMM"11!1! Examples of Typical Sound Levels 0 The "equivalent Noise level," or Lag is the average noise level on an energy basis for any specified time period. The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour, specifically, the average noise based on the em;y content (acoustic energy)of the sound. It tan be thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the same energy content as the fluctuating noise level. The equivalent noise level has the units of dBA, therefore, a sound measured for one hour may be expressed as a one hour Lrq of 57 dBA. Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise:. 'These account for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute !o the effects of noise on main, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time of day. The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL %7 ie represents a time weighted 24 hour average noise level based on the A•weighted decibel. Time%weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times.The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m, to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. 'nese tint, periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. A CNEL noise level may be Mported as it "CNEL of 60 dBA;" "60 dBA CNEL," or simply "60 CNEL." Typical noise levels in terms of the CNEL scale for different types of communities are presented.in Exhibit 2. 21 Noise Standards The Condition of Approval imposed upon the project does not identify what noise levels arc acceptable for the parking structure. Therefore, other�ity policies and reguladons were consulted for guidance. The City of Huntington Beach commonly requires that new developments be mitigated so that noise levels in private outdoor livings areas (i.e.,rear yard., and patio areas) not exceed 6S CNEL. � Additionally, they require that new developments meet a 45 CAL indoor noise standard. The 45 CNEL indoor standard is used by most municipalities in the State of California, and also is contained in the California Noise Insulation Standards (California Administrative Code,Title 24, Part 6, Division T7.5, Chapter 1,Subchapter 1, Article 4, Sections T25.28). The code mqub= that "interior community noise levels (CNEL) with windows closed, attributable to exterior sources shall not e1,:xd an annual CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room." The code requires that this standard be applied to all new hotels, motels, apartment houses and dwellings other than detached single family dwellings.The Noise Insuladon Standards are applied only to new developments. The Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.40.010 to 8.40.020) establishes exterior and interior noise standards for noise sources operating on private pro)mrty and impacting an adjacent land use. The ordinance is a iditionally applied to fixed noise sources such as air conditioners or industrial operations. To our knowledge it has never i fen applied to a parking garage. However, the noise levels presented in the ►poise thrdinance represent noise levels that are deemed to be acceptable, and therefore, are a reasonrble design goal for the propoad project. Table I indicates the noise level and duration that can not be exceeded between, the hour: of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The znaise standards art S dBA mom stringent for the hours 10:00 p.m. to 7 anti The residential indoor noise standards are also presented in Table 1 for daytime hours, and we 10 dBA more stringent during nightsirne hours. CNEL Outdoor Location �- --- Apartment Next to Freeway 3/4 mile From Touchdown at Major Airport —8(3-- •4---=-Downtown With Some Construction Activity Urban High Density Apartment _7Q- --•-�=-'Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue --60- Old Urban Residential Axe& �- -- Wooded Residential -Agricultural Crop Lard [_,, Residential Wilderness Ambient w3O� MES 29 GREVE ASSOC'IATU Exhibit 2 COMU "a aiawam Typical Outdoor Nape Levels � TABLL 1 ORANGE COUNTY NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. I NOISE LEVEL NOT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TO BE EXCEEDED IDURA71ON OF EXCESS EXTERIOR STANDARDS 55 dBA 30 minutesftur FA dBA 15 ntinutes/bour 65 dBA 5 rninutes/hour 70 dBA 1 minute/hour 75 dBA For any period of time INTERIOR STANDARDS 55 dBA 5 nunutes/houx 60 dBA 1 minutc/hour 65 dBA For any period of time As will be seen later the most restrictive levels am those not to be exceeded "for any period of time." Outdoors during daytime hours this noise level is 75 dBA. Howtwrz, the parking structure will be open during all flours of the day including nighttime hours. Themfore.t� cri_.._figal.paiN 11rii1 nfl:Lg be:3ce;Ag d&2n of time Cogiga 70sIHA. 2.3 Existing Noise Level Measurements Short term community noise measurements were conducted at two sites adjacent to the existing residences. The sites am depicted in Exhibit 3.The ntiea mv.—a-ents woo made with a Genrad Noise Meter Model 1933. The system meets ANSI Type 1 standards, and,has current calibration catification traceable to the National Bureau of Stwulards. The results of tha measurement series art presented in Table 2. U measurements were made on November 11, 1986 during the late afternoon hours. The measurenunt results are pry sented in terirtis of the:equivalent noise levels and maximum (L max) and minimum (Lorin) noise levels. The Lmax level represents the loudest noise level experienced. The Irvin levels represent the most quiet noise level experienced.. These levels were due traffic noise souraa. �I AfGA I �", ;r y►''*,�„r�i •i/�••`fit'jam'. iiiJ :�' x i•'' = : . -fit� � � � � �► ,r �� X. 41 tom► �, .� ALAOAM AWL UUME ASSOCIATES i I i TABLE Z NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS SITE Leq Lmin Lmax A 61 53 71 B 58 53 69 The noise levels measured were dominated by traffic noise. 'Ale Lmax values were caused by loud trucks of cars. It should be noted that the Lmax values currently experienced at the existing residential areas are in the 70 dBA range. A extrapolation of the Leq measurements indicate the current CNF,L noise levels are roughly 60 CNEL. 2.4 Noise Mmurtments of Parking Structure Noise Noise measurements were made of parking lot noise. The measurements were made to determine the noise levels generated by the various activities associated with the parking structure. Traffic associated with parking structures is not of sufficiient volume to emceed community noise standards that are based on a time averaged scale such as the CNF.L scale. However, the instantaneous maximum sound 1---ls generated by car door slamming, engine start-n , ate car pass-bys can be annoying to ry .-iby , .-3idents.Tire squeal may also be a problem d� on the type of parking surface. Estim&P. .if ine maximum noise levels associated with some =8 lot activities are presented below, and ara based on limited measurements conducted by Matra Greve Associates able 3). The noise levels presented are for a distance of,>0 feet from the source, and a-c die maximum noise level generated, A range is given to reflect the variability of noise generated b) various automobile types and driving styles. I I TABLE 3 i MAXMUM NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY PARKING LOTS (dBA at 50 Feet) EVENT MAX. NOISE LEVEL Door Slam 60 to 70 Engine Start-up 60 to 70 Car pass-by 35 to 70 To confirm the reliability of du above level:,awsw=mts were made at 50 feat fMM the existing packing structu m at South Coast 2'laza. 01 he measure rots for door slamming and car start-up ranted from below 55 d$A up to 70 dBA. The upper range for door slam was from a car in the nearest parking space to the noise monitor and was a very viga coos door slam. MW lower end of the range was for can that were farther from the measurement location.The car pass-bys were in the riu go of 55 to 70 dBA with typical values in the low 60%. Tin Iouder car pass-bys and engine start-up were generated by vehicles with poor muffler systems. The measurements also confirmed that the attribute of paiIcing lot noise of most concern ve the maximum sound levels generated. The traffic volume within the puking lot was not hi h enough to increase the average ambient noise level. The measurements were made from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., typically one of the Host busy shopping times. 2-5 Noise Levels without Mitipdon The maximum noise levels generated by the parking :,xuctwv and impacting the ad':rcent residences were assessed- Using a base noise level of 70 dBA at 50 feet, as indicated ty the measurement results, maximum noise levels at the rirs4 second, and third floors of an adiacent residence were projected. The residence was assumed to be 10 feet from the property line which represents the closest building to the proposed project. The projected maximum noise levels are presented in Table 4. TABLE 4 MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS (DBA)WrIWOUT MTIIGATION Floor Maximum Noise Level (dBA) First Floor 70.5$ Second Floor 70.2 I'hixd Floor 70.2 . Does not include effect of proposed 6 foot wall at property line. The noise levels projected for the parking structure air slightly above the nighW= Noise Ordinance lint of 70 dBA, and would also appew to be at or slightly above the maximum noise levels currently expei r enced due to w_hicles on Lake Strait.. Whde the wunitigned noise levels am not excessively loud, they do ap{kar to be slightly abovc the design ;oil of'10 dBA. Therefore, additional mitigation measu+rm are presented below. It should also be :wscd that the noise levels in terms of the CNEL scale will be very low. Based on the noise mraaumments of simaw ' g facilities, proje+ctiwa of d*tom, eve levels at the nearest midencc aso in the 50 w 55 T ge. It sbould be nosed that this noise Wet is less than that curmdy expaienced due to trafrx on Lake Street. The traffic mm Ca Lake Street will be reduced sabstantially with the propowd project, since the balsas ooMum will act a noise barrier and shield exisdn residences from the baft nom a. Tlsa Wav, in berms of the CNM scale the main kvrU rri11 mmly*Uease u tt am=reaidraws with tea PwPosed PM* AVA $ - -- MOO- 1A Rewmrn mW Noise Mltigoitiom Four features are recommended to reduce the parking structure noise impacting the adjacent residential area. Each is presented and discussed below. Erilvide 6 Egot Wall. The developer hs+s already committed to construction of a 6 foot wall along the property line between the parking garage and the adjacent residence. The 6 foot wall will interrupt the direct line of sight between the noise source in the garage and the observer which is the first floor residence. Any time the direct line of sight between the source and the observer is interrupted a significant noise reduction will occur. The more the sound has to bend around the noise barrier to reach the receiver, the more the noise will be reduced ne 6 foot wall should be constructed as a sound wall. That is, it should be constructed of concrete block or other masonry material so that sufficient mats will be present to prevent sound from passing through the wall. Similarly, the wall should contact no holes or gaps which would also reduce the efficiency of the wall. The sound wall will reduce the noise levels experienced in the rust floor of the existing residential areas by at least S dBA. The second and third floors (if present) will be able to look over the 6 foot wall grid receive no noise :eduction. $gdurs.HC&r 021nit& It is recommended that the oMing at the rear of the garage (facing the residents be reduced in size. Currently, it is envisioned to have an opening of 4.5 feet (measured on the vertical). It is recommended that the opening be reduced to 2 feeL Exhibit 4 demonstrates the twofold effect of reducing the opening. (Exhibit 4 illustrates the third floor situation, however, a similar situation occurs for the second floor.) First, it reduces the portion of the garage area that has an uninterrupted line of sight to the nearby residence. Secondly, it increases the length of the shortest direct line of sight distance. The net effect is that, it is projected to decrease the maximum sound levels experienced in the second and third floors b at least 1.5 dBA. (Reduction of the rear opening does have a minimum adverse effect on the aw quality levels, which is discussed in the next section.) ProvIde SgUnd A s rWng.Material Tn Qar2ge- One of the typical problems with parking garages is that the noise is generated in a very reflective environment. That is, the concrete wall, floor, and ceiling reflect the noise from the cars and reinforce the sound that is generated. The result is that the noise heard is due to both the automobiles and an echo caused by the reflections off of the hard surfaces. Therefore, it is recommended that the ceiling be surfaced with acoustical absorption material. The entire ceiling does not have: to covered; only the first 40 feet of the ceiling closest to the residential area. The noise reduction actAeved by the addition of the absorptive material is projected to be at least 2 dBA. ,Textured Earking SurfacL A texture parking surface for the garage Is recommended to prevent tire squeal. Smooth fink-hexl concrete promotes fire squeal.The use of a slightly rough concm,e finish (e.g., broom finish) or an Asphalt surface virtually eliminates fire squeaL The combined effects of the recommended noise mitigations ire presented in 'fable S. The maximum noise levels for all floors of the adjacent residential a va will be less the:.-, 70 dBA. The resultant noise levels will be below the noise standards contained in the Noise Ordinance, below the 65 CNM standard imposed upon new projects, and below existing noise levels. ?he noise levels presented in Table S will be outdoor noise levels. With windows open the noise levels experienced maids the existing residences will typically be 12 to is dBA quieter than the outdoor noise levels. Therefore, the resulting indoor noise levels grill also be less than the value of 55 dBA (fox nighttime hours) idendticd in the Noise Ordinance for indoor areas. M4 Planned Rear Opening . . . . . . . . : : : : : : : : : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777-770 7-77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'T'H Tit D i�i.bOli � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . : : : : : : : : : : . : : : : : : : : L LLbV VLLL'�r'�.iJ�.IJJJ�iaa+.ri..V bt��ir 1•.a 1w.f+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : : : : : : : : : : : : . SECOND FLOOR: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • •v�r rrr�r�rr:����.1•����+���rwwr+wrwwp,w.w.��� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . .FIRST' FLOOR . . . PARKING GARAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROPERTY EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNE i Reduced Rear Opening . . . . • , . