Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUse Permit 73-3, 73-5, 73-6 - James Montgomery - Constructio �-- 7 BOARD of ZOMIG AWUSTME(ITS 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON MACH-CALIFORNIA �r t, P.O. fox Na-10 "40W t 1141 J36.3271 USE PERMIT NOS. .'13-3, 1, 73-5: ., 73-�6 April 1 , 1974 -.... . .L....�.. . Applicant : James Montgomery Date of Approval : April 1 , 1974 (City Council) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 1 . The revised plot plan received 4/10/73 shall be the approved layout . 2 . Holly Street and Alley shall be dedicated to City standards at the time each parcel is developed. 3 . Elevations of t'.ie proposed plan shall be submit.- -I is the Board of Zoning Adjustments for review and appr9val action. Said plan shall describe the building materials to be utilized . 4 . The water , sewer , and fire hydrant system shall be approved � v the Department of Public works and Fire Department . S . So:l and compaction reports as required by the Building Department and the Department of Public Works shall be submitted to the City . i . Reciprocal easements for access shall be provided by the applicant . 7. Fire alarm system conduit and appurtenances atiall be installed by the developer at locations and to specifi- cations provided by the• Fire Department . � . TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL rNSPECTION: 1 . Holly Street and Alley stall be fully improved including street trees , street: signs , street tights , fire hydrants , seater and water main extensions . t� 2. All ut'.lsties shall be in-0talled underground. S. Off-street parking facilities shall coi.fors to Article 979. 4 . There shall be no fence , structure or landscaping constructed or maintained over 3-1/2 feet high within a 10 ft . by 10 ft . triangular area at the intersection of driveways and streets or within a 25 ft . by 25 it . triangular area at the intersection of streets . S . Dater supply shall be through the City of Huntington i Bexth's water supply system. f 6. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach 's sewage system. 7 . The property shall participate in the local drainage assessment district . 8 . No structur-s , other than those shown on the approved plot plan , shall he constructed within the project . 9 . All applicable City Ordinances shall be complied with. a f V�J'O-F'j rtrrNc'rONtH -TE'CITY'CLERK � _ l�td OF SERVICE LIN , SERTM ON:'..._..... .r r3 f� = 't�i�,ti i ' n'` iiah :Calif. 92647E } t`714). 84rlf,-452'h' ; ESS SERVERDATE- r t �Attor"aiya for" P4ti.tifters ..�.......�..�_.. � IX THE SUPERIOR 6- COURT (11� TIC 9�"TA1'E OF GA:.Ilr1�RMI!', _ 8 IN AND FOR THE COL13�t"�' OF C?w(M ' Pet it�ionerrt : 11 NO. 209 389 1�2 rCLARINDA KIRK BROOKS and j JABS D, M�WOOMF.RY, IER ., ORY WRIT •13 Ui' MATH "vs" Frapat,rdrEnts : THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 16 Ii WING OK BEAC H l ORM E COUNTY, STATE OF C.ALIFCW IA, AM TM CITY 17 1 OF xur TXG7%--A BEACH, ORMCM CaMY O STATE Of IFORNIA. 1 ' . 18 ly SUPE XOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNTA IN LAND FOR THE COUNTY '20 r off` 09MG2 to M CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUMINGTON &EACH, .21. COOM OF �, STA7�"E OF C'ALIFL7�t TA: .22 On . trial 'of the issuas in the abays•entitlid action, 23 this Court his duty found and ad judgtd that' tho City ,Council of , 24 • tbae •.City. of Rrsntington Reach has abuied its 'discretion in rrvirsi.ng the decision- of. the Planning Commission of the City ,off' 2s - Atifitington *3sach, and denying to pstitiouirs the' right ;to have • 27 '. r ,�!se, Pomitc Non . 73-31 73-5 and 73-6 granted. r o .ead i e0 irev�rVoe , your decisionxth x 1 j:° ate C�-tbiii,iOe i rs. Use Piansits goo, 13-3 • .•'73-5 and 73-6, `sad tt+. i e;s .+vc� of .the` la, ih rU ib6 *Ash Mould "�*ft t it r. r` 1♦ '•`•• �••+r•` vr T 2' riid UsePaiwits� with the d conditiow.laatce• o w .( �,raed tha �l. a+� .ng Coa�ai�aiun in #.C• e�ppraMval, of tEa:` . �.i. :6_ sar�ir ` .ri4 .:fuss 1$, 347.�,. 'arnd sake kacn to . thfa. GourC aa� ��r.. bei�aia i '7 Aprij,. 30•, ..974 how you: have executed"this writ, i 8 idYT SS ; +t ie Honorable "Jmmas F. Judge and the se*1 of ourttbis. • � cat of �1�a-��f�-� , 19i�i. t:y. . 10 'r� •1''` 11. • �' . ar 23 By: Deputy Clark .1 4 .�•: 15 ' 15 25, 1 �8 I,AI•JSON 5�IitlLT7 I'DEI�IS �K SpJOLJ.i'I Ct v ' + C(.ERK Attof i.7% 1rn ;t1LLavi P1vcI , ;rS rrttrtrixctr;yncacjr,CAL Eiunv inc,ton Beach l � Ca 1.1 f 9264 7 IF,' I (714) 347-4'.5) 19i•.�, r" r1 29 r• - I" T EI.I: SUi'EIC Lt)K COURT OF I•HE STATE OF Cr'.Ll"'ORNIA III ..::D FOR THE ":r_rL,',iY OF ORANGE j `0 209 339 CL.;r i.i`;ii:'i i�:.I~:I: EF�U+7r.`� :.2 t•:LI Jt' IIES D . ,'• O'i;•1GOMER'J PERELiPTORY w-RI r .. OF I, D.�T�M r �L��� -vs J Rt'sponc<ent s • ) ^y ) i}it f'T , COli:':LLL OF l;`E OF _ 'r G1; BEACII , STATE OF CALII7O1,,,',, iA A1,14D ii:E illy � •' OF ''' `'G"=0'•., I,C_�C is OP:'.''C r. .'.0 'i,, L 1_ S T.A.T A" 0_" CAL 1 FOR171 � ) SUPERICR COURT OF THE STATE OF C:`. �=FORMA 1"" .`.I,TD FOR TliE COMM OF OFLANGE TARE C l"L C:I::.Y of: i1VNT l GTC1 : BENCH, COUNTY OF OF�'i :GE , STATl E OF r r Ott isl-i'! l Cz ! 01L' i_ssl!e-s Ln t=he �lbovc -'ont: ZtiZndl LiC_Cion , •.` this Co'url:- has Q?.«iy 1' Uul1C: "Ind Z;C: the C1. r-v council of Ell-,- Ci f: y' 04; i:11i1L Lit �LQn I�(' , L 11 hc:s Lcs discreLioll in .. L'l'.l't•1.� lily- 4.1i:: �:t't i � is:11'1 �+i {:(1t' I' 1; ."`iltl�� �.%?i+}'.1215`: ! (�I1 aL Lilt;• �. 1�.�' t� T: }1U11C112L;L ii1"C! L?C'i1 .': i11 L 1Li0r,c:S thL' L• i,1II L::? !1i1 o r ' r.. 7_1 3 , 73 - ;; ; ' •(� t;rtiltt.c„# i I THEREFORE , we command you to reverse your decision which 2 denied the i:Ltitioners Use Permits Nos , 73 -3 , 73-5 and 73-� , and I uphold the decision of: the Planning Commission c•:hich woulc'. permit � the issuance- or= said Use Perak-s with the terms and conditions I as imposed b;, the Planning Commission in its approval of the same on June 19 , 1973 , and make knoc:Tn to this Court on or before April. 3 , 1974, how you have executed this writ . g WI=IESS the Honor: !Ae James F, Judge , and the seal of o said court his U dray or n ' `�7'�1 tt h E.l,.,� 1,,74 , , t l� Clerk By: Deputy- ClerR I i y f" I g i m III r . 1 I I 2 r. r i 1 DON: P. BONFA, City Attorney WILLIS MEYIS, Assistant City Attorney Z City of Huntington Beach -- > Post Office Box 190 3 Huntington Beach, California 92648 4 (y14 ) 536.-5261) 5 Attorneys for Respondents 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 10 11 CLARINDA KIRK BROOKS and ) 13 JA14ES D. MONTGOMERY, j Petitioners , ) 13 ) 14 vs . NO. 209 389 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ) RESPONDENTS RETURN TO WRIT 15 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ) ORANGE COUNTY, STATE OF } 16 CAL,FOR?1IA. and THE CITY ) 17 OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ORANGE) COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA) 18 ) Respondents . ) 20 ALICIA WENTWORTH, under penalty of perjury declares : 21 1. That she is the duly appointed City Clerk of the City of 22 Huntington Beach . 23 2 . That at the regular meeting of the City Council of the 24 City of Huntington Leach : .eld April 1 , 1974 , the following action 25 waA-. taken : 26 "A motiun was made by CouncilmEn Bartlett to approve Use Permits 73-3 , 73-19 and 73-6 i0ject to texas and con- 27 ditions imposed by the Planning Com►nission on June 19, 28 1973. The Planning Dirertor reported on the history of the ma:.-ter and the conditions attached to the use permits . He presented the Council with a communication from the Board of Zoning Adjustments listing conditions of approval on the subject use permits and Ctty Attorneyls comments . Mayor Matney requested that the record reflect that approval of said use per- 4. -nits by the City Council, was given only because of the command of the Superior Court . 5 The motion made by Councilman Bartlett was pascud 6 by the following votf: : y AYES : Councilmen : Shipley, Bartlett , Green, Duke ,, Matney NOES: Councilmen : Gibbs ABSENT: Councilmen : None . " 9 �a That no other act remain to be done by the City Council 11 Executed under penalty and perjury a4 Huntington Beach, 12 California on this 2nd day of April , 1974 . 13 14 ALICIA WENTWORTH 15 i 2s 17 xe 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 2s 2 as 2 . Affidavit of Pt#fication SLite of Callomia County of Orange ss City of Huntington Beach George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a BY C ;j,�'�,; , citizen of the United States, o%',er the age of twenty-one years. That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Bench News, a week:; newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- ••77 lashed in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said � I County of Orange and elsewhere and publish -, for the dissemination i C/ of local and other news of a general character, ant! has n bona fide .� subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paprir has been ` established, printed and published la the State of California, and M r, County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication k of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not �� �J, devoted tc 'he interest of, or pitbll>hed for the entertainment of r.ny k I bill particular class, profession, trade, enllin,, race or denornination. or t7�) t7 any number thereof.The Huntington Beach New teas adjudicated a legit ne�rsi—mixr Curr of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in he Suporior Court of Orange County. California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A•5931. (Pubtithed Huritlugtor., Be#ch'"etirs .tiny That the 1_ T( �r•- ;jam:_ .+.:..... ____ rrortcs. or rusua'NZiA1UHa AFPttA1:-T911APf�OAL_QV=tf�ti"'ltifgMlTA :�. i n;�■ ,�-1 i t�, NO$. 73.3, fl-s and'7)•ti of which the annexed is a printed copy, wag published in said nc«:.- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN :fet a;joub ,lac hearing will be held- by �4.'-Cite Council of the City of HuntfftKttfn 8.aah, in the County Char of the _Cfrie I paper at least _ — --- --- - - -- - - --— - Center, Huntington BCDCh. at the hCuf of 7.W P.M., Cr-aR soon thweafter at• corr.mencilir from t'+c _ dny of possit:te an Mondaythe .!3!h day of -- my,aim,'for-.the:purpo" v*! iCan Ira.N;ip"i;so•thi, ap"PV6( by;tttt�,•,Clfy; Plarning &o rrwktson-•10 altew the:cbn- 19_Z t and ending on the clay of `struction of :thrte 4 unit nP.::trtant ;t4mple.es Itatal of 60 units) ?ufsua:~t io S. 2202-3.1.3 of tft Huntingto.t Reach 19%.�; F both day5 inclusive, and as often during said Ix,rir.d and :Ordinance Cad& The subject pmpariy is times of publication ne said pal..er was nv ul arty is.sued, and in tier •tocatad cn the west side of trolly 3treel, regular and entire issue of said ct�,;aner prove.-, rind not in a yes Me ratite of C,�lrf�eid rvrRes in ital t;U p 1 i /:3 Medium tiiCh •f:,mii:y iie3Wlnitaf supplement, and said notice wui published therein► cn the follotrinh "Nstrlt.1_ A-1eja1.descrfpt;cM is on-14*1 dates, to-wit: in :.ha:tllanninx Rayartmsni Otiice.: 11 All interested poisons at* invited W attend said hearing ond,'tipreaa theft ' opiniens for or. against said tr"Ts. Further Information may. '1 '46taWid from the office of tht City clerk. DATED, 612E•73 fry, Ata^,IA W. Li4t:!':1�i!iT�T City Cfeth rri,lislier Subscribal and sttiorn to bc:ore me this �. "vA,_._..._ tin. of Nola*, Publiv v Orange County, CnitforWa THOMAS D. DIV'74 �I Notary Pah!;e•C o►rote Cou My Commth ios 5s�lre+bt 12, �W-W NX2 • KORDICK 6 SONo INCe GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR 19082 CRYSTAL AV!=NUE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92CAS July 16 , 1973 Hon . Mayor Jerry Matney City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Subject : Council Agenda - July 16 , 1973 G-2E - APPEAL Use Permit Number 73-3 ; 73-5 ; & 73-6 Gentlemen: We wish to advise the Council that we have strong feelings against the approval of this Use Permit for the construc- tion of three 20-Unit Apartment Complexes on property located west of Holly Street and south of Garfield Avenue, for the following reasons : We have constructed a new Construction Yard Facility which abutts 400 feet on this proposed development , Our Shop is Located in an area within 50 feet of our back line, This would create a problem to adjacent housing since repairs are made at late hours and equipment is dispatched at early hours in the mornings . Our rec.son for purchasing these three acres was primarily due to the type of development surrounding us and to escape any apartments or densely populated areas . We personally feel that all property should be zoned M-1 south of Clay, since it would fit in with the Master Plan for future development . Very truly yours , KORD LOK & SON, INC . -fr MARTIN A. KORDICK MAK/mw cc : City Administrator 0 City of Huntington Beach ' P.O. Box 190 CALIFORNIA 92640 0 OFFICE OF 'CIiF. CITY ADMINISTIA'rORRECCIYED: CITY CLERK 'NUNTINGrIC+,H YOF EACH�C1.41�;► June 27 , 1973 1973 .NN ?8 All 8 : 4 6 Honorable City Council Membees City of Huntington Beach Attention : City C] efik APPEAL REGARDING USE PERMIT 73- 31 73- 59 73- 0- I hereby appeal the Planning Commission ' s decision to approve Use Permits 73- 3 , 7-3- 5 , and 73-6 . Said applications propose to allow the construction of three 20 (total of 60 units) apartment complexes on the west side of Holly Street 185 feet south of Garfield Avenue . Although this property is zoned R- 3 , there appears to be a discrepancy in the Master Plan of Land Use which has the property in question designated both industrial and multiple family . ' continuation f I feel this area mould be a contln at n o the industrial corridor as it is better suited for industrial development , which is nee ' ! for an expanded property tax base. I request that this matter be set for City Council consideration at tht earliest possible date . Yovrt, very truly , rry Matney Hayor JAM:eh + 1 Tele.pbore (`113: 5.4 5201 ti I Huntington Beach P lan.,,iing Commission P.O. Box IN CALIFORNIA 22648 TO: Honorable Mayor ,end City Council FROM: Planning Department � DATE: July S . 1973 ATTN: David D. Rowlands , City Administrator � RE : USE PERMIT NOS . 73- 3 73- 5 and 73-6 - APPEAL BY MAYOR MATNEY I Applicant : James Montgomery P . 0. Box 2245 fiunti:.gton Beach , California Request : To allow the construction of .-hree 20 unit (total of 60 units ) apartment complexes . The property is zoned R3 ,"tedium High Residential District . Location : West side of holly 'Street , 185 ft . south of Garfield Avenue . Planning Commission Action : A roved - .June 19 , 1973 with the fo-Slowing conditions : 1 . The revised plot plan dated April 10 , 1973 for a 60 unit apartment complex shall be the approved plan . 2 . All previous conditions of approval dated April 26 , 1973 imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments shall. be complied with . Vote : Ayes : Por*er , Bazi.l , Higgins , Kerins Noes . Wallin Absent : Geiger, Boyle Summary of Staff Re>.port: It is the consensus of the staff that the proposed developments are definitely inter- related and function as one large complex physically if not legally . The staff believes that the applications meet the intent of the policy standard in addition to meeting most development standards for individual lots . Approval was recommended by the staff based on the above information and that the ar^a analysis recommendations agree with the; proposed land use of the civic center impact area. II y Additional Information : A motion was made by Wallin second by Kerins to overrule the Board of zoning Adjustments and deny Use Permit Nos . 73-3 , 73 - 5 , and 7:-6 for the following reasons : 1 . Granting of the use permits would adversely affect the Master Plan . 2 . The abutting area is developing as industrial and residential i development would be incompatible . 3. rvaial of the use permits will protect the investment of the c.--.:nmunity in the preservation of the integrity of the civic renter and the proposed freeway right of way. 'hF; motion failed by the following vote : Ayes : Kerins , Wallin Noes : Bazil , Porter, Higgins Absent : Geiger, Boyle The Board of Zoning Adjustments approved the subject use permits on January 31 , 1973 . In February 1973 , Commissioner Wallin filed an appeal and the Environmental Review Board rejected a request for exemption status and required a full environmental impact report , The applications were then continued b the Planning p PP y d Commissionan�s$1on from March 5 to April 17 in order to allow time for study of Study Area "D" . On March 13 the Environmental Review Board rdvised the applicant to submit a new exemption declaration with revised plans for future consideration . On April 17 the Environmental Review Board reviewed Exemption Declaration No . 73-42 and set it for a ten day public input period. The Planning Commission then continued the applications pending a final decision of Exemption Declaration No . 73 -42 . The Planning Commission once again continued the hearing to May 1 and then to June 19 for final decision of approval . Environmental Status : Exemption Declaration No. 73- 42 was approved May 1 , 1973 by the Environmental Review Board. Supporting 4 Information Submitted Herewith: 1 . Staff Reports - June 19 , May 1 , March 6 , 1973 2 . Area Map 3 . Board of Zoning Adjustments minutes - January 31 , 1973 4 . Board of Zoning Adjustments conditions of approval - April 26 , 1973 S . Memo from Acting Secretary , Board of. Zoning Adjustments i I 62,�= �- Information to be Submitted at the Public Nearing : I staff Comments 2 , tau-graphs 3. Slides Respectfully submitted, K. A. Reynolds Secretary KAR: sp enclosures ;TP FF REJPORT `fo: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM.: Planning Department USE PERMIT NO. 73-3 DATE: June 19, 1973 USE PERMIT NO. 73-5 APPEAL USE PERMIT NO. 73-6 (Cont. S/1/73) ZONE : R3 APPLICANT : Names Montgomery MASTER PLAN: High Density P.O. 224S a Huntington Beach, Ca. APPELLANT: Katherine Wallin Planning Commissioner REQUEST: To allow the construction of three n U 24 unit (Total of 72 units) apart- ment complexes . LOCATION : West side of Holly Street , 18S ft . south of Garfield Ave. ` APPEAL: To the decision of the Board ofAN I Zoning Adjustments approval of � Use Permits Nos . 73- 3 , 73•a , 73-64b " -Y'E E AL INFO:IMATION: On June 12, 1973 the Planning Commission instructed the staff to conduct an area study of the land relating to the civic center impact study as an aid for making a decision on Use Permits No . 73-3, 73-5 and 73-6. A copy of the March 6, 1973 Find May 1, 1973 ataff reports are attached for your consideration. ENVZRONyCNTAI, STATUS: i On May 1, 1973 the Environmental Review Board accepted and finalized Exemption. Declaration No. 73-42 covering Use Permits No. 73-3, 73-5 and 73-6. RCCOMMLNDAT ION: At the May 1, 1973 Planning Commission meeting the applicant did not concur with a continuance of the Use Permit applications . j The staff recommends that a decision be made on the applications ota June 19, 1973 as they have been pending since January 19, 1973. Ab requested by the Planning Commission, the staff will, be prepared to present an area atudy 'of the civic center impact area, encompassing the subject site on June 19, 1973. Based upon the intoimation outlined in the previous staff reports the staff recommends approval. of Use Permits No. 73-3, 73-5 and 3-6 if the area analysis recommendations agree with the proposed �Iand use . STAFF RL•PORI 'rO: PLANNING COMMISSION ! FROM: Planning Department USE PERMIT NO. 73-3 DATE : May 1 , 1973tie USE PERMIT NO. 73-5 APPEAL USE PERMIT NO. 73-6 (Copt. 4/17/73) ZONE: R3 APPLICANT: James Montgomery MASTER PLAN : High Density P.O. Box 2245 ° Huntington Beich , Ca. ' APPELLANT: Katherine Wallin � '- �. Planning Commissioner REQUEST: To allow the construction of three 24 unit (Total of 72 units) apart- ment complexes . A�1tAj�.a r LOCATION : West side of Holly Street , �-- 18S ft. south of Garfield Ave. APPEAL: To the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustments approval of I ' Use Permits Nos . 73- 3, 73-5 , 73-6 GENERAL INFORMATION: On April 17 , 1973 the Planning Commission continued A4d Use Permits Nos . 73- 3 , 73-5 , and 73-6 to the May 1 ,. 1973 meeting in order to await the final decision by the Environmental Review Board regarding a request for exemption status . The following short history outlines previous proceedings regarding these applications : January 31 , 1973 - Board of Zoning Adjustments approved ' proposals for three separate 24 unit apartments . February 6 , 1973 - Use Perm:.t No3 . 73- 3 , 73-5 , and 73-6 were appealed by Commissioner Wallin . February 6 1973 - Environmental Review Board rejected request for exemption status (ED 73- 15) and required full environmeiital impact report . March 6 , 1973 - Appeal on subject use permits continued by Planning Commission to April 17 , 1973 in order to allow the Planning Commission to study lower portion of Master Plan Study Area "D" . March 13 , 1973 - Environmental Review Hoard considered a change of status for ED 73- 15 and rejected the consideration. The Board advised the applicant to submit a new exemption declaration application With revised plot plans for future consideration. _- r Sta'ff Report Use Permit No . 73-3 Use Permit No. 73- 5 Use Permit No . 73-6 ! Page 2 March 27 1973 - PlanningCommission reviewed a portion of II the Area "D" . The staff advised the Commission that until the Civic Center Study is completed the staff cannot justify any land use in the lower portion of Master Plan Area "D" . j In effect , the staff does not have sufficient information at this time to state that proposals for apartments or proposals for industrial use would be warranted for this area. E April 17 , 1973 Environmental Review Board reviewed D 73-42 x revised request for exemption stattis with a revised plot Flan proposing three twenty unit apartments . The Environmental Review Board instructed the Secretary to post the exemption declaration request f;)r 10 days for public input . April 17, 1973 - Planning Commission continued Use Permit Nos . 73- 3 , 73- 5 , and 73-6 to await the decision rega-rding the ED 73-42 . A coC y of the March 6 , 1973 staff report is attached for your, supplemental information. PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject site is presently zoned R3 Medium High Density Residential ! and is vacant land. Property to the north , south and east is located in an R3 district ,and is primarily vacant land. There are several industrial shops located near the southeast corner ! of Holly Avenue and Garfield Avenue in th � R3 Medium High Density Residential District . Property immediately to the west is zoned M1 Light Industrial District . A proposal for a storage yard on a parcel abutting the subject site to the west was approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments on February 28, 1973 . (See attached Land Use and Zoning Map . ) MASTER PLAN: The master plan for Study Area 5 (1965) designates the three subject lots involved as industrial and residential. The dividing line on the designations is a diagonal line across the three suLl ject lots . (See attached map. ) At -has been previously stated , ,the staff is not prepared at this time to propose a definite indication of the master plan designa- tion for lower portion of Study Are: 4-D on the proposed, master plan. .. ,'.Stiff' Report . Use Permit No . 