Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCode Amendment 86-10 - Ordinance 2879 - Non-Conforming Uses ► - 7® Auth'Jnzr'_ttl- t u�ish Aoverttsaments of al!kinds in; uding public $Y notice5_.� = c_r'ecree of the Superior Court of Orange County, Vs1) Catil7>l+i&, 'umber A-6214. dated 29 September. 1961. and ���$ A-24L'.�1, datad 11 June. 1963 Yeti.- STATE OF CALIFORNIA G .. CS' County of Orange PuNic Noma AOvortising COv*rW ! '' by llna anl0av01 is set m 7 point - +atn 10 pcs column alOtn i� I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen .(0; ..... ------ years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, - - ------- County of Orange, State of California, .and that a ( PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF California,for inspection by Notice of PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING the public. CODE AMENDMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH NO.66-10 CITY COUNCIL, By: Allcla (Non-Conforming M. Wentworth, City Clerk, Uses) Phone:(714)536-5405 NOTICE IS HEREBY Dated 10/3/86 of which copyattached hereto is a true and complete GIVEN that the Huntington Published Orange Coast P Beach City Council will hold Daily Pilot October 9, 1986 a Public hearing in the Coun- Th 156 copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, cil Chamber at the Hunt_ Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, 2000 ManchSttrleet,Center Hunt- Irvine, the South at th g Coast communities and La una tngton Beach, nta;on the date and at the timee Indicated below to receive ONE TIME Beach issues of said newspaper for and consider the statements of ail persons who wish to be )MM9=l5[M.De>NWX3C to wit the issue(s) of heard relative to the appli- cation described below. DATE: Monday, October 20, 1986 TIME:7.30 P.M. SUBJECT: Code Amend- October 9 198 6 ment No.86-10 APPLICANT:City of Hunt- ington Beach LOCATION:City-wide PROPOSAL: To rewrite j 198 !the non-conforming' provisions of the Huntington; Beach Ordinance Code by 198 repealing Article 971 and', adding new Article 965 andl to modify provisins govern- ing the reconstruction of 198 non-conforming residential + structures. ENVIR0NMENTALI STATUS:The proposed pro- �ject is categorically exempt' 198 from the provisions of the' (California Environmental) Quality Act. ON FiLE:.A copy of the; Proposed ordinance is on' I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the file in the Development Ser-� vices Department. foregoing is true and correct, I ALL INTERESTED PER SONS are invited to attend said hearing and expressi opinions or submit evidence October 9 6 for or against the application Executed on , 198 _ es outlined above.All appli- cations, exhibits, and de- sta Mesa, Califqrnia. 'scriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of ,the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, ignature v PROOF OF PUBLICATION S. 9651 DESTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE OR USE `These provisions shall govern reconstruction of the nonconforming structures and/or uses listed below after such structure or use is destroyed by fire, explosion, act of nature or act of the public L enemy by the percentage of value specified. ��rwi 44ot ' �lo�► Arr- loan S oY t�SS NONCONFORMING PERCENT OF VALUE DESCRIPTION DESTROYED PROVISIONS e Nonconforming Up to 50% May be completely structures rebuilt (Residential ) More than 50% "rre jee s ' ~'' 'P to �mr�l o♦-A1 c rphn i�� . May be completely rebuilt subject to conditional use permit approval by Planning Commission, provided current requirements for setbacks and parking are met Nonconforming Up to 50% May be completely Structures rebuilt (Commercial ) and. Nonconforming Uses More than 50% All current applicable (Residential or provisions shall be Commercial ) met Notes: 1 . Value of a use or structure destroyed shall be determined by its replacement value accord.L to valuation figures in use by the Director of Development Services at the time such destruction occurred. 2. "Completely rebuilt" is defined as rebuilding the nonconforming structure or use as it had legally existed immediately prior to its destruction. 2 . REQUES FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date October 20, 1986 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services O� Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 , NONCONFORMING PROVISIONS APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes New Policy or Exception ® Q�9 Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Code Amendment No . 86-10 rewrites the nonconforming provisions of the code, renumbers the article as Article 965, and modifies provisions governing the reconstruction of nonconforming residential structures. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission action and recommendation on September 16 , 1986 : ON MOTION BY PIERCE AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 EXCEPT THAT UP TO TEN RESIDENTIAL UNITS WOULD BE ABLE TO BE COMPLETELY REBUILT AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN : None Staff recommendation is different than that recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff endorses an ordinance that would require approval of a conditional use permit for rebuilding all nonconforming residential structures destroyed by more than 50% (no exemption for projects with up to 10 units ) as well as requiring that current setback and parking requirements are met. (Attachment No. 2) ANALYSIS: Code Amendment No. 86-10 had originally been prepared in response to the concerns of citizens and realtor groups regarding their inability to obtain financing for structures which do not conform to P10 4/84 existing codes. An example would be a seven unit structure on a parcel which currently only permits six units. Code Amendment No. 86-10 would provide a means for its reconstruction. The proposed change covers nonconforming residential structures only which are destroyed by more than 50% of their value. As proposed by staff the amendment would still require such reconstruction to meet any current zoning code provisions related to minimum setbacks and minimum parking space requirements . In addition, the amendment would require conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission prior to such reconstruction. With Planning Commission approval, existing residential structures could be rebuilt with the same number of units that legally existed prior to destruction although that number may be more than permitted by the existing code . This item has been discussed at numerous Planning Commission meetings. A meeting with realtors and representatives of lending institutions was also held on August 7 , 1986 with Chairman Livengood and Commissioner Winchell present. In addition to staff, fifteen other persons attended to give their input. Unofficial minutes of the meeting are attached to this report. Generally, the lenders and realtors represented agreed that they