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w.��w�w••wwwww�•.�.IW�.....�wlwwwwY ww��www�ww�w�� • . • . . . . • • . . . . . • . • . . • + • . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . • • . . • . . • • . • . • • . . ♦ . • • • . • . �i�ii�4,r�.r1i.1•v•.h•rWrf�wfr�d�iiiiiiiVbrb«v. . • • . . • • • • • • . . . . • • . • • . . . + • • . • . • . • • . • • • . . . . . . . . :SECOND FLOOR. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . •�i+�T�r�rrrrrrrrrr...,�,���������•t*Trwrri•ri�i" : . . . . . : . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THIRST nOO1t- . . • PARKING . . : . GARAGE . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . : PAOPce•nr EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNt MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 4 0014 t,Twa, Effect of Reducing Opening TABLE S MAXUvI JM NOISE LEVELS (DBA)WrM MMGATION Floor Maximum Noise Level (dBA) First Floor 63.5 Second Floor 66.7 Third Floor 66.7 3.0 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT 3.1 Local Winds Winds in the project area are almost always driven by the dominant landlsea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime on-shore sea breezes. At night the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling towards the sea. Wind dkection is altered by local canyons, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. During the transition period from one wind pattern to the other, the dominant wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor wind direction maximum from the south. The frequency of calm winds (less than 2 mules per hour) is 14 percent Therefore, there is little stagnation -in the project vicinity, especially during busy daydme traffic hours.The typical daytime wind flow is- on-shore. ne onshore wind breeze will pass through the proposed parking wage and then into the existing residential area. Therefore, care must be taken to insure that the pollutants generated in the garage will be dispersed in a manner so as not significantly degrade the air quality in the existing residential area which is commonly downwind. 3.2 Existing Air Quality Carbon monoxide is the pollutant of rna'or concern in parking garages and along roadways. Carbon monoxide is a primary pollutant. Unlike ozone, carbon monoxide is directly emitted from a variety of sources.The most notable source of carbon monoxide is motor vehicles. For this reason carbon monoxide concentrations are usually indicative of the the local air quality generated by a roadway network or parking facility, and are used as an indicator of its impacts on the local air quality. Comparisons of levels with State and Federal carbon monoxide standards indicate the severity of the projected concentrations. 'Ile Federal and California standards for carbon monoxide art presented in Table 6. WA r 0 TABLE 6 FEDERAL AND CALIFORNIA CAMM MONOXIDE STANDARDS Averaging Time Standard Federal 1 hour 35 ppm 8 hours 9 ppm California l hour 20 ppm 8 hours 9 pprn The nearest air monitoring action operated by the SCAQM„D is in Costa Mesa, apCrepresentative ximately 4.5 miles cast of the project site. The data collected at dais station is considemd to of the air quality experienced in the vicinity of the project arms. Carbon monoxide (CO) air quality data for 1979 through 198S for the Costa Mesa station is provided in Table 7. TABLE 7 AIR QUALITY LEVELS NEASURED AT THE COSTA MESA AMBIENT AIR. MONrMRLNG STATION California National Maxunum Days State Pollutant Standard Standard Year Level Std. Exceeded CO 9 Nour m 9 ppm 1979 21 18 for for 8 hour 1990 17 7 1981 IS 5 1982 21 2 1983 14 1 1984 13 1 1985 19 S The number of times each year than the carbon motwxide st>:ndards bave been exceeded have steadily decreased over the past reveal years at the Costa Maa Sancta unto 1995. It is unknown whether the 1985 data retresents an Upturn is eomentradons, of "Vem snrwrcaiopcal conditim resulted in b.. thorn usualc a n c pnhad . 1U tad iu mvinam carbon taotaxide concentrations arpariaacydd is less clear. A are boat high of 21 ppm has been reached twice in the hest six yan. The average of the yearly 1 is ar maximum for the Tear teve yan it about 17 pPat. Caabar asonoxids is generally acaasaida+ed 11i be s l+oeatl t. That us carbon mowxide is diawxdy wnitwd from several wm= (mat y eve vehscles). wA for bigbest The i t W.A t r Costa Mesa shoves is located nn:aor Harr w Boulevard, and it Is vary 111 rly that the carbon wsoeaz de cvnr;e stradons recorded at this station are highly influenced by die imm vehicle acdvity one this roadway. Estimates of the background oonctntradons wer made based on the Cosa Mesa nardtodng data. The average of the maximum 1-hour concentrations over the put 7 you is 17 A portion of the cuborr mawxide levels are attributable to Harbor Houk nL This ror�a a nu*arterial roadway with high levels of trafrt'ic,especially during peak bouts. It was assured that 3 pprn were attributable to Harty• r Boulevard and that a maximum of 14 pp►ru was attributable to ambient sources during worst case conditions. Thereforo, 14 was added to the worst case;; meteorological 1-hour projections to account for background car monoxide levels. 3.3 Pro*W Downwind Camtr2dons Concentrations of carbon monoxide that would result because of the parkins we projected. Theso are the levels that are anticipated under a worst case scenario; jp= anlyI a very low wind speed, peak hour activity for the garage, and high background levels of carbon monoxide corning from sources other than the garage. A box model was used for ft analysis. Data and assumptions used for the modeling included the following. 1. Idle emissions are at the rate of 2.6179 grams per minute, and run emissions are 38.74 grams per mile. (From the Sonth Coast Air Quality Management Distractsi "Air Quality H&Wbook.n) 2. Average car idle dine is 1 minute. Average drive disumce from parking space to exit is 500 feet. 3. During the maximum hour of use 115 vehicles would arrive or leave. This mcpresents 30 percent of tfi-i available parking stalls. 4. A very slow wind speed of 2 miles per hour was assumed. ('I`his is the typical assumption for worst case wind speeds.) 5. A worst case assumption of 14 ppm of carbon monoxide for the background level was used. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 8. Conti�-emustions for 3 cases at presented. A no project case is presented, the parkin g structure as currently vlatn 4 and the parking structure will: mar ar opening reduced to 2 fat (as recommended.. in the noise wWysis) arm assessed, 11e cvncentrstionz proated are for a location Lt the doamwlnd alga of the perrldng structure. lassie additional dispersion will occaar between th= am residences, and therefore, these lerrss are rW r!entatiorewill be at lean rxiating residences. Tla oonroeatrstiarts rep eesent peak hour c�eesl&&dons. f TABLES CAR" MCNONME CONCW RATIONS DIRECTLY DUWNWtND OF THE PARKING MUC rM (PPM) CAN Comenntion (ppm) No project 14.0 With Puking Garage As 14.5 Currently planned With Parkin Gana with 15.2 Redu+cod Garage Opening The parking garage will increast peak hour carbon monoxide levels at the existing residences by 4 to 9 percent depending on the size of the rear ng.Mode tm dy, the trod levels will remain well below the State ambient air quality stain lard of 26 pppm and the standard of 35 ppm. The results of the parking garage analysis are typical for this type of facility. Single level, open parking garages seldom result in significant air quality deterioration. In fact, eneloaed facilities which have mechanical ventilation usually prtsent a much doer impact to the ' surrounding area. The amount of air that is passed through an enclosed facility is much less than with an open facility, and thenefom, the air that is exhausted has a much hlher concentration of air pollutants. Care must be taken to locate the exhan3t air vents away from residences to avoid impacts. i FOR CITY COUNC ACTON ft WMW tr: Honorable Mayor and City Council MoiiBsi try: Charles W. Thompson, City Administr James W. Palin., Director, Development Services i 1 Mt: APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CO I1000AL USE PERMIT NO. 86•-50 I� ow Vft COWNU !buoy? ( 'Yar ( ] New Panay or ExoWtim sump""of NOW# lMoar 10ndedon, Anriy*, FundingSwm, ANvn sOve Acdome At r1r: 8TATRNN&T OF ISSUR: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal to Planning Commission ' s appra-,al of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-501, a request to permit a 161 unit planned residential development project with request for special permit . The appeal was filed by Donald Slaven, an adjacent resident and property owner . The appellant contends the project is too intense and may be detrimental to adjacent properties , residents , and working persons. Also of concern are the traffic impbcts and noise and fumes associated with the parking garage . TLc accompanying applications (Coastal Development Permit No . 86r-30 and Negative Declaration No. 86-51 ) were not appealed . RECOMMENDATIOL' Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-50 . Planning Commission action on October 21 , 1986 : ON MOTION BY PIERCE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50 ( IN CONJUNCTION WITH COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-30 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86--51 ) WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Rowe, Winchell , Pierce, Porter, Mirjahangir , Livengood , Erskine NOBS : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN : None FINDINGS FOR DENSITY BONUS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50 : 1. The capacities of the City and County water , sewer and itorw drain systems are adequate or will be adequate to accommodate the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned land uses in the Area . 000 A 1 V M�� 2* The pro sod increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school enrollments , and recreational resources . 1. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted nor the overall intent of the general plan sacrificed. FINDINGS FOR SPECIAL PERMIT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50 : 1 . The proposed development will promote better living conditions and environment . 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 property value in such neighborhood and the City . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT`NO. 86-50 : 1 . Through the use of the special permit , the proposed planned residential development is in compliance with the City ' s development standards for this type of housing and is consistent with the combined zoning on the subject property . 2 . The proposed planned residential project on 7 .4 acres is proposed to be developed at 25 units per acre per Downtown Specific Plan , 15 units per acre per Oldtown Specific Plan , and a density bonus of 34 units which is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and Oldtown Specific Plan regulations and General Plan. 3. The lot size , depth, frontage , street widths , and through the use of special permit , all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision will be in compliance with the standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State map Act and supplementary f City Subdivision Ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT NO. 86-50 : 1 . The site plan, floor plans , and elevations received and dated i October 9, 1986, and supplemental elevations received and dated October 14 , 1966 , shall be revised to reflect the following modifications: a . OAQ unite at the southern end of the project shall be two-story. b. The applicant shall work with the Department of Developoont Services to reduce the number of units from 161 to 159. (6601d ) ltcA - 11/17/86 -2- R r I C . Combination of Atlanta resident and guest entries to be located opposite the proposed Lake Street signalized Intersection. d . Method of access from guest parking to elevator. e. Turnarounds provided at secured entries . f . Maximum building height of 35 feet from sidewalk grade . g . Revised garage layout for guest and resident parking. h . Fully mechanically-ventilated, subterranean garage with maximum projection at midpoint of 16 inches above grade; or , Submit a plan prepared by a mechanical engineer and air quality consultant which would mitigate potential noise and air quality concerns of the adjacent residential area . This plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission . A public hearing shall be set and abutting property owners shall be notified of such hearing. i . A 6 foot block wall fence will be provided along the entire eastern property line . 2 . Prior to issuance of building permits , the applicant shall submit the following plans : a . Landscape and irrigation plan to the D.--partment of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval . Said landscape plan shall include 24 inch box trees along the east property lines trees shall be of a minimum height of 15 feet at time of installation with tree spacing to be determined by the City . Said plan shall aleo include a landscaped berm along north and south portions of property adjacent to east property line . All existing Canary island Palms shall be relocated onsite and within the main recreational area . All existing Washington.la Robusta Palms shall be relocated in conforms.ice with the street tree plan of Downtown Design Guidelines . b . A preliminary gateway plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the landscape and irrigation plan and in compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines . c. A lighting plan for all on-site lighting shall be submitted. d. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment . NC'A - 11/17l66 - - (6602d ) a. Rodent eradication plan , approved by the Orange county Victor Control District . f . Grading and Drainage Plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval . g . A parking management plan to reflect assigned space and handicap parking in compliance with State regulations. h . Plans for Recreation Buildings to the Department of Development Services for review and approval . i . A copy of the recorded final magi to the Department of Development Services and Public Works. j . The applicant shall enter into an agreement to provide 34 unite for a 27 . 21 density bonus to be for low and moderate income housing units of which 32 ( 201 of total units proposed ) shall be used to satisfy the Mello Bill requirements for affordable housing in the coastal areas . The applicant shall provide housing units for persons of low or moderate income subject to the provisions of Government Section 65590 (d ) . The applicant 's compliance with Section 65590 (d) of the Government Code in terms of amount and location of affordable housing provided shall be subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services . This agreement shall be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office as to form and content and approved by the Director of Development Services . " k . A materials pallet indicating final color choices of the building materials and product types along with detail design features and shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for comment with final review and approval by the Planning Commission . 