73- 3 .Use Permit No. . 73- S Use Permit No . 73-6 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION: On May 1 , 1973 the Environmental Review Board will review public input , if any, and make a decision on whether or not Exempt=on Declaration No . 73-42 will be exempted from the requiruments of an Environmental Impact Report . The staff will have further information on the results of the Environmental Review Board's action at the Planning Commission meeting. ANALYSIS : Revised plan received April 10,1973. The revised plan for Use Permit Nos . 73- 3, 73-5 , and 73-6 submitted April 10 , 1973 reflect a decrease for 4 units per application • a decrease from a total of 72 dwelling units to a total of 60 dwelling units . Thirty-one bedrooms and thirty-two bedroom units are proposed . The proposed plan relies on reciprocal drives in order to create a more compatible overall development which meets the intent - of the policy standards for apartment development ( 1969) . Two large open spaces are proposed in addition to either a private patio or balcony for each unit . The original plan submitted did not adhere to the 1969 Planning Commission policy standard for apartment development. An attempt has been made on the revised plan to adhere to the policy standard with an interrelated 60 unit complex and; at the same time presenting three separate proposals for twenty units each which could meet ordinance code requirements on their own. Except for aproposed la nd room straddlingthe property line u between two lots , the apartments are in subsantial conformance with all code requirements and the Planning Commission policy standards (1969) . The applicant proposes to construct private patios fronting on Hotly Street which will be enclosed by a six foot fence . Fences,, hedges or walls which exceed three and one-half feet must observe the front yard setback in this part of the city. Averaging of the front yard setback would allow the 'proposed patios tc be six feet high within the front yard setback, - however, the ordinance code permits averaging of the front yard setback only in the townlot area. •� I Staff 'Repart Use Permit No. 73- 3 Vie Permit No. 73-5 Use Permit No. 73-6 Page 4 ' I All of the roposed patios fronting tin on Holly Street are setback five feet from it t .i property line . If averaging of the front yard setback were to be allowed in this case , the development would consist of a 521 averaging, :tl? ghtly over the maximum permitted in the townlot area. There is an exception in the ordinance code which permits fence and wall setback variation to a distance of not less that 6 ft . from the front yard property line . S. 9204. 5 which allows the exception to be made on the reduction of this front yard setback requires that the lots must be a part of at least 5 or more If contiguous legal building sites held under the same ownership. The staff does not consider the subject site to meet this criteria, however it does consider the averaging of the front II yard setbacks in this case to be an attribute to the development . CONCLUSION: It appears that the applicant has proposed a site which meets the intent of the policy standard in addition to meeting most. development standards for individual lots . The laundry facility proposed oetween two lots would be a logical location j -- as it is located a walkway between the two separate apartment developments . Also, it would provide a break between the open space and the parkin3 to the south , and would reduce the probable number of laundry facilities fro m three one for each develop- ment) into two . As the ma3te r plan hits not been formulated for this area as of yet, the staff would riot be adverse to this proposal if the applicant meets snvironmental consideration. The staff considers that a wall would be necessary to be built on the west property line of lot 33 to be used as a buffer between the proposed residential units and a proposed ;onstruction office with facilities for �arking construction vehicles . One of the c onditinn for the industral use (Administrative Review No. 73-23) wag that the applicant shall post a bond guaranteeing to construct a block wall on the east property line (abutting th9 residential use) of said parcel at the time the adjacent parcels to the east Are developed to residential use . RLCOWENDATION: The staff recommends approval of Use Permit Nos . 73-3 , 73-59 and 73-6 with the following conditions attached hereto and qny reasonable conditions the Planning Commission may wish to impose . STAFF REPORT T(J: Planning Commission FROM:,, Planning Department USE PERMIT NO. 73-3 APPEAL DATE : March 6 , 1973 USE PERMIT NO. 73-5 ZONE : R3 USE PERMIT NO. 73-6 MASTER PLAN: High Density APPLICANT : James Montgomery P.O. Box 2245 Huntington Beach , Ca. a APPELLANT: Katherine Wallin Planning Commissioner REQUEST : To allow the construction of three 24 unit (Total of 72 units) apart- ment complexes . LOCATION: Test side of Holly St . 18S ft . south of Garfield Ave . 3' ... APPEAL: To the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustments approval of Use Permits NO. 73-3 , 73-41 73-5 . GENERAL INFORMATION : Use Permits No. 73-3 , 73-5 and 73-6 , a proposal to create three separate 24 unit apartment complexes in an R3 Medium High Density Residential District (72 units total) was approved by the board of Zoning Adjust- ments on -January 31 , 1973 . The three proposals are situated on three contiguous lots. In approving the use permits , the Board voted two to one for approval in each instance. Also , a minority report was filed by the dissenting voter in each case . A summary of the Board' s action and reasons given for the, minority report is attached for your consideration . PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject site i.s presently zoned R3 Medium High Density Residential and is vacant land . Property to the north, south and east is located in an R3 district , and is primarily vacant land . There are several industrial slops located near the southeast corner of Holly Avenue and Garfield Avenue in the R3 Medium High Density Residential District . Property immediately to the west is Toned M1 Light Industrial District. A proposal for a storage yard on a parcel abutting the subject site to Oo west was approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments on February 28 , 1973 (see attached Land Use and Zo7 wing Map) . 6 USE PERMIT tip. 73-3 March 6 , 1973 USE PERMIT H.Q. . 73-5 Page 2 k USE PLR�IIT NO. 73-6 MASTER PLAN: The master. plan for Study Area S (1965) designates the three subject lists involved as industrial and residential . The dividing line on the designations is a diagional line across the three subject lots . (See - attached map. ) Study Area 4D on the proposed master plan indicates the subject area as industrial. ENVTROMYtENTAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION: The . Board of Zoning Adjustments required an exemption declaration request be filed (encompassing the entire 72 units) and approved prior to issuance of building permits . On February 6 , 1973 the Environmental Review Board rejected the applicant' s request for � exemption status and required an environmental impact report be submitted. Jan't s Mo:,:tgomery, applicant , indicated that pr=.ar to the Environmental Review Board meeting of February 27 , 1973 he would be withdrawing two of the three use permit applications . He indicated that two of the. lots on which he was to develop had been sold. Consequently, he tease ED 73M1S in tho .Environmentsi Review Board continued t ( ) order to allow the applicant to revise hi,. request for an exemption declaration. ANALYSIS: The three use permits for 24 units each complied with development standards contained i;. Article 920 .. R3 So Lion of Division 9. The majority of the Board indicated that- the ocean oriented apart- ment standards could not be enforced. The Board based the judgment on a . City Attorney' s opinion issued on August 10, 1972 which addressed itself to the legality of implementing Sections 9162 . 3.1 9202. 3. 1 . 3 and 9232 . 3 .1 . 3 which stated that 11. . .approval. of such use permit shall be contingent upon the developer' s compliance Kith all criteria contained in the current_ standards for apartment development. ' CONCLUSIONS: It is the consensus of the staff that the proposed developments are definitely inter-related and function is one large complex physically if not legally. The staff believes the intent .of the "current standards" ca . s�ated in the above refrirenced section :elate to w4atever standards the Board of Zoni"A Adjustments is appplying to develapments at the time of review. until this s:pplizatf.on was fired, Cho Board applied - the .ocean orionted apartment standards (policy standards) and the non-ocean oriontod apartment standards (ordinance) according to geographic locations of the proposal. . USB .'PORMIT NO. 73-3 March 6. 1973 USE. PERMIT 140. 73-S Page 3 USE PERMIT' .40. 73- 6 RECEM+!ENDATI ONS: The stuff recommends that this item be referred to the staff, 1) to further pursue the intentions of the applicant and clarify which parcels are to be withdrawn; 2) that further clarification be obtained from the City Attorney regarding thb legality of implementing the ocean oriented apartment standards (policy) ; and 3) A Revised Plot Plan shall, be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. ATTACHMENTS: Land Use and Zoning and Master Plan Map Summary of Hoard Action i • r 0 IN C ••+ •• �IIYY11 VMiMMq�+i1Yl.�-� Mw...Y •••_ GARR AV E . RA R3 . ISTI f G 14AS R PLAt �� IGiT IN Tf AL 3glG� R RA-0 RA-0 SUP 73 � c� R M1 UP 73cm Ail -- U, RA-0 ' I ST I N M TEl? 3 LAN -- �H NSITY P 59DM STER PLAN: AD QVERAL AREA ( INDUS RIAL R3\ R3 R3 0 Z; 1000 SCALE IN FEET UP 73--3 UP 73-6 2 , 066 ACRES UP 73-6 , l/UYTItiG10N lf[+KN HUNTINGTON BEACH PI.ANNI?3: DEPT. ..�....�........r�.......�... !{ rout* !1 . }; . I'soart! oi i011111 , "''• . Wednesday , 1, 1973 7 ' I'}iRMIT ,NO . 7:5--3 A ) )I icrlr?t 1r1CSiO'1L' Clrllt~J• . To permit the cons truc t.io,l (tif nlJrsurzrlr t:ea S . 9Zq� , r1 24 U'lit' Apartment c omp'lex 3 . 1 • 3 located on west. Side of 11011y � trci�t , 185 ft . sout•h of Garfield Avenuc in an R3 zone . 'I'he hearing W-1; opened to the ll1jiCJtce . Mr . Mon-gomery, the ap9lic:a'lt , addressed the Board and his request . Mi' . 1indic , Acting; Secrct;lr t • , the 1969 a1)artment stalndtlr�s wouldr �.one?d ttihet}lcr or not lieu Of S , cJ1.G2 . 3 . 1 of. tilt Ordinance affect Code . tlliic ls proposal n if these standards dial apply , the a ) .1 ` did sufficient crien space on his plansc;arhl He further not i)ro- recommended the Board continue the subject request Pending a City Attorney. 's oPin%o:1 on l-rh -2ther the 1969 Apartment Standards apply to S . 9162 . 3 . 1 of the Cade . Mr . Gerarden stated that the City Attorney ' s office had previously issued all opinion covering; tine question and that: the opinion stated that the 1969 Apartment Standards were void and cotlid 'hot be 11pplied . A copy of- the City Attorney► ' s Opinion was Presented to the Board . Mr . Eadic felt. the M'.)posal could f',.•Ive an Adverse affect orh the Plaster plan which could he crit.cri.a for denial. , Mr . Gerarden Pointed out tilAt tlhc: current »a;lster plan Cdisplayed can irh•egTular hound:ary line reflecting; resi - dential zoning On a. major portion cif the Property a)t(l industrial oil the acljace'lt land . Mr . Gerarden stated that evelh tlaoug;Ih the master plan did reflect ►.ndustria�l zolling; on a portion of the subject propol-ty he did not find it to i)e.� a pre-vise Plan and to ;approve ;a residenti.1 development in line with current zoning aNIould not be in conflict " tall PI•evlousg'actionls property Br.;ard and Planning i olnnai Gsion . "he Board then revi.ewect the sa'g;g;ested condition!; of approval. With Mr . Montgomery a13ng; with lrinclscanirlg; , re- ciprocal ecasc>rnnnts , dri.ltelvays , and tile orientation of the facility. There being, no further comment , the:; hearing wits closed . Board discussion followed . AIO'I'ION WAS MADE :ty GERARDEN AND SECONDED BY SPENCER TO APPROVE IISIs PI:ItI•II7' Np. ?3 -3 i1'I'I'ff THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A . Tobe rOmplprior to issuance of 1>ui.lclice; arm;ts 1 . Tile plot i)1<ln .ecci.vcd January ] 1 , 197.5 shall he the approve(! 1.ayotl t . ? . holly Ave . and tile alley sI1;111 1.)e cI(�ciit ;ltc�(i ;ancl fully "npr ov" to Ci t'., Standards . 'I'hc wr:ter , scwer , rinri .fire hydrailt ue approved by the Department of Public cWorLsland Fire Dep,l: tment . 4 . Soil reports as required by the Rui.l(lirlg�, 1)c�P�lrtrele:nt and the Department of Public: works sll;t.11 l)c :,j glutted to the City , " � ' 1/31/73 - LIZA it `• • Milautes ; Ile .3 .001"I'd of Zoningc • Iti'cclnesclaY ,11 Aj7ustmcr� t .. z neIa'I r .3 l 1.97 Pa};c 8 A . S . Approval of the use permit is colltillper1L u}.on corrt- pletiorl of arl }environmental Impact Report or Exemption Declaration . 'r 6 . Elevations shall be submitted to the Board of Zoning Adjustments for approval action . Be To be completed prior to frumlP^�; lllsr}eCt i3011 : 1 . Fire Alarm system conduit and appurtenances shall be installed by the developer at locations and to speci - fications provided by the Fare Department . C. To be completed prior to final inspection : 1 . All utilities shall be installed underground . 2 . Off-street parking facilities shall conform to Article 979. 3. holly Ave . and the alley* improvements shall include street trees , street signs , street lights , fire hydrants , sewer and wat er main extensions . D. To be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and then. orcement of same to take place t lrou out the Me o . t le usiness or operation : I . Water supply shall be through til�� PP Y p City of Huntington Beach ' s water system. I 2 . Sewage disposal sli:ill. I)e through t}ie City of }Illlltingtoll Beach ' s sewage system . I 3 . The property shall Par ti.*:i pa t e in the local drainage assessment district . 4 . No structures , other Lllan those shown on the apilroved Plot plan , shall be constructer} witliirl the proj : .:t . S . All applicable City Ord}inarces shall be complied with . ROLL CALL VO'rl. : j AYES : Spencer , Gerarden NOES: Eadie THE MOTION CARRIED USE PEMr M' NO . 73-5 Applicant : James Mont ,omen To permit the construction of a 211 unit apartment complex pur- suant to S . 9202 . 3 . 1 . 3 of Huntington Bench Ordinance Code , located on the west side of Holly Street 385 ft . south of the Centerline of Garfield Avenue in a R3 zone . The Bearing was opened to the audience . The Board reviewed the plans with Mr . Montgomery, the applicant , and discusser) the effect of the 1969 standards on the proposal . '!'here being no further comment , the hearing iris closed . A MOTION IVAS MADE. BY GLItARDEN AND SEC '-NDED BY SPENCF:11 TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 73-S V11,1'}} THE FOLLOWIM; CONIYETIONS : A', To be completed prior to issuance of bu :ldiiy permits : I . The plot plan received January 11 , 1973 shall be the approved layout . 2 . Ilol l y Ave , shall be :led is a ted and fully improved to City Standards. - R - 1 /31/73 - 13ZA -�oildi,tions of Aprro. U. P,. ,73-3 , S , ' G Pace 2 A . Parking; compounds shall be screened with a combination of fencing and landscaping . Said plan shall be sub- mitted to the Planning Department for review and approval . Fencing and landscape plans shall include the following information : a . A List including quantities acid sizes for each species of plants and all ground cover material . 1) . Irrigation layout to include meter Location , ;ripe si.zes , sprinkler head types , etc . c . Fencing; materials and detail drawing, S . The structural street section of all private drives shall be ,jpl)rc»rOd l,y tlae Department of Pttbl.ic lVorks . i C. 1'0 BE C0h1,PLEI'F'D PRIOR i'0 FINAL TNSPI;C'I'Tozq : 1 . doll), Avefiuc and the Tilley shall bc- fully ilnProved in,-ludinl; street: tree: , street: signs , street: 'il0 ts , t- main ;;tcnsZon , . fire hydrants , SeliC.'r and i•:,. _L._ I ? . All utilities shrill br installed underg.rnund . 3. Off-street pal'king <<icilSt i.es shall eonforri to Al t:iele 979 . q , A masonry wall shall he constructed along, the West property line of lot 3 . The height of said wall shall be such that the top will. be six (6) feet: abo.re the }ligIlest gro'..nci surface within twenty (20) feat of the common property line . Said wall s}ia l l be the same Is the wall which will be built or, the property line of Lots 31 and 32 . S . There shall. br no fence , structure or landscrrpi ng, constructed or maintained over 3 1/2 feet high within a 10 ft . by 10 ft . triangular area at the intersection of driveways and streets or within a 25 ft . by 25 ft . triangular area -t the intersection of streets . G. A lighting system shall be installed within the project equal -;ia i.11t.tmin;ation to lighting oil public streets . lighting system shrill. tac: -111clef.:d to reflect away from adjoining properties and stre^ts . oi#� tiunTmd,.,"I"vc,), n mbnc-i t d r, ;1 P.O. BOX 190, CADFORNIA 92648 PLANNING DEPT. (714 ) 536-5271 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Use Perin-it No . 7..3-3 , 5 , b April 26 , 1973 A . TO DE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS : 1 . The plot plan received April 10 , 1972 shall be the approved layout . 2 . Holly Avenue and the alley shall be dedicated to City standards at the time each Marcel is developed . 3 . The water , sewer , and fire hydrant system shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and fire Department . 4 . All buildings oil lots abutting a City easement shall be set back 5 feet: from the edge of such casement: . 5 . Soil reports as required by the Building Department and the Department of PLIbli.c Works sha17. be submitted � n p to the City . G. All private streets shall meet the minimum standards for planned residential developments as adopted by the City Council. . 7 . A reciprocal driveway easement shall be submitted to the City and recorded . 8 . An irreversible agreement to enable tenants of lots 32 and 33 to utilize laundry facilities at any time in the future -,hall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval as to form and context . I3 . TO BE COINIPLUT D PRIOR TO FRAMING INSPECTION : i 1 . A landscaping Flan shall be submitted to the Board of Zoning Adjustments for review and approval action . 2 . Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view . 3 . Fire alarm system conduit and appurtenances shall be installed by the developer nt locations and to speci.ficatiow; provided by the Fire Department . . r Conditions of ApprcVO, W P. �73_3 5 .G .P. �, Page 3 D. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CrRTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY : 1 . Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach ' s water supply system. 2 . Sewage disposal shalt be through the City of }Iuntington Beach ' s sewage system. 3 . Basements for utilities or witlRivays shall be provided to Department of Public Works standards . 4 . The property shall participate in the 'local drainage assessment district . 5 . No structures , other than those shown on the approved plot plan , shall be constructed iv Ltliin the project . G . All. applicable City Ordinances shall be complied with . II i i i I I I E, I �J VA, + H?& INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION rtuvri�.rrov�rarr+ To PLANNING C0:`fti1fSSTON From DAVE f ADIE , Acting Secretary Board of Zoning; Adjustments Subjcnt USE Pl:W,41TS NO. 73- 3 , 73- 5 , Date F1liIZUAItI 6 , 1973 AND 73-6 Ilse Permits No. 73- 3, 73- 5 and 73-6 , proposals to create three separate 24 unit apartment complexes in all R3 zone (72 units overcall ) w,as approved by the Board of Zoning Adjtistments on January 31 , 1973 . All three 24 unit apart- ment complexes ,are located oil con t i f;uous lots ail the aoeF t side of Holly Avenue , approximately 185 "t . soutiu of Garf-il.ec. Avenue: . Several questions wore ,-lisccf by tile. Board as to whether or ;lot a request [oi- ,a 1 exo,-�aption declaration should be required in this case . City Council Rc-;:llaation Nos . 3613) and 1626 excludes apart- mont complexes which -are less thin 25 multiple f':.mi.ly dwell.iilrr units . OIl(: anember of the 130arcl ;Llldic.ated tla,at j the t:hrce applic,itions filed separately 1�c. re in actuality One last►e, ap:artiaent complex totaling 72 units, An c,);,ainple 01.7 the inter - roInti onshi.p bo-tween t.het three Separate � proposals was the require:rient for reciprocal. casement.,; for access C!"d drives . 1 Another point whicI1 the Board addressed itself to was the Icgcali t}r of implementing the .1969 OCC,all al 1011ted apartment standards to this developr►€,nt . The majority of the Board Felt that based on the Assistant Uty Attorney ' s opinion � of Dick Earl n l . memo dated August 1.0 , 19 7? , the ocean oriented apartment standards could not be enforced . A Copy of- thait memo is attached for your consi-dcration . llie Board :appruvc!cl Use Permit Nos . 73- 3 , 7 ,and 7.3- 6 with 2 aycs and I no. Dave E.adie filed a mi..ori ty report in each case ind:Lc:ating that his I:o vote was, based oil the fol_loti, inl; reiisons : 1 . On can overall projoct of this magi itude , the developer should address himself to the 1969 &2vulopment standards . 2 . The plan is not amendable to the current standards for developanr.nt which was intended to crenate a '.getter living environment for larger apart-ment (levelopments . 3. The "current standards" as indicated in S . 9202 . 3 . 1 . 3 anti), be construed to be those development standard.,; wh icli the Board ,a4horc:s to at the time of 4pplietat.ion ; namely , the 1969 occan oriented apartment standards . 9i . Tha (IMAopOr 5110uld SUbm.it fan exemption dcc,lcar,atioaa redacts r, prior La 3 is:i alwa of ,illy wrmit s . Number of Ercerpts �J Publish Once LEGAL NOT ICE NOTICE OF PLIC HEARING U81 FMK YNO« 73-3 -73- 5- 73-6 C 110TICF IS HEREBY GIVEt1 that ppuualic hearing will be held f by the City Planning Commission of th@��City of 1-iuntington Beach for the purpose of considering U" Peraaitw to allow t1a .,w.. +constrM ion of :,;' � =it swt"nt coaple�TA PU rmant to 8. 9203.3.1.3k, The subject prop*rty is la acted on the vast side of Holly Street 185 fast south of Garfield Avarnks in the R3 Medium High DanAity, j Uaidentiol District. A legal description is on file In the Planning { Department Office t i ' t Said hearing will be held fit the hour of 7100 P•M• , )n M&=h 6t 1973 , in the Council. Chamber of the Civic Center, K ::urltingtor, Flnach , Califor. l.ia, can 5th Street between flai n Street i. r:nd Orange A,renu e . ' All int,.:rested persons ar ., invited edt to attend saki hearing and express their opinions for- or against the proposedi UMe Pewit tw • f further, information may bt- obtained f.