wanted no restrictions at all on rebuilding nonconforming residential structures of up to four units . According to them, changing the provisions as proposed by staff by allowing a conditional use permit to be processed subject to certain standards did not give them any further assurance on lending on the property. The same risk would be involved as exists with the current code because there would be no guarantee that the project could be rebuilt. In the Planning Commission' s action on September 16 , 1986, the decision was made to separate out projects of one to ten units to . guarantee that they could be completely rebuilt without any entitlement from the Planning Commission and without respect to meeting setback or parking requirements . Projects over ten units would require a conditional use permit and conformance with these requirements . Staff is concerned about the liberalization of the City' s nonconforming provisions, which would tend to undermine the City' s ability to ever bring structures into conformance with existing codes. Staff cannot support any modifications other than those originally proposed, that is, allowing residential structures destroyed by over 50% to be completely rebuilt only with Planning Commission approval of a conditional use permit and subject to current setback and parking requirements. Staff has serious reservations on expanding the code amendment in any way. To do so would eliminate any risk to the lending institutions, but would result in the city and the surrounding neighbors of a particular property shouldering all of the risk by perpetuating and extending the life of a- nonconforming structure that may continue to cause serious problems for the area. RCA - 10-20-86 -2- ( 6402d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act . FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Modify ordinance as desired . ATTACHMENTS• 1 . Ordinance (Planning Commission) 2 . Staff Versionof page 2 of Ordinance 3 . Planning Commission Staff Reports and minutes dated July 1 , 1986 , August 19 , 1986 , and September 16 , 1986 JWP:JA: kla RCA - 10-20-86 -3- ( 6402d) r r huntington beech development services department STAt t . TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: September 16, 1986 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach REQUEST: To rewrite the nonconforming provisions of the code , renumber the article as Article 965, and modify provisions governing the reconstruction of nonconforming structures . 1 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Based on direction given August 19 , 1986, the Planning Commission should approve Code Amendment No. 86-10 and recommend approval to the City Council . 2 .0 BACKGROUND• After much discussion at several public hearings, the Planning Commission by straw vote directed staff on August 19 , 1986, to modify the draft ordinance such that nonconforming residential structures with up to four units would be able to be completely rebuilt regardless of the amount of destruction. The chart listing these provisions on page 2 of the .draft ordinance has been modified to indicate that such projects can be completely rebuilt. Separate provisions governing structures built prior to 1946 have been eliminated. The Commission also discussed having a separate category for projects with five to eight units where some amount of review would be required prior to reconstruction. Rather than further complicating the provisions with another entitlement category, the conditional use permit process that would allow reconstruction subject to meeting parking and setback requirements, would accomplish the same result. The categories on the chart have been relabeled to more clearly indicate the separations between nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures. Previous staff reports and background material have been attached to this report . A-F M-23A ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Draft Ordinance . 2. Letter from Board of Realtors dated August 19, 1986 3 . Staff reports dated August 19, 1986, and July 1 , 1986 4 . Minutes of August 7, 1986 Committee Meeting 5. Survey 6. Memo of Alternatives 7. Existing Article 971 ,JWP:JA: kla' p Staff Report - 9/16/86 -2- ( 6172d ) 3. Medium Density Residentia is inconsistent with the Ellis-Goldenwest study fol the Specific Plan area to the south . 4. An overall development pl n for the Ellis--Goldenwest Specific Plan area should be appro ed prior to considering a Land Use Element Amendment on the ubject property. Additionally, the Ellis-Goldenwest planning area should be expanded to include the subject property as w 11 as the entire Holly property. 5. The 10.1 acre site would ncroach within 300 feet of an existing permanent equest ian facility. This is in direct conflict with Section 938 .7 of the Ordinance Code. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, ECOND BY PORTER, TO REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO, WITHIN 90 DAYS, T E IMMEDIATE MEASURES FOR ACQUISITION OF THE A. C. MARION PROPERTY (THE ACQUISITION TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN A ONE YEAR PERIOD) . IF THEY ANNOT ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY THE CITY SHOULD PREPARE A ZONE CHANGE OR THE PROPERTY THAT WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDI G AREA. THE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Pie ce, Livengood, Erskine , Porter , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Code Amendment No. 86-10 is a request to rewrite the nonconforming provisions of the code , renumber the article as Article 965 , and modify provisions governing the reconstruction of nonconforming structures . After much discussion at several public hearings, the Planning Commission by straw vote directed staff on August 19, 19861 to modify the draft ordinance such that nonconforming residential structures with up to four units would be able to be completely rebuilt regardless of the amount of destruction. The Commission also discussed having a separate category for projects with five to eight units where some amount of review would be required prior to reconstruction. . Rather than further complicating the provisions with another entitlement category, the conditional use permit process that would allow reconstruction subject to meeting parking and setback requirements , would accomplish the same result. PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -16- (6307d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Pat Paulk , 3571 Runningtide, spoke in support of allowing complete reconstruction of property destroyed by fire and having no restrictions in the code. Jim Morrissey, stated that lending institutions will not grant fixed loans on nonconforming property, only variable loans. Additional insurance must be purchased on the property which is an added burden to the property owner . Lending institutions require a letter from the City before