1 . One see of revised site and garage plans and elevations for review and approval by the Director of Development Services . m. Screening plan for exposed piping in subterranean garage shall be provided . 3 . Orange Avenue/Atlanta Avenue from Lake Street/Third Streftt to Alabama Street shall be dedicated and constructed as a 100 foot primary arterial highway to Public Works standards and subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines . 4 . Take Street shall be dedicated and constructed as a 90 foot primary arterial highway to Public Works standards and subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines . A I S. Pecan Avenue shall, be dedicated and constructed to public Works standards. 6. An easement for underground utiliites in the vacated Lake Street alignment shall be maintained. 7. parking will be prohibited along orange/Atlanta Avenue and Lake Street . S. patterned concrete within the street portion public right-of- way shall be limited to locations and design established in the Downtown Design Guide . g. All required landscaping shall be installed on site, not within public right-of-way, and maintained by the developer . A detailed landscape plan and sprinkler plan shall be submitted in accordance with the Downtown Design Guidelines . 10 . Water mains shall be constructed in Pecan Avenue, Lake Street and Orange/Atlanta Avenue to tie into existing systems . 11. storm drain faci:ities shall be constructed as required by the Department of Public Works . Cross gutters will not be allowed on Orange/Atlanta Avenue and Lake Street , 12. The access on Lake Street north of Orange Avenue may be limited to right turns in and out depending on traffic conditions . 13 . Traffic signals are planned at Lake/Orange and Atlanta/Lake. All necessary conduit for these signals shall be constructed by the developer , 14 . The overhead utilities on Lake Street shall be relocated to the new street alignment . 15 . On-site water system shall be constructed and dedicated per Public Works requirements . lb. On-site sewer system shall be private, but is subject to Public Works requirements. 17. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the ;ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department . I 16. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (271 ) in width and shall be of radius type construction . 19. Fire access shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and Department of Development Services. 20. An automatic sprinkler system approved by the: Fire Department shall be installed throughout the complex. This includes parking structure and buildings . RCA 11117/66 4M 5- (660 3d ) � 4 f 21 . A Met combination stand pipe system approved by the Eire Department shall be installed in all stairways. 22. 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 pulls 23 . Elevators shall be sized 6' 8" wide by 4 ' 30 deep to accommodate the use of an ambulance gurney. Elevators shall be provided on all floors including subterranean parking level . 24 . Any proposed trash chute locations and systems shall be approved by the Fire Department . 25. Fire lanes are to he posted and signer] to comply with Fite Department standards . 26. Water supply shall be capable of providing 5, 000 gallons per minute for fire flow . 27 . Fire extinguishers shall be provided within 75 feet of travel lanes. Type of extinguishers and locations must be in accordance with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards . 28 . All security gate locations proposed for installation shall be subject to review and approval by the Fire Department and Public Works and shall include a turn-around . i 29. Low volume heads shall be used in all showers . 30. All building spoils , such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials , shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 31 . Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lot and recreation area . A lighting plan shall be submitted to Development Services which illustrates that spillage onto adjacent properties will not occur . y BbCA -• 21/17/86 -6- t 6602d y ICI ' 33. All structures on the subject property whother attached or detached, shill be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report prepared undev the rupervisi.on of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering , with the application for a building permit. 33 . Acoustical material shall be used on the walls and ceilings of the subterranean garage . 34 . An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factor as indicated by the geologist 's report . Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prier to issuance of building permits. 35. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the locations of the clothes dryers . This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. 36 . Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the location of cooking facilities, port-a-heaters, and central heating units . This requirement ma be waived provided that the applicant will provide a mole energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. ANALYSIS: APPLICANT: Redevelopment Agency and summerhill Development Company 1122 E. Lincoln Avenue Building 4 , Sui-e 113 Orange, California: 92665 APPELLANT: Donald Slaven 225 Alabama Huntington bizach, California 92648 LOCATION: East of Lake Street , between Pecan and Atlanta REQUEST: 161 unit planned residential development DISCUSSION: The proposed project lies in the Oldtown Specific Plan District 2 and Downtown Specific Plan District 6. The two zones at a result of the adoption of precise plan of Street klignment No. �4-2 which r l �7- (66024) established a now street configuration of Atlanta/Lake/Orange. The Oldtown Specific Plan portion will contain the residential structures and parking while the Downtown Specific Plan portion will be used as the main recreational area for the project . I, Since the project is divided into two zoning classifications , staff analysed the project by using the density allowed for each zone . The density ratios as required by the planned Residential Standards do not relate to Oldtown or Downtown Specific Plan properties . Tentative Tract No. 12266 was approved on appeal by the City Council on August 6 , 1985, and is valid until August 6, 1987. No further action is required at this time . j As a method to establish guidelines for public improvements, elements such as signage, landscaping , and lighting, the Downtown Design Guidelines were adopted by City Council resolution . Architectural elements must be of a mediterranean style and in conformance with the guidelines. The proposed development as approved by the Planning Commission is in substantial compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines . The applicant net several times with various City members to discuss a proposed apartment project . Staff recommended the project be processed as a planned residential development under condominium standards so that additional open space and parking would be provided. The applicant has indicated a desire to gent the units at this time . The Planning Commission concurred with staff ' s recommendation to reduce the number of units from 161 to 159. Based on the General Plan designation , 34 of the unite shall be designated for low and moderate income households . Adjacent property owners to the east have voiced concern for privacy and screening for the residential properties . Staff recommends a landscape buffer be created between those properties and the proposed PRD . Staff also met with an adjacent property owner regarding fumes and noise that may be generated from the naturally ventilated parking garage . Staff recommended the Parking structure be fully mechanically ventilated and project a maximum of 18 inches above grade at the midpoint , or submittal of a plan prepared by a mechanical engineer and acoustical engineer which would mitigate and minimize the noise and air quality concerns . The appellant contends the proposed 161 planned residential development is incompatible with the neighborhood for a number of reasons. He also is concerned with the construction of the parking garage and with the relocation of the power lines. Staff evaluated these concerns prior to the Planning Commission's action and measures to mitigate these concerns are included as conditions of approval . Access to the site has been limited to three points; Pecan ( residents only ) , Lake (quest only ) , and Atlanta ( in alignment with the controlled intersection at Lake) . Costs involved with the relocation of the overhead utility lines to the new street alignment � will be borne by the utility companies , RCA - 11/17/66 -6- (6602d ) qtu i t i I JQ11ltRMTAL STATUSATUS The, Planning Commission approved Negative Declaration No. 86-91 and no further action by the City Council is necessary . [RIMING FMCS: Not applicable. ALTBRNATIVN ACTION MO. 1 : Approve Conditional Use Permit for a maximum of 125 units in compliance with the General Plan and based on the a 1plicable previously cited findings and conditions of approva . ALTUNATIV2 ACTION N0, 2: Deny the Conditional Use permit NO. 86-50 based on the following findings : FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50 : 1 . The proposed 161 unit planned residential project may have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the area and may be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood . 2 . The proposed 161 unit planned residential project is too intense a development for the site and not compatible with surrounding uses xi, the neighborhood. 3 . Site layout , building design and location of the proposed project may not be harmonious with existing adjacent developments because of project intensity . 4 . Vehicular access points may create traffic or circulation problems . ATTACHMENTS : 1 . Appeal letter received October 31 , 1986 2. planning Commission meeting minutes of October 21 , 1986 3. Staff report dated October 21 , 1986 JWP : SP: kla RCA - 11/17/86 409- t+j1 city iF 10-30-86 Hi1MTIN010N eE�,tM.C��:�r. 225 Ala-ana Mayor Robert Maadic �,* r; +aC Huntington Beach, 92648 Council Members, Huntiag"�dtt%IBeg:p City Hal 1 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. Dear Council Members: On Tuesday, October 21 , 1986 several citizens including myself attended a Planning Commission Meeting in which Conditional Use Permit No. 86-50 Summerhill Development Co, and Redevelopment Agency of Huntington Beach, requested approval of a 161 unit planned residential development as apartment rentals located on the East side of realignment of Lake Street between Atlanta and Pecan. That evening despite several speakers raising key issues about the integrity of this project, ► the Planning Commission %mod to approve the applicants request. I hereby request an appeal, of the Planning Commission' s daclsion to approve. I speak on behalf of neighbors present that nightg as well as those who could not attend, yet oppose the high density concept for this long established residential area. I will recount some of the reasons for appealing this decision. o The proposed 161 unit planned residential project is too intense for the site and not compatible with the surrounding uses in the neighborhood. o Site layout. building design and location of the proposed project may not be harmonious Frith existing adjacent developments because of project intensity. 1 o The proposed 161 unit project may have a detrimental effect upon the general health. wal fare safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the area and may be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. o Vehicular access points will create additional traffic flow, increased vehicle speeds and severely impact the already strained parking situation near this project area. a A proposed underground parking structure to accommodate over 350 cars, will allow for hazardous exhaust fuses to blow directly into my house and other residences directly in back. of the project. Noise generated within this structure would also adversely affect these same propertiese o How and where the high voltage power lines will be re- routed, and 1who will foot the cost9I Smaller projects than this have been given intense scrutiny with lendhtly delay& to allow for Planning Com".issionr and City Council rev+iewe Mq--,is this project being rasrodded i 1 II without the slightest tilt of aoaa�cienticus inspection, 1-:.�'ee that the CitJ Ww a duty and obligation to protect the eavirdaunent, fro * ty values and well being of the la established neighborkaod ha surrounds this planned pxro ject# an4 to seek out a less intense use for this land* Sincerel�r. Donald glaven i i r , r „.ter. , . -,.. .. . . ........_. ..............., „_..-....-............ .. ..-_. - — - J NA "I 35COND MY NZWOUL TO APPM" CODE . AND It NMSOD ADMION IT 42 ctvv coloca, by TMs VOL No s AT381 A ilinchell , tarter, Mir jahangir N032 j veng Pieces Asset Tt Erakine AISVAZ None ON J.'"ARD C- 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Np. 86-50 CO&4TAL DZYCLOPONT PERMIT - APPLICANT= SUMMERHILL DEVELOPMENT CO. AND RSDEVELOPI42NT AGENCY Conditional Use Permit No . 86-SO/Coastal Devoloteent Permit No. 66-30/Negative Declaration No . 86-51 in a conceptual development plan for a 161 unit planned residential development. The proposed project lies in the Oldtown specific Plan District 2 and Downtown Specific Plan district 6. The two atones are a result of the adoption of Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 84-2 which established a new street configuration of Atlanta/Lake/Orange . The Oldtown Specific Plan portion will contain the residential structures and parking while the Downtown Specific plan portion will be used as the main recreational area for the project. Since the is divided into two Bonin project 9 classification& staff analysed the project by using a pro--rats density allowed for each zone . Tentative Tract Me . 12268 was approved on appeal by the City Council on August 6, 19850 and is valid until August S. 1987. No further action is required at this time . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at thia time, the Department of Development services pasted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-51 for ten days, and no coaslents, either verbal or written have been received . The staff, in its initial study of the project , has recommended that a negative declaration be issued Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 86-50 and Coastal Development permit No. 86-30, it is nectssc ry for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 88-30. COA4:T AL STATUS : zz... - _.. The Aubject site is an area designated as *non appealable• which is all the area of the coastal atone : lying inland from the appeal jurisdiction . PC Minutes 10/21/96 -12- (6522d ) I l The cloning comission reserves the right to revoke the approval of a chili core facilit it a violet 'a 01 the editions of approval occurs. 11 revocati proceedings hail be procedod by a public hearing. A NOTY WAS MADE 8Y LIVENG000i SECOND by FIRK r TO ApMMI CODE ANENDNA NO. 66-300 AS ANENDED, AND RECOMMEN ADOPTION NY "I CITY COUNCIL* Y TOR FOLLOWING VOTE r AIM we , Winchell , Porter , Livongood Pierce, Nirjahangir NOM N e ABSRHT: Er kin* ABSTAIN: No C-4 CODE AMEND .NT NO. 86-27 APPLICANT: TTY OF HUNTING BEACH This item was contin ed from the tatting of September 16, 1986; with direction to staff to modify th ordinance to allow for secondary entrances into the uni a in or r to comply with fire codes for emergency exit require nts . Code Amendment No. 86--21 s eing processed as a result of Planning Commission direction on J1 3, 1906 . At that meeting, staff presented several issues concern and identified changes that could be made in the cod f second unit additions. Staff Was directed to incorporate ne em in a code amendment, that of prohibiting the separait exte or entrance to the second unit. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : The proposed projec is categoric ly exempt from the provisions of the California Env onmental uali Act � Q THE FUBLYC HEARIN WAS OPENED There was no on present to speak for r against the code amendment and the public earing was closed . Commissioner ' erce expressed his opposi on to the code amendment . He feels the the current code preserves a integrity of the neighborhoo by restricting the visibility f a second entrance from the street, and feels that second entrances an be socially beneficial Commissi er Livengood supported the intent of the code amendment however felt that the amendment still left too ny loopholes, PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -ll- (6522d ) 0 staff provided additionhl information to the Commission explaining the density for the project , Some additiona) findings and conditions were also presented. THX PUBLIC HNARING WAS OPENED Two letters were road into the record. One letter in opposition to the project from Howard Highlander and one letter supportini the project from the Fountain Valley/Huntington Beach board of ealtors. Ken Skolyan, 121 Alabama, spoke in opposition to the proposed roject . No addressed his concerns, which includeds 1 ) exhaust roan the To ro ected 389 vehicleo in the parking garagep since his property own-wind of the garages 3 ) noise from the automobiles since the opening to the garage will act as a loud speakers 3 ) the relocation of the electric transmission lines down Atlanta Avenue ; 61 high density of the project] 5) preserving the value of his home . Mary Skolyan , 121 Alabama , spoke in opposition to the proposed project. she feels that the pproject is being coposed to close to the adjacent property, the hright of the structures will not enhance the surrounding property, and that the project will be detrimental to the quality of life in the area . Don Slaven, 225 Alabama, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels that developments such as this one will drive the property owners out of the area. Robert Wells , President of Summerhill , spoke in support of the and addressed the concerns of the adjacent project property owners . He intends to comply with all of the conditions of approval . There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed . An additional presentation addressing the issues and analysis of the project was made by .Tames Palin , Director of Development Services . The Commissioners discussed the concerns and benefits of the project . Some additional conditions of approval were added and revisions made to address the concerns of the adjacent property owners . A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-30 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86--51 , WITH MODrFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OP APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Rowe, Winchell , Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Pierce , Mirjahangir 1JOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -13- (6522d ) C �Nt1t DNMSIT1f Iqf - CONRI!URML gig, • di-sot 1 . The capacities of the City and County Water, ss*t 00 store drain systems are adequate or will be adequate to ao ARte the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned land uses in the ace&, 2. The proposed increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic vblumrs and road capacities, school enrollments , and recreational resources. 3. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted nor the overall intent of the gei oral plan sacrificed. FINDINGS FOR SPECIAL PERMIT - CONDITIONAL-USE PERMIT NO. 66-50% 1 . The proposed development: will promote better living conditions and environment. 2 . The proposed development utilises 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 property value in such neighborhood and the City. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50: 1 . Through the use of the special permit, the proposed planned residential development is in compliance with the City 's development standards for this type of housing and is consistent with the combined zoning on the subject property. 2 . The proposed planned residential project on 7.6 acres is proposed to be developed at 25 units per acre per Downtown Specific Plan, 15 units per acre per Oldtown Specific Plan, and a density bonus of 34 units which is consistent with the Downtown Specific plan and oldtown specific Plan regulations and General plan . 3. The lot size , depth, frontage, street widths , and through the use of special permit , all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision will be in compliance with the standard plans and specifications on file with the city as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplementary City Subdivision Ordinance. Pc Minutes - 10/21/86 -14- (6522d) PIMb.iN i "A hum-AL-- C JAL 21gl PMSNT P8 I . If-lot It The proposed planned residential development project is con $tent with the City Coastal bone suffix and the Downtown Npeeifiu Plan standards as well as other provisions of the Huntington beach Ordinance Coen~ applicable to the propertyl and conforms with the plane, solicies, requirements and standards of the city's Coastal Lan Use Plan . 2. The proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land One Plan. 3. The proposed development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDXTIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 86-50: 1 . The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 9, 1986, and supEe lemental elevations received and dated October 14, 1986, shall revised to reflect the fallowing modifications : a . 'A` units at the southern end of the project shall be two-story . b . The applicant shall work with the Department of Developxwnt Services to reduce the number of units from 161 to 199. �••� c . Combination of Atlanta resident and quiet entries to be located opposite the proposed Lake Street signaliaed intersection . d . Method of access from guest parking to elevator . e . Turnarounds provided at secured entries . f . Maximum building height of 35 feet from sidewalk grade . g . Revised garage layout for guest and resident parking . h . Fully mechanically--ventilated, subterranean garage with maximum projection at midpoint of 18 inches above grade; or , Submit a plan prepared by a mechanical engineer and air quality consultant which would mitigate potential noise and air quality concerns of the adjacent residential area . This plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission . A public hearing shall be set and abutting property owners shall be notified of such hearing. i . A 6 foot block wall fence will be provided along the entire eastern property line. minutes - 10 21/66 -15- PC !I / (6532d ) WOW- �. Pryor to issuance of building peraita, the applicant shall � . submit the following plane: a . Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Berviess and Public Works for review and approval . Said landscape plan shall include 24 inch box trees along the seat property line# tries shall be of a minimum height of is feet at time of installation with tree spacing to be determined by the City. $aid plan shall also include a landscaped berm along north and south portions of property adjacent to east property line. ; i All existing Canary island Palms shall be relocated onsite and within the main recreational area . All existing Washingtonia Robust& Palms shall be relocated in conformance with the street tree plan of Downtown Design Guidelines . b. A preliminary gateway Flan shall be submitted in conjunction with the landscape and irrigation plan and in compliance with the Dcwntown Design Guidelines . c . A lighting plan for all on-site lighting shall be submitted . d . Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and � shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment . e . Rodent eradication plan, approved by the Orange County Vector Control District . t. Grading and Drainage Plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval . g. A parking management plan to reflect assigned space and handicap parking in Compliance with State regulations . h . plains for Recreation Buildings to the Department of Development services for review and approval . J . A copy of the recorded final map to the Department of Development Services and Public Works . j . The applicant shall enter into an agreement to provide 34 units for a 27 . 21 density bonus to be for low and moderate income housing units of which 32 (20% of total units proposed ) shall be used to satisfy the Mello bill requirements for affordable housing in the coastal areas . PC Minutes - 10/21/66 (4572d ) The, applicant aball pEOvid* housing units for poison& of lour of nww rate to sub "t to the rovisie" Of •apernment Section 40590(di. she appiseantes 000ptlance with Section 655904d) of the oovernment made in terms of amount and location of affordeblo housing provided shall be subject to the review and approval of th* Oepartlntwt of Development Services. This ayttement shall be reviewed by the City Utorney'S Office as to form and content and approved by the Director of Development Services. " k . A materials pallet indicating final color choices of, she building materials and product types along with detail design leatures and shall be Submitted to the Design Review board for comment with final review and approval by the Planning commission . 1 . One let of revised site and garage plans and elevations for review and approval by the Director of Development Services. m. Screening plan for exposed piping in subterranean garage shall be provided. 3. orange Avenue/Atlanta Avenue from Lake Streit/Third Street to Alabama Street shall be dedicated and constructed as a 100 toot primary arterial highway to Public works standards and subject ! to the downtown Design Guidelines . 4 . Lake Street shall be dedicated and constructed as a 90 foot primary arterial highway to Public Works standards and subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines. 5 . Pecan Avenue shall be dedicated and constructed to Public Works standards . S . An easement for underground utiliites in the vacated Lake Street alignment shall be maintained. 7 . Parking will be prohibited along Orange/Atlanta Avenue and Lake Street . 8 . Patterned concrete within the street portion public right-of-way shall be limited to locations and design established in the Downtown Design Guide , 9 . All required landscaping shall be installed on site, not within public right-of-way, and maintained by the developer . A detailed landscape plan and sprinkler plan shall be submitted in accordance with the Downtown Design Guidelines. 10. Hater Mains shall be constructed in Pecan Avenue, Lake Street and Orange/Atlanta Avenue to tie into existing systems . PC Minutes - 10/21/86 -17- (6522d) +tain f.aii kip mil berratruated tarUeda r the Et■1 wt Of f b to works* ' Crum ttets' Mil Not .be eM�ad on oraw'e/stianta A�►tnue a*a Lake sent. 13. The access on make strait north of Orange Avenue M be limited to right total in and out depending on traffic fflMdrtiess. 11. Traffic signals are planned at take/Orange and Atlanta/Lake. All necessary conduit for these signals shall be constructed by the developer . 14 . The overhead utilities on Lake Street shall be relocated to the now street alignment . 11 . On-site water system shall be constructed and dedicated per Public works requirements . 16 . On-site sewer system shall be private, but is subject to Public Works requirements . ` 17 . The development shall coa,ply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building pivision, and lire Department, 18 . Driveway approaches shall be a ainimum of twenty -seven feet ( 271 ) in Width and shall be of radius type construction. 119. Fire access shall be provided to the satisfaction of the mire Department and Department of Development Services . 20. An automatic sprinkler system approved by the lire Department shall be installed throughout the complex. This includes parking structure and buildings. 21 . A wet combination stand pipe system approved by the Piro Department shall be installed in all stairways . 22 . An automatic alarm system approved by the Eire Department shill be installed throughout. The system shall include the following features : a . Water flow and valve tamper detection a b. Trouble signal c. voice communication d . Graphic annunciation e. Manual pulls 23. Elevators shall be sited 6 ' 8' wide by 4' 3' deep to accommiodste the use of an ambulance gurney. Elevators shall be provided on all floors including subterranean parking level. pC Minutes - 10/21/06 -le- (45224) . � r Cl =d. Any prowed troste obuto locations and systems shall be approved y the Film Department. 29* fire lanes are to be posted and signed to comply Mith fire Department standards. i 36. water suppl sh&11 be capable of providing 5#000 gallons per. minute for ire flow. 27 , fire extinguishers shall be provided within 75 feet of travel lanes. Type of extinguishers and locations must be in accordance with Huntington Beach fire Code standards. 28. All security gate locations proposed for installation shall be subject to review and approval by the Dire Department and Pubic Works and shall include a turn-around. 29. Low volume heads shall be used in all showers . 