•om the City PI 3hning Dopnrtment . '101 oz,hone No 536-5271 'f VA`1'ED tll i 2 �l�w n t' FebrWxy, 1973 i CITY PLANNIM COMMISSION Publish Posteards 35 t' TICE Of MILIC tiWING APPEAL TO APPRt7�,A.T. OF USE PtaRMiT 110S. 73-3, 73-5, 6 73-6 HATICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be hold by the CitY Council of the CitY of Huntingtan Beach, in the Council Chasber of the Civic Center, Huntington Sssach, at the hair of 70o P.N, , or as Boon thereafter as possible, on the 16th day of ftft", .rely 19 73* for the purpose of a:oneidering appeals to the approval by the City Planning Cotxnission to allow the construction of three 20 unit apartment complexes (total of 60 unite) pursuant to S. 9202.3. 1.3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The subject property is locatod on the wrest side of Holly Street, 185 feet south of Garfield Avenue in the R3 Medium High Density Residential District. A legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office. All interea:ted persons are Itivited to att*nd said hearing and expr*xs their opinions for or sEainat said Further information sway be obtained from than Office of tha City DhV=1�++ww /23! 73 www CITY OF. MWI 14 AMH BY: Alicia X# Wrntwarth City Claret Z,. ; Up .73- 3 UP 73-5 UP 73-6 «wines 1`Sc�ntgor�iery Giles L Wallace et al P,.0:.. Box 2245 Al) -UNISTRATION Donald C Salyer 'Huntington Beach , CA Box 12 Pioneer , CA 95666 C.K. Brooks 1876 . Mott-;smith Dr. 1:5telle C Ci.lk . son ex al Ro3v B BTYce tinnolulu, Iiawaii 6831 Clark. Rai 1'.�i•n�1i �c� ('�t g5��ticj 0 =e County Fluocl D13t 'na �s 1<t Iircti.�i 0 pax 107b fart in '1idulufteld Ur n a Ana , Cal 02702 1927 �.t�, Pisq��,•l ;;ter, Franci . CA 4132 P asnc+pnl , CA 91.107 Staff Asst -� Uesigll A ltiynr��.ct �l tit r S e Iliv of Nwys "sar€. tret I i:�.rle>•c.a ��l� hti9Z�'' Fkn(;ho Ave 'Box 230.1 Terry Arm-. 1 ? S�!' rr A-idrews 1nt• 71' Garden c, vv �*,A 92641 ' s gales , C►1 ?nnr,7 �;rnl ''•:;�:'�; , !:A 90741) i U.11.S. 1►� CIar Fitt K 1srooks •• r i 1 �{7b J+lo -Smi th Dr i l7tl Ferrol i 1 toll aC j 1 Beach , CA 92646 1112 h nekidar Ave -lonolulu writ i 110822 oxnard , CA 113'0 i7. ict suet . i B. L'leem Schools 1:rclio :: Ness :'frl;inia 13 ilc:arne et a + X. 71 t;)1 �:� a'"ica1��t 1;irve1 %, 161ontal ►I i n`tington Beach , CA 0264(- Amitellel to l:ik ')01140 .!4114 1lellotroi-c or Santa Ana CA '.• ', 70(i s ict stipt . 11 n fnKtoti l;©zcc}ti Co. 2 ItS'I 30 Onves tmont. (;roues Frader i.c: W Schmidt Bush St . S Francisco, CA 94120 .hack ;1111ti-lgo •10-15 Tromant Ln 2.217 :"alit- 11u ` t Corona del `• ar , CA 02-. ;:5 John 11mi,phray et al Quontir J Tobias i��lvi�► ,.e : 2e.�� ut a) ,-om ?: 1:vetrson P 10. Box 307 Ls t. des t emir btan� Cn 802Xamal % Hunt f CA 19Zt4r� Tres Pinos , CA 95075 15 , .j { 21) Long Iseac:h , CA 9080 L Jamer. '61 itrade wn ce�tybit �.� . 11 .0. Bm% 610 P .O. Box S40S0 � Los An go Its w CA 90054 .'an f:a Mesa CA 92627 � �E Wltarton W: RWDonald R Wharton . }1c�l.v,iri V' Ktr1.1.ar of .)il Ralph Grunr uev at al '9692 Blanche live 4; ,54. .:aw I low i t.t ltivct ;Ol IN P�tyr�jou*}1 Gordan Grove , CA �}1641 11ort I an Oregon'. 97220� _ _ Los Angeles , 1:�140004 (714} 842•l302 KORDICK 9', SL11N , INC. GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR 19082 CRYSTAL AVENUE HONTINGTn"d BEACH, CALI Fort NIA 9264G July 16 , 3.973 lion . Mayor Jerzy Matney City of Huntington Ii each C;ty Hal ) Huntington Iic ch , CA 92646 Subject : Coi►nci.1 Ar.,enda - ,Jul.y 16 , 1973 G--21. -- APPEAL use -ormi.t: t'-li.mber 73-3 ; 73-- 5 ; & •73- 6 Gentlemen : We wish to advise the (:lone it that. .-Ye have strong; feelings against the approval of this Use Pe»- :�it for t hie c�onst:r.�c - iion of t hreo Ana•r. tmen: Cormylexes on property ,located t1r t: (-) Hol.?,y :'Erect and soli h of Gaj'fi.eld Avenue , for the f o l lowi.n.5; rea!3nns : We have constructed a n w Construction `►ard Facility which alvitts 400 feet: can t;hj. ;, proposed development- . Okip `shop is Located in tin area within 50 feet: of our back line . This ��ould create a T,rc�bl.c:m r- adjacent housing since rnpai.r:; are made at. Late lours and equip-ment is dispatched at early hours in the worni.ngs . Our reason for prarcha, x.n, th-se three acres van primarily rlue to the type of development surrounding uS and to escape any apartment-s or c!,^n nr_l.y populated areaB . We personally feel that all prop( rry- should be .oned 11-1 south of Clay , ni.nc:e It would fit In with the U,Irt:.e,: Plan for future deve)-opment: . Very truly yours , r j KORDI ' & S. k)N 7IIC . l MART M A. KORDiC,K r cc : City Admi.nist:rato �`-'%� V'•:' !' it March 8 1974 ::. Clerk of the Superior Court Orange County Courthouse 700 Civic Center Drive best Santa Anas California q .j -2701 7 . J . Res Brooks and Montgomery vz . City Council of the City of Huntington Beach o of al. I Case No. 209 389 Dear Sire ! � Would you please file the original of the enclosed return to writ and return a oonformed copy to this office in this ' stamped, seif--addressed envelope provided herewith. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in tUs matter, '+ Very truly yours , DON P . BONFA M" City Attorney r. By WILLIS MEVIS ftnistant City Attorney { WM: lm . J r Enalosures (3 ) Y j , I 1 l 't r !ti ttk'••r �: ` ; 1f DON P . BONfiA, City Attorr,ei i : ''•'• WILLIS �IEVIS , Assistant city Attorney City of Huntington Beach ' Office Box 190 '3. Huntington Beech, California 92648 ' .. 'V. 5 Attorneys for Respondents 1 r 7 a SUPERIOR COURT OE' THE S'iATE OF CALIFORNIA g FOR THE COUNT' OF ORANGE • 20 !! CLARI:NDA KIRK BROOKS and � NO . 209 3$9 JAMES I). iti0tr'TGOMER , ) 12 ) 'RETURN TO WRIT Petitioniws' 13 vs . ) III.: 1 THE CITY T COUNCIL OF THE CIT } c OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ORA14GE } COUli7'Y, S.:kTF OF CALxFOrt3_ ' , ) O' s10 and THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON ) BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY , STATE ) � i+` 17 OF CALIFORNIA ) • 'r, . Respondents ) 19 20 COMEStjbi�t the CITY Cbi?? � TL OF THE CITY0I' HUNTINGTON BEACH and the CITY OF HUNTIINGTON BEACH, and mak,c their return in the 'above 4 , Z riiatter a:, follows : 23 1 . That p'Irsuant, to t: -�� ?'`rerrptcrS Writ of i?aildat�' issucci 24 herein, Respondents CITY C)UNCIL OF THE. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 25 and the CITY0p ti 1,,1id�'T��Iv RI �-�C'ii, ut Ft City Council meE�t;irrE duly ,t + t 26 fZCI.d Ofl '''t'hI'12�r�' j�1 ;�7'� :iiC:��.� I ,��Idiria?;) auP'PCr:t;3i�S; iltt.tt� 1L�r3� v�.Vt� �7 in reversing the Planning Cc����ins ton' s ttec:isl,on. ? . That a cert;s.fied �.�py of t}2 ��iCy Counc3,I ►�ec��tl 9 1 and findings is attached :iereto as Exhibit A and by refer-once made 2 a part hereof . 3 3 . That Respondents have compiled with all orders of the 4 Court :issued herein. 5 CON P . BGtJFV City Attorr.. v 6 1,11M .IS I-iEVI Assistant City Attorney City of Hu ,ti gt n Beach 7 % v 8 BY �. 9 ��ssi ta:;; City �,ttorr.e;, Attcrr.eys fo2-., Respondents 12 14 jr 1s 17 20 : �yl 122 24 I 25 h Rs } F ^' IYERtr:ICATigN ---446.20155 i STATE oV CAUfORNIA M COUNTV of ORANGE � } Ity the 7 tt+n tt��tC)I"IiC`,► '; 'i�j. �.�. �1r+Ili,;►i�.�.._: ------_ - S r ,���_ :1 } i��t:, cif' �.i�l1t,S j�iiFt.S?l► ,'.')+.t,:c�;� .�- >n a*abort entitled artiun: I have read the Jore�oin,�-•—.Ia1.�i 1.-'tai=-�-= szttd Isrnu' tAe rantertts 14trzol: and I certily that tAr " asr it lfue at ma uu t Lnuu•icdge, tretpt at to thane ::rMib 91 1 art thr+rin stated upon my ;nlarmatiort Orr hii►rl, ''t�+.J i+: fan:♦ r+.nl)t#. ) hr++!1 a it t0 he t/lie 10 li t i !certi)T Iu�declare).tinder peno117 at Perjury,* that the lu►fovin4 to true wid correct. 1►IUI�I.�}, l� 1)7 t! �l+.lt{� �li,�*... .����t•� ..�,...- ..� �.+J+I�OM.ill 1 E.stcutrd an_ .r.._. - .._.._r. . .of (p!►sctrl� t 14 , rd+lee) �f 1 is 17 � 18 19i � 20 I 21 � 22 23, 24 27 r I• 28 ; Page 46 - Council Minutes - q*74 • t RES NO 3848 - ADJFiED - ADDENDUM - KENO OR AGRMT - it B POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOC "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTI.WuT:ti•t BEACH APPROVING AND IMPLEM..cNTINr. AN ADDENDUM TO THZ (MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION DATED JU14E I6, 1972. 03 R,E„-S NO 3849 - ADOPTED - GRANT APPLICATION & CONTRACT - CALIF COUNCIL ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE "A RESOLUTION OF TILE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUVrINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A GRANT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AND EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT 'WITH TILE CALIFORNTA COUNCIL Oti CRIMINAL JUSTICE. " ,J/USE PERMITS 73-31 73-5 & 73-6 - FlNDDINGS OF FACT The City Clerk presented a Peremptory Writ of Mandate issued in the Orange County Superior Court commanding the City Council to reverse its decision of July 16 , 1973 Mich denied an application filed by James Montgomery for Use Permits ;Jos. 73-•3, 73-5, and 73-6, or to make findings of facts supporting its position in reversing . the Planning Commission's decision, as required by Sections 9811. 2. 1, 9811. 2. 2 and 9811. 2. 3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The City Clerk also presented a communication from the City Attorney' s office dated February 13, 1974 informing Council of they grounds for denial of a use permit and recommending that Council make a finding of i:ne fnc,.% relied upon in rendering its decision, together with the applicable ordinance vaction; or, in the alternative that the Council grant 4vi,d Use ?emits subject to the terms and conditions au imposed by the Planning Commission in its approval of name on ,Tune 19, 1973. The application for said Ilse Permits had beer. approved by the Planning Coni<nission on June 19, 1973 subject to terms and %onditions. Said Use Permits propose to allow the construction o.` three 20 unit apartment complexes (total of 60 units) pursuant to 5ectiort 9202. 3. 1, 3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, on property located on the west side of Holly Strbet, 185 feet south of Garfield Avenues in the R3 Medium High Density Residentia;. District. The Mayor stated after conferring with legal Council it appeared that the appropriate action might be to sustain the planning Corarmission. The Assistant City Vtorney informed Council that it was the opinion of the City Attorney's office that the decision of the Planning Commission he sustained. Mr. James Prslin, Senior "lanner, presented backgrpund information on the application For Use Permits and the land use history of the area involved. At the request of Council the: Assistant City Attorney read the Council Minutes of July 16, 1973, at which time the Council overruled the decision of the. Planning Co' mission and denied said Use Permits and directed the Planning Commission to ('. initiate a Master Plan Amendment with the suggestion thole it be zoned overall ititdustrial development. Councilman Shipley and Councilwoman Gibbs arrived at the Council'meeting at 8:05 P.M. Considerable discussion waz held between the Council and staff regarding various eopccts of the watter including the zoning and master pl7nntng of the are%. 2/19/74 5XI11DIT A V A -moLion was ,made by CJ&ilman Bartlett to grant Use Akita Pros. 73-3, 73 5 and '♦• �.: 73 with the: conditions and terr:!i imposed by the Planning Cow.ission on .Tune 19, 1973. In response to a question by Councilman Green, the Senior Planner stated that this was ­-hee, final discretionary act and that a Final Tract Map would not be filed. He reemit:ded C60ncil that Article 977 of the Huatingt'on Beach Ordinance Code, the enabling 1tigisla- ' Lion. for the Environmental ,Review Board, does authorize. the City Council to overrule the Environmental Board and request additional documentation. 'no 47- Councilman puke spoke regarding tits contention that Master Planning overrules zoning aria that this is ae finding of fact and that Council dos not have to decay the permit but can approve the permit on the basis of the Master Plan and the applicanton can-or- mance thereto. Discussion was held between the Council , Assistant C.icy Attorney And Senior planner regarding this aspect of the zratter and the timt elemLnt in the application of the State mandate to this matter. Discussion was held between Councilmen Green end the Assistant City Attorney regarding the application of Section 9811. 2 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to this matter. The Senior Planner reported on the planning designation in the "old teun"arax. Councilman Coen inquired as to the environmental statue of the project crud the: Senior Planner stated that the: initial application for Exemption Declaration had been ret,jected. • but that a subsequent Exemption Declaration had been approved by the Environmental. Review Board following modifi.cntion of the plan, and referred to the }Tanning Couminsion. Che wotia. aued>~ b • Councilen�ei 8.irtle t xa •�d to pass b the fo 1 t I� y t it p s y l owing vote: f AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett NOES: Cciuncilm6n: Shipley, Gibbs , G een, Coen, Duke, Matrey i ABSENT: Councilmen: None Discussion was held by Council regarding various Aspects of the matter. On motion by Green, Council directed that Use Permit Nos. 73-3, 73-5 and 73-6 be: denied based on Section 981.1. 2. 1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code thr:t rite health of parsons residing in the area Will be r,dveralel affected due* to environmental conditions in the area including seiamic questions rind the possibility of air and noise problems associated with the ad jncenl� industriiii uses and the roadway; and farther based on Section 9811. 2. 3 as the Use Permit and the usage is not in con:formince and would adversely affect the Mant:elr 111.in of the City becauso the Master Plan indicated that the area would be developed into 14-1 Light Industrial area (Use Permit: 73-3 and Use Permit 73-6) and the impact on the already overcrowded conditions of the Huntington Beach Union Higte School District that the health of persons residing in the area weld be adversely affected due to environmental conditions in the area including; seismic questions and the possibility of air and noire problems associattd with the adjacent industrial uses and the roadway and drainage problems , and the traffic circulation problemm of the area. The motion was passed by the follmaing votes AYES% Councilmen: Shipley, Gi - "����•, NOES.: Councilmen: Bartlett ABSEtiT: Councilmen: None CONCESSION LIG1t'IP1G - 1iUNTINGTU:: .t�I;OING MSTFiUAMT I$ A CQRftEC! OF TR. ORI*%JLxkL ON ME 1;*N TIlLt OFFICE xita City Clerk �•reeentQd a comtcur AII'MT.__ 1'arkg Connisei::. recommending the 1. Lind graphics for the concession t ; t�fGfllnea '/.,• _��G_C�1�`•� fity CIA L-N] Cf,t�: of tf:ej Cit7 Council c f 16 amity.,cf Eaa. ngwtu r>&V14 Cad ------. I "tv CITY OF HUNTINGrON HEY.44 OFFICE OF THE CITY C1 EX-A ........ .. I ,: IAWSON SCHULTZ , EDENS SKOLEN . .. SERVED ON: Attorne x at Law 21 17612 Beach Boulevard 3 Huntington Beach, California 92647 q 4 (714) 847-2521 5 Attorneys for Fatitionerrs NTY 6 7 m? rr-C 10 PM 8 IN THE SUPERITOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COWrY OF ORANGE ic 11 Petit loners Na. CLARIM) A KIRK BROOKS --ind JAMES D. MNTrxOMERY, ALTERNATIVE WRIT I A 15 Respondents : 16 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 17 HUNTINGTOM REACH, ORANGE COUNTY, (b STATE OF GALIFORNL4 , al-d THE CITY A OF H=1k7MPN BEACH, ORAnF. COUNTY0 18 ;4, Ifs STATE OF CALIFORNIA. TKE SUPERIOR COURT OF' 111E STATE OF CALIFORNIA, III AND FOR 21 MR COUNTY OF ORANGE , TO: THE CITY COtWIL OF THE CITY OF 22 HUNTINGTON 'LEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA , and THE 23 CITY OF 11UNTING-l"ON BEACH, ORANGE COUfVrY , STATE OF CALIFORKLA: 24 It mAnifestly appears to this Court by the verified petition of Clarinda Kirk Brooks and James D. Montgomery, the parties 26 beneficially interested herein, c copy o,-x which peti-tion L3 217 attached herato, that Clarinda Kirk Books and Jame# D. Mantgooary f I I are, clearly entitled and have a clear , present right to have the } f i j 2 . appl.ica"ion for Use Permits Nos . 73-3; 73-5 , and 73-6 issued by i the: rearond+ent , the City of Huntington Beach, and that said petid ! 4 � tioners have a clear and present right to have the deci.sior. mad& by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County! r 7 ' State of Caa ifornia, on July 26 , 1973 , reversed and sat xside, 8 and have a docision of the City Council. of the City of Huntington I 9 Beach , Orange County , grate of California , sustaining the Planning 1.0 Comai.ssion of the City of Runtingtoai Beach, Orange County, State 71 of California, order appr.crAng said Use Permits on June 19, 1973 , I �2 ,and that there is no loin red plain, speedy ,• y * and adequate remedy in the � ordinary course of law; and 1A i ' 15 By an Order of thi6 Court duly made and given in the above- I, 1 entitled naton can 197..,..,., it was ordered that an 17 , alternative of mandate should tNfiur, to you; 18 TUREFORE, we do com and you tbat by 19 1.97 , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Orange 20 County, State of California, reverse its decision made on July 21 ; 26 . 1973 , which said decision denied the issuance of Use Pemits Noe . 73-3 ; 73-5 , and 473-6 to the applicant and one of the p+eti- 23 tioners berein, James D. Mcnatgomary , and to affia•m the decision ,, 4 25 of the Planning Cocavissiota of. the City of Huntington Roach, Orange 26 County, State of California, made on June 19, 1973, which said 27 decision permitted the issuance of Use Permits Nos . 73-3; 73-30 ''r; and 73-6, or that you show cause before this Court at the courtrom l +� ,. at ...w, b clock �,......,..m. , or as soon theraafte�r ono coU,anal 3 4! can be .heard,rd, whyjau have not dome on. WITNESS the Honorably: attested by off► �f hand &nJ seal of said Court on thi-i day of , 7 ,f 197„�„ i; WILe.,MM E. ST JOPS, Clark � l0 ' ' Oeputy Clark 1 i � X`7 ; i 14 it t � i I 1 17 ' 'E t E� r t 20 ` i S 21. L. !' 2 24 25 +4 I. ?.5 E� ?7 8 (! i F ii U.WSON SCIiULTZ , EDENS SMOLIN i Attorneys at Law 2 1761.2 Beach Boulevard, Suite 8 Huntington Beach, California 92647 i 3 .i (714) 547-2521. 4 ; fi fF Atr.orneye for Peti.tionerr ,1 � F 7 IN VE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 .' IN A!17D FAR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE I 10 ' 11 Petitioners: ) } NO. 12 CLARINDA KIRK BROOKS and ) ,TAMES D, MONTGt?KERY O ) ORDER TO ISSUE ALTER14ATIVE WRIT OF 14A1 W ATE 15 ;; Respondents : } 16 +. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITE' OF } HUNTINGT0N BEACH, ORANGE COUNW, � 17 i STATE OF CALIFORNIA , and THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ORANCE COUNTY, } . 18 ► STATE OF CALIFORInA . } tf 20 The Court, hAving read the verified petition of the pati.ti.onere 21 ±; in this action, including all. exhibits attached thereto, hereby 22 (! fInda that the Alternative Vrit of Mandate attached to raid F; 23 i, ;i petition should isstle. 24 ; IT IS RERENY aWERED that the Clerk of this Court will there-) ; fore issue said Alternative Writ of Mandate. iE ,,. Dated: r, I ;•! 1 t Judge of tie Superior Court 1 1j L.AS.t5;(' ', r-fj N ! !; Attorncyx ar 2 ;� 176.i2 beach Boul ;W ii:rf 13 Hunt l nStrryn Ca ? J. ft.,r.n Ua 254 7 t; t r (71.' 847-? ")2 5 Attorneys for Pr-r 3 r. ions:r, j ;r 6 ' 7 ' f I Ir j.•ti "XI , t•t�1� �. 4J1 r. 'i .� ♦ i ��' 'i::C�.,t. 14 '+ C ,. 12 '� t:L"R I;i'r, 13 �r I 15 Re.3pc.•ndents . 16 I'H"Ef C IT e OF Tl l,,, J. `l I;It�li4Ij��;j' �j' AT 19 {E 20 21 �r CUilllrMA Ki1?K .j?(?i KL:, an-A J?'1ALLoner s r herein, pc it lr.ol2 L I i : -:U.J!'L 1.01- 11 ',,f c t. o i :"Sand,"Mand," i, (?Uz'suant: t c) it 23 E , . , ,. � t , Code of: Civil. i roc,edur.� ,.,i4� t i-on IJ) , . .. , AL :t CCL .f cn the 24 z; {? nomad areepondents , and by this veri t:l#�-d petition, represent. 25 ' fnllaMn . 26 ti Z 27 Petitioner , Gi..�Q INDA KIRK BROOKS , is Ox, present record ov'm r 213 of tots 31 32 and 33 oi: H loc t, {i t 1 per Map recorded in Miece t laneous Mapre of Orange County, State or 2 Califomia, and at all times herein mer,t,ionvd, petitioner, � 3 CLARINDA KIRK BROOKS, was the proposed vendor of said lots to c 4 JAMRS D. XONT"IrRY, as purchaser of nald lots, with a condition 5 In the said sulea agreement that the Bale would be completed if 4 5 a use permit oould be obtained from the City of Huntington Beach. ! 7 Orange County, State of Cry lifornla , for the purpose of building 8 apartment units pan the same . 9 II 10 That prior to the actions complained of herein, petitioner, 11 CLARIMDA KIRK BROOKS, had designated petition:r, JAMBS D. MONT- 12 : 00NMY, as her agent to represent her in any necessary actions 13 which slight be needed to ubtal.n the necossary use permits for 14 t.he building of sold apartment buildings . A oopy of said written 15 authority le attached hereto,, marked Exhibit "A" .. and made a ,part 16 , hereuf by ref:irence . i 17 III i 18 That both petitionere are aggrieved portion of the action 19 taken by the City Council of the City of Huntington beach in its 20 meeting In this decision on July lb , 1.973, to deny the granting ! 21 of the use permi.tn which previously had been requested Prow Braid t 22 City, as the deoision by the City Council or the Catty of Hunting- ;, 23 ton Beech did deprive the petitioner, CLARINDA KIRK BROOKS, of her prospective ogle of said real property, and did deprive p*tl- i i� 2a '� tionur, JAMMS D. PONTt3MERY6 of his right to buy said real pvcp- � 26 erty. P.7 '' I1P' n8 In seaordance with the buy and sell agreement, petitioner, 2 t • 1 i J"AMES D. MORTOOMERYr applied to the Br.8rd of Zoning AdjvOtr1ent3 2 „ L,f the City of Huntington Beach ror three uee pem, 11. 3 , designated Use ?Omit 13-3; Utse 'Permit '(3-•5, fired Usoa Permit 3-5, and the t 4 same Nate aet for before the Board of 'caning 1'Idjuatraer;te i t 5 on January 311, 1973, at J r 15 P,M . 3W id applicatlans requested , fa that twenty--fuvr (24 ) upartmenr, unW) be built upon each lot 7 R; ccordIng to the designated plot: vQubroltted LQ the Board of .zoning $ .1djuatmen'ts , Said Board tat' l-mining Adjustmenta appruved the app11-� 9 cat-tons for Use Feemlta 13-3; 134-5, end 13-6 on Jinuary 31, 1973, 10 oith conditions which yut r petitioners were willing to accept . , 11 y 12 Thereafter, a member of the Planning Cornvission of the City of : 10 Hunti"ton Betich appealed the decision of :,he Board of ^czning 144 Adjuatmentg appmvInk; Uae Ferxits 73-3; and 73-6 tt; the I 15 City Planning Co=mise.ion of the City of HuntingtQn Beach, Calif- ornia . A aepy of said Notice of Appeal Is attached hereto, marked 17 ; Exhibit B", and wade a part hereof by reference . 18 `; Vol 1�� , f' ..aid Planning Co:nrais�+lon set Lhs r�.� ►.tcr ,:r hearing on March 6, 1973, and thereafter continued the same fcr further study and 21 reports until June 19, 1.9130 at which time the Planning Commisa- 1 2a f' ion, after public hearing and reviewing of n revised plot plan ea 23 �J reao*wendod b; the Planning Depertwent , and after receiving and fi , 24 rtviewing the report of the Fl anning Department reccAsmending the i3 J - appltaatlQna t'c;. said Use Polite 73-3, �'3 5, and 73 f!s, t'�ha Planning Cc*aiawjon approved said use perw1ty with the conditions 7 as recor w nded by the Planning Depfartraent, on* or which was that 28 . i� i, each lot would have only twenty (20) gipartmont units., rather than ?