HomeMy WebLinkAboutUse Permit 73-32 - Shelter Industries, Inc. - To permit zero ff 10davit of , iblication'
State c+fg—oIukirnia al
unty of Orange ss
fy of Huntington Beach
George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a
citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years.
That he Is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach ,
News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- ? '.
fished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said
County of Onnge and elsewhere and published for the dissemination �
of local and other netts of a general character, and has a bona fide i
subscription list of paying subscribers, rind said paper has been ;
established, printed and published in the State of California, and
County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication
of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not
devoted to the Interest of, or published for the entertainment of any
particular class, profession, t.nlde, callinr;, race or denomination. or
any number .hereof. Puhnshed Huntinslan Beach items !.us.,
The Huntington Bench New «'as ndjudicated a legn) newspaper 3�, 19rs.
of general circulation by Judge G. X. Scovel In the Superior Court His ltty4
i�gasf CO Oo
of Orange County, California August 27th. 1937 by order No. A-5931. :Ufa Permit *32 � ditianst t
EUXceptl
AFF aL '1,• U::.�IAL I`46il ; is HEREBY' VO4 fh�t rWYf
That the — ~ - •lic tawing vviii be held by tho :City:
Cowell of the City of HuntlnQtnn!.DWKh,1
S:. F"t�::1�i — [[ 1, :i. 11L:_`rr . 7 —r�-3 in 'the Council Chamber of P4 Civic i
to
�- - Canter, Huntington Beath, at She tzw
of which the annexed Is n printed copy, was published.in said nears- of 7.-W P,11#., or as soon tjovaltei .as.
-nssible; oft rhonday the;3 )h ray ali
I
1 atembsvr,.1973. for the purpose bf cofi•;
paper at. least 7ne 1 t3 true _._ sider;ng an appeal to denial',by the City
Plannl(ig Commission of Use crrnit 3'3-32
y� t to permit a propastd 295 ;;n t aparlMthl
COacommencing from the `L l t dny of r-�•�� �'_..._� .___ _ _� DO ie7r pufiJSllt is S.9M.Co, ,Ill
.A �11
apt>�at to tha cknlrt of Cai'Mitlftlst fz•
ceat±on 73-Z permitting zero siege aflft
. rear yard SetbPck'-fer,tsrparts of a:pro.
19_L..�__. and ending on the _3 7 t l,. clay of ui'a$ ---.. _ lPoW- 29ft unit' spa;trnent 'twrplt. in
ifeu of $.9J- txc)'of the fluntingtori
ncach Ordinance Care. The tubjccr twW
1923 Both days inclusive, and as often during; said period i:nd laity is.located at the Kauthwest:.cornet
Mates of publication as said paper wns re„lllarly issued, and in the cf [dingo edlurnv"uc and Newland itrrat
An Rn�1t3 mediunt•ftiRh dFnsity
regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in n fiat d;stri:t. A tegsi descriatinn )son,file
supplement, and said notice was published therein on the follo�dng In the•Ptann r Utpartciert Office.
dates, to-wit: All irtteresW-persons are Invited to
M►attend said'tW-firW and tstira-4x their
inions for ot.•gainst said appeal,`
r�t1F'. , Q7 Furttrr. lnforntotion mar be oC�."ale!
:from ch«s"Oftice.of 00 City cialk;,
PATEri:•11J291I3 •..
CJTV:Of HUNtINGTOri $11 W.
t3yrltfic►d
P ,lisher
'1
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3 1 tt day of t ..
Agj,d'1Q_t is _ ._:..:' S....._`,r ,'.1. icy►.
Notary Public`....w•'.�.r•�';—"
Orange County, California ' -
1 _
THOMAS D, WYLVE
fJafsry Pj,bt;e•Cal fern;a
�o Oran �
��; 4 Counfp
.`• .�• My Cor*�I�rlen Eapins
.?ass Serfenber t2, IQl4
``
y 1 71
[NINO
"ffMW%
The ��ortt� ha
of the northwest quarter of Section 24 , Township 5 South ,
Rang4 11 West , in the Rancho Las nolsas , as shown on a map recorded in
Book i1 , page 13 , of Miscellaneous Maps , records of Orange County , Cali-
fotnia.
Excepting therefrom that portion thereof lying westerly of the following
described 1ipe:
Beginning at a point on the northerly line of said Section 24 , said Point
- being the northerly terminus of that certain course described as having a
bea►rin$g and distance of North 0030130" East 30. 00 feet in the Final Order
of :Condemnation recorded January 73 , 1964 in Book 6896 , pages 2 through
28 of Official Records ; said point also being distant South 8902913011East
2215 . 01 feet front the northwest corner of said Section 24 ; thence along
the easterly line of the land described in said Final Order of Condemna-
tion the following courses and distances : 0030130" west 30 feet ;,
1 So th 82032120" west 2S2 . 44 feet ; So t 7 83 ' 4 , West 451 . 22 feet ; south
44 3212111 east 605 . 35 feel ; South 49�16 ' east 793 . 60 feet ; South 4020' 10
j west 44 . 73 feet ; , South 49 12 ' 24" east 125 . 66 feet to a point in the easter-
ly line of said northwest quarter, saTff—M `"being South 0019130" west
' 11S4 . 38 feet from the northeast corner of said northwest quarter.
Also exceptingg therefrom that portion commencing at the center lines of
the intersection of Edinger Avenue and Newland Street , thence west 190. 00
fact, thence north to the point of beginning.
i
. i
.
..
r4'f1� wt •:rMllr` " ' �vl +,rji-1 of
RECEIVED
;IA 1
PLA14NING DEPT,
,tune 1.3 , 1973
Secretary of the Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach
P. C. Box 190
Huntington Beach, California 92696
Gentlemen:
Subject: Appeal of Approval of Use Purmit 73-32 and
Conditional Exception No . 73-23
The City Council of the City of Westminster, at its
regular meeting of June 12 , 1973, unanimously vot.od to
appeal the decision of the t:oard of Zoning Adjustments
to approve Use Permit 73-32 , Conditional Exception No .
73-23 for the proposed 296-unit apartment project at
the southwest corner of Newland Street and Edinger
Avenue in the City of Huntington dead: and adjacent to
the City of Westminster .
This appeal is filed because the Westminster City Council
feels that the development of this high density complex
would have an adverse affect on the citizens living in
the City of Westminster because of the following reasons :
1 . The density proposed in this case would be incon--
sist--nt with the densities permitted in the City
of Westminster in close proximity to the subject
property.
2 . The project would generate an excessive amount of
traffic on both Newland Street and Edinger Avenue
and could create traffic congestion at the inter-
section of Beach Boulevard and Edi:iger. Avenue
which would inconvc•nieerrr. residcnts of the C;f t:y
of Westrriin rater .
3 . The proposed development would be in tha direct
path of either the adopted route of the proposed
Highway 39 Freeway or the alternate route advocated
by the City of Huntington Beach and the City 6f
Fountain Valley.
SocreLary of the Planning Commission
City of: Huntington Beach
I'a4c 3
.Tune 13 , 1973
4 . Since the property is isolated from luntington
Beach city services by the San Diego Freeway , it
was recommended that Huntington Beach consider
deannexation of the property with its subs ot-jurant.
annexatic:n into the City of Westminster or rr-
%oning the property to a use which would be
compatible with the uses of properties in the
City of Westminster in the general vicinity .
We will await advice from you as to when the public
hearing will be held .
Si acerely yours ,
CITY OF WESTMINr'I'ER
' s
Katharine C . Harper
Ci ty Cleri,
KCFI:o
CC: Hoard of Zoning Adjustments , Huntington Beach
cc: Westminster Planning Department
I
I
CITE OF HU n GTon BEACH
d!J P.O. BOX 190, CAtIFONN1A 92648
'* PLANNU41G DEPT. ( 714),536-5271
STANDARD CONDITIONS 01: APPROVAL
USE PERMIT NO . 73-32
BOARD Or ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
June G , 1973
A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE Or BUILDING PERMITS :
1 . The revised plot plan received May 29 , 1973 shall
be the approved layout .
2 . A revised plot plan shrill be submitted to the Board
of Zoning Adjustments for Approval Action . Revised
plan shall indicate ( 1 ) a modified walkway sy:, tem
minimizing amount of concrete coverage and maximum
use of open space . (2) additional trash areas to
be located closer than 200 feet from any dwelling unit ,
and (3) revised plan shall reflect closure of street
access from secondar)' entrance on Edinger Ave . and
shall reflect a 20 ' sethark to he landscaped , ' 4 ) --ight
of way dedication shall be required per Orange County
Flood Control District standards , (5) one additional
parking space shall be incorporated .
3. Edinger Ave . and Newland St . shall lie dedicated to
City Standards at the time each parcel is deVelop,-d .
4 . Elevations of the proposed plan submitted for Board
of zoning Adjustments received May 4 , 1973 shall he
approved elevations .
S . The water , sewer , and fire hydrant system shall be
approved by the Department: of public Works and Fire
Department .
6 . All buildings on lots abutting a City easement shall
he set back (5) feet from the ecign of such easement .
7 . Soil and compaction reports as required by the Building
Department and the Department. of Public Works shall
be submitted to the City.
A . All private streets shall meet the minimum standards for
planned residential developments as adopted by the
City ,ouncil .
9 . Approval of Use Permit No. 73-32 shall he contingei►t upon
approval of Conditional Exception No . 73 -23 .
0
• (ITY OF HUAI GTOP. BEA(H.
Ad P.O. &OX 190, C.AtIFORN1A 9764e
i
PLANNING DF1 11141 53h- 5? 1 1
NOTICE 01: ACTION
A 1ivant : Shelter Industries , lnc .
Subject : USE PERMIT NO . 73-32
Your application was acted "Pon by the Ilttnt i ni; ton Beach
Board of "Zoning Adjustments June b , 1973 and your
request was :
Approved
Approved with conditions xx (See attached )
Disapproved
Continued until
Under the provisions of the Huntington 11c!rsch Ordinance
Code , the action taken by the Board of Znn i iig Adjustment s
is final unless an appeal is filed to the Planning
Commission by you oT an interested party . Said app(,,a l
must be in writing and must set forts: in detail the
actxvn and grounds by and upon which the aliplicant *-r
interested pArty deems himself aggrieved . Said apr.---al
must he accompanied by a filing fee of srv%nty - five
($75 . 00) dollars and submitted to the. .Sec: retary of the
Planning Commission within ten ( 101 days of the clrttr
of the Board ' s decision.
In your case , the last day for filing an appeal and
paving the filing fee is June 15 , 127.Z _._•
Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are
such that any application becomes null and void one (1 )
ve,ar sifter the final approval , unless net'tial construction
has starter? .
Ali- ej:�-ri/td
Pave hadie
W t I ng 'v -i e to ry
1ISL III?ItMI O . 73-32
Inge.