30. All building spoils, such as unused lumbar , wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 31 , Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lot and recreation area. A lighting plan shall be submitted to Development Services which illustrates that spillage onto adjacent properties will not occur . 32. All structures on the subject property, whether attached at detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the CNEL 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 a building permit . 33 . Acoustical material shall be used on the walls and ceilings of the subterranean garage. 34 . An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property . All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the 9-factor as indicated by the geologist ' s report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g faetocs shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits . 35 . Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the locations of the clothes dryers. This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services . PC Minutes - 10/21 jai -1l- t 552 2d a 34. Natural "o shall be ; stUNWd in At the location of ki 'bi• facilities, port.a�-heaters, and central hosting units# requirement may be waived provided that the a iicant will provide a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Department of Developwnt Services, C CONDITIONAL U8E PERMIT NO. 66-46 AND CONDITIONAL Ex N PPLICANT: LNONARD AND RUTH QUEBRAL Conditi al Use Poisit No. 86-48 is a request to 1• line an existing eco►nd unit addition that was construct* without a condition use permit located at 9972 Silver St and Drive . since the coder uirestents for second unit addition specify a maximum of one bedroom nd 650 square feet, Conditional xception No . 86y-72 is being request d since the unit has three be ooms and totals 1,532 square feet. A building permi was issued on August , 1963, for a two-story addition to the a isting two-story si le family home at 9972 Silver Strand Drive to in Jude 3 bedrooms ao 1 bath on the second floor, and a Eamil room w h wet bar and undryy room on the first floor. Since thatZime a fu kitchen was nstalled and the unit has been rented out . In respo a to compl ants received, code enforcement staff inspected the pr ises on eptember 1, 1966, and advised the owner to apply for a Con ition use permit or bring the structure into conformance with the ord once code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is c teg ically exempt Class 1 from the provisions of the Califo nia E ironmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Marc Granovitz , repr stinting the ap icant, spoke in support of the request. He stated that the applica a have spent a great deal of money on their add tion and developmen and that they were now being asked to spend a onsiderable amount mo a to rebuild . He further stated that noth ng has been changed or dded since the original permits were gr nted . Brian Moore, 932 Silver Strand drive, spok in opposition to the request . He stated that the applicant is ran ing out rooms to several pea a and causing a traffic problem i the existing neighborho The home is located on a cul-de- c and with the additions cars from the rentals there are very w parking spaces left for he other residents in the neighborhood. he further stated that an llegal kitchen has been added to the axis ng residence. �► letter was read into the record from Julie Carman, 912 !Silver Strand, supporting the request. She stated that there s no packing problems or noise problems from the existing structure occupants. Pc Minutes - 10/21/86 -20- (6922d) t 1� 1rr�lr wrr tmom WAff spont TO: Planning Commission FRON: Development services DATi: October 21 , 1986 SUB.IRCT: CONDItIONAL 118E PERNIT NO. 86-50/COASTAL DEVeLOPNUT PIRNIT NO. 46-30/NaGATIVI6 DECLARATION 90. 66-51 APPUCANTs Redevelopment Agency and TR ErTI : 8ummerhill development Co. o er , d6 1122 E. Lincoln Avenue Building 4, Suite 113 MANDATORY PSOC288INO. DATE: orange, CA 92665 December go 1955 REQUEST: 161 unit planned Z. ONM Oldtown Specific residential development Plan-2-CI and Downtown Specific Plan-6 LOCATION: East of Lake Street, between Pecan and Atlanta GENERAL P 1N: Nedium Un—alty es dential/ ACREAGE: 7 .4 gross acres Office Residential EXISTING USE: Vacant 1 .0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No . 86-30 , Coastal Development Permit No. 86-30 and Negative Declaration No. 86-51 based on the findings and conditions of approval outlined in this report . 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Submitted for Planning Commission review and action is a conceptual development plan for a 161 unit planned residential development. The proposed project lies in the Oldtown Specific Plan District 2 and Downtown Specific Plan District 6. The two zones are a result of the adoption- of Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 84-2 which established a new street configuration of Atlanta/Lake/Orange. The Oldtown Specific Plan portion will contain the residential structures and parking while the Downtown Specific Plan portion will be used as the sain recreational area for the project . Since the project is divided into twq toning classifications, staff analysed the project by using the density allowed for each zone since the density ratios as required by the Planned Residential Standards do not relate to Oldtown or Downtown Specific Plan properties* ��r r` +i Tentative Tract No. 12266 was approved on appeal b the City Council on August 6, 1965, and is valid until Auguste 6, 19 7. No further �✓ action in required at this time. Js N SURROUNDING LAND USto ZONING AND GENERAL _PLAN�D981GNkT1&: Subject pro _ ram: r GENIVAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium tensity Residential/Office Residential ZONE: Oldtown Specific Plan-2-CS and Downtown Specific Plan-6 LAND USE: Vacant and single family N,sirth of Sub ect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential/Office { Residential ZONE: Oldtown Specific Plan-2-CZ and Downtown Specific plan-6 LANCE USE: Single family and apartments East of Subject-Property-6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: Oldtown Specific plan-2-CZ LAND USE: Apartments , single family and vacant South of Subject Proo-rt,y : Y GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Office Residential ZONE: Downtown Specific Plan-9a LAND USE: Vacant and ail operations West of Subject Property : r GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Office Residential ZONE: Downtown Specific Plan-4, 5, 6 LAND US►:: Residential and commercial 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Dtpartvwnt of DevelopmeAt Services posted draft Negative Declaration No . 66-51 for ten days, and no convents , either verbal or written have been received. The staff, in its initial study of the project , has rtcowwnded that a negative declaration be issued Prior tc any aution on Conditional Use Permit No. 66-50 and Coastal Development Permit No. 66-10, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. i6-10, staff Report - 10/2l/ii M240 ( 6449d ) t The City of Huntington Beach Wcal. Coastal - frogran has been certified by the City and California Coastal Commission. A Coastal Develop�e at permit (COP) is squired for any develop not within the coastal zone which is not exempt . The subject site is an area designated as 'non appealable" which is all the area of the coastal sou al l lying inland from the appeal jurisdiction . project$ located outside the appeal Jusiediction require coastal development approval from the City and thane are not appealable to the Coastal Commission , The planning Commission may approve or conditionally a pprove the Coastal Development Permit after waking the following Findings: (a ) LUP. That the development project proposed by the CDP pa placation conforms with the plans , policies, requirements and standards of the C-LUPI (b ) Zoning Regulations, That the Cap application it Consistent With e spec .c plan as well of other Irovisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicabe to the property] (c ) Adequate Services . That at the time of occupancy the proposed development can Fe provided with infrastrecture in a manner that is consistent with C-LUPI (d ) California Coastal Act . That the development conforms with the pub-Tl-c access and publ7ic recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal, Act . 6 .0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The applicant has been negotiating with the redevelopment staff to arrive at a development agreement which would address the City ' s participation with respect to toff-site improvements (utility relocations, street improvements ) . At this tune, closure on the negotiations has not been reached. 7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN: A portion of the site is within the Downtown Specific Plan and a portion toned oldtown Specific Plan District 2 . An a method to establish guidelines for public improvements, elements such as signage , landecaping , and lighting , the Downtown Design Guidelines were adopted by City Council resolution. ArchitecturAl elements must be of a mediterranean style and in conformance wLth the guidelines . Staff has noted that the public improvements section will require the developer to install contemporary street lighting, provide a secondary gateway with signage at the most southeastern portion of the project, install a median along Lake Street , install an intersection enhancement at Lake and Atlanta , and plant washingtonia robusta (Mexican Pan palm) along lake and Atlanta . Staff Report - 10/21/86 -3- (6449d ) Ca . MaY 300 �` 19d5 the Subdivision COIliRlittee wet tl review Tentative j Tract Nio: 12268 in conjunction with a previous ►fixed use d0elopment. All items of concern relating to the tract we Were included as conditions of approval of Tentative Tract No 11268 as approved by the City Council on appeal on August 6, 1905. The map and conditions of approval are attached herewith . 9.0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: The following is a statistical analysis of the site. Gross Area Net Area I Oldtown Specific Plan 6 . 13 -acres 4. 24 acres Downtown S;x,:ci f is Plan-6 1 . 27 .66 Total 7 .4 acres 4.9 acres SECTION ISSUE REQUIRED PROPOSED 9130. 1 ( c) Uses permitted Planned Residential Planned Itesi- by CUP dential by CUP S. 9130 . 3 (a ) Density (ATSP ) 1/2000 gr . sq . ft . = 133 . 5 161 = combin at 21 . 8 units 4 . 8 . 03 Density (DTSP) 25 units/acre gross acres = 32 . 75 9130 . 3 (b ) Floor Area Ratio 1 sq. ft . area 144,697 sq . ft . 1 sq . ft . net residential lot area = 213, 444 rac. building sq . ft . unknown Plan Check Per Article 915 Planned Resent A Develo.,pments 9150 . 4 Max . density - *368 283 Bedrooms 9150. 5 Maximum Site 50%=106022 sq . ft . 63, 523. 5 sq. ft . Coverage 9150. 6 Maximum Height 35 ft . 35 ft . 9150. 7-8 Setbacks from 20 feet 20 foot to ,street balconies 9150 . 9 Setback-interior 10 feet 18 feet *R3 standards within PAD used based on proposed density Staff Report - 10/21/86 -4- (6449d ) ��tgll N 6 N VI1tl�D � � *91 Sol 10 wilding depRration from to front 33 foot 22 foot aide to side 12. 5 feet 2 story N/A 15 foot 3 story N/A side to front 20 Beet 15 feet side to rear 20 foot 15 fret rear to roar 25 feet 15 feet building to drives S foot 0 *9150. 12 building bulk 6 units aid# by side lalies building offset 4 feet ok building ht . offset 1/3 2 story in in each litbldg . each bldg. *9150 . 13 open spaca-common +*R3 9 600 per unit 908000 but not 960600 sq. ft. w/20 ft . min . Open apace-private patio 200-250 sq. ft. N/A private balcony 60-120 sq. ft . 116-156 sq . ft . 9150 . 14 Main Rec. Area 10,000 sq . ft. 20,000 sq. ft . w/avg 100 ft . diva. needs 2 amenities drool , spa, and rec. bldg . clubhouse 0 1127 clubhouse size sq. ft . unknown 'w I 9150 . 15 Minimum Floor Area 1 bedroom • 650 712 + 723 2 bedroom R 100 956 � 9150. 16 Private Accessways 24 ft . wide not dimensioned ♦9150. 17 Parking- one bdrr . 39 6 1 . 5 • 58.5 two bdrm , 120 ! 2 ■ 244 303 guest 161 0 . 5 = 00.5 81 Total 383 = ( 72 compact, 305 standard ) 9150 . 19 Miscellaneous 100 cu . ft . unable to outside storage verify size trash areas within 200 ft . within garage i • special Permit ** R3 standards within PRD used based on proposed density staff Report - 10/21/86 -5- (6449d) The applicant wet several times with various City members to discuss a proposed apartment project . Staff stronyl recommended projectthe be processed Ms a planned residential development so, that addtional open space and parking would be provided. The applicant has indicated a desire to rent the units, however , staff does not know For what period of time. Filing requirements for a planned residential development include submittal of a tentative tract map. A valid map eXists on the subject property, therefore, no now filing was requested . The snap will expire August S, 1966 if not recorded or extended prior to that date. Four requests for special permits are necessary (building separation, building bulk , open space, and compact rrking)Building separation and building bulk (number of uns side by side ) do not appear to be detrimental to the project or properties in the vicinity due to the building offsets and irregular alignment . Aloof all the living and patio aroas are opposite the unit entrances and all separated by 35 feet. Staff does recommend that building bulk (one-third of the units in each building at two story height ) be provided by requiring all `A• units along the east portion to be reduced to two story. This will bring the 19 overall required at two story to 16 provided. This concept utilises the additional optional building and reduces the unit count to a total of 159 units . A redesign of the walkway system may be necessary . The last special permit request to allow compact parking is acceptable provided the spaces are clearly designated "compact" and striped 8 feet x 19 feet . Adjacent property owners have voiced concern for privacy and screening for the residential properties to the east . Staff recommends a landscape buffer be created . Four entrances are proposed as access into the project . Two of the driveways lead to a subterranean guest parking garage physically separated from the adjacent resident parking area . The applicant has not proposed a method by which the guests will gain access to the elevators or stairs . Staff also believes the four access points are excessive . An alternative resident drive which utilises the Lake Street guest drive is shown on the parking layout . The common use of this driveway will eliminate the need for two driveways on Atlanta . Public Works recommends the two Atlanta entrances be combined and be located opposite the proposed Lake Street signalized intersection . The Fire department has expressed concern with access to the units . Two options are available : install a 14 foot wide fire accessway on the east side of the property or provide 24 foot wide access within 150 feet unobstructed from Like on Atlanta with roadways which provide adequate turnaround. The applicant is working with the Eire Department to resolve the concern and provide reasonable fire access . Staff Report - -10/21/a6 6 ( 6 449d ) draft , bas met witb ' an. adjacent property tegarding fumes and %noise that may be generated Mo the naturally ventilated parking garage. $tact concurs and recommends the parking structure be fully mechanically ventilated and project a maximum of 18 inches above grade at the endpoint. 