� the orLSInal twenty-Four (24 ) cinito as applied for, and your POW 3 tioners are wi,l "Ant to aocept the added aon;iitione of the Plaranln$ ii COMIANica. R Copy of the Planning Depur.YGaeent ' s report to the i' 5 : Planning Commlaesion is ottaahed hereto, mewed Exhibit "C" , and 6 ± wady a part hereof by roference . 7 1 , VII a ! ` iereafter, a member of the City Council or Huntirkt ton Dorsch, Jerry A , Ketney, appealed the decision of the Planning Consiesion ; '-C to the City Council. or Huntington leech, Orange County, State of 11 { CalSforni,e, and the aame was heard on July 15, 19731 and tna City 12 !! Council of Huntington Beach reversed the Planning Cowmi,ssion and 13 Board of Zonin,; Adjustments, and den.led the applications for the 14 uSA perfaits . A ovpy of the report made by tho Planning Dspartwent I5 '� to the Mayor of Huntington Beach, and the City Council of Hunting-: 16 it tors Beach* is attached hereto, marked Exhibit 'p'' , and made a part 17 hereof by ri#ferenee . 18 ?� vrii R copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the City Counoil of ?C Muntington Bosch on July if, 1973 is attached hereto, marked 21 Dhibit "E" , And Bede a part hereof by reference . bast said ex- �f 22 ? hibi t did not cite any grounds for the dental of said use por*Itc,o I !► 231 but merely su"osted thst the, Planning Commission i.rrttiate a 24 Neater Plan aren4mont with the ou"astion that the prop*rty in- volved be resumed ,as In4ustrial e P 6 , IX Ij 27 That cat all t1ass h9teirl seantior*d, said parcels or land for ft �rj f wh1ch ttW use perwits were requested "re sovod R-�• And f: i+ b tt ' j. if �+ the Huntington Beach City Code, Givislon 9, under reot!on 9202.3, ' provided that the maximum density p+armitted upon each lot would 3 be twenty-four (24 ) apartment units , and therefore, sold applies- 4 j' tions as approved by the City Planning Commineian were Mel.l. withl,n It tl the density pemitted for R-3 property. ,F 6 X ►' t 7 Di.v161on 91 Articlo 981, or the Huntington Teach Ordinance S Cade of the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, State of California, created they Board of Zoning Adjustments and speciflod ; In '1 the canner of appeals that should be taken thexrefrm to the i I1 ` Planning Commiaalon, and frc a the i'lanntng Cons,?scion to the City 2� Council , and further apecifled that In acting +rpon use pe-mits, 113 the ,ward cif 'oning Ad juatmentn ahovld consider, under Section 14 9811 .2. 10 the general welfare: all pe►rsr.,ns reaidJng oil, working it) 15 - the viei.ni,tyl under Section 981. 1 .2 .2, %jhether the same are lnjur- 15 ; ious to property and impruvoments in the vicinity of such use or � 17 buiidingsl and under Section 9811 .2 . 3, that the granting of a use , 18 pemit will not Adversely the Meister Plan of the City of Hunting- ton Beach, which 7etitioners Interpret to correctly reads will 20 not adversoly effect the Koster Plan of the City of Huntington 21 Beach. r " A I 23 Divialon 91 Article 981 , of "i*te Muntingtun Beach Ordinance 24 Code of the City of }funtington Beach, Orange County , IS of 2 5 Californis# under srection 9814 .4' requires the Board of Zoning ' �+d uat�er►ts, t*.)#n approving or denying s uto Pamit, to makes written findlogs whioh shall at7ecIrS the grounds rvllod upon In r*ndering a deol clan. In the .inStAnt, ease this rraa don® , but 1� 1 ' 4 .i 1 Petitioners do riot have a c;c,py of than express findings made by 2 the Ward Qf ,--ning .adjustments, and thereforep have not attached , 3 a copy hereto . 4 ' xxr 5 Division A:ttcle- 981 , -)f the Huntington Fiench Ordinance Cndn f_,S` Cl ty tJf Huntington Beach, Grange County, :"ta tc: of ? Callfornin , under ��^.tIun 9815 .2 .3, permSts the f iennir Cornmiteer- lan to of S'1,rm , re ,,- . r mud! fy the Hoard :,f 4. -0nir)g Ad, vf1tra*nta + deotaiun and per~nl G�-' Tctc s 1NnnLnt; C nrri.asivn to make nay del-rMin-4. 10 at. ion ur r+equirernont wn.ich '.t considers apprcpria;te' within the 11 l imitettont lmpoaNd by thi.e Article ( fsrtiale 981) . In the tnstani 12 case the Plvnn; n,�; �� �,'rr., . aMS.�n , -: ft,r. r public nearing, dial mal-r 24 -lddl ticnal nd requi rarnents .,nd your petitioners 14 .-tre wil iing tL, ocnfc�rm 'pith said addlt onal condition3 and re- 15 qulremetnta ma&- by tie Planning Commieston . ze , X111 1 i Division ' l oue .)El , t?1' "tie Huntingdon Aerich Ordinance 18 ' Code of the Ckty of HunLingtcm Ae,+c:h, Orange County, state of 1V ! Callf, rnia , under permits the City Covncll to 20 i.,1'!'lm, reverse ot, modiry the declV.ons of the Planning Comm.iaalon,0 �l :r Board (-,f univr ' j,.stm+ante , ►+nd rUr*,hers rallnw8 that the City 22 .:)���• ; rn3� J��+:C.-' 71�� 1'.7i.r;i ��n } 1 {F!�t.fv..�In}11:1.'.:11 c,)1' n�,(�`it: ('tfif'21t. ". !1 7 i -3 ehall eun*lder 11rt1totluno imposed by �.4 this Article ( ,Irticle -abt ) . n 1 tir x ry r At till t1mQ13 herv.in erentlorred, petitionere aampllod with arch r rind evary requan: w, the Board of ',��, � ►. :ldjuntnjnnte rnd the R.'F- Pltenn.lng i;t,t z pit;lion ! n as:bmi t;t ing plot: plana or revioad plot pletn �, Y. � M 3 t i end were willing, pnd are now wiilJ,no; tc, eaaept the decision of 2 the Planning Commlaselon made on June 19, 1973, with all the csondi- 3 Lions therein imposed . A copy of the plot plan and conditions arts; 4 ;+ not attached hsxoeto, but will be made a part of the record upon ' 5 they hearing of thxa matter. & " XV 7 7he only standards or guidelinen to be followed by the Board t 8 of zoning Adjustments, the Planning Comr:ission, or the C2ty 9 Council of the City of Huntington bench, rare those that are set S 10 out and provided as hereinabove alleged under' Sections 9811 .2 . 1; ! 11 9811 .2 .2, and 9811 .2 . 3, and that, neither the Board of Zoning 12 Adjustments or Planning Comml.selon found that the grarting of the i3 use permits would not be in securdance with said guidelines, and 14 actually found that, they were in accordance with Bald guidelines; 15 however, the City Ccvnci 1 or the City of Huntington Beach did not l.£} even attempt to follow sold guidelines , did not, attempt to justify: i 17 its action in denial by making findinge of' Pacts or by pointing 1.8 out wherein the granting of .such use perrnites would effect the 19 Master Plan of the City of Huntington Beach , or be injurious to 20 property or improvements in the vicinity of such proposed building:, 21 or affect the general welfnre of.' persona working or residing 1n the genernl vicinity of the proposed apartment butldingo, and 2:5 arbitrarily and w1t:hout authority or low , exceeded i<q its Jurladiati.on and committed prejudicial abuse of discretion . n reversing the Planning Commi seion acid Board of Zoning Ad 4 13t� ments , and in danying the grunting of the use pemita . XV1 Plaintiffs hove exhausted all available remedlea required to be puraued bj them priL.r to the filtng of, this petition, as the City i 2 Code of the City of Runtingtun Bench providers that the decision 3 of the City Council. be final. . Petitioners dct not have a plain, 4 speedy rind adeclu.nte remedy In the ordinary course of law . WHEREFORE, petitioners pray ; 6 ` 1 . That this Court ensue yin jlternstive Writ of Mnndr*te , a f 7 copy of which In ;tt t; shed rieretc.; raid Writ being made returnable 8 within some brief per'iud ordering Lnnt .respondent, CITY COUNCIL 9 OF HUN'1'MT01; Br!.'., 1i, .)RA140r"". !' V!1`I`Y, =,1'ATL 0Y C' LIIV`RNIA, reverse i 10 its aecialon muse on Ju?y -'gib, 1 ):3, -. till grant t;he ie! l, ance of the 11 u:re pemit3 with the sand i lone ;.nd , .:t. p len as npvroved by the 12 Pianning Commlasl,on of t rn- City !)r ttuntingtun Beach on June 19, 13 1973; 14 2 . That, this Cc,Lrtt opon heririnG this pi�tltion and upon cones i i 1 oideration of any wr1 L riled , D3.vii-e its peremptory Wrt,t of Mundatd .1 commanding ret pendent, MY COUNCIL 10F MiTINOTON BEACH.. OAI IMS 17 CUU)MY, STATE OF to bet F sidt! tt.n decision reversing 1F the Planning Comirlap.lor uf' Hvntir-tun Pench ,ind the Board of 19 " Zoning Ad,justmenta , and permitting the Ansuanae of the use perwiti i 20 in accardance with they tei-ns ;1 0 rLndlti.�nr.• of the plot plan ae } r ti appruved by that Planning 0otngiin.q n June 19, 10"13; 1 3 . For cus ;•u of ;awl t. and 7 - 23 4 For duct; ier. <ii,C: further, rell.ef' or, the Court may deers proper. hid 27 KENNE'i'li 5. I.. LON `'t; Attvrttey(% t'tw•r Petl.tl.onera ' . 1. • yA .: ..'a Nei b`• �;`•d''.:r=.� nl,� ITf�wJ • ' 1�1� �.f �' '1 /w•� � !1 wl • h 1 •,t .i7 D. •r coo:., n . 7 J . -rcua� • .... . :::•+ z ':�-�s t c;: t}z.. fc�y 'r;.�„,. �,r. .�,, .. , �,:_+ 'F ' Iti;. ..� �^•' i ��1 T.�_l+^}'• ?? ["�J• �t.'�:•1'�J�� . J�'iJ7i2. !`1!1 ji..r r.l P.nl+h, :i I. I •s e� /ttU �l 4! !1 „O 1 (5•t " N 1•:.I EXHIBIT "A" } Z •t :t ' Irk k lflruarV 6 , 1973 1A. t .r. ' r -u rn:; C:o.rr i s can , City Of HuIltir.htcrI 1LMOI Huntington Pef:ch , Cry l i fornia :r. Gentlemen ; ` '4 As a rveml;r?r of the City Nanning Commission I hereby apprcaI the d cI s •. on of ,tik, 11nard of Zoning Adjustments to approve us(. Vermi:.s No . 73- 3 , 73- 5 and 73-b. This c.h,=allenge is perMitted cinder the Huntington Benc1-. Ordinanct Code , Section 9842 . KfiOierine 'r.c-31 .n t; EX. 11113IT "B" i+ w. Y. : P LtNN J'r G COIF 1 S S I ON s::•.,; '*FEOM: Planning Department + ,';'e USE PERM1 NO. 73.3 DATE: June 19, 197.E USE PERMIT NO. 73-S APPEAL f ; USE PERMIT NO, 73- 6 ZONE : R3 (Cont . 5,/l�/73) APPLICANT : James Montgomery MASTER ^'_AN : High Density , P.O, Box 2245 �► v. Hunti.ngt c.n beach , Ca. APPELLANT: Katherine Wallin Planning Commissioner ► REQUEST: To allow the ronstructi,on of three 24 unit (Total of 72 units) apart- ment complexes . r��� 1 LOCATION : West side of Holly Street , ISS ft . south of Garfield Ave . APPEAL : To the decision of the Board of ; t Zoning Adjustments approval of t ' Use Permits Nos . 73 . 3 , 73- S , 75-6 I � :NFORMATZON: . On June 12, 1973 tt,e Planning Comris:; ion instructed the staff t to conduct an area study o f the land relating to the civic center impact study as an aid for making a decision on Use {� Pe No ? 73-3, 73-5 and 7-3-E . A copy of the March 5, 1973 and May 1, 10,73 staff reports are attached for ,your consideration . E V11104N�tENTAL STATUS: II . On May 1, 1973 the: Environmental Review Board accepted and finalized Exemption Declaration No . 73-42 covering U;ne Permits i1o , 73-3, 73-5 and 73-6. 1. �.'li''�'``"''fit?A T Z L''f• , t '• 1 "3 Planning Comm :: ion m��e:tin the >>o �l �(:ar;t: d t d A the ay 1 , 9� g o I 4 F^ k { � r,n � r � :;c� L c r�nrtar w.,th a car,tlr�L•n.n .� o. t:hf U.,�: Permit al�pl.ica.uion.� . i,e ;�to t'f rc.-coem�r�rj;� that. a decision be vAde on the applie tion) ;Al June 19, ].��`�'.� as they hrtve brc�rZ 1} nciln;.� since ,�anutLry 19 1y73. hs requested by the ,Planning Comniss, 'lon, this staff will be prepared }� to pre..-tint an area study of the civic center impact area , r�nr_oniPn ,iriol- the ite jun .subje t on 19, t.r_ n F� 57 3 . y� , 1 upon the Information outlined in the prevtOus s:.tzf:' report , t ' t.a t'T ro2coramendy approval of Use Ih 7'm i t s No . 73- 3, 73-5 &nd G k the a rr�i nnalya l cs t•�:com�:endco•! it�t3s ► g rve with the proF�c ne d land 11;:r . AAVI TO: PLANNING COMMISSION '. FROM: Planning Department DATE : 197 3 -' ,� : • ; USE PERMIT NO. 73- 3 May 1 � - USE PERMIT NQ. 73- S APPLAL USE PERMIT NO. 73-G (Cant . 4117/73) ZONE : R3 APPLICANT; James Montgomery MASTER PLAN : High DenSiq P.U. Box 2245 . ' P r` Huntington Beach , Ca . IN APPELLANT: Katherine Wallin Planning Commissioner s REQUEST : - To allow the construction of- three 24 unit (Total of 72 units) apart - -' went complexes. LOCr?TION : west side of Holly Street , 185 ft . south of Garfield Ave . APPEAL : To the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustments approval of t ' Use Permits Nos . 73 3 , 73- 5 , 73- 6 GENERAL INFOIULATION I • 'On April 17 , 1973 the Planning Commission continued ,0tg, Use N Permits Nos . 73- 3 , 73- 5 , and 73-6 to the May 1 , 1973 meeting in order to await the final decision by the Environmental Review Board regarding s request for exemption status . The folllwing short history outlines previous proceedings regarding these applications : J;:tnuary 31 , 1973 - Board of Zoning Adjustments approved -" proposals for three separate 24 unit apartments . 'L February 6 , 1973 - Use permit Nos . 73- 3 , 73- 5 , and 73-6 were appnated by Commissioner Wallin . February 6 , 1973 - Environmental Review Board rejected request .for exemption status (ED 73 - 15) and required full envi ronmen t a 1 ' imPuct report . March 6 , 1973 - Appeal on subject use permits continued by ;. Planning Commission to April 17 , 1973 in order to allow the ��;• Planning Commission to study lower portion of Master Plan Study Area "D" . March 13 , 1971 - Environmental Review ,hoard considered a change of status for ED 73 - 15 and rejected the consideration . The Board advised the applicant to submit a new exemption declaration application with revised plot plans for future consideration , � t' ;l' Staff Report ' Use Pe nit No . 73 3 .; Use Permit No . 73 S Ilse Permit . No . 73-6 Page M March 17 , 1973 - Planning Commission reviewed a portion of the Area "D The staff advised the Commission that until the Civic Center Study is completed the staff cannot justify any -land use in the lower portion of Master Plan Area "D" . '. In effect , the staff does not have sufficient information at ?:' • this time to state that proposals for apartments or proposals 14.. for industrial use would be warranted for this area. 'k�`r �R April 17 , 1973 - Environmental Review Board reviewed ED 73- 42 a revised request for exemption status with a revised plot plan proposing three twenty unit apartments . The Environmental '` < P P p B Y P Review Board instructed the Secretary to post the exemption " declaration request for 10 days for public input . April 17 , 1973 - Planning Commission continued Use Permit Nos . -73- 3 , 73- 5 , and 73-6 to await the decision regarding the E D 7 3- 4 2 . A copy of the March 6 , 1973 staff report is attached for y-eur ; supplemental information , f PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject site is presently zoned R3 Medium Nigh Density Residenti&.. ; sad is vacant 1 xnd . Property to the north , south and east is =;` lecstod in iA s3 dirtrlct , and is primarily vacant land . There ` are several indus tri a 1 chops located near the southeast corner of Hol :r Avenue and Garfield Avenue in the R3 Medium Nigh Density.%: Residential Uistrict . Property immediately to the west is zoned {; M1 Ltght Industrial nistriclt A proposal for a storage yard on , arce l i0vt t t nt the subject site to the west was approved by� the - oard of ZoninB Adjustments on February 16 , 197Z , (See attacked Land Use and Zoning Map . ) MASTER PLAN : The master1a for Area 5 19b5 designates t r plan r Study . r � � k he three subject lots involved as industrial and residential . The dividing.,;' line on the designations is a diagonal line across the three subject lots . (See attached -map . ) A� has been previously stated , the the staff is not prepared at this tier to propose a definite indication of the master plan designa-,; '�� tion for lower portion of Study Area d- D on the proposed master plan , `` Staff Report Use Permit No . 73- 3 ,`. . Use PerAlt No. 73 5 ;s Use Permit No . 73-6 "In��„r Paige 3 "-'�ar s ENV I RONMPCRTAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION: On May 1 , 1973 the Environmental Review Board will roview public input , if any , and make a decision on whether or ,t not Exemption Declaration No . 73- 42• will be exempted from ' Fyn the requirements of an Environmental Impact Report . The staff will have ;further information on the results of the Environmental Review Board' s action at the Planning Commission meeting. ANALYSIS: r •iJ4 Revised plan received April 10,t 1973 The revised plan for Use Permit Nos . 73- 3 , 73- 5 , and 73«6 �bmitted April 1.0 , 1973 reflect a decrease for 4 units s: .r p, r application - a decrease from a total of 72 dwelling is units to a total of 60 duelling units . Thirty- 3ne bedrooms and thirty- two bedroom units are proposed.. ' The proposed plan relies on reciprocal drives In order to creatd .a more cotmatible overall development which meets the intent of the policy standards for apartment development ( 1969) . - Two large open spaces are proposed in addition to either a "`'' private patio or balcony for each unit . t. The original plan submitted did not adhere to the 1969 Planning',;; Commission policy standard for apartment development . An attempt has been made on the revised plan to adhere to the policy standard with an interrelated 60 unit complex and ; tS at the same time presenting three separate proposals for twenty. units each which could meat ordinance code requirements on their own . Except for a proposed laundry room straddling the property line,; between two lots , the apartments are in sub'stantial conformance ,j; with all code requirements and the Planning Commission policy standards ( 1969 ) . ;yr ,:, t, The applicant proposes to construct private patios fronting :a on Holly Street which will be enclosed by a six foot fence . Fences , hedges or walls which exceed three and one-half feet must observe the front yard setback in this part of the city . Averaging of the front yard setback would allow the proposed patios to be six feet high within the front yard so-, back , ;a however , the ordinance code porlimits averaging of the front yards setback only in the townlot area . EXHIBIT "C:" 4 .•. '•' '.l 'w . or AP Staff Report ' °.x Use Permit No . 73- 3 Use Pcrmi t No . 73- S Use Permit No . 73-6 "r Page d r t•'�.. "All of the proposed patios fronting on Holly Street are setb�a five feet from the property line . if averaging of the front'; x� yard setback were to be allc ;ied in this case , the development' would consist of a S2% averag: ng , slightl/ over the maximum ' permitted in the townlot area . $ There is an exception in they ordi. ce code which permits fent and wall setback variation to a dis -ce of not less that b ft' from the front yard property line . '204 . 5 which allows the' exception to be made on the reduction oi. #-his front yard setbij requires that the lobs must be a part of least 5 or more contiguous legal building sites held under inme ownershi�.'�I The staff does not consider the subject site --yet this criteria , however it does consider the averagiii, r the €rovnt yard setbacks in this case to be an attribute to t;. A eve Ioploi l CONCLUSION: It appears that the aulicant has Pro osed a site whieh meet . the intent of the poly standard in addition to meeting most development standards for individual lots . The laundry Y facility proposed between two lots would be a logical location.- as it is located a walkway b-twaen the two separate apartment ;". developments . Also , it would pi ovide a break between the open space and the parking to the south , and would reduce the probat number of laundry facilities from three (one for Each develop" meat) into two . As the master plan has not been formulated for this area as Of yet , the staff would not be adverso to this proposal if tho applicant meets environmental ronsiderati.on . The staff conslde th--r a wall would be necessary to be built on the west property+ line of lot 33 to be used as a buffer between the proposed ' residential units and a proposed construction office with 1 facilities for parking construction vehicles . One of the condi for the industrial use ( administrative Review No . 73 - 23) was that the applicant shall post a bond guaranteeing to construct.: a block wall on the east property line (abutting the residentl'0' use) of said parcel at the time the adjacent parcels to the eas are developed to re3identinl use . :.. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of Use rermit Nos . 73 - 31 73- 56 a� 73-6 with the following conditions attached hereto and any �`�� reasonable conditions the Planning Commission may wish to imph,a Ch111BIT "C'' (a) ` .. , r .4 r ~� I-iuntin,iton Beach Planning Commission �x . .( �• w•w.r-►w•+�•.,•wv.w.. r✓r•.►.r.war�-rr-.r.►-r.f►•i+.rv"►�+-w wr.►l-rvrrw..wrr.r�+wrr+'�'."n' ��. ! P.O. BOX 110 CALIFORNIA 9Zfi4{t • . Tt�: Ilt.+r)Urst1> tt.` '''•-,�';;) .�::'? �' i t 1• t:t�ullc:.i l •}� M1ti, 1;R.AI., Y,Ia1 iI g 1;. D ` l 0, i 7 i_'_6 .:.__'1S'1'I':At..._B;1",AYl7R MATNEY ry �tl'alt_11 , C,a1. ilur'tlai r I}t'C l)cs i i '' } ' ' }err r'n t ru ion of t•111'ee 20 unit (tot%t L:J: 1 ', -1�• ! ji.1 '. I l., i 1 i r j;ll IZ t ) It }. I)t. :+ t i i (' t . l,oc.tttioil it't' - : i Ic t; t i• i } . r�:�•t , ? o ; fr . ;out.}: cif I�1 <'1ntlilllt ('.r-);-.;r: < < 011 t (J'1 . 11T' I'il�'Ca Ju-, C' _...__..-._ .w..+._._....._.._ tile I ,,, ) l (iiti'i Ii ST � nl7 t1.t t 'i t?11 l� ,• r' j. The i !4eJ nI . ' 1) 1t.1, c1:; ' c.d 11): iI 10 , 1 :173 for a (10 1111 '1t I11?,artr :)pr »'�' i 11 {.art . 2 . A I pr _ 1' i on t, apt!, rw.'aI th cc1 A1)ri I 1', , 197:i I' } .'.or ing Adju5ti;t„r)Lr s1) ;, I 1 be VoLc' tt1'r•>; . : ti !� ,., i ] , flli i11:, , 1,�,' ri1)� Ah s c it t, Summary of, I t. i s t1iC :C+i. 1; o f t tl'.' t_i1 j t t h' t. the proposed dv,v l (tprren 5 SIC !1t' . 1rlitt_' .. }r J .1t. _' i' - 7"t. I L c J Ar d . .IIict. iwn vrti rtrgt Cofip } . X ^yn rI1,'s i. ca I I �' i :" r:r:;: lc c;'tI } y . The st 'tf 11c` I that tilt- n„ n rc • ' }� of the p-, I i cy timdarci in itudition t cl F-,c e t iiI g 1',r..; • jt.' .• ' 1 '�}�"��'I: t �� t.itll��i� 1 (i:) for individual lots . Approt';11 tail`.` re. s ti, rf 1)aI.;cd cm the iiI)U1'C• infor'ri)attl'c,n -it If)!' a1,1'L:ri allirrll'Sl rccortrrlC.'r1dat low` agree � . with t}lr 1,tr)l,► )is'! of th civic cr.ritc�r impact. area . �., •,r S r 4 W f ' tlU1tJl1 �111'C►�'fa,:it 1 � �; In,�-)ti o11 was 11i:►iit' h•,• h';, l l i rl F.ecurici by f�cr.ins LU clve r r�ulc'. the F3o:lyd C ,r) ::0;1iIi �djtj~rtc�nt: :�1lcl �':'r:`y Lr �c l)c�rrEii 1`:os . 7a :i , 7�- r� , ;lnci "/.3-f� ; r. �1• I.h l• _l' • f ter ';+{•+� 4 . a5, n 1 �Qlv.1;,1t; re, t,•ranti11g 'o, f Tlie Ll`:C _,C. A, . ts would ad%,c-rst•1}• arft^c:t the Master �� . The ahutti-i-q! ;irt- a i `, .1 ".* ' lopinJ , as industrial ant, residentla3 deveIopmo11t: l•: nrp;iILii) l�• . 3 . Den 1n1 or t11 t: :t .'t J'a'� '. V.,i ll 1) rot •c't Ct1�• 1J:ti•i .• tr^tilt of tilt' conm ;urity •,iV. ; },.� j: : : � ;: tIon of the 111: ct;rity of Lire Civic , >�rl.• Center antt �,.•. ,,� '. ' rc't't��:}• ri l�Jlt a1 ti:nv ' The m,ctio:i fai ? utc : Ayes . kcrir.s , ;; 11 : ;1 hb:.ent • Goil;Cr , .f The Board of i-C.'II .�; Ott!jL"-; L:-C: '% S :11)I+ ;'C)1'tr'3 tJW 5L11) j0 :t use por:rit5 �:• On J,^.J1iJ�I'�►' 31 , �� : i: : f� :'(:;1 �'t � �J .� � �'G;'1�:11 � . 1 �?nC'J Vf!aliin filed an .tppeal a; tiz : :::': . .: . . •1t,: 1 trti" ] c w It(-;. rd rc jected a request ti�, far exemption st .. :.,, _ :a •-Ld rc•ut: irc .' ,i f-tail cii:• iron:�vnta3 in.pact - �n r rept.lrt . The• aI)l ? : c it, _ : 'L i':ea Cont i 1:ued F)y tile; 1)l:ll1ning C msl;scion fror,7 llnrc-h !' t ,) Am,' iI 1 : in ordl- r to a1low time Ecr stt:dy of •5t:aci}• A: c ':;, rch .! the I:nviron^(c'ntal Review board advi sc,! .' c � ', i i u rir,i, C'::t�:?li)t 1 UIl declarati oIl *" 1:lth rcvised pi3::. ' _' :' 'f :-c c iu% ra ion . On April 17 the Nl�vironrlc�rat :ll Rc : • c;. !'