It . 'I'(} ltl; COMPLETED PRIOR TO )FRAMING I fr' l'li(:1 ION :
l , laridsca ri t rlri shr .l l be- submitted to Lite Board of'
f ] ng plan t b
Zoning Adjustments for review and approval. act icon .
Rooftop mechanical. equipment shrill he screened from
view. Said screening plan shall lie approved by the
Board of Zoning Adjustments .
3 . All signs for the Proposed Development shall be suh
mitted to the HZA, for approval . Signs, shall reflect
a common theme with respect to design materials and
colors which are compatible, with 'che architectural
theme of the proposed proj ert .
4 . [-ire alarm system condni t and alipti r tenanc•es shrill be
installed by the developer at locations and to speci -
ficat ins provided by the Dire Uepartneni .
S . Parking compounds shall be scr(1011ecl h i th .r combination
of fencing and landscaping . Said plan shall he sul%-
mined to the Planning Uepar•tme�nt for review and
approval. . Fenciag and landscape flans sha 1 l include
the following information :
a . A list including quantities and sizes for each
. ', vpecies of plants and all ground cover materi,il .
b . Irrigation layout to include meter location ,
pipe sizes , sprinkler head types , etc .
c . Fencing materials and detail drawing .
h , The structural street section of all private dri % vs
shall be approved by the, ]).rartviont of Public Works .
? . tin-site drainage shall be in accordance with the
requirements of the City Engineer , and treatment of
the area rd j ; cent to the flood control channel shall
be in accordance with the requirements of the Orange
County Flood Control District , as oRit: ined in its
letter of May 17 , 1973 .
S . A building identification system shall he provided
subject to approval of the Eire Department .
9 . All requireme is stipulated by the Orange County
Flood Control District shall he complied wltth .
10 . A Covenant and Agreement s tinul8 t i on . thA t th. apa r tint:n t c. ,
Will be "Adult Only" shall be ' Filed with the City anal-_ .
recorded prior to frawing inspection.
BARNES. SCHAG, JOHNSON S KENNEDY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
AdoCpT S. @Anims P.O BOX I78fi WASHINGTCN OrFICC:
LOWNCST J. SCHAG,JR.. 45ZS MAcARTHUR BOUL/-.VARO OOt r, STnCCT, 'J.E.
IACWART L'.JOHNSON NEWPORT BCACH.CALIFLIRNIA 426E3 WASHINGTON, O.G. 20003
J.JOSCPN•KCNN[OY
JOHN CARLSON (714)`079.9500 OF COUNSCL
•17CVEN E.HUGILL rRANK P. GAILOA
TH014AS C.SPONSLER.JR, (202) ffi•t3•S'771
MICHAEL C. rREI August 270 1973
GREGORY R. HARRIS
IRANA O.sTICrr1.
J. LAWRENCE JUOY RECEIVED � �
t;,7 Y CLERK File No. 19-199
CItY kii
FIU>IYIKG i&tl C)E,%Cff,CAUF.,
City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach ,�73 AUG 27 PM u ; 0 9
Post Office Box 190
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Re: Appeal of Disapproval of Use Permit No .
73-32 and Conditional Exception No. 73-23
Dear Sirs
This office and the undersigned represent Shelter Industries,
Inc. , the applicant for Use Permit No. 73-32 and Conditional
Exception No . 73-23 . Pursuant to an appeal filed by the City
of Westminster, the Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach overruled the previous approval of the Board
of Zoning Adjustments and disapproved Use Permit No. 73-32
and Conditional Exception No. 73-23 on August 21, 1973 . The
reasons stated for the action of the Planning Coi)umission were
that this proposed development does not comport with Huntington
Beach City Ordinance 9811 . 2 and that the Planning Commission
did not wish to allow any further residential development near
or adjsc:ent to existing freeways in the City of Huntington
Beach .
This appeal is filed because the applicant is aggrieved in
that it is being denied permission to construct this project
on land which has long been zoned for, exactly this sort of
development. Further, the Environmental Impact Report submitted
on behalf of this project indicates that there will be no
substantial adverse impact on the environment if this development
is completed.
Therefore, in addition to the general grounds stated above ,
this appeal is filed because:
1. The density and use proposal by applicant -could
be consistent with densities permitted in the City of
Huntington Beach in close proximity to the project.
City ,Clerk.
City 'of Huntington ,3each
August. 2?, 1973
Page -Two
2 . The general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity of this project would not be
adversely affected..
3 . The project would not be detrimental to property
i.nd improvements 3n the City of Huntington Beach in the
vicinity of the use.
9 . The granting of the Use Permit and the
Conditional Exception will not adversely affect the
Master Plan of the City of' Huntington Beach .
The appeal filing fee is enclosed herew4.-�.h . We will await
notification from you as to when this appeal will be heard,
but do request that this matter be heard as soon as the
calendar of the City Council will permit .
Very truly yours ,
BARNES , SCI'AG, JOHNSON & KEtdt.c.DY
By
J. Lawrence Judy
�TLJ/df
cc: hir. Don Biggs
Edgar E. Scleck, Esq.
i
I
Planning ".. omniissioi
FRAM: I'lahning Iaepartment DATE: August 21, 1973
I !'!ilt in. Nn. 13-:52 - AI'I'I:111. ((:ont. 'I/17/73) ZONE: itS
COIUI ! IUN,AL- hXCEPTIUN NO. 73-23 - AI P11AL
APPLICANT: Shelter Ih6stxies , Inc, a
2043 YesttIiff Drive
Newport Beach, CA
' APPELLANT: City of Westminster
CH REQUEST: To permit zero side and rear yard
setback for carports of a proposed
296 unit apartment complex in lieu �9 1
of S . 9320 . 13 (c) of the H. B. Ord,
Code .
II
UP REQUEST: To permit 296 unit apartment complex
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Edinger
Ave ,, and Newland Street , 12 . 442 ac.
The appeal is to the approval by the: Board of
I
Zoning Adjustments
Public Hearing
Use. Permit No. 73-32 and Conditional Exception No . 73-23 were originally
reviewed by the Planning Commission at the July 3 , 1973 meeting and
continued to the Ju".y 17 , 1973 meeting for additional information concern-
ing adequacy of sewage facility for the project and a statement on antici-
pated action by the State Division of Highways .
Tha State Division of Highways had responded to the request and said letter
was given to the Commission at the July 17 meeting , however, as the Orange .
County Sanitation District had not responded at that time , these applications
were continued to the August 21 meeting.
Attached herewith is all the prior information submitted to the Commission
for your review as well as both letters from the State Division of IIigh;rays
and a .letter from the Orange County Sanitation District .
It should be noted that the public hearing was closed as the July 3 meeting
and was not reopened on July 17 , however, Mr . Barnes , Shelter Industries ,
inquired as to whether he would be allowed to present additional evidence
at the August 21 meeting and he was informed by the Chairma., that he would
have that opportunity.
s
..: STAFF RE' PORT
Toi� Planning Comatft' ssion
FROM: Planning Department
�-- USE PERMIT NO. 73- 32 APPEAL DATE : July 3 , 1973
carmT oNAL Exuma too. ?3-23 APPEAL zoNZ: R3
Applic&nt: Shelter Industries, Inc.
2043 Westclif€ Drive
Newport Beach, Ca.
Appe llant: City of Westminster
C. E.
Request: To permit zero aide and rear yard y)rt
setback for carports of a proposed c 1
296 unit a rtsont complex Sn li.ed;
Fe,
of S . 9320. 13(c) of the H.E. Ord.
Code .
UP Request : 296 unit apartment complex
Location: jouthwest corner of Edingor �C90
Ave . and lAwl nd Street, 12.442 sc .
I ,
The appeal is to the approved by the Board of
Zoning Adjustments .
public Hearing
GENERAL INF0R14ATTON :
On June 6 , 1973 the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Use Permit
No. 73-32 in conjunction with Conditional Exception No. 73- 23, a
proposal for development of a 296 unit apartment complex with
c#rpor'.s located on zero yard line of the side and rear yards .
0n June 13, 1973 the City Council of the City of Westminster formally
appealed the board' s decision .
PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING:
The subject site is located in a triangular parcel of land south
of Edinger Avenue , west of Newland Street and north of the San Diego
Freeway . The subject site is presently zoned R3 medium high denWty .
residential district and is vacant land. Thore is a pportion of land
located on the northeast corner of the subject sate trhich is zoned
! C2 community business district and is vacant land , however, this
' is not a part of this proposal. Property' to tho north Bind east of
the subject site is located within the city of Westminster . That
" property to the north is developed with single family residences
} located in a R1 district and the property to the east is zoned RL,
however, checking with the Westminster Planning DepartMOMt , it Nos
indicated that this property has been acquired by the State Divisica
of Highways for future freeway construction, lroportiaa to the
south across the San Diego Frdeiray is toned R3 radium high residential
;
• 'Staf f Rdpp'aT t
Us
e :P - mi�t NO 73-32 ,
c6n' ditxonal Ex+cepx'ion. No. 73-23
•Pi�ge Z
and is - developed with apartments . (See attached laird use and
Zoning map. )
MASTER PLAN:
The subject site is designated as combination of land allocated
for future freeway purposes and medium density on the adopted
master plan of Area "B" adopted February 1972 .
In conversation with Mr . Duane Shields with the Right of Way
Mana3ement Department of the State Division of Highways regard-
ing the State of California' s position on this proposal , it was
recommended that the Board of Zoning Adjustments not delay the
developer with proceeding 'with his request. Mr. Shields further
indicated that it was the State ' s policy not to delay a developer
in the process of obtaining city permits . fie indi.cage�.d_. hat
further study of the area would be conducted :to determine if the State
would take action to acquire the subject parcel for protection
purposes from the developer before he commenced building .
Based on conversations with the State Division of Highways, the
staff concurs with the determination of the Board of Zoning
that the proposed development is within the scope of the master
plan designation allowing medium density residential development .
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION
On January 23 , 1973 an Exemption Declaration request (ED 73- 12)
pertaining to the subject property was rejected duo to the
magnitude of- the project .
An Environmental Impact Report wa3 subsequently submitted to
the city and on April 10 , 1973 the Environmental Review Board
instructed the secretary to post EIR No. 73- 7 for 30 days to
solicit public comment .
At this time the Environmental Council was notified of the final
date for public input which was May 17 , 1973 .
On May 15 , 1973 a public hearing was held on EIR No . 73- 7 . The
minutes of this hearing are attached far your information.
Comment regarding the project was received from the Orange
County Flood Control District, Environmental Council , and
Mr. Jerry Jackson. Public hoaxing was closed on Environmental
Impact Report No. 73- 7 and the chairman of the Environmental
Review Board instructed the con3ultant on the proposed project
to include the public comment in the body of the final HTR which
would be due on May 26 , 1973. On May 29 , 1973 the 1nvironmental
�.- Review Board adjourned review and recommendation or the final
EIR 73- 7 to a special meeting on May 31 , 1973 .