loans are granted. He supports an ordinance with no restrictions. Phil Ottone, Home Savings and Loan, discussed loans on illegal units . He stated that illegal units were not included in a property appraisal . The only way an appraisor can check to see if a unit is legal is through the City Building Records . Kirk Kirkland, President - Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. He stated that statistics prove that loss of more than 50 percent of property due to fire is slim. This code amendment will reduce property value if the owner wishes to resale. Larry Washa, President - Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of exempting up to 10 units if more than 50 percent of the property is destroyed. There were no other persons present .to speak. jf:or .or againztt the :code amendment and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the protection that would be provided and questioned who it would be provided for , the individual investor or the large real estate combine. A STRAW VOTE WAS TAKEN TO EXEMPT 10 UNITS OR LESS: ' AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter , Rowe, Winchell A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 , EXEMPTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES WITH UP TO TEN UNITS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 9/16/86 -17- (6307d) h: huntingt®n beech development servic®s d®partm®nt . STAf - r U. REPORT' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: August 19, 1986 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 REQUEST: To rewrite the nonconforming provisions of the code, renumber the article as Article 965, and modify provisions governing the reconstruction of nonconforming structures. 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: The Planning Commission should vote on what further direction they wish to give to staff on Code Amendment No. 86-10. 2. 0 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued this item on July 1 , 19.86 with direction for a meeting to take place the first week in August with representatives- of the Planning Commission, realtor-s, :and lending institutions. A meeting was held on August 71 1986 with Chairman Livengood and Commissioner Winchell present . . In addition to staff, fifteen other persons attended to give their input . Unofficial minutes of the meeting are attached to this report . Generally, the lenders and realtors represented agreed that they wanted no restrictions at all on rebuilding nonconforming residential structures of up to four units . According to them, changing the provisions as proposed by staff by allowing a conditional use permit to be processed subject to certain standards did not give them any further assurance on lending on the property. The same risk would be involved as exists with the current code because there would be no guarantee that the project could be rebuilt. A-F M-23A The following is provided in response to a request by Chairman Livengood at the August 7, 1986 meeting: s The breakdown of unit types within the city as of January 11 1986 (Department of Finance estimates) : TYPE NUMBER Single Family 41,804 Two to Four Units 8, 833 Five or more Units 15,366 ® Fire Department statistics regarding number of fire incidents have been provided for the past six years. The statistics categorize only single family dwellings versus apartments (two or more units ) . The information does not separate out the number of structures where the damage was 50% or greater. Fire Incidents 1980 1981 1982 1983. 1984 1985 Single Family 194 151 151 136 124 122 Apartments 71 56 58 70 69 60 As detailed in the staff report date July 1, 1986 (attached) , staff is concerned about the liberalization of the city's nonconforming provisions . Staff cannot support any further modifications 'other than those already proposed in the draft ordinance, that is, allowing residential structures destroyed by over 50% to be completely rebuilt only with Planning Commission approval of a conditional use permit and subject to current setback and parking requirements . Staff has serious reservations on expanding the proposed code amendment in any way. To do so would eliminate any risk to the lending institutions, but would result in the city and the surrounding neighbors of a particular property shouldering all of the risk by perpetuating and extending the life of a nonconforming structure that may continue to cause serious problems for the area. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Draft minutes of August 7, 1986 meeting 2 . Staff report dated July 1, 1986 including: a. Ordinance b. Survey c. Memo of alternatives d. Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley .Board of Realtors letter dated April 15, 1986 e. Existing Article 971 JWPcJA: jr Staff Report - 8/19/86 -2- (5917d ) l UNOFFICIAL MINUTES MEETING: August 7, 1986 SUBJECT: Code Amendment No. 86-10 NonConforming Provisions (Rebuilding after Destruction) ATTENDANCE: Planning Commission Representatives: Tom Livengood, Grace Winchell Staff Present: Florence Webb, Jeff Abramowitz Guests: Greg Kikuchi , Lee Hill - Mercury Savings Harvey Grossberg - World Savings Bill Reid, Kathy Carillo, Martin Mosien - #1 Properties Phil Ottone - Home Savings , James Righeimer, Tom Van Tuyl,, Judy .Severey, Kirk Kirkland - Hu'ntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors JoAnn Ulvan - Cartier Realtors Diane Fisher - Freddie Mac Mark Conley - Real Estate by McVay Jan Schomakar - Jan Schomaker Realty Staff briefly presented the ordiance changes proposed and related history of the code amendment. Real Estate representatives agreed that lately there is much more attention placed upon financing nonconforming properties, this has changed within the last five years after lenders have gotten into trouble. Main concerns were refinancing and selling of property, that restrictions lowered the value of property because of limitations on financing. They didn 't see the need for restrictions as rebuilding simply preserved the status quo with respect to parking, etc. and did not make the situation any worse. Although there were some different responses, most agreed that where at first a lender would be willing to approve a loan with a 80/100 loan to value ratio, once the property was established as legal nonconforming, maximum loan amount would be reduced to 60-65 percent of value. This cuts out lots of buyers who would be forced to put more down payment and may result in property owner having to lower the price. Also mentioned was the fact that loan packages are submitted to several lender simultaneously and some lenders will not have the same problem with the nonconforming property. However , Freddie Mac will refuse to lend at any price for such properties that cannot be rebuilt. Reaction to the proposed code amendment was not favorable. Consensus of realtors/lenders was that there would be confusion due to the different categories and that the