• .. ,. : .'. -c �•i _ '•:���I ti0il Declaration No . 73- 42 and set it for a tcn input pc• I i o d The I)ianning CC~nission • ther. continued the a p) : c 011= 1)t•11,! it:g a f.in aI c_eci. sion of Fxeription DeclarationNo . 7 ' - � � . 1'1•t �' • :t�i1'. -1j; t�C',m!,iaisSlol? OT1CC again continued ,the hearini, to } .June .19 1 c r final, decision GAT � approval , M' E n v 1 ronmon to 1 'aL s '. .s_ Exemp, ti on Vec la r,,. 1 :. S :1ppro May I , 19 3 by the Environmental l:c :•ic •: I:c'_: : :i . ';. Su�t?artine �I11fnr:• .tt i on `' c _,., ' c'd Hord,i t I i . . --- { 1 . Staff P.epoJ•t.5 - .)a::: . . `i , 1,1:1y 1 , Marach 6t ) 973 2 , Area Map Ad tip- trc•rltr, minutes - Jawirlr}• 31 , 1973 ` 3 . P�o-1i•d � f ..o11i �1;; i � � 4 , Board of 7.oJ: i :.,;, l+c?•i :� , ' ; ants t:011c3itic1Iit• of approval - April 26 , . 1973 , � t � . !•1cn�a frt� �{cL ::.�; "�.• .. : r. .ir•,• , !'o:lrtl of .; n:: iJlg Actjustmc`J1t5 EXHIBIT "D" (2) • �' ::M k. s--• {aTK r�3J•�arw7W.'1w,�L.a..«s-k... ..�:�.:i..ww..�..:5,:.....-•.:.. ..�.. ....._ _•_ .�... .. �. • � •;..#.j f. I 4; +^' tw"' Information to be Sul,-- ittej ai. tho Public 11cariag: r ' 1 . - 15taff Cor.ments 2 . Vu-graphs y 3 . Slides Respectfully iubmittc4, K. A. Reynold, ' `{ Secretary !t KAR : sp enclosures ,•M .t• •yw EXHIBIT "n" f3 ) � a....rr—..M�lw.'r•r"�y �err•...�.+►.r/ram•:F.i•.._�wiq..'. .. ..,. ... !� .. #13 Council tes - 7/16/73 Mkt ..�; '�; '� 't . w.I•'.' The ;ity Clerk 'informed Council that all legal requirements for publication and ` J�- pouting had been rmt, and that she had received no• communication3 or written protsp 2 to the Society and Culture Section of. the Policy Plan or to the recmmrendartion of. the Planning Cor issior. that said section be approved as modified. S PP .a� . .} �;,;7. The City Administrator, reported on the matter and brought Council' s atte .tion to ±'` * certain terminology in the p'nn which he recommended should be modified prior tc,,,;�',,jSt apt`ruval of .the plan. The City Attorney stated that he concurred with the reconrn`ndation of the City Administrator relative to the terminology contained in the plan. Mr. Marcus Porter, Cits Planning Commissioner, addressed Council reanrd':,3 the ;;•� efforts which were made in preparing, this section of the Policy Plan. " Discusoion was held by Cou::cil concerning continuing the public !'erring to allow portions of the plan to be more arpropriately worded and Councilman nuke requnated that material on th­� matter be gent in advance to the Council to afi�,rd them an opportunity to study .he proposed modifications. Mrs. Jeannette .;urk, 15271 Newcastle Lane, City, member 'of the Goals and Objectives ; ;; Committee, addressed Council concerning the policy plan. On motion by Green, Council continued the public hearir_g on the Society and uult»re. :?tt± Section of the Policy Plan, to the September 4, 1973, Council meeting for the purpose =* of allowing the City Administrator, City Attort:ey, Planning Crnmission and Goals atnd,,�'' Object-ives meubers to meet to discuss the changes in wording which may be necest•ary.0 . The motion tires passed by the following vote: ' •c z AYW Councilmen: Bartlett, Gibbs, Green, Coen, Duke, Matney NOES: Councilmen: None t , ; •� ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley y 7 PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL - USC PEiLMTT NOS. 7.i-3 , 73-5 b 73-6 • - in NN Mayor licGney announced that this was the da day -fur set for a public hearini; on 7 7''`� agp2ala which he had filed to the approval by the Planning Commission to all.,f thc'^�.z / construction of three 20 unit apartment complexes (total of 60 units) pursuant to S. 9202 .3.1.3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, on property located on the West: ," side of Holly Street, 165 feet south of Garfie?d Avenue in the R3 Medium High Density- fit Residential District. The City Clerk infomed Council that all legal regviirements for notification, publica`.6 tion and posting had been met , and that- in addition to the letter of appeal, she had received a covotunication from. Mr. Martin A. Kordick, Kordick b Son, Inc . , 4ity, opposing the granting of said Use Permits , The Mayor stated that he had appealed this matter as he believed the proposed use was inermpatible with the area. The Planning Director presented a resume' of the Planning Commission' s reasons for recommending approval of paid Use Permits and spoke regarding various aspects of Cheat .,ratter. 4 ?Mayor Matney declared the heating open. EXHIBIT "E" (1) ; ' • .��...;.. '. '. '- • •.t' .. !• 1`mil b,r, Pale #14 .CaunCil K.trnutr #4/16/73 ter. Bruce Greer, «879% Stewart Street, 'City; addressed Council xnd stated that lie ¢rig;•r,,: b lieve'd the proposod­use was incompatible with the area. :'•.7i6 Z3utltdMdry►` �. ? * �Mr , 0 Box 2_k5, City, ,applicant, addreased Council and requested l .•: . that at decision be reached on this matter. Councilman Green stated r;tat he believed that an Environmental Impact Report should �. have been required on this project. Mr. Carlos Reeves, S25 Alabama Street, City, representtng the owner of Lhe property addressed Council in favor of the proposed development and spoke regarding the history' .,.. of the pr6party,, Mr. Dcn weir, 428 Nain 'Street, City, property avner in the area, addressed Council attd w• stated that he believed the property should be industrially zoned. '. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no further- protests filed either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. A owtion was made by Councilman Matney to overrule the Planning Catzm;isaian and direct that those three parcels be rezoned to M-1 Light Industrial District. ;-'z',• Following discussion by Council , the motion made by Mayor 14atney was withdravn. On woticm by Matney, Council overruled the decision of the Planning Com lasion and ' denied Use Permit Noe. 73-3, 73-5, and 73-6, and directed the Planning Cowmisriion to initiate a Baiter Plan AmenCment with the suggestion that it be overall industrial 4? development. The motion was passed by the following Mote: , Xx .1YL►S: Councilmen: Gibbs, Green, Coen, Duke, Hatney NOES: Councilmen: gartlott ABSINT: Councilmen: Shipley f ltM - OIL WFIL NUISANCE ABATEMENT - RES. NO. 3726 - ADOPTED Mayor Katney announced that this wag the day aid hour set for an oil well nuisance abatement hearing on Oil Well "Dollar" #8 - Mr. Howard O'Brien - located on Lots 8 and 10, Block 110, Huntington Beach Tract , pursuant to Section 2371 of the Huritingten beach Ordinance Code. `'i The City Clerk informed Council that all legml requirements for notification slid posting ;tad been met and that she had received no communication or written protests to the recoamrttdation of the De , tment of Bul lding and Community Develop ment that the nuisance be abated. Mr. Jaates Georges. Deputy City Attorney, distributed the applicable sections of the Huntingto:. reach ordinance Code for Council 's information and spoke regarding the provisions therein. -s•x. Deputy City Attorney Georges called on Mr. Herbert A. Day, Oil Field Superintendent to give testimony on the ratter, and after being sworn in by the City Cli.—k, Mr. Day deposed on t:.^ matter. tlx: Deputy City Attorney Georges submitted six photographs uf the site and requested that Zf. the City Clerk mark thca± ca F,xhibits 1 through 6, and the Mayor directed that the '4 record shxr that Mr. O'Brien' s Counsel had reviewed the photographs. ' Kti. Ceorges then subsitted them to the City CouncL1 so evidcare of the nuisance, �•':�a EXHIBIT "E" VERIFICA`1'ION BY PAVY � HAWAII !I CoUlITX OP HONOLULU 5 6 I am one of tho petitioners In the above entitled actions I ; 7 have read the fcregoing *.'etx stun for Writ oP Mand»te and know the contents tharof�, Had t ccrCi:'y :,hat the came is true o: nx own I :r knowledge , except ns fo ►natters which are therein stated 10 Upon my int'ormat:ion or beiier, and as to those mattere I believe 11 " It to be true • , 12 Executed on November L0 , 1973, at; Honolulu , r 131; Harrah . } • 14 i 15 /s f Clarinda Kirk Brooks AAA XYRk ZKORS 15 '' 17 STATS OF HA4AII CITY se . 18 f CorINTY OF HONOLULU In 20 � . 20 I. On November , 19'T3, before me , Lhc undersigned, a Notary 21 Public :n and for said State , persunal ty appearad CLARII�!t KIRK 1 t 22iI l BROOKS, known to me tc. be the person whose name is subscribed to � 23 the within instrument end acknowledged to me that ahe executed r t: 2411, the some . f 25 1' WITNESS my hnnd and a rficia 1 seal . 26 !t i !sl Eusako Yamauchi ; , Fusako Yamauchl. i lane pa o r n e r (Notary Public First Judicial Circuit State of Hawaii. - My Commission Vxxpires Jan, 31 1976) %'E RlFlCATIOyk1t ffTY 1446, 2015.5 C. C. P.) Se ATE OF Ci WN"t%Wfftionerd ' 1 atn Ott- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE OF, the al►orr rnritled,►r•tit„l;J harr trail site fi tep,rnq i" (° avid knou, Nu conte►rtt lllrrrt,f. Jr,,1 I .Citify that fhr• nnnr it trnr of env owrr kr ost-Irdpe, rycrpt at it, -1rrrtr►ftattrrl Mhkit 7 ,tar du crier slat""op" "", inf,nmalion o,l,rlfrr.ml,tt t,t thntr +r!drtr►t l 1,ehrrt•I, ,,,Iw fntr 9 10 i 1 drrl.trr, arldrr,penalty trf 1wrlurv, tlwr tier forep,i,,v,to fmr antl c ar►ri t. 11 Huntington Beach C,dijnntlti 12 :,1,►ft, rl.�:�, Jamev D. 116ntgomery 13 Jameu D. Molftg4mery 14 - PROOF OF SERVICE BY MiAIL 11013a, 2015.5 C. C. P.) 1.5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA.COUNTY OF I arm : rld:r't ref lltr I,tfilr(1 siJrl1 aml a fe Yfu/hf frf the. ,rb'tl t� .rf.�rt'4Jit1, 1 .IM otYt the ire of rigntrem Yows ling riot 16 a pa►ly t,r tier ti•ttlti:t rttftflr,l Jr tun,; priv f+utt:!rr, atldrl%. it 17 18 On t 4 _ �., 1 ten r,l r4r M'rthin 20 ws she In Will attiun. by r1J01t u here rarV lltrtruf errrG•cr-d OF, a 1ralyd r '"lore uath rollalr 1ltrtron frelly ptrpaitl, in site 21 Vnilyd State, wtail at. oddrrstrd«u fullnrrs #' 22 1 23 24 25 05 27 ►rlrek-r. ttnArt r•rnalty trf r'rlt#7- that the f,rrrrttin(it nur,sr!.1 nr►rr t. at _ _. ►__----__ __ __ t!'rtGft`r+riu !1 " f •I LAWSON, SCHULTZ , EDENS & SMOLIN Ile Attorneys at Lai: 1761.2 Such Rc:u1�:'vRrti , Suite 8 mt� ' utint,ton Br-s,c�h , "-�Ii ;;orn�ica R 9` 647 C 3 !; �, .. f �IVEO i CITY Of "UNTINGTOO E�I } Su 7_?5 t�� � . 'I CL CAx ,• `• oFfIce (_V THE ottr c U!>1'eM;;' �. W1it 1,,� ,• t:'. '.••sty clew i I MfR1(a��NOtlr.� OF ERY1 2h f'.S,N. . Y .»Zl+,Qt1t� t I SEkYE0 C N: r mr Ip ,.S;+nsR �.j • rlrl:• �;nl.lT'7' AM „ TIME. : t 12 14 19 , f�f'" iIIR:�.� ��t-. i'. (• i',�..l�TT i�' :,iril,l' ���'��=!"�'ir T ll ho-rob? { 17d 0lilt: tlt' 2 2. t V*.' r ,'' •'t1C}i(.`:i tr` ;if`3iG CT IS HER!:RY ttllniAW1, 01-% C1 o o t1 Court will there- r C t •. .T j 1 F•. -re l6swe .��� d ii ..�_�:T•t�li� l.�la.' '44-i.1_ Q •fand:tty. ' is G fM+..�r+Mi►r y....�,..., ,y,yh•A.�, .....O..r...,�..may/,. Judge of the Superior Court l {I LA WjLT7. EDEW SHOLIN j A �f crs 4 at L�r a loulevazd r !, 3 ii ti leach, Galifortnia 52647 Yr#t t 1"1,1 .1T 1;;4!'r.C3unty Gott 4 ;; (714) $47-2521 fir.._.. .... 5 i I Attorneys for Petitiocer$ 1' 7 8 i IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .- 9 ? IN A1W FOR THE COUNTY or OMNGE 10 I1 '� �atltlonerr: } } NO. 12 !� CLARIMM KIRX BROOKS and ) 13 JAMES D. MQTMMERY, ) AL'TERNATWE WIT 14 nF HAWKTE 15 Respoodrats: ) } ' 16 '' TH9 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ) ' 17 atWIVG"t A% BEACH, MANGE COtA4T'Y, STATE Of CALIFORNIA , and THE CITY QF WOMWWN 1EACH GRANGE 000TY , 18 : j STATS OF CALIF01MIA. } 19 20 Tbz SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIPMNIA, IN AND FOR t 21 TU COUM OF OPLAi10E, Tat THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 22. a I l�OR 1EACHt ORA.N= COUPTYj STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and TU 231 CITY OF il=lW" B ACIts ORAWE COUN'i"r, STATE OF CALYFOR : 24 sr jfertlF spp"rs to this Court by th* verified W Wm 251 of Clarinda Kirk croaks ,ed . ons D. Mont=ooe rF, the t*xurtiee 26 r. 27 1 l ii�a lly in�t*rested h*reia, .a copy of rhiWx petition is ' 28 i; stt&dW be rsto, that Clacteda Kirk mks and Jaaafar D. moutgamery � a, r 1 ; are elsarly entitled and have a clear , present 'eight to hie the fiefi l 2 application for vie Permits Nos. 73.3; 73.50 ward 73-6 isxU64 by 3 '' the respondenat , the City of Huntington Beach and that •aid potia. E 4 tivsners breve a clear and present right to have tho deecisiou made ? S # ' by the City Council of the City of Ihmtington Beach, Orange Court , 6 ' State of Californi.. , on July 26, 1973, reverend and set aside, , 7 8 0 and bav►t a decision of the City Council of the City of Nuatingtoo g beach, Orange County, "taute of California, sustaining the Plaetaia� 10 Comission of the City of Huntington beach, Orange County, State 11 of California, order approving said Use Permits on June 19, 1973, 12 arA that there is no plain, �ipeedy , nand adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; and 14 15 by on Order of this Court duly made and given in the aborve• , = 6 entitled action on 197. it Was ordered that to 17 ;` altercativos writ of mandate should issue to you; lfi THEREFORE , we do ooaeonnd you thatby 19 197 the City Council of the '".it; of Huntington Beach, Orange 20, County, State of California, reverse. its decision made on July 21 26, 1973, which said decision denied the issuance of Use Pnv ts4 22 Not. 73-3; 73-3, and 73-6 to the applicant any one of the pati• � 23 24 tiontrs heroin, Jmest D. Kantgooery, and to affiss� the decision 25 ;, of the PlasoainS Concussion of that City of Ht 'tiugton 1"4h, vrmgs ^G Comety, State of California, wade on June 19, 1973, which said 21 4saisicr prersittod the issursssae of lists Pa=its Won . 73♦3s 73«S, . 1 and 73a6, or that you ohm cause Wore this Court at tha cart ' i tb*r"f at on 2 iiat a o 'clock 4.o. , or a sera ther"fto r, as ta►wasl 3 j can be heard, why you have not dome to. iMTER 4 it it SS the Hawrable -� _. .. , attested by my 51 6 lhsod and anal of said Court on this Uy of it 7 WILLUM E. 5T JOHN, Clark 8 i 10 _ s Deputy Clark � 11 1 ti 12 14 t t 15 1 c 16 ' I ! 17 19 20 ; f 21 ` 22 .1 i 23 i; I w4 {' ?5 26 ' tl � 27 c: i tAWSM# 3CXULTZ, EDENS & SMOLIN Attorneys at Liar 2 ' 11612 Uach Boulevard, Suite 8 Wmatitttom Beath. California 92647 3 } I ' (714) 647-I521 4 t� Att.orntys for Petitioners 6 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE F TATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 8 , s 9 IN AND FOR THE COLINTf OF 071U NNE 10 11 Petitioners : >' ; No. 12 GLARI111M ARK BROOKS and ) JtAES D. MONTWnRY,, ) ORDER TO ISSUE 13 ) ALTEMTIVE WRIT vs� ) OF MANDATE III 1il ) ; 1 RempOudonts. ) , 16 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ) HUMACTON BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, ) 17 STATE OP' CALIFORNLA , and THE CITY ) OF WJNTI iGTON BEACH, ORAWC COUNTY, ) I 15 STATE OF CALIFMN7.A. } 19 - -} 20 The Court , having read the verified petition of the P etiti"s 21 ' in this action, including all exhibits attached thereto, hareby 2,2 hinds that the Alternative Writ of Mandate attached to said 23 patitive sbould issue. n= IT IS RMSY ORDERED that the Clark of this Court will thereW I 6 - fore issue said Alternativs Writ of Mandate. tDated s WALTER W, WPMi Jud6e of the Sgmrior Court j LAMS � $CMXT7.., EDINS S►MUN , Attorneys at Lair X" I ': 2 ;i 17612 56e6h Uulovard . 3 tr HuRtingtom Boacht Californian 92647 lEY (714) "7-2521 WILLIA ,, ,dirt,Coint 5 Attorneys for Petitioners 6 ?' J 7 i 8 11M •SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA � IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE i 10 f Petitioners : r 11 } 12 CI-ARINUA KIRK IIItO4Rt, and JAMES D. // 13 '; 1 t' ET'MON FOR -vs- 14 I T OF MANDATE 15 R"s p 1 16 THE C17Y C0UNCEL OF THU: CITY OF , l7 KL TiNGTON BF:E`,CH, alit'►NGI CUUN-ri, STATE OF CALI-FORNIA , and THE CYrj } ©F HWTII' TON BEACH 1 �0ftlstN�E ,STATE Off' CALIFORIUA. COUNTY, � } 21 ? f:ZARI"A XTR1e; BROOKS and JAMES D. !f{1I3TGtT'�;y. pets tiancra � t 2p '� het'sin , petition this Court for a tti'x'it of :►Sazszdatc Pursuant to Code(` Cvde of Civil Proced ure section 1094, 5, directed tv the above { r 4 t named reepoW*nts, and by this verfied Fatitior� ro r5 ! i , present as ;! follows : { 2 6 '' f ?7 ' petitioner, CT�IlI M KiRK to;i , is the pr*aent rect rd 0%wr. of Lots 31, 32 and 33 of Moak s of Rxaot Garfield addttions at 1 per lap recorded In Mi.sael. lanou,.ja jqt:pa c: l -ranee County , ttstir Of Celirorvis , and at ill tires herein ro tritiolled , patitionor, i 3 CL.+iRtldIJh KIRK was th* proporied v•7 ondcr f $rtid late to f 4 JAMENS D. NOWTQCAT"RY.- se purcnaeor 4�f aald I-A . , olth A aondition v in tno said soles agraenent that tiie call uuu ld be c=pletdd it } 6 a jaa permit cwuld bo abtAinad frc, ree rs t City yr Huntln..rrtOv � lies$l� # { 7 Orange County , st a e n ► Ct: ltrorrelas ror tho p+.rporJO. of building s} 4 8 spaUt 3*0t UDi tc uR the ii M@ - � � zx 14 Thst pri.�r t� the jetions compl.e teed of herein, petitioner, 1 1 CLP,FtrKLlA KIRK EiH:,:!�{' i dad depign:� ta.0 petit onelr, JAMES D. MONT- ; I 12 aQr. jy, as -:er agent t.: vepr-isent -ier in any necessary 6f,:t1*n* j 13 Nhioh might be nerided t� Qbtdln the neoeseary use porrsita for ' 11= t.ne bul.l,diryg of said apartments buildings . b. copy ar snid r�r�C�1�11 f 1 authority is attached hereto , marked Exhibit " A" , and made s pArt i i lb hereof by rarerence , f 17 ZII E. That both pet_tinnevv are agtrrleved partie t of the action 19 tsk*n by the Citj Counoll of the City or Huntingt-m fta0h IP lt$ r 0 meeting in th, s d%cialon on Jt, ly lb, 191(3, to deny the grentlr rl of the, mae pemi:.0 which proviotrfl 1y had been requested trae saga i City , as the doolnion by the City Council or the City of HuntiVS- f tcn Beach old deprive the petitioner, CLARINDI, KIRK YlROOKSv of � nor prvapective aule of said real ra br perty, and did darprit►[r potiM ta•on er, JAM ES D. MONTOVARRX, t:f his right to buy said real. prop- r,, orgy . h7 IV , io neacardbpce oath Lhe bray stso *all Agreexvnt, petitioner) � t i r j i 1 !; JAM D. !Mc)11""RRY, applied to the Dk.erd of Zoning Ad3ustwentr 1 ,i 2 of th;; City of ftntington beach for three use pormits, deslVwted 2 3 ; Use POrmit '13-3) Use Permit: 73-5. and Use Permit 73-6, and the • i 4 *mamma was set for hearing 'before the board of Ironing Ad juitoopte 5 on January 31, 1973, at l t 15 P.N. Said applications riequ*sted b that twenty-four (24) apartment units be built upon osoh lot � 7 ' according to the designated plot submitted to the Board of ?onLag 61 A.1.7vatments . Said board or Zoning Adjustments approved that apple 9 ;' chtions for Use Per-nits 73-3) 73-5, and 73-6 on January 31, 19731, � 1C pith conditions which your petitioners were willing to accept. 11 V ! 12 'Whereafter, a **saber of the Plannlr4 Com Issior, of the Citi, of 13 Huntington Bench appealed the deeiai.on of the Board of r•o iing 1 14 Adjustaents approving Use Permits 73-3s 73-5, and 73-6, to that 1 15 City !Tinning Comisrion of the City of Huntington fDeseh, Celit'- i6 ornis . A copy of said notice of Appeal is attached hereto, mark* 17h:bit B ' , and made a part hereof by refarertae . 1 IA vx 19 Sold Planning Camaisslon set, th* mutter for hearing oa► harsh 20 6, 19?3, and thereafter continued the same for furthfr stGvdy end 2.1 reports until Junes 19, 1973, st which tiras the Plenntng milts- ' i '12 i ion, after public hearing and rovieving of a ra►vissa plot plan shy 23 reoo=wnded by the Planslr4 Departeent, and after reeeieing and i 24 reviewing the report, of the Planning Department reecamre ndIng the � 2F) appiisativas for sold Use ler+aits 73-31 73-5, and 73-6, the 2 plsnnipg Cvmiselon approved said use, psrttits with the condition . . 27 as respatendwd 4y the Planning Departa ant, on* of which wage that, � 1 28 ' i } 1 each lot would have only twenty (20) apurtm ent units, rather the■ f i 2 the origAnal twenty-tour (24 ) units as applied tor, .and your pets{ 3 ticners arf willing to accept th* added conditions of the PlaIns31* 4 Cosission. A *Qpy or th* Planning Depaertmont ' s report to the � 5 ++ Planning Cmaissi,on is attached herotu, narked Hxhibit "C" , And 6 '` mad* a part hereof by rarershce . 7 Y:l 7 81 Th►*reafter, a member of the City Council of Hunt'InCton lfeadh, i 9 Jerry A. Notnoy, sppeaeled the doolsion of tho Flannir4 Coy icelon 7 10 to the Ci.ti► Council cif Huntington Waah, Orangs Couotyt Stote of 11 California , and th* sane boa heard on July 16, 1973* and the MY 1 Council of Huntington Desch reversed the Planning Cc mmis3lon *Y4 ' 17; Hoard of Zoning Ad�%jatmentu, and denied the applicatIons for the 14 ? use Permits. A copy Or the report Meade by they Planning Dsprartmea► 15 to the Mayor of Huntington $eroh, and the City Council or Hunting ton Dsach, is attached herato, narked Exhibit "A", m4,4 made a part 17 hereof by referenaa . 18 1P A espy or the Minutde$ of the neetinS or the City Council of 20 KwatIngton Deaoh or. July 16, 1973 is attached hereto, warlced 21 Ishlbit "H- , and cards a part hereof by reference . Last said ex- � 2�' habit 414 not oite any grounder for the denial of said us* permits#` 93 :r but eerely aw"est*d that the Planning Corsisaian initiate o X*6ter Plan ameer► m*nt with the au"eation that Ow prvporty ire» ; 2 5 ' yol v&d be r9zQv*d as industrial , �?F� XX 27 That at all times horeeln mentiomd, asid, porael,s of Iliad for i Fs whish the z)ss permits were r*quested were vaned H-3, and t 1 the Huntington Hesoh City Coda, Division 9, under erection 9202.3r 2 ; provided that tho maximum density permitted upon each lot would f , bat cwgty- -our (24 ) sparteent units, and therefore 4 said applIss- 4 tl.ons as approved by the City Planning Commiesion sore well. withl the donsi ty permitted for R-3 property . 6 ;` x I 7 Division 9, nrtiole 981, of the Huntington Breach Ordinsuss, Cade of the C1ty of Huntington Beach.. Orange County, State of 9 California,, created the )'board of Zoning xdsustments and spealriod 10 the mamwer of appeals that should be tsk*n therefrce to the ' 1 11 FzannIng Co *laalon, and freer the Planning ' CoamiaaLon to the City 12 } Counoll, and further mpe ciClod that Sn acting upon use pernit,s, t 13 the Board of Zoning Adjustments should convider, under Section 14 "11 .2. 1, the general welfare of persona residing or working In ! 15 the vicinityl under Section 9811 .2 .2, whether the some are lnjur- 16 sous to property and lAprovementes in th* vicinity of seueh use or 17 ` ! ' buildirk1s j and under Station 9811 .2.3, that the granting of sw uses y 18 permit will mt adversely the !Master Plan of the City of 9funting- R i . I9 too Veach, wh1oh peti,tionors interpret to correctly reads will 20 sot adversely Weat the hastor Plan of the City of guntington t 21 Beach . 22 xr i 23 Division y Huntington {hx•ti.oles 981 r c�i' the itunti tun �aeah Ordinance 2'1 Code of the City of Huntington Desah, Orange County, state or 25 California, ur4or Ration 9614 .4, requires the Board of Zoalne 26 Adjuota ants, when spprovis!ag or donyirig +a use perwit, to statue 27 ' wrltter flssdlz;v whleh seh►sll specify the grou*dv rtllod upon xri i rarA*rii.r4 a decision. In the lutant cast thio was dom, but } r, K • i ;s s petitioners do not have a ac,py of the ezpreaaa< findings Meade by f 1 '� j 2 f the Board of Zoning Adjusttehts, and th*reforR, hove not aattardhrd � 3 ;1 a copy hereto. 