10 .0 RECONNINAAT 01: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-50, Coastal Development Permit No. 86-30 and - Negative Declaration No. 86-51 based on the following findings and conditions of approval . FItb NGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEMOPNEN PERMIT N09 88-30: 1 . The proposed planned residential development project is consistent with the City Coastal Zone suffix and the Downtown specific Plan Standards as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the. property; and conforms with the plans , policies , requirements and standards of the City 's Coastal Land Use plan . 2. The proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. 3 . The proposed development conforms with the public access and public: recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California f Coastal Act . FINbINGS FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: 1 . The proposed development will promote better living conditions and environment . 2. The proposed development utilises 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 property value in such neighborhood and the City. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-50 : 1 . Through the use of the special permit , the proposed planned residential development is in compliance with the City's development standards for this type of mousing and is consistent with the combined zoning on the subject property . 2 . The proposed planned residential project on 7 .4 gross acres is proposed to be developed having a density of 21 . 8 units per gross acre , which is consistent wiht the Downtown Specific Plan and Oldtown Specific plan regulations . staff Report - 10/21/86 -7- ( 6449d ) I P L 3. The lot site, depth frontage street width$ and' thgoe ' the use of special perw�t, all otAec design and lawrentatio featuxts of the proposed. rubdivision will be in CorplianCe with the standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplementary City Subdivision Ordinance, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 06-50: 1 . The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 9r 1986 , and supplemental elevations received and dated October 14, 1986, shall be revised to reflect the following modifications : a . All +A' units along the eastern portion of the project shall be two story, i b . Reduction in unit count from 161 to 159. c . Combination of Atlanta resident and quest entries to be located opposite the proposed Lake Street signalized intersection . d . Method of access from guest parking to elevator . e . Turnarounds provided at secured entries . f . Maximum building height of 35 feet from sidewalk grade . g. Revised garage layout for guest and resident parking. h . Fully mechanically ventilated subterranean garage with maximum projection at midpoint of 18 inches above grade . 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 . Said landscape plan shall include 36 inch box trees along the east property liner trees shall be of a minimum height of 15 feet at time of installation with tree spacing to be determined by the City. All existing Canary Island Palms shall be relocated onsite and within the main recreational area . All existing Washingtonia RobusLa Palms shall be relocated in conformance with the street tree play, of Downtown Design Guidelines . b . A preliminary gateway plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the landscape and irrigation plan and in Coapliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines. staff Report - 10/21/86 -8- (6449d ) �. A lighting plan for all on-site lighti' y shall be submitted. d. Rooftop Mtchanical �quip nt Plant Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to marten said equipment. e . Rodent eradication plan, approved by the orange County Vector Control district . f. Grading and Drainage plan to the Department of public Works for review and approval . g. A parking management plan to reflect assigned space and no more than 200 fees. at the respective unit, and handicap parking in compliance with State regulations . h . Plans for Recreation Buildings to the department of Development services for review and approval. i . A copy of the recorded final map to the Department of Development Services and public Works . The applicant shall enter an agreement to provide 20% (32 units ) low or moderate income housing units in order to comply with Mello Bill requirements with regard to coastal areas . The applicant shall provide housing units for persons of low or moderate income subject to the provisions of Government Section 65590(d ) . The applicant's compliance with Section 65590(d) of the Government Code in was of amount and location of affordable housing provided shall be subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. This agreement shall be reviewed by the city Attorney's office as to form and content and approved by the director of Development Services . k . A materials pallet indicating final color choices of th e building materials and product types along with detail design features and shall he submitted to the Design Review Board for comment with final. review and approval by the Planning Commission . 1 . Ong set of revised site and garage plans and elevations for review and approval by the Director of Development Services. 3 . orange Avenue/Atlanta Avenue from take Street/Third Street to Alabama Street shall be dedicattd and constructed as a 100 toot ? primary arterial highway to Public Works standards and subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines . Staff Report - 10/21/86 - 1- 16149d ) d. Loki- 8t9"t sball be dedicated and constructed as n 00 foot primary arterial hi hway to public Works standards and subi+ct to the Downtown Design Guidelines. S. Pecan Avenue shall be dedicated and constructed to public Works standards. { 6. Vacation proceedings will. be initiated by the City of Huntin ton Beach for the vacation, of Chicago Avenue (dross Avenue? and a portion of Lake Street . The remaining portion of Chicago Avenue (Gross Avenue) between Lot 1 (block 301 ) and Lot 17 (black 201 ) of the Vista Del Mr Tract shall be cul-da-saced to Public Works standards . City shall maintain an easement for underground utilities in the vacated sake Street alignment . 7. Parking will be prohibited along Orange/Atlanta Avenue and t.akc Street. B . Pacterned concrete within the street portion public right-of-way shall be limited to locations and design established in the Downtown Design Guide . 9 . All required Landscaping shall be installed on site, not within public right-of-way, and maintained by the developer. A detailed landscape plan and sprinkler plan shall be submitted in accordance with the Downtown Design Guidelines. 10 . Cross gutters will not be permitted on Lake Street and grange/Atlanta Avenue . 11 . Water mains shall be constructed in Pecan Avenue, Lake Street and Orange/Atalanta Avenue to tie into existing systems . 120 Stores drain facilities shall be constructed as required by the Department of Public Works . Cross gutters will not be allowed on orange/Atlanta Avenue and Lake Street . 13. No parking will be allowed along orange/Atlanta Avenue and Lake street * 14. The access on Lake Street north of Orange Avenue may be limited to right turns in and out depending on traffic conditions . 15. Traffic signals are planned at Lake/Orange and Atlanta/Lake . All necessary conduit for these signals shall be constructed by the developer . 16. The overhead utilities on Lake Street shall be relocated to the new street alignment . 17. on-site water system shall be constructed and dedicated pet Public Works requirements . Staff Report - 10/21/86 6010- (6469d) a 1M. Co-Otto **wet • stop $boil bs private, but is subjeat to Public works rsgyirtsexte. i! . The devela nt fhall copppi with all s 1400010 provisions of the Ordinance Cade, Pudding Division, Ad firs bpogtftnt. 20 . Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-aeveA feet , ( 271 ) in width and shall be of radius type construction . 21 . Fire Department access must be provided with n 150 feet of unobstructed travel . The plans shall be revt6od to' whoMr (4 ) the installation of 4 24 foot wide fire access roadway on the east side of the propertyl or (b) 24 foot wide access provided within 150 feet unobstructed from Lake and Alea is streets with roadways which provide adequate turnaround, 22. An automatic sprinkler system approved by the Fire Departmen` shall be installed throughout the complex . This includes parking structure and buildings . 23 . A wet combination :stand pipe system approved by the fire Department shall be installed in all stairways. 24 . An automatic alarm system approved by the Eire Department shall be installed throughout . The system shall include the following features : a . Water flow and valve tamper detection b . Trouble signal e . Voice communication d . Graphic annunciation e . Manual pulls 25 . Elevators shall be sized 6 ' 8 " wide by 4 ' 3" deep to accommodate the use of an ambulance gurney. Elevators shall be provided on all floors including subterranean parking level . 26 . Any proposed trash chute locations and systems shall be approved by the fire Department . 27 . rice lanes are to be posted and signed to Comply with Eire Department standards . 28 . All roads are to be installed prior to the compE.,Cement of the combustible construction with all weather driving surfaces constructed to the standards and specifications of the Public Horks Department . 29 . dater supply shall be capable of providing 5# 000 gallons per minute for fire flow. ti 1 staff Report - 10/21/66 -ll- (6649d) 30. Fire extinguishers shall be provided within is fort of travel lanes. Type of extinguishers and locations must be in accordance with Huntington beach fire Code standards. 31 . All security gate locations proposed for installation shall be subject to review and approval by the fire Departmont and Public Works and shall include a turn-around . 32. Low volume heads shall be used in all showers . 33. All building spoils, such as unused lumber , wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials* shall be disposed of at an offaiti facility equipped to handle them. 34 . Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps , shall be used in parking lot and recreation area . A lighting plan shall be submitted to Development Services which illustrates that spillage onto adjacent properties will not occur . i 35 . All 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 CNEL 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 a building i permit. 36 . An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submnit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property . All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factor an indicated by the geologist 's report . Calculations for footings and structural members to vitfi.st,and anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. 37 . Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the locations of the clothes dryers . This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. 38 . Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the location of cooking facilities , part-a-heaters, and central heating units . -This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will provide a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Sc:•vices , 11 .0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION= As an alternative action, the Planning Commission may consider denying the subject application based on the following findings : Staff Report - 10/21/86 12- (6449d) I " DWI flat 2011l_ o: If-31 � . Bipoe' thf NccoM�pY�nd devgl p�nt a�ppl�ceMt � !� recoNi�is►nded got 40008 00 004441 Ova b""Pt Ormlt #$' sot Porteria to an approved development. P1121 1 - 1'OR 28PIAL C0MptJt0N4L t1.89 P6ii,M.T.NO. 6-50 : 1 . T'ht prop ,aOd 101 unit pla ned reside 441 project RAY have a detri�gtal Ottei ct upon toe glen* qk cal head the y*l#6xe# egfety and convenience of pergons �rrsidinq or wor�C Nq in the area and ma qa dttrimOPt4l to the valve of the property and improvoments in the neighborhood . 2. The prroposad 141 unit p}aggd Faeriden W PFOIect ie toq intepsp a devilopment for 1h6 rite and oot compatible with ourroundigg uses in the ni4ghparhood. 3. Site 14youtt building design and locatio" of the proposed project may not be harmonious with existing adjacent developments because of project intensity. 4 . Vehicular access points may creat^. traffic or circulation problems . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Area map 2 . Site plan , floor plane $ elevations received 4n4 dated October 9, 1986 3 . Elevations and cross sections received and dated Octoper 14, 1986 4 . Narrative5 . Request for spec ail permit 6 . Tentative Tract 12268 And Conditioner of Approval r 7 . Latter from adjacent property owner JWp: : kla i i t Staff Report 10/21/86 -13- (6449d ) an' ` z�+ I Fl- • !' a T.•ru tI 1 0 O ,• •\``, • Z�• #. 10 1* link ALASAW AVE ILJ 'L--� H Li Ilia Rl • � a +Mar+� �y ��c��' .,1...� / Ili e•"mmm um. J ..TII. G j'fEf711 ►l"or+r. •�. rc W,LAW emoolm 14 WSW•trr sa,rrc r, 1ss4L •N 40,t WAS awK Parr, tw+P Nf row"L"I"WIN � cowpvt 7alftf 2I.9 germ � �m sea 310�WW WWO AP UCANT rtU6@Ab°JA L QEMOP%UM COMPANY 1221=LIIOOL IN AVE. 0MMKICALIF./20W 714 07"192 OWWR L 0'LOB S,GALF. SW I i i, A'LADAMA AVE. li IdcLl ♦ TT4, / MESOM GOMM 1 Y 1 ► i ` r• j L -1 _ i ��J�;,� ff �.. ' �(litl �tl� �� =�1���II+��ilil � � ��ii1 i � ili '.11l � � � ���' �: {• ! r�-j;.'-'r_ 10sso�e�*n* � we nog.-•a'► r 881MV TO CUM OARMN ---, w\ -- QEOT t�AAlitE V lP1TlIY - TO ��.10 .- n.�w rw.►r POM FXCaJTY PAW NG PLAA Ganow w. rn+r 111r� nrew tOMPRAM ��'• lllww� aK f.INH / ua art agar r •. ewu . .. ra � Mil an to r aN at APPUCANT SUMAEMA r X DEMCV%R T COWANY 1122 E LVICOLN AYE OMAMOE.CALE.92 7i4 074-9192 OW NM .u.. too &W.C.NANDERWOOD sty a FLOMIER ST.ELATE 1201 ^ T ♦ /� L.Oe AtKaL£aC". 9OOt7 dn to soup m, 44 tv Fes■ t „ . 1� � �� lava --MS • OW IMF mmmCIS 0 S►.• ,i '�. '�.+if t ��ice' � � t f IE4 1� ter f/ _. _ ��� _ _ ►�• fl Kati alllor — Ott �. tt 11 ;owl ► ■ �� _ Its /Re Is Mf 'era M; ,eIglft/MW as �S� t� .•► Itt ... a ff •. 1; Is t` •a• �+r3 t S ♦r� �� - ;111 -pit � 11 Iasi r• �� era ��t �ayf' �. 1/1 �• �.E � a �'a. . 