proposal would not help the problem because the approval of a Conditional Use Permit was not guaranteed. They felt that the risk of lending on the property remained the same. Commissioner Winchell asked if they felt there was any compromise at all or would they only be happy with a law that allowed everything to be rebuilt in all cases. Suggestions were made to create different standards (or an exemption to the nonconforming provisions ) for projects between 1-4 units, since these are treated differently by lenders and may be where a majority of the problems lies. Qualifying for a loan on projects with five or more units is more based on income rather than property value and, in addition, often the required down payment is already larger, usually 30 percent. A 70 percent loan is not difficult to obtain so the rebuilding restrictions have less of a negative impact on such projects. Discussed was the effective economic life of a structure, whether 40 years is appropriate or acceptable. Also, whether lot size would be a good parameter for separating provisions. Chairman Livengood asked that statistics be gathered from the Fire Department for Planning Commission review regarding the number of units that burn down each year to see if it is really so slim and to analyze how the protection afforded by the nonconforming provisions compares to the impact on the promotion of real estate in the community. Some personal experiences were relayed where realtors had the lender reduce the loan commitment from 80 percent to 65 of the property value. This had forced prices to be lowered. Four examples mentioned were in the numbered streets downtown (Townlot area) . Not all lenders were alike, however, and in one case a different lender was willing to loan 80 percent on the same property. The real estate representatives questioned whether this was due to receiving inconsistent information from city staff. Also raised, no time limit ( 40 years ) should be incorporated because as the time period approached it will become more and more of a concern. Lender will be concerned about resale value, etc. Options Discussed: 1 . Exempting projects with 1-4 units? Reaction: Some like idea, but some said up to 6 units should be considered. 2 . Changing the percentage of destruction (more than 50 percent has to be destroyed before restrictions begin ) ? Reaction: no, this would not help. Certainty is needed that structure will be able to be completely rebuilt. 3. Conditional Use Permit requirement? Reaction: No, guarantees are needed to eliminate risk . Chairman Livengood suggested that staff evaluate the market place and look at the proportion of projects 1-4 units; if these are a large percentage, then perhaps we could take care of a majority of problems by addressing these. Consensus of guests (save one realtor ) was that projects from 1-4 units be exempt from any restrictive rebuilding provisions, i .e. if 50 to 100 percent destroyed, project would be able to be rebuilt as it had existed. Chairman Livengood invited all persons to comment at the next public hearing on August 19, 1986 and indicated that the item would be third on the agenda and heard on or after 8 p.m. JA:tl ( 5875d) C75 CODE AMENDMENT N0.~Y 86-10 V ;r The Planning Commission continued this item on July 1 , 1986 with direction for a meeting to take place the first week in August with representatives of the Planning Commission, realtors, and lending institutions . Code Amendment. No. 86-10 is a request to rewrite the nonconforming provisions of the code, renumber the article as Article 965, and modify provisions governing the reconstruction of nonconforming structures . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED James Righeimer, Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to the code amendment . He stated that lenders will not give 80% loans on non-conforming property. The value of the property drops because of this . Jim Morrissen, spoke in opposition to the code amendment . He suggested that the stats be given on the actual number of non-conforming properties located in the Downtown area and what percentage of them has proper parking spaces . He believes that if the code amendment is adopted that the downtown area will be a rich man ' s haven. James Wilson, resident since 1974 and rental property owner , spoke in -opposition to the code amendment . He believes that a corridor has been singled out in Huntington Beach. He cannot get a fixed rate loan on his property because it is non-conforming. Phil Ottone, Home Savings and Loan, stated that Home Savings will not loan on property in a down zoned area. Pat Paulk , Chairman Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors Investment Division, spoke in opposition to the code amendment . She stated that the code would devalue property and make it impossible to obtain financing. The existing disclosure statement makes some property unsaleable. Property owners will profit more if destroyed by fire by collecting insurance money rather than trying to rebuild. Kirk Kirkland, President of the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to the code amendment . He felt that single family and multi-family units of less than 10 units ' should be exempt from the non-conformance provision if destroyed by more than 50% . Bob Bolen, real estate broker, spoke in . o ' code amendment . He urged the Commission to bepsentivie to the prropert owners of downtown property , effected also. property. He stated that commercial property is f f Jim Wilson spoke in opposition to the code amendment. t i PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -12- (6022d) t Rich Brown, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. His property is owned by four individuals . If the property were to burn down, two would be without a home. There were no other persons to speak for or against the code amendment and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners felt that the provisions governing the reconstruction of nonconforming structures should be more flexible and should exclude some residential property. They felt that presently there was minimal benefit to the City and a large burden to property owners . They agreed that the proposed code should be reviewed again and an unit exclusion set on residential property. To determine what number of units the Commission would like to see exempt they took a straw vote. IF A PROPERTY IS MORE THAN 50% DESTROYED, IT CAN BE REBUILT, AS IS, IF LESS THAN: A VOTE TO EXEMPT '10 UNITS OR LESS: AYES : Erskine NOES: Mirjahangir , Porter, Livengood, Winchell, Rowe VOTE FAILED A VOTE TO EXEMPT 8 UNITS OR LESS: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES : Rowe, Winchell, Porter VOTE FAILED A VOTE TO EXEMPT 6 UNITS OR LESS: AYES : Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES : Rowe, Winchell , Porter VOTE FAILED A VOTE TO EXEMPT 4 UNITS OR LESS: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Livengood, Porter , Erskine, Mirjahangir VOTE PASSED A VOTE TO .REVIEW THE ORDINANCE REGARDING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine, Livengood VOTE PASSED PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -13- (6022d) The Commission agreed that a mechanism was needed to take care of the present needs for the well being of the community. Staff was asked to get statistics from the Fire Department on how many properties burn down each year and how many are non-conforming. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ROWE, TO CONTINUE CODE AMLNDMENT NO. 86-10 TO THE SEPTEMBER 16, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Wnchell , Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mir jahangir' NOSS: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 ZONE HANGE NO. 86-20/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-34 This item was ntinued from the Planning Commissio me ting of August 5, 1986. The applicant is requesting a cha ge of zone from R5 (Office Profes ' onal) to R3 (Medium High Densi y Residential ) . The subject site at the northeast corner of New n Avenue and Cameron Street was o ' ginally zoned R2 . A zon change was approved in 1969 to redesignate the property as R5. a Planning Commission and City Council approv d a zone change fro R5 to R3-25 in April of this year for another pa cel further east . n this segment of Newman Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental . egul ions in effect at this time, the Department of Development S rv ' ces has posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-34 for ten da This review period expired August 10, 1986. The staff, in s initial study of the project, has recommended that a negativ de laration be issued. Prior to any action on Zone Change No. 86- it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Nega ive Declaration No. 86-34. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OP ED Dr . George Derey, repre enting Specialist^'" Enterprises, spoke in support of the zone ch nge . He stated tha "'Specialists Enterprises wish to build residen ial units on the prop ty instead of medical offices . The two to s are facing Cameron St et . There are residential units a ross the street. There were no of r persons present to speak for or against the project and the ublic hearing was closed. Y The Commissio felt that the proposed zone change sh ild be. continued be ause the boundaries of the zone change n d to be expanded. owever action was needed because the mandat ry processing ime would expire on September 2, 1986. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -14- (6022d ) huntingt®n beach development services department STArf AAcA r000ld .REIRP"ORT. 1R AV-MAj 4X-0 ot,n 01 -,,.P0rd1ngLnca TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development •Services DATE: July 1, 1986 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 - REBUILDING NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach REQUEST: To rewrite the nonconforming provisions of the code , renumber the article as Article 965, and modify provisions governing the reconstruction of nonconforming structures. 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve Code Amendment No . 86-10 and recommend adoption by the City Council . 2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: The Planning Commission continued this item from the meeting of June 17, 1986. Since that time, staff has rewritten the draft ordinance to create clearer, more precise regulations. ' 3 .0 ANALYSIS• Code Amendment No. 86-10 had originally been prepared in response to the concerns of citizens and realtor groups regarding their inability to obtain financing for structures which do not conform to existing codes . An example would be a seven unit structure on a parcel which currently only permits six units . Code Amendment No . 86-10 would provide a means for its reconstruction ( Planning Commission entitlement) , but would not guarantee that it could be rebuilt. The problems experienced with getting financing may be ameliorated upon the adoption of the code amendment. Even if all of the problems are not eliminated by the attached code amendment, to recommend other modifications that would further liberalize the nonconforming provisions would tend to undermine the City's ability to ever bring structures into conformance with existing codes. The wording proposed is more generous than most of the cities surveyed. The proposed provisions for Huntington Beach cover nonconforming residential structures only. The amendment would still require such reconstruction to meet any current zoning code provisions related to A-R M-23A minimum setbacks and minimum parking space requirements. In addition, the amendment would 'require conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission prior to such reconstruction. With Planning Commission approval, existing residential structures could be rebuilt with the same number of units that legally existed prior to destruction although that number may be more than permitted by the existing code. In response to the letter from the Board of Realtors, staff has also incorporated a provision .that sets forth separate provisions for structures built over 40 years ago. This time period ' is appropriate since 1946 was the year the City's first zoning ordinances went into effect. SURVEY RESULTS: At the Planning 'Commission' s direction, further information was gathered from the cities of Seal Beach, Newport Beach and Laguna Beach. In Laguna Beach, when a disaster destroys more than 50% of the value of a nonconforming residential structure, the structure can be replaced in kind except that current parking standards must be met . According to staff, this provision was adopted by the City Council in 1980 in response to pressure from property owners of apartment buildings located on single family lots 'who wanted a guarantee that they would be able to rebuild. The Laguna Beach City Council is studying the repeal. of these provisions, and returning to the original code provisions; i.e. if a structure is destroyed by more than 50%, everything has to come into conformance with .present standards. In Newport Beach, the city has a use permit procedure for the reconstruction of structures over 90% destroyed. When damage is under 90$ , reconstruction is guaranteed; but above that percentage, the Planning Commission must approve a use permit. Separately, the city's zoning code currently contains a 060 year plan" which states that within 60 years of their initial date of construction all structures within Newport shall .comply with all city .codes and ordinances. Seal Beach is experiencing the same pressure to modify the rules for rebuilding nonconforming structures . Their code reads identically to the current Huntington Beach Ordinance_ Code: If a structure is destroyed by less than 50% of its value, it can be completely rebuilt; if destroyed by more than 50%, the structure has to be brought into conformance when rebuilt. Recently, new standards to permit additions and alterations to nonconforming structures have been adopted. Huntington Beach currently has similar provisions and allows additions up to 10% of the original floor area of the nonconforming structure with Planning Commission approval . Staff Report - 7/1/86 -2 (5522d) Code Amendment No. 86-10, as proposed, adequately protects the City and ensures conformance with two important code requirements . A multi-family structure could only be rebuilt if it is designed to meet all current parking requirements and setback standards . In addition, the Planning Commission would be able to evaluate requests on a case by case basis through the conditional use permit process . Other Content Changes in Revised Ordinance Made by Staff Since May 20, 1986: 1 . Sections referring to separate, nonconforming abatement procedures for storage, dismantling, wrecking and junkyards (9710. 