4 XiI Invision 9, Article 981 , of the Kuntington Beach Ordioscoe 611 Code of th* City of Huntington Beach, Orange COuntyo State of 7 +I Califoreels, under %ctlen 9815.2 .3. perralts the Planning CuMLIG- j I 8 ion to affirm, rvylae cr modify the board of Zoning Adjustments' I 9 decision and permits the Planning c:mmiaaejov to make any deternIft' 10 stion or requirement which it considers appropriate within the j 11 limitations imposed by this Article ( Article gal) . in the instsn� 12 *as* the Planning commiaa,ion, After public hearing, did make 1*3 aeddltional daeterminationae and requircoonts and Your Petitioners j 14 are Milii.ng to oonPore with said additional conditions and re- 15 s�u quirsase,nts made by the Planning Colsasinn. 3.6 X111 17 Division 9, Article 981, of the Huntington b**0h ordinexapae 18 Qoie oP the City of Huntington bench, Orange County,, State 4! 15 :; California, under cection 9815 .5 .3, Permit& the City Council to � 201, aaftina, reverne, or modify the decision of the Plannlr4 CcomIatSioa0 ' 21 '; or Board of Zoning Ad justmeietae, and further allows that the My 1} � 22 ;i Council way make any additional determination or roquiraare+aent 2t 23 '► shall convider appropriate within than limitations Imposed by ► 24 !1 this Article (Article 981) . �Z r.J 26 At 811 times herein nentiam*dp petitIoners complied with sash 27 and every roquest of the Ord of Zoalrg Adaustiments sand the i►�ana�tiaag Co�easiaasiom in sul aaltsirg plot plans or revised plot pIsVMP# 4� 6 t t 1 and were willing, and sre n0W Trilling t, eoclept the deaialon or i 2 ," the Planning COi IBslun made on June 19, 1973, ulth 611 the copdi»� 3 E tians therein Imposed . A cc: AY of the pZut plan and aonditiand atm! -' »cat attached hereto, but will be made a part of the record upon , 5 ;, the hearing of thin matter, fi xv The only aCsnderda ur guidelines to be followed by the Board 8 ; of Zoning Ad juat:menta, the Planning Commiae,lon, or the Ci My 9 Council of the City (.,f' Huntington 8euch, are those that are Bet 1 , 1 10 c:ut and provided ue herelnabove alleged undgr Sections 9811 ,2 . lj � 11 ;, 9811 . 2 .�, and 9811 .2. r 3, end that neither the Board of Zoning 12 ; Ad�uatmdnt � or Planning COMmiaeicn round that the granting of tho 13 sae permi:y, would not be 1n accurd3nce Keith said guideAl I no s,1 a red 14 sdtue l ly "Lund that they were In accuraanae with said guidelineal 1.5 howev*r, the City Council of the Ci Lr of Huntington Beach did not if evrn attempt tV follow sold gul,dellnea, did not attempt to Juatitl'i i ' � 17 I. 1 is cotton it) dental by making findings of fac"I or by pointin,g � s is 4,; out wherein the grcjnting of such unc Permit$ would effeot the 1" ;f Muster Plan Gf the CiLy of Huntingtvn Beach, or be in tu to rioud 2C �; prr perty or l.mprovemrnta In the Vicinity ai' such prCpoaed bu!ld 21 i' or effect the general welrare of persona working or ret;tiding in ! 22 ! the general vicinity :f the Provo ced epe,rtment buildings, and I 23 i? arbitrarily and onpricioualy, without authority of laic, excesdtd re 24 t to Juri ddiction and committed prejudicial sbWee of discretion 25 in reversi;ig the Planning CoMriasian 4n4 foard Of Zoning AdaUe,t- i 2G d+�nxi tha +� granting of the use pgr%:Lts , 27 xVr Plainbili'u huyc exhsvat+ry all ayal.lable -remedies irequired to be' 7 i i� 1 ij pursued by them prior to the riling of this petltion, ss the Citl► i 2 ' Cads of the City of Huntington Beach provides that the deal,aion � 3 << of the C1t,f Council. be final , P*t1 tiomrs do not have s plain, `3 , f 4 spasAy srid sdsgv3t9 remedy 1n the aNina � r7► vuurRi of Isrt. ; ` WHIRAMRX. pstltir,ntrs proyi j 1i 6 1 . That this Court issue on alternative writ of 9Snds 7 oopF Of which is attached herstos said Writ being ■Rds ? ' � returz�sbis ' 8 ;, within some brim' period ordering that respondent, aTY coma ' I 9 : OF r 110TON BEACH, ORANGE COUWff, 4 i ATE OF CA LIPORNIA csverss ' iO its deoision msde on July 26, 1973, and grant the llbusQoe of th e , use perwpits with the conditions end plot plan as epprovsd by the 12 Planning rowia$ion of the City of Huntington Beach an u ' i 13 1973; � 14 2. That thie C.-gjrt, upon hearing this PolAtion and upon co i reiderstxr#t of any wr1 t filed issue its p i p e vase t arlr Writ t of lwRldA to 16 a s+endin; respondent, rj. :ir county OF HUNTIMTUA ]IEAQIi# 01"Ns 17 COUNTY, STATR OF CALIFORNIP_, to *et &x1de its dealsion mversingi 18 , the Planning Casemisslon of Huntington Beach sr m3 the Board of 19 ZOAIng Adjustaentss and , pareoitttng th< issuance of the use perani 20 in acoo.rdmrosr with the tome and Cundl.tl.ons of the plot plan as 21 Approved by the Pla"'ng Corsaissl,an on June 191 973t 1 f 2? 3. Por oasts of end aui! 23 4 . For such other end further relief as tale Court may ds tic x � 1 proper. 25 + T. iwSt?M, Stlfl7LT7 Sig SMt)l'.�T1[ 2A f: 2't � k WON" S. LAWSON Attorpsyo far Yttitioners i \'t'_.it x+l�.. .•r t � •, • "t.1 � }i.3Yali,3• .;,.at.. .. . � •..; . . .a � :i.try.t �,'-� 13t,�E.sTtti , '�,lhj`.•i�i• TT r rr4 r• ;`y��: • r i•j ,r.;;. V t zrOnC7u?p, �i�,•"'-% '• �' '�r;�~�;•.;�r�.Tiy's�,,4ys�, . elk • '�4q A' T t"��i%r'�v•('/a�''9E�" i.r•`4f' . .`r, .,`:� Air° 3�,�3J��♦�Y'3.'fa S`i ° tt,ra.t f�r.,����y}fir�t+'T�i�.t� ;.• I r�14.�1..�i�i R n r�`L��t�I Viz` •. .1 •,1, T. � It ) d , � ._ice, • •, +;+�,;.1A 1y,,FT "41'�p �., ,„ n is 'e s ''`' ;e'••�,i'r:`-7'•�R�'�_I1!�'\ fl EXHIBIT -art. I ,j.rT: r r'' ^ � •,nti! l- " .�. ; fit• iL. '{. �•Ir' :. :.r:ry r1�'• '.mil•{ ••Y�+'�ti:y` 'h• tom'+ 'iJ t'� ' ? '• '�"tea a�)• , ',li rwf'rA'7.;� '.M.�`'=��;�f.J ,t' :�j.'• is a. pity Flanninn s. on CiLy hi HMILitl-:LOT1 BC-B tl " 't�' r: ';j t.e•-. ',.,'j <L 1 Huntington Fe:=tc h , Cz� t i Iorn i a .''��''~ "• �'� ` `t f,V. G •s Gentlemen : :; r q{•�� i � ' ff`i lt�r31 f i•t t1r' J • ,AS a 'Qreirlt'ic z' n. i '-If. C r ty E 1 c.rlr11 ng Comm;. Ss ion I heza 'r i , 73 rf � Zo n Ad •tostments'�'': "� q,,.yy t { a p p e�1 t h�- ..�: �. . . i t n , f , t�t� i.n i i n i g 1 � 't3•>z:�!fa{+•�?r to aj)pYove List tits F"c-r�r1tC `, . 7:�- s , ; -S and 73-E� This chat lenze i. :, p(,rriitted under the HuntingLoti 'each Munk ip- - Vr•c; In,m- (,;ride St'C: Lion 98u2 . • .. +'' �",`,�y�!�`� t� �� M hf+C Ile r i .z e k tr I i n . • .: �'���'�•:,'�;'+� ,�•:. � ' J• Jf'y,fs.�'a��,1i':1 k..i���.t ��/'{'. It !i jar„ i 1ai 4Tjfl�� �••r �s;-J i r; w+ +' rfTf T}~wt -4�t " EXHIBIT j7 •_ Ct;••1�.. ,7't�,t'14� u • r }rkp r+ I, • PLANNING CO'rLHrJSION • z,�;'?!•�: Planning Department USE PERMIT N0. 73_ 3 DATE: June 19, 1973 USE PERT+;IT NO. 73-5 APPEAL USE ALP 3- �. ••., ,� "::' 'z .MIT NO. 7 6 (Cont . 5/ 1/73) ZONE : R3 w;:,ir '.,;f,..�,:�'''} •r: APPLICANT : James Montgomery LISTER- ;;.' PLAN : High' Aensft P. O. Box 2245 ° Huntington Beach , CL APPELLANT : Katherine Wallin Planning Commissionor "'" ;,'' ,, ' .,,,z: •' r ° REQUEST . To allow the construction o x three .. 24 unit (Total of 72 units) apart - ment complexes , -t! LOCATION • (lest side of Holly St :-eet 185 ft . south of Garfield Ave . APPEAL : To the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustments approval of ; � " �:��.•��c ,�.,��, . Use Permits Nos . 73 3 , 73 5 , 73 , 65 �. ��'; <'xix•'a' On June 12, 1973 thf Planning Commission instructed tre to conduct an area study of the land rep )atin3 to the civic '', center impact study as an aid for making a decision, on Permits No . 3-3, i .: -`� rind 73-6 . A cobs]' of the: Ma r:.•h -6 =�.9/yy�/y3',���7 f .J `.J .�,•'. r.Y ice. r'•Jt• _.`.'K'{S S •' ar,d PAY 1 , 1973 staff report:; are attached ror your coric�ir�ex'�ttiorz,f�z,�ii��� EANV �I ON 4:'.NTAL STATUS : '• '1 '+.•. d-'4 f.�,. `. rye,,. On May 1, 1973 the Environmental. heview Board accepted Lnal ized Exemption: Declgrgtion No . 73-42 covering Use Permits No . 73-3, 73-5 a.nd 73-6 • C •,'�A • `J'�•''',1'.^.,C";. 5 r • r •> 4'.:r`F:;�,�{�,� Jai At the May 1, 1973 Planning Commission cr/eeting :, )t r:oncur with a continu.!�.nce of the Use Permit applicati.ono :. x :le staff reC0M1-.1?nds that q de•cisior+ be made on the �,pplichtoi.G��",�::, rline 19 , 197. they nave been pending since January 19 I:,4973r:t � Cf' t1 t3 t;t ( by thF' " ' i,r'a•rtf'+`;?`'`'��;,}V,•' K• A q` n / i'lAnn ing Commie s on, the staff",wili to present an area study of the civic center im adt area ,.•':� _'"� '` �:'�``z " +�r,compa s c,.i i g the -1 ub ter.t -+ ite on June Z9 1973p ed upon the Information outlined in the previ�au'F31 5 '• it" �',. 1t�2'�t 1•r # t r qij , th , tat•f' recommends approvay of Use Permits No. 73-3 11' the Area r� vil s i ecorLmendati ns y 7: - y r o n�rt 'xitih G1t pr �s± . � Y�:%^ .•-. ... ....._ .........,...d...,ff•w;...... ..•.. ♦ - .,.....rrr•.... ..�.._.<.....F.r.. ........ .. ....... .. , ..,. .. 1•-v+..•...-......1.'.•,y.4116�•wh46 ' STAFF REPORT 'r0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department USE PERMIT NO. 73- 3 DATE . May 1 , , 973 USE PERMIT NO. 73. 5 APPEAL USE PERMIT ,NO. 73-b (Copt . 4/ 17/73) ZONE . R3 APPLICANT : James Montgomery MASTER PLAN : High ..Donsi P. O. Pox 2.245 a : Y • � � :_ ,;fit:+ Huntington Beach , Ca . APPELLANT : Katherine Wallin 'At Planning Planning Commissioner •4 r :. t • S REQUEST : To allow the construction of - three ° `1V 24 unit (Total of 72 units) apart went complexes . LOCATION : West side of Holly Street , �•- ;= '�Y�: 185 ft . south of Garfield Ave . APPEAL : To the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustments approval of Use Permitsyas . 73 3 , 73 5 , 73 - 6 ., GENERAL INFORMATION ' On April .1 1973 the Planning Commission continued Use ` 4r Perm?ts Nos . 73 - 3 , 73 - 5 , and 73 - 6 to the May 1 , 1973 meeting` ,' �`.".}. in order to await the final decision by the Environmental Review Board regarding a request for exemption status ..-: a . . l following short history outlines previous proccedings regarding`!'aqj these applications : f •�. _ 4`f��E January 31 , 1973 - Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Ili � proposals for three separate 24 unit apartments February 6 , 1973 - Use Permit Nos . 73 3 , 73- 5 , and 73 6 werel�"y ,:�t� : appeiled by Commissioner Wallin . February 6 , 1973 - Environmental Review Board rejected ':requ6st ,':kr� for exemption status (ED 73 - 1S ) and required full environments' ' z5., impact report . •i March 6 , 1973 - Appeal on subject use . N rmits continued b Planning Commission to April 11 , 1973 ''. •.'� l�;:yf'►r t` order to allow t e ;• ' :' : ;.:,;''� r Planning Commission to study lower portion of Master Plbn Study Area „a„ 4C:riw ? March 13 , 1973 - F.nvironmental Review Board considered 'a change of status for ED 73- 15 and rejected the consideratiari.:�:;A . The Board advised the applicant to submit a now exemptlor� declaration applicstinn with revised plot plans for future 1""j , ' consideration, . 4�/y�, ��'. EVL_7y1 T v s ,t. Staff Report Use Permit No . 73- 3 Use Permit No . 73- S ZcX Use Permit No . 7 3 -6 ;`t►� Page 2 March 27 , 1973 - planning Commission reviewed a portion Of the Area "D" . The staff advised the Commission that uriti1--,­_:*.".A? ,?>� ? the Civic Center Study is completed the staff cannot jUstify • : any -land use in the lower portion of Master Plan Area _t ':; zn effect. , the staff does not have sufficient information at J.,• .,r: this time to state that proposals for apartments or proposals - for industrial use would be warranted for this area . April 17 , 1973 - Environmental Review Hoard reviewed ED, 7S 42':` ,' a revised request for exemption status with a revised plan proposing three twenty unit apartments . The Environmental`:.,.', Review Board instructed the Secretary to post the exemption ` ,.• ,.�t de0aration request for 10 days for public input , :', , '; ' `,: ':•"�fi�: April 17 , 1973 - Planning Commission continued Use Pertiii{t Nos `. 73 3 , 73- S , and 73 6 la�:f to await the decision regarding ' the, E D 73- 42 . opy of the March 6 , 1,9 73 staff report is attached fof.14 '�`•}. pp information . i one supplemental inforn PRESENT L.kND USE A.ND ZONING : Subject site is presently zoned R3 Medium High Density Reisident�lli�; and is vacant land . Property to the north , south and cant 'is located in an & r district and is primarily vacant land. •rho re are aevvral industrial shops located near the southeast scorner ;:,�. 1 of No) lr Avenue and Gerfit1d Avenue in the R3 Medium Ifigh 'Densit' ,j, Residential District . Property immediately to the west iS zs�rte " ; MI Light 1ndu- ,. ri a1 District A proposal for a storage ,'y�rd,,,oh ,f 1 �arco 1 sbut t i nt the subject site to the Kest was approved;•hy; the; r•ard of Zoning adjustments on February 28 , 1973 hOl ,� Land Use and Zoning Map . ) MASTER PLAN • The master plan for Study Area S ( 19651 designates the thrie''i `p subject lots involved as indu± trial and residential line on the designations Is a diagonal line across the ' thre© fir subject lots . (See att2che d map. ) p . At has been previ ous ly s toted , . the s taff is not , prop ere,c�#,,,.t�i'i;�� time to propose a definite indication of the master:f.pIih'.Adat, tion for lower portion of Study Area 4-D on the proposeet!A�;�r[ eta r "A Staff Report Use Permit No . 73 3 Use Permit No. 73 S Use yPermit No . 73 6 `s Page t ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION : On May 1 , 1973 the Environmental Review Board wi •l► review public input , if any , and make a decision on whether .or not Exemption Declaration No . 73- 42 will be exempted .It'Qm ;;� � {§ the requirements of an Environmental Impact Report . The staff will have further information on the resul ,*s ox ;.'.`. the Environmental Review Board ' s action at the Planning Commission meeting is w Revised plan received Apri i 101__ 1973 , The revised plan for Use Permit Nos . 73- 3 , 73- Sf arid '1•�,.�i'r. '::`; �� submitted Apri + 10 , 1973 reflect a decrease for 4 units.-: i`:,').h per application - a decrease from a total of 72 dwell'in �.tM.� t units to a total of 60 dwelling units . Thirty-one bedrooms and thirty- two bedroom units are p`rvpnf0d►} The proposed plan relies on reciprocal drives in order,,,to a more coarpotible overall development which meets the 'int0At, of the policy standards for apartment development 1969� . Two inrge open spaces are proposed in addition to cithe' r a.", , private patio or balcony for each unit . The original plan submitted did not adhere to the 1.96O .Pliftnii Commission policy standard for apartment development . " An attempt has been made on the revised plan to adhere to the , policy standard with gn interrelated 60 uait complex and, 4 at the same time presenting three separate proposals for twen units each which could meet ordinance code reCuirements.,u»r their own. , f Except for a proposed laundry room straddling the pYopertyl 1, between two lots , thr apartments are in substantial c+onf�irms with. all code renui ,•emonts and the Planning Commission p9li't standards ( 1969 ) . a J . The applicant proposes to construct pr.ivAte patias froi ntilig, on Itol. ly Street which will be onc:losed by a six foot ,fence3 . Fences , hedges or walla which exceed three and one=halflfee must observe the front yard setback in this part of • the:_:`clt Averaging of the front yard setback would a110W the ppits `nsa patios to be six feet high within the front yard setblx�: °} houraver, the ordinance cods permits averaging of .setback only in the townlot area . J. Staff Report J>7,1 = ,4 Use Permit No . 73 - 3 ,•.� 115e Permit No . 73- 5 Use Periait No. 73 6Page 4 All of the proposed patios fronting on Holly Street. are s�e at five feer fron the property line . If averaging of the front ,4 yard setbacK were to be allowed in this case , the developun.t. ' would consist of a S21 averaging , slightly over the maximUm, . t permitted in the to:rnlot area . J There is an :-Areption in the ordinance code which p rMitx.; f 0 a C and wall sechac.k variation to a distance of ;tot less ;:.thgt-.;li. from the front yard property, line . S . 9204 . 5 which' aI10, Ws ':the exception to be made on the reduction of this front ,--yard sethA requi res th a t the I ots mus t be a tiairt of at leas t S tar 'raore contiguous legal building sites . i Id under the same ' ownershfi The staff does not consider they subject site to meet : this, criteria , hogever it does consider the averaging of :,the €rot ^,°r yard setbracki in this case to be an attribute to thc`. da Ve40pie0(..� CONCLOS ION : It a ears tl:at the s licant has proposed a site wh'i''Ch,•• - meets�; PP pP P , ., r�. the intent o:' the policy standard in addition to mees trig; nos"�,,� development standards for individual lots The lautid facility proposed between two lots would be a logicallocrtitir - as it is located a walkway between the two s�eparata�; apArtoiht° developments . Also , it would provide a break between'; the:.•bpahl space and the parking to the south , and would reduce - thrr` pir obi number of laundry fncilities from three (one for each de'volop-"N-` ment ) into two . +: : + As the master plan has not been formulated for this - area '4s `,bfl yet , the staff would not he adverse to this proposal xf ttho '."";r..:#� applicant meets environments ? consideration . Tho staff coil$14 that a wall would be necessary to be built on the waist pr' bpair.tyi line: of lot. 33 to be used as a buffer between the proposed residential units and a proposed construction office with�, �';;I'?; � facilities for parking construction vehicles . One of ,the • con423 1 t.Gj for the industrial LISP} (Administrative Review No . . 73r2•3) was that the applicant shall post a bond guaranteeing t+o'.:'construtti a block wall on the east pro erty line (abutting the',,-reAdje.,tti, ! r. 1 use) L.f said parcel at the t me the adjacent parcels,.-, are developed to residential use . �,_,•rE., k E?COKMENDAT i ON . .tti•r.t. r''tri,..�.J�,e�ix ' The~ staff recommends approval of U!e Permit Nos . 73-3; .•�3�5 �:��i� 73 -6 with the fol. lcw+ring conciitiont utter.hed hereto and ,., re.itonable c:onditiona the Planning Commissioft M4V w tht i` PIS ' ,.h�i ,, ,: .•.�..: f`., ,ter,. J � '+` � �y�• '+..�:�' �: r jam:�f',�� S ' . • t�7 _ _v�Z.:C.s, T Munfin vtan 'ranch PI -PU 1 COMMISSIOR A"'YY tl 1 CLT •4'.. �'�. :r�.� 1:T� � 1 � �~ .....�..-,.�w-�_r....... ..... . �....rr-...-.....•..».._..�...�.r.....�.��.+•r-....-w-.�...•..-..w.►.rwr..•..-,+-r+.� ,G.��.,'• Y�`'. .;i.�:�t, .rl . P.'J. BOX1�J1� CALIFORNIA 02648. ,.a: ``,'; •'.` "`� t1�tw" I t' . }Ic,;I. r f11 IC 't:I r ; , , � r. •. } � ;.: 'l�l }�}�,:�'` : I' i :',t)iI ; II�l I).•"•. r t , . _ t ±; -'',.�,;-;.:='i;..frf,' 1 U:�t: F'l:t-'•1T'1 ;;�' :=.ct \'. (7 - c, 1.:.._ �} I'1+ 1. 1.t�1'� t'1n1't�l? INIA. li ) 42 -p1 i (:_II {: .. 1 , �` :\' •r;*;�,�, r, j, t*,i 'i"� 1{ l ._ �{ , �. � � 1 � . f l'1 I l l i ''•.i`,+ r,,it., f .l't'l;'''•'�t ail ,. .. '',�,,�`.' :«•y' '''''�- ;' t 0 uti i ry (total.,�.`;» t Distr 1Ct:,: { 1 . . 1,t)L.,li , L«il • t.t. ' . ., _ r , . . � `' , , i'�:>.: � , 1 tz ft . 5t�t tit � , ;-,.•- �,.., (•'I { 4 v L�ll I I I I r .t I <"i I112 1 II l.0 1,�3 . i . t _l t} w-.. _ � •,7•�(�1f ' �•��: •ir �. ••• I S:< {j•,•1„:y to Y� � ''i +is14115 . .$. 4• A ti �7t, } , j'},� z-(, t,` ; tl ! . t T, i ;tt: �1:►? �' ;_ " •� r : I 1 1973 frnr �a' '�'�; a p I,1 r is i'ic.-Ii 2 . f1 J l i) I•t' l' ] I I datedil 2 1' 1.> .. .;� !#•��..rilt�jy,1��' "J. �' t' )',' r: ; c I is,, I�C�� tI� tI?I('lIt� S}lii1 � 'b�';sus..,,.rt' x 1 c p . Comp i e(} 1, liy't •. j '` :' ' , 1'' 1 I , E ? }; ' 1 1iS }.t.' I'1it�ik11.Mt.�1£' i' i, a ctr/)f 1� �'�t/f' 1 ,I r .: J ' , I) .'r ',�k'.�•.., .a't',�,�I,•L1'A•t A�n s c ti 2. : 1 ..' 't , �+.��r C' 4;et.}'c�t, r.!1.7'o!%' •w ',' a1lmrtlary U t�1G` ,•"' t` t the �: ttift Ii1 ;1t t}1(' pl'OpQ5�.i3 -do )11�n��'i����,,`,�; 1 t. 1 ,• ' J� ,. r 1t' is _' 1 - ?'�' 1titC :.I ,i:l(i It.mcLion FIB one IargC! Camp . .�;!�� �` �i r . C it � ,�:•.. t ,+ • (• } 1)L 1 i.E'� C.. t�1f3t }i 1� i11i� :.► 1 t.';I j 1) I t-. t) , � (.' l,•1 < ' , �•4.r,J. ;e.�•,:r `'��•".tam•' ;Irj)1 i r -It in1lS irc'<' th•' ) iIL.'nL of tht• pot i cy titandard ; iti Atitidi: z�,,•i , t ') '^C't+ t 1111, Ti+,r',� ' `� ) (?j'Ir,t'i; L zit ;Il]Cs; rd- for individual Lo.t.s � f ��j;p I'(i�'il Z tt ilk: I''' . (,:iilt.'ij by t he r; t a f f f)1`.i('d on thu above .� 1 II {�(�Y) I:! C i"i`il �li1r.1l'C.fi l♦1n i i ys I!+ rvcTn�l♦l,finendat.,iC w;1 '-tl ;�L`Cj;`I. w . I•(���/�l• +�1. 1 '{rI{� IIr t_' 4�1 the(' t. i �" 1 4. center *l 1.� li+l ' ,r`..:�•c•'���' �f} '��' l� i t 11 rizt t.. r • rr � tf S•rt•`.,ray e + F ltt �+ttit•"' i 1J {, r. {, � ,• .r .. ( . .. :. i 1 :�:> ;., t,�"C' t 1"tt.} �' C }iC }2,Uii2'i} `1 itrl(} ,7 Ci +•. , f _ �rIJ1Stf' T 4`1 iI�• tr l', rf' 1". l,,i ! 't t ', • ., '1 ,t !. 1 uli.! I'll r7 11.1 f..�1� t.l Tl � •. MrC� 1.7 T. . .. . .. . i f.';r i Of t.}1k' "• c.�x •:L, .,�rt.lTl t t }• l 7l . }i It 1.]. V I.Gf, •`�;J� '�' '�MYJc' it �, t :• i:t. f, ,, t Ilse l; ' 1"mi S1 ' I '• + i :1:t' T �'�:� � } I I7 f X �l'i�. "c"•''i�'' f 11 .t j);>>~' :'s 1 :1!'.c i f, i i l,• I : . r . ,':^ t . `. . c'. . ,' I'+� 1 I L''li ;i I'C(1tIC'•'_i ( `t,. •. . ;f�'�+" t'C t I l.'.;t t T't."' c t.}. 1111 )�L C t .'ti': 3,�''`i';•xw ;' , nnzn , .: ..• ' cC,:;.t ' Cc t . . i � i�J1? f•l'r�,n t c � I I ,) rc , ! tt „ ; ia.mcor. .:.,:r .`,sJ.l;,,rtt;j�tf>Fi, ']sir}} U)< SZ'llC.ji'+ t� r'%`,l "j I: I .i i i!, ! ilt' 1 Tc?iil; onI lI ReitjC19 �=`t`':fi'• `\.• r�YaK��z."say iltt4.' t 'fC't.} f C:I I i i c I t i . �''i :i•i .it;�..dS_1�. , Ti i, i . �,i t ti 4' ' .. •r .. �► I ! t ,. , c' !� ;t rl I' 1. .I 1 l t}l(. 'rr.,; '';•�, '4{"i,•1ai!'��:�.. T'JIinv1 r I' . tt t � lip _ j• t 1 1 1. .''! , i �t (I ti i t ] j - I ,t . ]t I C)Il }v C): r;'I..�.� .cJ � F = j Tl.: ] t I t , .'1, . i•Il:, P l ann i.ng 'Comm' t}1er? t_oit ,, �� _ ,.,•, z'• ts. of . Fxcl�i ton.�a';`ti�r� f 1ecl oil ,:li , i - !' 1�' { p , s fi��"�r,^•tLr i }1:' }(C :i ?'iIt r`T1 once again :'c6ndjiltieAtr !ya�'�'r.' }• 1 l '. , indl t}cci� i.orl ot'' .1' .`;ap o ,. ;-?; , �._-... ' T1 t ri I .l L ii l (.. .i't c•,S"r'�Jlj,'t }, �••,•i'�)% �.\c m")t .lOil Ifer t l �) 73 r tiVi rorimen a1 };�wvir! I. I' . .. I .' . Y Sl1 ' Y C I•t 1 i-} nt-'__} Iif(�2't?tili {'t, ,,,. . t � r,it It I-vt. 1 ( ►. t I't�, o a I'(} !.C�II 1 J1 t .,,r' , • '• '!t t` _, ' 'y'••}•'�*i•tr^.�``''tl� J• ,5�' t i t t♦ a I,IIrI l.r'i I'y .� 1 i.�) j " '�'t: 3, f. • oit ► t} �� T t7fl ? it(• ,' f •' • c. n(Y1 t ? (f!. ^ (� f `t})j) / 1 � T 7 vf�" fk.�4 � I t t T o v it 1 .! �'I: r:� 'f!!'i l�l. t I !t i� � 1 t I{C'ij 1•(} O1 •,(�I , ' � t � ,�'tt.,�}IL•. • ! 11 Its, hfl�1]5�11TC11t..i • t:'rt 4' c . y.y�•tlr! •, t i' ', ':fir..,t,�y. -t�'+sw;�t•t"+;��1•.:�::�''say.•t�:r•;'l' 'r• `� '.;'",, .� :,ti r�?AFL`, •1 •r.•�f'rt .•r •+•. �„� a ">'t� .r•}}.: ' y g r. •1.'.1S{ _nfc�i'titiit. l !1Ii_ LO tFl +t .t p i• I :µ ti;t;;�,R�"''Y•,r"�;s4:;b. f 1 t t ,a}a' 1• �w TCt. fUll � � , r c , i" �. .t:'.3. .. e s ,i.,I' i . tj p �. - ry t.� ,r•� :+sY: r, .,. t r.t �,s• +^�_lam" �._ i -,+. �;�+r�4,v..M. ,i}f ►��,$::iyt f I. • A. Reynold!; f,. • r;r� r i`,+,•)` ,r_.y•,,,t�'yy e fl c l0�-.tI r .. . �i..V •rr,wt�. :N�;�"'�r�•( �'•'_� '� ' •aid f-4 +3,.. t!, • 4 NA f • tt. , .,r'j Jr EXHIBIT "0" �J ) :'j`�;4:.:;r,' ' • + � i4 •::'r k��i� �.