Staff Report
Use P iit No. 73- 32
Conditional Exception No. 73- 23
Page 3
On May 31 , 1973 the Environmental Review Board adopted EIR 73- 7
with the mitigating measures contained in the report together
with the additional mitigating measures as outlined by the
Bnvironmental Review Board. A copy of the minutes of this
meeting is attached for your consideration.
BOARD OF ZONING ADJbSTMENTS ACTION
On May 23 , 1973 the Board of Zoning Adjustments continued
Conditional Exception No. 73- 23 in conjunction with Use Permit
No . 73-32 in order for the Environmental Impact_ Report to be
completed in processing.
The hearing was opened for comment fron the audience at this
time .
A letter was presented to the Board from Frank Schuma, Planning
Director from the City of Westminster , which was a recommendation
for denial on this project from the Westminster Planning Commission .
Can June b , 1973 the Boar3 of Zoning Adjustments approved
Conditional Exception No. 73- 23 for the following reasons :
1 . That the applicant has demonstrated a hardship in that the
property is bounded on three sides by a public right of way .
2 . Due to the shape of the property and topography of adjoining
embankment ,his property does present a development problem
by virtue of those conditions .
In addition , recommendations of the Environmental Review Board
and recommendations for raitigat in- measures as outlined in the
transmittal from the Environments ) Review Board dated May 31 ,
1973 were accepted, k copy of that transmittal is submitted
for your perusal .
Use Permit No. 73- 32 was then approved with the conditions as
outlined on an attached page .
Opposition to the project was received from several homeowners
In the City of Westminster. A petition submitted with over
300 signatures protesting the development was received by the
Board. It was t;:e consensus of the Board that the opposition
to the project by the citizens present and by the petition
addressed itself mainly to the environmental issue .
The hoard related to the audience that opposition to environmental
considerations should have been submitted to the City Clerk during
the public comment period on Unvironment .1 Impact Report No. 73- 7 .
Staff .Report
Use P&rmit No . 73- 32
Conditional Exception No. 73-23
. Vage 4
w:. PROJECT ANALYSIS
The proposed project adhered to Article 932 , Apartment Standards ,
with the exception of the carports being on the zero property
line adjacent to a public right of way for which the conditional
exception was submitted. The proposal called out a unit count
of 168 one bedroom apartments and 128 two bedroom apartments .
Primary access to the development would be via Edinger Avenue
with a drive located on the interior periphery of the project and one
splitting the project in the middle . Secondary ingress and
egress would be from Newland Street . The apartments are proposed
to be located in clusters of buildings with open space in the
middle of two major areas . The plan substantially complied with
the development standards as required by the Ordinance Code ,
however, a revised plan was required to be submitted to the
Hoard of Zoning Adjustments indicating :
1 . A modified walkway system minimizing the amount of concrete
' coverage and maximizi.ag the use of open space .
2 . Additional trash areas to be located closer than 200 feet from
any dwelling unit .
3 . Revised plan shall reflect closure of street access from
secondary entrance on Edinger Avenue and shall reflect a
10 ft . setback to be landscaped .
4 . Right-of-way dedication shall be required per Orange County
Flood ControJ District standards .
5 . One additional parking space shall be incorporated .
CONCLUSION
In view of the fact that the development adheres substantially to
the apartment standards , is located within the correct zoning and
density , and is master planned for that use , the staff concurs with
the Board of Zoning Adjustments concern that the City should allow
development of this property.
The subject property is within the adopted route of the
proposed route 39 freeway and is also within the alternate .proposed
route of the route 39 freeway . The Division of Highways has
indicated that either route l if pursued., would mean a full take
of the subject property. The staff also concurs with the State
�-- Division of Highways policy to allow development to take place
if acquisition for protection purposes is not Pursued by the
that body.
Staf1', it6Port.
Use Permit No . 73-32
Conditional Exception No. 73- 23
page S
Rl.COMMENDATION
•4-
The staff concurs with the. Board of Zoning Adjustments recommendatic�t,
for approval of Conditional Exception No. i 3- 23 and tlae Permit No .
73- 32 with the conditions a3 *utlined and any other conditions of
approval the Planning Commission deems necessary .
i
I
,I
I
I'
IT$. 73-32 '
Nage 3
C TO RE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL INS111:CT i ►yN :
1 . Edinger Ave . and Newland Ave . shall he fully 1111pro. cd
including street trees , street signs , street lights ,
fire hydrants , sewer and water main extensions .
? . All utilities shall be installed underground .
3 . Off-street Parking facilities shall conform to
Article 979 .
4 . There shall be no fence , structure or landscaping
constructed or maintained over 3 1 / 4 feet high within
a 10 ft . by 10 ft . triangular area ,at the intersecrI0111
of driveways and streets or within a 2S ft . by 25 ft-
triangular area at the intersection of streets .
5 . A lighting system shall he installed within the
project equal in illumination to lighting on pubiis
streets .
Lighting system shall be shielded to reflect away
from adjoining properties and streets .
t . All Periphery units bordering on Edinger , Newlanu .
and the freeway shall he provided with forced air
ventilation systems to provide for air circulation►
within units .
7 . Full insulation of all exterior walls and ceilings
of dwelling shall be provided .
8 . The project is to be constructed with balanced Dower
to redu;a possible overloading on any one energy source.
9 . Carports constructed on 0 ' propert }- line shait bQ of
maintenance-free masenry material . .A Plan dvmcn5t-r4t' 1n�
compatible architectural treatment of all carpov t z, ara
periphery walls shall be submitted to the iloai-(.4 - f
Zoning Adjustments for approva: action . Sp id plaiA
shall indicate design , materials and color
1) . TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CEPI'Il' : CATE )F QCCUP/lAxy
1 . Water supply shall be through the City o f liar. t , ng t:ors
Beach ' s water supply system.
2 . Sewage disposal shall he through to � Cit., Uf Huht + ngtar,
Beach ' s sewage system .
3 . Easements for utilities or walkway.,; , hall b�.) prov l aett
to Department of Public Works stared li ds .
% - 7D-3'2
USf: PERM,
F'aFe a
4 . The hrop(.•rty shall pa►-t icipate in the lt)ca l drainage
assessinent district .
S . No structures , other than Oho:.e shown on the approved
plot plan , shall be construct►W within the pro jvct .
6 . All applicable City Ordinances shalt be complied with .
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1 . Disposal of building spoils : Unusable lumber , tar Paper ,
wire , pipe and other excess or unusable waste shall be
dumped at an off-site facility equipped to handle them .
? . The ' ovation of the roof vents shill be :is stipulated un
page 141 of the final EIR report ; i . e . , the walls of the
buildings will be higher than the exhaust vents , and the
hooded vents will be located aw-v from the freeway sides
of the buildings closest to the frccwa�, .
i, i
• - ' RECEIVEp
JU11 4 1973
TO : Board of Zoning Adjustments pig Mr.
FROM: Envi;,-onmental Review Board
DATE: May :51 , 1973
SUBJECT : "The Woods" Project
Environmental Impact Report 73- 7
APPLICANT : Sheltei Industries , Incorpo,-ated
LOCATION: The intersection of Edinger and Newland Streets in
the City of Huntington Beach
BACKGROUND
The project outlined in this 1.IR is a 296-unit apartment devel -
opment to be built on 1.2 . 422 acres of undeveloped land zoned
R- 3 . The project will be an all adult complex . In addition to
the residential units , the complex will contain two combination
recreational/laundry buildings with sw;mming pools , outdoor bar-
becues , conversation areas , a gazebo, ,.nd two tennis courts .
The final Environmental Impact Report , as prepared by Environ-
mental. Impact Profiles , consultant for the City of Huntington
Beach, was filed with the City on May 22 , 1973 , and distributed
to the Board of Zoning adjustments on May 24 , 1973 .
R.ECOWENDATION :
The following recommendations are offered as mitigating measures
to minimize the impact of the proposed project :
x . That all periphery units bordering on Edinger , Newland , and
the freeway be provided ivith forced air ventilation systems .
2 . That full insulation of all exterior walls and ceilings of
dwellings is recommended to minimize the burden on heating
and cooking systems .
Environmental Impact Report Page 2
"Th . woods"
3 . Disposal of building spoils : unusable lumber , tar paper ,
wire . pipe and other excess or unusable waste shall be
dumped at an off-site facility equipped to handle them.
4 . That the location of the roof vents be as stipulr;ted on
page 141 of the report ; i .e . , the walls of the buildings
will be higher than the exhaust vents , and that the hooded
vents will be located aw-.y from the freeway sides of the
buildings closest to the freeway .
S . That the project is to be constructed with balanced power
to reduce possible overloading on any one energy source .
b . That on-site drainage shall be in accordance with the re-
qui -ements of the City Engineer , and that treatment cif' the
area adjacent to the flood control channel shall be in ac-
cordance with the requirements of the Orange County Mood
Control District , as outlined in its letter of May 17 , 1973 .
A copy of this letter is co4tairted in the report on page 138 .
7 . The Board feels that the City should pursue the re - location
of the structure on the SE corner of the project . This re-
location brings the unit within the module concept and will
provide a separation between pedestrian and vehicular circu-
lation within the plan , as shown on the revised plot plats
attached .
Copies of all the comments the ERB has received on the final re-
port area attached to this transmittal .
Envi ronmental Impaci Report Page 3
"I he Woods"
CONCLUSION:
In view of the Information and data contained in this Environ-
mental Impact Report and the mitigating measures as herein
outlined , the Environmental Review Board .•ecommends that the
Board of Zoning Adjustments approve EIR 73- 7 as there is no
evidence that the proposed project is likely to cause substantial
environmental damage .
Carol Schwartz , Secretary
j Environmental Revvew Board
_ . • PLANNING ADMINISTRATION S. 21-1„ .2
(c) That the granting of a Conditional Exception I's necessary to pre-
serve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights .
(d ) That the granting of a Conditional Exception will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injuriovs to property in the
same zone class ifi.cation .
(e) That the granting of a Conditional Exception will not adversely
affect the Master Plan of the City of Huntington Beach . (1190)
-�•-�-�. S . 9811.2 Use Per .its . Use permits provided that the establl.shment,
maintF;nance or operation of the use of building applied
for will not be detrim:ntal to:
S . 9811.2:1 The general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity.
S . 9811.2 .2 Injurious to property and improvements to the vicinity of
such use or building .
S . 9811.2 . 3 That the granting of a Use Permit will not adversely the
Masten- Plan of the City of Huntington Beach.
S . 9811 . 3 Division of Land . Divisions of Land that are pot class-
If led as a suSdi'vision, provided all provisions of the
Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are complied with . ( 1190, 1242)
S . 9811.4 Plot Plan Amendments . Amendments to plol. plans previously
approved y e anning Commission may be considered by
the Board ; provided, the following conditions shall be found to exist
prior to approval of any amendment :
(a) The Amendment shall not constitute a substantial change . i
(b) The proposed use of property shall remain the same .