1 i 4e t na 8 El win& tt D i i � s 1 t I i I s �i s rr2 mot• IY{aM�art I saw 4 .MI.. � ,"vkv�somm iT& Alf i HUHrM ti • WON BEAM ' r 1 sr-dr.w a•�a� air!' r-••w r w�r� ____-•. � t OF-d.sr ss � Sr-ArI Sr.1' rr-or a S t rrwraA ne-r ISO r --- --- - j _ Sr�tttAlr-S' • AM .�. .aaa.a�► .■,� .at..r too ar as moo man" U N I T monv"on UNIT A I ...... .R J!?E�itti.L HUMIMCTW MACH UNTSMU. . MWIMCTOM BEACH `'� � 111cm WAO - tre�ww R 1aM earl!svr-w tr DOE r* WIX r of FAW . Arnc LACE Tcr r HOOF rm ELEVATM i R.0011 t�fT t • �coar Cm { coin" aE Roos u� Rx�ooMr oeoc 1#TL�TII�Td1 E sULDM SECTION OCTOW E, I MR�.L.-—L-W ND r Summcrhdl Devclopmcnt Company October 15 , 1986 V4UtiTifjr.Tr.N AF.� O u 1122 Eve Lnrola Avenue The Honorable planning Commission P. p, goX 190 Mudduy4 Suite III C.Ay of Huntington Beach � BWjh4CA92648 otwwcadomis 92661 Civic Center 714 974 9 1 W 200 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Application for Conditional Use Permit No. 86-50 , A Proposed Residential Development Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 12268 . This letter is written as a part of our referenced Conditional Use Application and describes our project as follows : We propose to develop 161 Condominium units on approx- imately 7 . 4 acres located east of Lake Street between Pecan and Atlanta Streets in Huntington Beach . We will i rent the units as luxurious market rate apArt.ments . The pre ject will provide 1 and 2 bedtroont icsidences ranging in size from 720 square feet to 960 square feet . All parking will be on-site, semi-subterranean, garaged and inconspicuous . The project includes on-site recrea- tion facilities consisting of pool, spa , and an exercise room with equipment . Our proposed use and development is permitted in the existing zoning for this district. The project does not create any unusual noise , traffic or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable, detrimental or incompatible with other existing or permitted uses in this district. We further believe that the granting of this Conditional Use will not be detrimental to the public healtt.h, safety or welfare , or be ratesrially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Your approval of this Conditional Use Permit is urged. 40r rely, t Mellr, Director of project Managment i Summerhill Develo ment Corn any WO"' 'E* P P SEW SERVIC OCT l�n�P. 0, Box R,tlrl 190 �. Vu w Beach. 1122 EaN Ur.uln A%enwr October 15 , 1986 building a Swie I I) Orange Uducni+ 9:661 '13 9'4 9192 The Honorable Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 200 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Application for Conditional Exception No. 86-76 for our Residential Development on Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 12268 This letter is written to provide justification for deviation of City Ordinance ' s : 1 . 9150 . 10 , Building Separation; 2. 9150 . 12, Building Hulk; and 3 . 9150. 12 , Open Space, as follows : 1. Building Separation: Section 9150 . 10 of Article 915 specifies minimum front , rear, side and building to building dimensions as if all build- ings were plotted perpendicular to each other. we feel that due to the unusual configuration of our site and the unique manor in which we have laid out our buildings, to take advantage of views , it is not possible to apply certain minimum dimensions that would apply to a normal rectangular parcel. if average dimensions are applied we have met all of the setback requirements 2 . Building Bulk : Section 9150. 1.2 of Article 915 says that a building shall be composed of no more than 6 units and 1/3 of the units shall be 1 story less than the total number of units . we feel our project, by its unique plotting and curvilinear pattern masts the intent of this ordinance by providing variation in goof lines and variations in building line setback. Page 2 3 . open Space : section 9150. 13 of Article 915 requires 96 # 000 square feet of opon space . We have provided 9 0 , 000 squares feet or: 941 of the required open apace . This projects 1 and 2 bedroom units are designed primarily as adult units . We feel the Adult market requires lose open space than that of a comparable fbmily market, therefore, the minor reduction of open space provided will be acceptable . In addition we have exceeded the minimum interior square footage requirements by 60 and 70 square feet on each of the 1 and 2 bedroom units respectfully . We feel this interior space is more preferable to an adult life style . Your favorable consideration of these minor exceptions is requested . sincerely, 6,t,� �1 Robert Wells # (,�„ Director of Project Management PeCnry HLXVrNY%a1 P.O. ttyX 'Iiq ' CALIFORNIA lC�4A • atP�t�r OF a�v+�Lo�NT asnwca: ' ��a+�a rNws�mi i»N as�.� n.wwr�+�q p�nmoa t�eM�a�tt� July 5 , 1985 BWC Vanderwood 615 S . Flower . ;• . Los Angeles. , CA .9.0417 SUBJECT: L USE PERMIT NO. 85-24 ENTATIVE TRACT NO.. •1.2268 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTIQN N . - , C L DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-71 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.' 84-34 RECUEST: One lot subdivision for the purpose of constructing mixed use project consist- in of 205 senior apartment ' 9 P units in conjunction with 30 convalescent units and 30 assisted care units LOCATION: Property is located at j the approved realignment of Lake Stree;:., Atlanta Avenue, Orange Avenue F'INDINCS FOR APPROVAL TENTATT.VE TRACT NO. 122& : 1 . The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for the implementation of this type of development. Tnerefore , the project an proposed complies with the City's Genvral Plan of Land Use designation of Medium Density Rebidential . 2 . The lot size , depth, frontage , street 'width , and other design and implementation features of the subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City, as well as in comRliance• with the State Map Act and city Subdivisions . C : . is two 4PIRICAnt. does not ebt4ia bond . 1 aficia ter' the !revi!ewand **pprov ts tht►� uite�eat 199 M of the Ito �t8 total ) tq be as a avaifable - to persons nine less than go• 4tan a county median rove" fiuto say bar satisfied tse'mubjoct to a roval of the a rector of Development ; i 'Me loss of bond financing rill not relieve the a of the risponalbilityy to provider affordable g conjunction with this peoJect .30 . to' th issuance of buildingQ pp+ermf,ts a materialsPp►a�llet ting , al color choices of the building motori+rlaand ct pos long with detail design features and shall be tted -to th Design Review Board for comment with final and 'approva by thR Planning Commission , CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 122681 1 . The Tentative Tract No. 12268 received and dated May 24 , 1985, shall . be the approved layout, 2 . A copy of':-the rec,;rded tract map shall be filed with the Departmen�` 6f Development Services prior to issuance of building -parmits . ' : t 3 . On-situ water system shall be constructed and dedicated per Public Works vaquirements . 4 . on-site sewer system shall be private, but is subject to Public Works requirements. , I hereby certify that Conditional Use Permit No. 85--24/Tentative Tract No . 12268/Conditional Exception No.. 85-27/Coastal Development Per,71 t No. 85-7/4egative Declaration No. 84-34 was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach , California , upon the foregoin% citations and conditions . sincerely, ' c Jove Jame ( W. Palin Secretary r Planning Commission JWP : lcp ( 2830d ) ' f i, - — — ------ - 04 • „ r N 6 1 b 121 Al abou Street Huntington Beech. Ca. r•J. go IV@ 92648 �.Hwnd� look CA October ld, 1956 ••r,.,� Huvington beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington beach, California dear Commissioners: I reside at 121 Alabama Street adjacent to a piece of property currently under development. This development, called Summerhill, is an improvement over previous plans. It does have, however, several problems which directly affect my property, its future value, and my right tv live peacefully. The first problem is the parking structure which is partially underground. ThIs is a good idea, as it removes from view a large number of automobiles. The problem lies in the venting of exhausts astt'l •noise from this garage. The structure lies about four feet above grade, but is open to our property, covered only by grillwork. According to Summerhill 's representative, Mr. Bob Wells, at a meeting at way residence during the evening of October 15, 1986, this "venting was required by the fire department". Due to the method of venting and the prevailing winds of the area, venting is accomplished by air movement to adjacent properties on Alabama Street. Since this structure is designed to accomodate 389 cars, the carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide emitions would be hazardous to the health of those close downwind. A second problem would be the noise generated by this structure with the aforementioned grillwork acting as "loudspeakers", directing unacceptable noise levels towards the Alabama Street properties, causing an unreasonable hardship on residents. The solution to this problem is the enclosure of the garage wall facing the Alabama Street properties and venting noise and gases throughout the property via other mechanical means . A simple wall will not accomplish much since eleven of the threatened properties are three story structures. brush or trees to dt-,.ed sound may pose a root threat to an operating underground oil pipeline in the fifteen foot strip between the properties . The eleven homes mentioned are relatively new with current market value in excess of $250,000 each. Y feel the City has a duty to protect these hones and other properties as well from unwarranted assults on them. Yours truly,. nneth S. Skolyan cc: Mr Palin Honorable Robert P. Mandie i Metabers of the City Council November 12 , 1986 Page Two emergency in my mirediate family. At this time it is doubtful) that I will bL able to return from Florida in time to prepare for and appear at the Appeal hearing currently scheduled for Monday, November 17. For each of the reasons stated above , it is respectfully requested tha .: this Honorable C:.ancil continue the Appeal hearing in the above-identified matter from November 17 , 1986 to the next Council hearing , of December 1 , 1986 . On behalf of our client , Summerhill Development Company and this office, we thank the Council for its consideration of this matter. It is respectfully submitted that this request is not made for the purpose of delay as delay can only prejudice the applicant. In the event you have any questions regarding the request for continuance , in my absence, please, direct those questions to Mr. Robert Wells, Director of Project Development at Summerhill Development Company at their office in Orange, California. Thank you again for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully submitted LAW OFFICES OF MARLENE A. FOX i BY : MA ENE A. FOX Attorneys for Summerhill Development Company MAP/aj r cc : Mr. Charles Thompson, City Manager Mr. E. John Garcia, Summerhill Development Company Mr. Robert Wells , Summerhill Development Company LAW OPMRS OF MAit m clg A. Fox A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MwwLtht A. IOR 3910 WESTERLY PLACE, 61*. SON 0I COu�t[L NEWPONT BEACH. CA 92640 MIC►49LLt A. NEINOLAtS (7141 476•I11076 DELIVERED BY MESSENGER November. 12 , 19H Honorable Robert P. Mandic & REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92642 Re : Applicant: Summerhill Development Company Subject: Appeal of CUP No . 86-50/Coastal Development Permit No. 86-30 Appeal Hearing Date : November 17, 1986 Our File No. 07870 Dear Mayor Mandic and Members of the City Council : Thi3 office has been retained to represent the interests of Summerhill Development Company with regard to the above- identified project. The development entitlements listed above were approved by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission on October 21 , 1986 . That Planning Commission decision was aF,.:ealed on October 30 , 1986 by Mr. Donald Slaven. At the Commission hearing the two primary issues raised by Mr. Slaven related to alleged fumes and noise impacts from the underground parking structure. In an effort to respond to these concerns and to further demonstrate the environmental sensitivity of the project, our client hired Mestre Greve Associates , Consulting Engineers from Newport Beach to evaluate the proposal and prepare a report relating to those particular issues . Unfortunately, we have just learned that the consultant has not yet completed the requested report and therefore that information is not available for presentation to the City for either staff review or for review by the Council, in connection with the Appeal hearing on the 17th. In addition to the foregoing, otw client has requested that I appear at the Appeal hearing to represent its interests . In that regard, on Tuesday, November 11, I learned for the first time , that it would be necessary for me to travel to the East Coast on Thursday, November 13, 1986 because of an i i I i I r ww orricits or MiLinxxa A. Fox A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MARLRNE A, rox 3910 WESTERLY PLACE, STE, RON �r CpI/N�C� NEWPORT DEACK CA 9&600 041CP4tLLE A. "EINCLASS (714) 470-1976 DELIVERED BY MESSENGER November 12 , 1986 Ms. Alicia Wentworth, City Clark LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re : Applicant: Summerhili Development Company Subject : Appeal of CUP No. 86-50/1.-'oastal Development Permit No. 86-30 Appeal Hearing Date : November 17, 1986 Our File No. 07870 Dear Ms . Wentworth : Enclosed herein please find the original and ten copies of a letter entitled, "Request for Continuance" , addressed to the Mayor and City Council, in connection with an Appeal currently scheduled for the Monday, November 17 , 1986 j Council. Agenda. i It is respectfully requested that the enclosed letter be delivered to the Mayor and Council Members for their j consideration, at the earlie.;t possible time . Thank you for your attention to the above and for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation. Very truly yours , LAW OFFICES Or MARLENE A. FOX (;�IBY : /;4,/ Attorneys for Summerhill Development Company MAF/aj r Enclosures cc: Mr. E. John Garcia, Summerhill Development Company Mr. Robert Wells, Swwwrhill Development Company I .�`` • PACIFIC DILIVERY SYSTEM • m N. f e"wu �a c�ou111t Pi iop off i wt llY w r._x • watftaot q • DAY r 24 POOR f1rR�1� IM OIAT[ b1lTVi11115 ANYMnI -W IN WUTP*RN CALMOMNA t ��aAl [tILII NY A"ANGED AM 111E fN u S A nATE 11 13 tl u n1MMMa t) 0 O 004 Au N / 1,.J1n �): i 1 t:is. U . ; 1 _ ._: �: f►flfftEfi 9 NO CdL 1tr t:1 t .' t, � t;utt►.� t1�t C:.'Il t�t.:•3Ci: a:_tl► t)1 ;. at.i11':' ..� .` ft ; ;� "��:'1 c t r�� ��_ — �- 11lC1fvld■v CIi1�1N/w' r t>LY,a c�Tx ,h w or(tiffi.l f+ - —� l.Ad It la � .