���(♦'.i,y�A it��•,�t!� . .1`tr �,\ �fK.;•T`r'� ,fit a{7 y !' } ti. , ....._•�.......,.,.... _«•... .. .i...,.. ' ;��#r.:!..�wrFY\•.. ,.rr.1��w•'r..;rw:As,°sarytt•+'.w�x.•+KN�t<4•r/+�7 r» J 19 e4age #13 -':Council Minutes - 7l16/73 ^ T�v Lt'y•r '���� ♦ . . ✓.'�:; { `ter - The City C]orr infrrtAei Council that all legel requirements for publicatJon 'and •y • .) posting had been met, and that she had received no communications or vri ten;prOtesta to the Society and Culture Section of the Policy Plan or to the''recouzctsendKon`o£i�r ^ the PlanningCommission that said `� r 9Pctiort be approved ,�s maditterl ,,•. ;e��,•'r•,}'�..Iti!„�y• i in •t.•.'.!!w iwa=•'�i The City Administrator reported on the mat. ..er and brought Council' s at:trention; to,.�.r 4}- certain terminology in the plan Which he reco=nended should be modified. priar:;Co r '� r�, )BIZ•. fir, �• . approval of the plan. - .,. •, '. ;"t'.��*�t�:#�:'.,,`�r_�,���;t'��� The City Attorney stared that he concurred with the re:com.endation of tht3S ,City_.". 1'��� Administrator relative to the terminology contained in the plan. Mr. Marcus Porter, City Planninc; Commissioner, addressed Council. regardir;g the efforts which were rude in preparing this section of the Policy Plan, '�� •`"�"'� t:�', Discussion was held by Council concerning continuing the public hearing%to'alltrwrs portions of the: plan to he more aFp.npriately. .worded and Councilman Duke y;regae`stt�d`` ` that material on the matter be sent in advance to the Council to afford them an opportunity to study the o ions . � ;,•*' ;,;c proposed�d modifications . f icat �'• ; `' =. ' .,,^�• Mrs . Jeannette Turk, 15271 Newcastle Lane , City , member -of the Goals ,and;_ b ecC ;�I�ItJ�i� Co;zanittee , addressed Council conr.c:rni..•; the pal icy plan . On motion by Green, Cocric i 1 continued the public hearing on the Society,�ag� .Ctsltttr+m:.: Section cr: the Policy Plan to the September 4, 1973 , Council meeting for;..t 6`1, utcpgr as of allowing the City Administrator, City Attrrney, Planning Cow 1z*ivi(;Ark.;, jq;;; r r Objectives members to meet to discuss the changes in wording which m&y,b�:. ne,C ftl�!'' r The motion was passed by the following vote; ' r l r jr"•`t,ti?�Yrr'rY"�"•.r„��lir;�!`Y ♦ AYES ; Councilmen, Bartlett , Gibbs , Green, Coen, Duke, NOES: Counc t 1mren: None �:'• ,. �:' .r.''i � ` ``'�' . KmEvr: Counct linen. Shipley ,,.t•. �:.�� r;,;•, ,.•.�, :c •. ' r�, : PUBLIC IM"ING APPEAL - USE PERMIT NOS , 73-3, 73-5 L 73„�6 �,; -'� ';, `'';�� x':,�;;M, ._......_ � . . .;i:� 't . s,.• x= ,err Mayor Matney announced that this was the day ran our Piet for 'a -pttblic appeals which he had filed to the ti ,t f r • Pp approval by the Planning Ccn�isaionk.,a"..st,�xaNtt c6astruction of three 20 unit apartment complexes (total of 60• uniti).t t'tauaaz , O`.`t�' S. 9202.3 . 1 .3 of the Huntington Reach ordinance Code , on property. Iocrstad side of Holly Street , 185 feet sough of Garfield Avenue: in the R3 Hediu'm', I& Daq►sit' Residential District . r•. ' ,�,� R:t%..,. w �a��;Ea` :� 7. The City Clerk informed C,ounci 2 that all legal requirements for notificatan, :;pab111� Lion and posting had been met , aid that in add it iort to the letter o1" received a ccmrzunicntion from M:, Martin A. Kordick, Kordick 1x Ron, ,InC:, ,;;'.Ci,t opposing the granting of said Use Permits . �' _; : ° '.`.•,,',:• ; r ', ' The Ha r ..: .. - .a. ..., :j,f%�':.Y�•�1•�'rr�'ta,.; ,� y r stated that lie had appealed this mattl.r as he believed •the. proposed Incompatible with the are+t . ` The Planning Director 1' .. r, .•�t ..t i•';x` 1� presented Q rcRum; of the•. Planning Ctxtai�aieaian'�',i��is,4+Mtiii8i: :fb>�`�.`� reca=twading apprcval of said Nit-- Per-cents and spoke regarding various 414 0cti�! 'ctt,�� � ..a matter. • + ,•; i,I'•f Ly; 77:it'i f,'^/:•IS. t1 �y;Fia` Mayor Mntney declared the hearing open. FV p p �. + * t ' j �,►'�iatr PIT, 1.�E! ��r f • f.+. , �`�:111f+K�.yy�;� cif,,•;�• s�r +�, t•a. P' i i wf1!•i'J / 7 tJ f Vage 014 - Council Hinute 71I6j73 �. {. Mr. Bruce Career, 18792 Stewart Street , City, addri!r,,n d t ouncil and stated .that•'he ' 4:�� '-� �,+ a believed the proposed use wits incompatible witt, the eroa, �' Mr. James Montgomery, P. 0. Box 2145, City, applicant, addressed Council and requested '. .;'* tint a decision be reached un this matter. "Jet Councilman Green stated that he believed that nn Pnvirorrnentnl Impact Report: shuu).i:' =:•�``; F ;•tom:... ,••• ;, have been required on this project . �� t :::t `+ `•`i+'� Mr. Carlos Reeves, 525 Alabama St reet , City, r; !trosentznF, the owner of she property ' addressed Couric i1 in favor of the proposed development and Bpoke retarding the 'histary of the property. Mr. Cron Weir, 428 Main Street , City , property cnwner in the area, addressed Council 'and stated that he believed the mope -� hould h i t I red. � rt �: t, ir:d r � r. i�a 1-, r,ut. There being no cap present to sl:talk ftlrLhOr ;,ri the tu,7t l.er and there being tto fctxther protests filed either oral or writ en , Hie vas 1osed by the Mayor. .. -ij,'.,, • ;�err.:, :•w A motion was made by y Counci lt7arn Mnr_nuv to nv�' ry , ;:' rru tc- tilt' nrani rim Pl Commission grid•�direCt".. , that those three parcels bt, rezoned rn 14- 1 L f f,h! 1 ndu::C r ira l District. following discussion by Council , the rcuar.{on ti<acie by Mayor HAcney was withdrawn. ::,}�'as ' 1'V On tcotion by Matney, Coiutcl l overruled the decision of the Planning =9,} Pf,lA Ib'�f ft.3 ,,• denied Use Ret:-rcit Nov . 73-3 , 73-5 , and 73-6, and directed the Plrinnirij Co=i ifiel&-tta=,,��,.t�s��, initiate a Meister Plan Amendment wirh the actRf;estiarl that it be oveTallt`indi tiiil.r�` development . The twtion waa passed by the follovfng vote: r'•' . '� l„f:•_,;. ., ; ;, ,tS ' YES. Countilme Gibbs , - `'; �;r' _;�:; :. ' •', s• ,• A n: Green, Coen, Duke, Hatnc NOES : CouncUnten: Bartlett ] ASSERT.: Cocancilr:`en: Shipley ,'- -, ;':�..'.•ik �.,,;, �;��4"•'�:,,,'. IM"tING OIL WELL NUISANCE ABkTF2�ENT - RES NO. 3726 - ADOPTED ''s-;, .t;;., �.�r•'"�:'�`�f��• ^t�:, �r l Mayor Matney announced that this urns ►:ht: tiny and hour set for • �r��. an of1� 1 � i �•�:r atratement hearing on Oil Well "Du l lnr" (18 - Mr. ticr.+ard O'Brien w locctted' `On' tot.0.b':"�ixT 10,' Block 110, Huntington Bench Tract , pursuant to Suction 2371 of Seach' Ordtnance Code. Ra ''• ,�.": r } a:';E ,,' i Ilie City Clerk inforwd Council that. all legal requirements for not4ficativti'a6d _•-'-f.;''J' = oat in had been tnet and that she had received no communicrat ton or writtan proteritq to ��,. � the reco=endstitan of the Department of Building and Corr'.rntartity Development that 'thft'; nuisance be abated. :;, .••,.,,r;: .5 Mr. James Georges, Deputy City Attorney, distributed the applicabAe secticiis *01 -tlto:'':': "untfnFton ]leach Ordirnnn:t, C'rtcit! for Crum:i ] ' ,5 infnrrr:nt!nn and spoke rega ditZg Lit© •a . Fri visions therein f' I Deputy City Attorney Georges called tin Mr, Herbert A. Day, Oil Field 5uperint';tdant"to'"�'� give testi,•nany on the natter. and after being sworn itt by the City Clark, , r,' dtposed on tile matter. Deputy City Attorney Georges submitted Rix photographs of the site attca itntjtl+ssf:tt�? that';�t': ' the City Clark mark theca ata Exhibits 1 through 6, and the Mayor direote'd that, record ahem t1ist Mr. O'Br ien'a Counsel had re-lieved Lbe photographs."r•''M coo r#es",t auta'mitted that to thr• City Council an evide.tce of the uulmenee. •, .,, :, �,., j -.r .= c� F.XN I BIT VERIMATx4N BY PARTY z , t 3 '� 81LAMCg SAWAII , !I As . 4 ' ovN�t Q� HONOLU`LU 511 t 6 I an one of the petitioners in the above entitled actionf � 7 �4 have read the foregoing Petition rot, Writ or Mandate and Imoa the 81: contents whereof'; and I certify that the some: is true of sty own a kno"ledge , except an to those matters which are therein stat#A i� 1p wpon my Information or beliof, and as to those mattsxs I belleVo 1I �' it to be true . 1 ' Inauteed on November ��� , 1973, at Mono u I u r � l ! Hawaii . f 14 �� } i 15 ? (s/ Clarinda Ktrk hroolts 16 � i 17 STATS OF NAWAII 1 �! CITY tre . v'''aU%T!t Or HONOLULU 19 I! ;i 20 On November 20 lq. T3D before mo , the undeersigrntd, 0 NOW7 1 21 Public in and fur sold State, personally appear*d CTARM KIAX � 22 :f SAWKSO known to ate► to be, the person whoa* num Is subWoribed to j •' 4 2 { the within lnstrm*nt and acknowledged to me that she oxiscuted 24 ; the 0sno. �5 !. KI 023S cry hand and offlatat Beal . 26 � /a/ guosko Yammuchi 27 fir u ,.-»--....- 28 ! Fusako •Yaawuohi f� r 4i WtArr Public FiTstt Ju41cial. Circuit SL.Ate of Mvbli My COmiiaaion exxpt ee Jan. 31 1976) , 1 �+ WRIFICATION BY PAM (446. 7015,S C. C. P.) STATE OF CAdiJ!!ROl 'C NTCitiattlORAres �� Q i 1 a►n the 3 4 PTTTTION FOR v1RIT OF MANDA'� r in the abover rrrtitlyd action.I have read the f arrpoln,F ,.... 1J ` and know the cmrtrrttl thereof A 1 rrrtifc that (trr rirtrr it trier of my own 4tu+u+ledxe, exrept u to thnrr malrrrs whith 7 � air Actefr:stated upc►n my rnferinatiorl or belief,.vid ao tel thole rnattrri I Grirrve it to be true. a ' 9 ' 20 1 declare, under perwlty of perjury, that 1he-forr vili'y it trier .end corrrrI. ' 13. 1'' it/ 7,3 Huntington :,)each 1 F'xrrr.fCrf c+rt �' 12 2 elate,) James D. Montgomery 13 Jame D. Roilterry ..�.. 24 r PROOF OF SERVICE DY MAIL(1013a, 2015.5 C. C. P-) I STALTE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF 1 am a citltrrt ref 11,rr lhritrd Stairs arrd a rrthirat c+f the rvu►rty afnrrraid; 1 am over the ape of rightern yews and mot a i party to the 7+1thirr errlitled artirul; rri.v bulbul; 'Jd►t•7+ to - � r Zrl r 3.8 It KJ+7 _ l y . I se•vrd thr• within .._ ._.. - _ 19 i 20 ! an thr . to said acth-". by plarinp a trier ropy thrreof rnrlorrrl in a iralyd er,relopr weth ptutacr therron fwlly prrpald'+ in tht 21 Ortltrd statrr Mail at..,,, addrexied as falloa•r: 22 ! 23 24 , 27 �� /•krlare,uedrr pe+ralty el f IrrrjvrY, Nut!rht Jurr�.+ertg b 1rHr rt�ld rear+C/. 20 � 1:1rKMtdd r•1'7 ...,. Qt C.abforl�+i4 -�4. r; S�rlat+m t IAAt�SONIP SCIML EDENS -THOLIN is*11NI.MyFOHF11.1NGSTAUVON1•Y1 � 1 ' �CS'Y'�'�?4fi4i'0�[RpCI.CCCGi �i ATTCRNHYSi AT LAW 17612 @CACN VOULtVAM) � HUNTINGTON O ACH. Ck. .1F'ORNIA 4«047 !A � 71MILPNON[i (714) 047.2521 - VVV ' /(J' 4 ✓� 5 Attorneys for 6 ` �.� y rf(JtfiJlr;.l y rr1, C 71 B IN ViE, SUPERIOR COURT OF 711E STATE OF CALIFOPN7jA 9 IN AND 17 OR Tim COMITY OF ORANGE 10 ?eti.tianers :ill 12 . CT.4R116MA KIPZ BROOKS and 140, 209 389 13 •f JA2M i D. r.ONTGO:IERY, PERaIPTORY 14RIT i OF Irs kIMATE 14 151 16 INE CITY COUNCIL OF dE CITY OF 111UNTEING70V BEACH, ORANG'r'. could`T t STA T., i t�'tt'OF 1 :MIF 11A. ADD THE CITY 17 , 02 11UNTI%4=1 BEACH, ORANGE COU17rY, j is STATE O? CALIFORNIA. J 1 19 j� X ".RIOR WtMT Or .c"11E SATE O: CNLIFOR.1T.A 14N X'.1D F�:R T1147" COIr.;11.l to �.� +CIT .COL71CIL O� -iZ Lr 4_ �. _ ►..::,i �i.v t _ .j �.:���..tiy 20 21 i C,IP.lTv. OF C�:+iIGZ, aTATE C:% CALI:O?,111LA: 22 i On trill tha i.:saes i.n th_ c»o71-L anti.t is d J 2`' t hla Q.-xirt has di-ily found and Idjur-1--r-d th-if: t •^ Cit-7 Col,mci nZ 1 24 '� !:hc City fJ 's'crati,n ton Beach 7q arhitzaxi.t and c.,Z z i.cio�..� . Y Y 25 1 r oversed the ciec:ision of the Planning (IrrwLss ion of the City of 26 ; iiuntin-ton Beach, and denied to petitionzr3 the ri.;ht to have 2' Use Ptxmi.ts Nos . 73«3; 73-5 and 73-6 Fp:anrcdy rind has rnrhit:rartl.y 28 ? rind cnpri:iously refused to cake findings to support thD VLty z � Council 's reversal of the Planning Commission's decision in 2 accordance with Division 9 of the Huntington Beach Qrdinauce Code, i 3 Sections 9811.2.1, 9811.2.2, and 9811.2.3; and that you have 4 unjustly refused and continue to- refuse to grant said Use Pelts 5 or to make said findings to the manifest injury of petitloutrt 6 herein; 7 THEREFORE, we coc=rd you to reverse your decision which 311 denied the petitioners Use Permits Nos . 73-3, 73-5 and 73-60 and 5j uphold the decision of the Planning Commission which would permit 10 , the issuance of said Use Pe�ucits with the terms and conditions 11 1au imposed by the Planning CA-A=ission in its approval of the 12 'I aamer an June 19, 1973, or to make findings supporting your 13 position in-reueraing the Planning Crmission 's decision, as 14 required by Division 9, Sections 9811.2 . 1, 9811.2.2 and 9811.2.3 15 , of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code; we further summand that I 16 ► you either reverse your decision and sustain the decisf.an of the ' 17 � Planning Cowmission, or make findings on or before February 21, 18 1974, and mare known to this Court on or before February 21, 1974 10 at 9:34 A.M. in Department 29, or as soon thereafter as counsel 20 can be heard how you have executed thin writ. i WITNESS the Honorable Mark A. Soden, And the seal of said 22 , court this .��" day of ;�� ���,�. , 1974,24 � 231, Clerk � 25 �► ( P. K, GA, GALL 1 � f 1 ?6 �' , -' C 1 PY Deputy Clerk .� P �' 27 f 28 # j I February 13 , 1974 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Colcncil Members FROM: Don P. Bonfa, City Attorney RE: Brooks and Montgomery vs . City Council and City of Huntington Beach--Use Permits 73--3, 73-5, and 73-6 i On February 4 , 1974 the Orange County Superior Courts issued a I Peremptory Writ of Mandate which commands the City Council to reverse its decision which denied the petitioners ' Use permits '73-32 73--5 and 73-6, and to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission which would permit the issuance of said Use Permits with the terms and conditions as imposed by the Planning Com- mission in its approval of the same on June 19 , 1973 , or to make findings supporting its position in reversing the Planning Commission' s decision as required b Division 9 Sections q Y � 9811 . 2 . 12 9811 . 2 . 2 and 9811 . 2 . 3 of the Huntington Beach Ordi- nance Code . The order further provides that the City Council must either reverse its decision and sustain the decision of the Planning Comi,iission or make finding: on or before Febru<ry 21 , 1974 . The grounds for denial of a use permit are: 119811 . 2 Use Permits . Use permits provided that the establishment- , maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will not be detrimental to : 119811 . 2 . 1 The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity . 119811 InJuricus to property and improvements to the vicinity of such use or building. 119811. 2. a That the granting of a Use Permit w.111 not adversely (affect ) [s{el the Master Flan of the City of Hunting-.on Beach . " Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9815 . 4 .7 provides that : "?n granting, modifying or denying an appeal, the City Council shall specify facts relied upon in rendering a decision . . . . " I The Honorable Mayor and City Council lrembers February 13 , 1974 Page Two It is suggested that the City Council , therefore , make a finding of the facts relied upon in rendering its decision, together ;with the applicable ordinance section; or, in the alternative, that the City Council. grant Use Permits 73-3 , 73--5y and 73-6 subJec,- u to the terms and conditions as imposed by the Planning Commission in its approval of same on .June 19, 1973 . Respectf-11-y submitted, N ■frr•K 40 DON P. BONFli City Attorney DPB :WId: lill Owl Huntington Beach Punning Commission r- g P.O. 3OX 190 C A t..IFORN IA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Department DATE : July 5 , 1973 ATTN : David D. Rowlands , City Administrator RE: USE PEWT NOS. 73- 3 , 73-5 and 73-6 - APPEAL bV MAYOR MAiNEY Applicant : James Montgomery P. C . Box 2245 Huntington Beach , California Re nest: To allow the const-uction of three 20 unit (total M' of 60 units) apartment complexes . The property is zoned R3 Medium Nigh Residential District . Location: West side of Holly Street , 185 ft . south of Garfield Avenue . Planning Commission Action : Approved - June 19 , 1973 with E the following conditions : 1 . The revised plot plan dated April 10 , 1973 for a 60 unit apartment complex shall be the approved plan . i 2 . All previous conditions of approval dated April 26 , 1973 � imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments shall be complied with. Vote : Ayes : Porter , Bazil , Higgins , Kerins Noes : Wallin Absent : Geiger, Boyle Summary of Staff Report: It is the consensus of the staff that the proposed developments are definitely inter-related and function as one large complex physically if not legally. The staff believes that the applications meet the intuit of the policy standard in addition to meeting most development standards for individual lots . Approval was recommended by the staff based on the above informs pion and that the area analysis recommendations agree with the proposed land use of the civic center impact area, 1 Additional Information : A motion was made by Wallin second by Kerins to overrule the Board of Zoning Adjustments and deny Use Permit Nos . 73-3, 73-5 , and 73-6 for the following reasons : . 1. Granting of the use permits would adversely affect the Master Plan . 2 . The abutting area is developing as industrial and residential development would be inco apatible . 3 . Denial of the use permits will protect the investment of the Community in the preservation of the integrity of the civic center and the proposed freeway right of way . The motion failed by the fo�lowi.ng vote : Ayes : Kerins , Wallin Noes : Bazil , Porter , Higgins Absent: Geiger, Boyle The Board of Zoning Adjustments approved the subject use permits on January 31 , 1973. In February 1973 , Commissioner Wallin filed an appeal and the Environmental Review Board rejected a request for exemption status and required a full environmental impact report . The applications were 'then continued by the Planning Commiss•, on from March 6 to April. 17 in order to allow time for study of Study Area "D" . On March 13 the Environmental Review Board advised the applicant to submit a new exemption declaration with revised plans for future consideration. On April 17 the Environmental Review Poard reviewed Exemption Declaration No . 73-42 and set it for a ten day public input period. The Planning Commission then continued the applications pending a final. decision of Exemption Declaration No . 73-42 . The Planning Commission once again continued the hearing to May 1 and then to June 19 for final decision of approval . Environmental Status : Exemption Declaration No . 73- 42 was approved May 1 , 1973 by the Environmental Review Board. Supporting Information Submitted herewith : 1 . Staff Reports - June 19 , M-:Ly 1 , March 6 , 1973 2 . Area a Map 3. Board of Zoning Adjustments minutes - January 31 , 1973 4 . , BOILrd of. Zoning Adjustments conditions of .approval - April 269 1973 S . Memo from Acting Secretary, Board of Zoning Adjustments r Information to be Submitted at the Public Hearing: 1 . Staff Comments 2 . Vu-graphs 3 . Slides Respectfully submitted, K. A. Reynolds Secretary K?lR:sp enclosures 4 ' TAF'r. REPPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department USE PERMIT NO. 73-3 DATE: June 19, 1973 USE PERMIT NO. 73-5 APPEAL USE PEDIIT NO. 73-6 (Cont. 5/l;-73) ZONE : R3 APPLICANT : James Montgomery MASTER PLAN : High Density P.O. Box 2245 11 Huntington Beach , Ca. APPELLANT: Katherine Wallin Planning Commissioner REQUEST: To allow the construction of three 24 unit ('Total of 72 units) apart- ment complexes . LOCATION : West side of Holly Street , 18S ft . south of Garfield Ave . ' APPEAL : To the decision of the Board of too Zoning Adjustments approval of f ' Use Permits Nos . 73- 3 , 73-59 73-6 ~•. ' j "E 1,;'F aL INFORMATION: can June 12, 1973 the Planning Commission instructed the staff to conduct an area study of the ;land relating to the civic center impact study as an aid for making a deeiaion on Use Permits No . 73-3, 73-5 and 73-6. A copy of the M.a mh 6, 1973 and May 1, 1973 staff reports are attached for your consideration. ENVIR0NN2'NTAL STATUS : On May 1, 1973 the Environmental Review Board accepted and finalized Exemption Declaration No. 73-42 covering Use Permits No. 73-31 73-5 and 73-•6. RECO%*ENDATI0N,. At the May 1, 1973 Planning Commission meeting the applicant did not concur with a continuance of this (Ise Permit applications . The staff recommends that a decision be made on the applications on June 19, 1973 as they have been pending since January 1.9, 1973. As requested by the Plann{.ng Commission the staff.will be prepare to present an area study 'of the civic center impact area, encompassing the aubject site on .June 19, 1973. Based upon the information outlined in the previous staff reports , i the staff recommends approval of Use Permits No. 73-3, 73-5 and 73-6 if the area an4lysis recommendations agree with tt:w proposed land use . s PORT P I COMM I SS I ON i FROM: Pidli.in Department . . � USE PERMIT NO. 73-3 DATE : May 1 , 1973 , USE PERMIT NO. 73-S APPEAL USE PERMIT NO. 73-6 (Cent. 4/17/73) ZONE : R3 APPLICANT: James Montgomery WISTER PLAN : High Density P.O. Box 2245 Huntington Beech , Ca. APPELLANT: Katherine W;tllin ..__ Planning Commissioner REQUEST: To allow the construction of three r , 24 unit (Total of 72 units) apart- ment complexes . LOCATION : West side of Holly Street , 185 ft. south of Garfield Ave . APPEAL : To the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustments approval of I ' Use Permits Nos, 73- 3, 73-5 , 73- 6 GENERAL INFORMATION : On April 17, 1973 the Planning Commission continued Use Permits Nos . 73- 3 , 73-5 , and 73-6 to the May 1 , 1973 meeting n order to await the final decision by the Environmental Review Board regarding; a request for exemption ' s tatus . The fotic;wing short history outlines previous proceedings regarding these applications : January 31 , 1973 - Board of Zoning Adjustments appiuved proposals for three separate 24 u41it apartments . February 6 , 1973 - Use Permit Nis . 73- 3 , 73- S , and 73-6 were appealed by Commissioner Wallin. February 6 , 1973 - Environmental Review Board rejected request for exemption status (ED 73- 15) and required full environmeiitu ! impa;t report . March 6 , 1973 - Appeal on subject use vermits continued b Planning Commission to April. 17 , 1973 in order to allow the Planning Commission to stud; lower portion of Master Plan S,1 4udy Area "D" . March 1.3 , 1973 - Environmental Review Board considered a change of status for ED 73. 15 and rejected the consideration . The Board advised the applicant to submit a new exemption declaration application with revised plot plans for future consideration. t M ' Staff Report Use Permit No. 73-3 Use Permit No . 73-5 r Use Permit No. 73-6 Page 2 March 27 , 1973 - Planning Commission reviewed a portion of the Area "D" . The staff advised the Commission that until the Civic Center Study is completed the staff cannot justify any land use in the lower portion of Master Plan Area "D" . In effect, the staff does not have sufficient information at this time to state that proposals for apartments or proposals for industrial use would be warranted for this area. April 17, 1973 - Environmental Review Board reviewed ED 73-42 a revised request for exemption: status with a revised plot plan proposing three twenty unit apartments . The Environmental Review Board instructed the Secretary to post the exemption declaration request for 10 days for public input . April 17, 1973 - Planning Com.