(c) The dwelling unit density shall not be increased .
(d ) The adjustment shall result in an improved plan . ( 1200)
S . 9811.4 . 1 The, approval of any amendment shall not alter the original
approval date . ( 1200)
S . 9811.55 Relocation Permits . Relocation Permits, necessary for the
moving of a buila g or structure, which have been referred
to the Board by the Director of Building and Safety, shall be heard by
the Board as an administrative act . The Board shall determine whether
or not the movement of this building to its proposed location will have
an injurious effect upon the area, based on the following criteria:
(a) The age of the bLl?,!ing, as compared to age of other buildings
In the ineighborhood .
(b) The architectural design of the building, as compared to other
buildings in the neighborhood and its effect upon same .
(c) The size of said structure in comparison to other structures in
the neighborhood .
S. 2811 .5. 1 ADMINISTRATION PLANNING
S . 9811.5 .1 The Board of zoning Adjustments , after nearing said
natter may approve, conditionally approve or deny the
permit for relocation . (1252)
S . 981.1 :6 Administrative Review. Application for Administrative
Review may 6e approved , conditionally approved or denied
by the Board . (1335)
S . 98i1.t The Board may hear app lications for sign permits pursuant
to Article 976 . ( 15N4
S . 9Ei12 AUTHORITY .
3 . 9812 . 1 In the performance of its duties, the Board may approve,
conditionally approve or deny any application .
S ._.L81`2.2 The Board may decline to act on any application. If the
� Board declines to act on an application, it shall refer
said application to the Planning Commission for hearing . ( 1504)
S . 9812 . 3 The granting of any Division of Land, which conforms to
the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is
hereby declared to be an administrative function of the Board and no
public hearing need be held thereon. ( 1190, 1242)
I
S . 9612. 3 . 1 The Board shall render a decision on any Division of Land
application within forty (40) days after said application
it filed . ( 11902 1242)
S . �. ��12. 3,2 Notice: of the Board ' s decision shall be mailed to the
applicant within five (5) days after such decision is
rendered .
S . Q81.2 .4 The Board shall prescribe the form and scope of applica-
tions and necessary accompanying data .
S . 9812 . 5 The Boar., ma,r make Investigations, secure advice or
assistance from any department of the City and prepare
plans and reperts necessary for the conduct of its duties .
S . 9813 APPLICATIONS .
S . 9E313. 1 Filin Applications for Conditional Exceptions, Plot
Pniendments, Use Permits, and Divisions of Land shall
be filed in the office of the Planning Department . Said applications
shall be made by the owner of the property or the property owner' s
authorized agent . If the applicant is not the property owner, a letter
..from the property owner authorizing the agent to act in his behalf shall
accompany said application . ( :12001 1242) 1294)
o . _�18. 1.3 .2 Filing Fees . At the time an application is filed , the
applicant shall pay the following fee:
(a Conditional Exception, twenty•-five . (25) dollars.
� b Use Permit , twenty-five ( 25) dollars .
c Division of Lanu, ten dollars plus two (2) dollars for each lot
over f our (4) lot. . (12001 1242)
'd Plot: Plan Amendment, . twenty-five dollars. (2ri. 00) . ( 1.294 )
c� Adcnlnl .,t,rat,ive Review, ten ( 1fib) dollar: . ( 1335,)
I v
USF i'EIt1• :�` K0. `75- 32 MYPfiAl.
CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 73- 23 APPEAL
i'• .a f' • ' i i .. - an appeal of the approval by the
hoard of Zoning Adjustments of Use: Pea rwi t Ne. 7 3- 32 to permit a proposed
296 unit apartment complex pursuant to G . 9202 . 3 , 1 . 3 and an appeal of 'rho
approval of Conditional Exc-pti.on ND . 73- 23 perni. tting zero side and rear
;yard setback for carports of a proposed 296 urii t apartment r. nmple): in
lieu of S. 9320 , :13 (c:) of the !Huntington i1eitch Ordinnnce Cccie , The
subject property is locat+ d at the Southwest corner of Edinger Avenue
and Newland Ftrect in an R3 medium-high density re ';W011ti ,11 district .
A legal 0osc: ription is on file in they Planning Department office .
II
July 3 , 1973
.. '. _ use permit
and conditional exception ;
�» i
�' • : 215t June 1973
,t . ....
.7rli7es t�, Palin
Acting Socretary
t..
j UP 73.32
` APPEAL
1
'SUlter Industries , Inc_ ; Javes _R Hutchins- Roro
,� #43 8311 Furman loetcliff Dr. IS061 Rochester St d r Yount
8 S I2 rman live
M rt "Mch. GA Wostminster, CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683
Walter HaSen '
: 947 :darbor Visit Dr. Lottio J King #t al Dan s Dole
Corona del Her, CA 8412 Furman Ave 8302 Purean Ave
Westminster, CA 92683 Westminster sk02683
Crano CouAty Flood Dis Nupo Development Donald E hunt Jr
F'00 Box 1078 8&ii7 M Olympic tiled AZV2 Furman Ave
ate At3a, CA 92702 Boverly Hills , CA 94211 Westminster CA 92683
state Div of Nyg Jack D Sheets
Pali Sox 2304 Term Annex Joseph Loy 8292 Furman Ave
1#5 AnSi1es , CA 90Q$2 8392 Furman AVo Westminster GA 92613
Westminster, CA 92683
(Stuff Aost Design B)
"I A. If. S. U. Husa• S Lutfi Warren H Simpson
1902 17th St. $392 Furman Ave
Wmtinton Mach , CA 92646 Westminster CA 92683 8272 Furman Ave
K hlsstminstar CA 92613
t?fiopt► Vier School Dist. Richard L l~voncs
1S y4I Redlands St .
l902 soat;b1+Alvd . lto or SLoob
1iaatington Beach, CA 92647 S312 Furman Ave Westminster (:A 92683
eestminstor CA 92683
t
Arthur S Hopkins Robert F Abbott
state of California $362 Furran Ave 8391 Furman Ave
DIV, of IWYS Westminster CA 92663 Mestai.nstor CA 92683
se+cramento t CA: 9 S 814
rt ` .' of We*tains ter George W. Ilayas Dan Dan L �ci roni Furman Ave..; ball 13SZ Furman Aee Westminster CA 92603
lot* mi�teter, CA 926A� W:-tstainster CA. 92685
Rgyvc-nd Y Boudreaux
0 T Peck of 8.1 Marion A Scott eE21 Furman Ave
0 of Am*rIca 8342 Furman Arnie Westminster CA 92693
030 5 Sprint St - Weatminster Ca 92643
Lv* AASslos , CA 90014
Itmald H RoStrs Sails Docoa William L Heil
IS932 Villanova Cir AM Furman Av►o lWaltor R Haw
Xq;tainstex CA 92683 Westminster CA 97613 �0071165b?r Vier DOrona AMar A 7.d.2 S
. 4• 1
'Neil at al
!iP* or
s A"O CA 92706
�/w M w►w w r w... r r w _ w . w « r r r r _. �. ._ w+ _. ._ .. � .. .. .. r .. + � � + , .. - .
r f
tim test Roach Assoc.
1 �in $way Operating Cc ;
730 Wilofirf Blvd '
"alp Hills CA 90211 +
r
f
f ,
r� t
I ,
,
r '
+
" • I
r r i
+ 1
r I
r .
• f i
f i
r r
r �
(
t r
I
ANALYSIS OUTLINE
1.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACT
1. 1 Analysis of Evaluation Technique
1. 1. 1 Approach Description
1. 1. 2 Conclusion
1. 2 Analysis of Assumptions
1. 2. 1 Assumption Description
1 . 2. 2 Assumption Evaluation
1 . 11. 3 Conclusion
1.3 Analysis of Conclusion
k.G Conclusion
i
2.0 NOISE QUALITY IMPACT
2. 1 '_-escr.ipCion of Noise Phenomenonat Project Site
2. 2 Mitigation Measures
2.3 Analysis of Conclusions
2.4 Conclusion
I
i
i
Prepared by:
Jeremiah U. Jaclsson
Env i ronrrent a l Engineer
Environmental Engineering, I .1vision
J ' Harbors, Beaches & Dcvelop,,,.ant
City of NuntHgton Peach ' i
CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEREMIAH D. JACKSON
RE: AIR AND NOISE IMPACTS UPON THE WOODS BATE: DECI•:r BFR 19, 1973
APARTMENT COMPLEX
1 .0 AIR QUALITY 11111l'ACT
1 . 1 Analysis of. Evaluation Tc 1inique
1 . 1 . 1 Approach Dcsc:ription
The cousultallt, VitrasystCts, Irlc . , C'C:ployed "t,'orrt case"
argume:nt:, in their aiI' pollutant concentration calculations.
This approach inherently E;ive:; a conservative picture of 0-61m
.ic:ttia 1 phc-ncl:rienon, ,Md thus a l l oW.-? it su i tabl r. safety margin
to 1.)Q incorporc Led within adverse impact evacuation.
With this- ..ipproarh :ct. tlt..lci! , emis;:{on factors, were.. deter-
mined for a r'epr•c:stnt:ttivc: vchicic rl.; .i function of cmission
species, itid vehicle spc vd and ;{e:•ar. 'rotas species (missions
:;c-rel. then eomput c-a usinj; p,,ak traffic volumes. 'These value:.;
yielded the initial emi.s!5l ;n co:rcerrt:r,ition of Lhc• sourc..e
( i .c�. frcr..�triy traffic ...
TEc— nc ::t :;tC0 used by the: consultant was to approximate the
dispersion of thr.•sc pollutant;, by mct.''rarologic.11 , physical ,
and t.hc miol lyn:amic; mechaidst;,s. This was ccc.<,-mp1 i-,Ai2d ;:hr•aueh
t.11e c.3c1 of :i F;aus, !an lcIume model for line sources . 1.socon-
ce.ntrar_iorl vr,IU(-!; for c ach pollutant species wer:. then plotted
ul,ori the project tract map to determiric relative coricent:ration
v;llues .
I
17111 it ly, the: relativv ►ouc:entrat{c.'ns of each pollutant for
present ( 11.173) and futtire ( 1990) cast:, wc,rc compared to health
standzird s for cac,h pollutant Set by the Stfitc.
1 . 1 . 2 Covc: Iusioil
The .1ltilir1)1,Lh ur;c.cl 1:y th(: consultant in their emissicar. c:oncen- I
tr,itlocl c:vrelu:ition i-, accurate, and satisfactorily describe;
ell[' i")rtit t:ilsf:c. pllt?I1U111C•IlOrl.