2) ; for agricultural stands (9710.4) ; and for outside storage of outhouses (9711 .1) have been deleted. These had been given up to six months before abatement, a time period which expired in 1946. There is no need to continue to separately address these uses. 2. In the same way, Section 9714 dealing with buildings in the process of construction when the original nonconforming provisions were effective of Ordinance 495 on June 5, 1946, is no longer relevant and has been deleted. 3. The section covering the destruction of nonconforming structures and uses has been clarified. A chart has been incorporated to provide the information. In addition, separate provisions have been added for structures built prior to June 5, 1946, the approval date of the City's first zoning ordinance. These provisions are more restrictive and allow complete reconstruction only if less than 15% of the value is destroyed. The 15% figure is suggested by staff in order to accommodate some repair ; however, the Planning Commission may wish to substitute some other number as a maximum. In the same way, the section governing exterior alterations and expansions of nonconforming structures and uses would apply only to structures constructed after June 5, 1946. The provision for such expansions has been changed to require a conditional use permit . The current code states that they be approved by resolution of the Planning Commission, which have been difficult to track in the past. 4 . Regulations to calculate the value of structures at the time any destruction occurs have been modified . Currently, the code makes reference to valuation by the county assessor, which is not equitable for several reasons . Since the passage of Proposition 13, identical nonconforming structures could have very different values depending upon how long ago they had sold. In addition, such valuation may not accurately reflect the cost of replacing the structure. Staff Report - 7/1/86 -3- (5522d ) For these reasons, staff is proposing that the valuation used be the figures that the City®s Building Official uses to establish valuation of new construction. This valuation would tend to be more lenient because a higher valuation for the total project would be established before determining the percentage destroyed and the provisions of the code that would apply. 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act . 4. 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not make any change in provisions for nonconforming structures destroyed. Approve draft ordinance after instructing staff to modify the ordinance so that such provisions remain the same. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Ordinance 2. Survey 3. Memo identifying all possible alternatives 4. Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors letter dated April 15, 1986. 5. Existing Article 971 . JWP:JAepb, Staff Report - 7/1/86 -4- (5522d ) 14. Prior to issuance of buildin permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. b. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment . 15. Landscaping shall comply with 5. 9362. 17 and Article 960 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance C de. 16. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department , except as noted herein, . 17. The existing school within t e office building must be relocated off-site prior to he issuance of building permits . 18. A fire hydrant shall be prov ' ded at midway and shall be located in the planter area on west ide of parking area adjacent to the proposed sign. 19. The proposed free standing sign shall be a low profile monument sign subject to review and approval of the Director of Development Services. C-4 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 15, 1986, MAY 20 1986 AND JUNE 17, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS) Thais proposal is to rewrite the nonconforming provisions code, .renumber the article as Article 965, andmodif rovisions of the governing the reconstruction of nonconforming structures. The Planning Commission continued this item from the meeting of June 17, 1986. Since that time, staff has rewritten the draft ordinance to create clearer, more precise regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Kirk Kirkland, President, Fountain Valley/Huntington Beach Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to this project . He discussed concerns mentioned in his 4/15/86 letter to the Planning Commission. He feels the current proposal does not consider property owners and he would like to participate in a study session with staff or the Planning Commission if this item is continued. PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -15- ( 5583d ) Pat Poch, Fountain Valley/Huntington Beach Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to this project . She feels this proposal creates re-financing problems and the downzoning in income property areas will negatively impact property owners. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed . Commissioners would like to hear from financial institutions on financing aspects of this issue with the proposed ordinance. Commissioners expressed interest in a task force to look at this issue . Task force to be comprised of three Commissioners, appropriate lending institution representatives and realtor representatives. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO DIRECT STAFF TO TAKE PROPOSED DRAFT ORDINANCE AND SUBMIT TO LENDING INSTITUTIONS AND ASK FOR INPUT REGARDING RESTRICTIVENESS IN FINANCING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell , Schumacher, Liveng ood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Commissioners Erskine, Livengood, Schumacher to meet with realtor representatives the 1st week in August on this issue. Commissioner Mirjahangir will serve as back-up. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 TO THE 8/19/86 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Liveng ood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-44/TENTATIVE TRACT 12756 Tentative Tract 12756 is a request to subdivide a two gross acre site into eight lots with access from a proposed short cul-de-sac street from the east side of Bolsa Chica Street. Conditional PC Minutes - 7/1/86 -16- (5583d) RECONSTRUCTION AFTER 50`L DAMAGE TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES SURVEY Costa Mesa - rebuild current standards Anaheim - rebuild current stands Garden Grove - rebuild original size if legally permitted Tustin - rebuild current standards--historical may be referred to CC for approval Irvine - less than 751--rebuild to fair market value Westminster - rebuild to current standards Fountain Valley - over 25%--rebuild to current standards Laguna Beach - grandfather ordinance, can be rebuilt if parking is provided, must be built to original square footage Newport Beach - use permit by planning commission Santa Ara - can be- rebuilt to 100% fair market value Chula Vista - rebuild to current standards Fresco - over 50% of the reasonable replacement value--rebuild to current standards Fremont - over 60% of the appraised value--rebuild to current standards Los Angeles County - over 50': of the total market value--rebuild to current standards Monterey County - 75. of the assessed value--rebuild to current standards. Less than 75% use permit to rebuild as nonconforming use. San Luis Obispo County- over 75% of assessed value reconstructed provided building and land are in conformance with Land Use Element o CITY OF HUNTING H INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ou nKIGMN®ova+ To Charles W. Thompson From James W. Palin, Director City Administrator Development Services Subject NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, USES ®ate February 4 , 1986 As you are aware, individuals have addressed the City Council during the past weeks regarding the replacement of a structure or use classified as nonconforming. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, S . 9712 . 2, allows reconstruction of a nonconforming building or use only when the destruction is less than 5.0% of the assessed valuation . Destruction of 50% or more requires the structure to conform to existing zoning regulations . Owners of nonconforming structures - have indicated because of this restriction, financing is difficult to obtain upon resale. The nonconforming status of many properties has been created by the City during the past twenty years. Many zoning and general plan designations have been changed by the City Council following comprehensive planning studies. In previous years density was allowed to be based on gross existing lot area rather than net area ( after dedication) . There was also a time when use variances were allowed for additional density. The current state law and interpretation of germane court cases have precluded the use of this process to allow increases in density beyond general plan and zoning standards . There is an exception to this rule and that is for affordable housing. Staff has considered proposing a code amendment to allow reconstruction of a nonconforming building following destruction. Without limiting or restricting the type of use, the City would continue to have commercial uses in residential zones , residential uses in industrial zones, industrial uses in residential zones, etc . To allow reconstruction would perpetuate the lack of sufficient parking, minimal open space, incompatible uses, and inconsistent setbacks. Other possible alternatives to replacement of nonconforming uses/structures are listed below: 1. Replace- residential uses at the density legally existing prior to destruction provided zoning and general plan are residential . 2 . Provide affordable housing to obtain a density bonus. 3. Round permitted density to nearest whole number, i.e. , 7.8 8 units. Page .Two Nonconforming Suildir. 4"Odses ` 4 . Provide mechanism for special entitlement (use permit or conditional use permit) by the Planning Commission or City Council. 5 . Restrict reconstruction to' residential uses only. 6 . Allow a maximum density equal to but not greater than the density of existing adjacent developments . 7 . Continue with the present standards. 8. Allow same type of use and increase density by no more than 1/4 - 1/3 of the original amount. 9 . Allow reconstruction with density based on lot size at time of original permit. 10 . Provide mechanism to calculate density on irregular lots when density is based solely on lot frontage. 11. Allow reconstruction at original size and comply with present parking requirements. Attached are copies of current zoning maps depicting areas known to 'iave down-zoned or where density was based on gross lot area. Staff nas done minimal research into pockets of the City with nonconforming uses or structures. It is known that many older areas were allowed guest houses without kitchens or second family residence. Staff will continue to research and evaluate the ramifications of the ,,reconstruction of nonconforming structures issue. Recommendation: Allow reconstruction of nonconforming uses or structures to be rebuilt following approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission based on parking compliance and general plan conformance. JWP:SP : jr Attachments: 1 . Survey 2. Zoning Maps ( 4171d) PLANNING GENERAL PROVISIONS S. 9710 XISTIAI(r ARTICLE 971 S. USES S. 9710 Uses of Land: Changing to Conforming Uses. A nonconforming use of, any land may be continued or changed to a conforming use or to a use of a more restricted classification. (495) S. 9710.2 Nonconforming Storage, Dismantling, Wrecking and Junk Yards. All nonconforming storage, dismantling, wrecking, and junk yards shall be completely removed within six (6) months after the time this Section takes effect or when such use becomes nonconforming. (1241) S. 9710.3 (Repealed by Ordinance No. 1653 - 11/71) S. 9710.4 Nonconforming Temporary Agricultural Roadside Stands. All nonconforming temporary agricultural roadside stands shall be completely removed at the time this section takes effect or shall be made to conform to Section 9730.15 of this code. (1335, 1849 - 6/73) S. 9711 Extending of Use of Lot. A nonconforming use which is not housed in a building or structure, but occupies a lot or portion thereof shall not be enlarged or extended to any other portion of the lot or any other lot not actually so occupied at the time such use became nonconforming as a result of the adoption of Ordinance No. 495. (495) S. 9711.1 Abatement of Nonconforming Use. The nonconforming use of land for the ® storage of outdoor portable sanitation facilities, such as: privys, outhouses and other similar out-buildings shall be abated within six (6) months from the effective date of this ordinance. (1301) S. 9712 Resuming of Nonconforming Use. No nonconforming use shall be resumed, re-established, or reopened after it has abandoned, discontinued