-aission continued Use Permit Nos . 73-3 , 73-5 , and 74-6 to await the decision regarding the ED 73- 42 . A copy of the March 6 , 1973 staff report is attached for y4n r" supplemental information. I � PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject site is presently zoned R3 Medium High Density Residential and is vacant lard. Property to the north , south and east is located in an R3 district ,and is primarily vacant land. There axe several industrial shops located near the southeast corner of Holly Avenue and Garfield Avenue in the R3 Medium High Density Residential District. Property immediately to the west is zoned Ml Light Industrial District . A proposal for a storage yard on a parcel abutting the subject site to the west was approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments on February 28, 1973 . (See attached Land Use and Zoning Map. ) MASTER PLAN: The master plan for Study Area 5 (1965) designates the three subject lots involved as industrial and residential . The dividing line on the designations is a diagonal line across the three subject lots . (See attached map. ) At -has been previously stated, , the staff is not prepared a t this. time to propose a definite indication of the master plan designa- tion for lower portion of Study Area 4•D on the proposed master plan. . Staff Report . . F use Permit No. 73- 3 Use Permit No. 73- S Use Permit No . 73-6 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION: On May 1 , 1973 the Environmental Review Board will review public input , if any, and make a decision on whether or not Exemption Declaration No. 73- 42 will be exempted from the requirements of an Environmental Impact Report . The staff will have further information on the results of the Environmental Review Board' s action at the Planning Commission meeting. i ANALYSIS : Revised plan received April 10 , 1973 . The revised plan for Use Permit Nos . 73- 3 , 73-5 , and 73. 6 submitted April 10 , 1973 reflect a decrea.sr. for 4 units per application - a decrease from a total of 72 dwelling units to a total of 60 dwelling units . Thirty-one bedrooms and thirty- two bedroom units are proposed . The proposed plan relies on reciprocal drives in order to create a more compatible uverall development which meets the intent of the policy standards for apartment development ( 1969) . Two large open spaces are proposed in addition to either a private patio or balcony for each unit . The original plan submitted) did not adhere to the 1969 Planning Commission policy standard for apartment development. An attempt has been made on the revised plan to adhere to the policy standard with an interrelated 60 unit complef. and ; at the sane time presenting three separate proposals for twenty units each which could meet ordinance code requirements on their own. Except for a proposed laundry room straddling the property line between two lots , the apartments are in substantial t:onformance with all code requirements and the Planning Commission policy standards (1969) . The applicant proposes to construct private patios frontin g on Holly Street which will be enclosed by a six foot fence Fences , hedges or walls which exceed three and one-half feet must observe the front yard setback in this part of the city. Averaging of the front yard setback would allow the proposed patios to be six feet high within the front yard setback , however , the ordinance code permits averaging of the front yard setback only in the townlot area. • - Staff Report � Use Permit No. 73-510 ` Use Permit No . 73-5 Use permit No. 73-6 Page 4 All of the proposed patios fronting on Holly Street are setback five feet from the property line . if averaging of the front yard setback were to be allowed in this case , the development would consist of a 52% averaging , slightly over the maximum permitted in the townlot area . There is an exception in the ordinance code which permits fence and wall setback variation to a distance of not less that 6 ft . from the front yard property line . S . 9204 . 5 which allows the exception to be made on the reduction of this front yard setback requires that the lots must be a part of at least 5 or more contiguous legal building sites held under the sane ownership. The staff doea not consider the subject site to meet this criteria , however it does consider the averaging of the Front yard setbacks in this case to be an attribute to the development . CONCLUSION : It appears that the applicant has proposed a site which meets the intent of the policy standard in addition tt� meeting most development standards for individual lots . The laundry facility proposed between two lots would be a logical location I - as it is located a walkway between the two separate apartment developments . Also, it would provide a break between the open space and the parking to the south , and would reduce the probable number of laundry facilities from three (one for each develop- ment) into two . As the master plan has not been formulated for this area as of yet , the staff would not be adverse to this proposal if the applicant meets environmental consideration . The staff considers that a wall would be necessary to be built on the west property line of lot 33 to be used as a buffer between the proposed residential units and a proposed construction office with facilities for parking construction vehicles . One of the conditioi for the industrial use (Administrative Review No . 73- 23) was that the applicant shall. post a bond guaranteeing to construct a block wall on the east property line (abutting the residential use) of said parcel at the time the adjacent parcels to the east are developed to residential use . RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of Use Permit Nos . 73- 3 , 73-5 , and 73-6 with the following conditions attached hereto and any reasonable conditions the Planning Commission may wish to impose . . - 19 STAFF REPORT TO : Planning uomCtission FROM: Planning Department �. USE PERMIT NO. 73-3 P DATE : March 6 , 1973 USE PERMIT NO. 73-5 1 APPEAL USE PERMIT NO. 73-6 ZONE : R3 MASTER PLAN : High Density APPLICANT: James Montgomery P .O. Box 2245 Huntington Beach , Ca . APPELLANT : Katherine Wallin Nu Planning Commissioner REQUEST : To allow the construction of three ?a unit (Total of 72 units) apart- ment complexes . M LOCATION: West side of Holly St . 185 ft . south of Garfield Ave . J I APPEAL: To the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustments approval of Use Permits NO. 73-31 73-41 73-5 . GENERAL INFORMATION: Use Permits No . 73-3 , 73-«5 and 73- 69 a proposal to create three separate 24 unit apartment complexes in an R3 Medium High Density Residential District (72 units total) was approved by the Board of Zoning Adjust- ments on -January 31 , 1973 . The three proposals are situated on three contiguous lots . In approving the use permits , the Board voted two to one for approval in each instance. Also , a minority report was filed by the dissenting voter in each case . A summary of the Board ' s action and reasons given for the minority report is attached .for your consideration . PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject site is presently zoned R3 Medium High Density Residential and is vacant land . Property to the north, south and east is located in an R3 district , and is primarily vacant land. There are several industrial shops located near the southeast corner of Holly Avenue and Garfield Avenue in the R3 Medium High Density Residential District . Property immediately to the west is zoned MI Light Industrial. District . A proposal for a storage yard on a parcel abutting the subject site to the west was approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments on Prbruary 28 , 1973 (see attached Land Use and Zoning Map) . 6• r �Q I « USE PERMIT NO. 73-3 March 6 , 1973 USE PERMIT NO. 73-5 Page 2 USE PERMIT NO. 73-6 MASTER PLAN: The master plan for Study Area S (1965) designates the three subject lots involved as industrial and residential . The dividing line on the designations is a diagional line across the three subject lots . (See attached map. ) Study Area 4D on the proposed master plan indicates the subject' area as industrial. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION: The Board of Zoning Adjustments required an exemption declaration request be filed (encompassing the entire 72 units) and approved prior to issuance of building permits . On February 6 , 1973 the Environmental Review Board rejected the applicant ' s request for exemption status and required an environmental impact report be submitted. James Montgomery, applicant , indicated that prier to the Environmental t Review Board meeting of February 27 , 1973 he would be withdrawing two of the three use permit applications . He indicated that two of the lots on which he was to develop had been sold , Consequently, the Environmental Review Board continued the case (ED 73-15) in order to allow the applicant to revise his request for an exemption declaration. ANALYSIS: The three use permits for 24 units each complied with development standards contained in Article 920 aw R3 Section of Division 9 . The majority of the Board indicated that the ocean oriented apart- ment standards could nct be enforced , The Board based the judgment on a City Attorney' s opinion issued on August 10, 1972 which addressed itself to the legality of implementing Sections 9162 . 3.1 , 9202. 3. 1 . 3 and 9232 . 3 .1 . 3 which stated that ". . .approval of such use permit shall be contingent upon the developer' s compliance with all criteria contained in the current standards for apartment development. " CONCLUSIONS: It is the consensus of the staff that the proposed developments are definitely inter-related and function as one large complex physically if not legally. The staff believes the intent of the "current standards" as stated in the above referenced section relate to whatever standards the Board of Zoning Adjustments is applying to developments at the time of reefew. Until this application was filed, the Board applied the ocean oriented apartment standards (policy standards) and the non-ocean oriented apartment standards (ordinance) according to geographic locations of the proposal . USE PERMIT NO, 73- 3 March 6 , 1973 USE PERMIT NO. 73-5 Page 3 USE PERMIT NO. 73-6 RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that this item be referred to the staff. 1) to further pursue the intentions of the applicant and clarify which parcels are to be withdrawn; j i 2) that further clarification be obtained from the City Attorney regarding the legality of implementing the ocean oriented apartnent standards (policy) ; and 3) A Revised Plot Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. ATTACHMENTS: Land Use and zoning and Master Plan Map Summary of Board Action r GARFIEL ~~ • V E r . V- RA R EMS 11 GGASTth PLAT IG T IN STR AL 3 OfRA-0 --0 UP 75-3 R �• i` o R�� Nil UP 73 . V"% . Up 3--5 t: � N i sT I N M TER LAN ' PH H N S I TY P L�STER PLAN, I AD OVERALL. AREA J I �( KA1 I NDUS' RIAL ` R3 ., h R-A R3 cJ �r - 0 o 1000 W MW... •� �M .`ry ;.env •-�•-;w•w.r.�..� r.w:^^r. Yr r�. -.r.•....r�.+...•, � +� ..r .- wn.t,ti..-.,.._.. ..�.,_L...+i..iw:w.� Llt�i�'J � _ ...............�r%.+-f::.. w'.». �i�..✓.���� SCALE - IN FEET UP 73--3 3 UP 73--5 2 . 066 ACRES °!�7L�t UP 73-6 . 111JUTI GTOM DEACA E'Lf1NNIN-Gs DEFT. Mint] Les fl, fl , � of zoning Adjustments40 1' dr e d .Januaoy�c i s �y , y � , 1973 ` Page 8 A . S . Approval of the use permit is contingent upon com- pletion of an Environmental Impact Report or Exemption Declaration , 6 . Elevations shall be submitted to the Board of zoning Adjustment, for approval action. B . To be completed prior to framing inspection : 1 , Fire Alarm system conduit and appurtenances shall be installed by the developer at locations and to speci - fications provided by the Fire Department . C . To be completed prior to final. inspection : 1 . All utilities shall be installed underground . 2 . Off-street parking facilities shall conform to Article 979. 3. Holly Ave . and the alley improvements shall include street trees , street signs , street lights , fire hydrants , sewer and water main extensions . D. To be =comb feted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy-, Fn_d the enforcementof'�sane to tart 1p ace t the i •e -oT t e buMess or operation: 1 . Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach 's water system. 2 . Seivage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach ' s sewage system . 3 . Tile property shall participate in the local drainage assessment district . 4 . No structures , other than those shown on the approved plot plan , shall be constructed within the project . S . All applicable City Ordinances shall be complied wit h . ROLL CALL VOTE : AYES : Spencer , Gerarden NOES: Endie THE MOTION CARRIED USE PERMIT N0 , 73-•5' Applicant : James Montgomery To permit the constructi,;n of a 211 unit apartment complex pur- suant to S . 9202 . 3 . 1 . 3 of Huntington Beach (Ordinance Code, located on the west side of Holly Street 385 ft . south of the centerline of Garfield Avenue in a R3 zone . The Bearing was opened to the audience . The Board reviewed the plans with Air , Montgomery, the applicant, and discussed the effect of the 1969 standards on the proposal . There being no rL11- :her comment , the hearing; was closed . A MOT10N WAS MADE BY GERARDEN AND SEC.-.N7ED BY SPENCER TO APPROVE USE 11I.'sRMIT NO. 73- S WITH THE FOLLOWINt; CONDITIONS: A', To he comp eted prior to issuance of building permits : 1 . The plot plan received January 11 , 1973 shall be the approved layout . ? , HolA y Ave . shall be dedicated and fully improved to C ,.ty Stnndards , M • 8 • 1f31f73 R7,A foe /, ��' MinuI.,L OB . lloarrdl of Zoning Adtstinents Wednesday , January 31 , 1973 USE F'1.`1011 C NO . 73 -3 Are �lj l icant : James Montgomery To per+nit the construction of a 24 unit apartment complex pursuant to S . 9202 . 3 . 1 . 3, located on west side of !lolly Street , 185 ft . south of Garfield Avenue in an R3 zone . The hearing was opened to the audience . Mr . Montgomery, the applicant , addressed the Board and explained his request , Mr . Eadie, Acting Secretary , questioned whether or not the 1969 apartment standards would affect this proposal in lieu of S . 9162 . 3 . 1 of the Ordinance Code . lie indicated if these standards did apply , the applicant did not pro- vide sufficient open space on his plans . lie further recommended the Board continue the subject request pending a City Attorney ' s opinion on whether the 1969 Apartment Standards apply to S . 9162 . 3 . 1 of the Code . Air . Gerarden stated that the City Attorney ' s office had previously issued an opinion covering the question and � that the opinion stated that the 1969 Apartment Standards were void and could not be applied . A copy of the City Attorney ' s opinion was presented to the Board . Air . Ladie felt the proposal could have an adverse affect on the master plan which could be criteria for denial. . Mr . Gerarden pointed out that the current master plan displayed an irregular boundary line reflecting resi - dential zoning on a major portion of the Property acid industrial on the adjacent land . Mr . Gerarden stated that even though the master plan did reflect industrial zoning on a Portion of the subject property he did not find it to be a precise Flan and to approve a residential deve-lop^rent in line with current zoning on the property vauld not be in conflict With previous actions of the Board and Planning Commission . The Board then reviewed the suggested conditions of approval. with Mr . Montgomery alang with landscaping , re- ciprocal easements , driveways , and the- orientation of the facility, There being no further comment , the hearing was closed . Board discussion followed . � A MOTION WAS IdADE BY GERARDEN AND SECONDED BY SPENCER j TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO . 73 - 3 WITH 'THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. To be colleted prior to issuance of building pernits . 1 . The plot plan received January 11 , 1973 shall be the approved layout . 2 . 11011y Ave . and the alley shall be dedicated sandIF II`` II fully improved to City Standards . .+ 3 T lW LCL' .,{.wt. r , and fire hydrant System slialI be approved by the Deprirtmertt of Publ.i.c llorl;s and Fire Department . 4 . Soil reports as requirvd by thy; littildl i.r1j, hepnrtment and the Uepai- tnent of Public Works shal. : he st+b- mi, tted to the City . - 7- 1/31 /7.3 - I17.A r� +� Irr+ • �•-. �•-=• r�spa;••: r■ "(�r'`I{fi �j1�'"' t�. ,rf� (�,-. ►Y� ,GPi( e,• r• r. �- ►;..►,. J' M `Y" it �x• K M P.O. DOX 190, CAl1FOX-41A 92648 PLANNING WEPT. (714 ) 536-5271 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAI, Use Permit No . 73-3 , 5 ) G April. 26 , 1973 A. TO BE COMPLETED I'IZTOIt TO ISSUANCE 01 BUILDMG PI:RMTTS : 1 . The plot plan received April 1.9 , 1972 shall be the approved layout . 2 . Holly Avenue and the alley shall, be dedicated to City standards at the time c!nch parcel i.: developed . 3 . The water , sewer , and fi i-e hydrant system shalt be approved by the Department of Public Works and Fire Department . Q . All buildings oil lots abutt-ing a City casement shall. . be set: back 5 fert: from the edge of such casement. S . Soil reports as required by the BLI-11 linly Department and th;s Department: of Public Works sliall be stibmitted to the City. 6 . All private streets shall meet the minimum standards for planned residential derclopment•s as adopted by the City Council . 7 . A reciprocal driveway casement shall be submittcd to the City and recorded. F . Ali .irrevorsibl.e agr(!cmcnt to enable. trnant.s or lots 32 and 33 to utilize laundry facilities at: any time in the; future shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval. as to form and context: . 11 . TO IjI:. COMI" ETED PRTCR TO FItAMING INSPECTIMM : 1 . A landscaping pian shall. be submitted to the Bo lyd C11' 2on:inf, Acljust.i.wnts for rev cTd and alipr0 4 , ,ic lion . 2 . l;ooftop triucdi;iniciLl equipment: shall be scrvciwd !'rojn vit.s. . 3 . Fire iiltixm systrm cronditi. t: and : ppurtenrinc•.c1 -, shall he i n!: t:t l l ed by the (Invel.oper at l oc:a t i.on ati-:i to spec- if icat ions provided l)y the Fire t1el,,irt ►ac�r t , f�� 4 Co'ricrit ions of Appro U.P:. 73-31 51 6 Page 2 4 . Parking compounds shall be screened with .a combination of fencing and landscaping . Said plan shall be sub- mitted to the Planning Department for review and approval . Fencing and landscape plans shall inr.1nde the following information : a . A list including quantities and sizes for each species of plants and all ground cover material . b . Irrigation layout to include meter location , pipe sizes , sprinkler head types , etc . C . Fencing materials and detail. drawing S. The structural street ,section of all private drives shall be approved by the Department of Public Works . C. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: M 1 . Holly Avenue acid t',,o allcy shall be fully improved including street trees ; street signs , street: lights , fire hydrants , seltel and water main extensions . underground . sh�1 1 be installed 2 . A 1 l utilities 1 3 . Off-street parkin; facilities shall. conform to Article 979 . 4 . A masonry wall. shrill be constructed alonf, the west property line of lot: 33 . The heiglit of said wall shall be such that the top will be six (6) feet above, the highest ground surface within twenty (.20) feet of the common property line . Said wall shall be the same as the wall which %gill be. built on thc property line of lots 31 and 32 . 5 . There shall be no fence , structure or landscaping constructed or maintained over 3 1/2 feet high within a 10 ft . by 10 ft . triangular area at the intersection of driveways 4.ad streets or within a 25 ft. by 25 ft . triangular area at the intersection of streets . 6 . A lighting system shall be installed within the project equal in illumination to 1-ighting on public. streets . Lighting systen shall be shielded to reflect alga), from adjoining properties and stroots . Conditions of Ap o r • U'... 73-32 51 6 ; Page 3 1 D . TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 1. Water supply sh,-:ll be through the City of Huntington Beach ' s water supply system. 2 . Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach ' s sewage system. 3 . Easements for utilities or walkways shall be provided to Department of Public Storks standards . 4 . The property shall participate in the local drainage assessment district . 5 . No structures , other than those shown on the approved plot plan , shall be constructed within the Project . b . All applicable City Ordinances shall be complied with. pie INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION LN t1tNINCIOV PAN 'ro PLANNING CON11\1ISSION From DA.VE EADIE, Acting Secretary Board of Zoning Adjustments Subject Date USE PEPINIITS NO. 73- 3 , 73- 51 FEBRUARY 6 , 1973 .AND 7s-6 Ilse Permits No . 73- 3 , 73- 5 and 73-6 , proposals to create three separate 24 unit apartment complexes in an R3 zone (72 units overall;l was approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments on January 31 , 1973 . All three 24 unit apart- ment complexes are located on contiguous lots on the west side of ?lolly Avenue , approximately 185 ft . south of Garfiled Avenue . Several questions urere raised by the Board as to whether- or not a request for an exemption d--claration should be required in this case . City Council Resolution Nos . 3613 and 3626 excludes apart- { anent completes i;,hich are less than 25 multiple family �, �' s dwelling t.nits . qnt. member o, t.}z�.. Board indicated that the three applications filed separately were in actuality one Large apartment complex totaling 72 units . An example of tht: inter- rel.at•i bctc.reen the three separate proposals was the requirement for reciprocal easements for j access and drives . Another point which the Board addressed itself to was the legality of implemcnting the 1969 ocean oriented apartment standards to this dovelopmDnt . The majority of the Board felt that based on the Assistant City Attorney ' s opinion of Dick }larinw l s ma-mo dated August 10 , 1972 , the ocean oriented apartment standards could not be enforced. A copy of that memo is attached for your consideration . The Board approved Use Permit Nos . 73- 3 , 73- 5 and 73-6 with 7 ayes and 1 no. Dave Eadie filed a minority report in each case indicating that his no rote was based on the folltw;irig reasons : 1. , oil an overall. project of this magai.tude , the developer should address himself to the 1969 developmenr. standards . 2 • The plan is not amendable to the current standards for del,elopment which was intender} to create a better l.ivitil; environment for larger apartment developments . . 3. Thc "current s tzndard." as indicated in S. 9202 . 3 . 1 . 3 ria), lie cons Lyuc;d tc) bc- those development standards which the Board adhure;; tu at: the time of application ; namely , t}ie, l��EiCI Vc0,*111 0ri(.1ntctl �zpsirtr„rni si:tnclart:: . i1 . Thu dcvvlopc, . should scibnit an c ..emption d c1arat.toat 7•egw.'s t prior to issuance. �a trzy l�r.rmi is .