I
I
1 . 2 of ► s.,Urr;)Lion
1 , . 1 ssumpt.ivn Dv! cription
Due to the: unavailability of specific quantitative data, eight
;eti.'iurfiption,, .;(.;ry usud by the consultant in describing wor;,t
c: ili11 Ar quality it Lilt, wiz►ills ' 1)roj(?ct, sfre. These werc-.
1 ) A prevas l )ng west(-.r15► c;ind over :{ t.e.
ali1c.s A I..•.rtd r;pced of 1 rr:c�tcr F►t:X` 4C°C.vriCl 1 :.. .:�� <•
per hour )
3) Thrre Were stable attriospher{c tcrt(Ntl:cn% durillp
carly mornAng peak hour traffic, ttmc:5.
14 Tim peril: hour, traffic: fray MO %lilt bo )` ,000
vellictes pv hour,.
CITY COU14CIL
December 19, 1973
. Page two
5) The average vehicle speed duringthe peak
!, hour is 70 miles per hour.
6) 1973 remission factors were used for current
traffic volumes.
7) 1990 emission fc-tctors were used fur P)90
traffic volume:; for CO.
8) 1973 emission fae_to:s were used for 1.990
traffic; valunares for No,.
I . I. L Assumpti;�►► f;:,:lufatic,r.
Using :a worst case approach, the use of the first four and
Lilt- last tWa .:tssufnption_; 1 is ter! in Section 1 . :. 1 are valid.
Huwevter, at, first ,1�atte.r, the fifth ,and sixth assumptions
raise sornr questions of validit.y.
A:;sumption flvc jthe: ;average vehicle speed during peak hour
of 70 miles per hour) .ippetar•s to be fa low e_sl: u.mLe of the
actual speed or; the frree:•way. Thi•:, speed enters into the
consultant 's calculations only for emis:.lon f.tcLors, however,
and at higher spt tads (v.v. 5t► milts per hoar) the; emission
factor 1s reduced by 55%. 'Thus, what was use,t ,ze; an emis-
FiUn factor at the s,luwrer :;peers is actually more thatt twice
£a:� hl;;h ,i:, the- highe.•r value. In :addition, :t slower
spc.ced assumption takes into cor►;:ideratlon possible traffic
congest.iun during peak usa►gc - iaj,,ain, :t wuTst case possib.11.-
Ity.
Assu►npt ion :six ( the u!:e of 1973 emission factors for current
traffic. vtflumcs ) 3! so appears to be t,rroneous since the pre-
sent traffic mix is not. entirely made up of 1973 vehicles.
It has been noted (viz. "Combust ion-Gener:,ted Air Pol l.ution, "
riniversity of Calif.arnia , Iirr1,vlt,y Confere.n_r:, September
1969 ) that only 9'/.., (it Lilt, total. vet►+c le populat lean 1 , of a
current preductlon yt ar at the year 's end. Thus, In I vcrem-
brer of 1973, aanlarcaxir:nt.r,l.y rl% of the vehIcIcs or the road
are 1973 vehicles (arid correspondingly have 1.103 emission
control :,) . 'Chia is important singe eraissi;. •, icvtela for each
species have been bea:uming lower each ycea7. however, the
v,alut used by U'Urasysttems, Inc. (67 grants/per trade) for 1973
takes into account ;a relative vehicic, mtx of .al. l years and
uses .a cnrrr:spondinc;ly wcii;litred average value (r..};. 1965 v(---
hlelc�s et,,iit S7 grams per milE•, 1973 vehicles emit, 19 gram.
per mile; Ir)65 and 1at:t.r vehicles woui.cl makeup roughlyl.571
A the: vehicle mix). Thus, this al.r,umptiatt i , also valld
and )'fields a conscrvative estimate ( l .e. worst erase).
1 . 2. 3 Con cIusIon
'fhe ;assumptions made by the consultant for cvrrlucat.tn.g the
taanotint and di.per.Aiwi of air pollutatnU -rithitt the Woods
• CITY COUNCIL
December 19, 1973
Page three
project arc valid and representative of a worst case
phenomenon.
1. 3 Analysis of Concluslon
Ultrasystems, Inc. , in their conclusion. compared the expected
worst cage emission concenLrati.ons with State health standards.
These conct-ntrations were found to be approximately one half of
the herelth standard, it their greatest a:orst case occurrence and
location. The consultant 's final statement that "air pollution
from the free:Ay is therefore not exprcted to exceed the health
yttandards ;it Lhe proposed apartment site"; this Division is in
agrcement with this statement. In sddition, however, it should
be noted that this :analysis is for the closest, most direct source
of lair pollutants ( the adjacent freeway) and not for .sir quality
within they -urroundini, air basin it: toto. If Baia- quality degrades
within thy: basin to ,a point where th(:- health standards are exceeded
basirl-wide, the Woods would also be proportionally affected.
i
2.0 NOISE QUALITY IMPACT
2. 1 Description of Noise Yheno-tenon tit Project Site
The consultant, Blo-•Acoustical Engineering Co;poraLlon, used four
major tn,-'_hods in describing existing art! projected noise phenomena
at the Woods project site. These were..
i
1 ) Field measure-ment (during; pP aP traffic volutne hours
andgdny;:, representative locations at they project.
site: , and calculating the near maximum sound pressure
levels, i.lf�) • �
2) Data check (correlating and cro , checking, their entta
with the original FIR data ) .
3) Monitoring mrajot sound iources ( it was Noted that bath
stutfonsary and flyint; sound sources wane either insif_:,-
nificant or titan existant) .
4) Phenomenon projection ( traffic: voltlrtie - and therefore
sound lrve.ls - h-ould remain relatively constant).
Thesu methods are., acceptable and provide nn adequate: descriptIOT) of
existing, and probable noise phenomr-na at the project site.
2 .2 Mitigation Measures
fhe: caraiulLA11L Lists two sound .level criteria of racceptnbili.ty;
they c are:
1 ) Interior sound pireasaure: level g . exc ceded 101 o-. the
time (I.IU) s1,*o1d be Liss than 1,5 dBA; and
.Y ' • i i
• CITY COUNCIL
December 19, 1973
Page four
i
2 ) Exterior sound pressure levels exceeded 10"'. of the
time (1,1t1) within the site: should be. les-,. than 55 d3A.
i are both realistic and acceptable design
criteria.
To achieve these criteria , the consultant note:; three major mitigating
Mc.•.tsures. These aie:
no doors or windows he placed in the f,outh-
N.:est calls of dw-,Ilings ii the first row facing the
2} The use of an effective wall height of from ?.0-24
fe,c_t created by the pro- ec:t hui.ldings.
3) "Normal construction" prnctic es employed for the
<ictic�l 1 in,;s •►1nnr; E:dirtf;c.r.
Thcl c,ansultaut no tc.>; that the: above threes measures will reduce they
noise .irr:lu►ct by the following respective: amounts:
rainirmira of 30 dBA ,attenuation ."
;.1. 11 provide: .a shicldln.; of approximately
15 4BA ::tLenuriLion to recreational areas can the
opposite. side of these buildings."
3) wi 1 l provide 24 dBA of at:tenu;&Lion
Mitig.-ition measures ( 1 ) and (?.) will indeed :-,ttr•cau.)tc noise by the
<►mcaunts noted. However, mitigation measure ( 3) ( i.e . rturnial con-
struction) will reduce noi.,e by 1 to ).5 dBA only, and this is with
all window,; ►nd doors closed. Value!; of 24 to 3U dBA reduction can
by achieve-! through . L Lial desit,n and bui ldin:; practicer,, only.
1n conclusion, the dersip criteria are .accept.:ble , and two of the
rc-Cf ►;lnendcrl r;Mt ,atlon nethod:i will achieve the desired criteria
;;c>Eal >, . liok•eV(.-r, OR, third rniti,,ctlon trwast,re will tall short of its
noted ;:.anal (42 dBA ar l(ess ) by .+bout 10 dBA. and thus should be
rccoo,Adered and modi fitd.
i
2. :1 An,►Iys i s of Conclusions
The vor.sultant notes four conclusions; these are:
1 ) "All pl-,rty walls slac•uld have, an attenuation of 51) dBA
or rare: to }avoid tenant complaints."
I
:'.) "The incrunse in traffic on bordering strceLr, will
increase; thu .adjacent property noise by 1 cIDA (barely
de'teckable)."
3) "'there will be noise in adjacent. dwellings during the
daytltt►r: fc•c+rn ronstructio'a equipment. The O;,ange County
Noise Qrd1na a,_-Q specifics th;.t there be no aLtivi ty be—
t,.,,c('n 8 i 00 poi. and 7:00 n a)."
►.`. CITY COUNCIL
Aecember 199 1973
Page five
4) "When all recommendations are followed, it c%n be
anticipated little or no complaint of excessive
noise will result."
' ' . :he first conclusion (which is actually a recommendation) implies
that no interior noise from one residence should be transmitted to
thE adjacent residence. This recommendation should be adhered to
by the developer.
T'ie second conclusion is based upon existing and projected traffic
volumes. this conclusion, as noted in Section 2. 1, is accurate.
The third conclusion is relavent for construction only and must he
recognircd by the developer.
Fin-'ally, the fourth conclusion - because of what Was noted in Sec-
tior. 2.2 ( i.e. "normal construction" reducing noise by 24 dBA) -
i;; felt to be inaccurate. "Excessive" traffic noises impacting
upon the dwelling will be reduced to approximately 54 dBA within
the. residence which could, in fact, cause disturbance and complaints.
1.4 Conclusion
`I
In conclusion, the consultant's method of analysis and his defini-
tion of noise phenomena at the project site are accurate. The
ini.tigation methods recommended should be employed by the developer
in de,Jign and during construction. Additional mitigation measures
` should be im-or.porated in the units along Edinger :avenue to further
attenuate the noise Impact. �
f
.t f
J'T 1 1
'•:lit 1� ,.� _ti. _'�+ 1 1 `i' t. 1 Jar'� Y ( 1, , '
t .�, OF IllUN TINGTON EA'�LCH
w
COUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION CA 73'134
u:�ltte;Jt)v 1!l1CN
t
To Honorable Mayor and City Council From City Administrator
Suf.:ja;.t RECONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF Date December 13 , 1973
USE PERMIT 73-32 AND CONDITIONAL
EXCEPTION 73-23
.1tcm K-•1 on the Agenda pertains to a proposed 296 unit apartm.:!nt complex
i, gith a zero side and rear yard setback xor carports on property loca - �
ted at the southeast corner of Edinger Avenue and ;'e�;land Street in the
:r R3 , ,iedium High Density Residential District .
This Item was first considered by the Planning Commission at their 5/2i/73
k meeting and denied for the_Jollowing reasons
0
tl The proposed use will� be detrimental to the general trelfare of persons
residing and workin4 in r the vicinity .
��2 . The proposed use Will injurious to property and improvements in the
P p ) P P Y P
vicinity of such use .
tIntensity of use is,- too great for this location.