or changed to a conforming use. S. 9712.1 Time Constituting. Abandonment. A nonconforming use shall be deemed to be discontinued or abandoned when such use has ceased to operate or to be operated or to exist as a nonconforming..use for a period of six (6) months. (495) S. 9712.2 Destruction of a Nonconforming Use. If any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure is destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God or act of the public enemy to an extent of fifty (50) percent of the value thereof, then said use or structure shall be subject to all provisions of the 'District in which it is located. Value of the use or structure destroyed shall be determined by official records of the Orange County Assessor's Office for the fiscal year during which said destruction occurred. (1105) S. 9713 Nonconforming Buildings: Continuing, Ameliorating, Conforming. A nonconforming building may continue to be maintained or may be 'chanc-d to a building of a more restricted classification, or to a conforming building. ) S. 9714 GENERAL PROVISIONS PLANNING 9714 Building Vacant on Effective Date. A nonconforming building or portion thereof which was specifically designed (or, beyond a rer-onabl.: doubt,. intended by the nature of its arrangement and construction) to be occupied or used in a way which would be nonconforming under applicable provisions of Division 9, but was notl �o occupied at the time Ordinance No. 495 became effective, may be occupied or used for the purpose for which it was designed, arranged or intended,• provided such building is so used within one (1) year after the effective date of Ordinance No. 495; otherwise the use of such building shall conform to the applicable provisions of Divlision 9. (495) S . i9715 Repairs, Alterations. Repairs or interior alterations which do not enlarge or increase the height of a nonconforming building may be made. (495) S. 9716 Additions, Exterior Alterations to a Nonconforming Use. No nonconforming building or structure shall be added to or enlargedor altered on the exterior in any manner unless such building and its additions and enlargements are made to conform in every respect with all of the applicable provisions of Division 9, or unless the Planning Commission by resolution permits exterior alterations, enlargement, or additions only for the following conditions: (1703-1/72) S. 9716.1 Added Safety, Beauty, Harmony. That, in the opinion of the Council, said revision is necessary to secure added safety or reduce the fire hazard and/or to secure aesthetic advantage through alignment, architecture, or closer -onformity to surrounding permissive buildings in the intermediate neighborhood. (495) S. 9716.2 Height. That said revision or addition shall not increase the number .� of stories. (495) S. 9716.3 Floor Area. That regardless of any or all alterations, enlargements, or additions, the floor area shall not be increased over ten percent , (10`1.) of the total floor area such building contained at the time Ordinance No. 495 became effective. (495) S. 9716.4 Plans, Specifications. That a set of plans and specifications covering the proposed construction, alteration, or addition shall have been submitted to the Commission for recommendation and then to the Council for approval as to location, design, color, and general architecture; and any work represented thereby shall be done in accordance with said approved plans and specifications; and no permit for such work shall be issued until said plans have been so approved. (495) S. 9717 Extending of Existing Use Within Building. A nonconforming use occupying either a conforming building, or nonconforming building, structure or portion or either thereof, shall not be extended to any portion of the building or structure not so occupied at the time said use became nonconforming as a result of the adoption of Ordinance No. 495. (495) PLAMING GENERAL PROVISIONS S: 9718 S. 9718 MOVING OF NONCONFORMING BUILDING. No nonconforming building or buildings used !for a nonconforming use shall be moved unless by so d doing the building and its use would be made to conform to the applicable provisions of Division 9. (495) S. 9719 ALTERATION OF BUILDING HAVING NONCONFORMING YARD. Existing buildings which are nonconforming only because of the yard requirements may be altered or enlarged, provided that said alteration or enlargement is made to conform to applicable provisions of Division 9, or provided further, that in the case of a single family -residence which is nonconforming because of yard requirements, any addition or enlargement to such building may be along existing yard setbacks, if the existing yard setbacks were legally established at the time of initial development of the building. No alteration or enlargement which is subject to the provisions of this section shall be commenced unless a use permit application therefor shall have been first obtained. Application for such permit shall be made before the Board of Zoning Adjustments, which shall consider such criteria as may be applicable thereto. (1945-11/74) _ cry ° Publish 10/9/86 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 (No -Conforming Uses NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber_ at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: Monday, October 20, 1986 TIME: 7:30 P.M. SUBJECT: Code Amendment No. 86-10 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: City-wide PROPOSAL: To rewrite the non-conforming provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code by repealing Article 971 and adding new Article 965 and to modify provisions governing the reconstruction of non-conforming residential structures. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed ordinance is on file in the Department of Development Services. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Phone (714) 536-5405 Dated 10/3/86 NOTICE OF .PUBLIC HEARING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 (Non-Conforming Uses ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center , 2000 Main Street , Huntington Reach, California , on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below . DATE/TIME: March 18 , 1986 - 7 :00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Code Amendment No . 86-10 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach REQUEST: � rCWrik �� .�t.ov�GcY►gvrwf �rowtSia-"S a � "�� `/•�•®;�.7 A-e4h le. 9'11 an tdj 'tw kr{;cAc- g 6$'j rr✓�5eVvl-F 'D'h1 Ty►L' t;'G rSAVC4L;, ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act . ON FILE : A copy of the proposed ordinance is on file in the Department of Development Services , 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California 92648, f;or inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSCNS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Jeff Abramowitz , Assistant Planner at 536-5271 . James W. Palin , Secretary Huntington Beach Planning Commission ( 4335d-6 ) � r