-•r' {,l^tr� ? k.. AT1Ek110N M m Paces r c 0 0 aN CC!URS AFT! t , l� CliYlb rAU C ".So pTOJJWWA[SPFGtrCASNMCf� Off. + 1 .1 S Lij Mwl '•f+ fLlll •t(l,•,T A,y al "Wit -1 T 7 Met MRD vAttIq o U S L.Atl'ilr. 60041 ;D55 oo nAm&"d Ikvw TwS w 1vt%T ,5 Ike it f D 'n 1.1.)nO r*CE� I%TD HY =lS',C1NEE Y ArvAPENT cv)p n17^fp t•CfhT A; N.11fr vfCES-ICD _ . . tlAff TOTAL x ,,vt 'Twr rnapw wKVdr o.f»f to rat fo, frwalo-.M t'is'st ee'•A,co"T74, 0•w fCh1•,:•etlt r WI1.41'. 11.n,:Mr,••:'w,i J,,•.A•Nt a'1 Fay 1M Cwbn,r t+tp c Uw.r�t:oT►t�aticr,ad r'rfr•DA 9 4T cr4,p,n i .,.,v t•'r.","tool A 161001 nc ;tt'.•c�•.r .r,i•r' . c1,q A1111t of crt'H V o.AI011 I•Ct^tt h•tc'•,h ro,•Q J"'r"►V—gets' •:.,vY,•' 1•164','^1fC 1 i I Ct publish 1ll61�6 '` ► W?tCz W MLIC n"10 APPEAL TO PLANNING C"I SS I�APPPMVA: OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 6J-54 (161 Unit Planned Residential Development) NOTICE I8 UUAY GIVU that the duntinataq Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Ch aeber at the Huntington Beach Civic Canter, 1000 Mail, Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated Me1ow to receive and consider the statowats of all '--� persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. i DATE: Monday, November 17 , 1986 TVIE: 7: 30 P.M. SUBJICT: Condit=0nal Use Permit No. 86-50 - Appeal ZONE: Oldtown Specific Plan District 2 - Coastal Zone and Downtown Specific Plan District 6. APPLICANT: Summerhill Development Company and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach i APPELLA14T: Donald Slaver LOCATION_: East side of realignment of Lake Street between Atlanta Avenue and Pecan Avenue ggopOSAL; A 161 unit planned residential cevelopment with request for special permit ENVIRONlQIi'YAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 66-51 assesses the environmental j effects of the project. i ON Flea_: A legal description and a copy of the p'foposed applications are on file in the Department of Development Services. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. A11 applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the Ctt7 Clark, 2000 Main Street, tivatington Beach, California, for inspect'on by the public. WNtINGTON UACB CITY CXXC1L BY2 Alicia M. Wentworth City Clark rho" (714) 536-5405 � � a_ 1iM' ,ram pule.i sh W07 Q or I'tIKIC n"M APPEAL TO PLANNING COI+p1ISSIDN'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERRIT NO-11-12 (161 Unit Planned Residential Devebpmnt) NOTICE, IR mnXgy GIVEN that the Huntington $each City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chanber at the Huntington beach Civic Coator, 2000 fain Street, Huntington beach, 1.410ornis, on the date and at the tise indicated below to receive and consider the statments of all `�- persons vho rich to be hea!•d relative to the application described below. DATIs Monday, November 17, 1986 TMK: 7:30 P.M. Ste: Conditional Use Permit No. 86-50 - Appeal ZONE: Oldtown Specific Plan District 2 - Coastal Zone and Downtown Specific Plan district 6. APPLICANT: Summerhill Development Company and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach APPELLANT: Donald Slaven LOCATION: East side of realignment of Lake Street between Atlanta Avenue and Pecan Avenue pxopogAL: A 161 unit planned residential development with request for special permit L�li'i►T.ROMXTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 86-51 assesses the environmental effects of the project. i GiN�: A legal description and a cony of the nrtoposed applications are on file in the Department of Development Services. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence fr,r 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, 2WO Main Street, Huntington Beach, Call fornis, for inspection by the public. HUNTINC•TON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk rm" (71 i) 536-5405 Dated November 3 IN6 i or /IMI� �III1�ter � • NMICS OF PUBLIC REAMING HUINTir4GTON ©EACH ( 161 Unit Planned Residential Development ) P. 0. P.)y 1 rj(j NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach 14&dtjnq will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntingtoc Beach Civic Center , 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach.- California , on the date and at the time indicated below to to e-i**--and-eem@i ar the--statements---of all-persons-whom u i-dh -tn be -heacd--rolati-µo--to--tire ApPlisa~t-i-on--�deecr ibed_,/below . to n .��_ LtY��vL1l7ti _ffr -l�t 4 if of its rf .1 (.t!'�f •)t_!-J�Or � �- / , r��(.���!(�Tt "--( . fAnii _.r ov-mbP,r 1-71 r DhTE/T 1 ME : T"oa%A -t-ob+sr- , -1-9$E , 7 : 0C PM APPLICATION NUMBER : Conditional Use Per^it No . 86-50feeast&I Cwvelooment -Permi`t-156-0 _b 5-3W, ti'aga :Vs Declaration -;4c. .86=51_ APPLICANT: Summe:hili Development Co . ane redevelopment Agency cf �art r S E: oldtown Specific Plan District 3 - Coastal Zone and Downtown Specific Plan Dis �,ict 6 i LOCATION: East side of realignment of Lake Street between Atlanta and Pecan . REQUEST: A 161 unit planned residential development with request for special permit . COASTAL STATUS : Non-appealable ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Negative Declaration No . 86-51 ON FILE: A copy of the proposed applications are on file in the Department of Development Services, 2000 fain Street , Huntington Beach , California 926480 for inspection by the public . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Susan Pierce, Associate planner , at 536-5271 . I� Jarea M. n, E!C stir d i On'"N,, Caeais on 1 �� GC.� r 1 '•. pp M 12 . SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP C ITY OF I t�fi-t I HUNTINGTON BEACH am-"was !. +ter...rr.• • .,.,. a....�......�..`. oftw ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �. .1 • i M w1d1�1OiY 1'��. aww� wv1 •�� i .�.�.� IawM.7 meIAa w M Iv%a1 maps% • • �, ' �•� tilt � �"��'�� llllmmw -� Iig11i • 1� •_ `� U Lam: Mot all ■�.a+Iwi�11 • �,• .r' , �1 `..) �Jt+.J �.-�1 11 1 f'�`�J t J( .�.�. ' awpiY a r MJim �� •r 00 Its � . ,. ' : ,Mr 111 R I R 1 R I R �C a r•--�--. t � ...C�... IQ ••1 y`•k I .0 w1 V�' /�� �� RI � RI RI RI U A •Q 'p •p '- I IaR►UEf n j 1 I C 41 w n-40 t� IBMCl i ''/%�.11! •RI �/ ,��,✓�' 1� _ li r• LAN(WrRCT T1h(,� ! !•►o / + I ado .a ; 4. Its Jo LU 46.0 diva re 0 440 • `: ��. ` � � I � _ Ai.A3 10 43IE •- T fniF 6uw Al- i Y• . I , . � 1 1 T I ti + 1 • -� •nA� r41 � r loft: i r NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE 3 to FROM: i+ PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NGTICE FOR THE DAY OF %�'.';% �, I9$c�. ,f -AP ' s are attached I AP ' s will follow i No AP' s Initiated by: Planning Commission Planning Department Petition * Appeal ✓ Other Adoption of Env ironmentppl St us (x) -� No c� EIR ND- Nos City Attorn� x-�0f- a been YES informed of forthcoming public hearing? Refer to Planning Department - Extension for additional i nforMAtion. `�' if a ri please tranmi t exact wording to be required in the legal . 'Am K4 uy rcm ram.. Andrew Lee Omens � t1�OR� Owsldien 1170 am Drive, S12 tkeyctin St. 31y 2rd at. M W %1sM& # CA 92324 El Segundot CA "245 *ntimitan IN - c t, C R "M '034-134-01 024-134-17,18 024-IJI -12 K40 K]sn�ieryeant t7tx`p. Z1xm s L. Wickstr m Daniel L. K w rally 8072 Adva Ave. 20522 Salt Air Cir 18092 Nm+tK m Laws NmtbVtm Beachp CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington bu ch, Ch 9M48 024-134-02 024-134-19 024-161-13 M Vi l D. Neck D3c1 i e L. Ogdem Alfred J. Pal 1.adirr. 8491 Atlanta Ave. 1832 Main St. 10 E. Huntington Huntington Beech, CA 92646 luntington Beach, CA 92648 Araidia, CAA 91006 to 024-134-03 024-134-20 024-161-14 Rkert P. Marxlic Valentine Parnakian Elsie ;idth 12669 Ianakila Lane 312 Chicago Ave. 23571 El Cerrito Ckurai n Grove, , CA 92641 llunti:rgton Beach, CA 92648 Laguna Hills, CA SUM 024-134-04,05 024-144-0111.0 024-162-01 BraMo Cavic Everett M. Flicks Leonard O. Lihdbot'g 410 Maim St. P.O. Box 310 17220 Newhgm St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 fiuntingtm peach, CA 92648 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 024-134-06,07,08 024-144-02,03 024-162-12 i B. M. Jurkovich 1pon IX buv Hayward C. Johnson 241 ArTmne Ave. 20222 Doervale Lane 730 14th St. Lone) Beach, CA 90803 Huntington teach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, C h 92648 024-114-09 10 ll 024-144-11 024-164-01 Charles Sarrabere John A. 'Ibberg Ray oM Franklin araty 201 5t31 St. 26133 ltatmdr Drive 8391 Hmnkm tans Nuntington beach, CA 92648 Calabass, CA 91302 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 024-134-12 024-144--14 024-164-02 Merle Cade Rita M. Palladino George Deundian 215 Mh St. 400 S. Mariposa 317 2nd St. Huntington 13cach, CA 92648 Los Angeles, CA 90020 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-134-13 024-161-01 024-164-03 Hubert J. Koury Daniel L. Kennedy Donald M. Perry P.U. Box 65176 18092 Newmood lam 313 2n d St. Los Angeles, CA 90065 Huntington Wachs C& 92648 Huntington Heaich, CA 92648 024-13-4-14 024-161-06 024-164-04 Hubert P. Mandic Fletcher ti. Dart Martha Elizabeth miter 12689 Lanakila Lane 310 2nd St. 309 2nd St. Garden Grove, CA 92641 tt mUngton Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beamch, CA 92648 024-134-15 024-161-07 024 -164-05 An dnw Lee Orems Dorothy E. Panvikian Fern T. Hodge 512 "fan St. 320 2nd St. 305 2nd St. X1 Sagursio, CA 90245 Huntington Nmch, CA 92648 MmUngton Nrrch, CA "60 024-134•-16 024-161-11 024-15 -06 a 1!"01t J. Nou ry UMd L. M w i MI and lit. P.O. am 65176 10596 Ma1n it. *ache Ch 92648 Un +�4•Li4-O7 024-1A'-01er, CJl 90065 024-�-�i6 Macho Cot MU 4mgh A. Maori JL m Vblzenile.`c Inaiel M. Santos Ut U" Toluas 2271 Pacific St. 416 Holly St. 8m Cl~tae, CA 92672 Costa Mesa, Ca 92627 Iayxw beech, CA 92651 024-164-06 024-173-05 024-201.-18 Southwest ' ► r balance Rod T. Eggleston Alfonso Paredes 20701 Chn., -er lane 506 Alabwa Ave. 17571 Watertown St. Hunti",xi Beach, CA 92646 Huntingtch mach, CA 92648 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 024-164-09 024-184-16 024-201-25 Carmel t.f n.3 Patrick Sddleman Richard P. MtxW 5401 S. D-sagrcve Ave. 502 Alabama St. 9651 Kite Drive 'i Whittler, CA 90601 FAuttington Bench, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 024-164-10 024-184-17 024-201-26 David C. Dellano Robert M. Millay Alan L. Fbrsha 8412 Country Club Drive 509 Alabama Ave. 1380 Laurel 9uem park, CA 90621 Huntington 13each, CA 92648 Upland, CA 91786 024-164-11 024-187--07 024-202-10 Cynthia G. Taylor Robert C. Eschbach Angelo B. Mollica 220 Via San Remo 510 Kings Fri. 409 Alabwm St. Nrioport Beach, CA 92663 w4port beach, CA 92663 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-164-13,14 024-187-08 024-202-11 Cynthia G. Cotton Fidelity National Trust Raymond A. Steiner 1598 E. Ocean Blvd. 20615 Calle Bella 8955 Sutter Cir SaLboa, CA 92661 Yorba Linda, CA 92686 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 024-164-15,16 024-187-09 024-202-19 Lao Marchand Faye I. McIntyre Hugh Foster 1 700 5th St. 511 Alabama St. 28741 7bp of the World Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 024-170-08 024-187-12 024-202-20 Huntinyton Beach Co. Maria Dochmaschewsky Charles P. Sinpeon P.O. Box 7611 7621 Alberta Drive 220 Alabwa Ave. Sant Francisoo, CA 94120 Funtington Peach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-170-13,14,173-01 024-187-13 024-203-09 Eltlar V. Higgins Thm)thy 1). McM31= G. Guinan 505 Lake St. 1.7901 Dluegate Lane 9192 Mhhatla Driver Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington awch, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, Ch 92646 024-173-02 024-187-17 024-203-13 Hattie 91isi wth Haim eeulah oft eter Awts A. Gillette 16392 24 Heim Ave. 1015 Huntington St. 202 Alwbalee Ht. Orwe", CA 92"s Nuntirsgton beech, CA 92646 Huntwl"ntlrvr, eretfh. C21 9" 0 4-173-03 024-201-15 024-203-14 r • J. Avon N. C. � . s�.xl � can..ld �. 0l� • ftit Alr Cir C "I lath St. 225 Alabm f. • oil I n ftfth, CR 92646 Nuntirwytan baach, Ch 92648 8em&* a% W" 024-205-05 024- 44 t'laoy w a. L wmater jamme De ludo Glan R. Naldamy all Atlanta *ft. 9714 Manzan r 223 Alobwa St. tlw"vitsa, bawah, CA 92648 Downey, CA 90240 Huntington !leach, Ch 92649 024-204-00 024-205-06 024-206-15 vial& Smeding Melvin R. Heckman liabert Berens 110 Alabwm Ave. 1029 Park St. 245 Electric Ave. Neseh, CA 92548 Huntingtr reach, CA 92648 Seal Beach, CA 90740 024-204y-13 024-205-1 024-206-17 14ailaee L. Nelson Donald D. Galitzen Cecilia M. Klic 106 Alabum Ate. 9770 Jamms River Cir 111 Alabm m St. Huntirxltron LNum:h, CA 92648 Fountian Valley, CA 92708 Huntington Beach, Ch 024-204-14 024-205-09 024-206-20 Craig De Vas Howard J. Nylander Louis A. Bowen 201 Atlanta St. 9631 CheW Chase Drive P.O. Box 1345 HuntLngton Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 I! - I 024-204-15 024-206-01,d2 024 206-21 Melvin J. Green Donald Eugene Goode Steven F. Horton 112 Alm St. 219 Alabam Ave. P.O. Box 1345 Huntington Beach, CA thintington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 024-204-16 024-206-04,05 024-206-21 E. T. Conlon Joseph Lmwis Jimmy Yanex 227 9th St. 15291 Seine Cir 1220 Las Arenas Way Huntington Beach, 92648 Irvine, CA 92714 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 024-704-17 024-206-06 024-206-22 Dennis R. Magood Marys . Ehrlich Leo D. Marchand P.O. 'Box 691 203 Alabam Ave. 700 5th St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ftuntimiton Beach, CA 92648 Huntington beach,, CA 92648 024-205-01 024-206-08 024-206-23 Angelo B. mollic<, Mauncey if. Killian John M. Pratto 409 Alabam St. 201 Alabama St. 209 Alabno St. Hmtington Beach, CA 92648 1huitington Wach, CA 92648 Huntington owch, CA 92648 024-205-02 024-206-09 024-206-24 william Henry Nicholson Josephine gaily 7tK mme L. Jacoba 407 Alabama St. 117 Alabama 207 Alabam St. Huntington Bamchp CA 92648 witington Beach, CA 92648 Nuntingbon 8sach, CA 92648 024-2D5-03 024-206-11 024-206-25 ovules r. iolhey City of Hmtitgton beach Wtntth S. Owly n 206 8th i3t. 20M Mi in St. 121 Alabam St. aantington bmmr h, CA 92648 N tti.rgton Beath, CA 92648 , Ch 0�1�X -04 024-2+06-13 02,E-206..26 4t Mari" C, r 10 maim". CR am Now R. "*imr,wr/Irr- 0rrch, CA 9264E r •'!� 024-1 7 doitr14 L. Sher � y •�� `' i WI%4119t= Huh, CA 92646 OU-202-09 t�rr .r �t.c JIfN /i.•rlriL fto C7�pooaiane 210 Iwtwit Avg. C'Cr l IhtirigbanDONCh, Ch 92648 ./;. r'•�•► r r' r,• ' , s��►1��c ., 024-202-16 (-/5 r J"Jr•rr 'r l fir. airy/le"- C/Y 90V 7 ftn h a. Mart xmu 209 8iltiM= Ave. :'r. e%o e sBWC r 1r CA 92648 /f r► rr I i. �fit`/� �J`c'rc r.ri.t%>) 024-203-12 .j t ` Y A" Donald L. Cnavciell �rf fr••I •( , (: }rr.• �� 16671 Channel Iarie C •I ►r,,,, • .( ,,► ��,w� HMtingt M baach, CA 92647 / y '�c; •,r r ,` r r.r rn n 024-203-19 r•r ♦ I f � Lt'•• �•,�.r/t�, cam) f �Y' i �^ i Alice G. Sturgeon , 212 Baltimore Ave. mntl.ngton peach, Ch 92648 024-204-07 /-�t/ r� r'> >>�/C• /'i .l , G 1� Anthmy J. 0orbo 209 Atlwta St. MMtingt kI Deach, CA 024-204-12 Summerhi11 Dev. 1122 E. Lincoln Ave. Bldg 4 •- Sijite 113 Orange, CA 92565 a OD. Plat am 76U am ftwaimm, Q1 94120 *W271-01,02,Oj,04 i 1 L y�'7