�r
JThe project has een designed at the maximum density allowed without any considerati n for abutting uses .
!S� Conercial use would be the best use of the property adjacent to the
n
`. .� freeway.
• 6 . Proposed projec-t is ' thin the adopted freeway alignment fo the Route
. 9 freeway. t
il
t► n - �a I , ,y L,,�, , , , �.<<a.� :► , r•.'
Tne matter jras appealed to the City- Council and the motion to overrule the
P1aaning Commission ' s decision and approve the Use Permit and C,--iditional
Exceation failed to ass . The applicant requested that the City Council
I P
reconsider this action and at the November 5 , 1973 meeting , the City Coun-
cil voted to reconsider the action of that date . This natter has been con-
!n(: d on several. occasions . During; this time , the applicant has r_onsultcd
;. Le and noise pollution experts and has attempted to revise the plan
ts -:��: irtize any adverse conditionsurhich may be caused by the rzzr quality
o,1 _'-noway noise .
�:rent:atives a " the Planning DupartMent have reviewedthe rs?,:i: and 11:1
:� . ;:�•.:'_ that the plan conforms to the requirements of the Ordinar'.c^ Co'-!C .
i
5
SUP, 73-32 Ct 73-2 De,cember 1.3, 1473
The City Countil has the following alternatives :
1 . Deny the matter .
2 . Approve in concept and refer the matter back to the Planning Com-
mission, Board of Zoning Adjustments or Planning Department Staff
to review the layout of the plan .
3. Approve the plan with such appropriate conditions as deemed nec-
eisary by the Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Adjustments or
Planning Department Staff.
4. Corctinue action pending a report on' such plan.
Respectfully submitted ,
• `
David D. Rowlands
City Administrator
DDR:p
I
i
M
r
BARNES, SCHAG, JOHNSON & KEP:NEUY
ATTOM4CYS AT LAW
ROdCF,T 5.TAFNK3 P.D. BOX 1780
WA5►t1►2GTph1 Ori'fCE'
EANCGT J. SCVAG,JR. 4525 M kcAPTHUR MOULCVAnD 001 C. STREET, 5.E.
SICWART 1L.JOa11S0N 1VLWPOnT 9EA:.H,CAL11FOR141A 92603 WASNINGTON, D.C. 20003
J.JOSEPH KENNEDY
JOHN CARLSON !7141 D70- dv00 O►' COUNSEL
STEVEN C.HUGILL rnAnK n, �RILOR
THOMAS C. SPONSLLR,JR , 1973
25 October (202) g43-27"�
Et 5
MICHAEL C. Fr
ORCGORY R. HARMS
FRANK O.St1EFL'L
J. LAWR[NCL JUDY 1� 19199
City Clerk 29 fir' Iut , 3 7
City of Huntington Beacii
P . O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Re: Use Permit No. 73--32
Conditional Exception No. 73-23 i
Dear Sir_
On behalf of Shelter Industries, Inc. , we request a
continuance of the hearing on the above matter which
is now set for the November 5th council meetinv until
li the meeting of the council on November 19 , 1975.
Shelter Industires, Inc, has hired a new architect and
additional time will be needed to complete review of the
project upon which the application for use permit is
based.
I
Please advise if this request for continuance is accept-
able.
Yours very truly,
BARNES , SCHAG, JOHNSON & KENNEDY
BY N+,�
J . Lawrence Jury
JLJ/lv
cc Svelter Industries, Inc.
t ,
BARNES. SCHAG. JOHNSON & KENNEDY
ATTORNCY5 AT L.A.�Y
POCICFIT 8. i.1APNC'S P. O. [dO:t 17[ir5 10'� WAI.JMINY'TON U•rIGC:
CPNCST J. SCttAG,JN, 454S MACARTHUfl UOULEVAI40 'not C. STT!ti,'T. 5.k.
9TEWAPT L.JOHN90N NEWPORT OGA<:N.CALIFO81Nl1 02063 { � WA�iMI:IrT()ll �,C. Z0001
J.JOSEPH KEN14CON'
JOHN CARLSON �1141 t)>U•QJTOO tisr� � l�� C0(Jf/'Jr6L
STCVLN C.NUGII.L 1;� Ff►ANK It,GAILOIt
rHomAS C.SPOtY&LCR,Jfl t
MICHAEL c, rnei September 20 , 19 73 � {.'tor, 6.•,•:ry,
OR,-GORE a. HAPRIS
FRANK p. STlcr[L File No. 19199
J_ LAWRC►.CC JUDY
RECEIVED
City Cler
k
City of Huntington Beach
Post Offlce Box .190 24
Huntington Beach , California 92648 PM 3 a
Re: Petition for Reconsideration of Denial of Use Permit No. 73-32
and Conditional Exception No . 73-23 .
Dear Sir:
This office and the undersigned represent Shelter Industries ,
Inc. , the applicant for Use Permit No . 73-23• and Conditional �
Exception No. 73-23 . On September 17 , 1973 , after a public hearing ,
the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach declined to reverse
the disapproval of Use Permit No , 73-23 and Conditional Exception
No. 73-23 by the planning Commission of the City of Huntington
Beach.
The applicant requests reconsideration by the City Council sc)
that revised project plans which mitigate or eliminate any need
for Conditional Exception No . 73-23 may be presented for Council
consideration . Further, applicant would willingly accept a
condition of approval requiring thermal pane or extra thick glass
in windows facing the San Diego Freeway in the buildings closest
to that freeway .
Enclosed with this letter. .is a copy of the original plot plans
for this project. Pursuant to this plan , applicant has applied
for Conditional Exception No . 73-23 to permit zero side and rear
yard setback for carports in lieu of S . 9320 ,13 (c) of the Huntington
Beach Ordinance Cade .
Also enclosed with this letter is a revised plot: plan for Lhis
project. Applicant would continue to pursue its application for
Conditional Exception No . 73--1-3 under the enclosed revised plan
for those carports , the roofs of which are below street level,
located along Newland and Edinger streets . Applicant believes
that zero setback in the areas shown on the revised plan would be
advaitegeous in that, if a three foot setback is required at the
, t
City Clerk
September 20 , 1973
Page Two
base of the slopes supporting Edinger and Newland streets , a
dysfunctional area which would be difficult to maintain would
be created if 5. 9320 . 13 !c) is followed in this case .
However. , if the Council so desires , appi .cant is willing
to seek reconsideration only of Use Pezmit No. 73-23 and to
revise its plans for this project so that no Conditional
Exception whatsoever would be required.
We request that t,.:. petition for rehearing be considered
by the City Council at its meeting on October 1 , 1973 . Please
advise me if this can be accomplished.
Applicant and the owner of this property , nil'. Walter 3agen ,
have expended sums in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars
($75 , 000) to develop this property . Applicant would , therefore ,
request an opportunity to meet with the Council to present and
discuss its revised plans or plans which are in strict conformity
with the present zoning of this property and to answer any questions
concerning the plans which the Council might present.
i
If you have any questions concerning this matter , please do
not hesitate to contact me .
Thant; you very much for your assistance and consideration.
Very truly yours ,
BARNES, SCHAG, JOHNSON & KENNEDY
By
S.
J. Lawrence Judy
JLJ:ds
Enclosures
cc : Mayor Jerry Matney
Councilwoman Norma BLandel Gibbs
Councilman Ted Bartlett
Councilman Alvin Coen
Councilman Henry Duke
Councilman Jack Green
Councilman Donald Shipley
Mr. Don Biggs
Mr. Edgar Scheck
(without enclosures)
I�
r
e Huntington Reach Planning Commission
F.O. 80X t90 CALIFORNIA 82649
I
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council.
I PROM: Planning Department
DATE : September S . 1973
ATTN : David D. Rowlands , City Administrator
RE: Use Permit No. 73-32 )
in conjunction with ) APPEAL by .J . Lawrence Judy
Conditional Exception No. 73-23 )
Applicant : Shelter Industries , Inc .
2043 Westcli. ff Drive
Newport Beach, California
Appelxsnt : J . Lawrence Judy
Attorney at Law
Barnes , Schag , .Johnson F, Kennedy
P . 0. Box 1786
4525 MacArthur Blvd .
Newport Beach, California.
Location : Approximately 190 ft . southwest of the intersection
of Newland St . and Edinger Ave . in an R3 , Medium
High Density Residential District .
Use IOTMit To permit the construction of a 296 unit apartment
Request : complex pursuant to S. 9202 . 3 . 1 . 3 of the Huntington
Beach Ordinance Code .
Con6it:ional To permit zero side rear yard setback for carports
Exception of a proposed 296 unit apartment complex in lieu
Request :--.- of S. 9320. 13(c) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance
Code .
Planning Commission Action: Denied - August 7.1 , 1.973 for the
following reasuns
1 . The proposed use will be detrimental to the general welfare
of persons residing and working in the vicinity .
2 . The proposed use will be injurious to property and improvements
in the vicinity of E-uch use . .
3. Intensity of use is too great for this location.
4 . The project has Wen designed at the maximum density
allowed without any consideration for abutting uses.
Page 2
S . Commercial use would be the hest use of the property
adjacent ti) the freeway.
6 . Proposed project is within the adopted freeway alignment
i
for the Route 39 freeway .
!rote : Ayes : Wallin , Porter, Kerins , Geiger
Noes : Bazil , Higgins
Absent : Boyle
Summary of Staff Report:
It was the consensus of the staff that the proposed development
adheres substantially '-o the apartment standards . The project
is located within the correct zoning and density , and is master
planned for that use . 'Therefore , the st..fr concurred with
the Board of Zoning Adjustments ' decision that the City should
allow developmej►t of this property .
Additional. Information :
On May 1 , 1973 Conditional Exception No . 73- 23 and Use Permit
No . 73- 32 were filed . They were set for public ,►Caring by the
Board or Zoning Adjustments for May 23 , 1973 . At the May 23,
1973 meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustments they were
continued to ,tune b , 1973 meeting of the Board pending
finalization of an Environmental impact Report . The hearing
was opened to the public and Mr . Frank Schuma , Planning
Director from the City of Westminster, presented a letter in
opposition to the project to the Board . On June 6 , 1973 the
public hearing was again opened at the Board of Zoning
j Adjustments meeting . Representatives of residents .in adjacent
areas spoke in opposition to the project . The Board voted
unanimously to accept the recommendations of the Environmental
Review Board and recommendations for mitigating measures as
outlined in the transmittal. dated May 31 , 1973 .
Conditional Exception No . 73-23 was approved unanimously
for the reasons listed hereunder :
Applicant has demonstrated a hardship in that (1)
'� . property is bounded on three sides by public right
of ways , and (2) due to the shape of the property and
topography of adjoining embankment this property does
present a development problem by virtue of those conditions .
Use Permit No . 73-32 was approved conditionally .
On June 13, 1973 the City of Westminster filed an appeal of
approval of Use Penitt No. 73 -32 and Conditional Exception
No. 73-23. Said appeal was set ' for hearing before the
Planning Commission at their July 3, 1973 meeting . At the
Ju'xy 3 , 1973 meeting , the Planning Commission continued the
hearing to July 11 , 1973 for additional information concerning
a Page 3
• sewage capacity and to await some action by the DiVisioTI
of Highways . At the ,July 17 , 1973 meeting the Planning
Commission continued :.he applications once more to the
August 21 , 1973 meeting . At this meeting the Planning;
Commission overruled the Board of Zoning; Adjustments'
approval and denied Conditional. Exception No . 73- 23 and
Use Fermit No . 73- 32 .
Minority Report:
Commissioner Bar.il stated that it was a rental 'project and
that no one would be forced to live there if they didn ' t like
it and that he felt it was not the Cnmmission ' s right to
overrule the Board of Zoning Adjustments and deny the above
described applications for reasons cited in Section 9811 . 2 .
Commissioner Bazil also stated that if the Planning Cemrtission
was going, to deny the use the motion for den i'al should have
been made z,t the last Commission meeting .
Chairman Kerins stated that he was not in favor of the project
as submitted, that it does not have suffi.^ient buffering
between the units proposed and the frcuway , units next to
j the freeway should he removed , and that the density is too
great when considering the adjacent zoning; and land uses .
He also stated that he cast a no vote to allow the applicant
an opportur,?ty to appeal the Planning; Commission decision
tc the City Council. to avoid an additional delay caused by
a conti.r_uance .
I�
Commissioner Higgins stated that he concurred with Commissioner j
Bazi 1 . lie fu:-ther st-ted that if proximity to freeways (which
was a major point for the denial ; was going to be the criteria
for acceptance land owners and developers should be made aware
of this. He stated tha- he felt it was not fair for developers
to put forth their {efforts and go through continuances and
then have the development turned down for reasons not stated
at earlier meetings , nor which are policy. He stated that
the basis for denial in his opinion was not based on any
Ordinances of the City of Huntington Beach .
Environmental Status :
The Environmental. Review Board approved the Environmental
Impact Report No . 73- 7 with recommendations for mitigating;
measures -to minimize the impact of the proposed project .
Environmental Impact Report No . 73- 7 was transmitted to the
City Council for your review on September 7 , 1973 .
Sup2ort irlg Information Submitted Herewith :
1 . Staff Reports - August: 21, 1973 and July 3 , 1973
2 . Area Map
3 . Legal Description
4 . Letter of appeal dated June 13 , 1973
S . Boar(i of Zoning Adjustments conditions of approv.il .
b . Environmental P.evi ew Board Transmittal - Ainy 31 , 1973
' • Page A
Information to be Submitted at the Public Hearinj:
1 . Stuff Comments
2 . Vu-graphs
3 . Slides
Respectfully s mi.tted=
K. A . Reynolds
Secretary
KAR: j a
I
rrrr��raw�ra �l
EDINGFN 17'0`
...�.. ...�: .tom. ..
50
Ile
C
AVE116.
k 3
�.
6 �
•� riiZ lam' \ ., � �� ,,•` '.
t......dtt..� s .ruwi..a+a.o..ra..M...�n.a.■.%W r w.
ii IN
Ai
�rtwra wraw..��.re.wy��
D, L X N ND73-23 ,
l N�. $M
WMTUNM
p A
.fV:i*i i P (,Agrc'(1[i!
Af., r' r,E)PtI i w rnrJ► f S.
1 i�At. :i �:iE•l::t;;f
August 22, 1973
i
{ }!
i"
Mr. Edward H . Kerins , Chairman
Planning Commisaion
City of Huntington Beach J
Huntington Beach , California 92646
Re: Appeal by City of Westminister to Approval of
Use Permit 73-32 and Conditional Exceptiot. 73-23
Lear Mr. Kerins:
Lnst night I appeared tit the regular meeting of the Planning Commission along with
our client, Water Hagen, the owner of approximately 12.4 acres in the City of Huntington
Beach adjacent to the City of Westminister. The Commission granted the appeal
of the City of Viestmintster and thereby denied the proposed development of the
- ,property. We of course are not happy with the. decision. However, I feel compelled
to write this letter not because of the decision of the Commission, but the manner
r
in which the CornmLaa ion has conducted itself concerning this application .
jAs you know , the appli^anon was originally approved . However, the isatue wits
again raised before the Commission by the appeal of the City of Westminister.
i At the Planning Commission meeting of July 3, 1973, the appeal was originally
heard. At that time the Comtnfssion was not in a position to determine the meitter � k.
becaussi, apparently not enough environmental Impact reports h8d been pMvided +.
} r review by the Commission. Additionally , certain members of the Commission
raised queedons concerning the sewer capacity and the proposed at:quisition of
the property by the State of California fcr the Highway 39 Freeway . Accordingly ,
than meeting was continued until July 17, 1973.
At the meeting of July 17, 1973, the Commission had not yet received responaieas
to their inquiries concerning the sewer situation and the position of the Division s
of Highways. We were in attendan+-e at that meeting and had sufficient facts rind
documentation to answer any questions which may have been posed by the Commission
on those two subjects. However, our request to be heard was denied by the Chairman
and that matter was continued again until the meeting of August 21 , 1973.
At the. meeting lw3t night, it was apparent that the Commission had sufficient evidence
concerning the sewer and freeway questions to deny the appeal. Additionally ,
Commissioner Wallin commented on the "excellent" environmental impact report.
One of the Commissioners then, for the very first time, brought up an Issue concerning .y
the destrability of development near freeways. At the time, the author of the environ-
mental impact report, Mr. Milburn, speciileally responded to that Inquiry . The
public hearing was then cloned. The Commission then, inexplicably, witho-;,t
prior knowledge, of the applieatnt and the owner, discussed the desirability of development
i
}Ir1 ref ti; ;}l.; {'.r a:f a it i?f•tIVF . f�t�Y:i-'{')�i� !:T:i +,�` �} ��' �,� �1 c � Y c {,,~ ..`�. l;•.
a3 :�. ,r .., ra � s;� � c► � , ,>i,:;ran' �;i•14�:sn �yr.�q a,
• 1
('�T.JE M, SCHECK
' �:+�M�i+zH; •_...._...._..�._.�itJC(1fIPUAA►CD
I;
Mr. Edward Fl. Kerina , Chairman
August 22, 1973
Pap
near the frc-eways . There was no evidence whateaever on this issue before the
Commission. Nevertheless , certain members of the Commission chose to ignore
the comments of the only qualified man in attendance, Mr. Milburn, and decided
that this issue wtvi of great validity . Rather than specifically contradict the stateknent
concerning this maN:er by Mr. Milburn. these Commissioners chose to ignore his
i statements anfl to make personal value jutigments concerning developmenLq near
freeways. l am concerned that the consideration by the: Commission of an issue
never before rRised in the hesa ings , without proper factual presentations, and
without an opportunity by the applicant and the owner to be heard and to present
evidence on the matter, is tbe3 rankefit abuse of the concept of justice turd (airplay. �
The Commission, through its arbitrary and capricious ;action, has ignored the };
existing zoning of the property and the rights of Mr. Hagan and has c+)ndemned
his property without compensaUan. or a fair hearing.
Commissioners Bazil and Higgins did not indicate their personal views of this issue
but must be commended for recognizing and being concerned thsit the applicant
and the owner were summarily being denied an opportunity to be confronted with, '
y and heard, on this matter of grave Importance to them . :+
r.
, .
1 would hope that in the future the Commission give great consideration to a closer .
working relationship with the staff and the City Attorneyte Office so that the rights
of property owners in the City of Huntington beach are not summarily delayed and �.
4 denied without appropriate notice and hearing.
Very truly yours , $�
EDGAR SCHECK
/ew
r
i
t'
jI
i f
• f
r.
• X
..t
Noven;:er B, 1973
Barn+as, Schap, Johnson b Kennedy
Attorneys at Law
P. 0. pox 1786
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: t1se permit No. 73-32
Conditional Exception No. *73-23
This is to confirm our recent telephone conversation, that
the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has scheduled
reconsideration of UP 73-32 and CE 73-23 to the December 17,
1973 Council meeting.
Sincerely yours,
Alicia M. Wen worth
City Clerk
ANW.
RECONSIDERATION
APPEAL TO DENIAL OF
USE PERMIT 73•-32 & CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 73-23
NOTICE IS HEREBY G WEN that reconsideration of the Appeal to Denial of
Use Permit 73-32 & Conditional Exception 73-23 will be heard by the City
Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the
Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. , or as soon
thereafter as possible, on Monday, November 5, 1973. Said Appeal to
Denial by the City Planning Commission of Use Permit 73-32 to permit a
proposed 296 unit apartment complex pursuant to S. 9202.3. 1. 3, and an
appeal to the denial of Conditional Exception 73-23 permitting zero side
and rear yard setback for carports of a proposed 296 unit apartment com-
plex in lieu of S. 9320. 13(c) of the iuntington Bench Ordinance Code,
was denied by Council on 9/17/73. The subject property is located at the
southwest corner of Edinger Avenue and Newland Street in an R3 medium-
high density residential district. A Legal description is on file in the
j Planai.n; Department Office.
i
I
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
}} RECONSIDERATION
• APPEAL TO DENIAL OF
USE PERMIT 73.32 & CONDITIONAL E}cepTION 73-23
1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN r.hat reconsideration of the Appeal to Denial of
Use Permit 73-32 & Conditional Exception 73-2.3 wiI.l be heard by the City
i
Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the
f
t Civic: Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:00 P.N. , or as soon
thereafter as possible, on Monday, November S, 1973. Said Appeal to
i
Denial by the City Planning Commission of Use Permit 73-32 to permit a
proposed 296 unit apartment complex pursuant to S. 9202.3. 1. 3, and an
appeal to the denim of Conditional Exception 73-23 permitting zero aside
and rear yard setback for carportfi of z proposed 296 unit apartment com-
plex in lieu of S. 9320. 13(c) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code,
was denied by Council on 9/17/73. The subject. property is located at the
southwest corner of Edinger Avenue and Newland Street in an R3 eredium-
high densi.cy residential district. A legal description is on file in the
Planning Do-O rtment Office.
� I
i
CITY OF 11UNTINGTON BEACH
i
By: Alicia 11. Wentworth i
City Clerk
I
I
I,
i
I
I
t
t
. RECONSIDERATION
APPEAL TO DENIAL OF
USE PERMIT 73-32 & CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 73-23
i
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that reconsideration of the Appeal to Denial or
Use permit 73-32 & Conditional Exception 73-23 will be heard by the City
' Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the
i
Civic Center, Huntington Beath, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. , or as soon
thereafter as possible, on Monday, November 5, 1973. Said Appeal to
Denial by the City Planning Commission of Use Permit 73-32 to permit a
proposed 296 unit apartment complex pursuant to S. 9202. 3. 1. 3, and art
it appeal to the denial of Conditional Exception 73-23 permitting zero side j
and rear yard setback for carports of a proposed 296 unit apartment com-
plex in lieu of S. 9320. 13(c) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code,
was denied by Council on 9/1.7/73. The subject. property is located at the
southwest corner of Edinger Avenue and Newland Street in an R3 medium-
. �
high density residential district. A legal description is on file in the
Planning Department Office. j
i
f
j CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
l By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
I
RECONSIDERATION
• APPEAL TO DENIAL. OF
USE PERMIT 73-32 & CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 73-23
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that reconsideration of the Appeal to Denial of
Use Permit 73-32 & Conditional Exception 73-23 will be heard by the City
Council of the City of Iuntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of trite
Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. , or as soon
thereafter as possible, on Monday, November 5, 1973. Said Appeal to
Denial by the City Planning Commission of Use Permit 73-32 to permit a
proposed 296 unit apartment complex pursuant to S. 9202.3. 1. 3, and an
� appeal to the denial of Conditional Exception '73-23 permitting zero side
i
and rear yard setback for carports of a proposed 296 unit apartment com-
plex in lieti of S. 9320. 13(c) of the Iuntington Bench Ordinance Code,
was denied by Coun..il on 9/17/7.3. The subject property in located at the
southwest corner of Edinger Avenue and Newland Street in an Eta medium-
high density residential. district. A legal. description is en file in the
Planning Department Office.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACEI
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
RECONSIDERATION
APPEAL TO DENTAL OF
USE PERMIT 73-32 & CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 73-23
s .
r
S
r
1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that reconsideration of the Appeal to Denial of
Use Permit 73-32 & Conditional Exception 73-23 will be heard by the City
Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the
{ Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. , or as soon
thereafter as possible, on Monday, November 5, 1973. Said Appeal to
4 Denial by the City Planning Commission of Use Permit 73-32 to permit a
proposed 296 unit apartment complex pursuant to S. 9202. 3. 1. 3, and an
appeal to the denial of Conditional Exception 73-23 permitting zero Hide
and rear yard setback for carports of a proposed 296 unit apartment com-
plex in lieu of S. 9320. 13(c) of the luntington Beach Ordinance Code,
was denied by Council on 9/17/73. The subject property is located at the
southwest corner of Edinger Avenue and Newland Street in an k3 medium-
high density residential district. A legal description its on file in the
Planning Department Office.
,I
CITY OF IIUNTINGTON BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
I
City Clerk
RECONSIDERATION
APPEAL TO DENIAL OF
USE PERMIT 73-32 & CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 73-•23
NOTICE :, HEREBY GIVEN that reconsiderationo th 1 T CE I £ e Appeal to Denial of
Use Permit 73-32 & Conditional Exception 73-23 will be heard by the City
Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the
Civic. Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. , or as soon
thereafter as possible, on Monday, November 5, 1973. Said Appeal to
Denial by the City Planning Commission of Use Permit 73-•32 to permit a
I± proposed 296 unit apartment complex pursuant to S. 9202.3. 1. 3, and an
appaal to the denial of Conditional Exception 73-•23 permitting zero side
and rear yard setback .for carports of a proposed 296 unit apartment com-
plex in lieu of S. 9320. 13(c) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code,
was denied by Council on 9/17/73. The subject property is located at the
southwest corner of Edinger Avenue and Newland Street in an R3 medium-
high density residential district. A 1 -gal description is on file in the
Planning Department Office.
f
I
CIW OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
I
I
6� _X
peai to Denial
Use at 30 it Exception 73-23
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that will be h*14 by the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council
Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at tha hour of
I
7�.•p0, , P. M. , or as soon thereaf ter as poss ibb., on Monday .
th's da o f I9 7.^{J �,ep. Bert--the-- ae-vf
•.M1111��aw aW• ,1 �� M.aM
coetfde11li appeal to denial by the City Planning Commission of Use
I
permit 73•-32 to pertait a proposed 296 unit apartment complex pursuant to
S. 9202. 3. 1.. 3, and an Appeal to the denial of Conditional Exception 73-23
permitting zero side and rear yard setback for carports of a proposed 296
unit apartment complex in - ieu ref S . 9320 . 13 (c of the Huntington Beach
Ordinance Code, The subject property is lbcated at the southwest corner.
of Edinger Avenue and Newland Stre-et in an R3 mediLmi-high density reai.dentiell
district. A legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office.
i
All interested peramns ear nvitrod to st,tand raid hearing and �
i
express their opini.otu► fora prat said a w D iefil ...M.�.......�•
Further infarwx►t3,ota . aq' obtained act the Office of the City
DAT CITY BEACH
BY! Ati.ci.a`'M., Wentworth
l /
City Clark
4
STATEMENT OF THE ACTION OF CITY COUNCIL
Council Chamber, City Hall
Huntington Beach, California
December 19, 1973
Mayor hlatney called the regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach to order at 7:00 P.M.
Councilmen Present: Shipley Bartlett Green Coen Matng
Duke - arrived at 8:45 P.M.
Councilmen Absent: Gibbs
RECONSIDERATION APPEAL - USE PERMIT 73-32 & CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 73-23 - OVERRULED
PLANNING COMMISSION & APPROVED
The Clerk presented an appeal filed by Barnes, Schag, Johnson & Kennedy, Attorneys,
on behalf of Shelter Industries , Inc. , to the denial by the Planning Corrmission of �
Use Permit No.' 73-32 to permit the construction of a 296 unit apartment complex
pursuant to Section 9202.3. 1 .3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and Conditional
Exception No. 73-23 to permit Zero side and rear .yard setback for carports of a proposed
296 unit apartment complex in lieu of S. 9320. 13(c) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance
Code. The property is located at the southwest corner of Edinger Avenue and Newland
Street in an R3 medium-nigh density residential district. Environr•,,,-ntal Impact Report "
No. 73-7 approved by the Environmental Review Board on May 13, 1973, with recommenda-
tions for mitigating measc:'•es to minimize the impact of the proposed project.
1',ayer hlatney stated that a report had been received from the City' s Environmental
Engineer regarding air and noise impacts upon the project.
Mr. Jeremiah D. Jackson, City Environmental Engineer, addressed Council regarding the
methods which he used to evaluate the air and noise impact upon the development, and
reported at length regarding the analysis outline of the air and noise quality impact
or which he had prepared a report.
11,rs. Doris Hayes, resident of the City of Westminster, addressed Council regarding ,he
material which she had received from the County regarding lead emissions.
Councilmen Green then commented an factors relative to lead emissions .
A representative of the City of Westminster addressed Council and informed them that
their City remained in opposition to the project.
Dr. John Hilliard, representing the firm which prepared the supplementary report to
the Environmental Impact Report, addressed Council in opposition to the mitigating
measures recommended by the Environmental Review Board.
tor. Garrett Smith, architect of the project, addressed Council regarding his ability
to construct the project with the contingency factors suggested.
DiscL;5001i was held by Council and the importance of the City receiving guarantees
relative to construction standards was stressed by Council . In response to a question
by Council , t•'r. Garrett stated that they would accept a condition imposing a 45
decibel noise level for the project.
Discussion was held between the Council and staff relative to the necessity of a
Con,r� '-ion, l Exception for the project duce to certain modifications, and James Palin,
Senior Planner read the setback provisions of the ordinance code and it a,as determined
thus. 0-tere would bE: tin need for an application for conditional exception on this
11r•oject.
On motion by Green, Council adopted Environmental Impact Report No. 73-7 a�) approved
b.- tfr� Eriviron;:,ent.al Review Board, with r►itigating treasures to minimixr2 the impact. of
t.h pr oro sc;l project and :...:f;ject to the recorrrenda ti ons contained in the Air and llui r e
Quo i ty Adds-ndum prepared by tic City Environmental Engineer, dated December 19, 1973.
Thcc r:itier: i,;a!; passed by the Following vote:
lF'� : i.our.,zi n: Shipley , 0.irtlett, Green, Caen. '�Ztr;ey
e
A motion was made by Councilman Green to overrule the decision of the Planning Con-inis-
sion and approve Use Permit No. 73-32 with the following conditions:
I . . That the near maximum sound pressure level L-10 shall not exceed 45 dBA within the
interior of all dwelling units.
2. That the exterior wall of the carports along the rear property line shall be of
stucco or masonry construction.
I. That the development 'hall be subject to any other conditions placed upon the
project by the Planning Department.
4. That no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued by the City until a field test
of the project is conducted by the City and it is determined that the interior sound
pressure level does not exceed 45 dBA;, and further that the Council bases their decision
on the follow 3- g findings of fact:
1 . That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons
residing and working in the vicinity.
2. That the proposed use will not be injurious to property and improvements in the
vicinity of such use.
I
3. That the intensity of use is satisfactory for this location.
4. That the project has been designed at less than the maximum density allowed with
consideration for abutting uses.
5. That Commercial use would likely not be the best use of the property adjacent to
the freeway.
b. That although the proposed project is within the adopted freeway alignment for the
Route 39 Freeway it should not act as an impediment to approval of this project.
7. That the City Council finds that this plan will substantially comply with the
requirements of the City Code, the Master Plan of Land Use and the Development Stand-
ards for this particular use.
Mr. David Kelly addressed Council regarding the standards of the Environmental
Protection Agency for decibel levels in living quarters.
Mrs. Doris Hayes, again addressed Council and stated that the material issued by the
County stated that 45 dBA was the recommended level for all parts of the living quarters.
Following discussion, the motion made by Councilmen Green was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen: Shipley, Bartlett, Green , Coen, Matney
140ES: Councilmen: None
ABSENT: Councilmen: Gibbs, Duke
On motion by Bartlett, the regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach adjourned at 11 :40 P.M. to Monday, January 7, 1974 at 5:30 P.M. in the
Administrative Annex. The motion was passed by the fallowing vote:
AYES: Councilmen: Shipley, Bartlett, Green, Coen, Duke, MatneY
NOES: Councilmen: None
ABSENT: Councilmen: Gibbs
City Clerk and ex-offir.io Clerk
of the City Council of the City
ATTEST: of Huntington Beach, California
Alicia M. Wentworth Y Jerry A. Matngy
City Clerk Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
County of Orange ) ss:
C i ty of Huntington Beach }
I , ALICIA 14. WENTWORTH, the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City
of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is i
true .inr.' c: rrc-ct Statement of Action of: the City Counci ; ,f s,fld City at: t heir• reaulav
,.tljotsrri�-d weeLinr held an the19th day of Ror.errbert Ir) I
'141fNESS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 24th day of
O xember, 1973.
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
c City Council of the City
of the y y
of Huntington Beach, California
I
i